and its use with alif was more pleasing in expression than saying:

“inna hādhayni la-sāhirāni” (“Indeed, these two are sorcerers”),

because alif is lighter to pronounce than yā’, and because the predicate also contains alif. When both the subject and the predicate have alif, they correspond more closely. This is a sound consideration, and nothing in the Quran is comparable to this in every respect while having yā’. Thus, nothing in sound grammatical analogy contradicts this attested, mass-transmitted reading. There are, however, subtle distinctions between the two. Those who found this problematic did so on grounds of analogy, not attested usage. Once the distinction becomes clear, the weakness of that analogy is apparent.

Someone who regards the use of alif here as established linguistic usage may answer by distinguishing between His words:

“in hādhāni” (“Indeed, these two”),

and His words:

“ihdā ibnatayya hātayni” (“One of these two daughters of mine”).

The latter is a feminine dual, whereas the former is a masculine dual. The masculine singular is dhā (“this”), with alif; thus, an alif was added alongside the dual nūn. The feminine singular, however, is dhī, dhih, or tih (“this”).

In His words:

“One of these two daughters of mine,”

the demonstrative is the dual of tī (“this”), with yā’. Using yā’ in the accusative and genitive therefore makes it more closely resemble the singular. This differs from the masculine dual, whose singular is dhā, with alif: retaining alif is thus more fitting. This is a distinction between the feminine and masculine duals. The distinction between this form and alladhayni (“the two who”) has already been explained. Accordingly, this reading accords with both attested usage and grammatical analogy, and there is no widely known