In the last 10 blogs we have seen how Fadlallah derives rulings – what is most interesting is that even though his conclusion is radically different from everyone else, the general method he uses, is very similar to others.
The main difference has been in how he has dealt with contradictions in narrations. In general, we see that when there is a contradiction between sahih narrations (regardless of number), the options (in order of preference) are:
1. Try and harmonise them and find a ruling that all the narrations make sense for
2. Take that which is in line with the Qur’an where this can be done
3. Take that which is against the Sunni opinion
4. Ignore both sets of narrations and refer back to the Asl
Fadlallah believes that numbers 1, 2 and 4 all lead to his opinion (i.e. that it is allowed to eat all seafood) and he does not believe that 3 is applicable. Most other scholars believe that 1 is not possible, 2 is not relevant, 3 is correct, and 4 would lead to Fadlallah’s opinion if 3 was not correct. Therefore, most scholars believe that fish without scales are not allowed [and this is a huge simplification] because the Sunnis believe they are allowed (details are in previous blogs).
What needs to be understood, is that although there are scholars out there, who have suggested radically alternative methods of derivation of Islamic law using the ideas of contextualisation (Fazlur Rahman, Shahrur, Soroush), or the fact that Qur’anic principles can supersede even sahih narrations (Saanei perhaps), Fadlallah does not seem to fall into these categories. He seems to be using an adapted version of the general methodology rather than a new methodology entirely!
Regardless, hopefully this detailed set of blogs has given an insight into how scholars of fiqh, reach their conclusions, and how if you have a different conclusion, it does not really necessarily mean you are outside the mainstream.
In the next blogs, we will look at one of the following options:
1. Another similar ruling on fiqh to understand how rulings are derived (but this seems to be boring you guys!)
2. A brief overview of the “alternative” ideas out there e.g. the work being done by the “progressives”
3. A look at tafsir – perhaps looking at the suggestion: “Is the Qur’an's view on women/marriage sexist?”
One of the readers had suggested music (following what they heard from a lecturer during the first ten days of Muharram), but this will not be possible at the moment as the research required is too much! InshaAllah next year we can reach this area...
Your views would be appreciated!
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Seafood (10)
In the last blog we looked at Fadlallah’s view that there was no consensus on the issue of eating fish without scales, and he noted that there is an apparent contradiction in the narrations with some suggesting they are allowed (a minority but unambiguous) and some suggesting they are not allowed (a majority but potentially open to being restricted).
When dealing with contradictions in Shi’i usul al-fiqh, there are several methods (as the assumption is that the Imam cannot have made a mistake and said two contradictory things):
1. Trying to reconcile them where possible and plausible (jam’ urfi) e.g. if there is something general and something particular, they both could be right and one could be an exception to the other
2. Give a greater weight to the set of narrations that is against the opinion of the Sunnis (based on the fact that the Imams might have been in Taqiyya and said one of the statements under duress) – this rule of “ma khalaf al-aama” is based on a sahih narration in al-Kafi from the 6th Imam (AS).
Normally the first option will always be preferred where possible and plausible. Where the above two do not reach a conclusion, the narrations are discarded.
The method used by most scholars in this case is the second one as Sunnis believe that you can eat fish without scales. However, Fadlallah says that there must be constraints to the usage of this second rule. He posits two important constraints:
1. Only the minimum would be said by the Imam (AS) i.e. he would not add supplementary evidence if he was under duress. In this case, we see the Imam (AS) backing up this point of view with Quranic verses and Fadlallah wonders why he would do this if he was only under taqiyya – as it backs up the other argument
Of course, one might argue that the Imam might have used that verse of the Quran to justify the Sunni position, in order to satisfy the Sunni audience and protect his followers but the problem is that this is a legal matter, and therefore the assumption must be that the Imam expressed what he wanted to express unless you are confident that this is not the case i.e. the evidence is on the other foot!
2. Secondly, he suggests that this rule can only be applied as a last resort when you cannot reconcile the narrations (we will come to this later – to understand Fadlallah’s view)
3. Finally, he says that according to the narration that is the basis of this rule, the first thing to do is to compare the narrations with the Qur’an before looking at the Sunnis’ actions. And in this case, Fadlallah argues that the narrations that support the eating of fish without scales are in line with the Quran as stated in previous blogs
Fadlallah therefore argues that using the second method of solving the apparent contradiction does not make sense here, and for him, it does make sense to reconcile the narrations in the following way:
1. Those that indicate impermissibility – consider that they actually are talking about makruh (rather than haram) – this is a possible interpretation in usul al-fiqh where “Don’t do XX” can be an advisory statement.
2. Those that indicate permissibility – consider these to be again referring to makruh
Therefore, the correct rule for him is that these fish without scales are makruh to eat.
In the final blog on this topic, I will conclude and discuss this methodology and how it provides an insight into the minds of scholars. I will also give my thoughts on the next set of blogs – and hope that you agree with them!
When dealing with contradictions in Shi’i usul al-fiqh, there are several methods (as the assumption is that the Imam cannot have made a mistake and said two contradictory things):
1. Trying to reconcile them where possible and plausible (jam’ urfi) e.g. if there is something general and something particular, they both could be right and one could be an exception to the other
2. Give a greater weight to the set of narrations that is against the opinion of the Sunnis (based on the fact that the Imams might have been in Taqiyya and said one of the statements under duress) – this rule of “ma khalaf al-aama” is based on a sahih narration in al-Kafi from the 6th Imam (AS).
Normally the first option will always be preferred where possible and plausible. Where the above two do not reach a conclusion, the narrations are discarded.
The method used by most scholars in this case is the second one as Sunnis believe that you can eat fish without scales. However, Fadlallah says that there must be constraints to the usage of this second rule. He posits two important constraints:
1. Only the minimum would be said by the Imam (AS) i.e. he would not add supplementary evidence if he was under duress. In this case, we see the Imam (AS) backing up this point of view with Quranic verses and Fadlallah wonders why he would do this if he was only under taqiyya – as it backs up the other argument
Of course, one might argue that the Imam might have used that verse of the Quran to justify the Sunni position, in order to satisfy the Sunni audience and protect his followers but the problem is that this is a legal matter, and therefore the assumption must be that the Imam expressed what he wanted to express unless you are confident that this is not the case i.e. the evidence is on the other foot!
2. Secondly, he suggests that this rule can only be applied as a last resort when you cannot reconcile the narrations (we will come to this later – to understand Fadlallah’s view)
3. Finally, he says that according to the narration that is the basis of this rule, the first thing to do is to compare the narrations with the Qur’an before looking at the Sunnis’ actions. And in this case, Fadlallah argues that the narrations that support the eating of fish without scales are in line with the Quran as stated in previous blogs
Fadlallah therefore argues that using the second method of solving the apparent contradiction does not make sense here, and for him, it does make sense to reconcile the narrations in the following way:
1. Those that indicate impermissibility – consider that they actually are talking about makruh (rather than haram) – this is a possible interpretation in usul al-fiqh where “Don’t do XX” can be an advisory statement.
2. Those that indicate permissibility – consider these to be again referring to makruh
Therefore, the correct rule for him is that these fish without scales are makruh to eat.
In the final blog on this topic, I will conclude and discuss this methodology and how it provides an insight into the minds of scholars. I will also give my thoughts on the next set of blogs – and hope that you agree with them!
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Seafood (9)
Below are a summary of the main narrations used to form the prohibition of eating fish without scales (from the previous blog):
1. ‘…he said: eat fish with scales, and do not eat fish without scales.’
2. ‘Can the whale be eaten?’ He responded: ‘That which has scales can be eaten.’
3. ‘Ali was in Kufa on the mule of the Messenger of God. Then he passed by the whale market and said: ‘Do not eat and do not sell that which does not have scales.’
4. ‘Do not approach that which does not have scales.’
