Is Saying the Basmala Obligatory When Slaughtering? Clarification of the True Shafi’i Opinion
Shafifiqh.com has received many inquiries from Shafi’is around the globe asking whether or not it is permissible to eat the slaughtered [or hunted] meat that does not have the name of Allah 
, tasmiyah, mentioned over it at the time of slaughter. After having consulted many works of our madh-hab, we concluded that the tasmiyah was not obligatory, or a condition, for the validity of slaughtering. However, we were approached with a quote from Shaykh Taqi Usmani’s Ahkam Adh-Dhaba’ih translated as The Islamic Laws of Animal Slaughter and published in English by the noble Sunni-Hanafi group White Thread Press. The selection reads,
“Regarding Imam Shafi’i, the notion has become widespread that he views the mentioning of Allah ’s name not as obligatory but only sunna (Qalyubi wa ‘Umayra 4:245), which would imply that a slaughtered animal is lawful even if the slaughterer purposely does no mention Allah ’s name. However, a review of Imam Shafi’is book Kitab al-Umm makes it clear that he did not deem lawful an animal over which the slaughterer intentionally abandons mentioning Allah ’s name. He merely deemed lawful that over which the slaughterer forgets to mention the name of Allah . His words are as follows:
“When a Muslim sends out his trained hunting dog or bird, I prefer that he mention the name of Allah . But if he forgets to mention Allah ’s name and his animal then makes a kill, he may still eat the prey. The reason is that if one forgets to mention Allah ’s name when manually slaughtering, he may eat the animal, because a Muslim slaughters in the name of Allah Almighty, even if he forgets to actually utter His name, and because the kill that a Muslim makes with his hunting animal is considered equal to killing the animal by hand-slaughtering it.” (Kitab al-Umm 2:227)
Then, later in the book, Imam Shafi’i sates that if one scornfully abandons mentioning Allah ’s name at the time of slaughtering, it is not lawful to eat such a slaughtered animal. Presenting what is unquestionably his view, he writes: “If a Muslim forgets to mention the name of Allah , his slaughtered animal may be eaten, but if he abandons it scornfully*, his slaughtered animal may not be eaten.” (Kitab al-Umm 2:131)
*There are two words used that imply the intentional failure to mention Allah ’s name as opposed to forgetting to do so): istikhfaf and tahawun, which I have translated as ‘scornfulness” and “disdain,” respectively. Though I have consistently maintained separate translations for the two words, they are essentially synonymous in this context. (Translator).
So Mawlana Taqi Usmani (May Allah preserve him) claims that if one intentionally slaughters without mentioning Allah ’s name, Imam Ash-Shafi’i, and by extension his school, hold that such meat is not permitted to eat. Upon reading this selection we decided to consult Shaykh Taha Karan (may Allah bless him) regarding this issue. He forwarded us a fatwa compiled by one of his pupils and current colleague Mawlana Abdur Rahman Khan. The following is his article, although we were obliged to translate some of the quotes in arabic as Mawlana A. Khan left them untranslated. When we have translated the selection, we will clearly state so. After his fatwa, we have translated a small extraction on this issue from Kifayatul-Akhyar of Imam Taqiy-ud-Din Al-Hisni Al-Husayni.
Intentional omission of the tasmiyah when slaughtering
in response to a query raised by the Halaal Department of Jamiatul ‘Ulama’
Introduction
The slaughterer falls into one of five categories:
i. He who recites the tasmiyah; thus the dhabīhah is halal by consensus.
ii. He who absentmindedly omits the tasmiyah; the dhabīhah is halal according to the Shāfi‘ī, Hanafī and Malikī schools.
iii. He who intentionally omits the tasmiyah; this is the point of contention by questioner
iv. He who omits the tasmiyah deeming its recitation insignificant (istikhfaf)
v. He who repeatedly omits the tasmiyah intentionally (tahawun)
Since category (i) has received acceptance by all scholars and category (ii) by the majority of scholars, this response addresses categories (iii), (iv) and (v) as it is in these scenarios where the questioner has raised certain contentions. In category (iii), relying on a rather selective quotation from Kitāb al-Umm, the questioner wishes to draw a distinction between ash-Shāfi‘ī and the Shāfi‘ī school. In this regard he says:
“Although conceding that a tasmiyah is not a Fardh Shart (compulsory condition) according to the Shafi Math-hab, we must nevertheless emphasize that according to Imam Shafi the reciting of the Tasmiyah is of absolute importance and is very essential.”
Thus the questioner contends that the recitation of the tasmiyah is a rukn (of absolute importance and very essential) according to Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī while he acknowledges that it is “not a Fardh Shart” according to the Shāfi‘ī school.
In category (iv) and (v) the questioner regards istikhfāf as a corollary of intentional omission, ignoring category (iii), intentional omission without istikhfāf. He further equates istikhfāf to that of tahāwun (constant omission) and concludes that while occasional intentional omission of tasmiyah does not harm the status of the dhabīhah, constant omission does.
An analysis of the texts of al-Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī
It is our belief that a thorough appraisal of Imām Shāfi‘ī’s view vis-à-vis the intentional omission of the tasmiyah when slaughtering requires more than a selective quotation. Thus the forthcoming presents the complete texts of Imām Shāfi‘ī. Thereafter, relevant quotations shall be produced from Shāfi‘ī jurists expounding his view.
قال في الأم: وإذا أرسل الرجل المسلم كلبه أو طائره المعلمين، أحببت له أن يسمي، فإن لم يسم ناسيا فقتل أكل، لأنهما إذا كان قتلهما كالذكاة فهو لو نسي التسمية في الذبيحة أكل، لأن المسلم يذبح على اسم الله عز وجل وإن نسي… اهـ
“[While hunting] when a Muslim sends forth his trained dog or bird, I consider the recital of the tasmiyah mustahab (recommended)1 . Should he forget to recite the tasmiyah and the hunted animal is killed, he will be permitted to eat there from. The reason for this is that the killing of both (the bird and dog) is equated to slaughtering…”
قال في مختصر المزني: وإذا أرسل أحببت له أن يسمي الله تعالى، فإن نسي فلا بأس لأن المسلم يذبح على اسم الله. اهـ
“i.e. [While hunting] when a Muslim sends forth (his trained dog or bird), I consider the recital of the tasmiyah mustahab (recommended).”
A perfunctory reading of the above text informs us that Imām Shāfi‘ī deemed the recitation of the tasmiyah mustahab. A natural conclusion of the tasmiyah being mustahab leads us to consider the dhabīhah of one who intentionally omits the tasmiyah as halal – as how the dhabihah of one who does not send salutations upon the Prophet sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam will be halal. In light of this categorical ruling of Imām Shāfi‘ī, wAllahu aa‘lam, jurists from all schools, supporters and opponents, held that Imām Shāfi‘ī considers the dhabihah of one who omits the tasmiyah intentionally as halal. Below are a few examples:
قال الماوردي في حاويه: قال الشافعي: وإذا أرسل الكلب أحببت أن يسمي، فإن نسي فلا بأس به، لأن المسلم يذبح على اسم الله تعالى. التسمية على الصيد والذبيحة سنة وليست بواجبة، فإن تركها عامدا أو ناسيا حل أكله. اهـ
[Click Image to Make Larger]
[Scan Added Translated by Shafiifiqh.com team] Imam Al-Mawardi in his Hawi states,
“Ash-Shafi’i says (rahimhullah): ‘[While hunting] when a Muslim sends forth his trained dog I consider the recital of the tasmiyah recommended, and if one forgets to do that then there is no blame in it. That is because the Muslim slaughters upon the name of Allah . The mentioning of the name of Allah upon the hunted animal or the slaughtered animal is Sunnah, and it is not Wajib (obligatory), and if one abandons doing so intentionally or forgetfully, it is Halal to eat the meat.’ And this view was held by Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Hurairah. From the [early Fuqaha] who held this view was ‘Ataa’ and Maalik”
قال ابن كثير في تفسيره: والمذهب الثاني في المسألة أنه لا يشترط التسمية، بل هي مستحبة، فإن تركت عمدا أو نسيانا لم تضر، وهذا مذهب الإمام الشافعي. اهـ
[Translated by Shafiifiqh.com team] Ibn Kathir states in his Tafsir:
“And the second madh-hab regarding this issue is that it is not a [necessary] condition to recite the name of Allah [at the time of slaughter], rather it is Mustahabb (recommended), and if one abandons doing so intentionally or forgetfully there is no harm done, and this is the madh-hab (legal guild) of Imam Ash-Shafi’i.”
