Non-Zabihah meat in the Sunni community

[Haji 2003]

On 7/26/2023 at 1:51 PM, kadhim said:

What exactly is the message of that supposed to be?

To provide context for anyone who is not aware of who certain people are and their background.

You brought up the fact that Ayat. Sistani is also approved of by western media, I agreed, did not get upset and do not think any the less of him as a result of knowing this and neither would anyone else reading this thread.

I pointed out the Economist's support for Ayat. Sanei and you feel it is being critical of a religious authority and breaks site rules.

The reality is that I am just pointing things out facts to people and they can draw their own conclusions about the two Ayatollahs.

[kadhim]

50 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

To provide context for anyone who is not aware of who certain people are and their background.

You brought up the fact that Ayat. Sistani is also approved of by western media, I agreed, did not get upset and do not think any the less of him as a result of knowing this and neither would anyone else reading this thread.

I pointed out the Economist's support for Ayat. Sanei and you feel it is being critical of a religious authority and breaks site rules.

The reality is that I am just pointing things out facts to people and they can draw their own conclusions about the two Ayatollahs.

 

You’re a real piece of work dude. 

[kadhim]

32 minutes ago, kadhim said:

You’re a real piece of work dude. 

And of course, when I say that, what I mean is that I admire Allah’s craftwork. 

[Haji 2003]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

You’re a real piece of work dude

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 7/26/2023 at 5:38 PM, kadhim said:

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

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. 

 I have provided Fatwas of Ayatollah Jannati (رضي الله عنه) in response to your misleading post which Ayatollah Jannati (رضي الله عنه) clearly has had opposite fatw against your mindset which according to him due to impurity of all non muslims

so therefore he has given clear Fatwa that their Zabiah is Najis & consuming it is forbidden for Shia muslims also viewpoint of mr .Saanei has been totally based on various conditions of emergency situation which according to both of them saying Bismillah at time of slaughter by a muslim has been obligatory .

 

All valid articles about Islamic slaughtering have common point about using mentioned divine text of holy Quran in opposition to your whim & playing with words .

[Haji 2003]

^ I've deleted some text that could have led this post to be hidden etc.

[Guest Commenter]

On 7/29/2023 at 12:19 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

On 7/26/2023 at 5:38 PM, kadhim said:

 I have provided Fatwas of Ayatollah Jannati (رضي الله عنه) in response to your misleading post which Ayatollah Jannati (رضي الله عنه) clearly has had opposite fatw against your mindset which according to him due to impurity of all non muslims

You must have made a mistake brother, you provided of Ayatollah bahjat, not jannati. Ayatollah Bahjat believes in impurity of all non muslims, whilst jannati believes in purity of all. 

Non-Muslims of any group (People of the Book, polytheists, and atheists) are intrinsically, physically and bodily clean. And if they stay away from things that are considered Najes (impure) by Muslims, they will not have accidental uncleanness as well. - his website

[kadhim]

On 7/29/2023 at 7:19 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

 I have provided Fatwas of Ayatollah Jannati (رضي الله عنه) in response to your misleading post which Ayatollah Jannati (رضي الله عنه) clearly has had opposite fatw against your mindset which according to him due to impurity of all non muslims

Quote

Non-Muslims of any group (People of the Book, polytheists, and atheists) are intrinsically, physically and bodily clean. And if they stay away from things that are considered Najes (impure) by Muslims, they will not have accidental uncleanness as well.

http://www.jannaati.com/eng/?page=6

Literally the first ruling on the page.

[Haji 2003]

^ I guess the only people who qualify as not najis in the Jannaati criteria are non-Muslims who do not drink, eat meat or fish, or have sex of any description.

[kadhim]

9 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

^ I guess the only people who qualify as not najis in the Jannaati criteria are non-Muslims who do not drink, eat meat or fish, or have sex of any description.

?!? What are you even talking about? 

[Guest Stranger Danger]

11 minutes ago, kadhim said:

?!? What are you even talking about? 

Muslims are najis at certain times (after sex before ghusl for example). While non-Muslims never najis. Does not make sense to me too.

