Seafood (2)

We will now start by looking at what the correct course of action should be about eating seafood, if there was no evidence at all i.e. what the base ruling (أصل - `asl) is.

In general, the base position is that everything created by Allah in terms of food and drink are Halal, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. I have discussed the reasoning for this in a previous blog but we will go through Syed Fadlallah’s main reasoning (very similar):

1. Rationally, how can Allah punish you for eating seafood, if you do not have any evidence saying it is Haram. Further to the rational reasoning, there are lots of texts suggesting this e.g. “We do not punish [any community] until We have sent [it] an apostle (to give warning)” (1) and “My nation is not responsible for that which they do not know” (2).

2. There are several narrations explaining that everything is halal unless you know that it is haram e.g. the Muwathaq (3) narration of Mas’ada ibn Sadqa from Abu Abdullah (AS) who said: I heard him say: “Everything is halal for you until you know that it is Haram…” However, these narrations are about individual situations rather than a general ruling, and therefore, they are not applicable here.

The first point is enough to conclude the base rule is that seafood is Halal unless there is evidence to suggest the contrary.

However, there may be other “base rulings” that may be applicable. Syed Fadlallah goes through some possibilities:

A. The base situation is that animals are not slaughtered/slaughtered in the correct way

In general, if you saw a dead animal, the base assumption would be that the animal would have either:

- Not been slaughtered in the Islamic method e.g. not cutting the jugular vein, or reciting the name of Allah at the slaughter, or facing Qibla based on the Shii opinion
- Or the animal is not able to be slaughtered e.g. dog or pig where cutting the jugular vein does not leave a positive result when they are slaughtered

Therefore, if there is a doubt about whether the animal has been slaughtered, then the base position is that the animal has not been slaughtered in the correct way.

Therefore, if we doubt the permissibility of an animal even after the slaughter, then it is considered Haram. Similarly if we doubt if something is able to be slaughtered, then it must be considered not slaughtered.

In this case, if we doubt whether seafood (not fish)/fish without scales is halal, you can infer that there is a doubt in the fact it can be slaughtered, and therefore this basis of non-slaughterability applies.

However, this argument does not work, as there is no real doubt about its slaughterability. This is because every animal is able to be slaughtered other than dog and pig (a reference is available if required).

Even if we were to accept that the basis applies, we would have to look at the legal rules in later blogs, which make it not applicable.


B. Istis-hab – Assumption of previous state

In usul al-fiqh, there is a principle that when you are sure of a situation, and you are unsure whether it has changed, you assume the previous state. The argument behind this, is not discussed here. We will focus on how it might be used to result in a different base ruling.

The argument is as follows:
- We know that before slaughter, the animal is definitely Haram to eat.
- Therefore if we doubt whether the animal is able to be slaughtered, we then doubt whether it is Halal to eat.
- Therefore, we prefer the previous known Haram state before slaughtering.

However, we note the following:

1. The principle of Isits-hab is only relevant (in Syed Fadlallah’s opinion [similar to Ayatullah Khui]) on doubts on whether a rule is applicable, not on if there is a rule in the first place

2. The first leg of the argument is not correct, as it is not definitely the case that eating the animal from the sea is haram because if a person takes a small fish from the sea and swallows it before its death, there is no evidence that he has committed a sin

3. The principle of Istis-hab only applies when the subject (according to the custom) which you have certainty in, is the same as the subject which you doubt has changed. In this case, the subject changes from an animal to meat; or from a non-slaughtered animal to a slaughtered animal.

Regardless, the previous two points are enough to note that this argument is not sufficient.

Overall, in this blog, we have come to the conclusion that IF there was no evidence, the base ruling is that seafood is Halal to eat. In the next blog, we will start looking at general pieces of evidence that may be applicable, and may affect the base ruling.

(1) Qur`an, Surah Israa (17), Verse 15
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a, Volume 15, Page 369, Paragraph 1, Chapter 56 in the chapters on Jihad al-Nafs
(3) Muwathaq is the one level below sahih in terms of reliability of the people in the chain of narrations. Please email if you would like more information.