| Al 'Imran: (93 - 95) All food was...

Know that the preceding verses up to this one were concerned with establishing the proofs indicating the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and directing the obligations imposed upon the People of the Book in this matter.

As for this verse, it deals with explaining the response to the people's doubts. The apparent meaning of the verse indicates that the Prophet (PBUH) claimed that all food was lawful (halal), but then some of it became forbidden (haram) after having been lawful, and the people disputed this with him, claiming that what is now forbidden had always been forbidden.

Once you understand this, we say: The verse admits of several interpretations:

The First Interpretation: The Jews relied on denying the abrogation (naskh) to refute the law of Muhammad (PBUH). God refuted this by stating: {All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel had forbidden to himself}. That which Israel forbade to himself was lawful, then it became forbidden to him and his descendants. Thus, abrogation has occurred, invalidating your claim that abrogation is impermissible.

When this question was posed to the Jews, they denied that the prohibition of that food was due to Israel forbidding it to himself. Rather, they claimed it had been forbidden since the time of Adam (peace be upon him) until this time. At this point, the Prophet (PBUH) demanded they bring the Torah, as the Torah explicitly states that certain types of food were only forbidden because Israel forbade them to himself. They feared exposure and refused to bring the Torah.

This refusal led to several outcomes that strengthened the proofs of Muhammad's prophethood:

1. The question regarding the denial of abrogation was posed to them, which is an inescapable logical necessity.
2. Their lying became evident to the people; sometimes they attributed things to the Torah that were not in it, and other times they refused to acknowledge what was in it.
3. The Prophet (PBUH) was an unlettered man who could neither read nor write. He could not have known this subtle matter from the knowledge of the Torah except through heavenly revelation. This is a sound scholarly perspective for interpreting the verse and explaining its structure.

The Second Interpretation: The Jews said to him: "You claim to be upon the religion of Abraham. If that were the case, how do you eat camel meat and milk, since that was forbidden in Abraham's religion?" They used this as a point of contention against the validity of his claim.

The Prophet (PBUH) responded to this doubt by saying: "That was lawful for Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob (peace be upon them), except that Jacob forbade it to himself for some reason, and that prohibition remained upon his descendants." The Jews denied this. The Prophet (PBUH) then commanded them to bring the Torah and challenged them to extract a verse proving that camel meat and milk were forbidden to Abraham (peace be upon him). They were unable to do so and were exposed. This showed that they were liars in claiming these things were forbidden to Abraham (peace be upon him).

The Third Interpretation: When God revealed the verse: {And upon those who are Jews We forbade every animal with a hoof, and of the cows and the sheep We forbade them their fat, except what is on their backs or in their intestines or mixed with bone} (Al-An'am: 146), and also: {Because of the wrongdoing of those who were Jews, We forbade them good things which had been lawful for them} (An-Nisa: 160), these verses indicated that God only forbade these things to the Jews as retribution for their transgression, injustice, and wicked deeds, and that nothing was forbidden among foods except the single item Israel forbade to himself.

This was difficult for the Jews in two ways:

1. It indicated that those things were forbidden after they had been permissible, which necessitates abrogation, which they deny.
2. It indicated that they were characterized by wicked deeds.

When confronted with these two points, they denied that the prohibition of these foods was newly established, claiming instead that they had always been forbidden. The Prophet (PBUH) then demanded a verse from the Torah supporting their claim, but they failed, and were thus exposed. This is a sound interpretation of the verse's meaning.

We now return to the explanation of the words:

There are several issues concerning this:

Issue 1: The author of Al-Kashshaf says: {All food} means all edibles or all types of food. I say: People differed on whether the singular noun definite with alif and lam implies generality or not.

A group of jurists and linguists held that it does imply generality. They supported this with several arguments:

1. God included the word {All} (kull) with the word food in this verse. If the word food did not stand in place of edibles, this inclusion would not be permissible.
2. An exception was made for what Israel forbade to himself. An exception removes from the statement what would have entered had the exception not been made. Therefore, all categories must have been included under the term food, otherwise the exception would not be valid. They reinforced this with God's saying: {Indeed, mankind is in loss, except those who have believed} (Al-'Asr: 2-3).
3. God described this singular noun with what is usually used for the plural, saying: {And the tall palm trees having upright fruit stalks, as provision for men} (Qaf: 10-11).

