Halal and Haram

By Kazi Zulkader Siddiqui

It was the autumn of 1973. Two years had passed almost since I came to the USA to study at M.I.T. These were the formative years that eventually crystallized my own orientation towards life and Islam through study and experience. These two years had been good years. I had learnt a lot. And I led a life of a simple Muslim. I did not indulge in any known vice by any standard.
In terms of my food habits again, I did not consume anything that I thought was outright haram. I shunned alcoholic beverages and pork products. However, strangely enough, I never thought that there was any harm in eating the beef, lamb and poultry products that were available off the shelf at any of the super markets. In fact, I used to relish going to the Hay Market in the old Boston city to buy large chunks of juicy pink beef rump. Along with other Pakistani friends, I would get some good cuts for T-bone and other types of steak. Or I would have the meat cut up into cubes to be cooked in our standard Pakistani dishes.

My conscience was always clear. I toed the general line that the meat sold in the supermarkets was slaughtered by Jews or Christians and the Qur’an had declared these as permissible. Besides, as long as you utter the name of Allah at the time of eating, the meat was halal. Never once did it occur to me that I might be doing anything that is wrong. In fact, I was the President of the M.I.T. Islamic Society, and I considered it to be a great responsibility. I was aware of a couple of Muslims in the entire Boston area who used to consume kosher meats, and we all used to look at them with suspicion. There were no halal meat shops within a radius of 250 miles of Boston. The nearest one was in NY City. Therefore, obtaining halal meat was out of question.
On that evening in 1973, I sat reading the Qur’an along with its commentary. As I flipped through the pages, the initial verses of surah 5 (Al-Ma’idah) lay before me. I read them, and I read them again. And as the night progressed, I had gone through all the cross-references in the Qur’an. It dawned on me for the first time that all the meat I had consumed over the previous 2 years was forbidden. I realized that I was in error and had indeed sinned over the past 2 years of my life. I asked for forgiveness from Allah.

I sat puzzled. I was aware that there was a debate amongst scholars, but there was supposedly a strong view amongst the Arabs in particular that the meat available in the market was halal. I called a friend – Ahmad Attar, a black American revert to Islam – who always shared in my thinking. We discussed the verses of the Qur’an and were convinced that we had to find a way to acquire halal meat at least for ourselves, even if we had to go to NY to buy it.

A few days later, it was Eid day, and at the annual Eid dinner, I read out the verses of the Qur’an and invited all Muslims to join our halal meat club. Ahmad and I volunteered to go to NY every other weekend to bring the halal meat for all members of our club. Around 20 of them joined us, starting a halal meat service in the Boston area for the first time. Within months, one of the local mosques decided to take up our project, leading to a regular supply within the city. Indeed Allah is Great, Who guides us to the Straight Path.

Since that eventful day, I have come across several verbal and written arguments in favor and against the consumption of meat available in the supermarkets of the Western countries. I have studied these and have come to the conclusion that my simplistic view on that fateful day stands. Let me summarize these for your clearer understanding of the subject. We shall state the problem and then try to analyze it in light of the Qur’an, the hadith and the views of some prominent scholars.

The divergent views:
Several years ago, Dr. Ahmad Sakr, a founding member of M.S.A. of US and Canada, and Director of the Rabetat al-Alam al-Islami office to the UN in New York in the mid-1970s, tried to summarize the views of Muslim scholars with regards to the consumption of meat slaughtered by Jews and Christians as follows:
“The question may be raised here whether animal products (excluding pork and including poultry) slaughtered by Jews and Christians are lawful to Muslims. Two schools of thought of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) claim that although Jews and Christians are considered to be the “People of the Scripture”, the meat which is slaughtered by them is prohibited to Muslims unless the name of God is mentioned while slaughtering. The Muslims in the Western Hemisphere who follow these two schools of thought either advocate eating Kosher meat, abstain from eating meat entirely, or make arrangements to do their own slaughtering. Those who eat kosher meat rely on the claim that the name of God is mentioned by a rabbi before slaughtering. However, in another school of thought, namely Shafi`i, it is felt that the meat of animals slaughtered by Jews and Christians is lawful to Muslims since the Qur’an allows this without any restrictions, and the Muslim must mention the name of God immediately before eating. This school claims that even Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to eat meat prepared by Jews and Christians. However, all schools of thought agree that if the name of a person instead of God is mentioned, the meat is entirely prohibited.

“Meat of animals slaughtered by people other than Muslims, Jews and Christians is considered unlawful to Muslims, particularly that which is prepared by atheists.”[1]

Indeed this was the position of the Muslims in North America. In this article, Dr. Sakr implied that the second view was also a valid view. A vast majority of Muslims in North America followed Dr. Sakr’s view of the Shafi`i school which was shared by the Muslim Students’ Association of US and Canada (or MSA). The MSA had also published articles during the early 1970s that advocated this view. One of the major opponents of this view in North America at that time was Dr. Soliman Donia, Director of the Islamic Center of NY in the 1970s. He published a very interesting refutation of the MSA view in the Magazine of the Islamic Center of New York in December 1974.[2]

Verses of the Qur’an:
The Law given to us by Allah is based on the Qur’an and the Hadith of the Prophet (s). Although the Qur’an does not normally enlighten us on many of the legalistic issues, interestingly it does throw substantial light on the matter of slaughter of animals. This shows the importance Allah gives to life, whether it be human or animal.

Although there are innumerable hadith on the issue of slaughter of animals, we shall be quoting only the verses of the Qur’an since these do give us a sufficient answer to the questions raised. I would also encourage the readers of this article to read the innumerable hadith in the major and minor collections, which corroborate the Qur’anic view.

The issue of halal and haram meat is mentioned in the Qur’an in 6 different places. As we read these verses, we see a clear progression in terms of the command of Allah.

General view of haram and halal:

Before we look at the specific injunctions about the consumption of meat, let us first understand that the Qur’an lays down a very clear general injunction about haram and halal in general. It admonishes us not to make unlawful that which Allah has made lawful for us.

5:90 O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things, which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loves not those given to excess.
5:91 Eat of the things which Allah has provided for you lawful and good: but fear Allah in Whom you believe.

This is reiterated in the following verses:
16:116 But say not for any false thing that your tongues may put forth "This is lawful and this is forbidden" so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah will never prosper.
16:117 (In such falsehood) is but a paltry profit; but they will have a most grievous Penalty.
By and large, Muslims of today get so carried away that we start calling very trivial things as haram. We tend to take very strong views and are not willing to compromise. Therefore, we must guard ourselves against that extreme as well. These ayat will have further implications at a later stage of my discussion and I hope that you will bear this in mind.

Halal is good:
Next, we find a recommendation to eat good and lawful things and to watch out for the Shaytan. In other words, that which is good is halal, and that which is harmful is haram.
2:168 O you people! Eat of what is on earth lawful and good; and do not follow the footsteps of the evil one (Shaytan) for he is to you an avowed enemy. [3]
2:169 For he commands you what is evil and shameful and that you should say of Allah that of which you have no knowledge.
2:170 When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah has revealed" they say: "Nay! We shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! Even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?
2:171 The parable of those who reject faith is as if one were to shout like a goatherd to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries; deaf dumb and blind they are void of wisdom.
2:172 O you who believe! Eat of the good things that We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is Him you worship.

Eat halal meat – a positive statement:
Amongst the good and pure things that Allah has allowed us to eat, we find an injunction that the meat of animals over which Allah’s name is invoked is halal. When we invoke Allah’s name at the time of taking the life of the animal, we basically acknowledge that all life belongs to Allah alone, and He alone has the right to give life and take away the life. Thus, by pronouncing His name, we acknowledge that we take the life of the animal with His permission for the sake of food and not out of impiety or out of disobedience to His laws.

5:5 They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food): say: Lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah; eat what they catch for you but pronounce the name of Allah over it:[4] and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.

In another place this is reinforced as follows:
6:118 So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has been pronounced if you have faith in His Signs.
6:119 Why should you not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has been pronounced when He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you except under compulsion of necessity? But many do mislead (men) by their appetites unchecked by knowledge. Thy Lord knows best those who transgress.
In these verses, the Qur’an makes a positive statement commanding us to eat the meat on which Allah’s name has been pronounced. Why should you not eat such meat? This meat is now food, and food should not be wasted. Thus so far we see that we should eat the meat on which Allah’s name has been pronounced.
At the same time, all four-footed animals are described as being lawful for consumption with some exceptions that are mentioned in the Qur’an or the Hadith.
5:2 Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals with the exceptions named: but animals of the chase are forbidden while you are in the Sacred Precincts or in pilgrim garb: for Allah does command according to His Will and Plan.
Shun haram (forbidden) meat – a negative statement:
After encouraging us to eat that which is good, Allah tells us what is forbidden in the following verse. In this verse, the Qur’an virtually equates pork and blood with dead meat or meat that has been slaughtered through unacceptable means.
2:173 He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood and the flesh of swine and that on which any other name has been invoked besides that of Allah but if one is forced by necessity without willful disobedience nor transgressing due limits then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful. [5]

In this verse, there are four categories that are clearly defined as haram:
1. Dead meat, i.e. carrion
2. Blood
3. Flesh of swine (pork, etc.)
4. Meat on which the name of any thing, person or deity is invoked other than the name of Allah.

In other words, while slaughtering the animal, if the name of Ram, Krishna, Jesus or any other man or idol or symbol is uttered, that meat is absolutely haram. All Muslim scholars are agreed on this point. The reason is that by invoking any other name, it would imply that that person or deity controls the life of the animal being slaughtered, and thus his permission is sought. The Qur’an emphasizes that it is Allah alone who has the right over the life of any animal and therefore it is His name alone that should be invoked.

Another important point to note here is that all the 4 categories are mentioned in the same verse as being equally haram. Many Muslims are under the mistaken view that pork is “more” haram than the other 3 categories. This is not the case. Eating dead meat or blood or meat on which the name of another deity or person is mentioned is as good as eating pork.

You will find a reinforcement of the same idea in the following verse:
6:145 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." But (even so) if a person is forced by necessity without willful disobedience nor transgressing due limits thy Lord is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.
And in another place:
16:114 So eat of the sustenance which Allah has provided for you lawful and good; and be grateful for the favors of Allah if it is He whom you serve.
16:115 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. But if one is forced by necessity without willful disobedience nor transgressing due limits then Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

Forms of death of animal that makes it haram:
Then Allah goes on to elaborate on the forbidden meat further in the following ayat by describing certain forms of death of animal that make its meat forbidden.
5:4 Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat blood the flesh of swine and that on which has been invoked the name of other than Allah that which has been killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a headlong fall or by being gored to death; that which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless you 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. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you completed my favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any forced by hunger with no inclination to transgression Allah is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

The methods of slaughter described above, which render the animal’s meat as forbidden are:
1. if it is killed by strangling,
2. if it is killed by a violent blow,
3. if it is killed by a headlong fall,
4. if it is killed by being gored to death,
5. if it is killed after being partly eaten by another animal,
6. if it is killed by sacrifice on a stone altar, as a part of an idolatrous rite.
7. if its meat is divided by raffling with arrows etc. which was also an idolatrous rite amongst pagan Arabs.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali clarifies in his commentary, “If an animal dies by strangling, or by a violent blow, or a headlong fall, or by being gored to death, or by being attacked by a wild animal, the presumption is that it becomes carrion, as the life-blood is congealed before being taken out of the body. But the presumption can be rebutted. If the life-blood still flows and the solemn mode of slaughter (zabh in the name of Allah) is carried out, it becomes lawful as food.”[6]
By and large, the common method in use in North America is to strike a blow on the head of the animal in order to make it unconscious before it is slaughtered. The blow is so violent that it almost kills the animal. There are few slaughterhouses there, which use different methods like slitting the throat.

