Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:14

(And it is He who subjected the sea) This is a commencement of another type of blessing related to the sea, following the detailed explanation of the type related to the land. Some consider it a counterpart to His saying, "It is He who sends down rain from the sky for you," and therefore it came in the same style: a nominal sentence with both parts definite. What occurs in between is either a consequence of that sent-down water or contains a benefit resulting from it. "The sea," according to what is in the sea, includes both salt and fresh water. The meaning is: He has subjected it for you in such a way that you are able to benefit from it by riding, diving, and fishing.

(That you may eat from it tender meat) This refers to fish. Expressing it as "meat," despite it being an animal, serves to point out the scarcity and weakness of its bones in most of what is caught for consumption, in comparison to the livestock whose consumption was previously counted as a favor. It has also been said: it is to hint that the benefit derived from it is limited to eating.

The "from" (min) is related to "that you may eat," or it is a circumstantial qualifier for what follows, being initial. It is also permissible for it to be partitive (tab'idiyyah), and the discourse implies an omitted noun—meaning: from its animals. In that case, it is permissible that "tender meat" refers to fish meat, just as it is permissible for it to mean fish itself. "Tender" (tariy) is a fa'il form from tarawa (tenderness), like sarawa (nobility) from saru. Al-Farra said: from tara (to be tender), like shaqiya (to be miserable). Tenderness is the opposite of dryness. It is described as such to indicate its delicacy and to warn that one should hasten to eat it; for because it is moist, it is prone to change, and corruption and decay quickly affect it. Physicians have said: consuming it after its tenderness has passed is among the most harmful things. Thus, it contains an integration of a medical ruling. This—contrary to what some suppose—does not conflict with the fact that it is permissible to eat it once it has been caught. Placing "the sea" as the subject in one of the interpretations is also an indication to hasten.

Some claimed that this description also serves as an indication of the perfection of His, the Exalted's, power in creating it tender and fresh within water that is salty and undrinkable. There is something in this that is not hidden. According to us, none of the sea animals are eaten except fish. This is supported by the interpretation of "meat" as fish, narrated from Qatadah and others. From Malik and a group of scholars, all that is in the sea is permitted, while some excluded the pig, the dog, and humans. From Ash-Shafi'i, it is narrated that he permitted all of it. This is in agreement with what Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from As-Suddi, who said: "It is the fish and the creatures that are in the sea." Indeed, it is disliked according to us to eat what is "floating"—that which dies of its own accord in the water and floats on the surface, based on the hadith of Jabir from the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Whatever the water recedes from, eat; whatever the water casts out, eat; and whatever floats, do not eat." This is the position of a group of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). The "sea-carrion" in the report, "Its water is a purifier, its dead [creatures] are lawful," refers to what it casts out, so that its death is attributed to the sea, not what dies therein without a calamity.

As for what is cut, and then dies, it is lawful to eat what was severed and what remained, because its death was due to a calamity, and whatever is severed from a living animal is dead; yet if it is dead, its carrion is lawful. If another fish is found in the belly of a fish, it is eaten, because the narrowness of the space was the cause of its death. The same applies if a water bird or other creature kills it, or if it dies in a water container. Likewise, if fish are gathered in an enclosure from which they cannot escape, and one is able to take them without hunting, and they die therein—but if they cannot be taken without hunting, there is no good in eating them, because no cause for their death became apparent. If a fish dies in a net while it is unable to escape, or eats something thrown into the water for it to eat and dies from it—and this is known—then there is no harm in eating it, because that is in the meaning of what the water has receded from.

Regarding death by heat or cold, there are two narrations. One—narrated from Muhammad—is that it is eaten because it died due to an accidental cause, and it is as if the water had cast it onto dry land. The other—narrated from the Imam—is that it is not eaten because heat and cold are attributes of time, and they are not causes of death in most cases. There is no harm in eating eels or lampreys. It is famous among the Shia that eating the former is forbidden, so this should be looked into.

