مُوۡسٰۤی
Appears 25 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 25 verses containing "مُوۡسٰۤی".
وَاِذۡ وٰعَدۡنَا مُوۡسٰۤی اَرۡبَعِیۡنَ لَیۡلَۃً ثُمَّ اتَّخَذۡتُمُ الۡعِجۡلَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِہٖ وَاَنۡتُمۡ ظٰلِمُوۡنَ
7:143.
2:55, 93; 4:154; 7:149, 153; 20:89.
Moses, the Founder of Judaism, who delivered the Israelites from the tyranny of Pharaoh, was the greatest Israelite Prophet. According to biblical data he lived about 500 years after Abraham and about 1,400 years before Jesus. He was a Law-giving Prophet; the other Israelite Prophets that came after him were only the followers of his system.
See 7:143.
Man generally is the slave of his environments. This is particularly true of a subject people, who generally imitate the manners and customs of their rulers. The Israelites had lived under the bondage of Pharaohs for a long time, and naturally had imbibed the idolatrous faith of the Egyptians. When they left Egypt with Moses and came across an idol-worshipping people on the way, they requested him to sanction a similar worship for them (7:139).
7:143.
2:55, 93; 4:154; 7:149, 153; 20:89.
Important Words:
ظالمون (transgressors) is the plural of ظالم which is derived from ظلم which means (1) he put a thing at a wrong place (2) he transgressed against or wronged a person (Aqrab).
Commentary:
In this verse the incident of calf-worship mentioned in Exodus 32 is related. Man is generally the slave of environment. This is particularly true of a subject people, who assiduously imitate the manners and customs of their rulers. The Israelites had lived under the Pharaohs for a long time, and had imbibed the idolatrous faith of the Egyptians. When they left Egypt with Moses, and came across any idol-worshipping people on the way, they requested Moses again and again to sanction a similar worship for them (7:139). So eager were they for such worship that when Moses went to Mount Sinai, they made a calf and took to worshipping it. They revered the calf, because in Egypt the cow was held in special veneration. Egypt, like India, was an agricultural country where cattle must be of the highest value to man. Hence cow-worship.
The Bible mentions Aaron as having made a calf for the Israelites (Exod. 32:1-6). But the Quran strongly refutes this idea. Aaron was a Prophet of God and could not stoop to idol-worship. Says the Quran, And Aaron had said to them before this, 'O my people, you have only been tried by means of the calf; and surely, the Gracious God is your Lord; so follow me and do as I bid you' (20:91). It is strange that such baseless and incredible stories as the participation of a chosen one of God in idol-worship should find place in a Book which claims to be inspired. It only proves that the Bible has been the object of human interference. It is probable that some interested people deliberately interpolated the sacred writings and ascribed certain vices to the Prophets; and the Christian divines eagerly took them for granted, as they were of good use to them as a means of the exaltation of Jesus over the rest of the Prophets.
The verse speaks of the appointed duration as being of forty nights. In 7: 143 the Quran further tells us that at first the appointed duration was thirty nights, but by a subsequent addition of ten the period was extended to forty nights which is a fuller number. This favour was granted to Moses because of his faithfulness and sincerity.
The words, and you were transgressors, mean, you resorted to setting up equals with God, because this practice is indeed the greatest ظلمi.e. putting a thing in a wrong place. Elsewhere the Quran says: شرک i.e. attributing partners to God is indeed a great ظلم (31:14).
b
7:143.
c
2:55, 93; 4:154; 7:149, 153; 20:89.
51
穆撒是犹太教的创始人, 他使古以色列人从法老的暴政下解救出来, 是伟大的犹太人先知。按照 «圣经» 资料, 他生活在伊布拉欣之后约五百年, 约比伊撒早一千四百年。他是一位有经的先知; 他身后的一些其他古以色列人先知只是他道统的遵行者。
52
见7:143。
a
7:143.
b
2:55, 93; 4:154; 7:149, 153; 20:89.
58
Important Words:
ظالمون (transgressors) is the plural of ظالم which is derived from ظلم which means (1) he put a thing at a wrong place (2) he transgressed against or wronged a person (Aqrab).
Commentary:
In this verse the incident of calf-worship mentioned in Exodus 32 is related. Man is generally the slave of environment. This is particularly true of a subject people, who assiduously imitate the manners and customs of their rulers. The Israelites had lived under the Pharaohs for a long time, and had imbibed the idolatrous faith of the Egyptians. When they left Egypt with Moses, and came across any idol-worshipping people on the way, they requested Moses again and again to sanction a similar worship for them (7:139). So eager were they for such worship that when Moses went to Mount Sinai, they made a calf and took to worshipping it. They revered the calf, because in Egypt the cow was held in special veneration. Egypt, like India, was an agricultural country where cattle must be of the highest value to man. Hence cow-worship.
The Bible mentions Aaron as having made a calf for the Israelites (Exod. 32:1-6). But the Quran strongly refutes this idea. Aaron was a Prophet of God and could not stoop to idol-worship. Says the Quran, And Aaron had said to them before this, 'O my people, you have only been tried by means of the calf; and surely, the Gracious God is your Lord; so follow me and do as I bid you' (20:91). It is strange that such baseless and incredible stories as the participation of a chosen one of God in idol-worship should find place in a Book which claims to be inspired. It only proves that the Bible has been the object of human interference. It is probable that some interested people deliberately interpolated the sacred writings and ascribed certain vices to the Prophets; and the Christian divines eagerly took them for granted, as they were of good use to them as a means of the exaltation of Jesus over the rest of the Prophets.
The verse speaks of the appointed duration as being of forty nights. In 7: 143 the Quran further tells us that at first the appointed duration was thirty nights, but by a subsequent addition of ten the period was extended to forty nights which is a fuller number. This favour was granted to Moses because of his faithfulness and sincerity.
The words, and you were transgressors, mean, you resorted to setting up equals with God, because this practice is indeed the greatest ظلمi.e. putting a thing in a wrong place. Elsewhere the Quran says: شرک i.e. attributing partners to God is indeed a great ظلم (31:14).
b
7:143.
c
2:55, 93; 4:154; 7:149, 153; 20:89.
90
Moses, the Founder of Judaism, who delivered the Israelites from the tyranny of Pharaoh, was the greatest Israelite Prophet. According to biblical data he lived about 500 years after Abraham and about 1,400 years before Jesus. He was a Law-giving Prophet; the other Israelite Prophets that came after him were only the followers of his system.
91
See 7:143.
92
Man generally is the slave of his environments. This is particularly true of a subject people, who generally imitate the manners and customs of their rulers. The Israelites had lived under the bondage of Pharaohs for a long time, and naturally had imbibed the idolatrous faith of the Egyptians. When they left Egypt with Moses and came across an idol-worshipping people on the way, they requested him to sanction a similar worship for them (7:139).
اَلَمۡ تَرَ اِلَی الۡمَلَاِ مِنۡۢ بَنِیۡۤ اِسۡرٰٓءِیۡلَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مُوۡسٰۤی اِذۡ قَالُوۡا لِنَبِیٍّ لَّہُمُ ابۡعَثۡ لَنَا مَلِکًا نُّقٰتِلۡ فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ ۖ قَالَ ہَلۡ عَسَیۡتُمۡ اِنۡ کُتِبَ عَلَیۡکُمُ الۡقِتَالُ اَلَّا تُقٰتِلُوۡا ۖ قَالُوۡا وَمَا لَنَاۤ اَلَّا نُقٰتِلَ فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ وَقَدۡ اُخۡرِجۡنَا مِنۡ دِیٰرِنَا وَاَبۡنَآئِنَا ۖ فَلَمَّا کُتِبَ عَلَیۡہِمُ الۡقِتَالُ تَوَلَّوۡا اِلَّا قَلِیۡلًا مِّنۡہُمۡ ۗ وَاللّٰہُ عَلِیۡمٌۢ بِالظّٰلِمِیۡنَ
4:78.
دیکھئے پرانا عہدنامہ کتاب قاضیوں باب۶ آیت ۷ و ۸۔
عَسَیْتُمْ کے معنے ہیں ’’تم قریب ہو‘‘ اور ھَلْ عَسَیْتُمْ کے معنے ہوئے ’’کیا تم اس امر کے قریب ہو‘‘ مگر اردو میں اس ترجمہ کے کوئی معنے نہیں بنتے۔ اس لئے لفظی ترجمہ کی بجائے اس کا بامحاورہ ترجمہ کر دیا گیا ہے۔
عربی میں صرف قَلِیْل کا لفظ ہے مگر عربی کے قاعدہ کی رو سے یہاں جماعت وغیرہ کے ہم معنی کوئی لفظ محذوف ہے۔ اردو میں اگر صرف قلیل رکھا جائے تو بے معنے ہو جاتا ہے۔ اس لئے ’’جماعت‘‘ کا لفظ عام قاعدہ کے خلاف خطوط میں نہیں لکھا گیا۔ بلکہ ظاہر میں لکھا گیا ہے۔
استثناء میں ’’سب‘‘ کا لفظ پہلے حصہ جملہ میں مقدر ہوتا ہے۔ اس جگہ اس کے ظاہر کرنے کے بغیر معنے واضح نہیں ہوتے۔
4:78.
The incident mentioned indicates an improvement in the condition of the Israelites at the time to which this verse relates compared with the time of Moses himself. In 5:25 the Qur’an relates that when Moses exhorted his followers to fight the enemy in the cause of Allah, they replied, Go thou and thy Lord and fight, and here we sit. On the contrary, in the present verse they are reported to have said, What reason have we that we should not fight in the cause of Allah when we have been driven forth from our homes and our sons. The improvement, however, was only verbal rather than real; for when the time of actual fighting came, many of them wavered and refused to fight. The incident thus serves as a grim warning to Muslims to beware of treading the same path.
4:78.
Important Words:
الملاء (chiefs) is derived from ملاء. They say ملاء الاناء بالماء i.e. he filled the vessel with water. ملی رعبا means, he was filled with fright. الملاء means: (1) assembly of persons; (2) chiefs and nobles, for they fill the eyes and hearts of the commoners withawe and admiration; or because with them a meeting becomes full and appears to be properly attended. الملاء الاعلی means, the community of high placed angels (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The Quran now proceeds to give the story of how the different tribes of Israel were welded into one great nation, also noting incidentally the weaknesses displayed by them, so that their example may serve as a lesson to Muslims.
The incident mentioned in the verse under comment indicates an improvement in the condition of the Israelites in the time to which this verse relates over that of the time of Moses himself. In 5:25 the Quran relates that when Moses exhorted his followers to fight the enemy in the cause of Allah, they replied, Go thou and thy Lord and fight, and here we sit. On the contrary, in the present verse the Israelites are reported to have said, What reason have we to abstain from fighting in the cause of Allah when we have been driven forth from our homes and our sons? The improvement, however, was more verbal than real; for when the time of actual fighting came, many of these people wavered and refused to fight. The incident thus serves as a grim warning to Muslims to beware of treading the same path.
d
4:78.
3
دیکھئے پرانا عہدنامہ کتاب قاضیوں باب۶ آیت ۷ و ۸۔
4
عَسَیْتُمْ کے معنے ہیں ’’تم قریب ہو‘‘ اور ھَلْ عَسَیْتُمْ کے معنے ہوئے ’’کیا تم اس امر کے قریب ہو‘‘ مگر اردو میں اس ترجمہ کے کوئی معنے نہیں بنتے۔ اس لئے لفظی ترجمہ کی بجائے اس کا بامحاورہ ترجمہ کر دیا گیا ہے۔
5
عربی میں صرف قَلِیْل کا لفظ ہے مگر عربی کے قاعدہ کی رو سے یہاں جماعت وغیرہ کے ہم معنی کوئی لفظ محذوف ہے۔ اردو میں اگر صرف قلیل رکھا جائے تو بے معنے ہو جاتا ہے۔ اس لئے ’’جماعت‘‘ کا لفظ عام قاعدہ کے خلاف خطوط میں نہیں لکھا گیا۔ بلکہ ظاہر میں لکھا گیا ہے۔
6
استثناء میں ’’سب‘‘ کا لفظ پہلے حصہ جملہ میں مقدر ہوتا ہے۔ اس جگہ اس کے ظاہر کرنے کے بغیر معنے واضح نہیں ہوتے۔
a
4:78.
