I am a bit of a collector of what the 16th Century Humanist and Protestant Reformer, Sebastian Castellio described as the follies and vanities of theology. A rich source of ludicrous religious injunctions from Islam may be had at the "Islam Questions and Answers" site run by the Saudi shaykh, Muhammad Salih an-Munajid.
Now just when you thought it could not get any more absurd, the worthy shakyh discusses the permissibility of eating mermaids. He pontificates, inter alia:
"Many of the fuqaha’ mentioned mermaids and differed on the ruling concerning them. Some of them said that they are permissible (to eat) because of the general meaning of the evidence which says that whatever is in the sea is permissible. This is the view of the Shaafa’is and Hanbalis, and is the view of most of the Maalikis and of Ibn Hazm and others. And some of them regarded it as haraam because it is not a kind of fish. This is the view of the Hanafis and of al-Layth ibn Sa’d. "
The shaykh concludes:
"The correct view is that nothing is excluded from that, and that all the sea creatures which can only live in water are halaal, alive or dead, because of the general meaning of the verse – i.e., “Lawful to you is (the pursuit of) water game and its use for food” [al-Maa’idah 5:64]."
So, next time you sit down to a fine meal of seafood and your host dishes up roast mermaid, you can tuck in with great gusto, safe in the knowledge that mermaid is halaal.
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/103991/mermaids
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Technorati
...and just when you thought it was safe to emerge from behind the sofa where you had been understandably cringing in embarrassment at that piece of Saudi nonsense, the BBC reports that a Jinn is being sued in a Saudi court for harassment .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8145862.stm
Tsk, tsk, I thought you knew better: mermaids should always be steamed or grilled- never roasted. Apparently, Crazy Pie is halal, as it's Islam Q&A's house specialty.
Steamed mermaid... yummy.
I am trying to find a ruling on unicorns, dragons, basilisks and other beasts. However, I presently can find none.
As a result, one might be best to politely refuse that otherwise delicious looking haunch of unicorn.
Looking at this more closely (if that is advisable), we find that Hanafi fiqh of halaal and haraam animals makes ten related principles. On the consumption of unicorns, the sixth principle is directly relevant:
"The sixth principle is, land-animals who have flowing blood in them and they survive on grass and leaves, and do not prey on other animals (i.e. non-predatory terrestrial animals) are all considered Halal, such as a camel, cow, goat, buffalo, sheep, deer, etc, although there is a slight difference of opinion within the Hanafi School with regards to the consumption of horse-meat, as will be discussed later. Also, a donkey is exempted from this general ruling, in that its meat in considered Haram for consumption. "
Clearly, the unicorn falls under this principle and would it would look like for the Hanafi, the consumption of unicorns is considered acceptable. However:
"As far as the consumption of horse-meat is concerned, Imam Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him) considers is somewhat disliked (makruh tanzihan) due to its honour and due to the fact that a horse is needed in Jihad. Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad (Allah have mercy on them both) consider it Halal, and it is said that Imam Abu Hanifa also retreated to this opinion. Thus, it would be permitted to consume horse-meat, although better to avoid. "
Given that, as far as I am aware, the unicorn has never been used (let alone needed) in the prosecution of jihad, I should think that this restriction upon the consumption of horses does not apply to unicorns.
This, in my humble opinion, one might tuck in when presented with a nice pot roast of unicorn. Are there any recipes?
source: http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/fhalal1.htm
Note - anyone who finds this absurd had best address their comments to Shaykh Muhammad Salih an-Munajid. of Islamic Q/A. After all, he started it.
Why do I get the distinct impression that mermaid would taste like rubber, tasteless rubber, kind of like conch that is grown too large and old to eat but they serve it anyway.
This, in my humble opinion, one might tuck in when presented with a nice pot roast of unicorn. Are there any recipes?>>>>
I challenge this declaration on the following grounds:
1) A unicorn is not a land animal, it is a metaphysical creature originating and existing in its own natural sphere, even if that sphere does at times include apprehension within the material sphere by human beings.
2) As such it does not have "blood" flowing in its veins nor does it eat grass, although it may at times appear to do so for the purposes of presenting a comforting image to human beings.
3) Potential rulings of the advisability of eating such flesh would best be categorized under those rulings on the consumption of djinn flesh.
(1) All being has a metaphysical aspect. Indeed, since being is fundamental to ontology and the latter is a branch of metaphysics.
(2) In formal logic the statement "Unicorns exist" is necessarily true - as it validity cannot be shown to be false. The existence of unicorns cannot be disproved by means of logic alone.
(3) Since all beings are metaphysical entities, and since it is the case that some such beings do have blood flowing in their veins, then it is plausible that unicorns too have blood flowing in their veins.
