Tafsir of An-Naml 27:7

(When Moses said to his family) The word "when" (idh) is in the accusative case as an object for an implied verb. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is being addressed and commanded to recite some of the Quran which he received from His presence—the Almighty and Majestic—as a confirmation and verification of what preceded it. That is: Mention to them the time when Moses (peace be upon him) said to his family.

It has been permitted that idh (when) serves as an adverb for [the verb] "I know" [mentioned in the previous verse]. This was scrutinized in al-Bahr [al-Muhit] with the objection that such is not clear, as the description would become restricted by the object [of the knowledge]. However, it is stated in al-Kashf: Any misconception that such restriction implies a specific time is refuted, as this is not a considered conceptualization for those who weigh such matters. Furthermore, since it was a foundation for the story, it is fitting for it to be a restriction for it; it is as if it were said: "I know it, given that He did to Moses (peace be upon him) what He did." Since this is among the proofs of knowledge and wisdom in an absolute sense, the restriction does not harm [the meaning], but rather benefits it, as it returns in reality to a form of causal explanation and remembrance. This is not hidden from those who realize that the apparent meaning, alongside this, is the first [mentioned] view.

Then, the statement of Moses (peace be upon him): (Indeed, I have perceived a fire; I will bring you from it information) occurred during his journey while departing from Midian near the valley of Tuwa. He (peace be upon him) had strayed from the path on a cold, dark night. He struck [his flint] to ignite a fire, but his flint failed him. Then, a fire appeared to him from the side of the Mount. The "information" he intended to bring them from the direction of the fire is news about the state of the path, for whoever goes toward the light of a fire on a path seeks such [guidance].

He did not strip the verb of the seen (the prefix signifying the future), either to indicate the distance of the fire in general—so that they would not feel apprehensive if he (peace be upon him) were delayed from them—or to emphasize the promise of returning, for as az-Zamakhshari mentioned, it [the seen] is added to a promise to confirm it and to declare that it will inevitably happen, even if it is delayed. What has been said—that the seen signifies a near duration to repel apprehension—only holds value based on the argument regarding its choice over sawfa (a more distant future marker), rather than the absence of any prefix, which would suggest an immediate state—a state that is more effective in repelling apprehension. Perhaps it is better to consider it as being for emphasis.

It should not be said: "He (peace be upon him) did not speak in Arabic, and the linguistic discussions mentioned apply to Arabic," for we respond: What prevents there being in non-Arabic languages that which achieves the same purpose? Indeed, the narration of his statement (peace be upon him) using these words necessitates that he spoke in his own language that which conveys this meaning—and that is inevitable. The use of the plural pronoun, if it is true that no one was with him (peace be upon him) except his wife, is for magnification (honor). This is the basis for Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, referring to the wife of Moses (peace be upon him) as "family" (ahl), even though it is [normally used for] a group of followers.

(Or I will bring you a burning brand) meaning a flame of fire "obtained" (qabas), that is, taken from its source. So, qabas is an adjective for shihab (brand) or a substitute for it. This is the reading of the Kufans and Yaqub. The rest of the seven recited: bi-shihabi qabasin (with a brand of fire), in the genitive construction (idafa). Abu al-Hasan favored this, and it is a genitive of clarification (idafa bayaniyya) due to the relationship of general and specific between them, as in "a cloth of brocade" (thawb khazz), for a brand (shihab) can be an obtained fire (qabas) or not.

The two matters are by way of conjecture, and for this reason, they are expressed using the form of hope (la'alla) in Surah Ta-Ha; thus, there is no contradiction between what occurred here and what occurred there. The hesitation/alternation is to indicate that if he (peace be upon him) did not attain both, he would not be deprived of one of them, based on the apparent matter and his trust in the way of Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, that He rarely combines two privations for His servant.

It is said: It is permissible to say the hesitation exists because his need (peace be upon him) for one of them is for the sake of the other. For he was in a state of travel and had lost his way; his intention was to find someone to guide him to the path so he could continue his journey. If he did not find such a person, he would obtain fire and kindle it to repel the harm of the cold while staying. This is countered by the fact that it is reported in the story that he (peace be upon him) had a son born to him near the Mount on a wintry, snowy-dark night, and he had lost the path, and his livestock had scattered. So he saw the fire and said to his family what he said. This indicates his need for both [guidance and fire], but he (peace be upon him) sought truthfulness, so he used "or" (aw).

(That you might warm yourselves) i.e., in hope of, or for the sake of, warming yourselves by it. Sila' (with a kasra on the sad and elongation, and with fatha and shortening) is drawing near to the fire to heat the body, which is warmth (dif'). It is also applied to the fire itself. Or, with kasra, it is the warmth; and with fatha, it is the fire.