Dietary Law in the Qur’an: Halāl (حَلَال) & Harām (حَرَامْ) – Kashér (כָּשֵׁר‎)

Introduction

In this article I am going to present you with Qur’anic evidence in regard to topic of lawful and unlawful food. The avid reader and follower of my work, will know that I reject the Traditionalist Islamic religion rendering it a later invention by mankind (click here for more).

There are three main points I will cover in this article:

  1. Qur’anic Dietary Prohibitions.
  2. Is there a Qur’anic concept of dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة).
  3. What the Qur’anic concept of dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is.
  4. The Torah & Tanakh.
  5. Good food.
  6. False religious innovations.

Before I begin, regarding the Traditionalist Islamic religion, many of you will know that the Arabic words halāl (حَلَال) and harām (حَرَامْ) are most notably used in reference to the dietary prohibitions concerning the meat of animals. Where the Traditionalist Islamic religion is concerned, the Arabic word halāl (حَلَال) means lawful, and the Arabic word harām (حَرَامْ) means prohibited or forbidden.

Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is the Traditionalist Islamic prescribed method of animal slaughter. This Traditionalist Islamic rite stipulates that any lawful animal selected for consumption must be killed quickly with a sharpened blade while the slaughterer dedicates the slaughter to God by simultaneously uttering the name of Allah or God over the animal.

According to the Traditionalist Islamic scholarly consensus, the animal must be slaughtered specifically by a ‘Muslim’, ‘Jew’ or ‘Christian’, while some schools of thought and sects claim the animal must be slaughtered exclusively by a Muslim.


Section 1: Qur’anic Dietary Prohibitions

See below for a list of prohibited food for consumption according to the Qur’an alone.

  1. Carrion: dead and/or decaying flesh of an animal (2:172-173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:114-116).
  2. Blood (2:172-173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:114-116).
  3. Swine (2:172-173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:114-116).
  4. That dedicated to other than God (2:172-173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:114-116).
  5. That strangled (5:3).
  6. That beaten (5:3).
  7. That fallen (5:3).
  8. That gored (5:3).
  9. It must be alive and slaughtered by man himself, but can be caught via a trained beast of prey (5:3).
  10. That which is sacrificed upon an alter (5:3).
  11. That slaughtered by appointment of divining arrows (5:3).

An animal gassed to death qualifies as strangulation as it dies from asphyxiation and suffocation.

In the US, Canada and the EU, the majority of animals are stunned prior to slaughter. Stunning an animal prior to slaughter may virtually render it brain dead. The idea of stunning is an invention by mankind, not God, therefore must never be viewed as mandatory. The question is whether or not stunning an animal renders it forbidden? Stunning is said to be done in order to pacify the animal prior to slaughter. On some occasions however, the stun ends up being the cause of death. It is true that an animal which dies due to stunning does sustain injuries of a slight similitude to bludgeoning, thus it is argued that stunning animals prior to slaughter render them forbidden. In my view, the baseline of the listed prohibited methods of slaughter revolves around methods that involve animal abuse. Any thinking man of rectitude shall note that the afore-prohibited methods of slaughter undeniably are barbarous and nutty. The motif regards what is and is not forbidden according to the law of God – both the nature and intent behind stunning an animal versus bludgeoning an animal are different. Therefore to compare bludgeoning and stunning is like comparing avoiding alcohol versus using it for cooking – there is no viable connection between the nature and intent of the activity. When a hospital patient undergoes surgery, he is oftentimes put to sleep via use of anesthesia, for example, and he is still classified as “alive”. Likewise, a stunned animal that is rendered unconscious, is still classified as “alive”, so long as its consciousness may be restored to it. Therefore, stunning an animal does not qualify as bludgeoning it to death.

See below for citation of those verses.

O you who believe: eat of the good things wherewith we have provided you, and be grateful to God if it be Him you serve. He has forbidden you carrion and blood and the flesh of swine and what has been dedicated to other than God. And whoso is forced neither desiring nor transgressing: no sin upon him, God is forgiving, merciful.

2:172-173

Forbidden to you is carrion and blood and the flesh of swine and that dedicated to other than God and the strangled and the beaten and the fallen and the gored and that eaten by the beast of prey except what you slaughter and that which is sacrificed upon an alter and that you seek appointment by divining arrows, that is defiance. This day those who are reject have despaired of your system, so do not fear them, but fear me. This day I have perfected for you your system and completed my favour upon you and approved for you submission as a system. But whoever is compelled by hunger – without inclination to sin: God is forgiving, merciful.

