Food Products Containing Minute Quantities of Ḥarām Substances

Muftī Shuʿayb Aʿlam
Ustādh Jāmiʿah ʿUlūm al-Islāmiyyah, Binorī Town, Karāchī

Some food products—either imported from non-Muslim countries or produced locally—contain, among their primary or supplementary components, an element (ʿunṣur) that is sharʿan prohibited. However, that element is so negligible in proportion that, compared to the overall product, it is nearly insignificant—virtually non-existent. For example, if one litre of alcohol is mixed into one thousand litres of solution, its ratio becomes one-thousandth, as if one drop of ḥarām substance were present among a thousand drops, or one grain among a thousand grains.

Due to such minimal proportion within the mixture, the question arises: Is it permissible (jāʾiz) or impermissible (nā-jāʾiz) to consume such products? This is the central subject of this discussion.

First Perspective: Permissibility

If this quantitative minuteness is taken into account, and supported by rational and textual proofs, it would appear that the consumption of such products should be permissible. For instance:

(1) When wine transforms into vinegar, it becomes ḥalāl by consensus, even though, according to experts, approximately two percent of its alcoholic elements remain. Yet, Sharīʿah disregards this residual proportion and deems vinegar ḥalāl. Hence, if a product contains a minute portion of ḥarām substance, it too should be ḥalāl, just as vinegar is ḥalāl.

(2) If a lawful or unlawful element is mixed into a product in an extremely small quantity, it is nearly impossible for anyone besides the manufacturer to know of it. Therefore, the consumer is excused due to his ignorance—and in some cases, even compelled.

(3) The manufacturer, in certain cases, is not legally required to disclose such minor components—especially if that element is non-harmful or inactive. Even if it is active, the absence or non-enforcement of regulation grants legal justification for nondisclosure. Furthermore, even if a minor ingredient is mentioned on the label, a single ingredient itself may be composed of several sub-ingredients.

(4) What a consumer regards as ḥarām is not necessarily ḥarām in the Sharīʿah. For instance, alcohol that is not derived from any of the four prohibited intoxicating beverages and is included in such minimal quantity that it does not reach intoxicating levels is, sharʿan, permissible. It is heard that one ḥalāl-certification body allows up to 0.1% alcohol in a product.

(5) The general attitude of consumers is such that they seldom trouble themselves with inquiry, investigation, or detailed scrutiny—especially regarding written labels. Just as very few people read the essential regulations printed on electricity or gas bills, or the life-saving medication guidelines enclosed with prescriptions, only a handful among millions take the effort to read them. Even if an exceptional consumer—motivated by caution—attempts to verify the actual details, reaching the truth is difficult.

In our context, laws ensuring the disclosure of ingredients on product labels are not yet enforced; hence, due to the absence or non-implementation of such regulations, companies list vague and general expressions like “contains flavour” or “artificial colour.” But what are these flavours and colours made from? The company conceals this behind thick veils of ambiguity.

Even if all the ingredients were correctly listed, understanding them would still be difficult for the average consumer. And when the manufacturer is not legally bound to disclose minute ḥarām components, then, despite desire and effort, it becomes impossible for the consumer to discover the reality.

Suppose he manages to know all the listed ingredients; still, each ingredient itself may consist of multiple sub-elements. Investigating what these sub-elements are is feasible for a ḥalāl-certification body, but not for the consumer. Moreover, ḥalāl-certification institutions are still in their infancy; thus, obtaining precise information regarding the ḥalāl or ḥarām status of any product is not as simple as for other matters.

Even ḥalāl-certification bodies, concerning the auxiliary ingredients of a product, can only respond either based on prior knowledge and experience, or through direct correspondence with the original manufacturers. These original producers are typically European countries such as Italy, Germany, France, and Holland—nations that manufacture and export such base ingredients and additives on a large scale and are aware of their actual composition. Importers in local markets—like merchants of Joriyā Bāzār—indeed import thousands of food ingredients, yet, like herbalists, they themselves do not fully know the properties or realities of each.

(6) If any individual or institution wishes to determine all constituent components of a product, it is not possible without chemical analysis. Conducting such chemical analysis and decomposition is not feasible as a standard procedure even for a ḥalāl-certification body, let alone for a consumer. The reasons are numerous: the vast number of products, limited resources, and lack of required instruments. For these reasons, even a ḥalāl authority cannot test products to such precision. It is heard that Malaysia, among Muslim countries, has made DNA testing mandatory for suspicious products. What is the Sharʿī status of this measure, and what would be its consequences and implications? A detailed discussion on that would lead us away from our current topic.

For the time being, our objective is to note that vinegar contains a small amount of alcohol, yet its use is permissible. Furthermore, when something is added in an extremely small quantity, its disclosure is not necessary. In addition, independent investigation by the consumer is exceedingly difficult, and most scholars and jurists today are not yet well-versed in fiqh al-ḥalāl to provide immediate, decisive answers.

Moreover, Sharīʿah overlooks what is minute and overwhelmed (qalīl wa maghlūb), and its general disposition is toward ease and facilitation (taysīr wa suhulah). Considering these aspects, the mind inclines to the conclusion that if a ḥarām element is used in a product in a proportion so small as to be virtually non-existent, its consumption should be permissible.

Second Perspective: The Aspect of Non-Permissibility

(1) Viewed from another angle, the consumption of such products should not be deemed permissible, for ḥarām remains ḥarām even in small quantity, and a little of the forbidden renders the remainder impure. Just as a hundred drops of rosewater become impure by a single drop of urine, likewise, in scholastic terms, the result follows the nature of its most specific and effective component (an-natījah tatbaʿu akhaṣṣ al-ʿillal).

(2) Moreover, we are not compelled to use such products. Though the spread of ḥarām is undeniable, ḥalāl has not vanished from the world. And even if compulsion were to arise, the Sharīʿah has already provided the qānūn aḍ-ḍarūrah (principle of necessity). Under this principle, allowance can only be extended to those who are genuinely compelled—not to the general public.

(3) The argument based on qillah and kathrah (smallness and largeness), or on ghālib and maghlūb (dominant and overpowered), is also not particularly convincing, for the real consideration should be significance and need, not mere proportion. At times, a component may be quantitatively small but qualitatively crucial—just as salt, though minimal in measure, governs the entire taste of food. Likewise, an ingredient might be present in a small quantity but serve as the key element or functional essence of a product. Should the same philosophy still apply—that anything present in small proportion is permissible?

The True Cause of Permissibility

After these conflicting evidences and opposing considerations, let us proceed toward a balanced resolution.

If we take the principle of ghālib wa-maghlūb (predominant and subordinate) and say that when ḥalāl predominates, the product should be judged by the majority and thus considered ḥalāl—the Sharīʿah does not grant such permission. For when ḥalāl and ḥarām are combined, ḥarām prevails. The well-known maxim states:

“Idhā ijtamaʿa al-ḥalāl wa-l-ḥarām ghalaba al-ḥarām”
(When ḥalāl and ḥarām come together, the ḥarām dominates.)

Hence, the rule of dominance and subordination cannot serve as a valid basis for permitting such products. However, from another perspective, some allowance may be inferred—namely, that the general temperament of the Sharīʿah is one of ease and facilitation (taysīr wa-suhūlah). When hardship or difficulty becomes widespread and unavoidable, the Sharīʿah—out of vast generosity and forbearance—opens multiple avenues of lenience.

At the same time, the Sharīʿah also establishes the maxim:

“Al-qalīl maghfūr” — A small amount is excused. [1]

Maxims of similar meaning include:

“Al-qalīl kal-maʿdūm” — A little is as though non-existent.
“Al-yasīr tujra al-musāmaḥah fīh” — A small amount is overlooked and tolerated.
“Al-yasīr maʿfūn ʿanhu” — A small quantity is pardoned.

Beyond these linguistic maxims, various fiqh chapters reflect how Sharīʿah overlooks small quantities. For example:

If a needle-tip’s worth of urine splashes on one’s clothing, it is excused.
Minor deviation from the qiblah during prayer does not invalidate it.
If a small part of one’s ʿawrah (private area) becomes exposed during prayer, the prayer remains valid.
Slight delay in performing sajdat as-sahw does not nullify the prayer.
Minor actions (ʿamal qalīl) during ṣalāh are forgiven.
If a very small particle enters the throat while fasting, the fast is not broken.
In zakāh, the amount between two niṣābs is exempted.
In a sale, a slight delay between offer and acceptance is tolerated, and the contract remains valid.
When making an exception from an oath, if a person coughs and slightly delays, Sharīʿah overlooks it.
In sale contracts, minor ignorance regarding the commodity or duration is excused.
In ijārah (leasing), slight uncertainty regarding duration—commonly tolerated—is not invalidating.
A trivial defect in the sold item is disregarded.
Minor deception (ghabn yasīr) or uncertainty (gharar yasīr) is also excused.
Small defects in a qurbānī (sacrificial animal) are pardoned.
Men may use silk in small quantity.
When slaughtering, a brief gap between tasmiyah and slaughter does not render the animal maytah.
A waqf property may be rented out for slightly less than the market rate (ujrat al-mithl).

From all these examples it becomes evident that the temperament of the Sharīʿah is such that it overlooks minute quantities. Therefore, if a food product contains an extremely small proportion of a non-Sharʿī element, it should be excused.

Necessary Clarifications Regarding “Small Quantity” (Qalīl)

(1) If we accept the premise that the inclusion of a small quantity of ḥarām substance within a product is excusable, then a further question arises: what exactly constitutes qalīl (small)? How little is considered negligible? For qalīl has no fixed, absolute standard.

In transactional matters, what counts as qalīl is different from what it is in food and beverages.

The criterion for a small act or deed is not the same as for a small measure or amount.
In matters of ḥuqūq al-ʿibād (rights of people), the threshold for qalīl is strict and precise, whereas in ḥuqūq Allāh (rights of Allah), it is comparatively flexible and lenient.

Moreover, the same quantity may be disregarded as trivial in one context but not in another. For instance, in trade involving metals or soil, even a few kilograms may be ignored as insignificant; but in the buying and selling of gold, even a fraction of a gram (ratī) is carefully accounted for.

The Sharīʿah itself uses the term qalīl in varying proportions: sometimes for a fourth, sometimes a third, and at times even for less than half. Hence, there is no single, fixed measure of qalīl that can serve as a universal basis across all rulings. Therefore, before applying this principle to food materials, we must first establish what will constitute qalīl in this context.

(2) The Sharīʿah also distinguishes between internal (dākhilī) and external (khārijī) use. It is quite possible—and in fact, often the case—that a certain substance may be unlawful for ingestion but lawful for external application. For example, among insects and other creatures that are ṭāhir (pure) but not ḥalāl, consumption is impermissible, yet external use (such as in creams or ointments) is permitted. Therefore, we must maintain this distinction between internal and external use.

(3) The question of whether an item containing ḥarām admixture is permissible or not pertains solely to the consumer’s perspective. From the manufacturer’s standpoint, the issue takes multiple forms, each with its own distinct ruling. However, as a general principle, intentional inclusion of ḥarām ingredients (ʿamd an-najāsah aw al-ḥarām) is impermissible.

(4) All of this discussion assumes that the ḥarām component remains ḥarām, even if present in minimal quantity. But if that ḥarām substance undergoes inqilāb al-māhiyyah (transformation of essence) and becomes ḥalāl, then the entire debate about small or large quantity becomes irrelevant. Hence, if through a chemical process, food scientists and juristic authorities (ahl al-fatwā) confirm that an originally ḥarām ingredient has transformed in essence (qalb al-māhiyyah), then the entire product is to be deemed ḥalāl.

(5) One final point that must be remembered before proceeding is that if a person is permitted to consume a ḥarām substance due to compulsion or illness under the Sharīʿah principle of necessity (qānūn ad-ḍarūrah), such exceptional circumstances fall outside the scope of this discussion, for the principles of necessity operate under an entirely different legal framework.

The Standard of “Qalīl” (Small Quantity)

As mentioned earlier, the quantity that the Sharīʿah overlooks under the principle of al-qalīl maghfūr (a small amount is excused) must first be defined. However, just as no fixed measure for qalīl exists across all chapters of fiqh, likewise, no specific standard has been established for food items or consumable products.

The reason is that the things deemed ḥarām in Sharīʿah are prohibited for different causes (asbāb), and when the causes differ, the degree of their application will also naturally differ.