قال النووي في المجموع: (الرابعة) التسمية مستحبة عند الذبح والرمي إلى الصيد وإرسال الكلب ونحوه، فلو تركها عمدا أو سهوا حلت الذبيحة لكن تركها عمدا مكروه على المذهب الصحيح كراهة تنـزيه لا تحريم… اهـ
Imam An-Nawawi states in his Majmu’:
“[The Fourth] The tasmiyah is Mustahabb upon slaughtering, or using a projectile while hunting, or sending forth the dog or the like. And if the tasmiyah is abandoned intentionally or forgetfully the dhabihah (slaughtered meat) is Halal, however, if it is abandoned intentionally it is Makruh (disliked) upon the correct view of the madh-hab, with a suggestive (tanzih) Makruh not with the Makruh of forbiddance (tahrim).”
وقال في موضع آخر: مذهبنا أنها سنة في جميع ذلك فان تركها سهوا أو عمدا حلت الذبيحة ولا إثم عليه. اهـ
He says in another place,
“It is our madh-hab that it [i.e. mentioning the tasmiyah] is Sunnah in all situations, and if it is abadonded forgetfully or intentionally the dhabihah (slaughtered meat) is Halal, and there is no sin regarding it.”
قال الخطيب الشربيني في مغني المحتاج: ولا تجب، فلو تركها عمدا أو سهوا حل. اهـ
Al-Khatib Ash-Shirbini states in his Mughni Al-Muhtaj:
“And it is not obligatory, and if one abandons [the tasmiyah] intentionally or forgetfully it is Halal.”
Istikhfāf
The terms istikhfāf and istihzā’ are used synonymously in the Shāfi‘ī school. Says Zayn ad-Dīn al-Malibārī in Fath al-Mu‘īn sharh Qurrah al-‘Ayn, commenting on the definition of apostasy:
قال المليباري في قرة العين: (قطع مكلف إسلاما بكفر عزما أو قولا أو فعلا باعتقاد أو عناد أو استهازاء) [قال المليباري في فتح المعين] أي استخفاف.اهـ
Nonetheless, both terms refer to ‘the regarding of religious matters with disdain’. In his Nihāyah, Shams ad-Dīn ar-Ramlī furnishes an example of istihzā’:
قال في المنهاج: (كتاب الردة، هي قطع الإسلام بنية أو قول كفر أو فعل سواء قاله استهزاء) [قال الرملي:] كأن قيل له قص أظفارك فإنه سنة، فقال: لا أفعله وإن كان سنة… (أو عنادا أو اعتقادا)
Imām an-Nawawī says in his Minhāj: “the book of apostasy: [apostasy] refers to the severing of [ties with] Islam with a mere intention, a statement of kufr or an action of kufr. All the same in this regard is whether he makes a kufr statement istihzā’an, (ar-Ramlī says: whereby an individual is addressed: ‘trim your nails as it is a sunnah’ and he replies: “I shall not do so (i.e. trim my nails) even though it is a sunnah”…) or on account of obstinacy or belief.”
Thus, should this be the attitude of the slaughterer whereby he exclaims: “I will not recite the tasmiyah even though it is a sunnah” then he will be guilty of “istikhfaf which is akin to kufr”. To this extent we agree with the questioner. Asserting hereafter that istikhfāf is a corollary of intentional omission is incorrect. A person may intentionally omit the tasmiyah and yet not be guilty of istikhfāf. Assuming otherwise would tantamount to accusing a celibate individual of perpetrating the cardinal sin of istikhfāf. In reality, however, the celibate is one of two: (1) He affirms that marriage is a sunnah, but prefers not to marry and (2) he regards the sunnah of marriage as insignificant and consequently does not marry. The second type of celibate and not the first is guilty of istikhfāf. This detail is clearly spelt out in the words of Ashhab.
Note should be made that the questioner’s quotation from Kitāb al-Umm:
“And if it (the tasmiyah) is omitted istikhfafan (considering it to be non-essential and of slight significance) then the animal thus slaughtered shall not be eaten” are not the words of Imām Shāfi‘ī, but rather that of his interlocutor. Nonetheless, the statement is valid in that the outcome is one and the same, the slaughtered will not be permissible for consumption.
Tahāwun or constant omission of the tasmiyyah
The questioner equates istikhfāf to tahāwun. This conflation, wAllahu aa‘lam, is born out of a misunderstanding. Istikhfāf refers to ‘the regarding of religious matters with disdain’ while tahāwun refers to ‘constant omission’. Nonetheless, since tahāwun is a phenomenon discussed only in the Mālikī school, I shall thus produce the text of Sharh al-Muqaddimah al-Mālikiyyah as how it appears in Tafsīr al-Mazharī:
In the Mālikī school, according to Abū al-Qāsim, intentional omission of the tasmiyah when slaughtering suffices. According to the Mudawwanah [intentional omission] will not suffice. This is the well-known position [of the school]. This [difference of opinion] does not apply to the mutawāhin. Regarding him there is no difference of opinion that his dhabīhah cannot be eaten since it is harām. Ibn Hārith and ibn al-Bashīr have stated this. And the mutahāwin is he who repeatedly [omits the recitation of the tasmiyah].
Of interest to note at this juncture is that difference of opinion with regards to the mutawāhin does exist within the Mālikī school. Says al-Qarafī in adh-Dhakhīrah:
قال أبو طاهر: إن ترك التسمية ناسيا لا يضره ذلك قولا واحدا، أو متواهنا لم تؤكل على اختلاف، أو عامدا فقولان.
An important question at this juncture would be: is it legitimate to pass judgment in the Shāfi‘ī school based on a phenomenon in the Mālikī school?
To this end the present author feels that while nazā’ir (similarities) of tahāwun (constant omission) does exist in the Shāfi‘ī school, there is no need for Shāfi‘ī scholars to ascribe to views of other schools. One such nazīr (singular of nazā’ir) would be the tahāwun or constant omission of the sunnah prayer before magrib. Thousands of Shāfi‘īs world-wide are constantly omitting this sunnah, yet no scholar has ever deemed these individuals as sinful. Yes, should his omission of the prayer come about due to istikhfāf, every scholar will question the foundations of his faith.
Thus, in response to question (1):
If the slaughterers are talking and regard the subject of the conversation more important than tasmiyah, is this not Tahawun?
It has already been stated that tahāwun does not render the dhabīhah haram. As for istikhfāf, the slaughterers will only be guilty of it should they explicitly exclaim: we will not recite the tasmiyah even though it is a sunnah. wAllahu aa‘lam
Summary
• The official view of both Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī and his school considers the dhabihah of one who intentionally omits the tasmiyah as halal.
• The dhabihah of one who omits the tasmiyah istikhfāfan is haram.
• Tahāwun with the proffered meaning above will not be equated to istikhfāf in the Shāfi‘ī school. Thus the dhabihah of a Muslim who constantly omits the tasmiyah will be halal.
