The Meat of Ahl al-Kitab: Halal or Haram?

Forward The purpose of this article is to acquaint the reader with an understanding of the legal aspects of eating meat slaughtered in western countries by methods that are not in accordance with the Quran and sunnah. Why is such a treatise necessary? The truth is that many Muslims in this community do not have a clear idea of the Prophet's and past Muslims' behaviors on such a matter. Nor do most Muslims understand the Quranic verses relevant to the issue at hand. Such an unknowledgeable outlook has led many Muslims to become confused. My own confusion began during my first year of Islamic school. While on a school field-trip, the class stopped at McDonald's for lunch. I ordered a Fillet-o-fish and I expected everyone to do the same because the fish burger was the only seafood offered at McDonald's (seafood is halal under most conditions). You can imagine my surprise when most of my classmates began to buy Big Macs and cheeseburgers. This was a clear contradiction to my beliefs that eating any food not slaughtered with the name of Allah and according to Islamic practices was haram. I did not at that time understand the full intricacies of this fact; however, I was aware that the meat of the Christians and Jews was acceptable, but only if they fulfilled the requirements of slaughter that were also obligatory on all Muslimsnamely the reciting of Allah's name and the slaughtering in a specific way that the Prophet had instructed. I also was aware of the fact that Christians had long since abandoned such practices, but the Jews continued to adopt those methods. To this day, the Jews slaughter animals in a way almost exactly the same as Muslims and also recite the name of God on it. It was my understanding that Allah had only allowed the eating of the meat of Ahl al-Kitab because they had similar practices during slaughtering (due to having received Books from Allah ordering them to slaughter in a way similar to the method He ordered Muslims). As Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes in his well-known tafsir: "The slaughtered animals of Ahl-al-Kitab are lawful for Muslims because they believe that slaughtering for other than Allah is prohibited, and because they do not mention any name except the name of Allah over the animals they slaughtereven though they do espouse certain beliefs above which Allah is greatly exalted." To me, there was no difficulty; both the Quranic verse that prohibited the eating of meat that had not had the name of Allah said upon it and the verse that allowed the eating of food of the People of the Book were supplementary. There was no contradiction. (With this knowledge, it should be noted that the title of this treatise is somewhat erroneousthe meat and food of Ahl al-Kitab is halal without a doubt, but there are some cases that it is haram as well, just as a Muslims meat can be haram in certain casesi.e. if the Muslim willfully dismisses taking Allahs name). In time, I found out a radically different view from what I had been taughtthat the meat of Ahl al-Kitab was halal with no conditions attached. Thus, some people believed that neither the name of Allah had to be said upon the meat for it to be halal, nor did the meat have to be slaughtered according to Islamic practices. With this belief, all food sold in America was halal (except for pork products) because of the reasoning that it had been slaughtered by Christians, who were among Ahl al-Kitab. This of course brings up the question of whether the meat slaughtered in American restaurants is in fact slaughtered by Christians. Even if we accept that the food of Christians is acceptable without the name of Allah said upon it and without it being slaughtered by an Islamic means, there is no way of telling whether the meat was slaughtered by a member of the Ahl-al-Kitab at all. America is known as the "melting pot" for its cultural and religious diversity; hence, the people working at slaughterhouses can be atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. According to most estimates, only seventy to seventyfive percent of Americans are Christian or Jew. That means that when one eats from a public restaurant, there is a twenty to twenty five percent chance that one is eating food slaughtered by someone who is neither Muslim nor Ahl al-Kitab. And there is no scholar whatsoever who agrees that meat slaughtered by persons belonging to any other non-Muslim religion other than Ahl-al-Kitab is permissible. But there is no certainty that a Christian or Jew had indeed slaughtered the animal. And as the Prophet said, "Leave that which makes you doubt (in matters pertaining to religion) for which does not make you doubt."

Then the obvious question comes up about whether the so-called Christians in America are really Christians in belief. Whereas in the past, religion was something internal, something decided on by the people, it is now regarded as something that is genetic, passed down by one's parents. So one can now be "ten percent Jewish, twenty-five percent Catholic, thirty-percent Muslim, and forty-five percent Protestant." I have come across countless individuals who told me they were Christians, but upon discussing their internal beliefs, conceded that they did not really believe in God, and that they regarded themselves as Christians because they were "born" Christian from their parents. So the question arises, does a Kitabi (a member of Ahl al-Kitab) actually need to believe in his religious doctrines for his meat to be lawful for a Muslim? It is obvious that they do not have to have the same beliefs that Muslims do, as the corruption in their religion is mentioned in several places in the Quran, and despite that Allah permitted their meat. However, they do need to believe in their religion's own beliefs. One of the reasons that they are distinguished from other disbelievers in the Quran is that they accepted previous prophets and books. If they cease to believe in God or His prophets and books, they cease to be from Ahl al-Kitab no matter what they call themselves. This is proved by Ali ibn Abi Talib's ruling regarding the Christians of Banu Taghlab: Muhammad ibn Sirin reports from Ubayda who said, "I asked Ali about the slaughtered animals of the Christians from a certain group of Arabs .He replied, 'It is not lawful because they have not adhered to anything of their religion except the consumption of alcohol!'" (Jassas, Ahkam al-Quran 2:323) So the polls that suggest that around seventy-five percent of American "Christians" believe that their religion is not necessarily correct, and that all religions are a way to God and heaven, show that seventy-five percent of the seventy-five percent Christians in America are not even "Christian" in the true sense of the word. So eighty-eight percent of American meat is haram for Muslims; the chance of eating halal meat shrinks to twelve percent. But that is beside the point. To me, there were many inherent problems with the statement that the food of Ahl al-Kitab was acceptable without any requirements. For one, many of the people who claim that the food of Ahl al-Kitab is lawful to eat without any conditions do not call that meat halal. They only call meat slaughtered with the name of Allah and with Islamic methods halal. For example, while they say that a Big Mac is lawful for a Muslim to eat, they themselves accept that it is not intrinsically halal meat (otherwise wouldn't they call it halal meat? This is the whole reason halal meat stores have meaning. If meat from every meat store in America is halal, then why call only Muslim stores halal? After all, is not every store owned by a Christian or Jew halal? Hence, shouldn't Costco, Shoprite, Pathmark, and all other stores selling meat in America be coined as halal meat stores? The word halal in the context of Muslim halal meat stores should lose all meaning.) But like all falsehood, it makes no sense. When I asked for the explanation of such a contradiction, one of my friends who advocates eating all meat in America proclaimed, "All meat in America is halal. But the meat from Muslim stores is halal halal." As if saying the word twice adds more weight to the concept of halal. I cannot speak for the reader, but while I have been searching for an answer for years, I have not yet been given a satisfactory answer. Another contradiction I find is that the statement coming out of these people's mouths is that the food of Ahl al-Kitab is lawful, except for alcohol and pork. But where did that second criterion come from? The prohibition of alcohol and pork came from other verses in the Quran, not from the same verse that permitted the food of Ahl al-Kitab. However, when I try to convince these people that taking the name of Allah is a requirement for the food of Ahl-al Kitab to be lawful, they argue that such a criterion is not mentioned in the same verse. But they do so themselves with the issue of pork and liquor. Some more reasonable people try to rationalize their beliefsthey state that only foods that are inherently haram (i.e. pork and liquor) are haram when served by Ahl al-Kitab. However, this is faulty reasoning, as will be shown later. These challenges were fresh on my mind as I gradually learned the arguments of Ahl al-Kitabmeat-eating exponents. However, they failed to address the question in a thorough manner. The essence

of the issue was that if a Christian had indeed slaughtered the meat without saying the name of God and through any methodit being chopping off the head of a chicken or electrocuting a lamb, or even putting a bullet in the head of a cowwould it be halal in Islam? Thus, there are two issues that need to be addressed. What are the procedures of slaughtering an animal that make an animal lawful to eat, if there are anyand whether the name of Allah actually needs to be said on the animal when it is slaughtered. The second issue is where Ahl al-Kitab fall into the situation. I myself had no knowledge regarding such matters, so I realized that I needed more evidence to back my feelings. To do this, I studied all aspects of the disagreement. One of the first things I learned was that the vast majority of Muslim scholars took the standpoint of those who promote the viewpoint that only meat slaughtered according to Islamic practices and with Allah's name is halal. Although many can claim that since most of these Muslim scholars lived in Islamic countries and because they have not been in a related situation as American Muslims they could not have knowledge in such matters, this contention is incorrect. All Muslims have read the Quran and the verses relating to the permissibility of eating food slaughtered by the Ahl al-Kitab; and the commands of the Quran are eternal and universal. It was only recently that I learned that many people do not even know that a controversy exists in such a matter. In an i'tikaaf, when burgers from McDonald's were served, I fully expected that chicken and beef burgers would be served, but I still was not prepared for the sight of haram food in a masjid. I was, to put it lightly, appalled. Although, I had over the years made it a practice to remain silent because of the sensitive nature of this topic, I could not this time, and I asked some of the people on what they thought about the matter. I was surprised that most of them did not even know that there were Muslims on the face of the Earth who considered what they were eating haram. I realized then that I had not done my full duty as a Muslim to spread the truth. The Prophet claims in his famous saying that "whosoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heartand that is the weakest of iman." I can write an article about this topic myself; however, many people will not accept the veracity of such a report for many reasons, the foremost being that I am not a scholar. Although this is faulty reasoning, because knowledge can come from anywhere, and scholars can also make mistakes, there is no way I can rid people of this erroneous notion. Nor do I wish to, because that is the subject of other debates. However, the issue stands: which person would be best fit to answer the question of the lawfulness of the food of Ahl al-Kitab? The problem is that not many have written about this topic, and those who have, may not be accepted by advocates of the lawfulness of eating meat not slaughtered by Islamic standards. In the end, I decided that the best choice was Imam Syed Abul A'la Mawdudi. His writing is extremely eloquent and logical. The reader, I hope, will be left in no doubt as to the unlawfulness of eating meat from non-Muslim sources in America due to his rational thinking. Syed Mawdudi was first introduced to the problem by a Muslim living in London. The Muslim was perplexed by the issue brewing in the United Kingdom regarding the eating of meat from nonMuslim sources. Mawdudi, realizing the significance of such a concern, responded immediately with his fluent pen. It is this article that the reader will be presented. This brings an evident problem. Since Mawdudi's original article was written in Arabic, many Muslims will not be able to benefit from Mawdudi's effort. It is this problem that I will attempt to rectify by translating his article. There may be some who believe that larger and more essential issues are being ignored in favor of such insignificant concerns. I recently read an article in which the writer objected to the fact that Muslims had become involved in such "hairsplitting." The writer mentioned a Muslim woman he had met who was not wearing a headscarf, but refused to eat, in the writer's words, "what she considered to be haram food." He was trying to point out that such a petty matter as the issue of the lawfulness of food

should not overtake larger concerns such as the wearing of the headscarf. There are some problems with this point. First, Muslims are predisposed to make judgments about other peoplebecause the woman was not wearing a headscarf, she was considered by the writer as immoral. However, although wearing a headscarf is certainly a valid concern, just because it is so visible does not make it more significant than the issue of halal food. The writer was right that larger issues should be addressed first. This is a legitimate concern. By translating this article, I am not trivializing other matters significant to the Muslim ummah. Yet the consequence of eating halal has been understated often by Muslims. The Prophet said, "Allah the Almighty is good and accepts only what is good. Allah has commanded the Messengers, and the Almighty has said: 'O you Messengers! Eat of the good things and do right.' And Allah the Almighty has said: 'O you who believe! Eat of the good things which We have provided you.' Then he mentioned [the case of] a man who, having journeyed far, is disheveled and dusty and who spreads out his hands to the sky [saying]: O Lord! O Lord!while his food is unlawful, his drink is unlawful, his clothing is unlawful, and he is nourished unlawfully, so how can he be answered!" We always bemoan about the state of the Muslims throughout the world. We complain that Allah never answers our prayers. Maybe the problem is with us. With our food so corrupt, our very flesh having been made up of nourishment from haram food, perhaps our duas no longer have weight in the eyes of our Lord. Tabarani related from the Prophet, "Purify your food, and your prayers will be answered. By Allah, when a servant swallows a morsel of unlawful food, not one deed is accepted from him for forty days. And any servant whose flesh is nourished on the unlawful, the Fire has a better right to him." And in a very famous narration of Bukhari, the Prophet stated, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they say: There is no God but Allah. When they do so, and pray like our prayers, face our Qiblah and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacrosanct except by due legal right." The above ahadith clearly stress the weight of importance of the lawfulness of what goes inside our bodies. It is unarguable that the slaughtering of animals holds a significant position in the Shariah. Indeed, in Bukhari's hadith, the Prophet put the correct process of slaughtering animals and eating them on the same level as praying and facing the Qiblah. He even considered it the sign of a true Muslima point at which a non-Muslim becomes a Muslim and is protected by Allah. This contention is confirmed in another hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari which states exactly that"Whoever prays as we pray and faces the Ka'bah and eats our slaughtered animals, that is a Muslim for whom is the protection of Allah and His Messenger." Therefore, those who argue that the slaughtering and the procedure of slaughtering (note that the Prophet said that only "when [they] slaughter as we slaughter", emphasizing the procedure of slaughtering) is not significant religiously, they may continue to do what they want, but they should know that they are in direct contradiction to the Prophet's explicit commands. It was not just the Prophet who exercised and advocated caution with respect to the food that goes in one's body; the Companions were just as diligent in this matter. In one incident, a servant came to Abu Bakr with food and offered it to him. The servant went on to tell him that he had practiced astrology in the past and through trickery had obtained the food that Abu Bakr had just eaten. On hearing that, Abu Bakr put his finger in his mouth and induced himself to vomit the food until it had been purged from his stomach. A similar incident is reported of Umar when he was given milk from his servant that was meant for charity. Sa'd ibn Abi Waqaas was once asked why his prayers were all answered whereas even other Companions' were not. He answered, "I do not raise to my mouth a morsel of food except that I know where it came from and where it came out of." There are numerous other examples that indicate that the Companions paid great attention to what they ate, and that they considered it an issue of most importance. How can it be said that what one eats is not significant, and that we should pay more attention to other issues? Perhaps all our problems would be solved by Allah accepting our prayers if we simply were meticulous in what we ate. The Prophet made it clear that the second unlawful food goes into our system, our prayers would cease to be answered. And Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqaas's prayers were answered over the likes of other Companions just because he was careful in what he ate.

