Silencing the followers of Satan with the parsing of: “These two are magicians.”
Silencing the followers of Satan with the parsing of: “These two are magicians.”
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, the best of Allah’s creation, and upon his pure and good family and companions .
After that :
It is laughable and sad that the missionaries who slander Islam and cast doubt on it take the position of criticizing the Holy Quran from a linguistic perspective, as if they are masters of language and grammar, despite the fact that their grammatical knowledge - if it is high - is at the elementary level .
And despite the fact that they are not good at reading the verses - let alone parsing and understanding them - you see them claiming that there are linguistic errors in some verses of the Quran, including :
the claim of these ignorant slanderers that there is a grammatical error in the statement of Allah - the Most High - { Indeed, these two are magicians } [ Ta-Ha: 63], as they claimed that the verse should be : { Indeed, these two are magicians } ; Because "these two" is the name of (in) and it must be made accusative with the letter "ya", and since it is with the letter "alif" in the verse, it is raised, and this is wrong; because it is not permissible to make the name of "in " raised!
The answer to that has two parts: general and detailed :
As for the general, it is by explaining the impossibility of a grammatical error occurring in the Holy Quran; for several reasons, including :
First : The Quran is the source of the rules of grammar, and it is the main principle on which the founders of the science of grammar relied in establishing their rules and providing evidence for them; because all the people of Arabic, believers and disbelievers alike, have agreed on the eloquence and rhetoric of the Quran, and its freedom from errors or mistakes, and that it came in accordance with the different languages of the Arabs in their prose and poetry, and thus the Quran became the main source that is used as evidence in establishing the theoretical rules of grammar that came after it, and are based on it, and built upon it; rather, these rules were established in the first place to serve the Book of Allah - the Most High .
How can it be said that the Qur’an contradicts the rules of grammar, while it is their main source?! How
can that be said, while everything in the Qur’an is considered an argument in itself, which is used as evidence for the rule and as proof of its validity?! Secondly
: The Messenger - may God bless him and grant him peace - was the most eloquent of the Arabs, as he grew up in a place of eloquence and rhetoric; he was an Arab Qurayshi from his father and grandfather, and most of his companions were pure Arabs, and among them were the great poets of the Arabs such as Hassan bin Thabit, Al-Khansa, Ka’b bin Zuhair, Bajir bin Zuhair, Ka’b bin Malik, and others .
If we assume for the sake of argument that a grammatical error occurred in the Qur’an, how did they not notice it?! And how did they leave this error?! Or do you think that they were ignorant of the origins of the language and its rules that those missionaries knew?! Thirdly
: It was not reported that any of the infidels of Quraysh or the Arabs found fault with the Qur’an, or said that it contradicted any of the rules of the Arabic language. Rather, they all testified to his eloquence and the greatness of his statement, despite their great need to prove any deficiency in the Qur’an, which continues to challenge them and they are unable to produce a surah like it .
Do those claimants among the missionaries think that they are more knowledgeable about Arabic than its people ?! Are they more knowledgeable about Arabic than the infidels of Quraysh, such as Abu Jahl, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, and Al-Walid ibn Al-Mughira, who said about the Qur’an - despite not believing in it - “By God, it has sweetness, and it has freshness, and its top is fruitful, and its bottom is abundant, and it rises and nothing rises above it, and it crushes what is beneath it, and no human being says this ” [1] .
By God, the infidels of Quraysh, the idolaters, were more honorable in their hostility to Islam than those contemporary mercenary missionaries, who cast doubt on Islam via satellite channels and the Internet .
Fourth : It has not been reported that any of the grammarians and masters of the language have found fault with the Qur’an in a single word; rather, they all acknowledge its eloquence, bear witness to its fluency, and consider it an argument for them in establishing their rules, and a witness and proof in establishing their doctrines .
So on what did those missionaries base their finding fault with the Qur’an?! What are the sources of their grammatical knowledge that surpassed the greatest grammarians, let alone the poets and orators of the Arabs?! As
for the detailed answer : It is by explaining the correct grammatical interpretations of the words of God Almighty : { Indeed, these two are magicians } [ Ta-Ha: 63 ].
