Q. According to Mufti Zarwali of Pakistan, strawberries are haraam. What is your comment? A. Strawberries are fruit. Mufti Zarwali wil not say that fruit is haraam. There must be some explanation. Write to him to ascertain the reality.
Saturday, March 09, 2019 1 raajib 1440 As salaamu alaikum Dear hazrat: By the Grace of Allah all is fine here and we pray the same for you and the rest of the majlis family. We received the latest edition of the majlis and note the question about strawberries being haram according to my respected ustaadh, mufti zar wali khan H.A. Yes mufti sahib agrees that strawberries are fruit, but it is his opinion that they are the fruit of Hell, which the quran calls “ZAQQUM” he taught us this in dora hadith and he also says it every year in his 40 day dora tafseer which is open to the public. If you get ma’ariul quran the English of mufti taqi/mufti shafi r.a. surah 37 ayah 62-63 has a good discussion about this tree and whether it is a tree found on earth or not. To the best of my knowledge, my ustaadh is the only one of this opinion. Was salaam
ASSALAMU ALAIKUM 10 Rajab 1440 (17 March 2019)
The view that strawberries are Zaqquum, is preposterous. The people of Jahannam will simply be delighted if fed strawberries. The idea is ridiculous.
The Qur’aan Majeed explicitly states that this Tree rises from the bowels of Jahannam. Its fruit is like the heads of devils. It will be torture forced into the inmates of Hell.
There is absolutely no resemblance between the Qur’aanic Zaqquum and earthly strawberries which are such a delicious Ni’mat of Allah Ta’ala. When the Qur’aan Majeed itself states explicitly that this Tree rises from the bowels of Hell, then it is egregiously erroneous to infer that it refers to the delicious strawberries which have absolutely no resembles with the heads of devils nor do they have even a slight thorn in them.
Some of the views mentioned in Ma-aariful Qur’aan are extremely far-fetched to say the very least.
Another factor contributing to the degradation of today’s milk is pasteurization. We have been taught that pasteurization is beneficial, a method of protecting ourselves against infectious disease, but closer examination reveals that its merits have been highly exaggerated. The modern milking machine and stainless steel tank, along with efficient packaging and distribution, make pasteurization totally unnecessary for the purposes of sanitation. And pasteurization is no guarantee of cleanliness. All outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades- and there have been many- have occurred in pasteurized milk. This includes a 1985 outbreak in Illinois that struck over 14,000 people causing at least one death. The salmonella strain in that batch of pasteurized milk was found to be genetically resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline.121 Raw milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly sour, while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.
But that’s not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk’s amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50 percent; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80 percent; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed as is vitamin B12 needed for healthy blood and a properly functioning nervous system. Pasteurization reduces the availability of milk’s mineral components, such as calcium, chloride, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur, as well as many trace minerals. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.123
Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk- in fact, the test for successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all bodybuilding factors, including calcium. That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may suffer from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize butterfat.
After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added – the former is toxic and has been linked to heart disease123 while the latter is difficult to absorb. 124 The final indignity is homogenization, which has also been linked to heart disease.
Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk- one-percent and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of crosslinked proteins and nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens, as well as free glutamic acid, which is toxic to the nervous system. 125
Modem pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the body’s digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can build up around the tiny villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the uptake of toxic substances. 126 The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative diseases.
All the healthy milk-drinking populations studied by Dr. Price consumed raw milk, raw cultured milk or raw cheese from normal healthy animals eating fresh grass or fodder. It is very difficult to find this kind of milk in America. In California, New Mexico and Connecticut, raw milk is available in health food stores, although such milk often comes from cows raised in confinement.
In many states you can buy raw milk at the farm. If you can find a farmer who will sell you raw milk from old-fashioned Jersey or Guernsey cows (or from goats), tested free of tuberculosis and brucellosis and allowed to feed on fresh pasturage, then by all means avail yourself of this source.
