Surah Ash-Shu'ara: Verses 23–31

Pharaoh's Question and the Nature of God

It is understood that Pharaoh did not ask Moses, "And what is the Lord of the worlds?" (وَمَا رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ), except after Moses had called him to obey the Lord of the worlds. This is evidenced by the preceding verse: "Go to Pharaoh and say, 'Indeed, we are messengers from the Lord of the worlds'" (26:16). Therefore, upon their entry, they must have stated this message, prompting Pharaoh's question.

Here, we address two main points:

It is possible that Pharaoh was aware of God but spoke as he did to maintain his kingship and authority. Scripture indicates his prior knowledge: "He said, 'Indeed, you know that none has sent down these [signs] except the Lord of the heavens and the earth'" (17:102).

1. *Reading عَلِمْتَ (with fatḥa on the tā’):* This implies Pharaoh himself knew the truth. This confirms he was aware of God but exploited his position by claiming divinity to sustain his people.
2. *Reading عَلِمْتُ (with ḍammah on the tā’):* This implies Moses was the one who knew this.

Furthermore, if Pharaoh were not rational, God would not have been justified in sending a messenger to him. If he was rational, he must necessarily know:

• That he was not always existing, living, or rational, but came to be so.
• That anything that came into being must have a Cause (mu'aththir).
• From these two points, he must conclude a third: that he requires an Originator (mūjid) for his composition, life, and intellect.

Alternatively, he might have followed the philosophy of the Materialists (Dahriyyah), believing the celestial spheres were eternally necessary and self-moving, their motions causing worldly events. Or, he might have followed philosophers who believed in a necessary cause (al-ʿillah al-mūjiba) but not a Willful Agent (al-fāʿil al-mukhtār). He then presumed himself to be the god of his region because he enslaved its people and controlled their affairs.

Another possibility is that he followed the doctrine of Incarnation (Ḥulūliyyah), believing that the essence of God inhabits a specific human body, making God to that body like the soul is to every human body. These interpretations explain why he called himself a god.

A question seeking definition aims to establish the essence (māhiyyah) of a thing. Definition can occur by:

1. The essence itself.
2. Its constituent parts.
3. Something external to it.
4. A combination of internal and external elements.

• Definition by Essence (1): Impossible, as the definition must be known prior to the defined object. Defining a thing by itself implies it is known before it is known—a contradiction.
• Definition by Internal Elements (2): Impossible for the Necessary Existent (Wājib al-Wujūd). Definition by internal parts requires the defined object to be composite. The Necessary Existent cannot be composite because every composite thing requires all its parts, and each part is distinct from the whole. Anything requiring another is contingent (mumkin) in its essence. Since the Necessary Existent is not contingent, it cannot be composite. Thus, it cannot be defined by its parts.

Since the first two methods fail, the essence of the Necessary Existent can only be defined by its necessary consequences (lawāzim) or effects (āthār). These consequences can be hidden or evident. Definition must rely on the evident consequences.

The most manifest effect of the Necessary Existent's essence is this sensible world: the heavens, the earth, and whatever is between them.

Therefore, Pharaoh's question (وَمَا رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ) has no absolute answer other than what Moses provided: "The Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them."

The phrase "if you are certain" (إِن كُنتُمْ مُوْقِنِينَ) means: If you are certain that these sensible things are attributed to an inherently necessary existent, then you must know that He can only be defined by what I mentioned. Since you concede that these sensible things terminate in the inherently necessary Being, it is established that this Being is the Absolute One (fard muṭlaq). The Absolute One can only be defined by His effects, and these effects must be His most manifest and least hidden ones—namely, the heavens, the earth, and what lies between them. If you are certain of this, you must conclude that this is the only possible answer to your question.

When Moses gave this true answer, Pharaoh turned to his entourage and said, "Do you not hear?" (أَلَا تَسْتَمِعُونَ). He said this out of astonishment at Moses's reply: I asked him for the essence and specific reality, and he answered me with causality and agency.

The core issue is that defining an essence by its consequences does not convey the essence itself. If we say a thing is "that which necessitates consequence X," this description either:

1. Is known merely because it is something necessitating X (Impossible, as this makes the definition dependent on the thing being known for itself, which is circular).
2. Relates to the specific essence that necessitates X (Impossible, because knowing that some entity necessitates X does not reveal the specific nature of that entity, as different essences might share similar necessary consequences).

Thus, definition by external description fails to convey the essence itself. Hence, Pharaoh argued that Moses's statement ("Lord of the heavens and the earth and all between them") was not a true answer to "What is the Lord of the worlds?"

Moses then replied: "He is the Lord of you and the Lord of your ancient fathers" (رَبُّكُمْ وَرَبُّ آبَائِكُمُ الْأَوَّلِينَ).

Moses shifted from defining God by the creation of the heavens and earth to defining Him as the Creator of us and our ancestors. This is because one might conceivably believe the heavens and earth are eternally necessary and require no Creator. However, no rational person can believe that he, his father, or his forefathers were inherently necessary, as observation shows they came from non-existence and returned to it. Anything that undergoes such change cannot be inherently necessary; thus, it requires an external Cause. Defining God by this effect (our own existence) is more evident.

Pharaoh responded: "Indeed, the messenger who has been sent to you is surely mad" (إِنَّ رَسُولَكُمُ الَّذِي أُرْسِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ لَمَجْنُونٌ). He meant that the request was for essence and specific reality, and defining it by external effects does not convey that specificity. Therefore, the one claiming prophethood is insane for not understanding the question, let alone answering it.

