Session Twenty-Eight, Verse 60, The Five Parts of the Verse, Part One

Session Twenty-Eight

Verse 60 – The Five Parts of the Verse – Part One: “And [Recall] When Moses Prayed for Water for His People” – Point One – Three Possibilities Regarding the Time of the Prayer for Water – Evidence for the First Possibility and Its Examination

February 22, 2025

Part One: “And [Recall] When Moses Prayed for Water for His People”

We have noted that verse 60 comprises five parts; the first part is this passage of the verse: “And [recall] when Moses prayed for water for his people” («وَإِذِ اسْتَسْقَى مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ»). In this passage, the verse states only this: remember the time when Moses prayed for water on behalf of his people. This is, in fact, a reminder of the blessings that God, Blessed and Exalted, granted to the Children of Israel. The Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, following the people’s request for water, sought it from God, and God then said: strike the stone with your staff, that water might flow.

In this passage, we must set forth several points.

Point One

The first point is: at what occasion and at what time did this prayer for water take place? That is, at what time did the people of Moses request water from him, and the Prophet Moses then present this request and petition to God Almighty? Several possibilities exist in this connection, which the exegetes have put forward; though some of these possibilities are well known and others less so. In summary, from the statements of the exegetes, it emerges that three possibilities, or three views, exist here.

The Three Possibilities

First possibility: that the prayer for water occurred in the land of Sinai, or in the wilderness and desert of wandering; the Children of Israel wandered in that desert for forty years.

Second possibility: that this occurred within a town; this town may be the very same town concerning which God said, “Enter this town” («ادخلوا هذه القریة»); regarding this town, too, there was disagreement as to whether it referred to Jerusalem or to Jericho. We have already noted that, according to what has been transmitted, when the Jewish people and the Children of Israel entered Jerusalem, the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, was no longer alive; this itself is an indication and a piece of evidence that the striking of the staff and the bursting forth of water did not occur in Jerusalem.

Third possibility: a further possibility is that this town is the very same town in which they settled for a period of time, not the town in which they ultimately entered and took up permanent residence.

Hence, on the whole, the possibilities we may cite here are, perhaps, no more than two. One possibility, as I have noted, may be ruled out; the other two possibilities remain: one, the wilderness or the desert of wandering or Sinai; and the other, the town in which they settled for a period of time.

Al-Razi, in al-Tafsir al-Kabir, cites two possibilities and states that the majority of exegetes are in agreement that the prayer for water occurred in that very wilderness and desert of wandering. “And Abu Muslim denied applying this miracle to the days of their journey toward the land of wandering” («وَأَنْكَرَ أَبُو مُسْلِمٍ حَمْلَ هذِهِ الْمُعْجِزَةِ عَلَى أَيَّامِ مَسِيرِهِمْ إِلَى التِّيهِ») — he denies that the prayer for water occurred during their journey through that wilderness and desert; that is, he holds that they were settled in a fixed place, and that this event occurred within a particular town. Al-Razi himself, however, states that there is nothing in the verse that indicates which of these is correct — whether the prayer for water occurred in that wilderness or within the town itself; he nevertheless cites two pieces of evidence and states that the closer view is that the prayer for water occurred in that very Sinai desert and in that wilderness.

Thus, one possibility is that the prayer for water occurred at the very time when they were wandering in the Sinai desert or wilderness, each side having its own indications and evidence for its claim. The second possibility is that this occurred after their settlement in the town.

Question:

Professor: This need compelled them to request water from Moses; just as, prior to this, they had been in severe straits on account of hunger, and God then said, “and sent down upon you manna and quails” («وَأَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَى»)… The very fact that God bestowed these blessings upon them, while meeting their needs, was, at the same time, also a miracle; there is no inconsistency in something being both a miraculous aspect and, at the same time, meeting their need. As for your question regarding the nature of this stone and how the bursting forth of water occurred, this is a matter of disagreement; for instance, one of the questions raised is whether the bursting forth of water that occurred following the strike of the staff happened only once, or whether it was a continuous flow. There are proponents of each view; some have said that this happened only once and then ceased; others have said that it continued. Several possibilities exist as well regarding the stone and its location, which we shall address. For now, we have put forward these possibilities regarding the timing of this prayer for water.

