Food Sources: Earth, Water, and Air - Food Culture and Health in Pre-Modern Islamic Societies - page 93

special purification, i.e. ritual slaughter, is
raised in one tradition and decided in the
affirmative.
The most important regulations of
Muslim law about mayta , which express
the last stage of development, are as fol-
lows. It is unanimously agreed that mayta
in the legal sense is impure and “forbid-
den” ( arām ), i.e. cannot be eaten, and also
that fish are exceptions to this; the Mālikīs
and anbalīs also except the majority of
creatures of the sea, and according to the
more correct · āfiī view, this applies to
all marine creatures (the anbalīs here
hold the opinion of Ibrāhīm al-Na ¶ aī,
except that the two ideas of “thrown
up” and “swimming on the surface” are
later overlaid and destroyed by the to
some extent synonymous phrase “slain by
another cause”, “died of itself ”). The edi-
ble parts of mayta are also mayta , as are the
bones, hair etc. among the · āfiīs, but
not the anafīs, and among the Mālikīs
only the bones; the hide, when tanned, is
considered pure and may be used. Emer-
gency slaughter ( £ akāt or ta £ kiya ; ritual
slaughter in general is £ ab or nar ) is,
according to the anafīs and the better-
known view of the · āfiīs (also according
to al-Zuhrī), permitted, even if the animal
will certainly die, provided it still shows
signs of life at the moment of slaugh-
ter. According to the view predominant
among the Mālikīs, such slaughter is not
valid and the animal becomes mayta (in
contrast to Mālik's own view). The ques-
tion of the embryo (cf. above) is answered
in the affirmative by the anafīs, follow-
ing Ibrāhīm al-Na ¶ aī and Abū anīfa
( · aybānī himself held the Mālikī view, to
be mentioned immediately below) but in
the negative by the Mālikīs and · āfiīs (in
this case, it is said that “the ritual slaugh-
ter of the dam is also the ritual slaughter
of the embryo”), except that the Mālikīs
made it a condition that the embryo

should be fully developed (Mālik himself
also demanded its slaughter “to draw
the blood from it” in the case where the
embryo had been dropped). That anyone
who is forced to eat mayta may do so, is
the unanimous opinion; only on the ques-
tions whether one is bound to eat mayta
to save his life, whether he should satisfy
his hunger completely, or only eat the
minimum to keep life alive, etc., is there
a difference of opinion. The · āfiīs and
anbalīs further demand that one should
not have been brought to these straits
through illegal action (a different interpre-
tation of the urānic regulations).
A clear definition of mayta and its dis-
tinction from other kinds of forbidden
animal foods was never reached. Some-
times it is separated on the authority of
the urānic passage itself from its own
four subdivisions given in sūra V. Some-
times its validity is extended over exten-
sive allied fields. As is evident from the
fih topics, this terminological uncertainty
has not infrequently caused still further
confusion in the discussion of differences
of opinion.

( J. Schacht*)

4. H UNTING

Hunting, Fishing

Sayd (Ar.), a masc. noun and noun
of action from the root -y-d which, as
in Hebrew, evokes both the idea of the
pursuit and capture of wild animals, by
earth or sea, which can be eaten as game,
and also these animals themselves, i.e. all
game, whether caught by hunting or fish-
ing. In all its acceptations, the root -n-
is its exact equivalent.
The ineluctable need for daily suste-
nance has led mankind, like all other living