Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Eating Seafood is now Halal!

Rate this topic


_zahra

Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

As one who very fluent in marine biology this is my "fetwa":

Shrimps do not contain scales, rather they have a thin shell that is known as Chitin.

Guess what also has Chitin...Crabs, Lobsters, Octopus, Squid, etc.

So to say that shrimp is allowed, while others is banned due to the outside coating is an inauthenic and scientifically disproven method. Now if you say shrimp is banned too, then it would make this law harder to debunk. But as it stands now Shrimp have the EXACT same coating as that of lobster, squid, etc. This is a 100% proven fact.

Edited by thydavidcome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Advanced Member

Salaam Alaikum,

Don't practice taqleed yet .....

Wa Alaikum Salaam

Stefan

Stefan, Taqleed is obligatory, not optional if you are a Shia. I know this because I was taught about it when I turned 9, by a respected Scholar. Make a decision asap and follow your Marja to the letter, otherwise you are still in the state of ignorance. :cry:

As one who very fluent in marine biology this is my "fetwa":

And you are qualified to give 'fetwa' how exactly....? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Again, let's summarize the fatwa here in comparison to the "mainstream" view:

"Mainstream:" I strongly recommend you don't eat shellfish, crabs, lobster, octopus, etc.

Fadlallah: I recommend you don't eat shellfish, crabs, lobster, octopus, etc.

Wow. What a difference! Everybody break out the torches and pitchforks. Burn the heretic!

(salam)

LOL :D

others (mainstream) wouldnt eat crocs and sharks because of hadeeth saying that you cant eat animals with canines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • Advanced Member

this is ridiculous.

What next...pork?

It's better to say the say the same works for Ayatollah Sane'i dude :)

cuz in his opinion the seafood is halal if :

1- that animal is a fish that has scales .

2- that animal is not a fish and it's name is not same as forbidden land animals .

and he says that it's recommended to eat the sea animals (except fishes) that covered by something like scales .

Source : http://saanei.org/?view=03,00,13,00,0#03,05,13,54,0 (In Arabic) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Salaam all,

Just if you would like an actual detailed analysis of Syed Fadlallah's derivation of the law about seafood in English, please refer to: http://miqdaad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/seafood-1.html. If you would like the source in Arabic, please refer to http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/books/.

If you would like a more detailed and academic analysis of the ruling, comparing the methodology used with other scholars, please refer to JOURNAL OF SHI‘A ISLAMIC STUDIES: Autumn 2010, Volume III, Issue 4 ISSN: 1748-9423 Fadlallah: A Mainstream Radical [443-464] by Miqdaad Versi.

In essence, for those interested in the facts, the issue can be (very crudely) summarised as follows:

- there is a base position that it is allowed (based on the standard asl and Quranic verses)

- there are narrations that seem to suggest that fish without scales (and other seafood) is not allowed (Group A), and some saying it is allowed (Group B)

- Syed Fadlallah's analysis of how to deal with this apparent contradiction is using jam' urfi i.e. trying to harmonise the narrations by considering most of Group A to apparently implying haram but potentially meaning makruh (given "don't" in usul al-fiqh is not clear in meaning haram - it does sometimes mean Makruh); he considers Group B to be clear (nass) in implying they are halal. Other scholars resolve this apparent contradiction by attributing Group B to taqiyya, which Syed Fadlallah does not consider relevant here.

- Syed Fadlallah then believes that if this jam' urfi is not reasonable, then the narrations must be cast aside, and the base position must be used.

- Therefore, he concludes they are makruh

Hope that is helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaam all,

Just if you would like an actual detailed analysis of Syed Fadlallah's derivation of the law about seafood in English, please refer to: http://miqdaad.blogs...seafood-1.html If you would like the source in Arabic, please refer to http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/books/

If you would like a more detailed and academic analysis of the ruling, comparing the methodology used with other scholars, please refer to JOURNAL OF SHI‘A ISLAMIC STUDIES: Autumn 2010, Volume III, Issue 4 ISSN: 1748-9423 Fadlallah: A Mainstream Radical [443-464] by Miqdaad Versi.

In essence, for those interested in the facts, the issue can be (very crudely) summarised as follows:

- there is a base position that it is allowed (based on the standard asl and Quranic verses)

- there are narrations that seem to suggest that fish without scales (and other seafood) is not allowed (Group A), and some saying it is allowed (Group B )

- Syed Fadlallah's analysis of how to deal with this apparent contradiction is using jam' urfi i.e. trying to harmonise the narrations by considering most of Group A to apparently implying haram but potentially meaning makruh (given "don't" in usul al-fiqh is not clear in meaning haram - it does sometimes mean Makruh); he considers Group B to be clear (nass) in implying they are halal. Other scholars resolve this apparent contradiction by attributing Group B to taqiyya, which Syed Fadlallah does not consider relevant here.

- Syed Fadlallah then believes that if this jam' urfi is not reasonable, then the narrations must be cast aside, and the base position must be used.

- Therefore, he concludes they are makruh

Hope that is helpful.

Masha'a Allah ..

That's really a good summary for Sayyid Fadlullah's research .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaam

Given this thread is about Syed Fadlallah's view about seafood, I advise those actually interested in why he reached his conclusion, to refer to his analysis. It is important to note that he is a very learned scholar, who would not miss these "obvious" points. Rather he has his view, which he also makes clear for those who want to understand rather than blindly criticise.

For a response to this particular narration, please refer to http://miqdaad.blogs...seafood-9.html

Thanks

Edited by miqdaad_v
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...