The Mu' min slaughterman / the slaughterMu' min Suffice.

 

احتفالية نادي الرائد باليوم الوطني

Assalamu Waleikum,


The Holy Last Messenger (s.a.s.) said:

“Righteousness is good morality and sin is that which causes discomfort (or pinches) within your soul and which you dislike people to become informed of.” [Sahih Muslim]

Sin is that aspect in a Muslim's life in which he or she makes effort to abstain from at all costs. Allah warns all of mankind that everything mankind does in this world will be put before us on Yawmul-Qiyaama (The Day of Resurrection) in Surah al-Zilzal:

“And he who does an atom's weight of good will see it. And he who does an atom's weight of evil will see it.” [Holy Qur'an, 99:7-8]

Allah also warns mankind that the one whose bad deeds (sins) are heavy will be in Hell, as can be found in Surah al-Qari'ah. A Muslim's strife is to live the life of a believer and separate from the likeness of the sinner, as Allah differentiates the Mu'min (believer) from the fasiq (sinner) in Surah As-Sajdah:

“Is he who is a believer like unto him who is a sinner? They are not alike! For those who believe and do righteous works, for them are Gardens of Retreat, a welcome (in reward) for what works they did. And as for those who do evil, their abode is the Fire. Whenever they wish to leave, they will be forced back into it, and it will be said to them: Taste the torment of the Fire which you used to reject.” [Holy Qur'an, 32:18-20]

It is clear that one must steer away from sin and do righteous acts. However uncertainty arises in the mind when referring to the subject of sin such as;

1.) The difference between a sin and a mistake,

2.) Shaytaan's (Satan) role in the commission of a sin,

3.) If one becomes removed from Islam due to committing a sin, and

4.) The major sins.

The purpose of this essay is to provide concise answers to such inquiries, inSha'Allah.

Question: What is the difference between sin and mistakes? What role does Shaytaan, the accursed one, play in sin?

Fault means any action that takes place unintentionally and sin is with intention.

For example, Shaytaan put such ideas into the heart of Hazrat Adam (a.s.) to approach the tree. Adam did it and as a result, Allah sent him to the earth. Similarly, Hazrat Yunus (Jonah) committed a fault and he adopted that way prohibited to him according to the instruction of Allah. Allah says in the Holy Qur'an that it was Shaytaan who put the idea into Hazrat Adam and Hazrat Yunus (a.s.), so there is no doubt that Shaytaan can put these ideas into the hearts of the Nabiyeen to divert their attention from the right way. But the mistakes they commit are only according to the Hikmat of Allah. These mistakes are below the standards of the Nabiyeen, so we can not point it out that they took place according to the Order of Allah. We must say Shaytaan is responsible. All the good things take place from the Kindness of Allah while all of the bad things are due to Shaytaan. The awliya are not free from this was-wās (evil whispers), but if this was-wās happens to any wali, as soon as he realizes it, he busies himself in tawba (repentance). But on the other hand, the common people, when they commit a sin, they do not realize it and they do not feel guilty about it.

Sins are of three types:

1. Against Allah.

2. Against brotherhood.

3. Against humanity.

In Hadith, Hazrat Anas (r.a.) narrated that Rasulullah (s.a.s.) said Shaytaan travels through the body like blood.

Explanation by Imam Al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim: Allah gave full power to Shaytaan to put evil ideas into the hearts of men. If a man does not act upon these ideas, he has passed the worldly examination and will get a high place in Jinnah (Heaven). When we say that the Shaytaan travels through the body like blood, it means not physically but according to his evil ideas or thinking there are things that travel like the human blood.

In Hadith Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifah (r.a.) related that the Nabi (s.a.s.) said:

“The was-wās that enters the hearts of my ummah Allah has forgiven, as long as they don't act upon or voice it.” [Imam Al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim agree on it]

Tafsir (Commentary): Was-wās is the bad intentions that enters one's heart. And those good intentions that enter one's heart is called ilham. The ilham won't be accepted unless it is accordance with the Holy Qur'an and Hadith. Bad thoughts by a person that is not related to aqeeda (belief), and doesn't act on them, for him is Maafoo (forgiveness). If vice versa is related to kufr (disbelief), then it will be kufr. And if related to dhal (straying away), then it will be dhalleen. For both of these situations, tawba is fardh (obligatory). If this intention is related to any actions and not aqa'id (belief), and he keeps this intention in his heart, then he is a sinner.

Question: Does the commission of sin remove one from Islam?

Hazrat Anas bin Malik relates Rasulullah said that three things form the foundation of Al-Islam.

1. Whosoever says Laa ilaaha illAllah, Muhammadur-Rasulullah (There is none worthy of worship, but Allah, Muhammad is His Messenger),

do not take him out of Al-Islam because he committed a sin.

2. >From the time I was sent as Nabi, Jihad will continue until the last person of this ummah wages war against the dajjal, and

the rule of a tyrant and the justice of a just ruler can not abrogate this.

3. To accept the taqdir of Allah.

[Sahih of Abu Dawud]

Tafsir: Ahlus-Sunnah (The People of the Sunnah, or traditions & practice of the Holy Nabi Muhammad, may Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him.) does not remove someone from Al-Islam because he committed a sin, but the Khariji say the person becomes a kafir (disbeliever). The Mu'tazila say the person will be out of Islam, but still be Muslim. If a person commits such an act which is a sign of kafir (wearing crosses, sajda to idols, etc.) then he will be out of Islam, but if someone says something that has one hundred meanings and ninety-nine are kafir and one is Islam, then we must take the one meaning unless he's referring to any of the ninety-nine.

Question: What other kinds of sin are there, and how are they forgiven?

Kabirat is that which Shari'ah has strictly forbidden. And the punishment for that in this dunya is haad or ta'zirat or the punishment will come in Akheel. Kabirat pertains to that which is not forgiven, until a person makes tawba (repentance). Gumara sajira, or it's called tharaba sajira, is forgiven through practicing of good deeds. If one commits tharaba sajira continuously, it becomes tharaba kabira.

There are four kinds of tharuba (sins).

1. That which will not be forgiven without tawba. Commission of this sin is like a kafir.



2. That sin which has a possibility of being forgiven by tawba or by good deeds. These are tharaba sagina.



3. Those sins for which tawba is necessary, but, if Allah wills, he can forgive without tawba. This is tharaba kabira, but it is tharab that transgress the rights of Allah.



4.)The tharab kabira that are connected to the rights of the society, other people.

For forgiveness, it is necessary to make tawba and then restore the rights to that person and ask his forgiveness, and on conditions that he forgives you. This does not pertain exclusively to wealth. If one does not ask for forgiveness and is not forgiven, then on Yawmul-Qiyaama, the one whose rights have been transgressed will be given the good deeds of the transgressor as much as he pleases in accordance with justice. Or else the sins of the oppressed will be given to the transgressor according to justice. Allah may, of His own will, make the oppressed happy and show Mercy to the dhalameen (oppressor).

Hadith: Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud narrates that a person asked Rasulullah (s.a.s.),

“Ya Rasulullah, according to Allah, which is the greatest sin?”

Rasulullah (s.a.s.) answered, “To associate partners with Allah (known as shirk), while He has created you.”

Then he was asked, “Which is the biggest sin after that?”

And he (s.a.s.) said, “To kill your offspring because he will eat with you.”

Then he was asked “Which is the greatest after that,”

and he said, “To make zinna (fornication) with your neighbor's wife.”

As can be seen from the evidence provided, sin is a very major issue in the life of a Muslim. A Muslim strives to gain the pleasure of Allah and abstains from that which incurs the wrath of Allah. A Muslim begs Allah for His Guidance each and every time he or she performs Salaat (the ritual form of prayer a Muslim is commanded to perform five times a day), by reciting the last three ayats of Surah al-Fatiha (the opening Surah of the Holy Qur'an):

“(We beg of you to) Guide us in the Straight Path. The path of those whom You have favored. Not of those who have earned Your anger, and nor of those who have gone astray.”

Allah shows the Muslim the prayer for seeking His Guidance and avoiding His Wrath. The Mu'min is one who fully adheres to the Shari'ah and earns the Pleasure of Allah, thus steering away from sin at all costs. Al-Gawth Al-A'zam Shaykh Muhyyuddin 'Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani (r.a.) has given many discourses on securing this path, and in Futuh Al-Ghaib (The Revelations of the Unseen), he states in the very first discourse:

Three things are indispensable for a believer in all conditions of life:

• should keep the Commandments of Allah;

• should abstain from the haraam (forbidden); and

• should be pleased with the decree of Providence.

Thus the least that is expected of a believer is that he should be without these three things. So it is meant that he should make up his mind for this and talk to himself about this and keep his organs engaged in this.

In conclusion, one sees that there exists a distinct difference between sin and mistakes. One should distinguish between the two and be aware of what his or her niyyat (intention) is before proceeding with an action. The Holy Last Messenger (s.a.s.);

“Actions are but by intentions and every man will have but that which he intended.”

It is best that one proceeds with the intention of pleasing Allah, and doing an action for Allah's sake. Major sins are those sins in which a Muslim would never imagine of doing under any circumstances, but if committed, tawba would be performed immediately. One's sins do not remove him or her from Islam unless he or she commits an act of kafir, unless their belief removes one from Islam.

Allah says: “If I were to punish everyone for their sins, then NOTHING would remain in existence.”

The worst sin anyone could ever commit is to ascribe partners with Allah, and this is known as shirk.

The evil which man does is either by his nafs (the unruly self which causes man to act irreligiously and cause his own harm) or Shaytaan. Allah is not happy with evil or bad deeds, and good deeds make Allah happy. And good is done by the help of Allah, but Allah only helps who desires good and puts forth effort. May Allah guide us all and forgive the sins of the past and the present and protect us from future sins. Aameen!







Halaal & Haraam:

how conscious are we?

Carelessness in the consumption of Doubtful or Haraam edibles is a sure sign of 'diseased' Imaan. If this state of heedlessness about what is consumed continues, the day dawns in a person's life when halaal/haraam is eventually regarded as a trivial matter, causing Imaan to 'choke out' and die. Judging from the increasing number of Muslims eating out at franchised and other food outlets, it seems this trend is growing fast among Muslims these days.

PEOPLE IN THE PAST EDUCATED THEIR CHILDREN

In the past, people may not have been very learned or 'enlightened' as they appear to be now, but they were very conscious of the issue of Halaal/Haraam. Extreme care was exercised in this matter. Even young children were drilled into observing this Islamic teaching, which had a lasting impression on their minds and hearts.

HEARTS HAVE BECOME DESENSITIZED; WHY?

Haraam is becoming so common and rife, people are hardly shocked or perturbed when something is discovered or shown up as being Haraam, even though they may have been consuming such an item for a long time. Hardly an eyelid is bat. No remorse or even a pang of guilt crosses the heart. This is a clear sign of a desensitized heart. Why is it that people have become so careless regarding Haraam?

HARAAM IS VERY MUCH LIKE POISON

Part of the answer may be found in a widespread attitude, a terrible misconception, that prevails. It is felt that so long as a person is unaware of a thing being Haraam, his consumption of that item will not cause harm to him. This is totally incorrect. The effects of Haraam are felt, whether consumed knowingly or unknowingly. It is much like eating poison. Only a fool will believe that absence of knowledge of a poisonous substance will negate the effect of the poison. Poison is poison and will remain so, irrespective of knowledge or ignorance regarding its effects. Poison will do its work. It will kill or cause serious harm. Haraam edibles are the same. They kill the consumer spiritually or cause serious spiritual damage.

DOUBTFUL INGREDIENTS

It is in view of this fact that Islam has always emphasised great precaution with regard to whatever is consumed. Nothing is to be consumed without carefully studying its source and ingredients. Although manufacturers are compelled by law in most countries to reveal the ingredients of processed foods, they are yet able to cleverly camouflage the actual thing under the guise tongue-twisting scientific jargon and terminology. The unsuspecting Muslim consumer, blissfully unaware of this, consumes the item, which may contain a Haraam ingredient such as lard or certain emulsifiers with great relish and abandon, little realising the harm that he is doing to himself.

HARAAM IS HARMFUL

Haraam is extremely harmful for mankind, both spiritually and physically. Allah Ta'ala, out of His infinite Kindness and Mercy for His believing servants, prohibited the intake of Haraam because of its terrible effects on the body and soul of man. Haraam is polluted and contaminated. It breeds in dirt and filth. Its composition is mainly of filth. This causes serious harm and damage to the organs, tissues and other parts of the body. The health of a person is eventually eroded and debilitating illnesses set in. The body is then subjected to much torment, pain, suffering and agony. The resultant mental trauma is an added source of anguish.

The loss of health and the setting in of disease is a calamity in today's world in yet another sense; it is very expensive to fall ill in today's world. Medical costs are exorbitant and prohibitive. This is a harrowing issue in its own right. If a person is not killed by the disease itself, the shock of the medical bill is likely to complete the job!

ABSTENTION IS THE WAY OF A SENSIBLE PERSON

In view of all of this, it is much wiser to exercise a little restraint and abstain from Haraam and doubtful edibles and save oneself from many physical and spiritual disasters in the process. On the other hand, a careless attitude in this matter, eating merrily without a care, will manifest its consequences, sooner or later. It will finally cost a person, dearly. An intelligent and sensible person will opt for an attitude of precaution and abstention when necessary. Curbing the desires of the heart and the inordinate cravings of the stomach is the hallmark of an intelligent person and the way of pious Muslims.

MEAT PRODUCTS

Among the long list of doubtful and Haraam foods prevalent these days, meat products top the list. Meat stuff, in a variety of forms, are being prepared and sold at franchised outlets all over, under the guise of "Halaal". Dubious halaal certificates are waved in the faces of unwary, gullible or downright indifferent Muslim patrons. The Muslim patrons are more than happy at this dubious assurance and buy and eat unhesitatingly. Worse still, even their wives and innocent children are exposed to this. Such a practice augers ill for the future of the Muslim Ummah.

THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE UMMAH

It is high time that Muslims make an about turn in their attitude towards Haraam/Halaal. They need to become more vigilant; make a thorough investigation first before buying (or selling). If in doubt, the golden rule is ABSTAIN! Muslims must also attempt to produce their own sources of Halaal in the food processing industry. In this way, we could be assured of the validity of our edibles. It is time that conscientious and reliable Muslim entrepreneurs (not profit-greedy opportunists) looked at the prospect of establishing abattoirs, food processing and other related industries. May Allah Ta'ala cause this to happen in all Muslim communities throughout the world.



THE QURAN AND HADITH

ABOUT HALAL & HARAM IN FOOD

TRANSLATED VERSES OF THE QURAN



“O ye who believe! Eat of the good things wherewith We have provided you, and render thanks to Allah if it is (indeed) He whom ye worship” (2:172).



“He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (2:173).



“O ye who believe! Fulfill your undertakings.The beast of cattle is made lawful unto you (for food) except that which is announced unto you (herein), game being unlawful when ye are on pilgrimage. Lo! Allah ordaineth that which pleaseth Him” (5:1)



“Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swine-flesh, and that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which ye make lawful (by the death-stroke), and that which hath been immolated unto idols.



And (forbidden is it) that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination. This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you and have chosen for you as religion Al-Islam. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” (5:3)



“They ask thee (O Muhammad) what is made lawful for them. Say: (all) good things are made lawful for you. And those beasts and birds of prey which ye have trained as hounds are trained, ye teach them that which Allah taught you; so eat of that which they catch for you and mention Allah's name upon it, and observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is swift to take account” (5:4)



“This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and liven with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter” (5:5).



“And eat not of that whereon Allah's name hath not been mentioned, for lo! it is abomination. Lo! the devils do inspire their minions to dispute with you. But if ye obey them, ye will be in truth idolaters” (6:121).





FROM THE HADITH



-On the authority of Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah said: “Allah the Almighty is good and accepts only that which is good. Allah has commanded the Faithful to do that which He commanded the Messengers, and the Almighty has said: “O ye Messengers! Eat of the good things, and do right..” (Quran 23:51). And Allah the Almighty has said: “O ye who believe! Eat of the good things wherewith We have provided you..” (2:172). 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 unlawful, and he is nourished unlawfully, so how can he be answered!” (Muslim).



-On the authority of Abu Ya'la Shahddad ibn Aus, the Messenger of Allah said: “Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus, if you kill, kill well; and if you slaughter, slaughter well. Let each one of you sharpen his blade and let him spare suffering to the animal he slaughters” (Muslim).



-In an incident narrated by Rafi' bin Khadij, the Prophet told Muslims who wanted to slaughter some animals using reeds, “Use whatever causes blood to flow, and eat the animals if the Name of Allah has been mentioned on slaughtering them...” (Bukhari).



-Narrated Abu Thalaba: Allah's Messenger forbade the eating of the meat of beasts having fangs (Bukhari).



-Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet cursed the one who did Muthla to an animal (i.e. cut its limbs or some other part of its body while it is still alive (Bukhari).



In the name of ALLAH,

the Beneficent, the Merciful

IT MAY BE ZABIHA, BUT IS IT HALAL?

DEAR BROTHER AND SISTERS IN ISLAM

Before you sink your teeth into the next Zabiha slaughtered meat product, ask yourself:

Is it Halal?

This is a question most Muslims don't think to ask. The issue of Halal meat has been a bone of contention amongst the Muslim communities in UK.

Some Muslims argue that the meat of the Jews and Christians is Halal for Muslims. Others say the meat must be slaughtered according to Islamic rites for it to be fit for Muslim consumption.

As a Muslim, we must try our utmost to practice Islam in its entirety. Islam has given injunctions to eat Halal/Zabiha according to Islamic dietary laws- meaning eating the meat slaughtered by a Muslim according to the Islamic mode of slaughtering. Meat available in supermarkets and fast food restaurants is not slaughtered according to the Islamic method of slaughtering (Zabiha).

Those who eat the regular meat at in those restaurants argue that it is permissible because it is the food of the people of the book (namely Jews and Christians). As a matter of fact there is so much of a controversy about the regular meat of the supermarket as to whether it can be considered as the food of the people of

The book or not.

Allah, with His immense mercy, did provide a provision to eat the food of the people of the book. But it is an exception to the rule. Halal/Zabiha meat slaughtered by a Muslim is the meat we as a practicing Muslim eat all the time. In case of absolute emergency and necessity (meaning non-availability of the Halal/Zabiha meat for this emergency and necessity), one may partake the food of the people of the book.

When the Halal/Zabiha meat is available so abundantly, why should one indulge in something, which is controversial? Does a Muslim have to whet his/her appetite with something controversial/ doubtful when there is Halal/Zabiha available? Is eating in the fast food restaurant that important? Halal/Zabiha is the Muslim identity. Is it worth loosing this identity by succumbing to our appetite for eating regular meat? While we cannot say that the regular meat is Haram, yet it certainly cannot be said that it is the best choice for a practicing Muslim. Be proud of our identity and maintain it by eating only Halal/ Zabiha slaughtered by Muslims according to the Islamic method of slaughtering. It is closer to piety

But what's often ignored is that regardless of whether you choose to eat Zabiha or not, the meat of the animal itself may not be Halal.

Mechanical slaughter is of three types:

1. Chickens are transported to the place of slaughter through a conveyer belt and are manually slaughtered. If there is certainty that the chicken is alive and the Muslim slaughterer recites the name of Allah upon slaughtering, then the chicken is Halaal. In this case, only the transportation is mechanical but the slaughtering is manual. This procedure is unanimously permissible and recommended.



2. Chickens are transported by means of the conveyer belt to the mechanical slaughter blade. Once the mechanical plant comes into operation, the blade also comes into operation and cuts the chicken. This procedure is not permissible. It does not matter if the plant and the blades are controlled together or separately.





3. The chickens are transported by means of the conveyer belt to many slaughter blades and a Muslim who recites the name of Allah upon affecting the mechanical slaughter controls every blade separately. This procedure conforms to the principles of Sharée Zabh set out by the Fuqahaa. According to our knowledge, such a procedure does not yet exist.

THE USE OF ELECTRIC SHOCK ON ANIMALS



With regards to meat that is not slaughtered according to Islamic rites, it is not Halal because of the effect electric shock (stunning) on blood drainage.

In regular meat slaughterhouses, animals are brought into an alley and given an electric shock (stunned) before Dhabh (slaughtering) to the head to make them unconscious. The animal's legs are then tied up and it is hung upside down. A knife is put to its neck, and then it is slaughtered. The animal is then temporarily left alone to allow the blood to drain from its body. From there, the meat is processed. But using electric shock (stunning), means that all of the animal's blood does not leave its body, because electric shock (stunning) affects the central nervous system and as many of the animal are die from effect of stunning.

On the contrary, if an animal is slaughtered in accordance with Islamic guidelines, the central nervous system works properly, and the entire animal's blood comes out.

Remaining blood in the animal is a source of fermentation and destruction of meat quality. This means bacteria can grow easily on the meat. From an Islamic perspective, it is Haram to eat meat-containing blood, and dead animal as it is clearly stated in the Qur'an that Muslims cannot consume blood.

THE CONDITIONS OF HALAL



"Halal is Halal if the following conditions are taken into consideration,”

The first is that the animal is itself is Halal. That means no pork, for instance.

The second is that the food the animal consumes does not contain any blood, meat and animal protein. The animal has to be herbivorous to be Halal; an animal becomes Haram if it consumes blood and /or meat or their by-products and animal protein (for food). If this occurs, according the Fuqaha (Islamic law Sharia) these animals are “Lahm Al-Jallalah”. They have specific digestive enzymes for vegetarian food but not for animal protein. If you break the laws of Nature, then you cannot blame Nature for the consequences. "Islam dictates that if an animal has received meat and/or blood (for food) while it was Halal, it becomes Haram and in order to become Halal you have to put that animal in a quarantine “purification period of three to forty days in order to clean their system and to offer them their natural diet as herbivores (grass, plants, and vegetables)“ area before you slaughter it to make it Halal".

If this is not respected, "that animal will contain the disease called Mad Cow Disease, or others" Muhammad (saw) has prohibited Muslim from eating the meat, eggs and drinking the milk of al-jallalah. All considered IZRA. Al-jallalah is any herbivore (cattle, sheep etc.), which is the meat of an animal or any filthy substance.

The third condition for an animal to be Halal is that it should not be given any hormones.

In the meat industry, he says beef and chicken are given female sex hormones. This is meant to increase the weight of the animal in a short period of time.

The effect of consuming an animal with injected female hormones is a reduction in the masculine appearance of boys and men. It also reduces sexual appetite, adding that this of course would not happen by eating just one meal containing meat. Rather, it can result when people are consuming meat daily, and "KFC and and MacDonald's" as two examples.

But eaters of Zabiha meat should not get on a high horse either: even if an animal is slaughtered in the Islamic manner, it will still contain these hormones.

PRESERVATIVES ADD TO THE LETHAL MEAT MIX

The meat industry also puts the preservatives nitrite or nitrate in meat. These react with the amino group of amino acids of the meat or protein to produce nitro so-amine. This is red pigment. This results in meat still looking red in its color, as if it is fresh, even if it has been on the shelf for one or two weeks. While this may be good for industry, but it causes cancer.

Animal food containing meat and blood, as well as dangerous hormones and preservatives leads one thing. "If that animal has been fed all of the above, then it is no longer Halal, even if a Muslim goes to the farm and slaughters the animal in the name of Allah, [it] does not make the animal Halal."

HORMONES IN MILK TOO

In February 1994, the United States Food and Drug Administration (USDA) approved the use of another hormone for cows-estrogen. This was used to increase milk bladder size and milk excretion resulting in greater production of milk in a shorter period of time.

Estrogen can cause cancer of the breast and other cancers in general. This is particularly frightening when we consider that many people drink milk daily, and consume its by-products like milk, cheese and cookies. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demanded that farms put the label EST on milk cartons if they use estrogen on cows, the milk industry convinced the FDA to forego putting this label. That means you don't know if the milk you drink contains estrogen or not. Consider what is happening here in UK!

.

CONSIDER SOME FORM OF VEGETARIANISM

The option is simply eating a vegetable-based diet, as opposed to a meat based one. While Islam has not forbidden meat eating, it also has not made it a religious requirement to consume meat on a daily basis. Moderation in eating, as is the case with other aspects of life, is the key, according to Islam. By opting for a more vegetable-based diet, this will reduce the meat intake of individuals, and lessen the amount of hormones and other dangerous chemicals ingested indirectly because of the meat. Current science and health research has also found eating a vegetarian diet can be healthier for you.

EATING ORGANIC FOODS

Meat, dairy products and eggs that are from animals, which have been fed with organic food, is also an option for those who want to keep eating meat. Organic livestock are not given antibiotics or hormones. They are given products that have been derived from natural sources. While organic foods may be more expensive than meat bought at the supermarket, the fact that it's free of cancer-causing ingredients is well worth the cost if you want to maintain your meat eating. Organic foods can be bought at natural foods stores, the health food sections and produce departments of supermarkets and at farmers' markets.



NOW ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN YOUR LOCAL BUTCHER SHOP. 95% OF ALL BUTCHERS ARE SELLING STUNNED CHICKEN OR Al-JALLALAH.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS: -



1. THE STUNNED CHICKENS ARE CHEAP.

2. BECAUSE THE POUND IS STRONG THEY ARE IMPORTING CHICKENS FROM EUROPE AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. MOST OF THE CHICKENS ARE NOT EVEN HALAL.

3. MOST CHICKEN PRODUCT ESPECIALLY COMING FROM HOLLAND AND DENMARK ARE INJECTED WITH 25% TO 49% WATER AND 5% TO 7% ADDITIVES WHICH MAKES IT VERY CHEAP.

4. THERE IS NOWHERE IN EUROPE WHERE YOU CAN SLAUGHTER CHICKENS WITHOUT STUNNING. (EXCEPT U.K)

5. THERE ARE SOME VERY WELL KNOWN SO CALLED HALAL MEAT AND POULTRY COMPANIES WHO BRING IN HARAM PRODUCTS FROM EASTERN EUROPE AND PACK IT IN THEIR BOXES AND SELL IT AS HALAL.

WE MUST STOP THESE CHEATS



WE MUST GET TOGETHER AND STOP THESE CHEATS FROM FEEDING THE MUSLIMS ON HARAM MEAT.

FIRST I MUST TELL YOU THE LAW IN UK. UNITED KINGDOM IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN EUROPE WHICH ALLOWS MUSLIMS AND JEWS “NOT TO STUN” THE ANIMALS BEFORE SLAUGHTERING THEM.SO THERE IS NO NEED TO STUN.

WHY THEN THEY DO IT! ! !

THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO:

1. ASK THE SHOP OWNER WHERE HE GETS HIS CHICKENS. [INVOICE, DELIVERY NOTE, EEC NUMBER OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE (This is very important)]

2. ASK HIM TO PRODUCE A HALAL CERTIFICATE SAYS; ”SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING”.

3. ASK THEM WHEN THER ARE SHORT OF CHICKEN WHER THEY GET THER SUPPLY FROM

MOST CERTIFICATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: -



1. I MOHAMMED TAHIR CERTIFY THAT ALL CHICKEN, HEN, AND TURKEY MEAT PRODUCED BY FRANK BIRD POULTRY IS FROM BIRDS OF HALAL ORIGIN MADE BY MYSELF, AND IS SUPPLIED TO HENHOUSE WHOLESALE.

2. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT CHICKEN PRODUCTS REFERRED TO BE FROM CHICKEN PROCESSED AT SOVEREIGN FOOD GROUP LTD ATTLEBOROUGH, NORFOLK AND HAS BEEN SLAUGHTERED ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC RITE AS PER RULINGS OF ISLAMIC SHARIAH OF ALLAH AND PROPHET MOHAMMED PEACE IS UPON HIM. THIS HAS BEEN DONE AND SUPERVISED BY OUR MUSLIM SLAUGHTERMAN MR. MOHAMMED NAZIR.

3. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT PENWOOD POULTRY LTD IS SLAUGHTERING CHICKEN UNDER STRICT ISLAMIC RULES AND REGULATIONS THIS SLAUGHTERING OF CHICKEN TO BE HALAL IS PERFORMED BY MUSLIM EMPLOYEES UNDER STRICT INSTRUCTION BY N.A.S.I.M. THEREFORE, IT IS GUARANTEED THAT THE CHICKEN SUPPLIED BY PENWOOD COMPANY ARE 100% HALAL.

4. OUR POULTRY SLAUGHTERER MR RASHID SLAUGHTERS ALL OUR PRODUCE AND IS SLAUGHTERED IN THE HALAL WAY. (IVAN HOUSLEY POULTRY)

5. “HALAL FOOD AUTHORITY LICENCE” THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT HAVING FULFILLED THE HFA RULES, FREEMANS OF NEWENT ARE PRODUCING FRESH CHICKEN BY SLAUGHTERING WITH HALAL METHODS AND IN COMPLIANCE OF MAFF AND EC REGULATIONS…CHAIRMAN G.SIDDIQI PRESIDENT MASOOD KHAWAJA…

YOU WILL SEE EVERY TYPE OF HALAL CERTIFICATES BUT YOU WILL ONLY SEE VERY FEW CERTIFICATES, WHICH SAY;

“SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING”.

ALL THE ABOVE COMPANIES STUN THEIR CHICKENS, WHICH MEANS OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS ARE PAID VERY WELL TO WRITE THESE CERTIFICATES.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS INSIST ON A HALAL CERTIFICATE WHICH HAVE THE FOLLOWING THE WORDS:

SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING

IF NOT BOYCOTT THIS SHOP UNTIL HE PRODUCES THE CERTIFICATE. AFTER GETTING A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE PLEASE POST ME A COPY, I WILL THEN CHECK THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE OUT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE GENUINE AND POST YOU THE RESULTS.

BY TAKING THIS ACTION, WE WILL BE LETTING THE SHOP KEEPER KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY MORE STUNNED MEAT, THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO PROPER UN-STUNNED HALAL MEAT.







HALAL OR HARAM?

STUNNED CHICKEN



THE CHICKEN IS SUSPENDED ON THE SHACKLE UPSIDE DOWN THEN THE HEAD IS DRAGGED THROUGH A BATH OF ELECTRIFIED WATER, WHICH STUNS THE CHICKEN. THE FOLLOWING THINGS HAPPEN TO THE CHICKEN: -

1. DROWNING AND SUFFOCATION RESULTING IN DEATH.

2. 10% TO 35% DIE (24% in UK, MAFF Report, 17% to 35% in USA) BEFORE REACHING THE POINT OF KILL (SLAUGHTERING) DEPENDING ON THE ELECTRIC VOLTAGE USED.

3. THE HEART IS WEAKENED SO IT CANNOT PUMP OUT ALL THE BLOOD FROM THE BODY. WHEN BLOOD IS LEFT IN THE BODY IT IS VERY HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH AS IT CONTAINS TOXINS AND UREA, AND MAY CONTAIN BACTERIA, PARASITES, VIRUSES, NEW CHEMICALS AND DRUGS ETC. BESIDES THIS, BLOOD CAN LEAD TO POISONING WHEN STILL IN MEAT TO BE CONSUMED

4. ELECTRIC STUNNING SEVERELY HURTS THE ANIMAL BECAUSE IT CAUSES AN IMMEDIATE NERVE SHOCK, WHICH CAUSES THE BIRD INTENSE PAIN. THIS IN EFFECT IS AN EXTREME TORTURING FOR THIS POWERLESS BIRD. THOSE WHO STUNNED POULTRY HAVE NO MERCY IN THEIR HEARTS FOR ANIMALS.



ALLAH SAYS IN THE QUR'AN (CHAPTER 5, VERSE 4): “FORBIDDEN TO YOU (FOR FOOD) ARE DEAD ANIMALS, BLOOD, THE FLESH OF SWINE AND THAT OVER WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED OTHER THAN THE NAME OF ALLAH.”







REASONS WHY CHICKENS ARE STUNNED ARE AS FOLLOWS: -

1. YOU CAN DO UP TO 15,000 OR MORE CHICKENS PER HOUR THUS REQUIRING LESS STAFF WHICH MEANS LESS OVERHEADS AND MORE PROFIT FOR THE CHEATING WHOLESALER AND RETAILER.

2. STUNNING RESULTS IN AN INCREASE IN THE WEIGHT OF THE BIRD OF ABOUT 10% OF ITS TOTAL WEIGHT. THE INCREASE DOES NOT BENEFIT THE CONSUMER BECAUSE IT IS CLOTTED BLOOD IN THE VEINS AND ARTERIES.

3. POULTRY SLAUGHTER HOUSES ARE VERY keen TO STUN AS MANY CHICKENS as possible in the least possible TIME AND SO COMMERCIAL INTERESTS HAVE OFTEN BEEN THE OVERRIDING factor.

HOW TO RECOGNISE STUNNED CHICKEN:

1. WHEN THE CHICKENS ARE STUNNED THEY DO NOT FLAP THEIR WINGS, WHICH means you will not find any broken wings.

2. If YOU OPEN UP THE CHICKEN YOU WILL SEE SPECKS OF BLOOD on the inside of the breast fillet.

3. If the stun is severe the wish bone will be broken.

4. The leg meat is dark because blood is still in the meat.



IF YOU REQUIRE FURTHER INFORMATION ON STUNNING PLEASE E-MAIL ME ON:

halal@salim.demon.co.uk - salim71@cableinet.co.uk













Islamic method of Slaughtering animals is better

...scientific reason...

Al Shaddad Bin Aous has quoted this tradition of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) "Allah calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter, sharpen your blade to relieve its pain".

Many allegations have been made that Islamic slaughter is not humane to animals. However, Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University, Germany, proved through an experiment, using an electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) that *Islamic slaughter is THE humane method of slaughter* and captive bolt stunning, practiced by the Western method, causes severe pain to the animal. The results surprised many.



Experimental Details:

1. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of the brain.

2. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks.

3. Some animals were slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and carotid Arteries of both sides; as also the trachea and esophagus Halal Method.

4. Some animals were stunned using a captive bolt pistol humane slaughter by the western method.

5. During the experiment, EEG and ECG were recorded on all animals to record the condition of the brain and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning.



Results and Discussion:

I - Halal Method

1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.

2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep - unconsciousness. This is due to a large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.

3. After the above mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.

4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood from the body: resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.

II - Western method by C.B.P. Stunning

1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.

2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.

3. The hearts of the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.











AN UP-TO-DATE





ASSESSMENT OF

THE MUSLIM METHOD

OF SLAUGHTER

















Presented by Dr. Abdul Majid Katme, (Chairman of the Islamic Medical Association in the UK) at the UFAW* Symposium on Humane Slaughter and Euthanasia, held at the Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, on the 18th and 19th September, 1986.











*Universities Federation for animal Welfare (in association with the Humane Slaughter Association).





In the name of ALLAH, the Beneficent, the Merciful

AN UP-TO-DATE ASSESSMENT OF THE MUSLIM METHOD OF SLAUGHTER

I N D E X



• Terminology.



