Light Upon Light Blog

4 Comments

• #1 by BrownS on August 10, 2009 - 3:30 am

  Reply Quote

  

  Salaam

  Hope you and family are well bro.

  IMHO the legal status of halal/haramness would depend on the amount of glycerin in the bars. I took a class with Sh. Yasir Qadhi on fiqh of food recently and according to him the rule concerning istihlaak is agreed upon by the scholars, i.e. that extremely small quantities of impure/haram substances don’t make the entire quantity haram or najs. He said there wasn’t a percentage, but roughly less than 1% is clearly OK and above 10% is clearly not OK, and we should use our judgment in general.

  That’s from the fiqhi or fatwa angle. If you want to avoid it as a matter of taqwa, may Allah reward you for it.

  I also found a more detailed explanation of this in his Doritos piece from a few years ago. Posting relevant portion below this.

  –
  http://muslimmatters.org/2007/07/09/of-mice-and-men-the-cheese-factor/

  The next issue is really the crux of the matter. It concerns the quantity and residuum of an impure substance when mixed with a pure one. Now, there is pretty much unanimous agreement amongst the scholars that an extremely minute quantity of an impure substance, when added to a large quantity of a pure one, will not make the final substance impure. For example, if a glass of urine is thrown into an average-size lake, no scholar would consider the entire lake to be impure. Although the overall principle is a matter of agreement, there is no clear consensus on exactly how much impurity would affect a pure substance. So the real issue here is how to define what constitutes a miniscule quantity versus what would constitute a significant quantity. But the basic point is agreed upon: if an extremely minute quantity of an impurity is totally dissolved in a much larger quantity of a pure substance, such that the impurity does not leave any discernable presence (this is called istihl?k), the resultant substance will still be pure.

  This fiqh principle is primarily derived from the famous had?th, “When water reaches two qullas (a specific quantity of water), it will not become impure” [Narrated by Ab? Daw?d]. Another evidence is the had?th of the ‘Well of Bud?’ah’.

  Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah writes, commenting on the had?th of the two qullas, “So when it is clear that the water being asked about was of a large quantity – two qullas – and a large quantity is not affected by impurities, but rather is dissolved in it, this shows that the ruling [of whether something is pure or not] is dependant on whether the impurity is carried [by the pure substance], meaning that its presence is obvious, and in this case it will be impure. But if it has been completely diffused in the pure substance, then it does not have any residual effects [and the substance is pure]. So, with regards to these oils, and milks, and sweet and sour drinks, and other substances that are pure, since any impurities [contained in it] have been completely consumed (istihl?k) and altered, then how can the pure that Allah has permitted be considered impermissible?! And who is there who has said that if a quantity of impurity mixes with a pure substance such that it is totally consumed by it (itsihl?k) and altered in it, that the substance will be impermissible? Rather, there is nothing to suggest this from the Quran, or the Sunnah, or unanimous consensus, or analogy. And that is why the Prophet (saw) said, in the had?th of the Well of Bud?’ah, when he was told that menstrual pads and dog carcasses and impurities fall into it, ‘Pure water is not made impure by anything’” [Mukhtasar al-Fat?wa al-Masriyyah, p. 20; also see Majm?' al-Fat?wa vol. 21, p. 502].

  Other scholars also give similar rulings. For example, Ibn Hazm claimed that if an impure substance is dissolved in a larger quantity of purity, to such an extent that the final product does not carry the name of the impure substance (i.e., such that the impure substance will not be a significant part of the final product), then the impermissibility that was initially applied to the impure substance will be removed from the final product, since the final product is not called that impure substance. As an example, he states that if a drop of wine were to fall into water, no effect is demonstrated, and the same applies for all other substances as well [al-Muhall?, vol 7, p. 422].

  And this is the opinion of many modern fiqh bodies as well. The European Council for Fatwa issued a fatwa (Number 34, issued in Jumad al-Akhirah 1419 A.H.) stating that any impure substance added to pure food items does not make the food impure if either: (a) the substance underwent a complete chemical change (istih?la), or (b) was totally used up and dissolved in the food item, such that its traces became negligible (istihl?k). Based upon this principle, since the quantity of animal rennet in cheese is very insignificant, it would then follow that even if the rennet used to manufacture it was impure, the final cheese would be completely and totally pure. There would be no difference whether impermissible bovine rennet or porcine rennet was used. Since the quantity is so trivial, it is considered to be completely used up (istihl?k) by the pure elements, such as the milk, which makes up the bulk of the cheese. (See below for a more detailed look at the quantity of rennet involved in the manufacture of cheese).

  • #2 by Abdullah on August 10, 2009 - 3:59 pm

    Reply Quote

    

    MashaAllah, thanks for the reply. BTW You will notice I did not say it was haram, i just said I wouldn’t eat it….

    • #3 by BrownS on August 12, 2009 - 12:15 am

      Quote

      

      Your title asks the question

      Quaker Dipps Chocolate Chip Granola Bars – Halal/Haram?

• #4 by QuestforthePath on August 29, 2009 - 4:22 pm

  Reply Quote

  

  Assalam-u-Alaikum,
  Please do read the following, another important aspect to consider.

  http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=404030#post404030

  Respected brother Abu Hajira,
  It would be really appreciated if you can comment on the following article:

  http://muslimmatters.org/2007/07/09/…cheese-factor/

  Response by Mufti Husain

  Such a small amount would be forgiven when it doesn’t have an effect on the large quantity it has been mixed with, as it could then be classified as nonexistent, due to all signs of it having been obliterated, as in the case of the drop of blood.

  Rennet on the other hand has a definite, clearly visible effect on the mixture, infact its role is vital in the cheese-making process, thus there is no way it could be classified as non-existent.
  A better analogy would be to compare this tiny quantity of rennet to a drop of highly concentrated, potent poison which is effective even when applied to many litres of water. Would this be labelled poisoned water or just plain untainted water?