SHEIKH MUKHTAR ‘ATARID ON BELUT

A Study on Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharramah

Sunarwoto

Introduction
In Islam, it is only God who has the right to determine what is to be
lawful (halal) and what is to be prohibited (haram).1 Therefore, the Qur’an
and the hadith are primary sources of our knowledge of halal and haram.
However, these primary sources mention only limited things prescribed
to be halal and haram. Consequently, Muslim scholars, especially jurists
(fuqaha’), endeavoured to set up regulations pertaining to them as explained
in fiqh handbooks.2 What is interesting to pinpoint is the fact that the
perception of ulama on halal and haram is very much influenced by their
regional background. This is clearly seen, for instance, in the debates on
animals living in two environments, water and land—amphibians. Although
many ulama agreed on the legal status of those amphibious animals as

1
It says: “… He allows them as lawful what is good; (and pure) and prohibits
them, from what is bad (and impure) …” The translation of Quranic verses in this article
refers to ‘Abd Allah Yusuf ‘Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, New Edition (Beltsville,
Maryland: Amana Publication, 2004).
2
Virtually all classical fiqh handbooks discuss this subject. English readers may
refer to the translated book by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, The Lawful and the Prohibited in
Islam, 2nd ed. (London: Al-Falah Foundation, 2001).
34 Sunarwoto IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012

haram, they disagreed on certain animals such as frog and crab. Some
ulama regarded them haram, while others halal. The key problem is their
difference in determining what natures, characteristics, and features of such
animals.
This article is to examine how the concept of halal and haram is
influenced by its regional background. To do so, I will specifically scrutinize
a book written by a Jawi3 Muslim scholar, Mukhtar ‘Atarid, entitled Al-
Sawa‘iq al-Muharramah. The choice of this book is based on the fact that
it deals with a unique debate on belut. It is unique because this debate
occurred in a specific background in Java in the turn of the twentieth
century. Moreover, ‘Atarid, the author of the book, was one of the prominent
Jawi ulama living and teaching at Mecca. The book was written in response
to debates among Javanese in Cirebon, West Java, over the Islamic legal
status of belut. The response indicated how Jawi ulama in the Middle East
communicated their Islamic knowledge to their fellow Jawi in their
homeland. While returned Jawi ulama founded Islamic education
institutions such as pesantren, those ulama living in the Middle East
established their contacts with their fellow Jawi through publication and
the issuance of fatwa. The belut itself is a unique example which can only
be found in South East countries, especially in Java. According to standard
fiqh handbooks, the Arab custom is the third source for the halal-haram
discourses, where it is stated that every animal the Arabs regard good is
halal, and every animal they regard repulsive is haram.4 Given that belut
does not exist in Arab countries, the question is to what extent the author
who was born in Bogor, West Java, related this case to the Islamic legal
prescription as formulated both by the primary and secondary sources on
the one hand, and to the Javanese context on the other.

3
The term Jawi here refers to those people from Southeast Asia living in Mecca,
especially in the last half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century.
See, for example, Ibn Qasim al-Ghazi, Hashiyat al-Bajuri, Vol. 2 (Semarang:
4

Usaha Keluarga, n.d.), p. 290-291.

IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012 Sheikh Mukhtar ‘Atarid on Belut 35

A Sketchy Biography5
Mukhtar ‘Atarid al-Bughri al-Batawi al-Jawi was born on 14 Sha‘ban
1278/14 February 1862 in Bogor, West Java, and he was died on 17 Safar
1349 H/13 July 1930 M in Mecca. He earned his early Islamic education
from his father, especially in studying the Qur’an. In 1299/1881, he
continued his study at Batavia (recent Jakarta) with a prominent Muslim
scholar and Batavian mufti, Habib ‘Uthman b. ‘Aqil b. Yahya or well known
Sayyid ‘Uthman.6 From him, he learned a great number of Islamic subjects
such as Arab grammar, Islamic law, Islamic theology, art of Quranic
recitation, and soon. To gain further studies, he went to Mecca where he
also lived there until his death. There is no information on when and at
what age he travelled to Mecca.
Meccan teachers with whom he studied were Sayyid Muhammad
Amin b. Sayyid Ahmad al-Ridwan al-Madani, Sayyid Muhammad b. ‘Abd
al-Kabir al-Kattani, Sayyid Muhammad b. Ja’far al-Kattani, Sayyid Abu Bakri
Shata and Sayyid ‘Umar Shata, Sayyid Abdul Karim al-Naji al-Daryandi,
Sheikh Muhammad b. Sulaiman Hasbullah al-Makki, Sheikh Mustafa ‘Afifi
and Sheikh Muhammad Zain al-Din al-Jawi al-Sumbawi. After receiving a
teaching license, he organised a halaqah at Masjid al-Haram where many
students, mostly form the Archipelago, studied with him. According to
Abdullah, some 400 students and prominent ulama attended his halaqah.
Among his students were: Syaikh Ali bin ‘Abd al-Hamid Kudus (young
brother of Sheikh ‘Abd al-Hamid Kudus7), Sheikh Muhsin b. ‘Ali al-Masawi
(the founder of Madrasah al-‘Ulum al-Diniyah at Mecca), Kyai Ahmad

5
This biography is mostly based on the account of Wan Mohd. Shaghir Abdullah
at http://ulama-nusantara.blogspot.com/2006/11/tuan-mukhtar-bogor-ulama-ahli-syari-
dan.html; and ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Jabbar, Siyar wa Tarajim Ba‘d ‘Ulama’ina fi al-Qarn al-
Rabi‘ ‘Ashar li al-Hijrah (Jeddah: Tihamah, 1982), h. 245.
6
On Sayyid ‘Uthman, see Azyumardi Azra, “Hadhrami Religious Scholar in
Indonesia: Sayyid `Uthman”, in U. Freitag & W.G. Clarence-Smith (eds.), Hadhrami
Traders, Scholars, and Statesmen in the Indian Ocean (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997).
7
On Sheikh ‘Abd al-Hamid Kudus, see ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Jabbar, Siyar wa Tarajim,
pp. 157-158; Sunarwoto, “The Influences of the Meccan Education on the Pesantren
Tradition with Special Reference to Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hamid Kudus,” Studia Islamika, Vol.
15, No. 3 (2008), pp. 467-499.
36 Sunarwoto IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012

Dimyati b. ‘Abd Allah al-Tarmasi (young brother of Sheikh Mahfuzh al-

Tarmasi), Sheikh K.H. Hasyim Asy’ari, the founder of Nahdlatul Ulama),
Abdul Madjid of Pekojan (d. 1887), 8 Sheikh Muhammad Yasin al-Padangi
and others. From these students, it can be seen clearly that Sheikh Mukhtar
‘Atarid was among the important Jawi ulama from whom most future
pesantren kyai learned in the Middle East during the last nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries.
In addition to his teaching activities, Mukhtar ‘Atarid wrote a number
of books in Arabic and Malay. Among his published books are: Taqrib al-
Maqsad fi al-‘Amal bir Rub’il Mujaiyab which discusses astronomy (‘ilm
al-falak); Usul al-Din I‘tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah, as indicated by
its title, this book is about a doctrine in Islamic theology called ahlussunah
wa al-jama’ah; Al-Risalah al-Wahbah al-Ilahiyah fi Bayan Isqat mal al-
Mayyit min al-Huquq wa al-Siyam wa al-Salat, concerning redemption of
praying (fidyat al-salat) for the dead; Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muhriqah li al-Awham
al-Kadhibah fi Bayan Hill al-Balut wa al-Radd ‘ala man Harramahu, about
the legal status of belut; Ithaf al-Sadat al-Muhaddithin bi Musalsalat al-
Ahadith al-Arba‘in, dealing with the intellectual genealogy; Khutbah al-
Jum‘at on Friday sermon; and Kitab al-Durr al-Munif fi Sharh al-Wird al-
Latif on praying (du’a), remembrance of God (dhikr), and soon.

