Opening: A Necessary Correction

I need to correct an earlier claim I promoted: I treated the Torah’s “clean/unclean animals” list as if it were automatically binding on non-Jews. Read strictly and responsibly, the Qur’an does not authorize that move. When I presented Torah-based restrictions as haram for people who are not under Israel’s covenant, I crossed a line the Qur’an explicitly warns against: inventing halal/haram in God’s name.

The Foundational Rule: Do Not Invent Halal or Haram (Surah an-Naḥl)

The Qur’an lays down a governing principle in Surah an-Naḥl (16:116): humans are not permitted to declare “this is lawful” and “this is unlawful” as a religious decree without clear revelation. This is not a minor detail; it functions as a meta-rule that controls how later food discussions must be read.

In other words: if the Qur’an does not explicitly prohibit something, I do not have the right to turn it into “haram” by importing another community’s covenantal rules and presenting them as universal divine law.

An-Naḥl Lists a Minimum, Not a Zoological Catalogue

In the same passage (an-Naḥl 16:114–118), the Qur’an mentions the core, universally recognized prohibitions (e.g., carrion, blood, swine flesh, and what is dedicated to other than God). It does not provide a detailed zoological clean/unclean system like Leviticus.

That absence is not a “gap” to be filled with later dogma. It is method: the Qur’an keeps prohibitions narrow and explicit.

The Qur’an Does Not Abolish the Torah—Nor Does It Universalize Israel’s Restrictions

Some claim the Qur’an “cancels the Torah” or contradicts it. But a close reading shows something else: the Qur’an acknowledges that additional restrictions were imposed on the Jews and even gives a rationale (an-Naḥl 16:118): these were connected to wrongdoing—i.e., covenantal discipline.

The point is crucial: Israel’s extra restrictions are not presented as universal haram for all peoples. Treating them as such would be an unauthorized expansion of divine law.

The Torah Itself Establishes the Covenant Principle: Different Rules for Different People

This covenant logic is not unique to the Qur’an. The Torah already contains a clear precedent that the same food can be forbidden to Israel yet allowed to others.

“You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the sojourner (ger) who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner…”

This is decisive: the prohibition is not necessarily about the food being “evil in itself,” but about covenantal identity and obligation.

The same structure appears in Passover law (Exodus 12): participation is regulated by covenant markers. Not everyone shares every ritual rule, and that does not automatically render the “outsider” impure.

Al-Māʾida 5:5: Mutual Food Permissibility as Social Legitimacy

With that background, the Qur’an’s statement makes coherent sense: in al-Māʾida 5:5, the food of the People of the Book is permitted for Muslims, and Muslim food is permitted for them.

This should be understood as removing the barrier of mutual taboo and social separation—i.e., shared table legitimacy—rather than a claim that every community must erase its internal covenant rules.

A practical example is the Torah’s prohibition of certain fats for Israel. A Jew can still maintain that restriction while eating with others by requesting what aligns with his covenant practice—just as the Torah itself differentiates between Israel and the resident outsider.

Where My Earlier Reasoning Went Wrong

The error was not in recognizing the Torah’s categories. The error was in this step:

• taking Israel’s covenant-specific restrictions (clean/unclean classifications) and presenting them as universal haram for non-Jews.

A text-faithful formulation is therefore:

The Torah binds Israel with covenant-specific food laws. The Qur’an does not automatically transfer those restrictions to others. For Muslims, “haram” must remain limited to what the Qur’an explicitly prohibits.

Conclusion

Read carefully, the Qur’an does not cancel the Torah. Nor does it universalize Israel’s disciplinary restrictions. Instead, it preserves an already-established covenant principle found in the Torah itself: different communities can have different obligations without declaring one another’s food socially forbidden.

The correction is therefore straightforward: I should not promote “unclean animals” as haram for non-Jews when the Qur’an does not state that prohibition. The Qur’an’s warning in an-Naḥl stands: do not invent halal and haram in God’s name.