Tafsir of Ash-Shu`ara' 26:22

"And that is a favor you reproach me with..."

(And that) i.e., the upbringing understood from his saying: "Did We not raise you..." etc. (is a favor) (you reproach me with) i.e., you count it as a favor upon me. It is from the category of omission and reaching [elliptical connection]; "taminnu" is from al-minnah meaning bestowing a favor, and the imperfect tense is used to bring the image to mind. It has been suggested that it is from al-mann [reproaching], and the meaning is: "That is a favor you count against me." Thus, there is no omission or reaching here, and the imperfect tense—it is said—is upon its literal meaning of the future, though this contains an evident prohibition.

(That you have enslaved the Children of Israel) i.e., you humiliated them and took them as slaves. It is said: "‘Abadtu ar-rajula wa-a‘badtuhu" [I enslaved the man] when you take him as a slave. A poet said: "Why do my people enslave me when there are many camels among them, or slaves, as they wish?"

The particle ‘an and what follows it is in the position of a masdar (infinitive) in the nominative case as the predicate of an omitted subject, and the sentence is either circumstantial (haliyya), explanatory, or an appositive to "that," or to "favor," or a conjunction, or in the accusative case as an appositive to the pronoun in "taminnuha" (you reproach me with it), or in the genitive case by assuming the causative ba or the lam—according to one of the two opinions regarding the position of ‘an and what follows it after the omission of the preposition. The other opinion is that its position is accusative.

The gist of the refutation is that what you mentioned as a favor is in reality a curse, as it was because of your humiliation of my people and your targeting them by slaughtering their sons; were it not for that, I would not have ended up in your care and would not have been in the cradle of your upbringing.

It is also said: "That" is a reference to a heinous trait, the nature of which is not known except through its explanation; and "(That you have enslaved the Children of Israel)" is an explanatory appositive (‘atf bayan) for it. The meaning is: "Your enslavement of the Children of Israel is the favor you reproach me with." The gist of the refutation is also a denial of what he claimed as a favor, and he intends to construe the speech as a rejection of that being a favor in reality.

This is the reading of Ad-Dahhak: "And is that a favor that you possess, to reproach me with it?" Qatada, Al-Akhfash, and Al-Farra’ held this view, except that they stated it is with the assumption of the interrogative hamza after the waw (and), the origin being: "Is that a favor...?" Some grammarians refused the omission of the interrogative particle in such a position. Abu Hayyan said: The apparent [meaning] is that this speech is an admission by him—peace be upon him—of Pharaoh’s favor, as if he is saying: "Your upbringing of me is a favor upon me, in that you enslaved others but left me and took me as a son; however, that does not negate my messengership." As-Suddi and At-Tabari went to this interpretation, but it is not solid.

In any case, the verse is apparent in that the disbelief of a disbeliever does not invalidate his favor. Some have held that disbelief invalidates a favor so that there is no combination of the merit of praise and the merit of blame, but in this, there is no harm due to the difference between the two aspects of merit.

Az-Zamakhshari held that "idha" (then) in His saying, "I did it, then [idha]..." is an answer and a retribution (jaza'). He explained the aspect of the speech being a retribution by saying: "The statement 'I did it' contains the meaning that you recompensed my favor with what you did," so Moses—peace be upon him—said to him: "Yes, I did it, recompensing you," accepting his claim that his favor was worthy of being recompensed with such a retribution.

It was objected that this does not align with his saying, "(And I was of those who err)," because it indicates that he confessed he did that ignorantly or forgetfully. In Al-Kashshaf, there is a verification of what Az-Zamakhshari mentioned: that the sequence which is the meaning of the condition and the retribution is obtained, and since they are both past tense, it is figurative—as if he said: "If that was an ingratitude for your favor, then I did it as a retribution." But the description—that is, it being ingratitude—is not conceded. He supported this with his saying: "And that is a favor you reproach me with," which also contains the qawl bil-mujib (accepting the premise without accepting the conclusion). And his saying, "(And I was of those who err)," according to this, is as if it were a second apology; meaning: "You deserved that from me," and furthermore, "I was deviating from the path of correctness," not in the belief that your action deserved such a recompense, but in acting before the permission of the King, the All-Knowing. The gist is that he attributed to him the repaying of kindness with evil, and he affirmed it by the fact that he was a disbeliever. He—peace be upon him—replied that the repayment exists, but where is the kindness? And I was not a disbeliever in you, for that is the essence of guidance; rather, I was erring in proceeding with the action, and I was not a disbeliever of the favor of a benefactor at all, but I was doing that by mistake. From this, it appears that his saying, "(And I was of those who err)," does not contradict Az-Zamakhshari’s affirmation; rather, it supports it.

It is not hidden that what is more consistent with the discussion of retribution is that the intention by his saying, "I did it, and I was of those who err," is: "I did it, proceeding upon it without concern," given that "error" means ignorance, interpreted as proceeding without concern. However, committing to "idha" here being for the answer and retribution is committing to something unnecessary, for the correct view held by the majority is that it may be purely for the answer. In Al-Bahr, it is mentioned that they interpreted what is in this verse upon that [principle], and the justification for it being for retribution is not devoid of affectation. What is more apparent to me is the meaning favored by some of the superior researchers: that it is a noun of time (zaraf) disconnected from the genitive construction, and I see nothing said against it except that it is a meaning not mentioned by most scholars of Arabic—and they have not encompassed everything with knowledge. If you refuse this, then it is for the answer only. It is strange of Ibn ‘Atiyyah to say: "It is here a silah (connector) in the speech," then saying: "It is as if it has the meaning of 'at that time'." If he had sufficed with that as an explanation of the meaning, it would have had merit. So contemplate, and Allah, the Exalted, knows best.