Directives of the Shari`ah Regarding Edibles

Directives of the Shari`ah Regarding Edibles

Article:

The Basic Principle

The basic underlying purpose and direction of all the directives of the Islamic Shari`ah^[1]

is the purification and cleansing of the human mind, body and soul. It is with

this basic stress in its general directives that the Shari`ah also requires man to keep in perspective the

criterion of the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’; the ‘fit’ and the ‘unfit’; the ‘clean’

and the ‘unclean’ in his selection of what may and may not to be eaten. The Qur’an

(Al-Maaidah 5: 4) says:

All things suitable [for eating]

have been permitted to you.

Thus, the stipulation of the

criterion of the ‘suitable’ and the ‘unsuitable’ is the basic guidance of the Shari`ah

regarding the lawful and the prohibited in edibles^[2].

The Shari`ah has generally

considered this basic guidance to be sufficient for man. In fact, this is the

reason why the Shari`ah has not

felt the need to give an exhaustive list of what is suitable for eating and what

is not, as man’s natural inclinations and instincts generally have correctly

guided him in making the decision. History bears witness to the fact that man

has generally not felt attracted toward serving the flesh of wild and

carnivorous animals, birds of prey and certain insects^[3]

on his table. He has generally considered his horses, mules and dogs to be of

domestic utility for him, rather than to serve his hunger. He has also remained

absolutely clear about the ‘unsuitability’ of his own defecations and those of

other living things. The same has also generally been the case of all such

things that intoxicate him and affect his consciousness and his faculty of

reasoning and understanding. As stated earlier, it is for this reason that the Shari`ah,

after giving this basic guidance regarding the lawful and the prohibited in

edibles, has not felt the need to give an exhaustive list of what man should and

should not eat. The prohibition of canines, birds of prey^[4],

such animals that due to their habit of eating filth develop a kind of stench in

them^[5]

and mules^[6]

etc. that has been reported in some narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh)

are, in fact, an explanation of this natural inclination and instinct of man.

The prohibition of liquor and intoxicants also falls in the same category. At

the time of the revelation of the Qur’an, when people repeatedly inquired about

liquor, pointing out to some of its advantages, the Qur’an adamantly declared

that the sin involved in drinking liquor far exceeds any of its advantages^[7]. 

Then, later on, in Surah Al-Maaidah,

the Qur’an emphatically declared that drinking liquor, due to its potentially

negative consequences is an ungodly and a satanic deed, which, under all

circumstances, therefore, must be avoided. The Qur’an (Al-Maaidah

5: 90) says:

O you, who believe, liquor,

gambling, animals slaughtered at shrines and food distributed by gambling

through arrows are all unclean, satanic deeds, therefore refrain from them, so

that you may be successful [in the test of this life].

All these directives of the Qur’an

and those mentioned in narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) are, basically,

a reference to and a reminder of these natural instincts and inclinations of

man. There, indeed, have been scattered instances where a particular society has

ignored these natural instincts and inclinations and has deviated from them.

Nevertheless, on the whole man has, generally, quite strictly conformed to these

instincts and inclinations, in choosing between what should and should not be

eaten. It is for this reason that the Shari`ah

has not gone into the, already conformed with, details of what a man may and may

not eat, and has, therefore, restricted its guidance to the few instances in

which man could have confused right from wrong, had he taken a decision in the

light, merely, of his natural instincts and inclinations. For example, being an

omnivorous animal, should pig be grouped with the eatable grazing animals or the

uneatable carnivorous animals? All animals are killed before being eaten. What

if an animal dies a natural death? Should it now be grouped with the ‘edibles’

or the ‘inedibles’? Should blood – being a part of an animal’s body – be grouped

with the edible parts of its body – like meat, fat, bones etc. – or inedible

parts – like the residual defecation in its stomach? Does it make any difference

that the animal is slaughtered without pronouncing God’s name upon it or even if

it is slaughtered for any other deity besides God? Man, it is obvious, could not

have answered these questions, with any degree of certainty, without God’s

guidance, in this regard. Thus, for the guidance of man, God has given clear

answers regarding these four items (i.e. flesh of swine, flesh of dead animals,

flowing blood and animals slaughtered for other deities) and has grouped each of

them with the inedible group of things. In fact, a close look at the directives

of the Shari`ah shows that it has

restricted its directives to these four items, about which man was not in a

position to take a decision on his own, regarding whether these items should be

grouped with the eatable things or the uneatable things. The Qur’an, in Al-An`aam

6: 145, says:

Say

[O prophet]: ‘In what has been revealed to me, I find nothing prohibited from

the things that a person eats, except carrion, flowing blood, the flesh of swine

– because these are all unclean things – or any flesh that has been

sacrilegiously consecrated for anything other than God’. Nevertheless, whoever

is driven by necessity, intending neither to sin nor to transgress, will find

your Lord very Forgiving, Eternal in mercy.

At another instance (Al-Baqarah

2: 173), the Qur’an says:

Only

carrion, blood, flesh of swine and that which is consecrated for anything other

than God is prohibited for you. Even, in these things, whoever is driven by

necessity, intending neither sin nor transgression, there shall be no sin upon

him. Indeed God is extremely Forgiving, Eternal in mercy.

Exactly

the same directive has once again been repeated in Al-Nahl

16: 115, with hardly any alteration in words. Notice the limiting

style in all these instances. In the first case, the words “In what has been

revealed to me, I find nothing prohibited from the things that a person eats,

except…”^[8],

while in the second verse, the opening word “only…”^[9]

has clearly restricted the prohibitions prescribed by God, in the case of

edibles, to the mentioned four items only.

The above

explanation completely sums up the basic directives of the Shari`ah

with regard to edibles. To avoid any confusion, there are, however, some

explanations, clarifications and extensions of these basic directives, also

given in the Qur’an. These clarifications and extensions are explained in the

following paragraphs:

Extensions/Limitations

of the Prohibition of Carrion

a)

Animals that Die in an Accident or due to an Injury

As is

clear from the above explanation, carrion – flesh of dead animals – was clearly

prohibited by the Qur’an. Nevertheless, there could still have remained some

doubt regarding whether this prohibition applies only to animals that die a

natural death or would it also extend to animals that die because of an accident

or an injury caused by other animals or by a fall etc. The Qur’an, in Al-Maaidah

5: 3 completely clarified the situation and removed all doubts that could have

existed in this regard. It declared:

Carrion,

blood, flesh of swine and that which is consecrated for anything other than God

has been made unlawful for you. And [this includes animals] which die due to

strangulation, due to an injury, due to a fall and due to being gored by [the

horn of] another animal and those, which have been [partly] eaten by a wild

animal – [all these are included in carrion,] except those [which are found

alive and which] you properly slaughter.

