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

The Animals Slaughtered by the People of the Book

Now we shall see what position the Quran and the Sunnah take up on the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book. The Quran says:
This day are (all) good things (tayyibat) made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them.'

The words of this verse clearly point out that the only food of the People of the Book that has been made lawful for us is that which falls under the head of the tayyibat. The verse does not, and cannot, mean that the foods which are termed foul by the Quran and sound traditions and which we may not, in our own home or in the home of some other Muslim, eat or offer to some Muslim for eating, would become lawful when offered us in a Jewish or Christian home. If someone disregards this obvious and reasonable interpretation, he can, interpret the verse in one of the following four ways only.

1. 
   That this verse repeals all those verses which have occurred in connection with the lawfulness and unlawfulness of meat in the surah The Bee, The Cattle, The Cow, and in The Table Spread itself; that this verse of the Quran renders unconditionally lawful not only ' the pole-axed animal but also carrion, Swine flesh, blood, and the animal immolated to other-than-Allah. But no rational (aqlee) or transmissive (naqlee) evidence can ever be produced in favor of this alleged cancellation. The absurdity of the claim is shown by the fact that the three conditions of lawful meat which we noted above occur in the surah The Table Spread itself, in the same context, and just before the verse now under discussion. What right-minded person would say that, of the three consecutive sentences in a passage, the last would nullify the first two?
   
2. 
   That this verse countermands only slaughtering and taking Allah's name arid does not alter the unclean nature of swine flesh, carrion, blood, and the animal sacrificed to other-than-Allah. Rut we doubt if there exists, besides this empty claim, any solid reason for drawing a distinction between the two types of orders and for maintaining the one type and canceling the other. Anyone having such a reason is welcome to present it.
   
3. 
   That this verse fixes the dividing line between the food of Muslims and the food of Jews and Christians; that in the case of Muslims' food, all the Quranic restrictions would continue to be effective, but in respect of the food of Jews and Christians, no restrictions would obtain, which means that, at a Jew's or a Christian's, we may unhesitantly eat what is presented to us.
   

The strongest argument which could be adduced in favor of this interpretation is that Allah knew what kind of food the People of the Rook eat, and that if, having that knowledge, He has permitted us to eat their food, it means that everything they eat -including swine flesh, carrion, and the animal sacrificed to other-than-Allah -is pure and lawful for us. But the verse on which this reasoning is based itself knocks the bottom out of this argument. In unambiguous terms the verse lays down that the only foods of the People of the Book which Muslims may eat are those which are tayyibat. And the word tayyibat has not been left vague: the two preceding verses explain at length what the tayyibat are.

1. 
   That, out of the food of the People of the Book, swine flesh alone may not be eaten, all other foods begin lawful; or that, we may not use swine flesh, carrion, blood, and the animal slaughtered in other-than- Allah's name, though we may eat of the animal which has been killed in some way other than slaughtering and over which Allah's name has not been pronounced. But this interpretation is as unsustainable as the second.
   

No rational or transmissive argument can be given to justify the distinction between the injunctions of the Quran, to explain why, in respect of the food of the People of the Book, injunctions of one type remain in force while those of the other are rendered inoperative. If the distinction and the exception are grounded in the Quran, verses must be cited in proof, and if in the Tradition, the particular traditions must be referred to. And if there is a rational argument for it, it must be put forward.

Juristical Opinions

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

The Hanafites and the Hanbalites maintain that, for a Muslim, the food of the People of the Book is subject to the same restrictions which have been placed by the Quran and the Sunnah on the food of Muslims. Neither in our own homes nor in the homes of Jews and Christians may we eat of the animal which is killed in some manner other than slaughtering and over which Allah's name has not been taken.

The Shafi'tes say that, since taking Allah's Name is not obligatory, neither upon Muslims nor upon the People of the Book, a Muslim may eat of the animal which the Jews or Christians slaughter without taking Allah's name over it, though he may not eat of the animal which they slaughter in the name of other-than-Allah. The weakness of this position has been exposed above and so there is no need to discuss it here.

The Malikites, while granting that taking Allah's name is one of the conditions for the cleanness of the slaughtered animal, hold that the condition is not meant for the People of the Book, the animal slaughtered by them being lawful even if Allah's name has not been taken over it. The only argument presented in support of this view is that at the time of the Battle of Khyber, the Prophet ate the meat sent by a Jewess, without inquiring as to whether Allah's name had been taken over it. But this incident could exempt the People of the Book from taking Allah's name only if it were established that the Jews of those times used to slaughter animals without mentioning Allah's name over them and that the Prophet, when he ate that meat, was in the know of that. To say simply that the Prophet did not ask whether Allah's name had been taken over it would not relax the condition in the case of the People of the Book. It is quite likely that the Prophet ate that meat unhesitantly because he knew that the Jews of his times took Allah's name over the animals they slaughtered.

