Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:173

"Only He has forbidden to you the dead animal" (i.e., eating it and benefiting from it). He ascribed the prohibition to the physical substance (‘ayn), even though prohibition is a legal ruling that is one of the qualities of the legally responsible person’s act, not a quality inherent in physical substances. This is an allusion to the prohibition of dealing with the dead animal—which is that which has died without a legal slaughter in all respects—in the most concise and emphatic manner; for He made the substance incapable of having the acts of the legally responsible person attached to it, except for what is specifically excepted by evidence, such as dealing with tanned hides.

Included under "the dead animal" is that which is severed from a living being, based on the hadith narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi (who classified it as hasan) from Abu Waqid al-Laythi, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whatever is cut from an animal while it is alive, it is dead [i.e., carrion]."

Fish and locusts are excluded from this, based on the hadith narrated by Ibn Majah and al-Hakim from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) in marfu‘ form: "Two dead things and two bloods have been made lawful for us: fish and locusts, and the liver and the spleen." This is also based on custom (‘urf), for if one were to say, "So-and-so ate the dead animal," the mind would not immediately think of these two. Indeed, some have deemed the floating dead fish and locusts that die without a cause to be prohibited, and this is the view of the majority of the Malikis. The generality of the verse has been used as evidence for the prohibition of embryos and that which does not have flowing blood, contrary to those among the Malikis who permitted it. Abu Ja‘far read al-maytah with a shaddah (emphatic pronunciation).

"And blood"—this is qualified in Surah al-An‘am as "poured forth" (al-masfuh), and this will be discussed later. Its general form has been used as evidence for the prohibition of the impurity of the blood of whales and that which does not have flowing blood.

"And the flesh of swine"—the flesh is specified by mention, even though its other parts are also prohibited (contrary to the Zahiris), because it is the primary part eaten from the animal, and the remaining parts are like followers to it. It has been said: The flesh was specified to indicate the prohibition of the substance itself, whether slaughtered or not, though this view is not without its issues. Perhaps the secret in inserting the word "flesh" here is to manifest the prohibition of that which they found delicious, preferred over all other meats, and held in high regard, only for its consumption to be forbidden.

Our scholars have used the generality of the word "swine" to argue for the prohibition of the sea swine. Al-Shafi‘i (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "There is no harm in it." It is reported that someone said to Imam Malik: "What do you say about the sea swine?" He replied: "It is prohibited." Then another person came and said: "What do you say about an animal in the sea in the form of a swine?" He replied: "It is lawful." When asked about that, he said: "Allah the Exalted forbade the swine, but He did not forbid what is in its form," and the question differed in the two instances.

"And that which has been dedicated to other than Allah"—that is, that upon which the voice has been raised—in its slaughtering—for other than Allah the Exalted. The origin of ihlal (dedication/raising the voice) for many linguists is the sighting of the new moon (hilal). However, since it was the custom to raise the voice with takbir (proclaiming greatness) when the moon was sighted, it was called ihlal. Then, it was applied to the raising of the voice, even if it were for something else. What is meant by "other than Allah" is an idol or other things, as is apparent. ‘Ata, Makhul, al-Sha‘bi, al-Hasan, and Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib went to the view of restricting "the other" specifically to idols, and they permitted the slaughtered animal of a Christian if he pronounced the name of Christ over it. This is contrary to what the Imams have agreed upon regarding prohibition.

It was placed first here because it is more pertinent to the act, whereas it was delayed in other places in view of the intent there to mention the detestable act, which is slaughtering for other than Allah.

"But whoever is compelled without being a transgressor" (by being in a state of necessity beyond another person's necessity, lest he seize it for himself and the other person perishes) "nor transgressing" (i.e., exceeding what is needed to sustain life and hunger). This is apparent in the prohibition of eating until satiety, which is the opinion of the majority. It is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi‘i (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the compelled person should not eat of the dead animal except as much as will sustain his life, because the permission is for necessity, and that [amount] suffices. ‘Abdullah ibn al-Hasan al-‘Ubari said: He should eat of it enough to sate his hunger. Imam Malik disagreed, saying: He may eat until he is full and take provision, and if he finds no need for it, he may discard it. It is reported from al-Shafi‘i that the meaning of "without being a transgressor" is against the ruler, and "nor exceeding" is in highway robbery. From this, travel for the purpose of disobedience is included; thus, the sinner in his travel is not permitted to eat from these forbidden things. This is also what is narrated from Imam Ahmad, though it is contrary to our school. The ruling of the concession in this case requires the restriction that he must not be exceeding the measure of necessity from external sources.

The generality of the verse has been used as evidence for the permissibility of the compelled person eating the dead swine or a human being, contrary to those who forbid it. The people of Hijaz, the Levant, and al-Kisa’i read faman ud-turra (whoever is compelled) with a damma on the nun, and Abu Ja‘far among them with a kasra on the ta’. "Then there is no sin upon him"—that is, in consuming it; indeed, he might even incur sin if he neglects to consume it.

"Indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful"—this is why He dropped the prohibition in his consumption of it and granted a concession. It is said: The prohibition remains, but the sin is removed from the compelled person, and he is forgiven for his necessity, as is apparent from linking the [absence of] sin to his state of necessity. The first view is supported by His saying: "Except that which you are compelled to" (Surah al-An‘am: 119), where He makes an exception from the prohibition.

Then, know that the intent of the verse is not to restrict prohibition absolutely to what is mentioned—which would be the apparent meaning, leading to the objection against restricting prohibition to things not mentioned. Rather, it is restricted to what they believed to be lawful, by the evidence that they used to treat as lawful that which was mentioned. It is as if it were said: "Only He has forbidden to you" what is mentioned, from the perspective of what you had made lawful for yourselves for other things. The purpose of restricting the prohibition to what they mentioned is to denote their belief in its lawfulness in the most emphatic and firmest way. Thus, it is a restriction of inversion (qasr qalb), except that the second part is not for rejecting the belief of prohibition, as they did not believe anything they deemed lawful to be prohibited; rather, it is for emphasizing the first part. The address is to the people, taking into account that the polytheists are included among them. Thus, the import of the verse is to deter the legalization of prohibited things, just as "O mankind, eat..." is a deterrence from the prohibition of lawful things.

Or, the meaning is the restriction of the prohibition of what is mentioned to the state of choice. It is as if it were said: "Only He has forbidden to you" these things, so long as you are not compelled to them. It is more appropriate in this case for the address to be to the believers, so that the focal point of the benefit is the restriction, as they believed in the prohibition of these matters; the benefit of the ruling is the concession after the restriction upon them by seeking the good, lawful things, or honoring them with the favor of this concession after the favor of permitting them the enjoyable things.

Some have chosen the view that the meaning of the restriction is to refute the polytheists regarding their prohibition of what Allah had made lawful from the bahirah, sa’ibah, wasilah, and ham, and their eating of these prohibited things mentioned in the verse. It is as if they said: "Those were forbidden to us, but these were made lawful for us," so it was said: "Only these were forbidden"—thus it is a relative restriction. Others went to the view that it is a restriction of individualization with respect to what the believers had forbidden along with the mentioned enjoyable things. The objection here is that the believers did not believe in the prohibition of enjoyable things; rather, they forbade them for themselves when they heard of the severity of the reckoning and questioning about blessings—so said some of the researchers. Let this be contemplated.