• Islam in Brief:



Food & Dietary Laws

Mercy

Health

• The Islamic View Towards Animals.



• The Islamic Method of Slaughtering.



• The Best Method of Slaughtering.



• The Methods of Slaughter used today.



• Conclusion.



• Apendex.

• References.

TERMINOLOGY

I would prefer to call this talk 'An up-to-date assessment of the Islamic method of slaughter' as the Islamic view towards slaughter is what we would like to discuss here today; Islam has got permanent fixed rules and teachings which do not change with time but Muslims sometimes, especially when they are not practicing, do not adhere properly and strictly to the code of Islam.

Before going into this subject, I think it would be wise, for the benefit of this large, non-Muslim audience, to give an idea about Islam, a faith with 1.5-2 million followers here in the UK. I am sure that this explanation about our background will clarify many of the issues which we would like to raise during the talk today and will make you understand the importance and wisdom behind our Islamic Law in connection with slaughtering of animals for food.

Islam is the last, and final religion, after Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the last Prophet giving this message to mankind. The word Islam means voluntary, total and full submission to the words and orders of the creator, ALLAH (s.w.t) the one and only creator, the creator of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them). Islam is a full, comprehensive religion and code of life which contains all the instructions for the different aspects of life - health, nutrition economic, education, science, morality etc. - for the individual male and female, for the family and for the society at large. Its rules and orders are permanently fixed, forever, applying to any one place at any one time.

We therefore believe that religious law should not be interfered with by any authority.

The two basic references for Muslim laws are:

• The Qur'an (The final Book of Revelation, revealed to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him).



• The Sunnah [sayings, actions and behavior of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).]



ALLAH (s.w.t) is the Creator of the universe, our bodies - with its anatomy and physiology - and the Creator of all the animals.The same Creator has given us the appropriate laws, especially in connection with food and diet, which will never, ever, lead to any contradiction or any suffering or ill-health. The laws of real science go hand in hand with the laws of ALLAH (s.w.t)

Food and dietary laws are an important part of Islam and we have all the details about:

• what food to eat and drink

• what food and drink to avoid;

• how to eat and drink (i.e. etiquette);

• when to eat and drink

• what animals to eat and

• which ones to avoid;

• how to slaughter the animals.



All this, and a lot more, have been stated and explained in the Qur'an and by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in his sayings and practice and to eat halal (lawful) food is a form of worship, like prayer.

Mercy is another characteristic of Islam:

• mercy to all animals;

• to children; to women;

• to the elderly,

• and even to plants.

• A person can go to paradise for feeding a thirsty dog! A person can go to hell for starving a cat!

Health is also another characteristic embedded in all the teachings and instructions of Islam. Anything halal (lawful) will lead you to good health, free from disease and suffering; conversely, anything haram (unlawful) will inevitably lead to disease and suffering of one kind or another. For example adultery leads to venereal diseases and other problems; homosexuality leads to AIDS, etc.; alcohol abuse gives brain damage, liver disease and many other medical, psychological and social problems (all these are forbidden).

Fourteen hundred years ago, Islam talked about the relationships between diet and disease by encouraging the Halal (lawful) diet and drink. Allow me to establish a few basic facts in Islam, which are relevant to our subject today. It is forbidden to consume blood, in any form, and, medically, we know that blood is harmful to health. As it contains toxins and urea, and may contain bacteria, parasites viruses new chemicals and drugs etc. Besides this, blood can lead to poisoning when still in meat to be consumed.



It is also forbidden in the Old and New Testaments to cosume blood.

The Bible says: -

“And they smote the Philistines that day from Mishmash to Aijalon: and the people were very faint. And the people flew upon the spoil, and took: sheep, and oxen. And calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood. Then they told Saul. Saying. Behold, the people sin against the Lord. In that they eat with the blood. And he said. Ye have transgressed: roll a great stone unto me this day. And Saul said. Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them. Bring me hither every man his ox. And every man his sheep. And slay them here, and eat: and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood.”

(Samuel 15: 31-34).

“Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life: and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it. thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.”

(Deuteronomy 12:23-24)



It is forbidden to eat the meat of an animal, which has died before being slaughtered (by any kind of stunning, strangulation - chemical or physical -, a blow to the head -concussion or percussion -, or due to a fall etc.) Only meat killed in the Halal (lawful) way is allowed to be consumed (dead meat with all the clotted blood in it is very harmful to health).





ALLAH (s.w.t) says in the Qur'an 'Forbidden to you (for food) are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine and that over which has been invoked other than the name of ALLAH (s.w.t) that which has been killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a headlong fall or by being gored to death; that which has been partly eaten by a wild animal, unless you are able to slaughter it (in due form) and that which is sacrificed on stone (altars).

( Surah Al-Maida 5/3)





It is also forbidden (Haram) to eat carnivorous animals such as lions, tigers, etc., carnivorous birds like eagles and hawks, scavengers like vultures, mules, donkeys, rats, mice, dogs, cats and frogs. Some seafood's, however, are allowed (halal) Eating meat is not compulsory in Islam, but highly recommended. Slaying animals for food has been described, clearly, by the Prophet Muhammad, (peace be upon him), in his saying,



'Verily, Allah (s.w.t) has prescribed proficiency in all things; thus, if you kill, kill well and if you slaughter, slaughter well. Let each one of you sharpen his blade and let him spare suffering to the animal he slaughters'

(Sahih Muslim).

In addition, it has been practiced by him (the Prophet) in the most perfect and humane way (and he is a Prophet and a model to follow).

The Islamic View Of the Animals:

Again, to make you understand the religious concept of slaughtering, I would like to give you a brief idea about how Islam views animals and what the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad. (peace be upon him) have said about the animal kingdom and its place in Islamic teaching.



The biggest chapter in the Qur'an is Al-Baqarah (The Cow). It contains 286 verses, many of which are verses of guidance and Islamic instruction for the believers.

Other chapters of the Qur'an with titles related to the animal kingdom are:

• Cattle, Bees, Ants, Spider, Elephant.



According to the Muslim scholars and scientists, these titles and names of the animals carry behind them some wisdom and interesting, meaningful ideas. Look at how these animals have the honor to have chapters of the Holy Book named after them!



There are also other animal names mentioned in the Qur'an with the stories relevant to them:

• camel, mule, donkey, horse, snake, locusts, whale, pig, fox, house-fly, carnivorous animals and birds, frog, bird, calf, fish, sheep, monkey, lice, dog, goat, bee and many others.



Preservation of the species was done a long time ago by ALLAH's (s.w.t) order in Noah's Ark, without which we would not know of any animals in our lives today. This is also a reminder for us to preserve the species in our lifetime and at any one time.Animals were created before mankind.



All animals are created for the benefit of man (and there should be a kind, loving relationship and treatment given by man to them).



Animals can be used, gently and kindly in the way that they have been created, i.e. you do not ride a cow The behavior of each animal is a sign of the Excellent Maker and Creator.



Each animal has the right to sanctity of life and this life is taken from some by the permission of ALLAH (s.w.t) and for good reasons only for food, by the most humane and merciful ways of killing.





ALLAH (s.w.t) says in the Qur'an:

'There is not an animal on Earth nor a bird that flies by its wings, but they are community like you.'

(The Cattle, 6/38)





The word “Community” is very interesting; here we say 'Chinese Community, Turkish Community' and we imply that this community has its own natural habits, language and special way of communication, special ways of food and eating, in recreation and mating, rearing their offspring and each one is respected individually with his or her own rights. This key-word 'community' was mentioned 1,400 years ago in the Qur'an to stimulate mankind to study all the different behavior and needs and to respect the rights of the animals.



The Qur'an says, 'they are a community like you.' So the rights of the animals in Islam, and their need for normal physiological behavior are::



• Food (no genetically modified food) and drink (healthy, natural), suckling;



• Facilities for normal elimination (defecation and urination);



• Facilities for normal standing, walking, running and flying;



• Facilities for normal mating and copulation (with no outside interference of their reproductive system) and normal rearing of their offspring (full motherhood and no separation of mother and baby); no beating, cruelty or any harsh treatment to be treated individually with full respect for the body;



• Facilities for recreation; resting, dozing, lying-down and play facilities;



• Facilities for social behavior;



• Full sleeping facilities and protection from harsh weather;



• Facilities for individual comfort; grooming, playing etc.



There should be full recognition of the psychological needs; animals should not be slaughtered in front of others nor should the knife be sharpened before them; the baby should not be forcibly removed from the mother.



The welfare of the animals must come first, before monetary profit.



It is forbidden in Islam, to kill an animal in a cruel way or for pleasure, to use an animal as a target, to cut a part of it whilst still alive or finally, to set animals fighting against each other.



The above points are why Islam is against the following: battery cage (factory farming), fox hunting, bull fighting, cock fighting, dog fighting, using the animals for targets, culling seals, killing frogs, caging the animal, most vivisection. the abuse of drugs in animals and the interference with their organs sexuality [castration, sterility etc.(reproduction)]





As you know, all of these problems of cruelty to animals are endemic and epidemic in the Western society so you can see that there is a lot to do today in order to relieve the suffering of animals. This is especially so as the complaints have been arriving, day after day (about 50,000) of animal cruelty and the RSPCA have been treating more than 192.000 animals per year, due to men's cruelty!



We believe that a God-conscious personality is the best defense against human cruelty to animals and I am sure that this would save the RSPCA a lot of work.

The Islamic method of slaughtering animals for food (DHABH)



In the beginning I would like to mention that the words of ALLAH [the Creator and the Legislator (swt)]are the absolute; 100 per cent right, 100 per cent safe and 100 per cent humane and cannot be put to test or examination by a human who is created, who is limited in his outlook and who cannot see or know everything. However, true scientific study can discover, sometimes, the wisdom and reason behind some Divine teachings or orders.



I am talking now about a religious belief, and human right which cannot be justified by philosophical argument of scientific testing or human debate or false assumptions and wrong conclusions. However to our surprise, when we have looked to our Islamic method of slaughter, and looked also to the other methods of slaughter today, and tried to make comparisons or, as they say, an 'up-to-date assessment' we were surprised to discover many of the good reasons behind our method and their signs of their Divine source and to also discover the failures, problems, harm and suffering of all the other methods which are man-made and which have been shown by many scientists in their study and research.



Before going into the detail of the Islamic method of slaughter, please allow me to mention and discuss together what the best method of slaughter is, generally.



I am sure that you will agree with me that the best method of slaughter should have the following criteria:



• Allows for draining most of the blood out;



• Causes no stress to the animal;



• Does not cause death before the actual slaughter;



• Found with no fault in any scientific study;



• 'Proved to be humane' , causing no “pain” or suffering or cruelty, even to a few individual animals;



• Causes no damaging or harmful effects to the quality of the meat;



• Found to be a sure way of death (reliable);



• Found to be irreversible (slowly and gradually progressing to death);



• With only one way of killing (direct method);



• To be practical and realistic; quick and easy to perform in any society, in any place;



• 'Very economical' (not a lot of machinery and equipment, etc.);



• Being more familiar to the animal, with less machinery and restraint (with a less threatening atmosphere);



• Safe to perform (no electricity, gas or shocks, etc.);



• Accepted by the community consuming the meat;



• Liked by the slaughter man, with no psychological ill-effects on him;



• Blessed for the believers by ALLAH (s.w.t).







Blackmore (1982) has identified the important factors which should be considered when choosing the most suitable method of slaughter as: humane aspects; capital and running costs; ease of operation and operator safety; secondary effects on the carcass and by-product quality, statutory and religious requirements.



In the light of these important factors, I have been expanding the criteria as shown above, to try to make the matter easier to understand. I would like you to remember these points and check them very well with the Islamic method of slaughter and the other methods of slaughter used today.



The Islamic (halal) method of slaughter can be described as follows:



The animal has to be lawful to eat, alive, healthy, to be slaughtered only for the reason of food, in the name of The Creator, ALLAH (s.w.t) and not for any other reasons (it has to be well-fed, not thirsty handled and moved gently and individually).



The slaughter-man must be in possession of a clear mind and not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, trained in the job, with an awareness of what he is doing.



The act of slaughter (Al-Dhabh) starts by pronouncing the name of ALLAH (s.w.t), The Creator (BISMILLAH ALLAHU AKBAR ), to take His permission and in order to make the Slaughter-man accountable and responsible and to give compassion and mercy to the animal during this act. Besides, any action we do in our daily life should be commenced with the mention of the name of ALLAH (s.w.t ) The Most Kind, The Most Merciful.







The Qur'an says:

“And eat not of that where on ALLAH's name has not been mentioned for verily it is abomination.

( Surah Anam 6/121)





Then, by a very, very sharp knife (which should be kept like a surgeon's knife in sharpness and cleanliness, as previously stated by DR Ghulam Khan (UFAW, 1971), a Deep swift cut done instantaneously and quickly to the blood vessels of the neck (the two caroid arteries which carry blood to the brain and head, the two jugular veins which bring blood from the brain back to the heart), the trachea (windpipe) and the oesophagus (gullet), but the central nervous system (the spinal cord) should be kept safe and intact (not cut).





This deep, large cut through all the blood vessels of the neck causes acute blood loss and haemorrhagic shock: we know the blood is under great pressure , especially in the big carotid arteries (systolic pressure ) and at high speed and, according to physical law, the pressure always goes from the high to low resistance - the point of the cut is the scene of low resistance for blood to and from the brain. As we have a fully intact, alive heart, so most of the blood is going to be pumped and poured out instantaneously and quickly under pressure leading to a rapid fall in the blood pressure. Thus depriving the brain of its main source of oxygen and glucose, and with no blood which is necessary to keep the animal alive and functioning and able to deal with any perceptive sensation this leads to anoxia and almost immediate loss of consciousness (anesthetization or “stunning” ). The cerebrospinal fluid pressure falls even more rapidly than the blood pressure because of the jugular veins being cut, and this results in a deep shock and more loss of consciousness.



The animal, at this stage after the cut, is in a stable and quiet state with no movement or any distressed behavior. One would assume, if there was any pain or suffering, it would kick, move or show signs. After this short resting phase, and because the brain is deprived of oxygen and blood due to the huge amount of bleeding, the heartbeats increase in order to increase the flow of blood to the brain and other deprived areas. Tonic and clonic involuntary contractions and convulsions start and occur as automatic physiological reflexes in order to send and push blood up, especially to the brain. These contractions and convulsions are 'painless' (not, as the layman would imagine, that the kicking is due to the pain) especially when the animal is already unconscious and still has an intact spinal cord with safe nerve centers to the limbs, muscles and organs. So, we have a huge amount of bleeding from the initial cut then blood loss is continuing with the squeezing pressure of these contractions and convulsions, leading to maximum bleeding-out and less retention of blood in the carcass, giving a better quality of meat [both safer and healthier (this is like direct method of slaughter, “but without stunning”)].



I would like to end this section of my talk with at least one testimony from, for example, Lord Horder GCVO, MD, FRCP, who explained this type of slaughtering scientifically (and without the use of stunning):



'The animal loses consciousness immediately. It is difficult to conceive a more painless and rapid mode of death; for a few seconds after the cut is made, the animal makes no movement its body is then convulsed, the convulsive movements continue for about a minute and then cease. The interpretation of this fact is clear: the cut is made by a knife so sharp and so skillfully handled that a state of syncope with its associated unconsciousness follows instantaneously upon the severing of the blood pressure. The movement of the animal which begins at about 90 seconds are epileptiform in nature and are due to the blood-less state of the brain (cerebral ischemia with complete anoxaemia). Sensation has been abolished at the moment of the initial syncope.'



Of course, there have been many other statements by eminent scientists giving the same explanations and conclusions about the direct act of slaughtering such as DR Leonard Hill (1923), Sir Lovatt Evans, Professor Harold Burrow, I M Levingen (1979), Professor F R Bell. Mr. Openshaw, Mr. Hayhurst etc. (Some are quoted, in Impact Magazine 1985).



Let me quote Prof. Leonard Hill, F.R.C.V.S, who strongly believed and expressed his views in his article - that the incision applied in the Ritual Slaughter causes no pain. Any Surgeon today knows that sudden big injuries are not felt at the time of infliction. Pain comes later when the wound is (septic, and) inflamed. Structures beneath the skin apart from isolated sensory nerve endings are insensitive to the knife.





Apart from the clear Divine laws and orders to us, and the clear physiological and scientific evidence, I would like to mention one golden rule in Islam which, again, fits into the perfection of mercy to every individual animal.



The rule states “Any action or method which will definitely lead to some harm damage or suffering is to be rejected or, any action which can be suspected to lead to a prohibited act is also to be rejected (e.g. eating dead animals or consuming blood etc.). So any method of slaughtering which can give us more blood or a dead animal [before the cut (for slaughtering) is made] is rejected”







Two facts are indisputably established by the above Professor:



a) That a big injury such as throat cutting is not felt at the moment of infliction.

b) That the cutting of big arteries in the throat instantly arrests the circulation in the brain and abolishes consciousness.



Prof. Charles Lovett Evans, F.R.C.V.S., has this to say:-

" As anyone who has ever witnessed the act is well aware, the animal lies absolutely still the moment the vessels arc cut, and it is only a minute or so later that asphyxia! convulsions set in. Consciousness we know is lost long before this " .



" On physiological principles, it is clear that when such large vessels are severed the arterial blood pressure falls at once to a very low level, moreover the carotid arteries being severed, much of the blood supply to the brain is immediately lost and the result is immediate loss of consciousness. To consider that the animal suffers pain is, in my opinion, quite absurd. I consider the method to be equal to any ".



Prof. Leonard Hill says that no death could be more merciful, taking into account that the animal unlike man, has no knowledge or fear of impending death. The death is as quiet and merciful as that inflicted on murderers by hanging; to them, of course, the whole of this agony is in the advancing fear of death which is dated and timed and known to the victim.

Methods of slaughter used today



1.The captive bolt pistol used commonly for cattle, calves and goats. It is the shooting, by a gun or pistol in the forehead (mechanical method) by a blank cartridge or compressed air. It could be penetrating or non-penetrating (percussion stunning). It breaks the skull, shatters and destroys the brain. A rod of steel is introduced in the skull hole to smash, cut and destroy the brain [pithing:now to be prohibited in UK and Europe by January 2001]. All this occurs before the real slaughtering cut is made. Recently, a new method by which a steel needle to penetrate the skull and brain and in which air is injected to cause intercranial pressure has been developed.



Problems, harm and results of this method have been reported in different scientific and Government reports, as follows:



• Improper stunning (failure of stunning leading to re-stunning and double shots (FAWC 1982 and 1984);



• Paralysis of the animal while still conscious (FAWC 1982 and 1984);



• 'Depressed skull fracture' and considerable damage to the brain (FAWC 1984);



• Brain contamination (Blackmore 1979);



• Blood splash (extranvasation of blood from vessels Into muscle and meat with some clotting of the blood) (Blackmore 1979);



• Brain hemorrhage (Blackmore 1979);



• Bruising and injuries from the heavy fall of the animal after the shot;



• Death reported by Lawton (1971); Temple Grandin (1980) stated that tests on sheep and calves indicated that penetrating captive bolt stunning actually kills the animal;



• Damage or harm to the meat. Marple (1977) stated 'Captive bolts should be discontinued in view of theirdetrimental effect on meat quality. (Quoted by Biala 1983)



We know that this method is still widely practiced, especially in the UK!



2. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) it is done by moving the animal through a room which contains a mixture of CO2 and air (about 65/70% CO2 by volume). It is used only for pigs. It is a form of chemical strangulation. CO2 is a harmful gas to be inside the body.



Problems and harm reported include;



• Considerable, unacceptable stress (violent excitation, general agitation and convulsions).



• 'CO2 stunning is more stressful than either properly applied electrical or captive bolt stunning' (Temple Grandin 1980).



• Suffocation, strangulation and death to the animal before the cut; death was reported by Glen (1971).



• Toxic effect of the gas on the blood and physiology.



• It is definitely a cruel way for the animal and I would like to quote here also from FAWC (1984) when they discussed pain; 'It is doubtful whether the animal feels pain or is even conscious'. This method has been banned in Holland and many other European countries



3. Electrical Stunning could be to head and brain only or to head and back or to the legs, and there are three varieties:



a. Low Voltage Electrical Stunning by a pair of scissors-like tongs with circular or rectangular electrodes which are usually immersed in a saline solution then applied to the side of the head. Voltage is not less than 75 volts (50 Hz mains frequency) for not less than seven seconds.



Problem and harm with this method include:



• It is cruel, by giving an electric shock directly, with no anesthesia;



• paralysis while the animal is conscious (pain);



• doubt about the effect and feeling of pain;



• unreliable: missed shots and re-stunning;



Recovery of the animal usually occurs within 30-40 seconds. Electric stunning only induces paralysis, not unconsciousness, leaving the animal helpless but completely conscious to pain. (E.H. Callow from his book 'Food Hygiene)



Some scientists and physiologists have expressed serious misgivings; some are of the opinion that the animal is merely paralyzed by the electric current and so prevented from making a sound or a movement while fully conscious and experiences great pain as the current passes through its body. Such views are shared by the following Professors and Scientists:



a) Prof. A.C. Ivey (North Western University of America)

b) Prof. M.J. Hertz, of France

c) Prof. Roos & Koopmans, Holland.



Stunning does not first involve passing an electric current through the animal's body. The magnitude of the current passed must be adequate; voltage of higher rating could lead to bone fractures. Voltage of lower rating produces electric convulsions without inducing unconsciousness. A lower voltage rating needs longer application and this being a matter of judgment, the human element could lead to failure. The variations in the sizes of animals and their individual resistance to the current are also important considerations.



Let me quote the following petition of Meat Packers in Denmark to the Danish Government:-

“Stunning with electricity causes extravasation in the meat, sanguinary intestines and fractures in the spinal column, pelvis, shoulder blades, through the shock. The blood in the meat makes it more susceptible to putrefaction and has detrimental effect on taste.”



b. High Voltage Electric Stunning by using an electric shock of 300-400 volts, commonly used for pigs and sheep.



Problems and harm with this method:



• It is very cruel by giving a high electric shock (electrocution to a conscious animal).



As a doctor, I have been practicing for more than 10 years and giving electric shocks ('stunning') (Electro-Convulsive Therapy - ECT) to patients (WITH MENTAL ILLNES) but only after a general anaesthetic. The Medical Council would strike my name from the Register if I should ever dare to give ECT without anaesthesia because it is very cruel to do so. I wonder, is it not cruel to do this to an animal too? Although the voltage used in ECT is smaller than that used for animals, is it not still cruel?



“Electric stunning of calves by the 'head only' method is inhumane in all circumstances”. (Blackmore 1982);



• Ventricular fibrillation, cardiac inhibition, cardiac disfunction, cardiac arrest and death; “Head to back stunning induced a cardiac arrest in all the sheep”. (Gregory and Wotton, 1984);



• Bone-shattering;



• Stress: “>From a physiological standpoint, the stunned animal is more highly stressed”. (Althen 1977 quoted by Temple Grandin 1980);



• High level of blood splashing in the carcass (Gilbert, Blackmore, and Warrington); “Electric stunning raised the blood pressure by 31/2 times”



• Pain and sensation;



I would like to quote, 'It is difficult to determine the sensitivity of an animal to pain during the first few seconds of stunning while the electric current is applied.' (FAWC 1984)





I also quote Baldwin 1971 (quoted by Biala 1983): “The question whether the animal is suffering pain during the period of consciousness in not so readily appropriate to objective experimental investigation”.





c. Electrified Water Bath for Poultry Stunning 'The birds are suspended on the shackle (upside down) then the head is intended to come into contact with the water and the passage of an electric shock through the brain'. (FAWC 1982)



Problems and harm with this method:



• A very cruel way to give the electric shock, especially in this uncomfortable position;



• Drowning and suffocation resulting in death.



• It was well-documented that some birds were taken, still alive to the scalding tank (to remove the skin and feathers) (Heath et al 1983).



“One-third of the birds are dead (mitah) in the stunner and one-third are not stunned”. (FAWC 1982).



• Death from the stunner;

“A substantial number were killed as a result of the shock from the stunner”. (24% dead in UK, MAFF 1999, 17 to 37% in USA) In this report, they emphasized, clearly, eight reasons why stunning may not be satisfactory (please see the report for details)].



• Paralysis by failure of stunning.



• With regard to pain, apart from the above suffering, the FAWC reported “a substantial number may still be sensitive to pain”.



I would like conclude this aspect of pain by quoting from the same poultry report of the FAWC;



“The physiological aspects of the stunning of poultry are not well understood and criteria for establishing insensitivity to pain, suitable for use in working condition, may well be unreliable”.

Conclusion



As we have seen in all these methods of slaughtering today, the following are prevalent and are taken from 36 scientific studies and research papers:*



• Stress to the animal (in at least 7 studies)



• Death before sticking (in at least 7 studies)



• Harmful effects in the quality of the meat (in at least 4 studies)



• Internal hemorrhage, blood splash, speckle, salt and pepper hemorrhage as a result of stunning (in at least 8 studies)



• Pain (shown in at least 10 scientific studies) which throws doubt on the ability to measure pain in the animal and hints that the animal may be suffering pain in the different methods of slaughter used.



• EEG (Electro-encephalograph): there are at least 7 studies which throw doubt on thevalidity of this measure that the animal is conscious or has lost consciousness.



We still do not understand Stunning; what it does exactly and how it stuns the animal (even in ECT for the human, we also do not know what it does and how it works). We are still unable to define pain and sensation of the animal (and we will be unlikely to do so) and to understand the loss of consciousness and its relation to pain.



I would like to quote Gregory and Wotton (1985): 'There is as yet no unequivocable scientific evidence which shows how electrical stunning stuns an animal'.

Also, they said,' There is no information on the brain (glucose and oxygen thresholds) required to support consciousness and memory retention respectively.'



Many scientists opposed to the use of stunning: Van der Wal -78, Wernberg -79, Mcloughlin -71, Pollard -73, winstanley -81, and Marple -77, etc.



With regard to Pain. I would like to quote from the FAWC Report (1985), 'There is a lack of scientific evidence to indicate at what stage in the process of losing consciousness the ability to feel pain ceases.'



More research should be undertaken to establish:

 Signs which indicate that the animal is completely insensible,

 To what extent reflex actions and movements post-stunning and sticking indicate an awareness of pain.' (FAWC 1985)



I also quote Baldwin 1971, (quoted by Biala1983):”The question whether thr animal is suffering pain during the period of consciousness is not so readily appropriate to objective experimental investigation”.



On the 3rd April 1985, The Guardian stated, in an article 'Second Opinion' about “Pain; by any other definition”, 'The Government stated in its White Paper (Cmnd 8883) about measuring pain in an animal. 'there is, and can be, no definition of the term'.



The Times newspaper similarly has mentioned, on the 3rd September 1984, in an article entitled “Animals and experiments, Government's Bill will lead to new guidelines on pain” How can anyone know the extent of the pain an animal is suffering? ... There is no means of measuring pain ... a measurement of pain in not possible.'(with all this ignorance… How can any one be sure … and accuse us of inflicting pain to the animal and be cruel!)



It is clearly, beyond any doubt, the least to say that the assumption of stunning is questionable, and it is quite unfair for the RSPCA, FAWC and others to attack Muslims (and Jews), criticizing their slaughtering methods, and to recommend new laws, enforcing stunning, which have no scientific basis and are unreliable, owing to the problems, harm and cruelty resulting from its practice. (People in glass houses should not throw stones!) It would be useful to hear the Christian viewpoint and why they have changed methods. What is the psychology behind this misconception and misunderstanding?



It is mistaken to identify the cut on the animal with oneself, thinking it is causing pain.



I would like to quote Ray & Scott from their book 'The Humane Emergency of Farm Animals' (UFAW):



'So far as actual physical suffering is concerned, men often identify themselves with the animal they kill and assess pain in terms of their own feeling. To some extent, at least, this attitude is justified but, whereas man is invariably conscious of the inevitability and significance of death, animals usually lack such apprehension unless they are badly handled and feel menaced”



“ Human feelings, however, should as far as possible not be allowed to influence the use of the most humane techniques”.



In addition, we are insulting a dumb creature which cannot express it's feelings or sensations by speech, etc.They are,as reported by Rebecca Hall in her book, 'Voiceless Victims'.





Meat industries are always keen to stun as many animals as possible in the least possible time and so commercial interests have often been the overriding factor



I would like to conclude, that an up-to-date assessment of the Islamic (or religious) method of slaughter shows, beyond doubt, that the Divine method is the only humane method which is free from side-effects and secondary effects on the animal and the consumer and which matches almost all the criteria for the best method of slaughter and is to be recommended.



We obviously would recommend more research and study to be done on the religious methods of slaughter (e.g. the effect of cutting the trachea and oesophagus on the animal during slaughter). We also need research into the effect of restraining. Transporting and using chemicals and drugs on the animals as far as the meat quality and health are concerned. Also, we need to study the psychological effect of the present methods on the slaughter-man himself.









Appendix:

FETWA

RECENT INFORMATIONS: The European Council for Ifta and Research has given this Fatwa in his meeting in Koln/Germany on, 19--22 May 1999:

• “It is not allowed to eat all the stunned chicken as many of it die from the effect of STUNNING”

• “It is not allowed to eat the meat of cow if it was stunned as some of it die from the stunning before Dhabh/Slaughtering” The slaughtering of sheeps in some countries is not different from the Islamic method of slaughter.”

• Pitching's method of stunning will be outlawed in UK/Europe by January/2001 (because of BSE risk)

• It is believed that the cows, the sheep's and the chicken have been fed for long times meat/offal/by products from the animals and blood which are all not allowed in Islam;

It is called: ”LAJIM AL -JALLALAH”, when any of these VEGETFJRIAN animals are fed unnatural diet or animal protein. Or dirt (all considered IZRA);

If this occurs, according to Fuqaha: you kill, all these animals you do not drink their milk or eat their meat and eggs. Alternatively you starve them near to death (3 to 40 days) then you feed them their natural vegetarian diet

--There is a big question mark (?) on all meat from the cow due to BSE or Mad cow disease.

There is also a question mark (?) on all chicken and sheep's when they are fed: animal protein or the meat of other animals.

--There is a big danger in all the meat imported from Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Brazil etc., to Muslim countries.

It is believed that they are not slaughtered in the proper Islamic HALAL way and without stunning.

Also it is believed that they have been fed with unnatural diet (animal protein). -There is a growing campaign in the West against feeding these animals which we eat: Genetically modified food which could Harmful and with health hazards.

The Muslims in Britain are joining with these non-Muslim organizations and Christians in: Genetic Engineering Alliance, the big Umbrella organization;

Muslims are advised to join them.

-Some active bodies like; Friends of the Earth, Green peace, the Soil Association etc. They do have a lot of useful studies and reports, which can be very helpful to the Muslims. (See also many of their Websites).

--On health grounds, Muslims should oppose hormones and antibiotics to be given to the animals we eat.

We need badly: Muslim scientists in the field of animal slaughter and to investigate more: our HALAL method, stunning etc.

--We need badly to grow our own animals” in our own farms in the natural way or organic.

--Pesticides/insecticides and all chemicals should be avoided, as they have been proved harmful to health.

--Most Muslim countries could be on the way like the west for BSE and other diseases as they use STUNNING and do feed their animal's unnatural diet or animal meat/protein.

--A big international Muslim body to investigate and explore all, these dangers to our Muslim Ummah and to stop all these harmful unnatural haram practices.

A massive publicity campaign is urgently needed. --It is allowed in Britain and in many European countries to slaughter the animals without stunning (for Muslims and Jews) there are haram ingredients in many food in the supermarkets.

--Many fruits/vegetables are not safe due to pesticides and insecticides, additives, coloring etc.





The wiser individuals are those who know whom to consult and how to get the most benefit from their opinions: such people are a pleasure to work with. Insensitive, thoughtless individuals, so complacent about their own knowledge or competence in an affair that they will intimidate others into accepting their opinions, are always unbearable to those who must work with them.

Dr.A.Majid Katme

Chairman, Islamic Medical Association

31 North Circular Road,

Palmers Green,

London N13 5EG, UK

Tel & Fax: 0208 345 6220

R E F E R E N CE S



Religious Sources and General References;



1. THE QUR'AN.

2. Sahih Muslirn(the Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad~.peace upon him),.

3. The concordance of words of the Our'an

4. Al--Dhabh”sla~in~ animals for food,the Islamic way” by Dr G.M. Khan.

5. The Science of the animals ,by Aljahez.

6. The Bible(Good News).

7. InstruCtions & P're-requisites of Slaughter according to Shariya of Islam (Muslim world League ,Secretaria General,tiecca Almukarramah).

8. The Report of the Ministry of Awgaf about Slaying the animals for food. (United Arab Emirates).

9. WHO Regional office for the Eastern Mediterranean Jan/1986:Joint meeting of the League of Muslim world(LMW) and the World Health organisation (WHO) on Islamic rules governing foods of animal origin.

10. Humane killing and Slaughterhouse Techniques (UFAW Symposium 1971).

11. Farm animal welfare council :Report on the welfare of Poultry at the time of slaughter.Jan/1982.

12. Farm animal welfare council zReport on the welfare of Livestock(Red Meat animals) at the time of slauqhter.1984.

13. Farm animal welfare council:Report on the welfare of Livestock when slaughtered by Religious methods.July/1985.

14. The Guardian 3rd April/ 985

15. The Times 3rd Sept 1984.

16. Impact magazine :23 Aug/85 and 26th Sept/85.



SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND PAPERS:

1--Sheep Slaughtering procedures: i; Survey of Abattoir practice; (Gregory,Wotton), Br Vet J/1984.

2--Sheep Slaughtering procedures: ii; Time to loss of Brain Responsiveness after exsanguinations or cardiac arrest. [Gregory,Wotton (Brit Vet J /1984)]

3--Sheep Slaughtering procedures: iii; Head to back electrical stunning. (Gregory, Wotton. Brit Vet J/1984)

4--Sheep Slaughtering procedures: iv; Responsiveness of the pain following electrical stunning. (Gregory, Wotton; Brit Vet J/1985).

5-Developments in stunning and slaughter. (21st Meat industry Research conference; K.V.Gilbert)

6-Effects of different slaughter methods on bleeding sheep.(Blackmore, vet record 16/Oct/76)

7-Non-penetrative percussion stunning of sheep & calves; (Blackmore, Vet record,20 Oct/79).

8--Stunning and slaughter of sheep & calves in Newzealand,. (Blackmore & Peterson ,NZ Vet,.J. 29. 99--102).

9--Electroencephalographic studies of the efficacy of electrical stunning of sheep & calves. (Blackmore & Newhook, 26th European meeting of Meat Reserch workers .Vol. 1/1980).

10-The influence of slaughter method on chemistry and property of Lamb meat (Phd thesis by Dr A.S.Biala).

