Salam u alaikum Someone is circulating this article. According to our Ulema, we feel totally against it. Please comment. Iqbal Qazi M. Iqbal is suggesting the following article from http://www.arabnews.com: “Food: Understand the Basic Principles, Observe the Rules by Adil Salahi, Arab News “
The Article Food, “Understand the basic principles, observe the rules” by Adil Salahi is fundamentally flawed from many angles.
The Fuqaha have ruled that,
“Al Aslun fi Kulli Shai’in Al-Ibaha”
The original in everything is permissibility.
He also refers to the verse of carrion being prohibited. It is from this point that brother Adil has lost his direction. Maytah (carrion) is not limited to an animal that died of natural death. According to the fuqahaa every animal that has not been slaughtered according to Shariah laws of Zabiha is also Maytah. The prohibition to consume an animal upon which Allah’s name is not mentioned is express and clear. Allah says, “And do not eat from those (animals) upon which Allah’s name is not taken and that is Fisq (transgression).”
The verse is more than clear that such an animal upon which Allah’s name is not taken is Haraam and carrion. That consolidates the point that
“Al Aslun fi Lahmi Al-Hurmat”
The original in meat is prohibition.
Mr. Adil’s opinion that, when there is a doubt whether Allah’s name has been taken at the time of slaughtering or not; the substitute is to recite the name of Allah before eating is incorrect and baseless. The ruling is correct only if one is doubtful about Muslims having recited the name of Allah before slaughtering and not the people of the book. This is derived from a hadeeth in Bukhari. Mr. Adil tries to justify his point of not being strict through the example of Umar (r.a) and the water. The other sahabi was Amr bin Aas (r.a). The justification is non-analogous as the incident was about Maa’ Katheer (Lot Water) which is regarded to be pure in anyway. The questioning of Amr bin Aas (r.a) was therefore not necessary. That is not so in the case of meat which is regarded to be Haraam unless proven otherwise.
Mr. Adil proves his point through the example of smoking which is Haraam. That is exactly the point. Smoking is a poison and Haraam. This is a Fiqhi deduction. The issue of meat being Haraam is more clearer than smoking as its hurmat(prohibition) is expressed in the Quran if the conditions of becoming Halaal are not fulfilled
Find attached our detail article on Zabeeha of the Ahl Al Kitaab. We will be happy to answer any queries of Mr. Adil, provided it is conducted with academic honesty and etiquettes.
And Allah knows best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah
Almighty Allah Ta’ala in His infinite mercy has made certain animals Halaal (permissible) for this Ummah. We are required to be thankful to Him by following the dictates of the Qur’aan and Sunnah by ensuring that His name is taken upon slaughtering of the animal. Allah Ta’ala states in the noble Qur’aan:
1. ‘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.’ (Hajj 34)
2. And consume not of that whereupon the name of Allah Ta’ala was omitted (at the time of slaughter). Indeed it is a transgression. Verily the Shayaateen inspire their friends to cause division with you. If you obey them, you are indeed Mushriks (ascribing partners to Allah).’ (An`aam 122)
3. ‘So take the name of Allah upon them (at the time of slaughter) while they stand in rows.’ (Hajj 36). In reference to Camels which are slaughtered by Nahr (a swift stab of the neck which severes the four arteries) while standing.
4. ‘and such animals upon which they mention not the name of Allah only to fabricate a lie against him.’ (An’aam 138)
5. Forbidden to you are Maytah (carrion), flowing blood, the flesh of swine and that slaughtered for other than Allah as well as the (animal) expiring by strangulation, illness or pain, falling (from a height), by a wound (sustained through fighting) and by falling to a predator and (about to be consumed), excepting those (animals) upon which you effect Zaka (Shar’ee slaugher). (Maaidah 3)
From the above Aayaats, the following points are understood:
1. Meat is not in the same category as other nutrients.
2. The most important condition is that Tasmiyah (taking the name of Allah) be pronounced at the time of slaughter. The Aayaats clearly explain the impermissibility of those animals whose slaughter was not preceded by Tasmiya.