Ibn Abbas says that the verse "The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you"

Has repealed the verse

"Eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned,"

And that

The People of the Book. Have been exempted from observing this injunction.
But this is Ibn Abbas's personal view and not a marfu' tradition. Moreover, Ibn Abbas is alone in holding this view, there being no one who is in agreement with him. Still further, Ibn Abbas does not offer any convincing reason as to why the one verse should cancel the other -and cancel only one verse and not the rest of the restrictions on food.

'Ata, Auza'i, Mak'hul and Laith bin Sa'd hold that the verse

"The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you"

Has rendered lawful

"That which has been immolated to other-than-Allah."

Ata says that Muslims may eat of the animal slaughtered in the name of other-than-Allah. Auzai says that one may eat of the game hunted by a Christian even if one hears the Christian taking the name of Christ over his dog as he sets it off Mak'hul says that there is no harm in eating of the animals which the People of the Book slaughter for their churches and synagogues and religious ceremonies.

But the only argument given in support of this is that Allah knew full well that the People of the Book sacrificed animals in the name of other-than-Allah and yet He permitted the eating of their food. The answer is that Allah knew full well that the Christians ate swine flesh and drank wine, so why not make the verse declare lawful wine and swine flesh as well?

In our opinion, the soundest view is that of the Hanafites and the Hanbalites. Any other view one may hold on one's own responsibility. But as shown above, the reasons and arguments advanced in favor of the other views is so flimsy that, on the strength of them, the unclean cannot be proved to be clean, nor can the obligatory be made unobligatory. I would not advise any Allah-fearing person to adopt any of those views and to start eating of the animals cut down in Europe and America.

In the end, two clarifications are in order. Firstly, in killing small animals like the hen, the pigeon, etc., slight carelessness often results in an abruptly chopped-off head. Some jurists ' say that there is no harm in eating of such an animal. On the basis of this opinion, certain scholars have given the verdict that where a machine severs the head at one stroke, the condition of slaughtering is fulfilled. Rut to make the jurists' opinions into a basic law (nuss) and derive from it rules which would alter the basic laws themselves is not a correct approach. The Shariah's injunctions about taking Allah's name have been given above, as have been the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah on which those injunctions are based. Now if the jurists have granted a concession in the case of an inadvertent violation of those injunctions, how can one regard this as the basic law and abrogate virtually, the Shariah's injunctions about slaughtering? The jurists have said, and rightly, that one need not try to find out whether Allah's name has been taken over each and every animal slaughtered by the People of the Book; however, if it is positively

Learnt that, over a particular animal, Allah's name has been deliberately avoided to be taken, that animal may not be eaten of. On the basis of this, again, it has been suggested that no inquiries need be made about the meat commonly available in Europe and America and that the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book may be eaten of with the same ease of mind with which the animal slaughtered by Muslim butchers is eaten of. But this logic would be valid only when we knew that a certain section or population of the People of the Book believe, in principle and as a matter of faith, that Allah's name ought to be taken at the time of slaughtering an animal. As for the people who we know are not at all convinced that a distinction between the clean and the unclean exists, and who do not in principle agree that taking Allah's or other-than-Allah's name makes any difference to the animal's cleanness or uncleanness, how can one take with an easy mind the animals slaughtered by them?


Halal Meat:

Question: Recently, a friend of mine attended a lecture by a learned scholar. In response to a question about the meat being sold at the American grocery stores being Halal or not, he replied that there were two things in the Qur’an. First, is the following verse: Eat not on which Allah’s name has been pronounced. (6:121) Then, there is this verse: The food of the People of the Book is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (5:5) So according to this scholar, the meat at the American grocery stores is not prohibited and he said we would not be sinning if we had that meat but it was better to avoid it. Therefore, my question to you is that can we eat the meat slaughtered by the Americans, considering that they are People of the Book? Answer: A deliberation on the contexts of 6:121 and 5:5 reveals that the condition imposed by 6:121 (that is Allah’s name should be positively taken on slaughtering an animal) is a universal principle and the food of the People of the Book can only be eaten if, besides other conditions, It also fulfils this condition. These other conditions are stated at various places in the Qur’an. To quote Sarah Baqarah: Believers! Eat of the good things that We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is Him you worship. He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood and the flesh of swine and that on which any name other than Allah has been invoked. (2:172-3) In other words, just as swine, dead meat, blood, meat on which some other name has been taken cannot be eaten from the tables of the People of the Book, similarly meat on which Allah’s name has not been positively taken cannot be eaten from them. It needs to be appreciated that 5:5 has a specific background which makes it a verse that cannot be taken independently. Until this verse was revealed, the food of the People of the Book was forbidden for the Muslims. The reason for this was that many lawful edibles had been made unlawful for them by Allah as a means to punish them for their stubbornness. Similarly, they themselves had made unlawful for themselves edibles, which were originally lawful for them like the camel^**. Consequently, after the list of lawful and the unlawful edibles was set right by the Prophet (sws), then only were the Muslims allowed to eat from their tables.

^*. The Qur’an says: And on the Jews, We forbade every animal with undivided hoof and We forbade them the fat of the ox and the sheep except what adheres to their backs or their entrails or is mixed up with a bone. This was in recompense for their willful disobedience. (6:146) ^**. The Bible says: But among those that chew the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel …(Leviticus, 11:4)

THE HUMANE SLAUGHTER ACT

President Eisenhower signed the bill into law with an effective date of June 30, 1960. The Act covered 80% of US plants by requiring that humane methods be used by all packing companies selling meat to the federal government. In 1978, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas and Congressman George E. Brown, Jr. of California sponsored legislation that expanded the coverage of the Act to include livestock at all plants that are federally inspected. The legislation intended to proved more effective enforcement by allowing federal inspectors to stop processing lines until any unacceptable methods are corrected. However, the economic impact of stopping a processing line is so great that inspectors are rarely able to do so. An additional requirement of the 1978 law was that any meat imported into the US must be derived from animals slaughtered in a manner that accords with the Human Slaughter Act. Final regulations under the Humane Slaughter Act were published in 1979.
SUMMARY OF THE SLAUGTHER METODS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT

Since animals whose meat will be sold or treaded must be slaughtered under an inspector’s supervision, most slaughtering is performed off the farm at slaughterhouses. Three big companies (IBP, Cargill’s Excel Corp. and Con-Agra’s Monfort Inc.) control 80% of all beef production.

For animals other than poultry and ritually-slaughtered animals, it is a requirement of The Humane Slaughter Act that livestock must be stunned into unconsciousness before they are killed. The stunning of livestock is normally accomplished by an electrical device or a gun.

There are several types of guns employed:

FREE FIRE CARTRIDGE: A bullet is shot into the head of the animal. Use of this technique is rare, and only occurs in facilities where the head meat is condemned as unfit for consumption.

PENETRATING BOLT STUNNER: Either an exploding cartridge, in a pneumatic stun gun, a blast of air from an air line, drives forward a piston and an attached penetrating rod that enters the skull and brain of the animal and then retracts into the gun.

CONCUSSION STUNNER: This device operates like a penetrating bolt stunner, but a short, mushroom shaped knob strikes the skull producing unconsciousness without entering the brain.

Penetrating the bolt or concussion stunners are normally used, at both small and large slaughterhouses, to stun cattle. These stunner, also, are usually used when goats and sheep are slaughtered at small slaughterhouses, while the larger plants more often use electric devices on these smaller species.

One type of electrical stunner takes the form of large tongs with round disks on the ends, which carry an electrical charge through the brain when placed on either side of the head.

Beef In The Australian Market

The conditions for accepting slaughtered animals under Islamic law. Some of the methods used in killing cattle in Australian Abattoirs.

"Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures);- in the Taurat and the Gospel;- for he commands what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good and (pure) and forbids them what is bad (and impure)..." (Ch7;v157)

All gratitude is due to Allah who sent His Messenger with guidance and the way of life which is True, who separated truth from falsehood, and distinguished with it between what is good and pure and what is bad and impure. Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) was justified in saying "We were a people who ate carrion, then Allah honoured us with Islam."

The distinguishing feature of this faith, is that it is a complete way of life, a law which is self complementing, it is the direction of life: "Today I have perfected for you your religion, and have accepted for you Islam as your way of life." (Ch5; v3) With this noble verse, the Islamic law was perfected, with its regulations taking root throughout society.

