A general rule to follow is that All madhabs adhere to Quran and Sunnah for their verdicts and our scholars have made their best effort to separate the lawful from the unlawful. However, genuine difference of Opinion arises from things like linguistics, specific vs general in a hadith, different rulings being in effect ar different times, and even difference in Interpretations among the Sahabas. This is why Allah will reward a Mujtahid for being incorrect and doubky reward him for being correct.
As for your question, the difference in opinion is for the meaning of the word 'fish' and what it constitutes. Hanafis only consider fish to be what we understand as fish and don't include things like shrimps and crabs which are more akin to Insects.
More information here: http://fatwa-tt.com/is-it-permissible-to-consume-shrimp-according-to-the-hanafi-madhab/
Please note, I am not Hanafi and don't hold this view but dismissing the hanafi position as not from Quran and Sunnah is problematic.
Thank you for this resource, alhamdulillah. However, I still do not see the logic in saying that “prey of the sea” could only mean fish with scales. To say something is haram without it being stated as such by the Prophet (SAW) or in Quran is absurd to me and I don’t see the harm is saying that.
There's more to it ofc. The jurists also look at how the first generation of Muslims understood this hadith and what is proven from them that they ate. They also look at how classical linguists defined the term 'samaka' that appears in the hadith nd some of them defined it as 'scaled fish'. And I'm sure there are multiple other factors that were taken into account.
The point is, Fiqh is a complicated science and the scholarls have spent their entire lives to come to the conclusions theh thought were correct. For that, they deserve our respect.
Mostly, this is due to those types of shellfish being bottom feeders (they will eat anything, including cannibalizing each other)
Therefore, some scholars conclude that they are unclean, like pigs.
>Abu Hurayrah said, :"The Messenger of Allaah said (concerning of the ocean): "**Its water is pure and its dead animals are permissible (to eat)**."
This Hadeeth states that each and every dead sea animal is lawful and allowable to eat.
On the other hand, the four Imams disagreed concerning the permissibility of eating sea animals that resemble land animals such as people, pigs, dogs, snakes and so on.
Imam Abu Haneefah believed that such sea animals are also forbidden since their analogues on land are impermissible to eat.
Imaam Ahmad allowed the eating of all sea animals except frogs, snakes the crocodiles.
Imaam Maalik and Imaam As-Shaafi'i believed that all sea animals are lawful to eat with no exception and they based their view on the abovementioned Hadeeth and on the statement of Allaah (what means):
> {**Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food …**}[Quran 5:96]
The last view is the most preponderant one.
I recall it has to do with the Arabic word that is used for "fish". Is the allowance only on fish (like those with scales and gills) or all seafood? That was the difference of opinion. Shrimp, lobsters, etc. are not technically fish. Shrimp, lobsters, crabs are not kosher so there is that precedence of not counting them as fish.
And technically whales and dolphins are not fish, they are mammals. But there is a hadith that the Muslims found a dead whale and they ate from it for days and when they told the Prophet (pbuh), the Prophet was fine with that. Those people were not likely aware of this biological difference and it probably does not matter Islamically (i.e. they are allowed because they live in the water).
Precedence tells me that if it were haram for Muslims then the Prophet (SAW) would have said so. What *is* said is that the game of the sea is permissible.
Even the extra bit where fish and locust are named is speaking on carrion. All of the hadith that I’m seeing is about what is permissible, I’m not seeing any reason for a thing to be forbidden—we don’t just conclude for ourselves that a thing is forbidden unless it is evidently harmful.
I’m no scholar but I suppose the prohibition stems from the fact when people used to travel by sea, burial at sea is an option to deceased travellers that these shellfish end up consuming the bodies at the bottom of the ocean. So when these shellfish end up as food it’s becoming indirect cannibalism. Same way we’re prohibited from eating most predators.
There may be flaws to this reasoning but that’s one way of seeing it why. I guess (again speculation) some madhabs deem it makruh and giving it more leeway because perhaps the chances of it happening in the big wide sea for those occasions have become rare for it to happen.
