121. See for this (Surah al-Baqarah 2: 173),
(Surah al-Md'idah 5: 3) and
(Surah al-Nahl 16: 115.) The slight difference between this verse and
(Surah al-Baqarah 2:173 )is that whereas the latter mentions 'blood' as prohibited, the present
verse qualifies it with 'outpoured', i.e. the blood which has flowed as a result
of either injuring or slaughtering an animal. This, in fact, constitutes an
elucidation of the former injunction rather than the revelation of a different
one. Likewise,( Surah al-Ma'idah 5: 3 )mentions the prohibition of certain other
categories - animals strangled or killed by blows, those which have died from
either falling or goring, and those devoured by a beast of prey, in addition
to the four classes mentioned here. This is not an independent, divergent injunction;
it is rather an explanation signifying that the animals thus killed fall into
the category of 'carrion'.
There is a group of Muslim jurists who believe that prohibition is confined
to these four classes of animal food, and that the eating of everything else
is lawful. This was also the view of 'Abd Allah b. 'Abbas and 'A'ishah. Several
traditions, however, indicate that the Prophet (peace be on him) either told
people not to eat certain things or expressed his disapproval at their eating
them, for example, domesticated donkeys, beasts with canine teeth and birds
with claws. It is for this reason that the majority of jurists do not consider
prohibition confined to these four classes but extend it to several others.
These jurists disagree, however, on which of those things are unlawful and which
are lawful. Abu Hanifah, Malik and Shafi'i, for example, consider domesticated
donkeys to be unlawful. Others argue that the Prophet (peace be on him) forbade
them on a special occasion and because of a special reason. To cite another
example, the Hanafi jurists hold wild beasts, birds of prey and animals which
feed on carrion to be absolutely unlawful, whereas Milik and Awza'i hold birds
of prey to be lawful. Layth considers the cat to be lawful. In the same way,
Shafi'i considers prohibition to be confined only to those beasts which actually
attack man, such as lion, wolf, tiger and so on. In the opinion of another jurist,
'Ikrimah, both crow and badger are lawful. Likewise, whereas the Hanafi jurists
declare all crawling creatures to be prohibited, Ibn Abi Layla, Malik and Awza'i
hold the snake to be lawful.
Upon reflection of these divergent opinions and the arguments adduced in support
of them, it becomes clear that categorical prohibition embraces only those four
classes mentioned in the Qur'an. As for other types of animal food, regarding
which the jurists have expressed a negative view, they seem to carry varying
degrees of religious disapprobation. The things whose disapprobation is established
by statements of the Prophet (peace be on him) transmitted to us through sound
traditions, are relatively close to 'prohibition'. As for things regarding which
them is disagreement among jurists, their religious disapprobation becomes doubtful.
Temperamental dislike, however, is quite a different matter. The Law Of God
does not force anyone to eat everything which is not prohibited. At the same
time, the Law does not entitle anybody to exalt his personal likes and dislikes
into a criterion of what is lawful and unlawful. No one is justified in reproaching
others for consuming lawful things which offend his tastes.