The Islamic Legal Ruling on Eating the Crested Porcupine (Hystrix cristata), Commonly Known in Libya as "Ṣayd al-Layl"

Abstract

Translated Abstract (Final) The research problem lies in the divergence of jurisprudential (fiqh) opinions regarding the permissibility of consuming the porcupine, locally known in Libya as (Sayd al-Layl). This study aims to conduct an in-depth scholarly investigation into this disagreement, integrating various tools of Sharia examination—specifically from the principles of Hadith (Usul al-Hadith) and the principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh)—to determine the most valid scholarly opinion. To achieve this, the researcher adopted a descriptive approach to present the differing views and their respective evidence, followed by an analytical approach to discuss, scrutinize, and trace the origins of these arguments, relying on primary sources within Islamic legal sciences. The study yielded several key results, most notably that consuming the porcupine is legally permissible (ja’iz) in Sharia, with no robust evidence to support its dislike (karahah), let alone its prohibition (tahrim). Furthermore, the study concluded that one of the primary reasons for jurisprudential divergence in the rulings of foods stems from the fundamental principles (usul) adopted by the different legal schools (madhahib) in interpreting Sharia texts, such as the concepts of wholesome/good foods (al-istitabah) and filthy/vile foods (al-istikhbath). The study recommends the necessity of investigating contemporary and disputed juristic branches (furu') that directly affect people's lives through an approach that transcends a narrow, partial examination of juristic evidence. Instead, research should elevate to encompass the overarching universal principles (al-usul al-kulliyyah) that govern juristic understanding, reflecting the intellectual depth of comparative analysis between these principles, which stands as a testament to the brilliance of Muslim scholar.