|
Adil Salahi writes
in "Food: Understand the Basic Principles, Observe the
Rules":
"There are basic
rules which we must al! ways observe, and certain
principles that we must keep in our minds. The first of
these principles is that the authority to forbid anything
belongs to God alone. It is not up to a scholar, or a
group of eminent scholars to prohibit anything, unless
their verdict is based on a clear principle laid down by
God. What the Prophet (peace be upon him) pronounced as
forbidden falls within this category, because he did so
only on God’s clear instructions. Another principle is
that God has no wish to make things difficult for us. On
the contrary, He always wants to make things easy for us.
He says in the Qur’an: “God desires that you have ease. He
does not desire that you be afflicted with hardship.” (2:
185) He also says: “God wants to lighten your burdens; for
man has been created weak.” (4: 28) If this is what God
wants, then it is wrong that people should make things
difficult for themselves or for others. In fact the
overriding rule of all Isl! amic legislation is to make
things easy, not difficult.... <Article Truncated> It is
He who has stated this, and we take His orders as they are
stated, knowing that He only wants what is good and
beneficial for us. All praise be to Him.
Please comment on
this article.
Answer:
The Article Food,
“Understand the basic principles, observe the rules” by
Adil Salahi is fundamentally flawed from many angles.
The Fuqaha have
ruled that,
الاصل فى كل شئ الاباحة
“Al Aslun fi
Kulli Shai’in Al-Ibaha”
The original in everything is permissibility.
This is a unanimously
accepted principle. However, there is an exclusion to this
regarding meat. This is also an obvious exclusion. Meat is
derived from live animals. A piece of meat derived from a
live animal is Haraam. This is also unanimously agreed and
accepted principle based on hadeeth. Meat will be regarded
as haraam and prohibited until clear proof of
permissibility is found. Brother Adil also seems to agree
on this as he states, “…unless there is a specific text to
make them otherwise (prohibited).”
He also refers to
the verse of carrion being prohibited. It is from this
point that brother Adil has lost his direction. Maytah
(carrion) is not limited to an animal that died of natural
death. According to the fuqahaa every animal that has not
been slaughtered according to Shariah, laws of Zabiha is
also Maytah. The prohibition to consume an animal upon
which Allah’s name is not mentioned is express and clear.
Allah says, “And do not eat from those (animals) upon
which Allah’s name is not taken and that is Fisq
(transgression).”
The verse is more
than clear that such an animal upon which Allah’s name is
not taken is Haraam and carrion. That consolidates the
point that
الاصل فى لحم الحرمة
"Al Aslun fi
Lahmi Al-Hurmat”
The original in meat is prohibition.
This
is true unless there is some proof for the permissibility
of the meat. Adil’s objection on people not eating food
prepared by the people of the book except when invited is
correct on condition that the people of the book also
fulfill the conditions of Islamic Zabiha. If the people of
the book do not severe the vein of the animal and or do
not take the name of Allah when slaughtering the animal,
then it will not be permissible in any circumstance to eat
such meat processed by them. Conditions of making meat
Halaal is expressly mentioned in the Quran without
relaxation of the rule to people of the book. We therefore
cannot agree with the ruling that meat sold in the
supermarket or butchers in Christian countries is
permissible for Muslims.
Mr. Adil’s opinion
that, when there is a doubt whether Allah’s name has been
taken at the time of slaughtering or not; the substitute
is to recite the name of Allah before eating is incorrect
and baseless. The ruling is correct only if one is
doubtful about Muslims having recited the name of Allah
before slaughtering and not the people of the book. This
is derived from a hadeeth in Bukhari. Mr. Adil tries to
justify his point of not being strict through the example
of Umar (r.a) and the water. The other sahabi was Amr bin
Aas (r.a). The justification is non-analogous as the
incident was about Maa’ Katheer (Lot Water) which is
regarded to be pure in anyway. The questioning of Amr bin
Aas (r.a) was therefore not necessary. That is not so in
the case of meat which is regarded to be Haraam unless
proven otherwise.
Mr. Adil proves his
point through the example of smoking which is Haraam. That
is exactly the point. Smoking is a poison and Haraam. This
is a Fiqhi deduction. The issue of meat being Haraam is
more clearer than smoking as its hurmat(prohibition) is
expressed in the Quran if the conditions of becoming
Halaal are not fulfilled
Find attached our
detail article on Zabiha of the Ahl Al Kitaab. We will be
happy to answer any queries of Mr. Adil, provided it is
conducted with academic honesty and etiquettes.
