Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:5

(This day are made lawful for you the good things). The repetition of this ruling serves for emphasis and as a preamble to what follows. The reason for mentioning "this day" is known from what was mentioned yesterday.

Al-Naysaburi said: The benefit of this repetition is to ensure the permanence of this ruling upon the completion and establishment of the religion; the former view is more accurate.

(And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you), meaning: permissible. The "relative" (al-mawṣūl) refers to the Jews and the Christians, even the Arab Christians according to our school. It is reported from Ali, may Allah the Exalted ennoble his face, that he excepted the Christians of the Banu Taghlib, saying: "They are not upon Christianity, and they have taken nothing from it except the drinking of wine." Ibn Jubayr held this view, as did Al-Rabi’ from Al-Shafi’i, may Allah be pleased with him. The intended meaning of "their food" is their slaughtered animals and other foods, as reported from Ibn Abbas, Abu Darda, Ibrahim, Qatadah, Al-Suddi, Al-Dahhak, and Mujahid, may Allah be pleased with them all. Al-Jubai, Al-Balkhi, and others held this view.

In Al-Bukhari, it is narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that what is intended is the slaughtered animals, because there is no disagreement regarding the lawfulness of other foods; this is the position of the majority of exegetes. It is also said that it is restricted to grains and whatever does not require slaughtering (tadhkiyah); this is what is reported among the Imamiyyah from Abu Abd Allah, may Allah be pleased with him, and a group of the Zaydiyyah held this view. Thus, according to them, their slaughtered animals are not lawful. The ruling on the Sabeans is the same as the People of the Scripture according to the Great Imam (Abu Hanifa), may Allah be pleased with him. His two companions (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad) said: The Sabeans are of two types: one type reads the Psalms and worships the angels, and another type reads no scripture and worships the stars; these are not of the People of the Scripture. As for the Magians, the ruling of the People of the Scripture was applied to them regarding the taking of jizyah, but not the eating of their slaughtered animals nor the marriage of their women. This is based on what Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shaybah, and Al-Bayhaqi reported via Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Ali, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) wrote to the Magians of Hajar, offering them Islam; whoever accepted it, it was accepted from him, and whoever persisted was subjected to the jizyah, without taking their women in marriage." Although this is mursal (a report lacking a companion in the chain) and contains Qays ibn al-Rabi’, who is weak, the consensus of the majority of Muslims—as Al-Bayhaqi said—confirms it.

Scholars differed regarding the lawfulness of the slaughtered animal of a Jew or Christian if a name other than Allah’s, such as Ezra or Jesus, peace be upon them, is mentioned over it. Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, said: "It is not lawful." This is the view of Rabi’ah. The majority of scholars went to the position that it is lawful, which is the view of Al-Sha’bi and Ata’. They said: "For Allah, the Exalted, has made their slaughtered animals lawful while knowing what they say."

Al-Hasan said: "If a Jew or Christian slaughters and mentions a name other than Allah’s while you are listening, do not eat. But if it is hidden from you, then eat, for Allah, the Exalted, has made it lawful for you."

(And your food is lawful for them). Al-Zajjaj and many of the later scholars said: This is an address to the believers. The meaning is: There is no sin upon you, O believers, to feed the People of the Scripture from your food. The verse is not a valid proof for those who believe that the disbelievers are addressed by the branches of the Shari'ah, because the allowance (taḥlīl) is a ruling, and He, the Exalted, attached it to them just as He attached the ruling to the believers. It was objected to based on the apparent meaning that this only follows if the "feeding" (iṭ’ām) were a substitute for "food" (ṭa’ām). Those who claimed that "food" stands in place of "feeding" via metaphor were refuted because separating the verbal noun from its relative clause with the predicate of the initial noun is prohibited. They have declared that it is not permissible to say "The feeding of Zayd is good for the poor" or "Your striking is intense against Zayd," so how could "Your food is lawful for them" be permissible?

Some said: If it is asked, "What is the wisdom in this sentence, for they are disbelievers and do not need our clarification?" The response is that the meaning is: "Look at what has been made lawful for you in your Shari'ah; if they feed you of it, then eat it, and do not look at what was forbidden for them." For example, camel meat and the like were forbidden to them and then abrogated in our Shari'ah. The verse is a clarification for us, not for them—meaning: Know that what was forbidden to them of that which is lawful for you, has also been made lawful for you. Therefore, if they fed us swine or the like and said, "It is lawful in our Shari'ah," and Allah has made their food lawful for us, we would refute them and say, "The food that is lawful for you is that which is ours, no other." The essence of the meaning is: "Their food is lawful for you if it is the food which I have made lawful for you." This interpretation is the meaning of the statement of Al-Suddi and others, so understand it, as it has become obscure for some contemporaries.

(And [lawful to you in marriage are] chaste women from the believers) is a conjunction to "the good things" or it is an initial noun with a deleted predicate due to the indication of what preceded it, meaning: "Also made lawful for you." The prepositional phrase is connected to a deleted item that functions as a state (ḥāl) from "chaste women" or from the pronoun within it, according to what Abu al-Baqa said. What is intended by them, according to Al-Hasan, Al-Sha’bi, and Ibrahim, is those who are abstinent; according to Mujahid, it is free women, which Abu Ali chose; and according to a group, it is those who are both abstinent and free. Their specific mention is for the sake of emphasizing what is most proper, not to negate anything else, for the marriage of enslaved believing women under their conditions is valid by consensus, as is the marriage of those among them who are not chaste. As for enslaved women of the People of the Scripture, they are like the believing women according to the Great Imam, may Allah be pleased with him.

