Al-Baqarah (The Cow): Verse 173

Introduction to the Forbidden Things

After commanding us in the previous verse to consume the lawful (halal), the Almighty, blessed be He and exalted, clarifies in this verse the types of forbidden things (haram). The discussion here is twofold:

1. Matters related to linguistic interpretation (Tafsīr).
2. Matters related to legal rulings (Aḥkām) derived by scholars from this verse.

This section contains several issues:

Issue 1: The Meaning of {Innamā} (Indeed/Only)

The word {Innamā} has two possible structures:

1. As a single particle: Like saying, "My house is only your house."
2. As two separate words (In + Mā): Where Mā means "that which" (relative pronoun), like saying, "Indeed, that which you took is your money."

Both structures appear in the Qur'an.

• Structure 1 Example: {Indeed, Allah is but one God} (An-Nisā': 171); {And you are only a warner} (Ar-Ra'd: 7).
• Structure 2 Example: {Indeed, what they have done is the plot of a sorcerer} (Ṭā-Hā: 69). (Note: If treated as one particle, the accusative case for kayd sāḥir would still be correct.)

Regarding the verse {Indeed, what you have taken besides Allah are idols out of affection among yourselves} (Al-'Ankabūt: 25), the word mawaddah (affection) can be read in the accusative or nominative based on these two interpretations.

Regarding the ruling of Structure 1 (single particle): Some scholars hold that {Innamā} implies confinement/exclusivity (Ḥaṣr). They support this with evidence from the Qur'an, poetry, and analogy (Qiyās).

• Qur'anic Evidence for Ḥaṣr:
  • {Indeed, Allah is but one God} (An-Nisā': 171) – meaning, He is only one God.
  • {Indeed, the charities are only for the poor and the needy} (At-Tawbah: 60) – meaning, only for them, not others.
  • {Say, "I am only a human being like you} (Al-Kahf: 110) – meaning, I am only a human like you.
  • This verse itself: {Indeed, what has been forbidden to you...} implies that only these things are forbidden. This is supported by another verse: {Say, "I do not find within what was revealed to me for any one who would eat other than this, unless it be carrion or blood that has been poured forth or the flesh of swine} (Al-An'ām: 145). Thus, the two verses clarify each other.

• Poetic Evidence for Ḥaṣr:
  • Al-A'shā: "I am not the most numerous in pebbles, / And indeed, glory belongs only to the most numerous."
  • Al-Farazdaq: "I am the repeller, the defender of honor, And indeed, only I or someone like me defends his kin."

• Analogical Evidence (Qiyās): The particle In affirms, and Mā negates. When combined, they must maintain their original functions. They either affirm something other than what is mentioned (which is false by consensus) or affirm what is mentioned while negating everything else (which is the desired meaning).

Rebuttal to the claim that {Innamā} does not imply Ḥaṣr: They cite {And you are only a warner} (Ar-Ra'd: 7). They argue that others were also warners. The response: The meaning is, "You are only a warner," which implies exclusivity in that specific role, but it does not negate the existence of other warners.

Issue 2: Recitations of {Ḥurrimat} (Forbidden)

The verb {Ḥurrimat} has been recited in three ways:

1. As a passive verb (for the object, mawtah).
2. As an active verb (for the subject, Allah).
3. In the form of karuma (implying a state of being forbidden).

Issue 3: Interpretation of the Forbidden Items

• Carrion (Maytah): Al-Wāḥidī states it is anything from which the spirit has departed without proper ritual slaughter (Zakāh).
• Blood (Dam): Arabs used to gather blood in containers, roast it, and eat it. Allah forbade this.
• Flesh of Swine (Laḥm al-Khanzīr): This refers to the entire pig, but the flesh is specified because it is the primary object of consumption.
• That which has been dedicated to other than Allah (Mā Uhilla bihi li-ghayr Allāh):
  • Linguistically: Al-Aṣma'ī said Ihlāl originally means raising the voice. Thus, anyone raising their voice is muhill. The pilgrim performing Iḥrām is called muhill because he raises his voice with the Talbiyah. The slaughterer is also called muhill because Arabs used to raise their voices mentioning idols during slaughter. (Hence, a newborn istahalla—cries out).
  • Interpretation:
    • Mujāhid, Ḍaḥḥāk, Qatādah: It means what is slaughtered for idols.
    • Rabī' ibn Anas and Ibn Zayd: It means what is slaughtered while mentioning something other than Allah's name. This view is preferred as it aligns more closely with the literal wording.