Zabiha
Almighty Allah Ta'ala
in His infinite mercy has made certain animals Halaal
(permissible) for this Ummah. We are required to be
thankful to Him by following the dictates of the Qur'aan
and Sunnah by ensuring that His name is taken upon
slaughtering of the animal. Allah Ta'ala states in the
noble Qur'aan:
1. 'For every nation
We have specified a rite (for slaughtering) so that they
may take the name of Allah Ta'ala upon (the slaughter of)
the animals granted to them as sustenance.' (Hajj 34)
2. And consume not of
that whereupon the name of Allah Ta'ala was omitted (at
the time of slaughter). Indeed it is a transgression.
Verily the Shayaateen inspire their friends to cause
division with you. If you obey them, you are indeed
Mushriks (ascribing partners to Allah).' (An`aam 122)
3. 'So take the name
of Allah upon them (at the time of slaughter) while they
stand in rows.' (Hajj 36). In reference to Camels which
are slaughtered by Nahr (a swift stab of the neck which
severes the four arteries) while standing.
4. 'and such animals
upon which they mention not the name of Allah only to
fabricate a lie against him.' (An'aam 138)
5. Forbidden to you
are Maytah (carrion), flowing blood, the flesh of swine
and that slaughtered for other than Allah as well as the
(animal) expiring by strangulation, illness or pain,
falling (from a height), by a wound (sustained through
fighting) and by falling to a predator and (about to be
consumed), excepting those (animals) upon which you effect
Zaka (Shar'ee slaugher). (Maaidah 3)
From the above
Aayaats, the following points are understood:
1. Meat is not in the
same category as other nutrients.
2. The most important
condition is that Tasmiyah (taking the name of Allah) be
pronounced at the time of slaughter. The Aayaats clearly
explain the impermissibility of those animals whose
slaughter was not preceded by Tasmiya.
3. The
impermissibility of those animals whose lives were ended
by means other than Zabah (Shar'ee slaughter) of which
Tasmiya is a condition. All such animals are Maytah
(carrion) and are expressly forbidden.
4. The Dhabeeha
(animal slaughtered) by a Kaafir (non-believer) or Mushrik
(polytheist) is Haraam (unlawful). However, those Ahlul
Kitaab (people of the book) who also hold the Aqeedah
(belief) of Tasmiya at the time of slaughter have been
excluded from the Kuffaar majority.
5. The Aayaat number
122 of An`aam explains consumption of meat not slaughtered
with Tasmiyah as Fisq - transgression and disobedience.
The Aayat then explains that to regard consumption of such
meat as Halaal is nothing but a teaching of Shaytaan to
cause division among the Ummah. The Aayat also warns that
obedience of Shaytaan in this matter is a kin to Shirk
(ascribing partners to Allah).
Imaam Bukhari has
quoted this same Aayat in his magnum opus under the
chapter, 'Intentional Ommission of the Tasmiyah at the
time of Slaughter' to the same import as explained by
Hafiz ibn Hajar, the renowned commentator of Sahih Bukhari
in the following words:
Imaam Bukhari (RA)
wishes to point out by citing this Aayat the reproach
against using this Aayah as proof to legalise omission of
Tasmiyah by inventing baseless interpretations of the
Aayat and understanding it in a manner contrary to clear
import.' (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.778; Qadeemi)
Intentional Omission
of Tasmiyah neglectfully or our of Istikhfaaf (regarding
it as insignificant) The Jurists (Fuqahaa) have
unanimously agreed that consumption of an animal
slaughtered by a Muslim with intentional omission of
Tasmiya or regarding such as insignificant is unlawful (Haraam).
Imaam Shaaf'ee (RA) has also concurred with this view. (Jawaahirul
Fiqhvol.2 pg.388; Darul Uloom from Kitaabul Umm and
Tafseer Mazhari)
Imaam Abu Yusuf
states:
'The ruling regarding
the animal upon which Tasmiyah was omitted (at the time of
slaughter) is not subject to Ijtihaad (independent
deduction of a ruling from Qur'aan and Hadith). If a judge
rules the permissibility of its sale, his ruling will not
be given effect due to it being contrary to consensus of
opinion.' (Ibid pg.390; Hidaaya)
It should be noted
significantly that the above discussion of
impermissibility is with regard to a Muslim slaughterer
not to speak of a non-Muslim.
