ham@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Hameed Ahmed Mohammed) (06/03/91)
In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.
THE MEAT OF ANIMALS KILLED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK
----------------------------------------------------
There has been among Muslims intense discussion on whether the meat of animals
killed by the People of the Book( Jews and Christians) is lawful for Muslims
to eat.
The Quranic verse in this regard states:
This day are all good things (tayyibat) have been made lawful
for you. The food of those who have been given 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 which 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 a Muslim to
eat, would become lawful when offered us in a Jewish or Christian home. If
some disregards this obvious and resonable interpretation, he can interpret the
verse in one of the following four ways only.
1.) That this verse repeals all those verses which have occured in connection
with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of meat in the suras an-Nahl,al-An'am,
al-Baqarah and in al-Maidah itself; that this verse of the Quran renders
unconditionally lawful not only the poleaxed 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 favour of
this alleged cancellation. The absurdity of the claim is shown by the fact
that the three conditions of lawful meat occur in the surah al-Maidah itself,
in the same context, and just before the verse now under consideration. These
three conditions are:
i. It should not be the meat of the animals which have been declared
to be unclean in themselves by God and His Prophet.
ii. The animal must have been slain in the manner prescribed by the
Shari'ah.
iii. God's name must have been taken over the slain animal.
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 God's name and
does not alter the unclean nature of swineflesh, carrion, blood and the animal
sacrificed to other than God. 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 cancelling the other ....
3.) That this verse fixed the dividing line between the food of Muslims and
the food of Jews and Christians; that in case of Muslim's food, all the Quranic
restrictions would continue to be effective, but in respect of the food of
The People of the Book, no restrictions would obtain, which means that, at a
Jew's or a Christian's, we may unhasitatingly eat what is presented to us.
The strongest argument which could adduced in favour of this interpretation is
that God 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 ham, carrion, and the animal sacrificed to other than God-
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 foods of the People of the Book, swineflesh alone may
not be eaten, all other foods being lawful; or that , we may not use ham,
carrion, blood, and the animals slaughtered in other than God's name, though
we may eat of the animal which has been killed in some way other than
slaughtering and over which God's name has not 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.
Allah knows the best.665instr@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Ian) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun2.200534.1562@wpi.WPI.EDU>, ham@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Hameed Ahmed Mohammed) writes: > THE MEAT OF ANIMALS KILLED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK Dear Muslim friends, I live in the same building with a Muslim who doesn't have a car and so he comes shopping with me a lot. We have had a difficult time finding hallal food for him, to the point that he has almost become a vegeterian. I had thought that food that is kosher for Jews would be hallal for Muslims, since the Jews had *more* regulations as compared to Muslims. In light of the post I referenced, however, I have a question: Hameed said that it is only hallal if it also follows the guidelines laid out in Islam. In particular, "the name of God must be said over it". The Jew killing the kosher meat would of course say "Adonai" rather than "Allah". Is this acceptable? So what I am wondering about is regarding how stringent is the requirement "the name of God." -- Ian Chai Internet: chai@cs.ukans.edu Bitnet: 665instr@ukanvax I don't believe in flaming. If I appear to be flaming, either (a) it's an illusion due to the lack of nonverbal cues or (b) my sprinkler system has suffered a momentary glitch, so just ignore me until it's fixed.