“When the Prohibition of khamr was revealed, it (khamr) was from five sources: grapes, dates, wheat, barley and honey. Khamr is whatever convolutes the brain.

Restricting it (the prohibition) to grape (liquor) is meaningless. The element in prohibition (tahreem) is the convolution of the brain. Its little leads to much, hence the view of prohibition is Waajib.

It is not permissible today for anyone to opine the permissibility of the (liquor) acquired from sources other than grapes and to use less than the intoxicating limit.

Yes, there were some among the Sahaabah and Taabieen to whom the Hadith did not initially reach, hence they are excused. However, when the Hadith became well known and the matter clear, and the Hadith: “People from my Ummah will certainly consume liquor giving it some other name”, was authenticated, then there remained no excuse (for claiming liquor to be permissible). May Allah Ta’ala protect us and the Muslimeen from it (liquor).”
(Hujjatullaahil Baalighah – Shah Waliyullah Dehlawi)



Please comment on the following fatwa issued by Mufti Ebrahim Desai. The following question was posed to him:



On your website, you state that vanilla extract (minimum of 35% alcohol) is permissible for use in flavoring in ice cream or cakes since it’s alcohol is not Khamr (derived from grapes or dates). Vanilla extract can cause intoxication if someone drinks it directly.

My question is, if an ice cream or cake lists rum as ingredient for flavoring would be permissible? Rum is usually 40% alcohol and derived from sugar cane. The amount of rum in such an ice cream or cake is not large enough to cause intoxication.

If this is not permissible, could you please explain how rum as an alcoholic flavoring agent would be different from vanilla extract?

Jazak Allah khair, wasslam

The Mufti gave the following absolutely corrupt fatwa:


In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

You refer to our position on vanilla extract. You then enquire about rum as an ingredient in ice cream and cakes based on the analogy of our ruling on vanilla extract. Your analogy is correct.

In principle, alcohol derived from dates and grapes is prohibited. Therefore, any product containing alcohol derived from any source besides dates and grapes is permissible on condition: (Absolutely baatil – baseless, false and stupid. Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam – said that anything which intoxicates in big quantity, its small quantity too is haraam. – Mujlisul Ulama.)
1. It does not intoxicate.

2. It is not generally used by people who drink intoxicants. (In fact, 90% of all liquor is made from non-grape alcohol. It is this type of alcohol that is mostly used. The Mufti’s claim is baatil. –Mujlisul Ulama)
Rum, in drink form, is generally used by people who drink intoxicants, hence not permissible. (He is in contradiction of his condition No.2 – Mujlisul Ulama)

However, ice cream, cakes, chocolates and similar off the shelf products which contain very low amounts of rum are not consumed only by such people. They are used by one and all and are also not regarded as a main feature of the gatherings of sinful people (Faasiqs) as is the case with intoxicants. Such products are similar to soft drinks which are permissible. (Our refutation of this ghutha/rubbish claim will appear later in the ensuing pages, Insha-Allah. – Mujlisul Ulama).

The above answer is based on principle. If one abstains from such products, that is Taqwa. (End of the Mufti’s fatwa) – The answer is not based on any sound Shar’i principle. It is an answer sucked out from the nafs to appease the masses who indulge in devouring haraam. – Mujlisul Ulama)

A ‘Halaal’ License For Rum And Brandy_booklet






Please find attached picture of chips and explanation given by SANHA for the permissibility of the HAM flavour in the chips. Are these HAM-flavoured chips halaal?

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.” If the Muslim’s heart has not been darkened and convoluted with the addiction of haraam carrion, pork and the like of satanic food, then the fatwa which will emanate from a healthy Imaan will be adequate for guidance regardless of any corrupt, zig zag fatwa any mufti issues to halaalize the HAM favour or any other haraam ingredient of which there is a deluge in all commercial products halaalized by the haraam, shaitaani carrion-certifying outfits such as SANHA, MJC, NIHT, etc.
SANHA’s explanation of ‘synthetic’ pork, bacon and ham will soothe the Devil and his progeny. It does not satisfy those whose Imaan is intact and untarnished by carrion consumption. The questioner says:

“According to SANHA this was not fraudulent usage of their logo as the product uses synthetic ham flavouring and is produced in a SANHA certified plant.”
The whole certifying mess is a massive FRAUD akin to kufr. While this jaahil, zindeeq SANHA group of carrion halaalizers does “not
permit the logo to be appended on any product which has connotation with Haraam such as ham, bacon, etc.’, the pork substance is produced in a SANHA-certified plant. What happens in these certified plants is the action of Iblees. The claim of supervision by any of these carrion juhala is a massive LIE. Haraam ingredients are utilized in almost all ‘halaal’ certified products.

