Appearance
Verses 103–104
مَا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ مِن بَحِيرَةٍ وَلاَ سَائِبَةٍ وَلاَ وَصِيلَةٍ وَلاَ حَامٍ وَلَكِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْقِلُونَ ١٠٣
(5:103) Allah has not ordained (the making of) a baḥīrah or a sāibah or a waṣīlah or a ḥāmi but those who disbelieve fabricate a lie against Allah, and most of them do not understand.
These were some cattle groups the people of the Era of Ignorance had made for them some rules which were based on respect and accorded them a sort of freedom, God in this verse rebuts the idea that He had might have made any of it. (The literal meaning: God has not made). This negated making is related to those cattle attributes, not their beings; because their beings, their selves, are God’s creatures, without any doubt. Likewise, their attributes, so far as they are attributes, are created by God. What may be positively or negatively ascribed to God, are the self-same attributes inasmuch as they were thought to be the source of the rules, which those Arabs claimed for them. Thus, the negation of making of baḥīrah and its group means that God had not ordained those rules or laws which were ascribed to them and were well known among Arabs.
The exegetes differ about the meanings of the names of these four kinds of cattle, resulting in difference about details of their related laws—as you will soon see—yet it is accepted by all that those laws accorded them some sort of freedom, respect and care for their wellbeing; and that three groups were of camels, that is, baḥīrah, sāibah and ḥāmi, and one, waṣīlah, was of goat.
al-Baḥīrah: Majmaʾ al-bayān says: It was a she-camel which gave birth five times, the last one being a male calf; they used to cleave its ear a wide tear; they refrained from riding or slaughtering it; it was not driven away from any water or pasture, and even if a tired traveller found it, he would not ride it. (Reported from al-Zajjāj.)
Also, it is said that when a she-camel had given birth five times, they looked at the fifth issue; if it was a male, they slaughtered it and men and women all partook of it; but if it was a female, they cleaved its ear and it was called al-baḥīrah: its fur was not shorn; if it was slaughtered, the name of God was not mentioned on it; nor was it used for loading or riding; women were forbidden to taste even a drop of its milk or to get any benefit from it—its milk and benefits were reserved for men until it died; when it died, men and women joined in eating it. (Reported from Ibn ʿAbbās.)
And it is said that al-baḥīrah was the daughter of al-sāibah. (Reported from Muḥammad b. Isḥāq.)
al-Sāibah: Majmaʾ al-bayān says: It was what they used to let go free; a man made a vow that if he returned from his journey, or if he recovered from illness, or so on, then his she-camel would be sāibah; then it would be treated like al-baḥīrah, in that it would not be used in any way, nor would it be kept back from any water or pasture. (Reported from al-Zajjāj; and also it is the saying of ‘Alqamah.)
Also, it is said that it is was a she-camel that was freed for idols. Usually, a man freed whatever he wished from among his property; then he brought it to custodians, that is, servants of their deities, and they fed wayfarers of its milk and so on. (Reported from Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn Mas’ūd.)
Also, it is said that when a she-camel gave birth to ten females consequently, without any male calf coming in between, it was made free; they did not ride it, nor did they shear its fur, and except for a guest, no one could drink its milk; if after that she again bore a female, its ear was torn and it was left to roam with its mother; and it was that was called al-baḥīrah. (Reported from Muḥammad b. Isḥāq.)
al-Waṣīlah: Majmaʾ al-bayān says: It was taken out from goats. When a goat gave birth to a female kid, it belonged to them, and if it bore a male, it was slaughtered to their deities; but if it gave birth to a male and a female together, they said: It has joined its brother; and then the male kid was not slaughtered for their deities. (Reported from al-Zajjāj.)
Also, it has been said that when a goat gave birth seven times, then if the seventh was a male kid, they slaughtered it for their deities, and its meat was exclusively reserved for men; and if it was a female kid, it was allowed to live and joined the herd. But if the seventh pregnancy brought forth a male and a female kids, they said: The sister has joined its brother, as it is unlawful to us; so both became unlawful, and their benefit and milk was reserved for men to the exclusion of women. (Reported from Ibn Mas’ūd and Muqātil)
Also, it is said that al-waṣīlah was a goat which brought forth ten female kids in five pregnancies, without there being any male among them. Then they said she has joined. Then whatever was born to her after that, was reserved for men, the women being excluded from it. (Reported from Muḥammad b. Isḥāq.)
al-Ḥāmī: Majmaʾ al-bayān says: It is a male camel. When a male camel had sired ten pregnancies, they used to say: Its back is protected. Nothing was loaded on it, nor was it prevented from water or pasture. (Reported from Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn Mas’ūd, and also from Abū ʿUbaydah and al-Zajjāj.)
