ﱺ ﱻ ﱼ ﱽ ﱾ ﱿ ﲀ ﲁ ﲂ ﲃ ﲄ ﲅ ﲆ ﲇ ﲈ ﲉ ﲊ ﲋ ﲌ ﲍ ﲎ ﲏ ﲐ ﲑ ﲒ
O you who have believed, fulfill [all] contracts. Lawful for you are the animals of grazing livestock except for that which is recited to you [in this Qur'an] - hunting not being permitted while you are in the state of ihram. Indeed, Allah ordains what He intends.
Tafsir
Verse range: 5:1
It is also called al-'Uqud (The Contracts) and al-Munqidhah (The Rescuer). Ibn al-Faras said: Because it rescues its companion from the angels of punishment. It is Medinan according to the view of Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Qatadah. Abu Ja'far ibn Bishr and al-Sha'bi said: It is Medinan, except for the saying of the Exalted, "This day I have perfected for you your religion," for it was revealed in Mecca.
Abu 'Ubayd extracted from Muhammad al-Qurazi who said: "Surah al-Ma'idah was revealed to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) during the Farewell Pilgrimage, between Mecca and Medina, while he was on his she-camel. Its shoulder blade buckled under the weight of the revelation, so the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) dismounted from it." More than one person extracted from 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: "Al-Ma'idah is the last surah to be revealed." Ahmad and al-Tirmidhi extracted from Ibn Umar that the last surah was al-Ma'idah and al-Fath. It has been mentioned just now from al-Bara' that the last surah to be revealed was Bara'ah (al-Tawbah). Perhaps each of them mentioned what was with him, and there is nothing in this that is attributed (marfu') to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Yes, Abu 'Ubayd extracted from Damrah ibn Habib and 'Atiyyah ibn Qays, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Al-Ma'idah is among the last of the Quran to be revealed, so declare its lawful things as lawful and its unlawful things as unlawful." This is not sufficient for the intended meaning.
A group deduced from this report that nothing in this surah has been abrogated. Among those who explicitly stated there is no abrogation are 'Amr ibn Sharhabil and al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with them both), as Abu Dawud extracted from them. He extracted from al-Sha'bi that nothing of it was abrogated except for the saying of the Exalted: "O you who have believed, do not violate the rites of Allah or [the sanctity of] the sacred month or the sacrificial animals or the garlanded animals." Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) extracted that he said: "Two verses were abrogated from this surah: the verse of the garlanded animals and His saying, the Sublime, 'So if they come to you, judge between them or turn away from them.'" Some claimed that there are nine abrogated verses in it, and discussion on that will follow, if Allah the Exalted wills.
Its number of verses is 120 according to the Kufans, 123 according to the Basrans, and 122 according to others. As for the manner of its connection to Surah al-Nisa, as mentioned by Jalal al-Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him), Surah al-Nisa encompassed several contracts, explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly: contracts of marriage, dowry, alliances, treaties, and protection. Implicitly: contracts of wills, deposits, agency, lending, leasing, and others that enter under the generality of His saying, the Exalted: "Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due." Thus, it was appropriate to follow it with a surah beginning with the command to fulfill contracts, as if it were said: O people, fulfill the contracts that were finished being mentioned in the surah that has been completed, even if there are also contracts in this surah.
It was also viewed that the precedence of al-Nisa and the delaying of al-Ma'idah is because the beginning of that is "O mankind," and the address by that is in several places, which is more similar to Meccan revelation; whereas the beginning of this is "O you who have believed," and the address by that is in several places, which is more similar to Medinan address. The precedence of the general and that which resembles the Meccan is more appropriate.
Furthermore, these two surahs in their interdependence and union are like al-Baqarah and Al 'Imran; for those two were united in establishing the foundations of oneness (Tawhid), prophethood, and the like, while these two are in establishing the legal branches.
Al-Ma'idah concludes with the description of Power, just as al-Nisa begins with that. Al-Nisa began with the creation of life, and al-Ma'idah ends with the ultimate goal of resurrection and recompense, as if they are one surah encompassing the rulings from the beginning to the end. This surah also has a connection to al-Fatihah and the two radiant ones (al-Zahrawayn), as is not hidden from the contemplative.
(In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. O you who have believed, fulfill [all] contracts.)
