Q226 :1. In his book, “The Lawful and the
Prohibited in Islam,” Mr. Y. Al-Qaradhawi argues that all imported
tinned meat and chicken originating with the People of the Book are
lawful for Muslims to eat. He quotes verse 5 of surah 5, but ignores
the word “Tayyibat” included in it. He mentions that pork and
intoxicating drinks are forbidden even though they may be part of the
food of the People of the Book. Please explain this question in detail.
2. You have argued that the meat available in countries like the U.S.
is lawful for Muslims to eat. My son who studies in that country says
that it is a secular not a Christian country, with a large proportion
of its population being atheists. Some of those working in slaughter
houses may be Hindus or belong to polytheistic religions. I find his
arguments more convincing. When I will go there, I will follow his suit
and abstain from eating meat.
A226 : These are only two of many letters I
regularly receive about this particular question. These show a welnete
sign of people’s strong feeling that they must make sure that what they
eat is permissible. However, they also show that sometimes it is not
enough for people to have a ruling well argued by a scholar. They
still go to great lengths to question and find opposite views. Yet the
whole question does not nete high on the scale of what is forbidden in
Islam, because it is a question of practice, not one of beliefs. The
attitude of the Prophet’s netpanions and their successors, i.e.
tabi’een was totally different. When they learned a ruling, they
accepted it and did not worry too much over its being correct. That is
the proper attitude, because all that God requires of us is to take
reasonable steps to know what is permissible and what is forbidden.
You certainly meet that criterion when you read a book by a high
authority like Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi or when you ask a scholar.
Such questions may have different answers by different scholars. Each
will give a ruling on the basis of the evidence he considers to be
stronger. Weighing up the evidence of a particular view does not nete
haphazardly. It is subject to rules and scholarly principles. However,
we should not consider the fact that we have different views on a
question like this to be an element of weakness. Indeed it is an
element of strength. No scholar worth his salt has ever considered
difference of this type to be a negative element. Indeed, it is the
flexibility which such differences provide that add to the
practicability of the religion of Islam. It is in this light that I
say to the second questioner that he should follow the view that he
feels to be more strongly based. I welnete his frankness and support
him on his choice, although I differ with him on most points. To the
first reader I would like to say that Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi is ranked
among the leading scholars in the Muslim world today. I would count
myself among his students and I have certainly benefited a great deal
by his books and public lectures. Other scholars have expressed some
reservations about certain rulings he gives in his book, but that does
not detract from its great value. Let us remember here Imam Malik’s
words of wisdom when he said as he sat in the Prophet’s mosque: “You
may accept some and reject some of the views of any human being with
the exception of the dweller of this grave (and he pointed to the
Prophet’s grave.)” The first point the reader raises concerns the term
“Tayyibat” in the Qur’anic verse. I do not think that the author
ignored this word, which means “wholesome.” The verse may be translated
as follows: “They question you: What has been made lawful to them. Say:
Lawful to you is everything that is wholesome. And the food of the
People of the Book is made lawful to you and your food is lawful to
them.” The question of ignoring this term does not arise unless we
consider that “the food of the People of the Book” to be set in
contrast to what is wholesome. Such an interpretation is erroneous
because the contrast would also include the food of Muslims which is
made lawful to them. But our food is wholesome since it has been made
permissible to us as the above quoted verse explains. The correct
understanding of the meaning of the verse considers the second sentence
in the above quotation to highlight, for the sake of emphasis, certain
types of food that are included among what is “wholesome.” This special
style of emphasis is frequently used in the Qur’an, and in the Arabic
language generally. It is known as adding details to what has been
given in a general context. Another example is found in verse 3 of the
same surah which begins by stating the four types of meat that are
forbidden in Islam and goes on to give several kinds of the first of
these four, which is carrion. The reader also raises the point that
these days we are almost certain that no slaughter in any European or
American country mentions God’s name at the time of slaughter. Verse
121 of surah 6 gives a clear instruction: “Do not eat of the meat of
any (animal) on which God’s name has not been involved (at the time of
slaughter.)” Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi mentions in this connection a Hadith
which tells us that the Prophet’s netpanions put to him the question
that they might have meat but they would not know if God’s name was
invoked at the time of slaughter. He told them to mention God’s name
and eat it. The reader feels that this Hadith does not apply these
days when Western people have more or less abandoned their faith and
cannot be considered to belong to the category of the People of the
Book. Having lived for many years in the West, I disagree. These people
are mostly Christians who have reduced the influence of their religion
on their practical life. However, this is not a major point of
contention. What worries me is the attitude of many Muslims who seem to
try to find reasons to pronounce things as forbidden or unlawful, as if
the religion is no more than a set of prohibitions. I have often
pointed out that this is a perverted approach, because we have an
indisputable rule of Islam which makes it clear that “every thing is
lawful unless it is pronounced otherwise.” Moreover, the authority to
forbid any thing belongs solely to God. There are certain things that
the Prophet specified as forbidden but he did so on God’s authority.
Bearing that in mind, we have to have a sound basis before we could
slam a verdict of prohibition on any matter. When the Prophet told his
netpanions and succeeding generations of his followers to mention God’s
name before eating meat slaughtered by non-Muslims, he was showing them
the way to make certain that such meat was lawful. We do well to follow
his guidance, and indeed that is all that is required of us today.
Besides, I invite both readers to reflect on Verse 145 of surah 6 which
instructs the Prophet in this way: “Say: I do not find in all the
revelations given to me anything that is forbidden to eat by anyone,
unless it be carrion, running blood, and the flesh of swine – for these
are unclean – and any flesh that has been profanely consecrated to
beings other than God.” You cannot have a more definitive statement.
So, what is all the argument about? Yet, when everything has been said
and clarified, people should choose the line of action with which they
feel more netfortable. If either of my readers feels more at ease if
he abstains from eating this type of meat, let him do so. All that is
required of him is to respect the views of those who differ with him.
After all, this is a matter of worship that belongs totally in the
field of the relationship between the individual and His Lord, the
Merciful, whose grace brings forgiveness to all human beings. A
holier-than-thou attitude is totally un-Islamic.
Our Dialogue ( Source : Arab News – Jeddah )