Verses 10–68
From here on the chapter narrates the story of a series of previous prophets: Moses, Aaron, Abraham, Noah, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Lot and Shuʿayb (Jethro). These accounts are meant to show that the Prophet’s people are following the path of those people and will thus end up where they ended up: most of them did not believe, and therefore God overtook them with punishment in this world and the next. This is seen by the ending of the story of each prophet with: Most surely there is a sign in this, but most of them were not believers. And most surely your Lord is the Mighty, the Merciful (, , , , , ). It is the same ending that we saw at the beginning of the chapter () about the aversion of the Prophet’s people from him. This recurrence is to connect the two trends with each other.
All of this is to comfort the Prophet so that he would not be distressed. It is to assure him that he is not the only messenger, and that it can only be expected that his people would treat him the same way that previous peoples treated their messengers. These stories also involve a sense of threat and warning to his people, as we see at the beginning of Abraham’s story: And recite to them the story of Abraham ().
Commentary
وَ إِذْ نادى رَبُّكَ مُوسى أَنِ ائْتِ الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ ١٠ قَوْمَ فِرْعَوْنَ أَ لا يَتَّقُونَ ١١
(26:10-11) And when your Lord called out to Moses: Go to the unjust people, The people of Pharaoh: Will they not guard (against evil)?
That is: And remember when your Lord called out to Moses and sent him as a messenger to the people of Pharaoh in order to save the Children of Israel (as has been discussed in detail in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā and other chapters).
…Go to the unjust people: This identifies what the call was. The Qur’an first describes them as being unjust [in verse 10], and then it identifies them as the people of Pharaoh [in verse 11]. This is to show the wisdom behind sending a messenger: God sent a messenger because they were unjust—both in the sense that they were polytheists, and because they tortured the Israelites, as He says in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā: Go both to Pharaoh, surely he has become inordinate…So go you both to him and say: Surely we are two messengers of your Lord; therefore send the Children of Israel with us and do not torment them (, 47).
…Will they not guard (against evil)? “They” in the third person shows that God is rebuking them in their absence when He appointed Moses to bring His message. It can be restated as follows: Tell them that my Lord blames you for forsaking taqwā (self-restraint, Godwariness) and says, “Will you not guard (against evil)?”
قالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي أَخافُ أَنْ يُكَذِّبُونِ ١٢ وَ يَضِيقُ صَدْرِي وَ لا يَنْطَلِقُ لِسانِي فَأَرْسِلْ إِلى هارُونَ ١٣
(26:12-13) He said: O my Lord! surely I fear (akhāfu, from khawf) that they will reject me (yukadhdhibūni); And my breast straitens, and my tongue is not eloquent; therefore, send (the angel of revelation) to Aaron (to help me).
Majmaʿ al-Bayān says:
Khawf is the disturbance of the soul due to expecting some harm. Its opposite is amn (security), which is the serenity and assurance of the soul to gain some benefit.
In terms of usage, khawf is most commonly used when a person senses an evil and acts cautiously, irrespective of whether or not his soul is agitated. Khashyah (awe, fear) is the inner feeling that is imprinted on the soul due to expecting some evil, such that it causes anxiety and agitation. That is why God says that His prophets have no khashyah of anyone other than God, but sometimes He has attributed khawf to them. He says: Those who deliver the messages of Allah and fear Him, and do not fear (lā yakhshawna, from khashyah) anyone but Allah (), and And if you fear (takhāfanna, from khawf) treachery on the part of a people ().
…surely I fear that they will reject me (yukadhdhibūni): That is: I fear that the people of Pharaoh will accuse me of lying (kidhb, kadhib).
And my breast straitens, and my tongue is not eloquent: These two points here are marfūʿ in terms of inflection, which means that they add to “surely I fear.” Therefore, he brought three reasons [for his request]: (1) fear of rejection; (2) distress (lit. “straitening of the breast”); (3) ineloquence. In the recitation of Yaʿqūb and others, the two points are manṣūb in terms of inflection, which means that they add to “that they will reject me,” which is more straightforward in terms of meaning. In that case, his reason would be one: fear of rejection, which in turn would cause distress (straitening of the breast) and ineloquence. This also matches the verse in Chapter 28 (al-Qaṣaṣ), where only one reason is given: fear of rejection.
…therefore send (the angel of revelation) to Aaron (to help me): That is: Send the angel of revelation to Aaron so that he may help me in conveying the message. When someone is stricken by a calamity or faces some difficulty he is told, “Send for (arsil ilā) so-and-so,” which means, “Ask him for help and take him as your aid.”
This sentence is a conclusion of “Surely I fear…” (). Talking about the fear of rejection—which is accompanied by the constriction of the breast and the ineloquence of the tongue—were preparatory points to say this and request that messengership be bestowed upon Aaron.
He [Moses] did not mention the above request and justification as way of fleeing from the burden of messengership or resigning from it, but he wanted his brother to also be made a messenger so that he would help him and testify to his truthfulness in his message and mission. Rūḥ al-maʿānī says:
The evidence for this meaning is that he imbedded the request of “send to Aaron” in the middle of his four concerns: after the first three and before the fourth one: And they have a claim against me… (). This shows that his request was not a final resignation of responsibility because he continues to talk about his mission [to Pharaoh and his people].
This is a good observation, and it has been clarified in Sūrah al-Qaṣaṣ where He recounts the story: My Lord! Surely I killed one of them, so I fear lest they slay me; and my brother, Aaron, he is more eloquent of tongue than I; therefore, send him with me as an aide, to testify to my truthfulness: surely I fear that they will reject me ().
وَ لَهُمْ عَلَيَّ ذَنْبٌ فَأَخافُ أَنْ يَقْتُلُونِ ١٤
(26:14) And they have a claim (dhanbun) against me; therefore, I fear that they may slay me.
Al-Rāghib says:
The original meaning of dhanb is to grab the tail (lit. dhanab) of something. Dhanabtuhu means “I got it by the tail.” The term dhanb is used for any action that has an undesirable consequence, in the sense that the outcome is something that comes after it [like a tail].
The verse refers to the story of him [that is, Moses] killing a man. It was a sin (dhanb) against him according to their view and judgment, or according to the lexical meaning that we just quoted. However, there is no evidence for it being a sin in the sense of disobeying God. We shall discuss this in the exposition of Sūrah al-Qaṣaṣ, if God wills.
قالَ كَلاَّ فَاذْهَبا بِآياتِنا إِنَّا مَعَكُمْ مُسْتَمِعُونَ ١٥
(26:15) He said: By no means (kallā)! So go, both of you, with Our signs; surely We are with you, hearing.
“By no means” (kallā) negates what he said about the fear of being killed. It involves giving him security and confidence that they will not be able to kill him. No response is mentioned to his request for the appointment of Aaron other than “so go you both with Our signs,” which implies that his request was granted.
…So go, both of you, with Our signs: The conjunction “so” (letter fāʾ at the beginning of fa-idhhabā) indicates that what is said here is a result of the negation kallā. Therefore the sentence means: “Go you both with Our signs and have no fear.” Then this is justified by: Surely We are with you, hearing.
…surely We are with you (maʿakum), hearing (mustamiʿūna, from istimāʿ): The pronoun “you” in “with you” (maʿakum) is in the plural form [as opposed to a dual form in Arabic: maʿakumā, “with you two”]. Thus it refers to Moses, Aaron and the people whom they were sent to. Some exegetes have suggested that it only refers to Moses and Aaron because plural is used for two or more [even in Arabic]. However, as other exegetes have noted, this statement is not true, and [even if it were tue] it is certainly not applicable here because of the usage of dual form (tathniyah) before and after it.
Istimāʿ means to give ear to some speech or discussion. Here what is meant is: “We are present with you and are giving full attention toward what is going on between you and Pharaoh and his people as you convey your message to them.” This is seen in the narration of the same story in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā: Fear not, surely I am with you both: I do hear and see ().
The gist of the verse is: Never! They will not be able to kill you. So go to them, both of you, with Our signs and have no fear, for We are present right there with you. We are watching over you and care about what happens between you.