What about meat where no name is pronounced:
So far, the injunctions discussed above can be summarized as follows:
· Eat that meat on which Allah’s name is pronounced at the time of slaughter. Why should you not eat such meat?
· Do not eat dead meat or carrion.
· Do not eat that meat on which there was a mention of ghayr Allah (any entity other than Allah) at the time of the slaughter.
· Do not eat meat of an animal that dies of strangulation, violent blow, headlong fall, that which was gored to death, which died because of being partly eaten by another animal, which was sacrificed at an altar, or if the meat was divided by raffling with arrows.
But what about the meat on which no name is pronounced? Can we consume such meat? Most of the meat sold in the supermarkets in the West falls in this category. Let us turn to the following verses for the answer.

6:120 Eschew all sin open or secret: those who earn sin will get due recompense for their "earnings."
6:121 Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name has not been pronounced: that would be impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you; if you were to obey them you would indeed be pagans.
The verses state clearly that we cannot consume the meat on which Allah’s name has not been pronounced. Therefore, without the mention of Allah’s name, the meat is definitely forbidden.

The Confusion

The question then arises – why is there confusion? After such clear injunctions in the Qur’an, why is there a difference of opinion amongst Muslims? What are arguments of those who favor consumption of meat available in supermarkets in the West?

There are 4 key questions that have been debated as follows:
1. In light of the Qur’anic ayat allowing Muslims to eat the food of the “Ahl al-Kitab”, is the meat available in the supermarkets slaughtered by Jews and Christians halal?
2. Can you utter the name of Allah over the meat at the time of eating it in case Allah’s name was not uttered at the time of slaughtering the animal?
3. The issue of “doubtful things”
4. The hadith narrated by Hz. Ayesha

There is no debate among the scholars about whether the food prepared by atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and other polytheists is permissible or not. Such food is clearly forbidden.
Let us examine these four questions.

Is the meat slaughtered by Jews and Christians halal?
The first confusion is created by some of our Muslim brothers due to the statement in the following verse:
5:6 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.

Many people accept this statement without any qualification. Does this mean that any food offered to us by Jews and Christians is halal? Does it mean that if they offer us pork or wine, is it halal? After all, they consume both of these in today’s world?

The real matter is deeper than this simplistic view propagated by those who would like to take the easy way out. The fact of the matter is that Allah had given laws to the Jews and Christians regarding what food is permissible to them and what is forbidden. This is recorded even in the present day Bible. Despite all the distortions that the books of Moses (a) and Jesus (a) have gone through, the Bible still preserves the law about the proper food that is allowed for the Jews and Christians. The regulations for the Jews and Christians are specified in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Bible (Old Testament) and in the Talmudic tradition.[7]

If you study these regulations in the Bible and the Talmud, you will come to the conclusion that the meat offered in the supermarkets of the West is also forbidden for the Jews and Christians according to their own Scriptures. In other words, when a Jew or a Christian is presenting you with food, which is even forbidden to him according to the Bible, how can that food be permissible for you, O Muslim?

A similar corollary is that of a Muslim presenting you with food or drink that is forbidden to Muslims. Normally, one would accept that the food presented by a Muslim is halal. However, if you know for sure that he is offering you food that is haram according to the laws of Islam, such food or drink must be refused. Likewise, if a Jew or a Christian offers you food that is haram for him according to the Bible, then it is also haram for you.

Dr. Donia very aptly summarizes this point as follows:
“Did Allah make the food of Jews and Christians, both of which is lawful and which is not lawful for them, permissible for consumption by Muslims? Or did Allah make only that permissible or lawful for Muslims which is lawful for Jews and Christians according to their scripture?

“Here we might as well touch upon the other part of the same verse of the Qur’an which states that all food of Muslims is lawful for Jews and Christians. Does it mean that all food which Muslims might use, whether or not Allah made it lawful for them, is lawful for Jews and Christians? If we interpret the two parts of the verse in this manner, the result will be as follows:
1. “All food which Jews and Christians use, whether Allah made it lawful for them or unlawful, will be lawful for Muslims.
2. “All food which Muslims might use, whether Allah made it lawful for them or not will be lawful for Jews and Christians.

“ It should be emphasized, however, that the law of Allah is higher than the simplistic conclusions of such absurd interpretations. The true meaning then of these two parts of the Qur’anic verse which suits the glory of Allah’s Law may be summarized as follows:
1. “All food which Allah made lawful for Jews and Christians in their respective Scripture is lawful for Muslims.
2. “All food which Allah made lawful for Muslims in the Qur’an is lawful for Jews and Christians.”[8]

Does saying bismillah at the time of eating make the meat halal?
Some Muslims argue that since the Qur’an decrees the mention of Allah’s name for the meat to be halal, one may just simply say bismillah at the time of consumption if he has doubt of it having been slaughtered properly.

Dr. Donia addresses to this question as well very beautifully in the following words:
“I have never heard that saying Bismillah on food which is unlawful turns it into lawful food. What I am sure of is that the Prophet (pbuh) used to say Bismillah when he commenced eating any food or drinking liquids, thereby blessing them and making them useful with the grace of Bismillah. Furthermore, he advised Muslims to do the same, but he never told them that what was unlawful could be lawful by saying Bismillah over it.”

It should also be noted that the practice of saying bismillah before consuming food was the practice of the Prophet (s) for all food, i.e. even the meat that was halal. He never asked his followers to take the name of Allah only over that food where one has doubts. This is part of Islamic manners and tradition. It is a recognition that the nourishment received is out of His Mercy. He alone is our Provider.

Secular versus religious governments[9]

Since the Renaissance, the modern West has turned away from religion at large. The American and European governments profess secular ideologies, and officially forbid the establishment of governments based on religion. Therefore, all laws are based purely on human needs on Earth, and have no relationship with God’s commandments. The laws of the land are bound neither by the Biblical laws nor by the laws of Judaism and Christianity as they emerged over the centuries. The Western countries are thus, by definition, non-Christian and non-Jewish nations. The only remnant of Judaeo-Christianity is the effort of the society to profess the Biblical values; but the laws are all secular.

Like all other laws, the laws related to food and meat are based more on consumer needs. The FDA is not ruled by Biblical commands. Certain groups, like the orthodox Jews, may establish their own practices like kosher foods. However, this is not regulated or ordained by the state.
Who slaughters in the Western slaughterhouses?

Over the past few decades, the demographic makeup of Europe and North America has changed substantially. These societies are multi-religious and multi-ethnic. Non-Judeo Christian religions are practiced in abundance. Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism and other polytheistic religions abound due to massive immigration from Asia over the past few decades. Besides, since the rise of the hippie movement, many Christian and Jewish Americans and Europeans who had been disillusioned by Judaism and Christianity sought answers in the exotic religions and philosophies of the Orient. The materialistic priorities of modern societies led to a search for alternative spiritual solutions. This gave rise to conversion to the Hare Krishna movement, Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Bahaism, Satanism, Scientology, Moonies and many other spiritual or pseudo-spiritual philosophies and cults.

Therefore, there is no guarantee that the person slaughtering the animals in American and European slaughterhouses is indeed a Jew or a Christian. In fact there is a high probability that he is not from the Ahl al-Kitab, since new immigrants take up many of these ‘menial’ jobs. Thus, there is a possibility that the animal may have been slaughtered in the name of ghayr Allah (a god other than the One and Only) like Krishna, Hanuman, Guru Nanak, Zoroaster, Buddha or some other such god.

This leads us to a very important issue of how to deal with something which is doubtful. Can one take advantage of doubtful things?

The issue of doubtful things

Dr. Donia takes the plea that when a matter becomes doubtful, then a Muslim should abstain. This is based on the famous hadith of the Prophet (s) reported by An-Nu`man ibn Bishr:
What is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is clear, but between them are certain doubtful things which many people do not recognize. He who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honor blameless. But he who falls into doubtful things, falls into what is unlawful just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a preserve will soon pasture them into it[10]

Using this hadith, he argues that there are a number of counts on which the consumption of such meat is doubtful.
· The method of slaughter is doubtful. The animal is probably not slaughtered by slitting its throat
· Bismillah is not said at the time of the slaughter, which makes the meat improper for consumption.
· There are disputed fatwas issued by different authorities on this point, including the fatwa by the Committee of Fatwa of Al-Azhar versus the fatwa by the Libyan Committee. The Islamic Center of Washington and the Islamic Center of NY differ on this point likewise.
· It is doubtful that the meat available in the supermarkets was indeed slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian, even if he is does not practices his religion.
Therefore, since this whole matter is thrown into doubt, one needs to refrain from such disputed judgements in light of the hadith of the Prophet on doubtful things.
Hadith of Hz. Ayesha (r)

Another argument given in favor of consumption of such meat sold in the Western supermarkets is based on a hadith narrated by Hazrat Ayesha. This one hadith has led many Arab ulama’ to conclude that the meat sold in the Western countries is not haram. Among the proponents of this idea are some very famous Arab ulama’. This particular hadith is as follows:
Some people came to the Prophet (s) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Some people who have recently converted to Islam usually bring meat to us, and we do not know whether they mention the name of Allah at the time of slaughtering the animal or not’. The Messenger of Allah (s) said, ‘You mention the name of Allah and eat the meat’.[11]

Until I had read this hadith, I used to classify all meat sold in the supermarkets here as completely haram. This was based on my understanding of the Qur’anic ayats we read above. However, if you recall the ayat of the Qur’an 5:90-91 where Allah admonishes us not to make unlawful that which is lawful, one needs to reconsider his attitude. Can one categorically declare all such meat to be haram in light of this hadith? I still say yes but with greater caution now. Let me explain what I mean.

If you read this hadith carefully, it is really an exception rather than a rule. In this particular instance, these Muslims seemed to be facing an acute problem. They were not sure whether the people who slaughtered the animal mentioned the name of Allah over it or not. One can ask the question as to why did these Muslims not ask the new Muslims who had slaughtered the animals whether they had mentioned the name of Allah over it or not? That would have solved their problem. Or why did the Prophet (s) not ask them to inquire about this matter from them and then follow the proper rule? What was the hindering factor that they did not inquire of those people? The answer is not found in clear-cut words within the hadith.

However, there is a hint and a very strong one too. It spells out that the people who brought the meat were new Muslims. Therefore, the likelihood of their knowing the Islamic injunctions was very remote. In other words, it is implied that the probability was greater that they had not mentioned the name of Allah over it.

One possibility was that the Muslims should have admonished them against this abominable practice that was forbidden. However the fear was that they would have taken this matter negatively and would have turned away from Islam.

