Verses 80–98
This is the last part of Moses’ story which is set out in the chapter; He recounts a number of his blessings upon the Israelites, for example, delivering them from their enemy, making a covenant with them on the blessed side of the mountain and sending down manna and quails upon them. It concludes by narrating the story of the Samaritan and his leading the people astray by worshiping the calf. The story is linked to Moses’ tryst with God on Mount Ṭūr.
The primary objective of this section of the story is to explain how the Israelites qualified for God’s wrath. That is why this matter is explained in detail here while other things are only alluded to briefly.
Commentary
يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ قَدْ أَنجَيْنَاكُمْ مِنْ عَدُوِّكُمْ وَوَاعَدْنَاكُمْ جَانِبَ الطُّورِ الأَيْمَنَ وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَى ٨٠
(20:80) O children of Israel! indeed We delivered you from your enemy, and We made a covenant with you on the blessed side of the mountain, and We sent to you the manna and the quails.
[The verse] is as if to imply: “We said, O children of Israel! indeed We delivered you from your enemy, that is from Pharaoh, whom God’s drowned, and He delivered the Israelites from him after their prolonged hardship”.
…and We made a covenant with you on the blessed side of the mountain: [The word] al-ayman (the blessed) is in the accusative because it is an adjective describing jānib (side). This covenant may mean Moses’ covenant of forty nights for the revelation of the Torah. The story was mentioned in Sūrah al-Baqarah (The Cow) and elsewhere, as well as the story of the manna and the quails.
كُلُوا مِنْ طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ وَلا تَطْغَوْا فِيهِ فَيَحِلَّ عَلَيْكُمْ غَضَبِي وَمَنْ يَحْلِلْ عَلَيْهِ غَضَبِي فَقَدْ هَوَى ٨١
(20:81) Eat of the good things We have given you for sustenance, and be not inordinate with respect to them, lest My wrath should be due to you, and to whomsoever My wrath is due shall perish indeed.
This is permissibility in the form of a command. The annexation of ṭayyibāt (the good things) to mā razaqnākum (We have given you for sustenance) is an example of annexing the adjective to what it describes because it would make no sense in His attributing the sustenance to Himself and then dividing it into good and not [good], as is supported by what He says elsewhere: … and We gave them of the goodly things ().
… and be not inordinate with respect to them, lest My wrath should be due to you: The pronoun [them] refers to the food which is referred to as al-ṭayyibāt [the good things]. That [would] be through ingratitude for the blessing and not giving thanks for it. As they said: O Moses! we cannot bear with one food, therefore pray to your Lord on our behalf to bring forth for us out of what the earth grows, of its herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions ().
Lest My wrath should be due to you, means My wrath is due and necessary [just like] when debt is due under the heading of “It is paid (ḍuriba) when it is due (idhā wujiba adāʾuh)”. Wrath is one of His active Attributes. An application of His wrath is His will that some unpleasantness should befall a servant, whereby He prepares the causes of that due to an act of disobedience which he has committed.
And to whomsoever my wrath is due shall perish indeed (fa qad hawā): Hawā means fall. [It comes] from hawi meaning falling. It is explained as perishing (in exegesis).
وَإِنِّي لَغَفَّارٌ لِمَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً ثُمَّ اهْتَدَى ٨٢
(20:82) And most surely I am most Forgiving to him who repents and believes and does good, then continues to follow the right direction.
It is a promise of confirmed mercy following the severe threat. That is why He describes Himself as Oft-Forgiving and says, And most surely I am most Forgiving and does not say: “And I am Forgiving”, or, “I will forgive”. Tawbah means to return. Just as it can be from disobedience to obedience, so too can it be from polytheism to monotheism. Just as belief can be in God, so, too can it be in God’s signs from His Prophets and Messengers and every law they have brought from God. Belief is used frequently in the Qurʿan in both senses [of the word] just as tawbah is used in both stated senses.
Just as the Israelites engaged in acts of disobedience, through which they committed sin, so too did they engage in polytheism for example worshiping the calf. Thus there is no need to construe the words other than as per the literal unqualified meaning—returning from both polytheism and disobedience to belief in God and His signs. The same applies to its unrestrictedly applying to all penitents—the Israelites and others—even though the Israelites are addressed, because Divine Attributes such as forgiveness are not particular to one people to the exclusion of others. The verse means—though God knows best—“And surely I am Oft-Forgiving to every person who returns and believes either from polytheism or disobedience and either believes in Me, My signs from My Messengers or My laws which they bring, by regretting what he has done and doing good deeds, by exchanging disobedience and rebellion with regards to what he sinned in, for obedience therein”. This realizes the fundamental meaning of return from something. It was discussed in detail in the exegesis of His Words, Repentance with God is only for … in part four of this book [Eng. vol. 8].
Then continues to follow the right direction: Ihtidāʾ is the opposite of error (ḍalāl) as attested to by His Words: Whoever goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright; and whoever goes astray, to its detriment only does he go astray (); … he who errs cannot hurt you when you are on the right way ().
Does it mean:
(i) his not going astray with regard to exactly what he repented from, by going back to the sin meaning that repentance from sin is only of benefit in relation to what he gave up before repenting and does not suffice him if he goes back to it again, or
(ii) his not going astray in anything else meaning that the forgiveness will only benefit him in relation to the sin from which he has repented? In other words it will only benefit him completely if he does not go astray in other deeds. Alternatively, does it mean both?
It is apparent from the use of thumma (then) as a conjunction that it means the first [alternative] meaning constancy and remaining repentant, so it comes back to the condition of making amends which is referred to in several verses, as in: Except those who repent after that and amend, then surely God is Forgiving, Merciful (; ).
However, based on this explanation two matters remain to be explained with regard to the verse:
(i) Why the word Ghaffār (most Forgiving)—the exaggerated form indicating much [forgiveness]—is used. What does His being most Forgiving have to do with someone who commits a single sin then repents?
(ii) It means that whoever breaks a single law does not believe in it even if he acknowledges that it has come from God and he only disobeyed pursuant to desire not as a rejection of the law—unless of course it is said that because the verse contains: repents and believes it only applies to polytheists and those who reject one of God’s laws. The problem with this explanation is obvious.
It could be said that repentance and belief mean repentance from polytheism and belief in God just as these two explanations are what they mean in most places in the Qurʿan in which repentance and belief are mentioned together.
Based on this, “and does good” means obeying His rules by obeying His commandments and refraining from [doing] what He has forbidden. The verse means that if one repents from polytheism and complies with the laws by which he has been charged, then surely I am most Forgiving of his sins. I will forgive him mistake after mistake. Thus, [reference to] much forgiveness is because many are the instances of [forgiveness]. He said something similar—about forgiveness of sins—in: If you shun the great sins which you are forbidden, We will do away with your small sins ().
Thus, His Words, And most surely I am most Forgiving to him who repents and believes and does good, applies to the verse 31 in Sūrah al-Nisāʾ (The Women). There remains in it an extra condition which qualifies the rule on forgiveness, namely the meaning of His Words, then continues to follow in the right direction, that is being guided to the way. It is clear that forgiveness is only allowed for a believer who does good if he proceeds to it by way of its route and comes to it through its door.
