Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:103

"Then We sent, after them, Moses" — meaning, We sent him (peace be upon him) after the [previous] messengers, or after the [previous] nations. The first [interpretation] is primary, as indicated by His, the Exalted’s, saying: "And their messengers came to them," while the second is indicated by "those towns." The first possibility is preferred. The explicit mention of "after" (ba’diyah), along with the particle thumma (then) which signifies sequence, is said to have been used to establish explicitly that it denotes a delay in time, for it is often used for other purposes. It is also said [to be used] to signal that his being sent (peace be upon him) followed the established Divine pattern of sending messengers one after another.

"From" (min) signifies the beginning of a limit. The prepositional phrase is placed before the direct object (Moses) for the reason mentioned repeatedly: to show concern for the fronted element and to create anticipation for the delayed one.

His, the Exalted’s, saying: "with Our signs" is related to a hidden element that functions as a state (hal) for the object of "We sent," or as an adjective for its verbal noun. That is: "We sent him, peace be upon him, while he was accompanied by them," or "We sent him a sending accompanied by them." By "signs," the nine distinct signs are intended.

"To Pharaoh" — This is a proper noun for an individual, which later became a title for everyone who ruled Egypt from the Amalekites, just as Chosroes (Kisra) is a title for the ruler of Persia, Caesar (Qaysar) for the ruler of Rome, Negus (Najashi) for the ruler of Abyssinia, and Tubba’ for the ruler of Yemen. It is said that from the very beginning, it was a title for the aforementioned person, whose name was al-Walid ibn Mus’ab ibn al-Rayyan. It is also said [his name] was Qabus, and his kunyah (agnomen) was Abu al-Abbas, or Abu Murrah, or Abu al-Walid.

From a group [of scholars], it is narrated that Qabus and al-Walid were names for two different people: one being the Pharaoh of Moses, and the other the Pharaoh of Joseph (peace be upon them both). Al-Naqqash and Taj al-Qurra stated that the Pharaoh of Moses was the father of al-Khidr (peace be upon him), and it is also said he was his son, which is a position of extreme strangeness. Every tyrant is nicknamed by it. It is said Fir’awn (like zunbur). Ibn Khalawayh narrated from al-Farra’ the vocalization with a damma on the fa and a fatha on the ’ayn (fur’an), though this is a rare dialect. It is also said Furay’ (like zubayr), and to this refers the saying of Umayyah ibn al-Salt: "The tribe of David ibn ‘Ad and Moses [lived], and Furay’ [established] his building with heavy stones." It is said this is for poetic necessity. It is diptote (ghayr munsarif) because it is non-Arabic. Abu al-Khattab ibn Dihyah narrated in Muruj al-Bahrayn from Abu al-Nasr al-Qushayri in al-Taysir that in the Coptic language, it is the name for a crocodile. The claim that it is indeclinable because it is a proper noun like Iblis—according to those who derive it from ablasa—is of no substance.

It is said that this [title] and its aforementioned counterparts are proper nouns for individuals and not generic nouns, because they are pluralized as Fara’inah (Pharaohs), Qayasirah (Caesars), and Akasirah (Chosroes), whereas a generic noun is not pluralized. Thus, it is necessary to say there is a specific designation for everyone to whom it is applied. This has been countered by saying it is of no substance, as the one who was misled by it was al-Radi, who claimed that a generic noun is not pluralized because it is like an indefinite noun, encompassing both the few and the many, for it is assigned to the essence, so there is no need to pluralize it. However, the grammarians have explicitly stated the opposite. Among those who mentioned its pluralization is al-Suhayli in the aforementioned al-Rawd. It seems al-Radi’s intention was that its pluralization is not the standard rule, and what he mentioned is a strained interpretation we have no need for.

"And his chiefs" — meaning, the notables of his people. They were specified for mention—despite his mission being universal to all his people—because they were the ones who held authority in managing affairs, and others followed them in their movements and decisions.

"But they disbelieved in them" — i.e., in the signs. The original meaning of zulm (oppression/wrongdoing) is placing something in other than its proper place. It is usually transitive without the use of ba (in), but because it and kufr (disbelief) are from the same vein, it is made transitive in the same manner as kufr, or it is meant metaphorically, or by way of inclusion (tadmin). Or, it is inclusive of the meaning of denial; that is: "they did wrong while disbelieving in them" or "denying them."

The statement of some—that the meaning is "they disbelieved in them, replacing the belief that was their due because of their clarity"—is clearly an interpretation by inclusion; as if it were said: "They disbelieved in them, placing disbelief in an improper place, where faith was what was fitting for them." It is also said that the ba is for causality, and the object of "they did wrong" is hidden: "They wronged the people by hindering them from belief," or "they wronged their own selves," as Hasan and al-Jubba’i said, because of [the signs]. The intention is the persistence in disbelief regarding them until they encountered the punishment they encountered.

"So see how was the end of the corrupters" — meaning, the final outcome of their affairs. "The corrupters" is used in place of their pronoun to signal that their wrongdoing (zulm) necessarily entails corruption (ifsad). The fa (so) is used because, just as their wrongdoing regarding the signs resulted in that horrific end, so too does the recounting of it entail the command to look upon it.

The address is either to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or to everyone capable of reflection. "How" (kayfa), as Abu al-Baqa’ and others have said, is the predicate of kana (was), fronted before its noun because it requires the initial position. The sentence is in the position of the accusative by the omission of the preposition; as it is said: "So look with the eye of your intellect at the manner of what We did to them."