After a thorough process of inductive analysis (istiqrāʾ), the scholars of Sharīʿah have concluded that there are five fundamental causes for which an item may be declared ḥarām:

Ḍarar — Harmfulness or injury
Sukr — Intoxication
Khubth — Filth or repulsiveness
Karāmah — Sanctity or honor (e.g., human body parts)
Najāsah — Ritual impurity

Each of these causes has a different scope and application. For example:

A substance that is intoxicating (muskir) is not necessarily impure (najis).
Something impure is not necessarily intoxicating.
What is held sacred and honored (mukarram muḥtaram)—such as human remains—does not necessarily carry harm, intoxication, or filth.

Furthermore, substances themselves differ. At times, a particular object may have one pure (ṭāhir) component while another part of it is impure. In some cases, filth (khubth) exists only above a certain level of concentration, and below that threshold, it is absent. Likewise, the same item may be ḥarām for one person due to its harmfulness, but ḥalāl for another who is unaffected by that harm.

Therefore, the quantity that qualifies as qalīl—the level small enough to be overlooked—can only be determined once it is first known which of these causes of prohibition applies to the substance in question.

Ḍarar (Harmfulness)

If the cause of prohibition (ʿillat al-ḥurmah) is ḍarar (harm), then consumption will be permissible only to the extent that it does not cause harm, for the basis of prohibition is the presence of harm. When harm ceases to exist, the ruling of prohibition also ceases.

If a substance is not harmful in its individual state but becomes harmful when combined or mixed with others, then due to the resulting harm, its use will be impermissible. Conversely, if a substance is harmful by itself, but through blending, compounding, or combination, its harmful effect is neutralized, then its use becomes permissible.

Imām Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī ʳʰ writes:

“أمّا المعادن فهي أجزاء الأرض وجميع ما يخرج منها فلا يحرم أكله إلا من حيث أنه يضر بالأكل”

As for minerals, they are parts of the earth and everything that emerges from it; eating them is not prohibited except on account of the harm they cause when consumed.[2]

In Bahishtī Zēwar it is stated: “If the harm of a harmful substance is removed in any way, or if an intoxicant no longer retains its intoxicating effect, then the prohibition will also no longer apply.” [3]

And elsewhere in the same work: “When an intoxicating and a non-harmful substance are mixed, and the combination eliminates the harmfulness, then the prohibition is likewise lifted.”

Karāmah (Sanctity and Honor)

Karāmah refers to that quality which renders a thing worthy of dignity and reverence. Among all creation, Allah Most High has granted human beings inherent honor and distinction. Therefore, consuming any part of the human body directly or mixing it into any product is absolutely ḥarām. In such a case, no distinction is made between small or large quantity—qalīl or kathīr—its use remains impermissible.

This applies regardless of whether the human part in question is ṭāhir (pure), such as hair, nails, or skin, or najis (impure), such as blood, excrement, or similar substances.

Imām Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī ʳʰ writes:

لو وقع جزء من آدمى ميت في قدر ولو وزن دانق حرم الكل لا لنجاسته فإن الصحيح أن الآدمي لا ينجس بالموت ولكن لان أكله محرم احتراما

If a portion of a deceased human body were to fall into a cooking pot—even as small as the weight of a dānaq (a tiny coin)—the entire pot becomes unlawful to eat. This is not because the human body becomes impure after death, for the correct opinion is that a human being does not become najis by death, but rather because consuming him is forbidden out of respect for human dignity. [4]

Sukr (Intoxication)

Sukr refers to intoxication—the state in which the intellect becomes subdued, speech incoherent, and a person begins to utter irrational words.

If the intoxicating substance is solid (jāmid), then its consumption is permissible only up to the point where it does not cause intoxication, whether that proportion constitutes two or three percent of the total product, or is lesser or greater, for the cause (ʿillah) of prohibition is intoxication itself. When intoxication is absent, the prohibition likewise ceases.

If the intoxicating component is liquid (sayyāl) but not one of the four prohibited wines (al-ashribah al-arbaʿah), then its non-intoxicating quantity is also permissible to use, similar to solid intoxicants. However, there is a distinction between the two: intoxicants other than the ashribah al-arbaʿah may be used externally (khārijī istiʿmāl) without restriction, whereas their internal consumption (dākhilī istiʿmāl) is only permissible if the quantity does not reach intoxicating levels and the usage serves a valid, appreciable purpose (gharaḍ muʿtad bih).

