Tafsir of Ash-Shu`ara' 26:63

{فَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَىٰ مُوسَىٰ أَنِ اضْرِب بِّعَصَاكَ الْبَحْرَ} [الشعراء: 63]

The sea is the Qulzum (Red Sea), according to the most authentic view. It is also said: It is a sea beyond Egypt called Asaf. It is also said: The Nile. The apparent meaning is that this revelation occurred after the aforementioned speech, and he was not commanded to strike on the day of the departure. Ibn Abd al-Hakam narrated from Mujahid that when Moses (peace be upon him) and the Children of Israel reached the sea, the believer from the family of Pharaoh said: "O Prophet of Allah, where have you been commanded to go? For the sea is before you and the family of Pharaoh has overtaken us." He replied: "I have been commanded to go into the sea." The believer from the family of Pharaoh spurred his horse into it, but the current drove him back. Moses (peace be upon him) did not know what to do, and Allah the Exalted had already revealed to the sea: "Obey Moses," and the sign of that is when he strikes you with his staff. Thus, Allah the Exalted revealed to Moses: "Strike the sea with your staff."

He also narrated through the chain of al-Kalbi from Abu Salih from Ibn Abbas that when Moses reached the sea, Joshua bin Nun arrived on his horse and walked upon the water, and others who rode their horses also plunged in, but they sank in the water. The companions of Moses said: "We are surely being overtaken" [Ash-Shu'ara: 61]. So Moses prayed to his Lord, and a mist covered them, separating them from Pharaoh. It is said: [The command was] "Strike the sea with your staff." Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas that Allah the Exalted revealed to Moses: "Strike the sea with your staff," and He revealed to the sea: "Listen to Moses and obey when he strikes you." The sea then fell into a state of afkal—meaning trembling—not knowing from which side he would strike it. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Muhammad bin Hamzah bin Yusuf bin Abdullah bin Salam that Moses (peace be upon him) said: "O You who existed before all things, who creates all things, and who will exist after all things, make for us a way out." Then Allah the Exalted revealed to him: "Strike the sea with your staff."

It is narrated that he (peace be upon him) said: "O Allah, to You is the praise, to You is the complaint, to You is the call for help, and You are the one whose aid is sought. There is no power and no strength except with Allah, the Exalted, the Almighty." In Ad-Durr al-Manthur, from the narration of Ibn Marduyah from Ibn Mas'ud in a marfu' (attributed) hadith, there is evidence that he (peace be upon him) said this at the moment of the parting.

{فَانفَلَقَ}—that is, he struck it and it parted. The Fa (in f-anfalaqa) is fasiha (eloquent). Ibn Usfur claimed that in such a structure, what is omitted is the verb "he struck" and the fa is the fa of "he struck." This is the most nonsensical of the "birds' chatter" (i.e., absurdities), and it is as if he were intoxicated when he said it. In this omission is an indication of his (peace be upon him) swift compliance; he was commanded to strike, so he struck, and the parting followed immediately as a way to honor Moses (peace be upon him) by making this great sign result from his action. Had the Almighty wished, He could have parted it without him striking it with the staff.

It is narrated that it did not part until he called it "Abu Khalid." This was by Allah’s command to him. It is related from Qais bin Ubad that when he (peace be upon him) came to it, he said: "Part, Abu Khalid." It replied: "I will not part for you, O Moses; I am older than you and stronger in creation." At that, it was called out: "Strike the sea with your staff," so he struck it and it parted. In a narration from Ibn Mas'ud, when he reached it, he said: "Part." It said to him: "You have grown arrogant, O Moses. Has it ever parted for any of the children of Adam?" Then Allah the Exalted revealed to him: "Strike the sea with your staff." So he struck it, and it groaned as the Throne groans. Then he struck it a second time, and the same happened. Then he struck it a third time, and it split open. This is explicit that the striking was three times. It is also said: He struck it once and it parted. It is also said: He struck it twelve times and it parted, each time creating a path for a tribe.

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Jubayr that he said: "The sea was stagnant, not moving. When it was the night Moses struck it with the staff, it began to ebb and flow." I do not believe this is authentic. The apparent meaning is that the ebb and flow existed before Allah created Moses (peace be upon him), and no rational person should believe otherwise. In my view, many of the preceding reports are like this; the safest path is to limit oneself to what Allah has related, that He, Glory be to Him, revealed to Moses: "Strike the sea with your staff," and he struck it, and it parted.

