Category Archives: Which is Halaal and Which is Haraam

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.

“Soft” Drinks are Haraam


[By Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa ]


SANHA, the  MAITAH  (Carrion) purveyor, in its recent pamphlet, has laboured in vain to justify its halaalization of alcohol, and this satanic attempt is motivated by the crave for the boodle which the lucrative haraam ‘halaal’ certificate trade  nets.

SANHA has resorted to downright skulduggery  in the attempt to bolster its certification of soft drinks which are made from alcoholic concentrates. In its stupid and superfluous ‘dalaa-il’,    SANHA presented some legless arguments which may dupe the ignorant and the unwary. Among  its stupidities, SANHA says:

Stupidity No.  1   

“Your fruit salad at home would yield similar results. However no one advances the argument that fruits are haraam.”

By ‘the argument’, the Carrion Purveyor  refers to the argument of those Ulama who proclaim soft drinks impermissible on account of the minute alcohol content. SANHA’s stupid logic is that if coke, etc. are haraam on the basis of the alcohol content, then likewise should the Ulama proclaim fruit to be haraam because  stupid technology establishes minute traces  of alcohol even in fruit. This argument is baseless, firstly because Allah Ta’ala has made fruit halaal,  irrespective of  tests establishing the presence of alcohol in fruits.  The coke argument may not be extended to what Allah Ta’ala has made halaal. Even if the alcohol content is confirmed in fruit by means of stupid tests, the fruit will remain halaal simply because Allah Ta’ala has made it halaal and tayyib.

On the other hand, if the fruit ferments  –  gets rotten  –  and becomes intoxicating, then in  terms of Allah’s Law it will be haraam  on account of the intoxicating element. Soft drinks may not be argued on the basis of fruit because  the alcohol used to make these drinks is haraam by Allah’s law. Pure haraam alcohol concentrates are used to manufacture soft drinks. The alcohol used is haraam, hence the resultant drink is not permissible. For the edification of the Carrion and Pork halaalizer it has to be said that we cannot proclaim fruit to be haraam even if an alcohol content is confirmed because whoever claims that Allah’s halaal fruit is haraam becomes a kaafir.

Stupidity No. 2

The Carrion Hawker, SANHA, says:  

“In  terms of Islamic jurisprudence there are two distinct types of alcohol. One is deemed to be intrinsically impure and totally forbidden to use such as wine, sherry, cognac and the like. The other is ethanol derived from molasses, coal  etc.  which is not deemed an impurity and would only  be deemed unlawful if used  in intoxicating  applications.”

People who halaalize carrion and feed  the community carrion and halaalized pork do not know the meaning of ‘Islamic jurisprudence’. They are downright stupid. Their brains and hearts are clogged with spiritual filth  which deranges their mental faculty rendering them incapable of  sane thinking and understanding.

Juxtaposing ethanol as the opposite of sherry, cognac, etc. conspicuously demonstrates the stupidity of SANHA. There is absolutely no basis in the Shariah  –  in Islamic jurisprudence  –  for differentiating between sherry and ethanol. Sherry, vodka, whisky, gin, etc. are haraam intoxicants on account of their  ethanol  content.  SANHA claim that ethanol is halaal leads to the inevitable conclusion that sherry and whisky consumed in small quantities which do not intoxicate will be  halaal. This is the corruption of the Carrion Purveyor’s stupid contention which seeks to present ethanol as the opposite of sherry, cognac, etc.

 What is ethanol??

“Ethyl alcohol or ethanol is the intoxicating ingredient of many beverages, the production of which involves a fermentation process, and the word alcohol  is often used to describe the ethyl alcohol content of such beverages.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

“Ethyl alcohol: the intoxicating agent in fermented and distilled liquors…..Ethanol also called ethyl alcohol, pure alcohol, grain alcohol, or drinking alcohol, is a volatile, flammable, colourless liquid.”  (Wikipedia)

Ethanol is the intoxicating  ingredient in all liquors regardless of the raw material from which it is manufactured. SANHA claims that  sherry is haraam, but not ethanol. This illustrates the  stupidity of the Carrion Halaalizer. Ethanol is not wine. Ethanol is the intoxicating ingredient in wine. Thus, it is ethanol which makes sherry, gin, whisky, vodka and the thousand  other kinds of liquors intoxicating and haraam. Minus ethanol, no drink is intoxicating, and minus ethanol no drink is wine or liquor.  However, SANHA mentions ethanol as if it is  per se  a wine, and a ‘halaal wine’. There is no wine and liquor called ethanol. Ethyl alcohol is the intoxicating ingredient in  all  wines and liquors whether it be grape wine or liquor made from molasses, wheat, fruit, or from any of the other myriad of substances. All liquors contain the intoxicating ingredient called ethanol.

The stupid averment that  “Islamic Jurisprudence” differentiates between  sherry, cognac, etc. on the one side and  ethanol on the other side  is an exhibition of SANHA’s gross ignorance. It is an argument which is hilariously ludicrous since ethanol is  not a wine.

Sherry, cognac, vodka, whisky, gin, etc., are haraam on account of their ethanol content. Similarly, coke, co-ee, pepsi and the myriad of other socalled ‘soft drinks’ are haraam because of their ethanol content.

Regardless of the raw material from which ethanol is derived, it is haraam because it is an intoxicating ingredient. It is the actual devil  which causes drunkenness which transforms a human being into a swine. SANHA has failed to understand what Islamic Jurisprudence says about alcohol. This Carrion Halaalizer’s superficial and stupid ‘research’ in Islamic Jurisprudence only serves to confirm  their  jahl-e-muraqqab (compound ignorance  –  ignorance and darkness piled on top of one another).   

In which kitaab (book) is it mentioned that  “ethanol” is a pure substance?? No kitaab of Fiqh mentions this stupidity which SANHA has sucked out from its carrion thumb. Whilst mention is made of a difference between  khamr and  non-khamr  liquors, there is no mention of ethanol. Both kinds of liquor,  khamr and non-khamr, contain the intoxicating ingredient known as ethanol. Whilst according to the small minority view non-khamr liquor is taahir  (not impure/napaak), and not sinful if consumed in small quantities, not to produce intoxication, nor taken for  feeling a little  lightheaded or for pleasure, the Fatwa of the FOUR Math-habs is on the hurmat  of all  kinds of alcohol regardless of the raw materials from which they are made. All liquors, not only wines, according to all FOUR Mathhabs are in the category of   khamr  as the Hadith categorically states:  

“Every intoxicant is khamr and every khamr is haraam.”  

Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said:  “Whatever  befogs the mind is khamr.”    Thus, regardless of the raw material from which ethanol is made, the beverage to which this intoxicant is added becomes haraam in the same  category as   khamr  as far as drinking is concerned.

Stupidity No. 3  

The Carrion Purveyor, SANHA, says:   

“ethanol…….would  only be deemed  unlawful if used  in intoxicating applications.”

This averment clearly illustrates the  jahaalat  of SANHA’s carrion molvis. Firstly, there is no view in the Shariah which says that  ethanol  is haraam only if taken in quantities which intoxicate. There is no mention of ethanol in the Shariah. The  reference is to liquor. Liquor, not grape wine, is the subject of some difference. However, the minority view  –  very small minority  –  has been overshadowed and set aside by the consensus of the Four Math-habs and this prohibition has been the law of the Shariah since the    era of  Khairul Quroon.  It is haraam in this belated age for anyone to dig out the obscure and minority view and to present it in refutation of the fourteen-century Ruling of the Shariah

  Furthermore, the minority difference applies to  only the Hanafi Mathhab. Whereas there is no difference on  the issue of intoxicants among the other three Math-habs, there is a difference in the Hanafi Math-hab. However, the Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab has always been on the view of Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayh), a view which coincides with the view of the other three Math-habs, viz. all alcohol is haraam and impure regardless of whether it is wine or liquor  –  grape wine or liquor made from any other substance.

There is absolutely no scope in the Hanafi  Math-hab nor in any other Math-hab for revoking the  Ijmaa-ee  (unanimous)    Fatwa of the Four Mathhabs, to issue a fatwa of permissibility for the sake of halaalizing  harmful and poisonous drinks such as coke, pepsi and the numerous other so-called ‘soft drinks’. Neither is it valid to invoke the principle of   Necessities make permissible prohibitions.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) stated explicitly:  “Whatever in a big quantity intoxicates, a small quantity of it is also haraam.”  On  the basis of SANHA’s stupid argument, a small quantity of sherry, vodka, gin, etc. will be halaal and pure because it does not intoxicate. No one will get drunk if a teaspoon of whisky is added to a glass of water and drunk as a ‘tonic’. In fact, most people will not become drunk even if they consume a whole glass of liquor. According to the carrion logic of SANHA,  small quantities of these liquors should be halaal because they are not  wine (khamr), they are liquor. It should be understood that these non-khamr beverages are not ethanol. They are intoxicating liquor containing ethanol which is the intoxicating ingredient, and so does  khamr  too contain ethanol.

If coke and  Pepsi  are halaal, there is no logical grounds for proclaiming sherry, gin and vodka  to be haraam since all of these drinks contain ethanol, hence in terms  of the Carrion Halaalizer’s logic all these nonkhamr liquors should be halaal if consumed in small quantities which do not intoxicate.

Stupidity No.4

SANHA states:

    “Soft drinks cannot intoxicate no matter how much you drink and are not considered Haraam, even if they contain flavourants which have residual levels of ethanol. The prohibition for Muslims is not to indulge in intoxicant beverages.”

Ethanol is beyond the slightest vestige of doubt an intoxicant. It is the intoxicating ingredient which makes all wines and liquors haraam. Whether coke intoxicates or not is not the argument. The contention is that it contains an intoxicant which does intoxicate if used in a big quantity. And, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that even a small quantity of an intoxicant  is haraam regardless of it not intoxicating due to the small amount ingested.

SANHA should apply the very same warped carrion logic to halaalize a small quantity of gin and vodka because small quantities of these ethanol drinks do not intoxicate. Why would soft drinks containing ethanol be halaal while a teaspoon of  ethanol-whiskey and vodka be haraam??  Both will not intoxicate.

On the basis of proclaiming   ethanol-containing soft drinks halaal, there is no logical reason for saying that ethanol-containing liquors taken in small non-intoxicating quantities are haraam.  In fact, halaalizing ethanol containing soft drinks is  opening up the gateway for the wholesale halaalization of all forms of non-khamr alcohol.  After all, Rasulullah’s prediction in this regard has to materialize, and SANHA, the Carrion Halaalizer, appears to be the shaitaan who will give effect to the predicted halaalization of liquor.


(1)  “Umm-e-Salmah (radhiyallahu anha) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prohibited every intoxicant and befogger (of the mind).”   (Abu Dawood) (2)  

“Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated  that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Every intoxicant is haraam……………’  ”   (Muslim)  

(3)   “Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  ‘That which in a big quantity intoxicates, its small quantity is also haraam.’  ”   (Ahmad, Ibn Maajah).

(4)   “Verily, a man  came from Jaishaan, and Jaishaan is in Yemen. He asked Nabi (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) about a drink made from corn, called   Al-Mizr,  which the people of Yemen drank  ,  Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  asked:  ‘Is it intoxicating??’ He (the man from Jaishaan) said: ‘Yes.’ Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  ‘Every intoxicant is haraam. Verily, there is an obligation on Allah (as He has pledged) that He shall give  the one who consumes intoxicants   Teenatul Khabaal  to drink.’ They (the Sahaabah) said:  ‘O Rasulullah! (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): ‘What is Teenatul Khabaal?’ Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘The perspiration or the pus of the people of the Fire.’  ”  –  (Muslim)

The effects of Teenatul Khabaal   are already manifesting themselves in this world in the form of the numerous diseases which  the consumers of  the  haraam soft drink poison are contracting without even knowing  the cause.


Haafiz Al-Aini (rahmatullah alayh) said in  Sharhul Kanz:   “Imaam Muhammad and the Three Imaams (i.e. Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi’ and Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal)  –  rahmatullah alayhim  –   said: “Everything which in a big quantity intoxicates, its small quantity is haraam regardless of  what type of intoxicant it may be.” The prohibition on intoxicants is so severe that even  taahir (paak, pure) dry (not liquid) intoxicants such as dagga and the many kinds of drugs are haraam, and whoever halaalizes these intoxicants is a zindeeq and a kaafir. In this regard,  Durr-e-Mukhtaar states:   “It is narrated  from Al-Jaami’, etc. that whoever says that dagga and hasheesh are halaal, is a zindeeq and a mubtadi’’. In fact Najmuddeen Az-Zaahidi said: ‘Verily, he  shall be proclaimed a kaafir and be executed.’ ”

People who halaalize carrion lack the intelligence for understanding Islamic Jurisprudence. They are too dense in their brains which have become befogged by the carrion they halaalize and consume, hence they speak the rubbish which SANHA has disgorged regarding ethanol and sherry being opposites, the former being  halaal  and the latter  haraam, when in fact both are haraam.

SANHA has failed to understand that ethanol is not the name of a wine or liquor. It is the intoxicating ingredient in wines and liquors. Drinking even non-khamr alcohol for pleasure is unanimously haraam. There is no difference of opinion on this score. Non-khamr alcohol utilized externally and in medicines, on the basis of  universal entanglement  (Ibtilaa-e-Aam)   from which it is almost impossible  to abstain in today’s scenario, is permissible. For permissibility of external application of non-khamr alcohol,  the minority view has been adopted by our Akaabir Ulama. However, as far as   drinking is concerned, the Fatwa of Prohibition of the Four Math-habs substantiated by many Ahaadith, and the principles of the Shariah, remains intact, and no Carrion Halaalizer can hope to abrogate it.


Besides the element of intoxication, these so-called soft drinks are haraam also on the basis of the factor of  Dharar or Idhraar (harm and injury caused to the health). There is no longer any doubt  regarding the idhraar   of soft drinks overloaded with sugar and other chemical substances. They cause grave diseases. They are slow poison. Eating taahir  (pure) sand and any pure substance which is harmful for the health is haraam. Soft drinks will be haraam to a greater degree on account of  its intoxicating ingredient and the confirmed element of  idhraar.        


The function of a Mufti is to strengthen the servant’s bond with Allah Ta’ala. It is most despicable for a Mufti to dig out from the  kutub obscurities or technicalities or differences which open  up the gateway for fitnah, fisq and fujoor, and which weaken the Muslim’s bond with Allah Ta’ala, and also destroys his physical health.

Furthermore, a Mufti should not search for concessions and technicalities to issue  fatwas of jawaaz (rulings of permissibility) to sustain his own weaknesses and indulgence.

For example, when one senior Mufti Sahib was asked about drinking Fanta, he responded: “This bandah drinks Fanta.” 

That the  “Bandah drinks Fanta”,  is not a fatwa should be abundantly clear.  The Mufti Sahib had also committed  khiyaanat (abuse of trust)  by abstaining from issuing a proper, valid Shar’i Fatwa, and by issuing a statement of drivel to  cover his own weakness and indulgence. It is the Mufti’s  personal problem drinking Fanta. He grievously erred with his endeavour to pass off his own act of weakness as a Shar’i Fatwa.

A Mufti should be far-sighted and a man of Taqwa. If he lacks Taqwa, he should go  cut grass or wash cars for a living. He should not sit on the throne of  a Darul Ifta  and mislead the servants of Allah Ta’ala like the proverbial fox who led a flock of small animals into his den, then devoured them all. A Mufti who lacks Taqwa is totally unfit for the Department of Ifta’. He has no right to issue fatwas. He is a  khaa-in (treacherous abuser of amaanat), a robber of Imaan and a destroyer of Akhlaaq.

Coke, Pepsi and the myriad of soft drinks are not essential items of life. If a Carrion Halaalizer proclaims  these drinks ‘halaal’ it is quite understandable. SANHA’s objective is the haraam boodle which its haraam certificate trade nets. The Haraam ruling deprives the Carrion Purveyor from substantial haraam revenue, hence  there is no surprise when SANHA  resorts to issuing rubbish ‘fatwas’ of permissibility. But when a Mufti sitting in a Darul Ifta recklessly issues fatwas of  jawaaz  on the basis of technicalities, obscurities,   grey arguments,  personal weakness and self-indulgence, then he conducts himself like the proverbial fox.

A Mufti should reflect deeply and  endeavour to encompass the consequences of his fatwas. On an issue  such as these ruinous soft drinks, it should be understood that a fatwa of permissibility is a licence firstly for ruining the physical health of the whole community. Secondly, it opens the gateway for halaalization of all non-khamr liquors. After halaalizing ethanol-containing soft drinks, there is no logical reason for saying that ethanol-containing non-khamr liquors taken in small quantities are haraam. On the basis of the soft drink fatwa  of permissibility, vodka, gin, whisky and the innumerable other kinds of non-khamr liquors will logically become ‘halaal’

With his fatwa of  jawaaz, the Mufti is laying the ground for producing a community of diseased alcoholics, and liquor-traders. Bottlestores and pubs are extremely lucrative avenues for earning haraam boodle. In Egypt fatwas have already been issued to halaalize bottlestores. The Muftis in South Africa will soon follow suit. It is vital and imperative that the Fatwa of Prohibition issued by the Four Math-habs from the age of  Khairul Quroon be retained intact.

It is indeed tragic that Muftis who are supposed to be the guardians of the Shariat,  and men who have the best moral, spiritual and physical interests of the Ummah in mind,  are  failing to take lesson from the concern of non-Muslim medical experts who have researched soft drinks and have conclusively established the destruction these haraam drinks wrought on the human body.

It is highly irresponsible for a Mufti to issue a fatwa of permissibility  simply on the basis of  the ethanol in soft drinks being non-khamr. The following articles  written by concerned non-Muslims  will show why our Muftis are conducting themselves with gross irresponsibility and recklessness by doling out   fatwas of jawaaz   for destructive poisons.


Posted by  Dr. Mercola | April 10 2010   Here’s some statistics you won’t  believe  —  especially take a look at the three at the end!  Sources:   Pixel Monster

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Amazingly, according to  these statistics,  Americans consume close to 50 billion  liters of soda per year, which equates to about 216 liters, or about 57 gallons per person. That’s a staggering amount of sugar! And not just any sugar, but some  of the worst we know of  – fructose, in the form of high  fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

   Tragically, high fructose corn syrup, in the form of soda, has become the  number one  source of calories in the United States, and it is very clear that it is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic.

For example, one independent, peer-reviewed study published in the British medical journal  The Lancet  demonstrated a strong link between soda consumption and childhood obesity. They found that 12-year-olds who drank soft drinks regularly were more likely to be overweight than those  who didn’t.  

In fact, for each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soft drink consumed during the nearly two-year study, the  risk of obesity jumped by 60 percent. Just one extra can of soda per day can  add as much as 15 pounds  to your weight over the course of a single year!

At that rate, it’s no wonder  more than 65 percent of all American adults struggle with overweight and obesity.

And those who drink diet soda are just downing another type of poison, as diet drinks contain artificial sweeteners instead of caloric sweeteners. They don’t do anything to curb the obesity epidemic since diet soda is  clearly linked to obesity  as well, but through different mechanisms.

It’s hard to decide which is worse long term, fructose or artificial sweeteners, but one thing’s for sure: If you are drinking soda of any kind, you are sabotaging your health and cutting years off your lifespan.

How Soda Affects Your Body

Did you know that just one can of Coke contains 10 teaspoons of sugar?!

This is 100 percent of your recommended daily intake (which is more than double my recommended daily allowance to begin with).

Within 20  minutes  of drinking that  soda, your blood sugar spikes, and your liver responds to the resulting insulin burst by turning massive amounts of sugar into fat.  

Within 40  minutes,  your blood pressure rises due to your body having absorbed  all the caffeine, and then your liver dumps even more sugar  into your bloodstream.  

After about one hour, you’ll start to have a sugar crash, which oftentimes leads you into a vicious cycle of consuming more sugar  – and caffeine-laden stimulants, followed by crashes, throughout your day.

It is a proven fact that  sugar increases your insulin levels, which can lead to not only weight gain, but also high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease,  diabetes, premature aging and many more negative side effects.

   In fact, sugar is so bad for your health in so many ways, I’ve created an entire list outlining  the ways sugar can damage your health.

How Soda Damages Your Health and Cuts Years off Your Life

One of the more troubling  health risks soda drinkers face (as if obesity isn’t bad enough) is a  higher cancer risk. Numerous studies have pointed out the  link between sugar and increased rates of cancer, suggesting that regulating sugar intake is key to slowing tumor growth. metabolizing fructose falls on your liver, which creates a number of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of  uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout.

Likewise, it’s the difference in how your body responds to fructose that also makes it the leading cause of obesity. Whereas glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite, fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain’s communication with leptin.

The result is Studies have linked sugar intake with different types of cancer, such as:

Breast cancer
Throat cancer
Colon cancer

Soda has even been shown to  cause DNA damage, courtesy of sodium benzoate, a common preservative found in many soft drinks, which has the ability to switch off vital parts of your DNA.This could eventually lead to diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver and Parkinson’s.

Gout is another common health challenge that disproportionally affects soda drinkers, and this is directly related to the fructose content of soda.

In fact, studies have shown that other beverages with high fructose content, such as fruit juices, and even consuming large quantities of fresh fruits can  raise your risk of gout.

How is this possible??
Well, first of all, please understand that it’s not the fructose in and of itself that  is bad. Whole fruits for example are a nutritious part of your diet when consumed in moderation.  

   It’s the MASSIVE DOSES of fructose you’re exposed to that spell trouble.  Fructose, as opposed to glucose, is particularly damaging to your body due to the way  it’s metabolized. The entire burden of metabolizing fructose falls on your liver, which creates a number of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of  uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout.

Likewise, it’s the difference in how your body responds to fructose that also makes it the leading cause of obesity.

Whereas glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite, fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain’s communication with leptin.

Last but certainly not least, fructose clearly raises your insulin levels, which is at the heart of nearly every disease known to man  – not just diabetes. In fact, controlling your  insulin levels  is one of  the most important things  you can do to optimize your overall health, and avoiding sugar, and most definitely fructose, is essential to do this.   

