Shaykh Yasir Qadhi: Doritos is Halal [for some]! (Updates: 1)

Doritos is Halal!Allah hu Akbar! This is an amendment from my previous post in which I shared some information saying that Doritos were not halal, but Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has a detailed article on why Doritos is halal. It’s called Of Mice and Men – The Cheese Factor.

I guess you can call this the first step towards unity from my previous post. πŸ˜€

Updates: For those who follow hanafi and shafi’ fiqh, it’s not halal. The hadith used for daleel only applies to water. For hanafi’s see Jinnzaman’s comment below.

14 Replies to “Shaykh Yasir Qadhi: Doritos is Halal [for some]! (Updates: 1)”

  1. As-salaamu ‘alaikum wa rahmatAllah Akhi Jinnzaman,

    Was just interested, do you mean the contemporary Ahnaaf or the Imaam and his students because they viewed alongside Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahumAllahu jami’an that ISTHALA (chemical transformation) from one impure substance to a pure substance makes the substance Pure..

    Just a difference between the Madhab’s founder and the opinion of some of those who follow the Madhab today…

    WAllahu ‘Alam

  2. Another clarification, YQ’s opinion is not based on Isthala at all. Rather it is based on the quantity of the substance. And I am not sure if there is any difference of opinion on that matter, is there? I would request that JZ, if you or others know any Hanafi scholars, if you would ask them about the halalness of something if the haraam additive is less than 0.00003 %.

    Because if we say it is haram, then we would have to come to the same conclusion on coke, which has a very tiny percent of alcohol it in it as well…

    If you get some opinions, please post them on MM… I don’t think we have to close any doors on any conclusion at this time, if doubts exist.


  3. This posting has made me hungry. Anyways, I just stick to foods that explicitly state ‘suitable for vegetarians’. It’s better to be safe than sorry.


  4. …’original cool Doritos’ are OK for vegetarians (just thought I’d let you know, bye)

  5. Alsalamualaikum,

    I read Sh. Qadhi’s article the other day and immediately thought of your post, MR πŸ™‚

    Just for the record, Hamid knows the deal, cool ranch is where it’s at πŸ˜‰

  6. Assalamu alaikum

    Its sad to see that even today we have a misconception of exactly what a madhab is. A madhab is not merely the legal opinions of the founder; but rather, it is a corporate entity that survives the death of its founders and evolves into a coherent corpus of legal methodologies that are applied to particular facts and situations that result in particular legal conclusions. Just like Microsoft Corporation will survive even after the death of Bill Gates, so does the Hanafi madhab survive and evolve after the death of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmutallah alayh).

    Its ironic that Salafis love quoting about how Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmutallah alayh) would say things like “Don’t follow my opinion if you find a strong evidence.” This statement was not directed to you and me but to his students and their students and their students, who were mujtahids. The system of cross referencing by scholars from different eras and different localities strengthen that school. Thus, by the time an opinion has been transmitted today, it has been moulded by a unique historical evolution and the guantlet of criticism.

    Fiqh, then, is not the opinions of solely the founding member, although they are certainly authortative, they are not binding. Fiqh is determined by the particular conditions that one engages in.

    With regards to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmutallah alayh), Salafis pick and choose what they like. Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmutallah alayh) didn’t translate the term “yadd” into any other language and didn’t delve into the meaning, yet Salafis have no problem insisting that yadd means hand. So when Salafis quote the mujtahid imams, they do mix and match in order to please their own legal opinions.

    An example of an opinion by Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmutallah alayh) that was rejected was his opinion concerning the permissibility of praying Salah in any language. This was rejected by not only subsequent Hanafi scholars, but many other scholars as well.

    The problem I have with the fatwas such as the one above is that they are misleading in that they imply that contemporary Hanafi scholars have deviated from their school. When Traditionalists argue that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah or Salafis are not the true representatives of the Hanbali school, then Salafis get very upset. Yet, when Salafis do that to other people, they cling to this mantle of self-righteousness. This is merely another contradictory example of the poor etiquette that is prevalent among this manhaj. This fatwa and the comments by those who support it illustrate that the Salafi dawah has a long way to go before it can be recognized as a mature system of theology and jurisprudence within Ahl us Sunnah.


  7. What?,

    I didn’t go crazy as usual about the fatwa. I merely pointed out that the argument in the fatwa and that is being made by some of the commentators is misleading.

    The article insinuated that contemporary Hanafi ‘Ulema have deviated from the founder’s opinions. This assertion is a misconstruction of what a madhab is. A madhab is not the legal opinions of the founder had.

    I don’t think Salafis like it when they are told that their aqeedah is deviated from the aqeedah of Imam Ahmad or that making masah over their socks is a wrong opinion by non-Salafi scholars, so they should give the same treatment to others. Don’t tell Hanafis what their madhab says. If anyone knows about the fiqh opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa, it would be the scholars of the Hanafi madhab so if they differed with him on matters, its for an entirely good reason.

    Lastly, this is an issue that requires ijtehad and the actual legal question presented wasn’t one that was presented exactly to Imam Abu Hanifa. Ijtehad is done by the contemporary scholars of this locality and they have ruled that this type of food is haram. So really, referring to Imam Abu Hanifa’s opinion is not only moot (since its not even applicable) and also irrelevant (since a madhab isn’t bound by its founder’s opinions).


Comments are closed.