The Hanafis on Slaughtering for Other than Allah
Below is a partial translation of a telegram post written by Ustadh Alaa’ Hasan.
We present to you the opinion of Ḥanafī jurists regarding the act of slaughtering for living beings as an expression of veneration so that you may understand the scholars’ disavowal of what the Qubūriyyah (i.e., those who venerate the dead) have attributed to them concerning the issue of vows.
The Ḥanafī school holds that slaughtering for the sake of living beings is prohibited if there is an indication of veneration. One such indication is when an animal is slaughtered upon the arrival of a guest or a ruler, and the meat is distributed among people without the guest himself partaking in it. In such a case, they considered it slaughtering for other than Allah, as withholding the meat from the guest suggests that the act was performed as an expression of veneration toward him.
Al-Ḥaṣkafī al-Ḥanafī states:
إن قدمها ليأكل منها كان الذبح لله، والمنفعة للضيف أو للوليمة أو للربح، وإن لم يقدمها ليأكل منها، بل دفعها لغيره كان لتعظيم غير الله، فتحرم، وهل يكفر؟ قولان
“If he offers it so that the guest may eat from it, then the slaughter is for Allah, while the benefit is for the guest, the banquet, or profit. However, if he does not offer it for the guest to eat but instead gives it to others, then it is considered an act of veneration for other than Allah, and it is prohibited. As for whether this constitutes disbelief, there are two opinions.”
He has transmitted two opinions regarding whether this constitutes disbelief
In Naẓm al-Wahbāniyyah, titled Qayd al-Sharāʾid, concerning one who slaughters for a guest out of veneration, the author attributes the view that it constitutes disbelief to the majority. He states:
وفاعله جمهورهم قال: يكفرُ وفضلي وإسماعيل ليس يكفرُ
“The majority have said that the doer of this act is deemed a disbeliever, while Faḍlī and Ismāʿīl do not consider him a disbeliever.”
قلت : فنقل عن الجمهور الكفر، ونقل عن عالمين فقط عدم الكفر، فتأمل.
Thus, he attributed the ruling of disbelief to the majority and the opposing opinion to only two scholars. Reflect on this.
Ibn Qāsim al-ʿAbbādī al-Ḥanafī states:
الذبح عند مرأى الضيف تعظيمًا له، لا يحل أكلها، وكذا عند قدوم الأمير أو غيره؛ تعظيمًا؛ لأنه أُهل لغير الله
“Slaughtering in the presence of a guest as an act of veneration renders the meat impermissible to consume, and the same ruling applies when slaughtering upon the arrival of a ruler or any other person as an expression of veneration, for it has been dedicated to other than Allah.”
What has been previously stated clarifies the Ḥanafī position regarding those who slaughter for the living in ordinary circumstances, such as banquets and similar occasions. Despite this, they ruled that if there was an indication that the act of slaughtering was performed as an expression of veneration, it would be considered something dedicated to other than Allah. How, then, could it be assumed that the jurists permitted slaughtering for the dead?!
Benefits of These Citations:
The refutation of the Qubūriyyah’s claim that the jurists were lenient in allowing acts of worship to be directed to other than Allah. If this was their level of caution regarding slaughtering for the living—where veneration does not reach the level of worship—then what about other cases?
The Salafis were not as strict regarding slaughtering for the living; rather, they permitted it without restriction. This is because veneration exists in degrees, and honoring the living is customary. Even if an animal is slaughtered to venerate (or show reverence to) a ruler upon his arrival, such reverence does not amount to worship.
This demonstrates the balanced nature of the Salafi perspective, contrary to the claims propagated by some.
The jurists did not require a belief in lordship (rubūbiyyah)—as seen in the previous citations—but rather classified such a vow as something dedicated to other than Allah based merely on a distant indication of veneration. They also reported two opinions regarding whether the individual is deemed a disbeliever.
Had the criterion been the belief in lordship, they would not have differed regarding his disbelief. Reflect on this carefully.
Recommended Reading: