DEVOURING HARAAM AND MUSHTABAH FOOD

THE PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL RUIN OF DEVOURING HARAAM AND MUSHTABAH FOOD

Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan Majeed: “O Rusul (Messengers)! Eat from what is Tayyibaat and practice Saalihaat (righteous deeds).”

Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh), perhaps the most senior Faqeeh, Muhaddith, Mufassir and Wali among the Taabieen, said: “A man may fast every day, spend every night in ibaadat and become as thin as a rake, but as long as he is not careful regarding what he eats, nothing of his ibaadat is accepted.”

Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh) also said: “I have met such people (Sahaabah and senior Taabieen) who had abandoned 70 avenues of halaal for fear of falling into haraam.”

Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (Rahmatullah alayh) said that there was a time when with each Aayat of the Qur’aan he recited, seventy facts of Hikmat (Divine Wisdom) would be revealed to him. But “now, even if I recite the entire Qur’aan, not a single avenue of wisdom opens up for me.” This spiritual blockage he attributed to a cup of water given to him by a soldier. Generally, soldiers are juhala and cruel. The jahl and zulm of the soldier had a great detrimental athr (effect) on the water, hence the Roohaaniyat of Hadhrat Sufyaan was polluted with the water resulting in the blockage.

The effect of mushtabah and haraam food is disastrous for a Mu’min. It destroys all spiritual stamina. The ability to combat evil is weakened and even eliminated. The basis of Taqwa is halaal and tayyib food. A lady entrusted her young son into the care of a Shaikh. The Shaikh observed that the boy was progressing swiftly in the sphere of Taqwa. The Shaikh feared that the swift rate of spiritual progress of the lad would overwhelm and even kill him. He therefore devised a method for slowing down the child’s rate of Roohaani progress. The Shaikh bought some food from a halaal restaurant. There was no doubt whatsoever in the food being halaal. It was not Mushtabah (doubtful) food.

After the boy consumed this food, his rate of progress significantly fell. This was the effect of the restaurant food. Despite it being halaal, it was not Tayyib (pure and wholesome). It lacked the ingredients for enhancing spiritualism for the acquisition of Taqwa. Why was the restaurant food not Tayyib despite being Halaal? Fussaaq and fujjaar generally handle food prepared in public places. Their spiritual evil and their dirty hands, etc. contaminate the food, eliminating the property of tayyib.

On this issue, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) explained that food displayed openly in market places is adversely affected by the stares and glances of people, especially by the stares of the poor who cannot afford purchasing the expensive food. This has a detrimental effect on the spirituality of consumers. An evil stare or a bad stare or a stare of sorrow can exercise a detrimental spiritual effect on one’s Roohaaniyat (spiritual fibre).

Once when Hadhrat Zunnun Misri (Rahmatullah alayh) was imprisoned for his outspoken Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar (Commanding virtue and prohibiting vice), an old Waliah (Saintly lady) sent some food for him. The warder of the prison brought the food with the message: ‘Hadhrat be assured that I have prepared this food from absolutely halaal money which I have earned weaving cloth. Therefore do not hesitate to consume it.”

Returning the food, Hadhrat Zunnun (Rahmatullah alayh) who was among the most senior and greatest Auliya of Islam, responding to her message, said: “I know that the food is absolutely halaal. However, the container is mushtabah (doubtful), hence I am constrained to return the food.” The ‘container’ referred to the hands of the warder who was a zaalim (oppressor). The effect of his zulm was contagious and was transferred to the food.

This is the lofty concept Halaal-Tayyib food. Hadhrat Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alay) said: “The sign of mushtabah food, is a large variety of food served.” One of the principles for the cultivation of Taqwa is reduction in food and consuming simple food. While this is the emphasis of the Sunnah, the emphasis of scoundrels such as these carrion certifying outfits is the diametric opposite. Just look at SANHA’s newsletters! How these rubbish magazines extol gluttony! Gluttony is regarded a virtue to be cultivated. Since the pursuit of these filthy entities is haraam boodle, they advertise the haraam and mushtabah products of the kuffaar, extolling their ‘fadhaail’ (virtues). They encourage the ignorant masses to become like dogs to devour more and more kuffaar products whereas the Sunnah emphasises the opposite.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The kaafir eats with seven intestines while the Mu’min eats with one intestine”. While the Sunnah extols frugality and little food consumption, SANHA, MJC and the rest of the devil’s carrion certifying cartel encourage Muslims to become gluttons. SANHA’s newsletters specialize in the promotion of gluttony, and that too by consumption of mushtabah and haraam.

Hadhrat Abdullah Bin Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) said: “Do not consume the food of anyone besides the food of the Muttaqeen (people of taqwa). But SANHA, in its insane pursuit of money, uses the Deen to promote the food of the kuffaar, and that too, meat products – carrion passed off as ‘halaal’.

Discouraging his son from much food, Hadhrat Luqmaan (Alayhis salaam) said: “O my son! Stay away from functions of feasting for these functions entice you to the dunya.”

The virtues of frugality and abstemiousness in the matter of food are numerous. The benefits of food reduction, especially total abstention from SANHA-promoted gluttony, are both physical and spiritual. The Sunnah’s ta’leem pertaining to food frugality is in diametric opposition to the satanic propagation of SANHA who extols gluttony and total abandonment of all inhibition for mushtabah and haraam. Every person with a little brains understand the monetary objectives of these carrion certifying khanaazeer, hence SANHA’s promotion of gluttony should be readily comprehensible.

While the Sunnah and the practice of the Sahaabah and Auliya emphasize extreme caution regarding the intake of even halaal food, SANHA goes to great strides to promote meat and chickens sold by kuffaar. Ponder! When the stares of people exercise a detrimental spiritual athr (effect) on even halaal food, then what does the intelligence and Imaan of a Mu’min dictate regarding meat products sold by kuffaar – by atheists – by enemies of Islam and enemies of the Ummah? How can Muslims indulge in such spiritual self-immolation to ruin their Imaan by ingesting meat products acquired from kuffaar?

The masses of Muslims have degenerated to the level of vultures. We say vultures, not dogs, because the ebb of Muslim degeneration is sub-canine. Dogs too shun carrion. Dogs do not consume rotten meat. Yes, vultures do. According to the Shariah, haraam meat is ‘rotten’ – carrion – jeefah. Jeefah – Consumption is the science in which SANHA and its cohorts in the carrion certifying game excel. Over the decades, the accursed ‘halaal’ certifying satanic ulama-e-soo’ outfits have totally desensitized the Imaan of the ignorant masses. The Muslim masses no longer have any inhibition regarding mushtabah and haraam food. Totally insensitive to the spiritual disasters of haraam food, Muslims have lost their Imaani abhorrence for taking meat and even prepared non-meat food from the hands of kuffaar. This evil is abundantly displayed in their gluttonous indulgence on the plane. Every morsel of the plane-food served by the impure hands of impure fussaaq, fujjaar and kuffaar incrementally tarnishes their Imaan. In fact, in many of these devourers of carrion, there is no longer any Imaan despite the outward profession of Islam.

