and accordingly, we say that the correct view is that the crocodile is not to be excluded; rather, it may be eaten.

His statement, “and the snake”: that is, it is prohibited. Al-Rawḍ says, “It is among creatures deemed repulsive” (1). This reasoning is open to objection for two reasons. First, as mentioned previously, there is room for questioning it. Second, what is deemed repulsive on land does not mean that its marine counterpart is deemed repulsive. Accordingly, the correct view is that nothing is excluded from this ruling: all sea creatures that can live only in water are lawful, whether alive or dead, due to the general meaning of the noble verse we mentioned earlier.

“Whoever is compelled to make use of another person’s property while its substance remains intact—for protection against cold, for obtaining water, and the like—it is obligatory to provide it to him free of charge, ……”

His statement, “whoever is compelled”: in morphological derivation, the original form of uḍṭurra (“is compelled”) is uḍturira. It is not correct to say iḍṭarra, because the person is compelled, not the one who compels. Yes, if you say, “So-and-so iḍṭarra so-and-so to do such-and-such,” this is correct. But when it is used to describe one upon whom necessity has fallen, it is not permissible to say iḍṭarra. This is why the Quran says: “But whoever is compelled …” [2:173]. Take note: some students say iḍṭarra, but this is mistaken. It means that necessity compelled him—that is, he was afflicted by a necessity to do this thing, and he will suffer harm if he does not do it.

His statement, “to something prohibited”: that is, something prohibited among these forbidden foods.

His statement, “other than poison”: the author excludes poison; its discussion will come later.

His statement, “he may consume enough of it to sustain his life”: “sustain” means suffice, and “his remaining life-force”—