Al-Baqarah: (168-169) O mankind...

Know that after Allah the Exalted clarified the Oneness of God (Tawhid) and its proofs, and mentioned the reward for the monotheists, He followed this by mentioning polytheism (Shirk) and those who take partners besides Allah, and those who follow the leaders of disbelief. He then followed this by mentioning His blessings and benevolence upon both groups (believers and disbelievers), indicating that the disobedience of those who disobeyed Him and the disbelief of those who disbelieved in Him did not affect the cessation of His benevolence and graces upon them. Thus, He said: {O mankind, eat from whatever is on the earth}.

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Ibn Abbas said that this verse was revealed concerning those who prohibited certain animals for themselves, such as the Sā’ibah (a she-camel left unmilked for idols), the Waṣīlah (a sheep that gave birth to a female first, which they would not eat), the Baḥīrah (a she-camel whose first offspring was dedicated to idols), and the Ḥāmī (a male camel dedicated to idols). These were people from Thaqif, Banu Amir ibn Sa'sa'ah, Khuzā'ah, and Banu Mudlij.

Ḥalāl refers to the permissible, that whose prohibition is lifted. Its root is from Ḥall (to untie), which is the opposite of ʿUqd (a knot).

• Ḥalla bi-l-makān (He settled in a place) because he untied the ropes of travel to settle down.
• Ḥalla ad-dayn (The debt became due) because the knot of the term expired.
• Ḥalla min iḥrām (He exited the state of Ihram) because the knot of Ihram was untied.
• Ḥallat ʿalayhi al-ʿuqubah (The punishment became incumbent upon him) because the knot preventing the punishment was untied.
• Ḥallat al-izār wa-r-ridā’ (He removed the lower garment and the upper garment) because they are untied from being folded for wearing.
• From this is Taḥallat al-yamīn (The nullification of an oath), because the knot of the oath is untied by it.

Know that the forbidden (Ḥarām) can be forbidden due to its inherent impurity (like carrion, blood, and wine), or it can be forbidden not due to impurity, such as the property of another person if they have not permitted its consumption. Thus, Ḥalāl is that which is free from both types of restrictions.

You may construe {ḥalālan} (as a lawful thing) as an adverbial accusative (ḥāl) describing what is on the earth, or you may construe it as a direct object (mafʿūl).

In language, Ṭayyib can mean pure (Ṭāhir). The permissible (Ḥalāl) is described as Ṭayyib because the forbidden (Ḥarām) is described as Khabīth (impure/foul), as Allah says: {Say, "Not equal are the impure and the good"} (Al-Mā’idah: 100).

Originally, Ṭayyib is what the soul finds delightful and desirable. Purity and permissibility are ascribed to it by way of analogy, because the impure is disliked by the soul and not found desirable, and the forbidden is not desirable because the Law restrains one from it.

There are two interpretations for what is meant by Ṭayyib in the verse:

1. That which is desirable: If we interpret it as Ḥalāl, it would result in redundancy. Therefore, under this view, it is only Ṭayyib if it is of a type that is desired. If one consumes something they have no desire for, it reverts to being forbidden, although this is unlikely for a rational person except in cases of doubt.
2. That which is permissible (Mubāḥ): We reject the claim of redundancy. The term {ḥalālan} means its category is lawful, while {ṭayyiban} means that no other person’s right is attached to it. Even if one enjoys eating forbidden wealth, since it leads to punishment, it becomes harmful and is not truly desirable, as Allah says: {Indeed, those who devour the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming into their bellies fire} (An-Nisā’: 10).

Regarding Allah’s saying: {And do not follow the footsteps of Satan}, there are several issues:

Ibn 'Amir and Al-Kisā’ī, and one narration from Ibn Kathīr and Ḥafṣ from 'Āṣim, read it as {khuṭuwāt} (with a ḍammah on the khā’ and ṭā’). The rest read it with a sukūn on the ṭā’.

Those who pronounce the khā’ with a ḍammah do so because the singular form is khuṭwah. When pluralized, the middle letter is vocalized for the plural form, similar to nouns structured this way, such as ghurfah becoming ghurufāt. Vocalizing the middle letter for the plural distinguishes it from an adjective. Nouns are pluralized by vocalizing the middle letter (e.g., tamrah $\rightarrow tamrāt, ghurfah \rightarrow ghurufāt, shahwah \rightarrow shahawāt). Adjectives are pluralized with a sukūn on the middle letter (e.g., ḍakhmah \rightarrow ḍakhmāt, ʿablah \rightarrow$ ʿablāt). Since khuṭwah is a noun, it should be pluralized with vocalization. Those who keep the sukūn maintain the original form and seek lightness.

Ibn Al-Sikkit, as narrated by Al-Jubbā’ī, stated that khuṭwah and khuṭwah (with different vowel markings) have the same meaning. Al-Farrā’ narrated: "I took a khuṭwah and a khuṭwah," meaning the distance between the two feet. This is like saying ḥathawtu ḥathwah (I scooped a scoop), where ḥathwah is the name for what has been scooped. Similarly, gharaftu ghurfah (I scooped a scoop), and ghurfah is the name for what is scooped by the hand.

If this is the case, then khuṭwāt means the places trodden upon, just as ghurfah is the thing scooped by the hand. The meaning then becomes: Do not follow his path or tread his way, because khuṭwah denotes a place. This is the view of Al-Zajjāj and Ibn Qutaybah, who said that the footsteps of Satan are his extremities/outskirts.

If khuṭwah is taken to mean the act of stepping (as mentioned by Al-Jubbā’ī), the meaning is: Do not follow him as a leader, nor follow his trace. The two interpretations are close, despite the difference in grammatical parsing.