(And chaste women from those who were given the Scripture before you), even if they are from the lands of war (ḥarbiyyāt), as is the apparent meaning. Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, said: "The marriage of women from the lands of war is not permissible," and he restricted the verse to those under the protection of Islam (dhimmiyyāt). He argued for this with the verse: "You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger," and marriage requires affection according to the verse: "He created for you from yourselves mates, and placed between you affection and mercy." Al-Jassas said: "In our view, this only indicates dislike (karāhah), and our companions dislike intermarriage with the people of war."

The Imamiyyah held that it is not permissible to contract a permanent marriage with women of the People of the Scripture due to the verse: "Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe," and His saying: "And do not hold onto marriage bonds with disbelieving women." They interpreted this verse to mean that the "chaste women from those who were given the Scripture" are those who converted to Islam among them, and the "chaste women from the believers" are those who were originally believers. This is because some people were hesitant to marry those who converted from disbelief, so Allah, the Exalted, clarified that there is no sin in that. Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, also held this interpretation of "chaste women" as those who converted. It is not hidden that this is contrary to the apparent meaning and the structure of the text rejects it. For this reason, some claimed that the apparent meaning is intended, but that lawfulness is restricted to mut’ah (temporary) marriage and concubinage, and intercourse with them is lawful in both ways according to the Shi'ah. You know that this is more calamitous and bitter. Therefore, some fled to the claim that the verse is abrogated by the two verses mentioned earlier, arguing with what Al-Jarud reported from Abu Ja'far, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding that. This is not valid via the path of the Sunnis.

Yes, Ibn Jarir reported from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that he said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade all types of women except those who were of the believing emigrant women, and forbade every woman of a religion other than Islam." Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn al-Mundhir reported from Jabir ibn Abdullah that he was asked about a Muslim marrying a Jewish or Christian woman, and he said: "We married them during the time of the Conquest, and we hardly found many believing women. When we returned, we divorced them." Ibn Jarir reported from Al-Hasan that he was asked, "May a man marry a woman from the People of the Scripture?" He said, "What does he have to do with the People of the Scripture? Allah has provided many believing women! If he must do so, let him choose a chaste woman, not an adulteress." The man asked, "What is an adulteress?" He said, "She is the one who, when a man glances at her with his eye, follows him."

(When you have given them their due compensation), meaning their dowries, and it is the compensation for the enjoyment of them, as Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, and others said. The condition of lawfulness is tied to giving it to emphasize its obligation, not as a restriction. It is possible that "giving" refers to commitment and obligation metaphorically, which is perhaps closer than the first, even if the result is one. "When" (idha) is an adverb for the deleted "lawful," and it is possible that it is conditional with a deleted answer, meaning: "When you give them their dowries, they become lawful for you."

(Being chaste), meaning abstinent through marriage, and it is in the accusative case as a state from the subject of "you have given," as is His saying, exalted be He: (Not being unlawful lovers). It is said: It is a state from the pronoun of "chaste," and it is said: It is an adjective for "chaste," meaning not publicizing adultery.

(And not taking secret lovers), meaning and not doing so secretly. A "secret lover" (khidan) is a friend, applicable to both male and female. It is said: The first is a prohibition against adultery, and the second is a prohibition against fraternizing with them. "Taking" (mutakhidhī) can be in the genitive case as a conjunction to "unlawful lovers" (musafiḥīn), with "la" (nor) added to emphasize the negation derived from "ghayr" (not). It can also be in the accusative case as a conjunction to "ghayr musafiḥīn" based on its three aspects.

(And whoever denies the faith), meaning whoever rejects what is believed in, which are the Shari'ah laws of Islam, among which is what is explained here regarding the rulings of lawfulness and prohibition, and refuses to accept them, (then his work has become worthless), meaning that which he did and believed to be an act of worship bringing him closer to Allah, the Exalted, (and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers), meaning the destroyed.

The verse is an appending (tadhyīl) to His saying, Exalted be He: "This day are made lawful for you the good things..." to magnify the affair of what Allah has made lawful and what He has made forbidden, and to sternly warn those who oppose that. Interpreting "faith" according to the verbal noun and estimating an added word, as was said—meaning "by the requirements of faith"—is not substantiated, even if the speech of Mujahid suggests it. The pronoun "he" is the initial noun, and "among the losers" is its predicate. "In the Hereafter" is connected to what the predicate is connected to regarding absolute stability. It is said: It is connected to a deleted item indicated by the mentioned one, meaning: "losers in the Hereafter." It is said: It is connected to "the losers," on the condition that "al" (the) is a definite article, not a relative pronoun, because what follows it cannot act upon what precedes it. It is said: That which is not forgiven in other cases is forgiven in the adverb, as in the saying: "I raised him until, when he reached maturity, my reward was that he struck me with the staff."