"And We certainly gave Moses nine clear signs..."

The outward context and the parallels necessitate that the meaning is nine proofs that are clear in their indication of the prophethood of Moses—peace be upon him—and the validity of what he brought from God Almighty. It does not contradict this that he was given more than what was mentioned, because specifying a number does not imply the negation of what is additional, as has been established in the principles [of jurisprudence]. Several have inclined toward this view. However, there is a difference of opinion in determining these nine.

In some commentaries, they are as in the Torah: the staff, then the blood, then the frogs, then the lice, then the death of the livestock, then the hail—like fire sent down with a raging fire that destroyed the vegetation and animals it passed—then the locusts, then the darkness, then the death that engulfed the elders of the people and all the animals. Abd al-Razzaq, Sa'id ibn Mansur, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded, through various chains from Ibn Abbas—may God be pleased with them both—that they are: the staff, the hand, the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs, the blood, the years [of drought], and the deficiency in fruits. This was also narrated from Mujahid, al-Sha'bi, Qatada, and Ikrimah.

This was challenged by the argument that the years of drought and the deficiency in fruits are one sign, as was narrated from al-Hasan. It was countered that this is not sound, because the manifest meaning of the words of the Almighty—"And We surely seized the people of Pharaoh with years of drought and deficiency in fruits"—necessitates a distinction. Therefore, the first is interpreted as drought in their deserts, and the second as the deficiency in their farms, or something similar. This discussion has already passed, and there is no harm in counting them as two signs.

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded in another narration from the "Scholar" [Ibn Abbas] that they are: his hand—peace be upon him—his tongue, his staff, the sea, the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs, and the blood. In al-Kashshaf, it is narrated from him—may God be pleased with him—that they are: the staff, the hand, the locusts, the lice, the frogs, the blood, the rock, the sea, and the Mount [Sinai] which God Almighty lifted over the Children of Israel. This was challenged in al-Kashf by the statement: "In it [is the fact that] the rock and the Mount are not among the signs brought to Pharaoh." The Almighty said: "In nine signs to Pharaoh and his people." His Exaltedness mentioned in this Surah: "You have certainly known that no one sent these down..." and the reference is to the signs. Then He said: "The answer is that it is permissible that the nine clear signs are some, not all, of those nine, and there is no indication in this verse that all were for Pharaoh and his people. As for the pointing [to them], it necessarily refers to some, because the totality only occurred gradually, and the parting of the sea was not in the context of a challenge, but rather when destruction was due." This is not free from committing that which is contrary to the apparent meaning. What was narrated from Ibn Abbas firstly is the most apparent in its face, and what is in it of difficulty, al-Kashshaf attributes to al-Hasan, which is contrary to what we found in the books relied upon in such matters.

It is narrated that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz—may God have mercy on him—asked Muhammad ibn Ka'b about these signs, and he counted what he counted and mentioned in it the "erasure." Umar said: "How can the jurist be anything but this?" Then he said: "O boy, bring that leather bag." He brought it and shook it, and behold, there were eggs broken in half, broken walnuts, garlic, chickpeas, and lentils, all of them stones. This is so, although the appearance of some reports necessitates otherwise.

Ahmad, al-Bayhaqi, al-Tabarani, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and al-Tirmidhi—who said it is a good, sound (hasan sahih) hadith—and al-Hakim—who said it is sound and we know no defect in it—narrated from Safwan ibn 'Assal that a Jew said to his companion: "Let us go to this Prophet and ask him." They came to him—peace and blessings of God be upon him—and asked him about the words of God Almighty: "And We certainly gave Moses nine clear signs." He—peace and blessings of God be upon him—said: "Do not associate anything with God, do not commit adultery, do not kill the soul which God has forbidden except by right, do not steal, do not practice sorcery, do not consume usury, do not walk with an innocent to a ruler to have him killed, do not slander a chaste woman, and do not flee from the battlefield."

