In the first verse of Surah al-MaÕidah, the lawfulness of domestic animals such as the goat, cow and buffalo has been described. The third verse has a detail of nine kinds of unlawful animals. From that detail to the opening sentence of the present verse, we come to know in summation the essentials of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of animals as well as its operating standard and rule.

The verse opens with the words: (This day, good things have been made lawful for you). Here, 'this day' means the day on which this verse and those before it have been revealed, that is, the Day of 'Arafah in the Last Hajj of Hijrah 10. The sense is that the way your Faith has been made perfect and the blessing of Allah stands completed for you on this day, very similarly, good things from Allah which were already lawful for you have been allowed to stay lawful for ever. The probability that the injunction could be withdrawn does not exist anymore because the ongoing process of revelation was to be discontinued.

This sentence mentions the lawfulness of good things. But, another verse (7:157): (Made lawful for them are good things and made unlawful for them are evil things). Here, by placing 'At-Tayyibat' (good things) against 'Al-KhabaÕith' (impure things), the reality of both words has been made clear. Lexically, things good, pure, clean and delightful are called 'At-Tayyibat'; and in contrast, 'Al-Khabaith' is used to denote things which are evil and disgusting. Therefore, this sentence of the verse stresses that everything good, pure and beneficial has been made lawful for human beings and everything disgusting and harmful has been made unlawful. The reason is that human beings are not like animals whose purpose of life is limited to eating, drinking, sleeping, waking - being no more than a sort of live-die cycle. Nature has made them the master of the universe for some special purpose and that cannot be achieved without having high and pure morals. Therefore, immoral human beings would really not deserve to be counted as human beings.

That is why the Holy QurÕan has said about such people: , that is, they are like cattle, rather more astray. Now if we accept that the 'humanity' of human beings depends on the betterment of their morals, it will become necessary to concede that they must be made to totally abstain from everything which leads to the corruption of human morals. Everyone knows how environment and society affect human morals. When things outside can do that to human morals, just imagine what would be the effect of things which go inside the human body for what becomes a part of the human body must affect its ethical behaviour. Therefore, caution must necessarily be observed in all foods and drinks. And let us keep in mind that unlawful income from theft, robbery, bribery, interest, gambling and evils like that, once it becomes part of anyone's body, will inevitably remove one farther from humanity and nearer to 'satanic nature.'

Hence, says the Holy QurÕan: (O' Messengers, eat from good things [made lawful as sustenance] and do righteous deeds - 23:51). Here, the command to be righteous in deeds refers itself back to the command to eat from what is Halal (lawful) because without eating Halal, righteous deeds cannot be imagined. This consideration is very important specially in the case of meat which becomes an integral part of the human body. One has to be most cautious and guard against the possibility of non-Halal meat entering his system through food and go on to spoil his morals. Similar is the case of meat which is physically harmful for human beings as the carrier of bacteria causing disease and death. Everyone knows that abstention from such meat is necessary. As for things declared evil by the Shari'ah of Islam, these are definitely agents of corruption for the human body or the soul or both. Since they are dangerous for human life and morals, they were made unlawful. As opposed to this, good things, the 'Tayyibat' contribute to the nurture and flowering of the human body, soul and morals - so, they were made lawful. In this way, this brief sentence of the QurÕan has given to us the philosophy and ground rules of the lawful and the unlawful, so to say, in a nutshell.

Now, as to which things are pure, beneficial and desirable and which others are impure, harmful and disgusting, the real decision of the matter lies with the desire and aversion of one's inherent good taste. This is the reason why animals declared unlawful by Islam have been considered impure and disgusting by people of good taste during every period of time - for instance, carrion and blood. Nevertheless, there come occasions when custom-based ignorance overpowers good taste and when the fine line between good and bad fades out. Or, the evil in some things is concealed. In such situations, the decision of the prophets, peace be on all of them, is the guiding and binding authority for everyone. The reason is that the noble prophets are the foremost in commonsense, decency, goodness and taste among human beings. They were specially gifted by Almighty Allah with an instrinsically sound and balanced nature and He Himself took the responsibility of their nurture and grooming. One might say that they rose to be what they were under a Divine security shield manned by angels which saw to it that their minds and hearts and morals would never be affected by any evil environment. So, things they took as evil are really evil; and what they found to be good is really good.

In Hujjatullah al-Balighah, Shah Waliyyullah says that all animals declared unlawful by the Shari'ah of Islam, when observed closely, will all fit compactly under two principles: one - an animal is evil by its nature and disposition; two - the method of slaughtering the animal is wrong, as a result of which it will be considered 'dead' ( 'Maitah' - carrion), not slaughtered.