11-Effect of electrical stunning method and cardiac arrest on bleeding efficiency, residual blood,& blood splash in lambs.(Kirton, Frazerhurst, Woods & Chrystal; Meat science,1980--81).

12-Further observations on the slaughter of Poultry. (Heath, Watt, Waite, & Meakins). Brit,Vet J/83.

13-Jewish method of slaughtering animals for food & its influence on blood supply to the brain & on the normal functioning of the nervous system. (I.M.Levinger: Animal Regulation studies 2,1979).

14--Muslim attitudes to the slaughter of food animals. (M.Abdussalam, Animal Regulation studies, 3.1980--1981).

15-Muslim slaughter is it a ritual method': (Helmy, Al-Sana'e, Alnisuf & Al--Sultan: lst International conference on Islamic medicine ,Kuwait/1981).

16-Blood flow in the Carotid & Vertebral arteries of the sheep and calf; (Baldwin, Bell: J.Physiol/1963).

17-The effect on Blood pressure in the sheep & calf of clamping some of the arteries contributing to the Cephalic circulation. (Baldwin, Bell: PhysIol/1963).

18-Proceedings of Seminar Res. Inst of Animal Prod (Netherlands/82),

19-Electroencephalographic studies of stunning & slaughter of sheep and calves: part i: the onset of permanent insensibility in sheep during slaughter. (Newhock, Blackmore; Meat Sci, 1982).

20-Electroencephalographic studies of stunning & slaughter of sheep and calves. part ii: the onset of permanent insensibility in calves during slaughter. (Newhook,Blackmore; Meat Sci 1982).

21-Some aspects of Captive Bolt Stunning in Ruminants. (Lampooy, Logtesting, Sybesma; Proceeding Res. Inst. of Animal Prod/82,Netherlands

22-Final conclusions: Proceeding of seminar; Res. Inst. of Anim,Prod/82 Netetherland

23-Electroanaesthesia of calves & sheeps (Lambooy; Proceeding Res, Inst of animal Prod/82 ,Netherlands).

24-Discussion: (Proceeding Res Inst of Animal Prod/82 Netherlands)

25--The assessment of insensibility in sheep, calves & Pigs during slaughter: (Blackmore, Nčwhook: Proc, of Sem, Resp, lnst, of Ani,Prod/82,Netherlsands)

26--Studies on the central nervous system: Visually evoked cortical responses in sheep (Gregory, Wotton; Research in Vet Science/1983).

27--Practical problems associated with the slaughter of Stock: (Blackmore; Proc of a Seminar at Res. Inst of animal prod/82 Netherlands).

28--Problems with Kosher slaughter:(Temple Grandin; lnt. J. Stu. ani. prod/1980) -

29--Mechanical, Electrical & Anesthetic stunning methods for Livestock: (Temple Grandin:Int.J.Stu.ani.Prod/1980)

30--The assessment of unconsciousness: General principles & practical aspects (Lopes da Silva: Proceedings of a seminar held at the research institute of animal production, Netherlands/1982),

31--A survey of Current methods of Stunning of Farm Animals in EEC countries (G..V Mickwitz: Proceeding research. Inst. of anim.prod.Netherlands/1982).

32-On the Humanity methods of Slaughter: Dr.L.Hill. (The Lancet/192 3.)

33--Stress; What is it & how can it be quantified? (T.H.Friend:Int.J.Stud.Anim..Problems/1980).

34--Relationships between Time of Stunning & Time of Throat cutting and their effect on blood pressure & blood splash in lambs. (Kirton, Bishop, Mullord: Meat Sci/1978) -

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION:

CONSULTATION DOCUMENT ON DRAFT GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR USE OF THE TERM "HALAL"









The draft General Guidelines for Use of the Term "Halal", which are being considered by the Codex Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Food Labelling. Here is some background information You may find helpful.



The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the international body responsible for the execution of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The commission was created in 1962 by FAO and WHO. The program is aimed at protecting the health of consumers and facilitating international trade in foods.



The Codex Alimentarius is a collection of international food standards adopted by the Commission and presented in a uniform manner. It includes standards for all the principal foods, whether processed, semi-processed or raw. The Codex Alimentarius includes provisions in respect of the hygienic and nutritional quality of food, including micro biological norms, provisions for food additives, pesticide residues, contaminants, labelling and presentation, and methods of analysis and sampling. It also includes provisions of an advisory nature in the form of codes of practice, guidelines (such as the enclosed proposed draft General Guidelines for Use of the Term "Halal") and other recommended measures.



There are generally eight 'steps' to the adoption of Codex standards, codes of practice, guidelines or other recommended measures which are as follows:



Steps 1, 2 and 3



The Commission decides that a measure should be proposed and also which subsidiary body or other body should undertake the work.



The Secretariat arranges for the preparation of a draft, which is circulated to Members of the Commission and interested international organizations for comment on all aspects, including possible implications for their economic interests.



Step 4



The comments received are sent by the Secretariat to the subsidiary body concerned which has the power to consider such comments and to amend the draft.



Step 5



The draft is submitted through the Secretariat to the Commission or to the Executive Committee with a view to its adoption. In taking any decision at this step, the Commission or the Executive Committee will give due consideration to any comments that may be submitted by any of it's Members regarding the implications which the proposed draft or any provisions thereof may have for their economic interests.



Step 6



The draft is sent by the Secretariat to all Members and interested international organizations for comment on all aspects, including possible implications of the draft standard for their economic interests.



Step 7



The comments received are sent by the Secretariat to the subsidiary body or other body concerned, which has the power to consider such comments and amend the draft.



Step 8



The draft is submitted through the Secretariat to the Commission together with any written proposals received from Members and interested international organizations for amendments at Step 8 with a view to its adoption as a Codex Measure.



At the 23rd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling on 24-2 October the Committee agreed to forward the proposed draft General Guidelines for Use of the Term "Halal" to the 21st Session of the Code Alimentarms Commission on 3-8 July 1995 for adoption at Step 5 (see above Consequently, your views are now being sought. It was further agreed that the Codex Co-ordinating Committee for Asia would be informed of this decision and that specific comments would be solicited at step 6.



The draft General Guidelines are intended to enhance and complement Section 5.1(iv) of the Codex General Guidelines on Claims. These support the general principles set out in the Codex General Standard for the labelling of Pre packed Foodstuffs that foods should not be described or presented in a manner which is false, misleading or deceptive. These principles form the basis of both EC and UK food labelling legislation.









CODEX GENERAL GUIDELINES ON CLAIMS

CAC/GL 1 - 1979 (REV. 1 - 1991)



INTRODUCTION



The Codex General Guidelines on Claims was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 13th Session, 1979. A revised version of the Codex General Guidelines on Claims was adopted by the 19th Session of the Commission in 1991. It has been sent to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO and WHO as an advisory text, and it is for individual governments to decide what use they wish to make of the Guidelines.



SCOPE AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES



1.1 These guidelines relate to claims made for a food irrespective of whether or not the food is covered by an individual Codex Standard.



1.2 The principle on which the guidelines are based is that no food should be described or presented in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect.



1.3 The person marketing the food should be able to justify the claims made.





DEFINITION



For the purpose of these guidelines, a claim is any representation which states, suggests or implies that a food has particular characteristics relating to its origin, nutritional properties, nature, production, processing, composition or any other quality.



PROHIBITED CLAIMS



The following claims should be prohibited:



3.1 Claims stating that any given food will provide an adequate source of all essential nutrients, except in the case of well defined products for which a Codex standard regulates such claims as admissible claims or where appropriate authorities have accepted the product to be an adequate source of all essential nutrients.



3.2 Claims implying that a balanced diet of ordinary foods cannot supply adequate amounts of all nutrients.



3.3 Claims which cannot be substantiated.



3.4 Claims as to the suitability of a food for use in the prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of a disease, disorder, or particular physiological condition unless they are:



(a) In accordance with the provisions of Codex standards or guidelines " for foods under jurisdiction of the Committee on Foods for Special Dietary Uses and follow the principles set forth in these guidelines.



or,



(b) In the absence of an applicable Codex standard or guideline, permitted under the laws of the country in which the food is distributed.



3.5 Claims which could give rise to doubt about the safety of similar food or which could arouse or exploit fear In the consumer.



POTENTIALLY MISLEADING CLAIMS



The following are examples of claims which may be misleading:



4.1 Meaningless claims including incomplete comparatives and superlatives.



4.2 Claims as to good hygienic practice, such as "wholesome", "healthful", "sound".



CONDITIONAL CLAIMS



5.1 The following claims should be permitted subject to the particular condition attached each:



(i) An indication that a food has obtained an increased or special nutritive value by means of the addition of nutrients, such as vitamins, minerals and amino acids may be given only if such an addition has been made on the basis of nutritional considerations according to the Codex General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods. This kind of indication should be subject to legislation by the appropriate authorities.



(ii) An indication that the food has special nutritional qualities by the reduction or omission of a nutrient should be on the basis of nutritional considerations and subject to legislation by the appropriate authorities.



(iii) Terms such as "natural", "pure", "fresh", "home made", "organically grown" and "biologically grown" when they are used, should be in accordance with the national practices in the country where the food is sold.The use of these terms should be consistent with the prohibitions set out in Section 3.



(iv) Religious or Ritual Preparation (e.g. Halal, Kosher) of a food may be claimed provided that the food conforms to the requirements of the appropriate religious or ritual authorities.



(v) Claims that a food has special characteristics when all such foods have the same characteristics, if this fact is apparent In the claim.



(vi) Claims which highlight the absence or non-addition of particular substances to food may be used provided that they are not misleading and provided that the substance:



(a) Is not subject to specific requirements In any Codex Standard i Guideline:



(b) is one which consumers would normally expect to find in the food;



(c) has not been substituted by another giving the food equivalent characteristics unless the nature of the substitution is clearly stated with equal prominence; and



(d) is one whose presence or addition is permitted in the food.



(vii) Claims which highlight the absence or non-addition of one or more nutrients should be regarded as nutrition claims and therefore should invoke mandatory nutrient declaration in accordance with the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labeling.









GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF THE TERM “HALAL”



AT STEP 5 OF THE PROCEDURE



1 SCOPE



1.1 These guidelines recommend measures to be taken on the use of Halal claims in food labelling.



1.2 These guidelines apply to the use of the term Halal and equivalent terms in claims as defined in the General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods and include its use in trade marks, brand names and business names.



3. These guidelines are intended to supplement the Draft Revision of the Codex General Guidelines on Claims and do not supersede any prohibition contained therein.





2 DEFINITION



2.1 Halal Food means food permitted under the Islamic Law and should fulfil the following conditions:



(i) Does not consist of or contain anything which is considered to be unlawful according to Islamic Law;



(ii) Has not been prepared, processed, transported or stored using any appliance or facility that was not free from anything unlawful according to Islamic Law; and



(iii) Has not in the course of preparation, processing, transportation or storage been in direct contact with any food that fails to satisfy (i) and (ii) above.



2.2 Notwithstanding Section 2.1 above:



(i) Halal food can be prepared, processed or stored [in different sections or lines] within the same premises where non-halal foods are produced, provided that necessary measures are taken to prevent any contact between Halal and non-halal foods;



(ii) Halal food can be prepared, processed, transported or stored using facilities which have been previously for non-halal foods provided that proper cleaning procedures, according to Islamic requirements. have been observed.



3. CRITERIA FOR USE OF THE TERM "HALAL"



3.1 LAWFUL FOOD



The term Halal may be used for foods which are considered lawful. Under the Islamic Law, all sources of food are lawful except the following sources, including their products and derivatives which are considered unlawful:



Food of Animal Origin



(a) Pigs and boars.



(b) Dogs, snakes and monkeys.



(c) Carnivorous animals with claws and fangs such as lions, tigers, bears, and other similar animals.



(d) Birds of prey with claws such as eagles, vultures and other similar birds.



(e) Pests such as rats, centipedes, scorpions and other similar animals.



(f) Animals forbidden to be killed in Islam i.e. ants, bees and woodpecker birds.



(g) Animals which are considered repulsive generally like lice, flies, maggots and other similar animals.



(h) Animals that live both on land and in water such as frogs, crocodiles and other similar animals.



(i) Mules and domestic donkeys.*



(j) All poisonous and hazardous aquatic animals.



(k) Any other animals not slaughtered according to Islamic Law



(l) Blood



(m) Genitals.*



Food of Plant Origin



Intoxicating and hazardous plants.



Drink



(a) Alcoholic Drinks.



(b) All forms of intoxicating and hazardous drinks.



Food Additives



All food additives derived from Item 3.1 (i), (ii) and (iii).



3.2 SLAUGHTERING



All lawful land animals should be slaughtered in compliance with the following requirements:



(i) The slaughterman should be a Muslim who is mentally sound and knowledgeable of the Islamic slaughtering procedures.



(ii) The animal to be slaughtered should be lawful.



(iii) The animal to be slaughtered should be alive or deemed to be alive at the time of slaughtering.



(iv) The head and front of the animal should be directed towards Qibla. (i.e towards Makkah)*



(v) The phrase "Bismillah Allahu Akbar" (in the name of Allah, Allah is the Greatest) should be invoked during slaughtering.



(vi) The slaughtering device should be sharp and should not be lifted off the animal during the slaughter act.



(vii) The slaughter act should sever the trachea, oesophagus and main arteries and veins of the neck region.



(viii) The animal must not be stunned, anaesthetized or otherwise rendered wholly or partilly insensible before slaughter. It must be fully conscious when it is slaughtered.**



3.3 PREPARATION, PROCESSING, PACKAGING, TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE



All food should be prepared, processed, packaged, transported and stored in such a manner that it complies with item 2.1 and 2.2 above and the Codex General Principals on Food Hygiene and other relevant Codex Standards.



4. ADDITIONAL LABELLING REQUIREMENTS



4.1 When a claim is made that a food is Halal, the word Halal or equivalent terms should appear on the label.



4.2 In accordance with the Draft Revision of the Codex General Guidelines on Claims, claims on Halal should not be used in ways which could give rise to doubt about the safety of similar food or claims that Halal foods are nutritionally superior to, or healthier than, other foods.









* The Committee agreed to add the amendments in square brackets (Sections 3.1(i)(m) and 3.2(iv) for additional government comments.



** The Government decided in 1987 that the religious slaughter of animals without pre-stunning should continue to be permitted. The Muslims are exempt from stunning.



THEY (THE MUSLIM) DO NOT HAVE TO STUN

































THE MEAT

LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL IN ISLAM



IT MAY BE ZABIHA, BUT IS IT HALAL?



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



THE CONDITIONS OF HALAL

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

1. The animals should be a Halal (lawful) one, according to the Shari'ah. Dog, cat, monkey or the meat of any such Haram (unlawful) animal can be lawful for a Muslim only in case of extreme urgency where a person is threatened with starvation and his life has to be saved.



We read in the Qur'an: “ Allah has forbidden you what dies of itself (Maytata), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered as a sacrifice over which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked(or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., 0n which Allah Name has not been mentioned while slaughtered). But whoever is driven by necessity, without neither willful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless. Surely Allah is Oft-forgiving, merciful.” (2: 173).



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

Nowadays, generally, the animals are raised and fed, on animal protein and animal by-products derived from pigs, cows, dogs, cats and all other road kills animals. So today , if we are not eating organic meat and animal product food naturaliy, then eating Jallalah, which is haram according to the Islamic rules.

FROM BUSINESS POINT OF VIEW IT IS NOT PROFITABLE FOR TRADERS TO BUY ORGANIC MEAT or organic raised animals, because it is very expensive comparing it to the non-organic meat and animals,- "The animals NOWADAYS which are fed on animal protein from day one" so they are Jallalah and Haram accordingly.

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

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

It is also reported in the Sunan of Abu Da'ud that the Prophet (saw) forbade the meat and milk of the Jallalah animals.

The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade riding and drinking the milk of the camel, which feeds on filth.[So other animals will be the same i.e. cow, sheep, goat and so on in regard to drinking its milk] (Sunan Abu Dawud 3778)



The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited to drink the milk of the animal which feeds on filth. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3777)



The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited eating and drinking the milk of an animal which feeds on filth. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3778)



On the day of Khaybar the Apostle of Allah (May peace be upon him) forbade (eating) the flesh of the animal which feeds on filth and forbade riding it too. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3802)

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

PRESERVATIVES ADD TO THE LETHAL MEAT MIX

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

HORMONES IN MILK TOO

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

3. The animal should be properly slaughtered and not dipped in boiling water or killed by electric shocks (by stunning). With regards to meat that is not slaughtered according to Islamic rites, it is not Halal because of the effect electric shock (stunning) on blood drainage. In regular meat slaughterhouses, animals are brought into an alley and given an electric shock (stunning) to the head to make them unconscious. The animal's legs are then tied up and it is hung upside down, and chicken goes through the water. A knife is put to its throat, and then it is slaughtered. The animal is then temporarily left alone to allow the blood to drain from its body. From there, the meat is processed. But using electric shock (stunning), means that all of the animal's blood does not leave its body, because electric shock (stunning) affects the central nervous system. On the contrary, if an animal is slaughtered in accordance with Islamic guidelines, the central nervous system works properly, and all of the animal's blood comes out. Remaining blood in the animal is a source of fermentation and destruction of meat quality. This means bacteria can grow easily on the meat. From an Islamic perspective, it is Haram to eat meat containing blood, as it is clearly stated in the Qur'an that Muslims cannot consume blood. Any method other than slaughter adopted to kill the animal will not be lawful. Stunning by bolt shot or electric shock before slaughter is not valid and should be avoided, as it is tantamount to torturing an animal, which is inhuman and unlawful in Islam. The tendency of the Shari'ah (Islamic Law) is to make the slaughter more humane by reducing the suffering of the animal.



The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that ; “If you must slaughter, slaughter in the best possible manner, sharpen your knife every time before you slaughter but not in front of the animal to be slaughtered. Do not slaughter an animal in the presence of other animal, and feed and rest the animal before slaughter.”



The idea is to stop cruelty to animals a practice still, prevalent.in the West in various forms and guises despite claims to the contrary, as we shall see. Later.



4. The name of Allah (Bismillah) should be recited. While slaughtering the animal. This recitation may be done by a Muslim or by a Jew or Christian -in his own language. The Holy Qur'an describes that slaughter as unlawful on which the name of Allah has not been recited:



“And eat not (O believers) of that (meat) whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned(at the time of the slaughteringof the animal), for sure! It is abomination(Fisq; a sin and disobedience of Allah). And certainly, ! the devils do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you. But if you obey them[by making Al-Maytata (a dead animal) legal by eating it], you will be in truth idolaters(Mushrikun)." (6: 121).



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



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



7. The animals should be in lawful possession of the person who owns them and free from any apparent or hidden impurities. Similarly, they should not be slaughtered on an idol or grave etc. The slaughterer must be sane. Slaughter is not allowed to be carried by a mentally deranged person, a drunkard, a child not able to discriminate or a Magian. It would be desirable if the animal is made to lie facing Qibla during the act of slaughter.



The Islamic manner of slaughtering an animal is to slit its throat, saying " Bismillah " (In the name of Allah), thus recognizing that its life is taken only by Allah's permission to meet the lawful need of food, and allowing all the blood to drain out. The meat sold commercially in the U.S.A. and European countries etc., is not lawful (halāl) for Muslims, since when animals are slaughtered there, " Bismillah " is not said over them and the methods of slaughter are also objectionable.



The Holy Qur'an states: -

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



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

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



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



In our opinion, the first view is sounder and more correct that is, these slaughtered animals of the "People of the Book" are unlawful for Muslims which have been slaughtered in such a way that the name of Allah has not been intentionally recited at the time of slaughter or which have been slaughtered in the name of a diety other than Allah on the condition that it is known with certainty that the name of Allah has not been recited or the name of a diety other than Allah has been recited, or if this omission of Allah's name becomes a habit with the " People of the Book." Those of our ancestors, who have declared that the meat of the slaughtered animals of the "People of the Book" is unlawful for Muslims, have given their verdict with the same intent and purpose. Similarly, when Hazrat Ali said that the meat of the slaughtered animals of the Christians of Bani Taghlib is unlawful of Muslims, because they have learnt nothing from Christianity except wine drinking, he meant the same thing Hazrat Ali might have received positive evidence that the Christians of Bani Taghlib do not recite. Allah's name when slaughtering their animals or they recite the name of some diety other than Allah.

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



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

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

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



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

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



If this is, the true meaning and interpretation of the Qur'anic verse, we would then again be justified in posing the question whether the meat of animals, as they are slaughtered commercially today in Western countries, was originally lawful for Jews and Christians so that it might also be regarded as lawful for Muslims? This is the point, which has raised all this controversy. However, those2 who regard it lawful do so on the basis of Allah's decree:

“The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you...” (AI-Qur'an, 5: 5) saying that this verse indicates the lawfulness of the animal slaughtered by the "People of the Book" without any reference to the method of slaughtering or to the characteristics of the person who undertakes it, as long as he is a man from among the " People of Book."

They further argue, " We are not required to consider the way in which the animals have been slaughtered, and whether or not Allah's name has been mentioned over them... Foodstuffs imported from countries of the " People of the Book" are lawful unless there is evidence that they are unlawful for themselves, such as carrion, blood or swine flesh. All other foodstuffs are lawful even if we are sure that they are dedicated to some other being than Allah or are not slaughtered legally according to the Islamic rites." 3

This is an over simplification of the Qur'anic verse referred to above. The Zabihah of the “People of the Book” has been made lawful for the Muslims on account of the fact that in their Scripture the slaughter of that animal is deemed unlawful on which the name of Allah has not been recited intentionally or which has been dedicated to any other diety than Allah. The modern versions of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) have almost similar regulations for Zabihah and Nikah (marriage), which are to be observed in Islam. However, now when the " People of the Book " have discarded the regulations of their own Scripture, their Zabihah can not be considered lawful. The permission given in verse 5 of Surah AI-Maidah is thus conditional and does not confer a blanket approval to eat the animal slaughtered by those who have a Book regardless of the way it was killed, whether its neck was twisted or it died by suffocation. The crux of the matter is whether the animal has been legally (ritually) slaughtered according to the religious prescription, regardless of whether or not the slaughterer is a Muslim or a man from among the “People of the Book”





There are two points involved in the issue:

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

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



The advocates of non -Zabihah do not address themselves to any of the above points. Instead they try to confuse the issue by bringing ayah 5 of Surah al-Maidah to their aid. Only two ayahs before, the same Surah al-Ma'idah tell us:



"Forbidden to you (for food) are dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which has been invoked the name of other than Allah, that which has been killed by strangling or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death, that which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal, unless you are able to slaughter it (in due form). " (5:3)

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



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



(b). The Quran is giving us the same criterion for lawful and unlawful, In fact, even the distorted Bible still this proof in Acts 15 (20): "To abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. "



Even those who justify the eating of haram beef, lamb and chicken by saying that the food of the “People of the Book' is lawful insists on excluding pork and alcohol. If this verse means that whatever is the "food" of the 'People of the Book' today you can eat, then how can they exclude pork and alcohol?



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



Further, if the Quranic ayah does not specify "Chicken and beef" or even "meat" then how can the word "food" be translated as meat, specifically chicken and beef only, and not pork?



The question of practicing or non-practicing Jews and Christians is irrelevant, for it is not the. Piety of a butcher which is the issue; instead, it is of slaughtering or killing (or the act of butchering).



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



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



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

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



The Holy Qur'an is very explicit on this point when it it says:

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



In the light of Qur'anic verses - 6: 122, 22: 36, 22: 34, 6: 139, 16: 115, 6: 119, 2: 173, 5: 3, 5: 5, 5: 4 - some of which have already been quoted and the foregoing account, the slaughtered animals of the "People of the Book" in Western or other countries are not lawful because when animals are slaughtered then “Bismillah" is not said over them and the methods of slaughter are also not in conformity with the requirements of the Shari'ah. Besides, there are other differences. There are instances, when maitah (carrion)6 has been served because the system of slaughter is based on stunning and many of the animals actually die before reaching the blade. The Ulama are agreed that the food of the "People of the Book" which Allah made lawful for Muslims is that food which Allah had made lawful for them in their Scriptures and through their Prophets and modern scholars need not say more about it because the matter is plain and clear.



Finally, there are some people who say, "it is permissible to eat it (i.e. non-Zabihah meat) after saying Bismillah at the time of eating." We have, however, never heard that saying "Bismillah " on food, which is unlawful, turns it into lawful food. What we are sure of is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to say " Bismillah " when he commenced eating any food or drinking liquids, thereby, blessing them and making them useful with the grace of "Bismillah." Furthermore, he advised Muslims to do the same but he never told them that what was unlawful could be made lawful by saying Bismillah over it. The advocates of Bismillah formula are in fact not aware of the background, intent and purpose of a Hadith in Bukhari, which is reproduced below:



Narrated by Aisha (R.A.): A group of people said to the Prophet (peace is upon him), "Some people bring us meat and we do not know whether they have mentioned Allah's Name or not on slaughtering the animal". He said, "Mention Allah's name on it and eat." Those people had embraced Islam recently. (Bukhari vol.VII page 302 English translations).



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

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

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

(Bukhari)



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



An-Nu'man bin Bashir reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:

"What is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is clear, but between them are certain doubtful things which many people do not recognize. He, who guards against doubtful things, keeps his religion and honor blameless. But he who falls into doubtful things, falls into what is unlawful, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a preserve will soon pasture them into it."

(Bukhari and Muslim).



Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying that

“Allah is good and accepts only what is good, and He has given the same command to the believers as He has given to the messengers, saying,

“0 messengers, eat of what is good and act righteously,"

(XXIII: 51)

and also, " You who believe, eat of the good things which we have provided for you."

(II: 172)

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

(Muslim).



The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is also reported to have said:

" Flesh which has grown out of what is unlawful will not enter Paradise,

but hell is more fitting for all flesh which has grown out of what is unlawful."

(Ahmad, Darimi and Baihaqi).



Al-'lrbad b. Sarjya declared that Allah's messenger got up and said,

" Does any of you, while reclining on his couch, imagine that Allah has prohibited only what is to be found in the Qur'an?

By Allah, I have commanded, exhorted and prohibited various matters as numerous as those are found in the Qur'an.

Or more numerous.

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

(Abu Daud).

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying,

" The Qur'an came down showing five aspects:

what is permissible,

what is prohibited,

what is firmly fixed,

what is obscure,

and parables.

So treat what is permissible as permissible and

what is prohibited as prohibited,

act upon what is firmly fixed,

believe in. what is obscure, and

take a lesson from the parables."

This is the wording in AI-masabih. Baihaqi transmitted in Shu'ab al-Iman, his wording being, "Act according to what is permissible, avoid what is prohibited, and follow what is firmly fixed."



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



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

“The prayers of a person nourished on unlawful food are not heard or accepted”.

This is a grave issue and should be taken in right earnestness by Muslims.

The summary of this somewhat heated discussion and probing is as follows: -



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



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



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



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



(e) The animal should also be treated kindly after it is killed. Its neck must not be broken. It should not be skinned nor any part of its body cut before it becomes cool (after slaughtering). If inadvertently the name of Allah is not mentioned, the slain animal may be eaten.



It is related that Abu Hurairah said: A man came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and said: " 0 Messenger of Allah, what of a man who slays and forgets to mention Allah's ' name?” The Prophet replied: Allah's name is upon every Muslim. (A]-Dar Qutni).

It is also permissible to eat the flesh of a slaughtered animal whose head had been cut off in an act of swift slaughter i.e,. hen etc. This is lawful as an accidental happening in view of the following Hadith :

"Eat from what the blood sheds and upon which the name of Allah is mentioned."

Ibn Abbas, Anas and Ibn Umar are of opinion that if in the act of slaughtering an animal from the side of his jugular veins, his head is separated from the body, the meat of such an animal is lawful. But this should not be done intenionally, otherwise it would become Mukrooh (disapproved). If the animal is slaughtered by its neck having been cut from the upper side, it would not be lawful in any case, whether or not its head is separated from its body. In either case, its meat will become unlawful.



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



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



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

(3:164)



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



"Muhammad is not the father of any man among you. but he is the Messenger

of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets and Allah is Aware of all things"

(33:40)



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

(21:107)



"Lo ! Allah and His angels shower blessing.; on the Prophet. 0 ye who believe 1

Ask belching on him and salute him with a worthy salutation."

(33:56)

APPENDIX

FATWA OF MUFTI ABDUH OF EGYPT ABOUT

MECHANICAL SLAUGHTER

(An exposition of a mistaken verdict)



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



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



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



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



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



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

CURIOUS FINDINGS OF MUFTI ABDUH ABOUT ZABIHAH



Muslims of every age and sect from the dawn of Islam till today unanimously believe that just as marriage and divorce are particular modes of social behavior, similarly the act of slaughter cannot be lawful unless it is carried out under the prescribed injunctions set out in the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. Hence it is compulsory under the Qur'anic Nass to recite Bismillah just before starting the slaughtering and it is also compulsory that slaughtering must be done by a Muslim or by the " People of the Book." These conditions are matters of religious obligation.

In one of the Hadiths recorded by Bukhari, Islamic slaughtering had been stated as one of the Signs (which make a Muslim distinct from the followers of other religions. The English translation of the text of the Hadith is given under: -

Anas reported Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as saying:



“He who observes our prayer, faces our Qibla and eats the animal slaughtered by us (according to the Shari'ah)

is a Muslim,

one for whom there is guarantee (of the safety of his life and property) from Allah and

the guarantee from His Messenger.

Therefore, break not the covenant of Allah with regard to his protection.”

(Bukhari)



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



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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



There can't be a more suitable ljtehid in the modern age of absolute freedom and religious indifference than that of Mufti Abduh. As such the Westernized generation liked it very much.



It was an error, no doubt a great error of Mufti Abduh and Allama Rashid Reza, yet in the light of their services in the field of education and with the grace of Allah, it is hoped that Allah might forgive them for giving a wrong verdict. We are, however, worried about the people who under some pretext and without any solid argument have followed his opinion only for case and comfort and the satisfaction of their baser selves.



The commission of an error is possible, howsoever great a scholar may be. It is a well-known saying in Arabic:

"Every good horse may have a fall. "



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



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

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



--Translated from Urdu from Mufti Muhammad Shafi's (Grand Mufti of Pakistan)

booklet (pp. 37-42)published by Maktaba Dar-ul-Uloom, Karachi- 1 4. (Rajab 1387-H).

ULAMA-E-SOO

(Non-virtuous ulama)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

REFERENCES



1. For an exposition of Mufti Abduh's fatwa please see Appendix.



2. Among them are Sheikh Muhammad Abduh, former Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Rashid Reda, a disciplen of Shaikh Abduh and Shaikh Mahmoud Shattout, former Shaikh of AlAhzar and Dr. Yusuf at-Qaradawi of Qatar etc.



3. Dr. Abdel Aziz El Khayat. Dean. Faculty of Islamic Law, University of Jordan, Amman in " Report on Food and Slaughtered Animals in Islam " (pp. 35--44) submitted to the Veterinary Institute, West Berlin.



4. "Quorbans in Islamic Law" (Arabic) by Dr. Abdalla El-Abbadi pp. (64-67.)



5. "Rissalat Hokm El Mustawrada and Zabaeh Ahlul Kitab by Sheikh Abdullah ben Hamid as a reply to Sheikh Abdullah ben Zaid bin Mahmoud El-Qatari.



6. Recently the BBC has been broadcasting certain educational programmers on the alleged barbarities and brutalities of the Islamic method of slaughtering animals. Well how do “civilized people" slaughter their livestock? In the more modern slaughter houses the cattle are penned up in a row with their beads sticking out of stocks. A man then passes from one beast's head to the next touching the forehead of each with a hydraulic hammer. Once trigger on the hammer is pressed the head of the beast is instantly shattered. Chicken& arc more painfully killed their beads are cramped into a row but instead of using a hydraulic hammer a man passes from one bird to the next jamming an ice-pick through the mouth of each into brain. The blood is cleaned out of these poor birds and beasts only after skinning and gutting and thus much blood has had time to adhere to the flesh making the meat more corruptible and far less hygienic than any halāl meat. This is a scientific fact, which the BBC has neglected to impart in its 'educational' programme. But let us not neglect to touch on that most civilized method of slaughter of most respectable antiquity in Britain: pig-sticking! A spike is held pointed towards the forehead of the swine and hammer is used to drive the stake into the animal's brain. The terror and agony of the animal is reflected in its shrill and lingering, dying screams. Hence what has appeared on the BBC in the guise of education is nothing more than a contemptible anti-Islamic demagogy.

For an analysis and rebuttal of false and baseless propaganda against Islam and its institutions, the readers are advised to consult and circulate publications such as:



i. DISTORTIONS ABOUT ISLAM IN THE WEST

ii. THE CROSS AND THE CRESCENT

iii. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS IN THE LIGHT OF AL-QURAN.

[By the grace of Allah, these books (published by Malik Sirajuddin & Sons, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore-8, PAKISTAN) together with the examples set by pious Muslims can help eradicate misconceptions about Islam in the West and throw its doors open for the reception of the glorious Message of Islam.]



7. It would still be desirable if Muslims avoid eating the slaughter of non-practicing "People of the Book "as the permission to eat even their lawful slaughter is confined only to the committed "People of the Book," and we know for certain most of the people in the West today are Christian by tradition rather by any strong faith or conviction. Further, it is the Muslims who label commercial producers of meat as PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. The producers themselves are honest in saying they make no claim to any form of religious practice in their slaughtering. How then can Muslims say they are PEOPLE OF THE BOOK if they themselves say they have nothing to do with any form of religious practice in their production, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to any method of slaughter mentioned in what is left of the Bible or other Holy books. Also the Kosher meat produced for Jewish consumption states that only the fore-quarters of the meat are to be eaten. How then can Muslims eat the hind-quarters if they are agreeing with Kosher law?

Allah (swt) didn't make ALL the food of the people of the book Halal for us (Muslims), Sura 5:5 "This day it is made lawful for you the Tayebat (good, pure and healthy)food Halal for you..."

Which means only the Tayebat among the food of the people of the book is Halal, not every food of the people of the book, if it is not among Tayebat then it is not Halal.

Because the people of the book eat pork and drink alcohol feed their animals on animal protein, blood, by-products (mammal feed), give hormones for fattening, use “factory farming” for breeding and don't slaughter the animals according to the Islamic rites, all these are haram.

FROM BUSINESS POINT OF VIEW IT IS NOT PROFITABLE FOR TRADERS TO BUY ORGANIC MEAT or organic raised animals, because it is very expensive comparing it to the non-organic meat and animals! -"The animals NOWADAYS which are fed on animal protein from day one" so they are Jallalah and Haram accordingly.

ALLAH (swt) made the good, pure and healthy food of the people of the book Halal for us, when we read the Tafseer or the commentary of this 5:5 , there are even tribes, at the time of the Muhammad (saw), “the people of the book” whose food was not Halal So we cannot say all the food of the people of the book is Halal for the Muslims to eat. Accordingly, only the Tayebat of the people of the book food is Halal for Muslims.

