Yasir Qadhi – Ask Shaykh YQ #70 – Getting to the Meat of the Matter

Yasir Qadhi
AI: Summary © The speakers emphasize the importance of removing misunderstandings and removing emotionalism in discussions about eating non-meat. They also discuss the complex process of slaughtering animals, including cutting tracheas and esophagus, and the use of a law. They stress the need for transparency and open-mindedness in the media industry, particularly in relation to clothing.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:01 --> 00:00:42

Salam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Alhamdulillah we began by praising Allah subhana wa tada who alone deserves ultimate praise. We send Sadat and slam upon our prophets of the law while he was Selim who was sent as a mercy to all of mankind. So today in sha Allah tala, we are finally going to get to the mouth watering discussion of tantalizing proportions, we're finally diving into the main course, that so many people have been waiting for. So I shall not mince my words here and let us stop loafing around, we cannot afford to do a half to bake job in this particular issue. We must wet up our appetites, roll up our sleeves and get straight to the meat of the matter. Or as the British

00:00:42 --> 00:01:07

would say, keep calm and carry on. Okay, I know I'm relishing this way too much. So let me jump into shallow data. today. Of course, our question, as you all are aware, is going to be one of the most commonly asked questions by Muslims living in the western lands. And that is the issue of eating the meat of the ticket up, or are we allowed to eat the meat that is commonly available in the marketplaces over here?

00:01:10 --> 00:01:13

Sell me Kobe league.

00:01:15 --> 00:01:19

No, he him first.

00:01:31 --> 00:02:13

And this is going to be a long lecture with detailed evidences. So if you don't have time to listen to the entire lecture with the evidence is all over the tabs. I'm going to start off by summarizing my conclusion in two minutes, and then inshallah for those who are able to they can listen to the entire lecture. The position that I follow is that it is not allowed to eat non meat for three reasons. In order of the strength of those reasons. First and foremost, because a majority of scholars placed the condition that Allah is name must be mentioned at the time of slaughter, and the meat that is available in the common marketplaces does not mention the name of a lot. Secondly, and

00:02:13 --> 00:02:58

the majority position, which I will defend is that this applies to both the Muslim and the kitabi or the advocate up. Secondly, that the presumption that the slaughter is a person from the advocate up from the Jewish or Christian background, this is a presumption that is not certain given the rising trend of agnosticism and atheism. And it is difficult to and categorically simply declare that modern societies, especially European societies, more than America, Canadian, and European, more than American, but overall in the Western world, to just simply assume that they are all educated, that is not something that we can be so certain about. And then thirdly, the gray area comes about

00:02:58 --> 00:03:38

the mechanism of slaughter itself. And this third issue can be divided into two sub categories, three a, the issue of stunning or electrocution, or the bolt gun, all of these things they bring about an uncertainty is the animal alive at the time of death, at the time of slaughter, excuse me or not, if the animal is dead by the stunning, then it doesn't matter if you slaughter and or not, it will be considered dead meat it is not slaughtering, so three a is about the issue of stunning is a gray area, we'll talk a little bit about that. And then three B is not only the issue of stunning, but the issue of how the knife is used on the neck of the of the animal. Because these days, there

00:03:38 --> 00:04:18

is a rising trend of what is called vertical cut rather than the horizontal cut. And this vertical cut is highly problematic from an Islamic standpoint, because it does not slice the jugular veins. And as we'll come to that is yet another issue. So this is in a nutshell, that the position that I defend, which is the majority position is that it is not allowed to eat non meat and that when Allah has allowed the meat of delicate up, he has allowed it if they follow their own conditions and their own shedding. And therefore that is the verse in the Quran that the meat of the People of the Book is allowed for you. It applies to what we now call in our times kosher meat. kosher meat is halal.

00:04:18 --> 00:04:53

That is what Allah references in the book as for the regular meat available, they have not followed their shittier. So it will not be considered permissible. That is the short answer. Now for those that are interested in the longer answer, please bring out your pen and paper or start writing because this is going to be a bit of a more detailed lecture and I decided to go into detail because this is a topic that everybody asks about and everybody's wondering, and so this is a brief introduction, this is still a brief introduction, despite the fact that it is an entire lecture. Obviously film is never ending you can you can go deeper and deeper. And the more detailed

00:04:54 --> 00:04:59

issue begins as follows. That first and foremost I want to advise myself and all of you

00:05:00 --> 00:05:37

to please remove the emotionalism from this question, all too often both sides become very emotional the side that eats, the meat that is available and the side that is very strict in their stance of the behalf. And the reason why they get emotional is I think self explanatory. The ones that are eating the meat, they're being accused of doing harm. And obviously they get on the defensive, like what do you mean I'm quoting chef, so and so. And the ones that are not eating that meat, they really feel left out when they see their friends go to the burger joints and the eat the you know, the chicken mcnuggets or whatever it is that they're going to delicious steaks. And so they they

00:05:37 --> 00:06:12

really feel like it's not fair, I'm giving up, why don't they give up. And so that feeling of it's not fair, rather than saying, you know what, Allah will reward me for my sacrifice, they channel that and they kind of slowly become irritated. And I request both sides to really remove the emotionalism and realize that there are two opinions and those that choose to do it, you have followed a position that many of them of our times, status I'm going to mention and those that choose to abstain, you have followed the more pure position and there's no doubt in sha Allah, Allah, that Allah will reward you for your extra piety. So remove the emotionalism. Now, with that

00:06:12 --> 00:06:25

having been said, We begin by setting up the basic principle of the entire discussion. And that is this is a very interesting point that most people don't even think about when they talk about the issue of meat.

00:06:26 --> 00:07:08

Meat in the Sharia. The default is that if you don't know where it is from it is how long this is a principle that most people don't know. Anonymous meat I should not say anonymous versus ambiguous meat if somebody puts a platter in front of you, and you have no idea where it came from. If you find slaughtered meat somewhere, right, and you don't know the origin, the default is that you assume that it is how long? Now this is in contrast to pretty much everything else in this area where the default is that it is Helen right. So I have said many times that the default when it comes to interaction with human beings, the default when it comes to personal interactions, monetary

00:07:08 --> 00:07:45

transactions, food and clothing overall. Now, this is interesting. If we were to discover an exotic animal on some untouched Island, and we don't know, there is no name that's been given to this animal. The default is that the animal is Hillel overall. Unless we come in we find for example, it has claws or is hunting. So there are specific conditions that will make the animal you know every predator that has claws for example, right? This is one condition, if it is a predator that has claws it becomes how long otherwise the default the animal is headed. Now, suppose you went to a, you know exotic resort somewhere and they're presenting meat to you that is slaughtered, they bring

00:07:45 --> 00:08:25

it to the table and you don't know where it came from. In this case, when the meat is presented in front of the animal. The default is that it is halal. But that's obviously theoretically speaking that you have to slaughter it, the meat that is coming to slaughtered and cooked. The default is that it is haraam unless you know the origin. So in this case, the general rule will be and this is a famous principle of filthy mama sharply we mentioned that allows to fill a bar and mineral 11 to seven mature it will hire one and also free alcohol men who had tested as they gotten mature, he knows it will mature. So remember, shell TV and his wife have potty mentioned that when it comes to

00:08:25 --> 00:09:06

the issue of meat, the answer is that it is not allowed until we know that it is slaughtered properly. A moment no he in his much more famous sorry, in his short have Sahih Muslim, he says that in this particular Hadith, he mentioned the Hadith, there is a very important principle. And that is that if there is a doubt about whether the animal has been slaughtered properly or not, then the default allow us to remove the default is that we assume that it has not been slaughtered properly. And then he says we'll have that lengthy letter from fi and there is no difference of opinion about this issue. So we need to begin the entire discussion by saying the onus of proof is on the one who

00:09:06 --> 00:09:32

says that that meat is halaal. Otherwise, the default is that the meat is indeed how long if we do not know where the meat comes from. Now, obviously, I am not saying that we need to see the actual, you know, plate in front of us from the slaughterhouse to the plate. No, what I'm saying is there needs to be a reasonable assumption. If you go to a Muslim, you know, butcher and he is saying that he has slaughtered it in a proper manner, then you trust the Muslim butcher and you may purchase from this house or this this

00:09:33 --> 00:09:59

shop and the assumption or the burden is on the person who is saying he has slaughtered it in a halal manner. So if you go to a restaurant and they're advertising, we are serving only the meat. And you know the owners are Muslims and whatnot, even if they're non Muslims, but they are trustworthy that they're not going to lie use either certificate. So now there's a level of reasonable certainty that their advertising is halal, and that in this country they will be sued and there's going to be a huge lawsuit. If they

00:10:00 --> 00:10:36

are lying and there's no reason for them to do that. So you make a reasonable assumption. And if they're advertising at holiday or if the Muslim is saying he slaughtered it is in the slaughterhouse, then inshallah you will take his word for it, you do not have to have seen it slaughtered at the same time, if you don't know, and it is completely unknown where the meat is coming from, in this case is presented to you in front of you, for example, in this case, the default is that you will not consider it to be halal until you find out and you might ask the owner of the restaurant is this you know, Highlanders is the behalf or whatnot. Now, the question we're

00:10:36 --> 00:11:13

gonna answer is what makes the slaughtering Hello. And obviously, I keep on saying that all the lectures I give in all the questions I give, these are not very detailed, they're kind of you know, intermediate or whatnot because more detail than this you need many, many hours of discussion. The main Hadeeth in this regard the Hadith is multifocal Bukhari and Muslim are affair even Hadith says that oh messenger of Allah, sometimes I'm in the desert, and I don't bring my knife with me and I come across the sea a rabbit, right? How can I make that animal halal? So our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said listen to this editor is in Bukhari and Muslim, called Luma, inherit them with

00:11:13 --> 00:11:56

Akira smilla, la for Kuru, anything that causes the blood to gush out anything that causes the blood to flow from the you know, the neck, and you have mentioned the name of Allah, you may eat of that this hadith is the basis of the entire chapter of slaughtering the blood, the blood of the jugular vein must flow out, you must, the whole purpose of the slaughter is to minimize the amount of blood that is left in the body, and when you slaughter the animal properly, then the blood will gush out automatically and you must mention the name of Allah. So everything that causes the blood to gush out and you have mentioned the name of a law you may eat of that. Now our scholars have extrapolated

00:11:56 --> 00:12:38

from this many different rulings. And let us begin with the first of these rulings that is mentioned the Koran. And the first ruling is that the one who slaughters the animal must be a person who believes in Allah subhanho wa Taala. And from our shifty eyes perspective, that means three faith traditions, Muslim, Christian or Jew, the concession of eating the slaughtering of alikat up it was revealed very late in the show it I wonder the last pseudos to be revealed. So tell me the verse five, Allah says in the Quran, or tombola, Dena automl keytab Hello Lacan that the food of the people who believe in the book is halal for you. When Allah says the food, the by unanimous

00:12:38 --> 00:13:14

consensus, what is meant is the slaughter. As for the food, meaning the rice and the vegetables and the grain, you don't have to be even had to get up you can purchase rice from an atheist, you can purchase vegetables from a Buddhist doesn't matter. When Allah says the food of the People of the Book, what he means is the slaughtering of the People of the Book. So Allah saying the slaughtering of the People of the Book is halal for you, what are our millennia, whatever, hello. So the slaughtering of a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew, this is something that is permitted in our religion if all of the conditions are met. Now, there's a bit of a deeper discussion. What

00:13:14 --> 00:13:52

constitutes a Christian, for example, the sect known as Mormonism, would they constitute or not? And so this is a discussion beyond the scope of my brief talk over here. But it is very clear that Christians who believe in the Trinity and Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, they are considered Christian by the Quran itself. There are many average Muslims, they come and say, How can I eat to the slaughter of a kitabi when he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, when he believes in a trinity, and I respond to them, the Koran criticizes the Trinity and Christianity, and the Quran criticizes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And yet the Quran also says that the

00:13:52 --> 00:14:31

slaughter of this same kitabi, whose theology has criticized the slaughter of this kitabi by the wicked Tabby means Jewish or Christian person, the slaughter of this kitabi is permissible, therefore, the believing Christians and the believing Jews, their slaughter is permissible for us. And for the record, I believe that those Christian sects that believe in profits after the Prophet Isa that is not our Prophet, so the group that is founded in America and they have their own Prophet Joseph Smith, for example, technically, they would not constitute the kitabi This is my person, which they are then the last part of that it knows best. But Protestants and Eastern Orthodox and

00:14:31 --> 00:14:59

Russian Orthodox in Greek Orthodox and mainstream, you know, Catholics and, you know, all of these, you know, ecumenical groups, Unitarian Universalist Christians that these are the mainstream Christian groups, they believe in the principles of Christianity, and if they amongst them, they slaughter the animal and they follow the rules that they're supposed to follow, then that animal would be permissible for us Now, why is the slaughter of a non kitabi Nazi

00:15:00 --> 00:15:34

allowed if we were to go to a person who's a Buddhist, a person who was a Hindu, and they were to slaughter an animal, why would that slaughter not be allowed? That is very simple. Allah says in the Quran with regards to the people of the book, what Allah who now what was your God and our God is the same God, they might have a different conception of that God, they might have a different, you know, understanding of the Trinity, obviously, in Jesus Christ, but in the end of the day, they believe in the God of Abraham, they believe in the God of the children of Israel, they believe in the God of Isaac, they believe in the God of so the same God what Allah who know what you know why

00:15:35 --> 00:16:15

this isn't the Koran, your God in our God is the same God when I had a homeless woman, and we have submitted to him on in contrast to this, a Buddhist or an atheist, obviously does not believe in a god or a Hindu, their gods are different than our gods. So, if they were to slaughter an animal, then it is not considered acceptable, because they are not sacrificing to the correct if you like deity, or the only true deity. And this plays a very important role when we come to so this is the first issue and that is the religion of the one slaughtering. So in order for the slaughter to be permissible, the person must be a believing Muslim, a believing Christian or believing Jew. Now, of

00:16:15 --> 00:17:00

course, in the modern cultures that we live in, had we lived in America 100 years ago, we would say this condition, no problem. Given that the rising rates of agnosticism and atheism, especially in Europe, they have skyrocketed, then this becomes a very ambiguous question in and of itself. Can we make such a presumption that, that societies we live in are believing Christians and Jews? And by the way, there's a poll done by a European company across Europe? A question was asked, Do you believe in the existence of God? If God not even Christian just do believe in God? Only 51% across Europe said yes. 49% had other answers spirituality or some higher power, not God. And 51% by the

00:17:00 --> 00:17:43

wasn't even Christian, it was just generically Do you believe in a god or not? And so around half the people in Europe now would not be able to answer the question, do you believe in God? How can an assumption be made that this is a kitabi? society? Now in America granted, that the, the statistics are relatively higher? I think last time I checked, it was around 70% or so. But still 70% is good, but it's not like any 90 95%. You know, so this whole issue of can we assume the society around us is a kitabi society or not? It's a gray area. And so I you know, that's one area that needs to be brought in. So the second issue, so we let us assume, let us just assume, and by the way, me

00:17:43 --> 00:18:20

personally, I'll my position here, by and large in the slaughterhouses down south in Texas, where we are, and in Alabama, in places that are basically down south in America, I think it is a very reasonable assumption to make that the bulk of the populations are Christians, and they believe in God. And I don't think that is unreasonable. Now, that's down south, up north, in America or in Canada or in Europe. Me personally, I think this is a very, very difficult extrapolation to make. And that should give people pause right then and there. That's the first condition, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. The second condition Once you have found that, okay, and you can, by the way,

00:18:21 --> 00:18:58

we can make a presumption like if 95% of the people are Christian, you can make a presumption that okay, the person slaughtering is going to be a Christian. The second condition, how does the slaughtering occur, and that is because obviously, even if a Jewish or Christian a Muslim person comes right, and one or the other will be less equal as refuge from even saying this, but he takes a stick, and he beats the animal to death. Obviously, that's not going to be permissible is it? So it's not just the religion of the one slaughtering there is how the slaughtering occurs and how the slaughtering occurs again, a very long discussion very quickly, the slaughtering must be done via a

00:18:58 --> 00:19:43

sharp instrument, that slaughters at the throat level, and it cuts the appropriate passages in the neck of the animal while the animal is alive. If the animal is dead, it doesn't matter if you cut its neck, it is a dead animal. If you run over an animal or you beat an animal to death, or you electrocuted to death, or you use a stun gun and the animal dies, then the knife comes to the neck. It doesn't matter even if a Muslim says Bismillah a million times. If the animal is dead, it is dead. It is in Arabic called Mater or carrion, or an animal that is explicitly held on by the testimony of the Koran. So the animal must be alive and a sharp instrument must be used. That cuts

00:19:43 --> 00:19:59

off now there are four primary passages in the neck of the animal. You have the trachea, which is the air passage, you have the esophagus, which is the food passage and then you have the two jugular veins. These are the four main you know passages in the neck of the animal. There's a lot of discussion amongst the former head