The regulations of allowing and forbidding have occupied a large part in this heavenly law. It has not left a thing which it did not clarify, or an issue which it did not uncover. This has been clarified in His words: "he allows them as lawful what is good and (pure) and forbids them what is bad (and impure)...", and the true saying of the prophet (peace and blessings upon him) narrated by AlNo'man son of Bashir: "That which is lawful is plain and that which is unlawful is plain and between the two of them are doubtful matters about which not many people know. Thus he who avoids doubtful matters clears himself in regard to his religion and his honour, but he who falls into doubtful matters falls into that which is unlawful, like the shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary, all but grazing therein. Truly every king has a sanctuary, and truly Allah's sanctuary is His prohibitions. Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh which, if it be whole, all the body is whole and which, if it diseased, all of it is diseased. Truly it is the heart." (Bukhary and Muslim)

Through this true saying, the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him), distinguished between the lawful and the unlawful, then directed us to keep away from the unlawful, and to guard against everything that resembles it, so that we do not fall into vice. The issues analysed in this article concerns carcass and beef, which are sold in the Australian markets (other than the Halal Butchers), and their acceptability or rejection from the Islamic point of view.

Conditions for accepting slaughtered meats

Islamic law has set the conditions and described clearly the best way to slaughter animals:

1. That the animal is amongst the permissible to eat, has some life left in it , and is not contaminated,
2. that the slaughterer is a Muslim (either male or female), of sound mind, or a follower of the book (Christian or Jew) who believes in his own book, and adheres to its tenets,
3. that the throat is cut from end to end, between the top of the chest and the bottom of the neck,
4. The recital of the name of Allah before cutting the animals throat, and not mentioning any other name.


Supporting evidence of the above:

1- The words of Allah: "Animals have been made lawful for you (as food) except what is to be told to you" (Ch5;v1), "He has clarified to you what he has forbidden, unless you are driven by necessity." (Ch6;v119). The prophetic traditions have clarified these forbidden things, for example the dog, domesticated donkeys, the frog, "and everything with an eyetooth." (Muslim) (note 1), and the pig was forbidden through the Qur'an.

2- The words of Allah: "Today He has made lawful for you all that is good (and pure), and the food of those who have been given the book has been made lawful for you" (Ch5;v5) Imam Nawawi said: "the slaughtered animal of the people of the book is permissible irrespective of whether they recite the name of Allah over it, as per the words of the Holy Qur'an, this is my interpretation and the most popular interpretation with scholars" (note 2).

The Son of Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked concerning the slaughtered animals of the Magians, even when they recite the name of Allah, he said, do not eat from it. (note 3)

This also means that an animal slaughtered by an apostate, an idolater, a communist, a cultist (Batiny), a Hindu, or a Buddhist, is not permissible.

3- His words: "Except what you have slaughtered in due form" (Ch5;v3), and what was narrated by Baihaqi on authority of Abi Umama: "All which has had the jugular cut unless it was a result of a bite or a scratch." (note 4).

AlBaihaqi has narrated on sound authority that Ibn Abbas said: "slaughtering in due form is between the throat and the base of the neck" (note 5).

It is a condition that the throat, the nearby veins, and either artery and jugular are cut.

4- His words: "Do not eat of that over which the name of Allah has not been recited." (Ch6;v121).

The scholars have directed that the Muslim should not be questioned as to whether he has recited the name of Allah over his slaughtered animal, as it is not permitted to have suspicion with respect to a fellow Muslim unless it is good suspicion, and if he forgets to recite the name of Allah, his slaughtered animal is still lawful.

Some scholars believe that even if a Muslim intentionally does not recite the name of Allah, the slaughtered animal is still permissible.


Inquiries concerning the slaughtered animal, when there is doubt, or lack of indication:

It is obligatory to ascertain where the community in which one lives is comprised of mainly non Muslims, the method of slaughter of animals, before buying any meat. This is definitely not an innovation. Abdul Razzaq in his Musannaf, relates the following saying for Kays Ibnul Sakan: "Ibn Mas'ud said: 'You have alighted in a land where the animals are not slaughtered by Muslims, but by Nabtis and Farsis, so if you wish to buy any meat, ask, if it has been slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian eat from it as their food is lawful to you'" (note 6), however, if the majority of the inhabitants of the land are people of the book, then it is not obligatory to ask.

The general rule: "The basis when it comes to these things is permissibility", this has two exceptions, man/woman relationships, and the slaughtered animals. This rule has the consensus of all the scholars. The following below is the proof:

1- The Hanafi school- It is reported in the Darar: "slaughtering in due form makes the meat permissible, and purifies it unless the animal has been contaminated." In the Hashia of Ibn Abdeen: "an animal is made unlawful if not killed in due form." (darar / Gharar 2/344).