Islamic Legal Discourse on Belut

As mentioned earlier, the debate on belut is unique, since it only
occurs in Southeast Asian countries, especially Indonesia. Therefore, it
cannot be found in standard fiqh handbooks and manuals written by Middle
East ulama. The case is also true for other animals living only in Southeast
Asian regions which are not mentioned in those handbooks. This does not
mean that there is no fiqh manual which deals with such local animals
such as belut, keong, and others. Sheikh Muhammad Arsyad al-Banjari,
for instance, wrote a prominent Malay fiqh book titled Sabil al-Muhtadin li

8
http://www.betawirempug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=
article&id=117&Itemid=231.
IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012 Sheikh Mukhtar ‘Atarid on Belut 37

al-Tafaqquh fi Amr al-Din, where he mentioned several local animals such

as belut, puraca, and others. Another fiqh book was written in Javanese by
a later Muslim scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Salih b. ‘Umar al-Samarani or
well known as Kyai Salih Darat, of Semarang, Central Java. The book is
Majmu‘ al-Shari‘ah al-Kafiyah li al-‘Awam. In this book, Darat mentioned
a number of local birds such as derkuku, perkutut and manuk betet, several
kinds of local fish such as iwak cucut and iwak pe (all sea fish), and many
other things.9
However, the key problem can be traced back to the animals which
live in two worlds, land and water ones. The question is if belut belongs to
those animals living in two worlds just similar to snake and frog. Not only
belut raise such a question but also do snake do. This is because there are
various kinds of snake with different natures and characteristics. The
determination of these natures and characteristics has become a key point
of debates surrounding the legal status of such animals as snake and frog.
Take the case of puraca or peraca snake in Sulawesi as an example.
G.F. Pijper reported that10 in 1927 there were many sellers of snake
and monitor lizard skin in those regions. The kind of snake they sold its
skin was called puraca or peraca. This evoked severe debates among
common Muslims, jurists, muftis, and penghulu. The debates occurred
when the religious court of Banjarmasin convened a meeting with several
ulama of Martapura and Sungai Ulu. They were asked to put forward their
opinion pertaining to the legal status of puraca. According to the chairman,
the meeting was intended to terminate the long lasting debate among
peoples there. The invited ulama expressed their disagreement on this
issue. A certain Haji Abdurrahman of Martapura claimed that puraca was
not allowed for sale, since it was najis (impure). However, he said, although
impure, its un-tanned skin11 was allowed for sale through naql al-yadd

Muhammad Salih b. ‘Umar al-Samarani, Majmu‘ al-Shari‘ah al-Kafiyah li al-

9

‘Awam (Semarang: Toha Putra, n.d.), pp.261-264.

10
G.F. Pijper, Fragmenta Islamica: Beberapa Studi Mengenai Sejarah Islam di
Indonesia Awal Abad XX, trans. Tudjimah (Jakarta: UI Press, 1987), pp. 51-64.
11
In Islam, although eating a dead animal is forbidden, it is allowed to use its skin
through a dabg (tinning) process. See, for instance, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, The Lawful and
the Prohibited, p. 46.
38 Sunarwoto IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012

(transfer of ownership) as advocated by al-Bajuri who said that “it is lawful

to transfer the ownership of the impure.” A Medinan immigrant, Sheikh
Mahmud ‘Abd al-Jawad who also attended the meeting was asked to express
his opinion on the issue. He averred that every animal slaughtered in a
non-Islamic manner was impure so that it was haram for sale. According
to him, this was based on a hadith narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim
where the Prophet Muhammad said, “God forbids selling wine, dead
animals, swine, and idol.” In contrast to ‘Abd al-Jawad, a certain Haji
Marwan of Banjarmasin argued that selling puraca is halal. To uphold this
opinion, he quoted al-Ghazali’s Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din where it was stated
that selling cat and tiger was halal. He went on to say that puraca lived in
marine areas (hayawan bahri) and therefore was halal. The chairman of
the religious court eventually decided to choose the opinion of ‘Abd al-
Jawad, since he took his argument directly from the primary sources, the
Qur’an and the hadith. The lengthy discussion on this debate is out of the
scope of this article. It suffices to say that the conclusion drawn by the
court chief, as told by Pijper, did not terminate the debate.12
In contemporary era, such debates on animals living in two worlds
are still found. This can be seen in later works. For instance, Hasbullah
Bakry discussed the legal status of frog (Indonesian: kodok) which,
according to him, was lawful. He criticised those people who considered
frog as forbidden only because they regarded it abhorrent. To uphold their
opinion, they referred to Qur’an 7: 157 “… He allows them as lawful what
is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure)…”
The problem lies in the interpretation of the word khaba’ith in this Quranic
verse. For them, it means bad or abhorrent. For Bakry, this interpretation is
wrong, since the real reason of a prohibition is related to the bad effect on
human health. Frog, to him, has no bad effects on health. Thus, he
interpreted the term khaba’ith as those animals with the malicious effects
on human health.13