Proofs
قال في المجموع: (فرع) في مذاهب العلماء في التسمية على ذبح الأضحية وغيرها من الذبائح وعلى إرسال الكلب والسهم وغيرهما إلى الصيد، مذهبنا أنها سنة في جميع ذلك فان تركها سهوا أو عمدا حلت الذبيحة ولا إثم عليه، قال العبدري: وروي هذا عن ابن عباس وأبي هريرة وعطاء، وقال أبو حنيفة: التسمية شرط للاباحة مع الذكر دون النسيان وهذا مذهب جماهير العلماء، وعن أصحاب مالك قولان، أصحهما: كمذهب أبى حنيفة، والثاني: كمذهبنا، وعن أحمد ثلاث روايات، الصحيحة عندهم والمشهورة عنه أن التسمية شرط للاباحة فان تركها عمدا أو سهوا في صيد فهو ميتة، والثانية: كمذهب أبي حنيفة، والثالثة: إن تركها على إرسال السهم ناسيا أكل وان تركها على الكلب والفهد لم يؤكل، قال: وإن تركها في ذبيحة سهوا حلت وإن تركها عمدا فعنه روايتان، وقال ابن سيرين وأبو ثور وداود: لا تحل سواء تركها عمدا أو سهوا هذا نقل العبدري، وقال ابن المنذر عن الشعبي ونافع كمذهب ابن سيرين قال: وممن أباح أكل ما تركت التسمية عليه ابن عباس وأبو هريرة وسعيد بن المسيب وطاوس وعطاء والحسن البصري والنخعي وعبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى وجعفر بن محمد والحكم وربيعة ومالك والثوري وأحمد وإسحاق وأبو حنيفة،
واحتج لمن شرط التسمية بقوله تعالى: ولا تأكلوا مما لم يذكر اسم الله عليه وانه لفسق وعن أنس أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «إذا أرسلت كلبك المعلم فاذكر اسم الله وكل ما أمسك عليك» وفي رواية «فان خالطها كلاب من غيرها فلا تأكل فانما سميت على كلبك ولم تسم على غيره» وفي رواية «إذا ارسلت كلبك فاذكر اسم الله» وفي رواية «إذا رميت سهمك فاذكر الله» رواه البخاري ومسلم بهذه الروايات، وعن أبي ثعلبة الخشني رضى الله عنه ان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال له: «وما صدت بقوسك فذكرت اسم الله عليه فكل وما صدت بكلبك المعلم فذكرت اسم الله تعالى عليه فكل» وفى رواية «فما صدت بقوسك فاذكر اسم الله ثم كل وما صدت بكلبك المعلم فاذكر اسم الله ثم كل»
واحتج أصحابنا بقول الله تعالى حرمت عليكم الميتة والدم إلى قوله تعالى الا ما ذكيتم فأباح المذكَّى ولم يذكر التسمية، فان قيل: لا يكون مذكًّى إلا بالتسمية، قلنا: الذكاة في اللغة الشق والفتح وقد وجدا، وأيضا قوله تعالى: وطعام الذين أوتوا الكتاب حل لكم فأباح ذبائحهم ولم يشترط التسمية، وبحديث عائشة رضى الله عنها أنهم قالوا: يا رسول الله إن قومنا حديث عهد بالجاهلية يأتون بلحمان لا ندرى أذكروا اسم الله عليه أم لم يذكروا فنأكل منها فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «سموا وكلوا» حديث صحيح رواه البخاري في صحيحه ورواه أبو داود والنسائي وابن ماجه بأسانيد صحيحة كلها، فإسناد النسائي وابن ماجه على شرط البخاري ومسلم وإسناد أبي داود على شرط البخاري، قال أصحابنا وقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «سموا وكلوا» هذه التسمية المستحبة عند أكل كل طعام وشرب كل شراب فهذا الحديث هو المعتمد في المسألة: وأحاديث أبي هريرة قال: جاء رجل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله أرأيت الرجل يذبح وينسى أن يسمي فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: «اسم الله على كل مسلم» فهذا حديث منكر مجمع على ضعفه ذكره البيهقي وبين أنه منكر ولا يحتج به وهذا حديث الصلت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «ذبيحة المسلم حلال ذكر اسم الله أو لم يذكر» فهذا حديث مرسل ذكره أبو داود في المراسيل والبيهقي، وأجاب أصحابنا عن الآية التي احتج بها الأولون أن المراد ما ذبح للأصنام كما قال تعالى في الآية الأخرى وما ذبح على النصب وما أهل به لغير الله ولهذا قال تعالى ولا تأكلوا مما لم يذكر اسم الله عليه وانه لفسق وقد أجمعت الأمة على أن من أكل متروك التسمية ليس بفاسق فوجب حملها على ما ذكرناه ويجمع بينها وبين الآيات السابقات مع حديث عائشة، وأجاب بعض أصحابنا بجواب آخر وهو حمل النهي على كراهة التنزيه جمعا بين الأدلة، والجواب عن حديثي علي وأبي ثعلبة أن ذكر التسمية للندب، وجواب آخر عن قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «فانما سميت على كلبك» أن المراد بالتسمية الإرسال، والله أعلم
[End of the Fatwa]
To add to this conclusive fatwa, we would like to share the commentary of Imam Taqiy-ud-Din Al-Hisni Al-Husayni from his Kifayat Al-Akhyar on the Ghayat At-Taqrib of Imam Abi Shuja’. Imam Abi Shuja’ states in his Ghayat At-Taqrib,
“There are five things that are recommended at the time of slaughter: 1) Tasmiyah (i.e. mentioning Allah ’s name) 2) saying Salat upon the Prophet Muhammad 
3) facing the animal towards the Qiblah at the time of slaughter 4) Takbir (i.e. saying Allahu Akbar) 5) making Du’aa for its acceptance.”
Imam Taqiy-ud-Din Al-Hisni says commenting,
“The tasmiyah is recommended due to Allah saying,
فَكُلُواْ مِمَّا ذُكِرَ ٱسْمُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ
“So eat from that over which God’s Name has been invoked” [6:118]
and in the two Sahihs it states that the Prophet Muhammad would say Baasmallah at the time of ritual sacrifice and slaughtering. If one does not mention Allah ’s name, then the meat is halal. That is due to the fact that Allah made the meat of the people of Book Halal, whereas generally they do not mention Allah ’s name, and in the two Sahihs the people said to the Prophet Muhammad , ‘Oh Messenger of Allah ! There is a people from the ‘Arab (the nomadic Arabs) who give us meat. We do not know if they pronounce the name of Allah upon it or not. The Prophet Muhammad said to them, “Say the name of Allah , and eat!” And this is proof that it is not obligatory [to recite the name of Allah upon the animal when slaughtering]. There are other proofs besides this.”
[End of Commentary from Kifayatul Akhyar]
- Says ash-Shāfi‘ī: ahbabtu lahu an yusammiya. [↩]
I have two questions: first, are there proofs other than those that are listed here?
Second, does that mean that according to Imam Ash Shafi’i we are allowed to eat meat in America? The people here do not intentionally omit tasmiyyah–they don’t even consider it part of their din to do so. So that is not disdain or neglect; rather it is something completely else. What happens in that case?
*Disclaimer: This is not a fatwa, or an addendum to the article, but thoughts pertaining to the issue at hand*
The proofs presented in the arabic at the end, which we left untranslated, are generally the proofs mentioned by the scholars on this issue.
The real question regarding America (and the west as a whole really) is whether or not it is considered principally “Kitabi” or not. If it is considered Kitabi, then it does not matter whether or not the tasmiyah is mentioned or not. This fact is recognized by the Shafi’i jurists within their works. Above, in the commentary found within Kifayat-Al-Akhyar of Imam Taqiy Al-Hisni you find him saying
“…That is due to the fact that Allah
made the meat of the people of Book Halal, whereas generally they do not mention Allah 
’s name…”
So unlike some claim, the Kitabis did not slaughter while actually saying the name of Allah
. This is not the only issue that would impede the Shafi’i (and Muslim at that) from eating the meat of people of the “West” – or even east. I will mention momentarily other probable causes in the law that their food may not be eaten.
But first, I would also like to mention another aspect pertinent to this issue,and that is what is meant by “slaughtering in the name of Allah
”. What is intended, according to the shafi’is by slaughtering in the name of Allah 
, is not necessarily by mentioning the name of Allah 
, but that it is slaughtered for no other reason – such as to the idols, or for people, etc.
This point is actually subtly mentioned by Imam Al-Mawardi in this article:
Imam Al-Mawardi in his Hawi states,
“Ash-Shafi’i says: ‘[While hunting] when a Muslim sends forth his trained dog I consider the recital of the tasmiyah recommended, and if one forgets to do that then there is no blame in it. That is because the Muslim slaughters upon the name of Allah
. The mentioning of the name of Allah 
upon the hunted animal or the slaughtered animal is Sunnah, and it is not Wajib (obligatory), and if one abandons doing so intentionally or forgetfully, it is Halal to eat the meat.’”