The Shafi'i scholar Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri emphasizes the importance of lawful food in his famous book on fiqh, Umdat al-Saalik: "Take care to eat lawful food, for the entire body of someone who eats what is lawful, his hearing, his eyesight, hands, and feet, are disposed to obey Allah whether he wishes to or not; while the whole body of someone who eats the unlawful is disposed to do wrong whether he wants or not." I translated this article not only to convince people that food that has not had the name of Allah said upon it before it is slaughtered and that has not been slaughtered with Islamic procedures is haram. There is a third group of people that simply avoid eating meat from American restaurants and stores because of its doubtful lawfulness. These people have heard that there is some dispute over the issue, so they adopt the Prophet's saying to stay away from doubtful things. However, as praiseworthy as these people are, they have not actually researched on the topic; otherwise the truth would be clear to them. Also, they have misunderstood the Prophet's saying of avoid what is doubtful. This command does not refer to the law itself, but to the application of the law. For example, it does not mean that if there are two opinions regarding a law, the more difficult opinion should be adopted as to stay away from doubt. This would make life unbearable for Muslims. However, it does mean that once the law is known, if some other issue of doubtfulness comes into question, they should stay away from it. For instance, if someone believes that the food of Ahl-al-Kitab is halal without any requirements, he should still not eat from American restaurants because the slaughterer of the animal is of an unknown religion. Similarly, in another example, the Prophet found a date in his path, but did not eat it for fear that it was charity, which he was not permitted to eat of. Again, the lawthat Prophets could not eat of charitywas known. But the practical application of the law was doubtful, so the Prophet avoided it in accordance with his hadith. Muhammad ibn Allan Bakri states that meats should always be approached with caution, which is an exception. He writes, "The question arises: Is refraining from something doubtful obligatory or recommended?to which our Imams explicitly reply that it is the latter, because a thing is initially assumed to be permissible and fundamentally not blameworthy, as long as some prior reason for considering it unlawful is not known about it that one doubts has been removed. However, when one doubts that one of the conditions for valid slaughtering has been met, conditions that make that meat lawful, the assumption is that it remains unlawful, since initially the animal was alive, a state it is unlawful to eat, while it only becomes lawful by a specific procedurenamely Islamic slaughtering. In this case, that meat does not become lawful except through certainty. The case of meats is exceptional in this since most other foods are initially permissible, and one assumes they remain so unless one is certain something has occurred which has made them unlawful." This is the reason that the above-mentioned argument contending that because only pork and liquor are inherently haram (whereas other meats are not), they are exceptions to the rule that the food of Ahl al-Kitab can be eaten without any conditions, is faulty. The proof against this is simple: meat is inherently haram as well, and only a specific process makes it halal; that process is not undertaken by stores in America. Some may respond that meat can become halal for a Muslim (through that specific process), but pork and alcohol can never become lawful, and that is the reason that they are lawful when served by Ahl al-Kitab. Once again, the reasoning is mistaken. All schools of thought are agreed that meat that has had the name of someone or something other than Allah said on it is haram, even if that meat not be pork. According to the erroneous rationale given by those people, because meat other than pork has the potential of being halal, it should be lawful to eat when given to a Muslim by Ahl al-Kitabeven when the name of a false deity is said upon it, for the simple reason that the meat could have been halal; but no one says this of meat that has the name of other than Allah taken on it. This exception makes that line of reasoning obviously flawed. I imagine when this article is released, the vast majority of people will not be interested. After all, if only meat slaughtered in a specific manner and with the name of Allah is lawful, a lot of complications will occur. First, many tasty foods will have to be avoided for one to stay in the right. Second, a lot of money will be lost buying the often overpriced halal meats. Thus, it is convenient to treat this subject

once again with disdain and disinterest. Others will not have the patience to read the article, but will harbor enough interest to want an opinion. However, they will want the easier decision, so they will submit this writing to their scholars and shuyukh to examine. After their scholars have assured them that they may go on eating whatever they will, they will console themselves that they are in the right. The reader may feel that I am being cynical and pessimistic at this point. However, I am simply a realist. It is clear that Muslims are not at the level they should be, and to assume otherwise is both silly and foolish. Indeed, my own friends refuse to even consider that any viewpoint other than theirs is correct. They are not normally so stubborn, but in this matter they have to, or they risk the loss of an entire lifestyle that hinges on the socialization at the restaurant every Saturday. One good example to show that I am not simply exaggerating things involved one of my friends who told me that he had refused to eat non-zabiha meat from then on. However, five minutes laterand I do not play with dice, nor do I believe in coincidencesanother friend approached with a Big Mac in his hands. My friend could not endure the sight and aroma of the burger, and abandoning his assertion only five minutes earlier bought a Big Mac of his own. While wolfing the burger down, he smiled apologetically at me, sheepishly saying, "I'm sorry, but I simply cannot resist." Although I wish I could change this kind of attitude, I cannot; and this essay is not an attempt to influence such people. However, there is a third group that I address this to. This group of people sincerely wants to know the truth. I would encourage these people to approach this article in the following manner: First of all, the reader should read the article, fully, not missing any portion. He may do so at the pace that he can. If he has much work, he should read only a few pages a day. If he has more time, he may read more every day. However, the individual should finish reading the entire article with care and deliberation, not rushing through the piece, understanding every nuance of every word. Then, he should make up his own mind about the issue without the influence of any other individual. This includes the influence of any scholar or any of the ulema. It is true that Muslims are encouraged to submit to the opinions of more knowledgeable people. But the following article is not my writing, nor of any uneducated individual. It is the writing of one of the greatest scholars of the twentieth century. I purposely chose Mawdudi so that no one can claim that they will not accept the decision of some small-time scholar whom no one is familiar with. After reading the article in its entirety, the reader may then approach his sheikh with any questions he harbors. However, he should not take that sheikh's opinion as absolute truth, no matter what opinion that scholar adopts. This is not just disliked in Islam, it is considered shirk. When the verse "They take from their rabbis and their monks for their Lords beside Allah," was revealed criticizing the Jews and Christians, Adi ibn Hatim, a Christian convert to Islam told the Prophet he did not know of Christians worshipping their religious authorities. In reply, the Prophet asked him, "Is it not so that you consider unlawful whatever your priests declare to be unlawful, and consider lawful what your priests declare to be lawful?" Adi confirmed that such was the practice of the Christians. Thereupon the Prophet told him that doing so amounted to "taking them as lords apart from Allah." This makes it clear that no one, not even the most knowledgeable of people is so educated that he is infallible and that to believe him or her so is tantamount to taking a deity next to Allah. After that, I am confident the sincere reader will be left in no doubt as to the truth. The key word here is sincere. The reader must begin reading with full objectivity, willing to accept any outcome. If he begins reading while leaning to some viewpoint, that outlook will bias his thinking, and he will at the end, continue having faith in that belief. I have no illusions regarding the difficulties of eating only zabiha meat. It is by no means an easy undertaking. However, this is not an iota of difficulty next to the pains many Muslims have gone through in the past. And if Muslims stay away from haram from fear of Allah, Allah will reward them many times over. In any case, the individual will not have to make as large a change in his life as he may think. He

may have to forfeit some foods, but there are many halal restaurants in America, and he may continue dining there. Also, many companies have begun selling halal foods for Muslims, and these are becoming very popular. As a last resort, the Muslim may also eat Kosher meat, which is found almost everywhere, as Kosher meat is slaughtered both with the name of Allah and through the same methods the Prophet advocated. I wish to bring up two more points, before concluding this foreword. I have met many people who are under the impression that while taking Allah's name over meats is necessary, His name can be taken at anytime before eating it. I also noted that the most of the people who touted such a claim would not actually mention Allah's name before eating haram meat. I realized, then, that such people did not actually believe in the obligatory nature of invoking the name of Allah, but that they were simply using that excuse to quiet me. However, the issue has reached a drastic junction, to the point that it is now common for even Muslims of the South Asian persuasion to be eating haram meat. Such people are not as suggestible as they seem. While they claim that they are convinced by the weak arguments that would allow taking Allah's name simply at the time of eating, their actions are simply the most convenient. I am sure the reader can see how taking such a viewpoint is so advantageous. If this argument were true, Muslims could merely take any meat, even meat slaughtered by individuals neither Christians nor Jews, and take Allah's name on meat before eating it, and according to such people, all the conditions decreed by Allah will have been fulfilled. However, this contention comes from excessive ignorance of the verses that command the taking of Allah's name. And while this article is not an effort to refute such people (the article is a rejoinder to claims by other scholars, not to laymen trying to do their own ijtihaad), it does contain in it the evidence to disprove such claims. When that evidence does come up, I will make a note of it. Last, I once mentioned to a Palestinian friend that I eat Kosher, but do not eat other meats. He was extremely angered with me that I would eat the food of Jews but not of Christians. This is a flawed ideology. Both the Christians and Jews are non-Muslims, and both are members of Ahl al-Kitab. That is all we should be concerned with. If the Quran says that their meat may be eaten as long as certain conditions are fulfilled, it is not up to us to bring our personal feelings and grievances into the equation. Besides, today's Muslims' hostility to Jews is only transitory. One thousand years ago, during the era of Zangi, Nur ud-Din, and Salah ud-Din, the Jews were close friends with the Muslims, while the Christian Crusaders were approached with much more antagonism than Jews will ever be today. I accept that there is some resentment that Muslims feel towards them due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; however, bear in mind that legally at least, the Jew is equal to the Christian. This is best demonstrated by the fact that Medinan Jews and Christians were both subject to the laws of Islam and subject to the Muslims' justice. In addition, it is a known fact that the Prophet ate meat from a Jewess's plate. If the Prophet acted in a certain way, we should have no problem. In the end, I can only hope that whoever believes with his heart what he reads will fear Allah, and, without bringing any personal grievance or discomfort into his reasoning, do what he knows is right.

Translator's Introduction Whenever an individual attempts to translate a writing, he or she will inadvertently encounter problems to which there is no remedy. Each language has its own defining characteristics; and therefore, to translate each word into its literal meaning would result in a mumbling and incoherent mess. The only alternative is taking the essence of the original text, and bringing that forth as the translation; yet this option spawns problems of its own. A word from one language does not necessarily have a comparable word in another language. Many times, a long convoluted phrase is needed to capture the gist of the original word, and in many instances, even this inarticulate expression does not convey the subtleties of the primary word. There is little that can be done about this. One way to remedy this dilemma to a small extent is to provide the original word to the reader. Although this is not prudent in most cases, it is useful in some. These cases involve words that are understood universally to all Muslims, such as halal, haram, etc. When these words will be used, they will be italicized to distinguish them from other words. However, to use only one word repeatedly to convey a message is tiresome both to the writer and reader. It also results in an inarticulacy that deters the reader. Thus, both the original word and its translation will be used in this translation to keep the writing varying and vibrant. This presents yet another problem. Although some words are understood by all Muslims, its translation may be provided in a way that the reader may not recognize it as such. To rectify this issue, some of the words that appear most commonly will be listed and translated so that when they do appear, the reader will have no difficulty in indentifying them. Some examples will be provided:

-The word halal may be translated as lawful, permissible, allowed, permitted, or acceptable. The general translation of the word is lawful. Other words that may be used are permitted, permissible, acceptable, and allowed. The word may refer to the action itself or a noun. In the first case, that action is permissible in the sight of Allah; in the latter situation, the noun, whatever it is allowed by Allah to be consumed, used, or whatever method that object is best utilized. An example of the latter situation in which a noun is described as halal is: "The meat of an animal slaughtered by a Muslim who recites the name of Allah and slaughters it in an Islamic fashion is halal." This means that such a meat is lawful for a Muslim to eat. Therefore, in the case of meats, when a meat is said to be halal, the meaning of such a statement is that that meat is halal to eat. -The word haram means unlawful, prohibited, and disallowed. It is the exact opposite of halal. Similar to the word halal, it can be in reference to an action: murdering a person is haram. But in this article it will almost always be used to mean that a particular meat is haram, which really means that that meat is unlawful to eat. Unlawful does not necessarily mean that it is illegal and that is punishable by a government (in most situations, only acts that harm society are punishable by a government); but it does mean that Allah will punish a person for knowingly committing an act that is unlawful. -Ahl al-Kitab may be written as People of the Book, People of the Scripture, or Jews and Christians. It is a respectful term for Jews and Christians. Kitabi is singular (i.e. one member of Ahl al-Kitab). -Zabiha will be translated as "slaughtered meat." I have included it here to make a point about this word. Literally it means "slaughter." Therefore, zabiha is not necessarily halal (for example, the zabiha of a polytheist is haram, which means that anything that they slaughter will be unacceptable for a Muslim to

eat). However, it is traditionally used to mean the meat which has been slaughtered with the name of Allah and in the manner laid out by the Quran and sunnah. In this article, when I use the word in its original Arabic transliteration, I will mean it in the sense that it has been slaughtered with tasmiyyah and tazkiyyah (defined below). When I use the phrase "slaughtered meat," it can obviously mean any type of meat. -The word tasmiyyah (Arabic )can be replaced with taking the name of Allah, reciting the name of Allah, mentioning the name of Allah, or saying the name of Allah on an animal at the time of slaughtering it. -Tazkiyyah (Arabic )is the method or procedure of slaughtering an animal. It involves cutting the animal in a certain way; the full details of this process will be described the article. -Fard means obligatory, compulsory, required, necessary, or essential, incumbent. If an action is fard, it would be sinful to avoid doing that action. Example: Praying five times a day is fard on every Muslim individual. -Wajib is the equivalent to fard. Some fuqaha' maintain that it means obligatory, just like fard, but to a lesser degree. For all practical purposes, however, it is enough for a person to know that if a person avoids doing an action that is classified as wajib, he is sinful. -Fiqh or Islamic Jurisprudence refers to the field that studies Islamic law and decrees. A scholar in the field of fiqh is referred to as a faqih (plural fuqaha'). -Mazhab (plural mazaahib) is a school in fiqh. There are four mazaahib extant today: the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools are named after their founders, Nu'man ibn Thabit Abu Hanifah, Malik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idris ash Shafi'i, and Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal. The word "founder" is probably not accurate in this context, because they were not innovators of a new tradition, but rather they used the Quran, sunnah, and hadith (defined below) to determine the correct rulings and decrees on specific matters. Although other schools were formed, they all died out, and these four are left. -A hadith is a saying of the Prophet Muhammad (plural ahadith). It can be referred to as a narration, saying of the Prophet, etc. It is also a field of study, of which a scholar in that field is called a muhaddith. The plural of hadith is ahadith. -The sunnah is the way of the prophet Muhammad. In a technical sense, it is the religious actions instituted by the Prophet. Legally, it also means that which is recommended, but not obligatory. So if something is sunnah, it is the way of the Prophet to do so, and very meritorious for the individual to do for he would be acting upon the Prophet's example; but if he refused, there would be no blame in his refusal of that action. -A fatwa is a religious decree by a scholar. It usually regards legal and juristic matters. Only extremely knowledgeable scholars can give a fatwa. -Tafsir is an exegesis or commentary on the Quran. It need not be correct because it consists of the understanding of the scholar who wrote the commentary; however, there are certain rules that a scholar must follow when writing tafsir, and he is not allowed to put any random in his tafsir without any proof