Melon is one of the best recommendations for health Nabi صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَم has given us. Melon is one of the few fruits and vegetables rich in BOTH vitamin C AND Beta-Carotene. In addition, half a melon contains 825 milligrams of potassium. The body uses potassium to help eliminate excess sodium, which in large amounts can cause blood pressure to rise. .
Melons also provide a very rare nutrient called folate, a B vitamin, which is essential in combating birth defects and heart disease. Prevention’s New Foods for Healing Guide mentions a study of almost 4,000 mothers that revealed that those who got enough folate were 60% less likely to have children with brain and spinal cord defects.
Melon contains 1000 blessings & 1000 mercies, Nabi صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَم said “None of your women who are pregnant & eat of water melon will fail…
Imaam Abu Muhammad Al-Juwayni (رحمه الله) was a great ‘aalim (scholar of the Religion) who possessed an extremely high level of caution and concern regarding the consumption of halaal and haraam. The level of his concern was such that it prompted him to earn by working with his own hands, in order to have the peace of mind that he was earning a pure livelihood that was untainted by haraam.
When the time for Imaam Abu Muhammad Al Juwayni (رحمه الله) to marry arrived, he used the pure money which he had painstakingly earned, to pay for his mahr (dowry) and other marriage expenses. The effect of this pure wealth was clearly manifest in the son he was blessed with from this marriage. This son also grew up to become a great ‘aalim and was later known by the title of “Imaamul Haramain” (Imaam of the Two Harams). Understanding the crucial role consumption of halaal plays in the effort of a Muslim to live a life of piety, he ensured that he fed his child only that which was 100% pure and halaal.
Later in his life, when Imaamul Haramain (رحمه الله) was once engaged in a debate, to the absolute astonishment of all present, he was suddenly overcome by a short bout of stammering and stuttering! Somebody later asked him, “O Imaam! What happened to you? We never once before heard you stammer or stutter!” Imaamul Haramain (رحمه الله) replied, “It can only have been the ill effects of the remaining traces which remained of the sip.” Having given such a vague answer, somebody asked him, “What incident are you referring to by mentioning ‘the sip’?”
Imaamul Haramain (رحمه الله) explained, “My mother was once busy preparing my father’s food when I began to cry. I was, at the time, a suckling infant. As my mother could not immediately attend to me, the neighbour’s slave girl, who happened to be present, clasped me to her chest to feed me. My father walked in at that moment and on seeing what was happening, immediately exclaimed, ‘Neither does this slave girl belong to us nor does she have the right to feed our child her milk as her masters have not permitted it!’ Saying this, he grabbed me from her and turned me upside down; forcing me to vomit until I had emptied my belly of the few sips I had taken. The stammer and stutter you heard from me today is on account of the ill effects of those few sips I had taken.” (Tabaqaatush Shaafi‘iyyah Al Kubraa vol. 5, pg. 168)
1.The effect of haraam is so detrimental that although Imaamul Haramain (رحمه الله) had emptied his stomach of all the milk, the effects of the traces of the milk still remained and were adversely affecting him many years later.
Just as a petrol car cannot reach its destination on diesel, similarly it is very difficult for a Muslim to reach Jannah when fuelled by haraam. The reason for this is that haraam nourishment creates the inclination towards haraam in the body and removes the inclination to worship and obey Allah Ta‘ala. If we are so particular regarding filling our vehicles, which merely take us from A to B, with the correct fuel, we should be even more particular about filling our bodies, which need to carry us to Jannah, with halaal food.
Being in a time wherein eating out has become common, let us exercise caution and restraint and not eat food from any store/restaurant without first verifying that the food is 100% halaal.