Scholarly Ruling: If a Muslim slaughters an animal intending to draw near to other than Allah, he becomes an apostate, and his slaughter is that of an apostate. This ruling does not apply to the slaughter of the People of the Book, as their food is lawful for us by {And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you} (Al-Mā'idah: 5).

The Exception: Necessity (Ḍarūrah)

Issue 1: Recitation of {Fa-man iḍṭurra}

Nāfi', Ibn Kathīr, Ibn 'Āmir, and Al-Kisā' read it with a ḍammah on the Nūn (iḍṭurra), following the preceding vowel. The rest read it with a kasrah (iḍṭurri) based on the original vowel sound before the meeting of two silent letters.

Issue 2: Meaning of Iḍṭurr

It means being compelled or forced (aḥwaja wa alja'a), derived from ḍarūrah (necessity), which originates from ḍarar (harm/distress).

Issue 3: Causes of Necessity

Allah exempted these forbidden items in cases of necessity, which has two causes:

1. Severe Hunger: Not finding any lawful food to sustain life (yasudda bihi al-ramaq).
2. Coercion: Being forced to consume it by an aggressor.

Issue 4: Implied Action

Necessity is not an action of the accountable person (mukallaf) itself, so saying {there is no sin upon him} requires an implied action, which is eating. The meaning is: "Whoever is forced, and then eats, there is no sin upon him." This ellipsis is permissible because the audience knows the context, similar to other verses where the action is omitted (e.g., fasting verses).

Conditions for Permissibility: {Ghayra Bāghin wa Lā 'Ādin} (Neither Desiring Nor Transgressing)

Issue 1: The Meaning of {Ghayra} (Other Than/Not)

Al-Farrā' argues that {Ghayra} here is not for exception (Istithnā') but for negation (Nafy). It is connected to the following negation (Lā), meaning "not desiring and not transgressing." It functions as a circumstantial adverb (Ḥāl) describing the necessity: "Whoever is forced, while not being a transgressor or an aggressor, it is lawful for him."

Issue 2: Meaning of Baghī (Desiring/Aggression)

Linguistically, baghy means corruption or exceeding limits. Al-Layth said it means arrogance/swagger in a horse's gait. It also means injustice and deviation from fairness (e.g., {And those who, when aggression befalls them, they defend themselves} [Ash-Shūrā: 39]). Al-Aṣma'ī noted that a wound baghā when it begins to corrupt, and the sky baghā when its rain exceeds the limit (i.e., overflows).

Issue 3: Meaning of 'Ādī (Transgressing)

Adw means transgression in matters, exceeding what should be limited. One says 'adā 'alayhi 'udūwan if he wrongs him beyond limits, or 'adā ṭawrahu (exceeded his capacity).

Scholarly Views on {Ghayra Bāghin wa Lā 'Ādin}:

1. Restricted to Eating: The condition applies only to the act of eating the forbidden item.
   • First View: {Ghayra Bāghin} means he does not turn to the forbidden item because he dislikes the lawful alternative (i.e., seeking a tastier forbidden item). {Wa Lā 'Ādin} means not exceeding the limit of necessity.
   • Second View (Al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, Rabī', Mujāhid, Ibn Zayd): {Ghayra Bāghin} means not seeking mere pleasure, and {Wa Lā 'Ādin} means not exceeding the amount needed to satisfy hunger.
   • Third View: Not being aggressive towards another forced person by seizing his provision, nor transgressing the limit of satisfying hunger.

2. General Application: The condition applies to eating and other matters.
   • It means not committing baghy (rebellion) against the Muslim ruler while traveling, and not being 'ādī (a transgressor) by deviating from the path of the righteous. (The preference between these two interpretations will follow, God willing.)

The Consequence: {Fa-lā Ithma 'Alayh} (There is No Sin Upon Him)

Two Questions:

1. If eating in this state is obligatory, why does the verse state "no sin" (which implies mere permissibility)?
2. The forced person is compelled; how can one who is compelled be described as having "no sin"?

Answer: We have previously explained that negating sin (Nafy al-ithm) is a common denominator for what is obligatory, recommended, and permissible. Furthermore, {Fa-lā ithma 'alayh} means removing hardship and distress.

If the hungry person feels a desire for the carrion without intense aversion, he is compelled to eat just enough to sustain life, similar to fleeing a predator. However, if intense aversion remains, he is not compelled to eat it in that state, and the obligation to eat only arises when the aversion is overcome.