{فَكَانَ كُلُّ فِرْقٍ كَالطَّوْدِ الْعَظِيمِ} [الشعراء: 63] Meaning: like a high mountain firmly established in its place. The apparent meaning of the verse is that al-tawd is a mountain in the general sense. In the Sahah, it is said: al-tawd is a great mountain.

Regarding those who say that the parts (furuq) were twelve and the paths were likewise, corresponding to the twelve tribes of the Children of Israel, and that each tribe walked in one of them: the famous view is that a farq is a piece of water separated from what is opposite it. In that case, the aforementioned statement does not hold; rather, according to those who say this, there must be thirteen parts so that there are twelve paths between them, corresponding to the number of tribes. It is said: If the parts are twelve, there must be thirteen paths, because the first and twelfth parts must be separated from the water adjacent to them, creating a path between each of them and the adjacent water, even if it is not like the other paths between two parts; for if they were connected, they would not be distinguished from it, and thus twelve parts would not be realized, but fewer. There is no impossibility in choosing the view that the parts are twelve and the paths are thirteen by considering the first and twelfth parts as separated from the water adjacent to them, with a path between each of them and it. It is said that each of the twelve tribes walked in a path, and those of the Copts who believed in Moses (peace be upon him) walked in the thirteenth path.

An objection is raised against this: it is not mentioned in the reports that the paths are thirteen; what is mentioned is that they are twelve. Whoever claims otherwise must provide evidence. The furthest from dispute is what was mentioned by some prominent scholars. The effect of Allah's power is greater, and the creation of the desire to traverse it in the hearts of those entering, especially the people of Pharaoh, is more remarkable. Similarly, the need for windows (kuwa) is more evident. It is reported that the Children of Israel said: "We fear that some of us will drown and we will not perceive it." So Allah the Exalted placed windows between them so that they could see one another. Yes, it has been objected that some reports contradict this, as Abu al-Abbas Muhammad bin Ishaq al-Sarraj recorded in his history, and Ibn Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid, via Yusuf bin Mahran from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the owner of the Barrier wrote to Mu'awiyah asking him about things, among them a place where the sun rose that had never risen before and never would again. Mu'awiyah did not know the answer, so he wrote to Ibn Abbas, who answered everything until he said: "As for the place where the sun rose that had never risen before and never would again, it is the place where the sea parted for the Children of Israel." The fact that the part was arched like a tunnel prevents the sun from rising and shining on the land directly, as is apparent from the question.

The answer is: after conceding the authenticity of the report, there is no prohibition against the sun rising on the land of the arched part indirectly through the entrance and exit, or rising on the seabed before the arching. The exegetes here, in what I have encountered, did not discuss the mode of parting. I have seen in what is attributed to the Kulliyat of Abu al-Baqa that it is reported that when the Children of Israel entered the sea, they exited from the side they entered. In that case, this does not hold for a linear parting; it only holds for an arched one. He mentioned a discussion on the number of parts and paths, the apparent meaning of which is confusion. Some scholars attempted to explain and justify it in a way that is not free from forced interpretation. The essence of what that individual mentioned, with additions, is that it is possible, if the sea parted into twelve parts, that the first and twelfth parts were connected to the shore, such that the water located adjacent to each of them on the shore side was raised and joined to each, counted as parts of them, such that the raised water joined with the original part becomes one part connected to the shore without anything separating it. An objection is raised against this: it would imply there are eleven paths, necessitating two tribes walking together or consecutively in one path, either wider than the other paths or equal to them, which is clearly contrary to the apparent meaning and the reported texts. Also, it would imply that the first and twelfth parts are thicker than all the rest due to the joining, while the apparent meaning is that they are equal. Also, it implies the removal of the water adjacent to the shore from its original state without a necessity for it. It is also possible that the water adjacent to each of the first and twelfth on the shore side was raised, meaning it vanished, and the two aforementioned parts were connected to the shore in the sense that they were connected to the two paths appearing from under the vanished water connected to the shore. Some objections to the previous view apply here, as does the objection regarding a tribe or two of the Children of Israel remaining without a barrier from the water against Pharaoh and his troops.