Evidence for the First Possibility

One possibility is that this occurred in the wilderness, prior to their entry into the town; certain indications are cited in the exegetical works in this regard, which we previously touched upon briefly in our general explanation of the verse.

If this related to the town, then “town” (qaryah), according to its lexical meaning and the description given of it, was a developed and inhabited place, and a developed town certainly has water for drinking; hence there would be no further need to request water.
In this very verse, it goes on to say, “Eat and drink from the provision of God” («كُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا مِنْ رِزْقِ اللَّهِ»); given that “eat” relates to manna and quails, it becomes evident that “drink” likewise relates to that same region. It cannot be that the command to eat relates to the wilderness while “drink” relates to the town; had it been the town, the verse would not have said “eat and drink” in this manner. “Eat” refers to that very manna and quails which were sent down in the wilderness; hence “drink,” too, by virtue of its being conjoined to “eat,” relates to that same region.
In the text of the Torah, it is stated that this event — the prayer for water and the splitting of the stone — related to the wilderness, prior to their settlement in the town.

Examination of the Evidence for the First Possibility

Nevertheless, to say that the prayer for water occurred within the town itself is not at all far-fetched. A point that arises here is this: in terms of the sequence between the prayer for water and the entry into the town, there exists a difference between verse 60 of Surat al-Baqarah and verses 160 and 161 of Surat al-A’raf. In this verse, in terms of sequence, the matter of entry into the town is mentioned first, followed by the matter of the prayer for water. In verse 58 of Surat al-Baqarah, the matter of entry into the town was raised; in verse 60, the matter of the prayer for water is raised. In Surat al-A’raf, the prayer for water is mentioned first, followed by the matter of entry into the town. This difference in the expression of these two verses makes the matter all the more difficult to resolve — whether this came first or afterward; both possibilities exist. Each is mentioned in a particular manner and sequence; there exist indications, on the one hand, that the prayer for water occurred prior to entry into the town and within that very Sinai desert; on the other hand, were we to take the prayer for water to have occurred after entry into the town, this too would not be at all far-fetched, for the following reasons:

As for the statement that the word “town” indicates the development and habitation of the region, and that this shows that this region was a developed one, and that it is unlikely that a developed region would have any need for water such that the people of Moses would ask him to pray for it — this does not seem an unlikely matter at all. Suppose a people enter a region that is developed, in the sense of having both fertile land and drinking water, with no difficulty in securing food and water; yet there exists a limited capacity for that region. A town that had a small population, into which several tens of thousands of people suddenly entered, would face difficulties both in terms of food and in terms of water. Hence, it is not at all unlikely that the people, after entering the town, fell into a state of water shortage and requested that the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, pray for water on their behalf.

As for the claim that the command “eat,” which relates to manna and quails — manna and quails having been sent down in the wilderness, as in “And We shaded you with clouds and sent down upon you manna and quails” («وَظَلَّلْنَا عَلَيْكُمُ الْغَمَامَ وَأَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَى») — is inconsistent with the town, this is not particularly acceptable; for these two blessings may not have been confined specifically to the wilderness, but may have continued even after they entered the town. Moreover, within this town, they may have encountered a water shortage, and hence requested water. That is, there is no impediment to our taking the command to drink to follow the prayer for water, and the prayer for water to follow their entry into the town, while the command to eat manna and quails likewise remained in effect — that is, those blessings continued, and they benefited from them, until they encountered a shortage of water and prayed for it. Hence, even if the prayer for water occurred after their entry into the town, this presents no particular difficulty.

Topic of the Next Session

We are thus faced with two possibilities; but can we find some basis for preferring one of these two possibilities over the other? God willing, we shall provide an answer in the coming session.