Among the Four Math - habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah there is difference of opinion on the question of the perm i ssibility and prohibition of consuming sea animals. The verdict vacillates betwee n Hurmat and Hilla t (Prohibition and Permissib i lity). Some say that all sea animals are halaal; some say most are halaal . H o w- ever, according to the Hanafi Math - ha b all sea animals besides fish are haraam. Only fish is halaal. Each Math - hab has it s dala a- il (proofs) based on the Qur'aan and the Sunnah.
This question has been settled and finalized long ag o – almost fou r- teen centuries ago. After its finalization, there has not been any f u r- ther argument among the followers of the Math - habs on this issue as well as other issues of differences among the Four Mathaahib . The Fuqaha and even the ordinary followers of the Mathaahib have adopted a broadminded tolerant attitude towards the diffe r- ences of the Math - habs. Since it is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah that all Four Math - habs are the Products of the Qur'aan and Su n- nah, the differences have been accepted without rancour and b i g- otry. These differences are confined to academic circle s – to the Madaaris where Students of higher Deeni Uloom engage in the technicalities o f dala a- il.
In recent times there has developed the deviated Salafi sect whose adherents are the blindest muq a llideen (followers) of their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyah. While they put out that they arrive by their views on the basis of their study of the Qur'aan and Hadith, they are too dishonest to admit that they are too stupid to make a direct study of the Qur'aan and Hadith. They crib from the writings of Ibn Tai m i- y yah and disseminate the story of being independent researchers and scholars.
Among the Salafis are two categories of muqallideen of Ibn Taim i- y yah. The one class consists of totally ignorant followers who are constrained to follow blindly whatever their muqallid ‘scholar s' dish out to them. The other class are the s o - called ‘scholars' who are deceitful since they are the ones guilty of cribbing f rom the writings of Ibn Taimiyyah, but lack the decency to acknowledge that they are following his views and opinions.
The members of this deviated sect teach that all sea animals are h a- laal. In the process of the propagation of their view they find it e x- pedient and imperative to castigate Hadhrat Imaam A'zam, Imaam Abu Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh). They claim that the Hanafi view on the question of sea animals is devoid of Shar'i basis and that it is the product of personal opinion. It is to dispel this s lander against the illustrious Imaam of the Hanafi Math - hab that we have p r e- pared this concise booklet which presents th e Qur'aanic and S u n- nah dala a- il of the Hanafi Mat h - hab.
The aim of this booklet is not to assault th e dala a- i l of the other Three Math - habs sinc e all Four Math - habs constitute the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah. The aim is merely to refute the slander of the deviate Salafi sec t w hich claims that the Hanafi view lacks Qur'aanic and Sunnah proofs. It is only Shaitaan who has h a r- nessed the deviates to churn up theoretical arguments fourteen ce n- turies after the settlement of the differences. And, the aim of Iblees is to keep Muslims perpetually engrossed in unnecessary s trife and to mislead the followers of the Sunnah from Siraatul Mustaqeem int o Dhalaala h (Deviation) which is the path of the mo d er n - day Salafi sect.
The scurrilous attacks which the Salafis launch against Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) in particul a r, testify to thei r jahaalat (crass ignorance) and shamelessness. Great Aimma h - e - Mujtahideen and Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon e p och hung their heads in submission to the grandeur of the Uloom and Taqwa of Imaam A'zam (rahmatullah alayh). The greatest Fuqa h a of all Math - habs, acknowledge the superiority of Imaam A'zam. The statement of Imaam Shaafi' (rahmatullah alayh, viz. , “We ar e the children of Abu Hanifah in Fiqh” , is more than adequate comm e n- tary of the lofty status occupied by Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) in the Firmament of Islamic Uloom.
Mujlisul Ulama of S.A.
Jamaadal Ula 1425
July 2004
NO. 1
THEIR ARGUMENTSThe stronges t argument which the legalizers of sea animals (i.e. fish and all other animals which inhabit the sea) tender for their view is th e Qur'aanic aayat:
“Lawful have been made for you hunting of the ocean and its food, (this being) a benefit for you and the t r avellers.” (Surah Maaidah, aayat 96)
The legalizers translate: the ter m ‘sayd ' to mean ‘game' or the hunted animal. In ter m s of their translation they claim the aayat means that all animals hunted in the ocean are halaal. The aayat states clearly that its (the ocean's) food is halaal. The aayat is g e n- eral in import and does not confine seafood to fish as the Hanafis claim.
THE HANAFI RESPONSE
The first error is in the tra n slation. The ter m ‘sayd ' in the context of this aayat is what is called in Arabic gramma r Ism Masdar (root word or infinitiv e verb) which mean s to hunt . In the context of this vers e – the context shall soon be shown, Insha'Alla h – the term does not refer to th e hunted anima l . It refers to th e act of hun t- ing . Thus the translation is : Hunting in the ocean has been made lawful for you.
In this sentence of the aayat, two separate t hings are mentione d – hunting and food. Two things have been made lawful: Sea - hunting and its food. If the ter m ‘sayd' is inter p reted to mean the hunted sea animal, then the translation would be : Lawful have been made for you the sea animal and the sea food . This will lead to the c o n- clusion that sea animal and sea food are two different things. But this conclusion is absurd and the erroneous translation has p r o- duced the absurdity.
Furthermore, the literal meaning of the ter m say d is the meaning of th e masdar (to hunt) . The meaning o f t he hunted anima l is derived by interpretation and is a figurative meaning. To opt for the figu r a- tive meaning at the expense of sacrificing the litera l (haqeeqi) meaning without vali d dalee l is arbitrary and baseless. There h as to be strong reason for abandoning the literal meaning and adopting the figurative meaning. Th e Ahnaf (the Hanafi Fuqaha) have a d- hered to the literal meaning.
The dalee l for retention of the literal meaning is the next sentence in the very same aayat. Th e translation of the aayat is as follows:
“Lawful have been made for you hunting of (the a n i- mals) of the ocea n and its food, (this being) a benefit for you and the travellers, and unlawful has been made for you huntin g wild animals) of the land as long as you are in the state of ihram.” (Surah Maaidah, aayat 96)
Firstly, it should be note d that this aayat refers to those who are in the state o f Ihraam . For those who are in the state o f Ihraa m the Shariah decrees th a t hunting in the sea is lawful while hunting on the land is unlawful. Thus in the context of this aayat, the first sen-tence (i.e. saydul bahr ) is conjoine d (atf ) t o saydul barr) . The aayat thus means : Hunting of sea animals is halaal for the muhri m while hunting of wild animals of the land is haraam for him.
If the figurative meaning o f say d (viz., animals) has to be acce p ted, and not the literal meaning (viz to hunt), it will mean that it is not permissible for th e muhri m to eat the meat of halaa l wild animals. But this is not so. It is permissible for th e muhri m to eat the meat of wild animals of the land as long as he hi mself had not hunted the animal nor was he in any way whatsoever instrumental in catching or hunting the animal. This clarifies that the literal meaning applies here, not the figurative meaning.
Among the legalizers of all sea animals there are those Fuq aha who exclude frogs, crabs, poisonous creatures, crocodiles, eels, sea - pigs and the like from the permissibility. Inspite of t heir claim that the aayat applies t o al l sea animals, they do make these exceptions. This establishes that there is no consensu s on the claim that the aayat in question means tha t all sea animals are halaal.
A view of the Shaafi Fuqaha is that the likes o f animals which are haraam on the land are also haraam in the oceans. Thus, sea pigs, sea dogs, sea lions, etc. are haraam because their counterparts on the land are haraam. Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh) also excludes frogs from the permissibil ity because of the Hadith which prohibits its killing for use in medicine.
It is argued that the prohibition of the frog is du e to its croaking bein g Tasbeeh. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said : “Its croaking is Tasbeeh. ” In otherwords, it reci t es the praises of Allah Ta'ala. Hence, the prohibition of killing it is due to it s Tasbeeh. This argument is extremely flimsy. Even if it is momentarily a c- cepted that the prohibition to kill and eat the frog is due to its rec i t- ing the praises of Allah Ta'ala, the fact remains that it is excluded from the comprehensive permission to consume all sea anim a ls which the legalizers assert. Thus it is conceded that the aayat is not unrestricted., and does not apply to all sea animals.
Secondly, reciting o f Tasbee h cannot be a cause for prohibition to slaughter or kill and consume an animal. The Qur'aan Majeed states :
“The seven Heavens, the earth and whatever is therein — and everything recites His praise, but you do not understand th eir Tasbeeh.”
