5:3
Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
The following excerpt is taken from “The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam” by Yusuf Al Qaradawi pg. 40- 60:
The author explains that Qur’ānic prohibitions concerning food begin with the ban on consuming the flesh of animals that die without proper slaughter or hunting (i.e., carrion). Several rationales are presented: such meat is generally viewed as repugnant and inconsistent with human dignity across societies; it may pose health risks because the animal could have died from disease, poisoning, starvation, or old age; and it reinforces moral responsibility by requiring purposeful intention and effort in acquiring food through slaughter or hunting rather than benefiting from unintended death. The prohibition is also described as merciful insofar as carcasses become a source of food for animals and birds, which the Qur’ān describes as communities in their own right. In addition, the rule incentivizes owners to protect livestock from neglect, illness, and malnutrition so that animals do not die wastefully.
A second category of prohibition concerns consuming flowing blood, while blood remaining in the flesh after reasonable draining is treated as excusable. Reports attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās are cited to clarify that only liquid blood is forbidden. The rationale offered is that drinking blood contradicts human decency and may be harmful. The author notes that pre-Islamic customs included drawing blood from living animals for consumption, a practice condemned because it injures and weakens the animal.
The third prohibited food is pork. The author attributes the prohibition to both moral repugnance (given the animal’s habits) and medical harm, citing modern discussions of parasites such as trichina and suggesting that further scientific findings may continue to illuminate the wisdom of the ruling. Some scholars are also reported to argue that frequent pork consumption may weaken a person’s sense of shame or modesty. This discussion is connected to Qur’ān 7:157, which describes the Prophet as making unlawful what is impure.
A fourth prohibition relates to animals slaughtered in dedication to anyone other than God, such as those slaughtered while invoking the name of an idol. This ban is presented as primarily theological, intended to preserve monotheism, purify worship, and resist polytheistic practices. The act of pronouncing God’s name at slaughter is described as acknowledging divine permission over life and affirming that the animal is taken for food only by the Creator’s allowance.
Beyond these core prohibitions, the author explains that Qur’ān 5:3 classifies additional forms of carrion, including animals that die by strangling, beating, falling, goring, or partial predation by wild beasts. An exception is noted: if such an animal is found with signs of life remaining, it may become lawful through proper slaughter. Early statements attributed to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and al-Ḍaḥḥāk are cited to support the criterion that discernible life signs (such as movement or reflexes) indicate that slaughter can render the animal permissible. These categories are also interpreted as promoting animal welfare by discouraging negligence, cruelty, and practices that lead to unnecessary suffering. The prohibition on eating animals killed through violent mistreatment is presented as partly functioning as a deterrent and as a moral “penalty” for irresponsible ownership.
The text further distinguishes between animals “dedicated to other than God” and those sacrificed on idol altars, noting that both involve devotional practices directed away from God, even if the external procedure differs. In contrast, seafood is described as exempt from the rules governing carrion. Prophetic reports are cited indicating that the sea’s water is pure and that its dead animals are lawful. Qur’ānic verses (e.g., 5:96; 16:14) and narrations from ʿUmar, Ibn ʿAbbās, and Jābir are used to support the permissibility of marine life, including examples of Companions eating a beached whale with the Prophet’s approval. Locusts are similarly treated as exempt, since slaughter is not applicable, and reports are cited describing Companions consuming locusts during expeditions.
The author adds that the prohibition of carrion is limited to eating flesh and does not necessarily prevent the use of by-products such as skin, bones, horns, or hair, as wastefulness is discouraged. Prophetic narrations attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās are cited to show that tanning purifies a hide, with further reports indicating that tanning functions analogously to slaughter in rendering the skin usable.
The principle of necessity is then introduced: prohibited foods remain forbidden in normal circumstances, but exceptions apply when a person is compelled by extreme need, such as life-threatening hunger with no alternative. Qur’ānic passages (e.g., 2:173; 6:119; 5:3) are referenced to indicate that such permission is limited to what preserves life and must not be driven by desire or excess. Juristic opinions, including one attributed to Mālik, are cited to limit consumption to the minimum required for survival.
Regarding medicinal use of prohibited substances, the author notes disagreement among jurists. One view rejects medicinal necessity as a justification, citing a report that God has not placed cure in what He forbade. Another view considers medical need comparable to food necessity, pointing to reports where the Prophet permitted otherwise prohibited materials (such as silk) due to illness. A conditional approach is outlined: use may be permitted only when life is endangered, no lawful substitute exists, and a qualified, God-fearing Muslim physician prescribes it. The author nevertheless suggests that genuine necessity is rare in practice.
The discussion extends necessity to social responsibility: if a community possesses surplus food, an individual is not considered “compelled” to eat prohibited foods, because others are obligated to assist. A position attributed to Ibn Ḥazm is cited to argue that people with excess food must feed the hungry, and withholding such aid constitutes serious wrongdoing.
Finally, the author outlines general rules about lawful animals. Marine animals are broadly permitted regardless of how they are obtained, while terrestrial prohibitions remain limited to carrion, flowing blood, pork, and animals dedicated to other than God. Additional Prophetic prohibitions are cited regarding predatory animals and birds of prey. For lawful land animals, Islamic slaughter requires (1) a sharp instrument that causes bleeding, (2) the proper method of killing (ideally cutting the throat and relevant vessels), and (3) invoking God’s name. The emphasis is linked to minimizing suffering and ensuring humane treatment, supported by Prophetic teachings about sharpening the blade, calming the animal, and avoiding cruelty.
The author also addresses the permissibility of meat slaughtered by the People of the Book, citing Qur’ān 5:5 to support general permissibility while maintaining that inherently forbidden items remain unlawful regardless of source. Juristic discussions are presented on meat slaughtered for churches or festivals, noting differing evaluations (e.g., some considering it prohibited if explicitly dedicated to other than God, while others treat it as generally permitted). The text also notes disagreement concerning modern slaughter methods (including forms not identical to Muslim slaughter), with some Maliki jurists reportedly permitting what the People of the Book regard as lawful, while excluding what even they do not consider lawful. The author concludes with a legal-ethical principle: Muslims are not required to investigate what they did not witness in slaughter procedures; standard practice is presumed acceptable unless clear evidence shows otherwise, supported by a report in which the Prophet advised believers to mention God’s name and eat when uncertain about slaughter details.
References:
Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf (1960). The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam. (p. 40-60).