بَابُ مَا يَحِلُّ أَكْلُهُ وَمَا يَحْرُمُWhat is Permissible to Eat and What is Prohibited

² The statement: Say, I do not find within that which was revealed to me, etc.: This indicates that prohibition is known through revelation, not whims. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

³ The statement: “Forbade, etc.”: This means no animal that hunts with its fangs, excluding camels, or with its claws (talons), excluding doves, is permissible. “Predator” specifies fanged animals, meaning aggressive, attacking, or killing creatures. “Bird” specifies clawed ones, excluding insects (small terrestrial creatures). Domestic donkeys are prohibited, unlike wild ones, which are permissible, as is their milk. In “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar.” In “Radd al-Muhtar,” “Al-Kifayah” states: The basis for prohibition is harmfulness, sometimes via fangs, sometimes claws, or impurity, either inherent, as in insects and vermin, or acquired, as in jallalah (animals fed impurities). The reason is that their natures are reprehensible in Shariah, lest their traits transfer through consumption, prohibiting them to honor humanity, just as permissible foods are allowed to honor them. In “Al-Hidayah,” this hadith includes hyenas and foxes, refuting al-Shafi’i’s permissibility of them. Al-Zayla’i said: The narration permitting their consumption applies to the initial ruling. In “Sharh al-Sunnah,” if an animal’s meat is not permissible, its milk is not, except human milk for infants, and if a bird’s meat is not permissible, its eggs are not. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

¹ The statement: “Prohibited domestic donkeys and mule meat”: In “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar,” domestic donkeys and mules from a donkey mother are not permissible. If the mother is a cow, it is unanimously permissible; if a horse, it follows the mother’s ruling.

² The statement: “Forbade eating the meat of horses, etc.”: In “Bazl al-Majhud,” narrations differ regarding Imam Abu Hanifah on horse meat. Per al-Hasan’s narration, he prohibited it. Per the apparent narration, he disliked it without declaring it prohibited due to conflicting hadiths and early scholars’ differences, disliking it as a precaution. Abu Hanifah’s evidence, per al-Hasan, from the Qur’an is: And [He created] the horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride and [as] adornment (Qur’an 16:8). Ibn Abbas cited this for disliking horse meat, as it does not say “to eat.” From the Sunnah, Jabir narrated: On Khaybar, people faced famine, slaughtered donkeys, and the Prophet (ﷺ) prohibited donkey and horse meat. Khalid ibn al-Walid narrated: “The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade horse, mule, and donkey meat.” Miqdam ibn Ma’dikarib narrated: “The Prophet (ﷺ) prohibited domestic donkeys and their horses.” This explicitly prohibits. By consensus, mule meat is prohibited, and as a horse’s offspring, if the mother were permissible, the mule would be, as the offspring follows the mother’s ruling. Since the mule is prohibited, so is the horse. Permissive hadiths may apply to when donkeys were eaten at Khaybar, and horses were eaten then but later prohibited. Al-Zuhri said: “We know of no horse meat eaten except during a siege.” Al-Hasan said: “The Prophet’s companions ate horse meat during campaigns,” indicating necessity, as al-Zuhri stated, or the prohibitive narration is preferred for caution. Mawlana Muhammad Yahya noted: “And permitted horse meat” explicitly applies to Khaybar. The later narration clarifies the permission was tacit approval. Khalid’s prohibition narration, post-Khaybar after his conversion, must be later. A companion’s narration is assumed direct unless necessity suggests otherwise. In “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar,” Abu Hanifah prohibits horse meat, while Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and al-Shafi’i permit it. Some say Abu Hanifah retracted prohibition three days before his death, and this is the fatwa. In “Radd al-Muhtar,” it is disliked (tanzih), the apparent narration, as in “Kifayat al-Bayhaqi,” deemed correct by Fakhr al-Islam and others. “Al-Khulasah,” “Al-Hidayah,” “Al-Muheet,” “Al-Mughni,” “Qadi Khan,” “Al-Imadi,” and others affirm disliking prohibition. Abu al-Sa’ud noted no disagreement between Abu Hanifah and his students, as they permit it with tanzih dislike, per “Al-Sharnbalaliyyah” from “Al-Burhan.” The dispute is about land horses; sea horses are unanimously prohibited.

