Some people have said that throwing live locusts into the fire to roast them is a form of torturing them. Is this correct?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Some people, O Shaykh, say that throwing locusts into the fire while they are alive is a form of torturing them.
The Shaykh : Yes, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), who were more knowledgeable than us about the intent of the Messenger and more God-fearing than us, used to roast locusts.
The questioner : Dead ones.
The Shaykh : No, live ones. But what if we were required to slaughter the locusts?
The student: That is difficult.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : It is difficult.
The Shaykh : It is difficult, and there is no benefit in slaughtering them. What is the benefit? There is no blood coming out now. In any case, the word "torture" by fire means that a person intends to cause pain to an animal by fire without any benefit. For example, if we find no way to protect ourselves from this animal except fire, there is no harm. For this reason, Allah the Mighty and Majestic rebuked the prophet who was stung by an ant and burned down the ant's colony, saying to him, Glorified and Exalted is He: "Why not just one ant?" He rebuked him for the generalization, even though it was just one ant. But for example, if someone said, "I want to punish this man with a discretionary punishment, either by fire or by flogging," what would we say?
The questioner : By flogging.
The Shaykh : By flogging. Do not torture with fire. The Messenger prohibited us from torturing with fire. For this reason, it is established from the Companions that they burned the sodomite with fire. It is established from Abu Bakr and Khalid ibn al-Walid that they burned the sodomite. Why? It was not to move from torturing him by killing him to fire, but rather to strongly deter people from this heinous act. Now, among farmers, when the crop is finished, they burn the land to get rid of the bad plants that mix with the crop. The land may have ants, or bird chicks, or the like. Is this permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. The evidence for this is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) burned the palm trees of Banu Nadir. Palm trees generally do not lack animals, such as small birds or others. Here we say it is established as a consequence, not as an intention. We must understand the texts according to the intent of Allah and His Messenger, and we must combine the aspects of the texts so that the ruling comes out pure. Yes?
The questioner : O Shaykh, may Allah reward you...
The Shaykh : No, the one next to you.
The questioner : Oh Shaykh...
The Shaykh : Raise your hand.
The questioner : O Shaykh, the liver and the spleen. The hadith says that they are from the blood.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... What is the ruling on eating the liver and spleen of a camel? The meat... is explicitly mentioned.
The Shaykh : Yes, it invalidates the wudu. If it were not for the fact that it was mentioned in the hadith regarding the issue of milk that the apparent Sunnah is that it does not invalidate the wudu, even though the Messenger ordered wudu from it, we would have said that milk also invalidates the wudu. But the apparent Sunnah in the story of the 'Uraniyyin, whom he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered to catch up with the zakat camels and drink from their urine and milk, did not order them to perform wudu. So we said wudu is a recommended practice, otherwise it would have been obligatory in this case.
The Shaykh : Yes, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), who were more knowledgeable than us about the intent of the Messenger and more God-fearing than us, used to roast locusts.
The questioner : Dead ones.
The Shaykh : No, live ones. But what if we were required to slaughter the locusts?
The student: That is difficult.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The questioner : It is difficult.
The Shaykh : It is difficult, and there is no benefit in slaughtering them. What is the benefit? There is no blood coming out now. In any case, the word "torture" by fire means that a person intends to cause pain to an animal by fire without any benefit. For example, if we find no way to protect ourselves from this animal except fire, there is no harm. For this reason, Allah the Mighty and Majestic rebuked the prophet who was stung by an ant and burned down the ant's colony, saying to him, Glorified and Exalted is He: "Why not just one ant?" He rebuked him for the generalization, even though it was just one ant. But for example, if someone said, "I want to punish this man with a discretionary punishment, either by fire or by flogging," what would we say?
The questioner : By flogging.
The Shaykh : By flogging. Do not torture with fire. The Messenger prohibited us from torturing with fire. For this reason, it is established from the Companions that they burned the sodomite with fire. It is established from Abu Bakr and Khalid ibn al-Walid that they burned the sodomite. Why? It was not to move from torturing him by killing him to fire, but rather to strongly deter people from this heinous act. Now, among farmers, when the crop is finished, they burn the land to get rid of the bad plants that mix with the crop. The land may have ants, or bird chicks, or the like. Is this permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible. The evidence for this is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) burned the palm trees of Banu Nadir. Palm trees generally do not lack animals, such as small birds or others. Here we say it is established as a consequence, not as an intention. We must understand the texts according to the intent of Allah and His Messenger, and we must combine the aspects of the texts so that the ruling comes out pure. Yes?
The questioner : O Shaykh, may Allah reward you...
The Shaykh : No, the one next to you.
The questioner : Oh Shaykh...
The Shaykh : Raise your hand.
The questioner : O Shaykh, the liver and the spleen. The hadith says that they are from the blood.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... What is the ruling on eating the liver and spleen of a camel? The meat... is explicitly mentioned.
The Shaykh : Yes, it invalidates the wudu. If it were not for the fact that it was mentioned in the hadith regarding the issue of milk that the apparent Sunnah is that it does not invalidate the wudu, even though the Messenger ordered wudu from it, we would have said that milk also invalidates the wudu. But the apparent Sunnah in the story of the 'Uraniyyin, whom he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered to catch up with the zakat camels and drink from their urine and milk, did not order them to perform wudu. So we said wudu is a recommended practice, otherwise it would have been obligatory in this case.