Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A detailed work on the Ruling of Meat in Islam

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A detailed work on the Ruling of Meat in Islam

    The Ruling on Meat

    One of the most common problems in today’s modern era is the habit of eating and drinking. Due to modernization and technology and the demolished Islamic state, the Muslim lost the control of the foods that which he consumes. Due to living in a jahili (ignorant) society, we must pay more attention towards our approach to eating and drinking even more so than the past eras.

    Abu Hurairah (ra) reported RasulAllah (saw) as saying: “O people, Allah is Good and He therefore, accepts only that which is good. And Allah commanded the believers as He commanded the Messengers by saying: "O Messengers, eat of the good things, and do good deeds; verily I am aware of what you do." (Muminun 23/51). And He said: “O you who believe, eat of the good things that We gave you." (al-Baqara 2/172) He then made a mention of a person who travels widely, his hair disheveled and covered with dust. He lifts his hand towards the sky (and thus makes the supplication): "O Lord, O Lord," whereas his diet is unlawful, his drink is unlawful, and his clothes are unlawful and his nourishment is unlawful. How can then his supplication be accepted?” (Muslim; Tirmidhi; Ahmad, Musnad; Darimi)

    When Sad bin Abi Waqqas asked for the dua of RasulAllah 'O RasulAllah pray for me so that Allah accept my prayer.' RasulAllah said: "Eat from the halal! If you do this, your prayer will be accepted." (Tabarani, Awsat)

    Hafidh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali quoted that the salaf used to cite consumption of halal as one of the attributes of ahlu’s-sunnah: “RasulAllah (saw) used to fear these two evils (of Doubts and Desires) for his ummah as has been reported in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad on the authority of Abu Barzah that RasulAllah (saw) said: ‘Indeed, I only fear for you the desires of transgression found in your stomachs and your private parts and the calamities (fitan) that lead people astray.’ And in another narration there occurs: ‘...and the desires (hawaa) that lead people astray.’ (Ahmad, Musnad, 4/423 and others. al-Manawi said that it had a good chain in his book al-Jami’-ul-Azhar 1/146)…The understanding of the term ‘Sunnah’ to these scholars, was the way of RasulAllah – that which he (saw) and his companions were upon – free from Doubts (ash-Shubuhat) and Desires (ash-Shahawat). Due to this, al-Fudayl Ibn Iyad (ra) used to say: ‘Ahlu’s-Sunnah is he who knows what is entering his stomach from the halal.’ That is because the consumption of halal is from the greatest aspects of the Sunnah, which RasulAllah (saw) and his companions were upon.” (Kashf-ul-Kurbah fi wasfi Haali Ahlil-Ghurbah)

    Imam Sahl b. Abdullah al-Tustari (d.283) said: "The principles of our madhhab are three: eating permissible food; following the Messenger in his words and deeds; sincerity of intentions and all actions" (Sahl al-Tustari, Tafsir 153)

    "Dawud ibn Muhammad narrated to us that he heard an Nabaji saying: There are five traits for accepted deeds: Having Iman by knowing Allah, knowing the truth, sincerely performing worship to Allah, acting upon the Sunnah and eating from what is permissible. If you miss one of these your deeds will not be raised. This is because if you know Allah but do not know the truth you would not benefit, and if you know the truth but do not know Allah you would not benefit. If you know Allah, know the truth but do not sincerely perform worship for Allah you would not benefit. If you know Allah, know the truth, sincerely perform worship for Allah but it is not according to the Sunnah you would not benefit. And if you complete the four but you do not eat from what is permissible you would not benefit." (Ibn Abi ad-Dunya, al-Ikhlas wan Niyyah)

    ‘Halal’ means permissible in Arabic. Allah (awj) commands that all humanity and the Muslim shall eat from the things which are halal. There are so many ayah which indicate this reality. Of them are:

    “O ye people! Eat of what is on earth, Lawful and good; and do not follow the footsteps of the evil one, for he is to you an avowed enemy.” (al-Baqara 2/168)

    “O ye who believe! Eat of the good things that We have provided for you, and be grateful to Allah, if it is Him ye worship.”(al-Baqara 2/172)

    “Eat of the things which Allah hath provided for you, lawful and good; but fear Allah, in Whom ye believe.” (al-Maida 5/88)

    “Eat of the good things We have given you for sustenance, and be not inordinate with respect to them, lest My wrath should be due to you, and to whomsoever My wrath is due be shall perish indeed.” (Ta-Ha 20/81)

    “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be Pagans.” (al-Anam 6/121)

    RasulAllah (saw) said: “Whoever guarantees for me the protection of what is between his cheeks (what he speaks from his tongue and what he eats with his mouth) and what is between his legs (from illegal sex), I will guarantee Paradise for him.” (Bukhari; Tirmidhi)

    Today one of the sins which are performed by mankind is eating from haram or doubtful things. All the evil of nafs and blurriness occur from it. It is because food is spread into the limbs as nutrition. The effect of nutrition will be the same in the limbs. Accordingly deeds will occur from limbs. So, we shall pay attention to our habit of eating, drinking, wearing, so our ibadaah and prayers may be accepted inshaAllah.



    .

  • #2
    Re: A detailed work on the Ruling of Meat in Islam

    Al-asl fil-haywan tahrim

    The linguistic meaning of dhakah shows that the default regarding slaughtered meats is that they are haram and impure. From the meanings of dhakah is to purify and clean, such as in the aforementioned narration of Muhammad bin Ali bin al-Hanafiyyah that the dhakah of the ground – i.e. to purify it – is to dry it. (Lisan al-Arab, 18/314; az-Zamakhshari, Asas al-Balaghah, 1/206; Ibn Athir, an-Nihayah fi Gharib al-Hadith, 2/44; az-Zubaydi, Taj al-Arus, 10/137)

    ash-Sharnablali said: “Dhakah is to remove filth, as it was made a condition for purifying meat, as it is the most appropriate way to distinguish between what is pure and impure.” (Hashiyat ash-Sharnablali, 2/164)

    RasulAllah (saw) specified that the meaning of dhakah is purification, as in a number of narrations it is said “Tanning leather is its purification,” and “Tanning it is its purification.” (Ahmad; Abu Dawud; Nasa’I; Bayhaqi, as-Sunan al-Kubra; Ibn Hibban; ad-Daraqutni. Ibn Hazm said in al-Muhalla, 1/122: “Its chain is as authentic as could be.”) Therefore, the meaning of dhakah is purification, as stated in the noble words of RasulAllah (saw). (Talkhis al-Habir, 1/49)

    The origin of meat is that it is prohibited, until it being halal is certain. The basic rule regarding the meat is that it's prohibited unless we know that it has been slaughtered in the proper way. ‘The default ruling on matters of mu’amalat is that they are permissible except for meats and sexual relations.’ And this principle has been endorsed by the scholars of the fiqh and the majority of scholars of hadith.

    If it is not known whether the animals whose meat is permissible but need to be slaughtered properly in order to become halal were slaughtered according to shariah or not, then the basic principle is that they should not be used, because the basic principle with regard to slaughtered meat is that it is haram unless it is known that it is halal. RasulAllah (saw) forbade eating game meat that had drowned in water because it was not known whether it died as the result of being hunted or from drowning. And he (saw) forbade eating game caught by a dog whose owner had released it and mentioned the name of Allah when releasing it, but he found other dogs with him. The reason for that is that it is not known whether it was his dog that caught it or the other dogs.

    The following narratives are from the clearest of evidences that prove without a doubt that the meat of an animal is considered impure and a carcass before it is slaughtered properly, and it is not allowed to eat meat except if it is slaughtered properly. Meaning the default regarding animal meat is that it is haram.

    Concerning this issue it was narrated from Adiyy ibn Hatim (ra) that RasulAllah (saw) said: “If you release your dog and mention the name of Allah, if he catches something for you and you find it alive, and then slaughter it; if you find he has killed it but has not eaten any of it, then eat it. If you find another dog with your dog and it has been killed, then do not eat, for you do not know which of them killed it. If you shoot your arrow and mention the name of Allah, then (the game) vanishes from your sight for a day, and you only find the mark of your arrow on it, then eat if you wish, but if you find it drowned in water, then do not eat it.” (Bukhari; Abu Dawud; Fathu’l-Bari, 9/610) And in the version reported by Muslim: “…as you don’t know if it was killed by the water or by your arrow.” (Muslim)

    Hakim reported with an authentic chain from Abu Sa’ed al-Khudri (ra) that he asked RasulAllah (saw) about the humps of camels and limbs of sheep, and he said: “Whatever is cut from a live animal is considered a carcass.” (Mustadrak, 4/239. Hakim said: “It is authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim, and they did not report it,” and adh-Dhahabi agreed with him. Ibn Hajar said in Talkhis al-Habir 1/39 that it is mursal.)

    Bayhaqi reported in his ‘Sunan’ from Abi Waqid al-Laythi: “When RasulAllah (saw) approached Madinah and the people would cut off the humps of camels and the rumps of sheep, RasulAllah (saw) said: “Whatever is cut off of an animal while it is alive is considered a carcass,” (Ahmad; Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi; al-Hakim; Ibn Majah; Bayhaqi, as-Sunan al-Kubra 9/245; al-Haythami, Majma az-Zawa’id 4/32; ad-Darimi, Sunan 2/20; Abdur-Razzaq, Musannaf 4/474; Bulugh al-Amani bi Sharh al-Fath ar-Rabbani, 17/155)

    Bayhaqi also reported with an authentic chain from Masruq that he reported that Abdullah bin Mas’ud (ra) said: “If you shoot something that you are hunting and it falls off of a mountain and dies, do not eat it, as I fear that the fall had killed it. And if it falls into some water and dies, do not eat it, as I fear that the water is what killed it.” (as-Sunan al-Kubra 9/248; al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, 3/298)

    Imam Nawawi said: “If you find the hunted animal having drowned, there is consensus that such an animal is forbidden to eat.” (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 13/79; Fathu’l-Bari 9/611)

    The following are some statements of the salaf showing that a limb being cut off of a hunted animal is considered a carcass, which supports the greater principle that meats are by default forbidden until it is certain that they have been slaughtered properly.

    Qatadah said: “If you hit the hunted animal and one of its limbs falls off, do not eat what has fallen off, and instead eat the rest of it.” (Abdur-Razzaq, Musannaf 4/463)

    Atta said: “If you shoot a bird with a stone and a part of it falls off and you find it still alive, the part that fell off is considered a carcass,” and this is what the majority of scholars have agreed on. (Abdur-Razzaq, Musannaf 4/463)

    Bukhari reported that al-Hasan bin Ibrahim said: “If a hunted animal is hit and one of its legs or hands falls off, do not eat what fell, and eat from the rest of it.” (Fathu’l-Bari 12/23)

    Bukhari also reported that al-A’mash narrated from Zayd that a man from the family of Abdullah had a disobedient donkey. So, he asked the people to beat it until it became more obedient, and he said: “Leave what has fallen from it and eat from the rest of it,” (Fathu’l-Bari 12/23)

    This is what the majority of fiqh books have ruled, such as Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 6/473; Fatawa Qadinjan, 3/361, and Qawanin Ibn Juzay, 119.

    This ruling can be summarized in the statement of Nawawi: “The default ruling regarding animals is their prohibition until it is established that they have been slaughtered correctly.” al-Khattabi put it: “The default ruling regarding the animal is that it is prohibited until it is verified with certainty that it was slaughtered properly, as it is not made permissible based on uncertainty.”

    Imam Sarakhsi said: “With the consensus of the ulama the permissibility of two things is related with the religion. These are; animals which will be slaughtered and the women who will be married with. Murtad has no religion.” (al-Mabsut, 10/104)

    Ibn al-Qayyim said: “The ruling remains in effect unless there is evidence to the contrary, such as the ruling on tahaarah (purity), the rulings on breaking wudoo’, the ruling on remaining married, the ruling on possession and the ruling on commitments, all of which remain in effect unless there is evidence to the contrary. This principle is indicated in the hadith in which it is said concerning hunting: “If you find it drowned, do not eat it, for you do not know whether the water killed it or your arrow,” and “But if there are other dogs with him, then do not eat it, for you mentioned the name of Allah over your dog, not any other.” Because the basic principle concerning meat is that it is haram, and there is some doubt as to whether the condition that makes it permissible was fulfilled or not, the game remains haram as it originally was.” (I’laam al-Muqawwi’een 1/339-340)

    All of the scholars of fiqh have confirmed – either implicitly or explicitly – is that the default ruling of animals is that they are haram until it is confirmed that they have been slaughtered properly.

    Imam Nawawi said: “This principle is a point of consensus between the scholars, and there is no dispute regarding it,” (al-Majmu, 9/65) and he commented on the aforementioned hadith of Adiyy bin Hatim that will be mentioned (if Allah Wills) by saying: “It shows an important principle, and this is that if there is any doubt regarding the method of slaughter of an animal, it is not allowed to eat it due to the fact that the default ruling is that it is forbidden, and there is no dispute on this.” (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 13/78; Bulugh al-Amani min al-Fath ar-Rabbani, 17/144)

    al-Kasani said: “Allah made an exception from the prohibited meats for the meat that is properly slaughtered, and the exception from the forbidden means that it is allowed, as prohibition of an animal is not removed except by slaughtering it correctly.” (Bada’i’ as-Sana’i, 6/276)

    It is stated in ad-Durar Sharh al-Ghurar: “Dhakah makes meat permissible to eat and purifies what is not in and of itself impure.” (2/344) In Bada’i’ as-Sana’I it is recorded that: “Animal meat being forbidden is linked to where the blood gushes from, and this prohibition does not go away until the animal is slaughtered correctly.” (6/276) It is cited in al-Hidayah’: “Proper slaughtering is a condition for making the animal permissible to eat.” Ibn al-Hammam said: “Fulfilling the purity (i.e. proper slaughter) of the animal establishes its permissibility.” (Fathu’l-Qadir, 8/406) And in Hashiyat Ibn Abidin: “And the slaughtered animal is considered forbidden so long as it is not slaughtered properly.” (6/294) There are similar statements of Ibn at-Turkmani (al-Jawhar an-Naqiyy, 9/240) an-Nafuri (Badhl al-Majhud fi Hall Abi Dawud, 12/68), and al-Jassas (Ahkam al-Qur’an, 3/298).

    Ibn al-Arabi said: “Our scholars said that the default regarding animals is that they are haram, and they are not permissible to eat except if they are properly slaughtered or hunted. So, if there is any doubt as to the hunter or slaughterer, the meat remains in its default state of being forbidden.” (Ahkam al-Qur’an, 2/546) Also there are similar statements of ad-Dardir (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 2/108), Ibn Rushd (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/426), and al-Qurtubi (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 6/70) in confirming this principle.

    Imam Nawawi said: “The default in animals is that they are forbidden to eat unless it is proven that they were slaughtered properly.” (al-Majmu, 9/65)) Also there are similar statements of al-Khattabi (Ma’alim as-Sunan, 4/122), Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Fathu’l-Bari, 9/519), as-Suyuti (al-Ashbah wan-Nadha’ir, 73), and al-Khatib ash-Shirbini.

    Ibn Rajab said: “As for what is by default forbidden, such as sexual relations and the meat of animals, these are not permissible unless it is certain that the proper contract and proper slaughter has been performed, respectively.” (Jami al-Ulum wal-Hikam, 1/189) Ibn Qudamah said: “The default is to avoid them, and their permissibility is tied to a condition, which is that they be slaughtered properly by those who are qualified to do so.” (al-Mughni, 8/571) And this is what Ibn Taymiyyah said in many places in his Fatawa: “Sexual relations and slaughtered meat are not allowed when there is doubt as to their status.” (Majmua al-Fatawa, 21/89, 21/100, & 32/190) And this is what Ibn Muflih (al-Furu, 2/656) and Mansur al-Bahuti (Kishaf al-Qina, 6/201 & 6/215) said and also ‘al-‘Uddah Sharh al-‘Umdah’ (1/461), and Ibn Humayd relates that Ibn al-Qayyim said the same.

    “The default in animal meat is that it is haram until it is certain that it has been slaughtered properly. (Khattabi, Ma’alim as-Sunan, 4/122) So, it is not allowed to eat something whose status is in doubt, and one cannot simply assume the best in such a case. The default in animal meat is that it is haram. So, if there is doubt that it has died according to the Shar’i method, we return to the default. (Fathu’l-Bari, 9/519 & 12/20; Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id, Ihkam al-Ahkam, 2/308; ash-Shawkani, Nayl al-Awtar 8/149) If there are elements that make the meat halal and elements that make it haram, the ruling is to be made for the side of caution. (al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, 3/298; Badhl al-Majhud fi Hall Sunan Abi Dawud, 13/68)

    It is absolutely and certainly clear to us that the principle stating that the ‘default with animals is that they are haram until it is certain that they were slaughtered properly’ is a principle which is a point of consensus between the scholars, and the scholars of fiqh in particular have applied it to many issues, the most important of which is that if there is a mix of slaughtered meats together – both halal and haram – the entire mixture is considered haram. This is based on the texts and the aforementioned principle agreed upon by the scholars, as the scholars have stated that slaughtered meats that are mixed up in such a manner are not to be eaten. al-Khatib ash-Shirbini said: “If there are Magians and Muslims in the same land, and it is not known if the slaughterer was a Muslim or Magian, it is not allowed to eat such meat due to the doubt in its permissibility, and the default is to not eat it. Yes, it is the case that the Muslims are the overwhelming majority in the lands of Islam, and their meat must be permissible. However, the slaughtered meat of the Magians is not allowed to be eaten.” (Fiqh as-Sunnah, 3/290)

    Imam Nawawi said: “If we find a sheep that is slaughtered without knowing who the slaughterer was, if it was in a land containing those whose meats we cannot eat, such as the Magians, it is not allowed to eat the meat whether they seclude themselves or mix with the Muslims. This is because of the doubt as to whether the meat was slaughtered properly, and the default is that it is haram. However, it is permissible if the land is free of such people.” (al-Majmu, 9/79)

    And in Hashiyat Ibn Abidin it is stated that: “If one finds a slaughtered sheep in his garden, can he eat it? ash-Sharnablali said that it is not allowed to eat it due to the doubt as to whether the slaughterer of this meat is someone whose meats we are allowed to eat. (Ibn Abidin said) What would’ve been more appropriate to say is that if the location was one in which a Magian lived, it should not be eaten. Otherwise, it can be eaten.” (6/476)




    .

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A detailed work on the Ruling of Meat in Islam

      The slaughterer

      As for the slaughterer, he/she must be a sane Muslim or from ahlul kitaab (the People of the Book). Evidence that the slaughter of Muslim is permissible is the command of Allah (swt): “...unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form)...” (al-Maida 5/3) Allah (awj) commands in another ayah that the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab is also permissible: “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." (al-Maida 5/5) It is because the permission regarding the slaughtering of ahlul kitaab mentioned in this ayah it is obvious that the slaughter of other than them is not permissible. The statement “revealed before your time” which is mentioned in the ayah describes the characteristic of ahlul kitaab to whom books had revealed before us (i.e. Jews and Christians).

      The condition of sanity (‘aql) is meant to ensure that the person intended to slaughter, as slaughtering is an act of worship, and it therefore requires an intention. This is the position of the majority of Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali scholars. (Hukm al-Luhum al-Mustawradah 33) So, it is not allowed to eat the meat slaughtered or shot by one who is drunk, a young child, or insane. (Badais-Sanai, 6/ 2776; Ibn Qudama, Mughni, 8/573,581) It is because intention to slaughter of these kind of people is not solid. Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis are on this view. Two views are narrated from Shafiis. According to the first view the slaughter of the insane, the child who is under the age of tamyeez and the drunk can be eaten with karahat. Regarding the second view it can not be eaten. (al-Muhtaj, Mughni, 4/267; Ibn Qudama, Mughni, 8/581) Ibn Qudama says: “As it is in other ibadaah, it is a must that the intention of slaughtering is present and the slaughterer must be sane. Due to insanity; the slaughter of the person who has no intention to slaughter is the same as the knife slaughtering the animal by itself. (Therefore) it is not permissible to eat from it.” (Mughni, 8/581)

      According to the majority of the ulama the slaughter of woman -even if she is on her menstrual period- is permissible to eat. However it is mustahab for man to slaughter. Narrated Ka'b bin Malik that a slave girl of theirs used to shepherd some sheep at Si'a (a mountain near Medina). On seeing one of her sheep dying, she broke a stone and slaughtered it. Ka'b said to his family, "Do not eat (of it) till I go to RasulAllah (saw) and ask him, or, till I send someone to ask him." So he went to RasulAllah (saw) or sent someone to him. RasulAllah (saw) permitted (them) to eat it.” (Bukhari; Ahmad, Musnad)

      Imam Qurtubi in the tafsir of al-Maidah 5/3 stated the following: “It is mustahabb for those other than those who are not consent with in their condition to slaughter. However it is permissible for any male or female, whether baligh (reached age of puberty) or not; who is Muslim or among ahl kitaab who has the ability of slaughtering and who can slaughter accordingly to the sunnah to slaughter. The slaughter of the Muslim is better than the slaughter of the ahl kitaab.” (Tafsir)

      It is also a condition that the muslim or ahlul kitaab person who slaughter the meat should not change his religion. Even if the person who went out of the fold of Islam becomes a Jew or a Christian the slaughter of this person is still unlawful for he is accounted as a murtad. Such person will be offered to revert to Islam otherwise he will be killed. Regarding this RasulAllah (saw) said: “Slay/behead him, who changes his religion.” (Bukhari; Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi; Ibn Maja; Ahmad, Musnad; Nasai; al-Tayalisi; Malik, Muwatta) It is a subject of ittifaq among the scholars that the one who made irtidad from Islam will not be treated as ahl kitaab and their slaughter will not be eaten as the slaughter of the ahl kitaab. (Badais’sanai, 4/2776; Ibn Qudama, Mughni 8/564, 8/132) If a Christian or a Jew who is among ahlul kitaab leaves his deen, he will lose his attribute of being from ahlul kitab and his slaughter will not be eaten unless he becomes Muslim. Likewise the slaughter and hunt of the Christian becomes Jew, or a Jew who becomes Christian will not be eaten. The slaughter of murtad who leaves Islam will not be eaten and ahlul kitaab is also the same. (Badais-Sanai, 6/2777) Allah (swt) commands: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” (al-e Imran 3/85) The Christian who leaves his religion and becomes Jew likewise the Jew who leaves his religion and becomes Christian will be accounted to desire a religion other than Islam and this will not be accepted from him. It is a condition to eat from the meat of slaughter or hunt that it is slaughtered/hunted for Allah. Otherwise it can not be eaten. Allah (jj) said: “He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah.” (al-Baqara 2/173); “He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked.” (an-Nahl 16/115); “I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's.” (al-Anam 6/145); “Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.” (al-Maidah 5/3) As it is clearly seen in these ayah Allah (swt) informed that the meat of animals which are slaughtered for other than Allah (such as idols etc.) is haram. RasulAllah (saw) stated: “Curse of Allah is upon the one who sacrifices an animal for other than Allah.” (Muslim; Nasai; Ahmad, Musnad) To sacrifice for other than Allah in glorification of this other and seeking his pleasure. This is kufr and removes its doer from the fold of Islam. Sacrificing to other than Allah means to kill an animal in the name of other than Allah such as one who kills for an idol or the cross or Isa or to the Kaba, etc. All of this is haram and the meat is not lawful regardless of whether the slaughterer is Muslim, Christian or Jewish. If he intended, along with that, glorification of the one in whose name he killed other than Allah and worship of him/it, the issue becomes kufr. If such person was Muslim before this act, he becomes a murtad after it. Imam Nawawi said the following regarding this hadith: “The meaning of sacrificing other than Allah is the slaughter which is sacrificed for anything beside Allah. For example sacrificing for an idol or prophet Musa or prophet Isa or those which are sacrificed to Kaba are this type. All of these are haram. It is not permissible to eat the meat of such animal even if the slaughterer is Muslim, Jew or Christian. On the other hand during slaughtering other than Allah, if it is meant to show respect to whom the animal is sacrificed and to worship him then this is infidelity. If the slaughterer was Muslim before slaughtering he becomes murtad with this slaughter.” Nawawi continues and says: “Ibrahim al-Marwadhi -among our scholars- said: Scholars of Bukhara issued a fatwa stating that the slaughter of animal which is sacrificed to the authorities during welcoming with the intend to get closer to them is haram and they said sacrificing in this way is sacrificing to other than Allah.” (Sharhi Sahihi Muslim 13/141)

      The slaughter of ahlul kitab which is sacrificed other than Allah also can not be eaten. However Ata, Shabi and Makhul gave permission and stated: “Allah permitted their slaughter while knowing what they utter. Therefore even if they mention the name of Isa while slaughtering, it is permissible to eat from it.” This view also narrated from Irbad bin Sariya, Ubada bin as-Samit and Abu Umama al-Bahil. However the majority of the scholars on the view that the meat of ahlul kitaab which are slaughtered while mentioning the name of Isa, Uzayr or slaughtered to their churches or their holidays will not be eaten. It is because this type of slaughtering is a type of slaughter which is sacrificed to other than Allah and it is haram. Hanafis, Shafiis and Hanbalis are on this view. It is narrated that Imam Malik accounted it as makruh and not haram. It is not allowed to eat except the slaughtered meat of the Muslim or one from the People of the Book who believes in his religion. As we quoted above the majority of the scholars give permission to the meat of ahlul kitaab with the condition that you do not hear him slaughtering in the name of Isa or Maryam or Uzayr. If you don’t hear them, you can eat it without asking about what was said upon slaughtering.

      As it is reported that az-Zuhri said: “There is no problem in eating the slaughtered meat of the Arab Christians, and do not eat it if you hear them mentioning the name of other than Allah upon it. If you do not hear them, Allah has made it permissible and knows their kufr,” (Fathu’l-Bari 9/636) and the same is related from Ali (ra). Scholars of madhab said:

      The following is the summary of the view of Kashani among the Hanafi fuqaha: “If the slaughtering of ahlul kitaab is seen and understood that they merely invoke the name of Allah then it can be eaten. If it is not seen how they slaughter and it is not heard what they invoke again it can be eaten because in this situation it should be shown -as there is room for husnu dhann (assuming the best) for the Muslim- husnu dhann for him and performed as he merely invokes the name of Allah. If a Christian slaughters while invoking the name of Isa or the name of Allah with Isa or the third of three deities, his slaughter can not be eaten. It is because he slaughtered with the name other than Allah.” Kashani continues and said: “Ali (ra) was asked about the slaughter of ahlul kitaab and said: Allah (swt) made their slaughter permissible while knowing what they utter. If it is heard that they invoke merely the name of Isa or invoke the name of Allah with Isa Maseeh their slaughter can not be eaten.” (Badais Sanai 6/2777)

      Muhammad al-Shirbini among the Shafii ulama says: “The slaughter of Muslim and others which they sacrifice other than Allah is not halal. It is because this is slaughtered other than Allah. Even if a Muslim slaughters to show respect and worship him will become kafir and he is the same as he prostrated to an idol. If a person slaughters the animal for Kaba or prophets and his intention is to show respect to Kaba due to it being Baytullah and revering the prophets due to their being prophets of Allah it is permissible to eat their slaughter. The animal which is slaughtered with the intention to become nearer to the authorities can not be eaten however if he slaughters for Allah to show his happiness because of the authority arrive it can be eaten. This resembles aqiqa. If he slaughters for Allah and intends to prevent himself from the harm of jinn his slaughter can be eaten, But if he slaughters only to prevent the harm of jinn his slaughter can not be eaten.” (al-Muhtaj 4/273)


      Ibn Qudama among the Hanbali ulama says: “If ahl kitab does not mention basmala on purpose or invokes a name other than Allah while slaughtering it is not halal to eat what he slauhghtered. Because Allah (swt) commands: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121); “He hath only forbidden you... that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah.” (al-Baqara 2/173) This view is narrated from Ali (ra). Nakhai, Shafii, Hammad, Ishaq and ashabi ray (i.e Hanafis) are also upon this view. However Ata, Mujahid, Makhul said: If a Christian slaughters the animal by invoking the name of Isa Maseeh it is permissible to eat from it. It is because Allah made it permissible for us while knowing what they utter.” Ibn Qudamah answered them saying: “The food which is mentioned in the ayah “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.” (al-Maida 5/5) is the food which includes the conditions which Muslim food requires. As the slaughtered of Muslim which is slaughtered for other than Allah can not be eaten the slaughter of ahl kitab (which is slaughtered for other than Allah) is also can not be eaten. If it is not known whether the slaugheterer invoked the name of Allah or not or whether he invokes the name of something other than Allah or not; the meat of the animal is halal. It is because Allah while knowing that we can not know how every person slaughters had made it permissible for us the ones which the muslim and the ahlul kitaab slaughter.” (Mughni 8/581-582) Ibn Qudama also said: “The slaughter of the ahlul kitaab which are sacrificed to their churches or holidays will be looked at. If a Muslim slaughters it or one among the ahlul kitaab slaughters it while invoking merely the name of Allah it is halal to eat from that animal. It is because it meets the condition of being halal. If any one among ahlal kitab slaughters it and invokes someone else other than Allah or if he abandons invoking basmala on purpose it is not permisisble to eat from it. According to a view which was narrated from Imam Ahmad the meat of animals which are slaughtered for the church and holidays of ahlul kitaab are definetely makruh. It is because they were slaughtered for other than Allah. According to one other view which was narrated from Imam Ahmad it is mubah to eat from such slaughter. This issue had been asked from Irbad bin Sariya and he said: Eat from it and make me eat (also). The same view also narrated from Abu Umama al-Bahili and Abu Muslim al-Hawlani. Abu Darda and Jubayr bin Nufayr ate from such slaughter Amr bin al-Aswad, Makhul, Damra bin Habib gave permission to eat and they brought this as evidence: It is informed in the ayah that “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.” (al-Maida 5/5) the food of the ahlul kitaab is permissible for us. Those slaughters which are slaughtered for church and their holidays are certainly among their food. Al-Qadi said following regarding this matter: If one among the ahlul kitaab slaughters an animal for their holidays or for a star or for an idol or for a prophet and invokes the names of one of these over it, it is haram to eat from it. It is because this is a slaughter which is slaughtered for other than Allah. If he invokes merely the name of Allah, it is permissible to eat from this. It is because Allah (swt) commands: “So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced, if ye have faith in His signs.” (al-Anam 6/118) However it is makruh to eat from this. It is because the slaughterer intended to slaughter for other than Allah with his heart.” (Mughni, 8/568-569)

      Qurtubi among the Maliki madhab says: “Some of the ulama said: If you heard that one among the ahlal kitab invokes other than the name of Allah while slaughtering, do not eat from it. Ali (ra), Aisha (raa) and Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) among the sahaba are upon this view. Tawus and Hasan are also upon this view. They show the ayah: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety...” (al-Anam 6/121) as evidence. Imam Malik said, I accounted this makruh and did not account as haram. Some other ulama said that such slaughter of ahlal kitab can not be eaten. This view is narrated from Abdullah bin Abbas, Abu ad-Darda, Ubada bin as-Samid. Ata, Rabia, Makhul and Qasim are upon this view.” (Tafsir 6/76)

      According to the majority of the scholars it is a must to slaughter with niyyah (intention). The reason is because slaughtering is an act of ibadaah and ibadaah will not be accepted without niyyah. Because the ibadaah of the idol worshippers and other mushrik are rejected it is haram to eat from their slaughtering. However Allah made ahlul kitaab an exception from the other mushrik and made their slaughter permissible to the Muslim. Imam Tabari said: “For being permissible of the slaughtering of ahlul kitaab there is no need for them to invoke the name of Allah. It is because even if they invoke the name of Allah they will not mean the real deity. They mention the name of Allah who they believe he is the father of Isa or Uzayr. Even if they invoke the name of Allah while meaning the real deity (i.e Allah) it is not important for kafir to invoke the name of Allah. It is because their ibadaah is invalid.” (Qurtubi, Ahkamu’l-Qur’an, 6/52)

      Therefore qiyas will not be made regarding slaughtering with intention. According to the majority because slaughtering with intention is an act of worship; there is no room for qiyas in this matter, ijtihad which are made are invalid. As it is in other acts of ibadaah such as prayer, fasting and pilgrimage. As there is no room for ijtihad with regards to these matters and the only way to submit to the command of Allah and RasulAllah the way on this issue is also the same therefore only the command of Allah and RasulAllah will be submitted to. Qiyas, addition, subtraction can not be done in this matter. (Ibn Rusd, Bidayatu’l Mujtahid 1/469-473; Ibn Qayyim, Ilamu’l Muwakkin 2/173-174; Ibn Arabi, Ahkamu’l Qur’an, 2/741) Ulama brought the following as evidence that slaughtering is an act of worship:

      Allah (swt) commands: “Therefore to thy Lord turn in prayer and sacrifice.” (al-Kauthar 108/2) As seen above Allah (swt) mentioned prayer and slaughtering together. This shows that slaughtering is also an act of worship. Ibadaah will not be accepted without intention. Therefore it is a must and condition that slaughtering should be with intention. And the meat of animals which were slaughtered with accidentally or merely with the ibntention of killing it. Allah (awj) commands: “It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him.” (al-Hajj 22/37) In this ayah Allah (jj) informed that not meat nor the blood reaches Allah but the piety meaning the intention to slaughter with the consent of Allah. This ayah shows that intention during the slaughtering is a must. Being a condition of intention during slaughtering shows that slaughtering with intention and basmala is an act of worship. It is because if anything requires intention to be accepted then it is an act of worship.

      According to Imam Shafii slaughtering is not an act of worship. If the cutting meets the rules; it will be permissible to eat from even if it is cut without intention to eat.

      According to the majority of the scholars it is a must and a condition to utter ‘Tasmiyah’ during slaughtering. Tasmiyah is invoking the name of Allah (i.e Bismillah Allahu Akbar) when the knife put on the throat of bird/animal or mentioning Allah's name upon sending the predators to catch the game. When the slaughterer is not from among the Muslim or ahlul kitaab then their slaughter will not be eaten. Even if they invoke the name of Allah during slaughtering. On the other hand the ulama made ittifaq that it is permissible to invoke the name of Allah during the slaughtering or on the tools of hunting while hunting by the Muslim or ahlaal kitaab. Although they made it is necessary to invoke the name of Allah they made ikhtilaaf regarding its condition. Some said it is fard and others said it is sunnah.

      According to the famous view of Imam Ahmad and Imam Malik, and all of the Hanafis it is a must for a Muslim to invoke the name of Allah upon it. It is haram to eat from the meat of an animal which was cut without invoking the name of Allah on purpose. However the meat of an animal which was cut by a Muslim without invoking the name of Allah upon it due to having forgotten is permissible to eat. The following are the evidences for this view:

      Allah (awj) states: "For every nation We have specified a rite (for slaughtering) so that they may take the name of Allah Ta'ala upon (the slaughter of) the animals granted to them as sustenance." (aI-Hajj 22/34) Allah (swt) commands: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) Ibn Kathir says in the tafsir of this ayah: “This Ayah is used to prove that slaughtered animals are not lawful when Allah's Name is not mentioned over them even if slaughtered by a Muslim. The ayah about hunting game, ‘So eat of what they (trained hunting dogs or birds of prey) catch for you, but pronounce the Name of Allah over it.’ (al-Maida 5/4) supports this.” (Tafsir) In this ayah it is informed that eating from meats which Allah’s name had not been pronounced upon it is fisq (transgression and disobedience). One can only be fasiq when he performs haram. This shows that meat which is slaughtered without mentioning the name of Allah upon is haram. Also in the ayah there is a command of ‘eat not’. When restrictions are mentioned in general they refer the restricted act is haram. It is the same here. Imam Bukhari has quoted this verse in his magnum opus under the chapter, "Intentional Omission of the tasmiyah at the Time of Slaughter" to the same input as explained by Hafid Ibn Hajar in the following words: "Imam Bukhari wishes to point out by citing this verse the reproach against using it as proof to legalize omission of tasmiyah by inventing baseless interpretations of the verse and understanding it in a manner contrary to clear import." (Fathul Bari 9/778) Allah (swt) commands in other ayah: “then pronounce the name of Allah over them as they line up (for sacrifice).” (al-Hajj 22/36) In this ayah there is a command of ‘pronounce the name of Allah over them’. When the commands are mentioned in general they refer to obligation. If mentioning the name of Allah over animals was not a condition it would have not mentioned in such absolute manner. Then there is this ayah “So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/118) where there is the command of ‘eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced’. Ibn Kathir in the tafsir of this ayah states: “This is a statement of permission from Allah, for His servants, allowing them to eat the slaughtered animals were in His Name was mentioned when slaughtering them. It is understood from it that He has not allowed that over which Allah's Name was not mentioned when slaughtering. This was the practice of the pagans of Quraysh who used to eat dead animals and eat what was slaughtered for the idols. Allah next encourages eating from the meat of sacrificed animals on which His Name was mentioned upon slaughtering.” (Tafsir)

      Allah (jj) says: ".. .and such animals upon which they mention not the name of Allah only to fabricate a lie against him." (aI-Anam 6/138) RasulAllah (saw) stated: “From my ummah their mistakes, whatever they forget and things which they perform under coercion is lifted meaning forgiven.” (Ibn Maja; Suyuti, al-Jamiu’s-Saghir; Tabarani, al-Mujamu’l-Kabeer; Haythami, Majmau'z-Zawaid; Tabarani, Awsat) Imam al-Haskafi from the Hanafi madhab states: “An animal slaughtered (zabiha) by other than someone from the people of the book (ahl al-Kitab), such as a fire-worshipper, idol-worshipper, etc will not be Halal. Similarly, the animal on which the name of Allah was not pronounced intentionally (will be haram).

      However, if it was left out due to forgetfulness, it would be Halal.” Ibn Abidin narrates and explains the above by stating: ”Meaning a slaughtered animal will not be lawful to consume (halal) if the name of Allah was intentionally not pronounced whether the slaughterer was a Muslim or from the people of the book (kitabi), because of the (clear) text of the Qur’an and the consensus (ijma) of all the scholars.” (Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr, 5/298-299) In the Maliki Madhab, it is stated by al-Darder: ”Pronouncing the name of Allah (tasmiyah) is necessary at the time of slaughtering the animal or sending for hunting if one remembers and is capable of doing so. Thus, it is not necessary for a person who forgets, neither on a person who is dumb and neither on the one who is forced to not pronounce it (mukrah).” (Sharh al-Kabir)

      Imam al-Dasuqi among the Maliki madhab explains the above by stating: ”The meaning of the Qur’anic verse: Eat not of (meats) over which Allah’s name has not been pronounced is that on which the name of Allah was not pronounced intentionally with having capability of doing so. However, if Allah’s name was not pronounced due to forgetfulness or incapability, then the animal would be lawful (halal). An individual ignorant of the ruling (jahil) will be treated in the same manner as the one who deliberately and intentionally does not pronounce the name of Allah.” (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ala al-Sharh al-Kabir, 2/167-168)

      From the Hanbali Madhhab, Imam al-Bahuti states: ”If the slaughterer fails to pronounce the name of Allah deliberately (amadan) or ignorantly (jahlan), the animal will not be lawful (halal), due to the statement of Allah (awj): Eat not of (meats) over which Allah’s name has not been pronounced. However, if he failed to pronounce the name of Allah forgetfully, then it would be lawful (halal) to consume from the animal, due to the Hadith of Shaddad ibn Sa’id wherein RasulAllah (saw) said: ‘The Zabiha of a Muslim is Halal even if he does not pronounce the name of Allah as long as it is not left out deliberately, narrated by Sa’id.” (Kashaf al-Qina ala Matn al-Iqna, 5/181) Imam al-Haskafi states: ”The condition (for an animal to be Halal) is that the animal is slaughtered straight after the pronouncement of Allah’s name (tasmiya) before one begins doing something else (tabaddul al-majlis). So much so that if a person laid down two sheeps, one over the other, and slaughtered them simultaneously with pronouncing the name of Allah once, then they will both be Halal, contrary to the situation where one slaughters them one after the other (in that only the first will be Halal). The reason behind this is that the repetition of the act (meaning the act of slaughtering) necessitates repetition of Tasmiya.” (Radd al-Muhtar ala al- Durr al-Mukhtar, 6/402) This is also mentioned by Ibn Qudama (Mughni 11/33) and Muwaq al-Maliki (al-Taj wa’l-Iklil 3/129) Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states: “If the slaughterer pronounces the name of Allah then engages in eating or drinking something, and then slaughters the animal, in such a case, if the period was considerably lengthy, it will be unlawful to consume the meat. However, if the period was not that long, it would be Halal. And ‘being long’ is what an onlooker would regard it to be a considerable time.” (Durr al-Mukhtar with Radd, 6/302)

      Ibn Qudama, the great Hanbali jurist, states: ”If a person laid down the sheep in order to slaughter it and pronounced the name of Allah, thereafter put the knife down and picked up another knife or replied to a greeting (salam) or spoke to someone, etc, and then slaughtered the animal, it will be Halal to consume it. The reason being is that he recited the Tasmiya for that particular animal without separating the Tasmiya and slaughter with a considerable time. Thus, it is as though he did not speak.” (al-Mugni, 11/33) Imam Abu Yusuf states: "The ruling regarding the animal upon which tasmiya was omitted (at the time of slaughter) is not subject to ijtihad (independent deduction of a ruling from Qur'an and hadith). If a judge rules the permissibility of its sale, his ruling will not be given effect due to it being contrary to consensus of opinion." (Hidaaya)

      According to another opinion of Imam Ahmad and Imam Malik if a Muslim abandons invoking the name of Allah upon it due to forgetting it; it is still haram to eat from. The following are the evidences for this view:

      Allah (swt) commands: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) Adi ibn Hatim (ra) narrates that he said: “O RasulAllah! At times, I let go of my hunting dog but I find with it another dog and I am unaware which of the two hunted the animal? RasulAllah (saw) said: Don’t eat (from the hunted animal), for you have pronounced the name of Allah on your dog and not on the other.” (Bukhari; Tirmdihi; Ibn Maja) In another narration Adi bin Hatim (ra) asked RasulAllah (saw) about the game killed by a trained hound. He (saw) said, “If the hound catches the game for you, eat of it, for killing the game by the hound, is like its slaughtering. But if you see with your hound or hounds another dog, and you are afraid that it might have shared in hunting the game with your hound and killed it, then you should not eat of it, because you have mentioned Allah's name on (sending) your hound only, but you have not mentioned it on some other hound.” (Bukhari; Muslim; Ahmad, Musnad; Nasai) As seen above RasulAllah commanded them to not eat from the dog’s hunt which the name of Allah had not pronounced. This shows that basmala is a condition.

      According to another view of Imam Ahmad, Imam Malik and Shafii invoking the name of Allah during slaughtering is sunnah and not a condition. Abandoning it on purpose is makruh but the meat will not become haram. As long as the slaughterer is Muslim or ahlul kitaab it is permissible to eat from it. Following are the evidences for this opinion:

      Allah (swt) commands: “...unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form)...” (al-Maida 5/3) as seen in the ayah Allah (swt) mentions the slaughterer and not basmala. Also Allah (awj) made the food of ahlaal kitab lawful although most of them do not mention the name of Allah upon it. “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." (al-Maida 5/5) This ayah shows that the basmala is not a condition for slaughtering. Allah (awj) commands: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) It is understood from this ayah that the prohibition for eating from the meat of the animals which are slaughtered with mentioning the name of something other than Allah and not the meat of the animal which is slaughtered without tasmiya. Allah (swt) commands: “I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine, -for it is an abomination- or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's.” (al-Anam 6/145) Allah (awj) listed the forbidden to be eaten however He did not mention about the animals which are slaughtered without basmala. According to a narration which is related from Aisha (raa) also supports this view: “Some people said to RasulAllah (saw): “A group of people brought us some meat, and we don’t know if Allah’s Name was mentioned on it or not.” So, he (saw) said: “You mention Allah’s Name upon it and eat it,” and Aisha (raa) said: “And these people had just recently entered Islam.” (Bukhari; Abu Dawud; Nasai; Ibn Maja; Malik, Muwatta; Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Kubra; Ibn Hajar Fathu’l-Bari 12/54; al-Ayni’ Umdat al-Qari 21/118) Bayhaqi titled the chapter under which he placed this hadith ‘Whoever Doesn’t Mention Allah’s Name and Whose Slaughtered Meat is Permissible.’ (Ibn at-Turkmani, al-Jawhar an-Naqiyy ala as-Sunan al-Kubra 9/239) If mentioning the name of Allah upon it was a condition then it would not have given permission to eat from such meat which there is some doubts regarding whether Allah’s name was mentioned or not. (Mukhtaj, Mughni 4/266-273) So, this hadith of Aisha (raa) is referring to a group of Muslim bedouins who had just accepted Islam. In fact, as stated by al-Baghawi, ash-Shafi’i derived from this that the Tasmiya is not a condition for the permissibility of the meat. (Sharh as-Sunnah 11/194) “Ibnul Jawzi said: Meaning of the satement ‘You mention Allah’s Name upon it and eat it’ is say basmala before you eat. It does not have the meaning that if anyone does not mention the name of Allah when he slaughters, he should mention the name of Allah while eating. This basmala will cover the first basmala (which was not mentioned) and enough.” (Umdatu’l-Qari 11/172-173) Shawkani stated: “According to what understood from this hadith the ruling of permissible will given to the stuff in the market places of the Muslims. Badawi who are Muslim are also the same (rulingwise). It is because they generally also know mentioning basmala.” (Naylu’t-Awtar 8/158) In the case of a Muslim forgetfully omitting the tasmiya, the animal will be permissible for consumption as is the ruling of all the four Madhaahib based on the following hadith of "A believer always slaughters upon the name of Allah, whether he (remembers to) recites it or not" (Fathu’l Bari 9/793) RasulAllah (saw) also stated: “The sacrifice of Muslim is permissible to eat whether he mentions the name of Allah during slaughtering or not.” (Abu Dawud; Darakutni) It is also narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra) that he said: “If a Muslim slaughters an animal without mentioning the name of Allah upon it, eat from it. It is because there is one of the names of Allah (Salam) in the word Muslim.” (Darakutni) Abdurrazzak narrates it as the statement of Ibn Abbas: “Without doubt Muslim has the name of Allah. If he slaughters an animal and forgets mentioning the name of Allah eat from it. If a Magus slaughters and mentions the name of Allah upon it, do not eat from it.” (Hashiyatu Darakutni) It is narrated from Abdullah Ibn Abbas that RasulAllah (saw) said: “The attribute of Islam is enough for Muslim. If he forgets mentioning the name of Allah while slaughtering, he should mention the name of Allah and then eat from it.” (Darakutni) This is also narrated as the statement of Ibn Abbas (ra). “Whoever slaughters an animal without mentioning the name of Allah forgetfully; there is nothing wrong to eat from it.” (Bukhari) Abu Huraira (ra) said: “Someone came and asked RasulAllah (saw): O RasulAllah! What is the ruling for meat which was slaughter by one of us who forgot mentioning the name of Allah upon it? RasulAllah (saw) said: The name of Muslim is present in every Muslims tonque.” (Darakutni; Majmauz-Zawaid; Tabarani; Awsat) Ibn Abdulbarr said: “Indeed, if the Muslim slaughter some meat and it is not known if he mentioned Allah’s name upon it, there is no problem in eating it, and it is to be assumed that he did so. One should assume nothing but the best about the believer, and his slaughtered meat and hunted game is to be assumed safe to eat.” (at-Tamhid 22/299)
      and the same was concluded by Ibn Qudamah (Mughni 13/77) Imam Shafii said: “When a Muslim sends his (hunting) dog or bird, both of which are trained (to hunt), I would prefer that he pronounces the name of Allah. If he did not pronounce the name of Allah forgetfully, and the animal was hunted, then it would be Halal to consume from it.” (Kitab al-Umm, 2/227) Further along, Imam Shafii clearly states that the one who does not pronounce the name of Allah by taking the matter lightly, then the animal slaughtered by him would not be lawful. He states: “If a Muslim forgets to pronounce the name of Allah Most High, the slaughtered animal is Halal to consume. However, if he did not pronounce the name of Allah by taking the matter lightly (istikhfafan), then the slaughtered animal will not be lawful to consume.” (al-Umm, 2/131, Bab Zaba’ih ahl al-Kitab) Concernıng this matter according to the famous view which is attributed to Imam Ahmad that he differentiated slaughtering an animal and hunting with regards to mentioning the name of Allah. He says: “Slaughtering an animal is in normal conditions therefore forgeting basmala may be excused. However it is because hunting is not in normal conditions of slaughtering forgetting to mention the name of Allah will not be tolerated. The apearent meaning of the ayah which commands to mention the name of Allah will be taken into consideration and it is ruled that the animal which is hunted without mentioning the name of Allah can not be eaten.” (Mughni 8/540-541) Ibn Abdilbarr said: “For this reason basmala will only be mentioned upon animal for tabarruk. Mentioning basmala has no effect over eating from it.” (az-Zarkani 3/80) Razi said the following while explaining the ayah “” (al-Maida 5/3): “When it comes to the animal which is slaughtered without basmala, the duty of dhaka is accruated on this animal too. It is because we made ittifaq that the animal will be mudhakka when basmala is adandoned due to forgetting. Therefore this indicates that mentioning the name of Allah is not a part of dhaka. When it is like this, dhaka is possible without basmala.” (Tafsir)

      The situation of Muslim who intentionally abandons mentioning the name of Allah during slaughtering is following three:

      1- (If the slaughterer says:) My heart is full with the name of Allah and tawhid. No need to utter with my tongue. The slaughter of such Muslim will be eaten. It is because he mentioned Allah and glorified Him.

      2- (If the slaughterer says:) It is not necessary to mention the name of Allah while slaughtering. For the reason that this is not an act of worship. I am slaughtering to eat meat. The slaughter of such person also can be eaten. It is because he relied upon a scholar who has evidence (i.e. Imam Shafii).

      3- (If the slaughterer says:) I do not mention the name of Allah. What is the value of basmala? The slaughter of such person can not be eaten. It is because this person becomes murtad due to having belittled the basmala.” (Ibn Arabi, Ahkamu’l-Qur’an; Qurtubi Ahkamu’l-Quran, 7/50)

      As a result: There is ijma regarding the permission of mentioning the name of Allah while slaughtering. However there is ikhtilaf among the ulama regarding whether it is a condition of slaughtering or not. According to the preferable view of Abu Hanifa and the Hanafis, Imam Malik and Ahmad mentioning the name of Allah is a condition. However the slaughter of the one who forgot to mention the name of Allah can be eaten. According to the view which was narrated from Dawud, Shabi one view of Malik and Abu Thawr it is a must and condition to mention the name of Allah. Even if it is abandoned due to forgetting to mention, it can not be eaten. Imam Ahmad agreed with them in hunting. Abu Hurairah (ra), Tawus, Shafii and according to one view of Malik and Ahmad mentioning the name of Allah upon slaughtering is sunnah. Even the slaughter of the one who abandons it intentionally can be eaten. (Badai's-Sanai 6/2775-2782; Muhtaj, Mughni 4/266-273; Ibn Qudama, Mughni, 8/540-541, 565-; Qurtubî, 7/74-77; Sharh az-Zarkani 3/80; Naylu'l-Awtar 8/152,158)

      Attention must be paid to the fact that: The ikhtilaf among the scholars had been regarding whether the mentioning of the name of Allah over the animal during slaughtering is a condition or not. And there is no ikhtilaf regarding the matter that slaughterer must be Muslim or one from among the ahlul kitaab. It is not right to extract conclusions from the statements of the Shafiis ‘the meat which is slaughtered without mentioning the name of Allah is permissible’ and stating that ‘therefore the slaughter of the mushrik who attribute themselves to Islam, murtad and those atheist is permissible.’ It is because the scholars of the Shafii madhab and others who had agreed with them bring the condition that ‘the slaughterer/hunter must be either Muslim or ahlul kitaab’ and then they said that it is not a condition for them (i.e Muslim or ahlul kitaab) to mention the name of Allah upon the animal during slaughter.




      .

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A detailed work on the Ruling of Meat in Islam

        Ahlul Kitaab

        After we study that originally all things are permissible (in matters other than ibadah) unless proven to be unlawful (al-Asl fi al-Ashya al-Ibaha), when it comes to the issue of meat it is different, in this case it is unlawful until proven to be Halal (Al-asl fil-haywan tahrim) and Allah made it permissible to eat from the slaughter of the Muslim “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/3) and there is no ikthilaf regarding the slaughterer being a Muslim and also there is no ikhtilaf regarding eating the meat of an animal which is slaughtered by the Muslim. Here we are going to take in hand the issue of animals slaughtered by the ahlul kitaab .

        Ahlul kitaab (People of the Book) are non-Muslim people who, according to the Qur’an, received scriptures which were revealed to them by Allah before the time of Muhammad (saw), most notably the Jews and Christians. The term ahlul kitaab means those whom the books had been revealed to. According to all scholars this term refers only to the Jews and Christians. Scholars have discussed in great detail exactly what is meant by the expression "People of the Book" and whether or not that meaning would change with time. The majority of scholars say that the meaning of the People of the Book has not changed and should not change with time, even if the Christians and Jews deviate more in their path from the True Path and regardless of how much they practice of their religion. The reasons for this understanding are very simple. Firstly, all or most of these deviations existed even before the revelation of the Qur’an to our Prophet (saw), yet Allah (swt) called them the People of the Book. Secondly, Allah (swt) did not mention in the Quran - and He surely knows that they are going to change. We should not, therefore, pay attention to these changes, and should treat them, in every way in which we deal with them, as who they are - People of the Book. Evidences for the Jews and the Christians being ahlul kitaab is as follows:

        “The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us” (al-Anam 6/156) Allah (swt) used the word ‘innama’ before the word ‘sent down’. The Arabic word ‘innama’ is a particle that negates everything else which refers hasr (restriction). And the meaning of this ayah is: “Book was sent down only to two people before you.” According to this ayah ahlul kitaab are the only two people who are given book; Jews and Christians. Abu Bakr al-Jassas says the following in the tafsir of this ayah: “It is informed in this ayah that ahlul kitaab are only two people with the statement ‘The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us’. Therefore the ahlul kitaab which is meant in the ayah: ‘The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.’ (al-Maida 5/5) is Jews and Christians.” (Tafsir) Ibn Kathir says: “to two sects before us: refers to the Jews and Christians, according to Ali bin Abi Talhah who narrated it from Ibn Abbas. Similar was reported from Mujahid, as-Suddi, Qatadah and several others.” (Tafsir) Ibn Abbas says: “The Scripture was revealed only to two sects: the people of two religions (before us) i.e. the Jews and Christians” (Tafsir Ibn Abbas)

        Allah (awj) commands: “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.” (al-Maida 5/5) This ayah clearly shows that the slaughtering of ahlul kitaab is permissible. The statement “revealed before your time” (al-Maida 5/5) which is mentioned in the ayah describes the characteristic of ahlul kitaab to whom books had been revealed before us and they are Jews and Christians.

        Ulama did not account those who claim to submit to the Zabur among the ahlul kitaab which was revealed to Dawud (as). It is because during the time period of RasulAllah (saw) there were no one who submitted to the Zabur. Therefore if some occur and claim to submit to the Zabur, they will not be accounted as ahlul kitaab .

        There is a qaidah (principle) in usulu fiqh that “When the linguistic meaning and the sharri meaning of the word contradicts the sharri meaning of the word will be preferred.” Therefore although it had been clearly informed in the Quran and sunnah by taking the linguistic definition of ahlul kitaab there is no greater deviation than to state the following “anyone who attributes himself to any heavenly religion and performs shirk is accounted as ahlul kitaab likewise anyone who attributes himself to the Qur’an and performs shirk will be accounted as ahlul kitaab. It is because the latter one also submits to a scripture as the others do” and giving the hukm of ahlul kitaab to those murtad who left the religion of Islam and mushrik who claim to be a follower of the Qur’an are also ahlul kitaab and their slaughter is also permissible as the slaughter of Jews and Christians.