While SANHA encourages gluttony with its halaal certified carrion and other kuffaar-prepared foods, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The worse container filled by a person is the stomach. A few morsels suffice for the Son of Aadam (i.e. for a Muslim human being)…..”

Obviously the gluttonous ones resemble the kuffaar who need to fill seven intestines. Filling seven intestines as do the kuffaar, is promoted by SANHA. View its satanic newsletters and you will see the conspicuous adverts goading Muslims to fill seven intestines kuffaar-like. The practice of filling ‘seven intestines’ promoted by SANHA, will have a lamentable sequel even in the Aakhirat.

Once when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw a Sahaabi burping due to having ingested much food, he (Nabi – Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“O Aba Juhaifah! Restrain yourself (when eating). Verily, those who are the most filled (by means of gluttonous consumption of food) here on earth, their hunger will be the longest on the Day of Qiyaamah.”

After this stricture, Hadhrat Abu Juhaifah (Radhiyallahu anhu) never again ate much. If he ate in the morning, he would not eat in the evening, and vice versa. The Mashaaikh say that a person who eats thrice daily is an animal. The style of the ignorant masses is twice daily, which is tolerable provided that there is no SANHA-type gluttonous indulgence, and absolutely no carrion.

The preponderance of diseases of a variety of incurable kinds in the community of this era is the direct consequence of filling and over-filling the stomach-container with mushtabah, haraam, junk ‘food’, and rotten CARRION certified by SANHA and the like. The Mashaaikh have said: “The stomach is the headquarters of disease.” And, it is DISEASE which SANHA, MJC and the other scoundrel halaal certifiers are promoting.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the food of two suffices for four, and the food of four is sufficient for eight persons. This is another virtue of frugality which SANHA with its adverts promoting kuffaar products denies and negates. Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) says that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) never ate twice in one day until the day he passed way.

The very first hurdle which Muslims of today have to clear and surmount is to abandon their addiction of haraam food – haraam products certified by SANHA, MJC, NIHT and the other khanaazeer. The Road to Allah Ta’ala will remain perpetually blurred and unrecognizable as long as the intellect is deranged with the filth and carrion with which people are nourishing themselves. Haraam food disturbs mental equilibrium and blocks the avenue for the acquisition of Taqwa. That is why Allah Ta’ala emphasized so much to His Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam):

“O Rusul! Eat from the Tayyibaat and practice Saalihaat.”

15 Jamadith Thaani 1443 – 18 January 2021

PORK – NOW A SAUDI NORM

PORK – NOW A SAUDI NORM

00:00 – 00:17Assalaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullaahi Ta’ala wa Barakaat. Uh, dear brothers. Ya akhwan. I pray you guys are well. I pray my voice message comes through to each and every single one of you in the best possible manner. And I pray, Insha-Allah, your families are well and healthy and doing better, Insha-Allah. 
00:18 – 01:05Uh, this is brother Faizal. And I wanted to take out, brothers, literally just five minutes of your time to kind of bring something very, very important to your attention. Some of you may actually have known this. Uh, I’m usually very late to most parties in terms of information and you know, certain things and what’s really happening around me. But in the event that Insha-Allah, that you guys are not aware of it, I’d like to bring something to your attention, Insha-Allah. Uh… I had actually also informed one of the brothers in the group, uh, Abdullah, uh, about this. And it’s something that’s happened to me after that conversation I had with him — two or three times after that. So, Insha-Allah, if you guys are aware of this, I apologise for telling you something you already know, but for those of you that don’t — please just four, four or five minutes of your, of your time. 
01:06 – 02:04Uh, a couple of, uh, weeks ago, two weeks to be more specific. Uh, I went out with uh, two, three of my colleagues here and we went out to a, uh, a restaurant. But before that, I’d like to start from the beginning. A few months back, actually. My wife and I went to, uh, TGI Fridays here in Buraydah [بريدة‎]. And we went. When we went to that restaurant —. Uh, I’m usually a creature of habit. There are things that I like to do and I don’t like changes. I like to order food that I’m very familiar with, that I like. I don’t like to switch around all the time. So I ordered a burger that I’m very familiar with, that I like, I’ve tasted, I’ve eaten in the past from TGI Fridays. Only brothers, when that burger was brought to me, I noticed that there was something different about the burger, specifically the meat. So I asked the guy, “This meat looks a little bit different. What is it?” And he goes to me — Subhaanallaah — “This is bacon”. So I said to him, “You mean, beef bacon?” And he goes, “No, no, no, it’s PORK bacon”

Download full article

ABORTED HUMAN FOETUSES NOT ONLY IN VACCINES – SOFT DRINKS TOO ARE PART OF THE SATANISM

Some shareholders of PepsiCo, Incorporated put forward the following proposal to the directors of the Company:

“RESOLVED:

Shareholders request that the Board of Directors adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private collaborative research and development agreements.”

Rejecting this proposal, the Company stated:

“The Proposal may be excluded under rule 14a-8i(7) because it pertains to matters relating to the company’s ordinary business operations.”

These are non-Muslim shareholders who are appalled by the rot and satanism of the company in which they have invested. But, today’s molvis, muftis and sheikhs are licking the boots of the atheists by peddling their haraam satanic wares. They crookedly employ and misinterpret Qur’aanic Aayaat, Ahaadith and Fiqhi texts in support of their shaitaani narratives spun in defence of their atheists handlers.

Deepening the sinister satanic dimension, the Company in refusing to deal with the Proposal of its own shareholders, averred:

“The second consideration is the degree to which the proposal attempts to ‘micro-manage’ a company by “probing too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders as a group, would not be in position to make an informed judgment.”

Shareholders themselves being highly perturbed by the information that their company utilizes aborted human foetuses in their flavourings, had made the aforementioned proposal. However, the ‘deep probing’ of the shareholders spells disaster for the company’s sales. Millions all over the world will desist from consuming Pepsi on account of this information which exposes the satanism, disease and filth of soft drinks, not of only Pepsi, but of all similar drinks.

Denials by soft drink and VACCINE manufacturers should be outrightly rejected. When the directors of the company refuse to answer to even their bosses, the Shareholders, what can then constrain them to honestly answer to outsiders who have absolutely no say and no control over the satanic companies?

In order to continue bootlicking the atheists and the Bill Gates, Pharma & Iblees cartel, moron molvis, juhala muftis and dacoit sheikhs in pursuit of dollars and other sinister agendas, swallow the falsehood of vaccines not being manufactured from aborted human foetuses.

Whatever these agents of Iblees proffer in vindication of their deglutition is not dissuasive to men of Intelligence. The satanic villainy of these Munaafiq agents of shaitaan is repeatedly exposed by reliable information from reliable sources.

