Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:121

(And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned): That is, of animals, as is the immediate understanding. The verse is apparent in the prohibition of [meat] for which the invocation of the Name [of Allah] was omitted, whether intentionally or out of forgetfulness. Dawud [al-Zahiri] adhered to this, and the same is reported from Ahmad, al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, and al-Jubba'i.

Al-Shafi'i held the contrary, based on what Abu Dawud and 'Abd ibn Humayd narrated from Rashid ibn Sa'd in mursal form: "The slaughtered animal of a Muslim is lawful, whether the name of Allah was mentioned over it or not." From Malik—and this is the narration relied upon by the scholars of his school—it is that [the meat of] that for which the invocation was intentionally omitted is not to be eaten, regardless of whether it was due to negligence or otherwise. Ashhab held a singular view permitting it if the omission was not due to negligence. Some have claimed that Malik’s school is like al-Shafi'i’s, while others claim it is like Dawud’s. What was mentioned first is what is found in the books of the Malikis, and the people of Mecca are more knowledgeable of its mountain paths (al-a'lamu bi-shi'abiha).

The school of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) is to differentiate between intentional omission and forgetfulness, similar to the sound view of the Maliki school. The second notable scholar said: "The one who forgets, according to the school of the Great Imam (may Allah be pleased with him), is not a 'leaver' of the invocation; rather, it is in his heart," based on what is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about that for which the invocation was forgotten, and he replied: "Eat it, for the mention of Allah is in the heart of every Muslim." The intentional leaver is not appended to him, either because it is impossible to specify the Book [of Allah] through analogy—even if the underlying cause ('illah) is explicit—or because by intentionally leaving the invocation, he acts as if he has negated what is in his heart.

It was objected that specifying a general text ('amm) from which a part has been specified is permissible through an analogy whose cause is explicit, by consensus. Furthermore, we do not concede that the intentional leaver is in the position of one who negates what is in his heart; he may do so out of reliance on that [faith] and lack of need to mention it.

Then he [the author] said: "They argued that the one who forgets is excluded by His saying: (And indeed, it is a transgression), because the pronoun returns to the verbal noun derived from the content of (upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned), which is 'the leaving' (al-tark), as it is the closest. It is known that leaving it out of forgetfulness is not a transgression, due to the lack of legal burden on the forgetful and the absence of accountability for it; therefore, it must refer to intentional omission."

It was objected that considering such an act a transgression—especially in the manner of verification and emphasis—is contrary to the apparent meaning, and no one has held this view. It also does not align with His saying: (or a transgression, dedicated to other than Allah), especially since the Quran interprets itself, particularly regarding a single ruling. It was also objected that "that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned" encompasses carrion (maytah), while it is certain that omitting the invocation over it is not a "transgression" [in that specific sense].

Some have returned the pronoun to "that" (ma)—meaning the slaughtered animal—and made it the essence of transgression by way of hyperbole; however, one must take into account that it is only if the invocation was intentionally omitted, for there is no transgression in forgetfulness. In that case, this interpretation also does not hold. From what has preceded, one knows the situation regarding it.

The notable scholar mentioned for the Shafi'is, in claiming the lawfulness of that for which the invocation was omitted—intentionally or through forgetfulness—and the prohibition of what was slaughtered for stone altars or died of natural causes, several points:

1. The invocation is on the believer's remembrance and in his heart as long as he is a believer, so "non-mention" cannot be realized from him; thus, nothing of his slaughter is prohibited except that which was dedicated to other than Allah.
2. That His saying (Exalted is He): (And indeed, it is a transgression) by way of verification and emphasis, cannot be correct regarding the eating of everything for which the name of Allah was not mentioned—whether intentionally or by mistake—since there is no transgression in doing what is a matter of ijtihad.
3. That this sentence is in the position of a state (hal), since it is not appropriate to coordinate a predicate with an inception (insha'): (dedicated to other than Allah). Thus, the prohibition of eating is restricted to that for which the name of Allah was not mentioned and which was dedicated to other than Allah. Consequently, what is not [dedicated to other than Allah] is lawful, either by way of the implication of the contrary (mafhum al-mukhalafah), the original principle of permissibility, or the general texts regarding the lawfulness of food.

This is a summary of what the Imam mentioned in a memorial session held for him by the Sultan of Khwarazm, in the presence of him and other Hanafi jurists. According to this, there is no need for the Shafi'is to have an external proof for specifying the verse.

It was objected that this requires the prohibition not to include eating carrion, even though it is the cause of the revelation; and that the emphasis with inna and the lam negates the possibility that the sentence is a state, as it is only appropriate where there is an intention to inform of its absolute certainty and to refute a denier—either explicitly or implicitly, as explained in the science of rhetoric. A state occurring in commands and prohibitions is based on supposition; it is as if it were said: "Do not eat of it if it is a transgression," which does not make sense. It is not "And it is a transgression," but rather "Indeed, it is a transgression." Hence, many have gone to the view that the sentence is an initiation (musta'nafah).

Response was made to the first: "That which was dedicated to other than Allah" is included in His saying: (And indeed, it is a transgression), and the maytah is included by His saying (Exalted is He): (And the devils...), so their statement holds: that the prohibition is specific to that which was dedicated to other than Allah or that which died of natural causes. The notable scholar answered the second point by saying that since the intention of 'transgression' here is dedication to other than Allah, the emphasis was appropriate, as if it were said: "Do not eat of it if it is this type of transgression, of which the ruling is established, even if the polytheists deny it." Some interpreted the verse as referring to maytah, because the debate was about that, as you will soon know, if Allah wills.

