Answered by Shaykh Hamza Karamali, SunniPath Academy Teacher
This is in response to the fatwa concerning meat in the west. Doesn’t everything he said in the fatwa contradict the rule that says the origin of everything in Islam is permissibility (ibaha) and soundness (sihha), and that doubt does not change this? When speaking about the meat in the west not being slaughtered Islamically, the fatwa uses words such as generally, prevalently, most, and vast majority: “…does not GENERALLY meet the conditions of a valid Islamic slaughter,” “The meat that is PREVALENTLY available in such lands is not halal,” “…how MOST meat is slaughtered in non-Muslim countries,” “…the VAST MAJORITY of Christians.” All such words imply that the possibility of the meat having being slaughtered correctly exists, and thus one can believe that what he is eating is what was slaughtered correctly, since you admit that the possibility is there. Is this argument correct or incorrect? Is the rule that says everything is innocent until proven guilty conditional or unconditional? You imply that its conditional. I have yet to finds this. Can you please give me references?
In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate
Thank you for your query. Meat is not like other substances. Scholars explain that the default assumption regarding meat in non-Muslim lands is unlawfulness: one actually has to know that it is halal before it becomes permissible to consume. The default assumption regarding meat in Muslim-majority lands, however, is lawfulness. Shaykh Shirwani quotes Shaykh `Ali Shabramallisi on this point in his supercommentary on the Tuhfa (Hashiyat al-Shirwani, 1.300). Shaykh Ibrahim al-Bajuri also mentions something similar in his Hashiya towards the end of the section on slaughtering animals. None of this contradicts anything that is mentioned in the answer that you reference.
And Allah knows best.
Hamza.