Literary Ramifications of the Qurʼān

Recurring Narratives in the Qurʼān: Exegetical Analyses of The Story of Moses

Suheil Laher

Narratives, especially stories of former prophets, are a prominent Qurʼānic theme, yet the
Qurʼān is not a conventional histoire text, for it intersperses plot with theology, exhortation,
and dialectic. It is common for only part of a story to be told before moving on to another
theme, and for the same story to be told in more than one place within the Qurʼān.

The Qurʼān challenges conventional notions of what a text is. To begin with, the oral sense of
the Qurʼān is primal,1 remaining essential even after it was compiled into a book by the third
caliph ʿUthman.2 Furthermore, at the time of the Qurʼān’s emergence, Arabic was written with
a skeletal, defective text, with the result that the written text of the holy book could
potentially be read in different ways. According to most Muslim scholars, the Prophet
Muhammad himself gave flexibility in recitation, although not all potential decipherments of
the skeletal text were acceptable. Later Muslim scholarship devised screening criteria, whereby
oral variants of the ʿUthmanic text that were proven to have been well-known in the earliest
generations, and thereafter reliably transmitted, were allowed for liturgy. There are at least
seven such canonical recitations of the Qurʼān.

According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the Hebrew Bible is a compilation of four

independent sources. Similarly, in modern Christian Bible scholarship, the four gospels are
held to derive from earlier sources and in some cases each other. 3 In contrast, the Qurʼān was
subject to different transmission processes and history, with Muslim scholars even today
viewing it as a single text, and even most Western academics view the book, in its broad
outlines, as “an early fixed text composed of the suras we have.” 4 Granted, the Qurʼān does

1
See: William Graham, Beyond the written word: oral aspects of scripture in the history of religion (Cambridge; New York :
Cambridge University Press, 1987).
2
There are also reports that the Quran was compiled prior to ʿUthman, but the collective memory of the Muslim
community is in agreement that ʿUthman’s project was responsible for disseminating written copies of a
standardized written Quran.
3
For example, Gundry believed that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew himself, but drawing on Mark
and Q source, with negligible contribution from tbe M source. Robert Gundry, A Commentary on his Literary and
Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).
4
Angela Neuwirth, “Structural, Linguistic and Literary Features,” The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān ed. Jane
present itself as the last in a series of revealed texts from God (including the Torah given to
Moses), and describes itself as “confirming that which came before it,” and therefore one
might proffer that its text might echo elements of the former revealed books in order that it
resonate with those already familiar with those books. However, this dimension of analysis is
not taken up in the discussions of our two protagonists.

In contrast to the doctrine of (indirect) Biblical inspiration in Christian theology, the

overwhelming majority of Muslim theologians hold that the very words of the Qurʼān were
intimately tied to the theological doctrine of iʿjāz, which holds (on the basis of Qurʼānic
declarations about itself) that the Qurʼān is inimitable; that its style cannot be matched by
human efforts. Both Ibn ʿĀshūr’s and Sāmarrāʼī’s discussions are concerned with upholding the
integrity and coherence of the Qurʼānic text, in contrast to higher criticism of the Bible which
was often seen as a desacralizing approach. Both comment that their rhetorical analyses help
to appreciate iʿjāz but that iʿjāz is a bigger topic. Variant canonical readings of the Qurʼān
introduce further variant wordings, with their own potential nuances, and we will see to what
extent our protagonists take these into consideration.

The Qurʼān comprises 114 suras, of lengths ranging from a few lines to scores of pages.
Angelika Neuwirth describes the suras as ‘neatly composed texts … a literary genre in
themselves.”5 The concept of the sura as a unity is not new, and was not disputed by most pre-
modern Muslim scholars. However, attention to this specific dimension in Muslim works of
exegesis is a twentieth-century development, as Mustansir Mir has discussed. Pre-modern
exegesis of the Qurʼān was typically atomistic, although some, such as Razi (d. 1606 CE), made
rudimentary attempts to explain the connections between verses (‘linear-atomistic”). In
contrast, Mir describes the ‘new’ method as ‘organic-holistic.’ 6

In this paper, I am analyzing how two contemporary Muslim exegetes approached two parallel
Qurʼānic narratives of Moses, who is the most frequently mentioned prophet in the Qurʼān. I
focus on two mimetic accounts of the encounter between Moses and Pharaoh (in Surahs 7 and
26) that show much overlap in wording, but also some noticeable differences. The first of the

Dammen McAuliffe (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006), 100.

