Introduction:

Gelatine is a colourless and flavourless protein which is derived primarily from collagen found in animal bones, skin, and connective tissues. It is widely used as a gelling agent in foods such as jelly, marshmallows, yoghurt, gummy sweets, and capsules for pharmaceuticals. Its purpose is to provide texture, stability, and elasticity to products. It is well established that gelatine offers benefits such as improved skin health, joint support, and protein supplementation.¹

Gelatine extraction is a multi-stage process (see Figure 1).² It begins with collagen — a structural protein found in animal bones, hides, and connective tissues — which is treated through a combination of mechanical (grinding, decanting), chemical (acid and base treatments), and thermal (heating and cooling) steps. These alter the material's physical properties and solubility until gelatine is produced.

Figure 1: Process of Gelatine Extraction

Since gelatine is often derived from non-ḥalāl sources — such as pigs or animals not slaughtered according to Islamic regulation — its permissibility has been a matter of juristic debate.³ Some Shi'i jurists have ruled it permissible (ḥalāl) and pure (ṭāhir), arguing that the production process constitutes istiḥāla and renders it a new substance,⁴ while others have ruled otherwise.⁵

Istiḥāla refers to a transformation so complete that an impure substance becomes an entirely different and pure substance. The main criteria for istiḥāla is a complete change in the essence (māhiyya) and specific form (ṣūra nawʿiyya), such that there is a change in its designation (ism) and it can no longer be referred to as the same thing. A mere change in properties does not qualify — wheat ground into flour or milk processed into cheese, for instance, remain essentially the same substance.⁶

The central question is therefore whether gelatine production meets the threshold of istiḥāla, and whether that assessment should be made according to common perception ('urf) or scientific analysis at the molecular level. Ultimately, however, the responsibility lies with the mukallaf themselves: it is their conviction — informed by jurisprudential reasoning and available evidence — as to whether istiḥāla has occurred that bears the decisive weight.

ICCI Opinion 1:

Gelatine undergoes a significant transformation (istiḥāla) through acid treatment, heating, and molecular reconfiguration and is therefore no longer considered to belong to its original source. Accordingly, gelatine is permissible to consume even when derived from non-halal sources. Any trace amounts said to remain are too negligible to count as consumption of that substance.

Justifications:

1. The Quran prohibits the consumption of swine and carrion in unequivocal terms:

This verse prohibits the pig in its entirety — not merely its flesh, but all its constituent parts, including bones, skin, fat, and their derivatives.

2. Several hadith reinforce the impermissibility of consuming animals over which the name of Allah was not pronounced at the time of slaughter. One such narration reads:

Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb, from ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from ʿUmar ibn Udhayna, from Muḥammad ibn Muslim, from Abū Jaʿfar (peace be upon him):

This narration establishes a prohibition on consuming any animal not slaughtered in the name of Allah. The prohibition attaches to the source animal and consequently extends to all derivatives drawn from it — including gelatine produced from its parts.

3. However, since istiḥāla fundamentally transforms the essence of the original substance, gelatine can no longer be said to derive from a prohibited animal — whether swine, carrion, or an animal not properly slaughtered. The Quranic prohibition applies to these sources in their original state, not to substances that have undergone genuine transformation and are no longer recognisable as such in either nature or common perception. Gelatine, therefore, falls outside the scope of prohibition.

4. The case for the permissibility and purity of gelatine is further supported by narrations indicating that transformative agents such as water and fire render impure substances pure. These narrations are presented as a supporting argument rather than the primary basis for permissibility, helping to illuminate the manāṭ (ratio legis) of transformative purification. In Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, the following is reported:

Although this narration does not explicitly invoke the term istiḥāla, it clearly affirms that fire — as an agent of transformation — renders impure material pure once its original essence is lost. The same reasoning appears in Qurb al-Isnād:

These reports establish that when a substance undergoes such profound change that it no longer retains its prior qualities — whether through fire, heat, or chemical reaction — it is considered purified. Gelatine undergoes a comparable transformation altering its properties so completely that common perception (ʿurf) would no longer regard it as flesh or bone.

Some jurists have questioned whether purification by fire in these narrations occurs specifically by virtue of istiḥāla, or whether fire simply removes the impure substance in a manner analogous to water. Nonetheless, the broader principle — that transformative agents can render impure substances pure — remains instructive for understanding how the transformative agents in gelatine production may operate similarly.

