أَم أَنا خَيرٌ مِن هٰذَا الَّذي هُوَ مَهينٌ وَلا يَكادُ يُبينُ

Am I not better than this humble one who cannot even speak clearly?

EXEGESIS

In the translation, the particle am which appears at the beginning of the Arabic text is untranslated. In Arabic grammar, this particle functions either as a continuative conjunction linking the sentence to what precedes it, or as a disjunctive particle introducing a new, independent statement. Here, it may be interpreted as disjunctive, conveying the sense of emphasis, in which case the verse would read: Rather, I am better than this humble one,[1] as attributed to Suddī.[2] Perhaps the intended meaning was ‘even if I don’t have control over Egypt and its rivers, am I not still better than Moses?’[3]

Alternatively, it may be understood as continuative and the alternate proposition is implicit, and the verse would read: Is he better? Or am I not better than this humble one?[4]

Both Sībawayh and al-Khalīl have considered the particle am as a coordinating conjunction, interpreting the clause ‘I am better’ as conjoined to the last part of the previous verse, Do you not perceive?

From Pharaoh’s perspective, if people said: ‘You are better,’ they were considered to have insight. In other words, the usage of the phrase Am I not better? in place of Do you not perceive? falls under the rhetorical device of replacing the consequent with the cause or vice versa, i.e. if they are people of insight (cause) they will see he is better (consequent), or if they see he is better (cause), then they must be people of insight (consequent).[5]

The noun khayrun (better) has been understood by most exegetes to be in the superlative form, thus implying that Pharaoh was conceding that Prophet Moses (a) did have some goodness in him, but asserted his own superiority. However, some exegetes suggest that the noun is in determinative form, conveying absolute goodness without comparison. Based on the latter, Pharaoh was suggesting that he was the only one who was good and that Prophet Moses (a) was bad or evil.[6]

Pharaoh’s use of the demonstrative pronoun hādhā (this) to refer to Prophet Moses (a) was a means of belittling him.[7]

Mahīn (humble) is defined as despised, despicable, contemptible, and vile.[8]

Yubīnu (speak clearly) is the imperfect form four of the verb bāna, which means ‘to appear’ or ‘to become manifest’. In form four, the verb takes a causative sense, meaning ‘to make appear’, ‘to disclose’, or ‘to make clear’. Speech is called bayān because it reveals and manifests the intended meaning one seeks to convey, as in the verse, This is a clarification (bayān) for mankind (3:138). Likewise, that by which concise or ambiguous speech is elucidated is also termed bayān, Then indeed, upon Us is its clarification (bayānahu) (75:19).[9]

Since the verb here occurs in the imperfect form four, carrying the sense of making something clear, the phrase may be rendered literally as: Am I not better than this humble one who can hardly make things clear? Because the object of the verb is left unstated, most exegetes understand it implicitly to refer to Prophet Moses’ (a) speech; that is, Prophet Moses (a) is being portrayed as unable to express himself clearly. This implied meaning is captured well in Pickthall’s translation: ‘I am surely better than this fellow, who is despicable and can hardly make (his meaning) plain!’

EXPOSITION

In the previous verse, Pharaoh claimed that he had two qualities that made him more deserving of being followed: dominion over Egypt and control over River Nile. In this verse, Pharaoh points to two qualities of Prophet Moses (a) that he considered as flaws: poverty and a speech impediment.

Describing Prophet Moses (a) as humble could either be a reference to his social class whereby the rich and powerful were considered to be from the elite whilst the poor working labourers were considered to be from the lowest class,[10] or it could be an indication towards his lineage, since Prophet Moses (a) was from the Israelites whilst the Copts considered themselves as their masters.[11]

Pharaoh’s statement, Am I not better, reflects a distinctive trait of Satan. This trait was manifest in Pharaoh, while Pharaoh’s claim, I am your lord, the most high (79:24), was never found in Satan. This reveals that although God has honoured humankind with a unique capacity, We have certainly created man in the best of stature (95:4), nevertheless, if a person corrupts this innate readiness, they descend to a level lower than even Satan, reaching the lowest of the low (asfal al-sāfilīn) and becoming the worst of creatures. However, if a person perfects their potential, they can attain a nearness to God that even the most exalted angels cannot reach, thus becoming the best of creation.[12]

Who cannot even speak clearly: the claim that Prophet Moses (a) could not speak clearly has been understood by many exegetes as referring to a purported accident during Prophet Moses’ (a) childhood in which he placed a burning piece of coal on his tongue.[13] The implausibility of such an event will be discussed in detail: see the Topical Article under this verse.

