In the name of allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful What is sin in Islam?

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.

• 
  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.
  
• 
  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:

• 
  It should not be the meat of the animals that have been declared to be unclean in themselves by Allah and His Prophet.
  
• 
  The animal must have been slaughtered in the manner prescribed by the Shariah.
  
• 
  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.