Before we begin to mention those grammatical interpretations, it is appropriate to clarify the correct and transmitted readings of this verse, summarized in the following table :
Reading | The reader has it | Noon (in) | demonstrative pronoun |
( These two ) | Abu Amr bin Al-Alaa | Tight | With Ya and Noon, lightened |
( These two ) | Ibn Kathir read it | lightened | With Alif and Shaddah Noon |
( These two ) | Hafs read it | lightened | With alif and nun, lightened |
( These two ) | The audience is Nafi, Hamza, Al-Kisa’i and Abu Jaafar | Tight | With alif and nun, lightened |
It was stated in Al-Shatibiyyah :
These two are in these two, Hajj and its burden is near, so gather them together, connect and open the meem, turn |
The commentator Abdul Fattah Al-Qadi said: “Hafs and Ibn Kathir read ( qalu in hadahan ) with a lightened and silent nun in (in), and others read it with a stressed and open nun . Abu Amr read ( hadhani ) with a silent ya in place of the alif in the reading of others . Ibn Kathir read with a stressed nun in ( hadhani ) , and others read it with a lightened nun . ” [2] Ibn Ashour said: “Know that all the respected reciters read with the confirmation of the alif in the demonstrative pronoun in his saying ( these two ) , except for Abu Amr from the ten, and except for Al-Hasan Al-Basri from the fourteen, and this necessitates certainty that the confirmation of the alif in the word these two is more frequent, regardless of how the word ( in ) is pronounced with emphasis or without emphasis, and that most of the famous and frequent recitations read with emphasis on the noon of ( inna ) , except for Ibn Kathir and Hafs from Asim, as they read ( inna ) with a sukoon on the noon as if it were lightened from the heavy one ” [3] . So the demonstrative pronoun came with the ya in the recitation of Abu Amr bin Al-Ala, and the parsing of the verse according to this recitation is as follows : ( Inna hadayna lisaharan ): ( inna ) is an abrogator, and ( these two ) is its subject in the accusative case with the ya and the slipped lam, and ( saharan ) is the predicate of inna raised with the alif . As for the other readings in which the demonstrative pronoun is with an alif, they have several interpretations and grammatical aspects, of which we mention the following : The first aspect : ( in ) is lightened from the heavy one and neglected, so it has no function; that is, it does not make the subject accusative, and ( hadha-an ) is a demonstrative pronoun raised by the beginning, and the sign of its raising is the alif and the distinguishing lam, and ( sahir -an ) is the predicate of ( hadha-an ) raised by the alif . This is the opinion of a group of grammarians, including Ali bin Isa [4] . Ibn Aqil said in his explanation of Alfiyyah: “If ‘in’ is lightened, then most in Lisan al-Arab neglect it; so you say: ‘Inna Zaydun la-qa’im ’ [5] . Ibn Malik said in his Alfiyyah :
And it was lightened if the work became less, and the lam is required if it is neglected. |
If it is said: It came with a heavy vowel in a correct reading, then the response is as Al-Alusi said : “( In ) is cancelled even if it was stressed; it is based on the lightened vowel, just as the lightened vowel was based on it in His statement : { And indeed, your Lord will surely pay them in full for their deeds } [ Hud: 111], so it is lightened in the reading of Nafi’, Ibn Kathir and Shu’bah ” [6] .
The second aspect : “In” here is not the abrogator; rather, it is “In” in the sense of “yes”, and the meaning is: Yes, these two are magicians, and this is the opinion of a group of grammarians, including Al-Mubarrad and Al-Akhfash Al-Sagheer, and Abu Ishaq Al-Zajjaj mentioned it in his interpretation, and he mentioned that he presented this opinion to Al-Mubarrad and Ismail Al-Qadi and they accepted it .
So does “In” come with the meaning of “yes” in the Arabic language?
The answer : Yes, and the evidence for that is the saying of the poet - who is Abdullah bin Qais Al-Ruqayyat -:
The censurers came early in my youth to blame me, and |
That is: I said: Yes .
And what is also used as evidence for this : A man said to Ibn al-Zubayr: May God curse the she-camel that carried me to you, so Ibn al-Zubayr replied: If and its rider ( i.e. yes, and its rider as well ) .
According to this method : ( these two are magicians ) is a subject and predicate in the nominative case, like the previous method [7] .
The third method : “ if” here is negative, and the lam that precedes ( magicians ) means: except, so the meaning is: these two are nothing but magicians, and this is the opinion of the Kufian grammarians, and according to this opinion ( these two ) is a subject in the nominative case [8] .
