147. As Allah said elsewhere (6: 6):

أَلَمْ يَرَوْا كَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ مِنْ قَرْنٍ مَكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَا لَمْ نُمَكِّنْ لَكُمْ وَأَرْسَلْنَا السَّمَاءَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِدْرَارًا وَجَعَلْنَا الْأَنْهَارَ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهِمْ فَأَهْلَكْنَاهُمْ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ وَأَنْشَأْنَا مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ قَرْنًا آخَرِينَ [الأنعام : 6]

"Do they not see how many generations We destroyed before them whom We had established in the earth in a manner that We have not established you; We made the heavens pour down upon them rains (in torrents) and set rivers rolling beneath them. Yet, We destroyed them because of their sins and gave rise to other epochs after them" (Ibn Kathir).

148. This is another confirmation that every Prophet was given a miracle specific to him. As for the statement of the unbelievers (11: 53) to the effect "You have not brought us, O Hud, a clear sign," it was by way of rejection of the Sign that had actually been sent (Thanwi).

149. There have been various speculations about whom the reference is to, and when was it that the rejection took place? Suddi believes it was at the time when Allah brought out the souls of Adam's progeny and asked them whether they believed in Him as their Lord. Some rejected Him then. Ubayy b. Ka`b and Rabi` believe they were in Allah's knowledge: unbelievers from the beginning. Yet Allah sent them Messengers in order that they are left with no excuse. Mujahid has said that the meaning is that, ‘had those nations returned to the earth for a second time, after their destruction, they would have still not believed.’ Ibn Jarir prefers this last opinion.

However, Ibn Kathir's preference is Ibn `Atiyyah's statement to the effect that the reference is to the rejection that the unbelievers committed whenever their Prophets appeared among them. A hadith in Sahih Muslim reports Allah as saying:

وَإِنِّي خَلَقْتُ عِبَادِي حُنَفَاءَ كُلَّهُمْ فَأَتَتْهُمُ الشَّيَاطِينُ فَاجْتَالَتْهُمْ عَنْ دِينِهِمْ

"I created My slaves Hunafa' (believing in One God) but Shaytan deviated them from their religion and forbid them what I had made lawful unto them."

Another hadith in the Sahihhayn says:

كُلُّ مَوْلُودٍ يُولَدُ عَلَى الْفِطْرَةِ فَأَبَوَاهُ يُهَوِّدَانِهِ أَوْ يُنَصِّرَانِهِ أَوْ يُمَجِّسَانِهِ

"Every child is born on nature. It is its parents who Judaize it, Christianize it or Zoroastrize it."

150. While Ibn `Abbas thinks that the textual word "`ahd" is in the sense of being able to respond to admonitions in the right spirit, Ubayy b. Ka`b's preference is that it refers to the covenant that was taken from them at the beginning of the affair, before creation, that is, in the world of Spirits (Ibn Jarir).

Rashid Rida writes: Raghib has said that Allah's covenant sometimes refers to what resides in our minds, sometimes to what the Qur'an and Sunnah command us, and sometimes to what one imposes upon himself, although not declared obligatory by the Shari`ah, such as to vow to do something. And when he says, Rashid Rida adds, that Allah's covenant resides in our minds, he is referring to the nature on which every human being is created (believing in one God).

Mawdudi adds: "The statement that ‘We did not find most of them true to their covenants' signifies the general propensity of the people not to honor their commitments. They are neither faithful to the primordial covenant which they made with God (see al A`raf: 172) which is binding on every mortal as God's servant and creature, nor faithful to the collective covenant which is binding on every human being as a member of the human fraternity. Nor are men generally faithful to the commitments which they make to God in hours of distress or in moments when their moral instincts are awake and astir. Violation of any of these covenants has been termed fisq (transgression)."

151. "The stories narrated in the Qur'an bring home unmistakably the point that people who reject God's Message are not spared; rather they are destroyed. In narrating at length the story of Moses, Pharaoh and the Israelites, the Qur'an provides some important lessons for the unbelieving Quraysh, the Jews, and also the believers.

"The Quraysh are advised that the apparently large differences in the numerical strength of the forces of truth and falsehood in the early phase of the Islamic movement should not lead them to entertain any kind of illusion. History provides ample testimony that the Message of truth has always had a very humble beginning. That its proponent, initially, is in the hopelessly small minority of one; in fact, one in the whole world. He then proceeds, despite his resourcelessness, to challenge the hegemony of falsehood, to declare war against it, despite the fact that falsehood is backed by powerful states and empires. And ultimately the truth triumphs. The Quraysh are also reminded that all conspiracies hatched against the Prophet and all the means employed to suppress the Message of truth are ultimately foiled. They are further told that God grants long terms of respite to the evil doing nations so that they might mend their ways and reform themselves. But when they persistently disregard all warnings and learn no lesson from instructive events, He smites them with an exemplary punishment" (Mawdudi).