[Diaz]

17 minutes ago, kadhim said:

?!? What are you even talking about? 

I think brother haji is talking about the guest commenter 

[kadhim]

17 minutes ago, Diaz said:

I think brother haji is talking about the guest commenter 

Well, ultimately he’s responding to both of us. Both of us said more or less the same thing. But his response doesn’t make any sense. Thus my question. 

For example, eating haram doesn’t make someone’s entire body najis. Nor does being in janabat. 

Edited July 30, 2023 by kadhim

[Quran313]

I had a Sunni roommate when I was student. I had car that time and he asked me to drive him to a restaurant. I asked which restaurant he wants to go and he said that one. I knew it's not Zabihah Halal restaurant and my roommate is practicing Sunni muslim. I said it's not Zabihah Halal and he said this Sunni ruling on saying Bismillah on a non zabihah halal meat and then it becomes halal for them. He also said that this ruling only applies to chicken, but keep in mind that there are many different Sunni sects and each might have different ruling. Anyway, I said what if I drive you to the other restaurant which is Zabihah Halal and he was okay.

But since then I stopped eating out just because of what he told me. 

[Guest Commenter]

1 hour ago, Haji 2003 said:

^ I guess the only people who qualify as not najis in the Jannaati criteria are non-Muslims who do not drink, eat meat or fish, or have sex of any description.

not all fuqaha believe alcohol is impure, in fact some believe only wine is. 

As for fish, thats tahir all the time. 

As for sex, non muslims wash themselves with water anyways after that, since things get messy, so they become tahir from that from the semen. 

Only najis meat would be a problem, which it isnt so much a problem since vegetarianism and veganism is so big. Anyways its not like we're putting our hands in their mouths lol, they wash their hands regularly. 

Btw, Sheikh Makarem Shirazi has a similar but not exactly the same fatwa

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Guest Commenter said:

You must have made a mistake brother, you provided of Ayatollah bahjat, not jannati. Ayatollah Bahjat believes in impurity of all non muslims, whilst jannati believes in purity of all. 

Non-Muslims of any group (People of the Book, polytheists, and atheists) are intrinsically, physically and bodily clean. And if they stay away from things that are considered Najes (impure) by Muslims, they will not have accidental uncleanness as well. - his website

Salam thanks amillion for your correction , yeah  it has been my mistake .

What is the Islamic law about the Christians, Jews and non-Muslims? Are they ritually pure or impure?

Concise answer

Almost all Shiite faqihs agree on the nijasah of the kuffar (non-believers), but the impurity of Ahlul Kitab (People of the Book) is an issue of dispute amongst them. You are, however, advised to turn to and act according to the verdict of the Mujtahid whom you are following.

Detailed Answer

the fatwa regarding the impurity of non-Muslims (kuffars) and the People of the Book originates in verse 28 of Surah al-Tawbah which expressly refers to the impurity of pagans and polytheists considering  their impurity as a reason for preventing them from entering Masjid al-Haram (Grand Mosque).  The narrations transmitted and the reports related in this regard are varied and there are different interpretations about them one of which is the Nijasah or the ritual impurity of all non-Muslims among which are the Ahlul Kitab. This viewpoint was chosen by Ayatollah Golpaygani who stated and thoroughly explained about it in Nehayat al-Afkar fi Nejasah al-Kuffar. Likewise, this was also Imam Khomeini’s verdict on the issue.[2]
Another interpretation is the taharah (purity) of Ahlul Kitab and nijasah of the rest of the non-believers. This verdict has many advocates[3]. A hadith from Imam Reza confirms this fatwa.[4]
A third view is the tahara of all people, perceiving the nijasah of non-Muslims a result of normally making contact with a najis (impure) substance such as pork and wine, thus if they cleanse and wash themselves they will no longer be najis. Therefore, these people aren't najis per se, they become najis as a result of other najis substances.[5] The impurity is accidental, not essential.

