تَخْشَىٰ

26:53.

26:64.

Important Words:

لا تخشی (nor wilt thou have fear) is formed from خشیwhich means, he feared or dreaded or feared with reverence, veneration, respect, or awe. We have in the Quran وھم من خشیته مشفقون i.e. they fear their Lord, holding Him in reverence (21:29). خشی منه means, he feared or dreaded what might happen to him from him or it. خشیة is the dread, fear or awe resulting from the knowledge which one possesses about a thing or person. The Quranic expression انما یخشی اللّٰه من عبادہ العلماء(35:29) means, only those of His servants who possess knowledge fear Allah (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat). The reference to the fear mentioned in the words لا تخشی is to the dangers of the sea and other hardships that lay ahead of the Israelites.

Commentary:

The incident mentioned in this verse relates to the time when, under God’s command, Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt into Canaan. The Israelites left secretly by night, and when Pharaoh learnt of their flight, he pursued them with his hosts and was drowned in the Red Sea.

In order to appreciate fully the nature and significance of this incident which indeed constituted a great divine sign, it is necessary to read the verse under comment along with other relevant verses such as vv. 2:51, 26:62-64 & 44:25. The Quran says:

And remember the time when We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh’s people while you looked on (2:51).

And when the two hosts came in sight of each other the companions of Moses said, 'We are surely overtaken.'…Then We revealed to Moses, saying, 'Strike the sea with thy rod.' Whereupon it parted and every part was like a huge sandhill (26:62-64). When the Israelites were passing they had the sea on one side and the small lake son the other, which conformably to the natural laws of perspective appeared raised above the level of the land.

And leave the sea at a time when it is motionless. Surely, they are a host which is doomed to be drowned (44:25). i.e. pass through the sea quickly at a time when the tide has receded.

The Bible also refers to this incident in the following verses:

And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued and went in after them to the midst of the sea…And the Lord said unto Moses, 'Stretch out thine hand over the sea'…And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea and the sea returned to its strength…And the waters returned and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them (Exod. 14:21-28).

The following facts emerge from the above account of this incident as given in the Quran and the Bible;

(a) that Moses was commanded by God to take away the Israelites out of Egypt by night;

(b) that Pharaoh pursued the Israelites with his mighty hosts;

(c) that when the Israelites reached the arm of the Red Sea which lay across their route, they were greatly dismayed because Pharaoh was close behind with his hosts;

(d) that when on seeing Pharaoh’s hosts the Israelites exclaimed in fright that they were overtaken, God commanded Moses to strike the water of the sea with his rod;

(e) that when Moses struck the sea with his rod as the Quran says or stretched out his hand over the sea as the Bible says, it was the time of the ebb-tide and the sea was receding, leaving a dry bed;

(f) that Moses was commanded by God to cross quickly the dry bed to the opposite bank, which he did;

(g) that when the hosts of Pharaoh reached the sea, it was the time of high tide and that in their zeal to overtake the Israelites they took no notice of it and at once jumped into the sea behind them; and

(h) that, as it appears, being heavily equipped with big chariots and other heavy armaments the progress of the army of Pharaoh was greatly retarded so that while they were yet in the midst of the sea, the high tide returned and they were all drowned.

Historians differ as to the exact place from where Moses crossed the Red Sea from Egypt into Canaan. Some are of the view that on his way from the territory of Goshen, which is also called the valley of Al-Tamthilat or Wadi Tumilat and where the capital of the Pharaohs was situated (Enc. Bib. vol. 4, col. 4012, under "Rameses"), Moses passed by the Gulf of Timsah (Enc. Bib., cols. 1438 & 1439). Others think that he went much further to the north and going round Zoan crossed over to Canaan near the Mediterranean Sea (Enc. Bib., col. 1438). But what is most probable is the fact that from Tal Abi Sulaiman which was the capital of the Pharaohs in Moses’ time, the Israelites at first went to north-east to the Gulf of Timsah but finding that a net of gulfs barred their way, they turned south and crossed the Red Sea near the town of Suez where it is hardly more than 2/3 mile wide, and started for Qadas (Enc. Bib., col. 1437).