3. The impermissibility of those animals whose lives were ended by means other than Zabah (Shar’ee slaughter) of which Tasmiya is a condition. All such animals are Maytah (carrion) and are expressly forbidden.
4. The Dhabeeha (animal slaughtered) by a Kaafir (non-believer) or Mushrik (polytheist) is Haraam (unlawful). However, those Ahlul Kitaab (people of the book) who also hold the Aqeedah (belief) of Tasmiya at the time of slaughter have been excluded from the Kuffaar majority.
5. The Aayaat number 122 of An`aam explains consumption of meat not slaughtered with Tasmiyah as Fisq – transgression and disobedience. The Aayat then explains that to regard consumption of such meat as Halaal is nothing but a teaching of Shaytaan to cause division among the Ummah. The Aayat also warns that obedience of Shaytaan in this matter is a kin to Shirk (ascribing partners to Allah).
Imaam Bukhari has quoted this same Aayat in his magnum opus under the chapter, ‘Intentional Ommission of the Tasmiyah at the time of Slaughter’ to the same import as explained by Hafiz ibn Hajar, the renowned commentator of Sahih Bukhari in the following words:
Imaam Bukhari (RA) wishes to point out by citing this Aayat the reproach against using this Aayah as proof to legalise omission of Tasmiyah by inventing baseless interpretations of the Aayat and understanding it in a manner contrary to clear import.’ (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.778; Qadeemi)
Intentional Omission of Tasmiyah neglectfully or our of Istikhfaaf (regarding it as insignificant) The Jurists (Fuqahaa) have unanimously agreed that consumption of an animal slaughtered by a Muslim with intentional omission of Tasmiya or regarding such as insignificant is unlawful (Haraam). Imaam Shaaf’ee (RA) has also concurred with this view. (Jawaahirul Fiqhvol.2 pg.388; Darul Uloom from Kitaabul Umm and Tafseer Mazhari)
Imaam Abu Yusuf states:
‘The ruling regarding the animal upon which Tasmiyah was omitted (at the time of slaughter) is not subject to Ijtihaad (independent deduction of a ruling from Qur’aan 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.’ (Ibid pg.390; Hidaaya)
It should be noted significantly that the above discussion of impermissibility is with regard to a Muslim slaughterer not to speak of a non-Muslim.
In the case of a Muslim forgetfully omitting the Tasmiyah, the animal will be permissible for consumption as is the ruling of all the four Madhaahib based on the Hadith of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), ‘A believer always slaughters upon the name of Allah, whether he (remembers to) recites it or not.’ (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.793; Qadeemi)
Animals Slaughtered by Moden Day Jews and Christians ‘The food of Ahlul Kitaab (people of the book) is lawful for you as is your food for them.’ (Maaidah 5)
Regarding the word, ‘Ta’aam’ (food), ibn Abbaas, Ibn Umamah, Mujaahid and others (Radhiallaahu Anhum) say that it refers to slaughtered animals. This matter (permissibility of these animals) is unanimously agreed upon by all scholars since they also hold the belief of the prohibition of slaughter save in Allah’s name and also due to the fact that they mention only the name of Allah Ta’ala upon their animals of slaughter. (Jawaahirul Fiqh vol.2 pg.4040; from Ibn Katheer)
The reason for permissibility has been explained clearly by Allaamah ibn Katheer that due to the unity of belief regarding slaughter between Muslims and the Jews and Christians of that particular time, Allah Ta’ala had permitted consumption of their slaughter. The Ulama of the time had based their rulings on this very same reasoning.
When this unity of belief came into doubt, many great Sahaaba (Radhiallaahu Anhum) had not hesitated to rule prohibition.
‘With regards to a Kitaabi, when he omits Tasmiyah (the name of Allah) upon his slaughter and takes some other name, his slaughter is not consumable. This is the ruling of Abu Darda, Ubadah bin Saamit and large faction of the Sahaaba (Radhiallaahu Anhum).’ (Jawaahirul Fiqh vol.2 pg.407; Darul Uloom – from Bahrul Muheet)
Regarding the Christian tribe of Banu Taghlib, Hadhrat Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) ruled the following:
‘Hafiz ibn Jawzi (RA) has narrated with his Sanad (chain of narrators) from Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu), ‘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.’ (Ibid pg.460 – from Tafseer Mazhari)
It is a well-known fact that the majority of present day Christians and Jews no longer hold to this Aqeedah (belief) regarding slaughter. They do not hesitate to consume meat slaughtered by even Pagans and Mushriks (polytheists) and atheists. They have held to even less of Christianity than the Banu Taghlib. Most of them are just Christians and Jews by name, ‘atheistic’ in their beliefs and actions. Their abbatoirs employ machine slaughter wherever possible and do not hesitate to employ pagans and polytheists, e.g. Chinese, Koreans, etc. to carry our slaughter.
The Ruling Based on the above Juridical references, Qadhi Thanaullah (RA) a renowned Jurist of his time states the following:
‘The correct and accepted view according to us is the first one that the slaughter of the Ahlul Kitaab with intentional omission of Tasmiyah (taking the name of Allah) or slaughter on some other name (besides that of Allah) is not consumable, if this fact is ascertained with certainity or this is the condition prevailing among them. By this, the prohibition (of the Sahaaba) from consuming the slaughter of the Christian Arabs can be easily understood. Likewise, the ruling of Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) (regarding the Banu Taghlib)’ becomes clear. It is likely that Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) had ascertained that their omission of Tasmiyah upon slaughter or that they slaughtered upon some other name (besides Allah). A similar ruling has been issued regarding the non-Arab Christians that if it is their normal habit to slaughter without Tasmiyah, their slaughter is not consumable. Concerning the present day Christians there is no doubt in the fact that their methods do not fulfil requirements of Shar’ee slaughter, but they usually cause the death of their animals by other lethal measures, e.g. machine slaughter, etc. hence, their slaughter is impermissible.’ (Jawaahirul Fiqh vol.2 pg.411; from Tafseer Mazhari)
The Correct Understanding of the Hadith of Bukhari (cited by many people to justify their claims)
“It has been narrated from Aaisha (Radhiallaahu Anha) that some persons said to Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), ‘People bring to us meat. We know not whether the name of Allah Ta’ala has been taken (upon its slaughter) or not? Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) replied, ‘You people say Bismillah and eat it.’ Aaisha (Radhiallaahu Anha) says, ‘the people referred to (in this Hadith) were new Muslims.’ (Bukhari vol.2 pg.828; Deoband)
It is clear that the slaughterers were Muslims, not disbelievers. This is further elucidated by Imaam Maalik (RA)’s narration (of the same Hadith) where the addition of, ‘this was in the beginning of Islam.’ (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.792; Qadeemi) is found.
To believe that these people were non-Muslims is in fact tantamount to accusing the noble Sahaaba of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) of the heinous crime of consuming meat slaughtered by polytheists which is expressly forbidden in the Qur’aan:
‘Forbidden to you is carrion . till . and that slaughtered for other than Allah.’ (Maaidah 3)
The actual meaning of this Hadith, as understood by similar narrations is that one should not entertain unfounded doubts about a Muslim that he would neglect to mention the name of Allah upon his slaughter.
