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