Al-Huda magazines mentioned pork and its derivatives in some foods, so this matter is confusing!

The questioner:
About three months ago, Al-Huda magazines mentioned pork and its derivatives in some foods—so this matter is very confusing. I asked some of the young men, and one of them told me
that if you look at the list of Al-Huda magazines—they mention hadiths about this topic—

The Shaykh:
hadiths

The questioner:
Yes

The Shaykh:
Prophetic—

The questioner:
Yes

The Shaykh:
Please go ahead.

The questioner:
meaning, it is included in derivatives from pork fat—soap—foods—chocolate and these things—so I asked my brother Husayn, and he told me that the Companions used to
eat cheese from the Majus, and the Prophet did not rebuke them for it, so I do not know

The Shaykh:
Yes, it was mentioned regarding the Companions that they used to eat cheese made with the rennet of the Majus

The questioner:
As they also mentioned in one of the Al-Huda magazines—that Salman al-Farisi, in the time of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, was asked about cheese—he mentioned that what Allah has made lawful in
His Book is lawful, and so on—and another thing they mentioned is the verse ...
{Only forbidden to you are the dead animal, blood, and the flesh of the pig}
So they said, O Messenger of Allah, the dead animal is used to grease ships and to coat skins—and people benefit from it—he said, No, it is forbidden—

The Shaykh:
Yes, this is an authentic hadith—now, define your question so that I can answer you—

The questioner:
Meaning, my question is: if we use pork fat to coat ships or something similar in soap or foods—then this is, of course, forbidden—is that not so?

The Shaykh:
Yes, it is forbidden, but the matter is not as you are asking. You are not asking the correct question. You say, "If we use it..." So I will clarify the matter for you. For example, there are medicines that contain
certain proportions of
alcohol. It is, of course, known that they are forbidden because of what is called intoxication, known as khamr (intoxicants). So it is not permissible for a Muslim to consume khamr from
any aspect of consumption, even if it is pressed. So what is the ruling on some medicines that contain, as we said, a certain proportion of alcohol? The answer is: if the question is about making them
and formulating them, then it is not permissible, because that involves using khamr. By that, you can judge what you asked. But the issue we face today is not
making these things; rather, it is using them, knowing that the one who made them is not us. Do you distinguish between the two matters? Good. So this medicine that contains alcohol—
we must distinguish between making it, which is not permissible, and importing it from the lands of disbelief. Here, detail is required. If the proportion of alcohol in any medicine is a proportion that makes
the medicine intoxicating, then it is not permissible to use it, even for treatment. But if the proportion of alcohol is a small proportion such that whoever drinks it, even a non-patient,
will not become intoxicated by it, then it is permissible to drink it.

The questioner: But, O Shaykh, what about the hadith of the Messenger, peace be upon him: "Whatever intoxicates in large quantity, a small amount of it is forbidden"?

The Shaykh:
If you did not notice, "Whatever intoxicates in large quantity, a small amount of it is forbidden"—we are not talking about khamr now; we are talking about medicine that contains a certain proportion of khamr. So this medicine,
as I said earlier, detail is required. If the large amount of it does not intoxicate, then it is permissible, and in that case, your question does not apply. Is the matter clear? But I still want to circle around
the sensitive point in this topic. This medicine that came from the lands of disbelief, we apply the previous detail to it. If the proportion of alcohol makes the large amount of it
intoxicating, or not. If the large amount of it is intoxicating, it is not permissible to take a small amount of it, due to the well-known hadith. But you cited the hadith in the second scenario: if the
proportion of alcohol in a certain medicine is a small proportion such that the drinker, even a healthy person and not a patient, no matter how much he drinks of this medicine,
does not become intoxicated by it, then it is permissible. So does your hadith, "Whatever intoxicates in large quantity, a small amount of it is forbidden," apply? It does not apply regarding our use of this medicine that came from the lands of disbelief. But regarding our making of this medicine,
it is not permissible, because that requires us to press the khamr, buy it, sell it, and so on, so formulating it is not permissible.

