Al-Qasas

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

See ayat 6 for tafseer.

This time, at the beginning of Quranic surahs, we encounter the "disjointed letters" for the fourteenth time. Among them, "طسم" (Ta Seen Meem) appears for the third and last time. As we have mentioned repeatedly, various interpretations have been given regarding the disjointed letters of the Quran. On this topic, we have discussed in detail at the beginnings of Surah Al-Baqarah, Surah Aal-Imran, and Surah Al-A’raf. As far as "طسم" is concerned, different narrations indicate that these letters are brief symbols of the attributes of the Exalted Creator, or they signify sacred places. However, this does not prevent the understanding, which we have emphasized repeatedly in this well-known tafseer, that God wishes to make it clear to everyone that this sacred heavenly Book, which proved to be the source of a great revolution in human evolutionary history and contains a felicitous program for human conduct, is composed of simple letters like "Alif Ba". Every child can pronounce its words. How important and extraordinary it is that the arrangement and organization of such simple means resulted in such a exalted Book accessible to all people. Perhaps this is why immediately after the disjointed letters, the greatness of the Quran is mentioned. Accordingly, it states: "تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْكِتَابِ الْمُبِينِ" "These are the magnificent verses of the clear Book." This is a Book that is itself clear and also illuminates the path to felicity for mankind. (Explanatory note: "تلك" is a distant demonstrative pronoun. As we have said, it signifies the greatness of these verses.) Although the phrase "كتاب مبين" (clear Book) in some Quranic verses—for example, in the 61st verse of Surah Yunus: وَلاَ أَصْغَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ وَلا أَكْبَرَ إِلاَّ فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ and in this verse of Surah Hud: كُلٌّ فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ has been taken to mean the "Preserved Tablet," yet in the verse currently under discussion, the word "آيات" (verses) is used, and likewise, in the next verse, the phrase "نتلوا علیك" (We recite to you) appears. From the context of these words, it is established that here "كتاب مبين" refers to the Quran. At this point, the attribute "مبين" (clear) of the Quran is mentioned. The term "مبين" linguistically has both intransitive and transitive meanings—that is, something that is itself clear and also clarifies something else. Accordingly, this characteristic of the Quran is that through its clear message and content, it unveils truth from falsehood and separates the right path from misguidance. After this brief preface, the Quran relates the story of Moses and Pharaoh as follows: "نَتْلُوا عَلَيْكَ مِن نَّبَإِ مُوسَى وَفِرْعَوْنَ بِالْحَقِّ لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ" "We recite to you, [O Muhammad], some of the news of Moses and Pharaoh in truth for a people who believe." The preposition "من" (some of) is used here. In grammatical terminology, it is called "ta'bidiyah" and has meanings such as "somewhat" or "a part of." The use of "من" implies that what is mentioned here is only a portion of the long story, recounted according to the exigencies of the context. The word "بالحق" (in truth) in the verse emphasizes that what is mentioned here is free from all kinds of superstition, falsehood, mythology, and unreal content. "بالحق" means "Accompanied by truth" or the exact reality. The phrase "لقوم يؤمنون" (for a people who believe) serves as a clarification and emphasis on the fact that the believers in Mecca at the time, who were enduring the oppression and cruelty of the disbelievers, or believers elsewhere, should understand from hearing this story that no matter how great the power of the enemy is, and no matter how numerous and resourceful they may be, the faithful, though few in number, apparently weak, and oppressed by them, should never fear or be discouraged. For everything is easy for the Almighty. The believers know well that: He is the God who raised Moses in Pharaoh’s household to destroy Pharaoh. He is the God who granted dominion over the earth to the oppressed slaves and humbled and destroyed the arrogant oppressors. He is the God who protected a nursing infant in raging waters and buried Pharaoh and his millions of powerful followers in the waves of the Nile... He has the power to save you from these calamities as well. Certainly, the main addressees of these verses are the believers. These verses were revealed for them: for those who harbor the intention of these verses in their hearts and proceed toward their final destination amidst overwhelming hardships. In fact, this was a brief statement; its details will follow in subsequent verses. It is stated: Pharaoh arrogantly adopted pride, tyranny, and despotism on the earth (أن فرعون علا في الأرض). Although he was a negligible man, due to his ignorance and foolishness, he did not recognize his own existence and transgressed his limits to the extent of claiming divinity. In this verse, "الأرض" (the earth) refers to the land of Egypt and its surrounding areas. Since in that era this region was the most flourishing, the Quran uses the term generally but means it specifically. Also, considering the position of this word, it is possible that before "الأرض" the definite article "ال"...It refers specifically to that era, and the land indicates Egypt. However, Pharaoh committed several grave sins to maintain the stability of his arrogant rule. First, he employed the tactic of creating discord among the inhabitants of Egypt (وَجَعَلَ أَهْلَهَا شِيَعًا). This was the policy through which tyrannical and monarchial governments have historically strengthened their foundations, for the sustainable rule of a minority over a majority is not possible unless they follow the program of “divide and rule.” Such tyrannical governments are always fearful of the “Oneness of the Word” and the “Word of Oneness.” They constantly dread sentiments of unity and solidarity among the people. Therefore, they consider their security guaranteed only if the government remains based on class divisions. This is the policy that all the Pharaohs of every era and time have adhered to. However, Pharaoh specifically divided the people of Egypt into two classes. First, the Copts, who were the original inhabitants of the country, holding control over all welfare resources, wealth, palaces, and key positions of authority. Second, the Sabti, that is, the immigrant Israelites, who were trapped in the hands of those Copts as slaves and servants. The condition of these Israelites was that they were suffering extreme poverty and destitution. They were subjected to very hard labor but received no compensation for it. The word “أَهْلَهَا” includes both the Copts and the Israelites, as the Israelites had lived in the land of Egypt for such a long time that they became its inhabitants. History records that some of the kings of the Pharaohs employed a hundred thousand slaves to build a single "pyramid," working them for twenty years (for example, the famous pyramid of Khufu near the current seat of government in Cairo), killing thousands of people during the process by severe labor or flogging. The suffering of the Israelites can be gauged from this brief episode. For detailed information, one should refer to the books of Hadith. Pharaoh’s second crime was that he inflicted immense oppression and cruelty upon one section of that country’s population, rendering them completely powerless. This situation is described in the Holy Qur’an as follows: (يَسْتَضْعِفُ طَائِفَةً مِّنْهُمْ يَذْبَحُ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيِي نِسَاءَهُمْ) Pharaoh had weakened and debilitated this group to such an extent that he killed their male offspring and kept their daughters alive for servitude. He had instructed them to take careful note that whenever a child was born to the Israelites, if it was a boy, he should be killed immediately; if a girl, she should be kept alive for slavery and service. What must be seen is what objective he aimed to achieve by this act. It is well-known that he dreamt that a flame of fire rose from the direction of Jerusalem, engulfing all the homes of Egypt. The houses of the Copts were all burnt, but the houses of the Israelites remained safe. He asked the scholars and interpreters of dreams about the meaning of this dream. They said: From the land of Jerusalem, a man will emerge whose hands will destroy the rule of the Pharaohs and the kingdom of Egypt. (Reference: Tafseer Majma’ al-Bayan, Vol. 7, p. 239, Fakhr al-Razi). It is also reported that some priests told him: A boy will be born among the Israelites who will ruin your kingdom. (Reference: Tafseer Majma’ al-Bayan, Vol. 7, p. 239, Fakhr al-Razi). Ultimately, this caused Pharaoh to resolve firmly to kill the newborn male children of the Israelites. Some commentators have suggested another possibility regarding Pharaoh’s intention to kill: “Previous prophets had foretold the birth and characteristics of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him), and the family of the Pharaoh, knowing this, remained fearful. Due to this, they became enemies of the Israelites.” (Reference: Tafseer Kabir, Fakhr al-Razi, under the verse discussed). But the phrase “يَذْبَحُ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ” which comes after “يَسْتَضْعِفُ طَائِفَةً مِّنْهُمْ” also suggests another meaning. That is, the Pharaoh’s government adopted this policy to weaken and incapacitate the Israelites, so that their daughters, lacking the power of rebellion and war, would be kept alive to serve. This view is supported by verse 25 of Surah Al-Mu’min, which indicates that even after Prophet Musa’s (peace be upon him) claim of prophethood, the practice of killing male children and sparing female children continued in the era of Pharaoh. The verse states: فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم بِالْحَقِّ مِنْ عِنْدِنَا قَالُوا اقْتُلُوا أَبْنَاءَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَعَهُ وَاسْتَحْيُوا نِسَاءَهُمْ وَمَا كَيْدُ الْكَافِرِينَ إِلَّا فِي ضَلَالٍ So when he came to them with the truth from Us, they said: “Kill the sons who believed with him, and keep alive their women,” but the plans of the disbelievers are always astray. The phrase “يَسْتَحْيِي نِسَاءَهُمْ” (keep their women alive) clearly shows that Pharaoh insisted on the survival of the women either because of their...Was it for taking breath or for sexual desire in the queen? In the last words of the verse, it is stated collectively and as a statement of cause: He was certainly among the corrupters (انھ کان من المفسدین). The summary of Pharaoh’s deeds can only be expressed in these words: “His task was to spread corruption on the earth.” Considering oneself superior to others was a corruption. Another corruption was that he created a class-based society in Egypt. Afflicting the Children of Israel with torment and distress, killing their boys, and making their girls slaves was the third corruption. Besides these, there were many other evils and corruptions. It is natural that selfish and ambitious people only care about protecting their personal interests. It is impossible that selfish protection of personal benefit aligns with the protection of social welfare (which requires justice, sacrifice, and altruism). The result of selfishness appears as corruption in every aspect of life. The word "يذبح" in the verse is derived from "ذبح," indicating that the treatment of Pharaoh’s people towards the Children of Israel was like that of sheep and cattle. That is, the tyrant slaughtered these innocents like animals (Reference: It is noteworthy that the root "ذبح" is an active transitive verb in the simple form. But here it is used in the form of تفعیل (tafkīl) to denote frequency. Also, the present tense verb usage signifies the continuity of this punishment). Many narratives are given regarding the cruelty of Pharaoh’s followers. Some are: Pharaoh commanded that pregnant women of the Children of Israel be monitored and that only Coptic and Pharaoh-appointed midwives assist with childbirth. If the newborn was a boy, they were to report immediately to the Egyptian government office so that the infant could be slaughtered (Reference: Tafseer Kabeer by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi under the relevant verse). It is not definitively clear how many newborn children were sacrificed under this program. Some have estimated their number to be ninety thousand, and others claim millions. Pharaoh and his followers believed that through these horrific oppressions, they could prevent the establishment of the Children of Israel and thwart the divine will. Directly after this verse, it is stated: Our will and decree have decided that we shall bestow favors upon those who are weak and oppressed on the earth and honor them with our grace and blessings: (و نرید ان نمنّ علی الذین استضعفوا فی الارض). And We shall make them leaders of mankind and heirs of the earth: (و نجعلھم ائمة و نجعلھم الورثین). We shall strengthen them in power and grant them authority and firmness in their rule: (و نمکن لھم فی الارض). And We will make Pharaoh, Haman, and their armies face from them what they feared: (و نری فرعون و ھامان وجنودھما منھم ما کانوا یحذرون). How clear and hopeful these two verses are in their meaning, for the hopeful promise they contain is expressed as a general law in the present tense, implying continuity. This assures the believers addressed by the Qur’an that this promise is not only for the oppressed Children of Israel, nor is the threat solely for Pharaoh and his cohorts. This is evident by the phrase “We intend to do so.” Pharaoh intended to destroy the Children of Israel, to obliterate their power and majesty, but “We intended that they should be strong and successful.” He desired that rule remain always in the hands of the arrogant, but We resolutely intended that the rule be entrusted to the weak and oppressed, and ultimately that is what occurred. At this point, the word "منت" as we have previously explained, means "blessings and gifts." This meaning differs from the usual everyday usage where it implies doing someone a favor, which carries a connotation of belittling the recipient and is certainly reprehensible. In these two verses, God reveals His will concerning the weak and oppressed in five interconnected points: First: We desire that they be recipients of Our blessings: (ونرید ان نمن …). Second: We desire to make them leaders: (ونجعلھم ائمة). Third: We desire to make them heirs of the unjust rulers: (ونجعلھم الوارثین). Fourth: We will enable them to have lasting and stable authority: (ونمکن لھم فی الارض). Fifth and last: The calamity which their enemies feared, and for which they employed all their power and resources to prevent, We will surely make them face: (ونری فرعون و ھامان و جنودھما منھم ماکانوا یحذرون). Thus, God's grace and favors descend upon the oppressed and wronged in this manner. But who are these people, and what are their characteristics? In the upcoming discussion, God willing, we will examine these points further.We will discuss in detail. Haman was the well-known and prominent minister of Pharaoh, and he held such influence in Pharaoh's government that the army of the land of Egypt is referred to as "the soldiers of Pharaoh and Haman" in the above-mentioned verse. (The explanation regarding Haman will be provided elaborately in the commentary on verse 38).

In the preceding discussion, it was noted that the Divine program expressed in these verses is neither temporary nor confined specifically to Banī Isrāʾīl. Rather, it articulates a universal principle applicable across all ages and communities. The wording indicates: We intend to bestow Our favor upon those who have been oppressed and weakened in the land, to make them leaders, and to grant them inheritance of the earth. In essence, this is a glad tiding that truth shall ultimately prevail over falsehood and that faith will overcome disbelief. It is also a message of hope for all free individuals who aspire to overturn systems of oppression and establish governance based on justice and equity. One manifestation of this Divine will was the downfall of the rule of Pharaoh and the rise of Banī Isrāʾīl to authority. A more complete example of this promise was realized after the advent of Islam, when the Prophet of Islam (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) and his companions established governance, despite having previously been impoverished, marginalized, and subjected to ridicule and oppression by the dominant powers of their time. Indeed, a time came when, through this very group, the palaces of powerful empires such as those of Caesar and Kisrā were brought under their control, their authority was dismantled, and the arrogance of the ruling elites was humbled. The most comprehensive realization of this Divine promise will occur in the establishment of a universal just order under Imām al‑Mahdī (ʿalayhi al‑salām). These verses are among those that clearly foretell the emergence of such a governance founded upon truth and justice. Islamic traditions frequently interpret these verses in connection with this عظیم ظہور. In Nahj al‑Balāghah, it is reported from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām) that: “لَتَعْطِفَنَّ الدُّنْيَا عَلَيْنَا بَعْدَ شِمَاسِهَا عَطْفَ الضَّرُوسِ عَلَى وَلَدِهَا”، and he then recited: “وَنُرِيدُ أَنْ نَمُنَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ” (Nahj al‑Balāghah, Kalimāt Qiṣār 209). In another narration attributed to ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām), it is stated: “هُمْ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ يَبْعَثُ اللَّهُ مَهْدِيَّهُمْ بَعْدَهُمْ فَيُعِزُّهُمْ وَيُذِلُّ عَدُوَّهُمْ” (Ghaybat Shaykh Ṭūsī, as cited in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 110). Similarly, a narration from ʿAlī ibn al‑Ḥusayn (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states: “وَالَّذِي بَعَثَ مُحَمَّدًا بِالْحَقِّ بَشِيرًا وَنَذِيرًا، إِنَّ الْأَبْرَارَ مِنَّا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَشِيعَتَهُمْ بِمَنْزِلَةِ مُوسَى وَشِيعَتِهِ، وَإِنَّ عَدُوَّنَا وَأَشْيَاعَهُمْ بِمَنْزِلَةِ فِرْعَوْنَ وَأَشْيَاعِهِ” (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān). The intent of these statements is to emphasize that, ultimately, the devotees of truth will attain success, while their adversaries will be overcome. The establishment of just governance by Imām al‑Mahdī (ʿalayhi al‑salām) does not preclude the emergence of localized just systems established by oppressed peoples resisting tyranny. Whenever the necessary conditions of justice, unity, and preparedness are fulfilled, the Divine promise becomes operative, granting such groups victory and authority.

We know that the term mustaḍʿaf is derived from the root ḍaʿf. When this root is expressed in the istifʿāl form, it conveys the meaning of one who has been rendered weak—one who has been subdued and placed in a condition of constraint and domination. According to another interpretation, a mustaḍʿaf is not merely a person who is physically weak or devoid of strength. Rather, the term refers to an individual who possesses both potential and actual capacity for action, yet is suppressed beneath the oppression and coercion of tyrants. Despite being bound and constrained, such a person does not accept this condition passively; instead, he remains constantly in search of an opportunity to break the chains of subjugation, to resist oppression, and to establish a system founded upon truth and justice. God has promised assistance and eventual authority in the land to such a group. This promise does not apply to those who are inert, cowardly, or unwilling even to protest against injustice. Those who lack the resolve to resist oppression cannot be expected to undertake struggle or sacrifice in its removal. The Banī Isrāʾīl could only inherit the authority of the Pharaohs when they entered the sphere of obedience to Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), organized their collective capacities, and united under a shared purpose. The remnants of faith that had been inherited from Ibrāhīm (ʿalayhi al‑salām) were revitalized and perfected through the teaching and guidance of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām). By removing superstitions, strengthening belief, and preparing for struggle, they became capable of transformation. It should also be noted that mustadʿafīn may exist in various forms: intellectual and cultural, economic, moral, and political. In the Qur’an, however, the term is most commonly used in reference to those who are politically and morally oppressed. It is evident that when oppressive rulers dominate a society, they first seek to consolidate their control by weakening the intellectual and cultural foundations of the people, diminishing their capacity for independent thought. Subsequently, they undermine their economic condition, depriving them of the resources necessary for resistance. In this way, they prevent the emergence of any movement capable of challenging their authority. The Qur’an mentions mustadʿafīn in several places, generally referring to believers who are subjected to oppression. In one instance, believers are urged to strive in the path of God and for the deliverance of the oppressed: “Why do you not fight in the cause of God and for those who are oppressed… who say: ‘Our Lord, deliver us from this town whose people are oppressors…’” (al‑Nisāʾ 75). In contrast, the Qur’an also refers to a group who falsely claim to be mustadʿafīn while maintaining allegiance with the oppressors. Their claim is rejected, and they are held responsible for remaining in conditions of disbelief and فساد when migration was possible (al‑Nisāʾ 97). Thus, throughout the Qur’an, the mustadʿafīn are generally portrayed positively as believers subjected to oppression, striving for liberation through faith and effort, and supported by Divine assistance.

It was not only Pharaoh's characteristic to keep the Israelites captive by killing their men and keeping their women alive for his service. History bears witness that this has been the custom of all tyrants: they have continuously destroyed the active forces of their subjects. Those among the oppressive rulers who could not kill the men, would kill their essence of manhood. By spreading depravity through various means, making people addicted to drugs, promoting immorality, unleashing uncontrolled sexual pleasures, legalizing wine and gambling, and encouraging various unhealthy pastimes, they strangled the dignity, bravery, fighting spirit, and spiritual strength of their oppressed people, so that they might remain completely content and thus maintain their exploitative rule. But... the Divine Prophets, especially the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, endeavored to awaken the hidden potentials of the youth. They even taught women the lesson of springtime and elevated them to stand alongside men against the arrogant oppressors. The evidence of these two phenomena is clearly visible in past history as well as in all Islamic countries in the present age. We do not find it necessary to mention them here.

See ayat 9 for tafseer.

See ayat 9 for tafseer.

