Definition of Ṭayyib
Ṭayyib (lit. pure, clean) refers to objects, acts and conduct which are considered such by people of sound nature and people approve of it regardless of and independently of customary practices.[1] The opposite of ṭayyib (pl. ṭayyibāt) is that which is objectionable and repels people of good taste, even if some people may find it otherwise.[2] As our earlier discussion of the grounds of ḥarām indicated, the basic relationship of ḥalāl and ḥarām with ṭayyib and khabīth is one of intrinsic and a natural inclination of ṭayyib to ḥalāl and of khabīth to ḥarām. Since God the Most High enacted the ḥalāl and ḥarām for people’s welfare and benefit (maṣlaḥah), this becomes the basic cause and rationale behind the ḥalāl and ḥarām. He did not make anything ḥalāl without it being ṭayyib nor anything ḥarām which was not khabīth. When this natural relationship is disturbed, as it has been in some cases in the Qur’an itself, it has been for a specific reason.[3] Ḥarām in Shariʿah is thus grounded in either natural repulsiveness (khubth) or harm and prejudice (ḍarar) or the two together. Broadly, whatever is purely or predominantly harmful is also ḥarām, and all that is purely or predominantly beneficial is also ḥalāl.[4] Ṭayyib is not, however, a juridical category in that Islamic jurisprudence does not specify a separate value point by this name, next to one might say that of permissible (mubāḥ/ḥalāl). The renowned scale of five values (known as al-aḥkām al-khamsah), as mentioned earlier, thus speaks of five values wherein ṭayyib is not featured as a separate category. Muslims are thus required to ensure that what they do, eat, or drink is permissible in Shariʿah, even if it is not pure, ṭayyib, or best quality. It would seem good enough for Muslims who live, for instance, in non-Muslim majority countries to observe the rules of ḥalāl without being asked to go a step beyond ḥalāl to that of ṭayyib. If someone chooses to be more particular and aim at what is ṭayyib, that is better, of course. In some cases, superior market facilities and supplies may even place Muslims residing in Western countries in a better position to choose what is better quality and ṭayyib. As a juridical requirement, however, the rules of ḥalāl and ḥarām are what all Muslims need to consult and follow.
Shariʿah and Higher Objectives
However, it may be said to be characteristic in many ways of all law in that legal rules tend to aim at the very high or the very low, as the case may be, of values pertaining to conduct – as compared to what people normally do in their daily lives. One may thus engage in deceitful activities and selfish pursuits, or eat unhealthy food or things which are merely permissible, but the law will not take one to task for it so long as the conduct in question does not amount to a crime or clear violation. This does not, however, mean that the Shariʿah is not concerned with the higher reaches and objectives of personal conduct, which is why one also finds in the same scale of five values the category of recommendable, or mandūb. In the case of permissible/ḥalāl food, the law permits Muslims to eat certain things such as snails, worms, locusts, lizard, even crocodile and so forth, none of which can be said however to be ṭayyib. The distinction between ḥalāl and ṭayyib pertaining to victuals can relate more widely perhaps to Mālikī jurisprudence, which permits for eating a large variety of animals, birds, mammals and insects that are merely tolerated but evidently fall short of ṭayyib. Ṭayyib in the choice of food is all about purity and natural appeal, and thus belongs, for the most part, to the category of recommendable or mandūb, and not necessarily to that of mubāḥ.
Ṭayyib Beyond Food
It may be mentioned in passing that ṭayyibāt is not confined to food but extends, in the language of the Qur’an and hadith to other aspects of conduct, such as the line of work one does (cf., al-Baqarah, 2:267), just as it sometimes appears next to right ethical conduct (al-Mu’minūn, 23:51), the speech one utters (al-Ḥajj, 22:24), pure and upright individuals, men and women (al-Nūr 24:26) and even pleasant and comfortable residences (masākin ṭayyibah) (al-Tawbah, 9:72; al-Ṣaff, 61:12). Ṭayyibāt are often used as antonym to khabā’ith, be it in the edibles or what may relate to other aspects of conduct. Ṭayyibāt as such is a major theme of the Qur’an that encapsulates an exceedingly wide range of meanings. It is perhaps due to this factor that much of the Qur’anic usage of ṭayyib and its plural ṭayyibāt is understood to be a moral category which should be pursued and sought but that it may or may not constitute an obligation in itself.
Ṭayyib as a Subset of Mandūb
To ascertain ṭayyib as a subset of mandūb, or even a category in its own right, in the context, especially of victuals, is even more meaningful in view of the many new developments in food sciences, genetically modified food varieties, and mixing of additives and ingredients in the mass production of food. Factory production lines and commercially driven food processing methods tend to widen the scope of doubt in the natural goodness of food supplies in the marketplace. The ḥalāl food industry is thus well-advised to aim at ṭayyib as an optimal category of food that can eventually even be certified and labelled as such.
