TWELVERSHIADOTNET DID NOT DEFEND THE SUNNI CANNIBALISM RULING — IT ONLY SHOUTED “AL-TUSI SAID IT TOO”
Response to:
“They’re Coming to Get You…”
TwelverShia.net, April 25, 2013
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/04/25/response-to-theyre-coming-to-get-you/
TwelverShia.net was confronted with a disturbing ruling recorded in Sunni fiqh:
A starving person may kill a living human being classified as “mubah al-dam” and eat his flesh.
Instead of defending this ruling through the Qur’an, an authentic Prophetic hadith or rational legal principles, the article runs to Shaykh al-Tusi and says:
“A Shia scholar also said something similar.”
That is not a refutation.
It is an admission followed by whataboutism.
Even if al-Tusi’s quotation is accepted exactly as written, it does not prove that the Sunni ruling is correct.
It only proves that an extreme juristic hypothetical also appeared in one major Shia fiqh book.
If two jurists record a disturbing position, the position does not suddenly become rational, moral or divinely established.
THE ACTUAL SUNNI RULING
Al-Qurtubi records from al-Shafi‘i:
قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ: يَأْكُلُ لَحْمَ ابْنِ آدَمَ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ لَهُ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ ذِمِّيًّا؛ لِأَنَّ دَمَهُ مَحْقُونٌ، وَلَا مُسْلِمًا وَلَا أَسِيرًا، فَإِنْ كَانَ حَرْبِيًّا أَوْ زَانِيًا مُحْصَنًا جَازَ قَتْلُهُ وَالْأَكْلُ مِنْهُ
“Al-Shafi‘i said: He may eat the flesh of a human being. He may not kill a dhimmi because his blood is protected, nor a Muslim, nor a captive. But if he is a harbi or a married adulterer, it is permissible to kill him and eat from him.”
Reference: Al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, commentary on Qur’an 2:173.
The wording is not merely:
“He may eat a body that has already died.”
It says:
جَازَ قَتْلُهُ وَالْأَكْلُ مِنْهُ
“It is permissible to kill him and eat from him.”
This is the ruling that required a defence.
TwelverShia.net never provides one.
AL-NAWAWI CONFIRMS THAT EATING HUMAN FLESH WAS THE SHAFI‘I POSITION
This was not an isolated sentence accidentally attributed to al-Shafi‘i.
Al-Nawawi states:
إِذَا وَجَدَ الْمُضْطَرُّ آدَمِيًّا مَيِّتًا حَلَّ لَهُ أَكْلُهُ عِنْدَنَا
“When a starving person finds a dead human being, it is lawful for him to eat him according to our school.”
Reference: Al-Nawawi, al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab.
The important words are:
عِنْدَنَا
“According to our school.”
Therefore, the permissibility of consuming human flesh in extreme starvation was recognised as a Shafi‘i madhhab ruling.
TwelverShia.net cannot erase this by quoting al-Tusi.
THE HANBALI RULING WAS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT
The Sunni material cited in the Saudi scholarly research records:
وَإِنْ كَانَ مُبَاحَ الدَّمِ كَالْحَرْبِيِّ وَالْمُرْتَدِّ فَذَكَرَ الْقَاضِي أَنَّ لَهُ قَتْلَهُ وَأَكْلَهُ؛ لِأَنَّ قَتْلَهُ مُبَاحٌ
“If the person’s blood is considered permissible, such as a harbi or apostate, al-Qadi stated that the starving person may kill and eat him, because killing him is permissible.”
Al-Mardawi states:
فَإِنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ إِلَّا آدَمِيًّا مُبَاحَ الدَّمِ كَالْحَرْبِيِّ وَالزَّانِي الْمُحْصَنِ حَلَّ قَتْلُهُ وَأَكْلُهُ، هَذَا الْمَذْهَبُ وَعَلَيْهِ جَمَاهِيرُ الْأَصْحَابِ
“If he finds no one except a human whose blood is considered permissible, such as a harbi or a married adulterer, it is lawful to kill and eat him. This is the madhhab and the majority of its scholars follow it.”
