Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:146

(And upon those who are Jews) that is, the Jews specifically, not those other than them among the former or the latter. (We forbade every animal with an undivided hoof) meaning that which does not have separated toes, such as camels, ostriches, geese, and ducks. This was stated by Ibn Abbas, Ibn Jarir, Qatadah, Mujahid, and al-Suddi. From Ibn Zayd it is narrated that it refers to camels only. Al-Jubba’i said: This includes all beasts of prey, dogs, cats, and whatever hunts with its claw. From al-Qutaybi and al-Balkhi, it is [said to be] birds that have talons and beasts that have solid hooves—the hoof being called "a nail" (zufr) metaphorically, though the Imam considered this unlikely. Perhaps what resulted from their transgression was the generalization of the prohibition, because some of it was already prohibited before. It is possible that it refers to every animal with a solid hoof that is [otherwise] lawful, by the correlation of (We forbade). This, as has been said, is a confirmation of what preceded regarding the limitation of prohibited things to what was detailed, by refuting the opposing lies of the Jews and their falsity regarding that; for they used to say: "We are not the first for whom this was forbidden; rather, it was forbidden to Noah, Abraham, and those after them, peace be upon them, until the prohibition ceased." Some scholars of verification said: This is a completion of what preceded, because it contains a refutation of [the notion] that Allah Almighty forbade all these matters to the Jews [initially]; rather, He also forbade the bahirah, the sa’ibah, and the like, as that was upon the Jews specifically in anger toward them. Al-Hasan recited (zufr) with a kasrah on the za and a sukun on the fa. Abu al-Samak recited it with a kasrah on both. It was also recited, as Abu al-Baqa’ said, zufur with a dammah on the za and a sukun on the fa.

(And of the cow and the sheep, We forbade to them their fat) not their meat, for it remains lawful. What is meant by "the fat" is the thin fat that is upon the intestines and the tripe, and the fat of the kidneys. It is said: It is general, from which what will follow is excepted. (And of the cow) is connected to "We forbade" that follows it; it would have sufficed then to say: "the fat," but it was added for the sake of greater connection and emphasis, as one says: "I took from Zayd his wealth," which is customary in their speech. Abu al-Baqa’ permitted—and his action indicates his preference for it, even though it is contrary to the apparent meaning—that (of the cow) is a conjunction to (every animal with an undivided hoof), in the sense of "some of the cow." He made (We forbade to them their fat) an explanation of the prohibited part of that. In that case, the addition is for the connection that is needed.