Thus,

according to the Qur’an, a dead animal, whatever may have been the cause of its

death, must not be eaten.

b) Parts Cut-off from Living Animals

The

prohibition regarding carrion will also apply to any part cut-off from a living

animal, and, therefore, the cut-off part shall not be considered as eatable. At

the time of Hijrah^[10],

the people of Medinah used to cut off the humps of their camels and the fat

in the tails of their rams for eating. When this practice was brought to the

notice of the Prophet (pbuh), he did not approve of the practice. The Prophet (pbuh)

is reported to have said:

Whatever

is cut-off from a living animal is [to be considered as] carrion. (Abu Dawood, Kitaab al-Sayd)

c) Regarding Dead Fish and Locusts

The word

used in the Arabic language for carrion or the flesh of dead animals is(Maetah).

In the Arabic language, the usage of this word is, traditionally, restricted.

The word, for instance, is not used for dead fish or dead locusts.

Thus, Al-Zamakhshariy,

the acknowledged linguist of the Arabic language, writes:

The

word [for carrion] has been used [in the Qur’an] in its generally held

connotation [rather than a literal connotation]. Notice, when someone says: “He

ate ‘Maetah’

[i.e. carrion]”, this does not bring to mind someone eating a dead

fish or a dead locust, just as when one says: ‘He drank blood’, this would not

bring to mind someone eating liver or the spleen. Thus, it is precisely on the

basis of the generally held connotations of words that Muslim jurists have said

that if a person has vowed to avoid meat, but later on eats fish, his vow shall

not be rendered broken, even though [in a literal sense] he has, in fact, eaten

meat. (Al-Kashaaf, Vol. 1, Pg.

215)

It is

precisely on this basis that the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:

Two

animals even when dead and two kinds of blood are allowed for you to eat. As for

the two animals that you can eat if they are dead, they are fish and locusts. As

for the two bloods, they are liver and the spleen. (Ibn

Maajah, Kitaab al-At`imah)

This is

precisely what the words: “Its [i.e. the sea’s] dead are allowable for eating”

ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) imply. The “dead of the sea” in this narrative

ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) is used for such fish of the sea, which were

generally not construed by the word “Maetah”

in the Arabic language, even though from a purely literal or a legal

perspective, the word would apply to all dead animals.

d) “Tazkiyyah” – An Essential

Condition

The words:

“except those [among these animals, which] you properly slaughter”, at the end

of the referred part of the cited verse of Al-Maaidah

5: 3 clearly evidence the fact that it is only the method of ‘proper

slaughtering’ of all such animals which need to be slaughtered for eating that

renders such animals fit for eating. This proper slaughtering of an animal in

the Arabic language is called “Tazkiyyah”.

In the

Arabic language, the term Tazkiyyah

of an animal connotes draining of the blood from the animal through the

infliction of an injury with a sharp-edged instrument, in such a way that the

animal dies primarily due to loss of blood. In this manner, the body of the

animal and its meat is completely relieved of the “uncleanness” of the blood.

The two methods generally followed for attaining Tazkiyyah

of an animal are known as “Zibh”

or “Nah’r”.

The former is generally used for the “Tazkiyyah”

of  animals like goats, sheep, cows,

hens etc., while the latter is generally used in the case of animals like

camels. In “Zibh”,

an incision is made across the throat of the animal in such a way that its

trachea (windpipe) and esophagus or the trachea and the jugular veins are

severed. In “Nah’r”,

on the other hand, the trachea of the animal is pierced with a sharp-pointed

spear-like instrument in such a way that it results in a gushing discharge of

the blood and, in some time, renders the animal lifeless.

However,

if due to any reason, it is not possible to adopt any of these two methods of

attaining “Tazkiyyah”,

then it would suffice to use any other method of inflicting such an injury to

the animal, which drains it of its blood. Once, when one of the companions of

the Prophet (pbuh) asked him regarding what method of “Tazkiyyah”

should one employ in a situation where he does not have a knife, the Prophet (pbuh)

said:

Inflict

an injury, which drains it of its blood, by whatever instrument you may and

pronounce God’s name upon it. (Abu Dawood,

Kitaab al-Dhuhaayaa)

Animals

killed by arrows, gunshots or any other method should also be considered in the

light of the above explanation. Moreover, if a trained hunting animal – like

trained hounds or hunting birds – while retrieving the prey, injures and kills

it, it would still be considered allowed for eating and shall not be considered

carrion^[11].

The Qur’an has clarified the issue in Al-Maaidah

5: 4. The Qur’an says:

They

ask you regarding what they are allowed to eat. Say: ‘All suitable things are

allowed for you and also that which your hunting animals, whom you have taught

of the knowledge that God gave you, [hunt for you]. Thus, eat of that which they

have held back for you [without eating from it] and pronounce God’s name on

this. Fear God [and obey His commandments, for] indeed God is swift in

reckoning.

As is

clear from the style and the context of the verse – especially the preceding

verse in which the Qur’an had already prohibited all animals that die due to

being attacked and [partly] eaten by a wild animal (except if they are found

alive and slaughtered in the proper way) – that this verse is a response to the

questions asked regarding the position of such a hunted animal, which is killed

or which dies due to an injury or a wound that it may have suffered while being

retrieved by a properly trained hunting animal. The Qur’an, in response to this

question, has declared that when the prey is killed or fatally injured by a

properly trained hunting animal, it may be eaten. This actually implies that,

according to the Qur’an, such a killing or injuring by a properly trained

hunting animal is a substitute for other methods of attaining “Tazkiyyah”

of the prey. However, in such a case, the Qur’an has qualified the permission

with the condition that the trained hunting animal must not have eaten from the

prey and should have held it back for its master. The words: “which they have

held back for you” clearly point toward the stated condition. The Prophet (pbuh)

has clarified this condition, which was inherent in the referred verse as

follows:

When

you let your dog loose on a prey, pronounce God’s name at that time. If you find

that the prey is still alive, then pronounce God’s name upon it, while

slaughtering it, while if you find that the dog has killed it, but has not eaten

any part of it, then you can eat it, because this is what it has held back for

you. However, if you find that the dog has partly eaten it, then you should not

eat it, for this is what it has held back for itself. And if you find other dogs

with your dog, and you find that the dogs have killed the prey, even though they

have not eaten from it, you should not eat it, for you cannot be sure which of

the dogs may have killed it.

