Fatwa ID: 09354
Answered by Mufti Abdurrahman Mohammad
Question:
I would like to understand what the asl (default ruling) is regarding dead animals such as chickens, cattle, lambs, sheep, etc.
Here in Germany, meat sold in supermarkets without a halal label is, in most cases, not halal. Such meat is generally not slaughtered according to halal requirements, nor slaughtered by a Muslim, a Jew, or a Christian.
My question is as follows:
Is the asl of such meat — whose origin and method of slaughter I do not know with certainty — that it is considered najis (impure)?
In the Shāfiʿī madhhab, the principle is that an animal remains impure unless there is clear evidence or an indication that proves otherwise.
Is this principle the same in the Hanafi madhhab?
I am asking urgently because this issue causes me real difficulty. When I visit my Muslim parents and eat at their home, I know that they consume meat which does not carry a halal label, and this puts me in a very difficult position.
Barak Allahu fikum.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Answer:
What is the Asl (default ruling) for animals?
Allah (ﷻ) says in the Quran:
Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, and swine; what is slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah; what is killed by strangling, beating, a fall, or by being gored to death; what is partly eaten by a predator unless you slaughter it; and what is sacrificed on altars. (Al-Maidah 5:3)
The Prophet (ﷺ) said:
Leave what makes you in doubt for what does not make you in doubt. The truth brings tranquility while falsehood sows doubt. (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2518)
The foundational ruling regarding meat is impermissibility until lawful slaughter (Dhakāh Shar’iyyah) is established. Therefore, all meat is considered Haram unless proven otherwise. The meat remains upon impermissibility, which is the original state, since the permissibility of eating is dependent on the verification (Tahqīq) of proper Islamic slaughter. When the reports about its permissibility conflict, the permissibility is not established, so the slaughtered animal remains upon impermissibility. [2]
When does the meat of an animal become Najis?
If an animal that is Halal to consume (cow, sheep, chicken, etc.) dies without proper Islamic slaughter, its flesh becomes Maytah (carrion, dead meat), and Maytah is Najis as mentioned in Surah Maidah (Forbidden to you are carrion … unless you slaughter it).
Al-Bahr Ar-Rāiq explains:
The cause of impurity is the mixing of flowing blood with its parts at the time of death.[3]
This is why Islamically unslaughtered meat is both Haram to eat and considered Najis. If meat of Halal animals is properly slaughtered it is Halal and Tāhir (pure). If it is not properly slaughtered, it is Haram and Najis.
What is the ruling when the method of slaughter is unknown?
When one does not know whether the Islamic slaughter (Dhakāh Shar’iyyah) was performed correctly, the default is not automatic impurity. Rather, the ruling depends on Ghālib al‑Zann (what one thinks is more likely). The question is, is there a strong likelihood that the slaughter was done by someone whose slaughter is valid? If one is in a Muslim land where it is known that people slaughter properly, the presumption is that meat is permissible and pure. But in a context where the overwhelming majority of slaughtered meat does not follow the rules of Islamic slaughter (such as in the West including Germany), the presumption shifts. Because the dominant likelihood (Ghālib al-Zann) determines the ruling, the ruling would be based on the family or household. If they are known to consume Halal Islamically slaughtered meat, then their meat can be assumed to be pure. If most of what they eat is Haram and not Islamically slaughtered, then their meat should be avoided.[4][2]
Therefore, if proper Islamic slaughter is unknown but highly unlikely, the ruling follows what one thinks is most probable. Therefore, in a non-Muslim context where the standard industry practice involves stunning and killing animals without fulfilling the required Islamic conditions, if the household is known to consume this meat, then the default practical ruling is that such meat is not Halal to consume. It is treated as Maytah (carrion) and considered Najis.
Is the Hanafi principle identical to the Shāfi’ī one?
As a Hanafi Darul Ifta, we can only give a Fatwa based on the Hanafi Madhab. We mentioned before that an alive Halal animal remains impure unless there is clear evidence or an indication that proves otherwise, and that this also applies to meat. However, living in the West or visiting a household that consumes predominantly Haram meat is sufficient basis and indication that proves otherwise, so meat must be considered Maytah and treated as Najāsah.
Regarding your parents’ situation
If you know that your parents consume meat which does not carry a halal label then the ruling in the Hanafi Madhhab is that such meat is treated as Maytah and therefore Haram and Najis. This is not based on doubt, but on dominant likelihood (Ghālib Al-Zann). However, this does not mean you must break family ties. You can politely avoid eating the meat and eat vegetarian dishes instead and maintain good relationships with them. Kindly advise them on the rulings of Halal and Haram and encourage them to only purchase and consume Halal meat. If this doesn’t work, then consider purchasing the meat for them or ordering food from a Halal restaurant whenever you visit. Dealing with parents can get difficult, so try your best to advise them with kindness and wisdom. May Allah (ﷻ) ease your situation and grant you patience and understanding.
Only Allah ﷻ knows best.
