The Prohibition of Pork

Muhammad Hassan Ilyas

In matters of food and drink, the basis of permissibility and prohibition rests upon the distinction between pure (tayyib) and impure (khabith). Accordingly, wholesome things are lawful, whereas impure things are unlawful. Religion seeks the purification of the human self in every respect; therefore, it requires that, alongside inner purification, the distinction between pure and impure be observed in matters of consumption under all circumstances. This distinction is grounded in an innate criterion embedded within human nature itself. For this reason, recognition of impure things has never been alien to human beings. By virtue of natural habits and instinctive inclinations, humans feel an inherent aversion toward certain things. Gradually, this feeling develops into a consistent pattern of conduct and ultimately assumes the form of a clear moral avoidance. As a result, humans not only refrain individually from consuming such things but also, at a collective level, avoid accepting them as food.

However, there are certain cases in which, despite natural guidance, practical application does not become entirely clear. This occurs because some animals simultaneously exhibit characteristics belonging to different categories in their physical structure as well as instinctive and dietary habits, making it difficult to determine with certainty, at the natural level, whether they belong to the pure or impure class. In such situations, these overlapping similarities create ambiguity and confusion for human reason. The issue of animal consumption represents a prominent example of this kind. To clarify this distinction, the Quran has provided principled guidance regarding lawful animals. It states:

أُحِلَّتْ لَكُم بَهِيمَةُ الْأَنْعَامِ.

Livestock animals have been made lawful for you. (Al-Maidah 5:1)

The expression ‘bahimah al-anām’ refers to animals that are grazing by nature—that is, whose diet consists entirely of vegetation. In modern terminology, these are called herbivores. Examples include cattle, goats, and sheep. Their physical structure, digestive system, and general habits are all suited to grazing, and they possess no natural inclination toward animal prey. Such animals have been declared lawful.

From this Quranic guidance, it becomes self-evident that animals not included within this category fall among the impure. Thus, animals that hunt, attack with claws and sharp teeth, tear and rip apart their prey, and display predatory instincts fall outside this domain. The Prophet (PBUH) further clarified the Quranic intent by describing the outward signs of predation. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (RA):

نَهَى عَنْ كُلِّ ذِي نَابٍ مِنَ السَّبَاعِ وَعَنْ كُلِّ ذِي مِخْلَبٍ مِنَ الطَّيْرِ.

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) forbade the consumption of every beast possessing fangs and every bird that hunts with talons. (Sahih Muslim, No. 5103)

This guidance of the Quran thus clearly establishes the division between pure and impure in matters of consumption. However, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) also drew attention to another highly important principle through which the domains of lawful, unlawful, and doubtful matters are clarified. He said:

الحلال بين والحرام بين وبينهما مشتبهات 

The lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear, and between them are doubtful matters. (Sahih Bukhari, No. 52)

That is, permissibility and prohibition are fundamentally clear, yet between them certain matters may arise that involve ambiguity. It is precisely at this point that questions of application emerge regarding some animals.

In such cases, decisive guidance is obtained from the natural dietary habits of animals, because these habits practically manifest the distinction between purity and impurity. When dietary behavior is taken as the basis, the situation becomes largely clear. On one side are herbivores that subsist purely on vegetation; these fall within the category of bahimah al-anām and are lawful. On the other side are carnivores that hunt and, by virtue of their predatory nature, fall outside this category. The real question concerns a third category—animals that consume both plant and animal matter, known as omnivores.

Although omnivorous animals form a broad category, clear distinctions exist within it. Among land animals, bears, baboons, and certain species of monkeys are classified as omnivores, yet they share a fundamental trait: they actively hunt, attack with claws and teeth, tear apart prey, and display evident predatory instincts. These characteristics remove them from the mere category of omnivores and place them, in principle, among predatory beasts. Therefore, no additional textual directive is required concerning them.

By contrast, some omnivorous animals cannot be deemed predatory merely because of omnivory. Birds such as chickens and ducks may consume insects or small organisms, yet they neither hunt nor tear apart prey; rather, they swallow what they eat. Their claws are not designed for hunting, nor do they possess predatory instincts. Hence, their status does not remain doubtful. The same principle applies to fish. Many fish swallow their food and lack teeth designed for tearing prey, leaving no ambiguity regarding them. In contrast, certain fish—such as sharks—tear apart prey, possess teeth specifically suited for this purpose, and clearly exhibit predatory traits; thus, they also fall, in principle, within the predatory category.

After these clarifications, the case of the pig comes into view, and this is precisely where ambiguity becomes fully apparent. The pig is neither like bears and baboons, whose form and behavior clearly reveal predation, nor like chickens and ducks, whose dietary habits decisively clarify their status.

At first glance, the pig appears close to livestock such as goats and cattle due to its physical structure, especially its cloven hooves. Moreover, it becomes domesticated, lives alongside humans, and its meat is considered palatable. This outward resemblance and familiarity bring it seemingly close to the category of bahimah al-anām. Furthermore, whether domestic or wild, pigs are not fundamentally hunting animals. They neither pursue prey nor systematically kill animals, nor do they attack using claws in the manner characteristic of predators. From this perspective, placing them among purely carnivorous beasts does not appear immediately correct.

However, when analysis moves beyond outward resemblance to dietary habits, another aspect of the pig’s animal nature becomes evident. Being omnivorous, when animal food becomes available, the pig does not merely swallow it; rather, it bites, chews, and crushes it with powerful jaws. The structure of its jaws and the presence of molars enable it to tear raw meat—an ability absent in purely herbivorous animals.

Thus, while certain outward features resemble livestock, predatory tendencies associated with flesh consumption are also clearly present. This internal contradiction produces ambiguity regarding the animal’s true classification. The Torah describes this ambiguity by stating that it possesses cloven hooves but does not chew the cud. The Book of Leviticus states:

And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You shall not eat their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:7–8)¹

Here, cud-chewing is not merely an animal habit; rather, it signifies that the animal’s nature and digestive system are fully designed for plant-based nourishment. Animals such as cattle, goats, and sheep first swallow vegetation and then bring it back to chew again, clearly demonstrating their purely herbivorous nature. Since the pig does not perform this process, it does not truly belong to the category of grazing livestock despite possessing cloven hooves.

In view of this principled distinction and ambiguous condition, the Quran did not leave the matter to human conjecture or estimation. Instead, it explicitly declared the pig unlawful, thereby resolving the issue with complete certainty so that no ambiguity remains regarding lawful and unlawful matters. It states:

اِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَیۡکُمُ الۡمَیۡتَۃَ وَ الدَّمَ وَ لَحۡمَ الۡخِنۡزِیۡرِ وَ مَاۤ اُہِلَّ بِہٖ لِغَیۡرِ اللّٰہِ

He has only forbidden for you carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. (Al-Baqarah 2:173)

From this decisive ruling of the Quran, another important reality also becomes clear: upon what basis the Shariah legislates. Religious guidance is fundamentally embedded within human nature, and in most matters, humans distinguish right from wrong through this innate awareness. However, there exists a domain in which natural guidance does not attain definitive clarity and doubts arise due to outward similarities. This is the domain of doubtful matters (mushtabihāt).

In such situations, Allah does not suffice with general principles alone; rather, He issues explicit legal rulings so that all possibilities of human conjecture, disagreement, and uncertainty are eliminated. The explicit prohibition of pork stands as a prominent example of this principle, wherein the Shariah resolved ambiguity by determining the boundary between lawful and unlawful with complete decisiveness.