The Conclusion: {Inna Allāha Ghafūrun Raḥīm} (Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful)

The Problem: If there is no sin, why follow it with "Forgiving and Merciful," as forgiveness implies the occurrence of sin?

Answers:

1. The cause for prohibition (the nature of the item) still exists, but the prohibition is lifted due to a counteracting factor. Since the consumption involves something inherently prohibited, it is described with forgiveness. Then, "Merciful" is mentioned because He permitted it for you out of mercy.
2. Perhaps the forced person consumes more than necessary. Allah is Forgiving for the sin of excess consumption, and Merciful for permitting the necessary amount.
3. Allah mentions these rulings and follows them with His attributes because He is Forgiving to sinners who repent, and Merciful to the obedient who adhere to His commands.

Type Two: Legal Rulings (Fiqh) Derived from the Verse

This is organized into chapters.

This chapter has an introduction and main objectives.

Introduction (Three Issues):

Issue 1: Scope of Prohibition on Specific Items

• Al-Karkhī's View: The prohibition attached to specific items (like carrion) implies generality (Ijmāl) because items themselves cannot be inherently lawful or unlawful; these attributes must relate to our actions concerning them. Since not all actions (like moving it away) are forbidden, the prohibition must apply to a specific action. Since no specific action is prioritized, the verse is ambiguous (Mujmal).
• Majority View: It is not ambiguous. In common usage, this wording implies the prohibition of any disposition (taṣarruf) concerning these bodies, unless evidence specifies otherwise. Just as when one owns a slave girl, it means ownership of her disposition, not the body itself. (This was discussed fully in Al-Maḥṣūl fī 'Ilm al-Uṣūl.)

Issue 2: Specificity of Prohibition to Eating

Given the general prohibition on disposition, must the verse be restricted to eating?

• Arguments for Restriction to Eating:
  1. Common understanding of forbidding carrion is forbidding its consumption.
  2. It follows the command to eat good things: {Eat from the good things We have provided for you} (Al-Baqarah: 57).
  3. The Prophet's statement regarding the goat of Maymūnah: "Only the eating of carrion is forbidden."
• Rebuttals:
  1. We dispute that the common understanding limits the prohibition only to eating.
  2. This verse is self-sufficient and must be taken literally, not limited by the preceding verse.
  3. The apparent meaning of the Qur'an takes precedence over a solitary Hadith (khabar wāḥid). (However, this assumes the Qur'an cannot be specified by a solitary Hadith.) Alternatively, the consensus of Muslims in determining the scope of prohibition refers back to this verse, indicating they understood it as not being restricted only to eating. (The questioner may dispute this consensus.)

Issue 3: Definition of Carrion

• Linguistically: That which has left life without being intentionally destroyed (distinguishing it from the killed).
• Shar'ī (Legally): That which is not ritually slaughtered (ghayr al-madhkī), either because it wasn't slaughtered, or it was slaughtered improperly.

Objection: Surah Al-Mā'idah states: {Forbidden to you are carrion, blood...} (Al-Mā'idah: 3), and then lists the strangled, the clubbed, etc., implying that things other than the properly slaughtered are sometimes carrion and sometimes not. Response: Perhaps in the beginning of legislation, the linguistic definition applied. After the legislation stabilized, carrion means what we defined (that which is not ritually slaughtered).

Main Objectives (Rulings Derived from the Verse)

Mistakes in derived rulings occur in two ways:

1. Excluding something that is included in the verse.
2. Including something that is outside the verse.

Section 1: Issues of Exclusion (What is included but excluded)

