Revisiting the issue of Halal meat, based on the Qur’an
Disclaimer: This is simply sharing some thoughts and views on the verses of the Qur’an about the issue of ‘halal meat’. This is not intended to be an academic and a detailed writing. The origin of this writing was an answer to a friend’s question about this topic. The same answer, with the same non-academic style, is used with some expansions and further details.
First, we need to differentiate between two things:
- Whether saying the name of God when slaughtering an animal is sunnah
- Whether not saying the name of God makes the animal haram
My answer to the first is Yes, therefore I appreciate any verse of the Qur’an that may be interpreted as considering ‘saying the name of God’ to be sunnah or an obligation. Such verses however are not relevant to the second question since not doing something that is sunnah or obligation in a process does not necessarily make the product of that process haram.
My answer to the second question is No. I will provide my reasons here:
In four verses of the Qurán, it says that the only haram things for consumption are carrion, blood, pork, and the animal that is slaughtered for idols. In 2:173, 6:145 in particular, and 16:115 the verse says these are the only ones that are haram. The other verse is 5:3 that according to most scholars was among the last revealed verses.
If one reads the above verses one will not find any reason to consider an animal for which the name of God is not mentioned, to be haram. What seems to ignite this debate is verse 6:121:
“Do not eat anything over which God's name has not been mentioned; it is transgression. The devils inspire their adherents to argue with you; if you obey them, you would become polytheists.”
Reading the verse, one may quickly jump to the conclusion that another condition is added to the conditions mentioned in the above four verses, that is, ‘mentioning the name of God’. This interpretation however seems to be problematic. Why would four verses of the Qur’an make it clear that only certain things are haram and then suddenly a verse adds another condition? This is even more curious if we appreciate that based on the exegetic views the chapter in which verse 6:121 belongs is a Macci chapter of the Qur’an and one that was revealed before chapters 2, 5, and 16 where this assumingly additional condition was not listed. In the very chapter 6 (an’am) verse 145 again gives the same conditions as in chapters 2, 5, and 16 and does not include saying the name of God among them. An addition of a new condition seems to be an unjustified interruption in this logical flow of verses.
It is also curious that verse 6:121 says that those who eat from what on which God’s name is not mentioned will be polytheist (mushrik). Also that this act is transgression (fisq). It can be appreciated that one who eats haram food may be a sinner, but why the verse attributes such strong expressions (fisq, mushrk) on this occasion? Additionally, verse 5:5 explicitly makes the food of people of the book halal for Muslims. There is no evidence that people of the book in Arabia used to say the name of God when slaughtering. Also, the justification that food (ta’am) in this verse means non-meat food does not seem to be a strong one.
In Tafsir al-Manar by Rashid Ridha, we read the following explanation from al-Shafi'i about this verse which I think directly and indirectly answers the above questions. I copy the original text and my translation:
"قال الشافعي رحمه اللّه هذا النهي مخصوص بما اذا ذبح على اسم النصب و يدل عليه وجوه (أحدها) قوله تعالى (وَ إِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ) و أجمع المسلمون على أنه لا يفسق آكل ذبيحة المسلم الذي ترك التسمية [و ثانيها] قوله تعالى (وَ إِنَّ الشَّياطِينَ لَيُوحُونَ إِلى أَوْلِيائِهِمْ لِيُجادِلُوكُمْ) و هذه المناظرة انما كانت في مسألة الميتة روي أن ناسا من المشركين قالوا للمسلمين ما يقتله الصقر و الكلب تأكلونه و ما يقتله اللّه فلا تأكلونه و عن ابن عباس انهم قالوا تأكلون ما تقتلونه و لا تأكلون ما يقتله اللّه، فهذه المناظرة مخصوصة بأكل الميتة [و ثالثها] قوله تعالى (وَ إِنْ أَطَعْتُمُوهُمْ إِنَّكُمْ لَمُشْرِكُونَ) و هذا مخصوص بما ذبح على النصب، يعني لو رضيتم بهذه الذبيحة التي ذبحت على اسم إلاهية الاوثان فقد رضيتم بالاهيتها و ذلك يوجب الشرك.
قال الشافعي رحمه اللّه تعالى فأول هذه الآية و ان كان عاما يحسب هذه الصيغة الا أن آخرها لما حصلت فيه هذه القيود الثلاثة علمنا أن المراد من ذلك العموم هو هذا الخصوص و مما يؤكد هذا المعنى انه تعالى قال [وَ لا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَ إِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ] فقد صار هذا النهى مخصوصا بما اذا كان هذا الاكل فسقا، ثم طلبنا في كتاب اللّه تعالى انه متى يصير فسقا فرأينا هذا الفسق مفسرا في آية أخرى و هو قوله تعالى [قُلْ لا أَجِدُ فِي ما أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّماً عَلى طاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَماً مَسْفُوحاً أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقاً أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ] فصار الفسق في هذه الآية مفسرا بما أهل به لغير اللّه و اذا كان كذلك كان قوله [وَ لا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَ إِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ] مخصوصا بما أهل به لغير اللّه"
(تفسير المنار، ج8، ص: 25)
Translation:
----------------------------
"Shafi'i, may God has mercy on him, says that this forbiddance relates to when there is slaughtering for idols. There are evidence for this:
- First is that it says it is transgression (fisq). All Muslims agree that eating the slaughter of a Muslim who does not say the Name does not amount to Fisq.
- Second, it says (in 6:121) "The devils inspire their adherents to argue with you". This goes back to the issue of carrion. It is narrated that some polytheists used to argue with Muslims that you eat from what your (hunting) falcons and dogs kill but you do not eat from what God kills (i.e. carrion). It is narrated by Ibn Abbas that they used to say "you eat what you kill but you don't eat what God kills". So this is specific to the issue of carrion.
- Third where it says (in 6:121) "if you obey them, you would become polytheists". This is specific to what is slaughtered for idols, meaning if you are happy with these kinds of slaughters that are for idols then it implies that you are happy with attributing divinity to idols and this is polytheism.
Shafi'i, may God has mercy on him, says that although the start of the verse sounds general however it becomes specific by the end of the verse due to the above three reasons. What further confirms this is that the verse says ‘And do not eat from the animals on which the name of God has not been pronounced, this is transgression (fisq)’ (6:121). So this forbiddance is specific for when this is 'transgression' (fisq). Then we ask the Qur'an what constitutes fisq (in this regard) and we see that this ‘transgression’ (fisq) is explained in another verse (i.e. 6:145) where it says: ‘Tell them I find not in what has been revealed to me through inspiration forbidden to a person who eats things which are edible, unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth or the flesh of swine because all these are unclean or in, transgression (fisq) towards God, animals slaughtered in someone else’s name’. So (the word) ‘transgression’ (fisq) in this verse is explained as ‘animals slaughtered in someone else’s name’. Therefore when it is like this, the verse (6:121) ‘Do not eat anything over which God's name has not been mentioned; it is transgression’ will mean what is specific to slaughter in the name of other than God."
----------------------------
I am not going to elaborate and explain the above reasoning, I think it is reasonably clear. What it basically says is that the evidence within verse 6:121 make it clear that “animals on which the name of God has not been pronounced” refers to “animals on which names of other than God is pronounced”. I add that other than the evidence within the verse, as I wrote, there is also the strong and categorical expression in verses 2:173, 5:3, 6:145, and 16:115 that makes it clear that ‘not saying the Name per se’ does not make the meat haram. We also know from historical reports that slaughtering animals in the name of idols was a common practice in Arabia at the time and that not saying the name of God in the such environment could mean saying the name of idols instead. This understanding also fits very well with verse 5:5 about the permissibility of consuming the food of the people of the book. The Qur’an has criticised aspects of shirk in some of these groups but has never categorised them as polytheists (mushriks).
This is as much as this writing intended to cover in terms of the effect of not saying the name of God when slaughtering. If one agrees with the above reasoning then one will not consider not-saying-the-name to make the meat haram. One may still prefer the meat that is slaughtered after saying the Name. This of course is a personal preference.