The following passage from Peake’s "Commentary on the Bible" (p. 64) may also be read with interest:

The Israelites fled with him (Moses) across the Goshen marshes into the Sinaitic Peninsula. The crossing of the "Red Sea" (yam suph, "sea" or "lake of reeds") was probably the crossing of the southern end of a lake a few miles N.W. of what is now called the Red Sea. A wind laid bare a wide stretch of shore, and when an Egyptian force pursued the fugitives, their chariot wheels stuck fast in the wet soil, and the water returned upon them when the wind shifted. Writers differ as to the route taken by the Israelites. Some think that they moved southward to the mountainous range of (the modern) Sinai, and then along the eastern arm of the Red Sea, now known as the Gulf of ‘Akabah, to its northernmost point at Ezion Geber. Others think that the evidence points to the route still taken by Mecca pilgrims, nearly due E. to Ezion Geber, and that thence they moved N.W. to the region of Kadesh (Barnea), to Mt. Sinai or southward along the E. side of the Gulf of ‘Akabah to Mt. Horeb. The traditions differ and certainty is impossible.

There are people who against all canons of history take particular delight in propounding most extraordinary theories that the Israelites never lived in Egypt. Some such theories are:

(a) No reference to the Israelites is to be found in the old Egyptian historical records.

(b) In the fifth year of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah (or Mereneptah) when Moses is said to have taken the Israelites out of Egypt, some Israelite tribes were actually living in Canaan, therefore the theory of Moses having taken the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan during his reign and their having settled in that country some fifty years later is all wrong.

(c) Though some trace is found of a few tribes having crossed over from Asia into Egypt but there is no proof that these were the Israelite tribes.

The propounders of these strange theories seem to ignore the patent fact that the Israelites were foreigners in Egypt and were a subject race and lived the miserable life of slaves under their cruel rulers. How could such people be considered worthy of any notice being taken of them by historians? Apart from this the fact may also be taken into consideration that when it is not quite possible for historians even in this 20th century to prepare a well-connected and harmonious narrative about a people from the remnants of its ruined civilization, it was much more difficult for historians in the past to reconstruct a consistent record from the fragmentary accounts of a people who lived in the hoary past and who were treated like beasts of burden by their rulers. This is why no reference to the Israelites is to be found in the old historical records of Egypt.

Secondly, the doubtful theory that certain Israelite tribes were found to be living in Canaan in the 5th year of the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah cannot disprove the fact that other Israelite tribes had remained behind in Egypt. Is it not possible that some of these tribes might have left Egypt for Canaan sometime before all of them were taken out of it by Moses. It is very strange that on the one hand these very writers say that Moses is an Egyptian name and that some of the companions of Moses also had Egyptian names, and on the other that the Israelites never went to Egypt. Moreover, the Bible gives a detailed and well-connected story of the Israelites having lived in Egypt. There was no compelling reason for the writers of the Bible to have done so, especially when the Israelites had lived there only as slaves and worse than beasts of burden. No people would feel any urge or pride in forging and falsely inventing such a miserable record of shame and sorrow of themselves. Last but not least, the Biblical details with regard to the customs, culture and mode of life of the Pharaohs of that time is another proof of the fact that the Israelites had lived under them. The Bible had no interest in the Pharaoh dynasty of Egypt apart from their being rulers of the Israelites. Besides, as stated by old Greek historians, the Egyptians themselves admitted that the Israelites had lived in Egypt for a long time and later on had left this country. The present Egypt, however, should not be confused with a territory which in ancient times was also known as Egypt but which formed a part of northern Syria or northern Arabia.

The date of the Exodus has also been much contested and there seems to be considerable difficulty in determining its exact date from the Biblical records alone. Neither the name of the reigning Pharaoh nor the place where he held his court is mentioned; the account given is not contemporary, but has been condensed and annotated by later editors, and fused by them into a general narrative; and the Biblical chronology of the period, though containing trustworthy material, is known to be largely artificial. Apart from the Biblical records any historical information on the subject is meagre. Various theories, however, are held about the Exodus. Some of these are as follows:

1. The view that the Israelites left Egypt with the Hyksos (1580 B.C.) at the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty, or shortly afterwards, and lived a nomadic life of about 200 years in the desert previous to entering Canaan. But evidently this view seems to do violence to genuine Hebrew tradition.

2. The theory which dates the Exodus in the XVIIIth Dynasty, but about 1445 B.C. just after the long despotic reign of Thutmose III and during that of his son Amenhotep II (1447-1420 B.C.). This theory too lacks the support of trustworthy historical material and Hebrew tradition.

3. The hypothesis which connects the Exodus with the religion’s revolution attempted by Amenhotep IV, otherwise known as Akhenaten (1383-1366 B.C.) This view would place the Exodus about 1350 or 1345 B.C. This seems to be more plausible than the first two views.

4. But the theory, largely prevalent which receives much support from historical data, archaeological research and Hebrew tradition is that the Exodus occurred in the Nineteenth Dynasty (1328-1202 B.C.), in the reign of Merneptah II or Mereneptah II (1234-1214) and still seems the most probable. It appears to have taken place about 1230 B.C. According to this view the Pharaoh of the oppression would be Rameses II and his successor Merneptah II, the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, pp. 119, 955 & 956).

Incidentally, it may be stated here that the striking of the water of the sea with his rod by Moses had no cause and effect connection with the actual parting of the sea. It was merely a sign or a Divine intimation that it was the time of the ebb tide and that the Israelites should hasten to cross. God had so arranged that when Moses reached the sea the tide was about to go back, so that as soon as he struck the sea with his rod in obedience to Divine command, it began to recede and a dry path was made for the Israelites. The striking of the water with his rod by Moses and the recession of the sea coincided. This constituted a miracle because God alone knew when the sea would recede and He had commanded Moses to strike its waters at the time of its recession.

Important Words:

وطرا (want) has no verb. It means, a want, a need, an object of want or need; or that which one proposes to accomplish or of which one is desirous. They say قضی منه وطرہ i.e. he accomplished or obtained his want from him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

As the verse deals with an incident of very great historical importance, it demands and deserves a somewhat detailed explanation. Zaid bin Harith, to whom the words "on whom Allah had bestowed favours and on whom thou also had bestowed favours" refer, belonged to the tribe of Kalb. In his childhood he was kidnapped and sold as a slave in Mecca where he was bought by Khadijah’s brother and given over to her. On her marriage with the Holy Prophet Khadijah presented Zaid to him who at once emancipated him. Zaid was so much attached to the Prophet that when later his father and uncle begged of the Holy Prophet to let him go with them as the grief of his separation from home had almost killed his mother, the Prophet readily gave his permission. But Zaid himself flatly refused to part company with the Holy Prophet, exclaiming that he was dearer to him than his father and mother. The Prophet was so deeply touched by Zaid’s fidelity and love for him that he at once declared him (Zaid) to be his son and henceforward Zaid came to be known as the Prophet’s son. Zaid remained throughout his life a most beloved and faithful disciple of the Holy Prophet and sealed his fidelity to Islam and the Prophet with his blood on the battlefield of Mu’tah.