The fourth method : “ if” is abrogating and accusative, and ( these two ) is its subject, and the demonstrative pronoun comes with the alif even though it is in the accusative case according to the language of some Arabs from the dual and what is attached to it always with the alif, and this is the opinion of Abu Hayyan, Ibn Malik, al-Akhfash, and Abu Ali al-Farisi [9] .
Is this possible in the Arabic language? Can the dual be in the accusative case and still be with the alif?
Answer : Yes, and this is the language of Kinanah, Balharith ibn Ka'b, Bani al-Anbar, Bani Hajim, and clans from Rabi'ah, Khatham, Himyar, and Udhra . Evidence for this is the saying of the poet Abu al-Najm al- 'Ijli :
Alas for Raya, then alas, alas! I wish her eyes were ours, her mouth, |
The word ( eyes ) in the first verse is the noun “layt” in the accusative case and it is dual, and despite that it is written with an alif ( eyes ), and not with a ya ( eyes ) .
Likewise the word ( her legs ) in the second verse is in the genitive case with “man” and it is dual, and despite that it is written with an alif ( her legs ), and not with a ya ( her legs ) .
And from that is the saying of the poet :
He was provided with a stab wound between his ears that led him to the barren wasteland of the soil. |
The word ( adhnahu ) is in the accusative case in addition to the adverb between, and despite that it is with an alif ( adhnahu ), not with a ya ( adhnahu ), and there are many examples of this in Lisan al-Arab .
Ibn Aqil said in his explanation of Alfiyya: “Some Arabs make the dual and what is attached to it with an alif absolutely: nominative, accusative, and genitive, so they say: The two Zayds came both, and I saw the two Zayds both, and I passed by the two Zayds both ” [10] .
Ibn Kathir said in his interpretation of this verse: “This is the language of some Arabs, and this reading came with its parsing ” [11] .
The fifth aspect : “ in” is a naskh and nasb, and its subject is the pronoun of the matter that is omitted, and ( these two are magicians ) is the subject and predicate, and the sentence is in the nominative case as the predicate of in .
The meaning is that ( i.e. the state and matter ) these two are magicians, and this is what the ancient grammarians went with [12] .
Someone might say : What is the secret behind the multiple aspects of readings and parsing in this verse? Does this indicate difference and confusion?
The answer to that is: The defective difference and reprehensible confusion occur when the meanings contradict each other to the point that they cannot be reconciled and reconciled. The same cannot happen in the Book of Allah, the Almighty, who says : { Do they not then consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. } [ An-Nisa’: 82 ].
As for the multiplicity of readings and grammar, this is one of the secrets of the strength of the Qur’an and evidence of its miraculous nature. Grammar is a branch of meaning, and in the multiplicity of grammarianship without confusion there is a multiplicity of meanings. They are meanings - despite their multiplicity and diversity - united in their purpose and agreed upon in their content. Thus, we find that the phrase with few letters has indicated many meanings .
Al-Tahir ibn Ashur said: “The revelation of the Qur’an in these eloquent ways of usage is a type of its miraculousness; its structures are based on different types of meanings, but the purpose is the same ” [13] .
The phrase : “ Indeed, these two are magicians ” has multiple meanings according to each grammatical aspect; but these meanings ultimately lead to one purpose, and the explanation of that is as follows :
face | Grammatical Graduation | Meaning |
the first | "In" is emphatic but softened and neglected. | These two are magicians. |
Second | "In" means "yes" | Yes, these two are magicians. |
the third | "In" is a negative, and the "lam" that precedes "magicians" means "except" | These two are nothing but magicians. |
Fourth | "In" is a copyist and a nasib, and (these two) is its noun in the accusative case, but it came with an alif in the language of some Arabs. | These two are magicians. |
Fifth | "In" is a copyist, and its subject is the deleted pronoun of the matter, and the sentence (these two are magicians) is in the nominative case as the predicate of "in". | These two (i.e. the state and the matter) are magical. |
Contemplate the eloquence of the Qur’an, and see the greatness of its statement, then look at that missionary who returned disappointed and regretful. He wanted to prove a shortcoming, but it turned out to be a virtue. He claimed that there was an error, but it turned out to be a form of statement and a type of eloquence that baffled the eloquent and poets .
Thus, every time the missionaries try to prove a defect or shortcoming in Islam, it becomes apparent upon research and examination that what they tried to show as a defect is actually a great virtue and a great praise. Glory be to He who sent down this book and baffled mankind and jinn with it! And woe to those who blaspheme against this book, for whoever struggles with Allah will be victorious .
