The following is the translation of an article, written by the great leader and scholar of Islam, Syed Abul A’ala Maududi, which was published in Tarjumanul Qur’an of April 1959.

Introduction

For the last two thousand years, the Jews have been, 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 identity is the fact that most of them, if not all of them, have conscientiously bound themselves to their religious code and revered their national traditions. Even when they were in a state of subjugation 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 distinction between the Jewish and the non-Jewish food laws, for example English bread and cookies, which are prepared by Jews themselves are called kosher, implies that these things do not contravene the Jewish laws. In every society that they have lived in, they have provisioned themselves in like manner. It is their extreme care that has elicited 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 tray, is properly covered, and bears the mark or 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 observed their practices, they have also made the rest of the world respect those practices.

In contrast, consider at the condition of Muslims. Once they arrive in western countries, most of them forget about the distinction between the lawful and unlawful. There are Muslims who, on the strength of legal opinions given by certain Muslims scholars, consider it perfectly lawful to eat any kind of meat available in those countries, even 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. Many Muslims question brethren who wish to abide by the Islamic laws. They insist that if the lawfulness of the meat is in doubt, it may be removed by proclaiming Allah’s name over the cooked meat. I have been constantly receiving letters about such disputes, and reports tell me that debate continues. I have, therefore, presented my research on this subject based on the Qur’an and Hadith.

That Islam attaches great importance to the proper slaughtering of animals is evident from a Hadith of Holy Prophet (s). 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 fade towards the Qibla, the most significant mark which distinguishes a Muslim from a non-Muslim.

The Qur’anic Restrictions on Eating Animal-Flesh

 We shall begin with an account of the restrictions placed by the Qur’an on eating animals-flesh and of the explication which the Sunnah furnishes of those restrictions.

1. Proscribed Foods

The Qur’an, at four different places, explicitly forbids, for use as food, carrion, blood, swine flesh, and the animals slaughtered in the name of a deity other than Allah. This prohibition is cited in Surah Al-An‘am (verse 146) and Surah An-Namul (verse 115), which are Mekkan surahs, and is repeated in Surah Al-Baqarah (verse 173) and Surah Al-Ma’idah (verse 3), which are Medinan surahs. Surah Al-Ma’idah, the last of the surahs to contain laws and edicts, makes two additional points. One, that not only the animal dying naturally is unlawful as food but also the animal which died through strangling, or beating, or falling from a height, or goring (by another animal). Two, that whether or not the name of a deity other than Allah is pronounced over it, the animal at the altar of polytheists is as unlawful as “that over which any other than Allah’s name is mentioned.”

To this list of unlawful foods, the Prophet (s) has added donkey flesh, the fanged beats of prey, and the taloned birds of Prey. ¹

2. Proper Slaughtering

The second condition is that only a slaughtered animal may be lawfully eaten of. It says in the Qur’an:

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 ye make lawful (by slaughtering). . . (Al:Ma’idah: 3)

The verse plainly means that the only animal which is not proscribed is the one which dies through proper slaughtering, and that in all cases where death takes palace in some other way, the animal would be unlawful. The word tazkiya (proper slaughtering) has not been explained in the Qur’an. Nor does a 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.

^{1 - For details see Nailul-Autar, “Kitabul At’ima was-Said was-Zabiah.”}

1. In a situation where the animal is out of our control (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 slaughter 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 chose,” the Prophet (s) says, stating the rules for this kind of slaughtering (Abu Dawud - Nisai).

2. In a situation where we have complete control of the animal and can 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 is mentioned in the Qur’an ¹ The Sunnah tells us that it was also the method employed by the Prophet (s) for slaughtering camels.

As for slaughtering cows, goats, or such animals, the Ahadith of the Prophet (s) contain the following directions:

a). Abu Huraira transmits that, on the eve of Hajj, the Prophet (s) dispatched Budail bin Warqa Khuza’i on an ash colored 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 (Dar Qutni)

b). Ibn Abbas transmits that the Prophet (s) forbade the cutting of the spinal cord of the animal when it is slaughtered. (Tabarani)

c). There is mursal ³ hadith, related by Imam Muhammad from Saeed bin Al- Musayyab, which says: “The Prophet (s) forbade the cutting of the spinal cord of the goat at the time of slaughtering it.”

