Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:145

"And We wrote for him in the Tablets of everything" (meaning: everything they need of the lawful and the forbidden, the virtuous and the vile, as stated by al-Razi and others. Among what al-Tabarani and al-Bayhaqi recorded in al-Dala’il from Muhammad ibn Yazid al-Thaqafi, he said: Qays ibn Kharasha and Ka’b al-Ahbar traveled together until they reached Siffin. Ka’b stopped, looked for a while, and then said: "In this location, blood of the Muslims will be shed such as will not be shed in any other spot on earth." Qays said: "How do you know this? This is of the unseen which Allah alone has kept to Himself." Ka’b replied: "There is not a span of earth that is not written in the Torah which Allah sent down to Moses, stating what will happen upon it and what will emerge from it until the Day of Resurrection.")

The generality of "everything" is broader than what has been mentioned; perhaps its mention here is symbolic, as we claim regarding the Quran.

"(An admonition and a detailed explanation of everything)" This is a replacement (badal) for the prepositional phrase (in the Tablets). That is: We wrote for him everything of admonition and detailed explanation of rulings. This is the view held by more than one grammarian, and it suggests that the min (in "of everything") is extra (za’ida), not partitive (tab’idiyya). There is debate regarding its presence in affirmative statements. It has been said that it is not intended to be "initiatory" (ibtida’iyya) as a state (hal) of "admonition," nor is "admonition" an object (maf’ul bihi) because that would lack significant meaning. Nor is it an object for which (maf’ul lahu), even if it meets the conditions, because the apparent meaning is that "detailed explanation" is conjoined to "admonition," and it is clear there is no sense in saying "We wrote for him from everything for the detailed explanation of everything." As for making it a conjunction to the place of the prepositional phrase, it is distant in terms of both wording and meaning.

Al-Tayyibi chose this conjunction and argued that the min is partitive and that "admonition" alone is the replacement. The meaning is: "We wrote a portion of everything in the Tablets—such as chapters, verses, and others—as an admonition; and we wrote in them a detailed explanation of everything they need regarding the lawful, the forbidden, and the like." In this, the restriction of the summary and the detail to the "admonition" is to signal that the emphasis on it is stronger and the care for it is more complete. Because it is so, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was frequently praised as the "Bringer of Good Tidings and a Warner." It also serves as an indication that admonition is something that must be returned to in every matter mentioned, for is it not seen that most of the concluding verses of revelation and responses follow this pattern? Such as: "Will you not fear?" "Will you not remember?" Consider Surah al-Rahman and how repetitions are used therein, so that the listener may initiate reflection and exhortation, and renew awareness and alertness. You know that the distance we indicated remains as it is.

His saying (Exalted is He): "(of everything)" is either connected to what is before it, or to an omitted verb, as al-Samin said, occurring as a descriptor for it.

There is disagreement regarding the number of the Tablets, their substance, their dimensions, and their scribe. It is said there were ten tablets, or seven, or two. Al-Zajjaj said: "It is linguistically permissible to call two tablets 'tablets' (alwah)." It is said they were made of green emerald; the Lord (Exalted is He) ordered Gabriel (peace be upon him) and he brought them from Aden. This is reported from Mujahid. Abu al-Shaykh recorded from Ibn Jurayj that he said: "I was informed that the Tablets were of chrysolite (zabarjad)." From Sa’id ibn Jubayr, it is said: "They used to say they were of jacinth (yaqut)." As for me, I say: They were of emerald. Ibn Abi Hatim and others recorded from Ja’far ibn Muhammad, from his father, from his grandfather, from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: "The Tablets which were sent down to Moses were from the lote tree (sidr) of Paradise, and the length of each tablet was twelve cubits." From al-Hasan, it is said they were of wood that descended from the sky, and that the length of each was ten cubits. It is also said that Allah (Exalted is He) commanded Moses (peace be upon him) to cut them from a solid rock, which He softened for him, so he cut them with his hand and inscribed them with his fingers. It is not hidden that such things require authentic transmission; otherwise, silence is better, as there is nothing in the verse that points to it. The choice with me is that they were of lote-tree wood, if the chain of transmission to the Golden Chain is sound.

