Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:51

When the Children of Israel crossed the sea, they asked Moses, peace be upon him, to bring them a book from God. His Lord, the Glorified, promised to give him the Torah. Moses accepted this, and a time was fixed for him: the month of Dhu al-Qa'dah and ten days of Dhu al-Hijjah, or Dhu al-Hijjah and ten days of Muharram. The form of the verb (mufa’alah - "appointed a meeting") is used in its proper sense, indicating an action by one party and acceptance by the other, as in "I treated the patient" (’alajtu al-marid). Rejecting the validity of this usage is unacceptable, given its presence in the speech of the Arabs and the clear affirmation and approval of the scholars of the language.

It is also possible that "appointed a meeting" (wa’adna) is from the root of "encountering" (muwafat) and carries no meaning of a promise (wa’d); rather, it is like saying, "Your appointment is on such-and-such a day, at such-and-such a place." It is also possible that it carries the meaning of "We promised" (wa’adna), a reading reported by Abu ’Amr. Or, one could infer a "meeting" (mulaqat), or decompose the meaning into two separate verbs: inferring "revelation" for the first part and "coming" for the second. There is no contradiction in any of this, as Al-Damghani has established. The statement of Abu Ubaidah—that a reciprocal appointment (muwa’adah) only occurs between humans—is not to be accepted; and the statement of Abu Hatim—that it mostly occurs between equals among created beings—even if conceded, does not harm us.

"Forty" (arba’in) is an object of a suppressed verb, connected by a slight implication, meaning "We granted forty," i.e., at the completion of it, or during the last ten days, or throughout its duration, or at its beginning—reflecting the various narrations. Alternatively, it is a fixed adverbial expression functioning as an adjective for a suppressed object of "appointed a meeting," meaning: We appointed with Moses an affair occurring within forty. It is also said to be an absolute object, meaning: We appointed with Moses an appointment of forty nights.

Some have gone so far as to suggest that it is better not to infer an object at all, because the intention is to state whom He appointed, not what He appointed, and that "forty" is rendered in the place of an object by extension (tawassu’). This contains an exaggeration by making the appointed time itself the subject of the appointment, and making "forty" an adverb for "appointed a meeting" in the manner of "Zayd came on Thursday," but this is not sound, as is obvious.

"Moses" (Musa) is a non-Arabic name, indeclinable because it is a proper noun and foreign. It is said to be composed of Mu (water) and Shi (trees), changed to Si with the undotted letter. It seems the one who named him thus intended the water of the sea and the ark into which he was cast. Some have debated its morphological weight; Sibawayh says it is muf’al, while others say it is fi’li. It is said to be derived from masa-yamisu (to walk swayingly), with the ya replaced by waw due to the damma preceding it, as they say tuba. It is of the ya-class because it comes from taba-yatibu (to be good). This is weakened by the consensus that it is indeclinable as an indefinite noun; if it were fi’li, it would be indeclinable because the feminine alif alone prevents declension in both definite and indefinite forms—though the addition of the mim at the beginning is more frequent than the alif at the end.

The Glorified and Exalted expressed this duration by "nights" rather than "days" because the beginning of the appointed time was at night, and nights are the precursors to the months of the Arabs, as they were set according to the motion of the moon—the crescent only appears at night. Or, it is because darkness is older than light, as evidenced by: "And a sign for them is the night; We extract the day from it." Or, it is a sign that he was to continue fasting through both night and day. If the interpretation had used "days," it might have been thought that he broke his fast at night; but by explicitly stating "nights," it is understood from the force of the speech that he fasted forty nights and their days. The statement that mentioning the night was to indicate that the promise to Moses, peace be upon him, was for performing night prayers (qiyam al-layl) is groundless, as the reported tradition states that what was commanded was fasting, not prayer.

It may be said by way of indication (isharah): The mention of the night is a symbol that this appointment was after the completion of the journey to God—crossing the sea of obstacles and attachments. There, one enters the journey in God, whose reality is not attained, whose identity is not known, and in the wilderness of Whose majesty nothing is seen but astonishment and bewilderment. This journey varies according to individuals and times; "I have a time with God" refers to this.

"Taking" (ittikhadh) comes with the meaning of initiating a craft, thus it takes one object, such as "I took [made] a sword." It also comes with the meaning of adopting a quality, acting like "making," and taking two objects, such as "I took Zayd as a friend." Both possibilities are viable in the verse, and the second object in the second interpretation is omitted due to its heinousness, meaning: "You took the calf"—which the Samiri crafted—"as a god." The condemnation is clear, as they all worshipped it except Aaron and twelve thousand, or except Aaron and the seventy who were with Moses, peace be upon him. Under the first interpretation, there is no need for a second object, a view supported by its absence in any of the verses regarding this story. The condemnation in that case is for what resulted from the taking—namely worship—or for the act of taking itself. The Arabs condemn or praise a tribe for what emanates from some of its members.

"The calf" (al-’ijl) is the young of a cow. The Sufis make it a sign of the deficient soul and its desires. That what they took was a calf is apparent in that it became flesh and blood, thus it was a calf in reality, and the attribution of the "lowing" to it, mentioned later, is also real—this is the view held by Al-Hasan. It is said that the Glorified meant by "the calf" something resembling it in image and form, and the attribution of the "lowing" to it is metaphorical; this is the view of the majority.

Strangely, it is said that this was named "a calf" (’ijl) because they were hasty (’ajilu) with it before the arrival of Moses, so they took it as a god; or because of its short duration, as Moses, peace be upon him, after returning from the appointment, burned it and cast it into the sea.

The pronoun in "after him" (ba’dihi) refers to Moses, meaning: after what you saw from him of monotheism, transcendence, and his insistence upon it and refraining from everything that contradicts it. The temporal circumstance is mentioned to signal the heinousness of their action. It does not imply that Moses was taken as a god; just as the understanding of the speech is that the taking was after Moses, and from where would one understand "the taking of Moses" especially in this context? It is possible that there is an ellipsis, and the closest noun to be understood is the verbal noun indicated by "appointed a meeting," meaning: after his appointment. It is also said that what is omitted is the "going," indicated by the appointment, as it necessitates it.

The nominal sentence is in the position of a state (hal), and the object of the "wrongdoing" (zulm) is polytheism and placing worship in the wrong place. It is also said that it refers to refraining from objecting to what the Samiri did and failing to deny it. The benefit of the restriction to the state is to signal that the taking was "wrongdoing" even by their own measure, had they consulted their intellects with the slightest reflection. It is also said that the sentence is not a state, but merely an assertion that their natural disposition is wrongdoing, and the Samiri’s action succeeded with them only due to the intensity of their foolishness and the domination of Satan over them, as is evidenced by their other actions.

As for the Samiri taking the "calf" for them, instead of other animals, it is said that they passed by a people who were devoted to their idols which were in the images of cows, and they said: "Make for us a god just as they have gods." So it occurred to the Samiri that their seduction was from this direction, so he took that for them. It is also said that he was from a people who worshipped cows and was a hypocrite, so he took a calf of the same species as that which he worshipped.