What’s a Healthy Level of Fructose Consumption?

As a standard recommendation, I strongly advise  keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day.  

However, for most people it would actually be wise to limit your fruit fructose to  15 grams or less, as it is virtually  guaranteed that you will consume “hidden” sources of fructose from most beverages and just about any processed food you might eat. 

Since 55 percent of HFCS is fructose, one can of soda alone would nearly exceed your daily allotment. It is easy to see that anyone who is drinking three, and certainly four, will easily exceed 100 grams of fructose per day.

This also means that you’ll need to be careful with your fruit consumption. Since HFCS is added to virtually every processed, packaged food, you are virtually guaranteed to consume hidden fructose on any given day.

Even if you consumed no soda or fruit, it is very easy to exceed  25 grams of hidden fructose in your diet.  

If you are a raw food advocate, have a pristine diet, and exercise very well, then you could be the exception that could exceed this limit and stay healthy.

Improving Your Health May Be as Easy as Cutting Out Soda

Turbo Tapping is a simple and clever use of the  Emotional Freedom Technique/Meridian Tapping Technique, designed to resolve many aspects of an issue in a short period of time.

The good news about all these shocking health facts is that stopping the pernicious habit of drinking soda is one of the easiest things you can do.  

As you can clearly see from all the examples above, you can radically improve your health simply by cutting soda out of your diet. Then replace soda and other sugary drinks with clean, pure water.  Nothing beats pure water when it comes to serving your body’s needs. If you really feel the urge for a carbonated beverage, try sparkling mineral water with a squirt of lime or lemon juice.  

To ensure purity, your best bet is to filter your own water at home. I strongly advise you to avoid drinking unfiltered tap water, as chlorine and  fluoride  (which are  added to most municipal  water supplies) are  toxic chemicals that should not be consumed in large quantities.

How to Counteract Withdrawal Symptoms

If you struggle with an addiction to soda, (remember, sugar is actually  more addictive than cocaine!) I strongly recommend you consider Turbo Tapping  as a simple  yet highly effective tool to help you stop this destructive habit.

Turbo Tapping is a simple and clever use of the  Emotional Freedom Technique/Meridian Tapping Technique, designed to resolve many aspects of an issue in a short period of time.


Reacting to a Muftis  fatwa of jawaaz,  a concerned, intelligent brother,  Husain Kamal wrote:

“I got this response  (i.e. the Mufti’s fatwa of jawaaz)  from someone  else as well, but am still to be convinced with regard to its ruling. Is it not that what is haram in large quantities is haram in small quantities as well?

The Prophet (peace be on him) was once asked about certain drinks made from honey, corn or barley by the process of fermenting them until they become alcoholic.

The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him), blessed as he was with the best of speech replied:  “Every intoxicant is khamr, and every khamr is haram.”(Reported by Muslim).

The Prophet (peace be on him) said:  Of that which intoxicates in a large amount, a small amount is haram.” (Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawood and al-Tirmidhi)

And again“If a bucketful intoxicates, a sip of it is haram.” (Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, al-Tirmidhi)

To me, therefore, this ruling is questionable, unless of course it can be explained further……..

But aside from the alcohol issue, I’m sure you have come up against numerous instances which detail on the  harmful effects of fizzy drinks,  and more so cola, because of the high acidity contents,  high sugar, etc.

Apparently the chemicals  used in colas to give the brown colouring (not caramel, as you would think), are highly  carcinogenic, i.e. cancercausing,  and there is a drive to have the FDA ban the use of these chemicals in drinks….”


France & Denmark have banned it from the country… RED BULL  – slow death … RED BULL  –  slow death … RED BULL  –  slow death …  Do NOT drink this drink anymore!! Pay attention; read it all:

As a public health safety, please pass on this email to all the contacts in your address book especially those with teenage children? This drink is SOLD in all the supermarkets IN OUR country and our children ARE CONSUMING IT ON A TRIAL BASIS, IT can be mortal.

RED BULL was created to  stimulate the brains in people who are subjected to great physical force and in stress coma and never to be consumed like an innocent drink or soda pop. RED BULL IS the energizer DRINK that is commercialized world-wide with its slogan:  ‘It increases endurance; awakens the concentration capacity and the speed of reaction, offers more energy and improves the mood. All this can be found in a can of RED BULL , the power drink of the millennium.

‘RED BULL has managed to arrive at almost 100 countries worldwide.  The RED BULL logo is targeted at young people and sportsmen, two attractive segments that have been captivated by the stimulus that the drink provides. It was created by Dietrich Mateschitz, an industrialist of Austrian origin who discovered the drink by chance. It happened during a business trip to Hong Kong , when he was working at a factory that manufactured toothbrushes.

The liquid, based on a formula that contained caffeine and taurine, caused a rage in that country. Imagine the grand success of this drink in Europe where the product still did not exist, besides it was a superb opportunity to become an entrepreneur.


FRANCE and DENMARK have just prohibited it as a cocktail of death, due to its vitamin components mixed with GLUCURONOLACTONE, a highly dangerous chemical, which was developed by the United States Department of Defense during the sixties to stimulate the moral of the troops based in VIETNAM, which acted like a hallucinogenic drug that calmed the stress of the war. But their effects in the organism were so devastating, that it was discontinued, because of the high index of cases of migraines, cerebral tumors and diseases of the liver that was evident in the soldiers who consumed it.

And in spite  of it, in the can of RED BULL you can still find as one of its components:

GLUCURONOLACTONE, categorized medically as a stimulant. But what it does not say on the can of RED BULL are the consequences of its consumption, and that has forced us to place a series of WARNINGS:

1. It is dangerous to take it if you do not engage in physical exercise afterwards, since its energizing function accelerates the heart rate and can cause a sudden attack.

2. You run the risk of undergoing a cerebral haemorrhage, because RED BULL contains components that dilute the blood so that the heart utilizes less energy to pump the blood, and thus be able to deliver physical force with less effort being exerted.

3. It is prohibited to mix RED BULL with alcohol, because the mixture turns the drink into a ” Deadly Bomb ” that attacks the liver directly, causing the affected area never to regenerate anymore.  

4. One of the main components of RED BULL is the B12 vitamin, used in medicine to recover patients who are in a coma; from here the hypertension and the state of excitement which is experienced after taking it, as if you were in a drunken state.

5. The regular consumption of RED BULL triggers off symptoms in the form of a series of irreversible nervous and neuronal diseases.

CONCLUSION: It is a drink that should be prohibited in the entire world as when it is mixed with alcohol it creates a TIME BOMB for the human body, mainly between innocent adolescents and adults with little experience.


What Happens To Your Body Within An Hour Of Drinking A Coke

Don’t drink cola if you want to be healthy. Consuming soft drinks is bad for  so  many  reasons  that  science  cannot  even  state  all  the consequences. But one thing we know for sure is that drinking Coke, as a representative of soft drinks, wreaks havoc on the human organism. What  happens?  Writer  Wade  Meredith  has  shown  the  quick progression of Coke’s assault.

The main problem is sugar. It’s an evil that the processed food industry and sugar growers don’t want people to know about. Even dieticians financially  supported  by  sugar  growers  and  sugary  product manufacturers, are loathe to  tell us the truth.

Don’t believe that dietitians are influenced by huge corporate concerns that feed people  sugar, drugs and other health-defying ingredients?? Go to their official website and check out the sponsors yourself. They  are  right  there  in  plain  sight: corporatesponsors/

When somebody drinks a Coke watch what happens…

•  In The First 10 minutes:  10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system. (100% of your recommended daily intake.) You don’t immediately vomit from the overwhelming sweetness because phosphoric acid cuts the flavor allowing you to keep it down.

•  20 minutes:  Your blood sugar  spikes, causing an insulin burst. Your liver responds to this by turning any sugar it can get its hands on into fat. (There’s  plenty  of that at this particular moment)

•  40 minutes:  Caffeine absorption is complete. Your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, as a response your livers dumps more sugar into your bloodstream. The adenosine receptors in your brain are now blocked preventing drowsiness.

•  45 minutes:  Your body ups your dopamine production stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain. This is physically the same way heroin works, by the way.

•  >60 minutes:  The phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc  in  your  lower  intestine,  providing  a  further  boost  in metabolism.  This  is  compounded  by  high  doses  of sugar and artificial  sweeteners  also  increasing  the  urinary  excretion  of calcium.

•  >60 Minutes:  The caffeine’s diuretic properties come into play. (It makes you have to  urinate.) It is now assured that you’ll evacuate the bonded calcium, magnesium and zinc that was headed to your bones as well as sodium, electrolyte and water.

•  >60 minutes:  As the rave inside of you dies down you’ll start to have a sugar crash. You may become irritable and/or sluggish. You’ve also now, literally,  urinated  away all the water that was in the Coke. But not before infusing it with valuable nutrients your body could have used for things like even having the ability to hydrate your system or build strong bones and teeth.

So there you have it, an avalanche of destruction in a single can.

Imagine drinking this day after day, week after week. Stick to water, real juice from fresh squeezed fruit, and  tea without sweetener.


This message, so kindly sent by Mr Harish Kanabar, is for my vegetarian friends and for my friends, who after reading it, will themselves know and decide what is wrong and what is proper and act accordingly to their better judgement and conscience. Our deepest appreciation to Mr. Harish and to the original  sender of this mail M/s Rajni Jilka,  who so kindly made us aware of this  findings.

Pepsi and Coca Cola Contains PORK (PIG) extracts  –  PROVEN!!

Shocking / Bad News:  Pepsi and Coca Cola contains extract from Pork (Pig) Most of the people avoid Pepsi and Coca-Cola for various reasons:- because of harmful chemical contents such as excessive carbonates, etc.

Now there is yet another reason which is more dangerous. The scientific and medical research says that drinking Pepsi & Cola leads to cancer because the key element is taken from Pigs sausage. The pig is the only animal that eats dirt,  dung and urine, which makes lethal and deadly.

Fabric polluted germs and microbes.  According to a report published in Jordanian magazine, the Head of Delhi University    Science and Technology, Dr. Mangoshada scientifically proved that the key element in Pepsi and Cola contains extract from the intestines of Pig which causes cancer and other deadly diseases.  The Indian university conducted tests on the impact of drinking Pepsi and  Coca Cola which proved that drinking them lead to more rapid heart rate and low  pressure.  Also drinking 6 bottles of Pepsi or Cola at a time causes instant death. It  also contains chemicals such as carbonic and phosphoric acids, citric acid which harms teeth and  causes bone fragility. Bones kept in the Cup of Pepsi melts during the week  knowing  that the bones of the dead remain in the grave for thirty years.

Research itself confirmed that the calcium dissolved in Pepsi and it weakens  the bladder, kidneys, kills the pancreatic,  leads to diabetes and infectious diseases.  Pepsi or Coca-Cola lovers nothing to worry as it is not the only drinks  available on this earth, as we have other  healthy alternatives such as natural fruit juices, canned coconut water,  flavoured milks, buttermilk etc.,

In an article Ted Twictmeyer wrote regarding Coke: “I have never partaken of this chemical cocktail, and now I’m even happier about it. The second-to-last ingredient listed in Coke Classic is caffeine. The last one is actually “Natural flavors from plant and animal sources.”