From this point, the Qur’an presents the story of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) in detail in order to firmly establish the dominance of the oppressed over the arrogant. In particular, the episode is narrated in a way that illustrates how Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was placed in the most vulnerable circumstances, while Pharaoh possessed the greatest apparent power and resources, thereby demonstrating the supremacy of Divine will over the designs of tyrants. The Qur’an begins by stating: “وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَىٰ أُمِّ مُوسَىٰ أَنْ أَرْضِعِيهِ فَإِذَا خِفْتِ عَلَيْهِ فَأَلْقِيهِ فِي الْيَمِّ وَلَا تَخَافِي وَلَا تَحْزَنِي إِنَّا رَادُّوهُ إِلَيْكِ وَجَاعِلُوهُ مِنَ الْمُرْسَلِينَ”. Within this brief verse there are two commands, two prohibitions, and two glad tidings, summarizing an entire narrative. The essential meaning is that Pharaoh had instituted a systematic policy of killing male infants among Banī Isrāʾīl. In this context, the mother of Mūsā received Divine inspiration that guided her actions and assured her of eventual deliverance. The account describes how, despite the severity of the external threat, Divine protection manifested through unexpected means. The mother entrusted her child to the flow of the Nile, an act outwardly perilous but inwardly grounded in faith. The progression of events demonstrates that natural forces operate under Divine command and serve the realization of His will. The narrative continues: “فَالْتَقَطَهُ آلُ فِرْعَوْنَ لِيَكُونَ لَهُمْ عَدُوًّا وَحَزَنًا”. The child was taken up by the household of Pharaoh—not with the intention of raising an adversary, but as an unintended consequence (lām al‑ʿāqibah). This reflects a profound irony: those who sought to destroy the progeny of Banī Isrāʾīl inadvertently became the protectors and nurturers of the very individual destined to undermine their authority. The Qur’an further states: “إِنَّ فِرْعَوْنَ وَهَامَانَ وَجُنُودَهُمَا كَانُوا خَاطِئِينَ”, indicating that their entire enterprise was founded upon error and deviation. Their ظلم was evident not only in their denial of truth but also in their persistent injustice, including the killing of children in an attempt to prevent the emergence of a divinely destined figure. Subsequently, the internal dynamics within Pharaoh’s household are described: “وَقَالَتِ امْرَأَةُ فِرْعَوْنَ قُرَّةُ عَيْنٍ لِي وَلَكَ لَا تَقْتُلُوهُ”. Pharaoh’s wife, Āsiyah, intervened with compassion and insisted that the child be spared, suggesting that he might be a source of benefit or be adopted. This interaction indicates a divergence within the ruling household itself, where mercy and insight opposed tyranny and fear. The concluding remark of the verse—“وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ”—emphasizes that Pharaoh and his circle were entirely unaware of the deeper reality unfolding around them. Despite their efforts to maintain control, they remained oblivious to the fact that they were participating in the realization of a Divine plan beyond their comprehension. Thus, this segment of the narrative illustrates the unfolding of Divine decree through circumstances that appear contradictory on the surface. The very structures of power that sought to eradicate a perceived threat became instruments in its preservation and eventual triumph.

This is not called a mere display of power that God commands the hosts of the heavens and the earth to destroy a powerful and tyrannical nation. Rather... the true display of power is that He causes those very arrogant tyrants to destroy themselves, and instills in their hearts and minds such thoughts that they eagerly gather wood and burn themselves in its fire, build prisons for themselves and willingly become captive therein until they die, erect crosses for themselves and climb upon them to perish. The same happened with Pharaoh and his strong and oppressive companions. Thus, at every stage, the salvation and upbringing of Prophet Moses (عليه السلام) were by the hands of those very tyrants. Among the wet nurses of Prophet Moses (عليه السلام) was a Copt woman, The ones who pulled Moses’ basket from the waves of the Nile and saved him belonged to Pharaoh’s household. The one who opened the cover of the basket was either Pharaoh himself or his wife, And... ultimately, the destroyer of Pharaoh and possessor of authority and power became the very palace of Pharaoh, which served as a place of peace, comfort, and upbringing for Moses. This is the power of the Lord of the Worlds, God!

See ayat 13 for tafseer.

See ayat 13 for tafseer.

See ayat 13 for tafseer.

In these verses, another segment of the narrative is presented concerning the early life of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām). His mother, as previously described, placed her infant into the flow of the Nile. However, after doing so, she experienced an intense emotional upheaval. The memory of her newborn child overwhelmed her consciousness to such an extent that it nearly led her to reveal the secret. The Qur’an expresses this state as follows: “وَأَصْبَحَ فُؤَادُ أُمِّ مُوسَى فَارِغًا إِن كَادَتْ لَتُبْدِي بِهِ لَوْلَا أَن رَّبَطْنَا عَلَىٰ قَلْبِهَا لِتَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ”. Her heart became emptied of all concerns except for the memory of her child. Had it not been for Divine strengthening, she would have disclosed the matter. The expression “رَبَطْنَا عَلَىٰ قَلْبِهَا” conveys that her heart was fortified with faith and steadfastness, enabling her to endure the situation and trust in the Divine promise. Despite regaining composure, she remained concerned about the fate of her son. Accordingly, she instructed his sister to follow the situation: “وَقَالَتْ لِأُخْتِهِ قُصِّيهِ”. The sister observed events from a distance, watching as those in Pharaoh’s service retrieved the child, while remaining unnoticed: “فَبَصُرَتْ بِهِ عَن جُنُبٍ وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ”. The Divine plan then unfolded further: “وَحَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبْلُ”. The infant would not accept the milk of any nursing woman. This “تحريم تكويني” ensured that the child remained dependent upon his rightful source of nourishment. As a result, the attendants became increasingly anxious in their search for a suitable caregiver. At this juncture, the sister intervened, offering guidance: “هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَىٰ أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ”. She directed them to a household capable of caring for the child. Thus, the child was reunited with his mother, and upon recognizing her, he accepted her milk. The Qur’an summarizes this outcome: “فَرَدَدْنَاهُ إِلَىٰ أُمِّهِ كَيْ تَقَرَّ عَيْنُهَا وَلَا تَحْزَنَ وَلِتَعْلَمَ أَنَّ وَعْدَ اللَّهِ حَقٌّ”. Through this return, her distress was alleviated, and the truth of the Divine promise became manifest. A question arises as to whether the child remained permanently with his mother or was raised within Pharaoh’s household after the period of nursing. Historical indications, including the statement attributed to Pharaoh—“أَلَمْ نُرَبِّكَ فِينَا وَلِيدًا وَلَبِثْتَ فِينَا مِنْ عُمُرِكَ سِنِينَ” (Shuʿarāʾ 18)—suggest that Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) spent a considerable period within the royal household. Thus, the narrative illustrates the unfolding of Divine wisdom: the child, placed in extreme vulnerability, is preserved, nourished, and ultimately restored to his mother, demonstrating the fulfillment of Divine promise even amid apparent uncertainty.

See ayat 17 for tafseer.

See ayat 17 for tafseer.

See ayat 17 for tafseer.

In this section of the narrative, the third stage of the life of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) is presented. This stage includes the events that occurred during his maturity, prior to his departure from Egypt to Madyan, and that ultimately became the cause of his migration. The Qur’an first states: “وَلَمَّا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُ وَاسْتَوَىٰ آتَيْنَاهُ حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ”. When Mūsā reached maturity and attained full development, he was granted “ḥukm” and “ʿilm” as a form of Divine recompense for his righteousness. The expressions “بلغ أشده” and “استوى” indicate the attainment of physical, intellectual, and spiritual completeness. The term “ḥukm” may be understood as sound judgment and the capacity for correct decision-making, while “ʿilm” refers to knowledge free from ignorance. These qualities were bestowed upon him as a reward for his purity, moral integrity, and righteous conduct. It is evident that this knowledge and wisdom do not refer to prophethood itself, which was granted later, but rather to insight, discernment, and moral clarity. Despite being raised in the court of Pharaoh, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) remained unaffected by its corrupt environment and continued to incline toward justice and truth. The narrative then states: “وَدَخَلَ الْمَدِينَةَ عَلَىٰ حِينِ غَفْلَةٍ مِّنْ أَهْلِهَا”. He entered the city at a time when its people were inattentive—likely a period of general inactivity, either in the early evening or at midday. During this time, he encountered two men fighting: “فَوَجَدَ فِيهَا رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلَانِ هَٰذَا مِن شِيعَتِهِ وَهَٰذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ”. One belonged to his own group, while the other was from his opponents. The individual from his own group sought his help: “فَاسْتَغَاثَهُ الَّذِي مِن شِيعَتِهِ عَلَى الَّذِي مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ”. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) intervened to assist the oppressed. He struck the opponent with a blow: “فَوَكَزَهُ مُوسَىٰ فَقَضَىٰ عَلَيْهِ”. The blow resulted in the man’s death, though there was no intention to kill. Immediately, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) responded with remorse, saying: “قَالَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِنَّهُ عَدُوٌّ مُضِلٌّ مُّبِينٌ”. He recognized that the situation had arisen from circumstances influenced by conflict and tension, and that it led to unintended consequences. He then turned to God in supplication: “رَبِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي فَاغْفِرْ لِي”. This expression does not imply the commission of a sin, but rather indicates tark al‑awlā—that he had placed himself in a difficult situation by engaging in an action that, while not unlawful, led to adverse consequences. Seeking divine protection and forgiveness, he was granted grace, as indicated in: “فَغَفَرَ لَهُ إِنَّهُ هُوَ الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ”. Following this, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) made a firm commitment: “رَبِّ بِمَا أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ فَلَنْ أَكُونَ ظَهِيرًا لِّلْمُجْرِمِينَ”. He resolved never to support the oppressors or those connected with injustice, but instead to stand with the oppressed. This passage thus illustrates several important dimensions: the moral awareness of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), his commitment to justice, his humility in recognizing the consequences of his actions, and his reliance upon Divine guidance and support.

In the above‑mentioned verses, exegetes have engaged in extensive discussion regarding the dispute between the Copt and the Israelite and the death of the Copt at the hands of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām). In reality, however, this matter is not of such complexity as to require prolonged debate, since the supporters of Pharaoh were extremely cruel and corrupt. They had killed many children of Banī Isrāʾīl and committed acts of oppression without restraint. From this perspective, they were not in a position where the killing of one among them could be regarded as a violation of human dignity in the usual sense. The difficulty that has arisen for exegetes stems from the different expressions used by Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) himself in relation to this incident. On one occasion, he said: “هَٰذَا مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ”, and on another occasion: “رَبِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي فَاغْفِرْ لِي”. The question, therefore, is how these expressions are to be reconciled with the established principle of prophetic عصمت, according to which the prophets are protected from sin both before and after the conferral of prophethood. However, the explanation derived from the preceding verses indicates that the act of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) did not go beyond tark al‑awlā. That is, it was not an unlawful act in itself, but rather the omission of a more preferable course of action. By intervening in this manner, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) placed himself in a difficult situation, as such an incident was bound to provoke severe reaction from the supporters of Pharaoh. It is well established that tark al‑awlā does not imply sin; rather, it signifies leaving aside a more appropriate or better alternative, without committing anything contrary to Divine command. Similar instances are found in the lives of other prophets as well, including Ādam (ʿalayhi al‑salām), whose case has been discussed in detail under Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf, verse 19. In the Tafsīr tradition, a narration from Imām ʿAlī al‑Riḍā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), reported in ʿUyūn al‑Akhbār, offers an interpretation of these expressions. According to this narration, the statement “هَٰذَا مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ” refers not to the act of Mūsā himself, but to the quarrel between the two individuals, which constituted a satanic act. Similarly, the statement “رَبِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي فَاغْفِرْ لِي” signifies that Mūsā was acknowledging that he had placed himself in a situation where he ought not to have been present, and the request for “فَاغْفِرْ لِي” is understood in the sense of seeking concealment and protection from his enemies, since the term “غفران” also carries the meaning of covering or shielding (ʿUyūn al‑Akhbār, as cited in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 119). Thus, these expressions can be understood in a manner fully consistent with the doctrine of prophetic عصمت, without attributing to the prophet any act of disobedience.

In Islamic jurisprudence, there is a detailed chapter concerning assisting others in committing sin and helping the oppressors, in which it is established through numerous hadiths that one of the worst sins is aiding the oppressors, tyrants, and criminals. If someone does so, this act causes the one who assists to share the fate and outcome of those oppressors on the Day of Judgment. It is an established fact that every society has some oppressors, tyrants, and Pharaoh-like individuals. If the people of that society do not support the actions of those people (meaning they do not remain silent or show approval), then no one will become a Pharaoh. The supporters of these oppressive Pharaohs are usually despicable, destitute, or opportunistic worldly individuals who gather around them and become their hands and feet, or at least increase their armies and followers, thereby providing Satanic power to those oppressors. The Holy Qur’an contains repeated instructions concerning this fundamental principle of ethics. Thus, in Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 2, it is mentioned: "وتعاونوا على البر والتقوى ولا تعاونوا على الإثم والعدوان" “Help one another in righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression.” The Qur’an explicitly states that “rukoon” (allying or siding) with oppressors is a cause of the torment of Hell. The meanings of "rukoon" include whether an inclination of the heart, or outward partnership in someone’s deeds, expression of consent, friendship, goodwill, or obedience. The commentators have interpreted the word in each of these senses. Another meaning of this word, encompassing all these meanings, is trust, reliance, and attachment. This meaning is the living witness to our point here. A hadith is narrated from Imam Zain al-Abidin Ali ibn al-Husayn (peace be upon him): Muhammad ibn Muslim Zuhri was a learned person who used to cooperate with the Umayyad government, especially with Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik. When the Imam (peace be upon him) instructed him to avoid aiding the oppressors, he warned him with these words: آليس بدعائهم إياك حين دعاك جعلوك قطباً تدوروا بك رحا مظالمهم وجسرا يعبرون عليك إلى بلاياهم وسلمى إلى ضلالتهم داعياً إلى عينهم سالكا سبيلهم يدخلون بك الشك على العلماء ويقتادون بك قلوب الجهال إليهم... فما أقل ما أعطوك في قدر ما أخذوا منك! وما اليسر ما عمروا لك في جنب ما حزنوا عليك! فانظر لنفسك فإنه لاينظر لها غيرك وحاسبها حساب رجل مسئول! “Did they (the Umayyads) not invite you to gather around them? And did they not make you the pivot around which their wheel of oppression turns? Did they not make you the bridge over which they pass to their calamities? Did they not make you a stairway for their misguidance, and a caller to their blindness, a traveler on their path? Through you, they cast doubt upon the scholars and lead the hearts of the ignorant toward themselves... How little do they give you in return for what they take from you! And how insignificant is what they build for you compared to what they ruin through you! So look to yourself, for no one looks after you as you do, and hold yourself accountable as one who will be questioned!” The reality is that this clear and touching meaning of the Imam (peace be upon him) applies to every scholar who is a courtier or attached to a government and clarifies how evil and unfortunate the consequences of this are. Ibn Abbas states that this verse, "رَبِّ بِمَا أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ فَلَنْ أَكُونَ ظَهِيرًا لِّلْمُجْرِمِينَ," is among those verses which testify that aiding the criminals is a sin and wrongdoing, while helping the believers is obedience to God’s command. It is narrated that people said to a scholar: “A certain man has become the servant of a tyrant and only keeps account of his income and expenses. If he takes some payment for this work, it will suffice him, otherwise, he and his family will fall into poverty and want.” In response to this, that scholar said only one sentence: “Have you not heard the words of that pious man (Prophet Moses, peace be upon him)? رَبِّ بِمَا أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ فَلَنْ أَكُونَ ظَهِيرًا لِّلْمُجْرِمِينَ ‘My Lord, by the grace You have bestowed upon me, I will never be an advocate for the criminals.’” (Reference: We have already cited two detailed hadiths concerning aiding the oppressors. See Tafseer Namunah, volume 3, under the interpretation of Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 2, and volume 5, under the interpretation of Surah Hud, verse 113.)

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

In these verses, the fourth stage of this eventful narrative is described. News of the killing of one of the Copts spread rapidly throughout the city. It appears from contextual indications that people had begun to suspect that the killer belonged to Banī Isrāʾīl, and it is even possible that the name of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was mentioned in this connection. This incident was not an ordinary occurrence; rather, it was perceived as a spark of upheaval or a precursor to revolt. The governing authority could not ignore it, for it suggested the possibility that the enslaved Banī Isrāʾīl might rise against their masters. Accordingly, it is stated: “فَأَصْبَحَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ خَائِفًا يَتَرَقَّبُ”. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) spent the next morning in the city in a state of apprehension, anticipating developments and seeking information about the consequences of the event. Suddenly, another situation arose. The same Israelite who had sought his help the previous day was again calling for assistance: “فَإِذَا الَّذِي اسْتَنصَرَهُ بِالْأَمْسِ يَسْتَصْرِخُهُ”. Seeing this, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) reproached him: “إِنَّكَ لَغَوِيٌّ مُّبِينٌ”, indicating that he repeatedly involved himself in disputes and drew trouble upon himself at inappropriate times. Nevertheless, he was facing oppression, and it became necessary for Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) to intervene. As he moved to restrain the Copt, the latter cried out: “يَا مُوسَى أَتُرِيدُ أَن تَقْتُلَنِي كَمَا قَتَلْتَ نَفْسًا بِالْأَمْسِ”. He accused Mūsā of intending to act tyrannically and not as a reformer: “إِن تُرِيدُ إِلَّا أَن تَكُونَ جَبَّارًا فِي الْأَرْضِ”. This outcry revealed that the previous day’s incident had become known. Concerned that the situation might escalate further, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) refrained from further involvement. The matter soon reached Pharaoh and his court, who regarded it as a threat to their authority and decided to execute Mūsā. At this critical moment, an unexpected development saved him. A man came hastily from a distant part of the city and warned him: “يَا مُوسَى إِنَّ الْمَلَأَ يَأْتَمِرُونَ بِكَ لِيَقْتُلُوكَ فَاخْرُجْ”. This individual is generally understood to be the “muʾmin Āl Firʿawn,” who maintained sympathy for Mūsā and seized the opportunity to assist him. Recognizing the sincerity of this counsel, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) departed from the city: “فَخَرَجَ مِنْهَا خَائِفًا يَتَرَقَّبُ”. In a state of humility, he turned to God and prayed: “رَبِّ نَجِّنِي مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ”. He resolved to proceed toward Madyan, a region outside the dominion of Pharaoh. This journey was undertaken under difficult circumstances: without provision, companion, or guide, and under constant threat of capture. Yet his greatest resource was his faith and reliance upon God. Thus, as he set out, he declared: “عَسَى رَبِّي أَن يَهْدِيَنِي سَوَاءَ السَّبِيلِ”, expressing hope that God would guide him to the right path.

See ayat 25 for tafseer.

See ayat 25 for tafseer.