The collaboration by muftis with the Bill Gates cartel is indeed most lamentable. Their zig zag, fence-sitting fatwas, and also outright condonation fatwas expose the nifaaq and kufr lurking in their hearts. These agents of Iblees act as if there will be no Maut and no Qabr for them.

SOFT DRINKS ARE HARAAM!

VACCINES AND VACCINATION ARE HARAAM!!!

5 Rabiul Awwal 1443 – 12 October 2021

ICE CREAM

ICE CREAM!!!

DAMAGES YOUR HEART, LIVER, KIDNEY AND NERVOUS SYSTEM

Beware of commercial ice cream! It is laced with slow poison. In the long term you will suffer from a variety of grave diseases, the causes of which no doctor will know. Read the following article by an expert in the field:

“One thing I try to do on this blog is alert folks to the sneaky, underhanded and frequently toxic chemicals that Big Food processors add to their products. One of these dirty little secrets is the fact that propylene glycol, a cosmetic form of antifreeze, is added to commercial ice cream.

You see, when you make ice cream at home, you immediately notice that it is as hard as a rock very unlike store ice creams (even the organic ones) that seem to scoop out of the container so conveniently. Homemade ice cream has to be taken out of the freezer and softened on the counter for a few minutes before you have any hope of scooping some out into a bowl. I even store mine in a shallow, Pyrex baking dish as this makes it much easier and faster to scoop out when I want some.

Antifreeze, then, is simply ice cream manufacturers’ answer to hard as a rock ice cream and the ice crystals that inevitably form as it is shipped long distances and moved between many different freezers before it finally makes it to your supermarket.

If you’ve ever left homemade ice cream on the counter too long and then put it back in the freezer, you notice how icy it can get. Antifreeze added to store ice cream helps prevent this from happening!

Sometimes when I tell folks this for the first time, they have trouble believing it. Why? Because propylene glycol isn’t listed anywhere on the ice cream label or ingredients list. While it may come as a shock to some of you, there is such a thing as an “Industry Standard“, which means that if everyone does it, you don’t have to label it! For those who need specifics, USDA reg 21 CFR 101.100 deals with labeling exemptions dealing with incidental food additives. Nice, huh? Where I grew up, this was called deceit.

Can you believe it? Just because commercial ice cream manufacturers make a practice of adding a little bit of antifreeze to their ice cream, then it doesn’t have to be labeled! I don’t even trust organic ice cream as it is way too easy to scoop out of the container right out of the freezer for my comfort level. My efforts to confirm this one way or the other were not successful, so at this time, it is only a very strong hunch.

Just to get you a little more hot under the collar, the FDA actually had the gall to grant GRAS status to antifreeze! What is GRAS? It is an acronym for “Generally Recognized As Safe”. Well, isn’t that interesting? Antifreeze safe to eat! You learn something new every day!

Wait a minute! Antifreeze safe to eat, yet a dog would probably die if a car radiator leaks in his owner’s driveway and he laps some of it up? Ok, ok, I know that antifreeze used in radiators is ethylene glycol, but the fact is that propylene glycol is a related chemical that is known to cause heart, kidney, liver, and central nervous system damage if sufficient quantity is absorbed by the body.

Given that Americans eat approximately 5 times the ice cream they did only 50 years ago, it is anyone’s guess what the long term effects of the small amounts of propylene glycol in store ice cream might be (source: WAPF).

So, ethylene glycol will kill you quickly and propylene glycol will kill you slowly and perhaps painfully. That seems to be the gist of it to me.

I used to wonder why whenever I ate store ice cream or got an ice cream cone at the Mall, the next day I seemed to have a very close relationship to the bathroom. Turns out that a side effect of consuming antifreeze is loose bowels, even diarrhea. Propylene glycol is even used to clean out the bowel before surgery and is a primary ingredient in some over the counter constipation meds!

By the way, there are MANY other chemicals added to commercial ice cream that are toxic and unlabeled. Piperonal, for example, is used in place of vanilla and is a chemical used to kill head lice, so you’re not even safe getting a basic flavor like plain vanilla ice cream!

What if the ingredients label lists vanilla? Does this mean there is no piperonal in there? Not necessarily. A mixture of piperonal and vanilla could be used with the vanilla listed (to make the customer happy) and the piperonal not listed (to fool the customer and increase profits). Not surprisingly, piperonal is cheaper to use than vanilla.

Food manufacturers are really good at the cat and mouse games and are complete virtuosos at playing the USDA regulations.”

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/antifreeze-in-your-ice-cream-2/

(End of article)

Commercial ice cream is HARAAM. The factors for the hurmat of commercial ice cream are:

(1) Haraam stabilizers and emulsifiers

(2) Haraam gelatine

(3) Haraam colourants

(4) Haraam essence

(5) Other HARAAM ingredients disguised with chemical terms.

(6) Poisonous chemicals

HARAAM INGREDIENTS AND POISONOUS CHEMICALS CAUSING GRAVE DISEASES, CONCLUSIVELY RENDER COMMERCIAL ICE CREAM HARAAM. NEVER TRUST THE FAKE, HARAAM ‘HALAAL’ CERTIFICATES AND LABELS ON COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. THOSE WHO HALAALIZE THESE HARMFUL AND FILTHY COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS ARE INCORRIGIBLE CARRION HALAALIZERS.

THE SECRET UNDERLYING THE NUMEROUS SERIOUS DISEASES WITH WHICH HUMANITY IS TODAY AFFLICTED, IS DECADES OF CONSUMING CARRION, FILTH, AND POISONOUS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. HAVE MERCY ON YOUR BODY AND SOUL BY ABSTAINING FROM ALL PROCESSED FOODS WHICH ARE LACED WITH CHEMICAL POISONS.

13 Ramadhaan 1436 – 30 June 2015

TEA BAGS?

TEA BAGS?

A Sister writes:

I have been wanting to send an email about tea bags.

I thought of trying rooibos as an alternative to coffee. I decided to first read about tea bags. I thought, how are tea bags sealed? I knew some tea bags were bleached, but I wanted to find out if there were other chemicals.

It turns out that many tea companies use plastic in their tea bags. There are a number of articles on this issue.

To summarise what I have read:

  • “…while you might assume that your tea bags are made simply from tea and paper, in actual fact many of them contain polypropylene – a substance used to seal them and ensure they hold their shape.” (www.independent.co.uk)
  • In 2019, researchers at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, found that a single plastic tea bag releases about 11.6 billion micro-sized plastic particles and 3.1 billion nano-sized plastic particles into 95°C water.
  • According to the researchers, the health effects of drinking such particles are unknown.
  • These tea bags are not compostable.
  • “Frequent tea drinkers could be repeatedly dosing themselves with billions of plastic particles, some small enough to potentially infiltrate human cells. In addition to these nylon and PET plastic tea bags, the majority of paper tea bags also contain plastic fibers used in the sealant. And even paper tea bags contain a troubling chemical called epichlorohydrin that’s added to prevent the bag from breaking.” (www.beyondplastics.org)
  • Since the health effects are unknown, many health articles on the issue suggest using loose-leaf tea as an alternative.
  • In one article featured in The Guardian, I read: “[When I contacted] some of the tea companies, they were saying, ‘people don’t really care’ [about plastics in tea bags] and I’m like, ‘no, people do care, they just don’t know.’”

