The Ruling on the Slaughtered Animals of Those Who Seek Help From Other Than Allah, if They Mention Allah's Name Over Them

Question :

A group of students of (Islamic) knowledge claim that the slaughtered animals of those who seek help from Allah and call upon other than Allah in matters in which he (i.e., the one called upon) cannot do anything as long as they mention Allah's Name over them are permissible; and they cite as evidence the generality of the Words of Allah, Most High:
"So eat of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has been pronounced (while slaughtering the animal), if you are believers in His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.).

and the Words of Him, Most High:
"And why should you not eat of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has heen 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? And surely, many do lead (mankind) astray by their own desires through lack of knowledge. Certainly your Lord knows best the transgressors.

And they consider that those who forbid it are from the transgressors who lead people astray by their own desires, through lack of knowledge, and they say that Allah has explained to us in detail what He has forbidden to us, as in His Words:
"Forbidden to you (for food) are: Al-Maitah (the dead animals-cattlebeast not slaughtered), blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which Allah's Name has not heen mentioned while slaughtering (that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah, or has been slaughtered for idols) and that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow."

and the Words of Him, Most High:
He has forbidden you only the Maitah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah (or has been slaughtered for idols, on which Allah's Name has not been mentioned while slaughter- ing).

And other such Verses which explain in detail what is forbidden to us, and there is no mention in them of prohibition of any animals upon which the Name of Allah was mentioned, even if the slaughterer was an idolater or a Zoroastrian, and they assert that Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahhab used to eat the slaughtered animals of those who used to worship Zaid bin Al-Khattab if they had mentioned Allah's Name over them. Are their claims true? And what is the reply to what they have cited as evidence, if they are wrong? And what is the truth in the matter and what is the evidence?

Answer:

The ruling on the permissibility or forbiddance of slaughtered animals differs depending upon the situation of the slaughterer: If the slaughterer is a Muslim and it is not known that he has done anything which invalidates the basis of his Islam and he mentioned the Name of Allah over his sacrifice, or if it is not known whether he mentioned Allah's Name over it or not, then his sacrifice is permissible. This is based upon the consensus of the Muslims and the generality of the Words of Allah, Most High:
"So eat of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has been pronounced (while slaughtering the animal), if you are believers in His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.). And why should you not eat of that (meat) on which Allah'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?

If the slaughterer is one of the People of the Scripture, Jewish or Christian and he mentioned the Name of Allah over his sacrifice, then it is permissible, according to the consensus of the Muslims and the Words of Allah, Most High:
"The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you

Scripture If he did not mention Allah's Name over it nor any other name, then there is a difference of opinion regarding its permissibility: Those who said that it is permissible cited as evidence the generality of the Words of Allah, Most High:

"The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you."

And those who forbade it cited as evidence the generality of the evidences for the obligation to mention Allah's Name over the sacrifice and over game, and the prohibition of eating meat over which the Name of Allah was not mentioned in the Words of Allah, Most High:
"Eat not (O believers) of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has not been pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal)."

And this seems most apparent; and if the Jew or Christian mentioned other than Allah's Name, such as by saying: "In the name of Uzair," or: "In the name of the Messiah," or: "In the name of the cross," it would not be permissible to eat it, because it would be included in the generality of the Words of Allah, Most High:
"and that on which Allah's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering (that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah, or has been slaughtered for idols)."

Since it is an explanation of the generality of His Words:
"The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you."

And if the slaughterer is a Zoroastrian, it may not be eaten, whether the Name of Allah was mentioned over it or not-and there is no difference of opinion on this, as far as we are aware, except what was transmitted from Abu Thawr regarding permitting his (i.e., the Zoroastrian's) game and sacrifice, based upon the narration from the Prophet ﷺ in which he said:
"Treat them as you would treat the People of the Scripture."

And because they are left with their religion by virtue of their payment of the Jizyah like the People of the Scripture. Therefore, their game and slaughtered animals are permissible.

But the scholars rejected this and considered it to be in conflict with the consensus of the Salaf who came before him. In Al- Mughni, Ibn Qudamah said: "Ibrahim Al-Harbi said: 'Abu Thawr has transgressed the consensus.' Ahmad said: "Here are people. who see no objection to the slaughtered animals of the Zoroastrians how amazing is this? He meant by it Abu. Thawr. And those from whom it is reported that they disliked their slaughtered animals include Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn 'Abbas, 'Ali, Jabir, Abu Bardah, Sa'id bin Al-Musayyib, 'Ikrimah, Al-Hasan bin Muhammad, 'Ata', Mujahid, 'Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila, Sa'id bin Jubair, Murrah Al-Hamdani, Az-Zuhri, Malik, Ath- Thawri, Ash-Shafi'i, and the People of Opinion (i.e. the Hanafis).

Ahmad said: 'And I know of no one who contradicts this except that he is an innovator' and because Allah, Most High says:
"The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you."