00:20:00 --> 00:20:35

More than the former that have about what if you cut less than the four by unanimous consensus, the Ideal Cut is all for you cut the trachea and the esophagus and both jugular veins. And by the way, in animals, they are within an inch, you know, or two inch and a half, you know, so basically, if you just cut deep enough, you've done all four of the veins. Now there's a bit of a controversy What if you do two of the four three of the four inshallah, generally speaking in the position that I follow, as long as you cut at least one of the jugular veins, then you are fine, because the purpose is that deep, literally, as the prophet SAW said him said, Could Luma and Hara dump everything that

00:20:35 --> 00:21:14

causes the blood to flow that needs to be done, and the blood will only flow if you have cut the jugular vein, if you only cut the the esophagus, for example, that's not really going to cause the blood to flow. And this leads us to another major problem that we have, especially in Western societies. And those problems are twofold. Number one, the issue of stunning and number two, the issue of the cut. As for the issue of the stunning Western law believes that if you stand the animal that is more humane, this is their version of humanity, and our version of the shitty are the stunning is a bigger torture than the killing of the animal itself. If you cook if you slaughter the

00:21:14 --> 00:21:54

animal with one sharp blade, and you slaughter it the way that the Sharia requires you to be slaughtered, then the pain is negligible if even there is pain as for electrocution, and stun gun and bolt gun and carbon monoxide poisoning or whatever. This is more of a torture from our perspective. But there's nothing we can do the laws of the land mandate that, as far as I know, almost all states mandate that there must be a type of stunning done now, stunning in and of itself is mcru it is discouraged. Why is it discouraged because from our perspective, it tortures the animal, but the stunning will not make the animal how long, what will make the animal how long, if

00:21:54 --> 00:22:38

the stunned animal dies, before the slaughtering occurs, then that animal is considered Mater or carrier. Now, generally speaking, chickens that are slaughtered by the machines slaughter, they are dipped in voltage, electricity and water that is that is electric, you know, voltage, I forgot the amps there. But it is something that will stun the chicken generally speaking, by and large is not going to cause the chickens to die. However, cows are a totally different issue. And that is because in order to sacrifice a cow in order to stand a cow, there are two methods that are used, the most common one is the stun gun. And that is you take a gun that has a piston and it is going to be shot

00:22:38 --> 00:23:19

out of the the cylinder of the gun, it will enter into the forehead of the animal and then is going to be brought back out. And if you watch videos of this, it is pure torture. And I cannot believe why people think that this is more humane than the Islamic or the kosher method of simply slaughtering the animal. But that is what they believe. So when you do that the animal is absolutely stunned it is it is shivering, it is barely able to stand up, it collapses. It's a very sad reality. And we wish that we can change this law. But that alone would cannot we cannot do anything in this regard right now. And so in this process, by the time the animal is then mounted up and then the

00:23:19 --> 00:24:02

cutting is done, a percentage of those animals die. If the animal is alive, the heart is beating. By the time the blade cuts across the neck, then it is halaal. Even if it was impermissible, it is makuu. So let's not let's not confuse between the two, to stun the animal to shoot that gun. This is a type of torture. And we don't like doing this. But if the animal is alive, and the slaughter occurs after the stunning and the animal is alive, the animal the meat will be highlighted it is the be the problem comes if the stunning kills the animal. And this is studies have been done. And a number of studies I have read and I've spoken to many people that are involved in the business,

00:24:02 --> 00:24:40

there is no one number that is universal. I've heard figures from 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 about what percentage of cows don't make it before the slaughtering occurs. And this is not a trivial matter. If there's 20% 30% of animals that are dead by the time the slaughtering occurs, then, that is a Mater that is a dead animal that doesn't matter even if a Muslim says Bismillah and slaughters it, it will be how long to eat. So this is yet another factor. And yet another factor when it comes to how the animal is slaughtered, is that these days there is another cut it is not common, but it is being done by some of the more

00:24:41 --> 00:24:59

famous companies or brands and they call this the vertical cut rather than the horizontal cut. So generally speaking, when you slaughter the animal there should be a horizontal cut. What is happening now in some avatars, they hang the animal upside on the cow obviously, and they slaughter it with the vertical cut.

00:25:00 --> 00:25:36

They have their philosophy, which is rubella. They want to keep the blood inside the animal. Why would they want to keep the blood inside the animal, so they vertically cut the animal and they cut off just the, the trachea, the air passage will just want the animal to die because it cannot breathe, and the blood is left inside. And this cut the majority of our dilemma and obviously common sense, it will not be considered having slaughtered the animal because our prophets of the law he said him said could Luma and Hara dump everything that causes the blood to gush out. And when you cut the trachea, you are not causing the blood to gush out. Why would they want to keep the blood

00:25:36 --> 00:26:11

inside the animal? Two reasons they tell us number one, because the blood makes the butcher house messy, and they want to don't want to keep it they want to keep it cleaner. And number two, according to them, they like the taste of the villa. And from our perspective, we find it disgusting, they like the taste of the meat when there's extra blood in it. Whereas for us, we want to get rid of the blood as much as possible. And we want to have the means to have as little of the flowing blood. In fact, we want the blood to flow out as much as possible. So this is another gray area that comes in about how the animal is slaughtered. And there is no doubt that further research

00:26:11 --> 00:26:50

needs to be done. And the question is as follows. Number one, what percentage of cows and even chickens are alive by the time the knife comes across the throat. And for chickens? Generally speaking, enough studies have been done that we're fairly confident to say that the stunning does not kill too many chickens. So it's a very negligible amount of the Shetty as not asking for 100%. But it should be what we call a lever to one or the presumption, the the prevalence, the prevalent assumption that we can derive. And number two is which slaughterhouses use the vertical cut versus the horizontal cut, and any slaughterhouse that uses the horizontal cut, sorry, the vertical cut for

00:26:50 --> 00:27:16

sure, that is one that we should avoid. But until we find out then another gray area comes in. So we're now point number two, and that is the slaughtering procedure, point number one and two together, gray areas you're compounding them. Point number three is, without a doubt the clear cut area, which is why I personally follow the majority position where which states that it is not allowed to eat the meat that is available in the marketplace. And what is point number three.

00:27:18 --> 00:27:59

Point number three is the issue of saying the name of a law at the time of slaughter in Arabic is called test smear, or to say Bismillah R Rahman r Rahim, this smear and this is really the crux of the matter. It's an open and shut case in that if you believe that saying the name of Allah is a necessary requirement, then obviously the meat available in these countries becomes how long because we know for a fact that not no religious ceremony is done. In the average meat available. No God is mentioned no religious symbolism takes place. It is a completely agnostic secular institution. And there is no mentioning of the name of Allah subhanho wa Taala. And if you follow the position, that

00:27:59 --> 00:28:15

saying the name of Allah is not obligatory, which as we'll come to is the position of some of the scholars, then in this case, you have still the first two issues to worry about, which is is the person a Christian or Jew, and has the slaughter been done, and those are both gray areas. So let us discuss the issue of saying Bismillah

00:28:16 --> 00:28:55

the majority of odema and three of the format tabs state that ideally speaking, it is an obligation to say Bismillah at the time of slaughter. Now why do I say ideally, because if a person forgets, and they had in their in their mind if you get nervous, right? And so you're going to slaughter the cow. And the cow says, you know, I'm moving too much. And you forget to say Bismillah, but you had it in your mind. That's what I'm saying, ideally, so we're not talking about the one who forgets, even though he wanted to say we're talking about the one who had no desire to say Bismillah, the one who had no intention to say Bismillah, or the name of Allah. And by the way, when I say to say

00:28:55 --> 00:29:31

Bismillah, it doesn't have to be in Arabic, somebody is going to say Do you really think of Jewish or Christian person will say Bismillah, I will respond. They can say in the name of God, or they can say in Hebrew, in the name of the Lord, which is what the Jews say, no problem. They have to mention the name of their God of our God, it is the same God and they have to make the animal holy. What gives us the right to kill an animal Allah gave us that right? We have no right to kill another animal without mentioning the name of Allah subhana wa Tada. Allah has given us that right? And therefore the animal will only be permitted if we mentioned the name of Allah before we sacrifice

00:29:31 --> 00:29:59

that Alamo. So the position of the Hamburg the schools and the Maliki school and the Hanafi school three of the four schools, the position of Shiraz have been telling me and they have no idea. The position of the majority and the bulk of the oma is that it is a necessary requirement to say the name of a law before you sacrifice an animal and any person who intentionally knowingly does not say the name of a law that animal