5:3

Say: I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to one who would eat it except it be carrion or blood poured forth or the flesh of swine (and it is abomination) or a defiance dedicated to other than God. But whoever is forced, neither desiring nor transgressing then your Lord is forgiving, merciful.

6:145

So eat of what God has provided for you, lawful, good, and be grateful for the grace of God if it be Him that you serve. He has forbidden to you carrion and blood and the flesh of swine and that dedicated to other than God, but whoever is forced without desiring nor transgressing: God is forgiving, merciful.

16:114-116

Section 2: A Qur’anic Concept Of Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة)?

The primary purpose behind me writing this section, is to refute the sectarian Quranist/Quranite/Quran-alone/Quran-only followers, who erroneously claim that there is no Qur’anic concept of dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة). These individuals believe that dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is a later invention by mankind. They also claim that the Arabic word dhakara (ذَكَرَ) exclusively means remember. This is their premise, whereby they then manage to create a superficial illusion permitting them to take other verses out of context regarding the subject matter.

Is there a Qur’anic concept of dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة)?

If the answer to this question is yes, it must be contingent upon the following premise:

  • Does the Qur’an directly declare or provide unambiguous proof that dedicating slaughter to God is the formality?

It is in verse (5:3) that we are delivered the verdict. It is stated in the Qur’an that an animal dedicated to other than God is forbidden to consume. The Arabic word for other than, is ghayr (غَيْر). This word means: not; without; other than. The Arabic word ghayr takes Allah as its direct object implying that only those animals dedicated to God for slaughter are lawful to consume. There are some who argue otherwise, but they are unable to circumvent the aforesaid fact.

Nowhere within the Qur’an does God exclusively forbid the consumption of animals “dedicated to idols” though it could have, if it were true that this was the implication – however no, this is not the implication.

God says: “dedicated to other than God” because knowingly or unknowingly, the animal is being dedicated toward something or another (e.g. profit, gluttony, greed, self-defence, fun and amusement).

Subsequently, the implication is that only animals dedicated to God are lawful, and if it does not meet this requirement then they are forbidden.

The premise has been validated and qualified.

As an aside, when God does intend to expound upon a prohibition regarding the sacrifice to idols, He is both unambiguous and direct in doing so: “And they make for God from what He produced of tilth and cattle a portion, and they say “this is for God” (according to their claim), and “this is for our partners”, but what is for their partners does not reach God, and what is for God it reaches their partners. Evil is what thy judge (6:136).”


Section 3: What Is The Qur’anic Concept Of Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) ?

Let us begin with the Arabic trilateral root dhāl kāf rā (ذ ك ر) root in order to establish whether or not the Traditionalist Islamic concept of dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is or is not valid and sound proposition from the perspective of the Qur’an.

The particular word I will be focusing on is the Arabic word dhakara (ذَكَرَ), which derives from the dhāl kāf rā trilateral root. This word has been claimed by some sectarians to exclusively mean remember. The ramifications of this act has aided a tactical sweeping move to abolish a scared appointed rite by God (i.e. dedicating the slaughter of animals to the God via the mentioning of God’s name over it).

Proof From Classical Arabic Dictionaries

I have decided to begin by examining the root verb definition of the dhāl kāf rā trilateral root. Below I provide 5 classical Arabic root verb definitions for this root.

Hans Wehr 4th Edition (page 358/1303)
Edward Lane Lexicons II Edition (page 974/3039)
Steingass (Page 386-387/1241)
Dict. of Quran by M.G. Farid, page 292 (of 847)
Verbal Idioms of Quran, page 129 (of 352)

The dictionaries provide the following root verb definitions: to remember; to cite; to quote; to bear in mind; to recall; to mention.

Qur’anic Proof

Data sourced from classical Arabic dictionaries are not sufficient alone. We need proof from the Qur’an, so now let us combine and consolidate the aforementioned reports with irrefutable, unambiguous and clear cut Qur’anic proof as to how the Qur’an both validates and permits the Arabic word dhakara (ذَكَرَ) to mean mention.