Moses then said: "Lord of the East and the West and all that is between them, if you only use reason" (رَبُّ الْمَشْرِقِ وَالْمَغْرِبِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ).

This is a third, even clearer line of argument. By East, Moses meant the rising of the sun and the appearance of day; by West, the setting of the sun and the disappearance of day. It is evident that this continuous, wondrous management requires a Manager. This is the very method Abraham used against Nimrod:

1. Abraham first argued using life and death (similar to Moses's second argument: "Lord of you and your fathers").
2. Nimrod replied (referencing 2:258).
3. Abraham then used the sun argument: "Indeed, God brings the sun from the east; so bring it from the west" (2:258)—which corresponds to Moses's third argument here: "Lord of the East and the West."

Regarding the phrase "if you only use reason" (إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ): Moses implied that if you are rational, you would know that the only answer to your question is what I have given. You asked for the essence, which cannot be defined by itself or its parts. Therefore, I must define it by its effects, and I have done so. Any rational person must conclude that this is the only possible answer.

We have previously established (in the exegesis of 6:18, "And He is the Overpowering above His servants") that the essence of God, as it is, is incomprehensible to humans. Since this is the case, it was impossible for Moses to state what would define that essence. However, the lack of knowledge of that specific essence does not invalidate the claim of prophethood.

The essence of Moses's argument was: The validity of claiming to be the messenger of the Lord of the Worlds depends only on proving that the worlds have a Lord and God; it does not depend on knowing the specific nature or essence of that Lord. Moses was demonstrating the necessary proof for his claim of prophethood, while Pharaoh demanded the definition of the essence. Moses avoided answering the essence question because he knew it was irrelevant to establishing his mission.

When Moses concluded with the challenging phrase, "if you only use reason," Pharaoh resorted to intimidation: "If you take any god other than me, I will surely make you one of the prisoners" (لَئِنِ اتَّخَذْتَ إِلَٰهًا غَيْرِي لَأَجْعَلَنَّكَ مِنَ الْمَسْجُونِينَ). Having failed in debate, he turned to threats.

Moses then offered a concise counter-proposal to distract him from his threat: "Even if I brought you something clearly evident?" (أَوَلَوْ جِئْتُكَ بِشَيْءٍ مُّبِينٍ). Meaning: Would you still imprison me even if I could present you with a clear proof regarding God's existence and my own truthfulness?

Pharaoh replied: "Then bring it, if you are of the truthful" (فَأْتِ بِهِ إِن كُنتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ).

1. God is not a body: The verse implies God is not corporeal. If He were a body with a form, Moses should have described His essence, and Pharaoh's response (demanding the essence) would have been valid.
2. Patience in Da'wah: It is incumbent upon one calling others to God not to respond to foolishness. When Pharaoh called Moses mad, Moses did not abandon his proof; similarly, when Pharaoh threatened imprisonment, Moses did not stop presenting evidence.
3. Flexibility in Argumentation: It is permissible for the respondent to shift from one example to another to clarify the point; this does not indicate failure in the argument.
4. The Final Proof: How can the final statement, "Even if I brought you something clearly evident," be connected to the previous arguments? The miracle (the staff turning into a serpent) serves as a stronger, more comprehensive proof of God's existence, His unity, and Moses's truthfulness than the preceding logical arguments.
5. Scope of "Heavens and Earth": If "Heavens and Earth and all between them" encompasses all creation, why did Moses later mention "you and your fathers" and then "the East and the West"?
   • Moses first gave a general statement, then specified yourselves and your fathers because the closest things to a rational being are himself and his lineage. He then specified the East and West because the regular rising and setting of the sun throughout the year is one of the most manifest proofs.
6. The Meaning of "Prisoners" (الْمَسْجُونِينَ): Why did Pharaoh say, "I will make you one of the prisoners" instead of the shorter "I will imprison you"? Saying "I will imprison you" only means you will become imprisoned. Saying "I will make you one of the prisoners" means I will place you among those whose fate I have already determined in my prison. Pharaoh's custom was to throw those he imprisoned into a deep, dark well where they could neither see nor hear, a fate worse than death.
7. The 'Waw' in "Or even if..." (أَوَلَوْ): The waw here is the waw al-ḥāl (the waw of circumstance), combined with the interrogative hamza. It means: Will you do this to me, even while I am bringing you a clear miracle?

The Miracles and Pharaoh's Reaction (Verses 32–37)

When Moses presented the challenge, Pharaoh commanded him to cast down his staff. It immediately transformed into a clear, manifest serpent (ثُعْبَانٍ مُّبِينٍ). Then, Moses drew out his hand, and it became brilliantly white (بَيْضَاءَ) to all who looked upon it.

Pharaoh, unable to deny the reality of the phenomenon, immediately framed it as sorcery to his assembled nobles (الْمَلَأِ). He claimed: "Indeed, this is surely a knowing sorcerer" (إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَسَاحِرٌ عَلِيمٌ). He then appealed to their self-interest: "He intends to drive you out of your land with his magic; what do you advise?"

The chiefs advised him to delay action against Moses and his brother, and instead, to gather all the most skilled sorcerers from the cities to counter the threat. This shows their strategy was not based on truth but on political maneuvering and relying on their own expertise in magic.