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.
Sunday, 7 November 2010
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
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Seafood (4)
Following the last blog, one of the avid readers of the blog asked for a slight clarification. The previous blog (and this blog) are not saying that all food on the earth is Halal. It is saying that:
- IF you do not receive any evidence from other verses or narrations, this would be the base position
- Or IF there are only contradictory narrations and you cannot choose one group over another, then both are discarded, and this is the base position
Therefore, the idea is that food from the earth is Halal, unless you find evidence to the contrary.
In the last blog, we discussed the general Qur`anic principle that everything in the Earth is Halal (with the proviso given above). We now can look at another principle, which says that given no evidence to the contrary, food is Halal (with the proviso given above).
Firstly, he quotes the Qur`anic verse:
Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than God’s". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (1)
This was revealed in response to the Kuffar who used to say certain things were Haram. Allah was teaching the Prophet that there was nothing Haram in what was given by Allah other than eating something dead, or blood or pork. It seems to be quite clear in noting that the base position, is Halal.
There are two arguments brought against this:
1. Some may argue that this only applies to land animals. The response is quite obvious: that there is no restriction mentioned, so it must also apply to sea animals!
2. There are many foods that are Haram to eat in Shari’a which are not mentioned in this verse e.g. eating snake and dog…etc. (agreed upon by all) which means that this cannot be meant in the way assumed. However, the response is that this does not affect the general base position. It just means that there are exceptions in narrations, which is what we will look at in later blogs.
There are also many Sahih narrations where the Imams were asked whether a particular type of sea or land animal was Haram, to which they responded using the verse above. There are a lot of these narrations mentioned in the footnotes of his book, but I will mention one of them:
In a sahih narration of Muhammad ibn Muslim (2): “He said I asked Abu Abdullah about ‘jari’, ‘maarmaahi’ and ‘zumayyar’ (3) and fish which do not have scales – are they Haram? He said to me: ‘O Muhammad, read this verse in which it says…[refer to verse above]…so I read it until I completed it, after which he said: Indeed what is Haram is that which Allah and His messenger have prohibited in His book …”
In the next blog, we will look at the most famous and important general Qur`anic principle in this regard, and that is that all marine life is Halal [with the previous proviso]. After that, we will move onto the core of the issue, and that is the narrations on the topic!
(1) Qur`an, Surah An’am: 6:145
(2) Wasa`il al-Shia, Volume 24, Page 136, Chapter 4 on Haram foods)
(3) These are three types of fish without scales
- IF you do not receive any evidence from other verses or narrations, this would be the base position
- Or IF there are only contradictory narrations and you cannot choose one group over another, then both are discarded, and this is the base position
Therefore, the idea is that food from the earth is Halal, unless you find evidence to the contrary.
In the last blog, we discussed the general Qur`anic principle that everything in the Earth is Halal (with the proviso given above). We now can look at another principle, which says that given no evidence to the contrary, food is Halal (with the proviso given above).
Firstly, he quotes the Qur`anic verse:
Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than God’s". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (1)
This was revealed in response to the Kuffar who used to say certain things were Haram. Allah was teaching the Prophet that there was nothing Haram in what was given by Allah other than eating something dead, or blood or pork. It seems to be quite clear in noting that the base position, is Halal.
There are two arguments brought against this:
1. Some may argue that this only applies to land animals. The response is quite obvious: that there is no restriction mentioned, so it must also apply to sea animals!
2. There are many foods that are Haram to eat in Shari’a which are not mentioned in this verse e.g. eating snake and dog…etc. (agreed upon by all) which means that this cannot be meant in the way assumed. However, the response is that this does not affect the general base position. It just means that there are exceptions in narrations, which is what we will look at in later blogs.
There are also many Sahih narrations where the Imams were asked whether a particular type of sea or land animal was Haram, to which they responded using the verse above. There are a lot of these narrations mentioned in the footnotes of his book, but I will mention one of them:
In a sahih narration of Muhammad ibn Muslim (2): “He said I asked Abu Abdullah about ‘jari’, ‘maarmaahi’ and ‘zumayyar’ (3) and fish which do not have scales – are they Haram? He said to me: ‘O Muhammad, read this verse in which it says…[refer to verse above]…so I read it until I completed it, after which he said: Indeed what is Haram is that which Allah and His messenger have prohibited in His book …”
In the next blog, we will look at the most famous and important general Qur`anic principle in this regard, and that is that all marine life is Halal [with the previous proviso]. After that, we will move onto the core of the issue, and that is the narrations on the topic!
(1) Qur`an, Surah An’am: 6:145
(2) Wasa`il al-Shia, Volume 24, Page 136, Chapter 4 on Haram foods)
(3) These are three types of fish without scales
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Seafood (3)
We have looked at the base ruling and concluded that if there was no evidence to the contrary, seafood would be considered Halal. We now move onto general statements, which would supersede the base ruling if they can be confirmed. There are many general texts in this regard, suggesting the following:
1. Everything that is in the earth is halal
2. Everything that mankind eats is Halal
3. Absolute Halal nature of hunting from the sea and its food
Note that these are general rules, and would be the fall back position, if there are no specific exceptions found in texts (later blogs).
