Verse:1 Commentary Background of revelation and a summary of subjects

This is the initial verse of Surah al-Ma'idah. As agreed upon, Surah al-Ma'idah is a Madani (Madinite) Surah and also the last among all Madani Chapters (Surah) so much so that some revered elders have identified this as the last Surah of the Qur'an itself. On the authority of narrations from Sayyidna ` Abdullah ibn ` Umar and Sayyidah Asma' bint Yazid ؓ ، it appears in the Musnad of Ahmad that Surah al-Ma'idah was revealed to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم while in travel riding the she-camel named Adba'. As explained in the introduction to this Tafsir in Volume 1, there used to be a sense of being under some heavy weight, extraordinary and unexplained, at a time the Wahy (revelation) came to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . So, this is what happened as customary. When the she-camel could bear the phenomenon of unusual weight no more, he dismounted from her back. This journey is obviously the journey he made to perform his last Hajj as supported by some relevant reports. The Last Hajj took place in the tenth year of Hijrah. After his return from there, his blessed life in the mortal world lasted for about eighty more days. In al-Bahr al-Muhit, commentator Ibn Hayyan has said that some portions of Surah al-Ma'idah were revealed during the journey of Hudaybiyah, some others during the journey of the Conquest of Makkah and still others during the journey of the Last Hajj. This tells us that Surah al-Ma'idah has been revealed during the final stages of the revelation of the Qur'an - though, it may not be the very last Surah.

Ruh al-Ma'ani on the authority of Abu ` Ubaydh, cites a narration of ibn Habib and ` Atiyyah ibn Qays ؓ in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has been reported to have said:

اَلمایدہ مِنَ اٰخر القران فاحلوا حلالھا حرمواحرامھا

Surah al-Ma'idah is from what has been revealed towards the last stage of the revelation of the Qura'n. So, take what has been made lawful there as lawful forever and take what has been made unlawful there as unlawful forever.

Referring to Mustadrak al-Hakim, Ibn Kathir cites a similar narration from Sayyidna Jubayr ibn Nufayr in which he has been reported to have called upon Sayyidah ` A'ishah ؓ soon after Hajj. She asked him: "Do you read Surah al-Ma'idah, 0 Jubayr?" He submitted: "I do." Sayyidah A'ishah ؓ then said: "This is the last Surah of Holy Qur'an. The injunctions about things lawful and unlawful in it are Muhkam (of established meaning). The probability of any abrogation (Naskh) does not exist there. So, be specially particular about them."

Like Surah Al-Nis-a', Surah al-Ma'idah too carries many subsidiary injunctions relating to dealings and contracts. Accordingly, Ruh al-Ma` ani notices subject homogeneity in Surah al-Baqarah and Al-'Imran because both of them mostly feature injunctions relating to Principles, Doctrines, Unicity, Prophethood, Doomsday and similar other basic concerns of importance. As for subsidiary injunctions, they appear there as corollaries. Regarding Surah Al-Nis-a' and Surah al-Ma'idah, it can be said that they are homogeneous subject-wise because both of them describe subsidiary injunctions. Any description of basic princi-ples appears there by implication. In Surah al-Nisa', emphasis has been laid on mutual dealings, particularly on rights servants of Allah have on each other (Huquq al-` Ibad). Then, in it, there are details of the rights of the husband and the wife, the rights of orphans and the rights of the parents and other relatives. In the very first verse of Surah al-Ma'idah, there appears the instruction to stand by all dealings made and pledges given. The words of the Verse: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ (0 those who believe, fulfill the contracts) command that all such commitments must be met. Therefore, Surah al-Ma'idah is also referred to as Surah al-` Uqud (Al-Bahr al-Muhit).

This Surah, specially its opening verse, has a special bearing on matters relating to mutual dealings and contractual agreements. Therefore, when the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم sent Sayyidna ` Amru ibn Hazm ؓ as the ` Amil (Governor) of Yaman, he gave him a written decree of appointment at the head of which he had this verse written (Al Bahr al-Muhit).

Commentary

The first sentence of the first verse of this Surah is so comprehensive that its proper discussion would deservedly go beyond thousands of pages. In fact, Muslim scholars and jurists have done exactly that. The verse says: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ (0 those who believe, fulfill the contracts). Here, the very form of address: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ( O those who believe ...) helps to divert attention to the very crucial nature of the subject for the command being given here is centrally required by one's faith. Then comes the command: أَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ (fulfill the contracts). The word, ` al-` uqud', used in the Qur'an is the plural form of al-'aqd, the literal meaning of which is to tie. A contract which ties two individuals or groups to each other is also known as ` aqd. Thus, al-` uqud takes the meaning of al-` uhud or contracts.

Commentator Ibn Jarir has reported the consensus of revered exegetes among the Sahabah and Tabi'in on this approach. Imam al-Jassas explains that ` aqd (contract) or ` ahd (pledge) or Mu` ahadah (pact) are all applied to a transaction in which two parties have placed the responsibility of doing or not doing something on each other and to which both of them agree and are bound by. According to our recognized practice, this is what a contractual agreement is. Therefore, the essential meaning of the sentence is: Take the fulfilling of mutual contracts to be binding and necessary.

Now, we have to determine the nature of contracts meant here. The interpretations of commentators appear to be different, though outwardly only. Some say that it refers to the Covenant of Allah under which His created beings are bound to believe in and obey Him, or they refer to pledges Allah has taken from His created beings regarding His revealed injunctions of things lawful and unlawful. This is what has been reported from Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ۔ ؓ Others say that here it means the contracts people enter into with each other, such as, the Contract of Marriage and the Contract of Buying and Selling. Commentators Ibn Zayd and Zayd ibn Aslam have taken this very line of interpretation. Still others take contracts to mean sworn alliances and pacts which the tribes of Jahiliyyah entered into with each other for mutual assistance when needed. This is also the position taken by Commentators such as Mujahid, RabI' and Qatadah. But, the truth is that there is no contradiction or difference in what they have said. Instead, all these varied contracts come under the Qur'anic word, "al-` uqud", appearing in this verse and the instruction to fulfill all of them comes from the Qur'an itself.

Therefore, Imam Raghib al-Isfahani has said that all kinds of contracts and binding agreements are included under the imperative of this word. He further divides these into three kinds as given below:

1. The Covenant which human beings have with their Creator who is Lord of all the worlds, such as, the pledge to believe in Him, to obey Him, or to observe the restrictions imposed by Him on matters and things lawful and unlawful.

2. The vow or promise or commitment one enters into with one's own self, such as, to commit to fulfill a vow (nadhr) for something, or to bind oneself on oath that something will be done.

3. The contract that one human being enters with another which includes all contracts which bind two persons or two groups or parties or governments.

So, in the light of this verse, strict adherence to all permissible provisions and conditions which have been mutually agreed upon is mandatory and all parties must observe and fulfill these. This covers all international pacts and treaties between governments, bilateral agreements, all commitments, alliances, charters between groups and parties, also all sorts of contracts and deals between two human beings ranging from marriage, business, partnership, leasing, gift deed to many other bi-partite human dealings. Please note that the restriction of ` permissible' imposed a little earlier has a reason, for entering into a contract against the dictates of the Shari'ah, or accepting it, is not permissible for anyone.

The Logic of the Lawful

After the initial declaration of the general rule in the first sentence of the verse, its particular details appear in the second sentence where it has been said: أُحِلَّتْ لَكُم بَهِيمَةُ الْأَنْعَامِ (The cattle have been made lawful for you ...). The word, ` bahimah' (بَهِيمَةُ ) used here is applied to animals usually considered to be devoid of understanding because people usually do not understand their speech which thus remains obscure. Imam al-Sha` rani says: The name ` bahimah' is not given to an animal just be-cause it has no sense and everything sensible remains obscure for it - as people commonly think. But, the truth is that no animal or beast, not even trees and rocks, can be taken to be devoid of sense as such - of course, subject to the difference in its degrees. They do not have the same measure of sense as human beings do. This is the reason why human beings have been obligated to observe the percepts and injunctions revealed for them. Animals have not been so obligated, other-wise Allah has given to every animal sense and awareness within the limits of its needs - even to all trees and rocks, for that matter. This is why everything glorifies Allah in its own way: وَإِن مِّن شَيْءٍ إِلَّا يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِ : That is, ` there is nothing which does not but glorify Him with His praise' (17:44). How then, without sense, would it have ever recognized its creator and master and how would it have, thus, been able to engage in the act of glorifying Allah?

The word, ` al-An` am', used in the text is the plural form of na'am (grazing livestock). Eight kinds of domestic animals or cattles such as the camel, the cow, the buffalow, the goat which have been described in Surah al-An'-am are called the An'-am. Since the word, ` bahimah' (animal) was general, the word, 'Al-An'-am' (the cattle) has made it particular. So, the meaning of the verse comes to be that ` eight kinds of domestic animals have been made lawful for you.' Under the discussion about the word, ` al-` uqud', you have already read a little earlier that it includes all kinds of contracts. One of these is the pledge Allah Almighty has taken from His created beings that they would observe the restrictions of the lawful and the unlawful. The present sentence is referring to this particular pledge when it says that Allah has made the cattle lawful for you and they can be eaten after having been slaughtered in accordance with the Islamic manner.

Thus believers have been exhorted to obey this injunction by staying within its limits. They should not take it upon themselves, as do the fire-worshippers and the idolaters, to declare the very slaughter of these animals as absolutely unlawful, for this is raising an objection against the wisdom of the Creator and certainly an open ingratitude for His blessing. Nor should they become like some other meat-eating people who would, totally unfettered, go about eating all sorts of animals. Rather than do something like that, believers must eat from animals Allah Almighty has made lawful to eat under the Law given by Him. Similarly, they should abstain from animals which have been declared unlawful to eat. The reason is that Allah Almighty is the Creator of the Universe. He knows the nature and the properties of all animals and He is also aware of the effects they bring about when in the human body. He, in His grace, makes what is good and pure openly lawful for human consumption, things which leave no ill effects on physical health and moral strength. Similarly, He forbids unclean and impure animals which are either harmful for human health or contribute metabolically into the generation of evil morals. Therefore, there are a few things exempted from this general rule. These are as follows:

1. The first exemption is contained إِلَّا مَا يُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ. It means: Except animals which have been declared unlawful in the Qur'an, that is, dead animal or the swine.

2. The other exemption appears in: غَيْرَ‌ مُحِلِّي الصَّيْدِ وَأَنتُمْ حُرُ‌مٌ Quadruped animals are lawful for you and wild game too. But nin the state when you have entered into the garments of Ihram with the intention of doing Hajj or ` Umrah, hunting becomes a crime and sin. Stay away from it.

Living under the Authority and Wisdom of the Creator

Towards the end of the verse, it was said: إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يَحْكُمُ مَا يُرِ‌يدُ which means that Allah Almighty ordains what He wills. Nobody has the right to ask questions or take exception in obeying it. This statement is perhaps indicative of an element of wisdom - that the permission given to human beings to slaughter and eat some animals is no act of injustice. The Creator and Master who has made all these life forms is also the One who has formulated, in His perfect wisdom and insight, the law that the lower form shall be the sustenance of the higher. The soil of the earth is food for trees and trees are food for animals and animals are food for human beings. There is no higher form of creation in this world, therefore, human beings cannot become food for anyone. Verse:2 Commentary Linkage of Verses

The first verse of Surah al-Ma'idah emphasized the fulfillment of contracts. Included among these contracts is the contract or pledge to abide by the restrictions of the lawful and the unlawful as ordained by Allah Almighty. The second verse cited here describes two important articles of this contract. The first relates to the sanctity of the signs, symbols or hallmarks of Allah with the specific instruction to stay away from desecrating them. The second article recommends an even-handed dispension of justice to everyone, your own or not your own, friend or foe, which has been combined with a corresponding prohibition of any counter injustice inflicted in return for some injustice done.