There are several Qur'aanic verses which emphatically state that everything in creatio n glorifies Allah and reci t es His praise. Does this mean that nothing can be eaten on account of the fact they they all praise Allah Ta'ala? It should thu s be clear that the argument of tasbee h is devoid of substance. The actual reason for the prohibition of using parts of the frog in medicine is stated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) h i m- self when he was asked about it. In a Hadith cited in Badaaius Sanaai', Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“It is a filthy creature from among the filthy creatures.”
ITS FOOD
The claim tha t ‘its food ' , i.e. the food of the sea, is not restric t ed to fish and applies to all sea animals is incorrect. It is incorrect b e- cause there are othe r dala a- il which restrict the meaning of se a- food to fish. Insha'Allah, the other proofs will be presented as we proceed with this discussion.
This Qur'aanic aayat is supposed to be the strongest proof of those who legalize all animals of the sea. But, in reality there is no proof in this aayat for their contention. The aayat speaks about the p e r- missibility of hunting in the sea for a muhri m , and in the course of this context it states that th e foo d of the sea is lawful . The Hadith describes the meaning of th e food of the se a which is lawful.
No. 2
The second argument of the legalizers of sea animals is the Hadith: “ Its (the ocean's) water is pure and its carrion is h a laal.”
On the basis of this Hadith it is claimed that the ter m ‘carrion' in this Hadith has been used in an unrestricted sense . It applies to all sea animals since the Hadith states ‘ the carrion of the ocean' . It is incorrect to restrict it to fish as th e Ahnaaf aver. I n Ahkaamul Qur'aan of Jassaas , the following comment appears on this Hadith:
“He who has expertise of Hadith do e s not employ as proof this narration.”
Even if this narration has to be accepted as proof, it is explained by another Hadith, v i z. :
“Two carrions (dead animals) and two bloods have been made halaal for us: fish and locusts…….”
The two carrions thus are o nly fish and locusts This Hadith asserts the exclusion of these tw o carrions from the prohibition of carrion stated in the Qur' a anic aayat:
“Haraam has been made for you carrion…..”
and the aayat: “Except that it be carrion (which then will be haraam)…”
The prohibition of carrion stated in these Qur'aanic verses applies to carrion of both the land and the sea. However, the Had i th has excluded th e two carrion s from this prohibition. It is now clear from this Hadith that b y carrion in the context of the s ea is meant only fish . Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself explicitly mentioned that the meaning of carrion here i s fish, not sea animals in general. It is therefore, improper to generalize the term and i n- clude all sea animals in th e carrion . The Qur'aan prohibits carrion and the Hadith excludes only fish and locust from the prohi b ited carrion.
The Hadith which prohibits using the frog as an ingredient in me d i cine also confirms that the permissibility is not applicable to all sea animals. The seafrog is also a sea animal. If its cons u mption was lawful, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would not have prohibited its use in medicine. Thus all sea animals b esides fish will be in the category of the frog insofar as prohibition is c o n- cerned.
NO. 3
In this argument the Hadith of Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) is cited. In this Hadith mention is made of a huge anim al of the sea which the Sahaabah ate. The Hadith states:
“Verily, the sea threw out for them (the army) an animal which is cal l ed Al - Ambar. They ate of it.”
In this lengthy Hadith it is mentioned that the Sahaabah were three hundred in number and they a t e of this sea animal for a month. They had brought some of the flesh to Madinah and even Rasul u l- lah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ate of it.
This Hadith is not a proof for the claim that the huge animal was not a fish. In a Hadith in Bukhaari it is clearly mentioned:
“The sea threw out a fish called Al - Ambar.”
This narration has been reported in different versions. Most v e r- sions mentio n ‘fish' . In the narration of A l - Khaulaani it is said:
“Suddenly we beheld a huge fish. ” In the narration of Amr Bin Dinaar, it is said : “Then the ocean cast out for us a dead fish.” The ter m ‘hoot' is used for fish in this Hadith. This word c o vers all types of fish.
The experts of the Arabic language say:
“A l- Ambar is a huge ocean fish.”
