Non-Zabihah meat in the Sunni community

[Shaheed786]

Salaam everyone,

I am wondering if anyone can shed light on an issue that I've seen become more prevalent in the American Sunni community in recent years. I've seen that a good portion of their community thinks that it's permissble to eat non-zabihah meat. I'm talking about fully practicing Muslims who pray 5x a day, wear hijabs etc... There seems to be this idea that you can eat non-zabihah poultry (they seem to avoid red meat?) in the West. They will go to Chik-fil-A and other chains like that without any issue. I've even heard that some of them have been told to simply say "Bismillah" over the food and that makes it halal for them. Again, I'm not talking about non-practicing Muslims, I'm talking about practicing Muslims that believe that it is permissible. 

So my question is, is there some ruling from a Mufti or Alim in the Sunni world that declared non-zabihah poultry in the West to be permissible? 

I don't have any stats to back this up, but anecdotally, this seems to be more prevalent of a practice in the Arab Sunni community than the South Asian Sunni community in the U.S. (perhaps there is some scholar or legal school that they tend to follow more strongly that has this view?). 

Can anyone help shed light on the origin of this practice? 

Note: I am specifically talking about the Sunni community, because as far as I know, there is no Marja in the Shia world that considers non-zabihah meat to be permissible. 

JAK 

[Irfani313]

Very true, we have quit going to Arab owned restaurants in the area for precisely this reason. 
 

To each their own, but once you leave the Kawthar of Wilaya, system of the Lord throws you at the sewage of the house of Shaitan, where they eat and drink the najis with full satisfaction of heart and mind.
 

This is a Saudi minted Fatwa where the Ayat immediately before and after of the Ayat of Ghadeer (yes the completion of the Deen ayat) that they use for justification of eating Haram. The flaw in their crooked reason is they look at their definition of “food” as opposed to Allah’s definition of food. 
 

Non zabiha isn’t only Haram to eat, it’s also najis to touch. 

[kadhim]

17 hours ago, Irfani313 said:

Non zabiha isn’t only Haram to eat, it’s also najis to touch. 

Najis? On what reasoning? 

The precedent of maytah? Or the precedent of animals sacrificed to idols? 

[Diaz]

That’s not new to me, I know some Muslims who eat non Zabihah food in non Muslim countries as long as there is no pork or alcohol in the food. I was confused lol

[kadhim]

On 7/24/2023 at 12:23 PM, Diaz said:

That’s not new to me, I know some Muslims who eat non Zabihah food in non Muslim countries as long as there is no pork or alcohol in the food. I was confused lol

I’m open to the argument that (1) the reasons behind classical zabiha slaughter are inferable with an acceptable degree of confidence (hygiene of the meat, minimizing suffering to the animal, remembering God and being thankful), and so therefore (2) any procedure whose steps overall respect these concerns is acceptable. So for example meat that passed secular inspections for cleanliness and humane slaughter, combined with bismillah by the consumer. One can agree or disagree as per the methodology that gives them satisfaction, but there’s an argument there. 

I don’t know that I’d necessarily find that acceptable for my own food—I’m oddly traditional when it comes to food—but I do think there’s potentially a reasonable argument there. 

That said, for many of the folks following such a practice, it probably does come down to just not caring and seeking an easier way. 

[Guest commenter]

In our jurisprudence, an opinion is opening up that food slaughtered the islamic way by an ahlul kitab is halal. In fact, some mujtahids have reached this conclusion. This however does not include any haram meat in the west, which is not slaughtered islamically. The criterion is for it to be slaughetered in the Islamic way.

[Irfani313]

22 hours ago, Irfani313 said:

Very true, we have quit going to Arab owned restaurants in the area for precisely this reason. 
 

To each their own, but once you leave the Kawthar of Wilaya, system of the Lord throws you at the sewage of the house of Shaitan, where they eat and drink the najis with full satisfaction of heart and mind.
 

This is a Saudi minted Fatwa where the Ayat immediately before and after of the Ayat of Ghadeer (yes the completion of the Deen ayat) that they use for justification of eating Haram. The flaw in their crooked reason is they look at their definition of “food” as opposed to Allah’s definition of food. 
 

Non zabiha isn’t only Haram to eat, it’s also najis to touch. 

No need to have anybody reinvent the wheel and waste time and energy. 
These Ayaat from Sura Ma’eda (Ayaat 3 onwards) are case closed.

Prohibited to you are dead (ميته) animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (3) They ask you, [O Muhammad], what has been made lawful for them. Say, "Lawful for you are [all] good foods and [game caught by] what you have trained of hunting animals which you train as Allah has taught you. So eat of what they catch for you, and mention the name of Allah upon it, and fear Allah." Indeed, Allah is swift in account. (4) This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. (5)

[kadhim]

11 minutes ago, Irfani313 said:

No need to have anybody reinvent the wheel and waste time and energy. 
These Ayaat from Sura Ma’eda (Ayaat 3 onwards) are case closed.

Prohibited to you are dead (ميته) animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (3) They ask you, [O Muhammad], what has been made lawful for them. Say, "Lawful for you are [all] good foods and [game caught by] what you have trained of hunting animals which you train as Allah has taught you. So eat of what they catch for you, and mention the name of Allah upon it, and fear Allah." Indeed, Allah is swift in account. (4) This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. (5)

So what exactly, in your mind, is the “case closed” conclusion? I see you have a highlight on the last section. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, kadhim said:

So for example meat that passed secular inspections for cleanliness and humane slaughter, combined with bismillah by the consumer. One can agree or disagree as per the methodology that gives them satisfaction, but there’s an argument there. 

