THE Jyt iJ-A

COMMENTARYON THE

QUR’ANBY

ABO JA* FAR MUHAMMAD B. JARlRAL-TABARl

BEING AN ABRIDGED TRANSLATION OF

Jami' al-bayan 'an ta'wtl ay al-Qur'an

WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY

J. COOPERGENERAL EDITORS

W. F. MADELUNGLaudian Professor of Arabic at the

University of Oxford

A. JONESLecturer in Islamic Studies

University of Oxford

VOLUME I

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESSHAKIM INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (M.E.) LIMITED

376ill

Sura 2, verses 66 and 67

=>-Ibn 'Abbas:

« rA^nd an admonition for the God-fearing* means ‘to thebelievers who guard against polytheism and act in obedience toMe’. [1165]

God has made His punishment that befell those who transgressed thesabbath, an admonition specifically [=>AI- RabT' b. Anas, 1 170] for theGod-fearing, and a warning for the believers, but not for theunbelievers, up to the Day of the Resurrection [=>Ibn 'Abbas, 1 166].

=^Qatada:

« rA1nd an admonition for the God-fearing*, i.e., to ‘’those1 afterthem 1

, i.e., after the metamorphosed1. [1167, 1168; also =>Ibn

Juraij, 1171]

=»A1-Suddl:

As for *an admonition for the God-fearing*, they are thecommunity of Muhammad, may God bless him and grant himpeace. [1169]

2:67

^ * x ^ 0 f S*. / 'G'* o ' JSjJLj j! ^ alii jj Lr-j-4

^ . 1 ^ ' h,( “ £ j, * * } "J^ OjS\ jl ajiL 1 JL5 U.wa-idh qala Musa li-qaumi-hi inna * llaha ya’muru-kum an tadhbahubaqaratan qdlii a-tattakhidhu-na huzuwan qala a*udhu bi-’llahi an

akuna mina ’i-jahilina

And when Moses said to his people: ‘God commands you tosacrifice a cow.’ They said: ‘Do you take us in jest?’ He said: ‘I

take refuge with God, lest I should be one ofthe ignorant.’

This verse is part of that with which God rebukes the Children ofIsrael who are addressed, for their ancestors’ violation of the compactwhich He took from them to obey His prophets. He said to them: Andremember also your breaking of My compact « when Moses said to his

Sura 2, verse 67

people*—and his people were the Children of Israel, when they raisedtheir dispute about the man who was killed among them tohim—«‘God commands you to sacrifice a cow.’ They said: ‘Do youtake us in jest?’*

Huzu’is ‘play’, ‘mockery’.J It is not appropriate that there should bejesting or play on the part of God’s prophets in any order orprohibition which they transmit from God. Yet they supposed thatwhen Moses commanded them—from God’s command to sacrifice thecow for the man who was killed, about whom they were indispute—he was jesting and playing. They should not have thoughtthat about God’s prophet, who was telling them that it was God whocommanded them to sacrifice the cow.

(...)

Then Moses told them . . . that whoever states that God jests andmocks is one of the ignorant, and he absolved himself from what theysupposed he was doing, and said: « ‘I take refuge with God, lest I shouldbe one of the ignorant », i.e., one of the foolish who relate untrue andfalse things about God.The cause of Moses’ saying to them « ‘God commands you to

sacrifice a cow’* was:

=>‘AbTda:

There was, among the Children of Israel, a childless man (...), andone of his relatives killed him, and then carried him away anddumped him with a tribe which was not his own. But malice set inbetween rthe murderer’s tribe and1 them on account of this, to thepoint where they took up arms. (...) Then those who werereasonable said: Do you kill each other when the Messenger ofGod is among you?’ (...) So they came to God’s prophet, and hesaid: ‘Sacrifice a cow.’ «They said: ‘Do you take us in jest?’ He said:I take refuge with God, lest I should be one of the ignorant.’ Theysaid: Pray to the Lord for us, that He may make clear to us what itshould be.’ He said: ‘He says it is a cow . . . —up to—«and theysacrificed it, a thing they had scarcely done. »(...) rThe corpse1 wassmitten, and he told them rwho1 his killer rwasT (...) The cow wasonly acquired for its weight in gold. (...) If they had acquired aninferior cow, it would have been enough for them. After that nomurderer was revern appointed as an heir. [1172]

=>Abu ’ 1-Aliya:

There was a man of the Children of Israel, rwho1 was wealthy but

378 Sura 2, verse 67 Sura 2, verse 67 379

had no offspring, but he had a relative who was his heir. rThisrelative1 killed him to inherit from him, then he dumped him at across-roads. Then he came to Moses and said to him: ‘My relativehas been killed, and a grave matter has happened, but I cannot findanyone to explain to me who killed him, except you, O Prophetof God.’ (...) Then Moses proclaimed among the people: ‘ByGod, I implore whoever has knowledge of this to explain it to us.’But they had no knowledge of it.Then the killer approached Moses and said: ‘You are God’s

prophet. Ask your Lord for us to explain it to us.’ So he asked hisLord, and God revealed to him: « ‘God commands you to sacrificea cow.’* They were surprised, and said: «‘Do you take us in jest?’He said: ‘I take refuge with God, lest I should be one of theignorant.’ * They said: ‘Pray 1.0 the Lord for us, that He may makeclear to us what it should be. He said: ‘He says it is a cow, neitherold’*—-i.e., not decrepit—«‘nor virgin’*—i.e., not young

—

« ‘middling between the two’*—i.e., middle-aged, between thevirgin and the decrepit. «They said: ‘Pray to your Lord for us, thatHe may make clear to us what colour it should be.’ He said: ‘Hesays it shall be a golden cow, bright its colour’*—i.e., of anunmixed colour—« ‘gladdening beholders’*—i.e., amazing behol-ders. «They said: ‘Pray to your Lord for us, that He may makeclear to us what she may be; cows look alike to us; and, if Godwill, we shall then be guided.’ * He said: ‘He says that it shall be acow not broken’*—i.e., it has not been worked—«‘to plough theearth’* . . . «‘or to water the tillage’* . . .«‘one kept secure’*—i.e.,free from defects—« ‘with no blemish on her’ »-—i.e., with no whiteHipots1 on her. «They said: ‘Now you have brought the truth’; andthey sacrificed it, a thing they only just did.

»

(...) If, when the people had been commanded to sacrifice acow, they had taken one of the cows without giving it anythought, it would have been that one; but they were hard onthemselves, so God was hard on them. And if the people had notmade an exception and said «‘and, if God will, we shall then beguided’*, they would never have been guided to it.

It has reached us that the only cow they found like that whichhad been described to them belonged to an old woman withwhom there were some orphans whose guardian she was. Whenshe understood that no other •'cow1 would do for them, shedoubled the price. So they came to Moses and informed him that

the only cow with that description belonged to such-and-such awoman, and that she had asked them for double its price. Mosessaid to them: ‘God had made things easy for you, but you were

hard on yourselves, so give her what pleases her and what she

has asked for.’ So they did, and they bought it and sacrificed it.

Then Moses commanded them to take one of its bones, and tosmite the murdered man with it. So they did, and his spiritreturned to him, and he named the person who had killed himfor them. Then he became dead once more, as he had been. Sothey took his murderer—he was the one who had come toMoses and complained to him—and God killed him for hismost evil deed. [1173J

§ In another Tradition narrated from al-Suddl [1174I, the man who ismurdered is a rich man. He has a poor nephew who leads him away one nighton a pretext and murders him because he has refused him his daughter in

marriage. He then accuses the tribe near whom the murder took place ofhaving murdered him and claims blood-money from them. They then go andcomplain to Moses, and the dialogue about the cow takes place. Al-SuddT’sversion of how the cow is found involves a dutiful son to whom a man comeswith a pearl to sell one day when his father is sleeping. The son bargains withthe pearl-seller, who eventually offers him the pearl at a very advantageousprice, but in the end the dutiful son refuses to conclude the deal because he

does not want to disturb his father by waking him up to get the money fromhim. God then compensates him by giving him the cow which Moses haddescribed to the Children of Israel. They come and offer him another cow inexchange, but he refuses. The bargaining continues till they offer him ten cowsin exchange, but he still refuses. Then they take him before Moses, who ordershim to sell it to them, which he eventually does for ten times its weight ingold. Al-SuddT’s version then has the murdered man smitten with a piece ofmeat from between the sacrificed cow’s shoulder-blades. He comes to life andidentifies the murderer, who is then killed. Tabari then mentions otherTraditions [=> Qatada, 1 175; =>Mujahid, 1176, 1 177; etc.) which, he points out,

agree with the basic outlines of the versions of ‘Ablda, Abu ’l-'Aliya, andal-Suddl, except that the murderer is variously said to be the man’s brother, his

nephew, or, by others, a group of inheritors who were impatient for him todie. See also the Traditions mentioned at the end of the exegesis of 2: 72.

3 8o Sura 2 , verse 68

2:68

aJ\ Uli ^ til jlii iiTJ llJ £0*1 IjJliijJLiili ^ oli oiji ^ v sji; 14J1

1 ,-L*

^a/w V m id-mi rabba-ka yubayyin la-na ma hiya qala inna-hu yaquluintta-ha baqaratun la faridun wa-ld bikrun 'awanun baina dhdlika

fa-falu ma tu*maruna

They said: ‘Pray to your Lord for us, that He may make clear tous what it should be.’ He said: ‘He says it is a cow neither old, norvirgin, middling between the two; so do what you are bidden.’

