The 'Cow', The Pedagogical Animal

If it can be said that the Quran presents a special epistemological doctrine, then this doctrine is found in Chapter 2 (The cow البقره); particularly in the chain of verses running from Verse 67 to 71.

Moses asks his people, the Israelites, having just left Egypt and finding their way in the world, to slaughter a cow. They are taken aback by this request, wondering if he was being facetious; he replies that he’s not. They ask him to ask God to specify what it is, i.e., the cow. He returns with a description of the cow that’s mostly been interpreted as referring to the age of the cow, those words being Farid (فارض), supposedly meaning ‘old,’ and Bekr awan (بِكْر عَوَان), supposedly meaning ‘young.’ However, some digging into the Quran shows this not to be true; simply looking at the morphology of these two terms will show it.

We find that the word Farid (فارض) occurs in many inflections, all of which are in contexts related to duty, occupation, responsibility—a domestic setting, for example, the responsibilities of the husband to his wife in cases of marriage and divorce (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:237); charity and welfare (Surah An-Nisa 4:60); customs like upholding prayer, pilgrimage (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:197), fasting, and the Quran itself. In all of these cases, Farid (فارض) expresses ‘duty’ and ‘responsibility,’ with no reference to age.

By Occam’s Razor, what better interpretation can we ascribe to the expression Farid (فارض) than something in the neighborhood of ‘tasked’?

We know that in farming, cows are given a variety of jobs, that is, a division of labor among the cows. Cows have been selectively bred over centuries to specialize in different roles, resulting in certain breeds being better suited for certain "jobs." This is a form of specialization or division of labor within cattle farming, based on their natural traits or how they are raised. There are dairy cows, beef cattle, oxen, dual-purpose breeds, breeding and calving, grazing and land management. They give us Milk, Meat, help us till and plough, stock and transport, you name it. We can say that a cow that falls within the bracket of Farid (فارض) is ‘tasked’ with and serves one of these functions.

The other mistranslated word is Bekr awan بِكْر عَوَان, this compound word contains Bekr بِكْر and Awan عَوَان. Bekr is actually implied in the use of Farid. If Farid can mean duty or task, then we may think of Bekr Awan as an opposite state -- but 'opposite' relative to 'duty/task'. A word like 'vacant' comes to mind; but as we’re talking about a species of domestic animals that’s never not doing anything, we have to think of a word that, though opposite to Farid, still expresses a view towards occupation or task. A good example would be the contrast between a bench player and a field player, where Farid refers to the field player and Bekr Awan to the bench player --> but they're both players.

This is a more accurate description of Bekr Awan than vacant can give us, as it relays the same thing but in view of a certain action or occupation. Though vacancy anticipates 'occupation', it's a more 'passive' relation than one (that of Bekr Awan) of 'seeking to fill out' or 'occupy', which views things from the opposite place, Bekr Awan only a 'disposition' towards action from a place of vacancy. The two expressions are thus not equivalent. Call Farid  "in duty," and Bekr awan "off-duty."

Awan is an inflection of the familiar term Nasta'een (نَسْتَعِينُ), from Surah Al-Fatiha (verse 5); this term means ‘support’ or ‘resort.’ Combined with Bekr, it produces, (in addition to the meaning of Bekr) a view towards occupation or task, a sense of being enlisted, which is the sense we get when, being off work, one clocks in and rejoins his team. It would seem, from the standpoint of duty and the work one’s doing, that one is lending a hand, though one is simply clocking back in. A very precise expression, think about it….

إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ"

You ˹alone˺ we worship and You ˹alone˺ we ask for help."— Quran 1:5

The term Bekr here is a term that, when used in conjunction with Farid, expresses occupation or work as a possibility; it’s an anticipation of some general function. The cows are divided into a classes in duty, off duty, and a class that awaits assignment.

This case is exemplified in the situation of Moses who, having fled Egypt, found himself by a tree in a strange land. He finds a people watering their herd, and he finds there two women in need of help. He lends them a hand, then returns to the shade, and as a reward for what he’s done, he is to be hired by the father of these women in exchange for marrying one of them.

فَسَقَىٰ لَهُمَا ثُمَّ تَوَلَّىٰٓ إِلَى ٱلظِّلِّ فَقَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّى لِمَآ أَنزَلْتَ إِلَىَّ مِنْ خَيْرٍۢ فَقِيرٌۭ"

So he watered ˹their herd˺ for them, then withdrew to the shade and prayed, ‘My Lord! I am truly in ˹desperate˺ need of whatever provision You may have in store for me.’"— Quran 28:24

This is a very good demonstration of that in-between state; for Farid tasked, Bekr awan is a view to a specific task (the same task Farid denotes). Let me explain: there is the guy on the pitch, the guy on the bench, and then the guy trying to join the team. The guy trying to join the team would be in-between in this context. Thus, you’ll find cows that have not been allocated any definite task—cows that are being evaluated to determine where they would best fit into the overall farm operation, whether as beef cattle, dairy cattle, or for other specific purposes.