Salam ,secular inspection for cleanliness never ever combines with sayng Bismillah in order to make it Halal for eating although preserving cleanliness & hygine always has been highly recomended even in traditional way .

Can the slaughtered meat of the Non-Muslims be used (lawfully)?

Quote

1) The butcher must be a Muslim, or someone who is ruled as a Muslim; like a Muslim child who has not reached the age of puberty yet.[1] And the slaughtering by a non-Muslim person is according to the ruling of a dead animal (above example). In this case there is no difference between a disbeliever of the Book or a disbeliever who is not a Person of the Book. [2]
2) The head of the animal must be cut with something made from iron.
3) At the same time of cutting the head (slaughter) the front of the body of the animal must be facing in the direction of Qibla (Mecca, Saudi Arabia).
4) At the same time of the slaughter, the butcher must say the Name of God on his or her tongue out loud.

5) After the animal has been slaughtered, it must show a few small bodily movements until it is obvious that it was recently alive and now is killed completely.
6) The animal should not be slaughtered from the back of the head (behind the head.) [3]
If all of these conditions are met during the slaughter of an animal, its meat is halal (allowed/ permissible) and can be lawfully used (eaten).

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa1939

 

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

Najis? On what reasoning? 

The precedent of maytah? Or the precedent of animals sacrificed to idols?

Mayta (Arabic: المیتة) or corpse refers to the dead body of a human being or an animal whose blood gushes out, whether it dies, it is killed or it is not slaughtered according to religion. In jurisprudence, there are rulings about corpses: najasa, prohibition of their meat, and buying, selling or using them.

In the Qur'an 5:3, eating the meat of animals which do not undergo tadhkiya (slaughtered according to religion) is considered forbidden.

Quote

Impermissibility of the Meat

Eating a dead body's meat is forbidden. The meat of religiously edible animals becomes permissible after tadhkiya (being slaughtered according to religion); but the meat of religiously non-edible animals does not become permissible after tadhkiya. The meat of permissible meat animals whose blood does not gush out (such as fish) is pure but not permissible to eat if they die by themselves. In the Qur'an 5:3, eating the meat of animals which do not undergo tadhkiya (slaughtered according to religion) is considered forbidden.

 

Quote

However, according to the view of Ayatollah Makarim, an animal whose blood gushes out is najis if it dies by itself, but if it is slaughtered with a non-religious method, it is pure but the recommended caution requires avoiding it.

 

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Mayta

In similar fashiom any  animal meat even edible meat  which has been sacrified for idols will be forbidden forbidden (Haram) & Najis .

You are prohibited carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and what has been offered to other than Allah, and the animal strangled or beaten to death, and that which dies by falling or is gored to death, and that which is mangled by a beast of prey—barring that which you may purify —and what is sacrificed on stone altars [to idols], and that you should divide by raffling with arrows. All that is transgression.

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/5:3

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 7/24/2023 at 1:04 AM, Shaheed786 said:

Can anyone help shed light on the origin of this practice? 

Note: I am specifically talking about the Sunni community, because as far as I know, there is no Marja in the Shia world that considers non-zabihah meat to be permissible. 

 

But the Sunnis [4] (except among them the Hanbalis who are in agreement with the Shia's) have a different opinion regarding this issue. They say that meat that was slaughtered by the hand of a disbeliever (Kufar) that is NOT a Person of the Book (Christian or Jew) is not halal. And from this viewpoint they do not differ from the Shia's. But eating the slaughtered meat of the disbelievers who are People of the Book is halal to eat. [5] But a Shia' can not act according to their school of thought! The responsibility of Shia's (according to Islamic laws) is to act according to the laws of the Ahl al-Bayt (Family of the Prophet).

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa1939

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, kadhim said:

(1) the reasons behind classical zabiha slaughter are inferable with an acceptable degree of confidence (hygiene of the meat, minimizing suffering to the animal, remembering God and being thankful), and so therefore (2) any procedure whose steps overall respect these concerns is acceptable.

Ethical Rights of Animals in Islam
Soraya Ghotbi 1
Associate Professor, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran. E-mail:
sghotbi@shahed.ac.ir.
Abstract
The Islamic tradition includes teachings on animal rights, including
the rights of quadrupeds, birds, and insects, which the Muslims are
required to observe. According to these teachings, those who violate
these rights and behave aggressively towards animals will be held
responsible before their Creator and will face the consequences of
their wrong actions. This article is an attempt to study the ethical
rights of animals in the Quran and jurisprudential traditions and to
show the roles of these two sources in emphasizing the ethical rights
of animals. The findings of the research indicate that the ethical rights
of animals in the Quran and jurisprudential traditions encompass
different aspects of their existence, including but not limited to the
right to life, nutrition, health, and reproduction.
Keywords: Islam, Ethical rights, The Quran, Jurisprudential
traditions, Animal rights.

https://ri.urd.ac.ir/article_130016_a2527cc2e74715992d0bd062fd68242f.pdf

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, kadhim said:

That said, for many of the folks following such a practice, it probably does come down to just not caring and seeking an easier way. 

Many of folks follow most healthy & safe & pure way than following a vague , unclean & unhealthy way which looks like easier .

Carrion
Every animal that dies without the proper religious procedure is Carrion and eating of it is prohibited. If it has warm blood then it would also be Najis (ritually impure), but if it is properly slaughtered it is pure and clean (except dog and pig which will be always Najis and never considered clean and pure).
In a compilation of Anjuman al-Tablighāt Islami it is mentioned that Islamic Jurisprudence has specified and discussed in detail and prescribed the animals whose flesh is allowed. Only an expert in Life science could fully appreciate justification on which these laws are based.