(Except what their backs carry) meaning what is attached to their backs. The exception is either disconnected, or it is connected to the fat. The Greatest Imam—may Allah be pleased with him—held the view of disconnection; for it is reported from him that if one swore not to eat fat, he would only break his oath by eating the fat of the belly. His two companions disagreed with him, saying that he would also break his oath by the fat of the back, because it is fat and possesses the property of melting by fire. They supported this with this exception, based on the principle that the basic rule for it is connection. For the Imam—may Allah be pleased with him—it is meat in reality, because it arises from blood and is used like meat in preparing food and stews, and is eaten as meat, which is not done with [the forbidden] fat. For this reason, he breaks his oath by eating it if he swears not to eat meat, and its seller is called a butcher (lahham) not a fat-seller (shahham). Although connection is the origin of the exception, there is here what indicates disconnection, which is His saying, (or the entrails). It is a conjunction to the excepted object and is not fat; rather, it means the bowels as narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and others, or the places where fat is stored, as narrated from Ibn Zayd, or the intestines, as said by more than one of the linguists. The one who argues for connection may say the conjunction is based on an omitted genitive, meaning "the fat of the entrails," or that it is interpreted as the fat that the entrails carry. Moreover, it is permissible to interpret (the entrails) as what the intestines contain, because it is from "holding/encompassing," meaning what is encompassed; so it is applied to the fat wrapped around the intestines. Many permitted that the conjunction be to (their backs) or to (their fat). In that case, what is mentioned is prohibited. To this, some of the predecessors went. He also conjoins His saying (or what is mixed with bone), which is the fat of the tail because of its connection to the tailbone. It is said it is the marrow, though no one says it is fat upon it and argues for its prohibition. As for (the entrails), it is said to be the plural of hawiyah, like zawiyah (corner) and zawaya (corners), and its weight is fawa’il. Its root is hawawi; the waw, which is the middle letter of the root, was changed to hamzah because it was the second of two vowels surrounding the long vowel of mafa’il. Then the hamzah with a kasrah was changed to a ya, then it was opened (fath) due to the weight of the kasrah on the ya, and the final ya was changed to an alif because it moved after a fathah, thus it became hawayah. Or the waw was changed to an open hamzah, then the final ya to an alif, then the hamzah to a ya because it fell between two alifs, as was done with khataya. It is said it is the plural of hawiyah like qasi’ah and qawasi’, and its weight is also fawa’il, and its transformation is as you know. It is said it is the plural of hawiyah (like zarifah and zara’if), its weight is fa’a’il, and its root is hawai’i, and the hamzah was changed to an open ya, and the ya which is the last letter of the root to an alif, and so it became hawayah. Al-Farisi permitted that it be a plural for each of these three, and it has been heard in its singular form as well. (Or) is in the sense of "and." Abu al-Baqa’ said it is for the detailing of their doctrines, similar to His saying: (And they said: "Be Jews or Christians"). Al-Zajjaj said: It is for when the conjunction to the fats is for the sake of permissibility, as in His saying: (And do not obey any sinner or disbeliever among them), meaning all of these are worthy of being disobeyed, so disobey this or disobey that. (Or) is eloquent in this sense, because if you say "Do not obey Zayd and ‘Amr," it is possible that you are prohibited from obeying both together; if Zayd is obeyed on his own, it is not a sin. But when you say "Do not obey Zayd or ‘Amr or Khalid," the meaning is that all of them are worthy of not being obeyed, so do not obey any one of them, and do not obey the group. From this is "Sit with al-Hasan or Ibn Sirin or al-Sha’bi," for the meaning is not an order to sit with one of them; rather, it means all of them are worthy of being sat with; if you sit with one of them, you are correct, and if you sit with the group, you are correct. The second scholar chose this and said: The way to state this is that the word "or" in the conjunction to the excepted object is of the type of "Sit with al-Hasan or Ibn Sirin," just as in the conjunction to the object from which it is excepted; meaning, it is to denote equality in the whole, so the whole is prohibited. Its verification is that the return of the prohibition is to the forbidding, as if it were said: "Do not eat any of the three," which is the meaning of generality. This is what al-Zamakhshari meant in what was reported from him that the sentence is in the ruling of prohibition, so the conjunction with the particle of choice is eloquent in this sense. Then he said: By this, the corruption of what is imagined is clarified—that he means that upon the assumption of the conjunction to the object from which it is excepted, the meaning is "We forbade them their fat, OR We forbade them the entrails, OR We forbade them what is mixed with bone," so it is permissible for them to leave whichever they like and eat the others. He claimed that the apparent meaning is that while such [a choice] might be permissible, it is not of the Sharia that a vague one of specific matters is prohibited or permitted; that only occurs in obligatory matters. This claim is among the astonishing things, for the prohibited choice and the permissible choice are matters declared by all jurists and scholars of the principles (Usul) unanimously. It requires deep contemplation, so let him contemplate. Al-Tayyibi mentioned in the summary of the words of some of the scholars regarding "or" here that if you conjoin it to the fats, the three enter under the ruling of negation, so everything is prohibited except what was excepted from it. If you conjoin it to the excepted object, nothing is prohibited except the fats. "Or" in the first case is for permissibility, and in the second for categorization. (That) is a reference to the recompense or the prohibition. In the first, it is in the accusative as an infinitive emphasizing what follows it, and in the second, it is a second object for it, meaning "That prohibition We recompensed them." "To recompense" (jaza) is transitive by the ba and by itself, as mentioned by al-Raghib and others. What was reported from Ibn Malik—that the demonstrative pronoun cannot be accusative as a reference to an infinitive unless it is followed by the infinitive, like "I stood this standing" and "I sat that sitting," and it is not permitted "I stood this" or "I sat that"—was refuted by Abu Hayyan and al-Jalabi, who validated the occurrence of the demonstrative pronoun as a reference to an infinitive without being followed by it. (Because of their transgression) meaning because of their injustice, which is their killing of the prophets without right, their consuming of usury—which they had been forbidden from—and their consuming people's wealth unjustly. Every time they committed a sin, they were punished by the prohibition of something that had been lawful to them, while they denied this and claimed that it had always been prohibited to the nations. It is said: The meaning of their transgression is toward their poor, based on what Ali bin Ibrahim reported in his exegesis that the kings of the Children of Israel used to prevent their poor from eating the meat of birds and fats, so Allah Almighty forbade that to them because of this prevention; and it follows the interest (maslahah) also. There is no distance in that the prevention of benefiting was for a greater deserving of reward, or that it was for a preceding crime. (And indeed, We are truthful) in all our reports, among which is the report regarding the prohibition and the transgression. Some counted it as only [regarding] the promise and the threat. The Imam strengthened with this verse what was held by Imam Malik and many of the predecessors, which is the statement of what the apparent meaning of the preceding verse requires regarding the lawfulness of everything except the four mentioned therein. That is, he obligated the interpretation of "the nail" (zufr) as "the talon" (mikhlab), because of the difficulty of interpreting it as the hoof for two reasons: First, the hoof is not often called a "nail." Second, if the matter were so, it would be necessary to say that He prohibited to them every animal that has a hoof, and that is false because the verse indicates that sheep and cows are lawful to them, despite their having a hoof. And when it is necessary to interpret it as the talon, and the verse conveys the specification of this prohibition to the Jews—as we pointed out from two aspects: first, the construction in the language conveys limitation, and second, if it were fixed for everyone, there would be no benefit in limiting the mention to them—it would be necessary that beasts of prey and birds with talons are not prohibited to the Muslims; rather, their prohibition is specific to the Jews. In that case, what was narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited every animal with fangs from beasts and talons from birds is weak, because it is a solitary report (khabar wahid) that contradicts the Book of Allah, so it is not acceptable. Thus, the opinion of the group mentioned previously is established. In this, there is consideration that is not hidden, so contemplate it.