Yasir Qadhi – Is it Permissible to Conceive Children via In-Vitro Fertilization Q&A

			Woman sent an
		

			email, he saw the how
		

			many Mina most Nene
		

			Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh Alhamdulillah wa salatu salam ala Rasulillah. While early
he was so happy woman while our first question for today, I have actually gathered together four or
five questions all about the same topic of envy vitro fertilization or IVF. So and these are a
little bit more specific than the generic question. So, Sister us my emails, saying that she already
has given birth to some children naturally Hamdulillah. But some issues happened and she can no
longer have any more children. So she's asking that in this case, is it permissible to utilize the
IVF procedure? Or would it not be permissible because she already has children? Sister, Cameroon,
		

			from UK, Amara Cameroon, from the UK, is a very specific question saying that
		

			her husband and her were trying for many years to have children via the IVF. But they were not
successful. The husband has recently passed away, we ask Allah to forgive him. But she's saying now
that the sperm is still stored. And according to the laws of the country she lives in, she has the
right to access that. And they were married at the time of his death. So can she use his sperm,
given that she's still in the ADA and sister Misha emails that she has been diagnosed with a rare
type of specific ailment that affects her ovaries, doctors are saying that everything is normal,
except her egg production. So the doctors have said that she should take a donor's egg and her
		

			husband's sperm and then put it into her own womb, and they will have the baby from her womb. She is
saying is this permissible? And the final question of this series brother Mateen says that, during
the IVF process, the doctors have told him that they can choose the gender of the baby he wants, and
that they will do this, they're going to be checking the sperm anyway for vitality and whatever. So
it's not going to make any difference to them. If he wants, they said that they can basically select
the gender. And so is this permissible? Now, these are a whole bunch of series of questions about
IVF in vitro fertilization, and I have given a longer q&a with a specialist Dr. Hatem Alhaji you
		

			will find it on my YouTube channel, you will find it on the YouTube channels that you're watching
this video from. And Dr. Hatem al Hajj is not only a scholar, he is also a licensed medical
practitioner and a specialist in medicine and also in the Sharia. And I had a very, very lengthy q&a
about many aspects of the field of medicine. And this was one of them. So you can listen to that,
you know, lecture for more details. But I do believe that, you know, these specific questions should
be addressed more
		

			more in line of the questions that are being asked ie go into a little bit more detail. And of
course, for those who who are who are not to where a brief summary, in vitro fertilization IVF is
basically a procedure in which the mature eggs are collected or retrieved from a woman's ovaries,
and fertilized via a sperm that has also been collected from the man, the actual fertilization does
not take place inside of the uterus, it takes place in a lab or in a glass cylinder in vitro means
it's in a glass cylinder, and then the fertilized embryo is then transferred to a uterus. And this
is a relatively modern procedure. The first time actually it was done successfully was in England in
		

			1978. And by the way, the lady that you know, the child that was born a young girl, that lady is
still alive and healthy and living her life so and she's in her mid 40s. Now, so it's a relatively
recent procedure 1978 and therefore, because of this, you're not going to find any classical fatawa
what you will find is modern film councils looking into this issue. And a number of filth councils
have looked into this issue since the 1980s. And pretty much all of them pretty much all of them,
they have allowed it with a series of conditions that as long as these conditions are met to then it
is permitted. And the most famous perhaps one of the earliest counsels to do a thorough study was
		

			the merger model 50, which is attached to the Robert ulimate Islami This is known as the
International Islamic Film Academy. And this is perhaps one of the largest bodies of scholars from
diverse theological schools, diverse, filthy schools.
		

			and diverse geographic schools, it is probably one of the most, if you like mainstream
representatives of global Islam, and therefore their footwear should really be looked up to and
considered to be something that is very relevant and pertinent. They only look at modern issues.
They don't look at, you know, stuff that has been there done that look at modern issues and in 1987.
In Jordan, they meet annually in 1987, they had an entire session about the IVF issue in vitro
fertilization, and they gave a very detailed fatwa, which they then updated in 1990. To take care of
more scenarios and more What if so, they have two detailed photos, they're overlapping, they're not
		

			contradictory, then it leads 71 is a little bit more basic than it 91 went into more scenarios and
details on both of these photos are available on their Arabic websites. I don't think they're in
English. And what I'm, what I'm about to tell you is basically a summary of all of these questions
that have been asked to me a summary of what the minefield is now me or the International Islamic
field Academy has said, and they're a fatwa explicitly forbids the usage of the sperm of any donor,
except for the husband, and the usage of the eggs of any donor other than the wife, and that the
ovaries or the uterus of any lady is used other than the wife. In fact, the fatwa even says, if the
		