  1. 2:114: “who is more unjust than he who prevents in the temples of God, that His name be yudh’kara (يُذْكَرَ) and seeks to destroy (kharāb: خَرَاب) them…” I take yudh’kara (يُذْكَرَ) in this verse to mean mention. My reasons for this are as follows. The verse addresses those who both deliberately prevent God’s name from being yudh’kara (يُذْكَرَ) in temples of God, you cannot prevent somebody from remembering God whereas you can prevent the name of God from being mentioned. Furthermore, places of worship are locations wherein people mention and discuss the name of God as they glorify Him, worship and praise Him. On the contrary, one may remember God anywhere, any place and at anytime.
  2. 12:42: in this verse, Yūsuf says unto his prison companion to “udh’kur’nī (اذْكُرْنِي)” him to the king when he leaves prison. The Qur’an then informs us that Yūsuf’s prison companion had forgotten to dhik’ra (ذِكْرَ) his lord (i.e. the king, Yūsuf’s prison companion had forgotten to dhik’ra (ذِكْرَ) his king and mention Yūsuf’s case to him). A few verses later, Yūsuf’s prison companion does eventually mention Yūsuf to the king. It is nonsensical to suggest that Yūsuf would request his prison companion to remember him in front of the king, when in fact the entire narrative concerned Yūsuf’s legal case being brought forth to the king, this narrative involved Yūsuf’s prison companion mentioning Yūsuf’s case to the king.
  3. 12:85: in this verse, Ya’qūb’s sons complain of their father tadhkuru (تَذْكُرُ) about Yūsuf. In the previous verse Ya’qub mentions Yūsuf as he cries in grief for him. In chapter 12 of the Qur’an, Ya’qūb often mentions Yūsuf, and this is why I translate tadhkuru (تَذْكُرُ) as mention.
  4. 17:46: in this verse, it states that ‘they’ turned in aversion when the prophet dhakarta (ذَكَرْتَ) the name of God alone. It is objectively impossible for any human being, firstly to read the mind of another, and secondly to turn in aversion to a man’s thoughts (i.e. remembering God alone). Dhakarta (ذَكَرْتَ) cannot mean remember in this verse. On the contrary, when translating the word dhakarta (ذَكَرْتَ) to mean mention, a congruent coherence occurs, as it is true that the prophet mentioned God alone throughout the entire Qur’an which the Qur’an both consistently and repeatedly demonstrates was a major factor for the majority of the people to turn in aversion from the prophet.
  5. 18:63: in this verse, unless a tautologous statement, then Mūsā’s companion did not tell Mūsā that the shaytān caused him forget the fish that he should remember it. If the point was to demonstrate that the fish was forgotten at a particular place, then judging by the consistent rhythm and style of the Qur’an, this point would have been demonstrated – but it did not. If I told you that Amina caused me to forget our bottles of water when leaving the gym that I should remember them, it would be both ungrammatical and tautologous. However, if I had told you that Amina caused me to forget our bottles of water that I should mention them, this is both sensical and grammatically correct. The shaytān caused Mūsā’s companion to forget the fish that he should mention it (to Mūsā).
  6. 19:2; 19:16; 19:41, 19:51; 19:54; 19:56; 46:21: in these verses, the prophet is addressed in the the second person masculine singular to dhakara (ذَكَرَ) in the law. It is impossible to suggest dhakara (ذَكَرَ) means remember without creating many discrepancies within the Qur’an. In verses 7:157, 7:158, 60:2 and 93:6, the prophet is declared unschooled (i.e. he was not schooled in the law and system of God vis-à-vis previous revelation from God) and that the prophet was astray until being guided. The prophet was never at any point in his lifetime a Nazarene’ nor Jew, nor was he previously schooled and learned in the kitāb nor dīn of a God. The Qur’an demonstrates this point in many other places aside from those aforementioned verses. Therefore to read dhakara (ذَكَرَ) as remember, is to imply the prophet had prior knowledge of kitāb and dīn which he did not. The Arabic word dhakara (ذَكَرَ), serves to initiate narrative: 2-16, 16-41, 51-54, 54-56. The Arabic word dhakara (ذَكَرَ) here serves a separate function to the Arabic word qul (say). Dhakara (ذَكَرَ) can only therefore mean mention. The prophet was instructed to mention in the law these narratives unto the people.
  7. 21:36: in this verse, those who rejected had mocked the prophet and said: “is this he who dhakara (ذَكَرَ) your gods?” And they are of the dhik’ri of the Gracious, rejecters.” I translate the Arabic word dhakara (ذَكَرَ) again to mean mention, firstly because in the preceding verses 21 and 26, the prophet had mentioned their gods. And secondly, it is both illogical and an objective impossibility for anybody to read the mind of the prophet.
  8. 21:60: in this verse, Ibrāhim’s enemies state that they had overheard Ibrahim dhakara (ذَكَرَ) their idols. Again, it is an objective impossibility for them to have overheard Ibrāhim remembering their god’s – I do not think this needs any further elaboration. On the contrary, Ibrāhim’s enemies did overhear him mentioning their god’s, and for more insight please see the following verses and their contexts: 6:74, 26:71, 37:91.
  9. 24:36: in this verse, as I said in regard to verse 2;114, we may remember God at anytime or anyplace. It is the mentioning and exalting of God’s name within our homes and places of worship whereby we give glory morning and night.
  10. 39:45: in this verse it is stated: “when God alone is dhukira, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter shrink with aversion, but when those other than Him are dhukira , immediately they rejoice“. In this verse, the Arabic word dhukira must mean mention, because the context is regarding both interactions and exchanges between the two groups (one groups being idolaters, and one groups being submitted unto the One God). Furthermore, I do not see it reasonable to suggest that those who do not believe in the hereafter remember God alone.
  11. 47:20: in regard to this verse, throughout the Qur’an fighting was mentioned on numerous occasions. It is not tenable to suggest that fighting was remembered in the Qur’an.

