| Al-Ma'idah : ( 96 ) "Lawful to you is the game of the sea..."

(Lawful to you), O you who are in a state of Ihram, (the game of the sea), meaning what is hunted in water, whether it be sea, river, or pond. It is that whose birth and dwelling-place are in the water, whether it is edible or otherwise, as stated in al-Bada'i'. In the Manasik of al-Kirmani, what is permitted of the sea game for the muhrim (the one in Ihram) is specifically fish; as for birds (of the water), there is no permission for them. The first (opinion) is the most correct.

(And its food), meaning what is eaten of its game. This is a conjunction of the specific to the general (referring back to "game"). The meaning is: It is lawful for you to seek out all that is hunted in the waters, to benefit from it, and to eat that which is edible—which is fish according to us. According to Ibn Abi Layla, both "game" and "food" are taken in their masdar (verbal noun) meanings. He posits an implicit addition in "game of the sea" and makes the pronoun in "its food" refer to the act of hunting, not the sea itself. That is: It is lawful for you to hunt sea animals and for you to consume and eat them. Thus, he considers the eating of all sea animals lawful insofar as they are animals.

It is said: The meaning of "game of the sea" is what is caught and then dies, and "its food" is what the sea casts out dead. This is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), Ibn Umar, and Qatadah.

It is also said: The meaning of the former is fresh, and the latter is salted. It is called "food" because it is stored to be eaten, so it becomes like staple sustenance. This is narrated from Ibn al-Musayyib, Ibn Jarir, and Mujahid; it is also one of two narrations from Ibn Abbas. This view is far-fetched, and even more far-fetched is the idea that "its food" refers to the vegetation and fruits that grow from its water. It has also been read as tu'muhu (its taste).

(An enjoyment for you), accusative as a maf'ul lahu (causative object) for "lawful," meaning "for your enjoyment." Al-Kashshaf confines it to "food," just as nafilatan (an extra) in the verse "And We gave him Isaac and Jacob as an extra" is confined to Jacob (peace be upon him). The motive for this, as al-Shihab said, is the author's doctrine—which is the doctrine of our Imam (the Greatest Imam)—that sea game is divided into what is edible and what is not, and that "its food" is the edible portion. However, it is objected that this leads to one verb being attributed to two coordinated agents, while the maf'ul lahu mentioned after them applies to only one of them, like "Zayd and 'Amr stood for your glorification," where the glorification applies only to the standing of one of them. This is problematic. As for the state (hal) in the aforementioned verse, it is not analogous because there is an obvious rational indicator (the extra is the grandson, not the son). According to other than the Imam's doctrine, there is no restriction of the maf'ul lahu to one of them, which is clear and manifest.

It is said: It is accusative as a confirming masdar for an implied verb, meaning "He permitted for you, as an enjoyment." It is said: It confirms the meaning of "lawful," for it is equivalent to "He has made enjoyable for you, an enjoyment," like His saying, "The Book of Allah upon you." It is said—though it is nothing—that it is a state (hal) intended for the residents among you, eating it fresh, (and for the travelers) among you, taking it as provisions in dried form. It is feminine (sayyara) in consideration of the group, as al-Raghib said.

(And forbidden to you is the game of the land), which is what is born and dwells on land, being naturally wild. This includes the domesticated gazelle (if it reverts to wildness), and excludes the camel and sheep that have become wild due to the occurrence of that attribute. The fact that the sacrifice of a domesticated gazelle is by slaughtering (dhabh) and a wild domestic animal by wounding ('aqr) does not contradict this; for the sacrifice by slaughter or wounding revolves around possibility and impossibility, not the status of the "game."

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) excepted five. In the Sahihayn, on the authority of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Five animals, there is no sin upon the muhrim in killing them: the scorpion, the rat/mouse, the vicious dog (predatory animal), the crow, and the kite." The naming of them as fawasiq (vermin/sinners) has passed. In Fath al-Qadir, it is stated that some land game is excepted, such as the wolf, the crow, and the kite. As for the rest of the fawasiq, they are not "game." As for the rest of the predatory animals, the explicit text in the Zahir al-Riwayah is that there is no exception, and that killing them requires a penalty (not exceeding a sheep) if the muhrim initiates, but if it initiates against him, there is nothing upon him, such as the lion, leopard, tiger, falcon, and hawk. The author of al-Bada'i' divides land animals into edible and non-edible, and the latter into those that usually initiate harm, like the lion, wolf, and tiger, and those that do not, like the hyena, leopard, and fox. Killing the first and last is not lawful unless they attack, while killing the second is lawful without penalty even if it does not attack. He treated the text regarding the fawasiq as having a dalalah (implication), and he did not narrate any disagreement. However, in al-Khaniyah, and from Abu Yusuf, the lion is in the status of the wolf. In the Zahir al-Riwayah, all predators are "game" except the dog and the wolf. Perhaps the exception of the wolf is due to its mention in the exceptions, as narrated by Abu Shaybah, al-Daraqutni, and al-Tahawi.

It is said: Because it is the intended meaning of "vicious dog" in the aforementioned report. It is said: Because it is in its meaning, so it is attached by dalalah. As for the dog, its exception has come in the hadith, but it is described as "vicious." Perhaps the Imam only considers the genus.

It was reviewed by saying that this leads to nullifying the described attribute. The answer given is that it is not for restriction, but to manifest the type of harm, for that is a trait of it. Sa'di Chalabi said: If this view were correct, it would necessitate considering the concept of the attribute (the mafhum al-sifah), indeed all concepts, which is contrary to our principles. As for all predators being game except those excepted, there is a disagreement with Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) as well. According to him, they are included in the excepted fawasiq by analogy, or attached by dalalah, or because the "vicious dog" encompasses them linguistically.

Some of our companions answered that analogy with the fawasiq—which are those that attack us due to proximity—is not applicable to the predator, for it is not like that due to its distance from us. Thus, it is not in the meaning of the fawasiq to be attached to them. And the name "dog," even if it encompasses them linguistically, does not encompass them customarily ('urfan), and custom is stronger and more preponderant in this position, as in oaths, because it is built upon precaution. There is a long-tailed discussion here; contemplate it.

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) read hurrima 'alaykum saydu (it was forbidden to you... game) in the active voice harrama, meaning "Allah has forbidden to you the game of the land as long as you are hurum (in the state of Ihram)." It was read dumtum with a kasrah on the dal, like khiftum from dama yudamu, which is a dialect. Ibn Abbas also read huruman with two fatha's, meaning "possessors of haram (sanctity/Ihram)," or as an intensive. The apparent meaning of the verse necessitates the prohibition of what a non-muhrim hunts for the muhrim, even if he has no hand in it. This is the view of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar, and it is reported from Ali (may Allah be honored) and a group of the predecessors. It is argued for by what Muslim narrated from al-Sa'b ibn Jaththama al-Laythi, that he gifted the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) a wild donkey—in one narration: wild donkey meat, in another: a leg of a wild donkey dripping with blood, in another: a portion of game meat—and he (the Prophet) was at al-Abwa' or Waddan. He returned it to him, and when he saw what was in his (al-Sa'b's) face, he said: "We only returned it to you because we are hurum."

From Abu Hurayrah, 'Ata', Mujahid, and Ibn Jubayr—and al-Tahawi narrated it from Umar, Talhah, and Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them)—it is that it is lawful for him to eat what a non-muhrim hunts, even if he hunted it for his sake, provided he did not point it out, hint at it, or command him to hunt it. Similarly, what he slaughtered before his Ihram (is lawful). This is the school of Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) according to what al-Tahawi chose, because the address is to those in Ihram; so it is as if it were said: "Forbidden to you is what you hunt in the land," so the game of others is excluded. Or it is said that the intent is their actual or legal hunting, and the form of pointing or commanding is from the second division. Malik, Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Dawud (may Allah have mercy on them) said it is not permitted if it was hunted for his sake, due to what Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nasa'i narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The meat of game is lawful for you while you are muhrimun, as long as you do not hunt it or it is hunted for you." The answer is that Muhammad narrated from Abu Hanifah from Ibn al-Munkadir from Talhah ibn Ubayd Allah (may Allah be pleased with him): "We discussed the meat of game: the muhrim eats it, so he commanded us to eat it." The Hafiz Abu Abd Allah al-Husayn narrated from Abu Hanifah from Hisham ibn 'Urwah from his father from his grandfather al-Zubayr ibn al-'Awwam: "We used to carry the meat of game in strips, and we used to take it as provision, and we used to eat it while we were muhrimun with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)."