			man has two husbands, then he cannot take the eggs from one and then implant in the uterus of the
other. This is what the fatwa explicitly says that if we're going to permit IVF, then it must be
done in the valid Nikka. It must be done between a husband and wife. And that is it, no third party
can be involved, only the fertilization can take place outside the body. And so the sperm and the
eggs are then fertilized in vitro and then placed back into the uterus of the wife, the wife in this
marriage, and then this would be permissible. Now a number of conditions are given, perhaps the main
one is that the doctor should be a God fearing pious Muslim, as much as possible if you have to, if
		

			you're able to find what No, why is this Muslim condition put the response is very clear. And that
is that we believe that that a person of Eman is going to is going to be morally conscious of a
higher power that he has to answer to Allah subhanho wa taala. And of course, the fatwa says, If you
can't find one, then you do your best to find a reputable doctor that you trust a doctor whose
reputation is well known. And he has a track record of honesty don't go to some shady person or
whatnot, or some person who doesn't have any reputation just starting off. No, the reason for this
actually, we really cannot underscore how important it is. There have been multiple cases around the
		

			globe. Now with DNA testing becoming common. There have been so many scandals that are emerging from
the 80s and the 90s. And and the scandals are that the doctor was not honest in whose egg it was, or
more commonly whose sperm it was. And there was one very famous case here in America, which is still
being tried in courts here. And there were one especially nefarious doctor never used the sperm of
the husband, he always used his own sperm. And now he has sired over 75 I believe children across
America, they don't even know how many we they're discovering every few he was, you know, a doctor
that specialized in this. So women will come to him from all over the country where the time when it
		

			was very rare, and he used his own sperm. And because of this, obviously, I mean, understandably,
when they did DNA tests, and the children are wanting to find out stuff, they discovered that the
person they thought is their father is not their father, rather, the doctor is, you know, their
biological father. And of course, these types of scandals really should cause us to understand why
these facts was put this condition of a God fearing a doctor, a doctor who believes in Allah and has
to answer to Allah subhanho wa Taala because it is an Amana because at the end of the day, you're
not going to be there in the lab, you're not going to be there to see so we have to have that trust
		

			in that person. Now, if we cannot find a reputable Muslim doctor, we go to a doctor whose reputation
is known and who insha Allah Allah society has deemed you know that this is a person who is of the
highest caliber and the highest integrity now to answer this specific questions that all of these
people have asked. First and foremost, it is not to condition for IVF that it is only done when you
cannot have children or you don't have any children. And if the couple has had children naturally,
biologically, naturally, and then for because of some impediment, she cannot have any more children
without resorting to IVF. It is permissible if they wish to have more children and they think it's
		

			going to be better for their deen and their dunya and the general
		

			rule is that having more children is encouraged in our Sharia. So the fact that they are that they
already have children that are naturally born is not a factor that prevents them from them from then
having more children via IVF. Also, the sister who asked about the husband who's passed away, the
footwear that was given in 1990, the updated father was very clear in this regard. And that is that
it is not allowed, it is not allowed to use the sperm of the husband who has passed away, even if
she is in her it does. And that is because while and so there's a big controversy amongst them
without Him that does the nigga break with the death of the husband or whatnot. And you know, this
		

			is beyond the scope of this q&a. But the Nikka does not break per se, but it is a different stage.
And in that stage, the spouse can see the body of the other spouse if need be, if there's nobody
else to wash, the spouse can wash the body of the other spouse if there's nobody else to do that.
And obviously, in the case of the lady, there will be no need for months and 10 days, after which
she is free to remarry. And even if she chooses not to marry her legal relationship with her husband
in this dunya ceases to exist, he is considered dead inheritance will be immediate, for example. And
so, the notion of then taking a sperm that has been frozen from the husband that is now deceased, it
		

			is as if the shortcode would be that the husband is alive, no, it is not allowed. So regardless of
whether she's in her ID or not, it is not allowed to use his sperm to inseminate the wife at this
stage, it can only be done when both spouses are alive and the marriage contract between them is
valid. It is a valid marriage contract and they are together then it can be done. Once the husband
has passed away, then actually his sperm should be destroyed. There is no need for it. It cannot be
used for any other purpose. We do not believe in donating eggs to strangers donating sperm to
strangers. It is haram unequivocally haram you are tampering with biology or tampering with
		

			childhood and lineage your chat tampering with the concept of family IVF is allowed or permitted to
husband and wife within a valid Nikka it can never take place outside of Annika or if then you guys
who come in this dunya ceases even if it remains in the ACA because again, the notion comes if she
doesn't remarry, and then she passes away insha Allah without this Nikka who will be valid in the
Hereafter, okay, they will be husband wife in the hereafter J that's in the hereafter in this world.
We cannot say that she is married anymore, she is not married, her husband has passed away and the
Helcom will be her husband is not alive the verdict. And once the verdict is that then the ruling
		

			about using his sperm will also be completely removed. There is no question about this, that she
cannot use the sperm of her husband once the death has occurred. Now as for the question of using
another donors egg, or another lady's uterus, or if we can add here another person sperm, again,
across the globe, every fifth council that has you looked at this every movie that I have looked up
every chef that I know every one has said absolutely unconditionally impermissible. I am not aware
of any fifth council that has allowed another third party whether it is the egg donation, whether it
is the sperm, whether it is the usage of the uterus, that you rent a uterus or somebody volunteers.
		

