-
مچھلی اور دمِ مسفوح
غامدی صاحب سے اکثر یہ دلیل سُننے کو ملتی ہے کہ مچھلیوں میں بہتا ہوا خون نہیں ہوتا تو اُن کو ذبح کیے بغیر بھی کھایا جا سکتا ہے جبکہ حقیقتاً مچھلیوں میں بہتا ہوا خون موجود ہوتا ہے، اگرچہ اُس کی مقدار بہ نسبت مُرغی یا بکری کے قدرے کم ہو مگر ہوتا ضرور ہے۔ ازِ راہِ کرم اِس کی وضاحت کر دیجئے۔ شکریہ!
-
26 Replies
-
مچھلی اور دمِ مسفوح
updated 4 years ago
6 Members
·
26
Replies
-
Good question. I will add that fish have blood circulatory system comprising of nerves and arteries.
I think the better reply will be that there is no quranic or prophetic saying about slaughtering of fish thats why we dont do it.
But i am looking forward for scholar reply.
-
It is also said that Hadith can abrogate (منسوخ) the ruling of Quran. Example they use is that dead Fish (murdaar) is halal. Please if you can explain?
-
The fisrt way of checking hadith in hadith science is it can never be against Quran. You are mistaken if u think hadith can abrogate quran
-
I am not saying this. It is commonly used argument about naskh and mansookh. I decline to Ghamdi Sahab’s opinion regarding naskh mansookh Alhamdulillah!
-
…”It needs to be kept in mind that like other words, the word ‘ميته’ (maytah) is used in the above mentioned directives according to its usage in the Arabic language. No doubt, it has a literal meaning; however, its usage in the Arabic language does not include all the dead, as is the case with its Urdu usage. In such a case, it becomes confined to a certain specific meaning, and anyone who is aware of this intricacy, for example, will never include dead fish or dead locust in its connotation:
Imam Zamakhshari writes:
قصد ما يتفاهمه الناس و يتعارفونه في العادة ’ ألا تري أن القائل إذا قال : أكل فلان ميتة ’ لم يسبق الوهم إلى السمك والجراد كما لو قال : أكل دماً’ لم يسبق إلى الكبد والطحال ’ ولاعتبار العادة والتعارف قالوا : من حلف لا يأكل لحماً فأكل سمكا لم يحنث وان أكل لحماً في الحقيقة
The word ‘ميته’ (maytah) mentioned in the Qur’ān must be understood according to its linguistic usage. Is not the case that when someone says that he has eaten maytah, we never include a fish or a locust in its connotation. This is similar to the fact that if a person says that he has drunk blood we never include liver or spleen in its connotation. Precisely because of such usage, jurists say that if a person swears that he will never eat meat and then he consumes fish, this will not break his oath although in reality he has eaten meat.[5]
The Prophet (sws), on these very grounds, is reported to have said:
أُحِلَّتْ لَكُمْ مَيْتَتَانِ وَدَمَانِ فَأَمَّا الْمَيْتَتَانِ فَالْحُوتُ وَالْجَرَادُ وَأَمَّا الدَّمَانِ فَالْكَبِدُ وَالطِّحَالُ.(ابنِ ماجه: رقم ٣٣١٤)
Two [type of] dead and two [forms of] blood are not forbidden for you: The former being fish and locust and the latter being liver and spleen. (Ibn Majah: No. 2314)
Owing to similar reasons, about sea water, the Prophet (sws) is ascribed to have said:
هُوَ الطَّهُورُ مَاؤُهُ الْحِلُّ مَيْتَتُهُ (نسائ: رقم ٥٩)
Its water is pure and its maytah are not forbidden. (Nisai: No. 59)
In other words, the above quoted words of the Prophet (sws) also pertain to dead fish and certain other similar things which cannot be regarded as ‘ميته’ (maytah) as far as the usage of the word is concerned but which are ‘ميته’ (maytah) in the literal sense of the word”….
(Excerpt from Meezan: Javed Ahmed Ghamidi)
(Translated by Dr. Shehzad Saleem)
__________________________________
For details, please see:
-
-
Please refer to the videos shared in the following thread, this question has been addressed:
-
Jzk for that. After listening to the videos the original argument of presence of blood in fish still remains the same that All fish, whether whale or trout, tuna or salmon, have blood and tazkiya is not applied to/required for them.