        It is because the borderline between kufr and iman is differed from one another after Allah (swt) revealed the Qur’an and completed His religion. For this reason only the one who submits to it correctly becomes Muslim. Anyone who claims to submit to it while opposing, rejecting or performing shirk will be accounted as murtad and mushrik even if they claim to submit it. The Ulama made ittifaq that the slaughter of the murtad can not be eaten. Moreover if any Christian or Jew becomes Muslim and then turn back to their ex-religion can not be accounted as ahlul kitaab but only murtad. It is because the murtad is the general name of the kuffar who left Islam. If the murtad does not accept to enter Islam, he will be killed as a punishment.

        Jews and Christians being ahlul kitaab is a matter the ulama has ittifaq over. It should be pointed out that the slaughter of the People of the Book is halal regardless of whether their country is considered to be part of the Daru’l-Harb (at war with Muslims) or Daru’s-Salaam (at peace with Muslims). Imam Nawawi has reported on the consensus of scholars on this matter. (al-Majmuu’a 9/68) But it is reported that Ali (ra) did not account the Bani Taghlib among the ahlul kitaab. Ibn Jawzi has narrated with his sanad from Ali (ra): “Do not consume the slaughter of the Christians of Banu Taghlib since they have not held to any more of Christianity than their drinking of wine.” (Ruhu’l-Maani 6/64-65; Qurtubi Tafsir 6/78; Badais Sanai 6/2775-2776; Ibn Qudama Mughni 8/517; Razi, Tafsir al-Maida 5/3)

        Ali (ra) recited the following ayah regarding them: “And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.” (al-Baqara 2/78) It is narrated from Sa’ed bin Jubayr, Rabi, Muhammad bin Ali, Nakhai, Shafii that they are also upon this view. (Ruhu’l-Maani 6/64-65; Qurtubi 6/78; Ibn Qudama Mughni 8/517) However according to majority of scholars all the Christians including Bani Taghlib are ahlul kitaab . (Qurtubi Tafsir 6/78; Ibn Qudama Mughni 8/517; Badais Sanai 6/2775) Abdullah bin Abbas said that Bani Taghlib are ahlul kitaab and recited the following ayah: “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” (al-Maida 5/51) After reciting this ayah he said: “Bani Taghlibs taking Christians as friends is enough to account them Christians and to eat their slaughter.” (Qurtubi Tafsir 6/78; Badais Sanai 6/2775) It is also reported that az-Zuhri found nothing wrong with eating the slaughter of Arabs who are Christians and said: “There is no problem eating the slaughtered meat of the Arab Christians, and do not eat it if you hear them mentioning the name of other than Allah upon it. If you do not hear this, it is permissible despite their kufr.” (Bukhari; Fathu’l-Bari 9/636) There are two views narrated from Ahmad bin Hanbal: According to the first view neither the women of Bani Taghlib can be married nor their slaughters can be eaten. According to the second view which is preferred both are permissible. (Ibn Qudama Mughni 8/517) It is reported that Imam Shafii said that it is impermissible to eat from ahlul kitaab who are Arab origin. (Ibn Qudama Mughni 8/517; Ruhu’l-Maani 6/64; Qurtubi Tafsir 6/78) It was narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra) that he said: “There is nothing wrong with eating from the meat of animal which is slaughtered by Arab Christians.” Abu Hanifa also adopts this view. (Razi, Tafsir al-Maida 5/3) According to Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali scholars all of the Christians are among ahlul kitaab. No matter they are Arab or Ajam. The proof for the condition that the person who slaughters be one among the ahlul kitaab (i.e Jew, or Christian) is the following verse:

        “Today, the pure foods and the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them…” (al-Maidah 5/5) What is meant by ‘the food of the People of the Book’ is ‘their slaughtered meat’, as stated by Ibn Abbas (ra), Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Saed bin Jubayr, Ikrimahh, Ata, al-Hasan (al-Basri), Makhul, Ibrahim an-Nakhai, as-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated (Fathu’l-Bari 9/636; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir; Ayni, Umdetu'l-Kari Sharhu'l-Bukharî, 2/118-119; Ruhu'l-Maani, 6/64-65; Qurtubi, Tafsir 6/76) and this is an issue that the scholars have agreed on. Ibn Kathir says: “This ruling, that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible for Muslims, is agreed on by the scholars, because the People of the Book believe that slaughtering for other than Allah is prohibited. They mention Allah's name upon slaughtering their animals, even though they have deviant beliefs about Allah that do not befit His majesty.” (Tafsir) As for the slaughtered meat of those who are not Muslims or People of the Book, it is haram due to the opposite implication of the verse. In other words, the fact that the Qur’an was silent about the meat of other than the Muslims and People of the Book and mentioned only these two groups here shows that everything else is haram, and silence about something is enough of a clarification. And if the slaughtered meats of other than these two groups were halal, there would have been no point in mentioning the food of the People of the Book, and the Qur’an contains nothing that is haphazard.

        RasulAllah (saw) said: “When you go to the land of Persia where there are Nipti if you want to buy meat buy it if the slaughterer is among Jews or Christians and eat from it. If the slaughterer is Magisian then do not eat from it.” (Ahmad, Musnad) RasulAllah (saw) also said: "Treat the Magians as you treat the Ahl-kitaab. But do not marry with their women and do not eat their slaughter." (Abu Dawud) According to a narration in sahihayn the people of Khaybar gave RasulAllah a gift of a roasted leg of sheep, which they poisoned. RasulAllah (saw) used to like eating the leg of the sheep and he took a bite from it, but it told RasulAllah that it was poisoned, so he discarded that bite. The bite that RasulAllah (saw) took effected the palate of his mouth, while Bishr bin al-Bara bin Marur died from eating from that sheep. (Bukhari; Muslim; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir) In another narration Abdullah bin Mughaffal said: “While we were besieging the castle of Khaibar, Somebody threw a skin full of fat and I went ahead to take it, but on looking behind, I saw RasulAllah and I felt shy in his presence (and did not take it).” (Bukhari; Muslim; Abu Dawud; Ahmad, Musnad; Nasai; Darimi; Halabi, Siyari Halabi) Ibn Kathir says: “The scholars rely on this hadith as evidence that we are allowed to eat what we need of foods from the booty before it is divided. The scholars of the Hanafi, the Shafii and the Hanbali Madhhabs rely on this hadith to allow eating parts of the slaughtered animals of the Jews that they prohibit for themselves, such as the fat.” (Tafsir) As seen Abdullah bin Mughaffal wanted to take the fat which was thrown by a Jew and although RasulAllah (saw) observed it and smiled at him; he (saw) did not prevent him to take it. This is a takriri sunnah which shows that RasulAllah (saw) approved his action. (Umdatu’l-Kari 15/78)

        The following are narrated from the sahaba: It was related by Ibn Kathir from Sa’id bin Mansur with a good chain from Ibn Mas’ud (ra) that he said: “Do not eat slaughtered meat except from the Muslims and the People of the Book.” (Tafsir 2/19) As for one from the People of the Book whose slaughtered meat is permissible, he is one who believes in the Christian or Jewish religion regardless of whether this is before or after these religions had been distorted. It is reported that Ibn Abbas said: “The slaughtered meats of the Jews and Christians are allowed because they believe in the Torah and the Gospel.” (Tabarani, Kabeer; al-Haythami Majmau’z-Zawaid) Abu al-Khayr said: “I saw Ibn Wa'la al-Saba'i wearing a fur. I touched it. He said: Why do you touch it? I asked Ibn Abbas saying: We are the inhabitants of the western regions, and there (live) with us Berbers and Magians. They bring with them rams and slaughter them, but we do not eat (the meat of the animals) slaughtered by them, and they come with skins full of fat. Upon this Ibn Abbas said: We asked RasulAllah (saw) about this and he said: Its tanning makes it pure.” (Muslim) As seen in this hadith it is clearly shown that the meat of mushrik (Berbers and Magians) can not be eaten. It is related that Abdullah bin Abbas said: “In the hearth of Muslim there is a name of Allah. If he forgets to mention the name of Allah upon slaughtering the meat of his slaughter can be eaten. However if a fire worshipper slaughters an animal and even if he mentions the name of Allah the meat of his slaughter can not be eaten.” (Darakutni; Hakim, al-Mustadrak; Abdurrazzak, Musannaf) It is reported that Ali (ra) said: “There is nothing wrong to eat from the breads of Magians. The slaughter of theirs is prohibited.” (Darakutni) It is obvious that mushrik other than ahlul kitaab are also the same. According to the narrations from Ibn Masud (ra), Ibn Abbas (ra), Ali (ra), Jabir (ra) and Abu Burda (ra) when Muslim conquered the land of Persian and Rum they were investigating whether the slaughterer is among the ahlul kitaab or the mushrik in such places where the ahlul kitaab and the mushrik live together. (al-Mughni ala mukhtar al-harki 9/393) All of the sahaba, tabiin made ittifaq that the meat which is slaughtered other than Muslim and ahlal kitab is prohibited. No narration has reached us stating that it is permissible to eat from the meat which is slaughtered by other than the Muslim and the ahlul kitaab. (al-Mugnni 9/392-393, Qurtubi Tafsir 6/77-78)

        Although Imam Shafii accounted slaughtering for eating is an ibadaah he said that the meat which is slaughtered other than the Muslim and the ahlul kitaab is haram accordingly to the al-Maida 5/3 and al-Maida 5/5. (Madhahibu’l-Arbaa 1/729) Ibn Qayyim says: “The slaughter of other than ahlul kitaab is the same as dead. There are wisdoms behind being haram of the slaughter of mushrik other than ahlul kitaab which are known and some are not known by us.” (Ilamu’l-Muwakkin) According to the majority of scholars the ayah which informs that the food of the people of book is lawful is general therefore it is permissible to eat from the meat which is slaughtered by any Jew or Christian as long as all the conditions meet. (Qurtubi, Tafsir 6/78; Ibn Qudama, Mugni, 8/568; al-Mukhtaj, Mughni, 4/266-273; Ruhu'l-Maani, 6/64-65; Badai as-Sanai, 6/2775,2830) According to all of the scholars the slaughter of the murtad even if he enters the religion of ahlul kitaab is haram. (Ibn Qudama al-Mughni 9/388; al-Majmua Sharu-Muhazzab 9/81; Shafii, al-Umm 6/155, 7/331; Imam Muhammad al-Mabsut 142-143; Mardawi al-Insaf 10/389; Ibn Najjar Muntaha’l-Iradat 2/513)

        The situation of the ahlul kitaab after the Qur’an had been revealed is also a matter of disagreement between the scholars. According to some scholars the ahlul kitaab are only the Jews and the Christians who were bound to the Torah and the Injil prior to the revelation of the Qur’a. It is because it is stated in the ayah that “revealed before your time” (al-Maida 5/5) Meaning whoever enters Christianity or Judaism after Qur’an had been revealed will not be accounted as ahlul kitaab.” (Razi, Mafatihu’l-Ghayb 11/151)

        According to the majority the slaughter of all the Jews and the Christians including those after the Qur’an had been revealed. There is no difference between the bani Taghlib or some others. It is reported from Ibn Abbas that he said regarding the Bani Taghlib: “Even if the Bani taghlib do not perform anything except being friends with the Christians their slaughtering can be eaten. It is because Allah (awj) commands: “And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” (al-Maida 5/51) (Qurtubi Tafsir) Therefore eating the poultry is permissible because that which is slaughtered by the ahlul‐kitaab today is just as what was slaughtered by ahlul‐kitaab in the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). The ahlul‐kitaab are of the kuffaar (disbelievers) whether they are in the time of RasulAllah (saw) or now. Allah says: “Surely, they have disbelieved who say: ʺAllah is the Messiah, son of Maryam.ʺ (al-Maida 5/72) and also states: “Surely, disbelievers are those who said: ʺAllah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).ʺ (al-Maida 5/73)

        The slaughter of the ahlul kitaab which is sacrificed other than Allah also can not be eaten. According to the majority of sahaba and majority of the Hanafis, Shafiis, Hanbalis, Malikis and Zahiris if the ahlul kitaab invokes the name of something (i.e Isa, Uzayr, Musa etc) upon the animal during slaughtering it is haram for the Muslim to eat from it. They brought the following nass as evidence:

        Allah (swt) commands: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) Allah (awj) also commands: “He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah.” (al-Baqara 2/173) and also “He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked.” (an-Nahl 16/115) and “Say: I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's.” (al-Anam 6/145) According to the other view of Imam Malik, Imam Shafii and Imam Ahmad it is makruh to eat from the meat of slaughter which is slaughtered by the ahlul kitaab for their churches and their holidays. It is because such act is due to revering shirk and not for Allah. Qurtubi says: “Some others said: If you hear that the ahlul kitaab invokes the name of something other than Allah do not eat from it. Ali, Aisha and Ibn Umar among the sahaba are upon this view. This is also the view of Tawus and al-Hasan… Malik without making it haram said: I see it as makruh.” (Tafsir al-Maida 5/5) Shaykhu'l Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "As for that which is slaughtered by the people of the Book for their festivals and as an act of worship to draw closer to someone other than Allah, as the Muslims offer their sacrifices to draw closer to Allah thereby, such as what they slaughter for the Messiah and Uzayr, there are two reports narrated from Ahmad concerning that, the most well known of which in his texts is that it is not permissible to eat it, even if the name of someone other than Allah has not been mentioned over it. The prohibition on doing that was narrated from Aisha (raa) and Abdullah Ibn Umar (ra)." (Iqtida al-Siraat al-Mustaqeem 1/251)

        However according to Ata, Shabi and Makhul, Hasan (al-Basri), Saed ibn Musayyab, Awzai, Zayd bin Sad and Ashab among the Malikis gave permission and stated: “Allah permitted their slaughter while knowing what they utter. Therefore even if they mention the name of Isa while slaughtering, it is permissible to eat from it.” This view also narrated from Irbad bin Sariya, Ubada bin as-Samit and Abu Umama al-Bahil. The following are the evidences of this view:

        Allah (swt) commands: “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.” (al-Maida 5/5) Allah surely knows how the ahlul kitaab slaughters. And without any condition in this ayah it is permitted to eat from the meat of animal which is slaughtered by the ahlul kitaab. This shows that the method of slaughtering and invoking upon the animal has no importance. The important thing is their being ahlul kitaab. Abu Darda (ra) was asked about the ruling on the meat which is slaughtered for a church called Jirjis. He said: “O Allah! I seek your mercy. These are from ahlul kitaab. And their slaughter is halal for us. And our slaughter is halal for them.” And he made it halal. (Tabari; Jassas Ahkamu’l-Qur’an) Qurtubi narrates that Qasim bin Muhaymara said: Even if the Christian person says with the name of Sarjis (name of a church) eat what he slaughters. This is also the view of az-Zuhri, Rabia, Shabi and Makhul. The same view also narrated from Abu Darda and Ubada bin as-Samit among the sahaba.” (Tafsir al-Maida 5/5) Ibn Zayd said: “Allah made the slaughter of ahlul kitaab permissible for us and did not make any exception.” (Qurtubi, Tafsir)

        According to a narration from Ikrimah, Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “Allah (awj) after commanded the ayah ‘Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.’ (al-Anam 6/121) made Jews and Christians excluded from this (general) ruling and commanded: ‘The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.’ (al-Maida 5/5) meaning it is not necessary for ahlul kitaab to invoke tasmiya for their slaughter to be halal. The ahlul kitaab which is referred in the ayah are Jews and Christians.” (Abu Dawud; Qurtubi, Tafsir) Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “Even though Christians slaughter with invoking the name of Messiah still their slaughter can be eaten due to being Christians. Likewise even though Jews slaughter with invoking the name of Uzayr still their slaughter can be eaten due to their being Jews.” (Qurtubi Tafsir 6/53) Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “The reason of permissibility of the slaughter of Jews and Christians is their believing in the Torah and Injil.” (Hakim)

        However the majority of the scholars carry the view that the meat of ahlul kitaab which are slaughtered while mentioning the name of Isa, Uzayr or slaughtered to their churches or their holidays will not be eaten. It is because this type of slaughtering is a type of slaughter which is sacrificed to other than Allah and it is haram. Hanafis, Shafiis and Hanbalis are on this view. It is narrated that Imam Malik accounted it as makruh and not haram. It is not allowed to eat except the slaughtered meat of the Muslim or one from the People of the Book who believes in his religion. As we quoted above the majority of the scholars give permission to the meat of ahlul kitaab with the condition that you do not hear him slaughtering in the name of Isa or Maryam or Uzayr. If you don’t hear them, you can eat it without asking about what was said upon slaughtering. As it is reported that az-Zuhri said: “There is no problem in eating the slaughtered meat of the Arab Christians, and do not eat it if you hear them mentioning the name of other than Allah upon it. If you do not hear them, Allah has made it permissible and knows their kufr,” (Fathu’l-Bari 9/636) and the same is related from Ali (ra). Qurtubi related the view of jumhur and said: “The majority of ummah says: No matter if he is from Bani Taghlib or from others, the slaughter of every Christian is permissible. Jews are also the same.” (Tafsir al-Maida 5/5) Scholars of madhab said:

        The following is the summary of the view of Kashani among the Hanafi fuqaha: “If the slaughtering of ahlul kitaab is seen and understood that they merely invoke the name of Allah then it can be eaten. If it is not seen how they slaughter and it is not heard what they invoke again it can be eaten because in this situation it should be shown -as there is room for husnu dhann (assuming the best) for the Muslim- husnu dhann for him and performed as he merely invokes the name of Allah. If a Christian slaughters while invoking the name of Isa or the name of Allah with Isa or the third of three deities, his slaughter can not be eaten. It is because he slaughtered with the name other than Allah.” Kashani continues and said: “Ali (ra) was asked about the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab and said: Allah (swt) made their slaughter permissible while knowing what they utter. If it is heard that they invoke merely the name of Isa or invoke the name of Allah with Isa Maseeh their slaughter can not be eaten.” (Badais Sanai 6/2777)

        Muhammad al-Shirbini among the Shafii ulama says: “The slaughter of Muslim and others which they sacrifice for other than Allah is not halal. It is because this is slaughtered to other than Allah. Even if a Muslim slaughters to show respect and worship to him will become kafir and it is the same as he prostrated to an idol. If a person slaughters the animal for Kaba or prophets and his intention is to show respect to Kaba due to it being Baytulllah and revering the prophets due to their being prophets of Allah it is permissible to eat their slaughter. The animal which is slaughtered with the intention to become nearer to the authorities can not be eaten however if he slaughters for Allah to show his happiness because of the authority arrive it can be eaten. This resembles aqiqa. If he slaughters for Allah and intends to prevent himself from the harm of jinn his slaughter can be eaten, But if he slaughters only to prevent the harm of jinn his slaughter can not be eaten.” (al-Muhtaj 4/273)

        Abul Fath Nasr bin Ibrahim an-Nablusi among the Shafii ulama said: “Allah kept ahlul kitaab on different rank than mushrik due to their claim to submit a book and a prophet although they invoke the name of something other than Allah, He (swt) made their slaughter halal.” (Ibn Arabi Ahkamu’l-Qur’an)

        Ibn Qudama among the Hanbali ulama says: “If ahl kitab does not mention basmala on purpose or invokes a name other than Allah while slaughtering it is not halal to eat what he slaughtered. Because Allah (swt) commands: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121); “He hath only forbidden you... that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah.” (al-Baqara 2/173) This view is narrated from Ali (ra). Nakhai, Shafii, Hammad, Ishaq and ashabi ray (i.e Hanafis) are also upon this view. However Ata, Mujahid, Makhul said: If a Christian slaughters the animal by invoking the name of Isa Maseeh it is permissible to eat from it. It is because Allah made it permissible for us while knowing what they utter.” Ibn Qudamah answered them saying: “The food which is mentioned in the ayah “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.” (al-Maida 5/5) is the food which includes the conditions which Muslim food requires. As the slaughtered of the Muslim which is slaughtered for other than Allah can not be eaten the slaughter of ahl kitab (which is slaughtered for other than Allah) also can not be eaten. If it is not known whether the slaughterer invoked the name of Allah or not or whether he invokes the name of something other than Allah or not; the meat of the animal is halal. It is because Allah while knowing that we can not know how every person slaughters had made it permissible for us the ones which the muslim and the ahlul kitaab slaughter.” (Mughni 8/581-582) Ibn Qudama also said: “The slaughter of the ahlul kitaab which are sacrificed to their churches or holidays will be looked at. If a Muslim slaughters it or one among the ahlul kitaab slaughters it while invoking merely the name of Allah it is halal to eat from that animal. It is because it meets the condition of being halal. If any one among ahlal kitab slaughters it and invokes someone else other than Allah or if he abandons invoking basmala on purpose it is not permisisble to eat from it. According to a view which was narrated from Imam Ahmad the meat of animals which are slaughtered for the church and holidays of ahlul kitaab are definetely makruh. It is because they were slaughtered for other than Allah. According to one other view which was narrated from Imam Ahmad it is mubah to eat from such slaughter. This issue had been asked from Irbad bin Sariya and he said: Eat from it and make me eat (also). The same view also narrated from Abu Umama al-Bahili and Abu Muslim al-Hawlani. Abu Darda and Jubayr bin Nufayr ate from such slaughter Amr bin al-Aswad, Makhul, Damra bin Habib gave permission to eat and they brought this as evidence: It is informed in the ayah that “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.” (al-Maida 5/5) the food of the ahlul kitaab is permissible for us. Those slaughters which are slaughtered for church and their holidays are certainly among their food. Al-Qadi said following regarding this matter: If one among the ahlul kitaab slaughters an animal for their holidays or for a star or for an idol or for a prophet and invokes the names of one of these over it, it is haram to eat from it. It is because this is a slaughter which is slaughtered for other than Allah. If he invokes merely the name of Allah, it is permissible to eat from this. It is because Allah (swt) commands: “So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced, if ye have faith in His signs.” (al-Anam 6/118) However it is makruh to eat from this. It is because the slaughterer intended to slaughter for other than Allah with his heart.” (Mughni, 8/568-569)

        Qurtubi among the Maliki madhab says: “Some of the ulama said: If you heard that one among the ahlul kitaab invokes other than the name of Allah while slaughtering, do not eat from it. Ali (ra), Aisha (raa) and Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) among the sahaba are upon this view. Tawus and Hasan are also upon this view. They show the ayah: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety...” (al-Anam 6/121) as evidence. Imam Malik said, I accounted this makruh and did not account as haram. Some other ulama said that such slaughter of ahlal kitab can not be eaten. This view is narrated from Abdullah bin Abbas, Abu ad-Darda, Ubada bin as-Samid. Ata, Rabia, Makhul and Qasim are upon this view.” (Tafsir 6/76)

        The reason for this ikhtilaf among the ulama is related with nasikh and mansukh in the Qur’an. Those who believe that it is permissible to eat from their slaughter even if they invoke the name of something other than Allah said that the ayah al-Maida 5/5 is excluded from the ayah al-Anam 6/121. And those who believe that it is haram said that the ayah al-Anam 6/121 is excluded from the ayah al-Maida 5/5.

        In relation with this there is no need to investigate the method of slaughtering of the ahlul kitaab. As far as the methodology of the slaughtering, we do not inquire about the method because if an action has occurred ‘min ahlihi’ (at the hands of those suited to perform such an act) the conditions surrounding that act are not asked about. This rule therefore applies to the Jews and the Christians about whom we don’t know whether or not they have mentioned Allah’s name or not because their slaughtered meat is halal to us. According to the Malikis the Muslim should investigate the method of slaughter of the ahlul kitaab. According to them the Muslim should investigate if they invoke the name of Allah upon the slaughter and moreover Muslim should present during the slaughtering. However according to the majority of ulama there is no need to investigate. If it is known that the ahlul kitaab invokes a name other than Alah upon the slaughter then it will become haram to eat from it. The Ulama said that RasulAllah (saw) ate form the leg of sheep on the day of Khaibar and did not investigate it. If it was a necessity he (saw) would have informed us. Az-Zuhri said: “There is no problem eating the slaughtered meat of the Arab Christians, and do not eat it if you hear them mentioning the name of other than Allah upon it. If you do not hear this, it is permissible despite their kufr.” (Bukhari; Fathu’l-Bari 9/636) Some others said even if it is known they invoke a name other than Allah it is permissible to eat from their slaughtering.

        According to Abu Hanifa, Imam Ahmad, Imam Shafii, Malikis, Ali, Nakhai, Hammad and Ishaq it is not a condition for the ahlul kitaab to mention the name of Allah upon the slaughter. This is a condition for the Muslim slaughterer. Imam an-Nawawi said: “The slaughtered meats of the People of the Book are halal whether or not they mention Allah when slaughtering due to the apparent meaning of the verses in the Mighty Qur’an, and this is our madhhab and that of the majority.” (al-Majmu 9/78) Imam Tabari said: “For being permissible of the slaughtering of ahlul kitaab there is no need for them to invoke the name of Allah. It is because even if they invoke the name of Allah they will not mean the real deity. They mention the name of Allah who they believe he is the father of Isa or Uzayr. Even if they invoke the name of Allah while meaning the real deity (i.e Allah) it is not important for the kafir to invoke the name of Allah. It is because their ibadaah is invalid.” (Qurtubi, Ahkamu’l-Qur’an, 6/52) According to a narration from Ikrimah, Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “Allah (awj) after commanded the ayah ‘Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.’ (al-Anam 6/121) made Jews and Christians excluded from this (general) ruling and commanded: ‘The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you.’ (al-Maida 5/5) meaning it is not necessary for ahlul kitaab to invoke tasmiya for their slaughter to be halal. The ahlul kitaab which is referred in the ayah are Jews and Christians.” (Abu Dawud; Qurtubi, Tafsir)

        According to some among the Hanafis and Hanbalis it is haram to eat from the meat of animal which is slaughtered without invoking the name of Allah on purpose regardless of the slaughterer being Muslim or ahlul kitaab. They brought the following nass as evidence to their view: “So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/118) and “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121)

        According to all scholars the animal which is slaughtered by the ahlul kitaab must be permissible in Islam to eat. For example even if ahlul kitaab slaughters swine, it is not permissible to eat from.

        It is narrated from Imam Malik that he permited the slaughter of ahlul kitaab however prohibited the hunt of the ahlul kitaab. (Qurtubi tafsir 6/72) Ibn Qudama says: “I do not know any one else other than Imam Malik who permits the slaughter of ahlu kitaab and prohibits the hunt of ahlul kitaab. This view is not right it is because hunt of the ahlul kitaab are also included with in the general ruling of the ayah.” (Mughni 8/567) According to another report from Imam Malik that he passed on hukm that if ahlul kitaab slaughters an animal which is prohibited to them (i.e camel, duck etc.) (al-Anam 6/146) or fat of the animals which are prohibited to them (al-Anam 6/146) are also prohibited for us. Concerning this matter there were two views narrated from Imam Ahmad and according to the preferred view both of them are permissible. (Ibn Qudama Mughni 8/581-582; Qurtubi tafsir 6/72) These are also permissible for us according to the Hanafis and Shafiis. (Mukhtaj, Mughni 4/266; Qurtubi al-maida 5/5)

        Ibn Kathir quotes the following narrations in his tafsir of the ayah al-Maida 5/5: “It is recorded in the Sahih that Abdullah bin Mughaffal said, "While we were attacking the fort of Khaybar, a person threw a leather bag containing fat, and I ran to take it and said, `I will not give anyone anything from this container today.' But when I turned I saw RasulAllah (standing behind) while smiling.'' The scholars rely on this hadith as evidence that we are allowed to eat what we need of foods from the booty before it is divided. The scholars of the Hanafi, the Shafii and the Hanbali madhabs rely on this hadith to allow eating parts of the slaughtered animals of the Jews that they prohibit for themselves, such as the fat. They used this hadith as evidence against the scholars of the Maliki madhab who disagreed with this ruling. A better proof is the hadith recorded in the sahih that the people of Khaybar gave RasulAllah a gift of a roasted leg of sheep, which they poisoned. RasulAllah used to like eating the leg of the sheep and he took a bite from it, but it told RasulAllah that it was poisoned, so he discarded that bite. The bite that RasulAllah took had affected the palate of his mouth, while Bishr bin Al-Bara bin Marur died from eating from that sheep. RasulAllah had the Jewish woman, Zaynab, who poisoned the sheep, killed. Therefore, RasulAllah and his Companions wanted to eat from that sheep and did not ask the Jews if they removed what the Jews believed was prohibited for them, such as its fat.” (Tafsir)

        According to the majority of scholars it is a condition that blood should run out from the animal to eat from it which is slaughtered by the ahlul kitaab. The meat of the animal which is slaughtered by drowning or ripping its head off can not be eaten. Ibn Arabi among Maliki states the opposite and says it is not a condition.

