Haraam meat

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

I’ve got a few Muslim friends from the US who openly admit to eating haraam stating that as long as it’s ‘al lay khitab’ meat, (beef and chicken and the like) it’s okay to eat. What’s people standing on this, me myself I’m pretty easy about other Muslims eating what they want as long as it’s not my head, but personally would rather eat fish if halal meat is not available.

Do many Americans/Europeans eat haraam and justify it using the quran? What’s the exact definition of haraam in quran? Is it the draining of the blood bit or the people of the book bit…I can see the logic in the draining of the blood, but not the other myself.

2

:bism:

**“Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which Allaah’s Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal)” **

[al-An’aam 6:121]

so even if a muslim slaughtered an animal without following an islamic manner, it will not be halal.. and same applies for ahl-ul-kitaab (as we can eat their slaughtered animals)…

so here u go :slight_smile:

3

This is what I had posted in a thread a long time ago:

This is the verse which is taken as a proof for permissibility of meat slaughtered by christians/jews:

5:5. Made lawful to you this day are At_Tayyibât [all kinds of Halâl (lawful) foods, which Allâh has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits, etc.). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them.
[/ul]

And the following are the verses, which prohibit such meat:

***2:173. He has forbidden you only the Maytatah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered as a scrifice for others than Allâh (or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., on which Allâh's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering). But if one is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then there is no sin on him. Truly, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

6:118. So eat of that (meat) on which Allâh's Name has been pronounced (while slaughtering the animal), if you are believers in His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.).

6:119. And why should you not eat of that (meat) on which Allâh's Name has been pronounced (at the time of slaughtering the animal), while He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you, except under compulsion of necessity?

6:121. Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which Allâh's Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal), for sure it is Fisq (a sin and disobedience of Allâh). And certainly, the Shayâtin (devils) do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you, and if you obey them] [by making Al_Maytatah (a dead animal) legal by eating it], then you would indeed be Mushrikûn (polytheists) [because they (devils and their friends) made lawful to you to eat that which Allâh has made unlawful to eat and you obeyed them by considering it lawful to eat, and by doing so you worshipped them, and to worship others besides Allâh is polytheism].***

Therefore, make up your own mind, find out which sequence the ayat were revealed, or find out from someone which evidence is stronger. :)

4

Draining of blood, although important, is really not the "deal-breaker" bcz according to FDA rules, a percentage of blood has to be drained from all slaughter by the slaughterhouses. The way of killing (stun gun) etc is important to the extent, whether they are slaughtering an animal which is already dead (murdaar) or alive.

The critical difference is whether Allah's name is taken at the time of slaughter or not; or whether it is at all mandatory or not. Some quote the quranic ayat in Chapter 6 to argue it is mandatory. Some use the ayat in Chapter 5 to saythat when jews or christians slaughter (without taking any name on it at the time of slaughter) it is permitted as long as you take Allah's name BEFORE eating. This is a minority view, by the way.

5

If we gather all above mentioned ayaah then it is very easy to infer that It is halal to eat Ahl-ul-kitaab zabeeha as per chapter 5 BUT they must say name of ALLAh while slaughtering as per chapter 6.

and btw: according to what I know the correct prescribed way of slaughtering among ahl-ul-kitaab DOES mention name of ALLAH ..

Wallah-O-Alam!

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Anwaar Qureshi: *
If we gather all above mentioned ayaah then it is very easy to infer that It is halal to eat Ahl-ul-kitaab zabeeha as per chapter 5 BUT they must say name of ALLAh while slaughtering as per chapter 6.
[/QUOTE]
You are assuming that the ahl-e-Kitaab at the time of Prophet (PBUH) used to take Allah's name while slaughtering. Thats a tough case to prove. Because then 5:5 becomes superflous as meat on which Allah's name is taken (at the time of slaughter) is already permitted, without specifying whether it should be slaughtered by muslims or non-muslims. :)

Anyway, the point is not to justify one position or the other. But to present both sides of the argument. There is a difference of opinion on this topic, and people will do well to spend a little time researching and then making up their own mind, based on which evidence they find as the most compelling.

7

You two sound like Jewish Rabbis.... carry on :p

8

thank you faisal:-) I agree and I am not in minority :P

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by who---me: *
You two sound like Jewish Rabbis.... carry on :p
[/QUOTE]
dun hijack the thread and please stick to the topic. If you dun have anything to add, dun add :-D

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Anwaar Qureshi: *

and btw: according to what I know the correct prescribed way of slaughtering among ahl-ul-kitaab DOES mention name of ALLAH ..

[/QUOTE]

Really I thought it was a bolt to the head and then on to the next one, the only time God's name is mentioned is when someone drops the sledge hammer.

10

Orthodox jews do mention God's name and have specified prayers at the time of slaughter, therefore, kosher meat is generally eaten by most muslims (I am sure there will be some, who'd say "astaghfirullah" to kosher meat too :)). But christians were never very particular about taking any kind of name while slaughtering. Hence, when Quran mentions "People of the Book" .. and gives permission to their food, it really should be looked carefully. There is no condition in that ayat to specify that the "People of the Book" should take God's name etc. Atleast I don't see any. Do you?

11

6:121. Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which Allâh's Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal), for sure it is Fisq (a sin and disobedience of Allâh).

Pretty much covers everyone book or no book?

12

Faisal bhai can we take one part of the book and reject other? Don't we have to see it as a whole?

13

It's pretty clear one type of ayat relays greater detail (6:121) whilst the other (5:5) is more general.

14

It is. Unless 5:5 is revealed after 6:121 :)

Afterall, at one point Quran does say (and people use it a lot to justify drinking) that 4:43 says "O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know (well) what you say." They conveniently ignore that a later ayat 5:90 then says "O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (divination by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful" where Allah has treated intoxicants as equal in nijasaat (unclean) to sacrificing to stones (a form of shirk).

So it is not taking the whole book which is important only, but the sequence of revelation. Some times the later ayat expands a ruling, permits something extra or prohibits something, which an earlier ayat had not done.

15

Before or after Faisal it is the simple clarification and detail that has the crux of the message. I don't think it's as simplistic as following a linear recipe. IMO it has to be taken as a whole and read in the context of the defining statement, which is clearly found in 6:121.

4:43 could be someone intoxicated with anger and the later ayat about artificial intoxicants.

16

Every thing in Islam does have a reson, which can easily be proved from science...so if you are uncoern about Islam and looking for some way to out! plz do it to your self and don,t make it a religion...thanks!

Hraam is Haraam, thats it! all blood must be drained ...and name of Allah must be recited! thank you!

If some has to eat go ahead what they want, but plz don't come to Islam having lame excuses...as we already have a Fatwaa roaming around in NA...saying eat every thing, and say bismillah...shame on those!
may Allah give them guidence!

17

Well, thats fine. 6:121 satisfies most people. And I am sure that is what most people feel comfortable with too. In the first post, you asked what justification people have to eat non-zabeeha meat, and that is what I was giving you. It is 5:5. Now obviously to you it doesn’t provide the right answer. Congratulations. You reached your conclusion. :k:

18

Surely 5:5 isn't the deciding factor for these people?! :o

19

Actually.. it may well be. :)

20

Thanks for the clarification Faisal and AQ much obliged.