In light of what was mentioned in the Exegesis, some commentators argue that Pharaoh was not referring to Prophet Moses’ (a) speech at all. Rather, they understand him to be saying that Prophet Moses (a) could not assert or establish himself publicly because of his weakness and his lack of supporters. This reading is strongly supported by the following verse, in which Pharaoh points to the absence of two outward marks of power corresponding to his earlier claims: Why have no bracelets of gold been cast upon him, nor have the angels come with him as escorts? In this interpretation, the verse is not about a defect in Prophet Moses’ (a) speech but about his apparent lack of status and support. For that reason, this reading is preferable to the view that Prophet Moses (a) was unable to make his intentions clear because of weakness in speech.[14]

In his confrontations with Pharaoh, Prophet Moses (a) was able to elucidate his arguments perfectly and openly challenged Pharaoh. In no descriptions of these encounters do we notice any kind of verbal weakness on the part of Prophet Moses (a).[15] Furthermore, God explicitly states that apostles are sent such that they may clearly disseminate divine communications, We did not send any apostle except with the language of his people, so that he might make [Our messages] clear (liyubayyina) to them (14:4). It is noteworthy that liyubayyina and yubīn (in this verse) come from the same root. As such, it would seem to go against divine wisdom to appoint a prophet who cannot communicate well.[16]

Nevertheless, most exegetes have assumed that Pharoah was referring to Prophet Moses’ (a) communication skills. On this reading, it is plausible that this was a reference to the content of Prophet Moses’ (a) speech. Pharaoh was not able to comprehend the profound significance of Prophet Moses (a) saying, Our Lord is He who gave everything its creation and then guided it (20:50). Thus, it was not the case that Prophet Moses (a) had some kind of speech impediment. Rather, Pharaoh lacked in his understanding and retorted likewise (see also 11:91 where the people of Prophet Shuʿayb (a) make a similar claim).[17]

Most exegetes have resorted to other verses that allude to a kind of weakness in Prophet Moses’ (a) communication skills. Consider Prophet Moses’ (a) response to God’s command, Go to Pharaoh. He has indeed rebelled (20:24), whereby he requests God for several matters: He said: ‘My Lord! Open my breast for me. Make my affair easy for me. Remove the hitch from my tongue, [so that] they may understand my discourse. Appoint for me a minister from my family, Aaron, my brother’ (20:25-30). The apparent meaning of these verses indicates that Prophet Moses (a) had a kind of hitch in his tongue. However, in response, it can be said that, firstly, supplication for these matters does not necessarily imply that he was initially deprived of them. Rather, supplication serves other wisdoms, aims, and purposes. Both Shia and Sunni narrations mention how the Holy Prophet prayed using the exact same supplication for Imam Ali (a), and yet there is no historical evidence to imply any kind of defect in the Prophet’s speech.[18] It is plausible that this was a supplication for the continuation of these bounties, especially considering that his chest had already been expanded with the light of faith and God had already been easing his affairs and would continue doing the same. It may nevertheless be argued that the qualifier, [so that] they may understand my discourse, indicates that the purpose was the people’s comprehension of his words. On this reading, the supplication is outwardly for himself, but in reality it is for the people, namely that God remove whatever prevents them from understanding his speech.[19]

Secondly, the context of these verses suggests that Prophet Moses (a) was asking for facilitation and ease for such a momentous task.[20] One only needs to conceptualise the circumstance that Prophet Moses (a) was in to realise the gravity of the situation. Pharoah was a tyrannical ruler who had great majesty, power, and formidable means. It was no simple matter for a single individual to enter Pharaoh’s court and say, in effect, ‘follow me’.[21]

According to Sharīf al-Raḍī, if there was a ‘knot’ preventing open expression, it was one of caution and restraint. On this reading, the loosening of the knot means the removal of that restraint from his tongue and protection from the force of Pharaoh and his followers, so that he might convey God’s message in security – speaking with confidence rather than fear or anxiety, and not remaining tongue-tied out of caution, nor silenced by fear.[22]

Furthermore, consider 26:10-14, When your Lord called out to Moses: ‘Go to the wrongdoing people, the people of Pharaoh. Will they not be wary [of Allah]?’ He said: ‘My Lord! I fear they will impugn me, and I will become upset, and my tongue will fail me. So send [Your messenger] to Aaron. Also they have a charge against me, and I fear they will kill me.’ Just as the constriction of his breast was connected to this mission, so too the lack of fluency in his tongue was connected to the fact that he had been raised in Pharaoh’s house as a child and had killed one of Pharaoh’s men. In such a situation, the natural state of affairs would lead anyone’s tongue to become heavy, however eloquent he might otherwise be. It would also expose him to denial, even though he was the most truthful of the truthful: He said: ‘Did we not rear you as a child among us, and did you not stay with us for years of your life? Then you committed that deed of yours, and you are an ingrate.’ He said: ‘I did that when I was astray. So I fled from you, as I was afraid of you. Then my Lord gave me judgement and made me one of the apostles. As for that favour, you remind me of it reproachfully because you have enslaved the Children of Israel’ (26:18-22).

A fluent speaker, then, may find his tongue tied because of inward psychological constraints or outward circumstances, and so may be unable to express his purpose clearly or pursue it fully. By contrast, one who is not eloquent – or even one who is tongue-tied or mute – may find his speech released through inner ease and outward support. Prophet Moses (a), given his prior history of having killed one of Pharoah’s men despite having been raised in his household from childhood, could hardly be expected to speak forth what he intended without inhibition: there was an inward barrier to open expression, and an outward one in the form of Pharaoh’s majesty and his followers.[23]

At any rate, verses 51 and 52 may allude to the fact that those who seek strength through something other than God, their downfall and destruction lie precisely in that which they rely upon. When Pharaoh took pride in his dominion over Egypt and considered the Nile to flow by his command, it became the very cause of his destruction. Similarly, whoever belittles another is ultimately subdued by them, just as Pharaoh belittled Prophet Moses (a), dismissed his speech, and mocked his poverty and impediment of speech, saying, Am I not better. Thus, God empowered Prophet Moses (a) over him, making him the instrument of Pharaoh’s demise.[24]

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

The fact that Pharaoh mocked Prophet Moses (a) for his speech impediment, even though in 20:36 God declares that He had accepted Prophet Moses’ (a) supplications, has been taken by some to mean that Prophet Moses (a) had only prayed for a partial uplifting of the impediment and thus there were still traces of it that could be noticed. In other words, Prophet Moses (a) had only prayed to God to remove his speech impediment to the extent that it affects his eloquence and ability to convey his message to others. This view has been attributed to Hasan al-Baṣrī.[25]

Some exegetes suggest that the speech impediment being referred to by Pharaoh is a reference to the way Prophet Moses (a) addressed Pharaoh in a soft and gentle manner, which was actually a directive from God (20:46).[26] Another suggestion is that what is meant by one who cannot even speak clearly is that Prophet Moses (a) does not present a clear proof or exposition, and that this was merely a taunt to divert people away from him.[27] Another possibility is that Pharaoh, due to his disbelief and stubbornness, fabricated a lie to tarnish Prophet Moses’ (a) reputation and prevent people from inclining towards him.[28] This may not be farfetched since the Quran gives other examples of lies and fabrications used to defame prophets. For example, the people of Prophet Shuʿayb (a) said, O Shuʿayb, we do not understand much of what you say (11:91), yet there is no evidence that Prophet Shuʿayb (a) had any kind of speech impediment.

TOPICAL ARTICLES

The Story of Moses (a) Burning his Tongue

Some exegetes suggest that the indication towards an apparent defect in Prophet Moses’ (a) communication skills is a reference to a stammer that he had acquired during childhood. What follows is an examination of such accounts as recorded in Biblical and Jewish sources, as well as the Sunni and Shia hadiths.

Non-Islamic sources differ slightly in some of the details of the story. In Shemot Rabbah 1:26, a Jewish exegesis of Exodus, the following incident is reported: ‘Because he [Moses (a)] was beautiful, everyone desired to see him, and anyone who saw him would not leave him. Pharaoh would kiss him and hug him, and he would take Pharaoh’s crown and place it on his head, as he was destined to do when he grew older … The magicians of Egypt were sitting there, and said: “We are afraid of this one who takes your crown and places it on his head, lest he be the one regarding whom we said that he is destined to wrest your kingdom from you.” Some of them said to behead him, some said to burn him. Yitro was sitting in their midst and saying to them: “This boy has no intelligence. Rather, test him. Bring before him a bowl with gold and a hot coal. If he extends his hand to the gold, he has intelligence and [you should] execute him; and if he extends his hand to the coal, he has no intelligence and he has no sentence of death.” Immediately, they brought it before him and he extended his hand to take the gold. Gabriel came and pushed his hand. He seized the coal and placed his hand with the coal into his mouth, and his tongue was burned. From that he became “slow of speech and slow of tongue” (Exodus 4:10).’

William Barclay in his exegesis of Hebrew 11:23-29 describes the same story as follows: ‘By way of jest he [Pharaoh] took his crown and placed it on the child’s head; but the infant snatched the crown from his head and flung it on the ground and trampled on it. Pharaoh’s wise men were full of foreboding that this child would someday trample the royal power under foot. They wished to destroy Moses (a) there and then. But a test was proposed; they set before the child a bowl of precious stones and a bowl of live coals. If he put out his hand and touched the jewels, that would prove that he was so wise that he was a danger; if he put out his hands and touched the coals, that would prove that he was so witless that he was no danger. The infant Moses (a) was about to touch the jewels when Gabriel took his hand and put it on the coals. His finger was burnt; he put the burnt finger in his mouth and burnt his mouth; that, they say, was why he was not a good speaker (Exodus 4:10) but stammered all his life.’ Note how this version states that Moses’ (a) fingers got burnt and he then placed his burnt fingers in his mouth which then burnt his tongue.

As early as the twelfth century, this story was dismissed as apocryphal by Rashbam, Luzzatto, and other Jewish exegetes. Instead, it was suggested that Moses (a) had forgotten his Egyptian, or was not eloquent, or was unskilled in debating.[29]

A group of Iranian researchers have attempted to explicate the meaning of ‘slow of speech’ and ‘slow of tongue’ (Exodus 4:10) by taking a linguistic approach and analysing the semantic roots of the original Hebrew words (khevad-peh and khevad-lashon).[30] It seems that lashon has been used for both the physical tongue as well as language (similar to the Arabic lisān). As such, khevad-lashon could either be referring to a physical defect of the tongue or to a defect in language.

Chapter 3 of the book Ezekiel provides an interesting clue as to what could have been intended, as it describes Ezekiel’s mission to deliver the word of the Lord to the Children of Israel: ‘And he said to me, “Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat. Then he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it.” So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth. He then said to me, “Son of man, go now to the people of Israel and speak my words to them. You are not being sent to a people of obscure speech and strange language, but to the people of Israel—not to many peoples of obscure speech and strange language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely if I had sent you to them, they would have listened to you”’ (Ezekiel 3:1-6).

The point of discussion lies in the phrase ‘obscure speech and strange language’, which appears twice, in verses 5 and 6, as well as the phrase ‘whose words you cannot understand’.

The Hebrew phrases for these two expressions in both verses are lashon khivedi ve shapā imqy. This phrase consists of two parts. The first part is derived from the word imqy, meaning incomprehensible or obscure, and the word shāpāh, equivalent to the Arabic shafah (lip), meaning speech, words, or lip. Therefore, the combination shapā imqy means incomprehensible and obscure speech. The second part, lashon khivedi, appears exactly in Exodus 4:10 and refers to the slowness of Moses’ (a) speech, which was indicated to earlier. The placement of these two phrases side-by-side clearly indicates that Ezekiel did not have a problem with his speech or a speech impediment. Rather, God is saying that they are not a people who would fail to understand your speech or find it obscure.

The Hebrew expression used in the verse bears a close resemblance to the wording attributed to Moses (a) when he describes himself as ‘slow of speech’. This comparison suggests that Moses’ (a) difficulty should not necessarily be understood as a physical defect in his tongue or a medical speech impediment. Rather, the issue may have concerned the reception and intelligibility of his discourse among Pharaoh’s people.

Moses’ (a) words were not difficult because he lacked the physical ability to speak, but because his message was obstructed by its social and political context. He was already associated with the killing of an Egyptian, and he was returning to Pharaoh’s court not as a familiar member of that environment, but as a prophet challenging Pharaoh’s authority. His message – the liberation of the Israelites and the rejection of Pharaoh’s divine-political power – would have been deeply threatening to the Egyptian elite. In this sense, his speech could be described as ‘heavy’ or difficult: not because his tongue was defective, but because his discourse was burdened by suspicion, hostility, and the radical nature of the mission itself.

