Issues Regarding Food of the People of Book

Allah says in the Holy Quran:

This injunction of the Holy Quran makes the food of the People of the Book lawful to the Muslims. However, differences of opinion exist on the jurisdiction of the verse. The aim of this paper is to discuss underlying issues and arguments.

Does "People of the Book" include those who take Jesus to be son of God?

"People of the Book" refers to those nations that received guidance in the form of a scripture from Allah; namely the Jews and the Christians.1 An obvious question that arises out of this is whether the term "People of the Book" includes the Jews and the Christians that have deviated from their original teachings, and have involved in Shirk. History shows that the concept of Trinity had been formulated much before the revelation of the Quran2 and was a common practice at the time of its revelation. This is also evident from the following verse of the Holy Quran:

Thus, it can be asserted that Muslims are allowed to consume the food prepared by present day Christians who hold Jesus to be the son of God. However, this does not imply that the people who are born as Christians and Jews, but have turned Atheists, Antagonists or have adopted another religion can be classified as the "People of the Book."3

Food on which Allah's name is not taken at the time of Slaughter

Based on the prescription in the verse 5:5, some scholars have held the opinion that the food of Jews and Christians is allowed to Muslims even if Allah's name is not taken at the time of slaughter. This is said because the above verse, at the time of allowing the food of the People of the Book, only mentions the restriction that meat on which name other than that of Allah is taken is not permissible and does not clearly explain when the name is to be taken. Therefore, this point of view claims, it exempts the meat on which Allah's name is not taken at the time of slaughter as long as it is taken before or at the time of consumption and thus allows it.

It needs to be understood that when interpreting a part of the Quran, its other parts and the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) cannot be ignored in making a decision. This essentially means that the conditions regarding edibles provided to the Muslims in the Quran and the Sunnah must be met. For instance, dead animals are considered unlawful in Islamic Shariah and therefore, if served by the Christians or Jews, they will still be considered unlawful. As a principle, only that food which is allowed in Islam can be taken for consumption from non-Muslims. If Muslims are offered food on which Allah's name has not been taken, it would still be prohibited because such meat is considered unlawful in Islamic Shariah as we will discuss later in this article.

If this interpretation is not taken to be correct, it would then imply that food offered by a Muslim who does not deliberately take Allah's name at the time of slaughter would be unlawful to consume whereas that offered by a non-Muslim, which was slaughtered using exactly the same method, would become lawful!

Scholars who hold the opinion that taking Allah's name at the time of slaughter is not a requirement in the Shariah often quote one of the variations of the following Hadith narrated by Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her):

Based on the above narrative, it is often argued that taking Allah's name is not a requirement, and the food of the people of the Book is permissible even if Bismillah is said at the time of having the food.

Requirement of pronouncing Allah's name at the time of slaughter

However, another Quranic injunction states:

It is clear from the above verse that the meat upon which Allah's name has not been pronounced is not allowed to be eaten. Not only that, the severity of this act is so high that it was told in this verse to the Muslims that if they consumed the food on which Allah's name has not been pronounced, it would be considered "fisq" and they would be as if they had turned Mushrikun. It would be a serious error to ignore this verse and interpret 5:5 independently of it.

It is proposed that this verse is not clear in stating whether the requirement for taking Allah's name is at the time of slaughtering the animal or at the time of having its food. Based on this, it is also concluded that if Allah's name is taken at the time of consumption of food, the food will be permissible. In addition, this conclusion also seems to have been supported further from the Hadith quoted above.

However, the context of this verse is a clear indication that it refers to the slaughtering of the animal and not that of taking the name at the time of slaughter. Secondly, and more importantly, in the historical context when the verses were revealed, the issue under question was that of taking Allah's name at the time of slaughter and not that of taking Allah's name at the time of consumption of meat.5 The discussion that has historically ever taken place around the interpretation of this verse has, therefore, been related to pronouncement of Allah's name at the time of slaughtering the animals. The non-Muslims disputed with Muslims that how could they not have food which was declared lawful by their ancestors. It is in this context that this verse was revealed, making it clear in general that anything on which Allah's name has not been taken at the time of slaughter cannot be consumed by the Muslims.6 Therefore, the interpretation that this verse, especially opined by those who rely on translated text only, refers to taking Allah's name at the time of consumption is not based on strong reasoning.

