The various fiqh books prescribed for Al-Azhar middle and secondary school students include, among other things, the permissible and forbidden aspects of eating the flesh of a dead body, whether Christian, Jewish, or infidel. This is stated in the book “Al-Rawd Al-Murabba’ fi Sharh Zad Al-Mustanqi’” (The Garden of the Maraba’ in Explanation of Zad Al-Mustanqi’) by Mansour ibn Yunus Al-Buhuti, who died 500 years ago. In this book, which is based on Hanbali fiqh and prescribed for Al-Azhar secondary school students, Al-Buhuti states that eating the flesh of a dead non-Muslim is permissible for a Muslim in cases of necessity. However, he rejects the application of the principle that “the sanctity of the living is greater than the sanctity of the dead” in the opposite situation. He believes that the honor of Islam forbids the meat of a dead Muslim for a living non-Muslim in cases of necessity.
In the book “Al-Iqna’ fi Hall Alfath Abi Shuja’” by Imam Al-Sharbini, which is prescribed for secondary school students in jurisprudence according to the Shafi’i school of thought, the author says: “It is permissible for someone in need to eat a dead human if he cannot find another dead human being, because the sanctity of the living is greater than the sanctity of the dead. An exception is made if the dead person is a prophet, in which case it is not permissible to eat a part of him. If it is said, how is this exception valid when the prophets are alive in their graves praying, as is confirmed in the hadiths? The answer is that this is expected from someone in need who finds the dead body of a prophet before his burial.”
He added: “However, if the deceased is a Muslim and the one in need is an infidel, then it is not permissible to eat from it due to the honor of Islam. While we permit eating the dead body of a human, it is not permissible to cook or roast it, as that violates its sanctity. In this regard, one has the choice between eating it raw or otherwise.”
However, cannibalism is not regulated in Al-Azhar’s curriculum due to the necessity of preserving the life of a Muslim if necessary. There are cases in which cannibalism is a punishment for disbelief and abandoning the religion. In the book “Al-Iqna’ fi Hall Alfath Abi Shuja’” according to the Shafi’i school of thought, the author says: “He (the Muslim combatant) has the right to kill an apostate and eat him, or to kill a combatant even if he is young, or a woman and eat her, because they are not infallible. It is only forbidden to kill a combatant boy and a combatant woman except in cases of necessity due to their sanctity. He has the right to kill a married adulterer, a combatant, someone who abandons prayer, or anyone against whom retaliation is due, even if the imam has not given permission for the killing, because killing them is deserved. His permission is only given as a courtesy, and in cases of necessity there is no courtesy.”
However, the book mitigates the ruling on eating young boys fighting against Muslims, due to their economic value when they are captured, sold, or used as slaves. The book says: “The ruling on the insane people of war, their slaves (i.e. their male slaves), and their hermaphrodites is like their young boys. Ibn Abd al-Salam said, ‘If someone in need finds a boy with an adult warring party, he should eat the adult and refrain from eating the boy, because eating him would be a waste of money, and because true disbelief is more severe than legal disbelief.’”
What is permissible to eat and what is forbidden. Interpretations on this subject varied, including the usual, such as eating camels, cattle, and cows, and others that were strange, such as “eating human flesh” and “it is permissible to kill an apostate and eat his flesh.”
In the chapter on foods, the book “Al-Rawd Al-Murabba’ fi Sharh Zad Al-Mustaqni’” (The Garden of the Murabba’ in Explanation of Zad Al-Mustaqni’), which is prescribed for Al-Azhar secondary school in all its parts and explains Hanbali jurisprudence, mentioned that eating “hyena” is permissible. He based this on a hadith narrated by Jabir and attributed to the Prophet, in which he said: “The Messenger of God ordered us to eat hyena.” The author also permitted eating horses according to the Hanbali method, in contrast to the Hanafi method, which forbade eating horses and Malik disliked them. The author permitted eating zebras, jerboas, peacocks, parrots, and crows. He also permitted all sea foods with the exception of frogs, crocodiles, and snakes.
The book, which is studied by Al-Azhar students, permits eating locusts, and relies on the hadith of Ibn Amr, which is attributed to the Prophet, in which he says: “Two dead things and two types of blood are permissible for us. The two dead things are fish and locusts, and the two types of blood are the liver and the spleen.” He forbade eating live fish, and disliked grilling it while it was alive (i.e., roasting it).
This is the same view held by the book “Al-Iqna’ fi Hall Alfath Abi Shuja’,” which is studied by students of Shafi’i jurisprudence. It permits the eating of locusts based on the same hadith, but the book presents it in a different form, saying: “Two dead things and two types of blood are permitted for us: fish, locusts, the liver, and the spleen.”
The book “Al-Sharh Al-Sagheer” by Imam “Ahmad Al-Dardeer” in his explanation of Maliki jurisprudence, in the chapter “What is permissible to eat”, forbade eating game that was hunted jointly by a Muslim and a “non-Muslim”. He said: “If a Muslim shoots his arrow and the non-Muslim shoots his arrow and they both hit him and he dies, then the game is not to be eaten because of the uncertainty over what is permissible.” Al-Manhaj forbade a Muslim from eating what was slaughtered by a “dhimmi”, whether Christian or Jewish.
The book permitted eating giraffes and locusts, and also permitted eating the meat of “dead animals” in case of necessity, rather than pork. It said: “If a pilgrim finds a dead animal, a pig, or game that a pilgrim has hunted, he should give precedence to the dead animal over the pig or the forbidden game (meaning that if a pilgrim in need finds a dead animal and the pilgrim hunts a live animal, he should give precedence to the dead animal over the slaughtered game).
In the book “Al-Iqna’” by Imam Al-Sharbini, the author says: “It is permissible for someone in need to eat a dead human if he does not find another dead human, because the sanctity of the living is greater than the sanctity of the dead. An exception is made if the dead person is a prophet, as it is not permissible to eat a part of him. If it is said, how is this exception valid when the prophets are alive in their graves praying, as is confirmed in the hadiths? The answer is that this is expected from someone in need who finds the dead body of a prophet before his burial.”
He added: “However, if the deceased is a Muslim and the one in need is an infidel, then it is not permissible to eat from it due to the honor of Islam. While we permit eating the dead body of a human, it is not permissible to cook or roast it, as that violates its sanctity. In this regard, one has the choice between eating it raw or otherwise.”
The author continues, in the book on Imam al-Shafi’i’s jurisprudence: “He has the right to kill an apostate and eat his food, and to kill a combatant even if he is a child, or a woman and eat her food, because they are not infallible. It is only forbidden to kill a combatant child and a combatant woman except in cases of necessity due to their sanctity. He has the right to kill a married adulterer, a combatant, someone who abandons prayer, or anyone against whom retaliation is due, even if the imam did not authorize the killing, because killing them is deserved. His permission is only given as a form of respect, and in cases of necessity there is no respect for good manners.” He adds, “The ruling on the insane among the combatants, their slaves, and their hermaphrodites is like their children. Ibn Abd al-Salam said, ‘If someone in need finds a child with an adult combatant, he should eat the adult and refrain from eating the child, because eating him would be a waste of money, and because true disbelief is more severe than legal disbelief.’”