It is also possible that they were separated from the shore, with the water connected to it remaining as it was—sea—without rising. In that case, it is possible that the paths are thirteen, considering the exposure of the ground between the first part and the sea remaining as it was (which is connected to the shore), so this path would be outside the first part, and its exposure between the twelfth part and the sea remaining as it was (connected to the shore on the other side), so this path would be outside the twelfth part. According to this possibility, it would necessitate one of the paths being unused, or committing to the idea that only the Copts who believed walked in it. It is also possible that the paths are twelve, like the parts, in that the exposure is only between the first part and the sea remaining as it was on the side of Pharaoh and his troops, or the exposure is only between the twelfth part and the sea remaining as it was on the other side. This is far-fetched due to the great size of this exposed arc and the long time needed to cross it. The apparent meaning is that the exposure occurred between the first part and the sea remaining as it was on the side of Pharaoh. In short, the possibility of the first and last parts being separate, with the exposure between the first and the sea on the side of Pharaoh (but not the last and the sea on the other side), and the identity of the paths and parts in that each is twelve, is the closest to what occurred.

It is not hidden that this implies that not all paths are between the parts. If the statement that all of them are within [the parts] is not determined—since there is nothing in the reports more than that the paths are twelve—then there is no harm in it. If you prefer what was mentioned by some prominent scholars regarding the meaning of the farq, then consider it even on the assumption that the parting was arched. Furthermore, what was mentioned about exiting from the side of entry is something I have not seen except in what is attributed to the Kulliyat of Abu al-Baqa, and it is more consistent with the view that Moses (peace be upon him) and his people returned to Egypt after exiting the sea and the drowning of Pharaoh and his troops. This depends on the parting being arched, because if it were linear, the return would have to be via the path of entry, which is clearly invalid because the enemies are in their pursuit. The possibility that the linear paths were thirteen, and the Children of Israel walked in twelve of them, and Pharaoh and his troops followed them and exited before reaching them, and they all entered the thirteenth path from the side opposite to their entry, heading back toward the side of entry, and they did not exit until all their enemies were in those twelve paths they pursued them in—so they exited and the sea covered their enemies—the flaws in this are not hidden. The claim of a return to Egypt along with the claim that the parting was linear depends on this, or on another parting, or on crossing by ships, or taking a route to Egypt other than the one they took when exiting toward the sea. The apparent meaning is that none of this occurred. There is no harm, as has been said, in claiming that the parting was arched, whether we say they returned to Egypt or not. The objection raised against it—that it would imply that the entrances and exits of those paths would be on the side of Pharaoh and his troops, which would cause the Children of Israel to fear entering lest their enemies enter upon them from the other side (the point of exit), meeting them on the path at the edge of the thamam—is not hidden to those of understanding.

It has been permitted, on the view that the parting was arched, that Moses (peace be upon him) and his people entered from one end of the arc, and Pharaoh and his troops entered from the other end to meet Moses (peace be upon him) and his people. When both groups had finished entering, Moses (peace be upon him) and his people retreated backward until they all exited, and Allah the Exalted drowned Pharaoh and his troops; or until the gathering of Moses (peace be upon him) had finished entering and the first of them appeared to meet them, they retreated backward until they all exited, and when the gathering of Pharaoh had finished entering, Allah the Exalted destroyed their enemy and the sea covered them. This is as you see. What the People of the Scripture went by is that the parting was linear and that the paths were twelve, one for each tribe, and there was no arching there, and that windows were opened for them so that the near could see the near, and a man from one tribe could see his wife from another tribe, and that they exited from the side opposite to their entry and headed toward the land of the Levant. Our Book does not have any text that explicitly refutes this; rather, there are reports that bear witness to the truth of some of it. The identity of the number of parts and paths requires an authentic transmission to prove it, and the verse here does not indicate more than the plurality of the parts. And Allah the Exalted knows best. Ya'qub recounted from some reciters that they recited kulla falaq with a lam instead of a ra. Al-Raghib said: Al-farq is close to al-falaq, but al-falaq is used with consideration of the splitting (inshiqaq), and al-farq is used with consideration of the separation (infisal), from which is derived al-firqah for a group separated from people.