5. ‘The true Islam includes several parts: the testimony that there is no God but Allah…[and]… the impermissibility of al-jirri and al-tafi, (8) and al-marmahi [eel] and al-zamir (9) and all fish without scales.’ (10)
In usul al-fiqh, it is an agreed principle, that a negative imperative (e.g. “don’t do XX”) normally means it is haram to do it. However, it is also agreed that if there are any other contextual indicants, you might infer that it COULD mean it is makruh and the “don’t” is advisory. Therefore, most the narrations are of this category and although they imply that fish without scales are haram, they leave out the possibility that if there is any other context, they might imply makruh instead.
This argument is true for all the narrations except, some might argue, for narration number 3 and 5 above, where the context seems to make it very clear that it is haram.
Fadlallah analyses these two narrations and finds that the fifth narration has a weak chain, and hence should not be used to draw a conclusion. The only one of any substance he needs to look at is the fifth narration. His main view is that it is not clear that Imam Ali (AS) went to the market specifically to tell the people that this is haram – it is equally likely that he was just passing by and noticed this, and was discouraging it. More than that, it says that he was on the mule of the Prophet (SAW). Now as he is in Kufa, that means it was in his Caliphate i.e. 25 years after the Prophet’s death – an unlikely age for a mule!
He concludes, therefore, that ALL of the narrations might mean that fish without scales are makruh if there is some context that might support this theory.
Fadlallah then analyses the narrations, that indicate that fish without scales are permissible to consume. Two such narrations are as follows:
‘He said: I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah about eating eels (jarith) he responded [using Qur’an 6:145] “Say: In all that has been revealed to me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat for the one who wishes to eat it” then he added: “God has not made impermissible any animal in the Qur’an other than pig; and everything from the sea without scales…is not impermissible, it is actually discouraged.”’ (1)
Muhammad ibn Muslim from Ja’far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah about…fish without scales, are they impermissible to be eaten? He responded: Muhammad, read this verse from al-An’am [Qur’an 6:145]: “Say: In all that has been revealed to me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat”…he explained: “Indeed what is impermissible is that which God and his Messenger have considered impermissible in his Book…”.’ (2)
Fadlallah notes that these narrations are explicit (sarih) in permitting the consumption of all fish, and this undoubtedly precludes the possibility of them being impermissible. In the next blog we will discuss how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between this set of narrations and the one above (only 2 blogs left on this topic!).
(1) Wasa’il al-Shi’a, volume. 16, page 334, no. 19; considered sahih (from Zurara from 6th Imam)
(2) Ibid., Page 335 also considered sahih.
1. ‘…he said: eat fish with scales, and do not eat fish without scales.’
2. ‘Can the whale be eaten?’ He responded: ‘That which has scales can be eaten.’
3. ‘Ali was in Kufa on the mule of the Messenger of God. Then he passed by the whale market and said: ‘Do not eat and do not sell that which does not have scales.’
4. ‘Do not approach that which does not have scales.’
5. ‘The true Islam includes several parts: the testimony that there is no God but Allah…[and]… the impermissibility of al-jirri and al-tafi, (8) and al-marmahi [eel] and al-zamir (9) and all fish without scales.’ (10)
In usul al-fiqh, it is an agreed principle, that a negative imperative (e.g. “don’t do XX”) normally means it is haram to do it. However, it is also agreed that if there are any other contextual indicants, you might infer that it COULD mean it is makruh and the “don’t” is advisory. Therefore, most the narrations are of this category and although they imply that fish without scales are haram, they leave out the possibility that if there is any other context, they might imply makruh instead.
This argument is true for all the narrations except, some might argue, for narration number 3 and 5 above, where the context seems to make it very clear that it is haram.
Fadlallah analyses these two narrations and finds that the fifth narration has a weak chain, and hence should not be used to draw a conclusion. The only one of any substance he needs to look at is the fifth narration. His main view is that it is not clear that Imam Ali (AS) went to the market specifically to tell the people that this is haram – it is equally likely that he was just passing by and noticed this, and was discouraging it. More than that, it says that he was on the mule of the Prophet (SAW). Now as he is in Kufa, that means it was in his Caliphate i.e. 25 years after the Prophet’s death – an unlikely age for a mule!
He concludes, therefore, that ALL of the narrations might mean that fish without scales are makruh if there is some context that might support this theory.
Fadlallah then analyses the narrations, that indicate that fish without scales are permissible to consume. Two such narrations are as follows:
‘He said: I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah about eating eels (jarith) he responded [using Qur’an 6:145] “Say: In all that has been revealed to me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat for the one who wishes to eat it” then he added: “God has not made impermissible any animal in the Qur’an other than pig; and everything from the sea without scales…is not impermissible, it is actually discouraged.”’ (1)
Muhammad ibn Muslim from Ja’far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah about…fish without scales, are they impermissible to be eaten? He responded: Muhammad, read this verse from al-An’am [Qur’an 6:145]: “Say: In all that has been revealed to me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat”…he explained: “Indeed what is impermissible is that which God and his Messenger have considered impermissible in his Book…”.’ (2)
Fadlallah notes that these narrations are explicit (sarih) in permitting the consumption of all fish, and this undoubtedly precludes the possibility of them being impermissible. In the next blog we will discuss how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between this set of narrations and the one above (only 2 blogs left on this topic!).
(1) Wasa’il al-Shi’a, volume. 16, page 334, no. 19; considered sahih (from Zurara from 6th Imam)
(2) Ibid., Page 335 also considered sahih.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Seafood (8)
Apologies for the delay – I’ve been working hard to try and see if I can publish the research in a journal…we will see what happens!
Anyway, back to the topic at hand – we have looked at non-fish animals from the sea and noted Fadlallah’s conclusion that they are okay to eat. This is because there is no consensus and even the author of Wasa’il (al-Hur al-Amili) says that the narration used to substantiate the claim that non-fish animals are haram, should not be understood without reading the narration which allows it, and therefore must be considered makruh. Alternatively, the Qur’anic general principles should be referred to, if you cannot reach a conclusion on the narrations.
We are now moving onto fish without scales – the final type of sea animal! This is quite controversial (Tusi even said that it is an essential part of being Shia). But there are three levels of discussion:
1. Is there consensus on the issue?
2. What do the narrations say?
3. What should we do
On the first issue, Fadlallah notes opinions of major scholars of the past:
Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli in his Shara’i‘ says: ‘As for fish which do not have scales at all, like al-jirri (1), there are two narrations, the more well-known of the two indicates impermissibility. (2)
Shahid al-Thani in Al-Masalik hesitates as well: ‘The Shi‘a scholars differ in considering their permissibility because of the difference in the narrations concerning them’, similarly to Ardabili in Majma‘ and Sabzawari in Al-Kifayah. (3)
Fadlallah considers it clear that there is no scholarly consensus regarding the permissibility of consuming fish without scales.
On the second issue, Fadlallah considers two groups of narrations:
1. Those that imply that fish without scales are haram
2. Those that imply that fish without scales are halal
There are very very many in the first category – many of which are sahih. I will mention 5 of the most important and we will discuss them and Fadlallah’s discussion on them in the next blog:
Muhammad ibn Muslim from Muhammad ibn Ali [al-Baqir]: ‘…he said: eat fish with scales, and do not eat fish without scales.’ (4)
Hammad ibn ‘Uthman from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Can the whale be eaten?’ He responded: ‘That which has scales can be eaten.’ (5)
Abdullah ibn Sunan from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Ali was in Kufa on the mule of the Messenger of God. Then he passed by the whale market and said: ‘Do not eat and do not sell that which does not have scales.’ (6)
Hannan ibn Sudayr from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Do not approach that which does not have scales.’ (7)
Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan from al-Rida in his letter to al-Ma’mun: ‘The true Islam includes several parts: the testimony that there is no God but Allah…[and]… the impermissibility of al-jirri and al-tafi, (8) and al-marmahi [eel] and al-zamir (9) and all fish without scales.’ (10)
How can these mean anything other than fish without scales are haram? We will look at this in the next blog…
(1) Jirri is a type of fish (Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(2) Muhaqqiq al-Hilli in Shara’i’ al-Islam, book 3, page 217 (from Fadlallah’s work)
(3) Al-Shahid al-Thani in Masalik al-Afham, book 13, page 14; Ardabili in Majma’ al-Fa’ida, book 11, page 189; Sabzwari in Kifayat al-Ahkam, book 2, page 596 (from Fadlallah’s work)
(4) Wasa`il, book 16, chapter 8, page 329, no. 1 ; considered sahih
(5) Ibid. no. 2 ; considered sahih
(6) Ibid. no. 4; considered sahih
(7) Ibid., no. 5; considered reliable but to a lower degree
(8) A fish which dies in the water and rises to the surface (refer to Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(9) A type of fish (Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(10) Wasa`il, book 16, chapter 9, page 333, no. 9 ; considered weak
Anyway, back to the topic at hand – we have looked at non-fish animals from the sea and noted Fadlallah’s conclusion that they are okay to eat. This is because there is no consensus and even the author of Wasa’il (al-Hur al-Amili) says that the narration used to substantiate the claim that non-fish animals are haram, should not be understood without reading the narration which allows it, and therefore must be considered makruh. Alternatively, the Qur’anic general principles should be referred to, if you cannot reach a conclusion on the narrations.