253
Important Words:
الملاء (chiefs) is derived from ملاء. They say ملاء الاناء بالماء i.e. he filled the vessel with water. ملی رعبا means, he was filled with fright. الملاء means: (1) assembly of persons; (2) chiefs and nobles, for they fill the eyes and hearts of the commoners withawe and admiration; or because with them a meeting becomes full and appears to be properly attended. الملاء الاعلی means, the community of high placed angels (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The Quran now proceeds to give the story of how the different tribes of Israel were welded into one great nation, also noting incidentally the weaknesses displayed by them, so that their example may serve as a lesson to Muslims.
The incident mentioned in the verse under comment indicates an improvement in the condition of the Israelites in the time to which this verse relates over that of the time of Moses himself. In 5:25 the Quran relates that when Moses exhorted his followers to fight the enemy in the cause of Allah, they replied, Go thou and thy Lord and fight, and here we sit. On the contrary, in the present verse the Israelites are reported to have said, What reason have we to abstain from fighting in the cause of Allah when we have been driven forth from our homes and our sons? The improvement, however, was more verbal than real; for when the time of actual fighting came, many of these people wavered and refused to fight. The incident thus serves as a grim warning to Muslims to beware of treading the same path.
a
4:78.
306
The incident mentioned indicates an improvement in the condition of the Israelites at the time to which this verse relates compared with the time of Moses himself. In 5:25 the Qur’an relates that when Moses exhorted his followers to fight the enemy in the cause of Allah, they replied, Go thou and thy Lord and fight, and here we sit. On the contrary, in the present verse they are reported to have said, What reason have we that we should not fight in the cause of Allah when we have been driven forth from our homes and our sons. The improvement, however, was only verbal rather than real; for when the time of actual fighting came, many of them wavered and refused to fight. The incident thus serves as a grim warning to Muslims to beware of treading the same path.
یَسۡـَٔلُکَ اَہۡلُ الۡکِتٰبِ اَنۡ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَیۡہِمۡ کِتٰبًا مِّنَ السَّمَآءِ ۚ فَقَدۡ سَاَلُوۡا مُوۡسٰۤی اَکۡبَرَ مِنۡ ذٰلِکَ فَقَالُوۡۤا اَرِنَا اللّٰہَ جَہۡرَۃً فَاَخَذَتۡہُمُ الصّٰعِقَۃُ بِظُلۡمِہِمۡ ۚ ثُمَّ اتَّخَذُوا الۡعِجۡلَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ مَا جَآءَتۡہُمُ الۡبَیِّنٰتُ فَعَفَوۡنَا عَنۡ ذٰلِکَ ۚ وَاٰتَیۡنَا مُوۡسٰی سُلۡطٰنًا مُّبِیۡنًا
اہل کتاب میں مسیحی اور یہودی دونوں شامل ہیں۔ مگر اس جگہ اہل کتاب سے مراد صرف یہودی ہیں کیونکہ آگے یہ ذکر آتا ہے کہ وہ حضرت مریمؑ پر بہتان باندھتے تھے اور انہوں نے حضرت مسیحؑ کو صلیب پر لٹکا کر مارنے کی کوشش کی اور یہ کام یہود کا تھا مسیحیوں کا نہیں تھا۔
2:109.
2:56.
2:52, 93; 7:149, 153.
See {96}.
2:109.
2:56.
2:52, 93; 7:149, 153.
Important Words:
For the meaning of صاعقة (destructive punishment) see 2:56.
Commentary:
For an explanation of the words "show us Allah openly" see 2:56.
b
2:109.
c
2:56.
d
2:52, 93; 7:149, 153.
2
اہل کتاب میں مسیحی اور یہودی دونوں شامل ہیں۔ مگر اس جگہ اہل کتاب سے مراد صرف یہودی ہیں کیونکہ آگے یہ ذکر آتا ہے کہ وہ حضرت مریمؑ پر بہتان باندھتے تھے اور انہوں نے حضرت مسیحؑ کو صلیب پر لٹکا کر مارنے کی کوشش کی اور یہ کام یہود کا تھا مسیحیوں کا نہیں تھا۔
b
2:109.
c
2:56.
d
2:52, 93; 7:149, 153.
617
Important Words:
For the meaning of صاعقة (destructive punishment) see 2:56.
Commentary:
For an explanation of the words "show us Allah openly" see 2:56.
b
2:109.
c
2:56.
d
2:52, 93; 7:149, 153.
693
See {96}.
۞ وَاَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلٰی مُوۡسٰۤی اَنۡ اَلۡقِ عَصَاکَ ۖ فَاِذَا ہِیَ تَلۡقَفُ مَا یَاۡفِکُوۡنَ
یہ محاورہ کا کلام ہے‘ مطلب یہ کہ ان کا اثر زائل کرتا جاتا تھا۔ اصل بات یہ ہے کہ انہوں نے اپنی رسیوں میں لوہے کے پیچ چھپائے ہوئے تھے اور سونٹوں میں پارہ بھرا ہوا تھا جس کی وجہ سے وہ حرکت کرتے تھے۔ جیسے آج کل کے یورپ کے کھلونے ہوتے ہیں۔ موسیٰ نے جب ان پر اپنا عصا مارا تو پیچ ٹوٹ گئے اور پارہ نکل گیا اور سب فریب ظاہر ہو گیا۔ اسے محاورہ کی زبان میں نگلنا کہا گیا ہے۔
20:70; 26:46.
It was not the "serpent" made out of the rod, but the rod itself which undid the magic of the magicians. The rod of Moses wielded with the spiritual force of a great Prophet and thrown at the command of God exposed the deception they had wrought on the spectators and broke to pieces the things which, by their magic, they had made them take for real serpents. The words, "it swallowed up whatever they feigned" signify that the rod quickly exposed the deception wrought by the magicians, "swallowed up" signifying "destroyed the effect of, or the impression created by."
20:70; 26:46.
Important Words:
تلقف (it swallowed up) is derived from لقف. They say لقف الشیء i.e. he took or seized the thing quickly; or he took or seized the thing quickly when it was thrown to him. لقف الطعام or تلقف الطعام means, he swallowed up the food (Aqrab).
Commentary:
It was certainly not the "serpent" made out of the rod, but the rod itself which undid the magic of the magicians. The rod of Moses, wielded with the spiritual force of a great Prophet and thrown at the command of God, exposed the deception they had wrought on the spectators by breaking to pieces the things which, by their magic, they had made the people take for real serpents. The words تلقف مایافکون literally meaning "it swallowed up whatever they feigned" really signify that the rod quickly exposed the deception wrought by the magicians.
a
20:70; 26:46.
514
这并不是由手杖做成的 “大蛇”, 但是那手杖本身在拆穿魔术师们的魔术。穆撒的手杖运用一个伟大先知的精神力量, 在安拉的命令下, 抛向并揭穿他们做给观众看的欺诈行为; 把他们用魔法做成的、看样子像许多真的毒蛇的那些东西打得粉碎。“它正在吞食魔术家的魔术” 这些字, 意指那根手杖很快地揭穿了那些魔术家作出的欺诈行为。“吞食” 意指 “消除……的效果或消除已由…造成的印象。”
1
یہ محاورہ کا کلام ہے‘ مطلب یہ کہ ان کا اثر زائل کرتا جاتا تھا۔ اصل بات یہ ہے کہ انہوں نے اپنی رسیوں میں لوہے کے پیچ چھپائے ہوئے تھے اور سونٹوں میں پارہ بھرا ہوا تھا جس کی وجہ سے وہ حرکت کرتے تھے۔ جیسے آج کل کے یورپ کے کھلونے ہوتے ہیں۔ موسیٰ نے جب ان پر اپنا عصا مارا تو پیچ ٹوٹ گئے اور پارہ نکل گیا اور سب فریب ظاہر ہو گیا۔ اسے محاورہ کی زبان میں نگلنا کہا گیا ہے۔
b
20:70; 26:46.
1009
Important Words:
تلقف (it swallowed up) is derived from لقف. They say لقف الشیء i.e. he took or seized the thing quickly; or he took or seized the thing quickly when it was thrown to him. لقف الطعام or تلقف الطعام means, he swallowed up the food (Aqrab).
Commentary:
It was certainly not the "serpent" made out of the rod, but the rod itself which undid the magic of the magicians. The rod of Moses, wielded with the spiritual force of a great Prophet and thrown at the command of God, exposed the deception they had wrought on the spectators by breaking to pieces the things which, by their magic, they had made the people take for real serpents. The words تلقف مایافکون literally meaning "it swallowed up whatever they feigned" really signify that the rod quickly exposed the deception wrought by the magicians.
a
20:70; 26:46.
1029
It was not the "serpent" made out of the rod, but the rod itself which undid the magic of the magicians. The rod of Moses wielded with the spiritual force of a great Prophet and thrown at the command of God exposed the deception they had wrought on the spectators and broke to pieces the things which, by their magic, they had made them take for real serpents. The words, "it swallowed up whatever they feigned" signify that the rod quickly exposed the deception wrought by the magicians, "swallowed up" signifying "destroyed the effect of, or the impression created by."
وَلَمَّا رَجَعَ مُوۡسٰۤی اِلٰی قَوۡمِہٖ غَضۡبٰنَ اَسِفًا قَالَ بِئۡسَمَا خَلَفۡتُمُوۡنِیۡ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِیۡۤ ۖ اَعَجِلۡتُمۡ اَمۡرَ رَبِّکُمۡ ۖ وَاَلۡقَی الۡاَلۡوَاحَ وَاَخَذَ بِرَاۡسِ اَخِیۡہِ یَجُرُّہٗۤ اِلَیۡہِ ۚ قَالَ ابۡنَ اُمَّ اِنَّ الۡقَوۡمَ اسۡتَضۡعَفُوۡنِیۡ وَکَادُوۡا یَقۡتُلُوۡنَنِیۡ فَلَا تُشۡمِتۡ بِیَ الۡاَعۡدَآءَ وَلَا تَجۡعَلۡنِیۡ مَعَ الۡقَوۡمِ الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ
حضرت موسیٰ علیہ السلام قوم کے شرک کی وجہ سے غصہ میں بھرے ہوئے تھے اور زیادہ غصہ بھائی پر تھا کہ قوم میں شرک کے ظاہر ہونے پران سے لڑ کیوں نہ پڑے اور انہی پر زیادہ غصہ ظاہر کیا تاکہ باقی قوم ڈر جائے اور اصلاح کر لے۔
20:87.
20:95.
Moses seized Aaron by the head, not because the latter had countenanced or supported calf-worship, as he is represented to have done in the Bible (Exod. 32: 2-4), but because he did not successfully prevent the people from worshipping the calf. Display of anger on the part of Moses was due, not to any religious or legal offence committed by Aaron, but to his failure to manage affairs properly in his absence. The anger was justified because a great sacrilege had been committed and the whole work of Moses’s life was put in jeopardy.
Aaron appealed to Moses’s feelings of tenderness and brotherly affection.
20:87.
20:95.
Important Words:
فلاتشمت (make not rejoice). تشمت is formed from اشمت which is derived from شمت. They say شمت or شمت به i.e. he (an enemy) rejoiced; or he (someone) rejoiced at his enemy’s affliction. اشمته الله به means, God made him (the enemy) rejoice at his affliction. شمت علی العاطس means, he prayed for the sneezer that he might not be in a state in which his enemy might rejoice at his affliction (Lane).
Commentary:
When the return of Moses was delayed owing to the ten additional nights, his followers became impatient and thought that he was lost. They expressed their impatience in the words "we wot not what is become of him" (Exod. 32:1).
According to the Bible, Moses cast the tablets out of his hands and broke them beneath the Mount, so that they had to be renewed (Exod. 32:19; 34:1). But this is not borne out by the Quran which simply states, And he put down the tablets and this is more in harmony with the dignity of a Prophet.
