Al-A'raf: (107-110) So he cast down his staff, and behold, it was a serpent...

When Pharaoh demanded that Moses (peace be upon him) present clear proof of his prophethood, God Almighty revealed that his miracle was the transformation of his staff into a serpent, and the appearance of the shining white hand.

The discussion regarding this verse takes several approaches:

The First Approach: The Denial of Naturalists

A group of naturalists denies the possibility of the staff turning into a serpent. They argue:

1. Allowing the staff to become a serpent implies the invalidation of trust in necessary knowledge. This is false, and whatever leads to falsehood is itself false.
2. We assert this because permitting a great serpent to arise from a small staff would permit a strong young man to arise from a single straw and a single grain of barley.
3. If that were permitted, we would also permit the idea that the man we see now came into existence suddenly, not from parents.
4. We would also permit the idea that Zayd whom we see now is not the same Zayd we saw yesterday, but a new person created suddenly.
5. It is known that anyone who opens these possibilities to himself will be judged by rational people as afflicted with confusion, idiocy, and madness.
6. Furthermore, if we permitted this, we would permit the claim that mountains turned into gold, and the waters of the seas turned into blood, and that the trash in the house turned into flour, and the flour in the house turned into dust.
7. Permitting such things invalidates necessary knowledge and leads one into sophistry, which is definitively false. Therefore, what it leads to must also be false.

Rebuttal to the Objection:

If someone argues: "Permitting such things is specific to the time of the prophets' call; it is not permitted in this current time."

The answer is threefold:

1. If this general permission exists, specifying it to one time over another requires an obscure proof. The ignorant of that obscure proof would then be ignorant of the specificity of that permission to that particular time. Consequently, the majority of rational people unaware of this obscure proof would have to permit all the aforementioned scenarios and could not be certain of their impossibility. Since we observe them being certain of their impossibility, we know your assertion is flawed.
2. Even if we permitted such events during the time of prophecy, it would invalidate the claim of prophecy itself. If the staff can turn into a serpent, then it is possible that the person we see now is not the first person, but that God annihilated the first person suddenly and created another person identical in all attributes. In that case, we cannot know if the person we see now is the same one we saw yesterday. This necessarily casts doubt on those who saw Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them) regarding whether the person they saw was the same as the one they saw the day before. Permitting this necessarily damages the claim of prophethood and messengership.
3. Even if this time is not a time for the permissibility of miracles, it is, according to you, a time for the permissibility of karamat (honorable acts/miracles granted to saints). Therefore, you must permit it. This concludes the discussion on this point.

The Three Opinions on the Alteration of Habits

It is difficult and problematic to affirm the alteration of established customs. Scholars have three main positions on this:

The First Position: Absolute Permissibility (The Position of our Companions [Ash'arites])

This view permits such alterations absolutely because they permit:

1. The creation of humans, all types of animals, and plants suddenly, without prior matter, duration, origin, or nurturing.
2. The possibility that an individual atom (al-jawhar al-fard) can be living, knowing, powerful, rational, and dominant without the formation of a structure, temperament, moisture, or composition.
3. The possibility that a blind person in Andalusia can see a spot in the farthest East in the darkness of the night, even though a sighted person cannot see the sun shining in broad daylight. This is the position of our companions.

The Second Position: The Position of the Natural Philosophers

They hold that such alterations are absolutely impossible. They claim that these things can only come into existence through this specific manner and designated path. They claim this path defends them against the ignorance and absurdities they previously mentioned.

However, even if they claim this is not obligatory for them, it is, in reality, inescapably obligatory for them. The reasoning is:

These events in our world either occur without an agent or with an agent.

• Case 1: Occurring without an agent: This view is clearly refuted by reason. Even if we permit it, the previous obligations remain. If we permit things to happen without an agent or creator, how can we be safe from permitting a human to arise without parents, or a mountain to turn into gold, or the sea into blood? Permitting some things without an agent is no further from reason than permitting all things without an agent. Thus, the obligation remains in this case.
• Case 2: Occurring with an agent/director: This agent is either necessarily causative (mūjib bi-l-dhāt) or a free-willed actor (fā'il bi-l-ikhtiyār).
  • If the agent is necessarily causative, the aforementioned obligations remain. The reasoning is: If the eternal, permanent cause is necessarily causative, it must be definitively established that the specificity of every time to a particular event that occurred then is due to the variation in celestial configurations affecting worldly events. If this were not considered, it would be impossible for the eternal, permanent cause to be the cause of a contingent, changing effect.
  • If this is established, we ask: How can we be safe from a strange celestial configuration arising that necessitates the sudden creation of a human without parents, or the transformation of the mountain's matter into a golden form or an animal form? In that case, all the previously mentioned obligations return.
  • If the agent is a free-willed actor, then all the mentioned things are possible. It is not impossible that this free-willed actor creates a human suddenly without parents, or transforms the matter of the mountain into gold, or the sea into blood by His will.
  • Thus, it is established that the objections they raise against us apply to all scenarios and all divisions, and there is absolutely no defense against them.