To make the meat Halal, we have to consider not only the way the animal is slaughtered, but also we have to take in consideration what the animal was fed on, animals should not be fed on other animals. Jallalah is: Jallalah refers to a permissible to eat animal but it eats the waste or flesh of other animals, such as camels, cows, sheep, chickens, geese, and so on. Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah forbade the drinking of such animals' milk. This hadith is related by "the five," except for Ibn Majah. At-Tirmidhi grades it as sahih. In one narration it states, "It is also prohibited to ride upon a jallalah. (As for the jallalah, he prohibited riding or eating them." (Related by Ahamad, an-Nasa'i and Abu Dawud.) If the jallalah animal is kept away from the other animals for 40 days and is given clean food to eat, then it becomes pure and is no longer called jallalah, if this is the case, it becomes permissible to eat, as the reason for its prohibition was the change it underwent due to eating filth, a state that would no longer be present. [This is in case that the animal accidentally ate filth or other animal flesh once or twice not in regard to animals that are fed on other animals' flesh, blood and filth all their life as the animals in USA, and Europe.

SUNAN OF ABU DAWOOD ;

HADITH 3778

The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade riding and drinking the milk of the camel, which feeds on filth.[So other animals will be the same i.e. cow, sheep, goat and so on in regard to drinking its milk. See next hadith.

HADITH 3777

The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited to drink the milk of the animal which feeds on filth.

HADITH 3776

The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited eating and drinking the milk of an animal which feeds on filth.

HADITH 3802

On the day of Khaybar the Apostle of Allah (May peace be upon him) forbade (eating) the flesh of the animal which feeds on filth and forbade riding it too.



Nowadays, generally, the animals are raised and fed, on animal protein and animal by-products derived from pigs, cows, dogs, cats and all other road kills animals. So today , if we are not eating organic meat and animal product food naturaliy, then eating Jallalah, which is haram according to the Islamic rules.

8. Where such arrangements do not exist, efforts should be made by the local Islamic Centers to procure Halal meat for the Muslim Community. Alternatively a group of Muslims can band together and slaughter cow, sheep or chickens on weekends and preserve the meat for use during the week. This can be done successfully at places where Halal meat is not easily available provided one has the zeal and concern for the Faith by sacrificing a little time and undergoing a little hardship in this regard.

"And that man hath only that for which he maketh effort." (AI-Qur'an, 53: 39).

"But lo! with hardship goeth case, lo ! with hardship goeth case so when thou art relieved, still toil and strive to please thy Lord." (94 . 5-8).

"As for those who strive in Us, We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo ! Allah is with the good." (29 : 69)



9. Kosher;Kashrut (in Hebrew) is the system of Jewish dietary laws. Kosher (kashur in Hebrew) means 'fit, or proper for use' according to Jewish law. Examples of kosher are: the meat of the 'fore quarter*' of the cattle and lambs slaughtered ritually (the jews do not aet hine quarters), fruits, vegetables, all fish that have fins*, all wines*, all cheeses*, gelatin*.

The opposite of Kosher, as applied to food in Treif (in Yiddish), or trefah (in Hebrew) meaning 'not suitable for use', or 'forbidden'. Trefah literally means 'torn by a wild beast' (Exodus 22:30). Examples of Trefah are: blood, swine, rabbit*, all shell fish*, wild birds such as wild hen*, wild duck*, and the birds of prey.

(*) these food items exhibit a marked difference between kosher and Halal as well as trefah and haram.

Is Kosher Halal; Often times Muslim consumers tend to assume 'Kosher' is similar to 'Halal'. Although the slaughtering rituals of Jewish people resemble those of Muslims; kosher and halal are two different entities carrying a different meaning and spirit. Muslims, therefore, are provided with the following basic information about Kosher so they can exercise care in distinguishing halal from kosher



The differences are explained elsewhere in this section.



Caution to Muslim Consumers:



Halal is a comprehensive Islamic term encompassing not only the matters of food and drink, but all other matters of daily life. Islam being the final and perfect Deen (religion) for mankind, it supersedes all the previously revealed religions including Christianity and Judaism. The rituals in all matters were perfected by Islam (al-Quran 5:3)



According to Islamic Jurisprudence, no one except Allah can change forbidden (Haram) things into lawful (halal) for vice-versa. It is forbidden for people to change the lawful (Halal) things into unlawful (Haram), or vice-versa. Those people who make summary judgments regarding Haram and Halal should keep the following ayah in mind;

“O you who believe1 forbid not the good things which Allah has made 'lawful' for you, and transgress not. Lo1 Allah loves not transgressors. Eat of that which Allah has bestowed on you as food 'lawful' and good, and keep your duty to Allah in whom you are believers.” (5:87-88).

It is only Allah (swt) who can legislate what is Haram and what is Halal.

Halal is a unique Islamic concept and eating dhabiha (Islamically slaughtered) meat is a distinguishing part of a Muslim's identity as expressed by Prophet Muhammad (saw)



Salient differences between kosher and halal are:



Islam prohibits all intoxicating alcohols, liquors, wines and drugs. kashrut regards all wines kosher. Hence food items and drinks showing the kosher symbol containing alcohol are not halal.

Gelatin is considered kosher regardless of its source of origin. If the gelatin is prepared from swine, Muslims consider it haram (prohibited). Hence foods items such as marshmallows, yogurt, etc., showing kosher symbols are not halal.

Enzymes (irrespective of their sources even from non-kosher animals) in cheese making are considered mere secretion (pirsah b'almah) according to some kashrut organizations, hence all cheeses are considered kosher. Muslims look for the source of the enzyme in cheese making. If it is coming from the swine, it is considered haram(forbidden). Hence cheeses showing kosher symbols may not be halal.

Jews do not pronounce the name of Allah on each animal while slaughtering. They feel that uttering the name of Allah, out of context, is wasteful. Muslims on the other hand pronounce the name of Allah on all animals while slaughtering.

Pastries prepared with lard (pork-fat) or gelatin deserts like jelts and marshmallows are also haram if suspected of having been prepared with pork products. Most of the cheese products in France and other European countries are prepared with stomach extract (engime-rennet) of swine or non Zabiha animals and are not lawful for Muslims.



The salient differences between kosher and halal have been illustrated so that Muslim consumers can distinguish halal from kosher.



Islam is a complete way of life providing infallible guidance to all its followers in all walks of life. Halal brings immense satisfaction to the Muslim life both now and in the hereafter. Muslims therefore, do not have to depend on any other set of laws for want of convenience.



The final, divine laws of Islam are indeed perfect and the best for all its followers for all time to come.



Muslims in non-Muslim countries should strive to follow the Islamic injunctions in their diet (as well as in every walk of life) and establish their own businesses and institutions to cater to the needs of the Muslims. By doing so, not only the identity of the Muslims will be preserved, but they will be recognized and respected for their beliefs and practices. What a subtle means of Dawa!





And who doth greater wrong than he who is reminded of the revelations of his Lord, then turned from them? Lo! We shall requite the guilty.

(AI-Qur'an, 32:22)















































The Issue of Halal Meat



A prevalent corruption within the Muslim community regarding Halal (lawful) meat has successfully evolved into serious confusion and widespread “controversy.” The result of such wickedness is the belief that the following three errant justifications are legitimate:



1. Just because the meat is not pork, it is Halal.

2. The meat of the Ahl-al-Kitab (People of the Book) is Halal, regardless of how it was slaughtered of what the actual meat is.

3. If there is a possibility the food may be Haram (forbidden), saying “Bismillah” (In the Name of Allah) over it is permissible, thereby making it Halal.



These three assumptions are deceptively propagated to Muslims who are either new to Al-Islam or uneducated concerning their Deen. The intent of this article is to expose and correct the fallacies cited above.

Dhabiha

Dhabiha is the actual slaughter of an animal for consumption. Dhabiha is performed by cutting the jugular vein of an animal and allowing its blood to drain. It is mandated by Qur'an and Hadith that all animals killed for food, except fish, must be slain via dhabiha. All animals, the flesh of which is edible except fish, are unlawful. Dhabiha must be performed by a Muslim or by someone who is Ahl-al-Kitab.



The Nabi (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has said,

"You may deal with them (Magians) as well as with the Ahl-al-Kitab, but you must not marry their women, nor eat of animals in which dhabiha is performed by them."



The dhabiha of an idolater is Haram because he or she does not believe in the Ambiya (Prophets), and the dhabiha of an apostate is Haram because he is not permitted to continue in the faith from which he has turned, but must rather be punished by death.

Those Muslims who are either undereducated or new to Al-Islam are misled into assuming that if the meat is not pork, then it is edible, consequently they need to be aware of is that dhabiha is what is to be considered when consuming meat that isn't pork.



What is Haram

Allahu Ta'ala clearly mentions what is Haram in Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Maa'idah, 5:3):

"Haram to you (for food) is carrion; blood; the flesh of swine; that which any name other than Allah has been invoked; that which has been killed by strangling; and beat to death, or dead through falling from a height; and killed by the goring of horns; and that which was eaten by wild beasts, unless you are able to perform dhabiha; and that which is sacrificed to idols."



Allah also states in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:168):

"Eat of that which is Halal and tayyib (clean, pure, good) in the earth, and follow not the footsteps of Shaytaan. Surely he is an open enemy to you!"

The only instance when a Muslim is permitted to consume Haram provisions is if he or she is on the verge of starvation and the only food available to him or her is food which is ordinarily Haram. Allah states in Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:173):

"But if one is forced by necessity, neither by desire nor transgressing, it is no sin upon him. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful!"

Ahl-al-Kitab and dhabiha

Allah states in Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Maa'idah, 5:5):

"The food of the People of the Book is Halal for you and your food is Halal for them."

Many are misled to assume that if the food is from a Christian or Jew, it is Halal whether or not dhabiha has been performed. The truth of the situation is, as related by Ibn Abbas (r.a.),

"Their (Ahl-al-Kitab) food means their dhabiha."

[Sahih Al-Bukhari]



From this, it can be seen that in the issue of Halal meat dhabiha is fardh (obligatory), and if the meat is to originate from a Jew or a Christian, then this is the major and critical and critical concern.

It is a transgression to knowingly consume Haram meat.

Allah says in Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-An'aam, 6:121):

"And do not eat that which the name of Allah has not been mentioned. And surely it is a transgression. Surely the Shayateen (devils) inspire their friends to dispute with you. But if you were to obey them you would indeed be of the mushrikeen (polytheists)."



Allah makes mention of such an ayah previous to the above in the 118th and 119th ayahs:

"Eat of that which the name of Allah has been pronounced if you are believers in his ayahs. How should you not eat that which the name of Allah has been mentioned when He explained to you that which is Haram to you unless you are forced otherwise under compulsion? But surely, many are led astray by their own lusts through ignorance. Surely your Lord knows best those who transgress."

This does not mean the pronunciation of "Bismillah" is what makes it Halal, instead, it means as long as dhabiha was performed, the pronunciation of the Basmala is required upon consumption of the meat. In ALL collections of Hadith, for every serving of meat brought to Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wa Sallam), dhabiha was always performed.



In Sahih Al-Bukhari, Az-Zuhri (r.a.) said:

"There is no harm in eating animals where the dhabiha was performed by Arab Christians. If you hear the one who performs dhabiha on the animals mentioning other than Allah's Name, then don't eat of it, but if you don't hear that, then Allah has allowed the eating of animals where dhabiha has been performed by them, though He knows their disbelief."

The use of a falsified Hadith to justify eating Haram

There has been (and still is) a tendency to resort to the manipulation of a Hadith. Such forgeries can be found in books of deviance, such as Fiqh us-Sunnah and other books from the Saudis. Two variations of the counterfeit evidence are as follows:



Narrated by Hazrat Sayyidah A'isha (Radhi Allahu Anhaa) ...

1. A group of people said to the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam), "Some people brought us meat and we didn't know where it came from."

He (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said, "Say Bismillah over it and then eat it."



2. A group of people said to the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam), "Some people brought us meat and we didn't know whether or not dhabiha was performed upon the meat.

He (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam.) said, "Say Bismillah over it and then eat it."



It is stressed that those who have slandered Nabi Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) and Sayyidah A'isha (Radhi Allahu Anhaa) by quoting such falsehood, should immediately make tawba (repentance) to Allah for such an act of blasphemy.

The original Hadith, found in Sahih al-Bukhari, is:

Narrated by Sayyidah A'isha (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala 'anha) :

A group of people said to the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam), "Some people brought us meat and we do not know whether or not they have mentioned Allah's name on slaughtering the animal." He (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said, "Mention the Name of Allah over it and then eat it." Those people had embraced Al-Islam recently."

It is clearly stated in this Hadith that the issue at hand wasn't dhabiha, it was the pronunciation of the Name of Allah over the meat that had already been slaughtered correctly, BY MUSLIMS.

Results of Haram meat

Never forget Allah's command in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:168):

"Oh mankind! Eat of that which is Halal and tayyib in the earth, and follow not the footsteps of Shaytaan."

In Sahih Muslim, Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) gives an example of one who consumes Haram provisions:

"Then he (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) mentioned a man 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 Haram, his drink is Haram, his clothing is Haram, and his nourishment is Haram, so how can he be answered!"

In another Hadith, Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said:

"The prayers of a person who eats one morsel of Haram food will not be heard for forty days."

Question: What kind of meat can be consumed from the non-Muslim supermarkets/grocery stores here in America?

As stated earlier, the dhabiha of the Ahl-al-Kitab (provided it is performed correctly) is what is lawful to Muslims. The practice of performing dhabiha by Christians has ceased due to the lobby of animal rights groups. However, Jews maintain the ritualistic slaughter which is very similar to the Muslim-performed dhabiha (legal to Islamic dietary standards provided NO alcohol is utilized and no other name is pronounced besides the name of God). Their correctly slaughtered meat is titled as being "KOSHER." Only Halal meat (in a package that explicitly expresses the word Halal) and kosher meat (packaged with a 'K', 'K' in a circle or triangle, a 'U' in a circle, or explicit expression of the word kosher) in non-Muslim supermarkets/grocery stores are lawful to Muslims. All other meats here in America are Haram because 1.) the slaughter of the animals is totally against what Allah says is Halal to us in Holy Qur'an and 2.) they are prepared and sold containing "fillers."



In Holy Qur'an (stated earlier in article under "what is Haram"), Allah says what types of meat are Halal and Haram to Muslims. Due to the profitability of mass production, the industry now slaughters the animals by shooting it, electrocuting it, running it off a cliff, stomping it to death, chopping its head off, and all other forms of cruelty to animals. Two television shows (Nightline and American Journal) exposed the cruelty inflicted to animals by slaughter houses in order to acquire beef, horse meat, and meat from other large animals. The animal is submersed in a pool of iodized water, then electrocuted. This is performed because it speeds up the slaughter process for large animals in the non-Muslim slaughter houses. Each way of slaughter specified above is absolutely against the method of dhabiha prescribed by Allah and His Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa Sallam).



"Fillers" are byproducts of pork and chemicals, and they are used as either a flavoring ingredient or as a substitute for non-pork products in order to maintain a low retail price of the meat. In The FDA Journal, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approves of five percent of the total meat package purchased to consist of fillers. The television show American Journal documented and exposed many supermarket chains for adding over 20% of pork to their ground beef. Slaughter houses also employ the same meat hooks used for holding pork for holding beef, with little to no time for cleaning residue from pork without the proper cleaning of those hooks, an extra five percent of pork can be detected in what one may consider beef from the supermarkets and grocery stores. In total, one may purchase what he or she may think is beef, but in reality, the meat purchased has a very high possibility of containing a total of twenty five percent pork byproduct.



In conclusion, one will never be able to purchase 100% pure beef in America, unless the meat is purchased at a Halal meat store, a kosher meat store, or by way of an acquaintance (either Muslim of Ahl-al-Kitab) who performs dhabiha correctly. One should be informed of the misconceptions and deceptions used to poison one's body, and eventually one's salaat/du'a, by way of tampering with his or her adherence to Islamic dietary laws. Since no one on the face of this earth has the power to make Halal what is clearly Haram, one must strive to enforce what is lawful and forbid what is unlawful. Please take heed to what has been presented, so educated decisions can be made in the future. No single individual can survive without their salaat, and the consumption of Haram meat can seriously damage his or her own prayers, amongst other things. May Allah grant us guidance with everything we do and protect us from the ways and practices of Shaytaan. AAMEEN!







THE LAW OF SHARI'AH REGARDING MECHANICAL SLAUGHTER



ALLAH, IN THE NAME OF, THE COMPASSIONATE, MOST MERCIFUL

"PRAISE BE TO ALMIGHTY ALLAH, SALUTATIONS ON THE HOLY

PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SALLAL LAAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM)"

INTRODUCTION

In our present day and age, the method of mechanical slaughter, i.e. slaughter by use of machines, has become a common practice and animals slaughtered mechanically are generally being imported into Muslim countries. In many countries, numerous Muslim butchers, after becoming aware of such meat being imported into their countries, have raised the matter with the authorities and have even established their own abattoirs so that the proper slaughtering of animals is in their control. This was done to prevent the innocent and unsuspecting Muslim masses from eating such meat, and to also avoid themselves from selling Haram meat.

However, certain westernised Molvis have, without providing any proper Islamic reasons, certified such meat as being Halal, and they have also given the green light to Muslims to buy "Halal meat" from non-Muslim butchers. Why such Molvis have implemented this, fails to make sense as there is no complete or partial evidence from the Shari'ah, namely, from the Holy Quran, Ahadith or Books of Fiqh to substantiate their arguments. They have tried various means to establish that the method of mechanical slaughter as being permissible, but were hopelessly unsuccessful.

Due to the fear of the detrimental effect that may be caused by establishing mechanical slaughter, I have decided to give a brief explanation of the differences between mechanical slaughter and proper Islamic Zabiha (Slaughter) so that the unsuspecting Muslims are not trapped into eating Haram meat.

PROPER SLAUGHTERING ACCORDING TO THE SHARI'AH



Every Muslim should at least be aware of the fact that for the flesh of any animal, with the exception of fish and locusts, to become Halal, it must pass through the proper method of Islamic slaughter, i.e. in accordance with the Shari'ah. There are basically two methods of slaughter in Shari'ah, which are:



1. Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari: Slaughter of animals in one's control, eg. livestock and poultry.



2. Zibah-e-Iztiraari: Slaughter of uncontrolled animals, that is, animals (game) that are hunted.

In both methods, the animal must be slaughtered by a sharp weapon (knife, spear, etc.). With the exception of these methods, almost all the other methods are improper.



In Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari, the wind pipe, the food pipe, and the two blood vessels on either side of the throat must be severed. If at least three of the four mentioned vessels are severed, then the animal is regarded as Halal.



In Zibah-e-Iztiraari, the animal may be severed (cut) anywhere on the body by being stabbed or cut by the sharp edge of the weapon causing its death. If a trained dog or hunting bird causes such injury to the animals being hunted, thus causing its death, then such an animal is Halal.

Zibah-e-Iztiraari is for those birds, who due to their height of flying cannot be caught, or those animals (such as wild birds and animals) whose speed does not allow them to be easily captured.

Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari is the law applicable to those animals, such as sheep, poultry, etc. which are in one's control and possession. If an animal in the category of Iztiraari is injured by a spear, etc. or a hunting animal, and such an animal, before its death, comes within the control and possession of the hunter, then until and unless it is not slaughtered in the method of Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari, it will not be Halal. (Hidayah Aakhirain, pg. 505)

MECHANICAL SLAUGHTER





Mechanical slaughter is of three types:



1.Chickens are transported to the place of slaughter through a conveyer belt and are manually slaughtered. If there is certainty that the chicken is alive and the Muslim slaughterer recites the name of Allah upon slaughtering, then the chicken is Halaal. In this case, only the transportation is mechanical but the slaughtering is manual. This procedure is unanimously permissible and recommended.



2.Chickens are transported by means of the conveyer belt to the mechanical slaughter blade. Once the mechanical plant comes into operation, the blade also comes into operation and cuts the chicken. This procedure is not permissible. It does not matter if the plant and the blades are controlled together or separately.





3.The chickens are transported by means of the conveyer belt to many slaughter blades and every blade is controlled separately by a Muslim who recites the name of Allah upon effecting the mechanical slaughter. This procedure conforms to the principles of Sharée Zabh set out by the Fuqahaa. According to our knowledge, such a procedure does not yet exist.





It is quite obvious that for those animals slaughtered by a machine to be Halal, such animals would need to be slaughtered according to Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari, where it is in possession. It is obvious that it is only then that it can pass through the procedure of mechanical slaughter. If it is said that the method that is used is not Ikhtiyaari, then it would be impossible for the animal to be mechanically slaughtered.



During mechanical slaughter, the physical strength and intention of the person is not used, rather, the person appointed presses a button or releases a switch on the machine, which in turn causes electricity to pass through the cables of the machine giving motion to the motor, which in turn gives motion to the pulleys, which in turn gives motion to the blade causing the animal to be slaughtered. Neither is the motor, nor the blade brought into motion by the direct strength of the person operating the machine. If there is no electricity, then the motor would not run, therefore, not allowing the blade to operate and slaughter the animal. It is thus evident that the machine operator is not directly linked to the motion of the blade nor the actual slaughtering of the animal.



For a moment, let us presume that a person places a sharp weapon firmly into a wall or ties it to some object with the intention of Zibah, after which livestock is chased in the direction of the knife, whereby it crashes into the knife in a manner causing the necessary vessels to be severed. Even under these conditions, the animal is Haram since it was killed through its own action and strength and not through the strength of the slaughterer, even though there are fewer Zari'ah or means ("processes") here than as in mechanical slaughter.



It is stated in "Kanzul Daqaaiq": "If a person places a small saw or a sharp weapon in a jungle by saying the Bismillah with the intention of hunting an antelope, and if he returns the next day to find the animal dead, due to it being severed by the weapon placed, then too it is not allowed for such an animal to be eaten". (Kanzul Daqaaiq, pg. 220)



Imam Zaili (radi Allahu anhu) has explained that the reason for this, is that in Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari, the Muslim should slaughter the animal himself and in Iztiraari he should cause the animal's death by severing it himself. Without this, the animal cannot be regarded as Halal, since such an animal is in the category of "Natihaa" and "Mutardiya", that is either beaten to death or injured by falling. This is evident from the following verse of the Holy Quran: "You are forbidden to eat the dead and blood and flesh of swine and that on which any name other than Allah is invoked at the time of slaughtering, and that which dies by strangling and that which is beaten to death by a blunt object and that which is killed by falling and that which is gored." (Sura Maida, Ruku 1. Ayat 3)



The point in "Kanz" about the animal being found dead the following day, is only hypothetical. However, even if it is found dead on the same day, it is still not Halal, since the conditions of Zibah were not met. (Tabeenul Haqaaiq, Vol. 6, pg. 226)



There is a possibility that certain persons may have a doubt the above law after reading the following quotation found in "Durr-Mukhtar", Kitaab-us Sayd, etc. concerning hunting game: "If a hunter places a sharp weapon in a trap and watches over it, then if an animal is trapped, severed and killed in it, then it is Halal." >From this, it may seem that if a Muslim places the knife saying Bismillah with intention of Zibah, and if the animal is severed and dies in this condition, then it should be Halal. In other words, it would seem that it is enough for the knife to be placed with the Niyyah (Intention) of Zibah. It does not seem necessary that the animal should be slaughtered by the person himself. If this is so, then mechanical slaughter should also be accepted as Halal, since the motion of the machine and the blade was through the switching on by a person, and in some way, man is part and parcel of this procedure.



In clarifying these doubts, all I want to say is that it is enough to understand, that the law derived from "Durr Mukhtar" and other Kitaabs is specifically for those animals in the category of Zibah-e-Iztiraari and the laws of hunting are totally non-presumptuous (Ghair Qiyaasi), which cannot be applied on livestock, which are in the possession of humans.

In reality, even if a wild animal is captured and is in the possession of a Muslim, even then such an animal cannot be slaughtered in accordance with Zibah-e-Iztiraari, as it is now in possession and will fall into the category of Ikhtiyaari.



In this case, without doubt the animal of mechanical slaughter is in possession, and the law of Iztiraari is not applicable on such an animal. Such animals (in possession) fall into the category of Ikhtiyaari and must be slaughtered by the persons own action and intention. If it were allowed to slaughter livestock on the law of game animals, then it would also be permissible to severe livestock anywhere on the body causing its death. Whereas, to do so is disallowed.



With the exception of this, there is Ikhtilaaf (difference of opinion) amongst the Fuqahaa (Muslim Jurists) on the law of Hunting Game. It is stated in "Khulaasa" and "Muheet": "If a hunter places a knife in a trap and then leaves, after which an animal is caught and killed in the trap, then it is Haram, and if the Hunter places the knife and is watching the trap, then such game is Halal." Differing on this, Imam Zaili (radi Allahu anhu) and various other Jurists say that in both circumstances the animal is Haram. Thus, Imam Shulbi (radi Allahu anhu) writes that the argument of "Kanz" presented by Imam Zaili (radi Allahu anhu) infers that after the hunter places a small saw and whether he leaves or is present makes no difference, since in both cases the animal, through its own strength, was severed and killed by itself and not by the hunter, thus rendering it Haram. From this it can be well understood that Imam Zaili (radi Allahu anhu) does not accept the opinion of "Khulaasa", and other Kitaabs in this matter. (Tabeenul Haqaaiq, Vol. 6, pg. 226)



In this instance, Imam Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) has stated that in Zibah Iztiraari it is not a condition for the person making Zibah to do so himself. (Shaami, Vol. 5, pg. 192)



It must be understood that a difference of opinion exists in the matter of Zibah-e-Iztiraari, but in the matter of Ikhtiyaari it is unanimously agreed that the Zibah must be made by the person himself for the animal to be Halal.



According to the Shari'ah and its terminology, the Faa'il (one doing the action, the subject) is that person who performs an action with his own strength and intention, thus it is deduced that the slaughterer is that person who, with his own strength and intention, slaughters the animal. Thus, it is clearly evident that in mechanical slaughter, the act of Zibah is neither carried out by the person saying Bismillah, nor by the operator of the machine, but by the moving blade showing that the severing of the vessels is the act of the machine. This is a clear fact that cannot be refuted by any intelligent person. Even those who sanction mechanical slaughter agree to this.



GIST OF MY ARGUMENT



Amongst those conditions which are required for proper Islamic Zibah, many of the conditions are totally absent in the method of mechanical slaughter. I would therefore like to list a few of these conditions:-



1. It is necessary that the slaughterer is of sane mind and aware of the laws of Zibah. It is for this reason that the Zabiha of an insane person or of a young child with no knowledge of the laws of Zibah, is Haram (Hidaaya Akhirain, pg. 434; Tabeen, Vol. 5, pg. 287; Majmaul Anhur, Vol. 2, pg. 598)

N.B.: It is evident that electricity, the machine and the blade which is set into motion, are free from sanity or insanity and such equipment are not even aware of the intention of Zibah.



2. It is necessary for the person making Zibah to recite Bismillah himself. If Bismillah is recited by any other person, Zibah will be improper and the animal will not be taken as Halal. (Raddul Muhtaar, Vol. 5, Pg. 192)



N.B.: When the machine and the electricity which controls it does not have the power of saying Bismillah, then how is it possible for the operator or a person standing on the side to recite Bismillah on behalf of the machine?



3.1 If a person other than the slaughterer places his hand on the knife to assist the slaughterer, then both have to recite the Bismillah. If one of them abstains from saying the Bismillah, then the Zabiha is Haram. (Raddul Muhtaar, Vol. 5, pg. 192; Durr Mukhtar, Vol. 5, pg. 212)



3.2 If while a Muslim is slaughtering an animal, and a person held the knife who is neither a Muslim nor a Kitaabi (People of the Book) or neither Muslim nor Kaafir, then the Zabiha is Haram. (Al Ashba Anil Khaaniya, Vol. 1, pg. 145)



N.B.: Now, let us presume that the slaughter is carried out both by the action of the Muslim and that of the machine, then it has to be accepted that the machine, which is neither Muslim nor Kitaabi and does not even recite the Bismillah, is also part and parcel of the Zibah. This makes the Zabiha Haram.



4. The slaughterer should slaughter with his own intention and action, as I have quoted Imam Zaili and Allama Shaami (radi Allahu anhuma). The Holy Quran has stated: "Except that which you have slaughtered." (Sura Mai'da, Verse 3)

Almighty Allah has clearly commanded that the Zibah be done by the Muslim himself, with his own intention and action. It is on this that there is trust.



5. It is also a condition that the Tasmiyah be said with the intention Zibah. If Bismillah was read with any other intention, and if Zibah was made, then the animal is not Halal. (Durr Mukhtar, Vol. 5, pg. 191)

From this, it has become clearly evident that the Niyyah of Zibah is also necessary and to take Almighty Allah's Name for this reason alone is also a necessity. It is obviously clear that the machine has no intention nor power to control itself. In reality, how then can the machine make Zibah with the intention of taking Allah's Name for the reason of Zibah alone?

After studying all the above mentioned arguments, it is requested that you look over a few statements of those who say that the mechanical method of slaughter is allowed:



1. According to Islamic slaughter, the person present may say Bismillah from any position and allow the vessels to be severed by the sharp instrument thus causing blood to flow. Whether this is done personally or by the machine, both cause the Zibah to be Halal.



2. There is no reason to condemn mechanical slaughter as un-Islamic and its Zabiha as Haram, since the sharp blade of the machine is severing the vessels. While this is happening, a Muslim is reading Tasmiyah with the intention of Zibah, thus no valid reason can be found to make mechanical slaughter Haram.

N.B.: This argument for mechanical slaughter is totally inappropriate. The argument presented implies that as long as the vessels are severed, blood has flowed and that any person is present saying Bismillah, then the Zibah is proper, whether the person slaughtering is a Muslim or Kaafir or whether he is neither Mu'min nor Kaafir.



This is totally against the command of the Holy Quran

"Illa Maa Zakaytum - Except that which you have slaughtered."

(Sura Mai'da, Verse 3)



Certain Ulema in Egypt have also sanctioned mechanical slaughter.Their argument is as follows:



"If the person in-charge, or the operator of the machine is a Muslim or Ahle Kitaab, and if the machine has a blade which causes the necessary vessels to be severed, then in this case, the person saying Bismillah should do so individually for each animal being slaughtered, then the equipment (blade of the machine) is accepted as the equivalent of the hand of the slaughterer, and such Zabiha will be accepted as Halal, and if these conditions are not fulfilled, then the Zabiha is not Halal". (Fatawa Islaamia, Darul Iftil Asariya, Vol. 7, pg. 2616)



The laws concerning the Ahle Kitaab will be explained as we proceed with our argument. My question here is: when the person saying the Tasmiyah is not slaughtering the animal himself, and is not responsible for personally performing the action of Zibah, then to assert that the moving knife is an equivalent of the hand of the slaughterer is a mere claim without valid evidence from Shari'ah. Indeed, it has been proven that the Ulema in Egypt have themselves accepted that the Zibah should be done by hand, thus they have for the same reason permitted the moving blade to be equivalent to the hand of slaughterer.



I have already presented proof that in Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari the slaughtering must be done by the slaughterer himself, with his own action and intention. No proof contradictory to this has ever been furnished. It seems as if the Ulema in Egypt have accepted the means of action to be the equivalent of the person performing the action. It is for this reason that they have accepted the person operating the machine to be the Zaabih (Slaughterer), as he is the "means" for the Zibah. It seems as if they have no knowledge of the fact that in Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari the Shari'ah has not accepted the means as an equivalent to the slaughterer, but rather the Shari'ah has commanded personal slaughter as a condition for Zibah. I have already presented proof on this argument.



At this juncture, it must also be understood that one "means" is being used as the "means" of the next. In other words, the operator presses the switch, making him the "means". If there is power, then electricity passes, making it as a "means" for the pulleys to move, which becomes a "means" for the blade to run, consequently allowing it to slaughter the animal. How then, can the "means" for a "means" for a "means" can be accepted as the equivalent of the slaughterer. Is the action of the operator known as electrical current? Is the operator himself another name for the machine?



Experience has proven that the machine works with such speed that in the time it takes to say one Bismillah, one hundred animals can be slaughtered (commonly as in poultry). Due to this, it is obvious that 99 of the 100 hundred animals did not have Bismillah recited at the time of their Zibah. In reality, none of these animals can be considered as proper Zabiha, since it will not be known over which one of the animals the Bismillah was read.



Concerning the Ulema in Egypt, I have also been informed from authentic sources that the righteous and pious Ulema in Egypt are imprisoned while others are issuing decrees on the basis of their Western ideologies in loyalty to the Egyptian government. In other words, the pious, truthful and outspoken Ulema are imprisoned by the government, whereas those Ulema who issue decrees are on the payroll of the government. It seems to me that in implementing mechanical slaughter, it is the western lobby that are working with Egypt and other Middle East countries.



I cannot understand how the movement of the blade has been authorised as an equivalent to the slaughterer himself. Such stubbornness against the Shari'ah is totally disallowed.



ANOTHER VALID REASON PROVING HURMAT (SUCH MEAT BEING HARAM)



Up to now, the point of discussion has been that the machine does the slaughtering and not the slaughterer himself with his action and intention. From past experience, I have also found that during mechanical slaughter, the blade sometimes misses its target due to mechanical error and runs over the breast or head of the animal and sometimes over other parts of the animal's body. In such cases, where the head is partially severed or the breast severed, etc. these animals' parts jam in the chain of the machine, which are usually removed and replaced by other slaughtered animals.



Those animals which are severed at a point other than at the required vessels, even if by a Muslim, are Haram according to I'jma (Consensus). Let us, for this reason, presume that mechanical slaughter is Halal, even though it is not, then due to the mixing of the so-called Halal and the Haram portions, in the machine, all such animals have become Haram due to contamination.



Due to experience, it has been proven that instead of Zibah, other body parts are severed during the mechanical slaughter. How then do those who claim mechanical slaughter to be permissible did not discuss in their arguments this valid point? The answer to this, I think, only they will know.

DETRIMENTAL POLITICS CONCERNING FORBIDDEN MEAT



To substantiate their arguments, one of those who sanctioned mechanical slaughter, quoted the following in his opening statements:

"Due to the demand for Halal meat from Muslim countries, abattoirs have turned to the use of mechanical slaughter".



After scrutinising this part of the argument, the question which arises here is: When the demand for meat from the Muslim countries increased, did these abattoirs first research the basis of mechanical slaughter in the light of Shari'ah, or did they just accept it so that they may enhance their business dealings? It is obvious that the abattoirs had no desire to conduct such research, since their aim was solely for production and mass distribution!



