"PRAISE BE TO ALMIGHTY ALLAH, SALUTATIONS ON
THE HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SALLAL LAAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM)"
In our present day and age, the method of mechanical
slaughter, i.e. slaughter by use of machines, has become a common practice and
animals slaughtered mechanically are generally being imported into Muslim
countries. In many countries, numerous Muslim butchers, after becoming aware of
such meat being imported into their countries, have raised the matter with the
authorities and have even established their own abattoirs so that the proper
slaughtering of animals is in their control. This was done to prevent the
innocent and unsuspecting Muslim masses from eating such meat, and to also avoid
themselves from selling Haraam meat.
However, certain westernised Molvis have, without providing
any proper Islamic reasons, certified such meat as being Halaal, and they have
also given the green light to Muslims to buy "Halaal meat" from non-Muslim
butchers. Why such Molvis have implemented this, fails to make sense as there is
no complete or partial evidence from the Shari'ah, namely, from the Holy Quran,
Ahadith or Books of Fiqh to substantiate their arguments. They have tried
various means to establish that the method of mechanical slaughter as being
permissible, but were hopelessly unsuccessful.
Due to the fear of the detrimental effect that may be caused
by establishing mechanical slaughter, I have decided to give a brief explanation
of the differences between mechanical slaughter and proper Islamic Zabiha
(Slaughter) so that the unsuspecting Muslims are not trapped into eating Haraam
Every Muslim should at least be aware of the fact that for
the flesh of any animal, with the exception of fish and locusts, to become
Halaal, it must pass through the proper method of Islamic slaughter, i.e. in
accordance with the Shari'ah. There are basically two methods of slaughter in
Shari'ah, which are:
- Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari: Slaughter of animals in one's
control, eg. livestock and poultry.
- Zibah-e-Iztiraari: Slaughter of uncontrolled
animals, that is, animals (game) that are hunted.
In both methods, the animal must be slaughtered by a sharp
weapon (knife, spear, etc.). With the exception of these methods, almost all the
other methods are improper.
In Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari, the wind pipe, the food pipe,
and the two blood vessels on either side of the throat must be severed. If at
least three of the four mentioned vessels are severed, then the animal is
regarded as Halaal.
In Zibah-e-Iztiraari, the animal may be severed (cut)
anywhere on the body by being stabbed or cut by the sharp edge of the weapon
causing its death. If a trained dog or hunting bird causes such injury to the
animals being hunted, thus causing its death, then such an animal is Halaal.
Zibah-e-Iztiraari is for those birds, who due to their
height of flying cannot be caught, or those animals (such as wild birds and
animals) whose speed does not allow them to be easily captured.
Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari is the law applicable to those
animals, such as sheep, poultry, etc. which are in one's control and possession.
If an animal in the category of Iztiraari is injured by a spear, etc. or a
hunting animal, and such an animal, before its death, comes within the control
and possession of the hunter, then until and unless it is not slaughtered in the
method of Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari, it will not be Halaal. (Hidayah Aakhirain, pg.
It is quite obvious that for those animals slaughtered by a
machine to be Halaal, such animals would need to be slaughtered according to
Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari, where it is in possession. It is obvious that it is only
then that it can pass through the procedure of mechanical slaughter. If it is
said that the method that is used is not Ikhtiyaari, then it would be impossible
for the animal to be mechanically slaughtered.
During mechanical slaughter, the physical strength and
intention of the person is not used, rather, the person appointed presses a
button or releases a switch on the machine, which in turn causes electricity to
pass through the cables of the machine giving motion to the motor, which in turn
gives motion to the pulleys, which in turn gives motion to the blade causing the
animal to be slaughtered. Neither is the motor, nor the blade brought into
motion by the direct strength of the person operating the machine. If there is
no electricity, then the motor would not run, therefore, not allowing the blade
to operate and slaughter the animal. It is thus evident that the machine
operator is not directly linked to the motion of the blade nor the actual
slaughtering of the animal.
For a moment, let us presume that a person places a sharp
weapon firmly into a wall or ties it to some object with the intention of Zibah,
after which livestock is chased in the direction of the knife, whereby it
crashes into the knife in a manner causing the necessary vessels to be severed.
