Silencing the Objection to 'Indeed, These Two Are Magicians' — A Grammatical Refutation
The Quran is the source of Arabic grammar — it cannot contradict the very rules that were founded upon it. Among the objections raised by missionaries who slander Islam is the claim that the verse {Indeed, these two are magicians} [Ṭā-Hā: 63] contains a grammatical error. They claim the verse should read {inna hādhayni} (with the yā’), because hādhāni is the subject (ism) of inna and must be put in the accusative case — yet the text has the alif, which they say indicates the nominative, making this an error.
This objection has two answers: a general answer establishing why a grammatical error in the Quran is impossible, and a detailed answer laying out the five correct grammatical interpretations of the verse.
The General Answer: Why a Grammatical Error in the Quran Is Impossible
First: The Quran Is the Source of the Rules of Grammar
The Quran is the main source upon which the founders of the science of Arabic grammar relied in establishing their rules and inferring them. The people of the Arabic language as a whole — believers and disbelievers alike — have agreed on the eloquence and rhetoric of the Quran, and that it is free from error, and that it came in agreement with the various dialects of the Arabs in their prose and poetry. The Quran thus became the primary source used as evidence in establishing the theoretical rules of grammar — rules which were built upon it and which came after it. Rather, these rules were established in the first place in order to serve the Book of Allah, the Most High.
How can it be said that the Quran contradicts the rules of grammar, when it is their very source? How can that be said, when everything in the Quran is itself an argument used as evidence for a rule and as proof of its validity?
Second: The Prophet ﷺ Was the Most Eloquent of the Arabs
The Messenger ﷺ grew up in a place of eloquence and rhetoric — he was an Arab Qurayshi by father and grandfather. Most of his companions were pure Arabs, and among them were the great poets of the Arabs: Hassan ibn Thabit, Al-Khansā’, Ka’b ibn Zuhayr, Bujayr ibn Zuhayr, Ka’b ibn Mālik, and others.
If we assume for the sake of argument that a grammatical error occurred in the Quran — how did none of them notice it? How did they leave this error unchallenged? Or do you think they were more ignorant of the origins and rules of the language than these contemporary missionaries?
Third: The Disbelievers of Quraysh Never Found a Grammatical Fault in the Quran
It was not reported that any of the disbelievers of Quraysh or the Arabs ever found fault with the Quran on linguistic grounds, or claimed that it violated any rule of the Arabic language. Rather, they all bore witness to its eloquence and the greatness of its expression — despite their intense need to prove any deficiency in it, as it continued to challenge them while they remained unable to produce a single surah like it.
The disbelieving idol-worshippers of Quraysh — the most knowledgeable people on earth in the Arabic language and its rhetoric — were more honest in their hostility to Islam than these contemporary missionaries, and not one of them ever claimed a grammatical error in the Quran.
Do these missionaries think they know Arabic better than Abu Jahl, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, and Al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah — who acknowledged the Quran’s greatness despite their disbelief?
Fourth: Not a Single Grammarian or Master of the Language Has Found Fault with the Quran
It has not been reported that any of the grammarians and masters of the Arabic language found fault with the Quran in a single word. Rather, they all acknowledged its eloquence, bore witness to its fluency, and took it as an argument in establishing their rules and as evidence in settling their doctrines. On what basis, then, do these missionaries claim a grammatical knowledge that surpasses the greatest grammarians of Arabic — let alone the poets and orators of the Arabs?
The Detailed Answer: Five Valid Grammatical Interpretations
Before presenting the grammatical aspects, it is necessary to establish the correct transmitted readings of the verse.
The Authenticated Recitations of Ta-Ha 20:63
| Reading | Reciter | Nūn of inna | Demonstrative pronoun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qālū inna hādhāni | Abu Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ | Stressed (shaddah) | With yā’ and lightened nūn |
| Qālū in hādhāni | Ibn Kathīr | Lightened (sukūn) | With alif and stressed nūn |
| Qālū in hādhāni | Hafs (from Āsim) | Lightened (sukūn) | With alif and lightened nūn |
| Qālū inna hādhāni | Nāfi’, Hamzah, Al-Kisā’ī, Abu Ja’far | Stressed (shaddah) | With alif and lightened nūn |
It was stated in Al-Shāṭibiyyah: “And these two in these two — Hajj and its burden is nearness, so gather them, pray and open the meem for two years.”