We do not find in His Words anything which qualifies the effectiveness and acceptance of belief in God and good deeds apart from belief in the Messenger in the sense of surrendering to him and obeying him both in major and minor matters, learning the religion from him, travelling the path which he walks and following him without obstinacy or innovation attributable to following the footsteps of the Satan. In summary, (this is) his guardianship over the believers in their religion and world[ly affairs]. God has legislated his guardianship, has made his obedience obligatory, and has made it a duty to learn from him and follow his example in great many verses, the citing of which is unnecessary and for examination of which there is no space—for (example): The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves ().
Even though most of the Israelites believed in God and in Moses and Aaron’s message, they were hesitant or quasi-hesitant about their guardianship as explicitly indicated by all their stories in God’s Book. That may be the reason why the verse, And most surely I am most Forgiving to him who repents and believes and does good, then continues to follow the right direction, comes after their being forbidden to be inordinate and making them fear of God’s wrath. It is clear that following the right direction in the verse according to where all the other verses lead is belief in the Messenger by following him in the matter of the religion and worldly affairs. In other words, it [means] being guided to his guardianship. The above should clarify the problem with the following interpretations of what the exegetes have said about His Words, then continues to follow the right direction:
(i) Continuing to follow the right direction means adhering to and continuing to believe as long as one lives.
(ii) It means a second person would not doubt his belief.
iii) Following the Prophet’s tradition and not following the path of innovation.
(iv) Ihtidāʾ means knowing that there is reward for his action.
(v) It means cleansing the heart of bad manners.
(vi) It means protecting belief from contradicting the truth with regards to anything because ihtidāʾ in this sense is not belief and action.
The meaning based on all these opinions is explanation of ihtidāʾ in a sense which does not ultimately mean belief or performing good deeds. However, there is no proof for anything they say.
وَمَا أَعْجَلَكَ عَنْ قَوْمِكَ يَا مُوسَىٰ ٨٣ قَالَ هُمْ أُولَاءِ عَلَىٰ أَثَرِي وَعَجِلْتُ إِلَيْكَ رَبِّ لِتَرْضَىٰ ٨٤
(20:83-84) And what caused you to hasten from your people, O Moses? He said: They are here on my track and I hastened on to You, my Lord, that Thou mightest be pleased.
This recounts the conversation which took place between Him and Moses at the appointment on the mountain where the Torah was revealed as narrated in detail in Sūrah al-Aʿrāf (The Elevated Places). It is apparent from the context that it was a question about the reason which compelled Moses to hasten from his people (in order) to attend the appointment before they [did] as if it was expected that they would come to the mountain together but Moses attended ahead of them and left them behind. He was asked, And what caused you to hasten from your people, O Moses? He said, They are here on my track, that is, they are following my track and will soon catch up with me, and I hastened on to You, my Lord, that Thou mightest be pleased, that is, and the reason for my haste is to achieve Your pleasure, O Lord. It is likely that the people said to be on his track were the seventy men whom he chose for the meeting with his Lord. It is apparent from his leaving Aaron behind as a deputy over his people and all the other aspects of the story and his subsequent words: “… did then the time seem long to you …?” that it was not intended for all the Israelites to come to the mountain. The question in this verse [] could have been addressed to Moses either when he first came to the meeting on the mountain or at the end of his time there because asking about the haste is not the haste itself which is accompanied by the journey and the meeting. If the question was not asked when he first came and attended, then His subsequent statement would find its place, So surely We have tried your people after you …
This is assuming that the trial occurred after they found Moses’ absence too long—according to the narrations– and there is no need for the contrived efforts of the exegetes to explain the verses.
قَالَ فَإِنَّا قَدْ فَتَنَّا قَوْمَكَ مِنْ بَعْدِكَ وَأَضَلَّهُمُ السَّامِرِيُّ ٨٥
(20:85) He said: So surely We have tried (fatannā) your people after you, and the Samaritan has led them astray.
The word fitnah means trial and test. Attributing the leading astray to the Samaritan—who molded the calf and brought it out for them to worship and go astray—is because he was one of the contributory factors to it. The letter fāʾ (so) in fa innā qad fatannā qawmaka (So surely We have tried your people) is explanatory: It explains what is understood from what was previously said, because what Moses said—They are here on my track—implies that his people were in a good state, nothing of concern having happened to them. It is as if he was being told: “Do not be [so] sure about what you have left behind, for, We have tried them and they have gone astray”.
Saying “your people” explicitly is an example of using a noun where a pronoun would normally be used. Perhaps this indicates that “people” here is different from “people” in the previous verses: Here it refers to all of his tribe while there were about the seventy men whom Moses chose for the appointed time.
فَرَجَعَ مُوسَىٰ إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ غَضْبَانَ أَسِفًا ۚ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ أَلَمْ يَعِدْكُمْ رَبُّكُمْ وَعْدًا حَسَنًا أَفَطَالَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْعَهْدُ أَمْ أَرَدْتُمْ أَنْ يَحِلَّ عَلَيْكُمْ غَضَبٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ فَأَخْلَفْتُمْ مَوْعِدِي ٨٦
(20:86) So Moses returned to his people wrathful, sorrowing. Said he: O my people! did not your Lord promise you a goodly promise: did then the time seem long to you, or did you wish that displeasure from your Lord should be due to you, so that you broke (your) promise to me?
[The word] ghaḍbān is an adjective made to appear [like an epithet] [derived] from al-ghaḍab (anger). The same applies to asif from asaf which means sorrow and severe anger. Maw ʿid means a promise. Their ikhlāf of the promise to him meant failing to do what they had promised him—taking his place properly while he was away (ḥusn al-khilāfah baʿdahu). This is supported by what He quotes elsewhere: Evil is it that you have done after me ().
It means: So Moses returned to his people. The situation is that he was fiercely angry or sorrowful. He started criticizing them for what they had done. He said: “People, did not your Lord make a good promise to you?” This promise could refer to either:
i) the revelation of the Torah to them which contains His Law, and which, if accepted, brings about happiness in this world and the Hereafter; or
ii) His promise to deliver them from their enemy, place them in the land and exclusively bestow great blessings upon them. Did then the time seem long to you … ? [The ʿahd] is the time Moses left them until they despaired of his returning and cohesion between them unraveled.
… or did you wish that displeasure from your Lord should be due to you: That is, you were inordinate in disbelief in Him after having believed and you worshiped the calf so that you broke your promise to me and did not keep your promise—taking my place suitably after I was gone. Some other explanations could be provided for, so that you broke your promise to me:
i) their breaking their promise to him means he ordered them to catch up with him but they failed to travel along his track.
ii) he ordered them to obey Aaron when he was gone until he returned to them. They disobeyed him.
There are other explanations.