Moses caught hold of Aaron’s head, not because the latter had abetted calf-worship, as he is represented to have done in the Bible (Exod. 32:2-4), but because he did not successfully prevent the people from worshipping the calf. As Moses’ representative, he should have effectively prevented the people from idol-worship, but he failed to do so. So the display of anger on the part of Moses was due not to any religious or legal offence committed by Aaron, but to his failure to manage affairs properly in the absence of Moses. Aaron had hoped that Moses would set things right on his return. That was only an error of judgement or lack of proper control, not a legal or religious offence.
The way in which Moses treated Aaron also shows that the latter was subordinate to the former. The treatment, however, should not be taken as a display of rough manners on the part of Moses. The anger of Moses was justified because a great sacrilege had been committed and the very work of his life was jeopardized; and Aaron being subordinate to Moses, the latter was entitled to take disciplinary action.
The words, Son of my mother, were used by Aaron not because Moses was a half-brother to him but because he wished to make an effective appeal to his feelings of tenderness and affection, and in this he succeeded.
The meaning of the particle مع (with) in the clause, and place me not with the unjust people, helps to explain its real sense in 4:70. Here, as well as there the particle gives the meaning of "among".
a
20:87.
b
20:95.
1
حضرت موسیٰ علیہ السلام قوم کے شرک کی وجہ سے غصہ میں بھرے ہوئے تھے اور زیادہ غصہ بھائی پر تھا کہ قوم میں شرک کے ظاہر ہونے پران سے لڑ کیوں نہ پڑے اور انہی پر زیادہ غصہ ظاہر کیا تاکہ باقی قوم ڈر جائے اور اصلاح کر لے۔
a
20:87.
b
20:95.
1040
Important Words:
فلاتشمت (make not rejoice). تشمت is formed from اشمت which is derived from شمت. They say شمت or شمت به i.e. he (an enemy) rejoiced; or he (someone) rejoiced at his enemy’s affliction. اشمته الله به means, God made him (the enemy) rejoice at his affliction. شمت علی العاطس means, he prayed for the sneezer that he might not be in a state in which his enemy might rejoice at his affliction (Lane).
Commentary:
When the return of Moses was delayed owing to the ten additional nights, his followers became impatient and thought that he was lost. They expressed their impatience in the words "we wot not what is become of him" (Exod. 32:1).
According to the Bible, Moses cast the tablets out of his hands and broke them beneath the Mount, so that they had to be renewed (Exod. 32:19; 34:1). But this is not borne out by the Quran which simply states, And he put down the tablets and this is more in harmony with the dignity of a Prophet.
Moses caught hold of Aaron’s head, not because the latter had abetted calf-worship, as he is represented to have done in the Bible (Exod. 32:2-4), but because he did not successfully prevent the people from worshipping the calf. As Moses’ representative, he should have effectively prevented the people from idol-worship, but he failed to do so. So the display of anger on the part of Moses was due not to any religious or legal offence committed by Aaron, but to his failure to manage affairs properly in the absence of Moses. Aaron had hoped that Moses would set things right on his return. That was only an error of judgement or lack of proper control, not a legal or religious offence.
The way in which Moses treated Aaron also shows that the latter was subordinate to the former. The treatment, however, should not be taken as a display of rough manners on the part of Moses. The anger of Moses was justified because a great sacrilege had been committed and the very work of his life was jeopardized; and Aaron being subordinate to Moses, the latter was entitled to take disciplinary action.
The words, Son of my mother, were used by Aaron not because Moses was a half-brother to him but because he wished to make an effective appeal to his feelings of tenderness and affection, and in this he succeeded.
The meaning of the particle مع (with) in the clause, and place me not with the unjust people, helps to explain its real sense in 4:70. Here, as well as there the particle gives the meaning of "among".
a
20:87.
b
20:95.
1055
Moses seized Aaron by the head, not because the latter had countenanced or supported calf-worship, as he is represented to have done in the Bible (Exod. 32: 2-4), but because he did not successfully prevent the people from worshipping the calf. Display of anger on the part of Moses was due, not to any religious or legal offence committed by Aaron, but to his failure to manage affairs properly in his absence. The anger was justified because a great sacrilege had been committed and the whole work of Moses’s life was put in jeopardy.
1056
Aaron appealed to Moses’s feelings of tenderness and brotherly affection.
وَمِنۡ قَوۡمِ مُوۡسٰۤی اُمَّۃٌ یَّہۡدُوۡنَ بِالۡحَقِّ وَبِہٖ یَعۡدِلُوۡنَ
7:182.
7:182.
All the followers of Moses were not corrupt. Some among them were not only good themselves but also guided others to truth and acted justly. The Qur’an never condemns a people wholesale and indiscriminately.
7:182.
Commentary:
This verse makes it clear that all followers of Moses were not corrupt. There were some among them who guided men to truth and acted justly. The Quran never condemns a people wholesale. Its condemnation is confined only to such sections of a people as are corrupt and, therefore, deserve to be condemned. Whenever the Quran mentions the evil practices of a people, it never fails to refer also to the good qualities that some of its members are found to possess. Truly has the Quran said: And let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just; that is nearer to righteousness, and fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do (5:9).
c
7:182.
b
7:182.
1049
Commentary:
This verse makes it clear that all followers of Moses were not corrupt. There were some among them who guided men to truth and acted justly. The Quran never condemns a people wholesale. Its condemnation is confined only to such sections of a people as are corrupt and, therefore, deserve to be condemned. Whenever the Quran mentions the evil practices of a people, it never fails to refer also to the good qualities that some of its members are found to possess. Truly has the Quran said: And let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just; that is nearer to righteousness, and fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do (5:9).
a
7:182.
1061
All the followers of Moses were not corrupt. Some among them were not only good themselves but also guided others to truth and acted justly. The Qur’an never condemns a people wholesale and indiscriminately.
وَقَطَّعۡنٰہُمُ اثۡنَتَیۡ عَشۡرَۃَ اَسۡبَاطًا اُمَمًا ۚ وَاَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلٰی مُوۡسٰۤی اِذِ اسۡتَسۡقٰٮہُ قَوۡمُہٗۤ اَنِ اضۡرِبۡ بِّعَصَاکَ الۡحَجَرَ ۖ فَانۡۢبَجَسَتۡ مِنۡہُ اثۡنَتَا عَشۡرَۃَ عَیۡنًا ۖ قَدۡ عَلِمَ کُلُّ اُنَاسٍ مَّشۡرَبَہُمۡ ۚ وَظَلَّلۡنَا عَلَیۡہِمُ الۡغَمٰمَ وَاَنۡزَلۡنَا عَلَیۡہِمُ الۡمَنَّ وَالسَّلۡوٰی ۖ کُلُوۡا مِنۡ طَیِّبٰتِ مَا رَزَقۡنٰکُمۡ ۚ وَمَا ظَلَمُوۡنَا وَلٰکِنۡ کَانُوۡۤا اَنۡفُسَہُمۡ یَظۡلِمُوۡنَ
قرآن مجید میں حَجَر (یعنی پتھر) پر اَلْ آیا ہے اور اس کے معنے ’’فلاں‘‘ کے ہوتے ہیں۔ یعنی حکم یہ نہ تھا کہ کسی پتھر کو مار بلکہ یہ تھا کہ فلاں پتھر کے نیچے چشمہ ہے اسے سونٹا مار کر توڑ دو۔ پانی نکل آئے گا۔ میں نے کشمیر میں ایک چشمہ دیکھا جو پتھر کے نیچے سے آتا تھا اور اس میں سے چودہ چشمے بہتے تھے۔
5:13.
2:61.
2:58; 20:81.
See {101}.
They only wronged themselves and could not harm the cause of truth.
5:13.
2:61.
2:58; 20:81.
Commentary:
See notes on 2:58 & 61.
The words, And they wronged Us not, mean that they did not harm the cause of the religion revealed by God
d
5:13.
e
2:61.
f
2:58; 20:81.
524
他们只伤害了他们自己而不能伤害真理的事业。
1
قرآن مجید میں حَجَر (یعنی پتھر) پر اَلْ آیا ہے اور اس کے معنے ’’فلاں‘‘ کے ہوتے ہیں۔ یعنی حکم یہ نہ تھا کہ کسی پتھر کو مار بلکہ یہ تھا کہ فلاں پتھر کے نیچے چشمہ ہے اسے سونٹا مار کر توڑ دو۔ پانی نکل آئے گا۔ میں نے کشمیر میں ایک چشمہ دیکھا جو پتھر کے نیچے سے آتا تھا اور اس میں سے چودہ چشمے بہتے تھے۔
a
5:13.
b
2:61.
c
2:58; 20:81.
1050
Commentary:
See notes on 2:58 & 61.
The words, And they wronged Us not, mean that they did not harm the cause of the religion revealed by God
b
5:13.
c
2:61.
d
2:58; 20:81.
1061A
See {101}.
1062
They only wronged themselves and could not harm the cause of truth.
قَالَ مُوۡسٰۤی اَتَقُوۡلُوۡنَ لِلۡحَقِّ لَمَّا جَآءَکُمۡ ۖ اَسِحۡرٌ ہٰذَا وَلَا یُفۡلِحُ السّٰحِرُوۡنَ
20:70.
20:70.
20:70.
Commentary:
The expression, Is this enchantment?, constitutes an effective refutation of the charge implied in the words سحر مبین (manifest enchantment) in the preceding verse. Moses is described here as asking his people how his teaching could be called an enchantment when it crushed all falsehood, deceit and trickery. The words, And the enchanters never prosper, provide the second refutation of the same charge. Enchanters, the verse purports to say, merely practise deception and propagate falsehood. They can never attain the success that comes to the Prophets, who have a great mission. The Prophets come to bring about a complete change in the lives of their followers and they succeed in this great and difficult mission despite all obstacles and impediments. In the face of this undeniable fact, how could the Prophets be called enchanters and spreaders of falsehood?
a
20:70.
a
20:70.
1351
Commentary:
The expression, Is this enchantment?, constitutes an effective refutation of the charge implied in the words سحر مبین (manifest enchantment) in the preceding verse. Moses is described here as asking his people how his teaching could be called an enchantment when it crushed all falsehood, deceit and trickery. The words, And the enchanters never prosper, provide the second refutation of the same charge. Enchanters, the verse purports to say, merely practise deception and propagate falsehood. They can never attain the success that comes to the Prophets, who have a great mission. The Prophets come to bring about a complete change in the lives of their followers and they succeed in this great and difficult mission despite all obstacles and impediments. In the face of this undeniable fact, how could the Prophets be called enchanters and spreaders of falsehood?
d
20:70.
اَفَمَنۡ کَانَ عَلٰی بَیِّنَۃٍ مِّنۡ رَّبِّہٖ وَیَتۡلُوۡہُ شَاہِدٌ مِّنۡہُ وَمِنۡ قَبۡلِہٖ کِتٰبُ مُوۡسٰۤی اِمَامًا وَّرَحۡمَۃً ۚ اُولٰٓئِکَ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِہٖ ۚ وَمَنۡ یَّکۡفُرۡ بِہٖ مِنَ الۡاَحۡزَابِ فَالنَّارُ مَوۡعِدُہٗ ۚ فَلَا تَکُ فِیۡ مِرۡیَۃٍ مِّنۡہُ ۚ اِنَّہُ الۡحَقُّ مِنۡ رَّبِّکَ وَلٰکِنَّ اَکۡثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ
2:148; 10:95.
47:15.
46:11; 61:7.
这些话中有三个论据证明穆圣: (a) ‘一个立足於养主明证的人,’ (b) ‘在他之后有一个证人将来自安拉来证明他的真理,’ (c) ‘在他之前还有穆撒的经典。’ ‘养主明证’ 是穆圣给他的腐败没落的民族生活中所带来的伟大精神革命, 而证明他的真理的证人是他的追随者中产生的宗教导师, 他们用自己的训导和实践在每个时代证实了伊斯兰教和 «古兰经» 的真理, 杰出的证人是主许的迈喜合, 阿哈默底亚运动的创始人; ‘在他之前还有穆撒的经典’ 这句话, 指的是圣经中可以见到的有关穆圣的许多预言。读注释932。
یعنی محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم۔
یعنی خدا تعالیٰ کی طرف سے۔
یعنی اس کی امت میں سے بھی ایک مامور پیدا ہوگا جو اپنے الہامات کے ذریعہ سے اس کی تصدیق کرے گا۔ گویا محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کو تین گواہ حاصل ہیں۔ ایک تو خود دلائل رکھتا ہے۔ دوسرے اس کی امت میں سے اولیاء اللہ پیدا ہوتے رہیں گے۔ جو اس کی سچائی کی گواہی دیں گے۔ تیسرے اس سے پہلے بھی حضرت موسیٰ علیہ السلام کی کتاب اس کی سچائی پر گواہی دے رہی ہے۔ اتنی گواہیاں کسی اور نبی کو میّسر نہیں۔
47:15.