The questioner:
You mentioned regarding some jurists, like Malik, for example, that it is forbidden to introduce it into food, drink, or medicine regarding pork fat.

The Shaykh:
Do not get ahead of things. We are not talking about this as a premise. What you mentioned has clarified it for you. Now, we want to move to the original question. Here, we say: when we say that in drinks, it comes to us—
for example, soap, as you said, contains pork fat, or for example, chocolate or something similar—making it is not permissible, that is clear. But as for our use of it or eating it, here we must
apply the detail that is similar to the previous detail in medicine. And every issue must be handled within its limits. For example, soap, or a type of soap, that contains pork
fat or pork lard. We say there is a very important issue in such a case, which is the transformation of impurity into another substance through means of
purification. So it becomes purified. They give as an example a carcass that is in the open, and then, with the factors of nature that our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, directs as He wills,
this carcass becomes salt. Does it remain in its previous impurity and prohibition, or does it take a new ruling regarding the transformation that occurred? This is a point of disagreement among
the jurists, but there is no doubt that the correct opinion, as reported from the Hanafis, is that this substance, as long as it has transformed into another reality, has its own ruling. One of the proofs for
that is that forbidden khamr, if it transforms into vinegar—I do not say it became pure, because it was originally pure—but I say it became lawful, because it was originally forbidden. So what
made it lawful? Its transformation. Its substance was intoxicating, but now it is no longer intoxicating, and it has acquired a taste. And he, peace be upon him, said, "And if it was..." He did not mean by that the vinegar of khamr
Yes, the vinegar of khamr. So this is the reality of the transformation of a thing into another type. And if this thing was forbidden or impure,
as long as it has transformed into another substance, it has become pure or lawful. Now, this soap here, the issue requires the assistance of specialists in chemical analysis. So a question arises here, and I cannot
answer it because it is not within my expertise. So I say, we ask the people of chemistry. When the fat is introduced into these multiple parts, when it transforms into
soap or a cleaning substance, did the substance of the fat, the pork fat, remain as it was, or did it transform due to the chemical reaction between these parts
into another reality? So the ruling follows the answer of the specialists. If they say it transformed, then it became pure. And if they say it is still the substance of the fat as it was, then it is not permissible
to use it.

The questioner:
Regarding the Al-Huda magazine—Abu Dhabi—approximately the Abu Dhabi municipality—they analyzed the permissibility of these substances, meaning—so some Shaykhs came and spoke based on
this analysis.

The Shaykh:
There is no harm. Let them analyze. And I do not think that either the Shaykhs or the analysts have addressed the type of analysis we are discussing. Did the analysts say that the substance of the pork
fat remains as it is, or did they say it transformed into another substance? I do not think they addressed it. You read the article, so tell me, did they address it?

The questioner:
I spoke with the researcher doctor in this matter. So I can present this question to him again. If the fat remained as it was, then this is
forbidden, is that not so?