It must also be noted that those countries to which such meat was exported the masses were not informed of the animal being mechanically slaughtered, but rather, they covered their tracks by placing labels of "HALAL MEAT" on these products to mislead the masses. After much time, when the unsuspecting public found out that they were consuming meat from animals which were mechanically slaughtered, they questioned the learned and pious Ulema who said that such meat was Haram. On the other hand, there were those who tried to prove it being Halal so that they may monopolise and keep a steady hold on those consuming meat. These Molvis played with the Shari'ah to satisfy the abattoir authorities by whom they were patronised.

CONTEMPTFUL BEHAVIOUR OF SO-CALLED MUSLIM GOVERNMENTS



It is an accepted fact that Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries are at the forefront in welcoming such meat into their countries. Just as they research all other products entering their country, it was the essential duty of these governments and their religious authorities to first research the permissibility of this meat before it entered their country. Actually, they should have been even more responsible in this issue, since it dealt with the eating of Halal and Haram products.



Instead of looking into this matter in the light of the Shari'ah, they established an improper proceedure which stated that if such meat was purchased from Muslim stores and possessed a Halal label, then the product was certified as Halal. Thus, it caused all doubts to be removed from the minds of the people regarding from where and how the Muslim shopkeeper had imported the products.



I would like to say that when the authorities and Muslim religious leaders are well aware of the fact that meat is being imported into their countries, then is it not their responsibility to make sure that the meat is Halal without any doubt? How is it that they have certified such meat as permissible for Muslim consumption? In reality, these so-called Muslim governments have become the slaves of Europe and the followers of the European nation. Such slavery has blinded them to such an extent that they do not see right from wrong. It is obvious that they have no intent of keeping the pristine Islamic principles alive. Thus, they feel that whatever they do is proper.

THE LAW CONCERNING EXPORTED MEAT



With regards to the present situation, I feel it necessary to briefly explain the forbidden factors involved in imported and exported meat, so that those person who wish to consume only Halal meat will abstain from imported meat that is doubtful. Such people never step back in clarifying that which is Haram.

REASONS FOR EXPORTED MEAT BEING HARAM



1. In exported meat, the method of mechanical slaughter which I have already explained as being Haram is foremost.



2. Most of the meat being imported is from Europe, America, Australia, etc. and most of those controlling abattoirs and the exporters of the meat are Christians and the Zabiha of todays Christians is Haram, as I will prove further in my argument.



3. Exported meat enters Customs where it is immediately hidden from the sight of a Muslim and the exporter. This meat, which is stored on Cargo Carriers, is also hidden from the sight of a Muslim. The majority of the Custom officials and the sailors on the ships from these countries are either Mushriks, Mulhids or Christians of the present day. The Shari'ah has stated that if the meat is hidden from the sight of a Muslim for even one moment, then the meat is Haram. If the exported meat is the Zabiha of a Muslim, and is sent by a Muslim, such meat is still accepted as Haram. Proof of this will be furnished as we proceed.



4. Abattoirs which export meat also place labels of "HALAL" on the meat of animals which die through other bodily injuries during Zibah. By I'jma, such meat is regarded as Haram.

While in Saudi Arabia, I discovered the difference in price of imported and locally slaughtered meat and I found that imported meat was sold at six to seven Riyals per kilogram, whereas locally slaughtered meat was sold at twenty five to thirty Riyals per kilogram. It is for this reason, that in most Hotels, Restaurants and Hajj Tour Agencies, imported meat is served to Hujaaj. The pious people of Saudi Arabia abstain from this meat. I have seen many conscious Hujaaj, who for the same reason, abstain from consuming meat in Saudi Arabia.

One should remember that the consumption of Haram sustenance causes wretchedness in a person. It is also due to this that Du'a is not accepted. How then will the Ibaadah and the Ziyaarah of the Haajis be accepted? Therefore, it is extremely important for the Hujaaj, when in the court of Allah and His Rasool (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) to be more particular in what they eat. Even if it means not eating meat for a few days, it will not cause any difference in one's physical condition and health.

SLAUGHTERING OF THE AHLE KITAAB



According to the Holy Quran and Ahadith, only the Yahud (Jews) and Nasaara (Christians) are referred to as the "People of the Book". With the exception of these two, no Kaafir in the world can claim to have brought Imaan on any Book or Nabi of Almighty Allah. There has been a difference of opinion amongst the Ulema on whether their Zabiha is Halal or not. Most of the Mashaa'ikh (Learned Scholars) have declared their Zabiha as Haram, whereas a few of them have declared their Zabiha to be Halal. The former view is the principle of the Hanafi Madhab and the proof pertaining is more stronger in this argument.



Imaam ibne Humaam has stated in "Fathul Qadeer":

"Except in the case of extreme necessity, the Zabiha of the Ahle Kitaab should not be eaten."



It is stated in "Majma-ul-Anhur" as follows:

"The Christians of our present times openly declare Hazrat Isa (alaihis salaam) as the son of Allah and we have no dire need for their Zabiha, whereas to avoid (their Zabiha) is Waajib (Compulsory), since the Ulema have difference of opinion concerning their Zabiha and since there is no consensus, it will be taken as forbidden to eat."



The difference of opinion of the Ulema is on this condition that the slaughter should be in accordance with the conditions of Zibah, meaning that all the necessary vessels should be severed and that the Zibah must be made only and only in the Name of Allah. The Zabihah of a Muslim will not be Halal if he does not adhere to the proper condition of Islamic Zibah, how then will the Zabihah of the Christians be considered as Halal?



The Zibah of the Christians has not been in accordance with the Shari'ah for years since they neither say Takbeer nor do they slaughter in accordance with the laws of Zibah. Rather, they usually consume the Zabihah of Muslims. They either strangle poultry and birds or stab a knife through the neck of live sheep, thus not allowing the prescribed vessels to be severed. This makes their Zibah unacceptable.



It is in "Fatawa Qazi Khan" as follows:

"Christians do not make Zibah, but they strangle the animal or they eat the Zabihah of Muslims."



A'la Hazrat (radi Allahu anhu) quoted his personal experience as follows:

"In Zil-Qadah, 1295 A.H. I saw a ram on board the ship which belonged to a Christian from Samur. He was selling the ram for 40 Rupees. I desired to eat meat and thus requested to purchase the animal in cash. He refused to sell the animal to me, but said that I should purchase the meat after Zibah. When slaughtering, he stabbed the knife through one side of the neck not even allowing the required vessels to be severed. I then said that this meat was now as bad as swine and was not good enough for our consumption." (Fatawa Razwiyah, Vol. 8, page 331)



Thus, the Zabiha of Christians of the present age are lacking in these methods, thus making their Zabiha totally Haram. As for the Jews, they too leave out the Takbeer and change the method of Zibah, thus, even their Zabiha is Haram. If there is no dire need for the consumption of meat, then it is definitely Makruh to eat their Zabiha. Another reason for their Zabiha to be Haram is that many Christians of this age have either become Mulhid (heretics) or Communists. For further details on this topic, peruse "Fatawa Razwiyah", Vol. 8, pages 329-331.



IS THE MEAT WHICH IS HIDDEN FROM THE SIGHT OF A MUSLIM HALAL OR NOT?



For meat to be Halal, it depends on the proper Islamic method of slaughtering carried out by a Muslim or by a Kitaabi, of an animal which is permitted for Muslim consumption by invoking on it the Name of Allah at the time of Zibah. If there is even an atom of doubt in the meat being Islamically slaughtered then such meat will be considered as Haram.



As long as the Zabiha of a Muslim is in the sight of a Muslim, then it is accepted as Halal. If it is out of the sight or possession of a Muslim then it is doubted and to eat such meat is Haram for this reason, that as long as an animal is alive it's consumption is Haram. It only becomes Halal after Zibah-e-Shar'i (Slaughtering according to Shari'ah). If there is no proof of Shari'ah whether the animal was slaughtered in accordance with the Laws of Shari'ah then the meat of such an animal is Haram, since it is proven with Yaqeen that the animal is Haram, thus how can it be accepted as Halal only by presuming that the animal was slaughtered by a Muslim.



It is in "Al-Ashbah" as follows concerning the purchasing of meat from Majusis:

"The meat of a live animal is Haram, thus the purchaser is bound by the originality of it being Haram and unless the proper Zibah of such an animal is not proven, it will remain Haram."



If a Kaafir says that the meat purchased by him is the Zabiha of a Muslim, then his word will not be acceptable since Halal and Haram deal with the matters of Deen and trust. It must be known that in the circumstances of Deen and trust, the word of a Kaafir is unacceptable.

It is therefore, stated in "Fathul Qadeer" as follows:

"The meat from the butcher of a Polytheist is not Halal until such time it is proven to be the Zibah of a Muslim, since such meat is in reality Haram, and the proper slaughter of such an animal becomes doubted."



Allah Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) has stated as follows in "Raddul Muhtar":

"By the person being a Majusi, it is enough to establish such meat as Haram even if he claims that it is the Zabiha of a Muslim. The reason for this is that on the basis of trust, integrity, and honesty his word is unacceptable."



In "Muamilaat" (General Business Affairs), the message of a Kaafir is only accepted on the condition that honesty prevails without doubt. If there is doubt of his message being true in general business affairs, then also one should not act on his words. (Bahare Shariat, vol. 12, page 37)



However, if it is confirmed from the time of slaughter till the time of sale that the meat was not hidden, even for a minute, from the sight of a Muslim, then such meat is Halal. Likewise, if a person sends his Mushrik servant or slave to buy meat, then such meat will be accepted as Halal after these three conditions are confirmed:-



1. The Kaafir who purchases and brings the meat is your servant or slave.



2. He must also say that he purchased and brought the meat from a Muslim.



N.B.: It is in "Hidaayah" that if a Muslim sends his Majusi servant or slave to purchase meat, then the servant must say that he has purchased this meat from a Muslim or Kitaabi, then only will it be permissable to eat. Since the word of a Kaafir is accepted in general business affairs and if the saying of a Kaafir is in the matter of Diyaanat (Integrity and Trust) - Halal and Haram - then his word would have been unacceptable.



It is in "Hidaayah" and other Kitaabs that the pre-requisites of them being slaves or servants is in the basis of Sharaa'it (Necessary Conditions being fulfilled), since the Fuqaha have stated that the meat of the butcher or of the invitation of the house of a Kaafir is Haram even if they claim it to be the Zabiha of a Muslim.

It is in "Fatawa Qazi Khan" as follows:

"If a Christian or a Majusi invites you to eat meat at his house, then for a Muslim to eat this meat, is Makruh-Tahreemi, even though he says that he purchased it from the market-place since the Majusi either strangles or beats the animal to death, and the Christian Zabiha is not valid for Muslims for he kills the animal through strangulation or eats the Zabiha of Muslims."



In exception to this, with regards to meat, where even a slight doubt can make it Haram, then in such conditions, servant-and slave-purchases would have to be abstained from, then it would be quite difficult. For this reason, in business matters only, their word is accepted and if one is not under your command, his word is unacceptable.



It is stated in "Fatawa Alamgiri" that the word of a Kaafir is accepted in general business matters and unacceptable in matters of religion and integrity. However, if for this reason in Muamilaat, the word of a Kaafir is accepted, then in connection with the words of Diyanat will be accepted since in this time on the basis of necessity, Diyanat on the basis of Muamilaat is accepted.



3. If the person's heart is sure and confirms that there is no doubt in his heart concerning his servant telling the truth.

It is in "Jawhirah Nay'yira" that in general business matters, the word of a Kaafir is acceptable only if it is confirmed that he is telling the truth and if one thinks that he is lying, then his word should not be accepted. (Bahare Shariat, Vol. 6, pg. 37)



Allama Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) has stated that if his (the servant's) word is not definite, then to act upon it is disallowed.



The gist of my argument is this, that if imported and exported meat from the time of Zibah up to the time of importing is not in the care of a Muslim, during export it is also out of the sight of a Muslim. Even those involved in exporting do not keep it in their sight. Thus, as soon as this meat is hidden from the sight of a Muslim, then there is no way in which it can be accepted as permissable. If it is known that it is the Zabiha of a Christian of this time and that it is the product of machine slaughter, then such meat is Haram in the first degree.

May Almighty Allah save us from consuming that which has been forbidden by the Shari'at-e-Mutaharrah. Ameen. Wallaahu Ta'ala Aaalam

by Muhaddith-e-Kabeer

Hazrat Allama Zia-ul-Mustapha Al-Qaderi Razvi Amjadi

translated by

Mohammed Afthab Cassim Razvi Afriqi



FATAWA :

CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO HALAL MEAT



"Zabiha" or "slaughter" by a non-Muslim is Haram and falls within the laws of carrion or dead meat. To consume the Zabiha of a non-Muslim is like eating swine. Any animal that has been slaughtered by a non-Muslim is regarded as carrion and as a "major impurity" or "Najaasat-e-Ghaliza". It is not permissable to consume such an animal or touch it. The only circumstances under which it can be touched is to throw it away.

This law applies in the case of non-Muslims. But it also be known that if a Muslim does not say "Bismillah" when slaughtering an animal, then such and animal is also considered to be Haram. The law concerning meat is so strict that even if the meat leaves the sight of a Muslim into the care of a Kaafir at any time after slaughtering till the time of consumption, then such meat cannot be eaten and is said to be Haram. But, if one has a trustworthy non-Muslim servant who you know without doubt will not allow any contamination in your meat, then it is allowed to send him to a well-recognised Muslim butcher to purchase your meat in your absence.

Likewise, to buy or consume meat or chicken from any shop or poultry farm where it is known that there are non-Muslim slaughterers, is also Haram and a sin. If a Muslim gives meat to non-Muslim staff to be sold, then it is also Haram to purchase such meat even though he says that it was slaughtered by a Muslim. Muslims should be very particular in these circumstances. It is better to buy live chickens, slaughter, clean and separate the pieces yourself. Muslim women could rather have their Muslim workers clean and make pieces of the chicken. There should not be any problem in this, since their Muslim maids, do all the other household chores.



If all these are not possible, then one should make the following conditions with the butcher who sells chickens:

1. Only Muslims must do the slaughtering,

2. A Muslim must clean and cut the chicken into portions,

3. A Muslim must deliver the chickens to the stores,

4. A Muslim must do the home deliveries and should make it clear that the chicken did not go into the care of a Kaafir or out of the sight of a Muslim from the time of slaughter till the time it was delivered to be consumed.



Another simple method is to send a Muslim to the farm, instructing him to personally slaughter and clean the chicken, and then have it brought to you.

To separate Haram from Halal in our food products is Fardh (obligatory) upon each one. Negligence in this case will result in a number of problems for a person in this world and in the Hereafter. The Punishment of Almighty Allah and the Fire of Jahannum (Hell) awaits that person who eats Haram things.

Such a person will be faced with two major calamities in the world (Duniya):

his Duas will not be accepted and

he will become disgraced and insulted even though he may be a millionaire or the King of his time.

































































































THE ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK

ARE SUCH ANIMALS LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL MEAT ?





Introduction

The Jews have been, for the last two thousand years, living a scattered existence in the world. But whatever the circumstances and the period, and whatever the country or society they have been living in, they have always maintained their identity. That which has enabled them to preserve their selfhood is the fact that most of them, if not all of them have consciously bound themselves to their religious code and reverenced their national traditions. Even when they were in a state of subjection, they got the dominant nation to permit them to observe their distinctive rituals and practices.

One such ritual is "kosher". The word does not apply merely to the animal the Jews slaughter for food but to anything involving a distinction between the Jewish and the non-Jewish food laws, as for example English bread and crackers, which are prepared by Jews themselves and called kosher, which implies that now these things do not contravene the Jewish laws. In every society that they have lived in, they have provisioned themselves in like manner, and it is their extreme care in this regard which has elicited for their laws of food deep respect from the other nations. If a person instructs an airline to provide him kosher on board, he is served with food which is placed in a tray, is properly covered, and bears the mark of a rabbi's seal; the seal is broken before the eyes of the passenger. Thus the Jews, who constitute a very small minority in any country, have not only themselves observed their practices, they have also made the rest of the world respect those practices.



And now, for a contrast, look at the condition of Muslims. Once arrived in the Western countries, most of them forget about the distinction between the clean and the unclean. There are Muslims who, on the strength of legal opinions given by certain Muslim scholars, consider it perfectly lawful to eat any kind of meat available in those countries, eon when the animal has not been slaughtered in the Islamic way. Even in cities containing twenty to forty thousand Muslims, no arrangement for the provision of lawful meat has been made. Nor has the right to slaughter animals in the Islamic way been asserted and secured. A good many 1, most of them Arabs, wrangle with the Muslims who wish to abide by the Islamic laws. They insist that if the lawfulness of the meat is in doubt, the eater may remove that doubt by taking Allah's name over the meat himself. I have been constantly receiving letters about such disputes, and reports tell me that the debate continues. I have, therefore, written this article which is being presented in pamphlet-form.



That Islam attaches great importance to the proper slaughtering of animals is evident from a tradition of the Holy Prophet. He said: "He who offers our prayer, faces (in prayer) the Qiblah (i.e. the Ka'aba), and eats of the animal slaughtered by us is a Muslim." In other words, slaughtering in the Islamic manner is, after the offering of the prayer and the turning of the face towards the Qiblah, the most significant mark

That distinguishes a Muslim from a non-Muslim.

The Quranic Restrictions on Eating Animal-Flesh

We shall begin with an account of the restrictions placed by the Quran on eating animal-mesh and of the explication, which the Sunnah furnishes of those restrictions.



1. Unclean Foods

The Quran at four different places explicitly forbids, for use as food, carrion, blood, swine flesh, and the animal slaughtered in the name of other- than-Allah. The prohibition occurs in? The Cattle (verse 146) and The Bee (verse 115), which are Meccan surahs, and is repeated in? The Cow (verse 173) and The Table Spread (verse 3), which are Medinan surahs. The Table Spread, the last of the surahs to contain laws and edicts, makes two additional points. One, that not only the animal dying naturally is unclean but also the animal which is dead through strangling, or beating, or falling from a height, or goring (by another animal) is unclean. Two, that whether or not the name of other-than- Allah is pronounced over it, the animal sacrificed at the altar of polytheists is as unclean as "that over which other-than-Allah's name is mentioned".

To this list of unlawful foods the Prophet has added ass-flesh, the fanged beasts of prey, and the taloned birds of prey.'



2. Proper Slaughtering

The second condition is that only a slaughtered animal may lawfully be eaten of. It says in the Quran:



Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion,... the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which has been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which you make lawful (by slaughtering)...."'



The verse plainly means that the only animal, which is not unclean, is the one which dies through proper slaughtering, and that in all cases where death takes place in some other way, the animal would be unclean. The word tazkiya (proper slaughtering) has not been explained in the Quran. Nor does knowledge of language help much in determining its meaning. Consequently we shall have to take recourse to the Sunnah. The Sunnah tells us that there are two forms of such slaughtering.

o In a situation where the animal is out of our control (as for example when it is flying), or we have it under control but cannot for some reason properly slaughter it, we will be deemed to have slaughtered it if, with a sharp instrument, we inflict on it a wound which causes it to die through bleeding. "Spill blood by whatever instrument you choose," the Prophet says, stating the rules for this kind of slaughtering.

o In a situation where we have complete control of the animal and might slaughter it the way we like, regular slaughtering will be necessary. According to the Sunnah, an animal like the camel should be slaughtered by piercing its throat with a sharp, spear-like instrument so that blood streams out and the bleeding ultimately makes the animal fall. Lifeless to the ground. This was a well-known method of slaughtering camels in Arabia and mention of it is made in the Quran.' The Sunnah tells us that it was also the method employed by the Prophet for slaughtering the camel.



As for slaughtering the cow, goat, or the like animals, the traditions of the Prophet contain the following directions:

1. Abu Huraria transmits that, on the eve of Hajj, the Prophet dispatched Budail bin Warqa Khuza'i on an ashy camel to proclaim along the mountain passes of Mina that the 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 perish hastily."

2. Ibn Abbas transmits that the Prophet forbade the cutting of the spinal cord of the animal when it is slaughtered.'"

3. There is a mursal' tradition, related by Imam Muhammad from Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, which says: "The Prophet forbade the cutting of the spinal cord of the goat at the time of slaughtering it."



In view of these traditions and the established practice of the times of the Prophet and the Companions, it is held by the Hanifites, the Shafi'ites and the Hanbalites that in slaughtering an animal, its throat and esophagus must be cut. According to the Malikites, the throat and the two jugular veins should be cut.'



In all these forms of slaughtering, which have been described in the Sunnah in explication of the Quranic injunction, the animal does not die at once; the link between its body and mind is retained till the last moment. As it tosses and turns, blood from every part of its body is drawn out and only the outflow of blood causes its death.

Now, since the Quran has not elaborated its own injunction, and the Prophet is known to have elucidated it in the above-noted manner, it will have to be conceded that the words "except that which you slaughter" imply the same kind of slaughtering as explained by the Prophet, and that the animal which is killed in disregard of this is unclean.



The Quran mentions still another method of killing an' animal, namely, killing with a trained hunting beast provided the beast keeps from eating of the game. In this case the animal will be taken as slaughtered even if it has been ripped up by the hunting beast.



And those beasts and birds of prey which you have trained as hounds are trained, you teach them that which Allah taught you; so eat of that which they catch for you....'



The Prophet explains this as follows:

"...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."

"...But if it has eaten any of it do not eat, for. It has caught it only for itself."

"And that which you hunt with your dog and, finding it alive, slaughter, you may eat."



The conclusion is that when a hunting beast makes a kill for its owner, the Quranic condition for slaughtering is satisfied. Such killing, therefore, does not fall under "that which the beasts have eaten of" -which is unclean -but under the exception of "that which you slaughter". But the Quran sites this law only in regard to the trained hunting beast. The Prophet counts out that beast also which is kept as a pet but not trained to hunt. Therefore, it cannot be argued that it is permissible to eat the flesh of an animal, which has been tom up by some beast other than the hunting kind. The tradition, which allows the eating of game when it is captured alive and slaughtered, definitively lays down that an animal, which is dead through any means other than slaughtering, is to be treated as carrion.



3. The Condition of Taking Allah's Name

The third Quranic condition is taking Allah's name at the time of killing an animal. This has been stated in different forms at different places in the Quran. Positively, it has been said:

Eat of that over which the Name of Allah has been mentioned if you are believers in His revelations.



And negatively:

And eat not of that whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned, for lo! It is abomination..



In hunting with trained animals, the following directions have been given:



(And those beasts and birds of prey, which you have trained, as hounds,... ) Eat of that which they catch for you and mention Allah's name upon it,' and observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is swift to take account.



Then we see that, at several places, the Quran does not employ the word "slaughter" at all and, instead, uses "taking Allah's name" as a term.



That they may witness things that are of benefit to them, and mention the name of Allah on appointed days over the beast of cattle that He has bestowed upon them. (That is, they should slaughter them).



And for every nation We have appointed a slaughtering ritual, that they may mention the name of Allah over the beast of cattle that He has given them for food. (Again it means that they should slaughter the animals.)



So mention the name of Allah over them {the camels) when they are drawn up in lines. (That is, slaughter them.)



Eat of that over which the name of Allah has been mentioned. (That is, over which Allah's name is mentioned at the time of slaughtering it.)



And eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned. (That is, over which Allah's name is not mentioned at the time of slaughtering it.)



This repeated use of "taking Allah's name" for "slaughtering" conclusively proves that the two expressions are synonymous in the view of the Quran and that taking Allah's name is essential to the cleanness of the slaughtered animal.



We shall now inquire what legal position, according to the sound (saheeh) and firm (qawee) traditions of the Prophet, "taking Allah's name" has. Adi bin Hatim is the man who often questioned the Prophet about game hunting. The rules that the Prophet told him are as follows:



When you set off your dog mention Allah's name, 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; but if it has eaten any of it do not eat,... When you shoot an arrow mention Allah's name.



That which you have hunted with your bow and over which you have taken Allah's name you may eat; and that which you have hunted with your hound and over which you have taken Allah's name you may eat as well.



Spill blood with whatever instruments you chooses.



When you set off a trained dog or hawk, taking Allah's name as you set it off, you may eat of what it catches for you.



Adi bin Hatim asked the Prophet what to do in a situation when, having taken Allah's name, he sets off his dog and, on reaching the scene of hunt, sees another dog standing near by and finds it difficult to determine which of the two has killed the animal. The Prophet replied: "Don't eat, for you took Allah's name over your own dog and not over the other one."



These explicit and unmistakable injunctions of Allah and the Prophet leave no room for doubt that taking Allah's name is essential to the cleanness of the slaughtered animal and that the animal killed without Allah's name being taken over it is unclean. If verses and traditions as clear as these do not formulate any law, then one would like to know what kind of textual evidence (nuss) is required to formulate one.



The Views of Jurists

From among the juristical schools, the Hanafites, the Shafi'ites, and the Hanbalites are agreed that the animal over which Allah's name has not been taken is unclean, and that no harm is done by inadvertent omission of taking Allah's name. The same view is held by Ali, Ibn Abbas, Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, Zuhri, 'Ata, Taus, Mujahid, Hasan Basri, Abu Malik Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila, Jafar bin Mohammad, and Rabeea bin Abu Abdur-Rahman.



According to another group of jurists, if taking Allah's name were omitted, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the slaughtered animal would be unclean. Of the same opinion are Ibn Umar, Sha'bi, and Mohammad bin Seereen. Abu Thaur and Daud Zahiri also subscribe to that view. Ibrahim Natha'i thinks that if it is forgotten to take Allah's name, the animal would be "disagreeable to the point of being unclean" (al-makruhut- tahreemiyy).



Imam Shafi'i believes that taking Allah's name is no condition at all for the cleanness of the slaughtered animal. He agrees that the Shariah recommends taking Allah's Name and the Sunnah, but adds that omission, intentional or unintentional, of it would not affect the cleanness of the animal. Abu Huraira is the only Companion and Imam Auzai the only mujtahid to hold this view. The view has also been attributed to Ibn Abbas, 'Ata bin Abi Rabah, Imam Malik, but their received opinion is a contrary one.



The Weakness of the Shafi'ite View

In support of their view the Shafi'ites argue that in verse 122 of the Cattle

And eat not of that whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned, for lo! It is abomination..

The taking of the waw as a conjunction would violate the principles of elocution. For, they say, the first part of the verse is an optative verbal sentence while the second is a declarative nominal sentence' and it is incorrect to conjoin these two different types of sentences. Taking the waw as the circumstantial waw, therefore, the Shafi'ites construe the verse as: "Don't eat of the animal if, in case of its being fisq, Allah's name has not been taken over it." Then they explain the word fisq with reference to verse 146 of 7he Cattle which reads:



" ...Or the abomination which was immolated to the name of other-than-Allah."

The verse is now made to mean that the only unclean animal is the one over which the name of other-than-Allah has been taken and that omission of taking Allah's name does not make for uncleanness.

But this is a very unsound interpretation. It lays itself open to various objections. To begin with, the manifest meaning of the verse is quite different.

The first impression gained by the reader is not the one suggested by the Shafi'ites. It is only wishfully that one can extract from the verse the meaning that the animal slaughtered without Allah's name having being taken over it is clean.



Secondly, if joining a declarative nominal to an optative verbal sentence infringes the elocutionary principles, the use of the emphatic irma and the intensifying 1am is no less a breach of the rules of elocution. If Allah had to say what the Shafi'ites say, the wording would have been: (i.e. in case of its being abomination) AND NOT (in case of its most certainly being abomination).



Thirdly, in their passion for argument, the Sha6'ites fail to keep the complete verse in mind. The verse reads:



And eat not of that whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned, for lo ! it is abomination. Lo ! the devils do inspire their minions to dispute with you. But if you obey them, you will in truth be idolaters.

Now even if it is granted that the waw in it is abomination !

is circumstantial, the problem of a declarative nominal sentence joined to an optative verbal sentence persists, for the sentence which follows right after is clearly declarative, is incapable, of being made into a circumstantial sentence, and is necessarily joined to the optative sentence. Moreover, this is not the solitary instance of its kind to be found in the Quran. At a number of places, a declarative nominal has been joined to an optative verbal sentence, as for example in verse 4 of The Light

…flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;

And in verse 221 of The Cow.'

Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe: a slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman. Even though she allure you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: a slave man who believes is better than an unbeliever even though he allure you.

The Shafi'ites must either revise their elocutionary doctrines or declare that the Quran violates the principles of elocution. For it is not possible at each place in the Quran to take the maw joining an optative verbal to a declarative nominal sentence as the waw of circumstance.



Fourthly, the Shafi'ite interpretation would make the verse mean:

Do not eat of the animal over which Allah's name has not been mentioned in case of the animal's most certainly being abomination on account of other-than- Allah's name having been mentioned over it.

The question is, if the idea was simply to declare unclean the animal slaughtered in the name of other-than-Allah, does the first part of verse not become totally meaningless and redundant? For it would be senseless to forbid the eating of the animal over which Allah's name has not been taken. It would have sufficed to say: "Eat not of the animal over which other-than-Allah's name has been mentioned." Could it be reasonably explained why the orders (Eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned)

had to be given at all?



Fifthly, even if the waw is taken as the waw of circumstance, there is no need to interpret fisq (abomination) with reference to a far-off verse, i.e. verse ig6 of The Cattle. After all, what prevents us from taking the word in its literal meaning of disobedience and rebellion? The word taken literally, the verse would mean: "Do not eat of the animal over which Allah's name has nest been taken -in case of the animal's being fisq" (i.e. in case the avoidance of taking Allah's name is deliberate,-for the word fisq applies to deliberate defiance of orders and not to omission through forgetfulness). This interpretation is preferable to the Shafi'ite interpretation for two reasons. One, it is consistent with all the verses and traditions relevant to the issue. Two, it saves a complete sentence of the verse -"And eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned" -from becoming meaningless.

Another argument which the Shafi'ites advance is as follows. A group of people called on the Prophet and inquired whether they could have any of the meat brought them from outside by certain neophyte Muslims, it being unknown whether Allah's name had been mentioned over the animal. The Prophet replied: "You may yourselves take Allah's name over it and eat it." On the basis of this tradition the Shafi'ites claim that taking Allah's name is not ' essential, for had it been so, the Prophet would not have permitted the eating of the meat over which Allah's name is uncertain to have been taken. But the tradition actually runs contrary to their thesis. It proves that the obligatoriness of taking Allah's name was a widely-known matter, that being the reason why those people came along inquiring about the meat brought them by the newly-converted country people (Muslims). Had the practice been different, the question of the lawfulness of that meat would not have arisen at all. The reply that the Prophet gave them is also significant. Had taking Allah's name been immaterial, the Prophet would have clarified that it was not essential to the lawfulness of the slaughtered animal's' flesh, which therefore, they could eat whether or not Allah's name had been taken over it. Rut what the Prophet actually told them was that they could eat the flesh after taking Allah's name over it. The logical meaning of this which a little deliberation would yield is that the animal slaughtered by a Muslim should as a rule be deemed to have been slaughtered properly and may be eaten of with an easy mind, and that any lingering doubt may be removed by the eater himself by mentioning Allah's name over the meat. Obviously, one cannot go about investigating, nor does the Shariah obligate him to investigate, whether the animal whose flesh is being sold at city and village shops was a clean animal, whether the slaughterer is a Muslim or not, whether he is a neophyte Muslim or an old one, and whether he has slaughtered it properly or not. On the face of it, everything done by a Muslim should be taken as correct, except where proof to the contrary exists. Unfounded doubts should not be made a ground for abstinence; they should rather be eliminated by saying Bismillah or Astaghfirullah. This is the lesson we learn from that tradition. In no way does the' tradition prove the unobligatoriness of taking Allah's name.

Still another Shafi'ite argument, no less fragile than the previous ones, is based on a mursal tradition which Abu Dawud has included in his book Al-Maraseel.

The tradition has the Prophet saying:

The animal slaughtered by a Muslim is lawful whether or not the Muslim has taken Allah's name over it, for if he were to take some name, it would be the name of Allah.



In the first place, this is a mursal tradition transmitted by a little-known Follower and so cannot render that unobligatory which has been proved to be obligatory by successive marfu traditions. Even if the tradition were absolutely sound, would it really imply that taking Allah's name is unobligatory ?

At best it could be said that if a Muslim chances to have slaughtered an animal without taking Allah's name, his omission should be attributed to inadvertence rather than to positive intention, and that the animal may be eaten of on the presumption that had the man taken some name it would have been the name of Allah and not of other-than- Allah. The tradition cannot be taken to mean that it is lawful to eat of the animal slaughtered by those who do not at all believe in taking Allah's name over the animal -who in fact hold a contrary view, and that taking Allah's name over the animal is not essential at all. Stretch and strain it as one may, the tradition will admit of no such interpretation.

This is what the Shafi'ite arguments for the unobligatoriness of taking Allah's name come to. One pledged to blind imitation might think them irrefutable. But I do not think that a man who reviews them critically would fail to realize how weightless they are in comparison with the arguments for the obligatoriness of taking Allah's name.

In brief, the conditions that the Quran and the sound traditions state for the meat to be clean are as follows:

o It should not be the meat of the animals that have been declared to be unclean in themselves by Allah and His Prophet.

o The animal must have been slaughtered in the manner prescribed by the Shariah.

o Allah's name must have been taken over the slaughtered animal. The meat which does not fulfill these conditions is excluded from the tappibat (the good things) and is included in the khaba'ith (the foul things), Muslims being forbidden the use of it.

The Animals Slaughtered by the People of the Book

Now we shall see what position the Quran and the Sunnah take up on the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book. The Quran says:



This day are (all) good things (tayyibat) made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them.'

The words of this verse clearly point out that the only food of the People of the Book that has been made lawful for us is that which falls under the head of the tayyibat. The verse does not, and cannot, mean that the foods which are termed foul by the Quran and sound traditions and which we may not, in our own home or in the home of some other Muslim, eat or offer to some Muslim for eating, would become lawful when offered us in a Jewish or Christian home. If someone disregards this obvious and reasonable interpretation, he can, interpret the verse in one of the following four ways only.

1. That this verse repeals all those verses which have occurred in connection with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of meat in the surah The Bee, The Cattle, The Cow, and in The Table Spread itself; that this verse of the Quran renders unconditionally lawful not only ' the pole-axed animal but also carrion, Swine flesh, blood, and the animal immolated to other-than-Allah. But no rational (aqlee) or transmissive (naqlee) evidence can ever be produced in favor of this alleged cancellation. The absurdity of the claim is shown by the fact that the three conditions of lawful meat which we noted above occur in the surah The Table Spread itself, in the same context, and just before the verse now under discussion. What right-minded person would say that, of the three consecutive sentences in a passage, the last would nullify the first two?

2. That this verse countermands only slaughtering and taking Allah's name arid does not alter the unclean nature of swine flesh, carrion, blood, and the animal sacrificed to other-than-Allah. Rut we doubt if there exists, besides this empty claim, any solid reason for drawing a distinction between the two types of orders and for maintaining the one type and canceling the other. Anyone having such a reason is welcome to present it.