THE INTERPRETATION OF QALU 'D' U LA-NA RABBA-KAYUBA YYIN LA-NA MA HIYA QALA INNA-HU YAQULU

INNA-HA BAQARATUN LA FARIDUN

After those to whom it had been said «‘God commands you tosacrifice a cow’» had understood and been convinced that what Moseshad commanded them to do according to God’s command to sacrifice acow was in earnest and true, they said: «‘Pray to your Lord for us, thatHe may make clear to us what it should be.’» They asked Moses to askhis Lord for them about that which God had spared them when He said«‘ rS'1acrifice a cow’*, because God had only commanded them to killsome cow—any cow they wanted to sacrifice—without narrowing itdown for them to one kind or category of rcow1 . And they spokeaccording to the roughness of their characters, the coarseness of theirnatures, their misunderstanding, taking upon themselves the burden ofsomething which God had unburdened them of, causing annoyance tothe Messenger ofGod [=^Ibn 'Abbas, 1183]. . . . Then, when they askedHim: ‘What should it be? What are its qualities? What does it look like?Describe it to us so that we may know what it is?’. He said: «‘ rPt is acow neither old, nor virgin’ ».

§ Tabari cites several Traditions [1184-1195] which support the interpetationof/arid as ‘old’.

Sura 2, verse 68 381

THE INTERPRETATION OF WA-LA BIKRUN

A bikr is a female quadruped or human which no male has possessed;. . . it has no verb. Bakr, however, ... is a young camel. God meantby « wa-ld bikr» ‘not young and not having borne young’

[1196—1204].

THE INTERPRETATION OF ’A WANUN

‘Awan is a middle-aged woman who has borne several young. It is nota description of a virgin. The verb ‘awwana is used when someonebecomes like this. . . . The plural is 'tin. . . . And rthe Arabs1 use 'awanto describe a war when there has been repeated fighting, comparing itto a woman who has given birth to children again and again. It is alsoused to describe a need when it has been gratified time after time.[1205-1216]

THE INTERPRETATION OF BAINA DHALIKA

By His words « baina dhdlika ( = lit. ‘between that’)» He means betweenthe virgin and the old [1217].

§ Tabari answers the objection that baina (= between) should be followed bytwo things or more, not just one, as is apparently the case here, by saying thatdhalika is used by the Arabs to speak of two things or actions. 1 Here, dhalikastands for ‘old age’ and ‘youthfulness’. He adds that it is not permissible to saybaina dhdlika when two or more individuals are meant.

THE INTERPRETATION OF FA-’f'ALU MA TU’MARUN

A

f God says to them: ‘Do what I have commanded you to do, andyou will attain what you need and what you seek with Me. Sacrificethe cow which I have commanded you to sacrifice, and you will findout who killed your murder victim, by finally obeying Me andsacrificing it.’

‘ See Exeg. 2: 61, p. 354.

382 Sura 2, verse 6g

2:69

J aji Dii Li-jJJ H HJ jju£J Hi ^ i^jti0^^ L^J 5>;

^Al-SuddT, 1228;=>Ibn Zaid, 1230]

=>Ibn ‘Abbas:

« rF1aqi'un launu-ha»: of a bright yellow colour, its yellownessshading into white. 1 [1229]

(...)

THE INTERPRETATION OF TASURRU ’L-NAZIRINA

By His words « gladdening beholders® He means that this cow amazesthose who gaze upon it by its beautiful physical structure, appearanceand form. [=*Qatada, 123 1; =>Al-SuddT, 1233)

=>Wahb:

When you gaze upon it, it gives you the impression that the raysofthe sun are emanating from its hide. [ 1232]

1 M. Shakir (Sh. & Sh., II, 202, n. 1) tentatively suggests that Tabari objects to thisinterpretation, that it is not a bright yellow which is white, but rather a light yellow.

3^4 Sura 2, verse 70 Sura 2, verse 70 38s

70

LS-? ^ ^ iJjJ lU £j>'\ \jJ\JOjj-L4-LJ 4ii! *Li j! Ulj L__U

^5/m 'du la-na rabba-ka yubayyin la-na ma hiya inna ’l-baqaratasfiabaha alay-nd wa-in-nd in sha’a * llahu la-muhtadiina

They said: Pray to your Lord for us, that He may make clear tous what it should be; cows look alike to us; and, if God will, we

shall then be guided.’

§ Tabari summarizes the story of the sacrifice of the cow so far from v. 68,

saying that there is now no mention of Moses because the context makes itclear to whom the people were asking these troublesome questions, by whichthey burdened themselves with difficulties they could have avoided.

Because the people increased the harm to their prophet Moses andtheir annoyance of him, God increased their punishment and thepressure ron them1 .

=>Ibn *Abbas:

If they had taken the nearest cow it would have been enough forthem, but they pressed relentlessly on rwith their questions1

, soGod was hard with them. [1235. See also =>‘AbIda al-Salm5m,1236-8; =>Mujahid 1240, 1241; =>Ibn Juraij, reporting fromMujahid, *Ata\ and Muhammad, 1242; =>Qatada, from Muham-mad, 1244; =>IbnZaid, 1247]

=>* Ikrima:

If the Children of Israel had taken a^y1 cow it would havesufficed them, and if they had not said: «‘ rA1nd, if God will, weshall thus be guided’ » they would not have found it. [1239. Seealso =>Abu ’l-*Aliya, 1243]

=^-Ibn 'Abbas:

If they had taken any cow and sacrificed it, it would have sufficedthem, but they pressed relentlessly on rwith their questions1 andannoyed Moses, so God was hard with them. [1245J

=>Ibn ’Abbas:

If the people—i.e., the Children of Israel—had looked for anynearby cow, it would have sufficed them, but they pressed

relentlessly on rwith their questions1 , and He was hard on them,and they bought it with a sum of dinars which filled its hide.[1246]

§ TabarT embarks here upon a technical discussion concerning the topic of

‘generality and specificity (al-'unwm wa ’l-khusus)'. This is one of the topics inthe science of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), the science which deals with the

principles which govern the extraction of the rulings of the religious law from

the sources of the law, e.g., from the scripture. TabarT points out that all the

authorities he quotes agree that when the Children of Israel were firstcommanded to sacrifice a cow their obligation was to sacrifice any cow, andthat it was therefore wrong of them to ask for a particular kind of cow to bespecified. Their duty, he deduces, was to act according to the ostensive

command and sacrifice any cow they wished. In other words, they shouldhave acted according to the generality of the ostensive text. When theyreceived a reply to their first request for details about the cow, their positionwith respect to their duty changed, and they should then have acted in

accordance with the generality of the new ostensive ruling, which was tosacrifice any middle-aged cow. As before, it was wrong of them to ask for afurther specification. And so on with the subsequent questions: they were, ineffect, given each time a new command, and each time they were in a differentposition and had a different obligation. The point that Tabari wants to make,and which, he says, is confirmed by all the authorities whose Traditions he hasquoted, is that a ruling in a verse from God’s scripture is general and followsthe ostensive meaning of the text; there is no more specific ruling containedwithin it, as it were, waiting to be inferred or discovered. There is noobligation to do anything which is not ostensively indicated. The corollary,which he then deduces from this, is that when something in the ostensive,general command is subsequently specified—by another revelation or bysomething the Messenger says—a new ruling has been made, and a new dutycreated, which was not part of, or contained in the old ruling. The old rulingremains in its ostensive generality, and the new ruling comes into existencewith its new generality. This opinion, which TabarT says that he has explainedin a book he wrote called the Kitdb al-Risala, is in opposition to the viewwhich says that when a part of a ruling in a verse in the revelation issubsequently made specific, the ruling itself becomes specific concerning thatpart which has been specified.On the basis of this, TabarT rejects the suggestion that the Children of Israel

asked these questions out of religious zeal, supposing that a specific cow wasintended and that they had to find out what it was; for this suggestion in effect

386 Sura 2, verse 70 Sura 2, verse 71 387

claims that they believed God could command them to do something withoutexplaining what it was. In that case, they would have been asking God toimpose an obligation on them, and this, Tabari says, is something which evena mad person cannot be conceived doing.

As for His words « inna ’l-baqara tashabaha 'alay-na », baqar is the pluralofbaqara.

(...)

The interpretation of « tashabaha *alay-na » is ‘ rcows^ are confusingfor us’.

§ T^harl cites the variant readings (ashshdbahu and yashshdbahu (which arepresent tense forms of tai habaha with assimilation of the l-prefix to the firstradical sh), and rejects them as contrary to the consensus of the authoritativereciters.

(...)

2:71

% ISjJl y 14J1 OjA; ill 'jiici>- 'jjjl \J\J 14J i_i 'J lJjJ.

qala inna-hu yaqiilu inna-ha baqaratun la dhululun tuthiru ’l-arda

wa-la tasqi * l-hartha musallamatun Id shiyata fi-hd qdlu ’l-dna ji’ta

bi-’l-haqqifa-dhabahu-ha wa-ma kadu yaf'aliina

He said: ‘He says it shall be a cow not broken to work the land orto water the tillage, kept safe, with no blemish on her.’ They said:‘Now you have brought the truth’; and therefore they sacrificed

it, although they almost did not.

THE INTERPRETATION OF QALA INNA -HU YAQULUINNA-HA BAQARATUN LA DHUL UL UN TUTHIRU ’l-ARDA

WA-LA TASQI ’l-HARTHA

Moses said: ‘God says that the cow which I have commandedyou to sacrifice is an unbroken (dhalul

)

cow’—and by ‘unbroken’ Hemeans that it has not been broken in to labour, so it is a cow which hasnot been broken in to tilling (ithdra) the earth with its hooves, nor has it

been made to draw up water and irrigate the crops . . . [=>Qatada, 1248,1253; =>Al-SuddT, 1249; =>Abu ’l-Aliya, 1250; =>Al-RabT b. Anas,1251; =>Mujahid, 1252J

—‘to turn over the earth for cultivation.’ . .

.

rGod1 described rthe cow1 thus because it was wild, according towhat has been said [=*>A1-Hasan al-Ba$ri, 1254 (=1221)].

the interpretation of musallamatun

The meaning of masallama ( = kept safe) is derived from saldma

(= safety). . . .

[t]: first opinion

=>Mujahid:

388 Sura 2, verse 71Sura 2, verse 71 389

« rAPusallama* means ‘kept safe from blemish’, and «with noblemish on it» '"means1 ‘no white or black on it’. [1255-7]

second opinion: Others said rit means1 ‘kept safe from physicaldefects [=>Qatada, 1258, 1259; =>Abu ’I-'Aliya, 1260; =>A1-Rabl‘ b.Anas, 1261; =>Ibn ‘Abbas, 1262]

TABARI’S opinion: What Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu VAliya, and thosewho said the same as they did, said in interpreting this is a preferableinterpretation of the verse to Mujahid’s, because, if its being kept safewas rbeing kept free1 of other colours apart from the colour of its hide,it would have been superfluous, having said «musallama», to say «withno blemish on it*. His words « with no blemish on it* make it clear thatthe meaning of«musallama» is different from the meaning of « with noblemish on it*. This being so, the meaning of the passage is: ‘He saysthat it is a cow which has not been broken in to tilling the land andturning it over for cultivation, nor has it been made to draw up waterfor the fields; moreover, it is healthy and has been kept free fromphysical defects.’

THE INTERPRETATION OF LA SHIYATA FI-HA

If « with no blemish on it*: With no colour on it differing from thecolour of its hide.

The original meaning rof s/riya1 conies from washy which means ‘toembellish the flaws which are on a garment by embroidering differentcolours into the warp and weft of the fabric.’ . . . From this comes theword washiti rwhich is used1 for someone who slanders a man to theruler or someone else, because of his false representation of him to himand his embellishment ofhis lie with idle talk. . .

.

Shiya is from washaya, because the wa- at the beginning is droppedand replaced with an ha (ta marhuta) at the end.

§ Tabari cites several Traditions which confirm the interpretation he gives.[=>Qatada, 1263, 1264; =*Abu

’

1-Aliya, 1265; =*Mujahid, 1266, 1267 (see abovei2 55~7); =>*A{iya, 1268; =>Al-SuddT, 1279; =*>Ibn Zaid, 1280; =>A1-Rabl* b.Anas, 1281]

THE INTERPRETATION OF QAL U ’l-ANA Jl’TA BI- ’l-HAQQI

[t]: first opinion: Seme of them said that it means: ‘Now you

have explained the truth to us. We have found out what it is, and weknow which cow you meant.’ [=>Qatada, 1282]

Second opinion: Some of them said: This is God reporting aboutthe people that they accused God’s prophet, Moses, of not bringingthem the truth about the cow before that.

=>Ibn Zaid:

They needed a cow whose qualities apart from this—that it wasgolden with no black or white in it—they did not know. Theysaid: ‘This is the cow of so-and-so. «Now you have brought thetruth.’* By God, he had brought them the truth before that. [1283]

§ Tabari prefers the first intepretation, on the grounds that it is moreconsistent with the Qur’anic text. He adds, however, that the peoplecommitted an act of insolence and ignorance against Moses in implying that hehad not told them the truth before.

In the past an interpreter had claimed that by saying «‘Now you havebrought the truth’ » the people had become unbelievers, accusing Moses ofhaving lied to them. Tabari does not accept this, because the fact that thepeople submitted and sacrificed the cow shows that they obeyed God,although what they said showed their ignorance and their error.

THE INTERPRETATION OF FA-DHABAHUWA-MA KADU YAF'ALUNA

. . . By His words «wa-ma kadii yaf'aluna » He means that they almostfailed to sacrifice it and abandoned the duty God had imposed on themin this.

[t]: first opinion: Some of them said: The reason rthat theyalmost omitted the duty which God had imposed upon themconcerning the sacrifice1 was the excessive cost of the cow they hadbeen commanded to sacrifice and whose description had beenexplained to them. [=>Muhammad b. Ka‘b al-QurazT, 1274, 1275;=>Mujahid, Muhammad b. Ka‘b al-Qura?I, and Muhammad b. Qais,1276 (where it is stated that the price was the animal’s hide filled withgold which had belonged to the murdered man)]

=>Ibn ‘Abbas:

nrhis1 . . . means rthaf* they almost did not do it (kadii la yaf'aluna)and what they wanted did not happen, for they wanted not to

390 Sura 2, verse 7/

sacrifice it. Everything in the Qur’an rabout which it is said"1 kddaor kadu ( = it/they almost . . .) or law ( = the hypothetical ‘if’) didnot happen; this is as Hn1 His words «akddu ukhfr-hd ( = I almost hidit rbut did not1) » (20: 15). [1277]

second opinion: Others said that they almost did not do this outof fear of the scandal rthat would ensue1 if God made clear who hadmurdered the dead man about whom they had quarrelled beforeMoses.

tabarI s opinion: The correct interpretation in our view is thatthe people almost did not do what God had commanded them to do bysacrificing the cow for both these reasons: the first being the excessiveprice, despite what has been mentioned to us about its small worth andlow value; and the other is the fear of the great scandal they wouldincur when God disclosed the murderer to his prophet, Moses.

