Islamic Education & Information Centre, 135 Sheppard Avenue East, North York,
Ontario, Canada M2N 3A6 Tel: (416) 223-2162 Fax: (416) 223-2528

A. What is Gelatin?
Gelatin is an animal protein substance having gel-forming properties, and is used primarily in food products. It is derived from collagen, a protein found in animal skin and bone. This means that Gelatin can be derived from animal skin or animal bone.

B. The Basic Rule of the Shari`ah:
The shari`ah rule about animal skin differs from that of animal bone:

SKIN: Animal skin or anything made from it can be considered tahir (pak) only if the animal had been slaughtered Islamically. Consequently, the Gelatin derived from animal skin would be considered najis unless we know that the animal had been slaughtered Islamically. [Those present-day mujtahids who consider the animal slaughtered unIslamically as tahir but haram -- their opinion does not affect this answer that much because in their opinion, even if that animal skin is tahir, it is still haram for consumption by human beings.]

BONE: Animal bone is considered tahir even if the animal had not been slaughtered Islamically. Bones have been exempted from the rule of maytah [i.e., an animal slaughtered unIslamically or died by itself]. However, this does not include the bones of pigs and dogs. (See Minhaju's-Salihiyn [vol. 1, p. 109 and vol. 2, p. 336] of the late Sayyid al-Khu`i and al-`Urwatu 'l-Wuthqa, p. 20-21). Consequently, the Gelatin derived from animal bones (other than pigs and dogs) is tahir even if the animal was not slaughtered Islamically.

C. The Practical Problem:
Having stated the above, we are faced with a practical problem: The labels on food products do not specify whether the Gelatin was derived from animal skin or animal bones. So what should we do? Can we assume that it has been derived from animal bones and consider it tahir or not? When I sent this question to the late Ayatullah al-Khu`i in December 1989, he replied: "Yes, it can be considered tahir." This answer is based on the shari`ah principle that if an item can originate from two sources: one pak and other najis -- in cases of ambiguity, you can assume that it is pak.

D. Accepted that it is tahir; but is it also halal?
There are some people who would not be satisfied with the answer of Ayatullah al-Khu`i and pose the following question: "Accepted that it is tahir (pak); but is it halal for consumption as food item?" In my question to Ayatullah al-Khu`i, I gave the example of cheese and sweets with Gelatin. It is quite obvious that I was asking the late marja` about eating those items, and not just touching and feeling them!!!

However, to satisfy those who would like to see the words "halal and religously eatable," I will quote a detailed answer of the Ayatullah al-Khu`i to three questions sent to him from London.

Q. Is Gelatin derived from dog or pig tahir?
Q. Is Gelatin derived from halal animals (like cows, goats, etc) but not slaughtered according to shari`a tahir?
Q. Is Gelatin derived from non-halal animals other than dog or pig, tahir?

A. "If a najis or haram matter from any category whatsoever changes into another than its original category, then it is considered tahir as long as it did not come into contact with another source of najasat. And the rule
for Gelatin in all the three cases is same as what we have mentioned above.

"But in case the Gelatin does not change, then:
"If it is derived from parts of dogs and pigs or an animal which feeds on human excrement and has not been quarantined, then it is haram and najis.
"Similarly, [it is haram and najis] if it is derived from those parts of the maytah which are other than its bones.
"But if the Gelatin is derived from the bones of other than dogs and pigs, and has not become najis because of a secondary najasat, then it is permissible to eat it and eat whatever has been mixed and submerged into it."

The last paragraph of Ayatullah al-Khu`i's answer fully supports what I had written in Shama in Janaury 1989.

E. Issue of Istihalah in Gelatin:
In the first part of Ayatullah Khu'i's answer, he says: "If a najis or haram matter from ANY CATEGORY whatsoever changes into another than its original category, then it is considered tahir as long as it did not come into contact with another source of najasat." This is based on the rule of istihalah -- chemical change which makes a najis item tahir (mutahhirat).

To know if such a change occurs in the final product known as Gelatin, we have to refer to the experts of food industry. After my article was published, a brother from Minnesota, USA, was kind enough to send for me a copy of an hand-out distributed by General Foods (the manufacturer of Jell-o, the gelatin dessert). A paragraph in that hand-out, in my opinion, clearly gives the expert's view about the chemical change (istihalah) which takes place in manufacturing of gelatin. While reading the below quotation, keep in mind that these people do not have the slightest clue about the issue of istihalah in our shari`ah! It says:

"It is interesting to note that during manufacture of gelatin, chemical changes take place so that, in the final gelatin product, the composition and identity of the original material is completely eliminated.  Because of this, gelatin is not considered a meat food product by the United States government. The plant is under supervision of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. If the government considered gelatin a meat food product, the plant would operate under the Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture." (From General Foods Corp. New York.)

