Prohibition as chastisement and correction

In his commentary on the verses of Al An'am and An-Nisa about certain good things being forbidden to the Jews, Sha'rawi holds that some prohibition is a chastisement for their wrongdoing, not a sign of harm in the food itself ¹³.

Sha'rawi records that the People of the Book said camels and their milk had been forbidden since the time of Abraham and Noah. The Prophet told them to bring the Torah, and they found in it something that contradicts their claim. Sha'rawi holds that all food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel forbade himself, so the claim of prohibition had no basis ¹².

Sha'rawi says that what was forbidden to the Jews was a return for their wrongdoing, for turning people from God's path and for taking usury, and not because the thing was harmful in itself. He compares it to a son whose pocket money is withheld as correction when he disobeys his mother ³.

Sha'rawi gives the example of a killer who is barred from inheriting from the one he killed. The law does not give the offender what he hurried to take by the crime, and it protects every testator from heirs who would encroach on him, so the prohibition is both protection and punishment ³.

This is Sha'rawi's reading alone, taken from a scanned copy whose edition is not yet verified, and it is presented under his name. The purposes of food prohibitions for the People of the Book have not yet been checked against works of jurisprudence and exegesis (needs_source). See also People of the Book and Usury.