3. That this verse fixes the dividing line between the food of Muslims and the food of Jews and Christians; that in the case of Muslims' food, all the Quranic restrictions would continue to be effective, but in respect of the food of Jews and Christians, no restrictions would obtain, which means that, at a Jew's or a Christian's, we may unhesitantly eat what is presented to us.

The strongest argument which could be adduced in favor of this interpretation is that Allah knew what kind of food the People of the Rook eat, and that if, having that knowledge, He has permitted us to eat their food, it means that everything they eat -including swine flesh, carrion, and the animal sacrificed to other-than-Allah -is pure and lawful for us. But the verse on which this reasoning is based itself knocks the bottom out of this argument. In unambiguous terms the verse lays down that the only foods of the People of the Book which Muslims may eat are those which are tayyibat. And the word tayyibat has not been left vague: the two preceding verses explain at length what the tayyibat are.

4. That, out of the food of the People of the Book, swine flesh alone may not be eaten, all other foods begin lawful; or that, we may not use swine flesh, carrion, blood, and the animal slaughtered in other-than- Allah's name, though we may eat of the animal which has been killed in some way other than slaughtering and over which Allah's name has not been pronounced. But this interpretation is as unsustainable as the second.

No rational or transmissive argument can be given to justify the distinction between the injunctions of the Quran, to explain why, in respect of the food of the People of the Book, injunctions of one type remain in force while those of the other are rendered inoperative. If the distinction and the exception are grounded in the Quran, verses must be cited in proof, and if in the Tradition, the particular traditions must be referred to. And if there is a rational argument for it, it must be put forward.

Juristical Opinions

We shall now see what opinions have been offered by the various juristical schools on eating of the animal slaughtered by the People of the Book.

The Hanafites and the Hanbalites maintain that, for a Muslim, the food of the People of the Book is subject to the same restrictions which have been placed by the Quran and the Sunnah on the food of Muslims. Neither in our own homes nor in the homes of Jews and Christians may we eat of the animal which is killed in some manner other than slaughtering and over which Allah's name has not been taken.

The Shafi'tes say that, since taking Allah's Name is not obligatory, neither upon Muslims nor upon the People of the Book, a Muslim may eat of the animal which the Jews or Christians slaughter without taking Allah's name over it, though he may not eat of the animal which they slaughter in the name of other-than-Allah. The weakness of this position has been exposed above and so there is no need to discuss it here.

The Malikites, while granting that taking Allah's name is one of the conditions for the cleanness of the slaughtered animal, hold that the condition is not meant for the People of the Book, the animal slaughtered by them being lawful even if Allah's name has not been taken over it. The only argument presented in support of this view is that at the time of the Battle of Khyber, the Prophet ate the meat sent by a Jewess, without inquiring as to whether Allah's name had been taken over it. But this incident could exempt the People of the Book from taking Allah's name only if it were established that the Jews of those times used to slaughter animals without mentioning Allah's name over them and that the Prophet, when he ate that meat, was in the know of that. To say simply that the Prophet did not ask whether Allah's name had been taken over it would not relax the condition in the case of the People of the Book. It is quite likely that the Prophet ate that meat unhesitantly because he knew that the Jews of his times took Allah's name over the animals they slaughtered.

Ibn Abbas says that the verse "The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you"

Has repealed the verse

"Eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned,"

And that

The People of the Book. Have been exempted from observing this injunction.



But this is Ibn Abbas's personal view and not a marfu' tradition. Moreover, Ibn Abbas is alone in holding this view, there being no one who is in agreement with him. Still further, Ibn Abbas does not offer any convincing reason as to why the one verse should cancel the other -and cancel only one verse and not the rest of the restrictions on food.

'Ata, Auza'i, Mak'hul and Laith bin Sa'd hold that the verse

"The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you"

Has rendered lawful

"That which has been immolated to other-than-Allah."

Ata says that Muslims may eat of the animal slaughtered in the name of other-than-Allah. Auzai says that one may eat of the game hunted by a Christian even if one hears the Christian taking the name of Christ over his dog as he sets it off Mak'hul says that there is no harm in eating of the animals which the People of the Book slaughter for their churches and synagogues and religious ceremonies.

But the only argument given in support of this is that Allah knew full well that the People of the Book sacrificed animals in the name of other-than-Allah and yet He permitted the eating of their food. The answer is that Allah knew full well that the Christians ate swine flesh and drank wine, so why not make the verse declare lawful wine and swine flesh 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 advanced in favor of the other views is so flimsy that, on the strength of them, the unclean cannot be proved to be clean, nor can the obligatory be made unobligatory. I would not advise any Allah-fearing person to adopt any of those views and to start eating of the animals cut down in Europe and America.

In the end, two clarifications are in order. Firstly, in killing small animals like the hen, the pigeon, etc., slight carelessness often results in an abruptly chopped-off head. Some jurists ' say that there is no harm in eating of such an animal. On the basis of this opinion, certain scholars have given the verdict that where a machine severs the head at one stroke, the condition of slaughtering is fulfilled. Rut to make the jurists' opinions into a basic law (nuss) and derive from it rules which would alter the basic laws themselves is not a correct approach. The Shariah's injunctions about taking Allah's name have been given above, as have been the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah on which those injunctions are based. Now if the jurists have granted a concession in the case of an inadvertent violation of those injunctions, how can one regard this as the basic law and abrogate virtually, the Shariah's injunctions about slaughtering? The jurists have said, and rightly, that one need not try to find out whether Allah's name has been taken over each and every animal slaughtered by the People of the Book; however, if it is positively

Learnt that, over a particular animal, Allah's name has been deliberately avoided to be taken, that animal may not be eaten of. On the basis of this, again, it has been suggested that no inquiries need be made about the meat commonly available in Europe and America and that the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book may be eaten of with the same ease of mind with which the animal slaughtered by Muslim butchers is eaten of. But this logic would be valid only when we knew that a certain section or population of the People of the Book believe, in principle and as a matter of faith, that Allah's name ought to be taken at the time of slaughtering an animal. As for the people who we know are not at all convinced that a distinction between the clean and the unclean exists, and who do not in principle agree that taking Allah's or other-than-Allah's name makes any difference to the animal's cleanness or uncleanness, how can one take with an easy mind the animals slaughtered by them?





Halal Meat:

Question: Recently, a friend of mine attended a lecture by a learned scholar. In response to a question about the meat being sold at the American grocery stores being Halal or not, he replied that there were two things in the Qur'an. First, is the following verse:

Eat not on which Allah's name has been pronounced. (6:121)



Then, there is this verse:

The food of the People of the Book is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (5:5)

So according to this scholar, the meat at the American grocery stores is not prohibited and he said we would not be sinning if we had that meat but it was better to avoid it. Therefore, my question to you is that can we eat the meat slaughtered by the Americans, considering that they are People of the Book?

Answer: A deliberation on the contexts of 6:121 and 5:5 reveals that the condition imposed by 6:121 (that is Allah's name should be positively taken on slaughtering an animal) is a universal principle and the food of the People of the Book can only be eaten

if, besides other conditions, It also fulfils this condition.



These other conditions are stated at various places in the Qur'an. To quote Sarah Baqarah:

Believers! Eat of the good things that We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is Him you worship. He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood and the flesh of swine and that on which any name other than Allah has been invoked. (2:172-3)



In other words, just as swine, dead meat, blood, meat on which some other name has been taken cannot be eaten from the tables of the People of the Book, similarly meat on which Allah's name has not been positively taken cannot be eaten from them.

It needs to be appreciated that 5:5 has a specific background which makes it a verse that cannot be taken independently. Until this verse was revealed, the food of the People of the Book was forbidden for the Muslims. The reason for this was that many lawful edibles had been made unlawful for them by Allah as a means to punish them for their stubbornness. Similarly, they themselves had made unlawful for themselves edibles, which were originally lawful for them like the camel**. Consequently, after the list of lawful and the unlawful edibles was set right by the Prophet (sws), then only were the Muslims allowed to eat from their tables.



*. The Qur'an says:

And on the Jews, We forbade every animal with undivided hoof and We forbade them the fat of the ox and the sheep except what adheres to their backs or their entrails or is mixed up with a bone. This was in recompense for their willful disobedience. (6:146)



**. The Bible says:

But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel …(Leviticus, 11:4)





GETTING TO THE MEAT OF THE MATTER

To answer the question as to whether the meat sold in the markets or served in restaurants is lawful for Muslims to consume, one needs to carefully look at two points:



1. Who has slaughtered the animal (the slaughterer)?

2. How was the animal slaughtered (the slaughtering procedure)?



In the following discussion, we exclude the case when the slaughterer is a Muslim, who has followed the Islamic slaughtering procedure, for it is then clear that the meat is Halal for Muslims to consume.



THE SLAUGHTERER

The slaughterer must be from the People of the Book (i.e. a Christian or a Jew). Animals slaughtered of other religions or people with no religion at all are not lawful for Muslims to consume. Hence, for the meat sold in a Non-Muslim market, one should find out whether the religion of the slaughterer is either Christianity or Judaism.



ISN'T IT ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE INHABITANTS OF A PARTICULAR NON-MUSLIM COUNTRY ARE FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK?

No!!! Especially not when the percentage of the population who are not from the People of the Book is substantial. Most of the scholars think that 10% or more is considered substantial; and that is not the religion of the majority of the population that matters in this case, but the religion of the slaughterer himself. If the slaughterer is neither a Christian or a Jew, the meat is Haram for Muslims to consume even if the majority of the population are Christians and Jews. Conversely, if the proportion of People of the Book in a certain country represents only a minority but it is known that the meat in the market comes from animals slaughtered by that minority, then the meat is eligible to be Halal (we still need to look at the slaughtering procedure). It should be pointed out here that extrapolating the public polls and statistics regarding percentages of faith in the general population to a particular strip of it (i.e., the meat industry) is an incorrect and misleading way of determining the faith of those who work as slaughterers.



IF THE CONSTITUTION OF CERTAIN COUNTRY IS SECULAR AND THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ADOPT CHRISTIANITY OR JUDAISM AS ITS STATE RELIGION, ISN'T THIS SUFFICIENT GROUND TO RULE THAT THE MEAT SOLD IN THE MARKET OF THAT COUNTRY IS HARAM FOR MUSLIMS TO CONSUME?

No. Such consideration has no bearing on the ruling in this matter. If the country has a secular constitution but the slaughterer is from the People of the Book, the meat is still eligible to be Halal. It is only if the slaughterer himself is not from the People of the Book that the meat becomes Haram. Governments may nevertheless indirectly affect the final ruling if they enact laws about the slaughtering procedure that would make the meat Haram. The reason that this question was addressed is to show the process of "Tahreer Mahali-neizaa" (Determining the area of contention) in which irrelevant elements are sifted out and the fact that some Muslims repeatedly use it - erroneously - to show that the meat in a non-Muslim market is Haram.



IF THE MEAT IN THE MARKET COMES FROM ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED IN THE PLANTS OF A CERTAIN MEAT - PACKING COMPANY, DO WE HAVE TO CHECK THE RELIGION OF EVERY EMPLOYEE IN THE COMPANY?

No. Only the religion of the employees who do the actual slaughtering. The religion of the other employees is irrelevant.



SUPPOSE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE SLAUGHTERERS IN A CERTAIN COMPANY ARE FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK AND ONLY A MINORITY BELONGS TO OTHER RELIGIONS. CAN WE EAT FROM THE MEAT OF THAT COMPANY IF WE DO NOT KNOW SPECIFICALLY BY WHICH GROUP THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED?

No!!! If Halal meat is mixed with Haram meat and we do not know which is which, it is Haram to consume such meat.



THE SLAUGHTERING PROCEDURE

The Halal way of slaughtering has already been described in Slaughtering the Halal Way. What we are interested in doing here is to discuss whether the slaughtering methods commonly used in the US make the meat eligible to be Halal. There are hundreds of sources of information on the subject some of which have been used here along with information obtained form Muslim professionals in the meat industry.

All meat sold or traded in the US must derive from animals slaughtered under inspection at a USDA federal - or state - approved facility. The main law addressing the slaughtering procedures of animals at slaughterhouses is the federal "Humane Slaughter Act." This Act, however, provides no regulation for the slaughtering of the more than five (5) billion poultry consumed each year in the US.

For animals other than poultry and ritually slaughtered animals, it is a requirements of the Humane Slaughter Act that livestock must be stunned into unconsciousness before they are killed. The stunning g of livestock in normally accomplished by an electrical device of a gun.



THE STUNNING

Two aspects of the stunning part of the slaughtering procedure need to be examined.

First: its ruling in general and second: whether or not it kills the animal before it actually gets slaughtered.

The ruling of stunning in the Islamic Fiqh is that it is Makrooh or disliked for it causes pain to the animal and it is not a recommended part of the Islamic slaughter way which requires that the animal be treated gently.

We took the second question (whether stunning kills the animal before it is slaughtered) to three professionals in the meat business: Dr. Fawzee As Sayed, a veterinarian and a USDA meat inspector in the area of Fresno, California; Amin Attia, owner of Halal Products International, who has been in the business of meat slaughtering, domestically and for export, for more than ten years; he is also based in Fresno, California; and Ahmad Fallah, owner of International Market in Fort Collins, Colorado. Mr. Fallah has more than thirteen years of experience in the meat industry and is presently completing his Ph.D. in veterinary medicine.

All of these three confirmed the fact that the stunning procedure definitely causes the animal to die in a short period of time (a function of the animal health and other factors) if left without slaughtering. When asked about he percentage of animals that die before slaughtering, each one had a different answer. Dr. As Sayed insisted the delays in the production lines are very minimal an that the percentage of animals who die before being slaughtered is less than one percent. He also said that inspectors can and do identify the animals and order them removed from the production line. Mr. Attia is of the same option as Dr. As Sayed but he believes that the percentage may be as high as three or four percent. Mr. Fallah, however, strongly ascertains based on his experience in many slaughterhouses that the percentage of animals who die prior to being slaughtered is around fifteen (15%) percent. Any estimate, he said, of less than ten percent (10%) is unrealistic.



IF THE MEAT IN A NON-MUSLIM MARKET WAS SLAUGHTERED BY PEOPLE OF THE BOOK BUT WE KNOW THAT SOME OF IT CAME FROM ANIMALS THAT WERE STUNNED AND DIED PRIOR TO BEING SLAUGHTERED, IS THE MEAT LAWFUL FOR MUSLIMS TO CONSUME?

Most scholars are of the opinion that if the percentage of the dead animals is small (2 or 3%) then one can eat that meat because the probability of it being dead is minimal, but if that percentage increases to ten (10%) or more then one can not eat the meat. Dr. Aburrahman Abul Khaliq, however, is of the opinion that one can not eat that meat at all for the default rule when it comes to eating is the meat is Haram until it is proven to be Halal.



MORE INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATION IS NEEDED

The decisive factor of the matter, when it comes to judging the market meat, is to know the slaughterer and the way he slaughters. This means that Muslims in EVERY community are obliged to seek information on these two aspects to the meat sold in their local market. No general conclusion can be drawn to the WHOLE meat market in the US. The subject of Halal meat is a very important one. Meat products and by-products touch our lives in many ways and the consequences can be very grave. We can not claim to be responsible and committed Muslims if we do not take the time to investigate this matter. It is hoped that this article has at least brought to light questions that one should ask in his investigation and exposed potential problems to be aware of. Muslims should organize and act locally to get clear answers to their concerns. They should also be active in trying to change the inhumane slaughtering procedures that are being used in the West. Muslims should also encourage and make sure that Halal meat stores follow the correct Islamic procedure in their slaughtering.







HOW HUMANE IS THE HUMANE SLAUGHTER ACT?

Two scientists, Professor Schultz and Dr. Hazim both of University of Hanover, Germany, conducted an experiment to compare the Islamic slaughtering with the stunning required in the so called humane slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of the brain. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks.

Some animals were then slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and the carotid arteries of both sides as well as the trachea and esophagus (Islamic Method). Other animals were stunned using a Captive Bolt Pistol (CBP). During the experiment, electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiograms (EKG) recorded the condition of the brain and the heart of all animals. The results were as follows:



ISLAMIC METHOD

1. During the first three seconds after slaughtering the EEG did not record any change, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.

2. For the following three seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep unconsciousness. This is due to the large quantity of blood gushing out of the body.

3. After this total of six seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.

4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood out of the body.



STUNNING

1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning but the EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.

2. The heart of the stunned animal stopped beating earlier than the one slaughtered the Islamic way thus resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat.

If confirmed, this experiment would have shown that the stunning required in the "Humane Slaughter Act" is not humane. It should be noted that this so called Humane Act may be based more on economics than on Humanness. The main purpose of stunning has less to do with causing a painless death to the animal than with rendering the animal motionless, thus allowing the production line to go at a faster pace and achieving higher efficiency and profits for the meat packing company.









SLAUGHTERING THE HALAL WAY

The Shariah term for Halal Slaughtering is Dhakat. Dhakat in Arabic comes from the root idea of making something become good in smell and taste, and making it complete. Dhakat thus means: "to slaughter an animal in such a way as to make it smell and taste good, because slaughtering releases the blood, enabling the meat to dry faster." (Al Qurtubi V6 / P52) As an Islamic technical term, it means releasing the blood of animals by means of a sharp object from a specific place in a specific manner, doing it for the sake of Allah (SWT) Alone, and mentioning His Name over the animal.

Scholars have agreed that the best and most complete way to slaughter is to cut the windpipe (trachea), the gullet (esophagus) and the two jugular veins in the neck. Slaughtering must be performed on the front of the neck without cutting the spinal cord. Scholars, however, have differed regarding what constitutes the minimum amount of cutting, and the exact point on the neck where it should take place. Those who understood the Prophet's (SAW) Hadith to mean "kill" the animal think that cutting the throat and the windpipe is good enough to achieve the killing; and those who understood them to mean "release the blood" insisted that in addition to that, the jugular veins, or at least one of them, must also be cut. The important point is that some scholars recommended that slaughtering performed from the back of the neck be avoided, because the results in cutting the spinal cord, and thereby killing the animal, before the actual slaughtering.

THE SLAUGHTERING TOOL

The basic tool to be used in slaughtering is, of course, a knife. Any sharp edge, however, can be used except teeth, nails, or bone. Examples of materials giving a sharp edge are: steel, iron, copper, gold, glass, stone, and wood, if it is sharp enough. Kaab ibn Malik (RA) reported that:

"They had sheep that were shepherded by a young woman who noticed at one point that a lamb was dying. When she told me, I broke a stone and slaughtered it, but I told them not to eat." (The full version is narrated by Al-Bukhari.)

And in the Hadith reported by Raf'a ibn Khadeej (RA),

The Prophet (SAW) told the Companions to use "anything that releases the blood, and mention the Name of Allah over it, but do not use a tooth or a nail, for a tooth is bone, and nails are the knives of the Ethiopians." (Reported by Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others)

It is said that Ethiopians at the time used to kill their animals in the fashion to show their courage and strength.

In a lengthy discussion of all possible objects for slaughter, Ibn Rushd said: "It does not make sense to differentiate between teeth and bones for he [the Prophet (SAW)] explained that a tooth is not a good tool by the fact that it is made of bone. And it is well agreed upon in our Madh-hab that anything other than iron is disliked (that is, when iron objects are available) because the Prophet (SAW) has said:

"If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best way. One should sharpen his edge and comfort gently his animal." (Bidaiatul Mujtahid V1 / P433)

WHO SHOULD SLAUGHTER

Scholars agree that the person conducting the slaughtering can be a Muslim or one of the People of the Book. If the person has not reached puberty yet, or is drunk or insane, scholars have differing opinions. The Shaafi'ee School says that their Dhabeehah is Halal if they are aware of what they are doing. The Malikites say the boy's Dhabeehah is Halal, but not the drunks or the insane person's because (under the circumstances) they cannot reason. The main issue behind these differences is that of Niyyah (intention). Those who consider it to be a requirement, do not accept their Dhabeehah as Halal, and vice versa. All scholars agree that the Dhabeehah of the Murtadd (one who has chosen to give up Islam) is not considered Halal.

INVOCATION OF ALLAH'S (SWT) NAME OVER THE ANIMAL

Scholars agree regarding the legitimacy (Mashru'yah) of invoking the Name of Allah (SWT) over the Dhabeehah, but they differ on whether it is obligatory (Waajib) or recommended (Mustahabb). In other words, is it considered a requirement, in order for the Dhabeehah to be Halal or not? Three MAJOR opinions of scholars have been mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his Tafseer (V2 / P169) in explaining Surah Al-An'am 6 Ayat 121. The Ayat says:

"Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal), for sure it is Fisq (a sin and disobedience to Allah). And certainly, the devils do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you, and if you obey them [by making Al-Maytata (a dead animal) legal by eating it], then you would indeed be Mushrikun (polytheists): [because they (devils and their friends) made lawful to you to eat that which Allah has made unlawful to eat and you obeyed them by considering it lawful to eat, and by doing so you worshipped them, and to worship others besides Allah is polytheism]." (Al-An'am 6:121)

The following is a brief summary of these opinions:

FIRST: That the invocation is a condition for lawfulness. This opinion is held by the majority of scholars, including Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ahmad, Thawree, Ibn Abbas and many other. They say that in the above Ayat:

1. The order not to eat implies an absolute prohibition because nothing in the Ayat of elsewhere negates it or says otherwise.

2. The absence of the invocation is considered to be Fisq (impiety) or disobedience. That classification is given only to actions that are considered to be Haram.

3. The prohibition is a general one and should not be construed to only mean dead animals of animals killed by Mushriks, as some scholars have claimed. The reasoning behind this is that nothing in the Ayat indicates such a restriction or specification, and the fact that prohibition of dead animals and animals killed by Mushriks has been clearly and specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Quran more than once.

These scholars also used the following Hadith to support their opinion: Aadee ibn Hatem (RA) said:

"I said: 'O Prophet of Allah, I send my (hunting) dog and mention the Name of Allah.' The Prophet (SAW) told me: 'If you send your dog mentioning the Name of Allah and he killed, you eat; but if he eats from it, do not eat. He has caught it for himself.' I said: 'I send my dog, and then I find another dog with him, and I do not know which one caught for me.' The Prophet (SAW) said: 'Do not eat, because you only invoked the Name on your dog, and not on the other.'" (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim, among other similar Hadith)

If the invocation is dropped deliberately, the Dhabeehah is considered to be "dead," and it is Haram to eat. But if one forgot to mention it, then his slaughter is lawful and the Dhabeehah is Halal.

SECOND: That invocation is not a requirement, and that if one has not made it (on purpose or just forgot to do so), the slaughter would be lawful, and the Dhabeehah Halal. This is basically the Shafi'ee School's opinion, but is also one of the opinions reported on behalf of Malik and Ahmad.

THIRD: That it is a condition for the lawfulness of the Dhabeehah, and that if the Muslim does not invoke the Name of Allah (SWT), his Dhabeehah is not Halal. This opinion does not differentiate between those who forget to make the invocation form those who deliberately omit it: the Dhabeehah in either case is not Halal. This opinion was adopted by Abdullah ibn Umar, Dawood Ad-dhahiri and Ibn Sereen.

Forgetfulness, however, is a valid excuse for not applying or associating consequences of actions to the doer. Rulings and conditions cannot be applied to the person who did or did not do something because of forgetting. The same concept also applies to cases in which the person is under duress, or has done something wrong by mistake.

In conclusion, the correct ruling regarding the requirement of invoking the Name of Allah (SWT) over slaughtered animals is that the invocation is obligatory (Waajib) for the slaughter to be Halal, and that if one deliberately omits it, his Dhabeehah is Haram to eat. ALL THIS RELATES TO CASES IN WHICH THE PERSON PERFORMING THE SLAUGHTERING IS A MUSLIM.









Islamic method of Slaughtering animals is better

...scientific reason...

http://www.alraedclub.net/

Al Shaddad Bin Aous has quoted this tradition of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) "God calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter, sharpen your blade to relieve its pain".

Many allegations have been made that Islamic slaughter is not humane to animals. However, Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University, Germany, proved through an experiment, using an electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) that *Islamic slaughter is THE humane method of slaughter* and captive bolt stunning, practiced by the Western method, causes severe pain to the animal. The results surprised many.



Experimental Details:

1. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of thebrain.

2. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks.

3. Some animals were slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and carotid Arteries of both sides; as also the trachea and esophagusHalal Method.

4. Some animals were stunned using a captive bolt pistol humane slaughter by the western method.

5. During the experiment, EEG and ECG were recorded on all animals to record the condition of the brain and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning.



Results and Discussion:

I - Halal Method

1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.

2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep - unconsciousness. This is due to a large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.

3. After the above mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.

4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood from the body: resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.



II - Western method by C.B.P. Stunning

1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.

2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.

3. The hearts of the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood inthe meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.



Is it no wonder that animals killed using any method other than cutting the jugular vein (see above article) is forbidden in the Holy Quran? God is the author of the Holy Quran and He knows best what's good for us!







WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A stun gun used on cattle before slaughter can send brain tissue scattering throughout the animal, which could provide a route for madcow disease to spread to humans, a consumer group said Thursday.

There have been no documented cases of madcow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), in the United States, but the consumers group said the use of stun guns posed a potentially deadly risk in Europe.

``These new discoveries mean that some of the steaks and hamburgers Amercans eat today may contain small bits of brain matter,'' said David Schardt, nutritionist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

``Now, since BSE has not been detected here, there is no known risk at this time. But where BSE does exist in cattle, such meat with specks of brain tissue in it could be a deadly meal,'' he said.

In an unusual news conference, the Washington-based consumer watchdog group was joined by meat industry representatives who said they planned to sponsor a study on stunning methods later in the year.

``If a problem is found either with stunning in general or with particular methods or machinery, we will move swiftly to address it,'' said Janet Collins, a vice president at the American Meat Institute, an industry trade group.

Brain tissue and spinal cord are the most infectious part of an animal with BSE, which eats deadly holes in an infected animal's brain. A world panic over beef was triggered after an outbreak of the disease among British herds in the late 1980s.

Scientists remain unsure whether madcow disease can be transmitted to humans, but say they are concerned about an inexplicable rise in the number of cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, an incurable brain disease in humans.

BSE has never been detected in U.S. cattle herds and federal health officials have erected a series of ``firewalls'' against it, including banning feeding ruminant by-products -- parts of other farm animals -- to cattle, a practice believed to have

spread BSE in Britain.

Before cattle are slaughtered, they are stunned with a shot to the head to make them unconscious and to protect workers. Stunning is required by law so the animal feels no pain when it dies.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest said recent research at Texas A&M University and by Canada's Food Inspection Agency found a method called pneumatic stunning delivered a force so explosive that it splattered brain tissue throughout a cow's system.

``Our research shows that it's possible that microscopic particles of brain matter can be circulated to the lungs, liver and maybe other sites,'' Tam Garland, a research veterinarian at Texas A&M said in CSPI's July newsletter. ``The implications are frightening.''

Some 30 to 40 percent of American cattle are stunned by pneumatic guns, which fire a metal bolt into a cow's brain followed by a pulverizing burst of 150 pounds of air pressure.

The method is popular at larger U.S. meat plants because it renders cattle insensible longer than other techniques, erasing concerns the animals might revive before they are killed and cause havoc in a long processing line. Pneumatic guns are not used widely abroad.

Meat industry officials said they started considering a study on stunning methods several months ago after learning of the research. They said they planned to tap U.S. and Canadian government officials for advice on how to conduct the study and hoped to have results by the end of the year.

``No one wants the U.S. to remain BSE free more than the nation's one million beef producers,'' said Gary Weber of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.



© Copyright 1997, Reuters News Service





SLAUGHTERING BY THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK

The basic rule regarding the food and meat of the People of the Book is that it if Halal. A Muslim can eat their food and marry their women, as stated in the following Ayat:

"Made lawful to you this day are At-Tayyibat [all kinds of Halal (lawful) foods, which Allah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, etc. milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits, etc..). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time, when you have given their due Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife) desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girl friends. And whosoever disbelieves in the Oneness of Allah and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allah's), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al-Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." (Al-Ma'idah 5:5)

People of the Book specifically means Christians and Jews. Scholars have discussed in great detail exactly what is meant by the expression "People of the Book" and whether or not that meaning would change with time. The majority of scholars say that the meaning of People of the Book has not changed and should not change with time, even if the Christians and Jews deviate more in their path from the True Path and regardless of how much they practice of their religion. The reasons for this understanding are very simple. Firstly, all or most of these deviations existed even before the revelation of the Quran to our Prophet (SAW), yet Allah (SWT) called them the People of the Book. Second, Allah (SWT) did not mention in the Quran - and He surely knows that they are going to change. We should not, therefore, pay attention to these changes, and should treat them, in every way in which we deal with them, as who they are - People of the Book.

Rasheed Ridhaa, a respected scholar who lived at the turn of the century, said in his book of Tafseer: "Allah (SWT) prohibited us from marrying Mushrik women, yet He (SWT) also permitted us - in a clear and direct manner in the same Ayat - to marry the women of the People of the Book. Since marriage is more important than eating, we should not, therefore, put any restrictions on the rulings derived from the Ayat regarding their food or who they are." (Tafseer al-Manar, B1 / P353)

It should be pointed out that the Dhabeehah of the People of the Book is Halal regardless of whether their country is considered to be part of the Daar-ul-Harb (at war with Muslims) or Daar-us-Salaam (at peace with Muslims). Imam Nawawee has reported on the consensus of scholars on this matter (al Majmuu'a, V9 / P68).

HARAM FOOD IS ALWAYS HARAM

All scholars have understood food in the above Ayat to refer to meat or Dhabeehah of the People of the Book. One should now ask the question: Are all the types of food and meat used by them Halal for us? The answer to that can be summarized by stating that what our Deen has shown us to be Haram will always be Haram. Therefore, all the ruling discussed above apply to their Dhabeehah with one exception - the invocation of the Name of Allah (SWT) over the slaughtered animal. The same conditions for the Halal requirement of Dhabeehah, are considered again, in this time with the People of the Book in mind:

1. According to Al-Ma'idah 5:5 mentioned above, Muslims can only eat good and pure meats. Therefore, the flesh of swine, blood, dead animals, etc. are not permissible for the Muslims to eat - even items (e.g. pork) currently eaten by the People of the Book.

2. No names other than that of Allah (SWT) should be invoked over the animal. If such is done, the Dhabeehah becomes Haram according to Abu Hanifah, Shafiee and Ibn Hanbal. That is the ruling if we actually hear these names invoked at the time of slaughtering. If we do not actually hear them, scholars have said that the ruling is not to ask about it. This ruling is supported by the majority of scholars.

3. According to Abu Hanifah and Ibn Hanbal, the Dhabeehah to the People of the Book is not Halal unless they invoke the Name of Allah (SWT) over it. According to Malik and Shafiee, however, invoking the Name of Allah (SWT) is not a requirement, and the Dhabeehah is Halal. This latter opinion is supported by the following:

• The fact that the Al-Ma'idah 5:5 declares their meat to be Halal without imposing any restrictions such as the invocation of the Name of Allah (SWT) over the animal. Therefore, their meat is Halal for us as long as it does not belong to one or more of the ten Haram categories discussed above.

• In a Hadith narrated by Aisha (RA), she said:

"Some people told the Prophet (SAW) that some people brought them meat and they did not know whether the Name of Allah (SWT) had been spoken over it or not. The Prophet (SAW) said: 'Speak the Name of Allah over it and eat.'" (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Abu Dawood)

This Hadith shows that non-Muslims were not used to invoking the Name of Allah (SWT) during the time of the Prophet (SAW), and that the invocation was required of Muslims because the Prophet (SAW) had told them to invoke Allah's (SWT) Name before eating. That can be interpreted to mean: because their meat is permitted for you, you can eat it, just be mentioning Allah's (SWT) Name over it, and it does not really matter whether or not they (People of the Book) had invoked Allah's (SWT) Name over it because it is not required of the People of the Book.

• Allah (SWT) has permitted us to marry women of the People of the Book, and it is well established that the husband cannot force his wife to be a Muslim or to practice Islamic worship. Similarly, we cannot ask the People of the Book to invoke Allah's (SWT) Name over an animal they slaughtered, because they are not required to do so.

• If one considers Surah Al-An'am 6:121: "Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal)…" (Al-An'am 6:121) together with the fact that the People of the Book do not invoke Allah's (SWT) Name, one may get confused. But the paradox is answered by considering the following: The meat of the People of the Book is exempted form the restriction. The Quran prohibits Muslims from marrying Mushrik women but at the same time has exempted women of the People of the Book from the prohibition.

Based on this discussion and other evidences, the following conclusions have been drawn:

1. All meats prohibited in Islam are ALWAYS prohibited, even if the People of the Book eat them.

2. If a Muslim hears a Christian or a Jew invoking the names of other than Allah (SWT), he should not eat from the Dhabeehah. But if he does not hear them, he should not ask about it, either.

3. We cannot force the People of the Book to invoke Allah's (SWT) Name when slaughtering. Hence, their Dhabeehah is Halal even without the invocation.

4. The slaughtering procedure used by the People of the Book should not kill the animal before slaughtering it.





THE ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK

ARE SUCH ANIMALS LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL MEAT ?

Introduction

The Quranic Restrictions on Eating Animal Flesh

o Unclean Foods

o Proper Slaughtering

o The Condition of Taking Allah's Name

The Views of Jurists

The Weakness of the Shafi'ites View

The Animals Slaughtered by the people of the Book

Juristic Opinions



Introduction

The Jews have been, for the last two thousand years, living a scattered existence in the world.

But whatever the circumstances and the period, and whatever the country or society they have been living in, they have always maintained their identity. That which has enabled them to preserve their selfhood is the fact that most of them, if not all of them have consciously bound themselves to their religious code and reverenced their national traditions. Even when they were in a state of subjection, they got the dominant nation to permit them to observe their distinctive rituals and practices.

One such ritual is "kosher". The word does not apply merely to the animal the Jews slaughter for food but to anything involving a distinction between the Jewish and the non-Jewish food laws, as for example English bread and crackers, which are prepared by Jews themselves and called kosher, which implies that now these things do not contravene the Jewish laws. In every society that they have lived in, they have provisioned themselves in like manner, and it is their extreme care in this regard which has elicited for their laws of food deep respect from the other nations. If a person instructs an airline to provide him kosher on board, he is served with food which is placed in a tray, is properly covered, and bears the mark of a rabbi's seal; the seal is broken before the eyes of the passenger. Thus the Jews, who constitute a very small minority in any country, have not only themselves observed their practices, they have also made the rest of the world respect those practices.

