20:23-39

20:23-39

20:23

“In order that We may show thee (two) of our Greater Signs.

20:24

“Go thou to Pharaoh, for he has indeed transgressed all bounds.”

20:25

(Moses) said: “O my Lord! expand me my breast;

20:26

“Ease my task for me;

20:27

“And remove the impediment from my speech,

20:28

“So they may understand what I say:

20:29

“And give me a Minister from my family,

20:30

“Aaron, my brother;

20:31

“Add to my strength through him,

20:32

“And make him share my task:

20:33

“That we may celebrate Thy praise without stint,

20:34

“And remember Thee without stint:

20:35

“For Thou art He that (ever) regardeth us.”

20:36

(Allah) said: “Granted is thy prayer, O Moses!”

20:37

“And indeed We conferred a favour on thee another time (before).

20:38

“Behold! We sent to thy mother, by inspiration, the message:

20:39

“’Throw (the child) into the chest, and throw (the chest) into the river: the river will cast him up on the bank, and he will be taken up by one who is an enemy to Me and an enemy to him’: But I cast (the garment of) love over thee from Me: and (this) in order that thou mayest be reared under Mine eye.

Can Revelation (Waḥy) Be Given to Someone Who Is Not a Prophet?

In Islamic scholarship, the Arabic term waḥy (revelation) is understood first in its literal linguistic sense and second in its technical theological sense. In its basic meaning, waḥy refers to a concealed or rapidly communicated message that is comprehensible only to the recipient. On this broader linguistic definition, waḥy is not restricted to prophets and can apply to non-prophets and even to animals. For example, Qurʾān 16:68 uses waḥy for God’s direction to the bees, and Qurʾān 20:38 uses the term in connection with inspiration given to the mother of Moses—without implying her prophethood. Similarly, exegetes commonly affirm that Maryam (Mary) received divine communication while not being regarded as a prophet, indicating that such reception does not automatically confer prophetic status.

Within this framework, many scholars describe non-prophetic waḥy as divinely granted inspiration (ilhām). This form of guidance is often characterized as God placing an idea or directive in a person’s heart and strengthening the person’s certainty that it is from God. On this interpretation, devout believers and saints may receive ilhām as personal spiritual direction. Some scholars (e.g., Abu Ḥayyān and others) additionally hold that such inspiration may occasionally occur through angelic mediation, as in the Qurʾānic account of Gabriel appearing to Maryam in human form. However, these inspirations are generally described as private guidance, intended for the individual recipient rather than public proclamation.

By contrast, the technical meaning of waḥy in theology refers to prophetic revelation: communication that establishes a messenger’s authority to guide society, reform people, and publicly call to faith. This prophetic waḥy carries obligations not present in ilhām, including conveying the message openly and binding a community to accept the prophet’s mission. In traditional Sunni doctrine, prophetic waḥy and prophethood are understood to have concluded with the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood. Some scholars distinguish these categories as “legislative revelation” (prophetic, law-bearing) versus “non-legislative inspiration” (personal, non-binding). Classical discussions also warn that confusing ilhām with prophetic waḥy can be exploited to support false claims to prophethood; such claims are rejected within orthodox theology (as discussed in Maʿāriful Qurʾān).

Comparison With Shanavas’ “Islamic Metaphysics of the Future” and Inshāʾ Allāh

T.O. Shanavas develops a philosophical account of divine action and human freedom using the everyday Muslim expression inshāʾ Allāh (“if God wills”) as a conceptual entry point. In this model, the future is not treated as mechanically determined by past causes, but as a stream of moments that come into existence only by God’s creative act. Shanavas contrasts this view with what he describes as a materialist “metaphysics of the past,” in which causal regularities are taken to imply that the future is fully predictable in principle.

In Shanavas’ framing, God remains the ultimate source of reality, including the possibilities available in each arriving moment. Human beings, however, participate in actualizing those possibilities through moral choice, and thus remain accountable for what they select and enact. Scriptural statements about guidance and misguidance are interpreted through this lens: God is presented as creating the range of good and evil possibilities, while humans bear responsibility for choosing among them. Shanavas uses metaphors (e.g., a conveyor belt delivering components to an assembly line) to argue that creatures cannot “produce” actions or outcomes without God’s provision of the relevant possibilities in time, even though the selection among them remains free within limits.

Reference

  1. Barbour, Ian G. Religion and Science, p. 81.
  2. Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker.
  3. Richard Dawkins. River out of Eden. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
  4. From Richard Lewontin’s review of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon Haunted World:

Science as a Cradle in the Dark, in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

  1. John F. Haught. God After Darwin. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999, p.86.
  2. Ibid.
  3. John F. Haught. God After Darwin, p. 83–88.
  4. Guillanme, A. The Life of Muhammad, p. 375.
  5. Barbour, Ian G. Religion and Science, p. 314