Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:4

Surah Al-Ma'idah (5): Verse 4

{They ask you, [O Muhammad], what has been made lawful for them. Say, "Lawful for you are the good things [At-Tayyibat]."}

This verse follows the previous discussion concerning permissible and forbidden foods. Several issues arise from this verse:

The author of Al-Kashshaf suggests that the word "ask" implies the meaning of "saying," thus the structure is as if it means: "They say to you, 'What has been made lawful for them?'" He argues that the text uses "for them" (لهم) instead of "for us" (لنا) because it is a narration of what they said.

Critique: This view is weak. If it were a direct narration of their words, they would have asked, "What has been made lawful for us?" (ماذا أحل لنا), which is clearly not what they said. The correct understanding is that this is not a verbatim report of their utterance, but rather a description of the event that occurred.

Al-Wahidi stated two possibilities for the structure of ماذا (What):

1. It is treated as a single noun, in which case it is in the nominative case (as the subject, مبتدأ), and its predicate (خبر) is أُحِلَّ (made lawful).
2. ما (Ma) is the noun, and its predicate is ذا (Dha). أُحِلَّ then becomes a relative clause modifying ذا, meaning: "What is it that has been made lawful for them?"

In the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah), Arabs used to forbid certain good things, such as the Bahirah, Sa'ibah, Wasilah, and Ham (specific types of sacrificial animals). They considered these things good, but prohibited their consumption based on weak suspicions.

Therefore, Allah (SWT) clarified that everything that is considered good and desirable (يستطاب) is lawful. This is reinforced by other verses:

• {Say, "Who has forbidden the adornment of Allah which He has produced for His servants and the good things from provision?"} (Al-A'raf: 32)
• {And He makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil things.} (Al-A'raf: 157)

Linguistic Note: The word Tayyib (good/pure) linguistically means what is desirable (المستلذ). Lawful things are also called Tayyib by analogy, as both share the characteristic of being free from harm.

If الطيبات here meant only "the lawful things," the verse would mean: "Say, lawful for you are the lawful things," which is redundant and weak. Thus, الطيبات must refer to what is desirable and sought after (المستلذ والمشتهى). The meaning becomes: "Lawful for you is everything that is desirable and craved."

Standard of Desirability: The criterion for what is desirable and pure (الاستلذاذ والاستطابة) rests with people of virtue and good character (أهل المروءة والأخلاق الجميلة). For instance, desert dwellers might find the consumption of all animals desirable, whereas others might not.

This permissibility is supported by {He created for you all that is in the earth} (Al-Baqarah: 29), which implies the ability to benefit from everything on earth, restricted only by {And He prohibits for them the evil things} (Al-A'raf: 157). These verses establish a major principle regarding permissible and forbidden foods.

Application in Jurisprudence (Fiqh):

1. Horse Meat: Imam Shafi'i permits it because it is desirable and its desirability is known by necessity; thus, it must be lawful based on {Lawful for you are the good things}. Abu Hanifah prohibits it.
2. Omitting the Name of Allah (Tasmiyah) during Slaughter: Imam Shafi'i permits eating meat slaughtered without pronouncing the Tasmiyah (if the slaughterer forgot), arguing it is desirable and thus lawful. Abu Hanifah deems it forbidden.
   • Shafi'i's further proof: The exception {except what you have slaughtered} (Al-Ma'idah: 3) covers all properly slaughtered animals, including horses. For the forgotten Tasmiyah, the act of slaughter (الذكاة) is still achieved, as consensus holds that forgetting the Tasmiyah does not invalidate the slaughter. This proves that uttering the name is not part of the essence (ماهية) of Dhabh (slaughter). If Dhabh is present without Tasmiyah, it falls under the general permission of {except what you have slaughtered}.
3. Domestic Donkey Meat: Malik and Bishr al-Marisi permit it based on these verses. However, the majority rely on the Prophetic tradition prohibiting the meat of domestic donkeys on the Day of Khaybar.

{And [lawful are] the beasts of prey which you have trained, of what Allah has taught you.}

This section raises several issues:

Two views exist regarding the structure of this phrase:

1. Implied Object: There is an implied object (صيد - game). The meaning is: "Lawful for you are the good things, and the game of what you have trained of beasts of prey..." The object is omitted because it is understood from the subsequent command: {so eat of what they have caught for you}.
2. Independent Clause: The phrase {And the beasts of prey which you have trained...} is an independent clause, and its predicate is the command {so eat of what they have caught for you}. This structure is sound without omission.

1. Acquirers: They are the birds and beasts that acquire prey (الكواسب). The singular is Jarihah, derived from Jarah or Ijtaraḥa, meaning to acquire (as in {those who have committed evil deeds} - Al-Jathiyah: 21).
2. Injurers: They are those that inflict wounds (تجرح). Some scholars held that if the prey was taken without drawing blood, it was not lawful.

Ibn Umar, Al-Dahhak, and Al-Suddi reported that game caught by anything other than dogs, if not properly slaughtered (i.e., found dead), is not permissible. They base this on the structure of the verse, which mentions {trained, as dogs} (مكلبين).

Rebuttal to the Restriction to Dogs:

1. Etymology of Mukallab: Mukallab means one who trains beasts of prey to hunt for their master. The term is derived from dogs because training is most common among them, so the term was generalized.
2. General Term for Predators: Every predator is sometimes called a dog (كلب), as evidenced by the Prophet's (PBUH) supplication: "O Allah, unleash upon him one of Your dogs [predators], and a lion ate him."
3. Meaning of Intensity: Kalb can mean intense eagerness. One might say, "So-and-so is kalb for such-and-such" if he is very keen on it.
4. Exclusion Does Not Imply Prohibition: Even if the verse specifically permits hunting with dogs, this does not negate the permissibility of hunting with other means, such as arrows or nets, which are not mentioned.

