Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:170

(And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed"): The pronoun refers to the people, and the shift from the second person address to the third person serves to alert [the reader] that, due to the extremity of their ignorance and perversity, they are not worthy of being addressed. Rather, the address ought to be diverted away from them to those who possess intellect. Furthermore, this style contains a call to every rational person regarding their corruption, which would not be present had they been addressed directly. It has been said that the pronoun refers to the Jews, even if they were not explicitly mentioned, based on what has been narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that the verse was revealed concerning them when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) called them to Islam. It has also been said that it refers to those mentioned in the preceding [verse]—"those who conceal"—and that the sentence is an inception based on the narration that it was revealed concerning the polytheists. You know that the revelation regarding the Jews or the polytheists does not necessitate the restriction of the pronoun to them. It is well-established that the generality of the referent does not necessitate the generality of the pronoun, as in His, the Exalted’s, saying: “And divorced women shall wait…” and His saying: “And their husbands have more right to take them back.” Moreover, the structure of the Noble Quran rejects this latter assertion. The relative noun ("what") is either general, applying to all true laws revealed by Allah the Exalted, or specific to what the context demands.

(They say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers upon"): That is, what we found them to be upon. The adverbial phrase is either a circumstantial qualifier for "our fathers"—with "found" taking a single object—or a second object for "found," placed before the first.

(Even if their fathers understood nothing and were not guided?): The apodosis of the conditional is omitted; meaning: "Even if their fathers were ignorant, not reflecting on matters of religion and not guided to the truth, would they still follow them?" The waw (and) is either for the circumstantial state or for conjunction. The conditional sentence is either a circumstantial clause regarding the pronoun in "they said" or is conjoined to it. The interrogative hamza serves to deny the content of that sentence, which is their commitment to follow [their fathers] under a premise that contradicts it—namely, that their fathers were devoid of intellect and guidance—which implies a commitment to follow them in any state whatsoever, without discrimination or knowledge of whether they were in the right or the wrong. This is the blameworthy taqlid (blind imitation). From this denial, astonishment is generated.

It is permissible that the sentence is a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun of an omitted sentence, i.e., "Would they follow them even if they were assumed to be devoid of intellect and guidance?" or that it is conjoined to an omitted conditional, i.e., "Would they follow them if they were not devoid of intellect, [and would they follow them] even if they were devoid of intellect?" Al-Zamakhshari favored the first, while al-Jarmi favored the second. It is not hidden that, based on the assumption of the omitted preceding sentence, there is no need to posit the omission of the apodosis. Perhaps what was mentioned first is more appropriate, as it avoids excessive omission, keeps law (even if) in its well-known meaning, and keeps the interrogative hamza in its original state—that is, immediately preceding the matter being asked about. The idea that the meaning revolves around conjunction to an omitted element in such constructions across other languages is not conceded. Al-Radi opted for the view that the waw entering upon the conditional word in such instances is parenthetical (iʿtirāḍiyyah). By a parenthetical sentence, he meant that which intervenes between parts of speech, or comes at the end, related to it in meaning while being distinct in wording.

It has been said: In the verse is proof of the prohibition of taqlid for one who is capable of rational inquiry (nazar). As for following others in religion after knowing through evidence that they are in the right, this is, in reality, following what Allah the Exalted has revealed and is not, in any way, part of the blameworthy taqlid. And He, the Glorified, has said: “So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.”