00:30:00 --> 00:30:43

We'll be considered how long to eat Mater non halal knowing that we have this is the position of three of the four methods what is left one school of law and that is the Shafi School of Law. The Shaftsbury School of Law they were the only school that said, mentioning the name of a law is encouraged, but not watch it is sooner but not watch him. And if you don't mention the name of a lot, even intentionally, then no big deal. The animal is still permitted. So this is the main difference between the two schools when it comes to the issue of saying Bismillah Now, what is the evidence of the first school that you have to say Bismillah R Rahman Rahim There are numerous

00:30:43 --> 00:31:26

evidences in the Quran and in the Sunnah, for example, so the Hajj verse 34, Allah subhanho wa Taala says, will equally omit in Jana men secondly, as the Kuru small la dama Rosa called me but he said and we have given sacrificial rights to every single nation so that they may mention the name of a law over the animals that Allah has given them, also inserted that Hajj verse 2028, Allah azza wa jal says for Kuru minha that was the coolest malatya that sorry, what? The Illuminati I don't wear the Kuru small la heafy Mr. Lu Martin, Allah Morocco Mohammed Anam, so that they mentioned the name of Allah once again, over the animals that Allah has given them. And Allah subhana wa tada also says

00:31:26 --> 00:31:39

in the Quran, for the Kuru smo, La La ha Sawa mentioned the name of Allah, as the animals are lined up to be sacrificed again, this is very explicit. And Allah azza wa jal says in certain mighty the verse for that,

00:31:40 --> 00:32:25

yes, Allah commanded the home for you Botswana I lamb to mina djawadi Giovanna himachali been at Wiley Muna hoonah Lima, Lima como la foco Lumumba and secondary converter, Kuru small law, he is a he, they asked you what animals are allowed to eat, say, Allah has allowed you to eat the animals that you're, you know, Falcons, or your hunting dogs they catch. So go ahead and train them and then send them out and eat from that which you have mentioned the name of a law and they have caught for you. Now hunting animals, even in the hunting animal, Allah says that was good is small law highly mentioned the name of Allah. And what this means is that when you send your Falcon, you know, the

00:32:25 --> 00:32:27

Arabs To this day, they train their Falcons to hunt

00:32:29 --> 00:33:02

different types of rabbits and whatnot. When you send your Falcon out, you must say Bismillah, when you send it out, that is going to catch the hair or the rabbit and we'll bring it back to you. And Allah is saying, No, no problem you have trained this animal is going to go hunt for you. But make sure you say the name of Allah subhanho wa Taala. Notice how explicit This is. And also the famous Hadith we just said of raffia and hardage everything that causes the blood to flow and do you have mentioned the name of Allah and the Hadith in Sahih Bukhari as well, that the Prophet solisten was asked about

00:33:03 --> 00:33:47

the hunting dogs. And he said, If you let loose your hunting dog, and you mentioned the name of Allah, when you send it out, then when you get there, and you find another animal eating from the hunted animal, and you don't know which of the two killed the animal, he said, Do not eat because you only said Bismillah over your trained animal. And you did not say Bismillah over the other animal. By the way, this is one of the main principles that shows you when meat is unknown, than the default is that it is how long I need you to understand this scenario because it is one of the most explicit scenarios. The scenario is as follows. You are hunting and you see a deer and you send your

00:33:47 --> 00:34:26

animal to basically baby deer or something you send your animal to catch. You know this prey, and the animal is trained, obviously your dog to eat from the train animals and it catches it but it's out of your distance. You go there and you find another animal another dog, let's say eating, you know from your hunted animal, and you don't know which of the two animals killed your hunted prey. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said fella cool for in some may to Allah cannabic Welcome to semiological bill aha even taymiyah says he started the process have said that don't eat because you only said Bismillah for your animal. You did not say Bismillah with the other animal. Even Tamia

00:34:26 --> 00:34:42

says this is the most explicit evidence that saying Bismillah makes the animal Helen and not saying Bismillah makes the animal harem This is crystal clear. Even taymiyah says and I think it is crystal clear to all of us. And

00:34:43 --> 00:34:59

we fallible, hushing, he said O Messenger of Allah. I live in a land I come from a place where people hunt with bows and arrows and they hunt with trained dogs and they also are training their dogs as well to hunt. So tell me what is highlighted for me. So the Prophet sallallahu wasallam said, whatever you hunt with your bowl,

00:35:00 --> 00:35:36

And you mentioned the name of a law, eat, whatever your train dog catches, and you have mentioned the name of a law eat. And if you're still training the dog, it's not fully trained, then only eat if you're able to catch it when they're still alive. So these are three explicit cases. And the first two are experts that only if you have mentioned the name of Allah asked for the third one, the dog is still being trained, you cannot eat unless you find is still alive, then you slaughter it and you mentioned the name of Allah. Because you don't know when it's still being trained, the dog might be catching it for itself, and in which case the animal would be not allowed to eat the train animal

00:35:36 --> 00:35:54

By the way, the train Falcon, the trained hunting dog, it does not hunt for itself, it hunts for you, if it's hunting for you, you may eat of the meat but if it's hunting for itself, then you cannot eat of the meat. So this is the reason why also in the Quran Surah 10 verse 120 and 121 is very explicit.

00:35:56 --> 00:36:37

So that an adverse 120 and 121 Allah subhana wa tada says, go ahead and eat for kulu mimma lucullus momoi they eat over that which Allah His name has been mentioned, if you believe in Him, and what is the matter with you, that you do not want to eat over which Allah His name has been mentioned and I have explained to you or it has been made clear to you, what has been made how long for you unless you are forced to do so. So Allah is basically saying, why are you hesitant to eat the meat and this is because there were certain animals that idgah Hillier and pre Islam, certain animals were earmarked superstitiously for being harmed. So don't quote me on this. But let's say the third

00:36:37 --> 00:37:16

female born to the third female. So if you have three female camels, and then the third one has three female camels, maybe like the third of the third, they have their bad luck numbers, basically, right? They have their issues that are just complete mythology. So a lot is saying, go ahead and eat of all of this, destroy that paganism. And if you mentioned the name of Allah, go ahead and eat then Allah is saying, why would you not eat when a law's name has been mentioned? And then this is the most explicit verse in the whole Quran about this issue. Please make a note of it, write it down, go read it yourself, sort of an arm verse 121, one Kuru Mim Lem youth carisma, la, la he were in the

00:37:16 --> 00:38:00

fisc do not eat of the meat over which a law's name has not been mentioned. For indeed, that is a sin to eat the meat of an animal over which our last name has not been mentioned. That is a sin. So this is something that is very, very clear. And it didn't say Mia for the advanced students here I want you to know that he wrote an entire treaties and you won't find it in much more fatawa because it is in the recently discovered manuscripts, and this is in German old masal Edited by Dr. Bukhara Jose the volume six page 377 onwards he wrote an entire treaties and entire booklet about the issue of saying Bismillah so very amazing booklet. and in it he states and I quote, that the obligation of

00:38:00 --> 00:38:42

saying Bismillah before the hunting or before the slaughtering of the animal, it is more clear from the Quran and Sunnah than the obligation of reciting Surah Al Fatiha during the Salah. There are more verses and more a hadith about saying Bismillah before you slaughter then about reciting fire to have in the Salah. This is what she heard Sam had been telling me right okay, so this is the position of the HANA fees and Maddie keys and the ham buddies and that is that you must mention the name of a law and that a person who intentionally means he has no desire to mention the name of Allah, then even if, you know, they slaughter it properly, the animal be considered not allowed

00:38:42 --> 00:39:23

Jade, the shaft fairies are the one school that said that it is not something that is obligatory and they interpret the verse in the Quran, do not eat the meat over to law's name has not been mentioned. they interpret this as an animal that dies naturally. Or some of them say this is the meat that has been sacrificed to the gods. And we respond to them that okay, I mean, that's an interpretation. But the verse doesn't say that the verse is very, very broad and vague, do not eat the meat over which our last name has not been mentioned, this includes dead animals. This includes sacrificing to other than a law. And this also includes that which nothing has been mentioned over

00:39:23 --> 00:39:59

which is the default in the lives that we live in. And the shafr is also used a hadith which is in the center of a data opening. One of the tertiary books of Hadith is not one of the famous six or seven or eight or nine books is beyond that. So in an adult opening, and there is a hadith in there that says a Muslim who sacrifices his sacrifice is using the name of Allah. His sacrifice automatically includes Bismillah whether he says it or not, it includes Bismillah. So they say that this is something that is incorporated into the act of slaughter by the Muslim and they also say there's a hadith inside Bahati that I should not be allowed one has said