As a side issue, a question can be raised about the method of slaughtering, that is, whether the method of slaughtering adopted in most non-Muslim communities is acceptable for Muslims. Again here we need to differentiate between what is the prescribed method for Muslims and if not following this prescription will make the meat haram. Muslims are following the sunnah by which they slaughter the animal in a way that a good amount of blood is drained out from its body. There is speculation that if this method is not used and for instance, stunning is used before slaughtering then the same amount of blood will not come out of the body of the animal.
On this particular topic, I share a few points:
- That blood that the verses of the Qur’an forbid consuming is blood poured forth (daman masfuha), in simple words, actual blood for drinking and not a small amount of blood that may remain in the meat.
- Unlike the issue of ‘saying the name’, the concern about blood seems to be about physical hygiene and health of the food rather than anything spiritual. No doubt it is best to let as much blood drain from the slaughtered animal as possible, however, this seems to be a measure that is in the domain of intellect (aql) rather than religious law (shariah).
- In many Muslim butchers too the animal is stunned before slaughter.
- According to recently published scientific research, there is no significant difference between the blood loss variables (e.g. amount, duration) for the Muslim method of slaughter without stunning and slaughtering that is preceded by stunning the animal (see Harun Aksu et al. 2006, “Comparison of Halal slaughter with captive bolt stunning and neck cutting in cattle: exsanguination and quality parameters” in Animal Welfare, 15:325-330. In the article, the authors provide a reference for their earlier study of the same nature, on sheep).
Based on the totality of the above points, I do not see any religious evidence to consider the meat haram based on the method of slaughtering. This is unless of course obvious hygiene reasons or the welfare of the animal is violated in which case I think the meat should not be consumed by any human beings, Muslim or non-Muslim.
My overall conclusion from a practical perspective is that based on the above reasoning and evidence, (that is, if a person agrees with them), then (for that person) the meat produced in the non-Muslim shops, being from the people of the book or not, is in principle halal.
Please also note that the above is a study based on the Qur’an. It can satisfy those who consider the Qur’an as the main criteria and an independent internal source of understanding Islam from within religion. If one is interested in studies based on traditional sources of jurisprudence (fiqh) including hadith then one may refer to the writings of the Iranian Scholar Ahmad Qabil, among many, who have come to similar conclusions based on these sources.
Farhad Shafti
April 2023
First, we need to differentiate between two things:
- Whether saying the name of God when slaughtering an animal is sunnah
- Whether not saying the name of God makes the animal haram
My answer to the first is Yes, therefore I appreciate any verse of the Qur’an that may be interpreted as considering ‘saying the name of God’ to be sunnah or an obligation. Such verses however are not relevant to the second question since not doing something that is sunnah or obligation in a process does not necessarily make the product of that process haram.
My answer to the second question is No. I will provide my reasons here:
In four verses of the Qurán, it says that the only haram things for consumption are carrion, blood, pork, and the animal that is slaughtered for idols. In 2:173, 6:145 in particular, and 16:115 the verse says these are the only ones that are haram. The other verse is 5:3 that according to most scholars was among the last revealed verses.
If one reads the above verses one will not find any reason to consider an animal for which the name of God is not mentioned, to be haram. What seems to ignite this debate is verse 6:121:
“Do not eat anything over which God's name has not been mentioned; it is transgression. The devils inspire their adherents to argue with you; if you obey them, you would become polytheists.”
Reading the verse, one may quickly jump to the conclusion that another condition is added to the conditions mentioned in the above four verses, that is, ‘mentioning the name of God’. This interpretation however seems to be problematic. Why would four verses of the Qur’an make it clear that only certain things are haram and then suddenly a verse adds another condition? This is even more curious if we appreciate that based on the exegetic views the chapter in which verse 6:121 belongs is a Macci chapter of the Qur’an and one that was revealed before chapters 2, 5, and 16 where this assumingly additional condition was not listed. In the very chapter 6 (an’am) verse 145 again gives the same conditions as in chapters 2, 5, and 16 and does not include saying the name of God among them. An addition of a new condition seems to be an unjustified interruption in this logical flow of verses.