Zainab was the daughter of the Holy Prophet’s aunt, hence a full-blooded Arab, intensely proud of her ancestry and exalted social status. Islam had envisaged and given to the world a civilization and culture in which there were to be no class divisions, no hereditary nobility, no vested interests. All men were to be free and equal in the sight of God. The Holy Prophet wanted to start with his own family the carrying into actual effect of this noble ideal of Islam. He wished to marry Zainab to Zaid, who in spite of having been liberated by the Prophet and called his son, unfortunately still carried the stigma of slavery in the minds of some people. It was exactly this stigma of slavery, this invidious distinction between 'free' and 'slave' which the Holy Prophet sought to remove by Zainab’s marriage to Zaid. In deference to the Holy Prophet’s wish Zainab agreed to the proposal. The purpose of the Holy Prophet was achieved. The marriage levelled to the ground all class distinctions and divisions. It was a practical demonstration of Islam’s noble ideal. The marriage, however, ended in failure, not so much due to a difference in the social status of Zainab and Zaid as to the incompatibility of their dispositions and temperaments and also due to a feeling of inferiority from which Zaid suffered. The failure of the marriage naturally grieved the Holy Prophet. But it also served a very useful purpose. In pursuance of Divine command, as mentioned in the latter part of the verse under comment, the Prophet himself married Zainab, thus cutting at the very root of another obnoxious and deep-seated Arab custom, viz. that it was a sacrilege to marry the wife of one’s adopted son. The custom of adoption was abolished and with it went also this foolish notion. Thus Zainab’s marriage with Zaid served one very noble object and its failure another highly useful purpose.

The words "fear Allah" signify that Zaid wanted to divorce Zainab, and as divorce according to Islam is very hateful in the sight of God, the Holy Prophet exhorted him not to do so.

The clause, "And then…thou shouldst fear Him," may apply to both Zaid and the Holy Prophet. Applying to Zaid it would mean that Zaid did not like that the cause of his separation from Zainab should come to light, perhaps because as the words "fear Allah," indicate the fault lay more with him than with Zainab. As, however, applying to the Holy Prophet, the words would signify that as the marriage between Zaid and Zainab was arranged at his instance and wish, he naturally did not like its breaking. The clause also shows that the Prophet feared that the break-down of the marriage which was arranged by him and which had been entered into in deference to his special wish, but which resulted in an ostensible failure of the experiment in Islamic brotherhood, would cause some mental confusion and uneasiness among people whose faith was weak. This was the anxiety that lay heavy on the Prophet’s heart. The words, "thou didst fear men," seem to point to this fear of his. But, as mentioned above, God had His own purpose in the failure of this marriage. He wanted to show that there was nothing in this failure to be afraid of. On the contrary, it was a blessing in disguise and was intended to serve a great purpose and therefore the Prophet’s fear was unfounded.

Christian and other hostile Critics of Islam pretend to find in the Holy Prophet’s marriage to Zainab a basis for mean attacks on him. It is stated that the Prophet, having by chance seen Zainab, became enamoured of her beauty and Zaid, having come to know of his desire to marry her, sought divorce from her. The fact that the Holy Prophet’s most inveterate enemies, before whose eyes the whole affair had actually taken place, dared not attribute the base motives ascribed to him by these critics after so many centuries, completely knocks the bottom from under this base and totally unfounded charge. Zainab was the Prophet’s own cousin and being so closely related to him he must have seen her many times, for "Purdah" had not as yet been enjoined. Besides, it was in deference to his own persistently expressed wish that Zainab had reluctantly agreed to marry Zaid. It is on record that she and her brother had desired before her marriage with Zaid that she should be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet himself. What wasit that prevented the Holy Prophet from marrying her when she was a virgin and when she herself ardently desired to get married to him? The whole story evidently seems to be a figment of the "fertile" imagination of the Holy Prophet’s hostile critics and it is an insult to human intellect to give the least credence to it. But while there are some Christian critics like Muir and Margoliouth who find fault with the Holy Prophet for having married Zainab, there are others better informed and more honest like the good and noble Rev. Bosworth Smith who found nothing in this marriage to cavil at. The Rev, gentleman says:

"It should be remembered, however, that most of Mohammed’s marriages may be explained, at least, as much by his pity for the forlorn condition of the persons concerned, as by other motives. They were almost all of them widows who were not remarkable either for their beauty or their wealth, but quite the reverse. May not this fact, and his undoubted faithfulness to Khadijah till her dying day, and till he himself was fifty years of age, give us additional ground to hope that calumny or misconception has been at work in the story of Zainab" - ("Mohammed and Mohammedanism").