Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:93

Meaning: We said to them, "Take what I have commanded you in the Torah with seriousness and without lethargy, and listen—that is, with the hearing of acceptance and obedience." For there is no benefit in the absolute command [to listen] after the command to take [it] "with strength," unlike in the case where it is considered a restriction, for then it emphasizes and confirms it, because it implies their utter reluctance to accept what He had given them; it is for this reason that the mountain was raised over them. Often, "listening" (al-sam‘) is intended to mean "acceptance." Examples of this include [the supplication], "Allah hears (responds to) those who praise Him," and the saying: "I have supplicated to Allah until I feared that Allah would not 'hear' (accept) what I say."

"They said, 'We hear and we disobey'" Meaning: We hear your saying, "Take and listen," and we disobey your command, so we shall neither take [it] nor listen with the listening of obedience. This is not a response to "Listen" while considering it to contain two commands, because then "Take" would remain without a response. The majority [of scholars] adhered to this view and raised a question and answer here. The essence of the former is: if "listening" in the command is to be taken literally, then their saying "we hear" is obedience, and "we disobey" is a contradiction. If it means "acceptance," then if the response is likewise, it is a lie and a contradiction; otherwise, it would have no relation to the question.

The crux of the answer is that the "listening" there is qualified, and the command comprises two parts: listening to his word and accepting it through action. Thus, they said, "We comply with one and not the other." This amounts to the argument of qawl bil-mujib (accepting the premise but rejecting the conclusion). An analogy is, "They say, 'He is an ear.' Say, 'An ear of good for you.'" It is said: the meaning is that they said with their tongues, "We hear," and with their state of being, "We disobey," or "We hear judgments of old and we disobey [now]," so we fear that we might disobey after hearing this speech of yours. Others said: "We hear" is the answer to "Listen," and "We disobey" is the answer to "Take." Abu Mansur said: their saying "we disobey" is not in immediate succession to their saying "we hear," but after a period of time, as in His saying, "Then you turned away," so there is no need for the rebuttals mentioned. You know that there is no need for all of this after what you have heard, as is not hidden.

"And they were infused into their hearts with the calf" This is linked to "They said," or it is an independent sentence, or a state (hal) with or without an implied qad. The agent is "They said." Ashrab (to infuse/dye) is the blending of a liquid into a solid, then it was expanded in usage until it applied to colors. From this is "a whiteness infused with redness." The speech involves the omission of a genitive, meaning "the love of the calf." It is permitted that the "calf" is a metaphor for its image, so the omission does not require [explanation]. The mention of "hearts" is to clarify the location of the infusion, and the mention of the specific place implies an exaggeration in the fixation [of the object]. The meaning is: the love of the calf permeated them, and its image became rooted in their hearts due to their extreme passion for it, just as dye permeates a garment. They recited: If the heart is infused with the love of a thing, do not hope for its turning away from it.

It is said: ushribu comes from "I hobbled (ashrabtu) the camel," meaning I fastened a rope to its neck, as if the calf were fastened in their hearts due to their passion for it. It is also said: it is from sharab (drink), and it was their habit that when they expressed the permeation of love or hatred, they borrowed the term "drink," as it is the most penetrating [substance] in the body. Hence the physicians say: "Water is the mount for nutrients and medicines, the vehicle with which they travel to the extremities of the body." The poet said: It permeated where neither drink nor sorrow nor joy could reach.

It is also said: it is literally from drinking. This is because Al-Suddi reported that Moses, peace be upon him, filed the calf with a file, threw it into the water, and said to them, "Drink," so they all drank; whoever loved the calf had its filings appear on his lips. It is not hidden that His saying, "in their hearts," makes this view very unlikely. Moreover, what Allah has told us in His Book regarding what Moses, peace be upon him, did with the calf also renders the literal interpretation of this narration unlikely. The construction of ushribu as passive indicates that this was done to them, and there is no actor other than Him, may He be exalted. The Mu'tazila said: it is like the saying of someone, "I was made to forget such and such," and he does not mean that someone else did it to him, but that he forgot, and the actor is the one who adorned it for them and called them to it, like the Samiri.

"By their disbelief" Meaning: because of their disbelief, for they were anthropomorphists who permitted that a body among bodies could be a god, or incarnationists who permitted His indwelling within it—He is far exalted above that. They saw no body more marvelous than it, so what was made fair-seeming to them took hold [in their hearts]. The snake of the staff would not remain for an extended time. It is not far-fetched for those people to believe that a calf they made in the shape of beasts was a god, even if they witnessed what they witnessed from Moses, peace be upon him, for you see [this in] the idolaters, most of whom were wiser than many of the Children of Israel. It is said: the "ba" is in the sense of "with," meaning accompanied by their disbelief, so it is a disbelief upon a disbelief.

"Say, 'Evil is that which your faith commands you to do'" Meaning: with that which was sent down to you from the Torah, as you claim. Attributing the command to "faith" and adding it to their pronoun is for mockery, as in His saying, "Does your prayer command you?" The object of the condemnation is omitted, meaning: the killing of the prophets, and such and such. It is permitted that the object is specifically their saying, "We disobey," and He makes the near seem far.

"If you should be believers" This is an attack on their claim of belief in the Torah and a refutation of it. The answer to the conditional is what is understood from His saying: "Then why did you kill [the prophets]..." to the end of the verses mentioned in refuting their claim of faith. Or, the previous constructional sentence [is the answer], either by interpretation or without interpretation. The argument is: "If you were believers," your faith would not permit the shameful deeds you have committed, but rather it would forbid them; thus, you have contradicted yourselves in your claim, making it false. Or: "If you were believers" in it, then "Evil is that which your faith" in it "commands you to do." But faith in it does not command that, therefore you are not believers. The necessity between the condition and the result in the first case is from the perspective of the command itself, refuting the claim by the necessity of contradiction. In the second case, the necessity is from the perspective of their state of committing shameful deeds while claiming faith, for it is the nature of a believer not to commit anything except what his faith permits. The refutation of the consequent is from the perspective of the command itself. Some have considered it likely that in this and similar instances, the consequence is the knowledge of the preceding clause, i.e., "If you were believers, you would know that it is an evil thing commanded." It is said: "In" (if) is negative, or for doubting, and the author of Al-Kashshaf points to this. But the objection is that the purpose is to invalidate their claim by presenting their definitive lack of faith as something whose lack is not definitive, for the sake of reproach and binding [the argument], not for doubting. Furthermore, the use of "in" to cause doubt for the listener is not customary, as some researchers have stated. Al-Hasan and Muslim ibn Jundub read bi-himanikum with the ha (h) having a damma and joined with a waw.