Al-Wafa (fulfillment) is the preservation of what the contract necessitates and the execution of its requirements. It is said: wafa, wafa'a, and awfa—all carrying the same meaning, though the form awfa contains an intensiveness not found in the simple form. The origin of al-'aqd (contract/bond) is a firm tying; then it was used metaphorically for a solemnized covenant. Al-Tabarsi distinguished between al-'aqd and al-'ahd (covenant), stating that al-'aqd carries the sense of securing and binding, and can only occur between two parties, whereas an 'ahd might be held by one individual alone.
There are several views regarding the intended meaning of these "contracts" (al-'uqud):
Some exegetes have chosen the view that it encompasses everything Allah has obligated upon His servants and bound them to, including religious duties and legal rulings, as well as the contracts of trusts, transactions, and similar matters they make among themselves, which must be fulfilled or are religiously commendable. The command is understood as an absolute request—whether by way of recommendation or obligation—and this includes avoiding forbidden and disliked acts, as this is more consistent with the generality of the word (for it is a collective noun with the definite article al-) and more consistent with the generality of the benefit.
Al-Zamakhshari favored the view that it refers to the contracts Allah made with them regarding His religion—permitting His lawful things and forbidding His unlawful ones—because it contains, as noted in al-Kashf, the elegance of an opening (bara'at al-istihlal) and detail after summarization. However, he mentioned that the chosen view of others is better because it achieves both goals with the addition of generalization, and the noble Surah encompasses the foundational religious duties in both principles and branches; even if it contained nothing else but "cooperate in righteousness and piety" and "be just; that is nearer to righteousness," it would suffice. This has been critiqued in a way that is not free from scrutiny.
Some claimed that this involves taking off the khuff (leather sock) before reaching the water, but what al-Zamakhshari favored is free from that, and the matter is trivial. As for the claim of generalization, al-Raghib inclined toward it, as is apparent. He said: Contracts, considering the thing contracted and the person contracting, are of three types: a contract between Allah the Exalted and the servant, a contract between the servant and himself, and a contract between the servant and others of mankind. Each one, considering the one who mandates it, is of two types: one mandated by intellect, which is what Allah has ingrained the knowledge of in man, and which is reached either by intuitive reason or by minimal reflection, as indicated by His saying: "And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam..." (the verse), and another mandated by the Shari'ah, which is what the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have pointed us to. These are six types. Each of these either binds from the beginning or binds through the human’s commitment to it. The second category is of four types:
(Lawful for you are the grazing livestock) This is the beginning of the detailing of the rulings that He commanded to be fulfilled; He, the Exalted, began with this because it relates to the necessities of livelihood. Al-Bahimah (grazing livestock/beast) refers to those possessing souls that have no intelligence at all; this is the view of al-Zajjal. It is named bahimah because of its lack of discrimination and the ambiguity of matters to it. Imam al-Sha'rani narrated from his teacher Ali al-Khawas (may his secret be sanctified) that the reason for calling these beasts baha'im is only because the state of their speech and affairs is ambiguous to most people, not that the matter is ambiguous to them, and he mentioned things indicating their intelligence and knowledge, and the verification of this will come, if Allah wills. Many said: Al-Bahimah is a name for everything with four legs among land and sea animals, and its addition to al-an'am (livestock) is for clarification, like [saying] "a robe of khazz (silk/fur)." Meaning: The eating of bahimah of the an'am is lawful for you, which are the eight pairs mentioned in its Surah.
This was objected to on the grounds that bahimah is a generic noun and an'am is a species thereof; thus, adding it to it is like saying "animal of human," which is considered poor. It was answered that the addition of a general term to a specific one, if it comes from an eloquent person and intends to provide a benefit, is good—like "the city of Baghdad," for since the word "Baghdad" was non-Arabic and its meaning was not known, "city" was added to it to explain its referent and clarify it; or like "the wood of the Arak tree," because since "Arak" is applied to its branches, [the word "wood"] was added to explain the intent. Otherwise, it would be a redundant and censurable absurdity. Here, since al-an'am might be specific to camels (as that is its original meaning, it is said, and for that reason it is not said: "the na'am" except for them), bahimah was added to it to point to what is intended. Mentioning bahimah in the singular is for the generic, and al-an'am is plural to include its types. Included with them are deer and wild cows. It is said: These two are what is intended by bahimah and similar animals that resemble an'am in cud-chewing and the lack of fangs. This is narrated from al-Kalbi and al-Farra. Its addition to an'am is then due to the similarity between them. Some researchers permitted, in the addition of the resembled to the thing resembled, that it be in the sense of the particle lam (for/belonging to), making the similarity an exclusive relationship between them, or in the sense of min (the explanatory), making the resemblance the very essence of the thing. The benefit of this addition here is to signal the cause of the ruling shared between the two; as if it were said: "The bahimah resembling the an'am, whose lawfulness was clarified to you previously, has been made lawful for you due to its similarity to them in the basis of the ruling."
It is also said: The bahimah of the an'am refers to what emerges from their wombs as fetuses after they are slaughtered—which would otherwise be a carcass. This is narrated from Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar, and it is what is reported from Abu Ja'far and Abu Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with them). Thus, the import of the verse is explicitly the lawfulness of eating them, and al-Shafi'i held this view, using other than the khabar as evidence for it. The lawfulness of the an'am itself is understood from it. The prepositional phrase is placed before the agent for the sake of showing concern for what is prioritized, as it contains an hastening of joy and anticipation for the mention of the delayed [subject].
The verse contains a refutation of the Magians, for they forbade the slaughtering and eating of animals. They said: "Because slaughtering them is causing pain, and causing pain is ugly, especially causing pain to those who have reached such a degree of helplessness that they cannot defend themselves; and the Merciful, Wise God would not be pleased with what is ugly." They claimed—may Allah curse them—that the pain of animals only originates from the forces of darkness, not the light. The Transmigrationists did not permit the origin of pains from Him, the Exalted, in any way, except by way of retribution for previously committed crimes. They committed themselves to the belief that beasts are speaking and knowing of the pains that occur, and that they are being punished for their deeds; otherwise, their restraint from returning to crime upon their reincarnation into a more noble body would not be conceivable. Some of them even claimed that there is no species of beast but that there is a prophet sent to them from their own kind! Others even claimed that all inanimate objects are living and accountable, and are being punished for the good and evil they commit. Imam al-Sha'rani attributed something similar to the Sufi masters, but the people of that [theologians] rejected this completely.
When the Bakriyyah among the Muslims found it difficult to answer this doubt according to their own principles—and they believed that the command to slaughter animals came from Allah, the Exalted—they claimed that beasts do not feel pain, and neither do children who do not have reason. It is not hidden that this contradicts intuitive knowledge and does not fall short of denying the life, movements, sensation, and perception of the aforementioned. The Mu'tazilah answered with what the Sunnis rejected, and the Sunnis answered that the permission to slaughter animals is an act of disposal by Allah, the Exalted, in His pure property, so there is no objection to Him. The issues of "rational goodness and badness" have had the blanket of discourse folded upon them in the science of Theology, as has the discourse on Light and Darkness. Some researchers said: Since man is the noblest species of animals and through him the copy of the world is completed, it is not rationally ugly to make anything below him a food for him by slaughtering and causing it pain, out of concern for his welfare, just as the Wisdom—to whose secret no bird of thought can reach—necessitates.
Some people said: The verse is mujmal (ambiguous) because of the possibility that the intent is the lawfulness of benefiting from their skins, bones, wool, or all of these. There is a critique here, because the manifest nature of the estimation of "eating" is something that no two rams would clash over. Yes, Ibn al-Subki and others mentioned that His saying "except what is recited to you" is mujmal due to the ignorance of its meaning before its explanation was revealed, and this ambiguity spreads to what precedes it, but that is not the place of contention. The exception is connected to bahimah by the estimation of a deleted noun: "except [the prohibited things] that are recited to you." And by "prohibited," it means the carcass, what was sacrificed for other than Allah, up to the end of what is mentioned in the third verse of the Surah. Or it is from the agent of "is recited": "except what the verse of its prohibition recites to you," so that "what" (ma) is an expression for the prohibited bahimah, not the recited text. It is permitted to consider a metaphorical usage in the attribution without estimation, and that is not far-fetched. As for making it mufarragh (vacant) from an affirmative in the position of a state (hal), i.e., "except while being in the recited states," that is very far-fetched, as al-Shihab said.
Some went to the view that it is munqati' (disconnected), based on the apparent meaning, because the "recited" is a text, and the thing excepted is not of its genus. The majority hold to the first view. The place of the excepted [phrase] is in the accusative case (nasb), though the nominative (raf') is permitted based on what has been verified in grammar.
