Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

CHAPTER 5, VERSES 4-5

يَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا أُحِلَّ لَهُمْۖ قُلْ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُۙ وَمَا عَلَّمْتُم مِّنَ الْجَوَارِحِ مُكَلِّبِينَ تُعَلِّمُونَهُنَّ مِمَّا عَلَّمَكُمُ اللَّـهُۖ فَكُلُوا مِمَّا أَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاذْكُرُوا اسْمَ اللَّـهِ عَلَيْهِۖ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّـهَۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ ﴿٤﴾ الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُۖ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَّكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْۖ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلَا مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍۗ وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالْإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ ﴿٥﴾

They ask you as to what is made lawful for them. Say: “The good things are made lawful for you and what you have taught the beasts of prey, training them to hunt - you teach them of what Allah has taught you - so eat of that which they hold for you and mention the name of Allãh over it; and fear Allãh; surely Allãh is swift in reckoning” (4). This day have been made lawful for you (all) good things; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them; and the chaste (ones) from among the believing women and the chaste (ones) from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you), when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not forni-cating nor taking them for paramours in secret; and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is forfeited, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers (5).

* * * * *

COMMENTARY

QUR’ÃN: They ask you as to what is made lawful for them. Say: “The good things are made lawful for you: It is a general question which has been answered with a general reply; and it lays down an overall principle for differentiating between lawful and unlawful; that a thing using of which is onsidered good is a good thing. The word, “good”, is also used without any condition or restriction and it means that the judge for identification of its goodness should be the normal intellect; whatever normal intellect considers good is good, and every good is lawful. We have explained lawfulness and goodness in general terms putting reliance on normal intellect, because according to the fundamentals of jurisprudence that is how generality is explained.

QUR’ÃN: “and what you have taught the beasts of prey, training them to hunt - you teach them of what Allãh has taught you - so eat of that which they hold for you and mention the name of Allãh over it; . .”: It is said that this sentence is in conjunction with “good things” i.e. and also lawful for you is what you have taught the beasts of prey i.e. the prey of those beasts which you have taught. This explanation supposes that a word, “prey of”, is omitted here but under-stood. But apparently, the sentence is in conjunction independently with the preceding sentence, and the word, “what”, is a preposition of condition and the clause: “so eat of that which they hold for you”, gives the result of that condition; so there is no need to suppose omission of any word in the sentence.

al-Jawãrih (اَلْجَوَارِحُ ) is plural of al-jãrihah (اَلْجَارِحَةُ ), which denotes such a bird or beast, which is used for hunting or preying, like hawk, falcon, dog and cheetah. Mukallibīn (مُكَلِّبِيْن ) is the active participle of the verb at-taklīb (اَلتَّكْلِيبُ = to teach and train dogs for preying; to keep hunting dogs and releasing them for this purpose). The sentence is restricted with the word mukallibīn and this may be a sort of indication that the order is reserved for hunting dog and does not cover other preying beasts.

The words: “of that which they hold for you”. The restriction, “for you”, clearly shows that the lawfulness is limited to that case where the dog preys for its owner, not for itself. The words: “and men-tion the name of Allãh over it”, complete the conditions of lawfulness: the prey should be taken by the beasts of prey according to the given training and the beast should hold it for the hunter and the name of Allãh should be mentioned over it.

The sentences, in short, indicate that the beasts trained for hunting, i.e. the hunting dogs, when they are properly trained and they catch for you any wild animal (eating of which is lawful when it is slaughtered according to the sharī‘ah) and you have mentioned the name of Allãh at the time of releasing the dog, then you may eat from it if the dog kills it before you reach there (that earlier recitation of Divine name will be counted as the proper slaughter). If the dog doesn't kill it, then you will have to slaughter it properly reciting the name of Allãh; but that doesn't come under this rule.

Then the verse ends on the words: and fear Allãh; surely Allãh is swift in reckoning. It clearly shows that one should fear Allãh while hunting wild animals. Hunting should not result in excessive loss of life, nor should it be done merely for game, arrogance, or amusement because Allãh is swift in reckoning and He requits transgression and oppression in this world before the hereafter. Such oppressions and transgressions where people indulge in indiscriminate killings of poor animals inevitably lead one to a very shameful end as we have often seen.

QUR’ÃN: This day have been made lawful for you (all) good things; and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them: Repetition of lawfulness of good things (although it was mentioned in the immediately preceding verse) and beginning of the verse with the adverb, “This day”, aims at showing the favour of Allãh on the believers by making lawful for them the food of the People of the Book and their chaste women.

Probably, the clause: “have been made lawful for you (all) good things”, has been added to the clause: “and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you . .” to create reassurance in the hearts of the believers by adding a definite order with an order in which there might be room for some doubt; this addition would remove perplexity and uneasiness. For example, a master says to his servant, 'You are the owner of all that I have gifted to you earlier in addition to this and this extra item.' Mentioning previously gifted things will give the servant full confidence concerning the ownership of the later additions. In a way, the same may be the explanation of the following two verses: For those who dogood is good (reward) and more (than this); . (10:26). Therein they shall have whatever they will; and withUs there is yet more (50:35).

