Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:68

(They said, "Call upon your Lord for us to make clear to us what it is"): That is, ask on our behalf [your] Lord, who has accustomed you to what He has accustomed you, to reveal [to us] its state and description. The inquiry is, in reality, regarding the description, because the quiddity (mahīyah) and the named name are known, and there is no third for them to use "what" (mā) upon. If a specific cow is intended, then it is obvious, as it is an inquiry to clarify the vague; otherwise, it is out of astonishment and the illusion that such a cow must be specific. The answer to the first is clarification, and to the second, abrogation and intensification. Such is the case with the subsequent questions and answers. The requirement of the apparent meaning, in the first case—because "what" is for questioning the distinguisher, whether descriptive or essential—and in the second—how, since it is placed for questioning the state—is that although "what" is used to ask for a description, it is rare, and either metaphorical or homonymous, as stated in al-Miftāḥ. The predominant usage is to question the genus. If it is interpreted here according to the predominant usage, the unknown description—because it is of a state not found in its genus, which is reviving the dead by striking it with a part of it—is treated as an unknown reality; thus, it is an inquiry about the genus by classification, and about the description in reality. If it is interpreted according to the rare usage, there is no need for this classification. The statement that "what is it" could be interpreted with an omitted genitive, meaning "what is its state," thereby becoming an inquiry about a type of state from which this specific attribute branches out, is—aside from its remoteness—devoid of the subtlety befitting the Glorious Book. "What" (mā) is an interrogative noun functioning as a predicate put forward for "it" (hiya), and the sentence is in the place of an accusative governed by "make clear" because it is suspended from it; this is permissible due to its resemblance to verbs of the heart. The meaning is "make clear to us" the answer to this question.

He said, "He says, 'It is a cow neither old nor young'": Fāriḍ (old) is a name for the aged [cow] whose calving has ceased due to old age; the verb is faraḍat (with a fatha or damma on the rā). It is said of everything that has persisted and whose duration has become long—fāriḍ—as in his (the poet's) saying: "O possessor of malice toward an old (fāriḍ) enemy, who has menses like the menses of a menstruating woman." It is as if the aged [cow] was called fāriḍ because it has reached the "farḍ" of its years, meaning it has cut them off and reached its end. Bikr (young) is a name for the small one; some added: that which has not given birth due to youth. Ibn Qutaybah said: It is that which has given birth to only one calf. Bikr among women is she whom men have not touched. It is said: It is that which has not conceived. Bikr is also used for the first of offspring and the first of needs. Bakr (with a fatha on the bā) is the young male of the camels, and the female is bakrah. Its root is from temporal precedence, from which come bukrah (morning) and bākūrah (first fruit). Both names are adjectives for "cow." The feminine tā was not added because they are names for what was mentioned. The particle "la" (neither/nor) was inserted between the adjective and the qualified, and repeated, for it is mandatory to repeat it with the predicate, the adjective, and the state, except in cases of poetic necessity—contrary to al-Mubarrad and Ibn Kaysan—as in his saying: "I defeated the enemies, not seeking (lā musta‘īnan) the help of a band, but by kinds of trickery and deceit." Those who consider this an adjectival clause imply a predicate—i.e., "she is neither old nor young"—have drifted far, for the standard is the adjectival phrase in the singular, and the standard is that there is no omission. The mention of "He says" is to indicate that it is from God, the Exalted, not from his own self.

