The “Impurity” of Rigidly Excluding Impurity: Rethinking Rijs in Islamic Law
Abstract
This essay reexamines the Qur’anic concept of rijs (impurity) and questions whether prohibition reflects the intrinsic nature of an object or the result of human judgment. By comparing the approaches of the Ḥanafī and Shāfiʿī legal schools to istiḥāla (substantial transformation), and by drawing on Ibn al-Qayyim’s theory of the higher objectives of Islamic law, the article argues that rigid exclusion may itself become a form of “impurity.” Extending the discussion from pork and alcohol to the moral and spiritual dimensions of rijs, it proposes a reading grounded in divine mercy (raḥma) and the dynamic interplay of faith and reason. The essay ultimately calls for continual self-examination through engagement with the Qur’an, especially in the reflective spirit of Ramadan.
Who Passes Judgment on “Impurity”?
The impurity of pork was declared through the word rijs in the Qur’an [1].
If rijs is a “term of judgment,” then prohibition is not the essence of the object itself but the result of a judgment passed upon it. If so, when the grounds of that judgment change, is there not room to reconsider the form of the prohibition?
In other words, what determines the impurity of pork is not so much an inherent filth in the meat itself as the judgment of the one who judges. Once that judgment becomes fixed, however, its status as rijs does not change — whether it is grilled or boiled. Caught in the circular logic that “it is taboo because it is rijs” and “it is rijs because it is taboo,” pork is ultimately excluded from the dietary options of Muslims.
Yet if this prohibition depends upon the judgment of the agent, then by changing that judgment, even this religious taboo could, in principle, be reconsidered. In the sanitary conditions of the time in which Muhammad lived, the consumption of raw pork may indeed have involved such danger that it required special warning under the designation of rijs.
However, if this prohibition — through expanded interpretation — has already been sharpened in some Muslim societies or in certain individual practices, extending not only to pork but to the pig itself, then the universal reach of a religion meant as mercy for 8.2 billion human beings may be hindered. If it becomes widely believed that Muslims avoid not only pork but pigs altogether, then those who enjoy pork when properly cooked and who may even feel familiarity rather than aversion toward pigs would be seen as holding values incompatible with Islam.
Such stereotypes risk creating division between Muslims and others, and may even give rise to discrimination or hostility [2]. The image of Islam as a teaching of mercy for all humanity could be obscured.
Alcohol as Rijs
In the Qur’an, there are other things designated as rijs. Among them is alcohol.
“Indeed wine, gambling arrows, idols, and divining arrows are rijs from the work of Satan” [3].
Let us consider alcohol here. If alcohol is rijs, then like pork it is prohibited. Yet if alcohol ceases to be rijs, then the possibility arises that the prohibition might be lifted.
Consider a simple example. Grapes ferment and become wine. If fermentation continues further and alcohol is transformed into acetic acid, it becomes vinegar. Once it has become vinegar, wine ceases to be a beverage that induces intoxication.
If the reason for prohibition lies in causing intoxication, then vinegar — which does not intoxicate — cannot reasonably remain prohibited.
The Views of the Legal Schools
The transformation of wine into vinegar is referred to in Islamic jurisprudence as istiḥāla (substantial transformation). Within legal interpretation, some schools adopt this principle affirmatively, while others do not.
Among the four major Sunni legal schools, the Ḥanafī school adopts it affirmatively. According to this view, once alcohol undergoes a change in its essential nature, it is no longer subject to prohibition [4]. As the official legal school of the Ottoman Empire, it has exerted significant influence in regions such as Syria and Egypt.
In contrast, the Shāfiʿī school adopts a more restrictive approach. Because it recognizes istiḥāla only in limited cases, its legal rulings become considerably stricter. This school is said to be widespread in Southeast Asia, Yemen, and East Africa, and its interpretive approach forms part of the background to the active halal certification systems in countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia.
Regarding alcohol, the Ḥanafī school tends to permit residual amounts so long as they do not cause intoxication — that is, so long as they do not impair rational discernment. By contrast, the Shāfiʿī school is reluctant to accept even one percent alcohol content in food or drink.
Is Mirin Ḥarām?
Let us consider one example in relation to Japanese cuisine: mirin, which contains approximately 14% alcohol. Although its alcohol content is higher than that of beer, it is not consumed as a beverage. After one to two minutes of continued boiling, alcohol — with its boiling point of 78°C — drops to nearly 0%, a level considered safe even for children and pregnant women.
From a Ḥanafī perspective, once the alcohol has evaporated and no longer induces intoxication, there should be no problem with its use.
