6.145
Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
Malik Ibn 'Awf understood what was required of him and kept silent. Instead, he said: "Let me hear from you, O Muhammad, why our forefathers forbade them". So Allah said: (Say) O Muhammad: (I find not in that which is revealed unto me) i.e. the Qur'an (aught prohibited to an eater that he eat thereof, except it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or swine flesh for that verily is foul) unlawful (or the abomination) an immolated animal (which was immolated to the name of other than Allah) intentionally. (But whoso is compelled (thereto)) whoever is forced to eat the meat of carrion, (neither craving) i.e. without infringement on Muslims nor deeming the meat of carrion lawful in other than necessity (nor transgressing) nor committing highway robbery or intentionally eating of the meat of carrion without being compelled to do so, ((for him) lo! your Lord is Forgiving) if he eats to satiety, (Merciful) in that which He made dispensation for him. However, he ought not to eat to satiety, and if he does, Allah will pardon him.
Say ‘I do not find in what is revealed to me anything forbidden to him who eats thereof except it be read yakūn or takūn carrion maytatan; or if read maytatun then with the form yakūn ‘it be’ preceding it or blood poured forth flowing as opposed to the case of a liver or a spleen; or the flesh of swine — that indeed is an abomination forbidden or except it be a wicked thing that has been hallowed to other than God that is to say it has been slaughtered in the name of someone else. But whoever is constrained to do any of what has been mentioned and he consumes it neither coveting nor transgressing then surely your Lord is Forgiving to him for what he has consumed Merciful’ towards him. To these prohibited things the Sunna adds all beasts of prey with canine teeth and birds of prey with talons.
(I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it,) This Ayah means, I do not find any animals that are prohibited, except these mentioned here. We should mention here that the prohibited things mentioned in Surat Al-Ma'idah and the Hadiths on this subject amend the meaning of this Ayah.
أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوحًا
(or blood poured.) Qatadah commented, "Poured blood was prohibited, but the meat that still has some blood in it is allowed.'' Al-Humaydi said that Sufyan narrated to us that `Amr bin Dinar narrated to us, "I said to Jabir bin `Abdullah, `They claim that the Messenger of Allah prohibited the meat of donkeys during (the day of) Khaybar.' He said, `Al-Hakam bin `Amr narrated that from the Messenger of Allah. That scholar - refering to Ibn `Abbas - denied it, reciting the Ayah;
(Say: "I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it...")''' Al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud collected it. Abu Bakr bin Marduwyah and Al-Hakim, in his Mustadrak, recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "During the time of Jahiliyyah, the people used to eat some things and avoid some other things, because they disliked them. Later on, Allah sent His Prophet, revealed His Book, allowed what He allowed, and prohibited what He prohibited. Therefore, whatever Allah allowed is lawful and whatever He prohibited is unlawful. Whatever He did not mention, there is no sin in it.'' He then recited the Ayah,
(Say: "I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it...") This is the wording with Ibn Marduwyah. Abu Dawud also recorded this statement, and Al-Hakim said, "Its chain is Sahih and they did not record it.'' Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "A sheep belonging to Sawdah bint Zam`ah died and she said, `O Allah's Messenger! So-and-so (sheep) has died.' He said,
«فَلِمَ لَا أَخَذْتُمْ مَسْكَهَا؟»
(Why did you not use its skin) She said, `Should we use the skin of a sheep that has died' Allah's Messenger said,
(Allah only said, (Say: "I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, except Maytah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine....) You will not be eating it if you tan its skin and benefit from it.) So she had the sheep skinned, the skin was tanned and made into a water skin that she kept until it wore out.'' Al-Bukhari and an-Nasa'i collected a similar Hadith. Allah said,
فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلاَ عَادٍ
(But whosoever is forced by necessity without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits;) Therefore, whoever is forced by necessity to eat anything that Allah has forbidden in this honorable Ayah, without transgressing his limits, then for him,
فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
(certainly, your Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) We mentioned the explanation of this Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah. This honorable Ayah contradicts the idolators' innovated prohibitions for certain kinds of wealth, relying merely on their misguided ideas, such as the Bahirah, Sa'ibah, Wasilah and Ham. Allah commanded His Messenger to inform them that he does not find that such types of animals are prohibited in what Allah revealed to him. In this Ayah, Allah only prohibited dead animals, poured blood, the flesh of swine and what has been slaughtered for something other than Allah. Other things were not prohibited here, but rather treated as that which does not have a ruling, i.e., permissible. Therefore, how do you -- idolators -- claim that such items are prohibited, and why did you prohibit them when Allah did not prohibit them
6.145-147
Maududi - Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an
This subject has already been dealt with in v. 173, AI-Baqarah, and in v. 3, Al-Ma`idah, and will be further discussed in v. 115, An-Nahl below. There appears to be a little difference in the wording of this verse and that of v. 173, Al-Baqarah. In the latter verse it is simply `blood' that is forbidden, but in this verse it is the `blood' that has been shed, when an animal is wounded or slaughtered. The addition of the word masfuh (that has been shed) merely explains the nature of the `blood' and does not make any difference in the "Commandment" itself. Likewise in v. 3 of Al-Ma'idah, some other things besides these four have also been mentioned-the animals that have been strangled or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or mangled by a beast of prey. This, too, does not make any difference in the "Commandment" in the two verses, because this is an explanation which shows that the animals which are killed in that way should also be considered as "carrion." Now let us consider the various opinions of the Jurists. Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Abbas and Hadrat `A'ishah were of the opinion that, out of the animal food, only these four were unlawful and all others were lawful. But there are several Traditions to the effect that the Holy Prophet prohibited other animals besides these four or held them in detestation, e.g., domestic donkeys and fanged beasts of prey and birds with claws. Therefore most jurists do not consider the prohibition to be confined to these four things only, but extend it to others; then there is also a difference of opinion among the jurists about the prohibition or otherwise of certain animals. For instance, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik and Imam Shafi`i declare the domestic donkey to be unlawful, but there are others who assert that the domestic donkey, is not unlawful and say that it was prohibited by the Holy Prophet on one occasion only for some special reason. The Hanafi s consider the carnivorous beasts and birds of prey and the animals that live on dead flesh to be absolutely unlawful, but according to Imam Malik and Auza`i, the birds of prey are lawful and Laith considers the cat to be lawful. According to Imam Shafi i. only those carnivorous beasts are unlawful that (like the lion, wolf, tiger) attack man. According to ' Ikrimah, the crow and the badger are both lawful. Then according to the Hanafi s, all crawling creatures are unlawful, whereas Ibn AbiLaila, Imam Malik and Auza' i consider the snake to be lawful. A careful and critical study of the above makes it quite clear that, in reality, only these four things mentioned in the Qur'an are unlawful and that there are certain other animal foods that are detestable in various degrees. Therefore those things, which according to authentic Traditions were held in detestation by the Holy Prophet, are almost unlawful, but those things about which there is a difference of opinion among the jurists, their detestation is doubtful. As far as personal detestation of certain things by some people is concerned, the Islamic Law does not compel anyone to eat what one dislikes. The same applies to the detestation of certain things by some groups or nations. Conversely, the Law does not allow any person or community or nation to force others to consider as unlawful anything that they detest, or to.prohibit its use to those who consider them unlawful.
That certain things were made unlawful for them as punishment for their rebellion has been mentioned in the Qur'an at three places: (1) "All the articles of food, which are lawful in the Muhammadan Law, were also lawful for the children of Israel, except those which Israel had forbidden for himself before the Torah was sent down. Say to them, Bring the Torah and read out any passage from it (in support of your objection), if you are in the right. " (Al- `Imran, 111): (2) "It is because of the criminal attitude of those who became Jews...... that We had made unlawful many pure things which were formerly lawful for them". (An-Visa' IV:160) (3) Here in this Surah, in verse 146. From the above three verses, we conclude that the difference between the Muhammadan and the Jewish Laws in regard to the legality or otherwise of animal food is based on two things. First, centuries before the revelation of the Torah, the Prophet Jacob (Israel) had given up the use of several things, and after him, his offspring also did the same. This went on for such a long time that the jurists of the Jewish Law began to believe that those things were unlawful in their religion. Accordingly, they inserted in the Torah the prohibition of those things, the three of which were the camel, the hare and the Coney. That is why the Torah, as contained in the existing Bible prohibits their eating. (Levit. 11: 4-6 and Deut. 14:7). But, the open challenge of the Qur'an to them to bring the Torah in proof thereof shows that the commandments referred to above did not exist in the Torah at that time and were inserted afterwards; otherwise the Jews would have at once accepted the challenge of the Qur'an and presented the commandments thereof. The second difference between the two laws was caused by the rebellious attitude of the Jews against the Divine Law. They became their own law-makers and made many things unlawful by their hair-splitting and Allah let them remain involved in that misunderstanding as a punishment. These things comprise two categories : (1) Animals with claws such as the ostrich, the cuckoo, the swan, etc., and (2) the fat of the cow and the goat, etc. Afterwards both kinds of "prohibitions" were incorporated in the existing Torah. (Levit. 11 : 16-18, Deut. 14 : 14-17, Levit. 3 : 17, 7 : 22-23). But it is obvious from An - Nisa, IV : 160 that at first these things were not unlawful i the Torah, but were made so after the Prophet Jesus Christ. History also bears evidence that the existing Jewish Law was formulated by Rabbi Judas at the end of the second century of the Christian Era. Now let us consider the objection that might arise regarding the above explanation. If these things were made unlawful in the manner explained above, why has, then, Allah used the word harramna ("We prohibited") here in verse 130 and in verse 160 of An-Nisa In considering the objection, we should keep in mind the two ways in which things are made unlawful by Allah. (1) He prohibits a thing through a Messenger and a Book, and this is the blessing from Him. (2) He sets false religious law-givers and counterfeit law-makers over His rebellious servants and they declare pure things as unlawful. As such a prohibition' is the curse of God and a punishment from Him, it has been attributed to Him.
That is, "Your Lord has limitless Mercy and if even now you repent of your disobedience and adopt the right way of obedience, He will forgive you. But if you persist in your criminal and rebellious attitude, you should note it well that none will be, able to ward off His wrath and punishment from you. "