        The difference between the ahlul kitaab and mushrik is particular to worldy life. Kaffal said: “This statement means: Even though the ahlul kitaab has merit of marrying with their women and being permissible of their slaughters; this merit of theirs will not differ them from the mushrik with regards to their situation in the akhirah and the reward and punishment in the akhirah. On the contrary the worldly deed of everyone who rejects Allah will be demolished and such person will not reach any happiness and felicity in the akhirah.” (Razi Tafsir al-Maida 5/3)


        More to come inshaAllah...



        .

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A detailed work on the Ruling of Meat in Islam

          SubhanAllah! Wow, thank you for posting this. It has been a very informative read!

          musilm
          Muslim Social News & Networking - Musilm

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A detailed work on the Ruling of Meat in Islam

            The Slaughter of the Magians, the Sabians , other mushriks and the murtad

            The Magians should be treated in the same manner as the ahlul kitaab (the People of the Book: the Jews and Christians) with regard to the payment of jizya (a tax levied on non-Muslims who live under the protection of Islamic government as an equivalent to the Zakah which Muslims pay). As for the permissibility of eating the animals slaughtered by them as well as marrying their women Muslim scholars hold different opinions. The majority of scholars view that it is not allowed to eat their meat as they are polytheists. Other scholars view it as lawful as RasulAllah (saw) said: "Treat the Magians in a way similar to that of ahlul kitaab (People of the Book)." He also accepted the jizya from the Magians of Hajar.

            It is narrated that Magians were ahlul kitaab who later worship the fire. Abdulah Ibn Abbas (ra) said regarding them: “When the prophet of the Persian died, iblis taught them Magisian.” (Abu Dawud) There is ittifaq among the scholars that the slaughter of the Magians can not be eaten and their women can not be married but jizya can be taken from them so they can be ahl dhimma. The evidence for this ruling is the following hadith: “Narrated from Umar ibn al-Khattab: Amr ibn Aws and AbulSha'tha' reported that Bujalah said: I was secretary to Jaz' ibn Mu'awiyah, the uncle of Ahnaf ibn Qays. A letter came to us from Umar one year before his death, saying: Kill every magician, separate the relatives of prohibited degrees from the Magians, and forbid them to murmur (before eating). So we killed three magicians in one day, and separated from a Magian husband his wife of a prohibited degree according to the Book of Allah. He prepared abundant food and called them, and placed the sword on his thigh. They ate (the food) but did not murmur. They threw (on the ground) one or two mule-loads of silver. Umar did not take jizya from Magians until AbdurRahman ibn Awf witnessed that RasulAllah (saw) had taken jizya from the Magians of Hajar.” (Bukhari; Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi) As seen Umar (ra) did not account them as ahlul kitaab and did not take jizya from them until AbdurRahman ibn Awf witnessed that RasulAllah (saw) had taken jizya from them. Upon this witnessing ijma was made that jizya can be taken from them however neither their slaughter can be eaten nor their women can be married.

            RasulAllah commanded the following regarding the Magians: “Treat the Magians as you treat the ahlul kitaab. But do not marry with their women and do not eat their slaughter." (Abu Dawud) RasulAllah (saw) told some of his followers that: “Once you reach the lands of Nabat in Persia, eat the meat sold by Jews or Christians, but not if the animal has been slaughtered by a Magian" (Ahmad Musnad) Abu al-Khayr said: “I saw Ibn Wa'la al-Saba'i wear a fur. I touched it. He said: Why do you touch it? I asked Ibn Abbas saying: We are the inhabitants of the western regions, and there (live) with us Berbers and Magians. They bring with them rams and slaughter them, but we do not eat (the meat of the animals) slaughtered by them, and they come with skins full of fat. Upon this Ibn Abbas said: We asked RasulAllah (saw) about this and he said: Its tanning makes it pure.” (Muslim)

            The issue of the prohibition of the meat of the Magian and whatever he hunts is agreed upon between the sahaba, and there is no doubt that this prohibition of the Magians’ slaughtered meat is widespread between the sahaba, and we do not know of a single one of them who opposed this. Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The slaughtered meat of the Magians is haram according to the majority of the early and later Muslims, and it has been said that this is a point of consensus with the Companions.” (Majmu al-Fatawa 21/103)

            Ibn Taymiyyah said: “It has been related in the hadith of al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin al- Hanafiyyah and others from the tabiin that RasulAllah (saw) said: “Treat them like the People of the Book except in regards to marrying their women and eating their slaughtered meat.” (Fathu’l-Bari 6/302) And this is mursal, and the statements of five of the companions confirm it, and I know of no difference of opinion in this, and the mursal narration is a proof with the Hanafis, Malik, and Ahmad in one of the two opinions related from him. According to Shafii, it is proof if it is supported by the majority of scholars, the apparent meaning of the Qur’an, and if it is mursal from other sources. So, this mursal is a proof by agreement of the scholars, and this mursal is a text regarding this specific issue.” (Majmu al-Fatawa 32/187)

            Hakim reported from Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas (ra) that he said regarding a (Muslim) man who slaughtered and forgot to mention Allah: “Eat the meat.” (Mustadrak) As for the Magian who slaughtered and did mention Allah, he said: “Do not eat the meat.” (Kishaf al-Qina, 6/203 and Hakim said: “It is authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim, and they did not report it,” and adh-Dhahabi agreed with him).

            And Abdur-Razzaq reported that Jabir (ra) said: “Do not eat something that was hunted by the dog of a Magian or was hit by his arrow.” (Musannaf, 4/469) And Mujahid said something similar, and Daraqutni reported the same from Jabir (ra), (Sunan ad-Daraqutni, 4/294) and Abdur-Razzaq reported from Qays bin as-Sakan that Ibn Mas’ud (ra) said: “You have descended upon a land in which the Muslims do not hunt, and only has Nabateans and Persians. So, if you buy any meat, ask them about it. If it was slaughtered by a Jew or Christian, eat it, as their food is permissible for you.” (Musannaf, 4/487)

            Abd ar-Razzaq reported in his ‘Musannaf’ from Qays bin as-Sakan that Ibn Mas’ud said: “You have descended upon a land in which the Muslims do not hunt, and only has Nabateans and Persians. So, if you buy any meat, ask them about it. If it was slaughtered by a Jew or Christian, eat it, as their food is permissible for you.” (Musannaf 4/487)

            It is reported by Bayhaqi that: “RasulAllah (saw) wrote to the Magians of Hajr calling them to Islam, saying: “Whoever accepts Islam, it will be accepted of him. Whoever rejects it cannot have any of their slaughtered meat eaten or have any of their women married to the Muslims.” (Bayhaqi, Sunan, 9/192,285)

            Based on this, the prohibition of the Magians’ slaughtered meat is established through both the authentic texts and the fact the Magian is a kafir which is not from the People of the Book

            Ibn Qudamah said: “The scholars agreed that the meat hunted and slaughtered by the Magian is forbidden.” (al-Mughni 11/38) And Abu Thawr is the only reported dissenter from this opinion. Ibrahim an-Nakha’i said: “Abu Thawr punctured this consensus.”

            Al-Khatib ash-Shirbini said: “If there are Magians and Muslims in the same land, and it is not known if the slaughterer was a Muslim or Magian, it is not allowed to eat such meat due to the doubt in its permissibility, and the default is to not eat it. Yes, it is the case that the Muslims are the overwhelming majority in the lands of Islam, and their meat must be permissible. However, the slaughtered meat of the Magians is not allowed to be eaten.” (Fiqh as-Sunnah, 3/290)

            Imam Nawawi said: “If we find a sheep that is slaughtered without knowing who the slaughterer was, if it was in a land containing those whose meats we cannot eat, such as the Magians, it is not allowed to eat the meat whether they seclude themselves or mix with the Muslims. This is because of the doubt as to whether the meat was slaughtered properly, and the default is that it is haram. However, it is permissible if the land is free of such people.” (al-Majmu, 9/79)

            And in Hashiyat Ibn Abidin it is stated that: “If one finds a slaughtered sheep in his garden, can he eat it? ash-Sharnablali said that it is not allowed to eat it due to the doubt as to whether the slaughterer of this meat is someone whose meats we are allowed to eat. (Ibn Abidin said) What would have been more appropriate to say is that if the location was one in which a Magian lived, it should not be eaten. Otherwise, it can be eaten.” (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 6/476)

            Imam Qurtubi in the tafsir of ayah al-Maida 5/5 says: “When it comes to the slaughter of the Magians the scholars –with exception- accept with ijma that their slaughter can not be eaten and their women can not be married. It is because according to the view which is famous and preferred the Magians are not among the ahlul kitaab… If the father of the children is Magian and the mother is ahlul kitaab according to Malik the child takes the hukm of his father. According to the view of other than Malik if one of the parents is among those whose slaughter can be eaten and the other one is from those whose slaughter can not be eaten then the slaughter of him (children) can not be eaten.” (Tafsir)

            Sarahsi says: “When it comes to the Magians; except the meat of their slaughter there is nothing wrong with their food. Likewise RasulAllah (saw) commanded: "Treat the Magians as you treat the ahlul kitaab. But do not marry their women and do not eat their slaughter." (Abu Dawud) It is because they believe in two deities. Mentioning the name of Allah in ikhlas upon slaughter is not mentionable for them. However it is a condition to mention the name of Allah upon slaughter. The people of the Book made tawhid of Allah in zahir although shirk is hidden in their tawhid.” (Sharhu’s Siyari’l-Kabeer)

            In his book, al-Muhalla, Ibn Hazm stated in the chapter on "Slaughtering": 'They should be treated as the People of the Book and hence the ruling is the same as that applicable to the People of the Book in all these matters.” (7/456) Ibn Qudamah, the Hanbali scholar, states in his book Mughni: "The Magians do not have any divinely revealed Book, so it is not permissible to eat their slaughtered meat or marry their women. This is the opinion of Imam Ahmad and the majority of scholars with the exception of Abu Thawr who deemed this permissible on the basis of the Prophet's hadith: "Treat the Magians in a way similar to that of ahlul kitaab (People of the Book)." Also Saed bin Musayyab comprises Magians and Sabeans among ahlul kitaab.

            They made this incorrect conclusion because they take the first part of the hadith "Treat the Magians as you treat the ahlul kitaab" and they think the second part of the hadith is not sahih: "But do not marry with their women and do not eat their slaughter." (Abu Dawud) The other reason for their accounting them as ahlul kitaab is the ikhtilaf regarding who really Magians are.

            Qurtubi mention the following regarding Magians while explaining the ayah al-Maida 5/3: “If the hunter is Magian; Malik, Shafii, Abu Hanifa and their companions and the majority of people did not accept (permissible) to eat from their hunt. Abu Thawr said: There are two opinions: One view is the same as above. The other view is Magians are among ahlul kitaab and their hunt is permissible (to eat).” (Tafsir)

            Razi in the tafsir of same ayah (al-Maida 5/3) said: “Although Magians are accounted ahlul kitaab with regards to jizya; they will not be accounted as ahlul kitaab with regards to eating from their slaughter and to marry with their women.” Then he continues to explain ‘the ruling of eating from their slaughter in the situations of dharurah’: “Ulama made ittifaq regarding accounting the Magians among the ahlul kitaab with regards to taking jizya and not accounting them on this degree with regards to eating from their slaughter and to marry with their women. It is related that Ibn Musayyab said: If a Muslim become sick and command a Magian to slaughter an animal while invoking the name of Allah upon it, there is nothing wrong to eat from it. Abu Thawr said: if that Muslim commanded him to slaughter it while he is in good condition there is nothing wrong with (eating from) it.” (Tafsir)

            The situation which is described by Saed bin Musayyab is the situation which is referred in the following ayahs: “But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then he is guiltless.” (al-Baqara 2/173); “But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (al-Anam 6/145) and “But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (an-Nahl 16/115) Therefore he is talking about dharurah, where the exception had been given by Allah to the one who is in dharurah. Accounting Magians as ahlul kitaab by Ibn Hazm and Abu Thawr it is as referred by the ulama we can say that they passed hukm on the permissibility of their slaughter due to accounting them as ahlul kitaab and not passing hukm which allows their slaughter although they are among the mushrik.

            Ibn Qudamah, the Hanbali scholar, in his book Mughni also reported that Abu Hudhayfah married a Magian woman and since the jizya is accepted from them so they are like the People of the Book. However, in the Qur'an Almighty Allah has forbidden marrying polytheists and disbelievers; the only exception was made to marrying women from among the People of the Book so it should not be extended to others. What the Prophet meant by 'treating them as the People of the Book' is to protect them and accept the jizyah from them and nothing else. Finally, it is not authenticated that Abu Hudhayfah married a Magian as this narration is deemed weak by Ahmad and it is reported that he married a Jewish lady or a Christian lady in another version."

            Abu’l-Fida Ibn Kathir said: “Hadith which is narrated in Muwatta is mursal. It was not constant with this wording. There is this hadith constant with the following wording: According to the narration which is narrated from Abdurrahman bin Affan: RasulAllah (saw) took jizya from the Magians of Hajar. (Bukhari) Even if the hadith which is recorded in Muwatta is sahih; it is necessary to not take it in considiration in general. It is because the ayah al-Maida 5/5 restricts its hukm. According to this ayah the slaughter of the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab is haram.“ (Tafsir 3/37)

            The word saabi’ (Sabian) is derived from the verb saba’a which refers to the action of leaving one religion and entering another. Tabari said: “al-saabi’oon is the plural of saabi’, which means one who has changed his religion, such as an apostate from Islam who has left his religion, or anyone who leaves the religion that he used to follow and joined another. The Arabs called such a person saabi’… And it is said in Arabic saba’at al-nujoom meaning the stars appeared…” (Tafsir 2/145; Lisaan al-‘Arab under the heading saba’a)

            The Sabians are mentioned in three places in the Qur’an. Allah says: “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians (wa’l-saabi’een), whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (al-Baqarah 2/62); “Verily, those who believe (in Allah and in His Messenger Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and the Sabians (wa’l-saabi’een), and the Christians, and the Majoos, and those who worship others besides Allah; truly, Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Verily, Allah is over all things a Witness” (al-Hajj 22/17); “Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah, in His Messenger Muhammad and all that was revealed to him from Allah), and those who are the Jews and the Sabians (wa’l-saabi’oon) and the Christians, — whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (al-Maida 5/69)

            With regard to their beliefs, Ibn Qayyim said: “The people differed greatly concerning them, and the imams were unsure about them because they did not have enough knowledge of their beliefs and religion. Shafii said: They are a kind of Christian. And he said elsewhere: Their case is to be examined further; if they resemble the Christians in basic matters but they differ from them in some minor issues, then the jizya is to be taken from them. But if they differ from them in basic issues of religion then their religion cannot be approved of by taking the jizya from them. With regard to the views of the salaf concerning them, Sufyan narrated from Layth that Mujahid said: They are a people who come between the Jews and the Magians and have no religion. In Tafsir Shayban it is narrated that Qatadah said: The Sabians are a people who worship the angels. I said: The Sabians are a large nation among whom are both blessed and doomed. They are one of the nations who are divided into believers and disbelievers, for the nations before the coming of RasulAllah (saw) were of two types, kafir nations all of whose people were doomed and among whom were none who were blessed, such as the idol-worshippers and the Magians; and others who were divided into those who were blessed and those who were doomed, namely the Jews, Christians and Sabians. Allah has mentioned the two types in His Book, where He says “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians (wa’l-saabi’een), whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (al-Baqarah 2/62) And He says something similar in al-Maidah. And in Surat al-Hajj He says: “Verily, those who believe (in Allah and in His Messenger Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and the Sabians (wa’l-saabi’een), and the Christians, and the Majoos, and those who worship others besides Allah; truly, Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Verily, Allah is over all things a Witness” (al-Hajj 22/17) He did not say here: those among them who believed in Allah and the Last Day, because He mentioned alongside them the Magians and those who worship others besides Allah. So He mentioned six nations, among whom are two who are doomed and four who are divided into the doomed and the blessed. When He promised the reward to those who believed and did righteous deeds, he mentioned four nations and no more. In the verse which speaks of the judgment between the nations He included these two nations with them, and in the verse which speaks of the promised reward He did not include them. Thus it is known that the Sabians included both believers and disbelievers, both doomed and blessed. This is an ancient nation which existed before the Jews and Christians and they were of different types: Sabians who were haneefs (monotheists) and Sabians who were mushrikoon (polytheists). Their kingdom was in Haraan, before the time of the Messiah. They wrote books and had knowledge. There were many of them in Baghdad, including Ibrahim ibn Hilal al-Saabi’, the author of al-Rasaa’il. He followed their religion but he observed fast (during) Ramadan with the Muslims. Most of them were philosophers and wrote famous essays which were mentioned by the scholars who wrote about philosophy and religion. In brief, they did not reject the Prophets or regard it as obligatory to follow them. In their view, whoever followed (the Prophets) is blessed and saved, and whoever follows a path similar to that of the Prophets by virtue of his own reasoning is also blessed and saved, even if he did not follow the Prophets in specific terms. In their view the call of the Prophets was true but there was no specific route to salvation. They believed that the universe had a Creator and Sustainer, Who is Wise and above any resemblance to created beings, but many of them, or most of them, said: we are unable to reach Him without intermediaries, so we have to approach Him through the mediation of spiritual and holy, who are pure and free of any physical elements and who are above place and time, rather they are created pure and holy. Then he mentioned that they used to worship these intermediaries and seek to draw close to them, and they said, “These are our gods and intercessors with the Lord of lords and God of gods.” This is some of what was narrated by the scholar who studied religion and philosophy about the religion of the Sabians, and is based on what had come down to them. But among this nation are some who believe in Allah and His names and attributes, His angels and Messengers and the Last Day; and among them are disbelievers. There are some who took from the religion of the Messengers whatever suited their own reasoning and ideas of what is good, so they followed it and were content with it. Basically, they took what they thought was good from other religions, and they did not take the people of one religion as friends and others as enemies; they did not favor one religion over another. In their view all religions served some purpose in this world, so there was no sense in their fighting one another, rather the good things in each were to be adopted so as to perfect the human condition. Hence they were called saabi’een because they refrained from following any one particular religion. Hence more than one of the salaf said: They are not Jews or Christians or Magians. There are two types of Sabians: the monotheistic Sabians (saabi’ah hunafa’) and polytheistic Sabians (saabi’ah mushrikoon). The monotheists are the ones who are saved and there were debates among them, and one group refuted the view of the other. These are the people of Ibrahim as the Jews were the people of Musa, and the monotheists among them were his followers.” (Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah, 1/92-98)

            During his time the Prophet Muhammad as well as his followers was also called sâbiî by his opponents. (Ahmad, Musnad; Bukhari; Muslim)

            We also see from many sources that during the first two Islamic centuries many Muslim scholars believed that the Sabians were among the ahlul kitaab, while some did not accept this for they believed that the term ahlul kitaab was a specific term for only the Jews and the Christians.

            According to the information given by Hasan al-Basri, Ziyad ibn Abihi, the governor of Iraq at the time of the first Umayyad caliph Muawiyah, had met the Sabians and wanted to exempt them from the poll-tax (jizya), but when he was informed that they worshipped the angels he changed his decision. (Tabari, Jami al-bayan an tawil ay al-Qur'an, 1/319)

            It is also stated that the Sabians believe they belong to the prophet Nuh, they read Zabur (i.e. the Psalms), and the Sabians have a religious system resembling Christianity, Judaism and Magianism. Ibn Hazm al-Qurtubi, Shahristani and Ibn Kathir claim that the Sabians are the star and idol worshippers whom the prophet Ibrahim invited to the true religion of Allah.

            Dependent upon the Harranian factor many medieval Muslim scholars have used the term "Sabian" in a general meaning of "pagan". The later Muslim scholars such as al-Jassas, Ibn Hazm al-Qurtubi, Ibn Athir, Abu al-Fida and Shams al-Deen al-Dimashqi called every pagan "Sabian". For example, al-Jassas says that the ancient people of Iraq and Syria, and the Greeks before Constantine were the Sabians. (Ahkam al-Qur'an 2/402) al-Dimashqi, the geographer, states that the ancient Greeks, Indians, Persians, Copts and even Arabs before Muhammad (saw) were the Sabians.(Nukhbat al-dahr fi aja'ib al-barr wa al-bahr 45-46) Abu al-Qasim Sa'ed al-Andalusi claims that the Turks and the Chinese as well as the Greeks and the Persians were the Sabians.(Kitab al-ta'rif bi tabaqat al-umam, 5, 12) Even al-Biruni and al-Mas'udi, use the term Sabians for idolaters in general, like the other Muslim scholars of that period. Al-Biruni claims that the Buddha (Budasaf) called the people to the religion of the Sabians while al-Mas'udi uses the term of the Sabians for the members of the various ancient and contemporary sects scattered in a wide area from China to Egypt. (Al-Biruni, The Chronology of Ancient Nations, 186, 188f; al-Mas'udi, al-tanbih wa al-ishraf 19, 161)

            Some Muslim scholars even claimed that the Christians were also the Sabians. For example, Ibn Hazm al-Qurtubi maintained that the Christians, too, were among the Sabians since they believed in the Trinity. (Kitab al-fasl fi al-milal wa al-ahwai wa al-nihal 1/35) So the term Sabian was used for almost every non-Muslim from China to Greece, but particularly for the idolaters and pagans.

            Scholars were generally right when they said the religion of the Sabians resembled at many points Judaism, Christianity and Magianism, but their information about some specific characteristics of the Mandaeans was obscure and unclear. For example, many of them stated that the Sabians worshipped the malaikah (angel) and read Zabur, the Psalms. These were, of course, not correct since the Mandaeans neither worshipped the angels nor read the Psalms as a holy scripture. Due to their limited observation, these Muslim scholars, however, probably supposed that the Mandaeans worshipped the angels (malaikah), for the Mandaeans call the supreme beings malkia, and that they read Zabur since some parts of the Mandaean scriptures, especially Ginza Smala and Qolasta, were in hymn style.

            According to Abu Hanifa Sabiian are also the same with ahlul kitaab with regards to their slaughter. However according to Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad who were the scholars of Hanafi madhab, Sabiin are not accounted as ahlul kitaab. But those who submitted to the Zabur, (Badais Sanai 6/2775; Ruhu’l Maani 6/65) the Shafiis also did not account them as ahlul kitaab. (al-Mukhtaj Mughni 3/187, 190) It is also the same according to the Hanbalis and the Malikis. Qurtubi stated the following concerning Sabiin while explaining the ayah al-Maida 5/3: “In the book of Muhammad it is informed that neither the slaughter nor the hunts of Sabiin are permissible. Sabiin are people who are in between Jews and Christians and they have no specific religion.” (Tafsir)

            Sarakhsi summed up the reason behind the ikhtilaf among the scholars regarding the position of the Sabiin: “When it comes to the Sabiin: According to Abu Hanifa as it is permissible to eat from their slaughter, their women also can be married and this is not makruh. However according to Abu yusuf and Imam Muhammad it is permissible neither to eat from their slaughter nor to marry with their women. But the ikhtilaf among them is because of the ikhtilaf regarding who the Sabiins are. According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the Sabiins are those who worship to the stars and those who believe that stars are gods. The base of their belief which they hide is this. But to reveal this belief is not permissible for them. Abu Hanifa gave the hukm with looking their zahir. The two imam gave the hukm with taking their zahir into account that Sabiin look like Majus with their situation. Even they are worse than them.” (Sharhu’s-Siyari’l-Kabeer)

            Sayyid Qutb also mentioned about the reason of the ikhtilaf in the tafsir of ayah al-Baqara 2/62 and said: “‘Those who believe’, as used here refers to the Muslims, while “Sabaeans” probably refers to a pre-Islamic religious group among the Arabs who were unhappy with idolatry and sought belief in the one God of Ibrahim, cutting themselves off from the pagan Arabs. Their name comes from the Arab word saba’, describing a person who has abandoned the religion of his forefathers. In some commentaries, they are confused with the followers of Sabaism, who worshipped stars.” (Fi Dhilal al-Quran)

            All of the scholars made ittifaq that the slaughtering of an atheist, murtad who left Islam or murtad of Christanity or Judaism and does not become Muslim, mushrik who worship the fire, idols and anyone who perform shirk and associates partners to Allah can not be eaten. Scholars of 4 madhab and Zahiris, all of the muhaddith and fuqaha declared that it is haram to eat from the meat of the slaughter which is slaughtered by mushrik, idolworshipper and murtad other than the ahlul kitaab. (al-Majmu Sharhi’l-Muhazzab 9/75-76; al-Ikna 5/92; Kalyubi and Umayra 4/240; Kifayat’ul-Ahyar 2/140; Nihayati’l-Mukhtaj 8/106; al-Idda Sharhu’l- Umdah 457; Gayati’l-Muntaha 3/371; Manaru’s-Sabil 2/422; al-Kafi 1/647; Mumtaha’l-Iradat 2/513; Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali al-Mughni 8/132-133, 8/567, 9/392, 11/36; Badaiu’s-Sanai 6/2775-2776; Tuhfatu’l-Fukaha 3/100; ash-Sharhu’s-Saghir 2/154; Ashalu’l-Madarik 2/54; Bidayatu’l-Mujtahid 1/473; al-Muhalla 8/190; Madhahibu’l-Arbaa 1/726; Raddul Mukhtar ala Durul Mukhtar, Kitabu’z-Zabaih; Ibn Abdil-Barr al-Istizkar; Mukhtaj, Mughni 4/266; Mustafa al-Hin, Mustafa al-Bugha, Ali al-Sharbaji, Fiqh of Shafii; Nawawi, Minhaj; al-Mawsili al-Ikhtiyar li-Ta'lili'l-Mukhtar etc.)

            “He hath only forbidden you…that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah.” (al-Baqara 2/173); “I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it…(meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's.” (al-Anam 6/145); “He has only forbidden you…any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked.” (an-Nahl 16/115) “Here the statement ‘that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah’ means slaughters of the fire worshippers for fire, idolworshippers for their idols and those who have no belief slaughter for themselves.” (Qurtubi Tafsir 2/223)

            Qurtubi in the tafsir of ayah al-Baqara 2/173 states: “There is consensus regarding impermissible of eating from meat of the animal which is slaughtered by Magian in the name of fire and idol worshipper in the name of idols. According to Malik, Shafii and others their slaughter can not be eaten even if the Magian does not slaughter in the name of fire and idol worshipper does not slaughter in the name of his idol.” (Qurtubi, Tafsir, 1/220)



            .