قَالُوا مَا أَخْلَفْنَا مَوْعِدَكَ بِمَلْكِنَا وَلَٰكِنَّا حُمِّلْنَا أَوْزَارًا مِنْ زِينَةِ الْقَوْمِ فَقَذَفْنَاهَا فَكَذَٰلِكَ أَلْقَى السَّامِرِيُّ ٨٧
(20:87) They said: We did not break (our) promise to you of our own accord (bi-malkinā), but we were made to bear the burdens of the ornaments (zīnat) of the people, then we made a casting of them (fa-qadhafnāhā), and thus did the Samaritan cast (alqā).
Malk is the gerund of malaka, yamliku (he controlled, he controls). Their words: “We did not break our promise to you of our own accord (bi-malkinā)” means, “We did not break our promise to you being in control of some of our affair”, as is claimed. It is possible that it means: “Surely, we did not spend any of our money on fashioning the calf so as to have intended and been set on this matter. However, we were carrying loads of the people’s jewelry. We threw them away, but the Samaritan took them, cast them in fire, and brought forth the calf”. Awzār is the plural of wizr meaning weight. Zīnah means jewelry for example necklaces, earrings, and bracelets. Qadhf, ilqāʾ and nabdh [in verse 29:96] are similar—they mean casting or throwing.
… but we were made to bear the burdens of the ornaments of the people: [Means,] “However, we had loads of people’s jewelry with us”. It may mean Pharaoh’s people.
… then we made a casting of them, and thus did the Samaritan cast: [Means,] “He cast in the fire what we cast down” or “cast what he had as we had cast what we had—what we were given to carry”. He then brought forth the calf.
فَأَخْرَجَ لَهُمْ عِجْلًا جَسَدًا لَهُ خُوَارٌ فَقَالُوا هَٰذَا إِلَٰهُكُمْ وَإِلَٰهُ مُوسَىٰ فَنَسِيَ ٨٨
(20:88) So he brought forth for them a calf, a (mere) body, which had a lowing, so they said: This is your god and the god of Moses, but he forgot.
There is in the word ikhrāj (bringing forth) an indication that the way the calf was made was a secret to the people, out of their sight, so he surprised them by revealing and showing it. A jasad is a corpse which has no spirit in it so jasad cannot ever be said of something with a soul. Therein is evidence that the calf did not have a soul or any life. Khuwār means the sound made by a calf.
His Words, and thus did the Samaritan cast. So he brought forth for them a calf … could be construed as independent words—either God’s Words through what the people said coming to an end with, then we cast them. Based on this [explanation] the subject of (the clause), they said, is some of the people and the pronoun in, So he brought forth for them, obviously refers to others [among them].
It is said that the subject of (the clause), he forgot is
(i) Moses, meaning: They said: This is your god and the god of Moses, but Moses forgot this god of his but he is here. He went to look for him on the mountain.
(ii) The Samaritan, meaning he forgot Him after having remembered Him and believed in Him. That is, the Samaritan forgot his Lord, did what he did and led the people astray.
The apparent meaning of, This is your god [plural: ilāhukum] and the god of Moses, attributed as it is to the plural, is that there were those who helped the Samaritan in this affair.
أَفَلَا يَرَوْنَ أَلَّا يَرْجِعُ إِلَيْهِمْ قَوْلًا وَلَا يَمْلِكُ لَهُمْ ضَرًّا وَلَا نَفْعًا ٨٩
(20:89) What! could they not see that it did not return to them a reply, and (that) it did not control any harm or benefit for them?
This is a reproach to them because they worshiped it even though they saw it does not reply when it is called by anyone, nor does it control any harm for them so that it may keep it away from them, nor is it in charge of any good for them so that it may attract and get it for them. It was self-evident to their intellects that a lord should answer whoever calls him seeking protection from some harm or acquisition of a benefit, and that a lord must be in charge of its servant’s (marbūb) harm and benefit.
وَلَقَدْ قَالَ لَهُمْ هَارُونُ مِنْ قَبْلُ يَا قَوْمِ إِنَّمَا فُتِنْتُمْ بِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ الرَّحْمَٰنُ فَاتَّبِعُونِي وَأَطِيعُوا أَمْرِي ٩٠
(20:90) And certainly Aaron had said to them before: O my people! You are only tried by it, and surely your Lord is the Beneficent, therefore follow me and obey my order.
This emphasizes their censure and elaborates their sin. The implied meaning is: Not only did they not take admonition from the reminder that is self-evident to their intellects and did not stop by what their minds and eyes perceive, but also they disregarded what reached them through their ears. Indeed their Prophet Aaron told them that this was a test by which they had been tried, that their [true] Lord was the Beneficent, Mighty is His Name, and that it was their duty to follow him [Aaron] and obey his order. They replied to Aaron:
قَالُوا لَنْ نَبْرَحَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفِينَ حَتَّىٰ يَرْجِعَ إِلَيْنَا مُوسَىٰ ٩١
(20:91) They said: We will by no means cease (lan nabraḥa) to keep to its worship (ʿalayhi ʿākifīn) until Moses returns to us (ḥatta yarji ʿa ilayna Mūsā).
That is, we have to see what he [Moses] says about it and what he orders us to do.
قَالَ يَا هَارُونُ مَا مَنَعَكَ إِذْ رَأَيْتَهُمْ ضَلُّوا ٩٢ أَلَّا تَتَّبِعَنِ ۖ أَفَعَصَيْتَ أَمْرِي٩٣
(20:92-93) [Moses] said: O Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, so that you did not follow me? Did you then disobey my order?
He went back after speaking to the people about the matter of the calf to talk to his brother Aaron because he was one of the three people in charge in this test, whom he had appointed as a deputy over them and instructed him when he bade him farewell, saying: Take my place among my people, and act well and do not follow the way of the mischief-makers ().
It is as if, what prevented you has to it a sense of: “What made you?” That is, “What made you not follow me, preventing you from following?” Or, “What prevented you, to make you not follow me?” It is similar to: He said: What hindered you so that you did not make obeisance when I commanded you? ()
It means: Moses said, reproaching Aaron: “What prevented you from following my way?” That is, stopping them from going astray. The severity is for God’s sake: Did you then disobey my order to follow me and not follow the way of the mischief-makers?
قَالَ يَا ابْنَ أُمَّ لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِي وَلَا بِرَأْسِي ۖ إِنِّي خَشِيتُ أَنْ تَقُولَ فَرَّقْتَ بَيْنَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَلَمْ تَرْقُبْ قَوْلِي ٩٤
(20:94) He said: O son of my mother! seize me not by my beard nor by my head; surely I was afraid lest you should say: You have caused a division among the children of Israel and not waited for my word.
The root of Yā bna umm (O son of my mother) is yā bna ummī. It is a word that is said to appeal to one’s mercy and compassion. He said it to calm Moses’ anger. It is clear from, seize me not by my beard nor by my head that he had seized his beard and head in a state of anger to punish him, as He says elsewhere: … and seized his brother by the head, dragging him towards him ().
