Transliteration:( Qul laaa ajidu fee maaa oohiya ilaiya muharraman 'alaa taa'iminy yat'amuhooo illaaa ai yakoona maitatan aw damam masfoohan aw lahma khinzeerin fa innahoo rijsun aw fisqan uhilla lighairil laahi bih; famanid turra ghaira baa ghinw wa laa 'aadin fa inna Rabbaka Ghafoorur Raheem )
328. From this, we learn that anything which is not declared unlawful in Shariah through a clear proof will be regarded as lawful. There is no proof required for a thing to be lawful because these people had used the proof of legality to declare these things unlawful. Since there was no Divine revelation to declare these things unlawful, they are perfectly lawful.
329. The word 'but' is a relative conjunction used for taking into account animals related to the decree of unlawfulness i.e. only animals which are dead are unlawful not those that are left in the name of the idols. In Islam, only those animals are unlawful which die before being slaughtered in the name of Allah. Thus the animals which are left aside in the name of the idols are not in this category as they are not slaughtered in the name of these idols. Therefore it cannot be necessarily deduced from this that dogs and cats would become lawful for eating.
330. This means that congealed blood, spleen, liver, etc are lawful for eating because this is not flowing blood. It should be remembered that even when flowing blood becomes congealed it will become unlawful because it is after all flowing blood though it is temporarily congealed.
331. From this emerge three issues:
1. Every impure thing is forbidden, though every forbidden thing is not impure:
2. Every part of the swine is forbidden eg it's skin etc. because everything of it is part of positive impurity.
3. Nothing of the swine will become pure through cooking or slaughtering just as excreta cannot become clean under any circumstances.
332. From this emerges two issues:
1 .Regarding the animal, calling it by anyone's name in its life time will not be given any credence. The actual credence will be given to what is recited at the time of slaughtering it because the word 'pronounced' is used and not -' prayed’.
2. To slaughter animals in the name of idols is disobedience of belief or infidelity, Hence, the word 'disobedience' is used here.
333. This would be so because due to his necessity these unlawful things will become lawful for him, or if due to incorrect estimation, he eats a few morsels more than necessary then Allah Almighty out of His infinite mercy will not hold him responsible for this.
Â
145. Say: “I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maytah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine; for that surely, is unclean (Rijs), or immorally slaughtered in the name of other than Allah. But whosoever is forced by necessity without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits; (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.â€
Allah commands His servant and Messenger, Muhammad ,
(Say) O Muhammad to those who prohibited what Allah has provided them, claiming this falsehood to be from Allah,
(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.
(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…â€)â€â€™ 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…â€) 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,
(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,
(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,
(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
121. See for this (Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 173), (Surah al-Maidah, ayat 3) and (Surah An-Nahl, ayat 115) The slight difference between this verse and (Surah al-Baqarah, ayat 173) is that whereas the latter mentions ‘blood’ as prohibited, the present verse qualifies it with ‘outpoured’, i.e. the blood which has flowed as a result of either injuring or slaughtering an animal. This, in fact, constitutes an elucidation of the former injunction rather than the revelation of a different one. Likewise, (Surah Al-Maidah, ayat 3) mentions the prohibition of certain other categories – animals strangled or killed by blows, those which have died from either falling or goring, and those devoured by a beast of prey, in addition to the four classes mentioned here. This is not an independent, divergent injunction; it is rather an explanation signifying that the animals thus killed fall into the category of ‘carrion’.
There is a group of Muslim jurists who believe that prohibition is confined to these four classes of animal food, and that the eating of everything else is lawful. This was also the view of ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas and ‘A’ishah. Several traditions, however, indicate that the Prophet (peace be on him) either told people not to eat certain things or expressed his disapproval at their eating them, for example, domesticated donkeys, beasts with canine teeth and birds with claws. It is for this reason that the majority of jurists do not consider prohibition confined to these four classes but extend it to several others. These jurists disagree, however, on which of those things are unlawful and which are lawful. Abu Hanifah, Malik and Shafi’i, for example, consider domesticated donkeys to be unlawful. Others argue that the Prophet (peace be on him) forbade them on a special occasion and because of a special reason. To cite another example, the Hanafi jurists hold wild beasts, birds of prey and animals which feed on carrion to be absolutely unlawful, whereas Milik and Awza’i hold birds of prey to be lawful. Layth considers the cat to be lawful. In the same way, Shafi’i considers prohibition to be confined only to those beasts which actually attack man, such as lion, wolf, tiger and so on. In the opinion of another jurist, ‘Ikrimah, both crow and badger are lawful. Likewise, whereas the Hanafi jurists declare all crawling creatures to be prohibited, Ibn Abi Layla, Malik and Awza’i hold the snake to be lawful.
Upon reflection of these divergent opinions and the arguments adduced in support of them, it becomes clear that categorical prohibition embraces only those four classes mentioned in the Qur’an. As for other types of animal food, regarding which the jurists have expressed a negative view, they seem to carry varying degrees of religious disapprobation. The things whose disapprobation is established by statements of the Prophet (peace be on him) transmitted to us through sound traditions, are relatively close to ‘prohibition’. As for things regarding which them is disagreement among jurists, their religious disapprobation becomes doubtful.
Temperamental dislike, however, is quite a different matter. The Law Of God does not force anyone to eat everything which is not prohibited. At the same time, the Law does not entitle anybody to exalt his personal likes and dislikes into a criterion of what is lawful and unlawful. No one is justified in reproaching others for consuming lawful things which offend his tastes.
Related Ayat(Verses)/Topics