12
G.F. Pijper, Fragmenta Islamica, p. 46.
13
Hasbullah Bakry, Pedoman Islam di Indonesia (Jakarta: UI Press, 1988), p. 270.
IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012 Sheikh Mukhtar ‘Atarid on Belut 39

The debate on belut dealt with by Mukhtar ‘Atarid in his al-Sawa‘iq

al-Muharramah occurred earlier than that mentioned by Pijper above. It
occurred in early 1329, which corresponded to 1912, 14 when two groups
disputed over the legal status of belut. One group regarded it haram, while
the other considered it halal. Although ‘Atarid agreed on the second, he
regarded that both groups based their argument only on baseless
assumptions (al-awham). They did not refer either to the opinion of ulama
or to their books. Metaphorically, he said,
“These two answers are like a dull blow with a blunt sword.
Strike them with a sharp sword like that sword until their name
is separated. I am a fighter fighting two groups because my
intention is to follow those following the steps of the Prophet.”15
In addition, ‘Atarid mentioned a specific case in Benda Kerep,
Cirebon, West Java, when a certain Kyai Muhammad Amin of the region
and his students observed a belut wandering right and left. Whatever the
case, the debate demonstrated the process through which a legal issue in
Islam was placed in a local context. Moreover, the way a legal text is
interpreted is interesting to further discuss.
Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharramah was published in the early twentieth
century by a publishing house named Matba‘a al-Taraqqi al-Majidiya in
Mecca. This publishing published many Islamic books written by Southeast
Asian or Jawi ‘Ulama. Recently, this book was republished by Pesantren
Lirboyo, Kediri, East Java, on which the date of publication was not
mentioned. This book is divided into three parts, including muqaddimat
(premises), bab (chapter), and khatimah (conclusion).
The muqaddima contains five premises on which the further
discussion of this book is based. The first premise is related to the
classification of animals into five, including: (1) terrestrial animals which
cannot live in water areas, such as chicken and cat; (2) terrestrial animals
14
Mukhtar ‘Atarid, Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharrama li al-Awham al-Kadhiba fi Bayan
Hill al-Balut wa al-Radd ‘ala Man Harramah (Mecca: Matba‘ah al-Taraqqi al-Majidiyah,
1330/1911), p.1.
15
Mukhtar ‘Atarid, Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharrama, p. 1.
40 Sunarwoto IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012