In the case of a
Muslim forgetfully omitting the Tasmiyah, the animal will
be permissible for consumption as is the ruling of all the
four Madhaahib based on the Hadith of Nabi (Sallallaahu
Alayhi Wasallam), 'A believer always slaughters upon the
name of Allah, whether he (remembers to) recites it or
not.' (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.793; Qadeemi)
Animals Slaughtered
by Moden Day Jews and Christians 'The food of Ahlul Kitaab
(people of the book) is lawful for you as is your food for
them.' (Maaidah 5)
Regarding the word, 'Ta'aam'
(food), ibn Abbaas, Ibn Umamah, Mujaahid and others (Radhiallaahu
Anhum) say that it refers to slaughtered animals. This
matter (permissibility of these animals) is unanimously
agreed upon by all scholars since they also hold the
belief of the prohibition of slaughter save in Allah's
name and also due to the fact that they mention only the
name of Allah Ta'ala upon their animals of slaughter. (Jawaahirul
Fiqh vol.2 pg.4040; from Ibn Katheer)
The reason for
permissibility has been explained clearly by Allaamah ibn
Katheer that due to the unity of belief regarding
slaughter between Muslims and the Jews and Christians of
that particular time, Allah Ta'ala had permitted
consumption of their slaughter. The Ulama of the time had
based their rulings on this very same reasoning. When
this unity of belief came into doubt, many great Sahaaba (Radhiallaahu
Anhum) had not hesitated to rule prohibition.
'With regards to a
Kitaabi, when he omits Tasmiyah (the name of Allah) upon
his slaughter and takes some other name, his slaughter is
not consumable. This is the ruling of Abu Darda, Ubadah
bin Saamit and large faction of the Sahaaba (Radhiallaahu
Anhum).' (Jawaahirul Fiqh vol.2 pg.407; Darul Uloom -from
Bahrul Muheet)
Regarding the
Christian tribe of Banu Taghlib, Hadhrat Ali (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) ruled the following:
'Hafiz ibn Jawzi (RA)
has narrated with his Sanad (chain of narrators) from Ali
(Radhiallaahu Anhu), 'Do not consume the slaughter of the
Christians of Banu Taghlib since they have not held to any
more of Christianity than their drinking of wine.' (Ibid
pg.460 - from Tafseer Mazhari)
It is a well-known
fact that the majority of present day Christians and Jews
no longer hold to this Aqeedah (belief) regarding
slaughter. They do not hesitate to consume meat
slaughtered by even Pagans and Mushriks (polytheists) and
atheists. They have held to even less of Christianity than
the Banu Taghlib. Most of them are just Christians and
Jews by name, 'atheistic' in their beliefs and actions.
Their abbatoirs employ machine slaughter wherever possible
and do not hesitate to employ pagans and polytheists, e.g.
Chinese, Koreans, etc. to carry our slaughter.
The Ruling Based on
the above Juridical references, Qadhi Thanaullah (RA) a
renowned Jurist of his time states the following:
'The correct and
accepted view according to us is the first one that the
slaughter of the Ahlul Kitaab with intentional omission of
Tasmiyah (taking the name of Allah) or slaughter on some
other name (besides that of Allah) is not consumable, if
this fact is ascertained with certainity or this is the
condition prevailing among them. By this, the prohibition
(of the Sahaaba) from consuming the slaughter of the
Christian Arabs can be easily understood. Likewise, the
ruling of Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) (regarding the Banu
Taghlib)' becomes clear. It is likely that Ali (Radhiallaahu
Anhu) had ascertained that their omission of Tasmiyah upon
slaughter or that they slaughtered upon some other name
(besides Allah). A similar ruling has been issued
regarding the non-Arab Christians that if it is their
normal habit to slaughter without Tasmiyah, their
slaughter is not consumable. Concerning the present day
Christians there is no doubt in the fact that their
methods do not fulfil requirements of Shar'ee slaughter,
but they usually cause the death of their animals by other
lethal measures, e.g. machine slaughter, etc. hence, their
slaughter is impermissible.' (Jawaahirul Fiqh vol.2
pg.411; from Tafseer Mazhari)
The Correct
Understanding of the Hadith of Bukhari (cited by many
people to justify their claims)
"It has been narrated
from Aaisha (Radhiallaahu Anha) that some persons said to
Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), 'People bring to us
meat. We know not whether the name of Allah Ta'ala has
been taken (upon its slaughter) or not? Nabi (Sallallaahu
Alayhi Wasallam) replied, 'You people say Bismillah and
eat it.' Aaisha (Radhiallaahu Anha) says, 'the people
referred to (in this Hadith) were new Muslims.' (Bukhari
vol.2 pg.828; Deoband)
It is clear that the
slaughterers were Muslims, not disbelievers. This is
further elucidated by Imaam Maalik (RA)'s narration (of
the same Hadith) where the addition of, 'this was in the
beginning of Islam.' (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.792; Qadeemi)
is found.
To believe that these
people were non-Muslims is in fact tantamount to accusing
the noble Sahaaba of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi
Wasallam) of the heinous crime of consuming meat
slaughtered by polytheists which is expressly forbidden in
the Qur'aan:
'Forbidden to you is
carrion . till . and that slaughtered for other than
Allah.' (Maaidah 3)
The actual meaning of
this Hadith, as understood by similar narrations is that
one should not entertain unfounded doubts about a Muslim
that he would neglect to mention the name of Allah upon
his slaughter.