Thirdly, as far as the practice of Prophet Muhammad (sws) is concerned, he prescribed at several occasions the pronouncement of Allah's name at the time of slaughter. For example, consider the following Ahadith:

This practice of taking Allah's name at the time of slaughter not only existed in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (sws), but has been transferred to us over the ages in the form of his Sunnah. It is due to this that all Muslims consider it obligatory to take Allah's name at the time of the slaughter.

An obvious question that arises is the conflict between the Quranic orders and the instructions of the Prophet's (sws) Hadith from Aishah reported previously. In general, to analyze any Hadith correctly we must always look at other narrations of the same incident, for it is possible for the narrator to have forgotten some details or have them ignored, or alternatively, the scribe to have them misunderstood.

In Sahih Bukhari, the same incident has been narrated as follows:

In the narration above, there is an additional piece of information: the people who had brought the meat had already embraced Islam. Under most circumstances, it is safe to assume that a Muslim will definitely pronounce Allah's name at the time of slaughter and further investigation is not necessary. This condition is not different from the present day situations where one goes to a grocery store in a Muslim country and buys the meet without the inquiry whether Allah's name was taken at the time of slaughter. In such a case, it is always assumed that Allah's name was taken and thus the meat is considered permissible.

Regarding Food of Jews and Christians in Modern Times

It can safely be said that pronouncement of Allah's name at the time of slaughter is not only a requirement, but it would be a grave sin to consume food on which Allah's name has not been taken. This is independent of one's faith; the person who performs the act of slaughter can belong to Jewish, Christian or Islamic faith; that is precisely what the verse 5:5 gave the permission to Muslims for.

It may also be said from the narrative of the Prophet Muhammad (sws) that an inquiry does not necessarily need to be made if it can be assumed that the person who slaughters the meat would have taken Allah's name. However, if it is known that the person who performs the slaughter does not take Allah's name then the food would become unlawful for Muslims and should not be consumed because that would clearly defy the order in Quran 6:121. In addition, as declared in the verse in 6:121, it would be a grave sin to consume such meat.

Conclusion

To summarize some of the important points:

• Quranic order in 6:121 in general disallows any food on which Allah's name has not been taken at the time of the slaughter and declares it unlawful to be consumed by the Muslims. The same practice has been adopted by Muslims since the time of Prophet Muhammad (sws).
• There is no exception whatsoever mentioned in the Quran that can declare the verdict of 6:121 inapplicable to non-Muslims. In addition, such a practice would mean that if meat that has been slaughtered without taking Allah's name is brought by a Muslim and consumed, it is impiety (as stated in the verse) and disobedience to Allah, while on the other hand if the same meat is brought by a non-Muslim and consumed then it would not be disobedience to Allah!

As a result, it can be established that there is no leave in Islam that allows one to consume the Food of the People of the Book if Allah's name has not been taken at the time of the slaughter.

Whereas Jews are concerned, it is mostly known that at the time of slaughter they take God's name as per Mosaic laws and then label that meat as "Kosher".11 However, this practice is not followed in many Christian countries by Christians and then their meat cannot be considered lawful as it is in clear violation of Quranic commandments.

Moreover, in many western countries, such as in the United States, people who are employed for slaughter are not necessarily Jews and Christians. In fact the law of the United States, for instance, does not allow discrimination under equal employment opportunity act for people who may be slaughtering the animals, and the meat that may be coming out of that slaughter house may not even have been slaughtered by a person of the Book. And even if the animal is slaughtered by such a person, the butcher is not required to perform it in God's name. Considering these points, it would be improper to assume that the meat that one is getting is allowed by the directives of the Shariah.