Once the evaluation is done, and a cow in the transitional phase is determined to be suited best for dairy, it then enters that phase to which the term Bekr awan would apply. Here, the cow is enmeshed into the dairy-cattle routine, though not yet lactation-ready, and is called dry. Nonetheless, it’s being prepared so as to be lactation-ready. If it’s to be beef cattle, then a different routine would apply, i.e., given a certain diet and the like.

Now, the term Bayn (بَيْنَ) in Bayn thalek (بَيْنَ ذَٰلِكَ) does mean "between," but in what sense? Like the example just given, it’s that which mediates the sequence of two terms but belongs to neither.

مِن كُلِّ دَآبَّةٍۢ وَتَصْرِيفِ ٱلرِّيَـٰحِ وَٱلسَّحَابِ ٱلْمُسَخَّرِ بَيْنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ لَـَٔايَـٰتٍۢ لِّقَوْمٍۢ يَعْقِلُونَ"...

and the clouds drifting between the heavens and the earth—˹in all of this˺ are surely signs for people of understanding."— Quran 2:164

In logic, this would be called distributivity.

In this sense, that which is ‘in-between’ shares a certain relation to a given dyadic or dual sequence or relation. The winds and clouds between the sky and earth mediate a relation whose main components are the sky and earth; their function is distributive in that they serve both spheres or rather, they connect them and make possible the symbiosis between heaven and earth. This is only possible if the three constitute one inclusive thing, inclusive in the sense of being reducible to a syllogism. Applying this to our context, we see that cows in their transitional phase, in being neither, can be either; they’re the pool from which specialized cattle are drafted, and thus by definition occupy both positions/possibilities, and none in particular.

It’s important that this triadic relation be recognized as it’s part of the syllogistic structure of terms, which all the more confirms and exemplifies the intrinsically logical structure of the Quran. Any context in which the expression Bayn is used will express the same relation.

In the verse, the Israelites ask Moses to ask God to clarify or specify the cow for them; the expression and verb used for 'clarify' or 'specify' is Bayn, where’s the dual relation you may ask, that’s supposed to be similar to that of the heavens and earth in the previous verse where the expression Bayn occurs, and where the distributive properties applies?. Can you really use such a concept as a verb? as a predicate?.

We answer that it’s possible for one object to be treated as two. You modify the same object.

This would involve a negation of the same object; say (Cow & Not-Cow), where the negation would open us to the same dual relation as observed between Bekr awan and Farid. In this manner, the negation (Not-Cow) would serve much the same function as Bekr awan, a view to its opposite, the possibility of transformation.

Having two terms, now we can approach the verse with the understanding that, not knowing what sort of cow it is, and wanting to know what sort of cow it is, form a tautology, and therefore a dual relation (¬p V q), this is the tautology formula in propositional logic.

The expression Bayn, represents a way of linking the two in a continuously meaningful structure, thus the verse is being very specific with respect to the manner in which the request was made, i.e., the semantics of this request, the request as it’s being made, and the mood that’s dominant in it. Judging from the fact that it was to be multiple requests at specifying the object, Bayan, comes to articulate a sense of continuous determination, i.e., to keep giving them clues and revelations (as opposed to one request 'covering all', there's a dynamic relation between the different conditions of the request that will have made sense in retrospect, and Bayn' holds good as a description for a ubiquitous subject -> a subject that's formally co-extensive with every condition, and is open to any and all conditions. e.g your relation to your job opens subjects you, apriori, to all contingencies of the job. Distributively-speaking, you are formally related/linked to the object).

This affirms that the expression is trying to capture something of the present feel of the request, seeing how, in the moment, our objective always assumes this generalized form, it becomes a sort of index, that which is to make these series of steps possible, though it is itself the object of these steps.

“The object of knowledge recedes more and more into the distance, so that for knowledge critically reflecting upon itself  it comes ultimately to appear as an infinitely remote point, and endless task and yet, in this apparent distance, it achieves its ideal specification, in the logical concept develops that mediate grasp which charactarizes reason” E.Cassirer, Philosophy Of Symbolic Forms (Yale edition, p181)

Thus, it's quite logical to posit the possibility of determining the object as the actual request, which is what a request ultimately is. Emphasis is placed on the process of specifying, on sequentially presented specifications—not just one clue and that’s it. “Show me which one it is” presupposes subjective conditions, the satisfaction of which gives you the thing, and this is shown in the sequence of verses 68, 69, 70, and 71. Let’s call these conditions of the understanding, for what God is teaching the people of Israel here is something pertinent to the intellectual psychology of this nation, as He did in the case of Abraham in Surah Al-An’am (6:76-79). To whom He gave the same test, for, as we see, the same purpose: to stimulate their natural faculty, to induce empiricism, in contrast to what He chastised them for doing—following the Charlatan (As-Samiri السامري) and being led astray.