… surely I was afraid lest you should say, You have caused a division among the children of Israel and not waited for my word: [This is] an explanation to an implied question indicated by the wording. In brief it means: “If I had stopped them from worshiping the calf, reaching the point it did, only some of the people would have obeyed me and that would have led to their dividing into two groups: obedient faithful and disobedient polytheists. That would have ruined the people, changing their unity and apparent consensus into disunity and disagreement, which may have led to killing. You had ordered me to act well as you told me [vide ) so I feared that when you came back and saw how the people had divided and taken sides, you would say: You have caused a division among the children of Israel and not waited for my word”. This is what Aaron said as an apology. Moses forgave him and prayed for him and himself, as per Sūrah al-Aʿrāf (The Elevated Places): He said: My Lord! Forgive me and my brother and cause us to enter into Thy mercy, and Thou art the most Merciful of the merciful ones ().
قَالَ فَمَا خَطْبُكَ يَا سَامِرِيُّ ٩٥
(20:95) He said: What was then your object, O Samaritan?
After talking to his brother, he goes back to the Samaritan—who was one of the three in charge. He is the one who led the people astray. Khaṭb means a serious matter which concerns you. He is saying: What is this mighty affair which you came up with?
قَالَ بَصُرْتُ بِمَا لَمْ يَبْصُرُوا بِهِ فَقَبَضْتُ قَبْضَةً مِنْ أَثَرِ الرَّسُولِ فَنَبَذْتُهَا وَكَذَٰلِكَ سَوَّلَتْ لِي نَفْسِي ٩٦
(20:96) He said: I saw what they did not see, so I took a handful [of the dust] from the footprints of the messenger, then I threw it in the casting; thus did my soul commend to me.
Al-Rāghib says in Mufradāt [al-Qurʿan]: One says baṣar for the seeing organ as in: … as the twinkling of an eye (al-baṣar) (); … and when the eyes (al-abṣār) turned dull (), and for the faculty which is in it. The heart’s faculty of perception is called baṣīrah or baṣar as in: … but now We have removed from you your veil, so your sight (baṣaruka) today is sharp (); The eye (al-baṣar) did not turn aside, nor did it exceed the limit (). [Al-Rāghib says] The plural of baṣar is abṣār and the plural of baṣīrah is baṣāʾir. He says: … but neither their ears, nor their eyes (absāruhum), availed them ().
The organ is hardly ever called baṣīrah. One says of the former [that is the eye]: abṣartu (I saw) and of the latter [that is the heart’s faculty of perception]: abṣartuhu [fourth form: I perceived it] or baṣurtu bihi [first form: I perceived it]. One hardly ever says of the sense: baṣurtu [first form: I perceived] if it is not accompanied by seeing with the heart.
… so I took a handful (qabḍah) …: It is said that qabḍah is a gerund (maṣdar) used as an object (mafʾūl). Against this view it has been said that when a gerund (maṣdar) is used as on object it does not appear with at or ah at the end. For instance, one says: Hadhihi ḥullat nasj al-Yaman (This is a suit of the weaving of Yemen) but not: Hadhihi nasjat al-Yaman (This is a woven piece from Yemen). Thus we should interpret qabḍah in this verse as an absolute object (mafʿūl muṭlaq). This view is refuted in turn by the fact that what is not allowed is the addition of the tāʾ ending denoting limitation or one time, not mere femininity as it is here. The problem with this view is that there is no evidence here for this tāʾ denoting femininity. Thus, it would be a reiteration of the claim as the proof for it (mūṣāḍarah).
… from the footprints of the messenger (min athar al-Rasūl): athar means the imprint of a foot passing along the road after its passage. Etymologically it means what remains of something after it [has gone] in a way such that it is evidence of it, example, a building is a legacy (athar) of a builder. A product (maṣnūʿ) is the legacy of the fashioner (ṣāniʾ), knowledge (ʿilm) is the legacy of a scholar (ʿālīm) etc. Similar to this is a footprint on the ground left by a passer-by. A Messenger (rasūl) is someone who carries a Message. It is used in the Qur’an for a human Messenger who carries God’s Message and the same word is used for Gabriel the Angel of revelation. He says: Most surely it is the Word of an honoured messenger ().
Similarly, it is used for a number of messenger Angels, example: Aye! And Our messengers with them write down (). He also says about the Angels: … the Maker of the Angels, messengers flying on wings ().
The verse contains the Samaritan’s response to the question which Moses had posed to him, What was then your object, O Samaritan? It was a question which aimed to get at the truth of that mighty matter which he had instigated and what had motivated him to it. The context provides evidence that His Words, thus did my soul commend to me is his response for the rationale which led and drove him to it—that his soul’s commanding was what motivated him to commit that action. As for explaining the truth of his deed, it is indicated by, I saw what they did not see so I took a handful from the footprints of the messenger. There is no clarification for this statement neither in His Words within the narrative or that which is vaguely linked to it. Hence, the exegetes are in disagreement over its explanation.
The majority of scholars have explained it in accordance with some of the oral traditions on the story as the Samaritan’s seeing Gabriel—who had come down to Moses to reveal, or, saw him when he had come down on a horse from Heaven in front of Pharaoh and his soldiers when they entered the sea and were drowned. He then took a handful of dust from his footprint or his horse’s hoof print. One of the unique properties of this dust is that it is never thrown on anything without its coming to life and the spirit entering it. He kept the dust until he had fashioned the calf, threw some of the dust on it, which then came to life, moved and lowed.
I saw what they did not see means his seeing Gabriel when he came down on foot or on horseback. He saw him and recognized him but none of the other Israelites did. So I took a handful from the footprints of the messenger (athar al-rasūl), then I threw it means: “So I took a handful of dust from Gabriel's footprint or dust from Gabriel's horse’s hoof print. The Messenger (rasūl) means Gabriel. Fa nabadhtuhā means: “I threw the handful on the melted jewelry and it came to life. It then had a low”.
The biggest problem with this is that these oral traditions contradict the Book. The reader will see this in the upcoming discussion on the relevant oral traditions. For, His Words explicitly state (yanuṣṣu ʿalā) that the calf was a jasad which had a lowing. A jasad is a body which has no spirit and no life in it. It can never be said of a body which has a spirit and life. [This is] in addition to the reasons they have given for challenging the traditions which will be cited in the upcoming discussion of the relevant oral traditions.
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Muslim by way of the verse’s exegesis that he said:
“There is no explicit statement in the Qur’an of what they say. There is another explanation, namely that what is meant by the Messenger is Moses. His athar means his tradition (sunnah) and his rasm means what he ordered and followed. Man says that a person (Fulān) yaqtafī athar Fulān (follows [in] the footsteps of another) but yaqtaṣṣu atharāhu if he obeys his prescription (rasm)”.
Based on that, the explanation of the verse is that when Moses turned to reprimand the Samaritan and to ask him about the matter which drove him to lead the people astray with the calf he said: “I saw what they did not see that is I realized that what the people believed in was not true. I had taken a handful of your vestige that is some of your religion so I cast it aside (fa nabadhtuhā) and did not cling to it”. Referring to Moses in the third person is similar to when someone addresses a prince: What does the prince say about matter x? His calling him, Messenger, was a kind of mockery because he did not believe in him and rejected him as His Words which quote the unbelievers state: O you to whom (ilayhi) the Reminder has been revealed! you are most surely insane ().