Qatadah, as recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah, used the verse as evidence to invalidate the oath of one who swore not to eat meat but then ate fish, because the verse uses the word "meat" (lahm) for it. This is also narrated from Malik. The response is that oaths are based on what people understand in their custom (urf), not on linguistic reality, nor on the usage of the Quran. Thus, when Ath-Thawri issued a fatwa of violation (hanth) in the aforementioned issue based on the verse, and it reached Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him), he said to the inquirer: "Go back and ask him about one who swears not to sit on a mat (bisat) but sits on the earth; does he violate his oath?" The inquirer asked him: "Are you the one who asked yesterday?" He replied: "Yes." He said: "He does not violate his oath in this or in that." And he retracted what he had initially given a fatwa on.

It is apparent that the Imam's support was custom, and this is what Ibn al-Humam went towards, not what is in al-Hidayah regarding the argument that analogy dictates a violation. The basis for istihsan (juridical preference) is that the Quranic naming is metaphorical, because the origin of meat is blood, and there is no blood in fish due to their inhabiting water—though this is contradicted by the fat tail (aliyah), for it is formed from blood, yet one does not violate an oath by eating it. It was objected that it is possible there are two proofs in the issue that do not contradict each other. The mentioned contradiction is refuted by saying that what is mentioned is "every meat that originates from blood," and the converse is not necessary.

As for the naming of fish as meat linguistically, there is no doubt about it, so the generality and its converse are contradicted. The objector's intent is to refute the former with an additional requirement. Indeed, it might be said: his intent with the aforementioned metaphor is that it is a customary metaphor, like the word "beast" (dabbah) if applied to a human, so his words return to what the Imam said, and in that case, there is no issue with it. What he mentioned is an explanation of the aspect of customary usage, so nothing can be said against it, and it is as you see. On the style of what the Imam said, one would say regarding someone who swore not to ride a beast but then rode a disbeliever: he does not violate the oath, even though Allah, Glorified be He, named the disbeliever a beast in His saying: "Indeed, the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who disbelieve."

In al-Kashshaf, as an explanation for the lack of customary application of "meat" to fish: if a man said to his servant, "Buy meat with these dirhams," and he brought fish, he would be deserving of rebuke. That is: it is evidence of the lack of application of the word "meat" to it in custom. Since oaths are based on custom, one does not violate the oath by eating it. It was objected that if he said to his servant, "Buy meat," and he bought bird meat, he would be deserving of rebuke and would violate the oath by eating it. This was countered by saying that the rebuke only arose from the rarity of buying such a thing because it is not customary, whereas in our case, buying fish and its meat is customary, so the only place for rebuke is the failure to apply the word "meat" to it.

(And you extract from it ornaments) such as pearls and coral, (which you wear) i.e., your women wear them. The reason it is attributed to men is because of their mixing with women and their being the ones in charge, or because they are the cause for their ornamentation, for women adorn themselves to look beautiful in the eyes of men, so it becomes their decoration and clothing. Ibn al-Munir said: "May Allah have mercy on Malik, for he gave the husband authority over his wife regarding her wealth, which is of significance, and that is estimated at what exceeds a third, as he has a share in the adornment. Look at the extent of men's share in women's wealth and their adornment until it was made like the woman's share in her own wealth and adornment. Thus, he expressed his share in her wearing them as 'you (masculine) wear them,' just as one expresses her share—a point supported by the hadith narrated on the subject."

It is understood from this that it is permissible to consider the metaphor from both sides, and some explicitly stated this, interpreting "you wear" as "you enjoy and take pleasure." It is also possible that the metaphor is in the pronoun, and what is made explicit in the interpretation is what is intended in the composition. It is said: the speech is based on dominance (taghlib), or it is like the saying, "The family of so-and-so killed Zayd." This involves attributing the action of a part to the whole. It was objected that this is a way to address both aspects, but as for the first, it is due to the lack of engagement with the attributed act, which is "wearing." As for the second, it does not hold without the metaphor in the pronoun, so there is no reason to abandon considering it in the aforementioned manner for this one. Some said: there is no need for all of this, for there is nothing preventing men from adorning themselves with pearls. It was objected that after conceding that there is no religious prohibition, it contradicts the ongoing custom, so the present-tense verb—indicating a different meaning—rejects it. It is not correct to say that there is sea emerald in the sea, and even if it were true, this would also come up. Perhaps it is because women are commanded to wear the veil and hide their adornment from non-mahrams, that the explicit mention of wearing it by them was hidden, so that the wording might be like the meaning.