Q. A Mufti in the U.S.A. has issued a fatwa on permissibility of cheese containing rennet obtained from non-zabihah animals. This fatwa has caused much confusion. According to the Mufti, many senior Muftis of the Hanafi Math-hab including Mufti Nizaamuddin and Mufti Mahmood have issued fatwa’s stating that rennet of non-zabihah cattle is permissible to consume. He says that the view of permissibility is also substantiated by many classical texts of the Hanafi School of Thought such as Ahkaamul Qur’aan of Jassaas and Al-Mabsut of Imam Sarakhsy. Please elaborate on this issue. A. The Mufti Saheb erred in his fatwa regarding beef rennet. Rennet derived from non-zabihah animals (i.e. animals not slaughtered according to the Shariah’s rules) are haraam, hence products containing such rennet are likewise haraam. The cheese containing such haraam rennet is likewise haraam. Mufti Nizaamuddin, Mufti Mahmood and other senior Hanafi Muftis did not issue a fatwa of permissibility of beef rennet. They merely echoed the same difference of opinion between Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayhim) on a substance called Infahah. Mufti Nizaamuddin and others are of the view that Infahah of non-zabihah calves is halaal, and this is our view as well. Mufti Abdullah Nana Sahib (of U.S.A.) has understood that rennet is Infahah, hence his error. He has confused rennet with Infahah. Modern dictionaries simply translate Infahah as ‘rennet’ when in reality Infahah is not rennet. Rennet is the enzyme which is extracted from the stomach linings while Infahah is not the rennet enzyme of which the Mufti speaks. Infafah is the curdled milk – the actual milk – which is obtained from a calf which is slaughtered soon after it drinks its mother’s milk. It is not the enzyme rennet which is obtained from the actual stomach linings. In fact, Infahah of non-zabihah calves according to Qiyaas (i.e. the Shariah’s process of logical reasoning) should also be haraam. However, in view of the fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah had consumed cheese containing Infahah, the hillat ruling is given khilaaf-e-qiyaas or in conflict with logical reasoning. When qiyaas clashes with an act or ruling of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), we put the qiyaas aside and act according to the ruling of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). According to the principles of Fiqah, a khilaaf-e-qiyaas hukm (ruling) may not be extended to other things and substances. It has to be confined to its original substratum which in this case is Infahah. It does not follow from the permissibility of Infahah that everything in the stomach and the stomach and the whole non-zabihah animal is halaal. If the hukm of permissibility of Infahah has to be extended to even the rennet enzyme extracted from the non-zabihah’s stomach, then tomorrow someone can argue that the stomach lining too is halaal, and the stomach too is halaal, and on this basis everything of the non-zabihah animal is halaal. But this is palpably baseless. This baseless consequence is the effect of extending the hukm of the Infahah of non-zabihah animals to the enzyme rennet obtained from the actual stomach linings of non-zabeehah cattle. It is impossible to produce true Infahah on a commercial scale. A little rennet enzyme will achieve what a huge amount of real Infahah can accomplish. People posing questions to senior Muftis in India and Pakistan sometimes themselves do not understand the issue correctly. They present an incorrect picture, hence obtain a fatwa to suit their desires. Now if someone writes to a Mufti saying that the cheese contains beef rennet and rennet is Infahah, then obviously he will obtain a fatwa of permissibility. Meanwhile the Mufti is unaware of the difference. All cheese containing animal rennet from non-zabeehah animals is haraam. Assalamu Alaykum My name is Abdullah Nana and I am the one who quoted the fatwa regarding rennet. The role of Muftis in this day and age is to merely transmit and reproduce the fatwas of our elders. If one has an objection to what I said, they can refer directly to the elders who issued the original fatwa. I wish to reproduce below what Mufti Shafi has written in Maariful Quran:
Cheese made from milk contains an ingredient called infaha in Arabic and ‘rennet’ in English. It is a mucous membrane lining taken out from the stomachs of suckling lambs or kids. It is used to coagulate or curdle milk. If rennet is taken out of the stomach of an animal slaughtered in the name of Allah, there is no harm in using it. The meat, fat etc. of an Islamically slaughtered animal are permissible. But, in the event they are taken from the stomach of an animal slaughtered un-Islamically, there is difference of views among Muslim jurists. Imams Abii ani if ah and Mslik consider it clean while Imams AbG YGsuf, Muhammad and ~ h awr ?an d others call it unclean and impure. (Jas??is, ~urtub;) There is a strong likelihood that rennet from un-Islamically slaughtered animals is used in cheese made in non-Islamic countries, therefore, relying on the consensus of Muslim jurists, one must avoid using it. Under the juristic position taken by Imam Abu ani if ah and Imam Malik, leeway exists. Some cheeses made in western countries have pork-fat as one of their ingredients which, hopefully, can be seen on the wrapper or tin. All these are absolutely hariim and impure. (v. 1, pg. 428)
This English translation has been approved by Mufti Taqi Usmani. Please refer to him if you have any objections.
