al-Aʿrāf 7:142-143

Wa wāʿadnā Mūsā thalāthīna laylatan wa atmamnāhā bi-ʿashrin fa-tamma mīqātu rabbihī arbaʿīna layla, wa qāla Mūsā li-akhīhi Hārūna'khlufnī fī qawmī wa aṣliḥ wa lā tattabiʿ sabīla'l-mufsidīn · Wa lammā jāʾa Mūsā li-mīqātinā wa kallamahū rabbuhū qāla rabbi arinī anẓur ilayk, qāla lan tarānī wa lākini'nẓur ila'l-jabali fa-ini'staqarra makānahū fa-sawfa tarānī, fa-lammā tajallā rabbuhū li'l-jabali jaʿalahū dakkan wa kharra Mūsā ṣaʿiqā, fa-lammā afāqa qāla subḥānaka tubtu ilayka wa anā awwalu'l-muʾminīn

"We appointed for Moses thirty nights and completed them with ten more; so the term set by his Lord was completed at forty nights. Moses said to his brother Aaron: 'Take my place among my people, set things right, and do not follow the way of the corrupters.' · And when Moses came at the time We appointed and his Lord spoke to him, he said: 'My Lord! Show me Yourself, that I may look at You.' He said: 'You will never see Me. But look at the mountain; if it stays firm in its place, you will see Me.' And when his Lord manifested Himself to the mountain He made it crumble to dust, and Moses fell down in a faint. When he came to, he said: 'Glory be to You! I turn to You in repentance; I am the first of the believers.'"

A point of word order must be recorded, and this is the most striking place in the verse: the term is not stated all at once.

That is, the verse says thirty + ten = forty. And it states the sum itself.

I record this as an observation about word order, and its ground is the construction of the sentence: the telling gives the term not as a whole but as a completing. And the verb used confirms it: atmamnāhā — "We completed it"; and fa-tamma — "so it was completed". The same root (ت-م-م) twice.

And the choice of the word layla (night) is worth recording: it counts not "days" but "nights". This is one of the common ways of counting a span in Arabic, and the lexicographers record it separately.

Several explanations of the reason for the division between thirty and ten are transmitted in the classical commentaries. I do not convey them, because I cannot establish the soundness of any of them, and the Qurʾān states no reason (Method). The one thing that can be verified from the text is that the division is there.

What Moses says to his brother is in three parts, and all three must be recorded:

And the opposition of two words must be recorded: aṣliḥ (set right) and al-mufsidīn (the corrupters) — the roots ص-ل-ح and ف-س-د. They are set facing each other in the same sentence.

And this pair had occurred twice earlier in the sūra (56 and 85: wa lā tufsidū fi'l-arḍi baʿda iṣlāḥihā). That is, the sūra uses its own measure a third time, this time in the instruction a prophet gives to his brother. This is a repetition that can be verified within the sūra.

And the presence of the third command is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: the instruction is not only "take my place"; it carries a prohibition as well. The text does not say the reason for this prohibition, and I invent no reason.

أَرِنِى — the root ر-أ-ي, the imperative of Form IV: "show me". No object is stated; the sentence is not arinī nafsak ("show me Yourself") but only arinī. That the object has been elided is understood from the second clause (anẓur ilayk).

أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ — the root ن-ظ-ر: to look, to turn the eye towards something. The verb is in the jussive: it comes as the answer to the request ("show me that I may look").

And the difference between the two roots must be recorded, and it is a datum of the language:

The request uses both at once: show (seeing) and let me look (turning).

This verse is one of the most debated verses in the history of Islamic thought, and the debate is a debate of kalām. Per the method (Method) I impose no preference here, take no side, and enter into no polemic. I give the views, together with their grounds, in a table.

The subject of the debate is this: what does the sentence lan tarānī ("you will never see Me") negate?

All three readings have been voiced in the classical sources, and each has its own chain of evidence. I make no preference and set no school's view above another's.

And I write this plainly: this verse has throughout history been a distinguishing question among the schools of kalām. In this commentary it is not said on which side of that division one stands.

I record separately the things that can be verified from the text, because these are not disputed:

And I enter a note of tanzīh about the word tajallī, and I do not open the discussion:

The root ج-ل-و: a thing's coming into the open, the lifting of a covering, brightness becoming visible. In ascribing the word to God, the note entered for the Throne at 40/7 in Ghāfir (al-Muʾmin) holds here too: the expression cannot be understood so as to ascribe place, body or removal from one place to another to God. In the classical commentaries two attitudes are transmitted for expressions of this kind, tafwīḍ and taʾwīl; I convey both and impose no preference.

And a point of word order must be recorded: tajallā rabbuhū li'l-jabal — the one addressed by the manifestation is the mountain, not Moses. This is a datum that can be read from the text.

دَكًّا — the root د-ك-ك: to level a thing to the ground, to crumble it. A variant reading is transmitted: dakkan and dakkāʾan. The difference in sense is slight; both mean "shattered to pieces / levelled flat".

صَعِقًا — the root ص-ع-ق: to be struck by lightning; and from this, to faint, to lose consciousness.

The lexicographers and the exegetes dwell on this sentence too, and I give the disagreement in a table:

All three explanations are transmitted; I do not impose a preference.

And it must be recorded that the same expression occurs at 26/51 in al-Shuʿarāʾ in the mouth of the sorcerers: an kunnā awwala'l-muʾminīn. The same pattern in two places, in two different mouths. This is an overlap that can be verified from the two texts.