The Lawfulness and Unlawfulness of the Meat of Ahl al-Kitab

Introduction Muslims who travel to Europe or America for education or for various other reasons often stumble upon the glaring problem of non-zabiha meat, and it is often not without difficulty that they find food that satisfies all the requirements of halal food. Some Muslims are not concerned about the lawfulness of the food they eat and do not hesitate to eat every type of food available to them. Others become so annoyed with the constant problem of finding halal food that they resort to eating everything such as the former group even though they do believe in their hearts that what they are eating is haram. Only the difficult situation that they face drives them towards this permissive attitude. However, there is also a large portion of Muslims who wish to promote the eating of halal and wish to avoid eating haram at all costs. It is from these people that I receive most questions regarding the mandates of food and the questions of which types of food are halal and haram. Previously, I have written simple and brief answers to people personally, and have also addressed this issue in Tarjuman al-Quran.1 This issue has now taken a radically different turn. In many of the western countries, the youth of our nation (i.e. Pakistani youth) observe Muslim youth from other countries consuming anything and everything without any qualms. Often these two parties embark upon a bitter quarrel on who is right and who is wrong, and the latter approach their scholars to get fatwas that authenticate the legality of their actions. To quote one example, I recently received a letter from a Pakistani youth who had sent me copies of fatwas of scholars from Iraq. This letter convinced me of the fact that a fully researched treatise on the subject, which would prevent impressionable people from being affected and adopting an incorrect viewpoint, was long overdue. If it is possible, I also wish to rectify the thoughts of Muslims who have adopted the other viewpoint. Below I have reproduced the letter of the Pakistani who is currently studying in London:

There is a large controversy about the issue of meat between myself and some Middle Eastern students upon which we have had many arguments. I have put forth the arguments that you have given in your Rasa'il-O-Masa'il2 in every way possible, but they refuse to understand them. And now two especially enthusiastic Iraqi students have requested two fatwas from Iraq. They insist that these fatwas are conveyed to you, and that you either accept the arguments contained within them or disprove them if you can. Both of these fatwas have been attached to this letter. They are eagerly waiting for your response. One thing I am not knowledgeable of is whether there is a specific method of slaughtering animals which is clearly outlined in the Quran or hadith. Is it also permissible to have these animals slaughtered via machine as long as the name of Allah is mentioned upon them?

Translator's note. Tarjuman al-Quran is the name of a monthly magazine founded by the author that discusses contemporary issues and problems from an Islamic perspective. 2 Translator's note. Rasa'il-O-Masa'il is a series of books written by the author that answer modern day questions

The fact is that in western countries, there are a host of methods with which animals are slaughtered. However, I believe that until every procedure has been examined thoroughly, it is not appropriate to label anyone of them unacceptable. For the above reason, I do not base my arguments on the view that meat slaughtered with western methods is unequivocally haram; but my arguments are based on two verses from the Quran; namely the one in which Allah forbids eating meat with which his name has not been said upon, and the one which states that meat which has been blessed by a false deity (i.e. a deity other than Allah) is haram. The following are translations of the two fatwas from Iraq: Fatwa #1 The answer of your question about whether the meat of Ahl al-Kitab is lawful to eat is that when Allahwhose every decree is with wisdommade the food of Ahl alKitab halal, he did not mandate that "the zabiha of the Ahl al-Kitab has been made halal for you." Instead he ruled that "the food of Ahl al-Kitab has been made halal for you." This means that whatever food that priests and figures of authority among Jews and Christians consider lawful for their people to eat, except for pork, it is similarly lawful for a Muslim to eat. To this decree, there is no specification that the meat must have been slaughtered with the name of Allah or that it must have been slaughtered according to Islamic procedures. Surah al-Ma'idah states that the Prophet Muhammad completed his message before leaving this world; this is clear from the verse, "this day, I have perfected your religion, completed my favor upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion." An interesting thing to note about this issue is that this verse in which Allah declared the deen to be complete is only a few verses before the verse that permits the eating of the food of Ahl al-Kitab. The proximity of these two verses implies that just as Allah's deen and laws are complete, eternal, and unalterable, the lawfulness of the food of Ahl al-Kitab is also unalterable. Allah did not proclaim that the food of Ahl al-Kitab would only be in effect for a certain period of time. At the same time, Allah had full knowledge when he revealed the relevant verse that the Ahl al-Kitab would begin to slaughter animals in the future with the means that they do so today. It is also a known fact that a Jewish woman tried to serve a poisoned lamb to the Prophet Muhammad in an attempt to assassinate him; in no place within the narration that describes this incident is there a mention of the Prophet raising the question of whether the lamb meat had been slaughtered with Allah's name or which method it had been slaughtered with. To add further, it is also a saying of the Prophet that "whatever Allah has made halal in his Book, it is halal; and whatever he has made haram, it is haram. And whatever Allahwho is free of forgetfulnesshas in his mercy kept silent about, do not delve into it." Moreover, on a separate occasion, the Prophet also said, "Whatever I have not clarified for you, do not probe into it, because people before you would likewise ask for excessive details and debate with their prophets, and they were destroyed for this reason. So whenever I prohibit you from something, abstain from it; and if I enjoin something, execute the order to the best of your abilities."

Imam Ibn Al-Azza Al-Mu'affari proved that if a Christian beheads a chicken using a hatchet, that chicken is halal for consumption by a Muslim.3 And if a Jew or Christian prepares meat that is then packed in a can, it is likewise halal. It is important to note that if a Christian or Jew has received the message of the Prophet, even if he invokes Allah's name, it will not be accepted of him until he accepts Islam. For this reason, the expressing of the name of Allah over an animal by Christians or Jews is equivalent to their not mentioning it; though if an individual has not come into contact with the message of Islam, they are correct in following their religion. An animal slaughtered by a polytheist who is neither Jewish nor Christian can never be lawful for a Muslim, no matter how many times the name of Allah has been said over it. Conversely, an animal which has been slaughtered by a Muslim who has forgotten to pronounce Allah's name upon the animal is halal, and its meat is permissible to eat. This is because every believer's heart remembers Allah at all times. Sunan Abi Dawud contains a narration in which the Prophet Muhammad was asked about the lawfulness of meat that came from certain villagers. The companions were not certain whether the villagers had recited the name of Allah on the animal before slaying it. Prophet Muhammad is reported to have replied, "Mention the name of Allah on the meat yourself, and eat it." In a similar incident, the Prophet was asked about the lawfulness of some Roman cheese. The Prophet was informed that the cheese was made from the lining of piglets' stomachs. He replied, "I cannot make halal haram," and did not pay further attention to the issue. 4

Translator's Note. Most likely, this statement's "proof" comes from the famous Maliki jurist Qadi Ibn Al-Arabi's statement that "I was once asked the following question about a Christian who twists off the neck of a chicken and then cooks it: 'May a Muslim eat this meat with him or may it be taken from him as lawful food?' I responded: 'It may be eaten because it is his food and the food of his priests and monks. Even if this method is not a legitimate way of slaughtering in our view, Allah most High has categorically made their food lawful. Everything they view as lawful in their religion is lawful to our religion, except what Allah specifically deems prohibited.'" ( Ahkam al-Quran 2:554) However, just a page before, Ibn Al-Arabi contradicts himself by openly admitting that only the meat of Ahl al-Kitab that is slaughtered according to Islamic regulations is lawful for a Muslim to eat: "If it asked, what about what Ahl al-Kitab eat that has been slaughtered improperly, such as by strangulation or smashing of the head? Then the answer is that it is considered to be carrion (dead meatmaytah) and is therefore prohibited according to an explicit proof from the Quran. Even if they eat it, we may not. This is as with swine: it is lawful for them and one of their foods, but it prohibited for us. The same ruling applies here. And Allah knows best." (Ibn Al-Arabi, Ahkam alQuran 2:553) 4 Author's note. I cannot find any narration in Sunan Abi Dawud that conforms even remotely to the first of the above narrations. As for the second, there is one narration within Abu Dawud's Kitab ul-At'ama (The Book of Food) which might be the one which is being referred to. The problem is that this narration only states that during the expedition of Tabuk, some cheese was brought to the Prophet, and that he requested a knife be brought, with which he cut the cheese, took the name of Allah upon it, and ate it. There is no reference within the hadith itself of any doubt of its lawfulness, or that the cheese was made from piglets. However, Khattabi does give a comment on this narration: "This cheese used to be set with rennet (i.e. an animal that was young enough to be feeding on its mother's milk was killed and the lining of its stomach was used to make cheese). Abu Dawud included this narration within his book to illustrate that the Prophet considered the cheese lawful because there was no reason to doubt its lawfulness." There is also a hadith in Musnad Ahmad narrated by Abdullah Ibn Abbas in which the Prophet was brought a piece of cheese during a battle. He asked where it had been made from. He was told that it came from Iran and that there was a possibility that it had been made from a dead animal. The Prophet told his companions to recite the name of Allah upon the cheese and eat it. The chain of narrators is as follows: Jabir Ju'fi from Ikramah, Ikramah from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Abbas from the Prophet. However, Jabir Ju'fi is a known liar which is why this narration cannot be accepted as authentic. Amr Ibn Abi Amr also transmitted a narration from Ikramah that is similar to the one given above. But this narration has no reference to a possibility of the cheese being made from dead animals. So now the question is, where did the narration of the Prophet eating food containing pork rennet come from?

According to the Islamic jurists, a food of doubtful lawfulness cannot be declared haram.5 In addition to his, Allah's deen is meant to be easy, not difficult; and there is a rule in jurisprudence that prohibits the making of the deen so difficult that it drives people away. Fatwa #2 Allah says, "Made lawful to you this day are At-Tayyibat (all kinds of foods that Allah has made pure and halal). The food of the People of the Book is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them." This verse is the absolute proof that the food of Ahl al-Kitab, including both their zabiha and non-zabiha meat, is halal for Muslims. Allah has full knowledge whether the People of the Book say the name of Allah on their meat. For us, it is enough that He has made their food lawful for us, either if Allah's name has been invoked on it or not. Sheikh Zada writes in his tafsir for Surah Al-An'am: Allah says: "Eat not of that on which Allah's name has not been pronounced, for sure it is fisq (a sin and disobedience of Allah)." It seems from this verse that all food which has not had the name of Allah taken on it, either willfully or forgetfully, is haram. Dawud Zahiri holds this opinion. Imam Ahmad also concurs with this point of view. However, Imam Malik and Imam Shafi'i dispute this view. They hold that any meat slaughtered by a Muslim is halal, whether the meat had the name of Allah taken upon it or not. Their proof is from the saying of the Prophet: "the slaughter of a Muslim is halal even if he has not taken the name of Allah upon it." Imam Abu Hanifah differentiates between the Muslims who willfully refused to take the name of Allah upon the animal and the Muslims who simply forgot to say Allah's name. The scholars have made fisq the eating of any food which has been dedicated to any name other than that of Allah's. (As Allah says in the Quran, "[Do not eat] what is fisq, on which a name other than Allah's has been invoked.") The scholars' understanding is that the hu (the pronoun "it") in ( wa inna hu la fisqfor sure it is fisq) refers
5

Translator's Note. This statement is contrary to the truth. All jurists are agreed that meat is an exception to the "permissible by default" rule. Muhammad ibn Allan Bakri's statement explaining meat's exception to this rule was already included in the foreward. In addition, Imam Abul Hasan al-Quduri writes in his Mukhtasar: "As for prohibition, it requires a clear declaration in the textual evidences, since the default is that all is permissible except that which has been explicitly forbidden for the welfare of mankind and as a test of their faith: "Say, Bring forth your witnesses who testify that Allah has prohibited this. Then, if they testify, do not testify with them." ( Al-An'am) This having been said, I wish to draw attention to a commonly-held misconception, arising from a misapplication of the above-mentioned principle. Some people are under the illusion that they can eat any meat unless they know with certainty that it is haram. This is not correct, because although the default is permissibility in general, this flawed approach ignores the texts of prohibition. Simply stated, since it has been established by clear evidences that meat only becomes permissible upon completion of a very specific slaughter procedure, the default for meat is thus prohibition unless it can be established that the required procedure has been performed. In this light, the scholars have stated explicitly that the default in all things is permissibility, with the exception of meat and sexual intercourse. (Hukm al-Luhum al-Mustawradah) So, in the same way as a man cannot have intercourse with a woman he finds in a tent on a dark night on the pretext that there is a chance she is his wife, similarly one cannot eat meat indiscriminately on the mere basis that there is a chance it was slaughtered correctly." However, this does not apply when a Muslim slaughters the meat, as a Muslim should always consider well of another Muslim, and he should assume that the Muslim completed all the requirements of making the meat halal. The proof of this comes from the hadith of Aisha in which some Companions asked the Prophet that they were doubtful that the slaughtered meat of some converts to Islam had had all its conditions fulfilled, and the Prophet told them to eat it after saying "Bismillah." An in-depth discussion of the narration will come later.

