In the name of allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful What is sin in Islam?
The Animals Slaughtered by the People of the Book
Yüklə 1,14 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Juristical Opinions
The Animals Slaughtered by the People of the BookNow 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.
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.
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 OpinionsWe 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"
'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"
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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. Yüklə 1,14 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|