Background

There are some events which form the background of the revelation of these verses. Let us go to them first so that the subject of the verse becomes fully clear to us. One of these is the event of Hudaybiyah the details of which have been taken up by the Holy Qur'an elsewhere. This relates to the sixth year of Hijrah when the Holy Prophet g and his noble Companions decided to perform ` Umrah.

The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم entered into the Ihram of ` Umrah with more than one thousand of his Companions and left for Makkah al-Mu` azzamah. After having reached Hudaybiyah close to Makkah al-Mu` azzamah, he sent a message to the Makkans that he was coming in with his group to perform ` Umrah and not for any aggressive designs. He requested that they be allowed to perform ` Umrah. The disbelievers of Makkah, not only that they refused it, they put forward many hard conditions and challenged them to agree to a treaty which stipulated that all Muslims will undo their Ihram they were in at that time and go back. When they come next year to perform their ` Umrah, they would be required to come without any arms, stay for three days only, perform ` Umrah and leave. Besides these conditions, there were many others agreeing to which was obviously very much against the self-respect of Muslims. But, obeying the orders of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم everyone returned in peace. After that, it was in the month of Dhu-al-Qa'dah of the Hijrah year 7 that this missed ` Umrah was performed again with full observance of the conditions imposed under the Treaty.

However, the events at Hudaybiyah and the insulting conditions imposed there had planted seeds of discord in the hearts of the Companions against the disbelievers of Makkah. Then there came up the other incident when Hatim ibn Hind, one of the disbelievers of Makkah, came to Madinah al-Tayyibah with his trading goods. After having sold his goods, he left his baggage and his attendant outside Madinah and came to visit the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and expressed his desire to enter the fold of Islam, in all hypocrisy, so that Muslims are satisfied. But, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had, well before he came to him, told his Companions on the strength of revelation that a man was coming to them who would talk in the words of the Satan. And when he went away, he said that the man came with disbelief and returned with deception and treason. Leaving the company of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ، this man went straight out of Madinah where the livestock of the people of Madinah were grazing. He drove them away with him. The noble Companions ؓ came to know about this somewhat late. When they went out after him, he was gone out of their reach. Then it was in the seventh year of Hijrah, when they were going with the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to perform the Qada' of ` Umrah they had missed at Hudaybiyah, they heard someone reciting Talbiyyah at some distance. When they looked, they discovered that the same Hatim ibn Hind who had decamped with the animals belonging to the people of Madinah was right there going for ` Umrah with the same animals going with him as sacrificial animals. At that time, the noble Companions ؓ thought of attacking him and taking their animals back by killing him off right there.

The third event came to pass in the eighth year of Hijrah when Makkah al-Mukarramah was conquered in Ramadan a1-Mubarak and the entire Arabian Peninsula came under Islamic rule. The disbelievers of Makkah were set free by the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم without any revenge. They went about doing everything they used to do with complete freedom to the extent that they even kept observing their 'pagan customs of Hajj and ` Umrah too. At that time some noble Companions thought of taking their revenge for what had happened at Hudaybiyah. These people had stopped them from doing ` Umrah to which they were entitled on all counts, as permissible and justified. Why, they thought, should they now allow their Hajj and 'Umrah, on any count which were all impermissible and unjustified? Why not attack them, take their animals and finish them off?

These events have been narrated by Ibn Jarir on the authority of ` Ikrimah and al-Suddi. It was on the basis of some of these events that the present verse was revealed. Through it, Muslims were told that holding the signs of Allah in esteem was their own bounden duty. Malice and hostility against an enemy was no reason to disturb this standing rule. This was absolutely impermissible. Even fighting during the sacred months was not permissible. Also not permissible was stopping sacrificial animals from reaching the Haram or taking them away forcibly. As for the disbelievers who have donned the Ihram garments and who, in their estimation, have embarked on their pilgrimage to seek the good pleasure of Allah Almighty (though, because of their disbelief, this is a mistaken notion, yet) the sanctity of the signs of Allah demands that they should not be confronted in any way. Then there was the case of people who had stopped their ` Umrah. Any effort to avenge their past hostility against Muslims in the form of Muslims stopping Muslims from performing their rites of Ha them was not permissible. This is so because this amounts to Muslims doing an injustice in return for an injustice to them which was not permissible in Islam. We can now go to a detailed explanation of the verse.

Commentary

The first sentence of the Verse says: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تُحِلُّوا شَعَائِرَ‌ اللَّـهِ (0 those who believe, do not violate [ the sanctity on the Marks of Allah). Here the word, شَعَائِرَ‌ Sha` a'ir has been translated as ` Marks.' This is the plural form of Sha'irah which means mark, sign or symbol. Therefore, Sha` air and Sha'irah signify things perceptible through the senses which symbolize something. As such the Marks (Sha` a'ir) of Islam would be deeds and actions recognized as symbolic of one's being Muslim in faith. These are quite common such as Salah, Adhan, Hajj, Circumcision and Beard in accordance with the Sunnah. The Tafslr or explanation of the Qur' anic expression شَعَائِرَ‌ اللَّـهِ (Sha` a'irullah: The Marks of Allah) as it appears in this verse has been reported in varying words. But, the clearest of them is what has been reported from Hasan al-Basri (رح) and 'Ata' on whom both be the mercy of Allah. Imam al-Jassas finds their statement as a compendium of all explanations. According to this statement, "Sha'a'irullah" means all obligations the limits of which have been set forth by the Shari'ah of Islam. In this verse, the essence of the meaning is that one should not violate the sanctity of the marks of Allah. One form of such violation could be a total dismissal of what one has been obligated with. Under the second form, one may act in accordance with these obligations by electing to obey some injunctions and leave out others ending up with a compliance which remains incomplete. A third form could be that one starts transgressing the appointed limits and keeps going farther beyond. The Qur'anic statement: لَا تُحِلُّوا شَعَائِرَ‌ اللَّـهِ (do not violate [ the sanctity on the Marks of Allah) forbids all these three forms.

The Holy Qur'an gives the same instruction elsewhere in a different mode as follows:

وَمَن يُعَظِّمْ شَعَائِرَ‌ اللَّـهِ فَإِنَّهَا مِن تَقْوَى الْقُلُوبِ

And whoever exalts the Marks of Allah, then this is from the fear of Allah in hearts. (22:32)

The part of the sentence which follows in the verse under study gives details of a particular kind of the Marks of Allah, that is, the Marks that concern the rites of Hajj.

The text says:

وَلَا الشَّهْرَ‌ الْحَرَ‌امَ وَلَا الْهَدْيَ وَلَا الْقَلَائِدَ وَلَا آمِّينَ الْبَيْتَ الْحَرَ‌امَ يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِّن رَّ‌بِّهِمْ وَرِ‌ضْوَانًا

It means: Do not violate its sanctity by fighting and killing during the months in which it is prohibited. This refers to the four months during which mutual fighting was legally prohibited. They are Dhul-Qa'dah, Dhul-Hijjah, Muharram and Rajab. Later on, this injunction was abrogated as agreed under the overwhelming consensus of ` Ulama'. In addition to this, command was given that there should be no violation of the sanctity of sacrificial animals within the Haram of Makkah, specially of the band round their necks placed there as a symbol of sacrifice. One form of violating the sanctity of these animals could be that they are stopped from reaching the Haram or are snatched away. The second form could be that of using the animals for a purpose other than sacrifice, such as using them to ride or milk. The verse has declared all these form as impermissible.

The text then prohibits the violation of the sanctity of those who have left their homes to embark on a journey to al-Masjid al-Haram with the intention of performing Hajj - for their purpose on this journey is to seek the blessing and pleasure of their Lord. Not violating the sanctity of such people means that they should neither be stopped during their journey nor should any pain be caused to them.

After that it was said: وَإِذَا حَلَلْتُمْ فَاصْطَادُوا . It means: And when you get released from the Ihram, you may hunt. In other words, the limit of the prohibition of hunting during the state of Ihram appearing in the first verse has been declared by saying that your release from the Ihram neutralizes the in-Ihram prohibition of hunting which has now become permissible.

Being delineated in the verse under reference is a particular part of the contract which is operative between every human being and the Lord of all the worlds. Some of it has already been identified upto this point. The first out of these is the instruction to uphold the inviolable dignity of the Marks of Allah as sacrosanct and to guard against any chances of their being desecrated. Then come some details concerning the Marks of Allah which belong to Hajj. Here, the instruction given is that nothing should be done to stop them and that effort should be made to stay away from any action which desecrates them.

The statement which follows after that takes up the second part of the contract in the following words: وَلَا يَجْرِ‌مَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ أَن صَدُّوكُمْ عَنِ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَ‌امِ أَن تَعْتَدُوا . It means: There were those people who had stopped you from entering Makkah and performing your ` Umrah and after that event at Hudaybiyah, you were returning all sad and angered. Now that you have power in your hands, let things not turn in a way that you start taking revenge for what happened in the past by stopping them from entering the House of Allah and the Sacred Mosque and performing their Hajj - because this is injustice and Islam does not favour avenging injustice by inflicting counter injustice. Instead of that, it teaches the doing of justice in return for injustice done and upholding it under all odds. It is true that those people, under the sway of their power_ and position at that time, had stopped Muslims from entering the Sacred Mosque and performing ` Umrah, quite unjustly indeed. But, the retaliation for this injustice can hardly be that Muslims now go about using their power to stop them from carrying out their Hajj rites.

The Qur'an teaches that friend and foe should be treated equally on the scale of justice. It commands Muslims to do nothing but justice as a matter of obligation, no matter how deadly the enemy and no matter how serious the pain inflicted. That Islam guards the rights of enemies is certainly one of the peculiar qualities of Islam which does not answer one injustice by another, rather elects to do justice in return.

The Qur'anic Principle of Mutual Cooperation and Assistance

وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ‌ وَالتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ ۖ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

And help each other in righteousness and piety, and do not help each other in sin and aggression. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is severe at punishment.

This is the last sentence of the second verse of Surah al-Ma'idah. Here, the Holy Qur'an has given such a wise verdict on an elemental question of human life that it can be confidently taken as the moving spirit behind any reliable world order on which depends the prosperity and survival of all human beings. As such, acting in accordance with the Qur'anic principle of Mutual Cooperation and Assistance is the only way to the betterment of the human beings. Every sensible per-son already realizes that things get done in our world through the cooperative efforts of all human beings. This is how the system keeps running. A solitary person, no matter how smart, powerful or rich, cannot procure what he needs to sustain his life single-handedly. One lone person cannot go through all the stages of growing and processing his ready-to-eat food, nor can he cope up with the countless steps required in growing cotton, manufacturing cloth and having a dress pre-pared to fit his measurements, nor can he move his things from one place to the other. Thus, it is not difficult to see that every human being needs hundreds and thousands of others to run his life. This mutual cooperation of theirs is what keeps the whole system going. Incidentally, this cooperation is not limited to the life of the world of our experience, it is also needed in the stages from death to burial - even beyond, when one remains depending upon those he left behind and who may pray for his forgiveness and do things the reward of which keeps reaching him after his death.

Great is the majesty of Allah who, in His perfect wisdom and power, set up such a formidable system of this world, a system where every human being needs the other. The poor man needs the rich while the richest of the rich need the poor worker to handle jobs with labour and skill. The traders need consumers and consumers need traders. The home owner needs a team of technicians having expertise in many areas in order to build a house and they, in turn, need him. If this universal element of need was not there and mutual assistance remained dependant on moral superiority of persons and parties, just imagine who would have been working for whom. The whole thing would have fallen flat for we have been seeing what has happened to common moral virtues and ethical values in this world of ours. Even if this division of labour could have been enforced as some law made by some government or international organization, the fate it would have met would have been no different than the fate of all sorts of laws proliferating the many national and international forums of the world where the law rests at peace in acts while the bazars and offices are run by shadow laws of bribery, nepotism, neglect of duty and apathy of application. We have to salute the framework of doing things given to us by the wisest of the wise, the power of the powers, who placed in the hearts of people of different inclinations to have the ability and desire to run their lives with a particular line of work as its pivot. Had it been otherwise and some international organization or a government chose to assign fields of work among people making someone a carpenter, others iron-mongers or janitors or managers of water and food supplies, who would have become so obedient to such commands from governments and institutions as to sacrifice all personal considerations and jump right into the line of work chosen for them?

So, it is Allah Almighty who has put into man's heart the inclination towards and liking for whatever work or role for which He has created him. Now he takes the service he is doing as his lifework without any legal compulsion and it is through this that he earns his living. The end product of this firmly established system is that all human needs are easily satisfied at the cost of small cash. It may be ready-to-eat food or ready-to-wear clothes or ready-to-use furniture or a turn-key home - one can buy all this at some affordable price. Without the benefit of this system, even a billionaire would have failed to acquire a single grain of wheat despite being ready to stake all his wealth. In order to visualize the outcome of this natural system, think of one of your stays in a hotel where you enjoy the benefit of so many things without blinking. Only if you were to analyze how this works, you will notice that the food you eat there is comprised of courses featuring eatables and seasonings from many countries, china and cutlery and furniture from many more, and managers, chefs and stewards from still others. The tiny morsel of food which reaches your mouth is the result of the combined contribution of millions of machines, animals and human beings - and it is only after that, that you have been able to pamper your palate. Take another example. You come out of the house to go to some place a few miles away. You may either cannot walk all that distance or you do not have the time to do so. You find a taxi cab or a bus nearby without realizing that these vehicles have been assembled with components from many parts of the world and with drivers and conductors from as many. What things and what people stand there to wait on you and serve you! Just pay the fare and be on your way! No government has forced them to provide these for you. Working behind this scheme of things is the natural law ingrained into the human heart as a creational imperative by none but the great master of all hearts Himself.

Not far is the example of what the socialist countries did when they did away with this natural arrangement by taking over the function of telling people what they will do in their lives. In order to do this, they had to, first of all, do away with human freedom through co-ercion and injustice resulting in the killing and imprisonment of thou-sands and thousands of people. Those who remained behind were coerced into working like the parts of a machine, as a result of which, it can be conceded that production did increase at some places, but it must also be granted at the same time that this increase came at the cost of a gross demolition of the free choice of human beings. Thus, the deal did not turn out to be economical. Look at the natural arrangement in contrast. Here, everyone is free and restricted at the same time - restricted in the sense of being devoted to particular jobs and roles on the basis of natural dispension of dispositions. Since this restriction or compulsion comes from nowhere but from natural disposition, nobody feels being coerced. People who would themselves come forward to do the toughest labour or the most menial job, people who would even make efforts to get such jobs, are found everywhere during all times. The same people would, if a government started forcing them to do these jobs, just start running away from it en masse.

In a nutshell, the universal world order revolves round mutual cooperation. But, let us not forget the other side of the picture which is very much there. For example, if this mutual cooperation were to be seriously practiced to carry out activities of crime, theft, robbery, kill-ing and vandalization resulting in big, powerful and organized associations of thieves and robbers, then, this very mutual cooperation can destroy the whole system. This tells us that mutual cooperation is a two-edged sword which cannot only hurt you but it can also knock out the universal order of things. Since the world we live in a mix of good and bad, it was not unlikely that people would start using the power of mutual cooperation to infest human society with crimes, killings, destruction and general loss. Incidentally, this is no more a matter of likelihood, instead, it is an open fact of life for the whole world to see. Thus, it was as a reaction to this situation that theorists of the world laid the foundation of groups and nations based on different ideologies in order to have security for themselves. The idea was to use the power of mutual cooperation in favour of a particular group or people by offering an allied defence against another group or people who attacked them.

The Formation of Separate Nations

According to ` Abd al-Karim al-Shahristani in Al-Milal-wa-al-Nihal, in the beginning when human population was not much, four nations came into being in terms of East, West, North and South. People living in each of these directions started taking themselves as one nation while taking others as other nations. And it was on this basis that they established their mutual cooperation. Later, when the population of the world became larger, the idea of nationalism and multilaterism on the basis of genealogy, family ties and tribal affiliations became a working principle among peoples of all directions. The whole system of Arabia rested on the basis of such tribal and genealogical affinities, so much so that these were sufficient grounds to go to wars against each other. Banu Hashim was one nation, Banu Tamim was another and Banu Khuza` ah still another. Among the Hindus in India, this di-vision on the basis of the high caste and the low caste still persists unchanged.

The modern period of European nations did nothing to retain their genealogical distinction, nor did they give any credence to the genealogical peculiarities of the rest of the world. When they gained ascendency in the world, all genealogical and tribal groupings were eliminated, separate nations were raised on the basis of regions, provinces, homelands and languages - almost by placing a piece of humanity on each such altar. The fact is that this is the form that prevails in most parts of the world. The limit is that Muslims too - of all the peoples the least likely - fell a victim to this modern voodoo of community organization. As if the division as Arabs, Turks, Iraqis and Sindhis were not enough, they went on dividing and sub-dividing themselves into Egyptians, Syrians, Hijazis, Najdis, Panjabis, Bangalis, and so many others who started identifying themselves as separate nations or nationalities or peoples. Since all affairs of their governments were run on this basis, regional or provincial prejudice went deep into their response patterns and peoples of all regions or provinces began relating to each other on this basis - that became their idea of mutual cooperation.

The Teaching of the Qur'an about Nationalism and Universalism

Then came the Holy Qur'an reminding human beings of the lesson they had forgotten. The initial verses of Surah al-Nis-a' clearly declared that all human beings are the children of one father and mother. The noble Prophet, Sayyidna Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم made this all the more clear when he publicly announced during the famous address of his last Hajj that no Arab is superior to a non-Arab nor a white to a black. Superiority depends on nothing but Taqwa, on the fear of Allah and obedience to Him. It was this teaching of the Qur'an which gave the call of "إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ " (Believers are brothers - 49:10) and it was in one stroke that the jet blacks of Ethiopia were related to the reds of Turkey and Byzantium and the lineally less endowed non-Arabs to the Qurayshi and Hashmi Arabs as brothers to each other. The concept of nation and brotherhood was established on the basis that those who believe in Allah and His Rasul are one nation and those who do not so believe are the other. It was this foundation which cut asunder the family ties of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab from the noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم while joining it with Sayyidna Bilal ؓ from Ethiopia and Sayyidna Suhayb ؓ from Byzantium. Finally, came the proclamation of the Qur'an: خَلَقَكُمْ فَمِنكُمْ كَافِرٌ‌ وَمِنكُم مُّؤْمِنٌ (64:2). It means that Allah created all human beings, then, they split in two groups - some became disbelievers and some others became believers. A practical demonstration of this Qur'anic classification was visible during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Ahzab and Hunayn when a blood brother who elected to stay away from the obedience of Allah and His Rasul found that his bond of mutual coopera-tion with his believing brother stood severed and he could no longer escape the stroke of his believing brother's sword.

Stated in the verse of the Qur'an cited above: وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ‌ وَالتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ is this very principle of mutual cooperation and assistance. Being so reasonable and correct, it exhorts people to cooperate in deeds which are righteous and matters which are motivated by the fear of Allah and forbids them from extending their cooperation to anything sinful and aggressive. Just consider that the noble Qur'an has not suggested here that one should cooperate with Muslim brothers and not with non-Muslims. Instead of that, it declares that righteousness and the fear of Allah are the bases on which cooperation is to be extended for this is the real foundation on which rests any cooperation among Muslims themselves. It clearly means that no help is to be ex-tended even to a Muslim brother if he is acting contrary to truth or is advancing towards injustice and aggression. Rather than help him in what is false and unjust, effort should be made to hold his hands against indulging in the false and the unjust for this, in reality, is helping him at its best - so that his present life as well as his life in the Hereafter is not ruined.

According to a narration from Sayyidna Anas appearing in the Sahih of al-Bukhari and Muslim, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has been reported to have said: اں صراخاک ظالماً او مظلوماً (That is: Help your brother, just or unjust). His Companions ؓ who were soaked in the teaching of the Qur'an were surprised. They asked: ` Ya Rasul Allah (0 Messenger of Allah) as for helping the oppressed brother, that we understand. But, what does helping the oppressor mean? He said: Stop him from doing injustice - this is helping him.

This teaching of the Qur'an helped establish that righteousness بِرّ (birr) and the fear of Allah (Taqwa) are the real criterions on which it raised the edifice of Muslim nationalism and to which it invited the peoples of the world as the common denominator of mutual cooperation and assistance. Contrary to this were sin and aggression (ithm اِثم and عُدوان ` udwan) which were declared to be serious crimes and cooperation in these was prohibited. To describe the positive criterions, two separate words of Birr and Taqwa were used. According, to a consensus of commentators, the word, Birr at this place means the doing of deeds which are good. This has been translated here as righteousness. The word, Taqwa means abstinence from what is evil. The word, ithm اِثم has been used here in an absolute sense meaning sin and disobedience, whether it relates to rights or acts of worship. As for ` Udwan, it lexically means the crossing of limits, that is, injustice and aggression.

About cooperating in what is righteousness and the fear of Allah, the Holy Prophet ؓ said: الدلال علی الخیر کفاعلی which means: The reward of the person who shows someone the path of righteousness is very much the same as if it was taken personally. Ibn Kathir has re-ported this hadith with reference to al-Bazzar. In addition to that, it appears in the Sahib of al-Bukhari that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that whoever invites people to true guidance and righteous conduct shall receive a reward equal to all those who would heed to the call and act right - without the least cut from the reward of such people. As for the one who invites people to the path of error or sin, he or she will be earning the same amount of sin fully equal to the sins of all those who got involved with the filth of sin because of the inviter to sin - without any decrease in the count of such sins.

Citing Tabarani, reports Ibn Kathir: The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that anyone who joins up with an unjust person to assist him goes out of the fold of Islam. It is on the basis of this guidance that the righteous elders of the community have strictly abstained from accepting any office or service in the courts of unjust rulers - for this amounts to assisting them in their acts of injustice. Tafsir Ruh al-Ma'ani, while explaining the noble verse: فَلَنْ أَكُونَ ظَهِيرً‌ا لِّلْمُجْرِ‌مِينَ ' I will never be a helper for the criminals - 28:17', has reported a hadith in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has said that a call will go forth on the Day of Judgment citing the oppressors and the unjust and their helpers, so much so that all those who have handled chores even as insignificant as setting up the pens and inkpots of the unjust and the oppressive will all be rammed into a steel coffin and thrown into the Hell.

This is the teaching of the Qur'an and Sunnah which aimed at spreading the virtues of righteousness, justice, sympathy and good mannerliness throughout the world by presenting every single individual of the community as a living herald and model of the truth. And conversely, in order to eradicate crimes, injustices and oppressions, the same teaching had converted every member of the community into a kind of soldier who was bound to do his duty under all circumstances, whether watched or unwatched - because of the fear of Allah in his heart. The whole world saw the outcome of this wise teaching and grooming during the blessed period of the noble Companions ؓ and their Successors. Even in our day, when war threatens a certain country, departments of civil defence are established which impart some level of training for all its citizens. But, nothing of the sort gets done when it comes to the eradication of crimes, to making people promoters of good and blockers of evil. It is obvious that an objective like this can-not be achieved by military parades or civil defence exercises. This is the ultimate art of living which can only be learnt and practiced in educational institutions which, unfortunately, seem to have become strangers to spiritual and social refinements. This is very much true about the great qualities of righteousness and the fear of Allah which seem to be all banned in modern day educational institutions while the admittance of sin and high-handedness is all too open. What can the police do when a whole people throw away the concerns of the law-ful and the unlawful and the right and the wrong on their backs and turn crime-oriented? Today we see the graph of crime rising high - theft, robbery, sexual offences, killings and destructions are taking place everywhere. That the legal machinery can do nothing to root out these crimes is because of their failure to take advantage of the Qur'anic solution suggested above, that is, the governments are far removed from this Qur'anic system, and that they, particularly those who hold power into their hands, demur from adopting the principle of righteousness and the fear of Allah as the aim of their life - even though they have to face a thousand other hardships as a result of such avoidance. It may be interesting if such deviationists would swallow their pride at least for once, even if this be on a trial basis. Let them, then, witness the spectacle of the power of Allah and how it blesses them and their people with good life filled with the best of peace and comfort.

On the other side, there were the masses of people who took it for granted that the eradication of crimes is the exclusive responsibility of the government. In fact, they have become used to keeping crimes covered up. The idea of coming up with true witnesses to confirm truth and eliminate crime is no more a favoured practice among them. Such people must understand that covering up the crime of the criminal and avoiding to put their witness on record is an, abetment of crime which, according to the Holy Qur'an, is Haram (unlawful) and a grave sin in-deed. Furthermore, it is also a flagrant disobedience of the Divine command: وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ (And help each other in righteousness and piety, and do not help each other in sin and aggression) (5:2). Verse:3 Commentary Commentary

This is the third verse of Surah al-Ma'idah where a number of fun damental and subsidiary injunctions and rulings have been described. The first problem relates to lawful and unlawful animals. As for animals whose meat is harmful for human beings - whether physically, to it may pose the danger of disease in the human body, or spiritually, for it may hold the danger of spoilage in human morals or its many emotional states - these the Qur'an has classed as evil declaring them to be unlawful. Then there are animals which have no physical or spiritual harmfulness, these the Qur'an has declared to be good, pure and lawful.

The first prohibition in this verse is that of dead animals. These refer to animals which die without having been slaughtered, either be-cause of some sickness or because of their natural death. The meat of such dead animals is extremely harmful for human consumption, not simply ` medically', but spiritually as well.

However, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has exempted fish and locust as reported in Ahadith narrated in the Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Majah, Darqutni and al-Baihaqi and elsewhere.

The second thing declared unlawful in this verse is blood. By saying: أَوْ دَمًا مَّسْفُوحًا (Or, flowing blood - 6:145) in another verse of the Holy Qur'an, it was made clear that blood here means blood which flows. For this reason, liver and spleen, despite being blood, stand exempted from the purview of this injunction. The Hadith referred to a little earlier where fish and locust have been exempted from the purview of 'Maitah' or carrion also carries the exemption of liver and spleen from the definition of blood.

The third thing declared unlawful is the flesh of swine. 'Lahm' or flesh means the whole body of the swine which includes fat, ligaments, everything.

The fourth prohibition is that of an animal which has been invoked upon with (a name) other than that of Allah (dedicated in this manner, or slaughtered). And, at the time of slaughtering it as well, the act of invoking any name other than that of Allah will amount to flagrant Shirk, which is the ascribing of partners, sharers or associates in the pure divinity of Allah. This animal, thus slaughtered, shall fall under the injunction of a dead animal with the consensus of Muslim jurists. This is what was done by the disbelievers of Arabia when they slaughtered animals invoking the name of their idols, or as some ignorant people would do when they would slaughter animals in the name of some saint or savant. It is also possible that someone does invoke the name of Allah at the time of slaughtering but actually offers it for one other than Allah making that sacrifice for the pleasure of whatever that non-Allah is. If so, this too, according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, is unlawful under the injunction of مَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ‌ اللَّـهِ بِهِ (what has been invoked upon with [ a name ] other than that of Allah).

The fifth category made unlawful is that of an animal which has been strangulated to death, or which has choked itself to death while struggling out of some trap. Though Munkhaniqah مُنْخَنِقَةُ (dead by strangulation) and Mawqudhah مَوْقُوذَةُ (dead by blow) are included under the broad Qur'anic term of مَيْتَةُ 'Maitah' (carrion), but they have been mentioned here particularly because the people of Jahiliyyah took them to be permissible.

The sixth category of animals is Mawqudhah مَوْقُوذَةُ (dead by blow). It means an animal which has been killed by some hard blow, the kind of blow that comes from being hit by a staff, rod or rock. Should an arrow strike and kill its game in a manner that the arrow does not hit it with the sharp arrow head but does end up killing it just the same from the force of the blow itself, then, this too will be counted as Mawqudhah and will, as such, be unlawful. Sayyidna ibn Hatim ؓ said to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ` There are times when I hunt with an arrow heavy in the middle. If the game is killed with this arrow, can I eat it?' He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ` If the animal has been killed by a blow from the heavy side of the arrow, it is included under Mawqudhah - do not eat it (and if it has been hit by the sharp-edged point and it has wounded the game, then, you can eat it). Al-Jassas has reported this narration in Ahkam al-Qur'an citing his own chain of authorities.

Here, the condition is that the arrow should have been released from the bow after having said Bismillah.

The game killed by a gun bullet has also been ruled by Muslim Jurists as included under the category of 'Mawqudhah' and is, therefore, unlawful. Imam al-Jassas reports from Sayyidna 'Abdullah ibn ` Umar ؓ that he used to say: المقتولۃ بلبندقۃ تلک الموقوذہ which means that an animal killed by gunshot is the 'Mawqudhah'; therefore, it is unlawful. Imams Abu Hanifah, Shafi'i, Malik and others رحمۃ اللہ علیہم are all in agreement with this view (al-Qurtubi).

The seventh category is called مُتَرَ‌دِّيَةُ 'al-Mutaraddiyah' (killed by a fall). It means that an animal which dies by falling from a mountain, mound or a high building, or which dies by falling into a well or some similar depth is also unlawful. Therefore, says a report from Sayyidna ` Abdullah ibn Masud ؓ : If you see a game standing on top of a mountain and you shoot your arrow at it after reciting Bismillah and the hit of the arrow causes the game to fall down and die, then, do not eat it.

Because, here too, the probability exists that the animal did not die with a hit from the arrow. May be, it died from the shock of the fall - if so, it will be counted under the category of 'Mutaraddiyah' (dead by a fall). Similarly, if an arrow is shot at a bird and it falls down in water, its eating has also been prohibited for the same reason that probability exists that the hunted bird had died by drowning (al-Jasss).

It should also be noted that Sayyidna ` Adiyy ibn Hatim ؓ too has reported the same ruling from the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم - (a1-Jasss).

The eighth category is that of النَّطِيحَةُ An-Natihah' (dead by goring). It refers to an animal which has died in some collision such as by bumping against a train or vehicle, or it has been gored by butting against another animal.

The ninth category is of an animal which died when torn apart by some beast.

After describing the unlawfulness of these nine categories, an exception has been mentioned. It was said: إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ. It means: If you find any of these animals alive and you slaughter it properly, then, it becomes lawful - eating it is permissible.

This exemption cannot be applied to the first four categories, because in Maitah (carrion) and Dam (blood), the very possibility does not exist; and as for Khinzir (swine) and what falls under وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ‌ اللَّـهِ ma uhilla li-ghayrillah (what has been invoked upon with [ a name ] other than that of Allah), they are unlawful in themselves - slaughtering or not slaughtering them is equally irrelevant. Therefore, there is a consensus of Sayyidna ` Ali, Ibn ` Abbas, Hasan al-Basri, Qatadah and other righteous elders on the view that this exemption applies to cate-gories after the first four, that is, to the 'Munkhaniqah' (dead by strangulation) and what comes after it. So, it comes to mean that, should the animal be found alive under all these circumstances with commonly discernable signs of life, and slaughtered with the name of Allah while in the same condition, then, it is lawful - whether dead by strangulation, dead by blow, dead by a fall, dead by goring or that which a beast has eaten. Any of these slaughtered while sensing signs of life in it shall become lawful.

Under the tenth category, an animal which has been slaughtered at an altar is unlawful. The altar refers to slabs of rocks placed around the Ka'bah which the people of Jahiliyyah took as objects of worship and they would bring animals near the altars and sacrifice them dedicated to these rock slabs. They thought it was worship.

The people of Jahiliyyah used to eat all these kinds of animals, animals which are evil. The Holy Qur'an declared all of them to be unlawful.

The eleventh practice declared unlawful in this verse is the determining of shares with arrows: al-istiqsam bi al-azlam. The Arabic word, 'al-azlam' used in the Qur'an is the plural of zalam. This was an arrow used to determine shares during the days of Jahiliyyah. They were seven in number. One would have 'yes' and the other would have 'no' or some similar words written on them. These arrows were kept in the custody of the keeper of the Ka'bah.

When someone wanted his fortune told or wished to find out whether doing something in the future will be beneficial or harmful, they would go to the keeper of the Ka'bah, present money gift to him in anticipation of his service, who would, then, take out these arrows from the quiver one by one. If the arrow so drawn turned out to be the one with the word 'yes' on it, they thought that doing what they wanted to do was beneficial; and if, the arrow drawn had a 'no' on it, they drew the conclusion that they should not do what they wanted to do. The reason why this has been mentioned in the context of unlawful animals is that small groups of pagan Arabs used to have a joint slaughter of a camel or some other animal but, rather than divide up shares from the meat to all participants in accordance with the num-ber of shares originally subscribed to, they would decide it by drawing these arrows. Obviously, by doing that, someone would remain totally deprived, someone else would get too much and there would be someone getting less than what was his right. Therefore, the unlawfulness of this procedure was explained alongwith the unlawfulness of animals.

.

` Ulama' say that all methods used to divine future happenings or to find out what is 'Ghayb' (Unseen) - whether divination through numbers (` ilm al.-Jafr or Jafar), or palm-reading, or the taking of omen - fall under the injunction of 'determining shares with arrows.'

The Arabic term for 'determining shares with arrows' is sometimes used for Qimar or gambling as well wherein rights are determined by the methods of lots or lottery. This too is Haram (unlawful) on the authority of the Qur'an which prohibits it under the name, 'Maisir' (gambling). Therefore, righteous early elders Said ibn Jubayr, Mujahid and Al-Sha` bi said that the way the pagan Arabs used arrows to determine shares, people of Persia and Asia Minor used chessmen and pieces of backgammon for the same purpose. They all fall under the injunction about arrows.

After explaining the unlawfulness of determining shares with arrows al-Tafsir al-Mazhari has particularly pointed out that the Qur'anic statement: ذَٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ (This is sin) which follows immediately after this injunction means that this method of divination or determining of shares is an act of sin which leads people astray. After that, it was said:

الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ

Today those who disbelieve have lost hopes of (damaging) your faith. So do not fear them, and fear Me.

This verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم on the day of ` Arafah of the Last Hajj in the tenth year of Hijrah. This was a time when the conquest of Makkah and almost of all Arabia was complete. Islamic law prevailed all over the Peninsula. Thereupon, refer-ence was made to the assessment of disbelievers that Muslims were much lower in number as against them and that they were weak too based on which they planned to eliminate them. Now that they do not have those ambitions any more nor do they have the power to pose a challenge, Muslims have been asked to feel secure against them and go on to spend their energy in obeying and worshipping their Lord:

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَ‌ضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا

Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Din for you.

The combination of circumstances in which this verse was revealed is special. Imagine. This is the day of Arafah, the foremost day out of the days of the entire year and by chance this ` Arafah fell on a Jumu'ah (Friday) the merits of which are well-known. The place is nothing less than the plain of Arafat, close to the Mount of Mercy (Jabl ar-Rahmah) which, on the day of ` Arafah, is the chosen spot of the incessant descent of Mercy from Allah Almighty. The time is after Asr, which is a blessed time even during normal days, specially so on Friday wherein comes the hour when prayers are answered as confirmed by many authentic reports and this is the time for it. Then, this being the day of Arafah as well, it is all the more likely that prayers shall be answered particularly at this hour and time.

This is the largest and the first great gathering of Muslims for their Hajj. Participating in it are some one hundred and fifty thousand noble Sahabah, the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them all. And present with his Companions is the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who is the very mercy of all universes sitting on his mount, the she-camel Adba' under the legendary Mount of Mercy busy with his Wuquf in ` Arafat, now a great basic rite of Hajj.

It is under the canopy of these blissful merits and blessings and mercies that this verse is being revealed to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . Spot witnesses to this spectacle, the noble Companions said: When this verse came in the mode of Wahy (revelation) to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم what happened was what had transpired earlier too: The weight released by the descending Revelation could be perceived as the she camel was crouching under that weight, so much so that she was compelled to sit down.

Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ؓ says that this verse is almost the last verse of the Holy Qur'an; no verse dealing with Ahkam (Injunctions) was revealed after that. The only exception here is that of some verses of persuasive nature which have been identified as having been revealed after this verse. After the revelation of this verse, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم lived in this mortal world for only eighty one days, for this verse was revealed on the ninth day of Dhil-Hijjah in the Hijrah year 10 and it was on the twelfth day of the month of Rabi' al Awwal in the eleventh year of Hijrah that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم departed from this mortal world.

That this verse was revealed in such elegant setting with a very special concern has its secret in the message it conveys which is a great news, a solemn reward and an abiding hallmark of distinction for Islam and Muslims and for the Ummah at large. In a nutshell, the message is that the ultimate standard of True Faith and Divine Blessing which was to be bequeathed to human beings in this world has reached its perfection on that great day. This is, so to say, the climax of the divine blessings in the shape of a True Faith which began with Sayyidna Adam (علیہ السلام) and continued in later times when the children of Adam in every period and every area kept receiving a part of this blessing in proportion to their prevailing conditions. Today, that Faith and that Blessing in its final form has been bestowed upon the Last of the Prophets, the Rasul of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and to his Ummah.

It goes without saying that this bestowal primarily highlights the excellence and distinction of the last and the foremost Prophet, Sayyidna Muhammad al-Mustafa صلى الله عليه وسلم among the community of prophets, messengers and apostles. But, it also proves that the Ummah has a distinct status among other Traditional Communities.

This is why some Jewish scholars came to Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ and told him: Your Qur'an has a verse which, if it was revealed to Jews, would have given them an occasion to celebrate its revelation through a festival. Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ asked: Which verse is that? They, in response, recited this very verse الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ. Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ said: Yes, we know where and when this verse was revealed. The hint was that the particular day was a day of doubled rejoicing (Eid) for Muslims, one for 'Arafah and the other for Jumu'ah (Friday).

The Islamic Principle of Celebrating Festive Occasions

This reply given by Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ also carries a hint towards a cardinal Islamic principle which, of all peoples and religions of the world, is the hallmark of Islam alone. It is common knowledge that peoples from every nation and every religious group commemorate their particular historical events conditioned by their respective self-view. Such days which return each year acquire the status of a major festival with them.

Somewhere the celebration is about the birth or death anniversary of a great person. Elsewhere, it would be a day of coronation, or the day of the conquest of some country or city, or some acclaimed historical event. The net outcome of all such celebrations is no more than increasing the image of particular individuals. Islam is against the cult of personality. It has bypassed the customs of the age of ignorance by eliminating the commemoration of persons and by introducing the commemoration of principles and objectives as standard practice.

Sayyidna Ibrahim, (علیہ السلام) the patriarch of prophets, was given the title of "Friend of Allah." The Holy Qur'an paid tributes to him on his success against trials. The verse: وَإِذِ ابْتَلَىٰ إِبْرَ‌اهِيمَ رَ‌بُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ (and when his Lord put Ibrahim to a test with certain Words! And he fulfilled them) (2:124) means exactly this. But, no anniversary of his birth or death was ever celebrated, nor that of his son, Ismail (علیہ السلام) ، nor that of his mother, nor any kind of memorial was established to perpetuate their memory.

Of course, there were things of significance in their deeds, things related to the objectives of religion and faith. This legacy was worth the best of preservation and commemoration and this legacy was not only preserved but made mandatory for all succeeding generations as an obligatory part of their religion and faith. Sacrifice. Circumcision. Running between the hills of Safa and Marwah. Throwing pebbles at three places in Mina. All these are living, ever-reminding monuments to the deeds of the same righteous elders which they performed by sacrificing their personal desires and natural needs aiming for nothing but the pleasure of Allah Almighty. Right there, in these deeds, there is a lesson for all peoples of all times that human beings should sacrifice everything, even the dearest of the dear, for the good pleasure of Allah.

So, this was how Islam abstained from celebrating days devoted to the birth and death of prominent men, or women, no matter how great, or the days highlighting their personal lives and times. Celebrated instead, were days centered around their deeds, especially those pertaining to some particular act of worship, for example, Laylatul-Bara' ah (the Night of Deliverance from Sin), Ramadan al-Mubarak (the Blessed Month of Ramadan), Laylatul-Qadr (the Night of Power), Yowm al-Arafah (the Day of Arafah), Yowm al-Ashura (the Day of ` Ashura) etc. As for the well-known Muslim Festival of Rejoicing, it was limited to only two and that too was made purely religious in nature. The first ` Id (` Idul-Fitr) was set in between at the end of the month of Ramadan al-Mubarak and at the beginning of the Hajj months while the second ` Id (` Idul-Adha) was appointed to be celebrated after the completion of the Hajj pilgrimage.

To sum up, let us return to the reply given by Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ which so succinctly declared that ` Ids in Islam do not follow historical events as among Jews and Christians. This was the custom of Jahiliyyah, the first age of ignorance when the passing of some major historical event would be turned into a festival. Now, as witnesses to the modern Age of Ignorance, we can see how wide-spread this urge to celebrate has become. The limit is that Muslims themselves have started imitating other nations indulging in practices contrary to their way.

Christians started celebrating a Festival commemorating the birth of Sayyidna With their example before them, some Muslims introduced another ` Id, the Festival of the birth of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ، may peace be upon him, and the blessings of Allah. Devoting a day to take out processions on streets with activities neither reasonable nor valid and filling a night with displays of lamps and lights, they took this to be an act of worship. For this there is no basic justification in the words and deeds of the Sahabah, the noble Companions, or the Tabi` in, the Successors to the Companions, or the large body of the righteous elders of the Muslim Community.

The truth of the matter is that this practice of celebrating days would pass with nations which lack individuals with superior merits and achievements. When lucky, they would find a couple or few suitable enough with a record of something special they may have done and commemorating them would become a matter of national pride for them.

If this custom of celebrating days were to be practiced in Islam, we would have to begin with more than one hundred and twenty thousand prophets each of whom has a big roster of wonderful achievements to his credit. Celebrating the birthday of and commemorating the achievements of each would be very much in order. After past prophets, peace be upon them, let us move to the Last of them صلى الله عليه وسلم and look at his pure and pristine life. When you do that there would not remain even one day which could turn out to be devoid of one or the other achievement which deserves to be celebrated. From his childhood to his youth, he was an epitome of moral perfections (or a paradigm of virtues, as termed by some modern Muslim writers in the West) whereby he was considered the most trustworthy person in the whole country of ` Arabia. Are these embellishments not worthy enough for Muslims to celebrate? Then, there is the Revelation of the Holy Qur'an, the event of Hijrah, the Battle of Badr and Uhud, and Khandaq, and Hunayn, and Tabuk, and the Conquest of Makkah. Add to these all other battles in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم participated. Each deserves a celebration. Similarly, there are thousands of his miracles; each one of them needs commemoration. One needs insight to look at the life of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم which would bring an honest person to come to the conclusion that his good life - not just a day from it, rather every hour in it - is most worthy of being commemorated, celebrated and rejoiced in.

After the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ، think of some one hundred and twenty thousand of his noble Companions each one of whom is really a living miracle of their master. Would it not be unjust to ignore them and avoid celebrating their achievements? If we pursue this practice still further on, we shall be looking at those who followed after the noble Companions - righteous elders, men of Allah, scholars, masters and guides - whose number would shoot up to millions. If commemorative days have to be celebrated, how could one leave them out? Would it not be an injustice to them? Or, a failure to recognize intellectual merit or spiritual excellence? And if, left with not much choice, Muslims were to decide to celebrate memorial days for everyone, they would have a calendar of activities all full of celebrations with no day free - in fact, they would have to celebrate several commemorations, festivals and 'Ids every hour of every day!

No wonder the Prophet of Islam and all his Companions ignored this custom as outmoded pagan practice from the days of Jahiliyyah! Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ ، the second Khalifah of Islam, may Allah be pleased with him, alludes to this very approach in his policy statement made before the Jews.

Understanding Important Meanings of the Verse

This Verse carries the good news that Allah has given to the noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Community three rewards: Perfection of Faith, Completion of Divine Blessing and the Shari'ah of Islam as the Chosen Way for the Muslim Community.

1. Sayyidna ` Abdullah ibn ` Abbas ؓ ، and others with him, explain that Perfection of Faith refers to the perfection of all limits, obligations, injunctions and refinements in personal and social behaviour as necessary for the True Faith. Now there is no need to add to it, nor there remains any probability of a shortfall (Ruh a1-Ma` ani). For this reason, no new injunction from among the total corpus of injunctions was revealed after this. As already pointed out earlier, the few verses which were revealed later on carry either some subjects of persuasion or were a reiteration of injunctions already revealed.

What has been said here is not contrary to the function of the most-authentically qualified jurists of Islam (Mujtahid Imams through which they could explicate and elaborate injunctions of the Shari' ah related to new and unprecedented events and circumstances as based on their highest possible effort and judgement (Ijtihad). The reason is simple - because the Holy Qur'an which has laid down the limits and obligations of religious injunctions has also, at the same time, determined the principles of Ijtihad. Pursuant to this authority, all rules and regulations deduced by Ijtihad right through the Last Day will be considered as if they are, in a way, the very injunctions of the Qur'an itself - because they are subordinate to the principles given by the Qur'an.

To sum up, we can say that 'Perfection of Faith', as explained by Sayyidna ` Abdullah ibn ` Abbas ؓ ، is the perfection of all injunctions of the Faith. It needs no addition, while the probability of any shortfall through abrogation just does not exist - because, soon after, the ongoing process of Wahy (revelation) was to be discontinued following the passing away of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم from this mortal world; and no injunction of the Holy Qur'an can be abrogated without a Divine revelation (Wahy). As for the apparent multiplicity of sub-injunctions that generated from jurists under the principle of Ijtihad was, in reality, no multiplicity as such. It was, rather, the explication and elaboration of the Qur'anic injunctions.

2. 'Completion of Blessing' means the rise of Muslims and the fall of their antagonists - which was manifested through the Conquest of Makkah, the eradication of the customs of Jahiliyyah and through the absence of all disbelievers from the 1Iajj that year.

The words of the Qur'an used here show that 'Ikmal' (perfection) has been coupled with 'DIn' (Faith) while the word 'Itmam' (Completion) goes with 'Ni` mah' (blessing) - though both words are obviously synonymous and are generally used interchangeably. But, in fact, there is a difference in the sense they both carry. This has been explained by Imam Raghib al-Isfahan' in his Mufradat al-Qur'an by saying that the 'Ikmal and TakmIl' (Perfection) of something means that the purpose and objective behind it has been accomplished (perfection of something carries exactly the same sense in English, specially at a time when spoken of, as 'al-yowm' (today) in the verse al-ready indicates). The other word, 'Itmam' (Completion) means that nothing else is needed any more. Thus, 'Perfection of Faith' tells us that the purpose of sending Divine Law and the injunctions of Faith into this world stands fulfilled and perfected today; and 'Completion of Blessing' means that Muslims do not have to depend on anyone any-more. Allah has Himself given them supremacy, power, authority. They can use these to promulgate and implement the imperatives (AM am, Injunctions) of this True Faith.

Also noteworthy here is the arrangement in the Verse where دِین 'Din' (Faith) has been attributed to Muslims while the attribution of 'Ni'mah' (Blessing) is towards Almighty Allah. This is because 'Din' (Faith) is demonstrated by what the members of the Community do while the consummation of 'Ni'mah' (Blessing) is directly from Al-mighty Allah (Ibn al-Qayyim, Tafsir).

The meanings as established here also clarify that the Perfection of Faith 'today' does not mean that, earlier, the Faith of the blessed prophets was imperfect. Quite contrary to that, the 'Din' (Faith) of every prophet and messenger was perfect and complete in terms of the relevant period of time (Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit with reference to al-Qaffal al-Marwazi). In other words, it means that the period in which a Law or Faith was sent by Allah to a prophet, it was in itself perfect and complete for that period and for the people who belonged to it. But, the fu-ture projection, that the Faith quite perfect for that period and its people will not remain perfect for later periods and peoples, was already there in the ultimate Knowledge of Almighty Allah - He knew that it would be abrogated and another Faith and Law will take its place. This is contrary to the case of the Shari'ah of Islam which was sent last of all since it is perfect from all sides and angles. It is neither specified for any particular time nor is it restricted to any particular area, country or people. Instead of all that, Islam is a Shari' ah which is perfect and complete for every period and every area and every people for all times to come right upto the Last Day.

3. The third reward which has been bestowed upon the Muslim Community through this Verse is that Allah has, by His creational prerogative, authority and wisdom, chosen the Faith of Islam for this Ummah which is perfect and complete in all its aspects - and on which depends the ultimate Salvation.

Certainly great was the message this Verse gave to the Muslim Community which was thus blessed with the finest gift they could ever dream of: the gift of the Din of Islam - the last and the most perfect Faith, after which there is no Faith to come and in which there shall be no addition or deletion. When this Verse was revealed, Muslims had good reason to be jubilant about Allah's mercy which descended upon them in that manner. But, Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ was found in tears. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم asked him the reason for his tears. He replied: This Verse seems to indicate that now your stay in this world is very short, because with the perfection of Islam, the need of a Rasul to be present also stands fulfilled! The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم agreed with him (Tafsir ibn Kathir and al-Bahr al-Muhit). Time showed that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم departed from this mortal world only after eighty one days this event took place.

Unlawfulness of Animals: Exception under Compulsion

Towards the end of the Verse, the statement: فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ‌ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ (But, whoever is compelled by severe hunger with no way out) relates to animals the unlawfulness of which has been mentioned in the earlier part of the Verse. The purpose of the sentence is to exclude a particular condition from the general rule. If a person is subjected to severe hunger to a point where death becomes likely, then, under this condition, were he to eat a little from unlawful animals mentioned in the Verse, there will be no sin on him. But, the condition is that the purpose of - such eating should not be to have one's fill or to enjoy it. Instead of do-ing that, one should eat just about what would remove the state of compulsion.

This is exactly what the words: غَيْرَ‌ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ (having no inclination to sin) following immediately mean, that is, this act should be free from any inclination to commit a sin. Contrary to that, the purpose should only be limited to get relief from the excruciating state of compulsion. Towards the end of the Verse, the statement: فَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ غَفُورٌ‌ رَّ‌حِيمٌ to (Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful) makes a pointed reference to the fact that these unlawful things are still unlawful as they already were, but only such a person has been given leave because of the state of compulsion he may be in. Verse:4 Commentary Lawful and unlawful animals were mentioned in preceding verses. An answer to a question on the same subject appears in the present verse. Some Companions had asked the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about the rule governing hunting with the help of a trained dog and falcon. Given in this verse is an answer to that question.

Commentary

To make an animal lawful when hunted through a dog or falcon, four conditions have been mentioned in the question and its answer appearing above. These are:

1. The dog or falcon should be taught, trained and disciplined. The functional principle given here is that the dog should have been groomed in a manner that it should, when released at the prey, catch it and bring it back to you - not that it starts eating it. As for a falcon, the rule set was that it should immediately return when called by you, even if it was chasing the prey. When so trained, it will prove that these beasts of prey hunt for you and not for themselves. Now the animal hunted by these beasts of prey will be considered your own. And if they act against this training once in a while, for example, the dog itself starts eating the prey, or the falcon does not return at your call, then, this game is not yours anymore, therefore, eating it is not permissible.

2. The second condition is that you should release the dog or falcon immediately at your choice and will, not that they dash after some game and hunt it on their own. In the verse under discussion, this condition has been made to come out clearly by the use of the word, "Mukallibin." Lexically, this word is a derivation from 'Taklib' which basically means the training of dogs. Later, it also came to be used in the sense of training beasts of prey and releasing them after the game. The author of the famous Tafsir Jalalayn explains it in the sense of 'Irsal' (send after) which means releasing after the game. This view has been reported in Tafsir al-Qurtubi as well.

3. The third condition is that the beasts of prey do not themselves start eating the game - instead, they should bring it to you. This condition has been explained through مِمَّا أَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ : (what they hold for you).

4. The fourth condition is: When you release the dog or the falcon after the game, do it after saying 'Bismillah' (With the name of Allah).

When these conditions stand fulfilled, the game - if dead before it reaches you - will still be lawful with no need to slaughter. If other-wise, it will not be lawful for you unless slaughtered.

With Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) ، there is a fifth condition as well: That this beast of prey should have also wounded the game. A hint towards this condition is embedded in the word, الْجَوَارِ‌حِ "Al-Jawarih" (birds and beasts of prey) which also means animals which wound or injure.

Ruling: This injunction covers wild animals out of one's possession and control. In case a wild animal has been captured, it will not become lawful without having been properly slaughtered.

Finally, at the end of the verse, there comes the instruction that hunting through a beast of prey has no doubt been made lawful by Al-mighty Allah, but, it is not permissible to ignore Salah and other necessary religious obligations for the sake of having fun chasing game. Verse:5 Commentary Commentary

In the first verse of Surah al-Ma'idah, the lawfulness of domestic animals such as the goat, cow and buffalo has been described. The third verse has a detail of nine kinds of unlawful animals. From that detail to the opening sentence of the present verse, we come to know in summation the essentials of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of animals as well as its operating standard and rule.

The verse opens with the words: الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ (This day, good things have been made lawful for you). Here, 'this day' means the day on which this verse and those before it have been revealed, that is, the Day of ` Arafah in the Last Hajj of Hijrah 10. The sense is that the way your Faith has been made perfect and the blessing of Allah stands completed for you on this day, very similarly, good things from Allah which were already lawful for you have been allowed to stay lawful forever. The probability that the injunction could be withdrawn does not exist anymore because the ongoing process of revelation was to be discontinued.

This sentence mentions the lawfulness of good things. But, another verse (7:157): يُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّ‌مُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَائِثَ (Made lawful for them are good things and made unlawful for them are evil things). Here, by placing At-Tayyibat' (good things) against Al-Khaba'ith' (impure things), the reality of both words has been made clear. Lexically, things good, pure, clean and delightful are called 'At-Tayyibat'; and in contrast, 'Al-Khabaith' is used to denote things which are evil and disgusting. Therefore, this sentence of the verse stresses that everything good, pure and beneficial has been made lawful for human beings and everything disgusting and harmful has been made unlawful. The reason is that human beings are not like animals whose purpose of life is limited to eating, drinking, sleeping, waking - being no more than a sort of live-die cycle. Nature has made them the master of the universe for some special purpose and that cannot be achieved without having high and pure morals. Therefore, immoral human beings would really not deserve to be counted as human beings.

That is why the Holy Qur'an has said about such people: بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ : that is, they are like cattle, rather more astray. Now if we accept that the 'humanity' of human beings depends on the betterment of their morals, it will become necessary to concede that they must be made to totally abstain from everything which leads to the corruption of human morals. Everyone knows how environment and society affect human morals. When things outside can do that to human morals, just imagine what would be the effect of things which go inside the human body for what becomes a part of the human body must affect its ethical behaviour. Therefore, caution must necessarily be observed in all foods and drinks. And let us keep in mind that unlawful income from theft, robbery, bribery, interest, gambling and evils like that, once it becomes part of anyone's body, will inevitably remove one farther from humanity and nearer to 'satanic nature.'

Hence, says the Holy Qur'an: يَا أَيُّهَا الرُّ‌سُلُ كُلُوا مِنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَاعْمَلُوا صَالِحًا (O' Messengers, eat from good things [ made lawful as sustenance ] and do righteous deeds - 23:51). Here, the command to be righteous in deeds refers itself back to the command to eat from what is Halal (lawful) because without eating Halal, righteous deeds cannot be imagined. This consideration is very important specially in the case of meat which be-comes an integral part of the human body. One has to be most cautious and guard against the possibility of non-Halal meat entering his system through food and go on to spoil his morals. Similar is the case of meat which is physically harmful for human beings as the carrier of bacteria causing disease and death. Everyone knows that abstention from such meat is necessary. As for things declared evil by the Shari'ah of Islam, these are definitely agents of corruption for the human body or the soul or both. Since they are dangerous for human life and morals, they were made unlawful. As opposed to this, good things, the 'Tayyibat' contribute to the nurture and flowering of the human body, soul and morals - so, they were made lawful. In this way, this brief sentence of the Qur'an has given to us the philosophy and ground rules of the lawful and the unlawful, so to say, in a nutshell.

Now, as to which things are pure, beneficial and desirable and which others are impure, harmful and disgusting, the real decision of the matter lies with the desire and aversion of one's inherent good taste. This is the reason why animals declared unlawful by Islam have been considered impure and disgusting by people of good taste during every period of time - for instance, carrion and blood. -Nevertheless, there come occasions when custom-based ignorance overpowers good taste and when the fine line between good and bad fades out. Or, the evil in some things is concealed. In such situations, the decision of the prophets, peace be on all of them, is the guiding and binding authority for everyone. The reason is that the noble prophets are the foremost in commonsense, decency, goodness and taste among human beings. They were specially gifted by Almighty Allah with an intrinsically sound and balanced nature and He Himself took the responsibility of their nurture and grooming. One might say that they rose to be what they were under a Divine security shield manned by angels which saw to it that their minds and hearts and morals would never be affected by any evil environment. So, things they took as evil are really evil; and what they found to be good is really good.

In Hujjatullah al-Balighah, Shah Waliyyullah says that all animals declared unlawful by the Shari' ah of Islam, when observed closely, will all fit compactly under two principles: one - an animal is evil by its nature and disposition; two - the method of slaughtering the animal is wrong, as a result of which it will be considered 'dead' ( 'Maitah' - carrion), not slaughtered.

In the third verse of Surah al-Ma'idah, things called unlawful are nine in number. Out of these, the 'swine' is part of the first kind; the rest of the eight are in the second. By saying: وَيُحَرِّ‌مُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَائِثَ (He allows them as lawful what is good [ and pure ] and prohibits them from what is bad [ and impure ] - 7:157 - AYA, revealed, Madinah) the Holy Qur'an declares the general rule that all evil animals are unlawful. For de-tails, the Holy Qur'an points out to some clearly, for instance, ' the flesh of swine' and 'flowing blood'... The enumeration of the rest was entrusted to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . One sign of an animal being evil he gave was that a people could have been punished by having been transformed (Maskh) into the form of an animal. This indicates that the particular animal is evil by its very nature as divine wrath transformed it into an animal. For example, says the Holy Qur'an: وَجَعَلَ مِنْهُمُ الْقِرَ‌دَةَ وَالْخَنَازِيرَ‌ which means that some peoples have been transformed into swines and monkeys as punishment. This proves that both these kinds of animals are evil by nature - they, even if slaughtered, would still not become lawful. Then there are animals whose very doings and likings are sufficient for people of natural disposition to sense the evil inside them. For instance, there are beasts who live by injuring, tearing and eating other animals - a hard-hearted lifestyle indeed.

Therefore, when someone asked about a wolf from the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم he said: "Can a human being eat it?" Similarly, there are many animals among crawlers and fliers whose very nature is to hurt or snatch away things, for instance, the snake, scorpion, house-lizard, fly, or a kite and falcon and others like them. So, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم set the rule that animals among beasts which tear animals apart with teeth, such as the lion and the wolf and others of their kind, and animals among birds such as the falcon and the hawk and others of their kind which hunt with their claws, are all unlawful; or, animals which are by nature mean and low or get them-selves befouled with impurities, such as the rat or animals which eat carrion, or the donkey and similar others, all fall under the category of animals the physical properties and harmfulness of which is readily sensed by any human being with a normal mind and temperament.

To recapitulate, we can say that the animals which have been made unlawful under the Shari` ah of Islam are of two kinds: Those intrinsically evil and those which are not evil by themselves but they have not been slaughtered following the method of slaughtering ani-mals ordained by Almighty Allah. This includes all other options such as the animal was not slaughtered at all - but was killed by shock or blow - or the act of slaughtering did take place, but rather than pronounce the name of Allah on it, a name other than that of Allah was recited, or just no name was pronounced by knowingly omitting the name of Allah at the time of slaughter. Such Dhibih or slaughter is equally untrustworthy and invalid in view of the Shari'ah. In fact, this is very much like having 'killed' an animal without proper slaughter.

Something worth attention here is that everything one eats and drinks comes to him as a blessing from Allah, but, excepting the animals, no restriction has been imposed on cooking or eating anything from them other than that which would make it necessary for you to say Allahu-Akbar' or 'Bismillah' invariably before cooking and eating, as if, that food would not be lawful without it. At the most, the saying of 'Bismillah' at the time of eating and drinking anything has been classified as desirable or recommended ('Mustahabb' : acts the neglect of which is not punished by Allah, but the performance of which is rewarded). Contrary to this is the matter of animals, for it has been made necessary ('W ajib' ) that the name of Allah be invoked while slaughtering them - and if, anyone were to leave out the name of Allah at the time of the slaughter, the animal was declared to be carrion, and unlawful: at is the wisdom behind it?

A little deliberation makes it clear that the lives of all living beings are equal in a way. Therefore, the act of one life form whereby another life form is slaughtered and exterminated should, obviously, be not permissible. Now, for those it has been made permissible, it is a major reward from Allah. That is why the realization of the presence of this Divine blessing and the expression of gratitude for it has been made necessary at the time of slaughtering the animal. This is contrary to the case of things like grains and fruits - their very growth is for the sole purpose that human beings use them up to fulfill their needs. Therefore, the saying of 'Bismillah' only whenever used has been placed at the level of being desirable ('Mustahabb' ) - it has not been made necessary ('W ajib': a duty which, if not done, brings punishment).

There is yet another reason. There was a lingering custom from the days of Jahiliyyah that disbelievers used to pronounce the names of their idols while slaughtering animals. The Shari'ah of Islam transformed this un-Islamic custom into a wonderful act of worship by making it necessary to invoke the name of Allah instead. This was functionally the most appropriate strategy that some correct name instead of the false one be proposed, otherwise it would have been difficult to wean people away from ongoing customs and habits.

The slaughter of the people of the Book

The second sentence of the Verse is: وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَّكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ (and the food of the people of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them ... ). According to the consensus of Sahabah and Tabi` in (the Companions and their Successors), the word طعام 'Ta` am' (food) at this place means 'properly slaughtered animals' (Dhabihah). This is what has been reported from Sayyidna ` Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, Abu ad-Darda', Ibrahim, Qatadah, al-Suddi, Dhahhak and Mujahid, may Allah be pleased with them all (Ruh a1-Ma` ani and al-Jassas) - because, in foods of all other kinds, the people of the Book and the idolaters and all other disbelievers are just the same as bread, flour, lintels, beans, rice, fruits and similar other eatables need no slaughtering. For Muslims, eating that kind of food, of course, when procured by any lawful means, is permissible - and conversely, when they procure it from Muslims, it is lawful for them. Thus, the essence of the sentence is that the Dhabihah (properly slaughtered animal) of the People of the Book is lawful for Muslims and the Dhabilhah (properly slaughtered animal) of Muslims is lawful for the People of the Book.

At this point, there are some issues which should be considered. First of all, who are the People of the Book in the terminology of the Qur'an and Sunnah? What does 'Book' mean? And, is it also necessary that, in order to be regarded as the People of the Book, these people believe in and act according to their Book, correctly and faithfully? Here, it is obvious that the Book cannot be taken in its literal sense, that is, any written page. It can only mean a particular Book which has come from Allah. Therefore, there is a consensus of Muslim Ummah that 'Book' could only mean a particular Scripture about which there exists a certitude that, confirmed by the Holy Qur'an, it is the Book of Allah, for instance, the Torah, Evangel, Zabur (Psalms) and other scriptures of Sayyidna Musa and Ibrahim (علیہما السلام) . Therefore, peoples and nations which believe in some book and claim for it the status of a Divine Revelation - and which does not stand proved through the certain sources of the Qur'an and Sunnah - shall not be included under the term of the People of the Book, for example, the disbelievers of Makkah, the Magicians or the Zoroastrians, the idol-worshipping Hindus, the Buddhists, Aryans, Sikhs and many others.

This tells us that the Jews and Christians who are believers of the Torah and the Evangel are included within the Qur'anic terminology of The People of the Book. The Sabians, a third people, cannot be identified precisely. Those who think that they believed in the Psalms of David (Zabur) are inclined towards including them too among The People of the Book. Those who were convinced that they had nothing to do with the Psalms, take them to be star-worshippers. They group them together with the idolaters and Magians. However, the Jews and Christians are the ones who are called The People of the Book by universal agreement. Now, we can return to the gist of the Qur'anic injunction, that is, the Dhabihah (slaughter) of Jews and Christians is Halal for Muslims and the Dhabihah of Muslims is Halal for them.

As for the need to first determine the basis of calling and understanding the Jews and Christians as the People of the Book, one may ask: Is it bound with the condition that they should genuinely believe in the original Torah and Evangel and act in accordance with these? Or, even those who follow the altered Torah and Evangel and those who ascribe to Sayyidna ` Isa and Sayyidah Maryam, may Allah bless them both, partnership in the Divinity of God, shall be deemed as included among the People of the Book? The answer is that it is quite evident from the many clarifications of the Qur'an that for a people to be from 'The People of the Book', it is quite enough that they accept and believe in a Scripture and claim to follow it - irrespective of how much astray they may have gone while following it.

Those to whom the Holy Qur'an gave the title of The People of the Book were also those about whom it said at several places that these people distort their Scriptures: يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ (5:13). It also said that the Jews took Sayyidna 'Uzayr (علیہ السلام) as the son of God and the Christians did the same to Sayyidna Masih (علیہ السلام) وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ‌ ابْنُ اللَّـهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَ‌ى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّـهِ (9:30). When, despite what they were and what they did, the Holy Qur'an insisted on calling them The People of the Book, it becomes evident that - unless the Jews and Christians were to abandon Judaism and Christianity totally - they shall continue to be the people of the Book, no matter how involved in false beliefs of their religion and dark doings they may be.

Imam al-Jassas (رح) reports in Ahkam al-Qur'an that during the Khilafah of Sayyidna ` Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, one of his governors wrote to him for advice. He said that there were some people in his area who recited the Torah and observed the Sabbath like the Jews but they did not believe in Qiyamah (the Last Day). He wanted to know how he was supposed to deal with such people. Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ wrote back telling him that they will be taken as a sect of The People of the Book after all.

Atheist Jews and Christians are not the People of the Book:

These days a very large number of people in Europe (and else-where) who are listed in the Census records as Jews and Christians do not really believe in the existence of God and, for that matter, do not subscribe to any institutionalized religion. They do not accept the To-rah and Evangel as Scriptures, nor do they have faith in Sayyidna Musa and ` Isa (Moses and Jesus), may peace be upon them, as prophets or messengers of Allah. It is obvious that such people cannot be counted as included under the injunction governing the People of the Book simply because their names are listed as Jews and Christians in the Census records.

When Sayyidna Ali ؓ said that the slaughter of some Christians of Arabia is not Halal, he gave a reason. He said that those people believe in nothing but drinking. His words as reported by Ibn al-Jauzi are being cited below:

روی ابن الجوزی بسندہ عن علی ؓ قال لا تأکلوا من ذبایٔح نصاری بنی تغلب فانھم لم یتمسکوا من النصرانیۃ بشیٔ الاشربھم الخمر ورواہ الشافعی بسند صحیح عنہ (تفسیر مظھری ص 34 ، ج 3 مایٔدہ)

'Do not eat from the animals slaughtered by the Christians belonging to Bani' Taghlib for they have taken nothing from the Christian faith except the drinking of wine (narrated by Al-Shafi` i with sound authority - al-Tafsir al-Mazhari, p. 34, v. 3, al-Ma'idah)

Sayyidna Ali ؓ prohibited the slaughter of the Christians of Bani Taghlib because, according to his information, they were libertines, not Christians. However, the majority of Sahabah and Tabi'in found out that these people too were like common Christians and had never rejected their Faith. Therefore, they ruled that the slaughter of these people was also lawful. Al-Qurtubl says in his commentary:

The majority of the Muslim jurists are of the opinion that the Dhabiha of Christians is lawful, whether from Bani Taghlib or from some other tribe or group. Similarly, the Dhabiha of every Jew is also lawful. (Tafsir al-Qurtubi)

In short, Christians about whom there is confirmed and certain in-formation that they do not believe in the very existence of God or do not accept Sayyidna Musa and ` Isa (علیہ السلام) as prophets, will not be included under the injunction governing the People of the Book.

What does the 'food' of the People of the Book mean?

Literally, طعام 'Ta' am' means what is eaten which, in the Arabic lexicon, includes all kinds of eatables. But, the majority of the scholars of the Muslim Ummah hold that Ta` am' at this particular place refers to the meat of the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book because there is no distinction between the People of the Book and other disbelievers in eatables other than meat. Dry eatables like wheat, chick peas, rice and fruit are open commodities and are lawful when received from a disbeliever of any shade. Nobody differs about that. As for food which goes through human handling, the cautious practice is to avoid it since the purity (Taharah) of utensils and hands used by the disbelievers is not reliable. It is better not to use it without the urgency of need. But, this is a situation in which the probability of impurity is the same among idolaters and the People of the Book.

To sum up, it can be said that the only possible legal difference in the 'food' of the People of the Book and other disbelievers is in the meat they slaughter. Therefore, in the present verse, it is a consensus of the Ummah that the 'food of the People of the Book' means their properly slaughtered animal. In his famous Tafsir, al-Qurtubl writes:

والطعام اسم لما یؤکل والذبایٔح منہ و ھو ھھنا خاص بالذبایٔح عند کثیر من اھل العلم بالتأویل واما ماحرم من طعامھم فلیس بداخل فی عموم الخطاب۔ (قرطبی 77، ج 6)

The word, 'Ta'am' is used for whatever is eaten, included within which are slaughtered animals as well - and here it has been used for slaughtered animals particularly. According to the view of the majority of exegetes of the Qur'an, whatever is unlawful from the 'food' of the People of the Book is not included in this generality of address (Qurtubi p. 77, v. 6).

Later, al-Qurtubi gives a detailed comment as follows:

لا خلاف بین العلماء ان مالا یحتاج الی ذبح کالطعام الذی لا محاولۃ فیۃ کالفاکھۃ والبر، جایٔزا کلہ اذ لا یضر فیہ تملک احد والطعام الذی فقع فیہ المحاولۃ علی ضربین احدھما مافی محاولۃ لھا بالدین کخبزۃ الدقیق وعصرہ الزیت۔ فھذا ان تجنب من الذمی فعلی وجہ التقذر۔ والضرب الثانی التذکیۃ التی ذکرنا انھا ھی اللتی تحتاج الی الدین والنیۃ۔ فلما کان القیاس ان لا تجوز ذبایٔحھم کما نقول انّھم لاصلاۃ لھم ولا عبادہ مقبولۃ رخص اللہ تعالیٰ فی ذبایٔحھم علی ھذہ الأمۃ اخرجھا النص عن القیاس علی ماذکرنا من قول ابن عباس۔ (قرطبی سورة مایٔدہ ص 77 ۔ ج 6 )

There is no difference of view among scholars that it is lawful to eat what requires no slaughter such as fruit and wheat for its being owned (by a non-Muslim) does not bring any damage to the eatable. However, 'food' which requires effort has two kinds: First of these is the one in which one makes or produces something which has nothing to do with religion, such as, making bread from dough or pressing oil from olives - in this case, if a Muslim were to abstain from the outcome of the effort of a disbelieving citizen of an Islamic state (Dhimmi (, that would be an abstention simply based on temperamental distaste. The second kind needs the purifying process of slaughtering an animal properly which, in turn, requires Faith and Intention. In that case, the normal assumption would have required that the act of slaughter performed by a disbeliever should have not been acceptable very much like his acts of worship and prayer. But, Allah Almighty made their slaughtered animals specially lawful for the Muslim Community. This situation has been excepted by the express provision of the Holy Qur'an from the general rule, as mentioned by Ibn ` Abbas رضی اللہ تعالیٰ عنہما (Qurtubi - Surah al-Ma'idah, p. 77, v. 6)

The gist is that the 'food' of the People of the Book as it appears in this verse, means - with the agreement of scholars of Tafsir - food the lawfulness of which depends upon religion and belief: that is, the Dhabihah (the slaughter). Therefore, special treatment was meted out to the People of the Book in the case of this form of 'food' - because they too claim to believe in Books and Prophets sent by Allah, though their textual alterations invalidated their claim with the result that they got involved in disbelief and in ascribing partners to Allah. This was contrary to the position of disbelieving idolators who did not even claim to believe in any Scripture or Prophet or Messenger and the books or persons they believe in are neither books sent by Allah nor prophets or messengers as proved by any Word of Allah.

The Wisdom behind the Lawfulness of the slaughter of the People of the Book

The third question about the present verse is why the slaughter of the Jews and the Christians, as well as marrying their women, is made lawful for the Muslims, while all other non-Muslims have no such privilege. According to most of the Sahabah, Tabi` in and other exegetes of the Holy Qur'an, the answer to this question is very simple. Although the Jews and Christians had distorted their original religion by making many alterations therein, yet their faith regarding these two aspects matched with the Islamic injunctions. That is, they consider it necessary to invoke the name of Allah on their slaughter as an article of faith and take an animal to be impure and unlawful as carrion without that due process.

Similar is the case in marriage - the list of the women of prohibited degree (marriage with whom is not lawful) is the same in their religion as in Islam. Also, the way it is necessary in Islam that marriage be pronounced openly, and in the presence of two witnesses, so it is with them - even in their present religion, the same injunctions continue.

The great commentator, Ibn Kathir has reported this very position taken by most hahabah and Tabi'in. His words are as follows:

(وطعام اھل الکتاب) قال ابن عباس ؓ وابو امامۃ ومجاھد و سعید بن جبیروعکرمہ وعطاء والحسن ومکحول وابراھیم النخفی وألسدی ومقاتل بن حیان یعنی ذبایٔحھم حلال للمسلمین لانھم یعتقدون تحریم الذبح لغیر اللہ ولا یذکرون علی ذبایٔحھم الا اسم اللہ وان اعتقدوا فیہ تعالیٰ ماھو منزہ عنہ تعالیٰ و تقدیس۔ (ابن کثیر مایٔدہ ص 19 ج 3)

Ibn ` Abbas, Abu Ummah, Mujahid, Said ibn Jubayr, ` Ikrimah, Hasan, Makhhul, Ibrahim al-Nakh'ii, Suddi and Mugatil ibn Haan have explained the food of the People of the Book' as their 'Dhaba'ih' (properly slaughtered animals). These are lawful for Muslims because they consider slaughtering animals for anyone other than Allah as unlawful and do not in-voke any name other than that of Allah on animals they slaughter - even if they believe in things about Almighty Allah from which the great Creator is free and far above (Ibn Kathir, Surah al-Ma'idah, p. 19, v. 3).

This statement of Ibn Kathir tells us two things: One, that all Companions and their Successors mentioned above take the 'food of the People of the Book' to mean their properly slaughtered animals (Dhaba'ih) and that there is a consensus of the Ummah that they are lawful. And the second point made clear here is that the reason why the Dhaba'ih of the People of the Book are lawful in the view of these revered authorities is that the issue of Dhabihah with the Jews and Christians still stays valid in accordance with the Shari` ah of Islam despite the many alterations in their religion - as they too take an animal slaughtered in the name of someone other than Allah as unlawful and that they deem it necessary to invoke the name of Allah upon the animal being slaughtered. However, it is a different matter that they fell into the polytheistic belief in Trinity whereby they started equating Allah and Mash son of Maryam as one and the same. The Holy Qur'an alludes to this in the following words:

لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ‌ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّـهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْ‌يَمَ

Certainly, gone infidel are those who say, "God is the Masih son of Maryam (Jesus son of Mary).

The outcome is that all verses of the Qur'an concerning Dhabihah - which appear in Surah al-Baqarah and Surah al-An` am, and in which the animal slaughtered in a name other than that of Allah, as well as the animal upon which the name of Allah was not invoked - declare both being equally unlawful. All these verses have permanent legal effect and must be acted upon for all times to come. The verse of Surah al-Ma'idah which declares the food of the People of the Book as lawful is also no different from the injunctions appearing in these verses because the very reason of making the food of the People of the Book lawful is no other than that their present religion also maintains that an animal slaughtered by invoking the name of someone other than Allah upon it, and the animal upon which the name of Allah was not invoked, are both unlawful. Even today, the current copies of the Torah and the Evangel do have injunctions of slaughter and marriage almost similar to those of the Qur'an and Islam, details of which will appear a little later.

However, the possibility is there that some ignorant people act in a manner which goes against this injunction of their own religion - very similar to many ignorance-based customs which have found currency among uninformed sections of Muslim masses as well: but, these can-not be called the religion of Islam. Noticing this behaviour of the ignorant masses among the Christians of that time, the revered Tabi` in (the successors to the Companions) took the position that Allah, when He made the food of the People of the Book lawful, already knew what they did with their slaughtering of animals. Some would invoke the name of Masih or ` Uzayr upon it while others would invoke no name at all. So, we see that the verse of Surah al-Ma'idah, which declares the 'food' of the People of the Book as lawful, acts as a particularizer or a sort of abrogator of the verses of the Surahs al-Baqarah and al-An'-am on the subject of the slaughter of animals, verses in which the slaughtering of animals in a name other than that of Allah or slaughtering them without invoking the name of Allah has been declared unlawful.

According to the view of great ` Ulama', the respected Tabi` in, who declared that an un-named slaughter of an animal, or of one upon whom a name other than that of Allah was invoked were lawful, also knew that the original religion of the People of the Book was not different from what Islam enjoined and it was only the ignorant section of their masses which made such errors. Despite this, these revered elders did not exclude the ignorant masses of the People of the Book from the general rule governing the People of the Book. They upheld, in matters relating to the slaughter of animals and to marriage, the same injunction which governed their forefathers and the followers of the original religion, that is, the slaughter of animals by them and the marriage with their women was permissible.

In Al-Ahkam al-Qur'an, Ibn al-Arabi says that he asked his teacher, Abu al-Fath al-Maqdisi about the Christians of his time who slaughtered an animal invoking a name other than that of Allah upon it - for example, they invoked the name of Masih or 'Uzayr at the time of slaughter - how could their Dhabihah become lawful, he wondered.

The reply given by Al-Maqdisi was:

ھم من ابایٔھم وقد جعلھم اللہ تعالیٰ تبعالمن کان قبلھم مع علمہ بحالھم (احکام ابن العربی ص 229، جلد اول)

The injunction that governs them is like that of their forefathers. This condition (of the People of the Book) was already within the knowledge of Almighty Allah, but, He has made them subordinate to their forefathers. (Ahkam, Ibn al-` Arabi, p.229, v. 1)

In recapitulation, it can be said that in the sight of the learned elders of the Muslim Community who have permitted the consumption of animals slaughtered by the People of the Book - those upon which the name of Allah was not invoked, rather, invoked thereupon was a name other than that of Allah - it was clear that these things are an integral part of the real faith of the People of the Book and are equally unlawful there. But, these learned elders allowed the erring masses also to be governed by the injunction which applies to the original People of the Book. It was for this reason that they allowed the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book to be taken as lawful. On the other side, the majority of the Sahabah, Tabi` in and Mujtahid Imams noticed that the animals slaughtered by the misled masses among the People of the Book, whether in a name other than that of Allah or without the name of Allah, were after all against the Islamic injunction but, in addition to that, the practice was against the current faith of the Christians themselves. Therefore, what they do should not affect the standing injunctions. So, they gave the verdict that the animals slaughtered by such people are not included under 'the food of the People of the Book' and, as such, there is no reason to support its lawfulness. Also, the act of going by the saying that their own wrong doing had caused particularization or abrogation in the verses of the Qur'an is not correct in any manner whatsoever.

Therefore, all leading authorities in Tafsir - Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Abu Hayyan and others - are unanimous in holding that there was no abrogation (Naskh) in the verses of Surah al-Baqarah and Surah al. An'-am. This is also the favoured position of the majority of Sahabah and Ta