You claim that the data in [93:7] supports the argument on which we both agree i.e. that Muhammad sinned, and that is what is being referred to in [94:2] through the word (وِزْرَك) — and not as “Muhammad’s burden” as some textualists would like to have it. You reason for the word (وِزْرَك) to mean Muhammad’s sin by saying that the word (ضآلا) in [93:7] is connected to (مُضِل) in [28:15].
Might I ask what made you see that particular connection, and on what criteria did you base this interpretation?
I’m wondering because the word (ضآلا) isn’t only mentioned in the Quran in connection with how Satan had led Moses astray in [28:15] as a valid justification for the word to denote Muhammad sinned in [93:7] in lieu of what you say is usually taken to mean just lost — and then for this to act as a springboard for and be used by you in support of the argument that Muhammad sinned in another context, namely [94:2].
What could weaken this line of reasoning is that there is a least one Quranic occurrence in which (ضاد، لام) describes an ordinary human attribute, that of forgetfulness in [2:282], which does not seem to have anything to do with Islamic sinning.
Furthermore, it is not unwarranted of those textualists, denying Muhammad sinned, to non-literally interpret the Quranic word (وِزْرَك) in [94:2] as “Muhammad’s burden”, for instance, using [47:4] (حتى تضع الحرب أوزارها) to support such a valid interpretation because “the war”, an abstract concept, lacks intentionality to be able to sin.
So, anticipating these two valid morphological arguments against non-tentatively interpreting (وِزْرَك) to just mean Muhammad sinned, I used other unambiguous data instead [48:2] to support the argument that Muhammad sinned.
You, on the other hand, appear to be treating [93:7] similarly to how you had wondered about that textually unsupportable speculation to be the case in [94:4]. Simply put, imposing a variant interpretation on [93:7] in connection with Muhammad sinning in [94:2] passing it through [28:15] which, again, fits in with the Moses restatement theory.
If (ضاد، لام) in [93:7] to be located in [28:15], then why not [1:7] too? And if [1:7] too, then why exclude any of the Quranic occurrences of it and its derivatives?
Lastly, the language used in stating such matters (e.g. “... if we think of Q 93/94 as typological restatements of the young Moses narratives ... then there's an easy explanation.”) is too strong and certain for my liking.
P.S. Don't forget to ping me about the article dear!
Feedback is always welcome and appreciated! Some of these points are a bit difficult to cover in a short Interwebz post, but I'll try.
For the (وِزْرَك) of Q 94:2, the hadith on the opening of the prophet's chest treat the event as washing of sins. It's also how Ibn Kathir and others interpret the (وِزْرَك), consistent with Q 48. See http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1147&Itemid=150
Now is this the only possible meaning? Absolutely not. The point is simply that the word was initially taken to mean sins, and can mean that. Note that Birkeland, to name one scholar, throws a fit over this and says (وِزْرَك) must designate the prophet's worldly burdens. Semantically, that is possible, sure, so the question becomes whether it is plausible in context.
Well, what people imagine to be the 'context' of a surah is wildly divergent. Generally I think the adjacent surahs, and particularly Q 93, give the best interpretive context, in the sense of shedding the most light on what Q 94 is getting at. So let's look at that.
Much more pointed is the word (ضآلا) in Q 93:7, which as you say I connect with (مُضِل) in Q 28:15. Why? Actually a bucket-load of reasons, starting with the mundane observation that the quranic messenger is commonly articulated as being like Moses. Without following Wansbrough to the point of saying he was built from Moses, it often gets close. This comes up in many different places, but let's try Q 17:1-10, where God's servant was Moses in the original classic Christian anti-Jewish story, and he is described with the same language (i.e. the night journey) as Moses and his exodus from Egypt) as the Exodus Moses of the quranic narratives. The Qur'an is overt about the close parallel between the messenger and Moses, e.g. Q 73:15, innā arsalnā ilaykum rasūlan shāhidan ʿalaykum kamā arsalnā ilā fir’ʿawna rasūlan, “indeed We have sent to you a messenger as a witness upon you, just as we sent to Pharaoh a messenger.”
Now, if we look at Q 28:15, it overtly specifies that Moses sinned. Consider that (a) Moses was led into (ضآلا) by Satan the (مُضِل), and whatever else one wants to say about this, his "killing+Satan+(مُضِل)" combo can't reasonably be interpreted with the same innocuous sense as the root's legal use in Q 2:282; and (b) after the whole Satan/killing part, Moses then *affirmatively proclaims* innī ẓalamtu nafsī fa-igh'fir. lī faghafara lahu. innahu huwa l-ghafūru l-raḥīmu. I suppose there is some world of 'isma doctrine in which young Moses is not taken as having sinned here in Q 28, and was not requesting forgiveness from God for his sin, and did not receive forgiveness for his sin, but I can't see how or why one would reasonably agree with that.
So the question then becomes whether the quranic messenger is different than the young Moses in this regard. And looking at Q 93:7 and Q 93/94 more generally, I find it difficult to see why one would interpret the language of Q 93 in a sense that diverges markedly from the Q 28 episode. If Moses sins, then the doctrine of sinless prophets is nonsense, and so there is no reason to dogmatically isolate these texts such that the messenger's youth is categorically different than Moses' youth in this respect. If young Moses was led astray, and that meant sin, then given that the young messenger was found having gone astray, the logical (albeit not necessary) inference is that it was likewise sin. Unless the quranic messenger is different from Moses in this important respect, which is possible, but would require some degree of explanation.
How convincing this is depends on how the evidence, as totality, fits together, from multiple angles, not on any single point. One might say that God found the quranic messenger as an orphan and rescued him (Q 93:6), but this is different than Moses being orphaned by his mother in Al-Yam before God saves him. One might say the quranic messenger went astray and was then guided (Q 93:7) but this is different than Moses being led astray by Satan into killing a man+God then forgives him. One might say that the messenger was in need until God guided him and made him self sufficient (Q 93:eight) but this is different than Moses asking God for help as an impoverished Midianite alien, whereupon God answers Moses' request and gives him a wife and a job. And indeed these points are not exactly the same, since the messenger is not identical to Moses, but at a certain point the accumulation of parallels with the young Moses narrative is so compelling (at least to me) that one has to explain their significance, even if the explanation is not necessarily simple, nor can one's efforts always be right or convincing.
I can't fit all the related arguments in here, of course, but I will shoot you a draft of the article when it's ready, and will appreciate all comments/questions/criticisms, no matter how pointed! The more errors discovered and pointed out, the better.