Abd al-Fattāh al-Qāḍī said in his commentary: “Hafs and Ibn Kathīr recited (qālū in hādhāni) with the nūn of in lightened and silent; others recited with the nūn stressed and open. Abu Amr recited (hādhayni) with a silent yā’ in the place of the alif in the recitation of others. Ibn Kathīr recited with the stressed nūn in (hādhāni); others recited it lightened.” [Al-Shāṭibiyyah with commentary Al-Wāfī, p. 262]
Ibn ‘Āshūr said: “Know that all the recognised reciters confirmed the alif in the demonstrative pronoun in his saying (hādhāni), with the exception of Abu Amr from the ten, and with the exception of Al-Hasan al-Baṣrī from the fourteen. This necessitates certainty that the confirmation of the alif in the word hādhāni is the more frequent reading, regardless of how the word in is pronounced — stressed or lightened. And most of the famous frequent recitations read with the stressed nūn (inna), except for Ibn Kathīr and Hafs from Āsim, who read (inna) with the sukūn on the nūn as though it were lightened from the heavy one.” [Al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr (8/251)]
The demonstrative pronoun appears with the yā’ only in the recitation of Abu Amr ibn al-‘Alā’. The parsing of the verse according to this recitation is straightforward: inna is an abrogator; hādhayni is its subject in the accusative case with the yā’; and sāḥirāni is the predicate of inna in the nominative case with the alif. There is no objection on this reading.
As for the remaining readings — in which the demonstrative pronoun appears with the alif — five valid grammatical interpretations exist.
The Five Grammatical Aspects
The First Aspect: In Is Lightened and Neglected — It Has No Function
In here is the heavy inna lightened, and when inna is lightened it is neglected — meaning it ceases to put its subject in the accusative case. Therefore hādhāni is a demonstrative pronoun in the nominative case as the subject of a nominal sentence, and its nominative sign is the alif; and sāḥirāni is the predicate in the nominative case with the alif.
This is the opinion of a group of grammarians, including Ali ibn ‘Īsā. [Tafsīr al-Ālūsī (9/325)]
Ibn ‘Āqil said in his commentary on the Alfiyyah: “If in is lightened, then most of the Arabs neglect it — so you say: Inna Zaydun la-qā’im (Indeed, Zayd is standing).” [Sharḥ Ibn ‘Āqil (1/346)]
Ibn Mālik said in his Alfiyyah: “It is lightened if the function becomes rare, and the lām is required if it is neglected.”
If it is objected that in a correct recitation inna is stressed — not lightened — Al-Ālūsī answers: “In is neglected even when stressed, on the analogy of the lightened form over the heavy, just as the lightened was analogised over it in His saying: {And indeed, your Lord will surely pay them in full for their deeds} [Hūd: 111], where it is lightened in the recitations of Nāfi’, Ibn Kathīr, and Shu’bah.” [Tafsīr al-Ālūsī (9/325)]
The Second Aspect: In Here Means “Yes”
In here is not the abrogator inna; rather, it is in in the meaning of na’am (yes). The meaning is: Yes, these two are magicians. This is the opinion of a group of grammarians, including Al-Mubarrad and Al-Akhfash al-Ṣaghīr. Abu Isḥāq al-Zajjāj mentioned it in his interpretation, and noted that he presented this opinion to Al-Mubarrad and Ismā’īl al-Qāḍī and they accepted it. [Al-Kashshāf by Al-Zamakhsharī, p. 660; Al-Lam’ by Ibn Jinnī with Tawjīh al-Lam’, p. 155]
Does in come with the meaning of “yes” in the Arabic language? The answer is yes. The evidence is the saying of the poet Abdullah ibn Qays al-Ruqayyāt:
“The censurers came early in my youth to blame me, and I blamed them — and they said: ‘Grey hair has covered you and you have grown old.’ So I said: Indeed, it is.” — meaning: I said: Yes.
Further evidence: a man said to Ibn al-Zubayr: “May God curse the she-camel that carried me to you.” Ibn al-Zubayr replied: “In and its rider” — meaning: Yes, and its rider as well.
According to this aspect, (hādhāni sāḥirāni) is a subject and predicate in the nominative case, as in the previous aspect.