to the ma (meaning "that") in ( mimma lam yuzkarism ullahithat on which Allah's name has not been pronounced).6 It is possible for this explanation to be correct. However, there is also a possibility that the pronoun hu refers to the actual act of eating (meaning hu refers to la ta'kulu) of the food. If this is correct, the verse's definition would be, "the eating of food which has had the name of a deity other than Allah's taken upon it is fisq."7 Following this, Sheikh Zada most eloquently writes: The command ( wa la ta'kulu) is inclusive of everything that is eaten and drunk (i.e. it may seem as if all foods and even drinks have to have the name of Allah said upon them to prevent them from being fisq). This may seem so because the command "do not eat" is general and not specific. Thus, it can be inferred that the command must be applied in the case of every single drink and every single food. This is the view adopted by Ata'; in his view, anything that has not had the name of Allah said upon it is haram, whether it be food or drink. However, the conventional fuqaha' have a consensus that the verse is meant only for animals which have not had Allah's name said upon them before they die; it does not encompass foods that are not animals such as vegetables, and it does not include drinks. These scholars have classified animals unlawful to eat into three categories that depend on the animals' mode of death: 1. The animal was not slaughtered at all; rather, it died through some other method. 2. It was slaughtered, but it had the name of a false divinity said upon it. 3. It was slaughtered, but no name was said upon it, neither Allah's nor anyone else's. In the first two cases, there is no debate that it is haram to eat from that animals meat. In the third case, there is some controversy as to its lawfulness, and there are three opinions regarding it: 1. That it is absolutely haram to eat of its meat just as the verse in the Quran says. 2. That it is completely halalthis is the position held by Imam ash-Shafi'i. In his belief, avoiding to take Allah's name while slaughtering is lawful in every instance. This may be either willful or through forgetfulness, and in either case, it is halal to eat the meat of such an animal, provided that an Ahl al-Kitab or a Muslim had slaughtered that animal. The venerable Imam Shafi'i proves that the first two categories are haram with the verse in Surah Al-An'am that commands, "Do not eat of (meats) that have not had the name of Allah pronounced on them"; but this command is general, and so Shafi'i uses other verses in the Quran to show that this meat which Allah forbids Muslims to eat is that which falls into the first two categoriesnamely the meat of animals that have died through natural means and animals that have been slaughtered by taking the name of someone other than Allah. As for the meat that falls into the third category, the proof that it is always halal is that every mu'min has Allah in the back of his heart at all timeshe can never be caught while having Allah's remembrance absent from his heart, and for this reason his slaughtered meat is always halal. The slaughtered meat's status as lawful changes into
6

Translator's Note. That is, what Allah declares to be fisq in the verse "indeed it is fisq" is any meat that has not had Allah's name taken on it, because the pronoun "it" refers to the phrase ( that which has not had Allah's name taken on it). 7 Translator's Note. This explanation is difficult to understand because it brings into play two different verses. What it states is that innahu la fisq refers to the actual eating of a certain type of meat, but not meat that just has not had Allah's name taken on it as the verse in Surah Al-An'am states, but meat which has had the name of someone other than Allah taken on it; this explanation comes from a different verse that says that such meat is fisq: ("what is fisq that on which any name other than Allah's is invoked."

unlawful when it has the name of an entity other than Allah taken on it, because Allah has mandated slaughter without tasmiyyah as fisq. The people are of one opinion that the animal that has been slaughtered by a Muslim, with the Muslim abandoning the taking of Allah's name, is considered halal and eating such a Muslims' meat is not included in fisq; and because of this, an individual can eat whatever he can and is not blameworthy for his actions, for he is merely following the ijtihad of scholars and cannot be held responsible for that. To sum it up ( that which has not had the name of Allah said) applies to and includes only the first two categories. This argument is supported by the continuation of the verse:

But the shayatin (evil devils) inspire their friends to contend with you. The friends of the shayatin contended with the Muslims on only two issues. The first was regarding dead animals on which they objected that Muslims would eat the meat of animals killed by hawks and trained hunting dogs but not that of animals killed by Allah himself. The second argument concerned deities other than Allahthat is the idols that they worshipped, whose names they took while slaughtering. They would say to the Muslims, "You have your God, and we have our gods as well. When you slaughter with the name of your God, we eat of that meat; so why is it that when we slaughter with the name of our gods, you do not eat of it?" Because the kuffar only specifically protested these two issues, the impermissibility of eating certain meats in ( wa la ta'kulu) regards only those two topics. In addition to this, at the end of the verse, Allah says:

And if you were to obey them, you would indeed be mushrikun (Pagans). According to this verse, it is clear that the obedience which is mentioned above does not consist of eating that which has not had the name of Allah said upon it; rather is applies to the claim that it is halal to eat an animal that has died naturally and had the name of idols said upon. 3. The third opinion regarding meat which has not had Allah's name mentioned on it is that if the slaughterer purposefully avoids taking Allah's name, then that slaughtered meat is haram; but if he has only forgotten, then that meat is halal.8 This is the opinion of Imam
8

Translator's Note. The great Hanafi scholar Allamah Jassas writes in his Ahkam al-Quran, "Forgetting to mention Allah's name does not invalidate one's slaughter because the verse, "Do not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has not been pronounced" refers to one who does so intentionally, not one who forgets. This is evidenced by the very next words of the verse: "for indeed it is fisq (transgression, sheer deviance)." Transgression is not characteristic of someone who forgets, as one who forgets is, at the time of forgetting, not held responsible for mentioning the name of Allah. Awza'i narrates from Ata ibn Abi Rabah, who narrates from Ubaid ibn Umayr, who narrates from Abdullah ibn Abbas, who relates, "The Messenger of Allah said: Allah has excused my Ummah from errors done by mistake, and sins committed because of forgetting, and wrongdoing that they have beein coerced to do." Thus, since one who forgets is not held responsible for mentioning the name of Allah, he will have carried out the slaughtering satisfactorily, and failure to mention Allah's name will not invalidate it. Furthermore, it is not permissible to require him to repeat the slaughtering, since it has irrevocably taken place. This is not like forgetting to recite the opening takbir of a prayer or forgetting to be in a state of purity when performing it, because what comes after these [prerequisite acts] is another mandatory act. But in the case of slaughtering an animal, the possibility of any subsequent mandatory act is precluded because the single act of slaughtering an animal, once done, is irreversible complete." (Jassas, Ahkam al-Quran 3:7-8)

Abu Hanifah. The reputable Imam says that although the verse in Surah Al-An'am is general and may seem as if it applies to all three situations, which should lead to the unlawfulness of all meats that have not had the name of Allah taken on it, it does not apply to the slaughtered meat of an individual who simply forgot to take Allah's name for two reasons: First, the pronoun inna in ( innahu la fisq) refers to (lam yuzkarism ullahi) because it is closer in proximity, and it is preferable to refer to the nearest antecedent (i.e. the word to which the pronoun refers to), so the interpretation of the verse is that a person who intentionally ignores taking Allah's name while slaughtering is a fasiq (for refusing to take Allah's name is from fisq as the verse elucidates). But the one who forgets to take His name is not blameworthy and is an exception to the rule. Therefore, the explanation of the verse is: Do not eat of (meats) that have intentionally not had the name of Allah pronounced on them, (and the one who forgets is exempt from the rule). The second proof that the Imam gives is an incident in which the Prophet was once asked about the ruling regarding meat upon which the slaughterer forgot to take Allah's name; the Prophet replied, "Eat of that meat. Allah's name is present in the heart of every mu'min." Christians and Jews are both included in ( utul kitaba) which is why according to the verse ( wa ta'am ul lazeena utul kitaba) the slaughtered meat of both parties is halal for us, even if they slaughtered by taking the name of something other than Allah's. Abdullah ibn Abbas's opinion is that if a Christian slaughters with the name of the Messiah Jesus, the meat from that slaughter will not be halal. But the opinion of the majority of scholars is that even an animal slaughtered with the name of the Messiah is halal.9 Once the Imams Sha'bi and Ata' were asked if the meat slaughtered by a Christian in the name of the Messiah is halal. Both answered, "The slaughter of Christians is halal for us; for when Allah made halal for us the slaughtered meat of a Christian, it was in his knowledge whose name the Christians will take."

Both of these fatwas by scholars of Iraq are nothing new to me. Even before this, Sheikh Hasanayn Muhammad Makhluf and before him Mufti Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida wrote fatwas that made lawful animals slaughtered by Ahl al-Kitab without tasmiyyah and tazkiyyah. All of these fatwas, from the above two to the ones I have read before, are very similar in nature and provide comparable proofs. Before we contend the proofs given by the above scholars, we should examine what the Quran and sunnah have to say about this matter.

Author's note. This statement is against the reality. Slaughtering an animal with the name of the Messiah Jesus falls into the confines of "that on which has been invoked the name of other than Allah." ( Surah Al-Ma'idah) How can a majority of the scholars be agreed on its lawfulness? From what has been mentioned in Al Fiqh ala al-Mazaahib alArba'a, the Hanafi opinion is that the meat on which Ahl al-Kitab invoke the name of the Messiah while slaughtering is not halal; the Maliki view is that if the meat of Ahl al-Kitab is to be halal, then the name of anything other than Allah cannot be take on it; the Shafi'is say that even if a Muslim evokes along with the name of Allah the name of Muhammad with the intention of committing shirk, then that meat is haram, the Hanbali position is that if a Christian takes the name of the Messiah while slaughtering, the meat of that animal is not halal. So when all four schools are agreed on such a meat's unlawfulness, which majority of scholars exists who make that meat halal?

The Commandments of the Quran and Sunnah Regarding Animal Food

The following are regulations in the Quran and the authentic ahadith concerning meat: The Foods that are Unlawful The first regulation stipulates that dead animals, blood, the meat of swine, and the meat of an animal which has had the name of a deity other than Allah invoked upon it are haram. This comes from the Makki surahs Al-An'am (verse 145) and An-Nahl (verse 115), and the Madani surahs Al-Baqarah (verse 173) and Al-Ma'idah (verse 4). Surah Al-Ma'idah, which was the last surah to be revealed, adds two stipulations to the other commandments: first, that not only is an animal that has died a natural death unlawful to eat, but an animal that has died from strangling, a violent blow, a headlong fall, by being gored to death, or by being eaten by a wild animal is similarly haram. Second, an animal that has been slaughtered at a mushrik (polytheistic) altar is also haram, even if it has not had a name other than Allah's evoked on it. This is so because its being slaughtered at the altar in itself is a form of invoking that false deity's name. The Prophet also added to these haram foods donkeys, beasts of prey, and birds that hunt with claws. This is proved by many authentic ahadith. The Condition of Tazkiyyah for Slaughtering an Animal The second regulation in the Quran is that only an animal that has had tazkiyyah done upon it is halal. Surah Al-Ma'idah instructs:

"Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, 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 eaten (partly) by a wild animal; unless you are able to slaughter it (in due form)."10 The last part ( illa ma zakkaytumunless you are able to slaughter it in due form) makes it clear that only an animal that has been slaughtered in proper form is not haram for consumption. Note that in all the other cases in which the animal was not slaughtered properly, the ruling by Allah was that it was haram. However, the Quran gives no definition for the word tazkiyyah. Neither does the language give any linguistic clue for the definition of this word. For this reason, to have a full understanding of the definition of tazkiyyah, we are obliged to refer back to the sunnah. The sunnah presents two different situations in which the animal must be slaughtered according to the dictates of tazkiyyah. The first case involves an animal that is not in control of the slaughterer. For instance, the animal may be wild, and it may be running or flying (such as a bird or deer). Or it may be in control of the slaughterer, but for some reason, he may not be able to slaughter it in the orthodox method. For such a situation, the tazkiyyah for this animal is that with a sharp point, it should be quickly pierced so that it

10

Translator's note. This is the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Thus, when Yusuf uses the words "in due form," he means that the animal must be slaughtered in a very specific manner that is laid out in the Quran and Sunnah. The word for this is tazkiyyah. The rest of this section details which processes are necessary.

loses blood and dies. The death must be a result of the injury incurred by the slaughterer. Adi ibn Hatim narrates,11

I said: "Apostle of Allah, tell me when one of us catches game and has no knife; may he slaughter with a flint and a splinter of stick?" He said: "Cause the blood to flow with whatever you like and mention Allah's name." (Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan An-Nisa'i)12 The second case involves an animal that is in control of the slaughterer, and it may be slaughtered with whatever method the slaughterer wishes. In such a situation, the tazkiyyah of this animal is that it should be slaughtered in a very specific manner. This manner has been illustrated within the sunnah: a camel and other similar animals (i.e. large animals) should have nahr13 done on them. Cows, goats, and other small animals should be slaughtered (with the traditional mode). Nahr means that the animal's throat should be pierced forcefully with a spear-like object so that its blood shoots forth and the animal dies from loss of blood. This was the common method of slaughtering camels in Arabia. The Quran even mentions this procedure in the verse of surah Al-Kauthar: ( Fa salli li rabbika wanhar Therefore to your Lord turn in prayer and sacrifice). The sunnah also confirms that the Prophet would sacrifice camels with this method. Thus, the method of nahr is proved both by the Quran and sunnah. I will spend some more time discussing the second part of the second case (i.e. the slaughtering of small animals) because that involves the crux of the debate. (Nahr is not argued about because camels are not a delicacy in western countries) As for the slaughtering of smaller animals, the following narrations specify how to slaughter them: Abu Huraira narrated that on the occasion of Hajj, the Prophet sent Budail ibn Waraqah Khuza'i on a brown camel to Mina to announce that the location of cutting an animal was between the throat and labbah14 and not to kill the animal too swiftly (Daraqutni).15 Another hadith of the Prophet orders the same thing (i.e. not to cut the spinal cord). It is narrated by Abdullah Ibn Umar that the Prophet forbade the cutting of an animal up to the spinal cord when slaughtering it (Tabarani). Another narration regarding this topic is found in Imam Muhammad's Muwatta' and is narrated by Sa'id ibn al-Mussayyab which stipulates the same practice as the above narration. Because of these narrations and the practice of the Prophet and his Companions, the Hanafis, Shafi'is, and the Hanbalis

11

Translator's Note. When I translate a hadith, I will not include the chain of narrators in my translation, although it will be included in the Arabic text for readers who may want to scrutinize the chain more closely. 12 Translator's note. The significance is simply that the death must be a result of the injury brought about by the slaughterer, and not through any other injury. 13 Translator's note. The word nahr means (loosely) sacrifice. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's explanation of its meaning is especially helpful: "Camels were the most precious animals in Arabia, and their mode of slaughter for sacrifice is different from that of smaller animals: the special word for such a sacrifice is nahr." 14 Author's note. This means that the animal should not be cut above the neck line, because if it were, the spinal cord would be severed. Instead, it should be cut below the neckline, where the trachea resides. 15 Translator's note. This is a good example of how important the procedure of slaughtering animals is. Obviously, the Messenger of Allah would not have gone through the trouble of sending a messenger to convey a message if that message were insignificant. The hadith also shows that decapitating animals is not acceptable because this would kill the animal instantaneously and not allow all of the blood to drain out of the animal. This is the reason why the Prophet instructed his companions to cut the animal between the throat and labbah.

maintain that the throat and the esophagus should be cut; according to the Malikis, it is not the esophagus, but the nerves of the neck that should be cut (Al-Fiqh Ala Al-Mazaahib Al-Arba'a). The reader may be confused at this point because of the sheer number of commandments and regulations given simply to slaughter an animal. To simplify it, I will state simply that although the commands of the Prophet may provide different stipulations from narration to narration, there is one similarity in all of themthat the animal should not die at once; rather the connection between the body and the mind of the animal should stay intact until the animal's last breath. The animal's thrashing about should pull all of the animal's blood out of the body and cause the animal's death. Thus, all of the Prophet's specifications lead to the criteria mentioned above.16 Because the Quran does not give any explanation as to what tazkiyyah is, and the Prophet has stipulated the commandments given above, we must accept his definition of illa ma zakkaytum (which was given through his orders and actions). Therefore, an animal which has not been slaughtered according to these specifications is not halal. There is one more possible occurrence that has been broached by the Quran which is when a trained hunting animal kills game for its master. In such a case, the Quran decrees that if the animal catches the prey for its master (i.e. it has not caught the prey for itself), even if the prey is killed in the process, that animal is muzakki (i.e. it has been killed according to the ruling of tazkiyyah). This is according to the verse in the Quran "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." (Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 5) The Prophet provides the necessary details of this verdict in the following narrations:

Adi ibn Hatim reported: I asked Allah's Messenger saying: "We are a people who hunt with these trained dogs; then what should we do?" Thereupon the Holy Prophet said: "When you set your trained dogs having recited the name of Allah, then eat what these hounds have caught for you, even if the game is killed, provided the hunting dog has not eaten any part of the game. If it has eaten the game, then don't eat it as I fear that it might have caught it for its own self." (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)

Narrated Adi ibn Hatim: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! We let loose our trained hounds after a game?" He said, "Eat what they hunt for you." I said, "Even if they killed the game?" He replied, "Even if they killed the game." (Sahih Bukhari)

16

Translator's Note. This is the reason the Prophet forbade cutting the spinal cordbecause this would sever the connection between the body and the brain. This is also the reason the four mazaahib require cutting at certain points along the animal's throatbecause without that, the animal would not lose its blood. With the understanding that the connection between the brain and body of the animal should not be broken, yet the blood of the animal should be drained out of the animal's body, all of the above ahadith become clear.

 []
Narrated Abu Tha'laba Al-Khushani: [The Messenger of Allah] said, "If you hunt something with your untrained hound and get it before it dies, slaughter it, and eat of it." (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim) These narrations prove that if a trained hound kills any animals for its master, all of the conditions of tazkiyyah have been fulfilled. Such a case (i.e. a trained hound kills an animal) does not fall in the category of ma akala as-subu'u (that which has been eaten by a wild animal), but falls into the confines of illa ma zakkaytum. However, an animal meets this criteria (meaning the animal is muzakki) only if the hunting animal used in the process is trained. If it is not trained, then the saying of the Prophet, "if you hunt something with your untrained hound and get it before it dies, slaughter it, and eat of it," comes into play. The wording of this narration implies that if the untrained hound kills an animal, it is not acceptable to eat. This draws from the fact that if the animal is not killed, the animal still needs to be slaughtered as any other animal, which is not the case with a trained dog. In such a case, then, if an untrained dog kills its prey, that prey is classified as dead. The Condition of Tasmiyyah for Slaughtering an Animal Thus far, two regulations regarding the consumption of animals have been discussedthe first being that a dead animal, blood, the meat of swine, and the meat of an animal which has had the name of a deity other than Allah is intrinsically haram (i.e. the first injunction can also be stated in the following waythat the food a Muslim may eat should not be certain foods and elements that are fundamentally haram), and the second being that it is slaughtered according to the dictates of tazkiyyah. The third regulation in the Quran is that during the process of killing the animal, the name of Allah should be taken over it. This decree has been mentioned in various places in the Quran in many ways:

So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has been pronounced, if you have faith in His signs. ( Al-An'am verse 118)

Do not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has not been pronounced: That would be fisq (impiety). (AlAn'am verse 121) There is also a verse that commands the taking of Allah's name with regards to hunting:

Eat what they (i.e. trained hunting animals) catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it. And fear Allah, for Allah is swift in taking account. (Al-Ma'idah, verse 4) We can see that in many places in the Quran, the slaughtering of the animal is not even mentioned; in its stead, it mentions the saying of the name of Allah on the animal that is to be eaten, as in the following verses:

That they may witness the benefits (provided) for them, and celebrate the name of Allah, through the Days appointed, over the cattle which He has provided for them (for sacrifice). (Al-Hajj, verse 28)

To every people did We appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals. (Al-Hajj, verse 34)

Then pronounce the name of Allah over them as they line up (for sacrifice). (Al-Hajj, verse 36)

So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has been pronounced. (Al-An'am, verse 118)

Do not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has not been pronounced. (Al-An'am, verse 121) The fact that whenever the Quran brings up the topic of slaughter, it also mentions the pronouncing of the name of Allah makes it clear that the process of slaughtering and tasmiyyah (taking the name of Allah on the animal before slaughtering it) are tantamount to each other in the eyes of the Quran. Indeed, because Allah does not even command the slaughtering of the animal in some verses, but instead commands the taking of His name clearly implies that Allah makes no difference between taking His name and slaughteringeach one is mutually dependent on the other; without one, the other action cannot be done in a manner that is pleasing to Allah. Therefore, it is unimaginable that zabiha can be done in a halal manner without the tasmiyyah.17 Now let us see the stance Islamic law takes in regards to taking the tasmiyyah when slaughtering an animal from ahadith that are both authentic and have strong chains of narrators:

Narrated Adi ibn Hatim: I asked Allah's Apostle, "We hunt with the help of these hounds." He said, "If you let loose your trained hounds after a game, and mention the name of Allah, then you can eat what the
17

Translator's note. When Allah mentions the eating of meats, he does not even deem it necessary to order the animal's slaughter many times, because it is understood that before one eats of an animal, that person must slaughter it. However, Allah makes it a point to always mention slaughtering (if he even mentions it at all) at the same time as commanding tasmiyyah. It is clear from this that while slaughtering, one must take Allah's name. In fact, the two are so synonymous that Allah replaces slaughtering with the mentioning of His name. This is analogous to the relationship between the intention and the action. Just as an action is useless without the correct intention, and the intention is meaningless without the action, tasmiyyah and the act of slaughtering go hand-in-hand. There is no significance of one without the other. It is important to note that because the verses do not mention the process of slaughtering, some individuals have deduced for themselves that while tasmiyyah is obligatory, it can be taken at any time, even just before the process of eating itself. This is an erroneous notion that has no basis from either the Quran or sunnah. No scholar in the past has ever stated such a thing, and it was always understood that when Allah commands the taking of His name, it was meant to be taken at the time of slaughter. This independent reasoning by unlearned individuals should make clear the dangers of laymen making decisions regarding Islamic Law that are in direct contrast to rulings of the great scholars of the past.

hounds catch for you, even if they killed the game. But you should not eat of it if the hound has eaten of it, for I fear that the hound has caught the game for itself." (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)

Adi ibn Hatim reported: Allah's Messenger said to me: "When you let off your dog, recite the name of Allah, and if it catches game for you and you find it alive, then slaughter it; if you find it killed and that your dog has eaten nothing out of that, even then you may eat it. And if you shoot your arrow, recite the name of Allah." (Sahih Muslim)

Narrated Abu Tha'laba Al-Khushani: I said, "O Allah's Prophet! We are living in a land where there is plenty of game and I hunt the game with my bow and with my trained hound. Then what is lawful for me to eat?" He said, "If you hunt an animal with your bow after mentioning Allah's Name, eat of it. And if you hunt something with your trained hound after mentioning Allah's Name, eat of it." (Sahih Bukhari)

Adi ibn Hatim narrates, I said: "Apostle of Allah, tell me when one of us catches game and has no knife; may he slaughter with a flint and a splinter of stick." He said: "Cause the blood to flow with whatever you like and mention Allah's name." (Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan An-Nisa'i)

Narrated Adi ibn Hatim: The Prophet said: "Eat whatever is caught for you by a dog or a hawk that you have trained and set off when you have mentioned Allah's name." (Sunan Abi Dawud, Musnad Ahmad)

[ ]

Narrated Rafi' ibn Khadij: The Messenger of Allah said: "If you slaughter an animal with anything that causes its blood to flow out, and if Allah's name is mentioned upon slaughtering it, eat of it." ( Sahih Bukhari)18

Narrated Adi bin Hatim: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I let loose my hound after a game and mention Allah's Name on sending it." The Prophet said, "If you let loose your hound after a game and you mention Allah's Name on sending it and the hound catches and kills the game and eats of it, then you should not eat of it, for it has killed it for itself." I said, "Sometimes when I send my hound after a game, I find another hound along with it and I do not know which of them has caught the game." He said, "You must not eat of it because you have not mentioned the Name of Allah except on sending your own hound, and you did not mention it on the other hound." (Sahih Bukhari) A similar hadith is mentioned in Sahih Muslim and the Musnad of Imam Ahmad:

Adi ibn Hatim reported that he asked the Messenger of Allah about hunting with the help of dogs, whereupon he said: "When you send your dog for hunting, recite the name of Allah, then eat the game, but if some part of it is eaten by the dog, then do not eat that, for it has caught the game for itself." I said: "If I find along with my dog another dog, and do not know which of the dogs has caught the game then
18

Translator's Note. The fact that Prophet Muhammad always commands tasmiyyah at the time of slaughtering is proof that Allah's name has to be mentioned during the slaughtering process itself. No scholar states, as some ignorant individuals believe today, that the name of Allah can be taken on the animal only prior to eating it (when there is certainty that Allah's name had not been taken at the actual time of slaughtering). Some people use the hadith in Bukhari where the Prophet allows some of his Companions to eat meat which maybe did not have tasmiyyah taken over it, and mention "Bismillah" at the time of eating to prove that taking tasmiyyah only prior to eating suffices. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani's commentary on this hadith may be helpful: "It is also possible that this hadith means that if the meat comes from someone whose slaughtered animal becomes lawful if he does in fact mention the name of Allah, then mentioning His name before eating makes the meat lawful if you do not know whether His name was mentioned at the time of slaughtering. We can gather from this understanding that all meat found in the Muslim markets is judged to be lawful, as is meat slaughtered by Muslim Bedouin Arabs, because for the most part, they know of the requirement of mentioning Allah's name. This is also Ibn Abd al-Barr's opinion." (Fath al-Bari 9:635-636) Ibn Hajar makes clear that only when there is some doubt of whether Allah's name had been mentioned. However, the case in which there is certainty that Allah's name is not mentioned (which is the case in American markets and stores) does not apply here. In such a case, the meat is categorically haram. Even the Shafi'is, who state that tasmiyyah is only sunnah, don't make such a meat lawful, because they understand that when Allah commanded to take His name (which they believe to be recommended, but not obligatory), it was meant to be taken during the slaughtering process. The controversy is not about whether the tasmiyyah can be done just before eatingno individual learned in Islamic Law would assert that. The controversy is whether tasmiyyah is wajib or whether it is sunnah.

what should I do?" Thereupon Allah's Messenger said: "Don't eat that, for you recited the name of Allah on your dog and not on the other one." (Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad)19 After reading these clear and definite commands from Allah and His Messenger, there is no room for doubt that in Islam, tasmiyyah is needed for a slaughtered animal to be halal; thus, an animal that is slaughtered without having the name of Allah taken upon it is haram. If such clear verses from the Quran and such unambiguous narrations do not satisfy some minds that tasmiyyah is a requirement for slaughtering an animal, then those contesting this fact should inform me of what other proof they require.