Further clarification and authentification. 1) In a commentary of the hadith text, Mishqatul Masaabeeh, by the famous Hanafi, scholar, Ali Qaari, Mirqaat, volume 8, page 193, is mentioned in the Kitaabul A’timah, Fasl Thaani.
Ibn Umar, radhiallahu anhu, narrates that our Rasul, sallallahu alayhi wasallam, was given a piece of Jubnah [Cheese] in Tabuk; he called for a knife, praying the tasmiyya he cut it [and ate it] narrated by Abu Dawud. In the commentary, is mentioned; in this is proof of the purity of anfahah, because if it was impure then the cheese itself would be impure for it cannot be made without it [anfahah].
Again In this commentary in volume 2, page 79/80 is mentioned, in Bab Mash alal Khufayn, Fasl Awwal. Tabraani narrates with a good sanad, although Ghareeb, that in one of the ghazawah, cheese was brought to Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam; He asked where it was made? Someone replied in Persia or in the lands of the Majus. Place the knife on it [cut it] and eat it. Someone said; O Rasulullah, we fear it may be carrion [Maitah]. He replied pray the tasmiyyah and eat it. Tirmidhi has mentioned a hadith wherein the Prophet was given a pair of leather socks and he wore them, without knowing whether they were pure or not. In the hadith of Salmaan, our Rasul was questioned regarding Jubn [cheese], Simn [clarifed butter] and Faraa’e [leather] together with the fact that it was taken from the lands of the Majus. It was mentioned to Umar regarding Jubn [cheese] and said to him that the rennet of dead animals are put in it [cheese]. He replied pray the tasmiyyah and eat it. Imam Ahmad mentions that this is the most sound hadith regarding cheese manufactured by Majus.
From the above commentaries it is evident that if rennet is derived from an animal that is permissible to eat, despite how it is slaughtered, it is Halaal to eat such cheese, despite the method used in the making of cheese.The rennet formed by the milk drunk by a newly born calf, which is then slaughtered and taken from its stomach is somewhat solid and has the effect of solidifying liquid milk and transforming it into cheese. Its permissibility though seemingly irrational because what is within the womb and stomach is under the law of impurity but the permissibility of cheese is established by Nass [Sharii proof] and agreed, therefore rennet is pure and permissible Fatwa Mazahir Ulum Volume 1 page 110.
2) Mufti Taqi’ Uthmaani, mentions that the ruling of Hadhraat Saahibayn is more cautious whilst that of Imaam Abu Hanifah is extensive or accommodating. If a pious person refrains it is better, whilst if a person is consuming cheese do not stop him. However, the rennet derived from the stomach of a pig is Haraam and Impure, provided its original property and chemical makeup does not undergo any drastic change. Vegetarian or synthetic rennet, if nothing impure has been added to it will be Halaal. The cheese sold in supermarkets and shops, if it is vegetarian or derived from animals slaughtered Islamically is permissible to consume. On the other hand if it is pig rennet used in the cheese, without transformation then this is not permissible. Lastly, the rennet in cheese from animals other than pig is permissible, but abstention is desirable. Bahr al-Raa’iq Volume 1 page 112/3
The point is that these Muftis have all understood the arabic word ‘anfihah’ to refer to rennet. Almost all the Muftis that have written a fatwa on ‘anfihah’ have translated it as ‘rennet.’ If someone wants to claim otherwise, then they should present their alternative view with references from reliable scholars that the word ‘Anfihah’ is not translated as rennet. The correct people to refer to for issues related to the translation of ‘Anfihah’ are Mufti Taqi, Mufti Sacha, Darul Ifta at Darul Uloom Karachi, and other senior scholars who have understood the word ‘Anfihah’ to refer to rennet and translated it as such into English. I am just a transmitter of their views. This is not my original view. Allah knows best.