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

 

Many Shia jurists have ruled on the impurity of the People of the Book; To the extent that some have claimed consensus on this issue.[12] On the other hand, some contemporary jurists such as Ayatollah Tabrizi, Ayatollah Fadel Lankarani and Ayatollah Khamenei do not consider the people of the book to be impure.[13]

Quote

بسیاری از فقهای شیعه، به نجاست اهل کتاب حکم کرده‌اند؛ تا حدی که برخی ادعای اجماع در مورد این مسئله کرده‌اند.^[۱۲] در مقابل، برخی از فقهای معاصر همچون آیت‌الله تبریزی، آیت‌الله فاضل لنکرانی و آیت‌الله خامنه‌ای اهل کتاب را نجس نمی‌دانند.^[۱۳]

https://fa.wikishia.net/view/نجاست_کفار

Quote

Are people of the book (especially Christians) pure?
question
I have a research about the purity and impurity of the people of the book, and I wanted the opinion of Ayatollah Hadavi Tehrani about the purity or impurity of the people of the book Please state the proofs of purity or impurity of the people of the book if possible. Now, if the people of the book (especially Christians) believe in the Trinity, then what is their ruling? (Trinity in Divinity and Lordship).
Please state if there is a written statement about the purity or impurity of the people of the book.
Brief answer

Hazrat Ayatollah Hadavi Tehrani's answer to the above assumption is as follows:

 

The People of the Book are pure, and whoever calls him a Christian or a Jew and the like is so, and he believes in the Trinity, which is the belief of the majority of contemporary Christians [1].

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/fa4591

 

Why is a disbeliever ritually impure? Is it not insulting to a disbeliever to consider him impure?

Quote

 

question

Why is a disbeliever ritually impure? If a disbeliever has no physical contact with essentially impure objects and he is not using them, is he still considered to be impure? Is it not an insult to a disbeliever’s personality to consider him impure?

Concise answer

The literal meaning of 'kufr' is 'to conceal' or 'to hide'. It also means 'disobedience' or 'thanklessness'. Shia’s grand jurisprudents have said that one who denies the oneness of God or associates anyone with Him is a kafir (disbeliever). There are other meanings and instances for kufr (disbelief) which have been mentioned in the treatises written by Muslim scholars and which we do not mention here for the sake of brevity.

 

 

11 hours ago, kadhim said:

http://www.jannaati.com/eng/?page=6

Literally the first ruling on the page.

Conditions of Slaughtering Animals

Issue 2603: * There are certain conditions for the slaughtering of an animal. They are as follows:-

(i) A person, a man or a woman, who slaughters an animal must be a Muslim. An animal can also be slaughtered by a Muslim child who is mature enough to distinguish between good and bad, but not by non-Muslims other than Ahle Kitab, or a person belonging to those sects who are classified as Kafir, like, Nawasib - the enemies of Ahlul Bait ((عليه السلام).). In fact, even if Ahle Kitab non-Muslim slaughters an animal, as per precaution, it will not be halal, even if he utters 'Bismillah'.

https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-sayyid-ali-hussaini-sistani/slaughtering-and-hunting-animals

 

Quote

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

I have not disagreed with one of our scholars.

it's common point between all contemporary Marjas whether Imam khameni  believe to purity of people of book which it has been verified with Ayatollah Muhammad Ibrahim Jannati has repeated their opinion about purity of people of book but on the other hand all of it has no relation to slaughtering (Zabiha)

Jurisprudential Rulings of People of the Book

Cleanliness

There is a disagreement among Muslim jurists about the cleanliness or uncleanness of People of the Book:

• Some of them hold that the bodies of People of the Book who do not believe in Islam are unclean just as those of polytheists, and so they should be avoided. This is the view held by the majority of jurists.

• Others believe that the bodies of People of the Book are clean.^[9]

 

Animal Slaughtered by People of the Book

According to the majority of jurists, it is haram to eat an animal which is slaughtered by People of the Book, even if they mentioned God at the time of slaughter. However, some Imami jurists believe that it is halal. They include early jurists such as ibn Junayd al-Iskafi, ibn Abi 'Aqil al-'Ummani, and al-Shaykh al-Saduq, and later jurists such as al-Shahid al-Thani.^[14]

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

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

question

We use meat here that has not been slaughtered (according to the Islamic laws)! Is it problematic to eat this meat? The rest of the Muslims in other countries say this is halal (lawful/permissible according to Islamic law.)