Muslim narrated from Abd Allah ibn Abi Qatadah from his father: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) went for Hajj and we went with him. He sent a group of his companions, including Abu Qatadah, and said: "Take the seashore until you meet me." They took the seashore. When they left, they all entered Ihram except Abu Qatadah, who did not. While they were traveling, they saw wild donkeys. Abu Qatadah attacked them and wounded a female. They dismounted and ate of its meat. They said: "We ate meat while we were muhrimun." They carried what remained of the meat of the female. When they came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they said: "O Messenger of Allah, we had entered Ihram, and Abu Qatadah had not. We saw wild donkeys, and Abu Qatadah attacked them and wounded a female. We dismounted and ate its meat, then we said: 'We are eating game meat while we are muhrimun,' so we carried what remained." He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Did any of you command him or point out anything to him?" They said: "No." He said: "Eat what remains of its meat."

In a narration of Muslim, he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Do you have anything of it?" They said: "We have its leg." He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) took it and ate it. The hadith of Jabir is interpreted in two ways: First, that the "lam" (for) indicates ownership—meaning it is hunted and made his property—and it is impossible for him to own the game and then eat its meat. Second, that it is meant that it is hunted by his command, because the norm in human action for another is that it is by his request and engagement. Interpreting to push away contradiction is, as many have said, a standard practice. Ibn al-Humam said: It may be said that the principles necessitate not judging by contradiction between the hadith of Jabir and the first two reports of these three reports, because the saying of Talhah "He commanded us to eat it" is restricted in our view to when the muhrim did not point it out—contrary to Abu Abd Allah al-Jurjani—nor command him to kill it, as indicated by the hadith of Abu Qatadah. Thus, it must be restricted to when it was not hunted for the muhrim by the other hadith.

The hadith of al-Zubayr amounts to reporting past events, and reports have no generality. It is possible that what they were carrying of game meat for provisions was not hunted for the sake of the muhrimun. Rather, that is the apparent meaning, because they likely took it as provisions from the city, and Ihram (takes place) after going out to the Miqat. The best approach is to argue for the original intent using the aforementioned hadith of Abu Qatadah from the perspective of contradiction. It (the hadith) establishes that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not answer regarding its lawfulness for them until he asked them about the impediments to lawfulness, whether they were present or not. If hunting for them was among the impediments, he would have included it in the string of things he asked about, to examine the impediments so as to answer with lawfulness when they are absent.

This meaning is almost explicit in denying that hunting is an impediment, so it contradicts the hadith of Jabir and takes precedence over it due to the strength of its proof, as it is in the Sahihayn and other six books, unlike the other. Indeed, it has been said that the hadith of Jabir has an interruption, for al-Muttalib in its chain of transmission did not hear it from Jabir according to more than one, and similarly, among its men are those in whom there is weakness. After the establishment of what we have chosen by what we mentioned, the proof holds for the interpretation mentioned. End. You know that there is also something in the hadith of Jabir from the perspective of Arabic, but perhaps the matter is easy.