فَأْتِيا فِرْعَوْنَ فَقُولا إِنَّا رَسُولُ رَبِّ الْعالَمِينَ ١٦ أَنْ أَرْسِلْ مَعَنا بَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ ١٧
(26:16-17) Then come to Pharaoh and say: Surely we are messengers from the Lord of all realms. Then send with us the Children of Israel.
This is an explanation of what was said in the previous verse: So go, both of you, with Our signs ().
…say: Surely we are messengers (rasūl) from the Lord of all realms: This is subsequent to going to Pharaoh. The word “messenger” (rasūl) is mentioned in the singular on the basis that each of them was a messenger, or on the basis that the two of them had the same message, which was: Send with us the Children of Israel (). Another possibility suggested by some exegetes is that al-rasūl was originally an infinitive (that is, message, mission), and an infinitive is used equally for singular and plural. Therefore what is meant is: Surely we are the bearers of the message (dhawā rasūl) of the Lord of all realms [where “bearers” is implied].
Then send (arsil, from irsāl) with us the Children of Israel: This is an exposition of their mission which is implied by the context. Their real request was the freedom and liberation of the Israelites. However, they referred to this as “sending” (irsāl) because the plan was that upon freedom they would return to the Holy Land which God had ordained for them, which was the land of their forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
قالَ أَ لَمْ نُرَبِّكَ فِينا وَلِيداً وَ لَبِثْتَ فِينا مِنْ عُمُرِكَ سِنِينَ ١٨
(26:18) (Pharaoh) said: Did we not bring you up (nurabbika) as a child (walīdan) among us, and you tarried among us for (many) years of your life?
This is a censuring rhetorical question. Nurabbika is derived from tarbiyah (grow, nurture, rear). Walīd means “child.”
When Pharaoh turned to Moses and Aaron and heard their message, he recognized Moses. So he addressed him personally and scolded him with “Did we not bring you up…?” Regarding Moses’ claim to messengership, he said: “You are the one whom we brought up while you were a child, and you lived among us for numerous years. We know all about your identity and character; we have not forgotten anything about you. So where has this mission come from? How could you come up with this while we are not ignorant of your origin?”
وَ فَعَلْتَ فَعْلَتَكَ الَّتِي فَعَلْتَ وَ أَنْتَ مِنَ الْكافِرِينَ ١٩
(26:19) And you did (that) deed of yours (faʿlataka) which you did, and you were one of the ungrateful.
Faʿlah is a one-time instance of fiʿl (act, deed, work). It is [vaguely and indeterminately] described as “the deed which you did” in order to show how immense, atrocious and horrible it was, much like what God says: So there came upon them of the sea which came upon them (). It refers to his killing the Egyptian (Qibṭī) man.
…and you were one of the ungrateful (al-kāfirīn, from kufr): Given the context (as we shall discuss below), kufr here means “being ungrateful for favors.” Pharaoh saw it ungrateful of Moses to kill the Egyptian man, causing disorder and disruption in his kingdom. Pharaoh had not killed him—like he had killed the other newborn sons of the Israelites—but instead he had raised him in his house. Moses was one of the Israelites, and Pharaoh viewed the Israelites as his slaves who were indebted to him as their lord for his favors upon them. Therefore, when one of them killed one of his people and upset order in his land, he saw it as crossing the line of servitude as well as ingratitude for his favors.
Pharaoh’s objection in these two verses can be summarized as follows: You are the one whom we brought up as a little child and spent several years of your life with us; then you caused chaos in the land by killing someone, and thereby you were ungrateful to my favors. You are also one of my Israelite slaves. Given this, how did you come up with this mission? How can you be a messenger while you are this person whom we know?
This shows the implausibility of some exegetes’ interpretation of kufr as disbelief which is the opposite of īmān (belief, faith), meaning “You disbelieved in my divinity” or “You were a disbeliever in the God that you are now talking about because you mingled with us for several years and were a follower of our religion.” The same can be said about another suggested interpretation: “You were ungrateful to my favor toward you in particular.”
قالَ فَعَلْتُها إِذاً وَ أَنَا مِنَ الضَّالِّينَ ٢٠ فَفَرَرْتُ مِنْكُمْ لَمَّا خِفْتُكُمْ فَوَهَبَ لِي رَبِّي حُكْماً وَ جَعَلَنِي مِنَ الْمُرْسَلِينَ ٢١ وَ تِلْكَ نِعْمَةٌ تَمُنُّها عَلَيَّ أَنْ عَبَّدْتَ بَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ ٢٢
(26:20-22) He said: I did it then while (idhan) I was one of those who were astray (al-ḍāllīn, from ḍalāl); So I fled from you when I feared you; then my Lord granted me judgment (ḥukman), and He made me one of the messengers; And is it a favor you remind me of—that you have enslaved (ʿabbadta, from taʿbīd) the Children of Israel?
The pronoun “it” in “I did it” refers to “deed” (faʿlah) in the previous verse. Idhan (then, while, when) does not introduce a conditional clause here, but it rather means “at the time when” (ḥīnaʾidhin), as some exegetes have pointed out. Taʿbīd means “enslavement.”
These three verses are Moses’ answer to Pharaoh’s objection. Comparing Moses’ answer with Pharaoh’s objections shows that Moses broke down Pharaoh’s criticism of his messengership into three objections: (1) Pharaoh felt it would be unlikely and surprising for Moses to be a messenger because Pharaoh knew Moses’ life situation: Did we not bring you up as a child among us, and you tarried among us for (many) years of your life? (). (2) Pharaoh accuses Moses of causing mayhem and committing a crime by saying: And you did (that) deed of yours which you did (). (3) Pharaoh reminded him of the favor he did to Moses since Moses had been one of his slaves by saying: And you were one of the ungrateful (). In order to answer these, Moses had to reorder them. That is why Moses first addresses the second objection, then the first, and lastly the third.
He said: I did it then while I was one of those who were astray (al-ḍāllīn, from ḍalāl): This is an answer to his objection about killing the Egyptian man. When Pharaoh said, “(that) deed of yours which you did” (), he avoided mentioning what Moses did directly to make it seem more serious. Here, Moses does not mention it directly because explicit reference to the act [that is, killing] would have disturbed the audience.
Contemplating the text of Moses’ answer and matching it with Pharaoh’s objection show that what follows next—So I fled from you when I feared you; then my Lord granted me judgment ()—is a continuation of his answer. Therefore, ḥukm (judgment, command, wisdom) in verse is in contrast to ḍalāl (misguidance, error) in verse . Hence, ḍalāl here means “ignorance” as opposed to ḥukm, which means “having a correct view of reality and discerning how to act.” Therefore, ḥukm here means “true judgment of the goodness or evilness of actions, and the ability to act accordingly.” This is exactly what the prophets were given; [and for this reason] He says: And We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah’s permission (). Hence, the meaning is: I did what I did at the time while I was lost in ignorance about what was the best course of action and the right thing that I was supposed to do at that point. That is why I stood up to defend the person who asked for my help, but I did not know that this would cause the man to die, and that in turn would have adverse consequences which would force me to leave Egypt, escape to Midian, and be away from home for years.
The above explanation should show the implausibility of some of the interpretations suggested by the exegetes. For example, some have said: Ḍalāl here means jahl in the sense of imprudence, which is to act impulsively without caring about the consequences of the action, as a poem says:
Let no one be imprudent (yajhalanna) in their treatment of us,
For we shall outdo the imprudence (jahl) of the imprudent (jāhilīnā), nonetheless.
Others have said: Ḍalāl here means “love.” This interpretation of ḍalāl has also been suggested in interpreting the response of Jacob’s children to their father Jacob: By Allah, you are most surely in your old ḍalāl (). That is, “You are in your old love for Joseph.” Therefore the meaning is: I did it then while I was enamored with love for God and could not deviate from His love to anything else.
The problem with the first view [that ḍalāl here means “imprudence”] is that it involves Moses’ confessing to crime and sin. This is refuted by the verses in Sūrah al-Qaṣaṣ which explicitly says that God gave him judgment and knowledge before the killing incident.
There are two problems with the second view [that ḍalāl here means “love”]: (1) It does not match the context. (2) It is against the literary style of the Qur’an to refer to love for God as ḍalāl (misguidance, error).
Here are some other views about the verses:
Some have said: Ḍalāl means jahl (ignorance) in the sense of not intending something deliberately. Moses was not intending to kill the Qubṭī man, but only to punch him. Yet it led to his death, so in this sense he was ignorant because he did not intend this outcome.
Some have said: Ḍalāl here means “ignorance of divine laws,” as some have interpreted the verse: And [did He not] find you lost (dāllan, from ḍalāl) and guide you? ().
Some have said: Ḍalāl here means “to forget” (nisyān), as some have interpreted the verse: So that if one of the two errs (fa-taḍilla, from ḍalāl), the second of the two may remind the other (). The meaning is: I did it while I had forgotten that it was unlawful, or while I had forgotten that punching can lead to death.
These views can be justified by referring and reducing them to our interpretation above.
So I fled from you when I feared you; then my Lord granted me judgment (ḥukman): The conjunction “so” (the letter fāʾ at the beginning of fa-farartu) indicates that he fled because he killed the man. What made him fear and flee is mentioned in Sūrah al-Qaṣaṣ: And a man came running from the remotest part of the city. He said: O Musa! surely the chiefs are consulting together to slay you; therefore, depart (at once); surely I am of those who wish well to you. So he went forth therefrom, fearing, awaiting ().
Ḥukm, as we said above, means “having a correct view of the facts and robust discernment in acting according to them.”
One might ask: Why does it explicitly say here that ḥukm (judgment) was given to him after killing the man, while Sūrah al-Qaṣaṣ first talks about him being given ḥukm, and then it talks about him killing the man and escaping? The verses are: And when he attained his maturity and became full grown, We granted him judgment and knowledge; and thus do We reward those who do good (to others). And he went into the city… ().
The answer is: In both places the word ḥukm is mentioned in the indefinite form (nakirah), indicating that each is a different ḥukm (judgment, command, wisdom). The Torah is specifically described as including ḥukm, as God says: And they have the Torah wherein is Allah’s judgment (). Yet we know that the Torah was revealed after Pharaoh drowned and the Children of Israel were freed.
This can be explained as follows: Moses was given different degrees of ḥukm at different stages of his life: before killing the Egyptian man, after his flight from Egypt, and after the drowning of Pharaoh. Each time God bestowed a new level of ḥukm upon him until it was completed by the revelation of the Torah. To illustrate this, think of certain individuals who go through three stages: (1) They start by the sound innate human nature (fiṭrah) which is naturally disinclined to evil and iniquity. (2) Then, as they grow up, they are gifted with a tempered sense of intellect and a good faculty for self-management. (3) They use these faculties to acquire virtues, and that is when they are given taqwā (self-restraint, Godwariness) as a second nature. These three qualities are really the same nature that grows and develops from one stage to another.
The above clarifies the implausibility of a suggested interpretation by some exegetes: Ḥukm means “prophethood” (nubuwwah). There is neither lexical nor a contextual evidence for this. Moreover, in other places in the Qur’an, God has mentioned both ḥukm and nubuwwah next to each other, showing that they are distinct from one another. For example He says: That Allah should give him the Book and wisdom (al-ḥukm) and prophethood (); These are they to whom We gave the book and wisdom (al-ḥukm) and prophethood (); And certainly We gave the Book and wisdom (al-ḥukm) and prophethood to the Children of Israel ().
…and He made me one of the messengers: This is Moses’ answer to Pharaoh’s first objection, saying that it was unlikely and strange for him to be a messenger given what they knew about him. After all, they had brought him up as a child and he had lived amongst them for years.
The answer given here can be elaborated as follows: Their objection—that it would be unlikely for Moses to be a messenger given what they know his life history—would be applicable if messengership were something that could be acquired, such that one could expect it and see it coming after voluntarily meeting certain prerequisites and preliminaries. However this is not the case. Instead, messengership is something that is granted by God without the influence of ordinary means. Thus, he was made a messenger by God, just as he was granted judgment by Him without having to learn or acquire it himself through normal means. This is what we can deduce by contemplating the context of the verses.
Some exegetes have suggested that what when Pharaoh said, “Did we not bring you up as a child among us…” (), he did not mean that it was unlikely for Moses to be a messenger—as we interpreted it—but he meant to reproach Moses. It was Pharaoh’s way of saying that Moses should feel obliged by his favor (mann, imtinān). The answer to this interpretation is: The verse [] by itself can be interpreted in this way, but this interpretation is not supported by Moses’ answers [], and therefore it would ruin the flow and connection between the verses. If we accept this interpretation, then “And is it a favor you remind me of…” () would be Moses’ answer to the idea of favors or obligations, but the answer and objection do not correspond. Also, “I did it then…” () would be Moses’ answer to the objection of killing the man, and that would leave “and He made me one of the messengers” () as an extra and unnecessary statement.
And is it (tilka) a favor you remind me of—that you have enslaved the Children of Israel? This is Moses’ answer to the idea that he should feel obliged to Pharaoh, and that Moses is one of his slaves who has been ungrateful to Pharaoh for his favor. The answer can be elaborated as follows: What you count as a favor over me and scold me for being ungrateful about is your oppressive and unjust rule over the Children of Israel. Such oppressive and unjust enslavement is no favor. Therefore the question in the verse is a negating rhetorical one.
… that you have enslaved the Children of Israel? This is an exposition of “it” (tilka) at the beginning of the verse. What he is essentially saying is: Your claim that “you were one of the ungrateful” () implies that you did a favor to me, I have been ungrateful for it, and you are a guardian who bestows favors and blessings on me and on the Children of Israel—or on “us” as one group. However, these claims are not true because you are only in a position to grant favors to us because of your oppressive enslavement of us, which makes your resulting guardianship over us oppressive as well. An oppressor is by no means a guardian or someone who grants favors to those whom he has enslaved. Otherwise, this would mean that slavery is a favor, which is not the case. Hence, the verse has mentioned the cause—that is, “you have enslaved the Children of Israel”— but what is intended is its effect [that is, “Pharaoh’s resulting authority and guardianship over the Children of Israel”].
As we briefly said above, the exegetes have broken down Pharaoh’s statement—Did we not bring you up… ()—into two objections: (a) he reproaches Moses for doing a favor to him by bringing him up as a child; and (b) he accuses Moses of ungratefulness for his favor and causing disorder in the land by killing the Egyptian man. And as we said above, there are two problems with this analysis:
1. It makes the part where Moses says, “and He made me one of the messengers” () redundant and unnecessary.
2. It is not a suitable answer to say, “And is it a favor you remind me of—that you have enslaved the Children of Israel?” () in response to Pharaoh’s reproach for doing him a favor by bringing him up in his house as a child.
The exegetes have provided the following points in order to explain the second problem:
First claim: This answer shows that Moses admitted that Pharaoh did a favor to him by raising him, but he denied that Pharaoh did a favor to him by not enslaving him. Therefore the verse really involves an implied omitted hamzah at the beginning [that is, a-wa tilka…], which makes the verse a negating rhetorical question. The implied meaning is: “And is it a favor which you remind me o— that you have enslaved the Children of Israel but you have not likewise enslaved me?”
Response: There is no evidence for this omission either in the words or the meaning of the verse.
Second claim: The answer denies that Pharaoh originally did a favor to him because he enslaved the Children of Israel. It is effectively saying: “You should not count raising me as a favor to me because you enslaved my people and thus annulled your good deed.” Therefore, “that you have enslaved…” () explains why his raising of Moses was not a favor.
Response: Although this interpretation is more straightforward than the previous one, it is incomplete, because Pharaoh’s enslaving the Children of Israel would not change the fact that he did a favor to Moses by raising him as a child.
