Consuming a sauce with crustacean-based ingredients

Imam Muhammad (d.189 AH), Imam al-Quduri (d.428 AH), Imam al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH), Imam as-Sarakhsi (d. 483 AH), Imam al-Haskafi (d.1088 AH) and many other Hanafi jurists have all stated that only Samak is lawful from the aquatic creatures. Equally, they have named other aquatic creatures like crabs, turtles, and frogs and stated that they are unlawful. In addition, we know that the Qur’an states that al-Khabā’ith (impure creatures) are prohibited, as follows:

“He commands them to do right and forbids them to do wrong, who makes good things lawful to them and bad things unlawful.”[Qur’an 7:157]

Shaykhi Zada (d.1078 AH) states that whatever is not Samak from the aquatic creatures falls under al-Khabā’ith. The Fuqahā’have stated several explanations for these creatures to qualify as al-Khabā’ith, such as:

1. consuming insects and other unlawful creatures.
2. Being something that a sound and reasonable person would not normally consider that to be consumable.
3. consuming dead carcasses and dead insects.
4. being engaged in filth more than purity.
5. resembling land insects in qualities and habits.

We have not been able to locate clear criteria and conditions for what qualifies something as Samak from the classical Fuqahā’. What we have located are four concepts:

1. The clear statements of Samak being lawful.
2. Clear statements of the lawfulness of Mārmāhī and Jirrīth.
3. Clear statements that Khabā’ith are unlawful.
4. Examples of aquatic creatures that are unlawful.

Hence, contemporary scholars have attempted to define or understand Samak in different ways. The three common approaches and trends that have developed are as follows:

1. Fish attributes – the most notable in this regard is what was mentioned and enumerated byMaulana Rasheed Ahmed Ludyanwi (Rahimahullah). He mentions that there are three distinguishing features in fish, the spine, the gills, and the fins. Something which does not possess this is not deemed to be Samak.
2. The visible appearance and shape – Shaykh Nur al-Din Itr (Rahimahullah) in I’lām al-Anām explains the Hanafi view on Samak by stating that whichever aquatic creature resembles a land creature is prohibited and is not Samak. Hence, Samakcan be understood and was commonly known among people due to the clear body shape of the aquatic creature; they have a distinct shape from land creatures.
3. ‘Urf (customary practice) – These jurists and contemporary scholars look at the customary practice of how people consume and understand Samak, and categorise Samak For example, Mufti Abdur Rahim Lajpuri (Rahimahullah) and others who suggest prawns are lawful to consume are inclined to the idea of ‘Urf defining Samak.

The additional mention by the Fuqahā’ of Mārmāhī and Jirrīthusually after discussing Samak gives the idea that perhaps the status of these sea creatures being within the understanding of Samakwas unclear. Although, Mulla Khusru (d.885 AH) states that there were objections on these being lawful and hence they are mentioned specifically. Nevertheless, Imam al-Ayni (d.855 AH) described Mārmāhīas Samak which is shaped and looks like a snake. Some common contemporary translations of Mārmāhīare eel. This is interesting as eels share an appearance of snakes and fish. Perhaps that is why there were some Fuqahā’ who objected on whether eels are Samak or not. Jirrīthhas been described as a dark-coloured round fish. Again, the shape is odd and uncommon sight for compared to other Samak. To add to the above, Imam al-Marghināni (d.593 AH) and Imam al-‘Ayni (d.855 AH) note that the Kalb al-Mā’and the Khinzīr al-Mā’ are also prohibited and unlawful. The terminologies of these sea creatures also indicate to drawing analogies to land animals, and deeming anything that resembled a land animal from the aquatic creatures as unlawful. Hence, the idea of the visible appearance and shape being an indicator of what Samakis gains further traction and weight with these descriptions. Perhaps a distinctive framework to understand Samak is not addressed in the major works of Hanafi Fiqh as it was obvious on the shape and appearance, and it is how people understood Samak.

Nevertheless, crustaceans are a group of aquatic animals that include crabs, lobsters, woodlice, and barnacles. They have a hard, external skeleton or shell, jointed legs, and a segmented body. Most species live in the sea, although some live in freshwater and on land. Almost all crustaceans are not permitted in the Hanafi school. From the crustaceans, shrimps and prawns are debated, with two famous views held by Hanafi jurists of the subcontinent. The following state that prawns are acceptable:

1. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (Rahimahullah)
2. Mufti Abdur Raheem Lajpuri (Rahimahullah)
3. Mufti Mohammad Abdus Salaam Chatgami (Rahimahullah)

The following scholars were of the view that prawns are not lawful:

1. Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi (Rahimahullah)
2. Maulana Khaleel Ahmed Saharanpuri (Rahimahullah)
3. Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Ludyanwi (Rahimahullah)

In conclusion, the majority of crustaceans are unanimously understood to be improper to consume as mentioned above. However, where a difference of opinion is found, such as in prawns, the superior position would be that of apprehension, though there is a view among contemporary Hanafi Muftis for it to be lawful for consumption.