Issue 1: Utilizing Parts of Carrion

• Shāfi'ī (in his prominent opinion): It is forbidden to benefit from the wool, hair, or bones of carrion.
• Mālik: Forbidden to benefit from its bones only.
• Majority: Agreed on forbidding benefit from pig hair.
• Argument for Prohibition: These parts are carrion, so benefiting from them is forbidden based on {Forbidden to you is carrion}. We know they are carrion based on the Hadith: "Whatever is separated from a living being is carrion." This includes hair, bone, and everything else. The evidence that bone is carrion comes from {Who gives life to bones while they are dust} (Yā-Sīn: 78), proving they were once alive, thus becoming carrion upon death.
• Objection: Hair and wool lack life, as life requires perception and sensation, which they lack. This is why Mālik only considered bones impure, not hair.
• Response: Life is not merely perception/sensation. Evidence: {How Allah gives life to the earth after its death} (Ar-Rūm: 50) and the Hadith: "Whoever revives dead land, it belongs to him." The default meaning of life is a balanced state of being, not prone to decay. Once this is established, these parts fall under the verse.
• Abū Ḥanīfah's Evidence (for permissibility of wool/hair):
  • Qur'an: {And of their wool, fur, and hair, furnishings and enjoyment for a time} (An-Naḥl: 80). Favor/blessing is not bestowed upon the impure/unusable.
  • Hadith: The Hadith of Maymūnah's goat: "Only the eating of carrion is forbidden."
  • Consensus: Muslims used to wear fox skins and make caps from them. Al-Nakha'ī saw no issue with using tanned skins of carrion or beasts of prey, without distinguishing between hair or no hair. (Shāfi'ī's reference to the Companions wearing fox skins is countered by the fact that Shāfi'ī himself deems the fox unlawful unless ritually slaughtered.)
  • Analogy (Qiyās): These hairs and bones are usable bodies not prone to decay, so they should be pure, like tanned hides.
• Regarding Pig Hair: Some jurists forbid its impurity (which is safer). Even if the general prohibition {Forbidden to you is carrion} implies forbidding benefit from wool/bone, these specific evidences permit benefit, and the specific overrides the general.

Issue 2: Death in Water (Non-Sanguineous Animals)

• Abū Ḥanīfah: If an animal without flowing blood dies in water (little or much), the water is not corrupted.
• Shāfi'ī: Has two opinions regarding small amounts of water.
• Argument for Shāfi'ī: They are animals; when they die, they become carrion, forbidden by the verse. If forbidden, they must be impure, thus rendering the small amount of water impure.
• Response: They are carrion and their use is forbidden, but why must they be impure? And why must their impurity necessarily pollute the water?
• Shāfi'ī's Second Opinion Evidence: The Hadith about the fly: "If a fly falls into the vessel of one of you, dip it in, then remove it, for in one of its wings is disease and in the other is a cure." If this caused impurity, the Prophet would not have commanded dipping it in.

Issue 3: Tanning Hides (Dabgh)

There are seven scholarly opinions on tanning:

1. Al-Zuhri: All hides are permissible to use before tanning.
2. Dāwūd: All hides become pure through tanning.
3. Mālik: The exterior becomes pure, but not the interior.
4. Abū Ḥanīfah: All become pure except pig skin.
5. Shāfi'ī: All become pure except dog and pig skin.
6. Al-Awzā'ī and Abū Thawr: Only the skin of animals whose meat is lawful to eat becomes pure.
7. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: Nothing becomes pure through tanning.

• Aḥmad's Evidence:
  • Verse: {Forbidden to you are carrion, blood...} (Al-Mā'idah: 3). The prohibition is absolute, not conditional on the state.
  • Hadith: A letter from the Prophet (PBUH) before his death: "Do not benefit from carrion by way of hide or tendon."
• Response to Aḥmad: The general prohibition of the verse can be specified by a solitary Hadith or analogy, both of which exist here:
  • Hadith: "Any hide that is tanned has become pure."
  • Analogy (Qiyās): Tanning returns the hide to the state it was in during life, and since it was pure then, it should be pure after tanning. (This is Shāfi'ī's basis.)

Issue 4: Feeding Carrion to Birds of Prey or Animals

Some forbid this because feeding the bird means benefiting from the carrion, which is forbidden by the verse. There is ambiguity regarding whether we must prevent a bird from eating carrion on its own.

Issue 5: Using Carrion Fat/Tallow (Wadak) for Lamps

This depends on whether the fat retains the quality of life or is part of what was alive. If not, it is outside the definition of carrion.

• Narrative: When the Prophet (PBUH) arrived in Makkah, those who collected tallow from carrion asked him about using it for leather and ships. He cursed the Jews, saying: "Allah cursed the Jews; fat was forbidden to them, so they sold it and ate its price." This implies that forbidding its consumption also forbids selling it.

Issue 6: Fish and Locusts

The apparent meaning suggests fish and locusts are forbidden (as they are dead things). However, they are specifically exempted by Hadith:

• Ibn 'Umar: "Two types of dead animals and two types of blood have been made lawful for us. As for the two dead animals: locusts and fish. As for the two bloods: the spleen and the liver."
• Jābir's story: The sea cast up a whale, and they ate half a month's supply. The Prophet (PBUH) asked if they had any to give him, and said regarding the sea: "Its water is purifying, and its dead are lawful."
• The lawfulness of fish is established by continuous transmission (Tawātur).