which can live such as duck and water birds; (3) marine animals which
cannot live in land areas such as fish; (4) marine animals which can live in
land areas temporarily such as flying fish; and (5) animals which can live
either in land or in water areas such as frog and snake. This latter kind of
animal has become the subject of heated debates among Muslim jurists. It
is to this last category that the debates on belut belong.
The second premise concerns the interpretation of the term al-bahr
(‘sea’ or ‘marine’) in Q. 5: 9.16 In this regard, ‘Atarid referred to Quranic
exegetes (mufassirin) and others. Quoting Tafsir al-Khazin via [Hashiyat]
al-Jamal, he said that al-bahr means both fresh and salty water, both sea
and well and stream water. According to al-Baidawi, said al-bahr in the
verse means a hunted animal which lives only in water (ma sida minhu
mimma la ya‘ishu illa fi al-ma’). The term al-sid means al-musid (the hunted)
and al-bahr means either sea or well water. This is in accordance with
some fuqaha’ who said that al-bahr means any water in its precise sense
(mutlaqan).17 The third premise is to warn against the negligence in
delivering judgment by legalising the forbidden and forbidding the lawful.
In this regard, ‘Atarid quoted some relevant Quranic verses such as Q. 5:
44 and 5: 88. He also cited a number of the prophetic hadith. One cited
hadith narrates that the Prophet said, “The bravest of you in giving fatwa is
the bravest of you enter the hell” (ajra’ukum fi al-fatwa ajra’ukum fi al-
nar). Furthermore, he cited Ibn al-Hajar’ Al-Fatawa al-Kubra that regulates
that for those who are not qualified in issuing fatwa except from their
school of Islamic law can only give fatwas on simple and clear issues such
as the obligation of niyat (intention) in ablution and the invalidity of ablution
for touching the whole or part of penis.
The fourth premise is that only a mujtahid is allowed to determine
masalih (benefits) and mafasid (detriments). A non-mujtahid is only allowed

16
The verse reads in full: “Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use
for food - for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel: but forbidden is the pursuit
of land-game-As long as ye are; In the Sacred Precincts or in pilgrim garb. And fear
Allah, to Whom Ye shall be gathered back.”
17
Mukhtar ‘Atarid, Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharrama, p. 3.
IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012 Sheikh Mukhtar ‘Atarid on Belut 41

to examine diverse opinions of madhhab leaders. For a mujtahid al-fatwa,

his only task is to make a tarjih and takhrij. Tarjih means to weigh one
more preponderant Islamic legal opinion over others, while takhrij means
to take a certain legal issue out of its references in a school of Islamic law
(madhhab).18 Fifthly, in determining the nature and characteristics of belut,
‘Atarid quoted a number of ulama’s opinions based on several sources,
where various terms are used. One of the sources is Hayat al-Hayawan by
Kamal a-Din al-Damiri, where a number of terms are used to call a snake-
like fish, including jirrith, marmahi (Persian), inkalis, and jurdhan.19 He
quoted al-Baghawi who said that al-jirrith is absolutely lawful. Sheikh Zadah
in his Hashiyat al-Baidawi who said that fish can be classified into several
kinds according to their diverse shapes. Among them is what is so called
hayat al-ma‘ (‘water snake’) since its shape is similar to that of snake. This
is halal. The sixth premise is related to the nature, shape and characteristics
of belut. It is explained that belut is a marine animal whose shape is similar
to that of snake. Different from the snake, it has no scales and its skin is as
smooth as some fish. What is important to notice here is that ‘Atarid based
his opinion concerning belut on an empirical observation. He investigated
the belut directly, besides taking the explanation of other Jawi ulama on it.
He said, “Its taste is very nice as I tasted it by myself.”20 And, the last
premise is related to the way belut lives. A number of distinct features are
drawn, including: 1) it lives in a hole with water; 2) it sleeps in its hole; 3)
it finds its food from water; 4) if it is placed upon a dry land, it will die
soon; and 5), it can be found only in a wet, not dry field. 21
After establishing premises, ‘Atarid explained those assumptions on
the prohibition of eating belut. Some of them are explained here. One is
that belut is repulsive. This was advocated by Muhamamd Tayyib. In
response to this, ‘Atarid said,

18
Mukhtar ‘Atarid, Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharrama, p. 4.
19
Mukhtar ‘Atarid, Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharrama, p. 4.
20
Mukhtar ‘Atarid, Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharrama, p. 5. “..wa amma ta‘muhu tayyibun
ladhidhun kama daqqadtuhu nafsi.”
21
Mukhtar ‘Atarid, Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharrama, pp. 5-6.
42 Sunarwoto IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012

“This [opinion] is rejected. I had already made investigation

[into belut] by myself. Many people tasted it. Even it is more
delicious than most kinds of fish. The information [on belut] is
opposite to the manifest. The consideration in determining
the meat of belut repulsive or not is the habit of luxurious
Arab people not the others, thus it is ineffective to others due
to the reason [of repulsion]. And fuqaha’ [Muslim legists] do
not take account of that reason except in earth animal on which
the legal status is unknown, not otherwise.