Quote

Islam has prohibited the flesh of all carnivorous animals because there is dirt in the stomachs of such animals. The flesh is dirty and smelly and its consumption causes illness. On the other hand herbivorous animals are mostly considered permissible. Animals having claws are considered Harām and hoofed animals are mostly considered Halāl though some are considered as Makruh (unpleasant) such as Horse, Ass etc. Birds that flap their wings more and glide less while flying are Halāl and those who glide more and flap their wings less are Harām.

https://shiastudies.com/en/4657/why-eating-of-carrion-pork-and-blood-is-forbidden/

There are several traditions of the Prophet of Allah (S) and the Imams (عليه السلام) about the virtues of good food. They have said that meat is the tastiest and the most nutritious of the foods. Some people wrongly feel that the Prophet (S) has deprecated the household that has plenty of meat. This is a misnomer. In fact khana al-pur gosht is an idiom that means a household where people sit and do backbiting of others. The Prophet (S) definitely has deprecated this habit of people. Otherwise meat, in fact, is complete food. When a person eats meat, the flesh of his body increases and consequently his strength too enhances. He will have more energy for physical work and prayer.

Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq (عليه السلام) says that it is a saying of the Prophet (S) that if a person doesn't eat meat for forty days at a stretch, he should borrow money to buy and eat. Meat. Allah will give him means for clearing his debt. If Allah has provided a person to eat well after meeting all his obligations, he must! Otherwise, his abstention from good food would be termed as refraining from using Allah's Bounties!
Amir'ul-Mu'mineen ‘Ali (عليه السلام) has said that Allah likes people of piety. Piety is the ornament for a person. But the most important thing for a pious person is honest livelihood and good food.

https://erfan.ir/english/71759.html

[Abu_Zahra]

Wa alaikum as salam 

I don't know if there is an extensive list of scholars from the Ahlus Sunnah who have permitted this but the famous name in this case would the the late Yusuf Qaradawi. A quick Google search brought this:

https://www.soundvision.com/article/zabiha-or-non-zabiha-3-scholarly-opinions

 

Regarding Imami scholars who have permitted this, try and look up the fatawa of the late Sheikh Saanei as well as Ibrahim Jannati. I don't recall what exactly they have ruled but if I find the rulings later on I will post them inshaAllah (unless someone else is kind enough to do so before that)

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, Diaz said:

That’s not new to me, I know some Muslims who eat non Zabihah food in non Muslim countries as long as there is no pork or alcohol in the food. I was confused lol

Salam

The majority of the Sunnis have commented on the legality of Zabiha the people of the book, and they take the food in this verse to mean the sacrifice (Zabiha). A small number of Shiites also agree with this statement and have cited narrations from Shiite sources. But on the contrary; General Shia commentators and jurists; They have interpreted food in the verse to mean non-sacrificed (Zabiha), and we will discuss their reasons in a detailed answer.

Quote

Food includes Zabihas
Most Sunni commentators believe that "food" in this verse includes the animal slaughtered by the People of the Book, and such an animal is pure and halal.[2]
This group believes that other than the Zabiha, other foods are clean according to the principle of permisibility, and it is not necessary for the verse to speak about it, but it is only the doubtful Zabiha that the verse declares its permisibility.[3]
In support of this theory, the Sunnis have brought some traditions[4] and historical reports[5] as evidence.
Some Shiite commentators [6] accepted this theory and jurists; Like Sheikh Saduq [7] and Shahid Thani [8], they also believe that if the people of the book recite the name of God during the slaughter, the slaughtered meat will be halal.
Narrations from Shiite sources also confirm this opinion:
Abu Basir narrates: I asked Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) about Jewish sacrifice. He said: "It is halal".[9]
His Holiness was asked about Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian sacrifices. He said: If you have seen the name of God mentioned during the slaughter, or someone testifies about this, that meat is halal and can be eaten, but if you did not hear it yourself and no one testified, then do not eat it![10]
Other hadiths have been narrated in the same context [11], which the opponents of this theory have attributed to urgency or taqiyyah [12].
Of course - even if we consider the slaughter of the People of the Book to be halal - it should be known that the condition of naming God during the slaughter is a necessary condition in permisibility and it is explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an:
"If you believe in God's revelations, then eat from the sacrifice on which God's name is mentioned".[13]
"Eat the meat of animals brought to you by hunting dogs and you have mentioned the name of God on it."

Food doesn't includes Zabihas

Quote

Narratives also interpret the food in the verse as non-meat foods: Imam Baqir ((عليه السلام).) was asked about the verse «طَعامُ الَّذِینَ أُوتُوا الْکِتابَ حِلٌّ لَکُمْ‏». He said: "Food means beans and vegetables".[20]
Someone asked Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).): A flock of sheep is given to a Jewish or Christian shepherd to take to the pasture, and sometimes one of the sheep has an accident and the shepherd cuts off its head. Can the meat of such a sheep be eaten? The Imam said: Do not put its price into your property, and do not eat its meat, because the only reason for eating animal meat is to take the name of God, and in this regard, only the believers can be trusted. That person said: God said in the Qur'an: «طَعامُ الَّذِینَ أُوتُوا الْکِتابَ حِلٌّ لَکُمْ».  The Imam said: My father always said: The food of the People of the Book means beans and the like.[21] Other hadiths have been narrated in this context.[22]
Examining each of these theories and their documents has taken up hundreds of pages of the books of commentators and jurists, and one cannot easily accept one of them without having the status of ijtihad, but in a brief summary, it should be said that both theories have presented reasons based on verses and traditions, and without examining them, it cannot be said that their opinion is against the Qur'an.

