User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 5 May 2024 - 11:00 to 16:30
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
From seafood, only fish is halal for us. Rasulullah said, 'Two carions are made halal for us; Fish and locust.' (Mishkaat vol.2 pg.361).
Fish is classified as a Vertebra. Squid is not vertebras, hence, not permissible. Some Ulama are of the opinion that shrimps, etc. are fish, therefore, permissible. Due to the differences of opinion, it is best to adopt Taqwa and abstain from eating shrimps, etc. but they cannot be regarded as swine meat which is expressly haram.
I thought there was a hadith that everything from the sea was halaal... and that the ahnaaf said if it can breathe outside water, its not from the sea while the rest argues if it lives in the sea, its from the sea...
EDIT
I will have a look into this to fin out...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I have just checked up on this a bit.
According to everyone scales fish, parwns and shrimo are allowed.
There is disagreement on the rest with the emphasis being on not allowed.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
THE HANAFI RESPONSE
NO. 1
THEIR ARGUMENTS
The stronges t argument which the legalizers of sea animals (i.e. fish and all other animals which inhabit the sea) tender for their view is th e Qur'aanic aayat:
“Lawful have been made for you hunting of the ocean and its food, (this being) a benefit for you and the t r avellers.” (Surah Maaidah, aayat 96)
The legalizers translate: the ter m ‘sayd ' to mean ‘game' or the hunted animal. In ter m s of their translation they claim the aayat means that all animals hunted in the ocean are halaal. The aayat states clearly that its (the ocean's) food is halaal. The aayat is g e n- eral in import and does not confine seafood to fish as the Hanafis claim.
THE HANAFI RESPONSE
The first error is in the tra n slation. The ter m ‘sayd ' in the context of this aayat is what is called in Arabic gramma r Ism Masdar (root word or infinitiv e verb) which mean s to hunt . In the context of this vers e – the context shall soon be shown, Insha'Alla h – the term does not refer to th e hunted anima l . It refers to th e act of hun t- ing . Thus the translation is : Hunting in the ocean has been made lawful for you.
In this sentence of the aayat, two separate t hings are mentione d – hunting and food. Two things have been made lawful: Sea - hunting and its food. If the ter m ‘sayd' is inter p reted to mean the hunted sea animal, then the translation would be : Lawful have been made for you the sea animal and the sea food . This will lead to the c o n- clusion that sea animal and sea food are two different things. But this conclusion is absurd and the erroneous translation has p r o- duced the absurdity.
Furthermore, the literal meaning of the ter m say d is the meaning of th e masdar (to hunt) . The meaning o f t he hunted anima l is derived by interpretation and is a figurative meaning. To opt for the figu r a- tive meaning at the expense of sacrificing the litera l (haqeeqi) meaning without vali d dalee l is arbitrary and baseless. There h as to be strong reason for abandoning the literal meaning and adopting the figurative meaning. Th e Ahnaf (the Hanafi Fuqaha) have a d- hered to the literal meaning.
The dalee l for retention of the literal meaning is the next sentence in the very same aayat. Th e translation of the aayat is as follows:
“Lawful have been made for you hunting of (the a n i- mals) of the ocea n and its food, (this being) a benefit for you and the travellers, and unlawful has been made for you huntin g wild animals) of the land as long as you are in the state of ihram.” (Surah Maaidah, aayat 96)
Firstly, it should be note d that this aayat refers to those who are in the state o f Ihraam . For those who are in the state o f Ihraa m the Shariah decrees th a t hunting in the sea is lawful while hunting on the land is unlawful. Thus in the context of this aayat, the first sen-tence (i.e. saydul bahr ) is conjoine d (atf ) t o saydul barr) . The aayat thus means : Hunting of sea animals is halaal for the muhri m while hunting of wild animals of the land is haraam for him.
If the figurative meaning o f say d (viz., animals) has to be acce p ted, and not the literal meaning (viz to hunt), it will mean that it is not permissible for th e muhri m to eat the meat of halaa l wild animals. But this is not so. It is permissible for th e muhri m to eat the meat of wild animals of the land as long as he hi mself had not hunted the animal nor was he in any way whatsoever instrumental in catching or hunting the animal. This clarifies that the literal meaning applies here, not the figurative meaning.
Among the legalizers of all sea animals there are those Fuq aha who exclude frogs, crabs, poisonous creatures, crocodiles, eels, sea - pigs and the like from the permissibility. Inspite of t heir claim that the aayat applies t o al l sea animals, they do make these exceptions. This establishes that there is no consensu s on the claim that the aayat in question means tha t all sea animals are halaal.
A view of the Shaafi Fuqaha is that the likes o f animals which are haraam on the land are also haraam in the oceans. Thus, sea pigs, sea dogs, sea lions, etc. are haraam because their counterparts on the land are haraam. Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh) also excludes frogs from the permissibil ity because of the Hadith which prohibits its killing for use in medicine.
It is argued that the prohibition of the frog is du e to its croaking bein g Tasbeeh. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said : “Its croaking is Tasbeeh. ” In otherwords, it reci t es the praises of Allah Ta'ala. Hence, the prohibition of killing it is due to it s Tasbeeh. This argument is extremely flimsy. Even if it is momentarily a c- cepted that the prohibition to kill and eat the frog is due to its rec i t- ing the praises of Allah Ta'ala, the fact remains that it is excluded from the comprehensive permission to consume all sea anim a ls which the legalizers assert. Thus it is conceded that the aayat is not unrestricted., and does not apply to all sea animals.
Secondly, reciting o f Tasbee h cannot be a cause for prohibition to slaughter or kill and consume an animal. The Qur'aan Majeed states :
“The seven Heavens, the earth and whatever is therein — and everything recites His praise, but you do not understand th eir Tasbeeh.”
There are several Qur'aanic verses which emphatically state that everything in creatio n glorifies Allah and reci t es His praise. Does this mean that nothing can be eaten on account of the fact they they all praise Allah Ta'ala? It should thu s be clear that the argument of tasbee h is devoid of substance. The actual reason for the prohibition of using parts of the frog in medicine is stated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) h i m- self when he was asked about it. In a Hadith cited in Badaaius Sanaai', Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“It is a filthy creature from among the filthy creatures.”
ITS FOOD
The claim tha t ‘its food ' , i.e. the food of the sea, is not restric t ed to fish and applies to all sea animals is incorrect. It is incorrect b e- cause there are othe r dala a- il which restrict the meaning of se a- food to fish. Insha'Allah, the other proofs will be presented as we proceed with this discussion.
This Qur'aanic aayat is supposed to be the strongest proof of those who legalize all animals of the sea. But, in reality there is no proof in this aayat for their contention. The aayat speaks about the p e r- missibility of hunting in the sea for a muhri m , and in the course of this context it states that th e foo d of the sea is lawful . The Hadith describes the meaning of th e food of the se a which is lawful.
No. 2
The second argument of the legalizers of sea animals is the Hadith: “ Its (the ocean's) water is pure and its carrion is h a laal.”
On the basis of this Hadith it is claimed that the ter m ‘carrion' in this Hadith has been used in an unrestricted sense . It applies to all sea animals since the Hadith states ‘ the carrion of the ocean' . It is incorrect to restrict it to fish as th e Ahnaaf aver. I n Ahkaamul Qur'aan of Jassaas , the following comment appears on this Hadith:
“He who has expertise of Hadith do e s not employ as proof this narration.”
Even if this narration has to be accepted as proof, it is explained by another Hadith, v i z. :
“Two carrions (dead animals) and two bloods have been made halaal for us: fish and locusts…….”
The two carrions thus are o nly fish and locusts This Hadith asserts the exclusion of these tw o carrions from the prohibition of carrion stated in the Qur' a anic aayat:
“Haraam has been made for you carrion…..”
and the aayat: “Except that it be carrion (which then will be haraam)…”
The prohibition of carrion stated in these Qur'aanic verses applies to carrion of both the land and the sea. However, the Had i th has excluded th e two carrion s from this prohibition. It is now clear from this Hadith that b y carrion in the context of the s ea is meant only fish . Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself explicitly mentioned that the meaning of carrion here i s fish, not sea animals in general. It is therefore, improper to generalize the term and i n- clude all sea animals in th e carrion . The Qur'aan prohibits carrion and the Hadith excludes only fish and locust from the prohi b ited carrion.
Furthermore, the Qur'aan in general prohibit s lahmul khinzee r (the flesh of a pig). This Prohibition applies equally to sea pigs. It is a r- bitrary to confine it to land pigs. This is further proof in refutation of the claim that all sea animals are halaal. In fact m a ny Fuqaha have excluded the sea pig from the permissibility o f ‘all sea a n i- mals'.
The Hadith which prohibits using the frog as an ingredient in me d i cine also confirms that the permissibility is not applicable to all sea animals. The seafrog is also a sea animal. If its cons u mption was lawful, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would not have prohibited its use in medicine. Thus all sea animals b esides fish will be in the category of the frog insofar as prohibition is c o n- cerned.
NO. 3
In this argument the Hadith of Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) is cited. In this Hadith mention is made of a huge anim al of the sea which the Sahaabah ate. The Hadith states:
“Verily, the sea threw out for them (the army) an animal which is cal l ed Al - Ambar. They ate of it.”
In this lengthy Hadith it is mentioned that the Sahaabah were three hundred in number and they a t e of this sea animal for a month. They had brought some of the flesh to Madinah and even Rasul u l- lah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ate of it.