Concise answer

The opinion of the Shia' jurists and the School of Thought of the Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Noble Prophet of Islam (s)) is that meat that has not been slaughtered according to Islamic laws, the ruling is that it is like regular dead meat (animal flesh or meat that is just found dead on the ground at is not known if it was slaughtered Islamically or not.) Their meat (the People of the Book) is haram (forbidden) and eating their meat is not allowed (according to Islamic law.)

 

Detailed Answer

 

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]

 

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

 

 

Conditions for Slaughtering
(1) The one who carries out the slaughtering must be a Muslim, – a man, woman, or even a child who is capable of rational behaviour. It is not a condition that he or she be an Imami Twelver Shi\’a Muslim.
It is not permissible to eat what has been slaughtered at the hands of a non-Muslim, whether or not he is of the People of the Book, neither is it permissible at the hands of a Muslim who bears enmity towards the House of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny).

http://shiastudies.com/en/4625/islamic-laws-concerning-food/

 

 

 

 

[Haji 2003]

8 hours ago, Guest Commenter said:

As for fish, thats tahir all the time.

I thought that haram fish was as haram as pork.

 

8 hours ago, Guest Commenter said:

As for sex, non muslims wash themselves with water anyways

For Muslims doing so is obligatory. For non-Muslims, you just don't know.

 

8 hours ago, Guest Commenter said:

which it isnt so much a problem since vegetarianism and veganism is so big

Again, you just don't know.

 

AIUI if someone claims to be a Muslim you can make positive assumptions about their behaviour. It seems to me that you are taking a similar approach to non-Muslims i.e. that the individual concerned took ghusl when necessary, is a vegetarian etc.

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Guest Stranger Danger said:

Muslims are najis at certain times (after sex before ghusl for example). While non-Muslims never najis. Does not make sense to me too.

Hi non-muslims are humans in similar fashion of Muslims so they will be Najis in similar fashion of muslims "(after sex before ghusl for example). " which although it has not defined in religion still they will feel to take a shower to get rid of bad feelings & semen & etc .

 

A) The prohibition concerning the pagans and idolaters entering the Grand Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) and the impurity taken as criterion for the prohibition is an evidence signifying the psychological or spiritual uncleanness not physical impurity

Therefore, in this case the prohibition of entering the mosque is due to the prohibition of ‘tanjis’ (making the mosque impure).[10]

Quote

In addition, one who is not allowed to enter Masjid al-Haram is he who is in the state of greater impurity (hadath akbar) e.g. janabah, haydh etc. Those Muslims who are in the state of Janabah or haydh are not allowed to enter the Mosque nor are they allowed to stay therein. This criterion of prohibition (ritual impurity) of entering the Mosque is quite different from what has been alleged (i.e. jurisprudential and external nijasah).[11]

 

Late Ayatollah Khoei takes the concept of inner uncleanness for the literal and conventional meaning of the word ‘najis’ and he takes the concept of jurisprudential impurity for the unconventional and non-literal meaning of impurity. For this reason, he has preferred the first meaning of the second meaning.[12]

 

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa3260

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, Guest Commenter said:

As for fish, thats tahir all the time. 

Salam

The condition for halal meat sea creatures is to have scales.

In a hadith from Imam Baqir ((عليه السلام).), Muhammad ibn Muslim asks: “We are given fish that do not bear an extra layer on them (scales)”. The Imam replied: “Eat all fish that have scales and do not eat those that do not.” [1] According to the ahadith, what is meant by the extra layer is the scales. [2]

The Great Maraje’ Taqlid have pointed out the ruling of sea creatures based on these traditions.