The Prophet (s) always employed the method of gradual imposition of laws. It was like the growth of a child. He imparted the knowledge of the injunctions in a phased out manner. An example of this is the manner in which alcohol was forbidden. There were no injunctions against its consumption for years after the first revelations were given to him. At first, the Muslims were told that there is good and bad in consumption of alcohol, but the bad far exceeded the good. In a second stage they are told to refrain from prayer when they have consumed alcohol and are drunk. Lastly, it was in the 2nd year of the hijrah when the injunction imposing total prohibition was revealed. Through hadith we learn that even great sahabah like Hazrat Hamzah (r) and Hazrat `Umar (r) used to get drunk even after they had become Muslims. The Prophet (s) recognized that it takes time to change the ways of mankind, particular when such drastic measures are taken against accepted norms of the society.

Thus, in this case as well, we find the Prophet (s) taking an exception to the rule. Rather then telling those new Muslims to conform to the law, he advises the other Muslims to consume that meat after having pronounced Allah’s name over it. In other words, wisdom was the dominating principle in this matter. It was far more important to bring those people closer to Islam than for these other Muslims to insist on being absolutely legalistic about the matter. This is the true spirit of Islam. This same spirit is reflected in the verse 16:125 of the Qur’an:

Invite (all) to the Way of Your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
And argue (or discuss) with them in ways that are the best and most gracious:
For your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.
In another important ayat of the Qur’an (2:177), Allah stresses that righteousness (al-birr) is not couched within legalism devoid of the spirit of Islam. Along with belief, actions become supreme – particularly those which have a direct involvement with other creatures of Allah.

Therefore, the message of this hadith is that the situation warrants an exception to the rule. If we realize that there is a situation in the initial stages of da`wah (invitation to the Straight Path) which warrants a similar need, then we may consider following this practice. In other words, if we are in a situation where we do not want to hurt the feelings of our host who is keen to learn about our ways and the Truth while we preach Islam to him, then we may consume the meat after saying bismillahir rahimanir rahim. This could be while preaching to a Muslim or a non-Muslim. Many of today’s Muslims are like the new Muslims who have little knowledge of Islam. Likewise, when Muslims living in the West visit the homes of Christians and Jews, they can get themselves into an embarrassing situation by refusing to eat the food that is offered. This could hurt the feelings of the host while the visitor is trying to tell him about Islam.

I have myself been in such embarrassing situations. There are ways to overcome this matter as well. One solution that I had adopted was to first invite such a person to my house before he would invite me. I would then serve him typical Pakistani food. This would give us an opportunity to discuss food, our habits and practices and the Islamic injunctions. The guest would then inquire about where such halal ingredients can be procured. Whenever he would invite me back, he was then careful about what he offered me to eat.

Convincing Muslim friends has been far more difficult. However, I have been able to bring many of them around by showing them the Qur’anic verses. It is practice that finally proves the point. They can see that not only can you survive easily on halal foods, but also consumption of haram foods is not a necessity at all.

I might state here that this exception might be used only in the early stages of preaching. In case you feel that the other party does not have the desire or will to even consider Islam or respect our religion and our ways, then this situation does not apply at all.

In reality, I think that it is a matter of taqwa (seeking righteousness). This hadith of Hz. Ayesha demonstrates that it is taqwa and wisdom and the need to spread Islam that governs the exceptions. It is the state of mind that demonstrates how close one is to Allah and how close he wishes to be. Therefore one should refrain from such meat unless he can justify to himself that the rule of exceptions applies.

The proper practice of zabh (slaughtering the animal):

There are a couple of other points that I would also like to mention here. There are 2 aspects to the slaughter of the animal from the Islamic point of view:
1. the mention of name of Allah, and
2. the method of the slaughter which should be least painful to the animal and which drains out the blood

The first of these is mentioned in the Qur’an, while the second is to be found in the hadith. It should be borne in mind that in case the method of slaughter is such that the blood is not drained out completely, then the meat is not haram. It is makruh or detestable for consumption. It is better not to eat it, but one may do so. The prime consideration is the mention of Allah’s name in recognition of His Sovereignty in recognition of the fact that it is He Alone Who gives life to any human being or to an animal, and He Alone has the right to take that life. Thus we slaughter the animal for food with His permission. Hence, not mentioning Allah’s name definitely makes it haram.

If you will recall, in verse 5:4 some categories were made haram based on the method of slaughter. All methods mentioned there are inhumane methods where the animal died in pain. Thus, the method should be such that it is least painful. Besides, blood is haram and it should be drained out from the body of the animal. It is probably impossible to drain out every drop of blood, but an attempt should be made to remove almost all of it.

Several years ago, “Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University, Germany, proved through an experiment, using an electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) that *Islamic slaughter is THE humane method of slaughter* and captive bolt stunning, practiced by the Western method, causes severe pain to the animal.”[12] According to this article, our method of slaughter is in fact the least painful for the animal.

The experimental details of their research project were as under:[13]
1. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of the brain.
2. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks.
3. Some animals were slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides; as also the trachea and esophagus-Halal Method.
4. Some animals were stunned using a captive bolt pistol humane slaughter by the Western method.
5. During the experiment, EEG and ECG were recorded on all animals to record the condition of the brain and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning.

The results of their experiments were dramatic. According to the authors, when the skin is slit open it is not painful. Imagine the feeling you would have when you cut your finger with a sharp knife. It is not painful although it may bleed profusely. Rather, it is the act of striking that causes pain. If you bruised yourself and started bleeding because of a fall, the pain is not due to the bleeding but because of the impact.

Thus when the jugular vein of the animal is split open with a sharp knife, the animal feels little pain. The blood supply to the brain is cut off almost painlessly. However, since the spinal cord is not cut, the brain still has a link with the heart through the nervous system, which is intact. The brain starts sending emergency signals at once to the heart to pump more blood since it is not receiving any. Thus the heart pumps harder and harder, causing the blood to flow towards the jugular vein and ooze out of the slit throat.

Since the vein is slit, the blood from the heart does not reach the brain, and it is said that within 3 seconds the brain becomes numb due to shortage of blood, a condition of deep sleep or unconsciousness. After another 3 seconds, the brain even stops sending any signals, and records no pain. However, the heart keeps on pumping the blood that oozes out from the slit vein. Thus, death is painless and fast, and at the same time there is a mechanism to ensure the maximum outflow of blood.

Why is blood considered to be impure and unfit for consumption? The reality is that all the impurities and the refuse of the body is transported through the blood to be absorbed into the excreta. Therefore, blood is probably the last thing one might want to eat anyway. Besides, the presence of blood causes decay of meat at a much faster pace. You can preserve meat better without the blood.

The experiments also established the fact that the Western method of slaughter is indeed very painful for the animal. Although the animal seemed to be apparently unconscious after the stunning blow on its head, the EEG recorded severe pain signals. The heart also stops pumping much earlier, and a lot more blood is retained within the body.

The Law of Necessity

You are aware that under necessity, haram becomes halal. If anyone feels that he has gone to that limit where it has become absolutely necessary to consume haram to save his life, then he may eat without guilt.

Summary of halal and haram meat:
Based on the ayats of the Qur’an read above, we can summarize the halal and haram as follows:

Halal

1. Meat of permitted 4 footed animals on which Allah’s name has been pronounced at the time of slaughter
2. Meat that is otherwise haram under force of necessity without willful disobedience of Allah
3. Meat of animals slaughtered by Jews and Christians as long as they follow their own Book
4. Meat of animals where there is doubt of the method and whether Allah’s name is mentioned only in case it promotes the cause of Allah

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haram

1. Dead Meat
2. Blood
3. Flesh of swine (pork, etc)
4. Meat of animals on which the name of any entity or deity (other than Allah) has been mentioned.
5. Meat of animal on which no name has been mentioned.
6. Meat of animals whose death was caused due to the 7 causes mentioned in ayat 5:4
7. Food prepared by atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and other polytheists
Having read these ayats of the Qur’an, one should not require any further argument about what makes the meat halal and haram. These ayats are supplemented by innumerable ahadith, which state the same thing. All you need to do is to turn to any hadith collection and look up the section on zaba’ih (sacrifice). You will find the relevant quotations.


[1] Ahmad H. Sakr, Dietary Regulations and Food Habits of Muslims, N.Y., Muslim World League Office to UN, 1971.
[2] Dr. Soliman Donia, “Of Meat Prepared by Ahl al-Kitab”, Magazine of Islamic Center of NY, NY, December 1974
[3] Abdullah Yusuf Ali (The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, Lahore, 1934) states in his notes on this verse: “Islam follows the Golden Mean. All well-regulated societies lay down reasonable limitations. These become incumbent on all loyal members of any given society, and show what is "lawful" in that society. But if the limitations are reasonable, as they should be, the "lawful" will also coincide more and more with what is "good."”
[4] A. Yusuf Ali states: In the matter of the killing for meat, the general rule is that the name of Allah, the true God should be pronounced as a rite in order to call our attention to the fact that we do not take life thoughtlessly but solemnly for food, with the permission of Allah, to whom we render the life back. The question of hunting is then raised. How can this solemn rite be performed when we send forth trained hawks, trained hounds, or trained cheetahs or other animals trained for the chase? They must necessarily kill at some distance from their masters. Their game is legalized on these conditions: (1) that they are trained to kill, not merely for their own appetite, or out of mere wantonness, but for their master's food; the training implies that something of the solemnity which Allah has taught us in this matter goes into their action; and (2) we are to pronounce the name of Allah over the quarry; this is interpreted to mean that the Takbir should be pronounced when the hawk or dog, etc., is released to the quarry.
[5] A. Yusuf Ali states in his footnotes to these ayat: “Dead meat: maitat: carrion; animal that dies of itself; the original Arabic has a slightly wider meaning given to it in Fiqh (Religious Law); anything that dies of itself and is not expressly killed for food with the Takbir duly pronounced on it. But there are exceptions, e.g., fish and locusts are lawful, though they have not been made specially halal with the Takbir. But even fish or locusts as carrion would be obviously ruled out. For prohibited foods, cf. also Q. v. 4-5; vi. 121, 138-146; etc. The teachers of Fiqh (Religious Law) work out the details with great elaboration. My purpose is to present general principles, not technical details. Carrion or dead meat and blood as articles of food would obviously cause disgust to any refined person. So would swine's flesh where the swine live on offal. Where swine are fed artificially on clean food, the objections remain: (1) that they are filthy animals in other respects, and the flesh of filthy animals taken as food affects the eater; (2) that swine's flesh has more fat than muscle-building material; and (3) that it is more liable to disease than other kinds of meat; e.g., trichinosis, characterized by hair-like worms in the muscular tissue. As to food dedicated to idols or false gods, it is obviously unseemly for the Children of Unity to partake of it.
[6] A. Yusuf Ali, in his footnote commentary on the above verse.
[7] Consumption of blood is prohibited in Gen. 9:4, Lev. 3:17, Lev. 7:26, Lev. 19:26, Deut. 12:16. Swine is forbidden in Lev. 11:7, Deut. 14:8. Dead meat is forbidden in Lev. 11:39, Deut. 14:21. The method of slaughter is specified through the Talmudic tradition. Food offering to idols is forbidden for Christians in 1 Cor. 14-22.
[8] Soliman Donia, pp. 9-10.
[9] I am indebted to Br. Omer Bin Abdullah for his thoughts on the secular issues and the multi-ethnic make-up of present day Western societies.
[10] Mishkat al-Masabih, Lahore, vol. 2, p. 592
[11] This hadith is found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (chapter of Slaughtering). The text is also found with minor differences in words also in the Sahih of Imam Bukhari (in 2 different chapters: “Bargains” and “Slaughter”), in the Sunan of Ibn Majah, and in the Sunan of Darimi. Of the four books I have mentioned above, three (excluding Darimi) are included in the “sihah sittah” or the 6 sound collections of hadith as accepted by the Sunnis. Therefore, this is considered to be an authentic hadith.
[12] “Islamic method of slaughtering animals is better”, http://TheModernReligion.com
[13] Ibid.