Limitations on the

Prohibition of Blood

Blood, as is clear from all the

cited verses of the Qur’an is also included in the list of prohibitions of the Shari`ah.

The Qur’an, in one of the verses cited above (Al-An`aam

6: 45), has also clarified that it is only the flowing blood, which has been

prohibited. The words(i.e. flowing or flown blood)

clearly point to this fact. The phrase ‘flowing/flown blood’ is used in its

generally implied and construed connotation. According to this connotation,

liver and spleen are not included in blood, even though they may, in fact, be

composed mainly of blood. Furthermore, any static blood that may remain in the

veins of the animal would also not be included in the stated prohibition.

Extensions

of ‘Consecrations for Other Deities‘

The last among the four prohibitions

mentioned in the Qur’an are those animals, which have been consecrated for

anything besides God. It is quite clear from the cited verse of Al-An`aam^[12]

that the first three prohibitions of the Shari`ah

– i.e. flesh of dead animals or carrion, flesh of swine and blood – are

prohibited for their inherent physical uncleanness. However, in contrast to the

first three prohibitions, the fourth prohibition is not because of any inherent

uncleanness in the animal, but because of the disobedience and the sinfulness of

the person sacrificing the animal. The Qur’an has referred to such consecrations

of animals for other deities as being a ‘clear disobedience’ or ‘sacrilegious

act’ because of the obvious polytheistic spirit involved in such wrongful

consecrations. Such an action is, obviously, an evidence of the uncleanness of

the beliefs of the person sacrificing the animal. Thus, in other words, this

prohibition, in contrast to the first three prohibitions of the Qur’an, entails

a spiritual rather than a physical uncleanness, which is, in fact, the case of

the former three prohibitions. It is also quite predictable that any other

spiritual uncleanness of a related kind in an animal or its meat should also

render the animal equally prohibited as does its consecration for other,

imaginary, deities. Thus, as an extension of the prohibition of an animal that

has been consecrated for other deities, the Qur’an has mentioned a few things,

which entail the same kind of spiritual uncleanness.

a)

Slaughtering at Shrines & Food Won through Games of Wager

The Qur’an (Al-Maaidah

5: 3) says:

And

also [prohibited are] those animals slaughtered at shrines and also that [food,]

which is distributed by [gambling through] arrows, for these entail extreme

disobedience.

As a predictable custom of

polytheistic cultures, the Arabs had a number of shrines and altars for their

deities where they used to slaughter animals, which according to their beliefs,

won them the pleasures and the goodwill of these false deities. Due to the same

spiritual uncleanness in such sacrifices as is found in animals consecrated for

deities other than the One God, the Qur’an has grouped the two together and has

placed them both in the list of prohibitions. The reference to the prohibition

of animals slaughtered at shrines, after already having mentioned the

prohibition of those which are slaughtered in the names of deities other than

the One God is a clear evidence of the fact that the mere placement of the

slaughter ritual at a shrine or an altar, renders such animals unfit for eating^[13].

The latter part of the verse^[14]

refers to a common cultural tradition of the Arabs in which they would gamble on

a slaughtered camel and distribute its meat through raffle using arrows. The Qur’an

had already condemned and prohibited all gains from gambling and wager, and

because the meat distributed through raffling was clearly a gain from wager, it

was rendered unfit for eating. Furthermore, because of the spiritual, rather

than the physical nature of uncleanness in such meat, it is placed with the meat

of animals consecrated for deities other than God and those slaughtered at

shrines and altars.

b)

Slaughtering Without the Pronouncement of God’s Name

If an animal is not slaughtered in

God’s name, even though it is not consecrated for other deities, it would still

be grouped with the meat of animals consecrated for other deities and those

slaughtered at shrines and altars. The Qur’an has termed refusal to take God’s

name on animals as “a grave disobedience” and “a sacrilegious act”^[15]

and has thus grouped it with consecrating animals for deities other than God and

with sacrificing animals at shrines and altars.

The Qur’an, in Al-An`aam 6: 121, declares:

And

do not eat of that upon [the slaughter of] which God’s name has not been

pronounced, for that, indeed, is a grave disobedience. And these devils inspire

their partners to debate with you, and if you [O people,] were to follow them,

you would then, indeed, be polytheists.

Pronouncing God’s name, while

sacrificing animals, implies the acknowledgement of God’s blessings, submission

to His directives and being grateful and thankful toward Him. Obviously, no one

other than God deserves to be included in this declaration; and a refusal to

pronounce His name is clearly ingratitude and thanklessness toward Him. This

pronouncement further implies the fact that life – even that of an animal – is

sacred and sanctified. Our pronouncement of God’s name at the time of slaughter

implies that it is only with God’s permission and His approval that we are

depriving a living thing of its life. Seen from this perspective, refusal to

take God’s name at the time of slaughter or adding names of false deities with

that of God at this time is not only a sign of disrespect toward the life that

is being taken but also toward the sole source of all life – the One God.

Finally, this pronouncement is also a sign of consecration of all life for the

Sole Being that deserves this consecration. Slaughter, as is well known, has

always been a part of worship rituals and a show of extreme reverence and

salutations. Thus, the pronouncement of God’s name – and only His name – is a

declaration to the effect that all salutations, all reverence and all worship is

owed only to Him, Who is the sole source of all the blessings that we have been

bestowed with.