Even under these conditions, the animal is Haraam since it was killed through
its own action and strength and not through the strength of the slaughterer,
even though there are fewer Zari'ah or means ("processes") here than as in
It is stated in "Kanzul Daqaaiq": "If a person places a
small saw or a sharp weapon in a jungle by saying the Bismillah with the
intention of hunting an antelope, and if he returns the next day to find the
animal dead, due to it being severed by the weapon placed, then too it is not
allowed for such an animal to be eaten". (Kanzul Daqaaiq, pg. 220)
Imam Zaili (radi Allahu anhu) has explained that the
reason for this, is that in Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari, the Muslim should slaughter the
animal himself and in Iztiraari he should cause the animal's death by severing
it himself. Without this, the animal cannot be regarded as Halaal, since such an
animal is in the category of "Natihaa" and "Mutardiya", that is either beaten to
death or injured by falling. This is evident from the following verse of the
Holy Quran: "You are forbidden to eat the dead and blood and flesh of swine
and that on which any name other than Allah is invoked at the time of
slaughtering, and that which dies by strangling and that which is beaten to
death by a blunt object and that which is killed by falling and that which is
gored." (Sura Maida, Ruku 1. Ayat 3)
The point in "Kanz" about the animal being found dead the
following day, is only hypothetical. However, even if it is found dead on the
same day, it is still not Halaal, since the conditions of Zibah were not met.
(Tabeenul Haqaaiq, Vol. 6, pg. 226)
There is a possibility that certain persons may have a doubt
the above law after reading the following quotation found in "Durr-Mukhtar",
Kitaab-us Sayd, etc. concerning hunting game: "If a hunter places a sharp
weapon in a trap and watches over it, then if an animal is trapped, severed and
killed in it, then it is Halaal." From this, it may seem that if a Muslim
places the knife saying Bismillah with intention of Zibah, and if the animal is
severed and dies in this condition, then it should be Halaal. In other words, it
would seem that it is enough for the knife to be placed with the Niyyah
(Intention) of Zibah. It does not seem necessary that the animal should be
slaughtered by the person himself. If this is so, then mechanical slaughter
should also be accepted as Halaal, since the motion of the machine and the blade
was through the switching on by a person, and in some way, man is part and
parcel of this procedure.
In clarifying these doubts, all I want to say is that it is
enough to understand, that the law derived from "Durr Mukhtar" and other Kitaabs
is specifically for those animals in the category of Zibah-e-Iztiraari and the
laws of hunting are totally non-presumptuous (Ghair Qiyaasi), which cannot be
applied on livestock, which are in the possession of humans.
In reality, even if a wild animal is captured and is in the
possession of a Muslim, even then such an animal cannot be slaughtered in
accordance with Zibah-e-Iztiraari, as it is now in possession and will fall into
the category of Ikhtiyaari.
In this case, without doubt the animal of mechanical
slaughter is in possession, and the law of Iztiraari is not applicable on such
an animal. Such animals (in possession) fall into the category of Ikhtiyaari and
must be slaughtered by the persons own action and intention. If it were allowed
to slaughter livestock on the law of game animals, then it would also be
permissible to severe livestock anywhere on the body causing its death. Whereas,
to do so is disallowed.
With the exception of this, there is Ikhtilaaf (difference of
opinion) amongst the Fuqahaa (Muslim Jurists) on the law of Hunting Game. It is
stated in "Khulaasa" and "Muheet": "If a hunter places a knife in a trap and
then leaves, after which an animal is caught and killed in the trap, then it is
Haraam, and if the Hunter places the knife and is watching the trap, then such
game is Halaal." Differing on this, Imam Zaili (radi Allahu anhu) and
various other Jurists say that in both circumstances the animal is Haraam. Thus,
Imam Shulbi (radi Allahu anhu) writes that the argument of "Kanz"
presented by Imam Zaili (radi Allahu anhu) infers that after the hunter
places a small saw and whether he leaves or is present makes no difference,
since in both cases the animal, through its own strength, was severed and killed
by itself and not by the hunter, thus rendering it Haraam. From this it can be
well understood that Imam Zaili (radi Allahu anhu) does not accept the
opinion of "Khulaasa", and other Kitaabs in this matter. (Tabeenul Haqaaiq,
Vol. 6, pg. 226)
In this instance, Imam Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) has
stated that in Zibah Iztiraari it is not a condition for the person making Zibah
to do so himself. (Shaami, Vol. 5, pg. 192)
It must be understood that a difference of opinion exists in
the matter of Zibah-e-Iztiraari, but in the matter of Ikhtiyaari it is
unanimously agreed that the Zibah must be made by the person himself for the
animal to be Halaal.