Abu Yusuf and Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on them both) used the verse as evidence that pearls are called "adornments" (huly), even if one swore not to wear an ornament and then wore them, he would violate the oath. Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) says: he does not violate the oath because pearls alone are not called an ornament in custom, and a seller of them is not called a seller of ornaments. Such is in Ahkam of Al-Jassas. Some used the verse as evidence that there is no zakat on women's jewelry. Ibn Jarir recorded from Abu Ja'far that he was asked: "Is there charity on women's jewelry?" He said: "No, it is as Allah, the Exalted, said: 'Ornaments which you wear.'" And it is as you see.

Furthermore, tender meat comes from both fresh and salt water, while ornaments are only extracted from salt water. It is said that fresh water also produces pearls, but they are rarely worn; rather, they are mostly used for medical treatment. We have not seen anyone who mentioned this in most of the books compiled for such mentions. Al-Bazzar recorded from Abu Hurairah, who said: "Allah, the Exalted, spoke to the western sea and the eastern sea. He said to the western sea: 'I am bearing in you servants of My servants. What will you do with them?' It said: 'I will drown them.' He said: 'Your power is in your own areas,' and He forbade it from ornaments and hunting. He spoke to this eastern sea and said: 'I am bearing in you servants of My servants. What will you do with them?' It said: 'I will carry them on my hands and be like a mother to her child.' So He, the Exalted, rewarded it with ornaments and hunting." Ibn Abi Hatim recorded something similar via Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As from Ka'b al-Ahbar. Allah, the Exalted, knows the truth of that. The apparent meaning of the speech of most is that "the sea" in the verse refers to the salt sea, which is filled with fish—indeed, it is said that fish applies to all animals within it—and pearls only exist in specific places within it.

(And you see the ships) vessels, (plowing through it) sailing through it; it is the plural of makhirah, meaning sailing. The origin of makhr is splitting. It is said: "The ship splits the water" if it cuts through it. Ships were named that because they split the water with their prows. Al-Farra said: it is the sound of the ship moving with the winds.

(And that you may seek) is connected to "that you may extract," and what is connected to it; what is in between is a parenthetical clause to pave the way for the beginnings of seeking and to dispel that it is solely through the extraction of ornaments. He deviated from the style of the previous and subsequent address—i.e., the plural address—to the singular address, intended for everyone fit for the address, as an indication that that [phrase] is not brought in the same sequence as them. Ibn al-Anbari permitted it to be connected to an omitted cause, i.e., "that you may benefit from that and that you may seek," or to be related to an omitted verb, i.e., "He did that so that you may seek," and that is forced, which Allah, the Exalted, has no need of.

(Of His bounty) from the expansiveness of His provision through riding them for trade, (and that you may give thanks).

(You fulfill the right of the blessings of Allah, the Exalted, through obedience and monotheism.) Perhaps this blessing was singled out by being followed by the mention of thanks because it is the most powerful in the category of favors, in that He made riding the sea—despite it being a place of destruction, for those who ride it, as Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, are "worms on a piece of wood"—a cause for benefit and the attainment of sustenance. It is from the perfection of the blessing to cover long distances in a short time without the need for loading, unloading, and movement, while having rest and stillness. How beautiful is what was said in this regard: "We are in the world like the passengers of a ship, we think we are standing still while time travels with us." The omission of the attainment of the objective between "seeking" and "thanks" is said to be an indication of its being needless of explicit mention, and that both are attained together.

The verse was used as evidence for the permissibility of riding the sea for trade without dislike, and a group went towards that. Abd ar-Razzaq recorded from Ibn Umar that he used to dislike riding the sea except for three: a warrior, a pilgrim, or one performing 'Umrah.