The verse mandates that hunting with beasts of prey is only lawful if they are trained, as stated: {And what you have trained, of what Allah has taught you}. The Prophet (PBUH) told Adi ibn Hatim: "When you send your trained dog and mention Allah's name, then eat."

Imam Shafi'i's Definition of a Trained Dog: A dog becomes trained when it meets several criteria:

1. It runs when sent.
2. It stops when commanded to hold back.
3. It does not eat from the catch.
4. It responds when called.
5. It does not flee when approached.

Shafi'i did not specify a fixed number of repetitions; rather, if it is highly probable that the animal has learned the required behavior, the ruling applies. If the ruling is not explicitly defined by text or consensus, custom (العرف) must be consulted—this is the dominant view of Abu Hanifah.

Other Views on Training Frequency:

• Al-Hasan Al-Basri: Becomes trained after one instance.
• Abu Hanifah (another narration) and Ahmad: Becomes trained after two instances.
• Abu Yusuf and Muhammad: Becomes trained after three instances.

مكلبين refers to the one who trains dogs (الكلاب), analogous to a teacher (معلم) being the master of teaching (التكليب). Al-Kashshaf noted that a variant reading exists with a lighter pronunciation (مكلبين with takhfif), as the forms Af'al and Fa'al often share meanings.

It is in the accusative case (انتصاب) as a circumstantial adverb (حال) modifying علمتم (you have trained).

Question: What is the benefit of this circumstantial adverb when علمتم already implies training? Answer: Its benefit is to emphasize that the trainer must be proficient and skilled in the act of training (مدربا فيه موصوفا بالتكليب). The subsequent phrase {and you teach them} (وتعلمونهن) is either a second circumstantial adverb or a new explanatory sentence, emphasizing the strict requirement of training.

{So eat of what they have caught for you, and remember the name of Allah upon it.}

1. Wounded but Found Dead: If a trained dog wounds the game and it dies before the hunter reaches it, it is lawful. The wound inflicted by a trained beast of prey is equivalent to proper slaughter (الذبح), as is the case with arrows and spears.
2. Killed by Suffocation: If the dog pins the animal down and kills it with its mouth without wounding it, some scholars say it is unlawful (as it is carrion, ميتة). Others permit it based on {eat of what they have caught for you}.

If the Beast Eats from the Catch: Scholars differ on whether the remaining part is lawful if the beast ate from the prey:

• Prohibition (Ibn Abbas, Tawus, Sha'bi, Ata, Al-Suddi, and the more apparent view of Shafi'i): It is unlawful. They argue the beast caught it for itself, whereas the verse implies it must be caught for the owner. This is supported by the narration where the Prophet (PBUH) told Adi ibn Hatim: "...If you find it has eaten from it, do not eat anything from it, for it only caught it for itself."
• Permissibility (Salman Al-Farisi, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Ibn Umar, Abu Hurayrah, and the second view of Shafi'i): It is lawful even if the beast ate from it.

Difference between Dogs and Birds of Prey (e.g., Falcons):

• Some say there is no difference; if a bird of prey eats from the catch, the remainder is unlawful (a view attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib).
• Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Abu Hanifah, and Al-Muzani differentiate: The remainder from birds of prey is lawful, but the remainder from a dog is not. The reason given is that a dog can be disciplined against eating by beating, whereas a falcon cannot be disciplined against eating.

1. Superfluous Particle: It is an extra particle, like in {Eat from its fruit when it yields fruit} (Al-An'am: 141).
2. Partitive (for some of it): If it is partitive, there are two interpretations:
   • Only the flesh is eaten, not the bone, blood, or feathers.
   • It means: Eat what remains for you after the beasts have eaten. This supports the view that if the dog eats some, the remainder is still lawful, as the essence of "catching for the owner" is simply taking possession and not letting it escape, which occurs whether the beast eats or not.

{And remember the name of Allah upon it.}

There are several interpretations regarding what the pronoun "it" (عليه) refers to:

1. Upon Sending the Beast: It means, "Mention Allah's name when you send your dog." This is supported by the narration: "When you send your dog and mention Allah's name, then eat." Here, the pronoun refers to the beast of prey.
2. Upon Finding the Slain Animal: The pronoun refers to the game that was caught, meaning, "Mention Allah's name when you find it properly slaughtered."
3. Upon Eating: The pronoun refers to the act of eating, meaning, "Mention Allah's name when you eat." This is supported by the Prophet's (PBUH) instruction to Umar ibn Abi Salamah: "Mention Allah's name and eat what is nearest to you."

Reconciliation with Rulings: Imam Shafi'i holds that if one intentionally omits the Tasmiyah, the meat remains lawful. If we adopt the third interpretation (pronoun refers to eating), there is no conflict. If we adopt the first or second interpretation, the command to mention the name is interpreted as recommended (ندب) rather than obligatory, reconciling this verse with other texts indicating permissibility even if the Tasmiyah is omitted intentionally. (This will be discussed further in the exegesis of verse 121 of Surah Al-An'am).

{And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is swift in account.}

This means: Be cautious against disobeying Allah's command regarding what He has made lawful and what He has forbidden.

Surah Al-Ma'idah (5): Verse 7

{This day [all] good things have been made lawful for you, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful to you in marriage are] chaste women from the believing women and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their dowries, taking them in marriage, not in fornication or as mistresses.}

(The verse continues, but the provided excerpt ends here.)