SANHA’S LIES AND CARRION CORRUPTION 100% HARAAM CARRION
A Brother has posed a series of questions pertaining to SANHA’s carrion industry. The question shall be dealt with in a couple of articles, Insha-Allah.
Q. What is your view regarding reversible effects of the stunning?
A. Regardless of the effects of stunning being ‘reversible’. The Shariah can never accept a kaafir system or a system even if devised by Muslims, if such system displaces the system which was revealed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from Allah Ta’ala. It is tantamount to kufr for Muslims to reject and displace the Waajib holy system of Islam and to substitute it with a kaafir system in which cruelty is practised, and which system in entirety – 100% – displaces Allah’s system.
Q. I had the issue of stunning with SANHA as I was of the understanding that stunning prior to slaughtering is highly detested by senior Ulama all over the globe, and by even respected non-Muslim scientists. Furthermore, it has many negative consequences SANHA, however, is of the view that controlled stunning in commercial abattoirs is acceptable. On this issue SANHA submitted that ‘senior Ulama and pious predecessors’ have laid down the rules for acceptance of commercial slaughter based on their interpretation of public need, decades prior to the formation of SANHA. SANHA, however, did not expand on the above. I have researched to the best of my ability the Fatwas of senior Ulama and Pious Predecessors on this stunning issue, and I have found that all the senior Ulama and Pious Predecessors seem to be unanimous in detesting the stunning of animals, especially poultry prior to slaughtering. Please enlighten me regarding the senior Ulama and Pious Predecessors who had laid down the rules of acceptability of stunning of poultry, decades before SANHA as formed.
I quote below a recent Fatwa issued by Mufti Taqi Usmani on the stunning issue:
“The practice of rendering animals unconscious before slaughtering, which is carried out in different ways, consists of a number of undesirable and objectionable elements, for example:
- If this act is such that it causes the animal to lose all its senses and consciousness completely, then there is a risk that it will have caused the animal’s death before slaughter, especially if the animal was weak or ill.
- If this act is such that it does not cause the animal to lose all its senses and consciousness completely (such as a mild electrical shock that merely immobilizes the animal), then there is a strong possibility that the animal’s pain and suffering will have been unnecessarily increased, since the pain of slaughter remains due to its not being unconscious, and the pain and stress of the electric shock will have been administered additionally without any need.
- If this act makes the animal weak, compared to its normal and natural condition, and at the time of slaughter the animal is not at its full physical strength, then there is a risk that this will cause a reduction in the amount of blood that will flow from it at the time of slaughter compared to what might have flowed in the case of the animal being fully conscious and in full possession of its senses and physical strength. To undertake such a course of action deliberately is to oppose and counter a Shar’i requirement, i.e. the discharge of flowing blood.
- If the amount of blood discharged is reduced due to the animal’s weakness, then there is a risk that the remaining non-discharged blood will be absorbed into the meat of the animal, and this is an undesirable outcome both from a medical point of view and also according to the Shariah.
- If the person undertaking this way of slaughter believes it to be a less stressful and painful method than the prescribed Shar’i manner, then this is tantamount to believing that an invented method to be superior to a revealed one, and it means that the person believes that the revealed method of slaughter to be painful and cruel, which is close to disbelief (kufr). (Ref. Indaadul Fatawa, Vol.3, page 605 -608)
Due to these reasons, it is not correct in terms of the Shariah to render an animal unconscious before slaughter.
I have found further translated quotes authentically attributed to Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) who used the words ‘evil innovation’, ‘corruption of faith’, and ‘against the Shariah’, to describe the practice of stunning.
I am keen to hear exactly who amongst today’s Ulama as well as from those decades ago had refuted the Fatwa of the abovementioned great luminaries on the issue of stunning, and what is their reasoning and basis for refuting and negating the abovementioned Fatwa of Mufti Taqi and the rulings of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh).
A. Undoubtedly, all true Ulama reject as haraam pre-slaughter stunning, and every pre-slaughter infliction of injury to the animal. Numerous non-Muslim experts in this field too reject stunning and point out its harms.
When Islam rejects every act of injury before slaughter and when Allah Ta’ala has ordained a system of Thabah for the Ummah, then it is contumacy and flagrant transgression to aver that ‘controlled stunning’ or ‘controlled infliction of injury’ is acceptable. Ask SANHA for its Shar’i evidence for its contention of ‘acceptability’. A person’s personal view unsubstantiated by the evidence of the Shariah, is devoid of substance in Islam. The laws of Islam are sacrosanct. These laws and systems are revealed. They came from Allah Azza Wa Jal to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is haraam and tantamount to kufr to delete, change or displace these laws, ways and methods with systems invented by the kuffaar, especially when the Shariah is explicit in prohibiting pre-slaughter injury.
