74. Yahya b. Sallam said that Tawrah was the first Book ever revealed that had commandments pertaining to the lawful and unlawful (Qurtubi). Abu Hayyan held the same opinion (Alusi).

Asad points to the significance: “By virtue of its being the first instance of a divinely-inspired Law, the Torah inaugurated a new phase in mankind’s religious history.”

75. Abu Sa`id al-Khudri is reported to have said, “After the revelation of the Tawrah, Allah (swt) did not destroy any nation through a heavenly chastisement, except for transformation of some people into apes and swine. Read if you will, ‘We did give Musa the Book after We had destroyed the earlier generations’” (Ibn Jarir). In fact, according to a version, Abu Sa`id al-Khudri reports this as the Prophet’s own words (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

And Shabbir gives us the raison de’tre for the escape of the non-believing rebellious nations from wholesale destruction: Jihad was instituted.

That is, Jihad, instituted after the revelation of Tawrah, and put into action immediately after Musa (cf. the extensive military campaigns of Joshua) helped remove the leaders of disbelief from the way of the common people, who gained their freedom to accept the true religion of their time. In consequence, they escaped the divine punishment which they would have faced because of their disbelief. Allah was not going to tolerate disbelief for long. This should also explain why Muslim scholars have termed, surprisingly for many, the Islamic Jihad as a mercy, and why our own Prophet has promised that wholesale destruction of this Ummah will not happen because a group from among Muslims will continue fighting in the way of Allah until the Hour (Au.).

76. How do we reconcile the Qur’anic qualification of earlier revelations as affording insight (basa’ir), with the hadith of `Umar? `Umar was once reading the Torah in the Prophet’s presence. When he raised his head he found that the Prophet’s face had become red with anger. He said, “By Allah, if Musa was here today, he would have had to follow me.” Qurtubi answers after raising the question that firstly, Torah and Injil were at one time sources of insight, but, with interpolations and corruptions, no more. That of course, does not mean that they are totally devoid of any ability to offer insight now. But the Prophet had to respond so harshly to make sure that during his own time the people read nothing but the Qur’an. Once they had dwelt deep in to the Qur’an, they could, especially the discerning ones among them, profit from some parts of Torah and Injil.

In other words, writes Shafi`, the prohibition against Torah and Injil is not unconditional. Accordingly, we find some of the Companions quoting from the Torah and Injil during the time of the Companions, to which no one ever objected. Ka`b al-Ahbar was one of those who quoted from Jewish and Christian scriptures without earning any reproach from the Companions. That is because, by then the Qur’an and sunnah and the message they impart had taken firm root among the Muslims, and it was not feared that they would be misguided by the corrupted portions of the previous Books. Thus, there is no harm at all if they are read by people who are well-versed in the Qur'an and Sunnah, can make the difference between corrupted and uncorrupted portions of Tawrah and Injil and remove chaff from the grain. Common people should stay away from them.

77. “The first thing that happens to the seeker of truth (when he finds the truth) is that his understanding improves. This is the insight (basa’ir) of this occurrence. Next, he accepts the precepts and injunctions wholeheartedly for practice. This is guidance (hidayah) of the verse. Finally, he harvests the fruits of guidance, which is mercy (rahmah)” - Thawni.

78. “After the destruction of the Pharaonic Tyranny and other similar Tyrannies before them, Allah began a new age of Revelation, the age of Moses and his Book. Humanity began as it were with a clean slate again. It was a full Revelation (or Shari’at) which may be looked at from three points of view: (1) as Light or Insight for men, so that they should not grope in darkness; (2) as a Guide to show them the Way, so that they should not be misled into wrong Paths; and (3) as a Mercy from Allah (swt), so that by following the Way they may receive Allah’s Forgiveness and Grace. In vi. 91, we have a reference to Light and Guidance in connection with the Revelation of Moses, and in vi. 154 we have a reference to Guidance and Mercy in the same connection. Here all three are combined, with the substitution of Basair for Nur. Basair is the plural of Basirat, and may also be translated as Proofs (Yusuf Ali).

79. That is, `you were not, O Prophet, present there when Musa was being addressed, for you to be narrating it now (and in such details, as if you were standing right there observing every minute detail: Shabbir). But rather, it is by Our mercy that We narrate to you these stories for the admonition of those who believe in you.’ Stories of the Prophets, Messengers, and nations of the past then, as narrated in the Qur’an, are proofs of authenticity of the Prophet’s Messengership.

Similarly Allah said, writes Ibn Kathir (3: 44),

{ذَلِكَ مِنْ أَنْبَاءِ الْغَيْبِ نُوحِيهِ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا كُنْتَ لَدَيْهِمْ إِذْ يُلْقُونَ أَقْلَامَهُمْ أَيُّهُمْ يَكْفُلُ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا كُنْتَ لَدَيْهِمْ إِذْ يَخْتَصِمُونَ} [آل عمران: 44]

"These are a part of the tidings of the past that We reveal unto you (O Muhammad) for, you were not there with them when they were casting their quills to decide by lot which of them shall have charge of Maryam, nor were you there with them when they were disputing.”