From a Shāfiʿī perspective, however, even residual alcohol below one percent may render mirin continuously prohibited.
Similar differences arise in the interpretation of heat-treated pork. Ultimately, this is a matter of interpretive stance. If one becomes bound by a particular stance to the point of ceasing to think, might that not itself be a form of rijs? One reason for skepticism toward halal certification systems lies here.
In any case, the original revelation is one.
Rijs in Idolatry and Disbelief
The Qur’an designates only certain things as rijs. In addition to pork and alcohol, specific objects such as idols, gambling arrows, and divining arrows [5] are so described. Moreover, the term rijs is also applied to “those who do not believe” [6] and to “those who do not use their reason” [7].
In many modern translations, rijs in these contexts is interpreted as referring to Hellfire, suggesting that such people will be cast into Hell [8]. Yet considering that the Arabic verbs appear in the imperfect form, it is also possible to read these passages not only as referring to a fixed eschatological certainty, but as describing a condition of being regarded as impure in this world.
Likewise, regarding “those in whose hearts is disease,” the Qur’an states that He adds rijs upon their rijs [9], indicating a quality that increases. If understood as the progression of a disease, this may reasonably be seen as occurring in this world. Given that rijs carries the nuance of judgment, one might attempt a reading that does not close off the possibility of transformation in the consciousness of those described as such.
Interpreting from Raḥma
Admittedly, this form of rijs cannot be removed through physical processes such as further fermentation or additional heating. Yet in these passages, the Qur’an does not employ definitive labels such as kāfir or fājir, but rather “those who do not believe” and “those who do not use reason.” There is no absolute condemnation.
Might it not be possible, then, to understand that if one comes to believe — or comes to exercise reason — one may be released from the designation of rijs?
Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya of the Ḥanbalī school incorporates istiḥāla into a theory of the higher objectives of the law. The law is not meant to cause hardship. To prohibit something that has already lost its intoxicating nature, he argues, would contradict God’s mercy (raḥma) [10]. This represents an attempt to approach the broader divine worldview, rather than becoming preoccupied with intra-school differences.
Purifying the Rijs of the Heart
In Sūrat ʿAbasa, beginning from verse 24, human beings are directly addressed, and a series of blessings are enumerated: food, water poured upon the earth, furrows in the soil, seeds sown therein, grapes, fresh greens, olives, date palms, gardens, fruits, and pasture [11]. The Qur’an vividly reminds its hearers — especially in terms readily grasped by Arabs — how their sustenance derives from God’s creative grace, and calls them to reflect consciously upon His greatness.
Did God require rigid adherence to the opinions of a particular legal school?
Gratitude for food, and recognition — through His signs — of the breadth and depth of the mercy of the One who created and provided it: through such reflection, the rijs within faith may gradually be purified. Through reading the Qur’an, I wish to continue questioning both the form of faith and the proper exercise of reason. The first ten nights of Ramadan are already passing.
God knows best.
Footnotes
[1] See my previous essay: “Is Pork Ḥarām? For Muslim Students Struggling to Find Food.”
[2] That this prohibition is not as absolute as commonly assumed is clear from the wording of the revelation itself. For example, in cases of necessity caused by hunger, it is lifted (Qur’an 5:3).
[3] Qur’an 5:90.
[4] For example, the 12th-century Ḥanafī jurist al-Kāsānī (d. 587 AH / 1191 CE), in Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ, Kitāb al-Ṭahāra, states: “al-rijs huwa al-najas” (“Rijs is [legally] impurity”). He treats the Qur’anic term rijs as equivalent to najas in juridical reasoning and explains: “If no change in its properties has occurred, it is permissible. The absence of change indicates that impurity has not overcome what is pure. And the use of that which is not intrinsically impure (najas al-ʿayn) is, in principle, permitted.”
[5] Qur’an 5:90.
[6] Qur’an 6:125.
[7] Qur’an 10:100.
[8] For example, al-Ṣābūnī interprets it as referring to punishment in Hell and despair, while also citing views that understand it as a state devoid of good, a curse in this world, and punishment in the Hereafter. See Ṣafwat al-Tafāsīr, p. 390.
[9] Qur’an 9:125.
[10] Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn ʿan Rabb al-ʿĀlamīn.
Special Thanks to: ChatGPT-5.2
Title Image:
The Arabic word “Halal” (حلال), via Wikimedia Commons
Acknowledgements
This English version was prepared with the support of ChatGPT-5.2.
The author gratefully acknowledges its assistance in translation and linguistic clarification.