We ask Allah to make us among those who take care of His Book as it should be taken care of, contemplate it as it should be contemplated, uphold its justice, fulfill its conditions, and do not seek guidance in anything other than it. May He guide us to its clear signs and its decisive and dazzling rulings, and may He gather for us through it the best of this world and the hereafter, for He is the One worthy of piety and forgiveness .
May Allah send prayers and peace upon Muhammad, his family, his companions, and those who follow his guidance until the Day of Judgment .
ــــ
[1] “Al- Bidayah wa al-Nihayah” (3/61), “Al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa,” p . 262.
[2] See: “Al-Shatibiyyah” and its commentary “Al-Wafi,” p. 262 .
[3] “ Al-Tahrir wa Al-Tanwir” (8/251)
[4] See: “Tafsir Al-Alusi” (9/325)
[5] “ Sharh Ibn Aqil” (1/346)
[6] “ Tafsir Al-Alusi” (9/325)
[7] “ Al-Kashaf” by Al-Zamakhshari (p. 660), and “Al-Lama’” by Ibn Jinni, with “Tawjih Al-Lama’” (p. 155). Ibn Ashour said in “Al-Tahrir wa Al-Tanwir” (16/253): “And the lam entered into the news: either on the assumption that the news is a sentence whose subject has been deleted, which is what the lam is included in the assumption, and the presence of the lam indicates that the sentence that occurred as news of the demonstrative pronoun is a divisive sentence; or according to the opinion of those who permit the lam to enter into the news of the subject in non-necessity .”
[8] “ Tafsir al-Alusi”: “Ruh al-Ma’ani” (9/323)
[9] “ Tafsir al-Alusi” (9/325), and based on this the demonstrative pronoun is built in the place of the accusative of the noun “in ”.
[10] “ Sharh Ibn Aqil” (1/60), and see: “Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir” (8/253)
[11] “ Tafsir Ibn Kathir” (3/251)
[12] “ Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir” (8/253), and see: “Ruh al-Ma’ani” (9/325)
[13] “ Al- Tahrir wa al-Tanwir” (8/254)
Source: Al-Alokah website.
Convincing the followers of Satan by parsing: “Indeed, these two are magicians.”
Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds, and may blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of God, the best of all God’s creation, and upon his family and pure, good companions .
And then :
One of the crying jokes is that the missionaries who slander Islam and those who doubt it take the position of criticizing the Holy Qur’an from the linguistic standpoint, as if they were language experts and grammarians, despite the fact that their grammatical knowledge stopped - if it rose at all - at the borders of the elementary stage .
Despite the fact that they are not good at reading the verses - let alone parsing and understanding them - you see them claiming that there are linguistic errors in some of the Qur’anic verses, including :
the claim of these ignorant slanderers that there is a grammatical error in His saying - the Most High -: { Indeed, these are two magicians } [ Taha: 63], where They claimed that the verse should be : ( Indeed, these two are magicians ) ; Because “these two” is a noun (in) and must be accusative with a yā’, and since it is an alif in the verse, it is in the nominative case, and this is an error. Because it is not permissible for the noun “if ” to be raised!
The answer to this is two-fold: general and detailed :
As for the general, it is by stating the impossibility of a grammatical error occurring in the Holy Qur’an. For several reasons, including :
First : The Qur’an is the source of grammar rules, and it is the main source upon which the founders of grammar relied in determining their rules and inferring them. Because the people of Arabic as a whole, believers and infidels alike, have agreed on the eloquence and eloquence of the Qur’an, and that it is free of melody or error, and that it came in agreement with the different languages of the Arabs in their prose and poetry, and thus the Qur’an became the main source that is used as evidence in determining the theoretical rules of grammar that It came after it, was based on it, and built on it. Rather, these rules were originally established to serve the Book of God Almighty .
How can it be said that the Qur’an violates the rules of grammar, when it is its main source? !
How can this be said when everything in the Qur’an is considered an argument in itself that is used as evidence for the rule and cited as evidence of its authenticity? !
Second : The Messenger - may God bless him and grant him peace - was the most eloquent of the Arabs. Where he grew up in places of eloquence and eloquence; He was a Qurayshi Arab, father and grandfather, and most of his companions were pure Arabs, and among them were great Arab poets such as Hassan bin Thabit, Al-Khansa’, Ka’b bin Zuhair, Bujayr bin Zuhair, Ka’b bin Malik, and others .