00:40:00 --> 00:40:09

That a group of people came to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and listen to this, because this is always used. And they said to him or messenger of a law,

00:40:10 --> 00:40:54

groups of people gift us meat. And we do not know whether they have mentioned the name of Allah over that meet or not. So the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, you go ahead and say Bismillah, and then eat. And then he says, This group of people whom they were asking about, they were new converts to Islam, Hadith while they were new converts to Islam. And so the question arose, maybe they haven't learned the laws of the Bible. And so they're giving us meat, they have just converted a week ago, two weeks ago, and then they're gifting us meat, and we don't know, are they slaughtering properly or not? So the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam said, you go ahead and say

00:40:54 --> 00:41:39

Bismillah, and then go ahead and eat from it. So the sharp fury say this shows that the Bismillah is not obligatory, and to respond to both of these heladera Courtney one and the Bahati one, as for the dharapani one, we say that it is considered weak by every single scholar of Hadith, including the SHA three scholars, they there is a weakness in the chain. And fifth is not based on weak Hadith. As for the Hadith in Bukhari, this is actually an evidence against them and not for them. Why? Because the issue is not about whether we should say Bismillah or not. The issue is, should we trust a Muslim when they slaughter an animal? Why? Because this hadith was not in the context of the Maliki

00:41:39 --> 00:42:22

tab. It was not in the context of completely anonymous meat, it was in the context of meat that has been slaughtered by fellow Muslims. And the Sahaba. were wondering, is it halal or haram? Because whether they said Bismillah or not, in fact, this demonstrates listen to this, the Sahaba understood that if no Bismillah had been said, the meat would be hot on that's why they're saying we don't know whether they said Bismillah or not. If the Bismillah were not obligatory, the prophet system should have said, Who cares? What difference does it make to but it is obligatory? And so he said, essentially, their fellow Muslims don't doubt them. Remember, this is for fellow Muslims. And the

00:42:22 --> 00:43:01

question was, have they studied the laws of the shitty idea? Do they know how to slaughter yet or not? And the Prophet system said, Don't open this door noco spying on new Muslims don't quizon and interrogate assume the best of your fellow Muslims. When you walk into a butcher shop that's owned by a Muslim? Don't you know, ask too many questions that as long as you can see this as a righteous person, you understand this person, then Bismillah. Go for it. So this hadith is not about the smear, but rather the issue of not being suspicious of other Muslims. And we should not be hunting for their false it's an uphill battle of the famous medical scholar. He says, In this Hadith, it is

00:43:01 --> 00:43:43

understood that the slaughtered meat by a Muslim should be consumed. On the assumption that tests Mia has been mentioned, because with regards to a Muslim, one should entertain nothing but good thoughts, unless concrete evidence is established. To the contrary, this is the famous even Abdullah bar. And even hedger, who is a shafr is called himself he commented on this idea. And he said this, Heidi shows that we should have hosting of one of other Muslims think the best thoughts of other Muslims. So this hadith has nothing to do a lot of Muslims say, Oh, the prophet system said, you say Bismillah you'll be fine. No, read the whole Hadith. He never said this. When it came to me that you

00:43:43 --> 00:44:28

know, for a fact no Bismillah whatsoever. He said it over meat that comes from a Muslim, and that means you don't know whether they follow the Sharia or not. The Prophet said assumed they did. And if you're in doubt, you say Bismillah so the Hadith cannot apply to the situation where we know for a fact that no Bismillah was said. Now, all of this we have talked about it is applicable to a Muslim slaughtering. Is there any difference when it kitabi slaughters when a Christian or Jew slaughters? Is there any difference here? So the henna fees said there is absolutely no difference whatsoever the famous Hanafi McPherson and fully adjust sauce he says that Allah Taranaki Tabby and

00:44:28 --> 00:44:59

Noah to colada be held to who either do Kira small La Jolla, la ha, when terra cotta smear, we're in a terracotta smear at em narrow a clue that we had to he he said Can't you see or Don't you realize that they kitabi it is only allowed to eat of his meat if he mentions the name of a law. And if the kitabi does not mention the name of a law, then his data is not highlighted. This is explicit in the Hanafi madhhab the other great scholar but that didn't it who wrote a commentary sorry Bahati. He said that if the kitabi leaves the test Mia on purpose

00:45:00 --> 00:45:21

Or he mentions the name of other than a law, then by unanimous consensus, he is saying unanimous consensus, but it is not unanimous consent or maybe he meant unanimous in his madhhab. Otherwise it is not unanimous. It is not allowed to eat that meat. So the 100 fields are very clear. The ham bodies as well are very clear in the account that they

00:45:22 --> 00:46:07

have no claim, we find the report that a Bob Dylan meaning Mr. Mohammed was asked about eating the meat of Africa tab. And he said listen to this, Mr. Mohammed is saying, there is no problem with the sacrifice of the kitabi as long as he sacrifices for Allah and then In the name of Allah, so he must sacrifice for Allah and In the name of Allah, and even Kodama perhaps the greatest scholar of the humbly mehtab of the seventh century haven Kodama who wrote a boonie He says, in volume 13, page 311, listen to this carefully. If the kitabi does not mention Allah's name on purpose than the meat is not permissible, is very clear. If the kitabi does not mention and he's quiet, then that meat

00:46:07 --> 00:46:46

will not be permissible. So the the HANA fees and the hamburgers are very clear. By the way I should mention the humblest as usual there's always has any hamburger student knows there's always two or three Wyatt. And so there are other positions that are not the more attendant or the famous ones that do allow but the the one that is the mainstream position of the hamburger madhhab says that the Kitab you must also mention the name of Allah, as for the shaft release, because they said that the test smear is not necessary for the Muslim. So then obviously, they also said that testing is not obligatory for the kitabi. So that's fine. So the the higher fees, the ham bodies and the Sharpies

00:46:46 --> 00:47:32

are all saying the same applies. Interestingly, the Molly keys are the only school that made a distinction between the Muslim and the kitabi. And the Maliki said that saying the Bismillah is obligatory for the Muslim but not obligatory for the kitabi. So they had this distinction over here. And in the shadow of a deal the shadow salita with the deed he mentions here which abandon the dedicated Christmas decrease Malawi be a you see let him into smitten out to healing of the spirits like beanie liquidity. muslimin lakita be fella he born the deputy he the crew law. So the The only condition he said and this is the famous shutter Selena with 30, which is basically their main

00:47:32 --> 00:48:16

method or one of the main textbooks of the Maliki's. It is obligatory for the Muslim to mention the name of Allah in any manner, whether they say Subhana Allah or Allahu Akbar or La ilaha illa Allah or Bismillah, they have to just say something for the Muslim as for the kitabi, all that we require of the kitabi is that they don't mention other than Allah, even if they're quiet. They're the Bihar is permitted. And so the medic is distinguished and they said to say Bismillah is obligatory for the Muslim, not obligatory for the guitar, because when they made a laxity for the kitabi. And it is as if they were not as strict with the kitabi than they were with the Muslim. Now, the issue comes over

00:48:16 --> 00:48:23

here that some people say that and this is something that is found in some of the earlier books, it's not some it's not something new.

00:48:25 --> 00:49:11

Some people say that, look, a law allowed us to eat their meat, and a law knew how they would sacrifice. Why are you adding conditions when a law did not add any conditions. So this is something that it is mentioned in some books of Maliki and shafr effect when it comes to the kitabi and it is there. Nonetheless, it is not a very strong basis of rejecting all of the Quran and Hadith that explicitly puts Bismillah. And I'll tell you why. Here we have, apparently a clash of two sets of evidences. On the one hand you have an entire long list of ayat and a hadith that mentioned the obligatory nature of saying Bismillah. On the other hand, you have an ambiguous verse that says, The

00:49:11 --> 00:49:55

meat of the setup or the slaughter of the hijab is permitted. Okay. Can we form a position that keeps all of these evidences legit? Or should we use one evidence to basically cancel out not abrogate but to cancel out the entire other set of evidences, and the response is pretty self evident. The best thing to do if you study or solid field is to take all of these evidences and apply them equally. And I'll give you a simple example that will everybody will understand. Allah says the slaughter of the People of the Book is permitted for you question when the Christian slaughter is the pig. Does that become halal or not? Everybody's gonna say of course it doesn't.

