to kill them—such as swallows or bees, as he alleged. I have no idea where the narrations supporting that position are to be found; perhaps they exist only in books that are not well-known among us.

As for sea creatures, the scholars unanimously hold that every species is lawful to eat so long as its very name is not identical to that of a land animal whose flesh is forbidden. Thus Mālik said, “There is no harm in eating all marine life, except that I dislike the ‘water-pig.’ ” He further remarked, “You are the ones who call it a pig.” Ibn Abī Laylā, al-Awzāʿī, Mujāhid and the majority of scholars concurred with him, although some of them require ritual slaughter for anything from the sea that is not a fish, as has already been mentioned.

Layth ibn Saʿd, however, said, “Neither the ‘water-man’ nor the ‘water-pig’ may be eaten under any circumstance.”

The root of their disagreement is whether, in language or in law, the terms “pig” and “man” extend to the water-pig and the water-man. On that basis the discussion must also include every marine creature whose name—linguistically or in common usage—matches that of a forbidden land animal, such as the dog according to those who deem dogs unlawful to eat.

Examination of the issue turns on two questions: (1) are these names purely linguistic designations, and (2) does a homonymous term carry generality or not? Because “water-man” and “water-pig” share their names with their land counterparts, anyone who admits that these are linguistic names and who holds that a shared term must be treated generically is obliged to pronounce them unlawful. For that very reason Mālik withheld judgement, saying: “You are the ones who call it a pig.”

Such, then, is the state of animals whose flesh the Law prohibits and those it permits.

With regard to plant-based foods, all of them are lawful except wine and the various types of nabīdh prepared from fermenting juices—even those made from honey itself. Concerning wine pressed from grapes, the jurists have unanimously agreed that both small and large amounts are forbidden. As for the other fermented drinks, they differed over the small quantity that does not intoxicate, while unanimously agreeing that any intoxicating amount is unlawful.

The majority of the jurists of the Hijāz and most ḥadīth scholars say that both a little and a lot of any intoxicating nabīdh are forbidden. By contrast, the Iraqi scholars—among the Successors Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, as well as Sufyān al-Thawrī, Ibn Abī Laylā, Sharīk, Ibn Shubruma, Abū Ḥanīfah, the other jurists of Kūfah, and most of the scholars of Baṣrah—maintain that what is forbidden in all intoxicating beverages is the state of intoxication itself, not the substance as such.

Their divergence stems from the apparent conflict between transmitted reports and analogical reasoning on this question. The scholars of the Hijāz employ two methods to substantiate their view: (1) the prophetic reports that address the issue, and (2) classifying all forms of nabīdh under the single heading of “wine.” Among the most famous narrations upon which they rely is