The Opinions of the Schools of Thought with Respect to Tasmiyyah

From the four schools of thought, the Hanafis, Malikis, and Hanbalis are in agreement that if a Muslim purposely and willingly avoids saying the name of Allah on an animal before slaughtering it, that animal is haram. However, if the person simply was forgetful, there is no problem. Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Sa'id ibn al-Mussayyab, Zuhri, Ata', Tawus, Mujahid, Hasan Basri, Abu Malik, Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Layla, Ja'far ibn Muhammad, and Rabi'a ibn Abi Abdur Rahman hold this position. A second group even states that in both of the cases that an individual willingly avoids saying the tasmiyyah and forgetfully does not say it, the meat of such an animal is haram. Abdullah ibn Umar, Nafi', Sha'bi, Muhammad Sireen, Abu Thawr, and Dawud Zahiri hold this view. However, Ibrahim Nakh'i believes that in the case of the tasmiyyah not being articulated because of forgetfulness, the meat from such an animal is makrooh rather than haram. Imam ash-Shafi'i holds that tasmiyyah is not even a requirement for an animal to be halal. According to Shafi'i, taking the name of Allah at the time of slaughter is simply the sunnah of the Prophet, but if the name of Allah is not taken (assuming that the name of a deity other than Allah has not been mentioned over it), either willfully or negligently, the animal is still halal.20 Amongst the
19

Translator's Note. Although the original article included only these ahadith, there are many more ahadith similar in nature to the ones in this article. And there is not one hadith in which the Prophet takes the word "slaughter" and does not mention the taking of Allah's name. If anyone doubts this fact, he can allay his skepticism by looking into any book of hadith himself. 20 Translator's Note. According to another opinion, however, even Imam Shafi'i holds the view of the first group. Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani writes in his book Ahkam Az-Zaba'ih, "Regarding Imam Shafi'i, the notion has become widespread that he views the mentioning of Allah's name not as obligatory but only sunnah (Qalyubi wa Umayra) which would imply that a slaughtered animal is lawful even if the slaughterer purposely does not mention Allah's name. However, a review of Imam Shafi'i's book Kitab al-Umm makes it clear that he did not deem lawful an animal over which the slaughterer intentionally abandons mentioning Allah's name. He merely deemed lawful that over which the slaughterer forgets to mention the name of Allah. His words are as follows: 'If a Muslim forgets to mention the name of Allah, his slaughtered animal may be eaten, but if he abandons it intentionally and scornfully with much disdain, his slaughtered animal may not be eaten.' Imam Shafi'i's own statements prove that his school does not uphold the unconditional lawfulness of a slaughtered animal over which Allah's name is intentionally not mentioned.The Shafi'i jurists have therefore said that failing to mention Allah's name is disliked, and in fact, sinful. (Rawdat al-Talibin 3:205, Rahmat al-Umma 118)" Some people may object that Shafi'i only prohibited meat which has not had the name of Allah disregarded with disdainand so if it is not done with "disdain and scorn," even if it does not have the name of Allah said upon it, the meat is still lawful. However, logically, this makes no sense. After all, reciting the name of Allah is not a burdensome action; if Muslim remembers to mention Allah's name, and still avoids saying it, it can only be if that Muslim really disrespects Allah's laws, for even if he is a lazy person, taking tasmiyyah requires no effort (this is in contrast to a task that one remembers, but avoids it simply because it would require effort on his part). In this respect, Mufti Taqi Usmani's view is correct. However, Usmani's view that Shafi'i agrees with the first group is not accepted by all scholars, and most Shafi'i scholars believe Imam

companions, other than Abu Huraira, and amongst the mujtahids, Imam Awza'i, no one holds this opinion. According to some narrations, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Ata' ibn Abi Rabah, Imam Ahmad, and Imam Malik also hold this opinion, but these narrations are incredibly weak and the overwhelming evidence is against these reports. The Weakness of the Shafi'i Maddhab's Position that Tasmiyyah is not Obligatory To establish their point of view, the Shafi'i scholars' first proof is from the verse from Surah AlAn'am, "Eat not of (meats) on which Allahs name has not been pronounced: That would be fisq (impiety)."

The Shafi'i scholars argue that the letter wawmeaning "and" in cannot be taken as a conjunction (ataf) because the first portion of the verse (wa la ta'kulu mimma lam yuzkarism ullahi alayh ) is jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah (an imperative sentencei.e. a sentence in which a command is issued) and the latter portion (innahu la fisq ) is a jumlah ismiyyah khabriyyah (nominal declarativeor simply put, a statement), and that it is incorrect to conjoin (i.e. join via conjunction) an insha'iyyah and an ismiyyah khabriyyah sentence according to the principles of elocution. With this reasoning, they consider the waw as a waw of hal (the conditional or subordinating conjunction which means "if"), and make the definition of the verse, "Do not eat of (meats), if it is fisq." The Shafi'is then define the word fisq with reference to verse 145 of Surah Al-An'am: "(Do not eat) what is fisq(meat) on which a name other than Allah's has been invoked."21

With such an explanation, they make the meaning of the verse such that only meat that has been slaughtered with a name other than Allah is haram; only the omission of taking Allah's name does not make it haram. However, this is an extremely weak explanation against which numerous strong objections can be made. For one, if one simply reads this verse, his mind does not naturally come to the conclusion that the verses meaning is what is expounded by these scholars. Only if he approaches the verse with the mindset that the tasmiyyah is not obligatory will he be able to come to that deduction. Secondly, if it is a violation of the Arabic elocutionary principles to join a jumlah ismiyyah khabriyyah and a jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah with a conjunction, then according to what rules of elocution is the use of the word inna in innahu( an emphatic word meaning "indeed") and a laam taakeed (the emphatic or intensifying laam in the word la fisq )allowed in a jumlah haliyah (conditional sentence)?22 If Allah had wanted to say what the Shafi'is are saying, then he would have used
Shafi'i's opinion to be that tasmiyyah is merely sunnah; therefore the author treats this as the authentic position of the Shafi'i school. Later, however, he will prove the weakness of this belief. 21 Translator's Note. The full sentence is "Say: I find not in the message revealed to me any (meat) forbidden to be eaten unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swinefor it is an abominationor what is fisq(meat) on which a name other than Allah's has been invoked." 22 Translator's Note. This rule is not something known only to people who have learned Arabic grammar. It is something that makes sense in almost every language. Words that emphasize are used only in declarative sentences, not in conditional sentences. For example, while it would make sense to say, "indeed Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" because it emphasizes the fact that Muhammad is Allah's messenger, it would not make sense to say, "an

the words wa huwa fisq( defined, "in the situation that it is fisq"), not wa innahu la fisq (defined as "in the situation that it is indeed fisq") Third, in their enthusiasm in to prove that tasmiyyah is merely sunnah, the Shafi'is, in stating that a jumlah ismiyyah khabriyyah and a jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah cannot be conjoined, could not even keep in mind the full verse. The full verse in question is:

Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name has not been pronounced: That would be fisq (impiety). The shayatin (evil devils) inspire their friends to contend with you, and if you were to obey them, you would indeed be mushrikun (Pagans). Even if we take for granted that the waw in the verse is a waw of hal, it does not change the fact that a later waw in the verse (in ) plays the part of an ataf (conjunction) conjoining a jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah and a jumlah ismiyyah khabriyyah; the sentence afterwards ( wa inna ashayatina layuhuna ila awliyaa'ihim; defined literally as "and the shayatin inspire their friends") is ismiyyah khabriyyah and cannot be made a haliyah (a conditional sentence) in any case, for such a sentence would make no sense; this becomes particularly problematic because the conjunction waw conjoins this ismiyyah khabriyyah to the jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah that precedes it ( ) . Moreover, this is not the only example of its kind in the Quran. At numerous places in the Quran, a jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah is joined via conjunction to a jumlah ismiyyah khabriyyah. The following are only two examples of such an occurrence:

And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe, and certainly a believing maid is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you.23 The following verse is another one such example:

Flog them by giving eighty stripes and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these are the fasiqun (transgressors).24

individual's prayer is invalidated if indeed he or she does not have wudu'; the reason that emphatic words are not used in conditional sentences is because the condition is valid without emphasis, so the emphasis is unnecessary and excessive. With the verse in question, if the Shafi'is were correct, the translation with the emphasizing words would be "Do not eat of (meats) if indeed it is fisq." Moreover, this English translation is unable to do justice to this translation because it has only one intensifying word (indeed), whereas the Arabic has two (the laam and word inna), so the error is even more egregious than the translation conveys. 23 Translator's Note. As is clear, the first portion of the verse is an imperative sentence ( jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah) in which Allah commands believers not to marry idolaters; this is conjoined with the conjunction wa to a jumlah ismiyyah khabriyyah (where Allah states that a believing woman is better than an idolatress woman). This is a clear violation of the Shafi'is elocutionary rules.

So the Shafi'is should either revise their idea of elocutionary principles or openly admit that the language of the Quran consistently violates their doctrine of elocution; it simply is not feasible to pronounce the waw in every sentence where the Quran joins a jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah with a jumlah ismiyyah khabriyyah as a waw of hal and not an ataf, for many such verses would not make any sense. Fourthly, if we accept the Shafi'is explanation of this verse, the full definition becomes, "Do not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has not been pronounced, if indeed it is fisqhaving had the name of someone other than Allah taken upon it." The question then becomes that if the original intent of this verse was to simply make only an animal that has been slaughtered with the name of other than Allah haram, then does not the first portion of the verse become completely useless, meaningless, and redundant? In such a situation, there is absolutely no reason to include the part of the verse that says "on which Allah's name has not been pronounced." Instead, the purpose of the verse can be fulfilled with just stating, "Do not eat of (meats) that have had the name of someone other than Allah taken on them." Can any intelligent person give a reasonable answer as to why there was any need to put at the end of the verse? Last, even if we accept the waw as haliyah, then there is no basis to accept the contention that the . What prevents us from explanation of should come from the far-off verse taking the designation of fisq in this verse as the one that would be normally found in the Arabic lexiconthat is disobedience and rebellion. In that case, the meaning of the verse "Do not eat of (meats) on which Allah's name has not been pronounced, if it is fisq" would be: "Do not eat of the meat in the case that one has intentionally avoided taking Allah's name on it," because fisq can only be applied to actions that are done with the intent to transgress and with the purpose to disobey, but it is not applied in the case of an accident. This interpretation is preferable to that of the Shafi'is for two reasons: it is consistent with all the verses and ahadith that have been revealed relevant to this issue, and because it saves the part of the verse from becoming completely useless and excessive. The second proof that the Shafi'i scholars provide is a narration by Aisha:

A group of people said to the Prophet, "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 it." Those people had embraced Islam recently. (Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan AnNisa'i, Sunan Ibn Majah) The Shafi'is deduce from this narration that tasmiyyah is not obligatory because if it were, the Prophet would have forbidden his Companions from eating it because of the doubtfulness that the name of Allah had been said upon it.25 However, this hadith in actuality disproves their own argument; it makes
24

Translator's Note. Again, a jumlah fi'liyyah insha'iyyah is conjoined with the letter waw. The first part of this verse is a command, (flog them and do not accept them as witnesses) conjoined to the second part a jumlah ismiyyah khabriyyah (they are transgressors). 25 Translator's Note. Imam Abul Hasan al-Quduri writes in his famous Mukhtasar, "Imam ash-Shafi'i reasoned that if those people had [not mentioned the name of Allah while slaughtering], then mentioning the name of Allah at the time of eating would not make the meat halal. And, if mentioning the name of Allah at the time of slaughter had been essential, then mentioning it at the time of eating would not suffice. Hence, the Shafi'is conclude that mention

it clear that during the time of the Prophet, the Companions recognized the need to take the tasmiyyah on animals before slaughtering themthis is the reason that they came to the Prophet in the first place with this problem. If it were understood that the tasmiyyah was not necessary, why would this question even arise?why would the Companions make an effort in asking a pointless question? Even the Prophet's answer leads to the conclusion that tasmiyyah is compulsory. If not taking the name of Allah and taking the name of Allah were equal to each other and had no effect in making meat lawful, then the Prophet would have said this clearly in his answer, putting right his Companions' incorrect notion that tasmiyyah was a condition for making the meat halal. He would simply have said: "You can eat all types of meats, whether it has had the name of Allah said upon it or whether it has not had the name of Allah said upon it." Instead, the Prophet said, "mention Allah's name on it and eat it." The real meaning of the Prophets directive is that one should always consider a Muslim's meat as having been slaughtered in a correct way, and he should feel at ease when eating the Muslim's meat. But if he has some doubts as to the lawfulness of that meat, then he should allay his doubtwhich is from the whisperings of Shaitanby saying "Bismillah" before eating it. It is evident that a Muslim cannot always determine the nature of another Muslim's meat, and neither does the Shariah require that he do so. It is impossible to establish solidly whether that meat has had the name of Allah said upon it, whether it has been slaughtered in a fashion complying with Islamic standards, or whether the slaughterer of the meat knows every single of the Islamic laws regarding animal slaughter. If one sets himself on this task, he will drive himself crazy. A Muslim should always consider another Muslim's actions correct and without intentional malice. This holds true in all instances except when there is clear proof that the Muslim is not deserving of such unconditional acceptance. If some doubt arises without any substantial evidence, instead of acting on that doubt, the person should say "Bismillah" or "Astaghfirullah" and extinguish that misgiving. That is the message that this hadith offers. There is no evidence that stands up to the light that can prove that this narration indicates that tasmiyyah is not obligatory.26

of the name of Allah at the time of slaughter is recommended, but not required." Thus, the whole point of view of the Shafi'is is based on the fact that merely saying Allah's name just before eating meat (assuming it had not been said before at the time of slaughtering) is not sufficient to make that meat halal. This is important: the position of all the schools is that saying the name of Allah at the time of eating will not make that meat permissible had Allah's name not have already been said during slaughtering. This is a notion that many people mistakenly believe that there is ikhtilaaf (controversy) on this position. In truth, there is no controversy over this issue. If a Shafi'i scholar ever tells an individual to recite the name of Allah at the time of eating, he is encouraging a virtuous act he is not advocating it to make the meat halal, because according to the Shafi'is, the meat is already halal as it does not need the name of Allah taken upon it anyway, not at the time of slaughter nor at the time of eating it. 26 Translator's note. Imam Abul Hasan Al Quduri provides his own proofs and explanations in his famous book on fiqh, Mukhtasar al-Quduri, that this hadith has other implications than that presented by the Shafi'is. He writes: 1. The people in the hadith were Muslims, and with a Muslim one generally assumes that he is doing things correctly. (I'la al-Sunan) For example, we will pray behind an imam, assuming he has wudu', even if we did not actually see him perform wudu', since we assume the best of him and have no grounds for suspicion. (Hafiz Ibn Hajar al Asqalani concurs with this view. He adds: This is what is understood by the context of the hadith since the answer of the Prophet to the question was, Say Bismillah and eat. It is as though they were told, that is not your concern, rather what should concern you is to consume it (wholesomely in the sunnah manner) by saying Bismillah before partaking thereof. Hafiz Ibn Hajar adds, Similarly, the slaughter of the Bedouin Muslims will be permissible (for consumption) since they usually know of the tasmiyyah (at the time of slaughter). Ibn Abd al-Barr has concluded, In this hadith, it is understood that the slaughter of a Muslim should be consumed and he should be regarded as having taken tasmiyyah upon its slaughter (even when one is not certain about this fact) because with regards to a Muslim, one should entertain nothing but good thoughts unless concrete evidence is established to the