Or He said (11: 49)

{تِلْكَ مِنْ أَنْبَاءِ الْغَيْبِ نُوحِيهَا إِلَيْكَ مَا كُنْتَ تَعْلَمُهَا أَنْتَ وَلَا قَوْمُكَ مِنْ قَبْلِ هَذَا فَاصْبِرْ إِنَّ الْعَاقِبَةَ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ} [هود: 49]

“These are the tidings of the Unseen that We reveal unto you (O Muhammad).You did not know about it, nor your people before this. So be patient. Surely the (good) end is for the righteous.”

Asad has a useful point: “The term al-amr ... is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew word torah ('law’ or ‘precept’), the commonly-accepted title of the revelation granted to Moses.”

80. Ashraf Ali sums up the Qur'anic argument neatly. He writes: 'Following Our practice, We made you (O Muhammad) a Prophet.' Now, of the various evidences of the Prophets authenticity, one is his narration of Musa’s story in such detail. To narrate any story with such accuracy, one has to follow one of the four ways: (i) Make use of one's own intellect. But intellect is of little use in matters involving news o the past. (ii) Re-narrate a report heard earlier. But the channels to this were closed for the Prophet because of the early appearance of antagonism between him and those who were the sources of knowledge (i.e., the Jews and Christians). They would not divulge any information to him. (iii) The Prophet should have been personally there at the time the events took place, which of course was not the case. Thus we are left with the fourth option alone, namely (iv) Revelation from Allah.

81. That is, you came to know, O Prophet, because We decided to raise you and send a fresh revelation, which had become due as a long time had elapsed since the previous revelation (Razi).

82. That is, Muqatil said, You were not there with the people of Madyan to be rehearsing their story to the Makkans now (Razi).

Shabbir looks at it in another way. He writes: ‘The verse seems to be saying, ‘You are now, O Prophet, rehearsing the affairs that took place in Madyan in such details as if you were a Messenger unto those people at that earlier time, and were reciting these verses to them. This of course is not the case, but rather, Allah has now raised you, and reveals these stories to you, in such precise manner, that you might warn your contemporaries and save them from a destruction of the kind the previous nations met with.’

Indeed no one, not even the Jews knew anything about the people of Madyan at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an (Au.).

83. In other words, The Prophet was sent in order to remove any excuse they could have had, if no Messenger was raised, but punished for idol-worship. The same thing is differently worded elsewhere in the Qur’an (4: 165),

{لِئَلَّا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ} [النساء: 165]

“... so that the people might have no argument against Allah after the Messengers.”

It must be noted however, that Allah did not say, “If they had not said this, we would not have sent a Messenger” (Razi).

84. Asad places a note here which, as it terminates, correctly portrays the mind of the atheists which have worked similarly throughout the ages, including our own. He writes: “As the Qur’an frequently points out, the basic ethical truths enunciated in it are the same as those of earlier revelations. It is this very statement which induced the opponents of Muhammad (saws) – in his own time as well as in later times – to question the authenticity of the Qur’an: ‘If it had really been revealed by God,’ they argue, ‘would so many of its propositions, especially its social laws, differ so radically from the laws promulgated in that earlier divine writ, the Torah?’ By advancing this argument (and quite apart from the question whether the text of the Bible as we know it today has or has not been corrupted in the course of time), the opponents of Muhammad’s message deliberately overlook the fact, repeatedly stressed in the Qur’an, that the earlier systems of law were conditioned by the spiritual level of particular people and the exigencies of a particular chapter of human history, and therefore had to be superseded by new laws at a higher stage of human development... However, as is evident from the immediate sequence – and especially from the last sentence of this verse – the above specious argument is not meant to uphold the authenticity of the Bible as against that of the Qur’an, but rather, aims at discrediting both – and, through them, the basic religious principle against which the irreligious mind always revolts: namely, the idea of divine revelation and of man’s absolute dependence on and responsibility to God, the Ultimate Cause of all that exists.”

85. It is reported that the Jews had coaxed the Makkans into asking the Prophet to produce similar miracles as Musa (asws) had done. Hence it is the Jews that Allah addressed when He said, “Had they not disbelieved in what Musa was given earlier?” (Ibn Jarir, Kashshaf, Ibn Kathir).