5
Neuwirth, “Structural, Linguistic and Literary Features,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006): 97-113.
6
Mustansir Mir, “The Sura as Unity: A Twentieth-Century Development in Qurʼān Exegesis”, in Hawting G.R. and
Shareef, Abdul Kader, Approaches to the Qurʼān (New York, Routledge, 1993): 211-224.
two exegetes is Ṭāhir ibn ʿĀshūr (d. 1973), a Tunisian ʿālim, exegete, professor, judge and later
educational administrator, author of a monumental tafsir that was intended to fill the gap for a
tafsīr work focusing on detailed exploration of the rhetorical dimensions of the Qur'ān. The
other is Fāḍil ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Sāmarrā'ī (b. 1933), an Iraqi professor of Arabic who, although he has
not written a full exegesis of the Qurʼān, has risen to prominence as a major figure in the study
of Qur'ānic eloquence as an aspect of its inimitability (iʿjāz). In a number of his books, and also
on television lectures, he has frequently examines the nuances of near-synonymous Qur'ānic
words, word order, the relevance and suitability of these to context, and other rhetorical
dimensions of the scriptural text.

Mir mentions that the ‘sura-as-unity’ exegetes typically are in agreement over two
methodological aspects: Firstly, that they identify a central idea of the sura, and secondly that
they divide the sura into sections and explain the connections between the sections. So, let us
look at how Ibn ʿAshūr and Sāmarrāʾī approached these two points. Ibn ʿAshūr, at the start of
his discussion of each sura, devotes a short section to ‘goals’ (aghrad) of the sura, but this often
reads more as a summary of the main themes of the sura; he does not attempt to identify a
single, central theme, unlike Farahi who is a champion of the ‘new’ approach. For Sura 7,
however, he does mention that the opening of the sura is a summary of its contents, but does
not specify how many of the opening verses he is referring to. Sāmarrāʾī does not attempt to
identify a central idea either, but he does identify features that contribute to the distinctness
of each sura. Sura 26, he explains, differs from Sura 7 via two distinctive features: (1) more
detail in narration of events, (2) a stronger “man vs man” confrontation. He says the narrative
in each sura is built upon these two pillars, and all its wordings and expressions serve to realize
/ actualize these two things. In contrast, the Sura 7 is characterized by brevity, and less
emphasis on confrontation. He often refers back to these points, as we will see below.

How the two exegetes deal with Comparison of the two Passages
I classified the differences between the two passages into five categories, and will now proceed
to discuss how each of the exegetes dealt with each of the categories.

1. Summary and Ellipsis

By ‘ellipsis’ here, I mean: omission of an event, word or detail from one of the passages that is
present in the other. ‘Summary’ is where details in one passage are summarized in the other.
i. 7:105-106 transitions directly from Moses’ demand that Pharaoh release the Israelites,
 to Pharaoh’s demand for a sign, whereas in 26:18-30, there is an additional dialogue
wherein Moses attempts to teach Pharaoh about God, and when this ends in a threat
from Pharaoh, Moses retorts, “Even if I brought you something [i.e., proof] manifest?”
Ibn ʿAshūr explains the relevance of this statement to the preceding dialogue: that
Moses saw that he must move on from rational proofs to physical miracles. Sāmarrāʾī,
on the other hand, uses the additional dialogue (26:18-30) to explain the wording in
26:34 (as we see shortly).
ii. Ibn ʿAshūr attempts to chronologize the entire story of Moses, with reference also to
other suras.