If this is not istihalah, then what is it? In final conclusion, all types of Gelatin is tahir and halal

Istehlak occurs when a particular entity is entirely obliterated inside a second entity in a way that it is no more considered as a part of the second entity.
Though Istehala is a mutahirat (purifying agent) but Istehlak is not a mutahirat.

Examples:
1. Consider a drop of blood in a glass. If water is filled in this glass with tap water connected to kur then the drop of blood loses its identity. Here Istehlak takes place. Since, the blood drop came in contact with kur water hence the water did not become najis. Also, at the same time, the blood drop lost its identity and hence the applicability of the rules related to blood ceased to exist. Thus, this glass of water will be considered as pak.

2. Again, consider a drop of blood in a glass. If water is filled in this glass with qaleel water then the drop of blood loses its identity. Here also Istehlak takes place. But here, since the blood drop came in contact with qaleel water hence the water became najis. Also, at the same time, the blood drop lost its identity and hence the applicability of the rules related to blood ceased to exist. But the water is already become najis and hence the rules related to najis water will be applicable here. Thus, this glass of water will be considered as najis. In this way we say that Istehlak is not a mutahirat. If it were one of the mutahirat then even the qaleel water would have become pak.

3. In the above cases Istehala has not taken place because the blood does not 'switch over' to water but is only added to water. IF istehala had taken place then even qaleel water would have become pak because istehala is a mutahirat.

Some points...

1. Istehala literally means 'to switch over'. This comes into effect when a particular entity 'switches over' to another entity.

2. Notwithstanding what Sayed Abdul Hadi Al-Hakim has written in 'A code of practice for Muslims in the west', Istehala is Urfi and not Aqli. Hence, discussing subjects like 'chemical components' and 'chemical changes' are not very relevant. We have to check whether gelatin 'switches over' to another entity based on Urf (general perception). If people generally perceive gelatin as an entirely different entity than the animal bones or other body parts, then istehala has occurred.

3. The fatawas of both Ayt. Khui a.r. and Ayt. Sistani d..z are same as far as criterion to judge Istehala is concerned. It only happens that Ayt. Sistani uses more words to explain the process of 'Istehala'. Both believe that Istehala does not occur if the original entity is merely mixed with some other entity or if it is merely broken-up into its constituents. Basically the original entity needs to entirely 'switch over' to another entity and not simply mix/ break-up/ change shape.

4. When we want to consume pure gelatin then the above holds ground. But, if we are discussing about a product that originally contains a very small quantity of gelatin like in chewing gums, then we should also consider Istehlak.

5. Note: Istehlak is not a mutahirat.

Q U e S T I O N S

What is the ruling on gelatin in view of the latest book of Ayt Seetani in English A Code of Practice for  Muslims in the West, English edition, page 293-294 which has the appendix  about all the different ingredients – which I believe is a newer reference  , and thus should be more current in the  rulings:

“As for the view of the Grand Ayatullah as-Sayyid as-Sistani,  it [gelatin] is not halal because he believes that in chemical change the  original components should be completely eliminated. a€
"Gelatin: It is a protein product derived through partial hydrolysis of the collagen extracted from skin, bones, cartilage, ligaments, etc. The natural molecular bonds between individual collagen strands are broken down into a form that rearranges more easily. Gelatin melts when heated and solidifies when cooled again. Together with water it forms a semi-solid colloidal gel."

The above description/definition (from dictionary.COM) suggests a "partial" chemical change - and therefore "not a complete" chemical change. This may be the reason for the varying opinions.
 
I seriously doubt that Seestani's view on gelatin is any different than al-Khu'i's.  The best thing to do is email him and see what he says.  It looks like the publishers of the new edition interpreted it wrong when they made the index of ingredients.
 
Yes, thanks, I have read Sayyid Khoei’s opinions on istahala and gelatin, it just happens that Sayyid Seestani differs in his opinion apparently

Like I said before. Ayatullah Seestani's application of the rule is as good as mine or yours.  We have to refer to the experts when it comes to application of the rule and the experts say that Istihalah has occurred.  

A. Seestani is a jurist he is not a chemist.  
This is just like when people asked Sayyid al-Khoei about the direction of the Ka'bah from NY.  When Sayyid al-Khoei stated that he thinks the direction is South East I personally wrote to him and asked what I should do if I am convinced that it is North East. He told me to do what I am certain of, so I continued to pray North East though I was doing the taqleed of Sayyid al-Khoei at the time.

Its pretty simple.  The jurist gives the rule and the followers have to apply the rules themselves and make their own conclusions. Just because the Sayyid's conclusion was that  the direction should be South East doesn't mean that we have to follow him in that regard.

Likewise if Sayyid Seestani thinks no Istihalah occurs in the manufacturing of gelatin we don't  have to follow his opinion in that regard if we are convinced otherwise. Here is some interesting info in this regard: http://www.dartabligh.org/q_a/g.html

In the first part of Ayatullah Khu'i's answer, he says: "If a najis or haram matter from ANY CATEGORY whatsoever changes into another than its original category, then it is considered tahir as long as it did not come into contact with another source of najasat." This is based on the rule of istihalah -- chemical change which makes a najis item tahir (mutahhirat).

To know if such a change occures in the final product known as gelatine, we have to refer to the experts of food industry. After my article was published, a brother from Minnesota, USA, was kind enough to send for me a copy of an hand-out distributed by General Foods (the manufacturer of Jell-o, the gelatin dessert). A paragraph in that hand-out, in my opinion, clearly gives the expert's view about the chemical change (istihalah) which takes place in manufacturing of gelatine. While reading the below quotation, keep in mind that these people do not have the slightest clue about the issue of istihalah in our shari`ah! It says: "It is interesting to note that during manufacture of gelatin, chemical changes take place so that, in the final gelatin product, the composition and identity of the original material is completely eliminated. Because of this, gelatin is not considered a meat food product by the United States government. The plant is under supervision of the Federal Food and Drug Admininstration. If the government considered gelatin a meat food
product, the plant would operate under the Meat Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture." (From General Foods Corp. New York.)

Answer: You are talking about istihalah which we have mentioned above in answer to question no. 1. Istihalah means change or more precisely, a chemical change which places the item under a list which is different from its original grouping. The examples you have mentioned do not qualify for istihalah; and are, therefore, still najis and haram.
Yours in Islam, Sayyid M. Rizvi

Gelatine Follow up Question
Just for clarification, you stated in the last posting regarding gelatine that "all types of gelatine is tahir and halal." Does this mean that when we see gelatine in a list of ingredients where nothing else is questionable, then we are to assume that the gelatin comes from an
animal other than a pig or a dog i.e. an animal that is tahir but has not been slaughtered according to Shari`ah. Please answer this question as per Ayatullah Khui and Seestani.

ANSWER: As mentioned under "C" in the original answer, you can assume that it is tahir and halal. And if you read the last part about istihala "E", then all kinds of gelatine becomes tahir and halal.
Yours in Islam, Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi
A Code of Practice for  Muslims in the West, English edition, page 293-294 which has the appendix  about all the different ingredients – which I believe is a newer reference  than that you wereg at online, and thus should be more current in the  rulings:
“As for the view of the Grand Ayatullah as-Sayyid as-Sistani,  it [gelatin] is not halal because he believes that in chemical change the  original components should be completely eliminated.â€�
He says about Gelatin:

"Of course, if a chemical change occurs in the original  ingredients during the process of manufacturing the gelatin, there is no  problem at all in eating it." http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/2/books/2/?lang=eng Eating and Drinking/Questions and Answers/ruling 178.

Isn't that what  I just said?  Where does it say that his opinion is that Gelatin did  not go through istihalah?  There is no such thing as "sufficiently"  when it comes to istihalah; either it changed or it  didn't.

You can't say the guy didn't sufficiently  leave the room; either he left the room or he didn't.  Just like wine  becoming vinegar, you can't say the wine didn't sufficiently do istihalah into vinegar; either it did or it didn't.

Correct me if I  am wrong.
His ruling 178 doesn't state his opinion  about Gelatin.  The first part of the answer is for those that don't  believe istihalah occurred and the second part is for those that do believe istihalah occurred.

Question: Gelatin is used in a number of  drinks and food items in the West. We do not know that gelatin has been  extracted from a vegetable or an animal source; and that if it is from an  animal, is it from its bones or from the tissues around the bones; neither  do we know if the animal was one that is halãl for us or  harãm. Are we allowed to eat such gelatin?

Answer: It is permissible to eat if the doubt is  whether it has been extracted from an animal or vegetable. But, if it is  known that it was derived from an animal, then it is not permissible to eat  without ascertaining that the animal was slaughtered according to  sharí‘a. This prohibition applies, as a matter of obligatory  precaution, even if it was extracted from animal bones.
Of course, if  a chemical change occurs in the original ingredients during the process of  manufacturing the gelatin, there is no problem at all in eating it.  Similarly, even if one has doubt whether the animal was slaughtered  Islamically or not, still there is no problem in adding the gelatin [made  from that animal] to the food in such a minute amont that it is completely  absorbed in it.
 
I read that Seestani was  of the opinion that Gelatin did not go  through istahalah sufficiently.   So if you do taqlid of  Ayatollah Seestani you are not supposed to eat  gelatin. You can  refer to his book A Code of Practice for Muslims in the  West, pages  293-294.

All  Maraaji'  believe that Istihaalah is among the Mutahhiraat. see  http://al-islam.org/laws/mutahhirat.html#196

As you  probably  know, even most soaps in this country use sodium  tallowate usually from  pigs.