Third claim: What he means is: “You are reproaching me for not appreciating the favor you did to me; however, this was only a favor in the first place because you enslaved and oppressed the Children of Israel. That is why my mother had to cast me into the water [that is, the Nile] whereby you picked me up and raised me. Hence, raising me is not a favor because it was caused by oppressive enslavement.”
Response: This is true, but the question is whether or not we can infer this from the text of the verse.
Fourth claim: What Moses is saying is: “You ordered my mother and other Israelites to raise me based on your enslavement of them. Hence, you did not do me a favor by bringing me up because what you did traces to your oppressive enslavement.”
Response: This interpretation is farther away from the text of the verse compared to the previous one.
Fifth Claim: Moses is effectively confessing that Pharaoh did a favor to him by bringing him up. The effective meaning is: “You did me a favor by bringing me up instead of enslaving me as you enslaved the rest of the Children of Israel.”
Response: There is no evidence in the verse that Moses meant “instead of enslaving me.”
قالَ فِرْعَوْنُ وَ ما رَبُّ الْعالَمِينَ ٢٣ قالَ رَبُّ السَّماواتِ وَ الْأَرْضِ وَ ما بَيْنَهُمَا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُوقِنِينَ ٢٤ قالَ لِمَنْ حَوْلَهُ أَ لا تَسْتَمِعُونَ ٢٥ قالَ رَبُّكُمْ وَ رَبُّ آبائِكُمُ الْأَوَّلِينَ ٢٦ قالَ إِنَّ رَسُولَكُمُ الَّذِي أُرْسِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ لَمَجْنُونٌ ٢٧ قالَ رَبُّ الْمَشْرِقِ وَ الْمَغْرِبِ وَ ما بَيْنَهُما إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ ٢٨ قالَ لَئِنِ اتَّخَذْتَ إِلهَاً غَيْرِي لَأَجْعَلَنَّكَ مِنَ الْمَسْجُونِينَ ٢٩
(26:23-29) Pharaoh said: And what is the Lord of all realms? He said: The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, if you were people of certitude. (Pharaoh) said to those around him: Do you not hear? He said: Your Lord and the Lord of your fathers, the ancients. Said he: Most surely your Messenger who is sent to you is mad. He said: The Lord of the east and the west and what is between them, if you understand. Said he: If you take a god besides me, I will most certainly make you one of the imprisoned.
In the previous verses Pharaoh objected to Moses being a messenger, but Moses answered his objections. So now Pharaoh shifts the discussion to the One Who has sent Moses and has charged him with this mission. Moses previously described Him as “the Lord of all realms” (). Here Pharaoh returns to that and asks for clarification: And what is the Lord of all realms? (). This is the thread of discussion in these seven verses.
To understand what is meant in these verses, it is necessary to review the fundamental views of the polytheists regarding lordship (rubūbiyyah), although we have discussed it frequently in the other volumes of this book.
The polytheists believed that the existence of things traces back to a Creator Who is the Necessary Existent (wājib al-wujūd). In terms of necessity of existence, He is Singular, without any partner. However, He is far above being defined and delimited by any definition. He is too great to be encompassed by any comprehension or understanding. Therefore it would be impossible to worship Him because worship is a form of turning one’s attention to something, and turning attention to something involves comprehending it.
This is why the polytheists deviated from worshipping God and seeking proximity to Him to seeking proximity to some of His noble creatures made of light or fire, who were close to Him and annihilated in Him [that is, having experienced fanā’]. Some examples are the angels, jinn and human saints who were purified from material defilement, who had been annihilated in the realm of divine, and who subsisted in that realm. Great kings—or at least some of them—had the same position in the sight of the ancient polytheists, including the Pharaoh at the time of Moses. They worshipped idols of these beings as a means of seeking nearness to God and so that they would intercede for them, meaning that they would bestow upon them the good that they controlled (as in the case of the angels), or refrain from striking them with the evil that was under their command (as in the case of the jinn). Each of these gods was in charge of directing a certain aspect of the universe such as love, hate, peace, war, or prosperity; or controlled some part of the universe like the sky, the earth, or humankind.
Therefore, every realm had a lord and god, which directed the affairs of that realm, such as the god of the earth and the god of the heavens. These were the angels, the jinn, and human saints. Then the realm of gods had its own god which was Allah. They viewed Him as the God of gods and the Lord of lords.
Given our explanation above, it should now be clear that “the Lord of all realms” would not have made sense to the polytheists due to their beliefs, because each of the noble contingent beings [that they used to worship as a god] commanded only one realm, such as the heavens or the earth, so none of them could be called “the Lord of all realms.” Similarly, “the Lord of all realms” could not mean God because they viewed Him as the Lord of the realm of lords and the God of the realm of gods, not the Lord of all realms. Finally, it could not mean someone else either, because no other type of lord was conceivable in their view.
Pharaoh said: And what is the Lord of all realms? Based on the above, here Pharaoh is asking about the reality of the Lord of all realms.
Pharaoh was a polytheist who used to worship idols, while at the same time he claimed to be a god himself. His worship of idols is inferred from [what his chieftains told him to arouse him against the Israelites]: And should they [the Children of Israel] forsake you and your gods? (). His claim to divinity is inferred from the same verse and also from the verse: Then he said: I am your lord, the most high ().
The polytheists saw no contradiction between something being a god and lord while it is also subject to another god and lord. This is because lordship means independence in the direction of some of the affairs of the universe, and this did not contradict being contingent and under the lordship of someone else. In fact, to them, every lord was subject to another lord except for God, Who is the Lord of lords and there was no lord above Him; He was the God of gods and there was no god above Him.
The polytheists viewed earthly rule as a manifestation of the divine authority and power in some human being. That is why they worshipped their kings just as they worshipped their idols and lords. They had a similar view of the heads of households. Since Pharaoh was a polytheist, he worshipped his own gods; and since he was the king of the Egyptians (Qibṭīs), they worshipped him just as they worshipped their other gods.
That is why he was surprised when he heard from Moses and Aaron: “Surely we are messengers from the Lord of all realms”, because it did not make sense to him. If they meant God the Necessary Being, then He was the Lord of the realm of lords, not the Lord of all realms. And if they meant one of their noble contingent gods—like the angels—then it would be the lord of only one realm of creation, not the lord of all realms. So he wondered: What does “Lord of all realms” mean?
That is why he asked: And what is the Lord of all realms? The meaning is: “What could be the reality of something described like?” He did not ask about the truth and existence of God because the polytheists already acknowledged His existence. He, like other polytheists, believed that there was no way to understand the reality of God. It would violate the foundation of their whole religion. It was on this very assumption [that God is beyond our reach] that they used to worship other gods and lords, as we said above.
He said: The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, if you were people of certitude: This is Moses’ answer to “And what is the Lord of all realms?”. What he says here is the predicate of an omitted subject [and verb]. Putting together the answer with the question, what is meant is: “He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. By His direction of the heavens, the earth and what is between them as a united and connected whole, He has shown that there is a Single Director and Lord for the entire universe. Those who have certitude—that is, those who pursue the path of certainty (yaqīn) by intellection and intuition—see this reality.
In other words: What I mean by “all realms” is the heavens, the earth and what is between them. They have a single Lord and Director because they are subject to the same command and direction. What I mean by “the Lord of all realms” is this One Lord Who is proven by these signs, and this is a certain proof that is understood by the people of certitude, who are those who have a share of intellectual argumentation and spiritual intuition.
One may object: Pharaoh asked Moses to define “the Lord of all realms” that he mentioned [in verse ] and tell him its reality. It means that this term did not have an intelligible meaning to him, thus he was looking for a conceptual understanding (taṣawwur) of it. Now, why should Moses say, “if you were people of certitude”? This condition—that is, being sure of something—is a matter of confirmation (taṣdīq), while the “conception” of something does not hinge on its “confirmation.”
