Al-An’am: 144
(And of the camels, two)—that is, two pairs: the male camel and the female camel. This is conjoined to His saying, Glorified be He: (Of the sheep, two). "Al-Ibil" (camels), as Al-Raghib stated, refers to a large number of beasts; it has no singular form derived from its own root, and its plural is Abal, as mentioned in the Qamus, with the diminutive form being Ubailah.
(And of the oxen, two)—that is, the bull and its female.
(Say: Has He forbidden the two males, or the two females, or that which the wombs of the two females contain?)—that is, the offspring of those two types. The meaning, as many of the eminent scholars have stated, is a denial that Allah Almighty has forbidden anything from these four types, and an exposure of their lies in that regard. The detailed mention of the males, the females, and what is in their wombs is for the sake of hyperbole in refuting them by negating every aspect of their fabrication. For they used to forbid the males of the cattle at one time, the females at another, and their offspring at yet another, attributing all of this to Allah, Exalted is He.
The reason the interjection—the interrogative hamza—does not immediately precede the object of denial (which is the act of forbidding) is because the construction of this noble verse is more eloquent. This is explained by Al-Kisa’i: establishing a prohibition necessitates, without fail, the establishment of its object. Thus, when its objects—the three categories mentioned—are negated, the prohibition is proven non-existent through a demonstrative proof. It is as if the speaker had positioned the statement as though he were addressing someone who conceded that such a prohibition had occurred, only to then demand a declaration of the object [to which it applied], so that their lie would be revealed and they would be disgraced during the debate. The Almighty repeats the "Say" after the four types by saying: Say: Are the males forbidden, or the females, or that which the wombs of the females contain?—because such repetition also contains hyperbole in compelling and shaming them.
The Imam [Al-Razi] reported from the exegetes that they said: The polytheists of the Age of Ignorance used to forbid some of the cattle. Therefore, Allah, Exalted is He, argued for the invalidation of that by stating that sheep, goats, camels, and oxen have both male and female. If He, Glorified be He, had forbidden the male, then all males should be forbidden; if He, Majestic is He, had forbidden the female, then all females should be forbidden; and if Allah, whose state is exalted, had forbidden what the wombs of the females contain, then all offspring should be forbidden, because wombs contain both male and female.
He [Al-Razi] critiqued this, saying it is very far-fetched, because an objector could say: Grant that these four species are limited to males and females; it does not follow that the cause for the prohibition of what they ruled to be forbidden must be limited to being male or female. Rather, the cause for the prohibition could be that it is a Bahirah, a Sa’ibah, a Wasilah, or other such considerations. It is like saying: "He Almighty forbade the slaughter of certain animals for the purpose of eating." If it is said, "If that animal was forbidden because it is a male, then all male animals must be forbidden; and if it was forbidden because it is a female, then all female animals must be forbidden," then since this logic is not binding upon the objector, the same applies to the view mentioned by the exegetes. He then mentioned two views of his own regarding the verse, and in what we have mentioned, there is no need to report them.
Some have claimed that the "two" in sheep, goats, and oxen refers to the domesticated and the wild, and in camels, the Arabian and the Bukhti (Bactrian). This is something to which no attention should be paid. What is narrated from Layth ibn Sulaym does not indicate it, and the statement of Al-Tabarsi—that this is what is narrated from Abu ‘Abd Allah, may Allah be pleased with him—is a lie with no foundation; it is a habitual characteristic I recognize from [the proverb "It is a habit I know from Akhzam"].
His saying, Exalted is He: (Or were you witnesses?) is a repetition for the sake of compelling and shaming. "Am" (or) is disconnected (munqati’ah), and the meaning is: "Nay, were you present and witnessing when Allah enjoined upon you"—that is, commanded and obligated you—"with this" (prohibition)? For knowledge of that can only come either by Allah, Exalted is He, sending a messenger to inform you of it, or by you witnessing Allah Almighty and hearing His speech, Majestic is He, regarding it. The first is contrary to your state, because you do not believe in a messenger. Therefore, witnessing and hearing is what remains for you, and that is impossible. Thus, there is in this a scornful irony toward them that is not hidden.
(And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allah)—by attributing to Him, Glorified be He, the prohibition of that which He did not forbid. The one meant by this, according to what is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, is ‘Amr ibn Luhay ibn Qama’ah, who ordained the Bahirah, let loose the Sa’ibah, and intentionally lied against Allah Almighty. It is also said that it refers to their elders who decreed these things, and it is said it refers to all of them, due to their shared participation in inventing lies against Him, Glorified be He. The meaning is: Which group is more unjust than one who, etc. It was objected that the condition of "intention" is considered in the meaning of "invention" (iftira’), and those of the elders who followed ‘Amr might have erred in their imitation, thus not being intentional liars; therefore, the relative pronoun should not be explained as referring to them. The "Fa" (so) is for the sequence of what follows based on the preceding shaming and the exposing of their lies and fabrications. The accusative case of kadhban (a lie) is said to be the object (of the verb), and it is said to be an absolute object (masdar) without the verb (it implies), and some of the late perfect scholars permitted it to be a circumstantial qualifier (hal), though this is far-fetched, not an error, contrary to what some claimed.
(To mislead the people)—this is linked to the "invention." (Without knowledge)—this is linked to an omitted term serving as a circumstantial qualifier for the pronoun in (invents); meaning: he invents against Him, Glorified be He, while ignorant of whether the prohibition actually proceeded from Him, Majestic is He. He is described as having no knowledge, even though the inventor knows that it did not proceed from Him, to signal that he has gone beyond the limits and boundaries in his injustice. For whoever invents against Him, Exalted is He, without knowledge of whether it proceeded from Him, even if there is a possibility that it did, is in the utmost degree of injustice; so what is the verdict on one who invents while knowing it did not proceed from Him?
It is also permitted that it be a circumstantial qualifier for the agent of (mislead), meaning: while being devoid of knowledge regarding the severe punishment to which he will be led. It is also said the meaning of the verse is that he performed the action of one intending to mislead the people for the sake of calling them to that in which there is misguidance, even if he did not intend the misguidance and was ignorant of it. This is apparent in that the Lam (in li-yudilla) is for the consequence, which has a valid basis. It is also permitted that the prepositional phrase be linked to an omitted term acting as a circumstantial qualifier for (the people), but what preceded is more apparent and eloquent in its condemnation. The Judge (Al-Qadi) used the verse as evidence that misguidance from the religion is blameworthy and does not befit Allah Almighty, because since He, Exalted is He, condemned the misguidance which involves nothing more than the prohibition of what is permissible, that which is more unjust than it is more worthy of condemnation. The response to this is that not everything that is blameworthy for the creation is blameworthy for the Creator.
(Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people)—to the path of truth. It is said: to the Abode of Reward, due to their deserving punishment—a view chosen by Al-Tabarsi, and the Judge went toward something similar based on his school of thought; it is not far-fetched according to our principles as well. It is also said: to that in which there is their well-being in the immediate and the hereafter, which is more complete in benefit and more appropriate given the omission of the object. Denying guidance to the wrongdoer necessitates its denial to the "more unjust" as a matter of priority.