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A detailed work on the Ruling of Meat in Islam

              Maitah (carcass) and impure things

              It is the wisdom of Allah (swt) to prohibit the unclean and to allow the good for His servants. Ibn Qayyim said: “Allah has prohibited seeking omens by drawing lots but has provided the alternative of istikhara which is a supplication for seeking Allah’s guidance. He has prohibited usury but has encouraged profitable trade. He has prohibited gambling but has permitted betting on forms of competition which are useful for their (the Muslims) religious striving, such as horse or camel racing and competing in marksmanship. He has prohibited (to men) the wearing of silk but has given them the choice of other materials such as wool, linen, and cotton. He has prohibited adultery, fornication, and homosexuality but has encouraged lawful marriage. He has prohibited intoxicating drinks in order that they may enjoy other delicious drinks which are wholesome for the body and mind. And He has prohibited unclean food but provides alternative wholesome food. (Rawdah al-Muhibbeen, 10; Ilam al-Muwaqqin, 2/111)

              Without doubt it is the mercy of Allah (swt) towards human beings that He (awj) did not leave them in ignorance concerning what is lawful and what is prohibited. He (awj) has made explicit what is halal and explained what haram is: “He has explained to you what He has made haram for you.” (Al-Anam 6/119) Accordingly, everyone has the choice to do what is lawful and to avoid what is prohibited. There is also a grey area between halal and haram which is the area of the doubtful. Islam considers it an act of piety for the Muslim to avoid doing what is doubtful in order to stay clear of doing something haram. In many cases these matters are unclear to the Muslim where he does not know the source of food ingredients. In this case, it is better to fear Allah and be cautious. Avoiding doubtful things may be preferable than to use them in these circumstances as it is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah al-Nu’man bin Bashir (ra) who said: I heard RasulAllah (saw) say:

              “The halal is clear and the haram is clear. Between the two there are doubtful matters concerning which people do not know whether they are halal or haram. One who avoids them in order to safeguard his religion and his honour is safe, while if someone engages in a part of them he may be doing something haram, like one who grazes his animals near the hima (the grounds reserved for animals belonging to the King which are out of bounds for others’ animals); it is thus quite likely that some of his animals will stray into it. Truly, every king has a hima, and the hima of Allah is what He has prohibited. So Beware, in the body there is a flesh; if it is good, the whole body is good, and if it is corrupt, the whole body is corrupt, and behold, it is the heart.” (Bukhari; Muslim; Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi; Nasai; Ibn Maja; Ahmad, Musnad) RasulAllah (saw) also said “Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt” (Tirmidhi)

              Imam Qurtubi narrates the ikhtilaf regarding the benefiting from maitah (carcass) and impure things: “There are different views among the scholars regarding whether it is permissible or not to benefit from maitah and impure things,” (Tafsir, Al-Baqarah 2/173) According to jumhur it is haram to benefit from maitah (carcass) as it is haram to eat from it. The following are the evidences for this view:

              Allah (swt) commands: “Forbidden to you are dead meat...” (Al-Maida 5/3) As seen this ayah indicates the prohibition of both eating and benefiting from carcass.

              It was narrated from Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) that he heard RasulAllah (saw) say on the day of the Conquest when he was in Makkah: “Allah and His Messenger have forbidden the sale of alcohol, dead meat, pigs and idols.” It was said, “O RasulAllah, what do you think of the fat taken from a dead animal which is used for caulking ships, greasing animal skins and which people use to light their lamps?” He said, “No, it is haram.” Then RasulAllah (saw) said, “May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah forbade them the fat, but they melted it then they sold it and consumed its price.” (Bukhari; Muslim; Tirmidhi; Razi, Tafsir) It is clear that the context is explaining the prohibition on selling khamr (alcohol), dead meat, pigs and idols which are things made from wood, copper, gold, etc, in the form of people or animals. Then the Sahabah wanted to make an exception from this prohibition in the case of selling the fat of dead animals, because of the benefits that there were in it, which that it was used as caulking for ships, to protect the wood from water, and to grease animal skins in order to keep them soft and supple, and as fuel for lamps. RasulAllah (saw) did not make these things exceptions from the prohibition, as he said, “No, it is forbidden.” Then he mentioned what the Jews did, which was that they melted down the fat that Allah has forbidden to them, and turned it into another substance, such as wax, which they then sold and consumed its price. The scholars differed as to what the pronoun huwa (it) in the Prophet’s phrase Laa, huwa haraam (No, it is forbidden) referred. Some of them said that what is haram is benefiting from the thing; others said that what is haram is selling it. Al-San’aani said: “The pronoun in the phrase ‘it is forbidden’ is to be understood as referring to selling, i.e., that selling the fat is haram. This is the most apparent meaning, because this is what is implied by the context, and because the same hadith was narrated by Ahmad, in whose version it says, ‘And what do you think of selling the fat of dead meat?’ Or it may be interpreted as referring to the uses to which it is put, in the phrase, ‘for it is used for caulking ships’ etc.. The majority interpreted it in this manner and said, ‘No use should be made of a dead animal apart from its skin, if it is tanned.’ Those who say that the pronoun refers to selling quote as evidence the fact that there is scholarly consensus that it is permissible to feed dead meat to dogs even if they are hunting dogs. It is known that the pronoun is more likely to refer to selling, so it is permissible to make use of najis (impure) things in general and it is haram to sell them for the reasons that are known. This view is supported by the fact that RasulAllah (saw) condemned the Jews for melting down the fat then selling it and consuming its price. So it is clear that the prohibition is directed against the selling which results in the consumption of its price. If the prohibition applies to selling then it is permissible to make use of the fat of dead animals and impure fats for all purposes except food for humans or use on human bodies. (i.e., it is not permissible for a human being to eat the fat from a dead animal or to apply impure fats to his body). So the prohibition is like the prohibition on eating dead meat or using impure substances on the body. But it is permissible to feed the fat of dead animals to dogs or to feed honey that is contaminated with an impure substance to bees. All of that is regarded as permissible in the Shafi’i madhhab, and was narrated by Qadi Iyad from Malik and most of his companions, and from Abu Hanifah and his companions, and from al-Layth. This hadith also indicates that if it is haram to sell a thing, its price is also forbidden, and that every contrivance that leads to permitting something which is forbidden is false.” (Subul al-Salaam, 3/6)

              Qurtubi records one of the views of Imam Malik: “In another time Imam Malik said: Maitah is completely haram and it is not permissible to benefit from its parts. It is not permissible in any way to benefit from anything impure. Even more it is not permissible to water product or animals with impure water. Impure things can not be given to animals to eat. Maitah can not be given to dogs or wild animals. If they eat by themselves then they will not be prohibited… Again RasulAllah (saw) commanded: “Do not benefit from any part of maitah.” (Zaylai, Nasbu’r-Raaya 1/120-122) Also it is said in the hadith which was transmitted through Abdullah bin Ukaym: “Do not make use of the skin or sinew of an animal which died a natural death.” (Tirmidhi; Abu Dawud; Nasai; Ibn Maja; Ahmad, Musnad) This is the explanation which is presented in the letter which was sent a month before the death of RasulAllah (saw).” (Tafsir)

              Razi also touched upon the issue of benefitting from maitah by giving them to animals in the ayah Al-Baqarah 2/173 and said: “Scholars had disagreement regarding whether it is permissible or not to benefit from maitah by giving them to hawks and other animals... Scholars had disagrement regarding benefiting from the fat and sinew of maitah is possible or not.” (Tafsir)

              In general not benefiting from maitah means: not benefiting from its meat, it can not be given to dogs and it can not be sold. However skin of maitah can be used if it is tanned. It was narrated that Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “A sheep was given in charity to the freed slave woman of Maymunah, and it died. RasulAllah (saw) passed by it and said: “Why do you not take its skin, tan it and make use of it?” They said, “It is dead meat.” He said, “It is only haram to eat it.” (Bukhari; Muslim; Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi; Nasai) With regard to its meaning: Maymunah had a freed slave woman who had a sheep that someone had given to her in charity. When it died, they thought that it was not permissible to make any use of it at all, so they threw it away. RasulAllah (saw) passed by it with some of his companions and when he saw it, he said to them “Why do you not take the skin of this dead animal and make use of it?” They said to him, “It is dead meat.” RasulAllah (saw) said to them, “What is forbidden is to eat it; with regard to anything other than eating it, such as making use of the skin, that is permissible after tanning it.” The scholars differed concerning the ruling on the skin of dead animals if it is tanned. Shaykhu’l-Islam said, after quoting the views of the scholars: “The point of confusion has to do with tanning: is it the case that the skin of animals which are pure when they are alive may be purified by tanning when they are dead or is it the case that tanning can only purify the skin of an animal that is slaughtered properly according to Shariah? The second opinion is more likely to be correct, and the evidence for that is that RasulAllah (saw) forbade using the skin of carnivores, as was narrated by Usamah ibn Umayr al-Dhuhali. Narrated by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and Nasai. Tirmidhi added the phrase “and (he forbade) their use as furnishing.” This opinion reconciles all the ahadith.” (Majmua al-Fatawa, 21/95-96)

              Qurtubi said: “There are different narrations from Imam Malik regarding whether skin can be cleaned by tanning or not. According to one view which is narrated from him, it can not be cleaned. There is also a narration which is narrated from him that it can be cleaned. It is because RasulAllah (saw) said: “Water and leaves of the mimosa flava purify it.” (Muslim; Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi; Nasai) (Tafsir, Al-Baqara 2/173)

              Razi in the commentary of the same ayah states: “Muslim were wearing the fur of foxes and they were making cone from it. It was narrated from Nakhai: Muslim had not seen any harm to use the fur of wild animals and maitah when it is tanned, they had not looked whether it is hairy or not...There are seven opinions of fuqaha and mujtahid regarding the issue of tanning: 1- The wider madhab regarding this issue is the view of Zuhri. It is because Zuhri said all fur and skin of animals can be used before tanning. 2- Dawud az-Zahiri follows Zuhri. It is because he said that all fur and skin of animals will become clean with tanning. 3- Imam Malik follows Dawud az-Zahiri. It is because he said face of the skins will be clean and not inside. 4- Imam Abu Hanifah comes after Imam Malik. It is because he said: all skin and fur of the animals will become clean with tanning except swine. 5- Imam Shafi’i follows Abu Hanifah. It is because he said: all skin and fur of the animal will become clean with tanning except swine and dog. 6- Awzai and Abu Thawr follow Imam Shafi’i. It is because they said: Only the skin of animals which are permissible to eat will become clean with tanning. 7- Imam Ahmad follows them. It is because he said: Even if it is tanned none of the parts of maitah becomes clean.” (Tafsir)

              According to Ata it is permissible to benefit from the parts of maitah other than the meat and fat. It is because the prohibition is with regards to eating from it. Allah (swt) commands in the ayah of tahrim: “Eat of the good things that We have provided for you.” (Al-Baqarah 2/172) And at the end of the ayah of dharurah He (swt) commanded: “But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless.” (Al-Baqarah 2/143) Therefore one is such situation can eat from maitah without going too far. As seen in this ayah only eating from maitah was mentioned and not benefiting from it in other ways. Imam Qurtubi states that the hair and the wool of the maitah are clean in the explanation of the same ayah: “The hair and the wool of the maitah are clean. It is because according to the narration which is narrated from Umm Salama, RasulAllah (saw) said: “There is no harm on the skin of maitah when it is tanned and there is no harm on the wool and hair of the maitah when they are washed.” (Daraqutni 1/47)” (Tafsir)

              Razi while giving explanations to the ayah Al-Baqarah 2/173 stated: “Ummah made ittifaq that all parts of swine is haram. Allah (swt) especially mentioned its meat, it is because they most benefitted from its meat. This is the same as the ayah of Allah (swt): “When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business.” (Al-Jumua 62/9)

              It is because trading is the most important among the most important things according to people, it was mentioned here.” (Tafsir) According to the jumhur swine is najis (impure). (Ibnu'l-Arabi Ahkamu’l- Qur’an 1/54) Qurtubi also narrates ijma from ummah in the explanation of the same ayah: “Ummah made ijma regarding the prohibition of the fat of swine.” (Tafsir) According to Imam Malik swine is not impure. Likewise none of the live animals are impure. The reason is because this makes life impure. If an animal is alive then it is pure and if it is dead then it is impure. According to all of the scholars fat of swine is also prohibited as its meat is prohibited. However there is ikhtilaf regarding benefiting from the swine hair. Abu Hanifah and Imam Malik passed judgment that it is permissible to benefit from the swine hair. During the period of RasulAllah (saw) Arabs were using swine hair as a sewing needle and RasulAllah (saw) did not prohibit this. (Qurtubi, Tafsir; Ibn Arabi, Ahkamul Qur’an) According to the view of Imam Shafi’i it is haram to benefit from swine hair and it is makruh (disliked) according to the view of Abu Yusuf. Razi said: “The majority of the scholars made ittifaq that it is haram to benefit from the hair of swine. These fuqaha brought evidence that ruling of all of these is the same as maitah. Therefore it requires to be haram to benefit from it... When it comes to the issue of benefitting from the hair of swine, there are some among the fuqaha who say that its hair is not impure which is the right view... Scholars made ikhtilaf regarding whether one can benefit from hair on sewing shoes or not. Abu Hanifa and Imam Muhammad said it is permissible, Imam Shafi’i said it is not permissible and Abu Yusuf said: I do not like sewing with it. It is also narrated from Abu Yusuf that he find it mubah.” (Tafsir, Al-Baqarah 2/173)

              Ibn Rushd said: “There is no ikhtilaf regarding being haram to benefit from the meat, fat and the skin of swine. However ulama made ikhtilaf regarding whether it is permissible to benefit from its hair or not and whether its skin becomes halal or haram with tanning which we mentioned in the chapter of purity.” (Bidayatu’l-Mujtahid)

              Eating from food other than meat and using kitchen utensils such as pots and pans of mushrik is permissible. Regarding this matter Imam Sarakhsi says: “Although there is no harm to use pots and pans of mushrik while eating and drinking it is better to wash before using them... Saed bin Jubayr was asked about strained yoghurt and tarhana (soup) of mushrik he said: There is nothing wrong with it. It is because these food do not contain meat. Magians also cook clean food –other than their meat- like the Muslim do... According to the narration from Ibrahim, our army ate from the bread of mushrik when they conquered the land of Iraq.” (Sharhu’s Siyaru’l-Kabeer) Qurtubi in the tafsir of the ayah Al-Maida 5/5 comments: “There is nothing wrong with using all equipment of pots and pans of mushrik at eating, drinking, cooking after washing and boiling them unless they are made of gold, silver or skin of swine. Their equipment which are used for things other than cooking there is nothing wrong with using them without cleaning them.” (Tafsir)



              Regarding the issue of consumption of that which is haram for medicine, there are different views.

              According to the narrations RasulAllah (saw) said:
              Wa'il said: Tariq ibn Suwayd or Suwayd ibn Tariq asked RasulAllah (saw) about wine, but he forbade it. He again asked him, but he forbade him. He said to him: O RasulAllah, it is a medicine. RasulAllah (saw) said: No it is a disease.” (Muslim; Abu Dawud)

              Umm Salamah (raa), mother of the believers reports that RasulAllah (saw) once said: "Allah has not placed a cure for your diseases in things that He has forbidden for you.'' (Baihaqi; Ibn Hibban)

              Abu Hurairah (ra) narrates that RasulAllah (saw) forbade from (using) impure medicine.” (Abu Dawud)
              Ibn Mas’ud (ra) narrated that RasulAllah (saw) said: "Allah has not placed a cure for your diseases in things that He has forbidden for you.'' (Bukhari)

              Abu Darda (ra) reported that RasulAllah (saw) said: "Allah has sent down both the malady and its remedy. For every disease He has created a cure. So seek medical treatment, but never with something the use of which Allah has prohibited.'' (Abu Dawud; Bukhari)

              Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Treatment by eating pork is not permissible but rubbing the body with it then later washing it is based on the permisison to handle najasah outside salat on which there is a popular difference of opinions (between scholars). The correct view is that it is permissible due to necessity and whatever is permitted due to a necessity can be used in treating a sickness.” (Majmua al-Fatawa 24/270)

              The statement of Allah:
              “So whoever is forced, without transgressing, nor desiring [the haram], then indeed Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Al-Baqarah 2/173)

              This above verse consents a person to do a matter of ease provided that 3 conditions are met: 1) There is no halal alternative available. 2) The need and difficulty is removed by the haram in question. 3) That the quantity of haram used is proportionate to the level of need.

              Qurtubi in the tafsir of the ayah Al-Baqarah 2/173 related the following concerning the issue of consumption of haram as medicine: “When it comes to treatment with maitah it would necessitate to treat it either on its own or to use it by burning it. If it changes in state by burning Ibn Habib says it is permissible to treat and pray with it. Ibnu Majis found this more permissible due to burning –changes its state- being a type of purity therefore it is lighter than –using its own- it. In al-Utbiyya it is narrated from Imam Malik that he said regarding a medicine called martak which is made from the bones of maitah if he puts this medicine in the wound he can not pray without washing it from the wound. If maitah is present per se Suhnun says regarding this: No way to treat with it or swine. It is because as opposition to the state of hunger there is halal medicine which replaces it. It is because when something found to eat in a state of hunger then maitah can not be eaten. In the same manner treatment with wine also can not be done. This is the view of Malik. This is also the preferable view in the madhab of Shafi’i. This is the view which is preferred by Ibn Abu Huraira who is a scholar of the Shafi’i madhab. Abu Hanifah says: It is permissible to drink wine for treatment and not for hunger. This is the view which is preferred by Qadi Tabari who is a scholar of Shafi’i madhab, this is also the view of Thawri. Among the Shafi’is in Baghdad says: It is permissible to drink wine for thirstiness and not for treatment. It is because the harm which thirstiness may cause will come out fast and harm of treatment is not like this. It is also said: It is permissible to drink wine for both reasons. Some among the Shafi’i ulama did not permit treatment with anything which is prohibited. They only exclude from this (judgment) urine of the camels. Reason for this exclusion is the hadith of al-Urayniyyin. (Bukhari; Abu dawud; Tirmidhi; Nasai; Ibn Maja) Some did not accept anything which is prohibited to use in treatment. It is because RasulAllah (saw) stated: "Allah has not placed a cure for your diseases in things that He has forbidden for you.'' (Bukhari) They also show this as evidence that when Tariq ibn Suwayd asked a question about wine, RasulAllah made it haram or makruh for him. When he said O RasulAllah, (I am using it as) a medicine. RasulAllah (saw) said: No it is not a medicine, it is a disease.” (Muslim; Abu Dawud) This hadith was recorded by Muslim in his Sahih. There is a possibility of this hadith being limited with dharurah. It is permissible to treat with poison but it is not permissible to drink it. Allah knows the best.” (Tafsir)

              Razi in the tafsir of the same ayah states the following: “Ulama made ikhtilaf regarding the situation of eating maitah per se or as an ingredient of a medicine when there is dhahura to eat maitah as medicine. According to this some of the scholars see this mubah due to the nass and also due to the meaning. Evidence from nass is permitting of RasulAllah (saw) to Urayniyyin people to drink from the urine and the milk of the camels for treatment. Evidence in the meaning is various: a) Tiryak which contains the meat of poisonous snake flesh is accounted halal. Therefore it should be halal because of the ayah of Allah: “This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you.” (Al-Maida 5/5) The last word regarding this issue should be said is: This umumi ayah had been restricted. But this situation (being restricted) does not harm it being evidence. b) Abu Hanifah due to dharurah (necessity) passed judgment regarding the permissibility of some amount of najasah and Imam Shafi’i passed judgment regarding the permissibility of the blood of flea then how come they do not pass judgment regarding the permissibility of maitah in this case. c) Allah (jj) made it permissible to eat from maitah due to the maslaha (benefit) of mankind. Then it is the same here. Those scholars who account this haram bring the hadith of RasulAllah (saw) as evidence: "Allah has not placed a cure for your diseases in things that He has forbidden for you.'' (Bukhari) Scholars who were upon the first view answered this question stating: Bringing this hadith as evidence will only be right when it is haram to eat from it from this person. The ikhtilaf is in this matter…Ulama made ikthilaf regarding the treatment with wine. Know that if there is dharurah to be treated with this then its ruling is the same as the fourth issue. If it does not reach to the point of dharurah then its hukm is the same as the fifth issue.” (Tafsir)

              Sarakhsi states: “According to Imam Abu Hanifa, it will not be permitted to drink the urine of animals whose meat is halal for medication or any other purpose, due to the statement of RasulAllah (saw): “Indeed Allah Most High has not placed cure in that which He has made unlawful for you”. However, according to Imam Muhammad, it is permitted to drink the urine of animals whose meat is halal for medication and other purposes, because it is considered pure according to him. Imam Abu Yusuf on the other hand, is of the opinion that it will be permitted to drink it but only for medication purposes, due to the hadith of al-Urayniyyin (where RasulAllah gave permission for some members of the tribe of Urayna to drink the urine of camels as medication).” (Al-Mabsut 1/60-61, bab al-wudu wa al-ghusl)

              Although wearing of silk has been categorically forbidden for men by RasulAllah (saw), yet it was allowed for medical purposes. Anas ibn Malik (ra) narrates that “RasulAllah (saw) permitted Zubayr and Abdul-Rahman (ra) to wear silk because of the itching they suffered from.” (Bukhari)

              According to a narration which is recorded by Abu Dawud, Imam Nasai and Imam Tirmidhi reported that a sahaba by the name of Arfaja ibn Aswad (ra) had his nose damaged in the battle of Kulab. He replaced it first with silver, and then with a nose made of gold, with the order and consent of RasulAllah (saw), despite gold being unlawful for men.

              As far as the narrations indicating the impermissibility of using unlawful medication are concerned, they (according to the scholars who permit using unlawful medication) refer to the situation where an alternative is available. Hence, in such a case, it would indeed be unlawful to avail of haram medicine.
              Allama Badr al-Din al-Ayni states in his commentary of Sahih Bukhari: “Seeking treatment with unlawful medication is permissible when one is certain of being cured, similar to consuming dead-meat when dying of hunger and drinking alcohol when dying of thirst.” (Umdat al-Qari, 2/649) Imam Ibn Nujaym states: “There is a difference of opinion amongst our scholars with regards to using unlawful medication. In al-Nihaya quoting from al-Zakhirah, it is stated that it is permissible to use unlawful medication if it is known that the cure lies in the medication and that no alternative is available.” (Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq, 1/116)

              Imam al-Haskafi states: “The Scholars differed regarding the usage of unlawful medication. The apparent opinion in the (Hanafi) school is that it is haram. However it is said that, it will be permissible when the medicine is known to be effective and that there is no other alternative, similar to the dispensation of drinking alcohol for a person dying of thirst, and the fatwa is given on this opinion.” (Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr, 1/210)



              The issue of Istihaalah (process to change a substance to something else) is also an issue of ikhtilaf among the scholars.

              Ibn Qudama said: “If a person mixes flour and makes pasta with wine, then bakes and eats it, he is not to be punished because the fire has burned away the wine removing its effect.” (Mughni 8/306)

              In Iqna it is stated: “If the drinker were to mix it with water to the extent that he neutralized intoxicating effect, and turns the mixture such that it can bear the name of water, or treats his wounds with it (wine), he will not be caned (hadd), because he did not take it as a drink nor in a similar manner.” (4/71)

              Abu Darda (ra) said concerning almuriyy (salted fish meal made from salted fish placed in wine and spread under the sun, hence it changes to a taste other than that of the wine) “wine and sunshine have slaughtered whales.” (Bukhari)

              Ibn Abidin said, "The swine which drowns in a salt lake, after decomposition, becomes salt and thus halal". Ibn Abidin based his comments on the saying of Al Hasafki regarding the manufacturing of vinegar made from wine. "According to the principle of change of substance, vinegar made of wine is lawful". He then went on to say, "Vinegar made by mixing wine with water, according to the correct opinion, is pure" (Hashiya ibn Abidin, Radd al Muhtar ala ad-durr al Mukhtar, 1/314) al-Hasafki has said that "soap made from impure oil is pure and can be used. Ibn Abidin, commenting on this said, "This is an example of change of substance". (Hashiya ibn Abidin, Radd al Muhtar ala ad-durr al Mukhtar, 1/315) Al-Hasafki says that dust and smoke particles rising from burnt human or animal excrement cannot be judged impure. If it were, he says, then we would be forbidden to eat bread baked on fires in which such impurities were used as fuel. The same can be said for salt filtered from animal-contaminated lakes. (Hashiya ibn Abidin, Radd al Muhtar ala ad-durr al Mukhtar, 1/326)

              In Mughni by Ibn Qudamah, a Hanbali book, in the book of purity, section on utensils, he writes: “No impure thing could turn into pure as a result of the change in its substance except wine when it changes by itself into vinegar.”

              According to Ibn Hazm: “If the excretion of the animal is burnt down or changed and become ashes or dust, all that becomes pure and can be used for tayammum. The proof of that is the fact that rules are in accordance with what Allah (swt) has ruled regarding the objects in what the object is named. If the name of the object is changed or dropped, the previous rule is dropped as well. It is something from that which Allah has named.” (al-Muhalla 1/166 #132)

              Ibn Qayyim said: “Based on this principle, alcohol is impure, even though its origin is pure. If the reason for its being regarded as impure is no longer present, then it is to be regarded as pure. This is the basis of shariah and the basis of reward and punishment. Based on this, the correct analogy is that this principle may be applicable to all other impurities if they have gone through a process of change. RasulAllah (saw) removed the remains of the mushrikeen from the site of his mosque, but he did not remove the soil. And Allah says of milk that it comes “from between excretions and blood” [Al-Nahl 16:66]. The Muslims are unanimously agreed that if an animal eats impure things, but it is then detained and fed with pure things, its milk and meat become permissible. The same applies to crops and fruits: if they are watered with impure water, but are then watered with pure water, they become permissible, because of the change (istihaalah) in the impure thing, which becomes pure. The converse also applies: if the pure thing changes into something impure, then it becomes impure (naajis), like water, and food when it changes into urine and faeces. So how can the change affect it when good turns into bad, but not affect it when bad turns into good, and Allah brings forth pure things from impure things and impure things from pure things? It is not the origin of a thing that matters, but what it is now. It is impossible for the ruling on impurity to remain when the name and character of the thing have changed. The ruling is connected to the name and character, and is present or absent depending on whether they are present or absent. The texts which deal with the prohibition on dead meat, blood, pork and alcohol do not deal with crops, fruits, sand, salt, soil or vinegar, whether in wording or meaning or text or analogy. Those who distinguished between the change (istihaalah) of alcohol and other things said that alcohol becomes naajis because of the process of change, then it may become pure because of a further process of change. It was said to them that blood, urine and faeces became impure because of a process of change so they may become pure because of a further process of change. Thus analogy is in accordance with the text.” (I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een 2/p. 14, 15)

              Indeed decomposing things that change into something later are not similar. How can it be halal to knowingly eat any food in which one of the ingredients is pig or pig oil? Putting pork into a big pot with other ingredients, stirring it all up, and then baking it in an oven. It doesn't go through a naturally occurring or even a complete transformation like salt just because it's been cooked. Sure, it may change its texture and colour, etc. But the name of something (e.g. pork collagen to gelatine) isn't what matters here. What is in the ingredients; is what matters.

              There are different opinions regarding the ruling of cheese which is made with rennet of the animal which is slaughtered by mushrik, idol worshipper or murtad or the animal which dies naturally. Rennet of the cheese either comes from animals that are permissible to eat and it has been slaughtered according to Shariah. The ruling in this case is that it is permissible. Otherwise it is haram when it comes from animals whose meat and fat are forbidden to eat, such as pigs; or it comes from a permissible animal but it has not been slaughtered by Muslim or ahlul kitaab in the proper shari manner so it is dead meat.

              There is a famous ikhtilaf regarding the permissibility of eating from cheese which is made from rennet of maitah. The ruling on rennet varies according to where it is taken from. If it is taken from an animal that has been slaughtered in accordance with Shariah then it is pure and may be eaten. If it is taken from an animal that died of natural death or an animal that was not slaughtered in accordance with Shariah then there is a difference of opinion among the fuqaha concerning it. The majority of Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis are of the view that it is najis. Abu Hanifah and Ahmad according to the other report narrated from him were of the view that it is taahir.

              First of all it is important to know what rennet is. The substance that is put in cheese is rennet; it is a yellowish white substance in a vessel of skin which is extracted from the stomach of a calf or nursing lamb. A little of it is added to the milk, which curdles and becomes cheese.

