Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:31

‘Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn Jarir recorded from ‘Atiyyah who said: “When he killed him, he felt remorse. He carried him with him until the body began to smell, and birds and beasts of prey gathered around it, waiting for him to cast it away so they could eat it. He hated to bring him to Adam—peace be upon him—lest he cause him grief, and he was bewildered regarding his affair, as he was the first deceased of the children of Adam—peace be upon him. Then God Almighty sent two ravens; one killed the other while he watched. Then it dug a hole for it with its beak and feet until it made room for it, then it pushed it in with its head until it cast it into the hole, and then covered it over with its feet until it was hidden.” It is also said that one of the two ravens was already dead.

The ghurab (raven) is a well-known bird. It is said that the wisdom in it being the one sent, rather than other animals, is that it is considered an omen of separation and alienation, which is appropriate for this story. Some say it was an angel that appeared in the form of a raven.

The pronoun hidden in yurihi (to show him) refers to God Almighty or to the raven. On the former, the lam in li-yurihi is linked to ba‘atha (He sent); on the latter, it is linked to yabhathu (searching). It is also permissible for it to be linked to ba‘atha in both cases. Kayfa (how) is a state (hal) from the pronoun in yuwari (he covers), and it is placed before it because it has the right to be at the beginning of the clause. The clause kayfa yuwari is in the position of a second direct object for the verb of vision (ara), which takes two objects when prefixed with the hamzah, and here it is suspended from the second object. Some say that yurihi here means "to teach him," for if it were meant as physical vision, the clause kayfa yuwari would not have a suitable position, and the clause would be the two objects of the verb; however, this is open to scrutiny.

Al-bath (searching) is originally the act of inspection of a thing in general, or in the dirt specifically. Its intended meaning here is digging. The saw’ah (shame) refers to the corpse of the deceased. Al-Jubba’i restricted it to the decomposing body. It is also said it means the ‘awrah (private parts), because it causes distress to the one who sees it. It was singled out for mention, even though the intent was covering the entire body, to emphasize it because covering it is more strictly required. The former view is more appropriate, and the source of the naming is shared.

The pronoun in akhihi (his brother) refers to the one being searched for, not the seeker, as some have mistakenly thought. The sending of the raven was a matter of inspiration if the intended meaning is literal, or a literal sending if the intended meaning is an angel appearing in its form. On both accounts, most scholars went with the view that the seeker covered its own corpse, and Qabil (Cain) learned from it and did the same to his brother. This is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas—may God be pleased with them—Ibn Mas’ud, and others. Al-Asamm held that God Almighty sent whomever He sent, who searched the earth and covered Habil (Abel). When Qabil saw how God Almighty had honored his brother, he said:

(Woe is me!) This is a phrase of distress and lament. Al-waylah is like al-wayl (destruction), as if the one lamenting is calling upon his own destruction and death, desiring its presence after situating himself in the position of one who calls. Calling for death only occurs from one in a state more severe than it. The alif is a substitute for the ya of the first person, meaning ya waylati. Al-Hasan read it as: "Come forth, for this is your time."

(Am I unable to be like this raven...) He marveled at his own inability to be like it, for he was not guided to what it was guided to, despite being nobler than it.

(...and cover the shame of my brother?) This is conjoined to akun (to be). In Al-Kashshaf, it is parsed as accusative in response to an interrogative. Many grammarians objected to this. Abu Hayyan said: "It is a severe error, because the condition for this accusative case is that it must be formed from an interrogative sentence, and the answer must be a conditional sentence," such as: Atazuruni fa-ukrimaka (Will you visit me, that I may honor you?), which is interpreted as in tazuruni ukrimka (If you visit me, I will honor you). If one were to say here: "If I am unable to be like this raven, I will cover my brother's shame," the meaning would not be sound, because the covering should follow the absence of inability, not its presence.

In Al-Kashf, he replied that the interrogation is for the purpose of censorious denial, similar to "Will you disobey your Lord so that He forgives you?" in the accusative, to extend the denial to both matters. This contains a warning that in disobedience and expecting forgiveness, one is committing something contrary to reason. If it were in the nominative, it would be a superficial statement regarding the extension of the denial. When it is in the accusative, the hyperbole is achieved through the reversal, as the cause of punishment is made the cause of forgiveness. In the present case, he is lamenting his own inability, situating himself as one who made inability the cause of the covering, as a sign of the reversal which confirms his inability and shortcoming in that which a raven was guided to. Then he said: "If you say: 'Censorious denial only occurs regarding what has happened or is expected, so the censure for disobedience and inability is valid, but not for forgiveness and covering,' I respond: The censure is on making each one a cause, or situating himself as one who made it a cause, not on the forgiveness and covering itself." Understand this.

The command to understand may be a signal to the distance of this interpretation. Some say in justifying the accusative that the interrogation is for denial, which is equivalent to negation, and that is a cause. The meaning is: "If I were not unable, I would cover it." This was objected to on the grounds that it is incorrect, for the causality of negation is not sufficient for the accusative case; rather, the causality of the negated action before the entry of the negation is required. Do you not see that ma ta’tina fa-tuhaddithana (You do not come to us so that you might speak to us) is interpreted by them as "There is no coming from you, and therefore no speaking." Al-Shihab said: "The response to this is that there is a difference between what is in the accusative in response to negation and what is in the accusative in response to interrogation. The discussion is on the latter, so how can the former be brought as a refutation? If it were in response to negation, it would not refute what he mentioned either, because there is no need to derive the negation from the censorious interrogation given the clarity of interpreting ‘ajaztu (I am unable) as lam ahtadi (I was not guided)." He said in Al-Tashil that it takes the accusative in response to explicit and implied negation, and what we have here is of the latter. Contemplate this.

(And he became of the remorseful.) Meaning, he became nonexistent among their number. His remorse for killing him involved his bewilderment regarding the affair, his carrying him on his shoulders for forty days, or a year, or longer, as it is said; the tutelage of the raven, for that is a humiliation—which is why he was not inspired from the beginning with what he was later inspired with; the blackening of his face; and his parents disowning him, not because of the sin itself, for that is repentance.