Verse:14 Commentary Commentary

وَلَمَّا بَلَغَ أَشُدَّهُ وَاسْتَوَىٰ (And when he reached his maturity and became perfect - 28:14). The literal meaning of 'ashudd (أَشُدَّ ) is to attain the peak of strength or intensity. For instance a person gradually develops from the position of juvenile weakness to the strength of adulthood. A time comes when he has attained full strength and vigour that he could achieve. That point in life is called أَشُدَّ 'ashudd. In different parts of the world and for different people this point in life varies according to climate, character of the land, race etc. Some people attain it early while others take time. ` Abd Ibn Humaid has reported that Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas and Mujahid have placed the age of 'ashudd as 33rd year of one's life. This is called the age of perfection or the age of discernment, when the development of body stops after reaching its peak. After this age a period of hold commences, which lasts until the age of forty. This period is mentioned in the verse as اسْتَوَىٰ Istawa (translated above as became perfect). After the age of forty years the decline and weakness sets in. Hence, it can be said that 'ashudd (أَشُدَّ ) of a person starts from the age of 33 years and lasts through 40 years. (Ruh, Qurtubi).

آتَيْنَاهُ حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا (We gave him wisdom and knowledge - 28:14) The word (حُکُم) lukm (translated above as 'wisdom' ) is used here for prophethood, and the word 'knowledge' refers to the knowledge of divine injunctions.

وَدَخَلَ الْمَدِينَةَ عَلَىٰ حِينِ غَفْلَةٍ مِّنْ أَهْلِهَا (And he entered the city at a time of unawareness of its people - 15). Most commentators have interpreted that the word 'city' is used here for the main city of Egypt. The words 'he entered' indicate that Musa (علیہ السلام) ، had gone away somewhere out of Egypt. Then he entered back at a time when people normally sleep. It is also mentioned in the incident of killing of the 'Qibti' that it was the time when Musa (علیہ السلام) had already announced his prophethood and had started preaching the religion of truth. As a result of his preaching some people had converted, and were known as his disciples. The word مِن شِيعَتِهِ (from his group - 28:15) is a proof of that. All these versions give credence to the narration which is quoted by Ibn Ishaque and Ibn Zaid that when Musa (علیہ السلام) had started talking to the people about the religion of truth, the Pharaoh turned against him and wanted to kill him. But on the appeal of his wife, Sayyidah 'Asiyah, he restrained himself, and instead commanded him to go in exile. After that Sayyidna Musa (علیہ السلام) shifted to some hiding place and would come to the city of Egypt occasionally in hiding. Most commentators are of the opinion that by عَلَىٰ حِينِ غَفْلَةٍ مِّنْ أَهْلِهَا (28:15) the time of afternoon is meant, when people generally take a siesta. (Qurtubi)

فَوَكَزَهُ مُوسَىٰ (So Musa struck him with his fist). Wakaza (وَكَزَ ) means to box فَقَضَىٰ عَلَيْهِ (28:15). The phrase of Qadahu (قَضَاہ) and Qada 'Alaihi (فَقَضَىٰ عَلَيْهِ ) is used when one is totally finished. Hence, here it means that he killed him. (Mazhari) Verse:15 Commentary - - - Verse:16 Commentary قَالَ رَ‌بِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي فَاغْفِرْ‌ لِي فَغَفَرَ‌ لَهُ (He said, "0 my Lord, I have wronged myself, so forgive me." So he forgave him - 28:16). The gist of this verse is that Sayyidna Musa (علیہ السلام) regarded the killing of the infidel Qibti as a sin, despite the fact that it had happened without any intention on his part, because it was in conflict with his status of prophethood, and thus below his dignity. So, he begged Allah's pardon for the act, which was duly granted.

The first question that arises here is that this Qibti was an infidel combatant (harbi) in the religious term. Hence, his killing was permissible and preferable, because he was neither a dhimmi (ذِمِّی), i.e the citizen of an Islamic state nor under any covenant with Musa (علیہ السلام) . Then why did Sayyidna Musa (علیہ السلام) regarded it a sin and an act of Shaitan? His killing should have been regarded as an act worth the reward, because the Qibti was harming a Muslim unjustly, and got killed in the process when Musa (علیہ السلام) tried to save the life of the Muslim. The answer to this question is that covenants of peace are sometimes written or spoken in express words, and sometimes they come into effect by consistent practice of the parties that amounts to an implied agreement and is as good as a written covenant. Violation of the covenants of this type is also prohibited in Islam. The covenant established by practice can be understood by the example that if in a non-Islamic state Muslims and non-Muslims are living in harmony and there is no conflict between them, and any pillage or fighting with each other is regarded as treachery, then this consistent practice of co-existence would be regarded as an implied agreement for peaceful living, and its violation is not allowed. The proof of this principle can be found in a lengthy hadith of Sayyidna Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah that has been reported by Imam Bukhari in his book in the chapter entitled as kitab Ash-Shurut. The hadith runs like this: Sayyidna Mughirah Ibn Shu` bah had good relations with a group of infidels before the advent of Islam, and later he killed them and took possession of all their wealth. Then he went to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم I and submitted to Islam, and presented all that wealth to him. On this action the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him امّا الاسلام فاقبل و امّ المال فلست منہ فی شٰٔی (As far as your embracing Islam is concerned, I accept it, but I have nothing to do with this wealth ) Abu Dawud has quoted this hadith like this: امّا المال فمال غدر لا حاجۃ لنا فیہ (As for wealth, we have no concern with it). The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم declared in this hadith that he accepted his submission to Islam, but this wealth has been snatched by breach of trust and was a treachery, hence he did not have any desire for this wealth. Hafiz Ibn Hajar has observed in his commentary that this hadith has laid down the principle that grabbing of wealth of the infidels during peacetime is not permissible. It is for the simple reason that people living together in a city or township or those who work together regard themselves secured from each other. The agreement established through their practice is like a trust, which must be honoured by each and every person, no matter whether he is a Muslim or an infidel. The property of infidels permitted for possession by the Muslims is only that which is acquired during a war with them. It is not permitted to grab the wealth of infidels during peacetime, when one feels secured from one another. Qastalani has observed in his commentary on Bukhari as follows:

انّ اموال المشرکین ان کانت مغنومۃ عند القھر فلا یحل اخذھا عند الامن، فاذا کان الانسان مضاحباً لھم فقد امن کل واحد منھم صاحبہ، فسفک الدّماء و اخذ المال مع ذٰلک غدر حرام الا ان ینبذ الیھم عھدھم علٰی سواء

` No doubt the wealth of infidels is permitted (to take possession) during war or jihad, but in peacetime it is not lawful. Therefore, any Muslim living and socializing with infidels in the manner that they are safe and secure for each other, for him it is unlawful to slay them, or forcefully grab their wealth, unless the peace agreement established through practice is abrogated through an announcement'.

The gist of the discussion is that if the Qibti would have been killed with preconceived resolve in the presence of an implied peace agreement, it would not have been lawful. But Musa did not have the intention of killing the Qibti. He only hit him with his bare hands to save the Isra'illi from his grip. In the normal course, it should not have been fatal, but he died all the same by that blow. Then Musa ~JI realized that a lighter blow would also have done the job of getting rid of him. Realizing that harder blow was not needed, he repented and invoked Allah's mercy.

Special Note

The above principle was explained to me by Sayyidi Maulana Ashraf Thanivi (رح) when I was writing the commentary of Surah Al-Qasas in Ahkamul-Qur'an, the Arabic commentary written under his supervision. It is the last academic discourse of Sayyidi from which I have benefited, as he had completed this work on Rajab 2, 1362 A.H, and after that his sickness intensified and on Rajab 16, 1362, he passed away. إِنَّا لِلَّـهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَ‌اجِعُونَ

Some commentators have observed that although killing of the Qibti was permissible, but prophets take extra care in special cases even in performing permissible acts and avoid them, unless they receive a cue from Allah Ta` ala. On this occasion Sayyidna Musa (علیہ السلام) did not wait for the permission from Allah Ta' ala and acted on his own. Therefore, in view of his status as a prophet, he maintained that it was a sin on his part, and hence, invoked Allah's pardon. (Ruh) Verse:17 Commentary قَالَ رَ‌بِّ بِمَا أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيَّ فَلَنْ أَكُونَ ظَهِيرً‌ا لِّلْمُجْرِ‌مِينَ (He [ Musa ] said, "0 my Lord, since You have favoured me, I will never be a supporter to the sinners." -28:17). When Allah Ta' ala pardoned this slip of Sayyidna Musa (علیہ السلام) he said in gratitude to Allah Ta` ala that he would never again help a criminal. The second incident of the quarrel had proved that the Isra'ili in whose defense Musa (علیہ السلام) had involved himself in the brawl was quarrelsome. Therefore, by declaring him a criminal he vowed not to help such a person again. Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ؓ while explaining this verse, has maintained that the word 'criminals' stands here for infidels. Qatadah has also interpreted the verse in almost the same way. On the basis of these commentaries it seems that actually the Isra'ili, whom Sayyidna Musa (علیہ السلام) had defended, was not a Muslim but he helped him considering that he was an oppressed person.

Rulings

It is worth noting here that this saying of Musa (علیہ السلام) has established two rulings about two issues. One, that even if an oppressed person is a sinner or infidel, he should be helped. The second ruling is that it is not permitted to help any criminal or oppressor. Scholars have argued on the basis of this verse that working in the employment of cruel rulers is also not permitted, for they too would be regarded as their associates. Many citations from the righteous salaf (elders) have also been quoted in support of this argument. (Ruh u1-Ma' ani) To provide support to the oppressors or to the infidels may take different forms. The different rulings about these forms are laid down in the books of fiqh in detail. This humble writer has also dealt with the subject in his Arabic book Ahkamul-Qur'an with greater elaboration. The scholars interested in the subject may consult it. Verse:18 Commentary - - - Verse:19 Commentary - - - Verse:20 Commentary - - - Verse:21 Commentary - - -