According to the Shari'ah and its terminology, the Faa'il
(one doing the action, the subject) is that person who performs an action with
his own strength and intention, thus it is deduced that the slaughterer is that
person who, with his own strength and intention, slaughters the animal. Thus, it
is clearly evident that in mechanical slaughter, the act of Zibah is neither
carried out by the person saying Bismillah, nor by the operator of the machine,
but by the moving blade showing that the severing of the vessels is the act
of the machine. This is a clear fact that cannot be refuted by any
intelligent person. Even those who sanction mechanical slaughter agree to this.
Amongst those conditions which are required for proper
Islamic Zibah, many of the conditions are totally absent in the method of
mechanical slaughter. I would therefore like to list a few of these conditions:-
- It is necessary that the slaughterer is of sane
mind and aware of the laws of Zibah. It is for this reason that the Zabiha of an
insane person or of a young child with no knowledge of the laws of Zibah, is
Haraam (Hidaaya Akhirain, pg. 434; Tabeen, Vol. 5, pg. 287; Majmaul Anhur,
Vol. 2, pg. 598)
N.B.: It is evident that electricity, the machine and
the blade which is set into motion, are free from sanity or insanity and such
equipment are not even aware of the intention of Zibah.
- It is necessary for the person making Zibah to
recite Bismillah himself. If Bismillah is recited by any other person, Zibah
will be improper and the animal will not be taken as Halaal. (Raddul Muhtaar,
Vol. 5, Pg. 192)
N.B.: When the machine and the electricity which
controls it does not have the power of saying Bismillah, then how is it possible
for the operator or a person standing on the side to recite Bismillah on behalf
of the machine?
- If a person other than the slaughterer places his
hand on the knife to assist the slaughterer, then both have to recite the
Bismillah. If one of them abstains from saying the Bismillah, then the Zabiha is
Haraam. (Raddul Muhtaar, Vol. 5, pg. 192; Durr Mukhtar, Vol. 5, pg. 212)
If while a Muslim is slaughtering an animal, and a
person held the knife who is neither a Muslim nor a Kitaabi (People of the Book)
or neither Muslim nor Kaafir, then the Zabiha is Haraam. (Al Ashba Anil
Khaaniya, Vol. 1, pg. 145)
N.B.: Now, let us presume that the slaughter is
carried out both by the action of the Muslim and that of the machine, then it
has to be accepted that the machine, which is neither Muslim nor Kitaabi and
does not even recite the Bismillah, is also part and parcel of the Zibah. This
makes the Zabiha Haraam.
- The slaughterer should slaughter with his own
intention and action, as I have quoted Imam Zaili and Allama Shaami (radi
Allahu anhuma). The Holy Quran has stated: "Except that which you have
slaughtered." (Sura Mai'da, Verse 3)
Almighty Allah has clearly commanded that the Zibah be done
by the Muslim himself, with his own intention and action. It is on this that
there is trust.
- It is also a condition that the Tasmiyah be said
with the intention Zibah. If Bismillah was read with any other intention, and if
Zibah was made, then the animal is not Halaal. (Durr Mukhtar, Vol. 5, pg.
From this, it has become clearly evident that the Niyyah of
Zibah is also necessary and to take Almighty Allah's Name for this reason alone
is also a necessity. It is obviously clear that the machine has no intention nor
power to control itself. In reality, how then can the machine make Zibah with
the intention of taking Allah's Name for the reason of Zibah alone?
After studying all the above mentioned arguments, it is
requested that you look over a few statements of those who say that the
mechanical method of slaughter is allowed:
- According to Islamic slaughter, the person present
may say Bismillah from any position and allow the vessels to be severed by the
sharp instrument thus causing blood to flow. Whether this is done personally or
by the machine, both cause the Zibah to be Halaal.