              Fayruzabadi said the following under the definition of na fa ha: “al-infahah and al-minfahah and al-binfahah all refer to something yellow that is extracted from the stomachs of suckling goat kids.” (Al-Qaamus al-Muhit 313; al-Mujamu’l- wasit)

              Infahah (rennet) defined in al-Mawsu'ah al-Fiqhiyyah as follows: "It is a yellowish-white substance ([in a skin vessel] - this phrase appears not to fit here) that is extracted from the stomachs of suckling kids or lambs. When a little of this substance is added to milk, it curdles and becomes cheese. In some Arabic-speaking regions, people call this rennet mujabbinah (cheese-maker), and the stomach (from which the rennet is taken) is called kursh if the animal grazes on grass. The Islamic ruling concerning rennet is that if it is taken from an animal that has been slaughtered according to Shariah, then it is pure (taahir) and can be eaten. This is according to the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafaiis and Hanbalis. As regards to eating rennet taken from an animal that dies naturally, or that was not slaughtered in accordance with Shariah, according to the apparent meaning of the opinions reported from the majority of scholars among the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis have said, it is impure (najis) and should not be eaten. They base this ruling on the ayah: "Forbidden to you for food) are: al-maitatah (dead animals - cattle-beast not slaughtered)…" [Al-Maida 5/3] - the rennet becomes impure by virtue of the animal's death, and it is not possible to remove that impurity from it.” (Al-Mawsuah al-Fiqhiyyah 5/155)

              As we mentioned above the people of knowledge have two sayings on this matter:

              The opinion of the majority is that such rennet is impure. (al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah 121; al-Majmu 2/588; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 1/244; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/31; al-Insaf 92/1; al-Iqna 1/1) They believed the rennet is impure because it comes from an impure source, the stomach of the illegally slaughtered animal. They say it is a liquid material that touched an impure substance and thus becomes impure. Imam Nawawi said: “It is part of the animal so it is impure, like all the other parts of the animal.” He also said: "The ummah is agreed that it is permissible to eat cheese so long as it is not mixed with anything impure, such as adding rennet from a source that is not halal because it was not slaughtered according to Shariah. This ijma is the evidence for its permissibility.” (Al-Majmu 9/68) The Maliki book, Manh al Jaleel says that “Imam Malik disliked cheese because it was made by rennet of animals (maitah) that are not slaughtered according to Shariah rules.” The author quotes another Maliki scholar, Abu Ishaaq al-Tunusi as saying that “the cheese of the Zoroastrians is definitely haram but the cheese of the people of the book is halal.” In Sharh al Bahja, a Shafi’i reference, cheese is allowed as long as the rennet is obtained from a properly slaughtered halal animal that is only feeding on milk otherwise the contents of its stomach are najis (impure). According to Imam Shafi’i cheese which is made of rennet from a carcass is najis (impure) and can not be eaten. He offered the following as evidences: Allah (swt) commands: “Forbidden to you…dead meat.” (Al-Maida 5/3) The ruling of this ayah is general and it indicates that dead meat and other animals which are the same as dead are forbidden. Therefore cheese which is made of rennet from carcass is najis. It is not possible for RasulAllah and his sahabah to eat from cheese which was from the land of ajam. It is because cheese was not usual food of Arabs. When Islam spread and Muslim conquer the land of ajam; Muslim in those lands started slaughtering animals. The cheese which sahabah ate from should be from those animals. The amount of rennet used in the cheese is very little therefore such little amount of rennet in cheese is permissible. And also if this narration was sahih, it must have taken place at the beginning of Islam then abrogated. (Qurtubi, Tafsir, 1/220) Abu Umar said: “The food other than meat of idol worshippers, Magians and other mushrik who does not have book can be eaten. Cheese required sharri slaughtering it is because it is made rennet which is taken from stomach.” (Zaad al-Maad 4/296) Umar (ra) states that only the cheese of ahlul kitaab can be eaten, it is because cheese is made from rennet of kid and it will be permissible if the slaughterer is Muslim or ahlul kitaab and if any one other than them slaughters it will become impure. (Mawsuatu Fiqhi Umar, 616; Bayhaqi, Sunan 10/6; Nawawi, Majmu 9/96)

              According to the information which is given by Nawawi, sahabah would ask about the cheese they would find in the marketplaces out of fear that it would be made with enzymes from the slaughtered meat of a Magian –despite the difference of opinion between them of the purity of the enzymes of a carcass– even though these enzymes constituted only 1/10,000 of the product. (Al-Majmu 9/59) Bayhaqi said: “Some of the scholars would not ask about the cheese they saw, assuming that it was pure. We narrated this from Ibn Abbas (ra), Ibn Umar (ra) and others. And some of them used to ask about it out of caution, and we mentioned from Abu Mas’ud al-Ansari that he said: “I would rather fall from the roof of this palace than to eat cheese without asking about it.” Ibn Rajab reported in Jami al-Ulum wal-Hikam (1/269) that Ibn Umar (ra) was asked about a type of cheese that was produced by the Magians, and he said: “Whatever I find in the marketplace of the Muslims, I buy and do not ask about.” and Hasan al-Basri said: “The Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) would ask about cheese and would not ask about butter.” (As-Sunan al-Kubra 10/7)

              The other saying is that it is pure. According to Abu Hanifah and Imam Malik the cheese which is made of rennet of animal which was slaughtered by mushrik is pure and there is no harm to eat from it. This is the opinion of some of the Companions and successors, Umar, Salman al-Farisi, Talha, al-Husayn b. Ali and others. It is also the opinion of the Hanafi school of thought, one narration from Ahmad, and the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah, (Bada al-Sanai 1/63; al-Bahr al-Raiq 1/112; Tabyin al-Haqaiq 1/26; Jassas Ihkam al-Qur'an 1/168; al-Mabsut 24/27-28; Majmua al-Fatawa 21/102)

              Ibn Taymiyyah said: “It is more likely that their (Magians) cheese is halal and that the rennet from a dead animal (one that died of natural causes) and its milk are taahir.” (Majmua al-Fatawa 21/102) He also said: “With regard to cheese that is made with their rennet (i.e. from some of the baatini sects who are regarded as kafirs) there are two well known views concerning that among the scholars, as in the case of rennet from dead animals and rennet from animals slaughtered by the Magians and Franks (European) of whom it is said that they do not slaughter meat properly. The view of Abu Hanifah and Ahmad according to one of the two reports narrated from him is that this cheese is permissible, because the rennet of dead animal is taahir according to this view, because then it does not die when the animal dies. The view of Malik, Shafi’i and of Ahmad according to the other report, is that this cheese is najis because in their view the rennet is najis because the milk and rennet of the dead animal are najis according to them. If meat slaughtered by a particular person can not be eaten then meat slaughtered by him is like dead meat. Those who hold both views quoted as evidence reports that narrated the sahabah. Those who hold the first view narrate that the sahabah ate the cheese of the Magians and those who hold the second view narrate that they ate what they thought was cheese of the Christians. This issue of subject to ijtihad and one may follow the view of the shaykh he asks.” (Majmua al-Fatawa 35/154) Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Regarding the milk and the rennet of unlawfully slaughtered animals, there are two saying from the scholars; one that it is pure, held by Abu Hanifah and others, including one saying of Imam Ahmad. The other saying is that it is impure which is the saying of Malik, al-Shafi’i and another opinion of Imam Ahmad. This disagreement took place regarding the cheese brought from the Magians as their slaughtered animals are totally unlawful by consensus. Still, there are two sayings about their cheese. I believe their cheese is lawful, since the milk of the illegally slaughtered animals is lawful and because the Companions ate from their cheese after the battle of Iraq. This has been authentically narrated to us from that time. There are some weak narrations that some people from Hijaz disliked it, but they are not reliable. The people of Iraq are more trustworthy than others in this case because they lived there and knew the Magians firsthand. Salman al-Farisi was the Caliph `Umar’s governer in that area and he considered the cheese of the Magians to be lawful. As for the argument that a liquid will become impure when it touches an impure place, we reply that it is known from Sunnah that the liquid is pure. We also say that even if it touches an impure place that will not matter. Allah says: “From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood we produce for you a drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.” This is why it is permissible to carry a child while praying despite of what is inside his body. And Allah knows best.” In his book al-Mughnî, Ibn Qudâmah writes: “Someone asked Imam Ahmad about cheese. The Imam replied: ‘You can eat it from any source.’ But, when asked about the cheese made by the Magians, he said: ‘I do not know, but there is an authentic hadith through al-Amash that Amr b. Sharhabil said that Umar was asked about cheese and the rennet of illegally slaughtered animal used therein. Umar instructed him to mention Allah’s name upon it and eat it.” In al-Mabsut, a Hanafi reference, states: “Cheese is halal even if it is made by Zoroastrians (polytheists of Persia who used to worship fire) because it is narrated that a servant of Salman al-Farisi, when he was a governor of al Mada’in, brought him a basket full of cheese along with some bread and a knife. Salman (ra) would cut pieces of the cheese and hand it out to his companions and would explain to them how cheese is made.” Kashaaf al Qina in Hanbali fiqh states that the cheese of the Zoroastrians and other polytheists is allowed even if it is made from rennet of animals they slaughtered. Which means that the cheese made by the People of the Book is also allowed.

              They brought the following as evidences for this opinion: RasulAllah and sahabah were eating from the cheese which were brought from the land of ajam; although the slaughterer were Magians and the ruling of this animal was carcass. It is narrated from Abdullah ibn Umar: “RasulAllah (saw) was brought a piece of cheese in Tabuk. He called for a knife, mentioned Allah's name and cut it.” (Abu Dawud) When RasulAllah (saw) was asked about the fat, cheese and skin of carcass he stated: “The lawful things are the ones mentioned in Allah’s book as lawful and the unlawful things are the ones which are mentioned in Allah’s book as unlawful, and whatever is not mentioned there, then it is exempted.” (Tirmidhi; Ibn Majah) Allah (awj) commands: “He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.” (Al-Baqara 2/173) (Qurtubi, Tafsir, 1/220) Ibn Qayyim recorded the hadith which states that RasulAllah ate cheese at Tabuk and added that sahabah also ate cheese in Iraq and Shaam. (Zaad al-Maad 4/296) It is narrated through Amash that when Umar (ra) was asked about the ruling of cheese which is made from the rennet of maitah he said: “Mention the name of Allah and eat it.” (Ibn Abi Shaybah 5/130; Abdul-Razzaq, Musannaf 4/538; Ibn Qudama al-Mughni VNI/6l2; Mawsuati Fiqhi Umar, 616) The line of transmission of this hadith is absolutely sound. Imam Ahmad said: “It is the most correct hadith on the subject.” The narration of Ibn Abi Shaybah that Talhah used to put the knife over the cheese, mention Allah’s name, then cut it and eat it. (5/131) This also has a sound line of transmission. The narration of Ibn Abi Shaybah through Waqi that Hasan bin Ali was asked about the cheese. He said: “It is alright, just put the knife to it, mention Allah’s name, and eat it.” All its narrators are reliable save Jahsh b. Ziyad. There is also this narration: “We were informed by Ismail b. Musa al-Fazari through Salman (ra) that RasulAllah (saw) was asked about ghee, cheese and fur. He replied: “The lawful things are the ones mentioned in Allah’s book as lawful and the unlawful things are the ones which are mentioned in Allah’s book as unlawful, and whatever is not mentioned there, then it is exempted.” (Tirmidhi; Ibn Maja; Abu Dawud; Qurtubi, Tafsir, 1/220)) It is a weak hadith. Ibn Abî Shaybah mentioned that he was informed by Waqi through Suwayyid, the servant of Salman, that he said: “When we won the battle of Mada’in, Salman said: ‘We had found a basket in which we found four pieces of fine bread, cheese and a knife. Then Salman took the knife and cut the cheese then he said: “Pronounce Allah’s name and eat.” (Musannaf 8/98; Sarakhsi, Sharhu Siyaru’l-Kabeer) The line of transmission is weak. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that during the Battle of Taif they brought cheese to RasulAllah (saw). He asked: Where did this cheese made of? They replied: In the land of Pers. Therefore he (saw) said: Put the knife and cut, mention the name of Allah and eat.” (Ahmad, Musnad) When Ahmad was asked about this hadith, he said it is munkar. Abu Hatim ar-Razi also say the same. Abu Dawud narrated similar from Ibn Umar however it took place in the Battle of Tabuk. (Abu Dawud) He also classified it as munkar. Abdulrazzak narrated it with mursal and there is addition: O RasulAllah! We fear that it is made from carcass. RasulAllah commaded: Mention the name of Allah upon it and eat it.” (Musannaf) Tabarani recorded similar from Maymuna. They said the milk and the rennet will not become impure after death and whatever is extracted from the living animal becomes as if dead. Therefore, since milk is lawful in such cases, then rennet is also lawful.



              .

              Comment


              • #8
                Kosher Symbols

                Kosher Symbols

                Anything that contains the kosher symbol on the packaging is also permissible as long as no other najis (e.g. alcohol) is contained. It is best to check the details of the ingredients before buying and consuming. Following is the list of some of the most common kosher symbols in different parts of world.

                Click below to view the kosher symbols:

                Kosher Symbols



                .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Doubts and their clarifications

                  Doubts and their Clarification

                  I am going to clarify doubts regarding the claim of the permissibility of the meat slaughtered by the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab including the mushrik who claim to be Muslim and those who are murtad.

                  All of the scholars made ittifaq that the slaughtering of an atheist, the murtad who left Islam or the murtad of Christianity/Judaism and who has not become Muslim, the mushrik who worship fire, idols and anyone who performs shirk and associates partners to Allah can not be eaten. Scholars of the 4 madhab and Zahiris, all of the muhaddith and fuqaha declared that it is haram to eat from the meat slaughtered by mushrik, idolworshipper and murtad other than the ahlul kitaab. (al-Majmu Sharhi’l-Muhazzab 9/75-76; al-Ikna 5/92; Kalyubi and Umayra 4/240; Kifayat’ul-Ahyar 2/140; Nihayati’l-Mukhtaj 8/106; al-Idda Sharhu’l- Umdah 457; Gayati’l-Muntaha 3/371; Manaru’s-Sabil 2/422; al-Kafi 1/647; Mumtaha’l-Iradat 2/513; Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali al-Mughni 8/132-133, 8/567, 9/392, 11/36; Badaiu’s-Sanai 6/2775-2776; Tuhfatu’l-Fukaha 3/100; ash-Sharhu’s-Saghir 2/154; Ashalu’l-Madarik 2/54; Bidayatu’l-Mujtahid 1/473; al-Muhalla 8/190; Madhahibu’l-Arbaa 1/726; Raddul Mukhtar ala Durul Mukhtar, Kitabu’z-Zabaih; Ibn Abdil-Barr al-Istizkar; Mukhtaj, Mughni 4/266; Mustafa al-Hin, Mustafa al-Bugha, Ali al-Sharbaji, Fiqh of Shafi’i; Nawawi, Minhaj; al-Mawsili al-Ikhtiyar li-Ta'lili'l-Mukhtar etc.)

                  “He hath only forbidden you… that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah.” (al-Baqarah 2/173);

                  “I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it… (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's.” (al-Anam 6/145);

                  “He has only forbidden you…any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked.” (an-Nahl 16/115)

                  “Here the statement ‘that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah’ means slaughters of the fire worshippers for fire, idolworshippers for their idols and those who have no belief slaughter for themselves.” (Qurtubi Tafsir 2/223) Qurtubi in the tafsir of ayah al-Baqarah 2/173 states: “There is consensus regarding impermissible of eating from meat of the animal which is slaughtered by Magian in the name of fire and idol worshipper in the name of idols. According to Malik, Shafi’i and others their slaughter can not be eaten even if the Magian does not slaughter in the name of fire and idol worshipper does not slaughter in the name of his idol.” (Qurtubi, Tafsir, 1/220)

                  None of the classical scholars passed a verdict saying that it is permissible to eat from the meat of an animal which is slaughtered by an idol worshipper or murtad or mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab and the Muslim. There is nothing regarding the allowance in the book of fiqh and tafsir. However some sick minded people, who follow the unclear statements, seeking fitnah and to alter its meaning, in near past have claimed so. Those who have made such claims have not been able to bring any evidence from any scholar let alone the Qur’an and Sunnah. And for those who think they have presented evidence from the scholars regarding this issue have tossed the ijma aside and have stuck to an unclear statement of one scholar. We will inshaAllah take all these fatawa which permit eating from these types of meat in hand and prove them wrong so that no one will have any excuse.

                  Their claims circulate around three topics: The default ruling on matters of mu’amalat is that they are permissible, today’s mushrik who claim to be Muslim shall be accounted as ahlul kitaab and basmalah is the sole reason for meat being permissible.

                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "the default ruling on meat is that it is permissible"

                  They claim that the default ruling on matters of mu’amalat is that they are permissible so the default of meat is permissible. They say the meats of some animals are prohibited due to certain reasons such animals which are slaughtered other than in the name of Allah. But once the reason which is the cause of prohibition is lifted then it will be accounted with its original default meaning of permissibility. So the default of meat is permissible.
                  The principle of ‘the default ruling on matters of mu’amalat is that they are permissible’ can not be implemented on everything. As we discussed in detail above under the title 'Al-asl fil-haywan tahrim' meaning ‘the origin of meat is that it is prohibited’.

                  Even if we accept for a second that the origin of meat is permissible this will not prove that the slaughter of the mushrik is halal. It is because there are nass that indicate the slaughtering of the mushrik is haram. Ahadith of RasulAllah (saw) made the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab an exception from this general ruling regarding the permissibility. Therefore it is haram to eat from the meat of animals which are slaughtered by the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "the meat of the Mushrik, Kafir and Murtad is permissible as long as he applies the Islamic cutting rules"

                  Some also claim that "there is no evidence regarding the slaughter of the mushrik being restricted to be eaten and the religion of the slaughterer is not important. They claim that only the ones which slaughter while uttering the name of something other than Allah, dead animals, blood and swine are prohibited among the meat of the mushrik which are prohibited." This claim also brings the following idea forward that ”the meat of animals which are slaughtered by the mushrik for eating or trading can be eaten. The important issue is for whom the animal is slaughtered. If it is slaughtered for idols or fake gods no matter who slaughters it is haram to eat from. In the same manner it is permissible to eat from the meat of the animal which is slaughtered according to Islamic cutting rules (dhakah) therefore if a mushrik slaughters an animal by applying the Islamic cutting rules over it and if he does not mention any other name than Allah over it, it is permissible to eat from.”

                  It is not right to say that the meat of an animal which is slaughtered by the mushrik without mentioning any name other than Allah is permissible. It is because RasulAllah (saw) and the sahaba had never eaten the meat of an animal which was slaughtered other than the Muslim, Christians and Jews. They did not ask the mushrik if they had mentioned any other name other than Allah upon it or if they slaughtered merely for the purpose of eating. As we mentioned before, according to the hadith which is recorded by Ahmad it is clearly seen that the slaughter of the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab is haram no matter how they slaughter it. RasulAllah (saw) commanded: “When you go to the land of Persia where there are Nipti if you want to buy meat buy it if the slaughterer is among Jews or Christians and eat from it. If the slaughterer is Magisian then do not eat from it.” (Ahmad, Musnad) We had already mentioned the hadith which is recorded by Muslim which shows clearly that the sahaba did not eat from the slaughters of the mushrik such as Berbers and Magians: Abu al-Khayr said: “I saw Ibn Wa'la al-Saba'i wearing a fur. I touched it. He said: Why do you touch it? I asked Ibn Abbas saying: We are the inhabitants of the western regions, and there (live) with us Berbers and Magians. They bring with them rams and slaughter them, but we do not eat (the meat of the animals) slaughtered by them, and they come with skins full of fat. Upon this Ibn Abbas said: We asked RasulAllah (saw) about this and he said: Its tanning makes it pure.” (Muslim) There is no information stating that the sahaba asked the mushrik if they had mentioned a name other than Allah while slaughtering or not. Allah (swt) prohibited all the dead animals however made an exception from this ruling and made permissible the meat which is slaughtered by the Muslim with the ayah al-Maida 5/3 and ahlul kitaab with the ayah al-Maida 5/5. Therefore evidence is needed to say the slaughter of any other than the Muslim and the ahlul kitaab is permissible. And there is no evidence saying so.

                  According to the majority of the scholars it is a must to slaughter with niyyah (intention). The reason for this is that slaughtering is an act of ibadaah and ibadaah will not be accepted without niyyah. Because the ibadaah of the idol worshippers and other mushrik are rejected, it is haram to eat from their slaughter. However Allah made ahlul kitaab an exception from the other mushrik and made their slaughter permissible to the Muslim. Imam Tabari said: “For being permissible of the slaughtering of ahlul kitaab there is no need for them to invoke the name of Allah. It is because even if they invoke the name of Allah they will not mean the real deity. They mention the name of Allah who they believe is the father of Isa or Uzayr. Even if they invoke the name of Allah while meaning the real deity (i.e Allah) it is not important for the kafir to invoke the name of Allah. It is because their ibadaah is invalid.”(Qurtubi, Ahkamu’l-Qur’an, 6/52) Although Imam Shafi’i accounted slaughtering for eating as an ibadaah, he said that the meat which is slaughtered other than the Muslim and the ahlul kitaab is haram accordingly to the al-Maida 5/3 and al-Maida 5/5. (Madhahibu’l-Arbaa 1/729) Ibn Qayyim says: “The slaughter of other than ahlul kitaab is the same as dead. There are wisdoms behind the slaughter of mushrik being haram other than the ahlul kitaab which are known and some are not known by us.” (Ilamu’l-Muwakkin) Imam Sarakhsi said: “With the consensus of the ulama the permissibility of two things is related with the religion. These are; animals which will be slaughtered and the women who will be married with. Murtad has no religion.” (al-Mabsut, 10/104) All these explanations show that the claim of ‘religion of the slaughterer is not important’ is incorrect according to Qur’an, Sunnah and the ijma of ulama. If the permissibility of meat is not related with the religion of the slaughterer then the meaning of the ayah “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." (al-Maida 5/5) would be meaningless. It is because there would be no necessity to inform such ruling. It is because there is exception in the ayah, the meat of the mushrik is haram. Even if we account for a second that there is no evidence in the Qur’an and Sunnah regarding the prohibition of the slaughters of mushrik we know that Qur’an and Sunnah are not the only sources of shariah. Ijma is also a source of shariah and sahabah made ijma that the slaughter of any other than the Muslim and ahlul kitaab can not be eaten. Muslim applied this ruling for the 14 century. On the contrary there is no evidence regarding the permissibility of the meat of the mushrik neither in the Book nor in the Sunnah and the ijma.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "if the slaughter of the Mushrik is prohibited then all their food is prohibited"

                  They also claim that if the slaughter of the mushrik is prohibited then all the food they cook and all the fruit and veggies they cut shall be prohibited too. Their claim can be summarized as: "the prohibition of the slaughtered meat has nothing to do with the person carrying out the slaughtering, and whether he is a Muslim, from the People of the Book, or is a mushrik. Rather, it is tied to the goal of the slaughtering if it is intended to be dedicated to the idols. So, if the reason for the prohibition is the fact that the slaughterer is a kafir, why is this limited to his slaughtered meat? Why doesn’t the bread that he bakes and the fruit that he picks not fall under the same ruling?"

                  As for the reason of the prohibition being limited to the slaughtered meats, this is because of the texts related from the companions explaining the verse: “…and the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you…” (al-Maidah 5/5) Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “Their food is their slaughtered meat,” and Ibn Kathir said: “And this is an issue that the scholars are agreed upon.” (Tafsir 2/19) And we’ve already gone over the authentic texts from the Companions that forbid the slaughtered meat of the Magians. However, the Companions did not forbid the fish caught by the Magians, and this is because the fish is considered a type of dead meat that is halal despite it being dead. Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Abbas said: “Eat what is caught from the sea by a Christian, Jew, or Magian.” (Fathu’l-Bari 9/614) As we mentioned previously according to the majority, slaughtering is an act of ibadaah and there is no place for qiyas or ijtihad concerning ibadaah. For example as qiyas can not be done by saying there is sujud in the prayer and janazah (funereal) prayer is also a prayer therefore there should be sajda in the janazah prayer. In the same manner such qiyas ‘the veggies that mushrik pick and cut is halal therefore the meat of their slaughter is also halal’ can not be done. It is also a fact that RasulAllah (saw) and sahabah were eating all the food of mushrik other than the meat they slaughter.



                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "all the haram and restrictions are mentioned in surah Baqarah, Maida and Anam, therefore the slaughter of the Mushrik is halal"

                  They claim that "surah al-Baqarah, al-Maida and al-Anam restricted the haram meaning there is no other haram (other than what is mentioned in these surah) however the slaughter of mushrik and kafir is haram had not been mentioned in these ayah. Therefore the slaughter of the mushrik and the kafir is not haram, but is halal and can be eaten."

                  Indeed these surah restricted the haram however stating there is no other haram is incorrect. It is because these ayah had restricted haram which were present when they had been revealed. If these ayah had restricted the haram in general then RasulAllah (saw) would have not made anything haram other then them. On the contrary RasulAllah (saw) made haram the meat of wild birds, wild animals and donkeys.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "if the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab is permissible even if they do not implement shar’i cutting rules, the slaughter of the Mushrik is permissible if he applies shar’i cutting rules"

                  They claim that "it is because the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab is permissible even if they do not implement shar’i cutting rules therefore the slaughter of the mushrik who implements shar’i cutting rules is also permissible. Even if the ahlul kitaab slaughter for their churches, some of the ulama account their slaughter permissible. If this is halal then the slaughter of the mushrik who implements the shar’i cutting rules and does not mention a name other than Allah will also be permissible."

                  This is an incorrect claim. It is because those ulama, who state that even if the Jews and Christians mention a name other than Allah moreover if they the slaughter for their churches, their slaughter is halal and can be eaten, brings the ayah “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." (al-Maida 5/5) as evidence for their view. However claiming that it is permissible to eat from the slaughter which is slaughtered by the mushrik who does not mention a name other than Allah or mentions the name of Allah, has no basis. As we mentioned above according to the jumhur slaughtering is an act of ibadaah and there is no room for qiyas concerning ibadaah. For this reason it is incorrect to make such qiyas such that if the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab is permissible even if they mention a name other than Allah, why not the slaughter of mushrik who do not mention a name other than Allah be eaten?


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "if meat comes from the Mushrik, it is not necessary to investigate who slaughtered the meat"

                  They also claim "that when meat comes from the mushrik, it is not necessary to investigate who slaughters the meat. When meat comes to us from somewhere without investigating who slaughtered we can utter basmala upon it and eat from it. When the Muslim conquered the land of Rum there were different nations in it; idol worshippers, mushrik, Jews, Christians etc. The Muslim had not investigated who slaughtered the meat in those lands. It is because when meat came to RasulAllah (saw) which was not known who slaughtered it, RasulAllah (saw) commanded: You mention Allah’s name upon it and eat it." (Bukhari; Abu Dawud; Nasai; Ibn Maja; Malik, Muwatta; Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Kubra; Ibn Hajar Fathu’l-Bari 12/54; al-Ayni’ Umdat al-Qari 21/118)”

                  This claim is also incorrect. The sahaba were investigating who the slaughterer was –ahlul kitaab or a mushrik- in such lands where different nations live together. This is mentioned clearly in the narrations from Ibn Mas’ud (ra), Ibn Abbas (ra), Ali (ra), Jabir (ra) and Abu Burda (ra). Also the narration of Ahmad regarding Nipti is clear evidence for this. It is also incorrect to bring the hadith of Aisha (ra) which is recorded in Bukhari as evidence for the permissibility of the slaughter of mushrik. It is because in the hadith it is mentioned that the slaughterer was Muslim. However they were new in Islam. Aisha (ra) said: “And these people had just recently entered Islam.” It is because the slaughterer was Muslim, this hadith will not be evidence for those who claim that the slaughter of the mushrik will be halal with invoking basmala upon it.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "the mafhumu muhalafat (opposite indication) of the ayah al-Maida 5/5 is proof that the food of the Muslim is permissible for ahlul kitaab but prohibited for mushriks other than them"

                  They also claim that "the mafhumu muhalafat (opposite indication) of the ayah al-Maida 5/5 as evidence, however this can not be taken as evidence. They say: Some of the scholars extracted the view that the meat of mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab can not be eaten from the ayah al-Maida 5/5 "The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." They said regarding this ayah: The meaning of the ayah that the food of the ahlul kitaab is permissible indicates that the slaughter of the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab can not be eaten. This is what is indicated from the opposite of the ayah." This ayah can not be evidence for their view. It is because when the opposite indication of this part of the ayah is taken as evidence then the opposite indication of the ayah completely should be taken as evidence; meaning in the continuing part of the ayah it is stated that: “and yours is lawful unto them.” (al-Maida 5/5) With the opposite indication of this part of the ayah our food can only be permissible for ahlul kitaab and prohibited for the other mushrik. As far as we know there is no one who states this.