So again, the real question is whether or not America, Canada, etc are considered “Kitabi” countries. If not, this will clearly allude to prohibition. Also, what will play into this answer is the modality of the slaughter. We must remember that many times, though not legal by American law (that of USDA law specifically), the blood is not let from the animal – and thus it could be classified as maytah (carrion) within our law. These are some of the issues that stand in the way of eating meat in the west, and it is these reasons I know Shaykh Nuh Keller, an ardent Shafi’i, believes the meat in American, and generally in the west is doubtful.
I hope this clarifies the issue better for you brother Hasan.
was-Salam,
Abu Layth
Assalamu Alaikum
So what is the definition of a Kitabi according to the Shafi’i jurists? Would that definition be inclusive of Americans and Europeans?
Brother Hasan, a Kitabi is one who calls themselves “Jew” or “Christian” = Ahlul Kitaab.
What I meant was that since Americans (and especially Europeans) generally don’t follow their religion, does that qualify them as members of Ahl al-Kitab? for example, one of my “Christian” colleagues on further questioning conceded that he did not really believe (nor care) about the question of God. He classified himself as an agnostic, but only called himself Christian because that was the religion he was raised on.
I live in the North East US, and here everything is extremely secularized. People here classify themselves as part Christian, part Muslim, based on their parental religious affiliations. So I should have posed my question as this: Do the Shafi’i fuqaha maintain that the Christian believe and practice his or her religion to be a Kitabi?
Brother Hasan, a Kitabi is one who calls themselves “Jew” or “Christian” = Ahlul Kitaab.
But not just any ol’ christian or jew right ? They have to fulfill certain criteria if I am not mistaken.
Christians are those who believe Allah
is the third of three (trinity), as Allah 
has said in the Qur’an. Though there may be some who do not believe in such. They are those who believe that Jesus died as well, as Allah 
says in the Qur’an.
As for the Jews, then we know good and well what Allah
says about them in the Qur’an. The Jews and Christians are fundamentally no different than they were 1400 years ago; those who believe ‘Isa ‘alayhis salam is Allah 
, and those who take their Rabbis as legislators over what Allah 
had decreed for them.
As Salamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
From Sheikh Hamza’s article on SunniPath;
“The Shafi`is stipulate that the Christian whose slaughtered meat is permissible to eat is someone who has an uninterrupted Christian lineage all the way back to pre-Islamic times. If the Christian is of non-Israelite descent, then this needs to be positively established (virtually impossible in our times). If the Christian is of Israelite descent, then the conditions are less stringent.”
Another thing is that Fuqaha mention that she must be a Kitabiyyah Khalisah, which means that she isn’t born from parents who one is a christian or jew and the other is an idol worshipper, Fath al-Wahhab bi-sharh al-Manhaj, 2/54 Matbah ibn Halabi, Pattani Thailand.
Here is the rest of the article from Sheikh Hamza: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=12396&CATE=389
Update: We added to the article a scan from Al-Hawi of Imam Al Mawardi, as well as adding to the translation.
Dec. 28, 2009
Salamu aleykum
Jazakumu Allahu khayran for an excellent article. You dont need to publish this comment if you dont want to. I dont agree that al-Shafi’i said this:
“If a Muslim forgets to mention the name of Allah
, his slaughtered animal may be eaten, but if he abandons it scornfully*, his slaughtered animal may not be eaten.”
I think that Mufti Taqi was mistaken in attributing this opinion to al-Shafi’ radia Allahu anhu. Please see this thread
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?38151-Machine-Slaughter-and-Shafi-i-fiqh/page2
Post 5 from the top.
Forget my earlier comment. I see now that it has already been adressed in the fatwa.
Salaam,
I have managed to get the answer on the definition of Ahlul Kitab as per Shafi’ie from Malaysia’s National Fatwa Council Committee. The answer is as follows:-
“A Muslim man may not marry a woman of a religion not founded upon some Holy Scriptures. Thus, he may not marry an idolatress nor a Magian (Zoroastrian); but he may marry a woman among the genuine Scriptuaries (People of the Book). By “Genuine Scriptuaries” are understood those people who follow one of the ACTUALLY EXISTING Divine Scriptures, though abrogated by the Holy Quran, i.e. Jewess and Christians; but not adherents of religious sects founded only on the Psalter of David (peace be upon him), et al. There is prevalent view among our (Shafiite) scholars that such women may only become the wives of Muslims only if they are from the stock of Israel (Bani Israel). Nevertheless, they may be lawfully wedded to Muslim men, even when not strictly speaking of the race of Israel, provided THEIR NATION WAS CONVERTED TO JUDAISM / CHRISTIANITY BEFORE THAT SCRIPTURES WERE ABROGATED BY THE QURAN, and BEFORE THE CORRUPTION OF SUCH SCRIPTURES. This is the most correct view preferred by the renowned Imam Nawawi. In addition to that, a Muslim man may NEVER marry a Jewish or Christian woman where the mother or the father of the woman in question is an idolater (i.e. non-Scriptuaries (both of her parents must be genuine Scriptuaries)). Women belonging to Samaritan sects that have seceded from Judaism, or Sabaean sects seceded from Christianity, differing in each case as to some essential dogma, are deprived the right to marry a Muslim man. Thus, the present day Christians, do not fall into this group of Scriptuaries whom we are allowed to marry. This is especially true of the Protestant Churches that are formed after the advent of our Prophet, and they do not belong to the People of the Book before us and marriage with them is invalid. God knows best.”
The Summary:
Basically Ahlul Kitab is defined as Jewish and Christians whether they be Israelites or not. If they are from the descendants of Bani Isra’il, it is a condition that one does not know for sure that any of their ancestors converted to Judaism after the coming of the Prophet (Allah
bless him and give him peace). The vast majority of Jews would fulfil this condition.
As the ruling for Christians who are mostly not of Israelite descent, however, is that it is only permissible to marry their women or eat their slaughtered animals if one knows for sure that none of their ancestors converted to Christianity after the coming of the Prophet Muhammad
(Allah 
bless him and give him peace). This would exclude the vast majority of Christian women in our times.
This is the Mu’tamad position of our School about this matter and the Muhaqiqqin added: The ancestors of both parents to be KITABI not pagan or idol worshipper.
Succinctly speaking, most of the so-called American ‘Kitabi’ do not fall into this Shafiite category pertaining to Food and Marriagable Women.
Wallahu’alam.
Assalamu Alaikum
Jazakullah for the informative response.
Can you further elaborate on the Protestant-Catholic issue? Because the Protestants seceded from the Christian church at the time of the Prophet, they do not fall into the category of Kitabi? Can you also give references for this position from accepted Shafi’i jurists?
Salaam Bro Hasan,
I will bring you the ref. in 2 days time….im in the midts of meeting right now and would get back to you in 2 days time, meanwhile about the meat in the west is not halal for us to consume (at least per shafi’ie0 pls refer to this site http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=12396&CATE=389
Insha Allah
Assalamu Alaikum
Yeah I would definitely appreciate a reference. Shaykh Abul Layth mentioned that, “Christians are those who believe Allah
is the third of three (trinity), as Allah 
has said in the Qur’an. Though there may be some who do not believe in such. They are those who believe that Jesus died as well, as Allah 
says in the Qur’an.” But he did not mention either that (1)the Christian whose slaughtered meat is permissible to eat is someone who has an uninterrupted Christian lineage all the way back to pre-Islamic times as the Sunnipath fatwa does, nor (2) that any group that breaks away from the group that was existing at the time of the Prophet is excluded (i.e. Protestants are excluded from the generic title of Christian from a Shar’i perspective).