(Not permitting hunting) is a state from the pronoun in "for you" (lakum), according to what the majority of exegetes hold. Al-sayd (hunting/prey) is potentially an infinitive or an object. His saying: (while you are in the state of ihram) is a state from what is hidden in the [previous] place. The meaning is: These things have been made lawful for you, while you are not permitting hunting or the eating of game while in the state of ihram. Al-Zamakhshari interpreted the non-permitting of hunting in the state of ihram as abstaining from it while they are in ihram, where he said: "It is as if it were said: We have made some of the livestock lawful for you while you are in a state of abstaining from hunting while you are in ihram, so that there might be no hardship upon you." He did not interpret the lawfulness as the "belief in lawfulness," thinking that restricting the lawfulness to the "non-belief in lawfulness" is not well-founded. It might be said: This would be the case if the intention were absolute belief in lawfulness, but if the intention were the absence of belief stemming from the Shari'ah and proceeding from it, then it is not so, because if the state is not the same as the state of abstention, it is not foreign to it, as is not hidden to the contemplative. Our shaykhs' shaykh, Jirjis Effendi al-Arbili (may Allah have mercy on him), pointed to this.
It was objected in al-Bahr to what the majority went to, saying that it necessitates restricting the lawfulness of the bahimah of the an'am to the state of the negation of the lawfulness of hunting while they are in ihram, even though they have been made lawful for them absolutely; thus, no benefit appears unless bahimah al-an'am is intended to mean the hunted animals that resemble them, like deer, wild cows, and wild donkeys. It was countered that even without the universality of considering the concept, others know this by the priority of the reasoning (tariq al-awla): for if they were made lawful in the state of non-ihram for others, while they [themselves] are in ihram to remove hardship from them, then how much more so in other states? Thus, it is a statement of Allah's blessing upon them by what He granted them in that regard, and a statement that they are in no need of hunting and violating the sanctity of the sacred precincts. Al-Zamakhshari's phrasing is almost explicit in this. The second scholar [Abu Hayyan] countered that the intent of al-an'am is what is more general than the domesticated and the wild, either metaphorically, by dominance, by indication, or however you wish, and their lawfulness in their generality is specific to the state of you not permitting hunting in ihram, since with that [the ihram], some are forbidden—which is the wild game. It is not hidden that this is a "wild" (strange) orientation that the standard of the ultimate revelation (Hamza of the peak of revelation) should not intend from the observational points of his phrasing.
Al-Akhfash went to the view that "not" (ghayr) is in the accusative as a state from the pronoun in "fulfill" (awfu). This was weakened because it involves separating the state and its owner with a clause that is not parenthetical, as it is explanatory; and the interjection of some parts of the explained [sentence] between the parts of the explained [sentence]—along with what is required in it of restricting the contracts to what is obligatory or recommended in the Hajj—otherwise, the restriction to that state remains without purpose, even though they are commanded to fulfill contracts absolutely.
The scholar claimed that it is closer to the first in meaning, even if it is further in wording, and he used as evidence what is at the tip of the reed (tammam). Then he said: Some of them made it a state from the agent of "We made lawful" (ahlalna), indicated by His saying: "Lawful for you," and it necessitates making "while you are in the state of ihram" also a state from an implied [subject], i.e., "while we are not permitting hunting during your ihram." This is not far-fetched except from the aspect of two nested states being in the accusative without the owner of the state appearing in the wording. Abu Hayyan critiqued this, saying it is corrupt because they have established that the deleted agent in such a case becomes "a forgotten memory," so it is not permissible for the state to occur from it. They said: If you said, "The rain was sent down, answering their prayer," on the basis that "answering" is a state from the agent of the verb built for the passive, it would not be permitted—especially according to the school of those who say the passive-built form is an original structure, not derived from the active. Moreover, there is an argument regarding the restriction. Some made it a state from the genitive pronoun in "for you" ('alaykum), but this is rejected because what is recited is not restricted to the state of their non-permitting of hunting while they are in ihram; rather, it is recited to them in this state and in others.
Al-Baydawi narrated from someone that the accusative is for exception (istithna'), and he mentioned that there is strain in it. Our master, the Shaykh of All, Sibghat Allah Effendi al-Haydari (may mercy be upon him), clarified that if it were an exception, it would either be from the pronoun in "for you" or in "fulfill," since there is no validity for excepting it from bahimah al-an'am. Regarding the first, it is necessary to restrict the bahimah to what is other than the an'am among what resembles them, or it remains general but on the condition of rotating only the similar in the realm of exception, and that His saying "while you are in the state of ihram" be made part of the completion of the exception, by being a state from what is hidden in the [previous] place, so that the exception is valid, as it has no validity without these two considerations. The arrangement of the phrasing requires saying "while they are in ihram" because the exception removed the "permitting" [people] from the group of the addressees, and the consideration of the shift in person (iltifat) here is far-fetched as it is a raiser in what is equivalent to a single word. Regarding the second, it is necessary to restrict the "contracts" to the duties occurring in Hajj, and to interpret the request-based speech with what its necessary implication of information is, along with what is necessary of separation between the excepted and the thing excepted from by a foreign element. All of this is strain upon strain, he concluded. It seems he did not mention the possibility of the exception being from the exception, although al-Qurtubi narrated it from the Basrans; for that is corrupt, as al-Qurtubi and Abu Hayyan said—not strained—as it would necessitate the permissibility of hunting in the Sanctuary because the excepted [subject] is from the forbidden. Yes, Abu Hayyan mentioned that it is an exception from bahimah al-an'am in a way that he specified, and he refused the artificiality and strain. He said: The difficulty in the verse only appeared—to the point that people were perturbed in deriving it—from the fact that the script of "permitting" (muhilli) is written with the letter ya', so they thought it was an active participle from ahalla (to permit), and that it is added to the "hunting" (prey), an addition of the active participle governing the object, and that it is a plural with the nun deleted for the addition—the origin being ghayr muhilli al-sayd.