This reading is also supported by the Quranic phrase, [so that] they may understand my discourse (yafqahū qawlī) (20:28), which points not merely to pronunciation, but to the successful comprehension and reception of Prophet Moses’ (a) message.

The other reference to Moses’ (a) speech impediment is in Exodus 6:12: ‘But Moses said to the Lord, “Behold, the people of Israel have not listened to me. How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, for I am of uncircumcised lips?”’ In this chapter, the term ‘uncircumcised lips’ is mentioned twice, and both times the combination shepātāyim erelh is used. The word erelh means ‘uncircumcised’, and the word shepātāyim means ‘lips’. The word erelh appears thirty-five times in the Torah. In some verses it refers to the literal meaning of being uncircumcised, such as in Genesis 17:14: ‘Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.’ However, in some places this word is used as a qualifier for the ear and the heart. But what does ‘uncircumcised heart’ and ‘uncircumcised ear’ mean? Jeremiah 6:10 reads: ‘To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are uncircumcised, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the Lord is to them an object of scorn; they take no pleasure in it.’ As can be observed, ‘uncircumcised ear’ is used metaphorically to refer to those who do not want to hear the word and are stubborn. Similarly, Ezekiel 44:7 reads: ‘In admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations.’ It is noted that ‘uncircumcised’ is used as an attribute of the heart and refers to the characteristics of foreigners among the Israelites, meaning those who were likely unfamiliar with the customs, traditions, and language of the Israelites or were not of their faith. This is further clarified by another verse in the same chapter, where it says: ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary’ (Ezekiel 44:9). In this verse, ‘uncircumcised in heart’ is clearly identified as a characteristic of foreigners. As seen, the term ‘uncircumcised’ is used both for lips in the context of Moses (a) and for the heart and ear in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.[31]

From the passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, it becomes clear that the term ‘uncircumcised’ is not always used in a literal or physical sense. When Scripture speaks of an ‘uncircumcised ear’ or an ‘uncircumcised heart’, it does not mean that the ear or heart has a physical defect. Rather, it describes a state of blockage, resistance, impurity, or unwillingness to receive the word of God.

On this basis, Moses’ (a) description of himself as having ‘uncircumcised lips’ should not automatically be understood as evidence of a physical defect in his tongue or speech organs. The expression may instead point to a problem of reception and effectiveness, that Moses (a) fears that his words will not be accepted, heard, or taken seriously by his audience.

This fits the context of Exodus 6:12, where Moses (a) says that even the Israelites have not listened to him, so how will Pharaoh listen to him? His concern is not simply ‘I cannot pronounce words properly’, but rather, ‘my speech is not being received’. His lips are ‘uncircumcised’ in the sense that his words seem blocked from having an effect on those who hear them.

Therefore, the issue is best understood not as a proven physical impediment, but as a communicative and social obstacle. Moses’ (a) message was difficult for people to accept: the Israelites were discouraged and unwilling to listen, while Pharaoh would be even more resistant because Moses (a) was challenging his authority and demanding the liberation of the Israelites.

In the Sunni hadith corpus, the story of Moses (a) burning his tongue has been extensively reported in various works. However, all chains of narrators go back to companions such as Ibn Abbas, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Ibn Abī Najīḥ, Mujāhid, and Suddī, who do not explicitly attribute this to the Holy Prophet.[32] A lengthy narration, known as the Report of Trials, has Ibn Abbas describing the trials that Prophet Moses (a) went through (as an exegesis of 20:40). The relevant part is as follows: ‘Then Moses grabbed Pharaoh’s beard and pulled it to the ground. The misguided ones among the enemies of Allah said to Pharaoh: “Do you not see what Allah promised Abraham, His prophet? He claimed that He would raise you, overpower you, and subdue you!” So Pharaoh sent for the executioners to have him killed – and this, O Ibn Jubayr, was one of the trials – after every affliction he was tested with, and it was intended as a trial. Then Pharaoh’s wife came rushing to him and said: “What has come over you regarding this boy whom you gifted to me?” He replied: “Do you not see? He claims that he will subdue me and overpower me!” She said: “Let us settle this matter between us in a way that will reveal the truth. Bring two burning coals and two pearls, and place them near him. If he reaches for the pearls and avoids the coals, you will know that he is intelligent. But if he grabs the coals and ignores the pearls, you will know that no one who is intelligent would prefer the coals over the pearls.” So they brought them near him, and he reached for the coals. They quickly snatched them away from him, fearing that they would burn his hands. The woman said: “Do you not see?” Then Allah diverted Pharaoh from harming him after he had intended to do so, for Allah was accomplishing His plan for him.’[33]