"Middle-aged between that": That is, of intermediate age. It is said: It is one that has given birth to one or two litters. It is said: Once after once. It is pluralized as ‘uwūn... The benefit of this after "neither old nor young" is the negation of it being a calf or a fetus; he intended by that the two aforementioned descriptions, and thus the singular and the addition of "between" to it become correct, for it is not added except to something multiple. The statement is of the type where the conjoined part is omitted because the meaning indicates it; the estimation is "middle-aged between that [the old] and this [the young]." It then becomes like his saying: "There was nothing between the benefactor—if he had come safely—Abu Hajar, but a few nights," where he intended between the benefactor and his seeker; this is an unnecessary burden. As-Sajāwandī chose that the intended meaning is the middle of the time of peak utility for the ‘awān and its moderation. You say: "I traveled to Rome and roamed between that," so what is referred to is the ‘awān. Some investigators approved of this, claiming it is worthier so that the meaning of "between that" is not lost, for the linguists said: "An ‘awān cow (neither old nor young)." According to the popular view, the matter might require stripping (tajrīd), as is not hidden. Then, the reference of the aforementioned pronouns in the question and answer and the application of those descriptions to a "cow" indicates that what is intended is a specific one. The first indicates that the discussion is about the cow commanded to be slaughtered, and the second serves to specify it and remove its ambiguity with those descriptions, as is the nature of an adjective, not that they are varying obligations—unlike if those descriptions were mentioned without such application. It is said that "It is neither old nor young" might have as its intended meaning the alteration of the previous ruling, asserting that when they were astonished by a dead cow being struck by a part of a dead [cow] to be revived, they thought it was a specific [entity] outside of what the genus is upon, so they asked about its state and description. Thus, the pronouns fell upon a specific one according to their belief, so it was specified as an intensification upon them. Even if it were not intended from the start to be specific, it is of no weight, because in that case, the pronouns would not be returning to what they were ordered to slaughter, but rather what they believed it to be, and the apparent meaning is the contrary. The necessity of this is the delay of the explanation beyond the time of the address, and that is not impossible. What is impossible is its delay beyond the time of need, except for those who allow religious obligation regarding the impossible. It is not necessary, as there is no evidence that the command here is for immediacy such that one would suppose that. Some people have denied this and claimed that what is intended by it is a cow of the bovine genus without specification, and the compliance would have been achieved if they had slaughtered any cow whatsoever; however, it became restricted by their questioning. A group of exegetes went to this view and held onto the literal meaning of the word, for it is absolute, so it remains upon its absoluteness, along with what Ibn Jarīr narrated with a sound chain from Ibn ‘Abbās—may God be pleased with both of them—suspended: "If they had slaughtered any cow they wished, it would have sufficed them, but they made it difficult for themselves, so God the Exalted made it difficult for them." Sa‘īd ibn Manṣūr narrated it in his Sunan from ‘Ikrimah as a marfū‘ and mursal hadith, and also that if it were specific, He would not have chided them for persisting and rebuked them for returning to ask. The necessity at that time is abrogation before the act, based on the school of those who say that an addition to the Book is abrogation, like the majority of the Hanafis who say that the absolute command includes the choice, and it is a legal ruling, and restriction lifts it, which is permissible—nay, it has occurred, as in the hadith of the obligation of prayer on the night of the Ascension. What is impossible is abrogation before the ability to believe, by consensus, because it is badā’ (a change of divine decree), and before the ability to act according to the Mu‘tazilah—and it is not necessary, as is said. Furthermore, it is said: It is possible to say that this is not abrogation, because the absolute cow includes the specific cow, and the slaughter of the specific cow is a slaughter of the cow absolutely; thus, it is compliance with the primary command, so it is not abrogation. The claim that the choice is a legal ruling, etc., was objected to by denial, based on the fact that the absolute command only indicates the obligation of the quiddity as such without condition, but since it did not materialize except within a specific individual, the choice came by reason without the indication of the text upon it. The obligation of a thing does not necessitate the obligation of its rational prerequisites, as the intent of the obligation is the legal obligation. It is permissible for the obliged one to be punished for leaving what the rational prerequisite includes and not be punished for leaving the prerequisite. This objection is attributed to our Master the Judge (al-Qāḍī) in his Minhayāt, and it deserves contemplation. Some investigators mentioned that the verification of this station is that if the intended meaning of the cow commanded to be slaughtered is the absolute cow—i.e., any cow whatsoever—then abrogation is permissible because the condition of abrogation is the ability to believe, which is attained without doubt. If it is the specific cow, abrogation is not permissible because of the lack of ability to believe at that time, as it only occurred after the inquiry. Thus, the difference among scholars regarding the permissibility of abrogation and its absence in this station is from the category of verbal dispute, so contemplate.

"Do what you are commanded": That is, of slaughtering the cow, and do not repeat the question and do not be obstinate. This sentence is potentially from the speech of God, the Exalted, to them, and it is potentially from the speech of Moses—peace be upon him—urging them to comply with what they were commanded, out of compassion for them. "What" (mā) is relative and the referent is omitted; that is, "what you are commanded [to do]." The omission of the preposition has become common in this verb until it joined the verbs taking two objects; therefore, the omitted part from the beginning of the matter is the accusative. Some permitted that "what" (mā) be a verbal particle (maṣdariyyah), meaning "Do your command," and the verbal noun is in the sense of the passive participle, as in His saying: "And God created you and what you do" on one of the two views. There is remoteness in that because it is rare in what is formed by derivation, and it only became frequent in the form of the verbal noun.