[Salika]

Originally Posted by bihari

shrimp is not makruh.....it cant be....the quran CLEARLY says that the "game of the sea is lawful to you"

In the Hanafi madhhab there are opinions that hold it haram (or makruh? Can we get a Hanafi up in here?)... there is a logic behind it. it's on sunnipath search it.

Makruh means blameworthy (legally) and linguistically detestable, hateful, or disgusting

Any person of Allah will tell you one of the first things you need to do on a spiritual path or to get close to Allah is eliminate both haram and makruh from your life.

[Revert]

Originally Posted by bihari

we all eat it because we see that the quran says that the 'game of the sea is lawful to you'

how much clearer can it get....its not like we do it just because others do it....its clear in our eyes

Game of the sea refers to fish not crustaceans

EDIT: reading the Arabic abd the explanation of 5:96 it seems I might be mistaken.

The only thing I can think oof as why some Hanafis say shrimp are Makruh is because that was Unlawful t the Jews.

Ruling on Shrimp

Sh Faraz Rabbani says they are permissable in Hanafi Fiqh as it depends on what the Arabs considered fish at the time of revalation.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Timbit

So it's not okay to take a ruling from one madhab but it's okay to switch completely 'cause of one issue?

And I swear I just read that shrimp are okay if you're Hanafi, but nothing else.

I'm staring to realize Islamica is the worst place to come for this kind of stuff.
And SunniPath is kind of confusing.

I guess I'll just do what Bihari does...just do what my parents and other people I know do.

Shrimp and prawn are okay, Timby. You can eat it. There is a difference of opinion on their permissibility, but there are sound positions that they are okay to eat. Bon appetit.

Regarding Islamica vs Sunnipath: it's not really a fair comparison. Islamica is a discussion board. Sunnipath is a site for knowledge and learning. It's not for socialising. Islamica is. If you want to chill come to Islamica. If you want to learn from the experts go to Sunnipath.

Regarding the issue of switching madhabs or taking rulings from other madhabs: It is permissible to take opinions from other madhabs whilst still following your first madhab in most issues. But while you're learning about all this stuff, and don't get all the rules, or find them confusing, it is better to follow only ONE and stick to it. It is always better to err on the side of caution in matters of religion, as the Prophet (saw) said "Whoever avoids doubtful matters safeguards his religion".

[Salika]

Originally Posted by bihari

we all eat it because we see that the quran says that the 'game of the sea is lawful to you'

how much clearer can it get....its not like we do it just because others do it....its clear in our eyes

The Hanafis will use the hadith about predators being impermissible to eat and hence 'predators of the sea' are impermissible to eat. In usul there are ways of viewing things, depending on which you see as the particular v. general or exception v. rule.

Now please stop

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by bihari

we all eat it because we see that the quran says that the 'game of the sea is lawful to you'

how much clearer can it get....its not like we do it just because others do it....its clear in our eyes

Originally Posted by Salika

In the Hanafi madhhab there are opinions that hold it haram (or makruh? Can we get a Hanafi up in here?)... there is a logic behind it. it's on sunnipath search it.

Salam,

There is differing opinions even within the Hanafi school regarding prawns, but it revolves around what constitutes "fish-like". The position of the Hanafi madhhab is that only that which is considered to be fish is permitted from seafood. All the rest is makruh tahrimi.

The ikhtilaaf revolves around the question "are prawns and shrimp "fish-like"". The Hanafi ulema, particularly those in Syria, regarded the prawn as coming under the category of fish-like. If I'm not mistaken this is the position of Mufti Taqi aswell.

[Revert]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Shrimp and prawn are okay, Timby. You can eat it. There is a difference of opinion on their permissibility, but there are sound positions that they are okay to eat. Bon appetit.

Regarding Islamica vs Sunnipath: it's not really a fair comparison. Islamica is a discussion board. Sunnipath is a site for knowledge and learning. It's not for socialising. Islamica is. If you want to chill come to Islamica. If you want to learn from the experts go to Sunnipath.

Regarding the issue of switching madhabs or taking rulings from other madhabs: It is permissible to take opinions from other madhabs whilst still following your first madhab in most issues. But while you're learning about all this stuff, and don't get all the rules, or find them confusing, it is better to follow only ONE and stick to it. It is always better to err on the side of caution in matters of religion, as the Prophet (saw) said "Whoever avoids doubtful matters safeguards his religion".

Islamica isn't a place of learning? SHAYKH AL-FARTYPANTS!!!!! YOU PHAILED MEEEEEEEE!!!

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

The ikhtilaaf revolves around are prawns and shrimp "fish-like". The Hanafi ulema, particularly those in Syria, regarded the prawn as coming under the category of fish-like. If I'm not mistaken this is the position of Mufti Taqi aswell.

Exactly. Told you I read it somewhere.


Vat means makruh tahrimi please? Somebody post the two different kinds of makruh again.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Timbit

Exactly. Told you I read it somewhere.