Moreover, he did not really answer Pharaoh’s question, because he merely replaced the term “all realms” by “the heavens and the earth and what is between them.” This is a case of defining a collection of things by naming its individual members. It is like defining “men” as “Zayd, ʿAmr, Bakr and so on.” At the end of the day, this does not result in any deeper level of conception than before, nor does it result in sure belief in the matter.
The answer is: Yes, there is no doubt that what Pharaoh asked for was a conceptual understanding of “the Lord of all realms.” Moses replaced “all realms” with “the heavens and the earth and what is between them” because the latter expression involves a reference to the connection between the different parts of the universe, which shows that the entire universe is subject to a single order and follows the same system. Then he added the condition “if you were people of certitude”, saying that this uniformity and connection between the parts of the universe suffices the people of certitude to confirm that there is a single director for all realms.
It is as if Pharaoh asked him: “What do you mean by the Lord of all realms?” and Moses answered: “I mean it in the sense that is understood by the people of certitude. They infer from the harmonious and connected direction in the realms of heavens, earth and what is between them, that there is a single lord and director for all realms who has no partner in his lordship of these realms. Since they confirm the existence of a single lord for all realms, they must have some conception of it, because it is impossible to believe in something without having a conception of it. This conception is what I mean.”
More concisely, what he is saying is: The Lord of all realms is the One that the people of certitude have sure faith with respect to His Lordship over the heavens, the earth, and what is between them, as they look at these realms and observe their consistent order.
The idea that confirmation depends on a previous conception is the strongest way of arguing that He can be comprehended and understood in some way and it is possible to have a correct conception of Him—even though it is impossible to comprehend His true Essence and encompass Him through knowledge.
The explanations above show the following: (1) Moses effectively referred Pharaoh to the conception and definition that the people of certitude have when they confirm God’s existence. (2) The argument implied in the verse proves God’s unity in lordship based on the unity of the system that directs and regulates the affairs [in all realms]. This is what is needed in arguing against the polytheists, for they believe that God has partners in lordship.
The above points clarify the implausibility of a suggested interpretation by some exegetes: Since knowing the reality of God’s Essence is impossible, Moses switched from giving a real definition of God to defining Him by His attributes: The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. Therefore, “if you were people of certitude” implies that the heavens, the earth, and what is between them indicate by their origination that they have a single originator who is necessarily existent and who has no partner whatsoever in its necessity of existence.
The problem with this view is that the polytheists already admitted that it was impossible to know the reality and Essence of God, that the originator of universe was a necessarily existent that had no partner in its necessity of being, and that the other gods which control the different dimensions of the universe are all contingent beings that are created by God. Given these beliefs, the above interpretation would not be an argument against them.
(Pharaoh) said to those around him: Do you not hear? In other words: “Do you not give ear to what Moses is saying?” This rhetorical question implies surprise. He wanted the audience to listen to Moses and be surprised, because Moses first claimed to be a messenger of the Lord of all realms, but when he was asked “what is the Lord of all realms?” he essentially repeated the same thing again without adding anything to it.
This was a twist by Pharaoh in order to conceal the truth in Moses’ explanation. Moses’ point was that there is a single and uniform order in the entire universe that the people of certitude can observe; this order shows that all of the realms have a single Director and Lord, and that is Whom Pharaoh asked Moses about. However, Pharaoh interpreted his speech as follows: He first claims “I am the messenger from the Lord of all realms”, but when I ask him “what is the Lord of all realms?” he replies, “He is the Lord of all realms!”
The above shows the implausibility of how some exegetes have interpreted Pharaoh’s surprise here: “I ask him about God’s Essence but he answers me by mentioning His attribute.” The problem with this interpretation is that Pharaoh’s question was about the Essence in the sense of having the attribute [of being “the Lord of all realms”] as discussed above. And Moses did not interpret God’s Essence by one of His attributes, but rather replaced “the Lord of all realms” () with “the Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them” (). So he replaced “all realms” with “the heavens and the earth and what is between them.” By doing so he was implying that Pharaoh did not understand the meaning of “all realms.”
He said: Your Lord and the Lord of your fathers, the ancients: This is a second response by Moses to Pharaoh’s question when he saw Pharaoh disguising the truth in front of the people around him. He first answered his question—And what is the Lord of all realms?—by interpreting “all realms” as the great realms such as “the heavens and the earth and what is between them”. But now he turns to a more explicit interpretation and mentions God’s Lordship over the realm of human beings. A realm (ʿālam) is a collection of people or things. The realm of humankind consists of the collection of those who are living and those who have passed away. That is why he says: Your Lord and the Lord of your fathers, the ancients.
What Pharaoh really wanted to do was to defend and justify himself for his claim to be a god. God’s universal Lordship over all realms would negate the authority and lordship of the other lords, one of which was Pharaoh. That is why he went about denying God’s Lordship over all realms in order to establish his independence. Apart from this, he saw himself to be the highest and the most important of the lords, as God relates from Him: Then he said: I am your lord, the most high (); and: Pharaoh said: O chiefs! I do not know of any god for you besides myself ().
It is as if Pharaoh told Moses: “If by ‘the Lord of all realms’ you mean God, then He is [only] the Lord of the lords but not others. And if you mean the other gods, then they are each the lord of a specific realm [not the lord of all realms]. So what does ‘the Lord of all realms’ mean?” Then Moses’ answer can be formulated as follows: “There is only one lord in the entire universe and that is why He can be called ‘the Lord of all realms.’ He is your Lord and He has sent me to you.” Also, Pharaoh deceitfully implied that Moses did not really answer his question because he simply repeated himself. That is why Moses answered a second time by saying that the Lord of all realms is the Lord of the realm of human beings, including the present ones and the past. This cut off Pharaoh’s scheme.
Said he: Most surely your Messenger who is sent to you is mad: This is Pharaoh’s second statement in response to Moses’ second answer. When he refers to Moses as a “messenger” he is essentially deriding and mocking him. “Your messenger” is a haughty expression, as it suggests that Pharaoh himself is too superior to have a messenger sent to him. He accused Moses of madness because of what he just said: Your Lord and the Lord of your fathers… ().
It is as if Pharaoh is saying: “He is insane because his speech is confused, and this reveals confusion in his intellect. He first claims to be the messenger of the Lord of all realms. When he is asked what the Lord of all realms is, he first repeats the same thing with only a change of words, and then he defines it as ‘your Lord and the Lord of your early fathers.’”
He said: The Lord of the east (al-mashriq) and the west (al-maghrib) and what is between them, if you understand: Given the context, apparently what is meant by the east is the direction where the sun and the other luminous celestial bodies rise, and what is meant by the west is where they set—as our senses perceive them to rise and set. What is between them would include the entire visible universe, which would be equivalent to the heavens, the earth, and what is between them.
Hence, this is reiterating the first answer with a different expression, and it includes the point about these things being subject to a single consistent system of direction and regulation. Rising and setting are interrelated, and east and west are two ends with a common middle. In this sense they are similar to the heaven and the earth, in contradistinction with each other and with a common space between the two. This uniformity necessitates a single and uniform order. Likewise, all living nations have an existential connection with their previous nations—the connection between descendants and ancestors. This shows that they are of the same kind, they are subject to the same order, and hence they have a Single Director.
Substituting “if you were people of certitude” in his first response with “if you understand” here is an insinuation by Moses. Pharaoh derided and mocked him by saying to those around him, “Do you not hear?”, and then accused him of insanity and nonsensical speech [in ]. So here Moses replies by saying, ”if you understand”, hinting that they are the ones who are deprived of understanding and intellection. Otherwise, if they were people of understanding, they would have known that his first answer was not a redundant repetition, and it would have sufficed them as a proof for God’s unity in Lordship. They would have realized that there is a Single Director who conducts the affairs of all realms including the heavens, the earth and what is between them. He is the only Director, and there is no Lord but Him.
Based on the above explanation, this verse—The Lord of the east…—is another expression of his first answer: The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them. It is a proof for the unity of the director based on the unity of direction and order, and in turn it is a definition for “the Lord of all realms”: He is the One Director Whose unity is shown by the single order that directs and conducts the entire universe. The expression in this verse is clearer [than Moses’ previous answers] because the verse talks about rising and setting, which are more clearly matters of the order and direction of affairs in the universe (tadbīr).
