Allah the Exalted said: << فرددناه إلى أمه كي تقر عينها ولا تحزن ولتعلم أن وعد الله حق ولكن أكثرهم لايعلمون >

Moses so that her eye may be satisfied by seeing him. The word "tqarr" (be satisfied) is derived either from "qar" (coolness) or from "qarar" (settling and tranquility), and it likely encompasses both meanings, for settling brings tranquility and coolness. Thus, "wa-ki" (and so that) here is a particle of causation; it is a verbal noun particle that puts the present-tense verb in the accusative case. This is why the verb is in the accusative, and the sign of its accusative case is a visible fathah on the qaf.
The student: At the end of it.

The Shaykh : At the end of it, and the qaf... this is the root, yes, because it is from *qara yaqarru* (to be cool), not from *qara yaquru* (to be still). So, *ki taqarru 'aynuha bi-liqa'ihi* (so that her eye may be comforted by seeing him).
In this context, it means: do not grieve over what has passed, but rather the grief will be removed from her. Her eye will be comforted and the grief will be removed from her. And let her know that the promise of Allah to return him to her is true. This also contains three benefits: her eye being comforted, not grieving, and the third is that she will know that the promise of Allah is true. As for the first two, it is clear that her eye is comforted by his return, and that she will not grieve, for the grief will be removed from her. But His saying: So here, the intended knowledge is knowledge of certainty. Is it *'ayn al-yaqin* (the eye of certainty) or *haqq al-yaqin* (the truth of certainty)? If you wish, her first knowledge was knowledge of the thing by report, and her second knowledge was knowledge of the thing by its occurrence. There is a difference between a person's knowledge of a thing by report and his knowledge of it by its occurrence. For this reason, Ibrahim (peace be upon him) said: And it was reported in a hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: So, the conclusion is that His saying *wa li-ta'lam* (and let her know) means knowledge of the thing after its occurrence. As for her knowledge of it by report, that had already preceded. And had she not been confident in the first instance, she would not have done it.
And His saying: They mentioned that *al-wa'd* (the promise) is a promise of what brings joy, and *al-wa'id* (the threat) is a threat of what brings sorrow. That is, a promise of good and a threat of evil. And that evil comes from *wa'ada* (to threaten) and good from *wa'ada* (to promise). So they said: *wa'adahu* (he threatened him) meaning with evil, and *wa'adahu* (he promised him) meaning with good.
The student: ...It is known that when a person's eye is comforted, he forgets the grief....
The Shaykh: The negation of grief here is to clarify that the comfort is complete, because her eye may be comforted while still having some grief. Now, we said that *al-wa'd* (the promise) means informing, or it relates to what brings joy, and *al-wa'id* (the threat) to what brings sorrow. Is the promise true and the threat not, or are both true? The threat is true, and the promise is true, because if we said that the threat is not true, it would imply that there is falsehood in the news of Allah, and that is impossible. But the threat may not be carried out out of Allah's (Glorified and Exalted is He) favor, because it is His right. The threat is Allah's right, and Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) may overlook it. As for the promise, it is true for whom? For the one to whom it is promised. For this reason, it cannot be broken. The poet said:
And I, even if I threaten you or promise you, my threat will be broken and my promise will be fulfilled.
Because the promise is a right for the one promised, and the threat is a right for the one threatening or the one threatened. I will give you an example. If I say to this man: "If you do such and such, I will give you one hundred dinars," what is this? A promise or a threat? O servant of Allah, what is it?
The student: A promise.

The Shaykh : A promise, because it is in the realm of good. Yes, this is an action I said I must fulfill, because the right belongs to him. But if I say to my son, for example: "If you do such and such, I will confine you," and then he does it, but I pardon him, is this permissible or not permissible? This is permissible, and it becomes a favor, especially if he pardons him while having the ability to punish. Allah the Exalted said: As for pardon in the opposite case, that is negation. The conclusion is that the promise of Allah and His threat are both true. But His promise, because it is a right for the one promised, must come to pass. And His threat, because it is a right for Him, He may pardon out of generosity and favor, according to what His wisdom (Glorified and Exalted is He) requires.
The student: ...His saying, Glorified and Exalted is He: This is a threat that was called a promise.

The Shaykh : This is correct. It was called a promise either because in contrast to their saying, it became similar to it, or because it is sometimes called that. He said: *Haqq* (truth) here means established. And I think we said that *al-haqq* in such and such has one meaning, and *al-haqq* in such and such has another meaning. Which of these two meanings is this?
The student: From truthfulness.