This Hadith is not a proof for the claim that the huge animal was not a fish. In a Hadith in Bukhaari it is clearly mentioned:
“The sea threw out a fish called Al - Ambar.”
This narration has been reported in different versions. Most v e r- sions mentio n ‘fish' . In the narration of A l - Khaulaani it is said:
“Suddenly we beheld a huge fish. ” In the narration of Amr Bin Dinaar, it is said : “Then the ocean cast out for us a dead fish.” The ter m ‘hoot' is used for fish in this Hadith. This word c o vers all types of fish.
The experts of the Arabic language say:
“A l- Ambar is a huge ocean fish.”
Furthermore, the episode of the hug e fish was a miracl e (Mu'jizah) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is fully within the power of Allah Ta'ala to have created such a huge fish which s u f- ficed for an army of 300 for a whole month. It is unreasonable to infer from the size of the animal that it was not a fish. All ev i- dences refute this assumption.
And how did the meat of such a huge dead animal stay fresh and fit for human consumption for a w h ole month. Within days, the stench of a dead whale on the beach drives people a kilometre or two away to the confines of insani t y. Gas masks have to be worn by those who have been hired to dispose of the dead animal. The very fact that this huge fish rema i ned fresh for a whole month is further evidence for the miraculous nature of this episode.
The fact that several Hadith narrations and the experts of the Ar a- bic language explicitly say tha t Al -Ambar mentioned in the Hadith in question is a huge fish, should suffice to confirm that t h e ‘huge animal cast out by the sea' mentioned in the Hadith of Hadhrat Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) was a fish.
NO. 4
The legalizers , in substantiation of their contention, cite the f o l- l o w ing Hadith narrated by Bukhaari:
“Everything in the ocean is mathbooh, ( i.e. it has been slaughtered).”
This Hadith als o refers to fish. In Fathul Baari is mentioned the Hadith of Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhuma) with a highly authentic Isnaad :
“All fish have been slaughtered already (by AllahTa'ala).”
Should it be accepted tha t thaba h was effected to all animals in the sea, it does not follow therefrom that to consume all anim a ls of the sea is halaal. If a wild animal or a dog is slaughtered in the Name of Allah, its flesh become s taahi r (clean), but not halaal for c o n- suming. Thu s thaba h does not render ever y mathboo h halaal for eating.
If it has to be accepted that sinc e thabah has been effected to e v e- r y thing in the sea, the logical conclusion of the logic employed, will be that every animal in the sea is halaal, we see that A i mma h - e- Mujtahideen and some Fuqaha contend that certain sea animals are haraam. This confirms that there is no consensus on the cont e n- tion that by virtue of th e thabah mentioned in the Hadith, all sea animals are halaal because no one claims that absolutely ever y sea animal is halaal.
The following Hadith of Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Ali
(radhiyallahu anhu) narrated by Baihqi with an e xcellen t Sanad , clinches this argument by eliminating all doubt:
“ Thabah has been effected to all locusts and fish.”
If th e ma t hboo h (having been slaughtered) has to be accepted as the factor for the permissibility of sea animals, then there is no re a- son for any of the legalizers to exclude any sea animal from the p er missibility, yet this is not the case. The only difference they have with the Ahnaaf is a quantitive one. While the legalizer s aver that some sea creatures are haraam, the Hanafi viewpoint is that all sea creatures besides fish are haraam. Thus, it is baseless to present the Qur'aanic aayat as an argument in refutation of the Hanafi standpoint. While the legalizers claim tha t all sea creatures are h a- laal, they nevertheless do make exceptions which break down their own argument.
A L- KHABAAITH
Allah Ta'ala states in the Qur'aa n Majeed : “And he prohibits them from impure (filthy) creatures.”
In a Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) describ e d the frog a s “a filthy creature from among the filthy creatures” . K h a- baatha h (filthiness/impurity) is a factor of prohibition. Most of the sea creatures which people consume such as shrimps, crayfish, l o b- sters, etc. feed on the filth in the oceans. Their status as being from th e a l - khabaaith is also a factor of prohibition.
{taken from the Ulama of Majlis ul Ulama, Port Elizabeth, SA}
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
I LURVE prawns....
You had them freshly cooked?
I am sure you would hange your mind...
especially whensevering them open to get to the meat inside.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
no :roll:
I've only ever tried prawn sandwiches
Well when fresh you must et a small knife, and slice the prawn open from the top of the 'head', down the 'spine' to open it up and extract the meat.
There are probabaly some that are so soft you just eat them...
I am not a prawn guy.
That always puts me off.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
mum made chicken tonight
I'm not gonna focus on how they slaughtered the chicken and cut it across the neck with a knife
plucked of all the feathers
put their hand inside the bird and took out all the crap
and then cooked it
I just see a curry in front of me
just how I just see a pretty little prawn sanwich from greggs in front of me
However with prawn, YOU DO IT WHILE EATING!