As for the excessive price, a variety of Traditions have been reportedto us concerning this [e.g., =>A1-Suddl, 1278 (ten times its weight ingold), =>AbIda, 1279, =»Wahb, 1282, and =^»Ibn 'Abbas, 1283 (its hidefull of dinars), =>Mujahid, 1280, 1281 (its hide full ofgold)].

As for its small worth and low value:

=>'Ikrima:

Its price was only three dinars. [1288]

As for what we have said about their fear of the scandal they wouldincur:

=>Wahb b. Munabbih:

When the people were commanded to sacrifice the cow, they saidto Moses «‘Do you take us in jest?’», because they knew that theywould be exposed when it was sacrificed; so they were averse tosacrificing it. [1289]

=>Ibn 'Abbas:

After God had revivified the dead man and he had informed themabout his murderer, the killers denied having killed him, and said:‘By God, we did not kill him - , after they had seen the sign and thetruth. [1290]

Sura 2, verse 72 39i

* *f ^ \ . - . p \ > \ -

djllk;

wa-idh qataltum nafsan fa-’ddara turn ft-hd wa-’lldhu mukhrijun tnd

kuntum taktumuna

And when you killed a soul, and disputed about it—and Goddisclosed what you were hiding

—

THE INTERPRETATION OF WA-IDH QATALTUM NAFSANfa-’ddara’tum FI-HA

By His words «And when you killed a soul» He means: Andremember, O Children of Israel, when you killed a soul. And the «soul»which they killed was the soul whose story we have mentioned in theinterpretation of 2: 67 ... .

His words «fa-’dddra% tumfr-ha» mean ‘and you were at variance aboutit [=>Mujahid, 1292, 1293], ‘and you contended with one anotherabout it’ [=>Ibn Zaid, 1295]. . .

.

Iddara turn is originally tadara turn, but the ta’ is close in pronunciationto the dal, that is to say that td ’is pronounced with the tip of the tongueand the base of the two lips, and the dal is pronounced with the tip ofthe tongue and the tips of the teeth, so the td ’ is assimilated to the dal,and they become a double dal

(...)

=>IbnJuraij:

«And when you killed a soul, and disputed about it»: some ofthem said: ‘You killed him’, and the others said: ‘You killed him.’[1294]

And they disputed about the soul whom they had killed.=>Mujahid:

The man of the rstory of the1 cow was one of the Children ofIsrael, and a man killed him and dumped him at the door of someother people. Then the relatives of the murdered man came and

392 Sura 2, verse 72

accused them of his blood, and they denied it (intafii)—or claimedthey were innocent of it (intajalu), Abu *Asim rone of thetransmitters1 was not sure. [1296]

=>Qatada:

There was a murdered man among the Children of Israel, andeach tribe from them accused another of it, until the evil amongthem reached a dangerous degree, so that they took their casebefore God s prophet. Then God revealed to Moses: ‘Slaughter acow and smite rthe murdered man1 with a part of it.’ It has beenmentioned to us that his relative who was seeking to avenge hisblood was the one who had killed him on account of theinheritance between them. [1298]

^Ibn ‘Abbas:

There was an old man from the Children of Israel in Moses’ timewho was very wealthy, and his nephews were poor and had noproperty. The ole man had no son, and his nephews were his heirs.They said: ‘If only our uncle would die and we could inherit hiswealth!’ When their uncle took too long for them to die, Satancame to them and said: ‘Why do you not kill your uncle, inherithis wealth, and claim blood-money from the people of the townin which you do not live?’—that is to say, there were two towns,and they lived in one of them; whenever someone was murderedand dumped between the two towns, the distance between thedead man and the two towns would be measured and theblood-money would be claimed from the one he was nearest to.When Satan had talked them into this, and their uncle’s death hadtaken too long for them, they went to him and killed him, andthen they went and dumped him at the gate of the town in whichthey did not live. When the people of the town woke up in themorning, the nephews of the old man came and said: ‘Our unclehas been murdered at the gate of your town. By God, you shallpay us our uncle’s blood-money.’ The people of the town said:‘We swear by God that we did not kill him, nor do we know whokilled him. We did not open the gate of our town after it had beenbolted until we woke up in the morning.’ And they went toMoses, and when they arrived the nephews of the old man said:‘We found our unde murdered at the gate of their town.’ And thepeople of the town said: ‘We swear by God that we did not kill

Sura 2, verse 72 393

him, and we did not open the gate ofthe town once we had boltedit until we got up in the morning.’ And Gabriel brought acommand to Moses from our Lord, the All-hearing, theOmniscient, saying: ‘Say to them that God commands them tosacrifice a cow and to smite rthe murdered man1 with a part of it.’[1299. See also a similar Tradition containing the intertwined

narratives of Mujahid, Muhammad b. Ka'b al-Qura?I, andMuhammad b. Qais, 1300; also =>‘AbIda, 1131, =>Ibn Zaid, 1302]

(...)