Do we even want to THINK what part of the animal it comes from?? Farmers will tell you that with pigs, “the only part not used is the squeal.”  Mad cow in a can??”


The Ulama are supposed to be the very first  ones to understand the Maqsad (Objective)  of life of earth. They are supposed to be aware that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “Verily, the world has been created for you, and you have been created for the Aakhirah.”    In this transitory earthly abode we have been given a very short lifespan which the Qur’aan and the Sunnah exhort us to utilize  for self-reformation, purification of the nafs and for the development of our everlasting stay in Jannat.

Therefore, it does not behove the Ulama to conduct themselves in ways which are inimical to the Goal of the Aakhirah. The entire Qur’aan Majeed is replete with aayaat  vigorously enjoining the cultivation of Taqwa. There are no less than 250 aayaat in which Taqwa is commanded and exhorted. This is also the theme of the Sunnah.  Among the vital requisites of Taqwa is abstention from  mushtabah (doubtful)  food. There is no need for discussion pertaining to haraam. Every faasiq and faajir is aware of the imperative need to abstain from haraam. But, alas! In our age even the Ulama have no care for Taqwa and  mushtabahaat.   

In fact Taqwa has become a strange and an alien concept for even the Ulama. Abstention from mushtabah is frowned on, and even mocked. It is essential for Muftis when they issue fatwas to keep in mind the spirit and ethos of the Deen. The ethos of the Qur’aan and Sunnah has to be introduced into the Mufti’s fatwa. This does not envisage the imposition of unnecessary hardship on the masses.  It does not mean that Shar’i concession should be set aside when there is a  real need for it. But it does mean that concessions should operate within the confines of the Shariah, and where there is no need for laxity, or laxity leads to  fitnah  and fasaad, then it is binding on the Mufti to abstain from employing destructive latitude in his fatwas.

Consider the issue of soft drinks.  These drinks are not essential for life on earth. On the contrary they are destructive, physically, morally and spiritually. They are carcinogenic, i.e. they cause cancer, as well as many other grave  diseases. Furthermore, they contain alcohol which every Muslim understands is haraam.

  They are the earthly substitutes for Teenatul Khabaal (the pus of Jahannamis)  which will be served to the consumers of alcohol. For such a destructive beverage, it is highly irresponsible for a Mufti to issue a fatwa of permissibility by manipulating technicalities of Fiqh, and differences of opinion.

Whilst the emphasis of the Deen is on food reduction  (Qillat-e-Ta’aam), and this applies to halaal tayyib food, the emphasis of  the Muftis of this age is on abundance of food consumption even mushtabah and  haraam  food which has been recklessly halaalized by the manipulation of technicalities. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:    

“Eating more than once a day is  wasteful.”  
“A kaafir eats with seven intestines whilst a Muslim eats with one intestine.”   ?  “Sufficient (as nourishment) for them  ( i.e. for the pious Believers) is that which is sufficient for the beings of the heavens (i.e. for the Malaaikah).”    

The Malaaikah (angels) subsist on Tasbeeh and Taqdees.  The Auliya of Allah Ta’ala also attain similar powers whereby the consumption of food is negligible.     

Commenting on this Hadith, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “It has been narrated that some Auliya stayed in seclusion for long periods without any food whatsoever. They survived on Tasbeeh and Thikrullaah. This Hadith explicitly confirms that sometimes Tasbeeh and Thikr  are adequate substitutes for food. However, nowadays people are unable to implement the austere ways of food reduction practised in the former ages. ……. In the Shariah,  Taqleel-e-Ta’aam (reduction of food)  has assumed the form of fasting.”

Hadhrat Sahl Bin Abdullah (rahmatullah alayh) said: “When Allah Ta’ala created  the world, He  created ignorance and sin in satiation (i.e. a full stomach), and in hunger He created Ilm (Knowledge) and Hikmat (Wisdom).”
The advice proffered by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  is that the stomach should be filled with food only one third; one third  space in the stomach should be  for water, and the other third for circulation of air. 

The Akaabir Ulama and Auliya of recent times, seeing the  physical and spiritual weaknesses of people advise  that one should not fill the  stomach to capacity. When one feels that a couple of morsels could still be eaten, then one should stop eating. Over-eating is physically and spiritually destructive.

We are not advocating that people in this age  should adopt the extremely rigid and austere methods of food reduction practised in the former days as advocated by Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) and other Auliya. The purpose of citing these narrations is to induce the Ulama to reflect and to exercise caution by abstaining from  mushtabah, for such abstention  is waajib, and to refrain from recklessly issuing fatwas which provide a licence for unbridled gluttony which destroys both the physical and spiritual fibre of the Muslim.


Soft drink is a slow poison. Among the diseases in its wake are the following:
Breast Cancer, Throat cancer, Colon cancer, DNA damage, Rapid heart rate, Low pressure, Tooth decay, Bone fragility, Weak bladder, Kidney problems, Destruction of the pancreas by cancer, Diabetes and other infectious diseases, Migraine,  Cerebral  tumours , Liver diseases such as cirrhosis, Nervous and neuronal diseases, Obesity , Parkinson’s disease,  Gout,  Metabolic syndrome etc.

With this formidable array of destructive diseases  staring us  in the face, how can a who is a genuine Mufti ever issue a  fatwa of jawaaz  to promote soft drink consumption??