			In fact, in the 1990 photo, the Film Academy explicitly said even if the man has two wives, and the
one wife is willing, and the one wife is, is cooperating a sing all you can use my uterus and the
other wife gives the egg even then it would not be allowed because you're breaking and tampering
with the biological notion of the mother and the father. So if the husband and wife are trying and
trying and they are told, for example that because see the IVF then there's multiple reasons why
people resort to it, I mean, perhaps some of the more common ones, the husband's sperm isn't
concentrated enough. And so the doctors take it out, and they make it more concentrated his sperm,
		

			they make it more concentrated, and they then take the fertilized the egg, or the egg is not
extracted properly from the ladies over so they extract it or it doesn't plant in the uterus in the
right way. So the doctors will plant it manually in the right way. So as long as these are the
factors and husband wife can get by together no problem. However, if what is impeding the child to
be born or conceived, I should say is a factor that requires a third party. So in some men, they
simply do not have any sperm. And some women they do not produce any eggs and other women their
uterus simply cannot be a place for the child.
		

			to go for some biological or medical purpose, if this is the case, the husband and wife have no
option other than to continue to make dua to Allah and pray for a miracle and we believe in miracles
and pray and pray and pray until they are elderly like Ibrahim and Sarah prayed and like Zachary,
and his wife prayed until they're old and if Allah blesses them he in this world hamdulillah if not,
then they look forward to the hereafter. We can't get everything we desire. We have the right to
desire we have the right to make dua, but there must come a time where we accept Allah as you know,
somebody wants to be a multimillionaire, he has the right to desire and make dua to Allah give me
		

			this pylon, okay, but if it doesn't happen, you must accept Allah's other as well. And no doubt it
is natural to desire children and if it happens at hamdulillah if not, then we must accept Allah's
cuddle as Allah says in the Quran, jolla Jaya lumen Yasha Akima. In the WHO Ali Yun Kadir, he
decides who has no children he is allottee and are the the last point in this q&a. As for choosing
the gender of the child, the fatwa of the Islamic faith Academy says that it is not to be
encouraged, and that it is really not desirable to open up this door. But that in and of itself, it
is not sinful, as long as one is not doing it for the Jahai mentality of preferring sons or
		

			daughters because you think that the daughters will not bring blessings or whatnot as long as it's
not done with that jehadi mentality No, you want to son for reasons that are highlighted or daughter
for reasons are hella without looking down at the other gender that oh, this is superior to the
other way that the journey outcomes did that. And of course, this opens up a gray area what if this
what if that, but overall, if you're near for choosing the gender is pure, then the fatwa says that
it is not sinful? Makrooh it is best to avoid and I would definitely say we should not open this
door and rather let Allah azza wa jal. You only choose for you when what Allah chooses will be best
		

			for you. And this answers our first question about IVF.
		

			The second question shall a very tasty question show love to other sisters Sena all the way from
Australia emails from down under. And she asks about lobsters, not whether they are halal or haram.
But a very good question, actually. And she says that the cooking technique of a lobster in most
countries involves cooking them while they are alive and putting them in hot or boiling water. So
she says Would this be permissible in light of the way that we are cooking the animal? And I'll tack
another question on brother baloche from country unknown. Brother baloche asks that the general
permissibility of seafood does it also include alligators or frogs because he mentioned mashallah,
		

			in a very explicit email that he was feeling very adventurous in his younger college years, and he
did partake of eating alligators and frogs. And now that he has older he is wondering whether he has
committed a sin by eating these these animals whether they come and receive food or not. Now,
		

			I have given a much longer q&a about seafood, you can look this up. But these are very specific
questions that again, I felt it's useful to talk about them. Just briefly, though, I've already
mentioned that the majority position, which is the hamburgers and Chef series, and Maliki's that all
of the creatures that live in the ocean, whether they are the fish of the ocean, or the non fish
creatures, the crustaceans or the crabs or whatnot, they're living in the ocean, that they are
permissible to eat. Because Allah says in the Quran, or Hilah, concidered Bahamut, or animal that
the catch of the ocean and the food of the ocean, even Abbas said, the catch is what you throw your
		

			neck or your fishing rod and you get the side and the Tom is what if what you find at the top is
just lying there dead on the ocean. So anything that is dead, that the nature has killed, that Allah
has called that has killed, you can take it anything you catch, you can take it and the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said in the famous hadith of a Buddha would who are Tahoma who will
Hello Mater to who that the water of the ocean is pure, and it's dead is halal to eat. It's dead
meaning you don't have to sacrifice it. It's automatically dead. So if you yourself catch it, then
obviously even more so you can eat it. How about it's dead about he said it's dead. It's dead. He
		

			didn't say only the fish she said everything from the ocean. Somebody asked him about the ocean. So
the professor said it's water is halal. And it's the water meaning you can do will do with the ocean
water. That's what it means like you can do will do with ocean water. Even if you don't drink it.
You can do all that. And it's dead. All of
		

			The ocean so this includes whales. It includes all types of fish includes lobsters as well. Anything
that comes from the ocean would be considered Khaled. Now, obviously, the the Hanafi school has its
exception and they say all of these they apply to the fish of the ocean with some conditions and
they therefore don't open the door to
		

			those species or those animals that are non fish. So for example, lobsters and shrimps and whatnot.
The honeybees then differ that is it they say it is McClure's It is haram and then they differ
amongst themselves. Is it mcru to halimi? Or is it more growth and Z he Maruta Hidemi would mean it
is even slightly sinful to eat, but gluten Z he means no, it's not sinful, but it's best to avoid
and within the Hanafi school you find both of these positions. And if you're Hanafi, feel free to
ask your chef and follow that position. If you ask me and you trust and you're following what I'm
saying, the majority position is very clear and it is also based in the Quran and Sunnah and an
		

			eagle with utmost respect to that to the Hanafis they also have their evidences but I believe that
the majority position in this case is correct. However, the shaft freeze and the humble is they
excluded from seafood and from river by seafood we don't just mean seafood, anything living in the
water. So freshwater it was included in this the shaft phase and the humble is they excluded from
seafood. A number of creatures number one on the list is alligators and crocodiles at himsa. And
they said that the alligators and crocodiles
		

			because it's catching with its teeth in a manner that resembles the animals of the the the the
animals of the the lions and tigers are predators of the of the of the land and the process and
expressly forbade the presence of predators of the land. That's their position. And, you know,
that's that's their basis. And again, I'm just narrating to what they what they say here. And they
also said both of these men have said the Frog is also not allowed. Our brother asked about
alligators and frogs. And so alligators are very common to eat here in Texas, by the way, maybe
maybe maybe some of you are not aware, but it is pretty common if you go to Florida. So Florida and
		

			Texas, many restaurants. So when I was younger, driving around, you know, we would go between cities
and we walked into a restaurant and it was an alligator restaurant, everything was alligator on the
menu where there was no nothing for us to eat. And then we saw the sign and it said that we just
didn't read design we walked in. So it's very common in some parts of Texas and Florida and other
places where alligators are eaten and of course the French love their frogs legs. Frogs would also
not be allowed by the Sharpies and the Hungary's and the Hanafis. It is the molecules that allow
both of these animals but the other schools don't allow them and the shafr is in Hamburg please
		

			don't allow frogs because of an extra set Hadith reported widowhood that our Prophet sallallahu
alayhi wa sallam forbade the killing of frogs. And in another Hadith, he said their croaking is the
way they do the spear that is there to spear of ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada. So, once we are forbidden
from killing, then this implies they should not be eaten the fact that we are forbidden from killing
and that makes sense to me that means that they should not be eaten. Now, the humble is added
another creature by them just adding for benefit here and they said the snake of the ocean is also
not allowed the snake of the ocean is also not allowed. Now this is an interesting point here. And
		

			again it shows us you know the the you know the perceptions that people have of the past and their
understandings. The snake of the ocean. what is meant here is the eel the eel and they call this the
Yanni here to Baja. And in reality the eel has nothing to do with the snake family the eel is a
fish. The eel is a fish biologically it is actually related to the catfish. It breeds underwater it
has gills it is not a reptile. And so with an F generally I'm humbly but in this particular case,
not that I've ever eaten an eel I've seen plenty of eels I scuba dive and even a few weeks ago I was
actually diving somewhere and we saw a massive ear literally almost as my it was almost as big as my
		

			head its head it was a massive eel and it frightened me but eels are there and they're very
interesting creatures they say that are fun to play with but never touch one because if you do and
it bites you your finger is gone. It's a very sharp teeth but overall, the notion of eels being
snakes is simply not correct and even if one of them would have said it technically it would not
come under that. By the way there are so there are snakes that are reptiles. There are snakes that
are reptiles and they can dive into the water and they can come out of the water. Those are snakes
snakes are haram to eat according to the majority opinion because our prophets are some forbade
		

			Sorry, I'll process them commanded us to kill specific creatures. He said get rid of them, kill
them.
		

			And scorpion is one of them and rats is another one and snakes is another one so these are filthy
disgusting creatures, we're allowed to kill them with whether we're in Haram or not just get rid of
them. So, the fact that we are commanded to kill them in this manner shows that they are not to be
eaten and therefore the majority position on the demonic is had an exception the majority majority
position is that snakes are not allowed. So when we say water snakes, if you mean an eel, in my
opinion, it is allowed and this is the sharp phrase would allow it and the Americans would allow it
but if you mean the the snake that is both on land and in the water, as I said, there are snakes
		

			that are actual reptiles, but they can go into the water and they can maybe even hunt and they have
to come back up to the air to breathe they cannot live underwater. Unlike an eel those snakes would
be haram to eat now all of this is although this is attention because of a brother asked about
alligators and and frogs but now we get back to lobsters right Mashallah. We have a nice seafood
menu today. MashAllah Tabata kala. So, lobsters Well, we went on so many tangents. Let me add some
more tangents to the lobster question. Our sister is asking about lobsters already said that the
majority position that it is helpful to eat lobsters and also crabs. Those animals that live on the
		

			shore, they would basically be considered to be ocean creatures, by default, unless there's an
exquisite reason to take them out. And they say the alligator is one of those explicit reasons. But
anyway, lobsters and crabs would be a highlight and lobsters of course live underwater completely.
crabs live between water and land crabs are always found on the shoreline, you'll never find them
inland. So we consider them to be sea creatures as though as well. Now it's interesting. Just to
point out, FYI, I find it interesting. And I read lots of miscellaneous random facts, and I love
going into my tangents accidentally. So these are one of the things I can't help now that the
		

			lobster question has been brought up, just FYI, I find it very intriguing that in our era and
civilization in Western culture, lobster is considered fancy meat, lobsters considered upper class
food, you go and you treat yourself out. And it is usually more expensive to get a lobster than it
is to get, you know, chicken or, or beef or whatnot. And this is an interesting switch that happened
only in this century. In fact, lobsters have been eaten for 1000s of years. And generally speaking,
especially in the 18 1900s, lobsters were considered food of the lower class food of the poor, it
was called poor man's meat, it was called poor man's meat. And in fact, in Connecticut and Maine,
		

			these are two states here, and in this country of America, in Connecticut, and Maine, and even in
portions of New Jersey, prisoners were given lobster meat all the time, so much so they complained.
And in fact, it is said that a law was passed that is considered too inhumane. To always feed them
lobster, they have to give different varieties of food. And the reason for this is that lobsters
were so plentiful next to the shores, you know, Maine and New Jersey and, and Connecticut have
shorelines next to them. So the lobsters were so plentiful washed onto the shores, that children
come and pick them by the dozen. And so anybody wants to eat it, you just go to the shore and pick
		

			it up. So it was considered to be poor man's meat poor man's food. What happened? Interesting story
when the train system when the trains started traveling across the country in America, in the 1850s.
And, and and on, one of the owners came across a really interesting idea, which is that people
inland don't really no lobster and lobster meat, and they don't know it's poor man's food. So what
if I were to pretend it is rich man's food because before this point in time, you cannot transport a
lobster, you know, all the way to middle you know, like Mississippi or somebody's not gonna you're
not gonna go all the way up, you know, places Oregon or something, you're not gonna go all the way
		

			there. So what did they decide to do? They decided to then use lobster meat in first class in the
trains. And they made this into a big platter and all the decorations and you know how it goes on
these days. And so that trickled down to the rest of America, other than the coastal lines at that
time, that it is an upper class food, not have lower class food, it was a marketing gimmick, believe
it or not, just like so many other gimmicks, if you study them, like the diamond rings, go read the
history of where it came from. It's a marketing gimmick and whatnot, complete PR for companies to
gain money. And so the lobster industry, he wanted to basically be cheap with his food. The guy who
		

			came across this idea, nonetheless, one that happened slowly, the notion came that lobster meat is
actually upperclass meat in the end of the day, these days is considered you know, fancy dish and
whatnot. Look, we don't care if it's fancy or whatnot. Is it halal or not is the question and as we
said that it is halal to eat but our sister is a very good question. And let's get back to the topic
and all of this is completely random tangents and whatnot. Our sister asked a very relevant question
and that is,
		

			can we eat an animal that we are basically boiling you know,
		

			because this is something that a lot of people don't realize that the way to cook a lobster, the
lobster is crustacean, it has a very hard shell, and it lives on land for quite a while it's not
going to die like a fish, if you take a fish out, is going to die immediately within a few minutes.
As for a lobster, it does not die immediately. It takes maybe a few days even to die, it's not going
to take a very slow and in that case, you're basically starving it to death, you know, so either
way, I mean, how do you what do you do? And so the way that most Western civilizations do this, is
that they simply cook the lobster right then there so they basically boil it and make the meat soft,
		

