Al-An’am: 145 - "Say, I do not find..."
(Say): A command to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) after compelling the polytheists, exposing their falsity, and demonstrating that what they fabricate regarding prohibitions is pure slander, by explaining to them what has actually been forbidden to them.
His saying, the Almighty, "I do not find in what has been revealed to me [anything] forbidden..." (et seq.), is a metonymy for the non-existence [of such forbidden items]. It serves as an indication that the method of prohibition is strictly through divine decree from Allah the Exalted, not through personal desire or whim. It is also an alert—as has been stated—that the fundamental principle concerning things is permissibility.
"Forbidden" (muharraman) is an adjective for a deleted noun, indicated by what follows; indeed, it has taken its place after its deletion. It is the first object of 'ajidu (I find), and its second object, "in what has been revealed to me," is fronted for emphasis, not because the first object is indefinite—for it is an indefinite made general by the negation, and thus there is no requirement to front the predicate with the prepositional phrase.
The first object is not deleted—that is, "I do not find [anything], once I have reviewed what has been revealed to me, in the Quran or otherwise," according to what the shift from "revealed to me" (unzila ilayya) to "revealed in me" (uhiya ilayya) suggests—or "what has been revealed to me of the Quran" as a food, "forbidden" from the foods you have forbidden, "to any eater" ('ala ta'imin), meaning any eater whatsoever, whether male or female. This is a refutation of their statement: "Forbidden to our wives."
His saying, the Almighty, "that eats it" (yat'amuhu) is in the position of an adjective for "eater," brought about—as in the saying of the Almighty: "a bird flying with its two wings" (ta'irun yatiru bi-janahayhi)—to cut off any metaphorical interpretation. It is also recited as yut'imuhu with the shaddah and a kasrah on the 'ayn, and the root is yut-ta'imuhu; the ta was changed into a ta (emphatic) and the first was assimilated into it. The intent of tu'm is the consumption of food. Sometimes ta'm is also used for drink, as previously discussed. The primary meaning here is the former. It may also refer to absolute benefit, as in the Hadith of Badr: "We did not kill anyone with it, the ta'm of what we killed was naught but the weak and wretched," meaning we killed those who had no benefit or standing. The intention of this meaning here is very remote, and I have not seen anyone who suggested it. Yes, it has been said: the intent is all forms of consumption—eating, drinking, and otherwise. Perhaps the inclusion of non-eating therein is by way of analogy. Likewise, carrying ta'im (eater) to mean "a finder of sustenance" from their saying "a ta'im man," meaning one in a good state and provided for, and leaving yat'amuhu in its literal sense—that is, a finder who eats it—would mean the description is not for the purpose of extra emphasis as we pointed out.
"Except that it be" (that food or forbidden thing) "a dead animal" (the intent is that which has not been slaughtered according to Islamic law, thus covering the strangled animal and its like). Ibn Kathir and Hamzah read takuna with a ta to feminize the predicate; Ibn Amir and Abu Ja’far read yakunu maytatan with a ya and nominative maytatan (and Abu Ja’far also stresses it), on the basis that kana is complete. "Or blood" is a conjunction to "dead animal" or to what is within its scope.
His saying, the Almighty, "poured out" (masfuhan), meaning spilled and flowing like blood in the veins, is an adjective for it. This excludes clotted blood like the liver and spleen. In the Hadith: "Two dead things have been made lawful for us: fish and locusts; and two bloods: liver and spleen." A concession was granted for the blood of the veins after slaughter, and many jurists held this view. From 'Ikrimah, he said: "If it were not for this restriction, Muslims would follow [the extraction of] blood from veins as the Jews did."
"Or the flesh of swine, for it" (the flesh, as it is what is spoken of, or the swine, as it is the closest mentioned; the flesh is mentioned because it is the greatest part one benefits from, so if it is forbidden, then other parts are forbidden a fortiori). It is also said—though contrary to the apparent meaning—that the pronoun refers to each of the dead animal, the blood, and the swine's flesh, meaning "for the aforementioned is an abomination" ("impure" (rijs), meaning filthy or foul and corrupting) "or a transgression" (fisq), a conjunction to "flesh of swine," according to what many grammarians chose, with what is between them being an interruption confirming the prohibition. "Dedicated to other than Allah" is an adjective for it, clarifying it. The origin of ihlal is raising the voice, and the intent is slaughtering in the name of idols. It was called fisq because of its deep involvement in transgression. It is permissible that fisq is a causative object for uhilla and is a conjunction to yakunu, and the ba in bihi (in it) acts as the subject (of the passive), and the pronoun refers to that to which the hidden pronoun in yakunu refers.