If the intoxicating substance is one of the four forbidden wines, then its use is absolutely impermissible—regardless of whether the amount is small or large, or whether it actually induces intoxication or not. Thus, just as it is ḥarām for the consumer to use a product containing any of the ashribah al-arbaʿah, it is equally ḥarām for the manufacturer to deliberately include it.

Imām Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī ʳʰ writes:

وأما النبات فلا يحرم منه إلا ما يزيل العقل أو يزيل الحياة أو الصحة، فمزيل العقل: البنج والخمر وسائر المسكرات، ومزيل الحياة: السموم، ومزيل الصحة: الأدوية في غير وقتها. وكأن مجموع هذا يرجع إلى الضرر إلا الخمر والمسكرات، فإن الذي لا يسكر منها أيضًا حرام مع قلته لعينه ولصفته وهي الشدة المطربة

As for plants, only those are prohibited which destroy the intellect, life, or health. Intellect-destroying plants include hashish, wine, and all other intoxicants; life-destroying substances are poisons; and health-damaging ones are medicines taken at improper times. In all these, the cause of prohibition is essentially harm (ḍarar), except for wine and intoxicants. For even the non-intoxicating amount of these remains prohibited—due to their very essence and their inherent quality of producing exhilaration. [5]

Khubth (Filth and Repulsiveness)

Khubth refers to the natural repulsion and disgust that a sound and uncorrupted human disposition (fiṭrah salīmah) feels toward certain things. When a person of sound nature instinctively recoils from something, finding it repugnant or offensive, such an item is described as khabīth.

At times, this feeling of repulsion exists absolutely, regardless of quantity. For example, if a morally healthy person learns that even a single drop of urine has fallen into a full jug of water, his nature will immediately refuse to drink it.

At other times, quantity influences the presence or absence of khubth. For instance, if a fly were to fall into a large pot of food, people generally do not find this repulsive; hence, apart from the fly itself, the rest of the dish remains permissible to consume. Therefore, when the cause of prohibition is khubth, and a component containing that property is mixed into a product in such minute proportion that it no longer offends natural taste or temperament, its consumption would be permissible.

However, a difficulty arises here. The examples cited by the jurists in this regard usually concern accidental contamination—instances that are difficult to avoid—such as a fly falling into a pot, an ant being cooked in soup, or a small insect accidentally entering food. In other words, when a mosquito or ant falls and dies on its own, the case is different from deliberately adding insects after killing them.

In our times, it is the latter that has become common practice. A full-fledged industry now exists for breeding insects, from which dyes and additives are extracted for use in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and even food products. For example, carmine is derived from the cochineal insect, and shellac is extracted from the lac insect. The question, therefore, is: should their inclusion in products be deemed permissible merely because their repulsiveness (istiqdhār) is no longer perceptible in the final mixture?

If examined from this angle, it does not appear permissible for manufacturers to intentionally add such repulsive substances into their products. On the other hand, if an insect such as a fly were to fall accidentally into a pot, the jurists have allowed the consumption of the food—not because the insect itself is ṭayyib or wholesome, but because its presence in such a small amount does not induce disgust.

The correct understanding, however, is that permissibility refers to the consumption of the food itself—not the insect—for the fly is ṭāhir (pure) but not ḥalāl. It contains khubth as well as blood, and though the blood of the fly does not flow (lā nafs lahū sāʾilah), its consumption remains impermissible.

Imām Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī ʳʰ writes:

وما لم يذبح ذبحًا شرعيا أو مات فهو حرام ولا يحل إلا ميتتان السمك والجراد، وفي معناهما ما يستحيل من الأطعمة كدود التفاح والخل والجبن، فإن الاحتراز منهما غير ممكن، فأما إذا أفردت وأكلت فحكمها حكم الذباب والخنفساء والعقرب، وكل ما ليس له نفس سائلة لا سبب في تحريمه إلا الاستقذار، ولو لم يكن لكان لا يكره، فإن وجد شخص لا يستقذره لم يلتفت إلى خصوص طبعه، فإنه التحق بالخبائث لعموم الاستقذار، فيكره أكله كما لو جمع المخاط وشربه، ليست الكراهة لنجاستها، فإن الصحيح أنها لا تنجس بالموت، إذ أمر رسول الله ﷺ بأن يمقل الذباب في الطعام إذا وقع فيه