28 Muharram 1443 – 6 September 2021

Scientists convert used plastic bottles into vanilla flavouring

www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/15/scientists-co…

Scientists convert used plastic bottles into vanilla flavouring

Production of chemical could help make recycling more attractive and tackle global plastic pollution

Tue 15 Jun 2021

Plastic bottles have been converted into vanilla flavouring using genetically engineered bacteria, the first time a valuable chemical has been brewed from waste plastic.

Upcycling plastic bottles into more lucrative materials could make the recycling process far more attractive and effective. Currently plastics lose about 95% of their value as a material after a single use. Encouraging better collection and use of such waste is key to tackling the global plastic pollution problem.

Researchers have already developed mutant enzymes to break down the polyethylene terephthalate polymer used for drinks bottles into its basic units, terephthalic acid (TA). Scientists have now used bugs to convert TA into vanillin.

Vanillin is used widely in the food and cosmetics industries and is an important bulk chemical used to make pharmaceuticals, cleaning products and herbicides. Global demand is growing and in 2018 was 37,000 tonnes, far exceeding the supply from natural vanilla beans. About 85% of vanillin is currently synthesised from chemicals derived from fossil fuels.

Joanna Sadler, of the University of Edinburgh, who conducted the new work, said: “This is the first example of using a biological system to upcycle plastic waste into a valuable industrial chemical and it has very exciting implications for the circular economy.”

Stephen Wallace, also of the University of Edinburgh, said: “Our work challenges the perception of plastic being a problematic waste and instead demonstrates its use as a new carbon resource from which high value products can be made.”

About 1m plastic bottles are sold every minute around the world and just 14% are recycled. Currently even those bottles that are recycled can only be turned into opaque fibres for clothing or carpets.

Takeaway food and drink litter dominates ocean plastic, study shows

The research, published in the journal Green Chemistry, used engineered E coli bacteria to transform TA into vanillin. The scientists warmed a microbial broth to 37C for a day, the same conditions as for brewing beer, Wallace said. This converted 79% of the TA into vanillin.

Next the scientists will further tweak the bacteria to increase the conversion rate further, he said: “We think we can do that pretty quickly. We have an amazing roboticised DNA assembly facility here.” They will also work on scaling up the process to convert larger amounts of plastic. Other valuable molecules could also be brewed from TA, such as some used in perfumes.

Ellis Crawford, of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said: “This is a really interesting use of microbial science to improve sustainability. Using microbes to turn waste plastics, which are harmful to the environment, into an important commodity is a beautiful demonstration of green chemistry.”

Recent research showed bottles are the second most common type of plastic pollution in the oceans, after plastic bags. In 2018, scientists accidentally created a mutant enzyme that breaks down plastic bottles, and subsequent work produced a super-enzyme that eats plastic bottles even faster.

SANHA’S FLEECING FEES ARE OPPRESSIVE EXTORTION

Question

SANHA denies the charge of extortion and charging exorbitant fees for the services it renders. Vindicating itself against the charge, SANHA says: “For information purposes SANHA fees are commensurate to the work required in maintaining the Halaal programme. Therefore the amount on the contracts willingly entered into will vary. SANHA’s average current certification fees in the categories stated are:

ButcheriesR550.00 per month
Take Away/RestaurantsR500.00 per month
Beef AbattoirR  5.00 per carcass
Sheep AbattoirR  2.00 per carcass
Poultry Abattoirfrom R1 500 per month
Retail BakeryR500.00 per month

Is there truth in SANHA’s claims? Please comment.

ANSWER

The aforementioned charges are a part of the carrion scheme of fees. SANHA has perpetrated deception in mentioning only a portion of the fees. SANHA is also silent on the massively exorbitant fees it charges Rainbow Chickens. In its carrion fleece-fee chart, is mentioned: “Poultry Abattoir from R1,500 per month”. SANHA dare not mention the limit – from R1500 to what? Besides the several types of haram gangster type taxation, SANHA should inform of the actual amount of carrion tax it extracts from Rainbow Chickens.

Further, SANHA should not attempt to deceive people by saying “R5 per carcass and R2 per carcass”. SANHA should declare the total sum of the protection tax it acquired from these two ‘carcass’ fees. There is no basis in the Shariah to charge even 10 cents per carcass. SANHA does no slaughter the animals. It does not contribute physically to the slaughtering or to any other aspect related to the slaughtering, skinning, packing, etc., etc. These “per carcass” fees are haraam, having absolutely no basis in the Shariah.

It should also be understood that the ‘services’ rendered by SANHA are of its own volition and are imposed in a haraam manner on traders and animal-killing plants. It is haraam to charge fees for unsolicited ‘services’. The fees of SANHA in terms of the Shariah are extortion and haraam.

We have explained the evil system of SANHA’s extortion in a booklet several years ago. The title is: SANHA’S HARAAM FLEECING FEES. The booklet is available on our website. Hard copies are also available.

The following is an extract from the booklet to show the falsehood peddled by the Carrion Purveyor.

…………. We are confronted here with compound extortion – and much of it is ambiguous since the amounts to be extorted will be calculated in future when the mock inspection transpires. (v) The story of the mock inspection and fleecing fees has still not ended. In addition to the aforementioned ‘inspections’, there is another inspection about which the agreement states: “Inspections will be carried out at SANHA’s discretion at least once per calendar month.” The expenses of this inspection is also borne by Rainbow. Since large amounts of money are extorted for each inspection separately, what is the monthly licence fee for? And, what are the carcass fees for? (vi) The Fleecing Fees extortion racket also provides for the company to pay SANHA’s supervisors separately. Although the supervisors are executing services for SANHA, the carrion company pays the salaries of the supervisors.

Now that Rainbow pays separately for SANHA’s inspections, supervision and administration, what are the confounded monthly licence fees for? And what are the carcass fee for? Answering this question, the fatwa states: “The fee which is charged for inspections and supervisions is in actual fact in lieu of the fuel used by them for inspecting the outlet.” Someone must have been perpetrating some type of substance abuse when making this stupid statement. Or the mind is befogged as a consequence of devouring SANHA’s carrion chickens. Does SANHA use R50,000 every month for fuel to inspect one carrion plant twice or thrice a month? This is the approximate amount which SANHA charges for licence fleecing fee and inspection fleecing fee every month.