In view of these Ahadith and the established practice of the times of the Prophet (s) and the companions, it is held by the Hanifites, the Shafi’ites, and the Hanabalites 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.⁴

<sup>1. Al-kauthar: 3 
2. That is, it should be slaughtered on the inner side of the neck where the windpipe is located, and not on the outer side of it, because in the latter case the spinal cord will be cut right at the outset, which will cause instant death. 
3. One which a Follower (Tabi’i) relates directly from the Prophet (s), without the intermediacy of a Companion. A Follower is a person who has seen a Companion but not the Prophet (s). 
4. Al-fiqh Alal-Madhahibil Arba’a, Vol. 1, pp.725-730.</sup>

In all these forms of slaughtering, which have been described in the Sunnah in explication of the Qur’anic 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, bold from every part of its body is drawn out and only the drainage of blood causes its death.

Now, since the Qur’an has not elaborated on its own injunction, and the Prophet (s) 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 (s), and that the animal which is killed in disregard of this is unlawful, side of it, because in the latter case the spinal cord will be cut right at the outset, which will cause instant death.

 The Qur’an 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 beats 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. . .  . (Al-Ma’idah:4)

This is explained by the Prophet (s) 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.” (Bukhari & Muslim)

“. . . . but if it has eaten any of it do not eat, for it has caught it only for itself.” (Bukahri, Muslim & Ahmad)

“And that which you hunt with your dog and, finding it alive, slaughter, you may eat.” (Bukhari & Muslim)

 The conclusion is that when a hunting beast makes a kill for its owner, the Qur’anic condition for slaughtering is satisfied. Such killing, therefore, does not fall under “that which the beasts have eaten of” -Which is unlawful- but under the exception of “that which you slaughter.” But the Qur’an states this law only in regard to the trained hunting beast. The Prophet (s) excludes that beast 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 torn up by some beast other than the hunting kind. The Hadith which allows the eating of the 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 Declaring Allah’s Name

The third Qur’anic condition is declaring Allah’s name at the time of killing an animal. This has been stated in different places in the Qur’an. Positively, it has been said:

Eat of that over which the name of Allah hath been mentioned if ye are believers in His revelations. (Al-An’am:119)

And negatively:
And eat not of that whereon Allah’s name hath not been mentioned, for lo! It is abomination. (Al-An’am:118)

In hunting with trained animals, the following directions have been given:
(And those beats and birds of prey which ye have trained as hounds, . . .) eat of that which they catch for you and mention Allah’s name upon it, ¹and observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is swift to take account. (Al-Ma’idah:4)

Then we see that several places, the Qur’an does not employ the word “slaughter” at all and, instead, uses “declaring Allah’s name” as a team.

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 hath bestowed upon them. (Al-Hajj: 28) (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 hath given them for food. (Al-hajj: 34) (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. (Al-hajj: 36) (That is, slaughter them.)

_{1. Mention Allah’s name upon what? This has been explained in certain Ahadith which will follow shortly.}

Eat of that which the name of Allah hath been mentioned. (Al-An’am:119) (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. (Al-An ‘am: 118) (That is, over which Allah’s name is not mentioned at the time of slaughtering it.)

This repeated use of “mentioning Allah’s name” of slaughtering” conclusively proves that the two expressions are synonymous with the view of the Qur’an and that mentioning Allah’s name is essential to the allow ability of the slaughtered animal.

We shall now inquire what legal position, according to the sound (saheeh) and firm (qawee) Ahadtih of the Prophet (s) “declaring Allah’s name” has. Adi bin Hatim is the man who often questioned the Prophet (s) about game- hunting. The rules that the Prophet (s) told him are as follows:

1. When you set off 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 of it do not eat . . . When you shoot an arrow mention Allah’s name. (Bukhari & Muslim)

2. That which you, have hunted with your bow and over which you have declared Allah’s name you may eat; and that which you have hunted with your hound and over which you have mentioned Allah’s name you may eat as well. (Abu Dawud & Nisai)

3. Spill blood with whatever instrument you choose. (Abu Dawud & Nisai)

4. When you set off a trained dog or hawk, mention Allah’s name as you set it off, you may eat of what it catches for you. (Abu Dawud & Ahmed)

