Abul Ala Maududi
This day all good things have been made lawful to you. The food of the People of the Book is permitted to you, and your food is permitted to them. And permitted to you are chaste women, be they either from among the believers or from among those who have received the Book before you, provided you become their protectors in wedlock after paying them their bridal-due, rather than go around committing fornication and taking them as secret-companions. The work of he who refuses to follow the way of faith will go waste, and he will be among the utter losers in the Hereafter.
I have colour coded different parts of the translation of this Ayah to highlight that five different yet similar messages are conveyed in the same ayah.
The Ayah starts (blue) with declaring the default principle in Islam for all muaamlaat (i.e. mundane problems of life, as against (ibaadaat) that all good things are lawful; prove it to be bad to make it unlawful
[1]
The second part (red) declares all the “food” of the people of the Book is lawful to you. By consensus this term refers to animal food i.e. zabeeha of the ahle kitab ; other foods like cereals and vegetables can be shared even with non-Muslims. So Allah Ta’aala has clearly declared to the Muslim community in Medina in early seventh century that they can socialize and eat and drink with their fellow citizens, Jews and Christians of the city state of Medina and share their zabeeha. Fourteen hundred years later, in the globalized pleural world of twenty-first century we Muslims are loudly debating on this issue.
Why? Is there a room for different interpretations of this portion (red) of the ayah? To answer this question, let us refer to Usul al-Tafsir, or the Principles of Qur’aanic Exegesis. The steps and the sequence that the exegete (mufassir) follows in his task of explaining the Qur’an are as follows:
1) Explanation of the Qur’an with the Qur’an itself.
2) Explanation of the Qur’an with the Sunnah.
3) Explanation of the Qur’an with the statements of the Companions RA.
4) Explanation of the Qur’an with the statements of the Tabi’?n.
5) Explanation of the Qur’an with the language.
6) Explanation of the Qur’an based on opinion and deliberation (al-Ra’i wal-Ijtihad).
Therefore it is often recommended to “Begin the tafsîr of the Qur’ân with the Qur’ân” or “The best tafsîr is the explanation of the Qur’ân by the Qur’ân” or “One part of the Qur’an explains the other.” The mufessareen are more of less unanimous that, to start with no interpretation of any ayah is acceptable which runs contrary to the clear and obvious meaning of the text of the Quran. To elaborate this point beyond any doubt, I have quoted hereunder additional six translations of this ayah to show that there is no difference of opinion amongst the scholars about the obvious meaning of this part of the ayah:
Sahih International
“…….and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them…….”
Muhsin Khan
“Made lawful to you this day are At-Tayyibat [all kinds of Halal (lawful) foods, which Allah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits, etc.). ….The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them…..”
Pickthall
“……The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them…….”
Yusuf Ali
“….The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them……”
Shakir
“……and the food of those who have been given the Book is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them……”
Dr. Ghali
“……and the food of the ones to whom the Book was brought is lawful to you, and your food is made lawful to them…..”.
The next step, according to the rules mentioned above, is to browse the Qur’aan for any other instructions on the issue of zabeeha. Allah Ta’aala has described in HIS Book a list of proscribed animals
[2]. Hence pork, for example cannot be accepted even from people of the Book. We also read about the need for reciting Allah’s name and the need for slaughter else where in the Quran.
[3]These ayahs, however do not and cannot limit the clear cut permission given in the Ayah under discussion.
Commenting on this Ayah, Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi,
[4] in his Book “The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam” states:
“Since Allah did not prohibit it, the food of the Jews and the Christians is permitted to you on the basis of the original permissibility of things, and likewise you can share your food with them. Accordingly, you can eat the flesh of the animals they have slaughtered or hunted, and they can eat what you have slaughtered or hunted ……..The application of the phrase, ‘the food of those who were given the Scripture,’ is general and includes their meats, produce, and other foods. All of these are halal for us excepting what is haram in itself, e.g., the flesh of a dead animal, pork, and flowing blood, as these are haram regardless of whether they are obtained from a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim……… Some others hold the opinion that the food of the People of the Book has been permitted to us by Allah, Who is aware of what they say when slaughtering an animal……we know that imported meats, such as chicken and canned beef, originating with the People of the Book are halal for us, even though the animal may have been killed by means of electric shock or the like. As long as they consider it lawful in their religion, it is halal for us.”
On the other hand, many of the traditional scholars
[5] are of the opinion that the other ayahs referred to earlier
1 & 2 restrict the clear and obvious permission of Allah Ta’aala in this ayah and therefore have concluded:-
“In the light of both verses, it is deduced and understood that the Zabiha of the Ahl al-Kitab is only permissible when the name of Allah was taken at the time of slaughtering the animal and the slaughtering itself done in the proper manner. As mentioned earlier, this condition of reciting the name of Allah is independently necessary”. The Hanafi and Hanbali schools seem to endorse this opinion. On the other hand, it is usually related from Imam Shafa’e (RA) that the animal will be halal even if the name of Allah is not pronounced intentionally, and to recite the name of Allah is merely a Sunnah. Certain scholars, on the basis of a hadith on the authority of Ayesha
[6] have recommended that the name of Allah may be pronounced before eating the meat, in lieu.
One reason why this issue is so emotionally charged is that the significance of slaughter has been blown up out of all proportion. Considering certain ahadith, the issue of slaughtering animals is not regarded as normal and mundane issue, but elevated to an act of worship: “the slaughtering of animals holds a significant position in Shariah. The Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) counted the slaughtering of animals with praying Salat and facing the Qiblah. He considered it from those specific features of Islam, which distinguishes a Muslim from a non-Muslim and regarded it as one of the hallmarks of a true believer with which his life and wealth is protected”
[7]
As a result detailed and elaborate rules and conditions for “Proper and Valid Slaughter — dhabiha” have been laid down:
- The slaughterer must be a Muslim or a person from Ahlul-Kitaab (Jew or a Christian)
- The slaughter must be done with a tool with a sharp edge and the animal must be killed by the sharpness and not by using force and most of the four veins (including the Jugular vein, according to some) must be cut to ensure that the blood and other impure elements (!) come out from their body as much as possible
- The slaughter be done in a way that was least painful and most merciful to the animal.
- The entire Umma is agreed upon the place of the cut which is the throat and base of the neck.
- The name of Allah must be taken at the time of slaughtering.
- All these conditions are necessary individually and separately.
- Failure to fulfill them will render the animal unlawful.
Pertinently, here is what a Hanbali Scholar
[8] of Salafi school has to say:
“It is not essential to ask about that which was slaughtered by a Muslim or a kitaabi, and how it
was slaughtered, and whether the name of Allah was mentioned over it or not. Rather that should not be done, because that is being obstinate in religious matters. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ate meat slaughtered by the Jews and did not ask questions. In Saheeh al-Bukhaari and elsewhere it is narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that some people said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): Some people bring meat to us, and we do not know whether they mentioned the name of Allaah over it or not. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Mention the name of Allaah over it and eat.”
Before I move on to the other parts of this ayah, let me quote two more opinions as this is a matter that affects all of us all the time:
“If a Muslim or a kitaabi (Jew or Christian) slaughters an animal for meat, and it is not known whether he mentioned the name of Allaah over it or not, it is permissible to eat from it, and the one who eats it should say the name of Allaah because of the report that was narrated by al-Bukhaari (2057) from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her)……”.
[9]
“With regard to other types of meat, if the companies or individuals who produce meat are people of the Book, Jews or Christians, and it is not known from them that they kill the animal by electric shock, strangling or striking it on the head, as is well known in the West, then this meat is halaal…..”.
[10]
Moving to the next part of the Ayah (brown), Allah Ta’aala has categorically granted permission in plain terms to marry chaste women from Muslim and Kitabis. Again here the scholars have found reasons to qualify the clear permission of God, the Almighty. Imam Abu Hanifa regards it as permissible but makrooh. Ibn Abbas, forbids it for residents of all non-Muslim countries. The Hanafis regard this practice as undesirable though lawful. Thankfully, Hasan Basri does not stipulate any such restrictions, stating that it is a general permission. It is often emphasized as a condition to marry a Kitabi woman that she should be a chaste woman; it sounds strange as this condition of chastity is applicable for a Muslim woman as well. Lastly Imam Shafai regards “chaste” women to mean free women as against slave girls
[11]! I know it is very impertinent of me if not madness to challenge the opinion of our great Imams and eminent Muslim scholars even though I have got Hasan Basri to support me. However, under the influence of the teachings of these titans of our Deen, I dare say, that any human being be it a renowned Imam, an esteemed Saint or a distinguished scholar is not qualified to modify, limit or restrict the clear and obvious commandments of our Creator, the Lord of the Worlds, The Beneficent, the Merciful, the Master of the Day of Judgment. This is the central core of our Eemaan and Eitiqaad (Faith and Belief) and a debate on this issue may hover dangerously close to the frontiers of Kufr (Rejection). May God All Mighty forgive me for my audacity, if I am wrong.
We are then reminded, further down the ayah (purple) that the basic tenants of the idea of marriage in Islam are to be followed with the Kitabis also: take them in wedlock, not fornication nor as secret paramours.
Lastly we are reminded (as is the pattern through out in the Holy Book) of our Faith and Belief in the Hereafter as the only sanction behind Allah’s commandments in this world; there is no human agency to arrest, indict and prosecute you for disobeying HIS commandments: The work of he who refuses to follow the way of faith will go waste, and he will be among the utter losers in the Hereafter.
A short last note, as the closing remark so to say: I am a great admirer of Maulana Maudoodi. I regard his Tafheem as a remarkable and outstanding contribution to the science of Tafseer. With his mastery over Urdu language, he has meticulously explained our Holy Book to us in simple and self-explicatory and yet beautiful style. However I cannot help protesting on his last comment on this ayah. I think (and I hope I am not being rude to the great scholar) it betrays an ignorance of the dynamics of interfaith marriages, at least in our times and displays a definite hint of ta’assub and asbiyat — prejudice and bias — against the Ehle Kitaab, who are our compatriots as in Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan etc. and especially if we have migrated to their country as in US, Canada and Europe. Maulana has commented thus:
“The warning that immediately follows the permission given to marry women from among the People of the Book is very significant. The Muslim who makes use of this permission has been warned to guard his faith and morality very cautiously against the influence of his unbelieving wife. There is a genuine danger that his deep love might tender him a prey to wrong creeds and acts of his unbelieving wife and he might lose both his Faith and morality, or he might adopt a wrong moral and social attitude which might be against the spirit of his faith”.
Compare this with Dr. Mohammed Asad’s comment in the same context:
“The above passage rounds off, as it were, the opening sentences of this surah, ‘O you who have attained to faith, be true to your covenants’ – of which belief in God and the acceptance of His commandments are the foremost. It is immediately followed (in the next ayah 6) by a reference to prayer: for it is in prayer that man’s dependence on God finds its most conscious and deliberate expression.”
…..and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding–“fahm”–of our Deen, Aameen.