Furthermore, the fatwa fails to distinguish between ‘inspection’ and ‘supervision’. While the inspectors come to the carrion plant twice a month using about R100 fuel per time, the supervisors are paid a full wage separately by Rainbow. What are the R50,000 monthly confounded fees all about? It is all about extortion and fleecing the company. The fatwa then draws a plainly stupid and baseless analogy between the carrion fleecing fees and the fee a hunter pays to hunt in a game farm. Says the fatwa:

“We can regard this (SANHA’s carrion) transaction taking place between the hunter and the game farm owner as an Ijarah (lease) transaction. In other words, the hunter is paying a fee for utilizing the facilities provided to him by the owner such as using their roads etc. The animal that will be hunted in this case will be a gift from the owner.” In this false analogy, who is the ‘hunter’ and who is the ‘game farm owner’ in relation to SANHA’s haraam agreement with Rainbow? In the game farm scenario, the hunter coughs up the money, hence in the light of the corrupt analogy, Rainbow is the ‘hunter’, and SANHA is the ‘game farm owner’. However, the ‘gift’ element is lacking in the carrion transaction. SANHA presents no gift or bonus to Rainbow in lieu of the huge sums of money it extorts from the company.

Whilst the example of the hunter and the game farm also requires some rebuttal, for the sake of brevity we shall not deal with it in this discussion. The hunter pays the owner of the farm, a simple, flat one-off fee for the utilization of his facilities. But the ‘hunter’ (Rainbow) in the chicken carrion scenario is loaded with a variety of elements of extortion. Rainbow does not pay for any services rendered to it. Rainbow pays exorbitant sums of money for a range of phantom ‘services’. Inspecting the plant by a carrion purveyor is not a ‘service’ ordered by  Rainbow. It is a condition imposed by SANHA for issuing its carrion certificate. All the other hallucinated ‘services’ which we have already discussed and refuted, are not services ordered by the Carrion Company. They are conditions which SANHA imposes on Rainbow to dupe the Muslim community – to make us believe that the carrion is halaal.

SANHA publicizes itself as a non-profit ‘deeni’ organization rendering service to the Muslim community. If the community accepts that SANHA is indeed rendering it a service, then it is the duty of Muslims to bear the expenses of the inspections, supervision, etc., and this will be light years away from the tip of the iceberg, i.e. the R50,000 monthly licence and corruption fees. Far from this miserable carrion outfit being a ‘non-profitable’ and a ‘deeni’ body, it is Islamically corrupt. Its greed for haraam boodle is insatiable. It extorts millions of rands for haraam and luxury expenditure. It misappropriates the Deen and the Halaal logo for monetary objectives, then it flaunts the naked audacity of claiming to be a ‘non-profitable deeni’ organization.

Furthermore, it is incumbent to proffer some advice to the honourable Mufti Sahib who has endorsed the corrupt ‘fatwa’ of his student. The honourable Mufti Sahib should understand that operating a Darul Ifta with student ‘muftis’ under his wing is a sacred responsibility. The students training under him are an Amaanat. It is absolutely imperative for the honourable Mufti Sahib to abandon whatever other activity he may be involved in to enable him to contribute 100% of his time and mind to the shenanigan ‘fatwas’ which his incapable students are fabricating. The ‘fatwa’ which we have just now discussed is not a Fatwa. The student has simply put together a very unprofessional essay, and it appears that the honourable Mufti Sahib had lackadaisically scanned over it and endorsed it without applying his mind. The ‘fatwa’ is scandalous and portrays the incompetency of the student who has compiled it. It will be salubrious for the honourable Mufti Sahib and his Ifta students to re-study Rasmul Mufti, etc. with minds and hearts fully applied. If the honourable Mufti Sahib acquits himself with laxity regarding the fulfilment of his obligation of correctly nurturing his students, both academically and morally, then we can assure him that they – his students – will become haatibul lail characters labouring in the self-deception of them being expert muftis when in reality they will be one-eyed juhala misleading others and themselves.

It is ludicrous to equate the range of complex fleecing fees extorted by SANHA with a simple, reasonable monthly fee to cover necessary expenditure which any how should not be an expense for Rainbow. It should be an expense for the Muslim community IF it is established that the carrion clique is able to distinguish between haraam and halaal.

We trust that the honourable Mufti Sahib will set his Darul Ifta in order and drill real academic ability in his students, and this is not possible without inculcating Taqwa in them.    (End of extract)

The aforementioned  naseehat is from our booklet  published several years ago.  We can now safely say that the mufti implicated in this carrion scandal is a mudhil who has betrayed Allah Ta’ala, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Islam and the Muslim community with his rubbish zigzag  fatwas.

TWO EVILS

There are two evils attendant to the Fleece Fees which SANHA and other Carrion Halaalizers impose on traders:


(1) Extortion       (2) Exorbitant charges.

The fees are in terms of the Shariah Extortion. It is the unjustified imposition and extraction of money in a bloodthirsty, parasitic manner from traders who mistakenly have been led to believe that their business will suffer if they do not cough up the haraam tax imposed on them by SANHA, MJC and the other members of the satanic cartel of carrion halaalizers.

Fees charged by these Carrion shayaateen are just like protection tax charged by gangsters. Carrion fees are a glorified form of gangster ‘protection tax’. There is no Islamic validity for this haraam extortion which is pure zulm. The ‘service’ provided by SANHA & Carrion Co. is a hallucinated, baseless, unsolicited, hated ‘inspection’ required by the smokescreen dubbed ‘supervision’. In reality there is no supervision. Supervision is another fake designed to mislead, deceive and bamboozle ignoramuses. Our booklet on hallucinated supervision is also available on our website.

Regardless of the fee amount, even if just R1, according to the Shariah it is haraam extortion.  There is no concept in the Shariah into which this haraam, gangster tax could be fitted into. The charge per carcass is abhorrent and pure extortion of a vile kind. The silly chart of charges presented buy SANHA for public consumption is a poor red herring which does not secure SANHA’s objective of convincing anyone of the alleged justification for levying such haraam gangster protection tax on traders who fear for their business suffering adversely by the maliciously designed comments of SANHA regarding such traders who refuse to apply for a carrion certificate.

The one and only objective of the halaal certification racket is to line the pockets of the carrion cartel gangsters. It is a satanic profession devoid of even a vestige of Islamic altruism.

Furthermore, the haraam carrion tax is literally exorbitant.  It is an extravasation – sucking parasitically – money from traders to enable the members of the carrion cartel to live in opulence. But they should not bask in the comforts and luxuries the ill-gotten taxes allow them, for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The Fire has a greater claim over a body nourished with haraam.”

11 Shawwaal 1442 – 24 May 2021

Muslim In Germany: European High Court Legalizes The Banning Of Halal And Kosher Animal Slaughter

Just a few weeks ago, the Highest Court of the European Union ruled that member states can ban halal and kosher animal slaughtering; or allow it only under the condition that the animals have been stunned before their throat is cut (which is the requirement for slaughtering animals for food in both, the Muslim and Jewish religions). The case came up to the highest court of the Union because Belgium (Flanders) had passed a law banning this type of ritual slaughter in spite of protests from both religious communities who say this is a deep infringement of their right to follow their own religious obligations.

