Al-A'raf: (150) "And when Musa returned..."
"And when Musa returned to his people, angry (at what had occurred from them) and sorrowful."
Ghadban (angry) means intense anger, as stated by Abu al-Darda, Muhammad al-Qurazi, ‘Ata, and al-Zajjaj. Asfan (sorrowful) means sad, according to what has been narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, al-Hasan, and Qatada (may Allah be pleased with them). Abu Muslim stated that anger and sorrow are synonymous. Al-Wahidi said they are close in meaning: if something you dislike comes to you from one who is lower than you, you become angry; if it comes from one who is above you, you become sad. Thus, Musa (peace be upon him) was angry at his people for taking the calf, and sorrowful because Allah (the Exalted) had tested them, and He had informed him of this before his return. The two descriptors are in the accusative case as synonymous states (hal), or nested states, where the second is a state of the hidden pronoun in the first. Abu al-Baqa’ permitted it to be a substitute (badal) for the first state, and it is a substitute of the whole, not of a part, as some have erroneously thought.
"He said, 'How wretched is that which you have done in my place after me.'"
This address is either to the worshippers of the calf, or to Harun (peace be upon him) and the believers who were with him. It means: "How wretched is what you have done after my absence, as you worshipped the calf after you witnessed from me the monotheism of Allah and the negation of partners from Him, and the sincerity of worship for Him (the Almighty)." Or: "How wretched is the way you acted in my stead (khilafa), as you did not observe my covenant and did not restrain the worshippers from what they did, despite having seen me lead them to monotheism and restrain them from what their eyes coveted—the worship of cows—when they said, 'Make for us a god just as they have gods.'"
It is permitted that the address be for both groups, implying that the "place" (khilafa) refers to the succession encompassing both matters mentioned. There is no repetition in mentioning "after me" following "you have done in my place (khalaftumuni)," because the former means "after my authority and my undertaking of what I used to perform." For strictly speaking, being "after" someone refers—as some say—to after one has left the world. It is also said that "after me" is an emphasis similar to the phrase, "I saw him with my own eyes," the benefit of which is to depict the deputy’s representation and his adherence to the way of his predecessor, just as the phrase depicts the act of seeing and what pertains to it.
"Ma" is an indefinite noun described by the context, explaining the agent of "bisa" (wretched) which is latent within it. The specific object of blame is omitted, meaning: "How wretched is the succession you succeeded me with after my departure." The blame, if the address is to Harun (peace be upon him) and the believers with him, is not for the succession itself, but for failing to act according to its requirements. As for the Samiri and his followers, the matter is manifest.
"Were you impatient regarding the command of your Lord?"
Meaning: Did you hasten away from what your Lord commanded you, which was to wait for Musa (peace be upon him), while they were supposed to be keeping his covenant and what he had instructed them? They based their actions on the assumption that the appointed time had reached its end and that I had not returned to them, so they whispered to themselves that I had died, and thus they changed. It is narrated that when the Samiri brought out the calf for them, he said: "This is your god and the god of Musa; Musa will not return and he has surely died." It is also narrated that they counted twenty days and nights, then made them forty, and subsequently brought about what they brought about.
It is well-known that the verb ‘ajila (to hasten) is linked with ‘an (away from), not directly, so one says: ‘ajila ‘an al-amr (he hastened away from the matter) if he left it incomplete. Its opposite is tamma ‘alayhi (he completed it). The transitive a‘jalahu ‘anhu means another caused him to hasten away from it. Here, they incorporated the meaning of "precedence" (sabq), which is a metonymy for "abandonment," so it was made transitive. The primary meaning of abandonment was not incorporated due to the obscurity of the connection and its lack of fitness. Ya’qub went so far as to say that precedence is its literal meaning without incorporation. "Al-amr" (the command) is one of the commandments. According to al-Hasan, the meaning is: "Did you hasten regarding the promise of your Lord," which He promised you regarding the forty days. In this interpretation, "al-amr" refers to "al-umur" (the matters). The forty mentioned here—according to what al-Tibi mentioned—is not the same forty that Allah (the Exalted) referred to in His saying: "And the appointed time of his Lord was completed in forty nights." A full discussion on this will follow shortly, God-willing.
