Further Comments on Food of the Ahl-e-Kitaab ... Thank you for the answer. However, it is not satisfying. The reasons you gave for the additional information in parenthesis, I believe do not support it. The accidental death of an animal, to a reasonable person, means just that. For example, I find a dead cow alongside the street, and the apparent reason for its death seems to be as if a bus hit it. An accidental death does not mean when a Christian person slaughters an animal for the purpose of human consumption (may be he mentions God's name). Not to mention the strict adherence to the health and safety issues during the slaughter and afterwards in the cutting and packaging process. I believe the accidental death is made prohibited in the Qur'an because it is unsafe for the human consumption. But let's keep things in perspective. Yes, it is said in the Qur'an not to eat the animal on which God's name has not been said. However, to my understanding, it would be stretching it a bit too much to suggest that it means to mention God's name at the time of the slaughter. The narrative which is ascribed to our Prophet (may Allah's peace be upon him) clears that very well. When people were in doubt whether Allah's name had been mentioned on the meat or not, he said to say Allah's name and eat it. It is so simple. My dear brother, your parenthetical addition is not supported by your evidence. A Muslim living in a part of the world where halaal meat is impossible to get, and the self-slaughtering of the animal is impractical, I believe, should not avoid meat of the Ahl-e-kitaab based only on the evidence you present. Please post it on your wed site. Ahmed M. Aslam Reply I am extremely sorry that my reference to the verse relating to the accidental death of animals gave you the impression that I hold the slaughtering of animals by the Christians to be the same as the various kinds of accidental deaths of animals mentioned in the Qur'an. That, in fact, was not the case. I had only referred to these verses to support my claim that an animal is only allowed if it has been slaughtered in such a way that all (or most of) the blood entailed in its body flows out of it. This process of killing an animal in such a way that all (or most of) the blood circulating in its body flows out of it is known, in the Arabic language, as ' Tazkiyyah ' of an animal. The verse that I had referred to was only to support the above-mentioned point. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that it gave the impression that you derived from it. I hope, however, that the foregoing clarification shall remove the stated impression. ' Tazkiyyah ' of an animal, according to the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) as well as that of all the prophets of God, is a necessary condition for rendering it edible. An animal without its proper ' Tazkiyyah ' has never been recommended for eating by the prophets of God. The fact that Muslims, generally, adopt a particular method of slaughtering an animal to attain Tazkiyyah does not refute the fact that Tazkiyyah attained through any other means would still keep the animal suitable for eating. Thus, the important thing to decide is whether or not a particular method of slaughtering an animal would attain ' Tazkiyyah ' or not. If such is the case, then no objection can be raised on eating the flesh of such an animal, provided it fulfills the other conditions stipulated in the Shari`ah , as well. If you agree with the stated opinion regarding the fulfillment of the condition of ' Tazkiyyah ' and you also feel that the method adopted for slaughtering an animal in your community adequately attains the Tazkiyyah of the animal, then obviously, you can eat the flesh of such an animal [1] . However, if you do not agree with my stated opinion regarding ' Tazkiyyah ', then, obviously, you would only be required to follow your own opinion, which you have formed in the light of the directives of the Shari`ah . You write: Yes, it is said in the Qur'an not to eat the animal on which God's name has not been said. However, to my understanding, it would be stretching it a bit too much to suggest that it means to mention God's name at the time of the slaughter. My dear brother, what you have termed as 'stretching it a bit too much', is the only obvious implication of the verse. There can be no other implication of the verse except that if the animal has been slaughtered without taking Allah's name on it, it is not allowed for eating. If the Qur'an had wanted to allow Muslims that if an animal is slaughtered without taking Allah's name, they can still eat it, after pronouncing Allah's name on it, the wordings of the verse would have been something like: 'pronounce Allah's name before eating that on, which Allah's name has not been mentioned'. The verse, on the contrary, says: "Do not eat that upon which Allah's name has not been mentioned". Which, obviously, can only mean that the animal slaughtered without taking Allah's name upon it, is not allowable for eating, according to the Shari`ah . You further write: The narrative which is ascribed to our Prophet (may Allah's peace be upon him) clears that very well. When people were in doubt whether Allah's name had been mentioned on the meat or not, he said to say Allah's name and eat it. It is so simple. The referred narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relates to a situation of doubt. It relates, for instance, to a situation where even though it is the general practice of the people is to sacrifice their animals in the name of God, yet there is some doubt whether or not God's name was mentioned on the particular animal, the meat of which is being consumed by a Muslim. In such a situation, rather than following baseless doubts, a Muslim should eat what God has permitted for him. The referred narrative does not relate to a situation where, generally, God's name is not mentioned on the animal being sacrificed. If, however, someone is persistent to take the referred narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) to imply that even if an animal is not sacrificed in the name of God, one can still eat it, by pronouncing God's name on it before eating it, then this narrative cannot be accepted as correctly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as it would then be in contradiction to the referred verse of Surah Al-An`aam . If you agree with my foregoing explanation and also feel that the meat provided in your community is one on which God's name is pronounced at the time of slaughter, you may eat of it, as it would then not be prohibited on this particular count. However, if you do not agree with my stated opinion and interpretation of the Qur'anic verse, you should then act according to what you consider to be correct and in keeping with your own interpretation of the Qur'anic verse. You write: A Muslim living in a part of the world where halaal meat is impossible to get, and the self-slaughtering of the animal is impractical, I believe, should not avoid meat of the Ahl-e-kitaab based only on the evidence you present. I have presented my opinion, on the basis of my understanding of the directives of the Qur'an. That, I am sure you would agree is what I should do. The Muslims, however, should follow what they consider to be correct, in the light of their own understanding of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad , Otherwise you may simply Close this Window [1] I have been informed by an FDA (Food and Drug Administration in the United States of America) official (on telephone) that according to FDA regulations the animal should be properly bled if it is to be used as an edible. If the referred information is correct, then the meat provided in the United States cannot be considered as prohibited, on account of Tazkiyyah , as if the regulation is properly followed, the condition of Tazkiyyah would then be adequately satisfied.