If we assume for the sake of argument that a grammatical error occurred in the Qur’an, how could they not have noticed it?! How did they make this mistake?! Or do you think they are ignorant of the origins of the language and its rules that those missionaries taught? !
Third : No one among the infidels of Quraish or the Arabs has claimed that he made a mistake in the Qur’an, or said that it violates any of the rules of the Arab language. Rather, they all bore witness to his eloquence and the greatness of his statement, despite their intense need to prove any deficiency in the Qur’an, which continues to challenge them, making them unable to come up with a surah like it .
Do these so-called Christian missionaries think that they are more knowledgeable about Arabic than its people? ! Do they know Arabic more than the infidels of Quraish, such as Abu Jahl, Ubayy bin Khalaf, and Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah, who said in the Qur’an - despite his lack of belief in it -: “By God, it has sweetness, but it has sweetness, and the above is fruitful, and the bottom is full of water, and indeed it is high and not It rises above it, and it destroys what is beneath it, and no human being says this . ” [1]
By God, the idol-worshipping infidels of Quraysh were more honorable in their hostility to Islam than those contemporary mercenary Christians who doubted Islam through satellite channels and the international network .
Fourth : None of the grammarians and language masters has been reported to have made a mistake in the Qur’an in a single word. Rather, they all acknowledge his eloquence, bear witness to his eloquence, and consider him an argument for them in determining their rules, and a witness and evidence in establishing their doctrines .
On what did these Christian missionaries base their mistakes in the Qur’an?! What are the sources of their grammatical knowledge in which they surpassed the major grammar scholars? Yes, Arab poets and rhetoricians? !
As for the detailed answer : it will be by explaining the correct grammatical interpretations of His saying - the Most High -: { Indeed, these are two magicians } [ Taha: 63 ].
It is appropriate, before we begin to mention these grammatical explanations, to clarify the frequent correct readings of this verse, summarized in the following table :
reading | Reader with it | Noun (in) | Demonstrative noun |
( Indeed, these two ) | Abu Amr bin Al-Ala | Aggravating | With a diluted yā’ and noun |
( Indeed, these two ) | Ibn Kathir read it | Diluted | With alif and aggravated noun |
( Indeed, these two ) | Hafs recited it | Diluted | With one thousand and one diluted letter |
( Indeed, these two ) | The audience is like Nafi', Hamza, Al-Kasa'i, and Abu Jaafar | Aggravating | With one thousand and one diluted letter |
It was stated in Al-Shatibiyyah :
And these two in these two are Hajj and its weight is nearness, so gather them together and pray and open the meem for two years. |
The commentator Abdel Fattah Al-Qadi said: “Hafs and Ibn Katheer recited ( They said, ‘Indeed, these two’ ) with the Nūn (in) lightened and silent, and others recited with the Nūn being stressed as open .
Abu Amr recited ( These two ) with a silent yā’ in the place of the alif in the recitation of others .
And Ibn Kathir recited with the stressing of the Nūn ( These two ).” And others recited it in a light way . ” [2]
Ibn Ashour said: “Know that all the considered reciters read by affirming the alif in the demonstrative noun from his saying ( these two ) , with the exception of Abu Amr from the ten, and with the exception of Al-Hasan Al-Basri from the fourteen, and that necessitates certainty that the affirmation of the alif in the pronunciation of these two is more frequent, with categorical Considering how to pronounce the word ( in ) whether it is stressed or lightened, and that most of the famous frequent readings read with the stressed nūn ( inn ) , with the exception of Ibn Kathir and Hafs on the authority of Asim, who read ( inn ) with the sukūn of the nūn as being lightened from the heavy one ” [3] .
The demonstrative noun came with the yā’ in the reading of Abu Amr ibn al-Ala, and the parsing of the verse according to this reading is as follows :
( Indeed, these two are magicians ): ( Indeed ) is an abrogation, and ( These two ) is in the accusative case with the yā’, and the lam is in the ḥalīqa, and ( two magicians ) is the predicate that is in the nominative case with the alif. .
As for the other readings in which the demonstrative noun appears as an alif, they have several grammatical interpretations and forms, among which we mention the following :
The first aspect : ( if ) is lightened from the heavy one and neglected, so it has no function; That is: it does not put the subject in the accusative case, and ( these two ) is a demonstrative noun in the nominative case with the beginning, and its nominative sign is the alif, and the lam is the difference, and ( two magicians ) is the predicate of ( these two ) in the nominative case with the alif .