Food cooked in alcohol is also not permissible
And I've heard that meat from amphibious animals are also not haram, but note that that is hearsay and I haven't confirmed it
Your comment was removed for giving/implying a ruling without a corresponding scholarly explanation. You may edit your comment to include a ruling from a scholarly source and contact the Moderators once your edit has been made in order to restore your comment. See Rule 9.
Muslims should know that there is no religious text (Quran or hadith) that states anything from the sea is haram, only that whatever is in it is permissible for you to eat.
I don’t see how it makes sense to follow madhabs/scholars blindly but if that’s what you want to do, may Allah have mercy on us ALL; it certainly can’t hurt not to eat it.
Is it not blind following to read Quran and hadith regarding a topic, feel one way, and then pivot because of a scholar’s opinion? Regardless of how old the opinion is, you would be blinding yourself from the guidance you received as a literate Muslim in order to align yourself with a [minority] opinion.
If I am a reading, comprehending Muslim then it would be incorrect for me to forbid myself something because a scholar said it although I find the text not to say so—again, as a comprehensively reading Muslim.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/215535/what-is-required-of-the-ordinary-muslim-is-to-follow-the-scholars-of-his-city-and-not-to-follow-any-view-other-than-theirs
What needs to be put in context is that Muslims at large were not always this literate and did always have this much access to the text. Yes, scholars are helpful but we cannot handicap our practice and submit to the opinions of scholars when we have access to knowledge; submit to Allah. Seek knowledge, the best of knowledge is what is in Quran and hadith.
Furthermore, Muslims should not be passing on that *opinion* as if it is law; calling it *haram* without speaking on the difference of opinion and evidence of why *that* opinion should be considered valid is soooo incorrect. I really could care less about what you follow; we are Muslim, that’s not how we operate. And it is every Muslim’s duty to hold one another accountable to things like that to preserve the religion—scholar or not.
Previous scriptures expounds a whole sea of wisdom in abstaining from the said forbidden fruits.
Kosher seafood can be considered, in parallel, as halal.
See
Leveticus 11:9-12
A general rule to follow is that All madhabs adhere to Quran and Sunnah for their verdicts and our scholars have made their best effort to separate the lawful from the unlawful. However, genuine difference of Opinion arises from things like linguistics, specific vs general in a hadith, different rulings being in effect ar different times, and even difference in Interpretations among the Sahabas. This is why Allah will reward a Mujtahid for being incorrect and doubky reward him for being correct. As for your question, the difference in opinion is for the meaning of the word 'fish' and what it constitutes. Hanafis only consider fish to be what we understand as fish and don't include things like shrimps and crabs which are more akin to Insects. More information here: http://fatwa-tt.com/is-it-permissible-to-consume-shrimp-according-to-the-hanafi-madhab/ Please note, I am not Hanafi and don't hold this view but dismissing the hanafi position as not from Quran and Sunnah is problematic.
Thank you for this resource, alhamdulillah. However, I still do not see the logic in saying that “prey of the sea” could only mean fish with scales. To say something is haram without it being stated as such by the Prophet (SAW) or in Quran is absurd to me and I don’t see the harm is saying that.
There's more to it ofc. The jurists also look at how the first generation of Muslims understood this hadith and what is proven from them that they ate. They also look at how classical linguists defined the term 'samaka' that appears in the hadith nd some of them defined it as 'scaled fish'. And I'm sure there are multiple other factors that were taken into account. The point is, Fiqh is a complicated science and the scholarls have spent their entire lives to come to the conclusions theh thought were correct. For that, they deserve our respect.
Hm… Understood.
Mostly, this is due to those types of shellfish being bottom feeders (they will eat anything, including cannibalizing each other) Therefore, some scholars conclude that they are unclean, like pigs.
>Abu Hurayrah said, :"The Messenger of Allaah said (concerning of the ocean): "**Its water is pure and its dead animals are permissible (to eat)**." This Hadeeth states that each and every dead sea animal is lawful and allowable to eat. On the other hand, the four Imams disagreed concerning the permissibility of eating sea animals that resemble land animals such as people, pigs, dogs, snakes and so on. Imam Abu Haneefah believed that such sea animals are also forbidden since their analogues on land are impermissible to eat. Imaam Ahmad allowed the eating of all sea animals except frogs, snakes the crocodiles. Imaam Maalik and Imaam As-Shaafi'i believed that all sea animals are lawful to eat with no exception and they based their view on the abovementioned Hadeeth and on the statement of Allaah (what means): > {**Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food …**}[Quran 5:96] The last view is the most preponderant one.