Reference: Al-Mardawi, al-Insaf.
Read the words carefully:
حَلَّ قَتْلُهُ وَأَكْلُهُ
“It is lawful to kill and eat him.”
And:
هَذَا الْمَذْهَبُ وَعَلَيْهِ جَمَاهِيرُ الْأَصْحَابِ
“This is the madhhab and the majority of the scholars of the school follow it.”
This was not merely one eccentric opinion hidden in a forgotten book.
Al-Mardawi identifies it as the Hanbali madhhab position followed by the majority of its scholars.
TwelverShia.net’s comparison with al-Tusi therefore makes the Sunni problem larger, not smaller.
THE ARTICLE SANITISES “KILL AND EAT HIM”
TwelverShia.net translates the ruling into softer expressions such as:
“An enemy soldier.”
“A criminal deserving the death penalty.”
But the actual fiqh wording is:
قَتْلُهُ وَأَكْلُهُ
“To kill him and eat him.”
The books do not merely describe eating the body of a criminal after a lawful court has convicted and executed him.
They discuss the starving individual himself killing the person for food because the victim has been placed within the category of “mubah al-dam.”
That immediately raises questions the article refuses to answer:
Who established that the person was guilty?
Who proved adultery through the required witnesses or confession?
Who determined that the person was a harbi?
Who ruled upon apostasy?
Who issued the death sentence?
Who gave the starving traveller the authority to carry out the execution?
Can a private individual become investigator, judge, executioner, butcher and consumer?
The article does not answer any of this.
It simply changes the wording from:
“Kill him and eat him”
to:
“An enemy soldier or criminal.”
This is not legal clarification.
It is public-relations language designed to conceal the actual ruling.
“AL-TUSI SAID IT TOO” IS NOT EVIDENCE
TwelverShia.net quotes Shaykh al-Tusi:
وَإِنْ كَانَ مُبَاحَ الدَّمِ كَالْكَافِرِ الْأَصْلِيِّ وَالْمُرْتَدِّ وَالزَّانِي الْمُحْصَنِ، وَالْمَقْدُورِ عَلَيْهِ فِي الْمُحَارَبَةِ قَبْلَ التَّوْبَةِ، كَانَ كَالْمَيْتَةِ وَيُؤْكَلُ؛ لِأَنَّهُ مُبَاحُ الدَّمِ
“If his blood is considered permissible, such as an original disbeliever, apostate, married adulterer or captured brigand before repentance, he is treated like carrion and may be eaten, because his blood is permissible.”
Reference: Al-Tusi, al-Mabsut, vol. 6, p. 287.
The quotation is genuine.
But what does it prove?
It proves that al-Tusi made a juristic deduction similar to deductions found in Sunni books.
It does not prove that al-Shafi‘i’s ruling is correct.
It does not prove that the Hanbali ruling is correct.
It does not prove that killing a human for food is taught by the Prophet ﷺ.
It does not prove that the Qur’an authorises a starving individual to execute someone.
It does not provide a sound narration from Imam al-Baqir or Imam al-Sadiq specifically permitting a starving person to kill and consume another human.
TwelverShia.net produced a jurist’s opinion, not a revelation.
The article regularly demands chains and authentication when examining Shia narrations.
Where is the sahih hadith from the Ahl al-Bayt for this exact ruling?
Where is the authentic Prophetic narration permitting a starving traveller to kill a human being for food?
None is presented.
The article therefore answers fiqh with more fiqh, speculation with more speculation and one jurist’s opinion with another jurist’s opinion.
THE SUNNI RULING HAD FORMAL MADHHAB STATUS
The comparison is especially weak because the Sunni material openly describes these rulings as school doctrine.
Al-Nawawi says:
عِنْدَنَا
“According to our school.”
Al-Mardawi says:
هَذَا الْمَذْهَبُ
“This is the madhhab.”
And:
عَلَيْهِ جَمَاهِيرُ الْأَصْحَابِ
“The majority of the scholars of the school follow it.”
TwelverShia.net did not merely face a random opinion attributed to one dead jurist.
It faced documented Shafi‘i and Hanbali madhhab positions.
Its answer was not:
“This attribution is false.”
Nor:
“This position was rejected by the madhhab.”
Nor:
“There is an authentic hadith prohibiting this interpretation.”
Its answer was:
“Al-Tusi also said it.”
That is not a defence of Sunni fiqh.
It is a desperate attempt to share the embarrassment.
THE SAUDI SOURCE DOES NOT ENDORSE ALL THREE OPINIONS
TwelverShia.net cites Abhath Hay’at Kibar al-‘Ulama’ and announces that Islamic fiqh contains three positions:
1. Human flesh remains forbidden under all circumstances.
2. A dead non-Muslim may be eaten, and a living “mubah al-dam” person may be killed and eaten.
3. Any dead human may be eaten in extreme necessity.
But the Saudi source is a comparative research survey collecting different juristic opinions.
A book listing three positions does not mean that all three are divinely correct.
It does not convert contradiction into harmony.
It does not establish the second position through revelation.
Ironically, the same survey preserves the most damaging Hanbali wording:
هَذَا الْمَذْهَبُ وَعَلَيْهِ جَمَاهِيرُ الْأَصْحَابِ
“This is the madhhab and the majority of its scholars follow it.”
The article cites a source that further confirms the institutional Sunni ruling it was supposed to defend.
“NECESSITY MAKES EVERYTHING PERMISSIBLE” IS FALSE
TwelverShia.net writes that in extreme necessity:
“All that is prohibited becomes permissible.”
This is careless and false as an absolute statement.
The recognised legal maxim is:
الضَّرُورَاتُ تُبِيحُ الْمَحْظُورَاتِ
“Necessities permit prohibitions.”
But it is restricted by another maxim:
الضَّرُورَةُ تُقَدَّرُ بِقَدَرِهَا
“Necessity is measured according to its extent.”
Necessity does not create unlimited permission.
There must be a real and immediate threat.
No lawful alternative must exist.
Only the minimum required amount may be taken.
The permission ends when the necessity ends.
Most importantly, preserving one person’s life does not automatically authorise that person to intentionally take another life.
Eating carrion and killing a living human are not equivalent acts.
Pork does not possess a right to life.
A dead animal is not a legal subject.
A living human being is.
TwelverShia.net moves from:
“A starving person may eat forbidden food”
to:
“A starving person may personally kill a human and eat him”
without defending the enormous moral and legal leap between the two.
“MUBAH AL-DAM” DOES NOT MEAN PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE HUNGRY
Even if Islamic law classifies a person as legally liable to execution, it does not follow that every private individual may execute him for personal benefit.
A convicted offender does not become ownerless meat.
A judicial death sentence is not a food licence.
Punishment belongs to lawful judicial authority, not to whoever happens to be starving.
TwelverShia.net never explains how a legal liability to execution becomes permission for private cannibalism.
The logic of the ruling is:
He may legally be killed.
Therefore, the starving person may kill him.
After killing him, he is carrion.
Therefore, the starving person may eat him.
But the first conclusion does not follow from the premise.
A person’s legal liability to punishment does not authorise any individual to enforce that punishment whenever it serves his private interest.
The missing judicial authority destroys the entire deduction.
THE ARTICLE DOES NOT PROVE THE RULING FROM THE QUR’AN
Allah says concerning necessity:
فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَلَا إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ
“But whoever is compelled by necessity, neither desiring it nor transgressing, there is no sin upon him.”
Qur’an 2:173
The verse concerns prohibited foods such as carrion, blood and pork.