The appearance of the HAM ingredient on the packets of haraam chips is not a mistake. These satanic ‘mistakes’ are a recurring issue. When consumers discover the ‘mistake’, then only will SANHA come to know of it. In the numerous cases of malpractice ‘mistakes’, the discoveries were made by only consumers, never by SANHA’s so-called supervisors. The claim of supervision is a satanic lie and rubbish.

If the satanic ‘halaal’ SANHA logo is not permitted by SANHA to appear on packets if the product contains synthetic HAM, then by what logic does SANHA certify the plants where such HAM is produced? The convolution of SANHA’s illogical principle is the effect of the crave for haraam boodle which is extracted from entrepreneurs against their volition.
Sight should not be lost from the fact that the so-called synthetic HAM does have the flavour and odour of real VARK (SWINE FLESH). Minus these essential pork-aligning attributes, ham-flavour will be meaningless. Even if the satanic food of synthetic HAM is without any real pig ingredient, it will be HARAAM to consume it. It is haraam for a man to say that he is having sexual relations with a prostitute when the woman is his wife. If at the time of sexual indulgence with his wife, he ruminates on another woman, then this ‘synthetic’ sex with the prostitute in mind will be recorded as zina in his Book of Deeds by the Recording Angel.

SANHA and the conglomeration of other carrion halaalizing outfits have absolutely no valid argument for certifying the meat and chicken establishments of the kuffaar. Their only valid shaitaani argument to soothe themselves is the boodle factor. For the sake of haraam monetary gain, they have ruined the Imaan of ignorant Muslims, their own Imaan and have driven themselves towards the precincts of kufr with their brazen and blatant violation of Allah’s commands.

Muslims who devour the meat, chicken, chip and other such products certified by SANHA and the other shayaateen outfits, have no valid argument to justify their haraam consumption. On the Day of Qiyaamah, passing the blame to SANHA will be of no avail.

“And, eat from the wholesome and lawful (halaal and tayyib) foods which Allah has provided for you, and fear Allah in Whom you believe.” (Al-Maaidah, Aayat 88)

20 Zil Hajj 1440 – 22 August 2019



The following is a faithful reproduction of an article which should be ample for preventing you from devouring the chips which SANHA, MJC and the other haraam scoundrel entities have halaalized.

Please see below a very interesting article regarding a very very common food additive E631 flavour enhancer. The important point to note here in the article is the line that states, ‘You could try writing to manufacturers to ask exactly where it comes from. There’s no guarantee that you’ll get a definitive answer’. I have personally for the last 2 weeks been trying to get a clear answer on some similar ingredients from the company Simba (who has SANHA approval) and get no joy, they keep beating around the bush and simply dont give straight answers. Perhaps they have something to hide.


Can you tell me about the source of flavour additive E631 which is used in some potato chips/crisps. I cannot tell from anything I’ve read whether it comes from pig’s fat, another animal – or indeed sardine oil? It’s important to many people to avoid products extracted from pigs.

Thanks for sending in your question. The E number known as E631 (or sodium inosinate) is an additive that is used in many products to act as a flavour enhancer and make foods taste good. As well as enhancing other flavours, it’s used frequently in products such as potato crisps as it also helps to reduce the amount of salt needed (and reducing salt intake has become quite a big health concern in recent years, with manufacturers vying to get their levels of salt in products down).

Sodium inosinate comes from inosinic acid, an acid that is naturally found in a variety of animals, such as pigs or fish, such as sardines. In some cases it can also be produced from bacterially fermenting some sugars.

