Is meat of animals
slaughtered by People of the Books lawful or unlawful?
Syed Abul A’ala
Maudoodi
(Extracts from Tarjuman-ul-Qur’an, Lahore, April 1959)
The Qur’an explicitly forbids use of carrion, blood, pork, and the animal slaughtered in the name of other than Allah as food at the following four different places:
Al-Baqarah 2: 173, Al-Maidah 5: 3, Al-An’aam 6: 146, and An-Nahl 16: 115.
The verse 3 of chapter 5 says:
حُِّرمَت
عليكم الميتة
والدم ولحم
الخنزيرومآ
أُحِلَّ لغير
الله به
والمنخنقة
والموقوذة والمتردية
والنطيحة و مآ
اكل السبع إلا
ما ذكيتم
(Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead
meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which has been invoked the name of
other than Allah, that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent
blow, or by headlong fall, or by gored to death; that which has been eaten
(partly) by a wild animal; unless you are able to slaughter it (in due
form-tazkiyyah).
The verse clearly explains
that all methods of killing animal would make it unclean except the one that
dies because of your slaughter. The word tazkiyyah has not been
explained in the Qur’an. Nor does knowledge of language help much in
determining its meaning. We have therefore no other recourse except to look
into Sunnah in this regard.
We find
from Sunnah that there are two forms of slaughtering: 1. in a situation where
we do not have full control on animal, such as a flying bird, we will be deemed
to have slaughtered it if we inflict a wound on it with a sharp instrument that
causes it to die through bleeding. The Prophet (S) has said, “Spill blood by
whatever instrument you choose.” 2. In a situation where we have complete
control of the animal, regular process of slaughter is necessary. According to
Sunnah, a camel is to be slaughtered by piercing its neck by a pointed sharp
instrument so that the blood gushes out and the animal falls dead on the
ground. In case of a cow or goat or other animal, the following ahadith
clearly explain the process: (a) “Animal should be slaughtered at some point
from just below the glottis to the root of the neck, and that the animal should
not be made to die hastily” (Abu Hurairah, Dar Qutni); (b) The Prophet
forbade the cutting of the spinal cord of the animal when it is slaughtered (Ibn
Abbas, Tabarani).
In view
of these ahadith and practices of the Prophet and his companions, the Hanafi,
Shafa’ee, and Hanbali schools of thought agree that in
slaughtering an animal, its throat and oesophagus must be cut. In all such
slaughtering, the animal does not die at once. The link between its mind and
body is retained till the last moment. As it tosses and turns, blood oozes out
from all parts of its body and the animal dies of it. These ahadith and
explanation in their light thus clearly explain the meaning of “illa ma
zakkaitum.” Any other method of killing animal, in disregard of the process
as explained above, will thus render its meat unclean.
The
Qur’an mentions yet another method of killing an animal. It is killing with a
trained hunting beast with the condition that it does not eat from the game.
This killing will be accepted as properly slaughtered. Allah says in verse 4 of
chapter 5:
وَما
علَّمتم
مِّنَ
الجوارحِ
مُكَلِّبينَ تُعَلِّمُونَهُنَّ
مما علِّمكم
الله فكلوا
مما امسكن
عليكم
وَاذكروا اسم
اللهِ عليهِ
(And what
you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed
to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah
over it).
This is explained by the Prophet as “… and that which you hunt with your
dog and, finding it alive, slaughter, you may eat it” (Bukhari, Muslim).
Also, “…and if it catches anything for you and you come up to it while it is
still alive cut its throat; if you come up to it when the dog has killed it but
not eaten any of it eat it (Bukhari and Muslim). In another hadith, the
Prophet has said, “… but if it has eaten any of it do not eat, for it has
caught it only for itself” (Bukhari, Muslim). It is therefore clear that
when a hunting beast kills an animal for its master, the Qur’anic condition of
slaughter is satisfied. The Prophet counts out that beast which is kept as a
pet but not trained to hunt as well. Thus an animal which is dead through any
means, other than slaughtering as explained above, is to be treated as dead
meat.
