This section begins with nine verses describing and prohibiting, various pagan customs regarding the treatment of livestock. The surahs name is derived from this passage. ("Cattle" should be understood to refer to livestock in general.) Some of the customs described here are related to the declaration of some animals as "Bahirah," "Sa'ibah," "Wasilah" and "Ham," as mentioned in 5:103.
Included with the prohibitions against treating camels and other livestock as sacred to pagan gods are instructions to pat the zakat-tax upon produce when it is harvested (10% or 5%) and a prohibition against killing children. This is in reference to the pagan custom of abandoning or burying-alive female babies. (Something similar is done nowadays, especially in India, where abortion is used as a sex-selective tool, only now the death occurs before birth instead of shortly afterward.)
Verse 136 seems to accuse the Meccans of consecrating grain and meat to various deities, including Allah, at harvest-time, without saying which portion was for which deity, in order that the least amount, at the end of the consecrations, would be identified as Allah's portion. This was done, presumably, on the grounds that Allah did not need it as much as the lesser, more approachable deities did.
Verse 137 is theologically interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it affirms that the false gods of the heathen have made them see child-killing as something attractive. This implies that the false gods have some actual influence they are, it seems, understood to be rebellious jinn. Second, the text then says, "If Allah had willed, they would not have done so." This seems to imply that Allah did /not/ want the heathen to take a different course. Muslim apologists, it seems to me, have two options here: to either say that the text means something like, "If Allah had desired to force those people to obey him, Allah would have made them preserve their infants lives" (which makes Allah seem a lot nicer, but is that really what the text means?) or to say that Allah wanted to punish the heathen by allowing them to be seduced into denying themselves of the blessing of daughters.
The phrase "olives and pomegranates, each similar yet different" from v. 99 is echoed in v. 141.
In verse 144, the phrase "Who does more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allah" may be an allusion to Amru Ibn Luhai, a king of ancient times who was said to have initiated the worship of some of the idols at Mecca after importing them from Syria.
The Meccans were prohibiting things which, according to Muhammad, Allah did not prohibit, and they were allowing things which, according to Muhammad, Allah did not allow. Verse 145 sums up the case: no meat is forbidden unless it is (a) carrion, (b) blood poured forth, (c) the flesh of swine "for that surely is impure or impious meat" and (d) any meat from an animal slaughtered without having Allahs name pronounced over it. And in emergencies even these rules give way.
In verse 146 Muhammad -- perhaps to show both a precedent for the prohibition of pig-meat, and to explain why the halal-standard differs from the Judaic kosher-standard -- claims that Allah told the Jews not to eat animals with undivided hoof (also translatable as "with claws" but that does not quite work because some birds were/are kosher), and prohibited "the fat of the ox and sheep except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone." The text states that those kosher-laws were instituted to punish the Jews for their rebelliousness (and thus the difference between Halal and Kosher is explained).
The Biblical kosher-laws were actually more restrictive than what is described in v. 146. The Quran states that every animal with undivided hoof was forbidden, but pigs were also forbidden, and so were scaleless fish. Still, the text is sufficient as a generalized description (the detail about fat, by the way, is based on Leviticus 3:9-17).
Anticipating, perhaps, that sooner or later some Jews would hear about Muhammads food-laws and reject them (on the same grounds that Muhammad rejected the pagan food-laws, that is, because they were promoted without true divine authority), the text the instructs Muhammad, in v. 147, to tell those who oppose him that the wrath of Allah will never be turned back from the guilty. This looks like a tactic of either intimidation or of changing the subject.
Verses 148-149 contain an interesting contrast, or non-contrast, between a statement of the pagans and a statement attributed to Allah. First, the pagans are depicted saying, "If Allah had willed, we would not have taken partners with Him, nor would our fathers, and we would not have forbidden anything (against His will)." Muhammads response: the pagans are lying and guessing. (The last phrase in v. 148 is akin to phrases in 2:78, 6:116, and 10:66.)
The next verse, however, has Muhammad saying, "had He so willed, He would indeed have guided you all." Thats what the pagans just said, so how can their statement be a lie? (A similar claim of the pagans "If it had been the will of the Most Gracious, we should not have worshiped them [the pagan deities]" is mentioned in 43:20, and is called a lie.) Inasmuch as the Quran teaches that an individual will not believe Islam unless Allah wants him to believe Islam, the pagans' statement in v. 148 seems interchangeable with the statement of Muhammad in v. 149.
