{"id":5924,"date":"2024-07-10T07:41:47","date_gmt":"2024-07-10T07:41:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/al-mawrid.org\/questions-en\/2024\/07\/10\/wearing-silk-and-eating-flesh-of-animals-slaughtered-by-the-non-muslims\/"},"modified":"2024-07-10T13:18:57","modified_gmt":"2024-07-10T13:18:57","slug":"wearing-silk-and-eating-flesh-of-animals-slaughtered-by-the-non-muslims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/al-mawrid.org\/questions-en\/wearing-silk-and-eating-flesh-of-animals-slaughtered-by-the-non-muslims\/","title":{"rendered":"Wearing Silk And Eating Flesh Of Animals Slaughtered By The Non-Muslims"},"content":{"rendered":"

Question<\/h3>\n

I want to ask whether it is really haram for men to wear silk and gold? I have not found anything to this effect in the Qur\u2019an, however people do quote some hadiths to support this concept. On the other hand, Surah Al-A\u2018r\u0101f clearly negates the possibility of anyone making haram the ‘zeenat’ that Allah has ordained for his servants. Please clarify. Also, is it permissible to eat beef \/ chicken etc. in Europe without knowing whether or not it is zabiha? Most Arab Muslims recite bismillah and eat it – the reasoning is that there is no need to investigate the way the animal was slaughtered and it is the food of the ahl-e kitab<\/em>. They obviously don’t eat pork, as the animal itself is haram, but they do eat chicken, beef and mutton. I travel to Europe frequently and hence this is a significant question for me. <\/p>\n

Answer<\/h3>\n

The Qur\u2019an directs us not to be an extravagant person and calls extravagant persons, brothers of Satan (Qur\u2019an, 17:26, 27, 7:31). If we look at all the Ahadith in which the Prophet (sws) has prohibited wearing silk and gold we will come to the understanding that the Prophet (sws) considered using these materials to be an act of extravagance. In Bukhari, the book of clothing, there is a Hadith that says that the Prophet (sws) was presented with a silk cloth and he wore it and prayed with it but after the prayer he took it out and said: \u201cThis cloth is not suitable for the God fearing\u201d. <\/p>\n