Some exegetes have said that the arguments in these verses prove God as the only Essence Who is necessarily existent by-itself, and deny other partners in necessity of existence. We already discussed the implausibility of this view.
Said he: If you take a god besides me, I will most certainly make you one of the imprisoned (al-masjūnīn): Here Pharaoh is threatening Moses to stop advocating the lordship of “the Lord of all realms” and claiming that he is a messenger from Him. This is how all ignorant and defiant people behave: when they are overcome in an argument, they start threatening and intimidating.
“Taking a god besides him” refers to belief in the lordship of the Lord of all realms which Moses advocated. He did not explicitly say this because he did not want to utter His name. He did not mention the other gods that they worshipped [as acceptable objects of worship] due to his sense of pride and self-importance. The verse suggests that he had a law that those who rejected him and denied his divinity would be imprisoned.
Apparently the article al- (lit. “the”) in al-masjūnīn is a definite article. It means: “If you persist in what you say, then I will most surely place you among those who are in my prison, and you know their severe condition and how intensely they are tortured.” That is why he did not mention this in a more concise way such as: “I will most certainly imprison you.”
قالَ أَ وَ لَوْ جِئْتُكَ بِشَيْءٍ مُبِينٍ ٣٠
(26:30) He said: What! even if I bring to you something manifest?
The speaker here is Moses. “Something manifest” means something that would show and manifest the truth of his call. It is a sign of messengership that would verify the mission that one claims to have. There are two aspects to the prophetic message: (1) A messenger claims that he has a mission from God. (2) He preaches certain divine teachings like God’s unity and the hereafter. A miracle proves the first claim, while the teachings are proven through rational arguments. This has been the case and custom for all prophets in their call, and we discussed this in the first volume of this book [volume 1 of the English translation, under verse ].
The implied meaning is that Moses said: Would you still imprison me even if I bring to you something that clearly shows that my claim to messengership is true?
قالَ فَأْتِ بِهِ إِنْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ ٣١
(26:31) Said he: Bring it then, if you are one of the truthful ones.
The speaker is Pharaoh. This is in response to Moses’ question which implied his claim to have clear proof. That is why he adds the condition “if you are one of the truthful ones,” meaning: if you are truthful in your claim that you have something with you.
فَأَلْقى عَصاهُ فَإِذا هِيَ ثُعْبانٌ مُبِينٌ ٣٢ وَ نَزَعَ يَدَهُ فَإِذا هِيَ بَيْضاءُ لِلنَّاظِرِينَ ٣٣
(26:32-33) So he cast down his rod, and lo! it was an obvious serpent (thuʿbānun mubīn), And he drew forth his hand, and lo! it appeared white to the onlookers.
These are the two signs that Moses was given on the night when he was chosen for messengership on Mount Ṭūr. Thuʿbān means “a giant snake.” Its “obviousness” means that its reality was so clear that it could not be doubted. “Drawing forth his hand” refers to drawing it forth from the opening of his bosom, as mentioned in verses and .
قالَ لِلْمَلَإِ حَوْلَهُ إِنَّ هذا لَساحِرٌ عَلِيمٌ ٣٤ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يُخْرِجَكُمْ مِنْ أَرْضِكُمْ بِسِحْرِهِ فَما ذا تَأْمُرُونَ ٣٥
(26:34-35) (Pharaoh) said to the chiefs around him: Most surely this is a skillful magician, Who desires to turn you out of your land with his magic; what is it then that you advise?
The speaker is Pharaoh. He said, “Bring it then, if you are one of the truthful ones” (), hoping that he would bring something that could be questioned or doubted. But when he brought something that could not be overlooked whatsoever, he had no recourse but to accuse him of being a skillful magician.
That is why he followed up his allegation of magic by saying: “[He] desires to turn you out of your land with his magic” in order to provoke them against him and persuade them to conspire with him to repel Moses in any way that they could.
…what is it then that you advise (taʾmurūna, from amr)? Perhaps amr (lit. command, order, bid) here means advising Pharaoh on how to oppose Moses. The word amr is used for advice, counseling and consultation because often one states his advice or counsel in imperative form. The meaning is: “Given this condition, what is your advice about how I should treat Moses so that I may implement it?” This interpretation is preferred to the common meaning of amr (command, order) because Pharaoh deemed himself to be their highest lord and viewed them as his slaves.
This meaning is confirmed by the fact that God used the same wording when describing what Pharaoh’s chiefs said: The chiefs of Pharaoh’s people said: Most surely this is an enchanter possessed of knowledge. He intends to turn you out of your land. What counsel do you give (mā-dhā taʾmurūnā, from amr)? (), where amr apparently means their advice to Pharaoh on what he should do with them.
Alternatively, it has been said that the miracles stunned and dazed him so much that he lost his pride and vanity and was overcome by helplessness. That is why he could not manage what to say and how to continue speaking.
قالُوا أَرْجِهْ وَ أَخاهُ وَ ابْعَثْ فِي الْمَدائِنِ حاشِرِينَ ٣٦ يَأْتُوكَ بِكُلِّ سَحَّارٍ عَلِيمٍ ٣٧
(26:36-37) They said: Give him and his brother respite (arjih) and send heralds into the cities; That they should bring to you every skillful magician.
The speakers in this verse are the chiefs around Pharaoh and the elite among his people. Arjih is an imperative form of the verb irjāʾ, which means “to delay.” That is: Postpone Moses and his brother, give them respite and do not hasten to imprison them or take any such measure against them until you oppose their magic by a similar magic.
The word has also been recited as arjihi and arjiʾhu, which are more eloquent than the common recitation, albeit the meaning would be the same.
…and send heralds (ḥāshirīn) into the cities (al-madāʾin) That they should bring to you every skillful magician (saḥḥār): Madāʾin is the plural of madīnah, meaning city. Ḥāshir is derived from ḥashr, which is to bring out someone to somewhere by force. That is: Send some of your officers and troops to the cities so that they may gather all skillful magicians and bring them to you, so that you can oppose these two in their magic.
They referred to these magicians as saḥḥār (in an exaggerated subjective form) as opposed to sāḥir (in the regular subjective form), to allude that there are magicians who are more adept in magic than Moses.
فَجُمِعَ السَّحَرَةُ لِمِيقاتِ يَوْمٍ مَعْلُومٍ ٣٨
(26:38) So the magicians were gathered together at the appointed time on the fixed day:
The “fixed day” was the “Feast Day” that Moses and Pharaoh jointly set as their tryst for the competition, as mentioned in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā. This verse involves some concision and abridgement of the story there.
وَ قِيلَ لِلنَّاسِ هَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُجْتَمِعُونَ ٣٩ لَعَلَّنا نَتَّبِعُ السَّحَرَةَ إِنْ كانُوا هُمُ الْغالِبِينَ ٤٠
(26:39-40) And it was said to the people: Will you gather? Haply we may follow the magicians, if they are the vanquishers.
The question here is meant to encourage the people to gather.
According to al-Kashshāf, what is meant by “following the magicians” is following their religion, for they patently worshipped Pharaoh—as the next verses show. Their main intention was that they would not follow Moses, not that they would necessarily follow the magicians. However, they expressed their intention indirectly by saying the latter so that it would make the magicians more industrious and serious in their effort to win.
فَلَمَّا جاءَ السَّحَرَةُ قالُوا لِفِرْعَوْنَ أَ إِنَّ لَنا لَأَجْراً إِنْ كُنَّا نَحْنُ الْغالِبِينَ ٤١ قالَ نَعَمْ وَ إِنَّكُمْ إِذاً لَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ ٤٢
(26:41-42) And when the magicians came, they said to Pharaoh: Shall we get a reward if we are (in kunnā) the vanquishers? He said: Yes, and surely you will then be of those who are made near.