This ruling might affect Muslims living in Germany even more than before. It should be known that banning kosher slaughtering had been first put into law at the beginning of the 1930’s, i.e., as a part of persecution of the Jewish minority (there were almost no Muslims living in Germany at the time). It either made Jewish life difficult for those wanting to live kosher, or forced practicing Jews into breaking an official religious obligation. The latter was one of the intentions of the ruling towards starting the legal persecution of Jews.

Of course, this law was among the first to be abolished after the end of the 2nd World War, and until late in the 1990s the topic was more or less no point of discussion despite a growing Muslim community. A community whose members increasingly sought to slaughter their own meat and sell in their own shops – a right that would have otherwise not been possible during the first decades of immigration, as opening shops was not allowed to new immigrants. Animal protection societies were still interested in the topic, but -owing to the fact that any protest in this direction would go against Jewish communities-, not too energetically.

With growing enmity against Islam and Muslims in general — although during the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s it was more a general xenophobia – which expressed itself most loudly in the debate about hijab, the question of halal slaughtering also came up. In 1995, slaughtering without stunning was forbidden, and it was necessary to apply for special permission not to stun animals before slaughtering. It was never questioned when a permit was required for kosher slaughter, but was more often than not refused to Muslims. Long fights at court ensued, and only the German constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) decided at last in 2002 that of course the Muslim slaughter of animals also had the right to this permission.

In reaction to this in 2006, an amendment was added to the German constitution (Grundgesetz) to declare the protection of animals as a main national objective. As a result, the authorities pretended this would negate the decision of 2002 and that they could again refuse this permission. Following more legal fighting, the current status stands that again the highest German court has decided that a special permission has to be granted if it is proved that the religious law is mandatory not to stun the animals first, and that the meat will only be sold to those members of the religious community who also hold on to this belief. Currently it can be observed that it is nearly impossible to slaughter for the halal market under this condition, with the authorities putting up more and more obstacles when a permission is applied for.

Just a few weeks ago, the Highest Court of the European Union ruled that member states can ban halal and kosher animal slaughtering; or allow it only under the condition that the animals have been stunned before their throat is cut (which is the requirement for slaughtering animals for food in both, the Muslim and Jewish religions). The case came up to the highest court of the Union because Belgium (Flanders) had passed a law banning this type of ritual slaughter in spite of protests from both religious communities who say this is a deep infringement of their right to follow their own religious obligations.

This ruling might affect Muslims living in Germany even more than before. It should be known that banning kosher slaughtering had been first put into law at the beginning of the 1930’s, i.e., as a part of persecution of the Jewish minority (there were almost no Muslims living in Germany at the time). It either made Jewish life difficult for those wanting to live kosher, or forced practicing Jews into breaking an official religious obligation. The latter was one of the intentions of the ruling towards starting the legal persecution of Jews.

Of course, this law was among the first to be abolished after the end of the 2nd World War, and until late in the 1990s the topic was more or less no point of discussion despite a growing Muslim community. A community whose members increasingly sought to slaughter their own meat and sell in their own shops – a right that would have otherwise not been possible during the first decades of immigration, as opening shops was not allowed to new immigrants. Animal protection societies were still interested in the topic, but -owing to the fact that any protest in this direction would go against Jewish communities-, not too energetically.

Help Us End 2020 with 1000 Supporters!
Alhamdulillah, we’re at 900 supporters. Help us get to 1000 supporters before 2020 ends. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you’re supporting without thinking about it.

With growing enmity against Islam and Muslims in general — although during the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s it was more a general xenophobia – which expressed itself most loudly in the debate about hijab, the question of halal slaughtering also came up. In 1995, slaughtering without stunning was forbidden, and it was necessary to apply for special permission not to stun animals before slaughtering. It was never questioned when a permit was required for kosher slaughter, but was more often than not refused to Muslims. Long fights at court ensued, and only the German constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) decided at last in 2002 that of course the Muslim slaughter of animals also had the right to this permission.

In reaction to this in 2006, an amendment was added to the German constitution (Grundgesetz) to declare the protection of animals as a main national objective. As a result, the authorities pretended this would negate the decision of 2002 and that they could again refuse this permission. Following more legal fighting, the current status stands that again the highest German court has decided that a special permission has to be granted if it is proved that the religious law is mandatory not to stun the animals first, and that the meat will only be sold to those members of the religious community who also hold on to this belief. Currently it can be observed that it is nearly impossible to slaughter for the halal market under this condition, with the authorities putting up more and more obstacles when a permission is applied for.

Close up shot of the goat with bunch of green lush grass on the summer meadow

Meanwhile, there were two ways to procure halal meat for the market in Germany: either import it from neighboring states where halal slaughter was not a problem, or follow the opinion laid down in some fatwas from different scholars that stated that meat could be considered halal if the animal was only put to sleep in a way that this would not kill it (unlike the shots animals get in German non-halal slaughterhouses) and, if the throat was not cut it would wake up unharmed. The Jewish communities however, declared this as not kosher, which meant that this regulation would restrict them to slaughtering completely.

This is a question of Islamic Law that I cannot decide, but it makes it very difficult for the average Muslim to know what they are buying or eating, even if food items are marked “halal” and/or are sold by Muslims as such. Whoever does not share the opinion that this is halal meat, must inquire doubly and triply when sourcing their meats, and invest in buying more imported goods from countries where you can be guaranteed of a more reliable certificate.

The new decision will not change too much in German law, but it leads to growing suspicions that the highest authorities in Europe consider religious laws and living as less important even than the rights of animals.
CLICK TO TWEET
The new decision will not change too much in German law, but it leads to growing suspicions that the highest authorities in Europe consider religious laws and living as less important even than the rights of animals. This might often give the strongly atheist, the right-wing (but not only) eagerness and help when they want to push against other facets of Muslim life. Keep in mind that the ban of niqab is legal according to this court (although not all countries want to get ridiculed for making laws against a two or three figure minority of Muslim women) as is a ban on hijab in schools, and like in France, for teachers and other government employees, etc. Discrimination against visible Muslims -again, mostly muhajjabas- is common, and getting jobs and finding housing are two of the most common problems, besides a rising number of attacks. Praying at a workplace is often as good as impossible, or at least a known reason for mobbing. All of this will be encouraged by decisions of high courts who treat Muslim laws and lifestyle as irrelevant.

Halal or haraam? You are what you eat

Imaam Abu Muhammad Al-Juwayni (رحمه الله) was a great ‘aalim (scholar of the Religion) who possessed an extremely high level of caution and concern regarding the consumption of halaal and haraam. The level of his concern was such that it prompted him to earn by working with his own hands, in order to have the peace of mind that he was earning a pure livelihood that was untainted by haraam.

When the time for Imaam Abu Muhammad Al Juwayni (رحمه الله) to marry arrived, he used the pure money which he had painstakingly earned, to pay for his mahr (dowry) and other marriage expenses. The effect of this pure wealth was clearly manifest in the son he was blessed with from this marriage. This son also grew up to become a great ‘aalim and was later known by the title of “Imaamul Haramain” (Imaam of the Two Harams). Understanding the crucial role consumption of halaal plays in the effort of a Muslim to live a life of piety, he ensured that he fed his child only that which was 100% pure and halaal.

Later in his life, when Imaamul Haramain (رحمه الله) was once engaged in a debate, to the absolute astonishment of all present, he was suddenly overcome by a short bout of stammering and stuttering! Somebody later asked him, “O Imaam! What happened to you? We never once before heard you stammer or stutter!” Imaamul Haramain (رحمه الله) replied, “It can only have been the ill effects of the remaining traces which remained of the sip.” Having given such a vague answer, somebody asked him, “What incident are you referring to by mentioning ‘the sip’?”

Imaamul Haramain (رحمه الله) explained, “My mother was once busy preparing my father’s food when I began to cry. I was, at the time, a suckling infant. As my mother could not immediately attend to me, the neighbour’s slave girl, who happened to be present, clasped me to her chest to feed me. My father walked in at that moment and on seeing what was happening, immediately exclaimed, ‘Neither does this slave girl belong to us nor does she have the right to feed our child her milk as her masters have not permitted it!’ Saying this, he grabbed me from her and turned me upside down; forcing me to vomit until I had emptied my belly of the few sips I had taken. The stammer and stutter you heard from me today is on account of the ill effects of those few sips I had taken.” (Tabaqaatush Shaafi‘iyyah Al Kubraa vol. 5, pg. 168)

Lessons:

1.The effect of haraam is so detrimental that although Imaamul Haramain (رحمه الله) had emptied his stomach of all the milk, the effects of the traces of the milk still remained and were adversely affecting him many years later.

  1. Just as a petrol car cannot reach its destination on diesel, similarly it is very difficult for a Muslim to reach Jannah when fuelled by haraam. The reason for this is that haraam nourishment creates the inclination towards haraam in the body and removes the inclination to worship and obey Allah Ta‘ala. If we are so particular regarding filling our vehicles, which merely take us from A to B, with the correct fuel, we should be even more particular about filling our bodies, which need to carry us to Jannah, with halaal food.
  2. Being in a time wherein eating out has become common, let us exercise caution and restraint and not eat food from any store/restaurant without first verifying that the food is 100% halaal.

By: alhaadi.org.za

maulana desai’s answer to mufti abdullah nana on rennent

Q. A Mufti in the U.S.A. has issued a fatwa on permissibility of cheese containing rennet obtained from non-zabihah animals. This fatwa has caused much confusion. According to the Mufti, many senior Muftis of the Hanafi Math-hab including Mufti Nizaamuddin and Mufti Mahmood have issued fatwa’s stating that rennet of non-zabihah cattle is permissible to consume. He says that the view of permissibility is also substantiated by many classical texts of the Hanafi School of Thought such as Ahkaamul Qur’aan of Jassaas and Al-Mabsut of Imam Sarakhsy. Please elaborate on this issue.
A. The Mufti Saheb erred in his fatwa regarding beef rennet. Rennet derived from non-zabihah animals (i.e. animals not slaughtered according to the Shariah’s rules) are haraam, hence products containing such rennet are likewise haraam. The cheese containing such haraam rennet is likewise haraam.
Mufti Nizaamuddin, Mufti Mahmood and other senior Hanafi Muftis did not issue a fatwa of permissibility of beef rennet. They merely echoed the same difference of opinion between Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayhim) on a substance called Infahah. Mufti Nizaamuddin and others are of the view that Infahah of non-zabihah calves is halaal, and this is our view as well.
Mufti Abdullah Nana Sahib (of U.S.A.) has understood that rennet is Infahah, hence his error. He has confused rennet with Infahah. Modern dictionaries simply translate Infahah as ‘rennet’ when in reality Infahah is not rennet. Rennet is the enzyme which is extracted from the stomach linings while Infahah is not the rennet enzyme of which the Mufti speaks.
Infafah is the curdled milk – the actual milk – which is obtained from a calf which is slaughtered soon after it drinks its mother’s milk. It is not the enzyme rennet which is obtained from the actual stomach linings. In fact, Infahah of non-zabihah calves according to Qiyaas (i.e. the Shariah’s process of logical reasoning) should also be haraam. However, in view of the fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah had consumed cheese containing Infahah, the hillat ruling is given khilaaf-e-qiyaas or in conflict with logical reasoning. When qiyaas clashes with an act or ruling of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), we put the qiyaas aside and act according to the ruling of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
According to the principles of Fiqah, a khilaaf-e-qiyaas hukm (ruling) may not be extended to other things and substances. It has to be confined to its original substratum which in this case is Infahah. It does not follow from the permissibility of Infahah that everything in the stomach and the stomach and the whole non-zabihah animal is halaal. If the hukm of permissibility of Infahah has to be extended to even the rennet enzyme extracted from the non-zabihah’s stomach, then tomorrow someone can argue that the stomach lining too is halaal, and the stomach too is halaal, and on this basis everything of the non-zabihah animal is halaal. But this is palpably baseless. This baseless consequence is the effect of extending the hukm of the Infahah of non-zabihah animals to the enzyme rennet obtained from the actual stomach linings of non-zabeehah cattle.
It is impossible to produce true Infahah on a commercial scale. A little rennet enzyme will achieve what a huge amount of real Infahah can accomplish. People posing questions to senior Muftis in India and Pakistan sometimes themselves do not understand the issue correctly. They present an incorrect picture, hence obtain a fatwa to suit their desires. Now if someone writes to a Mufti saying that the cheese contains beef rennet and rennet is Infahah, then obviously he will obtain a fatwa of permissibility. Meanwhile the Mufti is unaware of the difference.
All cheese containing animal rennet from non-zabeehah animals is haraam.
Assalamu Alaykum
My name is Abdullah Nana and I am the one who quoted the fatwa regarding rennet. The role of Muftis in this day and age is to merely transmit and reproduce the fatwas of our elders. If one has an objection to what I said, they can refer directly to the elders who issued the original fatwa. I wish to reproduce below what Mufti Shafi has written in Maariful Quran:

  1. Cheese made from milk contains an ingredient called infaha in
    Arabic and ‘rennet’ in English. It is a mucous membrane lining taken
    out from the stomachs of suckling lambs or kids. It is used to
    coagulate or curdle milk. If rennet is taken out of the stomach of an
    animal slaughtered in the name of Allah, there is no harm in using it.
    The meat, fat etc. of an Islamically slaughtered animal are
    permissible. But, in the event they are taken from the stomach of an
    animal slaughtered un-Islamically, there is difference of views among
    Muslim jurists. Imams Abii ani if ah and Mslik consider it clean while
    Imams AbG YGsuf, Muhammad and ~ h awr ?an d others call it unclean
    and impure. (Jas??is, ~urtub;)
    There is a strong likelihood that rennet from un-Islamically
    slaughtered animals is used in cheese made in non-Islamic countries,
    therefore, relying on the consensus of Muslim jurists, one must avoid
    using it. Under the juristic position taken by Imam Abu ani if ah and
    Imam Malik, leeway exists. Some cheeses made in western countries
    have pork-fat as one of their ingredients which, hopefully, can be seen
    on the wrapper or tin. All these are absolutely hariim and impure. (v. 1, pg. 428)

This English translation has been approved by Mufti Taqi Usmani. Please refer to him if you have any objections.