- There is no reason to condemn mechanical slaughter
as un-Islamic and its Zabiha as Haraam, since the sharp blade of the machine is
severing the vessels. While this is happening, a Muslim is reading Tasmiyah with
the intention of Zibah, thus no valid reason can be found to make mechanical
N.B.: This argument for mechanical slaughter is
totally inappropriate. The argument presented implies that as long as the
vessels are severed, blood has flowed and that any person is present saying
Bismillah, then the Zibah is proper, whether the person slaughtering is a Muslim
or Kaafir or whether he is neither Mu'min nor Kaafir. This is totally against
the command of the Holy Quran "Illa Maa Zakaytum - Except that which you have
slaughtered." (Sura Mai'da, Verse 3)
Certain Ulema in Egypt have also sanctioned mechanical
slaughter. Their argument is as follows: "If the person in-charge, or the
operator of the machine is a Muslim or Ahle Kitaab, and if the machine has a
blade which causes the necessary vessels to be severed, then in this case, the
person saying Bismillah should do so individually for each animal being
slaughtered, then the equipment (blade of the machine) is accepted as the
equivalent of the hand of the slaughterer, and such Zabiha will be accepted as
Halaal, and if these conditions are not fulfilled, then the Zabiha is not
Halaal". (Fatawa Islaamia, Darul Iftil Asariya, Vol. 7, pg. 2616)
The laws concerning the Ahle Kitaab will be explained as we
proceed with our argument. My question here is: when the person saying the
Tasmiyah is not slaughtering the animal himself, and is not responsible for
personally performing the action of Zibah, then to assert that the moving knife
is an equivalent of the hand of the slaughterer is a mere claim without valid
evidence from Shari'ah. Indeed, it has been proven that the Ulema in Egypt have
themselves accepted that the Zibah should be done by hand, thus they have for
the same reason permitted the moving blade to be equivalent to the hand of
I have already presented proof that in Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari the
slaughtering must be done by the slaughterer himself, with his own action and
intention. No proof contradictory to this has ever been furnished. It seems as
if the Ulema in Egypt have accepted the means of action to be the equivalent
of the person performing the action. It is for this reason that they have
accepted the person operating the machine to be the Zaabih (Slaughterer), as he
is the "means" for the Zibah. It seems as if they have no knowledge of the fact
that in Zibah-e-Ikhtiyaari the Shari'ah has not accepted the means as an
equivalent to the slaughterer, but rather the Shari'ah has commanded personal
slaughter as a condition for Zibah. I have already presented proof on this
At this juncture, it must also be understood that one "means"
is being used as the "means" of the next. In other words, the operator presses
the switch, making him the "means". If there is power, then electricity passes,
making it as a "means" for the pulleys to move, which becomes a "means" for the
blade to run, consequently allowing it to slaughter the animal. How then, can
the "means" for a "means" for a "means" can be accepted as the equivalent of the
slaughterer. Is the action of the operator known as electrical current? Is the
operator himself another name for the machine?
Experience has proven that the machine works with such speed
that in the time it takes to say one Bismillah, one hundred animals can be
slaughtered (commonly as in poultry). Due to this, it is obvious that 99 of the
100 hundred animals did not have Bismillah recited at the time of their Zibah.
In reality, none of these animals can be considered as proper Zabiha, since it
will not be known over which one of the animals the Bismillah was read.
Concerning the Ulema in Egypt, I have also been informed from
authentic sources that the righteous and pious Ulema in Egypt are imprisoned
while others are issuing decrees on the basis of their Western ideologies in
loyalty to the Egyptian government. In other words, the pious, truthful and
outspoken Ulema are imprisoned by the government, whereas those Ulema who issue
decrees are on the payroll of the government. It seems to me that in
implementing mechanical slaughter, it is the western lobby that are working with
Egypt and other Middle East countries.
I cannot understand how the movement of the blade has been
authorised as an equivalent to the slaughterer himself. Such stubbornness
against the Shari'ah is totally disallowed.
Up to now, the point of discussion has been that the machine
does the slaughtering and not the slaughterer himself with his action and
intention. From past experience, I have also found that during mechanical
slaughter, the blade sometimes misses its target due to mechanical error and
runs over the breast or head of the animal and sometimes over other parts of the
animal's body. In such cases, where the head is partially severed or the breast
severed, etc. these animals' parts jam in the chain of the machine, which are
usually removed and replaced by other slaughtered animals.
Those animals which are severed at a point other than at the
required vessels, even if by a Muslim, are Haraam according to I'jma
(Consensus). Let us, for this reason, presume that mechanical slaughter is
Halaal, even though it is not, then due to the mixing of the so-called Halaal
and the Haraam portions, in the machine, all such animals have become Haraam due
Due to experience, it has been proven that instead of Zibah,
other body parts are severed during the mechanical slaughter. How then do those
who claim mechanical slaughter to be permissible did not discuss in their
arguments this valid point? The answer to this, I think, only they will know.