			and then you can eat to the, the lobster. So our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has a hadith
which has been interpreted by some to imply that this should not be done. And this hadith is
reported by authentic Sohei Henson and books are prothesis and I'm said that no one should torture
by fire by heat other than the Lord of the fire law, you're either will be naughty in La buena. No
one should torture by the fire except the Lord of the fire. So here we are taking an animal and
putting it into hot water. And so some people have balked at this and said, Hey, you can't do this
now. Even Kodama to Great One of the greatest humbly scholars of medieval Islam, and one of the
		

			compilers of the humbling Weatherby has one of the four as as every humbly student knows he's
compiled all of the primary resources to humbly school. Even Kodama died seventh century Hijra. He
says that Imam Muhammad was asked is it allowed to throw a fish directly onto the fire? You know,
grill a light alive fish? Can we take a fish this is a fish even not even a lobster, a fish? If
you're patient two minutes it'll die. Right? Imam Muhammad has asked about a live fish can you throw
it directly onto the fire and Imam Muhammad said I would rather not mount your Djibouti I don't like
it. And if this is done to locusts, then I don't see any problem because they don't have any blood.
		

			But if the fish is cooked in this manner, then it is not my crew to eat it. It is not my crew to eat
it because what is my crew is if you want to punish it with the fire what is mcru is if you want to
punish it in the fire So Imam Muhammad basically said that when it comes to fish by the way, this
isn't lobster. He might not he was saying I would rather not basically but if you do it this way the
fish is halal to eat. And the reason he said this is because the fish will die within a few minutes.
As for the locusts by the way the Locust is a special type of locusts the locusts are halal to eat
by unanimous consensus even the honeybees Allah locusts generally speaking the highest fees are the
		

			strictest when it comes to meat issues and the molecules are the most lack so even locusts are halal
because it is explicit if you wish to eat it. And locusts can be cooked over a fire. Why? Because as
Muhammad said, locusts don't have blood, they're not blood flowing animals and so you can cook them
directly on fire. Imam Malik was asked about a more in the famous book on Mohammed journey which is
the main one of the main books of the Maliki school and more hydrogen invention psuedo Malik
underhood that Malik was asked about a wheel that they find alive on the shore can the whale be cut
up before it dies naturally? So we're gonna cut it up it's die it's on the shore and a whale might
		

			take a few hours to die whales mammals a will if it comes onto the shore a beached whale and if you
want to eat it, can you do you have to wait for it to die or can you literally start carving while
it is alive? And Imam Malik said that there should there is no problem in this because there is no
sacrificing for a fish there is no the cat not the cat the cat for a fish and if he were to find it
dead he can eat it so Why can he not cut it up before it naturally dies? And Imam Malik added even
if he throws it into the fire while it is alive, there is no problem in this okay, a fish is not the
same as an animal. We could never do this to a chicken we could never do this to any other land
		

			animal but animals of the ocean they their death is not the death of the animals of the of the land.
And therefore Imam Malik allowed this for fish which means even more so for lobsters would not be a
problem and Imam Muhammad explicitly said you know I'd rather not for the fish by the way he did not
speak about lobsters and there is a difference because as I said, for the fish you wait two three
minutes is dead. As for a lobster, I mean, I don't know what my mom was would have said but even for
the fish she goes, if it is cooked this way, it's not even my crew. Any I'd rather you just wait two
minutes, but then how about two days who's gonna wait two days
		

			So, basically from this, we can extrapolate that, look, the hadith is there. But the hadith is
explicit that what is forbidden is to torture for the sake of torture. It is haram to torture for
the sake of torture. However, fish and seafood don't have sacrificial procedures. And when you put
it on a fire, your intention is to cook for the sake of eating not to torture it. And it been
rushed, the great Maliki scholar. He said, according to the Maliki school, he said that, you know,
some in our month have might consider this to be mcru. But he goes, the correct position is that it
is completely mobile, completely permissible to cook alive fish over the fire, because he said,
		

			There is no sacrifice and so its death is caused in this manner. And by the way, there is unanimous
consensus of all of the schools of law, that you may cook locusts immediately while they are alive,
and that that includes smoking them, that includes throwing them in water, or whatever what needs to
be done, because they are not animals that have blood flowing in them. So from this one can make
clear to us that lobsters as well do not have blood. Well. I mean, biologically, they have something
that is the equivalent, but they don't have blood like we do. They don't have our type of blood, the
hemoglobin and whatnot, they have their own versions and whatnot that are the fluids in their
		

			bodies. And the point really is a number of things first and foremost, like and by the way, this
needs to be said, I mean,
		

			cooking is an easy and clean business. But sacrificing an animal is never an easy and clean
business. And so all of us, me included are all of us in our husbands who cook and housewives who
cook they have no very little problems getting nice packages of meat and slicing it up at home and
putting into the silane and the Java and everything they're doing that excellent biryani Excellent.
But when we go to the place of sacrifice the abattoir, we go to the slaughterhouse.
		