At this point, we have reached the fifth part of this narrative, and the occasion is that Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) has arrived in the city of Midian. This young, pious man had been walking alone for many days. It was a path he had neither seen nor traveled before. According to some accounts, Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) was forced to walk barefoot. It is narrated that he walked continuously for eight days, until his feet developed blisters. When he felt hungry, he would eat the grass of the forest and leaves of the trees. Amidst all these hardships and difficulties, only one thought gave comfort to his heart: that he was now free from the claws of Pharaoh’s oppression. Gradually, the city of Midian became visible on the horizon. A wave of relief rose in his heart. He approached the city and saw a group of people. He immediately understood that these were shepherds who had come to the well to water their sheep. When Moses (peace be upon him) came near the well, he saw many men drawing water from it to give to their animals. (وَلَمَّا وَرَدَ مَاءَ مَدْيَنَ وَجَدَ عَلَيْهِ أُمَّةً مِّنَ النَّاسِ يَسْقُونَ) He saw two women by the well who were standing with their sheep but did not come close to the well. (وَوَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمُ امْرَأَتَيْنِ تَذُودَانِ) (Explanatory note: The root of the word "تذُودَانِ" is "زود," which means to prevent or restrain. These girls were guarding their sheep to prevent them from running away or mingling with the sheep of others). The condition of these respectable girls was pitiable, standing aside, neglected by anyone. The shepherds were only concerned about their own sheep and gave no opportunity to others. Seeing this state of the girls, Moses (peace be upon him) approached them and asked: “What is your matter?” (قَالَ مَا خَطْبُكُمَا) (Explanatory note: "خطْب" means matter, purpose, or condition.) “Why do you not advance and give water to your sheep?” The oppression, injustice, and denial of the rights of the oppressed that Moses (peace be upon him) saw in the city of Midian were unbearable for him. Protecting the oppressed from injustice was in his nature. For this reason, he had rejected Pharaoh’s palace and its luxuries and became a stranger to his homeland. He could not abandon this way of life and remained unable to stay silent witnessing oppression. The girls replied to Moses (peace be upon him): “We do not give water to our sheep until all the shepherds have finished watering theirs and left.” (قَالَتَا لَا نَسْقِي حَتَّى يُصْدِرَ الرِّعَاءُ) (Explanatory note: "يصدر" is derived from "صدر," meaning “to go out,” and "رعاء" is the plural of "راعي," meaning shepherd.) To clarify this, the girls added that their father had sent them alone for this task and that their father was very old: (وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ). He is neither strong enough to water the sheep nor do they have a brother to perform this task. So, they themselves carry it out, not wanting to burden anyone else. Hearing these words, Moses (peace be upon him) was greatly distressed internally and said to himself: How unjust are these people who care only for themselves and have no concern for any oppressed person. He stepped forward, took up a heavy bucket, and lowered it into the well. It is said that the bucket was so large that it would normally require several men to pull it up, but Moses (peace be upon him) drew it up alone by the strength of his mighty arms and watered the sheep of the two women. (فَسَقَى لَهُمَا) It is narrated that when Moses (peace be upon him) came near the well and drove people aside, he asked them: “What kind of people are you that only care for yourselves?” Hearing this, the people moved aside and handed the bucket to Moses (peace be upon him), saying: “Here, in the name of Allah, if you can draw water.” They then left Moses (peace be upon him) alone. Although Moses (peace be upon him) was tired and hungry at the time, yet his faith gave him strength, which increased his physical power, enabling him to draw one bucket from the well and water the sheep of the two women. After this, Moses (peace be upon him) sat down in the shade and began to supplicate to his Lord: “My Lord, indeed I am, for whatever good You would send down to me, in need.” (ثُمَّ تَوَلَّى إِلَى الظِّلِّ فَقَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي لِمَا أَنْزَلْتَ إِلَيَّ مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَقِيرٌ) At that time, Moses (peace be upon him) was tired and hungry, a stranger and alone in that city, with no shelter. Yet, he was not restless. His soul was so contented that even in supplication he did not say, “O God, do this for me or that,” but said, “Whatever good You send down to me, I am in need of it.”That is, they only present their own needs and requests, leaving the rest of the matters to the grace of Allah. But ___ see how the act of goodness demonstrates Divine power and how many strange blessings it contains. Merely for the sake of Allah, taking one step and drawing a bucket of water from the well to help an unknown oppressed person opened a new chapter in the life of Prophet Musa (عليه السلام), and this act of kindness brought to him a world of material and spiritual blessings as a gift. And that hidden blessing (which he had to seek for years) Allah granted him. The fortunate period for Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) began when he saw that one of the two sisters was walking towards him with great modesty. Her demeanor showed that she was shy to speak with a young man. The girl came close to Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) and said only one sentence: “My father invites you to give you the reward for watering our goats from the well”: (فَجَاءَتْهُ إِحْدَاهُمَا تَمْشِي عَلَى اسْتِحْيَاءِ قَالَتْ إِنَّ أَبِي يَدْعُوكَ لِيَجْزِيَكَ أَجْرَ مَا سَقَيْتَ لَنَا). Upon hearing this, a spark of hope lit up in the heart of Prophet Musa (عليه السلام). It was as if he realized that causes for great fortune were being arranged for him. He would meet an elder person. This appeared to be a righteous person who did not like that, for any hardship, even drawing a bucket of water, a person should remain unpaid. Surely, this must be a celestial and divine man. O Allah! What a strange and rare opportunity! Indeed, that elder man was Prophet Shu‘ayb (عليه السلام). He had been inviting the people of this city to turn to Allah for many years. He was a model of truthfulness and recognition of the truth. When Prophet Shu‘ayb (عليه السلام) saw that his daughters had returned home earlier than usual that day, he asked them the reason. When he learned about the entire incident, he resolved to preach his religion to that stranger young man. Thus, Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) departed from that place towards the house of Prophet Shu‘ayb (عليه السلام). According to some narrations, the girl was walking ahead, guiding the way, and Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) was following behind her. At that time, a strong wind was blowing her dress, and it was possible that the wind’s force might lift the dress away from her body. The pure nature of Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) did not allow him to witness such a sight, so he said to the girl that he would walk ahead and she should inform him at any crossroads or fork in the road. (Explanatory note: Abu al-Futuh al-Razi, under the verses in discussion.) Thus, Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) reached the house of Prophet Shu‘ayb (عليه السلام)—a house from which the light of prophecy radiated and every corner was permeated with spirituality. He saw an elderly man with white hair sitting in a corner. He welcomed Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) and asked: “Who are you? Where do you come from? What do you do? What is your purpose in this city? Why are you alone?” Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) narrated his whole story. The Qur’anic words are: when Musa (عليه السلام) came to Shu‘ayb (عليه السلام) and related to him his account, Shu‘ayb (عليه السلام) said, “Fear not; you have escaped from the group of the unjust”: (فَلَمَّا جَائَهُ وَقَصَّ عَلَيْهِ الْقَصَصَ قَالَ لَا تَخَفْ نَجَوْتَ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ). “Our land lies outside their domain. Here, their authority does not apply. Do not allow even a trace of worry to dwell in your heart. You have arrived safely. Do not grieve about your travel or solitude. All these difficulties will be removed by the grace of Allah.” Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) immediately understood that he had found a highly ranked teacher, whose presence was a source of spirituality, piety, knowledge, and a fountain of great purity that could quench his thirst for knowledge and understanding. Prophet Shu‘ayb (عليه السلام) also understood that he had found a competent and capable student, from whom he could benefit through his knowledge, wisdom, and lifelong experience. It is certain that just as a student takes great delight in finding a venerable and qualified teacher, a teacher derives equal joy in finding a worthy student.

“Madyan” is the name of a town in which Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and his tribe resided. This town was situated to the east of the Gulf of ʿAqabah (that is, in the northern region of Ḥijāz and the southern part of greater Syria). Its inhabitants were descendants of Ismāʿīl (ʿalayhi al‑salām), and they maintained trade relations with Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine. In the present day, this town is identified with Maʿān. Some have used the term “Madyan” to refer more broadly to the people who inhabited the region extending from the Gulf of ʿAqabah to Mount Sinai. In the Torah as well, this people are referred to as “Midian.” Certain researchers have suggested that the name of the town derives from Madyan, a son of Ibrāhīm (ʿalayhi al‑salām), who is said to have resided in this region. A careful examination of geographical maps indicates that this town is located at a relatively short distance from Egypt; therefore, it is likely that Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was able to reach it within a few days. In the geographical maps of the modern state of Jordan, one finds a southwestern city named Maʿān, the location of which corresponds to the description provided above.

In this segment of the narrative of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), numerous instructive lessons can be derived: (a) The prophets of God have consistently stood in support of the oppressed. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), both during his time in Egypt and during his stay in Madyan, demonstrated a deep sensitivity to injustice. Wherever he encountered oppression, he reacted with concern and action. This reflects a fundamental purpose of prophetic mission. (b) Even a seemingly minor act of الخير can yield profound and far‑reaching consequences. The act of drawing a single bucket of water from the well, performed solely for the sake of Divine pleasure, resulted in significant outcomes for Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām): it led him to the household of Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām), provided him with refuge from hardship, secured for him sustenance, clothing, and a virtuous spouse, and most importantly, enabled him to undergo a period of spiritual and intellectual training under a righteous guide for ten years. (c) The people of faith do not allow service—particularly service rendered to working individuals—to go without acknowledgment or recompense. Thus, when Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām) learned of the assistance rendered by the young stranger, he immediately sought to compensate him by sending for him. (d) Another notable aspect of the life of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) is his constant remembrance of God. At every stage, he turned to God for resolution of difficulties. When an unintended incident occurred, he prayed: “قال رب انی ظلمت نفسی فاغفرلی”. When leaving Egypt, he supplicated: “قال رب نجنی من القوم الظالمین”. On his journey toward Madyan, he expressed hope in Divine guidance: “قال عسٰی ربی ان یھدینی سواء السبیل”. After assisting the daughters of Shuʿayb, he said: “رب انی لما انزلت الی من خیر فقیر”. This final supplication is particularly significant for its tone of humility and composure; rather than explicitly requesting fulfillment of needs, it expresses dependence upon Divine beneficence. (e) It should not be assumed that Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) remembered God only in times of hardship. Even during his earlier life in the court of Pharaoh, he remained mindful of God. A narration indicates that upon sneezing in Pharaoh’s presence, he responded with “الحمد الله رب العالمین”, demonstrating continued acknowledgment of Divine authority despite living in an environment of power and opulence (Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 4, p. 117). These elements collectively portray a model of character defined by commitment to justice, sincerity in action, recognition of Divine dependence, and perseverance through varying circumstances.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

At this point, the sixth stage of the life of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) commences. He entered the household of Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām), which was a simple rural dwelling—clean, modest, and imbued with spirituality. When Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) related his account, one of Shuʿayb’s daughters presented a concise yet meaningful recommendation to her father, suggesting that he employ him as a shepherd. She said: “قَالَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا يَا أَبَتِ اسْتَأْجِرْهُ إِنَّ خَيْرَ مَنِ اسْتَأْجَرْتَ الْقَوِيُّ الْأَمِينُ”. A woman raised under the guidance of a prophet would naturally speak in such measured and purposeful terms, conveying her meaning with brevity and precision. The question arises as to how she determined that this man was both strong and trustworthy, given that she had seen him only briefly. The answer is evident: she recognized his strength when he moved the shepherds aside and drew water from the well, and she perceived his trustworthiness during the journey to her father’s house, when he conducted himself with restraint and propriety. Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām) accepted this proposal and addressed Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām): “إِنِّي أُرِيدُ أَنْ أُنكِحَكَ إِحْدَى ابْنَتَيَّ هَاتَيْنِ عَلَى أَن تَأْجُرَنِي ثَمَانِيَ حِجَجٍ”. He proposed marriage with one of his daughters on the condition that Mūsā serve him for eight years. He further added: “فَإِنْ أَتْمَمْتَ عَشْرًا فَمِنْ عِندِكَ”، indicating that extending the term to ten years would be an act of generosity rather than an obligation. He also assured him that he would not impose hardship upon him and expressed confidence that he would find him among the righteous: “وَمَا أُرِيدُ أَنْ أَشُقَّ عَلَيْكَ سَتَجِدُنِي إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ”. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) accepted the proposal, stating: “ذَلِكَ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكَ”، affirming the agreement between them. He further clarified that he would fulfill either of the two periods without objection: “أَيَّمَا الْأَجَلَيْنِ قَضَيْتُ فَلَا عُدْوَانَ عَلَيَّ”، and reinforced the covenant by invoking God as witness: “وَاللَّهُ عَلَىٰ مَا نَقُولُ وَكِيلٌ”.

In the verses under discussion, the statement made by the daughter of Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām) regarding the employment of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) expresses, in a concise and comprehensive manner, two fundamental conditions necessary for the responsible discharge of any duty—namely, “strength” and “trustworthiness.” It is evident that “strength” does not refer solely to physical power; rather, it includes the capacity to perform the assigned task competently. For example, a capable and trustworthy physician is one who possesses knowledge of his profession and mastery over it. Similarly, a competent administrator is one who is fully aware of the responsibilities of his position, understands the objectives of the institution, is capable of planning and organizing work effectively, possesses a degree of creativity and initiative, and directs all his energies toward achieving clearly defined goals—all while remaining sincere, benevolent, and trustworthy in his conduct. Those who entrust responsibilities solely on the basis of integrity, without regard for competence, are misguided, just as those who rely only on technical expertise while ignoring moral character. A technically skilled yet dishonest individual may cause damage comparable to that caused by an honest but incompetent person. If one were to seek the decline of a society, it would suffice either to entrust its affairs to capable but unprincipled individuals, or to exclude those of sound character from positions of responsibility; in both cases, the outcome would be equally detrimental. The proper functioning of society requires that responsibilities be assigned to those who combine competence with trustworthiness. Indeed, throughout history, the decline of governments can often be traced to the failure to uphold these dual criteria. In Islamic thought, the essential qualifications for positions of responsibility consistently combine “knowledge” and “piety.” For instance, a religious authority (marjaʿ al‑taqlīd) must be both a mujtahid and just, while a judge or community leader must likewise possess both expertise and moral integrity. Although additional conditions may apply, these two—knowledge and ethical uprightness—remain fundamental.

Reading the aforementioned verses raises several questions in the mind. We provide the answers to them without any hesitation. 1. Is it juristically correct that the girl with whom the marriage is to be contracted is not predetermined, but at the time of pronouncing the marriage formula (Ṣighat) it is said: "I marry one of these two girls to you"? Answer: It is not clear that these words were uttered at the time of pronouncing the Ṣighat. Rather, from the context, it appears that this is an initial conversation, like what is called "Muqawala" (contractual negotiation), so that after the consent of Musa (peace be upon him), both parties select one another. Then the Ṣighat of the marriage contract is pronounced. b. Is it possible that the Mahr (dowry) is kept in an undefined state or in a doubtful condition between more or less? Answer: The tone of the verse definitively proves that Prophet Shu'aib (peace be upon him) fixed the Mahr as eight years of service. Extending it to ten years was subject to the consent of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him). c. Can work and service essentially be considered as Mahr? Also, how can intimacy take place with such a woman when the entirety of her Mahr has not yet become due? Indeed, the husband does not even have the means to pay the full Mahr at once. Answer: There is no evidence against the permissibility of such a Mahr, rather in our Shariah any item that has some value can be subject to Mahr. It is not necessary for the husband to pay the entire Mahr at once. It suffices that the husband is responsible for paying the Mahr and the wife becomes its owner. The husband’s good health and his remaining with his wife also serve as proof that he will live and have the capacity to pay the Mahr in due time. (Explanatory note: The answer is given in light of Islamic Shariah. It is possible that the conditions of Mahr in the Abrahamic Shariah (which prevailed before Prophet Musa, peace be upon him) were different.) d. How is it fundamentally possible that the service of the father is considered the Mahr of the daughter? Is the daughter a commodity that is sold in exchange for the right of service? (Explanatory note: The late scholar Muhqqiq Halli says in Sharaye' al-Islam: The contract is valid on the usufruct (benefit) of a free person, e.g., teaching a craft as Mahr or reciting a Surah from the Qur’an, and on every lawful act, including appointing the husband as a servant for a fixed term. And the late eminent jurist Sahib Jawahir, after quoting this text, says that well-known scholars agree with this opinion.) Answer: There is no doubt that Prophet Shu'aib (peace be upon him) had obtained his daughter’s consent in this matter and he was a representative authorized to conclude such a contract. Another justification for this matter could be that the Mahr that was upon Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) was in reality owned by Shu'aib’s daughter. But since the family was joint and their life was full of sincerity and love, with no disagreements among them (as is still observed in old families or villages where all members live together harmoniously), the question of who receives the Mahr could not arise. The summary is that the owner of the Mahr is only the girl, not the father, and Prophet Musa’s service was also for the girl. e. The Mahr of Shu'aib’s daughter was relatively very large. If calculated based on today’s wages for a worker for one month and then multiplied by one year and then multiplied by eight, it amounts to a large sum. Answer: Firstly, this marriage was not an ordinary custom but rather one of the means for Musa (peace be upon him) to remain under the tutelage of Shu'aib (peace be upon him) and to complete his education in the house of knowledge of Shu'aib. Only Allah knows what Musa acquired from the master of religion during this long term. Furthermore, if Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) worked for Shu'aib during this period and Shu'aib acted as the sponsor for Musa and his wife in return, then the expenses that Shu'aib covered for them would be offset against the wages of the work, leaving little surplus, thus the Mahr would not remain small.

From this narrative, it may also be inferred that in contemporary societies the practice whereby a father or the guardians of a girl consider it improper to initiate a marriage proposal toward a suitable man is not justified. There is no legal or religious prohibition that would prevent the guardians of a woman, upon recognizing a man as worthy and capable, from presenting such a proposal. This is exemplified in the conduct of Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām), and similar precedents are found in the biographies of prominent figures within Islamic tradition. The daughters of Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām) are reported to have been named Ṣafūrā (or Ṣaffūrā) and Liyyā. Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was married to Ṣafūrā.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

At this point, we consider the seventh scene of this narrative. It is not possible to know in detail what transpired during these ten years in the life of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), yet it is evident that these were among the most significant years of his life. They were years of tranquility, enrichment, and preparation for a great responsibility. During this period, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) lived in exile, in the company of a venerable prophet, and engaged in shepherding. This experience removed from him the influence of a life shaped by palace luxury and brought him into close contact with those who lived in simplicity and hardship. Such an experience was essential for him to understand the suffering of oppressed people and to prepare himself for confrontation with the ruling elite. It was also necessary that he spend this extended period in reflection upon the mysteries of creation and in the development of his own character. The environment of Madyan and the household of Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām) provided an appropriate setting for this purpose. The mission entrusted to a prophet of this rank was not ordinary; it involved confronting tyranny, liberating an oppressed people, and reforming a community affected by long periods of subjugation. According to reports, Shuʿayb (ʿalayhi al‑salām), in recognition of Mūsā’s service, arranged that certain of the offspring of the flock would belong to him, and by the end of the agreed period, many of these were granted to Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) (Aʿlām al‑Qurʾān, p. 409). Nevertheless, Mūsā could not remain confined to a pastoral life. He regarded it as his duty to return to Egypt in order to assist his people, liberate them from oppression, and confront the prevailing injustice. Thus, he set out on his journey with his family and possessions. The Qur’an records: “فَلَمَّا قَضَىٰ مُوسَى الْأَجَلَ وَسَارَ بِأَهْلِهِ آنَسَ مِن جَانِبِ الطُّورِ نَارًا”. He perceived a fire from the direction of Ṭūr and said: “امْكُثُوا إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا لَّعَلِّي آتِيكُم مِّنْهَا بِخَبَرٍ أَوْ جَذْوَةٍ مِّنَ النَّارِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَصْطَلُونَ”. The context suggests that the surroundings were cold and unfamiliar, and that he was seeking either guidance or warmth. When he approached, he encountered not an ordinary fire but a radiant manifestation. Then it was proclaimed: “فَلَمَّا أَتَاهَا نُودِيَ مِن شَاطِئِ الْوَادِي الْأَيْمَنِ… أَن يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ”. This marked the beginning of his prophetic mission. The communication occurred through a created medium, without implying any corporeal form for the Divine. Subsequently, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was granted two significant signs. First, he was commanded: “وَأَنْ أَلْقِ عَصَاكَ”. When he cast down his staff, it moved swiftly “كَأَنَّهَا جَانٌّ”, causing him to withdraw in fear. He was then reassured: “يَا مُوسَى أَقْبِلْ وَلَا تَخَفْ إِنَّكَ مِنَ الْآمِنِينَ”. The second sign was given through the command: “اسْلُكْ يَدَكَ فِي جَيْبِكَ تَخْرُجْ بَيْضَاءَ مِنْ غَيْرِ سُوءٍ”. His hand emerged luminous without any defect, a sign of divine power. When he experienced apprehension, he was instructed: “وَاضْمُمْ إِلَيْكَ جَنَاحَكَ مِنَ الرَّهْبِ”. These two signs constituted “برھانان” granted for his mission toward Pharaoh and his court: “فَذَانِكَ بُرْهَانَانِ مِن رَّبِّكَ إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ وَمَلَئِهِ”. At this juncture, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) recalled an earlier event in Egypt and expressed concern: “رَبِّ إِنِّي قَتَلْتُ مِنْهُمْ نَفْسًا فَأَخَافُ أَن يَقْتُلُونِ”. He also requested assistance from his brother Hārūn, describing him as more eloquent: “وَأَخِي هَارُونُ هُوَ أَفْصَحُ مِنِّي لِسَانًا فَأَرْسِلْهُ مَعِيَ رِدْءًا يُصَدِّقُنِي”. In response, Divine assurance was granted: “سَنَشُدُّ عَضُدَكَ بِأَخِيكَ وَنَجْعَلُ لَكُمَا سُلْطَانًا… أَنْتُمَا وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَكُمَا الْغَالِبُونَ”. This constituted a decisive promise of support, strengthening Mūsā’s resolve and preparing him to undertake his mission with confidence and determination.

