al-Nāziʿāt 79:17-19

Idhhab ilā Firʿawna innahu ṭaghā · Fa-qul hal laka ilā an tazakkā · Wa ahdiyaka ilā rabbika fa-takhshā "Go to Pharaoh; he has run beyond all bounds. And say: 'Would you care to purify yourself? And that I should guide you to your Lord, so that you may feel awe?'"

Root: ط-غ-ي. This root was treated in detail in the section on Sūrat al-ʿAlaq and the finding there will be relied on.

In brief: the concrete sense of the root is water's overrunning its bed; ṭughyān is a being's passing beyond its own limit; and "running beyond bounds is not possessing something bad; it is carrying something good outside its own limit."

In the section on al-ʿAlaq this was also recorded: this root is used in the Qurʾān most often of Pharaoh, and "the furthest point of ṭughyān is to put oneself in the position of lord." There the twenty-fourth verse of this sūra was cited as evidence.

What is to be added here is this: the place of كلم in the sentence.

The verse says "Go to Pharaoh, for he has run beyond bounds." That is, the running beyond bounds is given as the ground for going.

This may look inverted: why go to someone who has run wild? What one would expect is to keep away.

But the sūra makes it a ground for a call. And the next verse shows how the ground works: the going is not to punish but to offer purification.

I record this as my own reading. But the order of the two verses is in the text.

The verb's coming in the perfect. Ṭaghā — "he has run beyond bounds", past tense. That is, the running beyond bounds is a completed, settled condition. Not something still in the making.

And one of the most unexpected sentences of the sūra is here.

هَلْ لَكَ إِلَىٰ كَذَا is in Arabic a pattern of offer: "would you care for this?", "would you like this?"

Within the pattern a noun is implicit; understood: "hal laka [raghbatun / maylun] ilā…" — "have you [any wish / inclination] towards this?"

That is, the sentence is not a command but a question; not a threat but an invitation.

And this is worth recording when one considers who is being addressed. Moses goes before a ruler who has declared himself a god and has had the children of the Israelites killed, and his first sentence is an offer.

The Qurʾān describes this scene more explicitly in another sūra:

"Go, both of you, to Pharaoh; he has run beyond bounds. Speak to him a gentle word; perhaps he will take heed or fear." (Ṭāhā 20/43-44)

The expression there is قَوْلًا لَّيِّنًا — a gentle word. And a ground is given as well: "perhaps he will take heed or fear."

What emerges when the two sūras are read together is this: even to the most extreme instance of running beyond bounds an offer is carried first, and the offer is made in a gentle manner.

And the word "perhaps" (لَعَلَّ) in Ṭāhā is worth recording too. As was treated in the section on al-Nabaʾ, laʿalla is used for what is possible; layta for what is impossible. That is, Pharaoh's taking heed is counted possible.

This is so despite the verdict at the end of the sūra. We know the outcome of the offer (79/21: "he denied and disobeyed"), but the offer itself is made as a real offer.

Root: ز-ك-و. This root was treated in detail in the section on Sūrat al-Shams and the finding there will be relied on.

What was recorded there was this: beneath the root there are two senses at once and they are inseparable — cleanness/purification and growth/increase. The dictionaries do not divide these into separate entries. And the expression "he purified his self" remains half-said when rendered only as "he cleansed": "he purified his self and thereby made it grow."

In the section on al-Shams this distinction was also drawn:

Now let us come to this verse and record a grammatical difference.

In al-Shams the verb had an object; here it has none.

The tafaʿʿul form announces the act's returning upon the agent: the person does the act to himself. And it generally announces gradualness as well: not all at once but by degrees.

That is, the offer is: "would you care to purify yourself?" — not an operation that happens at a stroke but a process.

And this joins with the distinction made in the section on al-Shams. There what was forbidden was declaring oneself pure. Here what is offered is purifying oneself. The two verbs are from the same root, but one is a claim and the other a work.

Pharaoh's case sharpens this distinction particularly. He is the one who will make the greatest claim about himself (79/24: "I am your most high lord"). What is offered is not a claim but a work.

I record this as my own reading. But the difference of form between the two verbs and the finding in al-Shams are in the text.

A note on variant readings. It is transmitted that the verb is read in an assimilated form (تَزَّكَّىٰ); the meaning is the same. I give no imām's name.

هَدَىٰ — Root: ه-د-ي. To show the way, to guide to the right road. This root was treated in detail in the section on al-Fātiḥa.

The verb comes in the subjunctive (ahdiya), because it is coupled to the أَن in the previous verse: "[would you care] to purify yourself and that I should guide you?"

رَبِّكَ — "your Lord".

And here is one of the sharpest sentences of the sūra.

To Pharaoh it is said "your Lord". The man who is going to declare himself lord is reminded that he has a Lord.

And this is directly connected with the finding recorded for رَبِّ ٱلْعَٰلَمِين in the section on al-Fātiḥa. What was written there was: "To say 'Lord of all the worlds' is at the same time to say that no human being is the lord of another human being. The sentence has a political side as much as a theological one." And there the sequel of this verse (79/24) was cited as evidence.

Al-Nāziʿāt 79/19 gives the other half of that finding: the man who makes the claim to lordship has a Lord himself.

The claim does not change the fact. Pharaoh may declare himself lord; but this does not mean that he has no Lord.

I record this as my own reading; the words of the two verses (19 and 24) are, however, in the text.

Root: خ-ش-ي. To fear — but of a particular kind.

The distinction the lexicographers record:

I record this distinction as a finding made by the lexicographers; I do not claim that it works rigidly everywhere.

There is a verse in the Qurʾān that supports this distinction:

"Of His servants, only the learned feel awe of God." (Fāṭir 35/28)

That is, awe is the result of knowledge.

And now look at the word order of the verse.

The sentence runs: "that I may guide you to your Lord, so that you may feel awe."

فَ here announces a result. That is, the order is:

Guiding → knowing → awe.

Awe is positioned not as a beginning but as a result.

This is a choice worth recording. The expected order could have been the reverse: "first fear, then believe." The verse turns this around: first know, and let the fear be born of that.

And this agrees with the sense of the word itself: khashya is fear grounded in knowledge; without knowledge there is no awe.

I record this as my own reading. But the fāʾ's announcing a result, and Fāṭir 35/28, are in the text.

The word's distribution in the sūra. The root خ-ش-ي occurs three times in this sūra:

Three occurrences, in the three parts of the sūra: in the narrative, in the verdict of the narrative, and at the end of the sūra.

And what the three set up is this: awe is the measure of the sūra. The narrative is a lesson to whoever feels awe; the warning reaches whoever feels awe; and what was offered to Pharaoh was to arrive at awe.

I record this as an observation; the repetitions of the word are a datum that can be verified.