THE INTERPRETATION OF WA-’LLAHU MUKHRIJUN MA KUNTUMTAKTUMUNA

And God disclosed what you were concealing about the death ofthe murdered man whom you killed and then disputed about.

Ikhraj ( == lit., to bring out, e.g., into the open) ris used1 in this place

•“to1 mean ‘divulge’, ‘disclose’ ... as rit does in what1 God saidElsewhere1 : «so that they do not prostrate themselves to God, whodiscloses (yukhriju) what is hidden in the heavens and the earth. » (27: 27)

(...)

394 Sura 2, verse 73 Sura 2, verse 73 395

2:73

• / * ' O > , „ .« - f * o'aiit JJo *A_S LJULf

OjJUL*j pS\L*J

fa-qulna *dribu-hu bi-ba'dt-ha ka-dhdlika yuhyi ’llahu ’l-mauta

wa-yuri-kum cyati-hi laalla-kum ta'qiluna

so We said: ‘Smite him with part of it’; thus does God bring thedead to life, and He shows you His signs so that you may

understand.

THE INTERPRETATION OF FA-QULNA ’DRIBU-HU BI-BA 'DI-HA

If So We said to the people of Moses who disputed about themurder—whose affair we have previously described—: ‘Smite themurdered man « with part of it »’—i.e., with part of the cow which Godhad commanded them to sacrifice.

‘My nephew.’ (...) He had murdered him and dumped him onthat tribe desiring to take his blood-money. [1313]

tabarI’s opinion: The correct interpretation ... in our view is:God commanded them to smite the murdered man with part of thecow so that the smitten man would revive. And there is no indicationin the verse, nor rinn any authoritative Tradition as to which part of itthe people were commanded to smite the murdered man with. It ispossible that . . . Ht1 was the thigh, ... or the tail, or the cartilage fromthe shoulder, or any other part of it. There is no harm in not knowingwhat the murdered man was smitten with, nor is there any advantagein knowing, besides the confirmation that the people smote themurdered man with a part of the cow after they had sacrificed it andGod had brought him Haack1 to life.

question: What is the meaning of the command to smite themurdered man with a part of rthe cow1 ?

reply: So that he could be revived to inform God’s prophet, Moses,and those who disputed about it, who had killed him.

[t]: «part of it»: first opinion: Some said the murdered manwas smitten with the thigh.

^Mujahid:

He was smitten with the thigh of the cow and then stood up alive.Then he said: ‘So-and-so murdered me.’ Then he returned to hisrstateoP death. [1305, 1306, 1308; also =>*Ikrima, 1307, =>Qatada,

1309, 1310]

second opinion: Others said that what he was smitten with wasthe piece of flesh which is between the shoulder-blades. [=>A1-Suddl,1311]

third opinion: Others said that what they were commanded tosmite him with was one ofits bones. [=>Abu ’1- Aliya, 13 12J

FOURTH OPINION

question: Where is the report that God commanded them to dothis for this reason?

reply: This was omitted because the indication from what wasmentioned in the passage sufficed to point to it, in the same way as Hn1

the similar Examples of ellipsis1 which we have previously mentioned.

If So We said: ‘Smite him with a part of rthe cow1 so that he willrevive’; and they smote him, and he revived.

This is like His words « ‘Strike the sea with your staff’; and it clave »,meaning: So he struck it and it clave. The proof of this is His words:«thus does God bring the dead to life, and He shows you His signs sothat you may have understanding.

»

THE INTERPRETATION OF KA-DHALIKA YUHYI ’LLAHU’l-ma UTA

=>Ibn Zaid:

They smote the murdered man with some of its limbs (arab), andbehold, he stood up. They said: ‘Who murdered you?’ He said:

rThese words1 . . . are addressed by God to His believing servants, andrin them He1 remonstrates against the polytheists who deny theResurrection. He commanded them to take a lesson from what He did

39

398 Sura 2 , verse 74 Sura 2, verse 74 399

murdered man whom God had revived. Then He informed theChildren of Israel that they were his murderers, after ^the murderedman1 had told them this, and after his second death.

=>Ibn 'Abbas:

When the murdered man had been smitten by part of it—i.e., bypart of the cow—he sat up alive and it was said to him: ‘Whokilled you?’ And he said: ‘My nephews killed me.’ Then he died.And his nephews said, when he had died: ‘By God, we did not killhim.’ And they denied the truth, after they had seen it. And Godsaid: «Then your hearts became hardened thereafter »—i.e., rthehearts of1 the nephews of the old man—«and they rbecame1 likestones, or harder*. [1314; see also =>Qatada, 1315]

THE INTERPRETATION OF FA-HIYA KA-’L-HIJA RATI' A W ASHADDU QASWA TAN

1[ Then, after you had seen the truth so that it had become clear toyou and you had recognized it, your hearts hardened againstsubmitting to it and against conceding the necessity of God’s truthrwhen it faced1 you; and your hearts were callous, arid, coarse, andharsh, like stones, «or harder*—meaning that their hearts were morecallous than stones against submitting to the necessity of God’s truthagainst them, and against conceding to Him the unavoidability of Hisrights against them.

objection: What is the signification of His saying «and theyrbecamen like stones, or harder*, when ‘or (aw)’, among those whospeak Arabic, is used in talking to mean doubt, while there can be nodoubt in God’s statement?

reply: This does not signify what you imagine it does . . ., rather it isa statement about their hard hearts, that they were . . . hard like stones,or more solid than stones, in their view and the view of those whoknew about them.

