Al-An'am (The Cattle): (121) And do not eat from that...

Verse Analysis

It is known that after Allah (Exalted is He) clarified that it is permissible to eat what is slaughtered in the name of Allah, He immediately followed it by prohibiting what is not slaughtered in His name. This prohibition includes carrion (dead meat) and what is slaughtered in the name of idols. The purpose is to invalidate the claims of the polytheists. There are several issues concerning this verse:

Ata' narrated that he held that anything—food or drink—upon which the name of Allah is not mentioned is forbidden, based on the general wording of this verse.

However, the rest of the jurists agreed to restrict this generality specifically to slaughtering. They then differed:

1. Malik: Any animal slaughtered without mentioning Allah's name is forbidden, whether the omission was intentional or due to forgetfulness. This is also the view of Ibn Sirin and a group of theologians.
2. Abu Hanifa: If the omission of the name is intentional, it is forbidden; if it is due to forgetfulness, it is permissible.
3. Al-Shafi'i: It is permissible to eat meat where the Tasmiyah (mentioning the name) is omitted, whether intentionally or by mistake, provided the slaughterer is qualified for slaughtering. We have discussed this matter exhaustively in the exegesis of the verse: {except what you manage to slaughter} (Al-Ma'idah: 3), so there is no benefit in repeating it here.

Al-Shafi'i's Argument for Restriction: Al-Shafi'i stated that this prohibition is specifically restricted to cases where the animal was slaughtered in the name of idols (al-Nusub). He provided several proofs:

1. Proof 1: The statement, {And indeed, it is a transgression (fisq)}. Muslims unanimously agree that eating the meat slaughtered by a Muslim who omitted the Tasmiyah out of forgetfulness is not considered a transgression.
2. Proof 2: The statement, {And indeed, the devils inspire their allies to argue with you} (Al-An'am: 121). This debate was only about the issue of carrion. It is narrated that some polytheists said to the Muslims: "You eat what the hawk or the dog kills, but you do not eat what Allah kills [i.e., carrion]." Ibn Abbas narrated that they said: "You eat what you kill, but you do not eat what Allah kills." Thus, this debate is specific to eating carrion.
3. Proof 3: The statement, {And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be polytheists (mushrikun)}. This is specific to what is slaughtered in the name of idols (al-Nusub). Meaning, if you accepted this meat slaughtered in the name of the deities of the idols, you would have accepted their divinity, which necessitates polytheism.

Al-Shafi'i concluded: Although the beginning of the verse is general in its wording, since the end of it contains these three restrictions, we know that the intended meaning of that generality is this specificity.

Further Confirmation (Al-Shafi'i): What reinforces this meaning is that Allah said, {And do not eat from that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, and indeed, it is a transgression (fisq)}. This prohibition is thus restricted to when this act constitutes a transgression. We then sought in the Book of Allah to know when an act becomes a transgression (fisq). We found this transgression explained in another verse: {Say, "I do not find within what was revealed to me [on this day] forbidden to one who would eat it except that it be carrion or spilt blood or the flesh of swine—for indeed, it is impure—or that which has been designated as a transgression (fisq) by being slaughtered for other than Allah} (Al-An'am: 145). Therefore, the transgression (fisq) in this verse is explained as that which is dedicated to other than Allah. If this is the case, then the statement {And do not eat from that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, and indeed, it is a transgression} is specific to what is dedicated to other than Allah.

We should refrain from relying on these specific restrictions and instead ask: Why do you claim that the mention of Allah's name is absent here? The proof for its presence is the narration from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he said: "The mention of Allah is with the Muslim whether he says it or not." This mention is interpreted as the mention of the heart (intention).

Even if this proof necessitates prohibition, the other proofs mentioned in this issue necessitate permissibility. When proofs conflict, the one favoring permissibility must prevail, because the default ruling for food is permissibility. This is supported by all general verses indicating the permissibility of eating and benefiting, such as {He created for you all that is in the earth} (Al-Baqarah: 29) and {Eat and drink} (Al-Baqarah: 60). Since food is naturally desirable, it must be permissible according to {He has made lawful for you the good things (al-Tayyibat)} (Al-Ma'idah: 4). Furthermore, it is property, as nature inclines toward it, so it should not be forbidden, based on the Prophet's (PBUH) prohibition against wasting wealth.

This summarizes the discussion on this issue. Nevertheless, we say: It is better for the Muslim to abstain from it because the apparent meaning of this text is strong.

What does the pronoun in {and indeed, it is a transgression (fisq)} refer to? There are two opinions:

1. The command {Do not eat} implies the act of eating (the verbal noun/masdar). Thus, the pronoun refers back to this act of eating.
2. It is as if Allah described the thing itself—that which is not slaughtered in Allah's name—as being a transgression, as a form of hyperbole.

What is meant by {And indeed, the devils inspire their allies to argue with you}? There are two opinions:

1. The devils here refer to Iblis and his soldiers. They whispered to their allies among the polytheists to argue with the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions regarding the eating of carrion.
2. 'Ikrimah said: The devils here refer to the stubborn leaders of the Magians (Zoroastrians). This is because when the prohibition of carrion was revealed, the Magians heard about it from the people of Persia. They wrote to Quraysh (with whom they had correspondence), saying: "Muhammad and his companions claim to follow God's command, yet they claim that what they slaughter is lawful while what God kills [carrion] is forbidden." This caused some doubt in the minds of some Muslims, so Allah revealed this verse.

Then Allah said: {And if you were to obey them}—meaning, in permitting carrion—{indeed, you would be polytheists (mushrikun)}.

Al-Zajjaj said: This verse provides evidence that whoever permits something Allah has forbidden, or forbids something Allah has permitted, is a polytheist. He is called a polytheist because he established an authority other than Allah, and this is polytheism.

Al-Ka'bi argued that this verse is proof that Iman (Faith) is the name for all acts of obedience, even though its linguistic meaning is affirmation (belief). This is analogous to how Allah named polytheism (Shirk) as the name for everything contrary to Allah, even though linguistically Shirk is restricted to believing that Allah has a partner. The proof is that Allah named the obedience of the believers to the polytheists regarding the permissibility of carrion as Shirk.

A counter-argument can be raised: Why can it not be that the meaning of Shirk here refers only to the belief that someone else shares in judgment and legislation with Allah? Under this interpretation, the meaning of this polytheism reverts solely to belief.

Verse 125

{Or is one who was dead and We gave him life and made for him a light by which he walks among the people, like one who is in darkness, not to emerge from it? Thus is what they were doing made attractive to the disbelievers.}