According to this view, those who hold this opinion do not need the implied meaning mentioned by the author of Al-Kashshaf. However, those who say that the singular definite noun does not imply generality—which is what we examined in the principles of jurisprudence—require the implied meaning mentioned by Al-Kashshaf.

Issue 2: Food (ta'am) is a name for everything that is eaten. Some followers of Abu Hanifa (may God have mercy on him) claimed it refers specifically to wheat. This verse indicates the weakness of this view because an exception was made from the term food for what Israel forbade to himself, and commentators agree that what Israel forbade was something other than wheat or what is made from it.

What confirms this is God's saying regarding water: {And whoever does not taste it, then indeed he is of those who will not have their fill} (Al-Baqarah: 249). God also said: {The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them} (Al-Ma'idah: 5), referring to slaughtered animals. 'A'isha (may God be pleased with her) said: "We have no food except the two black things" (meaning dates and water).

Once this is known, we say: The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that all edibles were lawful for the Children of Israel. Al-Qaffal then said: "It has not reached us that carrion was permissible for them, even though it is food, nor is the same true for pork."

He then said: It is possible that this applies only to the foods which the Jews claimed at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) were forbidden to Abraham. Under this assumption, the alif and lam in the word food do not denote totality (istighraq), but rather a prior covenant ('ahd). Under this interpretation, the difficulty is removed. Similar to this is God's saying: {Say, "I do not find within what was revealed to me forbidden to one who would eat it except that it be carrion or blood poured out or the flesh of swine...} (Al-An'am: 145). This statement was made in response to things they asked about, and they knew that what was forbidden among them was such and such, and nothing else. The same applies to this verse.

Issue 3: Lawful (hall) is a verbal noun (masdar), said as hallan, like saying dhulla for dalla (the animal submitted) and izzan for azza (the man became mighty). Therefore, the masculine, feminine, singular, and plural are treated the same in being described by it. God says: {They are not lawful for them} (Al-Mumtahanah: 10). Describing with a verbal noun implies exaggeration; thus, hall and muhallil (that which makes lawful) are the same. Ibn 'Abbas (may God be pleased with him) said about Zamzam water: "It is hall and muhallil." Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah narrated this, and when Sufyan was asked what muhallil meant, he replied: "That which makes lawful."

There are several issues concerning this:

Issue 1: They differed on the specific thing Israel forbade to himself in several ways:

1. Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Jacob became severely ill, so he vowed that if God healed him, he would forbid to himself his most beloved food and drink." His most beloved food was camel meat, and his most beloved drink was camel milk. This is the view of Abu al-'Aliyah, 'Ata', and Muqatil.
2. It is said that he suffered from sciatica ('irq al-nisa'), so he vowed that if God healed him, he would not eat anything from the veins/nerves.
3. Some narrations mention that what he forbade to himself was the liver appendages and fat, except what was on the back. Al-Qaffal narrated from a translation of the Torah that when Jacob left Haran for Canaan, he sent gifts to Esau, his brother, in the land of Seir. The messenger returned and said: "Esau is coming to meet you with four hundred men." Jacob was terrified and grieved greatly. He prayed, supplicated, and sent gifts to his brother. The story continues until it mentions the king he met in the form of a man. That man approached and placed his finger on the spot of the sciatic nerve, causing that cord to become numb and dry. For this reason, the Children of Israel do not eat the veins/nerves.

Issue 2: The apparent meaning of the verse indicates that Israel forbade that to himself. A question arises: Prohibition and legalization are only established by a divine decree. How then did Jacob's prohibition become the cause of the prohibition taking effect?

Commentators answered this in several ways:

1. It is not unlikely that when a person forbids something to himself, God forbids it to him. Do you not see that a man forbids his wife to himself through divorce, and forbids his female slave through manumission? Similarly, it is possible that God says: If you forbid something to yourself, I also forbid it to you.
2. The Prophet (PBUH) might have engaged in Ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and his Ijtihad led to a prohibition, so he declared it forbidden. We only say that Ijtihad is permissible for Prophets for several reasons: a. God's saying: {So take heed, O people of insight!} (Al-Hashr: 2). There is no doubt that the Prophets are the leaders of those with insight. b. God's saying: {If only they had referred it to the Messenger and those in authority among them...} (An-Nisa: 83). This praises those who derive rulings, and Prophets are most deserving of this praise. c. God said to Muhammad (PBUH): {May God pardon you! Why did you permit them...} (At-Tawbah: 43). If that permission had been by explicit text (nass), He would not have said, "Why did you permit," indicating it was by Ijtihad. d. Obedience is due, and the Prophets have the greatest share in it. Deriving God's rulings through Ijtihad is a great and difficult act of obedience, so the Prophets must have a share in it, especially since their knowledge is greater, their minds brighter, and their intellects purer, and God's guidance and support are with them more. When they rule based on Ijtihad, it becomes forbidden for the community to contradict that ruling, just as when consensus (ijma') is established upon Ijtihad, it becomes forbidden to contradict it. The most apparent and strongest view is that Israel (peace be upon him) only forbade that to himself through Ijtihad. If it were by explicit text, God would have said, "except what God forbade to Israel." Since the prohibition is attributed to Israel, this indicates it was by Ijtihad, just as one says, "Al-Shafi'i permits horses for them, and Abu Hanifa forbids them," meaning his Ijtihad led to that ruling.
3. It is possible that the prohibition in his law was like a vow (nadr) in our law. Just as we must fulfill a vow, fulfilling the prohibition was obligatory in his law. Note: Even if this were true, it would be specific to his law. In our law, it is not established, as God says: {O Prophet, why do you prohibit yourself what Allah has made lawful for you?} (At-Tahrim: 1).
4. Al-Asamm said: Perhaps his soul was inclined to eat those types, so he refrained from eating them as a means of conquering the self and seeking God's pleasure, as many ascetics do. This abstinence was expressed as a prohibition.
5. A group of theologians said it is permissible for God to tell His servant: "Judge," because he judges only correctly. Perhaps this incident was of this nature. The theologians have many debates on this issue, which we mentioned in the principles of jurisprudence.

Issue 3: The apparent meaning of this verse indicates that what Israel forbade to himself, God also forbade to the Children of Israel. This is because God said: {All food was lawful to the Children of Israel}, thus ruling all types of edibles lawful for them, and then He made an exception for what Israel forbade to himself. By the rule of exception, it must be that that item was forbidden to the Children of Israel. And God knows best.

This means that before the Torah was revealed, all types of edibles were lawful for the Children of Israel, except what Israel forbade to himself. After the Torah, this was no longer the case; rather, God forbade many types of things to them. It is narrated that whenever the Children of Israel committed a great sin, God would forbid a type of food to them, or inflict upon them something leading to ruin or harm, as evidenced by God's saying: {Because of the wrongdoing of those who were Jews, We forbade them good things which had been lawful for them} (An-Nisa: 160).

Then God said: {Say, "Then bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful."} This indicates that the people disputed with the Messenger of God (PBUH), either because they claimed that the prohibition of these things existed from the time of Adam (peace be upon him) until this time—so the Messenger of God (PBUH) refuted their claim—or because the Messenger of God (PBUH) claimed that these edibles were permissible in ancient times and were only forbidden because Israel forbade them to himself, and they disputed this. The Messenger of God (PBUH) then demanded the Torah be brought so that the Muslims among the scholars of the People of the Book could extract a verse agreeing with the Messenger's statement. In either case, the interpretation is clear.

Those who deny analogy (qiyas) can use this verse as evidence. This is because the Messenger (PBUH) demanded the Book of God regarding their claim. If analogy were evidence, they could have said: "The absence of this ruling in the Torah does not mean it is absent, for we establish it through analogy." A response can be given that the dispute was not over a legal ruling itself, but rather whether this ruling existed in the time of Abraham and the other Prophets (peace be upon them) or not. Such a matter cannot be established except by explicit text (nass), which is why the Messenger (PBUH) demanded the text of the Torah.

Then God said: {Then whoever invents a lie against Allah}. Iftira' (fabrication) means inventing a lie. Furya is a lie and slander. Its root is from fara al-adim, meaning to cut leather. Lying is called iftira' because the liar cuts into speech without verifying its existence.

Then He said: {after that}, meaning after the proof became clear that the prohibition originated from Jacob and was not forbidden before him, {then those are the wrongdoers}, deserving of God's punishment, because their disbelief is an injustice against themselves and against those they mislead from the religion.