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/fa67348

EATING THE FOODS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK.

(VERSE NO. 5)

      According to the comments of HAZRAT IMAM SADIQ (عليه السلام), here in this verse, by the food of the people of the Book, grains, cereals, and fruits are meant. In the matter of meat; it should be slaughtered in the name of Allah, with some ritual observances. This is opposed to animals butchered by Pagans with their superstitious rites.

https://www.makarem.ir/main.aspx?reader=1&lid=1&mid=31045&catid=6521&pid=61926

On 7/24/2023 at 1:04 AM, Shaheed786 said:

Can anyone help shed light on the origin of this practice? 

 

 

 

Question: Can I eat Christians' foods that contain meat?

Answer: All kinds of food with the exception of meat, fat, and their extracts are permissible for a Muslim, even if he doubts that it might contain something which is forbidden for him.

 

https://www.sistani.org/english/qa/01120/

 

 

[Haji 2003]

2 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

I don't know if there is an extensive list of scholars from the Ahlus Sunnah who have permitted this

This is from an old thread but it deals with a Halal certification authority in the UK, which has a very liberal interpretation of halal (by our standards). Anyway going to the website of that authority I find:

Quote

Some have as a criticism pointed out that Kosher is prepared without rendition of invoking Allah’s name ; firstly it is untrue as it is affirmed above that “sovereign God is mentioned ” and, secondly Judaism is a religion of the People of the Book and thirdly, we are reminded by a Hadith in Al – Bukhari which is narrated by the beloved wife of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (pbh) Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa that” if we are not sure that Allah’s name is mentioned or not , then we have to say – Bismillah – and then eat “.

https://halalconsultations.com/?p=51378

 

 

[kadhim]

5 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Wa alaikum as salam 

I don't know if there is an extensive list of scholars from the Ahlus Sunnah who have permitted this but the famous name in this case would the the late Yusuf Qaradawi. A quick Google search brought this:

https://www.soundvision.com/article/zabiha-or-non-zabiha-3-scholarly-opinions

 

Regarding Imami scholars who have permitted this, try and look up the fatawa of the late Sheikh Saanei as well as Ibrahim Jannati. I don't recall what exactly they have ruled but if I find the rulings later on I will post them inshaAllah (unless someone else is kind enough to do so before that)

 

Oh? Qaradawi died, did he? “…and to Him we return.”

From memory, Jannaati and Saanei it seems like it was about eating (eatable types of) meat provided by people of the book. Couldn’t quite locate the fataawa though. I’m confident that includes kosher slaughter but don’t recall precisely if it also includes say, what is provided in a normal grocery store that sells meat from slaughterhouses with some sort of rules, even if it be secular. 
(I never fully clarified that, since practically speaking, (1) I tend to be more conservative about food and (2) My wife is somewhat more “traditional” than I am, and in a household food defaults to the more conservative option by practicality and etiquette.)

Presumably Saanei and Jannaati take the generic Quranic message of acceptance of people of the book’s food as the default, and take the hadith saying not to eat the meat of the people of the book as being contextual. 

I’m curious to see what Kamal Al-Hayderi and Haider Hoballah have to say about this. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by kadhim

[Abu_Zahra]

45 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Oh? Qaradawi died, did he? “…and to Him we return.”

Yes not too long ago. 

46 minutes ago, kadhim said:

From memory, Jannaati and Saanei it seems like it was about eating (eatable types of) meat provided by people of the book.

Yes most probably. There is indeed a difference between (1) accepting kosher meat as halal and (2) accepting meat as halal in general regardless of how it was slaughtered. 

47 minutes ago, kadhim said:

 

I’m curious to see what Kamal Al-Hayderi and Haider Hoballah have to say about this. 

I imagine Sayyid Kamal will have a traditional stance. I am also curious about Sheikh Haider's opinion now that you mention it. When it comes to seafood, he has a similar stance to the late Sayyid Fadlallah which essentially considers most seafood to be lawful due to the Quranic ayah that is associated to this topic (which would essentially overrule and supercede any narration, to put the debate in simple terms).

[kadhim]

43 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Yes most probably. There is indeed a difference between (1) accepting kosher meat as halal and (2) accepting meat as halal in general regardless of how it was slaughtered. 

Yes, I can see how a “first impressions” response from a traditional perspective would be more comfortable with kosher than the slaughter methods specified by secular regulations. 

However, like I mentioned earlier, if we look at it from a principles perspective, the legal slaughter requirements of places like the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia do respect most of the same principles as zabihah (respect for the animal’s experience and sanitary concerns). And there is evidence in the form of scientific data for the validity of those regulated practices in relation to those principles. 

The only key difference is the absence of the bismillah in secular slaughter. However, it’s hard to argue why it really makes a difference on a practical and spiritual level whether the remembrance of God is mentioned at the moment of slaughter or at the table. Does God really care so long as He is remembered and thanked? Was the emphasis on the bismillah in the traditional context more about distinguishing invoking Allah as opposed to invoking idols in that period when open idolatry was rampant? And indeed, there is no such mention in the kosher case, so secular and kosher slaughter are equal on that level in requiring the bismillah to be offered later by the consumer. 

So I guess the argument is that secular slaughter by definition is not a sacrifice to idols and also not a maytah animal since there is a deliberate method of slaughter that respects the same ethical and sanitary principles that zabihah slaughter is (almost certainly) based on.

I tend to think there’s validity to that argument, although, as I say, I’m not sure if I would buy that meat for myself unless zabihah were just absent locally. 

Let us know if you run into anything about Hayderi and Hoballah’s thoughts.