They state that based on the ahadith, every sea creature is haram except those that have scales. However, shrimp is an exception to this general ruling. We have a special hadith that considers shrimp as an exception: “Eating it (shrimp) is permissible, for it is a kind of fish”. [3]

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa1128

cleanness (being Tahir) of fish is to catch it  alive from the water. So if a scaly fish is taken out of the water alive and it dies outside the water, it is pure and halal to eat. And if it dies in the water, it is pure (Tahir) because it doesn't has gushing  blood, but it is forbidden to eat it, and the fisher does not have to be a Muslim. Therefore, if a kafir catches a fish, it is permissible to eat it, provided that they know that it is dead outside the water.

https://fa.wikifeqh.ir/صید_و_ذباحه

[Guest Commenter]

5 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

14 hours ago, Guest Commenter said:

 

For Muslims doing so is obligatory. For non-Muslims, you just don't know.

To be fair, you're not even gonna be able to access any part of their body where najasah went, so even if they didnt wash, they would be wearing clothes on top. non muslims always wash their hands too. And by the way, my argument is not that they would take ghusl, its that they would wash the areas that got messy, because bodily fluids are sticky. 

My intention is not to give the same benefit of doubt to a non muslim than to a muslim, or to try negate the idea of accidental impurity, Im just trying to suggest that even in the realm of accidental impurity, interacting with a non muslim isn't necessarily gonna make you najis and such, since they always wash their hands, or the parts where impurity usually goes, you're not gonna each touch, such as their mouths and such. Yh, maybe sharing the same plate with a non muslim aint the greatest idea tho if you don't know they washed their mouths XD.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 7/31/2023 at 9:04 AM, Guest Commenter said:

interacting with a non muslim isn't necessarily gonna make you najis and such, since they always wash their hands, or the parts where impurity usually goes, you're not gonna each touch, such as their mouths and such.

Salam impurity of a non muslim is not germ or dirt so therefore their impurity won't remove by any type of washing but on the other hand in similar fashion of other humans the germ or dirt on their hand  will be removed by hand washing also interacting with  a non muslim doesn't make a muslim Najis which sharing a plate with someon is matter of hygine although even a non muslim has washed his mouth so then it won't remove his impurity but just cleans his mouth from Bacteria & other infections  & etc .

[Nad_M]

The hadith of poisoning, where a Jewess brought meat to the prophet after the defeat of Khaybar, which he ate, is accepted in Shia tradition, to my knowledge. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 9/6/2024 at 2:11 AM, Nad_M said:

The hadith of poisoning, where a Jewess brought meat to the prophet after the defeat of Khaybar, which he ate, is accepted in Shia tradition, to my knowledge. 

Salam , although it has been accepted in Shia traditions but on the other hand it has been discussed in many ways which maybe the Jewess has accepted Islam before bringing poisoned meat although she has done it under pressure of other Jews  for testing truth of Prophethood of prophet Muhammad (pbu)  or at least accepting Zabiha of people of book has not been banned yet which after that event it has been banned for reasons likewise not affecting with poisoning & other damages through them & other reasons  so therefore accepting this Hadith doesn't justify accepting Zabiha of people of book which it has been clearly banned by prophet Muhammad (pbu) & Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) .

[Nad_M]

17 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam , although it has been accepted in Shia traditions but on the other hand it has been discussed in many ways which maybe the Jewess has accepted Islam before bringing poisoned meat although she has done it under pressure of other Jews  for testing truth of Prophethood of prophet Muhammad (pbu)  or at least accepting Zabiha of people of book has not been banned yet which after that event it has been banned for reasons likewise not affecting with poisoning & other damages through them & other reasons  so therefore accepting this Hadith doesn't justify accepting Zabiha of people of book which it has been clearly banned by prophet Muhammad (pbu) & Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) .

Salaam

1.She gives her reasons for attempting to poison the prophet, which was personal revenge. It had nothing to do with outside pressure. This also shows she never really converted yet in a version of the hadith the prophet, after exposing her, simply mentions Allah’s name, makes a supplication over the meal and proceeds to eat.

2.Which aya or hadith bans the meat of the people of the book?

[JannahLM]

I think for many it's mostly a convenience issue. It's not always easy to find zabiha meat in the west, especially in rural regions. Or then there's situations like my own where some Muslims, particularly converts, may not be openly practicing for an array of different reasons. Purchasing actual zabiha meat would raise a lot of suspicions in those cases. However, I will say that more and more fast food chains are getting halal certification for their poultry products because they know that Muslims are a growing market they can tap into. That makes it possible to order poultry options from these places, as I tend to do. It's a way to follow the dietary restrictions without raising too many suspicions.