The Third Position: The Position of the Mu'tazila

They permit the breaking and alteration of customs in some forms but not others. Most of their scholars permit the sudden creation of a human without parents, the transformation of water into fire and vice versa, and the growth of crops without prior seed.

However, they state that the individual atom (al-jawhar al-fard) cannot be described with knowledge, power, or life; rather, the validity of these attributes is conditional upon the presence of a specific structure and temperament. They claim that when the sense organ is sound, the perceived object is present, and there is no extreme proximity or distance, perception must occur, and when one of these conditions is absent, perception becomes impossible.

In summary, the Mu'tazila, in some instances, do not consider the established course of habits and claim their alteration is possible and their breaking permissible. In other instances, they claim these habits are necessary and their cessation or alteration impossible. They have no consistent, known principle among people, which is why their view is the most corrupt.

Proof for the Possibility of the Miracle

Once these details are known, we state:

1. The essences of bodies are identical in their complete reality (māhiyyah). Whatever is true for one thing is true for its like. Therefore, whatever is true for one body must be true for every body.
2. If a quality is true for some bodies, it must be true for all of them.
3. If this is the case, the body of the staff must be capable of possessing the qualities by which it becomes a serpent.
4. Therefore, the transformation of the staff into a serpent is intrinsically possible (mumkin li-dhātihi).
5. It is established that God Almighty is capable of all possibilities.
6. Therefore, it must be definitively established that He is capable of turning the staff into a serpent, which is the objective.

This proof depends on establishing three premises:

1. Establishing that bodies are identical in their complete essence.
2. Establishing that the ruling concerning a thing is the ruling concerning its like.
3. Establishing that God Almighty is capable of all possibilities.

Once proof is established for the validity of these three premises, the complete objective is achieved. And God knows best.

Regarding the Verse:

{فَأَلْقَىٰ عَصَاهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ ثُعْبَانٌ مُّبِينٌ} (So he cast down his staff, and behold, it was a manifest serpent.)

• {فَإِذَا هِيَ}: Meaning the staff (which is feminine).
• {ثُعْبَانٌ}: The large male serpent, according to all linguists. Its size is not mentioned in the Qur'an. Commentators have narrated various descriptions of it:
  • Ibn Abbas narrated that it filled eighty cubits and then coiled around Pharaoh to swallow him. Pharaoh jumped from his throne fleeing, people fled, and twenty-five thousand people died.
  • It was said that the distance between its jaws was forty cubits; its lower jaw rested on the ground, and the upper jaw rested on the palace wall. Pharaoh cried out, "O Moses, take it! I believe in you." When Moses took it, it returned to being a staff as it was.

The description of the serpent as {مُّبِينٌ} (manifest/clear) has several meanings:

1. To distinguish it from the illusion (tamwīh) brought by the sorcerers, which confuses those unaware of its cause. Thus, the miracles of the prophets are distinguished from tricks and illusions.
2. It means that they witnessed it being a serpent, and the matter was not ambiguous to them.
3. It means that this serpent made Moses's statement clear, distinguishing it from the statement of the false claimant.

{وَنَزَعَ يَدَهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ بَيْضَاءُ لِلنَّاظِرِينَ} (And he drew out his hand, and behold, it was white for the beholders.)

• {وَنَزَعَ يَدَهُ}: Naza' in language means to pull something out of its place. So, "he drew out his hand" means he brought it out of his pocket or bosom, supported by verses like: {وَأَدْخِلْ يَدَكَ فِي جَيْبِكَ} (And put your hand into your bosom) and {وَاضْمُمْ يَدَكَ إِلَى جَنَاحِكَ} (And join your hand to your side).
• {فَإِذَا هِيَ بَيْضَاءُ لِلنَّاظِرِينَ}: Ibn Abbas narrated that it had a brilliant light that illuminated everything between the heaven and the earth.

Since whiteness can sometimes be seen as a defect (like leprosy), God Almighty clarified in another verse that it was {مِنْ غَيْرِ سُوءٍ} (without any disease/harm).

Question: To what does {لِلنَّاظِرِينَ} (for the beholders) relate?

Answer: It relates to {بَيْضَاءُ} (white). The meaning is: "Behold, it was white for the spectators." It is only white for the spectators if its whiteness is a wondrous whiteness, outside the norm, causing people to gather to look at it, just as spectators gather for wonders.

Remaining Discussions:

1. In how many ways does the transformation of the staff into a serpent prove the miracle?
2. Which miracle was greater: the staff becoming a serpent, or the white hand? (We have fully discussed these two points in Surah Taha.)
3. Was one miracle sufficient, making the combination of both an act of futility?

