43. Ibn `Abbas has said that there were no more than three among the Copts who believed in Musa (asws): this person, who was concealing his faith, Fir`awn’s wife Asiyyah and the man who had warned Musa (Al-Qasas: 20) that the government was planning to slay him (Ibn Kathir).

This opinion of Ibn `Abbas is in Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Hatim (Shawkani).

Mawdudi adds: The affair of the believer from among the ruling family speaking out in the court, is an important event that both the Old Testament as well as the Talmud failed to record, nor is this mention found in any Israeli annals. The Orientalists have used it to plant doubts over the authenticity of the Qur’an. Says the Encyclopedia of Islam (Lieden print), “The Koranic story of a believer in the court Pharaoh who wants to save Musa is not quite clear (xI,28). Ought we to compare Jethro in the Haggada who advises clemency at Pharaoh’s court?”

The insinuation is, the Prophet somehow heard this Haggada episode?!

If we are to give any credence to the Orientalists, we must conclude that there has never been a scholar in history, neither Jewish, nor Christin, the like of Muhammad, who had such mastery over the most ancient Jewish literatures, as to gather in himself a knowledge, which required life-time efforts of hundreds of modern-day Orientalists, equipped with rarest of manuscripts and archeological tablets, to merely trace out the sources of his knowledge (Au.).

44. He was of course taking great risks. If exposed he could be sent to the gallows.

The Prophet (saws) has said, as in a hadith of Abu Da’ud,“The best Jihad is a word of truth before a tyrannical ruler” (Ibn Kathir).

A similar report is found in Nasa’i, A man asked the Prophet while he had placed his foot in the stirrup, “What Jihad is the best?” He answered, “A word of truth before a tyrannical ruler” (Au.).

45. In reference to this verse we are reminded of an incident involving our Prophet in Makkah. Bukhari is the source, `Urwah ibn Zubayr said he asked `Abdullah b. `Amr about the worst thing that the Quraysh did to the Prophet. He said: I saw `Uqbah b. Abi Mu`ayt go up to the Prophet while he was Praying, throw his garment around his neck and begin to choke him. Abu Bakr came, pushed the man away and said, “Will you kill a man because he says, ‘my Lord is Allah,’ while he has brought you clear evidences from your Lord?” (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

One might note Abu Bakr’s attachment to the Qur’an that he remembered the verse in that frustrating situation (Au.).

In this connection, we also have a report preserved by Abu Nu`aym in Fada’il al-Sahabah:Muhammad b. `Aqil said that once `Ali (ibn abi Talib) asked us during a sermon, saying, “People! Tell us who is the most courageous of the people.” We said, “Yourself.” He said, “As for me, I never met someone in a duel but I did justice to it. But tell me who is the most courageous of the people.” They said, “Then we do not know who it is.” He said, “Abu Bakr. On the day of (the battle of) Badr, we built a shelter for the Prophet. But we began to ask ourselves as to who would remain with the Prophet to protect him from the pagans. By Allah, no one went near the Prophet but Abu Bakr with his sword swung out over the Prophet’s head. No one (of the pagans) ever moved towards the Prophet but Abu Bakr pounced upon him. He was the most courageous of the people. And, I have seen the Prophet when he was seized by the Quraysh (in Makkah). This one was pulling him, that one was pushing him, another was struggling with him. They were saying, ‘Are you the one who made one God of several gods?’ By Allah, none of us went near the Prophet except Abu Bakr. He was pulling this one, pushing that one and struggling against another saying, ‘Will you kill a man who says, ”Allah is my Lord?“’ Then he (`Ali) raised the cloak over him and wept until his beard was wet.” Then he asked, “Swear to me by Allah, was the believer from Fir`awn’s folk better or Abu Bakr?” The people were quiet. He said, “Will you not answer?” Then he added, “By Allah, Abu Bakr was in time better than the believer from Fir`awn’s folk. That was a man who was concealing his faith, while Abu Bakr had announced his faith” (Qurtubi, Shawkani).

According to another version, the above incident was three days after Abu Talib’s death and that somebody had rushed up to Abu Bakr who came in running, with two pleats of hair (on his head) - Qurtubi.

The version above is from Kanz al-`Ummal, which is slightly lengthier than in Qurtubi or Shawkani. And Kanz’s author, `Ala’uddin Muttaqi al-Hindi reports Haythami as approving its chain of narrators.

It is possible, as it was happening on many occasions, that the Shiya`an `Ali were around `Ali, deprecating Abu Bakr, and so he thought it necessary to remove their misconceptions. That they remained quiet when he asked them about Abu Bakr strengthens this surmise (Au.).

At any rate, the verse allows that if one is in fear (such as of sure and immediate persecution) one might conceal his faith (Thanwi).

46. That is, if Musa (asws) is lying, then what can be greater transgression than to fasten a lie upon Allah? Will Allah allow him to propagate a lie in His name: Surely, Allah does not love him who is a transgressor and a big liar (Au.).

