Ṭāhā 20:49-52

Qāla fa-man rabbukumā yā Mūsā · Qāla rabbuna'lladhī aʿṭā kulla shayʾin khalqahu thumma hadā · Qāla fa-mā bālu'l-qurūni'l-ūlā · Qāla ʿilmuhā ʿinda rabbī fī kitāb, lā yaḍillu rabbī wa lā yansā

"He said: 'Who then is your Lord, O Moses?' · He said: 'Our Lord is the One who gave to each thing its creation and then guided.' · 'What then of the former generations?' he said. · 'Knowledge of them is with my Lord in a book. My Lord neither errs nor forgets,' he said."

The same scene was treated at al-Shuʿarāʾ on 26/23-28, and the interrogative particle was discussed there in detail. In al-Shuʿarāʾ the question was: wa mā rabbu'l-ʿālamīn — and it was recorded there: in Arabic mā asks after the quiddity (the kind), man after the identity; rational beings are asked after with man. I rely on that treatment and do not repeat the discussion of the particle.

What belongs here is the difference between the two sūras, and this is a datum of the text:

I record this as an observation, not as a contradiction between the two tellings: al-Shuʿarāʾ has him ask after the concept, Ṭāhā after the belonging — "who is your Lord". And in Ṭāhā the name appears in the address: yā Mūsā. The question is put to two men (rabbukumā) and directed at one (yā Mūsā).

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the mismatch of the two pronouns: the question is dual, the address singular. Pharaoh takes one of the two messengers as his interlocutor.

This is one of the densest short sentences in the Qurʾān, and it differs in construction from the three answers in al-Shuʿarāʾ.

The three elements of the sentence must be recorded:

The parsing of the construction has been disputed, and the disagreement must not be concealed:

The explanations are close to one another and bring the sense out largely at the same place. I do not impose a preference.

ثُمَّ هَدَىٰ — and the weight of the sentence lies here.

The particle thumma in Arabic conveys sequence and an interval. That is, the guiding comes not within the creation but after it.

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the particle itself: the sentence counts two separate gifts — bringing into being and directing. To give a thing existence is not enough to show it what to do; the verse names the second separately.

And the object of the verb hadā is not stated. Not "He guided them" or "He guided man" — but absolute: hadā. The scope is left open.

I enter a note about the connection to science, and it is per the method (Method): links have been drawn from this verse to the instinctive behaviour of living things, to migration routes, or to genetic information. No such link is drawn in this commentary. The verse is not a proposition of biology but a declaration of an act; and what it says ("no being knows of itself what it is to do; it is shown") is already sufficient on its own. I add this as an observation, not as a claim of a miracle: the distinction the sentence draws — existence and instruction — is a distinction that can also be thought about today for any ordered system, living or not; but the verse does not claim this, and neither do I.

And a link within the sūra must be recorded: the verb hadā will return in the seventy-ninth verse negated, of Pharaoh: wa aḍalla Firʿawnu qawmahu wa mā hadā — "he led astray and did not guide".

The same verb, the same form, one affirmed and one negated; one the answer to a question, the other the verdict on the story. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra, and I record it as one of its tightest links.

Bāl: state, condition, outcome. The question: "What then will become of the past generations?"

With what aim the question was asked has been disputed:

I do not impose a preference.

But I record one indication, not as a preference: at al-Shuʿarāʾ on 26/25 it was treated how, in al-Shuʿarāʾ's telling of the same scene, Pharaoh does not answer the answer but turns to the listeners (alā tastamiʿūn), and it was recorded there: "Pharaoh does not refute the answer — he reacts to it." The question in Ṭāhā does the same work: the answer given is not disputed, another subject is opened. Two sūras record the same behaviour in two different forms.

The answer negates two verbs, and they are distinct:

I record this as an observation: one is error, the other loss. Both concern knowledge, but they are different failures.

And the root ن-س-ي must be recorded: this is one of the hardest-working roots in the sūra, and it occurs in four places:

That is, the sūra first names forgetting by negating it of God; then three times by establishing it of the human being. This is a distribution that can be verified from the text, and I record this as my own reading: the sūra's description of the human being is built precisely on the opposition of these two verbs.

And the root ض-ل-ل works in the same way: lā yaḍillu rabbī (52) — wa aḍalla Firʿawnu qawmah (79) — fa-lā yaḍillu wa lā yashqā (123). Both roots are part of the web the sūra weaves from beginning to end.