See ayat 37 for tafseer.

At this point, the eighth part of this account is described. Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) received the command of prophethood and messengership from God at that sacred place. He came to Egypt and informed his brother Harun (peace be upon him), conveying to him the message of the prophethood for which he was sent. Then, these two brothers set out with the intention to meet Pharaoh. At last, after great difficulty, they were able to reach him. At that time, Pharaoh was surrounded by his advisors and chosen people. Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) conveyed to all of them the message of God. Now we will see what their reaction was upon hearing the truthful message. In the first of the mentioned verses, God states that when Musa came to those people with Our clear signs, they said: "This is nothing but magic falsely attributed" (فَلَمَّا جَآءَهُمْ مُوسَىٰ بِآيَاتِنَا بَيِّنَاتٍ قَالُوا مَا هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُفْتَرَىٰ). They also said, "We have never heard of such a thing in our forefathers before" (وَمَا سَمِعْنَا بِهَٰذَا فِي آبَائِنَا الْأَوَّلِينَ). They used the very same tactic against the clear miracles of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) which all oppressors, tyrants, and misguided people throughout history adopted when confronted with the miracles of the Prophets. That tactic was to accuse him of sorcery, because miracles too are extraordinary, and so is magic, but they differ completely! Magicians are misguided and worldly people whose practices are based on distortion of truths. This sign clearly reveals their reality, while the miracles of the Prophets are witnesses to the truth of the divine message and its authenticity. Moreover, since magicians rely on human power, their range is always limited. However, the Prophets possess divine power, and therefore, their miracles are great and unlimited. The Quran uses the word "آيَاتٍ" (plural of "آية") in the phrase "آتِنَا بَيِّنَاتٍ" (bring us clear signs) as a collective term. This refers to the miracles that were given to Prophet Musa (peace be upon him). Apparently, only two miracles are mentioned, yet it is possible that he was given other miracles in addition to these two, or that the two miracles are composed of multiple signs. The staff turning into a serpent is a great miracle, and then its returning to the original state is another miracle. Likewise, the shining of Musa’s hand is one miracle, and its restoration to the normal state is another. The root of the word "مفتري" is "فریة," which means slander and falsehood. The people of Egypt used this word because they intended to say that Musa (peace be upon him) lied while invoking the name of God. Their statement, "We have never heard of such a thing from our ancestors before," had reasons as well. Before Prophet Musa (peace be upon him), prophethood and the widespread recognition of Prophets Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), and Yusuf (Joseph) had reached that land, or perhaps they said this because a long time had passed since those events and they had forgotten the truth. Alternatively, they might have thought that similar messages had been sent to their forefathers before but were rejected by them. However, in response to these disbelievers, Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) said in a threatening tone: "My Lord knows best who has brought the guidance from Him, and who will have the final outcome of the abode" (وَقَالَ مُوسَىٰ رَبِّي أَعْلَمُ بِمَن جَاءَ بِالْهُدَىٰ مِنْ عِندِهِ ۖ وَمَن تَكُونُ لَهُٰ عَاقِبَةُ الدَّارِ). With this statement, Musa (peace be upon him) meant that God is fully aware of my condition, although you accuse me of lying. Yet you do not consider that God would not grant such miracles to a liar who leads His servants astray. God knows the condition of my heart well, and He has gifted me these miracles as proof of the truthfulness of my message. Besides, "falsehood" has no enduring basis; the work of a liar lasts only a short time, then his cover is exposed. You will soon see who among us is successful and who is destined for defeat and disgrace. Be assured, if I am a liar, then I am an oppressor, and oppressors never prosper: (إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الظَّالِمُونَ). The meaning of this verse corresponds to that of Surah Ta-Ha, verse 69, where it is said: "And the magician will never prosper, wherever he may be" (وَلَا يُفْلِحُ السَّاحِرُ حَيْثُ أَتَىٰ). At this point, it is also possible that the verse alludes to the self-centered state of Pharaoh and his corrupt and arrogant comrades—that although, upon seeing my miracles, they internally acknowledge my truthfulness, due to the wickedness of their own souls, they oppose me. But understand well that you can never achieve success, and the final outcome will be in my favor, not yours. The term "عاقبة الدار" (final outcome of the abode) may refer to the outcome in this world, the hereafter, or both. However, the third interpretation appears to be more comprehensive and appropriate. With this logical and courteous response, Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) forewarned them of disgrace and failure both in this world and the hereafter.It has been made clear.

See ayat 42 for tafseer.

See ayat 42 for tafseer.

See ayat 42 for tafseer.

See ayat 42 for tafseer.

At this point, we consider another instructive segment of this historical narrative: namely, Pharaoh’s decision to construct a towering structure in order to oppose Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām). It is well known that experienced political authorities often employ a particular strategy when confronted with events that run contrary to their interests: they attempt to divert public attention by introducing new distractions, thereby shifting focus away from the central issue. It appears that Pharaoh adopted such a tactic following the encounter between Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and the magicians. The Qur’anic account in Sūrat al‑Muʾmin indicates that this plan emerged at a time when Pharaoh’s court was deliberating the execution of Mūsā while a believing member of Pharaoh’s household sought to restrain them. Prior to the confrontation with the magicians, such a measure would not have been necessary, as the efforts were then concentrated on refuting Mūsā’s claim through magical contest. The account of the confrontation with the magicians is recorded in various sūrahs, including Ṭā‑Hā, al‑Aʿrāf, Yūnus, and al‑Shuʿarāʾ, but here the focus is solely on the construction of the tower as mentioned in this sūrah and in Sūrat al‑Muʾmin. The victory of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) over the magicians became widely known throughout Egypt, and the subsequent acceptance of faith by the magicians intensified the perceived threat to Pharaoh’s authority. The possibility that the oppressed population might awaken to truth created a significant political crisis. In such circumstances, it became necessary for Pharaoh to redirect public attention and employ strategies of distraction and persuasion. Thus, he proclaimed: “وقال فرعون يا أيها الملأ ما علمت لكم من إله غيري”. He asserted his own claimed divinity while casting doubt upon the existence of any other deity. Subsequently, he commanded Hāmān: “فأوقد لي يا هامان على الطين”، instructing him to prepare materials for construction, and then ordered: “فاجعل لي صرحًا لعلي أطلع إلى إله موسى وإني لأظنه من الكاذبين”. The language reflects both arrogance and calculated rhetoric, combining denial with a pretended investigative posture intended to influence public perception. Questions have been raised regarding the feasibility and intention of such a project. While some have doubted the rationality of the endeavor, such objections overlook the contextual realities: Egypt did not possess mountainous terrain comparable to other regions, and the general population could be influenced through symbolic or theatrical actions. Even in modern times, complex strategies are used to divert attention from critical issues; such methods are not confined to earlier historical periods. Historical accounts describe extensive mobilization for this project, involving large numbers of workers and significant expenditure of resources. The structure reportedly became a spectacle that attracted public attention, thereby serving its intended purpose of distraction. Narratives further suggest that Pharaoh ascended the structure and attempted to demonstrate the non‑existence of Mūsā’s God through symbolic gestures, reinforcing his propaganda among the population. The statement “ما علمت لكم من إله غيري” illustrates a calculated expression of authority. Pharaoh presented his own divinity as an established premise while framing the existence of any other deity as uncertain. This rhetorical strategy aimed to create doubt and manipulate perception rather than establish truth. The Qur’an then describes the underlying reality: “واستكبر هو وجنوده في الأرض بغير الحق وظنوا أنهم إلينا لا يرجعون”. Their arrogance and denial of accountability formed the root of their فساد. Despite their apparent power, they failed to recognize their own inherent limitations and dependence. The consequence of this arrogance is then stated: “فأخذناه وجنوده فنبذناهم في اليم”. The very river upon which their economic and political strength depended became the means of their destruction. The use of “نبذناهم” conveys the notion of casting aside something devoid of value, emphasizing the futility of their power. The passage concludes with a directive: “فانظر كيف كان عاقبة الظالمين”. This instruction is not limited to physical observation but calls for reflective insight into the fate of ظلم and oppression. The subsequent verse affirms: “وجعلناهم أئمة يدعون إلى النار ويوم القيامة لا ينصرون”. They became leaders inviting toward destruction, and such leadership persists in its consequences into the Hereafter, where followers remain aligned with their leaders. Finally, it is stated: “وأتبعناهم في هذه الدنيا لعنة ويوم القيامة هم من المقبوحين”. Deprivation from divine mercy and the condition of disgrace characterize both their worldly legacy and their ultimate state. These descriptions underscore the enduring consequences of arrogance, misguidance, and rejection of truth, revealing a pattern that transcends historical context.

The Qur’an refers to two types of leaders (imāms). One type consists of the leaders of the righteous who guide toward the straight path and the true religion. In this regard, Sūrat al‑Anbiyāʾ 7:73 describes a group of prophets as follows: “وَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَئِمَّةً يَهْدُونَ بِأَمْرِنَا وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْهِمْ فِعْلَ الْخَيْرَاتِ وَإِقَامَ الصَّلَاةِ وَإِيتَاءَ الزَّكَاةِ وَكَانُوا لَنَا عَابِدِينَ”. They were appointed as leaders who guided by Divine command; they were inspired to perform righteous deeds, establish prayer, and give zakāh, and they were devoted to God. These leaders represent the imāms of light, whose mission is grounded in pure توحید, the promotion of الخير and righteousness, and adherence to justice. Their lineage extends through the prophets and their successors up to the final Messenger. The second type consists of leaders of misguidance, described in the present verses as “أَئِمَّةُ النَّار”. According to a narration attributed to Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām), the distinguishing characteristic between these two categories lies in their relationship to Divine command: one group gives precedence to God’s command over personal inclination and considers Divine authority supreme, while the other prioritizes personal judgment over Divine command and elevates its own will above revelation (Tafsīr Ṣāfī). This standard provides a clear basis for distinguishing between the two types of leadership. On the Day of Judgment, humanity will be gathered in accordance with its affiliation: “يَوْمَ نَدْعُو كُلَّ أُنَاسٍ بِإِمَامِهِمْ” (Banī Isrāʾīl 71). Each group will follow its leader—those of light following the leaders of guidance, and those of darkness following the leaders of misguidance. This indicates that the associations formed in worldly life persist into the Hereafter. As narrated by Bishr ibn Ghālib, when the meaning of this verse was asked from Imām Ḥusayn (ʿalayhi al‑salām), he explained that one leader calls toward guidance and is followed by a group, while another calls toward misguidance and is followed by another group; the former will be among the people of Paradise, and the latter among the people of Hell, as indicated in “فَرِيقٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَفَرِيقٌ فِي السَّعِيرِ”. The example of Firʿawn illustrates this reality: just as he led his followers toward destruction in this world, he will lead them in the Hereafter as well, as stated: “يَقْدُمُ قَوْمَهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَأَوْرَدَهُمُ النَّارَ” (Hūd 98). This discussion concludes with a statement attributed to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām), describing a group of hypocrites who, after the Prophet’s time, aligned themselves with the leaders of misguidance and those who call toward the Fire. Through falsehood and distortion, they attained positions of authority and were placed over people, exercising power unjustly over them.

See ayat 46 for tafseer.

See ayat 46 for tafseer.

See ayat 46 for tafseer.

In Surah Al-Qasas, all the verses related to the story of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) are introduced here from its tenth part. In this portion, the revelation of the Torah to Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) and the giving of the Ten Commandments are mentioned. That is, when the era of rejecting taghut (false deities) came to an end (i.e., when Musa freed his power from the oppression of idolaters), the time began for teaching, from his religious perspective, reform and training, the denial of anyone other than God, and then the affirmation of the Oneness of Allah. Thus, the Lord of the worlds says: We gave Musa the Book after We destroyed the earlier generations—[a Book] that is a source of insight for the people and a guidance and mercy, so that they might remember: (وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا أَهْلَكْنَا الْقُرُونَ الْأُولَى بَصَائِرَ لِلنَّاسِ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لَّعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ). In the verse under consideration, which nations are meant by "قرون اولیٰ" (i.e., the earlier eras whose peoples were destroyed)? Some exegetes interpret it as referring to the peoples of Noah, ‘Aad, Thamud, and other similar disbelieving nations. This is because, over time, the traces of previous prophets had vanished from the earth, and it became necessary to reveal a new Book for the training of humankind. Others understand this to refer to the destruction of Pharaoh’s people, who were among the remnants of earlier nations, since Allah revealed the Torah to Musa only after the destruction of that nation. However, there is no harm in accepting that "قرون الاولی" refers collectively to all such nations. The word "بصائر" is the plural of "بصیرت," which means "vision" or "insight." But in this context, it refers to the signs and evidences of Allah that illuminate the hearts of the believers, and guidance and mercy are among the essentials of this insight. Likewise, awakening of hearts and reflection on divine power are the outcomes of this insight (Reference: Plural forms of بصیرت and أبصار). After this, it is mentioned that what we have narrated in detail about Musa and Pharaoh is proof of the truth of the Qur’an. You were not present at that time, nor did you see these events with your own eyes. It is Our grace and favor that We have sent down these verses to guide the creation. Then He says: When We gave Musa the command of prophecy, you were not at the side of the west mountain, nor were you among the witnesses: (وَمَا كُنتَ بِجَانِبِ الْغَرْبِيِّ إِذْ قَضَيْنَا إِلَى مُوسَى الْأَمْرَ وَمَا كُنتَ مِنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ). Here, it is noteworthy that when Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) was traveling from Midian towards Egypt (that path passed through the land of Sinai), he was moving precisely from east to west. Conversely, when the Children of Israel came from Egypt towards Syria and passed through the valley of Sinai, they traveled from west to east. Therefore, some exegetes have understood the verse sixty of Surah Ash-Shu‘ara, "فاتبعوھم مشرقین" (meaning the pursuit of the Children of Israel by Pharaoh and his forces), in this context. Thereafter, the Qur’an states: We created various nations at different times, but when a long period passed over them, the guidance of the prophets and their teachings faded from their hearts. Therefore, We appointed you [O Prophet] a messenger and gave you the Qur’an, and recounted the histories of previous peoples, so that they may take admonition: (وَلَكِنَّا أَنشَأْنَا قُرُونًا فَتَطَاوَلَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْعُمُرُ). And you never stayed among the people of Midian (that is, you did not know their life circumstances), and they recited Our verses to them (i.e., you should recite Our verses to the people of Mecca): (وَمَا كُنتَ ثَاوِيًا فِي أَهْلِ مَدْيَنَ تَتْلُواْ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِنَا). (Explanatory Note: The root of "ثاوي" is "ثوی," which means "to remain permanently." For this reason, a place of settlement is called a "مثوی".) Yet We sent you as a messenger and gave you knowledge of historical events from thousands of years before so that you might guide this creation: (وَلَكِنَّا كُنَّا مُرْسِلِينَ). (Explanatory Note: There is approximately a two-thousand-year interval between Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) and the Seal of the Prophets [Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him].) To emphasize this concept, it is added: When We called Musa and issued the command of prophethood to him: (وَمَا كُنتَ بِجَانِبِ الطُّورِ إِذْ نَادَيْنَا). (Explanatory Note: Some exegetes hold the view that this "call" refers to when Musa went to Mount Tur with seventy of the Children of Israel and heard the voice of God. However, this possibility is very unlikely because these verses allude to the matters that were mentioned in previous verses, and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) related those circumstances to the people, although he was not a witness to them. The previous verses speak of Musa’s journey from Midian to Egypt and hearing the speech of God in the valley of Tur for the first time.) But the knowledge We have informed you of is a mercy from your Lord so that you might warn a people to whom no warner had come before, so that they may receive admonition: (وَلَكِن رَّحْمَةً مِّن رَّبِّكَ لِتُنذِرَ قَوْمًا مَّا أَتَ).They came to you from before you as a warner, perhaps they may remember." The essence of the statement is that God, addressing the noble Prophet, says that the awakening and cautionary events that befell ancient peoples—events which you have not witnessed with your own eyes—we have informed you about so that you may relate them to this misguided nation, hoping that they may take admonition. At this point, the question arises regarding how the Qur'an states that: No warner had come to this nation before you. While it is also accepted that the earth never remains devoid of divine proof, and that among that nation (the Arabs of the Prophet’s time), there were also successors of the Prophets from the People of the Book. The answer to this question is as follows: For that misguided nation, the purpose of sending a Prophet from the People of the Book as a warner was clear because many years had passed between the appearance of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). During this period, no Prophet of determination (Ulul Azm) had come, and these corrupt and irreligious Arabs deviated from the path of God under the pretext of this absence. Amir al-Mu'minin Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him) says: "Indeed, Allah sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) at a time when no Arab read a scripture nor claimed prophethood. The wicked corrupted the people until Allah granted them their due place through him and delivered them to salvation." (Nahj al-Balagha, Sermon 33)

See ayat 50 for tafseer.

See ayat 50 for tafseer.