I urge you conduct analysis of dhakara (ذَكَرَ) to verify the various other instances where the Qur’an rejects the dhakara (ذَكَرَ) definition of remember and instead permits mention.

It is axiomatic that the Arabic word dhakara (ذَكَرَ) must mean mention in the passages I have presented above.

The question then becomes, does dhakara (ذَكَرَ) mean mention in those instances where it regards dietary laws and slaughter?

I have already proven that a prescribed method of slaughter is declared within the Qur’an. To answer the aforementioned question I cite the following verses.

So eat of that over which the name of God has been mentioned if you believe in his proofs. And why should you not eat of that over which the name of God has been mentioned, when He has set out and detailed to you what is forbidden, except that you be compelled thereto? And many are led astray by their vain desires without knowledge. Indeed your Lord, He is most-knowing of the transgressors.

6:118-119

And eat not of that over which the name of God has not been mentioned, for indeed it is defiance. And the shaytāns instruct their allies to dispute with you and if you obey them, you are idolaters.

6:121

In regard to verses 6:118-119 and 6:121, the context regards dietary laws – not food in general. How do we refute the argument and propositions advanced by those who claim that dhakara (ذَكَرَ) means remember in these passages?

The refutation is simple; in verse 6:118-119 it says: “and why should you not eat of that over which the name of God has been mentioned, when He has set out and detailed to you what is forbidden, except that you be compelled thereto?

It is both irrational and impossible for anyone to be compelled or forced to meat over which the name of God had not been remembered!

On the contrary, one can be compelled or forced to eat meat that has not been slaughtered or dedicated to God. (e.g. due to dire hunger and on the verge of starvation). Only when dhakara (ذَكَرَ) is translated to mean mention is there both a rational and sensical reading of this verse.

Context (lives) matter“.

And for every community We appointed a rite, that they may mention the name of God over what He has provided them of livestock. For your god is one God, so to Him submit. And, give glad tidings to the humble, those whose hearts are afraid when God is mentioned, and the patient over what befalls them, and those who uphold the adherence, and from what We provide them they spend. And the camels and cattle We have appointed for you among the symbols of God, for you is good in them. So mention the name of over them when lined up and when they are down on their sides, then eat from them and feed the needy who ask and those who do not ask. Thus We have subjected them to you that you maybe grateful.

22:34-36

In the beginning of verse 22:36, the Arabic word bud’n (بُدْن) occurs, but it only occurs once in the Qur’an leaving it open to mistranslation. I translate this word as the Traditionalist Muslim does, to mean camels and cattle. Verses 22:34-36 unequivocally denotes the slaughtering of animals.

Checkpoint Summary

The One God commands His servants to the name of God over that which they slaughter, it could not be any simpler.

The prescribed method of slaughter is any method (namely the Jewish and Traditionalist Islamic method) is not outlawed or forbidden by the Qur’an. During slaughter, the name of God must be mentioned.