Source: http://www.contactpakistan.com/news/news143.htm

Rotten Halal Meat UK

It may be Zabiha, but is it halal?

THE MEAT
LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL IN ISLAM
IT MAY BE ZABIHA, BUT IS IT HALAL?

Before you sink your teeth into the next Zabiha slaughtered meat product, ask yourself: is it Halal? This is a question most Muslims don’t think to ask. Some Muslims argue that the meat of the Jews and Christians is Halal for Muslims. Others say the meat must be slaughtered according to Islamic rites for it to be fit for Muslim consumption. But what’s often ignored is that regardless of whether you choose to eat Zabiha or not, the meat of the animal itself may not be Halal.

THE CONDITIONS OF HALAL

For a meat to be Lawful for Muslims, the following five Pre-conditions must be satisfied:

1. The animals should be a Halal (lawful) one, according to the Shari'ah. Dog, cat, monkey or the meat of any such Haram (unlawful) animal can be lawful for a Muslim only in case of extreme urgency where a person is threatened with starvation and his life has to be saved.
We read in the Qur'an: “ Allah has forbidden you what dies of itself (Maytata), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered as a sacrifice over which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked(or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., 0n which Allah Name has not been mentioned while slaughtered). But whoever is driven by necessity, without neither willful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless. Surely Allah is Oft-forgiving, merciful.” (2: 173).

2. To make the meat Halal, we have to consider not only the way the animal is slaughtered, but also we have to take in consideration what the animal was fed on, the food (the animal feed) the animal consumes does not contain any blood or meat (mammal feed a meat by-products). The animal has to be herbivorous to be Halal, and an animal becomes Haram if it consumes blood and /or meat (mammal feed). If this is not respected, "that animal will contain the disease called Mad Cow Disease, BSE or the others". Islam dictates that if an animal has received meat, (meat byproducts, mammal) and/or blood feed while it was Halal (before slaughtering), it becomes Haram and in order to become Halal you have to put that animal in a quarantine area before you slaughter it to make it Halal,. "Jallalah" are the animals (camel, cow, sheep, chicken etc.) that live near the dunghills or filth dumps. Most of their food is "jullah" i.e. excrements, filth, dead animals and like. Such animals smell bad. Their meat, milk and even the sweat stink. There are a number of Ahadith of the Prophet in which it is reported that the Prophet -peace be upon him- forbade eating the meat, drinking the milk or even riding the Jallalah animals. It is forbidden to offer such animals in sacrifice during Hajj and during the Eidul Adha. Jallalah refers to a permissible to eat animal but it eats the waste or flesh of other animals, such as camels, cows, sheep, chickens, geese, and so on.

Nowadays, generally, the animals are raised and fed, on animal protein and animal by-products derived from pigs, cows, dogs, cats and all other road kills animals. So today , if we are not eating organic meat and animal product food naturaliy, then eating Jallalah, which is haram according to the Islamic rules. FROM BUSINESS POINT OF VIEW IT IS NOT PROFITABLE FOR TRADERS TO BUY ORGANIC MEAT or organic raised animals, because it is very expensive comparing it to the non-organic meat and animals,- "The animals NOWADAYS which are fed on animal protein from day one" so they are Jallalah and Haram accordingly.

– For the animal meat and product such as milk to be Halal, first it should be fed on organic food only.

Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah forbade the drinking of such animal’s milk. (This hadith is related by "the five," except for Ibn Majah.)

It is also reported in the Sunan of Abu Da'ud that the Prophet (saw) forbade the meat and milk of the Jallalah animals. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade riding and drinking the milk of the camel, which feeds on filth.[So other animals will be the same i.e. cow, sheep, goat and so on in regard to drinking its milk] (Sunan Abu Dawud 3778)The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited to drink the milk of the animal which feeds on filth. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3777)The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited eating and drinking the milk of an animal which feeds on filth. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3778)On the day of Khaybar the Apostle of Allah (May peace be upon him) forbade (eating) the flesh of the animal which feeds on filth and forbade riding it too. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3802)

It is also mentioned that if the Jallalah animal is quarantined and was fed clean normal diet for three days for chicken, ten days for sheep, lamb and forty days for big animals like cattle, camel etc,. Then their meat can be eaten. The jurists have differed on how strong is this prohibition. According to Imam Shafi' it is Haram to eat the meat of such animals. But according to Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik and Ahmad ibn Hanbal the prohibition is mild and it is Makruh (undesirable not forbidden). Some jurists call it "makruh tanzihi" not "tahrimi". It is also important to keep in mind that all animals eat some dirt and filth. It is for this reason the jurist emphasize that Jallalah is the animal that lives on filth or most of its food is filth. But if an animal eats something filthy sometimes (accidentally), its meat is not forbidden.

PRESERVATIVES ADD TO THE LETHAL MEAT MIX
The meat industry also puts the preservatives nitrite or nitrate in meat. These react with the amino group of amino acids of the meat or protein to produce nitroso-amine. This is red pigment. This results in meat still looking red in its colour, as if it is fresh, even if it has been on the shelf for one or two weeks. While this may be good for industry, it causes cancer. Animal food (the feed) containing meat (mammal, meat by-products) ) and blood, as well as dangerous hormones and preservatives to conclude one thing. "If that animal has been fed all of the above, then it is no longer Halal, even if a Muslim goes to the farm and slaughters the animal in the name of Allah, [it] does not make the animal Halal."

HORMONES IN MILK TOO
The use of another hormone approved for cows-estrogens. This was used to increase milk bladder size and milk excretion resulting in greater production of milk in a shorter period of time. Estrogens can cause cancer of the breast and other cancers in general. This is particularly frightening when we consider that many people drink milk daily, and consume its by-products like milk, cheese and cookies. Some times you don’t know if the milk you drink contains estrogens or not.

3. The animal should be properly slaughtered and not dipped in boiling water or killed by electric shocks (by stunning). With regards to meat that is not slaughtered according to Islamic rites, it is not Halal because of the effect electric shock (stunning) on blood drainage. In regular meat slaughterhouses, animals are brought into an alley and given an electric shock (stunning) to the head to make them unconscious. The animal’s legs are then tied up and it is hung upside down, and chicken goes through the water. A knife is put to its throat, and then it is slaughtered. The animal is then temporarily left alone to allow the blood to drain from its body. From there, the meat is processed. But using electric shock (stunning), means that all of the animal’s blood does not leave its body, because electric shock (stunning) affects the central nervous system. On the contrary, if an animal is slaughtered in accordance with Islamic guidelines, the central nervous system works properly, and all of the animal’s blood comes out. Remaining blood in the animal is a source of fermentation and destruction of meat quality. This means bacteria can grow easily on the meat. From an Islamic perspective, it is Haram to eat meat containing blood, as it is clearly stated in the Qur’an that Muslims cannot consume blood. Any method other than slaughter adopted to kill the animal will not be lawful. Stunning by bolt shot or electric shock before slaughter is not valid and should be avoided, as it is tantamount to torturing an animal, which is inhuman and unlawful in Islam. The tendency of the Shari'ah (Islamic Law) is to make the slaughter more humane by reducing the suffering of the animal.
The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that ; “If you must slaughter, slaughter in the best possible manner, sharpen your knife every time before you slaughter but not in front of the animal to be slaughtered. Do not slaughter an animal in the presence of other animal, and feed and rest the animal before slaughter.”
The idea is to stop cruelty to animals a practice still, prevalent.in the West in various forms and guises despite claims to the contrary, as we shall see. Later.

4. The name of Allah (Bismillah) should be recited. While slaughtering the animal. This recitation may be done by a Muslim or by a Jew or Christian -in his own language. The Holy Qur'an describes that slaughter as unlawful on which the name of Allah has not been recited:
“And eat not (O believers) of that (meat) whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned(at the time of the slaughteringof the animal), for sure! It is abomination(Fisq; a sin and disobedience of Allah). And certainly, ! the devils do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you. But if you obey them[by making Al-Maytata (a dead animal) legal by eating it], you will be in truth idolaters(Mushrikun)." (6: 121).

5. For meat to be lawful, it is not simply enough that “People of the Book” have slaughtered the animal it is very essential that the act of slaughter should be performed according to their prescribed religious rites and practices. For instance, if a Muslim kills a chicken by twisting his neck, it would be a carcass, or haram (unlawful). If the same method of killing is adopted by a Jew or Christian, then how such a chicken can become Halal (lawful)? Slaughtering consists in cutting the jugular veins of the neck, so that all the blood is drained out. The spinal cord must not be cut, because the nerve fibres to the heart may be damaged during the process, causing cardiac arrest and hence stagnation of the blood in the blood vessels of the animal. Since blood is also forbidden in Islam, it is incumbent to see to it that the blood is completely drained from the animal during slaughtering. This meat is then called halal or lawful. Like other Islamic teachings, dietary restrictions in Islam relate to material well being, even as they are spiritually significant

6. For an animal to be Halal is that it should not be given any hormones. In the meat industry, beef and chicken are given female sex hormones. This is meant to increase the weight (fattening) of the animal in a short period of time. The effect of consuming an animal with injected female hormones is a reduction in the masculine appearance of boys and men. It also reduces sexual appetite, adding that this of course would not happen by eating just one meal containing meat. Rather, it can result when people are consuming meat daily, and "KFC and and MacDonald’s" as two examples. But eaters of Zabiha meat should not get on a high horse either: even if an animal is slaughtered in the Islamic manner, it will still contain these hormones.

7. The animals should be in lawful possession of the person who owns them and free from any apparent or hidden impurities. Similarly, they should not be slaughtered on an idol or grave etc. The slaughterer must be sane. Slaughter is not allowed to be carried by a mentally deranged person, a drunkard, a child not able to discriminate or a Magian. It would be desirable if the animal is made to lie facing Qibla during the act of slaughter.
The Islamic manner of slaughtering an animal is to slit its throat, saying " Bismillah " (In the name of Allah), thus recognizing that its life is taken only by Allah's permission to meet the lawful need of food, and allowing all the blood to drain out. The meat sold commercially in the U.S.A. and European countries etc., is not lawful (halâl) for Muslims, since when animals are slaughtered there, " Bismillah " is not said over them and the methods of slaughter are also objectionable.

The Holy Qur'an states: -
"This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you are (lawful for you) when ye have given them their marriage portions and live with them in honor, not in fornication,nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denied the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter” (V: 5).