2- Ibn al-Arabi said: "Our scholars said: 'the rule with the animal is its impermissibility, and it does not become permissible except when killed in due form, or through hunting, however, if there was doubt in the hunter, or the slaughterer, then it becomes impermissible.'", this is the rule with the Maliki school. (note 7)

3- Imam Nawawi said: "the basic rule with an animal is its impermissibility, until it can be established that it was killed in due form." This is similar to what has been stated by Alkhtabi, and Ibn Hajr Al'Asqalani, this rule is followed by the Shafie School. (note 8)

Ibn Qudama said: "the basic rule is impermissibility, they only become lawful if killed in due form by a qualified person." (note 9)

4- Ibn Taymiyyeh said: "Blood is protected if there is doubt. However, man / woman relationships, and slaughtered animals are not made permissible where doubt exists. (note 10), this is the rule with the Hanbaly school.

AlShawkani said: "The slaughtered animal does not become lawful if there is doubt, as also if there is doubt and the person is not sure if it has been killed in due form or not." (note 11)

The above shows that the majority of scholars are unanimous on the basic rule concerning the slaughtered animals, where the form of killing is not ascertained, and that doubt in the case of a slaughtered animal makes it unlawful, and the basic rule with animals is impermissibility.

Any doubt as to the cause of death of an animal also makes its meat unlawful, and it does not become lawful, unless it can be ascertained that the animal was killed in due form. Scholars have taken guidance from the narration of Adiy Ibn Hatem reproduced in Bukhary and Muslim that the Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings upon him) said: "If you send your dog, and you recite the name of Allah, and your dog makes the catch and kills the prey, then eat...", to the end of the narration where he said "If you get an animal you are hunting, and you do not find it until after one day or two days, then eat, however, if it falls in the water, then do not eat." (note 12). The commentary of Qurtuby shows: "if you find the kill drowned in the water, then do not eat it, for you do not know whether your arrow killed it or whether it died through drowning." (note 13).
The points to the Hadeeth

1- The permissibility of hunting with trained dogs,

2- the necessity of reciting the name of Allah before hunting,

3- if the cause of death of the animal is unknown for any reason, such as its falling into water for example, then it does not become permissible until it can be ascertained that it was killed in due form.

Therefore, the fundamental rule amongst scholars is that the slaughtered meat which contains doubt does not become permissible until it can be ascertained if it was killed in due form.
An investigatory visit to some abattoirs in NSW

During my visit to two abattoirs in New South Wales, one public, and the other private, I witnessed the following two methods of killing animals:

The First Method:

Whist it is still alive, the calf is led to a box closed on all sides. The calf is then hit on the head with a hammer resembling a mushroom called a "Mushroom head gun". This operation is referred to as knocking the animal unconscious. The animal loses consciousness through this method, and falls to the ground allowing the butcher to slash its throat.

The problems with this method:

1- At times the animal may not lose consciousness with the first blow, and may need to be stunned a second time, or more.

2- In many instances the blow goes deeper into the brain of the animal causing a brain haemorrhage which leads to blood coming out of the head leading to a brain death situation. This we have seen with our own eyes, and we have it in photos and on video.

3- At times the calf is left for a considerable period of time in the concussed state, and it may die before having its throat slashed, taking the condition of carrion.

During our visit to Wilberforce Abattoirs, we found a calf which had been left for a period exceeding a quarter of an hour after being struck on the head, and had died, earning the treatment of carrion, making it impermissible for food. The death of the animal makes no difference to them.

The Second Method:

The bulls are shot with a .22 calibre rifle, by placing the barrel of the rifle onto the head of the bull pointed at the brain. The bullet hits the brain directly causing it to explode, and causing the animal to collapse.

The production director of a NSW abattoir Mr Liese informed us that at times they may fire more than one shot at the head of the animal. He also added that sometimes three shots are fired to make sure the immediate death of the animal.

The problems with this method:

1- The use of a hunting implement on a captive animal is impermissible.

2- The shot goes to the brain of the animal causing an explosion of the brain, making the carcass similar to carrion.

3- The suffering caused to the animal when shot more than once.

This clearly shows that some of the beef on the Australian market does not meet the Halal requirement which has been set by Islamic Law.