At this point it might be useful to present a short passage from the commentary on “`Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah” by Ibn Abi al-`Izz. Discussing the issue of the possibility of our own Prophet being a false Prophet, he writes, “As for our Prophet, his case is so obvious that denying his message is tantamount to denying Allah Most High Himself, and alleging tyranny on His part, high above that Allah is. To explain: If someone thought that Muhammad, on whom be peace, was not a Prophet, rather a tyrant ruler, then, what it implies is that he fastened a lie on God, brought before the people something not revealed by Him, then, continued to declare the lawful as unlawful and the unlawful as lawful, declared the old Scriptural Laws null and void, slew the people, and destroyed the true followers of earlier Prophets. Yet, he is led to victories after victories. He alleged that all that was by Allah’s command sent down to him. And the Lord God watched him accomplish all that in His Name, annihilating the followers of truth and continuing to lie for no less than twenty three years. Indeed, Allah seems to have helped him achieve all that, let him overcome everyone, prepared the grounds with a couple of supernatural circumstances to lead him to victories. More. He even answered his prayers, destroyed those opposed to him and raised his name over all others. Now, for Allah to let someone do all that, in His Name, and, instead of uprooting him, help him in his plans, is only possible if Allah Himself is a tyrant, an oppressive Being, and a transgressor. Inevitably, that would lead the people to believe that this world has no Creator nor a Lord above all. Had there been one, He would have stopped this person from doing all that. Indeed, He would have punished him with an exemplary punishment for the satisfaction of the rest of the world. The ‘no action’ response does not befit even an ordinary king of this world. How then does it fit the King of kings and the Ruler of all rulers?

“We do not deny that many liars have been successful in their own days, overcoming several opponents in their ventures. But, firstly, they did not succeed wholly, and secondly, the new situation they created did not last long. In time, Allah’s Messengers and their followers did away with all that they had established. This is the Sunnah of Allah that has been among the nations of the past. Indeed, even the unbelievers knew it. Allah said: “They say, ‘A poet for whom we await the Fate’s uncertainty.’ Say, ‘Wait. For I am with you one of those waiting.’” (Al-Tur, 30-31)

(That is, even the pagans were pretty sure that if the Prophet was phony he would be destroyed and, therefore, the best recourse was to wait for the Divine intervention).

47. “Compare a similar incident,” writes Majid, “recorded in connection with the apostle Jesus in the NT: ‘When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law .. And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do as touching these men .. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye found even to fight against God.’ (Ac. 5:33-39).”

48. Fir`awn was of course lying. And our Prophet has said as recorded by the Sahihayn,“There is no ruler entrusted the rule over Muslims, who deceives them, except that Allah has forbidden Paradise for him” (Ibn Kathir).

49. Ibn Jarir: the next verse identifies the 'confederates' (against the Messengers: Majid).

50. Qatadah and Ibn Zayd said that the allusion is to the calling between the inhabitants of Paradise and Hellfire. As Allah said (7: 44)“And the inhabitants of Paradise will call the inhabitants of the Fire (saying), ‘We have found true what our Lord had promised us. So, have you also found what your Lord had promised you as true?’”

Or (7: 50)“And the inhabitants of the Fire will call the inhabitants of Paradise (saying), ‘Throw down some water upon us, or out of what Allah has provided you’” (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

But of course there will be other kinds of calling. E.g., the general calling to the Field of Reckoning; or the people called to fall out in groups; the call of the Companions of A`raf; or the final call when a ram symbolizing death would have been slaughtered and someone will call out, “O Inhabitants of Paradise, eternity and no death, and O inhabitants of the Fire, eternity and no death;” and so on.

51. It is possible that this was not said by Fir`awn’s folks in grief and regret but rather in mockery. Sometime back they had a warner viz. Yusuf, and one was enough, God will not send another (Thanwi). Sayyid Qutb has a similar note.

But another interpretation has been offered by Shah `Abdul Qadir which purports to mean that Fir`awn’s folks never believed in Yusuf until he died. However, once he was dead, and the blessings that he had brought on the land had departed, they began to say in despair that since they had disbelieved in him, Allah might not raise another in his place (Shabbir).

52. Imam Razi refutes the allegation made by the Christians of his time that according to their history works, Haman appeared several centuries later. Why is it assumed that there could have been no more than one Haman in human history?

The Haman of Qur’anic mention should not be confused with the Persian Haman of the Old Testament. It has been suggested that Haman was the title of the Chief Priest of the kingdom. That Fir`awn should have addressed him is most reasonable, since his Haman was the one responsible for advocating, establishing and imposing the state religion of which he was the Chief Priest. If Musa (asws) was threatening the state religion, it was time the Chief Priest got involved. See al-Qasas, note 9 of this work for further details (Au.).

53. “This is how Fir`awn the tyrant confronts the truth: by evading it. It is a distant thought to imagine that he was honest in his bidding, that this was the level of his understanding, that he was truly wishing to find the truth about the God of Musa: in this simple, disingenuous manner. The Fara`ina of Egypt had certainly attained higher cultural state to be so crude of mind.. It was nothing but mockery from one angle, and an artificial attempt at justice to the Call on the other; an effort to match the commonsense attitude of the believer with his own feigned logical approach. All of this of course speak of his unshakable decision to disregard the truth” (Sayyid).