Regarding Floating Fish (Ṣāfī): Fish that die naturally in the water and float.

• Mālik and Shāfi'ī: No issue with eating them.
• Abū Ḥanīfah and others: Disliked (Makrūh).
• Companions' Views: 'Alī, Ibn 'Abbās, and Jābir forbade eating floating fish. Abū Bakr and Abū Ayyūb permitted it. Some narrations from Jābir state the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Whatever the sea casts up or is pulled out, eat it; whatever dies in it and floats, do not eat it."
• Shāfi'ī's Evidence:
  • Verse: {Lawful to you is the game of the sea and its food} (Al-Mā'idah: 96). Floating fish are food of the sea.
  • Hadith: The general statement: "Two dead animals are lawful: fish and locusts," and the statement about the sea: "Its water is purifying, its dead are lawful."

Issue 7: Locusts

• Shāfi'ī and Abū Ḥanīfah: It is permissible to eat all locusts, whether caught alive or found dead.
• Mālik: If found dead, it is unlawful. If caught alive, its head is cut off and it is roasted, it is eaten. If caught alive but neglected until it dies, it is not eaten.
• Mālik's Evidence: The apparent meaning of the verse {Forbidden to you is carrion...}.
• Shāfi'ī/Abū Ḥanīfah's Evidence: The Hadith: "Two dead animals are lawful: fish and locusts," implying generality. If cutting off the head constitutes ritual slaughter (Dhakāh), then it is not carrion, making the Hadith redundant.
• 'Abdullāh ibn Abī Awfā: "I participated in seven raids with the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), and we ate locusts and nothing else," making no distinction between dead or killed.

Issue 8: Fetus Found Dead After Maternal Slaughter

• Abū Ḥanīfah (and Ḥammād): It is unlawful unless it emerges alive and is then slaughtered.
• Shāfi'ī, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad: It is lawful (as narrated from 'Alī, Ibn Mas'ūd, Ibn 'Umar).
• Mālik: Lawful if its form is complete and hair has grown; otherwise, unlawful (view of Sa'īd ibn al-Musayyab).
• Abū Ḥanīfah's Evidence: The apparent meaning of the verse: it is carrion, so it is forbidden.
• Shāfi'ī's Evidence (for permissibility): Specification by Hadith and Analogy.
  • Hadith: Narrated by many Companions: "The ritual slaughter of the fetus is the ritual slaughter of its mother." Since ritual slaughter is a legal cause for permissibility, the fetus's slaughter can be established legally through the mother's.
  • Ḥanafī Rebuttal: The Hadith could mean: "The mother's slaughter requires the fetus to be slaughtered," or "The mother's slaughter is the standard for its slaughter." If the latter, it is not eaten without slaughter, like {a garden whose width is the heavens and the earth} (Āl 'Imrān: 133), meaning like the width.
  • Shāfi'ī's Counter-Rebuttal:
    1. The Hanafī interpretation requires an implied meaning (that its slaughter is like its mother's), which is contrary to the default.
    2. It is only called a fetus while in the womb. The Prophet (PBUH) established its slaughter ruling while it was a fetus.
    3. If the Hadith meant it must be slaughtered if it emerges alive, that is already known and makes the Hadith redundant.
    4. A narration from Abū Sa'īd states that when asked about a fetus emerging dead, the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Eat it if you wish, for its slaughter is the slaughter of its mother."
  • Analogy (Qiyās):
    1. If a woman is struck, and the fetus emerges dead, it has no independent ruling. If the child emerges alive and then dies, it has an independent ruling (requiring ghurrah compensation). Thus, the fetus follows the mother's slaughter ruling if it emerges dead, but requires its own slaughter if it emerges alive.
    2. While attached, the fetus is like a limb of the mother, so its permissibility follows hers.
    3. The child follows the mother in rulings like manumission, etc.

Issue 9: Parts Cut from a Living Animal

Whatever is cut from a living animal is forbidden because it is carrion. This is supported by the Hadith: "Whatever is separated from a living being is carrion," and logically, because that part was alive (perceiving pain/pleasure), and cutting it removed that quality, making it dead.

Issue 10: Tanning Hides of Unlawful Meat Animals

Does slaughtering an animal whose meat is unlawful (e.g., a cat) purify its hide?