This is the opinion of a number of grammarians, including Ali bin Issa [4] .
Ibn Aqeel said in his explanation of Al-Alfiyyah: “If you lighten ‘in’, then most of the Arabs neglect it, so you say: ‘Indeed, Zaid will rise ’” [5] .
Ibn Malik said in his Alfiyah :
It is reduced if work becomes scarce, and blame is imposed if it is neglected. |
If it is said: It came with a heavy burden in a correct reading, then the response is as Al-Alusi said : “( Indeed ) is cancelled, even if it is heavy, as a burden on it over the light one, just as the light one was made as a burden on it in His saying : { And indeed, all are for that; your Lord will fully repay them for their deeds } [ Hud: 111]. ], it is attenuated in the reading of Nafi’, Ibn Kathir, and Shu’bah ” [6] .
The second aspect : “The” here is not the copying; Rather, it means "yes", and the meaning is: Yes, these two are magicians, and it is the opinion of a group of grammarians, including Al-Mubarrad and Al-Akhfash Al-Saghir, and Abu Ishaq Al-Zajjaj mentioned it in his interpretation, and he mentioned that he presented this opinion to Al-Mubarrad and Ismail Al-Qadi, and they accepted it .
Does "in" mean "yes" in Arabic?
The answer : Yes, and the evidence for that is the saying of the poet - Abdullah bin Qais Al-Ruqayat -:
The virgins in the early morning will blame me and I will blame them |
That is: I said: Yes .
Another evidence for this is that a man said to Ibn al-Zubayr: May God curse a camel that carried me to you, and Ibn al-Zubayr replied: Yes, and its rider, ( i.e., yes, and its rider as well ) .
In this manner : ( These two are magicians ) is a subject and a predicate in the nominative case, like the previous aspect [7] .
The third aspect : “ In” here is negative, and the lam used for ( two magicians ) means: except, so the meaning is: These are nothing but two magicians, and this is the saying of the Kufan grammarians, and according to this saying ( these two ) is a nominative subject [8] .
The fourth aspect : “ In” is nasikh and nasib, and ( these ) is its name, and the demonstrative noun appears in the alif even though it is in the accusative position based on the language of some Arabs from the dual procedure and what is always attached to it with the alif, and this is the saying of Abu Hayyan, Ibn Malik, Al-Akhfash, and Abu Ali Al-Farsi [9] ] .
Is this possible in the Arabic language? Is it possible for the dual to be in the accusative case and still be in the alif? The answer
: Yes , and this is the language of Kinana, Balharith bin Ka’b, Banu Anbar, Banu Hajim, and clans of Rabia, Khath’am, Hamdan, and Adhar . Evidence of this is the saying of the poet Abu Al-Najm Al-Ajli :
Woah to Raya, then woah woah, I wish her eyes were ours, her mouth, |
The word ( her eyes ) in the first verse is the noun “I wish” in the accusative case and is dual, and despite that it was written with the alif ( her eyes ), and not with the yā’ ( her eyes ) .
Likewise, the word ( her legs ) in the second verse is in the genitive case with whom, and it is a dual form, and despite that, it was written with the alif ( her legs ), and not with the yā’ ( her legs ) .
And the poet says :
He got a stab from us between his ears that called him to be sterile and sterile. |
The word ( his ears ) is in the genitive position in addition to the adverb between, and despite that, it is in the alif ( his ears ), not the yaa ( his ears ), and examples of this in the Arabic tongue are many .
Ibn Aqeel said in Sharh al-Malifiya: “Among the Arabs are those who make the double and its suffix with the alif absolute: nominative, accusative, and genitive, so he says: Both Zaydān came, I saw both Zaydān, and I passed by both Zaydān ” [10] .
Ibn Katheer said in his interpretation of this verse: “This is the language of some Arabs, and this reading was based on its parsing ” [11] .
Fifth aspect : “ Inna” is in the accusative case, its nominative pronoun is omitted, and ( these are two magicians ) is a subject and a predicate, and the sentence is in the nominative case of the predicate that .
The meaning is that ( i.e., the situation and the affair ) are magicians, and this is what the ancient grammarians said [12] .
Someone might say : What is the secret to the multiple aspects of readings and parsing in this verse? Does this indicate difference and disorder?