[Guest Stranger Danger]

Salam

The wisdom of invoking God's Name for Dabiha

Every ritual has a context in Quran. In Surah Anaam, the issue of remembering God's Name for meat, is tied closely with the issue of Kahens and Shayateen revealing to their Awliya to lead us astray.  Imam Hassan (a) says "I wonder at the person who is careful for halal food consumption but takes his knowledge from tainted sources".  The wisdom and context of these verses prove what Imam Hassan (a) is saying in terms, the ritual is suppose to make us vigilant in not only eating halal but be even more careful in not relying on God's rope for knowledge and referring all matters back to them. It's supposed to also make us vigilant against all views and news and information, we don't verify by God's rope in terms of moral guidance.

This is not the only place, but getting into contextual details of all this, will be lengthy. Reflect and you will see the narration to Imam Hassan (a) is explaining the Quranic context.

What is God's Name?

It's physical words reality is God's scripture and it's living light reality is the Imam of time, and Imam time doesn't come alone but with his family connected to him.  In short, it should make us remember that all knowledge we solidify and views we hold need verification and stamp of approval by God's rope which has guidance in all matters.

Now a person doing Dabiha does not need to know God's Name reality but the ritual shows importance of understand Ismal Atham and like Salah has outward, so does this continuous ritual have inward, which is regard to safeguarding our hearts from corruption of Kahens and Sahers and their revealed falsehood from Shayateen.

Why not remember God's Name at the point of consumption?

We should so no matter what we eat, but the point of this ritual, is to make people careful when buying meat and assuring it is halal especially if we are in non-Muslim lands. This would be diminished (the act of taking care not to eat certain meat) if we can just invoke God's Name when eating.  This even more necessary when there, because we are under influence of their culture, and so the vigilant nature to reject and only accept knowledge that is approved by Quran and Ahlulbayt (a), is necessary. We can learn from people, but must refer back it always to Quran and Ahlulbayt (a).  If you can't find it from God's rope, then don't consume it as knowledge till you do.

[Abu_Zahra]

5 hours ago, kadhim said:

Let us know if you run into anything about Hayderi and Hoballah’s thoughts.

What I deduce from this article is that his opinion is in line with the mainstream except that the slaughter does not strictly have to be done by a Muslim

• The person who is doing the halal slaughter of an animal, does not have to be Muslim (but they should do the slaughter in the Halal way and mention Allah at slaughter)

https://hobbollah.com/nonarabic/summary-of-shaykh-hobbollahs-approach-to-fiqh/

If you have the time then do read the whole article, I think you will find it quite interesting 

[Haji 2003]

25 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

The person who is doing the halal slaughter of an animal, does not have to be Muslim (but they should do the slaughter in the Halal way and mention Allah at slaughter)

Surely an atheist saying Allah is just making sounds. You may as well give a knife to a monkey that has been trained to make sounds. That's not denigrating atheists, it's just making a comparison with the level of cognitive engagement between the sound and the meaning of what has been said.

[kadhim]

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Surely an atheist saying Allah is just making sounds. You may as well give a knife to a monkey that has been trained to make sounds. That's not denigrating atheists, it's just making a comparison with the level of cognitive engagement between the sound and the meaning of what has been said.

Ah. But there’s no text talking about a monkey doing it. There are texts about humans doing it while saying these words though. The texts don’t however specify what one has to feel or think while doing the task and saying the words. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

14 hours ago, kadhim said:

So I guess the argument is that secular slaughter by definition is not a sacrifice to idols and also not a maytah animal since there is a deliberate method of slaughter that respects the same ethical and sanitary principles that zabihah slaughter is (almost certainly) based on.

I tend to think there’s validity to that argument, although, as I say, I’m not sure if I would buy that meat for myself unless zabihah were just absent locally. 

Salam even if  secular slaughter has not done for scrifice to idold but on the other hand surly has been done for earning money by various people which there maybe Buddhist , Atheists & etc do it as butcher so because it has not done for God & probably by an unbleiver in part  of process so therfore It won't be Halal.

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Ah. But there’s no text talking about a monkey doing it. There are texts about humans doing it while saying these words though. The texts don’t however specify what one has to feel or think while doing the task and saying the words. 

You made sarcasm while you know reality which mentioning monkey in @Haji 2003 is about mimicking an act & word by any person who doesn't believe to any religion .

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

Presumably Saanei and Jannaati take the generic Quranic message of acceptance of people of the book’s food as the default, and take the hadith saying not to eat the meat of the people of the book as being contextual. 

Salam

Ayatollah Behjat (رضي الله عنه)  has issued clear Fatwa which Zabiha (slaughter ) of people of book is Maytah .

5854. Is the slaughter of people of the book pure and halal?

J. No, It is Maytah.

Book of Istifta'at | Surveys ID: 8369 | Permalink

Quote

. آيا ذبيحه اهل کتاب پاک و حلال است؟  

ج. خير، ميته است.

کتاب: استفتائات |

. آيا ذبيحه اهل کتاب پاک و حلال است؟  

ج. خير، ميته است.

کتاب: استفتائات | شناسه: 8369 | پیوند ثابت

شناسه: 8369 | پیوند ثابت

https://bahjat.ir/fa/ahkam-categories/13862/استفتائات-احکام-صيد-و-ذبح?page=1

also in similar fashion according to Ayatollah Behjat (رضي الله عنه)

Question 369. Why are those who are out of the religion of Islam impure? Although we see that they observe hygiene and cleanliness?

Answer: The impurity of an infidel is inherent and it is different from observing hygiene and cleanliness.

Eating the food of people of the book

  Question: Is it permissible to eat the food of the People of the Book?