Obviously, based on this explanation, the calf’s lowing was artificial, which is contrary to the previous explanation. The problem with this is that the verse implies that the “casting” was subsequent to “taking a handful”, which was itself subsequent to “seeing”. However, the suggested interpretation implies that the “casting” was subsequent to “seeing” and “seeing” to “taking a handful”. If what he said were true, [the following] would have been stated: “I saw what they did not see and so I cast with the handful I had taken from the Messenger’s footprint” or “I took a handful of the Messenger’s footprint, saw what they did not see and cast it”.
Secondly, it would mean having to explain it with, thus did my soul commend to me as an allusion to the reason he formed the calf and an answer to Moses’ question, What was then your object? In summary, he did it because of being commanded by his soul to lead the people astray, so the beginning of the verse means that he was not a monotheist while the end of the verse means that he was not idolatrous—thus neither monotheistic nor idolatrous, even though the subsequent direct speech quotation of Moses, and look at your god to whose worship you kept (so long); we will certainly burn it … () [means] that he [that is, the Samaritan] was idolatrous.
Thirdly: Addressing Moses in the third person instead of the second person is unlikely.
Another meaning could be conceived for the verse based on what one of them said—that the burdens of the ornaments, which they were carrying, were the gold jewelry from the Egyptians which Moses had ordered them to carry. They belonged to Moses or were attributed to him. This is what is meant by the Messenger’s vestige (athar al-rasūl). Thus, the Samaritan is describing what he did as his having vision in the matter of goldsmithery and transformation. He was good at making statues—knowledge of which the people did not have—and his soul enticed him into making a statue of a calf for them out of gold. Thereafter, he took and grasped a handful of the Messenger’s athar that is gold jewelry, threw and cast it in the fire and brought it out as a calf—a body for them—which had a lowing. Its lowing was through air entering the gap in its inside and exiting through its mouth from pressure with this artificial filling.
There is still the problem with Moses being referred to as the Messenger in the third person instead of the second person, with the people’s jewelry being called the Messenger’s athar and his making the calf—which he worshiped—enticement by the soul.
قَالَ فَاذْهَبْ فَإِنَّ لَكَ فِي الْحَيَاةِ أَنْ تَقُولَ لَا مِسَاسَ ۖ وَإِنَّ لَكَ مَوْعِدًا لَنْ تُخْلَفَهُ ۖ وَانْظُرْ إِلَىٰ إِلَٰهِكَ الَّذِي ظَلْتَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفًا ۖ لَنُحَرِّقَنَّهُ ثُمَّ لَنَنْسِفَنَّهُ فِي الْيَمِّ نَسْفًا ٩٧
(20:97) He said: Begone then, surely for you it will be in this life to say, Touch (me) not; and surely there is a threat for you, which shall not be made to fail to you, and look at your god to whose worship you kept (so long); we will certainly burn it, then we will certainly scatter it a (wide) scattering in the sea.
This is Moses’ punishment upon him, following confirmation of the sin.
He said: Begone then—(which means) sentencing him to exile from the society such that he would not mix with the people or touch anyone and no one would touch him, taking or giving, sheltering, keeping company, speaking or any other aspects of human society; it is one of the most difficult kinds of punishment.
… surely for you it will be in this life to say, Touch (me) not: In summary, it means: It is settled and you deserve to live alone as long as you live—an allusion to his persistent distress from loneliness and isolation.
It is claimed that it is a supplication by Moses against him and that as a result of that, he was afflicted with an incurable disease. No one would come close to him without becoming severely feverish. He would tell anyone who came near to him: “Touch (me) not, touch (me) not”.
It is claimed that he was afflicted with [devilish] insinuation—he would go wild and flee from everyone he met and would call out: “Touch (me) not”. It would be a good explanation if the tradition were authentic.
… and surely there is a threat for you, which shall not be made to fail to you: The apparent meaning is that it is a foretelling of his doom at a time specified and inevitably decreed by God. It is possible that it is a supplication against him. It means punishment in the Hereafter.
And look at your god to whose worship you kept (so long): that is, kept and continued to be worshiped [and] adhered to. There is an indication in this that he had adopted it as a god for him to worship.
… we will certainly burn it, then we will certainly scatter it (la-nansifannahu) a (wide) scattering (nasfan) in the sea: Majmaʿ [al-Bayān] says: Scatter (nasafa) the grain means to scatter it with the winnow (minsāf) so that its husks will fly from it.
It means: “I swear that we will burn it with fire then we will certainly scatter it a (wide) scattering in the sea”. Talking about burning, it has been relied on as evidence that it was living—of flesh and blood. If it had been of gold, it would have made no sense to talk about burning it. This supports the majority’s aforementioned exegesis—that it became living, with a spirit, through casting dust taken from Gabriel’s footprint on it. However, it only proves that it was not pure gold, no more. Some of them believe it to be possible that “we will certainly burn it” (la nuḥariqannahu) is from the nipping of iron when it is cooled with a cooling apparatus, meaning: We will surely cool it with a cooling apparatus and surely scatter it all in the sea. This is more appropriate.
إِنَّمَا إِلَٰهُكُمُ اللَّهُ الَّذِي لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ وَسِعَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا ٩٨
(20:98) Your God is only God, there is no god but He; He comprehends all things in (His) knowledge.
The apparent meaning is that these are the last words Moses says to the Samaritan and the Israelites. He establishes through this statement, Him being the only God. No one else—calf or any other hypothetical partner—shares that with Him. This along with its context is subtle reasoning. He uses as evidence that He is God, and it’s a fact that there is no other god apart from Him and thus they have no god apart from Him. It is claimed that His Words, He comprehends all things proves that a non-existent can be referred to as a thing because it can be comprehended. However, this [statement] is wrong because the verse means that everything that is called a thing is comprehended in His knowledge not that everything that is comprehended in His knowledge can be called a thing. That which avails someone trying to prove [the statement] is the latter not the former.
Examining Narrations
- Al-Tawḥīd says via its chain of narration back to Ḥamzah ibn al-Rabīʾ on the authority of whom he stated: I was in al-Bāqir’s seated gathering when ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd came to see him and said to him: May I be made your sacrifice, God’s Words, Blessed and Almighty is He: and to whomsoever My wrath is due shall perish indeed. What is that wrath? al-Bāqir replied: “It is punishment, ʿAmr. Surely, whoever claims that God, Mighty and Sublime is He, changes from one thing to another, attributes to Him the attribute of a creature. Surely, God, Mighty and Sublime is He, is not provoked or changed by anything”.
Author’s comment: Something to the same effect is narrated with an incomplete chain of transmission (mursal) by al-Ṭabrasī in al-Iḥtijāj.
- al-Ṣādiq said: God, the Most Holy, the Most High, accepts only the righteous deeds. God does not accept anything without one’s fulfilling the conditions of the covenant. Those who remain faithful to God, the Most Holy, the Most High, with regard to His condition of the covenant and follow what is prescribed in the covenant they will receive blessings from Him and He will keep His promise. God, the Most Holy, the Most High, has informed the people of the path of guidance and has sanctioned for them the laws of Sharia as beacons. He has told them how to follow the laws. He has said:
() I am All-forgiving to the righteously striving believers who repent and follow the right guidance;
() God only accepts the offerings of the pious ones.
- ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Layla said: Those who are pious before God about His commandments meet God as believers in whatever Prophet Muhammad has brought to them. (al-Kāfī)
- al-Bāqir said: Then continues to follow the right direction to our—the People of the Household’s—wilāyah so I swear by God, if a man worships God all his life between the [Black Stone’s] Corner (al-rukn) and [Abraham’s] Station (maqām) then dies and does not come to our wilāyah, God will throw him on his face in hell.
Author’s comment: This is (also) narrated in al-Kāfī, in Tafsīr, Al-Qummī; and in Ibn Shahrāshub’s Manāqib and something similar on the authority of Abu Ḥamzah on the authority of al-Sajjād, worded: “to us the People of the Household”.
Wilāyah in the hadith means being in charge of people’s religious and worldly affairs, that is, their being referred to in learning religious and legal knowledge, and administration of societal affairs. It [the wilāyah] was the Prophet’s as explicitly stated by the Book in the verse like: The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves ().
It was then assigned to his progeny, the People of his Household after him in the Book in [verses] such as āyat al-wilāyah [] and through what is widely-narrated (mutawātir) from him via so many chains as to be indubitable for example, hadith al-thaqalayn, hadith al-manzilāh etc. Even though the verse is positioned between verses addressing the Israelites—that is apparently so—it is not restricted by anything which makes it exclusive to them, preventing it from applying to anyone else. Thus, it applies to others just as it applies to them. As for its applicability to them, it is because Moses as their Imam had a form of this wilāyah which other Prophets had. Thus, his nation had to follow him and enter under his wilāyah. As for its applicability to others, it is because the verse is general and not particular to one people to the exclusion of others. Thus, it guides people during the time of the Messenger to his wilāyah, and, after him to the wilāyah of the Imams from the People of his Household. Hence, wilāyah has a single meaning regardless of whom it is attributed to.
Once the reader knows the above, the invalidity of what al-Alūsī says in Tafsīr Rūḥ al-maʿānī will be clear to him. After citing the aforementioned narration from Majmaʿ al-bayān on the authority of al-Bāqir he says: “You know that their wilāyah and love for them (may God be pleased with them) according to us is indubitably obligatory. However, construing being guided (al-ihtidāʾ) in the verse as that—given that it is an account of what God spoke to the Israelites about, during the time of Moses —would mean having to say that He, Mighty and Sublime is He, told the Israelites about the People of the Household and imposed their wilāyah upon them at that point. That is not confirmed in any authentic narrations.
What put him [al-Alūsī] in this [predicament] was interpreting wilāyah as love, followed by his construing the verse as being exclusive to the Israelites, ultimately drawing the conclusion which he stated. Wilāyah in the verses and oral traditions does not mean love. Rather, it is the administrative rule and disposal of affairs, part of which means the necessity of following and a duty of obedience. This is what the Imams of the People of the Household claim for themselves. As for love, it is an expanded meaning of wilāyah in its true sense and of those things normally concomitant to it. It is the signification of complete accord of the verse and oral tradition evidence for love of the near of kin.
There is another—third—meaning of the People of the Household’s wilāyah, namely that God is in charge of the affairs of His servant and so He regulates his affairs and freely administers his business because of the sincerity of his worship of Him. This wilāyah is primarily God’s—thus He is the Waliyy and there is no waliyy apart from Him. It is only attributed to the People of the Household because they are the foremost, the first of the nation to open this door. It is also an attribution by expansion just as the straight path (al-ṣirāt al-mustaqīm) is in His Words attributed to Him primarily and to those upon whom God has bestowed favors—the Prophets, truthful ones, martyrs and the pious—somewhat by expansion. In summary, the wilāyah in the hadith in Majmaʿ [al-bayān] means regulation and ownership (mulk al-tadbīr). The noble verse is general and applies to others just as it applies to the Israelites. He only explains “being guided” (ihtidāʾ) in the verse as wilāyah with regard to this nation. This is the correct explanation.
- Tafsīr, Al-Qummī says [about the Words]: So surely We have tried your people after you: [It means], We tested them after you and the Samaritan has led them astray with the calf which they worshiped. The reason for that is that when God promised to Moses to reveal the Torah and the Tablets over thirty days, he told the Israelites (about it) and went to the meeting, leaving his brother in charge of his people. When the thirty days passed and Moses did not return, they disobeyed and wanted to kill Aaron. They said: Surely Moses lied and fled from us. Thereafter, Iblīs came to them in the form of a man and told them: Moses has fled from you and is never coming back to you so bring me your jewelry so that I can adopt a god for you to worship. The Samaritan was at the forefront of Moses’ people on the day when God drowned Pharaoh and his companions. [The Samaritan] then looked at Gabriel [the Arch Angel] who was riding an animal in the form of a mare (ramakah). Wherever it placed its hoof that spot of the earth started moving [as if alive]. The Samaritan—who was one of Moses’ choicest companions—looked at it and took dust from Gabriel’s mare’s hoof when it was moving. He put it in a bag. Thereafter it was in his possession and he would brag about it to the Israelites. When Iblīs came to them and they adopted the calf, he said to the Samaritan: Bring the dust which is with you. The Samaritan then brought it and cast it inside the calf. Once inside it, the calf began to move and low. Fur and hair grew on it. The Israelites then prostrated before it. The number of those who prostrated before it was seventy thousand. Aaron then said to them—as God narrates: O my people! you are only tried by it, and surely your Lord is the Beneficent God, therefore follow me and obey my order. They said: We will by no means cease to keep to its worship until Moses returns to us. They decided to kill Aaron and so he fled from them. They continued that way [that is, worshiping the calf] until Moses’ appointed time was complete—forty nights. When it was the tenth day of Dhū al-Ḥijjah, God revealed the knowledge of the tablets including the Torah, the rules of conduct and the stories they would need. Thereafter, God revealed to Moses: So surely We have tried your people after you, and the Samaritan has led them astray. They worshiped the calf and it had a lowing. He then said: O, Lord, the calf is from the Samaritan but from whom is the lowing? He said: From Me, Moses. When I saw them having turned away from Me to the calf, I wanted to increase their trial. Thereafter, as God narrates, Moses returned to his people wrathful, sorrowing. Said he: O my people! did not your Lord promise you a goodly promise: did then the time seem long to you, or did you wish that displeasure from your Lord should be due to you, so that you broke (your) promise to me? He then threw down the tablets and grabbed his brother’s beard and head, pulling him towards himself. He then said: When you saw them go astray, what stopped you from following me. Have you disobeyed my order? Thereafter Aaron said, as narrated by God: O son of my mother! seize me not by my beard nor by my head; surely I was afraid lest you should say: You have caused a division among the children of Israel and not waited for my word. The Israelites told him: We did not break (our) promise to you of our own accord, but we were made to bear the burdens of the ornaments of the people, that is, their jewelry; then we cast them. We cast inside it the dust which the Samaritan brought. Then the Samaritan brought out the calf and it had a lowing. Moses then said to him: What was then your object, O Samaritan? The Samaritan said: I saw (Gabriel) what they did not see, so I took a handful (of the dust) from the footprints of the Messenger, that is, from under the hoof of Gabriel’s mare in the sea, fa nabadhtuha that is, so I held onto it. Thus did my soul commend, that is, entice, to me. Moses then took out the calf, burned it with fire and cast it in the sea. He then said to the Samaritan: Begone then, surely for you it will be in this life to say, Touch (me) not, that is, as long as you and your offspring are alive this mark will remain among you: saying, “Touch (me) not”, so that people know that you are Samaritans and will not be deceived by you. They remain to this day in Egypt and the Levant known as untouchables. Moses then nearly killed the Samaritan but God revealed to him: “Do not kill him, Moses, for he is generous”. Thereafter, Moses said to him: and look at your god to whose worship you kept (so long); we will certainly burn it, then we will certainly scatter it a (wide) scattering in the sea. Your God is only God, there is no god but He; He comprehends all things in (His) knowledge.