§ Taban gives the views of several anonymous Arabic experts about this useof ‘or (aw)\ One said, quoting other examples from the Qur’an—37: 147 and34: 24—and poetry, that in these cases the speaker is well aware ofwhich of thetwo things is true, though he says it in this way so as to create a feeling ofvagueness in whoever is being addressed. Another said that this verse had an

inclusive meaning, by which he meant that some of their hearts were callous

like stones, and some were even more callous, giving as an example the

sentence ‘I gave you only sweet things or sour things to eat’, meaning nothing

but these two things. Another said it meant ‘and’, just as it would do in a

negative sentence like « and obey not one ofthem, sinner or unbeliever* {76: 24),

and another, also quoting 37: 147, said it meant ‘even ’’harder1 ’. Finally,

another said that it meant ‘they were like stones, or harder in your case.’

Tabari says there are grounds in Arabic speech for all these views, although he

prefers the interpretation he gave first, and those which preserve the basic

meaning of aw signifying an alternative. He then gives reasons for ashaddubeing in the nominative.

THE INTERPRETATION OF WA-INNA MINA ’l-HIJARATILA-MA YATAFAJJARU MIN-HU ’l-ANHARU

For there are some stones from which water gushes forth fromwhich rivers come.

By the mention of ‘rivers’ He dispensed with mentioning ‘water’. . . .Tafajjur ( = gushing forth) . . . ris used1 when water comes down fromits source. rThe VIIth form verb from the same root1 infajara ( = to burstforth) is used for every fluid which spurts up when it comes from itsplace, be it water, blood, pus, or anything else.J

THE INTERPRETATION OF WA-INNA MIN-HA LA-MAYASHSHAQQAQU FA -YAKHR UJU MIN-HU ’l-MA’U

f And there are some stones which . . . develop fissures

—

rthe verb

is1 yatashaqqaqu,but the ta ’ (-1-) is assimilated with the shin (-sh-) and

becomes a double shin (-shsh-)—so that they become welling springsand flowing rivers.

THE INTERPRETATION OF WA-INNA MIN-HA LA-MA YAHBITUMIN KHASHYATI ’LLAHI

K And some stones crash down—i.e., tumble down from the topsof mountains to the earth and rto1 the feet of the mountains—out offear and dread ofGod. 1

God described the stones rthus1 .... after making them a similitudefor those Children of Israel whose hardness of heart He reported,/absolving rthe stones1

,but not the Children of Israel whose hardness of

400 Sura 2, verse 74 Sura 2, verse 75 401

heart He reported, from any guilt. For, according to find's descriptionofthem, they gave His Messengers the lie and denied His signs after Hehad shown them the signs and warnings and after they had seen thewonders ofthe indicants and proofs, despite the sound minds which Hehad given them and the healthy souls He had blessed them with, whichHe had not given stones and clods of earth. Moreover, despite that,there are those rstonesn from which rivers gush forth, those from whichwater flows, and those which crash down in dread ofGod. So He statedthat there are stones which are more malleable than their hearts towardsthe truth to which they are summoned. [=>Ibn Ishaq, 1316]

§ Tabari then quotes Traditions [=>Mujahid, 1317, 1318; =>Qatada, 1319,1320; =>Ibn ‘Abbas, 1321; =*Ibn Juraij, 1322] which support his exegesis of thestones being more deserving of pardon than the Children of Israel. He thencites a variety of opinions about the significance of the crashing down of thestones, but he does not take them into account on the grounds that they are atvariance with the interpretation of the most prominent interpreters.

THE INTERPRETATION OF WA-MA ’LLAHU BI-GHAFILIN'A M-MA TA ' MA L UNA

If O you Children of Israel and Jewish rabbis who give His signs thelie, and deny the prophethood of His Messenger, Muhammad, and saybaseless things about him, God is not heedless of your malicious deedsand vile acts; rather, He charges them against you, so as to requite youfor them in the Hereafter or punish you for them in this world.

The original meaning ofghafia is to abandon something because oneis inattentive to, and forgetful of it

1 For habafa, see Exeg. 2: 36, p. 257, and Exeg. 2: 61, p. 350.

' ’/)

. >

'

• - • > • - +m : ^ o : - • , * . " • f \Oj *-•_

1

a O LS 1