1. Everything in the earth is Halal
There are three Quranic verses that can be used substantiate this claim:
1. “It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth” (1)
The earth includes land and sea (not only land) and He has created everything so that we can benefit from it so it must be able for us to benefit from it by eating and drinking unless we are told otherwise through a specific text.
And some might consider that the verse means that we should be content with God’s creation, rather than saying that everything able to be eaten is Halal to eat. This is because being content with the creation does not imply that.
However, one could say that being content with what Allah has created, implies that man should benefit from it, through fulfilling his nutritional needs. For example, if someone said to another person: “I have made these things for you”, the apparent meaning is that he is happy with you to use it.
2. Verse of the Qur`an: “Oh mankind, eat from what is in the earth as something Halal, good” (2). The implication could be that it is allowed for mankind to eat what is in the earth because it is Halal and good; and fruits of the sea are considered amongst these.
Now there are two reasons for the usage of good (طيب): either to limit the Halal to only what is good, so something that is dirty is not considered Halal, or with the meaning of all that is in the earth is Halal and good.
“Tayyib” has many meanings, including Halal, Tahir, that in which there is no pain/harm…
However, we can consider this to not be applicable because it is talking about eating what is Halal and good – nothing about what is Haram and bad. Therefore, it does not help determine what actually is Haram and is therefore irrelevant.
3. Qur`anic verse: “They ask you about what is Halal for them. Say: Good provisions is what is Halal for you” (4). The “good provisions” – what man is able to benefit well from – is Halal and okay to eat. This is aided by what is in the book (5) attributed to Imam Rida (AS): “Know, may Allah have mercy on you that Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, did not make allowed any food or drink except that in which there is benefit and silah, and he did not make Haram anything other than that in which there is daral and talaff and fasaad. So every beneficial item for the body is halal and every harmful item is haram.”
From these discussions, we can conclude that this principle holds i.e. all food on the earth is Halal unless we get specific evidence to the contrary. In the next blog, we will look at the next general principle.
(1) Qur`an: 2:29
(2) Qur`an: 2:168
(3) Kanz al-Urfan in Fiqh al-Qur`an: Chapter 2, Page 390
(4) Qur`an: 5:4
(5) al-Fiqh al-Radawi (34:1)
1. Everything that is in the earth is halal
2. Everything that mankind eats is Halal
3. Absolute Halal nature of hunting from the sea and its food
Note that these are general rules, and would be the fall back position, if there are no specific exceptions found in texts (later blogs).
1. Everything in the earth is Halal
There are three Quranic verses that can be used substantiate this claim:
1. “It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth” (1)
The earth includes land and sea (not only land) and He has created everything so that we can benefit from it so it must be able for us to benefit from it by eating and drinking unless we are told otherwise through a specific text.
And some might consider that the verse means that we should be content with God’s creation, rather than saying that everything able to be eaten is Halal to eat. This is because being content with the creation does not imply that.
However, one could say that being content with what Allah has created, implies that man should benefit from it, through fulfilling his nutritional needs. For example, if someone said to another person: “I have made these things for you”, the apparent meaning is that he is happy with you to use it.
2. Verse of the Qur`an: “Oh mankind, eat from what is in the earth as something Halal, good” (2). The implication could be that it is allowed for mankind to eat what is in the earth because it is Halal and good; and fruits of the sea are considered amongst these.
Now there are two reasons for the usage of good (طيب): either to limit the Halal to only what is good, so something that is dirty is not considered Halal, or with the meaning of all that is in the earth is Halal and good.
“Tayyib” has many meanings, including Halal, Tahir, that in which there is no pain/harm…
However, we can consider this to not be applicable because it is talking about eating what is Halal and good – nothing about what is Haram and bad. Therefore, it does not help determine what actually is Haram and is therefore irrelevant.
3. Qur`anic verse: “They ask you about what is Halal for them. Say: Good provisions is what is Halal for you” (4). The “good provisions” – what man is able to benefit well from – is Halal and okay to eat. This is aided by what is in the book (5) attributed to Imam Rida (AS): “Know, may Allah have mercy on you that Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, did not make allowed any food or drink except that in which there is benefit and silah, and he did not make Haram anything other than that in which there is daral and talaff and fasaad. So every beneficial item for the body is halal and every harmful item is haram.”
From these discussions, we can conclude that this principle holds i.e. all food on the earth is Halal unless we get specific evidence to the contrary. In the next blog, we will look at the next general principle.
(1) Qur`an: 2:29
(2) Qur`an: 2:168
(3) Kanz al-Urfan in Fiqh al-Qur`an: Chapter 2, Page 390
(4) Qur`an: 5:4
(5) al-Fiqh al-Radawi (34:1)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)