if he wishes.” (1) The correct view is that eating is obligatory, except for one whose fast is obligatory, as mentioned earlier, or one who would be harmed by eating. Some people may suffer from an illness requiring a restricted diet and thus be unable to eat.

The Prophet’s words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “If he wishes, he may eat, and if he wishes, he may refrain,” are to be understood as referring to one who is fasting, or to a case in which no harm results. Otherwise, there is no doubt that everyone considers it socially objectionable for someone to invite people, for them to attend, and then say, “Eating is not obligatory!” It has been an Arab custom that if a person does not eat, people become apprehensive of him. This custom remains to the present day; therefore, they urge a person to eat, even if only a little. They call this milḥah: that is, you partake of their salt and eat, signifying, “We have put you at ease.”

We may say that eating is a collective obligation, not an individual obligation. If enough people eat to suffice and thereby put the inviter’s heart at ease, the rest are not obliged to eat. This is the correct view. But to say that eating is not obligatory upon the others at all is open to question.

His statement, “Its permissibility is contingent upon explicit permission,” means that the permissibility of eating depends upon explicit permission. This is an instance of attributing the adjective to the noun it qualifies; that is, upon explicit permission—for example, if he says, “Please, eat.” Once he says this, eating becomes permissible.

His statement, “or a contextual indication,” means that if the circumstances, common practice, and custom indicate that presenting food in this manner constitutes permission to eat, then you may eat.