To substantiate their arguments, one of those who sanctioned
mechanical slaughter, quoted the following in his opening statements: "Due to
the demand for Halaal meat from Muslim countries, abattoirs have turned to the
use of mechanical slaughter".
After scrutinising this part of the argument, the question
which arises here is: When the demand for meat from the Muslim countries
increased, did these abattoirs first research the basis of mechanical slaughter
in the light of Shari'ah, or did they just accept it so that they may enhance
their business dealings? It is obvious that the abattoirs had no desire to
conduct such research, since their aim was solely for production and mass
It must also be noted that those countries to which such meat
was exported the masses were not informed of the animal being mechanically
slaughtered, but rather, they covered their tracks by placing labels of "HALAAL
MEAT" on these products to mislead the masses. After much time, when the
unsuspecting public found out that they were consuming meat from animals which
were mechanically slaughtered, they questioned the learned and pious Ulema who
said that such meat was Haraam. On the other hand, there were those who tried to
prove it being Halaal so that they may monopolise and keep a steady hold on
those consuming meat. These Molvis played with the Shari'ah to satisfy the
abattoir authorities by whom they were patronised.
It is an accepted fact that Saudi Arabia and other Middle
East countries are at the forefront in welcoming such meat into their countries.
Just as they research all other products entering their country, it was the
essential duty of these governments and their religious authorities to first
research the permissibility of this meat before it entered their country.
Actually, they should have been even more responsible in this issue, since it
dealt with the eating of Halaal and Haraam products.
Instead of looking into this matter in the light of the
Shari'ah, they established an improper proceedure which stated that if such meat
was purchased from Muslim stores and possessed a Halaal label, then the product
was certified as Halaal. Thus, it caused all doubts to be removed from the minds
of the people regarding from where and how the Muslim shopkeeper had imported
I would like to say that when the authorities and Muslim
religious leaders are well aware of the fact that meat is being imported into
their countries, then is it not their responsibility to make sure that the meat
is Halaal without any doubt? How is it that they have certified such meat as
permissible for Muslim consumption? In reality, these so-called Muslim
governments have become the slaves of Europe and the followers of the European
nation. Such slavery has blinded them to such an extent that they do not see
right from wrong. It is obvious that they have no intent of keeping the pristine
Islamic principles alive. Thus, they feel that whatever they do is proper.
With regards to the present situation, I feel it necessary to
briefly explain the forbidden factors involved in imported and exported meat, so
that those person who wish to consume only Halaal meat will abstain from
imported meat that is doubtful. Such people never step back in clarifying that
which is Haraam.
- In exported meat, the method of mechanical
slaughter which I have already explained as being Haraam is foremost.
- Most of the meat being imported is from Europe,
America, Australia, etc. and most of those controlling abattoirs and the
exporters of the meat are Christians and the Zabiha of todays Christians is
Haraam, as I will prove further in my argument.
- Exported meat enters Customs where it is
immediately hidden from the sight of a Muslim and the exporter. This meat, which
is stored on Cargo Carriers, is also hidden from the sight of a Muslim. The
majority of the Custom officials and the sailors on the ships from these
countries are either Mushriks, Mulhids or Christians of the present day. The
Shari'ah has stated that if the meat is hidden from the sight of a Muslim for
even one moment, then the meat is Haraam. If the exported meat is the Zabiha of
a Muslim, and is sent by a Muslim, such meat is still accepted as Haraam. Proof
of this will be furnished as we proceed.
- Abattoirs which export meat also place labels of
"HALAAL" on the meat of animals which die through other bodily injuries during Zibah. By I'jma, such meat is regarded as Haraam.
While in Saudi Arabia, I discovered the difference in price
of imported and locally slaughtered meat and I found that imported meat was sold
at six to seven Riyals per kilogram, whereas locally slaughtered meat was sold
at twenty five to thirty Riyals per kilogram. It is for this reason, that in
most Hotels, Restaurants and Hajj Tour Agencies, imported meat is served to
Hujaaj. The pious people of Saudi Arabia abstain from this meat. I have seen
many conscious Hujaaj, who for the same reason, abstain from consuming meat in
One should remember that the consumption of Haraam sustenance
causes wretchedness in a person. It is also due to this that Du'a is not
accepted. How then will the Ibaadah and the Ziyaarah of the Haajis be accepted?