Any creature not slaughtered according to Sharīʿah, or which dies naturally, is ḥarām, except for two: fish and locusts. In their category are those food-dwelling worms found in fruits, vinegar, or cheese, because avoiding them is difficult. But if such insects are eaten separately, they take the ruling of flies, beetles, and scorpions. All creatures without flowing blood are prohibited solely because of their repulsiveness; were it not for this, they would not even be makrūh. If someone personally feels no disgust toward them, his individual taste is disregarded, for the general human disposition finds them repugnant. Hence, their consumption is makrūh, like one who collects and drinks mucus—it is disliked not because it is impure, but due to natural disgust. Indeed, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ instructed that when a fly falls into food, it should be submerged (and then removed). [6]

In Bahishtī Zēwar it is written: “Likewise, eating vinegar that contains insects, or consuming a confection or medicine in which worms have developed, is not permissible with the insects included; but if the insects are removed, then it is permissible.” [7]

And in Fatāwā Maẓāhir al-ʿUlūm it states: “The fly is a non-blood-shedding (ghayr dhī dam masfūḥ) creature; hence, if it falls into curry and dies, the food does not become impure, and its consumption remains permissible. However, since the fly is counted among the khabāʾith, and all khabāʾith are unlawful to eat, consuming or feeding the fly itself remains ḥarām.” [8]

Najāsah (Impurity)

It is impermissible—both for the manufacturer (ṣāniʿ) to include and for the consumer (ṣārif) to use—any product containing a najis (impure) substance. The inclusion of impurity renders the entire mixture najis; therefore, one cannot claim that the ḥarām element is negligible or “too little to matter.” A product containing a najis component is strictly prohibited for internal consumption.

However, an exception may be granted only when the impure element enters a substance unintentionally, avoidance becomes extremely difficult, and the impurity itself is present in a very minute quantity—for example, if a mouse’s droppings are accidentally ground with wheat, or a few droppings fall into milk during milking but are removed before dissolving, leaving no trace or perceptible effect in the milk. [9]

Summary of the Discussion (Ḥāṣil al-Baḥth)

From the foregoing analysis, the following conclusions are derived:

If the cause of prohibition is harm (ḍarar), and that harm ceases to exist after blending or compounding within the product, then both its internal and external use are permissible.
If a product contains something najis (impure), its consumption is impermissible. However, if the impurity is overwhelmed (maghlūb), its external use is permissible—though purification (ṭahārah) must be ensured before performing prayer.
If a product contains any part of the human body or a derivative thereof, its use is impermissible.
If a product contains an intoxicating substance other than the four prohibited wines (al-ashribah al-arbaʿah), and the final product neither intoxicates nor harms, its internal and external use is permissible.
But if one of the four prohibited wines is included, it assumes the ruling of najāsah (impurity); and if it also causes intoxication, it becomes ḥarām due to sukr (intoxication) as well.
If a substance is ḥarām due to khubth (repulsiveness) but, when combined in the mixture, its repulsiveness disappears, then the ruling requires detailed examination and further research.
If a najis, khabīth, intoxicating (muskir), or harmful (mudar) element is included in a product, yet through a legitimate inqilāb al-māhiyyah (transformation of essence) it changes into a new pure substance, then the product is ḥalāl for the consumer—even though it remains impermissible for the manufacturer to intentionally include such material.

(Bayyināt, Shaʿbān 1436 AH / June 2015 CE)

[1] For further detail, refer to: at-Taṭbīqāt al-Fiqhiyyah li-Qāʿidah al-Yasīr Maghfūr fī al-Buyūʿ by Kāmi bin Muḥammad an-Nūr.