Yusuf Ali expounds: “When a Revelation is sent to them, in the Qur’an, adapted to all their needs and the needs of the time they live in, they hark back to antiquity. The holy Prophet (saws) was in many respects like Moses, but the times in which he lived were different from the times of Moses, and his age did not suffer from the deceptions of sorcery, like that of Moses. The remedies which his age and future ages required (for his Message was universal) were different. His miracle of the Qur’an was different and more permanent than the Rod and the Radiant-White Hand of Moses. But supposing that the Quraish had been humoured in their insincere demands, would they have believed? Did they believe in Moses? They were only put up by the Jews to make objections which they themselves did not believe in.”

86. To whom is the allusion by the pronoun “they”? There are several answers. Imam Razi’s opinion is that the allusion is to the Makkans, who refused to believe in any Prophet or any heavenly message. This leads to the acceptance of the following word “sihran” as alluding to Tawrah and the Qur’an; which in turn is explained by the ayah that follows, “As for us, we are disbelievers in each one of them.”

87. A variant reading has been “sahiran” meaning, the two magicians. Following this reading, Ibn `Abbas said that the allusion is to the two Prophets Musa and Muhammad. But Mujahid thought the allusion is to Musa and Harun. (This is Ibn Kathir’s preferred meaning, if the variant reading is accepted). But most have read the word as it now appears in the Qur’an, viz., “sihran” meaning the two sorceries. Hence we have a second opinion of Ibn `Abbas which says that the allusion by two sorceries is to Tawrah and the Qur’an. Dahhak and Qatadah said the allusion is to Tawrah and Injeel. Ibn Jarir is with this last opinion.

If we accept the reading as “sihran,” writes Ibn Kathir, then the preferred meaning is that the allusion is to Tawrah and the Qur’an. This is strengthened by another verse of the Qur’an wherein Allah (swt) reports the Jinn as saying (46: 30),

{إِنَّا سَمِعْنَا كِتَابًا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مُوسَى مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ} [الأحقاف: 30]

“Indeed we have heard a Book sent down after Musa, confirming that which came before it.”

And, Warqah b. Nawfal had said, (when the Prophet read out to him the first ever revelation he had received), “This is the same Namus (message) that had been revealed to Musa.”

Those who are endowed with knowledge, continues Ibn Kathir, know instinctively that out of the Books that Allah sent down from the heaven unto the Prophets, there is no other as noble, eloquent, complete and perfect as the Book revealed to Muhammad, viz., the Qur’an. What comes next in nobleness and greatness, is the Book that was given to Musa, viz., Tawrah.

88. “A contemptuous allusion,” comments Asad, “on the one hand, to Old Testament predictions of the coming of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) … and, on the other, to the oft-repeated Qur’anic statement that this divine writ had been revealed to ‘confirm the truth of earlier revelations.’”

89. Mujahid said that when they said, “we disbelieve in each one of them,” they meant that they disbelieved in the Qur’an; (which was their primary concern). Although Ibn `Abbas and Dahhak thought the allusion was to Tawrah and Injeel (Ibn Jarir). Imam Razi is of the opinion that their allusion was to every Revelation that was ever sent, whether the Tawrah, the Qur’an, or any other Book. This means the pronoun in “We” is for the Makkans. Hence Allah said, “Say, ‘Then bring a writing from Allah which is a better guide than the two.’”

Shah Abdul Qadir commented: The Makkan unbelievers asserted that had the Prophet (saws) brought such miracles as Musa did in his own time, they would have unhesitatingly accepted him. However, when they discussed the affair with the Jews, and found that the Tawrah also contained some of what the Qur’an was rehearsing, namely, idol-worship is tantamount to disbelief, Resurrection and Reckoning are true, carrion is unlawful, and that a final Messenger is to appear, etc., then they declared that both the Tawrah and the Qur’an are sorceries, and both Musa and Muhammad were sorcerers (and hence the words, “We disbelieve in each one of them)” - Shabbir.

90. Ibn Zayd said that the allusion by “the two” is to the Tawrah and the Qur’an (Ibn Jarir). Asad adds: “The Gospel is not mentioned in this context because, as Jesus himself had stressed, his message was based on the Law of Moses, and was not meant to displace the latter.”

91. We might perhaps attempt to paraphrase verses 47 to 49: “If it was not (for the fact) that had a calamity struck them (the Makkans) because of what their hands forwarded, they (would have) said, ‘O our Lord! Had you only sent us a Messenger so that we could have followed Your revelations and had been of the believers.’ But when there came to them the truth from Us, they said, (prompted by the Jews), ‘Why is he not given the like of what Musa was given?’ (The answer to the Jews is), had they not disbelieved in what Musa was given earlier? (The Makkan attitude is no different). They said, ‘(Tawrah and Qur’an) are a pair of sorceries, mutually supporting each other (since, in a nut-shell, they seem to carry the same message). And they (the Makkans also said), ‘As for us, we are disbelievers in each one of them.’ Say (O Muhammad), ‘Then bring a writing from Allah which is a better guide than the two, (Tawrah and the Qur’an) so that I might follow it, if you are true’” (Au.).