00:49:55 --> 00:50:00

Excellent. Why? Because Allah has forbidden the pig in

00:50:00 --> 00:50:40

other verses Excellent. So we say Allah has also forbidden to eat the meat over which Bismillah has not been said just like you yourself took the evidence that is very clear we can say didn't allow know the Christians are going to eat pigs. You say of course he knew but he forbade pig for us. We say the same thing. Didn't alone know how they're gonna slaughter. Of course he knows the knowledge of a law is not a cookie argument. It's the evidences and the evidence is safe, that the meat of the kitabi is permitted, if they follow the law that Allah gave to them and to us, if the kitabi beats an animal to death, and he eats it, are you going to eat it? You can say Allah says eat it. You will

00:50:40 --> 00:50:46

say no, no, but it has to be slaughtered. Where'd you get that from? Where did you get that it must be slaughtered. When Allah says, Well, I'm older than

00:50:47 --> 00:51:23

the food of the negativity is halal for you? Why did you put the condition and must be slaughtered? Why did you put the condition that we're not going to eat the pork because you found other evidences to limit the scope of application of the verse that says the food of the tab is permitted for you. So we say similarly, there's one more limitation just like we're going to eliminate pork, we're going to eliminate hold on animals, if they eat alligators in our studio is not allowed. If they are their animals of this filthy nature in our show, it is not allowed. Let them eat it a lot is not allowing us to eat just because they're eating a lot is saying because they believe in the same God

00:51:23 --> 00:52:04

as we do if they follow the laws, and they mentioned in the name of God, unlike a Buddhist or a Hindu, because here's another point. Why is it allowed to eat the meat of a kitabi and not a Buddhist? This goes back to the very beginning of my lecture, because we believe in the same God, if you remove the Bismillah Why can't we eat the meat of a Buddhist? What's the difference there? If he slaughters the animal properly? Why can't we The difference is that the kitabi and ask believe in the same god what a lacuna welcome Wahid. So, they mentioned the name of a law, therefore, that meat will be considered to be slaughtered properly. And therefore, we say that the position of allowing

00:52:04 --> 00:52:42

the meat of Allah kita which is very explicit, and we affirm this, but only if they follow all of the rulings, and that means the animal must be alive, it must be highlighted for us, the slaughter must be done with a sharp object. It has to catch one of the juggler veins and they have to mention the name of a law. urbanists, you have a Zuccotti one of the most famous scholars of the Tabby own. He commented on this verse of the People of the Book, the food being allowed, and he said, and that is because they are a religion that believes in a divine book, and they mentioned the name of Allah, this is immeasurable. zoete heaven kathira says, the ruling that the slaughtered animals of the

00:52:42 --> 00:53:29

People of the Book are permissible is agreed upon by the scholars, because the People of the Book believe that slaughtering for other than a law is prohibited. And they mentioned a law's name upon slaughtering their animals, even if they have deviant beliefs about God that do not fit his majesty. But they mentioned the name of a lot. This is in Katia. So it's very explicit in our show that the point of allowing alligator meat is that we share the same God so when the name of Allah is mentioned, then that animal will be allowed to meet. And therefore dear brothers and sisters, when Allah says the food of the advocate tab is Helen, this is, for example, kosher meat. It is a mistake

00:53:29 --> 00:54:03

of the highest magnitude, in my opinion, to equate kosher with meat that is available outside of any shop over here, kosher, and any meat if you go to a pious Christian who believes in God he wants to give to me to say, Listen, you know, before you slaughter, can you just say in the name of God, if a pious Christian witches say in the name of God, I would eat that meat, I will consider it to be principle, if it is done properly. If a Christian goes hunting is your neighbor who wants to gift you say, you know what, in our religion, you have to say the name of God, if you don't mind, can you just say the name of God? If he says in the name he goes, I said it for you, because I know you want

00:54:03 --> 00:54:44

to that would be permitted. This is when the meat of the keytab is halal for us now you're going to say is that what they do? And their response is, that is definitely what Jewish law called Holla Holla Holla Holla Sharia law, Sharia in halophilic law, their Sharia is actually more stricter than our Sharia. And when they slaughter an animal, can you believe they must have a rabbi like a chef in Harlem, they must have a rabbi present, witnessing everything visual, they have to see that the butcher is slaughtering only one stroke, the knife has to be a certain number of inches then it has to be sharp minister, but number of times, it cannot be done twice so many different rulings that

00:54:44 --> 00:55:00

are more stricter than our shediac. And one of the things that they must do is the must recite this formula in Hebrew, which translates as bless it are you deny our God Lord of the worlds who sanctified us through His commandments and instructed us concerning proper answers?

00:55:00 --> 00:55:39

animal slaughter bless it are you Our Lord? This is the destinia kosher meat I buy it and I consider kosher meat to be by the way kosher meat as for kosher products we're not talking about that because kosher is broader than meat I'm talking about kosher meat right now kosher products they have kosher wine we're not I'm a kosher product so Toma kosher meat here. kosher meat is the meat that a lot explicitly allows in certain either first five now for if for political reasons you want to boycott kosher meat because of the politics fully understandable. I'm not saying anything there but don't bring fifth into it is what allows the Shetty allows the meat of it cut up therefore, if they

00:55:39 --> 00:56:20

slaughter the animal properly, and they mention the name of a law. Now you're going to say how about Christians? Do they mention the name of God? There is no doubt that in our times the bulk of Christianity does not mention the name of God. However, I have been doing some research in this regard. And there are manuals of Christian doctrine and faith and manuals of Christian living from the past. And some of them explicitly mentioned this issue. So for example, in the Syriac language of ancient Christianity, there was a great scholar, one of their Great Priest by the name of Baba he bros who died 1286 and he wrote the normal Canon or the book of laws, the canon, the normal canon.

00:56:20 --> 00:57:01

And in this he says that a Christian butcher basically sending the butchers when they sacrifice the animal, they must say barsha ma De La Jolla, In the Name of Allah, the living God, Bathsheba and Bismillah. Allah Allah Hi, this is basically Syriac that in the name of the living God, this is explicit in medieval Christianity. And I'm still doing research here and I have found other references as well. So it's not that crystal clear that earlier Christians didn't say the name of God, it seems to me that there were many groups of Christians that did mention the name of God in medieval and in early times, and that this is something that is especially late Catholic tradition,

00:57:01 --> 00:57:36

and of course, Protestant. By the way, Protestant Christianity, which is what we live with you to understand if you study your Christianity, Protestant Christianity changed completely the Christian Canon or the Catholic canon, there were actually a number of laws that they had to do. Protestant Christianity says salvation is by faith alone. Forget all the law is just belief in God, all you got to do is believe in Jesus Christ. So Protestants are very recent, only 500 years ago, right, Martin Luther King 1500s. So understand your Christian history. Firstly, secondly, even if we say that the bulk of Christianity had stopped, saying the Bismillah, it doesn't matter, because the bulk of

00:57:36 --> 00:58:15

Christianity are eating pork as well, a lot did not allow us to eat pork. Allah said, if the advocate of follows his own shitty, and a part of their shitty is to sacrifice proper animals to sacrifice with proper utensils, and to mention the name of Allah, then the animal is permitted. And we follow this to this day, if the Christian or Jew does not follow his Sharia, and does something haram according to his Sharia, how can we make it valid and our own shediac and that's something that is very, very clear, by the way, don't pay him. He has a very nice comment about the fact that saying Bismillah makes the animals spiritually pure, and not saying Bismillah it makes the animals

00:58:15 --> 00:58:22

spiritually impure. Now, this is in a nutshell, a lot of details we went into, I want to say that.

00:58:23 --> 00:59:00

Speaking with many scholars of our times, what I've discovered is that it is true that many Shafi and Maliki scholars who live in America or who interact with the Western world, they have allowed eating the meat that is available in the marketplaces. And by the way, this is why it needs to be said here. Some people think there's a cultural divide that those from the Indian continent that they see community is stricter, and those from the outer world is are more lacks. It's not the case. It's that the shaft freeze and the Maliki's, they have a position. The Malik is by the way only for the non Muslims for the Muslims, you must say but Bismillah Sen made a distinction. So the shafr is

00:59:00 --> 00:59:34

and molecules are the majority of the out of the Egyptians and North Africans, they are the North North Africans or Maliki Egyptians and whatnot are generally shaffir. So this is why it has become a bit of a cultural issue, even though it should not be a cultural issue. So some of the shafts and Maliki's maybe even most of them, they allow it however, I have spoken to many of my own personal friends, who are shaft fairies and Maliki's and believe it or not, too many of them do not eat of that meat. Why not because of the tests Mia because of the issue of Jewish and Christian because agnosticism is on the rise, and also because of the issue of stunning and I have many good friends