Written by Mufti Abdurrahman Mohammad
Checked and approved by Mufti Mohammed Tosir Miah
Darul Ifta Birmingham
References:
[1]
لَنَا فِيهَا أَنَّ الْمَعْهُودَ فِيهَا حَالَةَ الْحَيَاةِ الطَّهَارَةُ، وَإِنَّمَا يُؤَثِّرُ الْمَوْتُ النَّجَاسَةَ فِيمَا تَحُلُّهُ وَلَا تَحُلُّهَا الْحَيَاةُ فَلَا يَحُلُّهَا الْمَوْتُ، وَإِذَا لَمْ يَحُلَّهَا وَجَبَ الْحُكْمُ بِبَقَاءِ الْوَصْفِ الشَّرْعِيِّ الْمَعْهُودِ لِعَدَمِ الْمُزِيلِ، وَفِي السُّنَّةِ أَيْضًا مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ وَهُوَ قَوْلُهُ ﷺ «فِي شَاةِ مَوْلَاةِ مَيْمُونَةَ حِينَ مَرَّ بِهَا مَيِّتَةً إنَّمَا حَرُمَ أَكْلُهَا» فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ. وَفِي لَفْظٍ «إنَّمَا حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ لَحْمُهَا وَرُخِّصَ لَكُمْ فِي مَسْكِهَا» وَأَخْرَجَ الدَّارَقُطْنِيُّ عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ «إنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ مِنْ الْمَيْتَةِ لَحْمَهَا، فَأَمَّا الْجِلْدُ وَالشَّعْرُ وَالصُّوفُ فَلَا بَأْسَ بِهِ» وَأَعَلَّهُ بِتَضْعِيفِ عَبْدِ الْجَبَّارِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ وَهُوَ مَمْنُوعٌ، فَقَدْ ذَكَرَهُ ابْنُ حِبَّانَ فِي الثِّقَاتِ فَلَا يَنْزِلُ الْحَدِيثُ عَنْ الْحَسَنِ. ثُمَّ أَخْرَجَهُ مِنْ حَدِيثِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الْهُذَلِيِّ عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: سَمِعْت ﷺ قَالَ «﴿قُلْ لا أَجِدُ فِي مَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلَى طَاعِمٍ يَطْعَمُهُ﴾، أَلَا كُلُّ شَيْءٍ مِنْ الْمَيْتَةِ حَلَالٌ إلَّا مَا أُكِلَ مِنْهَا» فَأَمَّا الْجِلْدُ وَالْقُرُونُ وَالشَّعْرُ وَالصُّوفُ وَالسِّنُّ وَالْعَظْمُ فَكُلُّهُ حَلَالٌ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يُذَكَّى، وَأَعَلَّهُ بِأَنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ هَذَا مَتْرُوكٌ. وَأَخْرَجَ أَيْضًا عَنْ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ زَوْجِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ عَنْهُ ﷺ «لَا بَأْسَ بِمَسْكِ الْمَيْتَةِ إذَا دُبِغَ، وَلَا بَأْسَ بِصُوفِهَا وَلَا شَعْرِهَا وَقُرُونِهَا إذَا غُسِلَ بِالْمَاءِ» وَضَعَّفَهُ بِأَنَّ يُوسُفَ بْنَ أَبِي السَّفْرِ بِالسِّينِ الْمُهْمَلَةِ الْمَفْتُوحَةِ وَسُكُونِ الْفَاءِ مَتْرُوكٌ
Al-Fath Al-Qadeer, vol. 1, pg. 97, Maṭba’ah Mustafā Al-Bābī Al-Halabī.
[2]
تنبيه: مثل تعارض الخبرين الشك وقالوا: إن الشك على ثلاثة أضرب شك طرأ على أصل حرام وشك طرأ على أصل مباح وشك لايعرف أصله فالأول مثل أن يجد شاء مذبوحة في بلد فيها مسلمون ومجوس فلاتحل حتى يعلم أنها ذكاة مسلم لأن الأصل فيها الحرمة إذ حل الأكل يتوقف على تحقق الذكاة الشرعية فصار حل الأكل مشكوكا فلو كان الغالب فيها المسلمين جاز الأكل عملا بالغالب المفيد للحل والثاني أن يجد ماء متغيرا واحتمل أن يكون تغيره بنجاسة أو طول مكث يجوزالتطهير به عملا بأصل الطهارة والثالث مثل معاملة من أكثر ماله حرام لاتحرم مبايعته حيث لم يتحفق حرمة ماأخذه منه ولكن يكره خوفا من الوقوع في الحرام كذا في فتح القدير قاله أبو السعود في حاشية الإشباه.
Hāshiyah At-Tahtāwi, pg. 35, Dār Al-Kutub Al-’Ilmiyyah.