Salaam Bro Hasan,
1) The latter-day authorities of the Shafiite Mazhab, such as Sheikh Ibn Hajar, Imam Ramli, Imam As-Subki, Sheikhul Islam Zakariyya Al-Ansari, As-Suyuti, et al agreed that with regards to “Slaughtering”, the conditions of the “Kitabi Slaughterer” are the same as those [conditions] laid out in the Chapter of Nikah based on the recorded statement of Imam Nawawi in his Minhaj At-Talibin:-
فَصْلٌ وَشَرْطُ ذَابِحٍ وَصَائِدٍ حِلُّ مُنَاكَحَتِهِ ، وَتَحِلُّ ذَكَاةُ أَمَةٍ كِتَابِيَّةٍ ، وَلَوْ شَارَكَ مَجُوسِيٌّ مُسْلِمًا فِي ذَبْحٍ أَوْ اصْطِيَادٍ حَرُمَ ، وَلَوْ أَرْسَلَا كَلْبَيْنِ أَوْ سَهْمَيْنِ فَإِنْ سَبَقَ آلَةُ الْمُسْلِمِ فَقَتَلَ أَوْ أَنْهَاهُ إلَى حَرَكَةِ مَذْبُوحٍ حَلَّ ، وَلَوْ انْعَكَسَ أَوْ جَرَحَاهُ مَعًا أَوْ جُهِلَ أَوْ مُرَتَّبًا وَلَمْ يُذَفِّفْ أَحَدُهُمَا حَرُمَ
This condition is echoed by the three major commentaries of the Minhaj:-
1) Nihayah Al-Muhtaj:-
وَشَرْطُ ذَابِحٍ وَصَائِدٍ حِلُّ مُنَاكَحَتِهِ ) بِأَنْ يَكُونَ مُسْلِمًا أَوْ كِتَابِيًّا بِشَرْطِهِ الْمَذْكُورِ
فِي كِتَابِ النِّكَاحِ فَتَحْرُمُ ذَبِيحَةُ مَجُوسِيٍّ وَمُرْتَدٍّ وَعَابِدِ وَثَنٍ
2) Tuhfah Al-Muhtaj;
( وَشَرْطُ ذَابِحٍ , وَصَائِدٍ ) , وَعَاقِرٍ لِيَحِلَّ نَحْرُ مَذْبُوحِهِ ( حِلُّ مُنَاكَحَتِهِ ) أَيْ : نِكَاحَنَا لِأَهْلِ مِلَّتِهِ لِإِسْلَامِهِمْ , أَوْ كِتَابِيَّتِهِمْ بِشُرُوطِهِمْ , وَتَفَاصِيلِهِمْ السَّابِقَةِ فِي النِّكَاحِ لِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى { , وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ } أَيْ : ذَبَائِحُهُمْ
3) Mughni Al-Muhtaj;
فَقَالَ ( وَشَرْطُ ذَابِحٍ ) أَيْ وَعَاقِرٍ ( وَصَائِدٍ ) لِغَيْرِ سَمَكٍ وَجَرَادٍ لِيَحِلَّ مَذْبُوحُهُ وَمَعْقُورُهُ وَمَصِيدُهُ ( حِلُّ مُنَاكَحَتِهِ ) لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ بِكَوْنِهِ مُسْلِمًا أَوْ كِتَابِيًّا بِشَرْطِهِ السَّابِقِ فِي مُحَرَّمَاتِ النِّكَاحِ
As well as in Hashiyah Al-Bujayrimi ‘Ala Al-Minhaj:-
فِي الذَّابِحِ ) الشَّامِلِ لِلنَّاحِرِ وَلِقَاتِلِ غَيْرِ الْمَقْدُورِ عَلَيْهِ بِمَا يَأْتِي لِيَحِلَّ مَذْبُوحُهُ ( حِلَّ نِكَاحِنَا لِأَهْلِ مِلَّتِهِ ) بِأَنْ يَكُونَ مُسْلِمًا أَوْ كِتَابِيًّا بِشَرْطِهِ السَّابِقِ فِي النِّكَاحِ
In فتوحات الوهاب بتوضيح شرح منهج الطلاب المعروف بحاشية الجمل, these conditions are explained as:
قَوْلُهُ بِشَرْطِهِ السَّابِقِ فِي النِّكَاحِ ) عِبَارَتُهُ هُنَاكَ وَشَرْطُهُ فِي إسْرَائِيلِيَّةٍ أَنْ لَا يَعْلَمَ دُخُولَ أَوَّلِ آبَائِهَا فِي ذَلِكَ الدِّينِ بَعْدَ بَعْثَةٍ تَنْسَخُهُ وَغَيْرَهَا أَنْ يَعْلَمَ ذَلِكَ قَبْلَهَا وَلَوْ بَعْدَ تَحْرِيفِهِ إنْ تَجَنَّبُوا الْمُحَرَّفَ انْتَهَتْ فَيُقَالُ بِمِثْلِهَا هُنَا فَيُقَالُ وَشَرْطُ حِلِّ ذَبِيحَةِ الْكِتَابِيِّ إنْ كَانَ إسْرَائِيلِيًّا أَيْ مَنْسُوبًا لِإِسْرَائِيلَ وَهُوَ يَعْقُوبُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ أَنْ لَا يَعْلَمَ دُخُولَ أَوَّلِ آبَائِهِ فِي ذَلِكَ الدِّينِ بَعْدَ بَعْثَةٍ تَنْسَخُهُ وَفِي غَيْرِهِ أَيْ غَيْرِ الْإِسْرَائِيلِيِّ الْمَنْسُوبِ لِغَيْرِ يَعْقُوبَ أَنْ يَعْلَمَ ذَلِكَ أَيْ دُخُولَ أَوَّلِ آبَائِهِ فِي ذَلِكَ الدِّينِ قَبْلَ بَعْثَةٍ تَنْسَخُهُ وَلَوْ بَعْدَ تَحْرِيفِهِ إنْ تَجَنَّبُوا الْمُحَرَّفَ ا هـ
(source: http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=1&DocID=85&ParagraphID=1999&Diacratic=0 )
Basically Ahlul Kitab is defined as Jewish and Christians whether they be Israelites or not. If they are from the descendants of Bani Isra’il, it is a condition that one does not know for sure that any of their ancestors from both parents converted to Judaism after the ministry of the Prophet(Allah
(SWT) bless him and give him peace). The vast majority of Jews would fulfil this condition.
As the ruling for Christians who are mostly not of Israelite descent, however, is that it is only permissible to marry their women or eat their slaughtered animals if one knows for sure that none of their ancestors converted to Christianity after the coming of the Prophet Muhammad
(SAWS) (Allah 
(SWT) bless him and give him peace). This would exclude the vast majority of Christian women in our times.
References:-
نهاية المحتاج إلى شرح المنهاج
Online: http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=480&DocID=71&ParagraphID=2224&Diacratic=0
I would like to conclude this with the quotation from Fatawa Al-Ramli on which Imam Ramli denied the Halal Status of present day Kitabi (i.e. during his era) due to the fact that their uninterrupted Christian/Jewish lineage (of both parents) all the way back to pre-Islamic times is not established or verified:-
( سُئِلَ ) عَنْ ذَبَائِحِ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى فِي زَمَانِنَا هَلْ تَحِلُّ أَوْ لَا ، وَهَلْ إذَا أَخْبَرَ طَائِفَةً بِأَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَنِي إسْرَائِيلَ هَلْ تَحِلُّ ذَبَائِحُهُمْ أَمْ لَا ؟ ( فَأَجَابَ ) بِأَنَّهُ لَا تَحِلُّ ، لِعَدَمِ مَعْرِفَتِنَا شَرْطَ حِلِّهَا فَإِنْ ثَبَتَ كَوْنُ الذَّابِحِ إسْرَائِيلِيًّا بِشَهَادَةِ عَدْلَيْنِ مِنَّا أَوْ إخْبَارِ عَدَدِ التَّوَاتُرِ مِنْهُمْ أَنَّ كَوْنَ أَوَّلِ آبَائِهِ دَخَلَ فِي دِينِهِ قَبْلَ نَسْخِهِ وَتَحْرِيفِهِ أَوْ بَيْنَهُمَا وَتَجَنَّبَ الْمُحَرَّفَ ، حَلَّتْ
Fatawa Al-Ramli, Page 564, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut or online http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=1&DocID=63&ParagraphID=2046&Diacratic=0
As regards to the Christian denominations that broke away from the Mother Church which existed before the ministry of our Prophet such as the Arab Christians particularly that of Banu Taghlib, Tanukh, Bahraa’, their slaughtered animals are not lawful since these groups embraced Christianity AFTER the advent our Prophet, after the corruption of their Scriptures and their ancestors were of pagan origin. This is mentioned in the Majmu’ of Imam Nawawi, wherein the Imam put forward a prohibition to consume such meat from by Umar Al-Khattab who said: “Christian Arabs are not Ahlul-Kitab and their slaughtering is not Halal for us”, the same thing was issued by Ali Ibn Abi Talib:-
قَالَ الْمُصَنِّفُ – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى – وَالْأَفْضَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْمُذَكِّي مُسْلِمًا فَإِنْ ذَبَحَ مُشْرِكٌ نَظَرْتُ فَإِنْ كَانَ مُرْتَدًّا أَوْ وَثَنِيًّا أَوْ مَجُوسِيًّا لَمْ يَحِلَّ لِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى { وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ } وَهَؤُلَاءِ لَيْسُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَإِنْ كَانَ يَهُودِيًّا أَوْ نَصْرَانِيًّا مِنْ الْعَجَمِ حَلَّ لِلْآيَةِ الْكَرِيمَةِ وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ نَصَارَى الْعَرَبِ وَهُمْ بَهْرَاءُ وَتَنُوخُ وَتَغْلِبُ لَمْ يَحِلَّ لِمَا رُوِيَ عَنْ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ : ” مَا نَصَارَى الْعَرَبِ بِأَهْلِ كِتَابٍ لَا تَحِلُّ لَنَا ذَبَائِحُهُمْ ” وَعَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ : ” لَا تَحِلُّ ذَبَائِحُ نَصَارَى بَنِي تَغْلِبَ ” وَلِأَنَّهُمْ دَخَلُوا فِي النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ بَعْدَ التَّبْدِيلِ
See: http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=1&DocID=24&ParagraphID=1308&Diacratic=0
Wallahu’alam
PS: sorry if the references are left untranslated as I’m extremely busy but feel obliged not to keep you waiting for the references…I hope they help!
Jazakullah. This is exactly what I needed!
My pleasure Bro. Hasan, by the way allow me to bring forward an authentic Hadith which is used as evidence by the Shafiieyyah that Tasmiyah is only recommended upon slaughtering:-
البراء بن عازب وأبي هريرة رضي الله عنهما أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : المسلم يذبح على اسم الله سمى أو لم يسم ، وفي رواية قال : ذكر اسم الله تعالى في قلب كل مسلم
rough translation:
On the authority of Al-Barraa’ Bin Azib & Abu Huraira that the Prophet (Allah
’s blessings be upon him) said: “A Muslim slaughters in GOD’s Name whether or not he cites it.” And in another Riwaya, it is said: “GOD’s name is mentioned in the heart of every Muslim.”
All the best! Ma’a Salama
Shaykh ul-Islam Zakariya ibn Yahya Al-Ansari is recorded to have been asked “If a man wants to marry a Christian woman, though her people do not know whether her forefathers accepted Islam prior to the abrogation of their religion (naskh), or prior to the tabdeel (changing of their books and religion), is such halal? What if he married her anyway, and he had marital relations with her, is the Hadd (punishment) necessary to apply upon him?”
Shaykh-ul-Islam Zakariya Al-Ansari (rahmatullah ‘alayh) [d 926 A.H.] Answered:
لا يحل له أن يتزوجها والحالة هذه ما لم تكن اسرائيلية، فإن تزوجها ودخل بها عالما بالتحريم لزمه الحد والله أعلم
“It is not permitted that he marry her [...] and if he did marry her and he had marital relations with her knowing that such was haram (forbidden), it is necessary to apply the Hadd upon him, and Allah
knows Best!”
[See his Fatawa]
There are also two more possible reasons presented by the Shafi’is for these christians and jews not being from Ahlul Kitaab:
1) That in their works there are no more ahkaam (legal rulings)but rather مواعظ , and so sanctity (hurmah) is not established for those works.
2) There works are not considered from “Kalaamullah” – Allah
’s words – which are in fact REVEALED.
As for what the brother quoted regarding the Arab Christians, specifically Bani Taghlib:
روى عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال: قلت لعطاء: نصارى العرب! قال: لا ينكح المسلمون نساءهم ولا تؤكل ذبائحهم
Abdur-Razzaq reports in his Musannaf from Ibn Jurayj who said, “I said to ‘Ataa’ ‘[What of] The Arab Christians!’ He said, “The Muslims do not marry their women, and they do not eat their meat!”
It should be noted however, that Imam An-Nawawi in his Majmu’ and Imam As-Sana’ni in his Subul As-Salam clearly report from many of the Salaf us Salih (radiya Allahu ‘anhum) that they considered them from Ahlul Kitaab; Ibn ‘Abbas, Ash-Sha’bi, Az-Zuhri, and this was the chosen opinion of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
By the way Bro Hasan M. Abdullah, your above quote is from the Muhadhdhab of Imam Ash-Shirazi, not the Sharh by Imam An-Nawawi known as the Majmu’! What is below, i.e. the Sharh, is what Imam An-Nawawi said:
فَتَحِلُّ ذَبِيحَةُ الْكِتَابِيِّ بِالْإِجْمَاعِ لِلْآيَةِ الْكَرِيمَةِ ، وَسَوَاءٌ فِيهِ مَا يَسْتَحِلُّهُ الْكِتَابِيُّ وَمَا لَا يَسْتَحِلُّهُ وَحَقِيقَةُ الْكِتَابِيِّ نَبْسُطُهَا فِي كِتَابِ النِّكَاحِ حَيْثُ ذَكَرَهَا الْأَصْحَابُ ، وَمُخْتَصَرُهُ مَا أَشَارَ إلَيْهِ الْمُصَنِّفُ أَنَّهُ إنْ كَانَ يَهُودِيًّا أَوْ نَصْرَانِيًّا مِنْ الْعَجَمِ ، أَوْ مِمَّنْ دَخَلَ فِي دِينِهِمْ قَبْلَ النَّسْخِ وَالتَّبْدِيلِ ، حَلَّتْ ذَبِيحَتُهُ ، وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ نَصَارَى الْعَرَبِ وَهُمْ تَنُوخُ وَبَهْرَاءُ وَبَنُو تَغْلِبَ أَوْ غَيْرُهُمْ مِمَّنْ شُكَّ فِي وَقْتِ دُخُولِهِمْ فِي دِينِ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَمْ تَحِلَّ ذَبَائِحُهُمْ ، لِمَا ذَكَرَهُ الْمُصَنِّفُ
“And the slaughtering of the Kitaabi is Halal by Ijma’ due to the noble Ayat [...then he mentions the issue of marriage briefly but continues saying in abridgment to what the author of the Muhadhdhab is saying:] if it is from the Jew or Christian from the non-arabs or from those who entered Islam before abrogation and tabdeel, their slaughtering is permitted. Though if they are from the Christians of the Arabs, and they have the Tanukh, the Bahra’, such as from Banu Taghlib or other than them from who have doubt regarding them, and they entered the religion of the people of Book, it is not permitted to eat their slaughtered meat, due to what was mentioned by the author (i.e. Imam Ash-Shirazi).”
The above are the words of Imam An-Nawawi Br. Hasan M. Abdullah.
Imam An-Nawawi says further down in his commentary upon the above referenced words of Imam Ash-Shirazi:
( فَرْعٌ ) ذَكَرْنَا أَنَّ مَذْهَبَنَا تَحْرِيمُ ذَكَاةِ نَصَارَى الْعَرَبِ بَنِي تَغْلِبَ وَتَنُوخَ وَبَهْرَاءَ ، وَبِهِ قَالَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ وَعَطَاءٌ وَسَعِيدُ بْنُ جُبَيْرٍ ، وَأَبَاحَهَا ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَالنَّخَعِيُّ وَالشَّعْبِيُّ وَعَطَاءٌ الْخُرَاسَانِيُّ وَالزُّهْرِيُّ وَالْحَكَمُ وَحَمَّادٌ وَأَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَإِسْحَاقُ بْنُ رَاهْوَيْهِ وَأَبُو ثَوْرٍ ، دَلِيلُنَا مَا ذَكَرَهُ الْمُصَنِّفُ ( فَرْعٌ ) ذَبَائِحُ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ حَلَالٌ كَذَبَائِحِهِمْ فِي دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ ، وَهَذَا لَا خِلَافَ فِيهِ ، وَنَقَلَ ابْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ الْإِجْمَاعَ عَلَيْهِ .