If the pronouncement of God’s name

is such an essential element in the slaughter ritual that its absence renders

the animal prohibited in the Shari`ah,

then, one might ask, what would be the position of an animal on the slaughter of

which the pronouncement of God’s name has unintentionally been missed. The

referred verse of Al-An`aam, if

closely examined, provides a clear answer to this question, as well. Those who

know the Arabic language can easily appreciate that due to the word “Lum”

the phrase (mimma Lum

yuzkarismallah `alaiyhe)^[16]

is no longer merely a simple negative clause. On the contrary, the word “Lum”

has added a certain kind of stress in the negative aspect of this clause. Thus,

now the phrase: (mimma Lum

yuzkarismallah `alaiyhe) would apply only to those animals upon the

slaughter of which God’s name has intentionally

not been pronounced or such pronouncement has been refused. In other words, the stated prohibition would not

apply to a case where the pronouncement of God’s name has, unintentionally, been

missed.

Moreover, another question that may

arise in one’s mind relates to a situation of doubt. What should one do, if one

is not certain whether God’s name has been pronounced on an animal or not? In

such a situation, if the slaughterer is a Muslim or ascribes to any such other

creed which considers the pronouncement of God’s name at the time of slaughter

to be essential – as was the case of the Ahl

e Kitaab (the Jews and the Christians) in the Arabian Peninsula, at

the time of the revelation of the Qur’an and is still, generally, the case with

the Jews and some Christians – then the meat would be eaten on the confidence

that such a person would have pronounced God’s name on his slaughter. Muslim,

in his compilation of narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), reports:

According

to Ayesha (ra) people from amongst

the Bedouins would bring us meat. We used to be unsure whether they had

pronounced God’s name on such meat or not. The Prophet (pbuh), [when asked about

such meat] said: ‘Pronounce God’s name upon the meat [as a Muslim should on

every food] and eat it’.

On the contrary, if the slaughterer

ascribes to a creed, which does not consider the pronouncement of God’s name at

the time of slaughtering an animal to be essential, then, obviously, it would no

longer be a matter of doubt regarding whether or not God’s name was pronounced

on the animal. In such a case, a Muslim, because of the clear directives of the Shari`ah,

should consider the meat prohibited for eating^[17].

c) Slaughter of the Polytheists and non-adherents to Creeds Based on the

Teachings of a Prophet

To be grouped with the allowable

animals, the animal should be slaughtered by a person, who believes in One God,

does not ascribe false partners to Him and is an adherent and follower of any

one of the known creeds that are based on the teachings of a true prophet of

God. Thus, besides the animals slaughtered by the Muslims, the Qur’an has

restricted the permission of edible meat to that of the animals slaughtered by

the Ahl e Kitaab (i.e. the people

of the Book – the Jews and the Christians). The Qur’an, in Al-Maaidah

5: 5, declares:

Now,

all suitable things have been rendered fit for you to eat and also the food of

the people of the book is fit for you to eat and your food is fit for them.

It is quite clear that the factors,

which make the Ahl e Kitaab

distinct from other creeds and similar to the Muslims – due to which only their

food, contrary to the other’s, has been rendered fit for the Muslims – are: 1)

belief in God; 2) strict restraint from knowingly ascribing partners to God; and

3) ascribing to a creed that is based on the teachings of an established prophet

of God^[18].

Thus, it logically follows that the absence of any of those factors, the

presence of which in the Ahl e Kitaab

qualifies their food as allowable for Muslims, shall render the food prohibited

for Muslims. In other words, an animal slaughtered by a person, who:

• does not believe in God; or
• ascribes partners to the One God; or
• is not an adherent to a creed that is based on the teachings of an

  established prophet of God

shall be grouped with those animals

that entail a grave spiritual uncleanness and is, thus, prohibited for eating.

An Exception

Regarding the Prohibitions

The aforementioned list of

prohibitions is to be strictly followed under all circumstances. The only

exception is where a person is forced by necessity into benefiting from any of

the stated prohibitions. The Qur’an has, generally, referred to this exception

in the following words (Al-Baqarah

2: 173):

Nevertheless,

whoever [eats of these things], due to being driven by necessity, intending

neither sin nor transgression, there shall be no sin upon him. Indeed God is

extremely Forgiving, Eternal in mercy.

The same words have been repeated in

Al-Nahl 16: 115. However, in Al-Maaidah

5: 3, the Qur’an has altered the words by adding a slight clarification of the

phrase ‘driven by necessity’. The related part of Al-Maaidah

5: 3 reads as:

Then,

whoever, being forced by hunger [eats of these things], without the inclination

toward sin, then indeed God is very forgiving, eternal in mercy.

As is clear from the style and the

words of this exception to the rules regarding the prohibitions, it refers to a

situation where a person is forced to save his life by eating something which is

clearly prohibited by the Shari`ah.

However, even under such circumstances where a person is forced to take

advantage of any of the express prohibitions of the Shari`ah, he should do so with dislike and abhorrence, rather

than with the inclination of his heart. This is what the words ‘intending

neither sin nor transgression’ and ‘without the inclination toward sin’ imply in

the two cited verses, respectively. The permission to take advantage of the

express prohibitions of the Shari`ah,

in the presence of these words, should be purely with the spirit to save one’s

life, which obviously implies that it should be restricted to the quantity

necessary to save one’s life and it should, under no circumstances, exceed this

limit.

The Prohibition

Applies only to Eating

As the related verses of the Qur’an

clearly imply, the prohibition of all the stated items is only with reference to

their consumption as edibles. All these things can be used for purposes other

than consumption as edibles. This is also reported in one of the sayings

ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). The narrative has been reported as:

The

slave-girl of Maimoonah (ra) was

given a goat in charity. The goat died. The Prophet (pbuh) passed by the goat

and said: ‘Why did you not skin it, so that you may have tanned its skin and

benefited from it?’ They replied: ‘It is carrion’. The Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘It

is only prohibited for eating.’