Abdullah Nana

Further clarification and authentification.
1) In a commentary of the hadith text, Mishqatul Masaabeeh, by the famous Hanafi, scholar, Ali Qaari, Mirqaat, volume 8, page 193, is mentioned in the Kitaabul A’timah, Fasl Thaani.

Ibn Umar, radhiallahu anhu, narrates that our Rasul, sallallahu alayhi wasallam, was given a piece of Jubnah [Cheese] in Tabuk; he called for a knife, praying the tasmiyya he cut it [and ate it] narrated by Abu Dawud.
In the commentary, is mentioned; in this is proof of the purity of anfahah, because if it was impure then the cheese itself would be impure for it cannot be made without it [anfahah].

Again In this commentary in volume 2, page 79/80 is mentioned, in Bab Mash alal Khufayn, Fasl Awwal.
Tabraani narrates with a good sanad, although Ghareeb, that in one of the ghazawah, cheese was brought to Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam; He asked where it was made? Someone replied in Persia or in the lands of the Majus. Place the knife on it [cut it] and eat it. Someone said; O Rasulullah, we fear it may be carrion [Maitah]. He replied pray the tasmiyyah and eat it. Tirmidhi has mentioned a hadith wherein the Prophet was given a pair of leather socks and he wore them, without knowing whether they were pure or not. In the hadith of Salmaan, our Rasul was questioned regarding Jubn [cheese], Simn [clarifed butter] and Faraa’e [leather] together with the fact that it was taken from the lands of the Majus. It was mentioned to Umar regarding Jubn [cheese] and said to him that the rennet of dead animals are put in it [cheese]. He replied pray the tasmiyyah and eat it. Imam Ahmad mentions that this is the most sound hadith regarding cheese manufactured by Majus.

From the above commentaries it is evident that if rennet is derived from an animal that is permissible to eat, despite how it is slaughtered, it is Halaal to eat such cheese, despite the method used in the making of cheese.The rennet formed by the milk drunk by a newly born calf, which is then slaughtered and taken from its stomach is somewhat solid and has the effect of solidifying liquid milk and transforming it into cheese. Its permissibility though seemingly irrational because what is within the womb and stomach is under the law of impurity but the permissibility of cheese is established by Nass [Sharii proof] and agreed, therefore rennet is pure and permissible Fatwa Mazahir Ulum Volume 1 page 110.

2) Mufti Taqi’ Uthmaani, mentions that the ruling of Hadhraat Saahibayn is more cautious whilst that of Imaam Abu Hanifah is extensive or accommodating. If a pious person refrains it is better, whilst if a person is consuming cheese do not stop him. However, the rennet derived from the stomach of a pig is Haraam and Impure, provided its original property and chemical makeup does not undergo any drastic change.
Vegetarian or synthetic rennet, if nothing impure has been added to it will be Halaal. The cheese sold in supermarkets and shops, if it is vegetarian or derived from animals slaughtered Islamically is permissible to consume. On the other hand if it is pig rennet used in the cheese, without transformation then this is not permissible. Lastly, the rennet in cheese from animals other than pig is permissible, but abstention is desirable.
Bahr al-Raa’iq Volume 1 page 112/3

The point is that these Muftis have all understood the arabic word ‘anfihah’ to refer to rennet. Almost all the Muftis that have written a fatwa on ‘anfihah’ have translated it as ‘rennet.’ If someone wants to claim otherwise, then they should present their alternative view with references from reliable scholars that the word ‘Anfihah’ is not translated as rennet. The correct people to refer to for issues related to the translation of ‘Anfihah’ are Mufti Taqi, Mufti Sacha, Darul Ifta at Darul Uloom Karachi, and other senior scholars who have understood the word ‘Anfihah’ to refer to rennet and translated it as such into English. I am just a transmitter of their views. This is not my original view. Allah knows best.

ASSALAMU ALAIKUM

22 Rabiul Awwal 1431 (9-03-2010)

Hassaan Sulaiman, Pakistan

Respected Brother,

Your e-mail dated 6-03-2010 refers.

When I had returned from studies in 1970, I too was thinking along the
lines that Maulana Abdullah Nana of U.S.A. is presently thinking. He
appears to be a sincere person and espousing the Haqq. May Allah
Ta’ala increase him in knowledge and wisdom. It is my fervent dua
that he will develop into a shining example of an Aalim-e-Haqq.

Many decades ago I too had misunderstood the issue of rennet and I
had argued against senior South African Ulama who had issued the fatwa
of hurmat of cheese which contained animal rennet derived from ghair
mathbooh animals. In fact I had published an article in an early issue
of The Majlis refuting that view of prohibition. Later when I met the
respected senior Mufti Sanjalvi Sahib (rahmatullah alayh) who had
issued the fatwa of prohibition, he explained the difference between
anfahah and present-day rennet. Rennet as it is known today is not the
anfafah which was in the cheese consumed by the Sahaabah.

The original anfafah is permissible khilaaf-e-qiyaas. Such a hukm
cannot be extended to other haraam substances for declaring them
halaal. The original anfafah was the actual curdled milk which was
extracted from the stomach of the calf soon after it had drunk from
its mother and then slaughtered. On the contrary, commercial rennet
manufactured today is not the curdled milk. It is the enzyme which is
extracted from the actual linings of the stomach.

Now if the extract from the haraam stomach linings is proclaimed
halaal on the basis of the khilaaf-e-qiyaas hukm of anfafah which
according to Qiyaas is haraam, and which according to many Fuqaha is
haraam despite the Hadith, then logically the stomach linings will
also be halaal. Then on the same analogical basis the stomach of the
ghair mathbooh animal will also be halaal, and on the same basis, the
meat of the ghair mathbooh will also be halaal.

The one faasid qiyaas will lead to another corrupt ruling, and then
the entire Ruling of hurmat of carrion will be abrogated.

The faasid conclusion of the Muftis on the issue of cheese is their
inability to understand the simple difference between anfafah and
commercial rennet.

Was-salaam A.S. Desai