Question received:
We observe that AskHalal frequently conducts extensive reviews of products and often classifies them as doubtful (mashbūh). Below, we present an excerpt from Mufti Taqi Usmani in which he discusses the principles of ḥalāl and ḥarām, emphasizing the default position of permissibility for all non-meat items. He also notes that excessive scrutiny is not in accordance with the Prophetic approach in Islam.
We request your feedback on his remarks and their relevance to current practices.
The Foundational Principle Regarding Ḥalāl and Ḥarām
This issue is based on a fundamental principle: the original ruling concerning meat is prohibition, whereas for other items the default ruling is permissibility. Therefore, other items will remain permissible and lawful unless there is definitive evidence proving their prohibition. For example, the default ruling for bread is permissibility—even if you purchase it from a non-Muslim, it remains ḥalāl for you to eat unless it is established that some impure or ḥarām substance has been added to it. However, once it is confirmed that a specific impure or prohibited substance has been included, then that bread becomes impermissible.
In contrast, with meat, the default ruling is prohibition. Unless there is evidence to establish that the animal has been slaughtered according to the prescribed method, the meat of that animal will be considered ḥarām. Thus, if a non-Muslim is selling meat, it is not permissible for us to purchase and consume that meat unless we are assured—based on Islamic legal evidence—that the animal was slaughtered in the prescribed manner.
Accordingly, a clear proof is required to declare meat ḥalāl, whereas a clear proof is required to declare other items ḥarām. This is a very important principle regarding ḥill (lawfulness) and ḥurm (prohibition) that must be kept in mind.
Items Cannot Be Declared Ḥarām Based Solely on Probability
Items cannot be declared ḥarām merely on the basis of possibility or suspicion. In present times, especially in non-Muslim countries, this has become a significant issue—and may Allah protect us, it has now begun to affect Muslim countries as well. The issue is that in non-Muslim lands, many products are sold in which there is a possibility of the inclusion of some impure (najis) or forbidden (ḥarām) ingredient.
According to the principle mentioned earlier, the ruling derived in such cases is that if the item in question is not meat, and there is doubt regarding whether a prohibited substance has been added to it, then unless it is confirmed with certainty that something forbidden or impure has been mixed into it, it will be permissible to consume that item.
For example, take the case of sliced bread. Regarding some varieties of bread, it is heard that they may contain some impure or forbidden substance—such as animal fat from a carcass sometimes being applied to the surface. However, since the default ruling for bread is permissibility, it will remain permissible to consume it unless it is conclusively established that a specific impure or forbidden substance has been added to it.
As long as this certainty is not attained, one may eat such bread, benefitting from the state of unawareness, and there is no need to delve excessively into doubt and suspicion. However, if it becomes definitively known that no variety of bread available in the market is free from the inclusion of impure or ḥarām ingredients, then in that case, it would not be permissible to eat such bread.
Canned and Packaged Meat
However, the ruling for meat is the complete opposite. This is because until it is established with certainty that the meat is from an animal slaughtered according to the prescribed Sharīʿah method, it is not permissible to consume it. For example, in our times, meat that is canned and packaged and imported from countries like Australia and New Zealand—unfortunately now also widespread in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states—often carries the label:
“Slaughtered according to the Islamic method.”
Muslims are misled by this phrase and consume such meat. In reality, the mere presence of this phrase on the can is not sufficient to establish certainty that the animal was actually slaughtered in accordance with the Sharīʿah. Unless it is verified who wrote this label, on what basis it was written, and whether the animal was in fact slaughtered according to Islamic law, it remains impermissible to consume meat from such a can.
It is astonishing that some individuals have reported seeing this same stamp on fish cans as well—stating “Slaughtered according to the Islamic method.” It is self-evident how unreliable such a stamp must be.
The above ruling pertains to meat from non-Muslim countries. However, in places where Muslims reside, then since the outward state of a Muslim is presumed to be in accordance with Sharīʿah, the default assumption will be that the meat is from an animal properly slaughtered. Therefore, investigation is not obligatory in such places. However, in a city where unlawful meat is widespread—even if it is a Muslim city—then in that case, verification becomes obligatory, and it is not permissible to consume the meat without such investigation.
The Reason for the Difference Between Meat and Other Items
The principle I have explained—that in non-meat items the default ruling is permissibility, whereas for meat the default is prohibition—what is the underlying reason for this difference?
The reason is that meat comes from animals, and a living animal is unanimously considered ḥarām. An animal only becomes ḥalāl when it is slaughtered according to the prescribed Islamic method. Therefore, in the case of animals, the default is prohibition. To remove this prohibition, Sharīʿah has stipulated a specific method of slaughter: if you adopt this method, the animal becomes ḥalāl, and if you do not adopt it, the animal remains ḥarām.