The Law at a

Glance

The following section summarizes the

directives of the Shari`ah

relating to the lawful and the prohibited in edibles:

• The basic guiding principle in considering an item prohibited/lawful for

  eating is that all things suitable for eating are permitted, while those, which

  are not suitable for eating should be refrained from. Man, through his natural

  instincts and inclinations, has generally taken the correct decision and is

  therefore not in need for an exhaustive list of items that he may or may not use

  as edible. Canines, birds of prey, such animals that due to their habit of

  eating filth develop a kind of stench in them, mules, horses, liquor and other

  intoxicants etc. belong to the category of things that man has generally not

  considered suitable for eating;

• As a guidance regarding the things, which man may have mistaken as

  eatable, the Shari`ah has

  prohibited:

1. Carrion or the flesh of dead animals;
2. Blood;
3. Flesh of swine; and
4. Anything consecrated for other deities.

• Some explanations given by the Shari`ah

  regarding the prohibition of carrion include:

1. All animals that die in an accident or due to an injury shall be grouped

   with carrion;

2. Parts cut off from a living animal shall be grouped with carrion;
3. Dead fish and locusts shall not be grouped with carrion and can,

   therefore, be eaten;

4. ‘Tazkiyyah’

   or the proper bleeding of an animal is an essential requirement for

   it to be considered allowable. Any animal that is killed without the fulfillment

   of the condition of ‘Tazkiyyah’

   shall be grouped with carrion.

5. The animals that are retrieved by trained hounds, hunting birds or any

   other species trained for the purpose are allowed for eating, even if the animal

   is injured or killed by the retrieving hound or bird etc.

• The prohibition of blood does not apply to:

1. Any static residual blood in the veins of a slaughtered animal; and
2. The liver and the spleen.

• Some details given by the Shari`ah,

  regarding the prohibition of animals consecrated for other deities, include:

1. Animals slaughtered at shrines and altars are also prohibited;
2. Animals, on the slaughter of which God’s name is intentionally not

   pronounced are also prohibited; and

3. Animals slaughtered by polytheists and non-adherents to any creed, which

   is based on the teachings of an established prophet of God are also prohibited;

• Any food earned through prohibited means (like stealing, gambling etc.)

  is prohibited;

• If a person is driven by hunger, he may eat of any of these prohibited

  items to save his life. However, in so doing, the person should neither be

  inclined toward crossing the limits set by God, nor toward taking more than what

  is necessary to save his life;

• All the listed items are prohibited only for use as edibles. Their parts

  may be brought under any other use, except as edibles.

Outline of the

Mosaic Law

An outline of the Mosaic Law

relating to edibles follows:

1- The basic Criterion

Deuteronomy 14: 3 prohibits all

abhorrent  and unclean things for

eating. The Bible says:

You

shall not eat any abhorrent thing (Deuteronomy 14: 3)

The Encyclopedia Judaica has

explained this aspect of the Mosaic Dietary Laws in the following words:

The

Bible classifies those animals permitted for consumption as tahor

(“clean”), and those prohibited as tame

(“unclean”). The distinction is traced to the wording of

Noah’s instructions. “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven

and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean, two (and

two), each with his mate” (Gen. 7:2). The criterion seems to have been the

animal’s sacrificial suitability, rather than pagan taboos. (Judaism Practice,

Dietary Laws, Animals, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia

(Israel) Ltd.)

Then, further elaborating the

application of the same criterion on birds, the Encyclopedia writes:

Leviticus

11:13-19 lists 20 “unclean” birds, and Deuteronomy 14:12-18 enumerates

21. From these two lists, the rabbis compiled a total of 24 “unclean”

birds (Hul.

63a-b). All birds of prey are forbidden, such as the vulture, the osprey, the

kite, the falcon, the raven, and the hawk. The Bible does not list

“clean” birds. (Judaism Practice, Dietary Laws, Birds, Encyclopedia

Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

Adam Clarke, while explaining

Genesis 7: 2 writes:

So

we find the distinction between clean and unclean animals existed long before

the Mosaic law. This distinction seems to have been originally designed to mark

those animals which were proper for sacrifice and food, from those that were

not. See Leviticus 11. (Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, CD, Complete Christian

Collection, Packard Technologies, 1999)

2- Carrion

The Bible says:

You

shall not eat anything which dies of itself. (Deuteronomy 14: 21)

Then again, in Leviticus, the Bible

says:

He

shall not eat an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, becoming unclean by it;

I am the LORD. (Leviticus 22: 8)

The ‘Jamieson, Faussett & Brown

commentary on the Old Testament’, while explaining Leviticus 22: 8, says:

The feelings of

nature revolt against such food. It might have been left to the discretion of

the Hebrews, who it may be supposed (like the people of all civilized nations)

would have abstained from the use of it without any positive interdict. But an

express precept was necessary to show them that whatever died naturally or from

disease, was prohibited to them by the operation of that law which forbade them

the use of any meat with its blood. (Jamieson,

Faussett & Brown’s commentary on the Old Testament, CD version,

Master Christian Library – Version 8, Ages Corporation)

“Nevelah^[19]“

or “Nebelah”,

in the Jewish law implies animals that have died for reasons other than the

ritual slaughter. The Encyclopedia Judaica writes:

NEVELAH

descriptive noun for any animal, bird, or creature which has died as a result of

any process other than valid ritual slaughter (shehitah).

The

Pentateuch forbids the consumption of such meat… (Judaism Practice, Nevelah,

Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

It is clear from the cited part of

the Encyclopedia that according to the Jewish law, all animals that die without

the process of ‘valid ritual slaughtering’ are ‘nevelah’

and therefore prohibited for eating. However, fish and locusts can be eaten even

without the ‘valid ritual slaughter’. The Talmud says:

Cattle

are [in a forbidden state until] rendered permitted by slaughtering… Fish, on

the other hand, are [always in a permitted state, for they are] permitted by the

mere taking up… (Talmud, Mas. Chullin 67b, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD

version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

The Talmud further elaborates:

The

blood of fish and locust may deliberately be eaten! (Talmud, Mas. K’rithoth 21b,

Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press

Inc.)