The Shafi'i scholars maintain their contention based on another hadith as well, this one a mursal27 hadith narrated by a Tabi'i and collected in Abu Dawud's Kitab Al-Maraasil:28 The Prophet said, "The slaughter of a Muslim is halal, whether he has taken the name of Allah on it or not; because if he had taken someone's name, he would have taken Allah's." There are several problems with the inference these scholars make. Firstly, this hadith is narrated by a Tabi'i 29who is not well-known, and it is also mursal. It is impossible that such a weak narration can negate the obligation of tasmiyyah when numerous verses from the Quran and many marfu'30 and mutassil31 ahadith uphold that it is indeed wajib. Secondly, even if we assume that the hadith is authentic and flawless, does it prove that the tasmiyyah is not wajib? At the most, this narration substantiates only that if a Muslim slaughters an animal without taking the name of Allah, it should be assumed not that he willfully avoided taking Allah's name, but that he simply forgot to do so32; and that if he had remembered to take someone's name, he would have taken Allah's name, never someone other than Allah. For this reason, his slaughter should be coined halal, and should be eaten. Isn't it too much to infer that the slaughtered meat of a person who does not even believe that the name of Allah needs to be said upon an animal before its slaughtering and

contrary. (Fath al-Bari 9:793) Ibn Hajar goes on to show the variant readings of the hadith of Aisha in different compilations in which the Prophet actually explicitly explained the reason for saying Bismillah is actually because one should expect the best out of fellow Muslims: (1) The narration of Ibn Uyayna has the addition, accept their oaths and eat; that clearly means that one should take their word for it that they have taken tasmiyyah upon slaughter (and partake without doubts). (2) The narration of Abu Said: Imam Tabarani has recorded a narration of Abu Said though with a difference in wording in which he says, accept their word that they have effected slaughter. Explaining this hadith, Allamah ibn Tin comments: Concerning tasmiyyah upon slaughter carried out by others of which they are unaware, there is no obligation upon them to verify its lawfulness. The slaughter will only be held incorrect when such evidence is established. Ibn Hajar adds, Allah has not made i t obligatory upon any Muslim to be aware of tasmiyyah upon the slaughter of another Muslim, since the slaughter of another Muslim will be always regarded as correct unless evidence is established to the contrary. ( Fath al-Bari 9:794) 2. It could be postulatedas has been done by some scholarsthat the hadith is an evidence that mentioning the name of Allah is waived from someone who is unaware of the obligation (due to being new to Islam), just as it is waived from the forgetful one. (Al-Banayah Sharh Al-Hidayah) 3. Imam Malik has a different interpretation. He states, after narrating this hadith in his Muwatta', "That was in the beginning of Islam." I.e. he considered that the concession was later cancelled. 27 Translator's Note. A mursal narration is one in which the isnad, or chain of narrators, is incomplete, and does not trace back directly to the Prophet. So, for example, if a Follower narrated directly from the Prophet, and the Companion in between was not known, the scholars of hadith would not be able to verify whether that narrator was trustworthy or not. Thus, mursal ahadith are generally considered weak. 28 Translator's Note. This hadith is not from the Sunan Abi Dawud. Abu Dawud collected several narrations, and put them in different books. His most famous work, his Sunan, contains mostly authentic narrations. However, the Kitab Al-Maraasil does not contain authentic hadith; rather, it contains mursal narrations. 29 Translator's Note. The tabi'i in particular is Salt al-Sudusi, who according to Ibn Hazm and al-Qattan, is unknown (majhul). No narrator ever narrated from him except for Thawr ibn Yazid. 30 Translator's Note. A marfu' narration is one in which the narration can be traced directly back to the Prophet. This is in contrast to a mawquf hadith, in which it can only be traced back to the sahaba of the Prophet, not to the Prophet himself. Marfu' implies a level of authenticity for that narration. 31 Translator's Note. A mutassil hadith is one in which there are no gaps or omissions in the chain of narrators. This is the opposite of a mursal narration. 32 Translator's Note. The wording of this hadith implies that the Muslim forgot to take Allah's name, not that he remembered and still, with contempt, refused to take His name. For if he remembered, he would have definitely taken Allah's name, as is indicated by the hadith. The hadith does not mention the case of Ahl al-Kitab

is hostile to the whole concept of tasmiyyah is permissible to eat? No matter how much one manipulates and stretches the meaning of the words of this hadith, there is no latitude for such an understanding.33 This is the extent of the proofs that the Shafi'i scholars can provide to show that tasmiyyah is not wajib. If an individual is resolute to take the verdict of his scholar, taking great pains and even vowing to only follow him, I can understand how he accepts the view that tasmiyyah is not obligatory as irrefutable. But if someone takes an analytical and critical viewpoint, he can only accept that the proofs and evidences in opposition to tasmiyyah's status as wajib are light and weak.34 To summarize, the conditions that make lawful the meat of animals established by the Quran and authentic ahadith are as follows: 1. That it not be the meat of animals that Allah and His Messenger have declared inherently haram. 2. That it be slaughtered in a very specific manner laid out by Allah and His Messenger (the condition of tazkiyyah). 3. That it have Allah's name said upon them at the time of slaughtering (the condition of tasmiyyah). The meats that have not had these three conditions fulfilled are excluded from the tayyibat (the pure things mentioned in Surah Al-Ma'idah verse 5: Al-yawm uhilla lakumu at-tayyibat; This day all things good and pure have been made lawful unto you), and they are included in the khabaa'ith (evil and forbidden things), the use of which is not halal for a person with iman.

33

Translator's Note. Another hadith used by some people to prove that tasmiyyah need not be wajib is narrated by Daraqutni and Bayhaqi from Ibn Abbas: For a Muslim, that he is a Muslim is sufficient, so if he forgets to mention the name of Allah when slaughtering, he should mention the name of Allah afterwards. He should mention the name of Allah and eat. (Nasb ar-Raya 2:261) However, note that this hadith explicitly states that only in the case of one forgetting to take Allah's name is it alright to eat of that meat, thus corroborating the notion that the hadith found in Maraasil Abi Dawud applies only to the case in which the Muslim forgets. Nevertheless, despite such a clear-cut message, some still use the hadith to imply that tasmiyyah is not wajib. All that can be said to such people is that the same counter-arguments apply to this narration, and even then, some muhaddithin have found it to be defective (ma'lul) due to the presence of Ma'qil ibn Abdillah and Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Sinan in the chain of narrators. To be sure, Ma'qil was authentic according to Imam Muslim and Muhammad was considered trustworthy ( thiqa) by Ibn Hibban, and even Hafiz Ibn Hajar considers the hadith without defect; it does not matter either way. The hadith cannot be used as proof against numerous other stronger, unanimously declared sahih ahadith, which prove that tasmiyyah is necessary. 34 Translator's Note. After examining all the evidences, even some Shafi'i scholars concede that the position of the majority (i.e. that tasmiyyah is obligatory) is compelling. The prominent Shafi'i Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali is one of these scholars. Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani writes in his famous commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari, Fath al-Bari: "Imam Al-Ghazali upholds this view in his Ihya Ulum al-Din. He argues that the outward import of the Quranic verse (Eat not of meats on which Allahs name has not been pronounced: That would be fisq) and of the related ahadith is that the name of Allah must, under all circumstances, be mentioned when slaughtering. Furthermore, he argues, the ahadith evidencing the permissibility of not mentioning His name can be interpreted either as generally applying in all cases or as a specific reference to one who forgets (i.e. either contention cannot be absolutely proven). It is more fitting, to take the latter interpretation so that the collective body of proofs for this issue yield a consistent conclusion that is in line with the outward import of all the relevant sources namely that one who forgets to mention Allah's name is excused, but the one who intentionally does so is not." (Fath al-Bari 9:624) Imam Ghazali advised even Shafi'i followers to follow that view. ( Mukhtasar al-Quduri) And according to Mufti Taqi Usmani, Hafiz Ibn Hajar's most likely view was also in accordance to the majority position: "It seems that Hafiz Ibn Hajar's was also inclined toward favoring the opinion held by the general body of the scholars, since he mentions Ghazali's statement at the end of the chapter and declares weak ( da'if) the hadith that he himself presents as possible evidence for permitting an animal over which Allah's name is not mentioned." ( Ahkam Az-Zaba'ih) The famous Shafii muhaddith Ad-Daraqutni also inclines to that view (Sunan Ad-Daraqutni).

The Issue of the Meat of Ahl al-Kitab

Now we may turn our attention to what the Quran and sunnah say about the slaughtered meat of Ahl al-Kitab. The Quran decrees:

This day (all) things that are tayyibat (good and pure) have been made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 5) The words from this verse clearly specify that what has been made lawful for Muslims from the food of Ahl al-Kitab is only that which is included in the tayyibat (things good and pure). The explanation of this verse is not and can never be that that which the Quran and sahih ahadith have declared khabaa'ith (something evil and forbidden), that which we cannot consume ourselves in our homes or any Muslims for that matter, and that which we are not permitted to feed any other Muslim becomes lawful when placed on a Christian's or Jew's table. If one opts to depart from such a straightforward and logical reasoning, then at most, he will be able to put forward one of four possible allegations: 1. That this verse has abrogated the other verses from the Quran that regulate the lawfulness and unlawfulness of meatsuch verses which are found in Surah An-Nahl, Surah Al-An'am, Surah Al-Baqarah, and even the verses in Surah Al-Ma'idah itself. In other words, a verse has appeared in the Quran and has made absolutely lawful not only an animal that is decapitated, but also dead meat, pork, blood, and meat that has had the name of a false deity said upon it. But no solid proof that comes from either rational thinking or from any tradition (either the Prophet's, a Companion's, or even of any of their Followers) can be provided on any grounds. The most obvious evidence in opposition to this hollow claim is that the three conditions that are necessary for the lawfulness of meat which we have listed above are themselves mentioned in the verses contiguous 35to this verse (i.e. the verse that permits the food of Ahl al-Kitab). Which sane person can maintain that in a single writing that consists of three continuous and adjacent parts, the last part can abrogate the first two? 2. That this verse has only abrogated the regulations of tazkiyyah and tasmiyyah; that the regulation stipulating that pork, dead meat, blood, and meat that has had the name of a deity other than Allah are unlawful has not been abrogated by this verse. However, no one can provide any evidence to allow the keeping of one commandment in this verse while abrogating the other commandments; there is simply no proof for such a distinction. If someone does have evidence for this contention, then let him bring it forth. 3. That this verse distinguishes between the food of Muslims and the food of Ahl al-Kitab. This argument stipulates that for a Muslim, the regulations that have been mentioned at various junctions in the Quran remain in effect (unlike the first claim). However, these regulations will be invalidated when involving Ahl al-Kitab, and we will be given freedom to eat whatever they place before us. In favor of this argument, the biggest proof that can be provided is only that Allah knew well all that Ahl al-Kitab eat, and knowing this, He allowed the eating of the food of Ahl alKitab. As a result, it may be deduced that Allah made halal whatever the Ahl al-Kitab eatif it is pork, a dead animal, an animal that has had the name of a false deity said upon it, or a beheaded animal. However, the basis of this proof is disproven by the verse itself. The verse clearly states that only the tayyibat may be eaten by a Muslim; furthermore, the word tayyibat has not been left
35

Translator's Note. Verse 3 of Surah Al-Ma'idah contains restriction 1 (the foods that are inherently unlawful); and Verse 4 contains the requirement of tasmiyyah (wazkur usm allahi alayhbut pronounce the name ( mimma allamakum ullahin the manner directed to you by Allah). of Allah over it) and tazkiyyah

undefined. Before this verse, within the two prior verses, it has been detailed what tayyibat consists of. 4. That all the food of Ahl al-Kitab (and only Ahl al-Kitab and not Muslims, unlike the second contention) may be eaten save for porkeverything else has no restrictions placed upon it. A variation of this claim is that all of the food of Ahl al-Kitab may be eaten except pork, but in addition to pork, a dead animal, blood, and that on which a name other than Allah's has been invoked are all prohibited. Tazkiyyah and tasmiyyah, however, are no longer necessary, and any meat which has not been slaughtered in a fashion in accordance to tazkiyyah and has not had tasmiyyah done upon it are fully lawful. However, similar to the second possibility, this is also an unproven claim. No logical line of reasoning can be produced to give support to this contention. On what grounds is such discrimination of the regulations of the Quran provided forwhy is one regulation of the Quran upheld (i.e. the regulations prohibiting pork, blood, etc.) while the other one is discarded (i.e. the regulations prohibiting eating meats which have not had the name of Allah said upon them and the regulation that commands tazkiyyah) when Ahl al-Kitab come into play? If such discrimination is extracted from the Quran, a hadith, or some sort of reasoning, the relevant information should be brought forth. The Positions of the Schools of Thought with Regard to the Meat of Ahl al-Kitab The Hanafis and the Hanbalis hold that the same regulations that are incumbent on a Muslim under normal conditions are still intact with regard to Ahl al-Kitab (Al Fiqh ala al-Mazaahib al-Arba'a). According to these schools, Muslims are neither allowed to eat meat without tazkiyyah and tasmiyyah either if it were slaughtered by one of their own or if it were slaughtered by a Christian or Jew. The Shafi'is maintain that if a Christian or Jew slaughters by taking the name of a false deity, that slaughter is unacceptable for consumption by a Muslim. However, if they slaughter without taking any name (not Allah's nor anyone else's), then that meat is halal for a Muslim36 for the reason that, in their opinion, tasmiyyah is not even wajib, neither for a Muslim, nor for Ahl al-Kitab (Al Fiqh ala al-Mazaahib al-Arba'a). We have already shown the weakness of this notion, and so we will not discuss the proofs contrary to this position again. Although the Malikis recognize the need for tasmiyyah to make a meat permissible, they assert that this condition upholds only for a Muslim; in the case of Ahl al-Kitab, they maintain that it is not wajib (Al Fiqh ala al-Mazaahib al-Arba'a)37. The only argument in favor of this contention is that during