From the response, it can be clearly seen that the consideration taken
by Mukhtar ‘Atarid is very empirical in the sense that he himself conducted
an observation into the subject of debate. He also took the custom as a
starting point of making a legal judgment. This is in accordance with the
Islamic legal premise that custom is legally effective (al-‘adah
muhakkamah). The next assumption is that:
“belut is a land animal living in clay areas, not in the bottom
of water but on the surface of soil surrounding water. The clay
consists of two kinds: dust and water. If we see that the clay
contains dust, then it is part of the land, and if we see that the
clay contains water, then it is part of the sea. Giving preference
to one thing over another without preference is legally effective.
Giving preference to the dust over the water with preference
is the fixed rule. [But] if the required condition (muqtada) and
the hindering (mani‘) come together, then the hindering is
preponderant… if the dust is preferred with the preference,
the clay is part of the land. And if it is part of the land and the
belut lives in the land as well, then it is forbidden to eat it.”
In response to this assumption, ‘Atarid said,
“This is rejected, since the conclusion is to affirm the belut
lives in clay, and the clay is part of the land. It is clear that this
IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012 Sheikh Mukhtar ‘Atarid on Belut 43

is so because of the assumption that the belut lives in clay just

like the trunk of elephant, while it is not. It lives in the water
within or outside its burrow. Its submersion into the clay while
swimming is for purposes, as mentioned earlier. The eye
witnessing proves that it lives in water and it is a water animal
which cannot afford to live in the land forever. Its living in the
land, as they claimed to be haram, is doubtful and even based
on the assumption that it lives in clay without a sum of water
sometimes. Certainty does not cease with doubt, let alone an
assumption.”
Another assumption criticised by ‘Atarid is that belut is different from
fish, since it lives in clay areas upon the surface of the land which is called
barr (land areas). This assumption, ‘Atarid argued, is not acceptable since
it never lives in clay where water does not exist. Some people assumed
that the size of the burrow of a belut was as wide as its body’s size. Given
this, water could not enter the burrow, and therefore it was always dirty as
its saliva. In reply to this, he said that this was in contradiction to his own
observation which demonstrated that the burrow of a belut is wider than
its body. People said that when water decreased, fish would go with stream,
while belut would stay at its place. According to ‘Atarid, this was because
the real place of belut was its watery burrow, while fish lived in the middle
of water.
A certain Kiyai Muhammad Amin of Benda Kerep, Cirebon, West
Java and his students: that belut wanders right and left upon the clay with
watery moisture. They said that “this is not the habit of fish. This also
proves that the belut lives in land and water. O, friends, take a notice that
this is the consideration of its prohibition for them [Jawiyin].” In response
to this, ‘Atarid said that even though the belut wanders in the clay, it does
not diminish the fact that it actually lives in the water. Its wandering left
and right in the clay is temporary. It lives in the water within its burrow.
Furthermore, he made a further comparison between belut and fish as
follows.
44 Sunarwoto IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012

“According to me, O my friends, what I frequently observed

from the conditions of fish and belut in either small or big
pools is that if a water course opens and water flows through
its course, fish frequently goes with that water course and goes
down with the fall of water. The belut remains within clay
after the water goes down from the pool. 22
In addition to comparing the belut with fish, ‘Atarid compared it
with keong (big snail), tutut (small snail) and ramis (small fish) which
remained in the clay after the water streamed down, and even after the
clay dried. These four animals remained in their place when the water
streamed down, while fish would go down with the stream. They could
stay in watery moisture, while fish could afford to live only in water.23
After doing his own observation, ‘Atarid consulted it to his Arab
friends. His friend from Yemen informed that there were two types of
ankalis, one was black and had small feet, and the other was yellow without
any feet. From this information, ‘Atarid became more convinced that belut
was the second type. He then asked his two other Arab friends from Syria
about ankalis and from Sulaymaniya about marmahi respectively. Both
informed that it was a kind of marine animal that lived in freshwater just
like snake, and submerged into clay. From this information, he concluded
without doubt that belut was a kind of jirrith called ankalis and marmahi.
He then came to some prominent ulama at Mecca and told them his
observation concerning natures and characteristics of belut as described
above. They commented, “If such is belut, then it is halal for it is a kind of
hunted marine animal (al-said al-bahri). 24
The last part of Al-Sawa’iq al-Muharramah is dedicated to discussing
other marine animals such as keong, tutut, crab, scorpion, frog, and others.
In this regard, he agreed with those who interpreted the term al-khaba’ith
in the aforementioned Quranic verse as “bad and abhorrent”.25
IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012 Sheikh Mukhtar ‘Atarid on Belut 45