¹ The statement: “Who accepted it”: In “Kitab al-Rahmah fi Ikhtilaf al-A’immah,” the rabbit is unanimously permissible. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

² The statement: “Forbade eating lizard meat”: Lizard is called “susmar” in Persian and “goh” in Hindi. It is disliked by us. Our jurists say it is prohibitively disliked; our hadith scholars say it is mildly disliked. Al-Shafi’i and others say it is permissible. We say the Prophet (ﷺ) was uncertain initially, then settled on avoiding it. Shafi’is say the prohibition was initial, then permitted. Authentic hadiths exist for both permission and prohibition, differing in sequence. Muslim’s narration of the prohibition as final suffices. In “Urf al-Shadhi.” In “Bazl al-Majhud,” the Prophet (ﷺ) initially permitted it but avoided it out of disgust, saying it was not in his people’s land, so he found it repulsive. He hesitated, suspecting it might be metamorphosed, neither commanding nor prohibiting it, leaving it permissible initially. Later, he prohibited it, making it prohibited. This view prioritizes prohibition over permission.

³ The statement: “Remained silent on it, etc.”: Al-Mundhiri said: Its chain includes Ismail ibn Ayyash and Damdam ibn Zur’ah, who are debated. We say: Ismail’s narrations from Syrians are authentic, and Damdam is Syrian (from Homs). Al-Bayhaqi admitted his narrations from Syrians are authentic, as in the hadith on not performing wudu from blood, so Abu Dawud’s silence indicates it is hasan or sahih. Bukhari, Ibn Ma’in, and others affirmed Ismail’s authenticity from Syrians. Damdam is truthful but prone to errors, a trait in many Sahih narrators, so the hadith is authentic. Al-Ayni said: Al-Tirmidhi authenticated Ismail’s narration from Sharhabil ibn Muslim from Abu Umamah, so the chain is authentic. Thus, in “Tansiq al-Nizam.”

In “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar,” narrations of eating it apply to the initial ruling.

¹ The statement: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) eating chicken meat”: In “Umdat al-Qari,” this hadith permits eating chicken. In “Al-Tawdih,” there is consensus on its permissibility.

² The statement: “Eating locusts with him”: In “Umdat al-Qari,” scholars unanimously permit eating locusts without slaughter, except Malikis, who require slaughter. They differ on its method: some say beheading, Ibn Wahb said capture is its slaughter, and Malik said if captured alive, beheaded, roasted, or fried, it is permissible; if neglected until dead, it is not. Al-Tahawi narrated in his hunting book: Abu Hanifah was asked if locusts are like fish, eaten whether named or not, found anywhere, even dead on the ground or killed by rain. He said: “Yes, nothing makes locusts prohibited in any state.” Thus, in “Al-Hidayah.”

³ The statement: “The dead things are fish and locusts”: The four Imams said locusts are permissible, whether dying naturally, slaughtered, or hunted by a Muslim or Magian, with or without cutting. Ahmad said if killed by cold, it is not eaten. Malik’s view: permissible if beheaded, otherwise not. Evidence for general permissibility is: “Two dead things are made lawful for us.” Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

¹ The statement: “This is Abu Hanifah’s view, etc.”: This is the view of Jabir, Ali, Ibn Abbas, Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib, Abu al-Sha’tha, al-Nakha’i, Tawus, and al-Zuhri, as reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abd al-Razzaq, and others. Al-Daraqutni and al-Bayhaqi narrated permissibility of floating fish from Abu Bakr and Abu Ayyub. Al-Shafi’i, Malik, Ahmad, and some successors adopted this, citing: “Its water is pure, its dead are lawful,” and “Two dead things are made lawful for us: fish and locusts, liver and spleen” [narrated by Ibn Majah, Ahmad, Abd ibn Humayd, al-Daraqutni, Ibn Mardawayh, and others]. Our scholars responded: The sea’s dead are what it casts out or water recedes from, attributed to the sea, not what dies naturally and floats without affliction. Thus, in “Al-Binayah” and “Al-Dirayah,” per “Al-Ta’liq al-Mumajjad.”

² The statement: “Do not eat what dies in it and floats”: In “Sharh al-Sunnah,” scholars differed on floating fish. Some companions and successors, including Malik and al-Shafi’i, permitted it, while others, including Jabir, Ibn Abbas, and Abu Hanifah’s companions, disliked it.

