Explanation of His saying: “So eat of that on which the name of Allah has been mentioned, if you are believers in His signs. And what is there for you that you should not eat of that on which the name of Allah has been mentioned, while He has explained to you what is forbidden to you, except what you are compelled to eat thereof. And indeed, many lead astray their own desires without knowledge. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of those who transgress.”

The Shaykh : And His saying: He said: meaning, so comply with what you have been commanded. The implication is that we do not eat of that on which His name has not been mentioned; we do not eat of that on which His name has not been mentioned. Why? Because it is forbidden. Then He said: This is a question meaning a rebuke, in response to what they used to do in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, namely forbidding the sa'ibah, the wasilah, the hami, and the bahirah, and saying, “This is forbidden; we do not eat from it.” So He said: Then He said: “Fassala” means He distinguished and clarified what He has forbidden to you, or what has been forbidden to you; both are valid readings. Is this specific to what is eaten, due to His saying: or is it general? The correct view is that it is general, for Allah has distinguished for us everything He has forbidden. Based on this great principle, it becomes clear that what He has not forbidden is lawful. It is not possible to say, “Perhaps it is included in the general prohibition.” We say: because the forbidden things are distinguished and clarified, so whatever is other than them is lawful, whether in terms of objects, actions, or benefits. This applies to matters other than acts of worship. And we can say, yes, it also applies to acts of worship, if we exclude the exception in His saying: because in acts of worship as well, He has distinguished for us what is forbidden to us. And what is forbidden? What is forbidden to us in acts of worship is what constitutes shirk (associating partners with Allah) or bid'ah (religious innovation); that is forbidden to us. The original ruling in acts of worship is prohibition and prevention until evidence establishes their legitimacy. For this reason, we reject any person who worships Allah with a belief, statement, or action until he brings us evidence indicating that it is prescribed. He does not need to demand evidence from us by saying, “What is the evidence that this act of worship is forbidden?” Because we say to him: the original ruling is prohibition and prevention. Just as the one who demands that we forbid something from customs or transactions, we demand evidence from him and say: the original ruling is permissibility. Any person who demands that we avoid something from customs, we say to him: bring the evidence for this. If he does not bring evidence, it is not obligatory for us to avoid what he demanded evidence for. And His saying: means, whatever necessity calls you to, it is lawful. This is from the mercy of Allah the Exalted and Majestic to His servants, that the thing one is compelled to eat becomes lawful. If someone asks: Does it become lawful while its filth remains, or does its filth disappear? The answer is: it is lawful while its filth remains, and the filth does not disappear. Because if the filth disappeared, it would not return. And when the necessity ceases, the prohibition returns. But because the necessity calls for it, the Lawgiver permitted it for us while the preventing attribute, which is the filth, remains. The scholars said: this filthy thing that harms a person if he consumes it in a state of necessity, due to the strength of the desire and appetite, descends quickly and the body is not harmed by it, because there is a strength that demands it and an appetite that burns it up until it descends quickly and the body is not harmed by it. Accordingly, it is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that dates were brought to him and he began to eat from them. Sa'ib ibn Sinan al-Rumi was with him and wanted to eat, but he had an eye infection that pained one of his eyes. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: He said, “Yes, O Messenger of Allah, I will chew it with the other side,” meaning, for example, if the right eye is paining, he chews it on the left molar, and vice versa. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) laughed and allowed him to do so, even though it is known that a person with an eye infection does not eat dates because he is harmed by them. Ibn al-Qayyim commented on this: because the soul demands it with strength, it accepts it quickly and burns it up, and its harm disappears. This is observed even in apparent physical things; if a person is longing for something, he endures bearing it and is not harmed by it. Then He the Exalted and Majestic said: “Indeed, many” — of whom? Of people — “lead astray by their desires.” Allah the Exalted called it “hawa” (desire) because it is contrary to the truth. Even though these desires may be called “intellect” by their owners, and they say, “Intellect indicates such and such; intellect prevents such and such.” But in reality, it is desire (hawa) by which they lead people astray without knowledge. From what? From the Shari'ah. Meaning, they have understandings, but they are deviated; they do not have knowledge. As the Shaykh al-Islam said regarding the theologians (mutakallimun): he said, “They were given understandings but did not bring knowledge, and they were given intelligence but did not bring purity.” Look, Subhan Allah (Glory be to Allah), they have understanding and are intelligent, but they do not have knowledge of the Shari'ah. You find one person writing many pages without mentioning a single piece of evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. And this is found in the books of the later generations. I found in some of the approved books on education in some universities that the entire book did not contain a single verse from the Book of Allah or a hadith from the Messenger of Allah, even though I think it is more than three hundred pages. This is because they do not know religious knowledge. And yet, it is written as a title: “Sociology.” What kind of sociology? Religious sociology? Muslim sociology? Without religious evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. You find him quoting from so-and-so and so-and-so, and I do not know about them whether they are Muslims or disbelievers. So I tell you: these people lead astray by their desires without knowledge, not from the Book and not from the Sunnah. And this is the calamity that occurs. Then He said: This indicates that their action is aggression and transgression against the Shari'ah of Allah and against the servants of Allah. And His saying: “Huwa” (He) is a pronoun for emphasis, and “A'lam” (most knowing). It was said that it means “'Alim” (knowing), but the correct view, without doubt, is that it is a name of superlative degree. The one who interprets it as “'Alim” has a very deficient interpretation. There is a difference between “'Alim” and “A'lam.” If you say, “So-and-so is 'Alim (knowing) in such and such,” we understand that he is knowing, but does it prevent others from sharing in that knowledge? No. If you say, “So-and-so is A'lam (most knowing),” it means no one shares with him in this rank because he is the most knowing. Here we say “A'lam bi al-mu'tadin” (most knowing of those who transgress). The name of superlative degree is in its proper place, and it is never correct to interpret it as “'Alim” due to the deficiency in meaning. So it is a crime against the wording and a crime against the meaning in reality. Even if those who interpreted it this way did not have bad intentions, this is what their understanding led them to. Otherwise, there is no doubt that it is a crime against the wording, where we turned “A'lam” (a name of superlative degree) into “'Alim” (knowing), and also against the meaning, because “A'lam” is not shared by anyone in being the most knowing, but “'Alim” does not prevent others from sharing with him. So “He is most knowing of those who transgress.” They say: If we said “'Alim,” it would necessitate that the preferred one and the one preferred to share in the original attribute, with the preferred one having an addition. We say to them: Does this harm? What harms is to come with a description that does not prevent sharing, which is the word “'Alim.” But to come with a name of superlative degree that prevents sharing, there is no objection; rather, this is what is required by the indication of the Qur'an. Thus, O Muhammad, thus answer with what you are in.

The questioner : ...؟

The Shaykh : And by Allah, I do not know, you answered...