And now, for a contrast, look at the condition of Muslims. Once arrived in the Western countries, most of them forget about the distinction between the clean and the unclean. There are Muslims who, on the strength of legal opinions given by certain Muslim scholars, consider it perfectly lawful to eat any kind of meat available in those countries, eon when the animal has not been slaughtered in the Islamic way. Even in cities containing twenty to forty thousand Muslims, no arrangement for the provision of lawful meat has been made. Nor has the right to slaughter animals in the Islamic way been asserted and secured. A good many 1, most of them Arabs, wrangle with the Muslims who wish to abide by the Islamic laws. They insist that if the lawfulness of the meat is in doubt, the eater may remove that doubt by taking Allah's name over the meat himself. I have been constantly receiving letters about such disputes, and reports tell me that the debate continues. I have, therefore, written this article which is being presented in pamphlet-form.

That Islam attaches great importance to the proper slaughtering of animals is evident from a tradition of the Holy Prophet. He said: "He who offers our prayer, faces (in prayer) the Qiblah (i.e. the Ka'aba), and eats of the animal slaughtered by us is a Muslim." In other words, slaughtering in the Islamic manner is, after the offering of the prayer and the turning of the face towards the Qiblah, the most significant mark that distinguishes a Muslim from a non-Muslim.

The Quranic Restrictions on Eating Animal-Flesh

We shall begin with an account of the restrictions placed by the Quran on eating animal-mesh and of the explication, which the Sunnah furnishes of those restrictions.



1. Unclean Foods

The Quran at four different places explicitly forbids, for use as food, carrion, blood, swine flesh, and the animal slaughtered in the name of other- than-Allah. The prohibition occurs in? The Cattle (verse 146) and The Bee (verse 115), which are Meccan surahs, and is repeated in? The Cow (verse 173) and The Table Spread (verse 3), which are Medinan surahs. The Table Spread, the last of the surahs to contain laws and edicts, makes two additional points. One, that not only the animal dying naturally is unclean but also the animal which is dead through strangling, or beating, or falling from a height, or goring (by another animal) is unclean. Two, that whether or not the name of other-than- Allah is pronounced over it, the animal sacrificed at the altar of polytheists is as unclean as "that over which other-than-Allah's name is mentioned".

To this list of unlawful foods the Prophet has added ass-flesh, the fanged beasts of prey, and the taloned birds of prey.'



2. Proper Slaughtering

The second condition is that only a slaughtered animal may lawfully be eaten of. It says in the Quran:



Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion,... the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which has been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which you make lawful (by slaughtering)...."'

The verse plainly means that the only animal, which is not unclean, is the one which dies through proper slaughtering, and that in all cases where death takes place in some other way, the animal would be unclean. The word tazkiya (proper slaughtering) has not been explained in the Quran. Nor does knowledge of language help much in determining its meaning. Consequently we shall have to take recourse to the Sunnah. The Sunnah tells us that there are two forms of such slaughtering.

o In a situation where the animal is out of our control (as for example when it is flying), or we have it under control but cannot for some reason properly slaughter it, we will be deemed to have slaughtered it if, with a sharp instrument, we inflict on it a wound which causes it to die through bleeding. "Spill blood by whatever instrument you choose," the Prophet says, stating the rules for this kind of slaughtering.

o In a situation where we have complete control of the animal and might slaughter it the way we like, regular slaughtering will be necessary. According to the Sunnah, an animal like the camel should be slaughtered by piercing its throat with a sharp, spear-like instrument so that blood streams out and the bleeding ultimately makes the animal fall. Lifeless to the ground. This was a well-known method of slaughtering camels in Arabia and mention of it is made in the Quran.' The Sunnah tells us that it was also the method employed by the Prophet for slaughtering the camel.

As for slaughtering the cow, goat, or the like animals, the traditions of the Prophet contain the following directions:

4. Abu Huraria transmits that, on the eve of Hajj, the Prophet dispatched Budail bin Warqa Khuza'i on an ashy camel to proclaim along the mountain passes of Mina that the 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 perish hastily."

5. Ibn Abbas transmits that the Prophet forbade the cutting of the spinal cord of the animal when it is slaughtered.'"

6. There is a mursal' tradition, related by Imam Muhammad from Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, which says: "The Prophet forbade the cutting of the spinal cord of the goat at the time of slaughtering it."

In view of these traditions and the established practice of the times of the Prophet and the Companions, it is held by the Hanifites, the Shafi'ites and the Hanbalites that in slaughtering an animal, its throat and esophagus must be cut.

According to the Malikites, the throat and the two jugular veins should be cut.'

In all these forms of slaughtering, which have been described in the Sunnah in explication of the Quranic injunction, the animal does not die at once; the link between its body and mind is retained till the last moment. As it tosses and turns, blood from every part of its body is drawn out and only the outflow of blood causes its death.

Now, since the Quran has not elaborated its own injunction, and the Prophet is known to have elucidated it in the above-noted manner, it will have to be conceded that the words "except that which you slaughter" imply the same kind of slaughtering as explained by the Prophet, and that the animal which is killed in disregard of this is unclean.

The Quran mentions still another method of killing an' animal, namely, killing with a trained hunting beast provided the beast keeps from eating of the game. In this case the animal will be taken as slaughtered even if it has been ripped up by the hunting beast.



And those beasts and birds of prey which you have trained as hounds are trained, you teach them that which Allah taught you; so eat of that which they catch for you....'

The Prophet explains this as follows:

"...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."

"...But if it has eaten any of it do not eat, for. It has caught it only for itself."

"And that which you hunt with your dog and, finding it alive, slaughter, you may eat."

The conclusion is that when a hunting beast makes a kill for its owner, the Quranic condition for slaughtering is satisfied. Such killing, therefore, does not fall under "that which the beasts have eaten of" -which is unclean -but under the exception of "that which you slaughter". But the Quran sites this law only in regard to the trained hunting beast. The Prophet counts out that beast also which is kept as a pet but not trained to hunt. Therefore, it cannot be argued that it is permissible to eat the flesh of an animal, which has been tom up by some beast other than the hunting kind. The tradition, which allows the eating of game when it is captured alive and slaughtered, definitively lays down that an animal, which is dead through any means other than slaughtering, is to be treated as carrion.



3. The Condition of Taking Allah's Name

The third Quranic condition is taking Allah's name at the time of killing an animal. This has been stated in different forms at different places in the Quran. Positively, it has been said:

Eat of that over which the Name of Allah has been mentioned if you are believers in His revelations.

And negatively:

And eat not of that whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned, for lo! It is abomination..

In hunting with trained animals, the following directions have been given:



(And those beasts and birds of prey, which you have trained, as hounds,... ) Eat of that which they catch for you and mention Allah's name upon it,' and observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is swift to take account.

Then we see that, at several places, the Quran does not employ the word "slaughter" at all and, instead, uses "taking Allah's name" as a term.



That they may witness things that are of benefit to them, and mention the name of Allah on appointed days over the beast of cattle that He has bestowed upon them. (That is, they should slaughter them).



And for every nation We have appointed a slaughtering ritual, that they may mention the name of Allah over the beast of cattle that He has given them for food. (Again it means that they should slaughter the animals.)



So mention the name of Allah over them {the camels) when they are drawn up in lines. (That is, slaughter them.)



Eat of that over which the name of Allah has been mentioned. (That is, over which Allah's name is mentioned at the time of slaughtering it.)



And eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned. (That is, over which Allah's name is not mentioned at the time of slaughtering it.)

This repeated use of "taking Allah's name" for "slaughtering" conclusively proves that the two expressions are synonymous in the view of the Quran and that taking Allah's name is essential to the cleanness of the slaughtered animal.

We shall now inquire what legal position, according to the sound (saheeh) and firm (qawee) traditions of the Prophet, "taking Allah's name" has. Adi bin Hatim is the man who often questioned the Prophet about game hunting. The rules that the Prophet told him are as follows:

When you set off your dog mention Allah's name, 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; but if it has eaten any of it do not eat,... When you shoot an arrow mention Allah's name.

That which you have hunted with your bow and over which you have taken Allah's name you may eat; and that which you have hunted with your hound and over which you have taken Allah's name you may eat as well.

Spill blood with whatever instruments you chooses.

When you set off a trained dog or hawk, taking Allah's name as you set it off, you may eat of what it catches for you.

Adi bin Hatim asked the Prophet what to do in a situation when, having taken Allah's name, he sets off his dog and, on reaching the scene of hunt, sees another dog standing near by and finds it difficult to determine which of the two has killed the animal. The Prophet replied: "Don't eat, for you took Allah's name over your own dog and not over the other one."

These explicit and unmistakable injunctions of Allah and the Prophet leave no room for doubt that taking Allah's name is essential to the cleanness of the slaughtered animal and that the animal killed without Allah's name being taken over it is unclean. If verses and traditions as clear as these do not formulate any law, then one would like to know what kind of textual evidence (nuss) is required to formulate one.



The Views of Jurists

From among the juristical schools, the Hanafites, the Shafi'ites, and the Hanbalites are agreed that the animal over which Allah's name has not been taken is unclean, and that no harm is done by inadvertent omission of taking Allah's name. The same view is held by Ali, Ibn Abbas, Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, Zuhri, 'Ata, Taus, Mujahid, Hasan Basri, Abu Malik Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila, Jafar bin Mohammad, and Rabeea bin Abu Abdur-Rahman.

According to another group of jurists, if taking Allah's name were omitted, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the slaughtered animal would be unclean. Of the same opinion are Ibn Umar, Sha'bi, and Mohammad bin Seereen. Abu Thaur and Daud Zahiri also subscribe to that view. Ibrahim Natha'i thinks that if it is forgotten to take Allah's name, the animal would be "disagreeable to the point of being unclean" (al-makruhut- tahreemiyy).

Imam Shafi'i believes that taking Allah's name is no condition at all for the cleanness of the slaughtered animal. He agrees that the Shariah recommends taking Allah's Name and the Sunnah, but adds that omission, intentional or unintentional, of it would not affect the cleanness of the animal. Abu Huraira is the only Companion and Iinam Auzai the only mujtahid to hold this view. The view has also been attributed to Ibn Abbas, 'Ata bin Abi Rabah, Imam Malik, but their received opinion is a contrary one.



The Weakness of the Shafi'ite View

In support of their view the Shafi'ites argue that in verse 122 of the Cattle

And eat not of that whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned, for lo! It is abomination..

The taking of the waw as a conjunction would violate the principles of elocution. For, they say, the first part of the verse is an optative verbal sentence while the second is a declarative nominal sentence' and it is incorrect to conjoin these two different types of sentences. Taking the waw as the circumstantial waw, therefore, the Shafi'ites construe the verse as: "Don't eat of the animal if, in case of its being fisq, Allah's name has not been taken over it." Then they explain the word fisq with reference to verse 146 of 7he Cattle which reads:



" ...Or the abomination which was immolated to the name of other-than-Allah."

The verse is now made to mean that the only unclean animal is the one over which the name of other-than-Allah has been taken and that omission of taking Allah's name does not make for uncleanness.

But this is a very unsound interpretation. It lays itself open to various objections. To begin with, the manifest meaning of the verse is quite different.

The first impression gained by the reader is not the one suggested by the Shafi'ites. It is only wishfully that one can extract from the verse the meaning that the animal slaughtered without Allah's name having being taken over it is clean.



Secondly, if joining a declarative nominal to an optative verbal sentence infringes the elocutionary principles, the use of the emphatic irma and the intensifying 1am is no less a breach of the rules of elocution. If Allah had to say what the Shafi'ites say, the wording would have been: (i.e. in case of its being abomination) AND NOT (in case of its most certainly being abomination).



Thirdly, in their passion for argument, the Sha6'ites fail to keep the complete verse in mind. The verse reads:



And eat not of that whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned, for lo ! it is abomination. Lo ! the devils do inspire their minions to dispute with you. But if you obey them, you will in truth be idolaters.

Now even if it is granted that the waw in it is abomination !

is circumstantial, the problem of a declarative nominal sentence joined to an optative verbal sentence persists, for the sentence which follows right after is clearly declarative, is incapable, of being made into a circumstantial sentence, and is necessarily joined to the optative sentence. Moreover, this is not the solitary instance of its kind to be found in the Quran. At a number of places, a declarative nominal has been joined to an optative verbal sentence, as for example in verse 4 of The Light

…flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;

And in verse 221 of The Cow.'

Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe: a slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman. Even though she allure you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: a slave man who believes is better than an unbeliever even though he allure you.

The Shafi'ites must either revise their elocutionary doctrines or declare that the Quran violates the principles of elocution. For it is not possible at each place in the Quran to take the maw joining an optative verbal to a declarative nominal sentence as the waw of circumstance.



Fourthly, the Shafi'ite interpretation would make the verse mean:

Do not eat of the animal over which Allah's name has not been mentioned in case of the animal's most certainly being abomination on account of other-than- Allah's name having been mentioned over it.

The question is, if the idea was simply to declare unclean the animal slaughtered in the name of other-than-Allah, does the first part of verse not become totally meaningless and redundant? For it would be senseless to forbid the eating of the animal over which Allah's name has not been taken. It would have sufficed to say: "Eat not of the animal over which other-than-Allah's name has been mentioned." Could it be reasonably explained why the orders (Eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned)

had to be given at all?



Fifthly, even if the waw is taken as the waw of circumstance, there is no need to interpret fisq (abomination) with reference to a far-off verse, i.e. verse ig6 of The Cattle. After all, what prevents us from taking the word in its literal meaning of disobedience and rebellion? The word taken literally, the verse would mean: "Do not eat of the animal over which Allah's name has nest been taken -in case of the animal's being fisq" (i.e. in case the avoidance of taking Allah's name is deliberate,-for the word fisq applies to deliberate defiance of orders and not to omission through forgetfulness). This interpretation is preferable to the Shafi'ite interpretation for two reasons. One, it is consistent with all the verses and traditions relevant to the issue. Two, it saves a complete sentence of the verse -"And eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned" -from becoming meaningless.

Another argument which the Shafi'ites advance is as follows. A group of people called on the Prophet and inquired whether they could have any of the meat brought them from outside by certain neophyte Muslims, it being unknown whether Allah's name had been mentioned over the animal. The Prophet replied: "You may yourselves take Allah's name over it and eat it." On the basis of this tradition the Shafi'ites claim that taking Allah's name is not ' essential, for had it been so, the Prophet would not have permitted the eating of the meat over which Allah's name is uncertain to have been taken. But the tradition actually runs contrary to their thesis. It proves that the obligatoriness of taking Allah's name was a widely-known matter, that being the reason why those people came along inquiring about the meat brought them by the newly-converted country people (Muslims). Had the practice been different, the question of the lawfulness of that meat would not have arisen at all. The reply that the Prophet gave them is also significant. Had taking Allah's name been immaterial, the Prophet would have clarified that it was not essential to the lawfulness of the slaughtered animal's' flesh, which therefore, they could eat whether or not Allah's name had been taken over it. Rut what the Prophet actually told them was that they could eat the flesh after taking Allah's name over it. The logical meaning of this which a little deliberation would yield is that the animal slaughtered by a Muslim should as a rule be deemed to have been slaughtered properly and may be eaten of with an easy mind, and that any lingering doubt may be removed by the eater himself by mentioning Allah's name over the meat. Obviously, one cannot go about investigating, nor does the Shariah obligate him to investigate, whether the animal whose flesh is being sold at city and village shops was a clean animal, whether the slaughterer is a Muslim or not, whether he is a neophyte Muslim or an old one, and whether he has slaughtered it properly or not. On the face of it, everything done by a Muslim should be taken as correct, except where proof to the contrary exists. Unfounded doubts should not be made a ground for abstinence; they should rather be eliminated by saying Bismillah or Astaghfirullah. This is the lesson we learn from that tradition. In no way does the' tradition prove the unobligatoriness of taking Allah's name.

Still another Shafi'ite argument, no less fragile than the previous ones, is based on a mursal tradition which Abu Dawud has included in his book Al-Maraseel.

The tradition has the Prophet saying:

The animal slaughtered by a Muslim is lawful whether or not the Muslim has taken Allah's name over it, for if he were to take some name, it would be the name of Allah.



In the first place, this is a mursal tradition transmitted by a little-known Follower and so cannot render that unobligatory which has been proved to be obligatory by successive marfu traditions. Even if the tradition were absolutely sound, would it really imply that taking Allah's name is unobligatory ?

At best it could be said that if a Muslim chances to have slaughtered an animal without taking Allah's name, his omission should be attributed to inadvertence rather than to positive intention, and that the animal may be eaten of on the presumption that had the man taken some name it would have been the name of Allah and not of other-than- Allah. The tradition cannot be taken to mean that it is lawful to eat of the animal slaughtered by those who do not at all believe in taking Allah's name over the animal -who in fact hold a contrary view, and that taking Allah's name over the animal is not essential at all. Stretch and strain it as one may, the tradition will admit of no such interpretation.

This is what the Shafi'ite arguments for the unobligatoriness of taking Allah's name come to. One pledged to blind imitation might think them irrefutable. But I do not think that a man who reviews them critically would fail to realize how weightless they are in comparison with the arguments for the obligatoriness of taking Allah's name.

In brief, the conditions that the Quran and the sound traditions state for the meat to be clean are as follows:

o It should not be the meat of the animals that have been declared to be unclean in themselves by Allah and His Prophet.

o The animal must have been slaughtered in the manner prescribed by the Shariah.

o Allah's name must have been taken over the slaughtered animal. The meat which does not fulfill these conditions is excluded from the tappibat (the good things) and is included in the khaba'ith (the foul things), Muslims being forbidden the use of it.

The Animals Slaughtered by the People of the Book

Now we shall see what position the Quran and the Sunnah take up on the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book. The Quran says:



This day are (all) good things (tayyibat) made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them.'

The words of this verse clearly point out that the only food of the People of the Book that has been made lawful for us is that which falls under the head of the tayyibat. The verse does not, and cannot, mean that the foods which are termed foul by the Quran and sound traditions and which we may not, in our own home or in the home of some other Muslim, eat or offer to some Muslim for eating, would become lawful when offered us in a Jewish or Christian home. If someone disregards this obvious and reasonable interpretation, he can, interpret the verse in one of the following four ways only.

5. That this verse repeals all those verses which have occurred in connection with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of meat in the surah The Bee, The Cattle, The Cow, and in The Table Spread itself; that this verse of the Quran renders unconditionally lawful not only ' the pole-axed animal but also carrion, Swine flesh, blood, and the animal immolated to other-than-Allah. But no rational (aqlee) or transmissive (naqlee) evidence can ever be produced in favor of this alleged cancellation. The absurdity of the claim is shown by the fact that the three conditions of lawful meat which we noted above occur in the surah The Table Spread itself, in the same context, and just before the verse now under discussion. What right-minded person would say that, of the three consecutive sentences in a passage, the last would nullify the first two?

6. That this verse countermands only slaughtering and taking Allah's name arid does not alter the unclean nature of swine flesh, carrion, blood, and the animal sacrificed to other-than-Allah. Rut we doubt if there exists, besides this empty claim, any solid reason for drawing a distinction between the two types of orders and for maintaining the one type and canceling the other. Anyone having such a reason is welcome to present it.

7. That this verse fixes the dividing line between the food of Muslims and the food of Jews and Christians; that in the case of Muslims' food, all the Quranic restrictions would continue to be effective, but in respect of the food of Jews and Christians, no restrictions would obtain, which means that, at a Jew's or a Christian's, we may unhesitantly eat what is presented to us.

The strongest argument which could be adduced in favor of this interpretation is that Allah knew what kind of food the People of the Rook eat, and that if, having that knowledge, He has permitted us to eat their food, it means that everything they eat -including swine flesh, carrion, and the animal sacrificed to other-than-Allah -is pure and lawful for us. But the verse on which this reasoning is based itself knocks the bottom out of this argument. In unambiguous terms the verse lays down that the only foods of the People of the Book which Muslims may eat are those which are tayyibat. And the word tayyibat has not been left vague: the two preceding verses explain at length what the tayyibat are.

8. That, out of the food of the People of the Book, swine flesh alone may not be eaten, all other foods begin lawful; or that, we may not use swine flesh, carrion, blood, and the animal slaughtered in other-than- Allah's name, though we may eat of the animal which has been killed in some way other than slaughtering and over which Allah's name has not been pronounced. But this interpretation is as unsustainable as the second.

No rational or transmissive argument can be given to justify the distinction between the injunctions of the Quran, to explain why, in respect of the food of the People of the Book, injunctions of one type remain in force while those of the other are rendered inoperative. If the distinction and the exception are grounded in the Quran, verses must be cited in proof, and if in the Tradition, the particular traditions must be referred to. And if there is a rational argument for it, it must be put forward.

Juristical Opinions

We shall now see what opinions have been offered by the various juristical schools on eating of the animal slaughtered by the People of the Book.

The Hanafites and the Hanbalites maintain that, for a Muslim, the food of the People of the Book is subject to the same restrictions which have been placed by the Quran and the Sunnah on the food of Muslims. Neither in our own homes nor in the homes of Jews and Christians may we eat of the animal which is killed in some manner other than slaughtering and over which Allah's name has not been taken.

The Shafi'tes say that, since taking Allah's Name is not obligatory, neither upon Muslims nor upon the People of the Book, a Muslim may eat of the animal which the Jews or Christians slaughter without taking Allah's name over it, though he may not eat of the animal which they slaughter in the name of other-than-Allah. The weakness of this position has been exposed above and so there is no need to discuss it here.

The Malikites, while granting that taking Allah's name is one of the conditions for the cleanness of the slaughtered animal, hold that the condition is not meant for the People of the Book, the animal slaughtered by them being lawful even if Allah's name has not been taken over it. The only argument presented in support of this view is that at the time of the Battle of Khyber, the Prophet ate the meat sent by a Jewess, without inquiring as to whether Allah's name had been taken over it. But this incident could exempt the People of the Book from taking Allah's name only if it were established that the Jews of those times used to slaughter animals without mentioning Allah's name over them and that the Prophet, when he ate that meat, was in the know of that. To say simply that the Prophet did not ask whether Allah's name had been taken over it would not relax the condition in the case of the People of the Book. It is quite likely that the Prophet ate that meat unhesitantly because he knew that the Jews of his times took Allah's name over the animals they slaughtered.

Ibn Abbas says that the verse "The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you"

Has repealed the verse

"Eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned,"

And that

The People of the Book. Have been exempted from observing this injunction.



But this is Ibn Abbas's personal view and not a marfu' tradition. Moreover, Ibn Abbas is alone in holding this view, there being no one who is in agreement with him. Still further, Ibn Abbas does not offer any convincing reason as to why the one verse should cancel the other -and cancel only one verse and not the rest of the restrictions on food.

'Ata, Auza'i, Mak'hul and Laith bin Sa'd hold that the verse

"The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you"

Has rendered lawful

"That which has been immolated to other-than-Allah."

Ata says that Muslims may eat of the animal slaughtered in the name of other-than-Allah. Auzai says that one may eat of the game hunted by a Christian even if one hears the Christian taking the name of Christ over his dog as he sets it off Mak'hul says that there is no harm in eating of the animals which the People of the Book slaughter for their churches and synagogues and religious ceremonies.

But the only argument given in support of this is that Allah knew full well that the People of the Book sacrificed animals in the name of other-than-Allah and yet He permitted the eating of their food. The answer is that Allah knew full well that the Christians ate swine flesh and drank wine, so why not make the verse declare lawful wine and swine flesh 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 advanced in favor of the other views is so flimsy that, on the strength of them, the unclean cannot be proved to be clean, nor can the obligatory be made unobligatory. I would not advise any Allah-fearing person to adopt any of those views and to start eating of the animals cut down in Europe and America.

In the end, two clarifications are in order. Firstly, in killing small animals like the hen, the pigeon, etc., slight carelessness often results in an abruptly chopped-off head. Some jurists ' say that there is no harm in eating of such an animal. On the basis of this opinion, certain scholars have given the verdict that where a machine severs the head at one stroke, the condition of slaughtering is fulfilled. Rut to make the jurists' opinions into a basic law (nuss) and derive from it rules which would alter the basic laws themselves is not a correct approach. The Shariah's injunctions about taking Allah's name have been given above, as have been the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah on which those injunctions are based. Now if the jurists have granted a concession in the case of an inadvertent violation of those injunctions, how can one regard this as the basic law and abrogate virtually, the Shariah's injunctions about slaughtering? The jurists have said, and rightly, that one need not try to find out whether Allah's name has been taken over each and every animal slaughtered by the People of the Book; however, if it is positively

Learnt that, over a particular animal, Allah's name has been deliberately avoided to be taken, that animal may not be eaten of. On the basis of this, again, it has been suggested that no inquiries need be made about the meat commonly available in Europe and America and that the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book may be eaten of with the same ease of mind with which the animal slaughtered by Muslim butchers is eaten of. But this logic would be valid only when we knew that a certain section or population of the People of the Book believe, in principle and as a matter of faith, that Allah's name ought to be taken at the time of slaughtering an animal. As for the people who we know are not at all convinced that a distinction between the clean and the unclean exists, and who do not in principle agree that taking Allah's or other-than-Allah's name makes any difference to the animal's cleanness or uncleanness, how can one take with an easy mind the animals slaughtered by them?







Halal Meat:

Question: Recently, a friend of mine attended a lecture by a learned scholar. In response to a question about the meat being sold at the American grocery stores being Halal or not, he replied that there were two things in the Qur'an. First, is the following verse:

Eat not on which Allah's name has been pronounced. (6:121)



Then, there is this verse:

The food of the People of the Book is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (5:5)

So according to this scholar, the meat at the American grocery stores is not prohibited and he said we would not be sinning if we had that meat but it was better to avoid it. Therefore, my question to you is that can we eat the meat slaughtered by the Americans, considering that they are People of the Book?

Answer: A deliberation on the contexts of 6:121 and 5:5 reveals that the condition imposed by 6:121 (that is Allah's name should be positively taken on slaughtering an animal) is a universal principle and the food of the People of the Book can only be eaten

if,

besides other conditions,

It also fulfils this condition.



These other conditions are stated at various places in the Qur'an. To quote Sarah Baqarah:

Believers! Eat of the good things that We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is Him you worship. He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood and the flesh of swine and that on which any name other than Allah has been invoked. (2:172-3)



In other words, just as swine, dead meat, blood, meat on which some other name has been taken cannot be eaten from the tables of the People of the Book, similarly meat on which Allah's name has not been positively taken cannot be eaten from them.

It needs to be appreciated that 5:5 has a specific background which makes it a verse that cannot be taken independently. Until this verse was revealed, the food of the People of the Book was forbidden for the Muslims. The reason for this was that many lawful edibles had been made unlawful for them by Allah as a means to punish them for their stubbornness. Similarly, they themselves had made unlawful for themselves edibles, which were originally lawful for them like the camel**. Consequently, after the list of lawful and the unlawful edibles was set right by the Prophet (sws), then only were the Muslims allowed to eat from their tables.



*. The Qur'an says:

And on the Jews, We forbade every animal with undivided hoof and We forbade them the fat of the ox and the sheep except what adheres to their backs or their entrails or is mixed up with a bone. This was in recompense for their willful disobedience. (6:146)



**. The Bible says:

But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel …(Leviticus, 11:4)









THE HUMANE SLAUGHTER ACT

President Eisenhower signed the bill into law with an effective date of June 30, 1960. The Act covered 80% of US plants by requiring that humane methods be used by all packing companies selling meat to the federal government. In 1978, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas and Congressman George E. Brown, Jr. of California sponsored legislation that expanded the coverage of the Act to include livestock at all plants that are federally inspected. The legislation intended to proved more effective enforcement by allowing federal inspectors to stop processing lines until any unacceptable methods are corrected. However, the economic impact of stopping a processing line is so great that inspectors are rarely able to do so. An additional requirement of the 1978 law was that any meat imported into the US must be derived from animals slaughtered in a manner that accords with the Human Slaughter Act. Final regulations under the Humane Slaughter Act were published in 1979.

SUMMARY OF THE SLAUGTHER METODS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT

Since animals whose meat will be sold or treaded must be slaughtered under an inspector's supervision, most slaughtering is performed off the farm at slaughterhouses. Three big companies (IBP, Cargill's Excel Corp. and Con-Agra's Monfort Inc.) control 80% of all beef production.

For animals other than poultry and ritually-slaughtered animals, it is a requirement of The Humane Slaughter Act that livestock must be stunned into unconsciousness before they are killed. The stunning of livestock is normally accomplished by an electrical device or a gun.

There are several types of guns employed:

FREE FIRE CARTRIDGE: A bullet is shot into the head of the animal. Use of this technique is rare, and only occurs in facilities where the head meat is condemned as unfit for consumption.

PENETRATING BOLT STUNNER: Either an exploding cartridge, in a pneumatic stun gun, a blast of air from an air line, drives forward a piston and an attached penetrating rod that enters the skull and brain of the animal and then retracts into the gun.

CONCUSSION STUNNER: This device operates like a penetrating bolt stunner, but a short, mushroom shaped knob strikes the skull producing unconsciousness without entering the brain.

Penetrating the bolt or concussion stunners are normally used, at both small and large slaughterhouses, to stun cattle. These stunner, also, are usually used when goats and sheep are slaughtered at small slaughterhouses, while the larger plants more often use electric devices on these smaller species.

One type of electrical stunner takes the form of large tongs with round disks on the ends, which carry an electrical charge through the brain when placed on either side of the head.







Beef In The Australian Market

The conditions for accepting slaughtered animals under Islamic law. Some of the methods used in killing cattle in Australian Abattoirs.

"Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures);- in the Taurat and the Gospel;- for he commands what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good and (pure) and forbids them what is bad (and impure)..." (Ch7;v157)

All gratitude is due to Allah who sent His Messenger with guidance and the way of life which is True, who separated truth from falsehood, and distinguished with it between what is good and pure and what is bad and impure. Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) was justified in saying "We were a people who ate carrion, then Allah honoured us with Islam."

The distinguishing feature of this faith, is that it is a complete way of life, a law which is self complementing, it is the direction of life: "Today I have perfected for you your religion, and have accepted for you Islam as your way of life." (Ch5; v3) With this noble verse, the Islamic law was perfected, with its regulations taking root throughout society.



The regulations of allowing and forbidding have occupied a large part in this heavenly law. It has not left a thing which it did not clarify, or an issue which it did not uncover. This has been clarified in His words: "he allows them as lawful what is good and (pure) and forbids them what is bad (and impure)...", and the true saying of the prophet (peace and blessings upon him) narrated by AlNo'man son of Bashir: "That which is lawful is plain and that which is unlawful is plain and between the two of them are doubtful matters about which not many people know. Thus he who avoids doubtful matters clears himself in regard to his religion and his honour, but he who falls into doubtful matters falls into that which is unlawful, like the shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary, all but grazing therein. Truly every king has a sanctuary, and truly Allah's sanctuary is His prohibitions. Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh which, if it be whole, all the body is whole and which, if it diseased, all of it is diseased. Truly it is the heart." (Bukhary and Muslim)

Through this true saying, the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him), distinguished between the lawful and the unlawful, then directed us to keep away from the unlawful, and to guard against everything that resembles it, so that we do not fall into vice. The issues analysed in this article concerns carcass and beef, which are sold in the Australian markets (other than the Halal Butchers), and their acceptability or rejection from the Islamic point of view.







Conditions for accepting slaughtered meats

Islamic law has set the conditions and described clearly the best way to slaughter animals:

1. That the animal is amongst the permissible to eat, has some life left in it , and is not contaminated,

2. that the slaughterer is a Muslim (either male or female), of sound mind, or a follower of the book (Christian or Jew) who believes in his own book, and adheres to its tenets,

3. that the throat is cut from end to end, between the top of the chest and the bottom of the neck,

4. The recital of the name of Allah before cutting the animals throat, and not mentioning any other name.



Supporting evidence of the above:

1- The words of Allah: "Animals have been made lawful for you (as food) except what is to be told to you" (Ch5;v1), "He has clarified to you what he has forbidden, unless you are driven by necessity." (Ch6;v119). The prophetic traditions have clarified these forbidden things, for example the dog, domesticated donkeys, the frog, "and everything with an eyetooth." (Muslim) (note 1), and the pig was forbidden through the Qur'an.

2- The words of Allah: "Today He has made lawful for you all that is good (and pure), and the food of those who have been given the book has been made lawful for you" (Ch5;v5) Imam Nawawi said: "the slaughtered animal of the people of the book is permissible irrespective of whether they recite the name of Allah over it, as per the words of the Holy Qur'an, this is my interpretation and the most popular interpretation with scholars" (note 2).

The Son of Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked concerning the slaughtered animals of the Magians, even when they recite the name of Allah, he said, do not eat from it. (note 3)

This also means that an animal slaughtered by an apostate, an idolater, a communist, a cultist (Batiny), a Hindu, or a Buddhist, is not permissible.

3- His words: "Except what you have slaughtered in due form" (Ch5;v3), and what was narrated by Baihaqi on authority of Abi Umama: "All which has had the jugular cut unless it was a result of a bite or a scratch." (note 4).

AlBaihaqi has narrated on sound authority that Ibn Abbas said: "slaughtering in due form is between the throat and the base of the neck" (note 5).

It is a condition that the throat, the nearby veins, and either artery and jugular are cut.

4- His words: "Do not eat of that over which the name of Allah has not been recited." (Ch6;v121).

The scholars have directed that the Muslim should not be questioned as to whether he has recited the name of Allah over his slaughtered animal, as it is not permitted to have suspicion with respect to a fellow Muslim unless it is good suspicion, and if he forgets to recite the name of Allah, his slaughtered animal is still lawful.

Some scholars believe that even if a Muslim intentionally does not recite the name of Allah, the slaughtered animal is still permissible.



Inquiries concerning the slaughtered animal, when there is doubt, or lack of indication:

It is obligatory to ascertain where the community in which one lives is comprised of mainly non Muslims, the method of slaughter of animals, before buying any meat. This is definitely not an innovation. Abdul Razzaq in his Musannaf, relates the following saying for Kays Ibnul Sakan: "Ibn Mas'ud said: 'You have alighted in a land where the animals are not slaughtered by Muslims, but by Nabtis and Farsis, so if you wish to buy any meat, ask, if it has been slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian eat from it as their food is lawful to you'" (note 6), however, if the majority of the inhabitants of the land are people of the book, then it is not obligatory to ask.

The general rule: "The basis when it comes to these things is permissibility", this has two exceptions, man/woman relationships, and the slaughtered animals. This rule has the consensus of all the scholars. The following below is the proof:

1- The Hanafi school- It is reported in the Darar: "slaughtering in due form makes the meat permissible, and purifies it unless the animal has been contaminated." In the Hashia of Ibn Abdeen: "an animal is made unlawful if not killed in due form." (darar / Gharar 2/344).