What is noteworthy in this report is that it explicitly states that Pharaoh’s wife prevented Prophet Moses (a) from touching the coal with his hands, let alone burning his tongue with it. Reports from other companions, however, do explicitly state that Prophet Moses (a) placed the coal on his tongue.[34]

An obvious question that many commentators attempted to respond to, was how was it possible for Prophet Moses (a) to have picked the burning coal and place it in his mouth? Surely, the coal would have burnt his hands causing him to immediately let go of it.[35] In response, several unconvincing and feeble answers have been given. According to Ibn ʿĀdil, the hand did not burn because it was the means used to hold the staff. This implies that the hand was protected for a specific purpose related to Prophet Moses’ (a) mission.[36] Al-Ṣafūrī offers three different possibilities. Firstly, the soothsayers had foretold that the newborn would remain unharmed by water or fire. When Pharaoh found Prophet Moses (a) safe in the river, he considered it the first sign and tested him further with an ember and a date. The tongue was burned as divine protection to conceal Prophet Moses’ (a) true identity from Pharaoh. Secondly, Prophet Moses’ (a) tongue was burned because he addressed Pharaoh as ‘O father’ while his hand was spared because it had struck Pharaoh’s face. Thirdly, his tongue was burned instead of his hand because Prophet Moses (a) was known for his sharpness and quickness in speech. Allah willed to restrain his tongue from speaking so that he would not prematurely reveal the secret of his divine mission before its appointed time.[37] Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī opines that the burning of Prophet Moses’ (a) tongue (but not his fingers) during Pharaoh’s test served as a future miracle. When Prophet Moses (a) returned to Pharaoh with the divine message, the earlier incident became evidence of Allah’s power. It symbolised Prophet Moses’ (a) transformation from a speechless child to an eloquent prophet, demonstrating Allah’s ability to turn trials into signs of His greatness.[38]

Another point worthy of deliberation is that, assuming Prophet Moses’ (a) tongue and/or fingers also got burnt, would such an incident be enough to cause a lifelong stutter? It would seem that this would cause a slight burn that would have eventually healed.[39]

It is also noteworthy that the details of this incident heavily differ amongst the different Sunni sources. In some accounts, Prophet Moses (a) grabbed Pharaoh’s beard,[40] or he plucked it.[41] In other accounts, he struck Pharaoh’s head with a staff.[42] In some accounts, he slapped him.[43] In some accounts, Pharaoh leaned forward, and Prophet Moses (a) grabbed him between his eyes, seized his beard with his left hand, and struck him with his right hand.[44] In yet another report, Pharaoh wanted to eat with his son, so people gathered. Pharaoh would only eat one bite of food. When food was presented to him, he took one bite and ordered it to be removed. Prophet Moses (a) took another bite, and Pharaoh ordered it to be removed again. Prophet Moses (a) took a third bite, and when Pharaoh ordered it to be removed, Prophet Moses (a) grabbed the food and threw it on Pharaoh’s head.[45] Other variations include the object used to test Prophet Moses (a), such as a date and coal,[46] a ruby and coal,[47] or gold and coal.[48] In one version, Prophet Moses (a) was first tested with a jewel and a dog whereby he grabbed the dog’s tail, before being tested again with a date and coal.[49]

Some Sunni exegetes have attempted to buttress these narrations by resorting to the following purported report: it has been narrated that al-Husayn (r) had a slight speech impediment. The Prophet (s) said: ‘Indeed, he has inherited this from his uncle, Moses.’[50] It seems that the earliest author to record such a narration is Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī with a disconnected chain of narrators, attributing it to Salmān al-Fārsī, not the Holy Prophet.[51] Such a narration has been discredited on both historical as well as theological grounds and cannot be relied upon.[52]