5. The transformation that occurs during gelatine production satisfies the criteria of istiḥāla. Collagen from animal sources undergoes profound physical and chemical changes through acid treatment, heating, and molecular reconfiguration. The resulting substance possesses entirely different properties, appearance, and function from the original raw material. It is no longer bone, skin, or flesh in any recognisable sense, but a clear, odourless powder or sheet that dissolves in water and serves as a gelling agent in food production. It is, in every meaningful sense, referred to as an entirely different product.

10

Crucially, Islamic law is concerned with ʿurf, common everyday perception and understanding — rather than what scientific analysis reveals at a microscopic level. Legal rulings attach to things as ordinary people recognise and name them. This is reflected across numerous jurisprudential examples: a cloth washed clean of blood is ruled pure even if a faint trace of colour remains despite the technical presence of microscopic traces, since fiqh does not operate at that level of precision. The same logic applies to a body of water meeting the kurr threshold — the minimum volume at which Islamic law considers water resistant to impurity — where contact with an impure substance causes no change in colour, taste, or smell, the water remains pure, even where scientific analysis would detect residual traces. If someone objects that no real istiḥāla has occurred at the molecular level in the case of gelatine production, the response is that fiqh is grounded in ʿurf, rather than scientific precision.

6. Some have argued that in the absence of direct textual evidence, one should apply the procedural principle istiṣḥāb (principle of continuity) — the presumption that a previously known state continues until there is evidence of change — and therefore maintain the original ruling of impurity. However, a key condition for its application is unity of subject-matter — the thing in question must remain the same between the certain case and the doubtful one. This condition is not met here. Since istiḥāla has fundamentally altered the essence of the original substance, the prior ruling of impurity cannot be extended to what is now a different substance entirely.

7. Finally, it is possible to invoke aṣālat al-ṭahāra (primacy of purity)—the presumption that substances are pure unless proven otherwise through reliable evidence. Given that the original impure substance has undergone substantial transformation and is no longer recognisable as its source material in common perception, the presumption of purity applies. The burden of proof lies on those who claim that gelatine remains impure, and in the absence of clear evidence that the transformation is insufficient, the default presumption favours purity.

ICCI Opinion 2:

Gelatine does not undergo genuine transformation (istiḥāla) and therefore if derived from non-halāl sources, is considered impermissible for consumption.

Justifications:

1. The Quran prohibits the consumption of swine and carrion in unequivocal terms:

This verse prohibits the pig in its entirety — not merely its flesh, but all its constituent parts, including bones, skin, fat, and their derivatives.

2. Several hadith reinforce the impermissibility of consuming animals over which the name of Allah was not pronounced at the time of slaughter. One such narration reads:

Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb, from ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from ʿUmar ibn Udhayna, from Muḥammad ibn Muslim, from Abū Jaʿfar (peace be upon him):

This narration establishes a prohibition on consuming any animal not slaughtered in the name of Allah. The prohibition attaches to the source animal and consequently extends to all derivatives drawn from it — including gelatine produced from its parts.

3. Gelatine production does not constitute genuine istiḥāla. Classical jurists define istiḥāla as a complete transformation of the essence (ḥaqīqa) and specific form (ṣūra nawʿiyya) into an entirely different substance — not merely a physical or structural modification.

The process of gelatine production essentially breaks apart the tightly wound triple-helix structure of collagen — unwinding and separating its protein chains — so that they become soluble in water and form the gel-like substance we recognise as gelatine. The collagen is not destroyed or replaced; it is softened, broken down into shorter chains, and made soluble. The raw material has changed in texture, appearance, and function, but its fundamental molecular identity remains intact. Porcine-derived gelatine continues to carry detectable porcine DNA markers, even after full processing, meaning the source animal can still be scientifically identified in the final product. This is strong evidence that no transformation of essence has occurred — the molecular building blocks remain identical to those of the original animal material.¹²

This is directly analogous to wheat ground into flour or milk processed into cheese: the form and appearance change, but the underlying substance does not. It stands in clear contrast to the example of wine transforming into vinegar; ethanol is converted into acetic acid, a chemically distinct compound. The substance can no longer be identified as wine at any level of analysis.¹³

ʿurf perceives as a new substance is, at the molecular level, the same material. Istiḥāla requires a fundamental change in the reality of a thing — not merely its appearance or designation. To rely on ʿurf alone, without examining the actual nature of the transformation, would render the concept of istiḥāla meaningless.