What resolves the difficulty and clarifies the meaning is to make His saying "not permitting the hunting" a case of their saying "fair women" (hassan al-nisa'), the meaning being "the fair women." Likewise, the origin of this is ghayr al-sayd al-muhill (not the permitted hunting), and muhill is an adjective for the hunting, not for the people. Describing the hunting as being muhill is either in the sense of entering into the state of lawfulness—as you say "the man became muhill," i.e., he entered into the state of lawfulness, and "he entered into ihram," i.e., he entered into the Sanctuary—or in the sense of becoming possessed of lawfulness, i.e., lawful through the permitting of Allah, the Exalted. The coming of the verb af'ala in the two mentioned ways is frequent in the tongue of the Arabs. From the first: a'raq (he entered Iraq), asha'ama (he went towards the Levant), aymana (he went towards Yemen), anjada (he went towards the highlands), athama (he went towards the Tihama). From the second: a'shabat al-ard (the earth became grassy), abqalat (it produced herbs), aghada al-ba'ir (the camel became fat). Once it is established that the hunting can be described as muhill considering both aspects, it becomes clear that it is a second exception. Then, if the intention is the bahimah al-an'am itself, it is a disconnected exception, or [if it means] deer and the like, then it is connected according to the interpretation of muhill as the one who reaches lawfulness while they are in the state of ihram.
(If you say): What is the benefit of this exception with the condition of reaching lawfulness, while hunting within the Sanctuary is not permitted anyway? (I say): Hunting within the Sanctuary is not permitted for the one in ihram nor for the one not in ihram, and the intention is the statement of the prohibition of what is specific to the one in ihram. (If you say): Your aforementioned strange orientation is spoiled by its script in the Mushaf with the ya' and the stopping on it with it? (I say): They have written things in the Mushaf that contradict speech, such as "I will surely slaughter him" (la-adhbahannahu) with an alif, and they followed the script in the stopping.
Al-Safaqisi critiqued this with the same as what we presented regarding the addition of the ya', and in it is the confusion of the singular with the plural, while they flee from addition or subtraction in the script. How could they add an addition that results in confusion in terms of the addition of the adjective to the noun described, which is not measured? Al-Halabi said: In it is a violation of the consensus, for they did not parse "other than" (ghayr) except as a state; they only differed in its owner. Then al-Safaqisi said: Two derivations are possible: One, that "other than" is a disconnected exception and muhill is a plural in its standard form, the intent being the people who enter into the lawfulness of hunting, i.e., "But if you enter into the lawfulness of hunting, it is not permissible for you to hunt." The second is that it is connected to bahimah al-an'am, and there is a deletion of an implied noun in the speech, i.e., "Lawful for you is the bahimah of the an'am except the hunting of those entering the lawfulness of hunting while you are in ihram, so it is not lawful." It is possible that it is in its standard form of permitting, and the exception is connected and the implied noun is deleted, i.e., "Except the hunting of those who permit hunting while you are in ihram." The intent by those "permitting" are those who do the act of one who believes in lawfulness, so it is not permitted. It means that the hunting of the Sanctuary is like the carcass; it is not permitted to eat it absolutely. It is also possible that it is a state from the pronoun in "for you" (lakum), and the conjoined element is deleted for the indication of it, which is frequent, and its estimation is "not permitting the hunting [or its eating]"—as His saying: "They shield you from the heat" (i.e., and the cold). It is a good derivation. This is the matter, and it is not hidden that the hand of Allah is with the community and that what others mentioned is not free from objection.
(Indeed, Allah judges what He intends)