As Muslims we need to avoid acting and consuming extravagantly and this in no way is limited to use of silk and gold. At any time and in any society, based on the norms and standards of that time and that society, going above certain limits in consumption can be seen as Israaf (extravagance). <\/div>\n
As for the meat slaughtered by Ahl Al-Kitab, the reason the Qur\u2019an allowed consuming it was that at the time Ahl Al-Kitab who were in interaction with Muslims used to follow their Shar\u012b\u2018ah (religious rules) when slaughtering an animal. <\/div>\n
In our time, it seems like only Jews are still following their Shar\u012b\u2018ah and Christians are not. <\/div>\n
Reciting the name of God when eating the animal is not enough unless we know that the person who has slaughtered the animal would recite the Name normally and we are not sure whether in that particular occasion he has recited the Name or not.<\/div>\n
Counter Question:<\/strong><\/div>\n
\n
\n
Many thanks for your response. However, I would like you to elaborate a bit more on the following points<\/div>\n
1. I agree that extravagance is undesirable, but you would agree that extravagance means different things to different people, based upon how much Allah has blessed them. Hence, is it fair to say that neither silk nor gold are haram<\/em>, but extravagant use of them (as of any other item) is haram<\/em>?<\/div>\n
Moreover, the issue is that the hadiths<\/em> quoted in support of their being haram<\/em> say that they are only haram<\/em> for men – surely if the issue was extravagance then that would apply to women also?<\/div>\n
Also, do you agree that no-one besides Allah, including the Prophet (may peace and Allah’s blessings be upon him), has the authority to define haram<\/em> and halal<\/em>? If this is the case, then anything that is not defined as haram<\/em> in the Quran by Allah should not be considered haram<\/em>. <\/div>\n
2. As for the food of Ahl-i Kitab<\/em>, would you not agree that Allah knew full well that some of these people (e.g. Christians in the present time) would abandon their Shari\u2019ah<\/em>? Keeping this in view, why would the Quran create ambiguity on such an important issue? There is no disclaimer stating that the food of ahl-e kitab is only halal<\/em> provided they are following their Shari\u2019ah<\/em>, or that we can marry the women of Ahl-i Kitab<\/em> provided they are following their Shari\u2019ah<\/em> in full? In any case, if either the Jews or Christians followed their religion fully, they would become Muslims, as their scriptures has already foretold the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)!<\/div>\n
Moreover, we are told not to do ‘tajassus’<\/em> – so why go into the details of who slaughtered the animal and whether or not the takbir<\/em> was said? We know that the animal has not been slaughtered in the name of any being other than Allah, and since the animal by itself is not haram<\/em> and is the food of Ahl-i Kitab<\/em>, why can we not take the name of Allah on it and eat it? This is practiced by a large number of God-fearing Arab Muslims. <\/div>\n
Please advise in a bit more detail.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Response<\/strong>:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
1. In my original reply to your question I said:<\/div>\n
\n
At any time and in any society, based on the norms and standards of that time and that society, going above certain limits in consumption can be seen as Israaf<\/em> (extravagance).<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The key words here are norms and societies (and not individual opinions and perceptions). If there is a society in which wearing gold and silk by ordinary people is totally normal then I would agree that in such a society wearing these materials are not examples of extravagance. I am however not aware of any such society at our time and I think it is very unlikely to have such a society in future. I think that in most of the societies of our time, just like the time of the Prophet (sws), wearing gold or silk is considered as extreme luxury.<\/div>\n
2. I would like to comment on a few points you raised that might clarify the issue under discussion:<\/div>\n
– You wrote:<\/div>\n
\n
Why would the Quran create ambiguity on such an important issue?<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Actually there is no ambiguity here. We know from the Qur’an (6:119 -121) that we are supposed to pronounce the name of the Almighty when slaughtering a halal<\/em> animal otherwise we cannot eat the meat. We then read in the Qur’an (5:5) that the meat produced by Ahl-I kitab<\/em> is halal<\/em> for us. Obviously these two directives cannot be in contradiction with each other. The most obvious answer to this apparent contradiction is that the reason Muslims were allowed to consume the meat produced by Ahl-I kitab<\/em> is that those Ahl-I Kitab<\/em> who lived in the Arabian peninsula at the time used to follow their Shari\u2019ah<\/em> when slaughtering, including pronouncing the name of the Almighty. This is also inline with what we know from the history. This is also inline with the following narrative from Ali (ra):<\/div>\n
\n
Ubayda narrated from Ali (ra): Do not consume the slaughter of the Christians of Banu Taghlib since they have not held to any more of Christianity than their drinking of wine.” Musannaf<\/em> of Abd Al-Razaq 12715<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
– You wrote:<\/div>\n
\n
If either the Jews or Christians followed their religion fully, they would become Muslims, as their scriptures has already foretold the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). <\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The issue is not about Ahl-i Kit\u0101b <\/em>following their religion fully. It is about them following the specific directives of their Shari\u2019ah when it comes to slaughtering a halal<\/em> animal. <\/div>\n
– You wrote:<\/div>\n
\n
We are told not to do ‘tajassus’<\/em> – so why go into the details of who slaughtered the animal and whether or not the takbir<\/em> was said?<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
First please note that if by the above you are referring to the verse 49:12 then this verse has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Tajassus<\/em> in this verse refers to spying on others in order to defame them.<\/div>\n
As discussed above, the name of God has to be pronounced when slaughtering, even if it is slaughtered by Ahl-i Kitab<\/em>. We do not need to go through much detail when it comes to Ahl-i Kitab<\/em> and slaughtering of animals in our time. It is a known fact that from the Ahl-i Kitab<\/em> of our time, Jews do consider their Shari\u2019ah when slaughtering an animal while Christians generally do not do this.<\/div>\n
– You wrote:<\/div>\n
\n
Why can we not take the name of Allah on it and eat it? This is practiced by a large number of God-fearing Arab Muslims.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
We cannot do this because this goes against the Qur’an (as explained above). We can derive from a Hadith that we can only do this when the name of the Almighty has not been pronounced simply due to mistake.<\/div>\n
I am sure you agree with me that something that is practiced by a large number of God-fearing people can still be wrong. I can provide you with tens of examples!<\/div>\n

Hope this clarifies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Answered by:<\/strong> Farhad Shafti<\/p>\n

Date:<\/strong> 2015-03-23<\/p>\n