Another
condition of slaughter is to pronounce Allah’s name at the time of killing an
animal as we have already seen in the verse (5: 4) above. This condition has
been stated at different places in the Qur’an in different forms as well. For
example in verse 118, chapter 6:
فكلوا
مما ذكراسم
الله عليه إِن
كنتم بئَاياته
مؤمنين
(So eat of (meats) on which Allah’s name has been pronounced,
if you have faith in his Signs)
At another place verse (6: 122) he emphatically
forbids to eat that on which Allah’s name has not been taken:
و
لا تاكلوا مما
لم يذكراسم
الله عليه و
إنه لفسق
(Eat not
of (meats) on which Allah’s name has not been pronounced: That would be
impiety).
Also, we see that the Qur’an at
several places does not even use the word slaughter at all, and uses
pronouncing Allah’s name instead of slaughter. For example in verse 34, chapter
22:
لكل
امة جعلنا
منسكًا ليذكروا
اسم الله على
ما رزقهم من
بهيمة
الانعام
(To
every people did we appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they may celebrate the
name of Allah over the sustenance he gave them from animals (fit for food)).
This repeated use of pronouncing Allah’s name in place
of slaughter categorically proves that the two terms are synonymously used in
the Qur’an. (For repeated use, please see verses (6: 119), (22: 28), (22: 36) as well). Ahadith also
confirm this point. Adi bin Hatim states that the Prophet had said, “…when
you shoot an arrow mention Allah’s name” (Bukhari and Muslim). In
another hadith, the Prophet has said, “When you sent off a trained dog or hawk,
pronouncing Allah’s name as you set it off, you may eat of what it catches for
you” (Abu Dawood, Ahmad). Adi bin Hatim asked the Prophet what to
do in a situation, when having pronounced Allah’s name, he sets off his dog and
on reaching the scene of game he sees another dog standing near by and finds it
difficult to find out which one has killed the game. The Prophet replied, “Do
not eat for you pronounced Allah’s name only on your dog and not on the other
one.” (Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad). These explicit orders of Allah and his
Prophet clearly explain that pronouncing Allah’s name is a must in order to
make the slaughter clean for food, and the animal killed without pronouncing
Allah’s name on it is unclean.
From
among the juristic schools, the Hanafites, the Shafiites, and the
Hanbalites agree that no harm is done by inadvertent omission of
pronouncing Allah’s name.
Rejoinder
to Imam Shafa’ee’s Points of View: Imam Shafa’ee says that
pronouncing Allah’s name is recommended by the Shari’ah and Sunnah, but
adds that its omission, advertent or inadvertent, would not affect the
cleanliness of the animal; hence pronouncement of Allah’s name is no condition
at all. Abu Hurairah is the only companion and Imam Auza’ee is
the only researcher to hold this view. The Shafiites argue that in the
verse 121 of chapter 6 (as quoted above), considering Arabic letter waw (meaning
and) before the word innahu as a conjunction would violate the
principles of elocution. They say that the first part of the verse is an inshaiyyah
(imperative?) sentence, while the second is an ismiyatul khabariyyah
(nominal declarative?) one, and it is incorrect to conjoin the two sentences.
The Shafiites therefore consider waw here as a waw of Hal
(circumstantial?). They then say the meaning is “Do not eat of (meats) if,
in case of its being fisq, Allah’s name has not been pronounced on it.”
They define here the word fisq with reference to verse 145 of the same chapter
6:
اوفسقًا
اهل لغير الله
به
(Or
what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked other than Allah’s)
Thus
they claim that the only unclean animal is the one on which the name of other
than Allah has been pronounced and that omission of pronouncing Allah’s name
does not make it unclean. This is a very unsound interpretation. It lays itself
open to various objections.
First of all the first impression a reader
gets is not the one suggested by the Shafiites. It is only wishful to
extract the meaning that animal slaughtered without having Allah’s name
pronounced on it is clean.
