Surah al-An`am (The Cattle) 6 : 121

Overview (Verse 121)

Eating Meat with God’s Permission
 
This is followed by a strict order not to eat from any slaughtered animal over which God’s name has not been pronounced at the time of slaughter. The Arabs in pre-Islamic days used to pronounce the names of some of their idols when they slaughtered animals for eating, or when they slaughtered them for gambling or drawing lots. This prohibition covers the eating of carrion, which refers to animals that die naturally. The unbelievers used to argue with the Muslims about this prohibition, claiming that such animals had been killed by God. Thus, they wondered that the Muslims would eat of what they themselves slaughtered but would not eat of what God had slaughtered. This is just one of the infinitely stupid arguments that people of ignorance may advance, prompted by the evil ones among them and the jinn. Hence, the command given in this verse is coupled with a warning: “Hence, do not eat of that over which God’s name has not been pronounced; for that is sinful. The evil ones do whisper to their friends to argue with you. Should you pay heed to them, you will end up associating partners with God.” (Verse 121)
 
This statement requires some reflection, for it is decisive in its reference to the authority every Muslim should obey. It clearly demonstrates that even in matters of detail, obedience by a Muslim to anyone who orders him to do something which is at variance with God’s law and which does not recognize God’s sovereignty and authority to legislate takes that Muslim out of Islam and leads him to associate partners with God.
 
In discussing the statement, “should you pay heed to them, you will end up associating partners with God” Ibn Kathīr says: This means that when you have abandoned God’s law, disregarded His commandments and preferred someone else’s law, then you are guilty of associating partners with Him. This is comparable to God’s description of the followers of earlier religions: “They have taken their rabbis and their monks for their lords beside God.” (9: 31) In his interpretation of this verse, al-Tirmidhī reports that `Adī ibn Ĥātim said to the Prophet: “Messenger of God, they did not worship them.” The Prophet said: “Yes, indeed. They (meaning the rabbis and monks) made lawful to them what God has made unlawful, and they have forbidden them what God has made lawful, and they (meaning the followers of those religions) followed them. That is indeed their worship of them.”
 
Similarly, Ibn Kathīr quotes al-Suddī in his commentary on the Qur’ānic statement, They have taken their rabbis and monks for lords beside God.’ Al-Suddī says: “They have taken the views of human beings, abandoning God’s Book and His law. Hence, God follows this with the statement, `they have been ordered only to worship the one God’, (9: 31) referring to the One who has the authority to forbid and make lawful and who must be obeyed whatever He legislates.”
 
Both distinguished scholars, al-Suddī and Ibn Kathīr, state with total clarity, that whoever obeys any man-made law which is at variance with God’s law, even in a matter of detail, associates partners with God. If he is a Muslim yet continues to do so, he actually leaves the fold of Islam altogether, even though he declares verbally that he believes in God’s oneness. This is because he receives his laws from an authority other than God’s. When we look everywhere on earth today, we find ignorance and the association of partners with God among all peoples, with the exception of those God has guided to His path. These are the ones who refuse to accept the claims of all deities to any of the attributes of Godhead. They reject all such laws and legislation, except when they are compelled to accept them by force.
 
Let us now consider the implication of the divine statement, “Do not eat of that over which God’s name has not been pronounced; for that is sinful.” (Verse 121) We need to learn from this statement which animals are lawful to eat and which are not, and whether God’s name is pronounced or omitted at the time of slaughter. Ibn Kathīr sums up the various views of a large number of scholars as follows:
 
This Qur’ānic verse provides the evidence supporting the view that when God’s name is not pronounced at the time of the slaughtering of any animal, it becomes unlawful to eat, even though the man carrying out the slaughter is a Muslim. Leading scholars have three different views in this respect. The first view is that such an animal is unlawful to eat, whether the omission of pronouncing God’s name at its slaughter has been deliberate or out of forgetfulness. This view is supported by Abdullāh ibn `Umar, Nāfi`, `Āmir al- Sha`bī and Muĥammad ibn Sīrīn. It is also reported to be one view held by Imāms Mālik and Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal. Some early and later scholars of the Ĥanbalī school support this view. It is also supported by Abū Thawr and Dāwūd al-Żāhirī. It is the preferred view of Muĥammad al-Ţā’ī, of the Shāfi`ī school in his book, Al-Arba`īn. These scholars support their view with this verse and the verse concerned with the permissibility of hunted animals which states: “you may eat of what they catch for you. But mention God’s name over it.” (5: 4) This prohibition is further confirmed by the statement, “for that is sinful.” (Verse 121) The pronoun, ‘that’, is understood to refer either to the eating or the slaughtering without pronouncing God’s name. This view is also supported by the aĥādīth ordering the pronouncement of God’s name at slaughter and hunting, such as: “If you set your trained dog and mention God’s name, you may eat of what it catches for you.” (Related by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.) “You may eat of animals whose blood is spilled and over which God’s name has been pronounced.” (Related by al- Bukhārī and Muslim.)
 
The second view is that the pronouncement of God’s name at the time of slaughter is recommended, and not obligatory. If it is omitted, whether deliberately or through forgetfulness, it does not affect the fact that the animal is permissible to eat. This is the view of Imām al-Shāfi`ī and all his disciples. It is also reported to have been expressed by Imāms Aĥmad and Mālik, as well as Ibn `Abbās, Abū Hurayrah and `Atā’. As for the Qur’ānic statement, “Do not eat of that over which God’s name has not been pronounced; for that is sinful,” (Verse 121), al-Shāfi`ī interprets this as referring to animals dedicated to deities or beings other than God. Imām al-Shāfi`ī’s view is considered to be strongly supported. A report attributed to Ibn Abbās suggests that the statement, “Do not eat of that over which God’s name has not been pronounced’, refers to carrion. A ĥadīth related by Abū Dāwūd quotes the Prophet as saying: “An animal slaughtered by a Muslim is permissible to eat, whether he pronounces God’s name or not, because if he is to mention any name, he would pronounce only God’s name.” This ĥadīth is not strongly authentic, but it is endorsed by one related by al-Dāraquţnī who quotes Ibn `Abbās as saying: “If a Muslim slaughters an animal without pronouncing God’s name, he may eat of it, because a Muslim bears a name of God.”
 
The third view makes it clear that if the pronouncement of God’s name is omitted out of forgetfulness, the animal is lawful to eat; while if it is omitted deliberately, the slaughtered animal is unlawful. This is the view most commonly associated with the Mālikī and Ĥanbalī schools. It is the one to which Imām Abū Ĥanīfah and his school subscribe. It is supported by many other scholars, such as Isĥāq ibn Rāhawayh, `Alī, Ibn `Abbās, Sa`īd ibn al- Musayyib, `Aţā’, Ţawūs, al-Ĥasan al-Başrī, Abū Mālik, Ibn Abī Laylā, Ja`far al-Şādiq, and Rabī `ah ibn `Abd al-Raĥmān.
 
Ibn Jarīr al-Ţabarī mentions that scholars hold different views with regard to whether any part of the rulings in this verse have been abrogated. Some of them say that no abrogation has taken place; its import is certainly clear. This is the view of Mujāhid and most scholars. However, `Ikrimah and al-Ĥasan al-Başrī, two prominent scholars, refer to the verses in this sūrah: “Eat, then, of that over which God’s name has been pronounced, if you truly believe in His revelations.” (Verse 118) “Hence, do not eat of that over which God’s name has not been pronounced; for that is sinful.” (Verse 121) They also refer to a verse in another sūrah: ”The food of those who were given revelations is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them.” (5: 5) These scholars quote Makhūl as saying: “God revealed in the Qur’ān, “Do not eat of that over which God’s name has not been pronounced’. Then God abrogated it out of mercy shown to Muslims, saying: “Today, all the good things of life have been made lawful to you. The food of those who were given revelations is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them”. (5: 5) Thus, the abrogation of the first verse is effected as God has made the animals slaughtered by people of earlier revelations lawful for Muslims to eat.” Al-Ţabarī adds: “The fact is that there is no conflict between making the food of the people of earlier revelations lawful and prohibiting the meat of animals over which God’s name has not been pronounced.” His view is certainly right. Those early scholars who say that the earlier ruling has been abrogated actually mean that it has been qualified.