                  This claim is also incorrect. For applying the opposite indication of an ayah, there should be no hukm that contradicts it. There is no evidence that the slaughter of the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab is lawful. Therefore the opposite indication can be applied in this part of the ayah. To give such hukm that the opposite indication of the ayah “and yours is lawful unto them” meaning your food is solely halal to ahlul kitaab and haram for mushrik other than them; there should be no nass which contradicts with this inference. However there are plenty of nass which contradict with it. It is known that RasulAllah (saw) fed the mushrik slaves of war with the meat of their slaughter. However neither RasulAllah nor the sahaba ate from the slaughter of the mushrik. According to a narration RasulAllah (saw) commanded to feed the mushrik slaves of war with the meat of animal which had been slaughtered without the permission of its owner. (Abu Dawud, Ahmad, Daraqutni) All of the mufassir explained the ayah “and yours is lawful unto them” as: As you can eat from their slaughter, you can also feed them with your slaughter.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "there is no sahih narration from the sahaba prohibiting the meat of the Mushrik and the views of the sahabas oppose the clear nass"

                  They also claim that "there is no sahih narration from the sahaba indicating that the slaughtering of the mushrik is prohibited. They say in order to accept the view of the sahaba it should not oppose clear nass. The view which is narrated from the sahaba opposes the ayah which restricts the haram in the Qur’an. Therefore their view can not be accepted."

                  This claim is also incorrect. It is because there are narrations from the sahaba which were declared sahih. The hadith regarding the Niptis which is recorded by Ahmad and also the hadith regarding the Berber and Magians which is narrated by Muslim are declared sahih. There is ijma of the sahaba regarding the matter and none of the sahaba stated vice verse. Their argument of any statement from the sahaba which oppose clear nass can not be accepted as correct. However when there is ijma of sahaba regarding an unclear nass then it should be made tawil according to the statement of the sahaba. This is a principle which is accepted by the ulama. Regarding the issue of meat, the ayah that permits the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab is clear and also there are clear ahadith which supports the meaning of the ayah. The view and ijma of the sahaba which supports this meaning is related to us with sahih sanad. The ijma of the sahaba concerning the matter is clear and it does not contradict with the Qur’an and Sunnah on the contrary it supports the meaning of the Book and Sunnah. According to these explanations their statement of "the view which is narrated from the sahaba opposes the ayah which restricts the haram in the Qur’an" is incorrect. If there was only the ayah in surah al-Baqarah, al-Maida, al-Anam and an-Nahl regarding animals, still the ijma of the sahaba does not contradict with these ayah. Their ijma regarding the impermissibility of eating from the slaughter of the mushrik will be taken in consideration as maitah due to the slaughters of the mushrik being accounted as dead. Also these ayah had not restricted all the haram regarding animals. After these ayah had been revealed RasulAllah (saw) made the meat of wild animals and donkeys etc haram.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "the view regarding the slaughter of the mushrik can not be eaten is a ruling which comprises only the period of RasulAllah and sahaba."

                  They say that "there is no evidence in the Qur’an and sunah that the slaughter of the mushrik is haram. For this reason only the period of RasulAllah and sahaba will be accounted as haram to reconcile with the view of the sahaba regarding the impermissibility of the slaughter of mushrik. The slaughter of mushrik after that period is accounted as halal because there is no evidence which prohibits it. Some of them separate the ruling between the animal which is slaughtered for purpose of eating and animal which is slaughtered for idols. They say there is no evidence in the Qur’an and Sunnah stating that the meat of animal which is slaughtered for the purpose of eating only is haram. However there are narrations which show that during the period of sahaba the slaughtering of the mushrik is prohibited."

                  This claim is also baseless. As we mentioned there are clear nass in the Qur’an and the Sunnah indicating that the slaughter of mushrik is haram. There are clear evidences in the Qur’an and Sunnah which we explained in detail. Even if there was no evidence in the Qur’an and Sunnah the ijma of the ummah for the 14th century regarding the impermissibility of the slaughter of mushrik except the ahlul kitaab is not a custom or they throw out things from their belly. It is because this is a hukm with regards to halal and haram. This can only be done by relying upon clear nass. If the sahaba made ittifaq regarding a matter, this ittifaq is stronger proof than a hadith. When sahaba made ittifaq regarding a matter which is unclear in the Qur’an and Sunnah then this ittifaq will be taken in consideration as strong proof to apply. When there is nass supporting this ittifaq in the Qur’an and Sunnah –there is nass in this case- then this ittifaq must be accepted without hesitation. The statement "The impermissibility of the meat of mushrik is solely particular to the period of sahaba. The sahaba only meant the mushrik who lived during their period" is a baseless statement. If we apply this ruling and accept this logic then we will have to apply all the hukm of the Qur’an and the Sunnah which was revealed during the period of the sahaba that are related with the sahaba and we are not responsible with them. This will take one to reject the hukm of the Qur’an, stating that ruling of the Qur’an bounds every person until the qiyamah, which is kufr. The view of separating between the slaughter which is slaughtered for the purpose of eating and slaughter for idols is baseless, an incorrect view. RasulAllah (saw) neither ate from the slaughter of the mushrik which had been slaughtered for the purpose of eating nor from the slaughter which had been slaughtered for their idols. According to sahih information which has reached us RasulAllah (saw) and the sahaba did not eat from the slaughter of the mushrik. They did not investigate whether they slaughter for purpose of eating or slaughter for idols.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "the ruling which is addressed in the ayah al-Maida 5/3 is general and it is not particular to Muslims. They bring the statement of Shawkani for their view"

                  Imam Shawkani (ra) said “And it is invalid to take evidence from what Allah (swt) said: “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/03) because it was addressed to the Muslim; as we will say that this address is to everyone who fits to be addressed, so who claims that the kafir is out of this verdict after he slaughtered for Allah and mentioned His name, then he must bring the evidence.” (as-Sayl al-Jarraar 4/65)

                  With the help of Allah I will inshaAllah take the statement of Shawkani in hand in detail. Before that, let me clarify this doubt. It is a grave mistake to claim that the ayah is addressing everyone whether he is Muslim or kafir. With the part in the ayah “unless ye are able to slaughter it” Muslims are addressed. The siyaq (context) of the ayah indicates this. It is because from the beginning of the ayah, Allah (swt) mentions things which He prohibits and states “hurrimat alaykum” meaning “Forbidden to you.” Alim or layman every sound minded Muslim knows that Allah informs regarding prohibitions for Muslim only and not for the kuffar. For this reason at the beginning Allah addressed the Muslim by stating “Forbidden to you.” Therefore the statement of Allah “unless ye are able to slaughter it” is also addressing the Muslims. If this statement was addressing everyone whether he is Muslim or kafir Allah would have used the statement ‘illa ma dhukkiya’ meaning ‘unless those slaughtered’ instead of ‘illa ma dhakkaytum’ meaning ‘unless ye are able to slaughter it.’ It is because if the slaughterer was not important, the usage of the pronoun ‘kum’ meaning ‘you’ would have been meaningless.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "the al-Maida 5/3 made nas’h of the ayah al-Maida 5/5"

                  They also claim that "the ayah al-Maida 5/3 made nas’h of the ayah al-Maida 5/5. They bring the following as evidence that the slaughter of the kuffar is permissible. The ayah “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/3) is general for everyone; Muslim and kuffar and it should be understood in this way. If it is not understood in this manner and accounted to the Muslim in particular then as al-Maida 5/3 is the last ayah which had been revealed then it should have made nas’h of the ayah al-Maida 5/5. As the ayah "The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." (al-Maida 5/5) had not been made nas’h then the part “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/3) should be understood in general meaning comprising both Muslim and kuffar."

                  When a hukm which restricts another ayah is revealed, if this is one of the last revelations, it does not make nas’h of the hukm before it each time. The hukm which prohibits alcohol made nas’h of the hukm regarding the permissibility of drinking wine other than prayer. However Allah made sadaqa fard for this ummah at the beginning and then replaced it with zakah; made zakah fard for them. But while being fard, zakah did not invalidate sadaqa. As it is in this case, the ayah “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/3) had not invalidate the ayah which permits the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab. This ayah does not make the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab haram. If we claim that the ayah “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/3) made nas’h of the hukm before it then we would have to claim that the Muslim were eating from both the slaughters of the mushrik and the ahlul kitaab. On the contrary according to the sahih narrations neither RasulAllah (saw) nor sahaba ate from the slaughter of the mushrik in Mecca or Madinah. If it was permissible to eat from the slaughter of mushrik then the ayah “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you” (al-Maida 5/5) would not have been revealed. The ayah “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/3) does not inform a new ruling but confirms a ruling which was presented in Mecca. The things which are accounted as haram at the beginning of the ayah were also mentioned in the surah al-Anam 6/145 “I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's.” which had been revealed in Mecca.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "those mushriks who have attributed themselves to any of the holy books (including Qur’an) are counted as Ahlul Kitaab, therefore their meat is permissible"

                  One of the main arguments from them is that todays mushrik who claim to be Muslim are also ahlul kitaab. Some take the linguistic meaning of the term ‘ahlul kitaab’ and leave its shar’i usage; they call anyone who attributes himself to the holy books (including Qur’an) as ahlul kitaab. They say that although the Jews and the Christians perform shirk they are accounted as ahlul kitaab therefore those mushrik who claim to be Muslim and attribute themselves to the Qur’an are also among the ahlul kitaab.

                  One of the biggest destroyers of Islam is looking merely with the Arabic language and passing judgment regarding the ayah without looking at the hadith of RasulAllah (saw), explanations of the sahaba and scholars of this ummah. This is great fitnah. To protect the Muslim from this fitnah RasulAllah (saw) commanded: “I leave behind me two things. You will never go astray if you hold fast to them: The Qur'an and my Sunnah.” (Muwatta) In another hadith it is said: “hold fast to my sunnah and sunnah of hulafai rashidun” (Bukhari; Muslim) Any one who wants to understand and comprehends the Qur’an should look to the sunnah of RasulAllah (saw) and views of the sahaba who know the sunnah very well. For this reason RasulAllah (saw) commanded the ahadith and the similar we mentioned above. The sahaba explained the meaning of the term ahlul kitaab. Although they have little differences none of the sahaba, tabi’een, tabi’ tabi’een, 4 madhab imams and other scholars have ever said ‘Those mushrik who claim to be Muslim are among the ahlul kitaab.’ During their period there were murtad such as Ubaydis (Fatimids) Tatars and others who claim to be bound to the Qur’an. They have never called them ahlul kitaab and have never married with them and have never eaten their slaughter. On the contrary, they called them as murtad and executed them if they could. According to the ijma of all the sahaba, tabi’een, madhab imams and all the scholars, anyone who performs shirk after they have entered Islam is murtad who has left Islam. Such person will be offered to declare tawbah, if he rejects he will be killed. No scholar said that the slaughter of such person can be eaten. Although there is ikhtilaf regarding executing the murtad there is no ikhtilaf regarding the impermissibility of the slaughter of the murtad. (Ibn Qudama al-Mughni 9/388; al-Majmu Sharhi’l Muhazzab 9/81; Shafi’i al-Umm 6/155, 7/331; Imam Muhammad al-Mabsut 142-143; Mardawi al-Insaf 10/389; Ibn Najjar Muntahal Iradat 2/513) When we look at the history of Islam we can easily observe that the hukm given to the mushrik who claim to be Muslim can not be accounted as ahlul kitaab, reaches us in mutawatir. They have never been accounted among the ahlul kitaab, they have never been taken jizya from, neither married with nor eaten their salughter. Those who accepted all of the hukm of Islam accepted paying zakah to Abu Bakr (ra) this is a good example of this. Abu Bakr (ra) did not give them the attribute of being ahlul kitaab in any matter. Those who call the mushrik who claim to be Muslim as ahlul kitaab they merely have looked in the dictionary meaning and have not been able to bring evidence from the Qur’an, the sunnah or a quote from scholars. This way they passed a judgment which is against the ijma of the ummah and oppose the Qur’an and Sunnah. The term ahlul kitaab explained as Jews and Christians in the books of scholars (Tafsir Razi, Tafsir Marah Labid, Tafsir Baydawi, Tafsir Taalibi, Tafsir Qurtubi, Tafsir Tabari, Zadul Masir, Ruhul Maani etc). None of the scholars said that the term ahlul kitaab comprises those mushrik who attribute themselves to the Qur’an and claim to be Muslim. It is because the term ahlul kitaab which is used in the Qur’an refers to the Jews, Christians or both of them. For those Muslim or claim to be Muslim had not referred to as ahlul kitaab neither in the Qur’an nor in the ahadith or the books of the scholars. The person, who believes the hukm of the Qur’an, actualizes the necesities of tawhid and keeps distant from shirk and the mushrik is called as Muslim. The one who performs shirk after he entered Islam is called murtad. And those who claim to be Muslim however never have entered Islam and also performs shirk are called kafir and mushrik. Such individuals will not be accounted as Muslim or as ahlul kitaab.


                  _________________________________________________
                  Claim that "It is prohibited to eat the meat of only the idolworshippers; this prohibition does not apply to the atheist, communists, socialists, etc"

                  They also claim that “the communist, atheist, laic, socialist are not accounted mushrik which is mentioned in the Qur’an. Therefore their slaughter can be eaten. They say the term mushrik does not comprise any one who rejects the Qur’an, does not accept Muhammad (saw) as prophet and does not enter the religion of Islam. The term mushrik refers to the idolworshipers in Hijaz and Najd and other Arab tribes.”

                  The term mushrik is used in the Qur’an and the Sunnah to refer to the one who associates partners to Allah in ibadaah. Christians and Jews are also mushrik. However Allah (swt) keeps them separate from other mushrik. The ahlul kitaab being given such name is not because they are not mushrik as some claim. It is a big mistake to say that Christians and Jews are ahlul kitaab so they are not mushrik. During the period of RasulAllah there were not only idol worshippers and ahlul kitaab. There were also those who deny Allah, those who worship the fire or those who worship to the dahr (time). And the Muslim call all of these different sects as mushrik. In the hadith which is recorded by Muslim and narrated from Yazed Ibn Habib it is clearly seen that the sahaba were accounting Berbers and Magians as mushrik and do not eat from their slaughters. “…I asked Ibn Abbas saying: We are the inhabitants of the western regions, and there (live) with us Berbers and Magians. They bring with them rams and slaughter them, but we do not eat (the meat of the animals) slaughtered by them.” (Muslim) Therefore it is not right to say the mushrik were only the idolworshippers. The term mushrik is an attribute and whoever has this attribute will be called as mushrik.



                  .

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Doubts and their clarifications continued

                    Continued...

                    _________________________________________________
                    Claim that "the ahlul kitaab today are not the same as the ones during the time of RasulAllah, therefore their meat is prohibited for us"

                    They also claim that “the ahlul kitaab today is not the same as the ones during the period of RasulAllah (saw). They say the hukm of todays ahlul kitaab is not the same as the ahlul kitaab which is mentioned in the Qur’an. The slaughter of todays ahlul kitaab can not be eaten.”

                    They build their view upon “the ahlul kitaab of today are not living according to their books it is because they are distant from their religion.” It is correct that they are distant from their religion however if any Christian and Jew says that he is Christian or Jew, no matter what he does except irtidat (apostasy to another religion other than Islam) he will be accounted as Christian or Jew. Only if they say that they are not Christian or Jew and those who become Jew or Christian by leaving Islam can not be accounted as ahlul kitaab and their slaughter can not be eaten. It is not right to say the ahlul kitaab of today should be accounted as murtad. It is because during the period of RasulAllah (saw) they made takfir of their religion and were making halal whatever they wished and haram whatever they wished. It is not right to say that because of kufr in their deeds they should be accounted as murtad as the Muslim become murtad when they perform kufr. Only the religion of the Muslim is the truth and only the one who performs kufr after entering Islam can be murtad. The religion of the Jews and Christians are already mutilated and abrogated thus they are not the true religion any more. RasulAllah (saw) did not say that they are not ahlul kitaab because they perform such kufr. Although the Jews did not perform the hadd of zina (rajm) which was a command in their shariah and had replaced it with something else, RasulAllah (saw) accounted them still as ahlul kitaab. Moreover the Jews said that the religion of idolworshippers is better than Islam, during the period of RasulAllah, RasulAllah (saw) accounted them as ahlul kitaab. For this reason it is not right to look at them as if they live according to their books and religion to call them ahlul kitaab. To be bounded to the book is a condition for the Muslim. Jews and Christians were also not living according to their book during the period of RasulAllah (saw) and although they were not living according to their shariah, they were called as ahlul kitaab and they were treated accordingly.


                    _________________________________________________
                    Claim that "the reason meat is halal is because the name of Allah is invoked upon it"

                    One of the mainstream claim of doubters is that the reason meat is halal is because the name of Allah is invoked upon it. According to the owner of this view “if anyone whether Muslim, ahlul kitaab or idol worshipper or a murtad do not invoke the name of Allah upon slaughter, then it will not be eaten. But if anyone whether he is a Muslim, ahlul kitaab, idolworshipper or a murtad invokes the name of Allah upon the slaughter then it is permissible to eat from.” They bring some ayah and some of the views of the ulama as evidence to support their view. The evidences they use for their claim can be summarized: the ayah of al-Anam 118, 119 and 121; quotation from some tafsir books which gives invoking the name of Allah upon the slaughter as a reason for the permissibility of it, including a quote from Shawkani.

                    I’d like to take all these claims in hand one by one inshaAllah. Allah (swt) commands: “So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced, if ye have faith in His signs.” (al-Anam 6/118), “Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/19) and “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) Extracting the following from this ayah “it is permissible to eat from the meat which had been invoked the name of Allah upon it, no matter what the religion is the slaughterer” is against the Qur’an, the Sunnah, statements of the sahaba and the ulama. If mentioning the name of Allah was the sole reason for its permissibility and prohibition then the ayah “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." (al-Maida 5/5) would have been needless addidtion. In the same manner it would be stating that the sahaba had not understood these verses. The reason is because when they went in to the land of Persia they were investigating whether the slaughterer is among the ahlul kitaab or Magians. Again there is no evidence and narration with regards to the sahaba investigating whether the name of Allah was invoked upon it or not, they merely investigated whether the slaughterer was ahlul kitaab. They only asked about a group of newly become Muslims, to RasulAllah (saw). As it is crystal clear that they had not investigated if the slaughterer mentioned the name of Allah upon it but they had investigated what the religion of the slaughterer was. If the reason was basmala then the ulama would not have made ikhtilaf regarding the slaughter of the Magians. In the same manner the ulama would not have made ittifaq regarding the issue that “the permissibility of two things is related with the religion.” Imam Sarakhsi said: “With the consensus of the ulama the permissibility of two things is related with the religion. These are; animals which will be slaughtered and the women who will be married with. Murtad has no religion.” (al-Mabsut, 10/104) In the tafsir books it is referred that invoking the name of Allah upon the slaughter is a condition for the Muslim only to prevent people to read the ayah in surah al-Anam and extract invoking the name of Allah to only be a condition which causes the slaughter being permissible. Shaikh of the mufassirun, Tabari, in the tafsir of al-Anam 6/121 said: “Allah (swt) in this ayah commanded to His nabi (saw) and His mumin slaves: O Mumineen. Eat from the slaughter of the animals which were slaughtered as I described to you. These are the slaughter of the mumineen who accepted the haq tawhid and the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab, these are the meat which are made permissible for you. However the slaughter of the mushrikeen and Magians who read a book are not permissible for you.” (Tafsir) In the tafsir of Salabi this ayah had been explained as: “If you are mumin eat only which Allah's name hath been pronounced.” This ayah made prohibited the meat of animal which is slaughtered near to statues, the dead animals and similars. It does not prohibit the slaughter which a mumin slaughtered without mentioning basmala with forgetting or intentionally.” (Tafsir) Shawkani explained the ayah “Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/19) “Meaning of this ayah is: What prevents you to eat from the meat of animals which Allah permits to eat and the ones which the name of Allah had invoked upon it? Indeed there is no pprevention.” (Fathu’l-Qadir) the proper way to understand the ayah al-Anam 6/118, 119, 121 is the following: The idolworshiper, mushrik were eating from the slaughter which the name of Allah had been invoked upon and they had no problem with this. Also they eat from the meat of animal which were dead and not slaughtered. The Muslim on the contrary they were eating from the meats of the slaughter which the name of Allah had been invoked upon as well however they were not eating from the meat of dead animals. Some of the mushrik tried to put fitnah among Muslims and to eat from the meat of a dead animal they said: You eat from what you slaughter and you do not eat from what Allah slaughters (by taking its life). The effect of this doubt had been seen in some of the weak Muslim and Allah had revealed these ayah to rid the doubts in the heart of Muslim and to show the muslim that if they obey the mushrik they would also be mushrik. Wahidi in his book Asbabu’l Nuzul narrates the following event as a reason for the ayah: “And eat not of that whereon Allah's name hath not been mentioned…” (al-Anam 6/121) The idolaters said: “O Muhammad, tell us: 'When a sheep dies, who has killed it?' He said: 'Allah killed it!' They said: 'How is it then that that which is killed by you and your Companions is lawful, that which is killed by a dog or bird of prey is lawful but that which is killed by Allah is unlawful?' And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Said 'Ikrimah: “When Allah, exalted is He, revealed the unlawfulness of the meat of carrion, the Magians among the people of Persia wrote to the idolaters of Quraysh, who were their allies in the pre-Islamic period and kept contact with each other, that Muhammad and his Companions claim that they follow the command of Allah but then say that what they slaughter is lawful and that which is slaughtered by Allah is unlawful. This caused doubt in the minds of some Muslims, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. (Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul) Allah (swt) commands: “So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced, if ye have faith in His signs.” (al-Anam 6/118) Allah (awj) commands to Muslims in the ayah that “Do not eat from the meat of dead animals by assumming it is halal. Eat only from whatever you slaughter. And if you are among Muslims then do not obey the mushrik with eating from the meat of dead animal. “Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced?” (al-Anam 6/19) Allah (swt) commands in this ayah that Allah informed you openly about what halal is and what haram is regarding the meat. For this reason do not eat from the meat which was prohibited by Allah such as meat of dead animal. This ayah has not referred the meaning “no matter whoever slaughters, eat from the meat of the animal if the basmala invoked upon it.” It is because neither mushrik nor Muslim had problems with eating the meat which basmala invoked upon. Allah (swt) had sent down the ayah “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) to inform that the meat of animals which a name other than Allah was invoked is prohibited after Allah prohibited the meat of the dead animal. In this ayah there is no hukm regarding the meat which the name of Allah was invoked upon being permissible. As we mentioned above; neither Muslim nor mushrik had any problem with eating from the meat which basmala was invoked upon. The meaning of this ayah is “O Mumin do not obey the kuffar and do not give the hukm of dead which you slaughtered by mentioning the basmala upon it. The meats of these slaughters are permissible for you and eat from them. This is the meaning of the ayah and all the mufassir explained it in this manner. For taking its meaning in general and saying that no matter what the religion of the slaughterer is, it is the basmala which is the reason of being permissible there should be evidence which gives a contradicting hukm or which restricts the meaning of the ayah. On the other hand there are evidences from the Qur’an, sunnah and statements of the scholars which indicates that the slaughter of mushrik other than ahlul kitaab is prohibited even if they invoke the name of Allah upon it. For this reason there is no scholar in the history of Islam who says that no matter what the religion of the slaughterer, the reason of meat being permissible is the invoking of the name of Allah upon it.

                    Some claim that the reason of the prohibition regarding the slaughter of mushrik is their invoking the name of idols upon it. They say the mushrik during the period of RasulAllah (saw), 4 khalif and sahaba were always invoking the names of the idols while slaughtering. The ulama which prohibited the slaughter of the mushrik passed this judgment due to this reason.

                    This is an incorrect deduction, it is because there were dahri (who worship time), those who do not believe in Allah, hanif those who do not believe in the idols etc. It is not possible to think that all of these people were slaughtering while invoking the names of idols. The Hanif did not believe in the idols. Could it be possible for them to mention the name of idols while slaughtering? For example Allah mentions dahri in the ayah: “And they say: What is there but our life in this world? We shall die and we live, and nothing but time can destroy us. But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture.” (al-Jathiya 45/24) It is also not possible for someone who does not believe in any religion to mention the name of idols during slaughtering. It is also a historical reality some of the mushrik Arab people were mentioning the name of Allah when they wanted to do something. Like when they preapared a letter to boycott Muslims and those who were helping them in Mecca, they started the letter with the name of Allah. Again at the beginning of the treaty of Hudaybiyyah between the Muslim and mushrik of Quraish it was written with the name of Allah. It is also possible for them to mention the name of Allah while slaughtering. Although there is this possibility; neither RasulAllah (saw) nor did the sahaba investigate what the mushrik invoke during the slaughtering. On the contrary they have never eaten from the slaughter of the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab. This hukm and performance continued for 14 centuries with the ijma of the ulama. Therefore it is not right to pass judgment to say that the mushrik during the period of the sahaba were always slaughtering while invoking the names of idols.

                    Some claim that the ayah al-Anam 6/121 had been revealed only for the slaughters which they mention the names of idols and not the name of Allah. According to their claim, the meaning of the ayah is: “Do not eat from the slaughter of mushrik Quraish which they mentioned the name of idols and not the name of Allah. And they say that according to the asbabi nuzul of the ayah the prohibition is with regards to the meat which was slaughtered while invoking the name of something other than Allah. Other than this every meat is permissible.”

                    They took apart from the asbabi nuzul of the ayah and they left the other part which is related with the meat of Magians. According to some ulama the asbabi nuzul of this ayah is the following: “Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ata: “This ayah had been revealed regarding the slaughter of Quraish to their idols and slaughters of Magians.” (Qasimi, Mahasinu’t-Tawil) According to this asbabi nuzul of the ayah both the slaughter of idolworshippers and the Magians were prohibited. It can be said that the idolworshipers during the period of RasulAllah (saw) were slaughtering while invoking the name of their idols. However Magians were not invoking anything on the meat which they slaughter for eating purposes while slaughtering. It is because the Magians were not worshipping the idols. For this reason it is not right to say that the asbabi nuzul of the ayah only prohibits the meat of animals which are slaughtered while invoking the name of something other than Allah.

                    They also use some statements of the scholars regarding the issue to prove that the slaughter which has been slaughtered while invoking the name of Allah is permissible regardless of the religion of the slaughterer.

                    Stating that “Ibn Kathir and others bring as a condition the invoking of the name of Allah upon the slaughter”, this is incorrect as its permissibility does not show that the reason which causes the meat to be permissible is the basmala. It is because none of the ulama state in their books that if a mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab slaughters mentioning the name of Allah upon the slaughter, it becomes permissible. According to all scholars it is haram to eat from the meat of an animal which was slaughtered by the mushrik (other than the ahlul kitaab), murtad and idol worshipers even if they mentioned the name of Allah upon it.

                    It is stated in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir: “Ibn Hatim narrated that Makhu’l said to Abbas Ibnu’l-Walid: Allah (swt) commanded: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) and then showing mercy upon Muslims made nas’h of this ayah with the following ayah: “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them.” (al-Maida 5/5) With this He (swt) made the food of ahlul kitaab permissible. Ibn Kathir commented: “May Allah give mercy on Makhul. We should stop regarding that truthfulness of what he said. It is because Allah permitting the food of the ahlul kitaab does not necessitate the animals which the name of Allah had not been mentioned upon to be haram. Moreover it is because the ahlul kitaab take slaughtering in consideration as ibadaah, they mention the name of Allah while slaughtering and offering sacrifices. For this reason Allah did not make mubah the slaughter of mushrik other than them and their likes. It is because they do not invoke the name of Allah while slaughtering. Moreover these people do not show importance to the slaughtering methods when they eat and they also eat the meat of the dead animal. Contrary to the Ahlul kitaab those who are like them Samiris, Sabiis, those who claim to be on the religion of Ibrahim, Sheet and other nabis.”