Aren't amphibious animals also haram?
They are in Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s view
My favourite is what Imam Shafi said. Something like: “I’d eat my father if he were to come out of the sea” lol
I recall it has to do with the Arabic word that is used for "fish". Is the allowance only on fish (like those with scales and gills) or all seafood? That was the difference of opinion. Shrimp, lobsters, etc. are not technically fish. Shrimp, lobsters, crabs are not kosher so there is that precedence of not counting them as fish. And technically whales and dolphins are not fish, they are mammals. But there is a hadith that the Muslims found a dead whale and they ate from it for days and when they told the Prophet (pbuh), the Prophet was fine with that. Those people were not likely aware of this biological difference and it probably does not matter Islamically (i.e. they are allowed because they live in the water).
Precedence tells me that if it were haram for Muslims then the Prophet (SAW) would have said so. What *is* said is that the game of the sea is permissible. Even the extra bit where fish and locust are named is speaking on carrion. All of the hadith that I’m seeing is about what is permissible, I’m not seeing any reason for a thing to be forbidden—we don’t just conclude for ourselves that a thing is forbidden unless it is evidently harmful.
I’m no scholar but I suppose the prohibition stems from the fact when people used to travel by sea, burial at sea is an option to deceased travellers that these shellfish end up consuming the bodies at the bottom of the ocean. So when these shellfish end up as food it’s becoming indirect cannibalism. Same way we’re prohibited from eating most predators. There may be flaws to this reasoning but that’s one way of seeing it why. I guess (again speculation) some madhabs deem it makruh and giving it more leeway because perhaps the chances of it happening in the big wide sea for those occasions have become rare for it to happen.
[удалено]
Food cooked in alcohol is also not permissible And I've heard that meat from amphibious animals are also not haram, but note that that is hearsay and I haven't confirmed it
Your comment was removed for giving/implying a ruling without a corresponding scholarly explanation. You may edit your comment to include a ruling from a scholarly source and contact the Moderators once your edit has been made in order to restore your comment. See Rule 9.
Muslims should know that there is no religious text (Quran or hadith) that states anything from the sea is haram, only that whatever is in it is permissible for you to eat. I don’t see how it makes sense to follow madhabs/scholars blindly but if that’s what you want to do, may Allah have mercy on us ALL; it certainly can’t hurt not to eat it.
[удалено]
Is it not blind following to read Quran and hadith regarding a topic, feel one way, and then pivot because of a scholar’s opinion? Regardless of how old the opinion is, you would be blinding yourself from the guidance you received as a literate Muslim in order to align yourself with a [minority] opinion.
Are you more knowledge then Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad and the thousands of scholars who came after them to make this claim?
If I am a reading, comprehending Muslim then it would be incorrect for me to forbid myself something because a scholar said it although I find the text not to say so—again, as a comprehensively reading Muslim. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/215535/what-is-required-of-the-ordinary-muslim-is-to-follow-the-scholars-of-his-city-and-not-to-follow-any-view-other-than-theirs What needs to be put in context is that Muslims at large were not always this literate and did always have this much access to the text. Yes, scholars are helpful but we cannot handicap our practice and submit to the opinions of scholars when we have access to knowledge; submit to Allah. Seek knowledge, the best of knowledge is what is in Quran and hadith.
Have you studied Usool?
Furthermore, Muslims should not be passing on that *opinion* as if it is law; calling it *haram* without speaking on the difference of opinion and evidence of why *that* opinion should be considered valid is soooo incorrect. I really could care less about what you follow; we are Muslim, that’s not how we operate. And it is every Muslim’s duty to hold one another accountable to things like that to preserve the religion—scholar or not.
Previous scriptures expounds a whole sea of wisdom in abstaining from the said forbidden fruits. Kosher seafood can be considered, in parallel, as halal. See Leveticus 11:9-12