Section 4: The Torah & Tanakh

The Qur’an was sent down by God as a successive revelation to succeed the previous revelations sent down by God (the Torah, Gospel and parts of the Tanakh). In the Torah and Tanakh, the burnt offerings and sacrifices undeniably correspond with dietary laws. In the Torah and Tanakh, there are also statutes and stipulations that regard what is and is not forbidden or lawful – albeit, I must add that Talmud and other inventions by man are forbidden.

In verse 5:48, it is declared that the Qur’an is a control or guardian (muhaymin: مُهَيْمِن) over the previous revelations by God.

These are all important points to take note of because Quran sectarians are rejecters of the Torah and Tanakh, and this is a major cause for their straying and confusion (as seen above). Nowhere will you find a single statement abolishing the law of God contained within previous revelation, nor a single statement commanding the Jews and Nazarenes’ to abandon the Torah, Gospel and parts of the Tanakh. This is a pertinent unassailable point that must not go unmissed. The Qur’an was sent down by God to firstly confirm, and secondly both correct and update the law (i.e. the law in He sent down to them).

See below for more insight.

And how can they appoint you as judge when they have the Torah wherein is the judgement of God then turn away after that? And these are not believers.

5:43 (i.e. those who sought to appoint the prophet as judge instead of refer to the judgement of God within the Torah, are not believers)

Indeed, We sent down the Torah wherein is guidance and light, and the prophets judged who submitted judged with it the Jews, as did the rabbis, and the scholars with what they were entrusted of the law of God, and they were witnesses to it. So do not fear the people, but fear Me! And do not sell my proofs for a cheap price. And whoever does not judge by what God has revealed – these are rejecters. And we ordained in it: the life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and wounds for retribution, but whoever gives charity then it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what God has revealed then they are the wrongdoers. And We sent, following in their footsteps ‘Īsā son of Maryam, confirming what is between his hands of the Torah and we gave him the Gospel, in it is guidance and light, and confirming what is between his hands of the Torah, and as a guidance and exhortation for the conscious. And let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it. And whoever does not judge by what God has revealed, then those are the wantonly disobedient.

5:44-45

And we revealed to you the law in truth, confirming what is within His hands of the law and as a control over it. So judge between them by what God has revealed and do not follow their vain desires away from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made a ordinance and a procedure. And had God had willed, He would have made you one community, but so that he might test you in what he has given you. So race to good deeds, to God you shall return altogether, then He will inform you concerning that wherein you differ.

5:48

And had they believed in God and the prophet and what had been revealed to him, they would not have taken them as allies. But many of them are wantonly disobedient. You will find the strongest of people in enmity to those who believe, the Jews and the idolaters. And you will find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe, those who say: “we are Nazarenes'”. That is because among them are priests and monks, and because they are not arrogant. And when they listen to what has been revealed to the messenger you see their eyes with tears for what they recognise of the truth. They say: “our Lord, we have believed so record us among the witnesses. And how could we not believe in God and what came to us of the truth? And we hope that our Lord will admit us with the righteous people”. So God rewarded them for what they said with gardens beneath which rivers flow abiding eternally therein, and that is the reward of the doers of good.

5:81-85

If Qur’an was the first revelation sent down from God upon mankind, it would have expounded upon an array subjects, the likes of dietary law, in other words we would have been delivered a primordial step-by-step process of dietary laws.

In actuality, the submitted believers were expected to know the Torah and Tanakh, at least to some elementary degree. We know this because regarding dietary law, the Qur’an was sent to amend and update previous revelation from our Lord, the Almighty – not to replace and usurp them.

My point to you is that, sectarianism amongst Quran followers is rife and deviant. I should not have to spend a day or two writing up this article to undo and debunk the falsehood and complexity of foolery that Quranic zealous sectarians have laid down.

This day are made lawful for you: the good things, and the food of those who were given the law is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And the chaste women among the believing women and the chaste women among those who were given law from before you when you give them their dowries being chaste and not lustful nor taking secret lovers. And whoso denies the faith then surely his works are in vain and he in the hereafter will be among the losers.

5:5

The appointed rite of slaughter was already in place during the time of Qur’anic revelation; the Jews and Nazarene’s were practicing it. We, submitted believers, have received the dictates from God commanding us to continue on with this worldwide renowned practice and mention the name of God over that which we slaughter and eat of meat, and to not eat that dedicated to other than God.