Adi bin Hatim asked the Prophet (s) what to do in a situation when, having mention Allah’s name, he sets off his dog and, upon reaching the scene of the hunt, sees another dog standing near by and finds it difficult to determine which of the two has killed the animal. The Prophet (s) replied: “Don’t eat, for you took Allah’s name over your own dog and not over other one.” (Bukhari, Muslim & Ahmad)

These explicit and unmistakable injunctions of Allah and the Prophet (s) leave no room for doubt that mentioning Allah’s name is essential to the cleanness of the slaughtered animal and that the animal killed without Allah’s name being mentioned over it is unclean. If verses and Ahadith as clear as these do not formulate any law, then what kind of textual evidence (nuss) is required to formulate one.

The View of Jurists

From among the schools of jurisprudence, the Malikites, Hanafites and Hanbalites agree that the animal over which Allah’s name has not been mentioned is unlawful, and that no harm is done by inadvertent omission of mentioning 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 mentioning Allah’s name is omitted, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the slaughtered animal would be unlawful. Of the same opinion are Ibn Umar, Sha ‘bi, and Mohammad bin Seereen. Abu Thaur and Dawud Zahiri also subscribe to that view. Ibrahim Nakha’ i thinks that if it is forgotten to take Allah’s name, the animal would be “disagreeable to point of being proscribed.” (al-makruhutahreemiy).

Imam Shafi‘i believes that mentioning Allah’s name is no condition at all for the lawfulness of the slaughtered animal. He agrees that taking Allah’s name is recommended by the Shari’ah and the Sunnah, but adds that omission, intentional or unintentional, of it would not affect the lawfulness of the animal. Abu Huraira is the only Companion and Imam Auzai the only mujtahid¹ to hold this view. This view has also been attributed to Ibn Abbas, ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah, Imam Malik, but their confirmed 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 Al-An‘am

And eat of that whereupon Allah’s name hath not been mentioned,

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 sentence² while the second is a declarative nominal sentence, ³ and it is incorrect to conjoin these two different types of sentence.

<sub>1. Expert in Islamic law.
2. Al-jumlatul fi’ liyyatul inshaiyyah- inshaiyyah is however, more inclusive term than “optative”; another working translation could be ‘imperative’, which thought more restricted, in meaning, is more specifically applicable here.
3. Al-jumlatul ismiyyatul Khabariyyah.</sub>

Talking the waw as the circumstantial waw¹, 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 fisq with reference to verse 145 of Al-An’am 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 unlawful animal is the one over which the name of other than Allah has been mentioned and that omission of mentioning Allah’s name does not make for unlawfulness.

But this is a very unsound interpretation. It leaves 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 wishful that one can extract from the verse the meaning that the animal slaughtered without Allah’s name being mentioned over it is clean.

Secondly, if joining a declarative nominal to an optative verbal sentence infringes the elocutionary principles, the use of the emphatic inna and the intensifying lam is no less a breach of the rules 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 Shafi ‘ites fail to keep the complete verse in mind. The verse reads:

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 in truth be idolaters.

Now even if it is granted that the waw in ( ) is circumstantial, the problem of a declarative nominal sentence joined to an optative verbal sentence persist, 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 Qur’an. At a number of places, a declarative nominal has been joined to an optative verbal sentence, for example in verse 4 of An-Noor and in verse 221 of Al-Baqarah. The Shafi ‘ites must either revise their elocutionary of declare that the Qur’an violates the principles of elocution. For it is not possible at each place in the Qur’an to take the waw joining an optative verbal to a declarative nominal sentence as the waw of circumstance.

Fourthly, the Shafi‘ites’ 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 an abomination due to other than Allah’s name having mentioned over it.