5. In this case, one should apply the procedural principle of istiṣḥāb (principle of continuity) — the presumption that a previously known state continues until there is evidence of change — and therefore maintain the original ruling of impurity. Since the original substance was certainly impure and prohibited, and since genuine istiḥāla has not occurred, the previous ruling of impurity and prohibition should be maintained. Even if there is a genuine doubt whether istiḥāla has occurred, it would be necessary to maintain the previous ruling of impurity.

6. The primacy of purity (aṣālat al-ṭahāra) cannot be invoked in this case because the original state of impurity is already established with certainty. Aṣālat al-ṭahāra applies to substances whose status is unknown from the outset, not to substances that were certainly impure and are now claimed to have been purified. Since the collagen from which gelatine is derived was undoubtedly impure, the established impurity takes precedence over the presumption of purity.

7. Despite the impurity of gelatine, it is permitted under a secondary ruling (ḥukm thānawī) where genuine medical necessity (ḍarūra) is established and no substitute is available. This applies, for example, to life-protecting vaccines such as MMR, varicella, and zoster — which contain porcine gelatine as a stabiliser — as well as oral medications encapsulated in porcine-derived gelatine shells.¹⁴

Glossary:

Istiḥāla— Complete transformation of an impure substance into an entirely new, pure
substance.

Māhiyya— The essence of a thing; what it fundamentally is.

Ṣūra nawʿiyya— Specific form; the defining character that makes a substance a particular
type of thing.

ʿUrf— Common perception; how ordinary people recognise and name things.

Istiṣḥāb— Principle of continuity; the presumption that an established legal state
persists until evidence of change exists.

Aṣālat al-ṭahāra— Primacy of purity; the default presumption that substances are pure unless
established otherwise.

Mukallaf— A legally responsible person bound by Islamic law.

Mawḍūʿ — The subject-matter to which a legal ruling attaches.

Manāṭ — The operative cause orratio legis underlying a legal ruling.

Ḍarūra— Necessity; a principle permitting otherwise prohibited acts where no
substitute exists.

Ḥukmthānawī — Secondary ruling; a legal dispensationapplicable under exceptional circumstances.

References:

1. For a detailed scientific study on the structure, bioactivities, and diverse applications of collagen and gelatin see Liu, Dasong, Mehdi Nikoo, Gökhan Boran, Peng Zhou, and Joe M. Regenstein. 2015. “Collagen and Gelatin.” Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 6: 527-557. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-031414-111800
2. Figure 1 is taken from Ellco Food AB. (1998). Method for producing gelatin (European Patent No. EP0689570B1). European Patent Office. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0689570B1
3. Gelatine can also be derived from fish, produced synthetically in laboratories, or made from plant-based alternatives. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/fish-gelatin#:~:text=Fish%20gelatin%20is%20defined%20as,for%20individuals%20with%20chronic%20diseases
4. https://sayedfadlullah.com/sections/50/226/1620
5. https://www.sistani.org/arabic/qa/02067/
6. See Al-Sayyid Muḥammad Kāẓim al-Ṭabāṭabāʼī al-Yazdī, al-ʿUrwa al-wuthqā, v. 1, p. 127 (in the chapter on purifiers, section on istiḥāla). Available online at: https://www.sistani.org/arabic/book/22/1680/
7. Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, vol. 6 (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.), p. 233, ed. ʿAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī.
8. Al-Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb al-aḥkām, v. 2, p. 304
9. Al-Ḥimyarī, Qurb al-isnād, p. 290, hadith no. 1147
10. See Al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-ʿĀmilī’s application of the same principle to rulings of impurity, Madārik al-aḥkām, v. 2, p. 369. Also see al-Muḥaqqiq al-Karakī, Jāmiʿ al-maqāṣid, v. 1, pp. 180-181.
11. Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, vol. 6 (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.), p. 233, ed. ʿAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī.
12. See Liu, Dasong, Mehdi Nikoo, Gökhan Boran, Peng Zhou, and Joe M. Regenstein. 2015. “Collagen and Gelatin.” Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 6: 527-557. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-031414-111800; Cai, Jianrong, et al. 2012. "Identification of porcine, bovine and ovine gelatins by oxidative desulfurization combined with peptide fingerprinting." Food Chemistry 132(4): 2013–2018.
13. Berg, Jeremy M., John L. Tymoczko, and Lubert Stryer. 2015. Biochemistry. 8th ed. New York: W.H. Freeman. Chapter 22; Morales, María Luz, et al. 2006. "Determination of ethanol in wine vinegar by headspace solid-phase microextraction." LWT — Food Science and Technology 39(7): 801–807.
14. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaccines-and-porcine-gelatine/vaccines-and-porcine-gelatine