"And he cast down the tablets."
That is, he placed them on the ground, as if throwing them down, to take his brother by the head due to the overwhelming religious zeal that came over him. He (peace be upon him) was intensely angry for the sake of Allah (the Exalted). Abu al-Sheikh narrated from Zayd ibn Aslam that when he was angry, his head covering would ignite with fire. Qadi Nasir al-Din said: "He threw them down from the intensity of his anger and the excess of his distress, out of protective zeal for the religion." Then he reported that some of them broke when he threw them. The most excellent of the later scholars, our teacher’s teacher Sibghat Allah Effendi al-Haydari, objected to this, saying that zeal for the religion requires respecting the Book of Allah and protecting it from being subjected to any deficiency or humiliation that would result in its tablets breaking. He then said: "The correct view is that he (peace be upon him), due to the excess of his religious zeal and his intense anger for the sake of Allah, could not restrain himself, and the tablets fell from his hand without choice. Thus, the failure to protect them was treated as an act of intentional casting, and it was expressed as such to reproach him—for the good deeds of the righteous are the bad deeds of the near-stationed (to Allah)."
Allamah Salih Effendi al-Mawsili (may mercy be upon him) criticized this, noting that it is clear that this objection arose from making the Qadi’s statement "protective zeal for the religion" the reason (maf’ul lahu) for throwing them, which is incorrect. He explicitly stated in the early part of his commentary on Surah Taha that a single act does not take two reasons. Rather, it is the reason for the intensity of anger and the excess of distress by way of rivalry. The interpretation given for the verse is what the Qadi intended, and his explanation of the "casting" as "throwing" does not contradict that.
I say: You know that this interpretation being what the Qadi intended is neither clear nor explained. Moreover, the argument that the expression "casting" is a reproach to him is far below the level of acceptance; there is nothing in the context or the sequence that suggests the station is one of rebuking Musa (peace be upon him) to justify such a reproach, given his station (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The context is clearly a condemnation of his people, as is obvious to anyone with the slightest insight. What this humble servant sees is what we indicated first: when Musa (peace be upon him) saw from his people what he saw, he became intensely angry out of zeal for the religion and jealousy over polytheism against the Lord of the worlds. He rushed to set down the tablets so his hand would be free to take his brother by the head. This setting down was expressed as "casting" to emphasize the heinousness of his people's action, as the sight of it was the cause and invitation for that act, alongside the indication of his intense jealousy and extreme zeal. There is nothing in this that can be imagined as any form of insult to the Book of Allah in any way. The breaking of some of the tablets happened from a permitted act; it was not Musa’s (peace be upon him) intention, nor did it cross his mind, nor did he think it would result from what he did. There was only haste in setting them down, arising from jealousy for the sake of Allah (the Exalted). Perhaps this is akin to the verse: "And I hastened to You, my Lord, that You might be pleased."
The narrations differ regarding how much was broken and raised. Some denied this, as the apparent Quranic text is to the contrary. However, Ahmad, ‘Abd ibn Humid, al-Bazzar, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Hibban, al-Tabarani, and others narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "May Allah have mercy on Musa; seeing is not like hearing. His Lord informed him that his people were tested after him, so he did not cast the tablets. But when he saw them and witnessed them, he cast the tablets, and some of them broke." Reflect on this and do not be heedless. What is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that when Musa (peace be upon him) cast the tablets, six-sevenths were raised and one-seventh remained, and other similar accounts, contradicts what was narrated previously: that the Torah was revealed in seventy parts, one of which was read in a year, and only four people read it: Musa, Yusha’, ‘Uzayr, and ‘Isa (peace be upon them). It also conflicts with what is mentioned later: "He took the tablets," for the apparent meaning here implies the covenant. The answer that the raising refers to the writing therein, not the tablets themselves, is contrary to the apparent meaning. And Allah (the Exalted) knows the truth of the matter.
"And he took his brother by the head."