_{1 The waw of hal.}

The question is, if the idea was simply to declare unlawful 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 interpret fisq (abomination) with reference to a far-off verse, i.e. verse 146 of Al-An‘am. After all, what prevents us from taking the word in its literal meaning of disobedience and rebellion? With the word taken literally, the verse would mean: “Do not eat of the animal over which Allah’s name being fisq” (i.e. in case  the avoidance of mentioning Allah’s  name is deliberate, - for the word fisq applies to deliberate defiance of order and not to omission through forgetfulness). This interpretation is preferable to the Shafi’ites’ interpretation for two reasons. One, it is consistent with all the verse and Ahadith 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 (s) and inquired whether they could have any of the meat brought to them from outside by certain new Muslims, it being unknown whether Allah’s name had been mentioned over the animal. The Prophet (s) replied: “You may yourselves take Allah’s name over it and eat it.”¹ On the basis of this Hadith the Shafi‘ites claim that mentioning Allah’s name is not essential, for had it been so, the Prophet (s) would not have permitted the eating of the meat over which Allah’s name is uncertain to have been taken. But the Hadith actually runs contrary to their thesis. It proves that the obligatoriness of mentioning Allah’s name was a widely-known matter, that being the reason why those people came along inquiring about the meat brought to them by the newly converted country people. Had the practice been different, the question of the lawfulness of that meat would not have arisen at all. The reply which the Prophet (s) gave them is also significant. If mentioning Allah’s name been immaterial, then the Prophet (s) 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 mentioned over it. But what the Prophet (s) actually told them was that they could eat the flesh after mentioning 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 consumer himself by mentioning Allah’s name over the meat. Obviously, one cannot go about investigating, nor does the Shari’ah obligate him to investigate, whether the animal, whose flesh is being a sold at city and village shops was lawful animal, whether or not the slaughterer is a Muslim, whether he is a new-Muslim or an old one, and whether or not he has slaughtered it  properly. In general, everything done by a Muslim should be accepted as correct except where proof to the contrary exists. Unfounded doubts should not be ground for abstinence; they should rather be eliminated by saying Bismillah¹ or Astaghfirullah². This is the lesson we learn from that Hadith.The Hadith proves that proclaming Allah’s name is obligatory.

_{1 In Bukhari, Abu Dawud, Nisai, Ibn Majah. (related by Ayesha).
1  I begin in the name of Allah
3  I seek the forgiveness of Allah}

Still another Shafi‘ite argument, no less fragile than the previous ones, is based on a mursal Hadith which Abu Dawud has included in his book Al-Maraseel. The Hadith has the Prophet (s) saying:

The animal slaughtered by Muslim is lawful whether or not the Muslim has mentioned Allah’s name over it, for if he were to mention some name, it would be the name of Allah.

In the first place, this is a mursal Hadith transmitted by a little known Follower and so cannot render unobligatory that which has been proved to be obligatory by successive marfu’³ Ahadith. Even if the Hadith were absolutely sound, would it really imply that mentioning Allah’s name is unobligatory? At best, it could be said that, if a Muslim chances to have slaughtered an animal without mentioning Allah’s name, his omission should be attributed to negligence rather than intention; and that the animal may be eaten of presuming that, had the man mentioned some name, it would have the name of Allah and not of other than Allah. The Hadith cannot be taken to mean that it is lawful to eat of the animal slaughtered by those who do not believe in mentioning Allah’s name over the animal - and who, in fact, hold a contrary view. Stretch and strain it as one may, the Hadith will admit to no such interpretation.

This is the essence of the Shafi ‘ites’ arguments for considering it unnecessary to mention Allah’s name. 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 compared to the arguments for the necessity of mentioning Allah’s name.

In brief, the conditions which the Qur’an and the sound Ahadith state for the meat to be lawful are as follow:

(1) It should not be the meat of the animals which have been declared to be unlawful, in themselves, by Allah and His Prophet (s)
(2) The animal must have been slaughtered in the manner prescribed by the Shari’ah.
(3) Allah’s name must have been declared over the slaughtered animal.

The meat which does not fulfill these conditions is excluded from the tayyibat (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 Qur’an and the Sunnah take up on the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book. The Qur’an 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. (Al-Ma‘idah: 5)

_{3. A marfu’ Hadith is one traceable to the Prothet(s)}

The words of this verse clearly point out that the only food of the People of the Book which has been made lawful for us is that which falls under the title tayyibat. The verse does not, and cannot, mean that the foods which are termed taboo of Haram by the Qur’an and Ahadith, 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 only interpret the verse in one of the following four ways.