Answer: The multiplicity of proofs strengthens certainty and removes doubt.

Some atheists claimed that the serpent and the white hand refer to one thing: that Moses's proof was strong, manifest, and overwhelming. Insofar as it invalidated the claims of opponents and showed their falsehood, it was like the great serpent that swallows the arguments of the void. Insofar as it was inherently manifest, it was described as the white hand, just as it is commonly said: "So-and-so has a white hand in such-and-such a science," meaning complete power and manifest rank.

Carrying these two miracles to this interpretation is akin to rejecting established mass transmission (tawātur) and denying God and His Messenger. Since we have demonstrated that the transformation of the staff into a serpent is intrinsically possible, what compels us to adopt this interpretation?

When God mentioned that Moses displayed these two types of miracles, He recounted that Pharaoh's people said: {إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَسَاحِرٌ عَلِيمٌ} (Indeed, this is a learned magician). This is because magic was prevalent at that time, and the ranks of magicians undoubtedly varied. There must have been those who reached the utmost limit in that knowledge. The people claimed that Moses, being at the pinnacle of magical knowledge, performed this act. Then they mentioned that he only performed this magic because he sought kingship and leadership.

Question: God narrated in Surah Ash-Shu'ara that Pharaoh said, {إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَسَاحِرٌ عَلِيمٌ}, but here it is narrated that Pharaoh's people said it. How can these be reconciled?

Answer: There are two ways:

1. It is not impossible that he said it, and they also said it. God narrated his statement, and then narrated theirs here.
2. Perhaps Pharaoh said it first, and the nobles adopted it from him and repeated it to others, or they repeated it on his behalf to the general populace, as kings often state their opinion to their inner circle, who then convey it to the masses.

Regarding the phrase: {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ} (So what do you command?)

Al-Zajjaj mentioned three interpretations:

First Interpretation: The speech of the nobles of Pharaoh's people ended at {يُرِيدُ أَن يُخْرِجَكُم مِّنْ أَرْضِكُم بِسِحْرِهِ} (He intends to expel you from your land by his magic). Then, in response to this, Pharaoh said: {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ}?

Two arguments support this:

1. {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ} addresses the plural, so it must be Pharaoh's speech to the people. If it were the people addressing Pharaoh, they would have used the singular address.
   • Rebuttal: It is possible they addressed him using the plural form to magnify his status, as the great are often referred to with the plural pronoun, as in {إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ} (Indeed, We have sent down the Reminder).
2. After {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ}, God mentions that they said: {أَرْجِهْ وَأَخَاهُ} (Postpone him and his brother). This is clearly the speech of the people, made as a response to {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ}, indicating that the speaker of {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ} is someone other than the nobles.
   • Rebuttal: It is not unlikely that the people said, {إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَسَاحِرٌ عَلِيمٌ}, then said to Pharaoh and his chief servants, {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ}, and then followed it with {أَرْجِهْ وَأَخَاهُ}. Servants and followers first delegate command and prohibition to their master, then mention what seems beneficial to them.

Second Interpretation: {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ} is a continuation of the speech of Pharaoh's people.

Two arguments support this:

1. It is connected to their speech without separation, so it must be part of their speech.
2. Hierarchy is considered in command; thus, {فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ} must be an address from the subordinate to the superior (Pharaoh). This implies it is a continuation of Pharaoh's speech to them.
   • Rebuttal to the second argument: The chief master may ask the assembled group of his kin and subjects, "What do you command?" intending to please their hearts and show that he honors them and holds them in high regard.
   • Those who hold this view also offered two other possibilities for the addressee:
     • The addressee is Pharaoh alone, meaning, "What do you see in this matter?" The intent is to indicate that he alone stands for the entire group, highlighting his perfection and high status.
     • The addressee is Pharaoh and the great figures of his court, as they are the ones truly responsible for command and prohibition.

And God knows best.

{قَالُوا أَرْجِهْ وَأَخَاهُ وَأَرْسِلْ فِي الْمَدَائِنِ حَاشِرِينَ * يَأْتُوكَ بِكُلِّ سَاحِرٍ عَلِيمٍ * وَجَاءَ السَّحَرَةُ فِرْعَوْنَ قَالُوا إِنَّ لَنَا لَأَجْرًا إِن كُنَّا نَحْنُ الْغَالِبِينَ * قَالَ نَعَمْ وَإِنَّكُمْ لَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ} (They said, "Postpone him and his brother and send into the cities gatherers, * Who will come to you with every learned magician." * And the magicians of Pharaoh came to him. They said, "Indeed, is there for us a reward if we are the victors?" * He said, "Yes, and indeed, you will be of those brought near [to me].")