Catching fish. Is reciting the name of god compulsory?
[Hassan] Sanctifying and tasmiya i.e. reciting the name of god is a sunnah
and is made obligatory at the time of killing an animal for our food.
We have talked at length about it, during this argument,
And also, in your book 'Meezan' you've mentioned it.
The question I want to ask you is this: that in the case of a fish
these two conditions are lifted.
There's no need of sanctifying, nor tasmiyah (taking the name of God).
In eating, drinking or killing an animal, if an important command
was already in place, then why not in the case of a fish,
we don't see things in the same manner.
If there was an exception given, then in the original command
what exactly was there, due to which this exception can be made?
One is an exception, though a life is being taken
And another is mandatory, though a life is being taken.
[Ghamidi] It is the same argument, that we were trying to conclude.
That you ascertain the rationale. Which means that whenever there is
a command given, then the biggest thing to see is (this lesson was given to us by
the Quran, it's not a teaching of the jurists).
Quran has said and shown these things to us practically,
Rasool Allah gave us this lesson.
That when ever there's a command given in the deen,
you should understand its reality, that on what basis was it given.
They say charity must be given for gold, now if we understand its reality/essence
Its reality is that it is wealth. Now this ruling would extend to all wealth
and if its reality is that it is wealth, and then we turn to productive wealth.
Then for the produce, we need a different judgment.
because it can't be applied with the same judgment as money
That's why we need to find out its reality
The reality we discerned, that's to say, how did we find it?
In the process of discerning the essence, we need to be consistent at every stage.
That is, what is the purpose of religion, which we know is clear,
the Quran has mentioned it.
What are the general principles? About food and drink, what are the actual
principles they are based on, i.e. impure things are impermissible,
and pure things are permissible.
After this what and where are the detailed and particular commands been given?
We reviewed all of it and after reviewing all of them, we finally reached
this conclusion, that this is actually 'beastliness'.
Its manifestation has two aspects to it. One, blood is a sign of beastliness and
you start eating or drinking it. Two, that we assault an animal brutally
to kill it, just as we sacrifice a goat or sacrifice a cow,
do ponder that we do the same thing that a lion does.
Or a cheetah does. It wants to run to save his life,
and we hold him down.
They sink their teeth in its neck, and we too run our knife on its neck to cut it
So when these 2 things became evident, that this side gives way to brutality,
as well as that side. Hence god declared both sides impermissible.
With that he said, the blood must flow out so it doesn't stay inside.
This way, it will save you from apparent beastliness.
Which means, in that situation and in reality, it is filth.
Both things have become evident.
And this deed which you will do, this too should be sanctified and purified.
When you have a knife and you hold down an animal to slaughter it, in this,
what is to be done to sanctify it? It is to take god's name.
Which is like, 'I gave you my permission and have tolerated your brutality, so
you can get meat'. Hence these two things became certain.
Now we'll see if in the case of a fish is it necessary,
that is when we actually cast the net to catch a fish,
does that make the situation same as the other?
Then this is for us to observe and experience.
If observing and experiencing are suggesting that it's not the same,
as for other animals because blood doesn't gush or pour out the same way.
I'm not trying to make the research in this matter a subject of discussion,
Our sciences will see to it. The second point is, was it really
necessary to assault? Because the intention was to drain the blood out.
It's not needed here, because here it suffocates and dies.
If these two things are ruling out that rationale (in case of other animals),
then it is Ijtihad.
fiqh (understanding), not the original Islamic law.
You're making an exception to these principles. So, what I told was
when we discern the reality, then we can find the basis
for exceptions and also for extension of the rationale.
So it's not like that, that's why Quran didn't talk about fish,
saying that you're not suppose to do this with it.
During his prophethood, what all Rasool Allah (SAW) narrated,
that is if you argue on the Isnaad, then they aren't even worthy of being presented
This is entirely an Ijtihad matter. On this foundation, Muslims
accepted this exception and I find it absolutely correct. I talked about
both arguments and if you notice, we haven't talked about any narrative or Ayah
[Hassan] But what if a person comes forward and says, I've seen blood in fish
and we will slaughter it. So when he is sacrificing, then for him reciting the
name of god is compulsory?
[Ghamidi] It will be compulsory, this is his own Ijtihad, because here there is
no instruction from Quran, nor was there any Saheeh saying reported from the
time of Rasool Allah (SAW)'s prophethood. This is entirely an Ijtihad issue.
I'm convinced that there should be an exception, and I will accept it.
If you're not convinced, you should slaughter and recite God's name too.
In all the ijtihadi affairs, this is what happens. But a person will be
a wrongdoer, if he on the basis of a matter of Ijtihad, he makes a ruling
about the original. Because there every thing has already been mentioned
in the book of God and God's messenger has clarified it too.
[Hassan] You clarified your point. Could you explain a related point,
as when you were frequently asked,
you said it's a good practice to recite 'Bismillah,' while throwing the net.
Now when the original command s lifted, then why do we need to say 'Bismillah?'
[Ghamidi] This is everywhere instructed to us, we need to say it in
every good deed we do, especially in the matter of food and drink if you notice,
I've mentioned it among the Sunan that you need to eat with your right hand,
after taking God's name. At that time if you say 'Bismillah,' it's a good practice,
while eating if you say it, that too is a good practice.
It's a different thing all together.
But the case of prohibition and lawfulness is no more there because
of exceptions, and we see these exceptions everyday.
Which means in all the discussion we did, we have allowed exception
on the basis of dire need. So in deen the principles of exception are these only,
either reality (of a thing) has stopped existing and for me, this has ended.
Now as you just questioned, I told you that when the experts of
religious sciences will show us that the reality (of a thing) has ended,
after that, eating from a pig will also be permissible. That's the principle.
That if the reality according to your knowledge has ended,
the verdict will also change and if the reality emerges at another place,
then the judgment will emerge there as well. It is a principle which we apply,
Ijtihad without this cannot be done. This itself is called Ijtihad.
[Hassan] Please clarify one last point, when, normally, we're talking
about slaughtering other animals
then there is a condition of sanctifation, or a rule to recite god's name,
and the one who is going to do the slaughtering should also be
a believer in one God.
So the person who is going to do the sacrifice, his religious status too
comes to discussion. Then the person's religious status while
trying to catch a fish should also come to discussion, don't you think?
[Ghamidi] It's not a sacrifice he's making When he does the slaughtering,
that's when it may be discussed, He isn't doing anything of that sort.
That means, he would have has to brutally grab hold of the animal
and would have had to used the knife to cut its neck.
And it would have resisted, while he would have had to kill it.
But no action of that sort was taken, that's why it's not needed.