¹ The statement: “If a fly falls into one of your vessels, etc.”: In “Sharh al-Sunnah,” this indicates flies are pure, as are all animals’ bodies except dogs and pigs, per the Sunnah. It also indicates that creatures without flowing blood, like flies, bees, scorpions, beetles, or wasps, do not render small amounts of water or drink impure if they die in it. Submerging a fly might kill it, so if it rendered food impure, the Prophet (ﷺ) would not have ordered it to avoid contamination. This is the view of most jurists. In “Ikhtilaf al-A’immah,” Abu Hanifah and Malik say it does not render liquids impure and is pure itself. The preferred Shafi’i view is it does not render liquids impure but becomes impure upon death, as per Ahmad. In “Al-Mirqat.” Elsewhere, in “Hayat al-Hayawan,” all fly types are prohibited to eat, though al-Rafi’i noted a view permitting it. In “Al-Ihya,” if a fly or ant falls into a cooking pot and its parts dissolve, the dish is not prohibited, as prohibiting flies or ants is due to disgust, which does not apply here.

¹ The statement: “Remove it and what is around it, then eat it”: In “Umdat al-Qari,” there is consensus that this applies to solid ghee. For liquid ghee or other liquids, there is no dispute that if a mouse or similar falls in, none is eaten. They differed on selling or benefiting from it. Al-Hasan ibn Salih and Ahmad said it cannot be sold or benefited from, as it cannot be eaten. Al-Thawri, Malik, and al-Shafi’i said it can be used for lighting or soap but not sold or eaten. Abu Hanifah, his companions, and al-Layth said it can be benefited from in all ways except eating and sold with disclosure. Our evidence includes al-Tahawi’s hadith and narrations from Abu Musa and Ibn Wahb.

² The statement: “Kill snakes, etc.”: In “Radd al-Muhtar,” al-Tahawi said: There is no harm in killing all snakes, as the Prophet (ﷺ) made a pact with jinn not to enter his community’s homes. If they enter, they break the pact, losing protection. The better approach is to warn them, saying: “Return by Allah’s permission,” and kill if they refuse, except during prayer. In “Al-Hilyah,” al-Tahawi and others, including Ibn al-Humam, agreed. Ibn al-Humam said: The truth is permissibility remains, but it is better to avoid those with jinn signs, not for prohibition but to avoid potential harm.

In “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar,” the command to kill is for permissibility, as it benefits us, but it is better to avoid killing white snakes due to fear of harm.

¹ The statement: “Except the white jann, etc.”: Among Hanafis, white snakes should not be killed, as they may be jinn. Al-Tahawi said: Killing all is permissible, but warning is better. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

² The statement: “Whoever spares them fearing retribution is not of us”: The commentator said: The pre-Islamic custom was to say, “Do not kill snakes, lest their mate stings you in revenge.” The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade this belief. In “Al-Mirqat.” In “Bazl al-Majhud,” some Indians believe in certain regions that killing a snake at specific times prompts its mate to sting annually in revenge.

¹ The statement: “Ordered the killing of geckos, etc.”: Gecko (wazagh): Al-Kirmani said: It is a creature with legs that runs among grass roots. Ibn al-Athir said: It is called “sam abras” (leper poison). Al-Ayni said: This is correct; it is found on walls and ceilings, making a chirping sound. In “Al-Ghayath”: Wazagh: warba (lizard). In “Burhan”: A type of chameleon, also called sam abras, resembling a lizard on house ceilings, called “chhipkali” in Hindi. Mawlana Abu al-Hasanat Muhammad Abdul Hayy in “Nafa’ al-Mufti wal-Sa’il bi-Jam’ Mutafarriqat al-Masa’il” stated: Question: Is killing geckos permissible? Answer: Yes, and there is great reward in it, as narrated: “Whoever kills a gecko gains seventy good deeds.” In “Khazinat al-Riwayat,” from the margin of “Al-Mashariq,” from Umm Sharik’s hadith.]

¹ The statement: “Allah revealed to him, etc.”: In “Al-Mirqat,” the prohibition on killing ants can be applied to non-harmful ones, reconciling hadiths and analogizing to lice, as ants’ harm may exceed lice. Killing a cat is not permissible initially, unlike when it causes harm. Burning may be abrogated or applied to cases where killing is only possible by necessity. In “Al-Alamgiriyyah,” scholars discussed killing ants. The preferred view is that if an ant initiates harm, it may be killed; otherwise, killing is disliked. They agreed that throwing ants into water is disliked. Killing lice is permissible in all cases, per “Al-Khulasah.” Burning ant colonies for one ant is prohibited, per “Al-Fatawa al-Attabiyyah.”

