Tafsir of Al Imran 3:93

"All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel had made unlawful to himself..."

Al-Wahidi narrated from al-Kalbi that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "I am upon the religion of Abraham," the Jews asked: "How can that be, when you eat the meat of camels and drink their milk?" The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "That was lawful for Abraham (peace be upon him), so we follow him." The Jews said: "Everything we declare unlawful today was already forbidden to Noah and Abraham until it reached us." Thereupon, Allah the Almighty revealed this verse, refuting them.

"Food" (al-ta’am) refers to what is eaten. It is intended here to mean consumable things in general, or edible items. Since it is a verbal noun (masdar) used as a descriptor, it remains the same in form for the masculine singular and others, which is the consistent rule. This is not contradicted by the statement of al-Radi that one says "a just man" (rajul ‘adl) and "two just men" (rajulan ‘adlan), as that is done in consideration of the meaning. Some have mentioned that this interpretation makes "all" (kull) an emphatic particle, because total inclusion (istighraq) is the property of a collective noun defined by the definite article "al".

"Lawful" (hill) is also a verbal noun, used here to mean "permissible" (halalan). The intent is to inform about the eating of food being lawful, not the food itself, because legality (hill)—like illegality (hurma)—is something that does not apply to the essence of entities. There is no implicit word like "expending" (infaq) [to be understood], even if it is grammatically possible for it to be related to "lawfulness," as it would be an assumption based on the preceding context that runs contrary to the purpose for which the speech was intended.

"Israel" is Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham (peace be upon them). It is narrated from Abu Mijlaz that an angel named him that after he threw him down and struck his thigh.

"...except what Israel had made unlawful to himself..." Mujahid said: "He forbade the meat of cattle." Ikrimah narrated from Ibn Abbas that he forbade the two parts of the liver, the two kidneys, and the fat, except what was on the back. From ‘Ata’, it is said that he forbade the meat of camels and their milk. The cause of this prohibition, as narrated in the hadith extracted by al-Hakim and others with a sound chain from Ibn Abbas, is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) suffered from sciatica, and he vowed that if he were healed, he would not eat his favorite food; and that was his favorite. In a narration by Sa’id ibn Jubayr from him, it is stated that he suffered from that ailment while eating camel meat, so he spent the night in agony and vowed never to eat it again. It is also said that he forbade it upon himself as an act of devotion, and asked Allah the Almighty to permit it for him, so the Almighty forbade it for his children. This is attributed to al-Hasan. It is also said that he forbade it and restrained himself from it just as the pious among the ascetics forbid delicacies upon themselves out of religious precaution.

Many have held that the prohibition occurred by a divine text revealed to him. Others said it was by [his own] independent reasoning (ijtihad). The apparent structure of the verse supports the latter, and it is used as evidence for the permissibility of this for prophets (peace be upon them). The exception is connected [to the previous statement]; because the intended meaning, under any interpretation, is that he forbade it for himself and his children. It is also said to be disconnected, meaning: "but Israel forbade it upon himself specifically, and did not forbid it for them." The first view is considered correct.

"...before the Torah was revealed." The apparent reading is that this relates to the Almighty’s statement: "was lawful." The separation by the exception does not cause harm, as it is a permissible separation. This follows the school of al-Kisa’i and Abu al-Hasan regarding the permissibility of what is before "except" acting upon what is after it, if it is an adverb of time/place, a prepositional phrase, or a state. It is also said that it relates to "forbade." Abu Hayyan criticized this, saying it is far-fetched, as it would be reporting a clear, necessarily known fact with no benefit. He excused it by saying the benefit is to clarify that the prohibition preceded the Torah, and that the Torah contained other prohibitions that came upon them as hardship and restriction. Some chose the view that it relates to an omitted expression, the meaning being: "It was lawful [before the Torah was revealed]," in response to a question arising from what preceded the exception, as if someone asked: "When was it lawful?" The reason for this [preference] is that the restriction of the prohibition seems to have no utility, and [the alternative] would necessitate shortening the attribute before its completion if it were made a restriction for "lawfulness."

The meaning is clear: all food, except for what was excluded, was lawful to the Children of Israel before the Torah was revealed, which contained the prohibition of what was forbidden to them due to their wrongdoing. In this is a refutation of the Jews in their claim of innocence regarding what Allah condemned them for in His saying: "So for the wrongdoing of those who were Jews, We forbade them," and His saying: "And to those who are Jews, We forbade." These verses serve to silence them regarding the rejection of abrogation, for the prohibition of what was previously lawful can only happen through it [abrogation]. It also refutes the attack on the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding his claim of following his father Abraham (peace be upon him), as indicated by the context of the revelation.

Al-Suddi held that nothing was forbidden to them upon the revelation of the Torah except what they were already forbidding before its revelation, following the example of their father Jacob (peace be upon him). Al-Kalbi said: The Almighty did not forbid them what was forbidden in the Torah, but rather forbade it after that due to their sins and disbelief. For when the Children of Israel committed a great sin, Allah the Almighty would forbid them some good food and rain down upon them a scourge. From al-Dahhak, it is said that Allah did not forbid them any of that in the Torah or after it, but it was something they forbade upon themselves following their father, and attributing its prohibition to Allah the Almighty is metaphorical—though this is very far-fetched.

"Say, 'Bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful.'" This is a command for him (peace be upon him) to dispute with them using their own book, which speaks to the truth of what he says regarding the matter of permissibility and prohibition. The name "Torah" is explicitly mentioned because this part of the discourse with the Jews is distinct from what preceded it. His saying: "if you are truthful" refers to their claim; it is a conditional sentence whose answer is omitted because the preceding context indicates it—that is, "If you are truthful, then bring the Torah and recite it." It is narrated that they did not dare to bring it, so they were confounded and silenced.

In this is manifest evidence for the validity of the prophethood of our Prophet (peace be upon him), for he knew that what is in the Torah points to their lying, even though he never read it nor any other of the ancient scriptures. Such knowledge can only be from revelation.