قَالَ فَإِنَّا قَدْ فَتَنَّا قَوْمَكَ مِنۢ بَعْدِكَ وَأَضَلَّهُمُ ٱلسَّامِرِىُّ

Allah responded, “We have indeed tested your people in your absence, and the Sâmiri1 has led them astray.” (20:85)

The method used by the charlatan that led them astray was one of chicanery, as he knew exactly what they wanted and what they themselves did not know they were seeking, and exploited that by means of a device that was either a bull or a ram. This device is noteworthy for the same reason the cow, as a means of instruction, is significant. The difference can be seen in the reactions they exhibited to both: with the ram, they reacted sheepishly and with blind credulity, whereas with the cow, they reacted critically, with skepticism and empiricism. Recall also the self-respect they expressed in response to Moses’s request: "Are you mocking us?"—precisely the way they should have reacted to the charlatan. Clearly, two kinds of ethos are being starkly contrasted; and the same symbolic distinction must be found with respect to the two domestic animals.

Comparing these two, it’s clear which of them is more productive and yields the most quality. Cows/cattle offer more in terms of meat, milk, and versatility, whereas the ram or sheep offer significantly less than cattle. Another characteristic difference between these is cost; cattle cost more and are significantly more expensive to raise, feed, and maintain compared to sheep. This is clearly reflected in the story.

The path which God had ordained for them was one laden with challenges—costlier and demanding exercise—but which is the most rewarding and fruitful, like cattle farming compared to sheep farming, which is much cheaper, more affordable, but yields much less. This comparison aptly applies to self-development (Bildung), what we call "the road less traveled": doing those things that, though challenging, involve and harness discipline, patience, study, and growth through challenges. These build the most character, while the commonly traveled road, where one follows what everyone else is doing, yields much less, if anything at all. From an eschatological standpoint, it’s the former that counts—the path that leads to heaven—not the latter, as indicated in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:170).

Finding Moses’ description unsatisfying and not descriptive enough, the people ask Moses to be more specific:

"Call upon your Lord to specify for us its color." He replied, "Allah says, ‘It should be a bright yellow cow—pleasant to see.’"

قَالُوا۟ ٱدْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُبَيِّن لَّنَا مَا لَوْنُهَا ۚ قَالَ إِنَّهُۥ يَقُولُ إِنَّهَا بَقَرَةٌۭ صَفْرَآءُ فَاقِعٌۭ لَّوْنُهَا تَسُرُّ ٱلنَّـٰظِرِينَ— Quran 2:69

It’s “yellow,” he returns.

Now, why color? And why yellow in particular? The answer is found in the phenomenon of color.

Color serves as a critical visual indicator in understanding morphology—the structure and form of living and non-living entities. Throughout natural and scientific observations, changes in color often signal shifts in physical state, development stages, or health conditions. This relationship allows for the intuitive monitoring of morphological changes without specialized equipment, using just your eyes. Notably, yellow, being one of the most visibly perceptible colors due to its high luminance and placement near the peak sensitivity of the human eye, often marks preliminary stages in processes. For instance, in the natural world, the initial bright yellow of some fruits indicates immaturity, changing as the fruit ripens. This makes yellow a key color in the early detection and assessment of morphological developments, underscoring its unique role in the broader spectrum of color indicators.

In consistency with the concept of color and the specific color yellow, the term Faqi' (فاقع), meaning bright, adds specificity to the overall scheme. Think yellow but relatively speaking bright or flashy. We obtain the meaning ‘bright’ by transforming the original meaning of the term Waqi' (واقع), which, on analyzing its use in the Quran, appears to denote ‘recurrence.’ Think of a pendulum swinging back and forth and stopping on one side or the other before it swings back, a coin toss—heads or tails—an ultimatum in which only one of two outcomes can materialize. There’s something of the confirmation of a given possibility; this ‘confirmational’ instance would be what the Quran calls Waqi' (واقع).

The sky falling upon the earth, in this verse, expresses, in addition to the mutual exclusivity of the earth and the heavens, that an event is not to take place until a time which God had preordained—i.e., the end times in which, as one of its signs, the 'joining together' of the heavens and the earth—an event which you may call ‘premature’ or having occurred earlier than expected. The pilgrim who dies on his way to the Prophet demonstrates this; the verse makes this very point—i.e., dying prematurely. (An-Nissa 4:100)

.......Follow me over to part 2