• Shāfi'ī: No, because the slaughter does not permit eating the meat, so it should not permit purification, similar to the slaughter of a Magian.
• Abū Ḥanīfah: Yes, it does.

Section 2: Issues of Inclusion (What is included but outside)

Issue 1: Contamination by Proximity

The verse {Forbidden to you is carrion and blood} only forbids the substance of carrion and blood, not things adjacent to it that do not become carrion themselves. For example, if a mouse dies in ghee, the ghee itself is not called carrion. The ruling depends on whether the adjacent substance becomes impure.

Issue 2: Bird Dying in Cooking Liquid

'Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak asked Abū Ḥanīfah about a bird falling into a pot of boiling food and dying. Abū Ḥanīfah asked his companions, who cited Ibn 'Abbās: the meat can be eaten after washing, and the broth discarded. Abū Ḥanīfah agreed, provided the bird fell in while the liquid was still (as per the narration). If it fell in while boiling, neither meat nor broth is eaten.

• Reasoning: If it falls in while boiling, the carrion has mixed with the meat. If it falls in while still, only the essence/juices of the carrion have seeped into the meat.

Issue 3: Milk and Rennet of a Dead Animal

• Abū Ḥanīfah: Milk and rennet (anfūḥah) of a dead sheep are pure.
• Shāfi'ī and Mālik: This milk and rennet are unlawful.
• Al-Layth: The egg taken from a dead hen is unlawful.
• Shāfi'ī's Basis (for milk/rennet): He does not rely on the apparent meaning of the verse, as milk is not called carrion. His basis is that if carrion falls into milk in a container, it pollutes it; similarly, if the animal dies while the milk is in its udder.
• Regarding Eggs: If the yolk is solidified, the shell separates the edible part from the carrion, making it lawful. If unsolidified, it is unlawful.

Concluding Issues Common to Both Sections:

Issue 1: Definition of Death

• Some affirm death as the opposite of life (as per {He who created death and life} [Al-Mulk: 2]).
• Others define it as the absence of life in that which is capable of having life (which is closer to the truth).

Issue 2: Prohibition vs. Impurity

The right view is that the prohibition of use (Ḥurmat al-intifā') does not necessitate impurity (Najāsah), as it is conceivable that use is forbidden while adjacent things remain lawful. However, consensus confirms that carrion is impure.

Issue 1: Scope of Blood Prohibition

• Shāfi'ī: Forbids all blood, whether poured forth (masfūḥ) or not.
• Abū Ḥanīfah: Fish blood is not forbidden.
• Shāfi'ī's Evidence: The verse {Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, and the flesh of swine} (Al-Mā'idah: 3) is general, so all blood is forbidden.
• Abū Ḥanīfah's Evidence: {Say, "I do not find within what was revealed to me for any one who would eat other than this, unless it be carrion or blood that has been poured forth} (Al-An'ām: 145). This specifies that only poured-forth blood is forbidden. The specific (Al-An'ām) overrides the general (Al-Mā'idah).
• Shāfi'ī's Response: The verse in Al-An'ām only states what was revealed at that time; it does not negate the subsequent revelation in Al-Mā'idah which clarified the prohibition of all blood (poured forth or otherwise). Thus, all blood is forbidden and impure, and must be removed from meat, water, or clothing.

Issue 2: The Lawfulness of Spleen and Liver Blood

Does the Hadith making the spleen and liver lawful constitute a valid exception to the prohibition of blood?

• Some deny this, arguing the liver and spleen are like flesh, and their description as "blood" is merely by analogy.
• Others affirm it, arguing they are like congealed blood.

Issue 1: Prohibition of All Parts

The Ummah agrees that the entire pig is forbidden. The flesh is mentioned because most benefit is derived from it, similar to how the prohibition of selling/buying was emphasized in the Friday prayer call.

• Pig hair is not explicitly covered by the apparent meaning of the verse, although its impurity and prohibition are agreed upon.
• Use of Pig Hair for Stitching (Kharz):
  • Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad: Permissible due to necessity and the lack of public denunciation by Muslims using it.
  • Shāfi'ī: Not permissible.
  • Abū Yūsuf: Disliked it, though some reports permit it.
  • Argument: If Shāfi'ī permits flea blood on clothes due to the difficulty of avoidance, why not pig hair used for stitching?

