The objective of Islam is to purify all aspects of human life and soul. It
therefore insists that besides cleansing the inner self from contamination,
care must be exercised in the intake of food and drinks. Only the clean and
pure among them should be eaten and drunk. While answering a question in the
Qur’ān regarding animals tamed for hunting, the Almighty has spelled out
this general principle in the words: احل لكم الطيبات’’
(uhilla lakum al-tayyibāt: all pure things are lawful to you), (4:5). As an
obvious corollary, all impure things are forbidden to the believers. While
inviting the Jews and Christians to profess faith in Muhammad (sws), the
Almighty has referred to the extremist attitude they had adopted with regard
to food and drinks in the following words:
وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمْ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمْ الْخَبَائِثَ وَيَضَعُ
عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلَالَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ (١٥٧:٧)
And he allows them as lawful what is good [and pure] and prohibits them from
what is bad [and impure]; he releases theme from their heavy burdens and
from the yokes that were upon them. (7:157)
At no place has the Sharī‘ah presented a comprehensive list of pure foods
and drinks. The reason for this is that man’s own nature generally provides
him with ample guidance in this matter and, without any hesitation, he is
able to decide the right course. He very well knows that lions, tigers,
elephants, eagles, crows, vultures, kites, scorpions and human flesh itself
are things which are not to be eaten. He is also well aware of the fact that
horses and mules are a means of transportation and have no role in
satisfying one’s hunger. That faeces and urine of animals are impure things
are known to him very well also. His reason and intellect guide him very
well regarding intoxicants. Consequently, in this matter, the innate
guidance found in human nature is enough to lead the way. The prohibition
attributed to the Prophet (sws) regarding beasts having sharp canine teeth,
birds having claws and tentacles in their feet,
Jallālah and tamed donkeys
is merely a delineation of this innate guidance. The prohibition of liquor
is another directive which is based on innate guidance. During the time when
the Qur’ān was being revealed, when people repeatedly asked about certain
benefits that it had in that time, the Almighty revealed in the Qur’ān His
answer by saying that the sin it incurs is much greater than its benefits
(2:219). Later in Sūrah Mā’idah, it was explicitly stated that liquor is
from among the filthy works of Satan and a believer should totally abstain
from it:
يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنصَابُ
وَالْأَزْلَامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ
تُفْلِحُونَ (٩٠:٥)
Believers, this liquor and gambling and stone altars and these divining
arrows are abominations devised by Satan. Avoid them that you may succeed.
(5:90)
In short, all these prohibitions are found in the innate guidance a person
possesses ever since his birth. No doubt, at times, human nature becomes
perverted but a study of human behavior shows that generally people do not
falter in this matter. It is for this reason that the Sharī‘ah has not given
any original guidance on this matter. In this regard, the Sharī‘ah has
provided guidance on animals and on things related to these animals where
human beings were liable to falter. The pig is a quadruped beast of the same
genre as the goat, sheep, cow and cattle; however, it consumes meat like
other carnivores. Should it then be considered forbidden or not? Should
animals which are slaughtered in a way that all their blood is not drained
out be eaten or not? Is the blood of animals impure as indeed are their
faeces and urine? If animals are slaughtered by taking the name of someone
other than the Almighty, can they still be eaten? Since human nature is
unable to come up with a decisive answer in this regard, therefore the
Almighty guided mankind in this affair through His prophets and informed
them that the flesh of the pig, blood, the dead and animals which are
slaughtered in the name of someone other than Allah are also impure and
unclean and therefore people should abstain from them. In this regard, these
aforementioned four things have been primarily discussed by the Sharī‘ah.
The Qur’ān at various places by employing various linguistic expressions,
has unequivocally stated that only and only these four things are prohibited
by the Almighty:
قُلْ
لَا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَى طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ
إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَمًا مَسْفُوحًا أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ
فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقًا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ فَمَنْ اضْطُرَّ
غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ رَبَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (١٤٥:٦)
Say: ‘eI find not in the Message received by me by inspiration forbidden to
a person who eats things which are edible, unless it be dead meat, or blood
poured forth or the flesh of swine because all these are unclean or in,
disobedience to Allah, animals slaughtered in someone else’s name. (6:145)
This same directive has been mentioned in 2:173-4 and 16:115 with a slight
difference in words. Then in Sūrah Mā’idah certain aspects of the directive
have been explained.
