Category Archives: Which is Halaal and Which is Haraam

Why Do We Eat Non-Vegetarian Food???

O you who believe! Fulfill the obligations. The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you, not violating the prohibition against game when you are entering upon the performance of the pilgrimage; surely Allah orders what He desires. [Surah al-Maidah 5:1 M Shakir’s Quran Translation]

Non-Vegetarian food permitted to Muslims

When a vegetarian read this verse then he might get furious on the commandment of Allah that He is allowing the sacrifice and eating of cattle, hence it becomes important to clarify whether there is any harm in being a non-vegetarian or not. There are many books written on the topic and many debates have taken place on the topic hence it is difficult to abridge all the arguments in a couple of paragraphs. Allah says in the Quran, “The good things are allowed to you” (Surah al-Maidah 5:4), indicating that whatever is permitted for us is beneficial for us in normal circumstances. Many vegetarians claim that ‘Non vegetarian should be prohibited for human beings’. By the grace of Allah Almighty I’ll try to answer their arguments in a nutshell here.

Allah says in another verse, “And He created the cattle for you; you have in them warm clothing and (many) advantages, and of them do you eat” [Surah Nahl 16:5]

You are what you eat

Allah says, The cattle quadrupeds are allowed to you except that which is recited to you”, meaning that all cattle (four footed animals) are allowed to you except whose prohibition is told to you. Allah mentions the prohibited animals in the third verse of this Surah in detail. Islamic diet is the perfect diet for a human being, and the prohibition told to us is purely for our benefit [See Surah Baqarah 2:173].

Sayyidina Jabir (Radhiyallahu Anhu) reported that Allah’s Messenger forbade on the day of Khaybar domestic asses, flesh of mules, every carnivorous beast with a fang and every bird with a talon (that hunt with their claws).

[Bukhari: Hadith 4219, Muslim: Hadith 1941, Tirmidhi: Hadith 1483]

This clarification has been mentioned for those who think that “you are what you eat”. As the French writer said

“Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are.”

Anthelme Brillat-Savarin (1755 – 1826)

We Muslims eat animals that are peace-loving and docile and those which are flesh eating animals are prohibited for us and hence we Muslims are peace loving and docile. Islam comes from the root word سلم meaning peace.

Who is a non-Vegetarian??

Vegetarians have written many books telling us the importance of plants for the development of a human body. Non-Vegetarian, by definition means -’A person who has food of animal origin’. It does not mean ‘A person who does not have Vegetarian food. A more technical and a scientific word is, ‘an Omnivorous diet’. Hence a non-vegetarian benefits from food both of animal and plant origin.

Killing a Living Creature

The main argument of vegetarians is that by eating animals we are killing innocent living creatures. This argument might have been suitable in the past but now it carries no weight because modern science has told us that plants also have life. They also feel pain and hence killing a plant as much ‘brutal’ as killing any other living creature.

Set of teeth in a human body: We are Omnivorous by Nature

Herbivorous animals, those who only have plants, have a flat set of teeth. Carnivorous animals, who only have animal flesh, have pointed teeth. Human beings, have got flat teeth, as well as pointed teeth. Hence by our structure, we are omnivorous; we are designed in such a way that we can have both plants and animals as food. Also we humans possess a digestive system which can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.

Ayaats having the similar message
Surah Nahl 16:5, Surah Nahl 16:66, Surah Taha 20:54, Surah Hajj 22:28, Surah Hajj 22:30, Surah Hajj 22:34, Surah Mominun 23:21, Surah Shua’ra 26:133, Surah Yaaseen 36:71, Surah Zumar 39:6, Surah Ghafir 40:79, Surah Shura 42:11, Surah Zukhruf 43:12.


Liquor — The Process of Halaalization

By Majlisul Ulama

“From  my  Ummah  will  be  people  who  will  Halaalize  liquor.” [Hadith]

According  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  in times  in  close  proximity  to  the  Impending  Hour  of  Qiyaamah,  Muslims  will  halaalize  liquor  with  the  gimmick  of  fanciful  names. The  halaalizers  will  be  Muslims.  Thus,  whilst  this  process  of  liquor  halaalization  initiated  by  the  muftis  of  this  era  is  lamentable,  it  is  not  surprising  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Rasulullah’s  (sallallahu   alayhi  wasallam)  predictions  have  to incumbently  materialize  into  reality.

It  is  quite  obvious  that  the  halaalization  process  of  any  haraam  act,  food  or  substance,  is  not  a  sudden  occurrence.  It  is  an  evolutionary  process  which  gradually  by  imperceptible  gnaws  into  the  Imaan  of  Muslims  degrees.  In  this  haraam  evolutionary  process,  the  first  satanic  step  is  the  halaalization  of  ‘minute’  quantities  of  alcohol  of  the  non-khamr  category.  This  is  shaitaan’s  first  snare  in  the process  of  halaalizing  whisky, gin,  vodka,  sherry  and  the plethora  of  others  dehumanizing  haraam  liquors.

Shaitaan  is  dangling  the  chimera  of  the  ‘permissibility  of  the   second  category  alcohol’  before  the  masses  and  the  shortsighted  muftis  of  this  era.  This  has  become  the  hallucinatory  basis for  the  halaalization  of  ‘ethanol’  which  is  an  intoxicating  alcohol  which  is  present  in  99%  of all the  popular  liquors.

The  second  step  in  the  satanic  evolutionary  process  of  halaalization,  is  that  small  quantities  of  the  ‘second  category’  alcohol  which  does  not  intoxicate  is  permissible.  Thus,  Coke  and  the  myriad  of   other  health-destroying  soft  drinks  are  declared  not  only  permissible,  but  ‘halaal  tayyib’  by  the  conglomerate  of  maajin muftis.

The  third  step  in  the  shaitaani  evolutionally-process  of  halaalization  will  be  the  silencing  of  the  plastic  muftis  by  the  modernist  copro-intellegentsia  with  rational  arguments  such  as  the permissibility  of  consuming  a  glass  of  whisky,  etc.  or  a  quantity  which  does  not  intoxicate.  Their  argument  will  be  quite  logical  in  view  of  the  fact  that  soft  drinks  and  whisky  both  have  the  common  ethnol  incredient  drinks  with  ethanol  are  halaal,  then  there  is  no  logical  reason  for  saying  that  a  glass  of  vodka  or  less  or  more  which  does  not  intoxicate  is  haraam.  What  will  render  it  haraam?  Both  contain  the  confounded  ‘second  category  alcohol’,  and  both  are  taken  in  quantities  which  do  not  intoxicate.

The  fourth  step  in  the  satanic  process  will  be  the  production  of  a  nation  of  drunkards.  The satanic  conspiracy  is  to  transform  the  Ummah  into  a  nation  of  drunkards  as  are  the  kuffaar.

The  puerile  ‘daleels’  put  forward  in  labyrinthal  form  by  short-sighted  muftis  are  lamentably ludicrous  and  an  insult  to Ilm. Another  absurd  argument  they  tender  is  the  principle  of Umoom  Balwa  (intensive  and  extensive  prevalence  which  makes  indulgence  unavoidable). This  has  of recent  become  the  primary  basis  for  halaalization  of the  ‘second  category’  haraam alcohol.  Consumption  of  alcohol  containing  soft  drinks,  puddings,  jellies  and  custard masses  on  a  widespread  scale  is  declared  permissible  on  the  fallacious  basis  of by  the Umoom  Balwa.

Clogged  and  fossilized  brains  fail  to  understand  that  this  principle  does  not  legalize  what is  haraam.  The  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa  operates  in  the  sphere  of  Tahaarat  in  which  purities  and  impurities  are  the  subjects.  It  does  not  halaalize  pork  and  carrion  simply  because  their  consumption  has   become  widespread.  It  does  not  halaalize  riba  because  almost  every  Muslim  in  this  age  is  embroiled  in  this  haraam  Fitnah.  It  does  not  halaalize  abandonment  of  hijaab  and   intermingling  of  sexes  simply   because  99%  of  the  Ummah   are  trapped  in  a  cesspool  of  inequity  and  immorality  in  which  Hijaab  is  mocked  and  rejected  by  Muslims.  It  does  not  halaalize  shaving  the  beard  on  the  basis  of  99%  of  the  Ummah  is  involved  in  this  shaitaani  act.  Umoom  Balawa has  no  license  to  operate  in  the  sphere  of  prohibitions – things  which  Allah  Ta’ala  has  made  haraam.

In  certain  scenarios,  haraam  substances  become  temporarily  permissible  on  the  basis  of  recognized  Shar’i  principles,  but not  on  the  basis of  Umoom Balwa.  Such  principles  which  are  invoked  in  times  of  desperation  and  emergency  are

Tadaawi  bil  haraam  (Medical  treatment  with  haraam  substances)

Adhururaat  tubeehul  mahzuraat  (Necessities  legalize prohibition)

Ahwanul  baliyatain (The  lesser  of  the  two  evils  Etc.

Umoom  Balwa  is  excluded.  Its  operation  is  in  a very  restricted sphere – the  avenue  of  Tahaarat
According  to  the  Shariah,  all   kinds  of  alcohol  are  haraam,  whether  in  large  or  small quantities  without  any  exception.  It  is  not  permissible  to  upset  or  abrogate  this  Ijma’   of  all  Four  Math-habs  with  the  isolated,  overshadowed  and  inapplicable  view  of  Shaikhain  (rahmatullah  alayhima).  That  view  is  non-existent  for  practical  purposes.  Its  best  abode  is  to  remain  buried  in  the  kutub  of  Fiqh  for academic  dilation.  It  is  of  mere  academic  value.  It  may  not  be  presented  for  practical  application.

The  Mufta  Bihi  version  of  prohibition  of  all  kinds  of  alcohol  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  is  in  line  with  the  Fatwa  of  the  other  three  Math-habs.  Thus,  the  isolated  view  lying  in  its  grave  may  not  be  resurrected  for  opening  the  gateway  for  haraam  and  for  the  halaalization  of  liquor. 

As  for  alcohol-containing  medicine  and  other  substances  utilized  externally,  their permissibility  hinges  on  principles  other  than  Umoom  Balwa.  Furthermore,  there  is  no  argument  regarding  the   permissibility  of  medicine.  It  is  therefore  moronic  to  introduce  this  dimension  into  this   discussion  in  the  attempt  to  halaalize  the  initial  steps  in  the   haraam  evolutionary  process  of   the  halaalization  of  liquor.  Carrion  chickens  and  carrion  meat  are  already  accepted  as   ‘halaal’  by  this  degenerated  Ummah.  The  shaitaani  snare  in   the  carrion-halaalizing  process  was  the  displacement  of  the  Shari’ah’s  sacred  system of  Thabah.  The  argument  of  the  satanic  molvi  halaalizers  of carrion  was  that  as  long  as Tasmiyah  is  recited,  the  chickens  are  halaal.  Today,  neither  is  Tasmiyah  recited  nor  are  the  requisite  neck  vessels  severed.  When  the  whole  Thabah  system  has  been  permanently  abrogated,  how  is  it  possible  to  ever  have  halaal  chickens?  The  whole  system  is  satanically  corrupt  and  rotten  from  A  to Z.  The  same  shaitaaniyat  is  now  being perpetrated  by  the  maajin  muftis  in  the  devilish  process  of  halaalizing  liquor. 

Regarding  the  mis-manipulation  of  the  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa,  Hadhrat  Maulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said: 

“Nowadays,  among  the  detestable  things,  two   things  have  become  common:  Pictures  and  the  consumption  of  spirits  and  alcohol  (spirits  and  alcohol  are  used  synonymously.  It  does not  refer  to  methylated  spirits.)  This  humble  writer  asks:  Can  the  rule  of  Umoom  Balwa  be  invoked  on  account  of  these  acts  having  become  widespread?  The  issue  of   Umoom  Balwa  cannot  be  considered  in  matters  of  halaal  and  haraam.  It  operates  in  matters  on  impurities  and  purities.”

The  muftis  of  today  are  using  this  principle  loosely  and  incorrectly  to  halaalize  haraam substances  thereby  opening  a  wide  gateway  for  Fitnah  and  corruption  –  the  Fitnah  and corruption  which  had  constrained  the  Ahnaaf  Fuqaha  to  have  adopted  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  to  be  the  official  law  of  the  Shariah  in  terms  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab.  In  fact,  this  view  of  the  prohibition  of  all  types  of  alcohol  is  the  unanimous  ruling  of  the  Four  Math-habs.

Predicting  the  process  of  halaalization  of  liquor,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: “There  will  be  people  of  my  Ummah  who  will  halaalize  liquor  by  changing  its  name.”  

“When  liquor  is  halaalized  with  nabeez  (calling  it  date  juice);    riba  (is  halaalized)  with  trade  (i.e.  calling  it  trade);  bribery  is  halaalized  with  hadyah  (calling  it  a  gift),  and   people  trade  with  Zakaat  (instead  of  giving  to  the  poor),  then  at  that  time  will  be  their  destruction.” 

In  our  times,  all  of  these  vile  acts  mentioned  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  have materialized.  Riba  is  termed  ‘profit’  and  ‘dividend’,  etc.  Bribery  has  become  gifts,  and  the  wealthy,  instead  of  paying their  Zakaat  immediately  to  the  poor,  dole  it  out  in  drabs  whilst  the  bulk  of  it  remains  in  their  business. They  dribs  and  devise  ways  of  investing  Zakaat  in  trade  by  deceiving  themselves  that  the  poor  will  benefit  from  the  income.  Add  to  this  pictures  of  animate  objects  which  are  halaalized  by  labeling  the  haraam  pictures  with  names  such  as  photos,  digital  photos,  etc.

As  far  as  liquor  is  concerned,  the  maajin  muftis  have already opened  the  gateway  for  the   full-scale  halaalization  of  liquor.

The  legalizers  of  non-khamr  alcohol  claim:

(1)  “The  second  type  of  alcohol  is  that  which  is  derived  from   something  other  than  grapes and  dates,  e.g.  potato,  honey.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  regarding  the  purity  and  impermissibility.  According  to  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  and  Abu  Yusuf,  this  type  of  alcohol  is  pure  and  it  is  permissible  to  consume  such  an  amount  of  this  alcohol  which  cannot  intoxicate  a  person  on  condition  that  it  is  not  drunk  for  the  purpose  of  amusement  and  enjoyment.  According  to  Imam  Muhammad,  this  alcohol  falls  under  the  category  of  minor  impurity  (najaasat  khafifah),  and  it  is  not  permissible  to  even  consume  a  small  amount  of  this  alcohol. Even  though  the  fatwa  is  generally  given  on  the  view  of  Imam  Muhammad,  there  is  scope  in  consuming  medicine   which  includes  this  second  type  of  alcohol  and  following  the  view  of  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  and  Abu  Yusuf  since  this  is  such  an  issue  in  which  there  is  Umoom  Balwa  affecting  everyone.  This  is  despite  the  fact  that  Taqwa  and  precaution  demand  that  one  should    follow  the  view  of  Imam  Muhammad.”  

There  are  several  flaws  in  this  argument.

(a)  The  issue  of  difference  between  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Imaam  Abu  Yusuf  (rahmatullah  alayh)  on  the  one  side,  and  Imaam  Muhammad  (rahmatullah  alayh) on  the  other  side,  is  not  a  matter  for  public  consumption.  It  is  short-sighted  to  dilate  on  this  difference  in  the  arena  of  the  general  laity  (awaamun  naas).  Nowadays,  every  second  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry  has  opened  an  office  of  ‘ijtihaad’  for  himself  despite  him  lacking  expertise  in  Istinja  and  the  masaa’il  of  Tahaarat  and  Salaat.

An  issue  of  academic  significance  should  not  be  thrashed  out  in  the  domain  of  the  awaamun  naas.  The  Muftis  who  play  in  the  public  arena  with  the  masaa’il  of  the  Deen  have  unintentionally  contributed  to  the  attitude  of Istikhfaaf  which  has  become    universally  a  rampant  disease  affecting  laymen  who  consider  themselves  qualified  to  interpret  Shar’i  issues  and  to  determine  which  view  of  the  Fuqaha  is  applicable  to  them  (i.e.  to  the  public)  for  practical  implementation.

A  Mufti  should  issue  his  fatwa  arguments  for  public  consumption  without  presenting  divisive  arguments.

(b)  The  difference  between  the  two  groups  of  the  Ahnaaf  Fuqaha  is  of  major  significance and  may  not  be  minimized  for  the  sake  of  invalid  ease  as  the  alcohol-legalizing  Muftis  are perpetrating.  It  is  not  a  simple  matter  of  selecting  a  view  at  whim  and  fancy,  which  is precisely  the  attitude  regulating  the  adoption  of  the  permissibility  view.

For  all  practical  purposes,  the  permissibility  view  of  Shaikhain  (Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  and  Imaam  Abu  Yusuf)  has  no  existence.  It  is  a  view  which  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Math-hab  have  relegated  into  oblivion   since  the  past  twelve  centuries  or  more.  It  is  therefore  irresponsible  of  Muftis  of  our  age  to  dig  out  the  permissibility  view  which  has  been  hibernating  in  oblivion  for  more  than  12  centuries.  It  shall  be  shown  further  on,  Insha’Allah,  that  there  exists  no  pressing  need  to  constrain  extraction  from  oblivion  of    the  overshadowed  view  which  all  Four  Math-habs  have  discarded,  and  which  is  in  apparent  conflict  with  the  Ahaadith  and  the  rationale  underlying  the  prohibition  of  all  intoxicants.

(c)  Even  in  terms  of  the  permissibility  view  of  Shaikhain  (rahmatullah  alayhima),  the  permissibility  is  predicated  with  absence  of  “amusement  and  enjoyment”,  i.e.  the  substance  contaminated  with  the  second  type  of  alcohol  assumed  to  be  permissible,  may  not  be consumed  for  pleasure,  amusement  and  enjoyment.  This  permissibility  view  excludes  drinking  for  the  purpose  of  enjoyment,  deriving  pleasure,  amusement  and  the  like.

Can  the  legalizers  explain  the  purpose  for  consuming  health- destroying  drinks  such  as  Coke,  Pepsi  and  soft  drinks  in  general?  There  exists  consensus  of  the  experts  on  the  absolute  harmful  and  detrimental  effects  of  these  drinks.  So,  for  what  purpose  do  people  drink  Coke,  etc.?  The  one  and  only  purpose  is  talahhi  (enjoyment/pleasure) which  is  the  element  which  renders  this  second-category   alcohol  impermissible  even  according  to  Shaikhain.  No  one  consumes  Coke  for  building  up  muscles,  bones  and  health  in  general  for  the  simple  reason  that  these  drinks  achieve  the  very  opposite  effect.  The  consequences  of  these  alcohol  containing  drinks  are  disastrous  for  human  health.

Furthermore,  even  if  the  poisonous  effects  of  these  drinks  are  irrationally  ignored,  the  fact  remains  that  these  drinks  are  consumed  for  talahhi,  hence  there  is  consensus  of  the  Fuqaha  on  the  impermissibility  of  drinks  containing  even  the  second  category  alcohol.

(d)  The  statement, “Even  though  the  fatwa  is  generally  given  on  the  view  of  Imam Muhammad…….”, is  injudicious  to  say  the  least.  It  is  of  eristic  tendency  and  a  mild  spinning  of  reality  to  suit  the  permissibility  narrative.  The  statement  grossly  minimizes  the fundamental  importance  and  impact  of    the  Fatwa  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  a  Fatwa   which  is  corroborated  unanimously  by  the  other  three  Math-habs  as  well.

Nothing  has  changed  to  warrant  abrogation  of  the  impermissibility  Fatwa  which  has  been  extant  since  the  earliest  age  of  Islam.  The  statement  is  in  fact  erroneous.  It  is  improper  to  aver  that  the  fatwa  is  given  generally  on  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  (rahmatullah alayh).  The  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  has  been only  on  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad,  not  on  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  The  Fatwa  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  has  not  vacillated  between  permissibility  and  impermissibility  regarding  the  prohibition  of  all  types  and  categories  of alcohol.  Thus  the  introduction  of  the  ‘difference’  dimension  is  inappropriate  and  has  to  be  rejected  as  baseless  and  inapplicable  to  the  current  scenario  just  as  it  had  been  inapplicable  over  the  centuries.

Without  hesitation  it  is  contended  that  the  permissibility  view  extracted  from  oblivion  by  most  of  the  contemporary  Muftis  is  simply  dictated  by  the  attitude  of  pandering  to  the  whims of  the  ignorant  masses  who  have  become  addicted  to  the  consumption  of  these  extremely  harmful  drinks  and  unnecessary  processed  foods  without  which  life  and  health  will  be  vastly  healthier.

The  fatwa  is  not  generally  given  on  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad.  The  Fatwa  on  his  view  has  always  been  static  and  permanent  on  this  impermissibility  view.

(e)  The  argument  that  “there  is  some  scope  for  consuming    medicine  which  includes  this second  type  of  alcohol”, is  an  illogical  superfluity  when  viewing  it  in  the  light  of  the  alcohol  of  the  first  category,  viz., khamr.  The  legalizers    quite  unambiguously  acknowledge  that  even  khamr  may  be  utilized  for  medicinal  purposes.  Since  this  is  the  unanimous  position  of  the  Fuqaha,  it  is  superfluous  and  meaningless  to  say  that  “there  is  scope  for  consuming  medicine”  which  contains  the  second  category  alcohol.

Regardless  of  the  category, there  is  scope  for consuming   haraam  medicine  when  the  need  develops.  Thus,  there  is  no  merit  in  this  superfluous  argument.  For  the  permissibility  of  consuming    such  medicine,  the  view  of    Shaikhain  is  not  required  for  the  permissibility  fatwa.  The  difference  between  the  two  groups  of  Hanafi  Fuqaha  on  this  issue  does  not  play  a  decisive  role  for  determining  the  permissibility  fatwaTadaawi  bil  haraam,  Dhuroorat, etc.  are  some  independent  principles  which  are  invoked  for  occasional  permissibility  of prohibitions.

(f)    The  Umoom Balwa  principle  invoked  by  the  legalizers  is  absolutely  corrupt  and  baseless.  Wide-scale  prevalence  is  not  a   legalizer  in  all  instances.  Interest,  gambling,  zina,  abandonment  of  Hijaab,  free  intermingling  of  the  sexes,  music,  pictography,  etc.,  etc.,   are  rampant  in  Muslim  society.  Literally  speaking  the  element  of  Umoom  Balwa exists.  But,  these  vices  may  not  be  legalized  in  terms  of   the  Umoom  Balwa  principle.

Basically,  this  principle  is  availed  of  in  issues  of  Tahaarat, But,  not  in  matters  of  Hurmat.   Other  principles  regulate  temporary  legalization  of  Hurmat (Prohibition),  not  umoom  balwa.  If  all  the  water  reaching  into  the  homes  is  contaminated  and  no  pure  water  is  available  easily,  such  water  will  become  permissible  on  the  basis  of  the  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa. 

Drugs  are  today  a  menace  whose  prevalence  is  extremely  wide-scale  –  extensive  and intensive.  In  the  literal  meaning  of  the  term, umoom  balwa  is  applicable  to  it.  What  is  the  fatwa  of  the  Coke  legalizing  Muftis  on  the  issue  of  drugs?  Genuine  ‘umoom  balwa’  grips  nations,  world  wide,  in  this  regard.  Do  drugs  become  permissible  on  the  Umoom  Balwa?  For  a  certainty  the  Muftis  have   as  yet  not  invoked  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa legalization  of  drugs.  On  the  contrary,  despite  the  applicability  of  umoom  balwa  in  the  literal  meaning  of  the  term,  authorities  invoke  even  the  death  penalty  for  drugs.  This  prohibition  is  not  legalized  in  consequence  of  wide-scale  and  intensity  of  prevalence.

If  a  pork-consuming  community  enters  into  the  fold  of  Islam,  pork  shall  not  be  declared halaal  on  the  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa.  The  people  will  have  no  option  but  to  abandon  their pork-addiction.  Similarly,  carrion  chickens  and  carrion  meat  cannot  be  halaalized  on  the  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa.  In  fact,  the  halaalizers  of  carrion  are  not  basing  their  rotten  case  on  the  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa.  They  are  simply  denying  the  charges  which  render  the chickens  carrion.  But  they  do  concede  that  the  chickens  would  be  carrion  if  Tasmiyah  is  not  recited.  They  too  will  not  halaalize  on  the  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa  such  chickens  which  they  believe  to  be  carrion  despite  the  entire  community  being  recklessly  addicted  to  carrion consumption.

There  is  absolutely  no  merit  in  the  Umoom  Balwa  argument.  This  principle  has  simply  been  made  the  scapegoat  or  better,  baselessly  and  deceptively  cited  to  halaalize    harmful  and  poisonous  ‘foods’  to  satisfy  the  whims  and  fancies  of  the  masses.

(g) “This  is  despite  the  fact  that  Taqwa  and  precaution  demand  that  one  should  follow  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad.”  
This  averment  of  the  legalizers  is  incorrect  and  improper  advice. The  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  is  on  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  (rahmatullah  alayh),  and  this  is  also  the  Fatwa  of the  other  three  Math-habs.  It  is  not  a  fatwa  of  Taqwa.  Furthermore,  cultivation  of  Taqwa  is  incumbent.  Over  two  hundred  Qur’aanic  Aayat  and  innumerable  Ahaadith  command  the  cultivation  of  Taqwa.  In  this  regard,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)    said:

“A  Mu’min  will  not  attain  the  status  of  the  Muttaqeen  as  long  as  he  does  not  abstain  from  permissibilities  for  the  fear  of  indulging  in  impermissibilities.”  

It  is  the  obligation  of  the  Mufti  to  strengthen  the  Mu’min’s  bond  with  Allah  Ta’ala.  His  function  is  not  to  weaken  the  relationship  with  Allah  Ta’ala  by  legalizing    substances  which  are  haraam  and  destructive  for  both  the  physical  and  spiritual  health  of  man.  Where  there  is  no  need  for  ‘scope’,  he  should  not    seek  scope  and  dig  out  principles  to  unnecessarily  legalize  prohibitions.  The  incongruous  manipulation  of    the  Principles  of  Fiqah  by  contemporary Muftis  is  indeed  despicable.

Abstention  from  all  types  of  alcohol  is  the  Fatwa.  It  is  not  a  discretionary  issue  which people  are  allowed  to  accept  and  reject  at  whim  and  fancy.

(2)  The  legalizers  of  prohibited  alcohol  state:

“If  a  person  does  not  know  what  type  of  alcohol  it  is,  then  the  ruling  cannot  be  passed  declaring  this  alcohol  to  be  impure  and  impermissible  solely  based  on  doubt……Therefore,  there  is  scope  in  consuming  medicine  which  contains  alcohol  but  it  is  not  known  what  type  of  alcohol  it  is….”  

This  argument  is  putridly  baseless.  If  the  Mufti  knows  that  one  of  the  two  glasses  of  water  contains  a  lethal  poison,  but  it  is  not  known  in  which  glass  is  the  poison,  will  his  fatwa  be  that  it  is  permissible  to  drink  any  glass  of  water,  which  may  result  in  the  death  of  the  consumer?  In  view  of  the  Fatwa  of  Hurmat,  the  product  containing  any  type  of  alcohol  is  impermissible.  As  far  as  medicine  is  concerned,  the  ruling  has  already  been  explained  above.

(3)  The  legalizers  state: “If  a  person  doesn’t  know  what  type  of  alcohol  is  used,  then  there  is  some  scope  in  using  alcohol  for  medical  purposes.”  

The  monotonous  use  of  the terms  “there  is  some  scope  in  using  alcohol  for  medical purposes”, is  quite  amusing.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  the  Ulama  on  this  issue,  so  why  labour  the  point  unnecessarily?  It  appears  that  the  legalizers  are  confused, hence  they  acquit  themselves  as  if  they  are  dealing  with  a  difference  on  this  issue.  When  there  is  concurrence  on  the  use  of  even  alcohol  of  the  first  category  in  medicine  when  such  a  need  develops,  what  is  the  argument  about  using  alcohol  of  the  second  category  in  medicine?

(4)  “In  today’s  times,  the  alcohol  which  is  used  in  western  medicine  is  generally  not  real  alcohol.  It  is  alcohol  made  from  potato,  wheat,  etc.”  
This  statement  is  grossly  incorrect.  What  is  the  meaning  of  “real’  and  “unreal”  alcohol?  An  intoxicating  liquid  is  alcohol.  Regardless  of  it  being  of  the  first  category  or  the  second  category,  it  will  equally  intoxicate  and  dehumanize  Insaan.  The  Fiqhi  technicalities  may  not  be  utilized  for  opening  the  gateway  of  moral  corruption.  Whisky,  Gin,  Sherry,  Vodka  and  the  numerous  other  kinds  of  liquor  all  contain  alcohol  of  the  second  category  (i.e.  the  supposedly  ‘unreal’  alcohol).  If  ‘modern’  alcohol  is  not  real  as  the  Mufti  Sahib  contends,  then  in  which  category  shall  we  assign  this  ‘unreal’  alcohol?  The  venerable  Mufti  Sahib  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  whether  alcohol  is  ‘real’  or  ‘unreal’,  it  is  an  intoxicant  which  is  thus  haraam.