46:11; 61:7.
2:148; 10:95.
Three arguments have been given in this verse in support of the Holy Prophet in the words: (a) 'Who stands upon a clear proof from his Lord,' (b) to testify to whose truth a witness from Him shall follow him,' and (c) 'who was preceded by the Book of Moses.' 'The clear proof from his Lord' was the great moral revolution which the Holy Prophet had brought about in the life of his corrupt and decadent people, and the witnesses who bore testimony to his truth were the Divine Teachers from among his followers who, by their precept and practice, established the truth of Islam and the Qur’an in every age, the witness par excellence being the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement; and the words 'was preceded by the Book of Moses' point to the prophecies that are found in the Bible about the Holy Prophet. See {2135}.
47:15.
46:11; 61:7.
2:148; 10:95.
Commentary:
This verse embodies three important criteria by which the truth of the Quran and that of the Holy Prophet can be tested, and declares that he who satisfies these three criteria cannot be an impostor.
There are three classes of men whom a Divine Message can possibly concern:(1) the contemporaries of a Messenger of God, to whom the Message is directly addressed; (2) the generations yet unborn who are to receive the Message in the future; (3) the past generations to whom their Prophet gave the news that a Messenger was to come. If these three classes of witnesses bear testimony to the truth of a claimant to prophethood, there can remain no doubt about his truth. The faith of the last-mentioned class of people, i.e. those who expect the advent of a Messenger of God, has its basis in past prophecies about his advent, while the first-mentioned class, i.e. the contemporaries of a claimant, judge his claim (a) by the touchstone whether he possesses in his own person any proof which testifies to his truth, or (b) by the prophecies of earlier Scriptures about the advent of a Divine Messenger. Lastly, there is the second class of people, i.e. those yet unborn who in their time look upon the signs witnessed by the contemporaries of a claimant as mere stories, and confine their scrutiny to the change brought about by the claimant—the fruit of his reformatory efforts. In fact, succeeding generations attach more importance to the fruits of the labours of a Divine Messenger and to the results of his mission than to anything else. If his Message continues to bear fruit down to their time, they come to realize that it is a truly useful thing and concerns them as much as it did past generations.
In point of importance, pride of place belongs to internal evidence, that is, the evidence which a claimant possesses in his own person, because such evidence serves as a clear proof not only for the contemporaries of the claimant but also for the generations to come and because it relieves seekers after truth of the trouble of turning to other things for guidance, it being in itself a sufficient proof of the truth of the claimant. This kind of proof is referred to in the words, Can he who possesses a clear proof from his Lord be an impostor?
The second evidence, which is also second in importance, of the truth of a Divine claimant pertains to the results produced by his Message and the fruits of his labours; for in the absence of this evidence, the practical value of a Message claimed to be Divine becomes doubtful in the eyes of later generations. In fact, the intrinsic truth of a Message does not constitute a sufficient incentive for acting upon it. It has to be shown that it is also meant for the recipient and for the age in which he lives and that it has not been superseded by a later Message. The fact that a Message continues to bear fruit suffices to establish the fact that it is as practicable and as useful at present as it was in the past. This kind of evidence is referred to in the words, and a witness from Him shall follow him.
Last in point of importance is the evidence which relates to prophecies holding hope of a future reformer and a future Message. The evidence of such prophecies is also useful, for it keeps the minds of men prepared for the acceptance of the Message, although naturally only those people benefit by it in whose time the expected Message actually makes its appearance. This kind of evidence is hinted at in the words, and who was preceded by the Book of Moses, a guide and a mercy.
All these three kinds of evidence have been adduced in this verse in support of the Holy Prophet and the Quranic Message. The Quran possesses strong internal evidence of its Divine origin; the Scriptures that preceded it bear clear witness to its truth; and it was also to bear fruit in the future in a way that nobody could have any reasonable ground to reject it. Similarly, the Holy Prophet who brought this Message also possesses this triple evidence which clearly proves him to be a true Messenger of God.
The words, a witness from Him (God) shall follow him (the Holy Prophet), also point to the appearance of a great Reformer in the Latter Days who was to come as "a witness" to bear testimony to the truth of the Holy Prophet. It is worth noting that the person who was to appear after the Holy Prophet to bear testimony to his truth has been called a شاھد (a witness) and it is evident that a witness is needed only when the continued practicability and usefulness of a Message is called in question. It is evident, therefore, that after the advent of the Holy Prophet a Messenger was needed only at a time when there should arise about the Quran the question whether it was still worthy of being acted upon. It is well known that such a question never arose about the Quran during the last 1350 years, and it is only in the present time that doubts have begun to be expressed about this claim of the Quran with persistence from all quarters. There is a section of Muslims themselves who hold the view that some teachings of the Quran, particularly with regard to the five daily Prayers, the amputation of the hands of a thief, polygamy, purdah, usury, etc., need alteration or amendment. Then there are the followers of claimants like Baha’ullah, who believe that the Law of Islam has become abrogated and they seek to introduce a new Law in its place. Last of all, the so-called higher critics of the west question the authenticity of some historical facts mentioned in the Quran as well as the practicability of some of its teachings. Such a state of affairs never existed before the present age and therefore, truly speaking, no "witness" was needed before now.
The words منه (from Him) in the expression, a witness from Him, clearly show that the promised witness was to be a heavenly Messenger. This heavenly Messenger is Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement,who appeared at a time when the teachings of Islam had begun openly to be declared unpractical and impracticable and the object of whose advent was to bear witness to the truth of Islam by means of clear proofs and fresh heavenly signs.
It should also be remembered that the words, a witness from Him shall follow him, promised the appearance of a person who was to invite men to accept and follow the Quran and not of one who was to abrogate its teachings. Thus, incidentally, the verse furnishes an irrefutable argument against the claims of Baha’ullah.
The third evidence in support of the truth of the Quran and of the Holy Prophet lies in the fact that their advent was predicted by previous Prophets. The Book of Moses forms the most conspicuous example of it. It contains clear prophecies about the Holy Prophet and the Quran. Among others, the reader is referred to Deut. 18:18.
The Book of Moses is here called "a guide" because it serves as a guide to the truth of Islam. It is "a mercy" in the sense that it has made it easy for men to accept the truth in four different ways: (1) by means of prophecies which point to the truth of the Holy Prophet; (2) by laying down criteria by means of which the truth of a Prophet can be tested; (3) by enabling men to compare the teachings of the two Books; and (4) by helping to explain the fundamentals of the Law.
The word احزاب (opposing parties) generally signifies the parties that oppose the Prophets. As the Holy Prophet was raised for the whole of mankind, the words would here signify the followers of all the religions of the world other than Islam.
The words, be not thou in doubt about it, are addressed to the reader and not to the Holy Prophet. These words are preceded by the words, those who consider these matters believe therein, to point out that as there has already come into existence a party of men who believe in the Quran and the Holy Prophet, it is highly unreasonable to think that, whereas the evidences mentioned above have succeeded in bringing into existence a party of firm believers, the Prophet himself to whom those evidences were revealed should remain in doubt about their Divine origin. These words, therefore, cannot be said to have been addressed to the Holy Prophet. They are undoubtedly addressed to each and every reader of the Quran.
a
2:148; 10:95.
d
47:15.
e
46:11; 61:7.
611
这些话中有三个论据证明穆圣: (a) ‘一个立足於养主明证的人,’ (b) ‘在他之后有一个证人将来自安拉来证明他的真理,’ (c) ‘在他之前还有穆撒的经典。’ ‘养主明证’ 是穆圣给他的腐败没落的民族生活中所带来的伟大精神革命, 而证明他的真理的证人是他的追随者中产生的宗教导师, 他们用自己的训导和实践在每个时代证实了伊斯兰教和 «古兰经» 的真理, 杰出的证人是主许的迈喜合, 阿哈默底亚运动的创始人; ‘在他之前还有穆撒的经典’ 这句话, 指的是圣经中可以见到的有关穆圣的许多预言。读注释932。
2
یعنی محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم۔
3
یعنی خدا تعالیٰ کی طرف سے۔
4
یعنی اس کی امت میں سے بھی ایک مامور پیدا ہوگا جو اپنے الہامات کے ذریعہ سے اس کی تصدیق کرے گا۔ گویا محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کو تین گواہ حاصل ہیں۔ ایک تو خود دلائل رکھتا ہے۔ دوسرے اس کی امت میں سے اولیاء اللہ پیدا ہوتے رہیں گے۔ جو اس کی سچائی کی گواہی دیں گے۔ تیسرے اس سے پہلے بھی حضرت موسیٰ علیہ السلام کی کتاب اس کی سچائی پر گواہی دے رہی ہے۔ اتنی گواہیاں کسی اور نبی کو میّسر نہیں۔
a
47:15.
b
46:11; 61:7.
c
2:148; 10:95.
1399
Commentary:
This verse embodies three important criteria by which the truth of the Quran and that of the Holy Prophet can be tested, and declares that he who satisfies these three criteria cannot be an impostor.
There are three classes of men whom a Divine Message can possibly concern:(1) the contemporaries of a Messenger of God, to whom the Message is directly addressed; (2) the generations yet unborn who are to receive the Message in the future; (3) the past generations to whom their Prophet gave the news that a Messenger was to come. If these three classes of witnesses bear testimony to the truth of a claimant to prophethood, there can remain no doubt about his truth. The faith of the last-mentioned class of people, i.e. those who expect the advent of a Messenger of God, has its basis in past prophecies about his advent, while the first-mentioned class, i.e. the contemporaries of a claimant, judge his claim (a) by the touchstone whether he possesses in his own person any proof which testifies to his truth, or (b) by the prophecies of earlier Scriptures about the advent of a Divine Messenger. Lastly, there is the second class of people, i.e. those yet unborn who in their time look upon the signs witnessed by the contemporaries of a claimant as mere stories, and confine their scrutiny to the change brought about by the claimant—the fruit of his reformatory efforts. In fact, succeeding generations attach more importance to the fruits of the labours of a Divine Messenger and to the results of his mission than to anything else. If his Message continues to bear fruit down to their time, they come to realize that it is a truly useful thing and concerns them as much as it did past generations.
In point of importance, pride of place belongs to internal evidence, that is, the evidence which a claimant possesses in his own person, because such evidence serves as a clear proof not only for the contemporaries of the claimant but also for the generations to come and because it relieves seekers after truth of the trouble of turning to other things for guidance, it being in itself a sufficient proof of the truth of the claimant. This kind of proof is referred to in the words, Can he who possesses a clear proof from his Lord be an impostor?
The second evidence, which is also second in importance, of the truth of a Divine claimant pertains to the results produced by his Message and the fruits of his labours; for in the absence of this evidence, the practical value of a Message claimed to be Divine becomes doubtful in the eyes of later generations. In fact, the intrinsic truth of a Message does not constitute a sufficient incentive for acting upon it. It has to be shown that it is also meant for the recipient and for the age in which he lives and that it has not been superseded by a later Message. The fact that a Message continues to bear fruit suffices to establish the fact that it is as practicable and as useful at present as it was in the past. This kind of evidence is referred to in the words, and a witness from Him shall follow him.
Last in point of importance is the evidence which relates to prophecies holding hope of a future reformer and a future Message. The evidence of such prophecies is also useful, for it keeps the minds of men prepared for the acceptance of the Message, although naturally only those people benefit by it in whose time the expected Message actually makes its appearance. This kind of evidence is hinted at in the words, and who was preceded by the Book of Moses, a guide and a mercy.
All these three kinds of evidence have been adduced in this verse in support of the Holy Prophet and the Quranic Message. The Quran possesses strong internal evidence of its Divine origin; the Scriptures that preceded it bear clear witness to its truth; and it was also to bear fruit in the future in a way that nobody could have any reasonable ground to reject it. Similarly, the Holy Prophet who brought this Message also possesses this triple evidence which clearly proves him to be a true Messenger of God.
The words, a witness from Him (God) shall follow him (the Holy Prophet), also point to the appearance of a great Reformer in the Latter Days who was to come as "a witness" to bear testimony to the truth of the Holy Prophet. It is worth noting that the person who was to appear after the Holy Prophet to bear testimony to his truth has been called a شاھد (a witness) and it is evident that a witness is needed only when the continued practicability and usefulness of a Message is called in question. It is evident, therefore, that after the advent of the Holy Prophet a Messenger was needed only at a time when there should arise about the Quran the question whether it was still worthy of being acted upon. It is well known that such a question never arose about the Quran during the last 1350 years, and it is only in the present time that doubts have begun to be expressed about this claim of the Quran with persistence from all quarters. There is a section of Muslims themselves who hold the view that some teachings of the Quran, particularly with regard to the five daily Prayers, the amputation of the hands of a thief, polygamy, purdah, usury, etc., need alteration or amendment. Then there are the followers of claimants like Baha’ullah, who believe that the Law of Islam has become abrogated and they seek to introduce a new Law in its place. Last of all, the so-called higher critics of the west question the authenticity of some historical facts mentioned in the Quran as well as the practicability of some of its teachings. Such a state of affairs never existed before the present age and therefore, truly speaking, no "witness" was needed before now.
The words منه (from Him) in the expression, a witness from Him, clearly show that the promised witness was to be a heavenly Messenger. This heavenly Messenger is Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement,who appeared at a time when the teachings of Islam had begun openly to be declared unpractical and impracticable and the object of whose advent was to bear witness to the truth of Islam by means of clear proofs and fresh heavenly signs.
It should also be remembered that the words, a witness from Him shall follow him, promised the appearance of a person who was to invite men to accept and follow the Quran and not of one who was to abrogate its teachings. Thus, incidentally, the verse furnishes an irrefutable argument against the claims of Baha’ullah.
The third evidence in support of the truth of the Quran and of the Holy Prophet lies in the fact that their advent was predicted by previous Prophets. The Book of Moses forms the most conspicuous example of it. It contains clear prophecies about the Holy Prophet and the Quran. Among others, the reader is referred to Deut. 18:18.
The Book of Moses is here called "a guide" because it serves as a guide to the truth of Islam. It is "a mercy" in the sense that it has made it easy for men to accept the truth in four different ways: (1) by means of prophecies which point to the truth of the Holy Prophet; (2) by laying down criteria by means of which the truth of a Prophet can be tested; (3) by enabling men to compare the teachings of the two Books; and (4) by helping to explain the fundamentals of the Law.
The word احزاب (opposing parties) generally signifies the parties that oppose the Prophets. As the Holy Prophet was raised for the whole of mankind, the words would here signify the followers of all the religions of the world other than Islam.
The words, be not thou in doubt about it, are addressed to the reader and not to the Holy Prophet. These words are preceded by the words, those who consider these matters believe therein, to point out that as there has already come into existence a party of men who believe in the Quran and the Holy Prophet, it is highly unreasonable to think that, whereas the evidences mentioned above have succeeded in bringing into existence a party of firm believers, the Prophet himself to whom those evidences were revealed should remain in doubt about their Divine origin. These words, therefore, cannot be said to have been addressed to the Holy Prophet. They are undoubtedly addressed to each and every reader of the Quran.
c
47:15.
d
46:11; 61:7.
e
2:148; 10:95.
1304
Three arguments have been given in this verse in support of the Holy Prophet in the words: (a) 'Who stands upon a clear proof from his Lord,' (b) to testify to whose truth a witness from Him shall follow him,' and (c) 'who was preceded by the Book of Moses.' 'The clear proof from his Lord' was the great moral revolution which the Holy Prophet had brought about in the life of his corrupt and decadent people, and the witnesses who bore testimony to his truth were the Divine Teachers from among his followers who, by their precept and practice, established the truth of Islam and the Qur’an in every age, the witness par excellence being the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement; and the words 'was preceded by the Book of Moses' point to the prophecies that are found in the Bible about the Holy Prophet. See {2135}.
وَقَالَ مُوۡسٰۤی اِنۡ تَکۡفُرُوۡۤا اَنۡتُمۡ وَمَنۡ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ جَمِیۡعًا فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ لَغَنِیٌّ حَمِیۡدٌ
31:13.
31:13.
31:13.
Commentary:
The verse represents Moses as saying that God’s sending down His guidance through His Prophets should not be taken to mean that the acceptance of Divine guidance by man in any way conduces to God’s own good. It is all for the good of man himself, for God is Self-Sufficient and above all needs.
d
31:13.
a
31:13.
1663
Commentary:
The verse represents Moses as saying that God’s sending down His guidance through His Prophets should not be taken to mean that the acceptance of Divine guidance by man in any way conduces to God’s own good. It is all for the good of man himself, for God is Self-Sufficient and above all needs.
b
31:13.
وَاذۡکُرۡ فِی الۡکِتٰبِ مُوۡسٰۤی ۚ اِنَّہٗ کَانَ مُخۡلَصًا وَّکَانَ رَسُوۡلًا نَّبِیًّا
33:70.
قرآن میں ذکر کرنے کے یہ معنے ہیں کہ قرآن مجید ان کے صحیح واقعات بیان کرتا ہے لیکن بائبل غلطی اور مبالغہ سے کام لیتی ہے اس لئے قرآن کریم کو اصلاح کی ضرورت پیش آئی۔ پس اصل صحیح تاریخ بیان ہونی چاہئے ورنہ بائبل کے بیان سے دنیا گمراہ ہوگی۔
33:70.
The words, he was a Messenger, a Prophet, explain and remove a popular misconception, viz. that a Rasul (Messenger) is one who brings a new Law and a new Book and a Nabi (Prophet) is one who is commissioned by God only for the reformation of his people, and though, like a Rasul, a Nabi receives Divine revelations, yet he brings no Law or Book containing new commandments and ordinances. According to this popular notion every Rasul (Messenger) is necessarily a Nabi (Prophet) but not every Nabi a Rasul. The verse under comment demolishes this wrong notion because if a Rasul (Messenger) is one who brings a new Book and a new Law and as such is necessarily a Nabi (Prophet), then the addition of the word Nabi to the word Rasul in this and other verses is superfluous and redundant. The fact is that every Rasul is a Nabi and every Nabi a Rasul. These two words are interchangeable and represent two
33:70.
Commentary:
The account of Abraham is followed by that of Moses—Isaac and Jacob having been mentioned only casually and by the way in v. 50 above. In Moses, God’s covenant with Abraham about the progeny of Isaac, found its fullest and completest manifestation. The visible mark of this divine covenant was the bestowal of Canaan on Abraham’s progeny (Gen. 17:8) which took place in the time of Moses’ Successor. The Israelite Prophets who came after Moses were only Reformer-Prophets who carried on and fulfilled his work and mission. This is why after Moses God adverts to His promise to Abraham about Ishmael which saw its sublimest and most complete and perfect manifestation and consummation in the Holy Prophet of Islam who was a descendant of Ishmael.
The words, he was a Messenger and a Prophet, explain and remove a popular misconception. According to popular notion a رسول (Messenger) is one who brings a new Law and a new Book and a نبی (Prophet) is one who is commissioned by God only for the reformation of his people. He also receives Divine revelation but brings no Law or Book containing new commandments and ordinances. According to this popular notion every رسول (Messenger) is necessarily a نبی (Prophet) but not every نبی a رسول. The verse under comment, however, demolishes this wrong notion because if a رسول (Messenger) is one who brings a new Book and a new Law and as such is necessarily a نبی (Prophet), then the addition of the word نبی to the word رسول in this and other verses is superfluous and redundant. In fact, every رسولis a نبی and every نبی a رسول. These two words represent two aspects of the same office and two functions of the same person. A Divine Reformer is a رسول inasmuch as he receives messages from God (رسالت meaning a message) and he is a نبی in the sense that he conveys those Messages to the people to whom he is sent (نبوت meaning the conveying of a message). Thus every رسول(Messenger) is a نبی (Prophet) because after receiving Divine Messages he conveys them to his people and every نبی is a رسول because he conveys to his people those Messages which he receives from God. Only the functions of نبی follow those of رسول. In his capacity as رسولhe first receives messages from God and then in his capacity as نبیhe conveys them to his people. This is why here and everywhere in the Quran when these two words—رسول and نبی occur together, invariably the word نبی follows the word رسول because that is the natural order.
See also 7:158, 159; 19:31, 55. The bringing of a new Book or a new Law, therefore, is not the necessary concomitant of a نبی or a رسول. A رسول or a نبیmay or may not bring a new Law. All Messengers (رسول) and Prophets (نبی) are of two categories—(a) those that bring a new Book and a new Law and (b) those that do not. This classification of رسول and نبی into two categories is supported by the Quranitself. See 5:45.
c
33:70.
1
قرآن میں ذکر کرنے کے یہ معنے ہیں کہ قرآن مجید ان کے صحیح واقعات بیان کرتا ہے لیکن بائبل غلطی اور مبالغہ سے کام لیتی ہے اس لئے قرآن کریم کو اصلاح کی ضرورت پیش آئی۔ پس اصل صحیح تاریخ بیان ہونی چاہئے ورنہ بائبل کے بیان سے دنیا گمراہ ہوگی۔
a
33:70.
2194
Commentary:
The account of Abraham is followed by that of Moses—Isaac and Jacob having been mentioned only casually and by the way in v. 50 above. In Moses, God’s covenant with Abraham about the progeny of Isaac, found its fullest and completest manifestation. The visible mark of this divine covenant was the bestowal of Canaan on Abraham’s progeny (Gen. 17:8) which took place in the time of Moses’ Successor. The Israelite Prophets who came after Moses were only Reformer-Prophets who carried on and fulfilled his work and mission. This is why after Moses God adverts to His promise to Abraham about Ishmael which saw its sublimest and most complete and perfect manifestation and consummation in the Holy Prophet of Islam who was a descendant of Ishmael.
The words, he was a Messenger and a Prophet, explain and remove a popular misconception. According to popular notion a رسول (Messenger) is one who brings a new Law and a new Book and a نبی (Prophet) is one who is commissioned by God only for the reformation of his people. He also receives Divine revelation but brings no Law or Book containing new commandments and ordinances. According to this popular notion every رسول (Messenger) is necessarily a نبی (Prophet) but not every نبی a رسول. The verse under comment, however, demolishes this wrong notion because if a رسول (Messenger) is one who brings a new Book and a new Law and as such is necessarily a نبی (Prophet), then the addition of the word نبی to the word رسول in this and other verses is superfluous and redundant. In fact, every رسولis a نبی and every نبی a رسول. These two words represent two aspects of the same office and two functions of the same person. A Divine Reformer is a رسول inasmuch as he receives messages from God (رسالت meaning a message) and he is a نبی in the sense that he conveys those Messages to the people to whom he is sent (نبوت meaning the conveying of a message). Thus every رسول(Messenger) is a نبی (Prophet) because after receiving Divine Messages he conveys them to his people and every نبی is a رسول because he conveys to his people those Messages which he receives from God. Only the functions of نبی follow those of رسول. In his capacity as رسولhe first receives messages from God and then in his capacity as نبیhe conveys them to his people. This is why here and everywhere in the Quran when these two words—رسول and نبی occur together, invariably the word نبی follows the word رسول because that is the natural order.
See also 7:158, 159; 19:31, 55. The bringing of a new Book or a new Law, therefore, is not the necessary concomitant of a نبی or a رسول. A رسول or a نبیmay or may not bring a new Law. All Messengers (رسول) and Prophets (نبی) are of two categories—(a) those that bring a new Book and a new Law and (b) those that do not. This classification of رسول and نبی into two categories is supported by the Quranitself. See 5:45.
a
33:70.
