Surah anaam Ayat 145 Urdu translation

Surah anaam Ayat 145 meaning in urdu

اے محمدؐ! ان سے کہو کہ جو وحی تمہارے پاس آئی ہے اس میں تو میں کوئی چیز ایسی نہیں پاتا جو کسی کھانے والے پر حرام ہو، الا یہ کہ وہ مُردار ہو، یا بہایا ہوا خون ہو، یاسور کا گوشت ہو کہ وہ ناپاک ہے، یا فسق ہو کہ اللہ کے سوا کسی اور کے نام پر ذبح کیا گیا ہو پھر جو شخص مجبوری کی حالت میں (کوئی چیز اِن میں سے کھا لے) بغیر اس کے کہ وہ نافرمانی کا ارادہ رکھتا ہو اور بغیر اس کے کہ وہ حد ضرورت سے تجاوز کرے، تو یقیناً تمہارا رب در گزر سے کام لینے والا اور رحم فرمانے والا ہے

Tafseer Tafheem-ul-Quran by Syed Abu-al-A'la Maududi

(6:145) Tell them (O Muhammad!): 'I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden for anyone who wants to eat unless it is carrion, outpoured blood and the flesh of swine, all of which is unclean; or that which is profane having been slaughtered in a name other than that of Allah. *121 But whosoever is constrained to it by necessity - neither desiring to disobey nor exceeding the limit of necessity - your Lord is surely AllForgiving, All-Compassionate.

Say, "I do not find within that which was revealed to me meaning

*121). See for this Surah al-Baqarah 2: 173, Surah al-Md'idah 5: 3 and Surah al-Nahl 16: 115. The slight difference between this verse and Surah al-Baqarah 2:173 is that whereas the latter mentions 'blood' as prohibited, the present verse qualifies it with 'outpoured', i.e. the blood which has flowed as a result of either injuring or slaughtering an animal. This, in fact, constitutes an elucidation of the former injunction rather than the revelation of a different one. Likewise, Surah al-Ma'idah 5: 3 mentions the prohibition of certain other categories - animals strangled or killed by blows, those which have died from either falling or goring, and those devoured by a beast of prey, in addition to the four classes mentioned here. This is not an independent, divergent injunction; it is rather an explanation signifying that the animals thus killed fall into the category of 'carrion'.
There is a group of Muslim jurists who believe that prohibition is confined to these four classes of animal food, and that the eating of everything else is lawful. This was also the view of 'Abd Allah b. 'Abbas and 'A'ishah. Several traditions, however, indicate that the Prophet (peace be on him) either told people not to eat certain things or expressed his disapproval at their eating them, for example, domesticated donkeys, beasts with canine teeth and birds with claws. It is for this reason that the majority of jurists do not consider prohibition confined to these four classes but extend it to several others. These jurists disagree, however, on which of those things are unlawful and which are lawful. Abu Hanifah, Malik and Shafi'i, for example, consider domesticated donkeys to be unlawful. Others argue that the Prophet (peace be on him) forbade them on a special occasion and because of a special reason. To cite another example, the Hanafi jurists hold wild beasts, birds of prey and animals which feed on carrion to be absolutely unlawful, whereas Milik and Awza'i hold birds of prey to be lawful. Layth considers the cat to be lawful. In the same way, Shafi'i considers prohibition to be confined only to those beasts which actually attack man, such as lion, wolf, tiger and so on. In the opinion of another jurist, 'Ikrimah, both crow and badger are lawful. Likewise, whereas the Hanafi jurists declare all crawling creatures to be prohibited, Ibn Abi Layla, Malik and Awza'i hold the snake to be lawful.
Upon reflection of these divergent opinions and the arguments adduced in support of them, it becomes clear that categorical prohibition embraces only those four classes mentioned in the Qur'an. As for other types of animal food, regarding which the jurists have expressed a negative view, they seem to carry varying degrees of religious disapprobation. The things whose disapprobation is established by statements of the Prophet (peace be on him) transmitted to us through sound traditions, are relatively close to 'prohibition'. As for things regarding which them is disagreement among jurists, their religious disapprobation becomes doubtful.
Temperamental dislike, however, is quite a different matter. The Law Of God does not force anyone to eat everything which is not prohibited. At the same time, the Law does not entitle anybody to exalt his personal likes and dislikes into a criterion of what is lawful and unlawful. No one is justified in reproaching others for consuming lawful things which offend his tastes.