[Sub-fiqh-issue] We have mentioned that our madh-hab is that it is Haram to eat the slaughtered meat of the christian Arabs from Bani Taghlib, and the tanukh and the bahra’, and this was said by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (r), and ‘Ataa’ Al-Khurasani, Az-Zuhri, Al-Hakam, Hammad, Abu Hanifah, Is-haq ibn Rahawayh and Abu Thawr, and our proof is what was mentioned by the author [i.e. Shirazi].
[Sub-fiqh-issue:] The slaughtered meat of the people of the book in Dar Al-Harb is Halal, just as their meat is halal in Dar-ul-Islam, and there is no disagreement regarding it, and Ibn Al-Mundhir reported Ijma’ upon this issue.
[Sub-fiqh-issue:]
فَرْعٌ ) ذَبِيحَةُ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ حَلَالٌ ، سَوَاءٌ ذَكَرُوا اسْمَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى عَلَيْهَا أَمْ لَا ، لِظَاهِرِ الْقُرْآنِ الْعَزِيزِ ، هَذَا مَذْهَبُنَا وَمَذْهَبُ الْجُمْهُورِ ، وَحَكَاهُ ابْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ وَالنَّخَعِيِّ وَحَمَّادِ بْنِ أَبِي سُلَيْمَانَ وَأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَأَحْمَدَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَغَيْرِهِمْ ، فَإِنْ ذَبَحُوا عَلَى صَنَمٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ لَمْ يَحِلَّ ، قَالَ ابْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ : وَقَالَ عَطَاءٌ إذَا ذَبَحَ النَّصْرَانِيُّ عَلَى اسْمِ عِيسَى فَكُلْ قَدْ عَلِمَ اللَّهُ أَنَّهُ سَيَقُولُ ذَلِكَ ، وَبِهِ قَالَ مُجَاهِدٌ وَمَكْحُولٌ ، وَقَالَ أَبُو ثَوْرٍ : إذَا سَمَّوْا اللَّهَ تَعَالَى فَكُلْ وَإِنْ لَمْ يُسَمُّوهُ فَلَا تَأْكُلْ وَحُكِيَ مِثْلُهُ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ وَابْنِ عُمَرَ وَعَائِشَةَ قَالَ ابْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ : وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي ذَبَائِحِهِمْ لِكَنَائِسِهِمْ ، فَرَخَّصَ فِيهِ أَبُو الدَّرْدَاءِوَأَبُو أُمَامَةَ الْبَاهِلِيُّ وَالْعِرْبَاضُ بْنُ سَارِيَةَ وَالْقَاسِمُ بْنُ مُخَيْمِرَةَ وَحَمْزَةُ بْنُ حَبِيبٍ وَأَبُو مُسْلِمٍ الْخَوْلَانِيُّ وَعَمْرُو بْنُ الْأَسْوَدِ ، وَمَكْحُولٌ وَجُبَيْرُ بْنُ نُفَيْرٍ وَاللَّيْثُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ ، وَكَرِهَهُ مَيْمُونُ بْنُ مِهْرَانَ وَحَمَّادٌ وَالنَّخَعِيُّ وَمَالِكٌ وَالثَّوْرِيُّوَاللَّيْثُ وَأَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَإِسْحَاقُ وَجُمْهُورُ الْعُلَمَاءِ وَمَذْهَبُنَا تَحْرِيمُهُ وَقَدْ سَبَقَ ذَلِكَ فِي بَابِ الْأُضْحِيَّةِ ، وَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ : لَا نَأْكُلُهُ .
“The slaughtered meat of Ahlul Kitab is Halal, whether or not they mention the name of Allah
upon it or not, due to the manifest [ruling] of the mighty Qur’an, this is our madh-hab, and the madh-hab of the majority, and Ibn Al-Mundhir reported from ‘Ali, An-Nakha’i and Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, and Is-haq and other than them this opinion. If they slaughter in the name of one of their idols or other than them, it is not Halal. Ibn Al-Mundhir said, “And ‘Ataa’ said ‘If a Christian slaughters in the name of Jesus then eat from it, for Allah 
knew that they would say that [yet He still permitted it]’, and this was stated by Mujahid and Mak-hul. Abu Thawr said, ‘If they mention the name of Allah 
ta’ala, then it from it, and if they do not then do not eat from it.’ And similar was reported from ‘Ali and ibn Umar and ‘A’ishah…”
[I translated all of this in a hurry and my children were fighting in the background, so it may not be completely correct, though I think it is. Any mistakes are my own.]
Assalamu Alaikum
Isn’t the hadith of Al-Barraa’ Bin Azib & Abu Huraira mursal? The Shaf’is don’t accept mursal hadith.
Salaam Bro. Hasan,
(SAWS) (SAWS) (Allah 
(SWT) (SWT) bless him and give him peace). This would exclude the vast majority of Christian women in our times.” It is difficult to establish for sure that Christians in USA meet these strict requirements as stipulated by our Madhhab, so the simple answer is “Not Halal”….
Thank you for highlighting that, I just wanted to bring whatever evidence available at my disposal and I got that one from my teacher here Hajj Saleh Ahmad who uttered what he has memorised….but yes so the sum of the Mu’tamad position of our Madhab is that the slaughtering of Ahlul Kitaab is permissible PROVIDED they met the strict conditions mentioned by Shaykhayn (Nawawi & Rafi’ie) and the latter-day Muhaqiqqeen whether or not they are in Dar Al-Harb. As mentioned earlier: “As the ruling for Christians who are mostly not of Israelite descent, however, is that it is only permissible to marry their women or eat their slaughtered animals if one knows for sure that none of their ancestors converted to Christianity after the coming of the Prophet Muhammad
As for the view ascribed to Ibn Abbas, Ikrimah and others about Christian Arabs – this is not the chosen view of Imam Nawawi nor the Mu’tamad position of our Madhhab, and when I asked my teacher about this, he gave this reply (from his memory of what he has memorised from Al-Omm):
وقد روى عكرمة عن ابن عباس أنه أحل ذبائحهم وتأول { ومن يتولهم منكم فإنه منهم } وهو لو ثبت عن ابن عباس كان المذهب إلى قول عمر وعلي رضي الله تعالى عنهما أولى ومعه المعقول فأما { من يتولهم منكم فإنه منهم } فمعناها على غير حكمهم وهكذا القول في صيدهم من أكلت ذبيحته أكل صيده ومن لم تحل ذبيحته لم يحل صيده إلا بأن تدرك ذكاته
Wallahu’alam
Salaam again brothers
Here is the continuity of the excerpt quoted by Abu Layth:
“…. قَالَ ابْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ : وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي ذَبَائِحِهِمْ لِكَنَائِسِهِمْ , فَرَخَّصَ فِيهِ أَبُو الدَّرْدَاءِ وَأَبُو أُمَامَةَ الْبَاهِلِيُّ وَالْعِرْبَاضُ بْنُ سَارِيَةَ وَالْقَاسِمُ بْنُ مُخَيْمِرَةَ وَحَمْزَةُ بْنُ حَبِيبٍ وَأَبُو مُسْلِمٍ الْخَوْلَانِيُّ وَعَمْرُو بْنُ الْأَسْوَدِ , وَمَكْحُولٌ وَجُبَيْرُ بْنُ نُفَيْرٍ وَاللَّيْثُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ , وَكَرِهَهُ مَيْمُونُ بْنُ مِهْرَانَ وَحَمَّادٌ وَالنَّخَعِيُّ وَمَالِكٌ وَالثَّوْرِيُّ وَاللَّيْثُ وَأَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَإِسْحَاقُ وَجُمْهُورُ الْعُلَمَاءِ وَمَذْهَبُنَا تَحْرِيمُهُ وَقَدْ سَبَقَ ذَلِكَ فِي بَابِ الْأُضْحِيَّةِ , وَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ : لَا نَأْكُلُهُ .
