Allah the Exalted said: << فلما جآءهم موسى بآياتنا بينات قالوا ما هذآ إلا سحر مفترى و ماسمعنا بهذا في ءابآئنا الأولون >

He said: “ and clear, in the state of”

When he came to them

فلما جاءهم

meaning the family of Pharaoh

Musa with Our signs

موسى بآياتنا

and he did not say:

and Harun

وهارون

, because the message was originally for Musa, and his saying:

Our verses

بآياتنا

the letter ba indicates accompaniment, meaning accompanied by the signs, and his saying:

Our verses

آياتنا

is the plural of sign, and they are the markers, and they were attributed to Allah as a gift is attributed to its giver, because these signs are not signs against Allah, but they are signs from Him regarding what? Regarding the message of Musa, and Musa ...? Establishing that Allah alone ...

with Our signs, clear

بآياتنا بينات

He said: “ and clear” and he said in its parsing: “ state” state from where?
The student: From

Verses

آيات

.

The Shaykh : From

Verses

آيات

and it is not valid for it to be an attribute?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Is it valid or not valid? Give us the ruling before the reasoning. It is not valid, because

Verses

آيات

is a definite noun and

Clear

بينات

is an indefinite noun, and a definite noun is not described by an indefinite noun, but when the indefinite noun comes after the definite noun ... it is parsed as a state, and in his saying:

clear signs

آيات بينات

establishing the proof, because the sign is a marker, and the clearer it is, the stronger the proof is, and the signs are clear, they came to them with the clear signs, so what was their answer?

They said, "This is nothing but sorcery, fabricated

قالوا ما هذا إلا سحر مفترى

fabricated” -I seek refuge in Allah- meaning what you brought, O Musa and here we ask: why did not it function and the language of the Hijaz is that it functions like ? Because Ibn Malik says?
The student: ... [unclear, and the verse in the Alfiyyah is: I‘MALA LAYSA U‘MILAT MA DUNA IN MA‘A BAQA AL-NAFY WA TARTIBIN ZUKIN]

The Shaykh : Meaning that it is required that the negation remains, and here the negation did not remain, so it was negated by it ... their saying: and what is the sorcery that they said ...? The staff and the hand, this if we say that it refers to the physical signs, but if we say that it refers to the conceptual signs, which are like Islam, then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) says: and his saying: fabricated” describing the speech as fabricated is clear, but describing the staff and the hand as fabricated is because sorcery does not change things in reality, but it changes them in imagination according to what a person imagines, so is this imagination in accordance with reality or contrary to reality? And everything that is contrary to reality is fabricated, and everything that is contrary to reality is fabricated, so the fabrication here, if it is attributed to what they said of the message, is it a clear problem? If it is attributed to what they said of the message, is it a problem or clear? Clear, because attributing fabrication to speech is a known matter, but if it is attributed to what he brought of the physical signs, like the turning of the staff and the hand coming out white, how do we say that it is fabricated, meaning because sorcery does not change the matter from its reality, but changes its reality, so its appearance in a state other than what it is is from the category of lying and fabrication, and for this they said:

not except invented magic, and we have not heard of this

إلا سحر مفترى وما سمعنا بهذا

[Al-Qasas 28:36]

whatever

in

في

days

among our former fathers.

آبائنا الأولين

” we have not heard of this, referring to what he brought of the message, because it is the heard thing, and as for the sign of the hand and the staff, it is seen and visible, and his saying the author said:“ whatever” he indicated by this that the object of the preposition and the genitive is omitted, its estimation is and whatever here, according to the author's estimation, is a second object or a state? A state from the demonstrative noun, and his saying: meaning in their time, and for this he said:“ in the days of our former fathers” meaning the predecessors, and is his saying this correct or ...? ... with the clear proofs, so you remained in doubt of what came to you, until when he died you said, no messenger will be sent after him. So their saying: is a false report, so they are liars in this claim, and even if we assume that the claim is true and that they did not hear it, does the fact that this did not exist in the predecessors necessitate that it is false, O Khamees!?
The student: No, it does not necessitate.

The Shaykh : Because if the truth comes, it is obligatory to accept it, whether it existed in the predecessors or not. So this proof is thus composed of a lie and falsehood. As for the lie, their saying: is a lie, because their believer established the proof against them by the existence of a counterpart to what Musa brought in his saying: And as for it being a false proof on the assumption that it is true in speech, it is because the non-existence of that in the predecessors does not necessitate the falsity of its existence in the successors, for Allah the Exalted is effective of what He wills, as long as the signs are clear, is there a proof that it did not exist in the predecessors? And his saying: our fathers, how do they say former fathers, because the father is applied to the direct father and to the grandfather, however high up, Allah the Exalted said: And Yusuf said: Ya‘qub was his direct father, and Ishaq was his grandfather, and Ibrahim was his grandfather's father, he called them fathers, and although this contains predominance, but there is no predominance, meaning there is no direct father, and for this the stronger opinion in the other verse ... that the grandfather ...