Issue 2: Water Swine (Khanzīr al-Mā' - Sea Pig/Dolphin)

• Ibn Abī Laylā, Mālik, Shāfi'ī, Al-Awzā'ī: Permissible to eat anything from the sea.
• Abū Ḥanīfah and his companions: Unlawful.
• Shāfi'ī's Evidence: {Lawful to you is the game of the sea and its food} (Al-Mā'idah: 96).
• Abū Ḥanīfah's Evidence: The verse {Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, and the flesh of swine} (Al-Mā'idah: 13) is general.
• Shāfi'ī's Response: When the term "swine" (Khanzīr) is used generally, it refers to land swine, just as "meat" (Laḥm) generally refers to land animal meat, not fish meat (which is agreed upon). Furthermore, the sea creature is specifically called "sea swine," not just "swine."

Issue 3: Washing Utensils Licked by a Pig

• Shāfi'ī: Has two opinions:
  1. Yes, wash it seven times, analogous to a dog.
  2. No, because the severity of washing seven times was to deter contact with dogs, which people did not commonly do with pigs.

Some scholars claim this refers only to the sacrifices made to idols, similar to {What has been slaughtered on stone altars} (Al-Mā'idah: 3). They permit the slaughter of a Christian if he names Christ over it (view of 'Aṭā', Makḥūl, Ḥasan, Sha'bī, Sa'īd ibn al-Musayyab).

• Mālik, Shāfi'ī, Abū Ḥanīfah: This is unlawful.
• Argument for Unlawfulness: If they slaughter in the name of Christ, they have dedicated it to other than Allah, so it is forbidden. 'Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib narrated that if you hear Jews or Christians invoking other than Allah, do not eat; if you don't hear them, eat, as Allah permitted their food while knowing what they say internally.
• Counter-Arguments (for permissibility):
  1. {And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you} (Al-Mā'idah: 5) is general.
  2. The verse {What has been slaughtered on stone altars} indicates that {What has been dedicated to other than Allah} means slaughtering on idols.
  3. If a Christian names Allah but intends Christ, his slaughter is lawful despite his internal intention. Similarly, if he utters the name of Allah while intending Christ, his slaughter should be lawful.
• Response:
  1. The general verse (People of the Book food) is specified by the particular verse ({What has been dedicated to other than Allah}), and the specific overrides the general.
  2. The two verses are distinct; one does not necessarily restrict the other.
  3. We are accountable for outward actions (Ẓāhir). If he names Allah, it is lawful, as we have no access to his inner intention.

Those who hold that {Innamā} implies exclusivity agree that the apparent meaning suggests only these things are forbidden. However, we know other things are forbidden in the Law (e.g., murder). Thus, the apparent meaning of {Innamā} must be set aside. This problem vanishes for those who do not hold it implies exclusivity.

Issue 1: Scope of {Ghayra Bāghin wa Lā 'Ādin}

• Shāfi'ī: The meaning is: Whoever is forced, and is absolutely not described by aggression or transgression in any matter, may eat.
• Abū Ḥanīfah: The meaning is: Whoever is forced, and eats without being aggressive or transgressing in the act of eating, there is no sin.

Consequence of the Difference: Does a sinner traveling (al-'āṣī bi-safaruhu) benefit from the concession?

• Shāfi'ī: No, because he is described by transgression (in his travel), so he does not fall under the verse.
• Abū Ḥanīfah: Yes, because he is forced, and he is not transgressing in the eating.

Shāfi'ī's Evidence:

1. The verse {Forbidden to you are carrion and blood} (Al-Mā'idah: 3) is general. The exception is for the forced person who is not aggressive/transgressive. Being aggressive in any matter negates the description "not aggressive."
2. The concession is aid for travel. If the travel itself is sinful, the concession aids the sin, which is impossible.

Shāfi'ī's Alternative View (Reported by the Judge and Abū Bakr Al-Rāzī): {Ghayra Bāghin} means not rebelling against the Muslim ruler, and {Wa Lā 'Ādin} means his travel is not sinful. However, the two scholars state that restricting the condition to eating is preferable because the condition (Shart) must relate to something mentioned, and only eating is mentioned (implicitly).

Critique of Restricting to Eating: This view is weak. We established that "not aggressive" must mean non-aggression in all matters, which implicitly includes travel. Restricting it to eating is an unnecessary specification against the default.