36

Translator's Note. As has been mentioned before, according to some scholars and reports, the position of even Imam Shafi'i was that tasmiyyah is necessary. Imam Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali writes, "Intentionally mentioning the name of Allah is required, whether he is a Muslim or Kitabi (a member of Ahl al-Kitab). If a Kitabi intentionally does not mention Allah's name, or if he mentions a name of someone or something other than Allah, his slaughtered animal is not lawful. This is the view reported of Ali; and Nakh'i, Shafi'i, Hammad, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ashab ar-Ra'y) hold this view. (Al-Mughni 11:56) 37 Translator's Note. The great Maliki scholar Qadi Ibn Al-Arabi's statement legalizing all the meats of Ahl al-Kitab, and then his blatant contradiction a few paragraphs before was shown above; for the convenience of the reader, it is reproduced here again: "I was once asked the following question about a Christian who twists off the neck of a chicken and then cooks it: 'May a Muslim eat this meat with him or may it be taken from him as lawful food?' I responded: 'It may be eaten because it is his food and the food of his priests and monks. Even if this method is not a legitimate way of slaughtering in our view, Allah most High has categorically made their food lawful. Everything they view as lawful in their religion is lawful to our religion, except what Allah specifically deems prohibited.'" (Ahkam al-Quran 2:554) And then his contradiction: "If it asked, what about what Ahl al-Kitab eat that has been slaughtered improperly, such as by strangulation or smashing of the head? Then the answer is that it is considered to be carrion (dead meatmaytah) and is therefore prohibited according to an explicit proof from the Quran. Even if

the expedition of Tabuk, the Prophet was sent meat from a Jewess, and he ate that meat without inquiring whether the name of Allah had been taken on it. However, this incident can only be used as proof that tasmiyyah is not wajib when concerning Ahl al-Kitab if it can be proven that at the time of the Prophet, the Jews in Arabia would slaughter without taking Allah's name, and even then, the Prophet, with full knowledge of the Jews' lack of taking Allah's name, ate their meat. Alone, such an incident cannot nullify the necessity of taking tasmiyyah for Ahl al-Kitab. Indeed, it is possible that the Prophet of Allah was actually aware of the fact that Jews took tasmiyyah, which would explain his eating their meat without hesitation and without inquiring if they had taken tasmiyyah.38

they eat it, we may not. This is as with swine: it is lawful for them and one of their foods, but it prohibited for us. The same ruling applies here. And Allah knows best." (Ibn Al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Quran 2:553) In addition to this inconsistency, note that Ibn Al-Arabi said that only what "they view as lawful in their religion is lawful to our religion." The only reason that he mentions the priests and monks is that he assumes that what they eat is considered lawful in their own religion, it is deemed their religion deems to be lawful; as the Qadi said, "Everything they view as lawful in their religion is lawful to our religion." Ibn Al-Arabi probably did not know that according to their own religious texts that their own priests did not follow, Christians were not allowed to eat the strangled animals that he made halal on the assumption that they did eat it: In the Book of Acts, it is stated, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 15:28-29) In the same book, the same restriction is decreed: "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." (Acts 21:25) Mufti Taqi Usmani elaborates more on this point: "Since it is undisputed among the scholars of the Ummah that all non-Muslims are in reality of one group, it seems to follow that the slaughtered animals of Ahl al-Kitab should be prohibited just like that of the rest of the nonMuslims. But Islamic law distinguishes Ahl al-Kitab from the rest of the non-Muslims in matters of animal slaughter and marriage, as their laws pertaining to both are similar to those of Islam. They used to conform with many of the same requirements that Islam obligated on the Muslims. These rules are present, even till this day, despite the many corruptions they presently contain." Taqi Usmani then proceeds to mention the many verses of the Bible that regulate slaughtering and conform to Islamic laws. Some of them follow: "The blood of your sacrifices must be poured beside the altar of the Lord your God, but you may eat the meat. Be careful to obey all these regulations I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 12:27-28) And St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians: "No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of the demons." (I Corinthians 10:20-21) The Jewish scriptures stipulate similar regulations: "If he slaughtered with a hand-sickle or with a flint or with a reed, what he slaughters is valid. All may slaughter and at any time and with any implement excepting a reaping-sickle or saw or teeth or the finger nails, since these choke." (Mishnah 513-514) So what has been proved is that according to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, both strangled animals, and animals that have been offered to a deity other than Allah (as is only too clear from St. Paul's letter to the Corinthianshe only allowed the eating of meat that had been "offered to the Lord God" in the word of the Quran, mentioning the name of Allah) are both considered unlawful. Thus, Ibn Kathir's understanding in his tafsir of the reasoning for the permissibility of eating the meat of Ahl al-Kitab is correct: "The slaughtered animals of Ahl-al-Kitab are lawful for Muslims because they believe that slaughtering for other than Allah is prohibited, and because they do not mention any name except the name of Allah over the animals they slaughter even though they do espouse certain beliefs above which Allah is greatly exalted." 38 Translator's Note. The proof the author gives against the Malikis' view is specifically targeted against their "evidence" in which the Prophet ate the meat of the Jewess without inquiring into its lawfulness; however, there are many general proofs against their perspective as well. Taqi Usmani presents some of these proofs in his book Ahkam Az-Zaba'ih: 1. Allah categorically prohibits [in Al-Ma'idah] "what has been strangled" and "what has been beaten to death" () .Thus, if anyone tries to infer from the generality of the verse that an animal strangled or beaten to death by a Kitabi is lawful, then he also must conclude that swine slaughtered by a Kitabi is lawful, as it is also part of "the food of Ahl al-Kitab." But if the verse is used to prove that swine is prohibited, then the very same verse likewise prohibits an animal stragnled or beaten to death. There is no way to separate the two.

It was Abdullah ibn Abbas's opinion that the verse in Surah Al-Ma'idah (The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you ) abrogates the verse in Surah AlAn'am (Eat not of [meats] on which Allah's name has not been pronounced ), and the Ahl al-Kitab are therefore excluded from the regulation of tasmiyyah (Sunan Abi Dawud):

2. A well established principle of jurisprudence and linguistics ( lugha) is that whenever a ruling is verbally given for a derived noun, the root of derivation of that noun is a cause for that ruling. For example, if we say "Honor the knowledgeable ones" the order is to give honor to the "knowledgeable one" ( ulema), which is the derived noun. The root of derivation, "knowledge" (ilm) is therefore the cause for being honored (i.e. they are being honored because of their ilm, the root word, not because of who they are). This is obvious. By the same token, since the ruling of prohibition in the verse in Al-Mai'dah is given for "what has been strangled" and "what has been beaten to death," then strangulation and beating are causes for this ruling. This shows that whenever an animal is strangled or beaten to death, the ruling of prohibition holds and the religion of the strangler or beater (i.e. who the person is) is irrelevant. An animal is prohibited if strangled or beaten to death whether the doer of the action is a Muslim or Kitabi. 3. The established import of the verse " and lawful for you is the pure and the food of those who have been given the Book" is that Ahl al-Kitab are like the Muslims in their laws of animal slaughter. If, however, we were to accept Ibn al-Arabi's first statementthat whatever a Kitabi slaughters is lawful, regardless how he kills the animalthen we would implicitly be admitting that Ahl al-Kitab are superior to Muslims. In effect, we would be saying that if a Kitabi slaughters an animal using an Islamically unlawful method (such as strangling and beating), his animal is lawful and pure, but if a Muslim slaughters using the same method, his animal is prohibited. This is inconceivable and intuitively absurd. 4. If we were to say that an animal strangled or beaten to death at the hands of a Christian is lawful, this naturally leads to a very absurd conclusion, in view of the Christian texts (those mentioned above in footnote 37). If a Muslim strangles or beats an animal to death, the animal is prohibited in Islam; if a Christian does it, the animal is prohibited in Christianity, but we then say that this Christian's animal is lawful for Muslims, even though it is prohibited for Christians. By this logic, an animal strangled at the hands of a Muslim is prohibited for Muslims, but an animal strangled by a non-Muslim is somehow lawful for Muslims. So it is as though the strangler's status as a non-Muslim is actually a special quality that justifies his actions. This nonsensical conclusion naturally results if we say that which a Kitabi kills is lawful for Muslims, even if he does so in an Islamically unlawful way. Anything that leads to such a baseless conclusion is itself baseless. 5. There are two things that distinguish Jews and Christians from the rest of the non-Muslims in their relationship with Muslims; lawfulness of eating their slaughtered animals and lawfulness of marrying their women. There is no dispute that marrying a woman from Ahl al-Kitab is only lawful if all the mandatory conditions of marriage dictated by Islamic law are fully observed. If a Muslim man marries a woman from Ahl al-Kitab in a manner contrary to that of the Muslimssuch as marrying one of the unmarriageable kin ( mahram), or marrying without any witnesses, or marrying without the audible offer and acceptance that Islam requiresno one would maintain that marriage is lawful. Therefore, the lawfulness of marrying women from Ahl al-Kitab that the marriage contract and ceremony be carried out in the manner prescribed by Islamic Law. If they are not, then it is incorrect to infer from the verse, "And [also permitted to you in marriage are] chaste women from among those who have been given the Book before you" that such a marriage is lawful. Similarly, how can we say that their slaughtered animals are lawful if they do not slaughter them in an Islamically accepted manner? If they slaughter an animal in a way not presecribed in Islamic Law such as strangulation or beating, then how can one infer from the verse "and the food of Ahl al-Kitab is lawful for you" that it is lawful seeing as both this ruling and the ruling for marrying their women are presented in the Quran together in the exact same context?

However, this is Ibn Abbas's personal interpretation; there is no marfu' hadith that can corroborate his view. And it should also be noted that this is a singular opinionthere is no other Companion whose opinion concurs with that of Ibn Abbas's. In addition, Ibn Abbas did not provide any justification as to why he thought that the latter verse was abrogated by the former; nor did he explain why the verse in AlMa'idah only abrogated this single verse, and why it did not abrogate the other rulings regarding the permissibility of other foods.39 Among the other mujtahids, it was the opinion of Ata', Awza'i, Makhul, and Layth ibn Sa'd40 that the verse in Al-Ma'idah (that allows the eating of the food of the People of the Book) not only abrogates the verse from Al-An'am that prohibits the eating of meats that have not had Allah's name taken upon them, but also that it abrogates the verse prior to it that prohibits the eating of meat that has had the name of a deity other than Allah said upon it ( ;) Ata', for example, says that if the Ahl al-Kitab take the name of a false deity on meat, that meat is halal for a Muslim; indeed, Awza'i holds the opinion that even if a Muslim hears with his own ears a Christian releasing a hunting dog with the name of the Messiah Jesus, even then the Muslim may eat of the caught meat. Makhul holds that when Ahl al-Kitab sacrifice meat for religious purposes, for their places of worship and holy occasions, then too is there no harm in a Muslim eating it. (Jassas, Ahkam Al-Quran) As stated before, the biggest proof for such a severe statement is that Allah knew full well that Ahl al-Kitab sacrifice with names other than Him, and despite that knowledge, He permitted the eating of their meat. From this, one can present only one possibility, which is that for some reason, Allah could not foresee that Ahl al-Kitab would also eat pork and drink liquor, and hence the ruling is that pork and liquor are exempt from the abrogation of all previous verses. Otherwise, what possible reason can be given to make pork and liquor so exceptional that they alone are excused from abrogation, while every other command regarding food is disposed of? From among these opinions and schools of thought, the strongest and most authentic view, in my opinion, is that of the Hanafis and Hanbalis. If one wants to adhere to the rulings of any other schools, then he may do so with full responsibility. It should be burdensome for an individual to make something haram halal, and something wajib not wajib based simply on such weak reasoning and proofs. For this reason, I cannot advise any God-fearing man to begin eating meat slaughtered by Ahl al-Kitab in America or Europe with only the support of these schools of thoughts. Having said that, it is necessary to expound on two more things: First, when small animals such as chickens or pigeons are being slaughtered, it sometimes comes to be that through an act of negligence, the head of the animal is separated from the body. One group of fuqaha' held that if such an incident comes to pass, there would be no harm in eating such meat. Some contemporary scholars have deducted from those past fuqaha's rulings that if the only method of slaughter in a certain locality is a machine beheading an animal with a single strike, even then the condition of tazkiyyah is satisfied. However, it is not acceptable to take the rulings of scholars and replace established rulings from the Quran and sunnah with their verdicts. The many conditions and requirements of
39

Translator's Note. According to juristic principles, before being accepted, the ijtihad of a Companion must be properly weighed with Quranic injunctions and then the Prophetic narrations. Then it will also be compared to the statements of other companions. In this case, both verses (from Surah Al-Ma'idah and Surah Al-An'am) can be upheld without any need to have one abrogate the other; and without need, abrogation is not preferred. Given the dearth of any statements from Companions corroborating Ibn Abbas's view, most scholars have disregarded this hadith. Ibn Jarir at-Tabari mentions in his voluminous tafsir: "The scholars have differed regarding this verse (referring to the verse in the hadith that is claimed to be abrogated); was its ruling abrogated or not? Some scholars said, 'No part of the verse has been abrogated, and it is conclusive in what it means and intends.' This is the opinion of the majority of the people of knowledge." The great Muhaddith Sheikh Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri writes in his commentary of Sunan Abi Dawud entitled Bazl al-Majhud: "The correct opinion according to us with respect to this issue is that this verse is conclusive, and nothing of it has been abrogated." ( Bazl 9:573) 40 Translator's Note. According to Ibn Qudama, Ata, Mujahid, and Makhul espouse this view. ( Al Mughni)

tazkiyyah have already been mentioned above. If some fuqaha' gave a ruling to make it easy for people in situations that arose wholly without intention, should contemporary scholars be so quick to make their declaration law, in effect making the Shariah's law null and void? The second matter is that the fuqaha' have stated (correctly) that when eating the meat of a Muslim or that of Ahl al-Kitab, there is no need to excessively probe into whether Allah's name has been taken or not; though if it is known that a slaughtered meat has not had the name of Allah taken on it, then such meat should be avoided. On this basis, it has been proposed that even in the United States and Europe, there should be no need to scrutinize and explore the meat found there. According to them, a Muslim should eat the meat of Ahl al-Kitab with the same confidence that he or she would eat the meat of a Muslim butcher in a Muslim country. But this can only be correct in the case of a Muslim inhabiting a region where it is known that the Ahl al-Kitab take the name of Allah at the time of slaughtering according to their religious principles (usul) and creed (aqeedah). As far as we are concerned with a people who do not even know or believe of the boundaries of lawful and unlawful, and who are not even aware or concerned about the taking of Allah's name and its contribution and effect on the lawfulness of a food41, what rational reason can there be for taking confidence in eating the meat of such people?

41

Translator's Note. One of the main proofs put forth to prove that tasmiyyah is not wajib is that a Muslim does not really need to mention Allah's name, as the remembrance of Allah is always on the heart of that Muslim (in another narration, it is mouth instead of heart). However, how does that apply to a people who do not even know of, and even if they know, they are not concerned with, the remembrance of Allah and the taking of His name?