(4) Since other metaphysically extent beings eat grass, it is plausible that unicorns do as well.
(5) Given the close similarities between unicorns and horses (save the spiral horn), we might assume that the former have similar habits and diet as the latter. However, this is a most insecure conclusion as we have no observation-data on the eating habits of unicorns.
Personally, I would tend to agree with Karen - to err on the side of safety in such matters is probably best. My advice would be to stick to the consumption of mermaids and other innocuous fantasy foods.
Abu Faris ... yes, yes, yes, very wise. My method however is always both to embrace the totality of the cosmology (Bernardus Silvestre was an enlightening tutor in this regard) while teasing out the compartmental elements for close examination. Hopefully thereby reassembling the whole with a greater understanding of the totality. As such, viewing the unicorn and other such creatures that seem to exist more firmly afoot in the metaphysical than in the spacial, I chose to examine those features of its form and function which arise from the metaphysical ground and exhibit traits illustrative of mankind's collective and partial understanding of the metaphysical spheres. I hope this clarification was useful. Now, where did I put my pointy hat with the bells and tassles.....
Next, we will touch upon pteradactyls. Seemingly extinct, and yet so very alive in the metaphysical consciousness of mankind. A clue to this fascination, one might surmise, is in the wings.
And getting back seriously to the haram/halal food issue. If eating predators is haram, what about predatorial sea creatures such as sharks. Is it their predatorial nature, or the consumption of blood, perhaps haram blood of humans or swine, which is presumably potentially passed on to humans that makes it haram? I guess I am outing myself here as being slippery on haram food. I only diligently avoid pork and in the past have had no qualms about eating the shark, when grilled to a turn on the bar-bee. Now however, I am a vegetarian.
Ah, the shark (aka "the dog of the sea") is halaal!
"Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Muhalla (6/50): As for that which lives in the water and cannot live anywhere else, it is all halaal no matter what state it is in, whether it is caught alive and then dies, or it dies in the water and then floats or does not float, whether it was killed by a sea creature or a land animal. It is all halaal to eat, whether it is the pig of the sea (i.e., a dolphin), a mermaid, or a dog of the sea (i.e., shark) and so on. It is halaal to eat, whether it was killed by an idol-worshipper, a Muslim, a kitaabi (Jew or Christian) or it was not killed by anyone. "
So there!
Fascinating! So then even carrion or that which has been slaughtered by an idol worshipper ... what if ti is slaughtered as ritual worship, still okay? I wonder what the water has to do with it or if they're just figuring it out as they go along and so then it's anybody's guess? (ya think?) There is a very great message in this, but I will just let it slide by for now. ;)
What about a turtle? He is in the water but can live outside as well? Oh well, as long as the tasty vegan date scones from Whole Foods are halal, i"m good.
Search me, guv... I just find the bloody things online.
It's fascinating stuff though. Particularly within the context of the study of history and the exegesis of mandated authoritative texts, so-called, after the original Revelation and hadith. I am a little distracted today, what with all the more interesting fatwas coming out of Iran today .....
I thought there was a maxim in fiqh against dealing in speculative affairs when developing fatawa. If I'm wrong, then there ought to be.
Best pass that on to the Saudi shaykh, Fashion Mujahid, as he positively revels in speculative affairs.
Would it be speculation to wonder whether one could eat defrosted mammoth, I wonder?
And what is wrong with speculation?
If you've got a cut of mammoth round, or can get one, then work out the fiqh details. I'm not exactly sure why speculation was discouraged, but if you've got people getting into arguments over stuff that will likely never happen, I can't really see that as positive. Whether one could marry a horse-human hybrid or be married simultaneously in parallel universes aren't things that you'd want to risk a schism over.
"if you've got people getting into arguments over stuff that will likely never happen, I can't really see that as positive. "
This was actually my point in posting the absurd fatwa about mermaids in the first place; and in latterly showing how fiqh can be derived for ludicrous cases.
Apologies if my English humour and sense of satire does not communicate well.
I got the sense of satire in the OP, but I suppose I missed it in your last post. Ah, the perils of PWN- posting while nursing. And I can't recommend mammoth- too gamy. A nice haunch of braised unicorn, however, is just the ticket after a long day on Atlantis.
I thought they came through loud and clear and I for one was enjoying the repartee. One cannot remain grave and serious all the time, or even most of the time without getting an anuerism. I am all for raising the satire bar .... It is, after all, the machinations of fallible human we are balleyhooing ... not religion or God.
You are very welcome, Fashion Mujtahid. :)
There is always the chance that the English sense of dark irony is sometimes lost in the ether.