Ramadan Mubarak

[Craterloads]

I am not suggesting that Christianity is derived from Judaism as it is pretty much recorded fact. Much like Islam is derived from Judaism and Christianity. So I would think it certainly possible that whilst Christianity was codifying it's own rituals and canon it would borrow heavily from the Jewish faith that inspired it. However, as I said earlier, I believe is at least one passage in the New Testament that could be used to argue against ritual slaughter so how long it was practised (if at all) is a question for someone much more versed in Christian history than I.

The suggestion was in reference to "probable that meat was slaughtered in gods name"

Well it makes perfect sense for them to be doing so. How long after after the original bible was the new testament published?

edit: WTF how many bible books are there? Is there an original?

 

[Castiel]

Actually there are specific recitals before eating and a specific one at the time of opening a fast which translates as:

"O Allah, I have fasted for You and from the sustenance given by You, I break the fast".

But what has that got to do with Christianity or Catholicism specifically?

 

[Craterloads]

But what has that got to do with Christianity or Catholicism specifically?

i think he was referring to you saying i cant see muslims saying grace.

 

[Castiel]

i think he was referring to you saying i cant see muslims saying grace.

But what has that got to do with anything I said? Saying Grace is not going to abstain a Muslim from Dhabīḥah, it may at a stretch be compared to a Dua, but it isn't the same thing. Grace is not a requirement in Christianity, it is merely a tradition that some follow through choice, it isn't even a supplication.

As far as eating meat in Italy rather than any other foreign country I cannot see what your friend is saying, there are no ritual slaughter doctrines in Catholicism, in fact it can be argued that it is akin to pagan Animal Sacrifice and other than Kourbania in the Greek Orthodoxy it is frowned upon, if not outright forbidden. There are no prayers said over the animals, or rules regarding slaughter, or even a requirement that Animals are slaughtered in Gods name (that would be frowned upon in Catholicism). There are several reasons for this, but the main one is that Christians (with a couple of local exceptions, although they are not sacrifices to God, but Saints) believe that the Sacrifice of Christ was the perfect and ultimate Sacrifice, therefore any other sacrifice to God is not only unnecessary, but against the New Covenant and therefore some believe it is prohibited. Basically The Old Testament Sacrificial practices were seen as part of the Old Covenant and therefore temporary. The Death and Resurrection of Christ fulfilled that Covenant and there was no longer any need to shed blood for forgiveness, Christ's Blood gave forgiveness to all, for all time and therefore forgiveness is only to be found through Jesus Christ and not the sacrifice of animals as a substitute.....so you can see why it is frowned upon as a rule.

Relevant passages would be Hebrews 7:21, John 1:29, 1 Timothy 2:5,6, 2 Corinthians 2:21.

I think you friend is however referring to Christianity being a Religion of the Book, therefore it can be argued that if you as a Muslim are in a Christian Country with no access to Halal, you could lawfully eat meat (as long as it is not pork) prepared by a Christian as it is the faith that is important, not the individual.......it is pretty controversial and I would have to look up the references myself to be sure.

 

[zpos]

But what has that got to do with Christianity or Catholicism specifically?

I was responding to the bloke who posted:
Unless he counts saying Grace before eating, but I can't see a Muslim saying 'For what we are about to recieve......', can you?

 

[Castiel]

I was responding to the bloke who posted:
Unless he counts saying Grace before eating, but I can't see a Muslim saying 'For what we are about to recieve......', can you?

I was that bloke, and as I explained Grace is not the Christian equivalent of a Dua.

 

[RDM]

The suggestion was in reference to "probable that meat was slaughtered in gods name"

Well it makes perfect sense for them to be doing so. How long after after the original bible was the new testament published?

This question doesnt really make much sense. The original Bible includes the New Testament so could not exist before it was written. Do you mean "How long after the old testament was the new testament written?" If so I believe it is at least 400 years.

edit: WTF how many bible books are there? Is there an original?

There isn't an orignal Bible though there are some pretty old ones out there. But then I don't think any old religion has a copy of the original holy scriptures.

 

[T345]

There isn't an orignal Bible though there are some pretty old ones out there. But then I don't think any old religion has a copy of the original holy scriptures.

Aparently the torah is the only one that has not been changed

 

[RDM]

Aparently the torah is the only one that has not been changed

As it is the oldest I sincerely doubt it, especially as it was developed as an oral text and then only actually codified around 400BC. We have absolutely no way of knowing of that 400BC book is exactly the same as the first spoken torah.

 

[Vita]

The Torah might have been changed but the punishments for Adultery inside it were;

Here is an example of this from;

The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from among them who had committed illegal sexual intercourse.

The Prophet said to them, "How do you usually punish the one amongst you who has committed illegal sexual intercourse?" They replied, "We blacken their faces with coal and beat them." He said, "Don't you find the order of Ar-Rajm (i.e. stoning to death) in the Torah?" They replied, "We do not find anything in it." 'Abdullah bin Salam (after hearing this conversation) said to them, "You have told a lie! Bring here the Torah and recite it if you are truthful." (So the Jews brought the Torah).

And the religious teacher who was teaching it to them, put his hand over the Verse of Ar-Rajm and started reading what was written above and below the place hidden with his hand, but he did not read the Verse of Ar-Rajm. 'Abdullah bin Salam removed his (i.e. the teacher's) hand from the Verse of Ar-Rajm and said, "What is this?" So when the Jews saw that Verse, they said, "This is the Verse of Ar-Rajm."

So the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her so as to protect her from the stones.

 

[RDM]

The Torah wasn't changed but the punishments listed inside for Adultery were;

Here is an example of this from;

But that was published over 800 years after the torah was published and we have no way of checking if it is telling the truth or not. Even then the oldest complete copy of the torah we are aware of is only 1600 years old.

 

[e36Adz]

Ultimately it comes down to your intentions. I have been told if you do not 100% know for a fact that a product is haram you are not to claim otherwise as it would damage said business. The onus is on the seller and if he claims the meat/product is halal, the punishement is on his head if it turns out otherwise.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yes intentions are massively important, but to just claim ignorance when the evidence keeps mounting up, I don't know about you but my conscience doesn't allow me to turn a blind eye to it.

Some of my cousins use the exact same argument. 'Well he said its halal, so it's on his head not ours'. Well no not really, you have to actually do your research and you have to use some degree of intellect. If reports are coming in from various sources that meat is being contaminated with pork, and being sold as beef and chicken etc. and the evidence is there, then it should be worrying. I don't think it's possible to brush it aside with the argument 'well he said its halal' especially considering how serious the matter is.

You are even allowed to assume the product/meat is halal if it is being sold by a muslim, without even asking, ofcoarse that doesnt apply to alcohal and such and if you all ready know something is haram

I'd be interested to know where you have got this from, that you can simply assume that food is halal?

My brother was discussing with us a couple of months back, if i remember correctly your are allowed to eat meat and assume its halal from any abrahamic country. For example you could go to Italy and eat the meat and assume the meat is halal without asking as thier religion requires them to also butcher meat in the name of god/allah. We got into a bit of debate and argument as some pointed out a lot of these countries are no longer ones of faith, and we know most of the meat is not butchered according to the old ways. anyhow complicated subject to say the least.

I think this is what he was referring too:

This day all good things have been made lawful for you. And the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. -Quran 5:5

Remember, it is foolish to take one verse from the Quran in complete isolation, you need to take every verse related to the subject of halal food and also take into account all the hadith.

People of the Book refers to Jews and Christians, but even though for example this country is classified as a Christian country, most the people have left religion and are atheist/agnostic, so does the verse even refer to them at all?

 

[Castiel]

Aparently the torah is the only one that has not been changed

Not true. There are several ancient forms of the Torah available to Scholars, each is slightly different....in fact the oldest of them doesn't mention circumcision in the Covenant of Abraham at all, even though the passage is otherwise complete.

 

[Craterloads]

I think you friend is however referring to Christianity being a Religion of the Book, therefore it can be argued that if you as a Muslim are in a Christian Country with no access to Halal, you could lawfully eat meat (as long as it is not pork) prepared by a Christian as it is the faith that is important, not the individual.......it is pretty controversial and I would have to look up the references myself to be sure.

Sorry was suspended so couldnt reply. Sounds like what you are saying is more along the lines rather than ritual slaugther, heres is the email i was refering too: -

Note that ive not really spent much time or given much thought to it, and its just one line of thinking which my brother happens to follow. Maybe of some interest to you and e36Adz.

[Q1]: Is it permissible to eat poultry which is sold in the markets on the basis that it is meat of the People of the Book...or is it impermissible on the basis that it is a carcass slaughtered by unknown means (i.e. it was it done by cutting off the head or electrocution or some such means.) and are the ahlul‐kitaab today truly to be considered in this ruling [as those of the past]?


[A1]: Yes, eating the poultry is permissible because that which is slaughtered by the ahlul‐kitaab today is just as what was slaughtered by ahlul‐kitaab in the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). The ahlul‐kitaab are of the kuffaar (disbelievers) whether they are in the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) or now. Allaah says in His Noble Book,


“Surely, they have disbelieved who say: ʺAllaah is the Messiah [ʹIesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary).ʺ But the Messiah [ʹIesa (Jesus)] said: ʺO Children of Israel! Worship Allaah, my Lord and your Lord.ʺ Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allaah, then Allaah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Dhaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.


Surely, disbelievers are those who said: ʺAllaah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).ʺ But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God ‐Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.”
[Sooratul‐Maʹidah, 5:72‐73]


Allaah also says in the same chapter:


“Made lawful to you this day are At Tayyibaat [all kinds of Halaal (lawful) foods, which Allaah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits, etc.). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time, when you have given their due Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girl‐friends. And whosoever disbelieves in the Oneness of Allaah and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allaahʹs), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al‐Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.” [Sooratul‐Maʹidah, 5:5]


As far as the methodology of the slaughtering, we do not inquire about the method because if an action has occurred ‘min ahlihi’ [at the hands of those suited to perform such an act] the conditions surrounding that act are not asked about.


We find in saheehul‐bukhaaree: ʺIt is related by A’aishah (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) that a group of people said to the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) ʹSome people came to us with some meat about which we didnʹt know whether the name of Allah was mentioned over or notʹ and he (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) replied‘sammoo’ [Say the name of Allaah] over it yourselves and then eat. She [A’aishah] said that these people had just recently been from the kuffaar [i.e. just became Muslim and the question was not asked as to the method of slaughter].


This rule therefore applies to the Jews and the Christians about whom we donʹt know whether or not they have mentioned Allaahʹs name or not because their slaughtered meat is halaal [permissible] to us.


[Q2]: Please clarify the fatwaa (ruling) ‐ esteemed Shaykh ‐ If a Muslim goes to the markets and eating places in a Christian land and purchases the lamb, beef or chicken and does not ask about how it was slaughtered?


[A2]: Yes, he does not ask about the method of slaughter.


[Q3]: What if he is informed however, that the meat has been stunned by electric shock, or has been choked or shot? What is the ruling for meat slaughtered like this? Is it considered a carcass? [Which is impermissible to eat]


[A3]: It is not permissible if it is known with certainty because it would be considered a carcass.


[Q4]: Can we understand from the hadeeth of A’aishah (radiyallaahu ‘anha) which is related in the fatwaa that the question which was posed by the people to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) was only in relation to whether Allahʹs name was mentioned over the animal being slaughtered and it was not about the actual method of slaughter?


[A4]: Yes, they did ask about the mentioning of the name of Allaah and not the actual method of slaughtering and it is evident in the hadeeth that it is not necessary to ask about either.


[Q5]: Is it possible to say that if there are stores in a city where the Muslim lives and those stores carry meat slaughtered according to the Islaamic method ‐ even if it is more expensive ‐ that it is not then permissible to buy the meat of the Christians?


[A5]: No it is not possible to say that because the slaughtered meat of the Christians and the Jews is halaal. However, whoever leaves it [doesnʹt eat it] out of a sense of piety [tawarʹan2], we see no fault upon him.


[Q6]: One of the readers asks about a relation from ‘Alee Ibn Abee Taalib (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) in which he reportedly said: ʺDo not eat the meat slaughtered by Banu Taglab because they adhere to Christianity by drinking alcohol.ʺ Can this be then used as a proof considering the Christians of today, the majority of whom drink alcohol, that it is not permissible to eat their slaughtered meat?


[A6]: I do not know the authenticity of this statement [from the Sahabah] and if it is authentic its meaning would be that they [Banu Taglab] were not actually on the religion of the Christians and therefore they would not fall under the ruling of permissibility of their slaughtered meat.


[Q7]: If it is known that some of the slaughterhouses in this country slaughter sheep and cattle along with swine, is it permissible to eat that meat especially when the same instruments are used to slaughter both at the same time?


[A7]: In this case, if we know that the knives are used for both then the meat should be washed and it will be purified through washing.

Answered by Imaam Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen

 

[Twirlywoos]

If there is no halal meat I'd eat Kosher meat and nothing else.

I'm pretty sure that the slaughtering process for the Jews is similar to the muslims hence why it is allowed.

 

[RDM]

Sorry was suspended so couldnt reply. Sounds like what you are saying is more along the lines rather than ritual slaugther, heres is the email i was refering too: -

Note that ive not really spent much time or given much thought to it, and its just one line of thinking which my brother happens to follow. Maybe of some interest to you and e36Adz.



Answered by Imaam Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen

That is somewhat amusing. It's ok as long as you don't ask. So despite the fact that you know full well no prayer has been said, the meat will have been stunned and slaughtered in a non halal way as long as you don't ask it's ok! That is almost as amusing as the whole "Islamic Banking" rubbish too.

 

[Craterloads]

That is somewhat amusing. It's ok as long as you don't ask. So despite the fact that you know full well no prayer has been said, the meat will have been stunned and slaughtered in a non halal way as long as you don't ask it's ok! That is almost as amusing as the whole "Islamic Banking" rubbish too.

Like i said its one person view/interpretation. And i dont think its as simple as "its ok as long you dont ask" as the reasoning has been given. One that i don't necessarily agree with but from reading it does make some sense.

Yes, eating the poultry is permissible because that which is slaughtered by the ahlul‐kitaab today is just as what was slaughtered by ahlul‐kitaab in the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). The ahlul‐kitaab are of the kuffaar (disbelievers) whether they are in the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) or now. Allaah says in His Noble Book,


“Surely, they have disbelieved who say: ʺAllaah is the Messiah [ʹIesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary).ʺ But the Messiah [ʹIesa (Jesus)] said: ʺO Children of Israel! Worship Allaah, my Lord and your Lord.ʺ Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allaah, then Allaah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Dhaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.


Surely, disbelievers are those who said: ʺAllaah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).ʺ But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God ‐Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.”
[Sooratul‐Maʹidah, 5:72‐73]


Allaah also says in the same chapter:


“Made lawful to you this day are At Tayyibaat [all kinds of Halaal (lawful) foods, which Allaah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits, etc.). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time, when you have given their due Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girl‐friends. And whosoever disbelieves in the Oneness of Allaah and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allaahʹs), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al‐Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.” [Sooratul‐Maʹidah, 5:5]


As far as the methodology of the slaughtering, we do not inquire about the method because if an action has occurred ‘min ahlihi’ [at the hands of those suited to perform such an act] the conditions surrounding that act are not asked about.


We find in saheehul‐bukhaaree: ʺIt is related by A’aishah (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) that a group of people said to the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) ʹSome people came to us with some meat about which we didnʹt know whether the name of Allah was mentioned over or notʹ and he (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) replied‘sammoo’ [Say the name of Allaah] over it yourselves and then eat. She [A’aishah] said that these people had just recently been from the kuffaar [i.e. just became Muslim and the question was not asked as to the method of slaughter].

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

I need to ask a question about Ramadan.

I book interpreters for clients across my local NHS Trust. One of them is Muslim and he keeps asking me to change the interpreter's date to fit around Ramadan, even though he chose the date in the first place. My biggest issue is that he doesn't know whether Ramadan finishes on 19th of August or 20th of August, which as you can understand is starting to inconvenience the language agency. Is it normal to be spontaneous like this? I thought that the start and end date would be set in stone months before, like how the Christians know the date of Easter months in advance.

 

[T345]

Well it is after sundown that you can eat loads, and loads of dates

 

[mrk]

^Really? Who would have guessed.

Monserrat, depends on the moon sighting. A date might be pre-confirmed but it could go +/- by a day. It is only really known closer to the time usually a few days beforehand.