It is also curious that verse 6:121 says that those who eat from what on which God’s name is not mentioned will be polytheist (mushrik). Also that this act is transgression (fisq). It can be appreciated that one who eats haram food may be a sinner, but why the verse attributes such strong expressions (fisq, mushrk) on this occasion? Additionally, verse 5:5 explicitly makes the food of people of the book halal for Muslims. There is no evidence that people of the book in Arabia used to say the name of God when slaughtering. Also, the justification that food (ta’am) in this verse means non-meat food does not seem to be a strong one.
In Tafsir al-Manar by Rashid Ridha, we read the following explanation from al-Shafi'i about this verse which I think directly and indirectly answers the above questions. I copy the original text and my translation:
"قال الشافعي رحمه اللّه هذا النهي مخصوص بما اذا ذبح على اسم النصب و يدل عليه وجوه (أحدها) قوله تعالى (وَ إِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ) و أجمع المسلمون على أنه لا يفسق آكل ذبيحة المسلم الذي ترك التسمية [و ثانيها] قوله تعالى (وَ إِنَّ الشَّياطِينَ لَيُوحُونَ إِلى أَوْلِيائِهِمْ لِيُجادِلُوكُمْ) و هذه المناظرة انما كانت في مسألة الميتة روي أن ناسا من المشركين قالوا للمسلمين ما يقتله الصقر و الكلب تأكلونه و ما يقتله اللّه فلا تأكلونه و عن ابن عباس انهم قالوا تأكلون ما تقتلونه و لا تأكلون ما يقتله اللّه، فهذه المناظرة مخصوصة بأكل الميتة [و ثالثها] قوله تعالى (وَ إِنْ أَطَعْتُمُوهُمْ إِنَّكُمْ لَمُشْرِكُونَ) و هذا مخصوص بما ذبح على النصب، يعني لو رضيتم بهذه الذبيحة التي ذبحت على اسم إلاهية الاوثان فقد رضيتم بالاهيتها و ذلك يوجب الشرك.
قال الشافعي رحمه اللّه تعالى فأول هذه الآية و ان كان عاما يحسب هذه الصيغة الا أن آخرها لما حصلت فيه هذه القيود الثلاثة علمنا أن المراد من ذلك العموم هو هذا الخصوص و مما يؤكد هذا المعنى انه تعالى قال [وَ لا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَ إِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ] فقد صار هذا النهى مخصوصا بما اذا كان هذا الاكل فسقا، ثم طلبنا في كتاب اللّه تعالى انه متى يصير فسقا فرأينا هذا الفسق مفسرا في آية أخرى و هو قوله تعالى [قُلْ لا أَجِدُ فِي ما أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّماً عَلى طاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَيْتَةً أَوْ دَماً مَسْفُوحاً أَوْ لَحْمَ خِنزِيرٍ فَإِنَّهُ رِجْسٌ أَوْ فِسْقاً أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ] فصار الفسق في هذه الآية مفسرا بما أهل به لغير اللّه و اذا كان كذلك كان قوله [وَ لا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا لَمْ يُذْكَرِ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَ إِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ] مخصوصا بما أهل به لغير اللّه"
(تفسير المنار، ج8، ص: 25)
Translation:
----------------------------
"Shafi'i, may God has mercy on him, says that this forbiddance relates to when there is slaughtering for idols. There are evidence for this:
- First is that it says it is transgression (fisq). All Muslims agree that eating the slaughter of a Muslim who does not say the Name does not amount to Fisq.
- Second, it says (in 6:121) "The devils inspire their adherents to argue with you". This goes back to the issue of carrion. It is narrated that some polytheists used to argue with Muslims that you eat from what your (hunting) falcons and dogs kill but you do not eat from what God kills (i.e. carrion). It is narrated by Ibn Abbas that they used to say "you eat what you kill but you don't eat what God kills". So this is specific to the issue of carrion.
- Third where it says (in 6:121) "if you obey them, you would become polytheists". This is specific to what is slaughtered for idols, meaning if you are happy with these kinds of slaughters that are for idols then it implies that you are happy with attributing divinity to idols and this is polytheism.