Abu Hayyan said: "This is a very forced parsing, and the syntax therein is outside the bounds of eloquence and is not permitted according to the reading of those who read 'illa an yakuna maytatun in the nominative, because the pronoun in bihi has no referent, and it is not permissible to force a deleted descriptor for it to which the pronoun would refer—that is, 'something dedicated to other than Allah'—because such is not allowed except in the necessity of poetry." By that, as al-Halabi said, he meant that the descriptor and the described are not deleted entirely unless there is in the speech a partitive min, such as "of us who stood and of us who traveled," meaning a group who stood and a group who traveled. If there is no such min, it is a necessity, like his saying: [poetry].
"For indeed your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful": Exaggerated in forgiveness and mercy; He will not take him to task for that. This is the consequence of the conditional, but in consideration of what its meaning necessitates—which is the absence of being taken to task. Some have said it is by estimating a consequence, making this an explanation for it, though there is no need for that.
The accusative case for ghayra (except) is as a state (hal), and likewise what is conjoined to it. The restriction to the first state is not to explain that if the restriction were not present in the aforementioned sense, the prohibition in question would be realized, but rather to warn against another prohibition, which is taking the right of another person in distress. For if one takes the flesh of a dead animal, for instance, from another person in distress and eats it, its prohibition is not because it is the flesh of a dead animal, but because it is the right of the other person in distress. As for the second state, it is to confirm the removal of the prohibition in question definitively, for exceeding the amount that sustains life is forbidden, as it is the flesh of a dead animal.
In the mentioning of the attributes of forgiveness and mercy is an indication that the sin remains, but Allah the Exalted forgives him and has mercy on him. The discussion on this has already passed, so remember and do not be heedless.
This verse has been questioned in that it limits the forbidden foods to four: the dead animal, the poured-out blood, the flesh of swine, and the transgression that was dedicated to other than Allah the Exalted, while there is no doubt that they are more than that. The answer given is that the meaning is: "I do not find any forbidden thing from what the people of the Jahiliyyah used to forbid, such as the bahirah and the sa'ibah, as we have indicated." In that case, the exception of the four from it is "disconnected" (munqati'), meaning: "I do not find what they forbade, but I do find the four forbidden." This carries no evidence of limitation, and a disconnected exception is not like a connected one in terms of limitation, as they have noted, and this is something that should be observed.
If you say: The exception is not "a dead animal," but rather "the state of its being a dead animal," and that is not of the category of food, so the exception must be disconnected—there is no need for that restriction. Al-Qutb said: "Yes, it is so, except that the intention is to remove the dead animal from the category of forbidden food," meaning: "I do not find any forbidden thing except the dead animal." If it were not for the restriction, it would have been, in reality, a connected exception, and the objection would have arisen. That response was weakened by several aspects, including that the Almighty said in Surah al-Baqarah and Surah an-Nahl: "He has only forbidden you the dead animal, blood, the flesh of swine, and what has been dedicated to other than Allah," and "He has only" (innama) signifies limitation. The Almighty also said in Surah al-Ma'idah: "The livestock animal has been made lawful for you, except what is recited to you." The exegetes agreed that the intent of His saying, the Mighty and Majestic, "except what is recited to you," is His saying, the Almighty: "Forbidden to you are the dead animal, blood, the flesh of swine, and what has been dedicated to other than Allah." As for the strangled, the beaten, and others, they are categories of the dead animal, and they were only mentioned again because they used to rule them as lawful. Thus, the two verses indicate that there is nothing forbidden except the four, and in that case, one must say that the verse we are discussing indicates limitation, for they are in accord, and there is no restriction—especially since the default is the absence of restriction.
The objection was answered by saying that the verse only indicates that he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not find in what was revealed to him up to that point any prohibition other than what was specified therein, and that does not negate the arrival of a prohibition on something else. It is said: In that case, the exception is from the most general of times or the most general of states, "empty" (mufarragh), in the sense: "I do not find any food forbidden at any time or in any state, except at a time or in a state where the food is one of the four, for I do find it forbidden then." The source derived from an and the verb is for time or modality. The Imam challenged this answer by saying that what indicates limitation from the verses was revealed after the establishment of the Shari'ah, thus it indicates that the ruling established in the Muhammadan Shari'ah from its beginning to its end is nothing but the limitation of prohibitions to these things, and that since it was proven by the implication of that, that the prohibitions are limited to the four, this is an admission of the lawfulness of what is other than them, and saying that there is a fifth forbidden thing would be abrogation. There is no doubt that the pivot of the Shari'ah is that the default is the absence of abrogation, because if the possibility of abrogation occurring were equal to the possibility of the ruling remaining as it was, then it would be impossible to hold fast to any of the texts to prove any of the rulings, because of the possibility of saying: "It, even if it was established, has been removed." What was said regarding the exception is refuted by the fact that the source interpreted from an and the verb cannot be parsed as an adverb of time, nor can it occur as a state, because it is definite. Some have said regarding the connection of the exception: that the estimate is "except [that which is] described as being one of the four," as a substitute for "forbidden," and there is clear forcing in that. It is said the estimate, on the reading of the nominative, is "except the existence of a dead animal," and the annexation therein is from the annexation of the attribute to the described, i.e., "a dead animal that is present."
The objection was also answered by saying that even though the verse indicates limitation, we specify it by way of reports (akhbar). The Imam also followed this up by saying that this is not of the category of specification (takhsis), but rather it is explicit abrogation, because when its meaning was that there is no forbidden thing other than the four, then establishing another forbidden thing is a statement that the matter is not as such, and that is a lifting of the limitation. Abrogation of the Quran by a solitary report (khabar al-wahid) is not permitted. Al-Qutb ar-Razi answered that by saying there is no meaning for limitation here other than that the four are forbidden and that which is other than them is not forbidden, and this is general; thus, establishing another forbidden thing is a specification of this general statement, and the specification of the general by a solitary report is permitted.
Many of the predecessors argued based on the apparent meaning of the verse, and thus declared lawful that which is other than what is mentioned in it. Among that is the domestic donkey. Al-Bukhari extracted from 'Amr ibn Dinar: I said to Jabir ibn Abdullah: "They claim that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the flesh of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar." He said: "Al-Hakam ibn 'Amr used to say that from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), but the 'Sea'—meaning Ibn Abbas—refused that," and he recited: "Say, I do not find in what has been revealed to me..." the verse.
Abu Dawud extracted from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them) that he was asked about eating the hedgehog, and he recited the verse. Ibn Abi Hatim and others extracted with a sound chain from Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that when she was asked about every beast with a fang and every bird with a talon, she said: "Say, I do not find..." et seq. And he extracted from Ibn Abbas, who said: "There is no animal that is forbidden except what Allah the Exalted has forbidden in His Book: 'Say, I do not find...' the verse." Imam ar-Razi strengthened the argument for the apparent meaning, for he said after the discussion: "Thus, it is established by the explanation we have mentioned the strength of this argument and the validity of this school, and it is what Malik ibn Anas used to say." Then he said: "Among the difficult questions is that many jurists specified the generality of this verse by what was reported that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: 'Whatever the Arabs found repulsive is forbidden.' It is known that what the Arabs find repulsive is not standardized. The leader of the Arabs, nay, the leader of the worlds (peace and blessings be upon him), when he saw them eating the lizard, said: 'My nature finds it repulsive,' and it was not a reason for its prohibition. As for the rest of the Arabs, among them are those who do not find anything repulsive, and they sometimes differ regarding some things; one group finds it repulsive while others find it pleasant. Thus, it is known that the matter of repulsion is not standardized; rather, it differs according to the differences of individuals and circumstances. How then is it permissible to abrogate this definitive text by that matter which has no specific standard or known law?" End quote. And what is in it is not hidden.
The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) used his saying, the Almighty, "to any eater that eats it" as evidence that only the eating of the dead animal is forbidden, and that its skin is purified by tanning. Ahmad and others extracted from Ibn Abbas, who said: "A sheep belonging to Sawdah bint Zam'ah died. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: 'If only you had taken its hide.' She said: 'Shall we take the hide of a sheep that has died?' The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: 'Allah the Almighty only said: "Say, I do not find in what has been revealed to me [anything] forbidden to any eater that eats it, except that it be a dead animal," and you are not eating it [by] tanning it; [so] you may benefit from it.'"
The Shafi'is argued using his saying, the Almighty: "For it is impure" (rijs), for the impurity of the swine, based on the pronoun returning to the swine, as it is the closest mentioned.