Then in v. 150, the text instructs Muhammad to challenge the Meccan pagans to present testimony that the livestock-related prohibitions were given by Allah. But, if someone responds to the challenge, "testify not you with them." It is not clear to me whether this meant, "Do not contend with them," or "Do not agree with them" the second option seem superfluous since the Halal-standards have already been enunciated, but the first option would make the challenge rather pointless.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
Included with the prohibitions against treating camels and other livestock as sacred to pagan gods are instructions to pat the zakat-tax upon produce when it is harvested (10% or 5%) and a prohibition against killing children. This is in reference to the pagan custom of abandoning or burying-alive female babies. (Something similar is done nowadays, especially in India, where abortion is used as a sex-selective tool, only now the death occurs before birth instead of shortly afterward.)
Verse 136 seems to accuse the Meccans of consecrating grain and meat to various deities, including Allah, at harvest-time, without saying which portion was for which deity, in order that the least amount, at the end of the consecrations, would be identified as Allah's portion. This was done, presumably, on the grounds that Allah did not need it as much as the lesser, more approachable deities did.
Verse 137 is theologically interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it affirms that the false gods of the heathen have made them see child-killing as something attractive. This implies that the false gods have some actual influence they are, it seems, understood to be rebellious jinn. Second, the text then says, "If Allah had willed, they would not have done so." This seems to imply that Allah did /not/ want the heathen to take a different course. Muslim apologists, it seems to me, have two options here: to either say that the text means something like, "If Allah had desired to force those people to obey him, Allah would have made them preserve their infants lives" (which makes Allah seem a lot nicer, but is that really what the text means?) or to say that Allah wanted to punish the heathen by allowing them to be seduced into denying themselves of the blessing of daughters.
The phrase "olives and pomegranates, each similar yet different" from v. 99 is echoed in v. 141.
In verse 144, the phrase "Who does more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allah" may be an allusion to Amru Ibn Luhai, a king of ancient times who was said to have initiated the worship of some of the idols at Mecca after importing them from Syria.
The Meccans were prohibiting things which, according to Muhammad, Allah did not prohibit, and they were allowing things which, according to Muhammad, Allah did not allow. Verse 145 sums up the case: no meat is forbidden unless it is (a) carrion, (b) blood poured forth, (c) the flesh of swine "for that surely is impure or impious meat" and (d) any meat from an animal slaughtered without having Allahs name pronounced over it. And in emergencies even these rules give way.
In verse 146 Muhammad -- perhaps to show both a precedent for the prohibition of pig-meat, and to explain why the halal-standard differs from the Judaic kosher-standard -- claims that Allah told the Jews not to eat animals with undivided hoof (also translatable as "with claws" but that does not quite work because some birds were/are kosher), and prohibited "the fat of the ox and sheep except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone." The text states that those kosher-laws were instituted to punish the Jews for their rebelliousness (and thus the difference between Halal and Kosher is explained).
The Biblical kosher-laws were actually more restrictive than what is described in v. 146. The Quran states that every animal with undivided hoof was forbidden, but pigs were also forbidden, and so were scaleless fish. Still, the text is sufficient as a generalized description (the detail about fat, by the way, is based on Leviticus 3:9-17).
Anticipating, perhaps, that sooner or later some Jews would hear about Muhammads food-laws and reject them (on the same grounds that Muhammad rejected the pagan food-laws, that is, because they were promoted without true divine authority), the text the instructs Muhammad, in v. 147, to tell those who oppose him that the wrath of Allah will never be turned back from the guilty. This looks like a tactic of either intimidation or of changing the subject.
Verses 148-149 contain an interesting contrast, or non-contrast, between a statement of the pagans and a statement attributed to Allah. First, the pagans are depicted saying, "If Allah had willed, we would not have taken partners with Him, nor would our fathers, and we would not have forbidden anything (against His will)." Muhammads response: the pagans are lying and guessing. (The last phrase in v. 148 is akin to phrases in 2:78, 6:116, and 10:66.)
The next verse, however, has Muhammad saying, "had He so willed, He would indeed have guided you all." Thats what the pagans just said, so how can their statement be a lie? (A similar claim of the pagans "If it had been the will of the Most Gracious, we should not have worshiped them [the pagan deities]" is mentioned in 43:20, and is called a lie.) Inasmuch as the Quran teaches that an individual will not believe Islam unless Allah wants him to believe Islam, the pagans' statement in v. 148 seems interchangeable with the statement of Muhammad in v. 149.
Then in v. 150, the text instructs Muhammad to challenge the Meccan pagans to present testimony that the livestock-related prohibitions were given by Allah. But, if someone responds to the challenge, "testify not you with them." It is not clear to me whether this meant, "Do not contend with them," or "Do not agree with them" the second option seem superfluous since the Halal-standards have already been enunciated, but the first option would make the challenge rather pointless.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