As far as commercial use goes, most manufacturers do source their E631 from animals and fish, whilst a few may use the fermentation method. The tricky bit is if you want to specifically avoid E631 that comes from pork, as most products will not say on their ingredients list exactly where it comes from.

You could try writing to manufacturers to ask exactly where it comes from. There’s no guarantee that you’ll get a definitive answer, but it’s always worth a try and, you never know, some might be receptive and willing to give you the facts. However, if it’s an issue that really concerns you and you don’t want to find yourself unknowingly consuming food with E631 sourced from pigs, probably the best move is to avoid the products completely.

It’s hard work sometimes trying to avoid these pesky E numbers, especially with so many hidden in the foods and drinks we enjoy, but if you really do need or want to avoid certain numbers, scouring the ingredients lists before you buy products is the best way of ensuring you’re not getting more than you bargained for.

We realise the importance for many people of avoiding products extracted from pigs, which is why we’ve published articles such as this one on – E numbers not suitable for a Halal diet – if you’re looking to avoid other E numbers with links to pork products, then you may find this to be a useful read.



A Brother writes: I would like to share this information, perhaps it may benefit others. Many Halaal conscious Muslims who constantly check the ingredient list of products before purchasing might get caught in the trap of the term ‘nature identical flavor’. It gives the impression that the flavouring is as good as natural. However it is not. It is actually completely chemical and 100% unnatural.
Regarding the chemicals and methods used to produce these ‘nature identical flavors’, one will find great difficulty in getting accurate information from manufacturers, especially with regards to ethanol and alcohols used as catalysts in the manufacturing processes of these flavourants.
‘Nature identical flavors’ are very often found in fruit juices that have the deceptive label of ‘100% fruit juice blend’. The 100% claim gives the impression the juice is pure however the word ‘blend’ means a blend of the fruit juice with any chemical muck they wish to put in.
Due to the high cost or unavailability of natural flavour extracts, most commercial flavourants are “nature-identical”, which means that they are the chemical equivalent of natural flavours, but chemically synthesized rather than being extracted from source materials.
Juice flavoured drinks, fruit juice cocktails and fruit juice blends may only be five to 15 percent fruit juice. Look on the product label to find the percentage of fruit juice. The only way to confirm if your fruit juice is 100 percent pure is to read the ingredient list.D



In an opinion expressed by Mufti Mackoojee of the Halaal Research Committee of Mauritius, the view of permissibility of stunning with the consequence of halaal meat is propounded in stark contravention of the Shariah.

The Mufti says: “The Halaal Research Committee on the other hand, have (has) the moderation to accept stunning.” The ground for its wholehearted acceptance of the haraam and brutal method of stunning animals, is stated by the Mufti to be: “Because it simply conforms to the Qur-aan and Sunnah.”

The Mufti has displayed lamentable ignorance of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is incredible for a Mufti to portray such gross jahaalat of the divine system of Thabah as to baselessly and falsely attribute a brazen lie to the Shariah by claiming that the brutal kuffaar stunning method conforms to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. He has not presented a single nass from the Qur’aan, Ahaadith or from the statements of the Fuqaha and our Akaabir Ulama to substantiate the satanically baatil claim of the satanic method of stunning conforming to the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Far, extremely far from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, according to Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh), stunning while being haraam, is tantamount to kufr if approved and believed to be a valid and a virtuous system. Relative to Mufti Mackoojee, he is guilty of kufr on the basis of his tahseen (approval) of this kuffaar shaitaani method. To the best of our knowledge, not even the vile halaal certificate cartel comprising of SANHA, MJC, NIHT, etc., has made tahseen of stunning. For the sake of perpetuating the flow of the boodle into their haraam coffers, the cartel has reluctantly accepted the method without believing it to conform with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Thus, whilst these carrion halaalizers are committing blatant haraam, Mufti Mackoojee is guilty of blatant kufr by making tahseen of a kuffaar method which is in stark conflict with the method revealed to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by Allah Azza Wa Jal. We therefore urge the Mufti to retract his baatil view, to renew his Imaan and to make Taubah for the kufr which he has attempted to pass off as a Shar’i injunction – as a hukm ordered by the Shariah.