Vat means makruh tahrimi please? Somebody post the two different kinds of makruh again.

Makruh means detestable.

Makruh tahrimi means prohibitovely detestable. As far as it effects us, it means it is essentially "haram" without calling it haram, i.e. it is forbidden for us, but does not classify as haram due to the proofs used to support the position being unclear. (I'm sure I spoke about all this, just a few posts ago!)

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Makruh means detestable.

Makruh tahrimi means prohibitovely detestable. As far as it effects us, it means it is essentially "haram" without calling it haram, i.e. it is forbidden for us, but does not classify as haram due to the proofs used to support the position being unclear. (I'm sure I spoke about all this, just a few posts ago!)

You talked about makruh tahrimi vs. haram, but you didn't say what it means exactly.
So what's the other kind of makruh, that isn't sinful?

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Timbit

You talked about makruh tahrimi vs. haram, but you didn't say what it means exactly.
So what's the other kind of makruh, that isn't sinful?

Makruh tanzihi is the lesser makruh. If you leave something that is makruh tanzihi, you will be rewarded for it, but if you do it, there is no punishment for sin.

Makruh tahrimi is the greater makruh. If you do something that is makruh tahrimi you are sinning.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Makruh means detestable.

Makruh tahrimi means prohibitovely detestable. As far as it effects us, it means it is essentially "haram" without calling it haram, i.e. it is forbidden for us, but does not classify as haram due to the proofs used to support the position being unclear. (I'm sure I spoke about all this, just a few posts ago!)

So if we were to line up all the Islamically bad things from bad to worse -

Makruh tanzihi, makruh tahrimi, haram and then major sins type of haram.

Is there anything less than makruh tanzihi? Like just not recommendable but it can slip?

[bihari]

Originally Posted by Revert

Game of the sea refers to fish not crustaceans

EDIT: reading the Arabic abd the explanation of 5:96 it seems I might be mistaken.

The only thing I can think oof as why some Hanafis say shrimp are Makruh is because that was Unlawful t the Jews.

Ruling on Shrimp

Sh Faraz Rabbani says they are permissable in Hanafi Fiqh as it depends on what the Arabs considered fish at the time of revalation.

taken from the muhammad asad translation of the qur'an:

"5:96 Lawful to you is all water-game, and what the sea brings forth, [115] as a provision for you [who are settled] as well as for travellers, although you are forbidden to hunt on land while you are in the state of pilgrimage. [116] And be conscious of God, unto whom you shall be gathered."

Note 115 (Quran Ref: 5:96 )

Lit., "the game of the sea and its food". Since the term bahr denotes any large ac- cumulation of water, the classical commentators and jurists agree in that the above ordinance comprises all water-game, whether derived from seas, rivers, lakes or ponds (tabari). The pronoun in ta'amuhu (lit., "its food") relates to the word bahr, and thus indicates the fish and other marine animals which may have been cast forth by the waves onto the shore (tabari, Razi). Zamakhshari, however, regards the pronoun as relating to the object of the game (sayd) as such, and, consequently, understands the phrase as meaning "the eating thereof". Either of these two readings is agreeable with the text inasmuch as the above verse lays down that all kinds of water-game are lawful to a believer - even if he is in the state of pilgrimage - whereas hunting on land (sayd al-barr) is forbidden to the pilgrim.(Quran Ref: 5:96 )

[Revert]

Originally Posted by bihari

taken from the muhammad asad translation of the qur'an:

"5:96 Lawful to you is all water-game, and what the sea brings forth, [115] as a provision for you [who are settled] as well as for travellers, although you are forbidden to hunt on land while you are in the state of pilgrimage. [116] And be conscious of God, unto whom you shall be gathered."

Note 115 (Quran Ref: 5:96 )

Lit., "the game of the sea and its food". Since the term bahr denotes any large ac- cumulation of water, the classical commentators and jurists agree in that the above ordinance comprises all water-game, whether derived from seas, rivers, lakes or ponds (tabari). The pronoun in ta'amuhu (lit., "its food") relates to the word bahr, and thus indicates the fish and other marine animals which may have been cast forth by the waves onto the shore (tabari, Razi). Zamakhshari, however, regards the pronoun as relating to the object of the game (sayd) as such, and, consequently, understands the phrase as meaning "the eating thereof". Either of these two readings is agreeable with the text inasmuch as the above verse lays down that all kinds of water-game are lawful to a believer - even if he is in the state of pilgrimage - whereas hunting on land (sayd al-barr) is forbidden to the pilgrim.(Quran Ref: 5:96 )

I understand that bro but its all relative to what the Hijaz Arabs considered water game. Taking rulings from an English translation of the Quran is taking rulings from someone elses opinion.

[riad19]

i think farting in public would be makruh

if its one of those wet and smelly ones, then its definitely makruh tahrimi