Fifth Chapter: Those whose slaughter is valid and those whose slaughter is not

In the Sacred Law three categories are mentioned:

1. a class concerning whom there is unanimous agreement that their slaughter is lawful;
2. a class concerning whom there is unanimous agreement that their slaughter is unlawful; and
3. a class about whom the jurists have differed.

First: the class whose slaughter is unanimously lawful. It is every person who fulfills five conditions: he is Muslim, male, of age, sane, and does not neglect the prayer.

Second: the class whose slaughter is unanimously unlawful. They are the idol-worshipping polytheists, by virtue of the Exalted One’s words, “and that which has been sacrificed on stone altars” (al-Māʾidah 5:3) and “and that over which a name other than Allah’s has been invoked” (al-Māʾidah 5:3).

Third: those about whom opinion has differed. They are many, yet the ten most noted are: the People of the Book, the Magians, the Sabians, women, minors, the insane, the intoxicated, the one who neglects the prayer, the thief, and the usurper.

The People of the Book
The scholars agree that the meat they slaughter is lawful, in light of His words, “The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them” (al-Māʾidah 5:5). They disagree, however, over the particulars. They concur that if the slaughterers are neither the Christian tribe of Banū Taghlib nor apostates; if they slaughter for themselves; if it is known that they pronounced Allah’s name over the animal; and if the animal is not among that which was forbidden to them in the Torah or which they later forbade themselves—then their meat is permissible, save for the fat.

They diverge when the opposite of these conditions obtains: should they slaughter on behalf of a Muslim by his authorization; should the slaughterers be Banū Taghlib Christians or apostates; should it be unknown whether they invoked Allah’s name; should the purpose of their slaughter be unclear; should it be established that they invoked other than Allah when slaughtering for their churches and festivals; or should the animal be one prohibited to them in the Torah—“every creature with claws” (al-Anʿām 6:146)—or one they forbade themselves, such as animals the Jews reject because of an inherent congenital defect. They likewise disagree with respect to the fat.

If they slaughter by deputization of a Muslim, two views are transmitted from Mālik: one permitting, the other prohibiting. The root of the disagreement is whether a Muslim’s slaughter requires the belief that the meat becomes lawful only under the Islamic conditions. Whoever makes intention a condition says that the slaughter of a Person of the Book on behalf of a Muslim does not render the meat lawful, because that intention cannot be validly formed by him. Whoever denies that intention is required—and gives precedence to the general wording, “The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you” (al-Māʾidah 5:5)—permits it. The same applies to those who deem the intention of the Muslim who commissioned the slaughter sufficient; this is the original position of Ibn Wahb.

The second issue concerns the slaughter of the Christian Arab tribe of Banū Taghlib and of apostates. The majority hold that the slaughter of Arab Christians is governed by the same ruling as that of the People of the Book; this is the position of Ibn ʿAbbās. Others do not permit their slaughter; this is one of the two opinions narrated from al-Shāfiʿī and is reported from ʿAlī—may Allah be pleased with him.