[2] Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm ad-Dīn, section on al-Ḥalāl wa-l-Ḥarām, Nūrānī Kutub Khānah, Peshawar, 3rd edition, 1411 AH / 1991 CE, vol. 2, p. 92

[3] Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ʿAlī Thānvī, Part 9, Mīr Muḥammad Kutub Khānah, Karachi, p. 98

[4] Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm ad-Dīn, section on al-Ḥalāl wa-l-Ḥarām, Nūrānī Kutub Khānah, Peshawar, 3rd edition, 1411 AH / 1991 CE, vol. 2, p. 93

[5] Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm ad-Dīn, vol. 2, p. 92, Nūrānī Kutub Khānah, Peshawar, 3rd edition, 1411 AH / 1991 CE

[6] Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm ad-Dīn, vol. 2, pp. 92–93, Nūrānī Kutub Khānah, Peshawar, 3rd ed., 1411 AH / 1991 CE

[7] Bahishtī Zēwar, Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ʿAlī Thānvī ʳʰ

[8] Kitāb al-Ḥaẓr wa-l-Ibāḥah, Bāb al-Akl wa-sh-Shurb, Maktabat ash-Shaykh, vol. 1, p. 298

[9] Imām Ibn ʿĀbidīn ʳʰ writes:

مبحث في بول الفأرة وبعرها وبول الهرة (قوله: وكذا بول الفأرة إلخ) اعلم أنه ذكر في الخانية أن بول الهرة والفأرة وخرأها نجس في أظهر الروايات يفسد الماء والثوب ولو طحن بعر الفأرة مع الحنطة ولم يظهر أثره يعفى عنه للضرورة. وفي الخلاصة: إذا بالت الهرة في الإناء أو على الثوب تنجس، وكذا بول الفأرة، وقال الفقيه أبو جعفر: ينجس الإناء دون الثوب – قال في الفتح: وهو حسن لعادة تخمير الأواني، وبول الفأرة في رواية لا بأس به، والمشايخ على أنه نجس لخفة الضرورة بخلاف خرئها، فإن فيه ضرورة في الحنطة الخ. والحاصل أن ظاهر الرواية نجاسة الكل، لكن الضرورة متحققة في بول الهرة في غير المائعات كالثياب، وكذا في خرء الفأرة في نحو الحنطة دون الثياب والمائعات. وأما بول الفأرة فالضرورة فيه غير متحققة إلا على تلك الرواية المارة التي ذكر الشارح أن عليها الفتوى، لكن عبارة التتارخانية: بول الفأرة وخرؤها نجس وقيل بولها معفو عنه وعليه الفتوى. وفي الحجة الصحيح أنه نجس الخ. ولفظ الفتوى وإن كان أكد من لفظ الصحيح إلا أن القول الثاني هنا تأيد بكونه ظاهر الرواية، فافهم. لكن تقدم في فصل البئر أن الأصح أنه لا ينجسه وقد يقال: إن الضرورة في البئر متحققة، بخلاف الأواني؛ لأنها تخمر كما مر، فتدبر

Regarding mouse urine and droppings, and cat urine: It is mentioned in al-Khāniyyah that the urine and droppings of both cat and mouse are impure according to the most apparent narrations, rendering water and cloth impure. However, if mouse droppings are ground with wheat and no trace appears, they are excused due to necessity. In al-Khulāṣah: if a cat urinates in a vessel or on a cloth, both become impure, and the same applies to a mouse’s urine. Al-Faqīh Abū Jaʿfar said: the vessel becomes impure, not the cloth. Ibn al-Humām deemed this preferable, since vessels are usually covered. According to one narration, mouse urine is not objectionable, but the majority of scholars consider it najis, though slight necessity exists regarding droppings in grain. Thus, the apparent narration deems all of it najis, except in cases of necessity—like cat urine on clothing or mouse droppings in grain. As for mouse urine, necessity is not established except according to the view upon which fatwā has been given. The Tatārkhāniyyah states: ‘Mouse urine and droppings are najis, but some said the urine is excused, and this is the relied-upon position.’ In al-Ḥujjah aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ, it is held to be najis. Although the term fatwā carries more authority, the latter opinion is reinforced because it accords with the apparent narration. Note that it was previously mentioned under the chapter on wells that the correct view is that it does not render [the well] impure, for necessity applies in the case of wells but not utensils, which are covered. Reflect on this.”
(Radd al-Muḥtār ʿalā ad-Durr al-Mukhtār, Muḥammad Amīn Ibn ʿĀbidīn, vol. 2, p. 476, H.M. Saeed Company, Karachi, 1st edition)

Disclaimer:
The above article has been prepared/translated under the full oversight and approval of the respected Muftī Ṣāḥib. The author may have utilized AI assistance for the purposes of language refinement, structural clarity, and improved coherence in English. However, the religious content and conclusions reflect the Muftī’s authoritative guidance.