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
not in my Greggs they dont/I dont
maybe in ur uncivilised world they/you do
That is coz greggs do it for you probably.
Go order prawns in a restaurant.
Saying that i cannot eat a prawn sandwich.
I think too much.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
hello everyone,
i am new to this site and i hope people will be helpfull in answering my questions. first of all i would like to know is piercing the navel for a lady allowed?
thankyou.
i'd answer that
but ive not had it done
not am i a lady
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
I'd like to know the answer to that too
Could Shaykh Salim Ghisa answer this q in the next issue of the Revival?
assalamu alaikum hijaban
belly piercing is not permissable as i know
Jamee’atul Mufteen (Board of Muftis) comprising of 12 Darul Iftas have ruled in their last sitting that belly piercing for women is not permissible.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
hope you choose to go with this answer.
I agree
looks like Fred wants to know too
erm i know in the hanafi madhab it's not encouraged for women to uncover themselves in front of non muslim women or any untrustworthy woman even if she be a muslim.
In front of trustworthy muslim women the only area she can't reveal is between the naval and knees.
Based on this do you think it's wise to go to a beautician whose most likely a non muslim woman and get your belly pierced? You decide.
I've read that it's considered mutiliation to pierce body parts in the manner it's done in the west. Piercing body parts has become like a sadistic pleasure these days, not a form of adornment.
Apparently the ears and nose are permitted but is this based on the sunnah or other reasons?
There was a time when i thght piercing the ears looked pretty. And i do have them pierced in several places. But now i don't think it's pretty to me that's mutilation aswell. I personally think our bodies look more beautiful without holes in them. But that's not a fatwa my own view. I won't be piercing my kids ears, let them decide when they're older.
P.S don't diss prawns my ppl love fish lol. I'll make you a prawn boona curry it's top , you'll convert to a prawn lover over night Admin, trust me. I'm not being bias but Bangladeshi prawns have a better fragrance, try them. They come in square frozen blocks, and look very grey. Get the ones with shells on, better taste. Don't get the real tiny prawns there's no meat to them. Remove shells before cooking. Some folks leave them on. They're the best ones to use in cooking curries etc. But for sandwiches english ones are better. English prawns are good for european cooking styles, more mild dishes. Chinese prawns are great too.
I'm not posting my recipe here it's top secret, my mothers secret recipes all copyrights reserved.
my mate pierced her own belly
it looks very very pretty
i don't see body piercing as mutiliation-i dont get any "pleasure" out of peircing holes in my body-it HURTS
i do it cos it looks pretty
i have my ears pierced once and a teeny weeny stud in my nose
I've always considered the belly piercing as very pretty-esp if u have a flat tummy
i've been in two minds about it all my life
Actually I don't want to know. I couldn't care less.
I was being sarcastic.
Shaykh Salim Ghisa seems to be answering only girly questions. Plucking eyebrows, marriage, boy/girlfriends.
He needs to take on some manly issues. Ghhrrrr.
LOL
be a man, put ur foot down and ask a "manly question" then :twisted:
errmm how about
"are goatee's haraam"?
or "can have a number one on top and a number two beneath" (haircut)
...now I'm blank
i dont know what bothers u guys
He could answer something about keeping beards.
EG is making funny lines across your face jaiz?
so that means i cant have it pierced
, it looks so pretty 
Muhtarama has given the correct answer according to the Ulama of Ahnaaf. Belly piercing is forbidden and not allowed.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
qsn: According to the hanafis associated with minhaj.org, what is the minimum HANAFI length for a beard? How is a beard to be determined to fit that length. Eg ifruling is beard must be a fist, then I cud grab my beard including my chin and then it would be more than a fist, if i grabbed my beard straight at the bottom of my chin, then it is still a few cm shorter than a fist.
What is the shari' ruling of a person who trims his beard?
What if it is some big alim, and he has a trimmed beard, is he still classified as . . . ?
much appreciated
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Sunnah beard or waajib beard?
An aalim is a scholar. One of knowledge. He would have his knowledge if he was clean shaven (as long as Allah (swt) allowed him to have it...).
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Med, like most ppl from madrassahs , you're obsessed with the beard....
get over it!
there are more important things in Islam, especially today, which are alot more serious and important than the size of the beard......
out of all the subjects in the world...you bang on about the beard.....
an alim without a beard :roll: dodgy. one with knowledge without a beard :roll: what has he been studying? dont know any alims without beards.
u get some weird big scholars out there who have beards for show, might as well not have a beard :roll:
hey ppl
shaykh hamza yusuf is one of the biggest scholars in the world today
he has almost a goatie...does that make him a dodgy scholar...does he therefore have no knowledge?
i dont think so.
Pages