In one narration—or he said: "Do not flee from the battlefield" (Shu'bah was uncertain)—"and upon you, O Jews particularly, do not transgress the Sabbath." They kissed his hands and feet and said: "We bear witness that you are a Prophet." From here it is said that the signs intended are the commandments. al-Shihab al-Khafaji said: "This is the correct interpretation," and the justification for applying [the term 'signs'] to them is that they are marks of happiness for those who fulfill them, and misery for others. It is said they were called so because they were revealed among the "signs" in the sense of phrases indicating meanings, like the "verses" (signs) of the Book, so it would be of the category of mentioning the indicator and intending the indicated. It is also said there is no harm in intending by "the signs" the divine expressions indicating those commandments, insofar as they indicate them. There is [a concern] in this, as well as in the previous one, regarding the statement of applying the term "signs" to divine expressions revealed to someone other than our Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—just as it is applied to what was revealed to him. This is problematized by the fact that the signs in the report—about which there is no doubt—are ten, while what is in the verse being asked about is nine. It was answered that the last one in it—namely "do not transgress the Sabbath"—is not among the [nine] signs, because the intent is general commandments established in all religious laws, and this is not one of them. Thus, the style changed; it is an appendage to the speech and a completion of it by adding to what they asked him—peace and blessings of God be upon him. In al-Kashf, it is stated that it is of the "wise style" (al-uslub al-hakim), because when he—peace and blessings of God be upon him—mentioned the nine general [commandments] in every religious law, he mentioned a specific one for them to indicate his—peace and blessings of God be upon him—encompassing knowledge of everything. This is good, and it is not the "wise style" in the famous sense; therefore, making the absolute statement that it is not of the "wise style," as al-Khafaji did, is not in its place.

Some great scholars said: "These things have no connection to Pharaoh; they were only given to the Children of Israel." Perhaps his—peace and blessings of God be upon him—answer with what he mentioned was because it was the most important thing for the inquirer, and his acceptance [of it] was because it was inscribed in the Torah, and it is known that he—peace and blessings of God be upon him—only knew it by way of revelation. This was challenged by saying: "We do not concede that the signs mentioned in the verse must be those that have a connection to Pharaoh, and what follows is not a decisive text on that. Indeed, it is like the apparent meaning, but often the apparent meanings are left for sound reports. If we concede that they must have a connection, we do not concede that those commandments have no connection, for it is possible that all or some of them were things with which Pharaoh and the Children of Israel were addressed together." To negate this, evidence is required. It is as if the gist of what he wanted from his statement "perhaps his answer..." is that this answer is of the "wise style," in that Moses—peace be upon him—was given nine clear signs in the sense of clear miracles—and these are the ones intended in the verse—and was given nine others in the sense of commandments, which are not intended, but the answer addressed them for what was mentioned. This is as you see, so reflect.

