اطعمہ محرمہ کے احکام:اہل سنت اور اہل تشیع کے نقطہ نظر کا تحقیقی جائزہ

Rulings on Prohibited Foods: A Comparative Research Study of the Perspectives of Ahl al-Sunnah and Ahl al-Shi‘ah

Abstract

This research presents a comparative analysis of the rulings on prohibited foods (at‘imah muharramah) as found in the two major traditions of Islamic jurisprudence: the Sunan Arba‘ah (the four canonical Hadith collections of Ahl al-Sunnah: Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah) and the Kutub Arba‘ah (the four primary Hadith collections of Ahl al-Tashayyu‘: Al-Kafi, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and Al-Istibsar). The study identifies points of agreement and divergence between the two traditions regarding what is lawful (halal) and unlawful (haram) in food. Both traditions unanimously affirm the Quranic prohibitions: carrion, blood, pork, and animals slaughtered in the name of other than Allah. Common rulings also include the prohibition of jallalah (animals fed impurities), elephants, predatory animals with fangs, birds of prey, venomous creatures, and the permissibility of consuming carrion under duress. However, significant disagreements exist. Key differences include the ruling on domestic donkeys (haram in Sunan Arba‘ah, makruh in Kutub Arba‘ah), rabbit and peacock meat (halal in Sunni jurisprudence, haram as maskh [transformed] animals in Shia jurisprudence), fish (all fish are halal in Sunan Arba‘ah, while Kutub Arba‘ah permits only scaled fish), spleen and gall bladder (halal in Sunan Arba‘ah, haram in Kutub Arba‘ah), and utensils of the People of the Book (permitted after washing in Sunan Arba‘ah, strictly prohibited in Kutub Arba‘ah). This study highlights how foundational textual sources and interpretive methodologies shape divergent juristic outcomes while also revealing significant common ground in Islamic dietary law.