Tafsir of Yunus 10:83

{...So none believed in Moses...} [Yunus: 83]

The phrase is connected to a suppressed clause detailed elsewhere, meaning: "He cast his staff, and lo! It swallowed what they fabricated," and so on. It was not explicitly mentioned due to reliance on that context, a preference for conciseness, and as an indication that the Almighty’s saying, "Indeed, Allah will nullify it," does not admit to any failure. Perhaps its connection with the fa (so) is based on the occurrence of the resulting affirmation, which is one of the two concepts of limitation; for they say: the meaning of "None stood except Zayd" is "Zayd stood, and no one else stood." Some, however, did not consider this and argued that connecting it with the fa while it remains a continuous state of non-belief is similar to the verse, "So they followed the command of Pharaoh," or your saying, "I exhorted him, so he was not exhorted," and "I shouted at him, so he was not deterred." The secret here is that performing an action after the arrival of that which necessitates desisting from it—even if it is a continuation of the same act—is, according to the title of the act, a new deed and a nascent creation.

Meaning: None believed in him—peace be upon him—at the start of his affair, {except a progeny of his people}, meaning: the offspring of some of the Children of Israel. For he—peace be upon him—called upon the fathers, but they did not respond out of fear of Pharaoh, while a group of their youth responded. Thus, the intent of "progeny" (dhurriyyah) is the youth, not children.

The "min" (of) is for partitive purposes (tab'id); it is also permissible that it is for the beginning of an action, and the partitive meaning is derived from the indefinite noun (tanwin). The pronoun [in "his people"] refers to Moses—peace be upon him—as is one of two narrations from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both. Ibn Jarir narrated from him that the pronoun refers to Pharaoh, and a group of scholars held this view. Thus, the believers were from outside the Children of Israel, including his wife Asiya, her hair-dresser, the Believer of the family of Pharaoh, the treasurer, and his wife. There is some ambiguity in applying the term "progeny" to these people. Some preferred referring the pronoun to Moses—peace be upon him—because he is the one being spoken about, and because the other view would necessitate the use of pronouns later on. Ibn 'Atiyyah preferred referring the pronoun to Pharaoh, as it is known in the stories that the Children of Israel were under the oppression of Pharaoh and had been given tidings that their salvation would be at the hands of a newborn who would be a prophet with such-and-such traits. When Moses—peace be upon him—appeared, they followed him, and it is not known that anyone among them opposed him. Thus, the second view is more apparent. What was mentioned about the subject being Moses—peace be upon him—is not without difficulty, for one could argue that the discourse is regarding the people of Pharaoh, because they are the ones saying he is a sorcerer, and because the exhortation of the people of Mecca and the warnings presented in these verses dictate that the intent here is to describe their conditions. You know that there is room for debate here, and the "known," even if we concede it is known, does not harm the first view; for the intent then would be: None declared their faith and announced it except a progeny of the Children of Israel, rather than others, for they hid it and did not declare it.

{...in fear...} is a circumstantial state of the "progeny," and "ala" (in/on) carries the meaning of "with," as is said in the Almighty’s saying: "And gives wealth in spite of love for it." The tanwin is for magnification, meaning: they were in a state of great fear of Pharaoh and their chiefs.

The pronoun [in "their chiefs"] refers to Pharaoh, and the plural [is used]—as is customary in the pronouns of grand figures—for someone other than a single person. This was refuted by noting that the usage in the Arabic language is the plural for the speaker (like "we") and the addressee (as in the Almighty’s saying: "My Lord, send me back," and the saying: "So have mercy on me, O God of Muhammad"). It was not transmitted for the third-person pronoun as it was reported from al-Radi. It was answered that al-Tha'alibi and al-Farsi reported it for the third person as well, and the affirmative takes precedence over the negative. Furthermore, it does not suit the magnification of Pharaoh, for if it were based on his claim and his people's claim, it would only be appropriate in discourse attributed to them—which is not the case here. It is answered that the intent of the magnification is to place him in the position of multiple [people], and its alleged unsuitability is contestable; why would it not be suitable, as it contains an indication of the increased severity of the fear, which contains an added praise for the believers? It is also said that this occurs based on their custom in their dialogues in merely pluralizing the pronoun of grand figures, even if magnification was not intended at all. Reflect upon this.