Also, it is said that when a male camel’s child’s child was impregnated, they said: Its back has become protected; so it was not ridden. (Reported from al-Farrā’.)
Although there is all this difference in meanings of these names, there is a strong probability that it portrays the variation in different tribes’ usage and customs, because such superstitions were wide spread among ancient barbaric nations.
Be it as it may. The verse aims at refuting the rules they had fabricated for these four types of the cattle, wrongly ascribing them to God. Look at the divine words: “God has not ordained (the making of) a baḥīrah or a sāibah or a waṣīlah or a ḥāmi” followed immediately by the clause: “but those who disbelieve fabricate a lie against God.”
This latter clause appears to answer a supposed question: When God denied ordaining baḥīrah and other types of cattle, it was as if somebody had asked: ‘Then what is the position of the claims made by disbelievers?’ And the answer came: those who disbelieve fabricate a lie against Allah. Then it was further explained, adding the clause: “and most of them do not understand.” It means that their positions differ in this fabrication; most of them fabricate against God what they do and they do not understand; while the remaining small group do understand the Truth, knowing well that what they ascribe to God is mere fabrication. These are the leaders whose words are listened to and who manage the affairs of the masses; and they are the obstinate and stubborn ones.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالُواْ حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلاَ يَهْتَدُونَ ١٠٤
(5:104) And when it is said to them: “Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,” they say: “That on which we found our fathers is sufficient for us.” What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way.
It describes their attitude when they were invited to come to what God had revealed and to the Messenger whose responsibility was to convey the message. That call invited them to Truth, devoid of fabrication, and knowledge clear of ignorance. The preceding verse gathers fabrication and lack of understanding together on their side; obviously nothing remains for the opposite side—the side of God—except truth and knowledge.
But they did not discard it except because of blind imitation, as they said: That on which we found our fathers is sufficient for us.
al-Taqlīd (imitation, following) is not always wrong; sometimes it might be correct with some conditions—and that is when an ignorant person follows a knowledgeable one. This ‘following’ is the factor on which the progress of human society is based in all those affairs of life in which man is unable to acquire necessary knowledge. However, if an ignorant man follows another ignorant one in his ignorance, then it is highly condemnable in the eyes of the understanding people. Likewise, it is also objectionable if a learned man follows another learned one, going against his own deductions discarding it for another man’s findings.
That is why God has refuted their claim and said: “What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way.” It indicates that reason—if there is reason—does not allow a man to refer to him who has no knowledge, nor does he follow the right way. This is the way of life, and it does not permit to follow a path which is not free of dangers, and whose condition is not known—neither independently nor by following an expert.
Probably, the addition of: “and did not follow the right way,” after the clause: “knew nothing,” aims at completing the qualifications of speech, in its true sense; although reference by an ignorant person to another ignorant one is condemnable, but it is so only when the followed one is like the follower in ignorance without there being any distinction between the two. But if the followed one, even if ignorant, proceeds on the way guided by a knowledgeable expert, then he follows the right way, and then there is no blame if somebody follows him on the way; because ultimately it turns out to be an imitation of a person who knows the details of the path.
It is now clear from above that the clause: “even though their fathers knew nothing,” was not enough by itself to complete the proof against them, because there would have remained a possibility that their ignorant fathers might have been following learned guides, in which case there was no blame on them. Therefore, that possibility was removed by adding the clause: “and did not follow the right way,” so there was no justification in imitating such people.
The preceding verse: Allah has not ordained (the making of) a baḥīrah …, had shown that those people either had no understanding, (and they were the majority) or were stubborn and arrogant (and they were the misleading leaders); and it had made it clear that such people did not deserved to be addressed by God, or to be presented with divine arguments. That is the reason that this verse does not argue with them directly; it seems to address another group and avoids talking to them face to face; and therefore it says: “What! Even though their fathers knew nothing and did not follow the right way.”
As previously discussed in the first part of this book, there is a scholarly ethical examination of this adoption of other people’s concepts and rulings, which you may refer for details.
It becomes evident from the verse that referring to the Book of God and to His Messenger, that is, to the sunnah is not in any way a form of the condemned blind imitation.”
Examining Narrations
- It is narrated in Tafsīr al-Burhān from al-Ṣadūq, through his chains, from Muḥammad b. Muslim, from Abū Abdillāh that he said about the word of God, the Might, the Great: Allah has not ordained (the making of) a baḥīrah or a sāibah or a waṣīlah or a ḥāmi. “The people of (the Era of) Ignorance used to say, when a she-camel brought forth two calfs in one pregnancy, ‘it has joined’; then they did not allow its slaughter or partaking of its meat; and when it bore ten (calves), they declared it to be sāibah; then they did not allow riding it or eating its meat; and ḥāmī was the male camel, they did not allow it (that is, riding or eating it). So, God revealed that He had not ordained prohibition of any of these things.”
- (al-Baḥrānī says:) Then Ibn Bābawayh says: “It has been narrated that al-baḥīrah was a she-camel, when it gave birth five times, then if the fifth calf was a male, they slaughtered it (the calf) and men and women partook of it; and if the fifth was a female they tore its ear, and its meat and milk was unlawful to women, but if it died then it became lawful to women. al-Sāibah was a camel, which was freed by nadhr (vow); a man vowed that if God gave him recovery from illness or conveyed him to his home, he would do so.
“And al-waṣīlah was a goat. If a goat gave birth in seven pregnancies, and the seventh kid was a male, it was slaughtered, and men and women ate from it, but if it was a female, it was joined to the herd; and if there were two kids, a male and a female, they said: ‘It has joined its brother;’ then it was not slaughtered, and its meat was unlawful for women, except that it died (of itself), the eating it was lawful for men and women.
“And al-ḥām was a stallion, when a child of its child was (ready to be) ridden, they said: ‘Its back is indeed protected.’” Then he (al-Baḥrānī) said: “Also, it is narrated that ḥāmi is a camel which brought forth ten pregnancies; so they said: ‘Its back is indeed protected;’ so it was not ridden, nor was it prevented from any pasture or water.”
Author’s comment: There are other traditions from the Shī’ite and Sunnite chains, regarding the meanings of these names: baḥīrah, sāibah, waṣīlah and ḥāmi, some other have been quoted above from Majma’ al- bayān.
What is certain about their meanings, is that these groups of cattle enjoyed some freedom in the Era of Ignorance, and there were related laws, for example, it was not allowed to ride them or eat their meat, and they were never prevented from any pasture or water; also, that waṣīlah was from goats and the other three from camels.
- Ibn ʿAbbās has narrated from the Prophet that he said: “Verily ʿAmr b. Luḥī b. Qam’ah b. Khandaf became king of Mecca. He was the first who changed the religion of Ishmael and obtained idols and put up graven images and invented baḥīrah, sāibah, waṣīlah and ḥāmi.” (The Messenger of God said:) “And indeed I saw him in the Fire, the smell of his guts troubles the people of the Fire.” Also, it is narrated that (the Holy Prophet said, “I saw him) dragging his guts in the Fire.”
Author’s comment: al-Suyūṭī has narrated this chains from Ibn ʿAbbās and others.
- al-Suyūṭī quotes ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Ibn Abī Shaybah, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd and Ibn Jarīr who narrated from Zayd b. Aslam that he said, “The Messenger of God, said ‘Verily I know the first man who invented sāibah and fixed idols, and the first man who changed the religion of Abraham.’ They said, ‘Who was he, O Messenger of God!’ He said, ʿAmr b. Luḥī, of Banū Ka’b; I had indeed seen him dragging his guts in the Fire.’ (Then he said:) ‘And I know who put marks on dedicated animals.’ They said, ‘Who was he, O Messenger of God?’ He said, ‘A man from Banū Mudlij; he had two she-camels, and he tore up their ears and forbade (to himself) their milk and backs; and he said, “These two are for God.” Thereafter, he felt the need of them, so he drank their milk and rode (on) their backs.’ He (the Prophet) said, ‘And indeed I saw him in the Fire, and the two (camels) were shattering him with their mouths and trampling him down with their hooves.’” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
- (al-Suyūṭī) quotes Aḥmad, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd, al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (in Nawādir al-uṣūl), Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and al-Bayhaqī (in al-Asmā’ wa al-ṣifāt) who narrated from Abu al-Aḥwaṣ, from his father, that he said, “I came to the Messenger of God wearing shabby garments. So he said to me, ‘Do you have some wealth?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘What type of wealth?’ I said, ‘From every kind, camels, goats, horses and slaves.’ He said, ‘When God has bestowed on you, it should be seen on you.’ Then he said, ‘Do your camels give birth to (calves with) unimpaired ears?’ I said, ‘Yes; and does camel give birth except like this.’ He said, ‘Then perhaps you take a razor and cut off the ears of a group of them and then you say: “It is a baḥīrah,” and split the ears of (another) group of them, and then you say: “It is separated?’’ ‘I said, ‘Yes.’ (The Prophet) said, ‘Don’t do it; whatever God has given you is lawful to you.’ Then he said, ‘Allah has not ordained (the making of) a baḥīrah or a sāibah or a waṣīlah or a ḥāmi.’” (ibid.)