Thus, every sea creature is lawful, even if it resembles a donkey, a dog, or a human being—except for three things. He said:

“Except the frog, the crocodile, and the snake. Whoever is compelled to eat something prohibited—other than poison—may consume only enough of it to preserve his life …”

His statement, “except the frog, the crocodile, and the snake”: these three are not lawful.

His statement, “the frog”: Al-Rawḍ says, “because it is deemed repulsive” (1). Yet, in reality, the frog is both terrestrial and aquatic; thus, it is not a sea creature, since a sea creature is one that can live only in water. Moreover, if the reason is that it is deemed repulsive, then we return to the earlier discussion: is being deemed repulsive a legally effective cause?

His statement, “and the crocodile”: this too is prohibited, even though it is a sea creature. Al-Rawḍ says: “Because it has fangs with which it preys” (2).

Is this correct?

The answer is: yes; but it is not one of the predatory beasts. Therefore, what is prohibited on land is not necessarily prohibited in its marine counterpart; the sea is a distinct domain. Indeed, besides the crocodile, there are other creatures that have fangs with which they prey, such as the shark. There are also strange creatures which, when they see a person, rise above him—as those who dive in the sea have told me—forming a cloud-like mass over him. Then they descend little by little until they press down upon him; and when they do so, he dies. Yet one of the sailors told me: “Glory be to Allah! It has a place from which food waste is expelled; if a person scratches it, it rises, and they are saved.”

The point is that there are creatures which kill, yet they are nevertheless lawful,