As for Shia works, this story has been reported by Qummī with a connected chain of narrators from Imam al-Bāqir (a): ‘Pharaoh used to kill the sons of the Children of Israel whenever they were born, yet he raised Moses and honoured him, not knowing that his destruction would come at his hands. When Moses grew up, he was once in the presence of Pharaoh and sneezed. He said: “Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.” Pharaoh disapproved of this and said: “What is this you are saying?” Moses then grabbed Pharaoh’s beard, which was long, and yanked it, causing him severe pain. Pharaoh was about to kill him, but his wife said to him: “This is just a young boy who does not know what he is saying, and you have already struck him.” Pharaoh replied: “No, he knows what he is saying.” She then said to him: “Place dates and hot coals before him. If he distinguishes between them, then he is as you say.” So, Pharaoh placed dates and hot coals before Moses and said to him: “Eat.” Moses reached out for the dates, but Gabriel (a) diverted his hand to the hot coals. He took the coal into his mouth, and his tongue was burned. He cried out and wept. Āsiyah then said to Pharaoh: “Did I not tell you that he does not understand?” So, Pharaoh pardoned him.’[53] Note how there is no explicit mention that Moses (a) had any kind of speech impediment after this incident.[54]

Rāwandī also narrates from Imam al-Ṣādiq (a): ‘Allah, the exalted, cast love for Moses into the hearts of Pharaoh and his wife. Pharaoh had a long beard, and Moses grabbed hold of it. They tried to free his beard from Moses’ grip but were unable to do so until Moses yanked it forcefully. Pharaoh then intended to kill him, but his wife said to him: “There is something here that will make this boy’s condition clear. Call for a hot coal and a gold coin and place them before him.” So, Pharaoh did this. Moses reached for the hot coal and placed his hand on it, burning himself. When he felt the heat of the fire, he put his hand on his tongue, causing him to develop a speech impediment. This is related to the words of Allah, the exalted, Whichever of the two terms I complete, there shall be no reprisal against me [28:28], meaning that Allah fulfilled the better and more complete of the two terms.’[55]

Some scholars have raised questions about the authenticity of such reports, stating that this story more closely resembles a myth conjured to explain his alleged speech impediment rather than history. It is not clear why Prophet Moses (a) did not have the sense to hold his tongue when he sneezed and why Gabriel, who steered his actions later in the story, did not steer him clear of aggravating Pharaoh earlier on. Furthermore, how could the coal have burnt his tongue but not his hand?[56]

In conclusion, the story of Prophet Moses (a) burning his tongue during his childhood cannot be substantiated through Biblical sources or the hadith corpus. Additionally, several textual criticisms have been raised against the content of these narrations, including apparent contradictions with other theological principles and Quranic verses. If one finds these arguments convincing, then the two relatively reliable narrations found in Shia sources should also be rejected. Alternatively, it may be wise to withhold judgement regarding their authenticity. In any case, this story cannot serve as a definitive explanation for the verse in question, and more plausible alternative interpretations should be considered.