152. Like Najashi for the king of Habasha, Kisra for the king of Persia, Tubba` for the king of Yemen, or Qaysar for the king of Rome, Fir`awn was the title of the king of the Amalekites who once ruled Egypt (Alusi and others).

Majid writes: "It is to be observed that the holy Qur'an never mentions the Egyptian king (or kings) by name. It only uses his general designation, viz., Pharaoh. Now the fact is, as ‘it has long ago been noted by many Egyptologists that in the Egyptian literature it was customary to speak of the king as "Pharaoh" without mentioning his name. By a great number of examples from the Egyptian literature it can be found that it was precisely in the New Kingdom (1500 945 B.C.) that the proper name of the king was given only in solemn inscriptions or in purely historical records...even in royal edicts, in judicial reports and in general records, the king is simply alluded to as "Pharaoh"' (Yehuda, Accuracy of the Bible, p. 42)."

Rashid Rida writes: Musa (asws) was primarily sent to the Children of Israel, and secondarily to Fir`awn and his nation. You might say that the sending to the Children of Israel was the main objective, while to Fir`awn and his hosts, a means of accomplishment of that objective.

153. "Mark the words ‘your Lord.' The Qur'anic God is the Universal God, the God of Egyptians as well as of the Israelites, and not the Biblical God ‘the Lord God of the Hebrews'" (Majid).

154. Yusuf Ali writes (under verse 136): "Where was the Council of Pharaoh held in which Moses addressed Pharaoh? Egypt's primary capital in the XVIIIth Dynasty was Thebes (=Not Ammon), but that was more than 400 miles to the south of the Delta, in whose corner Israel dwelt. Memphis, on the apex of the Delta, a little south of where Cairo is now, was also over 100 miles from Israel's habitations. The interview must have been either in a Palace near Goshen, where the Israelites dwelt, or in Zoan (=Tanis), the Deltaic capital built by a former dynasty, which was of course still available for the reigning dynasty, and which was not far from the Israelite settlement."

155. Tho`ban of the original is for a very large snake, a python. But, although it was so huge, its movements were as fast as that of a slender snake. Hence its description elsewhere as "jaann" which is for a small, fast moving snake. It is also possible that with each throw Musa's staff acquired different shapes, sizes, and forms (Alusi).

Majid writes: "Wrong and confused as usual, the Bible attributes this miracle, when performed before Pharaoh, not to Moses but to Aaron. The serpent has a special prominence in Egyptian mythology and symbolism. ‘Of all the animals receiving the homage of the people' none were so numerous or were so universally feared and venerated as the snakes. The serpent was adored where Amon was but a name, and where Ra was looked upon as belonging, like fine horses and clothes, to the rich and the mighty.' (Syce, Religion of Ancient Egypt, p. 208)."

Yusuf Ali adds: "The serpent played a large part in Egyptian mythology. The great sun god Ra won a great victory over the serpent Apophis, typifying the victory of light over darkness. Many of their gods and goddesses took the forms of snakes to impress their foes with terror. Moses' rod as a type of a serpent at once appealed to the Egyptian mentality. The concept which the Egyptians had entertained in their minds before was converted into terror. Here was one who could control the reptile which their great god Ra himself had such difficulty in overcoming!"

156. (The word "plain [to sight]” was added to emphasize that it was not a make believe thing): rather, something real to the observers (Zamakhshari).

Mawdudi comments: "Those who tend to play down the supernatural character of such signs or miracles, and who try to explain them in terms of natural laws of causation, in fact attempt to build mid way house between the believing and disbelieving in the statements of the Qur'an. Such an approach can hardly be considered reasonable. What it does demonstrate, however, is how such people can be pulled in two opposite directions. On the one hand, they are not inclined to believe in a Book which abounds in narrations of a supernatural kind. On the other hand, being born followers of their ancestral religion, they are not inclined to reject the Book which carries supernatural narrations.

"With regard to miracles, there are two basic questions that people should ask themselves. Did God, after creating the universe and establishing a system of natural causation therein, suspend Himself such that it is no longer possible for Him to interfere in the workings of the universe? Or does He still hold the reins in His own Hands so that His command is enforced every moment, and He retains the power to alter the shape of things and the normal course of events either partially or fully as and when He wills?"

157. It is reported that Musa (asws) would draw out his hand from his breast pocket and it would be shining bright but not as the hand of a leper (as in Exodus vi, 6: Asad). And when he re inserted it in his pocket, it would regain its normalcy (Ibn Kathir and others).

The word "onlookers" implies that the hand attracted attention of the onlookers, who thronged around to have a closer look at its splendor, especially so because Musa himself was dark brown complexion (Zamakhshari).

Yusuf Ali writes: "... the second Sign displayed by Moses was even more puzzling to the Egyptians. Moses drew out his hand from the fold of the garments on his breast, and it was white and shining ... This was to counter any suggestion of evil, which the serpent might have created. This was no work of evil, of black magic, or a trick or illusion. His hand was transfigured with a light which no Egyptian sorcerer could produce."