kill Musa
أقتل موسى
He said:
"because they were restraining him from killing him" The author (may Allah have mercy on him) based this statement on the apparent wording that they were restraining him and he would say, "Leave me to kill him." However, what we see is that he was a liar; no one was restraining him from killing him, and no one could ever restrain him from killing him. But he wanted to feign, because he was unable to kill Musa, so he pretended that he was being restrained from killing him and said:
Let me kill Moses
ذروني أقتل موسى
He said:
and let him call upon his Lord
وليدع ربه
This is a challenge, and may Allah protect us from it. The waw is a conjunction, and the lam is the lam of command. "Wa-liyad'u rabba-hu" (and let him call upon his Lord): "wa-liyad'u" is a present tense verb in the jussive mood due to the lam of command, and the sign of its jussive mood is the deletion of the waw, with the dammah before it indicating it. The original form is "yad'u" (he calls). And his saying, "kill him and let him call upon his Lord," is a blatant challenge to Musa and to the One who sent him (Glorified and Exalted is He), meaning: if he is truthful, let this Lord who sent him call upon Him to prevent Him from me.
And his saying:
and let him call upon his Lord
وليدع ربه
We mentioned to you that the lam is the lam of command. Is the lam of command sukun or kasrah? We say it is sukun, but after the waw, the fa, and thumma, it becomes sukun. Allah the Exalted said:
let him extend a rope to the ceiling, then cut off
فليمدد بسبب إلى السماء ثم ليقطع
And He the Exalted said:
Then let them end their untidiness and fulfill their vows
ثم ليقضوا تفثهم وليوفوا نذورهم
And here He said:
and let him call upon his Lord
وليدع ربه
.
And his saying: "his Lord" and not "our Lord," because he does not openly acknowledge the lordship of Allah; rather, he attributed the lordship to Musa for the sake of mockery, meaning as if he is saying: this is your Lord whom you claimed; if you are truthful, let Him prevent you from me.
Indeed, I fear that he will change your religion or that he will cause corruption in the land."
إني أخاف أن يبدل دينكم أو أن يظهر في الأرض الفساد
I have:
or that he will cause corruption in the land."
وأن يظهر في الأرض الفساد
Wait, the author will mention the readings.
Indeed, I fear that he will change your religion
إني أخاف أن يبدل دينكم
Is this fear real or not? Yes, it is real. He fears that Musa, with those who are with him, will change the religion of these people, because their religion is the worship of Pharaoh. And Musa says, "Worship Allah." So when he came with the signs and the people followed him, the religion changed, and the people turned away from directing themselves to Pharaoh and worshipping him, and turned toward Allah (Mighty and Majestic). For this reason, he said:
"he will change your religion
أن يبدل دينكم
from your worship of me, so that you would follow him" So their religion is their worship of Pharaoh. If Musa called them to the worship of Allah, they turned to Allah, so the religion changed and they followed Musa.
or that he will cause corruption in the land."
وأن يظهر في الأرض الفساد
The corruption, in his claim, is diverting the people from his worship to the worship of Allah. This is one aspect. Another aspect is dividing the people; instead of being united in their view, with some fearing and some desiring, they would differ, so some would follow Musa and some would follow Pharaoh. The division of the community is undoubtedly corruption. So the spreading of corruption that he claims is from two aspects: first, changing the religion, and second, dividing the community.
"or that he will cause corruption in the land."
وأن يظهر في الأرض الفساد
from killing and other things" Killing is generally a consequence of the difference between the community, where the dispute between them reaches the point of fighting, or other things, including the change of the people's worship from the worship of Pharaoh to the worship of Allah.
He said:
"and in a reading, 'aw'" If the commentator explained based on the waw, because he said, "and in a reading, 'aw'." Well, is this reading from the seven readings? Based on the terminology we mentioned to you, if he says, "and in a reading, 'aw'," or says, "with dammah and fathah," for example, it is from the seven readings. If he says, "it was read," it is shadh (anomalous).
"and in another, with a fathah on the ya and the ha, and a dammah on the dal" "wa-an yuzhira fi al-ard al-fasad" (and that corruption would appear in the land), with a dammah on the dal, indicating that "corruption" is the subject of "appears." Well, do these readings differ in meaning? Yes, they differ in meaning on the surface, but their outcome is the same, because if Musa spread corruption in the land, corruption would appear. So the difference in readings here has a benefit.
First: the benefit of "aw" (or) and the waw. If it is
Or
أو
, he feared one of two things: that the religion would be changed or that corruption would appear. The waw
that He change your religion and that corruption appear
أن يبدل دينكم وأن يظهر
means he feared the conjunction of both matters: the changing of the religion and the appearance of corruption. One of the two matters must occur: either the religion is changed, or corruption appears. Even if the religion is not changed, there will be killing and dispute. Also, from another side, one must combine both matters: the changing of the religion and the appearance of corruption. Regarding "yuzhir" (appears) and "yuzhir" (appears), we say: if he intended to spread corruption, it may appear or it may not. If it is:
or that he will cause corruption in the land."
وأن يظهر في الأرض الفساد
, then the occurrence of what he intended, which is the spreading of corruption, has taken place. Well, the outcome of the readings is the same.
or that he will cause corruption in the land." (27) But Moses
وأن يظهر في الأرض الفساد وقال موسى
and so on.