[3]
قَالَ فِي الْهِدَايَةِ:؛ وَلِأَنَّ الْمُنَجِّسَ اخْتِلَاطُ الدَّمِ الْمَسْفُوحِ بِأَجْزَائِهِ عِنْدَ الْمَوْتِ حَتَّى حَلَّ الْمُذَكَّى لِانْعِدَامِ الدَّمِ فِيهِ وَلَا دَمَ فِيهَا وَالْحُرْمَةُ لَيْسَتْ مِنْ ضَرُورَتِهَا النَّجَاسَةُ كَالطِّينِ وَأَوْرَدَ عَلَيْهِ ذَبِيحَةَ النَّجَاسَةِ وَمَتْرُوكَ التَّسْمِيَةِ عَامِدًا، فَإِنَّهَا نَجِسَةٌ مَعَ زَوَالِ الدَّمِ الْمَسْفُوحِ وَذَبِيحَةُ الْمُسْلِمِ إذَا لَمْ يَسِلْ مِنْهَا الدَّمُ الْعَارِضُ بِأَنْ أُكِلَتْ وَرَقَ الْعُنَّابِ، فَإِنَّهَا حَلَالٌ مَعَ أَنَّ الدَّمَ لَمْ يَسِلْ
Al-Bahr Ar-Rāiq, vol. 1, pg. 94, Dār Al-Kitāb Al-Islāmī.
[4]
لِأَنَّهُ اجْتَمَعَ الْمُحَرِّمُ وَالْمُبِيحُ فَغَلَبَ الْمُحَرِّمُ عَلَى الْمُبِيحِ كَمَا لَوْ أَخْبَرَ عَدْلٌ بِأَنَّ هَذَا اللَّحْمَ ذَبِيحَةُ مَجُوسِيٍّ وَالْآخَرُ أَنَّهُ ذَبِيحَةُ مُسْلِمٍ لَا يَحِلُّ أَكْلُهُ لِغَلَبَةِ الْحُرْمَةِ فَكَانَ لَحْمُهُ حَرَامًا بِلَا إشْكَالٍ، وَلُعَابُهُ مُتَوَلِّدٌ مِنْهُ فَيَكُونُ نَجِسًا بِلَا إشْكَالٍ
Al-Bahr Ar-Rāiq, vol. 1, pg. 140, Dār Al-Kitāb Al-Islāmī.
[5]
فَأَمَّا تَعَارُضُ أَدِلَّةِ الشَّرْعِ فِي حِلِّ الطَّعَامِ وَحُرْمَتِهِ فَيُوجِبُ تَرْجِيحَ الْحُرْمَةِ تَقْلِيلًا لِلنَّسْخِ الَّذِي هُوَ خِلَافُ الْأَصْلِ وَعَمَلًا بِالِاحْتِيَاطِ الَّذِي هُوَ الْأَصْلُ فِي أُمُورِ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ عَدَمِ الْمَانِعِ، وَأَمَّا مَسْأَلَةُ اللَّحْمِ الْأُولَى، فَإِنَّهُ لَمَّا تَسَاقَطَ الدَّلِيلَانِ أَيْضًا بِالتَّعَارُضِ بَقِيَ مَا كَانَ ثَابِتًا قَبْلَ الذَّبْحِ وَالثَّابِتُ قَبْلَهُ حُرْمَةُ الْأَكْلِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ إنَّمَا يَحِلُّ أَكْلُهُ بِالذَّبْحِ شَرْعًا، وَإِذَا لَمْ يَثْبُتْ السَّبَبُ الْمُبِيحُ لِوُقُوعٍ التَّعَارُضِ فِي سَبَبِ الْإِبَاحَةِ بَقِيَ حَرَامًا كَمَا كَانَ
Al-Bahr Ar-Rāiq, vol. 1, pg. 143, Dār Al-Kitāb Al-Islāmī.
[6]
رَجُلٌ اشْتَرَى مِنْ التَّاجِرِ شَيْئًا هَلْ يَلْزَمُهُ السُّؤَالُ أَنَّهُ حَلَالٌ أَمْ حَرَامٌ قَالُوا يُنْظَرُ إنْ كَانَ فِي بَلَدٍ وَزَمَانٍ كَانَ الْغَالِبُ فِيهِ هُوَ الْحَلَالَ فِي أَسْوَاقِهِمْ لَيْسَ عَلَى الْمُشْتَرِي أَنْ يَسْأَلَ أَنَّهُ حَلَالٌ أَمْ حَرَامٌ وَيُبْنَى الْحُكْمُ عَلَى الظَّاهِرِ، وَإِنْ كَانَ الْغَالِبُ هُوَ الْحَرَامَ أَوْ كَانَ الْبَائِعُ رَجُلًا يَبِيعُ الْحَلَالَ وَالْحَرَامَ يُحْتَاطُ وَيَسْأَلُ أَنَّهُ حَلَالٌ أَمْ حَرَامٌ.
Al-Fatāwā Al-Hindiyyah, vol. 3, pg. 210, Al-Maṭba’ah Al-Kubrā Al-Amīriyyah.