That is, by the hair of Harun’s (peace be upon him) head, because that is what is usually taken and held. This does not contradict his taking him by the beard, as occurred in Surah Taha, or it includes it by way of domination. He dragged him toward himself, thinking that he had been negligent in restraining them. He could not restrain himself due to the intensity of his anger and the excess of his rage. Harun was older than Musa (peace be upon them) by three years, though Musa was higher in rank, possessing the message and leadership independently, while Harun was his minister. He (Harun) was extremely patient and gentle. Musa did not intend by this taking to insult or demean him, but rather it was a practical reproach for the perceived negligence, by virtue of his leadership and excessive zeal. The statement that he only took his brother by the head to whisper to him and uncover the reality of the incident is something that good taste rejects, as is evident to those who possess it. Similar is the claim that it was to calm Harun when he saw his distress and anxiety.
Abu Ali al-Jubba’i said that Musa (peace be upon him) treated his brother as he would treat himself, doing to him what a person does in a state of intense anger. Shaykh al-Mufid from the Shia said it was out of pain for the misguidance of his people and to inform them in the most effective way of the gravity of what they had done, so they might be deterred from the like. It is clear that this is a case of: "Another committed the crime, but I am the one being punished among you; I am like the regretful man's index finger." Perhaps what we indicated first is most appropriate. The sentence "dragging him" is in the position of a state (hal) for the pronoun of Musa, or from "the head," or from "his brother," because the possessive is a part of it, which is one of the permissible cases, though Abu al-Baqa’ deemed it weak.
"He said, 'Son of my mother!'"
He (Harun) spoke to Musa (peace be upon him) to dispel his assumption. He omitted the vocative particle due to the constraints of the situation. Specifying the mother—despite them being full brothers according to the most correct opinion—is for softening [the heart]. It is said: because she was the one who raised him and endured fears and hardships in saving him. It is also said that the traces of mercy and gentleness were apparent in Harun (peace be upon him), as indicated by His saying: "And We gave him out of Our mercy his brother Harun as a prophet." That was his source and origin, and for this reason, he used to frequently mention things that signify mercy. Do you not see how he was gentle with the people when they had done what they had done, saying: "O my people, you were only tested by it, and indeed your Lord is the Most Merciful." From here, he mentioned the mother and attributed him to her because mercy is more complete in her, and without her, she could not have managed the rearing of the child and endured the hardships of it. This is a Sufi interpretation, as is clear.
There is a difference of opinion regarding the name of their mother (peace be upon them both). It is said: Mihyana bint Yis-har ibn Lawi; it is said: Yuhabidh; it is said: Yarkha; it is said: Yazkht; and others. Some people claim that her name (may Allah be pleased with her) has a property for unlocking doors and that there is a special spiritual exercise for it among those who deal with talismans and letters. This is nothing but monasticism they invented, for which Allah (the Exalted) has sent down no authority.
Ibn ‘Amir, Hamzah, al-Kisa’i, and Abu Bakr from ‘Asim read here and in Taha: "Ibn Umma" with a kasra. Its origin is "Ibn Ummi," and the ya was omitted, relying on the kasra for ease, like a vocative noun attached to the ya. The others read it with a fathah, as an additional easing, or by analogy to "khamsata ‘ashar" (fifteen).
"Indeed, the people..."
Those who did what they did.
"...oppressed me,"
Meaning: They humiliated and overpowered me, and paid me no heed due to the fewness of my supporters.
"...and they were about to kill me."
They nearly killed me when I forbade them from that. The intent is that I exerted my utmost effort in restraining them and spared no endeavor in preventing them.
"So do not let the enemies rejoice over me,"
Meaning: Do not do what would cause them to rejoice over me, for they do not know the secret of your action. "Shamatah" (rejoicing over one's misfortune) is the joy of the enemy at the harm that befalls a person. It is read as "fala tushmit bi-ya al-a’da'" with the kasra of the ya, and it is also read with the fathah of the prefix letter and the damma of the mim, and the nominative case for "the enemies" (al-a’da’u)—may Allah bring them low—which is a metonymy for that same meaning, akin to "Do not let me see you here." The "enemies" refers to the aforementioned people, but the noun is used in place of their pronoun, the secret of which is not hidden.
"And do not place me with the wrongdoing people."
Meaning: Do not count me among their number, and do not treat me as You treat them in reproach. Or: Do not consider me one of the wrongdoers while I am innocent of them and their wrongdoing. The "placing" here is like His saying: "And they made the angels who are servants of the Most Merciful as females."
