Food Sources: Earth, Water, and Air - Food Culture and Health in Pre-Modern Islamic Societies - page 92

the complete disappearance of any reli-
able tradition), it may be assumed without
misgiving that the urānic prohibition
contained a corresponding pre-Islamic
prohibition, although it perhaps modified
it. Both go back to the religious reluc-
tance to consume the blood of animals,
and indeed in all the urān passages
quoted, blood is mentioned alongside of
mayta . It is unnecessary to assume that
Muammad was influenced by Judaism
on this point, and the suggestion may be
rejected especially as the prohibition in
its stereotyped form occurs again in sūra
II, 168, just at the time of vigorous reac-
tion against Judaism, and in sūra VI, 147
(Medinan, a late insertion) which contrasts
the prohibition of mayta , etc., with the
Jewish laws relating to food. The meaning
of mayta is explained in the latest passage
dealing with it, V, 3: in the second half of
the verse the principal kinds of mayta are
given (with the exception of the animal
that dies of disease), which had already
been mentioned in general terms; the
commentators were thus able to interpret
the single cases given as examples wrongly
as being different from the mayta proper.
The purification (in the urān only men-
tioned in this passage) must mean ritual
slaughter, by which, even if done at the
last moment, the animal does not become
mayta but can be eaten.
These prescriptions of the urān are
further developed in the traditions. Accord-
ing to the latter, it is forbidden to trade in
mayta or, more accurately, its edible parts;
some traditions (mainly on the authority
of Amad b. anbal ) even forbid any
use being made of all that comes from
mayta ; others again expressly permit the
use of hides of mayta . An exception from
the prohibition of mayta is made in the
cases of fish and locusts; these are in gen-
eral considered as the two kinds of mayta
that are permitted, i.e. no ritual slaughter

is demanded in their case (because they
have no “blood”, cf. above). While some
traditions, extending this permission by
the earliest iyās , say that all creatures
of the sea, not only fishes, can be eaten
without ritual slaughter, including even
seafowl (in this case it is said that “the sea
has performed the ritual slaughter”), oth-
ers limit the permission to those animals
and fishes which the sea casts up on the
land or the tide leaves behind, in contrast
to those which swim about on the water.
But there is also quoted a saying of Abū
Bakr expressly declaring what swims on
the surface to be permitted. In this con-
nection, we have the story of a monster
cast up by the sea (sometimes described
as a fish) which fed a Muslim army under
the leadership of Abū Ubayda when they
were in dire straits; but in this tradition and
in the interpretation that has been given it
(that they only ate of it out of hunger i.e.
took advantage of the urānic permis-
sion for cases of need) is clearly reflected
the uncertainty that prevailed about such
questions which were on the border line.
In the traditions, we find it first laid down
that portions cut out of living animals are
also considered mayta . The way is at least
paved for the declaration that all forbid-
den animal-dishes are mayta . The regula-
tions found in the urān appear again
here, e.g. the permission to eat mayta in
case of need and to slay properly dying
animals at the moment to prevent them
becoming mayta .
Some traditions handed down through
ammād from Ibrāhīm al-Na ¶ aī bring
us to a somewhat late period: one says that
of the creatures of the sea, only fishes can
be eaten; another, which is found in two
versions, limits the permission to what is
thrown up by the sea or left behind by
the tide; ritual slaughter is not demanded
in this case. The question whether the
embryo of a slaughtered dam requires a