We are now moving onto fish without scales – the final type of sea animal! This is quite controversial (Tusi even said that it is an essential part of being Shia). But there are three levels of discussion:
1. Is there consensus on the issue?
2. What do the narrations say?
3. What should we do
On the first issue, Fadlallah notes opinions of major scholars of the past:
Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli in his Shara’i‘ says: ‘As for fish which do not have scales at all, like al-jirri (1), there are two narrations, the more well-known of the two indicates impermissibility. (2)
Shahid al-Thani in Al-Masalik hesitates as well: ‘The Shi‘a scholars differ in considering their permissibility because of the difference in the narrations concerning them’, similarly to Ardabili in Majma‘ and Sabzawari in Al-Kifayah. (3)
Fadlallah considers it clear that there is no scholarly consensus regarding the permissibility of consuming fish without scales.
On the second issue, Fadlallah considers two groups of narrations:
1. Those that imply that fish without scales are haram
2. Those that imply that fish without scales are halal
There are very very many in the first category – many of which are sahih. I will mention 5 of the most important and we will discuss them and Fadlallah’s discussion on them in the next blog:
Muhammad ibn Muslim from Muhammad ibn Ali [al-Baqir]: ‘…he said: eat fish with scales, and do not eat fish without scales.’ (4)
Hammad ibn ‘Uthman from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Can the whale be eaten?’ He responded: ‘That which has scales can be eaten.’ (5)
Abdullah ibn Sunan from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Ali was in Kufa on the mule of the Messenger of God. Then he passed by the whale market and said: ‘Do not eat and do not sell that which does not have scales.’ (6)
Hannan ibn Sudayr from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Do not approach that which does not have scales.’ (7)
Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan from al-Rida in his letter to al-Ma’mun: ‘The true Islam includes several parts: the testimony that there is no God but Allah…[and]… the impermissibility of al-jirri and al-tafi, (8) and al-marmahi [eel] and al-zamir (9) and all fish without scales.’ (10)
How can these mean anything other than fish without scales are haram? We will look at this in the next blog…
(1) Jirri is a type of fish (Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(2) Muhaqqiq al-Hilli in Shara’i’ al-Islam, book 3, page 217 (from Fadlallah’s work)
(3) Al-Shahid al-Thani in Masalik al-Afham, book 13, page 14; Ardabili in Majma’ al-Fa’ida, book 11, page 189; Sabzwari in Kifayat al-Ahkam, book 2, page 596 (from Fadlallah’s work)
(4) Wasa`il, book 16, chapter 8, page 329, no. 1 ; considered sahih
(5) Ibid. no. 2 ; considered sahih
(6) Ibid. no. 4; considered sahih
(7) Ibid., no. 5; considered reliable but to a lower degree
(8) A fish which dies in the water and rises to the surface (refer to Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(9) A type of fish (Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(10) Wasa`il, book 16, chapter 9, page 333, no. 9 ; considered weak
Monday, 20 September 2010
Seafood (7)
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
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
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)