‘This is what is understood by the context of the Hadith since the answer of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) to the question was, ‘Say Bismillah and eat.’ It is as though they (questioners) were told, ‘That is not your concern, rather what should concern you is to consume it (wholesomely in the Sunnah manner) by saying Bismillah before partaking thereof.’ (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.793; Qadeemi)
Hafiz ibn Abdul-Barr (RA) has emphasised on this point very clearly:
‘Similarly, the slaughter of the Bedouin Muslims will be permissible (for consumption) since they usually know of the Tasmiya (at the time of slaughter). Ibn Abdul Barr (RA) has concluded, ‘In this Hadith, it is understood that the slaughter of a Muslim should be consumed and he should be regarded as having taken Tasmiyah upon its slaughter (even when one is not certain about this fact) because with regards to a Muslim, one should entertain nothing but good thoughts unless concrete evidence is established to the contrary.’ (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.793; Qadeemi)
This import is borne out by other narrations of this same Hadith as follows:
‘The narration of Ibn Uyayna (RA) (one of the Huffaaz of Hadith) has the addition, ‘accept their oaths and eat’, i.e. take their word for it that they have taken Tasmiyah upon slaughter (and partake without doubts). (Ibid pg.793)
The narration of Abu Sa’eed:
Imaam Tabrani has recorded the narration of Abu Sa’eed though with a difference in wording that he said, ‘accept their word that they have effected (Shar’ee) slaughter.’ (and consume it without doubt). (Ibid)
The narration of Imaam Tahawi (RA):
Some of the Sahaaba (Radhiallaahu Anhum) questioned Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) that, ‘Some Bedouins bring to us meat, cheese and fat. We know not the condition of their Islam, (i.e. they are Muslims but of what calibre, we are unaware).’ Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) replied, ‘Check that which is prohibited by Allah and abstain therefrom. Whatever Allah Ta’ala has not discussed, he has concessioned you. Your Rabb does not forget. Thus, say Bismillah (and partake). (Ibid)
Explaining this Hadith, Allaamah ibn Teen comments:
Concerning Tasmiyah upon slaughter carried out by others of which they are unaware, there is no obligation upon them regarding it. The (slaughter) will only be held incorrect when such evidence is established.’ Allah Ta’ala has not made it obligatory upon any Muslim to be aware of Tasmiya upon the slaughter of another Muslim, since the slaugher of another Muslim will be always regarded as correct (accompanied by Tasmiya) unless evidence is established to the contrary. (Ibid pg.794)
The above should be sufficient to clarify any doubt in the meaning of the Hadith of Bukhari.
Importance of Muslim Unity with regards to Halaal Meat Shaytaan is ever prepared to bring about division as this will inevitably lead to the collapse of the Muslim Ummah. In his untiring efforts, he has overlooked no sphere of life to cause his mischief even to the extent of nourishment. Allah Ta’ala has warned us of Shaytaan’s inroads in this regard as has been explained already. Shaytaan, possessed of a keen intelligence and discernment knows full well that once the Muslims cannot interact and mix with one another due to suspicion in regards to Halaal and Haraam, this will bring about the much awaited split in the global community of Islam. To combat this, it is required that Muslims take courage and band together to solve this problem, irrespective of colour and race, since the commands of Allah Ta’ala are universal. Due to this solidarity, the Muslims of South Africa, although a minority (around 3 – 4 %) have progressed far ahead in eliminating this problem. With a bit of extra physical and monetary sacrifice, they have managed to establish their own abattoirs in different parts of the country.
If Muslims in other parts of the world who have, Alhamdulillah, become a sizeable community were to show such unity and get together, there is every confidence that the problem would be eliminated with little difficulty. To conclude this, let us ponder upon the following words of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam):
The lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear. Between these lie matters of confusion. Regarding these, many are ignorant. Whomsoever falls into these, falls into the unlawful, like a shepherd grazing (his flock) upon a sanctuary’s perimeter, very soon falls into trespass. Beware! Every king posesses a sanctuary and the sanctuary of Allah Ta’ala are His prohibitions. Take note! In the body resides a piece of flesh, upon its reformation is the entire body’s reform. Upon it’s corruption is the whole body corrupted. Listen! It is the heart.’ (Arba’een Nawawiy)