00:59:34 --> 01:00:00

of mine that are mighty keys. In fact, I was speaking to him today morning told him about this and he told me that you know what the fatwa in our books is that technically it's allowed but that's, theoretically realistically, we don't even know if the people you know, are Christian or not right. We can't make this assumption. So one of my own humanity friends, he does not eat of the meat because even though he says I agree with him, it might have in his view that Bismillah is

01:00:00 --> 01:00:34

not obligatory for the katabi. But we don't know if whether it's a tablet or not. It could be an agnostic could be a Buddhist could be anything else could be an atheist. And also because of the whole issue of how the meat is slaughtered, the modern Hanafi school especially of course, our Deobandi Deobandi brethren. They are very strict in this regard. And that is following the Hanafi school, moved to Tokyo with money he has a very good book in English has been translated, if anybody's interested, please buy that book, I forgot the title. Maybe somebody can post it in the notes on YouTube, but the meat of allocatable, the meat of the West, he has a book, you can buy it

01:00:34 --> 01:01:11

online. And it is one of the most comprehensive books in English in this regard. And you can read this book, and it will give you all of these evidences and more. And so the Hanafi brother in an urban the brethren are very strict and they're they do not eat the meat by and large. What I find the most interesting is the humbly school or I should say less the modern Salafis to be more explicit, because what happens here is that I find a pure disconnect between their olema and between the themselves and most of our brother and from that trend, they do eat the meat available here. And they have a don't ask, don't tell policy, they think they can eat it. But if you actually look at

01:01:11 --> 01:01:50

their teachers, and of course I studied under many of them myself, and I respect and admire all of those great aroma their teachers, the main icons of that medicine school, or all upon the position that you should not eat their meat chef saga healthvault Zan who is one of the greatest scholars of the modern selaku school. He has his master's dissertation on this topic, he wrote his entire dissertation 50 or 40 years ago on this topic already covered the quarter by the way. And in this he staunchly opposes eating the meat that is available in western lands, the permanent committee, it's give out a dilemma. They also have a federal in this regard that the meat that comes from Europe and

01:01:50 --> 01:02:28

America to Saudi Arabia should not be eaten because too many things going on. She hasn't been buzzed the Mufti of Saudi Arabia 1520 years ago, he wrote a pamphlet in which he says that if the kitabi it's doubtful whether they said Bismillah or not, then the apostle or the default is that the meat would not be permitted. He said, if it's doubtful, we're not sure, then we assume that he did not say it. My own teacher shared with me and allowed him he has a fatwa. That is very clear, and that is that we don't ask what they do. And we assume that they say Bismillah, and so we should eat. And so that is his first one. However, we studied, I actually studied with shareholder theming. And I

01:02:28 --> 01:03:08

studied this chapter with him when I was in Grenada in his in his village, I studied this chapter with him the chapter of eating and drinking and hunting. And after the lesson was over, we went up to him, I went up to him personally. And we said, Yes, Chef, the issue of Bismillah, you are saying, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I understand that. But we don't. We're not asking we know for a fact that the slaughterhouses in America do not say Bismillah. We know for a fact they are secular, and they have no religion. And they don't mention the name of God. So he said to us, and I didn't read this in a book, I didn't hear this in a cassette. I heard it with my own two ears, and the sheriff was 10 feet

01:03:08 --> 01:03:44

in front of me, he said to us, if you are certain that they don't say the name of a law, then that meat is haram for you to eat. And so this is the standard fatwa from the Messiah on the roadmap of the Salafi school. And I find it interesting that most people who follow that school, don't follow their own teachers in this regard. And I find that to be not something that makes sense to me. They should follow their teachers and they should stick with what they consider to be correct, because this is definitely the fatwa that even taymiyah by the way, is very strict in this regard. And it will be written entire treaties and I encourage all of you who read Arabic to read that. So now we

01:03:44 --> 01:04:21

summarize come to a conclusion. It's been a long lecture, but inshallah there's a benefit in this. We've come to the conclusion the summary of the issues pertaining to the meat that is commonly available in the Western world. The first major issue is that the religion of the one who sacrifices is at best ambiguous. Me personally, as I said, I'm comfortable saying that in most southern US states, California is not California scrapped that definitely, I would say Texas, California, maybe I mean, I'm not I'm not saying no, per se but Texas and Alabama. These are the states I'm much more familiar with. I'm from Texas, born and raised in Texas, I feel comfortable saying you know what,

01:04:21 --> 01:04:58

the bulk are clearly Christian, the same cannot be said of a slaughterhouse let's say in Vermont, the same cannot be said of Canada. You know, Vancouver, the same cannot be said of a slaughterhouse in England, of Brussels of, of the Nordic countries. I mean, more than 70% of Denmark and Sweden, for example, are claiming to be not believing in God. How can you say this is a handicap? How can you say that? Denmark, by the way, so many meat products come from Denmark and the rates of agnosticism and atheism are skyrocketing. So that's a major issue right then and there. The second is, of course, the state of the animal. As the instrument cuts the throat what percentage are alive

01:04:58 --> 01:04:59

after stunning what is the stunning

01:05:00 --> 01:05:35

method that is used, what is the slaughtering method that is used, again, a lot of ambiguity here. And that's why I do have some malakian sharp furry friends that they believe that the smear is not obligatory, but they still don't eat because of these first two issues. Then the third issue comes, and that is the issue of Tasmania. And of course, this is where we say that the hamburger school and the Hanafi school are very clear that even the kitabi must say Bismillah. As for the Maliki, they said, the Muslim must and the kitabi does not have to and the Sharpies are consistent. Neither the Muslim nor the kitabi needs to say Bismillah the position I follow is that it isn't a me I never

01:05:35 --> 01:06:15

know I am and it is very clear, the evidences for saying Bismillah as obligatory are more numerous and more clear than the evidences for saying Al Fatiha in the Salah, this is quoting you even Tamia, then there's one or the issue that comes and a lot of people say How about the feed of the animal, you know, you're the you're feeding them. Now just remember that mad cow disease bovine disease a decade ago, when they discovered that they're feeding animals, other animals, the not just aspects of the slaughterhouses, they're sacrificing pigs and cows in the same slaughterhouses. All of these things do not they are definitely Makoto, they should be avoided. But they're nowhere near as big as

01:06:15 --> 01:06:51

the first three factors, right. So don't make the meat how long just based upon that genetically modified or GMO, or what you're feeding all of these things, unethical treatment, all of this is something that is macro. But it doesn't make the animal how long there is a sin on the farmer who mistreats the cow. But when the cow is slaughtered properly, it doesn't make it hard on first. Now, if you choose to not buy such a product fine for you, but don't make it hard on for the rest of the world, if you want to raise your own bar Good for you. But don't bring in Islamic law and make it how wrong we are. When it comes to how mom and dad, we look at a number of factors. When it comes to

01:06:51 --> 01:07:28

other and tickets, we look at other factors. And we can say the unethical treatment of animals is sinful for the farmer, we can say it is very, very clear that somebody who mistreats an animal might end up in jahannam, like the one who mistreated the cat, the cat, and she ended up in jahannam very clear. But if an animal ism is treated, then it is slaughtered in a proper manner, the final result of the meat does not make it hard on now you can choose ethically to say I don't want to do that. And that's totally fine. But like I said, Don't make it hard on the rest of the world who maybe can't afford to have the standards that you can have. So this is in a nutshell. Now before we

01:07:28 --> 01:07:36

conclude, somebody is going to say that, you know, you've made it very clear that your position is that the house should be followed.