¹ The statement: “The ant”: In “Hayat al-Hayawan,” it is disliked to eat what ants carry in their mouths or legs, as Al-Hafiz Abu Na’im narrated in “Al-Tibb al-Nabawi” from Salih ibn Hurrat ibn Jubayr from his father from his grandfather: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade eating what ants carry in their mouths or legs.” Eating ants is prohibited due to the prohibition on killing them. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

² The statement: “The bee”: In “Hayat al-Hayawan,” Mujahid disliked killing bees, and eating them is prohibited, though honey is permissible, as human milk is permissible but human flesh is not. Some early scholars permitted eating bees like locusts. The prohibition is evidenced by the Prophet’s (ﷺ) prohibition on killing them. In “Al-Ibanah,” selling bees is disliked, especially in hives unless fully visible; otherwise, it is selling the unseen. Abu Hanifah said: Selling bees, wasps, or insects is invalid. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.”

³ The statement: “The shrike”: In “Al-Mirqat,” the shrike (surad) is a bird with a large head and beak, its feathers half white, half black, per “Al-Nihayah.” In “Al-Ghayath”: A large-headed bird that hunts sparrows, called “warkak” in Persian and “lanura” in Hindi, per “Tarjumat al-Shafiyah.” Arabs took omens from its sound or appearance, so the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade killing it to remove their superstitious beliefs. This alludes to the narration: “O Allah, there is no omen but Your omen, no good but Your good, no god but You. O Allah, none brings good deeds but You, and none averts evil but You.” In “Hayat al-Hayawan,” the sounder view is that eating the shrike is prohibited due to this hadith. Some said it is permissible, as al-Shafi’i required compensation for killing it in ihram, as did Malik.

⁴ The statement: “I ate bustard meat, etc.”: In “Hayat al-Hayawan” by al-Amiri, the bustard is a long-necked, gray bird with a slightly long beak, hunted but not a hunter. Thus, in “Al-Mirqat.” In “Bazl al-Majhud,” bustard meat is unanimously permissible, with no known disagreement.

⁵ The statement: “Forbade eating jallalah, etc.”: In “Sharh al-Sunnah,” for an animal that eats filth, if it does so occasionally, like chickens, it is not jallalah, and eating it is not prohibited. If most of its feed is filth, affecting its meat and milk, scholars differed. Some, including al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and Abu Hanifah, said it is not permissible unless confined and fed clean feed until its meat is purified. Al-Hasan saw no issue with eating jallalah, as did Malik. Ishaq said it is permissible after thorough washing. In “Rahmat al-Ummah,” jallalah, whether camel, sheep, or chicken, is disliked by Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. Ahmad said its meat, milk, and eggs are prohibited until confined and fed clean feed until the impure odor is gone, removing the dislike unanimously. Some said: Camels and cows are confined for forty days, sheep for seven, chickens for three. In “Radd al-Muhtar,” in the section on leftover water, they stated jallalah cannot be sacrificed, as noted in sacrifices. In “Sharh al-Wahbaniyyah” and “Al-Muntaqa,” jallalah with a foul odor is not eaten, its milk not drunk, nor used for work, and its sale or gifting is disliked in that state. Al-Baqqali said its sweat is impure. The author in “Al-Hazr wal-Ibahah” stated that female donkey and jallalah meat is disliked. The commentator said: Jallalah is confined until its meat’s odor is gone, three days for chickens, four for sheep, ten for camels and cows, per the sounder view. If it eats filth and clean feed without affecting its meat, it is permissible. Thus, jallalah whose leftover water is disliked is one that eats only filth until its meat is foul, as it is then inedible. In “Al-Jawharah,” if it mixes feed or most of its feed is clean, its leftover water is not disliked.

¹ The statement: “The cat is among the predatory animals”: This means the cat is included among predators because it has fangs and fights with them, so its meat is not eaten, like that of a wolf or similar animals.

² The statement: “There is no harm in the price of a cat”: This means the sale of predatory animals of all kinds, including cats, is permissible, as benefit can be derived from them in repelling household pests and from their hides. It is permissible to sell fanged predators like lions, leopards, hyenas, and wolves, and clawed birds, as they can be used lawfully, except for pigs, which are inherently impure, so neither their use nor sale is permissible. The sale of vermin of the land, like beetles, or sea vermin, like crabs, and all sea creatures except fish, is not permissible, even if not harmful. Selling animals with value, like lizards, is permissible. Selling snakes is allowed if used for medicine; otherwise, it is not. This is the summary from “Al-Kanz” and its commentaries.