22 Rabiul Awwal 1431 (9-03-2010)
Hassaan Sulaiman, Pakistan
Your e-mail dated 6-03-2010 refers.
When I had returned from studies in 1970, I too was thinking along the lines that Maulana Abdullah Nana of U.S.A. is presently thinking. He appears to be a sincere person and espousing the Haqq. May Allah Ta’ala increase him in knowledge and wisdom. It is my fervent dua that he will develop into a shining example of an Aalim-e-Haqq.
Many decades ago I too had misunderstood the issue of rennet and I had argued against senior South African Ulama who had issued the fatwa of hurmat of cheese which contained animal rennet derived from ghair mathbooh animals. In fact I had published an article in an early issue of The Majlis refuting that view of prohibition. Later when I met the respected senior Mufti Sanjalvi Sahib (rahmatullah alayh) who had issued the fatwa of prohibition, he explained the difference between anfahah and present-day rennet. Rennet as it is known today is not the anfafah which was in the cheese consumed by the Sahaabah.
The original anfafah is permissible khilaaf-e-qiyaas. Such a hukm cannot be extended to other haraam substances for declaring them halaal. The original anfafah was the actual curdled milk which was extracted from the stomach of the calf soon after it had drunk from its mother and then slaughtered. On the contrary, commercial rennet manufactured today is not the curdled milk. It is the enzyme which is extracted from the actual linings of the stomach.
Now if the extract from the haraam stomach linings is proclaimed halaal on the basis of the khilaaf-e-qiyaas hukm of anfafah which according to Qiyaas is haraam, and which according to many Fuqaha is haraam despite the Hadith, then logically the stomach linings will also be halaal. Then on the same analogical basis the stomach of the ghair mathbooh animal will also be halaal, and on the same basis, the meat of the ghair mathbooh will also be halaal.
The one faasid qiyaas will lead to another corrupt ruling, and then the entire Ruling of hurmat of carrion will be abrogated.
The faasid conclusion of the Muftis on the issue of cheese is their inability to understand the simple difference between anfafah and commercial rennet.
“THE KUFFAAR ENJOY THEMSELVES AND EAT LIKE ANIMALS EAT. THE FIRE IS THEIR ABODE”
“Kuffaar eat with seven intestines”, while a “Muslim eats with one intestine,” said Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The preoccupation with reckless consumption of junk ‘food’ has destroyed the physical fibre of Americans. As for spiritual fibre, they have none. The following report emanating from the U.S., illustrates Allah’s punishment for the U.S. mass murderer”
People were highly praising a young Wali who was said to have attained extremely lofty heights of spirituality. He was a man of Wajd (state of spiritual ecstasy). Hadhrat Ibraahim Bin Adham (rahmatullah alayh) went to visit this young Wali. At the request of the young Wali, Hadhrat Ibraahim was his guest for three days. Hadhrat Ibraahim closely observed the Wali, and he was impressed with his Ibaadat and rigorous austerity (zuhd). The great Auliya of Allah Ta’ala enjoy a lofty state of spiritual insight and wisdom called Firaasat about which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Beware of the firaasat of the Mu’min, for verily, he looks with the Noor of Allah.” On closer examination, Hadhrat Ibraahim (rahmatullah alayh) discovered that the food which the young man was consuming was not halaal. When he had established this fact, he exclaimed: ‘Allahu Akbar! This, (i.e. the wajd/spiritual state) is the machination of Shaitaan.” Before taking leave, he requested the young man to be his guest for three days. Hadhrat Ibraahim brought the young man home. After eating the very first meal, there was a drastic transformation in the condition of the young Wali. All his former spiritual fervour and vigour dissipated. He had no inclination and stamina for ibaadat nor could he experience states of ecstasy. The young Wali was highly agitated. He said: “What have you done to me?” Hadhrat Ibraahim said: “Your food was not halaal. Shaitaan would enter your body with the (haraam) food. He entered and exited from your body as he desired. Now after you have eaten halaal food, Shaitaan has failed to demonstrate his influence. Your true condition has now become apparent. The basis of spiritual progress is halaal food.”
