“The Seventh Argument”

It may be said: When the Companions of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—conquered Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Khurāsān, and other lands, they ate the animals slaughtered by their inhabitants without distinguishing between one group and another. No Companion is known to have distinguished between them on the basis of ancestry. They differed only concerning Banū Taghlib, owing to a circumstance particular to them. Likewise, ‘Umar levied zakat on them at double the rate and made their poll tax different from that of others. He did not extend this treatment to all other Arabs, but only to those in a comparable position.

“The Eighth Argument”

It may be said: This view necessarily entails that the food of most of the People of the Book is unlawful for us, since we do not know the ancestry of many of them, nor do we know whether their ancestors before the advent of Islam were Jews or Christians prior to abrogation and alteration. Yet it is well known that the permissibility of eating their slaughtered animals and marrying their women is established by the Quran, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus. Since this view necessarily entails overturning what is established by the Quran, the Sunnah, and consensus, it is known to be invalid.

“The Ninth Argument”

It may be said: Muslims in every age and land have always eaten the animals slaughtered by them. Whoever condemns this therefore opposes the consensus of the Muslims.

All these arguments demonstrate that the view permitting this is stronger and is what the evidence entails. However, to maintain that, in an issue such as this or in similar matters open to juristic reasoning, someone who adopts one of the two positions may censure someone holding the other without proof or evidence is contrary to the consensus of the Muslims.