The cause of the divergence is this: does the Qur’ānic designation “those who were given the Scripture” extend to Arab Christians just as it plainly applies to the nations originally singled out for revelation—namely the Children of Israel and the Romans?
The Apostate
As for the apostate, the majority maintain that meat from an animal he has slaughtered may not be eaten. Isḥāq (ibn Rāhawayh) held it permissible, whereas al-Thawrī deemed it merely disliked.
The root of their disagreement is whether the apostate falls outside the term “People of the Book”—for he no longer enjoys their legal status—or whether he nonetheless remains included under it.
The Third Issue
If it is unknown whether the People of the Book pronounced the Name of Allah when slaughtering, the majority rule that the meat is lawful; this is also narrated from ʿAlī, and I know of no contrary opinion at present.
A possible objection, however, is to argue that the default is to eat from their slaughter only what satisfies the conditions required of a Muslim. If invoking the Name is one such condition, then their meat ought to be avoided whenever doubt arises on that point.
When it is established that they slaughtered the animal for their festivals or churches, the jurists split three ways: some view eating it as disliked—this is Mālik’s position; others permit it—Ashhab’s view; while al-Shāfiʿī declares it forbidden.
The reason for their disagreement is the collision of two general Qur’ānic texts in this matter. The verse, “The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you” (al-Māʾidah 5:5), may be taken as a specification of the verse, “and that over which a name other than Allah has been invoked” (al-Māʾidah 5:3); equally, the latter may be understood as restricting the former, for each can conceivably be treated as an exception to the other.
Thus, whoever treats “and that over which a name other than Allah has been invoked” (5:3) as specifying “The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you” (5:5) rules that meat dedicated to churches and festivals is impermissible. Whoever reverses the matter deems it permissible.
If the animal belongs to a species that is forbidden to them, opinions are four: (1) outright permissibility; (2) outright prohibition; (3) a distinction between what the Torah itself forbade them and what they later forbade themselves—allowing the latter and disallowing the former; and (4) deeming it disliked but not prohibited. All four positions appear within the Mālikī school: prohibition is reported from Ibn al-Qāsim, permission from Ibn Wahb and Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, and the distinction from Ashhab.
Underlying all of this is the tension between the general sense of the permissive verse and the requirement that the slaughterer intend ritual slaughter—that is, believe that the act itself renders the meat lawful. Those who deem such intention a condition pronounce these carcasses unlawful, arguing that the People of the Book do not hold this belief. Those who deny it is a condition cling to the general wording of the permissive verse and therefore allow the meat.
Exactly the same issue underlies their disagreement over consuming the fat taken from their animals. No one has differed here except Mālik and his companions. Among them, Ashhab declares the fat prohibited; two opinions are related from Mālik—one that it is merely disliked, the other that it is permissible.
And, in the discussion of fat, another factor enters from