The Third Aspect: In Is Negative and the Lām Means “Except”
In here is the negative particle, and the lām before sāḥirāni carries the meaning of illā (except). The meaning therefore is: These two are nothing but magicians. This is the opinion of the Kufan grammarians, and according to this view hādhāni is a subject in the nominative case. [Tafsīr al-Ālūsī — Rūḥ al-Ma’ānī (9/323)]
The Fourth Aspect: Inna Is an Abrogator but the Dual Comes with the Alif in the Language of Certain Arab Tribes
Inna here is the full abrogating inna that puts its subject in the accusative — and hādhāni is its subject in the accusative case. However, the demonstrative pronoun comes with the alif even in the accusative because this is the language of certain Arab tribes who always use the alif for the dual regardless of case: nominative, accusative, or genitive. This is the opinion of Abu Ḥayyān, Ibn Mālik, Al-Akhfash, and Abu Ali al-Fārisī. [Tafsīr al-Ālūsī (9/325)]
Is this established in the Arabic language? The answer is yes — this is the dialect of Kinānah, Balḥārith ibn Ka’b, Banū al-‘Anbar, Banū Ḥajim, and clans from Rabī’ah, Khath’am, Ḥimdān, and ‘Udharah.
Evidence from pre-Islamic poetry — the saying of the poet Abu al-Najm al-‘Ijlī:
“Alas for Rāyā, then alas, alas — I wish her eyes were ours, her mouth, and the place of the anklets on her feet, for a price with which we would please her father.”
The word (‘aynāhā — her eyes) in the first verse is the subject of layta (I wish) — in the accusative case — and it is dual, yet it is written with the alif, not the yā’.
Likewise (rijlāhā — her legs) in the second verse is in the genitive case with min (from) and is dual, yet it is written with the alif, not the yā’.
And from the saying of another poet: “He was provided with a stab wound between his ears that led him to the barren wasteland.” The word (udhunayhi — his ears) is in the genitive case in addition to the adverb bayna (between), and it is dual, yet it comes with the alif, not the yā’. Examples of this in the Arabic tongue are numerous.
Ibn ‘Āqil said in his commentary on the Alfiyyah: “Some Arabs make the dual and what is attached to it with the alif absolutely — nominative, accusative, and genitive — so they say: ‘Both Zaydāni came,’ ‘I saw both Zaydāni,’ and ‘I passed by both Zaydāni.’” [Sharḥ Ibn ‘Āqil (1/60); see also Al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr (8/253)]
Ibn Kathīr said in his tafsīr of this verse: “This is the language of some Arabs, and this recitation came with its parsing.” [Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (3/251)]
The Fifth Aspect: Inna Is an Abrogator Whose Subject Is the Deleted Pronoun of the Matter
Inna is an abrogating and governing particle, and its subject (ism) is the omitted pronoun referring to the matter at hand — meaning “the affair” or “the situation.” The sentence (hādhāni sāḥirāni) is then a subject-predicate nominal sentence in the nominative case, serving as the predicate (khabar) of inna. The meaning is: the situation and the matter — these two are magicians. This is the position of the ancient grammarians. [Al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr (8/253); Rūḥ al-Ma’ānī (9/325)]
The Summary Table
| Aspect | Grammatical Analysis | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| First | In is emphatic inna but lightened and neglected, so it has no function | These two are magicians |
| Second | In means “yes” | Yes, these two are magicians |
| Third | In is negative; the lām before sāḥirāni means “except” | These two are nothing but magicians |
| Fourth | Inna is governing; hādhāni is its subject in the accusative, but comes with the alif in the language of certain Arab tribes | These two are magicians |
| Fifth | Inna is governing; its subject is the omitted pronoun of the matter; the sentence (hādhāni sāḥirāni) is the predicate of inna | These two — that is, the situation and the matter — are magicians |
Does Multiplicity of Readings Indicate Confusion?
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 is that blameworthy confusion arises only when meanings contradict each other to the point that they cannot be reconciled. Something like that cannot occur in the Book of Allah, the Most High, who says:
“Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”
As for the multiplicity of readings and grammatical aspects — this is one of the secrets of the strength of the Quran and evidence of its miraculous nature. Grammar is a branch of meaning, and in the multiplicity of grammatical aspects without disorder there is a multiplicity of meanings. These meanings — despite their multiplicity and diversity — are united in their purpose and agreed in their content. A phrase of few letters thus carries many meanings.
Al-Ṭāhir ibn ‘Āshūr said: “The revelation of the Quran in these eloquent forms of usage is a type of its inimitability, so that its compositions unfold across multiple forms with different meanings united in purpose.” [Al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanwīr (8/254)]
...at al-Asasiyah (180). 6. al-Muqaddimat al-Asasiyah (179). 7. ((Ibn al-Jazari)), al-Nashr fi al-Qira'at al-'Ashr (1/17). 8. Linguistic analysis of inna hadhani and inna hadhayni_ from classical...