The poor mufti, despite claiming conformity with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, is constrained to admit the possibility of the stunned animals perishing prior to Thabah, hence he says: “Nonetheless, if the animal is found dead after stunning, then it is a carrion and a carcass and hence haraam. Slaughtering it will not render it halaal.”

What has constrained the mufti to concede the possibility of stunning leading to the death of the animal? No one should labour under the deception or misapprehension regarding this fact – namely, that innumerable animals perish after stunning. Expert slaughterers have confirmed it. Besides confirmation by inspections of a variety of people and organizations, the simple reality is that it is haraam according to the Shariah to inflict any kind of injury on the animal prior to Thabah. Denial of this fact is kufr – kufr which expels from the fold of Islam.

What was the shaitaaniyat or the nafsaaniyat which has influenced this mufti to shove a satanic, brutal kuffaar method into the Islamic system of Thabah? He has attempted to shove into the Shariah the cruel bid’ah of stunning. After more than 14 centuries of the Shariah’s history, we believe that this is the first satanic attempt to grant Qur’aanic and Sunnah status to a method of Iblees. Hitherto, all those who have, for the sake of monetary gain, accepted stunned animals for Thabah, have done so reluctantly whilst accepting the method to be un-Islamic.

Not a single one of the many ibaaraat (texts from the kutub) cited by the Mufti has any relevance to stunning. Not a single iota of condonation percolates from the quoted texts which all refer to an injured animal being slaughtered whilst still alive. The texts nowhere legalize pre-slaughter infliction of injury, which is Haraam according to the Ijma’ of all the Fuqaha of all Math-habs. If an injured animal is found alive and slaughtered whilst alive, then its meat will be halaal. This is not the issue. The issue for which the mufti issued his convoluted baatil ‘fatwa’ is stunning – the infliction of injury before slaughter, and this is practiced on a massive scale. It is integral to the kuffaar system of killing animals. It is a kaafir method on which the mufti has satanically attempted to bestow Qur’aanic and Sunnah status. In other words, it is a great act of thawaab to stun, main, injure and brutalize an animal before slaughtering it. This is a satanic view emerging from a brain jarred by shaitaani influence. Even a child will understand the villainy of this shaitaani brutality if shown to him.

The mufti should understand that simply lumping together Arabic texts which have no relevance to the subject matter is not adequate for securing the objective of deceiving even the ignorant and unwary masses. It is exceptionally naïve to believe that such stupid citation from the kutub will pass the discernment of the Ulama. He has not displayed any erudition in the field of Shar’i Uloom with his nonsensical citations. We advise him to acquire expertise in Fiqh under qualified and superb supervision to enable him to understand and distinguish between valid citation and ghutha.

In the conclusion of his erroneous production of unrelated texts from the kutub, Mackoojee produces the text from Shaami. Translating the text, he says:

“And the preferred view is that any (consumable) animal that is slaughtered when it is still alive, then it will be eaten (halaal). And Fatwa is on this view. (This is because the ayah above mentioned) “unless you have slaughtered it”, is mentioned without any attached conditions.”

There is no contention and no dispute regarding this mas’alah according to the Hanafi Math-hab. An injured animal will be halaal if slaughtered whilst it is still alive. There is, however, difference of opinion of other Math-habs as well as among the Hanafi Fuqaha on even this mas’alah. Nevertheless, the Mukhtaar view is on permissibility. But this has no relevance to the claim of permissibility of Satanism, namely, stunning is permissible, and furthermore, not only permissible, but an act of thawaab in view of it allegedly conforming to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Under no circumstances is shaitaaniyat permissible. Leave alone it being Sunnah and supported by the Qur’aan. Something is drastically incongruent with the thinking process of Mackoojee.

The Qur’aanic aayat from which this lost mufti seeks to extravasate capital and support for his absolutely baatil view, is Aayat 145 of Surah’ An’aam. This Aayat very clearly states that the following types of animals will be haraam except if slaughtered whilst they are still alive:

Al-Munkhaniqah – An animal which has been throttled to death
Al-Mauqoothah – An animal beaten to death
Al-Mutaraddiyah – An animal which dies after falling from a height
An-Nateehah – An animal gored to death by another animal
Ma-akals sabu’u’ – An Animal which died after being eaten by another animal.
After mentioning the hurmat of these animals which have died as a consequence of different forms of injuries, the Qur’aan Majeed states: “Except that which you slaughter (make thabah)”. i.e. You find them with rooh (i.e. alive), then you make thabah of them.” This is the tafseer of the Aayat. It is ludicrous and moronic to claim on the basis of the permissibility of effecting thabah to an injured animal, that the infliction of the act of injury is permissible, and not only permissible, but an act of merit and thawaab since it is hallucinated to be in conformity with the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

The Qur’aan states that the meat is halaal if an injured animal is slaughtered whilst it is alive. It does not say that the infliction of the injuries of throttling, beating the animal, casting the animal from a height, having the animal gored by another animal, and having an animal partly eaten by another animal is halaal. Infliction of pre-slaughter injury is haraam. But Mackoojee claims on the basis of this Aayat that the haraam act of stunning is a halaal, Sunnah act of merit. Wala houla….

In a piece of stupid advice to the cartel of carrion halaaizers, this mufti says:

“Halaal monitoring organizations should verify the stunning to be to norm to keep the animal alive at slaughtering time.”

In the pursuit for the boodle objective, he has proffered this silly advice. Millions of animals are daily slaughtered all over the world by the shaitaan’s system of killing. It is humanly impossible to supervise the system effectively and adequately. It is impossible – a total impossibility – to ascertain if each and every one of the millions – tens of millions – of animals is alive at the point of slaughter.

Stunning kills, but the followers of Iblees are in denial.

Stating his vote of no confidence in Allah’s system of Thabah, this wayward mufti alleges:

“For security of the slaughter man and to limit the uncontrolled damage after slaughtering, there is the need of stunning. Stunning is to electrically numb the chicken or to hurt the bull in the head so as to limit its struggle for its life during and after slaughtering.”

He must shame himself and get lost on some island or in some jungle to hide his shame for the kufr with which this statement is impregnated. He has implied that Allah Ta’ala has given us an imperfect system of Thabah which needs to be complemented with the ways of the kuffaar. He implies that, Nauthubillaah – Allah Ta’ala has missed out some vital elements from the Islamic system of Thabah, hence the “uncontrolled damage after slaughtering”, i.e. damage in the wake of the pure Islamic system of slaughter. The mufti’s jahaalat has blinded him to the kufr which he has disgorged for halaalizing a system of killing described by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as: Shareetatush Shaitaan (the slaughter of the devil).

Shar’i Thabah is among the Shi-aar (Salient Features) of Islam. Any system at variance with this divine system is Shareetatush Shaitaan.

Then the luckless soul avers that stunning as practiced on bulls is merely some ‘hurt’ caused to “limit its struggle”. Did Mackoojee ever see bulls being stunned? It is not a little ‘hurt’ caused to the bull. A metal bolt is savagely shot into the skull of the bull. It smashes the skull and the brains of the bull. The bull instantaneously drops in the pen, and will perish in minutes or even in seconds. There is absolutely no return to life for such brutalized bulls. The injury inflicted so barbarically assures the death of the bull. There is absolutely no recovery from this fatal injury, hence in terms of the other Math-habs as well as the Hanafi Math-hab, the meat will be haraam. In terms of the other Math-habs, the meat will be haraam since the animal is mortally injured and its death will be attributed to the injury, not to Thabah. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, there is no certitude that the bulls are alive at the time of slaughter.

And, besides the issue of the bulls being alive or dead, of crucial importance is the hurmat of replacing the Islamic system of Thabah with Shareetatush Shaitaan. A healthy Imaan cannot tolerate consuming the product of Shareetatush Shaitaan.
The mufti has committed compound stupidity by elevating the devil’s system to Qur’aanic and Sunnah status. Such stupidity has constrained him to issue a ‘fatwa’ which is unadulterated kufr. The meat of all stunned animals is haraam. May Allah Ta’ala guide us all and keep us on Siraatul Mustaqeem until the very end of life.

19 Rabiyuth Thaani 1440 (27 December 2018)