-
The primary requirement is of tazkiya of flowing blood (damma-masfoohan). Therefore, if a fish contains that kind of flowing blood the way we see in cattle, then of course the requirement will apply as directed. In cases, usually the small fish that we eat, there is no such flowing blood, therefore the requirement of that kind of tazkiya does not apply.
-
As stated earlier and also validated by @Aj-khan , even smaller fish do have blood circulation system. As with the other living organisms, their blood just coagulates/becomes part of meat once they die. A goat would have, let’s say 2 lbs, at slaughtering only 1 lbs of blood is drained. So is the case with chicken or any other living organism for that matter as you can only drain so much blood by slaughtering.
Another way to understand is when you slaughter/cut a dead body (be it goat or chicken), there is no blood that would drain from that cut as the blood already became part of meat when the animal/bird died.
Hence, when you cut an already dead fish, you don’t see blood however, if you do cut a live fish, there is flowing blood in it, no matter how small amount of it drains out, there is flowing blood. I am attaching a quick link for you to see that even smaller fish do have flowing blood which drains out when you slaughter them.
I hope that it explains my position, the general practice and concept of Tazkiya, and makes it easier to either re-think our practices or the usool!
Jzk!
-
To this the same linguistic principle will be applied as pointed out by Ghamidi Sahab in the above discussion on Maytah. It has to do with linguistics of دمِ مسفوح the same way they applied to Maytah. Where a word in literal sense can apply to many situations/scenarios, but when it comes to usage of that word in Arabic, it does not apply to certain situations. The same point was raised by Imam Zamakhshari as well:
-
Then could you please explain the application of this meaning in this situation?
If it is not literal meaning (flowing blood) then what would it be? Since this is established that fish do have (flowing) blood in them.
-
-
Exactly #M. Abdullah
-
Please explain about flowing blood in fish.
-
As per my understanding, دَمًا مَسْفُوحًا in its Arabic usage doesn’t apply to this kind of blood coming out of fish that we eat usually. The same way Maytah doesn’t apply to fish in Arabic Usage while in its reality (Haqeeqat) it does apply to fish. Language is extracted from its usage and application and not from its haqeeqat (literal sense).
Ghamid Sahab has discussed this linguistic principle at length in the recent response to 23 Questions video (starting from 42 minutes onward). You may find this very insightful.
Discussion 35124 • Reply 36832
Hopefully, we will also get a response from either Ghamidi Sahab or Hassan Sahab to this Question.
-
In recent Q&A Session with Ghamidi Sahab on Questions selected from ASK GHAMIDI Platform:
(Part-1): For answer to your question, please refer to the video below from 1:20:51 to 1:21:31
-
In recent Q&A Session with Ghamidi Sahab on Questions selected from ASK GHAMIDI Platform:
(Part-2): For answer to your question, please refer to the video below from 1:08:31 to 1:09:53
-
All fish have blood then. You can either bleed them out or just decapitate them. So doesn’t that mean all fish require tadhkiyah?
-
@AhmadShoaib the answer seems to be subjective (as I understood from the 2-parts answer by Ghamidi shb). Smaller fish have much much less amount of blood. That much amount of blood just remains left in almost all cases of tazkiya, even for chickens, goats, and others. However, if the fish is large enough then yes, you’d need to perform tazkiya on it, a proper slaughtering.
-
So for a case study what do you think about salmon, cod and mackerel? I mean this probably requires a specialist’s opinion I guess
-
These all fall under the general category of fish (smaller fish) and do not have much blood as you could see from the video I shared above. The large fish which might need slaughtering that I can imagine would probably be a whale or of its comparable size.
-
Well that’s not even a fish. A good comparison would be a shark I guess
-
Sure enough, it is not. That was only to give the size idea. Since sharks are predators and not considered permissible hence, I didn’t take them as an example but definitely yes, for the size comparison that is true as well. A fish the size of a normal adult shark would have enough blood to be demanding tazkiya.
-
👍
-
-
If I go out to eat or buy fish from store, I am not going to ask if it is zabiha or not and will eat the fish beliveing it is halal. I am not going for fishing myself to get zabiha fish. If Allah made it halal then we should not act like bani Israel for doubting in Halal.
-
Well we do the same for meat- if the ruling for fish was the same (which it is not) then we would do the exact same thing
-
-
Thanks a lot @UmerQureshi and @Hassan for getting this clarified!
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
