He replied, “Its water is purifying; its dead creatures are lawful.”

As for the report that only partly accords with the general Qur’anic wording, it is the ḥadīth transmitted by Ismāʿīl b. Umayyah from Abū al-Zubayr, from Jābir, from the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—who said:

“Whatever the sea hurls ashore or whatever the ebb tide leaves behind—eat it; but whatever floats, do not eat it.”

In their view, this ḥadīth is weaker than the one related by Mālik. The weakness attributed to Mālik’s report stems from the presence of an unknown narrator in its chain and because it comes through a single route. Abū ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-Barr counters that its transmitters are, in fact, known and that it exists through several chains. The weakness of Jābir’s report, he adds, lies in the fact that reliable scholars have halted it at the statement of Jābir himself (i.e., it is mawqūf).

Thus, whoever gives precedence to this ḥadīth of Jābir over that of Abū Hurayrah—because the general Qur’anic wording supports it—permits everything except what the tide does not leave behind, for there is no conflicting evidence concerning that. Whoever prefers Abū Hurayrah’s ḥadīth rules unrestricted permissibility. Those who maintain an absolute prohibition do so by opting for the general sense of the Qur’ānic text. Unqualified permissibility is the position of Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī; unqualified prohibition is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah; other scholars differentiate between the two cases.

Regarding the five categories that Allah mentions alongside carrion, there is unanimous agreement that they share carrion’s legal ruling. Concerning the jallālah—an animal whose habitual fodder is filth—the jurists disagreed over whether it may be eaten.

Their disagreement arises from the clash between transmitted evidence and legal analogy. The transmitted evidence is the report that “the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—forbade the meat and milk of the jallālah,” recorded by Abū Dāwūd from Ibn ʿUmar. The opposing analogy argues that whatever enters an animal’s stomach is transformed into its flesh and other components; if the flesh itself is lawful, then what has been transformed into flesh should share that ruling, just as if it had been transformed into soil, or as blood is transformed into flesh. Al-Shāfiʿī deems the jallālah unlawful, whereas Mālik regards it as disliked (makrūh).

As for impurity mixing with otherwise lawful food, the governing principle is the well-known ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah and Maymūnah: the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—was asked about a mouse that had fallen into clarified fat. He said, “If it is solid, remove the mouse and whatever surrounds it, and eat the rest; but if it is liquid, pour it out—or stay away from it.”

The scholars hold two views regarding impurity that comes into contact with edible lawful substances. The first, and the opinion of the majority, is that mere contact suffices to render the food forbidden, even if its color, smell, or taste does not change because of the impurity.