Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:66

• "And indeed, for you in the grazing livestock is a lesson" (that is, a passage to pass through from ignorance to knowledge).

The root meaning of ‘ibrah (lesson) and ‘ubur (crossing) is to pass from one place to another. Al-Raghib said: "Crossing (‘ubur) is specifically for crossing water by swimming or the like, while the general meaning is also well-known." Thus, the application of the term ‘ibrah (lesson) to that by which one learns a lesson is based on the aforementioned, but it has become a literal reality in the convention of the language. The use of the indefinite noun (‘ibrah) is for glorification, meaning: a great lesson.

"We give you to drink" (a declarative resumption; as if it were said: "How is there a lesson in them?" and it was answered: "We give you to drink").

"Of that which is in their bellies" (Some have assumed a subject here, which is: "It is what We give you to drink," but there is no need for that). The pronoun in "their bellies" (butunihi) refers to the grazing livestock (al-an‘am), which is a collective noun. With a collective noun, it is permissible to make the pronoun masculine and singular, considering its wording, or feminine and plural, considering its meaning. This is why both modes appear in the Quran and the speech of the Arabs; this is what is said.

It is reported from Sibawayh that he considered al-an‘am to be singular. His speech—may Allah have mercy on him—is apparently contradictory, for in the chapter on the pattern of mafa‘il and mafa‘il (the plural of plurality), he states: "As for ajmal (beauties) and fulus (coins) and what resembles them, they are diptote (declinable), because they have become similar to the singular. Do you not see that you say aqwal and aqawil (sayings), a‘rab and a‘arib (Arabs), ayd and ayad (hands)? These letters proceed to mafa‘il and mafa‘il just as the singular proceeds to them when it is interpreted as a plural. But mafa‘il and mafa‘il are not broken, for the plural proceeds to a construction other than this, as this is the limit. When they became similar to the singular, they were made declinable." Then he said: "Likewise al-fu‘ul, if you break it like al-fulus, you move it to fa‘a’il, as you say judud and jada’id (grandfathers), rukub and raka’ib (riders). If you were to do that with mafa‘il and mafa‘il, it would not exceed this construction. This is strengthened by the fact that some Arabs say ata (a gift) for the singular, with a damma on the alif. As for af‘al, it may occur for the singular; among the Arabs, some say: 'It is the al-an‘am.' The Almighty said: 'We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies.' Abu al-Khattab said: 'I heard the Arabs say: This is a garment of akyas (sacks).'" [End]

He—may Allah have mercy on him—also said in the chapter on what is attached to the additions of the trilateral: "There is no af‘il, af‘ul, af‘al, af‘al, or af‘al in the language unless names for a plural are broken upon it." [End]

People have been confused in reconciling his two statements. Abu Hayyan favored interpreting the first and leaving the second to its literal meaning—that af‘al cannot be of the singular constructions. He interpreted the first statement, "As for af‘al, it may occur for the singular, etc.," to mean that some Arabs may use it figuratively, like al-an‘am in the sense of al-na‘am (livestock), as the poet said: "We left the horses and the na‘am (livestock) that was ransomed, and we told the women stay with it." He did not intend that it is singular in form and placement, evidenced by his explicit statement in the other place that it can only be a plural. This was countered by the objection that Sibawayh’s intention in what he mentioned first was to differentiate between the two forms of the "plural of plurality" and af‘al and fu‘ul, since he forbade declension for the first two and not for the last two for several reasons, among which is that the first two do not apply to the singular, unlike the latter two, as he clarified. If af‘al did not apply to the singular by placement, the difference would not be achieved, and the intention would not be complete. Yes, there is no debate regarding the conflict in his statements. Furthermore, if it were so, it would not be specific to some of them. Also, using a plural figuratively for the singular is valid for every plural, including the patterns of the plural of plurality.

Al-Khafaji replied to this saying: "The truth is that there is no conflict between his two statements. He distinguished between the two patterns of the plural of plurality and the latter two patterns by noting that the first two do not take a plural, whereas the latter two do take a plural, thus they resemble singulars. He then strengthened this by noting that a group of Arabs used ata, which is on the pattern of fu‘ul, as a singular in reality, and some used al-an‘am, which is on the pattern of af‘al, similarly. He indicated that this is a rare language among some, and what he mentioned afterward is based on the common language. His saying that his intention first was the difference via several reasons has no basis, as those who master the language know." [End]

From this, it is known that the return of the singular masculine pronoun to al-an‘am according to Sibawayh is because it is a singular according to the dialect of some Arabs. As for those who say it is a plural, they make the pronoun refer to some—either the implied part, i.e., "some of the livestock," or that which is understood from it, or to the livestock considering some of it, namely the females from which the milk comes, or to its singular as in the words of Ibn al-Hajib: "The nominatives are what contain the science of the doer or have it according to the meaning," because the generic nature makes the singular and plural equal in meaning, so the pronoun of each is permitted to return to the other.