Is the answer below correct regarding consuming this coffee from the civic cat? The answer has been given by a Mufti.
Is it allowed and permissible to drink coffee made from beans that have been through the digestive system of a civet cat?
Kopi luwak is a coffee that consists of partially digested coffee cherries, which have been eaten and defecated by the Asian palm civet cat. It is therefore also called civet coffee. The cherries are fermented as they pass through a civet’s intestines, and after being defecated with other faecal matter, they are collected.
In principle, if the beans are defecated in its original condition without any metamorphosis in its shape and colour it is permissible to consume them after washing them and drying them. However, if any metamorphosis occurs it will not be permissible to consume them.
My husband brought me some coffee called civet coffee (kopi luwak), which is extracted from the faeces of the civet cat which feeds on coffee bushes. After it defecates, they take its faeces, clean them, grind the coffee beans and sell them as the most expensive type of coffee in the world. I did not know about this process until after I had drunk this coffee twice. I hope that you can explain the ruling on this coffee – is it halaal or haraam? If it is haraam, what should I do? (You should repent. Besides this, there is nothing further you can do regarding the cat’s faeces having been absorbed by your body. – The Majlis)
The coffee mentioned is produced from coffee beans that are extracted from the faeces of the civet cat (luwak). This animal feeds on the coffee beans, and expels the coffee beans with its faeces, which are then washed and cleaned before being sold.
What we understand from what has been published on this topic is that the coffee beans are extracted in solid form from the animal, as they are, and they do not dissolve in its stomach and do not absorb any impurity.
Based on that, if any impurity that has become attached to them is washed off, they become pure (taahir), and it is permissible to use them to make coffee.
It says in ad-Durr al-Mukhtaar: Barley that is found in solid form in faeces or dung may be eaten after washing. (End of the ludicrous, moronic fatwa)
OUR ANSWER AND COMMENT
The molvi has ridiculously erred in his fatwa. He is extremely short-sighted and has no care for the spiritual and moral well-being of Muslims, hence he regards permissible what is acquired from even the faeces of the cats.
A Mufti should be concerned with the Imaani development of people. He should not extract from the kutub just anything to legalize the filth which the kuffaar market. The natural attribute of kufr is najaasat and haraam while Imaan by its very nature attracts purity and halaal. Imaan repels filth. Kufr always gravitates towards haraam and filth. What type of mentality permits a person to derive pleasure from consuming something acquired from the faeces of a cat?
The fact that the kuffaar deem it necessary to use the beans after the cats excrete them, is the evidence for the beans having undergone change. If the beans do not undergo change in the digestive process of the cats, then why do these kuffaar not use the beans in their natural state? Why use the beans only after having been through the digestive system of the cats to produce faeces? The effect on the coffee will not be the same if the beans are used in their natural state. The coffee becomes what it is only after the cats excrete the beans – only after it has become transformed into faeces.
This mufti contradicting himself says: “The cherries are fermented as they pass through a civet’s intestines…..” Thus he concedes that the ‘cherries and beans’ become faecal matter – excreta. This acknowledgment and the fact that the beans in their raw natural state do not produce the same ‘excreta delicious’ coffee, are clear evidence that the beans undergo drastic and faecal change in the digestive system of the cats which excrete the ‘delicious’ faeces which is so relishing for this wayward mufti to induce him to halaalize cat excreta.
Furthermore, what is mentioned in the citations from the Kutub is for starving persons. Most certainly, no Muslim who has food available will go selecting grain from the dung of animals. If one is given bread made from such grain – grain acquired from faeces, will one’s Imaan tolerate its consumption? Dire circumstances are an exceptional state which permits consumption of even pork. It is preposterous and palpably abnormal for a Muslim to desire consuming coffee which is the product of cat excreta. Indeed the mufti who issued the fatwa of permissibility for cat faecal matter is a moron of a vile kind. It is not permissible to consume the filth which the cats excrete.
Will a Muslim consume porridge from a chamber pot which is being used for urinating and defecating even if the pot is thoroughly washed? Can the brains and heart of a Mu’min permit him to drink soup from such a chamber pot or from even a brand new chamber pot? What has constrained this miscreant mufti to issue his corrupt fatwa of permissibility for drinking cat-excreta-coffee? Is there such a need? Furthermore, the exorbitant price of about R2000 per cup of cat excreta is beyond the reach of 99% of mankind. Western bootlickers drowning in ill-gotten wealth such as the MBS murtad character and others sheikh-rulers of the backyard mini Gulf States will consume such filth to keep up with their bootlicking standards of emulating their western masters.
If the mufti who has halaalized the cat-excreta coffee belongs to the carrion-certifying cartel such as SANHA, MJC, NIHT, etc., then his fatwa will be quite understandable. But if he is not a member of the legion of Iblees, then his fatwa has to be attributed to silliness and short-sightedness. Digging for permissibility basis in the kutub of Fiqh for just every filth of the kuffaar does not behove a Mufti. A Mufti’s obligation is to strengthen the bond of Muslims with Allah Ta’ala. The objective of Fatwa is not to increase the drift from Allah Ta’ala.
Muftis who halaalize carrion, riba and najaasat are termed maajin muftis. They are morons. They are employed by banks and chicken-killing plants to churn our fatwas of jawaaz (permissibility). Banks do not pay lucrative haraam money to muftis for fatwas of prohibition. As an employee of a riba bank, it becomes incumbent on the maajin mufti to produce fatwas of permissibility for the bank’s products by hook or crook. It thus becomes imperative for such muftis to follow in the footsteps of the evil ulama of Bani Israaeel. Castigating and reprimanding these ulama-e-soo, the Qur’aan Majeed states:
“Why do their scholars (molvis and muftis) and their buzrugs not forbid them from their sinful (baatil) statements and their consumption of haraam? Indeed, evil are their perpetrations.” (Al-Maaidah, Aayat 63)
Q. A friend informed me that a shocking news is going round on social media under the caption “Australian and English researchers find traces of cow urine in Indian spices, toothpaste and other edibles”. This is really an alarming situation. Muslims should most definitely stay away from all Indian products, Indian Masala and other edibles. What should we do regarding Indian spices, etc.
A. If there is cow urine and perhaps even traces of cow dung in Indian edible products, it will not be surprising. The cow is one among the myriads of Hindu ‘gods’. Everything of the cow is sacred for Hindus. Its urine is holy water and its dung is holy ‘food’. Therefore, these impurities are used for gaining blessings. From who? No one knows! Nevertheless, it is illogical to expect Hindus who slaughter Muslims, to abstain from using in their products their holy cow urine and dung. It is indeed surprising that Muslims find it plausible to consume food given to them by Hindus on their holy festival days. Despite being aware of the status of the cow in Hindu eyes, how is it possible for Muslims to consume the food of these najis mushrikeen? Of greater surprise are fatwas which claim permissibility for such contaminated Hindu foods.