Section 5: Good Food According To Qur’an

O you who believe, do not forbid the good things that God has made lawful for you and do not transgress. Indeed, God does not love the transgressors. And eat of what God has provided you, lawful and good. And cognise God in whom you are believers.

5:87-88

Made lawful for you is the game of the sea and the food thereof as a provision for you and for those who travel. But forbidden to you is the game of the land as long as you are forbidden. And cognise God to whom you will be gathered.

5:96

The Arabic root ṭā yā bā (ط ي ب) is from where the Arabic word for good derives (ṭayyib: طَيِّب – ṭayyibāt: طَيِّبَٰت – ṭayyibat: طَيِّبَة).

The general meaning of these words are pure; clean; healthy; good. It is important to understand this because it is not as simple as saying good things are made lawful, when in fact clean, pure and good things have been lawful.

Note that in this verse that it states game is forbidden.


Section 6: False Religious Innovations

And they make for God from what He produced of tilth and cattle a portion, and they say “this is for God” (according to their claim), and “this is for our partners“, but what is for their partners does not reach God, and what is for God it reaches their partners. Evil is what thy judge.

6:136

And likewise, it is made fair to many among the idolaters by their partners, the killing of their children that they might bring them to ruin and obfuscate their system for them. And had God willed they would not do it. So leave them and what they fabricate.

6:137

And they say: “these cattle and tilth are forbidden, none is to eat them save whom we will” (according to their claim), and cattle whose backs were forbidden and cattle over which they do not mention the name of God as an invention against Him. He will recompense them for what they invented.

6:138

And they say: “what is in the bellies of such cattle is exclusively for our males and forbidden to our wives, and if it be dead that they are all partners therein“. He will recompense them for their description, He is wise, knowing.

6:139

Certainly they have lost, those who foolishly kill their children without knowledge and forbid what God has provided to them, inventing lies about God. Certainly they have gone astray and are not guided-ones.

6:140

And He is the One who produced gardens trellised and other than trellised and the date-palm and crops diverse in its food and the olive and the pomegranate alike and not alike. Eat of its fruit when it bears fruit and render its due on the day of harvest, and do not be excessive, God does not love the excessive.

6:141

And of the cattle for burden and meat. Eat of what God provided you and do not follow the footsteps of the shaytān, indeed he is an open enemy to you.

6:142

Eight pairs of sheep two, and of goats two; say: “has He forbidden the two males or the two females? Or what the wombs of the two females? Inform me with knowledge of you be truthful.

6:143

And if the camels two and of the oxen two. Say: “has he forbidden the two males or the two females? If what is in the woman of the two females contain: or if you were witnesses when God enjoined this upon you: then who is more unhurt than he who invents a lie about God that he might lead people astray without knowledge?” God does not guide not the wrongdoing people.

6:144

Say: I do not find anything in what has been revealed to me to one who eats it except that it be carrion or blood poured forth or the flesh of swine for indeed it is filth, or it be defiance dedicated to other than God. And whoever is forced, neither desiring nor transgressing then indeed your Lord is forgiving, merciful.

6:145

And to those who are Jews, We forbade every animal with a claw and of the ox and the sheep, We forbade to them their fat, except what their backs carried, or the entrails or what is mixed with bone. That is their recompense for their rebelliousness. And indeed we are truthful.

6:146

Verses 6:136-146 highlight to us that those who invent dietary laws (or any laws for that matter) have gone astray, are wantonly disobedient, and a wrongdoing people. These verses just so happen to concern the ‘Jews’ and the ‘Muslims’, as they invent many rituals and laws in the name of the one God.


Section 7: To Conclude

I exhort you to clarify with a farm or slaughter house from where your meat was slaughtered whether or not it is lawful.

If a slaughter house provides sufficient proof that they indeed kill their meat in a particular way which is lawful but lie, the lie is upon them.

Kashér (כָּשֵׁר‎) or kosher, and halāl (حَلَال) labelled products, including other animals dedicated to God alone during slaughter are the only lawful meat products that we as submitters are permitted to consume, unless we slaughter the animal ourselves according to the prescribed method of slaughter.

We are commanded to eat that which is pure, clean and good.

We are commanded to not engage within rituals or rites which are latter inventions by mankind.

I hope this article has been insightful, I hope it was worth your time and has benefitted you.

For more content you can head to the menu.

Like, share and subscribe.

Peace and may God bless you,

Alex Matityahu

Rating: 5 out of 5.