It is further clarified in a

footnote to a Mishna^[20]:

For

the purpose of elucidation, this Rabbinic ruling must be cited: carrion, whether

of wild animals, clean or unclean cattle, imparts uncleanness by contact and

carrying. The carrion of a clean bird has but the one uncleanness ? that when

there is an olive’s bulk thereof in the eater’s gullet (v. Toh. I, 1). The

carrion of an unclean bird, of fish, clean and unclean, and of locusts, have no

uncleanness at all. (Footnote on Mishna – Mas. Uktzin Chapter 3, Mishna 3, Soncino

Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

Regarding fish, the Encyclopedia

Judaica writes:

In

Jewish tradition only fish that have scales and fins are permitted for

consumption. They need not be slaughtered ritually (shehitah)

and their blood is not prohibited. (Fish and Fishing, Fish in the

Halakhah, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

Parts cut off from living animals

are also considered prohibited in the Jewish law. The Talmud reads:

“Our

Rabbis taught: ‘But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof,

shall ye not eat’ (Genesis IX, 4), this prohibits flesh cut from the living

animal. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: It also prohibits blood drawn from a living

animal.” (Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 59a, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version,

Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

Furthermore, like “Tazkiyyah” in the Islamic Shari`ah,

“Koshering” – i.e. removing all possible blood from the slaughtered animal – is

an essential element for considering the animal allowable for eating. The

Judaica writes:

The

prohibition against the consumption of blood (Lev. 7:26-27; 17:10-14) is the

basis for the process of koshering meat. The purpose of the process is to draw

out and drain the meat of non-veinal blood, before it is cooked. The blood can

be removed either by salting the meat, or by roasting it over an open flame.

(Judaism Practice, Dietary Laws, Koshering, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1,

Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

3- Blood

The Bible says:

…

you shall eat no kind of blood, whether it is of bird or of beast, in any of

your dwellings. (Leviticus 7: 26)

Then again:

However

you may slaughter animals and eat their meat in all your gates, to your heart’s

desire, according to the blessing of the Lord, your God which he has given you;

the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as they do of the gazelle and the deer.

Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water.

(Deuteronomy 12: 15 – 16)

According to the Encyclopedia

Judaica:

In

the Bible there is an absolute prohibition on the consumption of blood. The

blood of an animal must be drained before the flesh may be eaten (Lev. 3:17;

7:26; 17:10-14; Deut. 12:15-16, 20-24). (Judaism Practice, Blood, Encyclopedia

Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

Consumption

of blood, as is clear from the Encyclopedia, is considered a punishable crime,

in Judaism. The Encyclopedia writes:

The

prohibition of blood enjoined in the Bible is defined by the Talmud as referring

to the blood of cattle, beasts, and fowl, and prescribes the punishment of karet^[21]

for the consumption of the minimum amount of the volume of an olive (Ker. 5:1).

The blood for which one is so liable is “the blood with which the soul

emerges,” i.e., the lifeblood, but not the blood which oozes out

subsequently, or blood in the meat. Blood of all other creatures, fish, locusts,

and human blood, is permitted according to the rabbinical interpretations of

biblical law, although according to one source (Tanna

de-Vei Eliyahu Rabbah, 15) human blood is equally forbidden by the

Bible. (Judaism Practice, Blood, Blood in Halakhah, Encyclopedia Judaica CD,

version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

It is, in fact, the severity of the

crime involved in eating blood that a complex process of completely draining the

blood from an animal is adopted to ensure that no sin is involved in eating of

the slaughtered animal. Explaining this process of Koshering (i.e. draining the

blood from the animal), the Encyclopedia Judaica writes:

The

prohibition against the consumption of blood (Lev. 7:26-27; 17:10-14) is the

basis for the process of koshering meat. The purpose of the process is to draw

out and drain the meat of non-veinal blood, before it is cooked. The blood can

be removed either by salting the meat, or by roasting it over an open flame.

The

salting process is begun by fully immersing the meat and bones in clean, cold

water (in a vessel used exclusively for this purpose), for 30 minutes. The

purpose of this operation is to open the pores, and remove any blood on the

surface, thus enabling the salt to draw the blood out of the softened fibers of

the meat. The meat is then laid out on a special grooved or perforated board,

which is slanted, in order to allow the blood to flow down. It is then sprinkled

with salt. The salt should be of medium texture; neither fine (which melts

away), nor coarse (which falls off). Poultry should be opened and must be salted

inside and out. The meat is then left to stand, for one hour, after which it is

washed two or three times in cold water. In an emergency, i.e., when the meat is

intended for a sick person or when time is short on the eve of Sabbath, the

periods of immersion and salting may be reduced to 15 and 30 minutes

respectively.

The

salting process cannot be used if more than 72 hours have elapsed since the time

of the shehitah. Such meat can

only be koshered by roasting over an open flame, a process which is considered

to be more effective in removing the blood than salting. It is, however,

customary to salt the meat a little, even if it is to be roasted over an open

flame.

Before

koshering, the vein which runs along the front groove of the neck must be

removed or cut in several places. The heart, too, is cut in several places and

the tip is cut off so that the blood may drain. The gizzard is cut open and

cleaned before koshering. Salting is not considered effective enough to kosher

the liver, which is full of blood. It is therefore, sprinkled with salt, cut

across or pierced several times, and placed on or under an open flame, until it

changes color, or a crust forms. (Judaism Practice, Dietary Laws,

Koshering, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

4- Flesh of Swine

The Bible

says:

…

and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does

not chew cud, it is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11: 7)

Adam

Clarke, while explaining Leviticus 11: 7 writes:

And

the swine [chazir],

one of the most gluttonous, libidinous, and filthy quadrupeds in the universe;

and, because of these qualities, sacred to the Venus of the Greeks and Romans,

and the Friga of our Saxon ancestors; and perhaps on these accounts forbidden,

as well as on account of its flesh being strong and difficult to digest,

affording a very gross kind of aliment, apt to produce cutaneous, scorbutic, and

scrofulous disorders, especially in hot climates. (Notes on Leviticus 11:

7, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Power BibleCD, Ver. 2.5, Online Bible

Inc.)

According

to John Wesley’s Notes on the Old and the New Testaments:

the

swine – It is

a filthy, foul-feeding animal, and it lacks one of the natural provisions for

purifying the system, “it cheweth not the cud”; in hot climates indulgence in

swine’s flesh is particularly liable to produce leprosy, scurvy, and various

cutaneous eruptions. It was therefore strictly avoided by the Israelites. Its

prohibition was further necessary to prevent their adopting many of the grossest

idolatries practised by neighboring nations. (Notes on Leviticus 11: 7,

John Wesley’s notes on the Old and the New Testaments, Power BibleCD, Ver. 2.5,

Online Bible Inc.)

