النص المفهرس

65
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
الخطاب . (قرطبى ٧٧، ج ٦)
The word, "Ta'am' is used for whatever is eaten, included with-
in 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 in-
cluded in this generality of address (Qurtubi p. 77, v. 6).
Later, al-Qurtubi gives a detailed comment as follows:
لا خلاف بين العلماء ان ما لا يحتاج الى ذبح كالطعام الذى لامحاولة فيه
كالفاكهة والبر. جائزا كله اذ لايضر فيه تملك احد والطعام الذى تقع فيه
المحاولة على ضربين أحدهما مافيه محاولة صنعة لا تعلق لها بالدين
كخبزة الدقيق وعصره الزيت ونحوه . فهذا ان تجنب من الذمى فعلى وجه
التقذر . والضرب الثانى التذكية الّتى ذكرنا انها هى اللتى تحتاج الى
الدين والنية. فلما كان القياس ان لاتجوز ذبائحهم كما نقول انّهم لاصلاة
لهم ولا عبادة مقبولة له رخص الله تعالى فى ذبائحهم على هذه الأمة
وأخرجها النص عن القياس على ماذكرنا من قول ابن عباس . (قرطبى سورة
مائدة ص ٧٧، ج ٦)
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 produc-
es 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 ef-
fort of a disbelieving citizen of an Islamic state (Dhimmi), that
would be an abstention simply based on temperamental dis-
taste. The second kind needs the purifying process of slaugh-
tering 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 slaugh-
tered animals specially lawful for the Muslim Community.
This situation has been excepted by the express provision of

66
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
the Holy Qur'an from the general rule, as mentioned by Ibn
'Abbas رضى الله عنه .(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 Dha-
bihah (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 Şahabah, Tabi'in and other exe-
getes 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 con-
sider 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 carri-
on 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 Şahabah and Tabi'in. His words are as follows:
(وطعام أهل الكتاب) قال ابن عباس وابو امامة ومجاهد وسعيد بن جبير

67
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
وعكرمه وعطاء والحسن ومكحول وابرهيم النخعى والسدى ومقاتل بن
حيان يعنى ذبائحهم حلال للمسلمين لانهم يعتقدون تحريم الذبح لغير الله
ولا يذكرون على ذبائحهم الا اسم الله وان اعتقدوافیه تعالی ماهو منزه
عنه تعالى وتقدس . (ابن كثير مائدة ص ١٩، ج ٣)
Ibn 'Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Said ibn Jubayr, 'Ikrimah,
'Ata', Hasan, Makhhul, Ibrahim al-Nakh'il, Suddi and Muqatil
ibn Hayyan 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 ani-
mals 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 de-
spite the many alterations in their religion - as they too take an ani-
mal 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 equat-
ing Allah and Masih son of Maryam as one and the same. The Holy
Qur'an alludes to this in the following words:
لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِيْنَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْسِبْحُ 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

68
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
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 Evangile 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 ig-
norant 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 slaugh-
tering 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 dif-
ferent 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

69
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
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 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 slaugh-
tered 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:
هم من ابائهم وقد جعلهم الله تعالى تبعالمن كان قبلهم مع علمه بحالهم
(أحكام ابن العربى ص ٢٢٩، جلد اول)
The injunction that governs them is like that of their forefa-
thers. 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 eld-
ers 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 unlaw-
ful 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 slaugh-
tered 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 ad-
dition to that, the practice was against the current faith of the Chris-
tians themselves. Therefore, what they do should not affect the stand-
ing injunctions. So, they gave the verdict that the animals slaughtered
by such people are not included under 'the food of the People of the

70
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5: 5
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 cor-
rect 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 Tabi'in as cited earlier with reference to Ibn Kathir and as men-
tioned in Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit in the following words:
وذهب الى ان الكتابى اذا لم يذكر الله على الذبيحة وذكر غير الله لم
توكل وبه قال أبو الدرداء وعبادة بن الصامت وجماعة من الصحابة وبه
قال ابو حنيفة وابو يوسف ومحمد وزفر و مالك وكره النخعى والثوری اکل
ماذبح واهل به لغير الله (البحر المحيط ص ٤٣١، ج ٤)
And they believe: If a Kitabi (of the People of the Book) were to
omit the name of Allah while slaughtering an animal, or were
to invoke upon it a name other than that of Allah, it is not
permissible to eat it. And this is the saying of Abu ad-Darda',
‘Ubadah ibn Şamit and a group of the Șahabah. And this is
also the belief of Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Zafar
and Malik. However, An-Nakh'il and Ath-Thawri rule the eat-
ing of it as Makruh (reprehensible). (Al-Bahr al-Muhit, p. 431,v.5)
The drive of comments made this far is to establish that the
Şahabah, the Tabi'in and the pious elders of the Ummah had no differ-
ence of opinion among them about the understanding that during the
period of the revelation of the Qur'an the original faith of the People of
the Book also ruled that an animal, upon which a name other than
that of Allah was invoked, or was omitted deliberately, was unlawful.
The same was the case with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of mar-
riage - the original code of the People of the Book right upto the
present times is in accord with the Shari'ah of Islam in most elements.
Whatever was found to be contrary with the People of the Book was
simply a matter of errors made by their uninformed masses. This is
not their faith.
Existing copies of the Torah and Evangile available world-wide in

71
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
many languages also confirm this view. Please refer to the Old Testa-
ment which is equally acceptable to contemporary Jews and Chris-
tians. Given below are injunctions about slaughtered animals:
1. "And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that
which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but ye
shall in no wise eat of it." (Leviticus 7:24)
2. "Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates,
whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the
LORD thy God which He hath given thee: the unlcean and the
clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart."
(Deuteronomy 12:15)
3. "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication." (Acts 15:29)
4. "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacri-
fice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have
fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and
the cup of devils." (I Corinthians 10:20, 21)
5. "We have written and concluded that they observe no such thing,
save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols,
and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication." (Acts
21:25)
These statements of the Torah and Evangile are from what is wide-
ly circulated by contemporary Bible Societies in which, despite hun-
dreds of alterations and revisions, these things have lingered on and
are almost similar to the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an. For instance,
Verse 3 of Surah al-Ma'idah says:
حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْبْتَهُ وَالدَّمُ وَحُ الْخِنْزِئْرِ وَمَّا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْخَنِقَةُ
وَالْمُؤْقُوَّذَةُ وَالْتَرَّدِّيَّةُ وَالتَّطِيْحَةُ وَمَآ أَكَلُ السَّبُعُ إِلَّ مَاذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَّى
التَّصُبِ (المائدة ٣)
Prohibited for you are: the carrion, the blood, the flesh of
swine, and what has been invoked upon with (a name) other
than that of Allah, and the animals dead by strangulation,
dead by blow, dead by a fall, dead by goring, and that which a
beast has eaten - unless you have properly slaughtered it -
and that which has been slaughtered before the idols ...

72
Surah Ai-Ma tuan : 5 : 5
This verse has declared that the carrion, the blood, the flesh of
swine, and what has been invoked upon with (a name) other than that
of Allah, and animals dead by strangulation, dead by blow, dead by a
fall, dead by goring, and that which has been torn by a beast are all
unlawful. In the statements of the Torah and Evangile cited above, all
these have also been ruled as unlawful, except the 'flesh of the swine.'
Though, the details of the animals dead by blow or dead by a fall or
dead by goring have not been specifically mentioned there, but they (
almost all) are included under the injunction for those naturally dead
(carrion) or dead by strangulation.
Similarly, the Holy Qur'an has stressed upon the invoking of the
name of Allah when slaughtering an animal: ◌ِفَكُلُوا مِمَا ذُكِرَ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْه (Eat out
of what the name of Allah has been recited upon - 5:4) and it has
prohibited an animal upon which the name of Allah has not been
recited : ◌ِوَلاَ تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْه (Do not eat out of what the name of
Allah has not been recited upon - 6:121). The quotation No. 2 from the
Bible places a similar stress on slaughtering an animal by invoking
the name of Allah.
So it is with most matters relating to marriage as well where the
faith of the People of the Book corresponds to the Shari'ah of Islam.
Please see Leviticus (6-19) which gives a long list of prohibitions most
of them being what the Holy Qur'an has declared to be unlawful. So
much so that it clearly states the unlawfulness of combining two sis-
ters جمع بين الاختين in the bond of marriage at the same time and the un-
lawfulness of intercourse during menstruation as well. In addition to
that, the Bible also says that marriage with idolators and disbelievers
is not permissible. The words of the present Torah are:
"Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou
shalt not give upto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto
thy son." (Deuteronomy 7:3)
The Rationale of the Lawfulness of Animals Slaughtered by
Jews and Christians: A Gist
The only reason why the animals slaughtered by the People of the
Book and marriage with their women has been made lawful and the
animals slaughtered by other disbelievers and marriage with their
women has been made unlawful by the Qur'an is that in both these

73
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
cases the true and original faith of the People of the Book is in accord
with the Law of Islam even today. Anything contrary to that found
among their masses is no more than an ignorant practice - it has
nothing to do with their original religion. Therefore, the majority of
the Şahabah, the Tabi'in and the Mujtahid Imams maintain that there
is no contradiction, or abrogation, or particularization in all the verses
of Surah al-Baqarah and Surah al-An'am. No doubt, some scholars of
Tabi'in have taken this ignorant practice to be under the rules govern-
ing the People of the Book (holding that their slaughter, even against
the injunctions of their original religion, is permissible), and have tak-
en the view that verses of Surah Al-An'am and Surah Al-Baqarah are
abrogated or qualified by the present verse. But this view of theirs is
based on the saying of the Christians: ◌َإِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ المُسَيُحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَم (Allah is Jesus
son of Mary - 5:72). It means that even if they were to say the name of
Allah, they would invariably be alluding to Jesus the son of Mary.
Therefore, when they slaughter an animal, the saying of the name of
Allah and saying the name of Jesus upon it becomes equal. This was
the ground on which the revered group of Tabi'in had permitted the
use of animals slaughtered by the People of the Book. Ibn al-'Arabi
has elaborated this aspect of the subject in his Ahkam al-Qur'an (Ibn al-
‘Arabi, Aļkam, p. 229, v. 1).
The Most Sound and Preferred View
But the stand taken on this question did not find acceptance with
the learned majority of the Muslim Ummah as mentioned earlier with
citation from Ibn Kathir and Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit while Tafsir
Mazhari, after reporting various positions on the subject, concludes as
follows:
والصحيح المختار عندنا هوالقول الاول. يعنى ذبائح اهل الكتاب تاركا
للتسميه عامداً اوعلى غير اسم الله تعالى لا يوكل ان علم ذالك يقينًا او
كان غالب حالهم ذلك وهو محمل النهى عن اكل ذبائح نصارى العرب
ومحمل قول على رضى الله عنه لاتاكلوا من ذبائح نصارى بنى تغلب
فانهم لم يتمسكوا من النصرانية بشئ الابشريهم الخمر. فلعل عليا علم
من حالهم انهم لا يسمون الله عند الذبح اويذبحون على غير اسم الله ،
هكذا حكم نصارى العجم ان كان عادتهم الذبح على غير اسم الله تعالى
غالبًا لا يوكل ذبيحتهم ولاشك ان النصارى فى هذا الزمان لا يذبحون بل

74
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
بالوقذ غالبًا فلا يحل طعامهم. (تفسير مظهرى ص ٣٩ ج ٣)
And the most sound and preferred view with us is the very
first one, that is, the animals slaughtered by the People of the
Book on which the recitation of the name of Allah has been
left out intentionally, or they have been slaughtered in a
name other than that of Allah, are not lawful - if it becomes
certain that the name of Allah was not recited upon them, or a
name other than that of Allah was taken, or this becomes the
common habit of the People of the Book. And elders who have
prohibited the eating of animals slaughtered by the Chris-
tians of Arabia had this very objective behind their saying.
Similarly, when Sayyidna 'Ali said that eating from the ani-
mals slaughtered by the Christians of Bani Taghlib was not
permissible because they took nothing from the religion of
Christianity but the drinking of wine, the justification of his
saying so lies in the likelihood of his having the proof that
people from the tribe of Bani Taghlib do not invoke the name
of Allah upon animals they slaughter, or else, they invoke a
name other than that of Allah. The same injunction holds
good for Christians belonging to areas outside the Arabian
Peninsula, that is, if it becomes a matter of habit with them
that they would slaughter an animal in a name other than
that of Allah, then, it is not permissible to eat from what they
slaughter. As for the contemporary Christians, they just do
not 'slaughter' to begin with - instead, they generally kill the
animal by stunning or shocking it. Therefore, their Dhabihah
is not lawful. (Tafsir Mazhari, p.37, v. 3)
Mufti 'Abduh of Egypt and His Error of Judgement
Details of this debated issue have been reported here at some
length because, at this point, the well-known 'Alim of Egypt, Mufti
'Abduh has made a grave error of judgement about which there is no
doubt that it is wrong and squarely against the Qur'an and Sunnah
and the consensus of the Muslim Ummah. In his Tafsir Al-Manar, the
learned author has made a twofold mistake at this juncture.
First, he has inflated the sense of the People of the Book to the lim-
it that it has come to include the disbelievers, the Magians, the Hin-
dus, the Sikhs and others, within it, making it so general that the very
differentiation between disbelievers, the People of the Book and those

75
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
other than the People of the Book which spreads out all over the Holy
Qur'an turns out, God forbid, to be without meaning and substance.
The second error, still greater, was that he expanded the sense of
'the Food of the People of the Book' to accomodate every 'food' of the
People of the Book, and which he ruled as lawful without any condi-
tion - whether they slaughter the animal, or not; and whether they in-
voke the name of Allah upon it, or not. Taking the circumstances and
methods of their eating an animal as the criterion, he made it all Halal
(lawful) for the Muslims.
When this Fatwa of his was published in Egypt, the religious schol-
ars of Egypt itself, and those all around the whole world, lost no time
in rejecting it as erroneous. Articles and treatises were written. Public
demands were universally made that Mufti 'Abduh should be removed
from his Office of Ifta'. On the other side, the disciples of the learned
Mufti along with some Westophiles joined in with counter debates be-
cause this Fatwa was a panacea of their problems. It opened a flood-
gate through which Westernized people could feel comfortable with
eating every 'food' which came from the Jews and Christians of Eu-
rope, even from the atheists, as Halal for them.
It is a great miracle of Islam that the hearts of Muslims at large
are never satisfied with an act against the Shari'ah, no matter how
great was the 'Alim or religious scholar who committed it. This hap-
pened here too. Muslims all over the world took a stand against this
error. The issue, however, did subside at that time. But, the players
of the issue still exist as modern deviators or secularists who would
love to prepare a new edition of Islam in which every European-
oriented absurdity could be accomodated. Claiming to address the ma-
terial desires of the younger generation, they have revived the same
debate in the name of modernity and recension with the airs of person-
al research. Unfortunately, they are repeating Mufti 'Abduh. It was
for this reason that this debate was taken up in some details. Alham-
dulillah, what was necessary has been said here. Full details, if need-
ed, may be seen in my treatise, 'Islami Dhabihah'.
The lawfulness of the 'food' of the Muslims for the People of
the Book: What does it mean?
There is another issue here which needs to be resolved. The Qur'an

76
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
says that the 'food' of the People of the Book is lawful for Muslims.
This is obvious. But, there is the other part of the injunction, that is,
the 'food' of the Muslims is lawful for the People of the Book - what
does that mean? The People of the Book who just do not believe in
what the Qur'an says would hardly care for what is lawful, or unlaw-
ful. What, then, is the use of saying it?
In Tafsir Al-Bahr al-Muhit and elsewhere, it has been pointed out
that this injunction too is intended for Muslims themselves whereby
they are being told that the animals slaughtered by them are lawful
for the People of the Book. Therefore, if they were to feed a non-
Muslim from the People of the Book out of an animal slaughtered by
them, it would be no act of sin. In other words, they can give to a Kita-
bi (one of the People of the Book) a part of the animal they have sacri-
ficed. Had their Dhabiha been unlawful for the People of the Book, it
would have not been permissible for Muslims to have them eat it.
Thus, this injunction which apparently seems to relate to the People of
the Book is, in reality, addressed to Muslims themselves.
Yet another basis for such intent appears in Ruh al-Ma'ani on the
authority of al-Suddi. It says that some animals, or some parts there-
of, were made unlawful in the religion of Jews and Christians belong-
ing to the People of the Book, as punishment. Therefore, that animal,
or its parts, are obviously not included in the 'food' of the People of the
Book. But, this sentence of the verse makes it quite clear that an ani-
mal lawful for Muslims - though not accepted as lawful by the People
of the Book - shall remain lawful for Muslims, if it comes to them after
having been slaughtered by the People of the Book. A hint towards it
has been made in the words: 2, (and your food has been made
lawful for them) appearing in the verse. So, looking at the meaning
from this angle as well, the connection of the sentence with Muslims
becomes clear once again.
At this point, the author of Tafsir al-Mazhari adds that the sen-
tence has actually spelled out the difference that exists between two
matters of importance - that of animals slaughtered and marriages
made. There is a difference here. Animals slaughtered are lawful
both ways - the Dhabihah of the People of the Book for Muslims and
the Dhabihah of Muslims for the People of the Book. But, the matter

77
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
of the marriage of women does not work in that manner for the women
from the People of the Book are lawful for Muslims while Muslim
women are not lawful for the People of the Book.
Dhabihah of Apostates
The third problem relates to a Muslim who, God forbid, becomes a
Jew or Christian. He will not be included under the definition of the
People of the Book - instead, he is a Murtadd or apostate. An animal
slaughtered by him is unlawful in accordance with the consensus of
the Muslim Ummah. Similarly, a Muslim who has become a Murtadd
because of rejecting any of the essentials and absolute beliefs of Islam
- even though, he claims to believe in the Qur'an and the Rasul of Allah
- will also be a Murtadd. An animal slaughtered by him will not be
lawful. Simply reading the Qur'an or claiming to be acting in accor-
dance with it will not entitle him to be counted as one of the People of
the Book. However, if someone from another religion or community
were to abandon his religion or community and become a Jew or Chris-
tian, he or she would be included under the category of the People of
the Book - and an animal slaughtered by him or her would be consid-
ered lawful.
Marriage : Major Points of Guidance for Muslims
The third sentence of this verse reads as follows:
وَالْمُعُصَنْتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنْتِ وَالْمُصَنْتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوْنُوا الْكِتِبَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَاً
أَتَّيْتُمْوُهُنَّ أُجُوَرَهُنَّ مُحْصِيْنَ غَيْرَ مُسْفِحِيْنَ وَلَا مُتَّخِذِىٌّ آَخْدَانٍ
... and [it is lawful for you to marry] good women from among
believers, and [also] good women from among those given the
Books before you, provided you give them their dowers, bind-
ing yourself in marriage, not going for lust, nor having para-
mours."
Here, the word "al-Muhsanat" appears at both places (translated as
'good women') which, according to the Arabic usage, could have two
meanings: One, free women as opposed to bondwomen; two, chaste
women. Lexically, both meanings can be taken at this place.
Therefore, out of the exegetes, Mujahid has taken the sense of free
women while explaining "al-Muhsanat" which would mean that free
women from among the People of the Book are lawful for Muslims -

78
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
bondwomen are not. (Mazharī)
But, in the sight of the majority of the learned Sahabah and Tabi'in,
"al-Muhsanat" at this place means chaste women and the verse means
that the way marriage with chaste Muslim women is lawful, so too is
the marriage with chaste women from among the People of the Book.
(Ahkam al-Qur'an, Jassaș & Mazharī)
However, there is a consensus of the majority of authentic scholars
that the restriction of 'chaste women' here does not mean that the very
marriage with non-chaste women is unlawful. In fact, this restriction
serves a purpose. It provides motivation to take a better and more ap-
propriate course in marriage (Mazhari & others). One can marry a Muslim
woman or a woman from among the People of the Book, both are law-
ful; but one should never lose sight of the approach that marriage
when entered into should be with a chaste woman. Joining up with
sinning women in the bond of marriage is not what a good Muslim
would elect to do. The truth is that marrying a vice-prone and unrelia-
ble woman amounts to ruining one's life in this world and in the Here-
after both. This should be avoided.1 So, the restriction of 'the People of
the Book' in this verse proves that marrying women from among non-
Muslims, who are not included under the definition of 'the People of
the Book,' is not lawful, and on this there is a consensus of the Muslim
Ummah.
Marriage with other Non-Muslim Women
As said earlier, out of all groups of non-Muslims in this period of
time, the Jews and the Christians are the only two religious communi-
ties which can be counted as "The People of the Book.' None of the rest
belonging to present religions are included within "The People of the
Book.' This general rule applies to fire-worshipping Magians, idol-
worshipping Hindus, or Sikhs or Aryans or Buddhists and to others
similar to them. This is so because the term, The People of the Book,
refers only to those who profess to believe in a Book, the veracity of
which as Heavenly Scripture and Divine Revelation stands proved on
the basis of definite texts of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Obviously, these
1. However, if an unchaste woman repents from her life truly, she will be
included in 'good women' and marrying her is not only permissible, but
also a commendable act (Editor).

79
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
are no others but the Torah and Evangile, the followers of which still
exist in this world and in this time. As for the Zabur (The Book of
Psalms) and the Şuhuf (Scriptures; plural of Şahifah) of Sayyidna Ibra-
him WJILle, they are neither preserved nor have people who claim to
follow them. In so far as 'sacred books' of other religions like the Ve-
das, the Granth, the Book of Zartusht and similar others are con-
cerned, the proof of their being some Scripture or Revelation on valid
religious grounds does not exist. The probability that the teaching of
Buddha or the books mentioned above could be transformed corollaries
of Zabur or the Suhuf of Sayyidna Ibrahim >Jude are no more than ab-
stract assumptions not based on solid proof. Thus, with the full con-
sensus of the Muslim Ummah, it stands established that, out of differ-
ent faiths present in this age, the women from among the Jews and
Christians are the only ones Muslims can marry lawfully. Marriage
with a woman from any group or faith other than the two - unless she
becomes a Muslim - is unlawful.
The verse of the Holy Qur'an : ◌َ2:221) وَلاَتَنْكِحُوا الْشُرِكُتِ حَتَّى يُؤْمِن) is there to
confirm this implication. It means: 'And do not marry the Mushrik
women unless they come to believe' - and all nations and peoples other
than The People of The Book are included under the identity of "al-
Mushrikat" (disbelieving women).
So, here we have two verses of the Qur'an which bring this subject
in a clear focus. One of them, cited immediately above, says that mar-
riage with disbelieving women is not lawful unless they become believ-
ing Muslims. The second verse is from Surah al-Ma'idah, the one we
are talking about right now. This tells us that marriage with women
from among the People of the Book is lawful.
Therefore, the learned among the Sahabah and the Tabi'in
determined the unambiguous sense of the two verses by saying that
the marriage of a non-Muslim woman with a Muslim man should just
not take place as a matter of principle. But, this verse of Surah al-
Ma'idah has exempted the women of The People of the Book from this
generality. As such, the marriage of a Muslim with a woman from any
community other than that of the Jews and Christians will not be
valid unless she becomes a Muslim.

80
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
The Problem in Marrying Jewish and Christian Women
As for marrying Jewish and Christian women, that is, women from
among the People of the Book, even this is not permissible in the sight
of some noble Companions of the Holy Prophet &.
This happens to be the understanding of Sayyidna 'Abdullah ibn
'Umar de Alga. When someone asked him about it, he would say:
What Allah Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an is clear: 'Do not marry
disbelieving women until they become Muslims' - and I am not aware
of a greater Shirk ( associating others in the Divinity of Allah) than
that of a person who openly declares Jesus son of Mary or some other
created servant of Allah as her Rabb, Lord or God. (Ahkam al-Qur'an,
Jaşșaș)
There was an occasion when Maimun ibn Mihran asked Sayyidna
'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ate Algo,: 'We live in a country with a larger pop-
ulation of The People of the Book. Can we marry their women and eat
from the animals they slaughter?' In his reply, Sayyidna 'Abdullah ibn
'Umar a Algo, simply recited these two verses, firstly the one which
prohibits marriage with disbelieving women, and then, this very verse
of Surah al-Ma'idah which declares the lawfulness of marriage with
women from The People of the Book.
Maimun ibn Mihran said: ' I too read these two verses in the Qur'an
and I know them. But, my question is: In view of these two, what relig-
ious ruling do I follow? In reply to this question, Sayyidna 'Abdullah
ibn 'Umar Le Ml , once again recited these very two verses before
him, and said nothing on his own. This has been interpreted by the
'Ulama of the Ummah that Sayyidna 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar was not at
peace with himself even in this matter of marriage being lawful with
women from among the People of the Book.
Though, in the view of the majority of the Sahabah and the Tabi'in,
marriage with women from among the People of the Book is lawful in
itself as in the Qur'an, but marrying them is not free of the many con-
sequential disorders for one's own person, his children, rather for the
whole Muslim Community, which would necessarily emerge as borne
by experience. This was the basis on which they too considered mar-
riage with women from among the People of the Book as Makruh
(reprehensible).

81
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
Following a narration from Shaqiq ibn Salmah, al-Jassas reports in
Ahkam al-Qur'an: When Sayyidna Hudhayfah ibn Yaman Le Ul
came to Mada'in, he married a Jewish woman there. When Sayyidna
'Umar ate Algo, found out about it, he wrote a letter to him asking him
to divorce the woman. Sayyidna Hudhayfah as Ul >, wrote back: ' Is
she unlawful for me?' Then, in reply, Sayyidna 'Umar as Jul , wrote:
I am not saying that she is unlawful, but women from these people do
not generally have chastity, therefore, I apprehend lest immodesty
finds entry into your homes through this channel.' And Imam Muham-
mad ibn Hasan Le Ji, has, in Kitab al-Athar, reported this event
رضى الله عنه from Imam Abu Hanifah. He says when Sayyidna Umar
wrote another letter to Sayyidna Hudhayfah ar J +), his words were:
اعزم عليك ان لا تضع كتابى حتى تخلى سبيلها فانی اخاف ان يقتديك
المسلمون فيختاروا النساء اهل الذمة لجمالهن وكفى بذلك فتنة النساء
المسلمين . (كتاب الآثار ص ١٥٦)
I hereby put you on oath that you would, before you put down
this letter from your hands, divorce and release her, because I
fear other Muslims start following you and begin choosing
women from among the People of the Book because of their
beauty, (bypassing Muslim women in the process). What
greater trial could there be for Muslim women? (Kitab al-Athar,
p. 156)
After reporting this event, Muhammad ibn Hasan . Jiz, has
said that this is the view the Hanafi jurists take when they do not ac-
tually rule such marriage as unlawful but, because of other disorders
and drawbacks, do take it to be Makruh (reprehensible). And 'Allamah
Ibn Humam has reported in Fath al-Qadir that an event similar to
that of Sayyidna Hudhayfah also came to pass with Talhah and Ka'b
ibn Malik - they married women from The People of the Book on the
basis of the verse in Surah al-Ma'idah. When Sayyidna 'Umar as ille,
heard about it, he became very angry and ordered them to divorce
these women (Mazhari).
As for the age and time of Sayyidna 'Umar al-Faruq, the great Kha-
lifah of Islam, may Allah be pleased with him, it was the best of ages.
At that time, any probability, that a Jewish or Christian woman would
succeed in hatching some conspiracy against Islam and Muslims by

82
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 5
entering into the life of a Muslim as his wife, was simply unimagina-
ble. The only danger that lurked before them during those days was to
the moral insulation of their families and homes which could be ad-
versely affected by taking in women of doubtful integrity as wives, or
that people start preferring them because of their beauty as a result of
which Muslim women would be thrown in deep trouble. But, here is
the Faruqian farsightedness which keeps track of dangling disharmo-
nies in Muslim lives and compels people of such stature to divorce the
women they had taken as wives. Had they been anywhere closer to the
current scenario, just imagine the kind and extent of his reaction! The
problem with these people is that of dubious identity. Such people
would not mind if their names are registered in the census records as
Jewish or Christian, but there are many among them who take Juda-
ism or Christianity to be a nuisance in their personal view of things
and ideas. They do not believe in the Torah or the Evangile, nor do
they attest to the prophethood of Moses and Jesus, may peace be upon
them. In matters of belief, they are totally secular, even atheistic.
That they let themselves be called Jews and Christians is no more
than some communal, societal or formal convenience.
It is obvious that women from people of such background are not
lawful for a Muslim under any circumstances. And even if they hap-
pen to adhere to their religion, still, accomodating them in the midst of
a Muslim family amounts to bringing material and spiritual ruination
on it. The conspiracies mounted against Islam and Muslims through
this inroad during the later period, and which are not uncommon even
today, have a tragic lesson of their own. A woman succeeding as a ter-
minator of Muslim national power is no fiction. Such eventuality is
within the realm of possibility. How can any sensible person go, irre-
spective of the considerations of the lawful and unlawful, even close to
taking such a step?
Conclusion
According to the Qur'an and Sunnah, and the conduct of the noble
Sahabah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, it is incumbent upon Mus-
lims that they should totally abstain from marrying contemporary Ki-
tabi (Jewish and Christian) women. Towards the end of the verse, in-
structions have also been given that should anyone has to have a

83
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 6 - 7
woman from among the People of the Book, then, this should be done
by entering into a proper marriage contract, by keeping the woman as
wife and by paying dower and fulfilling other rights. Keeping them as
paramours or mistresses or indulging in open fornication with them is
forbidden (Haram).
Verses 6 - 7
◌َّيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ امَنُوَاَ إِذَا قُمْتُمُ إِلَى الصَّلْوَةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوْهَكُمْ
وَآَيْدِيَكُمُ إِلَى الْرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُهُ وُسِكُمْ وَآَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى
الْكَعُبَيْنِ، وَإِنُ كُنْتُمُجُنُبًا فَظَّرُوا، وَإِنْ كُنتُمْ تَرْ ضَى أَوْ عَلى
سَفَرَاؤُ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ قِّنْكُمْ مِنَ الْغَائِطِ آَوْلُمُ النِّسَآءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا
مَآءٌ فَتَيَتَهُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَكُوْا بِوُهِكُمْ وَآَيْدِيُكُمُ
مِنْهُ مَا مُِيُّدُ اللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَكِنُ تُِّيِّدُ
لِيُطَهِّرُكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُوُنَّ ﴿٦﴾ وَاذْكُا
نِعْمَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمُ وَمِيْنَاقَهُ الَّذِى وَانَقَكُمُ بِهْ إِذْ قُلُمُ سَمِعْنَا
وَأَطَعُنَهُ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيُمْ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُرِ ﴿٧﴾
O those who believe, when you rise for Salah, wash your
faces and your hands upto the elbows, and make Mash1
of your heads and (wash) your feet upto the ankles.
And if you are in a state of major impurity 2, cleanse
yourselves well (by taking bath). And if you are sick, or
in travel or one of you has come after easing himself, or
you have touched women, and you find no water, then,
go for some clean dust and wipe your faces and hands
with it. Allah does not like to impose a problem on you;
He, rather likes to cleanse you and to complete his fa-
vour upon you, so that you may be grateful. [6] And re-
member Allah's favour upon you and His covenant that
He has taken from you when you said, "We have lis-
tened and obeyed." And fear Allah. Allah is all-aware of
what lies in the hearts. [7]
1. Mash: Passing wet hands over something.
2. Janabah: Major Impurity: See note under 4:43, Vol. II.

84
Surah Al-Ma'idah : 5 : 8 - 10
Some injunctions of the Shari'ah concerning the conduct of worldly
life, choices in marriage and food appeared in the previous verses.
This verse mentions some injunctions relating to 'Ibadat, acts of wor-
ship like Salah, Wudu, Mash, Tayammum, Ghusl and Taharah.
Verses 8 - 10
◌َيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ امَنُوا كُونُوا قَوُّمِيْنَ لِلْهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ وَلاَ
يَجْرِ مَنَّكُمْ شَنَانُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى الَّ تَعْدِلُوا ء ◌ِعُدِلُوا فَ هُوَأَقْرَبُ
لِلتَّقُوَى وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ : إِنَّ اللّهَ خَبِيْرٌ بِمَا تَعُمَلُونَ ﴿٨﴾ وَعَدَاللهُ
الَّذِينَ امَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصُّلِحُتِ لَهُمْ تَغْفِرَةٌ وَأَجْرٌ عَظِيمٌ ﴿١٩
وَالَّذِيْنَ كَفَرُوْا وَكَذَّبُوْا بِالْتِنَا أُوْلِكَ أَصْحُبُ الْجَحِيْمِ ﴿١٠﴾
O those who believe, be steadfast for Allah as witnesses
for justice. And malice against a people should not bid
you to not doing justice. Do justice. That is nearer to
Taqwa. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is all-aware of
what you do. [8] Allah has promised those who believe
and do good deeds: For them there is forgiveness and a
great reward. [9] And those who disbelieve and deny
Our signs - they are the people of the Fire. [10]
Commentary
The subject of the first of the three verses given above has ap-
peared earlier in Surah al-Nisa' in almost the same words. The only
difference is that the arrangement of words there (4:135) was: 32.4 vis
be) ◌ُرَّبُوا قَؤُّمِيْنٌ لِلْهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ : while, here (5:8), it has been said بالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءاللهِ
steadfast for Allah as witnesses for justice). A delicate reason for the
alternation in words appearing earlier and later in these two verses
has been given by Abu Hayyan in his Tafsir Al-Bahr al-Muhit a gist of
which is given below.
There are usually two causes which hold people back from doing
justice and then make them do the unjust and the oppressive. The
first one is taking the side of your own self, or that of your friends and
relatives. Enmity with someone is the other cause. The verse in Su-
rah al-Nisa' is addressing itself to the first subject while this verse of
Surah al-Ma'idah is oriented to the other.