حَرَّ

See under 2:87.

5:4; 6:146; 16:116.

Important Words:

المیتة (that which dies of itself) is derived from مات i.e. he died. میتة means: (1) an animal that has died a natural death (Aqrab); (2) an animal that has not been slaughtered in a manner prescribed by Law (Lane & Mufradat).

الخنزیر (swine). Authorities differ as to the derivation of this word, some deriving it from خنزر and others from خزر. The word الخنزرة means, hard and rugged land; or a clumsy, badly-finished axe. خزر الرجل means, the man looked with the hinder parts or outer angles of his eyes (Lisan). خزرت العین means, the eye was or became narrow and small. خزر الرجل means, the man looked from the outer angle of the eye; or he had a distortion of one of his eyes. The Arabs say: کل خنزیراخزر i.e. all swine look from the outer angles of their eyes. خزر المرء means the man affected or pretended to be cunning. الخنزیر means, the swine, the hog, the pig; a certain well-known foul animal the eating of whose flesh is said to be forbidden by every Prophet (Lane). The Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement says of the word خنزیر: "The very name of this foul animal contains an allusion to the prohibition of its flesh. It is a combination of خنز and ار, the first part meaning, 'very foul' and the second, 'I see'. The word thus literally means, 'I see it very foul'…What is yet more remarkable is that in Hindi this animal is known by the name سؤر which is similarly composed of two words, i.e. سوء and ار, the latter part being identical with the latter part of the Arabic word and the former being the exact equivalent of the first part of the Arabic form. The Hindi word, therefore, exactly means the same as the Arabic, viz. 'I see it very foul'…In Hindi this animal is also known as بد meaning bad or foul which is probably a translation of the original Arabic word" (Teachings of Islam).

أھل (invoked) is derived from ھل meaning, it (the moon) made its appearance; he (the man) cried aloud. اھل also means, it made its appearance; he called or cried aloud. اھل بالتسمیة علی الذبیحة means, he invoked or pronounced the name of God while slaughtering an animal. اھل السیف بفلان means, the sword cut into him ( Aqrab). اھلال which is the infinitive-noun from اھل means, to raise one’s voice aloud by way of exclamation, on seeing the ھلال or the moon of the first night (Mufradat). Thus اھل به لغیر الله would mean, on which the name of anything besides God has been invoked at the time of slaughter; or which has been cut or slaughtered for a being other than God.

اضطر (driven by necessity) is derived from ضر which means, it did harm. ضرہ الی کذا means, it forced him to resort to that. اضطره means, he compelled him against his will. اضطره الی کذا means, he compelled him against his will to have recourse to that (Aqrab).

باغ (disobedient) is derived from بغی meaning, he rebelled; he disobeyed; he committed a wrong. باغ is really باغی being the active participle from بغی meaning, one who disobeys; one who is rebellious (Aqrab).

عاد (exceeding the limit) is the active participle from عدا i.e. he exceeded the proper or the prescribed limit. عدی علیهmeans, he transgressed against him. عاد is really عادی meaning, one who exceeds the limit (Aqrab).

اثم (sin). The verb اثم means, he did a thing which was unlawful for him; he did a thing which made him deserving of punishment. Thus the noun اثم means: (1) anything unlawful, i.e. a sin; (2) anything which makes a person deserving of punishment (Aqrab); (3) anything that pricks the mind as something evil (Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse speaks only of food that is حرام or unlawful. It makes no mention of طیبات or pure and wholesome things to which reference has already been made in the preceding verse. It should not be supposed that the four things mentioned in this verse are the only things prohibited in Islam. As a matter of fact, Islam prohibits the use of many things; but they are divided into grades or classes, some of them being حرام or unlawful and others being ممنوع or simply forbidden. The verse under comment mentions only the former class. The forbidden things have been stated by the Holy Prophet and are mentioned in Hadith. They must not be used by the Faithful but they cannot be called حرام or unlawful. In fact, there is a great difference between unlawful (حرام) and forbidden (ممنوع) things. Islam recognizes due difference in the importance of different things, and so all prohibitions cannot be classed together and treated as of equal importance. The use of حرام or an unlawful thing has a great and direct bearing on the moral and spiritual development of man but it is not so with a ممنوع or forbidden thing which stands on a lower level of importance, though both are prohibited.

Among the things declared حرام or unlawful in this verse, the injuriousness of consuming blood and the flesh of a dead animal as food has been recognized by most authorities on medicine. The use of the flesh of swine has also proved to be injurious not only to the physical health of man, but also to his moral and spiritual health. The swine eats filth and takes delight in living in dirty places. It has indecent habits and possesses the evil trait of sex-perversion. Tape-worms, scrofula, cancer and encysted trichina are known to be more prevalent among pork-eating peoples. The use of pork also causes trichinosis.

The clause, and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked, refers to that animal at the time of whose slaughter the name of any deity other than Allah is invoked or that animal which is slaughtered with a view to winning the pleasure of an idol or a saint etc., even though the name of Allah may have been mentioned while slaughtering it. Hence, all such animals as are sacrificed in order to propitiate a false deity or a saint, or any food that is cooked as an offering to a deceased person have been condemned as unlawful. Such foods are spiritually harmful. The incentive to these offerings is شرك (i.e. idolatry) and شرك is tantamount to rebellion against God.

In spite of the fact that the above mentioned things have been declared to be unlawful, the verse goes on to say that if for want of food the very life of a person should be in danger, considerations of the preservation of human life must temporarily prevail over other considerations. This is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Hence the verse very wisely makes an exception in case of a real and urgent necessity when no other food is available and one is in real danger of losing one’s life if one does not use the unlawful food. In fact, of the four unlawful things, the first three have been declared unlawful mostly on the basis of the fact that they are injurious to physical and moral health, and it is certainly wise to permit their use in case of urgent necessity when there is real danger to life. As for the fourth thing, i.e. a food consecrated to any other being beside Allah, it is evident that it is not injurious intrinsically. It is injurious only from the point of view of faith. Therefore when such a thing is used merely to save one’s life, which may be so usefully employed in the service of religion, there can be no real objection in eating it, because this extremely rare act cannot be considered as involving شرك or idolatry, particularly when it is performed with the sanction of God.

Permission for the exceptional use of such things is, however, qualified by two important conditions: (1) that one who resorts to this use must not be باغی (i.e. disobedient). There should be no lurking spirit of revolt or disobedience behind the act. The circumstances must be real and the condition genuine, and nothing should be done out of design and wilfulness; (2) that the user of unlawful food under exceptional circumstances should not become عاد i.e. he should not exceed the limit. He should confine himself to such quantity only as is absolutely essential to save life. Thus the exceptional use is permissible only at a time when one is under bona fide constraint and is in real danger, and then only to the extent which is absolutely necessary for saving life.

Though it has been declared in this verse that there is no sin in partaking of a prohibited food when no revolt or transgression is intended, yet as one might err in judging what is revolt or transgression and what is not, and thus be unconsciously guilty of breaking a divine commandment, the Quran adds the words: surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful, meaning that an unintentional deviation will be forgiven by the Merciful God. The clause also reminds a Muslim that though it has been made permissible for him to take unlawful food in exceptional circumstances, yet such circumstances may be due to certain hidden shortcomings of his own for which he should seek God’s forgiveness, and that if he does so he will find God Forgiving and Merciful. In this connection see also 5:4; 6:146 & 16:116.

3:131; 30:40.

Important Words:

ربوا (interest) is derived from ربا. They say رباالمال i.e. the money or property increased and became augmented. ربواmeans, an excess and an addition; an addition over and above the principal sum; interest. The hadith defines ربوا as کل قرض جرمنفعة فھوربا i.e. every loan advanced to draw profit comes under the definition of interest (Saghir).

یتخبطه (has smitten) is derived from خبطه i.e. he struck or beat him violently; he trod him under his feet vehemently. خبط اللیل means, he walked about in the darkness of the night without finding the true way. تخبطه means, he struck or beat him violently. تخبطه الشیطان means, Satan struck him and afflicted him with hurt or injury; Satan prostrated him (Aqrab).

المس (insanity) is derived from مس. They say مسه i.e. he touched it; or he touched it with his hand. من المرض اوالکبر فلانا means, disease or old age touched him, i.e. came on him. مسه الشیطان بنصب وعذاب means, Satan brought pain and trouble on him. المسmeans, any pain or trouble, etc. that comes to a man by coming in contact with someone or something; it also signifies madness or insanity (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The prohibition against lending money on interest is preceded by a long exhortation to exercise charity. When a person becomes accustomed to spending his wealth in charity and alms, it becomes easier for him to lend money free of interest.

The Quran prohibits all kinds of interest. In modern times, however, business has become so inseparably mixed up with interest that it appears impossible to avoid interest altogether. But if a change of system as well as of surroundings and circumstances were brought about, business without interest would establish itself in the world as was the case in the days when Islam was in ascendancy.

The clause, those who devour interest do not rise except as rises one whom Satan has smitten with insanity, means that just as a madman does not see the consequences of his actions, similarly those who lend money at interest become careless of consequences. They keep in view only their own immediate interests and do not care, and in fact generally become incapable of caring, for the great harm which they do to society and the world at large. Interest also encourages a person or a government to incur debt beyond his or its capacity and in this way also blinds them to consequences. Another way in which interest causes a touch of insanity is to weaken the sense of goodness and beneficence in man by making him over-engrossed in money-making. Interest also leads to war. Money-lenders are always creating circumstances which may cause conflict between one nation and another so that war may break out and the belligerent nations may be compelled to borrow money from them. Interest also helps to prolong war by encouraging belligerent nations to borrow money beyond their capacity. Again, interest helps the accumulation of wealth in a few hands and thereby most injuriously affects the distribution of wealth and the balance of society. Yet another manifestation of madness caused by interest is that those who pay interest have their sense of dignity lowered and they contract the habit of carelessness and hastiness, thus acquiring a resemblance to one stricken by madness. See also 2:280 below.

The words, trade also is like interest, represent the pet argument of the supporters of interest. They say interest is nothing but a form of trade. Just as in trade one invests money with a view to increasing and multiplying it, so does one in lending money at interest. But deeper thinking would reveal that there is a world of difference between the two. While interest is attended by all the evil consequences briefly referred to above, trade is not.

The words, then will that which he received in the past be his, mean that if one accepts guidance from God and desists from charging interest in future, the past will be forgiven him and God will make good the loss he may thus suffer by other means.

It should be remembered that any sum stipulated to be received or given over and above what one advances or receives as a loan is interest, whether the dealing is with an individual or a bank or a society or a post office or any other organisation. Interest is not confined to money. It extends to any commodity which is given as a loan with the condition that it will be returned with an agreed excess.

Finally, it may be noted that in view of the peculiar conditions of the present times, when there is a vicious network of the interest system surrounding us and Islam is in a greatly weakened condition, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement has declared that if a person is forced to accept interest, he may do so and then spend the money thus received on (a) the propagation of Islam, and (b) paying off any interest that he may similarly be forced to pay. He should, however, scrupulously avoid spending such money on himself or his family or using it in any other way (Fatawa & Al-Fadl).

Important Words:

محررا (dedicated to special service) is derived from حر i.e. it became hot; or he became free. حرر means, he wrote; or he wrote well and elegantly and accurately. حرر رقبة means, he freed a slave. حرر ابنه means, he dedicated his son for the worship of God and the service of the church or the temple; or he devoted him to that service as long as he should live. محرر means, freed from slavery; emancipated; a child devoted by the parent to the service of the church or the temple; or one divorced from all affairs of the world and dedicated to the service of the temple (Lane, Mufradat & Jarir). It was a custom among the Israelites that those who were dedicated to the service of the temple remained unmarried (Gospel of Mary, 5:6; and Bayan under 3:36).

امرأة (woman) is derived from مرأ i.e. it (the food) was wholesome. مرء or امرأ means, a man. مرأة or امرأة means, a woman; a perfect woman; a wife (Lane).

عمران (‘Imran). In the present verse the word is either the abbreviated form of آل عمران (the family of ‘Imran, father of Moses) just as they use the word "Israel" for "the Children of Israel" (see 2:41), or it refers to ‘Imran, the father of Mary. See also 3:34.

Commentary:

In this verse the mother of Mary whose name was Hanna (Enc. Bib.) has been spoken of as امرأة عمران (woman of ‘Imran), while in 19:29 Mary herself has been addressed as اخت ھارون (sister of Aaron). ‘Imran (Amram) and Aaron were respectively the father and brother of Moses, while he had also a sister named Miriam. Being ignorant of Arabic idiom and Quranic style, Christian writers, who ascribe the authorship of the Quran to the Holy Prophet, think that in his ignorance he confused Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary or Miriam, the sister of Moses. Thus they pretend to have discovered a serious anachronism in the Quran––an absurd charge, inasmuch as quite a number of passages can be cited to show that the Quran considers Moses and Jesus as two Prophets separated from each other by a long line of Prophets (e.g. 2:88; 5:44-46).

These Christian writers are not the first to make this "discovery". The "credit" for it goes to the Christians of Najran who, as long as 1,350 years ago, raised the same objection and received a prompt reply. It is on record that when the Holy Prophet sent Mughirah to Najran, a Christian of that place asked him: "Do you not read in the Quran Mary (mother of Jesus,) being mentioned as the sister of Aaron, while you know that Jesus was born a long, long time after Moses?" "I did not know the answer," says Mughirah, "and on my return to Medina I enquired about it of the Holy Prophet who readily answered, 'Why did you not tell them that the Israelites used to name their children after their deceased Prophets and saints?' " (Tirmidhi). In fact, there is actually a tradition to the effect that the husband of Hanna and the father of Mary was named ‘Imran whose father, (i.e. Mary’s grandfather) had the name Yoshhim or Yoshim (Jarir & Kathir). Thus this ‘Imran is different from the ‘Imran who was the father of Moses and whose own father was Kohath (Exod. 6:18-20).

The fact that Hanna’s husband, or for that matter Mary’s father, has been named Joachim in the Christian scriptures (Gospel of the Birth of Mary and the Enc. Brit. under Mary) should not perplex us as Joachim is the same as Yoshim mentioned by Ibn Jarir as the father of ‘Imran. The Christian scriptures give the name of the grandfather instead of the father, which is not an uncommon practice. Besides, there are instances in the Bible of one person being known by two names. Gideon, for instance, was also called Jerubbaal (Judg. 7:1). So there should be no surprise if the second name of Joachim happened to be ‘Imran.

Moreover, like individuals, families, too, are sometimes known after the names of their distinguished ancestors. In the Bible, the name Israel sometimes stands for the Israelites (Deut. 6:3, 4) and Kedar for the Ishmaelites (Isa. 21:16; 42:11). Similarly, Jesus has been called the son of David (Matt. 1:1). So the words امرأة عمران may also mean امرأة آل عمرانi.e. a woman from the family of ‘Imran, or a perfect woman from the family of ‘Imran. This explanation finds further strength from the fact that the words آل عمران (family of ‘Imran) have been used by the Quran only two verses before the present one. So the word آل (family) was dropped here owing to the nearness of reference. And it is admitted that Hanna, the mother of Mary, who was the cousin of Elisabeth (John’s mother) belonged to the House of Aaron and through him to that of ‘Imran (Luke 1:5, 36).

The vow of Mary’s mother seems to have been taken under the influence of the Essenes who were generally held in high esteem by the people of that time, and who practised celibacy and excluded women from their membership, and dedicated their lives to the service of religion and their fellow beings (Enc. Bib. and Jew. Enc.). It is remarkable that the teachings of the Gospels have much in common with those of the Essenes. It is also clear from the meaning of the word محرر as given under Important Words above, that Mary’s mother had vowed the dedication of her child’s life to the service of the temple, and as such she intended the child never to marry, which shows that Mary was meant to belong to the priestly class. This is why, elsewhere in the Quran, she is called the sister of Aaron and not of Moses (19:29) though both were real brothers, for whereas Moses was the founder of the Jewish Law, Aaron was the head of the Jewish priestly class (Enc. Bib. and Enc. Brit. under Aaron). Thus Mary, mother of Jesus, was the sister of Aaron not in the sense that she was his real sister but in the sense that, like Aaron, she belonged to the priestly order.

Important Words:

کل (all) is a very common Arabic word used to express two senses: (1) all members of a group; (2) all parts of an individual thing. The word may generally be rendered as, all; whole; each; every one, etc. It is also sometimes used in the sense of "the majority of", and rarely even in the sense of "some" or "part of" (Aqrab & Taj)

Commentary:

The preceding verses emphasize the importance of complete submission to the will of God. The highest good cannot be attained without the sacrifice of most beloved things, including personal and national sentiments. The present verse cites an apt illustration. Whereas God had allowed "all food" to the Jews, the Israelites forbade themselves parts thereof on the ground that Jacob, for personal and medical considerations, abstained from partaking of them. But as the word Israel, primarily the name of Jacob, is also used about his children and descendants and has been so used in the Bible, it may also be taken in this sense in the second clause of the present verse.

By saying, All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, the Quran also refutes an objection of the People of the Book, which served as an obstacle in the way of their accepting Islam. There were certain kinds of food which the Jews abstained from eating but which were allowed by Islam. One such thing was the sciatic nerve, to which reference is made in Gen. 32:32. Jacob suffered from sciatica, and, therefore, for medical reasons he forbade himself the use of the sciatic nerve as food. This was a personal matter but the Children of Israel followed his example blindly and made it a rule of conduct to abstain from the eating of the sinew. It was not forbidden by Law, the abstention being purely voluntary.

Moreover, the incident which led to the abandonment of the sciatic nerve as food by Israel and later by the Israelites took place long before the Torah was revealed. The Torah itself does not forbid it but merely mentions it as a practice of the Jews who had, therefore, no right to object to its use by the Muslims. The objection, if valid, also held good against Abraham and many other Prophets. Besides, there are some foods which were used by Abraham and his descendants but were later forbidden by the Torah. The camel is an instance of this kind. Hence, the verse purports to say that if certain foods used by the patriarchs are allowed to other peoples, the Jews have no right to object.

It may be pointed out here that there is a difference of meaning between کل طعام (kullu-ta‘amin) and کل الطعام (kullut-ta‘ami) as used in the present verse. The former means, every kind of food, while the latter means, all food, i.e. the whole food. It appears that the Jews objected that the Muslims ate the whole meat, not excepting even the nerve.

6:147.

Commentary:

The expression, We forbade them pure things which had been allowed to them, refers to the blessings and favours of God of which the Jews had become deprived by reason of their transgressions. The verse does not refer to any material thing which was forbidden to them after being allowed before, because no Law-giving Prophet appeared among the Israelites after Moses to forbid them things that had been allowed to them by the Torah. It was also to the spiritual blessings which the Jews had lost that Jesus referred when he said, (I come) to allow you some of that which had been forbidden to you (3:51), i.e. I come to restore to you some of the divine blessings of which you have been deprived on account of your misdeeds.

2:244.

Important Words:

یتیھون (they shall wander in distraction) is derived from تاه meaning: (1) he lost his way in the desert; (2) he was or became confounded or perplexed; (3) he went away in the land confounded or perplexed and was unable to see his right course; (4) his intellect or mind was or became disordered and confused and he perished; (5) he magnified himself or behaved proudly or insolently (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

When the Israelites behaved in a cowardly manner, God decreed that they should remain in the desert for a period of 40 years so that the life of the desert should invigorate them and strengthen their morals. In the mean-time, the old generation became practically extinct and the younger generation grew brave and strong enough to conquer the Promised Land. See also note on 5:24 above. For the relevant portion of the Bible see Num. ch. 14.

4:172; 5:18; 9:30.

5:118; 19:37.

Commentary:

That Jesus taught the Israelites to worship God alone is apparent even from the Gospels in their present distorted form (e.g. Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8). Also see 5:18.

2:174; 5:4-5; 6:146; 16:116.

Commentary:

In this verse the objection of disbelievers has been answered in the very words in which it was made. Their objection was that Muslims profess to be devoted to the name of Allah, yet they do not eat of the flesh of the animal killed by God, i.e. the animal that dies of itself. The answer given in the present verse is, "when we are devoted to Allah, why should we not eat of the food on which the name of our Lord is pronounced?" But the name of God is not pronounced on an animal that dies of itself. Its death takes place under the general law of nature.

The words, He has already explained, refer to 16:116, which was revealed earlier.

The word "mislead" signifies that man-made teachings, which are given by most men in opposition to the teachings of God, only lead people astray.

The word "transgressors" at the end of the verse indicates that the objections raised against the teachings of God have their source in malice and enmity and those who bring forward such objections are indeed transgressors.

Commentary:

The verse refers to another absurd custom of the Arabs. The Divine attributes "Wise" and "All-Knowing" have been mentioned here to point out that the people got entangled in these foolish beliefs and practices because they turned away from the Wise and Knowing God and followed false deities and their foolish devotees.