In the third verse of Surah al-MaÕidah, things called unlawful are nine in number. Out of these, the 'swine' is part of the first kind; the rest of the eight are in the second. By saying: (He allows them as lawful what is good [and pure] and prohibits them from what is bad [and impure] - 7:157 - AYA, rev. ed., Madinah) the Holy QurÕan declares the general rule that all evil animals are unlawful. For details, the Holy QurÕan points out to some clearly, for instance, ' the flesh of swine' and 'flowing blood'... The enumeration of the rest was entrusted to the Holy Prophet . One sign of an animal being evil he gave was that a people could have been punished by having been transformed (Maskh) into the form of an animal. This indicates that the particular animal is evil by its very nature as Divine wrath transformed it into an animal. For example, says the Holy QurÕan: 

which means that some peoples have been transformed into swines and monkeys as punishment. This proves that both these kinds of animals are evil by nature - they, even if slaughtered, would still not become lawful. Then there are animals whose very doings and likings are sufficient for people of natural disposition to sense the evil inside them. For instance, there are beasts who live by injuring, tearing and eating other animals - a hard-hearted lifestyle indeed.

Therefore, when someone asked about a wolf from the Holy Prophet , he said: "Can a human being eat it?" Similarly, there are many animals among crawlers and fliers whose very nature is to hurt or snatch away things, for instance, the snake, scorpion, house-lizard, fly, or a kite and falcon and others like them. So, the Holy Prophet set the rule that animals among beasts which tear animals apart with teeth, such as the lion and the wolf and others of their kind, and animals among birds such as the falcon and the hawk and others of their kind which hunt with their claws, are all unlawful; or, animals which are by nature mean and low or get themselves befouled with impurities, such as the rat or animals which eat carrion, or the donkey and similar others, all fall under the category of animals the physical properties and harmfulness of which is readily sensed by any human being with a normal mind and temperament.

To recapitulate, we can say that the animals which have been made unlawful under the Shari'ah of Islam are of two kinds: Those intrinsically evil and those which are not evil by themselves but they have not been slaughtered following the method of slaughtering animals ordained by Almighty Allah. This includes all other options such as the animal was not slaughtered at all - but was killed by shock or blow - or the act of slaughtering did take place, but rather than pronounce the name of Allah on it, a name other than that of Allah was recited, or just no name was pronounced by knowingly omitting the name of Allah at the time of slaughter. Such Dhibh or slaughter is equally untrustworthy and invalid in view of the Shari'ah. In fact, this is very much like having 'killed' an animal without proper slaughter.

Something worth attention here is that everything one eats and drinks comes to him as a blessing from Allah, but, excepting the animals, no restriction has been imposed on cooking or eating anything from them other than that which would make it necessary for you to say 'Allahu-Akbar' or 'Bismillah' invariably before cooking and eating, as if, that food would not be lawful without it. At the most, the saying of 'Bismillah' at the time of eating and drinking anything has been classified as desirable or recommended ('Mustahabb' : acts the neglect of which is not punished by Allah, but the performance of which is rewarded). Contrary to this is the matter of animals, for it has been made necessary ('Wajib') that the name of Allah be invoked while slaughtering them - and if, anyone were to leave out the name of Allah at the time of the slaughter, the animal was declared to be carrion, and unlawful: What is the wisdom behind it?

A little deliberation makes it clear that the lives of all living beings are equal in a way. Therefore, the act of one life form whereby another life form is slaughtered and exterminated should, obviously, be not permissible. Now, for those it has been made permissible, it is a major reward from Allah. That is why the realization of the presence of this Divine blessing and the expression of gratitude for it has been made necessary at the time of slaughtering the animal. This is contrary to the case of things like grains and fruits - their very growth is for the sole purpose that human beings use them up to fulfill their needs. Therefore, the saying of 'Bismillah' only whenever used has been placed at the level of being desirable ('Mustahabb') - it has not been made necessary ('Wajib': a duty which, if not done, brings punishment).