[Ashvazdanghe]

9 hours ago, Nad_M said:

1.She gives her reasons for attempting to poison the prophet, which was personal revenge. It had nothing to do with outside pressure. This also shows she never really converted yet in a version of the hadith the prophet, after exposing her, simply mentions Allah’s name, makes a supplication over the meal and proceeds to eat.

Salam you are cherry picking from Hadith in order to justify eating Zabiha of people of book which everyone is aware of story which Sunni narration about it is not reliable which in similar fashion Sunni narration about poisoning food  by Jewess has been used for justifying poisoning prophet Muhammad (pbu) by some so his called wives & companions by relating his poisoning  by them into poisoning by Jewess to clear hands of so so his called wives & companions which Shia narration is about not taking Zabiha of people of book after this incident .

9 hours ago, Nad_M said:

2.Which aya or hadith bans the meat of the people of the book?

 

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

• BEGINNING OF PART SIX OF THE HOLY QURAN

• Verses 148-149

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

 

Halalness of slaughtered people of the Book from the point of view of Islamic commentators with emphasis on the interpretation of Tasnim and Al-Mizan (based on verse five of Surah Ma'idah)

 

Document Type : Original

Authors

• sayyed mahmoud tayyeb hsoseini  ¹ 
•  
• Omolbanien Ahmadiean  ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Quranic Studies, Research Institute and University, Qom, Iran

² Level 4, Tafsir, Masumieh School, Qom, Iran

Abstract

Quote

Is the slaughtered animal by the people of the book lawful or not? This issue has been the subject of controversy among commentators and jurists for a long time. Muslim jurists are divided into two groups regarding this issue,  few Shia jurists and the majority of Sunni jurists believe that the animal meat slaughtered by the People of the Book is lawful while the majority of Shia jurists consider the slaughter of the People of the Book to be haram. In this article, the opinion of two great  Shia commentators, Allameh Tabatabai, and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, has been explained. These commentators believe that the sacrifices of the people of the book are valid, But the meaning of the word "food" is the source of their different opinion. Allameh believes that what is meant by food is grains and does not include the ritual sacrifices of the people of the book, and Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, with Quranic and customary arguments, as well as internal evidence and verses, states that food does not mean specifically barley and wheat.  It includes cooked and raw food. As a result, the verse provides the solution of food prepared by the People of the Book, both slaughtered and non-slaughtered. Accordingly, the argument requires two things: 1. Purity of the people of the book; 2. Their slaughtered animal to be lawful

https://www.olomquran.ir/article_167308.html?lang=en

 

[Nad_M]

1.Once more, the hadith of poisoning by the jewess is accepted in shia tradition. Whether some have used it " to clear hands of so so his called wives & companions" is irrelevant to the discussion. 

2. Why would the aya lift the prohibition on "grains, cereals, and fruits " of the people of the book, when these things were never forbidden to Muslims themselves? The aya came at a time when Muslims lived closely to pagans, but also to Jews and Christians, having friends and families among them in Medina. The Quran had already instructed not to eat meat that went through pagan rituals, or over which a name other than Allah has been mentioned, but no clear ordinance had come yet regarding meat slaughtered in rituals of the people of the book. The aya thus came, clarifying the matter. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The Quran had already instructed not to eat meat that went through pagan rituals, or over which a name other than Allah has been mentioned, but no clear ordinance had come yet regarding meat slaughtered in rituals of the people of the book. The aya thus came, clarifying the matter. 

Salam Christianity even at time of prophet Muhammad (pbu) has been mixed with pagan rituals which using statue  of jesus & cross & many other traditions are some examples also trinity is Shirk which in similar fashion you can find many pagan origin rituals in Judaism due to deviation of Judaism by rabbis with pagan rituals & belief system which even history of inserting paganism into Judaism by rabbis has been mentioned in their books so therefore slaughtering & sacrifice of animals in Christianity & Judaism are totally based on paganism not their original teachings so therefore their slaughter have not been accepted by Islam by both of holy Quran & Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) ; although you are trying to justify it by cherry picking from a Hadith based on your desire.