Secondly, if joining an ismiyyah
sentence with an inshaiyyah sentence infringes the elocutionary
principles, then the use of emphatic inna and the intensifying lam
is no less a breach as well. If Allah had to say what Shafiites are
saying, then the wording would have been
وهو فسق and not
وإِنه
لفسق
Thirdly, the
Shafiites forget the later part of the verse (6: 121) under discussion:
و
إِن الشياطين
ليوحون إِلى
أوليآءهم
لياجدلوكم و
إِن اطعتموهم
إِنكم
لمشركون
(But the
evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you. If you were to obey
them, you would indeed be pagans)
Here
one can easily see that the problem of joining an ismiyyah sentence to an
inshaiyyah one continuously persists. Moreover, this is not the only
example of its kind in the Qur’an. For examples, one can see verse 4 of chapter
24, and verse 221 of chapter 2. The Shafiites must therefore revise
their doctrine of elocution or admit that the Qur’an is consistently violating
their principles of elocution.
Fourthly, if the idea was simply to
declare the animal killed in the name of other than Allah as unclean, then was
not the first part redundant and meaningless? It would have suffice to say,
“Eat not of the animal on which other than Allah’s name has been pronounced.”
Could it be reasonably explained why the order “Eat not (meats) of which
Allah’s name has not been pronounced?”
Fifthly, even if waw is taken as the waw of
Hal, there is no need to interpret fisq with reference to a far
off verse. What prevents us to take its literal meaning of disobedience and
rebellion? The verse would then mean: “Do not eat of (meats) on which
Allah’s name has not been pronounced in case of (meat) being fisq (i.e. the
avoidance of pronouncing Allah’s name is deliberate or in rebellion).” This
interpretation is preferable to that of Shafiites because of two reasons:
It is consistent with all the verses and ahadith relevant to the issue; and
it saves a complete sentence of the verse from becoming redundant.
Another argument that the Shafiites
advance is as follows: A group of people came to the Prophet and enquired
whether they could eat any of the meat brought to them by newly-converted
Muslims from outside, it being unknown whether Allah’s name has been pronounced
on it. The Prophet said, “You may yourself pronounce his name and eat it” (‘Aisha,
Bukhari, Abu Dawood, Nasai, and Ibn Maja). On the basis of this
hadith, the Shafiites claim that pronouncing Allah’s name is not
essential, for had it been so the Prophet would not have allowed it to be
eaten. But the hadith actually gives a meaning contrary to their thesis.
It proves that pronouncing the name of Allah was obligatory and known,
otherwise why those people would come to ask about the meat? Had the practice
been different, the question of lawfulness would not have arisen at all. The
reply of the Prophet is also significant. Had pronouncing Allah’s name been not
necessary, the Prophet would have told them to go ahead and eat it. But he said
to pronounce the name of Allah on it and eat it. The meaning of this is that an
animal slaughtered by an old or new Muslim should be treated as properly
slaughtered, and be eaten with an ease. On the face of it, everything done by a
Muslim should be taken as correct, except where proof to the contrary exists.
Unfounded doubt should not be sufficient reason for abstinence; it should
rather be eliminated by saying Bismillah or Astaghfirullah.
Still another Shafiites
argument, no weaker than the previous ones, is based on a mursal
(narrated by a generation after companions without referring to a companion’s
link) hadith. It says, “The animal slaughtered by a Muslim is lawful
whether or not the Muslim has pronounced the name of Allah on it, for if he
were to pronounce some name, it would have been of Allah’s” (Abu Dawood,
Al-Maraseel). First of all it is a mursal hadith narrated by a
little-known person. It certainly can not negate obligation of pronouncing
Allah’s name as enjoined in previous marfu’ (the ones that go up to the
Prophet without any break in the chain of narrators) ahadith. Even if
this hadith is sound, it can be said that if a Muslim inadvertently forgets to
pronounce Allah’s name on a slaughter, it should be eaten on the presumption
that he would have pronounced Allah’s name. It can not be taken to mean that
the meat of animal killed by those who do not at all believe in pronouncing
Allah’s name, and who in fact hold a contrary view, and that pronouncing
Allah’s name is not essential at all. Stretch and stress as one may like, the hadith
does not admit such interpretation.
To summarize, the conditions that the
Qur’an and sound ahadith state for the meat to be clean are:
1. It should not
be the meat of animals that have been declared unclean by the Qur’an and the
Prophet.
2. The animal must
have been slaughtered in the manner prescribed by Shari’ah.
3. Allah’s name
must have been pronounced on the slaughtered animal.
