| Author | Topic |
oosman
USA
|
 Topic initiated on Monday, January 3, 2005 - 4:37 PM 
About hunt of the sea
بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم
Assalam alaikum,
I and Junaid were having this discussion whether or not shark meat is halal.
I believe all hunts of the sea are halal based on the verse:
5.96: Lawful to you is the game of the sea and its food, a provision for you and for the travellers, and the game of the land is forbidden to you so long as you are on pilgrimage, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, to Whom you shall be gathered.
My argument is, since the verses in above paragraph are about pilgrimage and since any sea-hunt is allowed during pligrimage, why would any sea-hunt not be allowed at other times. If something is pure and halal during pilgrimage, it must be pure and halal and other times. On the contrary if something is not that pure but allowed at other times, it may not be allowed during pilgrimage (like killing insects).
Also there is no clear cut verse saying certain sea-foods are not allowed.
So I believe we should benefit from the generosity of Allah-taala and eat what ever good foods the sea has to offer us. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Monday, January 3, 2005 - 8:32 PM 
>>5.96: Lawful to you is the game of the sea and its food, a provision for you and for the travellers, and the game of the land is forbidden to you so long as you are on pilgrimage, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, to Whom you shall be gathered.
>>My argument is, since the verses in above paragraph are about pilgrimage and since any sea-hunt is allowed during pligrimage,
My argument is that the verse mentions of allowance of game of the sea and disallowance of the game of land. It has not addressed 'what in the sea' and 'what in the land'.
Anyways, let me ask, can you pinpoint a verse where it clearly states land based carnivores are forbidden?
Edited by: junaidj on Monday, January 03, 2005 8:32 PM |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 6:05 PM
Only carrion, blood, and swine are explicitly forbidden. Otherwise all that is pure and clean is halal.
Shark is a fish and is as is clean as as any other fish is. We eat tuna fish. Tuna can grow to 200lbs/100kg, which is pretty big. It eats other smaller fish. Cod can also sometimes grow that big. Catfish can grow to 30-40 lbs and eats other smaller fish. Salmon, a very common diet for us, eats other smaller fish.
My point is, if you take the carnivore rule to the sea, then you can say bye-bye to almost all the fish you eat.
Infact there is no such carnivore rule in the Quran at all. We can eat whatever Allah has made and is clean and pure. It comes to ones own judgement then what is clean and pure. A horse is clean, why not eat horse meat? A bear is clean animal, lives in the forest, eats clean river food and deer meat. Whats wrong with eating bear meat then? A lot of Americans and Canadians eat bear meat. Why don't Muslims? Is bear meat haram?
Can one say something is haram or halal on ones own preference? I don't think so. One can choose to like or dislike something that is pure, hence eat or not eat it, but cannot call it haram.
When Quran leaves something open, then it is the generosity of Allah Taala on us, we should be grateful for that, and not make silly rules to restrict our lives and make it more miserable for everyone.
Quran 6.145: 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.
Allah knows best and we are grateful to Him for His favors upon us. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 7:41 PM
Do you think that bears, lions, snakes et al. are allowed?
If not, then what verse prohibits them? |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 11:25 AM
As I said before, anything deemed pure and clean is allowed if slaugtered properly in the name of Allah. Even the restriction of slaughtering zabiha fashion is not always applicable. On a personal level, I do not think lizards, snakes, bears, lions, as clean animals to eat.
Is there any gerneral ruling in the sunnah about what kind of animals are allowed? I have not seen one yet. The Quran doesn't really say much.
I read one hadith in which the prophet is reported to have disliked people cooking donkey meat and ordered them to discard it (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 405). One report says that the people ate a huge dead fish that had been beached (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 401). Another report says they ate a horse (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 419). They ate a rabbit (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 443). People ate a mastigure (lizard), the prophet is reported to have allowed it but did not eat it himself.
What do you think? |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 6:48 PM
| so is 'pure and clean' left to man's discretion? |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 7:38 PM
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 8:12 AM
whale, horse, rabbit, donkey, and then 'DABB'
>>The large dabb-lizard is called ´crocodile of the desert´, though it is a harmless and shy herbivore.
http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Pictures/Other-An/The%20large%20dabb-lizard%20is%20called%20crocodile%20of%20the%20%20pa.htm
The Prophet personally disliked the Dabb, and in some instances discouraged eating of horses (I am not sure of the source but perhaps because of their uses, especially so since the early Muslims were so ill equipped for war??)
