Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:168

(O mankind, eat from whatever is on the earth [as] lawful.) This was revealed regarding the polytheists who prohibited for themselves the Bahira, the Sa'iba, the Wasilah, and the Hami, as mentioned by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both. It is also said that it was regarding Abdullah ibn Salam and his peers, as they prohibited camel meat for themselves because it was prohibited in the religion of the Jews. Others say it was regarding a group from the tribes of Thaqif, Banu Amir ibn Sa'sa'a, Khuza'a, and Banu Mudlij, as they prohibited dates and dried curd (aqit) for themselves.

"Lawful" (halalan) is either the object of "eat" (kulu), or a circumstantial qualifier (hal) for the noun preceded by the relative pronoun (al-ma), meaning: "Eat it while it is lawful." Or, it may be a descriptive attribute for an emphasized verbal noun, meaning: "Eat a lawful eating." On the latter two interpretations, "from" (min) signifies partitivity (tab'id), making it the object of the verb "eat." On the first interpretation, it is permissible for it to be initiating, connected to "eat," or a circumstantial qualifier for "lawful," and it was placed before it due to its indefiniteness. It may also be initiating—in fact, it is definitive, as per al-Kashf, according to the school of thought which posits that the original state of things is permissibility. It may also be partitive, based on what al-Radi approved: that the partitive is originally initiating, except that there is something present or understood that is a "part" of what is governed by min, and it is not required that the word "part" (ba'd) be correctly substitutable for it. The scholar al-Taftazani prohibited it being partitive in this usage because it would then be in the position of the direct object, and the verb does not take two objects. This is based on al-Tashil and others holding that partitivity is an essential meaning of min, marked by the ability to substitute the word "part" for it.

The imperative signifies obligation when the eating is for the maintenance of the body, recommendation (nadb) when it is for the sake of companionship with a guest, and permissibility (ibaha) otherwise. The appropriateness of this verse to the preceding one is that when He, the Exalted, explained monotheism, its proofs, and the states of the repentant and the disobedient, He followed that with a mention of His bounties and the encompassing nature of His mercy, to demonstrate that disbelief does not result in the cessation of His provision.

His saying, the Exalted, "good" (tayyiban), is an attribute of "lawful" (halalan). Its meaning, as Imam Malik said, is that which the palate of the Sharia finds delicious, neither rejecting it nor loathing it; or that which the eye perceives as pure from the filth of ambiguity. The benefit of describing the lawful with this is to generalize the ruling, as in His saying: "And there is no creature on the earth," so that a rebuttal may be established against those who prohibited some lawful things, for an indefinite noun described with a general attribute becomes general, unlike one that is not described. Imam al-Shafi'i—may Allah be pleased with him—said: The intent is that which an upright desire, arising from a healthy constitution, finds pleasant. This was refuted by noting that what one does not find pleasant is either lawful, in which case there is no ambiguity and thus no prohibition, or it is not, in which case it is excluded by the condition of being "lawful." It was answered that "lawful" here means that which the Lawgiver has explicitly declared as permitted, and "good" refers to that for which there is no explicit text, yet it is what the upright nature enjoys and desires, and there is nothing in the Sharia indicating its prohibition, such as intoxication or harm.

It is better, in view of the context, to say that the restriction is not to exclude what corrupt desire finds pleasant, but rather because it is considered in its conceptual definition, as one does not call something "good" or "delicious" except that which an upright desire finds pleasant. The benefit of the description then becomes the explicit declaration of the permissibility of what they had prohibited. The statement that there is an indication in this verse—according to this interpretation—of the prohibition against eating to the point of a full stomach and false desire is far-fetched, because such food, even if delicious and eaten in that manner, is something the desire finds pleasant, yet it is not eaten out of an upright desire. The distinction between the two meanings is indeed vast, as some researchers have stated. Some have inferred from the verse that whoever prohibits a food, for example, his act is futile and it does not become forbidden to him; there is a subtlety in this that does not escape notice.

"And do not follow the footsteps of Satan," meaning his traces, as narrated from al-Khalil; or his deeds, as narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with him; or his sins, as reported from Mujahid. The essence of the meaning is: Do not believe him or emulate his ways, lest you prohibit the lawful and permit the unlawful. From al-Sadiq it is said: Among the footsteps of Satan are swearing by divorce, vows to commit sins, and every oath sworn by other than Allah the Exalted. Nafi', Abu 'Amr, and Hamza read it with a quiescent Ta (khutwat); these are two dialects for the plural of khutwah, which is the distance between the feet of a walker. Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—read it with two Dammahs and a Hamzah (khutu'at). There are two ways to interpret this: first, that the Hamzah is original from al-khata' (error), meaning "the sin"; and second, that the Waw was changed into a Hamzah because a Dammah-voweled Waw is changed into one, like ujuh (faces). When it was adjacent to a Dammah, it was treated as if it were upon it. Al-Zajjaj said: This is permissible in Arabic. From Abu al-Sammal, it is narrated that he read it with two Fathahs (khatawat), based on it being the plural of khatwah, which is the singular act of stepping.

"Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy." This is a justification for the prohibition. "Clear" (mubin) is from abana, meaning "it became clear and appeared," i.e., manifest in enmity to those with insight, even if he manifests allegiance to those he leads astray; for this reason, he is called a "guardian" (wali) in His saying: "Their guardians are the Taghut." It is possible this is from the category of "they greet him with the sword." It is said abana means "he made clear," i.e., a manifestor of enmity. The first is more appropriate to the context of justification.