“The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you.”
(al-Māʾidah 5:5)

Scholars have differed on this point. The opinion that accords most closely with the Qur’an and the Sunnah is the one supported by the bulk of Imam Aḥmad’s statements, namely that such meat is forbidden—even though some of our later jurists omit this report altogether. The reason is that the general wording of Allah’s statement, “and whatever has had a name other than Allah’s invoked over it, and whatever has been slaughtered on the altars” (al-Māʾidah 5:3), remains unqualified by any exception. By contrast, the permissibility of the food of the People of the Book is itself conditional upon a valid slaughter (dhakāh); if a Scripturalist slaughters in an impermissible manner, his slaughter is not lawful to eat.

At best, the slaughter of a Person of the Scripture is treated like that of a Muslim. Yet were a Muslim to slaughter for someone other than Allah, or to invoke a name besides His at the time of slaughter, the meat would be forbidden—and he would thereby commit disbelief. The same ruling, then, applies to a dhimmī. Allah, Exalted be He, says: “The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them” (al-Māʾidah 5:5), placing the two on an equal footing. Even though they themselves deem such slaughter permissible while we do not, it does not follow that everything they consider lawful is actually lawful.

Moreover, when two pieces of evidence conflict—one prohibiting and the other permitting—the prohibitive text takes precedence. In addition, we know with certainty that slaughtering for other than Allah, or invoking another name while slaughtering, is not part of the religion of the Prophets, peace be upon them; it is a form of polytheism they later introduced. The rationale that initially rendered their slaughter lawful therefore does not apply in this case. Allah knows best.

If it be said: When they explicitly pronounce a name other than Allah, such as saying, “In the name of the Messiah,” the prohibition is obvious. But what if they mention no name, yet intend the sacrifice for the Messiah?