He held it most likely that the pronoun returns to "eating," which is indicated by (And do not eat). What appears from the words of some researchers is that "that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned" is general, covering that which was dedicated to other than Allah, that for which the invocation was omitted intentionally or by mistake, and that which died of natural causes—as it is the cause of the verse's revelation. The research [conclusion] is that when a general text ('amm) that is apparent in its meaning occurs regarding a specific cause, it is a definitive text (nass) regarding the cause and remains apparent (zahir) in its application to everything else. Therefore, the one who permits that for which the invocation was forgotten must have a specifier, which is the narration containing the question and answer. He claimed that this, upon investigation, is not specification, but rather a prohibition—because the "forgotten" case is excluded from the general rule, based on the aforementioned hadith.

It is supported by the fact that a general text occurring regarding a specific cause, even if it strengthens its application to the cause such that the "apparent" becomes a "definitive text" (nass), it is weak in its application to others, such that it descends to the levels of the "apparent," and one settles for less in opposing it than one would have if not for the cause. This is finished.

The flaw in this is not hidden to one who is well-informed of what the notable scholar mentioned earlier. Many of our companions mentioned that the statement of al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) is contrary to consensus, for there is no disagreement among those before him regarding the prohibition of that for which the invocation was intentionally omitted. The disagreement among them is only regarding that for which it was forgotten. The school of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) is that it is prohibited, while the school of 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with his face) and Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) is that it is lawful. They did not disagree on the prohibition of that for which the invocation was intentionally omitted. This is why Abu Yusuf and the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them all) said: "The case of that for which the invocation was intentionally omitted is not a subject for ijtihad; even if a judge ruled that its sale is permissible, it would not be valid because it contradicts consensus." The apparent meaning of the verse requires its inclusion of that for which the invocation was forgotten, except that the Shari'ah considers the forgetful as the remembering due to an excuse on his part; in that is the removal of hardship, for man is prone to much forgetfulness.

The statement of some Shafi'is (may Allah have mercy on them) that "if the invocation were a condition for lawfulness, it would not fall away due to the excuse of forgetfulness, just like purification in the chapter of prayer" leads to equating intentionality and forgetfulness. This is customary when there is a "reminding state" for the forgetful—like eating in prayer or sexual intercourse during ihram—not when there is no such state, like eating during fasting. Here, if there is no state that necessitates forgetfulness—which is what happens to slaughtered animals at the departure of a living soul through the change of state—then there is no "reminding state" present.

The truth, in my view, is that the matter is one of ijtihad, and the establishment of consensus is not conceded. Even if it were so, it is what Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) bypassed. His derivation for his claim, as you have heard, is not devoid of strength. Al-Isfahani's statement, as in al-Mustasfa, that "al-Shafi'i was shameful for contradicting seven verses of the Quran..."—three in Surah al-An'am, three in Surah al-Hajj, and one in Surah al-Ma'idah—is an act of insolence toward this Qurayshi Imam. The source of it is a failure to comprehend his excellence, the breadth of his knowledge, and the precision of his insight. In short, the discussion on the verse has vast fields, and everyone of those schools used it as evidence. From 'Ata' and Tawus, it is reported that they used its apparent meaning as evidence that that for which the invocation was omitted, whether animal or otherwise, is prohibited. The cause of revelation supports the opposite, as you have known. And the precaution is not hidden.

(And indeed, the devils): That is, Iblis and his soldiers (inspire): that is, whisper (to their allies): those who followed them from among the polytheists. Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) said this; it is also said that the "devils" refers to the rebels of the Magians, and their inspiration to their allies is what they relayed to the Quraish, as we narrated from 'Ikrimah (to dispute with you): that is, with satanic whispers or with the falsehoods transmitted from the Magians. (And if you obey them): in declaring the prohibited as lawful, (indeed, you are polytheists): of necessity, for whoever abandons the obedience of Allah (Exalted is He) for the obedience of another, declares the prohibited lawful, and follows him in his religion, has associated others with Him (Exalted is He), and has even preferred them over Him (Exalted is He).

The Imam reported from al-Ka'bi that he said: "The verse is evidence that 'faith' is a name for all acts of obedience, even if its meaning in the language is 'belief,' just as Allah made 'polytheism' a name for everything that is an act of disobedience to Allah (the Mighty and Majestic), even if in the language it is restricted to those who believe that Allah (the Exalted is His state) has a partner, evidenced by the fact that He (Exalted is He) called the believers' obedience to the polytheists in permitting carrion 'polytheism'." Then he said: "One might say: Why is it not permissible that the intent of 'polytheism' here is the belief that Allah has a partner in ruling and obligation? By this amount, the meaning of this polytheism returns only to belief."

The apparent view is that the expression of this obedience as polytheism is by way of severe exaggeration (taghliz), and its counterparts are many. The construction here, as Abu Hayyan and others said, is based on the assumption of an oath and the omission of the introductory lam—that is: "And if you obey them—by Allah—indeed you are polytheists." The response to the conditional statement was omitted because the response to the oath took its place. Abu al-Baqa', followed by some, made the mentioned statement the response to the condition, not an oath, and claimed that omitting the fa' from it is good when the condition is in the past tense, as it is here. It was objected that this is not found in the books of Arabic; rather, everyone agreed on the necessity of the fa' in a nominal sentence and did not permit omitting it except in the necessity of poetry. However, al-Mubarrad permitted that in optional prose, as mentioned by al-Muradi in Sharh al-Tashil.