Therefore, it is extremely important for the Hujaaj, when in the court of Allah
and His Rasool (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) to be more particular in
what they eat. Even if it means not eating meat for a few days, it will not
cause any difference in one's physical condition and health.
According to the Holy Quran and Ahadith, only the Yahud
(Jews) and Nasaara (Christians) are referred to as the "People of the Book".
With the exception of these two, no Kaafir in the world
can claim to have brought Imaan on any Book or Nabi of
Almighty Allah. There has been a difference of opinion amongst the Ulema on
whether their Zabiha is Halaal or not. Most of the Mashaa'ikh (Learned Scholars)
have declared their Zabiha as Haraam, whereas a few of them have declared their
Zabiha to be Halaal. The former view is the principle of the Hanafi Madhab and
the proof pertaining is more stronger in this argument. Imaam ibne Humaam has
stated in "Fathul Qadeer": "Except in the case of extreme necessity, the
Zabiha of the Ahle Kitaab should not be eaten."
It is stated in "Majma-ul-Anhur" as follows: "The
Christians of our present times openly declare Hazrat Isa (alaihis salaam) as
the son of Allah and we have no dire need for their Zabiha, whereas to avoid
(their Zabiha) is Waajib (Compulsory), since the Ulema have difference of
opinion concerning their Zabiha and since there is no consensus, it will be
taken as forbidden to eat."
The difference of opinion of the Ulema is on this condition
that the slaughter should be in accordance with the conditions of Zibah, meaning
that all the necessary vessels should be severed and that the Zibah must be made
only and only in the Name of Allah. The Zabihah of a Muslim will not be Halaal
if he does not adhere to the proper condition of Islamic Zibah, how then will
the Zabihah of the Christians be considered as Halaal?
The Zibah of the Christians has not been in accordance with
the Shari'ah for years since they neither say Takbeer nor do they slaughter in
accordance with the laws of Zibah. Rather, they usually consume the Zabihah of
Muslims. They either strangle poultry and birds or stab a knife through the neck
of live sheep, thus not allowing the prescribed vessels to be severed. This
makes their Zibah unacceptable. It is in "Fatawa Qazi Khan" as follows:
"Christians do not make Zibah, but they strangle the animal or they eat the
Zabihah of Muslims."
A'la Hazrat (radi Allahu anhu) quoted his personal
experience as follows: "In Zil-Qadah, 1295 A.H. I saw a ram on board the ship
which belonged to a Christian from Samur. He was selling the ram for 40 Rupees.
I desired to eat meat and thus requested to purchase the animal in cash. He
refused to sell the animal to me, but said that I should purchase the meat after
Zibah. When slaughtering, he stabbed the knife through one side of the neck not
even allowing the required vessels to be severed. I then said that this meat was
now as bad as swine and was not good enough for our consumption." (Fatawa
Razwiyah, Vol. 8, page 331)
Thus, the Zabiha of Christians of the present age are lacking
in these methods, thus making their Zabiha totally Haraam. As for the Jews, they
too leave out the Takbeer and change the method of Zibah, thus, even their
Zabiha is Haraam. If there is no dire need for the consumption of meat, then it
is definitely Makruh to eat their Zabiha. Another reason for their Zabiha to be
Haraam is that many Christians of this age have either become Mulhid (heretics)
or Communists. For further details on this topic, peruse "Fatawa Razwiyah", Vol.
8, pages 329-331.
For meat to be Halaal, it depends on the proper Islamic
method of slaughtering carried out by a Muslim or by a Kitaabi, of an animal
which is permitted for Muslim consumption by invoking on it the Name of Allah at
the time of Zibah. If there is even an atom of doubt in the meat being
Islamically slaughtered then such meat will be considered as Haraam.
As long as the Zabiha of a Muslim is in the sight of a
Muslim, then it is accepted as Halaal. If it is out of the sight or possession
of a Muslim then it is doubted and to eat such meat is Haraam for this reason,
that as long as an animal is alive it's consumption is Haraam. It only becomes
Halaal after Zibah-e-Shar'i (Slaughtering according to Shari'ah). If there is no
proof of Shari'ah whether the animal was slaughtered in accordance with the Laws
of Shari'ah then the meat of such an animal is Haraam, since it is proven with
Yaqeen that the animal is Haraam, thus how can it be accepted as Halaal only by
presuming that the animal was slaughtered by a Muslim. It is in "Al-Ashbah" as
follows concerning the purchasing of meat from Majusis: "The meat of a live
animal is Haraam, thus the purchaser is bound by the originality of it being
Haraam and unless the proper Zibah of such an animal is not proven, it will
If a Kaafir says that the meat purchased by him is the Zabiha
of a Muslim, then his word will not be acceptable since Halaal and Haraam deal
with the matters of Deen and trust. It must be known that in the circumstances
of Deen and trust, the word of a Kaafir is unacceptable. It is therefore, stated
in "Fathul Qadeer" as follows: "The meat from the butcher of a Polytheist is
not Halaal until such time it is proven to be the Zibah of a Muslim, since such
meat is in reality Haraam, and the proper slaughter of such an animal becomes
Allama Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) has stated as follows
in "Raddul Muhtar": "By the person being a Majusi, it is enough to establish
such meat as Haraam even if he claims that it is the Zabiha of a Muslim. The
reason for this is that on the basis of trust, integrity, and honesty his word
In "Muamilaat" (General Business Affairs), the message of a
Kaafir is only accepted on the condition that honesty prevails without doubt. If
there are doubt of his message being true in general business affairs, then also
one should not act on his words. (Bahare Shariat, vol. 12, page 37)
However, if it is confirmed from the time of slaughter till
the time of sale that the meat was not hidden, even for a minute, from the sight
of a Muslim, then such meat is Halaal. Likewise, if a person sends his Mushrik
servant or slave to buy meat, then such meat will be accepted as Halaal after
these three conditions are confirmed:-
- The Kaafir who purchases and brings the meat is your
servant or slave.
- He must also say that he purchased and brought the meat
from a Muslim.
N.B.: It is in "Hidaayah" that if a Muslim sends his
Majusi servant or slave to purchase meat, then the servant must say that he has
purchased this meat from a Muslim or Kitaabi, then only will it be permissable
to eat. Since the word of a Kaafir is accepted in general business affairs and
if the saying of a Kaafir is in the matter of Diyaanat (Integrity and Trust) -
Halaal and Haraam - then his word would have been unacceptable.
It is in "Hidaayah" and other Kitaabs that the pre-requisites
of them being slaves or servants is in the basis of Sharaa'it (Necessary
Conditions being fulfilled), since the Fuqaha have stated that the meat of the
butcher or of the invitation of the house of a Kaafir is Haraam even if they
claim it to be the Zabiha of a Muslim.
It is in "Fatawa Qazi Khan" as follows: "If a Christian or
a Majusi invites you to eat meat at his house, then for a Muslim to eat this
meat, is Makruh-Tahreemi, even though he says that he purchased it from the
market-place since the Majusi either strangles or beats the animal to death, and
the Christian Zabiha is not valid for Muslims for he kills the animal through
strangulation or eats the Zabiha of Muslims." In exception to this, with
regards to meat, where even a slight doubt can make it Haraam, then in such
conditions, servant-and slave-purchases would have to be abstained from, then it
would be quite difficult. For this reason, in business matters only, their word
is accepted and if one is not under your command, his word is unacceptable.
It is stated in "Fatawa Alamgiri" that the word of a Kaafir
is accepted in general business matters and unacceptable in matters of religion
and integrity. However, if for this reason in Muamilaat, the word of a Kaafir is
accepted, then in connection with the words of Diyanat will be accepted since in
this time on the basis of necessity, Diyanat on the basis of Muamilaat is
- If the person's heart is sure and confirms that
there is no doubt in his heart concerning his servant telling the truth.
It is in "Jawhirah Nay'yira" that in general business
matters, the word of a Kaafir is acceptable only if it is confirmed that he is
telling the truth and if one thinks that he is lying, then his word should not
be accepted. (Bahare Shariat, Vol. 6, pg. 37)
Allama Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) has stated that if
his (the servant's) word is not definite, then to act upon it is disallowed.
The gist of my argument is this, that if imported and
exported meat from the time of Zibah up to the time of importing is not in the
care of a Muslim, during export it is also out of the sight of a Muslim. Even
those involved in exporting do not keep it in their sight. Thus, as soon as this
meat is hidden from the sight of a Muslim, then there is no way in which it can
be accepted as permissable. If it is known that it is the Zabiha of a Christian
of this time and that it is the product of machine slaughter, then such meat is
Haraam in the first degree.
May Almighty Allah save us from consuming that which has
been forbidden by the Shari'at-e-Mutaharrah. Ameen.
Wallaahu Ta'ala Aaalam