1. This verse repeals all those verse which have occurred in connection with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of meat in Surah Al-Naml, Al- An’am’ Al-Baqarah, and in Al-Ma’idah itself; that this verse understood 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 this claim is shown by the fact that the three conditions of lawful meat which we noted above occur in the Surah Al-Ma’idah itself, in the same context, and just before the verse now under discussion. What fair-minded person would say that, of the three consecutive sentences in a passage, the last would nullify the first two? 

2. This verse countermands only slaughtering and mentioning Allah’s name and does not alter the unlawful nature of swine flesh, carrion, blood, and the animal sacrificed to other then Allah. But 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. This verse fixes the line of distinction between the food of Muslims and the food of Jews and Christians. In the case of Muslims’ food, all the Qur’anic restrictions would continue to be effective, but in respect to the food of Jews and Christians, no restrictions would apply. Meaning that at a Jew’s or a Christian’s home, we may unhesitantly eat what is presented to us.

The strongest argument which should be derived in favor of this interpretation is that Allah knew what kind of food the People of the Book 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 knocks the bottom out of this argument. The verse very clearly states that the only food of the People of the Book which Muslims may eat are those which are tayyibat. And use of the word tayyibat is not vague: the two preceding verse explain at length what the tayyibat are.

4. Out of the foods of the People of the Book, swine flesh, alone, may not be eaten; all other foods being lawful. Or that, we may not use swine flesh, carrion, blood, and the animal slaughtered in other than Allah’s name, through 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 weak as the second.

No rational or transmissive argument can be given to justify the distinction between the injunctions of the Qur’an, 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 Qur’an, verse must be cited in proof, and if in the sunnah, the particular Ahadith must be referred to. And if there is a rational argument for it, it must be put forward.

Opinions of Jurist:

We shall now see what opinions have been offered by the various schools of Jurisprudence on eating of the animal slaughtered by the People of the Book.

The Hanafites and 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 Qur’an 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 mentioned. ¹

The Shafi‘ites say that, since declaring 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 mentioning 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 declaring Allah’s name is one of the conditions for the lawfulness 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 mentioned over it. The only argument Presented in support of this view is that at the time of the Battle of Khyber, the Prophet (s) ate the meat sent by a Jewess, without inquiring as to whether Allah’s name had been mentioned over it. But this incident could exempt the People of the Book from mentioning 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 (s), when he ate that meat, was in the know of that. To say simply that the Prophet (s) did not ask whether Allah’s name had been mentioned over it would not relax the condition in the case of the People of the Book. It is quite likely that the Prophet (s) ate that meat unhesitantly because he knew that the Jews of his times proclaimed 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 replaced 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.² But this is Ibn Abbas’s personal view and not a marfu ‘ Hadith. Moreover, Ibn Abbas’s is alone in holding this view, there being no one who is in agreement with him. Further more, 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.

<sub>1. Al-fiqh ‘alal Madhahibil ‘Arab ‘a, Vol. I, pp. 726-730.
2. Abu dawud, “Kitabul Adhahi.”</sub>

‘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 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 Christians taking the name of Christ over his dog as he sets it off. Muk’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.¹

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 the name of other than Allah and yet He permitted the eating of their food. The answer is that Allah knew full well that 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 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 are so flimsy that, on the strength of them, the unlawful cannot be proved to be lawful, 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 slaughtered by the People of the Book on which Allah’s name has not been mentioned.

In the end, two clarifications are in order. Firstly, in killing small animals like chickens, pigeons, 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 of one stroke, the condition of slaughtering is fulfilled. But 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 Shari’ah’s injunctions about mentioning Allah’s name have been given above, as have been the texts of the Qur’an 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 Shari’ah’s injunctions about slaughtered? The jurists have said, and rightly that one need not try to find out whether Allah’s name has been mentioned 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 mentioned, 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 mentioned at the time of slaughtering an animal. As for the people who we know are not at all convinced that a distinction between the lawful  and unlawful exists, and who do not in principle agree that mentioning Allah’s or other than Allah’s name makes any difference to the animal’s allowability, how can one take with an easy mind the animals slaughtered by them?

 _{1. Jassas, Ahkamul Qur’an, vol. II, p. 395}