The Directives of the Shari`ah Regarding Edibles

The Directives
of the Shari`ah Regarding Edibles [1]

Moiz
Amjad

The Guiding Principle

The basic underlying purpose
and direction of all the directives of the Islamic Shari`ah[2]
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 is and what is not to be eaten. The
Qur'an says:

All
things suitable [for eating] have been permitted to you. (Al-Maaidah 5:
4)

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[3].
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[4]
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[5],
such animals that due to their habit of eating filth develop a kind of stench in
them[6]
and mules[7]
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[8].
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 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]. (Al-Maaidah
5: 90)

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..."[9],
while in the second verse, the opening word "only..."[10]
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:

1- Some
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[11],
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 “ميتة“ (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[12].
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. (Al-Nassaiy, Kitaab al-Sayd wa al-Dhabaaih)

2-
Some 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 “Daman Masfoohan” (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.

3- Some 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[13]
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) Animals Slaughtered at Shrines & Food
Won in 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[14].

The latter part of the verse[15]
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) Animals Slaughtered 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"[16]
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 declaration of gratitude and thankfulness
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 His
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)[17]
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 the 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'. (Muslim, Kitaab
al-Dhuhaayaa)

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[18].

c) Animals Slaughtered by 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[19].
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.

A Case of 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 Using the Stated Items as Edibles

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.' (Muslim, Kitaab
al-Haydh)

The Law at a Glance

The following section
summarizes the directives of the Shari`ah relating to the lawful and the
prohibited of 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
Relating to Edibles

An outline of the Mosaic Law
relating to edibles follows:

1-
The basic Criterion of 'Cleanness' & 'Suitability'

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-
Prohibition of 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[20]"
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[21]:

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-
Regarding the Prohibition of 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[22]
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-
Regarding the Prohibition of the 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-
Regarding the Prohibition of Animals Consecrated 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[23]
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[24],
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

Although, there seems to be some
difference of opinion among the Talmudic scholars regarding deriving benefits
from nevelah[25]
and other prohibited items, besides consuming them as edibles. The Talmud says:

On
the view of R. Meir who maintained,[to] a ger[26]
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[27]?
[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 Position of 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[28].

Regarding the Additional Restrictions
of the Judaic Law

Besides the
aforementioned similarities in the Islamic Shari`ah and the Mosaic Law
regarding the 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.[29]

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 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 clean things lawful
to them and prohibits all that is foul. 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

Home
Page

Use this
“Home Page” link only if you have opened this page by following an
external link