5- Consecrations for Other Deities

The Bible says:

Whoever

sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to

destruction. (Exodus 22: 20)

It says in the Talmud:

Mishnah.

That which is slaughtered by a gentile^[22]

is Nebelah and defiles by

carrying. (Talmud Mas. Chullin 13a, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version,

Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

While explaining the cited part of

the Mishnah, the Talmud says:

“And

defiles by carrying”. Is not this obvious? Since it is nebelah [it follows that]

it defiles by carrying! Raba answered: This is the interpretation. This animal

defiles by carrying, but there is another [similar] case where the animal even

defiles [men and utensils that are] in the same tent. Which is that? It is the

case of an animal slaughtered as a sacrifice to idols. This then is in

accordance with the view held by R. Judah b. Bathyra. (Talmud Mas. Chullin 13b,

Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press

Inc.)

It

might be of interest to note that the prohibition of blood, carrion and animals

consecrated to idols is also mentioned in the New Testament. Acts 15: 20 says:

but

that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and

from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

1Corinthians

10: 28 reads as:

But

if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat

it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake.

Thus,

the prohibition of blood, carrion and animals consecrated for idols was also

maintained and honored by all the Christian creeds until the 8^th

Century. According to John Wesley’s Notes on the Old and the New Testaments:

Blood

– The eating of which was never permitted the children of God from the beginning

of the world.  Nothing can be

clearer than this.  For, 1. From

Adam to Noah no man ate flesh at all; consequently no man then ate blood. 2.

When God allowed Noah and his posterity to eat flesh, he absolutely forbade them

to eat blood; and accordingly this, with the other six precepts of Noah, was

delivered down from Noah to Moses. 3. God renewed this prohibition by Moses,

which was not repealed from the time of Moses till Christ came. 4. Neither after

his coming did any presume to repeal this decree of the Holy Ghost, till it

seemed good to the bishop of Rome so to do, about the middle of the eighth

century. 5. From that time those Churches which acknowledged his authority held

the eating of blood to be an indifferent thing. 

But, 6. In all those Churches which never did acknowledge the bishop of

Rome’s authority, it never was allowed to eat blood; nor is it allowed at this

day.  This is the plain fact; let

men reason as plausibly as they please on one side or the other. (Notes on Acts

15: 29, John Wesley’s notes on the Old and the New Testaments, Power BibleCD,

Ver. 2.5, Online Bible Inc.)

According to the People’s New

Testament Commentary:

That

they abstain from the pollutions of idols. Four items are mentioned,

which are all embraced in the apostolic letter as things forbidden. They were

four common customs of the Gentile world, and matters on which there should be a

clear understanding. The first does not mean only to refrain from worshiping

idols, or eating meat offered in idol sacrifice, but from all the pollutions of

the system of idolatry. Licentiousness and drunkenness received a sanction from

religion. See Lecky’s European Morals, chapter V., and Conybeare and Howson’s

Paul, chapter IV.

From

fornication. Chastity was the exception instead of the rule among

Gentiles at this period.

From

things strangled. Because in strangling the blood was retained in the

flesh.

From

blood. The use of blood was prohibited by the Mosaic law (Le 17:14;

De 12:16,23), and for wise reasons this prohibition was extended to Gentiles.

The Roman epicures were wont to drown fowls in wine and then use the flesh. It

was a common thing to drink wine mingled with blood. The only way to strike at

these savage practices was to prohibit its use.

(Notes

on Acts 15: 20, People’s New Testament Commentary, Power BibleCD, Ver. 2.5,

Online Bible Inc.)

As far as

the pronouncement of God’s name before slaughtering the animal is concerned,

there is sufficient evidence to believe that it is a regular practice of the

Jewish community, even though the exact words of the particular benediction

offered at the time of slaughter could not be found. As a principle, benefiting

from all good things in life must be preceded by a blessing. The Encyclopedia of

Judaism says:

Pronouncing

this benediction [reference is to Grace Before Meals] accords with the rabbinic

view that “it is forbidden and sacrilegious for anyone to enjoy [the good

things] of this world without a blessing (Ber. 35a), and that failure to recite

a benediction over food is tantamount to “defrauding the Almighty” (Tosef. Ber.

4.1) (The Encyclopedia of Judaism, Grace Before Meals, Davka Corporation)

The

Encyclopedia Judaica says:

The

act of shehitah

[i.e. ritual slaughter] is preceded by a benediction. (Judaism Practice, Shehitah,

Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

The same information is also given

in the Encyclopedia of Judaism:

The

shohet [i.e. the person performing

the shehitah] pronounces a special

blessing before slaughtering, and one blessing suffices for the slaughter of

many animals at one time. (The Encyclopedia of Judaism, Shehitah, Davka Corporation)

The above information, combined with

the fact that all Jewish blessings and benedictions, as a rule, must entail God’s

name^[23],

should suffice as evidence to the fact that one of the elements in the ritual

slaughter to be valid, according to the Jewish Law, is the pronouncement of God’s

name before the actual act of slaughtering.

6- The Stated Prohibitions may be Used for Purposes Other than Eating

There seems to be some difference of

opinion among the Talmudic scholars regarding deriving benefits, other than

eating, from nevelah^[24]

and other prohibited items. The Talmud says:

On

the view of R. Meir who maintained,[to] a ger^[25]

and a heathen alike, both selling and giving are permitted, it is well: since a

verse is required to permit benefit from a nebelah, it follows that all other

things forbidden in the Torah are forbidden in respect of both eating and

[general] benefit. But according to R. Judah, who maintained, it comes from [the

purpose of teaching that] the words are as they are written, whence does he know

that all [other] things forbidden in the Torah are forbidden in respect of

benefit? He deduces it from, [ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts

in the field;] ye shall cast it to the dogs: ‘it’ you may cast to dogs, but you

may not cast to dogs all [other] things forbidden in the Torah. And R. Meir? ?

[He interprets:] ‘it’ you may cast to dogs, but you may not cast to dogs hullin

killed in the Temple Court. And the other? ? [Benefit from] hullin killed in

the Temple Court is not [forbidden] by Scriptural law. (Talmud Mas. Pesachim 21b

– 22a, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica

Press Inc.)

This

difference of opinion is further elaborated 

in the following part of the Talmud:

Shall

we say that it is dependent on Tannaim^[26]?