2. Use of Emphasis (e.g. fa-la-sawfa)

i. “But you are going to know.” 7:123
“but you are surely going to know. 26:49
Sāmarrāʾī explains the added emphasis in S26 as reflecting greater anger (consonant with the
theme of more intense confrontation). Ibn ʿAshūr does not offer an exp

3. Different conjunction
i. “And the magicians fell down in prostration.” 7:120
“So [immediately] the magicians fell down in prostration” 26:46
Sāmarrāʾī mentions that the conjunction in S26 conveys that the sorcerers prostrated
themselves immediately after their defeat by Moses, which contributes to a
heightening of the sense of confrontation which is a theme in this sura. He views this as
climactic, in that after Pharoah’s promises, and the sorcerers’ eagerness and invoking
Pharoah’s name, there is suddenly an inversion whereby the sorcerers have now
changed sides. In contrast, 7:120 uses ‘and’ which does not explicitly tell us how long
after the defeat they prostrated.
ii. “I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides; then I will surely
impale you all." 7:124
“I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will surely impale
you all.” 26:49
Sāmarrāʾī takes the S26 version as implying that the sorcerers will not be given reprieve
after the amputation, which he says is consistent with the theme of more intense anger
in this sura. Ibn ʿAshūr does not comment on this difference.
4. Use of apparent synonym
i. “and send among the cities gatherers” (7:111, 26:36). The word for ‘send’ is arsil in the
first case, but ibʿath in the other. Ibn ʿAshūr considered these synonyms, and in general
(as he explains in the introduction to the book) he considers such varieties of wording
as a form of versatility, to avoid repetitiveness and to keep the listeners’ interest alive.
Sāmarrāʾī, however, points out a nuanced difference between the two ostensible
synonyms: that ibʿath conveys an additional meaning of ‘inciting,’ which is apt kin S26
because of the theme of confrontation. He also adduces a further justification: that arsil
is more appropriate to S7 because the sura contains more words from the triliteral root
rsl than S26 (30 vs 17).’
ii. “….(gatherers) who will bring you every … magician.” 7:112, 26:37
The words for magician are, respectively, sahir (simple participle) and sahhar (emphatic
participle). Sāmarrāʾī observes that the emphatic form is appropriate to the
confrontation theme of S26, whereas Ibn ʿAshūr suggests that the two words could be
taken as synonymous.

5. Potential contradiction (Different details mentioned in each passage, interrogative or not,

different details)

i. “Said the eminent among the people of Pharaoh, "Indeed, this is a learned magician.” 7:109
“[Pharaoh] said to the eminent ones around him, "Indeed, this is a learned magician.” 26:34
Ibn ʿAshūr suggests two possibilities: that the statement originated with Pharaoh, and then his
eminent ones followed suit, or vice-versa. In contrast, Sāmarrāʾī sees the different wording as
reflecting different perspectives: in 26:34, Pharaoh has been psychologically weakened by the
preceding debate (26:18-30), with the result that he now speaks only the courtiers around him,
not directly to Moses.

ii. “And the magicians came to Pharaoh, they said, "Indeed for us is a reward if we are the
predominant. Yes, and, [moreover], you will be among those made near [to me]." 7:113
“And when the magicians came, they said to Pharaoh, Is there indeed for us a reward if
we are the predominant? Yes, and indeed, you will then be of those near [to me]” 26:41
Ibn ʿAshūr observes that the ostensibly missing interrogative in S7 is nevertheless
 clearly implied,7 and the additional ‘then’ in S26 is appropriate to the context, taking
this one again as an example of variety in narrating their words. Sāmarrāʾī takes the
added interrogative particle as another example of detail, and the additional ‘then’ as
an indication of Pharaoh’s misgivings about the outcome, consonant with the theme of
challenge and confrontation. The explicit direction of the words towards Pharaoh in
S26 is viewed as consistent with the preceding context where Pharaoh speaks in 26:34.