The leading religious luminaries of the times have in exposition of the above Qur'anic verse stated as under: -

The authorities on the commentary of the Holy Qur'an like Ibn Abbas, Abi Umama, Mujahid, Saced bin Juba'ir, Ikrimah, Ata, Hasan, Makhool, Ibrahim, Nakhi, Suddi, Muqatil have commented upon the food of the " people of the Book " along with their slaughtered meat (Zabihah). This issue is based on the consensus of Muslims, as the meat of lawful animals slaughtered by them is permissible for Muslims because they (People of the Book) consider as unlawful any flesh of an animal, which has been slaughtered in the name of any other being than Allah. They recite the name of Allah while slaughtering animals, although they are guilty of attributing to Allah certain things of which He is free, elevated and glorified as He is. (Ibn Kathir, Vol. 111 P. 19).

If a person belonging to the “People of the Book" does not recite the name of Allah; or recites the name of a deity other than Allah while slaughtering an animal, the meat of such an animal is un-lawful (Haram). This is the view of Abu'd Darda, Ubada bin Samit and a group of the Companions of the Holy Prophet. The same is also the view of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad and Zufar. Imam Nakh'l and lmam Nawawi are of the view that eating the meat of such slaughtered animals is hateful in the eyes of Allah. (Abu Hayyan Andulsi in BAHRE-MUHEET Vol. IV, p. 131.)

In our opinion, the first view is sounder and more correct that is, these slaughtered animals of the "People of the Book" are unlawful for Muslims which have been slaughtered in such a way that the name of Allah has not been intentionally recited at the time of slaughter or which have been slaughtered in the name of a diety other than Allah on the condition that it is known with certainty that the name of Allah has not been recited or the name of a diety other than Allah has been recited, or if this omission of Allah's name becomes a habit with the " People of the Book."

Those of our ancestors, who have declared that the meat of the slaughtered animals of the "People of the Book" is unlawful for Muslims, have given their verdict with the same intent and purpose. Similarly, when Hazrat Ali said that the meat of the slaughtered animals of the Christians of Bani Taghlib is unlawful of Muslims, because they have learnt nothing from Christianity except wine drinking, he meant the same thing Hazrat Ali might have received positive evidence that the Christians of Bani Taghlib do not recite. Allah's name when slaughtering their animals or they recite the name of some diety other than Allah.

This also applies to non-Arab Christians if it becomes their habit to recite the name of some diety other than Allah while slaughtering their animals, i.e. the meat of their slaughtered animals becomes unlawful. And there is no doubt that the present day Christians do not slaughter their animals but kill them by stunning or other methods." (Qazi Sanaullah Panipati in TAFSIR-E-MAZHARI Vol. 111 p. 37).

In the light of the above elucidation, we would now like to pose the following question: what does the Glorious Qur'an mean by the food of the Ahl-al-Kitab (People of the Book), which Allah has made lawful for Muslims? Does it mean by this the food, which Allah had made lawful for the Ahl-al-Kit-ab in their Scripture (i.e. revelations from Allah) and according to their Prophets? Or does it mean everything, which the Ahl-al-Kitdb eats even though Allah had forbidden it for them? It is well known that in every one of the revealed religions, Allah has forbidden certain items of food while allowing other good things. It is also well known that in every community, some of its people opposed their prophets and infringed the limits, which the prophets had prescribed for them, so they would eat some of the food forbidden to them.

Therefore, does the Qur'anic verse intend by "the food of those who have received the Scripture" the food of the Ahl-al-Kitab, which Allah had made lawful for Muslims, the food of the Ahl-al-Kitab, which is halal to them in accordance with their Book, and the teachings of their prophets? Or does it mean every kind of food that they actually eat, regardless of whether it is lawful or unlawful for them?

Surely the above passage from the Qur'an does not give a blanket approval to consume whatever is available in the food markets and confectionaries of the Christian West as is contended by some modern scholars.1 It should be emphasized however, that the law of Allah is higher than the simplistic conclusions of such absurd interpretations. The true meaning, then, of these two parts of the Qur'anic verse referred to above, which suits the glory of Allah's Law may be summarized as follows:

(1) All food, which Allah made lawful for the Jews and Christians in their respective Scriptures, is lawful for Muslims.

(2) All food, which Allah made lawful for Muslims in the Qur’an, is lawful for the Jews and Christians.

If this is, the true meaning and interpretation of the Qur'anic verse, we would then again be justified in posing the question whether the meat of animals, as they are slaughtered commercially today in Western countries, was originally lawful for Jews and Christians so that it might also be regarded as lawful for Muslims? This is the point, which has raised all this controversy. However, those2 who regard it lawful do so on the basis of Allah's decree:
“The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you...” (AI-Qur'an, 5: 5) saying that this verse indicates the lawfulness of the animal slaughtered by the "People of the Book" without any reference to the method of slaughtering or to the characteristics of the person who undertakes it, as long as he is a man from among the " People of Book."
They further argue, " We are not required to consider the way in which the animals have been slaughtered, and whether or not Allah's name has been mentioned over them... Foodstuffs imported from countries of the " People of the Book" are lawful unless there is evidence that they are unlawful for themselves, such as carrion, blood or swine flesh. All other foodstuffs are lawful even if we are sure that they are dedicated to some other being than Allah or are not slaughtered legally according to the Islamic rites." 3
This is an over simplification of the Qur'anic verse referred to above. The Zabihah of the “People of the Book” has been made lawful for the Muslims on account of the fact that in their Scripture the slaughter of that animal is deemed unlawful on which the name of Allah has not been recited intentionally or which has been dedicated to any other diety than Allah. The modern versions of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) have almost similar regulations for Zabihah and Nikah (marriage), which are to be observed in Islam. However, now when the " People of the Book " have discarded the regulations of their own Scripture, their Zabihah can not be considered lawful. The permission given in verse 5 of Surah AI-Maidah is thus conditional and does not confer a blanket approval to eat the animal slaughtered by those who have a Book regardless of the way it was killed, whether its neck was twisted or it died by suffocation. The crux of the matter is whether the animal has been legally (ritually) slaughtered according to the religious prescription, regardless of whether or not the slaughterer is a Muslim or a man from among the “People of the Book”

There are two points involved in the issue:

One, what is the method of killing the animal pursued by butchers in the West?

Second, has the animal been killed in the name of Allah?

The advocates of non -Zabihah do not address themselves to any of the above points. Instead they try to confuse the issue by bringing ayah 5 of Surah al-Maidah to their aid. Only two ayahs before, the same Surah al-Ma'idah tell us:
"Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which has been invoked the name of other than Allah, that which has been killed by strangling or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death, that which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal, unless you are able to slaughter it (in due form). " (5:3)

Ayah 5 of Surah Al -Ma'idah “This day are (all) things good and pure (tayabaat) made lawful (halal) unto you, the food of the people of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them" does allow Muslims to eat the food of the ‘People of the Book' but there are certain conditions tied to it:

(a) The Qur’an says, "tayabaat" are made lawful and “tayabaat" are excluded from those which the Qur’an & Prophet declared "haram", especially those which have been described in the above 'ayah (3). This ayah (3) is only one ayah before ayah (5) and the Quran is free from contradiction.

(b). The Quran is giving us the same criterion for lawful and unlawful, In fact, even the distorted Bible still this proof in Acts 15 (20): "To abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. "
Even those who justify the eating of haram beef, lamb and chicken by saying that the food of the “People of the Book' is lawful insists on excluding pork and alcohol. If this verse means that whatever is the "food" of the 'People of the Book' today you can eat, then how can they exclude pork and alcohol?

Second a thing (not Islamically slaughtered meat), which is haram at your own home, how, can it become halâl at their homes?

Further, if the Quranic ayah does not specify "Chicken and beef" or even "meat" then how can the word "food" be translated as meat, specifically chicken and beef only, and not pork?
The question of practicing or non-practicing Jews and Christians is irrelevant, for it is not the. Piety of a butcher which is the issue; instead, it is of slaughtering or killing (or the act of butchering).

The non-Zabihah meat sold in stores is, therefore, haram. for it is not slaughtered Islamically. In fact, the Qur’an as well as the Bible testifies that the 'People of the Book' were commanded to slaughter (make Zabihah). The Jewish Kosher is a living proof that the 'People of the Book' were commanded the same way, as were the Muslims.

If there are Muslims who insist that we will still follow the 'People of the Book' even when they do not follow their book, then what is the purpose of the Prophethood of Muhammad (Sallallaho Alaihi Wasallam)?4 Ibrahim Hamdani, "Islamic Horizons Shawwal 1402 (August, 1982) published from USA”.

President, Shariah Law Supreme Council and President, jurisprudence Assembly in Saudi Arabia is summarized as follows;

"The Slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are not to be eaten at present because they are not legally slaughtered, and these people do not mention Allah's name upon their slaughtered beasts. The legal slaughter that the general public rightly agrees to should be in the trachea and in the upper part of the chest. The slaughter must not be done elsewhere. The People of the Book do not adhere to this rule."5 m

The Holy Qur'an is very explicit on this point when it it says:
Thus the Muslims are also forbidden to eat animals that died from strangulation, beating, or a headlong fall, or those, which have been killed by goring of the horns. It is common knowledge that in all these conditions unconsciousness precedes death. Mankind knew of these forms in the early days. In the presence of this knowledge, Muslims were asked to use carotid method. The Qur'an describes the whole process by two technical terms Zabah and Zakah - "cutting and draining the blood." Generally, some misconceptions are associated with this process of slaughtering animals by Muslims because of its alleged cruelty, although these are unfounded as other methods of killing animals like Electrocution, (stunning) suffocation and shattering the brain through bullet shot etc., are far more painful, as we shall see later. Islam prescribes a humane method and Muslims need not be shy on this account before the West, for what is made lawful by Allah, they cannot make it unlawful and what He has made unlawful, they cannot make it lawful.

In the light of Qur'anic verses - 6: 122, 22: 36, 22: 34, 6: 139, 16: 115, 6: 119, 2: 173, 5: 3, 5: 5, 5: 4 - some of which have already been quoted and the foregoing account, the slaughtered animals of the "People of the Book" in Western or other countries are not lawful because when animals are slaughtered then “Bismillah" is not said over them and the methods of slaughter are also not in conformity with the requirements of the Shari'ah. Besides, there are other differences. There are instances, when maitah (carrion)6 has been served because the system of slaughter is based on stunning and many of the animals actually die before reaching the blade.

The Ulama are agreed that the food of the "People of the Book" which Allah made lawful for Muslims is that food which Allah had made lawful for them in their Scriptures and through their Prophets and modern scholars need not say more about it because the matter is plain and clear.

Finally, there are some people who say, "it is permissible to eat it (i.e. non-Zabihah meat) after saying Bismillah at the time of eating." We have, however, never heard that saying "Bismillah " on food, which is unlawful, turns it into lawful food. What we are sure of is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to say " Bismillah " when he commenced eating any food or drinking liquids, thereby, blessing them and making them useful with the grace of "Bismillah."

