Juristic Rulings on Non-Ahl al-Kitāb Slaughter and Pork Derivatives: A Critical Study of Refutation of al-Qaradawi’s View by al-ʿUdaynī

غیراہل کتاب کے ذبیحے اور خنزیر کے مشتقات کےفقہی احکام: علامہ قرضاوی کے موقِف پر علامہ عُدَینی کے رد کا تحقیقی جائزہ

Abstract

This research critically examines the jurisprudential debate between Allama Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Allama Ahmad al-ʿUdaynī regarding two central issues in Islamic dietary law: the permissibility of consuming the slaughtered animals of non-People of the Book (kuffār) and the use of pork derivatives. The first section provides an overview of the scholarly contributions, intellectual methodologies, and juristic orientations of both al-Qaradawi and al-ʿUdaynī, situating their perspectives within the broader historical and theoretical context of Islamic jurisprudence. The second section analyzes al-Qaradawi’s position on the permissibility of non-Ahl al-Kitāb slaughter, grounded in considerations of necessity and contemporary realities, and contrasts it with al-ʿUdaynī’s rigorous critique based on Qur’ānic injunctions, Prophetic traditions, and juristic consensus (ijmāʿ). The third section explores the contested issue of pork derivatives, focusing on al-Qaradawi’s arguments of transformation (istiḥāla) and necessity (ḍarūra), and al-ʿUdaynī’s firm rejection rooted in the immutable impurity (najāsah) of swine and adherence to classical rulings. By conducting a comparative analysis, this study highlights the methodological divergence between reformist and traditionalist approaches, underlining the ongoing tension in contemporary fiqh between legal flexibility, practical necessity, and doctrinal integrity.