All  of  these  liquors  (whisky,  etc.)  are  impure  and  haraam  regardless  of  the  supposedly  ‘pure’  ethanol  (non grape/dates)  which  they  contain  or  even  the  ‘unreal’  alcohol.  Potato  and  wheat  liquor  intoxicates  and  dehumanizes  in  the  same  way  as  grape  and  date  wine. 

Again  it  should  be  repeated  that  the  argument  is  not  medicine  which  becomes  permissible  regardless  of  the  category  of  alcohol  when  there  is  a  need  for  such  medicine.  The  argument  centres  around  non-essentials  and  harmful  products  on  which  survival  is  not  pivoted.

(5)  Another  Mufti  Sahib  avers:  “In  the  beginning  stages,  alcohol  was  made  from  fermented  drinks  themselves  or  the  residue  of  fermented  drinks.  Therefore  scholars  of  Fiqh  applied  the  ruling  of  alcohol  to  it  and  they declared  it  to  be  impure.  They  also  considered  it  impermissible  to  consume  and  to  use  in medicines.  However,  now  alcohol  is  made  using  scientific  technology  and  it  no  longer remains  alcohol.  Instead  it  is  in  the  category  of  vinegar.  For  this  reason  alcohol  will  not  be  considered  impure  and  impermissible  to  use…………..However,  Taqwa  (god  consciousness)  is  something  else  as  well  as  the  dictates  of  precaution.  This  is  different  from  the  fatwa  itself.”  

The  flaws  of  this  view  are  as  follows:

(a)    Alcohol  is  haraam  regardless  of  the  methods  of  production.  Whether  the  substance  produced  by  the  primitive  method  or  by  the  technology  of  this  era,  it  is  an  intoxicant  which  inebriates  and  dehumanizes  Insaan. The  end  product  of  fermentation,  i.e.  liquor,  is  haraam  because  it  is  intoxicating.  Despite  no  impurity  being  added  in  the  production  process,  once  it  has  been  transformed  into  an  intoxicant  it  is  proclaimed  najis  and  haraam.  The  method  of production  has  absolutely  no  bearing  on  the  Hukm  which  is hurmat.

(b)  This  ‘scientific  technology’  argument  is  ludicrous.  It  is  identical  to  the  argument  of  the  liberals  who  claim  that  pictures  are  permissible  if    produced  by  ‘scientific  technology’.  They  predicate  the  prohibition  to  only  pictures  drawn  with  the  hand  in  the  primitive  way.  There  is  no  difference  between  the  two  issues.  Pictures  produced  by  modern  technology  are  haraam  just  as  pictures  drawn  with  the  hand  are  haraam.  In  the  same  way  alcohol  is  haraam  whether  produced  in  the  primitive  way  or  the  modern  technological  method.  The  method  of  production  is  irrelevant  for  determining  the  hukm  of  the  Shariah.

(c)  The  contention  that  alcohol  produced  by  technology  is  like  vinegar  is  absurd.  Vinegar  is not  an  intoxicant.  Alcohol  is.  Thus  the  analogy  with  vinegar is  fallacious.

(d)    Since  it  is  claimed  that  modern  alcohol  is  pure  and  permissible,  the  Taqwa  dimension  is  superfluous.  It  simply  does  not  apply.  When  it  is  contended  that  modern  technology  produces  ‘pure’  and  ‘permissible’  alcohol,  the  introduction  of  the  Taqwa  factor  is  weird.

(e)    The  view  of  alcohol  manufactured  ‘scientifically’  by  ‘technology’  not  being  alcohol  in  addition  to  being  absurd,  is  pure  personal  opinion.  It  is  not  a  Shar’i  daleel,  hence  it  holds  no  weight  whatsoever  in  the  formulation  of  a  Shar’i  fatwa.

(6)    Even  a  liberal  such  as  Mufti  Taqi  Uthmaani  says:  “In  this  case,  there  exists  leeway  in  taking  the  view  of  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  at  the  time  of  necessity.” (Our  emphasis)

Despite  peddling  the  view  of  ‘purity’  and  ‘permissibility’,  the  honourable  Mufti  Sahib predicates  it  with  “at  the  time  of  necessity”.  This  confirms  that  there  is  no  unrestricted permissibility  to  use  and  consume  alcohol  of  the  second  category.  But  there  is  no  need  to  refute  this  stance  of  the  legalizing  Muftis.  There  is  consensus  on  the  use  of  even  alcohol  of  the  first  category  in  medicines  at  the  time  of  necessity.

(7)  The  respected  Mufti  Rashid  Ahmad  (rahmatullah  alayh)  presents  the  following  untenable view:  “The  explanation  regarding  these  drinks  is  as  follows:  Allamah  Shibli  (Shalbi)  writes: ‘The  author  says  when  a  person  uses  it  with  the  intention  of  strengthening  himself  (then  it  is  permissible).  The  meaning  of  this  is  that  he  wishes  to  strengthen  himself  in  order  to  worship  Allah  or  in  order  to  facilitate  the  digestion  of  food  or  for  medical  purposes.”

Is  any  intelligent  person  today  prepared  to  vouch  that  Coke  and  similar  soft  drinks  are consumed  to  strengthen  one  for  ibaadat– to  spend  the  night  in  Salaat,  etc.? Or  does  anyone  consume  these  drinks  to  facilitate  digestion  of  food  or  for  medical  purposes?  Coke,  etc.  have  the  very  opposite  effect.  It  destroys  the  health.  It  weakens  the  body.  It  causes indigestion,  and  it  is  never  ever  used  for  medical  purposes. It  boggles  the  mind  that  a  senior  Mufti  would  utilize  the  statement  of  Allaamah  Shalbi  to  legalize  drinks  which  are  absolutely  ruinous  to  the  health.  Even  if  these  drinks  had  to  be  free  of  alcohol,  then  too,  the  fatwa  of  prohibition  will  apply  on  the  basis  of  the  element  of  dharar. The  presence  of  alcohol  emphasizes  the  fatwa  of  hurmat.  Does  Coke  strengthen  one  for  ibaadat?  Does  it    create  enthusiasm  for  ibaadat?  Allaamah  Shalbi’s  view  is  related  to  ibaadat,  not  to  consumption  for  talahhi  (pleasure).  Furthermore, consuming  alcohol  of  the second  degree  is  not  permissible  even  without  talahhi,  in  view  of  the  categorical  ruling  of  prohibition  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab.

On  the  issue  of  Umoom  Balwa,  Mufti  Rashid  Ahmad  said  in  his  Fataawa: “Zaid’s  deduction  on  the  basis  of  (the  principle)  of  Ibtilaa-e-Amm  (Umoom  Balwa)  is  incorrect.  Something haraam  does  not  become  halaal  on  the  basis  of  Ibtilaa-e-aam”

(8)  Without  applying  their  minds,  the  legalizers  of  soft  drinks  and  the  like  cite  Raddul Muhtaar:  “It  is  not  permissible  to  consume  it  (alcohol  of  the  second  category)  for  the purposes  of  amusement  or  play  in  the  way  of  transgressors.  It  will  be  impermissible  to  consume  (even)  water  and  other  permissible  substances  in  this  way.”

Allaamah  Ibn  Aabideen  brings  even  water,  milk,  honey,  etc.  within  the  purview  of  prohibition  if  consumed  in  the  style  of  the  fussaaq.  What  he  says  is  that  it  is  not  permissible  to  consume  products  which  contain  alcohol  of  the  second  degree  (in  terms  of  the  ruling  of  Shaikhain)  if  taken  for  amusement to  derive  joy  and  pleasure.  This  is  the  precise  purpose for  consuming    Coke,  etc.  There  is  no  other  reason  why  soft  drinks  are    consumed.  Even  in  terms  of  the  view  of  Shaikhain,  these  drinks  are  not  permissible  if  taken  for  pleasure  and  joy.

(9)  The  legalizers  of  alcohol  say: “It  is  not  unconditionally  prohibited  for  a  person  to  eat or  drink  for  amusement  and  fun.  The  impermissible  factor  lies  in  doing  so  in  the  way  of transgressors.”  

The  unconditional  prohibition  pertaining  to  amusement  does  not  apply  to  food  and  drinks in  general.  Food  may  be    consumed  for  pleasure  and  enjoyment.  The  prohibition  applies  to  such  drinks  which  contain  alcohol  of  the  second  category.  With  regard  to  alcohol  of  the  second  category,  it  is  unconditionally  prohibited  if  taken  for  the  purpose  of  talahhi  (joy/pleasure)  regardless  of  whether  it  is  consumed  in  the  manner  of  the  fussaaq  or  not.  The factor  of  talahhi  is  not  restricted  with  the  way  of  the  fussaaq.  This  factor  relates  to  even  pure  permissibilities  such  as  water  and   milk  which  will  become  prohibited  if  consumed  in  the  style  of  the  fussaaq.  Those  who  restrict  the  factor  of  talahhi  with  fisq,  are  in  error.  They  have  merely  proffered  their  personal  opinion.  Furthermore,  talahhi  or  no  talahhi,  the  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  is  prohibition  of  all  types  of  alcohol.

Personal  opinion  proves  nothing,  be  it  the  opinion  of  a  senior  Mufti  of  lofty  status.  An opinion  bereft  of  Shar’i  daleel,  holds  no  Shar’i  status.  It  may  not  be  imposed  on  anyone  as  if  it  carries  the  weight  and  authority  of  the  Shariah.

(10)  “According  to  the  principles  of  Fatwa,  the  view  of  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  and  Imam  Abu Yusuf  takes  preference  over  the  view  of  Imam  Muhammad  unless  there  is  an  outside  factor.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  scholars  of  Fiqh  have  declared  the  view  of  Imam  Muhammad  as  the  view  upon  which  fatwa  is  given  because  of  the  widespread  corruption  found  in  later  times, the  fatwa  will  now  be  given  on  the  original  view  of  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  that  it  is  permissible  to consume  this  alcohol  due  to  Umoom  Balwa  and  the  need  for  medical  treatment.”  

This  view  stated  in Ahsanul  Fataawa  is  flawed  as  follows:

(a)    The  principles  of  Fatwa  referred  to  here  have  not  been  explained  or  stated.  There  is  no  principle  for  according  preference  to  the  view  of  Shaikhain  for  abrogating  the  official  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  which  has  been  extant  for  more  than  twelve  centuries.  The  statement  made  is  an  arbitrary  view  unbacked  by  Shar’i  evidence.  It  is  pure  personal  opinion.  There  has  to  be  exceptionally  strong  and  valid  grounds  for  diverging  from  or  abrogating  the    official  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab,  and  for  adopting  the  Marjooh view. 

The  venerable  Mufti  Sahib  has  shown  no  valid  and  pressing  grounds  for  the  extreme  measure  of  cancelling  the  official  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab.  He  has  not  furnished  a  single  valid  Shar’i  argument  for  according  preference  to  the  Marjooh  view  and  for  abrogating  the  official  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  which  is  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad,  which  is  also  bolstered  by  the    official  Fatwas  of  the  other three  Math-habs.

(b)  The  honourable  Mufti  Sahib  has,  nevertheless,  covered  himself  by  stipulating  “unless  there  is  an  outside  factor”  for  not  giving  preference  to  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  It  is  indeed  peculiar  that  the  Mufti  Sahib    was  unaware  of  the  many “outside  factors”  which  preclude  assignment  of  preference  to  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  The  venerable  Mufti  Sahib  had  not applied  his  mind  fully  when  he  issued  his  fatwa  based  on  personal  opinion,  hence  he remained  unaware  of  the  “outside  factors”  which  disallow  rescission  of  the  official  Fatwa  of the  Math-hab.

The  “outside  factors”  which  demand  sustainment  of  the  official  Fatwa  which  is  the  view of  Imaam  Muhammad,  are:

(i)   Sadd-e-Tharaa’i  (Closing  the  ways  and  the  gate  for  corruption).  Regardless  of  the  type  of  alcohol,  all  alcohols  are  intoxicants.  The  ultimate    consequence  of  consumption  of  a  little  is  alcohol-addiction. The  constant  consumption  of  a  little  cultimates  in  consumption  of  much.

(ii)  Almost  all  types  of  liquor  contain  alcohol  of  the  second  category.  Thus,  condonation  of  permissibility  will  undoubtedly  lead  to  the  Ummah  becoming    nations  of  liquor  guzzlers. Whisky,  gin,  vodka,  sherry,  etc.  (all  alcohols  of  the  second  degree)  will  become  acceptable and  ‘halaal’.  Stopping  dead  at  the  point  which  induces  inebriation  will  not  be  sustained.  Thus,  the  fatwa  of  permissibility  is  the  forerunner  for  halaalization  of  liquor  which  comes  within  the  purview  of  the  Hadith  in  which  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  the  Ummah  said  that in  times  in  proximity  with  Qiyaamah  will  halaalize  liquor  by  giving  it  fanciful  names.  This  process  has  already  been  initiated  by  the  fatwas  of jawaaz,  and  by  the  technical arguments  of  ‘first’  and  ‘second’  categories  of  alcohol.

(iii)  The  alcohol  containing  products  being  consumed  are  not  required  for  sustaining  life  or  health.  On  the  contrary,  these  products  have  been  conclusively  proven  by  experts  to  be  extremely  harmful  for  the  health  of  man.  The  motive  of  consumption  is  pure  pleasure,  and  this  is  the  primary  purpose  for  consuming  soft  drinks.  It  is  weird,  absurd  and  false  to  say  that  soft  drinks,  puddings,  custards  and  the  like  are  consumed  for  health  and  digestion.  These products  in  fact,  corrupt  the  health,  and  cause  indigestion.

(iv)  The  factor  of  corruption  which  had  confirmed  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  for practical  adoption,  has  neither  receded  nor  decreased.  In  fact,  the  corruption  prevalent  today can  be  multiplied,  and  will  be  found  to  be  more  than  the  corruption  which  had  existed  12  centuries  ago  in  the  Ummah.

(c)    The  adoption  of  Imaam  Muhammad’s  view  by  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab,  reinforces  the  contention  that  according  to  the  principles  of  Fatwa,  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  be  given  preference.  Hence,  the  preference  which  all  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Ahnaaf  accorded  to  Imaam  Muhammad’s  view  over  the  many  centuries,  remains  valid  to  this  day,  and  so  will  it  remain  until  the  end  of  worldly  time.  Corruption  is  set  to  increase,  not  decrease.  It  is  baseless  to  aver  that  the  “widespread  corruption”  prevalent  12  centuries  ago, which  constrained  the  adoption  of  the  Fatwa  on  Imaam  Muhammad’s  view,  does  not  exist today.

(d)  Describing  the  view  of  Shaikhain  as  the  “original”  view  is  erroneous.  The  original  view which  is  the  original  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab,  is  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad,  not  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  The  Fatwa  was  never  issued  on  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  Thus,  the  claim  of  the  latter  view  being  the  original  one  is  baseless,  and  an  arbitrary  claim  of  opinion  unsubstantiated  by  Shar’i  daleel.

(e)   The  argument  of  Umoom  Balwa  stated  in  the  view,  mentioned  above,  is  fallacious.  The  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa  cannot  be  applied  to  transform  haraam  and  najaasat  into  halaal  on  the  basis  of  the  widespread  consumption  of  junk  and  harmful  substances.  This  principle  may  be  invoked  only  in  relation  to  genuine  necessities. 

As  mentioned  earlier,  medicine  is  excluded  from  this  discussion.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  regarding  permissibility  of  alcohol  containing  medicine  whether  the  alcohol  is  of  the  first  or  second  category.  The  permissibility  is,  however,  conditioned  with  the  non-availability  of  halaal  medicine.  There  is  no  need  to  invoke  the  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa  for  issuing  the  fatwa  of  permissibility  of  medicines  containing  alcohol.  Generally,  the  Muftis  of  today  are  mis-manipulating  the  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa.  This  mis-manipulation  and  rash  application  simply  halaalize  prohibitions  without  valid  Shar’i  basis.

(11)  Quoting  from  Hadhrat  Maulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi’s Imdaadul  Fataawa,  the  halaalizers  present  the  following  fatwa  of  Hadhrat  Thanvi  (rahmatullah  alayh): “It  is  not  permissible  for  a  person  to  consume  such  bread  or  biscuits  (whose  dough  was made  using  alcohol).  However,  it  will  be  permissible  to  consume  them  if  it  cannot  be  avoided  because  of  the  presence  of  certain  narrations.” 

There  is  no  license  for  halaalizing  alcohol  of  the  second  category  in  this  Fatwa  which  state  with  clarity  its  impermissibility.  The  permissibility  is  conditioned    with  exceptional  situations, “if  it  cannot  be  avoided”.  Soft  drinks,  puddings  and  custards,  which  are  all  easily  avoidable,    do  not  come  within  the  scope  of  permissibility.  The  halaalizers  have  cited  this  fatwa  without  applying  their  minds.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  in  an  unavoidable  situation  or  when    the  need  is  pressing.

Shah  Waliyullah  (rahmatullah  alayh)  on  non-khamr  alcohol

Refuting  the  categorization  of  alcohol  into  two  categories,  Hadhrat  Shah  Waliyullah (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in  his Hujjatullaahil  Baalighah:

“Innumerable  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  have  been  narrated  from  a  variety  of  sources.  Thus  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:

“Khamr  is  from  these  two  trees:  dates  and  grape.

*  When  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  was  asked  about  bat’,  mizr and  (others)  besides  these  two,  (i.e.  about  non-grape  alcohol),  he  replied:  “Every  drink  which  intoxicates is  haraam.”  

*  “Every  intoxicating  (drink)  is  khamr,  and  every  intoxicant  is  haraam.  Whatever  of  a  big  quantity  intoxicates,  a  small  quantity  of  it  is  (also)  haraam.”.  
Continuing  his  explanation,  Hadhrat  Shah  Waliyyullah  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:

“Predicating  the  prohibition  with  (only)  grapes  is  meaningless..  The  determinant  in  Tahreem  (i.e. prohibition)  is  derangement  of  the  intelligence.  Its  little  (i.e.  liquor’s  little)  leads  to  its  abundance,  hence  the  decree  with  it  is  Waajib  (i.e.  it  is  incumbent  to  decree  that  all  types  of  liquor  whether  in  small  amounts,  are  haraam).  Today  it  is  not  permissible  for  anyone  to  halaalize  such  (liquor)  which  is  made  from   things  other  than  grapes,  and  use  in  quantities  less  than  intoxication.

In  view  of  people’s  insane  desire  for  liquor  and  their  ploys  for  (consuming)  it,  the objective  (of  prohibition)  cannot  be  achieved  except  by    totally  prohibiting  it  in  every  aspect  so  that  there  does  not  remain  neither  any  loophole  nor  stratagem  for  anyone  (to  halaalize  liquor).”

Hadhrat  Maulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi  and  the  view  of  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah
“The  view  of  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  in  the  kutub  of  the  Hanafiyyah  has  been  set  aside.”

It  is  therefore,  not  permissible  to  halaalize  any  type  of  alcohol  regardless  of  minute quantities.  The  view  of  Shaikhain  may  not  be  resurrected  and  presented  as  a  basis  for  such  halaalization.

(1)  For  the  application  of  the  Shari’ah’s  ruling  of  prohibition  regarding  consumables,  there  is  only  one  kind  of  alcohol.  Alcohol,  regardless  of  the  category  assigned  to  it  in  Fiqh,  is  haraam.

(2)  The  Fatwa  of  the  Shari’ah  has  always  been  prohibition  of  all  kinds  of  alcohol.  The  view of  Shaikhain  has  been  set  aside  by  the  Fuqaha  of  Islam.

(3)  The  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa  does  not  operate  to  justify  and  halaalize  a  haraam  substance.  It  relates  to  the  sphere  of  Tahaarat.

(4)  All  products  such  as  soft  drinks,  etc.  which  contain  even  minute  traces  of  alcohol  are  not  permissible.

(5)  If  no  halaal  medicine  is  available,  it  will  then  be  permissible  to  consume  medicine  with  an  alcohol  content,  whether  it  be  alcohol  of  the  first  or  second  category.

Consumption of Camel Urine and Clarification from the Islamic Tradition

Originally taken from:

By Mawlana Abu Asim Badrul Islam


In some countries of the Muslim world, camel urine is believed to contain extraordinary medicinal value. It is drunk and used in various ways. Companies have come into existence, which produce camel urine drinks and other products from camel urine. Although, this practice is found amongst a tiny minority of – almost insignificant – Muslim populations confined to a few cultures, it is nevertheless causing some confusion and raising questions (not to speak of the derision by some non-Muslims, who have their own multiple other questionable practices). Some are drawing a parallel between this practice by some Muslims and the consumption of, and supposed blessings derived from, cow urine by some Hindus.

Scientific Research

As far as we are aware, there is no conclusive scientific research available yet on the benefits or harms of camel urine. Some laboratory research seems to indicate that camel urine may contain anti-cancer properties[1]. Following the outbreak of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS‐CoV), the World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently (2017) issued warnings about the consumption of raw camel milk or camel urine by those who are at high risk of contracting the virus[2].

Why Are Muslims Drinking Camel Urine?

The question arises as to why Muslims, who have always been known for their extraordinary diligence in cleanliness and purity, which is at the very core of the teachings of their faith, are drinking camel urine. As surprising as it may sound, those minority of Muslims who are drinking camel urine, are doing so out of religious conviction. That conviction stems from their understanding of an incident during the blessed lifetime of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. This incident has been reported in several places by Imām al-Bukhāri in his Ṣaḥῑḥ (ḥadῑth 233)[3] and Imām Muslim in his Ṣaḥῑḥ (ḥadῑth 1671)[4]. It has also been reported by various other imams of ḥadῑth in their respective collections.

The Ḥadῑth of Camel Urine

The ḥadῑth is narrated by Anas ibn Mālik (may Allāh be pleased with him). He describes how a group of people from the tribe of ῾Ukl or ῾Uraynah[5] arrived in Madῑnah. In the commentary of the ḥadῑth, Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, in his monumental Fatḥ al-Bāri, states that they embraced Islām[6], but fell very ill due to the climate, food and flu of Madῑnah. Ibn Ḥajar mentions that there is indication that when they arrived in Madῑnah, they were already ill. Their illness was extreme malnutrition and weakness. Their colour had turned pale. They came to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and complained about their critical condition. He told them to go to a herd of milch camels that were kept in the plains outside Madῑnah and drink their urine and milk. In his commentary on Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni mentions various narrations that state that the camels belonged to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, or that amongst the camels were some that belonged to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. Some narrations of the ḥadῑth state that the camels were of ṣadaqah[7]. When these individuals went, and drank the urine and milk of the camels, they regained good health. They then killed the shepherd of the Messenger of Allāh [8] and stole the camels. According to some narrations, they put on weight and regained strength.

Verdicts of the Legal Schools

Imām Badr al-Dῑn al-῾Ayni, in his commentary on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, states that, based on this ḥadῑth, Imām Mālik maintains purity (ṭahārah) of the urine of all animals whose flesh is ḥalāl. This view is also shared by Imāms Aḥmad, al-Sha῾bi, ῾Aṭā̕, al-Nakha῾i, al-Zuhri, Ibn Sῑrῑn, al-Ḥakam, al-Thawri[9]. From amongst the imams of the ḥanafi school of sacred law, Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni also holds this view[10]. When asked about it, he argues with this ḥadῑth in his pivotal work, Kitāb al-Aṣl. Imām Abu Yūsuf, the other main student of Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah, maintains the permissibility of drinking the urine of animals whose flesh is ḥalāl (like camels), but states that the same will render water impure, even if a small quantity mixes with water[11]. However, the established view in the ḥanafi school, upon which fatwa is given, is that all urine is filth (najis)[12], although a small amount, which has been deemed negligible,[13] is excused in prayer.

Imāms Abu Ḥanῑfah, al-Shāfi῾i, Abu Yūsuf, Abu Thawr and many others maintain the impurity or filth of all urine[14](irrespective of whether it is the urine of a human – baby or adult, ḥalāl animal or ḥarām animal).

Explanations for the Ḥadῑth of Camel Urine

As for the ḥadῑth of the people of ῾Uraynah, from which this disagreement stems, imāms Abu Ḥanῑfah, al-Shāfi῾i, Abu Yūsuf, Abu Thawr and many others argue that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ permitted them to drink the urine of camels due to necessity (at the time, and for those particular individuals). Therefore, this incident cannot be taken as evidence where such a necessity does not exist. There are many other instances in the Sharῑ῾ah when, due to necessity, an impermissible thing is allowed. For example, the wearing of silk is unlawful for men. It is permitted in the battlefield, due to certain skin conditions and extreme cold, when an alternative cannot be found.

The most satisfactory explanation for the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah is that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ knew through revelation that their cure lay in the drinking of camel urine. Using ḥarām substance as medical remedy is permissible when there is certainty of cure[15], in the absence of a ḥalāl alternative[16]. For example, eating of a carcass when one fears death due to extreme hunger; drinking of wine due to extreme thirst or in order to clear food that is stuck in the throat, in the absence of anything else. Allāh Most High says,

وَمَا لَكُمۡ أَلَّا تَأۡكُلُواْ مِمَّا ذُكِرَ ٱسۡمُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡهِ وَقَدۡ فَصَّلَ لَكُم مَّا حَرَّمَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ إِلَّا مَا ٱضۡطُرِرۡتُمۡ إِلَيۡهِۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرٗا لَّيُضِلُّونَ بِأَهۡوَآئِهِم بِغَيۡرِ عِلۡمٍۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعۡلَمُ بِٱلۡمُعۡتَدِينَ ١١٩

Why should you not eat of (meats) on which Allah’s name has been pronounced, when He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you – except under compulsion of extreme necessity? (Al-An῾ām: 119)

Shams al-A̕immah al-Sarakhsi states:

“The ḥadῑth of Anas (may Allāh be pleased with him) has been narrated from him by Qatādah, in which he reports that they were permitted to drink the milk of camels. He did not mention urine. Only in the narration of Ḥumayd al-Ṭawῑl is there mention of urine[17]. When the evidence of a ḥadῑth in any matter is questionable, it no longer remains an evidence. Moreover, we say, the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ granted them exclusive permission to drink camel urine, as he knew through revelation that their cure lay in its drinking. The same cannot be found in our age. This is similar to his granting Al-Zubayr exclusive permission to wear silk due to the rash on his skin or presence of parasitic insects. [We further say,] they were granted permission to drink camel urine, as they were disbelievers in the knowledge of Allāh and His Messengerﷺ [18]. He knew through revelation that they would all die apostates. It is not unimaginable that the cure of a disbeliever be found in filth.”[19]

Imām Badr al-Dῑn al-῾Ayni further presents the generality of the ḥadῑth reported by imams al-Ḥākim, Aḥmad, Ibn Mājah, al-Dāra Quṭni and al-Ṭabarāni:

استنزهوا من البول ، فإن عامة عذاب القبر منه.

“Cleanse yourselves from urine. For, most punishment of the grave is due to [carelessness in this regard].”

A similar ḥadῑth, warning that punishment of the grave is often due to carelessness in properly cleansing oneself from urine, has also been reported by imāms al-Bukhāri and Muslim in the Ṣaḥῑḥ.

Imām Shams al-A̕immah Al-Sarakhsi also presents this ḥadῑth and another narration in his Al-Mabsūṭ[20] to prove the impurity of urine in general. He points out that when the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ warned against negligence in regard to keeping oneself clean from urine, he did not limit it to just human urine, as he did not specify the type of urine.

῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni argues that the ḥadῑth of the people of ῾Uraynah was abrogated by later ḥadῑths, which established the filthiness of urine. He states:

“Even though, in the absence of certainty of dates, abrogation cannot be proven by mere possibility, it can[21] be sufficient to prevent the ḥadῑth from being used as an evidence (for the alleged purity of camel urine) in direct contradiction to general [established] principles and popular reports of ḥadῑth, when such a possibility is corroborated by various other strong indicative evidences. In this matter, there exist some strong indicative evidences, which corroborate the possibility of abrogation. These evidences include the fact that the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah occurred during the 6thyear of the hijrah and the ḥadῑth of the filthiness of urine was narrated by Abu Hurayrah, who embraced Islām during the 7th year of the hijrah. When the Islām of a narrator occurs at a later date, even though it does not always definitively imply the lateness of what he has narrated, it is[22], nevertheless, indicative evidence of lateness. This is especially so, if we consider the fact that had the filthiness of urine been abrogated in the 7th year of the hijrah, none of the Companions would have related the ḥadῑth of its filthiness to Abu Hurayrah without pointing out that it had been abrogated. It is obvious that the incident of the people of ῾Uraynah occurred in clear view of the Companions and it was popularly known to people. Had the incident been abrogative of the filthiness of urine, it would not have remained hidden from the Companions. The issue is one that is faced by the general populace – especially, in the case of the Companions, many of whom herded camels and milked them.

It is well-known in the science of ḥadῑth that commandments in the matter of filth were gradually escalated from leniency to strictness. There are examples of many things, which, during the early days of Islām, were considered clean (or pure) and not affecting the validity of ṣalāh. Later, commandments relating to these very things were escalated to that of filth[23]. An instance of this is the ḥadῑth of Ibn Mas῾ūd, reported by al-Bukhāri, regarding the dumping by Abu Jahl of entrails and intestines of a camel on the back of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ while he was in prostration, praying. He did not interrupt his ṣalāh due to this. Rather, he continued praying, as al-Ḥāfiẓ[24] has mentioned in Fatḥ al-Bāri. Ibn Ḥazm has claimed that this ḥadῑth has been abrogated by the ḥadῑth of faeces and blood.