This covers the linguistic aspect. As for the meaning, Allah does not intend the linguistic definition here. Rather, it is as if He is saying to those permitted to eat according to the aforementioned description: Beware of transgressing beyond that which Satan invites you to. It is a prohibition against moving from the lawful to the doubtful, just as He prohibited moving from the lawful to the unlawful, because Satan only presents things that resemble doubt, thereby beautifying what is not permissible. Thus, Allah prohibited this.

He then clarified the reason for this warning: because Satan is an "open enemy" (ʿaduwwun mubīn), meaning one whose enmity is manifest. This is because Satan committed to seven acts of enmity: four mentioned in: {I will surely lead them astray, and I will arouse desires in them, and I will command them, and they will slit the ears of the cattle, and I will command them, and they will change the creation of Allah} (An-Nisā’: 119), and three mentioned in: {I will surely sit in wait for them on Your straight path. Then I will surely come to them from before them and from behind them and on their right and on their left, and You will not find most of them grateful} (Al-Aʿrāf: 16-17). Since Satan committed to these acts, he is an enemy whose enmity is manifest, which is why Allah described him as such.

Regarding Allah’s saying: {He only commands you with evil and immorality and that you say about Allah what you do not know}, this serves as a detailed explanation of the totality of his enmity. It encompasses three matters:

1. *Evil (As-Sū’):* This covers all sins, whether they are actions of the limbs or actions of the hearts.
2. *Immorality (Al-Faḥshā’):* This is a type of evil, as it is the ugliest kind of sin—that which is considered great and abhorrent among sins.
3. {And that you say about Allah what you do not know}: This is perhaps the most heinous type of immorality, as ascribing to Allah what is unfitting is one of the greatest major sins.

This statement thus serves as an interpretation of {And do not follow the footsteps of Satan}, implying that Satan calls people to minor sins, major sins, disbelief, and ignorance about Allah.

Here are some issues related to this:

Know that the command and whispering of Satan refer to the thoughts we find within ourselves. People have differed regarding these thoughts in several ways:

First, regarding their essence:

• Some said they are subtle letters and sounds.
• The Philosophers said they are the mental images and representations of letters and sounds, similar to images reflected in mirrors, which resemble the original objects in some aspects, even if not in all.

One might object: Are the images of these letters similar to the letters themselves in being letters, or not? If the former, then the images of letters are letters, returning to the view that these thoughts are subtle sounds and letters. If the latter, then the images of these letters are not letters, yet I perceive these letters and sounds within myself arranged and ordered according to their external arrangement. An Arab does not speak in his heart except in Arabic, and likewise a non-Arab. The representation and sequence of these letters can only occur in correspondence with their sequence externally. Thus, it is established that they are inherently subtle letters and sounds.

Second, regarding the agent of these thoughts:

• According to our principle (that Allah is the Creator of all contingent things), the matter is clear.
• According to the Mu'tazilites, they do not hold this view. Furthermore, since the speaker is the one who performs the speech, if Allah were the agent of these thoughts, and some of them involve falsehood and absurdity, it would imply Allah is described by them—Exalted is Allah above that.
• It cannot be said that the servant is the agent, because the servant may dislike the occurrence of these thoughts and strive to repel them, yet they persist, with some leading to others sequentially. Therefore, there must be something else involved: either the Angel or Satan. Perhaps they speak this speech in the deepest part of the brain and the heart, such that even a profoundly deaf person hears these letters and sounds.

If we hold that Satan and the Angel are self-subsisting entities, completely unlocalized, it is not impossible for them to be capable of such actions. If we hold they are subtle bodies (ajsām laṭīfah), it is also not impossible that although they do not penetrate the interiors of humans, they can convey this speech to their interiors. It is also possible that due to their extreme subtlety, they can penetrate the narrow passages of the human interior and the openings of the body, conveying the speech to the deepest part of the heart and brain. Furthermore, despite their subtlety, they might be intricately composed such that the connection between their parts is inseparable, meaning their penetration into these narrow passages does not necessitate their separation or fragmentation. All these possibilities lack evidence proving their falsehood, and the truth regarding their reality is with Allah.

Evidence for the inspiration of good by Angels comes from Allah’s saying: {When your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed"} (Al-Anfāl: 12), meaning, inspire them with steadfastness and encourage them against their enemies. Evidence from narrations includes the Prophet's saying: "Indeed, Satan has an influence (lammah) upon the son of Adam, and the Angel has an influence." Another hadith states: "When a child of Adam is born, Iblis is paired with him as a devil, and Allah pairs him with an Angel. The devil squats on the left ear of his heart, and the Angel squats on the right ear of his heart, and they both call him." Some Sufis and Philosophers interpret the Angel calling to good as the rational faculty, and the Devil calling to evil as the appetitive and wrathful faculties.

The verse indicates that Satan commands only ugliness because Allah used the particle {Innamā} (only/indeed), which implies restriction. Some Gnostics said that Satan may call to good, but only for the purpose of dragging the person from it to evil. This occurs in two ways: either dragging him from a better act to a superior one, to then pull him from the superior act to evil; or dragging him from an easier superior act to a more arduous superior act, so that the increased difficulty causes complete aversion to obedience.

This statement encompasses all corrupt doctrines. It even includes the follower (muqallid) of the truth, because although he follows the truth, he has said something he does not truly know, thus deserving blame by falling under the condemnation in this verse.

Those who deny Qiyās use the verse {and that you say about Allah what you do not know} as proof. The response is: Whenever evidence establishes that acting upon Qiyās is obligatory, then acting upon Qiyās is saying about Allah what is known (by divine indication), not what is unknown.

{And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has sent down," they say, "Rather, we will follow that upon which we found our fathers." Even if their fathers were not understanding anything, nor were they guided?}