All Maraji'  will tell you that it is Tahir if  Istihalah has taken place  because the tallow which was an oil  became a   salt.

Likewise the Gelatin has become Tahir via   Istihalah because it was made from bones which were chemically  altered in  such a way that the property of bones is no longer   there.

If one doesn't believe that Gelatin has  gone  through a process of Istihalah then if it was made from pig  bones it would  be najis regardless of the Marja' you do taqleed  of.

The Marja's job  is to give us the  rules not apply them for us.  His application of the  rule is  as good as anyone else's.
A lot of people make a mistake concerning this.  
I thought  that depended on  your marja.   I thought, for example, that  Ayatollah Seestani did not   generally permit consumption of gelatin.

R e n n e t

Rennet is produced from something from a sheep after it is killed and is used for making cheese. My question is about when the animal is not killed in Islamic way? (Zibh)

ANSWER: You have asked about rennet derived from the animal which was not killed in Islamic way (zabiha). I had written an article in 1989 and will just summarize the relevant parts in answer to your question:

Rennet or renin is tahir (pak) and halal even if it is obtained from the stomach of an animal which has not been slaughtered Islamically.

An animal not slaughtered Islamically is known as maytah. Maytah is one of the `ayn najis (inherently unclean) things, so how can rennet extracted from a maytah be considered tahir? It is true that maytah is considered `ayn najis, but our mujtahids unanimously have declared that certain parts of the maytah are exempted from the najasat and are to be considered tahir. One of such parts of a maytah is rennet, known in Arabic as anfaha or minfaha. (See al-Khu'i, Minhaju 's-Salihiyn, vol. 1, p. 109; masala No. 393 in the chap. on taharat. This is also in the new edition of as-Sistani. For the view of other mujtahids of our time, see Sayyid Kazim al-Yazdi at-Tabatabai, al-`Urwatu 'l-Wuthqa, p. 20-21.)

Not only is the anfaha considered tahir, it is also considered halal. (See Minhaj, vol. 2, p. 336; masalah No. 1691 in the chap. on food and drink.)

This is not a new fatwa or a new mas`alah; our Imams (a.s.) have given clear guidance on this issue in quite a few ahadith. I will just quote some parts of a conversation between Qatadah and Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a.s.).

Qatadah: Tell me (the law) about cheese.
Imam (a.s.): There is no problem in it.
Qatadah: But sometimes the anfaha (rennet) from a maytah is put into it.
Imam (a.s.): Still there is no problem in it because there are no veins in it nor any blood or bones; it comes out from between the intenstine and the blood vessels. The case of anfaha is similar to that of an egg which comes out of a dead chicken. Would you eat that egg?
Qatadah: No; nor would I tell others to eat it.
Imam (a.s.) And why is that?
Qatadah: Because the egg is from a maytah.
Imam (a.s.): But if you hatch that same egg and a chicken comes out of it, would you eat it?
Qatadah: Yes.
Imam (a.s.): "Now, what has made the egg haram for you but made the chicken halal for you?! Similarly, the anfaha is like the egg [from the maytah but halal]..." (Wasa'ilu 'sh-Shi`ah, vol. 16, p. 364)

Sayyid M. Rizvi

Thank you for writing to inquire about ingredients used in Wrigley products. In answer to your question, the vast majority of Wrigley products sold in the U.S. are free from ingredients of animal origin, including egg and dairy products.

At present, the only exceptions are Wrigley's Spearmint® and Extra® PolarIceTM stick gums, Juicy Fruit® pellet gums and products produced by AmurolConfections, Wrigley's wholly-owned subsidiary, prior to June 1, 2003. The products formerly sold by Amurol, are now a part of the Wrigley family of brands.

Some batches of Wrigley's Spearmint® gum contain a very small amount of gelatin. Extra® Polar Ice gum contains tiny flavor beads encased in a microscopic layer of gelatin, which is animal based. We have requested the development of a gelatin-free flavor bead that is currently being worked on by our supplier. Juicy Fruit Grapermelon and Strappleberry gums use shellacas a coating agent.

Hubba Bubba®, Bubble Tape®, Big League Chew®, Everest® and Dragon Fire® gumand Reed's® and Velamints® mints, formerly produced by Amurol Confections, became a part of the Wrigley product portfolio effective January 1, 2004. Asof June 1, 2003 these products have been free of any animal based ingredients. While most products manufactured before this June date are no longer on shelves, some packages can still remain. The dating code for these products follow the format YMDDMY and reflects the manufacture date.

If your diet restricts any animal based ingredients, please be sure to read the manufacture date, located on the back of the packaging, to ensure you're purchasing a package produced after June 1, 2003.

Thank you for your interest. We hope this information will be helpful.

Sincerely,
WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY
Laura Richards
Consumer Affairs Representative.