The last part says pertaining to the oblation or sacrifices dedicated to their Churches of which there exists difference of opinions……..and [according to] our Madhhab is Haram….etc..Aishah said: We do not eat it”
wallahua’lam
Salaam Bro Hasan,
Apparently, both Ibn Hajar and Shaykh Khatib Shirbini employed the Hadith:
وروي أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : { المسلم يذبح على اسم الله سم أو لم يسم } { وجاء رجل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : فقال : يا رسول الله أرأيت الرجل منا يذبح وينسى أن يسمي الله تعالى ؟ فقال : اسم الله في قلب كل مسلم }
In both Mughni Muhtaj and Tuhfah Muhtaj.
http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=303&DocID=70&ParagraphID=3248&Diacratic=0
sorry brother,
The Hadith in question only employed literally by Shaykh Khatib Shirbini in his Mughni Muhtaj, and by Ibn Hajar by indirect reference [by the excerpt quoted] in Al-Omm
لأن المسلم يذبح على اسم الله عز وجل … .اهـ
Salamu ‘alaykum brethren,
As for the hadith that is attributed to Bara’ ibn ‘Azib (radiya Allahu ‘anhu), “The Muslim slaughters upon the name of Allah
, whether he mentions His name or does not mention it.”
Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani says about it in his Talkhis Al-Habir, “I did not see it from the hadith of Baraa’, and Al-Ghazzali claimed in his Ihyaa’: ‘That this hadith is Sahih’”
This is within Kitab As-Sayd wadh-Dhaba’ih print Adwaa’ As-Salaf page 3005. So according to Hafidh Ibn Hajr this is not even a hadith of Baraa’.
As for the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that states:
وأحاديث أبي هريرة قال: جاء رجل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله أرأيت الرجل يذبح وينسى أن يسمي فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: «اسم الله على كل مسلم» فهذا حديث منكر مجمع على ضعفه ذكره البيهقي وبين أنه منكر ولا يحتج به
“A man came to the Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and said: Oh Messenger of Allah
! What do you say of a man who slaughters and forgets to mention the name [of Allah 
]? The Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “The name of Allah 
is in every Muslim.” [and in another version "is within the heart of every Muslim"]
Then within the original article above Mawlana Abdur-Rahman clearly stated about it: “This hadith is Munkar, the scholars have gathered upon the fact that it is weak. This fact was mentioned by Imam Al-Bayhaqi who clarified that it was Munkar and that no support can be sought from it.”
Hafidh Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani in his Talkhis Al-Habir states,
“And it is reported by Abu Hurayrah and it is Munkar. [Note that in one print of this within the margins it says that the word 'munkar' is the words of Ibn As-Sakan.] It is reported by Ad-Daraqutni and in its chain is Marwan ibn Salim and he is Da’if (weak).” [Adwa us Salaf print page 3005]
Lastly, there is the hadith of As-Salt, also mentioned in the original article by Mawlana Abdur-Rahman, from the Nabi (‘alayhis salam) that states,
وهذا حديث الصلت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «ذبيحة المسلم حلال ذكر اسم الله أو لم يذكر» فهذا حديث مرسل ذكره أبو داود في المراسيل والبيهقي
“The slaughtering of the Muslim is Halal whether he mentions the name of Allah
or he does not mention it.”
Mawlana Abdur Rahman states, “this hadith is Mursal, as was mentioned by Abu Dawud in his “Marasil” and Imam Al-Bayhaqi.”
Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani stated in his Talkhis Al-Habir regarding this hadith, “It is Mursal. It is also reported by Al-Bayhaqi from the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas in Mawsul form, and in its chain is weakness. And Ibn Al-Jawzi declared it defective due to M’aqil ibn ‘Ubaydullah, and he claimed that he was ‘majhul (unknown)’, [however] this is a mistake, rather he is thiqah (impeccably trustworthy) from the men of the Sahih of Imam Muslim, however Imam Al-Bayhaqi said, “What is authentic is that it is mawquf to Ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu). Ibn Sakan declared this hadith “Sahih”.”
[end quote from the Talkhis Al-Habir]
The athar referred to by Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani in the quote I translated about that states,
“Imam Al-Bayhaqi said, “What is authentic is that it is mawquf to Ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu). Ibn Sakan declared this hadith “Sahih”.” ”
This report stops [hence the fact that it is mawquf] at Ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu). His actual words, as is reported in the Sunan of Imam Ad-Daraqutni is,
نا أحمد بن محمد بن أبي شيبة نا محمد بن بكر بن خالد نا سفيان بن عيينة عن عمرو بن دينار عن أبي الشعثاء عن عين عن ابن عباس قال إذا ذبح المسلم فلم يذكر اسم الله فليأكل فإن المسلم فيه اسما من أسماء الله
“When the Muslim slaughters, while not mentioning the name of Allah
, then one eats from it, for verily within the Muslim is the name from the names of Allah 
!”
This chain is certainly authentic! In the tahqiq of the Sunan of Ad-Daraqutni that I have it states, “Its chain is Hasan, it is also reported by Al-Bayhaqi 9/240 from Sufyan with the rest of the chain.”
There is yet another hadith mentioned by Ad-Daraqutni within his Sunan by way of Ibn ‘Abbas from the Nabi ‘alayhis salam that states:
حدثنا الحسين بن إسماعيل نا أبو حاتم الرازي نا محمد بن يزيد نا معقل عن عمرو بن دينار عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : المسلم يكفيه اسمه فإن نسي أن يسمي حين يذبح فليسم وليذكر اسم الله ثم ليأكل
“The Muslims name [or could be read: title] suffices him. If he forgets to mention Allah
’s name at the time of slaughtering, then let him mention it and remember the name of Allah 
, then let him eat.”
According to the tahqiq that I have of this hadith [edition Majdi ibn Mansur] this hadith is “hasan, it is also reported by Imam Al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan 9/24 from Abi Hatim Ar-Razi with the rest of the chain. And ‘Muhammad ibn Yazid’ within this chain is ibn Sinan, he is “not strong” see the taqrib 2/217.”
[To see these ahadith/aathaar go here: http://www.iid-alraid.de/Hadeethlib/Books/12/book594.htm
around hadith 96.
I think I should add these proofs to the original article insha’Allah
.
Assalaam alaykum,
Jazakum Allah
khayran a brilliant article and brilliant follow-up discussion.
For my own personal research I was wondering if you brothers could give me some references. I was told by one of my teachers in the UK that Imam an-Nawawi did not regard Christians from other than Bani Isra’il to be real Christians because Isa alaihi salaam was only sent to the Bani Isra’il.
Would he be basing this on the quotes from Al-Majmu’ that Sidi Abu Layth posted above (Jan 28, 11:18 am) or is there more discussion elsewhere?
Jazakum Allah
khairan,
Assalaam alaykum,
Mahdi
Salamu ‘alaykum Br. Mahdi,
Could you possibly ask the brother what his reference is?
Assalaam alaykum,
Si Abu Layth; jazakum Allah
khayran for the message.
As is the case with several (if not most) teachers in North America and the UK it is very hard to get a reference. You’re expected to take the knowledge as it comes, which is fine if you want brevity but not if you want to do further reading.
I was just wondering if you or anyone else here had come across anything.
Assalaam alaykum,
Mahdi
Good article with comprehensive research. I have got much clearer picture about the issue mentioned. Thanks.
Assalaam alaikum,
jazakallah khairun for the article and the follow up within the comments.
There are some issues which do arise with respect to slaughter, especially in the West, which I would be grateful if you could provide some guidance / advise ..
these are:
i) stunning of animals / poultry prior to slaughter in order to meat animal welfare guidelines.
ii) Mechanical slaughter (automated) as opposed to manual / individual slaughter of poultry
iii) Meeting of prophetic guidelines with respect to animal welfare prior to the slaughter
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated
Jazakallah khairun
wasalaam alaikum