01:07:37 --> 01:08:18

By the way, this distinction between the behind halaal is not fucky there is no such thing as an animal that is halal, but non xebia if you are Shaftsbury your version of halal and they'll be how will be certain ways. And if you are humbly or hanafy, your version of Helen, they'll be held by another way. This is a cultural connotation when somebody says Oh, it's halal, but not that we have. What they want to say is I'm a chef fairy, and I'm going to eat the meat, but you are Hanafi so not so this distinction is not physically it is cultural, for the Hanafi. And the Hambali, who are upon the principle that B is halal highlight is the B has the same thing for the shaft as well. halaal is

01:08:18 --> 01:08:51

the behavior is halal. However, the circle for them is larger than the circle for the other. So make this technical distinction should be known. Now somebody is going to say that you didn't mention the fact that the majority or many I should say of the halal butchers are actually cheating fraudsters, they're not sacrificing properly. They're purchasing from, you know, whatever it is you at Walmart or wherever it is, you know, Tyson's chicken, or whatever it is, you know, and whatever they think is that and then they make it hella, we say, look what you know this is happening. point that out. And make sure this brother or sister fears a lot. And you may expose this deviancy if the person is

01:08:51 --> 01:09:27

pretending that it is the behind, it's not your job is to expose however, as the Hadith of the Prophet cism said, if the Muslim is saying it's hella, unless you find out otherwise, you don't have to install spy cameras in his shop. You don't have to go monitoring where he gets it from. If it's something very clear, if it's something obvious, for example, you go to his shop and his hideout shop and behind the shop, there's boxes of the chicken boxes, right? And it's like, Where did that come from? is a hella you can ask him because now you're seeing something you can ask him Brother, you have hella chicken inside and hold on boxes outside, right? Go ahead, no problem. But otherwise,

01:09:27 --> 01:10:00

it's not your job to go spying you cannot do this is how long so when the Muslim says it is the behalf? You trust that Muslim? And if he is like he has to answer to Allah subhana wa Tada, you've done your job. Okay. So I am the first person to say I agree with you. There's a lot of cheating going on in this business. I'm the first person to say this. And I personally am very hesitant to just walk into any shop and I try my best and it's sad to say and I know I'm going to get a lot of pushback for saying this. I don't even know if I should say it or not. But I actually trust the efficiency of

01:10:00 --> 01:10:33

kosher more than I trust the efficiency of most halal shops I'm sorry for saying that I'm talking about the efficiency, not the politics. By efficiency. I mean, if it says kosher, I can pretty much be certain that the name of Allah was mentioned and the strokes were done properly and the blood gushed out because there was a certified Rabbi that was there. Whereas in many halal shops, I have no clue what is happening and I don't know who's doing what and therefore I try my best when I go to a community I find out which of the brothers are known to be practicing going to the masjid because they fear Allah subhana wa tada then they're going to advertise this Hara. So then you go to those

01:10:33 --> 01:11:10

shops, and there are people will, let's be honest here. You never see them in the masjid ever. And they're the ones running some of the butcher shops. And that's something that is a bit strange, because if you're that conscious, you want to sell halal meat, you should be coming for Juma. Right. So if these are questions, I agree with you. So nobody's denying this. And we should try our best to find and make sure that Helen is being monitored. And I am the first to say we should have a national holiday body just like our Jewish cousins, they have rabbis that certify your the k that is on the meter products or whatever products that kosher it is federal law, if you have something

01:11:10 --> 01:11:46

stamped that is not kosher, you can go to jail, potentially you're breaking federal law, can you imagine they have the government behind them? We are more than them in terms of quantity in America, there are more observant Muslims, then there are Orthodox Jews, why can't we do the same? Why can't we also have Hillel standing we should be lobbying for this. And petitioning? This is definitely something that I'm a big advocate of. So that's one thing. And then the other thing and then inshallah we'll conclude with this is that a lot of people say what do we do with the large scale meat processing and the chickens that slaughtered by the machines, and then the saying the

01:11:46 --> 01:12:20

Bismillah, and whatnot. And this is something that I don't have an easy answer for. Obviously, in the good old days, you would say Bismillah, for one for every animal in our modern times, you know, you cannot say Bismillah for every single chicken. I mean, to put it bluntly, if you want your chicken nuggets, you're going to have to have chicken manufacturing plants, you know, you either or, right, if you want to just buy your packet of chicken nuggets, you're gonna have to have these massive plants where 100,000 chickens are processed in two, three hours. I mean, you can't have the Bismillah over every single one of them. All I can say is that some Bismillah is better than

01:12:20 --> 01:13:01

nothing, and I'll quote you the measurement of fealty. in Jeddah 1997, the global Council, which I respect immensely, in 1997, they came together for this issue. And in their photo they released and I'll quote you with this, we conclude that for any animal to be permissible, three conditions must be met. Number one, the one who slaughtered is a Muslim or kitabi. Number two, the instrument is sharp and spills blood. And number three, the name of a law must be mentioned. But if the person forgot, then it is forgiven. That's a different thing to be unintentional, or unintentional. Okay. And then they said, for chicken slaughterhouses, one Bismillah for every batch of continuous

01:13:01 --> 01:13:38

chickens is permissible, but they said it must be a human and not a tape recorder, or some type of iPhone or something. So one Bismillah that is said by a person of a kitabi or Muslim physically everything they can send the name of God, or can they can say, you know, the Shama and the Hebrew, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. It does not have to be in Arabic or any language, but they have to say the name of Allah. And you know, I understand our Deobandi brother Hanafi brother, and they say it must be every single Bismillah for every chicken, and I respect that good for them. Me personally, I am happy with this photo that says one Bismillah for even a batch as long as it's

01:13:38 --> 01:14:16

continuous. So the point is that when you start the machine, so then you said Bismillah, and your Nia is that as long as it is continuously running that Bismillah I want this entire batch of chickens, you know, to to be slaughtered. inshallah, I mean, at least some Bismillah is said, and I'm sympathetic to this, even though I respect the other position as well. So to conclude your brothers and sisters, this is a legitimate controversy. I personally follow the position within Tamia and the hanbali. School and the Hanafi school in this regard. For those that follow the other position, no problem. If you're a molecule shaft, you have the right to do so. But all I say is that

01:14:16 --> 01:14:52

look beyond the Bismillah issue. And think also of the kitabi issue, and think also of the mechanism of slaughter. And you know, what? Isn't it pure and better to eat good food? Because don't we want to be about the person who feeds only pure, we don't want to be the one who raises his hands to a lot as our Profit System said, and he's eating her arm and drinking her arm and whatnot. So why take that risk? Isn't it better to even if you follow the school and I'm saying you have the right to follow it? Isn't it better to raise the bar and to find support your Muslim brothers and sisters in the hotel businesses and to try to feed your family that Witch's pyramid, even if it's Hello

01:14:52 --> 01:15:00

according to the shepherd school, they would say it is better to eat the meat or which Allah His name has been mentioned. So strive to be you know better industry.

01:15:00 --> 01:15:33

And in the end of the day, dear brothers and sisters, we should not make a big issue about this in the sense that I have good friends that eat. Knowing that we have eaten. I'll be very frank here I keep on saying this is the last thing Okay, so this is the last thing. Very, very good friend of mine very good friend of mine. I've known him from Medina days Mashallah. We're one of the tightest any 25 years almost, you know, and he's now a chef, and he now is a shopper. He is a complete shopper. And he eats only chicken and not beef. Why? Because of the slaughtering issue because of the stunning issue. He says beef is a problem because too many animals die. And chicken, we know

01:15:33 --> 01:16:03

it's not going to die. And he doesn't believe the best mother is wiser. But you know what? That's fine. He Shaftsbury and he sticks with his sword. He's being fair. He eats chicken only in certain states, like like Dallas, or like, you know, Texas and whatnot, which is I understand, I want to tell you an anecdote. And with this, we conclude inshallah, to show you that, you know, we need to be more open minded about this, I believe that that chicken is held on, I would never eat it. And I have never been shallows to the best of my knowledge. I've never intentionally eaten a non to be her since I came of age. So we went out to a restaurant, you know,

01:16:04 --> 01:16:38

I ordered the fish, he ordered the chicken, you know, and we're joking that you know, what not, you know, when it comes to time, time to pay the bill. And I did a trick, you know, I went out, we pretend to go to the bathroom, I gave my visa card, whatever. So I paid for the bill, you know, and he's like, how could you pay? You think of this is not even a lot I say, okay, it's not a lot for me, it's a lot for you. Don't worry, I'm gonna pay for it. Right? I expected a lot to reward me for paying for a food to be brutally honest. If I ate it, I might expect a less punishment. But I did not at all consider my dear brother in Islam to be doing anything wrong, because he's following his

01:16:38 --> 01:17:14

method. And he's following his aroma, that food on his plate, I would never touch it as my position, but he's eating it. And according to his paradigm and his sword and his madhhab it is permissible, permissible. hamdulillah good for him. And for my paradigm and madhhab I don't think is permissible. And we are very, you're gonna break up your friendship because somebody's eating non meat. Come on, please. This is a legitimate position, Mr. Michel fury held it and if the brother is being consistent in the matter which he is, by the way, He's not picking and choosing he is a sharp very, what are you going to do hamdulillah no big deal, live and let live and don't make this an issue of

01:17:14 --> 01:17:39

making or breaking the bonds or whatnot at hamdulillah. This is a position from the beginning of Islam. The position I follow is the majority one and inshallah it is the correct one. But the other position, it is also its own paradigm and its own reality, we ask Allah subhana wa tada to guide all of us. And with this very, very long talk, I have become hungry. I'm going to go get some dessert because the main course is over. So inshallah I will see you in the next q&a set on what economics will tell you about a casual

Eating the Meat of Ahl Kitab

Share Page

Related Episodes