			Even those that love meat, and I'm one of them, it's it's not easy to watch all the time. There is
no easy way to sacrifice an animal. It's going to cause some pain is going to cause some
consternation and one understands if one doesn't believe in a Shinya, you know why vegetarians and
vegans become what they do because they think it is cruel and unnatural. And that's their
prerogative to view we have a Sharia, and Allah has given us permission, Allah has given us
authority, the One who created those animals. That's the point. The One who created those animals
said to us, that if you mentioned my name, I have created them for you to eat from them. Right? So
		

			this is x percent in the Quran and Sunnah, that of the blessings of Allah upon us, we thank Allah
Hamdulillah we thank Allah for meat hamdulillah and for seafood, I love meat, I love seafood, and I
love seafood, seeing food and eating food at Hamdulillah. This is Pullman, ha Rama tell you about
every school has forbidden the good food, this is Allah's blessings upon us. My point being that
there is no easy way to slaughter an animal, and even a chicken or a cow, there is going to be pain,
there is going to be some suffering, it is allowed because Allah has given us that allowance. So the
same goes for those animals that don't have a sacrificing procedure, right, and that is seafood. And
		

			that is all types of seafood, there is no sacrifice. Therefore, if the reason why we are cooking it,
the way that we're cooking it is to expedite its death, and to then have the meat for us to eat,
then it is permissible in sha Allah to Allah because our goal is not to torture, our goal is to
cause a quick death and to then cook the animal and this the explicit fatawa as I said, of Imam
Malik, and of the
		

			humbly school and whatnot. And by the way, this also needs to be said here, look, lots of studies
have been done, whether you know, fish and whether
		

			lobsters actually even have pain, the way that we understand them. You know, there have been a lot
of studies done. And to date, no study has been conclusive. We do not even know if they feel pain,
we don't know they don't have the type of sensory nerves that we're accustomed to. And it is very
likely I'm not a marine biologist, but you know, from what I've read, it is very likely that they do
not even sense pain, the way that we do, and the way that land animals do, they don't have the type
of sensory organs the way that we do and therefore this notion of firstly, even if there was some
pain or some suffering involved, it would still be permissible because this is the mechanism of
		

			cooking the seafood But secondly, we can also say in reality in all likelihood there is no pain for
these creatures. There's simply going to be not existing anymore when we you know cook them in this
manner and therefore it would be permissible to do so and so in sha Allah to Allah butter away
because you need butter for a lobster obviously butcher away and enjoy your lobster meat however you
cook it if you choose to do so no problem in shallow try that with this
		

			Our next question for today,
		

			brother honey from Denmark marshmallows about our cola emails. And he asks about the prohibition of
pizza in the Hadith. And I'll explain what it means. And he says, What does this apply to? What is
Kazaa? What does it apply to? And does it apply to what we now call us feeds or trims now?
		

			Because that is something that has been forbidden in Hadith our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam
set up for bade na casa he forbade a la casa. And even Omar was asked what is a casa. So it'd been
Omar said that some of the hair is shaved of the child, and some of it is left. And Imam Ahmed has a
report that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam saw a child who some of his hair was shaved, and
some of it was left. And the Profit System forbade this and said, either shave all of it, or leave
all of it. Now, before I go into more detail, I have to give a disclaimer because it Subhanallah
every time, every time I answer a question that some consider a trivial issue. If you look at the
		

			comments below, if you look at the reactions on Twitter, and Facebook and whatnot, I get bombarded
like this is why the OMA is so backward, that this is happening in this land. And this is happening
there. And our scholars are talking about hairstyles, okay. So I do have to respond to this. Because
frankly, it is getting irritating. And the mindset itself is problematic. I have 1000s of videos,
brothers and sisters on all topics. I have one to proceed on seerah. I have one explanations of
Hadith I have, and lots of lots of lectures on on politics and political issues. I have lectures on
personal issues, marital issues, financial issues. And so obviously, at some point in time, yes, we
		