[1] Thalabi, 8/339.
[2] Tabari, 20/611.
[3] Hadi, 3/234.
[4] Mizan, 18/111.
[5] Tabrisi, 9/78; Mizan, 18/111.
[6] Tasnīm, 72/108.
[7] Mizan, 18/111.
[8] Hans Wehr, m-h-n.
[9] Raghib, p. 158.
[10] Ibn Ashur, 25/269.
[11] Amthal, 16/73.
[12] Bursawi, 8/379.
[13] Tibyan, 9/207-8; Alusi, 13/89; Ibn Kathir, 7/213.
[14] Hadi, 3/235.
[15] Muhit, 9/383; Maududi (https://islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=43&verse=46&to=56).
[16] Yaʿqūb Jaʿfarī, Tafsīr al-Kawthar, 6/533-534
[17] Tasnīm, 72/107.
[18] Amthal, 9/552.
[19] https://www.yahosein.com/vb/node/198192.
[20] Razi, 22/44.
[21] Ahsan al-Hadith, 7/336.
[22] Talkhīṣ al-Bayān fī Majazāt al-Qurʾān, 1/224; Furqan, 19/76-77.
[23] Furqan, 19/76-77.
[24] Qushayri, 3/370.
[25] Ibn Kathir, 7/213; Maraghi, 25/99; Razi, 22/44.
[26] Atyab, 12/41.
[27] Tabrisi, 7/15.
[28] Ibn Kathir, 7/212.
[29] Tigay, Jeffry H. “‘Heavy of Mouth’ and ‘Heavy of Tongue’ on Moses’ Speech Difficulty.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 231, 1978, pp. 57–67. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1356746. Accessed 23 Feb. 2025.
[30] Himmati, M. A., & Miri, S. (2024). Jostāri-ye tārīkhī, taṭbīqī, wa ʿaqlānī pῑramūn-e āyeh-ye "Waḥlul ʿuqdatan min lisānī" dar sunnat-e islāmī wa ʿahd-e ʿatīq (A historical, comparative, and rational inquiry into the verse Waḥlul ʿuqdatan min lisānī in the Islamic tradition and the Old Testament). Taḥqīqāt-e ʿUlūm-e Qurʾān wa Ḥadīth, 21(1), 166–190. https://doi.org/10.22051/tqh.2023.43160.3841.
[31] Himmati, M. A., & Miri, S. (2024). Jostāri-ye tārīkhī, taṭbīqī, wa ʿaqlānī pῑramūn-e āyeh-ye "Waḥlul ʿuqdatan min lisānī" dar sunnat-e islāmī wa ʿahd-e ʿatīq (A historical, comparative, and rational inquiry into the verse Waḥlul ʿuqdatan min lisānī in the Islamic tradition and the Old Testament). Taḥqīqāt-e ʿUlūm-e Qurʾān wa Ḥadīth, 21(1), 166–190. https://doi.org/10.22051/tqh.2023.43160.3841.
[32] Tabari, 16/53-54.
[33] Nasai.K, 6/397-398; Tabari, 16/67-68.
[34] Tabari, 16/53-54.
[35] Al-Qudah, Yahya Mahmoud (2018), The Story of the Knot of Musa’s Tongue, Peace be upon him - A Critical Study, Jordan Journal of Islamic Studies: Vol. 14: Iss. 4, Article 14. Available at: https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/jois/vol14/iss4/14.
[36] Ali ibn ʿĀdil al-Nuʿmānī, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 13/224.
[37] Al-Ṣafūrī, Nuzhat al-Majālis wa Muntakhab al-Nafāʾis, 2/191; Razi, 22/44; Alusi, 8/497.
[38] Bursawi, 5/379.
[39] Al-Qudah, Yahya Mahmoud (2018), The Story of the Knot of Musa’s Tongue, Peace be upon him - A Critical Study, Jordan Journal of Islamic Studies: Vol. 14: Iss. 4, Article 14. Available at: https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/jois/vol14/iss4/14.
[40] Tafsīr Yaḥyā bin Sallām, 1/258.
[41] Al-Muḥarrir al-Wajīz fī Tafsīr al-Kitāb al-ʿAzīz, 4/278.
[42] Al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 3/391.
[43] Thalabi, 6/243; Qushayri, 2/455.
[44] Al-Ṣafūrī, Nuzhat al-Majālis wa Muntakhab al-Nafāʾis, 2/191.
[45] Al-Ṣafūrī, Nuzhat al-Majālis wa Muntakhab al-Nafāʾis, 2/191.
[46] Tafsīr Yaḥyā bin Sallām, 1/258.
[47] Tabari, 16/54.
[48] Al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 3/391.
[49] Al-Ṣafūrī, Nuzhat al-Majālis wa Muntakhab al-Nafāʾis, 2/191.
[50] Maraghi, 16/106; Zamakhshari, 3/60.
[51] Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 1/31.
[52] For a detailed examination, see https://aldiaa.net/04-02-1444/.
[53] Qummi, 2/135; Bihar, 13/26, h. 2.
[54] Hādiyān Rasnānī, Ilāh. "Barrasi-ye Dīdgāhhā-ye Mufassirān Darbāreh-ye Murād az Faṣīḥ Nabūdan-e Ḥaḍrat Mūsā (ʿalayhi al-salām)," (Examining the Views of Commentators on the Meaning of Moses' (a) Lack of Eloquence) Āmūzahā-ye Qurʾānī, 17, 32, 1399, 165-186. DOI: 10.30513/qd.2020.1088.
[55] Qaṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ, pp. 152-153.
[56] Rizwan Arastu, God’s Emissaries, p. 344.