Tafsir of Al-Qasas 28:24

The apparent meaning of the Almighty’s saying, "So he watered for them," is that he—upon him be peace—hastened to provide water for them out of mercy towards them. The origin of this compassion lies in their act of holding back [their flock] while the rest of the people were engaged in watering.

For this reason, Shaykh Abd al-Qahir and the author of al-Kashshaf held that the omission of the object in "they were watering" (yasqun) and "they were holding back" (tadhudan) is intended to focus on the act itself, treating the verbs as if they were intransitive. That is, the act of watering issued from the people, and the act of holding back issued from the two women. They argued that specifying whether the watered or held-back animals were camels or sheep is outside the intended meaning; in fact, suggesting otherwise is misleading. If it were said or assumed that "they were watering their camels" and "they were holding back their sheep," it would imply that the compassion shown to them was not because they were holding back while the people were watering, but rather because their animals were sheep and the people’s were camels—based on the premise that the point of interest in eloquent speech lies in the final constraint.

As-Sakkaki disagreed with them, arguing that the omission of the object in "they were watering" and "they were holding back" was merely for brevity, and that the meaning is "they were watering their livestock" and "they were holding back their sheep," just like the other verbs mentioned in this verse. The Second Allamah chose this view, stating that it is closer to the truth because the compassion did not arise from the mere fact that holding back came from them and watering from the people, but rather from the specific fact that they were holding back their sheep while the people were watering their livestock. If they had been holding back animals other than their own, or if the people had been watering animals other than theirs, the compassion would not have been warranted.

The illustrious Sayyid agreed with this in his investigation of the two doctrines, stating: The two Shaykhs [Abd al-Qahir and the author of al-Kashshaf] considered the object—to which the two verbs are directed—to be the species of livestock (camels or sheep) without the addition of the possessive pronoun, as their own statement "that the watered or held-back [animals] being camels or sheep..." indicates. Each is the counterpart of the other in itself, and they treated what is added to each in the phrasing or the presumed estimation as outside the object, insofar as it is an object not contemplated with it. Thus, the object to them is nothing but absolute camels or sheep. Therefore, if the object were restricted [by possession], it would lead to a corruption of the meaning; for if they had been holding back camels of their own (by way of hypothetical), the compassion would still remain, as it was only due to their inability to water.

As-Sakkaki, however, viewed the object as the sheep attributed to them and the livestock attributed to the people, where each corresponds to the other by virtue of that attribution. If the object is not restricted [by possession], the meaning is corrupted. This is a more precise observation and a sounder meaning.

Mawla Abd al-Hakim al-Sialkoti countered this by saying: There is room for debate here, because if the absence of restriction is intended as generalization—that is, "they were watering their livestock and others' livestock, and they were holding back their sheep and others' sheep"—then corruption of meaning is inevitable. However, if it is intended merely to denote the act of watering and holding back without regard for the object, as in the Almighty's saying, "Are those who know equal to those who do not know?", then there is no such corruption. The fact that the nature of watering and holding back is the source of compassion does not necessitate that whenever it relates to a specific object, the same applies—such that watering animals other than their own would be a site for compassion. Ponder this, for the source of what Sakkaki mentioned is the failure to distinguish between absolute usage and generalization.

It is clear that one must add to the nature of watering and holding back certain circumstances, such as the fact that the nature of watering was performed by strong, domineering men, and the nature of holding back was performed by two weak, modest women in a place that serves as a gathering point for the people to water. Otherwise, it is apparent that the mere nature of watering and holding back does not constitute a sufficient source for compassion.

Some distinguished scholars said: The object was omitted in "they were watering" and "they were holding back" because the purpose is the action, not the object. This is sufficient to prompt the inquiry of Moses (peace be upon him), and anything beyond the intended purpose is superfluous. As for what prompts the compassion, this is not the place for it, for that is found in their statement: "We do not water until the shepherds depart, and our father is an old man." Those who did not distinguish between these two prompts said what they said. This was refuted by noting that the source of the inquiry was the compassion for their condition, as they explicitly stated. Thus, his inquiry (peace be upon him) was a means to help and show kindness to them, for he discerned their weakness and helplessness; otherwise, there would have been no motive to speak with a stranger. Their saying "We do not water..." is a prompt for increased compassion, as it is susceptible to degrees of intensity.

This was countered by saying that this holds only if it is conceded that he (peace be upon him) discerned their weakness and helplessness from things he witnessed. Otherwise, holding back does not necessarily indicate that, as it can happen due to weakness or for other reasons. Al-Khafaji conveyed the statements of a group of scholars on this matter, including what we mentioned from some of the distinguished scholars and the refutation of it, along with the objections raised. Then he said: As for what was objected regarding compassion, it is a corrupt fancy. The focus of his (the author’s) mercy is to support the position taken by the two Shaykhs; many others have supported them and echoed their views.

Some objected to estimating the object as "their" [animals], noting that the possessive implies ownership, yet there was no ownership for any of the people, nor for the two women. The apparent state of the people is that they were shepherds, and usually, shepherds do not own [the flocks], and the apparent state of what was in the hands of the two women was that it was the property of their father. It is clear that this objection is trivial. And Allah—the Exalted and Almighty—knows best.

