Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:72

"And when you killed a soul"—that is, a person. The attribution of the killing to the addressees is due to its existence among them, following the manner of the Arabs in attributing actions to a tribe when something for which it may be praised or blamed is committed by some of its members. Some have said that it is not appropriate to attribute an action or speech issued by some to the whole unless it was issued with their support or consent, which is not conceded. Indeed, there must be a subtle point for attributing it to the whole; perhaps it is the indication here that the whole group was such that it was not unlikely for the killing to have been committed by them, due to their intense greed, excessive covetousness, and great audacity. They are like the fingers of the hands by nature—each one of them is greedy and daring. It is said that the killer was a group, namely the heirs of the murdered man; it has been narrated that they conspired to kill him, and for this reason, the killing was attributed to the collective.

"Then you disputed concerning it"—the origin is tadāra'tum (تدارأتم), from al-dar' (the push or repulsion). The ta and the dal converged despite the proximity of their points of articulation, and the intention was assimilation (idghām). Thus, the ta was changed into a dal, it was made quiescent for the sake of assimilation, and a connecting hamzah (hamzat al-wasl) was introduced to facilitate the start of the word. This is a consistent rule in every verb based on tafā'ala or tafa'ala where the first radical is a ta, ṭa, ẓa, ṣad, or ḍad. The tadāru’ (dispute/repelling) here is either a metaphor for disagreement and altercation, or a metonymy for it, as two disputants each repel the other. Or, it is used in its literal sense—that is, mutual repulsion—in that each of them pushed the guilt of the killing from himself onto his companion. Each of them, insofar as the guilt is pushed onto him, repels the other who is the one pushing. It is also said that pushing the guilt onto another is essentially pushing away one’s companion, and since both are "pushers," they push it between them. It is also said that each of them pushes the other from innocence to accusation; when one says, "I am innocent and you are the accused," the other says, "Rather, you are the accused and I am the innocent." It is not hidden that what was mentioned—despite its aspects—is more suitable as a metaphor; for this reason, Abu Hayyan considered it a metaphor.

The pronoun in "concerning it" (fīhā) refers to the "soul" (the victim). It is also said it refers to the "killing" (al-qatlah) understood from the verb, and it is said it refers to the "accusation" (al-tuhmah) indicated by the meaning of the speech. Abu Haywah read it as fatadāra’tum in its original form. It is said that he and Abu al-Siwar read it as fadarra’tum without an alif before the ra. Another group read it as fatadāra’tum.

"And Allah will bring to light what you were concealing"—that is, He will manifest, inevitably, what you were hiding regarding the matter of the murdered man and the killer. This is indicated by the construction of the nominal sentence and the construction of the active participle (mukhrij) as the predicate, which serves to emphasize and strengthen the decree. This is by way of Divine grace according to us, and by way of necessity according to the Mu'tazilah.

Limiting the object of concealment specifically [to the murder] is the view of the majority. It is also said that it is permissible for it to be general, applying to the murdered man and other things, with the murdered man being one of its instances. There is a view against this, as not everything they concealed from the people was brought to light by Allah the Exalted.

The word "will bring to light" (mukhrij) is treated as an active participle because it is future in relation to the decree that preceded it, which is the disputation; its past tense [meaning] does not harm it. The combination of the past tense and the future [active participle] serves to indicate continuity. In al-Bahr, it is stated that if it is in the past tense, it is to indicate that the concealment preceded it.