See ayat 50 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, reference was made to the excuses fabricated by the polytheists in order to avoid acknowledging the truth. In the present verses, however, attention is directed toward those receptive hearts who, upon hearing the Divine message, embraced it, remained loyal to it, and obeyed it with sincerity, whereas the ignorant and hardened hearts remained entirely unaffected by it. Thus, it is stated: “وَلَوْلَا أَن تُصِيبَهُم مُّصِيبَةٌ بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُوا رَبَّنَا لَوْلَا أَرْسَلْتَ إِلَيْنَا رَسُولًا فَنَتَّبِعَ آيَاتِكَ وَنَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ”. This verse points to a manifestation of Divine grace: had punishment been inflicted upon people for their deeds before the sending of a messenger, they would have claimed that no guide had been sent to them. Therefore, the sending of messengers serves to remove every possible excuse and to complete the establishment of proof (itmam al‑ḥujjah). This indicates that, although reason itself can recognize the فساد of shirk and ظلم, God—out of grace—does not punish a people until a messenger has conveyed the truth clearly. This principle is affirmed elsewhere: “رُّسُلًا مُّبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ لِئَلَّا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ”. It is then stated that even after the arrival of clear guidance, the disbelievers continued to engage in pretexts. They said: “لَوْلَا أُوتِيَ مِثْلَ مَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى”. They demanded miracles similar to those granted to Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām). The Qur’an responds by exposing the inconsistency of such demands: “أَوَلَمْ يَكْفُرُوا بِمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى مِن قَبْلُ”. Earlier communities had also rejected the signs of Mūsā, even calling him and his brother: “سِحْرَانِ تَظَاهَرَا”. Thus, the pattern of denial is not new; rather, it reflects a recurring disposition among those who reject truth. Their objections are not grounded in sincere inquiry but arise from entrenched attitudes of denial. The alternative interpretation that “سِحْرَانِ” refers to Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and Muḥammad (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) is less persuasive, as it implies an implausible association across distant historical periods. The more coherent reading situates the verse within the broader pattern of denial directed at prophetic signs. The Qur’an then issues a decisive challenge: “قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِكِتَابٍ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ هُوَ أَهْدَى مِنْهُمَا أَتَّبِعْهُ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ”. If they genuinely seek truth, they are invited to produce a revelation superior in guidance. However, their refusal to respond indicates that they are not seekers of truth but followers of their desires: “فَإِن لَّمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَكَ فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّمَا يَتَّبِعُونَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ”. Thus, the concluding principle is established: “وَمَنْ أَضَلُّ مِمَّنِ اتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ بِغَيْرِ هُدًى مِّنَ اللَّهِ”. No one is more misguided than one who follows desire in the absence of Divine guidance. Such individuals are described as ظالمون, as they do injustice not only to themselves but also to the communities in which they live. Their orientation toward denial and فساد precludes receptivity to guidance. Consequently: “إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ”.

In the aforementioned verses, the connection between these two matters (i.e., following desires and misguidance) has been clearly stated. It is emphasized that the most misguided are those who have made their own desires their guide and never accept divine guidance ___and___ Desires are a thick veil over the eyes of reason. "Desires" attach the heart so strongly to a subject that a person completely loses the capacity for true perception because true perception requires accepting events as absolute realities and abandoning all preconceived judgments and natural inclinations. Every existing reality possesses an external objectivity, whether bitter or sweet, whether aligned with our natural inclinations or opposed, whether in harmony with our personal interests or not, and recognizing it unconditionally is called the perception of reality. However, this pure principle does not conform to human desires. On this topic, we have elaborated in detail under verse 43 of Surat Al-Furqan in Volume 8. It is noteworthy that in several traditions, regarding the interpretation of the above verse, it is stated that these misguided people are those who did not accept the messenger of God as their guide and imam and are fixed only on their own opinion. (Reference: These traditions are cited in Usul al-Kafi and Basa’ir al-Darajat (according to Nur al-Asqalayn Volume 4, p. 132).) These traditions have been narrated from Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) and other Imams of Guidance. They are absolutely clear and of the highest level of certainty concerning their subject. In other words, it can be said that a person is always in need of divine guidance, which sometimes manifests in the celestial Book, sometimes in the existence of the Prophet and his Sunnah, sometimes in his infallible successors, and sometimes in the reasoning of intellect and wisdom. In any case, to benefit from the lights of guidance, it is necessary for a person to act unconditionally upon any matter and not allow their own desires to interfere in any issue.

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

Various reports have been transmitted by exegetes and scholars of ḥadīth regarding the asbāb al‑nuzūl of the verses under discussion. The common element among these narrations is that a group of Jewish and Christian scholars accepted faith in the Qur’an and in the mission of the Prophet of Islam (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam). It is reported from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr that these verses were revealed concerning seventy Christian scholars whom al‑Najāshī had sent from Abyssinia to Makkah for investigation. When the Prophet recited Sūrat Yā‑Sīn before them, they were moved to tears and subsequently embraced Islam (Fī Ẓilāl al‑Qurʾān, vol. 6, pp. 357–358). According to another report, the verses were revealed regarding a group of Christians from Najrān who came to the Prophet and accepted faith upon hearing the Qur’anic recitation (Fī Ẓilāl al‑Qurʾān, vol. 6, pp. 357–358). Other interpretations associate these verses with al‑Najāshī and members of his court, while some relate them to individuals such as Salmān al‑Fārisī and certain Jewish scholars, including ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām, Tamīm al‑Dārī, and others (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, vol. 7, p. 258). Another narration identifies the referent as a group of forty perceptive Christian scholars, thirty‑two of whom came with Jaʿfar ibn Abī Ṭālib from Abyssinia to Madinah, and eight from Syria, among whom was the well‑known monk Baḥīrā (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, vol. 7, p. 258). The first three groups of narrations are consistent with the view that these verses were revealed in Makkah, supporting those who consider the entire sūrah to be Makkan. The latter narrations, however, suggest a Madinan context for these specific verses and support the opinion that they were revealed later. In any case, irrespective of the specific historical context, these verses clearly establish that a group among the learned People of the Book accepted Islam upon hearing the Qur’an. This conclusion is supported by the internal coherence of the verses themselves. Had this not corresponded to an observable reality, the disbelievers would have immediately contested it and used it as a basis for rejecting the prophetic claim.

In the preceding verses, reference was made to the excuses advanced by certain individuals in order to avoid accepting the truth, whereas the present verses describe those receptive hearts that, upon hearing the Divine message, accepted it, remained faithful to it, and obeyed it with sincerity and devotion. In contrast, those whose hearts were darkened by ignorance remained entirely unaffected by it. Thus, it is stated: “وَلَقَدْ وَصَّلْنَا لَهُمُ الْقَوْلَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ”. The Divine message was conveyed to them repeatedly and in continuity, in diverse forms and expressions, so that they might take heed. These revelations descended steadily, like successive drops of rain, addressing different aspects—at times promising reward for righteous action, at other times warning of punishment for wrongdoing; sometimes offering moral counsel, sometimes instilling fear; at times presenting rational arguments, and at others recounting the instructive histories of earlier peoples. In all respects, these verses were complete, coherent, and harmonized. Any heart possessing even a slight capacity for truth would naturally be drawn to them, whereas those devoid of receptivity remained unmoved. It is then stated regarding a group from the People of the Book: “الَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِهِ هُم بِهِ يُؤْمِنُونَ”. They recognized the Qur’an in accordance with the signs previously known to them from their own scriptures. When these verses were recited to them, they declared: “آمَنَّا بِهِ إِنَّهُ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّنَا”. Furthermore, they affirmed: “إِنَّا كُنَّا مِن قَبْلِهِ مُسْلِمِينَ”, indicating that their acceptance was not sudden, but grounded in prior expectation and recognition of the promised revelation. Regarding their reward, it is stated: “أُوْلَئِكَ يُؤْتَوْنَ أَجْرَهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ بِمَا صَبَرُوا”. They receive a double recompense due to their perseverance: once for their fidelity to their earlier revelation, and again for their acceptance of the final message. Their steadfastness was demonstrated in the face of social and religious opposition, as they departed from inherited traditions and resisted external pressures in pursuit of truth. The verses further describe their distinguished qualities. They are those who “يَدْرَءُونَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ السَّيِّئَةَ”, repelling evil with good. They respond to wrongdoing with upright speech, ignorance with forbearance, hostility with goodwill, and severance with connection. This approach reflects a higher ethical discipline, repeatedly emphasized in the Qur’an. It is also stated: “وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ”. Their generosity extends beyond material wealth to include knowledge, effort, and all forms of God‑given capacity, which they employ for the benefit of others. Another characteristic is expressed in: “وَإِذَا سَمِعُوا اللَّغْوَ أَعْرَضُوا عَنْهُ”. Upon encountering idle or harmful speech, they refrain from engaging in it. Instead, they declare: “لَنَا أَعْمَالُنَا وَلَكُمْ أَعْمَالُكُمْ”, maintaining dignity and detachment. They conclude such interactions with: “سَلَامٌ عَلَيْكُمْ لَا نَبْتَغِي الْجَاهِلِينَ”, a form of dignified withdrawal rather than contentious engagement. Thus, these verses portray a moral and intellectual ideal: individuals who combine discernment, restraint, generosity, and perseverance, and who, through these qualities, are distinguished by their receptivity to Divine guidance and their elevation in reward.

The verses under discussion present a refined and compelling portrayal of hearts in which the seed of faith has taken root and is actively nurtured. These individuals are distinct from those characterized by ignorance, prejudice, harsh speech, frivolity, miserliness, and resentment. Such people are marked by intellectual and moral nobility. Their transformation begins with breaking free from the chains of blind imitation, after which they attentively receive the call of توحید. Upon becoming convinced through valid evidence, they accept the truth. This process is neither easy nor without cost. It often requires separation from an unjust or misguided social environment and entails enduring significant hardships, deprivation, and opposition. However, they possess the quality of patience (ṣabr) that enables them to persevere in pursuit of a higher objective. These individuals are not vindictive in character, returning evil with greater evil, nor are they miserly, reserving divine blessings solely for themselves. Rather, they exhibit generosity, moral restraint, and dignity. They avoid falsehood, trivial engagements, conflict, futile argumentation, idle speech, and all forms of undignified conduct. Their speech is refined, and their hearts are purified. They do not expend their intellectual and moral energies in fruitless disputes with those who lack understanding; instead, they often prefer silence—understood as the most appropriate response in such contexts—over needless engagement. Their orientation is constructive and purposeful. They remain engaged in their responsibilities and actions, while simultaneously seeking knowledge with the eagerness of one who thirsts for a source of water. Their inclination toward learning draws them toward the company of scholars and people of wisdom. It is precisely such individuals who are capable of sincerely receiving the message of faith and, consequently, are promised not merely a single recompense but multiplied reward for their righteous deeds. They resemble figures such as Salmān al‑Fārisī, al‑Najāshī, and others who actively sought truth and demonstrated steadfastness in the face of adversity. In this regard, a narration from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) is particularly noteworthy: “نحن صبراء و شيعتنا اصبر منا و ذلك انا صبرنا على ما نعلم و صبروا على ما لا يعلمون.” — We are patient, and our followers are even more patient than we are, because we endure with knowledge, whereas they endure without full knowledge. This statement highlights an important distinction. Patience in the presence of full awareness of outcomes is inherently easier than patience exercised in uncertainty. For example, if two individuals enter a struggle, one knowing with certainty that victory will come and the other acting solely out of devotion without such knowledge, the latter demonstrates a higher degree of perseverance. Similarly, if both anticipate martyrdom, yet one understands its deeper realities and impact while the other does not, the patience of the latter is comparatively greater. Another narration, reported in the Tafsīr of ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, interprets the term “لغو” in the relevant verse as encompassing falsehood, frivolity, and inappropriate engagement. Abstention from such matters is a general characteristic of the righteous, though the Ahl al‑Bayt (ʿalayhim al‑salām) represent its most complete expression. Thus, these verses collectively describe a moral and intellectual archetype: individuals who combine discernment, restraint, perseverance, and sincerity, and who, through these qualities, become receptive to guidance and worthy of multiplied divine reward.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

Although some exegetes have extensively discussed the asbāb al‑nuzūl (occasions of revelation) of the first verse under consideration, the reports upon which these discussions are based lack reliability and appear to have been constructed for particular purposes. It is therefore more appropriate to derive the interpretation of this verse directly from the Qur’an itself, and only thereafter to examine such doubtful or fabricated reports. It is noteworthy that the preceding verses referred to two distinct groups. One consisted of the obstinate disbelievers of Makkah, whom the Prophet (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) repeatedly invited to guidance, yet their hearts remained unreceptive to faith. In contrast, another group—far removed from Makkah—comprised among the People of the Book, who accepted Divine guidance with sincerity and demonstrated steadfastness and devotion, even in the face of opposition from close relatives and their own communities. In this context, the meaning of the verse becomes clear: “إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ”. That is, you cannot guide whomsoever you desire, but rather God guides whom He wills, and He knows best those who are receptive to guidance. God alone is aware of those whose hearts are inclined toward truth, those who possess a sincere longing for guidance, and those whose inner disposition is prepared to receive the light of faith. Such individuals are granted divine assistance (tawfīq), and the light of guidance becomes firmly established within them. Conversely, those whose hearts are hardened by arrogance, hostility to truth, and moral corruption are not granted this divine illumination, as they lack the capacity to receive it. Accordingly, the “guidance” referred to here is not merely irshād (showing the path), for that is the responsibility of the Prophet, who conveys guidance universally. Rather, it refers to īṣāl ilā al‑maṭlūb—the actual bringing of a person to the destination—which is exclusively a divine function. It is God who implants faith in hearts, and this bestowal is dependent upon the preparedness and receptivity of individuals. Thus, the verse also serves as a form of consolation for the Prophet, reminding him that the persistence of disbelief among some of the Meccans is not due to deficiency in his message, nor is the acceptance of faith by others without cause. Divine guidance operates in accordance with wisdom, taking into account the inner disposition and readiness of each individual. Similar meanings appear elsewhere in the Qur’an, such as: “لَّيْسَ عَلَيْكَ هُدَاهُمْ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ” and “فَيُضِلُّ اللّهُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ”. The following verse addresses those who acknowledged the truth of Islam inwardly yet refrained from embracing it due to worldly considerations. It states: “وَقَالُوا إِن نَّتَّبِعِ الْهُدَى مَعَكَ نُتَخَطَّفْ مِنْ أَرْضِنَا”. They claimed that if they were to follow guidance, they would be expelled from their land or subjected to attack. Such reasoning reflects a failure to recognize divine power, as it prioritizes temporary worldly fears over reliance upon God. The Qur’an responds: “أَوَلَمْ نُمَكِّن لَّهُمْ حَرَمًا آمِنًا يُجْبَىٰ إِلَيْهِ ثَمَرَاتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ رِزْقًا مِّن لَّدُنَّا وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ”. God reminds them that He has already established for them a secure sanctuary—Makkah—despite its natural lack of resources, and has caused provisions to be brought to it from all directions. This demonstrates His القدرة to grant both security and sustenance. Thus, if they have enjoyed such blessings even in a state of disbelief, it is unreasonable to assume that embracing faith would deprive them of these نعمت. On the contrary, reliance upon God and adherence to truth would strengthen their security. The verse therefore calls for reflection: one should not abandon guidance out of fear of losing worldly advantages, for true security and provision ultimately lie in divine support. Finally, the verse emphasizes the broader principle that material provision and security are themselves outcomes of divine arrangement. Where stability and faith are established, economic well‑being is enhanced; without them, societies become vulnerable to disorder. The recurring influx of sustenance to Makkah, despite its barren environment, illustrates the enduring manifestation of this principle.

To those well-versed scholars, it may appear strange why a group of hadith narrators insisted on proving the uncle of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as a disbeliever and polytheist, whereas all Muslims worldwide unanimously agree that he exhibited utmost devotion, sacrifice, and selflessness in supporting the Prophet (peace be upon him) during his lifetime. These people insist that he died in a state of disbelief. Why, then, is there this insistence regarding a person who had no role in Islam? Upon reflection, we reach the conclusion that this issue is neither trivial nor superficial. We observe that behind these historical and narrative debates, a dangerous political game was being played by the rivals of Imam Ali (peace be upon him). This fact requires no further elaboration. These opponents emphasized depriving Ali (peace be upon him) of every virtue; even going to the extent of branding his self-sacrificing and devoted father as a polytheist and asserting that he died in a state of loss. Certainly, the Umayyads and their supporters – even before coming to power in their era – were engaged in this sedition and were constantly striving to collect evidence for this purpose, no matter how weak and baseless. Leaving aside the hostile waves of this vile and foul politics, which itself deserves careful consideration, and insofar as the subject matter of this book permits, sincere students of history and exegesis study this topic so that it becomes clear to readers that no authentic report exists behind this controversy. Rather, there is living evidence proving the opposite. 1. The verse under discussion, namely (إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ...), in no way pertains to Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). The preceding verses indicate that it was revealed concerning a group of true believers among the People of the Book, opposing the polytheists of Mecca. It is notable that Fakhr al-Razi, who attributed this verse to Abu Talib (claiming a consensus of Muslims), himself concedes that the apparent meaning of the verse does not in any way indicate the disbelief of Abu Talib. (Reference: Tafsir Kabir by Fakhr al-Razi, vol. 25, p. 3). Despite this clarification, it is surprising that some continue to insist on linking this verse to the polytheism of Abu Talib. 2. The greatest argument presented on this matter is the “claim of the consensus of Muslims” that Abu Talib died a polytheist. However, mention of such consensus is purely false. As the famous Sunni mufassir Alusi stated in his Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani, this issue is not a matter of consensus and the tradition that this verse was revealed about Abu Talib is not regarded as correct. This is because Shia scholars and many of their mufassirs believe in the faith of Abu Talib and claim a consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) on this issue. Moreover, most of Abu Talib’s own poetry testifies to his faith. (Reference: Ruh al-Ma’ani, vol. 20, p. 84, under the discussed verse). 3. Investigation shows that the claim of the “consensus of Muslims” is based on unreliable ahadith whose chains of transmission include dubious or fabricated narrators. Among these narrations is one transmitted by Ibn Mardawih on the authority of Ibn Abbas, stating: The verse "إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ" was revealed concerning Abu Talib. The Prophet (peace be upon him) insisted on him accepting Islam, but he did not accept it. (Reference: Dur al-Manthur, vol. 5, p. 133). However, this narration’s chain includes Abu Sahl Sari, whom the senior experts in Ilm al-Rijal (biographical evaluation) consider among fabricators, liars, and narrative forgers. ‘Abd al-Quddus ibn Sa‘id al-Dimashqi is also mentioned in the chain, and he too was among the known liars. Apparently, this hadith suggests that Ibn Abbas narrated it without any intermediary, as he was a witness to those events. However, it is known that Ibn Abbas was born three years before the Hijrah, making him an infant at the time of Abu Talib’s death. Hence, the fabricators of these ahadith were not even skilled in their craft. In this regard, there is also a narration from Abu Hurayrah stating that when the time of Abu Talib’s death approached, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to him: “O uncle! Say: ‘La ilaha illa Allah’ so that I may testify on the Day of Judgment that you were a monotheist.” Abu Talib replied: “If I were not afraid that the Quraysh would oppose me by saying that I accepted Islam out of fear at the time of death, I would certainly testify to monotheism and please you.” At that time, the verse "إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ" was revealed. The literal wording and style of this narration indicate that Abu Hurayrah...I had seen with my own eyes. Although we know that Abu Huraira accepted Islam seven years after the Hijra (that is, in the year of the conquest of Khyber), then how could he have been present at the time of the death of Hazrat Abu Talib (عليه السلام), which occurred before the Hijra? Therefore, from this narration as well, inexperienced forgery is clearly evident. And if it is said that "Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira" themselves might not have been present at the event and that they heard this story from someone else, then we ask: "From whom?" The person who narrated this report to these two individuals is unknown and unidentified. Such a hadith is called *mursal*, and everyone knows that a *mursal* hadith is not reliable. It is regrettable that a group of commentators and narrators of historical accounts, without investigation and contemplation, have transmitted such hadiths from one another into their books, and gradually have even provided a justification of consensus for themselves. But obviously, what kind of consensus is this? And what kind of hadith can be considered authentic? 4. Leaving all these issues aside, the text of these forged hadiths itself implies that Hazrat Abu Talib (عليه السلام) believed in the Prophet of Islam (صلى الله عليه وآله). Although he did not openly acknowledge this belief due to considerations of expediency. And we know that faith is related to the heart, and the tongue is merely a means of expression. In some Islamic hadiths, the condition of Hazrat Abu Talib (عليه السلام) is compared to the People of the Cave, who kept their faith concealed in their hearts but could not express it openly due to certain reasons. 5. Is it possible that in such an important matter, one should be satisfied with only one-sided narrations, and rely solely on the hadiths transmitted from Abu Huraira and Ibn Abbas? Why is the consensus of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (عليهم السلام) and Shi'a scholars not considered worthy of attention on this issue? They are more familiar with the circumstances of the family of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله). Many poems of Hazrat Abu Talib (عليه السلام) are with us which reflect his faith in the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Many venerable scholars and theologians have quoted these verses in their books. We have included some samples of his eloquence in volume 3 of *Tafseer Namuna* under verse 26 of Surah Al-An'am, cited from well-known Sunni sources. 6. Leaving all these matters aside, the life history of Hazrat Abu Talib (عليه السلام), his great sacrifices for the Prophet of Islam (صلى الله عليه وآله), and the intense love of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله) and the Muslims for him should also be taken into account. We even observe that the year of Hazrat Abu Talib’s (عليه السلام) death was named by the Muslims as “The Year of Sorrow” (*‘Aam al-Huzn*). All these facts are evidence that Hazrat Abu Talib (عليه السلام) was passionately devoted to Islam. His defense of the Prophet of Islam (صلى الله عليه وآله) was not simply due to familial relations; rather, in that defense, his position was that of a sincere believer, a devoted person, and a self-sacrificing protector of his leader and guide. Despite these clear facts, how great is the negligence, ignorance, ingratitude, and injustice that some people insist on labeling a faithful and sincere monotheist as a polytheist and consigning him to disgrace after death.