Furthermore, it is apparent that he (peace be upon him) watered for them from the well where the people were. This is supported by what is reported: that he (peace be upon him) pushed them away from the water until he watered for them. Likewise is what Ibn Abi Shaybah reported in al-Musannaf, and Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Hakim—who authenticated it—on the authority of Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: When Moses (peace be upon him) arrived at the water of Midian, he found a group of people watering. When they finished, they replaced the rock over the well; no one could lift it except ten men. Then he found two women... He asked, "What is your affair?" They told him, so he went to the rock and lifted it alone. Then he drew water, and did not draw more than a single bucket until the sheep were satiated. However, this contradicts the apparent meaning of the verse, which is that when he arrived at the water of Midian, he found a group watering and found two women holding back. This is clear in the simultaneity of his finding them and their finding the others, and their holding back while the others were watering. It is understood from this that his finding them was after the others had finished watering, as the report implies. Perhaps the report is not authentic, and al-Hakim’s authentication is considered invalid.

Those who claim it is authentic might deny that the verse requires the group watering and the women holding back to be at the first moment of his arrival. For it is said: "When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) arrived in Medina, fasting became mandatory and Zakat became mandatory," even though the obligation of each was not at the very first moment of arrival. Thus, it is possible that he (peace be upon him) found a group watering at the beginning of his arrival, and after they finished watering and placed the rock on the well, he found the two women holding back, and he addressed them with "What is your affair?" and what happened, happened. Their holding back is interpreted as preventing their sheep from approaching the well, knowing that a rock had been placed over it that they could not lift. One might labor to frame an answer as one sees fit, or one might say the verse is to be taken literally, accepting that it implies a simultaneity of findings, holdings back, and waterings in time, but denying that the report contains anything that contradicts this possibility. The meaning could be: "When he arrived at the water of Midian, he found a group watering, and he found behind them two women holding back. When they finished, they replaced the rock, and the two women were present before him, so he asked them, and they told him..." In this case, what occurred after finishing the watering was not the finding of the women holding back, but rather their presence before him. All of this, as you can see, suggests you are relying on the report being inauthentic.

It is said that he (peace be upon him) watered for them from another well. Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn al-Mundhir reported from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) in a long story that when he asked the two women and they answered, he said, "Is there any water near you?" They said, "No, except for a well covered by a rock that a group cannot move." He said, "Lead the way and show it to me." They went with him, so he took the rock with his hand, moved it, and drew a single bucket for them. He watered the sheep and then replaced the rock in its place.

"Then he withdrew to the shade" that was there. According to what is reported from Ibn Mas'ud, it was the shade of a tree—it is said it was a samura tree—and it is said it was the shade of a wall without a roof. It is also said that he (peace be upon him) turned his back to where his face had been in the sun; this is what is intended by the Almighty’s saying, "Then he withdrew to the shade." This, as you can see, is as follows: "And said, 'My Lord, indeed I am, for whatever You send down to me of good, poor.'"

That is: "Whatever You send down from the treasuries of Your generosity to me—whether it be much or little—I am poor." That is, in need. This is the predicate of "I am" (inna), and "for whatever" (lima) relates to it. Because we indicated that it contains the meaning of "need," it is linked with the particle lam. It is also permissible that it be impregnated with the meaning of "request," and the lam is for reinforcement. It is said that the lam might be for explanation, relating to an omitted "I mean," and ma ("whatever") in all views is an indefinite noun described by the sentence following it, with the referent omitted. "Of good" (min khayr) is an exposition of it. The tanwin is for generality. The speech is an allusion to what would satisfy his hunger, due to the intensity of the starvation he had reached. The use of the past tense instead of the present in "You sent down" (anzalta) is for entreaty, like beginning with "My Lord," and emphasizing the sentence is for the sake of importance.

That the speech is an allusion to that is proven by what Ibn Marduyah reported from Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "When Moses (peace be upon him) watered for the two young women, then withdrew to the shade and said, 'My Lord, indeed I am, for whatever You send down to me of good, poor,' he was that day poor to a handful of dates." Sa'id ibn Mansur, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Diya in al-Mukhtarah reported from Ibn Abbas, who said: "Moses (peace be upon him) said, 'My Lord, indeed I am, for whatever You send down to me of good, poor,' yet he was the most honored of His creation to Him. Indeed, he was in need of a piece of a date, and his stomach was stuck to his back from the intensity of hunger." In another narration from him, he (peace be upon him) asked for a piece of bread to strengthen his spine from hunger. He had arrived at the water of Midian, and as Ahmad reported in al-Zuhd and others on the authority of the scholar [Ibn Abbas], the greenness of the herbs could be seen through his stomach from his emaciation. This supports the interpretation that the speech is an allusion to that.

Mujahid, Ibn Jubayr, and most commentators followed this view. Ali (may Allah honor his face) used to say, "By Allah, he only asked for bread to eat." It is permissible that the lam is for causation, ma is a relative pronoun, min is for explanation, and the indefiniteness in "good" is to denote type and magnification. The connective of "poor" is implied: "I am poor for food" or "from the world" for the sake of what You have sent down to me of the "good" of religion, which is salvation from the oppressors—for he (peace be upon him) had been with Pharaoh in wealth and riches. The intent is not to allude to what he might eat, nor to complain or be annoyed, but to show gratitude and thanksgiving for that. The justification for using the past tense is evident in this case.

You know that this contradicts the transmitted tradition held by the majority, and similar to this is what is reported from al-Hasan that he (peace be upon him) asked for an increase in knowledge and wisdom, which is also not free from remoteness. It has been reported from Ibn Abbas that the two women heard what he said, so they returned to their father. He wondered at their quick return and asked them; they told him, so he said to one of them, "Go and call him."