In the previous blog we discussed how consensus cannot be used to remove the base position that animals from the sea that are not fish, are permissible. We now move onto looking at other reasons why the base position might not be applicable.
Firstly, consider the Qur`anic verse:
“FORBIDDEN to you is carrion (1), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God's has been invoked, and the animal that has been strangled, or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or gored to death, or savaged by a beast of prey, save that which you [yourselves] may have slaughtered while it was still alive”(2)
Some may conclude that when it is not established that they have been slaughtered in the Islamic way, the animal is considered dead, and therefore the general order of impermissibility is applicable.
Firstly, Fadlallah notices that what is intended by “carrion” is not animals which have not been slaughtered (in the Islamic way), rather it refers to animals that have died by themselves. This is best demonstrated by considering an animal, which is slaughtered without fulfilling all the conditions of an Islamic slaughter (3). Such an animal is not considered “carrion”, even if the meat is not allowed to be eaten.
Further to this, there is no evidence to suggest that animals that are not allowed to be eaten are “carrion”. In fact even animals that are impermissible to be eaten, which are not inherently ritually impure, are not considered “carrion” if they are slaughtered (although they are still not allowed to be eaten). Therefore, what is meant by “carrion” is that which has died itself, and that is what is considered impermissible.(4)
Secondly, the statement “save that which you [yourselves] may have slaughtered while it was still alive” is not linked to “carrion” because “the flesh of swine” is impermissible regardless of whether it has been slaughtered in the Islamic way or not.
Therefore, this Qur`anic argument is not sufficient to show that animals of the sea are impermissible.
Finally, Fadlallah considers the narrations relevant to this topic:
“I asked him about Al-Rubith (5). He said: Don’t eat it, Ammar, because we do not define it as fish.”(6)
This narration is used as the main reasoning why some scholars consider animals in the sea that are not fish, to be impermissible to be eaten. It is based on the prohibition of the Imam (AS) on eating al-Rubith, an animal not known as a fish. The narration is considered to be equivalent to the statement: “everything that is not fish, is not allowed to be eaten”. Therefore, the permissibility is restricted to fish alone.
The problem with this is that it contradicts other narrations that are clear in the permissibility of al-Rubith (7) - and this is agreed by the author of al-Jawahir (8). Therefore, this narration cannot be used to conclude that every sea animal that is not considered a fish, is impermissible.
In the end, therefore, the base position still holds and animals from the sea that are not fish, are considered permissible! In the next blogs, we will focus on the most difficult topic: that about fish without scales.
Again, if you have any ideas for future blogs….
(1) Translation of Maytata; may also be translated as carcass of a dead animal, dead meat (Yusuf Ali)
(2) Qur`an, 5:3 (translation by Asad)
(3) For example, the name of God has not been invoked prior to slaughter
(4) Fadlallah also notes that this inference is possible from similar verses in the Qur`an (e.g. 2: 173)
(5) This is considered a type of fish (Lane), also refer to Majma’ al-Bahrayn, Volume 2, Page 254
(6) Wasa`il, Volume 24, Page 140
(7) Refer to Wasa`il, Volume 24, Page 140; that is the reason the author of Wasa`il titled the chapter by: “The fact that al-Rubith is not impermissible but is detested”
(8) This is recognized as a leading reference in Fiqh
Monday 20 September 2010
Tuesday 14 September 2010
Seafood (6)
As the base position and the general Qur`anic principles discuss sea animals in general, it has not so far been necessary to tailor the arguments to the different types of animals of the sea. However, when it comes to looking at the more specific evidence, Ayatullah Fadlallah divides the discussion into the three relevant categories: fish with scales, fish without scales, and other animals in the sea.
Fish with scales:
Ayatullah Fadlallah does not exert any effort in proving that fish with scales are Halal, as there is complete consensus amongst both Shi’is and Sunnis on this issue.
Other animals in the sea that are not fish:
Ayatullah Fadlallah proposes that three main sources of evidence potentially can be used to supersede the general Qur`anic principle that all animals in the sea are Halal: consensus, other Qur`anic principles and specific narrations. In this blog, we will focus on consensus.
Ayatullah Fadlallah argues that although some have claimed there is consensus on the Hurma (from Haram) of all animals in the sea that are not fish (1), many eminent scholars of the past and present have doubts including al-Ardabili(2), al-Sabzwari (3), al-Fayd al-Kashani (4) and al-Naraqi (5), proving that no consensus had been established.
Further to this, in general Shi’i Fiqh, consensus, is not authoritative in of itself unless it uncovers or is based on textual evidence that has not reached us. In such a case, it would be useful as there may be no other way to derive the ruling, and consensus at some time due to a clear ruling would be authoritative for us.
However, the consensus (if not based on evidence that has not reached us) will otherwise be based on their personal opinions and judgements which are both fallible and potentially influenced by the views of the major scholars of the time, rather than based on textual evidence. If the scholars in the consensus explain their ruling, and give their sources, then this gives further right to later scholars to challenge their process of derivation, and the consensus in such a case cannot be authoritative.
It is important to note here, that this is a significant feature of Ayatullah Fadlallah: that the claim of consensus, does not prevent him from investigating a subject and having the courage (or some would argue arrogance) to issue a ruling (6) that is contrary to that on which there was apparent consensus (7).
In the next blog we will conclude the discussion by looking at the Qur`anic principles and specific narrations relevant to animals of the sea that are not fish. The subsequent blog will then be on fish without scales!
Please do email if there are any preferences for the next set of blogs, as there are only a few more on this topic!
(1) Jawahir al-Kalam, Volume 36, Page 242
(2) Al-Majma’, Volume 11, Page 187
(3) Kifayat al-Fiqh, Page 348 (Hijri edition); Volume 2, Page 596 from the recent edition published by the Foundation of Islamic Publications in the city of Qum
(4) Mafatih al-Shara`i’, Volume 2, Page 184
(5) Al-Mustanad, Volume 15, Page 59
(6) Consider his opinion, legalizing cloning (refer to his website)
(7)Compare with earlier blog, where Ayatullah Khui argues convincingly that all the evidence suggesting that the People of the Book are ritually impure, are not conclusive, but still chooses to issue a precautionary ruling, in line with previous scholars rather than in line with his reasoning.
Fish with scales:
Ayatullah Fadlallah does not exert any effort in proving that fish with scales are Halal, as there is complete consensus amongst both Shi’is and Sunnis on this issue.
Other animals in the sea that are not fish:
Ayatullah Fadlallah proposes that three main sources of evidence potentially can be used to supersede the general Qur`anic principle that all animals in the sea are Halal: consensus, other Qur`anic principles and specific narrations. In this blog, we will focus on consensus.
Ayatullah Fadlallah argues that although some have claimed there is consensus on the Hurma (from Haram) of all animals in the sea that are not fish (1), many eminent scholars of the past and present have doubts including al-Ardabili(2), al-Sabzwari (3), al-Fayd al-Kashani (4) and al-Naraqi (5), proving that no consensus had been established.
Further to this, in general Shi’i Fiqh, consensus, is not authoritative in of itself unless it uncovers or is based on textual evidence that has not reached us. In such a case, it would be useful as there may be no other way to derive the ruling, and consensus at some time due to a clear ruling would be authoritative for us.
However, the consensus (if not based on evidence that has not reached us) will otherwise be based on their personal opinions and judgements which are both fallible and potentially influenced by the views of the major scholars of the time, rather than based on textual evidence. If the scholars in the consensus explain their ruling, and give their sources, then this gives further right to later scholars to challenge their process of derivation, and the consensus in such a case cannot be authoritative.
It is important to note here, that this is a significant feature of Ayatullah Fadlallah: that the claim of consensus, does not prevent him from investigating a subject and having the courage (or some would argue arrogance) to issue a ruling (6) that is contrary to that on which there was apparent consensus (7).
In the next blog we will conclude the discussion by looking at the Qur`anic principles and specific narrations relevant to animals of the sea that are not fish. The subsequent blog will then be on fish without scales!
Please do email if there are any preferences for the next set of blogs, as there are only a few more on this topic!
(1) Jawahir al-Kalam, Volume 36, Page 242
(2) Al-Majma’, Volume 11, Page 187
(3) Kifayat al-Fiqh, Page 348 (Hijri edition); Volume 2, Page 596 from the recent edition published by the Foundation of Islamic Publications in the city of Qum
(4) Mafatih al-Shara`i’, Volume 2, Page 184
(5) Al-Mustanad, Volume 15, Page 59
(6) Consider his opinion, legalizing cloning (refer to his website)
(7)Compare with earlier blog, where Ayatullah Khui argues convincingly that all the evidence suggesting that the People of the Book are ritually impure, are not conclusive, but still chooses to issue a precautionary ruling, in line with previous scholars rather than in line with his reasoning.
Monday 6 September 2010
Seafood (5)
In the previous blogs, we looked at two general principles: that everything in the Earth is Halal and food in general is Halal (I emphasise these are general principles that would be the base position if and only if there is on other evidence saying the opposite).
We are now going to look at evidence for another general principle – that anything hunted from the sea for food, is allowed to be eaten.
There are many verses of the Qur`an used to justify this general principle (note again that this does not mean that there might be exceptions to this general rule in narrations):
1. Surah Ma`ida, verse 96: “Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food, for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel but forbidden is the pursuit of landgame;- as long as ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb” (Ihram)
There is no restriction provided in this verse, and what is understood normally from this verse (‘urf) is that any prey from the sea is allowed to be eaten.
There are two responses to this reasoning:
Firstly, it may be understood, from the context, that the verse has been revealed to make it clear what is Halal and not Halal for the person in Ihram, not generally, as it says in the end of the verse: “as long as ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb” (ma dumtum huruma)
The following points can be mentioned in response:
• The mention of “lawful…for…those who travel” implies that that it has nothing to do with being in Ihram. This is because if what was intended from the verse was that both commands about prey from the sea and land were only relevant for the one in Ihram, there would be no reason to mention “for those who travel”. And the idea that what is meant by “for those who travel” is only those who travel whilst in Ihram, is against the apparent meaning of the verse
• The universality of the verse, especially with the addition of the words “and its use for food”, makes people think that everything that is hunted from the sea is Halal or at the minimum, this will lead to some people believing that the lawfulness of the food is absolute, which would otherwise require the Prophet (SAW) intervene and make it clear that the lawfulness is specified only to fish with scales…etc.. Therefore, the base position is that it is Halal unless there is a narration to say something different.
Secondly, there is another argument against the reasoning that all seafood is Halal. The main point is that the verse actually means: “what is Halal for you, is benefitting from everything that is hunted from the sea, and what is Halal for you is eating, what is eaten from it” (1). The reasoning is that “its use for food” is added to “pursuit of water-game”, indicating that not all water-game is Halal, only that which is eaten.
However, the problem with this argument, is that it is based on interpreting water-game as what is hunted, and this is not the apparent meaning of the verse. This is because water-game is the act of hunting itself and therefore the verse is explaining t he legality of hunting as a known act, and the food that comes from it.
2. Verses such as:
Surah Nahl, Verse 14: “It is He Who has made the sea subject, that ye may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender…”
Surah Fatir, Verse 12: “…yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh fresh and tender, and ye extract ornaments to wear…”
From these, we can infer that one of the most important benefits from the seas which Allah has made for mankind, is that he can eat from it as long as it is “fresh and tender” and by the lack of any restriction, this applies to all animals of the sea i.e. fish, whales and other animals.
It is clear that the term “fresh and tender” is not a restriction on the rule that it is allowed to eat what is from the sea. This is clear because there is complete agreement amongst all scholars that you can eat fish that are not “fresh and tender”. The usage of the term, therefore, is just to explain what is mostly the case or because good fish is that which is “fresh and tender”.
In the next blog, we will move onto the heart of the issue – the narrations that discuss these topics.
(1) Tafsir Jawami’ al-Jami’ of Tabarsi, Volume 1, Page 534
We are now going to look at evidence for another general principle – that anything hunted from the sea for food, is allowed to be eaten.
There are many verses of the Qur`an used to justify this general principle (note again that this does not mean that there might be exceptions to this general rule in narrations):
1. Surah Ma`ida, verse 96: “Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food, for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel but forbidden is the pursuit of landgame;- as long as ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb” (Ihram)
There is no restriction provided in this verse, and what is understood normally from this verse (‘urf) is that any prey from the sea is allowed to be eaten.
There are two responses to this reasoning:
Firstly, it may be understood, from the context, that the verse has been revealed to make it clear what is Halal and not Halal for the person in Ihram, not generally, as it says in the end of the verse: “as long as ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb” (ma dumtum huruma)
The following points can be mentioned in response:
• The mention of “lawful…for…those who travel” implies that that it has nothing to do with being in Ihram. This is because if what was intended from the verse was that both commands about prey from the sea and land were only relevant for the one in Ihram, there would be no reason to mention “for those who travel”. And the idea that what is meant by “for those who travel” is only those who travel whilst in Ihram, is against the apparent meaning of the verse
• The universality of the verse, especially with the addition of the words “and its use for food”, makes people think that everything that is hunted from the sea is Halal or at the minimum, this will lead to some people believing that the lawfulness of the food is absolute, which would otherwise require the Prophet (SAW) intervene and make it clear that the lawfulness is specified only to fish with scales…etc.. Therefore, the base position is that it is Halal unless there is a narration to say something different.
Secondly, there is another argument against the reasoning that all seafood is Halal. The main point is that the verse actually means: “what is Halal for you, is benefitting from everything that is hunted from the sea, and what is Halal for you is eating, what is eaten from it” (1). The reasoning is that “its use for food” is added to “pursuit of water-game”, indicating that not all water-game is Halal, only that which is eaten.
However, the problem with this argument, is that it is based on interpreting water-game as what is hunted, and this is not the apparent meaning of the verse. This is because water-game is the act of hunting itself and therefore the verse is explaining t he legality of hunting as a known act, and the food that comes from it.
2. Verses such as:
Surah Nahl, Verse 14: “It is He Who has made the sea subject, that ye may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender…”
Surah Fatir, Verse 12: “…yet from each (kind of water) do ye eat flesh fresh and tender, and ye extract ornaments to wear…”
From these, we can infer that one of the most important benefits from the seas which Allah has made for mankind, is that he can eat from it as long as it is “fresh and tender” and by the lack of any restriction, this applies to all animals of the sea i.e. fish, whales and other animals.
It is clear that the term “fresh and tender” is not a restriction on the rule that it is allowed to eat what is from the sea. This is clear because there is complete agreement amongst all scholars that you can eat fish that are not “fresh and tender”. The usage of the term, therefore, is just to explain what is mostly the case or because good fish is that which is “fresh and tender”.
In the next blog, we will move onto the heart of the issue – the narrations that discuss these topics.
(1) Tafsir Jawami’ al-Jami’ of Tabarsi, Volume 1, Page 534
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)