1780
The words, he was a Messenger, a Prophet, explain and remove a popular misconception, viz. that a Rasul (Messenger) is one who brings a new Law and a new Book and a Nabi (Prophet) is one who is commissioned by God only for the reformation of his people, and though, like a Rasul, a Nabi receives Divine revelations, yet he brings no Law or Book containing new commandments and ordinances. According to this popular notion every Rasul (Messenger) is necessarily a Nabi (Prophet) but not every Nabi a Rasul. The verse under comment demolishes this wrong notion because if a Rasul (Messenger) is one who brings a new Book and a new Law and as such is necessarily a Nabi (Prophet), then the addition of the word Nabi to the word Rasul in this and other verses is superfluous and redundant. The fact is that every Rasul is a Nabi and every Nabi a Rasul. These two words are interchangeable and represent two
وَہَلۡ اَتٰٮکَ حَدِیۡثُ مُوۡسٰۤی
19:52; 79:16.
19:52; 79:16.
Against all accepted canons of history Freud in his "Moses and Monotheism" has adumbrated quite a novel theory that Moses was not an Israelite and that he did not belong to the Hebrew stock and also that the Israelites never settled in Egypt. He has advanced the following arguments in support of this strange claim: (1) That Moses is an Egyptian name. (2) That the idea of the Oneness of God was originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by an ancient Egyptian king, named Ikhnaten (or Akhenaten). (3) That Moses, himself being an Egyptian, borrowed it from the Egyptians and preached it among the Israelites. (4) That because Moses was an Egyptian he could not properly express himself in Hebrew.
All these arguments possess no basis in fact. Moses is certainly a Hebrew word, having derivation both in Hebrew and Arabic. But even if the name Moses was of Egyptian origin, it does not follow that the man Moses also was an Egyptian. As the Israelites were a subject race in Egypt, living under
19:52; 79:16.
Commentary:
موسی (Moses), the founder of Judaism, lived about 1400 years before Jesus. He was a Law-giving Prophet and the founder of a great religious system. As for the name Moses, it may be briefly stated that موسی (Moses) is really a Hebrew name having definite derivation in both Hebrew and Arabic. In Hebrew it is pronounced and written as موشی (Moshe) and means, "a thing drawn out of water" or "saved from water" (Enc. Bib.). See also 2:54.
Against all accepted canons of history Freud in his "Moses and Monotheism" has adumbrated quite a novel theory that Moses was not an Israelite and did not belong to the Hebrew stock and also that the Israelites never settled in Egypt. He has advanced the following arguments in support of this strange and baseless claim:
1. That Moses is an Egyptian name.
2. That the idea of the Oneness of God is originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by an ancient Egyptian king, named Ikhnaten (or Akhenaten). Moses himself being an Egyptian borrowed it from the Egyptians and preached it among the Israelites.
3. That, being an Egyptian, Moses popularized the Egyptian custom of circumcision as a religious rite among the Israelites.
4. That like the teaching of the Egyptian king, Akhenaten, there is no mention of the life after death in the teachings of Moses which also shows that he was an Egyptian.
5. That the Egyptians had a very strong dislike for swine and its flesh and that the Israelites developed this dislike as a result of the teaching of Moses.
6. That because Moses was an Egyptian he could not properly express himself in Hebrew.
1. Firstly, all these arguments in fact possess no basis. As stated above and also in 2:54, Moses is certainly a Hebrew word, having derivation both in Hebrew and Arabic. But even if we admit that the name Moses was of Egyptian origin, it does not follow that the man Moses also was an Egyptian. As the Israelites were a subject race in Egypt, living under the rule of the Pharaohs, it seems quite plausible that they should have adopted Egyptian names. The members of a subject race generally feel a particular delight in adopting the names and imitating the customs, modes of living and dress etc., of their rulers. But the actual fact is that موسی (Moses) is a Hebrew name and Pharaoh’s daughter, who very probably gave him that name, must have certainly been influenced to give the child a Hebrew name, as having taken him out of water she thought that he belonged to the Israelite people. It is also possible that the name might have been suggested by Moses’ mother or sister.
2. The second argument that the idea of the Oneness of God was originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by Akhenaten, an ancient Egyptian king, and preached by him among the Israelites, is equally wrong. In the first place it is manifestly unreasonable to suppose that a certain concept is the monopoly of one people. Different peoples may independently form similar ideas without having borrowed them from one another. Secondly, even supposing that the idea of God’s Unity is of Egyptian origin, the inference cannot be justified that Moses was an Egyptian. If an American or a German can borrow an idea from an Englishman and vice versa why cannot an Israelite borrow an idea from an Egyptian? The truth is that the idea of God’s Oneness was neither conceived by Egyptians nor by Syrians or any other people. It has its origin in Divine revelation.
3. The contention that circumcision was an old Egyptian practice and Moses being an Egyptian borrowed it from his people and popularized it among the Israelites also possesses no substance. Supposing that the practice of circumcision was Egyptian, how does this fact show that Moses was an Egyptian? Do not one people adopt the customs of another people? Could not the Israelites, during their stay in Egypt, have borrowed this practice from the Egyptians, particularly in view of the fact that the Israelites were a subject race and the subject race have a special liking for the ideas and practices of their rulers. In any case it is not a fact that the practice of circumcision was in vogue among the Egyptians alone. According to the Bible, in pursuance of God’s command, Abraham had himself and his two sons Ishmael and Isaac circumcised and had made the observance of the rite of circumcision incumbent upon his posterity long before Moses was born (Gen. 17:11). This practice was also in vogue among the Arabs who never had good social relations with the Israelites and never had gone to Egypt. Even among the wild tribes of Africa and the aborigines of Australia circumcision is not unknown (Jew. Enc. vol. 4, p. 97 and "Tribes of Central Australia" by Spencer and Gillen, p.323). The earliest traces of this practice among Egyptians are to be found in the 16th century B.C. (Jew. Enc. vol.4, p.97), when the Israelites had already been living there. It can, therefore, be safely inferred that, if at all, the practice was borrowed by the Egyptians from the Israelites and not by the Israelites from the Egyptians. The practice seems to have been introduced into Egypt by the Prophet Joseph who commanded great respect and prestige with Egyptian monarchs. Under his influence it must have become popular among the upper strata of Egyptian society as research scholars are of the view that this practice was much more in vogue among the upper sections of the Egyptian people to which Joseph himself belonged than among the poor classes.
4. Another argument that has been advanced in favour of Moses being an Egyptian is that like the teaching of Akhenaten no reference is to be found in the teachings of Moses about life after death. That this argument is quite weak and flimsy is clear from the fact that Akhenaten has left no book, no teaching and no community of followers from whom his views about life after death might be ascertained. Moreover, there are references to life after death in the teaching of Moses. The Bible says: "And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people" (Deut. 32:50) and "I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness" (Psalms 17: 15). The misconception may have arisen from the absence of any marked emphasis on life after death in the Old Testament. This lack of stress might have been due to the fact that in the course of time the Old Testament had become subject to much interpolation and had been tampered with and many parts of it had been lost during the miseries and misfortunes that overtook the Israelites in the period of their dispersion and captivity. When, however, the Jewish scholars and savants re-edited the Bible, they left out from it those passages which did not quite suit the Jewish temper and genius. The passages dealing with the subject of life after death seem to have been among the parts left out as the Jews, being a particularly worldly-minded people, did not relish its repeated mention.
5. The fifth argument given in support of this thesis is that the Israelites, like the Egyptians, had an extreme dislike for pork. This argument, too, seems to stand on a flimsy ground. Though Egyptians did not like pork, pigs were kept and reared in Egypt and were even offered as sacrifice at the altars of the Egyptian gods (Enc. Bib. cols. 4825, 4826). Thus the reason for the Egyptians to refrain from slaughtering pigs seems to have been that they considered it a sacred animal unlike the Israelites to whom its eating was forbidden on account of its being filthy and abominable.
6. The sixth argument given in favour of Moses being an Egyptian is that he could not properly speak Hebrew, the language of the Israelites. This argument is based on Exod. 4:10 where it is stated that Moses was not eloquent and was slow of speech and of a slow tongue. It is true that Moses suffered from an impediment in his speech and could not freely express himself. But how could the fact that Moses was not fluent and was slow of speech prove that he was slow of speech in Hebrew and therefore was not an Israelite. On the contrary, as it appears from the Bible and the Quran, when commanded by God to go to Pharaoh to preach his mission to him, Moses requested to be excused on the plea of his inability to express himself adequately. This fact, if anything, shows that Moses could not freely talk in the tongue which Pharaoh spoke and understood i.e. the Egyptian tongue, and therefore he was not an Egyptian.
In short, there is no reason or justification for supposing that the name Moses is of Egyptian origin or that the man Moses was not an Israelite. The linguistic evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, combined with reason and the evidence of Jewish history and tradition, added to the account of Moses as given in the Bible and the Quran, all go to substantiate and support the fact that Moses was not an Egyptian nor was his name of Egyptian origin.
d
19:52; 79:16.
c
19:52; 79:16.
2246
Commentary:
موسی (Moses), the founder of Judaism, lived about 1400 years before Jesus. He was a Law-giving Prophet and the founder of a great religious system. As for the name Moses, it may be briefly stated that موسی (Moses) is really a Hebrew name having definite derivation in both Hebrew and Arabic. In Hebrew it is pronounced and written as موشی (Moshe) and means, "a thing drawn out of water" or "saved from water" (Enc. Bib.). See also 2:54.
Against all accepted canons of history Freud in his "Moses and Monotheism" has adumbrated quite a novel theory that Moses was not an Israelite and did not belong to the Hebrew stock and also that the Israelites never settled in Egypt. He has advanced the following arguments in support of this strange and baseless claim:
1. That Moses is an Egyptian name.
2. That the idea of the Oneness of God is originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by an ancient Egyptian king, named Ikhnaten (or Akhenaten). Moses himself being an Egyptian borrowed it from the Egyptians and preached it among the Israelites.
3. That, being an Egyptian, Moses popularized the Egyptian custom of circumcision as a religious rite among the Israelites.
4. That like the teaching of the Egyptian king, Akhenaten, there is no mention of the life after death in the teachings of Moses which also shows that he was an Egyptian.
5. That the Egyptians had a very strong dislike for swine and its flesh and that the Israelites developed this dislike as a result of the teaching of Moses.
6. That because Moses was an Egyptian he could not properly express himself in Hebrew.
1. Firstly, all these arguments in fact possess no basis. As stated above and also in 2:54, Moses is certainly a Hebrew word, having derivation both in Hebrew and Arabic. But even if we admit that the name Moses was of Egyptian origin, it does not follow that the man Moses also was an Egyptian. As the Israelites were a subject race in Egypt, living under the rule of the Pharaohs, it seems quite plausible that they should have adopted Egyptian names. The members of a subject race generally feel a particular delight in adopting the names and imitating the customs, modes of living and dress etc., of their rulers. But the actual fact is that موسی (Moses) is a Hebrew name and Pharaoh’s daughter, who very probably gave him that name, must have certainly been influenced to give the child a Hebrew name, as having taken him out of water she thought that he belonged to the Israelite people. It is also possible that the name might have been suggested by Moses’ mother or sister.
2. The second argument that the idea of the Oneness of God was originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by Akhenaten, an ancient Egyptian king, and preached by him among the Israelites, is equally wrong. In the first place it is manifestly unreasonable to suppose that a certain concept is the monopoly of one people. Different peoples may independently form similar ideas without having borrowed them from one another. Secondly, even supposing that the idea of God’s Unity is of Egyptian origin, the inference cannot be justified that Moses was an Egyptian. If an American or a German can borrow an idea from an Englishman and vice versa why cannot an Israelite borrow an idea from an Egyptian? The truth is that the idea of God’s Oneness was neither conceived by Egyptians nor by Syrians or any other people. It has its origin in Divine revelation.
3. The contention that circumcision was an old Egyptian practice and Moses being an Egyptian borrowed it from his people and popularized it among the Israelites also possesses no substance. Supposing that the practice of circumcision was Egyptian, how does this fact show that Moses was an Egyptian? Do not one people adopt the customs of another people? Could not the Israelites, during their stay in Egypt, have borrowed this practice from the Egyptians, particularly in view of the fact that the Israelites were a subject race and the subject race have a special liking for the ideas and practices of their rulers. In any case it is not a fact that the practice of circumcision was in vogue among the Egyptians alone. According to the Bible, in pursuance of God’s command, Abraham had himself and his two sons Ishmael and Isaac circumcised and had made the observance of the rite of circumcision incumbent upon his posterity long before Moses was born (Gen. 17:11). This practice was also in vogue among the Arabs who never had good social relations with the Israelites and never had gone to Egypt. Even among the wild tribes of Africa and the aborigines of Australia circumcision is not unknown (Jew. Enc. vol. 4, p. 97 and "Tribes of Central Australia" by Spencer and Gillen, p.323). The earliest traces of this practice among Egyptians are to be found in the 16th century B.C. (Jew. Enc. vol.4, p.97), when the Israelites had already been living there. It can, therefore, be safely inferred that, if at all, the practice was borrowed by the Egyptians from the Israelites and not by the Israelites from the Egyptians. The practice seems to have been introduced into Egypt by the Prophet Joseph who commanded great respect and prestige with Egyptian monarchs. Under his influence it must have become popular among the upper strata of Egyptian society as research scholars are of the view that this practice was much more in vogue among the upper sections of the Egyptian people to which Joseph himself belonged than among the poor classes.
4. Another argument that has been advanced in favour of Moses being an Egyptian is that like the teaching of Akhenaten no reference is to be found in the teachings of Moses about life after death. That this argument is quite weak and flimsy is clear from the fact that Akhenaten has left no book, no teaching and no community of followers from whom his views about life after death might be ascertained. Moreover, there are references to life after death in the teaching of Moses. The Bible says: "And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people" (Deut. 32:50) and "I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness" (Psalms 17: 15). The misconception may have arisen from the absence of any marked emphasis on life after death in the Old Testament. This lack of stress might have been due to the fact that in the course of time the Old Testament had become subject to much interpolation and had been tampered with and many parts of it had been lost during the miseries and misfortunes that overtook the Israelites in the period of their dispersion and captivity. When, however, the Jewish scholars and savants re-edited the Bible, they left out from it those passages which did not quite suit the Jewish temper and genius. The passages dealing with the subject of life after death seem to have been among the parts left out as the Jews, being a particularly worldly-minded people, did not relish its repeated mention.
5. The fifth argument given in support of this thesis is that the Israelites, like the Egyptians, had an extreme dislike for pork. This argument, too, seems to stand on a flimsy ground. Though Egyptians did not like pork, pigs were kept and reared in Egypt and were even offered as sacrifice at the altars of the Egyptian gods (Enc. Bib. cols. 4825, 4826). Thus the reason for the Egyptians to refrain from slaughtering pigs seems to have been that they considered it a sacred animal unlike the Israelites to whom its eating was forbidden on account of its being filthy and abominable.
6. The sixth argument given in favour of Moses being an Egyptian is that he could not properly speak Hebrew, the language of the Israelites. This argument is based on Exod. 4:10 where it is stated that Moses was not eloquent and was slow of speech and of a slow tongue. It is true that Moses suffered from an impediment in his speech and could not freely express himself. But how could the fact that Moses was not fluent and was slow of speech prove that he was slow of speech in Hebrew and therefore was not an Israelite. On the contrary, as it appears from the Bible and the Quran, when commanded by God to go to Pharaoh to preach his mission to him, Moses requested to be excused on the plea of his inability to express himself adequately. This fact, if anything, shows that Moses could not freely talk in the tongue which Pharaoh spoke and understood i.e. the Egyptian tongue, and therefore he was not an Egyptian.
In short, there is no reason or justification for supposing that the name Moses is of Egyptian origin or that the man Moses was not an Israelite. The linguistic evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, combined with reason and the evidence of Jewish history and tradition, added to the account of Moses as given in the Bible and the Quran, all go to substantiate and support the fact that Moses was not an Egyptian nor was his name of Egyptian origin.
d
19:52; 79:16.
1812
Against all accepted canons of history Freud in his "Moses and Monotheism" has adumbrated quite a novel theory that Moses was not an Israelite and that he did not belong to the Hebrew stock and also that the Israelites never settled in Egypt. He has advanced the following arguments in support of this strange claim: (1) That Moses is an Egyptian name. (2) That the idea of the Oneness of God was originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by an ancient Egyptian king, named Ikhnaten (or Akhenaten). (3) That Moses, himself being an Egyptian, borrowed it from the Egyptians and preached it among the Israelites. (4) That because Moses was an Egyptian he could not properly express himself in Hebrew.
All these arguments possess no basis in fact. Moses is certainly a Hebrew word, having derivation both in Hebrew and Arabic. But even if the name Moses was of Egyptian origin, it does not follow that the man Moses also was an Egyptian. As the Israelites were a subject race in Egypt, living under
وَلَقَدۡ اَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلٰی مُوۡسٰۤی اَنۡ اَسۡرِ بِعِبَادِیۡ فَاضۡرِبۡ لَہُمۡ طَرِیۡقًا فِی الۡبَحۡرِ یَبَسًا لَّا تَخٰفُ دَرَکًا وَّلَا تَخۡشٰی
26:53.
26:64.
Against all unimpeachable historical data, most extraordinary theories have been propounded about the Israelites, viz. (a) they never lived in Egypt; because no reference to them is to be found in the old Egyptian historical records. (b) In the fifth year of the reign of Pharaoh Meneptah (or Merenptah) when Moses is said to have taken the Israelites out of Egypt, some Israelite tribes were actually living in Canaan, therefore the theory that Moses had taken the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan during his reign and that they settled there some fifty years later is all wrong.
The propounders of these strange theories seem to forget that the Israelites were foreigners in Egypt and were a subject race and had lived the miserable life of serfs and slaves under their cruel rulers. How could such people be considered worthy of any notice being taken of them by historians? When even in this 20th century historians cannot find it easy to prepare a well- connected and harmonious narrative about a people from
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.
a
26:53.
b
26:64.
c
26:53.
d
26:64.
2293A
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.
c
26:53.
d
26:64.
1838
Against all unimpeachable historical data, most extraordinary theories have been propounded about the Israelites, viz. (a) they never lived in Egypt; because no reference to them is to be found in the old Egyptian historical records. (b) In the fifth year of the reign of Pharaoh Meneptah (or Merenptah) when Moses is said to have taken the Israelites out of Egypt, some Israelite tribes were actually living in Canaan, therefore the theory that Moses had taken the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan during his reign and that they settled there some fifty years later is all wrong.
The propounders of these strange theories seem to forget that the Israelites were foreigners in Egypt and were a subject race and had lived the miserable life of serfs and slaves under their cruel rulers. How could such people be considered worthy of any notice being taken of them by historians? When even in this 20th century historians cannot find it easy to prepare a well- connected and harmonious narrative about a people from
فَرَجَعَ مُوۡسٰۤی اِلٰی قَوۡمِہٖ غَضۡبٰنَ اَسِفًا ۚ قَالَ یٰقَوۡمِ اَلَمۡ یَعِدۡکُمۡ رَبُّکُمۡ وَعۡدًا حَسَنًا ۚ اَفَطَالَ عَلَیۡکُمُ الۡعَہۡدُ اَمۡ اَرَدتُّمۡ اَنۡ یَّحِلَّ عَلَیۡکُمۡ غَضَبٌ مِّنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ فَاَخۡلَفۡتُمۡ مَّوۡعِدِیۡ
7:151.
7:151.
7:151.
Commentary:
موعدی (my promise) means, the promise which you made to me, or the promise which God made to you through me.
b
7:151.
b
7:151.
2300
Commentary:
موعدی (my promise) means, the promise which you made to me, or the promise which God made to you through me.
b
7:151.
وَاِذۡ نَادٰی رَبُّکَ مُوۡسٰۤی اَنِ ائۡتِ الۡقَوۡمَ الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ
20:25; 79:17, 18.
20:25; 79:17, 18.
20:25; 79:17-18.
Commentary:
The account of the seven great Prophets mentioned in the Surah begins with the story of Moses, the greatest of all the Israelite Prophets and the like of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. As many as fifty eight verses have been devoted to him.
d
20:25; 79:17, 18.
a
20:25; 79:17-18.
2713
Commentary:
The account of the seven great Prophets mentioned in the Surah begins with the story of Moses, the greatest of all the Israelite Prophets and the like of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. As many as fifty eight verses have been devoted to him.
c
20:25; 79:17, 18.
۞ وَاَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلٰی مُوۡسٰۤی اَنۡ اَسۡرِ بِعِبَادِیۡۤ اِنَّکُمۡ مُّتَّبَعُوۡنَ
20:74.
20:74.
10:91; 20:78; 44:24.
g
20:74.
a
10:91; 20:78; 44:24.
f
20:74.
فَلَمَّا تَرٰۤاَ الۡجَمۡعَانِ قَالَ اَصۡحٰبُ مُوۡسٰۤی اِنَّا لَمُدۡرَکُوۡنَ
The companions of Moses seemed to possess very weak faith. This is also clear from 5:22, 23; 7:149; 20:87-92.
Commentary:
This verse shows that the companions of Moses were generally men of very weak faith. This is also clear from several other verses of the Quran. See 5:22-23; 7:149; 20:87-92, etc.
2744
Commentary:
This verse shows that the companions of Moses were generally men of very weak faith. This is also clear from several other verses of the Quran. See 5:22-23; 7:149; 20:87-92, etc.
2117
The companions of Moses seemed to possess very weak faith. This is also clear from 5:22, 23; 7:149; 20:87-92.
فَاَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلٰی مُوۡسٰۤی اَنِ اضۡرِبۡ بِّعَصَاکَ الۡبَحۡرَ ۖ فَانۡفَلَقَ فَکَانَ کُلُّ فِرۡقٍ کَالطَّوۡدِ الۡعَظِیۡمِ
20:78.
Important Words:
طود (mountain) is derived from طاد which means, it was or became firm or steadfast. طود means, a mountain or a great mountain rising high into the sky, an elevated or overlooking tract of land (Lane & Aqrab).
فرق (part) is derived from فرق (faraqa) and means, a piece or portion that is split or separated from a thing; a great flock or herd of sheep or goats only; a group of boys; a mountain; a wave, billow or surge (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
For a more detailed discussion as to how the Israelites passed safely through the sea and how Pharaoh with his hosts was drowned, see 20:78
The idea embodied in the words اضرب بعصاک الحجر has been expressed elsewhere (20:78) in the words فاضرب لھم طریقا فی البحر یبساi.e. "make for them a dry path in the sea." God miraculously so arranged that when the Israelites were crossing the sea it was the time of the low tide and the water of the sea had receded, leaving a dry path for them to pass. But when the Egyptians following them reached the middle of the sea, the high tide returned and the rising water quickly engulfed them.
The words کل فرق may either refer to the two parties of the Egyptians and the Israelites or to the several parties in which the Egyptians might have become divided while they were crossing the sea; or they may refer to each wave of the sea because when the water was receding it looked like a huge mound.
d
20:78.
925
这句话也意味着, “把你的民族带到海那儿去”。 عَصَا (‘Asa) 的意思是民族或社团 (Lane)。
a
20:78.
2746
Important Words:
طود (mountain) is derived from طاد which means, it was or became firm or steadfast. طود means, a mountain or a great mountain rising high into the sky, an elevated or overlooking tract of land (Lane & Aqrab).
فرق (part) is derived from فرق (faraqa) and means, a piece or portion that is split or separated from a thing; a great flock or herd of sheep or goats only; a group of boys; a mountain; a wave, billow or surge (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
For a more detailed discussion as to how the Israelites passed safely through the sea and how Pharaoh with his hosts was drowned, see 20:78
The idea embodied in the words اضرب بعصاک الحجر has been expressed elsewhere (20:78) in the words فاضرب لھم طریقا فی البحر یبساi.e. "make for them a dry path in the sea." God miraculously so arranged that when the Israelites were crossing the sea it was the time of the low tide and the water of the sea had receded, leaving a dry path for them to pass. But when the Egyptians following them reached the middle of the sea, the high tide returned and the rising water quickly engulfed them.
The words کل فرق may either refer to the two parties of the Egyptians and the Israelites or to the several parties in which the Egyptians might have become divided while they were crossing the sea; or they may refer to each wave of the sea because when the water was receding it looked like a huge mound.
a
20:78.
2117A
The words also mean, 'take thy people to the sea,' ‘Asa meaning people or community (Lane).
وَاَوۡحَیۡنَاۤ اِلٰۤی اُمِّ مُوۡسٰۤی اَنۡ اَرۡضِعِیۡہِ ۖ فَاِذَا خِفۡتِ عَلَیۡہِ فَاَلۡقِیۡہِ فِی الۡیَمِّ وَلَا تَخَافِیۡ وَلَا تَحۡزَنِیۡۤ ۖ اِنَّا رَآدُّوۡہُ اِلَیۡکِ وَجَاعِلُوۡہُ مِنَ الۡمُرۡسَلِیۡنَ
20:39.
20:39.
20:39.
Commentary:
The preceding seven verses had spoken of Moses’ mission and by implication had referred to the mission of the Holy Prophet and in fact to the mission of every Prophet of God. From this verse, however, begins the actual story of Moses.
Whereas Moses was cast into the river by his mother to escape being killed by the people of Pharaoh, the Holy Prophet’s mother had to entrust him, while yet a child, to the care of a poor wet-nurse, to whom all the well-to-do families of Mecca had refused to entrust their babies on account of her poverty.
b
20:39.
a
20:39.
2882
Commentary:
The preceding seven verses had spoken of Moses’ mission and by implication had referred to the mission of the Holy Prophet and in fact to the mission of every Prophet of God. From this verse, however, begins the actual story of Moses.
Whereas Moses was cast into the river by his mother to escape being killed by the people of Pharaoh, the Holy Prophet’s mother had to entrust him, while yet a child, to the care of a poor wet-nurse, to whom all the well-to-do families of Mecca had refused to entrust their babies on account of her poverty.
b
20:39.
فَاَصۡبَحَ فِی الۡمَدِیۡنَۃِ خَآئِفًا یَّتَرَقَّبُ فَاِذَا الَّذِی اسۡتَنۡصَرَہٗ بِالۡاَمۡسِ یَسۡتَصۡرِخُہٗ ۚ قَالَ لَہٗ مُوۡسٰۤی اِنَّکَ لَغَوِیٌّ مُّبِیۡنٌ
Moses seems to reproach the Israelite who called him for help by saying to him, 'You are a foolish fellow and not being able to realize the consequences of your actions you readily become involved in trouble.' The words do not mean, as is generally misunderstood, that Moses regarded the man as an offender.
Commentary:
Moses in this verse seems to reproach the man who called him for help by saying to him, "you are a foolish fellow and not being able to realise the consequences of your actions you become readily involved in trouble." The words do not mean, as is generally misunderstood, that Moses regarded the man as an offender.
2890
Commentary:
Moses in this verse seems to reproach the man who called him for help by saying to him, "you are a foolish fellow and not being able to realise the consequences of your actions you become readily involved in trouble." The words do not mean, as is generally misunderstood, that Moses regarded the man as an offender.
2208
Moses seems to reproach the Israelite who called him for help by saying to him, 'You are a foolish fellow and not being able to realize the consequences of your actions you readily become involved in trouble.' The words do not mean, as is generally misunderstood, that Moses regarded the man as an offender.
فَلَمَّا جَآءَہُمُ الۡحَقُّ مِنۡ عِنۡدِنَا قَالُوۡا لَوۡلَاۤ اُوۡتِیَ مِثۡلَ مَاۤ اُوۡتِیَ مُوۡسٰۤی ۚ اَوَلَمۡ یَکۡفُرُوۡا بِمَاۤ اُوۡتِیَ مُوۡسٰی مِنۡ قَبۡلُ ۖ قَالُوۡا سِحۡرَانِ تَظٰہَرَا وَقَالُوۡۤا اِنَّا بِکُلٍّ کٰفِرُوۡنَ
6:125.
6:125.
6:125.
Commentary:
It is customary with disbelievers in the time of every Prophet that they demand from him signs and miracles which had been shown by a previous Prophet, while the disbelievers of that very Prophet had also rejected him in spite of the fact that he had shown the same miracles which disbelievers in the time of the later Prophet demanded. The verse exposes the absurdity of this worn out demand of disbelievers and purports to say that they demand from the Holy Prophet the same teachings which were given to Moses while the spiritual needs and requirements of the Holy Prophet’s time are different from those of Moses and, therefore, their demand is foolish. Yet when they are told that prophecies which were made by Moses have been fulfilled in the person of the Holy Prophet and that the teachings of the Quran in many respects support and corroborate the teachings of Torah, they say that both the Quran and the Torah are two pieces of magic that support each other.
a
6:125.
a
6:125.
2911
Commentary:
It is customary with disbelievers in the time of every Prophet that they demand from him signs and miracles which had been shown by a previous Prophet, while the disbelievers of that very Prophet had also rejected him in spite of the fact that he had shown the same miracles which disbelievers in the time of the later Prophet demanded. The verse exposes the absurdity of this worn out demand of disbelievers and purports to say that they demand from the Holy Prophet the same teachings which were given to Moses while the spiritual needs and requirements of the Holy Prophet’s time are different from those of Moses and, therefore, their demand is foolish. Yet when they are told that prophecies which were made by Moses have been fulfilled in the person of the Holy Prophet and that the teachings of the Quran in many respects support and corroborate the teachings of Torah, they say that both the Quran and the Torah are two pieces of magic that support each other.
b
6:125.
وَقَالَ مُوۡسٰۤی اِنِّیۡ عُذۡتُ بِرَبِّیۡ وَرَبِّکُمۡ مِّنۡ کُلِّ مُتَکَبِّرٍ لَّا یُؤۡمِنُ بِیَوۡمِ الۡحِسَابِ
44:21.
God is the ultimate refuge of His Prophets and the Elect. They knock at His door when they see darkness all around them and when the powers of evil are determined to exterminate the truth preached by them.
44:21-22.
Commentary:
God is the last refuge of the Prophets and the Elect. They knock at His door when they see darkness all around them and when the powers of evil are determined to exterminate truth preached by them.
d
44:21.
1161
安拉是他派遣的先知和选民的最终保护者。当他们见到自己的周围一片黑暗时, 当邪恶的力量决定要消灭他们所宣扬的真理时, 他们就敲安拉的大门。
c
44:21-22.
3515
Commentary:
God is the last refuge of the Prophets and the Elect. They knock at His door when they see darkness all around them and when the powers of evil are determined to exterminate truth preached by them.
d
44:21.
2602
God is the ultimate refuge of His Prophets and the Elect. They knock at His door when they see darkness all around them and when the powers of evil are determined to exterminate the truth preached by them.
وَمِنۡ قَبۡلِہٖ کِتٰبُ مُوۡسٰۤی اِمَامًا وَّرَحۡمَۃً ۚ وَہٰذَا کِتٰبٌ مُّصَدِّقٌ لِّسَانًا عَرَبِیًّا لِّیُنۡذِرَ الَّذِیۡنَ ظَلَمُوۡا وَبُشۡرٰی لِلۡمُحۡسِنِیۡنَ
یسعیاہ باب۲۱ آیت۱۳ تا ۱۷ میں عرب میں ایک نبی کے مبعوث ہونے کی خبر دی گئی ہے اور اس میں بتایا گیا ہے کہ اسے اپنے وطن سے ہجرت کرنی پڑے گی اور اپنے مخالفوں سے جنگ بھی کرنی پڑے گی جس میں وہ کامیاب ہوگا اور اس کے دشمن ذلیل ہوں گے۔
یعنی ظالموں کے لئے راستہ کھل جائے گا کہ وہ اپنے ظلموں سے کسی قدر ہٹ جائیں اور محسنوں کو نیکی کرنے کی اور زیادہ رغبت پیدا ہوگی۔
28:44.
20:114; 42:8; 43:4.
Verse 11 supported by Deut. 18:18 referred to the appearance of a Prophet among the Ishmaelites. The present verse refers to Arabia as the scene of the advent of the Prophet who was to be the like of Moses and also to the Book (the Qur’an) which was to fulfil the prophecies contained in the Book of Moses and which also was to supersede it. The relevant prophecy is as follows: 'The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they presented with their bread him that fled' (Isa. 21: 13-15).
28:44.
20:114; 42:8; 43:4.
Commentary:
Verse 11 above referred to the appearance of a Prophet among the Ishmaelites. The present verse refers to Arabia as the scene of the advent of the Prophet who was to be the like of Moses and to the Book (the Quran) which was to fulfil the prophecies contained in the Book of Moses and which also was to supersede it. The relevant prophecy is as follows:
The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they presented with their bread him that fled (Isaiah 21: 13-15).
See also 26:198.
c
28:44.
d
20:114; 42:8; 43:4.
1
یسعیاہ باب۲۱ آیت۱۳ تا ۱۷ میں عرب میں ایک نبی کے مبعوث ہونے کی خبر دی گئی ہے اور اس میں بتایا گیا ہے کہ اسے اپنے وطن سے ہجرت کرنی پڑے گی اور اپنے مخالفوں سے جنگ بھی کرنی پڑے گی جس میں وہ کامیاب ہوگا اور اس کے دشمن ذلیل ہوں گے۔
2
یعنی ظالموں کے لئے راستہ کھل جائے گا کہ وہ اپنے ظلموں سے کسی قدر ہٹ جائیں اور محسنوں کو نیکی کرنے کی اور زیادہ رغبت پیدا ہوگی۔
b
28:44.
c
20:114; 42:8; 43:4.
3768
Commentary:
Verse 11 above referred to the appearance of a Prophet among the Ishmaelites. The present verse refers to Arabia as the scene of the advent of the Prophet who was to be the like of Moses and to the Book (the Quran) which was to fulfil the prophecies contained in the Book of Moses and which also was to supersede it. The relevant prophecy is as follows:
The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they presented with their bread him that fled (Isaiah 21: 13-15).
See also 26:198.
a
28:44.
b
20:114; 42:8; 43:4.
2723
Verse 11 supported by Deut. 18:18 referred to the appearance of a Prophet among the Ishmaelites. The present verse refers to Arabia as the scene of the advent of the Prophet who was to be the like of Moses and also to the Book (the Qur’an) which was to fulfil the prophecies contained in the Book of Moses and which also was to supersede it. The relevant prophecy is as follows: 'The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they presented with their bread him that fled' (Isa. 21: 13-15).
وَفِیۡ مُوۡسٰۤی اِذۡ اَرۡسَلۡنٰہُ اِلٰی فِرۡعَوۡنَ بِسُلۡطٰنٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ
11:97; 23:46-47; 40:24.
Commentary:
For the story of Moses, the Divine Message he gave to Pharaoh, for his mission of the deliverance of Israelites from a most debasing and disgraceful bondage and for the causes that led to the undoing and destruction of Pharaoh and his mighty hosts see 7:104-156; 10:76-93; 20:10-55; 26:11-69 & 28:4-45.
a
11:97; 23:46-47; 40:24.
3915
Commentary:
For the story of Moses, the Divine Message he gave to Pharaoh, for his mission of the deliverance of Israelites from a most debasing and disgraceful bondage and for the causes that led to the undoing and destruction of Pharaoh and his mighty hosts see 7:104-156; 10:76-93; 20:10-55; 26:11-69 & 28:4-45.
ہَلۡ اَتٰٮکَ حَدِیۡثُ مُوۡسٰۤی
19:52; 20:10.
Commentary:
Here the Meccan disbelievers are told that they are not the first to reject God’s Message. Divine Messengers had come before. They were also rejected, opposed and persecuted. Moses, was one of them. He preached the Divine Message to Pharaoh, who courted his own destruction by refusing to listen to the voice of God. The Holy Prophet’s opponents should take a lesson from the ignominious end to which Pharaoh came.
c
19:52; 20:10.
4561
Commentary:
Here the Meccan disbelievers are told that they are not the first to reject God’s Message. Divine Messengers had come before. They were also rejected, opposed and persecuted. Moses, was one of them. He preached the Divine Message to Pharaoh, who courted his own destruction by refusing to listen to the voice of God. The Holy Prophet’s opponents should take a lesson from the ignominious end to which Pharaoh came.