Thus, the above indicative evidences corroborate the possibility of abrogation. In the existence of such a strong possibility, it is not correct to infer from the ḥadῑth under discussion the purity of urine – regarding the filthiness of which there are many ḥadῑths.  

A third explanation for the ḥadῑth under discussion is that the command was to drink camel milk and snuff[25] camel urine, while urine has been put in conjunction with milk by way of inclusion in expression [only]. […] This has been elaborated by Ibn Hishām[26] in Mughni ‘l-Labῑb (2:193, 2:169, 1:32) in the beginning of the fifth chapter of the second volume.[27]

[What I have stated above] is proven by other variant transmissions of this ḥadῑth. For instance, in the Sunan of al-Nasā̕ i, there is no mention of urine. The precise wording is:

فبعث بهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى لقاح ليشربوا من ألبانها ، فكانوا فيها … إلخ

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ sent them to some milch camels so that they may drink their milk. They did this […]”

Similarly, the word ‘urine’ has not been mentioned in the narration of Anas [ibn Mālik] that has been reported by al-Ṭaḥāwi through the transmission of ῾Abd Allāh ibn Bakr, from Ḥumayd, from Anas. This has been mentioned by our shaykh, al-Binnori[28], in his Ma῾ārif al-Sunan (1:275). He then says:

“Based on this, it is very likely that the mention of urine with milk in the context of the command of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ was the handiwork of one of the transmitters of the ḥadῑth. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ may have commanded them to drink camel milk and to wash their nostrils with camel urine, but they may have also drank the urine. Thus, they were both mentioned together [by a transmitter] in the context of drinking of milk, in view of what actually happened – and not because the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ had commanded them to drink camel urine.

In summary, it is not correct to use the ḥadῑth under discussion to prove the purity of camel urine, in the presence of these strong possibilities.

As for the proofs for the filth of all urine, they are very many. [We shall mention a few here.]

Al-Tirmidhi has reported the ḥadῑth of Ibn ῾Umar:

نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أكل الجلالة وألبانها.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited the eating of the flesh, and drinking of milk, of animals that eat animal faeces.”

The reason for the prohibition is its eating of animal faeces. Thus, we know that the flesh of such an animal is impure, as the filth [from the consumed faeces] would have spread to its flesh.

The ḥadῑth of Abu Hurayrah that has been mentioned by Ibn Mājah, al-Dāra Quṭni, al-Ḥākim in his Mustadrak – and he said: [it is] authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhāri and Muslim). Al-Dhahabi has concurred with this:

استنزهوا من البول ، فإن عامة عذاب القبر منه.

“Cleanse yourselves from urine. For, most punishment of the grave is due to [carelessness in this regard].”


Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri in his Arabic transcribed commentary lectures on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, entitled Fayḍ al-Bāri (1:429), questions how, when the context of the ḥadῑth and the precise words used by the transmitters is so clear in that the permission to drink camel urine was for medical purposes, it can be used to prove general or absolute purity of urine. There is absolutely no indication in the wording of the ḥadῑth that it is referring to purity of urine.

Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri then questions the assumption that the medicinal application of camel urine was through oral administration. Rather, he argues that it was actually through nasal administration, without drinking it. This is inferred from variant narrations of the ḥadῑth reported by imāms al-Ṭaḥāwi and al-Nasā̕ i. The transcriber-editor of Fayḍ al-Bāri, ῾Allāmah Muḥammad Badr ῾Ālam Miruthi[30], in a footnote, adds another ḥadῑth from the Sunan of Imām Abu Dawūd, which has been reported in a most unlikely chapter, in which the narrator, the Companion Abu Dharr, states that he is unsure as to whether the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ also instructed him to drink camel urine when he instructed him to drink its milk due to illness. He says that Imām Abu Dawūd declares it unauthentic.[31] In the report of Imām al-Nasā̕ i, in the narration that has been transmitted through Sa῾ῑd ibn al-Musayyib[32], there is mention of drinking camel milk, but no mention of urine. There is also another narration that has been reported by Imām al-Nasā̕ i, wherein drinking of milk and urine is mentioned, but there is no mention of whether they drank the urine upon instruction from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ or of their own accord.[33] The matter is further blurred by the fact that the narration found in the Muṣannaf ῾Abd al-Razzāq mentions nasal administration, instead of drinking.[34]

As for the proof of the filthiness of urine, Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri argues that it can be inferred from the Noble Qur̕ān. Allāh Most High states:

وَإِنَّ لَكُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَنۡعَٰمِ لَعِبۡرَةٗۖ نُّسۡقِيكُم مِّمَّا فِي بُطُونِهِۦ مِنۢ بَيۡنِ فَرۡثٖ وَدَمٖ لَّبَنًا خَالِصٗا سَآئِغٗا لِّلشَّٰرِبِينَ ٦٦

Indeed, there is a lesson for you in the cattle. We provide you, out of what lies in their bellies, between faeces and blood, the (drink of) milk, pure and pleasant for those who drink. (Al-Naḥl: 66)

He has mentioned, in this verse, faeces with blood. A ḥadῑth states:

نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن أكل الجلالة وألبانها.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited the eating of the flesh, and drinking of milk, of animals that eat animal faeces.”

The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ commanded in a ḥadῑth:

من دخل المسجد ، فليمط الأذى عن نعليه.

“He who enters the masjid, should remove from his shoes that which causes discomfort (i.e. faeces and urine).” 

To limit the definition of faeces, mentioned in the above ḥadῑth, to human faeces is far-fetched. Also, another ḥadῑth states:

وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن الصلاة في المزبلة.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ prohibited praying at landfill sites (i.e. where refuse is dumped).“

وأنه ألقى الروث وقال: إنها ركس.

“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ threw dung and said, ‘Indeed, this is filth’.”[35]


Had camel urine been permissible to consume or indeed a cure, it would have been widely used by the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and his Companions and all the generations thereafter to our time. It would have been a very popular method of medication, regarding which every Muslim community in the world, in every age, would have known – almost like the way all Muslims know about Zam-zam water and its virtues. In fact, Muslims throughout history would not have let a single drop of urine from their camels go to waste. However, the reality is quite contrary. To most Muslims, the drinking of camel urine is unheard of and, when told, they find even the thought of it abhorrent and distasteful.

Abu Asim Badrul Islam
Northampton, ENGLAND
19th Ramaḍān 1438/14th June 2017



῾Abd Allāh ibn Maḥmūd al-Mawṣili, Al-Ikhtiyār li Ta῾lῑl al-Mukhtār (Beirut: Al-Risālah al-῾Ālamiyyah, 1430/2009).῾Abd al-Ghani al-Ghunaymi al-Maydāni al-Dimashqi, Al-Lubāb fi Sharḥ al-Kitāb (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā̕ir al-Islāmiyyah, 1431/2010).Abu Bakr Muḥammad ibn Abī Sahl ‘Shams al-Aʾimmah’ al-Sarakhsī, Al-Mabsūṭ (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifah, no date).Abu Ja῾far Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Salāmah al-Ṭaḥāwi, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār (Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartῑb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār) (Riyadh: Dār Balansiyyah, 1420/1999).Abu ‘l-Ḥusayn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Qudūri,Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūri (Beirut: Dār al-Bashā̕ir al-Islāmiyyah, 1431/2010).Abu ‘l-Ḥusayn Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj ibn Muslim al-Qushayri al-Nῑsāpūri, Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Imām Muslim (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj (1433/2013).Badr al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, no date).Fakhr al-Dῑn Khān Abu ‘l-Maḥāsin al-Ḥasan ibn Manṣūr al-Auzjandi al-Farghāni, Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān (Al-Fatāwā al-Khāniyyah) (Damascus: Dār al-Nawādir, 1434/2013).Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni, Al-Aṣl (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2012/1433).Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni, Al-Jāmi῾ Al-Ṣaghῑr(Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2011/1432).Muḥammad Taqi al-῾Uthmāni, Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim (Damascus/Beirut: Dār al-Qalam, 1427/2006).Muḥammad ibn Ismā῾ῑl ibn Ibrāhῑm ibn al-Mughῑrah al-Bukhāri, Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaḥῑḥ (Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri) (Beirut: al-Risālah al-῾Ālamiyyah, 1432/2011).Muḥammad ibn Ismā῾ῑl ibn Ibrāhῑm ibn al-Mughῑrah al-Bukhāri, Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaḥῑḥ (Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri) (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 1429).Sayyid Anwar Shāh ibn Muʿaẓẓam Shāh al-Kashmīrī,Fayḍ al-Bārī ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 2005).Shihāb al-Dῑn Aḥmad ibn ῾Ali ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, Fatḥ al-Bāri bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Riyadh: Dār Ṭaybah, 1426/2005).Shihāb al-Dῑn Aḥmad ibn ῾Ali ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni,Taqrῑb al-Tahdhῑb (Jeddah: Dār al-Minhāj, 1433/2012).


فهرس المصادر والمراجع :

الإختيار لتعليل المختار ، لعبد الله بن محمود الموصلي ، تحقيق شعيب الأرنؤوط وآخرين ، الرسالة العالمية ، بيروت ، ط1\1430. 
الأصل ، لمحمد بن الحسن الشيباني ، تحقيق د. محمد بوينوكالن ، دار ابن حزم ، بيروت ، ط1\1433.
تقريب التهذيب ، لشهاب الدين أحمد بن علي بن حجر العسقلاني ، تحقيق محمد عوامة ، دار المنهاج ، جدة ، ط9\1433.
تكملة فتح الملهم بشرح صحيح الإمام مسلم ، لمحمد تقي العثماني ، دار القلم ، دمشق/بيروت ، ط1/1427.
الجامع الصحيح ، لمحمد بن إسماعيل بن إبراهيم بن المغيرة البخاري ، تحقيق شعيب الأرنؤوط وآخرين ، الرسالة العالمية ، بيروت ، ط1\1432.
الجامع الصحيح ، لمحمد بن إسماعيل بن إبراهيم بن المغيرة البخاري ، دار المنهاج ، جدة ، ط2\1429.
الجامع الصغير ، لمحمد بن الحسن الشيباني ، تحقيق د. محمد بوينوكالن ، دار ابن حزم ، بيروت ، ط1\1432.
عمدة القاري شرح صحيح البخاري ، لبدر الدين أبي محمد محمود بن أحمد العيني ، دار الكتب العلمية ، بيروت.
شرح مشكل الآثار (تحفة لأخيار بترتيب شرح مشكل الآثار) ، لأبي جعفر أحمد بن محمد بن سلامة الطحاوي ، تحقيق وترتيب أبي الحسين خالد محمود الرباط ، دار بلنسية ، الرياض ، ط1/1420.
صحيح الإمام مسلم ، لأبي الحسين مسلم بن الحجاج بن مسلم القشيري النيسابوري ، دار المنهاج ، جدة ، ط1\1433.
فتاوى قاضي خان (الفتاوى الخانية) ، لفخر الدين خان أبي المحاسن الحسن بن منصور الأوزجندي الفرغاني ، المعروف بقاضي خان ، مطبوع بحاشية الفتاوى الهندية ، دار النوادر ، دمشق ، ط1\1434.
فتح الباري بشرح صحيح البخاري ، لشهاب الدين أحمد بن علي بن حجر العسقلاني ، دار طيبة ، الرياض ، ط1\1426. 
فيض الباري على صحيح البخاري ، لمحمد أنور الكشميري الديوبندي ، دار الكتب العلمية ، بيروت ، ط1\1426.
اللباب في شرح الكتاب ، لعبد الغني الغنيمي الميداني الدمشقي ، تحقيق د. سائد بكداش ، دار البشائر الإسلامية ، بيروت ، ط1\1431.
المبسوط ، لأبي بكر محمد بن أبي سهل السرخسي ، المعروف بشمس الأئمة ، دار المعرفة ، بيروت.
مختصر القدوري ، لأبي الحسين أحمد بن محمد القدوري ، تحقيق د. سائد بكداش ، دار البشائر الإسلامية ، بيروت ، ط1\1431.




[1] For instance, the National Center for Biotechnology Information in the United States of America has published the findings of one such research ( – accessed 06 June 2017). See also: 06 June 2017).

[2] 06 June 2017).

[3] باب أبوال الإبل والدواب والغنم ومرابضها

[4] باب حكم المحاربين والمرتدين

[5] Ḥammād – one of the transmitters of the ḥadῑth – is unsure which of the two mentioned tribes it was. Some narrations state that there were four individuals from ῾Uraynah and three from ῾Ukl, while others give other numbers (Fatḥ al-Bāri, 1:574).

[6] وفي رواية أبي رجاء قبل هذا : بايعوه على الإسلام

[7] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:177.

[8] Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni, quoting from Ibn Isḥāq in hisMaghāzῑ and Al-Ṭabarāni, names this shepherd as Yasār. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ had received him as booty after the battle of the Banu Tha῾labah, which took place in the year 6AH. He set him free after seeing how well he prayed and sent him to herd his camels outside Madῑnah, in Ḥarrah. (Fatḥ al-Bāri, 1:578)

[9] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:225.

[10] Kitāb al-Aṣl, 1:57, 1:24; Al-Jāmi῾ al-Ṣaghῑr, p. 64.

[11] Kitāb al-Aṣl, 1:24.

[12] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:230. Also, see:Al-Mukhtār li ‘l-Fatwā with its commentary by the author,Al-Ikhtiyār li Ta῾lῑl al-Mukhtār, 1:117; Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūriwith its commentary, Al-Lubāb fi Sharḥ al-Kitāb, 2:105;Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān, 1:19.    

[13] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:177. The verdicts of the three imams of the ḥanafi school regarding urine of animals whose flesh is ḥalāl are as follows: Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah and Imām Abu Yūsuf – light filth (najāsah mukhaffafah); Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybāni – pure (ṭāhir) (Fatāwā Qāḍi Khān, 1:19).

[14] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:230. For the opinion of Imām Abu Ḥanῑfah, see Al-Mabsūṭ, 1:54.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:180.

[17] It ought to be pointed out here that the mention of urine can actually be found in the narrations of several narrators from Anas ibn Mālik (may Allāh be pleased with him). Imām Abu Ja῾far Ṭaḥāwi, in his amazing Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, transmits ḥadῑths with the mention of urine from the following narrators from Anas ibn Mālik: Yaḥya ibn Sa῾ῑd (3223), Abu Qilābah al-Jarmi (2340), Qatādah (3243), Thābit (3243) and ῾Abd al-῾Azῑz ibn Ṣuhayb (3245) (Tuḥfat al-Akhyār bi Tartῑb Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, 5:135-). The same ḥadῑths have also been reported by the authors of the most popular six books of ḥadῑth and others.

[18] That is, although, they feigned faith, Allāh and His Messenger ﷺ knew that they were actually disbelievers.

[19] ῾Umdat al-Qāri Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, 3:231.

[20] 1:54.

[21] My italics.

[22] My italics.

[23] That is, what was previously deemed clean was now unclean and filth.

[24] Ibn Ḥajar al-῾Asqalāni.

[25] This is based on a variant of the ḥadῑth, in which they were commanded to drink camel milk and rinse or wash their nostrils with camel urine. This is also explored by Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri in his superb Arabic transcribed commentary lectures on Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri, entitled Fayḍ al-Bāri (1:429).

[26] The grammarian.

[27] I have omitted much of this point made by ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni, due to its grammatical technicality of Arabic. Scholars may refer to the original Arabic work. This and some other points may have been taken from Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri’s Fayḍ al-Bāri ῾alā Ṣaḥῑḥ al-Bukhāri (1:429), wherein the points are elucidated in more detail. It is worth pointing out here that ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori was the student of Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri, and ῾Allāmah Mufti Muḥammad Taqi ῾Uthmāni is a student of ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori.  

[28] That is, ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori. It is worth mentioning here that it is equally correct to call the shaykh ‘al-Binnori’ or ‘al-Banūri’. The book being referred to is his famous 6-volume Arabic commentary on the ῾ibādāt portion of the Sunan of Imām al-Tirmidhi.

[29] Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥῑḥ Muslim, 2:178. In view of brevity, I have omitted the remainder of the discussion on ḥadῑth evidences by ῾Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnori.

[30] Student of Imām Sayyid Muḥammad Anwar Shāh Kashmῑri.

[31] قال العلامة بدر عالم الميرتهي: قلت: ورأيت عند أبي داود رواية في باب الجنب يتيمم ، وفيها: فقال أبو ذر: إني اجتويت المدينة ، فأمر لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بذود وبغنم ، فقال لي: اشرب من ألبانها – وأشك في أبوالها – … إلخ: وحكم عليه أبو داود بعدم الصحة ، وقال: ذكر البول فيه ليس بصحيح ، وليست زيادة في (أبوالها) في حديث أنس رضي الله عنه ، تفرد به أهل البصرة ، فهذه أيضا مهمة ، وإنما نبهت عليها لأنها في غير بابها ، ربما تضلها عند الحاجة. (فيض الباري على صحيح البخاري – 1\429) –-

يقول كاتب هذه المقالة: قال الإمام العلامة خليل أحمد السهارنفوري في كتابه النافع العظيم (بذل المجهود في حل سنن أبي داود – 2\521) عند شرح قوله (وأشك في أبوالها): والشاك حماد بن سلمة أو موسى بن إسماعيل ، فإنه شك هل قال شيخه لفظ ابوالها أو لا؟

[32] ‘Musayyib’ or ‘Musayyab’ – both are correct (see theḍabṭ in Taqrῑb al-Tahdhῑb, 2396, p.275).

[33] Fayḍ al-Bāri, 1:429.

[34] Ibid, 1:430.

[35] Fayḍ al-Bāri, 1:433.

Is Kosher Meat Halaal?? Not Really


There are several issues with Kosher:

1. In Judaism, the rules and methods of slaughtering are not open and published. Unlike in Islam, where any adult sane Muslim can slaughter an animal by following the rules prescribed by Shariah, in Judaism only one kind of Rabbi, known as the Sachet, may slaughter Kosher animals. The Sachet is specially trained for this purpose and no other Jew can slaughter an animal.

Although Jews say that they slaughter in the name of God, we do not know what else they say in Hebrew while slaughtering. Their prayers and methods of slaughtering are in the hands of a few people and are not generally known.

2. The Sachet does not say prayers on all animals he slaughters at a time. Instead, he only says prayers on the first and last animals he slaughters. For example, if a Sachet has to slaughter ten cows, he will only say the prayer on the first and tenth cow while slaughtering, saying nothing on the cows in between.

This method of slaughtering is not similar to the method prescribed by Shariah for Hanafi fiqh, nor is it similar to the practice of Ahle-kitab at the time of our beloved Prophet Mohammed Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. Meat slaughtered by Ahle kitab was considered halaal because of similarity in the slaughtering method and in the Niyyah at that time.

These are the reasons why most Ulama do not consider Kosher meat as halaal.

If a Muslim is not in danger of death, he must avoid eating haraam food at any cost. If halaal meat is not available, one can eat fish or vegetables or can even go to the slaughter house to slaughter an animal himself. There are many halaal food stores online who can ship frozen Zabiha meat or Zabiha meat food products overnight. There is no excuse to eat non-zabiha meat or kosher meat in USA.

Zabiha products can easily be found in a big city like New York City. In addition, there are many Muslim-owned restaurants that serve zabiha meat and there is no excuse to eat Kosher.

Haraam Hookah


Majlisul Ulama

QUESTION:  What  is  the  Shariah’s  viewpoint  regarding smoking  hookah?  It  has  become  a  craze  among  many youngsters  –  boys  and  girls. One  Maulana  says  that  it  is Makrooh  Tanzihi.   Please comment.

ANSWER:  There  is  no  scope   for  permissibility  in  the  Shariah  for  the  filthy,  harmful hookah  fad.  It  is  absolutely intolerable  for  Muslim  girls  to indulge  in  this  act  of  satanism. Medical  experts  have  confirmed  that  it  causes  mouth cancer  –  (South  African Dental Association).

MIND AND BODY:  Mouth cancer  warning  to  young  people


“The  Association  released  shock  statistics  on  oral  and oro-pharyngeal  cancers  at  a recent  media  briefing,  including  the  link  with  smoking  dagga.  In  the  past  these  types  of cancer  mostly  occurred  in adults  over  the  age  of  45,  but they  have  become  increasingly prevalent  in  people  between 20  and  30.       

The  hubbly  bubbly  pipe  exposes  the  user  to  a lot  more  carbon  monoxide than  cigarette  smoke.”  [The Herald]

According  to  the  Shariah Dharar  (the  element  of  harm) is  a  factor  of  prohibition.  Poison  is  haraam  on  account  of  Dharar  and  so  is  eating  sand, glass,  etc..  Hookah  is  haraam on  the  basis  of  several  factors of  prohibition:

Dharar,  fisq  and  fujoor  gatherings  of  teenagers,  destruction  of  the  haya  of  girls,  and wastage  of  money  and  time.  There  is  no  scope  for  permissibility  of  hookah.  

Also Read: Shari’ah Prohibits Cigarettes & Tobacco

Camel Flesh is not Forbidden – An Answer to the Judeo-Christian claim of Leviticus 11:4 & Deuteronomy 14:7


Christian Missionary often point to the Islamic non-prohibition to Camel flesh as a “proof” that Islam too is not consistent with the law of Moses [Musa alayhissalaam]. Therefore it is legitimate for Jesus [‘Eesa (alayhissalaam)] to “abandon” the Mosaic dietary law. Another Pauline teaching

As a Muslim it is part of our belief that the Qur’an does not limit itself to replacement of earlier laws and customs; it supplements, affirms, and varies. The Qur’an does not consider itself unique in thus altering (while recognizing) prior legislation.

However on the question of what ought to be halaal (lawful) and haraam (prohibited), prior to the advent of Islam, the people of the book had were confused, permitting many impure and harmful things and prohibiting many things that were good and pure.

Prohibiting something which is halaal is similar to committing shirk, and this is why the Qur’an censures the those who were prohibiting to themselves, without any authority from Allah prior to Qur’anic revelation, the eating and the use of certain kinds of produce and cattle.

God says:

كُلُّ الطَّعَامِ كَانَ حِلًّا لِّبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَّا مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تُنَزَّلَ التَّوْرَاةُ ۗ قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِالتَّوْرَاةِ فَاتْلُوهَا إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

“All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel made unlawful for himself before the Taurat (Torah) was revealed. Say (O Muhammad Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam): “Bring here the Taurat (Torah) and recite it, if you are truthful.”  [Qur’an 3:93]

“The verse refer to is to some pre-revelatory Mosaic prohibitions on food. That is the prohibition of ‘‘the flesh and milk of camels.’’ [‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar al-Baydawi, Tafsir al-baydawi]

The camel was not the subject of pre-Mosaic prohibition. The Bible does of course prohibit the flesh of camels (Lev 11:4; Deut 14:7.)  but there is no Biblical or rabbinic source support for the opinion that there is some pre-revelatory basis for the ban. This is according to Noah Fiedman professor of religious law  Harvard Law School. []

According to Prof Fieldman (who is fluent in Hebrew as well as Arabic), Leviticus 11:4 makes the prohibition on consuming camel flesh part of the organizing legal logic of the more general prohibition on eating beasts whose hooves are not split. Possibly the interpretation that connects the ban to camels relates to the pre-Islamic Arabian milieu, rather than the Jewish.

The Qur’an attributes an act of legal prohibition to a human, rather than a divine source: ‘‘save what Israel forbade for himself.’’ When juxtaposed with the revelation of the Torah, this formulation implies that the act of prohibition stemmed from a human source. So if we seek to identify this pre-Mosaic prohibition with anything in Jewish tradition, we ought to try to find it in an apparently non-divine source.

Only one Biblical prohibition fits the criteria established: (1) food-related; (2) pre-Mosaic; (3) non-revelatory. This is the statement of Genesis 32:33, establishing the prohibition on consumption of gid ha-nasheh, variously translated as the sciatic nerve, or a vein associated with it:

‘‘Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the gid ha-nasheh that is on the hip socket, because he [the angel of the Jacob story] struck Jacob on the hip socket at the gid ha-nasheh.’’

This verse describes the existence of a food prohibition stemming from a non-Mosaic origin. It also, strikingly, does not report a revelatory source, but merely recites the existence of a practice. The three conditions are thus satisfied. By contrast, the Noahide laws of Genesis 9:3-7 appear before the Mosaic revelation, and several involve food (the ban on consumption of blood, and in rabbinic tradition, the ban on the eating of live flesh). But these prohibitions are squarely attributed to God, whereas the ban on eating the sciatic nerve is described simply as an Israelite practice.

God in the Qur’an makes it clear that prohibiting without divine sanction constitutes proof of error, or failure to adhere to the divine will. The Qur’an rectify the error by showing the Jews to have partaken of this error in pre-Mosaic times, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) shows their capability for error, and puts the Jews on a level with the pre-Islamic Arab idolaters.

The Qur’anic text continues [3:94]: ‘‘For one who fabricates lies about God after this, those are the wicked.’’

So anyone who asserts that all biblical prohibitions are from God may be said to fabricate lies about God. Those who do so (i.e., Jews who assert the divine origin of every prohibition) are the ‘‘wicked,’’ in opposition to ‘‘truth-tellers,’’ the self-description of the Jews in the previous verse.

Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) challenges the Jews by asserting that their own scripture presents Jacob (Israel) as legislating for himself, on his own authority. The Jews themselves (this occurs offstage, as it were) claim that all biblical prohibition, including Genesis 32:33, is divinely mandated.

Camel meat are among those prohibited animals were those which were called bahirah, saibah, wasilah, and ham during the pre-Islamic period of jahiliyyah. (The state of mind and conditions of life prior to the advent of Islam, characterized by deviation from the guidance of Allah and the adoption of ungodly systems and ways of life. (Trans.)) Bahirah (the slit-eared) denoted a female camel which had given birth to five calves, the last of which was a male. The ear of such a camel was slit and she was loosed to roam freely; she was not to be ridden, milked, or slaughtered, and was free to eat and drink from any place she liked without hindrance. Saibah referred to a male or female camel which was released to roam freely because of a vow, usually made following a safe return from a journey, the cure of an illness, or for some other reason. As for wasilah, if the firstborn of a female goat were a male, the polytheists would sacrifice him to their gods, while if it were a female they would keep her for themselves. In the case of twin offspring, one female and the other male, they would say, “He is her brother,” and instead of sacrificing the male they would release him to roam free; he was known as wasilah. And if a male camel’s second generation offspring was capable of carrying a rider, they would let the older camel go free, saying, “He saved his back,” and calling him al-ham.

While there are other interpretations of these four terms, they are all of a similar nature. The Qur’an rejected these prohibitions and left no excuse for those who practiced them to follow the errors of their forefathers: Allah did not institute bahirah or saibah or wasilah or ham; but those who disbelieve forge a lie against Allah, and most of them do not use their reason.

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالُوا حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا ۚ أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ

When it is said to them, ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,’ they say, ‘What we found our fathers doing is enough for us.’ What! And even though their fathers did not know anything and were not rightly guided? [Qur’an 5:104]

Shrimps–Halaal Or Haraam? (Hanafi View)

[Majlisul Ulama]

The principle pertaining to aquatic animals according to the Hanafi Math-hab is that of the sea animals ONLY fish is halaal. Besides fish ALL sea animals are haraam. There is complete consensus (Ijma’) of all Hanafi authorities on this issue.


Among the Hanafi Ulama there is some difference of opinion regarding the permissibility of consuming shrimps. Some Hanafi Ulama who have opined that shrimps are fish, say that these creatures are halaal. Those who claim that a shrimp is not a fish, aver that it is haraam.

Those who believe that shrimps are not fish have no alternative but to say that these creatures are haraam while the opposite will be true for those who believe that these sea creatures are fish.

This article is a response to the arguments presented by a Maulana who claims that shrimps are fish, hence halaal. We shall now proceed to analyse his arguments and post our response, Insha’Allah.


The Maulana firstly presents an aayat from Surah Ma’aidah as the basis for his claim. He cites the aayat:

Said ul Bahr has been made lawful for you….

He proceeds to say that “Said ul Bahr” (Bahr means the ocean) is samak (fish). On the basis of this claim he concludes that all sea animals are samak (fish) irrespective of what type of animal it maybe that is found in the sea. Since all sea animals are fish according to the deduction of the Maulana, he asserts that shrimps are halaal because these creatures too are fish.

For this conclusion there is a need for narrational or Shar’i evidence otherwise the claim has no validity. Since he cannot find any Shar’i evidence for this claim in the Hanafi Math-hab, he cites Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) and the view of the Shaafi Math-hab. But from the very outset we should emphasise that our discussion is only in terms of the Hanafi Math-hab. In this article we are not refuting the Shaafi viewpoint, hence there is no need for us to present the basis and proofs of the Hanafi Math-hab in opposition to the Shaafi Math-hab.We are dealing with a Hanafi Maulana, hence the attempt by him to substantiate his view with Shaafi proofs is baseless and untenable.

If according to the Shaafi Fuqaha all sea animals are classified as samak, it is of no significance for the present article since the Maulana being a follower of the Hanafi Math-hab has to necessarily restrict himself to proving his view on the basis of only the evidences of the Hanafi Math-hab.

To make the sweeping statement that ‘Said ul bahr’ bring within its meaning ALL sea animal for consumption, even seadogs and seapigs, is preposterous and rejected outright by the Hanafi Fuqaha. Whatever the definition of samak may be according to the various Hanafi Fuqaha, they do not claim that all sea animals are fish as the Maulana avers. At most, he can say that there are differences in the definition of fish, but it is highly incorrect to assert that all sea animals are fish.The Hanafi Fuqaha do not accept this claim, and we shall later show that this is also the Shaafi view. The statements of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) and others among the Hanafis which the Maulana cited only confirm that there is no all-embracing definition for samak. But there is absolutely no evidence for the claim that according tothe Hanafi Math-hab all sea animals are fish.

While the Maulana abortively attempted to prove that, all sea animals are ‘samak‘, he cites the following definition of said ul bahr from Ahkaam ul Qur’aan:

Saidul Bahr: By this is intended samak, not that which is besides it (samak).”

In other words, there are sea animals “besides samak“. It is there for ridiculous in terms of the Hanafi Math-hab to argue that all sea animals are samak (fish).

It was never contended that there is no difference of opinion regarding the technical definition of samak. The Maulana’s attempt to expand on this issue of difference in definition is therefore a futile exercise. The question under discussion is shrimps–are shrimps halaal or haraam? The question is not about the definition of samak or that there is no difference of opinion among our Fuqaha regarding this definition.The Maulana also cites Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar and Shaami as follows: “Sea animals besides the fish are not halaal…


The Maulana says: “When there is no ‘jaami’–maani’ (all-comprehensive) definition for samak, the best and easiest way to determine what we can eat and what we can’t is to follow the Usool laid down by Shaikhul Islam Hadhrat Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmaani (rahmatullah alayh). He writes: “Whatever is of the genus of samak literally and customarily (lughatan wa urfun), is halaal without difference of opinion.”

Firstly, Hadhrat Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmaani (rahmatullah alayh) lived some decades ago while Islam is fourteen centuries old. Surely the millions of Hanafis of the past 14 centuries did have the guidance of the Shariah to follow. Surely, it will be ridiculous to assume that the Ummah had to wait for Hadhrat Maulana Zafar (rahmatullah alayh) to lay down the principle to enable us to determine what to eat and what we may not.

The principle in this regard is as old as Islam. The Hanafi Fuqaha had already formulated it on the basis of the Qur’aan and Sunnah almost fourteen centuries ago. It is very childish for the Maulana to expect us and all others to set aside what the innumerable Hanafi Fuqaha have said on this issue and to make taqleed of Hadhrat Maulana Zafar Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh). How can the Maulana expect us to set aside all other opinions and submit only to what Hadhrat Zafar Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh) has laid down. By this we are not implying that what this illustrious Allaamah said is incorrect. We are merely saying that the Maulana has no authority whatsoever to make such a sweeping statement and seek to make the whole world the muqallideen of Hadhrat Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmaani (rahmatullah alayh). He should go a bit higher and cite such Fuqaha whose taqleed is incumbent on us.


The Maulana then proceeds to give the literal definitions of the terms al-urbayaan. The several authorities he cites define al-urbayaan as ‘small fish like worms’. Firstly, the definitions appearing in dictionaries are not the final word for Shar’i proof. The Proofs of the Shariah are four as all know.The definitions in dictionaries can assist us in arriving at conclusions. But, acceptance and rejection of the dictionary meanings are not crimes in the Shariah. If there are grounds for rejecting a meaning or definition given in a dictionary, this will be valid. Dictionaries are not in the same categories as the Qur’aan, Sunnah, ljma‘ and Qiyaas. Just one example of a misleading definition given by dictionaries is the meaning of anfahah. The dictionaries describe real anfahah as rennet. In addition they also describe a substance extracted from the stomach linings of animals as anfahah simply because of the common effect of anfahah and the other substance. But the Shar’i hukm for both substances differs.

Then the Maulana says that there are another 18 to 20 dictionaries which say that prawns are fish. Usually a later compiler of a dictionary takes his definition from a former book. In this way, one can find many dictionaries or books giving the same definition/meaning while it may be erroneous. An error committed in the beginning is transmitted by thosewho come afterwards. This gives an erroneous impression of so many authorities sharing the same view while it is a case of many having simply reported the same initial error.

The dictionaries to which the Maulana has referred to do not say that ‘prawns are fish’. They say ‘al-urbayaan’ are small fish. Now what is the categoric and irrefutable proof for claiming in the first place that ‘al urbayaan’ are actually fish. The dictionaries say that are `like worms‘ (dood). Some Arabic dictionaries say “samakun sagheerun” (tiny fish). This could refer to sardines or even smaller fish. There is no proof other than modern day Arabic-English and Urdu-English dictionaries for the view that `urbayaan‘ are prawns. We are under no Shar’i obligation to accept and submit to these dictionary meanings which are clearly and diametrically in conflict with reality of shrimps not being fish.

Just as the definition of ‘samak‘ presented by Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) and other Shaafi Ulama, is not binding on us nor can it be imposed on us notwithstanding the accepted stature of greatness of these Shaafi Fuqaha, so too–in fact to a far greater degree, can the views of dictionary compilers not be imposed on usfor the formulation of a Shar’i ruling. If a definition in a dictionary is conspicuously in negation of fact and reality, it will be set aside. It cannot be accepted for a basis for the formulation of a Shar’i hukm.

Furthermore, inspite of the Shaafi claim that ‘samak‘ brings within the scope of its meaning all sea animals, they too exclude certain sea animals from permissibility. Sea pigs and crabs are not permissible even according to the Shaafi Math-hab.

The Maulana, citing Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullahalayh) in support of his contention of the permissibility of shrimps, quotes the following statement of Hadhrat Thaanvi:

At this time, I have with rite (the book) Hayaatul Haiyawaan of Damiri who discusses animal life. It is, stated therein that “ar rubayaan is a very tiny fish“.There is no reason for not accepting it.”

Our comments in this regard are as follows:

a) This book in zoology only says that ‘ar-rubayaan is very tiny fish’. It does not say that shrimps are fish. Furthermore, shrimps are not `very tiny’.

(b) At the time when the question was posed to Hadhrat Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh), he was unaware of the meaning of shrimps (jheengha in Urdu). Since shrimps are not part of the normal diet of that part of the world, Hadhrat Thaanvi, (rahmatullah alayh) was unaware of what exactly shrimps were. He therefore resorted to the book, Hayaatul Haiyawaan. That was the only source available to him at that time. Since he accepted this version and the dictionary meaning of ur-bayaan, he had no reason to conclude that shrimps were not fish.

(c) Hadhrat Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) by his fatwa never intended that his view will be the final word on this question Clarifying this, he comments:

The basis (for the fatwa) is only on the knowledge of the experts (of zoology). If there will be differences among the experts (regarding the definition of shrimps), then there will be differences in the (Shar’i) hukm.”

As far as ‘experts’ of zoology (animal life) are concerned, this is not restricted to Muslims. A man may be an expert in any mundane branch of knowledge without being a Muslim. Islam is not a condition for being an expert in such branches of knowledge. And all experts of animal life are agreed on the fact that shrimps are members of the group called Crustacean, not fish. Only those who have no awareness of shrimps, and those who have never seen shrimps and those who consume shrimps and desire it to be Halaal introduce arguments and interpretations to confuse shrimps with fish in total conflict with reason and reality.

Regarding Allaamah Damiri, the compiler of Hayaatul Haiyawaan, Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Uthmaani (Daamat Baraakaatuhum) says:

As far as Allaamah Damiri is concerned, he is not an expert on animal life. He is purely a transmitter of narrations. In Hayaatul Haiyawaan he has compiled all sorts of spurious narrations. His statement which conflicts with other experts is not binding.”

In brief, this much is clear, that there are differences of opinion on this issue. No one has the right to impose his view on others, especially when one is convinced of the correctness of one’s view and the error of the opposite view. Our view is based on not only what experts on animal life say, but also on the popular and customary meaning of shrimps. Furthermore, our view is confirmed by visible ascertainment of the reality of shrimps. No matter which dictionary is cited and no matter whose view is presented, one’s eyes will conform that a crab is not a fish and a shrimp is not a fish. On the contrary, after seeing a shrimp, common sense will convince one that a shrimp is a small crab.

If Allaamah Damiri and other experts had seen a shrimp, they would undoubtedly have said that it is a ‘sartaan sagheer’ or a small crab. Why should a person conclude that a shrimp is a fish and not a crab or similar to a crab when the similarities and characteristics of crabs and shrimps are common? What is the rational argument for separating the shrimp from the crab family with which it shares almost all characteristics, and categorising it with fish with which it differs substantially?

The Maulana summarily dismisses Mufti Taqi Saheb’s view as baseless. This arbitrary rejection of Mufti Taqi’s claim is devoid of any basis. We are sure that this venerable Mufti Saheb does have a firm basis for claiming that Allaamah Damiri was not an expert on animal life. We suggest that the Maulana writes to Mufti Taqi Saheb and query his basis for his claim.

Whatever Mufti Taqi Saheb’s answer may be and whatever the Maulana’s view may be, this much is confirmed that there is difference of opinion regarding the definition of shrimps. But those who study the shrimp objectively, without any bias or prejudice, cannot fail to conclude that shrimps are not fish. They are small ‘crabs’. The difference is restricted to those who are unaware of the reality of shrimps and to those who want to force the ruling of permissibility.


The Maulana in his article states:

Some respected muftis of our era have followed the scientists and say that we should follow them in determining what is a fish.”

Even Hadhrat Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said that on such matters the views of the experts should be taken into consideration. In regard to shrimps in particular, we are not aware of any Muftis of our era who have said that we should determine the fatwa of shrimps on the basis of what the ‘scientists’ say. If the Maulana’s reference to ‘muftis’ in this regard is to the MujlisuI Ulama, then he should present the basis for his claim. At no stage did we claim that for a Shari ruling on shrimps, the views of the ‘scientists’ should be accepted.

If the view of the scientists and the experts is in conflict with reality, their views will be rejected, not used as a basis for formulating a Shar’i hukm. However, if a mufti has no access to reality and he is unaware of something, then he will be acting correctly by ascertaining what the experts on that topic have to say. But if an expert says that sartaan (crab) is (samak) as Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) claims, then we shall refute this contention and ever, our Maulana who argues in favour of shrimp-consumption, will not accept the claim of sartaan (crab) or of a sea pig being halaal not notwithstanding that the definition of ‘samak’ according to some authorities applies to such aquatic animals as well. In terms of the definition of Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh), even sea-turtle is ‘samak’, hence halaal. What does the Maulana say about sea-turtle? If he is a Hanafi, then obviously he will say that it is not halaal. If he is or has become a ghair muqallid, then we have no argument with him and any discussion with him on the subject will be futile.

The views of the ‘mubassireen’ (experts) can be cited in support of reality. Since the views of the experts of zoology confirm our own observation regarding shrimps, we can cite what they have to say. At the same time we are entitled to dismiss the opposite view which is in stark conflict with reality. Dictionaries and encyclopaedias also contain errors. The definitions and meanings in dictionaries are not the final words in reliability and authenticity. Only those who have no knowledge of a subject and have no practical means of ascertainment, will be under some obligation to accept even an error presented in a dictionary because they lack any other evidence.


The Maulana whose article we are refuting, lays much emphasis on what Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Ishaq (Daamat baraakatuhum) says in refutation of Mufti Taqi Uthmaani (Daamat barakaatuhum), but his view is not binding on us. Just as we do not accept the claim of anyone who irrationally says that shrimps are fish, so too do we not accept Maulana Ishaaq’s view.

Also, it has yet to be proved that Allaamah Damiri and other zoologists of bygone times claimed that urbayaan are in fact shrimps. They only said that urbayaan are tiny fish. Even if it is confirmed that urbayaan are shrimps, we are under no obligation to accept this definition when we can see as clear as day light that shrimps are not fish. On the contrary, they are small crabs.


The Maulana citing Hadhrat Maulana, Zafar Ahmad Uthmaani (rahmatullah alayh), avers that any aquatic animal which is customarily (urfan) known as samak (fish) is halaal. On the basis of this principle, the Maulana claims that shrimps are ‘urfan’ known as fish.

He further seeks to support his view in this regard by citing Maulana Muhammad Ishaaq Saheb who rejects Mufti Taqi Saheb’s view. Mufti Taqi Saheb says that urfan, shrimps are shrimps, not fish. He says that no one classifies shrimps as fish. If you order shrimps at a restaurant, you don’t say ‘fish’. You will state unambiguously shrimps or prawns or jheengha.

However, it is indeed extremely surprising that an Aalim of Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Ishaaq’s stature refuting this reality and trying to force the belief that urfan shrimps are known as fish. The Maulana quotes Hadhrat Maulana Ishaaq as follows:

Then, the author of Dars-e-Tirmizi says: ‘In Urf-e-Aam (i.e.customary language of the public), it (prawns/shrimps) are not regarded as fish.’, is a forced ruling (i.e.baselessly assumed). I do not know about which place ‘surf-e-aam he (i.e. Mufti Taqi Uthmaani Saheb) is speaking. For fixing the urf of fish and non-fish, the urf of the region of fish is necessary, i.e. where fish is found in abundance and consumed in abundance. The urf of Karachi and Hindustan is not reliable in this regard. Here by us where fish is available in abundance and is consumed in abundance, if someone is sent  to  bring fulfilled  the but  he  brings  shrimps,  he  will  be  r order  in  the  best  manner …”

This  reasoning  is  most surprising to  say  the  least . Bangladesh  is  a  land  of  fish. We  do  not  think  there  is  a  nation  of  people than  Bangladeshis who  consumes  more fish.  But  the  distinction between fish and  shrimps  is  clear and  unambiguous.  The  attitude  of  the  particular  people  referred  to  by Maulana  Ishaaq  Saheb  is  quite  peculiar.  No where  in  the  world  do  people consider  fish  and  shrimps  to  be  the  same.

This  reasoning  is  most surprising to  say  the  least. Bangladesh  is  a  land  of  fish.  We  do  not  think  there  is  a  nation  of  people who consumes  more  fish than  Bangladeshis.  But the  distinction between fish  and  shrimps  is  clear and  unambiguous.  The  attitude  of  the  particular  people  referred  to  by Maulana  Ishaaq  Saheb  is  quite  peculiar.  No where  in  the  world  do people consider  fish  and shrimps  to  be  the  same.

Step  into  any  restaurant  anywhere  on  earth  and  ask  for shrimps. You will not  get  fish.  Ask for fish  and  you  will  NEVER be  served  shrimps. Perhaps  someone  who  loves  shrimps,  but  cannot  afford  the  price,  will  be delighted  if  shrimps are  served  after  he  requested  fish. But  a  person  who specifically  requests  shrimps  will  not  be  satisfied  with  fish.  If  you  order shrimp curry,  you  will  not  be  served  with  fish  curry.  But  if  you  order  fish curry, you  will  be  served  with  any  of  the  thousand available,  but  not  shrimps.

Maulana  Ishaaq’s  contention  that  according  to urf e aam shrimps  are fish,  has  to  be  necessarily  rejected  as  devoid  of  any  substance.  In  fact  it  is in  conflict  with  reason  and  reality.  No  one,  but  those  who  wish shrimps  to be  halaal,  will  venture  such  a  preposterous  supposition  as Maulana Ishaaq Saheb  has  tendered.

In the urf e aam of  all  people,  Muslims  and  non-Muslims,  shrimps are not  fish. The  shrimp  is  a  separate  aquatic  animal  distinct  from  fish. The claim that in  the  urf  of  the  general  public  shrimps  are  fish  is  baseless  and an  attempt  to  forcibly  hoist  it  on  others.

When  Hadhrat  Mufti  Mahmudul  Hasan  Gangohi  (rahmatullah  alayh) was  in  South  Africa,  he  was asked  in  our  presence  about  shrimps.  The venerable Mufti  Saheb  replied:

Jheenga (shrimps) are  trot  among  the  kinds of fish. Therefore,  shrimps are   haraam.”   

In  his  explanation  on  shrimps,  Hadhrat  Mufti  Mahmudul  Hasan (rahmatullah  alayh)  further  commented:

When  this  very  same  question  was  posed  to Hadhrat Maulana  Khaleel Ahmad  (Rahmatullah  alayh),  he  sent  for  a  fish  and  shrimps. He  put  both
infront of him and pointed out to the many differences between the fish and the shrimp. Then he said: “Therefore it is not permissible.”

Any particular community’s urf does not alter the reality. Let us assume that what Maulana Mohammed Ishaaq Saheb says is correct, namely, in the urf of fish-consumers, shrimps are fish, then too this urf will be unacceptable because it is in diametric opposition to reality. One does not have to be a scientist or an expert in zoology to understand that shrimps are not fish. A physical examination of a shrimp and a crab will convince any unbiased examiner that shrimps are in fact small crabs, not tiny fish. Only those who have absolutely no knowledge of shrimps nor have they seen these aquatic creatures may resort to what dictionaries and others feed them with. But their claims are no argument to negate what is claimed by one who fully knows what shrimps are.


The Maulana Saheb who argues in favour of the permissibility of shrimps presents the views of some Ulama who have opined that shrimps are fish.Then he seeks to hoist their opinion on all and sundry as if there is qat’iyat (absolute certainty) in this. But, the reality is that many great Ulama claimed the contrary and negated the claim of shrimps being fish.

We have these Ulama to back up our own view regarding the nature of shrimps. We cannot be expected to believe that the sun shines during the night time. Such a claim is irrational and absurd. While Ulama who are unaware of the nature of shrimps are excused for their erroneous view based on errors in dictionaries, those who have no doubt regarding the nature of shrimps will be inexcusable for their error if they have to say that shrimps are fish simply because Damiri and some other zoologists of bygone times have made this claim.


The Maulana then attempts to pass off shrimps as fish by engaging in an extremely dubious and weak discussion on the definition and characteristics of fish. In this abortive attempt to bring shrimps within the scope of the defective definitions of fish, the Maulana completely ignores or is blissfully unaware of the many similarities and common characteristics of shrimps and crabs–crabs which are unanimously haraam according to the Hanafi Math-hab.

The following explanation of the crab, lobster and shrimp will or should convince an unprejudiced person that shrimps are small crabs, not fish.


The word “arthropoda” means “jointed legs”.

All arthropods have an outer shell which they shed as they grow, and allhave jointed limbs. According to biology books over 35,000 kinds of arthropods live in the sea, and over 880,000 kinds (mostly insects) live onland. The main distinctive characteristics of the Phylum Arthropods are:

1. An EXOSKELETON. The ability of the epidermis to secrete a tough cuticle which acts as an exoskeleton.

2. JOINTED LIMBS. The presence of jointed limbs or appendages which are serially repeated along the body, some of them modified for dealing with food.

3. HAEMOCOEL. The main organs of the body lie in blood filled cavities.


Crustacea is a class of the phylum Arthropoda whose members include such well-known animals as lobsters, crabs, shrimps and barnacles.

The body of a crustacean is covered with an external skeleton, or exoskeleton, of chitin….. The body is typically divided into a series of segments, each with a jointed pair of appendages. The appendages are variously modified to serve for biting and grasping, as walking or swimming legs.

The class crustacea is divided into several major sub-classes: among the more important are …… ; and MALA-COSTRACA, the lobsters, crayfish, crabs, shrimps, sowbugs and wood lice. Some of the larger crustaceans are used as food by man.


“Crustacea, large class of athropods, including crabs, lobsters, shrimps, etc., mostly aquatic, many with hard shell and many legs.”

“Crab: Various desapod crustaceans ….. The edible species found on or near sea-coasts.”

“Crayfish: Small lobster-like freshwater crustacean….” “Crawfish:–Crayfish.”

“Lobster: large marine crustacean, a decapod having a pair of heavy pincer-like claws and stalked eyes, which is eaten as a delicacy.


“CRAB: ten-legged (decapod) crustacean.”

“CRAYFISH: A freshwater crustacean of the order DECAPOD (i.e. ten-legged), also called crawfish or crawdad…Their tender flesh is considered a great delicacy, especially in Scandinavian countries.”


“The crayfish has two types of locomotion: WALKING and DARTING.When walking the body is held with the abdomen extended with the four pairs of walking legs in contact with the substratum. …..

“In darting, the animal violently flexes its abdomen…”


This same book (Animal Biology) also assigns the CRAYFISH too the class, CRUSTACEA.


1.) External skeleton formed of a hard substance known as chitin;

2.) jointed legs;

3.) segmented body. They live in the sea, air and on the land. In the sea they are represented by the familiar crabs and barnacles, lobsters and shrimps…”


SHRIMP: Any of the small, marine decapod (ten legged) crustaceans…


SHRIMPS: Crustaceans in the order Decapoda. All have ten legs,very long antennae, and a long segmented body with swimmerets.


The English-Arabic Dictionary, Al-Mawrid (Beirut) defines the word, “ARTHROPODA” as follows:


The same Dictionary defines the term, “CRUSTACEAN” as follows:


The same Dictionary defines the term “CRAYFISH” as:


The English-Arabic Dictionary, AL-QAMOOSUL ASRI defines the term, “CRUSTACEA AS FOLLOWS:


N.B. It must be noted that the authorities on the subject–the Biologists and the Zoologists–say that another name for the CRAYFISH is SPINY LOBSTER. This could be ascertained from the Chambers, Concise Oxford and Webster’s Dictionaries.

The aforegoing explanation as well as a physical examination of shrimps will convince one that these creatures are not fish, but are small crabs (sartaan). The characteristics common to shrimps and crab are as follows:

a) A body divided into 19 ring-like segments.

b) Stalked compound eyes, i.e. the eyes are not inside the body like the eyes of fish, but are borne on antennae or stalks outside the body. Unlike fish which have simple eyes, shrimps and crabs have compound eyes, that is, each eye consists of numerous tiny eyes.

c) To each body segment is attached a pair of appendages (leg like protuberances).

d) The 19 pairs of appendages of both the crab and shrimp are distributed on the body in exactly the same manner.

e) Both, the crab and shrimp, walk, crawl and swim backwards. They do not swim forward like fish.

f) Shrimps and crabs have exoskeletons which are discarded from time to time

g) Shrimps and crabs have ten legs.

Anyone who has the least respect for reality and the truth, can never aver after having examined crabs and shrimps, that the latter are fish while the former are not. An unbiased person in search of the truth will not behave in a bigoted way and claim obstinately that a shrimp is a fish and a crab is not a fish, and that crabs are haraam and shrimps are halaal, after he has made a thorough physical examination of crabs, shrimps and fish regardless of any differences there are on the theoretical definitions of shrimps

If on the basis of Imaam Nawawi’s (rahmatullah alayh) definition, a crab and a sea-turtle are defined as `samak‘, will anyone among the Hanafis accept this definition and proclaim that these sea creatures are halaal? Obviously not.

That dictionaries and encyclopaedia are not the last word nor the most reliable basis for a Shar’i hukm, should be known to Ulama. Arabic dictionaries describe even crabs, lobsters and crayfish as al-urbayaan which Damiri said are tiny fish. And, the dictionaries also define crabs, lobsters and crayfish (i.e. all crustacea) as jaraadul-bahr (ocean-locusts). Both terms, al-urbayaan and ar-rubayaan, are used by Arabic dictionaries to define lobsters, crabs, crayfish, shrimps and all members of the crustacea class of aquatic creatures.


It is important to understand that when Imaam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) and other Shaafi Fuqaha and even the Shaafi zoologist, Damiri, say ‘samak’, they mean thereby all sea animals, whether halaal or haraam. It has a different meaning from the ‘samak’ as understood in the Hanafi Math-hab. Whereas according to the Hanafi Math-hab ALL samak is halaal, according to the Shaafi Math-hab ALL samak are not halaal. This is clear from the fact that according to some Shaafi Fuqaha even sartaan (crab) and sea dog and sea pig, inspite of coming within the scope of the definition of ‘samak’, are haraam. Thus samak according to the Shaafi Fuqaha is simply a word for ‘said ul bahr’ mentioned in the Qur’aan Majeed. It simply refers to all aquatic creatures.

It is therefore, highly erroneous to hoist the Shaafi meaning of samak on Hanafis and proclaim shrimps halaal when there is a difference in the meaning of the term according to the two Math-habs.

We can therefore conclude from the wide and comprehensive meaning given to samak by the Shaafis, that when Damiri defined ar-rubayaan as tiny samak he meant thereby tiny aquatic creatures, not tiny fish in the sense the Hanafis define the term samak. If a Shaafi on the basis of his understanding says that a sea-turtle is samak and a seal is samak, we cannot then rule that these aquatic animals are halaal simply because a Shaafi authority said that these animals are samak.
Regardless of what the scientists, the experts and the dictionaries say and how they define shrimps, etc., we are not interested in their view for the formulation of the Shar’i hukm pertaining to shrimps. The definitions and views of these experts of mundane sciences are required by only those who are unaware of the reality and nature of shrimps and have no means of ascertaining what exactly shrimps are, other than referring to the experts of animal life. But those who have the knowledge of the reality of shrimps by having made a physical examination of these creatures are to issue a hukm. There is no doubt and ambiguity in their hukm because their view is not based on the theories presented by scientists and experts of animal life.

In view of Hadhrat Thaanvi’s (rahmatullah alayh) unawareness of shrimps, he left the matter on the opinion to the mubassireen (experts). He clearly did not intend his view to be the last word to be dogmatically clung to.


While the Maulana who seeks to make shrimps halaal has cited the views of some Ulama, he has overlooked what other great Ulama and Fuqaha have to say on this question. We shall cite some of them here.

i) Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) says in his Fataawa Rasheediyyah:

Shrimps among the aquatic creatures are not fish. Besides fish, all sea animals according to the Hanafi Math-hab are not permissible.”

ii) Fataawa Abdul Hayy states:

The worms called jheenga (shrimps) are haraam according to some Ulama because they do not resemble fish…

iii) Mufti Kifaayatullah Dehlwi (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Fataawa:

In my opinion it (shrimps) are not fish…

iv) Hadhrat  Maulana  Khaleel  Ahmad  Ambhetwi  (rahmatullah  alayh) and  Hadhrat  Maulana  Mufti  Mahmudul  Hasan  Gangohi (rahmatullah  alayh)  proclaimed  shrimps haraam.

v) Hadhrat  Maulana  Husain  Ahmad  Madani  (rahmatullahi  alayh)  when he  went  to  Gujarat,  refused  to  eat  shrimps  which  the  Ulama  of Gujarat,  in  general, believed  to  be  halaal.

vi) Hadhrat  Maulana  Muhammad  Yusuf  Ludhyanwi 
(rahmatullah alayh)  very  emphatically  proclaimed  shrimps  haraam.  He  states  in his Fataawa:

Are  shrimps  fish  or  not?  There  is  difference  of  opinion  in  this mas’alah.  Those  who  have  understood  shrimps  to  be  fish,  inspite  of saying  it  is  permissible,  have  said  that  caution  requires  abstention from  consuming  shrimps.  Now  the  latest  investigation  confirms  that shrimps  are  not  fish.  Since  shrimps  are  not  fish,  their  consumption according  to  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  (rahmatullah  alayh)  is  not permissible.” 

The  experts  of  animal  life  are  unanimous  that  shrimps  have  no relationship  with  fish.  In  fact  it  is  totally  apart  from  fish.  Moreover, in Jawaahir e Akhlaati it  is  clearly  stated  that  all  small  fish  are Makrooh  Tahrimi“. 

This  is  the  most  correct  view When  even  tiny  fish  are  Makrooh  Tahrimi  (sinful  and  not  permissible), then  to  a  greater  extent  will  shrimps  be  Makrooh  Tahrimi.  Tiny  fish  are after all,  samak. Notwithstanding  this,  the  following  appears  in  Jawaahir Akhlaati: “All  tiny  fish  are  Makrooh  Tahrimi,”


In  conclusion,  Ulama  should  understand  that  in  a  question  of ikhtilaaf (difference),  they  should  always  advise  abstention  since  this  is  the Command  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Furthermore,  the ikhtilaaf on  the  question  of  shrimps  is  extremely  weak  and  baseless  as those  who  went  in  favour  of permissibility  had  no  knowledge  of  the reality  and  nature  of  shrimps.  They  had  to  content  themselves  with  brief statements such as made by Damiri: “Ar-rubayaan are tiny fish“. Their stand is further weakened by the fact that Damiri was a Shaafi and according to Shaafi authorities all sea animals are `samak‘ as the Maulana has presented.

In Imdaadul Muftiyeen, in the discussion on the ikhtilaaf pertaining to the aquatic creature, jirreeth, it is said:

“…Therefore caution in regard to all these types of fish (in which there is difference of opinion) is the ta’leem of the Nabi, namely, ‘Abstain from that which casts you into doubt and take that which does not cast you into doubt.Practise on this (ta’leem). Abstain from eating these creatures….

If after having examined the shrimp physically and after having understood what we have discussed in this article, someone still cannot understand the hurmat of shrimps, then we have no further comment. Everyone is free to act according to his own opinion. And hidaayat is only from Allah Ta’ala.