Al-Nahl (The Bee): Verse 14

Exegesis

Know that after Allah the Exalted established proof for the existence of the Creator in the first stage by the celestial bodies, in the second stage by the human body and soul, in the third stage by the wonders of animal creation, and in the fourth stage by the marvels of plant nature, He mentions in the fifth stage the evidence for the existence of the Maker through the wonders of the elements. He begins this with evidence from the element of water.

It is known that the scholars of astronomy stated that three-quarters of the Earth's sphere is submerged in water, and that is the surrounding ocean, which constitutes the entirety of the element of water. Within this inhabited quarter, there are seven seas, as He mentions later: {And the sea, [with its vastness], supplies it with seven more seas after it} (Luqman: 27). The sea that Allah the Exalted has subjected for people is these seas. The meaning of Allah the Exalted subjecting them for creation is making them such that people can benefit from them, either by sailing or by diving.

Know that the benefits of the seas are numerous, and Allah the Exalted mentioned three types of them in this verse:

This involves several issues:

Issue 1: Ibn al-A'rabi said: lahmun tariyyun (tender meat) without the hamza (glottal stop). It is derived from ṭarā, yaṭrū, ṭarāwah. Al-Farra' said: ṭarā, yaṭrā, ṭarā’an (with a long alif) and ṭarāwah, just as one says shaqiya, yashqā, shaqāwah.

Know that mentioning "tender" carries an added benefit. If all fish meat were salty, the knowledge of Allah's power would not be as evident as it is with the tender meat. Since an animal emerges from the intensely salty sea whose flesh is extremely sweet, it is known that this occurred not according to mere nature, but by the power and wisdom of Allah, as He manifested the opposite from the opposite.

Issue 2: Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, said: If someone swore an oath not to eat meat and then ate fish meat, he would not have broken his oath. They argued that fish meat is not [considered] meat. Others said he would break his oath because Allah the Exalted explicitly named it as meat in this verse, and there is no explanation superior to the explanation of Allah.

It is narrated that when Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, stated this opinion and Sufyan al-Thawri heard it, he objected to it. He argued with him using this verse. He sent someone to him and asked about a man who swore not to pray on a rug (bisāṭ). If he prayed on the earth, would he have broken his oath? Sufyan said: No, he would not have broken his oath. The questioner replied: Does not Allah the Exalted say: {And Allah has made for you the earth as a carpet/rug (bisāṭ)} (Nuh: 19)? Sufyan then realized that this question was prompted by Abu Hanifa's teaching.

One might object: This argument is not strong. The most that can be said is that we abandoned adhering to the literal meaning of the Qur'an regarding the word bisāṭ due to the evidence presented against it. How then can we be obliged to abandon adhering to the literal meaning of the Qur'an in another verse? The difference between the two cases is twofold:

First: When someone swears not to pray on a rug (bisāṭ), if we include the bare earth under the term bisāṭ, it would necessitate preventing him from praying altogether. If he prayed on earth covered by a rug, he would inevitably break his oath. If he prayed on bare earth, he would also break his oath under the assumption that the bare earth is included under the term bisāṭ. This implies preventing him from praying, which is impossible. This is unlike including fish meat under the term "meat," because there is no prohibition in preventing him from eating meat altogether. Thus, the difference is clear.

Second: We know necessarily from the knowledge of language experts that applying the name bisāṭ to bare earth is metaphorical. However, we do not know that applying the name meat to fish flesh is metaphorical. Thus, the difference is clear. And Allah knows best.

The argument of Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, is that oaths are based on custom (ʿādah). The custom of people, when "meat" is mentioned generally, is not to understand it as fish meat. Evidence for this is that if a man tells his servant, "Buy meat with this money," and the servant brings fish, he deserves to be reprimanded.

The response is: We see that in the jurisprudence of oaths, you sometimes consider the literal wording and sometimes consider custom. We have not seen you establish a definitive rule distinguishing between these two categories. Evidence for this is that if he tells his servant, "Buy meat with this money," and the servant brings sparrow meat, he deserves to be reprimanded, even though you say that eating sparrow meat breaks the oath. Thus, it is established that custom is inconsistent, and recourse to the explicit text of the Qur'an is necessary. And Allah knows best.

The intended meaning of ḥilyah (ornaments) is pearls and coral, as He the Exalted says: {He brings forth from them pearls and coral} (Ar-Rahman: 22). The meaning of "you wear" is that your women wear them, because women are part of you, and their adorning themselves with them is for the sake of men, so it is as if it is their adornment and clothing.

I saw some of our colleagues relying on the hadith narrated by 'Urwah from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: "There is no zakāh on ornaments (ḥily)" to support the ruling that zakāh is not obligatory on permissible ornaments. I replied: This hadith is weak in narration. Even if it were sound, it could be argued that the word al-ḥily is a singular noun definite with the definite article (al-). We have explained in Usul al-Fiqh that such a word must be interpreted according to what was conventionally understood at the time. The ḥily that was conventionally understood is what Allah mentioned in His Book in this verse: {and you take out from it ornaments which you wear}. Therefore, assuming the hadith is sound, there is no zakāh on pearls, and the argument based on it falls away. And Allah knows best.

The linguists say: Makhara (cleaving/slicing) for a ship means it splits the water with its bow. Al-Farra' said it is the sound of the vessel moving with the wind.

Once you know this, the interpretation of Ibn Abbas that {cleaving through it} means "sailing/gliding" (jawārī) is sound, because they only split the water when they are moving. His saying {that you may seek of His bounty} means that you ride them for trade, seeking profit from the bounty of Allah. When you find the bounty and grace of Allah the Exalted, perhaps you will proceed to thank Him. And Allah knows best.