It is recited (حَرّم) in the form of the doer, and حُرِّم in the form of the object, and حَرُم in the measure of كرم. It was raised by which it is not for Allah, meaning raised in voice for the idol. This is the saying of the people of ignorance: 'In the name of al-Lat and al-Uzza.' Not being unjust to another in need nor returning to satisfy hunger. If you say: In the dead animals, there is what is permissible, which is fish and locusts. The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, said: 'Two dead things and two bloods have been made lawful for us.' [Narrated by Ahmad, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Majah, and al-Daraqutni from the hadith of Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him]. I say: It is intended what people understand and are accustomed to in custom. Do you not see that when someone says: So-and-so ate a dead thing, the thought does not go to fish and locusts, just as if he said: He ate blood, the thought does not go to liver and spleen. Due to the consideration of custom and familiarity, they said: Whoever swears not to eat meat and eats fish has not broken his oath - even if he ate meat in reality. Allah, the Exalted, said: 'So that you may eat from it fresh meat.' They likened it to one who swore not to ride a beast, and he rode a disbeliever, he has not broken his oath - even though Allah, the Exalted, called it a beast in His saying: 'Indeed, the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who disbelieved.' If you say: What about the mention of the flesh of the pig without its fat? I say: Because the fat is included in the mention of the flesh, being a part of it and a characteristic of it, as evidenced by their saying: Fat meat, meaning it is fatty.