See ayat 60 for tafseer.

See ayat 60 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, it was mentioned that some of the disbelievers of Makkah advanced the excuse that if they were to accept Islam, the Arabs would attack them, expel them from their land, and disrupt their lives. A decisive response to this excuse has already been provided in the previous verses. In the present verses, two further responses are offered. First, it is stated: even if, for the sake of argument, you persist in disbelief and continue to enjoy material prosperity, you should not forget that We have destroyed many settlements that became arrogant due to their abundant livelihood: “وَكَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِن قَرْيَةٍ بَطِرَتْ مَعِيشَتَهَا”. Their غرور in blessings led them to rebellion, which in turn produced injustice and oppression, ultimately resulting in their destruction. These are their dwellings, left desolate: “فَتِلْكَ مَسَاكِنُهُمْ لَمْ تُسْكَن مِّن بَعْدِهِمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا”. They remained empty and abandoned, with hardly any subsequent habitation, and We alone became their ultimate inheritors: “وَكُنَّا نَحْنُ الْوَارِثِينَ”. The term “بَطِرَتْ” denotes arrogance arising from excessive wealth. The use of “تلك” indicates observable places, possibly referring to the regions of ʿĀd, Thamūd, or the people of Lūṭ, whose ruins were known to the Arabs and encountered along their trade routes. These desolate remains served as visible reminders of the consequences of arrogance and فساد. The phrase “إِلَّا قَلِيلًا” has been interpreted in several ways: either that only a few people later inhabited those regions, or that only a few dwellings were occupied, or that habitation occurred only briefly. In all cases, the essential meaning remains that these once-thriving settlements were reduced to ruin. The expression “كُنَّا نَحْنُ الْوَارِثِينَ” affirms that ultimate ownership belongs solely to God; temporary control granted to humans inevitably returns to Him. A further question is then implicitly addressed: if divine practice is to destroy rebellious peoples, why were the polytheists of Makkah not immediately destroyed? The response is given: “وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ مُهْلِكَ الْقُرَى حَتَّىٰ يَبْعَثَ فِي أُمِّهَا رَسُولًا يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِنَا”. No community is destroyed until clear guidance has been conveyed through a messenger. Divine punishment follows only after complete establishment of evidence (itmam al‑ḥujjah). Furthermore: “وَمَا كُنَّا مُهْلِكِي الْقُرَى إِلَّا وَأَهْلُهَا ظَالِمُونَ”. Destruction occurs only when injustice becomes established. The reference to “أُمِّهَا” highlights that it is not necessary for a messenger to be sent to every individual locality; rather, sending a messenger to a central location from which the message spreads suffices. This is exemplified by the Prophet Muḥammad’s mission in Makkah, whose message rapidly spread throughout Arabia and beyond. The next verse responds directly to the earlier excuse: “وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّن شَيْءٍ فَمَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَزِينَتُهَا”. Whatever you possess is merely the transient enjoyment and adornment of worldly life. By contrast: “وَمَا عِندَ اللَّهِ خَيْرٌ وَأَبْقَىٰ”. What is with God is better and enduring. Worldly comforts are both transient and accompanied by hardship, whereas the blessings of the Hereafter are permanent. Thus, reason demands proper reflection: “أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ”. This conclusion underscores the essential principle that transient worldly considerations should not outweigh enduring divine realities.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

After the preceding discussion of those who preferred the transient enjoyments of the world over faith, the verses under consideration proceed to contrast their condition with that of the sincere believers. First, God presents a comparative question, appealing to human conscience: “أَفَمَن وَعَدْنَاهُ وَعْدًا حَسَنًا فَهُوَ لَاقِيهِ كَمَن مَّتَّعْنَاهُ مَتَاعَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ثُمَّ هُوَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ مِنَ الْمُحْضَرِينَ”. That is, can one who has been promised a good promise—one that will certainly be fulfilled—be considered equal to one who is granted only the temporary enjoyments of worldly life and will then be brought forth for accountability on the Day of Resurrection? It is self‑evident that any person with a sound conscience will give preference to the enduring and certain promise of God over the fleeting pleasures of the world, especially when those pleasures ultimately lead to loss and suffering. The expression “فَهُوَ لَاقِيهِ” conveys certainty and emphasis, indicating that Divine promises cannot fail, since failure would arise either from ignorance or incapacity—both of which are inconceivable for God. The phrase “مِنَ الْمُحْضَرِينَ” suggests that such individuals will be compelled to appear for judgment, possibly against their will, in a state overshadowed by fear of accountability and punishment. The expression “حياة الدنيا” highlights the inferior and transient nature of worldly life in contrast with the permanence of the Hereafter. The linguistic derivation of “الدنيا” from proximity or lower status further reinforces its comparative insignificance. The verses then depict the scene of the Day of Judgment: “وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ أَيْنَ شُرَكَائِيَ الَّذِينَ كُنتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ”. This question is not one of inquiry but of reproach, as all illusions will have been exposed and the falsehood of shirk will be evident. Before the مشرکین respond, their supposed associates—particularly from among those who misled others, such as shayāṭīn—declare: “رَبَّنَا هَؤُلَاءِ الَّذِينَ أَغْوَيْنَا أَغْوَيْنَاهُمْ كَمَا غَوَيْنَا تَبَرَّأْنَا إِلَيْكَ مَا كَانُوا إِيَّانَا يَعْبُدُونَ”. They disclaim responsibility, asserting that those who followed them did so by their own choice. However, such denial cannot absolve them of their share in misguidance. This scene reflects a broader reality: on that Day, all bonds of false association will collapse, and individuals will attempt to shift blame onto others, just as is observed in lesser forms in worldly life. Yet such attempts will be futile, as the truth will be completely manifest. The Qur’an further states: “وَقِيلَ ادْعُوا شُرَكَاءَكُمْ فَدَعَوْهُمْ فَلَمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَهُمْ وَرَأَوُا الْعَذَابَ لَوْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَهْتَدُونَ”. They are commanded to call upon their alleged partners, but these provide no response. At that moment, they witness the punishment and wish they had been guided. The phrase “لَوْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَهْتَدُونَ” expresses a sense of regret and unfulfilled longing. In summary, these verses present a vivid contrast between two paths: the path of those who pursue transient worldly gain at the expense of truth, and the path of those who adhere to Divine guidance. The former ends in regret, accountability, and abandonment by all false supports, while the latter culminates in the fulfillment of a certain and enduring promise.

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

See ayat 70 for tafseer.

The previous verses mentioned the polytheists. Those verses dealt with the questions asked of them. The verses under consideration here are the continuation of that discussion. First, there was a question about their deities. Then it relates to their behavior towards the messengers. It is stated: "Consider the Day when Allah will call them and say, ‘What answer did you give to the messengers?’" (وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ مَاذَا أَجَبْتُمُ الْمُرْسَلِينَ). Undoubtedly, like the first question, they will also have no answer for this question. If they say that they accepted the invitation of the messengers, this is a lie, and lying is impossible on that Day. And if they say that they rejected them, accused them falsely, called them magicians, called them lunatics, fought armed battles against them, and killed them and their followers—then this will be the cause of their misery and disgrace. The situation will be such that when Allah asks the great prophets what answer the people gave to their invitation, they will say: "Before Your knowledge, our knowledge is nothing; You are the All-Knower of the unseen." (Al-Ma’idah, 5:109). In such a state, what answer can these obstinate polytheists give? Therefore, the next verse states: "At that time, all news will be concealed from them" and they will have nothing to reply with. (فَعَمِيَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الْأَنبَاءُ يَوْمَئِذٍ). They will not even be able to ask one another anything, nor will they be able to hear any answers. (فَهُمْ لَا يَتَسَاءَلُونَ). It is notable that the above verse attributes blindness ("عَمِيَتْ") to the news, not to the people themselves. The Qur'an does not say that "they will become blind," but rather: "The news will be so blind that they will not be able to find it." Sometimes a person may not be aware of something personally, yet the news about it circulates from one mouth to another and reaches him. Many pieces of news circulate in society without the awareness of individuals. But in that world, neither will these people have awareness nor the ability for the news to spread. In this way, all news will remain hidden from them. When they are asked what answer they gave to those messengers, they will be unable to answer and will become completely silent. The method of the Qur'an is that it always leaves open the way of return for the disbelievers and sinners, so that if they wish, they may turn back from any stage of sin towards the right path. Therefore, the next verse further states: "But whoever repents and believes and does righteous deeds—perhaps he will be among the successful." (فَأَمَّا مَن تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَعَسَى أَن يَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُفْلِحِينَ). Hence, your path to salvation lies in these three actions: 1. Return to Allah 2. Faith 3. Righteous deeds After these, undoubtedly, there is success and salvation. The word "عَسَى" (perhaps) indicates hope—although for the person who possesses faith and righteous deeds, success is certain. However, this expression may be used here to imply that success depends on the continuity of this state, and since it is not necessary that every repentant remains steadfast, this word is introduced here. Some mufassirun have also said that when "عَسَى" is used with reference to the Noble Being, it implies absolute certainty and assurance because Allah is the Most Generous of all. The next verse is actually an argument against polytheism and the invalidity of the polytheists. It states: "Your Lord creates what He wills and chooses; there is no choice for them." (وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ * مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ). Creation is in His hands, management and selection are also dependent on His will. "They have no choice." (مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ). (Explanatory Note: In "مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ," the "مَا" is a negation particle. Some have suggested that in this context, it might be "مَا" as a relative particle connected to the omitted object of "يَخْتَارُ," but this is highly unlikely.) He possesses the power to create, the authority of intercession is His, and the sending of the Prophets and Messengers is His. In summary, the control of all matters depends on His Pure Essence, for nothing can happen through idols while angels and Prophets can only act with His permission. In any case, the application of "authority" here shows its universality, meaning Allah is in control of both creation (physical existence) and legislation (divine law) alike. The source of both is His status as the Creator. When this is the case, then how can they follow the path of polytheism and turn to other than Allah? Therefore, at the end of the verse it is stated: "Glory be to Allah, exalted is He above what they associate with Him." (سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ). In the narrations transmitted through the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), it is stated that the "authority," "selection," and "choosing" mentioned in the above verse refer to Allah’s selection of the infallible Imams (عليهم السلام). Also, from "مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ" (they have no choice in this matter), the same meaning is derived that people have no choice here...It has been intended. In these narrations, in fact, a clear example has been given because the matter of protecting the religion is connected solely to God, and it is not possible to select any other infallible guide for this purpose besides God. (Reference: Tafseer Noor al-Thaqalain, Vol. 4, p. 136, referencing Usul al-Kafi and Tafseer Ali ibn Ibrahim). The next verse speaks about the vast knowledge of Allah Almighty. The previous verse mentioned the extensive authority of Allah Almighty, and the verse under discussion serves as emphasis or proof for that. It is stated: "And your Lord knows what is hidden in their breasts, and what they reveal." (وَرَبُّكَ يَعْلَمُ مَا تُكِنُّ صُدُورُهُمْ وَمَا يُعْلِنُونَ). This is evidence of His encompassing everything and of His authority. It is also implicitly a warning for the polytheists not to think that Allah is unaware of their intentions and schemes. The last verse under discussion is essentially a conclusion and explanation drawn from the previous verses regarding the negation of polytheism. It mentions four attributes of Allah Almighty, all of which are corollaries of His creatorship and authority. First, it states: "He is Allah; there is no deity except Him." (وَهُوَ اللَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ). How is it possible that there is any deity besides Him, when He is the Creator alone and all authority is in His control? Therefore, those who cling to idols for excuses such as intercession are under a grave misconception. The second attribute is that all blessings, whether they are of this world or the Hereafter, are from Him alone, and this is a necessity of His absolute creatorship. Hence, the Qur'an further states: "All praise is due to Him in the first [life] and the last [life]." (لَهُ الْحَمْدُ فِي الْأُولَى وَالْآخِرَةِ). The third attribute is that He is the ruler of both worlds. (وَلَهُ الْحُكْمُ). It is more evident than the sun that when He is the Creator and the One with absolute will, then the governance both in creation and legislation is also under His control. The fourth attribute stated is: "And to Him is the final return [of you all]." (وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ). He is the One Who created you, Who is aware of your actions, and Who is the ruler of the Day of Judgment; therefore, your reckoning and your reward and punishment will also be in His hands.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

In the verses under discussion, an important segment of Divine blessings is presented, and these blessings serve both as evidence of توحید and as a negation of شرك. In this sense, the verses complete the prior discussion. The blessings mentioned here represent only a sample of the favors for which God alone is worthy of praise, as previously indicated, and they also testify to His absolute authority in the system of creation and governance of the universe. The first of these great blessings is light, which is the fundamental source of all movement and activity. It is stated: “قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِن جَعَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمُ اللَّيْلَ سَرْمَدًا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ مَنْ إِلَهٌ غَيْرُ اللَّهِ يَأْتِيكُم بِضِيَاءٍ أَفَلَا تَسْمَعُونَ”. The term “ضیاء” emphasizes illumination, which is essential for all forms of life. Without light, existence in its known form—plant life, animal activity, and human life—would be impossible. The word “سرمد” denotes perpetuity and continuity, indicating an unending condition. The following verse refers to the نعمة of darkness: “قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِن جَعَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمُ النَّهَارَ سَرْمَدًا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ مَنْ إِلَهٌ غَيْرُ اللَّهِ يَأْتِيكُم بِلَيْلٍ تَسْكُنُونَ فِيهِ أَفَلَا تُبْصِرُونَ”. Here, night is presented as the means of rest and سکون, complementing the activity enabled by daylight. The third verse synthesizes these two concepts: “وَمِن رَّحْمَتِهِ جَعَلَ لَكُمُ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ لِتَسْكُنُوا فِيهِ وَلِتَبْتَغُوا مِن فَضْلِهِ وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ”. This indicates that the alternation of day and night is an expression of Divine mercy, providing both the opportunity for labor and movement, and the necessity of rest and renewal. The balance between نور and ظلمت forms the basis of human existence. A noteworthy rhetorical distinction appears here: when perpetual night is discussed, the verse concludes with “أَفَلَا تَسْمَعُونَ”, whereas in the case of perpetual day, it concludes with “أَفَلَا تُبْصِرُونَ”. This difference may reflect the association of night with hearing and day with sight, demonstrating the precision of Qur’anic expression. After presenting these arguments, the Qur’ān returns to the theme of accountability: “وَيَوْمَ يُنَادِيهِمْ فَيَقُولُ أَيْنَ شُرَكَائِيَ الَّذِينَ كُنتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ”. On that day, those who associated partners with God will be called to account. It continues: “وَنَزَعْنَا مِن كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ شَهِيدًا”، then “هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ”. Each community will be represented by a witness, and those who engaged in شرك will be asked to present their proof. At this stage: “فَعَلِمُوا أَنَّ الْحَقَّ لِلَّهِ وَضَلَّ عَنْهُم مَّا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ”. It will become evident that truth belongs solely to God, and all fabricated beliefs will vanish. This scene reflects the ultimate collapse of false constructs before Divine reality. In this world, falsehood may assume the appearance of truth, but in the Hereafter, such illusions are entirely removed, leaving only حقیقت. Finally, the selection of witnesses from each community, as indicated in “وَنَزَعْنَا مِن كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ شَهِيدًا”, alludes to the prophetic function of testimony. Each prophet bears witness over his community, while the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) serves as a witness over all. Thus, the passage combines reflection upon Divine blessings, affirmation of توحید, and the inevitability of accountability, forming an integrated framework for moral and theological understanding.

See ayat 78 for tafseer.

See ayat 78 for tafseer.

The preceding verses have already presented aspects of the remarkable life of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and his struggle against Pharaoh, along with important guidance derived from that narrative. The discussion now turns to another issue concerning Banī Isrāʾīl—namely, the figure of Qārūn, who represents the embodiment of wealth and material excess. In principle, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) confronted three major forms of oppressive power: Pharaoh, who symbolized political authority; Qārūn, who symbolized wealth and economic dominance; and al‑Sāmirī, who represented deception and manipulation. Although the most significant confrontation was with political authority, the other struggles were equally instructive. Qārūn is described as having been from the people of Mūsā: “إِنَّ قَارُونَ كَانَ مِن قَوْمِ مُوسَى فَبَغَى عَلَيْهِمْ”. His ظلم arose from his immense wealth, which, combined with weak moral capacity, led him toward arrogance and deviation. The Qur’an describes the extent of his wealth: “وَآتَيْنَاهُ مِنَ الْكُنُوزِ مَا إِنَّ مَفَاتِحَهُ لَتَنُوءُ بِالْعُصْبَةِ أُولِي الْقُوَّةِ”. The term “مفاتح” has been interpreted as referring to storehouses or repositories of treasures, indicating that the magnitude of his wealth was such that a group of strong individuals found it difficult to carry them. The expression “تنوء” conveys the burden of lifting heavy loads. His people advised him with a series of instructive statements. First, they warned: “لَا تَفْرَحْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْفَرِحِينَ” — do not exult in arrogance, for God does not love those who are self‑conceited. They then provided several guiding principles: 1. “وَابْتَغِ فِيمَا آتَاكَ اللَّهُ الدَّارَ الْآخِرَةَ” — seek the Hereafter through what God has granted you. This affirms that wealth is not inherently negative; rather, its value is determined by its use. 2. “وَلَا تَنسَ نَصِيبَكَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا” — do not neglect your share of the world. This reflects the balanced approach: recognizing legitimate worldly needs while avoiding excess. 3. “وَأَحْسِن كَمَا أَحْسَنَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ” — do good as God has done good to you. This establishes a moral reciprocity whereby Divine favor necessitates ethical conduct toward others. 4. “وَلَا تَبْغِ الْفَسَادَ فِي الْأَرْضِ” — do not pursue corruption on the earth. Wealth misused can lead to societal imbalance, exploitation, and injustice. Thus, the advice follows a structured progression: negation of arrogance, reorientation toward the Hereafter, moderation in worldly use, encouragement of beneficence, and prohibition of فساد. Qārūn’s response, however, reflects a deeply flawed outlook: “قَالَ إِنَّمَا أُوتِيتُهُ عَلَىٰ عِلْمٍ عِندِي”. He attributed his wealth solely to his own knowledge and effort, dismissing both Divine agency and social responsibility. This reasoning represents a recurring ideological pattern in materialistic thought. The Qur’an responds decisively: “أَوَلَمْ يَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ أَهْلَكَ مِن قَبْلِهِ…” — did he not know that God had destroyed previous nations greater in strength and wealth? This establishes that material superiority does not guarantee security or legitimacy. The passage concludes with a significant statement: “وَلَا يُسْأَلُ عَن ذُنُوبِهِمُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ”. This indicates that at the moment of decisive judgment, the جرم is so manifest that no inquiry is required. Elsewhere, however, questioning is mentioned. These references may be reconciled by distinguishing between different stages of accountability—some involving inquiry, others involving direct judgment—or between investigative questioning and reproachful questioning. Thus, the narrative of Qārūn presents a comprehensive framework: it critiques arrogance rooted in wealth, emphasizes the ethical use of resources, and establishes the principle that ultimate authority and accountability belong to God alone.

