Al-An'am (The Cattle): Verses 142–144

It is known that after the Almighty mentioned His favors upon His servants through vegetable benefits, He followed this by mentioning His favors through animal benefits. He said: {And of the cattle are carriers and some for meat [or bedding]} (6:142).

There are several issues concerning this verse:

The (Waw) in the phrase {And of the cattle are carriers and some for meat} implies a connection to what preceded it, namely His statement: {And it is He who established gardens, both raised and unraised}.

The implication is: He established gardens, both raised and unraised, and He established from the cattle carriers and those for meat/bedding.

There are differing opinions regarding the interpretation of Hamūlah (carriers) and Fursh (those for meat/bedding). The closest interpretations to a sound conclusion are two:

1. First View: Al-Hamūlah refers to what carries burdens, and Al-Fursh refers to what is spread out (for slaughter) or what is woven from its wool, hair, or fur for bedding.
2. Second View: Al-Hamūlah refers to the large animals fit for carrying, and Al-Fursh refers to the small ones, such as calves, young goats, and sheep, because they are close to the ground due to their small size, similar to a carpet spread out upon it.

Then the Almighty said: {Eat of what Allah has provided for you}, meaning what He has permitted for you.

The Mu'tazila argued: Since the Almighty commanded eating what is provided (rizq) and forbade eating what is unlawful (harām), it follows that provision (rizq) is not unlawful.

Then He said: {And do not follow the footsteps of Satan}, meaning do not legislate prohibitions and permissions on your own, as the people of Jāhiliyyah (ignorance) did.

{Footsteps} (khuṭuwāt) is the plural of khuṭwah (a step), which is the distance between two feet. Al-Zajjaj mentioned three readings for {footsteps of Satan}: with a ḍammah on the ṭā’ (khuṭuwāt), with a fatḥah (khuṭaṭwāt), or with a sukūn (khuṭwāt). All mean the paths of Satan; i.e., do not tread the path that Satan beautifies for you.

Then the Almighty said: {Indeed, he is to you an open enemy}, meaning his enmity is clear. He expelled Adam from Paradise, and he is the one who said: {I will surely take from among His servants a designated portion} (17:62).

Then the Almighty said: {Eight kinds in pairs}. There are two points of discussion here:

First Point: The Grammatical Case of "Eight"

There are two views on why {eight} (thamāniyah) is in the accusative case (naṣb):

1. Al-Farra’ said it is an apposition (substitute) for {carriers and some for meat}.
2. The implied meaning is: Eat of what Allah has provided for you, eight kinds in pairs.

Second Point: Defining "Pairs"

When a single entity is alone, it is called fard (singular). When it is accompanied by another of its kind, it is called a zawj (pair). This is evidenced by His statement: {And that He created the two sexes, male and female} (53:45), and by the phrase {eight kinds in pairs}. This is then explained by: {Of the sheep two and of the goats two} (6:143).

Then He said: {Of the sheep two}, meaning the male and the female. Sheep (aḍ-ḍa’n) are the wool-bearing animals among the flock. Al-Zajjaj said it is the plural of ḍā’in and ḍā’inah, similar to tājir and tājirah. Aḍ-ḍa’n is also pluralized as aḍ-ḍi’n (with a kasrah or fatḥah on the ḍād).

And His statement: {And of the goats two}. It is recited {And of the goats} (wa mina al-maʿz) with a fatḥah on the ʿayn. Goats (al-maʿz) are the hair-bearing animals among the flock. The singular is called māʿiz, and the plural is maʿzāh.

• Whoever reads {al-maʿz} with a fatḥah on the ʿayn (maʿiz) is treating it as a plural similar to khādim and khadam, or ṭālib and ṭalab, or ḥāris and ḥaras.
• Whoever reads it with a sukūn on the ʿayn (maʿz) is also a plural of māʿiz, like ṣāḥib and ṣaḥb, or tājir and tujjar, or rākib and rukb.

The reason {two} is in the accusative case is that the implied meaning of the verse is: He established eight pairs; He established from the sheep two, and from the goats two, etc.

His statement: {Say, "Has He forbidden the two males or the two females?} (6:143). The two males are in the accusative case because of the verb {forbidden} (ḥarrama). The interrogative particle operates on what follows it, not what precedes it.

The commentators said that the polytheists of Jāhiliyyah used to forbid certain cattle. Allah refuted their claims by mentioning these four types (sheep, goats, camels, and cattle) and specifying that for each type, there are two kinds: male and female.

Then He said: If they forbade the male, then all males of that type must be forbidden. If they forbade the female, then all females of that type must be forbidden.

And His statement: {Or what the wombs of the two females contained} (6:143). This means: If they forbade what the wombs of the females contained, then all offspring must be forbidden, because wombs contain both males and females.

This is the interpretation agreed upon by the commentators, but I find it very distant [from the correct meaning]. A critic could argue: Even if these four types—sheep, goats, camels, and cattle—are restricted to males and females, the reason for forbidding what they forbade does not necessarily have to be restricted to masculinity or femininity. Rather, the reason could be that the animal was baḥīrah, sā’ibah, waṣīlah, or ḥām, or other considerations.

Just as if we say Allah forbade slaughtering certain animals for consumption, and someone asks: If that animal was forbidden because it was male, then every male animal must be forbidden. If it was forbidden because it was female, then every female animal must be forbidden. Since this line of reasoning is not necessarily incumbent upon us, neither is the interpretation mentioned by the commentators for this verse. A rational person must seek a sound interpretation for the words of Allah; interpreting it with flawed reasoning is not permissible.

The closest interpretation, in my view, involves two possibilities:

1. This statement was not presented as a proof for invalidating their claim, but rather as a rhetorical question expressing disapproval. Meaning: You do not acknowledge the prophethood of any prophet, nor do you know the law of any Lawgiver; so how do you rule that this is permissible and that is forbidden?
2. Their rulings regarding baḥīrah, sā’ibah, waṣīlah, and ḥām were specific only to camels. Allah clarifies that the cattle mentioned are these four types. Since they did not apply these rulings to the other three categories (sheep, goats, and cattle), why did they specifically restrict these rulings to camels?

This is my view on this verse, and Allah knows best His intent.

Then the Almighty said: {Or were you witnesses when Allah enjoined this upon you?} (6:143). This means: Did you witness Allah forbidding this if you do not believe in a Messenger?

The essence of the discussion in this verse is: You do not acknowledge the prophethood of any prophet, so how do you establish these varied rulings?

After clarifying this, He said: {And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah to mislead people without knowledge?} (6:144).

Ibn Abbas said this refers to 'Amr ibn Luhayy, as he was the one who changed the law of Ishmael. However, the closer view is that this applies to everyone who does such a thing, because the wording is general, and the reason necessitating this ruling is general; thus, restricting it is arbitrary preference.

The scholars stated: If it is established that whoever fabricates a lie against Allah by forbidding what is permissible deserves this severe warning, then whoever fabricates a lie against Allah concerning the issues of Tawḥīd (Monotheism), knowledge of the Divine Essence and Attributes, prophethoods, angels, and the matters of the Hereafter, their warning will be more severe and harsher.

Al-Qadi [Al-Baqillani] said: This indicates that misleading people from religion is blameworthy and not befitting of Allah. Because if Allah condemns misleading that only involves forbidding what is permissible, then what is greater than that is more deserving of condemnation.

The Response: Not everything that is blameworthy for us is blameworthy for Allah. Do you not see that combining male and female slaves, enabling lustful desires among them, and facilitating the means of immorality is blameworthy for us, but not blameworthy for Allah? Similarly here.

Then He said: {Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people} (6:144).

Al-Qadi said: He does not guide them except to His reward and to the increments of guidance that the guided are specialized with. Our scholars said the meaning is a statement that Allah will not guide those polytheists; i.e., He will not move them from the darkness of disbelief to the light of faith. The discussion regarding which of these two opinions is stronger is well-known.

{Say, "I do not find within what was revealed to me that which is forbidden to eat except that it be carrion, or blood spilled out, or the flesh of swine—for indeed, it is impure—or that which has been designated, as a violation, to other than Allah.}

{But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it for pleasure] nor transgressing [beyond the limit], indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.}

{And to those who practice Judaism, We forbade every animal with a hoof. And of the cattle and the sheep, We forbade them their fats, except what was carried on their backs or what lay on their intestines or what mixed with bone. That We recompensed them for their transgression, and indeed, We are truthful.}

{But if they deny you, then say, "Your Lord is the Lord of vast mercy, but His might will not be turned back from the criminal people."}