If it is our strong belief that a group of people do not mention the name of Allah over the slaughtered animal, is it permissible to eat from it?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : If it is our strong belief that these people are leaving off the name of Allah...
The Shaykh : Eat everything unless you are certain that they did not mention the name or did not drain the blood; if you are certain, do not eat it. However, if we doubt whether the slaughterer is one whose slaughter is permissible or not, that is the point we must understand. If we doubt whether the slaughterer is one whose slaughter is permissible or not, we say: if there is a basis (asl) to build upon, we build upon the basis. For example, if we doubt whether a Muslim man prays or does not pray, the basis is prayer. But if we do not have a basis, such as if we doubt whether those in charge of the slaughterhouse are Muslims, polytheists, communists, or Zoroastrians, do we eat or not? We do not eat, because we are now doubting the qualification of the slaughterer, not the conditions that follow the slaughter. Therefore, we do not eat it. Is the slaughter of a Zoroastrian permissible? No, his slaughter is not permissible. It was said to Imam Ahmad that Abu Thawr holds that the slaughter of a Zoroastrian is permissible, so he said: "Abu Thawr is like his name". He deviated in this because what he said is contrary to scholarly consensus (ijma'). No scholar has said that the women of the Zoroastrians are to be married and their slaughter is permissible. Therefore, we say that the slaughter of a Zoroastrian is not permissible, and their women are not to be married, even though the jizyah is taken from them, because the jizyah, according to the stronger position, is taken from every disbeliever: the Zoroastrian, the Jew, the Christian, the communist, and everyone.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. For example, if someone catches a bird and tears it apart, it is not permissible, because this resembles strangling. Likewise, if one does what some boys do, catching a sparrow and killing it with his nail, slaughtering it with his nail, it is not permissible. Some of them slaughter it with a tooth.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is of the kind where a stick is inserted and it is cut.
The questioner : Even if it was dead.
The Shaykh : The dead is not permissible.
Nor the game, wherever it is on its body... If the arrow strikes it anywhere on its body, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Eat everything unless you are certain that they did not mention the name or did not drain the blood; if you are certain, do not eat it. However, if we doubt whether the slaughterer is one whose slaughter is permissible or not, that is the point we must understand. If we doubt whether the slaughterer is one whose slaughter is permissible or not, we say: if there is a basis (asl) to build upon, we build upon the basis. For example, if we doubt whether a Muslim man prays or does not pray, the basis is prayer. But if we do not have a basis, such as if we doubt whether those in charge of the slaughterhouse are Muslims, polytheists, communists, or Zoroastrians, do we eat or not? We do not eat, because we are now doubting the qualification of the slaughterer, not the conditions that follow the slaughter. Therefore, we do not eat it. Is the slaughter of a Zoroastrian permissible? No, his slaughter is not permissible. It was said to Imam Ahmad that Abu Thawr holds that the slaughter of a Zoroastrian is permissible, so he said: "Abu Thawr is like his name". He deviated in this because what he said is contrary to scholarly consensus (ijma'). No scholar has said that the women of the Zoroastrians are to be married and their slaughter is permissible. Therefore, we say that the slaughter of a Zoroastrian is not permissible, and their women are not to be married, even though the jizyah is taken from them, because the jizyah, according to the stronger position, is taken from every disbeliever: the Zoroastrian, the Jew, the Christian, the communist, and everyone.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. For example, if someone catches a bird and tears it apart, it is not permissible, because this resembles strangling. Likewise, if one does what some boys do, catching a sparrow and killing it with his nail, slaughtering it with his nail, it is not permissible. Some of them slaughter it with a tooth.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is of the kind where a stick is inserted and it is cut.
The questioner : Even if it was dead.
The Shaykh : The dead is not permissible.
Nor the game, wherever it is on its body... If the arrow strikes it anywhere on its body, it is permissible.