Furthermore, he advised Muslims to do the same but he never told them that what was unlawful could be made lawful by saying Bismillah over it. The advocates of Bismillah formula are in fact not aware of the background, intent and purpose of a Hadith in Bukhari, which is reproduced below:
Narrated by Aisha (R.A.): A group of people said to the Prophet (peace is upon him), "Some people bring us meat and we do not know whether they have mentioned Allah's Name or not on slaughtering the animal". He said, "Mention Allah's name on it and eat." Those people had embraced Islam recently. (Bukhari vol.VII page 302 English translations).

It is obvious that this relates to the slaughter of neo-Muslims (i.e. those people who had embraced Islam recently) and not the slaughter of Kuffar (Jews and Christians). In another Hadith the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) even advised care in matter of utensils so that the purity of food is not disturbed by using such utensils of the "People of the Book" in which swine flesh and its derivatives may have been served:

Narrated Abu Thalaha Al Khushaui :I came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We are living in the land of the People ?f the Scripture, and we take our meals in their utensils, and there is game in that land and I hunt with my bow and with my trained hound and with my untrained hound." The Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

"As for your saying that you are in the land of the People of the Book, you should not eat in their utensils, unless you find no alternative, in which case you must wash the utensils and then eat in them... "
(Bukhari)

It would be worthwhile and advise-able to consider and reflect on the implications of the following ahadith regarding lawful and unlawful in Islam

An-Nu'man bin Bashir reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
"What is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is clear, but between them are certain doubtful things which many people do not recognize. He, who guards against doubtful things, keeps his religion and honor blameless. But he who falls into doubtful things, falls into what is unlawful, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a preserve will soon pasture them into it."
(Bukhari and Muslim).

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying that
“Allah is good and accepts only what is good, and He has given the same command to the believers as He has given to the messengers, saying,
“0 messengers, eat of what is good and act righteously,"
(XXIII: 51)
and also, " You who believe, eat of the good things which we have provided for you."
(II: 172)

Then he mentioned a man who makes a long journey in a disheveled and dusty state, who stretches out his hands to heaven saying, " My Lord, my Lord," when his food, drink and clothing are of an unlawful nature, and he is nourished by what is unlawful, and asked how such a one could be given an answer.
(Muslim).

The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is also reported to have said:
" Flesh which has grown out of what is unlawful will not enter Paradise,
but hell is more fitting for all flesh which has grown out of what is unlawful."
(Ahmad, Darimi and Baihaqi).

Al-'lrbad b. Sarjya declared that Allah's messenger got up and said,
" Does any of you, while reclining on his couch, imagine that Allah has prohibited only what is to be found in the Qur’an?
By Allah, I have commanded, exhorted and prohibited various matters as numerous as those are found in the Qur'an.

Or more numerous.

Allah has not permitted you to enter the houses of the “People of the Book” without permission, or beat their women, or eat their fruits, when they give you what is imposed on them."
(Abu Daud).

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying,
" The Qur'an came down showing five aspects:
what is permissible,
what is prohibited,
what is firmly fixed,
what is obscure,
and parables.

So treat what is permissible as permissible and
what is prohibited as prohibited,
act upon what is firmly fixed,
believe in. what is obscure, and
take a lesson from the parables."

This is the wording in AI-masabih. Baihaqi transmitted in Shu’ab al-Iman, his wording being, "Act according to what is permissible, avoid what is prohibited, and follow what is firmly fixed."
There can be no gainsaying the fact that the effect of food and drink upon the body and temperament is very powerful. The Physicians, therefore, prescribe special diet for patients, so that indiscriminate diet may not injure the body. The Almighty Allah knows our constitution perfectly well and He knows how to keep it best in health. As soundness of mind depends on soundness of body, food and drink may be said to be one of the principal causes which lead a man to do evil or act virtuously The Almighty Allah and His Messenger, therefore, prescribed such food for men as are conducive to them from a temporal and religious point of view. This is also the reason why lawful food, unlawfully acquired, has been made unlawful, as it greatly affects the moral tendency of a man.

It may be pertinent to mention here that at present USA, Argentina, Brazil, New Zealand, Australia. etc., are exporting a lot of frozen meat to Arab countries including Saudi Arabia. This meat is not quite lawful for the Muslims, as the animals are not slaughtered according to the way prescribed by the Shari'ah. The exporting firms very cunningly put the Halâl mark on their products, which in reality is not the case. There are no Muslim butchers or supervisors attached to these firms and as such their statement cannot be relied upon. It is very important that the Islamic Organizations should probe into the matter urgently to ensure that the Muslim masses in Arab countries are not fed on this type of meat as, according to a Hadith of the blessed Prophet;

“The prayers of a person nourished on unlawful food are not heard or accepted”.
This is a grave issue and should be taken in right earnestness by Muslims.
The summary of this somewhat heated discussion and probing is as follows: -

(a) No food of the “People of the Book" is lawful for a Muslim except that which is lawful for the "People, of the Book" themselves, according to the directions of their Scripture and their prophets. And consequently, when the "People of the Book" prepare an animal for food, it would not be lawful for a Muslim, unless they had slaughtered it, according to the directions in their Scripture.7

(b) Halal meat is available in many western countries through the efforts8 of dedicated Muslim workers and it is easy for anyone keen on getting it to be able to procure it. And. now that the correct Islamic decision on the matter is made known, there would be no excuse for any Muslim to eat unlawful meat. And it should be known that the body, which is nourished on unlawful food, would be consigned to Hell as mentioned in the Hadith.

(c) Although on the surface of it the Halal Zabihah meat may appear a little expensive in the USA and other European countries as compared to the meat of animals slaughtered automatically by a machine, it is worth purchasing because it is far more hygienic as the blood of the animal is completely drained out by slitting its throat. Furthermore, the eating of meat, which is sold in the market, is not lawful for a Muslim on account of the fact that except the above mentionable meat,9 the conditions set forth earlier are not fulfilled. The machine slaughter procedure in the West is not compatible with the strict Islamic standards and as such the Muslims at present cannot ordinarily get supplies of genuine halal meat in the open market, despite contrary claims by certain quarters.

(d) Stunning before slaughter should not be resorted to except in cases of utmost necessity, - as when large animals (not lamb or chickens) are to be slaughtered because of the difficulty in controlling them. Even this days with new machinery like cattle-boxes used in Europe and elsewhere, it is unnecessary to stun the animals for slaughtering. There is however, no justification to 'practice stunning as a routine method ' because it causes unnecessary suffering and torture to the animal, which is detested by Islam. Furthermore, it is affirmed that electric stunning hastens the initiation of decay of flesh and affects its taste (this was one of the reasons for complaints by meat producers in Denmark), produces blood clot in the meat and even causes paralysis in the animal to be slaughtered. As such the stunning operation is considered harmful to the flesh and causes great suffering to the animal. The Islamic way of slaughter is still the best way and that which causes the least pain and suffering. The Islamic slaughter is in fact painless - technical arguments in favor of this view abound - and is most importantly, the only effective way of assuring the full draining of blood from the animal, which is essential for the meat being halal.

(e) The animal should also be treated kindly after it is killed. Its neck must not be broken. It should not be skinned nor any part of its body cut before it becomes cool (after slaughtering). If inadvertently the name of Allah is not mentioned, the slain animal may be eaten.
It is related that Abu Hurairah said: A man came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and said: " 0 Messenger of Allah, what of a man who slays and forgets to mention Allah's ' name?” The Prophet replied: Allah’s name is upon every Muslim. (A]-Dar Qutni).

It is also permissible to eat the flesh of a slaughtered animal whose head had been cut off in an act of swift slaughter i.e,. hen etc. This is lawful as an accidental happening in view of the following Hadith :
"Eat from what the blood sheds and upon which the name of Allah is mentioned."
Ibn Abbas, Anas and Ibn Umar are of opinion that if in the act of slaughtering an animal from the side of his jugular veins, his head is separated from the body, the meat of such an animal is lawful. But this should not be done intenionally, otherwise it would become Mukrooh (disapproved). If the animal is slaughtered by its neck having been cut from the upper side, it would not be lawful in any case, whether or not its head is separated from its body. In either case, its meat will become unlawful.

This method of cutting the neck from the upper side is the general practice in Western countries. Since the Islamic method of slaughter is a form of worship, the Muslims are not allowed to eat the flesh of any animal not legally (ritually) slaughtered. Thus, in the light of principles of Islamic jurisprudence, it is conclusively, decisively and convincingly proved that chickens and animals slaughtered by machines with a built-in rotating saw or blade and motivated by electric current or any other motive power are forbidden and unlawful for muslims. While Allah may forgive our past lapses for not taking Halal meat due to ignorance or its non-availability at certain places, but now we will be great sinners in the sight of Allah if we do not switch over to Halal meat, fish, kosher meat and green pulses which are within our easy reach. The price of halal zabihah meat in non-Muslim countries will come down, once all Muslims there start consuming it, because of the economics of large scale production.

This is all we can say If in our effort to find the truth and bring it out, we have said something which is correct, then it is from Allah and to Him is due all praise and gratitude. And if we have made a mistake, we ask Him for pardon and forgiveness. Finally, may peace and blessings be showered on Muhammad (saw), the Seal of the Prophets, the best of Allah and on his family, his companions and those who follow his teachings.

"Allah verily hath shown grace to the believers by sending unto them a Messenger of their own who reciteth unto them His revelations, and causeth them to grow, and teacheth them the Scripture and wisdom although before (he came to them) they were in flagrant error."
(3:164)

"There hath come unto you a Messenger, (one) of yourselves, unto whom aught that ye are overburdened is grievous, full of concern for you, for the believers full of pity and merciful." (9 : 128)

"Muhammad is not the father of any man among you. but he is the Messenger
of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets and Allah is Aware of all things"
(33:40)

" We sent thee (0 Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples."
(21:107)

"Lo ! Allah and His angels shower blessing.; on the Prophet. 0 ye who believe 1
Ask belching on him and salute him with a worthy salutation."
(33:56)


APPENDIX
FATWA OF MUFTI ABDUH OF EGYPT ABOUT
MECHANICAL SLAUGHTER

(An exposition of a mistaken verdict)
Mufti Abduh (1849-1905) of Egypt, against the consensus of the whole of the Ummah and four Imams, declared that all kinds of slaughter methods prevailing in Europe are lawful. A wave of great resentment and anxiety arose all over the Islamic World. Demands were made to remove Mufti Abduh from his high post in Dar-ul-Ifta and renowned Ulama of the Muslim World rejected his verdict.

Although no one can deny the high intellectual attainments and scholarship of Mufti Abduh, yet no one is innocent except the Prophets of Allah (saw). It is an outstanding miracle of Islam that whenever any scholar, however, great he may be , is found indulging in error in contravention of the provisions of the Qur'an and the Sunnah while giving a verdict, the Ummah, inspite of having due regard for his high scholarship, never accepts his wrong verdict.

Not to speak of Mufti Abduh, when Imam Shafi'i (a recognised religious luminary of Muslims) differing from the majority of Ummah said that although it is not lawful to forsake recitation of “Bismillah” intentionally at the time of slaughtering an animal and eating of such meat it makrooh (disapproved), yet we cannot declare it Haram, the majority of the Um'mah relying upon a Qur'anic Nass, and disagreeing with him believes such slaughter to be totally Haram. Hence eminent Ulama and Jurists of Ummah having full regard for the high status of the said Imam declared that it was an error of judgment on his part. Several the Ulama belonging to the Shafi School of thought also disregarded his opinion.