It is crucial for us my dear brother, to seek out the Halal food, and not allow ourselves to fall under the Hadeeth of prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings upon him): "He who falls into the doubtful, falls into the impermissible..". We should place his words in front of our eyes: "what is produced by illegal means, is more worthy of the fire", meaning that the body which grows with the impermissible, and gets nourishment from the impermissible, must be purified, if he does not repent in this life, he will be purified on the day of judgement... For this reason we must be very cautious in ensuring that our food and dress is lawful, and that we should only take lawful nourishment, so that are supplications our accepted, and from Allah we seek assistance, and there is no effort or power, except through Allah The most High the Most Great.


Notes:
1- Corrected by AlAlbany in Rawa` AlGhaleel 8/139.
2- The collection of Sharh AlMuhazzab.
3- AlMustadrak of AlHakem 4/233 Sahih Shart AlShaykhayn.
4- Sahih AlJame' AlSagheer OF AlAlbany 4372 j 4/167 the collection of Sahih Ahadeeth.
5- AlSunan AlKubra 9/278 and Fath AlBary 9/640.
6- Sahih Taqreeb AlTahzeeb of Ibn Hijr 2/129.
7- The collection of Sharh AlMuhazzab of Nawawi 9/56.
9- AlMughni of Ibn Qaddama.
10- The Collection of Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyyeh V32 p190.
11- Nayl AlAwtar V8/140.
12- AlLu`lu` WalMarjan Fi Ma Ittafaqa 'Alayhi AlShaykhaynno. 1258, the book of hunting and slaughter.
13- Commentary of Suratul Ma`ida, AlQurtubi.

Meat & Modernity

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Beware of meat. It has addictiveness like the addictiveness of wine." (Muwatta 49.36)

Many have sought to claim that Islam is essentially a vegetarian religion. Rafeeque Ahmed in his book Islam and Vegetarianism posits that Allah (swt) made humans herbivores and whereas carnivores absorb the nutrients in meat, humans absorb the putrifications because our guts are more than twice as long as the intestines of carnivores. The Holy Qur'an does say that animals have souls:

There is not a moving (living) creature on earth, nor a bird that flies with its wings, but are communities like you. We have neglected nothing in the Book, then unto their Rabb (the One and Only Creator, Owner, Organizer, Provider, Sustainer, Cherisher) they shall (all) be gathered. (HQ 6:38).

See you not that whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth, and the sun and the moon, and the stars, and the mountain and the trees, and Ad-Dawabb [moving (living) creatures, beasts], and many of mankind prostrate themselves to Allah. But there are many (of mankind) on whom the punishment is justified. And whomsoever Allah disgraces, none can honour him. Verily, Allah does what He wills. (HQ 22:18)

And your Rabb revealed to the bee saying: "Take your habitations in the mountains, and in the trees and in what they [humans] erect. Then eat of all the fruits, and follow the ways of your Rabb made easy." There comes from their bellies, a drink of varying colour wherein is healing for men. Verily, in this is indeed a sign for people who think. (HQ 16:68)

"The Qur'an Majeed uses the same Arabic word wahi for God's revelation to all His Prophets, including the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saws), as it has been used in the case of the bee...it proves the basic fact that animals have a sufficient degree of psychic endowment to understand and follow God's messages - a faculty which is higher than instinct and intuition."]

In an account of Solomon (as) in Suratul-Naml [The Ants], Allah (swt) says:

They came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said: "O ants! Enter your dwellings, lest Solomon and his hosts should crush you, while they perceive not." So he smiled, amused at her speech and said, "My Rabb! Inspire me and bestow upon me the power and ability that I may be grateful for Your Favours which You have bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may do righteous good deeds that will please You and admit me by Your Mercy among Your righteous slaves." (HQ 27:18-19)

[Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said:

Verily Allah and His angels, the dwellers of the Heavens and of the Earth, even an ant in its home and fish (in water) invoke blessings on one who teaches people goodness. (Tirmidhi 213 Abu Umamah al-Bahili)]
Yet, the Holy Qur'an permits meat eating:

Say: I find not in that which has been revealed to me any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maitah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine; for that surely is impure or impious meat which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah. (HQ 6:145)

And Allah (swt) would not make halal something which is harmful, and has forbidden the unnatural use of intoxicants for this reason. The kalima recited at the time of slaughter, when fully realised, would make the idea of killing an animal for food deplorable. Nevertheless, the Prophet (saws) is reported on occasion to have killed animals himself:

I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends. (Bukhari 8.33 Aisha)