                    The statement of Ibn Kathir is recorded in such manner in some copies. The correct way is: “Other than those who claim to believe the two books and those like them Samiri, Sabii, claim to believe the religion of Ibrahim, Sheet and other nabis.” This correction is made by Daru’l-Fikr Tibau Nashr wa’tTawzi in the Bairut 1981 edition. Stating that the basmala is a condition for being permissible of the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab as the opinion of Ibn Kathir, it is not right with in this context. It is because this view contradicts the statement of the sahaba and hadith. It is because the Jews and Christians do not always mention the name of Allah while slaughtering. Besides they sometimes mention the name of Isa (as) or Uzayr (as) during slaughtering. Some sahih hadith also indicate this. In the same manner if ahlul kitaab were to only slaughter by mentioning the name of Allah then there would be no place for discussion as to whether the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab when they mention a name other than Allah is permissible or not. The reason which cause the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab to be halal or haram according to the ijma of scholars is solely because they are Christians and Jews. Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “After Allah commanded “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced” made ahlul kitaab exception from this ruling by commanding “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them.” According to this the slaughter of Christians and Jews are permissible. Jews mention the name of Uzayr while slaughtering, Christians mention the name of Isa while slaughtering. It is because they submit to the nation of the Jews and Christians.” (Qurtubi tafsir)

                    They bring another quote from Ibn Kathir also tryin to prove their claim. Ibn Kathir said: “The food of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you” meaning, their slaughtered animals, as Ibn Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Ikrimah, Ata, al-Hasan, Makhul, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, as-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated. This ruling, that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible for Muslims, is agreed on by the scholars, because the People of the Book believe that slaughtering for other than Allah is prohibited. They mention Allah's Name upon slaughtering their animals, even though they have deviant beliefs about Allah that do not befit His majesty… Moreover it is because ahlul kitaab take slaughtering in consideration as ibadaah, they mention the name of Allah while slaughtering and offering sacrifices. For this reason Allah did not make mubah the slaughter of mushrik other than them and their likes. It is because they do not invoke the name of Allah while slaughtering. Moreover these people do not show importance to the slaughtering methods when they eat and they also eat the meat of the dead animal. Ahlul kitaab in contradiction on those… (Tafsir 3/37) They claim that this quote indicates that the permissibility of the meat of animal is related with whose name is invoked upon. If the name of Allah is mentioned no matter what the religion of the slaughterer, it is permissible to eat. If the name of Allah is not mentioned while slaughtering then no matter the slaughterer is Muslim or kafir it can not be eaten.

                    It is incorrect to suggest what they claim out of the quote from Ibn Kathir. It is because he is not explaining the reason of slaughter being permissible but merely trying to explain the hikma behind the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab being permissable according to his view. Ibn Kathir never said that the slaughter of the mushrik other than the ahlul kitaab can be eaten if they mention the name of Allah upon it. On the contrary he stated that the slaughter of Magians can not be eaten. Ibn Kathir discussed and refuted the view of Abu Thawr regarding his view that the slaughter of Magians is permissible. He also explained the term nusub and its ruling: “Nusub were stone altars that were erected around the Ka`bah, as Mujahid and Ibn Jurayj stated. Ibn Jurayj said, "There were three hundred and sixty Nusub [around the Ka`bah] that the Arabs used to slaughter in front of, during the time of Jahiliyyah. They used to sprinkle the animals that came to the Ka`bah with the blood of slaughtered animals, whose meat they cut to pieces and placed on the altars.'' Allah forbade this practice for the believers. He also forbade them from eating the meat of animals that were slaughtered in the vicinity of the Nusub, even if Allah's Name was mentioned on these animals when they were slaughtered, because it is a type of Shirk that Allah and His Messenger have forbidden.” (Tafsir) We must comment on the views of mufassir accordingly with the Qur’an and Sunnah and ijma. The ulama of tafsir never stated that Allah made the slaughter of mushrik permissable due to their mentioning a name other than Allah. Therefore if the mushrik do not mention a name other than Allah or mention the name of Allah upon the slaughter then their slaughter can be eaten. The ulama never stated this.

                    They also quote from Shawkani stating: “If the kafir slaughtered after mentioning the name of Allah, and not slaughtering to other than Allah, and shed the blood, and cut the two veins of the neck, then there is no evidence to prohibit this animal that is slaughtered according to these actions. And it is invalid to take evidence from what Allah (swt) said: “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/3) because it was an address to Muslims; as we will say then that this address is to everyone who fits to be addressed, so who claims that the kafir is out of this verdict after he slaughtered for Allah and mentioned His name, then he must bring the evidence. And if the kafir slaughters for other than Allah, then this animal is haram, even if it is from a Muslim. And the same is applied if he slaughtered without mentioning the Name of Allah (swt), as neglecting the mention of the Name by the kafir is just like neglecting it by the Muslim if they both slaughtered to Allah (swt).” (as-Sayl al-Jarraar 4/65-66) It is understood from the statements of Shawkani that the illah is basmala. Therefore whether Muslim or a kafir whoever slaughters by mentioning the name of Allah, then it is permissible to eat. In the same manner whoever does not mention the name of Allah whether Muslim, ahlul kitaab or other than them, it is not permissible to eat from it.

                    No alim before Shawkani stated this. It is also not narrated from the sahaba even with a weak chain. This book of Shawkani is a response to a book of a Zaydi scholar (Hadaeq al-Azhaar). These views which are attributed to Shawkani most likely are not belonging to Shawkani but the person who he refutes. It is because there is an opposite view in Fathu’l-Qadir which is one of the most known books of Shawkani. He comments on the ayah “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." (al-Maida 5/5) Food which are mentioned in the ayah is everything including meats. Majority of the scholars said ‘taam’ which is mentioned in the ayah the meat which they slaughtered. This ayah shows that the food of ahlul kitaab including the meat is permissible for Muslims. Even if they do not mention the name of Allah during slaughtering. This ayah restricts the general meaning of the ayah “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) and according to the dhahir of this ayah the slaughter of ahlul kitaab is permissible. Even if Jews mention the name of Uzayr, Christians mention the name of Maseeh while slaughtering their slaughter it can be eaten. This view is the view of Abud Darda, Ubada b Samit, Ibn Abbas, Zuhri, Rabia, Shubi and Makhul. Ali (ra), Aisha (raa) and Ibn Umar (ra) said: If ahlul kitaab mentions a name other than Allah then do not eat from it. This is also the view of Tawus and Hasan. They show the ayah al-Anam 6/121 and al-Maida 5/3 as evidences. Imam Malik said it is not haram but makruh. This ikhtilaf presents when it is known that ahlul kitaab mentions a name other than Alah. If it is not known that ahlul kitaab mentions a name other than Allah then in this case Tabari and Ibn Kathir stated that the ulama made ijma upon its being permissible. It is because RasulAllah (saw) ate from the meat of sheep which was offered by Jews. This was narrated in the sahih books of hadith. In the same manner there are narrations that on the day of Khaybar sahaba took fat from ahlul kitaab although RasulAllah (saw) knew this, he did not object it. These narrations are recorded in the sahih hadith books. These narrations and similar narrations are evidence of ijma from Sunnah. The ahlul kitaab which is referred in the ayah are Jews and Christians.” (Fathu’l-Qadir 5/18) According to these explanations of Shawkani it is not a condition for the ahlul kitaab to mention the name of Allah during slaughtering. This is the authentic view of Shawkani and Allah knows best.

                    The reason of Allah making the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab lawful is that they always invoke basmala upon the slaughter is incorrect. For this judgment to be true then there should be evidence that those ahlul kitaab, who believe that Allah has a son or Allah is the third of the three, always mentions the name of Allah upon the slaughter. When it comes to the statement that it is a condition for us to eat from the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab if they mention the name of Allah upon it, there is little possibility that to remember the name of Allah everytime they slaughter for such deviated people of ahlul kitaab. Moreover even if they mention the name of Allah every time they slaughter, they would mention the name of a god which they believe and not the real ilah Allah.

                    According to them Allah is the father of Uzayr (as) and Isa (as). In the same manner when the idolworshippers mention the name of Allah they mention the name of god who created the world, take the life, send the rain but can be reached through the idols. In the same manner when those mushrik who claim to be Muslim mention the name of Allah upon the slaughter, they mention the name of the god who is submitted in salaat, zakaat, hajj and who does not involve the other issues of worldly life such as trade, justice and economy. Therefore making the basmala a condition for meat being lawful, even if they mention the name of Allah upon the slaughter, because they do not mention the real ilah, Allah; their slaughter can not be eaten and it is haram.

                    According to jumhur Allah made the slaughter of ahlul kitaab permissible and did not make basmala a condition for them. There is this narration with regards to this matter: Narrated from Ikrimah that Ibn Abbas (ra) said: “After Allah commanded “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced” (al-Anam 6/121) made ahlul kitaab exception from this ruling with commanding “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them.” (al-Maida 5/5) According to this the slaughter of Christians and Jews are permissible. Jews mention the name of Uzayr while slaughtering, Christians mention the name of Isa while slaughtering. It is because they submit to the nation of Jews and Christians.” (Abu Dawud; Qurtubi tafsir) It is understood from this narration that after Allah made unlawful the slaughters which the name of Allah had not been invoked upon, He made ahlul kitaab exempt from this general ruling. Meaning the slaughter of ahlul kitaab being permissable is not bound by invoking basmala. The statement of Ibn Abbas indicates that it is not a condition for the ahlul kitaab to invoke the name of Allah. Allah made a condition for the Muslim to invoke the name of Allah while slaughtering. It is because invoking the name of Allah upon the slaughter is ibadaah and only the ibadaah of the Muslim is valid. The ibadaah of the mushrik and kafir are not valid. The majority of the scholars accounted slaughtering as an act of ibadaah and they said invoking basmala upon it and niyyah are conditions of slaughtering.

                    It is not right to say that invoking the name of Allah is a condition of meat being lawful. It is because for something to be an illah it should not oppose other nass. If something is accepted as illah then during the absence of the illah its hukm also should be absent. Meaning if tasmiya was an illah then no matter what whether forgetting or intentionally not uttering, the meat of an animal should have been prohibited. However the following narration indicates clearly that basmala is not an illah. Narrated from Aisha (ra): “Some people said to RasulAllah (saw): “A group of people brought us some meat, and we don’t know if Allah’s Name was mentioned on it or not.” So, he (saw) said: “You mention Allah’s Name upon it and eat it,” and Aisha (ra) said: “And these people had just recently entered Islam.” (Bukhari; Abu Dawud; Nasai; Ibn Maja; Malik, Muwatta; Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Kubra; Ibn Hajar Fathu’l-Bari 12/54; al-Ayni Umdat al-Qari 21/118) If mentioning the name of Allah upon it was a condition then permission would have not been given to eat from such meat in which there are some doubts regarding whether Allah’s name was mentioned or not. (Mukhtaj, Mughni 4/266-273) If tasmiya was the illah then the slaughter of this new Muslim, which is not known whether the name of Allah had been invoked upon or not, could be haram and would not be permissible to eat from it. If basmalah was the illah then the meat of the animal which is slaughtered without mentioning the name of Allah whether intentionally leaving it or forgetting, the meat of the animal slaughtered would have been haram. On the contrary according to the majority if basmala is not mentioned due to forgetting, it is permissible to eat from it.

                    Those scholars who stated that the slaughter of a Muslim or one among the ahlul kitaab who does not mention the name of Allah upon it, can not be eaten have never said that if the mushrik invoke the name of Allah, their slaughter can be eaten. Some of the ulama who make basmala a condition make it a condition solely for the Muslim and some others make it a condition for both muslim and ahlul kitaab. Those scholars who said that basmala is a condition for meat being permissible have not said that basmala is the illah so whoever invokes basmala upon the slaughter even if he is a mushrik then their slaughter can be eaten. They only said, basmala is a condition for a meat to be permissible due to some nass related with the issue. Therefore if one of these conditions do not meet then the deed becomes invalid meaning the slaughter becomes impermissible. For example having wudu is a condition for salat being sahih. If someone prays without wudu, his prayer becomes invalid. But it is not right to pass a judgment to say that the prayer of a kafir who meets all the conditions of the salat including wudu is valid. In the same manner it is not right to say that the slaughter of kafir who meets all the conditions of slaughtering including basmala is permissible. The ijma of the sahaba regarding the impermissibilty of the slaughter of the kuffar is known. It is incorrect to ascribe this ijma to ’invoking the name of Allah, or not mentioning a name other than Allah and not to ascribe it to the religion of the kuffar’.

                    It is also beneficial to mention the measurement regarding the issue of halal and haram. Passing a judgment to say this is halal that is haram is only the right of Allah who is Rabb and the creator of everything. Whoever attributes this right to himself is accounted to profess uluhiyyah. The real ilah is only Allah and He wants His slaves to obey solely His commands. If Allah makes something haram, it is for the benefit of mankind. In the same manner if Allah makes something halal surely it is also for the benefit of mankind. The logic of man is limited and cannot always be able to see the wisdom behind the prohibition and the permissibility. If Allah did not inform mankind about the wisdom behind the prohibition and benefits of the prohibition it will not benefit mankind to investigate its reason and the hikma. For example Allah made swine haram for the Muslim and did not inform us about the reasons behind the prohibition. Every Muslim must believe that there is (are) benefit(s) behind this prohibition. Even if he can not observe it. The benefit could be in the form of physical, spiritual, wordly or other. It is the same with the prohibition of the slaughter of mushrik other than ahlul kitaab and the murtad. Even if they slaughter accordingly to the Islamic cutting rules, their slaughter can not be eaten. It is because the reason of their slaughter being najis (impure) is the difference of religion. Allah (swt) commands: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced.” (al-Anam 6/121) and “So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced, if ye have faith in His signs.” (al-Anam 6/118) The ruling of these ayah are general and restricted with the ayah: “Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety.” (al-Maida 5/3) and “This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them.” (al-Maida 5/5) It is also narrated from RasulAllah (saw) that He (saw) commanded: “When you go to the land of Persia where there are Nipti if you want to buy meat buy it if the slaughterer is among Jews or Christians and eat from it. If the slaughterer is Magisian then do not eat from it.” (Ahmad, Musnad) RasulAllah (saw) also said: "Treat the Magians as you treat the ahlul kitaab. But do not marry with their women and do not eat their slaughter." (Abu Dawud) and also it is narrated that Abu al-Khayr said: “I saw Ibn Wa'la al-Saba'i wearing a fur. I touched it. He said: Why do you touch it? I asked Ibn Abbas saying: We are the inhabitants of the western regions, and there (live) with us Berbers and Magians. They bring with them rams and slaughter them, but we do not eat (the meat of the animals) slaughtered by them, and they come with skins full of fat. Upon this Ibn Abbas said: We asked RasulAllah (saw) about this and he said: Its tanning makes it pure.” (Muslim) If there were no other ayah and hadith which explained the meaning of the ayah al-Anam 6/118 and al-Anam 6/121 it could be right to pass judgment to say that whoever slaughters with mentioning the name of Allah upon it whether he is Muslim, ahlul kitaab or mushrik, it is permissible. But this is not the case.

                    Although there are ayah and hadith which explain these ayah, those individuals who pass judgment of whoever slaughters with invoking the name of Allah, his slaughter can be eaten are the same as:

                    Those who pass judgment that the Muslim can marry with 9 woman at a time because of the ayah states “Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four” (an-Nisa 4/3) which makes 2+3+4 = 9

                    Those who pass judgment that every mushrik whether in darul-Islam or darul-harb should be killed right away with relying on the ayah “slay the Pagans wherever ye find them.” (at-Tawba 9/5)

                    Those who pass the judgment that it is ok to sell the ayah for big price it is because in the ayah it is prohited to sell it for small price “nor sell My Signs for a small price” (al-Baqarah 2/41)

                    Those who pass the judgment that interest can be taken if it is not multiple due to the ayah “Devour not usury, doubled and multiplied.” (ali Imran 3/130)

                    Those who pass the judgment that it is acceptable to make anal intercourse, it is because in the ayah stated that “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” (al-Baqarah 2/223)

                    Those who pass the judgment that giving the rights of Muslim to any mushrik who gives salam to a Muslim because of the ayah “O ye who believe! When ye go abroad in the cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: Thou art none of a believer!” (an-Nisa 4/94)

                    Those who pass the judgment that it is permissible to drink other than the times of prayer because of the ayah “Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say.” (an-Nisa 4/43)

                    They say that "the ulama said that the slaughter of the mushrik can not be eaten however they did not say that if they invoke the name of Allah their slaughter still can not be eaten. Therefore if a mushrik invokes the name of Allah upon the slaughter it is permissible to eat from it." Our final answer to them is: There are ahadith which indicate clearly that the slaughter of the mushrik is not permissible. Although there are ahadith and the ayah “unless ye are able to slaughter it” (al-Maida 5/3) they say that no scholar said that if a mushrik slaughters with invioking basmala upon it, is not permissible. Their situation resembles those who pass judgment that the girl of the mushrik can be married to, it is because the ayah states that it is not lawful for Muslim to marry with only mushrik women and does not prohibit the marriage to the mushrik girl “They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them.” (al-Mumtahina 60/10)


                    .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Conclusions

                      Conclusions

                      (the details of the following conclusions can be found on the posts above)

                      The origin of meat is that it is prohibited, until it being halal is certain. The basic rule regarding meat is that it's prohibited unless we know that it has been slaughtered in the proper way. ‘The default ruling on matters of mu’amalat is that they are permissible except for meats and sexual relations.’ And this principle has been endorsed by the scholars of fiqh and the majority of the scholars of hadith.

                      As for the slaughterer, he/she must be a sane Muslim or from the ahlul kitaab (the People of the Book). The evidence for the slaughter of the Muslim being permissible is the command of Allah (swt): “...unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form)...” (al-Maida 5/3) Allah (swt) commands in another ayah that the slaughter of the ahlul kitaab is also permissible: “The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you..." (al-Maida 5/5) It is because the permission regarding the slaughtering of ahlul kitaab mentioned in this ayah is obvious that the slaughter of other than theirs is not permissible. The statement “revealed before your time” which is mentioned in the ayah describes the characteristic of ahlul kitaab to whom books had been revealed to before us (i.e. Jews and Christians).

                      The Christians and the Jews are the people of the Book who are mentioned in the texts of shari’ah and they are the ones that existed at the time of RasulAllah (saw). Allah (awj) addressed them as ahlul kitaab despite them being kuffar and their books being corrupted. Allah (swt) states: “Ye People of the Book! Why reject ye the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (Yourselves) witnesses?” (ali-Imran 3/70); “O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book.” (al-Maida 5/15) and “It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces).” (al-Hashr 59/2) These kuffar among the People of the Book have certain abrogating qualities distinguishing them from the rest of the kuffar, by virtue of the fact that they are recipients of heavenly guidance and are people of previously revealed divine books (even though they had corrupted them) unlike the remainder of the kuffar who have neither a previous book nor a messenger, such as the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, the communists, and others. Because of this distinguishing quality, the shari'ah has specified special rulings particular to the People of the Book, and exceptions specific to them in some rulings, such as allowing marriage to the chaste and virtuous (whether virgins or previously married) among their women and the permissibility of eating their slaughtered meat, as indicated in the Qur’an (al-Maida 5/5).

                      The difference between the ahlul kitaab and the other mushrik is particular to worldy life. Kaffal said: “This statement means: Even though the ahlul kitaab has merit of marrying with their women and being permissible of their slaughters; this merit of theirs will not differ them from the mushrik with regards to their situation in the akhirah and the reward and punishment in the akhirah. On the contrary the worldly deed of everyone who rejects Allah will be demolished and such person will not reach any happiness and felicity in the akhirah.” (Razi Tafsir al-Maida 5/3)

                      All of the scholars made ittifaq that the slaughtering of an atheist, murtad (who left Islam or murtad of Christanity or Judaism who does not become Muslim), mushrik who worship the fire, idols and anyone who perform shirk and associates partners to Allah can not be eaten other than the ahlul kitaab. Scholars of 4 madhab and Zahiris, all of the muhaddith and fuqaha declared that it is haram to eat from the meat of the slaughter which is slaughtered by mushrik, idolworshipper and murtad other than the ahlul kitaab. (al-Majmu Sharhi’l-Muhazzab 9/75-76; al-Ikna 5/92; Kalyubi and Umayra 4/240; Kifayat’ul-Ahyar 2/140; Nihayati’l-Mukhtaj 8/106; al-Idda Sharhu’l- Umdah 457; Gayati’l-Muntaha 3/371; Manaru’s-Sabil 2/422; al-Kafi 1/647; Mumtaha’l-Iradat 2/513; Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali al-Mughni 8/132-133, 8/567, 9/392, 11/36; Badaiu’s-Sanai 6/2775-2776; Tuhfatu’l-Fukaha 3/100; ash-Sharhu’s-Saghir 2/154; Ashalu’l-Madarik 2/54; Bidayatu’l-Mujtahid 1/473; al-Muhalla 8/190; Madhahibu’l-Arbaa 1/726; Raddul Mukhtar ala Durul Mukhtar, Kitabu’z-Zabaih; Ibn Abdil-Barr al-Istizkar; Mukhtaj, Mughni 4/266; Mustafa al-Hin, Mustafa al-Bugha, Ali al-Sharbaji, Fiqh of Shafii; Nawawi, Minhaj; al-Mawsili al-Ikhtiyar li-Ta'lili'l-Mukhtar etc.)

                      There are different views among the scholars regarding whether it is permissible or not to benefit from maitah. In general not benefiting from maitah means: not benefiting from its meat, it cannot be given to dogs and it can not be sold. However the skin of maitah can be used if it is tanned. Also it is permissible to use the kitchen utensils of the mushrik although it is better to wash them before use.

                      There are two opinions on the issue of the permissibility of the issue of cheese which contains the rennet of the maitah, and the rennet from the slaughter of the mushriks other than the ahlul kitaab. Shafi’i, Malik, and one of the narrations from Imam Ahmad state that the rennet of the unlawfully slaughtered animals is impure. However the view of Abu Hanifah and the other narration of Ahmad state that it is pure. The quote of Ibn Taymiyyah summarizes the issue and its ikhtilaf, and those who wish to follow either of the two views is permitted to do so as long as he follows the proofs and is not being careless.

                      Regarding the issue of consumption of the medicine which contains haram ingredients; in order for this rule ‘under dire necessity the haram becomes permissible’ to not be abused, it must be added that after reviewing the narrations from the salaf, taking medicine containing some of the haram substances is permissible only under the following conditions:

                      1- The patient's life is endangered if he does not take this medicine, or his illness is causing him serious harm physically or severing his mind and mentality.
                      2- After exhausting all efforts to find a halal medication, but no halal alternative or substitute medication is available.
                      3- That the need and difficulty is removed by the haram in question.
                      4- The quantity of haram used is in proportion to the level of need, one must not transgress by taking more than the bare/minimum amount.
                      5- The medication is prescribed by a Muslim physician who is knowledgeable as well as God-fearing, if that is not possible then you must be aware that kafir doctors are more lenient about fasting and religious commitments and it is best to get a few opinions from a number of specialist doctors before getting the prescription.

                      Regarding the issue of istihaalah (process to change a substance to something else); it is understood that a complete chemical transformation which changes the characteristic of the haram in question, then that which was najis will now become tahir, e.g. chemical transformation of wine to vinegar will have made the najis wine into tahir vinegar. I believe Ibn Qayyim (ra) summarizes the issue and Allah knows best.

                      It is recommended for the Muslim to be familiar with the E-codes and the names of the ingredients which may contain animal by-products or alcohol. It is also recommended to contact the company of the foods/products to be on the safe side. If you do call the companies and manufacturers, they may tell you that it does have animal by-product within some processed foods and may not be suitable for vegans (who do not consume any animal products of any kind such as eggs, milk, fish etc), although these ingredients (i.e. milk, eggs, honey etc) are permissible in the shariah. So it is best to ask about the details of the ingredients inshaAllah as some of these products may be halal although not suitable for vegans. And anything that contains the kosher symbol on the packaging is also permissible as long as no other najis (e.g. alcohol) is contained. It is best to check the details of the ingredients before buying and consuming. Also it is a good idea to ask about where and how these foods are processed. While sometimes some products do not contain any haram ingredient they may be processed on the same machines (without being cleansed) which something containing haram was produced or processed thus in this manner the haram ingredient which is left on the machines may have contaminated the product.

                      Nowadays in the Christian world there is a use of non-shar’i methods of slaughtering, especially with birds. It is established that a significant portion of slaughterhouses strangle them, stun them by electric shock, and then drown them in scalding water to kill them. There is also the method of severing its spinal column. As for sheep, they use a steel bolt to cut its spinal cord, and this causes it to die. They also use bullets to kill bulls by firing them into their heads, and they slaughter them immediately afterwards, as the bull usually doesn’t die from the bullet, as its main purpose is to stun the bull and prevent it from resisting during slaughter. However, if they delay slaughtering it, it dies from the bullet. There is also the method of striking it on the forehead with a hammer to kill it. It is because Christians do not follow the shar’i cutting rules they also employ idolworshippers such as the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Buddhists etc. as slaughterers. There is no doubt the slaughter of these mushrik are not permissible to eat. Some of the people say “Christians are the people of the scripture? And Allah has permitted eating the meat of the people of the scripture?” We say however that even if a Muslim slaughtered the meat in this way it still would not be allowed! So the matter is not only about whether they are people of the scripture or not, the issue is also about the method of slaughter. If it is known that a Christian slaughterer who meets the cutting rules of his shari’ah than the slaughter of this person can be eaten. However it is almost impossible to find such person in the Christian community.

                      As for the Jews they still slaughter according to their traditions and religion, and the rabbi goes to the slaughterhouse and slaughters a large number of animals in a single day. When the meat is ready to be packaged, they write ‘Kosher symbols’ on the outside of the package. It is recommended for Muslim to be familiar with the kosher symbols. Kosher food is prepared in accordance with the Jewish method of slaughter and is free of pork and also suitable for the Muslims to eat (as long as alcohol is not in the ingredients).

                      Those who had not actualized the necessity of tawhid and attributed themselves to Islam are also mushrik. Their slaughtering also can not be eaten. They attribute themselves to Islam, they claim that they submit to the Qur’an and they are among the ahlul kitaab (to whom the book had revealed). This claim of theirs is invalid. According to all scholars the ahlul kitaab are Jews and Christians. The slaughter of the murtad who left Islam also is prohibited. All the ulama made ittifaq regarding this issue. Therefore the slaughter of mushrik who claim to be Muslim or a murtad who left islam after he became Muslim is not permissible to eat and it is haram.

                      It is best for the Muslim to slaughter the animal himself or to slaughter for other Muslims who are not able to slaughter. It is because this way the Muslim will have the chance to control the food he consumes and also he will not have to buy the kosher food which is very expensive. Nevertheless the slaughtered meats of the Jews are allowed in the Islamic shari’ah until today. As long as they carry the kosher symbol and does not have any other najis ingredient it is permissible to consume.

                      Slaughtering is a matter of mujmal (general knowledge). It is not a matter which can be easily understood by those who can not derive a ruling from Qur’an and Sunnah, who does not know what the nass indicates, who does not know the ruling which is extracted by ulama. For this reason those Muslims who are ignorant of the issue pass a judgment with relying on a nass and make it permisisble to eat from the slaughter of the mushrik can not be made takfir of until the hujjah is established to them. It is because making permissible of the slaughter of mushrik by relying on Qur’an and sunnah is not kufr bidhatihi (per se) but it is kufr bi ghayrihi (indicates to kufr). However when the evidences are shown to them, if they still argue and claim that it is permissible they will be made takfir of due to making a certain haram to halal of a matter which had established with hujjah.

                      As it is stated in the much known statement: “You are what you eat!”. Today one of the sins which are performed by mankind is eating from haram or doubtful things. All the evil of nafs and blurriness occur from it. It is because food is spread into the limbs as nutrition. The effect of nutrition will be the same in the limbs. Accordingly deeds will occur from the limbs. So, we shall pay attention to our habit of eating, drinking, wearing, so our ibadaah and prayers may be accepted inshaAllah.

                      We conclude our research by saying that we shall have taqwa and fear Allah’s punishment and remember the Day of Meeting, a Day which the excuses of those who wrong themselves will be of no benefit. A day when the parent will not help their offspring; nor can the offspring do anything for the parent; a day when we will all be raised from our graves barefoot, and naked. We ask Allah for all guidance and success.



                      .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Very interesting.
                        Last edited by Oummaymaan; 07-01-19, 12:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Very detailed indeed.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X