Parallel verses on permissible foods

Comment

I found one mistake in your "Issues regarding the Food of the People of the Book" article. The first reference you give about food of the people of book is not Maidah 5:4 rather Maidah 5:5.

People have discussed this issue a lot in the past with me but I failed to find a way to make sense of all the verses as a whole. I re-visited this issue after reading your article and verse 2:173 caught my eye (given below).

He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful. (Quran 2:173)

The two verses which explicitly state what is haram for food are 2:173 and 5:3. Now in 2:173 the word "only" caught my eye. I don't understand arabic but if the translation is correct then use of "only" means that nothing is haram for food consumption other than the things mentioned in this verse and god explicitly states that he has made clear what is forbidden 6:119 so things which can be interpreted both ways should be rather tilted in favour of opening up choices rather than closing them as long as they don't fall outside parameters set by 2:173. If I say, "I had only forbidden jack from visiting my parents and my teacher" then this means that the only things forbidden for jack were visiting my parents and my teacher and everything else is not forbidden although it might not be preferrable. So I think this verse can be positively taken to conclude that only foods forbidden are dead meat, blood, swine, and that on which name other than that of Allah is taken and no other food is forbidden including the case if no name is mentioned at slaughter time. Please note this does not necessarily contradict the commandment that muslims should take Allah's name while slaughtering (6:139, 22:34, 22:36) since that is duty enjoined upon slaughterer and his falling short of his duty by not invoking Allah's name will make him anwserable to god but would not make the meat haram for the consumer as long as we are in paramters set by 2:173; first three of which relate to human health i.e dead meat, blood and swine and last one relates to shirk i.e invoking name of other than Allah.

If you look at 5:3, all things mentioned there fall into one of the categories mentioned in 2:173, the only extra thing mentioned is about distributing meat by raffling or gambling but that has nothing to do with food as such, rather gambling of anything in general including food is haram. In light of 2:173, the verse which positively states that you can not eat on which Allah's name is not pronounced 6:121 can be interpreted to mean referring to eating time and verses which positvely state that one should eat once Allah's name is pronounced 5:4, 6:118-119, can also be interpreted to mean that they are referring to the time of consumption and not slaughtering.

Obviously, I could be totally wrong over here since I don't know arabic and quran much, nevertheless, this whole idea of meat being haram if person slaughtering it does not take Allah's name (which is not shirk as long as he does not take other names) although he drains the blood so that it is healthy for consumption, does not seem practical and related to spiritual/religious progress of the consumer. I have read in articles (don't have the references right now though) that in Saudi Arabia, in large slaughter houses, they run Takbeer on tape recorder and machine slaughters the animals or birds (In case this is true and we come to know about this with 100% surety, Will the meat then be Halal or Haram and what is it.s religious significance). Secondly, as you yourself mentioned that west has laws about equal oppurtunity, the thing is that this law applies to muslim slaughter houses also and even muslim slaughter houses come under this law and can't deny employment to non-muslims so muslim slaughter houses don't seem much better than non-muslim slaughter houses. Basically it seems impossible to avoid Haram meat as we understand it.

Response

Thanks for pointing out the wrong reference, I have corrected it in the article.

There are a lot of issues that I will try to separate out and address one by one.

It is very difficult to take the suggested interpretation of the verses 119 and 121 of Al-Ana'am and I have alluded to this point of view in my article. You may want to read the arguments in my article once again if you believe there are potential weaknesses and point them out to me so we can discuss them.

The important aspect about Quran is that different verses talk about the same issues at different places, and that is apparent from your mentioning of verses from across the Quran. Therefore, one cannot take 2:173 independent of any other verse that talks about the same issue. In view of this, I am of the opinion that one cannot have food on which Allah's name is not taken at the time of slaughter because of the ruling in the verse Al-Ana'am 6:121.

As to your question about the use of the word 'only' in 2:173, there are two aspects to it:

Firstly, this verse is in reference to the people of the Book. They had declared animals unlawful upon themselves which had not been declared unlawful by Allah in their Shariah. The context of the verse is thus not that of prescribing limits to Muslims, but something along the context of: You have declared so many animals Haraam on yourself, "Allah has only forbidden dead meat .... " (2:173) If this verse is read in this context, it becomes easier to appreciate the meaning of the word 'only' as I am suggesting. This interpretation further explains why 6:121 talks about the requirement of taking God's name at the time of slaughter.
Like you said, in the beginning of Al-Maidah the verses explain the conditions laid down by 2:173. Now lets look again at the verse Al-Maidah 5:3,

Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless you are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars) ... (Quran 5:3)

From the above verse it seems that anything that is killed is considered dead unless it has been 'slaughtered' properly. This means that the definition of the word 'dead' in verse 2:173 also includes those animals that have not been slaughtered by taking Allah's name. This is also consistent with the interpretation of 6:121 that I put forth in my article where non-Muslims used to tell Muslims why don't they eat that which has died of itself and in response to that Allah told Muslims that you are not allowed to eat that on which Allah's name has not been taken.

In the overall explanation, this point of view is convincing, both because the reason of the revelation of verses is also consistent with the content, as well as this interpretation does not conflict with any verse whatsoever. This is my primary reason for presenting this point of view as the correct one. Also note that verse 5:5 follows in the same context so these restrictions will apply to the food of the People of the Book as well.

Another aspect that I did not talk about in my article was that Quran has nonetheless declared unlawful that which dies of 'violent blow' (5:3) and i was told that slaughter houses in the US really do kill by a violent blow and do not slaughter. I was not sure about this, but this is definitely something to research & think about.

I am not sure about the way the food is slaughtered in the Muslim countries. But a related issue is mentioned in Al-Maidah 5:4 as well, where it is being told that whatever is caught by hunting animals is allowed if one is able to slaughter by taking Allah's name on it. On this prophet (sws) also permitted consumption of that game which died but on which the hunting animal that was used had been released by taking Allah's name. Consequently, it may also be possible to rule that the actual act of saying Allah's name needs to be done at the time of starting the slaughter machine which follows exactly the same principles as those of releasing a hunting animal by taking Allah's name and consuming whatever is brought forth by it. Nonetheless, this is a domain that scholars need to address through Ijtihaad.