وَأَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَىٰ مُوسَىٰٓ أَنْ أَلْقِ عَصَاكَ فَإِذَا هِىَ تَلْقَفُ مَا يَأْفِكُونَ
Wa awḥaynā ilā Mūsā an alqi ʿaṣāk, fa-idhā hiya talqafu mā yaʾfikūn · Fa-waqaʿa'l-ḥaqqu wa baṭala mā kānū yaʿmalūn · Fa-ghulibū hunālika wa'nqalabū ṣāghirīn · Wa ulqiya's-saḥaratu sājidīn · Qālū āmannā bi-rabbi'l-ʿālamīn · Rabbi Mūsā wa Hārūn
"We revealed to Moses: 'Cast down your staff.' And there it was, swallowing what they had fabricated! · So the truth came out, and what they had done came to nothing. · There they were defeated, and they turned back humbled. · And the sorcerers were cast down in prostration. · They said: 'We believe in the Lord of all the worlds — · the Lord of Moses and Aaron.'"
The root أ-ف-ك: to turn a thing from its direction; and from this, a lie, a fabrication. Ifk — a word turned about, a fabrication.
And the choice of object must be recorded, and this is a point of word order: what is swallowed is not "what they cast" but what they fabricate.
| It could have been built thus | What is built |
|---|---|
| Talqafu mā alqaw — swallowing what they cast | Talqafu mā yaʾfikūn — swallowing what they fabricate |
I record this as an observation about word order: the verse names not the objects lying there but what they are. And this accords with the description in the hundred and sixteenth verse: there too the effect was on the eye, not on the object.
This sentence was treated at 26/46 in al-Shuʿarāʾ, where it was recorded; I rely on that treatment:
It could have said fa-sajada's-saḥaratu ("the sorcerers prostrated themselves"); it does not. The passive voice states that the prostration was not a planned decision but an irresistible response — as though something set them down.
And it was recorded there in addition that al-Aʿrāf 7/120 is in the same pattern. I do not repeat it.
I record this as an observation about word order, and its ground is the separateness of the two verses: the sentence is divided; "the Lord of all the worlds" is said and there it stops, and then in a separate verse it is said whose Lord. The lexicographers record that this addition comes to remove every kind of obscurity from the expression.
| Part | Verse | What |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 123 | Āmantum bihī qabla an ādhana lakum — the accusation of believing without leave |
| 2 | 123 | Inna hādhā la-makrun makartumūhu fi'l-madīnati li-tukhrijū minhā ahlahā — the claim of a plot |
| 3 | 124 | La-uqaṭṭiʿanna aydiyakum wa arjulakum min khilāfin thumma la-uṣallibannakum ajmaʿīn — the punishment |
The first part is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: the accusation is aimed not at the belief itself but at its being without leave. That is, the matter is framed not as a question of belief but as a question of authority.
The word makr in the second part had occurred in the ninety-ninth verse (a-fa-aminū makra'llāh). The same word, in two different mouths.
مِنْ خِلَٰفٍ — "crosswise": the cutting off of one hand and the opposite foot. It was recorded at 26/49 in al-Shuʿarāʾ: the Qurʾān gives the same threat in the same words at al-Aʿrāf 7/124 and Ṭāhā 20/71 too. I rely on that treatment.
The root ن-ق-م: to find a thing abhorrent and reject it; and from this, to punish, to take vengeance. The root was treated in al-Zukhruf, where this verse was named. I rely on that treatment.
And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: negation + exception (mā … illā). In Arabic this is the most decisive way of reducing a cause to a single point.
That is, the answer does not put the ground of the punishment into the mouth of the other side; it leaves a single ground: faith.
The root ف-ر-غ: to empty a vessel, to pour out all that is in it. That is, what is asked for is not "give us patience" but "pour patience over us" — the picture of a vessel being emptied entire.
I give this as a note about the word, and its ground is the concrete sense of the root. And the second half of the request must also be recorded: wa tawaffanā muslimīn — the demand is not for deliverance but for the keeping of a state.
And the same scene was treated at 26/50-51 in al-Shuʿarāʾ. There the answer took the form lā ḍayra innā ilā rabbinā munqalibūn, and it was found that the pattern of the lā of generic negation (lā al-nāfiya li'l-jins) in the expression lā ḍayra removes the very notion of harm. I rely on that treatment.
The difference that belongs here is this, and it can be verified from the two texts: the second half of the sentence is word for word the same in the two sūras (innā ilā rabbinā munqalibūn); al-Aʿrāf does not give the first half (lā ḍayra).
| al-Shuʿarāʾ 26/50 | al-Aʿrāf 7/125 | |
|---|---|---|
| First half | Lā ḍayr — "no harm" | absent |
| Second half | Innā ilā rabbinā munqalibūn | Innā ilā rabbinā munqalibūn — word for word the same |
| What follows | Innā naṭmaʿu an yaghfira lanā rabbunā (26/51) — hope | Wa mā tanqimu minnā illā an āmannā (7/126) — a counter-question |
And the word al-Aʿrāf uses is worth recording: munqalibūn — the root ق-ل-ب, "to turn, to be turned over". The same root had been used of the other side in the hundred and nineteenth verse: wa'nqalabū ṣāghirīn — "they turned back humbled". The same verb, two different turnings. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.