See ayat 82 for tafseer.

See ayat 82 for tafseer.

See ayat 82 for tafseer.

It is generally observed that arrogant wealthy people become afflicted with a kind of madness. One of these is the obsession with displaying wealth. They derive pleasure from showing off their wealth to others. For example, they ride their expensive vehicles and pass among barefooted people, throwing dust in their faces and humiliating them. This act brings them satisfaction. However, this very display of wealth becomes a cause of their destruction, because it breeds hatred in the hearts of the people against them, and feelings of animosity arise. Often, this shameful and detestable action either ends their lives or ruins their wealth. It is possible that the result of this obsession might be some form of motivation. For instance, greedy people may become more eager to acquire wealth, and rebellious people may develop feelings of obedience. But the wealthy perform the act of displaying wealth without this consideration. In reality, their act is also a kind of desire, without any conscious understanding or wisdom. In any case, Qarun was not exempt from this rule. In fact, he was a clear example of the madness of displaying wealth. In the verses of the Qur'an under discussion, the condition of Qarun is described in one phrase: "فخرج علٰی قومہٖ فی زینتہ" (And he came out before his people in his adornment). The word "فی زینتہ" reflects the fact that he had dedicated all his power and energy toward showing off all his wealth and ornaments before the people, and it is needless to mention that a person who owns such wealth can do anything if he wishes to display his grandeur. Many tales and stories have been mentioned in historical books about this incident. Some historians have written that Qarun passed among the Children of Israel accompanied by a line of four thousand servants, who rode on expensive horses dressed in red garments. With him were delightful maidservants who rode on white mules with golden saddles, wearing red and entirely gilded attire. Some have recorded the number of his servants as seventy thousand and mentioned similar details. But even if we consider all these accounts exaggerated, we cannot deny the fact that he had ample means to display his wealth. As is the habit of the world, upon seeing Qarun's pomp and grandeur, two groups of people emerged. The vast majority of worldly people, upon witnessing this dazzling scene, their hearts were filled with desire. They sighed deeply and said, "Would that we also had wealth like Qarun, even for a day, an hour, or a moment! Ah, what a sweet, attractive, refreshing, and delightful life he has!" Thus, the Qur'an states: Those who desired the worldly life said, "Would that we had the like of what Qarun was given!" (قَالَ الَّذِينَ يُرِيدُونَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنيَا يَا لَيْتَ لَنَا مِثْلَ مَا أُوتِيَ قَارُونُ) In truth, he possessed an abundant share of wealth (إِنَّهُ لَذُو حَظٍّ عَظِيمٍ). Praise be to Qarun and his immense wealth! How magnificent his grandeur was, and how many servants and attendants he had! There was no one like him in history. This greatness was bestowed upon him by God. Thus, people spoke in such a manner. In reality, a great trial was blazing in this incident. Qarun was in the midst of this furnace, to test his arrogance and pride. On the other side were the worldly people of the Children of Israel residing around this furnace. But for Qarun, there was a painful torment awaiting him. A torment that follows such display. This torment will take him from the heights of greatness to the depths of the earth. However, in contrast to this large worldly group, there was also a minority present—people of knowledge, thoughtful minds, pious and faithful—whose intellectual horizon was higher and above these issues. These were the people for whom the measure of respect was neither gold nor force. In their view, the value of a person was not based on material means. They would smile scornfully at the temporary and ridiculous display of wealth and consider it an empty and unreal thing. Hence, the Qur'an states: Those who had been given knowledge said, "Woe to you! What is it that you say? For those who have believed and done righteous deeds, the reward and goodly outcome are with Allah." (وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ وَيْلَكُمْ ثَوَابُ اللَّهِ خَيْرٌ لِّمَنْ آمَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا) They added about these words that this divine reward is only meted out to those who are patient: (وَلَا يُلَقَّاهَا إِلَّا الصَّابِرُونَ). Those deserving of this divine reward are the ones who remain steadfast in the face of the adornments and enticing ostentation of the world; who endure the deprivation of worldly blessings with masculine steadfastness; who never bow their heads before contemptible people.Those who remained steadfast like a mountain when tested in this world by wealth, poverty, fear, and distress. Certainly... at this point, "الذین اوتو العلم" refers to the knowledgeable believers among the Children of Israel. Among them were elder figures like Joshua. What is noteworthy here is that, in contrast to "الذین یریدون الحیوة الدنیا" (this phrase refers to the first group), it does not say "الذین یریدون الحیوة الاخرة". Rather, the attribute of knowledge is specified because knowledge is the fundamental source from which faith, steadfastness, the aspiration for divine reward, and the attraction to the Hereafter arise. There is also an ambiguity in "الذین اوتو العلم" that it answers the pride of Qarun, who considered himself a scholar. The Quran’s response is that the true scholars are those whose intellectual horizon is so vast, not the arrogant and conceited. This answer teaches us that knowledge and wisdom are the foundation of all blessings and goodness. Qarun, through arrogance and disobedience to God, greatly exalted himself. However, history and traditions narrate a different incident about him, which is a sign of his extreme shamelessness. The event is as follows: One day, Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) told Qarun that God had commanded him to take Zakat from his wealth, which is the right of the needy. When Qarun learned about the principle of paying Zakat and calculated the large amount he would have to give, he refused and became determined to oppose Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) to save himself. He stood before a group of the wealthy among the Children of Israel and said: “O people! Musa wants to consume your wealth himself. He commanded you to pray, and you accepted. You obeyed his other commands as well. Will you also endure giving your wealth to him?” They all said no. But they wondered how they could confront him. At that moment, a devilish thought came to Qarun’s mind. He said, “I have thought of a very good plan. I think we should conspire to slander him dishonorably. We must find a prostitute among the Children of Israel and send her to Musa to falsely accuse him of an improper relationship.” The Children of Israel liked this idea. They found a wicked woman and told her: “We will give you whatever you ask on the condition that you testify that Musa had an illicit relationship with you.” That woman accepted this proposal. On one hand, this conspiracy was set in motion; on the other, Qarun went to Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) and said: “It would be better for you to gather the Children of Israel and recite God’s commands to them.” Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) accepted this offer and gathered the Children of Israel. When the people were assembled, they said to Prophet Musa (peace be upon him), “Recite to us the commandments of God.” Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) said, “God has commanded me that you shall worship none but Him, uphold kinship ties, do this and that. For a fornicator, God has decreed that if he commits plain adultery, he shall be stoned to death.” When Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) spoke these words, the wealthy conspirators among the Children of Israel said, “Even if he is the criminal himself!” Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) answered, “Yes, it is true, even if I am the culprit.” At that point, those shameless people crossed all bounds of disrespect and said: “We know you yourself have committed this deed and that you had a relationship with such and such wicked woman.” Then they called that woman and said to her, “Give testimony.” Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) turned to her and said, “I swear by God, tell the truth.” When that wicked woman heard this, she trembled and her condition changed. She said: “When you ask me the truth, I shall tell you the real situation. The truth is that these people persuaded me to accuse you, and in return, they promised me a large sum of money. But I testify that you are chaste and the Messenger of God.” In another narration, it is also mentioned that the woman said: “May curse be upon me; in my life, I committed many sins but I never accused a prophet falsely.” Then she took out two bags of wealth that those conspirators had given her, placed them before everyone, and said the above. Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) fell into prostration and began to weep. At that moment, punishment descended upon the wicked, conspiratorial Qarun. In the same narration, it is mentioned that God gave Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) the authority to cause the earth to swallow Qarun. (Explanatory note: According to the transmission in Tafsir al-Mizan, volume 16, page 84, citing Dur al-Manthur, similar narrations appear in Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani, and other exegetes also transmitted this narration with slight variations under this verse.) At this point, the words of the Glorious Quran are: "فَخَسَفْنَا بِهِ وَبِدَارِهِ الْأَرْضَ" — "We caused the earth to swallow him and his house." It is true that when the transgressors’ rebellion and obstinacy and their life...When the disrespect and humiliation of the believers, and the conspiracy against the Divine Prophet, reaches its extreme limit, then the hand of Divine power intervenes and ends the lives of those arrogant insolent people, and punishes them in such a way that their downfall becomes a lesson for all. The word "خسف" (Khusf) here is used in the sense of sinking into the earth, and being concealed within it. Throughout human history, such events have occurred repeatedly whereby a severe earthquake struck, the earth split open, and swallowed a city or settlement. However, the calamity of Khusf mentioned here is of a different nature. In it, only Qarun and his treasures were swallowed by the earth. What astonishing events these are: Pharaoh was drowned in the waves of the Nile, and Qarun was swallowed by the earth’s bowels. Here, it is remarkable that water, which is the source of life, was appointed to destroy Pharaoh and his associates, and the earth, which is a place of comfort for humans, became a graveyard for Qarun and his companions. It is certain that Qarun was not alone in his house. He, his household, his like-minded people, and his oppressive and tyrannical friends—all were swallowed by the earth. Yet, at that moment, there was no group to help him against the Divine punishment, and he himself could provide no assistance: (فَمَا كَانَ لَهُ مِن فِئَةٍ يَنصُرُونَهُ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُنتَصِرِينَ). Neither the freeloaders from his table, nor his well-wishers, nor his wealth could save him from the punishment of Allah; all of them were swallowed into the depths of the earth. In the last verse under consideration, it is stated that those who the previous day had been in admiration and envy of Qarun's wealth and grandeur, wishing that they too were that fortunate even if only for a short time, now lament and regret their thoughts: It is a remarkable lesson that those who wished yesterday, “If only we were in his place” and then witnessed the earth swallowing Qarun and his wealth, say, “Alas for our thoughts!” (The truth is) that God expands provision for whomever He wills among His servants, and restricts it for whomever He wills. The key to sustenance is only in His hands: "(وَأَصْبَحَ الَّذِينَ تَمَنَّوْا مَكَانَهُ بِالْأَمْسِ يَقُولُونَ وَيْكَأَنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْسُطُ الرِّزْقَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ وَيَقْدِرُ)". They say: Today it has been confirmed for us that whatever a person possesses is not the outcome of his own effort, but a gift from God. His bestowal does not depend on being pleased with anyone, nor is anyone deprived because that person is insignificant before Allah. Allah tests individuals and nations by granting them wealth and thus reveals their character and nature. After that, those who envied pondered: If God had accepted our prayers yesterday and made us like Qarun, how terrible would have been our end! Therefore, they thanked God’s grace and said that if God had not been gracious to us, He would have swallowed us too in the earth: (لَوْلَا أَن مَّنَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيْنَا لَخَسَفَ بِنَا). And ___ as though the disbelievers will never succeed: (وَيْكَأَنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الْكَافِرُونَ). Now we see with the eyes of reality the end of pride, heedlessness, disbelief, and the lust for the world; and we understand how dreadful the reality is of these ostentatious lives, which appear most alluring on the surface. From the outcome of this event, it becomes clear that ultimately the arrogant disbeliever and faithless Qarun departed from this world, although he was counted among the wise of Bani Israel and among those who recited the Torah; he was also a relative of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him).

The account of Qārūn—who may be regarded as a paradigmatic example of the arrogant wealthy—has been presented by the Qur’an in a brief yet profoundly striking manner within a limited number of verses, and it reveals many fundamental truths about human life. This narrative highlights the fact that the intoxication of wealth and the arrogance it generates can at times lead a person to a state of irrationality. Such manifestations include an obsessive desire to display wealth, to assert superiority over others, and to derive satisfaction from belittling the poor. This arrogance, together with an insatiable greed for wealth, may even impel a person toward the most reprehensible forms of wrongdoing—such as opposing a messenger of God, waging hostility against truth, and even leveling baseless and shameless accusations against the most virtuous individuals. At times, such individuals expend their wealth in order to promote injustice and support immoral objectives. The intoxication of wealth prevents them from heeding sincere counsel or accepting the advice of well‑wishers. Such arrogant individuals consider their wealth—often acquired through the exploitation and usurpation of others’ rights—as evidence of their own intelligence and ability. They regard themselves as uniquely knowledgeable and regard others as ignorant. Their arrogance may reach such an extent that they imagine themselves independent even of God, asserting that whatever they possess is the result of their own capability, ingenuity, and knowledge. However, the narrative demonstrates the ultimate fate of such destructive arrogance. Just as Qārūn, along with his wealth and household, was swallowed by the earth and annihilated, others of similar disposition may meet destruction through different means. In some cases, individuals invest vast wealth in properties, estates, and projects from which they themselves derive no benefit. They accumulate land, construct buildings, and engage in speculative ventures merely to increase wealth. In such forms, it may be said that the earth itself “absorbs” their wealth. When such individuals find no beneficial means to utilize their wealth, they often develop superficial interests, assigning exaggerated value to objects of no intrinsic worth—such as antiquities or ornamental items—which they exhibit in their residences. Meanwhile, within their own societies, their neighbors and fellow citizens may suffer from deprivation, hunger, and illness, yet these wealthy individuals remain indifferent to such conditions. In extreme cases, their domesticated animals may receive greater care and comfort than impoverished human beings living nearby. These conditions may also apply not only to individuals but to nations. At times, a nation itself assumes the role of Qārūn in relation to others. In such contexts, powerful states may derive their prosperity through the exploitation of weaker regions, while the latter suffer economic deprivation. The term “poor nations” does not imply inherent poverty, but rather reflects conditions brought about through domination and exploitation. Resources are extracted, and populations are deprived of their rightful benefits. In this light, the narrative underscores that until oppressed and disadvantaged communities become united and self‑aware, such imbalances will persist. The contrast remains: those who possess disproportionate wealth may live in excess and indulgence, while others endure hardship and deprivation.

It is noteworthy that Sūrat al‑Muʾmin (40:23–24) indicates that the mission of Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) commenced with confrontation against three principal figures: Pharaoh, his minister Hāmān, and the wealthy and arrogant Qārūn. As the Qur’an states: “وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا مُوسَىٰ بِآيَاتِنَا وَسُلْطَانٍ مُّبِينٍ إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ وَهَامَانَ وَقَارُونَ فَقَالُوا سَاحِرٌ كَذَّابٌ”. This indicates that Qārūn was aligned with Pharaoh and shared his outlook. Historical sources also suggest that he functioned as Pharaoh’s representative among Banī Isrāʾīl and, at the same time, served as a treasurer for the regime (Tafsīr Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, vol. 25, p. 13; Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, vol. 7, p. 266; vol. 8, p. 520). In light of these roles, the function of Qārūn becomes clear. Pharaoh, in his effort to dominate Banī Isrāʾīl and exploit their resources, selected from among them a deceitful and opportunistic individual and vested him with authority, enabling him to administer oppression, exploit his community, and accumulate wealth through unjust means. Evidence suggests that, following the destruction of Pharaoh and his companions, a significant portion of their wealth came into the possession of Qārūn. At that stage, Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) had not yet consolidated sufficient authority to redistribute these resources among the oppressed. Whether Qārūn accumulated his wealth during Pharaoh’s reign or afterward—through appropriation of royal treasuries, through specialized knowledge, through commerce, or through economic exploitation—the result was the same: immense wealth became a source of arrogance and deviation. After the downfall of Pharaoh, Qārūn appears to have altered his outward stance, presenting himself as a reciter and scholar of the Torah, a behavior characteristic of hypocrisy. However, such external adherence did not reflect genuine faith. When Mūsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām) sought to impose obligations such as zakāh upon him, his true disposition became apparent, and the façade of piety collapsed. Thus, the narrative reveals a pattern in which material wealth, when combined with weak moral restraint, leads to arrogance, opposition to divine guidance, and ultimately destruction.

From the explanations presented above, it should not be concluded that Islam adopts a negative stance toward wealth and material resources, or that it opposes affluence. Nor should it be assumed that Islam prefers poverty and deprivation, or encourages people toward destitution as a means of attaining spiritual perfection. On the contrary, Islam regards wealth as an effective and constructive means. In Sūrat al‑Baqarah 180, “مال” is described as “خير”, indicating its positive potential. A narration from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states: “نعم العون الدنيا على طلب الآخرة” — the world is an excellent means for attaining the Hereafter (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, vol. 12, p. 17, from Abwāb Muqaddimāt al‑Tijārah, Bāb 16, ḥadīth 5). Even the verses under discussion, which sharply criticize Qārūn, demonstrate that Islam values wealth when it is utilized as a means of seeking the hereafter, as expressed in: “وَابْتَغِ فِيمَا آتَاكَ اللَّهُ الدَّارَ الْآخِرَةَ”. Similarly, Islam praises wealth that is accompanied by beneficence toward humanity in accordance with: “وَأَحْسِن كَمَا أَحْسَنَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ”, and wealth that is governed by restraint, as indicated in: “وَلَا تَنسَ نَصِيبَكَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا”. In essence, Islam encourages wealth that does not lead to فساد, the erosion of moral values, obsessive accumulation, arrogance, contempt for others, or opposition to divine guidance. Rather, it promotes wealth that benefits humanity, bridges economic disparities, alleviates suffering, and responds to the needs of the oppressed. A person who possesses wealth for such noble purposes cannot be described as worldly; rather, such a person is oriented toward the Hereafter. A narration illustrates this principle. One of the companions of Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) expressed concern that attachment to worldly affairs might constitute worldliness. The Imām asked how he intended to use his wealth. He replied that he would provide for himself and his family, assist relatives, give in charity, and perform ḥajj and ʿumrah. The Imām responded: “لَيْسَ هٰذَا طَلَبَ الدُّنْيَا هٰذَا طَلَبُ الْآخِرَةِ” — this is not the pursuit of the world; this is the pursuit of the Hereafter (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, vol. 12, p. 19, Bāb 7, ḥadīth 3). This demonstrates the invalidity of two mistaken views. First, those who claim that Islam supports unrestricted capitalism and material accumulation misunderstand its ethical framework. Second, those who portray Islam as hostile to wealth and supportive of poverty likewise distort its teachings. In reality, Islam emphasizes a balanced path: a society overwhelmed by poverty cannot sustain dignity or independence. Economic weakness often results in subjugation and dependence upon stronger communities. Poverty may also lead individuals toward wrongdoing. As Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) stated: “غنی یحجزک عن الظلم خیر من فقر یحملک الاثم” — wealth that restrains one from injustice is better than poverty that leads one into sin. Accordingly, Muslims are encouraged to strive for economic strength, self‑sufficiency, and independence, without compromising ethical values. They should not sacrifice dignity and autonomy due to poverty, nor fall into arrogance through wealth. The balanced and principled utilization of resources represents the path envisioned within Islamic teaching.

See ayat 84 for tafseer.

