Al-An'am (The Cattle): Verses 145–147

It is known that when the Almighty established the corruption in the ways of the people of Jahiliyyah (ignorance) regarding what is permissible and forbidden in foodstuffs, He followed it up with the correct explanation in this matter, saying: {Say: I do not find} [in what has been revealed to me].

In this verse, there are several issues:

1. Ibn Kathir and Hamzah recited it with the feminine form of the verb (تكون - takūna) and the noun ميتة (maytatan) in the accusative case (mansūb), implying: "Unless the entity, the soul, or the carcass is dead."
2. Ibn 'Amir recited it with the feminine verb (تكون - takūna) but the noun ميتة (maytata) in the nominative case (marfū'), meaning: "Unless death occurs or a dead thing comes into existence."
3. The rest of the reciters recited it with the masculine verb (يكون - yakūna), meaning: "Unless the food is carrion, or unless the existing thing is carrion."

When God Almighty clarified that prohibition and permissibility are established only through revelation, He said: {Say: I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to one who would eat it} (i.e., to one who consumes it). This was mentioned to show that the intent is to clarify what is permissible and forbidden among foodstuffs.

Then, He mentioned four things:

1. Carrion (al-maytah).
2. Spilled blood (al-damm al-masfūḥ).
3. Pork (lahm al-khinzīr), because it is impure (rijs).
4. That which is dedicated to other than God (al-fisq), which is that which is slaughtered in the name of other than God.

The statement {Say: I do not find in what has been revealed to you anything forbidden} except these four is an emphasis on the fact that only these four are forbidden. This is because:

• It is established that the only way to know the forbidden and the permissible is through revelation.
• It is established that there is no revelation from God except to the Prophet (peace be upon him).
• It is established that God commands him to say, "I do not find anything forbidden in what has been revealed to me" except these four.

This constitutes an emphasis that nothing is forbidden except these four.

Contextual Confirmation of Restriction: This Sūrah (Al-An'am) is Meccan. Here, the Almighty established that nothing is forbidden except these four. He reinforced this in Sūrat An-Nahl (16:115): {He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing beyond necessity, indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.} The word {إنما} (Innamā - only/indeed) implies restriction (Hassr).

Thus, we have two Meccan verses indicating the restriction of prohibitions to these four. Furthermore, in Sūrat Al-Baqarah (which is Medinan), He also stated that nothing is forbidden except these four: {He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah} (2:173). The word {إنما} implies restriction. This Medinan verse corresponds to the Meccan verse, as {إنما} confirms the restriction implied by the command to say, "I do not find anything forbidden... except these four" in the Meccan verse.

Later, in Sūrat Al-Mā’idah, He said: {Permitted to you are the animals of grazing livestock except what is recited to you [hereafter]} (5:1). The exegetes agree that {except what is recited to you} refers to what follows shortly after: {Forbidden to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, that which has been strangled, that which has been beaten to death, that which has been killed by a fall, that which has been gored, and that which has been partially eaten by a predator, except as you are able to slaughter it [before its death]} (5:3). All these items are categories of carrion. God repeated them because the people used to rule them permissible. Therefore, the Sharia, from beginning to end, was established upon this ruling and this restriction.

Addressing Objections to the Restriction:

Objection: If we adhere to this restriction, it implies that all impurities (najāsāt) and repulsive things (mustaqdharāt) are permissible, as is wine. Furthermore, it implies that the strangled, beaten, fallen, and gored animals are permissible, even though God ruled them forbidden.

Response: This is not necessarily implied, for several reasons:

1. Impurity (Rijs): The verse states regarding pork: {for it is impure (rijs)}. This implies that impurity is the reason for the prohibition of eating it. Therefore, everything impure must be forbidden. If this principle is established in the verse, the objection regarding general impurities falls away.
2. Repulsive Things (Khaba’ith): In another verse, God says: {And He prohibits for them the wicked/repulsive things (al-khaba’ith)} (7:157). This necessitates the prohibition of all repulsive things, and impurities are repulsive things.
3. Consensus on Impurities: The Ummah is in consensus regarding the prohibition of consuming impurities. Even if we concede that this specific Sūrah is restricted regarding impurities based on continuous transmission (tawātur) from the religion of Muhammad (PBUH), everything else must remain according to the general principle, relying on the generality of the Book in both the Meccan and Medinan verses. This establishes a complete principle regarding permissible and forbidden foods.

Regarding Wine: Wine is impure, falling under the category of {impure (rijs)} and {repulsive things (al-khaba’ith)}. Furthermore, its prohibition is established by continuous transmission from the Prophet's religion (PBUH), by God's command {so avoid it} (5:90), and by the statement {and their sin is greater than their benefit} (2:219). A general ruling that has a specific exception remains a ruling in all other contexts.

Regarding Strangled, Beaten, Fallen, and Gored Animals:

1. They are all forms of carrion (maytāt), thus falling under the scope of this verse.
2. We restrict the generality of this verse by the specific verse (in Al-Mā’idah).
3. If they are not carrion, we restrict the general ruling by the specific verse (in Al-Mā’idah).

Objection: The forbidden foods are more numerous than those mentioned in this verse. What is the justification for this verse?

Responses Given (and Critique):

1. Response 1 (Against Pre-Islamic Customs): The meaning is: "I do not find forbidden among what the people of Jahiliyyah used to forbid (like baḥīrah and sā’ibah) except what is mentioned in this verse."
   • Critique (Weak): This is weak for several reasons:
     • If this were the intent, carrion, blood, and pork would not be included, yet they are included and explicitly exempted.
     • God condemned their customs, and then restricted the prohibitions to these four. Permitting what the Jahiliyyah forbade does not necessitate permitting other things. The verse must remain general unless evidence restricts it.
     • In Sūrat Al-Baqarah, the verse {He has only forbidden to you...} was stated without preceding any mention of the Jahiliyyah's customs, thus invalidating this excuse.

2. Response 2 (Time-Bound Prohibition): The meaning is that at the time of revelation, only these four were forbidden, and other prohibitions came later.
   • Critique (Weak): The verse in Sūrat Al-Baqarah (2:173) is Medinan and came after the Sharia was established. The word {إنما} implies restriction. These two verses prove that the ruling established throughout the entire Muhammadan Law, from beginning to end, is the restriction of prohibitions to these four items. If the restriction is established by these two verses, asserting a fifth prohibition implies abrogation (naskh). The foundation of the Law is the presumption against abrogation; if the possibility of abrogation were equal to the possibility of the ruling remaining, no text could be relied upon. Since consensus holds that the default is no abrogation, this objection is invalid.

3. Response 3 (Restriction by Singular Hadith): We restrict the generality of the Qur'an by a singular report (khabar al-āḥād).
   • Critique (Weak): This is not restriction; it is explicit abrogation. The statement {Say: I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden...} and the verse in Al-Baqarah using {إنما} explicitly restrict the prohibitions to these four, establishing this as the rule from the beginning (Mecca) to the end (Medina). To claim otherwise is to reject what is established by these two verses. Abrogating the Qur'an by a singular report is not permissible.

4. Response 4 (Prohibition via the Prophet's Speech): The statement {Say: I do not find in what has been revealed to you} covers all revelation, whether Qur'an or otherwise.
   • Critique (Weak): The verse in Al-Baqarah {He has only forbidden to you...} removes this ambiguity. The preceding analysis confirms the strength of this position, which was the view held by Mālik ibn Anas (may God have mercy on him).

A Further Weak Question: Many jurists restricted the generality of this verse based on the report that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Whatever the Arabs found repulsive is forbidden."

• Critique: What Arabs find repulsive is not fixed. The master of Arabs, Muhammad (PBUH), said regarding the ḍabb (lizard): "My nature recoils from it," yet this recoil did not lead to its prohibition. Other Arabs might not find certain things repulsive, or they might differ on what is repulsive. Since the standard of repulsion is not fixed or governed by a known law, how can this decisive text be abrogated by something so variable?

We have already discussed the issues related to these four items exhaustively in Sūrat Al-Baqarah, so there is no need to repeat them.

1. Carrion (Al-Maytah): This is restricted by the Prophet's saying: "Two types of dead animals have been made lawful for us: fish and locusts."
2. Spilled Blood (Al-Damm Al-Masfūḥ): Safaḥ means pouring. Ibn 'Abbās said this refers to blood that exits the animal while it is alive, or that which exits the jugular veins during slaughter. Under this interpretation, the liver and spleen are not included because they are solid, nor is the blood mixed with the flesh, as it is not flowing. Regarding bloodstains on the meat, Al-Qadrī said there is no harm if the redness remains, as the prohibition is only against spilled blood.
3. Pork (Lahm Al-Khinzīr): Because it is impure (rijs).
4. That which is dedicated to other than God (Fisq): This is coordinated with the preceding items: {or that which has been dedicated to other than Allah}. It is called fisq (sin/transgression) due to its extreme involvement in transgression, similar to saying "So-and-so is generosity and bounty" if he is complete in both qualities. This is supported by the verse: {And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is a grave sin (fisq)} (6:121).

The Exception for Necessity: {But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing beyond necessity, indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.} This means that after establishing these four as forbidden, He clarified that the prohibition is lifted in cases of necessity. We have fully explained this verse in Sūrat Al-Baqarah. The subsequent statement {indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful} indicates the granting of this concession.

Prohibitions Specific to the Jews: Then the Almighty clarified that He forbade the Jews other things besides these four, which fall into two categories:

Category 1: Every Animal with Claws/Hooves {And upon those who were Jews We forbade every animal with a hoof, and of the cattle and the sheep We forbade them their fat, except what was carried on their backs or in their intestines, or what was mixed with bone.}

• Sub-Issue 1 (Linguistics): Dhū ẓufr (animal with a hoof/claw) has several pronunciations/forms (e.g., ẓufr with fath on the fā’, or with sukūn).
• Sub-Issue 2 (Interpretation of Ẓufr): Scholars differed on what {every animal with a ẓufr} means for the Jews:
  • Ibn 'Abbās reported it means only camels.
  • Another narration from Ibn 'Abbās and Mujāhid suggests camels and ostriches.
  • 'Abdullāh ibn Muslim said it means every bird with talons (mikhlab) and every beast with a hoof (ḥāfir). They interpret ẓufr metaphorically as ḥāfir.
  • My View: Interpreting ẓufr as ḥāfir (hoof) is distant for two reasons: 1) A hoof is rarely called a ẓufr. 2) If it meant all animals with hooves, sheep and cattle would be forbidden to them, which is false, as the verse implies they are permissible (since they have hooves).
  • Therefore, ẓufr must refer to talons (makhālib) and paws (barāthin), which are the tools birds of prey and beasts use for hunting. This includes all predatory beasts, dogs, cats, and birds of prey.

This prohibition {And upon those who were Jews We forbade...} restricts this prohibition specifically to them in two ways:

1. The structure {And upon those who were Jews We forbade...} implies restriction in Arabic.
2. If this prohibition applied to everyone, the phrase {And upon those who were Jews We forbade} would be meaningless.

Thus, the prohibition of predators and clawed birds is specific to the Jews, meaning they are not forbidden to Muslims. This verse indicates that these animals are permissible for Muslims. Therefore, the report that the Prophet (PBUH) forbade every animal with a canine tooth (nāb) among predators and every bird with talons is weak, as it is a singular report contradicting the Book of God. This strengthens the position of Mālik on this issue.

Category 2: Specific Fats of Cattle and Sheep {And of the cattle and the sheep We forbade them their fat, except what was carried on their backs or in their intestines, or what was mixed with bone.}

This means God forbade the fat of cows and sheep specifically to the Jews. There are two main interpretations regarding the exceptions:

First View (Three Exceptions):

1. {except what was carried on their backs}: Ibn 'Abbās said this means the fat attached to the back, which I did not forbid. Qatādah said it means what is attached to the back and flank from inside their bellies. (My view: The white, fatty meat attached to the red muscle on the back and flank is considered fat, and if someone swore not to eat fat, eating this fatty meat would break the oath.)
2. {or the ḥawāyā}: Al-Wāḥidī said these are the intestines and guts. Ibn al-A'rābī said it is the winding part inside the sheep. This means the fat attached to the intestines is not forbidden.
3. {or what was mixed with bone}: Commentators agree this refers to the tail fat (al-iliyyah). Ibn Jurayj said it includes any fat mixed with bone in the leg, flank, head, eyes, and ears. Under this interpretation, the fat forbidden to them is only the tharb (omentum) and kidney fat.

Second View (The Ḥawāyā is not an Exception): The phrase {or the ḥawāyā} is not coordinated with the exceptions but with the thing being restricted. The meaning is: "We forbade them their fats, or the ḥawāyā, or what was mixed with bone, except what was carried on their backs." The word aw (or) functions as in {nor obey any sinful or disbelieving one} (76:24), meaning: obey this one and obey that one. Thus, here it means: We forbade them this and this and this.

The Reason for Prohibition: {That We recompensed them for their wrongdoing.} This means We restricted these specific items for them as punishment for their transgression, such as killing the Prophets, taking usury, and consuming people's wealth unjustly. This is similar to: {Because of the wrongdoing of those who were Jews, We prohibited for them good things which had been lawful for them} (4:160).

Confirmation of Truthfulness: {And indeed, We are truthful.} Meaning, truthful in reporting their wrongdoing and truthful in reporting that We restricted these things upon them due to their wrongdoing. Al-Qāḍī argued that prohibition cannot be a punishment for a prior crime because legislation is an opportunity for reward, which is a kindness, so it cannot be a recompense for a prior offense.

• Response: Being prevented from benefit can be a means to attain greater reward, or it can be a punishment for a prior offense. Both possibilities are plausible.

Conclusion of the Section: {But if they deny you, then say, "Your Lord is full of vast mercy," and His might will not be turned back from the criminal people.} If they deny you in claiming prophethood and in conveying these rulings, then say: "Your Lord possesses vast mercy, so He does not hasten punishment upon you." {And His might will not be turned back}—meaning His punishment, when its time comes—{from the criminal people}, meaning those who deny what you say. And God knows best.

Verses 148–149

{The polytheists will say, "If Allah had willed, we would not have associated [others with Him] nor would our fathers, nor would we have forbidden anything." Thus did those before them deny until they tasted Our might. Say, "Do you have any knowledge that you can present to us? You follow nothing but conjecture, and you are only guessing." Say, "So, Allah's is the conclusive argument. If He had willed, He would have guided you all."}

The polytheists will say: "If Allah had willed, we would not have committed shirk (polytheism), nor would our fathers, nor would we have forbidden anything." This is an attempt to shift responsibility for their actions onto God's Will.

Rebuttal: {Thus did those before them deny until they tasted Our might.} This serves as a warning that their predecessors used the same excuse and were punished.

Challenge: {Say, "Do you have any knowledge that you can present to us?"} Do you have any proof that God willed your actions? {You follow nothing but conjecture, and you are only guessing.}

The Conclusive Argument: {Say, "So, Allah's is the conclusive argument."} God possesses the definitive proof. {If He had willed, He would have guided you all.} If guidance were merely a matter of His Will without human choice, He would have guided everyone, but He did not, indicating that human choice and responsibility are involved.