Al-An’am: 139

"And they said, that which is in..." This is a narration of another type of their unbelief. "...the bellies of these cattle..." They mean the embryos of the ba’ira and sa’iba (sacred animals), as has been narrated from Mujahid and al-Suddi. Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that they meant the milk.

"Ma" (that which) is the subject (mubtada’), and its predicate is His saying, the Exalted: "is exclusively for our males" — meaning, permissible for them exclusively, with no female sharing it with them. The ta (in khalisa) is either for transition to noun-status, or for hyperbole (exaggeration), like the term rawiyat al-shi’r (an intense transmitter of poetry), or because khalisa acts as a verbal noun (masdar), as al-Farra’ stated, standing in the place of khalis (pure) for emphasis, or assuming the implied word dhu (possessor of). This is prevalent in the speech of the Arabs; you say, "So-and-so is my khalisati," meaning one possessing my exclusivity. The poet said: "You were my confidant and you were my khalisati, and not every person is to be trusted." Yes, it has been said that a verbal noun coming in the pattern of fa’ila and being a modifier is rare. It is also said that the ta is for feminine marking, based on the view that "what" refers to the embryos.

"And forbidden to our wives"—meaning the category of our wives, which are the females, considering the wording. This has been viewed as remote, because it observes the meaning first and the wording second, whereas the custom in the Glorious Book is the reverse. Some claimed it has parallels, such as His saying: "All of that—its evil is ever, in the sight of your Lord, detested" (17:38), where He feminized the pronoun of "all" first in consideration of the meaning, then mentioned it as masculine, following the wording. It is said that ma here follows the custom of observing the wording first, because the connection (silah) of ma is a prepositional phrase, the implied meaning being istaqarra (settled), not istaqarrat. But there is no basis for this, because the related entity and the hidden pronoun within it are not known to be masculine or feminine so as to be considered an observance of either side. Fairness dictates that following the wording after the meaning is rare, and otherwise is more appropriate when a path to it is found.

Some have mentioned that committing to what is contrary to the custom here is not without a moral and verbal nuance. As for the first: the agreement of speech with action, for it is the custom of those of noble character to console the hearts of females due to their weakness; hence, it is recommended for a man when he gives something to his children to start with the females. As for the second: the observance of something resembling antithesis between "exclusively for our males" and "forbidden to our wives." And it is as you see.

"But if it be stillborn..." This is conjoined to what is understood from the speech—meaning: "That is permissible for the males, forbidden to the females if it is born alive; but if it is born stillborn..." "...they all share in it..."—meaning both the males and females share in what is in the bellies of the cattle. It is said the pronoun refers to the "stillborn," but since it refers to what covers both the male and female, the masculine was given precedence, and the pronoun was mentioned as done previously.

This which is mentioned in this conditional statement only appears valid according to the first view in interpreting the relative pronoun (ma), but not according to the second. Perhaps one who holds the second view reads the verse in one of the following ways or interprets the pronoun otherwise.

Al-A’raj and Qatada read khalisatan with a nasb (accusative case), interpreted as an emphatic verbal noun, with li-dhukurina being the predicate of the subject. Al-Qutb al-Razi said: It is permissible for it to be a state (hal) of the pronoun in the prepositional phrase serving as the relative clause—i.e., "in the state of its being pure from the bellies," meaning its exiting alive. He insisted on it being a future hal, which perhaps is not necessary. Many scholars forbade it being a hal of the pronoun in what follows, or of dhukurina itself, because a hal cannot precede its conceptual operator—such as a prepositional phrase, a demonstrative, or the attention-drawing ha—nor can it precede its possessor if it is in the genitive case, as established in its proper place.

Ibn Jubayr read khalisan without the ta and in the accusative, and the discussion regarding it is similar to what passed. Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, and al-A’mash read khalisatun in the nominative case, adding the pronoun as a substitution for ma or as a second subject. Ibn ‘Amir and Abu Ja’far read wa-in takun (with the ta) and maytatan (nominative). Ibn Kathir read yakun (with the ya) and maytatan (nominative). Abu Bakr from ‘Asim read takun (with the ta) and maytatan (accusative).

The Imam said: The face of Ibn ‘Amir’s reading is that he attached the feminine marker to the verb because it was feminine in wording. The face of Ibn Kathir’s reading is that maytatan is the noun of yakun, and its predicate is implied—i.e., "if there be for them or there exists a stillborn"—and it was mentioned as masculine because maytah has the same meaning as mayt (dead).

Abu ‘Ali said: He did not attach the feminine marker to the verb because the feminine of the agent being supported is not real, and kana does not need a predicate because it carries the meaning of "occurred" or "happened." The face of the final reading is that the meaning is "if the embryos or the cattle are dead."

"...He will punish them for..." And it is necessary. "...what they describe..." The lying against Allah the Exalted in the matter of permissibility and prohibition, from His saying, the Exalted: "And their tongues describe the lie" (16:116). This is, as some investigators have said, from eloquent and creative speech. For they say: "He described his speech as lies" when he lies, and "his eye describes magic," meaning it is a magician. He might describe "gracefulness" meaning he is graceful, by way of hyperbole, as if one who heard or saw it described that for him in a way that explains it. Al-Ma’arri said: "Lightning traveled from the Ma’arrah after the night was halfway gone; it passed by Rama, describing the weariness."

The nasb (accusative) of wasfihim is based on the view of al-Zajjaj, because it stands in the place of the verbal noun of "He will punish them." Thus, the speech is based on an implied genitive—i.e., "the punishment for their description." It is said the implication is: "He will punish them with the punishment for their description," meaning because of it; when the ba was dropped, wasfihim became accusative.

"Indeed, He is Wise, Knowing."

This is a justification for the promise of punishment. For the Wise, who is knowing of what issued from them, would hardly leave their punishment, which is one of the requirements of wisdom. The verse has been used as evidence that it is not permissible to make a bequest to one's male children to the exclusion of the females, and that such a bequest is nullified even after the death of the testator, because that is from the deeds of the Age of Ignorance (Jahiliyyah). Some Malikis used this as evidence for the same ruling regarding hibah (gifting). Al-Bukhari recorded in al-Tarikh from ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: "One of you intends to give wealth, so he designates it for the males of his children; this is nothing but as Allah the Exalted said: 'Exclusively for our males and forbidden to our wives.'"