1. That is, O Muslims, be true to your pledges given to Allah, to His Prophet, your vows that you will follow Allah's commandments, and the word of promises that you give to each other (Ibn Jarir).

Hasan has stated that it includes all kinds of pledges: those that one makes to Allah, those that one makes to His creatures, and those that one makes to himself such as, for example, to promise oneself to practice Islam more faithfully (Qurtubi).

Asad adds: "The term `aqd ("covenant") denotes a solemn undertaking or engagement involving more than one party. According to Raghib, the covenant referred to in this verse ‘are of three kinds: the covenants between God and man, [i.e., man's obligations towards God], between man and his own soul, and between the individual and his fellow men’ thus embracing the entire area of man's moral and social responsibilities."

In yet simpler words: commitments of all kinds, including those a man makes to himself (Au.).

Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Mutarrif, Rabi`, Dahhak and others have said that `uqud of the original is equivalent of `uhud, i.e., pacts and pledges (Ibn Jarir).

2. Although the authorities have understood camels, cows, goats and the like as alluded to, according to some scholars, the words "bahimatu al an`am" include antelopes, wild cows, wild asses, etc. (Ibn Jarir). An`am excludes all canine animals, while the addition of bahimah includes all quadrupeds that feed on plants (Qurtubi).

Nevertheless, Ibn `Umar, Ibn `Abbas and others have held the opinion that it is the dead fetus found in an animal's wombs that has been alluded to, making it lawful to eat, (if the mother has been duly slaughtered) Ibn Jarir.

Qurtubi adds: If it emerges alive, it must be slaughtered. As for the dead, Imam Malik has conditioned it to one which has completed its growth and has fully achieved its physical features. If not, it cannot be consumed (Qurtubi).

In fact, there is a hadith in Tirmidhi (who declares it as hasan sahih), with another in Abu Da'ud of similar meaning, which says that when the Prophet was asked about the fetus of a slaughtered animal, he said that it might be eaten because slaughtering of her mother was the slaughter of its fetus (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

Mawdudi writes: ".. the permission ... embraces all grazing quadrupeds of the cattle type, i.e., which do not posses canine teeth, which feed on plants rather than animals, and which resemble the cattle... This implies that the flesh of those animals which have canine teeth and are carnivorous is not permissible. This implication was elucidated by the Prophet (peace be on him) and is embodied in a tradition in which he prohibited those beasts which kill and eat other animals. Likewise, the Prophet (peace be on him) also prohibited birds with claws and those that feed on carrion."

3. Ibn `Abbas and Mujahid have said that it is the rites of Hajj that is meant by Sha`a'ir Allah (symbols of Allah) Ibn Jarir.

Another opinion coming from him, as reported by Ibn Jarir and Ibn abi Hatim, is that whatever becomes unlawful after a man dons the pilgrim garb is Sha`a'ir Allah (Shawkani). But ‘Ata' seems to be more apt when he says that "Sha`a'ir" (sing. Sha`irah) linguistically being "the well known things," would mean those of the commandments of Allah that, by their nature, are well known by the people. Muslims should not violate them (Ibn Jarir).

Qurtubi states that another opinion is that Sha`a'ir is from Ish-`ar which is "a mark." Sometimes a camel to be slaughtered was marked with a (minor) wound in its hump. Such of them were known as Sha`a'ir and the allusion seems to be to them. According to Imam Abu Hanifah, the practice is now undesirable, because, if it was resorted to by the Prophet himself, as recorded in a hadith of Muslim, it was because that was the only way in practice then to mark out a beast for sacrifice. It is said that Abu Hanifah feared its misuse and suffering it causes to the animal.

4. That is, do not fight in the Sacred month: Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrimah (Ibn Jarir).

However, according to the great majority (the rule is now abrogated and), the Muslims can begin a battle in the Sacred months (which are: Dhu al Qa`idah, Dhu al Hijjah, Muharram and Rajab) - Ibn Kathir.

It should be obvious, that of the two parameters, time and space, with which Allah controls this world, He has declared some as sacrosanct, and Muslims are required to treat them as such. Also see note 448 of surah al Baqarah (Au.).

5. Although the "hadyu" of the original primarily refers to the animals that have been intended for slaughter in the Haram area, some commentators have said that anything that one intends to give out in charity in the way of Allah such as a piece of cloth is hadyu. It is forbidden for the owner to put the article to personal use after the intention (Qurtubi).

6. The allusion by the qala'id (sing: qaladah) could either be to the animals that were collared as a mark by the pilgrims who drove them along to the Hajj sites for sacrifice, or, to the people in the days of ignorance who used to tear down the skin of a Makkan tree and collar themselves as the mark of a pilgrim to escape being harmed until they returned home. If the word has been used in the latter sense, then, according to Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sha`bi, Qatadah and others, the rule stands abrogated (Qurtubi). Mutarrif b. Shikhkhir has however said that the practice thereof of collaring oneself has itself been declared unlawful by the verse (and thus it is not abrogated) Ibn Jarir. The Prophet himself however, had thus got his camels marked, as confirmed by reports in the Sahihayn.

Nevertheless, a general meaning that can be derived is: Do not make lawful unto yourself those animals that you intend to slaughter in the Haram area, nor those others that you (or others) have collared for such purposes (Au.).

7. "'Ammi na" has ammama in its root, which means to intend (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi); and, although the application is general, as Ibn `Abbas has said, to include anyone heading to the Haram, the verse came down in particular reference to Hutam b. Hind who came to the Prophet enquiring about Islam. When the Prophet told him about the message he had brought, Hutam (who, according to some sources had embraced Islam) said: "That is a bit tough. However, I shall present it to my people. If they accept it, I shall come back with them. If they do not I will stay back." The Prophet said about him: "The man came in with the face of an unbeliever and went out with the face of a deceiver." On his way back, Hutam (became an apostate and) stole some Madinan cattle. Although given a chase, he managed to reach his tribe in Najd safely. The next year he came down to Makkah, as a trader (he was a fabulously rich businessman) and intending Hajj. He had collared himself and his beasts. The Companions sought the Prophet's permission to capture and punish him. But this verse was revealed which prevented them. Nevertheless, at a later stage, as Ibn `Abbas, Suddi and many others named above have pointed out, this verse was abrogated by the verses of surah al Tawbah which ordered the Muslims to fight all kinds of unbelievers and prevent the pagans from entering the Holy Haram (Ibn Jarir).

Qurtubi adds that Hutam was killed during the sedition of the apostates of Yamamah.

8. The term bounty (fadl) has generally been understood to mean trade and business opportunity (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

9. The Muslims were generally prevented by the pagans from entering Makkah after their emigration and specifically on the occasion of the treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

10. Abu al `Aliyyah has said that with the birr of the original, the allusion is to what has been ordered and by taqwa to what has been prohibited (Ibn Jarir).

Qurtubi quotes al Mawardi that piety involves deeds that please the people while godfearing involve those deeds that please Allah alone; someone who combined the two, achieved salvation.

Accordingly, when the Prophet said, as in a hadith of Bukhari and others:

عَنْ أَنَسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ انْصُرْ أَخَاكَ ظَالِمًا أَوْ مَظْلُومًا فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنْصُرُهُ إِذَا كَانَ مَظْلُومًا أَفَرَأَيْتَ إِذَا كَانَ ظَالِمًا كَيْفَ أَنْصُرُهُ قَالَ تَحْجُزُهُ أَوْ تَمْنَعُهُ مِنْ الظُّلْمِ فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ نَصْرُهُ (بخاري)

"Help thy brother, be he the oppressor or the oppressed," the Companions reacted: "Messenger of Allah! The oppressed yes, but how can we help the oppressor?" The Prophet replied: "By restraining him from his oppression. That’s the way to help him."

Another hadith, in Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah records the Prophet as having said:

عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْمُؤْمِنُ الَّذِي يُخَالِطُ النَّاسَ وَيَصْبِرُ عَلَى أَذَاهُمْ أَعْظَمُ أَجْرًا مِنْ الْمُؤْمِنِ الَّذِي لا يُخَالِطُ النَّاسَ وَلا يَصْبِرُ عَلَى أَذَاهُمْ

"A believer who intermingles with the people and is patient over the inconveniences (that it causes) is better rewarded than he who does not intermingle with them and does not bear the inconveniences with patience." The Prophet has also said (Qurtubi), in a hadith preserved by Abu Bakr al Bazzar:

الدَّالُُُّّ على الخير كفاعله

"He who leads to a good deed is like the doer."

Shawkani adds: Ahmad, Ibn Humayd and Bukhari in his Tarikh, have recorded the Prophet as saying:

فَقَالَ الْبِرُّ مَا انْشَرَحَ لَهُ صَدْرُكَ وَالإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي صَدْرِكَ وَإِنْ أَفْتَاكَ عَنْهُ النَّاسُ

"Virtue is what satisfies the heart and the soul while sin is that which pricks your heart, even if the people assure you of its lawfulness." (The hadith is sahih: S. Ibrahim).

Muslim, Tirmidhi and others have also recorded the Prophet as saying:

الْبِرُّ حُسْنُ الْخُلُقِ وَالإِثْمُ مَا حَاكَ فِي نَفْسِكَ وَكَرِهْتَ أَنْ يَعْلَمَهُ النَّاسُ

"Virtue is good behavior and sin is what pricks your heart, and you dislike that people should know about it."

11. In this context Tabarani has a hadith which says:

مَنْ مَشَى مَعَ ظَالِمٍ لِيُعِينَهُ وَهُوَ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ ظَالِمٌ ، فَقَدْ خَرَجَ مِنَ الإِسْلامِ

"Whoever strove with an oppressor to help him, while he knew that the man is an oppressor, departed from the fold of Islam" (Ibn Kathir).

According to Haythami, the isnad of the above report has one or two unknown narrators (Au.).

12. The pagans ate carrion (and justified their beastly act by) saying: "Will you eat the slaughtered by yourselves but not the slaughtered of God?" (Razi)

13. It is the running blood that is meant (even if it solidifies after slaughter), in the light of the verse (6: 145):

قُلْ لَا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَى طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَسْفُوحًا [الأنعام : 145]

"Say, I do not find anything forbidden in that which has been revealed to me for one wishing to eat, unless it were to be carrion, or running blood ..." This means lever and spleen are not prohibited.

Also see notes 336 340 of surah al Baqarah of this work.

Ibn Kathir says that in pagan days when a man was hungry and had nothing to eat, he would stab a wound in a camel and suck its blood.

Christians, who joyously relish blood, might note the prohibition in the New Testament. Majid quotes: "Ye abstain from meat offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled" (Ac. 15: 29).

Ibn Kathir also presents the following. Abu Umamah, whose real name was Sudayy b. ‘Ajalan, has an incident to narrate of which various parts are recorded by Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Marduwayh and Hakim. Here is a combined report. Abu Umamah says he was commissioned by the Prophet to preach his people. While he was speaking to them about Islam and its message, they brought up a tray filled with (cooked) blood. They gathered around it and invited him to join in. He told them that he was coming from a man who had prohibited it. They wanted to know what exactly the prohibition was about and Abu Umamah recited this verse to them. He continued to invite them to Islam. But they would not accept. Then he asked them for some water as he was extremely thirsty. They refused, saying that they would rather leave him there until he died of thirst. Abu Umamah says: "I had a piece of cloth with me. I covered my head with it and lay down in that terrible heat. As I dozed off, someone came to me with a crystal bowl that was more beautiful than anyone can imagine. It had a drink tastier than anyone could think of. He helped me with it and I drank out of it. With that I woke up. And by God, I was not thirsty anymore and was never in want of clothes after that drink."

"Then I heard them say to each other, ‘Look. The man came to you from the people of the uplands but you did not even give him a drink!' So they presented me with some water mixed with milk. I told them, ‘I do not need your drink, for Allah fed me and gave me a drink.' Then I showed them my stomach. At that they became Muslims, to the last of them."

The earlier part of the report is in Hakim who has declared it sahih (Shawkani).

14. This includes one that gets stuck between two rocks and dies. Qatadah has said that the pagans used to kill the animals by strangling them and then devour them (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi).

15. In pre Islamic times the pagans beat an animal until it died. Then they ate it. Those killed in such a manner are unlawful now (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

And the scholars have differed over the animal killed by a bullet or a stone of a catapult, some saying it is lawful, but the majority saying no. Muslim has recorded that ‘Adiyy b. Hatim asked the Prophet: "(How about what) I hunt with a broad bodied arrow." He replied: "If it pierces the body, you might eat of it, but if it hits it length wise, do not" (Qurtubi). That is because the important function of removal of blood is not achieved (Razi). An added condition is that the hunter should have shot the weapon in the name of Allah (Shafi`).

Shafi` also writes that Jassas has reported Ibn `Umar’s opinion that what is killed by the bunduqah (an improvised weapon that fired a bullet without fire power: Au.) is unlawful. Imam Abu Hanifah, Shafe`i and Malik are of the same opinion.

Mawdudi adds: "The disadvantage of killing an animal by either guillotine or strangulation is that the greater part of the blood remains within the body, and at various places it sticks to the flesh and forms congealed lump. If an animal is slaughtered by slitting the throat, on the other hand, the connection between mind and body remains intact for a short while, with the result that the blood is thoroughly drained out from all the veins and the flesh becomes fully cleansed of blood."

16. If pre Islamic Arabs found an animal killed by the beasts and partly devoured by them, they ate the rest (Ibn Jarir).

17. This exception is applied to all kinds of animals, otherwise lawful, that if they are found alive after a fall, after being gored etc., and even if just wagging their tails as a sign of life they might be Islamically slaughtered and eaten thereof. This is the opinion of ‘Ali, Ibn `Abbas, Hasan, Qatadah and others (Ibn Jarir). This is also the opinion of the great majority of jurists including Abu Hanifah, Shafe`i and Ibn Hanbal.

18. Ibn Jurayj, Mujahid, Qatadah and others have said that nusub of the original refers not to idols, which had a facial feature, rather to those stones and rocks that were placed upright, worshipped and offered sacrifices to, but which had no facial features (Ibn Jarir). They dotted the entire town of Makkah and whole of the country (Qurtubi). There were three hundred and sixty of them surrounding the Ka`bah itself (Razi, Ibn Kathir).

19. According to Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Hasan and many others azlam were divining arrows that were used during the days of paganism. Whenever a person was in doubt over an affair, whether he should attempt it or not, he would go to a temple wherein they stocked these arrows for consultation. The arrows had various writings on them, such as: "Yes," "No," "My Lord orders it," "My Lord disapproves of it," and so forth. If one in doubt, for instance over a journey, received the arrow saying: "My Lord disapproves of it," he would cancel his trip. The Hubal temple had seven such sets of divining arrows: separately for journeys, battles, trade, digging of a well etc. (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir)

During the 2010 Football World Cup, an octopus was often used to predict the winner (Au.).

Qurtubi adds: Rather, every kahin had in stock these seven sets of arrows. It were the same divining arrows that Suraqa b. Malik was carrying and which he had consulted while chasing the Prophet during his hijrah journey.

Az-hari has written in Taj al Masadir: "Istiqsam is to seek whatever God has in store with Him, hidden from the people, of their share: whether it is life or death, good or bad fortune, or whatever else." The people endeavored in pre Islamic days to seek their share through God’s own judgment by consulting the arrows (Lughat).

Qurtubi also writes that the Prophet approval of fa'l has no relationship with the divining methods. Fa'l is simply to draw a good omen from a good word that one hears, such as, when a sick man is addressed as "O Salim" (which means "O the hale and healthy one"), he draws a good omen from it and hopes to get well soon. In contrast, the Prophet disapproved of bad omen, known in Arabic as "tiyarah," which were drawn from a flying bird or a passing woman, etc. The Prophet preferred to fasten good hope on Allah rather than show a lack of trust in Him.

In other words, the Prophet approved of a state of optimism and disapproved of pessimism, a key element in turn of good fortune that has now been proven true after thousands of scientifically satisfying tests conducted in American and European research centers (Au.).

Ibn Kathir writes: The Prophet replaced the divine arrows with salah al istikharah. Bukhari has a hadith in which Jabir b. `Abdullah says:

عن جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ السَّلَمِيُّ قَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُعَلِّمُ أَصْحَابَهُ الِاسْتِخَارَةَ فِي الأُمُورِ كُلِّهَا كَمَا يُعَلِّمُهُمْ السُّورَةَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ يَقُولُ إِذَا هَمَّ أَحَدُكُمْ بِالأَمْرِ فَلْيَرْكَعْ رَكْعَتَيْنِ مِنْ غَيْرِ الْفَرِيضَةِ ثُمَّ لِيَقُلْ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْتَخِيرُكَ بِعِلْمِكَ وَأَسْتَقْدِرُكَ بِقُدْرَتِكَ وَأَسْأَلُكَ مِنْ فَضْلِكَ فَإِنَّكَ تَقْدِرُ وَلا أَقْدِرُ وَتَعْلَمُ وَلا أَعْلَمُ وَأَنْتَ عَلاَّمُ الْغُيُوبِ اللَّهُمَّ فَإِنْ كُنْتَ تَعْلَمُ هَذَا الأَمْرَ ثُمَّ تُسَمِّيهِ بِعَيْنِهِ خَيْرًا لِي فِي عَاجِلِ أَمْرِي وَآجِلِهِ قَالَ أَوْ فِي دِينِي وَمَعَاشِي وَعَاقِبَةِ أَمْرِي فَاقْدُرْهُ لِي وَيَسِّرْهُ لِي ثُمَّ بَارِكْ لِي فِيهِ اللَّهُمَّ وَإِنْ كُنْتَ تَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ شَرٌّ لِي فِي دِينِي وَمَعَاشِي وَعَاقِبَةِ أَمْرِي أَوْ قَالَ فِي عَاجِلِ أَمْرِي وَآجِلِهِ فَاصْرِفْنِي عَنْهُ وَاقْدُرْ لِي الْخَيْرَ حَيْثُ كَانَ ثُمَّ رَضِّنِي بِهِ (بخاري)

“The Prophet used to teach us istikharah over every affair, in the manner he used to teach us Qur’anic chapters. He would say, ‘When one of you intends to do something, let him offer two rak`ah of Prayers and then say in supplication: “O Allah! I seek your help by Your knowledge, seek Your help by Your power, and seek Your great favor, for You have Power and I have no power, and You know what I do not know. You are the Knower of the unseen. O Allah! If You know that this affair (let the supplicant name it) is good for me: for my religion, my providence and the ultimate end of my affairs, (or, the Prophet said, ‘in the short or the long term'), then give me power over it, make it easy for me, and place barakah in it for me. But, if You know that this affair will be an evil one for me: in my religion, providence, or the ultimate end of my affairs, (or, the Prophet said, ‘in the short or the long term'), then turn it away from it, turn me away from it, and give me power over what is better - wherever it might be - and then assign me satisfaction (of heart) in it."

20. That you will ever return to paganism (Ibn Jarir).

Ibn Kathir adds: It is in this sense that the Prophet said:

إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ قَدْ أَيِسَ أَنْ يَعْبُدَهُ الْمُصَلُّونَ فِي جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ وَلَكِنْ فِي التَّحْرِيشِ بَيْنَهُمْ (مسلم)



"Shaytan is despaired that he will ever be worshipped again in the Arabian Peninsula, but hopes to create dissension between them."

21. Suddi has said that this verse was revealed in ‘Arafah after which nothing was revealed about the lawful and the unlawful. It is also said that when this verse was revealed it brought tears into the eyes of `Umar. The Prophet asked him the reason and he said: "So far we were experiencing a continuous rise of this religion. Now that it has been completed, it can only experience decline." The Prophet said: "You spoke the truth" (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi).

Majid quotes Asad (perhaps from his "The Road to Makkah"): "The world," says an European convert to Islam, "has not been able to produce a better system of ethics than that expressed in Islam: it has not been able to put the idea of human brotherhood on a practical footing as Islam did in its supernational conception of ‘Ummat’: it has not been able to create a social structure in which the conflicts and conflictions between the members are as efficiently reduced to a minimum as in the social plan of Islam: it has not been able to enhance the dignity of man: his feeling of security: his spiritual hope: and last, but surely not least: his happiness. In all these things the present achievements of the human race fall considerably short of the Islamic programme. Where, then is the justification for saying that Islam is ‘out of date?’"

22. Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah, Sha`bi and others have said that after the revelation of this verse the pagans were barred from performing Hajj, thus drawing a line between them and the believers in one God, and this was the completion of the favor that Allah spoke of (Ibn Jarir).

Razi says that at Makkah nothing was declared obligatory. With migration, obligations began to be imposed, until by the ninth year after hijrah, when Hajj was made obligatory. It is to this that the verse alludes. Qurtubi is also very near to this.

23. The Prophet lived for 81 days after the revelation of this verse (Qurtubi, Shawkani and others).

Tariq b. Shihab reports that a Jew said to `Umar that had the verse, "This day I have perfected your religion ...," revealed to them they would have declared it a day of celebration. `Umar told him: "I know when and where it was revealed. It was revealed in ‘Arafat on the day of ‘Arafah (the ninth day of Dhu al Hijjah)." According to another report he said, "on Friday; and both Friday as well as the day of ‘Arafah are the days of celebration for us" (Ibn Jarir). There are ahadith to this effect in Muslim (Qurtubi).

24. That is, the person constrained is not at all inclined at heart towards partaking of the unlawful. It is only the need that forces him. Such a person incurs no sin (Ibn Jarir).

Ibn Kathir adds: As to when it become lawful to partake of the unlawful, the answer is, it is not necessary to wait for three days, as believed by the common people. Rather, it will depend on the circumstances. If someone fears death, it becomes wajib. Yet, one need not wait until then either. Whenever it becomes unbearable, one might resort to the unlawful as prescribed by a hadith according to which when the Prophet was asked about when the unlawful could be eaten, he replied:

إذا لم تَصْطَبِحوا، ولم تَغْتَبِقُوا، ولم تَجتفئوابقْلا فشأنكم بها

"When you have nothing for the morning, nothing for the evening, and cannot manage to lay hands on some vegetables, then eat of it." Further, when Allah offers a concession, it must be accepted. A hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban says:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى رُخَصُهُ كَمَا يَكْرَهُ أَنْ تُؤْتَى مَعْصِيَتُهُ

"Verily, Allah is pleased that His concession be accepted just as He disapproves that He be sinned against."

25. We have a hadith in this context:

عن أبي رافع قال: جاء جبريل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليستأذن عليه، فأذن له فقال: قد أذنا لك يا رسول الله. قال: أجل، ولكنا لا ندخل بيتا فيه كلب، قال أبو رافع: فأمرني أن أقتل كل كلب بالمدينة، فقتلت، حتى انتهيت إلى امرأة عندها كلب ينبح عليها، فتركته رحمة لها، ثم جئت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبرته فأمرني، فرجعت إلى الكلب فقتلته، فجاءوا فقالوا: يا رسول الله، ما يحل لنا من هذه الأمة التي أمرت بقتلها؟ قال: فسكت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: فأنزل الله عز وجل: {يَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا أُحِلَّ لَهُمْ قُلْ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَمَا عَلَّمْتُمْ مِنَ الْجَوَارِحِ مُكَلِّبِينَ}

Abu Rafi` has reported that once Jibril sought permission to enter the house. The Prophet gave him the permission; but he said: "We do not enter a house in which there is a dog." The Prophet then ordered me, continues Abu Rafi`, to kill every dog I came across the town. I did as he had ordered until I came across a dog in the outskirts of Madinah which barked for its woman owner. I let it off, out of compassion and reported to the Prophet. He ordered me to kill that one also. So people began to come in enquiring what of these creatures (that is, the dogs) were lawful for them. Allah revealed this verse (Ibn Jarir).

Hakim has graded the report as Sahih (Ibn Kathir).

However, it is allowed to keep dogs for hunting or for security purposes. The verse also proves by implication that the scholars have an edge over the ordinary people. After all, Allah granted a special status to dogs that have been "taught" (Qurtubi).

26. Accordingly, Ibn abi Hatim has reported that Zuhri was asked about the use of urine for medicinal purposes. He replied: "It is not of the good and clean things" (Ibn Kathir).

Imam Razi adds: The point to be remembered however is that "the good and the clean" spoken of here are those things that are good and clean to the people of taste, for we know that to savages of the desert, everything that they eat is good and clean.

Shafi` adds: The Prophet has given us to understand through his various utterances on the topic that all such animals are unlawful that a decent soul detests to eat. He has also prohibited us those animals that feed by tearing apart their prey (such as lions, wolves, etc.), and those birds that use their claws to hold their prey. Following the rule of "things good and clean," it is also unlawful to eat snakes, scorpions, lizards, flies, hawks, eagles etc. Those are also unlawful that live in filthy surroundings such as rats and the like.

The Prophet himself refused to eat of the dabb meat (a huge desert lizard) - Au.

27. According to Ibn `Abbas, Hasan, Mujahid and others, trained dogs, lynx (a kind of cheetah), falcons, hawks, etc., are beasts and birds of prey. In fact we have a hadith from the Prophet who was asked by ‘Adiyy b. Hatim about hunting with the help of falcons. He replied:

ما أمسك عليك فَكُلْ

"Eat of that which they hold down."

As regards use of the term "mukallabina" (which has its root in kalb: dog), it has been used simply because most often dogs are employed for hunting (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir); and, adds Shafi`, with the passage of time the same word came to be employed for birds of prey also.

Ibn Kathir adds: Imam Ahmad has prohibited hunting with the help of a black dog, which, according to instructions in several ahadith, must be destroyed. When the Prophet was asked the difference between a red hound and a black one, he replied:

الْكَلْبُ الْأَسْوَدُ شَيْطَانٌ

"Black dog is a Shaytan" (Muslim)

Qurtubi adds: By implication the verse permits the sale and purchase of dogs and birds of prey.

28. A hadith in the Sahihayn reports ‘Adiyy b. Hatim as having asked the Prophet about hunting with dogs. He replied:

إذا أرسلت كلبك المعلَّم وذكرت اسم الله، فكل ما أمسك عليك". قلت: وإن قتلن؟ قال: "وإن قتلن ما لم يشركها كلب ليس منها، فإنك إنما سميت على كلبك ولم تسم على غيره"

"If you let loose the dog in the name of Allah, then eat of what it pins down for you." ‘Adiyy asked: "What if they kill it?" He replied: "Even then, so long as another dog had not participated in it, since you sent your dog (in Allah’s name) but did not sent the other dog (in His name)."

Another report adds the words:

فإن أكل فلا تأكل، فإني أخاف أن يكون أمسك على نفسه." (متفق عليه)

"However, if they start eating out of it then you do not eat out of the rest, for it is possible that they hunted for themselves; not for you."

Ibn `Abbas is widely reported as having said: "If the beast of prey hunts an animal, kills it, but starts eating it, then do not eat of the rest, irrespective of whether you had spelt out Allah's name before letting it loose or not. It had killed it for itself, and is not a "taught one." Such is also the opinion of Ibn `Umar, Sha`bi, ‘Ata', Suddi and others. In fact ‘Adiyy b. Hatim has reported a hadith exactly in the words Ibn `Abbas has used in his above statement. However, that is not the condition with birds of prey. All that is required of them by way of training is that they should return to the master when beckoned. If they do that then they are "the taught ones." Their prey might be eaten, even if they start eating out of their prize. Nevertheless, ‘Ali, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, `Ikrimah and others have said that there is no difference between beasts or birds of prey. If they eat out of what they prey on, the rest might not be eaten. There have been other varying opinions on the subject (Ibn Jarir).

Nevertheless, there are ahadith that allow eating from what the dogs begin to eat. One is in Abu Da'ud which reports a bedouin having asked the question and the Prophet replying:

إِذَا أَرْسَلْتَ كَلْبَكَ وَذَكَرْتَ اسْمَ اللَّهِ فَكُلْ وَإِنْ أَكَلَ مِنْهُ

"So long as you have sent your dog in Allah’s name, eat of it even if they begin to eat out of it."

A hadith of similar meaning is in Nasa'i. And both reports are trustworthy. Accordingly, Salman al-Farsi, Qatadah, Sa`d b. abi Waqqas, Abu Hurayrah and `Abdullah ibn `Umar have also allowed eating from the remaining of what the beasts of prey have begun to eat.

Imam Juwayni and some others have reconciled the two conflicting statements of the Prophet by saying that if the beasts of prey start eating out of the prey immediately after the catch then you better not eat out of it. But if the master is a bit slow in arriving at the scene, and meanwhile, perhaps out of their hunger, if the beasts of prey start eating then you might eat of the rest.

As for spelling out Allah's name, some believe it is obligatory, while others say that it is not a condition. If one forgets, then there is no harm (Razi, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

29. That is, pronounce Allah's name at the time you let loose the beast or bird of prey. However, if you forget, even then there is no harm (Ibn `Abbas: Ibn Jarir).

Fiqh Points

According to the Hanafiyyah, the following rules have to be observed for a hunted animal to be lawful to eat:

1. The beasts or birds of pray must be trained ones; and the test is that if they come back when beckoned, they are trained ones.

2. They should have been let loose by the master. If they catch on their own and kill an animal, then that animal is not lawful to eat.

3. They should not begin to eat immediately after the catch.

4. Allah's name should have been recited when they were let loose.

5. The animal killed should have been injured by the animal of prey. If they fall and die (during the chase) they are not lawful.

6. If found alive, they must be duly slaughtered.

7. The game should be a free forest animal. If it is a captured one, or one domesticated, then killed by a beast or bird of prey would not be lawful. They must be properly slaughtered.

30. For connection, one has to look back at the previous verse wherein it was stated: "This day I have perfected your religion for you, (and) have completed My favor unto you." The favor referred to is that of religion and everything that is part of religion per se. Herein, Allah is impressing upon us the fact that even physical and material favors have been completed: "This day, all that is good and clean has been made lawful unto you" (Razi).

31. Ibn `Abbas, Hasan, `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Suddi and many others have said that the slaughtered of the Jews and Christians is lawful to the Muslims, and that's what the verse is talking about. However, `Ali had a different opinion about some of their sects. He said: "Do not eat of the slaughtered of the Banu Taghlib (a north Arabian Christian tribe), for I believe they have taken nothing from Christianity except intoxicants" (Ibn Jarir, Kashshaf, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

Shafi` clarifies a point: Although the Jews and Christians (who are the only two communities to whom the term "people of the Book" is applicable), commit ‘a kind of shirk and kufr,' Allah knew of their beliefs and yet He declared their slaughtered animal lawful. Therefore the (properly) slaughtered of today's Jews and Christians is also lawful. This is because their Shari`ah is not at a great distance from ours. For instance, we find in their present day Scriptures also that they were prohibited carrion, blood, an animal killed by another, one strangled to death, that which had been consecrated in the name of other than God, etc.

None the less, if it is known for certain that instead of spelling Allah's name before slaughtering, or spelling no name whatsoever, they spell out other than Allah's name, or intentionally do not recite Allah's name, then, in that case, their slaughtered is unlawful. This is the opinion of Abu Darda', `Ubadah b. Samit and a group of Companions. This is also the opinion of Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Zufar, Imam Malik, Nakha`i and Thawri. It is in this light that we must try to understand ‘Ali's statement about the Christians of Taghlib tribe, who, as he said, had taken nothing from Christianity but drunkenness. It is also possible that `Ali knew that they did not slaughter in Allah's name. Further, if the people of the Book do not kill by slaughtering, rather with a blow (of a bullet) or whatever, then too their slaughtered animal is not lawful to Muslims.

32. A point implicit here has been brought out by Suddi. By saying, "your food is lawful unto them," what is being meant is that what is lawful unto you O Muslims, is lawful unto the people of the Book also, and not all that they have made lawful unto themselves, such as pork, etc. Therefore, if they offer pork to a Muslim, he cannot eat on the pretext that Allah has declared their food lawful unto the Muslims. Rather, pork is unlawful unto them also and they are sinning by consuming it (Alusi, slightly modified).

33. Some scholars have understood the word "muhsinat" as meaning the free ones among them (and not their slaves), but the majority understand it as chaste women. Accordingly, if a man finds that the woman he has wedded was unchaste, the marriage is null and void, and nothing of the dowry is due to the woman. In fact, to contract a marriage with an unchaste woman is unlawful, until she repents. If she repents there is no blame on her (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

Shafi` adds: Although marriage to a Jewish or Christian woman is allowed, it is not preferable. When Hudhayfah b. al-Yaman married a Jewish woman in Syria, `Umar wrote to him to divorce her. When Hudhayfah asked him whether it was unlawful, `Umar replied that he foresaw laxity in morals, and a social problem for Muslim women. `Umar had also forbidden Talha and Ka`b b. Malik from marrying women of the people of the Book. Hence, the Hanafiyy view is that marriage among them is undesirable.

34. Accordingly, when Hasan was asked whether women of the people of the Book could be married, he answered: "Where is the need, when there is no shortage of Muslim women? However, if one has to, let him marry chaste ones among them and not the lewd ones." He was asked: "How do you define the lewd ones?" He replied: "Such as one, who, when a man looks at her, follows him with her looks" (Alusi from Ibn Jarir).

Sayyid points out that if we consider the fact the Catholics and Protestants do not inter-marry, then the generosity of Islam will be better appreciated.

35. Not that the dower is to be necessarily paid before the marriage is legal. It is simply being emphasized here (Alusi and others).

36. The words in the original for "lewdness" is "musafihin" and for secret lovers "akhdan." Now, "sifah" is for a woman to co-habit with several men and "mukhadanah" to have sexual relationship with a single man out of wedlock (Sayyid).

37. Although the word used is "faith" the allusion is actually to deeds that follow the Shari`. Another possibility pointed out by Qaffal is that the address is to the people of the Book, who, if they have been allowed marriage with Muslims, they should not begin to imagine that they have a share in the Hereafter also (Razi).

38. The word in the original is "habitat." In its root "hubut" is for a cattle to graze on a poisonous grass, resulting in the swelling of its stomach and it dying off (Sayyid Qutb).