No doubt, Mufti Abduh was a great scholar, yet there is no comparison between Mufti Abduh and Imam Shafi. The Ummah, which did not hesitate to declare the opinion of Imam Shafi, as mistaken how can it accept such a manifest error of Mufti Abduh? Again in Imam Shafi's opinion such action is not quite lawful and use of meat is Makrooh, whereas Mufti Abduh setting aside all the principles and conditions of slaughtering under the Shari'ah declared the European way of slaughtering as definitely Halal (lawful) which is also repugnant to Imam Shafi's approach. So the Ulama vehemently rejected Mufti Abduh's verdict as being against the Nass of the Qur'an and the Sunnah as well as the opinion of four Imams and leading Jurists. Articles from all corners of the Islamic World were published denouncing the opinion of Mufti Abduh.

Allama Rashid Reza, an eminent disciple of Mufti Abduh was a great scholar and journalist. He wrote many articles in favor of his guide and mentor and gained favor of some Ulama on account of his high position in the Government circles. However, the mischief was curbed by Ulama-e-Haq and made ineffective. But there is a world of difference between suppressing a mischief and getting a verdict accepted by the people. If we study newspapers and journals of that period, it will become clearly evident that the Ulama of whole world had declared the verdict of Mufti Abduh as wrong and unreliable.

The rules and regulations of slaughtering, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, have already been stated in the foregoing pages. After this there is no need for entangling the readers in a detailed repudiation of Mufti Abduh's verdict, it will be sufficient to reproduce the opinion of Mufti Abduh and Rashid Reza in its original form which the people have lost sight of on account of lengthy debates and discussions. If it is presented in a clear and original form before Muslims, it will be repudiated by itself because it is so clearly repugnant to the Nass of the Qur'an and the Sunnah as well as to the unanimous opinion of the four Imams and Jurists that every educated Muslim will feel inclined to oppose it.

CURIOUS FINDINGS OF MUFTI ABDUH ABOUT ZABIHAH

Muslims of every age and sect from the dawn of Islam till today unanimously believe that just as marriage and divorce are particular modes of social behavior, similarly the act of slaughter cannot be lawful unless it is carried out under the prescribed injunctions set out in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. Hence it is compulsory under the Qur'anic Nass to recite Bismillah just before starting the slaughtering and it is also compulsory that slaughtering must be done by a Muslim or by the " People of the Book." These conditions are matters of religious obligation.
In one of the Hadiths recorded by Bukhari, Islamic slaughtering had been stated as one of the Signs (which make a Muslim distinct from the followers of other religions. The English translation of the text of the Hadith is given under: -

Anas reported Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as saying:
“He who observes our prayer, faces our Qibla and eats the animal slaughtered by us (according to the Shari'ah) is a Muslim,
one for whom there is guarantee (of the safety of his life and property) from Allah and the guarantee from His Messenger.
Therefore, break not the covenant of Allah with regard to his protection.”
(Bukhari)

In this Hadith Islamic slaughtering has been described as a sign of one's being a Muslim like the prayer and facing the Qibla. In another Hadith the Messenger of Allah said about the Magians that they should be dealt with like People of the Book, except in two matters i.e. it is not lawful for a Muslim to marry with a Magian woman and eat their slaughter.

It is evident from this Hadith that although marriage is a social necessity and among the natural needs of human beings, yet Islam has laid down certain restrictions on it which are necessary to be fulfilled, otherwise marriage will not be legal under the Shari'ah. It is the case with slaughter on which certain restrictions imposed by the Shari'ah are well known to Muslims of every age and sect. It is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Deen, so there is no need to give proof in support of the accepted principles.

Three words have been used in the Holy Qur'an for slaughtering according to the Islamic way i.e. Zakah, Zibaha and Nahar. Zakah is a common word used for Zibah and Naharas, well. It is unanimously regarded a Qur'anic term just like Salat, and Saum. We regard only that meaning of salat and saum as authentic, which is proved by other verses of the Holy Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet. It it a distortion to make an inference merely from its literal meaning. Zakah is a purely Islamic technical term having its two forms i.e. optional and non-optional, which have been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. Separate regulations have been prescribed for both. Narrators of Ahadith and Jurists have called the optional Zakah as Zibah and the non-optional as shayd (game) respectively. But there are certain requirements and conditions as laid down in the Qur'an and Sunnah, which have been explained earlier.

But Mufti Abduh by overriding the verdicts of all the jurists and commentators of the Qur'an attributed a new meaning to the said Qur'anic term. The gist of his research is that for Zakah it will be sufficient to kill an animal with the intention of eating, whatever may be form of killing. He equated non-optional Zakah against clear elaborations found in the Qur'an and the Sunnah with optional Zakah by his own guesswork. He, therefore, refused to accept the basic condition of cutting veins of throat in intentional slaughtering which is a prescribed condition according to the unanimous opinion of the Ummah. He even went further and said that killing of an animal by electric shock (stunning) is also lawful (Halal). It is not only Halal but is also a better and preferable method. The whole discussion and detail is given in his famous commentary of the Holy Qur'an called Tafseer AI-Manar (vol. 6 P. 144). One sentence of the commentary being

"And I believe that if the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) had knowledge of any method of slaughtering which may facilitate and prove painless for the animal, such as killing by electric shock (stunning), the Prophet of Allah would certainly have declared it superior to the Islamic method of slaughtering."

Mufti Abduh declared that killing by electric shock (stunning) was not different from slaughtering. It was really a great audacity on the part of Mufti Abduh that by insisting on his baseless and wrong concept, he claimed that if the Prophet of Allah (saw) had knowledge of this method, .he would have certainly given up the Islamic Way and adopted it. (A matter of great sorrow indeed).

A complement of his aforesaid Ijtehad is that if we kill an animal by strangulation, it is also Halal. He has tried to answer this open violation of the Qur'anic verse by taking support of a wrong discussion over “strangulated” which is against the consensus of the companions of the holy Prophet, Tabeen and the majority of the Ummah. (AI-Manar, vol. VI p. 137).

Mufti Abduh had already denied the necessity of reciting Allah's name at the time of slaughter, now he did away with the requirement of cutting throat's veins. Animals killed intentionally by strangulation also become Halal. According to his investigation the only Haram animal is that which dies a natural death or without the interference of any man dies by falling from any high place or by automatic strangulation. Any animal which is killed with the intention that it will be used by human beings is Halal: whoever may be the killer, whatever may be the method of killing, whether he recites Allah's name or not, the slaughterer may be a Muslim or a non-Muslim, whether he cuts the veins of throat or not, all is lawful according to Mufti Abduh. His research particularly about the people of the Book is that the food of the people of the Book is Halal without any condition or restriction whether they have killed the animal by strangulation or electric tock or by any other method. (AI-Manar vol. VI, p. 200).

He was kind enough towards Muslims in so far as he did not declare the swine flesh Halal for them which is also included in the food of People of Book, though the basic purpose of his commentary was to prove in general that the food of the " People of the Book " is lawful for Muslims. Consequently the meat of pig as well could have entered the list.

Proceeding ahead he openly said that eating of animals meat is one of the natural habits of human beings having no link with religion. Religious restrictions are confined only to acts of worship. His words are as under :-

“The customary matters relating to eating and clothing are not from laws of rituals ordained by Allah for the people to follow. The laws relating to rituals are established by the text (nass) of the law-Giver."

In a nutshell Mufti Abduh's Ijtehad is nothing except that the distinction of Halal and Haram in the articles of eating, drinking, dressing and of daily use, is meaningless. If such type of Ijtehad is correct, then marriages and divorces are also amongst the matters of habit and custom. Hence discussion of Halal and Haram about the same is useless and religious restrictions imposed on them are wrong.

There can't be a more suitable ljtehid in the modern age of absolute freedom and religious indifference than that of Mufti Abduh. As such the Westernized generation liked it very much.
It was an error, no doubt a great error of Mufti Abduh and Allama Rashid Reza, yet in the light of their services in the field of education and with the grace of Allah, it is hoped that Allah might forgive them for giving a wrong verdict. We are, however, worried about the people who under some pretext and without any solid argument have followed his opinion only for case and comfort and the satisfaction of their baser selves.

The commission of an error is possible, howsoever great a scholar may be. It is a well-known saying in Arabic:
"Every good horse may have a fall. "

And every scholar may commit a mistake and make nonsensical remarks. That person is really unfortunate whom in spite of knowing the opinion and verdict of the majority of the Ummah continues to follow the same error and makes it his religion. Zahbi in his famous book has quoted the following saying of Imam Auzam Abu Hanefi (ra):

"Whosoever follows the stray opinions of the Ulama makes his exit from the fold of Islam."

It is learnt that many Arabs who visit Europe and USA or are settled there, do not take the least care about food and eat the unslaughtered animals meat, under the pretext of mufti Abduh's verdict, which is unlawful. The people naturally regard Arabs as their religious leader, so many of them start to follow them in this matter. Still there are some true Muslims who care for their religion; we often receive their references about slaughtering methods followed in Europe and USA. I had replied in Arabic to such a reference long ago. Thinking it suitable and proper, the Urdu translation of the same has been added at the end of this brochure so that the Muslims residing in Europe and USA may take guidance from it. Surely Allah is the greatest helper.

--Translated from Urdu from Mufti Muhammad Shafi's (Grand Mufti of Pakistan)
booklet (pp. 37-42)published by Maktaba Dar-ul-Uloom, Karachi- 1 4. (Rajab 1387-H).
ULAMA-E-SOO
(Non-virtuous ulama)

The ulama-e-dhalal...... the ulama-e-soo' are those who lack the ability to distinguish between right and wrong (haqq and batil,) hence they are like those who gather firewood in an excessively dark night.

They know not on what their hands fall. They suffer from oblique vision.

Thus they say that pictures of living beings and animals are permissible whereas Rasullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that these are haram.

They say that music is permissible, but Rasullah (saw) said that it is haram.

They say that the keeping of a beard is not obligatory, but Rasullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that it is compulsory.

They say that the recital of Tasmiah, when slaughtering is unnecessary but the Qur'an declares that it is essential.

They say that the intermingling of sexes is permissible, but the Qur'an prohibits it.

They say that the expected advent of Imam Mehdi (alayhis salam) is a myth, but Rasullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) categorically asserted its reality.

They are the ulama-e-soo who sap the blood of thie Deen.

They are those about whom Nabi-eKareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said

"Leaders who lead astray..................

"They are astray and lead (others) astray."

