Al-Mizan

Appearance

Verses 136–150 ​

Chapter 6: Al-Anʿām (The Cattle) · Printed edition: Volume 14, pp. 178–202

وَ جَعَلُوا لِلَّهِ مِمَّا ذَرَأَ مِنَ الْحَرْثِ وَ الْأَنْعامِ نَصِيباً فَقالُوا هذا لِلَّهِ بِزَعْمِهِمْ وَ هذا لِشُرَكائِنا فَما كانَ لِشُرَكائِهِمْ فَلا يَصِلُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ ما كانَ لِلَّهِ فَهُوَ يَصِلُ إِلى‏ شُرَكائِهِمْ ساءَ ما يَحْكُمُونَ ١٣٦ وَ كَذلِكَ زَيَّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلَ أَوْلادِهِمْ شُرَكاؤُهُمْ لِيُرْدُوهُمْ وَ لِيَلْبِسُوا عَلَيْهِمْ دِينَهُمْ وَ لَوْ شاءَ اللَّهُ ما فَعَلُوهُ فَذَرْهُمْ وَ ما يَفْتَرُونَ ١٣٧ وَ قالُوا هذِهِ أَنْعامٌ وَ حَرْثٌ حِجْرٌ لا يَطْعَمُها إِلاَّ مَنْ نَشاءُ بِزَعْمِهِمْ وَ أَنْعامٌ حُرِّمَتْ ظُهُورُها وَ أَنْعامٌ لا يَذْكُرُونَ اسْمَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهَا افْتِراءً عَلَيْهِ سَيَجْزِيهِمْ بِما كانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ ١٣٨ وَ قالُوا ما فِي بُطُونِ هذِهِ الْأَنْعامِ خالِصَةٌ لِذُكُورِنا وَ مُحَرَّمٌ عَلى‏ أَزْواجِنا وَ إِنْ يَكُنْ مَيْتَةً فَهُمْ فِيهِ شُرَكاءُ سَيَجْزِيهِمْ وَصْفَهُمْ إِنَّهُ حَكِيمٌ عَلِيمٌ ١٣٩ قَدْ خَسِرَ الَّذِينَ قَتَلُوا أَوْلادَهُمْ سَفَهاً بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَ حَرَّمُوا ما رَزَقَهُمُ اللَّهُ افْتِراءً عَلَى اللَّهِ قَدْ ضَلُّوا وَ ما كانُوا مُهْتَدِينَ ١٤٠ وَ هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْشَأَ جَنَّاتٍ مَعْرُوشاتٍ وَ غَيْرَ مَعْرُوشاتٍ وَ النَّخْلَ وَ الزَّرْعَ مُخْتَلِفاً أُكُلُهُ وَ الزَّيْتُونَ وَ الرُّمَّانَ مُتَشابِهاً وَ غَيْرَ مُتَشابِهٍ كُلُوا مِنْ ثَمَرِهِ إِذا أَثْمَرَ وَ آتُوا حَقَّهُ يَوْمَ حَصادِهِ وَ لا تُسْرِفُوا إِنَّهُ لا يُحِبُّ الْمُسْرِفِينَ ١٤١ وَ مِنَ الْأَنْعامِ حَمُولَةً وَ فَرْشاً كُلُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ وَ لا تَتَّبِعُوا خُطُواتِ الشَّيْطانِ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُبِينٌ ١٤٢ ثَمانِيَةَ أَزْواجٍ مِنَ الضَّأْنِ اثْنَيْنِ وَ مِنَ الْمَعْزِ اثْنَيْنِ قُلْ آلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ أَمَّا اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَرْحامُ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ نَبِّئُونِي بِعِلْمٍ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صادِقِينَ ١٤٣ وَ مِنَ الْإِبِلِ اثْنَيْنِ وَ مِنَ الْبَقَرِ اثْنَيْنِ قُلْ آلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ أَمَّا اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَرْحامُ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ أَمْ كُنْتُمْ شُهَداءَ إِذْ وَصَّاكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهذا فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرى‏ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِباً لِيُضِلَّ النَّاسَ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ ١٤٤ قُلْ لا أَجِدُ فِي ما أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّماً عَلى‏ طاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَماً مَسْفُوحاً أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقاً أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ باغٍ وَ لا عادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ ١٤٥ وَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ هادُوا حَرَّمْنا كُلَّ ذِي ظُفُرٍ وَ مِنَ الْبَقَرِ وَ الْغَنَمِ حَرَّمْنا عَلَيْهِمْ شُحُومَهُما إِلاَّ ما حَمَلَتْ ظُهُورُهُما أَوِ الْحَوايا أَوْ مَا اخْتَلَطَ بِعَظْمٍ ذلِكَ جَزَيْناهُمْ بِبَغْيِهِمْ وَ إِنَّا لَصادِقُونَ ١٤٦ فَإِنْ كَذَّبُوكَ فَقُلْ رَبُّكُمْ ذُو رَحْمَةٍ واسِعَةٍ وَ لا يُرَدُّ بَأْسُهُ عَنِ الْقَوْمِ الْمُجْرِمِينَ ١٤٧ سَيَقُولُ الَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا لَوْ شاءَ اللَّهُ ما أَشْرَكْنا وَ لا آباؤُنا وَ لا حَرَّمْنا مِنْ شَيْ‏ءٍ كَذلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ حَتَّى ذاقُوا بَأْسَنا قُلْ هَلْ عِنْدَكُمْ مِنْ عِلْمٍ فَتُخْرِجُوهُ لَنا إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَ إِنْ أَنْتُمْ إِلاَّ تَخْرُصُونَ ١٤٨ قُلْ فَلِلَّهِ الْحُجَّةُ الْبالِغَةُ فَلَوْ شاءَ لَهَداكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ ١٤٩ قُلْ هَلُمَّ شُهَداءَكُمُ الَّذِينَ يَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ حَرَّمَ هذا فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَلا تَشْهَدْ مَعَهُمْ وَ لا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْواءَ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآياتِنا وَ الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ وَ هُمْ بِرَبِّهِمْ يَعْدِلُونَ ١٥٠

  1. And they set apart a portion for Allah out of what He has created of crops and cattle, and they say: This is for Allah—in their make-believe—and this for our associates; then what is for their associates, it reaches not Allah, and whatever is (set apart) for Allah, it reaches their associates; evil is that which they judge.
  2. And thus their associates have decorated for most of the polytheists the killing of their children, that they may cause them to perish and obscure for them their religion; and if Allah had willed, they would not have done it. Therefore leave them and that which they forge.
  3. And they say: These are cattle and crops prohibited, none shall eat them except such as we will—in their make-believe—and cattle whose backs are forbidden, and cattle on which they would not mention Allah’s name—forging a lie against Him; He shall requite them for what they forged.
  4. And they say: What is in the wombs of these cattle is specially for our males, and forbidden to our wives, and if it be stillborn, then they are all partners in it; He will reward them their attribution (of falsehood to Allah); surely He is Wise, Knowing.
  5. They are lost indeed who kill their children foolishly without knowledge, and forbid what Allah has provided them, forging a lie against Allah; they have indeed gone astray, and they are not the followers of the right course.
  6. And He it is Who produces gardens (of vine), trellised and untrellised, and palms and seed-produce of which the fruits are of various sorts, and olives and pomegranates, like and unlike; eat of its fruit when it bears fruit, and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest, and do not act extravagantly; surely He does not love the extravagant.
  7. And of cattle (He created) beasts of burden and those that (are like a) carpet; eat of what Allah has provided you and do not follow the footsteps of Satan; surely he is your open enemy.
  8. Eight in pairs—two of sheep and two of goats. Say: Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Inform me with knowledge if you are truthful.
  9. And two of camels and two of cows. Say: Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Or were you witnesses when Allah enjoined you this? Who, then, is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah that he should lead the people astray without knowledge? Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
  10. Say: I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine—for that surely is unclean—or that which is a transgression, other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
  11. And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except what their backs carry or the entrails or what is mixed with bones: that We punished them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
  12. But if they deny you, then say: Your Lord is the Lord of All-encompassing mercy; and His punishment cannot be averted from the guilty people.
  13. Those who are polytheists will say: If Allah had willed we would not have associated (aught with Him) nor our fathers, nor would we have forbidden (ourselves) anything; even so did those before them reject until they tasted Our punishment. Say: Have you any knowledge with you so you could bring it forth to us? You only follow uncertainty and you only speculate.
  14. Say: Thus Allah’s is the conclusive argument; for had He willed, He would certainly guide you all.
  15. Say: Bring your witnesses who should bear witness that Allah has forbidden this, then if they bear witness, do not bear witness with them; and follow not the low desires of those who reject Our communications and of those who do not believe in the hereafter, and they make (others) equal to their Lord.

Commentary ​

These verses argue against the polytheists concerning several laws that were commonly practiced by them such as rules pertaining to lawful foods. They clarify God’s rule in these matters.

وَ جَعَلُوا لِلَّهِ مِمَّا ذَرَأَ مِنَ الْحَرْثِ وَ الْأَنْعامِ نَصِيباً فَقالُوا هذا لِلَّهِ بِزَعْمِهِمْ وَ هذا لِشُرَكائِنا فَما كانَ لِشُرَكائِهِمْ فَلا يَصِلُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ ما كانَ لِلَّهِ فَهُوَ يَصِلُ إِلى‏ شُرَكائِهِمْ ساءَ ما يَحْكُمُونَ ١٣٦

(6:136) And they set apart a portion for Allah out of what He has created (dharaʾa, from dharʾ) of crops (al-ḥarth) and cattle, and they say (fa-qālū): This is for Allah—in their make-believe (bi-zaʿmihim)—and this for our associates; then what is for their associates, it reaches not Allah, and whatever is (set apart) for Allah, it reaches their associates; evil is that which they judge.

Dharʾ means “to create” in the sense of original creation. Apparently its root meaning is ẓuhūr (to manifest, to appear, to show). Ḥarth is a synonym for zarʿ (crop, tillage, cultivation). Zaʿm means “belief,” but it is usually used for incorrect beliefs. Therefore, adding in their make-believe serves to glorify God and set Him clear from their claim that this is for Allah. This is similar to the glorification in the verse: And they say: The Beneficent has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him ().

… and this for our associates; then what is for their associates…: The verse attributes the associates to the polytheists because the polytheists were the ones who believed in these gods and held them to be the associates of Allah. Such attribution is similar to saying “the leaders of disbelief (aʾimmat al-kufr),” “their Imams” and “their awliyāʾ (guardians, friends, adherents).” Some exegetes have said that the verse refers to their gods as “their associates” because the polytheists used to allot some of their property to these gods and thereby make them their partners [in their business and trade].

Either way, these two sentences—they say: This is for Allah—in their make-believe and this for our associates—serve to elaborate what is briefly mentioned at the beginning of the verse: And they set apart a portion for Allah out of what He has created. Hence, the letter fāʾ (lit. “so, then, therefore,” translated as “and”) in fa-qālū indicates the addition of further elaboration and interpretation. These two sentences also set the ground for the subsequent part of the verse: then what is for their associates, it reaches not Allah, and whatever is (set apart) for Allah, it reaches their associates. This consequence is also indicated by the letter fāʾ (“then” in then what is for their associates…).

The claims narrated from them in this verse imply a ruling that has three problems: (1) It is wrong and baseless to begin with. (2) It is a false ascription to God. (3) It is disdainful to God because it gives priority to the idols over Him. That is why the verse says: evil is that which they judge. The rest of the verse should be clear.

وَ كَذلِكَ زَيَّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلَ أَوْلادِهِمْ شُرَكاؤُهُمْ لِيُرْدُوهُمْ وَ لِيَلْبِسُوا عَلَيْهِمْ دِينَهُمْ وَ لَوْ شاءَ اللَّهُ ما فَعَلُوهُ فَذَرْهُمْ وَ ما يَفْتَرُونَ ١٣٧

(6:137) And thus their associates (shurakāʾuhum) have decorated (zayyana) to most of the polytheists the killing of their children (qatla awlādihum), that they may cause them to perish and obscure for them their religion; and if Allah had willed, they would not have done it. Therefore leave them and that which they forge.

Here is a detailed description of how all of the major reciters besides Ibn ʿĀmir have recorded the verse:

(1) Zayyana is in an active verb [which means that “their associates have decorated”].

(2) Qatl (killing) is the object of decoration. It is manṣūb in terms of inflection, indicating that it is the mafʿūl (object) of the verb zayyana.

(3) Awlādihim (their children, their sons) is the object of killing which is annexed to it. It means: “the killing of their children,” which as a whole is the object of decoration.

(4) Shurakāʾuhum (their associates) is the subject (fāʿil) of the sentence, meaning that their associates have decorated this killing and have made it appear fair to them.

Given the above, the meaning would be: “The special position that the idols had in the hearts of the polytheists and the illusory love that the polytheists had for the idols made it seem fair and commendable to them to kill their children as sacrifices in order to win the favor of the gods.”

This practice is recorded in the history of ancient idol-worshipers and Sabeans. It is different from the custom of burying their daughters alive, which was common among Banū Tamīm tribe among Arabs. The verse does not say banāt (daughters, girls) in particular but rather awlād (children, sons).

Here are a few other interpretations for “associates” (shurakāʾ) suggested by other exegetes: (1) devils; (2) the managers or custodians of the idol-house; (3) deviators among the people (al-ghuwāh).

The meaning based on Ibn ʿĀmir’s recitation would be: “The killing of their children by their associates has been decorated for most of the polytheists.” In his recitation:

(1) Zuyyina is a passive verb [which means that “the killing has been decorated”].

(2) Qatl (killing) is what has been decorated. It is marfūʿ in terms of inflection, indicating that it is the fāʿil (subject) of the verb zuyyina.

(3) Awlādahum (their children, their sons) is the object of killing. It is manṣūb in terms of inflection.

(4) Shurakāʾihim (their associates) is the subject (fāʿil) of killing. It is majrūr in terms of inflection because killing has been annexed to it. This means that “their children” has separated the muḍāf (annexed noun, construct noun) and the muḍāf ilayhi (genitive noun, that to which annexation is made).

… that they may cause them to perish (li-yurdūhum, from irdāʾ) and obscure (li-yalbisū, from labs) for them their religion…: Irdāʾ means ihlāk (to kill, to destroy). The pronouns “them” and “their” in this part of the verse all refer to “most of the polytheists.” It means causing the polytheists to perish because of: (1) being ungrateful for God’s blessings; (2) being unjust to His creatures [that is, the people]; and (3) mixing, confusing and obscuring their religion for them by making falsehood seem like truth.

Some have said that irdāʾ means “to kill” literally. Then the pronoun “them” in cause them to perish would refer to “their children,” while the other two pronouns—“them” and “their” in and obscure for them their religion—would refer to “most of the polytheists.” One could also say that all three pronouns refer to “the polytheists” in a sense. Either way, the meaning of the verse should be clear.

وَ قالُوا هذِهِ أَنْعامٌ وَ حَرْثٌ حِجْرٌ لا يَطْعَمُها إِلاَّ مَنْ نَشاءُ بِزَعْمِهِمْ وَ أَنْعامٌ حُرِّمَتْ ظُهُورُها وَ أَنْعامٌ لا يَذْكُرُونَ اسْمَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهَا افْتِراءً عَلَيْهِ سَيَجْزِيهِمْ بِما كانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ ١٣٨

(6:138) And they say: These are cattle and crops prohibited (ḥijr), none shall eat them except such as we will—in their make-believe—and cattle whose backs are forbidden, and cattle on which they would not mention Allah’s name—forging a lie against Him; He shall requite them for what they forged.

Ḥijr means manʿ (to forbid, to prevent, to block). The next part of the verse interprets what this means: none shall eat them except such as we will. In other words: “These cattle and crops are prohibited except for anyone that we choose to permit.” It is narrated that this verse refers to the food that the polytheists used to offer to their gods, which was forbidden to eat except for the male servants of the gods [at the idol-house].

…and cattle whose backs are forbidden…: This sentence involves an implied omitted verb. It can be interpreted in two ways: (1) And they say: These are cattle whose backs are forbidden. (2) And they have cattle whose backs are forbidden. These cattle refer to al-sāʾibah, al-baḥīrah and al-ḥāmī which God has rejected in the verse: Allah has not ordained (the making of) a baḥīrah or a sāʾibah or a waṣīlah or a ḥāmī but those who disbelieve fabricate a lie against Allah, and most of them do not understand (). Some exegetes have said that the current verse refers to some of the four categories in verse , based on the difference of opinion about what they mean. We discussed these views there.

… and cattle on which they would not mention Allah’s name…: The implied meaning is, “and they have cattle on which…,” where the verb “have” is omitted since it is implied. This refers to their practice of slaughtering animals as offerings while declaring the name of their idols instead of God’s name. Other suggested views are: (1) It refers to their practice during the hajj season when they would abstain from riding some animals [which were specifically designated as hajj offerings]. (2) It has a general meaning, referring to any use of animals without mentioning God’s name. The rest of the verse is clear.

وَ قالُوا ما فِي بُطُونِ هذِهِ الْأَنْعامِ خالِصَةٌ لِذُكُورِنا وَ مُحَرَّمٌ عَلى‏ أَزْواجِنا وَ إِنْ يَكُنْ مَيْتَةً فَهُمْ فِيهِ شُرَكاءُ سَيَجْزِيهِمْ وَصْفَهُمْ إِنَّهُ حَكِيمٌ عَلِيمٌ ١٣٩

(6:139) And they say: What is in the wombs of these cattle is specially for our males, and forbidden to our wives, and if it be stillborn, then they are all partners in it; He will reward them their attribution (of falsehood to Allah); surely He is Wise, Knowing.

What is in the wombs of these cattle refers to the fetus of baḥīrah and sāʾibah camels. They had a law that if the fetus was born alive, it would be lawful to eat for men, but not for women. However, if it was born dead, then both men and women could eat from it. Other suggested views are: (1) It refers to the milk of these animals. (2) It refers to both their offspring and their milk.

… He will reward them their attribution…: He will pay their very act of attribution back to them, because it will return to them as a burden and punishment. Therefore, this expression involves a specific sense of reward and retribution. Other suggested views are: (1) The implied meaning is, “He will reward them for their attribution (bi-waṣfihim),” where “for” (letter bāʾ in Arabic) is omitted. (2) The implied meaning is, “He will reward them the reward of their attribution (jazāʾa waṣfihim),” where “reward” (jazāʾ) is omitted. The rest of the verse should be clear.

قَدْ خَسِرَ الَّذِينَ قَتَلُوا أَوْلادَهُمْ سَفَهاً بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَ حَرَّمُوا ما رَزَقَهُمُ اللَّهُ افْتِراءً عَلَى اللَّهِ قَدْ ضَلُّوا وَ ما كانُوا مُهْتَدِينَ ١٤٠

(6:140) They are lost indeed who kill their children foolishly without knowledge, and forbid what Allah has provided them, forging a lie against Allah; they have indeed gone astray, and they are not the followers of the right course.

This verse refutes the above-mentioned laws and practices that the polytheists had forged and falsely attributed to God, including the killing of their children and the prohibition of certain types of cattle and crops. It says that this was rather a loss on their part and deviation from the right way.

The verse involves three notable descriptions: (1) it describes their act of killing their children as foolishly without knowledge; (2) it refers to the cattle and crops [mentioned in verses ] as what Allah has provided them; and (3) it describes their prohibition of these provisions as forging a lie against Allah. All of these serve to explain and justify why they are lost indeed. It is as if the verse is saying: “They lost for killing their children because it was a foolish act that they committed without knowledge. They also lost for forging a lie against God by prohibiting certain types of cattle and crops because these foods are God’s provision. It is far from God to provide them with something and then prohibit it for them.”

In the next four verses—And He it is Who produces gardens… ()—God clarifies their error in prohibiting the crops and cattle in spite of being God’s provision. He discusses this in detail and elaborates His argument rationally, based on the welfare of His servants. Then He moves on to provide a transmitted argument for it based on revelation by saying: Say: I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of… ().

Overall, the next five verses [] boil down to the following: “They went astray by prohibiting various types of crops and cattle without any proof to justify it. Their practice was neither rational, nor in service of the people’s welfare, nor supported by any revelation from God. Hence, they fell into loss by doing so.”

وَ هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْشَأَ جَنَّاتٍ مَعْرُوشاتٍ وَ غَيْرَ مَعْرُوشاتٍ وَ النَّخْلَ وَ الزَّرْعَ مُخْتَلِفاً أُكُلُهُ وَ الزَّيْتُونَ وَ الرُّمَّانَ مُتَشابِهاً وَ غَيْرَ مُتَشابِهٍ كُلُوا مِنْ ثَمَرِهِ إِذا أَثْمَرَ وَ آتُوا حَقَّهُ يَوْمَ حَصادِهِ وَ لا تُسْرِفُوا إِنَّهُ لا يُحِبُّ الْمُسْرِفِينَ ١٤١

(6:141) And He it is Who produces gardens (of vine), trellised (maʿrūshāt) and untrellised, and palms and seed-produce of which the fruits are of various sorts, and olives and pomegranates, like and unlike; eat of its fruit when it bears fruit, and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest, and do not act extravagantly; surely He does not love the extravagant.

Al-shajarat al-maʿrūshah refers to a plant that climbs with its branches being supported by a trellis, such as a vine. The root meaning of ʿarsh is rafʿ (to rise, to climb). Therefore, “trellised gardens” are gardens of vines and the like. “Untrellised gardens” would be ones with trees standing on their trunks without a support.

… and seed-produce of which the fruits are of various sorts…: This refers to edible seeds and grains, such as wheat, barley, lentils and peas.

… and olives and pomegranates, like and unlike…: Given the context, this phrase means that each of these fruits has like and unlike types. This refers to similarity of taste, shape, color and so on.

… eat of its fruit when it bears fruit, and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest, and do not act extravagantly; surely He does not love the extravagant: The theme of this verse is to refute the impression that certain foods are unlawful, as it says that it is God Who has produced these gardens, palms, seeds and so on. Hence, the imperative verb “eat” only proves that it is lawful to eat of these fruits, not that it is obligatory [or even recommended for that matter]. The implied meaning based on the context is: “And He it is Who has grown gardens, palms, seeds and so on. Then He has ordered you to eat of the fruits of these plants, has commanded you to pay the due of it on the day of its harvest, and has forbidden you to be extravagant. Is there any clearer evidence than this for the lawfulness of these foods?”

… and pay the due of it (ḥaqqahu) on the day of its harvest…: Ḥaqq here means “a payment or due that is fixed and established.” This “due” is ascribed to a masculine pronoun hāʾ (it or him) in pay the due of it. Thus three possibilities have been suggested for it: (1) The pronoun refers to “fruit” [in eat of its fruit]. (2) The pronoun refers to “the poor” [that is, “and pay their due”] because the due is related to them [as its beneficiaries]. (3) The pronoun refers to God [that is, “and pay His due”] in accordance with the pronoun in the subsequent part of the verse: He does not love the extravagant. The “due” is attributable to God in the sense that He has ordained it.

This means that the poor have an overall right in the crops of seeds and fruits, which should be delivered to them on the day of their harvest. This is a basic rule of reason (ʿaql) which is also confirmed by divine law. This is different from zakāh (poor-rate, almsgiving) as a specific rite that was legislated in the Islamic code of law (shariah) because of two reasons: (1) some of the items mentioned in the verse are not subject to the law of zakāh; and (2) the law of zakāh was legislated in Medina, whereas this verse was revealed prior to that in Mecca. Nonetheless, it could be that this verse was a root and basis for the legislation of zakāh. The laws which were defined and enacted in Medina were often outlined in brief and vague terms in the Meccan chapters. One example is seen below, where God enumerates what He has forbidden in general terms: Say: Come I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you… and do not draw nigh to indecencies, those which are apparent and those which are concealed ().

… and do not act extravagantly…: That is: “Do not exceed the proper limits in your lifestyle and consumption.” In case of the owners, some examples of extravagance would be if they eat and consume wastefully, if they give away their property excessively, or if they spend it for inappropriate purposes. In case of the poor, their extravagance would be if they waste the donations that they receive or other similar misuses. In other words, this is an unconditional statement that is addressed to all people.

Here is a list of other interpretations suggested by the exegetes:

The prohibition is specifically addressed to owners.

It is addressed to the authority who is in charge of collecting charity.

It means, “Do not be extravagant by consuming it before the time of its harvest, because that would reduce the allocated share of the poor.”

It means, “Do not shirk part of your obligatory duty.”

It means, “Do not spend it in the way of God’s disobedience.”

All of these views are against the unconditional sense and context of the verse.

وَ مِنَ الْأَنْعامِ حَمُولَةً وَ فَرْشاً كُلُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ وَ لا تَتَّبِعُوا خُطُواتِ الشَّيْطانِ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُبِينٌ ١٤٢

(6:142) And of cattle (He created) beasts of burden (ḥamūlah) and those that (are like a) carpet (farshan); eat of what Allah has provided you and do not follow the footsteps of Satan; surely he is your open enemy.

Ḥamūlah means “large animals” in the sense that they are capable of ḥaml (carrying a load). Farsh means “small animals” in the sense that they are close to the ground much like a carpet (farsh), or in the sense that they may be trampled on like one steps on a carpet.

… eat of what Allah has provided you…: This indicates the lawfulness of eating these animals, as an approval and confirmation of the rule of reason. It is similar to what was said in the last verse: Eat of its fruit ().

… and do not follow the footsteps of Satan; surely he is your open enemy: That is: “Do not follow Satan’s course with regards to these things which have been made lawful for you. Do not place your feet in the footsteps of Satan by illegalizing what God has legalized for you.” As we said in a previous discussion, following the footsteps of Satan means illegalizing what God has legalized without knowledge.

ثَمانِيَةَ أَزْواجٍ مِنَ الضَّأْنِ اثْنَيْنِ وَ مِنَ الْمَعْزِ اثْنَيْنِ قُلْ آلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ أَمَّا اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَرْحامُ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ نَبِّئُونِي بِعِلْمٍ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صادِقِينَ ١٤٣

(6:143) Eight in pairs (azwāj)—two of sheep and two of goats. Say: Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Inform me with knowledge if you are truthful.

This verse elaborates the general reference to “cattle” in the last verse. It adds to their rebuke and criticism by bringing up all forms and aspects of these animals. Therefore, eight in pairs is interpretative of beasts of burden and those that (are like a) carpet ().

Azwāj is the plural of zawj, which is used for either member of a pair, as well as the pair itself. These verses count four species of livestock: sheep, goat, cow and camel. Since each species has male and female, they amount to eight pairs.

The meaning is: “He has created eight pairs: two pairs of sheep, meaning male and female, and two pairs of goats in the same sense. Say: Has God forbidden the males of sheep and goats or has He forbidden their females, or has He forbidden what is contained in the wombs of the females? Inform me about this with knowledge if you are truthful.”

وَ مِنَ الْإِبِلِ اثْنَيْنِ وَ مِنَ الْبَقَرِ اثْنَيْنِ قُلْ آلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ أَمَّا اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَرْحامُ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ أَمْ كُنْتُمْ شُهَداءَ إِذْ وَصَّاكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهذا فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرى‏ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِباً لِيُضِلَّ النَّاسَ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ ١٤٤

(6:144) And two of camels and two of cows. Say: Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or that which the wombs of the two females contain? Or were you witnesses when Allah enjoined you this? Who, then, is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah that he should lead the people astray without knowledge? Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Given our interpretation of the last verse, the meaning of this verse should be clear up to females contain. Some exegetes have said that the four instances of saying “two” (ithnayn) in these verses refer to tame and wild types of the four species [as opposed to male and female].

… Or were you witnesses when Allah enjoined you this? …: The word “or” indicates a dichotomy, where one part of it is omitted because it can be inferred from the other part. The implied meaning is: “Which of the two ways led you to conclude this [that God has forbidden these animals]? Was it through (1) contemplating some rational or transmitted evidence for it; or (2) being a witness when God forbade it and hearing it from Him directly?”

… Who, then (fa-man), is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah that he should lead the people astray without knowledge? Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people: The letter fāʾ (so, then, therefore) in who, then, is more unjust shows that this is a consequence and conclusion drawn from the previous part of the verse. The previous part of the verse—or were you witnesses…—is a rhetorical question that implies a negation. Since they have no answer, the effective meaning here is: “Who, then, is more unjust than you?”

… than he who forges a lie…: This is an indirect reference to the polytheists who were the audience of the verse. Instead of addressing them directly in second person, the verse gives their description in third person. This way of making a general statement serves to explain why they are the most unjust of people, which is implied by the previous rhetorical question in the verse. It means: “No one is more unjust than you because you have forged a lie against God in order to lead the people astray without knowledge. And since you are unjust, you shall not be guided, for indeed God does not guide the unjust people.”

قُلْ لا أَجِدُ فِي ما أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّماً عَلى‏ طاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَماً مَسْفُوحاً أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقاً أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ باغٍ وَ لا عادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ ١٤٥

(6:145) Say: I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine—for that surely is unclean—or that which is a transgression, other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.

The meaning of the verse is clear. This verse is similar to verses and . Our discussion under those two verses would be relevant here.

وَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ هادُوا حَرَّمْنا كُلَّ ذِي ظُفُرٍ وَ مِنَ الْبَقَرِ وَ الْغَنَمِ حَرَّمْنا عَلَيْهِمْ شُحُومَهُما إِلاَّ ما حَمَلَتْ ظُهُورُهُما أَوِ الْحَوايا أَوْ مَا اخْتَلَطَ بِعَظْمٍ ذلِكَ جَزَيْناهُمْ بِبَغْيِهِمْ وَ إِنَّا لَصادِقُونَ ١٤٦

(6:146) And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws (ẓufur), and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except what their backs carry or the entrails (al-ḥawāya) or what is mixed with bones: that (dhālika) We punished them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.

Ẓufur is the singular form of aẓfār. It means “fingernail.” Ḥawāyā means mabāʿir (intestines, entrails, bowels). Majmaʿ al-bayān says:

It could be that al-ḥawāyā is added to “backs” (ẓuhūr), where it would count as marfūʿ in terms of inflection. The meaning would be: “or what the entrails carry.” Another possibility is that al-ḥawāyā is added to “except what,” where it would count as manṣūb in terms of inflection. The particle mā (what, that) in what is mixed with bones is added to the earlier particle mā in the verse [in except what their backs carry].

The first possibility is more likely. Majmaʿ al-bayān further adds:

“That” (dhālika)—in that We punished them—refers to the punishment that was meted out to them. Therefore it should be taken as the second object of the verb jazaynā (lit. “We punished”), where it would count as manṣūb in terms of inflection. The meaning would be: “We gave them that as punishment for their rebellion.” Sometimes one says, “Zayd I hit” (Zaydun ḍarabtu) where he means “I hit Zayd” (ḍarabtuhu). This form of expression—where the object is mentioned in place of the subject with marfūʿ inflection—can only be allowed in poems due to limitations of rhyme and rhythm. However, “that” (dhālika) here cannot be treated as having this role.

Apparently this verse serves to explain and clarify a possible objection that could arise following the previous verse. It admits that some of the good things which God had provided the Children of Israel were made unlawful to them, but only as punishment for their transgression. Hence, there is no contradiction between the subsequent ban of these foods and their original and essential lawfulness otherwise. This idea is also found in the following verses: All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to itself, before the Torah was revealed (); Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah’s way ().

فَإِنْ كَذَّبُوكَ فَقُلْ رَبُّكُمْ ذُو رَحْمَةٍ واسِعَةٍ وَ لا يُرَدُّ بَأْسُهُ عَنِ الْقَوْمِ الْمُجْرِمِينَ١٤٧

(6:147) But if they deny you, then say: Your Lord is the Lord of All-encompassing mercy; and His punishment cannot be averted from the guilty people.

The meaning of the verse is clear. The verse orders the Prophet to warn the polytheists and threaten them with God’s inevitable punishment in case they deny. However, this warning should be mixed with some hope so that they do not despair and give up. That is why God first says: Your Lord is the Lord of All-encompassing mercy.

سَيَقُولُ الَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا لَوْ شاءَ اللَّهُ ما أَشْرَكْنا وَ لا آباؤُنا وَ لا حَرَّمْنا مِنْ شَيْ‏ءٍ كَذلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ حَتَّى ذاقُوا بَأْسَنا قُلْ هَلْ عِنْدَكُمْ مِنْ عِلْمٍ فَتُخْرِجُوهُ لَنا إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَ إِنْ أَنْتُمْ إِلاَّ تَخْرُصُونَ ١٤٨

(6:148) Those who are polytheists will say: If Allah had willed we would not have associated (aught with Him) nor our fathers, nor would we have forbidden (ourselves) anything; even so did those before them reject until they tasted Our punishment. Say: Have you any knowledge with you so you could bring it forth to us? You only follow uncertainty and you only speculate.

This verse narrates one of the arguments of the polytheists and then refutes it by saying that they are ignorant of the real meaning of what they are saying. They say this only out of conjecture and speculation.

Incidentally, their statement is true, as mentioned in many verses in the Qur’an, but it does not imply the conclusion which they intend from it. They employed this statement in order to prove that their actions—including their polytheism and their illegalization of what God has provided them—are approved of by God and thus there is no blame on them for doing these acts. Their argument was: (a) If God had willed us to do otherwise—that is, to not associate partners with Him and to not prohibit these things—then we would have been compelled to renounce our polytheism and prohibition. (b) However, God has not willed that. (c) Thus it means that He has given us permission to associate partners with Him and prohibit these things. Therefore, there is no problem with so doing.

The fallacy with this argument is that it does not result in the above conclusion. Instead, the conclusion would be: Thus God has not compelled them. He has willed them to have choice in their actions and not to be forced. This means that they have the choice to either adopt or avoid polytheism, and whether or not to make things unlawful. For this reason God can call them to believe in His unity and to refrain from their prohibition. Thus Allah’s is the conclusive argument (), while they have no argument in what they do. Their acts are only based on uncertainty and speculation.

قُلْ فَلِلَّهِ الْحُجَّةُ الْبالِغَةُ فَلَوْ شاءَ لَهَداكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ ١٤٩

(6:149) Say: Then Allah’s (fa-lillāh) is the conclusive argument; for had (fa-law) He willed, He would certainly guide you all.

The first letter fāʾ in the verse—“thus” in thus Allah’s is the conclusive argument—indicates tafrīʿ (consequence, conclusion), meaning “therefore, thus, then.” The second letter fāʾ in the verse—“for” in for had He willed—indicates taʿlīl (explanation, justification), meaning “because, for.” This verse turns the argument of the polytheists against them based on its implication.

The meaning is: “The conclusion of your argument works against yourselves due to your ignorance, your following uncertainty, and your speculation about religious teachings. Your argument shows that God is the One Who has a case here, not you! He has a binding proof against you which justifies Him to order you to abandon polytheism and stop forging lies against Him.” The proof is: (a) Had He willed, He would have certainly guided you all and forced you to believe in Him, abandon polytheism, and stop prohibiting things for yourselves. (b) However, He has not compelled you to do so, but He has left you with your free will. (c) That is why He has the right to command you to stop associating partners with Him and prohibiting these foods [with your own volition].

In other words, the argument is: (a) Had God willed, He would certainly have forced you to believe; He could have guided you all. (b) However, He did not do so, which means that He has granted you choice and free will. (c) The conclusion that follows from these premises is that God is entitled to commanding you to what He has called you to. Therefore, it is God Who has an argument against you.

As we have seen in many previous verses, God clarifies that He does not force His servants to believe. He has not willed this in a takwīnī (existential, causal, creational) sense, which would make them forced and compelled. Instead, He has given them permission (idhn) to be otherwise. What is meant by idhn (permission, leave, authorization) here is: (1) He has given His servants the ability to choose to either act or refrain; and (2) He has removed the impediments that may stop them from exercising their free will. In terms of legislation (tashrīʿ), however, He may command His servants to avoid polytheism, for instance. This does not contradict His existential permission and creational will (mashīʾah, mashiyyah) that they shall have the ability to choose whether they wish to obey or not. In fact, His legislative command and prohibitions would not make sense without this existential freedom.

قُلْ هَلُمَّ شُهَداءَكُمُ الَّذِينَ يَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ حَرَّمَ هذا فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَلا تَشْهَدْ مَعَهُمْ وَ لا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْواءَ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآياتِنا وَ الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ وَ هُمْ بِرَبِّهِمْ يَعْدِلُونَ ١٥٠

(6:150) Say: Bring (halumma) your witnesses who should bear witness that Allah has forbidden this (hādhā), then if they bear witness, do not bear witness with them; and follow not the low desires of those who reject Our communications and of those who do not believe in the hereafter, and they make (others) equal to their Lord.

Halumma means hātū (bring). It is a noun that functions as a verb (called ism fiʿl). It is used in the same form for singular, dual and plural. Shahādah (witness, testimony) in this verse means “testifying and bearing witness in support for something” (called adāʾ al-shahādah). The demonstrative pronoun “this” (hādhā) refers to the above-mentioned unlawful items according to the polytheists.

The command here is meant to challenge them and show their inability to produce such witnesses. It reveals that they are liars in claiming that God has forbidden these foods. This is an indirect [and rhetorically expressive] way of saying that these things are not forbidden.

… then if they bear witness, do not bear witness with them …: This sentence shows escalation. It means: “They have no witnesses to testify in their favor, which proves that God has not forbidden these things. But even if they bear witness to the prohibition of these foods, then you do not bear witness along with them, because there has been no prohibition. Their testimony is rather worthless because they are a people who follow their base desires.”

… and follow not the low desires of those who reject Our communications and of those who do not believe in the hereafter, and they make (others) equal to their Lord: This is an interpretative addition to the previous part of the verse: Then if they bear witness, do not bear witness with them. It means: “If you bear witness with them [that is, if you approve their testimony] that would be tantamount to following their low desires, because their testimony is based on following their low desires. The reason being that they are a people who: (1) have denied God’s clear signs and communications; (2) do not believe in the hereafter; and (3) set some of God’s creatures—such as the idols—equal to their Lord. Only those who follow their base desires would act in this manner despite receiving the complete explanations and the clear proofs [of God’s true religion].

Examining Narrations ​

  1. Concerning verse (then what is for their associates, it reaches not Allah…), it is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās, Qatādah and our Imams: If part of what they had dedicated to the idols was mixed with what they had dedicated to God, then they would separate and return it [back to the idols], but if part of what they had dedicated to God was mixed with what they had dedicated to the idols, then they would leave it and say, “God is richer [and thus needless of this].” Similarly, if water were to flow from a field that they had dedicated to God to a field that they had assigned to the idols, they would not stop it, but if water were to flow from a field that they had assigned to the idols to a field that they had dedicated to God, they would block it and say, “God is richer [and thus needless of this].”
  2. Concerning verse (And thus their associates have decorated for most of the polytheists…) Tafsīr al-Qummī says: It means that their forefathers decorated for them the killing of their children.
  3. Concerning And they say: These are cattle and crops prohibited (ḥijr), () Tafsīr al-Qummī says: Ḥijr means muḥarram (prohibited, forbidden, unlawful).
  4. Concerning And He it is Who produces gardens (jannāt) () Tafsīr al-Qummī says: It [jannāt] means basātīn (gardens, orchards, groves).
  5. Concerning verse (and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest, and do not act extravagantly…) Shuʿayb al-ʿAqarqūfī said: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest (). He replied, “[It means] a bundle of ears and a handful of dates when he estimates [that is, when the owner estimates his harvest].”

Then I asked, “Can he pay this after taking it to his home?”

He answered, “No. It is more generous of him to do so before he takes it home.”

  1. Once Imam al-Riḍā was asked, “If the poor are not present when he [the farmer] harvests, what should he do?” He replied, “He has no duty [toward them].”
  2. Muʿāwiyah b. al-Ḥajjāj says: I heard Imam al-Ṣādiq saying, “There are two rights in crops. One is a right that is collected from you, and one is a right that you have to pay [yourself].”

I asked, “What is the one that is collected from me, and what is the one that I have to pay?”

“The one that is collected from you,” he said, “is the tithe or half of tithe. The one that you should pay is based on these words of God: And pay the due of it on the day of its harvest (). It means to pay from your harvest something after something.”

Here Muʿāwiyah adds: I do not recall exactly what he said, except that he said, “You give a bundle after a bundle until you finish [harvesting].”

  1. Once Imam al-Riḍā was asked about the verse and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest, and do not act extravagantly (). He explained: My father said, “An example of extravagance in harvesting [crops] and gleaning [fruits] is to fill both hands when one wants to donate.” If my father saw one of his servants donating with both hands he would call out to him, “Give with only one hand, handful after handful [of fruits], or bundle after bundle of ears.”
  2. Muṣādif says: Once I was with Imam al-Ṣādiq in one of his fields while they were harvesting. A beggar came asking for help. I told the beggar, “May God provide for you!” But the Imam interrupted, “Shush! You cannot say that unless you give to three [beggars]. Then it is up to you whether you want to give or withhold.”
  3. Once a man asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about the verse: And pay the due of it on the day of its harvest, and do not act extravagantly; surely He does not love the extravagant (). [The Imam] said: “So-and-so of the Anṣār (Medinite Supporters)”—the Imam named him—“had a farm. Whenever he harvested he would donate it all, leaving himself and his family without anything. God identified this as extravagance.”

Author’s comment: Given that this verse was revealed in Mecca, what is meant here is matching the verse with the man’s behavior [later in Medina], not that the verse was revealed because of this. Perhaps the man of Anṣār mentioned in this narration was Thābit b. Qays b. Shammās, as seen below.

  1. Ibn Jarīj [Jurayḥ] says: This verse was revealed about Thābit b. Qays b. Shammās. He gleaned a palm and said, “I shall feed anyone who comes to me today.” Thus he fed everyone until he was left with no dates by night. Then God revealed: And do not act extravagantly; surely He does not love the extravagant ().

Author’s comment: As we said, this is a Meccan verse, not a Medinite one. Therefore, it cannot include the act of Thābit b. Qays except by matching and applying the verse to a different context (jary wa inṭibāq).

  1. Concerning this verse [] Imam al-Ṣādiq said: Give to any Muslim that comes to you. If only a polytheist comes to you, then give to him.

Author’s comment: There are very many narrations in this regard from Imams al-Bāqir, al-Ṣādiq and al-Riḍā.

  1. Concerning and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest () the Prophet said: Any ear that falls [from the shock].
  2. Concerning and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest () Ibn ʿAbbās said: This was abrogated by [the law of] tithe and half of tithe.

Author’s comment: The relationship between this verse and the verse of zakāh (obligatory poor-rate) is not that of abrogation. Whether we take the donation mentioned in this verse to be obligatory or recommended, it does not contradict the law of zakāh so that we may conclude it was abrogated.

  1. Al-Ḍaḥḥāk said: [The law or verse of] zakāh abrogated every [mention of] charity in the Qur’an.

Author’s comment: The problem with the previous narration applies to this one as well.

  1. When the people of Medina gleaned their palms, they used to take some clusters to the mosque. Then beggars would go there, hit the branches with a cane, and take what fell from them. This was how they practiced the verse: and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest ().
  2. Concerning verses (Eight in pairs—two of sheep and two of goats…) Tafsīr al-Qummī says: These verses interpret what God has made lawful in His Book, where He says: and He has sent for you eight of the cattle in pairs (). The Prophet explained the pairs as follows: Two of sheep means “tame and wild.” And two of goats means “tame and wild.” And two of cows means “tame and wild.” And two of camels means “two-humped and one-humped.” God has made all of these lawful.

Author’s comment: We still have to investigate whether or not the word azwāj (pairs) in these verses—eight in pairs—two of sheep… ()—has the same meaning as in the verse: and He has sent for you eight of the cattle in pairs (). We shall discuss this later, by God’s will.

  1. Once Imam al-Ṣādiq was asked about [eating the meat of] the birds and mammals of prey, followed by a mention of mice, bats, donkeys, mules and horses. The Imam said: “What is unlawful is only what God has forbidden in His Book. Yes, in the Battle of Khaybar the Messenger of God prohibited people from eating the meat of donkeys, but that was in order to spare them for carrying loads. Otherwise, the donkey is not unlawful.” He then recited the verse: Say: I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine—for that surely is unclean—or that which is a transgression, other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it ().

Author’s comment: There are other narrations from Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq which confirm this idea. In some of these narrations the Imam says, “What is unlawful is only what God has forbidden in His Book. However, people [before Islam] used to spare certain things, so we also spare them.” Meanwhile, there are many narrations that prohibit eating many animals such as animals that have fangs (anyāb) and birds that have claws (makhālib). Narrations reported by Sunnis are similar in this sense. This is a legal matter that should be discussed in jurisprudence. If it is proven that there are other unlawful things besides what is forbidden in the verse, then they should be interpreted as what the Prophet prohibited on the account of being khabīth (bad, offensive, impure). God has approved this from him where He says: Those who follow the unschooled messenger-prophet, whom they find written down in the Torah and the Gospel with them (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things ().

  1. Concerning verse (And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws…), it is said that Jewish kings used to prevent the poor from eating the meat of birds and the fats [of cattle]. Thus God made these things unlawful to them because of their transgression against their poor.
  2. Once Imam al-Ṣādiq was asked about the verse: thus Allah’s is the conclusive argument (). He said: On the Day of Resurrection God will say to His servant, “My servant! Did you have knowledge [of right and wrong]?”

If he says, “Yes,” then God will tell him, “So why didn’t you act according to your knowledge?” If he says, “I was ignorant,” then God will tell him, “Why didn’t you learn so that you may act?” Thus He convicts a servant. This is His conclusive argument.

Author’s comment: This above is one miṣdāq (example, application) for the verse.

  1. See verses , , and . (Trans) ↩︎

  2. The author’s objective in this paragraph is to explain God’s choice of the letter fāʾ to connect the different parts of the verse. (Trans.) ↩︎

  3. It is a false ascription to God because they held this as a sacred and obligatory practices that God has made incumbent upon them. (Trans.) ↩︎

  4. This can mean either “the leaders of misguidance” in particular, or “those who astray” in general. The first meaning is more likely in this context. (Trans.) ↩︎

  5. Therefore, labs here means khalṭ (to mix, to confuse, to obscure). (Trans.) ↩︎

  6. The pronouns would all refer to polytheists in general, where one pronoun refers to their children who are killed in particular, and the other two to most of their adults. (Trans.) ↩︎

  7. Note that anʿām (which is used in the current verse) is primarily used for camels. That is why the suggested interpretation does not include waṣīlah in verse , because waṣīlah apparently refers to a type of sheep. (Trans.) ↩︎

  8. See volume 11 of the English translation, pp. 194ff. (Trans.) ↩︎

  9. The author has defined these in detail under verse ; volume 11 of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

  10. In other words, the verse is not restricted to any of these meanings, although they can all be examples and applications of it. (Trans.) ↩︎

  11. This refers to verse . See volume 3 of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

  12. The meaning would be: “We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except: (1) what their backs carry; and (2) their entrails.” This makes the second exception an unconnected one (istithnāʾ munqaṭiʿ) because “entrails” are not a sub-category of “fat,” unless it is assumed that the verse involves an omitted term. Note that the next part of the verse—or what is mixed with bones—is also a sub-category of “fat.” This is why the author says below that the first possibility is more likely. (Trans.) ↩︎

  13. The meaning would be: “and except what is mixed with bones.” (Trans.) ↩︎

  14. The translation of this part involves some elaboration to better convey the meaning. (Trans.) ↩︎

  15. In other words, “do not buy into their testimony.” (Trans.) ↩︎

  16. Majmaʿ al-bayān. ↩︎

  17. This refers to crops like wheat and barley. Given this, it is possible that the subsequent part of the hadith originally said thamar (fruit) as opposed to tamr (date), but one dot was dropped in transcription. (Trans.) ↩︎

  18. Tafsīr al-Qummī, on the authority of Aḥmad b. Idrīs, on the authority of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, on the authority of ʿAlī b. al-Ḥakam, on the authority of Abān b. ʿUthmān. ↩︎

  19. Tafsīr al-Qummī, on the authority of Aḥmad b. Idrīs, on the authority of al-Barqī, on the authority of Saʿd b. Saʿd. ↩︎

  20. This refers to “something after something” or another statement that the Imam said afterwards. (Trans.) ↩︎

  21. Al-Kāfī, on the authority of ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm, on the authority of Ibn Abī ʿUmayr. ↩︎

  22. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Naṣr. ↩︎

  23. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

  24. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, on the authority of Hishām b. al-Muthanná. ↩︎

  25. This is narrated by al-Ṭabarī and others. ↩︎

  26. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎

  27. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Naḥḥās, Abū al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī. ↩︎

  28. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Ibn Abī Shaybah, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Naḥḥās and al-Bayhaqī’s al-Sunan. ↩︎

  29. See verses and . (Trans.) ↩︎

  30. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Abū ʿUbayd, Ibn Abī Shaybah, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd and Ibn al-Mundhir. ↩︎

  31. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Shaybah, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd and Ibn al-Mundhir and Abū al-Shaykh, on the authority of Maymūn b. Mihrān and Yazīd b. al-Aṣamm. ↩︎

  32. The same idea has been narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq in al-Kāfī, al-Ikhtiṣāṣ and Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Dāwūd al-Raqqī and Safwān al-Jammāl. ↩︎

  33. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Ḥarīz. ↩︎

  34. This means that there are two categories of unlawful edibles: (1) What God has forbidden in the Qur’an. (2) What the Prophet has prohibited as offensive. (Trans.) ↩︎

  35. Majmaʿ al-bayān, narrated from the Tafsīr of ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm [al-Qummī]. ↩︎

  36. Al-Amālī of al-Ṭūsī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Masʿadat b. Ziyād. ↩︎