The question here is a request. They referred to their victory as a hypothetical possibility by using the [Arabic] particle in (if) instead of using idhā (when, once) which would have shown that they were certain of victory. Below, they talk about their victory with confidence when they say: “By Pharaoh’s power, we shall most surely be victorious” (), but here they say, “if (in) we are the vanquishers” as an uncertain prospect in order to motivate Pharaoh to set a reward for them. This was indeed effective, for he set a reward for them and added that he would make them among his near ones.
قالَ لَهُمْ مُوسى أَلْقُوا ما أَنْتُمْ مُلْقُونَ ٤٣ فَأَلْقَوْا حِبالَهُمْ وَ عِصِيَّهُمْ وَ قالُوا بِعِزَّةِ فِرْعَوْنَ إِنَّا لَنَحْنُ الْغالِبُونَ ٤٤ فَأَلْقى مُوسى عَصاهُ فَإِذا هِيَ تَلْقَفُ ما يَأْفِكُونَ ٤٥
(26:43-45) Moses said to them: Cast what you are going to cast. So they cast down their cords (ḥibāluhum) and their rods (ʿiṣiyyuhum) and said: By Pharaoh’s power, we shall most surely be victorious. Then Moses cast down his staff and lo! it swallowed up (talqafu, from laqf) what they had faked (mā yaʾfikūna).
Hibāl is the plural of ḥabl (rope, cord), and ʿiṣiyy is the plural of ʿaṣā (cane, rod). Laqf is “to swallow hurriedly.” Yaʾfikūna is from the root ifk, which is “to alter something from its real form.” Magic is called ifk because it involves transforming something from its real form to an imaginal form. The meaning of the verses is clear.
فَأُلْقِيَ السَّحَرَةُ ساجِدِينَ ٤٦ قالُوا آمَنَّا بِرَبِّ الْعالَمِينَ ٤٧ رَبِّ مُوسى وَ هارُونَ ٤٨
(26:46-48) And the magicians were thrown down prostrate; They said: We believe in the Lord of all realms: The Lord of Moses and Aaron.
What is meant is that the magicians were puzzled and frightened by the amazing signs that they saw. As a result, they lost control of themselves and fell down in prostration to God. Therefore, being thrown down in prostration is a metaphorical way of referring to their loss of control of themselves, as if they had been flung onto the earth motionless.
They said: We believe in the Lord of all realms: This entails belief in God’s unity, because, as we discussed above, viewing Him as “the Lord of all realms” necessitates believing in His unity and denying all other gods besides Him.
The Lord of Moses and Aaron: This indicates their belief in messengership in addition to their belief in monotheism.
قالَ آمَنْتُمْ لَهُ قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ إِنَّهُ لَكَبِيرُكُمُ الَّذِي عَلَّمَكُمُ السِّحْرَ فَلَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَ أَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ وَ لَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ ٤٩
(26:49) Said he: You believed in him before I gave you permission; most surely he is your chief who taught you magic, so you shall know: certainly I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and certainly I will crucify you all.
The speaker here is Pharaoh. “Before I gave you permission” means “without my permission.” Unlike what some exegetes have said, it does not imply that his permission was a possibility or something expected. Instead, the word “before” here is like its usage in the verse: The sea would surely be consumed before the words of my Lord are exhausted ().
…most surely he is your chief who taught you magic: This is another false allegation against Moses by Pharaoh in order to turn the hearts of his [Pharaoh’s] people and especially their chiefs away from him.
…so you shall know: This is a threat in vague terms, indicating that he did not need to mention it, but they soon will learn about it for themselves.
…certainly I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and certainly I will crucify (la-uṣallibannakum, from taṣlīb) you all: Cutting off limbs “on opposite sides” means cutting the right arm and the left leg or vice versa. Taṣlīb means placing the victim on a cross (that is, crucifixion). We saw similar verses to these in Chapters 7 (al-Aʿrāf) and 20 (Ṭā-Hā).
قالُوا لا ضَيْرَ إِنَّا إِلى رَبِّنا مُنْقَلِبُونَ ٥٠
(26:50) They said: No harm (ḍayr); surely to our Lord we go back.
Ḍayr means ḍarar (harm, loss).
… surely to our Lord we go back: This is an explanation and justification for their claim of “no harm.” The meaning is: This punishment that you threaten us with will not harm us because we will endure it and thus we will return to our Lord, and such a noble return that is.
إِنَّا نَطْمَعُ أَنْ يَغْفِرَ لَنا رَبُّنا خَطايانا أَنْ كُنَّا أَوَّلَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ٥١
(26:51) Surely we hope that our Lord will forgive us our wrongs because we are the first of the believers.
This is a further explanation and justification for what is understood from their previous claim. It means that not only they are not afraid of death and being killed, but they are eager to meet their Lord. In other words, they said: “We are not scared of your punishment whatsoever because by it we will return to our Lord, and we are not scared of returning to Him because we hope that our Lord will forgive us our wrongs due to being the first believers in Moses and Aaron, the two messengers of our Lord.”
A sound intellect would undoubtedly concur that those who open the people’s way to any good would have a share of good. If God will honor a believer by forgiveness and mercy because of that person’s belief, then His forgiveness and mercy certainly would not miss those who first opened this way and entered this path.
وَ أَوْحَيْنا إِلى مُوسى أَنْ أَسْرِ بِعِبادِي إِنَّكُمْ مُتَّبَعُونَ ٥٢
(26:52) And We revealed to Moses: Go away with My servants travelling by night (asri bi-ʿibādī), surely you will be pursued.
From this verse the second part of the story starts, which is about the punishment of Pharaoh’s people for rejecting the call of Moses and Aaron. The first part was about Moses and Aaron being sent to them and calling them to monotheism. Isrāʾ and sary [the roots of the imperative asri in the verse] mean “to journey at night.” “My servants” are the Children of Israel, and this expression is a way of honoring them [because they are being attributed to God].
…surely you will be pursued: This is an explanation and justification for the previous order. That is: “Journey with them at night so that Pharaoh’s people will follow you.” It shows that God had a purpose in them being pursued, for it involved a respite for the Israelites. He explicitly mentions this in these verses: So go forth with My servants by night; surely you will be pursued. And leave the sea intervening; surely they are a host that shall be drowned ().
َأَرْسَلَ فِرْعَوْنُ فِي الْمَدائِنِ حاشِرِينَ ٥٣ إِنَّ هؤُلاءِ لَشِرْذِمَةٌ قَلِيلُونَ ٥٤ وَ إِنَّهُمْ لَنا لَغائِظُونَ ٥٥ وَ إِنَّا لَجَمِيعٌ حاذِرُونَ ٥٦ فَأَخْرَجْناهُمْ مِنْ جَنَّاتٍ وَ عُيُونٍ ٥٧ وَ كُنُوزٍ وَ مَقامٍ كَرِيمٍ ٥٨ كَذلِكَ وَ أَوْرَثْناها بَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ ٥٩ فَأَتْبَعُوهُمْ مُشْرِقِينَ٦٠ فَلَمَّا تَراءَا الْجَمْعانِ قالَ أَصْحابُ مُوسى إِنَّا لَمُدْرَكُونَ ٦١ قالَ كَلاَّ إِنَّ مَعِي رَبِّي سَيَهْدِينِ ٦٢ فَأَوْحَيْنا إِلى مُوسى أَنِ اضْرِبْ بِعَصاكَ الْبَحْرَ فَانْفَلَقَ فَكانَ كُلُّ فِرْقٍ كَالطَّوْدِ الْعَظِيمِ ٦٣ وَ أَزْلَفْنا ثَمَّ الْآخَرِينَ ٦٤ وَ أَنْجَيْنا مُوسى وَ مَنْ مَعَهُ أَجْمَعِينَ ٦٥ ثُمَّ أَغْرَقْنَا الْآخَرِينَ ٦٦
(26:53-66) So Pharaoh sent heralds into the cities; Most surely these are a small company; And most surely they have enraged us; And most surely we are a vigilant multitude. So We turned them out of gardens and springs, And treasures and goodly dwellings, Even so. And We had the Children of Israel inherit them. Then they pursued them at sunrise. So when the two hosts saw each other, the companions of Moses cried out: Most surely we are being overtaken. He said: By no means; surely my Lord is with me: He will show me a way out. Then We revealed to Moses: Strike the sea with your staff. So it clove asunder, and each part was like a huge mound. And We brought near, there, the others. And We saved Moses and those with him, all of them. Then We drowned the others.