It does not state:
“If a person is hungry, he may identify someone as mubah al-dam, kill him and consume his flesh.”
The crucial phrase is:
غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ
“Neither transgressing nor exceeding the limit.”
How can killing another human for personal food automatically be assumed not to be transgression?
That requires separate evidence.
TwelverShia.net offers none.
NO AUTHENTIC PROPHETIC HADITH IS PRESENTED
The article does not present a sahih Prophetic narration stating:
“If a Muslim fears starvation, he may kill a harbi, apostate or convicted adulterer and eat him.”
It does not provide a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari.
It does not provide one in Sahih Muslim.
It does not provide an accepted report from the Ahl al-Bayt.
It provides only juristic deductions.
Therefore, this extreme ruling cannot be presented as though it were a clear teaching of Islam.
It is an example of medieval jurists taking abstract legal categories to an appalling conclusion.
THE ARTICLE NEVER ANSWERS THE BASIC MORAL QUESTION
Suppose two starving human beings are trapped together.
One belongs to a legally protected category.
The other is classified by a jurist as “mubah al-dam.”
Does the second person’s body suddenly become food for the first?
Does hunger give the first person judicial authority?
Does the classification “harbi” erase the second person’s humanity?
Can the starving individual kill him without trial?
Can he eat him before any lawful authority examines the case?
The article answers none of these questions.
It simply repeats:
“His blood was permissible.”
That phrase is being used to avoid confronting the ruling’s brutality.
THE ARTICLE’S ENTIRE RESPONSE IS A FALLACY
The argument of TwelverShia.net can be reduced to this:
A Sunni fiqh ruling was criticised.
Al-Tusi held a similar ruling.
Therefore, the criticism fails.
This is the tu quoque fallacy.
If someone criticises poison, proving that another person also drank poison does not make poison healthy.
If someone criticises an immoral ruling, finding the same ruling in another tradition does not make it moral.
At most, the article proves that a disturbing legal hypothetical entered both Sunni and some Imami fiqh literature.
That is not vindication.
It is shared juristic failure.
FINAL VERDICT
TwelverShia.net did not refute the Sunni fiqhi permission to kill and eat a human classified as “mubah al-dam.”
It did not deny the quotation.
It did not weaken its attribution.
It did not prove that the Shafi‘i school rejected it.
It did not prove that the Hanbali school rejected it.
It did not provide a Qur’anic verse specifically authorising it.
It did not provide an authentic Prophetic hadith specifically authorising it.
It did not explain who establishes the victim’s guilt.
It did not explain who gives the starving individual authority to execute him.
It did not explain why legal liability to execution makes a human body available for private consumption.
It did not distinguish judicial punishment from private survival interest.
It did not defend the leap from eating carrion to killing a living human.
It simply quoted al-Tusi.
But quoting al-Tusi does not erase these Sunni statements:
يَأْكُلُ لَحْمَ ابْنِ آدَمَ
“He may eat human flesh.”
جَازَ قَتْلُهُ وَالْأَكْلُ مِنْهُ
“It is permissible to kill him and eat from him.”
حَلَّ قَتْلُهُ وَأَكْلُهُ
“It is lawful to kill and eat him.”
هَذَا الْمَذْهَبُ وَعَلَيْهِ جَمَاهِيرُ الْأَصْحَابِ
“This is the madhhab and the majority of its scholars follow it.”
These are documented Sunni fiqhi rulings.
TwelverShia.net’s article is not a defence of them.
It is an attempt to distract readers from them.
The final result is simple:
Al-Tusi’s opinion may also be criticised.
But his opinion does not make the Sunni ruling disappear.
It does not make the ruling Qur’anic.
It does not make it Prophetic.
It does not make private execution lawful.
It does not make cannibalism humane.
And it does not turn whataboutism into a refutation.
The Sunni Cannibalism Ruling Examined
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...