• Further Evidence Against Restriction to Eating:
  1. {Ghayra Bāghin wa Lā 'Ādin} is a Ḥāl (circumstance) of the necessity (Iḍṭirār). If it referred only to eating, the circumstance of necessity would cease when eating stops, making the condition meaningless.
  2. Humans naturally recoil from carrion/blood; forbidding this act when there is no natural aversion is pointless.
  3. The negation of baghy and 'udwān requires the negation of all their instances. Aggression in eating is one instance; aggression in travel is another. Negating the concept necessitates negating all instances.
  4. This is supported by {...except one driven by severe hunger, not deliberately inclining to sin} (Al-Mā'idah: 3), which implies non-aggression in any matter.

Abū Ḥanīfah's Evidence (for concession to the sinner):

1. {And He has certainly explained to you what He has forbidden to you except that to which you are compelled} (Al-An'ām: 119). The sinner is compelled, so the concession applies.
2. {And do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction} (Al-Baqarah: 195). Refusing to eat leads to self-destruction.
3. The Prophet (PBUH) permitted concessions for residents (1 day/night) and travelers (3 days/nights) without distinguishing between obedient and disobedient travelers.
4. If a sinful traveler is asleep and faces drowning or burning, a person praying must interrupt prayer to save him. Saving life is more important here.
5. Defending against dangers (lions, scorpions) is obligatory, so eating to avoid death is also obligatory.
6. If a sinful traveler is permitted to take another's property by force (due to necessity), it is permissible here. The common factor is averting harm from the self.
7. Averting harm from others carries a greater obligation than averting harm from oneself.
8. Necessity permits taking another's property by force; this act is forbidden without necessity, so the concession applies here too.

Shāfi'ī's Response to Generalities: Our evidence restricting the concession is more specific than their general evidences, and the specific overrides the general. Furthermore, the sinner can reach the permissibility through repentance. If he does not repent, he is the one causing harm to himself. He strongly argues that concession aids travel; if travel is sinful, the concession aids sin, which is contradictory.

Issue 2: Extent of Consumption

• Shāfi'ī and Abū Ḥanīfah: The forced person eats only enough to sustain life (yumsik al-ramaq).
• 'Abdullāh ibn al-Ḥasan al-'Anbarī: Eats until his hunger is satisfied.
• Mālik: Eats until satisfied and takes provisions, but if he finds lawful food, he discards the carrion.

Preferred View: The concession is based on compulsion (ilja'a). When compulsion ceases, the concession ceases. If he finds lawful food, he must eat it, as the compulsion to eat carrion is lifted. Similarly, once he eats enough carrion to remove the fear of death, further eating is forbidden. This is stronger than satisfying hunger, as hunger initially does not permit eating carrion unless there is fear of harm.

Issue 3: Choice Among Forbidden Items

Most scholars allow the forced person to choose among the forbidden items (carrion, blood, pork), as they are equal in prohibition and the necessity applies equally to all. This aligns best with the verse's apparent meaning, overriding the view that he must choose carrion over pork (as pork is considered more severely prohibited).

Issue 4: Necessity Involving Intoxicants (Khamr)

If forced to drink due to thirst, or choking on food and finding only wine to swallow:

• Majority (Sa'īd ibn Jubayr, Abū Ḥanīfah): Permissible by analogy to this verse, as the purpose is preserving life. This is closer to the apparent meaning and analogy.
• Shāfi'ī: Unlawful, as wine increases thirst/hunger and impairs the mind.
• Response: The claim that it increases thirst/hunger is an overstatement. We are discussing a small amount that does not cause intoxication.

Issue 5: Using Carrion for Medical Treatment

If carrion is needed for treatment (alone or in compound medicine):

• Permitted View (by text and reason):
  • Text: The Prophet (PBUH) permitted the 'Urayn tribe to drink camel urine and milk for treatment.
  • Reason: The antidote containing snake flesh is considered palatable; thus, it should be lawful by {Lawful for you are the good things} (Al-Mā'idah: 4). (Though this general verse may be specified, it still serves as evidence.) Also, Abū Ḥanīfah pardons a dirham's worth of impurity due to need, and Shāfi'ī pardons flea blood. Why not pardon in this case due to need? Finally, Allah permitted carrion for the benefit of the soul, so similarly here.
• Forbidden View: Based on the Hadith: "Allah has not placed the cure of my Ummah in what He has forbidden to them."
• Response: This Hadith is only conclusive if it is established that consuming it for treatment is forbidden, which is the very point of contention.

Issue 6: Using Wine for Medical Treatment

If the need for treatment reaches the level of necessity, the ruling is covered in Issue 4 (permissible). If it does not reach necessity, the ruling is covered in Issue 5 (if permitted for treatment).

The Second Ruling (Verse 174)