Animals
Slaughtered by People of the Books: We shall now consider what position
the Qur’an and Sunnah have over the animals slaughtered by the people of the
books. In verse 5 of chapter 5, the Qur’an says:
اليوم
أُحل لكم
الطيبات و
طعام الذين
أُتوا الكتاب
حل لكم و
طعامكم حل لهم
The
words of this verse clearly point out that the only food of the People of the
Book that is lawful for us is the one that falls under the category of tayyebat
i.e. clean or pure. This verse can not and does not mean that an unclean food
that we can not eat in our homes or even in other Muslims homes would become
clean or lawful to eat in a non-Muslim i.e. a Christian or a Jew’s home. If
someone disregards this obvious and reasonable meaning, he can then interpret
the verse in the following four ways only.
1. That this verse repeals all those verses that have
been revealed in connection with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of meat in
chapters Al-Baqarah, Al-Maidah, Al-An’aam, and Al-Nahl; that this
verse makes unconditionally lawful dead meat, swine-flesh, blood, and the
animal sacrificed on altars. But no rational or transmissive evidence can ever
be produced in favour of its cancellation; that this verse repeals all those
verses that have occurred regarding lawfulness or unlawfulness. The absurdity
of the claim can be seen by the three conditions we have noted above. They
occur just before the verse under consideration in the same context in chapter Al-Maidah. Which right minded person
would say that in the three consecutive sentences the last one repeals the
first two?
2. That
this verse negates only the conditions of slaughtering and pronouncing the name
of Allah, and does not alter the unclean nature of other meats. We doubt if
there exists any solid reason of drawing this distinction between the two types
of orders. Any one having such a proof is welcome to present it.
3. That
this verse fixes the dividing line between the food of Muslims and that of
Christians and Jews; that in the case of Muslims all prohibitions will continue
to apply, and in case of Christians and Jews no such prohibition would apply.
The strongest argument that could be advanced in favor of this interpretation
is that Allah knew that the food the People of the Book eat- it means
everything they eat including swine-flesh, dead meat, and animal sacrificed on
altars- is pure and lawful for us. But the word tayyebat has not been
left vague- the two preceding verses have explained what tayyebat are.
4. That
out of the foods of the People of the Book, we may not eat swine-flesh, dead
meat, blood, and the animal slaughtered in other than Allah’s name, though we
may eat of the animal which has been killed in one way or the other on which
Allah’s name is not pronounced. This argument is also unacceptable as the
second one. If there is a rational argument for it, it must be put forward.
The Hanafites
and the Hanbalites maintain that lawfulness of food of the People of the
Book is subject to same conditions as that of a Muslim. We can not eat in the
homes of Christians or Jews that we can not eat in our homes. The stand of Shafiites,
we had already discussed above. The Malikites maintain that the
condition of pronouncing the name of Allah is not applicable to the meat of the
People of the Book. The only argument presented in favor of this claim is that
the Prophet ate the meat sent to him by a Jewess at the time of the
Ibn Abbas says that the verse
“The food of the People of the Book is lawful to you” has repealed the verse “Eat
not of that on which Allah’s name has not been pronounced.” It is only Ibn
Abbas’s personal view. No other companion had agreed to that view. Also, he
does not give any reason as why one verse cancels the other; and also, why only
one restriction is canceled and not all of them.
‘Ata, Au’zai, Mak’hul, and
Laith bin S’ad hold that the verse “The food of the People of the Book is
lawful to you” has made the meat of “That has been killed in the name of other
than Allah” also lawful. The only argument given in support of this is that
Allah fully knew that the People of the Book killed their animal in the name of
other than Allah, and yet he permitted eating of their food. Well, did not
Allah know fully well that the Christians ate swine-flesh and drank wine as
well? So why not let the verse make it lawful to eat swine-flesh and drink wine
as well?
In our opinion, the soundest view is
that of the Hanafites and the Hanbalites. Any other view one may
hold on one’s own responsibility. But as shown above, the reasons and arguments
put forward in favor of the other view are so thin that, on the strength of
them, the unclean can not be declared clean.
I
would not advise any God-fearing person to start eating of the animals cut down
in Europe and