These fourteen verses summarize the story of how Pharaoh’s people were drowned and how the Israelites were rescued. Some parts of the story have been abridged as they are understood from the context. For example, the departure of Moses and Children of Israel at night is not explicitly mentioned because it is implied by: Go away with My servants travelling by night ().
So Pharaoh sent heralds into the cities: That is: Moses set out with My servants at night, and when Pharaoh learnt about it, he sent some men as heralds to the cities under his command to gather the people and move them all.
Most surely these are a small company (la-shirdhimatun qalīlūn):The heralds told the people: “These (that is, the Israelites) are a small company.” Shirdhimah of anything is a small remnant of it. Therefore describing it as “small” (qalīlūn) shows further emphasis.
And most surely they have enraged us: They have done acts which have made us angry.
And most surely we are a multitude: We are gathered and in agreement with one another.
Vigilant: We are afraid lest the enemy should cause us damage or plot against us even though they are weak and small.
This was Pharaoh’s message that they relayed in order to motivate the people against the Israelites.
So We turned them out of gardens and springs, And treasures and goodly dwellings, Even so (kadhālika). And We had the Children of Israel inherit them: These are the gardens where they had built homes and strong palaces. “We turned them out...” God attributes this to Himself because they were driven out by His plot and scheme, due to their pride and self-importance. Kadhālika here means “that was the case.” “Them” in “inherit them” refers to the abovementioned gardens, springs, treasures and goodly dwellings.
The meaning is: The Children of Israel inherited those properties because We spared them when We drowned Pharaoh and his army.
Then they pursued them at sunrise: That is: They caught up with the Children of Israel when it was almost sunrise.
So when the two hosts saw each other, the companions of Moses cried out: Most surely we are being overtaken: That is: When the two groups approached one another and each side saw the other, the Children of Israel said fearfully, “Soon, Pharaoh’s hosts will overtake us.”
He said: By no means; surely my Lord is with me (maʿīa): He will show me a way out: That is: “Moses said: They will never overtake us.” “My Lord is with me” refers to God’s togetherness (maʿiyyah) in the sense of His presence as a source of protection and support. It is what his Lord ensured him when He first sent him and his brother to Pharaoh: Surely I am with you both (). It is not about God’s togetherness as Creator and Director of affairs, because that equally applies to both Moses and Pharaoh.
He will show me a way out: that is, He will guide me to a way where Pharaoh will not reach me.
Then We revealed to Moses: Strike the sea with your staff. So it clove asunder (fa-infalaqa, from infilāq), and each part was like a huge mound (kal-ṭawd): Infilāq means inshiqāq (splitting, cleaving). It is when something is divided into two separate parts. “Each part” means each part of water that was divided. Ṭawd means a part of a mountain. After this splitting, Moses and the Israelites with him entered the way that had opened up.
And We brought near (azlafnā), there, the others: Azlafnā is “to bring close and near.” “The others” are Pharaoh and his hosts.
And We saved Moses and those with him, all of them: by keeping the sea in that shape and condition until they crossed it and left it behind.
Then We drowned the others: by pouring the sea over them while they were in the opening.
إِنَّ فِي ذلِكَ لَآيَةً وَ ما كانَ أَكْثَرُهُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ ٦٧
(26:67) Most surely there is a sign in this, but most of them were not believers.
Given the context of these verses and the stories that follow, “this” refers to the entire story of Moses—including his formal appointment as a prophet, his message to Pharaoh and his people, and the rescue of the Israelites—up to the drowning of Pharaoh and his hosts. This entire story is a sign of God’s unity in Lordship and the truth of the message [of Moses and/or the Prophet] for anyone who contemplates.
…but most of them were not believers: That is: “Most of the people in the above story were not believers despite Our clear signs.” Likewise after every story in this chapter, He concludes with “but most of them were not believers” as the moral of the story, which connects the story to the intended audience [that is, the Prophet’s nation]. It is as if it says: That was their story which involved God’s signs, but most of them were not believers, just as most of your people [O Muḥammad] are not believers. Hence do not grieve over them because every nation to whom We sent a messenger to in order to call them to God’s unity in Lordship did the same.
Some exegetes have suggested that the pronoun “them” in “most of them” refers to the Prophet’s people. The meaning would be: “There is a sign in this story, but most of your people do not believe in it.” However, this is not the apparent interpretation of the verse.
وَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ ٦٨
(26:68) And most surely your Lord is the Mighty, the Merciful.
This verse was discussed above at the beginning of the chapter [].
The warning is implied by “recite to them,” because it shows that the story is a message for them, and since they had been doubting and disbelieving, this message would be one of warning and threat. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verse . (Trans.) ↩︎
Based on the latter meaning, the verse should be translated as follows: I fear that they would reject me, and this would cause my breast to straiten and my tongue to be ineloquent. The evidence from Chapter 28 is verses , quoted below. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses . (Trans.) ↩︎
In addition to singular and plural, the Arabic language has a dual form of nouns, pronouns and verbs called tathniyah. The second person verb conjugates in “So go, both of you” () and “Then come to Pharaoh and say” () are in the dual form. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verse . (Trans.) ↩︎
The root meaning of irsāl is “to release.” However, the idea of “sending” is deduced from the phrase “with us.” The implied meaning is: Release the Children of Israel so that they may come with us in the journey that we are about to take. This is equivalent to “sending” the Israelites. (Trans.) ↩︎
Kufr can mean both “ingratitude” and “disbelief.” Here the former meaning is intended based on the context. (Trans.) ↩︎
What the author means here is that ungratefulness in the verse includes ungratefulness to Pharaoh for his favor to the Israelites in general, as well as ungratefulness for his favor to Moses in particular, not just the latter. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, ḥukm involves two elements: (1) knowledge, insight and discernment about good and bad; (2) being grounded, firm and strong to exercise and implement that knowledge in action. It includes both the theoretical and practical aspect. (Trans.) ↩︎
That is, I was so immersed in His love that I could not properly assess and contemplate the consequences of my action. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses . (Trans.) ↩︎
This is explained below. (Trans.) ↩︎
To illustrate this, think of an oppressive ruler who imprisons some innocent individuals unjustly, and then expects them to feel indebted to him and be grateful to him for the food and water that he has given them in prison. (Trans.) ↩︎
In simple terms the verse is saying: Your authority and guardianship over the Israelites is a result of your enslavement of them, and this is by no means a favor to me or them. (Trans.) ↩︎
To complement the author’s discussion, the only verse that talks about “Pharaoh’s gods” is verse . An alternative possibility is that the verse refers to the idols and statues of him that were made and raised all over Egypt so that the people would worship him through them. There is no other evidence in the Qur’an that Pharaoh had his own gods and idols whom he used to worship. (Trans.) ↩︎
“This does not result in any deeper level of conception” because it does not explain the reality and essence of the term. “Nor does it result in sure belief in the matter” because it does not involve any proof or argument that shows is truth. (Trans.) ↩︎
See the last paragraph under the exposition of . (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, he mentioned “those who have been imprisoned” (al-masjūnīn) as a means of threat and intimidation. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, it could be that Pharaoh literally asked them to order and command (amr) him what to do because of his extent of fear and puzzlement. (Trans.) ↩︎
This allusion is inferred from calling the magicians in the cities saḥḥār here, in contrast to Moses who was called a mere sāḥir in . (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses . (Trans.) ↩︎
The two particles in and idhā both mean “if,” except that the latter is used when something is expected to happen for sure. (Trans.) ↩︎
That is: “The words of my Lord would never be exhausted even if seas of ink were to be consumed to record them.” (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses and . (Trans.) ↩︎