The second sentence of the Verse is:

  (and the food of the people of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them ... ). According to the consensus of Sahabah and Tabi'in (the Companions and their Successors), the word 'Ta'am' (food) at this place means 'properly slaughtered animals' (Dhabihah). This is what has been reported from Sayyidna 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, Abu ad-DardaÕ, Ibrahim, Qatadah, al-Suddi, Dhahhak and Mujahid, may Allah be pleased with them all (Ruh al-Ma'ani and al-Jassas) - because, in foods of all other kinds, the people of the Book and the idolators and all other disbelievers are just the same as bread, flour, lintels, beans, rice, fruits and similar other eatables need no slaughtering. For Muslims, eating that kind of food, of course, when procured by any lawful means, is permissible - and conversely, when they procure it from Muslims, it is lawful for them. Thus, the essence of the sentence is that the Dhabihah (properly slaughtered animal) of the People of the Book is lawful for Muslims and the Dhabihah (properly slaughtered animal) of Muslims is lawful for the People of the Book.

At this point, there are some issues which should be considered. First of all, who are the People of the Book in the terminology of the QurÕan and Sunnah? What does 'Book' mean? And, is it also necessary that, in order to be regarded as the People of the Book, these people believe in and act according to their Book, correctly and faithfully? Here, it is obvious that the Book cannot be taken in its literal sense, that is, any written page. It can only mean a particular Book which has come from Allah. Therefore, there is a consensus of Muslim Ummah that 'Book' could only mean a particular Scripture about which there exists a certitude that, confirmed by the Holy QurÕan, it is the Book of Allah, for instance, the Torah, Evangile, Zabur (Psalms) and other scriptures of of Sayyidna Musa and Ibrahim. Therefore, peoples and nations which believe in some book and claim for it the status of a Divine Revelation - and which does not stand proved through the certain sources of the QurÕan and Sunnah - shall not be included under the term of the People of the Book, for example, the disbelievers of Makkah, the Magians or the Zoroastrians, the idol-worshipping Hindus, the Buddhists, Aryans, Sikhs and many others.

This tells us that the Jews and Christians who are believers of the Torah and the Evangile are included within the QurÕanic terminology of The People of the Book. The Sabians, a third people, cannot be identified precisely. Those who think that they believed in the Psalms of David (Zabur) are inclined towards including them too among The People of the Book. Those who were convinced that they had nothing to do with the Psalms, take them to be star-worshippers. They group them together with the idolators and Magians. However, the Jews and Christians are the ones who are called The People of the Book by universal agreement. Now, we can return to the gist of the QurÕanic injunction, that is, the Dhabihah (slaughter) of Jews and Christians is Halal for Muslims and the Dhabihah of Muslims is Halal for them.

As for the need to first determine the basis of calling and understanding the Jews and Christians as the People of the Book, one may ask: Is it bound with the condition that they should genuinely believe in the original Torah and Evangile and act in accordance with these? Or, even those who follow the altered Torah and Evangile and those who ascribe to Sayyidna 'Isa and Sayyidah Maryam, may Allah bless them both, partnership in the Divinity of God, shall be deemed as included among the People of the Book? The answer is that it is quite evident from the many clarifications of the QurÕan that for a people to be from 'The People of the Book', it is quite enough that they accept and believe in a Scripture and claim to follow it - irrespective of how much astray they may have gone while following it.

Those to whom the Holy QurÕan gave the title of The People of the Book were also those about whom it said at several places that these people distort their Scriptures: (5:13). It also said that the Jews took Sayyidna 'Uzayr Ùäéç as the son of God and the Christians did the same to Sayyidna Masih 

(9:30).

 When, despite what they were and what they did, the Holy QurÕan insisted on calling them The People of the Book, it becomes evident that - unless the Jews and Christians were to abandon Judaism and Christianity totally - they shall continue to be the People of the Book, no matter how involved in false beliefs of their religion and dark doings they may be.

Imam al-Jassas reports in Ahkam al-QurÕan that during the Khilafah of Sayyidna 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, one of his governors wrote to him for advice. He said that there were some people in his area who recited the Torah and observed the Sabbath like the Jews but they did not believe in Qiyamah (the Last Day). He wanted to know how he was supposed to deal with such people. Sayyidna 'Umar wrote back telling him that they will be taken as a sect of The People of the Book after all.

These days a very large number of people in Europe (and elsewhere) who are listed in the Census records as Jews and Christians do not really believe in the existence of God and, for that matter, do not subscribe to any institutionalized religion. They do not accept the Torah and Evangile as Scriptures, nor do they have faith in Sayyidna Musa and 'Isa (Moses and Jesus), may peace be upon them, as prophets or messengers of Allah. It is obvious that such people cannot be counted as included under the injunction governing the People of the Book simply because their names are listed as Jews and Christians in the Census records.