In Al-Bahr, he returned the pronoun as masculine, observing the gender, because if it is valid for the singular indicating a genus to stand in place of its plural, it is permissible for the pronoun of each of them to return to the other, like their saying: "He is the best of the youths," because it is valid to say "He is the best youth," even if this is not analogical according to Sibawayh. It is also said that the broken plural for non-rational beings is treated as a collective and treated as a plural, so the pronoun returns to it as singular, like his saying: "Like chicks, their crops were plucked."

Al-Kisa'i said: It was singularized and masculinized on the estimation of the mentioned, just as the demonstrative pronoun is singularized after a plural, like his saying: "In it are lines of black and remaining, as if it were in the skin the spots of vitiligo." This is permissible in the Quran; from it is the Almighty's saying: "Indeed, this is a reminder, so whoever wills, let him remember" and "When he saw the sun rising, he said, 'This is my Lord'." This only happens with figurative femininity, so "Your female servant went" is not permissible.

This was countered by: How can na‘am be a plural when it is specific to camels, and an‘am is said for cattle, camels, and sheep? Even if it were specific, it would be equal. It was answered that those who view it as a plural for it, distinguish an‘am or generalize na‘am, and consider the differentiation to arise from usage, making the plural for indicating the multiplicity of types.

Ibn Mas‘ud (contrary to him), Al-Hasan, Zayd bin Ali, Ibn ‘Amir, Nafi‘, Abu Bakr, and the people of Medina read: "Nusqikum" (We give you to drink) with a fatha on the nun here and in [Surah] Al-Mu’minun, as the imperfect of saqa. It is a dialect for asqa among some. They cited the verse of Labid: "My people of the sons of Majd drank, and he gave Numayr and the tribes of Hilal to drink." Some say: "I gave him to drink (saqaytuhu)" for his thirst, and "I provided drink for him (asqaytuhu)" for his livestock and his land. It is said: Saqahu means to quench his thirst with water, and asqahu means to make it prepared for him. There is further discussion on this, so remember it.

Abu Raja' read: "Yasqikum" (He gives you to drink) with the ya with a damma, and the pronoun refers to Allah the Almighty. The author of Al-Lawami‘ said: "It is possible for it to return to the livestock, and it was masculinized because livestock is something that can be masculinized and feminized." The meaning is: "And indeed, you have in the livestock livestock that gives you to drink," i.e., makes for you a drink. This is as you can see.

A group, among them Abu Ja‘far, read: "Tasqikum" (It gives you to drink) with a ta with a fatha. Ibn ‘Atiyah said: "It is a weak reading." [End] He did not explain the aspect of its weakness; it seems—and Allah knows best—that it is the gathering of femininity in "tasqikum" and masculinity in "butunihi" (their bellies). He was oblivious to the fact that such is not considered a weakness, because the femininity and masculinity are based on two different aspects.

"From between dung and blood, milk" Al-farth (dung), according to Al-Sihah, is the manure as long as it is in the rumen, and the plural is furut. In Al-Bahr, it is the dense matter that remains of the food in the rumen or the intestine. "From between" necessitates a plurality, and here it is the dung and the blood, so the order of the composition would be the mediation of milk between them. This was narrated by Al-Kalbi from Abu Salih from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with him—who said: "When the animal grazes and the fodder ripens in its rumen, its lower part becomes dung, its middle part milk, and its upper part blood." A similar [report] was narrated from Ibn Jubayr. Thus, the "between" is according to its reality and outward appearance.

This was countered by Imam Al-Razi, saying: "One might say: Milk and blood do not originate in the rumen. The proof is sensory, for animals are constantly slaughtered and nothing of that is seen in their rumen. If the aforementioned originated in it, it would have to be witnessed in some states. Something that observation has proven to be false cannot be accepted. Rather, the truth is that when the animal consumes food, it reaches its stomach and rumen if it is grazing livestock or others. When it is cooked and the first digestion occurs in it, the pure part is drawn to the liver, and the dense part descends to the intestines. Then, that which is in the liver ripens and becomes blood, which is the second digestion, mixed with bile, black bile, and excess water. The bile goes to the gallbladder, the black bile to the spleen, and the water to the kidneys and then to the bladder. As for that blood, it enters the veins and vessels growing from the liver, and there the third digestion occurs. Between the liver and the udder are many vessels, so the blood pours from those vessels into the udder. The udder is a soft, white, glandular meat, so Allah the Almighty turns the blood in it into the form of milk."