The Shaykh : From truthfulness, yes. If *al-haqq* relates to reports, its meaning is truthfulness. And in rulings, its meaning is justice. And on this basis, here it means truthfulness. That is, truth that cannot be broken, because the breaking of a promise is either due to the liar's lie or his inability to fulfill it. And both matters are impossible in the case of Allah. So there is no lie in His speech and no weakness in His action. For this reason, the servants of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) conclude their supplication by saying: Yes.
He said: "

but most of them

ولكن أكثرهم

That is: people do not know of this promise, nor that this is his sister " The author specified the verse, but in reality, the verse is general: That is, they do not have knowledge that benefits them regarding the promise of Allah. So the negation of knowledge here is either to affirm ignorance or to negate beneficial knowledge. Most people do not know of this; they do not know that the promise of Allah is true.
The student: Most of them.

The Shaykh : Most of them, meaning people. I say that most people do not know that the promise of Allah is true, either due to their ignorance or due to their not benefiting from this knowledge. The negation of a thing to negate its benefit is established in the Qur'an: And Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) always negates intellect for people and hearing for people, and how difficult that is because they do not benefit from it. So most people do not know. The author specified this with the story of Musa, but the verse is general. Most people do not know that the promise of Allah is true. I say either ignorance of it because they do not know of the names and attributes of Allah what is befitting Him, or because they do not benefit from this knowledge. Those who do not strive to do good or to avoid evil are, in reality, like those who are ignorant that the promise of Allah is true. For the human nature and intellect require that as long as you believe in this thing, whether it is a promise or a threat, you must strive for it according to your faith. If you know that a person will die, and that the believer when he dies will find good and be in Paradise and be saved from the Fire, is this true or not?
The students: True.

The Shaykh : True, but the one who does not strive for Paradise, who does not strive for this good and is absorbed in striving for the perishing world, is he in reality knowledgeable that the promise of Allah is true or benefiting from his knowledge? He did not benefit from it. He did not benefit from his knowledge. If he had benefited from it, he would not have missed this great opportunity. So the person knows that disobedience is a cause for entering the Fire. He knows this and knows that the promise of Allah is true, but despite that, he dares to commit sins. We say that his knowledge here is deficient, for if he had truly believed in it, he would have avoided this thing. So the saying of Allah the Exalted is true with us: The author (may Allah have mercy on him) explained this verse, saying: " They do not know of this promise " meaning what Allah promised his mother of returning him to her, nor that this is his sister. And on this basis, he says: The pronoun in "most of them" refers to the family of Pharaoh. And so she remained with her until she weaned him, and her wages were paid to her, one dinar for each day...
As for his remaining with her until she weaned him, this is clear, because as long as he needed breastfeeding, he would remain with her.
And as for her wages being paid to her, this is also correct, for a wage was set for her, and they used to send her gifts and presents and honor her because she was the foster mother of this child, of whom they said: "He is the comfort of the eye, and perhaps he will benefit us or we will take him as a son." For this reason, it was reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said regarding the one who improves his craft and takes a wage for it: He is like the mother of Musa, who breastfed her son and took a wage for it. And this is among the signs of Allah: her son comes to her, she breastfeeds him, and she is honored for him. What do you think if she had not done this, and had not cast him into the sea, and the family of Pharaoh had not picked him up? She would have remained fearful and anxious, and she would not have received a wage or honor or respect from these tyrants.
He said: As for his statement: "For every day, a dinar", this is not accepted, because our approach in such matters is to say that what is established from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is accepted, and what is not established from the reports of the Children of Israel, we suspend judgment on it and it is not permissible for us to be definitive about it in this manner. However, what we are definitive about is that he said: "For every day, a dinar..." A difficulty arose... and I took it because it was war booty, Glory to Allah the Great. The departure of some scholars is strange: did she take it because it was war booty, or did she take it because it was a wage for breastfeeding? There is no difficulty with the wage. As for her taking the wage because it was war booty, this has no basis; it has no basis. It is not said, for example: "When the mother of Musa did not accept the breast of another, breastfeeding him became an obligation upon her, and it is not permissible to take compensation for an obligation." So we interpret the taking of the money here as war booty. We say: Even if it is war booty, if it comes in the form of a contract, is it permissible to take it or not? No, it is not permissible. You only take it by virtue of the contract and the agreement between you and the people of war, such as seeking safe conduct. In reality, it is seeking safe conduct. So the correct view is that she took it because it was a wage for his guardianship and breastfeeding, because if she had not taken it, there would have been harm, knowing that she was a relative of his or something similar. So she took him because they believed she was not his mother and believed that this child would belong to them.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : It is permissible in reality for the sake of her guardianship over him regarding them.
The author says: "So she brought him to Pharaoh, and he was raised in his household, as Allah the Exalted mentioned in his narration in Surat al-Shu'ara: He was raised in the household of Pharaoh, and he rode as kings ride and wore the clothing of kings. So instead of what would have happened if he had been with his mother, this thing did not happen for him without a doubt. But now, he became honored and respected, and that is from the subjugation of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) for him.