This clarifies that the original ruling for animals is prohibition until it is established that the animal was slaughtered according to the correct Sharīʿah method.
In any case, the ḥadīth under discussion in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ told ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim (may Allah be pleased with him) that:
“You may eat from what your trained dog hunts for you, so long as another dog has not joined it.”
The reasoning behind this is also the same: since the original ruling for an animal is prohibition, if another dog joins in during the hunt, it becomes difficult to determine whether the animal’s death was caused by the trained dog you dispatched or by the other dog. This creates uncertainty as to whether the animal died through a projected, permissible method or an impermissible one.
Due to this doubt, it is not that the animal becomes ḥarām—rather, the ḥalāl status that could have been established is now withheld. In other words, the animal was already ḥarām to begin with, and this doubt merely prevents it from becoming ḥalāl.
Doubt Alone Does Not Establish Prohibition in Items of Default Permissibility
As for items in which the default ruling is permissibility, mere doubt or suspicion does not render them ḥarām unless there is certainty regarding their prohibition.
In this regard, a well-known incident is recorded in al-Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imām Mālik: Sayyidunā ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him) once passed through a wilderness during a journey. He and those with him needed water for ablution. They came across a cistern on the way. Sayyidunā ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (may Allah be pleased with him) was also present. When he saw the owner of the cistern approaching, he asked him:
“O owner of the cistern, do wild beasts drink from your cistern?”
“Do wild beasts come to your cistern to drink water?”
The intent behind this question was to determine whether the saliva of wild animals might be mixing into the cistern water—since if that were the case, it could render the water impure, and consequently, using it for wuḍū would not be permissible.
However, before the owner of the cistern could answer, Sayyidunā ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him) said to him:
“O owner of the cistern, do not inform us.”
He forbade him from answering because the default ruling for water is purity (ṭahārah), and based on this default, it is permissible to perform wuḍū using such water. Since the cistern was exposed and uncovered, a doubt may naturally arise that wild beasts might have drunk from it. However, this doubt does not nullify the default purity. Therefore, the water will not be considered impure unless there is certainty of impurity.
If the cistern owner had responded to the question by saying that wild beasts do occasionally come to drink from it, that response would still only create doubt—it would not render the water impure. Yet such doubt would lead to internal misgivings and unnecessary uncertainty, such as wondering whether one’s wuḍū is valid or not. This is why Sayyidunā ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) cut the matter at its root by saying: “O owner of the cistern, do not inform us.”
One Should Not Engage in Excessive Investigation
From this, it becomes clear that if doubt arises concerning items whose default ruling is permissibility (ashyāʾ mubāḥah), such doubt does not render the item ḥarām. From the conduct of Sayyidunā ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him), we also learn that it is not necessary to investigate excessively or scrutinize every matter so thoroughly that a person becomes preoccupied with uncovering whether or not something contains a ḥarām ingredient, or exactly which components are present in a given product.
When Sharīʿah has granted permission to use such items despite the presence of doubt, then this very state of unawareness is a blessing. One should not attempt to strip away this blessing by subjecting everything to investigation.
There are some people who have an inclination toward excessive analysis—they become absorbed in dissecting everything to the most minute level. For instance, someone may claim that a certain prohibited substance is found in a particular brand of vegetable ghee, such as Dalda, and then become consumed by the pursuit of verifying that claim. A man used to visit my respected father (may Allah have mercy upon him), and he was continually engaged in investigating whether Dalda ghee contained any impure or ḥarām component. He would frequently bring articles, or clippings from newspapers and journals, saying, “Look, this was published in such-and-such newspaper,” or, “This was printed in such-and-such magazine.” My father would respond, “I do not read such things; take them back—you may read them yourself.”
In any case, these are matters of widespread usage, and the entire nation is affected by them. We have not been tasked with obsessive investigation and excessive probing into every detail. For if one were to take this path of relentless inquiry, then it would become nearly impossible to find anything in the world that remains ḥalāl.
(Taken from Islām aur Hamārī Zindagī by Muftī Taqī ʿUthmānī, Vol. 3, page 159)
Bismillāhi Taʿālā
Jazākallāhu Khayran for reaching out to us for our comments. First and foremost, we commend your enthusiasm in aligning contemporary practices with the Prophetic way and understanding them through sound scholarship.
We acknowledge receipt of the excerpt from Muftī Taqī ʿUthmānī‘s writing, and we offer our input below.
Reassessing the Principle of Default Permissibility in Contemporary Consumer Markets
Islamic jurisprudence has long upheld a foundational principle regarding lawful and unlawful consumables: in non-meat items, the default assumption is that they are permissible unless there is definitive evidence indicating otherwise. In contrast, for meat and animal-derived products, the default ruling is prohibition unless it is proven that the animal was slaughtered in accordance with the prescribed Islamic guidelines. This dual framework served the Muslim community well in simpler times when food production was localized, transparent, and ingredients were largely plant-based or manually processed. However, in our current age—marked by globalization, industrial mass production, and chemical manufacturing—there is a growing need to reassess how this principle applies in practice, particularly for Muslims striving to maintain a conscientious and ḥalāl lifestyle.
Today’s food and personal care markets are heavily industrialized and globally integrated. Most items sold on supermarket shelves—be they snacks, bakery products, cosmetics, supplements, or processed beverages—are composed of numerous ingredients sourced from various parts of the world. These components are often processed using methods that are proprietary, undisclosed, and sometimes scientifically complex. It is increasingly common for products to contain ingredients that are derived from, or processed using, animal by-products, including pork and non-ḥalāl-slaughtered beef. These ingredients may appear under general terms such as “enzymes,” “natural flavors,” “emulsifiers,” or “glycerin,” with no clear indication of their origins on the packaging.
Moreover, the use of enzymes in particular has created considerable ambiguity. Enzymes play an essential role in the production of cheese, bread, fruit juices, and dairy products. Many of these enzymes, such as rennet or lipase, are traditionally derived from animals—often from the stomachs of calves or pigs. Though microbial or plant-based alternatives exist, they are not universally used and are rarely indicated on the product label. The average consumer has neither the means nor the access to determine the source of these micro-ingredients. In such a scenario, assuming that a non-meat item is ḥalāl merely because it is not meat is no longer a safe or reliable position.
In light of this reality, the critical question arises: should the default permissibility still be applied to non-meat products without further investigation, or has the situation evolved such that the presumption of permissibility now exposes Muslims to the risk of consuming ḥarām or doubtful substances? Classical jurists operated within the context of a transparent and limited food economy. What was purchased or consumed could be directly observed and traced. Bread was made from flour, water, and yeast—ingredients known to the buyer and baker alike. Today, that same bread may contain over a dozen ingredients, some derived from non-ḥalāl animal sources or processed in plants that handle both ḥalāl and non-ḥalāl products interchangeably.
This complexity does not mean that the principle itself is invalidated. Rather, it underscores that the ‘urf—the common societal condition that underpins the application of legal principles—has shifted. The practical landscape has changed so significantly that it may now be prudent for Muslims to adopt a more cautious approach. When the possibility of contamination or impure inclusion is both reasonable and widespread, the matter moves from a state of general permissibility to a state of legitimate doubt (shubha). In this case, the ethical teachings of the Prophet ﷺ—guide us toward abstaining. He said: “The ḥalāl is clear, and the ḥarām is clear, and between them are doubtful matters which many people do not know. So whoever avoids the doubtful matters clears himself in regard to his religion and his honor.”
From this Prophetic teaching, we derive that even though a substance may not be definitively known to be ḥarām, its ambiguous status in itself warrants concern. Therefore, when it comes to foodstuffs, supplements, or personal care products whose ingredients are vague or unspecified—and which statistically and empirically often include derivatives of impure origin—one should not casually presume permissibility. Instead, it becomes necessary to investigate, seek clarification from manufacturers, and if no clarification is obtainable, to avoid such products.
However, one must also be cautious not to fall into the opposite extreme: obsessive scrutiny and debilitating doubt. Classical jurisprudence provides examples of restraint in the face of uncertainty. The incident of Sayyidunā ʻUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him) during travel, when he refused to inquire whether wild animals drank from a cistern, highlights this balance. Despite the possibility of impurity, he preserved the default assumption of purity and prohibited any further inquiry that would introduce baseless misgivings. This act establishes that unnecessary probing into matters that Sharīʻah permits despite potential doubt is unwarranted, and at times, counterproductive.
Still, this principle of avoiding excessive inquiry must be applied with discernment. The current industrial environment has created a unique situation where many products share the same characteristics as meat in terms of doubt and ambiguity due to the inclusion of animal-based enzymes and derivatives. When such ingredients are involved, the appropriate fiqhi approach may now be to apply the same caution that is applied to meat. In such cases, abstention becomes necessary until clarity is obtained. This means that the default ruling for products containing or likely to contain animal-based enzymes may need to shift toward doubt unless verified.
If this standard were to be broadly adopted without institutional support, it could result in a wide exclusion of commonly used products. Therefore, this condition places greater responsibility upon halal certification bodies and research institutions. They must conduct thorough investigations and classify products appropriately—either certifying them as ḥalāl or categorizing them under the doubtful or impermissible based on verified sourcing. Their due diligence helps the broader Muslim community retain access to lawful products without compromising on caution.
As for the individual consumer, a shift in personal practice is warranted. It is no longer reasonable to rely on general assumptions in the face of recurring uncertainty. The conscious Muslim should adopt an approach of avoiding doubtful items until verified, but without indulging in obsessive and unending scrutiny. By doing so, one avoids the twin pitfalls of heedless permissibility and incapacitating waswasah.