The famous view from Ibn Jurayj is that their scribe was Gabriel (peace be upon him), who wrote them with the same pen used for the Record (al-Dhikr). The report from Ali (may Allah honor his countenance), Mujahid, ‘Ata, ‘Ikrimah, and a great many others is that Allah (Exalted is He) wrote them with His Hand. It has also come that they were written while Moses (peace be upon him) listened to the scratching of the pens with which they were written; this is the tradition from the Prince (Ali). It came from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "Allah (Exalted is He) created Adam with His Hand, created the Garden of Eden with His Hand, and wrote the Torah with His Hand, then said to things, 'Be,' and they were." ‘Abd ibn Humayd recorded from Wardan ibn Khalid, saying: "Allah created Adam with His Hand, created Gabriel with His Hand, created the Pen with His Hand, created His Throne with His Hand, wrote the Book that is with Him—which none but He looks upon—with His Hand, and wrote the Torah with His Hand." All of this is in the category of the ambiguous (mutashabih).

In some reports, it is stated that they were written before the appointed time (miqat) and sent down as has been stated. They were seventy camel-loads, and one part of them would be read in a year; they were read only by four people: Moses, Joshua, ‘Uzayr, and Jesus (peace be upon them). Among what was written in them, as recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim from Ibn Abbas, is the mention of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his nation, what was stored for them with Him, what was made easy for them in their religion, and what was widened for them in what He made lawful, to the extent that it came that Moses (peace be upon him) marveled at the good which Allah gave to Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his nation, and he wished to be among them.

Ibn Marduwayh, Abu Nu’aym in al-Hilya, and others recorded from Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah, saying: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: "Among what Allah (Exalted is He) gave to Moses in the Tablets was: 'O Moses, do not associate anything with Me, for the Word from Me has been fulfilled that I will surely burn the faces of the polytheists in the Fire. And thank Me and your parents; I will save you from ruin, prolong your life, grant you a good life, and return you to a better one. Do not kill a soul which Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, lest the earth in all its breadth and the heavens in all their expanses feel constricted for you, and you meet My wrath and the Fire. Do not swear by My name falsely or sinfully, for I will not purify or cleanse the one who does not exalt Me and honor My names. Do not envy people for what I have given them of My bounty, and do not covet My blessing and provision for them, for the envious one is an enemy to My blessing, a rejecter of My decree, and resentful of the portion I have apportioned among My servants; whoever is thus, he is not of Me, and I am not of him. Do not testify to what your hearing has not heard, your intellect has not grasped, and your heart has not resolved upon, for I will hold the people of testimony to their testimonies on the Day of Resurrection, and I will question them about them with intense questioning. Do not commit adultery, do not steal, and do not commit adultery with your neighbor’s wife, for I will veil My Face from you and close the doors of the heavens against you. Love for the people what you love for yourself. Do not sacrifice for other than Me, for I do not accept of the sacrifice but that over which My name is mentioned and which is purely for My Face. Devote to Me the day of the Sabbath and devote to Me yourself and all your household.'" Then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Allah (Exalted is He) made the Sabbath a festival for Moses (peace be upon him), and chose Friday for us, making it a festival."

"(So take them with resolve)" That is, with seriousness and firmness. This was said by Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). The sentence contains an implied verb of saying, as a conjunction to "We wrote," and the omission of "saying" is frequent and consistent. The reason for this estimation, as stated by the second scholar, is the observance of consistency with "We wrote for him," because it came in the third person; if it had been "We wrote for you," there would have been no need for the estimation. As for the objection regarding conjoining an act of initiation to an act of reporting, there is no harm in it, because it is permissible when done with the particle fa. It is also said that it is a replacement (badal) for His saying (Exalted is He): "So take what I have given you," though this is weakened by the fact that it contains an interruption by an unrelated element—the sentence "We wrote"—which is conjoined to the sentence "He said," and this is a fragmentation of the order. The pronoun "them" (in "take them") refers to the Tablets or to "everything," for it is in the sense of "things," and generality is not sufficient for the return of a plural pronoun without interpreting it as a collective. It is also permitted that it refers to the Torah, by the context of the passage. The one who argues for it being a replacement makes it refer to the Messages. The prepositional phrase is connected to an omitted verb occurring as a state (hal) from the subject—that is, "adhering to them with resolve." It is also permitted that it is a state from the object—that is, "they are adorned with the resolve of their proofs." The first is clearer. It may also be an adjective for an omitted absolute object—that is, "a taking with resolve."