The answer to that is: shameful disagreement and reprehensible confusion occur if the meanings contradict such that it is not possible to combine and reconcile them, and something like that cannot occur in the Book of God - the Almighty - which says : { Will they not contemplate the Qur’an? If it had been from other than God, they would have found in it much discrepancy } [ Women: 82 ].
As for the multiplicity of aspects of reading and parsing, it is one of the secrets of the power of the Qur’an and evidence of its miraculousness. Parsing is a branch of meaning, and in the multiplicity of grammatical aspects without disturbance, there is a multiplicity of meanings. They are meanings - despite their multiplicity and diversity - united in their purpose, agreed in their content, and thus we find that the phrase with few letters has It has many meanings .
Al-Tahir bin Ashour said: “The revelation of the Qur’an in these eloquent forms of usage is a type of its miraculousness, so that its compositions take place in two forms with different meanings, united in purpose ” [13] .
The sentence : “ These two are magicians ” has multiple meanings according to every grammatical aspect. But these meanings ultimately lead to one purpose, and this is explained as follows :
the face | Grammatical graduation | the meaning |
the first | “The” is emphatic, but it is attenuated and neglected | These two are charming |
the second | "In" means "yes" | Yes, these two are charming |
the third | "In" is negated, and the lam used for (saharan) means except | These two are nothing but magicians |
the fourth | “In” is nasikh and accusative, and (these two) its names are in the accusative case, but it came as an alif in the language of some Arabs. | These two are charming |
Fifth | “In” is abrogated, its noun is the subject pronoun omitted, and the sentence (these two are magicians) is in the nominative case of the predicate that. | These two (i.e. the situation and the matter) are magical |
So contemplate the eloquence of the Qur’an, and look at the greatness of its statement, then look at that helper who returned disappointed and dejected. He wanted to prove a shortcoming, but lo and behold, it was veiled. He claimed that there was an error, and then it was an aspect of clarification and a type of eloquence that made the rhetoricians and poets incapable .
Thus, every time missionaries try to prove a flaw or deficiency in Islam, it becomes clear upon research and consideration that what they tried to show as a flaw is a great advantage, and a great praise. Glory be to Him who sent down this book and made mankind and the jinn incapable of it! And damn those who are atheists in this book. For whoever defeats God will be victorious .
We ask God to make us among those who take proper care of His Book, contemplate it as it should be contemplated, do justice to it, fulfill its conditions, and do not seek guidance in anything else, and to guide us to its apparent signs and its conclusive and brilliant rulings, and to bring together for us through it the good of this world and the hereafter, for he is the people of piety and the people of forgiveness .
May God’s peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, his family and companions, and those guided by his guidance until the Day of Judgment .
---------------------------------
[1] “ The Beginning and the End” (3/61), “Al-Shifa bi Definition of the Rights of the Chosen One,” p. 262 .
[2] See: “Al-Shatibiyyah” and its explanation by “Al-Wafi,” p. 262 .
[3] “ Al-Tahrir wa Al-Tanwir” (8/251)
[4] See: “Tafsir Al-Alusi” (9/325)
[5] “ Explanation of Ibn Aqeel” (1/346)
[6] “ Tafsir Al-Alusi” (9/325) )
[7] “ Al-Kashshaf”, by Al-Zamakhshari (p. 660), and “Al-Lam’”, by Ibn Jinni, with “Tawjih Al-Lam’” (p. 155). Ibn Ashour said in “Al-Tahrir wa Al-Tanwir” (16/253): “The lam was added to the predicate: either According to the assessment that the predicate is a sentence whose subject has been deleted, which is the subject of the “lam” in the estimation, and the presence of the “lam” indicates that the sentence that occurred as a predicate of the demonstrative noun is a subjunctive sentence ;
[8] “ Tafsir al-Alusi”: “Ruh al-Ma’ani” (9/323)
[9] “ Tafsir al-Alusi” (9/325). Accordingly, the demonstrative noun is built in the accusative position of the noun “in .”
[10] “ Explanation of Ibn Aqeel” (1/60), and see: “Al-Tahrir wa Al-Tanweer” (8/253)
[11] “ Tafsir Ibn Kathir” (3/251)
[12] “ Al-Tahrir wa Al-Tanweer” (8/253) And see: “Ruh Al-Ma’ani” (9/325)
[13] “ Al-Tahrir wa Al-Tanweer” (8/254)
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment