Topic: Food (Ta‘am)

3:113.

2:91; 3:113; 5:61.

2:88; 3:22, 113, 184; 5:71.

Important Words:

فومھا (its wheat). فوم means: (1) wheat; (2) any corn suitable for making bread; (3) garlic; (4) chick-pea (Aqrab).

مصر (a town) means:(1) a town or a city; (2) the frontier between two countries; (3) the thing that intervenes between two things (Aqrab).

یقتلون (would kill) is derived from قتل i.e. he killed. The infinitive means: (1) killing with a sword or with a stone or with poison or by any other means; (2) attempting to kill; (3) making up the mind to kill; (4) boycotting or cutting off all connections; (5) killing one’s carnal desires; (6) weakening the strength of a thing, as alcohol is "killed" with the addition of water, or hunger is "killed" with food, etc.; (7) humbling a person completely; (8) rendering a person like unto one killed either physically or morally or spiritually; (9) acquiring complete and certain knowledge about a thing; and (10) cursing a person or thing (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lisan)

Commentary:

In this verse another instance is cited to show how the Israelites made no effort to turn the favours of God to good account. When they were in the desert, God sent them Manna and Salwa. But soon after this they began to exhibit discontent with one kind of food and to clamour for a variety of grain, onions, salad and green-stuff (Num. 11:5-11). It may be noted that both Manna and Salwa taken together were considered one kind of food as they were taken continuously for a long time. It is further learnt from the Bible that the supply of Salwa was discontinued after a while and the Israelites were thus left to live on Manna alone (Num. 11:6). As the demand was not based on a right understanding of the wisdom of God Who wanted the Israelites to breathe the free air of the desert for a time, they met with disgrace and drew upon themselves the wrath of God.

God’s displeasure with the Israelites was not due to their demand for other food. The real cause lay elsewhere. Having lived for a long time in bondage and a state of dependence, they had become cowardly and indolent. So God wished them to stay in the desert for sometime, living on game and wild herbs, that they might get rid of their cowardice and indolence by living an independent life in the desert. Thus revitalized, they were to be led to the Promised Land and made rulers of Palestine. The Israelites, however, failed to understand the real purpose of God or having understood it, failed to appreciate it, and foolishly insisted upon living in a town. God pointed out their error, saying that they had asked for a life of agriculture in preference to what was to lead them to sovereignty. He wanted to prepare them for rule over the Promised Land, but they hungered for husbandry. So He indignantly ordered them to go down to a town where they would get the desired things.

The Israelites deserved punishment, because their impatience was the outcome of a want of faith in the promise of God. This lack of faith in God was due to their opposition to His Prophets and, disbelief in His Signs, and they opposed the Prophets because they were transgressors and evildoers. The Prophets invited them to guidance and virtue which they disliked, and, as a result, they opposed them. Thus the Quran admirably traces the causal sequence of every evil to its origin and strikes at its very root so as to prevent all possibility of recurrence.

The words, we will not remain content with one kind of food, contain a threat and are full of arrogance. If the Israelites had meant simply to express a wish, the words would have been "we are unable to remain content with one kind of food," and not as they stand in the Quran. The Bible gives a vivid picture of their insolent and almost rebellious attitude on this occasion (Num. 11:5-15).

The words یقتلون النبیین translated in the verse as "would kill the Prophets" do not mean that the Israelites actually killed the Prophets, because, up to the time of Moses, no Prophet is known to have been slain by them. As a matter of fact, Moses is the first Prophet who was sent to the Israelites as a nation. Thus Moses and his brother, Aaron, are the only persons to whom the words can be applied; but obviously these two Prophets were not killed by the Israelites, although the latter often opposed them and were sometimes even bent upon killing them (Exod. 17:4). Hence, the word قتل in the verse cannot possibly mean actual killing. Its only meaning here is that they severely opposed the Prophets and were even prepared to kill them. This interpretation finds corroboration not only in Arabic lexicons, for which see Important Words, but the Quran itself supports it in a number of verses where the word قتل has been used undoubtedly, not in the sense of actual killing but in that of attempting to kill or intending to kill (3:22 and 40:29). Bukhari also relates a tradition to the effect that once certain hot-headed Quraish youths brutally assaulted the Holy Prophet in the precincts of the Ka‘bah, whereupon Abu Bakr rushed to his rescue, saying, اتقتلون رجلا ان یقول ربی الله "Do you kill a man because he says Allah is his Lord and Master?" (chapter on Tafsir). In this hadith the word قتل is clearly used in the sense of attempting to kill or intending to kill and not actual killing.

It will not be out of place to point out here that the purport of verse 2:59 discussed above is altogether different from the one under comment. Though in both of them God apparently orders the Israelites to go to some habitation, yet the meaning is entirely different, rather quite the opposite in each case. As a matter of fact, whereas in verse 2:59 God Himself willingly commands the Israelites to go to some habitation, His ordering them to "go down into a town" in the verse under comment is expressive of definite displeasure and anger. In the previous verse the قریة or habitation meant only a habitation found in the desert by going into which the Israelites did not leave the free desert life but rather combined it with the facilities of a habitation. On the contrary, by "going down into" a مصر i.e. a town or city as mentioned in the verse under comment, they altogether abandoned the desert life and adopted a life of ease, as is led in towns and cities. Hence the difference. This is why the Quran uses the simple word ادخلوا i.e. "enter" in 2:59 and the word اھبطوا i.e. "go down", a term expressive of decline, in the verse under comment. Similarly, whereas in verse 2:59 the Quran follows up the commandment with the words eat therefrom plentifully wherever you like, in the present verse the commandment is followed by the words and they were smitten with abasement and destitution. The difference is apparent. The former expression is indicative of the freedom of life in the desert, and the latter of the suffocating atmosphere and mental slavery of towns and cities.

5:6; 16:115; 23:52; 40:65.

Commentary:

The injunction contained in the words, "eat of طیبات i.e. good, pure and wholesome things", indicates that Muslims are not allowed to use things which may, in any way, injure their physical or moral or spiritual health, though they may be حلال i.e. allowed by Law. The injunction is thus very important and far-reaching in its effect. The words, We have provided for you, further imply that Muslims are also not allowed to make use of things acquired by unfair and unlawful means. Only the things bestowed by God, i.e. those lawfully earned, are to be used.

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.

Important Words:

For the meaning of the word محصنین (contracting valid marriage) and مسافحین (committing fornication) and اخدان (secret paramours). See 4:25, 26.

Commentary:

The verse declares that if a person from among the People of the Book invites a Muslim to dinner, it is lawful for the latter to accept the invitation and partake of the food of the former, provided, of course, the food does not include anything forbidden by Islam. Similarly, a Muslim is allowed to invite the People of the Book to dinner.

Some commentators have taken the word طعام (food) in the clause, the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you, in the sense of "flesh of animals used as food." In this sense, the verse would signify that Muslims are allowed to partake of the flesh of an animal slaughtered by one from among the People of the Book, provided, of course, the name of God has been pronounced on the slaughtered animal.

The words, And lawful for you are chaste believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, are intended to hint that whereas Islam permits marriage of Muslim men with non-Muslim women from among the People of the Book, it certainly prefers that Muslim men should ordinarily marry only Muslim women.

The words یکفر بالایمان rendered as "rejects the faith" may either mean "turns apostate" which is its primary significance; or it may mean "is ungrateful respecting faith". For the meaning of the particle با see 1:1.

21:9.

Important Words:

یؤفکون (they are turned away) is derived from افك (afaka). They say افکه i.e. he changed his or its state or condition or manner of being; he turned him or it away or back from a thing; he turned him away or back by lying; he changed or perverted his judgement or opinion; or he deceived or beguiled him. They say افك الرجل عن الخیر i.e. the man was turned away or turned back from good by deceit or guile. افك (afaka) or افك (affaka) also means, he told a lie or uttered a falsehood which, in essence, is the same as changing the state of a thing (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse advances a number of arguments against the alleged divinity of Jesus. Firstly, it points out that Jesus was no better than other Messengers of God in any way. He enjoyed no higher status. He showed no miracles the like of which were not shown by other Prophets. In fact, the greatest miracle ascribed to him by his followers is that of the alleged raising of the dead. But the Bible ascribes similar miracles to other Prophets also (see 2 Kings 4:16-35; 13:21).

The second argument mentioned by the verse against his alleged divinity is that he was born of a woman. Being born of a human being, he could not be divine. Moreover, a child is known to inherit some of the prominent traits of the physical and moral make-up of its parent. Jesus, being born of a woman must have inherited her nature and her qualities and so he could not be God.

Again, being human, he was, like other human beings, subject to the natural laws of hunger and of satisfying it by taking food and he was subject also to the natural phenomena that ensue.

By describing the mother of Jesus as "a truthful woman", the Quran has incidentally refuted the Jewish allegations concerning the birth of Jesus.

2:226.

Commentary:

The verb عقد (‘aqqada) is the intensive form of عقد (‘aqada) for which see 5:2. It conveys the idea of greater deliberation and solemnity. Hence the expression بما عقدتم الایمان (oaths which you take in earnest) would really mean, oaths which you swear solemnly and deliberately.

The use of the word اوسط (average) means both 'middle', (i.e. average) and 'best' (see 2:144) and is thus meant to imply that an oath may be regarded as expiated if ten poor men are fed with food the expiator ordinarily provides for his family, but that it is better to feed them with the best food with which he feeds his own family.

The pronoun ھم (their) in کسوتھم (their clothing) may refer either to families or to poor persons. In the former case, the sentence would read, "the clothing (of ten poor men) with the average (or the best) kind of clothing which you provide for your families". In the latter case, it would simply mean, "the clothing of ten poor men".

The verse should not be taken as describing three different ways by which a person can expiate a broken oath. The different ways are intended to represent three progressive stages of expiation, the third alternative being better than the second, and the second better than the first.

The injunction to expiate oaths does not mean that they may be broken with impunity and then expiated. The prescription of penalties is merely meant to meet a possible eventuality. But oaths contrary to Islamic Law are no oaths. They must be broken. Then there are oaths that pertain to the rights of individuals. These cannot be expiated even by adopting any of the above-mentioned three courses. If, for instance, a man promises on oath to give to a person certain sum of money, and then breaks his oath, and makes the prescribed expiation, the expiation will not absolve him from his obligation to make the promised payment. He must pay the man the promised sum, notwithstanding the expiation. The expiation will only atone for the sin he committed against God by breaking his oath.

Commentary:

The verse does not mean, as may be wrongly inferred, that if a person believes and does good works, he can take any food. On the contrary, it purports to lay down a condition the observance of which can secure a person against using a forbidden food, i.e. a food which is calculated to do him physical or spiritual harm. The condition is that he should fear God and believe and do good works; and it is evident that those who really fear God and believe in Him and do good works can never think of eating forbidden food. Indeed, a person may eat anything, if his partaking of it leads to his becoming pious and God fearing; and it is clear that such food, the eating of which makes a person pious and God-fearing, cannot but be pure and clean, for it is only clean food which can bring about such a result.

Two important principles emerge from this verse: (a) that the things of this world having been made for the use and benefit of man are, as a rule, pure and clean; the forbidden things being only exceptions; (b) that clean and pure food exercises a beneficial influence on man’s spiritual development, while unclean and impure food produces an adverse effect upon it.

Moreover, the verse lays down three stages of spiritual progress for believers. In the first stage, believers fear God and believe and do good works, while in the second stage they fear God and believe, their belief being at this stage so strong as to become a natural and constant source of good works which become, as it were, part and parcel of their belief, and in the third and final stage they fear God and do good to others which is not possible without perfect belief and good works, the mention of both of which has consequently been here left out as being understood. Thus, the words "and do good works" have been omitted in the description of the second stage, while the words "and believe" have been replaced with the words "and do good" in the description of the third stage.

It should be noted that the expression اتقوا (fear God), which has been repeated three times in the verse under comment, is peculiar to the Arabic language and gives a very vast meaning, the root idea underlying the word being "to be ever watchful and to be ever taking God for shelter" (see 2:3). Similarly, the expression احسنوا (do good) is very vast in its significance, for which see 2:113.

5:2, 97.

Important Words:

انتقام (retribution) is derived from نقم. They say نقم الیه i.e. he exacted vengeance upon him; he punished him. انتقمت منهmeans, I took vengeance on him; I inflicted penal retribution on him or I punished him. انتقام thus means, vengeance, punishment or penal retribution (Lane & Aqrab). See also 3:5 and 5:60.

Commentary:

If a man kills game, when he is in the state of احرام (pilgrimage), he should give as compensation a like animal to be taken to Mecca for sacrifice. For instance, if the game killed by him is a deer, he should offer a goat. If the like of the game killed cannot be found, then an animal costing approximately as much as the game killed should be offered, or failing that, the pilgrim should spend the estimated price of the game in feeding the poor, which is two مد per head according to some theologians and one صاع according to others, a مد being roughly two handfuls of corn while a صاع is four times as much as a مد. If, however, the pilgrim is unable to do even that, he should fast for as many days as the number of the poor he could feed with the estimated price of the game killed. The fasting and the feeding of the poor, as the case may be, should preferably be done at Mecca.

12:102; 14:11; 35:2; 39:47.

20:133; 51:58-59.

6:164; 39:13.

Important Words:

فاطر (Maker) is derived from فطر. They say فطره i.e. he clove or split or rent it; he created it or brought it into existence; or he originated it. فطر العجین means, he made the dough into bread without leavening it. افطر means, he broke the fast. انفطر and تفطر mean, it became cleft or split or rent. الفطرة means, the natural constitution with which a child is created. فاطر when used about God, means the Originator or the Creator or the Maker (Taj).

Commentary:

The question in the first part of the verse implies that, as God alone is the Maker of the heavens and the earth and as it is He alone Who feeds all without being fed by anybody, therefore there is none worthy of being taken as protector but He. None else is worthy of being worshipped as God.

The words, Who feeds, refute the Godhead of those lifeless objects which men have taken for gods. They admittedly feed none, but God feeds all; hence these objects are not worthy of being taken as God.

The words, is not fed, negate the Godhead of those living beings who have been deified by men. They stand in need of food, but God needs no food; hence they cannot be gods.

13:5; 16:12; 23:20; 36:35.

Commentary:

The verse means to say that when things created by God remain in their natural and unadulterated form they constitute pure, wholesome and invigorating food. But when man interferes with their natural use he corrupts them. Similarly, as long as Divine teaching remains intact, it is a source of great spiritual benefit, but when man interferes with it, it loses its usefulness and becomes harmful. The verse also points out that all wise and thoughtful persons can easily understand that everything is best suited for the purpose which it has been designed by God to serve and that to use it for any other purpose is only to destroy its usefulness. Similarly, it is not given to man to devise spiritual teachings or to interfere with those revealed by God without spoiling them or destroying their usefulness.

2:169; 5:89; 8:70.

Commentary:

In the preceding two verses the disbelievers of Mecca were threatened with hunger and fear and in the present verse the Faithful are promised security and plenty. The verse further points out that whereas disbelievers used all sorts of means—good or bad—to earn wealth, the earnings of the Faithful would be good and lawful, and because their lives would be free from fear and anxiety, the food they eat would help their physical and mental growth.

19:56; 33:34.

Commentary:

The verse draws attention to the fact that observance of prayers is the key to all success in life and to moral and spiritual food. Prayer, in fact, is the true and real spiritual favour that God has bestowed upon man, if only he knew it.

25:21.

Commentary:

Though disbelievers of all the Prophets believed them to be ordinary mortals, yet curiously enough the objection was invariably repeated to every Prophet that like ordinary mortals "he eats and drinks and walks about the streets and is subject to all human needs and demands of the body" (25:8). An implied reference is made in the present verse to this inconsistent attitude of disbelievers. It purports to say that disbelievers in the time of the Holy Prophet cannot, or do not wish to, understand this simple fact that Prophets are raised as 'models' for men, and how could they be models for them if they were not men like them and were not like them subject to the demands of the body but belonged to any other species of creation? As human beings they were not and could not be immune from the demands of the flesh or from decay or death.

7:33.

Commentary:

The fact that there exists a deep and subtle connection between the food that a person eats and his actions good or bad has now begun to be increasingly recognized by medical science. But Islam laid down as far back as 1400 years directions and instructions relating to food which possess great moral significance. While it is admitted that the properties of vegetables and mineral foods have their effect upon man, there is no reason why a man should not be affected by peculiar habits of an animal whose flesh he frequently eats. It has been established that the eating of the flesh of certain animals encourages unnatural vice and sexual perversions. Further research in this direction will confirm the principle on which Islamic restrictions and regulations concerning food are based. The basic principle laid down by Islam is that as man must develop all his natural instincts and faculties, therefore he should partake of all kinds of food, except those that are likely to do him physical, moral or spiritual harm. The use of pure and good food produces healthy mental condition which in turn produces good and righteous actions. It is to this great scientific truth that the words "and do good deeds" point, and thus by recognizing that food exerts a powerful influence on man’s morals Islam has subjected it to certain limits and conditions.

The word الرسل (Messengers) includes their followers also. The commandments given to the Messengers and Prophets of God are meant for their followers also.

11:13; 15:8; 17:93.

Commentary:

This and the next verse contain another objection of disbelievers against the Holy Prophet, which the verses following them proceed to answer. The objection is: "The Holy Prophet is but an ordinary man. He eats and walks in the streets. If he was a Messenger of God, he should have been followed by an entourage of angels who would have borne testimony to his truth and should have warned his rejecters and deniers of the punishment that was in store for them."

21:9.

Commentary:

This verse again answers from another angle the commonplace objection of disbelievers that the Holy Prophet lived like an ordinary man (v. 8). It means to say that the Holy Prophet’s mission is not something novel. He is just like those Divine Messengers who have gone before him. He is an ordinary mortal like them and like them he eats and talks and moves about and, like the followers of those Prophets, his followers also will have to suffer for the cause they hold dear. If these things did not stand in the way of the earlier Prophets being accepted as Divine Messengers, why should they in his case, and why should new criteria be devised to test his truth?

Commentary:

The teaching of social ethics and domestic morals and manners with special reference to the Holy Prophet’s marriage with Zainab and the calumnies and false charges of which the evil-minded hypocrites accused him form the subject of the present verse. Some of the social manners taught in this verse are: One should not enter a house uninvited and when invited one should be punctual. It is as bad to be before time as to be behind time. After meals one should depart, not wasting one’s own and other peoples’ time in the usual post-prandial idle talk. These are some of the rules of social conduct which need to be learnt and observed.

The commandment embodied in the words, "and when you ask them for anything, ask them from behind a curtain," is intended to discourage too much familiarity between the sexes, the pronoun ھن (them) by implication, applying to all women.

The clause, "That is purer for your hearts and their hearts," may mean; (a) that it may lead to purity of thoughts, and (b) that such conduct may protect women from slanderous tongues.

Marriage to the widows of the Holy Prophet has been declared a grievous sin in this verse. Being the "Mothers of the Faithful" it was inconsistent with their spiritual dignity to marry any of their "spiritual sons." Moreover, as wives of the Prophet, they were entrusted with the great task of the spiritual training of Muslim men and women which required utmost reverence for them on their part.

13:4; 15:20; 16:16; 77:28.

Important Words:

اقواتھا (its foods) is the plural of قوت (qut) which is derived from قات which means, he fed, nourished or sustained or fed with what would sustain the body. أقات علی الشیء means, he had power or ability to do the thing. أقاته means, he guarded or protected him. قوت means, provision, food, sustenance, etc. (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The "two days" or stages mentioned in the previous verse through which the earth had to pass before it assumed its present form are included in the number "four days" mentioned in the present verse; the additional "two days" signifying the two stages of the placing on it of mountains, rivers, etc. and the growth on it of vegetable and animal life. See also verse 13 below.

The words, "provided its foods in proper measure," signify that the earth is fully capable of providing food for all the creatures that live on it.

The expression "alike for all seekers" may signify that the foods which God has provided in the earth are equally accessible to all seekers who try to get them according to the laws of nature. It may mean also that all the physical needs and requirements of man have been adequately met in the foods that grow out of earth. So the fear that the earth may not someday be able to grow sufficient food for the fast increasing population of the world is groundless. The world can provide food, fibre and all other agricultural requirements for 28 billion people, ten times the world’s present population (Professor Cohn Clark, Director of the Agriculture Economics Research Institute of Oxford University). Only recently the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation pointed out in its report, "The State of Food and Agriculture, 1959," that the world’s food supply grows twice as fast as its population.