Author’s comment: It is likely of what we have cited that His Words: “The reason for that …” are not the end of the oral tradition at the beginning of which he said: “with the calf which they worshiped”. Rather, it is Al-Qummi’s words which he has paraphrased from the oral traditions of others, as it is his custom in most of the citations within his exegesis, when discussing the reasons for the revelations of verses. There is evidence for that through the story which he cites. True, what he says in the course of the story: “We did not break (our) promise to you” is an oral tradition, as is: “we cast inside it the dust which the Samaritan brought” an oral tradition and likewise: “Moses then nearly …” is the content of a tradition narrated on the authority of al-Ṣādiq. Assuming it is an oral tradition and the conclusion of the previous oral tradition, it is an expedient tradition (mursal) and the authority is ambiguous (muḍmar).
- It has been narrated on the authority of ʿAlī : When Moses hastened to his Lord, the Samaritan proceeded, gathered all the Israelites’ jewelry he could and cast it into a calf. He then threw the handful inside it and behold, it was a calf—a body which had a lowing. The Samaritan then told them: This is your god and Moses’ god. Aaron then told them: People, did your Lord not make a beautiful promise to you? …
Author’s comment: The words attributed in it to Aaron are attributed by the Qur’an to Moses.
- It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās: When Pharaoh and his companions rushed upon the sea, Pharaoh was on a horse—a black stallion—the stallion was afraid to rush into the sea and so Gabriel appeared upon a mare. When the stallion saw it, it chased after it and the Samaritan knew that it was Gabriel because when his mother was afraid that he would be slaughtered, she left him in a cave and closed him inside. Thereafter, Gabriel would come to him and feed him with his fingers. On one of them there was milk, on another there was honey and on another there was oil. He continued feeding him until he grew up. Then, when he saw him in the sea, he knew him. He then took a handful from the horse’s footsteps. That is, he took a handful from under the hoof and it so occurred to the Samaritan’s heart: You will not cast it onto a single thing, saying Be x without its becoming [it]. The handful remained with him in his hand until he crossed the sea. When Moses and the Israelites crossed the sea, God drowned the family of Pharaoh. Moses said to his brother Aaron: Represent me among my people and do right. Do not follow the path of the mischief makers. Moses proceeded to the meeting with his Lord. The Israelites had some of Pharaoh’s family’s jewelry. It was as if they eschewed it so they took it out to put in the fire to consume it. When they gathered it together, the Samaritan said so to the handful as he cast it there: Be a calf—a body with a lowing. Thus it then became a calf—a body with a lowing. He would introduce wind through its bottom and it would come out of its mouth, a sound being heard. He then said: This is your god and Moses’ god. They then devoted themselves to the calf, worshiping it. Thereafter, Aaron said: O my people! you are only tried by it, and surely your Lord is the Beneficent God, therefore follow me and obey my order. They said: We will by no means cease to keep to its worship until Moses returns to us.
Author’s comment: As is evident, the oral tradition does not contain the dust from the hoof’s having the special attribute of bringing to life. However it does contain something greater, namely its having the special attribute of the word of creation [that is “Be” and it will be]. The Samaritan, on this basis, only used it to take the jewelry out of the fire in the form of a calf—a body with a lowing. Thus it emerged as he wanted without an ordinary natural cause. As for life, there is no mention of it. On the contrary, the literal meaning of His Words—introducing wind inside it and its leaving (the body) producing a sound—is (the fact that) its not being characterized by life. Further what it says about the Samaritan’s mother hiding him in a cave after she gave birth to him, out of fear that Pharaoh would slaughter him and Gabriel’s coming to him and feeding him with his fingers until he grew up cannot be relied upon. The Samaritan’s being an Israelite is uncertain. Indeed, Ibn ʿAbbās himself denied it in Saʿid ibn Jubayr’s detailed account of the story. It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās that he was of the people of Kirman.
- al-Saddī said: Moses set off to his Lord and He spoke to him. When He spoke to him He said: And what caused you to hasten from your people, O Moses? He said: They are here on my track and I hastened on to You, my Lord, that Thou mightiest be pleased. He said: So surely We have tried your people after you, and the Samaritan has led them astray. When He told him their news, he said: Lord, this Samaritan told them to adopt the calf. Did you see the spirit—who blew it into it? The Lord said: I [did]. He said: Lord, then You led them astray. So Moses returned to his people wrathful, asifan, that is, sorrowful. Said he: O my people! did not your Lord promise you a goodly promise … We did not break (our) promise to you (bi malkina), that is, of our own accord but we were made to bear the burdens of the ornaments of the people, that is, of the Egyptians’ jewelry then we cast them, and thus did the Samaritan cast. So he brought forth for them a calf, a (mere) body, which had a lowing and so they devoted themselves to it, worshiping it while it was lowing and walking. Thereafter, Aaron said to them: O my people! you are only tried by it, that is, you were tested by the calf. He said: What was then your khaṭb, O Samaritan? that is, your object … and look at your god to whose worship you kept (so long); we will certainly burn it. He then took it, slaughtered it, then nipped it with the cooling apparatus, that is, pulverized it then scattered it in the sea. Thus not a single river was left flowing that day without some of it falling into it. Moses said to them: Drink from it, and so they drank. Gold came out onto the moustache of whoever loved it. That is what is meant by:
() And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief.
Author’s comment: It is amazing what the story says about gold being caused to grow on the moustache of those who loved the calf as a result of drinking the water and construing His Words: And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief, as this. The words, into their hearts are an excellent proof that being made to imbibe means love for it manifesting in and penetrating into their hearts and not drinking the water into which it was scattered after it was pulverized. Even more amazing is the combination of slaughtering it and pulverizing it. Only an animal of flesh and blood can be slaughtered. Pulverization and cooling can only be feasibly done to a body cast in gold or another metal.