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

2. Why would the aya lift the prohibition on "grains, cereals, and fruits " of the people of the book, when these things were never forbidden to Muslims themselves?

These are natural products which just need some procession which has no relation to  slaughtering or sacrifice so therefore their processed "grains, cereals, and fruits " can be used by Muslims .

8 hours ago, Nad_M said:

1.Once more, the hadith of poisoning by the jewess is accepted in shia tradition. Whether some have used it " to clear hands of so so his called wives & companions" is irrelevant to the discussion.

Viewpoint of Sunnis & Shias about hadith is totally different from each other which means it's just source of Fiqhi issue about prohibition of slaughter of people of book by Shias & proving doing a miracle by prophet Muhammad (pbu) by neutralizing poison in food  but on the other hand in sunni viewpoint prophet has not done any miracle & affected with poison in food  so then died due to affection of it ; which sunnis have used it a justification for clearing hands of his so called wife & some companions from poisoning him . 

Edited September 10 by Ashvazdanghe

[Nad_M]

The people of the book are guilty of shirk, just as some Muslims are, but they are not mushrikin. The Quran differs between those like them who do not commit shirk intentionally, and those that do. This is why it has coined a term for them, "the people of the book".

Can you point out the paganism in their slaughtering methods?

Which Jewish method makes the "procession" of an apple different than the Muslim "procession" of fruits?

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Which Jewish method makes the "procession" of an apple different than the Muslim "procession" of fruits?

Salam , Lol procession of apple by Jews doesn't make it different from Muslim "procession" of fruits  which any muslim even Shia can consume processed fruit by the jews .

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

The people of the book are guilty of shirk, just as some Muslims are, but they are not mushrikin. The Quran differs between those like them who do not commit shirk intentionally, and those that do. This is why it has coined a term for them, "the people of the book".

This is total nonsense by you  which the holy Quran clearly has condemned the Trinity  as clear intentional Shirk .

17 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Can you point out the paganism in their slaughtering methods?

All of it's process which since initiating it by shooting in head of animals till last process of it is based on violation of original teachings in both of Torah & Bible which all of process has been taken from Pagans which current process by Christians is as same as sacrificing for idols which there is no difference between their slaughtering in a so called Christian country or a pagan country likewise China which their process of sacrificing for idols  just have turned into modern or industrial slaughtering . 

[Ashvazdanghe]

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234938093-meat-of-ahlul-kitaab/

[Nad_M]

Sure, no difference in the "procession" of an apple by either shia, sunni, buddhist or jew. Why would then an aya be revealed allowing Muslims the apples sold by Jews?

Yes trinity is shirk. Just as some Muslim aqeedas can be interpreted as such. But not a single Christian or Jew will openly claim to believe in more than 1 god. That is the difference between them and pagans, hence the Quran never labelling them mushrikin.

Shooting an animal in the head is a pagan practice?

[Ashvazdanghe]

2 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Shooting an animal in the head is a pagan practice?

I have mentioned whole of process from first phase of it which is shooting in head to last phase of distribution of  it  which you are just trying to dodge facts by making funny questions which there is many  examples of shooting to or cutting of head in pagan rituals for idols or Satan(s) so therefore anytype of killing whether by shooting in the head or not  so the without mentioning name of Allah for sacrificing will be the pagan practice  ; although you know that they don't mention name of Allah from first phase to last phase ; which considering people of book internally pure is just for allowing interaction with them in social life & accepting  "grains, cereals, and fruits " as their food but on the other hand accepting their sacrificed or slaughtered  meat is prohibited because they believe in Trinity as clear Shirk which in similar fashion religion of Jews has been manipulated by Paganism & Shirk too .