The first thing in this explanation concerns ‘ميته’
(maytah: the dead). In this regard, a question could have arisen in the
minds of some people: Should an animal which died some sort of an accidental
death also be classified as a ‘ميته’ (maytah) just
like an animal which dies a natural death is classified so? The Qur’ān
answered this question by saying that there is no difference between the
two: both are forms of ‘ميته’ (maytah). Similarly,
the Qur’ān clarified that an animal killed by a wild beast is also a ‘ميته’
(maytah), except if it is found alive and then slaughtered in the ceremonial
way (Dhibh):
حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا
أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ
وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا
ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَنْ تَسْتَقْسِمُوا
بِالْأَزْلَامِ ذَلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ
دِينِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِي الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ
دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمْ الْإِسْلَامَ
دِينًا فَمَنْ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِإِثْمٍ فَإِنَّ
اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ (٣:٥)
Forbidden to you [for food] are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and
that on which Allah’s Name has not been invoked while slaughtering, and that
which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong
fall, or by the goring of horns – and that which has been eaten by a wild
animal – unless you are able to slaughter it [before its death]. (5:3)
It is obvious that a piece of flesh cut from a live animal should also be
classified as ‘ميته’ (maytah). Abū Wāqid narrates
that when the Prophet (sws) migrated to Madīnah, among the practices of its
people was to slice off the humps of camels and the fatty tails of rams. He
is reported to have said:
مَا
قُطِعَ مِنْ الْبَهِيمَةِ وَهِيَ حَيَّةٌ فَهِيَ مَيْتَةٌ. (أبو داؤد: رقم
٢٨٥٨)
Any piece cut from a living animal is maytah. (Abū Dā’ūd: No. 2858)
It needs to be kept in mind that like other words, the word ‘ميته’
(maytah) is used in the above mentioned directives according to its usage in
the Arabic language. No doubt, it has a literal meaning; however, its usage
in the Arabic language does not include all the dead, as is the case with
its Urdu usage. In such a case, it becomes confined to a certain specific
meaning, and anyone who is aware of this intricacy, for example, will never
include dead fish or dead locust in its connotation:
Imam Zamakhsharī writes:
قصد ما
يتفاهمه الناس و يتعارفونه في العادة ’ ألا تري أن القائل إذا قال : أكل فلان
ميتة ’ لم يسبق الوهم إلى السمك والجراد كما لو قال : أكل دماً’ لم يسبق إلى
الكبد والطحال ’ ولاعتبار العادة والتعارف قالوا : من حلف لا يأكل لحماً فأكل
سمكا لم يحنث وان أكل لحماً في الحقيقة
The word ‘ميته’ (maytah) mentioned in the Qur’ān
must be understood according to its linguistic usage. Is not the case that
when someone says that he has eaten maytah, we never include a fish or a
locust in its connotation. This is similar to the fact that if a person says
that he has drunk blood we never include liver or spleen in its connotation.
Precisely because of such usage, jurists say that if a person swears that he
will never eat meat and then he consumes fish, this will not break his oath
although in reality he has eaten meat.
The Prophet (sws), on these very grounds, is reported to have said:
أُحِلَّتْ لَكُمْ مَيْتَتَانِ وَدَمَانِ فَأَمَّا الْمَيْتَتَانِ فَالْحُوتُ
وَالْجَرَادُ وَأَمَّا الدَّمَانِ فَالْكَبِدُ وَالطِّحَالُ.(ابنِ ماجه: رقم
٣٣١٤)
Two [type of] dead and two [forms of] blood are not forbidden for you: The
former being fish and locust and the latter being liver and spleen. (Ibn
Mājah: No. 2314)
Owing to similar reasons, about sea water, the Prophet (sws) is ascribed to
have said:
هُوَ
الطَّهُورُ مَاؤُهُ الْحِلُّ مَيْتَتُهُ (نسائ: رقم
٥٩)
Its water is pure and its maytah are not forbidden. (Nisā’ī: No. 59)
In other words, the above quoted words of the Prophet (sws) also pertain to
dead fish and certain other similar things which cannot be regarded as ‘ميته’
(maytah) as far as the usage of the word is concerned but which are ‘ميته’
(maytah) in the literal sense of the word.