Sodas  –  Which is worse, diet or regular? So they are going after the sugared drinks saying they cause obesity. Well, they are right on when they say  that sugared drinks contribute to the slippery slope for unhealthy and fat people. But the artificial drinks can be even worse. If you think diet soda is better for your health, think again. The only way you lose weight on diet drinks is by being sickened  with the poison  –  not from some miraculous drop in calories brought to you by chemical companies. Most diet sodas contain an artificial sweetener called aspartame. Aspartame is made up of aspartic acid, phenylalanine,  and methanol and is some 200 times sweeter than table sugar. Dr. M. Adrian Gross, a former senior FDA toxicologist,  stated  before Congress: “Beyond a shadow of a doubt,  aspartame triggers brain tumors” and, “therefore, by allowing aspartame to be placed on the market, the FDA has violated the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer… And if the FDA itself elects to violate its own law, who is left to protect the  health of the public??”

Aspartame toxicity is often overlooked as a disease even though it has been reported countless times to independent organizations and scientists (Mission Possible 1994, Stoddard 1995). Patient and physician alike presume that worsening conditions are a normal progression of the illness when it can be in actuality, chronic aspartame poisoning.  There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame consumption.

Sick on soda Research demonstrates that soda consumption, sugared or diet, enhances kidney stone formation with their high acidity and radical  mineral imbalances. Your body buffers the acidity of soft drinks with calcium from the bones. As this calcium eliminates via the urine, it slowly forms kidney stones.

Easy carbohydrates like high fructose corn syrup put a huge strain on insulin-producing  cells in the pancreas. The pancreas responds by secreting large amounts of insulin for the body to process them, placing heavy burdens on the pancreas, taxing its ability to keep up with the body’s need for insulin.

Scientific studies provide evidence that soft drinks are directly related to weight gain. Researchers calculate that for each additional soda consumed, the risk of obesity increases 1.6 times.

A miracle solution to sodas  – Drink water

People often drink sodas to quench the thirst. But that is probably the worst time to drink soda. Dehydration brings with it low levels of saliva needed to neutralize acids and wash your teeth clean. Drinking a single 330 ml can a day of sugary drinks translates to more than one pound of weight per month.

About the  author:

Craig Stellpflug is a Cancer Nutrition Specialist, Lifestyle Coach and Neuro Development Consultant at Healing Pathways Medical Clinic, Scottsdale,  AZ


Among the lesser signs of the impending Hour of Qiyaamah is the halaalization of liquor. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has forewarned the Ummah that in the ages in proximity with Qiyaamah, Muslims will halaalize liquor by giving the intoxicants fanciful and deceptive names to bamboozle ignoramuses and the masses.

The process of halaalizing something which is haraam is gradual and incremental. Obviously, haraam cannot be declared halaal overnight. Even the masses will revolt and crucify the agents of Shaitaan such as the SANHA and MJC mobs. The ploy of shaitaan is  to gradually desensitize the inhibitions which Muslims have for anything haraam. Weird and deceptive arguments are fabricated for the halaalization process. The Qur’aan terms such deceptions as  zukhruful qawl (deceptive concoctions). Shaitaan employs a myriad of human agents to promote and sell his haraam wares. He has succeeded in roping in many so-called ulama to execute his schemes and conspiracies. In this regard, the Qur’aan Majeed states:  “Thus, have We appointed for every Nabi enemies from among the human devils and jinn devils (shayaateen), who whisper to each other deceptive concoctions to mislead. If your Rabb wills, they will not be able to do so. Therefore leave them and that (evil) which they concoct.” (AlAn’aam, aayat 111)

The first step in the process of halaalization of liquor is to entrap people in the quagmire of the  khamr  and  non-khamr  dispute. This leads to a separation of the intoxicating drinks which creates latitude for permissibility and laxity in abstention from liquor. This baseless disputation is opening the door wide for the ultimate halaalization of liquor and the fulfilment of Rasulullah’s prediction.

The agents of Shaitaan such as SANHA have latched on the word  ethanol with the sole motive of halaalizing liquor. The term  ethanol  is a fanciful name for the intoxicating ingredient of all liquors, whether  khamr (grape wine)  or otherwise. If the Muslim masses can be convinced that the ethanol intoxicant is halaal, then shaitaan’s ploy succeeds. The logical conclusion of halaal  ethanol  is halaal liquor. Halaal whisky, halaal vodka, halaal gin, halaal sherry, etc.!!

The argument that coke does not intoxicate despite its ethanol content, hence halaal, will not convince baboons in their natural habitat in the mountains. But it will ‘convince’ those who are suffering the addiction of this  Pus of the Jahannamis (Teenatul Khabaal).  A teaspoon of whisky or vodka in a glass of warm water and some honey added makes an ‘excellent tonic’ for vim and vitality. In SANHA’s religion this tonic is ‘halaal and tayyib’, because the liquor in it is classified  ethanol  which is the fanciful name predicted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Even a glass of vodka, etc. does not intoxicate. But all these liquors are ‘halaal’ in the Devil’s math-hab because they are  non-khamr  and  ethanol.   Thus, the ultimate destination of the halaalization of  ethanol  is the fatwa that all non-khamr liquors are ‘halaal’. This will be the fatwa of the bedfellows of Shaitaan-in-Chief. May Allah Ta’ala save the Ummah from these ulama-e-soo’ who pillage and plunder the Imaan and Akhlaaq of ignorant Muslims.

(1) Drinking two soft drinks  per week increases the risk of pancreatic cancer 87%

(2) Drinking one can  of  soft drink per day increases risk of metabolic syndrome 44%

(3) Drinking two soft drinks per day increases risk of gout 85%

BBC NEWS of Canada and U.S.A. in its report dated 9 March 2012 stated: “Coca-Cola and Pepsi are changing the recipes for their drinks to avoid putting a cancer warning label on the bottle to comply with California laws.


ALL SOFT DRINKS WITHOUT                                           EXCEPTION ARE HARAAM