It looks as though the believers' hearts were very perturbed and they felt doubts concerning the lawfulness of the food of the People of the Book, especially in view of the very strict admonition regarding their friendship - they were strictly forbidden to mix with them and have friendly relations with them. In this background, the order concerning their food was joined with the order of lawfulness of good things without any reservation. Now, they could be sure that the Jews' and the Christians' food is like other lawful good things, and their hearts will be at ease. The same is the explanation of the verse: and the chaste (ones) from among the believing women and the chaste (one) from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you).

The Divine words: “and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them”, have not laid down two separate rules. Obviously, it is one speech with a single connotation. The words: “and your food is lawful for them”, have not ordained any order for the People of the Book. Even if we say that disbelievers are obliged to follow the orders of Islamicsharī‘ah , yet they do not believe in Allãh and His Messenger or his Prophethood. They do not listen to the Prophet nor do they accept his command-ments; and it is not the style of Qur’ãn to address some people or give any order to them when it is clearly known that such a talk will have no effect on them, and that address will avail nothing. [Of course, if such a talk becomes necessary for some reasons, Allãh turns the address from those people to the Prophet or uses some other modes of speech like that. For example, Allãh says: Say, “O People of the Book! Come to a word between us and you . .” (3:64). Say: “Glorybe to my Lord; am I aught but a human messenger?” (17:93); there are other many such verses.]

In short, the clauses are not meant legislating two separate laws: one, allowing the food of the People of the Book to the Muslims, and the other, making the food of the Muslims lawful for the People of the Book. Rather, the whole speech gives one order and that is the lawfulness of food for both groups. There is no restriction in between on either side. It is like the Divine words: . then if you find them to bebelieving women, do not send them back to the unbelievers; neither are these (women) lawful for them, nor are those (men) lawful for them . (60:10). In other words, there is no lawfulness on any side.

at-Ta‘ãm (اَلطَّعَامُ ) according to philology refers to all that is eaten and taken as nourishment. But it is said that it is used to wheat and other such grains only. Lisãnu 'l-‘Arab says: “When the people of Hijãz use the word at-ta‘ãm without any restriction or association, they mean wheat exclusively.” He further says: “al-Khalīl has said, 'In high Arab language at-ta‘ãm is wheat in particular.” The same meaning has been given by Ibnu 'l-Athīr in an-Nihãyah. It is for this reason that in most of ahãdīth narrated from the Imãms of Ahlu 'l Bayt (a.s .) it has been declared that at-ta‘ãm in this verse means wheat and other grains, although a few traditions give another meaning; and we shall talk about it under “Traditions”.

In any case, this permission does not cover those animals whose meat is forbidden and slaughtering them can make no difference like pig, nor does it cover those lawful animals, which have not been slaughtered properly like the one over which the name of Allãh has not been recited and which has not been slaughtered according to Islamic rules. Allãh has counted the above-mentioned unlawful items in the verses of prohibition (that is, the four verses in the chapters of “The Cow”, “The Table, “Cattle” and “The Bee”) describing them as uncleanness, transgression, and sin, as we have explained earlier. Far be it from Allãh to allow what He has called uncleanness, trans-gression, and sin and then to mention it as a favour to the believers.

Moreover, these forbidden things have been enumerated in this very chapter a few lines before this verse. And nobody can claim abrogation in such cases and especially in the chapter of “The Table” about which the traditions say that it is an abrogating chapter, not abrogated.

QUR’ÃN: and the chaste (ones) from among the believing women and the chaste (ones) from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful for you): The description of the group using the verb (i.e. among those who have been given the Book), instead of saying, from the Jews and the Christians or even saying, from the People of the Book, points in a way to the reason of the law; because Allãh wants to show His favour and to ease the burden from the believers. The meaning: We have done you a favour by easing the burden by removing the prohibition of marriage between your men and the chaste women of those who have been given the Book before you, because they are nearest to you of all the non-Muslim commun-ities, as they were given the Book and they had believed in One God and the prophets, in contrast to the Idol-worshippers and polytheists who disbelieve in the prophets. Probably, it is for this reason that “those who have been given the Book” is followed by the words “before you”; it clearly indicates a mixing and intermingling.

Be as it may. The verse describes the favour of Allãh and relax-ation of rule; such a law cannot be made subject to abrogation. There are two verses which seem to contradict this relaxed law: And do not marry the idolatress until they believe (2:221); and hold not to the ties of marriage of unbelieving women (60:10). But these two verses cannot abrogate the verse under discussion because the first verse is in the chapter of “The Cow” and it was the first detailed chapter which came down in Medina long before the chapter of “The Table”; and the second one is in the chapter of “The Woman Tested” and it was re-vealed in Medina before the conquest of Mecca, that is, more than two years before the revelation of the chapter of “The Table”. Therefore, the earlier revealed verses cannot abrogate a verse revealed later. Moreover, the traditions say that the chapter of “The Table” was the last chapter revealed to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.); it has abrogated some previous laws but nothing has abrogated this chapter. Apart from that, you have seen in the exegesis of the verse 2:221 that these two verses (of “The Cow” and “The Woman Tested”) are not concerned at all with the subject of the marriage with a Christian or a Jewish woman.1

If one were to claim that the verse of “The Woman Tested” somehow showed unlawfulness of such a marriage, and if one were to say that the tone of the verse of “The Table”, showing Divine favour and relaxation proved that such a marriage was previously forbidden - otherwise there was no place for showing favour and relaxation - then this verse of the chapter of “The Table” will abrogate the verse of the”The Woman Tested, and not vice versa. We shall further talk under “Traditions” about this second verse.

al-Muhsanãt (اَلْمُحْصَنَاتُ ) has been translated here as “the chaste ones”. Chastity is one of the meanings of al-ihsãn (اَلإحْصَانُ ). The clause, “and the chaste (ones) from among the believing women and the chaste (ones) from among those who have been given the Book before you”, clearly shows that these women are unmarried, and putting together these two groups of the People of the Book and the believers demands that the word al-muhsanãt should have the same meaning in both places. It means that al-ihsãn here cannot be interpreted as Islam, because of inclusion of the women of the People of the Book. Also, the word cannot be interpreted as the free women because the Divine favour would remain incomplete if it were confined to the free women and excluded the slave girls. Thus, we see that no connotation of the word, al-ihsãn, can fit on this verse except chastity.

The verse explicitly shows the lawfulness of the chaste women of the People of the Book for the believers without mentioning perma-nent marriage or the mut‘ah; the only condition is that the believers should give them their dowries and the relationship should be of marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret. It means that the believers are allowed to marry them paying them their dowries and not indulging in illicit relations with them, without mentioning any condition regarding permanency or temporariness of the marriage; and we have described under the Divine words, Then as to such of them with whom you have mut‘ah that mut‘ah, is a marriage like the permanent one.2 Its details should be seen in the books of fiqh.

QUR’ÃN: when you have given them their dowries, taking (them) in marriage, not fornicating nor taking them for paramours in secret: It is the same theme that we had seen in the verse. “And lawful for you is (all) besides that, that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) with decency, not committing fornication” (4:24). This sen-tence indicates that the verse is speaking about lawfulness of the marriage with chaste women of the People of the Book and does not cover slave girls.

QUR’ÃN: and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is forfeited and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers: al-Kufr (اَلْكُفْرُ ) actually means to hide, to cover. For covering to take place there must be an object that is covered.An hijãb (اَلْحِجَابُ = veil) cannot be an hijãb unless there is something to be veiled.al-Kufr may be of Divine favours, of Divine signs or of Allãh and His Messenger and the Last Day.

al-Kufr (اَلْكُفْرُ = denial, covering) of Imãn demands that there should be in the beginning a firm imãn (اَلإِيْمَانُ = belief, faith). It is an attribute, which is firmly, rooted in the believer's heart, that is, the correct and true beliefs, which give rise to the good deeds. In this light, denial of faith means not acting on what one knows to be right and truth. For example, if one neglects the pillars of religion like prayer, zakãt, fast and hajj although he knows that they are the pillars of religion, or keeps friendship with the polytheists, mingling with them and taking part in their activities, although knowing that only Islam is the truth.

This is the significance of the denial of the faith. However, there is a fine point here al-kufr denotes hiding and the human mind do not accept that an established thing has been covered and hidden unless it is perpetually kept out of sight. Therefore, a man will be accused of denial of the faith only if he continues to neglect the demands of his faith and does not act according to his knowledge and belief. If he goes against the demands of his faith only once or twice without persisting in that behaviour, then the word al-kufr will not be used for him. He will be said to have committed fisq (اَلْفِسْقُ = sin).

It appears from the above that “whoever denies faith” actually means whoever persists in denying faith, although the sentence uses the verb instead of adjective. In other words, whoever does not adhere to what he knows to be truth and does not hold fast to the pillars of religion, he is the disbeliever in the faith and all his good deeds are forfeited as Allãh Says: “his work indeed is forfeited”.

This verse fully corresponds with the following verses of the chapter of “The Battlements”: . and if they see the way of rectitude they do not take it for a way, and if they see the way of error, they take it for a way; this is because they rejected Our signs and were heedless of them. And (as to) those who rejectOur signs and the meeting of the hereafter, their deeds are forfeited. Shall they be rewarded except for what they have done? (7:146-7). In this verse, Allãh mentions them as taking the way of error and leaving the way of rectitude after seeing the both, i.e. even after knowing them, then further attributes to them rejection of the signs, and the signs are called signs when it is known what they indicate; finally, it is explained as rejection of the hereafter because if he does not reject the hereafter the knowledge that it was certainly to come should have prevented him from deviating from the truth; as a result, their deeds are forfeited.

Similar is the theme of the Divine words: Say: “ShallWe inform you of the greatest losers in (their) deeds? (These are) they whose labour is lost in this world's life and they think that they were acquiring good by their deeds. These are they who disbelieve in the signs of their Lord and His meeting, so their deeds become forfeited, and therefore We will not set up balance for them on the Day of Resurrection . .” (18:103-5). It can easily be seen how these verses fit the theme of denial of faith as described above.

If we ponder on the above explanations, we will see how the sentence: “and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is forfeited,” becomes connected with the preceding sentences. It in fact completes the preceding statements. The idea is to warn the believers of the danger that would face them if they became lax in sincerely following the commands of Allãh. They should not freely mingle with desbe-lievers. Allãh has allowed them the food and the chaste women of the People of the Book to bring some ease in the believers' lives in order that it should become a means of spreading piety; hopefully it would cause the pure Islamic morality to seep into the non-Muslim society. It would create beneficial knowledge and propagate good deeds.

This is the main purpose of this legislation. It was not meant for the Muslims to tumble down the pitfalls of debauchery and descend into the valleys of lechery and lewdness. They should not be beguiled in their desires nor should they be infatuated with their beauty, lest they gain the upper hand and their culture and their people's culture dominate the Muslim society; then their misconduct will vanquish the Islamic righteousness. This, in its turn, will bring a greater calamity and the believers will become victims of degradation and retro-gression. Consequently, this Divine favour will become a devastating tribulation and this relaxation turn into a curse instead of a blessing. That is why Allãh warned the believers - after describing lawfulness of their food and chaste women - that they should not rush headlong into taking advantage of this relaxed rule in such a way that it leads them to the denial of faith and neglect of the pillars of religion; other-wise, it would cause nullification of all their good deeds and in the hereafter all their deeds will be forfeited.

The exegetes while explaining these two verses have plunged into unknown waters and come up with astonishing explanations which are neither supported by the Qur’ãnic wordings, nor are in keeping with the context.

For example, one has said that the clause: The good things are made lawful for you, refers to bahīrah, sãibah, wasīlah and hãmī.3 Another has said that the words: the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you, denote that in basic principle the food of the People of the Book is lawful for the believers, Allãh has never forbidden it; and that the animals' meat too is lawful even if it had been slaughtered according to their own custom. A third one said that the verse shows that you may eat with them on one table. Some-one wrote that the clause: and the chaste (ones) from among those who have been given the book before you, shows that these chaste women were lawful to the believers from the beginning, they were never forbidden before because the clause: and lawful for you is (all) besides that (4:24), was enough to make them lawful. Another one said that the sentence: “and whoever denies faith his work indeed is forteited”, sounds a warning to the believers that they should not reject the order allowing them the food of the People of the Book and their chaste women.

They have written these and other similar meanings some of which are sheer foolhardiness and others are arbitrary; still others are totally against the context and do not look at the adverb “This day” nor at the favour and relaxation. What we have described earlier in the Commentary is enough to show the invalidity of such interpretations. The claim that the clause: and lawful for you is (all) besides that (4:24), shows the lawfulness of marriage with women of the People of the Book, is clearly invalid because the verses 4:23-24 aim at describing the lawfulness and unlawfulness of women because of con-sanguinity and marriage. They are not concerned with difference of religion.

TRADITIONS

as-Suyūtī writes under the verse: They ask you as to what is made lawful for them . Ibn Jarīr has narrated from ‘Ikrimah: “Verily the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), sent Abū Rãfi‘ to kill the dogs. He killed them until he reached al-‘Awãlī. Then ‘Ãsim ibn ‘Adiyy, Sa‘d ibn Khaythamah and ‘Uwaym ibn Sã‘idah came (to the Prophet) and said, 'What has been made lawful for us, O Messenger of Allãh?' So, this verse was revealed: They ask you as to what is made lawful for them . (ad-Durru 'l-manthūr)

Again he says, “Ibn Jarīr has narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka‘b al-Qarazī, 'When the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), ordered killing of the dogs, they said: “O Messenger of Allãh! What has been made lawful for us from this group?” Then the verse was revealed: They ask you as to what is made lawful for them . .'“ ( ibid.)

The author says: The two traditions explain each other. The theme is that they had asked what categories of dogs they were allowed to keep and use in various activities like hunting, etc.

But the Divine words: They ask you as to what is made lawful for them. Say: “The good things are made lawful foryou, . .” do not tally with this theme because the question was restricted and the verse is general.

Moreover, these two traditions as well as the next one appar-ently show that, the clause: and what you have taught the beasts ofprey, is in conjunction with: the good things, and that it means: It has been made lawful to you what you have taught. That is why some exegetes have said that the word: prey of, is omitted, but understood in this sentence. But we have already explained that: what you have taught the beasts ofprey, is a conditional clause, which is completed by the clause: so eat of that which they hold for you.

According to these traditions, the group about which the ques-tion was asked refers to dogs.

Also, he says, “al-Fãriyãbī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu 'l-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Hãtim, at-Tabarãnī and al-Hãkim (who has said that the tradition is correct) and al-Bayhaqī have narrated from AbūRãfi‘ that he said, 'Jibrīl came to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and asked permission to enter. The Prophet gave him permission but he tarried (in entering). The Prophet took his cloak, came out, and said, “We have already given you permission.” (Jibrīl) said, “Yes, but we do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture.” They looked around and lo! There was a puppy in one of their houses.'

“AbūRãfi‘ said , 'Then he (the Prophet) ordered me to kill every dog in Medina, and this I did. People came and said, “O Messenger of Allãh! What is allowed to us from this group, which you have ordered to be killed?” The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was silent. Then Allãh revealed: They ask you as to what is made lawful for them. Say: “The good things are made lawful for you and what you have taught the beasts of prey, training them to hunt . .” Then the Messenger of Allãh (s.a. w.a.) said, “When a man releases his dog and recites the name of Allãh and it holds the prey for him then he should eat what the dog has not eaten.”' “ (ibid.)

The author says: What the tradition describes about the coming down of Jibrīl is very strange. Moreover, it does not stand on sound footing because it shows that Jibrīl did not come to the Prophet because there was a puppy in one of their houses. But the story does not tally with the apparent meaning of the verse where both the ques-tion and its reply are unrestricted. More probably, the tradition is a forged one.

Also he says, “‘Abd ibn Hamīd and Ibn Jarīr have narrated from ‘Ãmir that the said, 'Verily ‘Adiyy ibn Hãtim at-Tã’ī came to the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.), and asked him about the prey of dogs; the Prophet did not know what to say until Allãh revealed to him this verse in the chapter of “The Table”: you teach them of what Allãh has taught you.'“ ( ibid.)

The author says: There are other traditions of the similer meaning and the objections mentioned earlier apply to all of them. Apparently, these and similar traditions are an attempt to fit some events on the verse; but the attempt is inconclusive and defective. What is clear is that they had talked to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) about hunting with dogs and then asked him about a comprehensive prin-ciple to distinguish the lawful from the unlawful. So, Allãh mentioned their question in the verse and replied to them by giving a comprehen-sive principle in this respect. Then the reply was given to their specific question about dogs. This meaning is clear from the verse [and it doest not need any such tradition to make its meaning clear.]

al-Kulaynī has narrated through his chains from Hammãd from al-Halabī from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) that he said, “It is written in the book of ‘Alī (a.s.), about the Divine word: what you have taught the beasts of prey, that it refers to dogs.” (al-Kãfī )

The author says: al-‘Ayyãshī has narrated it in his at-Tafsīr from Samã‘ah ibn Mihrãn from the same Imãm (a.s.).

Also, he has narrated through his chains from Ibn Muskãn from al-Halabī that he said, “Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s .), said, 'My father used to give fatwã and he practised taqiyyah and we were afraid of (giving actual ruling) about the prey of eagles and falcons; but now we are not afraid. Its prey is not lawful except when you get the chance to slaughter it. Because it is written in the book of ‘Alī (a.s .) that Allãh has revealed this sentence: what you have taught the beasts of prey training them to hunt, about the dogs.'“4 (ibid.)

Also, he narrates through his chains from Abū Bakr al-Hadramī from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.). He says, “I asked the Imãm about the prey of eagles, falcons, cheetahs and dogs. The Imãm said, 'Do not eat except what you slaughter except the prey of dogs.' I said, 'If it (dog) kills it.' The Imãm said, 'Eat it because Allãh says: what you have taught the beasts of prey, training them to hunt - you teach them of what Allãh has taught you - so eat of that which they hold for you.' Then he said, 'Every beast of prey holds the prey for itself except the trained dog, for it holds it for its owner.' He further said, 'And when you release the dogmention the name of Allãh over it, that is its dhabīhah.'“ ( ibid.)

al-‘Ayyãshī narrates from Abū ‘Ubaydah from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) about a man who releases a trained dog and mentions the name of Allãh at the time of release. The Imãm said, “He shall eat from what the dog has held for him even if he has killed it. And if there was found an untrained dog with it, then don't eat from it.” “I asked, 'And (what about) falcons and eagles?' The Imãm said, 'If you get chance to slaughter it then eat from it; otherwise don't eat it.' I said, 'So, cheetah is not like dog?' He said, 'No. Nothing is called mukallab except the (kalb) dog.'“ ( at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyãshī).

Abū Basīr narrates from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) about the Divine words: what you have taught the beasts of prey, training them to hunt - you teach them of what Allãh has taught you - so eat of that which they hold for you and mention the name of Allãh over it, that he said, “There is no harm in eating what the dog has held when he has not eaten from it; but if the dog has eaten from it before you reach there, then do not eat it.”(ibid.)

The author says: The various particular orders mentioned in the traditions like restriction of lawfulness to the prey of dog because of the Divine word: mukallibin and: which they hold for you, and the condition that no untrained dog should join in the hunt, all this is inferred from the verse and we have mentioned them before.

Harīz narrates from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s .) that he was asked about a dog of a Magian5 which a Muslim trains and mentions the name of Allãh on releasing it. The Imãm said, “Yes, it is a trained dog. There is no harm when Allãh's name is mentioned over it.”(ibid.)

The author says: The hadīth is based on the generality of the word: what you have taught to the beasts of prey.as-Suyūtī narrates in ad-Durru 'l-manthūr from Ibn Abī Hãtim from Ibn ‘Abbãs that he was asked about a Muslim who takes a trained dog of a Magian or his falcon or eagle which has been trained by its owner and the Muslim releases it and it catches a prey. Ibn ‘Abbãs said, “Don't eat it even if you have invoked the name of Allãh because that animal or bird was taught by the Magian while Allãh says: what you have taught the beasts of prey, training them to hunt - you teach them of what Allãh has taught you.” But the weakness of the hadīth is obvious because although the speech: you teach them of what Allãh has taught you, is addressed to the believers but what Allãh has taught the Muslims regarding the training of dogs is not different from what He has taught to the people of other religions6 and this connotation helps the reader understand that it does not restrict the dogs' training to the believers. There is no difference when a dog is trained, whether a Muslim or a non-Muslim trained it, or whether a Muslim or a non-Muslim owned it.

al-‘Ayyãshī narrates from Hishãm ibn Sãlim from Abū ‘Abdil-lãh (a.s.) that he said explaining the Divine words: and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you. It refers to lentils, grains, and similar things of the People of the Book. (at-Tafsīr , al-‘Ayyãshī).

The author says: ash-Shaykh has narrated it in at-Tahdhīb from the same Imãm and the wording there is, “lentils, chickpeas, etc.”

There are traditions from ‘Ammãr ibn Marwãn and Samã‘ah from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) explaining what is lawful from the food of the People of the Book. The Imãm said, “Grains.” (al-Kãfī ; at-Tahdhīb)

al-Kulaynī narrates through his chain from Ibn Muskãn from Qutaybah al-A‘shã that he said, “A man asked Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.), and I was present there. He said to the Imãm, 'A Jew or a Christian releases (a dog) on goats or sheep and it attacks it, then it is slaugh-tered. Should his dhabīhah (slaughtered animal) be eaten?' Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) said, 'Do not enter its price in your property and don't eat it because it is the (Divine) name (which is important) and no one can be trusted in this matter except a Muslim.' That man said to the Imãm (a.s .), 'Allãh has said: This day have been made lawful for you (all) good things and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you.' Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) said, 'My father used to say that it refers to grains, and similar things.'“ ( al-Kãfī)

The author says: This tradition has been narrated by ash-Shaykh in at-Tahdhīb and by al-‘Ayyãshī in his at-Tafsīr from Qutaybah al-A‘shã from the Imãm (a.s.).

As you see, the traditions explain the lawful food of the People of the Book as being confined to grains, and similar items. It is the meaning that is understood from the word: at-ta‘ãm (اَلطَّعَام = food) when it is used without any contextual restriction as it appears from the traditions and the stories narrated from the early days of Islam.

That is why a great majority of our ‘ulamã’ believes that the lawfulness is confined to the grains, and similar things and the food prepared from them.

Some people (Rashīd Ridã in Tafsīru 'l-manãr) have forcefully rejected this interpretation, saying that it is against the usage of theQur’ãn concerning the word: at-ta‘ãm. He further says, “In the Qur’ãnic language, cereal grain is not the overwhelming meaning of at-ta‘ãm. Allãh has said in this very chapter: Lawful for youis the game of the sea and its food, a provision for you and for the travellers (5:96); and nobody can claim that the food of the sea means wheat and grain. Also, Allãh says: All food was lawful to the Children of Israel - except that which Israel had forbidden to himself (3:93), and no one has said that the word food here means wheat or grain, because nothing of it was forbidden to the Children of Israel - neither before the revelation of the Torah nor after it.at-Ta‘ãm basically refers to all that is tasted or eaten. Allãh says narrating the story of the stream that Tãlūt had said: whoever then drinks from it he is not ofme, and whoever does not taste of it (lam Yat‘amhu), he is surely of me (2:249). Also, Allãh says: when you have taken the food (ta‘imtum), then disperse (33:53).”

COMMENT: Would that I could know what did he understand from the sentence: at-ta‘ãm when used without any contextual restriction refers to the grain, and similar things. It is amusing that he has tried to refute it with the verbs yat‘amhu and ta‘imtum while the scholars had talked about the noun at-ta‘ãm and not about the verbs derived from that root. Another of his arguement is based on the genitive construction “food of the sea” and this construction itself is a clear context, which shows that it doesn't refer to cereal grain because wheat or barley does not grow in the sea. Another argument is based on the sentence: All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, and he himself says that wheat or cereal grains were not forbidden in their religion. This context clearly shows that the talk is not about cereal grains. He should have found out from the Qur’ãn the examples where the word: at-ta‘ãm is used in its generality without contrary context and then he should have spoken; like the Divine words: redemption by feeding a poor man (2:184); the expiation (of it) is the feeding of the poor (5:95); And they give food out of love for Him (76:8); Then let man look to his food (80:24). [In all these verses the noun at-ta‘ãm has been used free from contextual restrictions and it all refers to the food prepared from cereal grains.]

He further says, “There was no confusion regarding cereal grains whether they were lawful or not. The question arose only about meat when something happens to create doubt about its lawfulness, e.g. if the animal dies a natural death or if it is slaughtered as an offering to the idols or without invoking the name of Allãh. That is why Allãh has said: 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 . .' (6:145); and all this is related to animals. It clearly shows that unlawfulness is restricted to this group only and unlawfulness of other things requires similar clear declaration.”

COMMENT: This talk is more amusing than the previous one. He says that cereal grains are not the subject of doubt that it is lawful or not; the doubt occurs about the meat only. We should ask him: Which time is he talking about? Is he looking at these times of ours when people are familiar with Islam and its general regulations since so many centuries or is he talking about the times when the Qur’ãn was being revealed and the religion was just a few years old? Does he not know that the people had asked the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) about the subjects, which were clearer than the rules of cereal grains? Allãh has quoted some of their questions. For example: They ask you as to what they should spend (2:215). ‘Abd ibn Hamīd has narrated from Qatãdah that he said, “We have been told that some people had said: 'How can we marry their women and they are on a (different) religion and we are on a (different) religion.' Then Allãh sent down the verse: And whoever denies faith, his work is indeed forfeited . .” You will find similar questions and objections in the traditions as we have quoted some in the subject ofhajju 't -tamattu‘, etc.

When they could raise such objections after the verse was revealed allowing the marriage with chaste women of the People of the Book, then what was there to prevent them, before the verse was revealed, from asking about eating together with the People of the Book or to eat the cereal grains purchased from them or the meals prepared from it like bread or other dishes; or other items prepared from cereal grains when these things were made by the People of the Book, because: they have their own religion and we follow a different religion! Especially so when Allãh had warned the believer in so many verses against establishing friendship and close relation with the People of the Book and inclining towards them.

Rather, we can turn the table against him when he says, 'There is a chance of confusion about meat whether it was lawful or not.'Fine. But how could they ask about it when Allãh had described the general unlawful items of meat in the chapter of “Cattle”: 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) Allãh having been invoked on it” (8:145); and then in the chapter of “The Bee”. Both these chapters are of Meccan period. Then details have been given in the chapter of “The Cow” which was revealed in Medina long before the chapter of “The Table”. And even in this chapter, before this verse, forbidden meat has been described. And this preceding verse accord-ing to Rashīd Ridã explicitly shows that the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book are not forbidden. Now, we may ask: How could they entertain any doubt about the lawfulness of the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book when verse after verse of Meccan as well as Medinite period was revealed declaring that it was lawful; and the Muslims were memorising these verses and reciting them and teaching them and putting them into practice?

He has claimed that the verse of the chapter of “Cattle” confines the unlawful things to what has been mentioned therein; accordingly, unlawfulness of animals slaughtered by the People of the Book will require a clear proof. Well, there is no doubt that every rule needs a proof to support it and his claim clearly shows that this exclusive confinement will be valid only when there is no other proof to show that some other things too are forbidden.

Now, if he wants proof from traditions then those who say that the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book are unlawful rely on the traditions, which are narrated in explanation of this verse, and we have quoted some of them earlier.

And if he wants proof from the Qur’ãn, then, first of all it is an unjustifiable arrogance, because tradition is the companion of theQur’ãn and they are not separate from each other in being authorita-tive sources of the law. Secondly, we shall ask himwhat are his views about the animals slaughtered by unbelievers other than the People of the Book like Idol-worshippers and atheists . Will he say it is unlawful because it is a dead body, which has not been slaughtered according to thesharī‘ah ? In that case, let us look at two slaughtered animals: On one of them the name of Allãh was not invoked at all and it was not slaughtered facing the qiblah; and the other was not slaughtered in the Islamic way. What is the difference between the two? Allãh is not pleased with either, both are unclean in the eyes of the religion, and Allãh has forbidden the unclean things. Allãh Says: (Who) enjoins them good and forbids them unclean things (7:157); and He has said in the preceding verse: They ask you as to what is made lawful for them. Say: “The good things are made lawful for you.” This question and answer is a clear proof that lawfulness is confined to the good things and even in this verse, the words: This day have been made lawful for you (all) good things, point to this exclusiveness especially when they describe the favour of Allãh on the believers.

If he says that the animals slaughtered by those unbelievers are unlawful because they invoke on it the names of other than Allãh, like their deities, then there is no difference whether a name of other than Allãh is invoked on it or the name of Allãh is invoked but in a way which has been abrogated and with which Allãh is not pleased.

Rashīd Ridã further says, “Allãh has very forcefully forbidden the Muslims to follow the idolators of Arab in eating dead animals of all different categories mentioned earlier and sacrificing animals on their idols. It was done in order that the early Muslims should not treat it as an easy matter according to their earlier habit. As for the People of the Book, they were far from eating dead bodies or sacrificing for idols.”

He has forgotten that the Christians among the People of the Book eat pork and Allãh has mentioned and forcefully condemned it. In fact, they eat all things the Idol-worshippers eat because atonement of Jesus Christ has made all things lawful for them. In any case, this is an absurd reasoning that should not be used in exegesis of the Book of Allãh or in understanding the laws of His religion.

Finally, he says, “It was the policy of Islam to deal very strictly with polytheists of Arabia in order that everyone in the Arabian Peninsula should feel compelled to enter into the fold of Islam; but it was very lenient to the People of the Book. Then he quotes the rulings of a few companions who believed that the animals sacrificed in syna-gogues or churches were lawful to eat.

The basic idea lurking behind this speech is, as appears from some traditions, that Allãh had chosen the Arabs over other nations and the Arabs were superior to others. That is why they used to call non-Arabs as al-mawãlī (ياَلْمَوَالِ = plural of al-mawlã; clients) but the Qur’ãnic verses apparently do not agree with it. Allãh has said: O you people! SurelyWe have created you of a male and a female and made you nations and tribes that you may recognize each other. Surely the most honourable of you with Allãh is the one among you who is most pious . (49:13); a lot of ahãdīth giving this connotation have been narrated from the Imãms of Ahlul 'l-Bayt (a.s.).

Islam while calling people to the right path had not put the Arabs on one side and the non-Arabs on the other. It had put the polytheists - be they Arab or non-Arab - on one side, and they were given no choice except that they should accept Islam; and it had put the People of the Book, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, on the other side and if they did not enter in Islam, they were given an option to come under the protection of Islam by paying jizyah. All that can be seen in this treatment is some leniency shown to them; but it doesn't mean that their slaughtered animals should become lawful to the Muslims when they have killed it according to their own custom and ritual.

As for the practice of fatwã of some companions, it has no authority at all in Islam.

Itis clear from the above discussion that this verse does not show that the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book are lawful when killed in un-Islamic way; nor is there any other proof to prove it. If anyone insists on lawfulness of the animals slaughtered by them (because of the generality of the verse), then we have to restrict it to the case when it is known that the animal was slaughtered according to the rules of Islamic sharī‘ah, as may be inferred from the words of as-Sãdiq (a.s.) quoted above from al-Kãfī and at-Tahdhīb: “It is the (Divine) name which is important) and no one can be trusted in this matter except a Muslim.” Further details may be seen in the books of fiqh.

al-‘Ayyãshī narrates from as-Sãdiq (a.s.) about the Divine words: and the chaste (ones) from among those who have been given the Book before you (are lawful to you), that he said, “It (al-muhsanãt) means the chaste ones.” (at-Tafsīr , al-‘Ayyãshī).

The same book narrates from the same Imãm (a.s .) about the words: and the chaste (one) from among the believing women, that he said, “It means the Muslim women.”

al-Qummī narrates from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said, “Verily the marriage is allowed with only those People of the Book who pay jizyah; marriage with others is not lawful.” (at-Tafsīr , al-Qummī).

The author says: It is because without payment of jizyah they will be counted among kãfir harbi.

al-Bãqir (a.s.) said, “Verily it is lawful to marry only the simple-hearted women from among them.” (al-Kãfī ; at-Tahdhīb)

as-Sãdiq (a.s.) was asked about a believing man who marries a Christian or a Jewess. The Imãm said, “When he can get a Muslim woman then what will he do with the Jewess or Christian woman?” It was said to him, “He is inclined towards her.” He (a.s .) said, “If he does, then he should stop her from drinking liquor and eating flesh of swine, and know that there must be a deficiency in his religion.” (Man lã yahduruhu 'l-faqīh).

as-Sãdiq (a.s.) said, “There is no harm if a man does mut‘ah with a Jewess or a Christian woman while he has got a free (Muslim) woman.” (at-Tahdhīb ).

al-Bãqir (a.s.) was asked about a Muslim man, “Can he marry a Magian?” He (a.s .) said, “No; but if he has got a Magian slave girl, then there is no harm if he establishes sexual relations with her; he should practice coitus interruptus and should not seek a child from her.” (Man lã yahduruhu 'l-faqīh)

al-Kulaynī narrates through his chain from ‘Abdullãh ibn Sinãn from Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.) that he said inter alia in a hadīth, “And I don't like a Muslim man to marry a Jewess or a Christian woman lest his child becomes a Jew or a Christian.” (al-Kãfī ).

Also, he narrates through his chains from Zurãrah, and al-‘Ayyãshī from Mas‘adah ibn Sadaqah, that he said, “I asked AbūJa‘far (a.s.), about the words of Allãh: and the chaste (ones) from among those who have been given the Book before you.” The Imãm (a.s .) said, “It is abrogated by the words: and hold not to the ties of marriage of unbelieving women” (60.10). (al-Kãfī ).

The author says: It is a problematic hadīth, because the chapter 60 was revealed long before the chapter of “The Table” and abrogating verse cannot come before the abrogated one. Moreover, it is accepted and confirmed in the traditions that the chapter of “The Table” is the abrogator and not the abrogated as we have mentioned repeatedly. Another proof to show that it is not abrogated may be seen in the foregoing tradition that mut‘ah with a woman from the People of the Book is allowed and people have acted upon it; and it was described in the verse of mut‘ah that mut‘ah is a nikãh and marriage.

Another tradition says the verse is abrogated by: And do not marry the idolatress until they believe (2:221); and we have already mentioned the objections on this tradition. Details can be seen in the books of fiqh.

al-‘Ayyãshī narrates from Abãn ibn ‘Abdu 'r-Rahmãn about the words of Allãh: and whoever denies faith his work indeed is forfeited, that he said, “I heard Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s.), saying, 'The least that throws a man out of Islam is that he has an opinion against the truth and (even after realizing his error) he holds fast to it.' The Imãm (a.s .) then recited the verse: and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is forfeited. Then he (a.s .) said, 'He who denies faith does not accom-plish what Allãh has ordered and is not pleased with it.'“ ( at-Tafsīr, al- ‘Ayyãshī)

Muhammad ibn Muslim narrates from one of the two (fifth or sixth) Imãm that he (a.s .) said, “It is not implementing (the command-ments of Allãh) until he discards the whole lot.”(ibid.)

The author says: What we have described earlier is enough to explain the fine points of these traditions.

‘Ubayd ibn Zurãrah said, “I asked Abū ‘Abdillãh (a.s .), about the words of Allãh: and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is for-feited. He said, 'It is not implementing what he had acknowledged (to do); an example of it is that one neglects the prayer without sickness and without involvement in some work.'“ ( ibid.)

The author says: Allãh has named prayer as faith in the verse: and Allãh was not going to make your faith to be fruitless (2:143). Probably, that was the reason that the Imãm (a.s .) particularly men-tioned it as the example in this tradition.

The Imãm (a.s .) said, “This (denial of faith) refers to him who believes and yet obeys polytheists.” (at-Tafsīr , al-Qummī)

Abū Hamzah (ath-Thumãlī) says, “I asked AbūJa‘far (a.s.), about the words of Allãh: and whoever denies faith, his work indeed is forfeited, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers. He said, 'Its esoteric Qur’ãnic interpretation is: and whoever denies the wilãyah of ‘Alī; and ‘Alī is the faith.'“ ( Basãiru 'd-darajãt)

The author says: It is esoteric or inner meaning, opposite of the manifest one, as we have explained while writing about “The Decisive and The Ambiguous Verses” in the third volume of this book7 Also, the tradition may be based on the 'Flow of the Qur’ãn'; and the Messenger of Allãh (s.a.w.a.) had named ‘Alī (a.s.) as Faith when he had gone out to fight ‘Amr ibn ‘Abd Wadd in the Battle of the Trench, when he (s.a.w.a.) said: “The whole of Faith has gone out to fight the whole Disbelief.”

There are other traditions of the same theme.

* * * * *