It is evident from 3:5 (quoted above) that the explanation of the word ‘ميته’
(maytah) and the words ‘الا ما ذكيتم’ (illā mā
dhakkaytum: except if you slaughter it in the prescribed way) after ‘وما
اكل السبع’ (wa mā akala al-sabu‘u: what has been eaten by a wild
animal) that the only form of death that does not make an animal ‘ميته’
(maytah) is ‘تذكيه’ (tadhkiyah). Tadhkiyah is a
Sunnah established by the Prophets of Allah and as a term means to slaughter
an animal in such way that it drains out all the blood in the animal’s body
and the animal dies because of this very reason. It is only this method of
killing an animal which cleanses its meat from the impurity of blood
The correct methodology for ‘تذكيه’ (tadhkiyah) is
‘ذبح’ (dhibh) or ‘نحر’ (nahr).
‘ذبح’ (dhibh) specifically concerns the cow, goat
and similar animals, while ‘نحر’ (nahr)
specifically relates to the camel and animals similar to it. ‘
ذبح (dhibh) means to cut the throat of the animal
such that the gullet and the throat is slit open or to cut the throat and
the jugular veins. ‘نحر’ (nahr) means to pierce
the throat of the animal with a sharp edged weapon like a spear so that
blood bursts out from the cut and the animal dies because of blood loss.
If it is not possible to adopt the above outlined prescribed methods of
slaughter, then the Prophet (sws) has directed the believers to inflict a
cut on the throat of the animal such that all the blood is able to drain
away from that wound:
عَنْ
عَدِيِّ بْنِ حَاتِمٍ قَالَ قُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَرَأَيْتَ إِنْ
أَحَدُنَا أَصَابَ صَيْدًا وَلَيْسَ مَعَهُ سِكِّينٌ أَيَذْبَحُ بِالْمَرْوَةِ
وَشِقَّةِ الْعَصَا فَقَالَ: أَمْرِرْ الدَّمَ بِمَا شِئْتَ وَاذْكُرْ اسْمَ
اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ.(أبوداؤد: رقم
٢٨٢٤)
‘Adī Ibn Hātim says: O Messenger of Allah is it okay to slaughter a prey
with a stone or a piece of wood if the prey is at hand and we do not have a
knife to slaughter it. He replied: ‘Drain out the blood with whatever you
have and take the name of Allah on it’. (Abu Dā’ūd: No. 2824)
Killing a prey with a gun or an arrow would also be conditional to what has
been said above. If a tamed animal cuts open a prey, its case is also
similar, as explained by the Almighty in the Qur’ān. If such an animal is
not found alive, then also it should not be considered as ‘ميته’
(maytah):
يَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا أُحِلَّ لَهُمْ قُلْ أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَمَا
عَلَّمْتُمْ مِنْ الْجَوَارِحِ مُكَلِّبِينَ تُعَلِّمُونَهُنَّ مِمَّا
عَلَّمَكُمْ اللَّهُ فَكُلُوا مِمَّا أَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاذْكُرُوا اسْمَ
اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ (٤:٥)
They ask what is lawful to you: Say all good things are lawful to you as
well as [the prey of] the beasts you have taught, training them as Allah has
taught you. So eat of what they catch for you and [before you let lose the
beast to catch the prey], pronounce upon it
the name of Allah. And have fear of Allah. Swift is He in taking account.
(5:4)
It is evident from the context of the above verse that since the verse
preceding it states that an animal that has been cut open by a beast is only
allowed to be eaten if it is found alive and then slaughtered in the
prescribed way, it was but natural that the question should arise: Is such
an animal allowed to be eaten as has been pounced upon by a tamed beast of
prey and the animal dies before one gets the chance to slaughter it in the
prescribed way? The verse answers the question in the affirmative and says
that cutting upon of an animal by a tamed beast of prey is tantamount to ‘تذكيه’
(tadhkiyah), and therefore it can be eaten even if it has not be slaughtered
in the prescribed way with one condition: the tamed beast of prey has
preserved the prey for his master and has not eaten from it. In case it has,
then such an animal should not be eaten. This condition is stated in the
words ‘مما امسكن عليكم’ (mimmā amsakna ‘alaykum:
what he has preserved for you). Moreover, in this regard, there is no need
to discriminate between beasts and birds of prey. Birds like falcons, eagle,
and hawks also can be tamed for catching a prey.
The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
إِذَا
أَرْسَلْتَ كَلْبَكَ فَاذْكُرْ اسْمَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ فَإِنْ أَدْرَكْتَهُ
لَمْ يَقْتُلْ فَاذْبَحْ وَاذْكُرْ اسْمَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنْ أَدْرَكْتَهُ
قَدْ قَتَلَ وَلَمْ يَأْكُلْ فَكُلْ فَقَدْ أَمْسَكَهُ عَلَيْكَ فَإِنْ
وَجَدْتَهُ قَدْ أَكَلَ مِنْهُ فَلَا تَطْعَمْ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا فَإِنَّمَا
أَمْسَكَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ وَإِنْ خَالَطَ كَلْبُكَ كِلَابًا فَقَتَلْنَ فَلَمْ
يَأْكُلْنَ فَلَا تَأْكُلْ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا فَإِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي أَيُّهَا
قَتَلَ.(نسائي: رقم
٤٢٦٣)
When you release your dog to catch the prey, take the name of Allah while
doing so. If you then see that it has not killed the prey, slaughter it in
the prescribed way and take Allah’s name while slaughtering it. If it has
killed the prey, then you can eat it since it has preserved it for you.
However, if it has eaten from the prey, then such a prey is forbidden for
you because the beast of prey has in this case preserved it for itself. And
if you see other dogs besides yours who have also killed the prey, then do
not eat from it since you do not know which of the dogs has actually killed
the prey. (Nisā’ī: No. 4263)
Besides the word ‘ميته’ (maytah), the other two
things mentioned in this verse are drained out blood and pork. As far as the
prohibition of pork is concerned, it needs no elaboration while in the case
of the prohibition of blood, it needs to be kept in mind that the meaning of
the words ‘دما مسفوحا’ (daman masfūhan: blood
poured forth) have a linguistic usage in the light of which they should be
understood. Spleen and liver are nothing but blood, yet usage of the word
entails that they not be included in its connotation, as has been pointed
out by Zamakhsharī quoted earlier. The adjective ‘مسفوحا’
(masfūhan: poured forth) which qualifies blood shows that the blood which is
left in the blood vessels of the animal is an exception to this directive.
In this list, the fourth and last thing is the meat of an animal while
slaughtering which the name of someone other than Allah is invoked. The
verse itself explains that the reason for the prohibition of such meat is
not the ‘رجس’ (rijs: impurity) of the animal but
the ‘فسق’ (fisq: defiance) of the person who
slaughters the animal. Since slaughtering an animal while invoking the name
of someone other than Allah is an idolatrous practice, it has been termed as
‘فسق’ (fisq: defiance), which is a form of an
impurity pertaining to one’s beliefs. Consequently, sense and reason demand
that anything which contains such impurity should be analogously included in
this prohibition. So on this very principle, the Qur’ān has prohibited
certain other similar things:
وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ
وَأَنْ تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالْأَزْلَامِ ذَلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ (٣:٥)
And what is slaughtered at the stone altars and [forbidden also] is the
division of meat by raffling with arrows. This is [an act of] disobedience.
(5:3)
While explaining this verse, my mentor, Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, writes:
‘Nusub’ means the stone altars on which sacrifices and offerings are made.
There were several such altars in Arabia where sacrifices were offered to
please numerous deities, demons and the jinn. The Qur’ān has also prohibited
such a slaughtered animal. It is evident from the words of the Qur’ān that
the real reason for their prohibition is merely to please a deity or to seek
its nearness – it is of no consequence whether the name of Allah has been
invoked or not in such cases. If this prohibition was owing to the fact that
the name of someone other than Allah has been invoked during sacrifice, then
there was no need to mention it separately since such a prohibition has
already been mentioned in the earlier verse. In my opinion, also included in
the sphere of this prohibition are the various sacrifices offered in tombs
and massouleums to earn the pleasure of the departed person buried in the
grave or tomb. Whether the name of Allah is invoked or that of someone else
at the time of slaughter, the real reason of prohibition is not this
invocation but the place at which the slaughter takes place.
The word ‘استقسام’ (istiqsām) means to look up
one’s share or to find out about one’s fate and future. The word ‘ازلام’
(azlām) means arrows of divination or gambling. The practice of seeking
divination from arrows was in vogue in Arabia, through which people would
try to find out fates ordained for them. Similarly, the practice of gambling
on arrows was also in vogue in Arabia through which they would procure
pieces of meat or some other thing. I have already pointed out in my
commentary on Sūrah Baqarah under verse 219 that people would gather at
various places, drink liquor and in their state of inebriation slaughter any
camels they could get hold of. They would pay the owner of the camels
whatever price he demanded. They would then gamble on the meat of the
slaughtered camels. Whatever parts of meat a person won in this gambling, he
would cook and eat them and drink liquor; they would also generously
distribute them among the poor who would gather around on such occasions. At
times, such fights and brawls would emerge in such gatherings as a result of
inebriation which would result in inter-tribal battles that would last for
years and cause a lot of bloodshed. I think that the words ‘و
ان تسقسموا بالازلام’ (wa an tastaqsimū bi’l-azlām) of the verse
actually refer to this second category.
An animal which is slaughtered such that no name other Allah is invoked on
it but the name of Allah is also not positively invoked while slaughtering
also comes under this fourth category of prohibited items. The Qur’ān has
declared it to be an act of fisq (defiance; disobedience) just as it has
done so in the case of slaughtering an animal in the name of someone other
than Allah. While refuting certain superstitious beliefs of the Arabs about
animals, it says:
وَلَا
تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرْ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ
وَإِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ لَيُوحُونَ إِلَى أَوْلِيَائِهِمْ لِيُجَادِلُوكُمْ
وَإِنْ أَطَعْتُمُوهُمْ إِنَّكُمْ لَمُشْرِكُونَ (١٢١:٦)
Eat not [O believers] that animal on which Allah’s name has not been
pronounced [at the time of the slaughtering of the animal], for this is a
Fisq. And certainly, the devils do inspire their friends to dispute with
you, and if you obey them, then you would indeed be polytheists. (6:121)
While explaining, why not invoking Allah’s name on a slaughtered animal or
prey make it a prohibited thing, my mentor, Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, writes:
Firstly, as I have explained in my commentary on the Bismillāh verse, any
task or routine begun without taking the Almighty’s name is without the
blessings of Allah. One must take the Lord’s name whenever benefiting from
His favours, whether big or small, to express gratitude at being blessed
with them. If he does not show acknowledgement on such favours, then this is
tantamount to extortion and making use of something that actually does not
belong to him. Such an unbefitting and unworthy attitude deserves the wrath
and punishment of the Almighty.
Secondly, the sanctity a life possesses requires that even an animal be
sacrificed only with the permission of the Almighty Who is the Creator of
life. It is only Allah who can give us this right, and, therefore, as a
reminder of this fact, it is necessary to take His name when the life of an
animal is taken. If God’s name is not taken while slaughtering an animal or,
or if someone else’s name is invoked, or if besides His name, someone
else’s name is also taken, then this amounts to violating the sanctity a
life has and also showing disrespect to the Almighty Himself.
Thirdly, this practice closes the gateway to polytheism. Those who are aware
of the history of various religions know that animal sacrifice, making
offerings and making vows on them is deeply linked to worship rituals.
Because of its importance, it has received great support and patronage in
polytheistic religions. People and nations who have been incriminated with
the honour and veneration of some deity have gotten themselves involved in
various forms of animal offerings and sacrifices. The Qur’ān records Satan’s
challenge given to the Almighty in which he openly told Him that he would
lead people astray. The challenge specifically mentions this form as a means
to procure his objective. To close all these door to polytheism, the
Almighty made it obligatory that His name only should be positively taken
while sacrificing an animal. Any one who does not follow this practice is
not only doing something forbidden, but also the animal upon whom he has
committed such an excess is forbidden.
The same prohibition applies for a slaughtered animal or prey on which
although the name of Allah is taken but the person who takes this name does
not believe in God or subscribes to polytheism by associating other deities
with Him. At the time of slaughter, obviously, no distinction can be made
between indulging in polytheism by invoking the name of someone other than
Allah and the slaughtering of an animal by a polytheist. For this very
reason, besides Muslims themselves, the Qur’ān has only allowed animals
slaughtered by the People of the Book since they originally subscribe to
monotheism. The Qur’ān says:
الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا
الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ (٥:٥)
All good things have this day been made lawful to you and the food to whom
the Book was given is lawful to you and your to them. (5:5)
This completes the discussion of prohibited items. It is only in compelling
circumstances that one is allowed to benefit from them and that too with the
conditions that a person neither craves for them nor crosses the bounds by
going beyond his essential need. The Qur’ān has used the words ‘غير
باغ و لا عاد’ (ghayra bāghin wa lā ‘ādin) to state these conditions
in Sūrah Baqarah and Sūrah Nahl, while in Sūrah Mā’idah the words are
slightly different:
فَمَنْ
اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِإِثْمٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ
رَحِيمٌ (٣:٥)
He that is constrained by hunger to eat what is forbidden, without showing
inclination to sin, will find Allah Forgiving and Merciful. (5:3)
While explaining this, my mentor, Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, writes:
The word ‘مخمصة’ (makhmasah) means ‘hunger’. To be
constrained with hunger means that a person reaches the state that he is
left with no other option if he is to survive but to eat prohibited items.
In these circumstances, he is allowed to benefit from any of the prohibited
items in order to save his life. This condition is imposed by the word ‘غير
متجانف’ (ghayra mutajānifin) which at other places is mentioned by
the words ‘غير باغ و لا عاد’ (ghayra bāghin wa lā
‘ādin) which imply that neither should he eat such items with the fondness
of heart, nor should he eat more than what is essentially required. The
condition mentioned in the word ‘مخمصة’ (makhmasah)
shows that where other alternatives exist the excuse that halal meat is not
available, as is the case in parts of the US and the UK, is not justifiable
enough to benefit from prohibited items. Meat is not essential to keep a
person alive. Other forms of food can not only keep a person alive but also
give him good health and vitality. The condition implied by the words ‘لاثم
متجانف غير’ (ghayra mutajānifin li ithmin) shows that a remission is
a remission, and what is prohibited is prohibited in every form. Neither
should a prohibited thing become a sought after and cherished item nor a
remission an eternal permission to benefit from it. Consequently, it is
stressed that one should only benefit from prohibited edibles just to combat
compelling circumstances. If a person takes into consideration these
conditions and then benefits from a prohibited item to save his life, the
Merciful Lord would indeed forgive him. However, if he takes undue advantage
of this permission by having a relishing meal from it, then he should be
ready to face its consequences, for this would not be a legitimate excuse on
his part when he stands up on the Day of Judgement to give his account to
the Almighty.
All these things enlisted above are prohibited as edibles. As far as their
other uses are concerned, they are totally allowed. No believer should have
any doubt in this regard. Ibn Abbās (rta) says that this is something which
the Prophet (sws) himself once pointed out:
قَالَ تُصُدِّقَ عَلَى مَوْلَاةٍ لِمَيْمُونَةَ بِشَاةٍ
فَمَاتَتْ فَمَرَّ بِهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
فَقَالَ هَلَّا أَخَذْتُمْ إِهَابَهَا فَدَبَغْتُمُوهُ فَانْتَفَعْتُمْ بِهِ؟
فَقَالُوا إِنَّهَا مَيْتَةٌ، فَقَالَ إِنَّمَا حَرُمَ أَكْلُهَا (مسلم: رقم
٣٦٣)
A goat was given in charity to Maymūnah’s maid. The goat died. [It so
happened that] the Prophet (sws) passed by. [Seeing the dead goat], he said:
‘Would that you had taken its hide, tanned it and then made use of it’.
People said: ‘It is a dead animal’. At this the Prophet declared: ‘Only
eating it is forbidden’. (Muslim: No. 363)
(Translated by Shehzad Saleem)
_______________
|