Analysis and Conclusions

1) In Mir’s seminal article, he has drawn attention to the importance of ‘central idea’ to
the exegetical approach of considering the sura as a unity. Sāmarrāʾī broadens the
understanding of ‘central idea’ beyond theme, to include tone; we have seen him
identify confrontation and anger as central to S26. He also takes an organic approach
which includes appeal to frequencies of certain words in each sura as a distinctive
element of the sura.
2) Mir has also indicated that the ‘suna-as-unity’ approach holds potential for analyzing
literary drama within the Qurʼān. We have that Sāmarrāʾī draws on psychological
elements in his discussion of the tone of S26, thereby providing an example of
psychological dramatic analysis of the Qurʼān. Although Ibn ʿAshūr also discusses
psychological elements8, he does so atomistically, not tying this in with the central
theme.
3) Sāmarrāʾī’s approach has been seen to be more organic-holistic than Ibn ʿAshūr’s. This
is understandable, since the former (ostensibly) set out specifically to analyze the
differences between the two Moses passages, whereas the latter aimed to write a full
exegesis of the Qurʼān focusing on rhetorical dimensions, which can easily be done
atomistically. Since Sāmarrāʾī has not written a complete exegesis of even the sura, it
remains to be seen how consistently he can sustain his analysis of central theme and
tone.
4) Sāmarrāʾī takes the conjunction wa (‘and,” in 26:49) as implying absence of delay,
whereas in 7:120, he interprets it as implying a delay. This apparent inconsistency is

7
Similarly, in 7:123, 26:49, he observes that the readings that most canonical readings add the interrogative
particle, but that for those that don’t, the interrogative is implied.
8
E.g. “This is a learned/skilled magician. He wants to drive you out of your land” (7:110, 26:35) Ibn ʿAshur explains
the internal logic, and gives four possible reasons of why Pharoah’s releasing the Israelites might lead to him
expelling the Egyptians from Egypt.
 actually an illustration of Mir’s observation that the ‘sura-as-unity’ exegetical approach
might, in some cases, provide a way to give preference to one of two or more conflicting
interpretations. Grammarians tell us that the conjunction wa implies nothing about
time; the entities or events connected by it could be simultaneous, or with an
intervening delay. So, what Sāmarrāʾī is actually doing is choosing one potential
meaning from the semantic range of wa, with that choice determined by considerations
of theme and tone: exactly the sort of ‘tie-breaker’ scenario that Mir envisioned.
5) We have seen that the words attributed to characters in dialogues differ slightly between
the two passages. Ibn ʿAshūr, commenting on the sorcerers’ supplication to God, comments
that this is the Qurʼān’s articulation of their prayer (taʿbīr al-qur’ān ʿan du’āʾihim). Sāmarrāʾī,
at the conclusion of his analysis, comments that the words and expressions in the passages
were selected in order to “serve the aesthetic dimension through their most precise
meanings and most complete images.” (anna ikhtiyār al-alfāẓ wa al-ʿibārāt kāna maqṣūdan li-
khidmat al-nāhiya al-fanniyya fi adaqq maʿānihā wa-akmal ṣuwarihā). Muḥammad Khalafallāh
(d. 1991) cited the differences in reported speech of the same characters as support for his
controversial assertion that Qurʼānic narrative is allegorical and not necessarily historical. 9
Our two exegetes seem unconcerned with refuting Khalafallah’s contention directly.
Indeed, in the two passages we have looked at, most of the differences could be reconciled
by positing that each passage is partially quoting the characters, or that we are simply
dealing with an Arabic paraphrase of the original non-Arabic words, as the above quotes
from Ibn ʿAshūr and Sāmarrāʾī show.
6) Ibn ʿAshūr cites and explains differences between canonical readings, but Sāmarrāʾī, in
contrast, is Hafsonormative.10 We note that some details of Sāmarrāʾī’s analysis would not
hold up under other canonical readings. Nevertheless, I would expect that Sāmarrāʾī would
agree with Ibn ʿAshūr’s assertion that the canonical recitations are not all equal, and that
one recitation might display more eloquence and consequently illustrate iʿjaz more
perfectly.

9
Abu-Zayd, Nasr. "The Dilemma of the Literary Approach to the Qur'an." Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics 23
(2003): 8-50.
10
To use Dr Sohaib Saeed’s expression.