ٱلْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ ٱلطَّيِّبَٰتُ ۖ وَطَعَامُ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ حِلٌّ لَّكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ ۖ وَٱلْمُحْصَنَٰتُ مِنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنَٰتِ وَٱلْمُحْصَنَٰتُ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ
Al-yawma uḥilla lakumu'ṭ-ṭayyibāt · Wa ṭaʿāmu'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba ḥillun lakum wa ṭaʿāmukum ḥillun lahum · Wa'l-muḥṣanātu mina'l-muʾmināti wa'l-muḥṣanātu mina'lladhīna ūtu'l-kitāba min qablikum idhā ātaytumūhunna ujūrahunna muḥṣinīna ghayra musāfiḥīna wa lā muttakhidhī akhdān · Wa man yakfur bi'l-īmāni fa-qad ḥabiṭa ʿamaluh wa huwa fi'l-ākhirati mina'l-khāsirīn
"Today the good things have been made lawful to you. The food of those who were given the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And chaste women among the believers, and chaste women among those who were given the Book before you — provided you give them their bridal dues, in chastity, not in fornication, and not taking secret lovers — are lawful to you. And whoever denies the faith, his work has come to nothing, and in the hereafter he is among the losers."
This verse is the source of one of the most intensively debated areas of the classical literature of law. Per the method (Method) no legal ruling is issued here. What will be done is to give the linguistic side of the words, to show the verse's own qualifications, and to transmit the disagreement in a neutral table. None of the tables below is this text's preference, and none of them is binding.
The sentence about food is built in two directions, and this is worth recording as a matter of word order:
The same predicate, twice, with its direction reversed. The same word order was treated at al-Baqara 2/187 (hunna libāsun lakum wa antum libāsun lahunn): the repetition of a sentence with its direction reversed shows that no one-way superiority is being established between the parties. I rely on that treatment.
The function of this word order here is this: the relation of the table is announced not as a permission but as a reciprocal state.
| View | What ṭaʿām covers |
|---|---|
| First | All foods |
| Second | The flesh of slaughtered animals in particular — because that is what is at issue; for other foods there is no question in the first place |
| Third | Foods such as crops and fruit that have nothing to do with slaughter; meat is a separate matter |
I do not impose a preference. This table is a transmission of information and is not binding. The legal detail of the matter — the conditions of slaughter, who does the slaughtering, what holds in which case — is not the subject of this section and is not settled here.
The concrete sense of the root: to be protected, to be made secure. Ḥiṣn — a fortress; plural ḥuṣūn — the word was treated in al-Ḥashr at 59/2 (ḥuṣūnihim). Ḥaṣān — protected. The Turkish "hisar", "muhasara", "tahassun" are from this root.
That is, the picture the word gives is of one who has a fortress, who is protected. And from here three distinct usages arise; the sense of the word here is a classical matter of disagreement:
| Reading | Muḥṣanāt | Ground |
|---|---|---|
| First | Chaste women | The "protectedness" sense of the root; the qualification ghayra musāfiḥīn later in the verse supports it |
| Second | Free women (not slaves) | The word is used in this sense in the Qurʾān as well (al-Nisāʾ 4/25) |
| Third | Married women | The word has this sense too; it is said not to fit the context here |
In al-Nūr at 24/4 the views on the scope of this same word were recorded, and no preference was adopted there either. Here too no preference is adopted.
A note on the variant readings: it is transmitted that the word is read muḥṣanāt (with fatḥa — the one who has been protected) and muḥṣināt (with kasra — the one who protects herself). I name no authority. The difference is whether the protecting is passive or active.
In giving the permission the verse enters three qualifications, and these are often passed over. In the text they stand side by side:
| Qualification | Word | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Idhā ātaytumūhunna ujūrahunna | That the due (the bridal gift) has been given |
| 2 | Muḥṣinīna ghayra musāfiḥīn | That the man too be chaste; that he not be in an openly illicit relationship |
| 3 | Wa lā muttakhidhī akhdān | That he take no secret lover |
مُسَٰفِح — root س-ف-ح: to pour out, to spill (of water or of blood). Sifāḥ — from this root, relations outside marriage. The picture the word gives is of an open and prodigal pouring out.
أَخْدَان — the plural of khidn; root خ-د-ن: a close companion, an intimate. The word covers the hidden relationship.
That is, the verse closes both doors: neither the public nor the hidden. And the one thing it sets against them is a word whose root is "fortress": muḥṣinīn. I record this as my own reading; its ground is the placing of the three words side by side.
أُجُور — the plural of ajr: a return, a wage. What is meant here is the bridal gift. That the word is "wage" shows the payment to be not a favour but a right.
The ground of the verse is given openly at its end, and the ground is about the direction of the call: ulāʾika yadʿūna ila'n-nār. The verse issues no blanket verdict about a lineage, a people or a community; it speaks by way of an attribute.
I rely on that treatment. The relation between the two verses is one of the most debated matters in classical exegesis, and I transmit the disagreement as it stands:
| View | The relation of 2/221 to 5/5 |
|---|---|
| First | The mushrikāt of 2/221 does not include the People of the Book; the two verses speak of separate fields and there is no contradiction |
| Second | 2/221 is general, and 5/5 excepts a part of it (takhṣīṣ) |
| Third | In the Qurʾān ahl al-kitāb and mushrik are named as separate categories (al-Bayyina 98/1, for instance); this distinction shows that the two verses have different subjects |
1. The verse is one-directional. The address is made to men and only one direction is spoken of. On the reverse direction there is no explicit statement in this verse; that matter has been debated in the literature of law on the basis of other evidence, and it is not settled here.
2. The verse is not a recommendation but a statement of a limit. That something is permitted does not mean that it is preferred; the measure at al-Baqara 2/221 ("the direction of the call") is a separate measure and has not been lifted. It is widely recorded in the classical commentaries that this permission, though given, was not encouraged. I transmit this as a report.
The construction is striking: yakfur bi'l-īmān — "to cover over the faith". The primary sense of the root ك-ف-ر is to cover, and it has been treated in many places in this collection (al-Kāfirūn, Ibrāhīm, al-Shūrā). That what is covered here is named "faith" is interesting: one usually says "denial of God"; here faith itself is set as the object that is covered.
حَبِطَ — root ح-ب-ط: the concrete sense the lexicographers record is very vivid: an animal's eating a harmful plant so that its belly swells, and the swelling destroys it. That is, ḥubūṭ is fullness seen from outside and corruption from within. The word chosen for a deed's "coming to nothing" carries the picture not of emptiness but of a wrong fullness.