Question:
Some dyes have ammonia and I have been told that ammonia is not Halal. Please verify? [Question Published as Received]
The Fatwa
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
The Answer
The Fiqh of The Answer
The Ḥalāl or Ḥarām classification of ammonia, a compound commonly used in various industrial applications, including the foods and cosmetics industries, is a matter subject to principle alignment within Islamic jurisprudence. It is first of all imperative to clarify that ammonia, in its inherent composition, is not categorised as Ḥarām (forbidden) under Islamic dietary or usage regulations. Ammonia is a chemical compound comprising nitrogen and hydrogen, serving purposes such as a leavening agent, pH regulator, and occasionally as a processing aid.
The source of ammonia predominantly utilised in these applications is synthetic ammonia, which is synthesised through the Haber-Bosch process. In this production process, atmospheric nitrogen gas (N2) is combined with hydrogen gas (H2) derived from sources such as natural gas or other hydrocarbons, resulting in the formation of ammonia (NH3).
From a shariah standpoint, synthetic ammonia, produced through a chemical process and devoid of direct connection to living organisms, does not fall into the Ḥarām (forbidden) category. Instead, the prevalent principle within Islamic jurisprudence, upheld by a substantial majority of scholars across the four major schools of thought, dictates a default stance of permissibility (Ibāḥah) unless concrete evidence establishing prohibition (Taḥrīm) is unequivocally demonstrated.
Ibn Nujaym al-Miṣrī (d.970 AH), in his al-Ashbāh, delves into the debate regarding the fundamental state of things, pondering whether they should be considered permissible until proven otherwise or prohibited until proven otherwise. His conclusion aligns with the majority viewpoint among jurists, which asserts that the default status of usage is permissibility unless compelling evidence indicates otherwise. This is also the viewpoint and preferred opinion of the authority, Imām al-Karkhī (d.340 AH), Imām Abu Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ al-Rāzī (d.370 AH), Abū al-Yusr Bazdawī (d.483 AH), Kamāl Ibn al-Humām (d.861 AH), and his illustrious student, Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā’ (d.879 AH).
In both, the celebrated Hidāyah, of Imām Burhān al-Dīn Marghīnānī (d.593 AH) specifically in the chapter dedicated to ‘Hidād,’ and in the Fatāwā collection of Qāḍī Khān (d.592 AH), in the initial discussions regarding prohibition and permissibility, a consistent assertion emerges. This assertion firmly establishes that the fundamental principle governing matters is one of permissibility.
‘Allamah Ibn ʿĀbidīn (d.1252 AH) reinforces this viewpoint by firmly stating that the foundational principle in matters is permissibility. According to the conclusion of Ibn ʿĀbidīn (d.1252 AH), this perspective is also concurred by the majority of scholars from the Hanafī and Shafi’ī schools of thought.
A citation from the Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, the foremost authoritative Hanafī sources, plays a pivotal role in elucidating and establishing the foundational framework for this principle. Imām Muhammad (d. 189 AH) contemplated a scenario in which an individual, confronted with a life-threatening ultimatum to consume prohibited substances like carrion flesh or wine—strictly forbidden in shariah—chose not to comply and subsequently met their demise. In response, affirming that preservation of life takes precedence in such scenarios, Imām Muhammad expresses concerns that the person killed may well be considered sinful, as the prohibitions against these substances were only established post divine revelation. Essentially, had these prohibitions not been revealed, these substances would have remained lawful. Therefore, Imām Muhammad’s conclusion underscores the foundational principle that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the default status of things is permissibility within Islamic jurisprudence.
To summarise, ammonia itself is not Ḥarām, and Islamic jurisprudence generally maintains a presumption of permissibility unless compelling evidence dictates otherwise. Given that synthetic ammonia is produced through a chemical process without direct ties to living organisms, it aligns with the principle of permissibility in Islamic dietary and usage considerations.
And Almighty Allah Alone Knows Best
Maulana Ammar Y Badat
Trainee Mufti
Reviewed and approved by
Mufti Faraz Adam
Darul Iftaa Muadh ibn Jabal
www.darulfiqh.com
DISCLAIMER:
The views and opinions expressed in this answer belong only to the author and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of any institutions to which he may be affiliated.
Arguments and ideas propounded in this answer are based on the juristic interpretations and reasoning of the author. Given that contemporary issues and interpretations of contemporary issues are subjective in nature, another Mufti may reach different conclusions to the one expressed by the author. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure total accuracy and soundness from a Shari’ah perspective, the author is open to any correction or juristic guidance. On the event of any juristic shortcomings, the author will retract any or all of the conclusions expressed within this answer.
The Shari’ah ruling given herein is based specifically on the scenario in question. The author bears no responsibility towards any party that acts or does not act on this answer and is exempted from any and all forms of loss or damage. This answer may not be used as evidence in any court of law without prior written consent from the author. Consideration is only given and is restricted to the specific links provided, the author does not endorse nor approve of any other content the website may contain.