			will also do things that some might consider to be trivial, it doesn't mean that everybody has to
talk all that they're doing and listen to the latest hairstyle. So please put things into
perspective, login to my YouTube channel and see the depth and the quantity of videos that I have
before you say Oh, our scholars are only concentrating on on hairstyles. Also, we have to point out
that I'm not the one concentrating becomes in a hadith and Behati What do you want me to do? Our
Prophet system said it don't you understand that some Muslims they love the Prophet system so much
they want to understand what is that mean? They that's their their love? And yes, not all Muslims
		

			are at the same level. Obviously, if a person is struggling to pray five times a day, we don't bring
up issues of hairstyles and tell him about Kazaa and whatnot, obviously. But there are those who
martial arts about Allah have reached a level of practicing Islam and a level of knowledge where
they do want to move on okay, I want to make sure that I'm not doing anything that might be mcru or
haram. So please understand these these pointers because again, we have mashallah to Bartok Allah
overzealous brothers they take their fellow Muslims as their enemies anytime they find a mistake or
fault and they ignore far bigger frankly, I should say to these critics, you're the one ignoring far
		

			bigger issues by caring to comment on one video on YouTube or whatever that that you personally
don't find a value or interest and go do something to benefit the almost I can flip it around back
but in any case, my point is that yes, we need to know what our Prophet system said and I'm not
ashamed and embarrassed added and it is not something trivial to everybody at all times in places
for some of us it is important and we should know now, we mentioned that because that has been
		

			mentioned in the Hadith what is the definition of Gaza the definition of Casa Imam and no we says
that puzzle is to shave some spots of the hair and leave other spots. And the reason why it is
forbidden or it is the Navy has come. Our scholars differ at some say it goes against the dignity
every human being out there said it resembles pagan rituals or the practices of the Bani Israel
because the Bani Israel would do this to their children and others have given other reasons but in
the end of the day, the reason is not known the Hadith simply now has the process and forbade a
cause now very interesting and a very relevant point here. Generally speaking, our folk AHA the
		

			scholars have felt when they come across the phrase na the process, disliked or discouraged or even
forbade nohoch mean all of these things. Generally speaking, when the net he when the negation deals
with a tickets and manners dab the default is that it is Makrooh but not haram. This is the default
it is my clue but not how why this is the case. You need to study also look a little bit more longer
and detail this is the default amongst pretty much all of the other hip but if the net he is about
business transactions or or about specific food items or about marriage and divorce, whatnot, then
it becomes haram. Now again, this is
		

			is why this is the case it involves more discussion than what we are doing. However, imagine no wait
mentions him I'm in no way mentioned that there is Iijima of the OMA, there's unanimous consensus of
the OMA that CASA is mcru it is not haram it is discouraged. mcru means you should not do it, it is
not haram. If portions of the hair are shaved and other portions are left. However, if it is done
for medicinal purposes, ie hijama or operation, then it is permissible. And he said it is mcru 10 Z
me it it is discouraged in a slight manner. It's not sinful. In other words, you're not gonna go to
Apple, you're not Allah is not going to punish you for a hairstyle anymore. No, we says that this is
		

			for men and for women. And he said that Imam Malik only disliked it for the children. This is not
allowed for them. And Imam Malik and others they said it is permissible to do if you shave an entire
section of the front or the back, ie what would not be allowed is middle here, middle there, that
would not be allowed. So I'll cause that is to shave portions and leave portions. Therefore, any
hairstyle in which you're shaving portions of the head, that are not like we're not talking about,
you know, the back here or the front of the temples we're talking about in the middle places,
leaving other portions that this was going to be my crew, however, fades or having different levels
		

			of how long the hair is trimming some portions longer than others, maybe we will call a crew cut,
this would not constitute Kazaa. And if somebody were to even shave the temples or whatnot, so the
Maliki position would be that, you know, the the peripheries of the hair, they are not considered
because it's really the central portions of this one, one of the positions of the medical school.
And this does make sense that what is closer is to have this awkward appearance of bald spots that
you put there shaving off. Obviously, we're not talking about natural we're talking about everybody
has a boss, but I have a boss but we all have bald spots in the middle of our hair, many of us but
		

			we're talking about you shave portions and leave portions, this would be considered mcru. That's it,
you should avoid it, it's best to avoid it. By the way. Of course, if somebody needs to do surgery,
any type of hijama any medicinal purpose or safety features, sometimes there's some professions that
you need to go all the way bald or whatever because of hair being caught in the machinery or
whatever it might be. If there's any hedgerow or any need, then obviously, it's not even my crew it
is completely permissible to do so this is the interpretation of Kazaa and the fact that it is best
to be avoided. It is my crew. And with that we come to the end of our q&a Chuck Malone, Clara said
		

			I'm watching rahmatullah wa barakato.
		

			What goes along? Fee a Yamo.
		

			File feminine that Jen Fe will mainly Fela is gnarly. He woman that I fall off
		

			is now really hilly man he dunkel what Delco law now our
		

			ad to show