Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:119

(And why is it that you do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned?) This is a denunciation of their having any cause that would invite them to refrain from eating what has been mentioned of the name of Allah, the Exalted. The ma (what) is for interrogative denial, and it is not negative as some have claimed. It is a predicate-subject, and lakum (to you) is the predicate; the an in an ta’kulu (that you eat) is with the omission of a preposition—meaning, bi-an ta’kulu (for you to eat). The disagreement regarding the syntactic status of the phrase formed by the particle and the verb after the omission is well-known.

It has been permitted that it could be a hal (circumstantial accusative), but this has been refuted on the grounds that the masdar mu’awwal (interpreted infinitive) consisting of an and the verb cannot function as a hal, as Sibawayh explicitly stated, because it is definite and because it is a source (masdar) marked by the sign of the future tense, which contradicts the state of being (hal), unless it is interpreted as an indefinite or an omitted noun is assumed—meaning: "possessors of (not eating)." As for the object of ta’kulu, Abu al-Baqa’ stated it is omitted, meaning: "any thing from that..." It is said: The manifest meaning of the verse suggests that it is permissible to eat of that upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned and of other things together; the min is not for partiality (tab’id), for the sake of excluding them, but rather for excluding that which is not eaten, such as dung and blood. This is already excluded by the preceding restriction, so do not be heedless.

The reason for the revelation of the verse, according to Imam Abu Mansur, is that the Muslims were hesitant to eat the good things due to asceticism and austerity, so this was revealed. (And He has detailed for you what He has forbidden you) refers to His saying: (Say, "I do not find within that which was revealed to me anything forbidden...") to the end of the verse. Thus, what remains besides that is permissible. It is also said that it refers to His saying: (Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood...). The Imam objected to this by stating that Surah al-Ma’idah is among the last that was revealed in Medina, while this [Surah al-An’am] is Meccan, as you know; therefore, that is not possible. As for the delay in the order of recitation, it does not necessitate a delay in the timing of revelation. Thus, the delay of "Say, I do not find..." in this Surah compared to that verse in that Surah does not cause harm. It is also said: The detailing occurred through non-recited revelation. The sentence is circumstantial, emphasizing the previous denial.

(Except that to which you have been compelled) i.e., that which necessity has called you to eat due to severe famine. The manifest appraisal of al-Zamakhshari, as the second scholar said, requires that ma be a relative pronoun (mawsua); therefore, it is only correct if the exception is disjointed (munqati’), meaning: "But that which you are compelled to eat from what is forbidden to you is permissible for you at the time of necessity." He—may Allah have mercy on him—permitted it to be an exception from the pronoun in "He has forbidden you," and ma as a masdariyah (infinitive) in the sense of duration—meaning: "He has detailed for you the things that He has forbidden you, except for the time of being compelled to them." This was objected to on the grounds that it is not valid for it to be an exception from the pronoun; rather, it is a disconnected exception from an assumed general temporal adverb, as if it were said: "Forbidden to you at every time, except for the time of..."

Some people have raised a point here that I do not think is a matter of necessity, as he said after some discussion: "The important thing in this context is to explain the benefit of 'Except that to which you have been compelled.' It seems the benefit therein, and Allah knows best, is for the hyperbole in forbidding the refusal to eat, by asserting that what is forbidden becomes a thing that is not eaten, unlike that which is permitted, for it does not become a thing that is not eaten; so how then can one avoid what is eaten? So reflect."

(And indeed, many) of the disbelievers (mislead) the people by declaring the lawful forbidden and the forbidden lawful, like ‘Amr ibn Luhay and his ilk, who established the baha’ir and sa’a’ib (specific types of livestock) and made eating dead animals permissible. Al-Zajjaj said that those intended by this "many" are those who argued regarding dead animals. (By their inclinations) which are deviant, and their vain desires, (without knowledge) derived from the Shari’ah or supported by revelation, or without any knowledge at all, as has been said. This was mentioned to signal that what they are upon is pure desire and lust. It is also permitted that it be of the category of His saying: (And they kill the prophets without right).

(Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of the transgressors) who exceed the truth toward falsehood and the lawful toward the forbidden; He will recompense them for that. Perhaps the intent behind them is this "many," and the explicit noun was placed in the stead of their pronoun to brand them with the attribute of transgression.