It is also permissible that the plural is used because the intent of "Pharaoh" is his house (dynasty), as one says: "Rabi'a" and "Mudar." This was objected to on the grounds that this is only known regarding tribes and their ancestor, where the ancestor’s name is applied to them, and Pharaoh is not of this type. Moreover, it is said that applying the ancestor's name to the tribe is not permissible unless it is heard and established that it was made a proper name for them. Do you not see they do not say "So-and-so is from Hashim" or "from 'Abd al-Muttalib," but rather "from the tribe of Hashim" and "the tribe of 'Abd al-Muttalib"? So how can the intent of "Pharaoh" be his dynasty when it has not been established as a proper name for them? The claim of such establishment here is begging the question. Therefore, saying the plural is used because the intent is his dynasty, like Rabi'a, is baseless—unless it is meant that when Pharaoh and kings like him are mentioned, the idea of their followers comes to mind, and the pronoun returns to what is in the mind. The illustration with the aforementioned is because it is its equivalent in general. Furthermore, it is not hidden that if the intent of "Pharaoh" is his dynasty, then the intent of "the family of Pharaoh" should be Pharaoh and his dynasty, by way of predominance. It is also said that the discourse contains a suppressed addition, meaning "the family of Pharaoh," and the pronoun returns to that suppressed element. The problem is that suppression relies on context, and there is no context here. The plural pronoun may refer to something other than that suppressed element, as you will know soon, God willing, so it cannot serve as context. As for the claim that a pronoun cannot return to a suppressed element, as Abu al-Baqa said, that is not accurate; for if it is meant that it never returns, it is incorrect, and if it is meant [that it doesn't return] when suppressed for context, that is denied, because it is then effectively present, and the return of the pronoun to it in this manner is frequent in the Arabic language. Similar to this is the claim that there is a suppressed conjunction to which the pronoun refers, meaning "in fear of Pharaoh and his people and their chiefs." This is also refuted by the argument that this suppression is weak and not consistent.

It is also said that the pronoun refers to the "progeny" or the "people," meaning: in fear of Pharaoh and the nobles of the Children of Israel, as they used to restrain them out of fear of Pharaoh for them or for themselves, or of the Coptic nobles and their leaders, as they used to restrain them in support of Pharaoh. Perhaps the most naturally understood is its return to the "progeny," with the plural used based on the meaning. The meaning boils down to: they believed while in fear of Pharaoh and the nobles of their people, that he might {afflict them}—meaning test them and torment them. The root of fitnah (affliction), as al-Raghib said, is putting gold into the fire to distinguish its quality from its impurity. It is used for casting a human into the fire, as in His saying: "The day they are tormented/tested upon the fire." What results from it in terms of torment is called fitnah, and it is used for testing and in the sense of calamity and severity, which is the intent here.

The clause "that he might..." with its verb is interpreted as a source (masdar) acting as a substitute for Pharaoh, a substitute of inclusion (badal ishtimal), meaning: in fear of Pharaoh’s affliction. It is also permissible for it to be an object of "fear," because it is an indefinite source that is frequently used as a verb. It is also said it is the maf'ul lahu (object for which an action is performed), and the origin is "in order that he might afflict them," then the preposition was dropped, which is among the cases where suppression is consistent. It does not harm such cases that the actor of the source and the actor of the verb being explained are not the same; moreover, some Imams hold the view that this is not a condition for the permissibility of the accusative, and al-Radi inclined toward this, supporting it with what we mentioned in our marginalia on the author’s Sharh al-Qatr. Attributing the act specifically to Pharaoh is because he is the center of the torment. There is istikhdam (a rhetorical device) in the view where "Pharaoh" first refers to his dynasty and secondly to him alone. You know the critique of this.

{...And indeed, Pharaoh was a tyrant in the land...} —meaning: victorious and dominating in the land of Egypt. The use of "height/tyranny" ('uluww) for victory and domination is a well-known metaphor. {And indeed, he was of the excessive...} [Yunus: 83] —meaning: those who exceed the limit in tyranny and corruption through killing and bloodshed, or in pride and arrogance, to the point of claiming divinity and enslaving the descendants of the prophets—peace be upon them. The two sentences are an appended interjection, confirming the content of what preceded, and they contain an emphasis that is not hidden.