Azami 12247

Bukhari narrated it in the Book of Expeditions (4214), and Muslim in the Book of Jihad and Expeditions (1772), both from the hadith of Humayd bin Hilal, from Abdullah bin Mughafal, and he related it. The wording given here is Muslim's.The following benefits can be drawn from this hadith:1. It shows the permissibility of eating food as needed before the spoils of war are divided.2. It also shows the permissibility of eating the fat of the Jews which had been forbidden to them, as in Allah's statement, "We forbade them the fat of both" [Anaam 6:146], meaning the fat of cattle and sheep. This is the view of the majority of scholars, Abu Hanifa, Shafii, Ahmad, and others, except Imam Malik, who disliked it because it was forbidden to the Jews, holding that it was not among the food Allah made lawful for us. This hadith stands as evidence against his position.3. It also shows the permissibility of eating the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and Christians. Allah says, "And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you" [Maidah 5:5]. What is meant by "food" here is their slaughtered animals, as Ibn Abbas and others have said.However, two conditions are required for this. The first is that they mention the name of Allah over it, even though they hold beliefs about Him that He is far above, such as their claim that Allah has taken a son, or that Allah is a third of a trinity, or their saying "our Lord the Messiah," and other beliefs which the noble Quran refutes. Despite this, He says, "And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you". However, if they slaughter in the name of "the Messiah" or in the name of "Uzair," then eating it is not permissible.The second condition is that they slaughter it in the recognized lawful manner, which is the shedding of blood. If they slaughter it by strangling, electric shock, striking it on the head, drowning it in hot water, shooting it, or using blunt instruments until it dies, then it is treated like the strangled animal, which dies from strangulation, or the beaten animal, which dies from being struck, and eating it is forbidden, whether done by a Muslim or a person of the Book.As for cases where we do not know how they slaughtered it, the default ruling is that it is lawful, acting on the apparent meaning of the verse. If they did not mention the name of Allah over the slaughtered animal, this falls under their general ignorance, and their slaughtered animals are not thereby made forbidden, just as a Muslim who forgets to mention Allah's name, or is unaware of its ruling at the time of slaughtering, is not affected, following the hadith in Sahih Bukhari (5507), "Some people bring us meat, and we do not know whether the name of Allah was mentioned over it or not." The Prophet ﷺ said, "You mention the name of Allah over it yourselves, and eat it."As for imported meat, or meat sold in the markets of Islamic countries, if it is known to come from the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book, it is lawful for Muslims, unless it is known that it was slaughtered in an unlawful manner as explained above, because the default ruling of lawfulness is established by the Quranic text, and one should not depart from that except on the basis of something confirmed that requires its prohibition.As for the slaughtered animals of disbelievers who are not People of the Book, eating them is not permissible by the consensus of Muslims.Question, Most of the inhabitants of Europe, America, and other Christian countries have abandoned the obligatory and recommended acts of religion, and consider themselves free from religion. Are these people to be classed with the disbelievers and the Zoroastrians, or does the ruling for the People of the Book apply to them?Answer, These people are not classed with the disbelievers and Zoroastrians unless they explicitly declare that they have left their religion for another religion. I have seen a group of British people who chose Hinduism, shaved their heads, and wore the garb of monks, consisting of two pieces of yellow cloth, one as a waist wrap and one as an upper garment, and they used to walk through the streets calling out, "Hare Krishna, Hare Ram." Likewise, there is a group of Europeans at Hindu centers in India called "ashrams." These people have turned away from their own religion and joined the Hindus and the Zoroastrians, worshippers of the cow and of fire, so their slaughtered animals are forbidden.Likewise, in recent times, the republics around the Soviet Union embraced communism and denied acknowledgment of religion altogether. These are called atheists, who have no religion, so their slaughtered animals are also forbidden.Regarding His statement, "and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture", meaning the chaste women of the People of the Book, whether free or slave, this specifies His statement, "Do not marry polytheist women until they believe" [Baqarah 2:221]. And His statement, "when you have given them their due compensation," meaning their dowries. That is, since they are chaste women, give them their dowries in order to preserve their chastity.There is no disagreement among the majority of scholars regarding the permissibility of marrying women of the Book, except for what has been reported from some of the early generations who prohibited it on account of their polytheism, such as their saying about the Messiah that he is the son of Allah, or that he is a third of a trinity. The first view is the more correct one, for some of the companions married Christian women in Syria and saw no harm in it. However, the ruler may prohibit this in order to preserve the security of the country.Regarding His statement, "chastely, not committing fornication, nor taking secret lovers," just as chastity was made a condition for women, so too is chastity and marriageable status made a condition for men. His statement, "not committing fornication," refers to those who commit fornication. And His statement, "nor taking secret lovers," means those who keep mistresses. Some scholars have said that it is not permissible for a chaste man to marry a woman who commits fornication, and likewise it is not permissible for a chaste woman to marry a man who commits fornication, as stated in Surah Nur, "The fornicator does not marry except a female fornicator or a polytheist woman, and the female fornicator, none marries her except a fornicator or a polytheist man, and that has been made unlawful for the believers" [Nur 24:3].