It remains that the hadith of al-Sa'b, by its appearance, contradicts what the people of the latter two schools used as proof. Some Hanafis chose in the answer that it has a disturbance (idtirab) not found in the hadith of Qatadah, to the extent that 'Amr ibn Umayyah al-Damri narrated from his father that al-Sa'b gifted the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) a haunch of a wild donkey at al-Juhfah, and he ate from it (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the people ate. Thus, the hadith of Qatadah is better. What happened there happened during Hajj, as the narration we mentioned recounts, and it is known that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not perform Hajj after the Hijrah except for the Farewell Hajj. Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) said in the answer: It is possible that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) knew that it was hunted for him, so he returned it to him, so it does not contradict the hadith of Jabir. His (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reasoning for the rejection, that he was muhrim, does not prevent it from having been hunted for him, because game is only forbidden to a person if it is hunted for him provided he is a muhrim. So he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explained the condition by which it is forbidden. It is said: Jabir gifted a donkey, so he returned it (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) because it is impossible for a muhrim to own game. It is not hidden that the narrations indicating the partiality are more numerous, and there is no contradiction between them. Thus, the narration that he gifted a donkey is interpreted as the release of the name of the whole for the part. The reverse is impossible here, as applying "the leg," for example, to the whole animal is not customary. They have clearly stated that it is not permissible to apply "a finger" and the like to Zayd. Because the condition for applying the name of a part to a whole is interdependence, like "neck" and "head" for a human, for there is no human without them, unlike "leg" and "nail." As for the application of "the eye" to vision, it is not insofar as he is a human, but insofar as he is a watcher, and in this respect, he does not exist without an eye; or it is one of the meanings of a homonym, as many have counted it. So be mindful.

(And fear Allah) regarding what He has forbidden you of game, or in all the sins of which that is a part, (to Whom you will be gathered).

69

(Not to other than Him), so that one might imagine salvation from His seizing by resorting to that other.

This is from the symbolic interpretation of the verses: (O you who have believed) with a knowledgeable faith, (do not prohibit) by your negligence in the path, (the good things which Allah has made lawful to you) of the unveilings of states and manifestations of attributes, (and do not transgress) by the appearance of the soul with its attributes, (and eat of what Allah has provided for you), meaning: make what Allah has bestowed upon you of the sciences of manifestations and the gifts of states and stations the food of your hearts, (lawful and good. And fear Allah) in the attainment of that for you, by returning them from Him and for Him. Many have made this an address to those who have arrived among the people of the path, when they wanted to return to the people of the beginnings of struggles; so they were forbidden from that and ordered to eat the lawful and good. They interpreted "the lawful" as what reaches the knowers from the treasuries of the Unseen without hardship, and "the good" as what strengthens the heart in the longing for Allah and the remembrance of His majesty. It is said: "The lawful and good" is what is eaten upon witnessing; otherwise, it is upon remembrance, for eating in heedlessness is forbidden in the path of the spiritual journey. Others said: "The lawful and good" is what the knower sees in the treasury of Decree and takes from it with the description of contentment and submission, and "the forbidden" is what is decreed for another and he strives to seize it for himself. (Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths), which is swearing due to the soul's weariness, the fatigue of faculties, and the overcoming of the sultan of desire. They counted among the "unintentional" in oaths the swearing upon Allah by His beauty and majesty (Glory be to Him) when longing overcomes and taste is found, that He provide him with something of His approach and Union; for that is "unintentional" in the jurisprudence of contentment and the path of submission. That which this requires is what is indicated by the saying: "I desire His union and He desires my abandonment, so I abandon what I desire for what He desires." But Allah (Exalted is He) does not hold the swearer to account for it because of His knowledge of the weakness of his state. They also counted among that what passes on the tongues of the travelers in the overcoming of the ecstasy, from renewing the covenant and confirming the bond, such as the saying of one of them: "By Your right, I will not look to other than You with an eye of affection until I see You." For that contradicts Unity. "Is there any dweller in the house?" No, rather it is Allah, the One, the Compelling. (But He will impose blame upon you for what you intended of oaths), and that is when you determine abandonment and expose yourselves to being forsaken from the core of the heart. (So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people), which are, as some have said, the five outer senses and the five inner senses. (From the average of that which you feed your families), and they are the heart, the secret, the hidden soul, and their food is longing, love, truthfulness, sincerity, delegation, submission, contentment, intimacy, awe, witnessing, and unveilings. The "average" are remembrance, contemplation, longing, reliance, devotion, fear, and hope. Feeding the senses that is to occupy them with it. (Or clothing them), the garment of piety. (Or the freeing of a slave), and it is the neck of the soul, so he frees it from the slavery of greed and desire. (And whoever does not find) and is not able, (then a fast of three days). He withholds in the first day from what he determined, in the second day from what does not concern him, and in the third day from returning to it. It is said: He (Exalted is He) used the fasting of three days as a metaphor for repentance and steadfastness upon it as long as the world remains. For it has been said: The world is three days; a day that has passed, a day you are in, and a day you do not know what Allah (Exalted is He) is ordaining in it. (And obey Allah) by annihilation in Him, (and obey the Messenger) by remaining after annihilation, (and beware) of the appearance of that by looking toward your souls. (And if you turn away, then know that there is only upon Our Messenger the notification), and he did not fall short; the shortcoming is from you. (There is not upon those who have believed) by imitation, (and done righteous deeds), the bodily legal actions, (any blame for what they have eaten) of the permissible things, (if they fear Allah)—the polytheism of selfishness—(and believe) in the Identity, (then fear Allah)—this polytheism which is annihilation—(and do good)—by remaining by Him (Glory be to Him). This was said by al-Naysaburi.