'This is what is
understood by the context of the Hadith since the answer
of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) to the question was,
'Say Bismillah and eat.' It is as though they
(questioners) were told, 'That is not your concern, rather
what should concern you is to consume it (wholesomely in
the Sunnah manner) by saying Bismillah before partaking
thereof.' (Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.793; Qadeemi)
Hafiz ibn Abdul-Barr
(RA) has emphasised on this point very clearly:
'Similarly, the
slaughter of the Bedouin Muslims will be permissible (for
consumption) since they usually know of the Tasmiya (at
the time of slaughter). Ibn Abdul Barr (RA) has concluded,
'In this Hadith, it is understood that the slaughter of a
Muslim should be consumed and he should be regarded as
having taken Tasmiyah upon its slaughter (even when one is
not certain about this fact) because with regards to a
Muslim, one should entertain nothing but good thoughts
unless concrete evidence is established to the contrary.'
(Fathul Bari vol.9 pg.793; Qadeemi)
This import is borne
out by other narrations of this same Hadith as follows:
'The narration of Ibn
Uyayna (RA) (one of the Huffaaz of Hadith) has the
addition, 'accept their oaths and eat', i.e. take their
word for it that they have taken Tasmiyah upon slaughter
(and partake without doubts). (Ibid pg.793)
The narration of Abu
Sa'eed:
Imaam Tabrani has
recorded the narration of Abu Sa'eed though with a
difference in wording that he said, 'accept their word
that they have effected (Shar'ee) slaughter.' (and consume
it without doubt). (Ibid)
The narration of
Imaam Tahawi (RA):
Some of the Sahaaba (Radhiallaahu
Anhum) questioned Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)
that, 'Some Bedouins bring to us meat, cheese and fat. We
know not the condition of their Islam, (i.e. they are
Muslims but of what calibre, we are unaware).' Nabi (Sallallaahu
Alayhi Wasallam) replied, 'Check that which is prohibited
by Allah and abstain therefrom. Whatever Allah Ta'ala has
not discussed, he has concessioned you. Your Rabb does not
forget. Thus, say Bismillah (and partake). (Ibid)
Explaining this
Hadith, Allaamah ibn Teen comments:
Concerning Tasmiyah
upon slaughter carried out by others of which they are
unaware, there is no obligation upon them regarding it.
The (slaughter) will only be held incorrect when such
evidence is established.' Allah Ta'ala has not made it
obligatory upon any Muslim to be aware of Tasmiya upon the
slaughter of another Muslim, since the slaugher of another
Muslim will be always regarded as correct (accompanied by
Tasmiya) unless evidence is established to the contrary.
(Ibid pg.794)
The above should be
sufficient to clarify any doubt in the meaning of the
Hadith of Bukhari.
Importance of Muslim
Unity with regards to Halaal Meat Shaytaan is ever
prepared to bring about division as this will inevitably
lead to the collapse of the Muslim Ummah. In his untiring
efforts, he has overlooked no sphere of life to cause his
mischief even to the extent of nourishment. Allah Ta'ala
has warned us of Shaytaan's inroads in this regard as has
been explained already. Shaytaan, possessed of a keen
intelligence and discernment knows full well that once the
Muslims cannot interact and mix with one another due to
suspicion in regards to Halaal and Haraam, this will bring
about the much awaited split in the global community of
Islam. To combat this, it is required that Muslims take
courage and band together to solve this problem,
irrespective of colour and race, since the commands of
Allah Ta'ala are universal. Due to this solidarity, the
Muslims of South Africa, although a minority (around 3 - 4
%) have progressed far ahead in eliminating this problem.
With a bit of extra physical and monetary sacrifice, they
have managed to establish their own abattoirs in different
parts of the country.
If Muslims in other
parts of the world who have, Alhamdulillah, become a
sizeable community were to show such unity and get
together, there is every confidence that the problem would
be eliminated with little difficulty. To conclude this,
let us ponder upon the following words of Nabi (Sallallaahu
Alayhi Wasallam):
The lawful is clear
and the unlawful is clear. Between these lie matters of
confusion. Regarding these, many are ignorant. Whomsoever
falls into these, falls into the unlawful, like a shepherd
grazing (his flock) upon a sanctuary's perimeter, very
soon falls into trespass. Beware! Every king posesses a
sanctuary and the sanctuary of Allah Ta'ala are His
prohibitions. Take note! In the body resides a piece of
flesh, upon its reformation is the entire body's reform.
Upon it's corruption is the whole body corrupted. Listen!
It is the heart.' (Arba'een Nawawiy)
Muft Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In'aamiyyah
|