So it is understood from this that the food of other disbelievers is forbidden, because they have no Scripture, so their sacrifices are not permissible, like the idolaters."

Then he said: "The Jizyah was only taken from them (i.e.. Zoroastirans) because doubt regarding the Book necessitates the forbiddance of killing them, and since it was ruled that it is forbidden to spill their blood, the absence of a Scripture must necessitate the prohibition of eating their slaughtered animals and marrying their women. And because there is a consensus, which is the saying of those whom we have named and there is none who contradicted them in their time, nor those who came after them, except a narration on the authority of Sa'id in which it was reported that he contradicted it."-end of the quotation. from Al-Mughni.

If the slaughterer is a polytheist, a worshipper of idols and those included in their ruling, aside from the Zoroastrians and the People of the Scripture, then the Muslims are in complete agreement regarding the prohibition of eating their slaughtered animals whether they mentioned the Name of Allah upon them or not. And what is understood from the Words of Allah, Most High:
"The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you."

proves the prohibition of the slaughtered animals of disbelievers. other than them. If it were not so, there would have been no reason to mention them in particular in the wording of the ruling of permissibility.

The same applies to one who claims to be a Muslim, but calls upon other than Allah in matters in which none is able to do anything but Allah and seeks help from other than Allah. Slaughtered animals from such person are the same as those of the idolatrous disbelievers and the atheists they are not permissible. Just as the slaughtered animals of those disbelievers are not permissible, due to their association of partners with Allah and their rejection of Islam. According to this, the consensus upon the prohibition of their slaughtered animals and the meaning understood from the Verse are both explana- tions of the generality of the Words of Allah, Most High:
"So eat of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has been pronounced (while slaughtering the animal)."

and His Words:
"And why should you not eat of that (meat) on which Allah's Name has been pronounced (at the time of slaughtering the animal)."

It is not correct to cite these two Verses and others bearing the same meaning as evidence for the permissibility of eating the slaughtered animals of the idolaters and those who fall under the same ruling. For example one who apostatizes from Islam, due to his persistence in seeking help from other than Allah and his supplication of the dead and others in matters in which none but Allah can do anything, even after it is explained to him and the evidence has been established for him that this is the Shirk of the first period of Jahiliyyah.

Likewise, it is not correct to consider lawful the sacrifice of one who seeks help from other than Allah among the dead and others and seeks aid from other than Him in matters which are Allah's domain merely because he mentioned Allah's Name over it due to the fact that their slaughter has not been clearly mentioned in the Verse:

He has forbidden you only the Maitah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah (or has been slaughtered for idols, on which Allah's Name has not been mentioned while slaughter- ing)."

And, other Verses bearing the same meaning, in which Allah has mentioned what foods He has forbidden to His worshipper.

Indeed the slaughtered animals of those people, even though they have not been mentioned clearly in the evidences regarding forbidden foods, are included in the generality of dead meat, due to their apostasy from Islam, since they commit deeds which nullify the basis of their faith, and due to their insistence upon that, even after the matter has been explained to them.

And whoever claimed that Imam Ad-Da'wah, Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahhab may Allah have mercy on himused to eat the slaughtered animals of the people of Najd, who used to supplicate Zaid bin Al-Khattab, his claim is a slander and mere conjecture, and no more than an allegation without any narration from him may Allah have mercy on him to testify to it. Indeed, it contradicts the ruling to which his books and writings attest on one who supplicates to other than Allah.

It does not matter whether it is an angel close (to Allah), a Prophet sent (with guidance), or a righteous servant of Allah- if it be in matters in which none can do anything but Allah -then he is a polytheist and an apostate from Islam. Indeed, his Shirk is even worse than that of the people of Jahiliyyah. The ruling on such person and his sacrifice is the same as that of the people of Jahiliyyah, or even worse.

The Muslims are in complete agreement regarding the prohibi- tion of eating the slaughtered animals of disbelievers other than the People of the Scripture, even if they mention Allah's Name over them. Because mentioning His Name over a slaughtered animal is a form of worship, and it is not valid unless the worship is devoted purely and sincerely to Allah, according to the Words of Him, Most Glorified:
"But if they had joined in worship others with Allah, all that they used to do would have been of no benefit to them.

And Allah, Most Glorified, Most High knows best and is Wiser.

Read more:

As Long As The Blood Does Not Cease To Flow, Intercourse Is Forbidden

Question : After a woman delivers her baby, can her husband have intercourse wit...

The Ruling on a Widowed Woman in Her Waiting Period Moving From the House of Her Deceased Husband to the House of Her Family

Question : A woman married a man, then he died. He had no children from her, and...

I Supplicated, but I wasn't Answered

Question : I spent the last ten years, on and off, asking Allah Almighty to prov...

The Ruling on the Sacrificial Animal Which Does not Move When Being Slaughtered

Question : Is it correct that if the sacrificial animal does not move when its t...