Ghafir (The Forgiver): Verse 28

Know that when the Almighty recounted how Moses (peace be upon him) limited his response to Pharaoh's plotting and malice to seeking refuge in God, He then showed that God appointed a foreign individual, not Moses, to defend him in the best manner, striving to quell that sedition and remove that evil.

The author of this book, may God have mercy on him, says: I have experienced in my own life that whenever an evil person intends harm against me, and I refrain from confronting him, contenting myself with entrusting the matter to God, then the Almighty appoints people whom I do not know at all to exert themselves in warding off that harm.

There are several issues concerning this verse:

There is a difference of opinion regarding this man from the people of Pharaoh.

1. It is said he was a cousin of Pharaoh, holding a position like that of the crown prince or the chief of police.
2. It is said he was a Copt from Pharaoh's people, but not a relative.
3. It is said he was from the Children of Israel.

The first opinion is closer because the term āl (people/family) applies to kinship and clan. God says: $\text{{Except the family of Lot, We saved them all except an old woman}}. (Al-Qamar: 34). The Messenger of God (PBUH) said: "The truthful ones are three: Habib al-Najjar, the believer of the people of Yasin; the believer of the people of Pharaoh who said, \text{{Do you kill a man for saying, 'My Lord is God'?}} and the third is Ali ibn Abi Talib, and he is the best of them."

It is narrated from Ja'far ibn Muhammad that he said: "Abu Bakr was better than the believer of the people of Pharaoh because the latter concealed his faith, whereas Abu Bakr declared openly, \text{{Do you kill a man for saying, 'My Lord is God'?}}. So, that [the believer of Pharaoh] was in secret, while this [Abu Bakr] was in the open."

The word min in \text{{min āl fir'awn}} (from the people of Pharaoh) can be related to the word mu'min (believer), meaning that the believer was a person from the people of Pharaoh.

Alternatively, it could be related to the phrase \text{{yakthimu īmānahu}} (concealing his faith), implying: "a believing man who concealed his faith from the people of Pharaoh." Some argue this second interpretation is invalid because one says, "I concealed such-and-such from so-and-so," but the direct object is usually used for concealment, as in God's saying: \text{{And they cannot conceal from God any matter}}. (An-Nisa: 42).

\text{{Rujulun mu'minun}} (A believing man): The majority read the jīm with a ḍammah (Rujulun). It is also read with a kasrah (Rijlun), similar to how ʿaḍud (upper arm) can be read with a ḍammah or kasrah.

\text{{Do you kill a man for saying, 'My Lord is God'?}} This is an interrogative statement expressing strong disapproval. The context indicates the justification for this denunciation: he only stated \text{{My Lord is God}} and brought clear proofs (bayyināt). This certainly does not warrant killing.

\text{{And indeed, he has come to you with clear proofs from your Lord.}} This phrase can be interpreted in two ways:

1. The statement \text{{My Lord is God}} refers to the principle of monotheism, and \text{{with clear proofs}} refers to the evidence supporting monotheism, such as what is mentioned in Surah Taha (\text{{Our Lord is He Who gave everything its creation and then guided it}}) and Surah Ash-Shu'ara (\text{{Lord of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, if you are certain}}.)

The believing man then presented a second argument against killing him, structured as a logical dichotomy:

• If this man is a liar, the consequence of his lie falls only upon him; so leave him alone.
• If he is truthful, some of what he warns you about will befall you.

Thus, in both scenarios, it is better to let him live.

Objection 1: The statement \text{{And if he is a liar, then upon him is his lie}} implies that the harm of his lie is confined only to him. This is flawed for several reasons:

1. We do not accept that if he were a liar, the error of his falsehood would be confined to him. He calls people to this false religion, causing a group to be deceived and fall into false doctrine and corrupt belief, leading to much dispute between them and others. Thus, the harm of his lie is not confined to him but extends to everyone. This is why scholars agree that a heretic who calls people to his heresy must be killed.
2. If this logic were a valid argument for him, then every liar could use this method, allowing all heretics and falsehood-mongers to establish their false religions.
3. The disbelievers who denied Moses's prophethood should not have been rejected, as one could argue: If this denier is lying in his denial, the consequence is upon him; if he is truthful, you benefit from his truth. This line of reasoning validates the opposite of the truth, which leads to a null conclusion, proving the reasoning itself is false.

Objection 2: It should have been stated: \text{{And if he is truthful, all that he warns you about will befall you}}. Only fortune-tellers and astrologers are sometimes right about some things but not others. A truthful messenger who speaks only by revelation must be truthful in everything he says. Therefore, saying \text{{some of what he warns you about}} is inappropriate for this context.

Answer to Objections 1 & 2: The answer to all three points is unified: The implication of the speech is that you do not need to kill him to repel his evil. It is sufficient for you to prevent him from proclaiming his message and then leave him alone. If he is a liar, his harm will return only to him. If he is truthful, you will benefit from him. The essence of this dichotomy is to show that killing him is unnecessary; merely preventing him from openly practicing his religion is enough. This resolves the three objections.

Answer to Objection 2 (Regarding "some" vs. "all"):

1. The basis of this reasoning is to demonstrate fairness and abandon stubbornness. The intent is: if he is a liar, the harm is limited to him; if he is truthful, at the very least, some of what he warns about will reach you. This interpretation is sound, similar to God's saying: \text{{And indeed, we or you are either on a guidance or in manifest error}}. (Saba: 24).
2. (PBUH) was warning them about both worldly and Hereafter punishment. If the worldly punishment befalls them, then some of what he warned about has occurred.
3. It is narrated from Abu Ubaidah that the word ba'ḍ (some) can be used to mean kull (all). He cited the verse by Labid:

   Leaving places when I am displeased, Or when the death of some souls is tied to them. The majority consider this interpretation incorrect, arguing that Labid meant himself by "some souls." God knows best.

God then recounts a third argument from this believer against harming Moses (peace be upon him): \text{{Indeed, God does not guide one who is extravagant [and] a doubter.}}

The structure of this proof is: God guided Moses to bring forth these dazzling miracles. Whoever God guides to perform miracles cannot be an extravagant liar. This indicates that Moses is not among the liars. Thus, the statement \text{{Indeed, God does not guide one who is extravagant [and] a doubter}} is an allusion to Moses's high status, conveyed subtly.

Alternatively, it could mean that Pharaoh is extravagant in his resolve to kill Moses and a liar in his claim to divinity. God does not guide anyone with such a description and character; rather, He invalidates and destroys their affair.