"(And order your people to take [the best of it])" That is, the best of it; the ba is extra, as in the saying "with their qualities," as we say. Or it is connected to an omitted verb occurring as a state, and the object of "take" is omitted—that is, "themselves," as has been said. The apparent reading is that it is jussive (majzum) as the response to the imperative, so it needs interpretation because the ordering of them does not necessitate their taking; rather, it means "If you order them, and Allah grants them success, they will take." It is also said that it is by estimation of the "lam" of command, based on the permissibility of that after a command involving saying or what is in its meaning, as is the case here. The genitive construction of the superlative (af’al al-tafdil) here, according to more than one, is like its construction in "Zayd is the best of people," which is—by the famous view—pure, in the sense of "li" (for). It is also said that it is grammatical (not semantic), and the act of some suggests that it is in the sense of "fi" (in), but it is not. The meaning is the best of the parts contained within it. The meaning of "best" is its inclusion of what is best, like patience, for it is better compared to retaliation—that is: "Order them to take by that, by way of recommendation and urging towards what is preferable," like His saying (Exalted is He): "And follow the best of what was sent down to you." Or the meaning is the best of its rulings, and by that is meant the obligatory acts, for they are better than the recommended and permissible acts, or they and the recommended ones, as it is said, for they are better than the permissible ones.

It is also said that "the best" means that which is absolutely perfect in goodness, not just better by comparison, and this is what is commanded, while its opposite is what is forbidden. To this points the speech of al-Zajjaj when he said: "They were ordered with good and forbidden from evil, and they were told what they have and what is upon them." Thus it was said: "And order your people..." and so on. The superlative is like their saying: "Summer is hotter than winter," for it means: "Summer is more intense in its heat than winter is in its cold," since the comparison of the heat of summer to the heat of winter is not intended, without doubt. One can say here: "The commanded is more intense in goodness than the forbidden is in evil."

The elaboration of what is in this place, according to what al-Damamini mentioned in his annotations on al-Masabih, and what al-Shihab reported from him, is that the superlative (af’al) has four states: First, which is the original state: that it indicates three matters: first, the attribution of the one who possesses it to the event from which it is derived—and by this it is an adjective; second, the participation of the one accompanying it in that attribute; third, the merit of the one described over the one accompanying it in that. By each of these two matters, it differs from other adjectives. Second: that it is stripped of what distinguishes it from adjectives and is emptied for the descriptive meaning. Third: that it retains its three meanings, but the constraint of the second meaning is stripped away and replaced by another, namely that the second meaning—which is participation—was constrained by the attribute which is the first meaning, so it becomes constrained by the merit which is the third meaning. Do you not see that the meaning in their saying "Honey is sweeter than vinegar" is that honey has sweetness, and that sweetness has merit, and that the merit of honey's sweetness is greater than the merit of vinegar's sourness? Ibn Hisham said this in his footnotes on al-Tashil, and it is very ingenious. Fourth: that the second meaning, which is participation, is stripped away, and the constraint of the third meaning—that the merit is over its companion—is removed, so it is for the indication of attribution to the event and to an absolute increase, not constrained. This is in cases like "Joseph is the best of his brothers." The lack of participation of the commanded and the forbidden in the "good" intended is not in doubt, even if "good" is absolute, as in al-Bahr, because the commanded is better from the perspective of obedience and the resulting reward, while the forbidden is "good" considering the pleasure and desire. Qutrub said, as reported by Muhyi al-Sunnah: "The meaning is: take by its goodness, and all of it is good." This is apparent in taking the superlative in the second state. It is also said that the meaning is: "Take them, and 'the best' is a connection that has no referent." Al-Jubba’i said: "The intent is: take by the abrogating, not the abrogated." It is also said that taking by the best is to interpret the word that is susceptible to two or more meanings by the one closest to the truth and most proximate to what is correct. It is not appropriate to interpret "taking" as "commencing," as in your saying "Zayd took to speaking," i.e., he commenced speaking, and "the best" as "beliefs," so the meaning would be: "Order them to commence adorning themselves with correct beliefs." Since they are the foundations of the religion and the validity of works is dependent upon them, they are better than other branches. This contains an ordering for them in everything that is in them, as is not hidden. For "taking" in the sense of commencement is not its known usage in their speech, besides the fact that there is a remoteness in it. Similar to this is that the pronoun "its" (in "the best of it") refers to "resolve," meaning: "Order them to take it with the best resolve and determination." This would be an order from Him (Exalted is He) to order them to take it, as his Lord (Exalted is He) ordered him, except that He (Exalted is He) sufficed in His order from mentioning "the best" by what the tanwin indicated, as that is contrary to the transmitted understanding. Moreover, we have not found in their speech "the best resolve," and the object of "take" would be omitted as in some previous possibilities, although there is a clear difference between what is here and what is there.