2- Ibn al-Arabi said: "Our scholars said: 'the rule with the animal is its impermissibility, and it does not become permissible except when killed in due form, or through hunting, however, if there was doubt in the hunter, or the slaughterer, then it becomes impermissible.'", this is the rule with the Maliki school. (note 7)

3- Imam Nawawi said: "the basic rule with an animal is its impermissibility, until it can be established that it was killed in due form." This is similar to what has been stated by Alkhtabi, and Ibn Hajr Al'Asqalani, this rule is followed by the Shafie School. (note 8)

Ibn Qudama said: "the basic rule is impermissibility, they only become lawful if killed in due form by a qualified person." (note 9)

4- Ibn Taymiyyeh said: "Blood is protected if there is doubt. However, man / woman relationships, and slaughtered animals are not made permissible where doubt exists. (note 10), this is the rule with the Hanbaly school.

AlShawkani said: "The slaughtered animal does not become lawful if there is doubt, as also if there is doubt and the person is not sure if it has been killed in due form or not." (note 11)

The above shows that the majority of scholars are unanimous on the basic rule concerning the slaughtered animals, where the form of killing is not ascertained, and that doubt in the case of a slaughtered animal makes it unlawful, and the basic rule with animals is impermissibility.

Any doubt as to the cause of death of an animal also makes its meat unlawful, and it does not become lawful, unless it can be ascertained that the animal was killed in due form. Scholars have taken guidance from the narration of Adiy Ibn Hatem reproduced in Bukhary and Muslim that the Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings upon him) said: "If you send your dog, and you recite the name of Allah, and your dog makes the catch and kills the prey, then eat...", to the end of the narration where he said "If you get an animal you are hunting, and you do not find it until after one day or two days, then eat, however, if it falls in the water, then do not eat." (note 12). The commentary of Qurtuby shows: "if you find the kill drowned in the water, then do not eat it, for you do not know whether your arrow killed it or whether it died through drowning." (note 13).









The points to the Hadeeth

1- The permissibility of hunting with trained dogs,

2- the necessity of reciting the name of Allah before hunting,

3- if the cause of death of the animal is unknown for any reason, such as its falling into water for example, then it does not become permissible until it can be ascertained that it was killed in due form.

Therefore, the fundamental rule amongst scholars is that the slaughtered meat which contains doubt does not become permissible until it can be ascertained if it was killed in due form.









An investigatory visit to some abattoirs in NSW

During my visit to two abattoirs in New South Wales, one public, and the other private, I witnessed the following two methods of killing animals:

The First Method:

Whist it is still alive, the calf is led to a box closed on all sides. The calf is then hit on the head with a hammer resembling a mushroom called a "Mushroom head gun". This operation is referred to as knocking the animal unconscious. The animal loses consciousness through this method, and falls to the ground allowing the butcher to slash its throat.

The problems with this method:

1- At times the animal may not lose consciousness with the first blow, and may need to be stunned a second time, or more.

2- In many instances the blow goes deeper into the brain of the animal causing a brain haemorrhage which leads to blood coming out of the head leading to a brain death situation. This we have seen with our own eyes, and we have it in photos and on video.

3- At times the calf is left for a considerable period of time in the concussed state, and it may die before having its throat slashed, taking the condition of carrion.

During our visit to Wilberforce Abattoirs, we found a calf which had been left for a period exceeding a quarter of an hour after being struck on the head, and had died, earning the treatment of carrion, making it impermissible for food. The death of the animal makes no difference to them.

The Second Method:

The bulls are shot with a .22 calibre rifle, by placing the barrel of the rifle onto the head of the bull pointed at the brain. The bullet hits the brain directly causing it to explode, and causing the animal to collapse.

The production director of a NSW abattoir Mr Liese informed us that at times they may fire more than one shot at the head of the animal. He also added that sometimes three shots are fired to make sure the immediate death of the animal.

The problems with this method:

1- The use of a hunting implement on a captive animal is impermissible.

2- The shot goes to the brain of the animal causing an explosion of the brain, making the carcass similar to carrion.

3- The suffering caused to the animal when shot more than once.

This clearly shows that some of the beef on the Australian market does not meet the Halal requirement which has been set by Islamic Law.

It is crucial for us my dear brother, to seek out the Halal food, and not allow ourselves to fall under the Hadeeth of prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings upon him): "He who falls into the doubtful, falls into the impermissible..". We should place his words in front of our eyes: "what is produced by illegal means, is more worthy of the fire", meaning that the body which grows with the impermissible, and gets nourishment from the impermissible, must be purified, if he does not repent in this life, he will be purified on the day of judgement... For this reason we must be very cautious in ensuring that our food and dress is lawful, and that we should only take lawful nourishment, so that are supplications our accepted, and from Allah we seek assistance, and there is no effort or power, except through Allah The most High the Most Great.

Notes:

1- Corrected by AlAlbany in Rawa` AlGhaleel 8/139.

2- The collection of Sharh AlMuhazzab.

3- AlMustadrak of AlHakem 4/233 Sahih Shart AlShaykhayn.

4- Sahih AlJame' AlSagheer OF AlAlbany 4372 j 4/167 the collection of Sahih Ahadeeth.

5- AlSunan AlKubra 9/278 and Fath AlBary 9/640.

6- Sahih Taqreeb AlTahzeeb of Ibn Hijr 2/129.

7- The collection of Sharh AlMuhazzab of Nawawi 9/56.

9- AlMughni of Ibn Qaddama.

10- The Collection of Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyyeh V32 p190.

11- Nayl AlAwtar V8/140.

12- AlLu`lu` WalMarjan Fi Ma Ittafaqa 'Alayhi AlShaykhaynno. 1258, the book of hunting and slaughter.

13- Commentary of Suratul Ma`ida, AlQurtubi.





























Meat & Modernity

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Beware of meat. It has addictiveness like the addictiveness of wine." (Muwatta 49.36)

Many have sought to claim that Islam is essentially a vegetarian religion. Rafeeque Ahmed in his book Islam and Vegetarianism posits that Allah (swt) made humans herbivores and whereas carnivores absorb the nutrients in meat, humans absorb the putrifications because our guts are more than twice as long as the intestines of carnivores. The Holy Qur'an does say that animals have souls:

There is not a moving (living) creature on earth, nor a bird that flies with its wings, but are communities like you. We have neglected nothing in the Book, then unto their Rabb (the One and Only Creator, Owner, Organizer, Provider, Sustainer, Cherisher) they shall (all) be gathered. (HQ 6:38).

See you not that whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth, and the sun and the moon, and the stars, and the mountain and the trees, and Ad-Dawabb [moving (living) creatures, beasts], and many of mankind prostrate themselves to Allah. But there are many (of mankind) on whom the punishment is justified. And whomsoever Allah disgraces, none can honour him. Verily, Allah does what He wills. (HQ 22:18)

And your Rabb revealed to the bee saying: "Take your habitations in the mountains, and in the trees and in what they [humans] erect. Then eat of all the fruits, and follow the ways of your Rabb made easy." There comes from their bellies, a drink of varying colour wherein is healing for men. Verily, in this is indeed a sign for people who think. (HQ 16:68)

"The Qur'an Majeed uses the same Arabic word wahi for God's revelation to all His Prophets, including the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saws), as it has been used in the case of the bee...it proves the basic fact that animals have a sufficient degree of psychic endowment to understand and follow God's messages - a faculty which is higher than instinct and intuition."]

In an account of Solomon (as) in Suratul-Naml [The Ants], Allah (swt) says:

They came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said: "O ants! Enter your dwellings, lest Solomon and his hosts should crush you, while they perceive not." So he smiled, amused at her speech and said, "My Rabb! Inspire me and bestow upon me the power and ability that I may be grateful for Your Favours which You have bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may do righteous good deeds that will please You and admit me by Your Mercy among Your righteous slaves." (HQ 27:18-19)

[Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said:

Verily Allah and His angels, the dwellers of the Heavens and of the Earth, even an ant in its home and fish (in water) invoke blessings on one who teaches people goodness. (Tirmidhi 213 Abu Umamah al-Bahili)]



Yet, the Holy Qur'an permits meat eating:

Say: I find not in that which has been revealed to me any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maitah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine; for that surely is impure or impious meat which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah. (HQ 6:145)

And Allah (swt) would not make halal something which is harmful, and has forbidden the unnatural use of intoxicants for this reason. The kalima recited at the time of slaughter, when fully realised, would make the idea of killing an animal for food deplorable. Nevertheless, the Prophet (saws) is reported on occasion to have killed animals himself:

I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends. (Bukhari 8.33 Aisha)

Social Justice

It is indisputable however that the Prophet (saws) did not eat a lot of meat. A vegetarian diet is certainly in agreement with his sunna (saws). Take for example this hadith:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Umar ibn al-Khattab saw Jabir ibn Abdullah carrying some meat. He said, "What is this?" He said, "Amir al-muminin. We desired meat and I bought some meat for a dirham." Umar said, "Does one of you want to fill his belly apart from his neighbour or nephew? How can you overlook this ayat? 'You squandered your good things in the life of this world and sought comfort in them.' " (HQ 46:20). (Muwatta 49.36 under the title 'General Section on Food and Drink')

It is interesting that Umar (ra) in explaining this ayat would say "does one of you want to fill his belly apart from his neighbour or nephew" because we know that in this dunya at the present time, the gluttonous every-day consumption of mass-produced meat is responsible for famines and inequitable distribution of food resources. As Rafeeque Ahmed points out one person eating a meal of meat is actually eating 12 people's food because of the amount fed to the animal, the deforestation which allows them to graze and the use of water in the meat industry.

Eat and drink but waste not by extravagance, certainly (Allah) does not like Al-Musrifun (HQ 7:31)

To quote Dale Jamieson, "The addiction to beef that is characteristic of people in the industrialised countries is not only a moral atrocity for animals but also causes health problems for consumers, reduces grain supplies for the poor, precipitates social divisions in developing countries, contributes to climate change, leads to the conversion of forests to pasture lands, is a causal factor in overgrazing, and is implicated in the destruction of native plants and animals" ('Animal Liberation is an Environmental Ethic' in Environmental Values February 1998, p.48).



Stockpiling food while people go hungry is also forbidden in the Sunna:

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "The table was sent down from Heaven with bread and meat, and they were commanded not to be unfaithful nor to store up for the morrow. But they were unfaithful, sorted up and laid by for the morrow, so they were changed into apes and swine." (Tirmidhi 5150 Ammar ibn Yasir)

'Apes and swine' is used in the Qur'an (e.g. 5:60) and hadith to describe the spiritual or actual condition of despised people. The current spiritual malaise in rich countries is exactly as described by the Prophet (saws) while the supermarkets and butchers are overloaded. Many Muslims cannot even get a glass of clean water to drink, while their brothers and sisters in rich countries eat like Kings! Malik Shabazz described the American practise of using surplus ships to stockpile grain until it becomes inedible in his autobiography (Autobiography of Malcolm X, Penguin, 1992, p.434). Humankind is materially the richest it has been in history, yet we are spiritually impoverished as half our population is materially impoverished also.

Eid

We know that half the world is starving because of the rampant consumption - including meat - by the rich. In the Prophet's time (saws), meat was only desired at Eid (see Bukhari 2.74 and 7.457 Anas). If the Prophet (saws) ate much meat other than at Eid, how is this hadith to be explained?

Umm Salamah said: Allah's Messenger, you necessarily develop trouble every year because of the eating of the poisoned (meat) of sheep. He said: Nothing befalls me but that which was destined for me while Adam was still a lump of clay. Transmitted by Ibn Majah. (Tirmidhi 124 Umm Salamah)

At Eid, those who could not afford meat were kept in mind:

I asked 'Aisha "Did the Prophet forbid eating the meat of sacrifices offered on 'Id-ul-Adha for more than three days" She said, "The Prophet did not do this except in the year when the people were hungry, so he wanted the rich to feed the poor. But later [when there was abundance for everyone, see Abu Dawud 2807] we used to store even a trotter of a sheep to eat it fifteen days later." She was asked, "What compelled you to do so?" She smiled and said, "The family of Muhammad did not eat to their satisfaction white bread with meat or soup for three successive days till he met Allah." (Bukhari 7.334 Abis)

And the welfare of sacrificial animals was also kept in mind. The Prophet forbade a number of pre-Islamic practices which he condemned as cruel including fara' (sacrificing the first-born):

The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was asked about fara'. He replied: If you leave it (i.e. let it grow till it becomes a healthy camel of one year or two years, then you give it to a widow or give it in the path of Allah for using it as a riding beast, it is better than slaughtering it at the age when its meat is stuck to its hair, and you turn over your milking vessel and annoy your she-camel. (Abu Dawud 2836 Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As)

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the devil's sacrifice. Abu 'Isa added in his version: This refers to the slaughtered animal whose skin is cut off, and is left to die without its jugular veins being severed. (Abu Dawud 2820 Ibn Abbas)

Artificial abundance

In the Prophet's time (saws), there was no artificial abundance of meat. Hormones and factory farming did not exist. Even so, the Prophet disliked that meat should become a staple. In stories about previous Prophets, the Prophet (saws) mentioned this:

Abraham...came to Ishmael's wife and asked her about Ishmael. She said, 'He has gone in search of our livelihood.' Abraham asked her, 'How are you getting on?' asking her about their sustenance and living. She replied, 'We are prosperous and well-off (i.e. we have everything in abundance).' Then she thanked Allah. Abraham said, 'What kind of food do you eat?' She said. 'Meat.' He said, 'What do you drink?' She said, 'Water." He said, "O Allah! Bless their meat and water." The Prophet added, "At that time they did not have grain, and if they had grain, he would have also invoked Allah to bless it." The Prophet added, "If somebody has only these two things as his sustenance, his health and disposition will be badly affected, unless he lives in Mecca." (Bukhari 4.853 Ibn Abbas)

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus Christ) used to say, "O Banu Israil! You must drink pure water and the green things of the land and barley bread . Beware of wheat bread, for you will not be grateful enough for it." (Muwatta 49.27)

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: A family which has dates will not be hungry. (Muslim 5078 Aisha)

Why does the Prophet (saws) say this? Because even though he lived in an arid region (Arabia), fruit and vegetables are good food. It is striking when reading the hadith literature to learn how hungry the Prophet (saws) and the Sahabah (ra) were (e.g. Muslim 7075, Tirmidhi 514 etc.). Still, a perusal of the books also shows that the Prophet (saws) preferred to eat fruit and vegetables.

Sunna wa'l Jama'a

Now if we are supposed to follow the Sunna of the Prophet (saws), then what about his culinary habits? Should we not emulate these too or is that too hard - after all, said Umar (ra), meat is addictive like khamr!

A complete month would pass by during which we would not make a fire (for cooking), and our food used to be only dates and water unless we were given a present of some meat. (Bukhari 8.465 Aisha)

A tailor invited Allah's Apostle to a meal which he had prepared. I went with Allah's Apostle to that meal, and the tailor served the Prophet with barley bread and soup of gourd and cured meat. I saw Allah's Apostle picking the pieces of gourd from around the dish, and since then I have kept on liking gourd. (Bukhari 7.350) Anas. Anas is quoted in Muslim (5068) as saying "Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) ate that pumpkin with relish...it was since then that pumpkin was always my favourite". Incidentally that tailor was a slave, see Bukhari 7.346)

There was a woman amongst us who had a farm and she used to sow silq (a kind of vegetable) on the edges of streams in her farm. On Fridays she used to pull out the silq from its roots and put the roots in a utensil. Then she would put a handful of powdered barley over it and cook it. The roots of the silq were a substitute for meat. After finishing the Jumua prayer we used to greet her and she would give us that food which we would eat with our hands, and because of that meal, we used to look forward to Friday. (Bukhari 2.60 & 3.539 Sahl bin Sad and 8.265 Abu Hazim)

The Prophet stayed for three days at a place between Khaibar and Medina, and there he consummated his marriage with Safiyya bint Huyay. I invited the Muslims to a banquet which included neither meat nor bread. The Prophet ordered for the leather dining sheets to be spread, and then dates, dried yogurt and butter were provided over it, and that was the walima (banquet) of the Prophet. (Bukhari 7.89 & 5.524 Anas)

Allah's Apostle used to love sweet edible things and honey. (Bukhari 7.342 Aisha)

I saw Allah's Apostle eating fresh dates with snake cucumber. (Bukhari 7.351 'Abdullah bin Ja'far bin Abi Talib)

The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) used to eat melon with fresh dates, and he used to say: The heat of the one is broken by the coolness of the other, and the coolness of the one by the heat of the other. (Abu Dawud 3827 Aisha)

The Prophet died when we had satisfied our hunger with the two black things, i.e. dates and water. (Bukhari 7.295 Aisha)

We were in the company of Anas whose baker was with him. Anas said, The Prophet did not eat thin bread, or a roasted sheep till he met Allah (died). (Bukhari 7.297 & 8.464 Qatada)

Nor did the Companions (raa) eat a lot of meat:

Abu Hurayra passed by a group of people in front of whom there was a roasted sheep. They invited him but he refused to eat and said, "Allah's Apostle left this world without satisfying his hunger even with barley bread." (Bukhari 7.325)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar that Umar ibn al-Khattab led the people in the subh prayer and then went out to his land in Juruf and found semen on his clothes. He said, "Since we have been eating rich meat our veins have become fulsome." He did ghusl, washed the semen from his clothing, and did his prayer again. (Muwatta 2.84)

Allah's Apostle said, "A believer eats in one intestine (is satisfied with a little food), and a disbeliever or a hypocrite eats in seven intestines (eats too much)." (Bukhari 7.306 Ibn Umar)

So, it is an act of kufr (state of unbelief) to eat a lot - let alone eat a lot of meat! And there are other reasons for not eating meat: an important one being the barbaric practise of factory farming.

Care for animals

The Prophet (saws) as we know liked animals very much.

Malik related to me from Abu Ubayd, the mawla of Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik from Khalid ibn Madan who attributed it to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "Allah, the Blessed and Exalted is kind and loves kindness. He is pleased with it and helps you with it as long as it is not misplaced. When you ride dumb beasts, stop them in their stopping places, and quicken their pace when the land is barren. Travel by night, because the land is travelled faster at night than it is during the day. Beware of pitching tents on the road, for it is the path of animals and the abode of snakes." (Muwatta 54.38)

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) forbade inciting animals to fight with one another. (Tirmidhi 4103 Abdullah ibn Abbas) Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud transmitted it.

We were with the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) during a journey. He went to ease himself. We saw a bird with her two young ones and we captured her young ones. The bird came and began to spread her wings. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) came and said: Who grieved this for its young ones? Return its young ones to it. He also saw an ant village that we had burnt. He asked: Who has burnt this? We replied: We. He said: It is not proper to punish with fire except the Lord of fire. (Abu Dawud 2669 Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, also reported by Abdul-Rahman ibn Abdullah, Abu Dawud 5248)

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) was asked about the cleanliness of the cistern situated between Mecca and Medina and where the beasts, dogs and asses came down. He said: For them is that which they have taken into their bellies, we have what is left (from them) and it is pure. (Tirmidhi 488, Abu Said al-Khudri) Transmitted by Ibn Majah.

When a camel saw the Prophet (may peace be upon him) it wept tenderly producing yearning sound and its eyes flowed. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) came to it and wiped the temple of its head. So it kept silence. He then said: Whose camel is this? A young man from the Ansar came and said: This is mine, Apostle of Allah. He said: Don't you fear Allah about this beast which Allah has given in your possession? He has complained to me that you keep him hungry and load him heavily which fatigues him. (Abu Dawud 2543 Abdullah bin Ja'far)

A funeral procession passed by Allah's Apostle who said, "Relieved or relieving?" The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is relieved and relieving?" He said, "A believer is relieved (by death) from the troubles and hardships of the world and leaves for the Mercy of Allah, while (the death of) a wicked person relieves the people, the land, the trees, (and) the animals from him." (Bukhari 8.519 Abu Qatada bin Rib'i Al-Ansari)

Animals as consumer items

He (saws) also banned vivisection and the use of animals in medical experiments:

The Prophet cursed the one who did muthla to an animal (i e., cut its limbs or some other part of its body while it is still alive). (Bukhari 7.424 Ibn Umar)

When a physician consulted the Prophet (may peace be upon him) about putting frogs in medicine, he forbade him to kill them. (Abu Dawud 3862 Abdul-Rahman bin Uthman, listed under Disapproved Medicines)

Animals are not to be branded on the face. This is a practise common on farms - many cows have plastic tags on their ears. It certainly isn't dignified to treat an animal as a consumer item:

Ibn 'Umar disliked the branding of animals on the face. Ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet forbade beating (animals) on the face." (Bukhari 7.449 Salim)

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) forbade (the animals to be beaten) on the face or cauterisation on the face. (Muslim 5281 Jabir ibn Abdullah)

When the animal is killed it should be killed swiftly:

Forbidden to you (for food) are: Al-Maitah, blood, the flesh of swine and that on which Allah's name has not been mentioned while slaughtering and that which hath been killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a headlong fall or by being gored to death. (HQ 5:3)

Two are the things which I remember Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) having said: Verily Allah has enjoined goodness to everything; so when you kill, kill in a good way and when you slaughter, slaughter in a good way. So every one of you should sharpen his knife, and let the slaughtered animal die comfortably. (Muslim 4810 Shaddad ibn Aws)

The animal cannot be tied before being killed. Muslim has listed this in a section entitled 'It is haram to tie the animals (and then kill them)':

Hishim b. Zaid b. Anas b. Malik reported: I visited the house of al-Hakam b. Ayyub along with my grandfather Anas b. Malik, (and there) some people had made a hen a target and were shooting arrows at her. Thereupon Anas said that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had forbidden tying of the animals. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu'ba through other chains of transmitter. (Muslim 4812)

Sa'id b. Jubair reported that Ibn 'Umar happened to pass by some young men of the Quraish who had tied a bird at which they had been shooting arrows Every arrow that they missed came into the possession of the owner of the bird. So no sooner did they see Ibn 'Umar they went away. Thereupon Ibn 'Umar said: Who has done this ? Allah has cursed him who does this. Verily Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) invoked curse upon one who made a live thing a target. (Muslim 4816)

Fatawa

Further stipulations are to be found in the article Animals in Islam by B.A. Masri who has ruled that factory farming is haram. Yet factory farming has been ruled as halal by others and animals are even exported live in ships to Muslim countries. For example, a prominent Sunni alim has ruled that:

As long as the slaughtering has been performed according to Islamic conditions, then there is no problem with eating veal. The calf being too young or being confined in a cage does not make it haram to slaughter and eat.

Similarly, a Shi'a marja responding to a question about slaughtering chickens on an automated assembly line ruled:

If [the slaughterer] repeats the name of Allah as long as the machine is continuing to slaughter, it is sufficient.

These ruling do not consider animals as communities which worship Allah (swt) but as, Peter Singer writes, "machines that convert fodder into flesh...so that their flesh can be made available to humans at the lowest possible cost" (Practical Ethics, p.63)

Milk and eggs

I doubt that the way milk is produced these days conforms to the Prophet's (saws) ethics on kindness to animals, although he liked milk very much. Allah knows best. If you eat free-range eggs have you ever wondered what happened to the roosters? They are killed as chicks.

The Prophet said, "There is no man who kills a sparrow or anything smaller, without its deserving it, but Allah will question him about it". (Nasai 7.206 Ibn Umar)

Summation

What some consider as halal has been ruled haram by others and, as Ibn Taymiyyah has stated, "slaughtered animals are not made permissible where doubt exists". (The Collection of Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyyah, v.32, p.190).



Ash-Shawkani has concurred with Ibn Taymiyyah declaring that "the slaughtered animal does not become lawful if there is doubt... and the person is not sure if it has been killed in due form or not." (Nayl Al-Awtar, v.8, p.140).



Is 'due form' merely what we consider zabiha, i.e. bleeding the animal to death by cutting the neck veins? As the above ahadith demonstrate there are several conditions which need to be met regarding the use of animals for food to be in accordance with the Prophet's Sunna (saws). Furthermore, if we are to be environmentally conscious, and believe in social justice - both of which are enjoined in Islam, then we must curtail our consumption of meat. When Allah (swt) permits something, it is often qualified by the Sunna. We have the finest example in the Prophet (saws) who remained mostly vegetarian in an area with frequent droughts and sparse vegetation - much of which only animals could eat. Can we really pretend to be serious about solving social injustice or environmental problems when we thoughtlessly take meat as a staple? The myth of overpopulation explodes when we understand that selfishness and greed epitomised in consumption habits and land mismanagement are the problems. Allah (swt) has provided more than enough for everyone to live comfortably!

'Umar bin Khattab got some land in Khaibar and he went to the Prophet to consult him about it saying, "O Allah's Apostle I got some land in Khaibar better than which I have never had, what do you suggest that I do with it?" The Prophet said, "If you like you can give the land as endowment and give its fruits in charity." So Umar gave it in charity as an endowment on the condition that would not be sold nor given to anybody as a present and not to be inherited, but its yield would be given in charity to the poor people, to the kith and kin, for freeing slaves, for Allah's cause, to the travellers and guests; and that there would be no harm if the guardian of the endowment ate from it according to his need with good intention, and fed others without storing it for the future. (Bukhari 3.895 Ibn Umar



















THE SLAUGHTERING OF POULTRY



WHAT ARE THE GUIDELINES FOR HALAL (LAWFUL) SLAUGHTERING OF POULTRY AND WHAT ARE THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THESE OPTIONS?

For slaughtering poultry to be halal, the following guidelines MUST be met:

1.The name of Allah (SWT) MUST be mentioned at the BEGINNING of the slaughtering. If the poultry is large in number, it suffices to mention Allah (SWT) once, when the first animal is slaughtered. However, it is preferable to mention Allah's (SWT) name at the beginning of slaughtering for EVERY bird.



2.Slaughtering must be done WITHOUT electric stunning or suffocating by gas. It should be known, however, that MOST POULTRY ARE STUNNED BEFORE SLAUGHTERING.



3. Slaughtering MUST be done by hand and with a sharp knife although the slaughterer need TO be a Muslim. With regard to slaughtering by hand and with a sharp knife, the Prophet (SAW) said,

"Allah has commanded good performance in every deed … when you slaughter, slaughter well. Sharpen your blade and save your slaughtered animal unnecessary pain." (Muslim)



4. The windpipe or the trachea, the gullet or the esophagus, as well as the blood vessels or the jugular veins, MUST be cut. The ONLY way to save slaughtered animals unnecessary pain is by this method. The Prophet (SAW) is also quoted as saying,

"You can eat the meat of animals whose blood gushes out and the name of Allah is mentioned when they slaughtered." (Muslim)

It is preferred not to cut off the head when you slaughter an animal. However, if it happens by mistake, it is OK.

WHAT ARE THE MERITS OF ADHERING TO THE ABOVE CONDITIONS?

For every step there is a merit:

• As for mentioning the name of Allah (SWT) at the BEGINNING of slaughtering, Allah (SWT) explains that He is the One Who created these animals and breathed a spirit into them. Accordingly, He is their real Owner, and therefore, ANY dealing with these animals can ONLY be performed with His permission. ALL killing is FORBIDDEN unless the One Who breathed a spirit into them ALLOWS IT to be performed. This means that as the slaughterer mentions the name of Allah (SWT) when he slaughters an animal, he INTENDS to say, "I hereby kill this poultry by the permission of Allah (SWT). He is the One Who allows me to do that."

• Stunning, however, can lead to the bird's death BEFORE it is slaughtered. If it dies, it is HARAM to eat. If we suppose that is did not die, stunning usually leads to the following:

First: Weakening of the heart. When it is slaughtered, the blood which is supposed to gush out will be VERY LITTLE. Subsequently, MOST of the blood will REMAIN in the veins and this could result in:

1.A SUBSTANTIAL amount of bacteria will remain in the veins and arteries.

2.This meat will stay consumable for a much shorter time, MAXIMUM 10 MONTHS if freezing is direct, fast, and below minus eighteen degrees centigrade, compared to slaughtered poultry WITHOUT stunning which will remain consumable for TWO YEARS.

3.If only refrigerated, it will stay consumable for FEW DAYS AT THE MOST.

4.Stunning results in an increase in the weight of the bird of about 10% of its total weight. This increase does not benefit the consumer because it is clotted blood in the veins and arteries. Cost to consumers may increase by 10% when birds are stunned without any true gain for him.

5.Due to the abundance of bacteria in the blood vessels, the poultry will be less tasteful.



Second: ELECTRIC STUNNING SEVERELY HURTS THE ANIMAL because it causes an immediate nerve shock which causes the bird intense pain. THIS, in effect, IS AN EXTREME TORTURING for this powerless bird. “THOSE WHO STUN POULTRY HAVE NO MERCY IN THEIR HEARTS FOR ANIMALS.”



Third: Most slaughtering firms who practice stunning in slaughtering poultry make their profits from increase of the weight of blood remaining in their blood vessels. STUNNING IS DONE NOT OUT OF MERCY BUT FOR FINANCIAL GAINS.

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF POULTRY WHICH DIE BY STUNNING BEFORE THEY ARE SLAUGHTERED?

The percentage is not fixed, but ranges between 10% to 35 % (24% in UK, it is reported by MAFF) and sometimes HIGHER than that. This ratio depends on two things:

1. The level of electric voltage used in electrifying the water in which the bird is stunned.

2. The level of the bird's resistance to electric current in oil. Usually this is very small.

WHAT ABOUT THE USE OF GAS TO IMMOBILIZE THE POULTRY BEFORE SLAUGHTERING?

MANY slaughtering firms in the UNITED STATES, Europe, and other countries, USE THIS TECHNIQUE as a substitute for stunning. In brief, the bird passes in a closed tube filled with carbon dioxide. This in many cases leads to its SUFFOCATION. They claim that this approach is preferable to stunning because the meat is more tender. There is no need to comment on this claim because IT IS ONLY A NEW METHOD FOR INCREASING PROFITS because the blood that flows out AFTER slaughtering is very little.

WHAT ARE THE MERITS AND BENEFITS OF HAND SLAUGHTERING?

First, using AUTOMATIC TOOLS in slaughtering in this case does not product sought results; this is because slaughtering DOES NOT ALWAYS TAKE PLACE ON THE NECK. It can occur in the chest or the head or slaughtering MAY NOT TAKE PLACE AT ALL. The reason is that the poultry passes over the slaughtering blade while it is suspended from its legs. Therefore, controlling the passage of the neck of the poultry on the slaughtering blade CANNOT BE GUARANTEED. SLAUGHTERING BY HAND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OF THESE POSSIBILITIES.

WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIM THAT SLAUGHTERING BY HAND CAUSES SEVERE PAIN TO THE SLAUGHTERED POULTRY?

As mentioned above, it is the stunning which causes the more severe pain. As for slaughtering by hand, the blood gushes out immediately after cutting the jugular veins; the blood gushes out instantly; no blood reaches the brain, and consequently, the poultry becomes unconscious. At the same time, the spinal chord reacts by sending strong pulses which produce successive shaking of all organs of the poultry, and this causes all the blood to flow out. Soon afterwards the pulses of the spinal chord slow down as a result of the paralysis of the brain, and it finally stops sending pulses completely. Accordingly, the poultry ceases to show any reaction which means it died by slaughtering. Thus, it must be known that SLAUGHTERING POULTRY BY HAND SAVES IT FROM FEELING THE PAIN.

BUT DOES NOT SLAUGHTERING BY HAND ADD MORE COST BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA WAGES NEEDED FOR ADDITIONAL SLAUGHTERERS?

YES, this additional cost can be added to the price of poultry. But, PIOUS AND ALLAH (SWT) FEARING MUSLIMS ARE WILLING TO TOLERATE THIS SLIGHT INCREASE IN PRICE WHEN THEY REALIZE THAT THEIR FLESH IS BUILT FROM HALAL, NOT HARAM FOOD.

IS IT NOT HALAL FOR MUSLIMS TO EAT POULTRY SLAUGHTERED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE SCRIPTURE WHEN ALLAH (SWT) SAYS,

"THE FOOD (SLAUGHTERED CATTLE, EATABLE ANIMALS, ETC.) OF THE PEOPLE OF THE SCRIPTURE (JEWS AND CHRISTIANS) IS LAWFUL TO YOU AND YOURS IS LAWFUL TO THEM." (AL-MA'DIAH 5:5).

There are two points to be considered in this regard:

First: The above mentioned verse is general; HOWEVER, it was specified in the following verse,

"Forbidden to you (for food) are: Al-Maytata (the dead animals - cattle beast not slaughtered), blood, the flesh of swine, and the meat of that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah, or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., or on which Allah's Name HAS NOT BEEN mentioned WHILE slaughtering, and that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by the goring of horns - and that which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal - unless you are able to slaughter it (before its death) - and that which is sacrificed (slaughtered) on An-Nusub (stone-altars)." (Al-Ma'idah 5:3)

Therefore, if a person from the People of the Scripture eats the meat of a suffocated animal or the meat of an animal which dies of itself, then we do not eat from it. We are informed that THE PERCENTAGE OF DEAD BIRDS RESULTING FROM STUNNING AND MACHINE SLAUGHTERING (as is the case in the WEST), MAY REACH 35% (24% in UK, it is reported by MAFF)OF MORE. This is a very HIGH percentage and MUSLIMS MUST COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES. MUSLIMS CAN EAT OTHER TYPES OF FOOD OR MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO SLAUGHTER POULTRY THE ISLAMIC WAY. Therefore, EATING THE MEAT OF POULTRY SLAUGHTERED BY MACHINES DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE LIMITS mentioned in the following verse,

"And why should you not eat of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has been pronounced (AT THE TIME OF SLAUGHTERING), while He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you, except under COMPULSION OF NECESSITY?…" (Al-An'am 6:119)

Accordingly, if there is a LEGITIMATE COMPELLING NEED for eating this kind of meat, you are permissible to do so IF YOU KNOW that had you not eaten from this meat, you WOULD HAVE STARVED. Nonetheless, if a person from the People of the Scripture offers a Muslim poultry that has not been slaughtered by machine or stunning, it is all right for the Muslim to eat from it AFTER invoking the name of Allah (SWT) on it, and there is no need to ask the slaughterer what he said when he slaughtered it. This is what is meant by the following verse,

"…The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you…" (Al-Ma'idah 5:5)

HAS DR. DALLAL HIMSELF SEEN MACHINE SLAUGHTERING IN WHICH POULTRY IS STUNNED OR IS THIS MERELY GENERAL INFORMATION WHICH WAS ACQUIRED FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES?

Dr. Dallal has been directly involved in this matter. In fact, he personally attended and witnessed poultry slaughtering by machines and stunning. For instance, some of the countries which use machine slaughtering and stunning are: Denmark, Belgium, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan, Holland, France, Germany,England, Bulgaria, as well as many others.

IN GENERAL, SLAUGHTERING BY THIS METHOD IS THE MAIN METHOD OF SLAUGHTERING USED IN NON-MUSLIM AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES.





NOT;

• THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) DOES NOT HAVE ANY REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SLAUGHTERING OF POULTRY