Others said: "There is not upon those who have believed"—the ocular faith in the unity of actions—"and done according to the requirement of their faith" actions that take them out of the veils of actions and make them fit to see the actions of the Truth—"any blame or constriction in what they have enjoyed of the types of good fortunes if they have avoided the remnants of their actions, and taken Allah (Exalted is He) as a protection in the occurrence of actions from them, and believed in the unity of attributes, and done what takes them out of their veils and makes them fit to witness the divine attributes by being wiped out in them, then feared the remnants of their attributes and taken Allah (Exalted is He) as a protection in the appearance of His attributes upon them, and believed in the unity of the Essence, then feared the rest of their essences and taken Allah (Exalted is He) as a protection in their existence by pure annihilation and consumption in the Essence itself, and done good by witnessing the detail in the essence of unity and steadfastness in remaining after annihilation." (And Allah loves the doers of good), those who remain in their annihilation, or those who witness Unity in the essence of multiplicity, observing the rights of details in the essence of unity by the True Existence. (O you who have believed) in the Unseen, (He will surely test you) in the midst of the journey and the Ihram for visiting the Ka'bah of arrival with something of the game, meaning the good fortunes and the intents of the soul, (which your hands and your spears reach), meaning: what is made easy and prepared for you of what is reached by it. It is said: What the hands reach are bodily pleasures, and what the spears reach are imaginary pleasures. (That Allah may know)—the knowledge upon which the reward is based—who fears Him in the unseen—meaning in the state of absence, and that is only for those who believe in the Unseen, because it is linked to the punishment which is of the realm of actions. As for in presence, there is dread (khashyah) and awe, not fear (khawf). The first is more appropriate for the manifestation of the attributes of Lordship and Majesty, the second for the manifestation of the Essence. Thus, fear is, as it is said, of the attributes of the soul, dread is of the attributes of the heart, and awe is of the attributes of the spirit. So whoever transgresses after that by taking something of the fortunes, (for him is a painful punishment), which is the punishment of being veiled. (O you who have believed, do not kill the game while you are in the state of Ihram), meaning in the state of true Ihram. (And whoever of you kills it intentionally)—by committing something of the soul's fortunes purposefully—(then its penalty is the equivalent of what he killed)—by suppressing that power of the bestial soul with which he committed the act, with something that equals that fortune—(judged by two just men among you)—and they are the theoretical and practical faculties—(as an offering delivered to the Ka'bah)—the true one—and that is by annihilating it in Allah (Exalted is He), (or an expiation: the feeding of needy people or the equivalent of that in fasting)—meaning or by covering that power with charity or fasting. (Lawful to you is the game of the sea), which is what is in the spiritual world of knowledges, (and its food), which is the useful knowledge of dealings and ethics, (as an enjoyment)—meaning enjoyment for you, O travelers on the path of Truth—(and for the travelers)—those traveling the journey of the Hereafter. (And forbidden to you is the game of the land), which is what is in the physical world of the perceived things and the soul's fortunes. (And fear Allah) in your journey, (and know that it is to Him that you will be gathered) by annihilation, so strive in the path and do not stop at the impediments. And He is Allah (Exalted is He), the Facilitator for righteousness, and to Him is the return and the end.