The supporting arguments for each of the two interpretations—namely, interpreting the signs as proofs and miracles, and interpreting them as commandments—are contradictory, and the strongest support for the second is the report. "So ask the Children of Israel"—a group read it as fas'al [imperative]. The apparent meaning is that it is an address to our Prophet—peace and blessings of God be upon him—and the "asking" is in its famous sense. However, the majority are of the view that it is an address to Moses—peace be upon him, and the "asking" is either in the sense of requesting, or in its famous sense [supported by] the recitation of the Messenger of God—peace and blessings of God be upon him. Ahmad in al-Zuhd, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Jarir, and others recorded from Ibn Abbas: fasala [in the form of the past tense] without hamzah, like qala, which is the dialect of Quraysh, for they replace the moving hamzah. This is because this recitation indicated that the asker is Moses—peace be upon him—and that it is consequent to the giving. Thus, it is not permissible for fas'al to be an address to the Prophet—peace and blessings of God be upon him—so that the two recitations do not conflict. It is necessary in that case to imply [an omitted word] so that they do not differ in being a report or a request, meaning: "We said to him, 'Ask them of Pharaoh' and say to him, 'Send with me the Children of Israel,' or 'Ask them to support you, and let their hearts and hands be with you,' or 'Ask them about their belief and the state of their religion,' and inquire of them if they are steadfast upon it or have followed Pharaoh." His—the Almighty’s—words "when he came to them" are connected to the implied verb of saying. It is connected to sala [asked] according to his—peace and blessings of God be upon him—recitation, and the evidence for that implied [verb] in the wording is the Almighty’s words: "So Pharaoh said to him..." Because if fas'al were an address to our Prophet—peace and blessings of God be upon him—the structure would be disconnected, and its consequence or causality from the giving to Moses—peace be upon him—would not be apparent. Indeed, those who lean towards the first view made fas'al an interruption/parenthetical clause of the category of "Zayd, know, is a jurist," and the fa is for interruption like the waw. Upon that is the verse: "Know—for the knowledge of a man benefits him—that everything that has been decreed will come." This view does not need the implication [of a word]. "When he came to them" is connected in that [recitation] to "We gave" as an adverb of time, and it is not valid for it to be connected to sal [ask] because his—peace and blessings of God be upon him—asking is not at the time of Moses'—peace be upon him—coming.

He said in al-Kashf: "The meaning is: 'Ask, O Muhammad, the believers of the People of the Book about that,' either because the manifestation of the proofs is stronger, or as a way of provocation and inciting, or to indicate that it is a matter verified with them and established in their Book; the intent is not the reality of the question, but rather that they—the ones asked—are among the people of knowledge of it, and for this reason he is commanded to ask them. This is the aspect in which the position of the interruption is elegant." It is permitted that it be in the accusative by an implied "Remember," as an object of the verb. It is permitted on this view not to make fas'al an interruption, and to make "Remember" a substitute for "Ask" because you have heard that the question is not in its reality. Likewise, it is permitted that it be in the accusative by an implied "they will inform you," which functions as the answer to the command, meaning: "Ask them, they will inform you, when he came to them."

It is not permissible on this [view] to have an interruption. Indeed, an interruption is permissible on this view [only if] "inform" is transitive via ba or 'an [about], not by itself, so one must estimate, instead of "inform," "Remember" or the like, which is transitive by itself. As for making it an adverb of time, it is not correct, as the informing does not occur at the time of the coming. It was also objected that the question about the signs and the answer by informing about the time of the coming or mentioning it is not appropriate.

It is possible to answer that the intent is: "They will inform you of that which happened at the time of his coming to them," or "they will mention that to you." It is as you see. Some of them permitted its connection to "they will inform you," provided that idh [when] is for causal reasoning (ta'lil). Upon this, it is permissible to connect it to "Remember." The meaning, on all probabilities of the address being to our Prophet—peace and blessings of God be upon him—is: "When he came to their fathers," as the Children of Israel present in his—peace and blessings of God be upon him—time were not the ones to whom Moses—peace be upon him—came. Thus, the speech is either based on the deletion of a possessor (mudaf) or on committing a type of istikhdam [using a word in two different senses]. The probabilities upon the assumption of the address being to one who hears [the Qur'an] are the probabilities you have heard upon the assumption of it being to the Master of those who hear—peace and blessings of God be upon him.

The fa in "so he said" is eloquent on all probabilities and aspects. The meaning is: "When he came to them, he went to Pharaoh, claimed prophethood, demonstrated the miracle, and did so and so, so he said: 'Indeed, I think you, O Moses, are bewitched.'"—that is, "you have been bewitched, your mind has become disordered, and because of that your speech has become disordered, and you have claimed what you have claimed." It is like his saying: "Indeed, your messenger who has been sent to you is mad." al-Farra and al-Tabari said: mashuran [bewitched] means sahiran [a sorcerer] based on the derivation, or in reality, and it suits the turning of the staff and the like based on the interpretation of the signs as miracles.