قَاعِدَةٌ: هَلْ الْأَصْلُ فِي الْأَشْيَاءِ الْإِبَاحَةُ حَتَّى يَدُلَّ الدَّلِيلُ عَلَى عَدَمِ الْإِبَاحَةِ؟ وَهُوَ مَذْهَبُ الشَّافِعِيِّ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ أَوْ التَّحْرِيمُ حَتَّى يَدُلَّ الدَّلِيلُ عَلَى الْإِبَاحَةِ؟ وَنَسَبَهُ الشَّافِعِيَّةُ إلَى أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ وَفِي الْبَدِيعِ الْمُخْتَارِ أَنْ لَا حُكْمَ لِلْأَفْعَالِ قَبْلَ الشَّرْعِ. وَالْحُكْمُ عِنْدَنَا، وَإِنْ كَانَ أَزَلِيًّا فَالْمُرَادُ بِهِ هُنَا عَدَمُ تَعَلُّقِهِ بِالْفِعْلِ قَبْلَ الشَّرْعِ فَانْتَفَى التَّعَلُّقُ لِعَدَمِ فَائِدَتِهِ (انْتَهَى) وَفِي شَرْحِ الْمَنَارِ لِلْمُصَنِّفِ: الْأَشْيَاءُ فِي الْأَصْلِ عَلَى الْإِبَاحَةِ عِنْدَ بَعْضِ الْحَنَفِيَّةِ، وَمِنْهُمْ الْكَرْخِيُّ. وَقَالَ بَعْضُ أَصْحَابِ الْحَدِيثِ: الْأَصْلُ فِيهَا الْحَظْرُ. وَقَالَ أَصْحَابُنَا: الْأَصْلُ فِيهَا التَّوَقُّفُ بِمَعْنَى أَنَّهُ لَا بُدَّ لَهَا مِنْ حُكْمٍ لَكِنَّا لَمْ نَقِفْ عَلَيْهِ بِالْعَقْلِ (انْتَهَى) . وَفِي الْهِدَايَةِ مِنْ فَصْلِ الْحِدَادِ: إنَّ الْإِبَاحَةَ أَصْلٌ (انْتَهَى) وَيَظْهَرُ أَثَرُ هَذَا الِاخْتِلَافِ فِي الْمَسْكُوتِ عَنْهُ. [الأشباه والنظائر
وشأن الشروط أن لا تذكر في التعاريف وأورد عليه في البحر المباح يعني: بناء لعى ما هو المنصوص عندهم من الأصل في الأشياء التوقف، إلا أن الفقهاء كثيرا ما يلهجون بأن الأصل في الأشياء الإباحة. [النهر الفائق]
وأيضًا: فقد صح عندنا أن الأشياء على أصل الإباحة، حتى يقوم الدليل من عقل أو سمع على الحظر، وليس في العقل حظر ما أبحنا من الأشربة، ولا ثبت السمع بتحريمها، فهي باقية على أصل الإباحة. [شرح مختصر الطحاوي للجصاص]
وَلَوْ تَهَدَّدَهُ بِقَتْلٍ حَتَّى يَشْرَبَ الْخَمْرَ، فَلَمْ يَفْعَلْ حَتَّى قُتِلَ خِفْت أَنْ يَكُونَ آثِمًا، وَقَدْ بَيَّنَّا هَذَا الْفَصْلَ إلَّا أَنَّهُ ذَكَرَهُ هُنَا بِلَفْظٍ يُسْتَدَلُّ بِهِ عَلَى أَنَّهُ كَانَ مِنْ مَذْهَبِهِ أَنَّ الْأَصْلَ فِي الْأَشْيَاءِ الْإِبَاحَةُ، وَأَنَّ الْحُرْمَةَ بِالنَّهْيِ عَنْهَا شَرْعًا، فَإِنَّهُ قَالَ؛ لِأَنَّ شُرْبَ الْخَمْرِ، وَأَكْلَ الْمَيْتَةِ لَمْ يُحَرَّمْ إلَّا بِالنَّهْيِ عَنْهُمَا، وَبَيْنَ أَهْلِ الْأُصُولِ فِي هَذَا كَلَامٌ لَيْسَ هَذَا مَوْضِعُ بَيَانِهِ. [المبسوط للسرخسي]
وأيضًا: فقد صح عندنا أن الأشياء على أصل الإباحة، حتى يقوم الدليل من عقل أو سمع على الحظر، وليس في العقل حظر ما أبحنا من الأشربة، ولا ثبت السمع بتحريمها، فهي باقية على أصل الإباحة. [شرح مختصر الطحاوي للجصاص]
ظاہر ہے کہ جن اشیاء کے بارے میں حلت و حرمت کی صراحت نہ ہو، خواہ وہ اشیاء ہوں، یا افعال و تصرفات، یا معاملات وعادات ، مباح وجائز ہیں. [عقودالجواهر للمفتي طاهر غازي آبادى]