Furthermore, the episode of the hug e fish was a miracl e (Mu'jizah) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is fully within the power of Allah Ta'ala to have created such a huge fish which s u f- ficed for an army of 300 for a whole month. It is unreasonable to infer from the size of the animal that it was not a fish. All ev i- dences refute this assumption.
And how did the meat of such a huge dead animal stay fresh and fit for human consumption for a w h ole month. Within days, the stench of a dead whale on the beach drives people a kilometre or two away to the confines of insani t y. Gas masks have to be worn by those who have been hired to dispose of the dead animal. The very fact that this huge fish rema i ned fresh for a whole month is further evidence for the miraculous nature of this episode.
The fact that several Hadith narrations and the experts of the Ar a- bic language explicitly say tha t Al -Ambar mentioned in the Hadith in question is a huge fish, should suffice to confirm that t h e ‘huge animal cast out by the sea' mentioned in the Hadith of Hadhrat Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) was a fish.
NO. 4
The legalizers , in substantiation of their contention, cite the f o l- l o w ing Hadith narrated by Bukhaari:
“Everything in the ocean is mathbooh, ( i.e. it has been slaughtered).”
This Hadith als o refers to fish. In Fathul Baari is mentioned the Hadith of Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhuma) with a highly authentic Isnaad :
“All fish have been slaughtered already (by AllahTa'ala).”
If it has to be accepted that sinc e thabah has been effected to e v e- r y thing in the sea, the logical conclusion of the logic employed, will be that every animal in the sea is halaal, we see that A i mma h - e- Mujtahideen and some Fuqaha contend that certain sea animals are haraam. This confirms that there is no consensus on the cont e n- tion that by virtue of th e thabah mentioned in the Hadith, all sea animals are halaal because no one claims that absolutely ever y sea animal is halaal.
The following Hadith of Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Ali
(radhiyallahu anhu) narrated by Baihqi with an e xcellen t Sanad , clinches this argument by eliminating all doubt:
“ Thabah has been effected to all locusts and fish.”
If th e ma t hboo h (having been slaughtered) has to be accepted as the factor for the permissibility of sea animals, then there is no re a- son for any of the legalizers to exclude any sea animal from the p er missibility, yet this is not the case. The only difference they have with the Ahnaaf is a quantitive one. While the legalizer s aver that some sea creatures are haraam, the Hanafi viewpoint is that all sea creatures besides fish are haraam. Thus, it is baseless to present the Qur'aanic aayat as an argument in refutation of the Hanafi standpoint. While the legalizers claim tha t all sea creatures are h a- laal, they nevertheless do make exceptions which break down their own argument.
A L- KHABAAITH
Allah Ta'ala states in the Qur'aa n Majeed : “And he prohibits them from impure (filthy) creatures.”
In a Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) describ e d the frog a s “a filthy creature from among the filthy creatures” . K h a- baatha h (filthiness/impurity) is a factor of prohibition. Most of the sea creatures which people consume such as shrimps, crayfish, l o b- sters, etc. feed on the filth in the oceans. Their status as being from th e a l - khabaaith is also a factor of prohibition.
(1) The Qur'aanic verse which is supposed to be the strongest proof of those who legalize sea creatures other than fish , in reality is not proof for the claim that all sea animals are halaal. The aayat mentions the permissibility of sea - hunting for th e muhrim . The Aayat only states that th e food of the se a is lawful, but it does not explain the meaning o f sea food
(2) Th e Hadith which states that th e carrion of the se a is halaal is explained by another Hadith which explicitly mentions that this c a r rio n is fish which is halaal.
(3) The huge animal which the sea had cast out for the Sahaabah was also a fish according to several Hadith narrations. It was f u r- thermore, a miraculous episode which cannot be cited as proof for the contention tha t all sea animals are halaal.
(4) The cla i mants of all sea animals being halaal also exclude from their contended permissibility some creatures, and this exclusion is inconsistent with the logic they utilize to criticize the Hanafi vi e w- point.
(5) In view of the fact that the Qur'aanic aayat cited by the leg a l- i z ers does not state the permissibility of all sea animals, the refe r- ence has to be only the Hadith. But according to the Hadith, only fish is halaal.
It should now be clear that the view of th e legalizers o f all sea a n i mals is based on erroneous interpretation. The view of the A h- naaf is sound and the strongest. And, Allah knows best.