Likewise, some scholars have said that whatever the Arabs find repugnant has been forbidden to all Muslims, and whatever they find palatable has been made lawful for them. Most scholars disagree with this view, including Mālik, Abū Hanīfah, Ahmad, and Ahmad’s early followers. However, al-Khiraqī and a group of them agreed with al-Shāfiʿī on this point. As for Ahmad himself, the great majority of his recorded statements agree with the majority of scholars and the position held by the Companions and Successors: declaring something lawful or forbidden does not depend on whether the Arabs find it palatable or repugnant. Indeed, they found palatable things that Allah prohibited, such as blood, carrion, animals killed by strangling, beating, falling, or goring, those killed by beasts of prey, and those slaughtered in the name of anyone other than Allah.

Conversely, they—even the best among them—disliked things that Allah had not forbidden. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, even disliked the meat of the spiny-tailed lizard, saying:

“It was not found in the land of my people, so I find it distasteful.”

Yet he also said, “It is not forbidden.” It was eaten at his table while he watched, and he said of it, “I neither eat it nor forbid it.”

The majority of scholars have said that the wholesome things Allah has made lawful are those that benefit the eater in his religion, while the unwholesome are those that harm him in his religion. The foundation of religion is justice, which Allah sent the messengers to establish. Thus, He has prohibited whatever food engenders aggression and injustice in the eater, just as He has prohibited all fanged beasts of prey, because they are aggressive and predatory. There is a resemblance between food and the one nourished by it: when a person’s flesh is formed from these animals, he develops a disposition toward aggression and hostility.