Qur’anic References to Ṭayyib and Ḥalāl
References to ṭayyib occur in numerous places in the Qur’an and hadith; in almost all places, however, ḥalāl and ṭayyib occur side by one another (al-Baqarah, 2: 167; al-Mā’idah, 5:4, 5:87; al-Aʿrāf, 7:157; al-Nisā’, 4:160). In other places, the Qur’an addresses the Prophet and the believers to “eat the ṭayyibāt” or “eat the ṭayyibāt from the sustenance We have provided you with.” (al-Mu’minūn, 42, 51; al-Baqarah, 2:172). Reading them all together leaves little doubt that ḥalāl is also ṭayyib for the most part. This is the clear purport of the verse that reads in an address to the Prophet: “They ask you what is permissible (uḥilla – a derivative of ḥalāl) for them – say that which is ṭayyib” (al-Mā’idah, 5:4) but it is also typical of the Qur’anic reading to note that ḥalāl is mentioned first and ṭayyib after as if the text is conveying the message that ṭayyib is a step beyond and after ḥalāl.
Legal Maxims and Mixtures
According to a legal maxim of fiqh, “when the ḥalāl and ḥarām are mixed up, the ḥarām prevails”.[5] In other words, when available evidence can imply both permissibility and prohibition, the latter prevails. While quoting this in his al-Ashbāh wa al-Naẓā’ir, al-Suyuṭī mentions that his maxim is based on a hadith to the same effect. The hadith thus provided “When there is a mixing of ḥalāl and ḥarām, the latter prevails.” However, Muslim scholars, including Abū al-Faḍl al-ʿIrāqī (d.806/1403), al-Subkī (d.1369/771), and al-Bayhaqī (d.1064/456), considered this to be a weak hadith due to disruption in its chain of transmission.[6] Yet in circumstances where the amount of mixing and scope of confusion is slight to negligible, the legal maxim under review may also be of doubtful application. Some scholars have gone on record, moreover, to exonerate situations that involve minimal and sometimes unavoidable amounts of mixture with forbidden stuffs.
Confusion may also arise due to the existence of two divergent hadith reports, or two conflicting analogies: one prohibitive, and the other permissive, in which case the former prevails over the latter. Prohibition in this case takes priority over permissibility. This is the purport also of the legal maxim that “prevention of harm takes priority over realisation of benefit.”[7] The doubt that arises over a text may be genuine (ḥaqīqī), such as ambiguity in the actual wording of a hadith, or it may be relative and metaphorical (iḍāfī, majāzī), and doubt arises in their application to a particular case. In all of these, an opportunity may arise for fresh interpretation and ijtihad, which should be attempted and an effort should be made to secure that which is in the public interest and maṣlaḥah. Thus, in cases of confusion between lawfully slaughtered meat and carrion, the prohibitive position prevails and consumption is consequently not recommended. Similarly in the case of confusion arising between revenues from ribā and from a lawful sale, one should exercise caution on the side of avoidance. In the case of the hybrid breeding of animals, such as between a horse and a mule, most jurists would, however, take the mother’s side as the stronger indicator of permissibility: If the mother is ḥalāl, the issue is also considered ḥalāl.
Should there be a mixture of two varieties of food, one ḥalāl and the other ḥarām, two situations may initially arise: Either the separation of the two parts is not feasible, such as when wine, blood or urine is mixed with water – then the ḥarām prevails over ḥalāl; or else the two parts can be separated, as when an insect or unclean substance falls on solidified butter – the object itself and its surrounding parts are removed and the rest becomes ḥalāl. However, if the mixture is of very small quantities that are hardly detectable and establishment of complete purity is not devoid of hardship, such as the remains of small amounts of alcohol in cooking utensils in big hotels, the doubt in them may be overlooked but avoidance is preferable.
This article is an excerpt from: Mohammad Hashim Kamali, The Parameters of Ḥalāl and Ḥarām in Shariʿah and the Ḥalāl Industry (London/Washington: IIIT, 2013), pp. 6-9.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
Notes
[1] Cf., Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Al-Ḥalāl wa al-Ḥarām, p.31.
[2] Al-Qaradawi, Al-Ḥalāl wa al-Ḥarām, p.56.
[3] Certain ṭayyibāt were thus prohibited to the Jews as a matter however of reprimand and punishment (cf., Qur’an, al-Anʿām, 6:146 & al-Nisā’, 4:160).
[4] In the case of liquor for example, the Qur’an explains its prohibition: “say that it is sinful but also benefits the people in some way, yet its evil is greater than its benefit.” (al-Baqarah, 2:219). See also al-Qaradawi, Al-Ḥalāl wa al-Ḥarām, p.31.
[5] The Arabic version reads “idhā ijtamaʿ al-ḥalāl wa al-ḥarām, ghuliba al-ḥarām”. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, Al-Ashbāh wa al-Naḍā’ir (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1994), p.151. Shabir, Al-Qawāʿid, p.325. Interestingly enough, al-Qaradawi does not refer to this maxim in his brief discussion of “avoidance of the doubtful – ittiqā’ al-shubhāt”, which is perhaps not accidental, due to some weakness in its evidential basis and also another line of evidence that advises taking that which is the easier course and brings facility and relief. This may also explain why al-Qaradawi subsumes the issue under the rubric of sadd al-dharā’iʿ.
[6] See for a discussion, Securities Commission, Resolutions of the Securities Commission Shariah Advisory Council, 2nd ed. Kuala Lumpur, 2007, p.158.
[7] The legal maxim in Arabic reads: “Dar’ al-mafāsid awlā min jalb al-manāfiʿ.”
[8] Cf., Shabir, Al-Qawāʿid, pp. 326–8.