Please note that apart from the Prophet's personal dislike, all are herbivores. Or at least not the kind of animals which devour their prey. (some Hadith allude to devouring carnivorous animals as Haraam)
Also note that while the Koran is silent on these, the carnivorous animals (especially those that tear their prey) are natural prohibitions. Mankind generally has not accepted them as mainstream menu items.
'Anal sex' is another example. The Koran does not forbid it. But simply says 'approach to them in the manner directed by nature......'
Thus both are natural prohibitions as opposed to Shariah prohibitions.
Same for homosexuality. The KOran condemns Lot's people, but no where explicitly states that sodomy is forbidden.
Thus once again, natural prohibition as opposed to Shariah prohibition.
Finally, the law of Fitrah (circumcision, cliping hairs, etc) are not enjoined in Koran.
Once again commands that derive their justification from nature, hence the word 'Fitrah'.
Same for tattoos. Here the Koran alludes to nature. 'And change not the nature in which God made you...' or so the verse goes. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 2:13 PM
Good. Now back to the original question. Most fish we eat, they ambush, hunt and rip apart their prey of smaller fish to eat it. So according to your answer, we cannot eat most fish, including shark, tuna, salmon, cod, herring, etc. because they are carnivores. In fact I cannot think of any fish that eats just sea weeds. Great, now we can't eat any fish!
Your rationale of 'natural prohibition' is not really based on your own judgement because what you are doing is relying on the Sunnah to know what is 'natural'. The examples you quoted of homosexuality, nail clipping, circumcision, tatoos, all these things are told to us by the prophet (s.a.w.). Here you are not using your own intellect to define what is natural and what is not. You come to a dead end when you try to use your own intellect to determine what is so called 'natural'.
The prophet is already reported to have allowed the beached whale to be eaten, and the Quran has stated all sea-hunt is allowed. If there were any restrictions to it, we would have been told of them, like we have been told so about land animals (swine, blood, carrion, name of Allah). And we would have something from sunnah (like rules on donkey, horse, lizard, etc). Since the 2 sources of Islamic law are open on the issue of sea-food, there is no reason to make something haram on us that we can benefit from.
When Allah is gracious to us, Allah is silent on an issue. So benefit from His graciousness, rather than imposing restrictions and denying your-self His bounties. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 10:34 PM
>>The examples you quoted of homosexuality, nail clipping, circumcision, tatoos, all these things are told to us by the prophet (s.a.w.). Here you are not using your own intellect to define what is natural and what is not.
I think, given the vast expanse of time, people know what it deemed natural and what is not. It is only logical to clip nails, maintain hygiene, marry women etc. This is the way of nature, the way mankind has done things. The Prophet merely reinforces this nature. Thus, such commandments are not in the Koran, because the Koran simply alludes to nature.
>>and the Quran has stated all sea-hunt is allowed.
No it does not. It says, you can have game of the sea during pilgrimage, it does not tell you 'what in the sea'.
The rule of not eating sharks is extended from the rule of not eating lions etc. It is a natural prohibition.
>>If there were any restrictions to it, we would have been told of them, like we have been told so about land animals (swine, blood, carrion, name of Allah). And we would have something from sunnah (like rules on donkey, horse, lizard, etc).
There are no restrictions on eating Dabb and horses, it is just the Prophet never liked eating them.
>>When Allah is gracious to us, Allah is silent on an issue. So benefit from His graciousness, rather than imposing restrictions and denying your-self His bounties.
It is not about denying his graciousness, it is about the fact that he gave us a brain to use to come to the right decision. God does not give you the whole list of dos and donts. Somethings are left for you to decide.
Why do you think that the Ulema and the four schools of jurisprudence disagreed on shrimps/lobsters etc. being Makrooh or whatever OR crocodiles and big fish being halaal?
Simply because, some matters are left to man. This ties up with our discussion on permission, i.e., where the Shariah is silent, then we have to decide on the basis of our intellect.
Edited by: junaidj on Monday, January 17, 2005 7:10 AM |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Monday, January 17, 2005 - 7:01 PM
>>> I think, given the vast expanse of time, people know what it deemed natural and what is not.
Your assumption is incorrect. In Tibet polyandry is practiced, they think its very natural. In east Asia, dogs and cats are eaten, it is considered natural. Opposite example, letting the beard grow. If clipping nails and shaving arm pits and pubic hair is natural, then naturally one should trim the beard too. The bottom line is when you apply your own logic of whats natural and whats not, every thing breaks down with so many contradictions. Different people will say different things are natural. There will never be a consensus. Who decides?