Shafi'i, may God has mercy on him, says that although the start of the verse sounds general however it becomes specific by the end of the verse due to the above three reasons. What further confirms this is that the verse says ‘And do not eat from the animals on which the name of God has not been pronounced, this is transgression (fisq)’ (6:121). So this forbiddance is specific for when this is 'transgression' (fisq). Then we ask the Qur'an what constitutes fisq (in this regard) and we see that this ‘transgression’ (fisq) is explained in another verse (i.e. 6:145) where it says: ‘Tell them I find not in what has been revealed to me through inspiration forbidden to a person who eats things which are edible, unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth or the flesh of swine because all these are unclean or in, transgression (fisq) towards God, animals slaughtered in someone else’s name’. So (the word) ‘transgression’ (fisq) in this verse is explained as ‘animals slaughtered in someone else’s name’. Therefore when it is like this, the verse (6:121) ‘Do not eat anything over which God's name has not been mentioned; it is transgression’ will mean what is specific to slaughter in the name of other than God."
----------------------------
I am not going to elaborate and explain the above reasoning, I think it is reasonably clear. What it basically says is that the evidence within verse 6:121 make it clear that “animals on which the name of God has not been pronounced” refers to “animals on which names of other than God is pronounced”. I add that other than the evidence within the verse, as I wrote, there is also the strong and categorical expression in verses 2:173, 5:3, 6:145, and 16:115 that makes it clear that ‘not saying the Name per se’ does not make the meat haram. We also know from historical reports that slaughtering animals in the name of idols was a common practice in Arabia at the time and that not saying the name of God in the such environment could mean saying the name of idols instead. This understanding also fits very well with verse 5:5 about the permissibility of consuming the food of the people of the book. The Qur’an has criticised aspects of shirk in some of these groups but has never categorised them as polytheists (mushriks).
This is as much as this writing intended to cover in terms of the effect of not saying the name of God when slaughtering. If one agrees with the above reasoning then one will not consider not-saying-the-name to make the meat haram. One may still prefer the meat that is slaughtered after saying the Name. This of course is a personal preference.
As a side issue, a question can be raised about the method of slaughtering, that is, whether the method of slaughtering adopted in most non-Muslim communities is acceptable for Muslims. Again here we need to differentiate between what is the prescribed method for Muslims and if not following this prescription will make the meat haram. Muslims are following the sunnah by which they slaughter the animal in a way that a good amount of blood is drained out from its body. There is speculation that if this method is not used and for instance, stunning is used before slaughtering then the same amount of blood will not come out of the body of the animal.
On this particular topic, I share a few points:
- That blood that the verses of the Qur’an forbid consuming is blood poured forth (daman masfuha), in simple words, actual blood for drinking and not a small amount of blood that may remain in the meat.
- Unlike the issue of ‘saying the name’, the concern about blood seems to be about physical hygiene and health of the food rather than anything spiritual. No doubt it is best to let as much blood drain from the slaughtered animal as possible, however, this seems to be a measure that is in the domain of intellect (aql) rather than religious law (shariah).
- In many Muslim butchers too the animal is stunned before slaughter.
- According to recently published scientific research, there is no significant difference between the blood loss variables (e.g. amount, duration) for the Muslim method of slaughter without stunning and slaughtering that is preceded by stunning the animal (see Harun Aksu et al. 2006, “Comparison of Halal slaughter with captive bolt stunning and neck cutting in cattle: exsanguination and quality parameters” in Animal Welfare, 15:325-330. In the article, the authors provide a reference for their earlier study of the same nature, on sheep).
Based on the totality of the above points, I do not see any religious evidence to consider the meat haram based on the method of slaughtering. This is unless of course obvious hygiene reasons or the welfare of the animal is violated in which case I think the meat should not be consumed by any human beings, Muslim or non-Muslim.
My overall conclusion from a practical perspective is that based on the above reasoning and evidence, (that is, if a person agrees with them), then (for that person) the meat produced in the non-Muslim shops, being from the people of the book or not, is in principle halal.
Please also note that the above is a study based on the Qur’an. It can satisfy those who consider the Qur’an as the main criteria and an independent internal source of understanding Islam from within religion. If one is interested in studies based on traditional sources of jurisprudence (fiqh) including hadith then one may refer to the writings of the Iranian Scholar Ahmad Qabil, among many, who have come to similar conclusions based on these sources.
Farhad Shafti
April 2023
