because these people are accustomed to it and find it palatable, whereas others are not accustomed to it and therefore do not find it palatable; rather, they find it repulsive. But the Sacred Law cannot be like this. If the Sacred Law prohibits a particular thing, then it is prohibited for all people. Nor does the mere fact that something is foul necessarily entail its prohibition, as shown by the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “Whoever eats from this foul tree should not come near our mosque”—meaning onions. They said, “Has it been prohibited? Has it been prohibited?” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, replied: “I have no right to prohibit what Allah has made lawful for me, but it is a tree whose smell I dislike.” (1)

Therefore, we say that the fact that people of means find something repulsive carries no weight. The meaning of the verse is that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, forbids only that which is foul. Thus, foulness is the effective cause underlying what the Sacred Law has prohibited, and the Sacred Law prohibits only what is foul. So, when it prohibits something, do not ask whether it is wholesome or not; rather, once it has prohibited it, know that it is foul. But to say that everything people—or the wealthy among them—find repulsive is unlawful is untenable, for that would mean referring legal rulings back to people’s customs and habits.

Accordingly, with regard to this fifth category, the correct view is the opposite: that what is deemed repulsive is lawful, unless it falls under one of the previous criteria, in which case it is unlawful. An example is his statement: “such as the hedgehog,” which is a small, well-known animal with spines. When it senses someone, it curls up and withdraws into these spines, so that no one can get at it.