In conclusion, the principle that non-meat items are permissible until proven otherwise still holds in a theoretical legal sense, but its practical application in today’s world must be reassessed with wisdom and vigilance. The contemporary global food system is complex, opaque, and saturated with animal derivatives that are often hidden or disguised. In this context, Muslims who are committed to preserving their religious dietary standards should move beyond blind reliance on default permissibility and instead adopt a posture of conscientious investigation. At the same time, they must avoid unhealthy extremism in suspicion. By perfecting the application of these principles in light of changing realities, the Muslim community can uphold both the law and the spirit of the Sharīʻah in its consumption practices.
And Allāh Taʿālā Knows Best
AskHalal.ca
under ʿIlmHub Team
Checked & Approved:
Muftī Faisal al-Maḥmūdī
Disclaimer:
The above response has been prepared 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.
Some further information everyone should be aware of:
1. Are modern consumer products composed of multi-source ingredients, including animal-based components and enzymes?
Yes – demonstrably so. Here is the evidence:
A. Multi-Ingredient Complexity
- Processed foods (e.g., cookies, cereal bars, confectionery, bread, snacks) often contain 20–40 ingredients, many of which are derived from unknown or compound sources.
- Even single-listed items (e.g., “natural flavors,” “shortening,” “emulsifier”) can consist of sub-components from multiple suppliers and are frequently proprietary formulations.
B. Common Animal-Based Ingredients
Below are examples of widely used animal-derived or potentially animal-sourced ingredients:
| Ingredient | Potential Source | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Mono- and diglycerides | Animal fats (lard, tallow) or plant | Emulsifier in baked goods, margarine |
| L-Cysteine | Human hair or duck feathers | Dough conditioner in bread |
| Gelatin | Pork or beef collagen | Capsules, gummies, desserts |
| Rennet | Animal (calf stomach) [animal stomach is frozen and churned to extract – has specific fatwa] or microbial origins | Cheese production |
| Enzymes | Microbial, animal (e.g., lipase from pig pancreas) | Baking, dairy, meat tenderizing |
| Stearic acid | Animal or vegetable | Coatings, candles, cosmetics |
| Glycerin | Animal or vegetable fats | Moisturizers, soaps, foods |
| Carmine / Cochineal | Insect-derived | Food coloring |
| Shellac | Insect excretion* (has specific fatwa) | Confectionery coating |
C. Enzymes & Additives in Industrial Processing
- Enzymes are widely used in manufacturing cheese, bread, juices, beer, dairy, and processed meats.
- These enzymes are often not labeled, and even when they are, the source is rarely mentioned.
2. Given this complexity, should conscious Muslims now treat such products as doubtful rather than assuming permissibility?
Classical Rule vs Modern Reality
Classical principle:
“Al-aṣl fī-l-ashyāʾ al-ibāḥah” (The default in things is permissibility)
except in meat, where the default is prohibition until a valid slaughter is established.
Contemporary adjustment:
- The question is whether today’s complex processed products (though not meat per se) mimic the same degree of ambiguity as meat due to hidden animal-origin substances.
Key observations:
- Opacity: Ingredient sourcing is intentionally obscure due to industrial competitiveness and lack of mandatory disclosure.
- Cross-contamination: Processing facilities often handle both ḥarām and ḥalāl products without effective segregation.
- Synthetic or microbial alternatives exist, but are not always used.
Therefore:
- In today’s context, blanket reliance on default permissibility is insufficient for conscious Muslims.
- This does not necessitate changing the legal default, but it does obligate increased diligence (taḥarrī)—i.e., treating products with unknown or suspicious content as shubuhāt (doubtful matters), consistent with the ḥadīth: “The ḥalāl is clear and the ḥarām is clear, and between them are doubtful matters…”
[Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslim]
Conclusion and Recommendation
| Point | Finding |
|---|---|
| Can we still apply the classical default of permissibility to non-meat items in modern commerce? | No, not across the board. |
| Do most processed products today contain ingredients that could derive from ḥarām sources? | Yes, directly or indirectly. |
| Does this obligate the consumer to investigate further? | Yes, for any item where ingredients are unclear, doubtful, or potentially animal-derived. |
| Is the fiqhi default invalidated? | No, but its practical application is highly restricted due to contemporary realities. |
Suggested Approach for Conscious Muslim Consumers
- Inspect labels carefully. Learn about common suspicious ingredients.
- Contact manufacturers to request source verification when in doubt.
- Prefer certified ḥalāl brands, especially for complex products (e.g., gelatin, cheese, vitamins).
- Use shubuhāt principle: If you cannot get clarity, abstain.
- Educate communities and scholars to revise fatwas in light of modern manufacturing.