Then God said: {Say, "Allah has spoken the truth."} This has several interpretations:

1. {Say, "Truth"} in that this type of food became forbidden to Israel and his descendants after it had been lawful for them, thus validating the concept of abrogation and invalidating the Jews' doubt.
2. {Allah has spoken the truth} in His statement that camel meat and milk were lawful for Abraham (peace be upon him) and were only forbidden to the Children of Israel because Israel forbade them to himself. This establishes that when Muhammad (PBUH) ruled camel meat and milk lawful, he was ruling according to the religion of Abraham.
3. {Allah has spoken the truth} in that the rest of the foods were lawful for the Children of Israel and were only forbidden to the Jews as retribution for their wicked deeds.

Then God said: {So follow the religion of Abraham, inclining to truth} (hanifa). This means follow what Muhammad (peace be upon him) calls you to from the religion of Abraham. It is the same whether He said, "the religion of Abraham, hanifa" (as an adverbial state) or "the religion of the hanif Abraham" (as an adjective), as the state and the adjective are equivalent in meaning here.

Then He said: {And he was not of the polytheists}. Meaning, he did not call upon any deity other than God, nor did he worship anyone other than Him, as some did by worshipping the sun and moon, or as the Arabs did by worshipping idols, or as the Jews did by claiming 'Uzayr was the son of God, or as the Christians did by claiming the Messiah was the son of God. The purpose is to clarify that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was upon the religion of Abraham (peace be upon him) in both practical rulings (furu') and fundamental principles (usul).

As for the practical rulings (furu'): Since it was established that the ruling of permissibility was also ruled by Abraham, then the ruling of permissibility is affirmed. As for the fundamental principles (usul): Muhammad (peace be upon him) only calls to monotheism and disavowal of every object of worship other than God, and Abraham (peace be upon him) was only upon this religion.

| Al 'Imran: (96 - 97) Indeed, the first House...

{Indeed, the first House established for mankind was that at Bakkah [Mecca], blessed and a guidance for the worlds.}

There are several issues concerning this:

Issue 1: The meaning of "The first House established for mankind." This indicates that the Ka'bah in Mecca is the first sanctuary built for the worship of God on earth. It is narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Ka'bah was built by Adam (peace be upon him), and after the flood (during Noah's time), it was destroyed, and Abraham (peace be upon him) rebuilt it upon the foundations of Adam. Some scholars said that the first structure built for worship was the Ka'bah, and the second was the Temple of Jerusalem. This is supported by the verse itself, which calls it "the first House."

Issue 2: The meaning of "Bakkah." There are several views:

1. It is the name of the city of Mecca itself.
2. It is the name of the sanctuary area (Haram) within Mecca.
3. It is derived from the word bakka (to crowd/crush), because people crowd there during the circumambulation (tawaf). This is supported by the narration from Ibn 'Abbas: "It is called Bakkah because people crowd together there."

Issue 3: The meaning of "blessed" (mubarak). This means that blessings descend upon it, and it is a place where good deeds are multiplied, and prayers are answered.

Issue 4: The meaning of "a guidance for the worlds" (hudan lil-'alamin). This means it is a guidance for all people in the world, not just for the Arabs. This guidance is manifested in the rituals of Hajj and 'Umrah, which are prescribed for all nations.

Issue 5: The meaning of "In it are clear signs, the standing place of Abraham." The clear signs (ayat bayyinat) include:

1. The Ka'bah itself.
2. The Black Stone (al-Hajar al-Aswad).
3. The well of Zamzam.
4. The place of Abraham's standing (Maqam Ibrahim), which is the stone upon which he stood while building the Ka'bah, and the imprint of his foot is visible on it.

Issue 6: The meaning of "And whoever enters it will be safe" (wa man dakhala-hu kana a'mina). This means whoever enters the sanctuary area with the intention of performing Hajj or 'Umrah, or seeking refuge, will be safe from harm, as God commanded the people of Mecca to respect its sanctity. This was true in the time of Abraham and Muhammad (PBUH).

Issue 7: The obligation of Hajj. {And for Allah is due from the people the pilgrimage to the House, for whoever is able to make the journey to it}. This verse establishes the obligation of Hajj upon every capable Muslim. The condition for obligation is the ability to make the journey (istita'ah), which includes having sufficient provisions and physical ability.

Issue 8: The consequence of disbelief. {And whoever disbelieves—then indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds}. If someone refuses to perform Hajj despite being able, they have disbelieved in a fundamental obligation of Islam. God is completely independent of the worship or disbelief of all creation.