Answer: It should be avoided with the knowledge of becoming impure due to contact.

https://portal.anhar.ir/node/4369#gsc.tab=0

Question 367. Is it possible to associate with people of the book and use their food?

Answer: They are infidels and impure.

Quote

Question 364. Tell the opinion of Islam about Armenian, Christian, Kalimi, Jew and Zoroastrian.

Answer: All are infidels and impure.

Question 365. What is the opinion of the Armenians who live in Iran?

Answer: In ruling, they are the same as other disbelievers.

Communication with Christians

Question 366. What is the ruling on shaking hands with Christians?

Answer: They are like other infidels.

Socializing with people of the book

Question 367. Is it possible to associate with people of the book and use their food?

Answer: They are infidels and impure.

Baha'i sect

Question 368. What is the ruling on socializing, eating and traveling with the Baha'i sect?

Answer: They are infidels and impure.

Intrinsic and external impurity

Question 369. Why are those who are out of the religion of Islam impure? Although we see that they observe hygiene and cleanliness?

Answer: The impurity of an infidel is inherent and it is different from observing hygiene and cleanliness.

People of Haq and Ali-Illahism

Question 370. Are the people of Haqq or the Ali-Illahism pure or impure?

Answer: They are impure.

https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/856513/فتاوای-آیت-الله-العظمی-بهجت-قدس-سره-در-مورد-کافر

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

Presumably Saanei

Salam he allowed eating slaughter (zabiha) of people of book in certain condition which at first only way of slaughtering is their procedure without sayin Bismlah also having access to Halal meat will be too difficult  which accoding to hardship & emergency situation it will be permissible but on the other hnad if a Shia muslim would has access to both types of slaughtering based on saying Bismillah & not saying it so then slaughtered meat with people of book would  be Haram .

According to Saanei

Q 15) I live in the city of Seattle, America, and there is little access to Islamic meat, and if there is, it is very expensive and dirty. Can we use meat from American stores? Can we use the meat slaughtered by the Jews, which is in similar fashion of Islamic slaughter - like Muslims, they cut from below the throat and four veins are also cut?

A) Halal meat animals that Jews or Christians or other non-Muslims say name of God when beheading and four veins are cut are pure and halal and there is no objection to eating them.

 

Consumption of meat from the market of non-Muslim countries

Q 14) I have a question, the answer to which can solve the problems of people like me servant and my family, and prevent the occurrence of a lot of apostasy. There is no Islamic slaughter meat in the city where I live. There are Shia people in this city, several of whom were members of the Islamic Association and tried to prepare Islamic meat from the beginning, but they no longer do this due to the following reasons:
Killing an animal in the US is illegal and is subject to a heavy fine if caught. In America, very few sheep are raised and more cattle are raised. Therefore, in most months of the year, it is not possible to get sheep and no one can kill cows. If the cow be wanted to be killed, firstly, it is very expensive and secondly, it is not possible to keep it. Uncertainty about the health of smuggled cows and sheep has also caused that no one thinks about this work. Also, the presence of meat, hygiene of cows and calves in appropriate packages where all the information including the type of animal, the part where the meat belongs to and the date of slaughter along with its fat and protein percentage are recorded. Not even a drop of blood can be seen in these packages and the expiration date of the meat consumption is also available on it and at the same time it is cheap. The Sunni brothers buy this package and recite "Bismillah" before cooking or eating it. Some people also consider the similarities between slaughtering the meat of Jews and Islam, and buy their meat and only mention the name of God before eating it. In this short period of time, I have procured sheep from faraway areas and cut their heads twice. Firstly, because of doing something against the law of the host country, I don't feel good and at the same time, I don't like this work at all. That's why I didn't do it anymore. Secondly, in these two times, because the work was done in a place far from the city and I did not know butchery, I caused the contamination of the meat and its taste. Thirdly, the cost of this work, with all the time spent and stress, became extremely high. Considering the current state of the world and our belief that Shia jurisprudence has the ability to respond to people's needs and the great authorities make the laws timely according to the current situation. Does it encourage you to do your duties? I think one of the reasons why the Sunni people follow their obligations more is the effort of their religious scholars to facilitate their worship process. Really, if one of our religious leaders lived in a country like America for a few years and experienced the conditions here, his fatwa in worldly affairs would not change? While answering the question about meat consumption, also answer this question: in cases where possible The experience of respected Marjas, especially in everyday issues and that too in the current changing world, is not there. What is the task of people like me? I don't know how long my family and I will continue to fulfill our legal obligations with such a difficult life!

A) Saying Bismillah while slaughtering animals is a condition for its halal, and if you don't say it, eating meat becomes haram, and the Qur'an says:

: (وَلاَ تَأْكُلُواْ مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللهِ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ)[1]

"Don't eat from slaughtered animals on which Allah's name was not mentioned during slaughter." Therefore, one should abstain from such meats and avoid eating them, but it is possible that leaving Bismillah when slaughtering is from those who do not believe in it and does not accept it - not that not saying it is because of opposition to God or with  Islam and Muslims - it should not be a cause of desecration. Regardless of this possibility, all the verses and narrations related to sanctity without Bismillah are assigned or withdrawn to places where there is both meat slaughtered with Bismillah and without Bismillah (i.e. where both types of meat are available). Not like the one in question, which does not exist in more than one type (killing without the name of God) because the generality of the ruling on sanctity for the likes of the question has embarrassment and hardship - the way it is pointed out in the question - and its generality is through evidence. The denial of harm and the fact that Islam is a religion of ease will be removed; As a result, the meat in question is halal, and eating it in those places is not a hindrance because of the problems and it is permissible, although the same meat in another place where there are no problems in not eating it is haram and eating it is a sin.

https://saanei.xyz/?view=01,02,09,4362,0

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

addendum

9 Ayatollah Sanei's fatwa, which according to some scholars are inovation

1st: Equality of bloodmoney between men and women

Quote

In the case that Sheikh Tusi considers the reason for half of the woman's bloodmoney to be consensus and traditions, and the Sahib Jawahir reads the narrations of the chapter as frequent, the same traditions that were narrated from the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the Imams (عليه السلام) and are binding. They clearly indicate half of the payment.

