Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:164

(And messengers whom We have related to you): [The word] rusulan is in the accusative case due to an implied verb; that is, "We have sent messengers." The indication for this is His, the Almighty’s, saying: "We have revealed [to you]"—the previous [mention] entails the [act of] sending. It is coordinated with it and included within it in the ruling of analogy.

It is also said: The indication is His saying: "whom We have related to you before." It is not that it is in the accusative due to qasasnahum (We have related to you) via the omission of a genitive (i.e., we related the news of messengers), nor is it that it is in the accusative due to the removal of a preposition (i.e., "just as We revealed to Noah and to messengers," as has been said). This is because [the latter] is devoid of what is in the first interpretation—namely, the realization of the similarity between his status (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the status of the prophets (peace be upon them) whom they acknowledge as prophets—first in the absolute nature of revelation, then in the giving of the Book, and then in the sending [of messengers]. For His, the Almighty’s, saying: "We have revealed to you" contains the meaning of "We have given you" and "We have sent you" categorically. It is as if it were said: "We have revealed to you just as We revealed to so-and-so and so-and-so, and We have given you the like of what We gave so-and-so, and We have sent you the like of what We sent the messengers whom We have related to you and others." There is no disparity between you and them in the essence of revelation and apostleship; so why, out of mere thought, do they ask you for something that none of these messengers (peace be upon them) were given?

The meaning of "relating them to you" (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the narration of their reports to him and the introduction of their status and affairs. (before): that is, before this Surah or before this day. It is said: He related them to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in Makkah in Surah al-An'am and elsewhere. Some have said: The Almighty related them to him (peace be upon him) via revelation in other than the Quran, and then related them to him again in the Quran.

(And messengers whom We have not related to you): That is, from before. Thus, the verse does not contradict what is mentioned in the reports that the messengers are three hundred and thirteen and the prophets are one hundred and twenty-four thousand—and from Ka'b that they are one million, four hundred and twenty-four thousand—because the negation of relating them before does not necessitate the negation of relating them absolutely. For the negation of the specific does not necessitate the negation of the general. It is possible that He related them to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) afterwards, so he informed [people] of what he informed. Moreover, the past tense is understood from the speech even if it is not in the verb itself, since lam in common usage, when it enters upon the imperfect tense, flips its meaning to the past. Furthermore, "relating" (al-qass) is the mentioning of news, and the negation of mentioning their news to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) does not necessitate the negation of mentioning their number bare of their news and stories. It is possible to say: The Almighty did not mention their news to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) at all, but He, the Majesty of His glory, mentioned to him (peace be upon him) that they were such-and-such number of men. Thus, the misconception of some contemporaries—that the verse is a text regarding his lack of knowledge of the number of messengers (peace be upon them), for which one takes [the verse] and rejects the hadith—is refuted. It seems that what led him into this illusion was the speech of some researchers: "It is better not to limit oneself to the number in the verse," so he erred in understanding and died in the bonds of imitation. We ask Allah the Almighty for well-being.

{And Allah spoke to Moses}: With the nominative case for the Majesty [Allah] and the accusative for [Moses]. It is narrated from Ibrahim and Yahya ibn Waththab that they both read with the inversion: {directly (takliman)}.

{Directly}: An emphatic noun that removes the possibility of metaphor, according to what more than one has mentioned. Al-Shihab questioned this, saying that it is an emphatic for the verb, so it removes the metaphor from it. As for removing the metaphor from the ascription—such as that the speaker to His messengers is the angels, as it is said, "The Caliph said such-and-such" when his minister said it—that is not [accomplished]. Even if it emphasizes the verb, and the intent is a metaphorical meaning—like the saying of Hind bint al-Nu'man regarding her husband, Rawh ibn Zinba, the minister of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan: "The silk of Rawh wept and denied its skin, and the silk garments of Judham wailed"—she emphasized "wailed" even though it is metaphorical, because clothing does not wail. What is reported from al-Farra—that the Arabs call whatever reaches a person "speech," by whichever way it reaches, as long as it is not emphasized with the masdar (noun form), and when it is emphasized, it is nothing but literal speech—does not suffice for the intended goal. For the limit of what is in it is the removal of the metaphor from the verb in this lexical context, and it does not address the removal of the metaphor from the ascription. Thus, the opponent may say: The "speaking" (taklim) is literal, but its ascription to Allah the Almighty is metaphorical, and the verse does not stand as an argument against him except by negating that possibility. Yes, it is apparent in what the Sunnis have taken.

The sentence is either coordinated with His saying: "We have revealed to you," a coordination of story with story, not [coordinated] with "We gave" and what it is coordinated with; or it is a state, with the estimation of "already" (qad), as the change of style via shift [of person] indicates. The meaning is that "speaking" without an intermediary is the final level of revelation and the highest of them, and He favored Moses (peace be upon him) with it from among the prophets whose prophethood you acknowledge. This does not detract [from the prophethood of others] at all, so how can it be imagined that the descent of the Torah upon him in its entirety would be a detraction from the prophethood of the one to whom the Book was sent down in detail, given the evident wisdom of that?

This, and the manner of Moses's (peace be upon him) hearing of the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has preceded for you. "Speaking" also occurred for our Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in the Isra, with an added loftiness. In fact, there is no miracle given to any of the prophets (peace be upon them) but that there is the like of it for our Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), along with an added honor with which Allah the Almighty honored him. Nay, there is not a single atom of light that radiated in the worlds but that the sun of his essence (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) gave it as charity. And may Allah have mercy on al-Busiri where he says: "And all the signs that the noble messengers came with, they only reached them connected from his light." So may Allah the Almighty bless him and grant him abundant peace.