[And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of

beasts.] may be used for all service [: but ye shall in no wise eat of it]. Why

is ‘for all service’ stated? For I might think, for the service of the Most High

let it be permitted, but for secular service let it be forbidden; therefore it

is stated, ‘for all service’: this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba

said: For I might think, for secular service let it be clean, [but] for service

of the Most High let it be unclean; therefore it is stated, ‘for all service’.

Now R. Jose the Galilean [holds] that in respect of uncleanness and cleanness a

verse is not required, a verse being required only in respect of what is

forbidden and what is permitted. While R. Akiba [maintains]: [in respect of]

what is forbidden and what is permitted no verse is required, a verse being

required only in respect of uncleanness and cleanness. Surely then they differ

in this, [viz..]: R. Jose the Galilean holds, ye shall not eat’ connotes both a

prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, and when the verse comes to

permit nebelah, it comes in respect of benefit. While R. Akiba holds: it

connotes a prohibition of eating, [but] does not connote a prohibition of

benefit, and for what [purpose] does the verse come? In respect of uncleanness

and cleanness! No: all hold that ‘ye shall not eat’ connotes both a prohibition

of eating and a prohibition of benefit, but here they differ in this: R. Jose

the Galilean holds, when nebelah was permitted, it [alone] was permitted,

[whereas] its fat [heleb] and its sinew were not permitted, and [therefore] for

what purpose is the verse required? It is in respect of permission for use. But

R. Akiba holds: when nebelah was permitted, its fat [heleb] and its sinew too

were permitted; hence for what purpose is the verse necessary? It is in respect

of uncleanness and cleanness. (Talmud Mas. Pesachim 22a – 23b, Soncino Talmud,

version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

However,

the following verse of the Bible seems to clearly permit such usage:

Also

the fat of an animal which dies and the fat of an animal torn by beasts may be

put to any other use, but you must certainly not eat it. (Leviticus 7: 24)

The Christian

Creed

The position of the Christian creed,

with reference to the Mosaic Law was no different from the Jews themselves.

Jesus (pbuh) in his legendary ‘Sermon on the Mount’ declares:

Do

not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to

abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass

away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is

accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and

teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;

but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of

heaven. (Matthew 5: 17 – 19)

This express confirmation of the

Mosaic Law and the commandments entailed in the Books of the Prophets, combined

with the fact that Jesus (pbuh) did not, at any time during his ministry,

expressly direct his disciples to disregard any of the teachings entailed in

these books, is a sufficient evidence for us to believe that by default the

Christians were, in fact, supposed to adhere to all the prohibitions mentioned

in the Mosaic Law. It is precisely for this reason that Jesus (pbuh) did not

bring a new Shari`ah regarding

edibles.

Thus, whatever has been explained in

the foregoing section regarding the Jewish Dietary Laws, applies to the

Christian as well^[27].

Regarding the

Additional Restrictions of the Judaic Law

Besides

the aforementioned similarities in the Islamic Shari`ah

and the Mosaic Law regarding what may or may not be used for eating, there were

certain additional restrictions imposed by the earlier Law. It is beyond the

scope of this article to enumerate all these additional restrictions regarding

edibles, yet to get an idea about these restrictions, one may only look at the

law relating to the act of slaughter (Shehitah).

The

Judaica writes:

Specific

regulations govern the method by which an animal must be slaughtered before it

is permitted. So complex and minute are the regulations, that the slaughter must

be carried out by a carefully trained and licensed shohet. It

is his duty both to slaughter the animal, and to carry out an examination (bedikah).

Should a defect be

found in some of the organs, such as the brain, the windpipe, the esophagus, the

heart, the lungs, or the intestines, the animal is terefah,

and forbidden for consumption. Defects are normally classified under

eight categories (Hul. 43a): nekuvah, perforated

organ walls; pesukah, split pipes;

netulah, missing limbs; haserah, missing or defective organs; keru’ah, torn

walls or membrane covers or organs; derusah, a poisonous substance introduced into the body, when

mauled by a wild animal; nefulah, shattering

by a fall; shevurah, broken or

fractured bones. It is assumed in the Talmud that any of these defects would

lead to the death of the animal within one year (Hul. 3:1; see below). Only if

the animal has none of these injuries, is it pronounced kasher.^[28]

Then again, with the prohibition of nevelah

– flesh of a dead animal – animals that have suffered an injury which can cause

death – within a specific time (generally, one year) – even though the animal

has not yet died, renders the animal unfit for eating. The Judaica writes:

It

is forbidden to eat either a nevelah (an

animal that dies a natural death, or that has been killed by any method other

than shehitah; Deut. 14:21), and a terefah (an

animal that has been torn by a wild beast; Ex. 22:30). The term terefah

is also applied to an animal suffering from an injury which may lead

within a specific time to its death (see above). Such an animal is absolutely

prohibited for consumption. The Talmud (Hul. Chap. 3) describes over 70 such injuries and lesions (see also Sh. Ar.,

YD 29-60; Maim. Yad, Shehitah,

10:9), which Maimonides describes as “the limit” and which, he says

“must not be increased even though it should be found by scientific

investigation that other injuries are dangerous to the life of the animal”

(Maim. Yad, ibid., 10:12), or

diminished “even if it should appear by scientific investigation that some

are not fatal; one must go only by what the sages have enumerated” (Maim.

Yad, ibid., 10:13).

All these restrictions were removed

in the final Shari`ah. It was, in

fact, the removal of such restrictions, which the Qur’an (Al-Aa`raaf 7: 157) has referred to in the following words:

[The

true believers are they] who are following the messenger – the Unlettered

Prophet – whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. He enjoins

righteousness upon them and forbids them from evil. He makes suitable things

lawful to them and prohibits all that is unsuitable. He relieves them of their

burdens and of the shackles that had weighed upon them. Thus, those who have

believed in him and have honored him and have aided him and have followed the

light sent down with him, are the ones that shall indeed triumph.

© Copyright October 2000. All Rights Reserved with the Author

Discussion(s) regarding this Article
1  Grammatical Composition of Al-An`aam 6: 121
2  Regarding the Hadith of Ayesha (ra)
3  Your interpretation of ‘Nasaaraa’