"(I will show you the home of the disobedient)" This is an emphasis on the order to the people to take the best, and an urging towards it, along the path of warning and intimidation, based on what is reported from Qatada and ‘Atiyya al-‘Awfi that the "home of the disobedient" refers to the home of Pharaoh and his people in Egypt. It is a visual sight, and it is permissible that it is knowledge-based. The third object is omitted—that is: "I will show it to you, fallen upon its foundations, so that you may take heed and not be negligent in obeying the command, and not perform the deeds of its people, lest what befell them befall you." There is a shift from the third person to the second person, and its placement is apt, intended for hyperbole in urging. Placing "showing" in the place of "taking heed" is also to establish the cause in place of the effect, as a form of hyperbole, like His saying (Exalted is He): "Say, 'Travel through the earth and observe how was the end of the criminals.'" Placing "the home of the disobedient" in the place of "the land of Egypt" is a signal of the causality and an alert that they should beware and not follow their sunnah in disobedience. The sin is for the future, because this was before the return to Egypt, as in al-Kashshaf.

Al-Kalbi said: The "home of the disobedient" refers to the dwellings of ‘Ad, Thamud, and the generations that perished. From al-Hasan and ‘Ata, it is that it refers to Hell. Whatever the case, the speech follows the first path as well. It is permissible that it follows the path of promise and encouragement, based on what is also reported from Qatada, that the "home of the disobedient" refers to the land of the tyrants and the giants in the Levant, for it is what was permitted for the Children of Israel and written for them, as is voiced by His saying (Mighty and Majestic is He): "O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has written for you." The meaning of "showing" is "entering" by way of inheritance. This is supported by the reading of some: "I will make you inherit." It is permissible, based on this, that the "home" refers to Egypt. The speech in this reading—and the intent of the land of Egypt by the "home"—is a generalization (taghlib), because the meaning is: "I will make you and your people inherit the land of Egypt." This is not correct for it if the "home" is intended as the land of the giants, based on the fact that Moses (peace be upon him) did not enter it, but rather Joshua entered it with the people after his death (peace be upon him). It is correct based on the saying that Moses (peace be upon him) entered it, with Joshua in his vanguard. It is permissible to consider the generalization in the famous reading as well. Al-Hasan read it (sa’urikum) with a damma on the hamza, a silent waw, and a light, kasra-marked ra, which is a common dialect in the Hijaz; the meaning is: "I will clarify that to you and illuminate it," as if from "uraytu al-zand" (I struck sparks from the fire-stick). Ibn Jinni chose, in his derivation of this reading—and it is perhaps the most apparent—that it is for the sake of elongation, like his saying: "From wherever they travel, I approach and observe."