-
Hikmah Behind Quran’s Way Of Prohibiting Food
The Qur’an establishes the prohibition of certain foods through several related statements: it declares:
– bahīmat al-anʿām lawful,
– describes ṭayyibāt as lawful and khabāʾith as unlawful,
– and explicitly declares swine to be forbidden.
From these verses, Ghamidi derives a broader principle: animals that possess a beastly mode of eating (cheer-phaar karke khana — tearing flesh with their teeth/claws and eating in a predatory manner) are prohibited, while for other animals, the distinction between ṭayyib and khabīth can be determined through sound human nature (fiṭrah).
This raises an important question:
If the intended underlying principle is simply that “animals with a beastly/predatory mode of eating are prohibited”, why does the Qur’an establish this principle indirectly through categories such as bahīmat al-anʿām, ṭayyibāt, khabāʾith, and the explicit prohibition of swine, rather than stating the principle directly—for example, “only Animals that eat in a beastly manner are prohibited”?
Would an explicit statement not have been shorter, clearer, and less open to disagreement or confusion? And if the Qur’an deliberately chose the longer route, what is the wisdom behind it?
As we know, the Qur’an sometimes states a general principle concisely, and that principle is sufficient for guidance—for example, the principle of shūrā in “amruhum shūrā baynahum.” So why does the Qur’an adopt a longer and more indirect route when dealing with food prohibitions, rather than stating the underlying principle directly?
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi