Alligator - Haram or Halal?

[br_syed]

Usalamulaikum

I know this is completely random but:
Is Alligator meat haram or halal?

The reason why I am interested is because what are the guidelines for determining whether something (in particular) from the sea is halal or haram? Because I know there is some kind of difference between crabs.

JazakAllah khairun for any kind of help

[Saad]

Animals whose meat is Haram:

Wolf
Hyena
Cat
Monkey
Scorpion
Leopard
Tiger
Cheetah
Lion
Jerboa
Bear
Swine/pig
Squirrel
Hedgehog
Snake
Tortoise/Turtle
Dog
Crab
Jackal
Donkey (domesticated)
Lizard (The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the eating of a Lizard. Recorded by Imam Abu Dawud in his Sunan from Abd al-Rahman ibn Shibl (Allah be pleased with him. Hadith no: 3790)
Fox
Crocodile
Weasel
Elephant (Radd al-Muhtar, 6/306)
Falcon
Hawk
Kite
Bat
Vulture
Mouse
Rat
All insects, such as a Mosquito, Fly, Wasp, Spider, Beetle, etc.

And Allah knows best.

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK

[Saad]

Animals whose meat is Halal:

Camel
Goat
Sheep
Buffalo
Stag
Rabbit
Cow (including mountain cow)
Wild-ass (The prohibition in the Hadith is of domesticated donkeys)
Fish (of all types, including prawns according to those who consider prawns to be a form of fish. Others however, don’t permit its consumption, for they don’t consider prawns to be from the fish family. For details, see an earlier post).
Deer/Antelope/Gazelle
Duck
Heron (grey or white wading bird with long neck and long legs and (usually) long bill).
Nightingale
Quail
Parrot
Francolin
Locust
Partridge (heavy-bodied small-winged South American game bird)
Lark (North American yellow-breasted songbirds)
Sparrow
Goose
Ostrich
Dove
Pigeon
Stork
Rooster
Chicken
Peacock
Starling
Hoopoe (any of several crested Old World birds with a slender down-curving bill, known in Arabic as Hudhud- that was sent by Sayyiduna Suleyman (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK

[Saad]

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Islam is a religion of mercy and compassion. It only commands and prohibits that which is in the best interests of the human being. The human mind however, due to it being very limited and restricted, may not be able to understand the logic behind every ruling. It may not be able to comprehend properly why a particular ruling is given, but Allah Most High- the Merciful and All-Knowing- is the best to decide what is beneficial and harmful for us, for He is the one who created us.

Allah Most High blessed humanity with His beloved Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace), as a light and light-giving. The Sacred Law (Shariah) of Islam that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace be upon him) came with from Allah differentiated between a living and a dead animal. Dead animals were declared unlawful (haram). Certain animals that were harmful to the welfare of humans were also prohibited, such as pigs, dogs, cats and wild animals. Thus, the animals that have been prohibited for consumption by Shariah is due to the fact that they are harmful for human consumption, whether we realize this or otherwise.

After understanding the above, it should be noted that each of the four Sunni Schools of Islamic law (madhhabs) have their own principles (based on the guidelines of the Qur’an & Sunnah) with regards to which animals are lawful (halal) and which are unlawful (haram) for consumption.

Below are the basic principles of permissibility and impermissibility in the Hanafi School with regards to animal consumption, as mentioned in the classical books of Hanafi jurisprudence. (Culled from: al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/289-291, Bada’i al-Sana’i, 5/35-39 and Radd al-Muhtar, 304-308)

Animals that have been clearly and explicitly prohibited in the Qur’an or Sunnah are without doubt Haram, such as a swine, donkey, etc.

Animals that are born and live in water are all Haram with the exception of fish. All types of fishes are Halal, with the exception of that which dies naturally in the sea without any external cause. However, if a fish was to die due to some external cause such as cold, heat, being thrown to the shore by the water, colliding with a stone, etc, then it would be Halal.
Allah Most High says:

“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine…..” (Surah al-Ma’idah, V: 53)

In the above verse, Allah Almighty forbade the meat of all dead animals without differentiating between sea-animals and land-animals. Thus, all sea-animals would also be included in this general prohibition. However, fish has been exempted from this general ruling due to the explicit mention of its permissibility by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace).

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him eternal peace) said: “Two types of dead meat and two types of blood have been made lawful for our consumption: The two dead meats are: fish and locust, and the two types of blood are: liver and spleen.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad and Sunan Ibn Majah)

Moreover, there is no mention in the Sunnah literature that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) or his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) ever consumed the meat of a sea-animal besides the fish, hence if it was permitted, it would have at least been consumed once in order to show its permissibility. (Dars Tirmidhi, 1/280)

As far as the fish which dies naturally in the sea without an external cause (samak al-tafi) is concerned, Sayyiduna Jabir ibn Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “What the sea throws up and is left by the tide you may eat, but what dies in the sea and floats you must not eat.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, no: 3809 & Sunan Ibn Majah)

Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) forbade the selling of naturally dead fish (floating fish) in the markets. (Bada’i al-Sana’i, 5/36 and al-Ikhtiyar)

In light of the above, all sea-animals are Haram except for fish. It will be permitted to eat a fish even without slaughtering it according to the rules of Shariah. However, a fish that dies naturally without an external cause and begins to float on the surface of the water (Samak al-Tafi) is also considered Haram.

The third principle is that, amongst the land-animals, those that have no blood in them are considered Haram, such as a hornet, fly, spider, beetle, scorpion, ant, etc.
Allah Most High says:

“…for he (the Prophet) commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure)…” (Surah al-A’raf, V: 157)

Thus, animals that don’t contain blood such as spiders and others are considered to be from “what is impure” because a sound natured person would detest their consumption.

The only exception is that of a locust, for the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) clearly permitted its consumption, in the Hadith of Sunan Abu Dawud and Musnad Ahmad quoted earlier.

Similarly, Ibn Abi Awfa (Allah be pleased with him) was asked concerning the consuming of a locust and he said: “I fought with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) in six or seven battles, and we used to eat it (locust) with him. “ (Sunan Abu Dawud, no: 3806)

The forth principle is that those land-animals who have blood in them but the blood does not flow, in other words animals that do not have flowing blood, are also considered Haram, such as a snake, lizard, chameleon, etc.

The fifth principle is that all types of pests (hasharat al-Ardh) are also considered Haram, such as a mouse, hedgehog, jerboa, etc.
The reasoning behind the prohibition of these animals is the same verse of Surah al-A’raf quoted above, in that they are considered impure (khabith) for consumption.

The sixth principle is, land-animals who have flowing blood in them and they survive on grass and leaves, and do not prey on other animals (i.e. non-predatory terrestrial animals) are all considered Halal, such as a camel, cow, goat, buffalo, sheep, deer, etc, although there is a slight difference of opinion within the Hanafi School with regards to the consumption of horse-meat, as will be discussed later. Also, a donkey is exempted from this general ruling, in that its meat in considered Haram for consumption.
Allah Most High says:

“And cattle (an’am), He has created for you, from them you derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) you eat.” (Surah al-Nahl, V: 5)

And:

“It is Allah Who made cattle for you, that you may use some for riding and some for food.” (Surah al-Mu’min, V: 79)

In the above two verses, Allah Most High uses the term “al-An’am” (cattle) which refers to non-predatory animals, according to the unanimous agreement of all the linguistics.

As far as the consumption of horse-meat is concerned, Imam Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him) considers is somewhat disliked (makruh tanzihan) due to its honour and due to the fact that a horse is needed in Jihad. Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad (Allah have mercy on them both) consider it Halal, and it is said that Imam Abu Hanifa also retreated to this opinion. Thus, it would be permitted to consume horse-meat, although better to avoid.

With regards to the meat of a donkey and mule, Allah Most High says:

“And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride and use for show; and He has created (other) things of which you have no knowledge.” (Surah al-Nahl, V: 8)

So, in regards to all other non-predatory animals, Allah Almighty mentions that He has created them for consumption (as we have seen in the verses mention earlier). However, with regards to donkeys and mules, He mentions that they are for riding and adornment (zeenah). Had consumption of these animals been Halal, Allah Almighty would surely have mentioned it.

Moreover, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the meat of donkeys on the day of the battle of Khaybar.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5202)

Sayyiduna Abu Tha’laba (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) prohibited the eating of donkey’s meat. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5205)

Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that a person came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and said: “The donkeys have been (slaughtered and) eaten.” Another man came and said: “The donkeys have been destroyed.” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) ordered a caller to announce to the people: “Allah and His Messenger forbid you to eat the meat of donkeys, for it is impure.” Thus the pots were turned upside down while the (donkey’s) meat was boiling in them.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5208)

With regards to the mules, Sayyiduna Khalid ibn al-Walid (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the meat of horses, mules and donkeys.” (Musnad Ahmad, 4/89, Sunan Abu Dawud, no: 3790, Sunan Nasa’i and Sunan Ibn Majah)

However, the fuqaha mention that the ruling on a mule would be that of its mother. If the mother is a donkey, then it would be definitely Haram. If the mother is some Halal animal such as a cow, it would be completely Halal, and if the mother is a horse, then the rules of eating horse-meat would apply. (See: Radd al-muhtar)

The seventh principle is that all terrestrial predatory animals and beasts, i.e. animals that hunt with their teeth, are considered Haram, such as a lion, cheetah, tiger, leopard, wolf, fox, dog, cat, etc.

The eighth principle is that all birds of prey, i.e. those that hunt with their claws/talons, are considered Haram, such as a falcon, eagle, kite, hawk, bat, etc.
The proof for both these principles (seven and eight) is the famous Hadith of Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) prohibited the eating of all fanged beasts of prey, and all the birds having talons.” (Sahih Muslim, no: 1934)

Hence, all beasts and birds of prey, beasts that hunt with their teeth and birds who hunt with their talons/claws, are unanimously considered Haram.

The ninth principle is that birds who do not hunt with their claws and do not prey on other animals, rather they merely eat grains and crop, are all considered Halal, such as a chicken, duck, pigeon, dove, sparrow, crow, etc.
Sayyiduna Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (Allah be pleased with him) says: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) consuming (the meat of) chicken.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5198)

The tenth principle is that if a Halal animal only consumes impure things to the extent that it creates bad odour in its meat and milk, then it will be Makruh to consume its meat and drink its milk. However, if it consumes other things along with the impure, or if it does not create bad smell in its meat and milk, then the meat and milk will be totally Halal. (Radd al-Muhtar, 6/340)
It is stated in al-Fatwa al-Hindiya:

“A chicken will only be considered a jallalah (hence makruh) if the majority of what it eats is impure, and that it penetrates into the meat in such a way that it creates a bad smell.” (See: al-fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/289)

The last principle is that if one parent of an animal is Halal and the other Haram, consideration will be taken of the mother. Thus, if the mother is a Halal animal, the offspring would also be Halal, such as a mule whose mother is a cow. If however, the mother is a Haram animal, the offspring would also be Haram, such as a mule whose mother is a donkey.
The above were eleven general and broad principles with regards to the consumption of animal meat, according to the Hanafi School of thought. It should be noted here that the meaning of Halal is merely that one may eat of the animal, but there are separate rules with regards to slaughtering and hunting these animals, for which one may refer to previously posted articles or the books of Fiqh. Failure to comply with these rules may well render a Halal animal Haram.

In light of the above general principles, the following is a list of Halal and Haram animals in the Hanafi School: (Both these lists of animals are not exclusive)

And Allah knows best.

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK

[br_syed]

Shaykhs not only know the answers but truly know how to communicate it to laymen like meself. JazakAllah Khairun for the quick response. Much appreciated.

[Jafarr]

Can I ask how it was determined that all those animals are harram?

Can I eat crab, shrimp, shark, oister, squid, etc??

[Yahya]

The different schools have different lists. As a Shafi'i, for example, I may eat shrimp and shark (according to the mu'tamad), oyster and squid.


The rule in the Shafi'i school is that any food which the Arabs at the time of Rasoolullah :saw: considered to be good food (ie. fit for human consumption) is Halal unless a Nass from the Qur'an or Sunnah forbids it. And any food which the Arabs of the time did NOT consider to be good food is Haram unless there is a Nass from the Qur'an or Sunnah which permits it.

The general idea is that there would only have been a need for the Prophet :saw: to point out the differences between the Arab culture and the Shariah.

[Ibn Ali Asghar]

isnt shark a predator? and as far as i know, predators are not to be consumed :confused:

[NNoor]

Sharks are merely large fish, and nearly all fish are predators- they eat other fish.

My question is about elephant meat (which people shouldn't eat anyway cause they're endangered), is there a specific prohibition of it? If not, by what principle is it haram, as elephants are herbivorous land mammals?

Also, what would the ruling on Kangaroos be?

[baa7ith]

-He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful. 2:173

-Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars)... 5:3

-Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah.s". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 6:145

-He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 16:115

How do you reconcile these seemingly unequivocal statements with the assertions of some madhabs that birds with talons, fanged animals, and some fish are haram? As you know these seemingly unequivocal statements led Imam Malik to weaken the reports about taloned birds and fanged animals being haram to eat. However, there was one sunnah. Either the Prophet forbade these or he didn't. Which madhab is right?

[abuhajira]

:salam:

Again ba7ith you have misunderstood the concept of madhahib. There are ahadeeth available that have helped in making these decision. you can check that from Bukhari and Muslim. They have chapters dedicated for eating birds with talons.. or fangs etc..

:ws:

[baa7ith]

No, abuhajira, I'm not misunderstanding a thing, and I don't appreciate you telling me otherwise. You can't stick your fingers in your ears and ignore this, either confront the issue or don't contribute to the conversation.

There are no hadiths in Bukhari about it being haram to eat animals with fangs or birds with talons--they are all in Sahih Muslim. There are a few things in Bukhari about donkey meat being made haram after the Battle of Khaibar, but that's it. Moreover, your insistence that I don't understand what madhabs are is ignorant and doesn't reflect the nature of the traditional debate between schools of thought. Imam Malik was fully aware about the hadiths that spoke of birds and animals, just as he was aware of the hadiths about dogs licking vessels and donkey meat, however, he deliberately weakened them in light of what he viewed as stronger Qur'anic evidence. To assert otherwise is to show your true ignorance as to the nature and method of schools of thought, and further, to pave over these differences and assert that they are a "mercy" is asinine. Either the Prophet forbade eating birds with talons and animals with fangs, or he didn't. The Qur'an makes unequivocal statements about the foods that are haram, which not only Imam Malik, but other sahaba accepted to the exclusion of the hadiths.

Narrated 'Amr: I said to Jabir bin Zaid, "The people claim that Allah's Apostle forbade the eating of donkey's meat." He said, "Al-Hakam bin 'Amr Al-Ghifari used to say so when he was with us, but Ibn 'Abbas, the great religious learned man, refused to give a final verdict and recited:-- 'Say: I find not in that which has been inspired to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be carrion, blood poured forth or the flesh of swine...' (6.145) Sahih Bukhari Book #67, Hadith #437

The relationship between the Qur'an and the sunnah and debates as to the extent to which they relate, conflict, and have the ability to complement each other goes back to the earliest days of Islam. However, it does not negate the fact that there is a truth, but to assert that four different conceptions of haram and halal are somehow a mercy is absurd, irrational, and unjust.

[al_Zayn]

:salam:

Br Baa7ith, so what is your opinion on this issue? do you think the Quran is the final verdict on this subject?

[abuhajira]

:salam:

btw which version of Sahih Bukhari are you using? and why arent those ahadith of Sahih Muslim viable for establishing opinion?


صحيح البخاري - (ج 5 / ص 2103)
5210 - حدثنا عبد الله بن يوسف أخبرنا مالك عن ابن شهاب عن أبي إدريس الخولاني عن أبي ثعلبة رضي الله عنه
: أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم نهى عن أكل كل ذي ناب من السباع . تابعه يونس ومعمر وابن عيينة والماجشون عن الزهري

I need not say more..

:ws:

[baa7ith]

Thanks, I wasn't aware the one about fangs was in Bukhari, yet it still begs the fundamental question as to the limits of how the Qur'an and the sunnah interact with each other, especially with such unequivocal Qur'anic statements:

Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah.s". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 6:145

Is this not unequivocal?

This is what led people like Imam Malik to weaken the hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim. If you hold that all madhabs are a "mercy," then you are obligated to respect this view. However, it is not reasonable, despite the different interpretations. Either the Prophet forbade animals with fangs or he didn't. One has to question the role of the Qur'an and sunnah and the extent to which they have the ability to interact, especially in light of this situation and this ayat.

I don't know what the solution is, however, both can't be correct.

[abuhajira]

:salam:

All madhab being mercy means that Allah has forgiven the misjudgement of the mujtahideen (causing difference of opinions) and made the shariah wasee'. The truth (the real sharii opinion in Allah's sight) lies within the 4 madhahib. The one opinion is correct with the possibility of it being wrong.. But Mulla Jeewan r.a has stated the Ijmaa' that it is within the 4 madhahib.

That is how it is a rahma.. and that is not absurd, illogical or outrageous to me..

And you dont understand it because you are neither a muhaddith, nor a mujtahid. We have not even understood the usools of Tatbeeq and tawfeeq, how can we expect to conglomorate between nasus? Thus we rely on what the mujtahideen have already exerted in these fields..

:ws:

[baa7ith]

As salaamu aleykum, do you have more information about this?

I don't agree at all, but I want to understand your view.

Let's say that we live in 15th century Cairo where every madhab had its own court. So, a Shafi'i steals something that costs half a gold coin while a Hanafi steals the same object. Both are taken to their respective courts and tried. The Shafi'i gets his hand cut off and the Hanafi receives a discretionary punishment.

Two unmarried men are caught engaging in sodomy, they are both arrested and proven guilty by four reliable witnesses. The boy from the Maliki family is killed and the Hanafi is whipped 20 times.

Have you read classical Islamic case law? This stuff used to happen all the time. Is this the sunnah? Is this the rahma you are talking about? All I see is division, error, injustice, and ignorance--an impediment to rationality and the possibility of ever reviving Islam.

[MohammadMufti]

Let's say that we live in 15th century Cairo where every madhab had its own court.

We're not living in 15th century Cairo, the states would adopt a madhab to rule by within their own jurisdiction...

[~Aminah~]

Assalamu'Alaikum WaRahamtuhllahi WaBarakatuh,

Okay I have a question about this what about predators from the Ocean?

Strange question I know but everything in the Ocean is Halal right?

What about sharks or baracuda etc they eat everything and anything. Can you eat meat form sea animals that are predators?

JazakAllahuKhair

[baa7ith]

We're not living in 15th century Cairo, the states would adopt a madhab to rule by within their own jurisdiction...

Sorry, but this is not true at all, in fact a complicated appeals procedure developed in North Africa from the 15th to 17th centuries dealing with the very fact that multiple madhab courts operated within the same jurisdiction. Even in Palestine, it is well known that people (especially in cases of family law) would become acquainted with the laws of other schools of thought and argue on their basis despite being in the court of a different madhab. It is well known that Cairo supported courts of all four schools of law during this time and they are the subject of multiple debates by scholars and polemicists on all sides. Far from being a mercy, there are many stories (both real and apocryphal) that detail the exploits of each school and their happenings with other scholars and judges. If you have access to case law from the time you can see that in Egypt, the Hanafi and Shafi'i courts were always backlogged with cases, so their cases were referred to Maliki courts which processed cases faster, only once they ruled on a case it was appealed back to the Hanafi court, etc. etc. etc. In Tunisia the Hanafi court was the one to deal mainly with property and contract law whereas the Malikis handled criminal cases, which would result in an entire new subsection of law being devised to handle jurisdiction and appeals, however, often not solving much of anything. There are actually some funny accounts in French history about trade law in Tunisia and how it would automatically be referred to the Hanafi courts where they would not be awarded a favorable contract, so they would refer the case to the Maliki court where they would get an entirely different verdict. Of course all of this eventually tired the French who wouldn't put up with the irrationality and they eventually dismantled the power of the courts with the exception of family law.

[Ma'ruf]

As salamu alaikum to all, especially Baa7ith whose posts i never cease to enjoy. It may interest you, while on the North African example, to think about why there was that difference in the madhahib depending on the area of law. I'm almost certain it is related to political power. As you know, the maliki law was predominant in that region; Hanafism arrived with the Ottoman turks, who thanks to their political power were able to immigrate and quite substantial numbers and form a powerful land-owning class, and probably had a large share of control over trade. Hence why Hanafism became the preferred law for property and contract, and Malikism remained the preferred law for the remaining areas of life.

It may also be interesting to observe that the French targetted the Berber populations of North Africa and attempted to split them off from the Arabs. One method of doing this was to enforce (at least in the initial stages) sharia on the Arabs, but give the Berbers the option of 'customary' berber law (a nebulous concept if ever there was one).

As for the eating, I think this came up before. I agree with your assertion that the Hanafi position seems untenable, considering the strength of the verses of the Quran. And you are entirely correct to criticise the injustice of having four different positions on what can be life and death issues, and hide behind the term mercy.

[MohammadMufti]

Sorry, but this is not true at all, in fact a complicated appeals procedure developed in North Africa from the 15th to 17th centuries dealing with the very fact that multiple madhab courts operated within the same jurisdiction.

I'm not a historian, and frankly, that's not my concern. As I said, we're not living in that era. The court systems we've seen are anything but. When Taliban established it's reign over Afghanistan, they ruled in accordance with madhab Hanafi. In the courts in Saudi, depending on the district of course, the courts ruled in accordance with madhab Hambali. In Somalia, when UIC took over, they ruled in accordance with madhab Shafi'i. They don't apply different courts just because you say "ana Shafi'i" or "Well, I'm a Qur'aan only Muslim" or "I'm self-fashioned mujtahid mutlaq" - the same law applies over everyone in these states. I don't give a damn if you're a Qur'aan only Muslim (for example), if you commit zina while you are in nikah and I am a district administrator, I will see to it that your stoned - regardless of how you try to misconstrue the ayaat before the courts.

As for your statement concerning the madhahib being a rehma, than that also isn't a concern for me since this is just a statement of the ulema which you aren't understanding (considering you're giving examples of injustice where multiple madhab are applied in the same case). That certainly isn't a rahma but an injustice - but that's not the meaning of rehma as we understand here. As bro Abu Hajira said:

"All madhab being mercy means that Allah has forgiven the misjudgement of the mujtahideen (causing difference of opinions) and made the shariah wasee'."

The idea is that although there is errors, on yawm ul qiyamah, our opponents will be given one thawab in that matter while (if we were correct) than we will be given double it.




Okay I have a question about this what about predators from the Ocean?

Strange question I know but everything in the Ocean is Halal right?

What about sharks or baracuda etc they eat everything and anything. Can you eat meat form sea animals that are predators?


It depends on the madhab, but that's not necessarily a deciding factor. In the sea, most of these fish are some kind of predators preying on smaller fish down to the plankton and nobody has problems eating salmon and tuna.

[mrghazi411]

According to the Hanafi and Hanbali Madhabs crocodile and alligator is haram. According to the Maliki and Shafi'i Madhabs it is halal. So base you judgement according to the madhab you follow. Allah knows best

[ardianto]

Usalamulaikum

I know this is completely random but:
Is Alligator meat haram or halal?

The reason why I am interested is because what are the guidelines for determining whether something (in particular) from the sea is halal or haram? Because I know there is some kind of difference between crabs.
JazakAllah khairun for any kind of help
:salam:

Alligator is not sea creature but actually land reptile that hunt for food usually in fresh water. You cannot use law of eating sea creature for crocodile and alligator, but you must use law of eating reptile according to your madhab.

[Shafiq1995]

Assalamualaykum..Come to my attention that Crab is supposedly to be halal.


Animals whose meat is Haram:

Wolf
Hyena
Cat
Monkey
Scorpion
Leopard
Tiger
Cheetah
Lion
Jerboa
Bear
Swine/pig
Squirrel
Hedgehog
Snake
Tortoise/Turtle
Dog
Crab
Jackal
Donkey (domesticated)
Lizard (The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) forbade the eating of a Lizard. Recorded by Imam Abu Dawud in his Sunan from Abd al-Rahman ibn Shibl (Allah be pleased with him. Hadith no: 3790)
Fox
Crocodile
Weasel
Elephant (Radd al-Muhtar, 6/306)
Falcon
Hawk
Kite
Bat
Vulture
Mouse
Rat
All insects, such as a Mosquito, Fly, Wasp, Spider, Beetle, etc.

And Allah knows best.

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK

[Rajghan]

Asalam-u-Alikum
i been told that there are two types of crabs ones which live in burrows and the other ones they live on sea-bed. Are both halal or one of them????
What about prawns, are they halal, haram or makrooh.
Jazak Allah Khairun

[Shafiq1995]

Asalam-u-Alikum



i been told that there are two types of crabs ones which live in burrows and the other ones they live on sea-bed. Are both halal or one of them????
What about prawns, are they halal, haram or makrooh.
Jazak Allah Khairun

Both of them are halal unless you clean the crab and boiled it in a hot water.So it can be eaten.Prawns are also halal because they are from the sea just like most of the fishes.So probably it can be eaten halal and fresh.