It is not to be said: "This meaning exists in the male animal, so why does it not produce milk?" For we say: "Divine wisdom required the management of everything in a way befitting it and consistent with its interest, so it necessitated that the temperament of the male be hot and dry, and that of the female be cold and moist. For the child is only generated inside the body of the female, so it was appropriate for her to be distinguished by moisture to become material for generation and a cause for accepting expansion, so she widens for the child. Then that moisture, after the separation of the fetus, pours into the udder and becomes material for its nourishment, just as it was before in the womb."

Whoever reflects on the wonders of Allah’s creation in what was mentioned of the mixtures, milk, the preparation of their abodes and conduits, the causes generating them, and the powers acting upon them at every moment in a way befitting them, is compelled to acknowledge the perfection of His knowledge—exalted is He—His power, His wisdom, and the extremity of His kindness and mercy—judgments in which creation is bewildered, and it is right that they should be bewildered.

The summary of what they mentioned is that when food arrives in the rumen, it is cooked, and subtle parts are distinguished from it, which are drawn to the liver. It is cooked there, resulting in blood, and parts of it flow to the udder, transforming into milk by the management of the Wise, the Knowing. In this case, the meaning is that milk is obtained only from between parts of the dung, then from between parts of the blood. The "between" here is figurative.

In Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim and others: "Perhaps the intention of what was narrated from Ibn Abbas is that its middle is the material for milk, and its upper part is the material for the blood that nourishes the body, for the lack of their formation in the rumen is something about which there is no doubt." The motivation for that is the contradiction of what the outward meaning requires regarding sense and what the philosophers and those of refinement mentioned. What supports what they mentioned is what one I trust informed me, that he witnessed the exit of blood from the udder after the milk when milking intensely. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

The first "from" (min) is partitive, because milk is a part of what is in the bellies of the livestock, as it is created from some parts of the blood generated from the subtle parts that are in the dung, as you have heard. It is connected to nusqikum (We give you to drink). The second "from" is initial, and it is also connected to nusqikum, for between the blood and the dung is the place from which the giving of drink begins. Their connection to one operator is because of the difference in their meanings. Labanan (milk) is the second object of nusqikum.

The reason for its advancement over them is what has passed many times: that advancing what should be delayed brings longing to the soul for the delayed, necessitating greater firmness upon its arrival to them, especially if the advanced contains a description that conflicts with the description of the delayed, as is our case, for between the descriptions of the advanced and the delayed there is a contradiction and distance such that their fires do not meet, for that increases the longing and anticipation for the delayed. It was also permitted that "from between" be a state for "milk," advanced before it because it is indefinite and to alert that it is the place of the lesson.

It was also permitted that the first "from" be initial like the second, so "from between" would be a substitute for inclusion from what preceded.

"Pure" (purified from what accompanies it of dense parts by narrowing its exit, or clear, not accompanied by the color of blood or the smell of dung).

"Agreeable to the drinkers" (easy to pass down their throats because of its fatness).

Ibn Marduyah brought out from Yahya bin Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Labibah, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—said: "No one drank milk and choked, for Allah the Almighty says: 'Pure milk, agreeable to the drinkers.'"

A group read: "Siyghan" with a shadda on the ya. Isa bin Umar read: "Sighan" with a light ya, from sigh like hayyin (easy) which is the lightened form of hayyin.

The verse was used as evidence for the purity of the milk of that which is eaten, and the permissibility of drinking it. Some who see that semen is pure have argued against those who made it impure, because of its passage in the path of urine, by it as well, and that it is not strange that it should follow the path of urine while it is pure, just as milk came out from between dung and blood as pure.

In Al-Tafsir al-Kabir, the people of verification said: "Considering the occurrence of milk, just as it indicates the existence of the Maker, the Chooser, it indicates the possibility of resurrection and revival. That is because this herbage that the animal eats is only generated from water and earth, so the Creator of the world managed a management by which it transformed into milk, then He managed another management from which cheese and fat occurred from that milk. This indicates that He—the Almighty—is capable of turning these bodies from one attribute to another and from one state to another. If that is so, it is not impossible that He is also capable of turning the parts of the bodies of the dead into the attribute of life and intellect as they were before. Thus, this consideration indicates from this aspect that the resurrection and the Day of Judgment is a possible, not impossible, matter."