 

Do not eat [anything] of that over which Allah’s Name has not been mentioned, and that is indeed transgression. Indeed the satans inspire their friends to dispute with you; and if you obey them, you will indeed be polytheists. (121)

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ ۗ وَإِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ لَيُوحُونَ إِلَىٰ أَوْلِيَائِهِمْ لِيُجَادِلُوكُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ أَطَعْتُمُوهُمْ إِنَّكُمْ لَمُشْرِكُونَ ‎﴿١٢١

‏https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/6:121

O you who have faith! The polytheists are indeed unclean: so let them not approach the Holy Mosque after this year. Should you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you out of His grace, if He wishes. Indeed Allah is all-knowing, all-wise. (28) 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَٰذَا ۚ وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَاءَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ ‎﴿٢٨

‏https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/9:28

2 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Yes trinity is shirk. Just as some Muslim aqeedas can be interpreted as such. But not a single Christian or Jew will openly claim to believe in more than 1 god. That is the difference between them and pagans, hence the Quran never labelling them mushrikin.

There is many verses in holy Quran which people of book have been mentioned as "Mushrikin" or  at least mentioned besides them as equivalent to Mushrikin.

Neither the faithless from among the People of the Book nor the idolaters (Mushrikin) like that any good be showered on you from your Lord; but Allah singles out for His mercy whomever He wishes, and Allah is dispenser of a mighty grace. (105)

مَّا يَوَدُّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَلَا الْمُشْرِكِينَ أَن يُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ خَيْرٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ يَخْتَصُّ بِرَحْمَتِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ ‎﴿١٠٥

https://tanzil.net/#2:105

The faithless from among the People of the Book and the polytheists were not set apart [from the community of the faithful] until the proof had come to them: (1) 

لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ مُنفَكِّينَ حَتَّىٰ تَأْتِيَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَةُ ‎﴿١

 

 Indeed the faithless from among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the fire of hell, to remain in it [forever]. It is they who are the worst of creatures. (6)﴾‏ ‏

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمْ شَرُّ الْبَرِيَّةِ ‎﴿٦﴾‏ 

https://tanzil.net/#98:6

Do not eat [anything] of that over which Allah’s Name has not been mentioned, and that is indeed transgression. Indeed the satans inspire their friends to dispute with you; and if you obey them, you will indeed be polytheists. (121)

وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ ۗ وَإِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ لَيُوحُونَ إِلَىٰ أَوْلِيَائِهِمْ لِيُجَادِلُوكُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ أَطَعْتُمُوهُمْ إِنَّكُمْ لَمُشْرِكُونَ ‎﴿١٢١

‏https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/6:121

And when Jesus son of Mary said, ‘O Children of Israel! Indeed I am the apostle of Allah to you, to confirm what is before me of the Torah, and to give the good news of an apostle who will come after me, whose name is Ahmad.’ But when he brought them manifest proofs, they said, ‘This is plain magic.’ (6) Who is a greater wrongdoer than him who fabricates falsehoods against Allah, while he is being summoned to Islam? And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing lot. (7) They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light though the faithless should be averse. (8) It is He who has sent His Apostle with guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all religions though the polytheists should be averse. (9) 

وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُم مُّصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ ۖ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ ‎﴿٦﴾‏ وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُوَ يُدْعَىٰ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ ‎﴿

٧﴾‏ يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ ‎﴿

٨﴾‏ هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ ‎﴿٩﴾‏ 

 

Edited September 11 by Ashvazdanghe

[Nad_M]

Which pagan religious ritual involves shooting the animal in the head?

Didnt the Arab pagans slit the throat of animals, just like Muslims do, in their rituals?

Can a Muslim shoot an animal in the head while hunting it? Will it be halal to eat of it dies from a bullet, spear, arrow wound on the head?

One last time for you; why would a verse come down allowing grains, cereals, and fruits of the people of the book, when these items were never subject to restriction on Muslims themselves? We already put aside your made up issue of "procession", which is the same among anyone.

The aya Do not eat [anything] of that over which Allah’s Name has not been mentioned Does not indicate if the mentioning of Allah's name is to be done before putting the animal to death.

There are countless verses praising the righteous among the people of the book, promising them a just reward in the afterlife. The verses you brought do not equate between them and the polytheists, rather mentions them as 2 separate categories deserving punishment in the hereafter "The faithless from among the People of the Book and the polytheists"

Edited September 11 by Nad_M