Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:71

"Not yoked" (la dhalul) is an adjective for "cow." It is an instance of adjectival description using a single term. Whoever claims it is a descriptive sentence—implying the meaning is "it is not yoked"—has deviated from what is correct.

The particle la carries the meaning of ghayr (other than/non-). It is a noun, as asserted by al-Sakhawi and others; however, because it appears in the form of a particle, its grammatical inflection (i'rab) is manifest in what follows it. It is also possible that it is a particle, similar to the illa (except) which carries the meaning of ghayr in the verse: "Had there been therein gods except Allah, they would have been ruined."

Al-dhalul refers to the beast that has been broken in, such that its difficulty has been removed. It is said: a beast is dhalul (with a kasra on the dhal), and a man is dhalul (with a damma on the dhal).

(That) does not till the earth, nor does it irrigate the tilth.

The la is a necessary connective necessitated by the obligation of repetition in this form. It serves to clarify the generality of the negation, for without it, the negation might be interpreted as applying only to the combination [of tilling and irrigating]; for this reason, it is called the "reminder."

Al-ithara (tilling) is the turning over of the earth for cultivation, derived from "I agitated/stirred it" if you excite it. Al-harth is the land prepared for cultivation, or it is the act of cleaving the earth to sow in it. It is also applied to that which is plowed and sown, as well as to the plants themselves.

Both verbs are adjectives for dhalul. An adjective may be qualified [by another adjective or sentence], according to what some grammarians have approved and as al-Samin has stated. The first verb falls within the scope of the negation. The intent is to negate its tilling of the earth—meaning, "it does not till the earth, and thus it does not become submissive." It is similar to the expression: "Upon a path where no one is guided by its lighthouse," where both the origin and the offshoot are negated; the negation of the cause implies the negation of the effect.

Al-Hasan said: "This cow was wild, and that is why it was described as 'not tilling the earth'..." A group held that "tilling" is an affirmation in both word and meaning, suggesting that the cow was described as tilling the earth and plowing it, while the irrigation of the tilth was negated. This was rejected, as it would not then be characterized as "not yoked."

Others said: "The meaning is that it tills the earth, but not for cultivation, out of playfulness and conceit." It is the habit of cows that when they are playful, they strike with their horns and hooves, stirring the dust of the earth. This would be part of the completeness of "not yoked," as describing it with playfulness is evidence of that. This view, however, is not favorable to me.

Some scholars, as mentioned in al-Mawashi, held that the sentence "it tills" is in the place of an accusative state (hal). Ibn Atiyyah said: "This is not permissible because it is [a state] from an indefinite noun." An objection was raised that if by "indefinite" he means "cow," it has been described [by the adjectives], and a state from a described indefinite is perfectly permissible. If he means [a state from] "not yoked," then the position of Sibawayh is the permissibility of a state coming from an indefinite even if it is not described, as he has explicitly stated in places in his book. Unless one says he followed the majority in that matter—who prohibit it—and he made the sentence a state from the implied pronoun in dhalul (i.e., "it is not yoked in the state of its tilling"), which is of no merit.

Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami read la dhalul with a fatha on the lam. In this case, the la is for categorical negation (tabri'a), and the predicate is omitted—that is, "it does not exist" in the place where it was found. The sentence [that follows] is an adjective to dhalul, which is a negation of it being described by submissiveness. It is said: "It is yoked" by way of metonymy, because if it were in the place of the cow, it would necessarily be described by that [submissiveness], as the attribute demands the object described. Since it was not in its place, it was not described by it. This is like their saying, "A trustworthy person," meaning the location of generosity and nobility. This is better than the view that "it tills" is the predicate of la and that the sentence is parenthetical between the adjective and the qualified noun, because the former is more eloquent, as is not hidden. Some interpreted this reading as a construction [of indeclinability] based on the form of la, like the expression "I was without wealth" (with a fatha), but this is baseless because that is limited to what is heard by transmission and is not analogical, as the words of al-Radi suggest.

Tusqi (it irrigates) was read with a damma on the prefix letter, meaning asqa (to provide water). Some distinguished between the two, saying that saqa is for oneself, and asqa is for another, like one's livestock or land.

Meaning: Allah the Exalted kept it free from defects, as Ibn Abbas said. Or, its owners exempted it from all forms of work, as al-Hasan said. Or, it is purified from the unlawful, containing neither stolen goods nor property taken by force, as 'Ata said. Or, its color is pure, free from any markings, as Mujahid said.

The best view is that of Ibn Abbas, for the absolute refers to the perfect, and because it is an initial attribution. Regarding the last view, "no spot in it" means "there is no color in it that contradicts its [main] color," acting as a corroboration. The doubling [in musallama] here is for transitiveness and causation. Many have erred by claiming it is for intensification. Shiyya is the verbal noun of "I adorned the garment," meaning I decorated it with lines of different colors. Its root was omitted, like 'idat and zir. From this comes al-washi (the slanderer/inlay-maker); it is said that he is not called washin until he alters speech and adorns it. One says "a marked bull," "a piebald horse," "a spotted ram," "a white-spotted goat," and "a pied crow"—all meaning variegation. In al-Bahr, it is stated that "marked bull" in their speech does not refer to one with spots, as the two terms are derived from different roots, and shiyya is the noun for la while fiha is its predicate.

Meaning: You have revealed the reality of what we were commanded to do. Al-haqq here means "reality." It is also said it means the decreed or necessary command, or speech corresponding to reality. They did not mean that what preceded was not the truth, but that the truth had not appeared in its full clarity; he had not "brought" the truth, but merely signaled toward it. According to these views, they did not disbelieve through this statement. Qatada interpreted it according to its literal meaning, considering it to imply that what he brought before was false, and thus he said: "They disbelieved by this statement." It is better not to accuse them of disbelief.

Al-an (now) is an adverb of time that must be indeclinable on a fatha. It is not permissible to strip it of al- (the definite article); using it otherwise is a solecism. It requires the present and often makes the imperfect verb specific to it. It has come where it cannot refer to the present, such as: "So now have relations with them," as the imperative is explicitly for the future. Some claimed it is declinable because of the line: "As if they were two full [vessels] that did not change," intending "from al-an." Its genitive case is possible, and it may be that it is indeclinable on a kasra. The al- is for presence, according to some, or redundant according to others. It was made indeclinable because it contains the meaning of pointing, or because it contains the meaning of ala (the prefix for definition) like sahr. Al-aana (with an elongated alif) is for inquiry for confirmation, signaling their impatience and waiting for him. Nafi' read it by dropping the hamza and casting its vowel onto the lam. There are two narrations from him regarding the removal or retention of the waw in "they said."

Meaning: They sought this cow, which possessed the aforementioned attributes, and obtained it. "So they slaughtered it." The fa (so) is an expository connective, joining to an omitted clause, as the slaughter does not immediately follow the mere command to slaughter and the description of its qualities. It was omitted because the act of slaughtering indicates it. Its acquisition took place by purchasing it from the young man who was dutiful to his parents, as the statements of most commentators have converged upon. The story is famous. It is said it was wild, so they captured it; others said it was not of the cows of the world, but Allah brought it down from the sky—this is the view of "falling to the depths of the earth." It is said the wisdom in making the cow the instrument rather than other beasts is that they used to worship cows and calves, and that was rooted in their hearts, as per the verse: "And they were made to drink the calf into their hearts." Then, after they repented, Allah the Exalted wanted to test them by commanding the slaughter of what was beloved to them, so that it might be a verification of their repentance. It is also said—and perhaps this is more subtle and appropriate—that the wisdom in this command was to reveal their rebuke for worshipping the calf: "How could you worship something that is in the form of a cow, despite the fact that human nature does not accept that Allah would create a property in it by which a dead person is brought to life through the miracle of a prophet? And how did you accept the saying of the Samaritan that it is your god, while you do not accept the word of Allah, the Sublime, that it [the dead] is brought to life by a piece of its flesh?" Glory be to Allah the Exalted for this great folly!

The slaughter is referred to by the verb "doing," meaning they almost did not slaughter it. It is also possible that the meaning is "and they were near to not doing" what they were commanded to do after the slaughter—namely, striking the dead with a piece of it. Kada (to be near to) is used for the proximity of the predicate to realization. In standard usage, its predicate is only an imperfect verb indicating the present, to emphasize proximity. There is a dispute regarding it: it is said that in the affirmative it is a negation, and in the negative it is an affirmation. Thus, the meaning of "Zayd almost went out" is that he neared it but did not go out. This is flawed, for its meaning is the proximity of going out; the absence [of the act] is a rational matter outside the semantic scope. If what he said were true, then "he neared" and similar terms would likewise be so, and no one has said that.

Others said that in the affirmative it is an affirmation, and in the past negative it is an affirmation, and in the future, it follows the analogy of verbs. Proponents of this point to this verse, because if the meaning of "and they were near to not doing" were a negation of the act from them, it would contradict the verse "so they slaughtered it," which indicates the realization of the act for them. The truth is that in both affirmation and negation, it is like all other verbs: its affirmative version is for the proximity of [an act], and its negative version is for the proximity of its negation. The negation and affirmation in the verse are interpreted based on different times or different perspectives, so there is no contradiction, since a condition for that is the unity of time and perspective. The meaning is that they did not even approach slaughtering it until their excuses were exhausted, so they slaughtered it like those who are compelled; or they slaughtered it out of obedience, and "they were near to not doing" the slaughter for fear of scandal or out of burden for its exorbitant price, as it is narrated that they bought it for its skin's weight in gold, while the cow at that time was worth three dinars. The argument regarding the difference in time is challenged by the fact that the sentence is a state (hal) from the doer of "they slaughtered it," so its content must be contemporaneous with the content of the operative verb. The answer is that they explicitly stated that it is sometimes coupled with the past; if it is affirmative, it is coupled with qad because of its proximity to the present, and if it is negative, as is the case here, it is not coupled with it because the default is the continuity of the negation, thus indicating proximity. This is of no benefit, as the non-proximity of the act cannot be contemporaneous with it. For this reason, some later scholars relied on the answer that "and they were near to not doing it" is a metonymy for the difficulty and heaviness of the act upon them, and this is a continuous and remaining state. It is explicitly stated in the commentary of al-Tashil that one might say, "Zayd did not nearly do [it]," and his intent is that he did it with difficulty, not with ease. This contradicts the appearance for which the expression was established.