Second: Rejection of Fazel of Dieh

Quote

Mr. Sanei, contrary to the consensus of Shia jurists and following the majority of Sunni jurists, does not consider it necessary to reject Fadel Diyeh, while Sahib Jawahir says: "Mustafiz and frequent hadiths prove this meaning."

Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) and all the Shia jurists consider it permissible for a man to avenge a murderer against a woman who was murdered, if the parents of the woman pay the murderer's bloodmoney to her  heirs, which is half of the man's bloodmoney, and this is a consensus ruling. . On the other hand, Sunni jurists, except for a few of them, do not consider it necessary to pay excess amount of bloodmoney.

Third: [stopping] Mutah

Mr. Sanei has said: "The legality of temporary marriage and mutah, in general, for emergency situations such as long wars, is among the absolutes of the Shia religion, and as stated, its legitimacy is for emergency cases."

Quote

Some time later, he says clearly: "Basically, temporary marriage in Islam is to meet the necessity, not a legitimate pleasure or the justice of a permanent marriage, so it is for those who have their spouse at their disposal and can control their sexual instinct through In this side's opinion, the temporary marriage of a man to a Muslim woman is a source of problems, rather it is condemned to prohibition and impermissibility.

Mr. Sanei's opinion on making the permission of temporary marriage dependent on the existence of urgency is the same as the old opinion of Sunni jurists, and basically the first person who considered the condition "urgent" to be involved in the permissibility of Mutah was the second Caliph, who said in defense of the prohibition of Mutah: The Messenger of Allah(peace be upon him and his progeny) made Mutah lawful at the time of need, and now people are at ease."

Unlike Mr. Sanei, Shia jurists unanimously consider temporary marriage as permissible, and none of them has limited its permissibility to the condition of emergency.

Fourth: Being Mahram (legitimation of inheritance ) of the adopted child

Quote

Until now, wherever the Shia jurists have commented on the creation of mahram with adopted children, they have only mentioned mahram through  breastfeeding and marriage, including Mr. Sanei himself in his response to his imitators, previously  pointed out only to these two ,  and it has not been seen that a jurist has invoked the rule of negation of harm to prove the secrecy, that too for causal and relative relatives. It is known from Mr. Sanei's way of reasoning that he did not correctly understand the provisions of Laharj لاحرجrule.

Fifth: [Accepting] Usury in speculative loans

Quote

What Islam has banned is the interest on consumption and amortization loans and does not include the interest on production and inference (speculative ) loans, and unfortunately Mr. Sanei fell into this trap without studying the verses and traditions of Ahl al-Bayt carefully and this has given the fatwa, even though the scholars of Qom seminary have given a good answer to the aforementioned doubts.

Sixth: cleanliness (purity) of Non Mudhaki (not Tahir/pure) skins

Quote

According to Shia jurisprudence, a non-Mudhaki animal is considered dead (Maytah) and its skin is impure and prayer with it is invalid.

Sane'i considers the non-Modhaki  judgment to be separate from the Maytahh, he must answer himself.

Seventh: Doubt about the ruling of apostasy

 

Eighth:[Allowing]  Inheriting a disbeliever from a Muslim

Ninth: [Banning of] Remarriage

Quote

Mr. Sanei said: Remarriage of a man without the permission of his first wife is against Sharia, forbidden and sinful. If the consent of the first wife is not there, even if the man has financial resources, his remarriage is forbidden.

And he added to this speech: Remarriage without the consent of the first wife... is a crime from the point of view of Shari'ah, and if the first wife does not consent after the marriage of the second wife, this marriage has no legal effect.

Mr. Sanei issued a fatwa against the Muslim consensus on this issue. Allameh Hilli says: The jurists of all cities in all lands and times have a case that it is permissible for a free man to marry four free women permanently.
Some jurists have said in explanation of Allameh's statement: This statement is clear in the fact that none of the Muslims objected to the permission of marrying four women, despite the fact that they have many differences in other secondary issues. Anyone who insists on its impermissibility is a clear denier of the Qur'an and is against all people of Islam... and if anyone denies this, he is an apostate, because he has denied the necessity of religion

There are many narrations about the permission of four women.

https://www.khabaronline.ir/news/34257/9فتوای-آیت-الله-صانعی-که-از-نظر-برخی-علما-بدعت-است

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

18 hours ago, kadhim said:

However, like I mentioned earlier, if we look at it from a principles perspective, the legal slaughter requirements of places like the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia do respect most of the same principles as zabihah (respect for the animal’s experience and sanitary concerns). And there is evidence in the form of scientific data for the validity of those regulated practices in relation to those principles.

Salam all shia scholars  have verified industrial slaughtering by machines by preserving all Sharia rules which Iran is using  industrial slaughtering also makes contracts with other countries for providing Halal meat

Quote

The Islamic Republic of Iran produces meat in slaughterhouses abroad under health protocols with the presence of religious and health inspectors, and the import of sheep meat from China, Mongolia and any other country according to the health regulations of the country's veterinary organization, only with the above conditions and in pieces Frozen and carton packages of 10 to 15 kilos are imported into the country.