In Islam when the term ‘Pious Predecessors’ , i.e. Salf-e-Saaliheen, is mentioned, it refers to the Ulama, Sulaha, Fuqaha and Auliya of the three initial eras of Islam , which are known as Khairul Quroon (the Noblest Ages). There is not a single personality from the Salf-e-Saaliheen who condones what SANHA is saying and doing. SANHA will not be able to cite the name of a single Faqeeh or Aalim from among the Salf-e-Saaliheen who had contended the permissibility of pre-slaughter injury.
By senior Ulama, SANHA means senior Ulama from India and Pakistan who had been taken on visits of these plants from round about 1970 onwards. Let us assume that these senior Ulama from India and Pakistan had ‘laid down the rules for acceptance of commercial slaughter’. If senior Ulama err or if senior Ulama lay down rules which are in conflict with the Rules of the Shariah, then such conflicting rules will be set aside and attributed to errors committed by the senior Ulama. It is never permissible to follow the errors of the Ulama. Allaamah Sha’raani (rahmatullah alayh), the 10th century authority of Islam stated: “Whoever adopts the obscurities of the Ulama (as proof), has made his exit from Islam.” This is a principle which is based on the following Qur’aanic verse: “They take their Ulama and their Mashaaikh as gods besides Allah….”
In this Qur’aanic aayat Allah Ta’ala severely criticizes the laity (the masses) of Bani Israael who would blindly follow even the erroneous fatwas of their scholars and saints. When people follow such rulings of Ulama which are in conflict with Allah’s laws, then it is like they are committing shirk or they take ‘gods’ for themselves other than Allah Azza Wa Jal.
Furthermore, we take oath by Allah and say that there is not even a single one among these senior Ulama who had said that:
- It is permissible to slaughter without the direction of the Qiblah
- It is permissible to stun
- It is permissible to immerse the chickens in scalding water
- It is permissible to hang the chickens upside down and slaughter in motion on a tremendously fast-moving conveyor belt
- It is permissible to plunge the slaughtered chickens into the filthy, faeces and blood filled scalding water while there are still signs of life in the chickens.
None of the senior Ulama who had visited the killing plants had ever contended that stunning is permissible. If SANHA says so, then they are speaking brazen LIES. The logical and Shar’i consequence of devouring and halaalizing carrion is lies and falsehood, hence SANHA is perpetually in denial of the Haqq.
Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) who is the Ustaadh of this writer, had expressed disgust at the system of killing. If the other seniors had maintained silence, then such silence may not be utilized to abrogate any law of the Shariah.
No Aalim, regardless of his seniority, knowledge and piety, has the authority to ‘lay down rules’ which are in conflict with and negatory of the Laws laid down by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The truth is that none of the senior Ulama had ever laid down haraam rules as SANHA contends. The most capital which SANHA is able to extravasate from the visits of the senior Ulama is their silence or their abstention to comment on the various haraam steps in the haraam killing process. For their silence these senior Ulama are answerable to Allah Ta’ala. But their silence or even condonation is not proof of the Shariah whatsoever.
Undoubtedly, all the senior Ulama are unanimous in their condemnation of stunning and all haraam aspects of the kuffaar killing system. The Books of Fataawa of the senior Ulama bear abundant testimony to their views on this issue. SANHA resorts to brazen chicanery and deception to mislead Muslims by spinning and fabricating falsehood and portraying it as the truth.
Among the numerous articles we have sent, you will find the detailed Fatwa of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh), as well as the Fatwas of some other senior Ulama. There is absolutely no support for SANHA in any of their Fatwas.
You should challenge SANHA to name the senior Ulama from Pakistan and India who had laid down rules which conflict with the Shariah. By this statement, SANHA seeks to confuse and mislead Muslims. It creates the impression that among the ‘rules which they had laid down’, the senior Ulama had stated that it is permissible to stun and that it is permissible to abandon the Qiblah, etc. But this notion is blatantly false. Assuming that any of the senior Ulama of South Africa, decades ago, had laid down corrupt, haraam rules for slaughtering, then such rules will be rejected outrightly. It will be haraam to accept any rules which negate the divine rules of Allah Ta’ala. We do not elevate our senior Ulama to the status of godhood.
You should press SANHA to provide the names of the senior Ulama – the Predecessors – who had abrogated any aspect or rule of the Shariah. It is not sufficient to say that they had visited the plants and had not condemned the system. Also demand from SANHA to explain the Islamic system of slaughter, step by step.
To say that the senior Ulama had ‘laid down the rules’ is a smokescreen to keep the people ignorant of the rules laid down by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and explained by all the Fuqaha of all the Math-habs for the past fourteen centuries.
Despite Mufti Taqi Sahib being somewhat inclined towards liberalism, he too condemns the stunning system as you have mentioned. There is not a single one among the Ulama of even present times who dare rule against the Ruling of the senior Ulama regarding the issue of stunning, etc. And, how is it possible to issue a ruling in conflict with the Shariah? Only SANHA’s molvies, misguided grand muftis and mercenary scholars are capable of such villainy because the motive is monetary gain.
20 Rabiul-Awwaal 1445 – 6 October 2023