Now if you will ban shark, then it is only natural to ban 90% of all fish we buy (because they are carnivores). Right? We can't be hypocritical in this matter by only banning shark.
I do agree with you on one thing though. Allah has given us a brain and we should use it. It is not possible to apply your carnivore rule to fish because most of them are carnivores.
I differ with you on your interfpretation of 5.96. When Allah gives permission in general and it is not followed by any restrictions, then it is open permission. In case of land animals Allah says everything pure is allowed except so and so. In case of sea animals, Allah never imposes any restrictions. Allah is all wise, and He knows how impractical such a restriction would be.
So if you continue to uphold your logic and not eat shark, then by that same logic I hope you won't eat tuna, salmon, herring, cod and most of the other fish out there. You can't have it both ways. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:15 PM
>> In Tibet polyandry is practiced, they think its very natural. In east Asia, dogs and cats are eaten, it is considered natural.
And that for sure is a deviation. We trace our natural prohibitions all the way upto Adam. Adam was not misguided in this regard. If one retains the inner purity, one can arrive at logical conclusions.
Let me give an example, here in the liberal West, despite all permission of lewdness, people still feel guilty about it, yet continue in their deportment.
>>Opposite example, letting the beard grow. If clipping nails and shaving arm pits and pubic hair is natural, then naturally one should trim the beard too.
one relates to purification which ultimately depends on nature, the other directly on nature.
Trimming beards is natural as well especially to keep it tidy.
>>Different people will say different things are natural. There will never be a consensus. Who decides?
The voice and sense within.
>>Now if you will ban shark, then it is only natural to ban 90% of all fish we buy (because they are carnivores). Right?
Being carnivores is just one criterion, the other is the way they tear apart their prey.
Hens and Ducks eat worms, yet we eat them. But we dont eat eagles and vultures.
If cows and goats were fed meat based feeds we would still eat cows, but not lions and tigers.
Same principle.
>>I differ with you on your interfpretation of 5.96.
That is the main area of our contention. If we disagree on this, then we will disagree on all else that follows. I suppose the matter ends with our disagreement. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Monday, January 17, 2005 - 10:41 PM
I didn't understand what you said about beards. I thought the sunnah was to not trim the beard at all and let it grow as long as it goes. This is contradictory to your logic of cutting hair because trimming is a natural thing to do but in case of beard, the sunnah says dont do it?
You do realize that your argument about selecting what comes 'naturally' is very impractical in real life, don't you? You said the inner voice decides, well every individual has their own inner voice. My inner voice is telling me something different from your inner voice. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:29 AM
>>I thought the sunnah was to not trim the beard at all and let it grow as long as it goes.
The Sunnah is to keep it tidy, hence the trimming.
>>My inner voice is telling me something different from your inner voice.
So we have a disagreement. I am answerable based upon what makes sense to me the most.
If this is what your inner voice is telling you, I will not contest. I have presented what makes most sense to me and you have made your case.
This issue ends with our disgareement. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 3:59 PM
I would like to end this argument with you, however now you have raised a different issue.
I believe the sunnah is to let the beard flow and not to cut it or trim at all. The minimum requirement is one fist length of beard, but sunnah is to let it grow as long as it goes. You are saying trimming it is sunnah, that is incorrect.
Please verify this.
If this is true, then it is contradictory to your logic of doing what is natural. Another contradiction with your logic is to have a beard but trim the moustache (as is the sunnah). Why different standards on different hairs? What is natural?
The logic that we should apply whats natural keeps breaking down.
If you do wish to stop the discussion, then do not reply. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 5:02 PM
>>I believe the sunnah is to let the beard flow and not to cut it or trim at all. The minimum requirement is one fist length of beard, but sunnah is to let it grow as long as it goes. You are saying trimming it is sunnah, that is incorrect.
Firts, assuming that keeping a beard is Sunnah, it would be to keep it tidy. And trimming comes about in keeping it tidy.
>>If this is true, then it is contradictory to your logic of doing what is natural. Another contradiction with your logic is to have a beard but trim the moustache (as is the sunnah). Why different standards on different hairs? What is natural?
Because trimming moustache (so that it does not impede with food) has to do with hygiene. Same for the other hair (and there are logical explanations as to removing those hairs) i.e. proper hygiene, just as it is with 'circiumcision'.
I would argue that these traditions were established as far back as Adam and Abraham for sure, and hence are part of our inherent guidance.
On the other hand eating sharks, lions etc. has never been a part of the established customs of Muslims.
Edited by: junaidj on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:36 PM |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|