- It is narrated on the authority of ʿAlī: When Gabriel descended and took Moses up to Heaven, the Samaritan saw him from among the people and took a handful from the horse’s hoof print. Gabriel carried Moses behind him until, when he drew near to Heaven’s gate, he ascended and God wrote the tablets, [Moses] hearing the scratching of the pens on the tablets. Thereafter, when He told him that his people had gone astray after him, Moses descended, took the calf and burned it.
Author’s comment: It says something more astonishing than those preceding it, namely Gabriel’s taking Moses up to Heaven. The context provided by the verses telling the story in this and other chapters does not support this. Even more astonishing is [the Samaritan’s] taking dust from Gabriel’s horse’s hoof print when he descended to take Moses up while he was on the mountain and the Samaritan was with the Israelites. If this descent and ascent are true it would have been at the end of the meeting but the Samaritan led the Israelites astray days earlier. There is a similar problem with the rest of the oral traditions which say that he took dust from under Gabriel’s horse’s hoof when he appeared to Pharaoh so that his horse would enter the sea because Pharaoh and his companions only entered the sea after the Israelites emerged from the sea—along with the Samaritan, if he was there. What with the width of the sea, where was the Samaritan in relation to Pharaoh?
The biggest problem with these oral traditions as alluded to above is their contradicting the Book because the Book explicitly states that the calf was a lifeless body. They confirm that it was a body with life and a spirit. An oral tradition, even if it is authentic in terms of hadith, is not authoritative if it contradicts the Book. Otherwise, the Book would cease to be authoritative for contradicting an oral tradition, and the Book’s authenticity would depend on its being in agreement with an oral tradition or at least not contradicting it. Even though the probative value of an oral tradition and indeed the Prophet’s very words reported by the narration and the Prophet’s Prophethood depend on the probative value of the Book’s literal meaning(s). This is an obvious circular argument. It is discussed in full in ʿilm al-uṣūl (the study of legal methodology).
Secondly: They are solitary reports (akhbār aḥād) and it makes no sense to treat (jaʿl) akhbār aḥād as probative of anything else apart from religious laws (aḥkām sharʿiyyah). Jaʿl tashrīʿī really means treating apparent proof as having real consequences which depends on the proof’s having a practical effect, as with laws. As for anything else, it has no effect such that it should be treated as probative. For example if there is an oral tradition which says that the basmalah is part of the chapter treating this as probative means having to say the basmalah when reciting during prayer. As for when there is oral tradition for example, on the Samaritan’s being a man from Kirman and it is a dubitable khabar wāḥid, treating it as probative means treating belief in it as certainty [of it] which is a creationary decree which is impossible and not a legislative one at all. It is discussed in full in ʿilm al-uṣūl. One (scholar) who was not satisfied with the widely accepted exegesis of the verse contained in these oral traditions has raised a number of baseless objections and in return, one (scholar) who supports these traditions has responded with more vile explanations.
One of them supports the aforementioned exegesis by saying that it is exegesis by the oral tradition of the best of generations—the first generation, the generation of the Companions and successors. What is said in it is not based on [personal] opinion because it is treated as khabar marfūʾ [oral tradition with an elevated ascription to the Prophet]. To deviate from it is to go astray.
Reply:
(i) Because a particular generation is considered to be the best generation does not mean that everything attributed to them is probative. There is no concomitance between a generation being the best and everything they say being true and honest; every opinion being correct and every act being right. There are a large number of contradictory statements and conflicting oral traditions in these narrations attributed to them. Pure reason dictates that one of the two contradictory statements has to be invalid and one of the two conflicting [statements] has to false. A critical researcher should demand proof for what they say just as anyone else would be asked for it. They will be excellent where they show excellence.
(ii) An instance being one in which (personal) opinion is not reported within the oral tradition and narrated on their own authority—example, the particulars of the story—meaning that what they have said is to be treated as khabar marfūʾ [oral tradition with an ascription elevated to the Prophet] which only avails them if they are able to attribute their narrations to the Prophet . However, we find that even some of the Companions will often narrate oral traditions which are attributable to the Jews and others. Anyone who refers to oral traditions based on the stories of Dhū al-Qarnayn, the garden of Iram, the story of Moses and the Khidr, the Amalekites, Moses’ miracles and what is stated about the Prophets’ errors and numerous other matters will not be left with any doubt, thereof. Their being marfūʾah does not mean that they have to be deemed to be attributable to the Prophet.
(iii) Let us concede they should be treated as marfūʾah. Nevertheless, marfūʾah and even authentic ones are of no probative value apart from for laws. [This is] especially [true] of those which contradict the Book as referred to above.
- It is narrated on the authority of al-Bāqir: Some of what Moses said confidentially to God was: Lord, this Samaritan fashioned the calf. Who fashioned the lowing? God, Blessed and Almighty is He, then revealed to him: Surely, that is My test so do not inquire into it.
Author’s comment: This explanation appears in various oral traditions with different wordings. The heart of the explanation for that is that due to widespread narrations, the effect, especially on the Prophetic ones on account of the writing down of hadith being prohibited in the first century AH until some of the narrators put [them] in a determinist shell. They are not [determinist]—it is leading astray as a punishment and not leading astray ab initio. He frequently attributes this kind of leading astray to Himself in His Book, for example:
() He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors.
- The best explanation in the oral traditions for this “causing to err” is Al-Qummī’s aforementioned oral tradition:
“O, Lord, the calf is from the Samaritan but from whom is the lowing? He said: From Me, Moses. When I saw them having turned away from Me to the calf, I wanted to increase their trial” and what appears in Rāshid ibn Saʾd’s oral tradition narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr which says: “Lord, who put the spirit in it? He replied: I [did]. He said: Then You led them astray, Lord! He said: Moses, chief of the Prophets, father of the rulers, I saw that in their hearts and facilitated it for them …” [and so on to the end of the hadith]
- al-Ṣādiq said: Surely, Moses almost killed the Samaritan but God revealed to him: Do not kill him Moses, because he is generous. (Majmaʿ [al-bayān])
Nasj is a maṣdar (infinitive, gerund) that is used as an object here, where it is not used as nasja. (Trans.) ↩︎
Majmaʿ [al-Bayān] narrated by Al-Ḥakīm Abu al-Qāsim al-Ḥasakānī via his [own] chain of narration and al-ʿAyyashi cites it in his exegesis via several chains of narration. ↩︎
Via its chain of narration on the authority of Sadīr from the Imām ↩︎
Via its chain of narration on the authority of al-Ḥārith ibn ʿUmar from the Imām ↩︎
On the authority of Abū al-Jārūd and Abū al-Ṣabāh al-Kanāsī from al-Ṣādiq ↩︎
A ramakah is a mare used for breeding. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr cited by al-Faryābī, ʿAbd ibn Ḥāmid, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Al-Ḥakīm and deemed to be authentic. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr cited by Ibn Jarīr. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr cited by Ibn Abī Ḥātim ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of ʿAbd ibn Hamid, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Abu al-Shaykh. ↩︎
Al-Maḥāsin via its chain of narration on the authority of al-Waṣāfī ↩︎