260. As context of revelation, Ta'us has reported his father as saying that the pagan Arabs declared things lawful and unlawful whimsically (such as the beast lawful for their men but unlawful for their women: Au). Allah revealed this verse to outline what exactly was lawful and what unlawful (Ibn Jarir).

Imam Shafe`i's explanation is that the Prophet was enquired about the unlawfulness of certain items. He was instructed by this verse to tell them that at that moment (in Makkah) he did not find anything in what was revealed to him unlawful save a few things as described in the verse. Hence the choice of words: "Say, I do not find in that revealed to me anything prohibited .." (Qurtubi). This of course left the door open for further prohibitions in Madinah. Alusi expresses more or less the same opinion.

261. A question arises. Is the list of the unlawful stated herewith all inclusive or have there been additions, such as, for instance, Jallalah (a domestic animal that eats refuse of other animals)? One would assume that `A'isha believed that the list herewith is comprehensive. It is reported (Ibn Jarir) that she did not consider flesh of the forest beasts as prohibited. So was the opinion of Ibn `Abbas. (Ibn Kathir classifies `A'isha's statement as sahih gharib). Ibn Kathir also reports from Bukhari, Abu Da'ud and Hakim that someone asked Jabir b. `Abdullah if it was true that the Prophet had declared meat of the domestic donkey as unlawful at the time of the Khayber campaign? He replied that the Habr (i.e., Ibn `Abbas) did not accept the report. (When asked) he would recite this verse: "Say, ‘I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, save that .." to the end. Nonetheless, a report in Abu Da'ud and Musnad of Ahmad says that when someone asked Ibn `Umar about hedgehog and he recited this verse in reply. When someone else interjected that the Prophet had said about hedgehog that it was one of the abominations. Ibn `Umar said: "If the Prophet has said that, then, let it be as he said" (Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

Notwithstanding the above reports, Ibn Kathir is inclined to feel that this verse overrules all that has been added on to the list of the prohibited by the founders of the madhahib such as, meat of the domestic donkey, of beasts of forest, and of every bird that picks up things with its talons. He also states that according to some scholars this verse has been abrogated by the verses in Surah al Ma'idah on this topic as well as statements in the hadith literature that talk of a few other things apart from what has been stated in the verse in question.

Shawkani thinks that since reports coming from the Prophet about the unlawfulness of other things apart from those mentioned in this verse are trustworthy, there is no escape from them.

Accordingly, to Imam Malik, Shafe`i and Abu Hanifah, every beast of the forest that tears its prey apart is prohibited (Qurtubi).

262. The prohibition however applies only to its consumption. The skin for instance could be made use of. According to a hadith in Bukhari, Nasa'i and Ahmad narrated by Ibn `Abbas, Sawda b. Zam`ah enquired the Prophet about a goat that had died. He allowed her to get it skinned and use it after tanning it (Ibn Kathir). But the prohibition stays for fat, since skin is not eaten but fat is.

263. For explanation see Surah al Ma'idah, note 24.

Shanqiti disagrees with Ibn Kathir's opinion and believes that the list of the unlawful was enlarged by the Sunnah after the revelation of this verse. He devotes scores of pages towards the discussion concerning the lawful and the unlawful of the animals. Hereunder is a summary. If the name of an Imam does not appear in the parenthesis, it means either that animal is lawful according to him or merely undesirable (makruh) but lawful.

The Lawful:

Rabbit, the big desert lizard, locusts. (By consensus).

The Unlawful:

Wild beasts in general: those that tear apart their prey (the four Imams). This is based on the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in Sahih Muslim: "Every wild animal with claws is forbidden." There is a hadith by Abu Tha`labah too, to this effect, both in Bukhari and Muslim.

Wild birds: those that hold their prey with their talons (Abu Hanifah, Shafe`i, Ibn Hanbal). Ibn `Abbas has reported in Sahih Muslim that: "The Prophet prohibited every wild animal with claws and every bird with talons."

Domestic donkey: (the four Imams). There are innumerable ahadith to this effect in Bukhari, Muslim and others.

Horse: (considered an abomination by Malik and Abu Hanifah).

Dog, monkey, elephant, cat: (the four Imams).

Fox: (Ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifah and Shafe`i).

All creepers, crawlers, such as rats, snakes, scorpions, frogs, bats, chameleons, cockroaches, spiders, worms, etc.: (the four Imams). Allah has said (7: 157): "And it (the Qur'an) forbids the unclean."

Insects: (the four Imams).

Jallalah: opinions vary. (It is that animal which has fed itself on other animals' faeces). Most scholars restrict the consumption of its flesh, milk or egg, to only after it has been fed on natural feed for a certain number of days or weeks.

Cannibalism: Prohibited by consensus.

264. Since what remains within the flesh and bones is not running blood, it is not considered unlawful Qatadah (Ibn Jarir).

265. Ibn `Abbas has said that the allusion is to camels and ostriches. But Sa`id b. Jubayr has said that by implication chicken, ducks and birds resembling them are also included. Although, Mujahid has added that the Jews eat chicken, ducks, and birds (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

266. Jabir b. `Abdullah has reported: "I heard the Prophet say at the time Makkah fell,

إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ حَرَّمَ بَيْعَ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْتَةِ وَالْخِنْزِيرِ وَالأَصْنَامِ ». فَقِيلَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَرَأَيْتَ شُحُومَ الْمَيْتَةِ فَإِنَّهَا تُطْلَى بِهَا السُّفُنُ وَيُدْهَنُ بِهَا الْجُلُودُ وَيَسْتَصْبِحُ بِهَا النَّاسُ فَقَالَ :« لاَ هُوَ حَرَامٌ ». ثُمَّ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- :« قَاتَلَ اللَّهُ الْيَهُودَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَّا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْهِمْ شُحُومَهَا جَمَلُوهَا ثُمَّ بَاعُوهُ وَأَكَلُوا ثَمَنَهُ »

‘Allah and His Messenger have prohibited the sale of wine, carrion, swine and idols.' It was said, ‘Messenger of Allah. What would you say about fat? We use it for oiling the hide, to fill up gaps and crevices in boats, and the people use it as fuel for their lamps.' He said, ‘No it is unlawful,’ and then added, ‘May Allah destroy the Jews. They were prohibited fat, but they liquefied it, sold it, and devoured its price (Ibn Kathir).

The hadith is in the six canonical collections (Hussain b. Ibrahim).

According to other versions, the Prophet (saws) added:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ إِذَا حَرَّمَ عَلَى قَوْمٍ أَكْلَ شَيْءٍ حَرَّمَ عَلَيْهِمْ ثَمَنَهُ

"When Allah prohibits the consumption of a thing He also prohibited its value" (Ibn Kathir).

267. This shows that Allah's disobedience leads to the loss of worldly blessings also (Thanwi).

268. The pagans presumed to say that the very fact that for centuries they had remained worshipping idols and treating certain kinds of animals (and practices) as forbidden, was proof in itself that at one point or the other Allah had ordered those things, or, was not displeased with them. Had He been displeased, He could have forced them to abandon their ways. This explains the last part of the verse which asks them to produce a Scripture confirming their claim: ‘Have you any knowledge that you can put forth before us? You follow not but conjectures and are attempting nothing but guess work.' And since they could not bring up any written proof, it demonstrated that they were arguing falsely. Accordingly, the Prophet was asked to say to them, ‘Allah's is the argument that reaches home.' That is, your arguments do not. As for their statement that had Allah willed He could have forcibly led them aright, the answer is, yes, ‘Had Allah willed, He would have guided you all,' but that is not the way in which He deals with the people: forcing His guidance upon them (based partly on Ibn Jarir: Au).

Majid writes: "The pagans used the word ‘willed' in the sense of ‘pleased' or ‘approved' they confused the former with the latter and therein lay the fallacy.. Thus they confused the power and ability by God on everyone to do whatever He chose with His approval of every course of action."

Zamakhshari has another point: If the pagans are true in their claim that they have been forced by the Divine Decree to adopt the ways they have adopted, then they should not have enmity with the Muslims who, by their own logic, are bound by the same Divine Decree in believing in Allah as One and Muhammad as His Messenger.

269. The purport of the verse is, it were wrong ideas of this sort (viz., Allah's will and man's helplessness: Au.) that led many people astray in the past. Had that been the case, Allah would not have sent them Messengers punishing those who rejected them (Ibn Kathir).

270. Asad comments: "In other words, the real relationship between God's knowledge of the future (and, therefore, the ineluctability of what is to happen in the future) on the one hand, and man's free will, on the other two propositions which, on the face of it, seem to contradict one another is beyond man's comprehension; but since both are postulated by God, both must be true. The very concept of "God" presupposes His omniscience; and the very concept of morality and moral responsibility presupposes free will on man's part. Had God so willed, every human being would have been forced to live righteously; but this would have amounted to depriving man of his free will, and morality of all its meaning."

271. A statement of Suddi in Tabari could imply that the Arabs were asked to produce witnesses from the non Arabs, since they themselves were a party to the dispute.