School-of-thought view

HalalMed’s educational page claims a four-school agreement: zabiha bovine, zabiha sheep and fish gelatin halal; porcine haram. Shown once. Not copied into the other cells.

All four schools of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiʿi and Hanbali) agree that gelatin derived from the following are halal: Bovine (cow) (Islamically slaughtered) … Sheep (Islamically slaughtered) … Fish.

Darul Iftaa Chicago discusses Hanafi criteria for non-grape/date alcohol in vanilla extract: not consumed as a drink, does not intoxicate, legitimate purpose. Not a blanket yes.

Darul Iftaa Chicago sets Hanafi criteria for non-grape/date alcohol in vanilla extract rather than a blanket yes or no.

A secondary survey notes that a minority Maliki discussion permits certain insects. That is not a Muttoo ruling and not a primary Maliki fatwa.

E120 (carmine / cochineal) is treated as haram by most of the certifiers surveyed because the source is an insect.

Cited Hanafi fatwas disagree. FatwaCentre (Mangera / Patel) permits krill oil by analogy with prawns. Ask Imam (Ebrahim Desai) forbids krill because it is not classed as fish. Both are on this page. Muttoo does not blend them.

FatwaCentre: prawns and krill should have the same ruling … we do not see any reason to prohibit the use of krill oil. Ask Imam: it would not be permissible for a person to consume Krill since it does not fall under the classification of a fish.

Sheikh Mansour Leghaei: of sea animals, scaled fish are lawful; shrimp/prawn is the cited exception. Krill is lawful only if it is the same as shrimp — similarity is not enough for an exception.

To say its similar to shrimp is not enough because for exceptions we have to stick to the ones mentioned in the narrations.

Cited Hanafi fatwas disagree. Darul Iftaa Leicester permits prawns as fish by Arabic usage, and notes that abstaining is advisable. Ask Imam (Ebrahim Desai) forbids shrimp because it is not classed as a vertebra. Both are on this page. Muttoo does not blend them.

Darul Iftaa: it is permissible to eat prawns, but to refrain and abstain is always advisable. Ask Imam: Shrimps are not vertebras, hence, not permissible.

Cited Hanafi fatwas disagree on the frame. Birmingham and FatwaCentre: permissible if no THC / not intoxicating. Darul Uloom Trinidad: only as medicine under darura, with no alternative, prescribed by a reliable Muslim doctor. Both are on this page. Muttoo does not blend them.

Birmingham: if the CBD oil is composed of pure CBD and no THC is found in it, then it will be permissible to consume. Trinidad: only if diagnosed illness requires it, no other medicine exists, prescribed by a reliable Muslim doctor.

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam: after researching catfish, scholars mention it is a special type of fish, thus lawful in the Hanafi school.

After researching into the catfish, the scholars mention that it is a special type of fish, thus lawful to eat according to the Hanafi School also.

Same Leicester fatwa: catfish is without doubt halal according to the three schools other than Hanafi.

It is evident that a catfish is without doubt Halal according to the other three schools of fiqh.

Same Leicester fatwa covering the three schools other than Hanafi.

It is evident that a catfish is without doubt Halal according to the other three schools of fiqh.

Same Leicester fatwa covering the three schools other than Hanafi.

It is evident that a catfish is without doubt Halal according to the other three schools of fiqh.

AskMufti: calamari does not fall under fish. Darul Fiqh (Shaykh Faraz Adam): squid lacks spine, gill and fins, so it is not samak and not permitted in the Hanafi school.

Calamari does not fall under the category of fish. Darul Fiqh: mussels, squid and octopus do not have all the features of fish; therefore they will not be regarded as fish.

Darul Fiqh (Shaykh Faraz Adam): octopus lacks spine, gill and fins, so it is not regarded as fish and is not permitted in the Hanafi school.

Mussels, squid and octopus do not have all the features of fish; therefore they will not be regarded as fish. Hence, it is not permissible to eat mussels, squid and octopus in the Hanafī school of jurisprudence.

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani: lobster and crab weren’t considered fish by the Arabs, so they are impermissible in the Hanafi school. Darul Iftaa Birmingham: only if lobster is classed as a ‘big prawn’ does the prawn ikhtilaf apply; otherwise impermissible. Muttoo does not decide that zoology.

Lobster and crab weren’t considered “fish” by the Arabs, and are thus considered impermissible to consume in the Hanafi school.

SeekersGuidance Shafiʿi: crabs, lobster, crayfish and other shellfish are lawful so long as they cannot permanently live on land. Nawawi in al-Majmuʿ: everything in the seas is lawful except frogs.

According to the Shafi’i School, all aquatic animals, even if they’re not strictly viewed as fish, are lawful to consume.

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani names crab with lobster: not considered fish by the Arabs, so not permitted in the Hanafi school.

Lobster and crab weren’t considered “fish” by the Arabs, and are thus considered impermissible to consume in the Hanafi school.

SeekersGuidance Shafiʿi names crabs with lobster and crayfish: lawful if they cannot permanently live on land.

as long as the crabs, lobster, crayfish, and other shellfish cannot permanently survive and feed on land, they are lawful according to the Shafi’i School.