Also, at the entry points of the country, the veterinary organization of the country visits and takes samples and the relevant necessary tests.

It is worth mentioning that with modern technologies, which are also available in the country's veterinary organization, the differential diagnosis of animal species can be done based on muscle tissue.

https://www.hamshahrionline.ir/news/737128/ماجرای-واردات-گوشت-حرام-به-کشور-واکنش-سازمان-دامپزشکی-به-ویدیوی

Brazil is the biggest Halal food supplier in all over the world

Quote

It is a way to seek new opportunities and expand the sale of value-added products. We stand out in the export of animal protein. We are leaders in the export of halal chicken meat. However, Brazilian industries from different sectors have enormous potential to explore this growing market, such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, among others. The doors of this market are open, because Brazil has won the trust of consumers of halal products.

https://magazinebbm.com/blog/brazil-is-the-biggest-halal-food-supplierin-all-over-the-world-2266

https://salaamgateway.com/story/beyond-meat-brazil-halal-seeks-export-diversification-amid-uncertain-markets

Quote

• Egypt - importing almost 140.000 tons in 2012, accounting for USD 551,6 million
• Iran - importing over 67.000 tons in 2012, accounting for USD 320,3 million
• Saudi Arabia - importing over 36.000 tons in 2012, accounting for USD 166,7 million
• Lebanon - importing over 15.000 tons in 2012, accounting for USD 82,8 million
• Libya - importing over 18.000 tons in 2012, accounting for USD 78,8 million

https://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/halal-food-market-in-brazil

[kadhim]

On 7/26/2023 at 2:48 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam

Ayatollah Behjat (رضي الله عنه)  has issued clear Fatwa which Zabiha (slaughter ) of people of book is Maytah .

5854. Is the slaughter of people of the book pure and halal?

J. No, It is Maytah.

Book of Istifta'at | Surveys ID: 8369 | Permalink

https://bahjat.ir/fa/ahkam-categories/13862/استفتائات-احکام-صيد-و-ذبح?page=1

also in similar fashion according to Ayatollah Behjat (رضي الله عنه)

Question 369. Why are those who are out of the religion of Islam impure? Although we see that they observe hygiene and cleanliness?

Answer: The impurity of an infidel is inherent and it is different from observing hygiene and cleanliness.

Eating the food of people of the book

  Question: Is it permissible to eat the food of the People of the Book?

Answer: It should be avoided with the knowledge of becoming impure due to contact.

https://portal.anhar.ir/node/4369#gsc.tab=0

Question 367. Is it possible to associate with people of the book and use their food?

Answer: They are infidels and impure.

https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/856513/فتاوای-آیت-الله-العظمی-بهجت-قدس-سره-در-مورد-کافر

The notion that non-Muslims are inherently unclean is not a consensus of our school. This has no place in the current topic.

On 7/26/2023 at 3:14 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

A) Saying Bismillah while slaughtering animals is a condition for its halal, and if you don't say it, eating meat becomes haram, and the Qur'an says:

: (وَلاَ تَأْكُلُواْ مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللهِ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ)[1]

"Don't eat from slaughtered animals on which Allah's name was not mentioned during slaughter."

The “during slaughter” part doesn’t appear in the text however. It simply says:

Wa laa takuloo min-maa lam yuzkar ismu Allahi a’laihi. Wa innahu lafisqun.

“Don’t eat from that on which the name of God is not mentioned. This would certainly be disobedience.”

This text in itself does not specifically say when the mention needs to be made. Just that it must be made. 

[Haji 2003]

9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Ayatollah Sanei's fatwa, which according to some scholars are inovation

 

The Economist newspaper which would like to see regime change in Iran, and for Muslims to be less Muslim, writes approvingly of him.

[kadhim]

17 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

 

The Economist newspaper which would like to see regime change in Iran, and for Muslims to be less Muslim, writes approvingly of him.

The Western papers pretty much all write pretty approvingly of Seestani the last time I checked. 

What do either of those facts have to do with anything, but specifically with the topic at hand Haji?

Edited July 26, 2023 by kadhim

[Haji 2003]

On 7/26/2023 at 1:21 PM, kadhim said:

The Western papers pretty much all write pretty approvingly of Seestani the last time I checked.

As a force for stabilising Iraq, yes they do. I don't recall the same about his fatwas about everyday life.

[kadhim]

11 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

As a force for stabilising Iraq, yes they do. I don't recall the same about his fatwas about everyday life.

 

Haji.

I was under the impression that disparaging our scholars was against the rules on this site? 

Is that still the case? Or not? 

[Haji 2003]

2 minutes ago, kadhim said:

I was under the impression that disparaging our scholars was against the rules on this site? 

I don't think I have disparaged anyone.

All I have said is that the Economist (like many western media) approves of Sistani's stance on sectarian relations (which I also agree with) and it approves of Saanei's stance on various social issues (which I don't).

[kadhim]

4 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

I don't think I have disparaged anyone.

All I have said is that the Economist (like many western media) approves of Sistani's stance on sectarian relations (which I also agree with) and it approves of Saanei's stance on various social issues (which I don't).

I’m talking about the post you responded to.

You responded to a post from Ash which was made to disparage one of our scholars.

But now that you mention it, the content of your response consisted of saying that a magazine that “favours regime change in Iran” and “wants Muslims to be less Muslim” “approves of him.” 

What exactly is the message of that supposed to be?

[Andaros]

15 hours ago, kadhim said:

Haji.

I was under the impression that disparaging our scholars was against the rules on this site? 

Is that still the case? Or not? 

I have a few criticisms myself. However, as I am adverse to fitna I would never mention them here.