Tafsir of Ta-Ha 20:56

This is another comprehensive account of what transpired between Moses—peace be upon him—and Pharaoh, the one under the curse. It is introduced with an oath to manifest the utmost importance given to its content.

The verb "showed" (ara'na) is derived from visual perception (ru'ya), which is transitive to one object; here, it is made transitive to a second object by means of the hamza. Alternatively, it may derive from insight (ru'ya qalbiyya), meaning knowledge, which is also transitive to one object by itself and to a second by the hamza. It is not permissible for it to be from the root meaning "knowledge" ('ilm), which is transitive to two objects by itself and to a third by the hamza, as this would necessitate the deletion of the third object, which is not permitted.

The attribution of the "showing" to the pronoun of majesty (We) is based on the reality of the matter, not to Moses—peace be upon him—based on outward appearance, so as to emphasize the enormity of the signs, elevate their status, and manifest the complete depravity of the cursed one and his persistence in tyranny. This attribution strengthens the view that the preceding phrase, "He who..." (from His saying, "The One Who..."), is indeed the speech of Allah, the Exalted—meaning: "By Allah, We made Pharaoh see or We made him know Our signs."

This occurred when he said to Moses—peace be upon him: "If you have come with a sign, bring it, if you are of the truthful." He then cast his staff, and it became a manifest serpent; he drew forth his hand, and it was white for the beholders. The use of the plural form, despite there being only two signs, is either because using the plural for the dual is common, as has been said, or in consideration of the marvelous occurrences embedded within them, each of which is a clear sign to a people who understand.

Other matters, each a formidable calamity, appeared before Pharaoh. It is narrated that when he—peace be upon him—cast it, it turned into a shaggy serpent, its jaws gaping eighty cubits; he placed his lower jaw on the earth and the upper one on the parapet of the palace, then turned toward Pharaoh. Pharaoh fled and defecated out of fear, and the people fled in a crush, causing twenty-five thousand of his people to perish. Pharaoh cried out: "O Moses, I beseech you by the One who sent you, take it!" So he took it, and it returned to being a staff. A similar account has been cited previously from Wahb ibn Munabbih. It is also narrated that it became a serpent that rose into the sky for the distance of a mile, then descended, heading toward Pharaoh, saying: "O Moses, command me as you wish." Pharaoh would say: "I beseech you [by the One who sent you, take it]." He also drew his hand from his pocket, and it was white to the beholders, a luminous whiteness transcending the limits of habit, its radiance overcoming the rays of the sun, with spectators gathering around it in astonishment at his affair.

Thus, within each of the two signs were numerous signs. However, since these were not explicitly detailed, they were emphasized by His saying, "all of them." It is as if it were said: "We showed him Our signs in their entirety, with all their implications and details," intending to clarify that no excuse remained. The genitive addition (idafa) is, according to this interpretation, for specification (lil-'ahd). Some included the "loosing of the knot" within these signs, just as it was included in His saying: "Go, you and your brother, with My signs."

It is also said that it refers to the nine signs of Moses—peace be upon him—as narrated from Ibn Abbas earlier, with the addition also being for specification. The objection to this is that most of them only appeared at his hands after he had overcome the magicians, over a period of some twenty years. There is no doubt that the affair of the magicians was expected after the promise of some of these signs, which were intended for their destruction, not for guiding them to faith, such as the parting of the sea, and the signs that appeared after his sovereignty—for the Children of Israel—such as the lifting of the mountain and the rock from which springs gushed forth. Others included among them the signs that appeared at the hands of the prophets—peace be upon them—and interpreted the addition as one of totality (istighraq al-afrad). Both groups based this on the idea that he—peace be upon him—had recounted all that was mentioned to Pharaoh, and that such a recounting is equivalent to manifesting and showing, as it is impossible for him—peace be upon him—to lie.

It is clear, however, that his—peace be upon him—recounting of those signs is something not mentioned here. Moreover, what will come later, if Allah wills, regarding the branding of what he displayed as magic and the attempt to counter it with the like, makes this view very unlikely. Even more unlikely is the inclusion of the details of Allah’s actions—which he—peace be upon him—explained as evidence of His exclusive Lordship and its rulings—among the signs.

It is also said: the addition is for the totality of types, and "all of them" is an emphasis, meaning: "We showed him all the types of Our signs." The "signs" refer to miracles and their categories, which, as al-Sakhawi said, return to: bringing something into existence from non-existence, causing something existent to cease, or changing something while it remains. The cursed one was shown all of this in the staff and the hand. There is a critique regarding this limitation, and even ignoring it, the view remains remote.

The Kashfiyya school imagined that the "signs" meant—may Allah honor His face—that Allah showed Pharaoh [Moses] riding on a horse, and they mentioned descriptions of it. The plural, as in His saying, "clear signs [at] the station of Abraham," and the emergence of its invalidity, suffices to refute it.

The "fa" in His saying "so he denied" is for immediate succession (ta'qib). The object is omitted, meaning: he denied the signs, or Moses—peace be upon him, without hesitation or delay. "And refused"—that is, refused to accept the signs, the truth, faith, or obedience, persisting in this refusal to the utmost. According to the majority, his denial and refusal were out of rejection (juhud) and arrogance, which is more consistent with the rebuke. As for those who interpreted "showed" as "made known" and presumed an omitted object, namely "the validity of Our signs," and said that "making known" necessitates the acquisition of knowledge—they inevitably argue for this interpretation.