Th e Majlis, vol. 5 No. 1, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

REFERENCES
1. For an exposition of Mufti Abduh's fatwa please see Appendix.
2. Among them are Sheikh Muhammad Abduh, former Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Rashid Reda, a disciplen of Shaikh Abduh and Shaikh Mahmoud Shattout, former Shaikh of AlAhzar and Dr. Yusuf at-Qaradawi of Qatar etc.
3. Dr. Abdel Aziz El Khayat. Dean. Faculty of Islamic Law, University of Jordan, Amman in " Report on Food and Slaughtered Animals in Islam " (pp. 35--44) submitted to the Veterinary Institute, West Berlin.
4. "Quorbans in Islamic Law" (Arabic) by Dr. Abdalla El-Abbadi pp. (64-67.)
5. "Rissalat Hokm El Mustawrada and Zabaeh Ahlul Kitab by Sheikh Abdullah ben Hamid as a reply to Sheikh Abdullah ben Zaid bin Mahmoud El-Qatari.
6. Recently the BBC has been broadcasting certain educational programmers on the alleged barbarities and brutalities of the Islamic method of slaughtering animals. Well how do “civilized people" slaughter their livestock? In the more modern slaughter houses the cattle are penned up in a row with their beads sticking out of stocks. A man then passes from one beast's head to the next touching the forehead of each with a hydraulic hammer. Once trigger on the hammer is pressed the head of the beast is instantly shattered. Chicken& arc more painfully killed their beads are cramped into a row but instead of using a hydraulic hammer a man passes from one bird to the next jamming an ice-pick through the mouth of each into brain. The blood is cleaned out of these poor birds and beasts only after skinning and gutting and thus much blood has had time to adhere to the flesh making the meat more corruptible and far less hygienic than any halâl meat. This is a scientific fact, which the BBC has neglected to impart in its ‘educational’ programme. But let us not neglect to touch on that most civilized method of slaughter of most respectable antiquity in Britain: pig-sticking! A spike is held pointed towards the forehead of the swine and hammer is used to drive the stake into the animal's brain. The terror and agony of the animal is reflected in its shrill and lingering, dying screams. Hence what has appeared on the BBC in the guise of education is nothing more than a contemptible anti-Islamic demagogy.
For an analysis and rebuttal of false and baseless propaganda against Islam and its institutions, the readers are advised to consult and circulate publications such as:
DISTORTIONS ABOUT ISLAM IN THE WEST
THE CROSS AND THE CRESCENT
THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS IN THE LIGHT OF AL-QURAN.
[By the grace of Allah, these books (published by Malik Sirajuddin & Sons, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore-8, PAKISTAN) together with the examples set by pious Muslims can help eradicate misconceptions about Islam in the West and throw its doors open for the reception of the glorious Message of Islam.]
7. It would still be desirable if Muslims avoid eating the slaughter of non-practicing "People of the Book "as the permission to eat even their lawful slaughter is confined only to the committed "People of the Book," and we know for certain most of the people in the West today are Christian by tradition rather by any strong faith or conviction. Further, it is the Muslims who label commercial producers of meat as PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. The producers themselves are honest in saying they make no claim to any form of religious practice in their slaughtering. How then can Muslims say they are PEOPLE OF THE BOOK if they themselves say they have nothing to do with any form of religious practice in their production, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to any method of slaughter mentioned in what is left of the Bible or other Holy books. Also the Kosher meat produced for Jewish consumption states that only the fore-quarters of the meat are to be eaten. How then can Muslims eat the hind-quarters if they are agreeing with Kosher law?
Allah (swt) didn't make ALL the food of the people of the book Halal for us (Muslims), Sura 5:5 "This day it is made lawful for you the Tayebat (good, pure and healthy)food Halal for you..."
Which means only the Tayebat among the food of the people of the book is Halal, not every food of the people of the book, if it is not among Tayebat then it is not Halal.
Because the people of the book eat pork and drink alcohol feed their animals on animal protein, blood, by-products (mammal feed), give hormones for fattening, use “factory farming” for breeding and don’t slaughter the animals according to the Islamic rites, all these are haram.
FROM BUSINESS POINT OF VIEW IT IS NOT PROFITABLE FOR TRADERS TO BUY ORGANIC MEAT or organic raised animals, because it is very expensive comparing it to the non-organic meat and animals! -"The animals NOWADAYS which are fed on animal protein from day one" so they are Jallalah and Haram accordingly.
ALLAH (swt) made the good, pure and healthy food of the people of the book Halal for us, when we read the Tafseer or the commentary of this 5:5 , there are even tribes, at the time of the Muhammad (saw), “the people of the book” whose food was not Halal So we cannot say all the food of the people of the book is Halal for the Muslims to eat. Accordingly, only the Tayebat of the people of the book food is Halal for Muslims.
To make the meat Halal, we have to consider not only the way the animal is slaughtered, but also we have to take in consideration what the animal was fed on, animals should not be fed on other animals. Jallalah is: Jallalah refers to a permissible to eat animal but it eats the waste or flesh of other animals, such as camels, cows, sheep, chickens, geese, and so on. Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah forbade the drinking of such animals' milk. This hadith is related by "the five," except for Ibn Majah. At-Tirmidhi grades it as sahih. In one narration it states, "It is also prohibited to ride upon a jallalah. (As for the jallalah, he prohibited riding or eating them." (Related by Ahamad, an-Nasa'i and Abu Dawud.) If the jallalah animal is kept away from the other animals for 40 days and is given clean food to eat, then it becomes pure and is no longer called jallalah, if this is the case, it becomes permissible to eat, as the reason for its prohibition was the change it underwent due to eating filth, a state that would no longer be present. [This is in case that the animal accidentally ate filth or other animal flesh once or twice not in regard to animals that are fed on other animals’ flesh, blood and filth all their life as the animals in USA, and Europe.
SUNAN OF ABU DAWOOD ;HADITH 3778 The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade riding and drinking the milk of the camel, which feeds on filth.[So other animals will be the same i.e. cow, sheep, goat and so on in regard to drinking its milk. See next hadith. HADITH 3777 The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited to drink the milk of the animal which feeds on filth.HADITH 3776 The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited eating and drinking the milk of an animal which feeds on filth. HADITH 3802On the day of Khaybar the Apostle of Allah (May peace be upon him) forbade (eating) the flesh of the animal which feeds on filth and forbade riding it too.
Nowadays, generally, the animals are raised and fed, on animal protein and animal by-products derived from pigs, cows, dogs, cats and all other road kills animals. So today , if we are not eating organic meat and animal product food naturaliy, then eating Jallalah, which is haram according to the Islamic rules.
8. Where such arrangements do not exist, efforts should be made by the local Islamic Centers to procure Halal meat for the Muslim Community. Alternatively a group of Muslims can band together and slaughter cow, sheep or chickens on weekends and preserve the meat for use during the week. This can be done successfully at places where Halal meat is not easily available provided one has the zeal and concern for the Faith by sacrificing a little time and undergoing a little hardship in this regard.
"And that man hath only that for which he maketh effort." (AI-Qur'an, 53: 39).
"But lo! with hardship goeth case, lo ! with hardship goeth case so when thou art relieved, still toil and strive to please thy Lord." (94 . 5-8).
"As for those who strive in Us, We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo ! Allah is with the good." (29 : 69)
9. Kosher;Kashrut (in Hebrew) is the system of Jewish dietary laws. Kosher (kashur in Hebrew) means 'fit, or proper for use' according to Jewish law. Examples of kosher are: the meat of the 'fore quarter*' of the cattle and lambs slaughtered ritually (the jews do not aet hine quarters), fruits, vegetables, all fish that have fins*, all wines*, all cheeses*, gelatin*.The opposite of Kosher, as applied to food in Treif (in Yiddish), or trefah (in Hebrew) meaning 'not suitable for use', or 'forbidden'. Trefah literally means 'torn by a wild beast' (Exodus 22:30). Examples of Trefah are: blood, swine, rabbit*, all shell fish*, wild birds such as wild hen*, wild duck*, and the birds of prey.(*) these food items exhibit a marked difference between kosher and Halal as well as trefah and haram.
Is Kosher Halal; Often times Muslim consumers tend to assume 'Kosher' is similar to 'Halal'. Although the slaughtering rituals of Jewish people resemble those of Muslims; kosher and halal are two different entities carrying a different meaning and spirit. Muslims, therefore, are provided with the following basic information about Kosher so they can exercise care in distinguishing halal from kosherThe differences are explained elsewhere in this section.Caution to Muslim Consumers:Halal is a comprehensive Islamic term encompassing not only the matters of food and drink, but all other matters of daily life. Islam being the final and perfect Deen (religion) for mankind, it supersedes all the previously revealed religions including Christianity and Judaism. The rituals in all matters were perfected by Islam (al-Quran 5:3)According to Islamic Jurisprudence, no one except Allah can change forbidden (Haram) things into lawful (halal) for vice-versa. It is forbidden for people to change the lawful (Halal) things into unlawful (Haram), or vice-versa. Those people who make summary judgments regarding Haram and Halal should keep the following ayah in mind;
“O you who believe1 forbid not the good things which Allah has made ‘lawful’ for you, and transgress not. Lo1 Allah loves not transgressors. Eat of that which Allah has bestowed on you as food ‘lawful’ and good, and keep your duty to Allah in whom you are believers.” (5:87-88).
It is only Allah (swt) who can legislate what is Haram and what is Halal.
Halal is a unique Islamic concept and eating dhabiha (Islamically slaughtered) meat is a distinguishing part of a Muslim's identity as expressed by Prophet Muhammad (saw)
Salient differences between kosher and halal are:Islam prohibits all intoxicating alcohols, liquors, wines and drugs. kashrut regards all wines kosher. Hence food items and drinks showing the kosher symbol containing alcohol are not halal.
Gelatin is considered kosher regardless of its source of origin. If the gelatin is prepared from swine, Muslims consider it haram (prohibited). Hence foods items such as marshmallows, yogurt, etc., showing kosher symbols are not halal.
Enzymes (irrespective of their sources even from non-kosher animals) in cheese making are considered mere secretion (pirsah b'almah) according to some kashrut organizations, hence all cheeses are considered kosher. Muslims look for the source of the enzyme in cheese making. If it is coming from the swine, it is considered haram(forbidden). Hence cheeses showing kosher symbols may not be halal.
Jews do not pronounce the name of Allah on each animal while slaughtering. They feel that uttering the name of Allah, out of context, is wasteful. Muslims on the other hand pronounce the name of Allah on all animals while slaughtering.
Pastries prepared with lard (pork-fat) or gelatin deserts like jelts and marshmallows are also haram if suspected of having been prepared with pork products. Most of the cheese products in France and other European countries are prepared with stomach extract (engime-rennet) of swine or non Zabiha animals and are not lawful for Muslims.
The salient differences between kosher and halal have been illustrated so that Muslim consumers can distinguish halal from kosher.Islam is a complete way of life providing infallible guidance to all its followers in all walks of life. Halal brings immense satisfaction to the Muslim life both now and in the hereafter. Muslims therefore, do not have to depend on any other set of laws for want of convenience.The final, divine laws of Islam are indeed perfect and the best for all its followers for all time to come.Muslims in non-Muslim countries should strive to follow the Islamic injunctions in their diet (as well as in every walk of life) and establish their own businesses and institutions to cater to the needs of the Muslims. By doing so, not only the identity of the Muslims will be preserved, but they will be recognized and respected for their beliefs and practices. What a subtle means of Dawa!
And who doth greater wrong than he who is reminded of the revelations of his Lord, then turned from them? Lo! We shall requite the guilty.
(AI-Qur'an, 32:22)


Source: http://www.azhar.jp/info/halal-eng/halal6.html