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.