After the presentation of the instructive account of Qārūn, a sinful and arrogant embodiment of wealth, the first of the verses under discussion provides a comprehensive conclusion to that narrative. It states: “تِلْكَ الدَّارُ الْآخِرَةُ نَجْعَلُهَا لِلَّذِينَ لَا يُرِيدُونَ عُلُوًّا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا فَسَادًا”. The abode of the Hereafter is reserved for those who neither seek superiority on the earth nor engage in corruption. Indeed, they do not even possess the inclination toward such tendencies; their hearts are purified from these impulses and their inner being remains free from such moral impurities. The two principal causes of deprivation from the blessings of the Hereafter are identified as: the desire for superiority and “فساد فی الارض”. All sin ultimately derives from these two roots, for whatever has been prohibited by God obstructs the attainment of moral perfection and contradicts the purpose of human creation. Even the pursuit of domination itself constitutes فساد, and for this reason it is mentioned with particular emphasis. The fate of Qārūn clearly demonstrates that his downfall resulted from arrogance and the desire for dominance. Islamic traditions also underscore this principle. A narration attributed to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām) indicates that even the slightest sense of superiority—such as taking pride in having better possessions than another—may bring a person within the ambit of this warning. Some exegetes have misinterpreted the verse by restricting arrogance to Firʿawn and corruption to Qārūn, thereby excluding all others from its scope. However, such a reading neglects the concluding phrase: “وَالْعَاقِبَةُ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ”, which establishes that the favorable outcome belongs exclusively to the God‑conscious. The term “العاقبة” encompasses a comprehensive meaning, including both success in this world and eternal reward in the Hereafter. The destinies of Firʿawn and Qārūn demonstrate that even the greatest worldly power is insufficient without تقویٰ. After affirming this principle, the following verse presents a universal law regarding Divine justice and grace: “مَن جَاءَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ فَلَهُ خَيْرٌ مِّنْهَا”. The reward for good deeds reflects Divine generosity, whereby acts of goodness may receive multiplied recompense. This benevolence, however, is not arbitrary but is contingent upon sincerity, purity of intention, and moral integrity. By contrast, it is stated: “وَمَن جَاءَ بِالسَّيِّئَةِ فَلَا يُجْزَى الَّذِينَ عَمِلُوا السَّيِّئَاتِ إِلَّا مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ”. Here, Divine justice is manifested, as wrongdoers are recompensed strictly in accordance with their deeds, without excess. The expression indicates that their actions themselves constitute the basis of their punishment, as the آثار of those actions persist and are manifested on the Day of Judgment. Several questions arise in relation to this discussion. The repetition of the term “السيئة” serves to emphasize the principle that accountability corresponds precisely to the nature of the act committed. The use of the singular “حسنة” and the plural “السيئات” reflects the conceptual unity of goodness, rooted in توحید, in contrast to the multiplicity of evil arising from deviation. Moreover, the concept of “حسنة” encompasses belief, speech, and action, while the greater reward ultimately lies in “رضوان الله”, as indicated in the Qur’an: “وَرِضْوَانٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ أَكْبَرُ”. Thus, the passage establishes a coherent framework in which humility, avoidance of فساد, ethical use of resources, and sincerity in action lead to ultimate success, while arrogance and wrongdoing result in loss.

See ayat 88 for tafseer.

See ayat 88 for tafseer.

See ayat 88 for tafseer.

Some exegetes have reported, under these verses, a narration attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās concerning the occasion of revelation. According to this report, when the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāh ʿalayhi wa‑ālihi wa‑sallam) migrated from Makkah toward Madinah, he reached the place of al‑Juhfah, which is not far from Makkah. At that point, he recalled his homeland—namely Makkah, the sacred sanctuary of God, where the Kaʿbah is located, with which he maintained a deep and inseparable spiritual and emotional connection. This remembrance caused visible sorrow upon his face. At that moment, Jibrīl descended and asked whether he felt longing for his birthplace. The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Thereupon, Jibrīl conveyed the Divine message: “إِنَّ الَّذِي فَرَضَ عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ لَرَادُّكَ إِلَى مَعَادٍ” — the One who mandated the Qur’an upon you will indeed return you to your place of return (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān; Tafsīr Kabīr Fakhr Rāzī; Tafsīr Qurṭubī, and others). History shows that this promise was fulfilled, as the Prophet of Islam returned to Makkah in a position of strength and authority. The sacred sanctuary was brought under his control without warfare or bloodshed. In light of this historical development, the verse may be understood as one of the remarkable predictive statements of the Qur’an, conveying with certainty an event that was realized within a relatively short period.

These are the final verses of Surah Qaṣaṣ. In them, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is addressed. After describing certain aspects of the life of Mūsā ibn ʿImrān and the conditions of the war with Pharaoh and his allies, glad tidings are given to the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and he is provided with very firm guidance. As mentioned above, the first verse of these (as is well known) was revealed at the place called Ḥijrah when the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was traveling towards Madīnah. His intention was to go to Yathrib and make that town “the City of the Messenger.” There, he planned to lay the first brick of the Islamic government’s foundation, so that the revolutionary capacities inherent in the message of Islam could be realized in practice, and so that this place could become the center for a vast divine government and for the achievement of its objectives. Despite this great plan, the attachment he had to Makkah caused him continuous grief and sorrow, and the distancing from this sacred sanctuary of peace was very distressing to him. In these circumstances, the pure heart of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was illuminated with the light of revelation, and he was given the glad tidings of a return to his familiar homeland—“with these words”—that: The same Being who imposed the Qur’ān upon you will indeed bring you back to your place of return: (إِنَّ الَّذِي فَرَضَ عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ لَرَادُّكَ إِلَى مَعَادٍ). Do not be grieved—He is the same God who, in the infancy of Mūsā عليه السلام, returned him to his mother; the same God who, after ten years of exile from Egypt, restored him to his homeland so that he could light the lamp of Tawḥīd and establish the government of the oppressed, and destroy the power of the deniers of God, the Pharaohs. He will, with full power and strength, similarly restore you to Makkah and enable you to kindle the lamp of Tawḥīd in that sacred land. The same God who revealed the Qur’ān to you, who made its proclamation a duty and imposed its laws upon you, for the Almighty Owner of the heavens and the earth, these matters are easy. Following this, there is an addition of the meaning that: Tell those rebellious and arrogant opponents that My Lord knows best who has brought guidance and who is in manifest error: (قل ربي اعلم من جاء بالھدی ومن ھو فی ضلال مبین). The purpose is to state that the way of guidance is clear and the polytheists’ misguidance is evident. Whatever they do is in vain; God is well aware of their deeds, and the truth-seeking hearts also clearly know the reality. The clear interpretation of this verse is as has been explained above. Many commentators have also explored other possible meanings of the word “معاد” (maʿād). Their views include that “maʿād” means life after death, or the place of resurrection, or even death itself, or the great place of intercession, or Paradise, or al-Quds (Jerusalem, from where the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny ascended during Miʿrāj). Various such ideas have been expressed. However, after a comprehensive study of the verse, the story of Mūsā عليه السلام and the Children of Israel, and consideration of the related reasons for revelation, all these meanings appear distant from the truth. Therefore, the interpretation of “maʿād” as (the place of return) meaning the land of Makkah is correct. Furthermore, it is important to consider that if the word “maʿād” were taken to mean the Day of Judgment, that day is not exclusive to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny alone, whereas the addressee of the verse is solely the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Also, the previous verse (84) discusses the reward and punishment of deeds on the Day of Resurrection, and this verse follows it, so the word “maʿād” cannot have that meaning here. On the contrary, the stronger likelihood is the opposite: since the preceding verse (84) refers to the recompense of deeds in the Realm of the Hereafter, the context demands that this verse speak of worldly success. The following verse (86) mentions the granting of a great favor from God to the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. It says: “You did never expect that the Book would be cast upon you, but it is a mercy from your Lord”: (وَمَا كُنتَ تَرْجُواْ أَن يُلْقَى إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابُ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً مِّن رَّبِّكَ) (Explanatory note: Some commentators have interpreted the word “إِلَّا” here as an exception, leading them to assert that the excepted part is omitted but implied. Another group holds that “إِلَّا” here means “but” (lakin), implying a concessive nuance, which fits better with the context.) At that time, many people had already heard the glad news of the advent of the new religion. Also, perhaps some People of the Book were awaiting this divine favor, expecting that revelation would descend upon them and that God would entrust them with this responsibility. But O Prophet, you did not even anticipate it. Yet God deemed you most worthy for this task so that through you, the religion would spread throughout the world. Some great commentators have linked this verse with other verses addressing the story of Mūsā عليه السلام to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Those verses are: وَمَا كُنتَ بِجَانِبِ الْغَرْبِيِّ إِذْ قَضَيْنَا [The text cut off here.]إِلَى مُوسَى الْأَمْرَ … (Qasas, 44) وَمَا كُنتَ ثَاوِيًا فِي أَهْلِ مَدْيَنَ۔۔۔(Qasas, 45) وَمَا كُنتَ بِجَانِبِ الطُّورِ إِذْ نَادَيْنَا وَلَكِن رَّحْمَةً مِّن رَّبِّكَ۔۔۔ (Qasas, 46) O Messenger, you were never in the valley of Mount Tur where We revealed to Moses... You did not live among the people of Midian... And you were not by the side of the Mount when We called [Moses], but it was mercy from your Lord... According to this tafseer, the "Book" refers to the history of the previous prophets. However, there is no contradiction between this tafseer and the earlier tafseer; rather, it should be regarded as a part of that tafseer. Following this, the following words are added: Now, the gratitude for this great favor is to never assist the disbelievers: (فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ ظَهِيرًا لِّلْكَافِرِينَ). This command aligns with the meaning we have read concerning Prophet Musa (Moses), who said: "My Lord! Because You have bestowed upon me [something], I will never be an assistant to the criminals." We have discussed at length about helping the oppressors under Surah Al-Qasas, verse 17. At the end of this Surah, Tawhid (Divine Unity) is explained with various arguments and interpretations. This Tawhid is the fundamental basis of all religious matters, the primary and derived principle, the whole and the part. In these two verses, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) is given four commandments, and four attributes of God are described. Also, all the subjects discussed in this Surah are completed through these verses: (وَلَا يَصُدُّنَّكَ عَنْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ بَعْدَ إِذْ أُنزِلَتْ إِلَيْكَ) Though the prohibitive particle here refers to a negation, its meaning is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) should remain alert against their schemes and disruptions, just as we tell someone: "No one should lead you astray," meaning, do not fall under their deception. Next, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is commanded that since the divine verses have been revealed to him, he should remain steadfast on those commands and not allow any hesitation or doubt to enter his heart. Any obstacles in conveying the word of Allah should be removed from the path, and he should proceed firmly toward the goal because God is with him and is his Helper. According to the well-known commentator Ibn Abbas, this verse is addressed to the Prophet personally but signifies the general people as well, like the Arabic proverb "إِيَّاكَ أَعْنِي وَاسْمَعْ يَا جَارَهُ" ("I mean you but neighbor, listen as well"). Following the negation, there is an affirmative command to invite towards your Lord (وَادْعُ إِلَى رَبِّكَ). That God who is your Master and in whose control you are—He is your Guardian and Nurturer. After this command to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to invite people to God, all kinds of polytheism and idolatry are forbidden. Thus it is said not to be among the polytheists at all (وَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ). This means that the path of Tawhid is absolutely clear and luminous, and those who walk on it are on the straight path. Finally, the fourth command is a reiterated emphasis on denying all forms of polytheism, where God says: Do not call upon any other god along with Allah (وَلَا تَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهًا آخَرَ). In summary, these successive commands, each affirming the other, clarify the importance of the belief in Tawhid in the Islamic program; for until the belief in Tawhid is fully instilled in the heart, all other beliefs and deeds are ruined. After mentioning these four commands, four attributes of God are mentioned, which are prerequisites for the belief in Tawhid: 1. First: It is said that "There is no deity except Him" (لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ). 2. Second: Everything other than His pure Essence is perishible and doomed to destruction (كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ). 3. Third: The command and sovereignty in the worlds of creation and legislation belong exclusively to Him (لَهُ الْحُكْمُ). 4. Fourth: Ultimately, all of us will return to Him (وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ). It is rationally possible that the last three attributes serve as proofs for the affirmation of Tawhid and the abandonment of all types of polytheism mentioned in the first attribute. Because ___ We all are perishable and survival belongs only to His Essence. Because ___ The management of the system of existence and the sovereignty of the universe belong only to Him. Because ___ On the Day of Resurrection, all of us will return to Him. In comparison, what reality do those imaginary gods have, and what else besides Him is worthy of worship? Regarding the interpretation of "كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ," major commentators have expressed various views. The diversity of these opinions revolves around two words: "وَجْه" (Wajh) and "هَالِك" (Hālik). Linguistically, the word "Wajh" refers to the part of a human body called the face, that is, the human countenance. But when this word is applied to God, it signifies His Essence. The root of the word "هَالِك" is "هَلَاك," which means death and destruction. Considering these meanings, the sense of this verse is...The essence is that besides the Divine Being, every created entity will perish. This "perishing" is not dependent on the end of the universe, rather even in the current state, everything else is perishable and nonexistent compared to Him. Because all possibilities are dependent on Him for their existence. Accordingly, they continuously receive existence and sustenance from Him. Their existence is not self-sustained but is due to Divine will. If suddenly Destiny decides to dissolve their forms, If the Divine will inclines towards the annihilation of possibilities, they will perish in a moment. Moreover, in this universe, all created things are constantly changing and their conditions keep evolving. According to the atomic theory (i.e., atomic movement), the essence of everything is change and motion. We know that change and motion imply that every moment everything undergoes perishing and renewed existence. That is, created beings are continually dying and living every moment. Therefore, all created beings are "perishing" and transient even in their present condition. Only the Divine Being is exempt from change and perishing; His Holy Essence is purely independent and immutable. We know that when the Last Hour of this world arrives, every existence will be overcome by perishing and annihilation. As it is stated in the Qur'an: كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِ "Everyone upon it [the earth] will perish, and there will remain the Face of your Lord, Owner of Majesty and Honor." (Ar-Rahman 55:26-27) Not only the inhabitants of the earth but also those of the heavens will perish: وَنُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَصَعِقَ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَن فِي الْأَرْضِ "And when the Horn is blown, those in the heavens and those on the earth will swoon away." (Az-Zumar 39:68) This interpretation aligns with the apparent meaning of this verse and others. However, some commentators have offered alternative interpretations, among which are: Some have said that "Face (وجہ)" refers to righteous deeds, and the meaning of the verse is: All of a person's deeds will perish except for those done sincerely for the sake of Allah. Others have said that "Face" refers to the aspect of creation ascribed to Allah. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse would be that all things are essentially non-existent except for their aspect of attribution to the Lord. Some hold the view that "Face" means religion. Based on this, the meaning of the verse is that on the Day of Judgment all religions will be invalidated and perish except the religion of Allah. In this interpretation, the phrase "لَهُ الْحُكْمُ" (His is the dominion) is understood as legislative sovereignty and is considered an emphatic expression. Likewise, from the phrase "وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ" (and to Him you will be returned), the return to Allah in Shariah law is inferred, and this phrase is regarded as a repeated emphasis of that meaning. (Explanatory Note: Tafsir Noor al-Thaqalayn cites numerous narrations under this verse; in some, "Face" refers to the religion of Allah, in others to Divine guides, and in yet others to things ascribed to Allah.) In our interpretation of this verse, the aforementioned statements are not contradictory to the later interpretations mentioned because once it is understood that the only entity that will remain in this world is the Divine Essence, it follows that anything connected in any way to His Essence will also acquire the quality of permanence and eternity. Divine guides are intrinsically linked to God, and therefore they too are eternal. In summary, nothing that relates or connects to the Divine Essence will be subject to perishing and destruction. (This point warrants reflection.)

From the verses under discussion, several important questions arise. One such question concerns the fate of material existence at the end of the world. If all things are to perish, then it might be asked whether the material substances that have formed part of the human body will also cease to exist, despite the Qur’an repeatedly affirming that these very components will be reassembled for resurrection, and that human beings will emerge from their graves on the Day of Judgment. A related question pertains to Paradise and Hell. Since Qur’anic expressions such as “أُعِدَّتْ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ” (Āl ʿImrān 133; Ḥadīd 21) and “أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَافِرِينَ” (Baqarah 24; Āl ʿImrān 131) indicate that both have already been prepared, it may be asked whether they too will perish along with the rest of creation. Similarly, with regard to the intermediate state (barzakh), it may be questioned whether its inhabitants will also undergo annihilation. These questions can be addressed through several clarifications. First, terms such as “هلاك”, “فناء”, and “نابودی” do not necessarily imply the absolute destruction of the essential substance of things; rather, they often refer to the dissolution of order and structure. For example, when a building is destroyed in an earthquake, it is described as having perished, even though its fundamental material components remain; what has been lost is the arrangement and form, not the underlying substance. Second, at the end of the world, phenomena such as the extinguishing of the sun, the dimming of the moon, the disintegration of mountains, and the death of all living beings signify the collapse of the present cosmic order. From one perspective, this constitutes the “destruction” of these entities. However, from another perspective, this destruction pertains specifically to the present worldly system and its existing configuration. Paradise and Hell, however, do not belong to this worldly system in the same sense. Whether they are already created within this cosmological framework or exist beyond it, they are not part of the present worldly order whose structure is subject to dissolution. Rather, they pertain to the domain of the Hereafter, and therefore are not encompassed by the same rule of worldly annihilation. Third, as previously noted, the concept of perishing in relation to contingent beings (mumkināt) is not confined to the end of the world. Their ontological nature is such that they are never self-subsistent; their existence depends upon a sustaining cause. Moreover, the entirety of creation is in a constant state of change and motion, and motion itself implies a form of gradual coming-to-be and passing-away. In this sense, existence and non-existence are continuously intertwined within the process of change. In light of these considerations, the apparent tension between the notions of annihilation and resurrection, as well as the permanence of entities such as Paradise, Hell, and the state of barzakh, becomes resolved. The “perishing” referred to in the Qur’an pertains primarily to the dissolution of the present order of existence, rather than the annihilation of all underlying reality.

The objection often raised by those who deny the legitimacy of tawassul and shafāʿah—arguing that these concepts are incompatible with the حقیقت of توحید—frequently relies on verses such as: “فَلَا تَدْعُوا مَعَ اللَّهِ أَحَدًا” (Sūrat al‑Jinn, 18). They interpret these verses as prohibiting any invocation other than God. However, such verses do not imply an absolute prohibition of addressing anyone besides God; rather, their meaning is conditioned by the phrase “مَعَ اللَّهِ”. That is, if a person considers another being as sharing independently in Divine power, creativity, or authority—believing that such a being can act autonomously alongside God—then this constitutes شرك. On the other hand, if all power is recognized as belonging exclusively to God, and no being is regarded as independently effective in His domain, while it is believed that the awliyāʾ of God intercede only by His permission, then seeking tawassul through them as intermediaries for shafāʿah aligns fully with توحید. This concept is repeatedly indicated within the Qur’an itself. For example, when the brothers of Yūsuf said: “يَا أَبَانَا اسْتَغْفِرْ لَنَا” (Sūrat Yūsuf, 97), they requested their father to seek forgiveness for them. Likewise, in: “وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ جَاؤُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا” (Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, 64), the Qur’an explicitly refers to seeking the Prophet’s intercession. These instances cannot be interpreted as invitations to شرك; rather, they exemplify the reality of tawassul and shafāʿah. O Lord, illuminate our hearts with the light of توحید and معرفت so that we perceive none but You, seek none but You, and desire none but You. O God, strengthen our connection with Your pure essence, so that the permanence of Your being becomes reflected within our souls. O Lord, remove from our hearts the love of the world, the desire for superiority, and the inclination toward فساد in the earth, and include us among those who are mindful, for whom “وَالْعَاقِبَةُ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ”.