Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by Juwayni, Apr 23, 2017.
And whales are mammals as we know today.
In addition, Huzūr Tāj al-Sharīáh have said that it is not a fish.
Furthermore, Muftī Amjad Álī Aáżamī have said “There is a disagreement between the scholars whether prawns are considered a fish or not. Because of this there is a difference in its permissibility and impermissibility. From the apparent, its appearance is not similar to a fish but resembles an insect, therefore it should be avoided.”
As for squid, the appearance is nothing like that of a fish and I am not aware of anyone having said it is a fish.
Also today we know that shrimp/prawn are not fish but rather Crustaceans, more similar to crabs and lobsters than fish.
Is there any proof where squid has been considered as a type of fish?
The reason why there is difference regarding shrimp/prawn is because they have been considered a type of fish at one point in time, I do not think the same stands for squid/octopus.
Coming back to the main discussion, can Ala Hazrat's (ʿAlayhi Raḥmah) approach be used to answer the question regarding squid?
What I've found when you examine a white shrimp's anatomy (people who specialize in this correct me I'm wrong) is that a white shrimp's digestive functions center more along its back and this part can be easily cut open and removed.
One thing to note is that you can get shrimp/prawn nowadays that are reasonably large that the digestive tract known as the 'vein' has been removed or whose remainder can be easily removed with a knife without spilling its contents. Hence the term 'de-veined shrimp'.
The discussion here seems to center around those small fish whose stomachs cannot be cut open and they are fried/cooked without removing the stomach.
Hadrat Shah Turab ul Haq rahmatullahi alayh on jheenga :
Wa Álaykum as Salām,
Regarding prawns then in Aĥkām e Sharīat AlāĤadhrat Radī Allāhu Anhu states:
The Answer: In our Madhab (Hanafi), with the exception of fish, all the other (sea) creatures are regarded as Haraam (not permissible for consumption). Thus, those few who say that the jhinga (shrimp) is not a fish, according to them; it should be regarded as haraam. This humble servant has however, researched this thoroughly and has found that according to the Books of Language (Dictionary); Books of Tibb and the Books of information on animals, the jhinga is regarded a fish.
It is in Qaamoos: “Irbiyaan (shrimp) which is with the Hamza-e-Maksoora, is a fish, which in appearance is like a large ant.”
It is in Sihah and Taajul Uroos as follows: “Irbiyaan is a whitish fish which looks like a large ant and is usually found in Basra.”
It is in Siraah as follows: “Irbiyaan is a type of fish.”
It is in Muntahi ul Arab as follows: Irbiyaan is a type of fish which is known as jhinga in hindi
It is in Makhzan as follows: “It is known as Roobiyaan and Irbiyaan. It is called Roobiyaan Fish and Machli and Mek Machli and in Hindi it is called jhinga.”
It is in Tuhfatul Mo’mineen as follows, “In Farsi, Roobiyaan is the name of a Fish.”
It is in Tazkira-e-Dawood as follows: “Roobiyaan is a type of fish which is found a lot in the seas of Iraq and Qaam. It is like a reddish crab with lots of legs, but it has more flesh on it.”
It is in Hayaatul Haywaan Kubra as follows: Roobiyaan is slightly red and is a very small fish.
Now after examining all this, then according to Merajud Diraaya it should be Halaal since in the quotation of Merajud Diraaya it is clear that all species of fish are Halaal: “And Taafi is not a fixed species, but it is a description which every species is linked towards.”
It is clearly stated as follows in the Meraj (book as mentioned above), “Such a small fish in which the stomach can not be cut open and it is fried (or cooked) without removing the stomach, then with the exception of Imam Shafi’i it is Halaal according to all the A’ima. It is in Raddul Muhtar that it has been mentioned in Merajud Diraaya. If a fish is found in the stomach of a fish then it can be consumed, but according to Imam Shafi’i (radi Allahu anhu) it will not be eaten as it is regarded in the ruling of bird droppings and according to him, the droppings of the bird is regarded as napaak (impurity).”
We say that it is only regarded as droppings if it has changed its originality. As for those fish which are so small that their stomachs can not be cut open, then according to the Shafi’i Imams, it is not Halaal to consume, since they base this on the (same) ruling that (apply to) the droppings of the bird as being an impurity and according to the remainder of the Ulama, to consume such fish is halaal.
However, this faqeer (Aala Hazrat) has seen in Jawaahir that all such small fish are Makrooh-e-Tahreemi and this seems to be more correct. It is in Jawaahir as follows: “It has been mentioned that all very small fish are Makrooh-e-Tahreemi. This seems to be more correct. The jhinga (shrimp) looks a lot different from any other fish. It looks more like a worm and it must be noted that the term Maahi (fish) is also used for things which are not really from the fish species, such as a skink or a small limbed lizard, even though it is the young of an alligator and is born on the dry banks of the river Nile (commonly). There is no source according to our A’ima (Learned Leaders) that shows the shrimp to be lawful to consume and even if it is a fish, then the shrimps here are generally very small and the law will be as correctly mentioned in Jawaahir. Thus, it is better when faced with such difference of opinion and doubt to abstain if there is no necessity, and to abstain is Oola (better).
والله تعالٰی اعلم
كتبه عبده المذنب احمد رضا عفى عنه
بمحمّد ن المصطفى صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم
As Salāmu ʿAlaykum,
Also in the news:
(As usual, please run an image blocker, as unbeknownst to me there may be irreligious images).
What is your view?
not arabic dictionary, but just a bookmark.
As Salāmu ʿAlaykum,
Do any classical ʿArabic dictionaries define squid (ḥibbār) to be a fish in the way some defined prawns as such?
Jazak Allāh khayr