Chapter: The Slaughter of the People of the Book and Their Fats, Whether from the People of War or Others

The Reciter: Chapter: The Slaughter of the People of the Book and Their Fats, Whether from the People of War or Others. And Allah the Exalted said: . Al-Zuhri said: There is no harm in the slaughter of the Arab Christians, but if you hear him invoking a name other than Allah, do not eat it. If you did not hear him, Allah has made it lawful for you, and He knows their disbelief. It is reported from 'Ali to the same effect. Al-Hasan and Ibrahim said: There is no harm in the slaughter of the uncircumcised. Ibn 'Abbas said: Their food is their slaughter.

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is the chapter on the slaughter of the People of the Book and their fats, whether from the People of War or others. The People of the Book are the Jews and the Christians. They are called the People of the Book because they adhere to a Scripture, which is the Torah for the Jews and the Gospel for the Christians. The People of the Book have specific characteristics that other disbelievers do not have. One of these is the lawfulness of their slaughter, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: . Another is the permissibility of marrying their women, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: , meaning it is lawful for you . Another is the permissibility of taking the jizyah from them without fighting them, according to the majority of scholars, although the correct view is that this third characteristic is not exclusive to them, but rather it is permissible to take the jizyah from all disbelievers. The subject we are discussing now is their food, meaning their slaughter. Is it lawful for us, and are we allowed to ask? If it is in a manner that would not be permissible if a Muslim slaughtered it, then it is not lawful, or are we not allowed to ask? Yes, we say we do not ask, just as we do not ask when a Muslim comes to us. The hadith of 'Aishah mentioned earlier has passed us by. If someone says, "The People of the Book today are not on their religion," we say, "The People of the Book at the time of the Prophet's mission were not on their religion either." Allah the Exalted said in the very same surah where He made their slaughter lawful: . And they say so, and yet Allah made their women lawful and made their slaughter lawful. As long as they claim affiliation with these two religions, the rulings of the People of the Book apply to them. Now, if someone asks, "Is it required that their slaughter be in accordance with the slaughter of a Muslim?" We say, yes, that is required. This is why Al-Zuhri said: "If you hear him invoking a name other than Allah, do not eat it". Based on this, we say: It is necessary to mention the name of Allah over it and not to mention any other name with it, and it is necessary to drain the blood, due to the generality of the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): . For this reason, some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) erred when they said that their slaughter is lawful as long as they consider it food. Do you understand, Ibrahim? What did you say? No, and what came before that?
The Student: Some scholars erred when they said...

The Shaykh : Yes, good. I say that some scholars stated: It is not required in their slaughter what is required in the slaughter of a Muslim, as long as they consider it food for them, because Allah said: . He distinguished between the two foods, saying "food" and "food," and the conjunction implies difference. So whatever they consider food is lawful for us. If they say, "We believe that if it dies by stunning or strangling, it is food and lawful," then according to this opinion, the slaughters they perform in this manner are lawful for us. However, the majority of scholars, and the correct view, say that this is absolute or general, and it was specified by the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): , and by the generality of his saying: , and by clear analogy. If a Muslim, who is purer in the sight of Allah, does not have his slaughter made lawful if he does not drain the blood and does not mention the name of Allah, then a disbeliever, who is impure, is even more so. And because this is the path of scrupulousness: if one does not eat, it is not said that he is sinful, but if he eats, it is said that he is sinful, which is the view of the majority. And what is safer and more secure for the conscience is preferable. And because, from an economic perspective, it enriches them; meaning, if we say it is permissible and they flood us with these slaughters, that would enrich them. But if we say we restrict them and tighten the noose, that would enrich whom? The Muslims. So this opinion is preferable from these aspects, and this is the closest to me: that nothing from their slaughter is lawful except what is lawful in its counterpart from the slaughter of Muslims. It is sufficient for us to make their slaughter like the slaughter of Muslims. Now, if someone asks, "Is the criterion that this person of the Book be from a tribe..."