Conclusion
From the description above, it can be seen clearly how Mukhtar
‘Atarid constructed his argumentation concerning the lawfulness of belut.
First of all, he formulated premises related to the debate on belut in order
to uphold his arguments. Then he responded to various opinions which
outlawed the belut. He then communicated his arguments and empirical
evidence to Arabs as the ultimate judgment on the halalness of belut.
Concerning this last point, it is interesting to take notice of the fact that he
seemed reluctant to make a conclusion by himself. This was in line with
the Shafi’i school of Islamic law which regulated that the habit of Arabs
was the third source after the Qur’an and the hadith for determining the
lawful and the prohibited. He wrote on this subject in Arabic rather than
in Malay as he did in his other books. This implies that ‘Atarid wrote this
book not only for his Jawi comrades, but also for wider audience.
46 Sunarwoto IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012

BIBLIOGRAPHY

‘Abd al-Jabbar, ‘Umar, Siyar wa Tarajim Ba‘d ‘Ulama’ina fi al-Qarn al-

Rabi‘ ‘Ashar li al-Hijrah (Jeddah: Tihamah, 1982), h. 245.
Al-Bajuri, Hashiyat al-Bajuri, Vol. 2, Semarang: Usaha Keluarga, n.d.
al-Damiri, Kamal al-Din, Min Hayat al-Hayawan al-Kubra. Vol. 1, Cairo:
Dar al-Tiba’ah al-‘Amirah, n.d.
Anonymous,http://www.betawirempug.com/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117&Itemid=231.
al-Qaradawi, Yusuf, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, 2nd ed,
London: Al-Falah Foundation, 2001.
Azra, Azyumardi, “Hadhrami Religious Scholar in Indonesia: Sayyid
`Uthman”, pp. 249-263, in U. Freitag & W.G. Clarence-Smith (eds.),
Hadhrami Traders, Scholars, and Statesmen in the Indian Ocean,
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997.
Bakry, Hasbullah, Pedoman Islam di Indonesia, Jakarta: UI Press, 1988.
Mukhtar ‘Atarid, Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muharrama li al-Awham al-Kadhiba fi
Bayan Hill al-Balut wa al-Radd ‘ala Man Harramah, Mecca:
Matba‘ah al-Taraqqi al-Majidiyah, 1330/1911.
Pijper, G.F., Fragmenta Islamica: Beberapa Studi Mengenai Sejarah Islam
di Indonesia Awal Abad XX, trans. Tudjimah, Jakarta: UI Press, 1987.
IJPS, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012 Sheikh Mukhtar ‘Atarid on Belut 47

Shaghir Abdullah, Wan Mohd, “Tuan Mukhtar Bogor: Ulama Ahli Syari’at
dan Haqiqat” http://ulama-nusantara.blogspot.com/2006/11/tuan-
mukhtar-bogor-ulama-ahli-syari-dan.html. Accessed 18 March 2011.
Sunarwoto, “The Influences of the Meccan Education on the Pesantren
Tradition with Special Reference to Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hamid Kudus,”
Studia Islamika, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2008), pp. 467-499.
‘Umar al-Samarani, Muhammad Salih b., Majmu‘ al-Shari‘ah al-Kafiyah
li al-‘Awam, Semarang: Toha Putra, n.d.
Yusuf ‘Ali, ‘Abd Allah, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, New Edition,
Beltsville, Maryland: Amana Publication, 2004.