The Shaykh:
This is necessary. As for the analytical test, we have read a lot about it. They say it exists. So all they can say is, "We analyzed it." But here, we are analyzing the
continuation of the topic: did this fat remain as it was, or did it transform into another reality? So here we come to another issue. For example, chocolate
that is made from pork fat or any other forbidden thing. We say, as for use, we have finished; it is not permissible. But as for eating, for example, what comes to us from the West, we are here in another case.
We have a rule regarding liquids: if impurity falls into them, do these liquids, whose origin is from pure things, become impure simply by the impurity falling into them, regardless
of its proportion and quantity? The answer is, of course. There is a well-known disagreement among the jurists, and the correct opinion is what is derived from his saying, peace be upon him, first: "Water is purifying, and nothing makes it impure." And as he also said, second:
"If a mouse falls into the fat of one of you, do not throw it away, but take what is around it." And this text is general,
whether the fat is liquid or solid water. And what came in some narrations regarding the distinction between the two matters: if it is solid, throw it away and what is around it.
Take it, and if it is liquid, do not eat it. This addition is not authentic according to the precise scholars, among whom is Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). This hadith
and the one before it gives us a clear ruling regarding liquids in which some impurity has fallen. This ruling means that it is pure, which is the indication of his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying
Water is purifying except when one of its three characteristics is changed by that impurity, and not by something else from the pure things. At that point, it ceases to be water and becomes impure, and it
is not permissible to use it. This fat, since our topic now is regarding some foods, is not forbidden for us to eat merely because we know that there was impurity in it. Perhaps
there is still impurity in it with certainty, because the Messenger’s (peace and blessings be upon him) command to remove the mouse and what is around it does not mean that there are no remnants of particles of the mouse left. But we understand
from this hadith that the Lawgiver is wise and has made things easy for us in such rulings. This does not mean that there is nothing of the impurity’s effect in the water, but it means that
this impurity is slight and does not prevent the Muslim from benefiting from this water or that fat. In light of this interpretation, we address these problems of the fat that
spoils the goods. Did this impurity affect that food or other things such that a foul taste, color, or smell appeared in it? If the answer
is affirmative, then the ruling is affirmative: it is not permissible to use it. Otherwise, we say the ruling in this case is like the ruling in the fat and in the water, as long as the effect of the impurity does not appear in this
On this basis, we address this which --- today, and we do not deny the existence of some fats from which these foods are made. But we say that these fats
are few and their effect does not appear in these foods, so there is no harm in that. As for if we make it ourselves, meaning—as I read in the magazine al-Islaah—there was
a question posed to some chemists in Abu Dhabi. This gelatin—they call it gelatin, or what else?—Jelly, I think. They say this substance is made here, but the raw material
they said is imported from abroad. So this is not permissible for the reason we detailed earlier. As for what comes to us from abroad, this system we mentioned
regarding water and fat is applied to it. If there are questions, please.

The questioner:
Imam Malik said it is forbidden to put it in food and drink. It is not impure in the sense of being strictly impure, but rather it is impure in ---

The Shaykh:
You are now citing Malik’s words. Malik says, or in any case, I say—as Malik says—it is not permissible to put it in, because this is from us and a composition from us necessitates
our use of the impurity. And this friend in the hadith of the ships ---

The questioner:
Let us suppose, for example, that a person investigated this matter. Is it possible to avoid eating these things that are put into them? Is this possible?

The Shaykh:
By Allah, your position either falls under the category of "leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt," or it falls under the category of obsessive doubt. The matter is such that no one else can judge you as
Allah the Exalted said: {But man is a witness against himself}
So if the position you take regarding these foods is from the category of "leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt," then you are praised. But if it is from the category of obsessive doubt, then you are criticized.
But to help yourself judge by one of the two possibilities that apply to you, you must investigate the matter with a scientific investigation free from desire on one hand, and
from the obsessive doubt that opposes it on the other hand. If you end up with doubt, we tell you: remember his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, "Leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt." But if
your investigation leads you to the conclusion that there is nothing in this matter, but you do it out of what? Caution? We say this is obsessive doubt, because caution is not like this absolutely
because caution is in the place where there is something that justifies caution. Otherwise, many people today pray four rak'ahs of the obligatory
Zuhr prayer after the Friday prayer as a precaution, and they open a very wide door for people in legislation for which Allah has not sent down any authority. For example, I tell you that impurity did not fall in it in your sight, but in the ruling of his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, "Water is purifying and nothing makes it impure," you have no problem because it is a clear, explicit ruling. We move from
water to fat. A jar of fat whose price is hundreds of dirhams, whereas water does not have great value. Therefore, based on the Shari'ah ruling, it is permissible to perform ablution with it
and it is permissible to drink from it as well. What is your position toward a jar of ghee in which what we mentioned earlier fell? By Allah, I do not eat from it out of scrupulousness, as you say, I do not perform ablution from
the jar. Is this scrupulousness? On this standard, you take your position regarding matters.
Meaning, based on the analysis, there is no harm in eating and drinking because it has changed.

The questioner:
If the proportion makes the food not food by its other parts, like the water in which the impurity fell and changed one of its three characteristics

The Shaykh:
If the proportion makes the food no longer food by its other components, such as water in which impurity has fallen and which has altered one of its three properties,