Darul Iftaa Birmingham: some Hanafi scholars class crayfish as fish (permissible); others do not (impermissible). Muttoo does not blend them.

As for crayfish, some scholars in the Hanafi madhab have classified them as fish which would make their consumption permissible. Others deem them to not be fish in which case their consumption will be impermissibe.

SeekersGuidance Shafiʿi names crayfish with lobster and crab: lawful if they cannot permanently live on land.

as long as the crabs, lobster, crayfish, and other shellfish cannot permanently survive and feed on land, they are lawful according to the Shafi’i School.

Darul Fiqh (Shaykh Faraz Adam): mussels lack spine, gill and fins, so they are not regarded as fish and are not permitted in the Hanafi school.

Mussels, squid and octopus do not have all the features of fish; therefore they will not be regarded as fish. Hence, it is not permissible to eat mussels, squid and octopus in the Hanafī school of jurisprudence.

SeekersGuidance Shafiʿi: it is permissible to eat any aquatic game including oysters and mussels, except frogs and crocodiles.

It is permissible to eat any aquatic game (including oysters and mussels) except frogs and crocodiles.

Darul Iftaa Birmingham (Yusuf Khan): oysters are not classified as fish, hence haram. Darul Uloom Deoband fatwa 609/104/B: haram to eat oyster and crab. Desai/Albalagh: Hanafi does not permit oyster or oyster extract.

Oysters, crabs, etc are not classified as fish hence they are haram. Deoband: According to Hanafis it is haram to eat oyster and crab.

Desai/Albalagh: Shafiʿi treats all living sea creatures as lawful, so oyster is halal. SeekersGuidance (Nawawi / Reliance): oysters and mussels are aquatic game.

It is permissible to eat any aquatic game (including oysters and mussels) except frogs and crocodiles.

Desai/Albalagh, citing Fiqh ala al-Madhahib al-Arba'ah: Imam Malik permits every living sea creature except eel, so oyster is halal.

According to the Maliki scholars, every living creature of the sea is halal except eel. Hence, oyster, oyster extract, shrimp, lobster and shark are halal and permissible.

Desai/Albalagh: Hanbali scholars treat all living sea creatures as lawful whether or not they look like fish, so oyster is halal.

According to the Hanbaliy and Shafi'ee scholars, all living creatures that live in the sea are halal, whether they are in the form of a fish or not. Based on this, oyster, oyster extract, shrimp, lobster and shark are all halal.

Darul Iftaa Birmingham (Nabil Khan): animals without constant water life, gills and a backbone are not fish. The fatwa names clams as an example.

An example of such impermissible creatures are crabs, squid, clams, and lobster.

SeekersGuidance Shafiʿi: crabs, lobster, crayfish and other shellfish are lawful if they cannot permanently live on land.

as long as the crabs, lobster, crayfish, and other shellfish cannot permanently survive and feed on land, they are lawful according to the Shafi’i School.

Darul Iftaa Birmingham (Mufti Mohammed Tosir Miah): a scallop is similar to an oyster, so it is not fish and not permitted to eat. SANHA agrees for Hanafis.

A scallop is similar to an oyster, thus according to the Hanafi Fiqh it will not be permissible to eat it, as one is only allowed to consume fish from the sea.

SANHA, reporting Imam Shafiʿi: all seafood is permissible except frogs, turtles, crocodiles and harmful animals. SeekersGuidance independently permits other shellfish that cannot live on land.

according to Imam Shāfi’iy rahimahullah, all seafood is permissible except for frogs, turtles, crocodiles and any animal whose consumption will harm the consumer.

Mathabah (Shaykh Yusuf Badat) and Darul Iftaa Birmingham: Hanafi permits vinegar originating from wine, whether it turned by itself or was treated. This cell does not change the page badge.

Yes, it is islamically permissible to consume vinegar made from wine. However, Ḥanafī jurists are of the opinion, regardless, the vinegar originating from wine is permissible.

Darul Iftaa Birmingham, reporting Imam al-Shafiʿi: permissible if the wine turned to vinegar by itself, without deliberate treatment. Treated conversion is not permitted on this view. islamqa.info 2283 records the same split.

Imam Shafi is of the opinion that if the wine turned to vinegar by itself, without any deliberate change then it will be permissible. However, it will not permissible to deliberately change the wine to vinegar.

Darul Iftaa Birmingham: Imam Malik is similar to Ahmad on converting wine to vinegar, with a difference on drinking it afterwards. Muttoo does not flatten that into a yes.

Imam Malik also has a similar opinion, however, the only difference between the Malikis and Hanbalis is that according to the Malikis it is permissible to drink it after changing the wine into vinegar whereas the Hanbalis say that it is impermissible to drink.

Darul Iftaa Birmingham, reporting Imam Ahmad: it is absolutely impermissible to change wine into vinegar. islamqa.info 2283 cites the hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ said no to turning wine into vinegar.

According to Imam Ahmad it is absolutely impermissible to change wine into vinegar.