CHAPTER NINETEEN: LOOKING AFTER ANIMALS ON THE NAMES OF SAINTS

CHAPTER NINETEEN
LOOKING AFTER ANIMALS ON THE NAMES OF SAINTS
Some people very punctually observe and commemorate the Fatiha of Gyarwee or Meelad Sharif. Some time before, they raise and fatten chickens, etc. for slaughter (zabah) and take the name of Allahعزوجل on the day of the Fatiha. The food is served to the pious and needy. Due to the animal being brought up and nourished with this intention, it is called ‘The sheep of Gyarwee” or “The cow for Ghaus Paak رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ. According to the Shariah, this is Halaal and similar to looking after an animal for a Waleemah. However, the opposition rules this to be Haraam, deeming the meat to be carrion and the person who does so to be a Murtad and polytheist.
PROOF OF DOING SO
The Halaal animal which a Muslim or Ahle-Kitaab (person originally of a Divine religion, i.e. Jews, Christians) slaughters whilst taking the name of Allahعزوجل is Halaal. On the contrary, the Halaal animal slaughtered by a Murtad or Mushrik is carrion and impure. Additionally, if a Muslim intentionally and knowingly omits saying ‘Bismillah’ or takes someone else’s name besides Allahعزوجل and then slaughters (e.g. instead of saying “Bismillah, AllahuAkbar”, he says, “Ya Ghaus”), it is Haraam.
It should be bared in mind that Hilat (state of being Halaal) and Hurmat (state of being Haraam) is based on the slaughter of the animal, not its owner. If the animal of a Muslim is slaughtered by a Mushrik, it becomes impure carrion. If a Murshrik brought up an animal on the name of an idol but it was slaughtered by a Muslim who took the name of Allahعزوجل it is Halaal. Likewise, at the time of slaughtering, credibility is given to the taking of name, not before or after it. If the animal was on the name of an idol during its lifetime but the name of Allahعزوجل was taken at the time of its slaughtering, it is Halaal. If it was a Qurbaani animal in its lifetime but, at the time of slaughtering, a name besides Allahعزوجل was taken, it becomes Haraam.
This is what the Holy Quran refers to in the ayat, ‘The animal that was called on the name of ether than Allahعزوجل is also Haraam.” 19.1 ­Surah Baqarah, Verse 173
Here, “called” refers to which name was taken at the time of slaughtering. Tafseer Baidaawi states in the commentary of this ayat, “[If] The name of other than Allahعزوجل was taken on that ‘animal just as how the Kutfaar used to take the name of Laat and Uzza at the time of slaughtering:’ 19.2
Tafseer Jalaalain states, ” … In the manner that slaughtering was made on the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل .”
Tafseer Khaazin states, “That animal which was slaughtered on the name of anyone besides Allahعزوجل is Haraam, because the Arabs used to take the names of idols at the time of slaughtering during the Period of Ignorance. Allahعزوجل has classified this to be Haraam through this ayat and the other verse ‘Wa Laa Ta’kuloo … ‘” 19.4
Imam Fakhruddin Raazi رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes. “At the time of slaughtering, Arabs used to say ‘Bismilaat wal-Uzza’ (In the name of Laat and Uzza). Allahعزوجل has decreed this to be Haraam.,,19.5 – Tafseer Kabeer
Mulla Jeewan رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes under this ayat, “The verse means that the animal has been slaughtered on the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل e.g. idols!’ 19.6 -Tafseeroat-e-Ahmadia
Imam Nasafi رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes, “The animal that is slaughtered for idols is Haraam (i.e. the name of others besides Allahعزوجل was taken on it). In other words, the calling of idols was taken on it, and ‘Bismilaat wal-Uzza’ was said by the People of Ignorance ” – Tafseer Madaarik
Tafseer Lubaabut-Ta’weel states, “یعنی ماذبح للاصنام و الطواغیت و اصل الاھلال رفع الصوت و ذلک انھم کانوا یرقعون اصواتھم بذکر الھتھم اذا زبحوھا”.
From all of these commentaries, it is established that ‘Uhilaa’ in the ayat means taking the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل at the time of slaughtering. Thus, associating an animal in its lifetime to something is of no consequence. We now present the rulings of the Jurists.
Under the ayat, “و ما اھل بہ لغیر اللہ” Mulla Jeewen رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes. “We know from this that the cow which has been taken as a Nazar (vow) for the Friends of Allahعزوجل, as is the practice of our time, is Halaal and pure. This is because the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل is not taken at the time of slaughtering, even though a vow (Nazar) of the cow was!’ 19.10 – Tafseeraat-e-Ahmadiya
This has specifically cleared the issue of the Gyarwee Sharif’s cow by directly speaking about it. The author of this book is Mulla Jeewan رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ, who was a Buzurg and teacher to both Arab and non-Arab Ulama. The entire Deobandi fraternity also accepts him as an Islamic Scholar. Allama Shaami رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes. “It should be known that the credibility of Hilat (state of being Halaal) and Hurmat (state of being Haraam) is of intention at the time of slaughtering.” 19.11 – Raddul­Muhtaar, Baabuz-Zabah
This also explains that the intention or name before slaughtering has absolutely no reliability. Alamghiri states, “If a Muslim slaughtered a goat that was for the temple of fire-worshippers or the idols of a Kaafir, it is Halaal because the Muslim invoked Allah’s عزوجل name at the time of slaughter. However, doing so is disliked (Makrooh) for a Muslim. The book ‘Taataar Khaaniya’ quotes ‘Jaamiul­Fataawa’ likewise l9.12 – Baahuz-Zahah
Thus, regarding the animal which has been brought up by a Kaafir who wants to slaughter it with the intention of worship of the idol or fire, both the bringing up by the owner and his reason for sacrifice are wrong, but the animal is Halaal because at the time of slaughter, a Muslim took the name of Allahعزوجل and sacrificed it. So, is the sheep of Gyarwee or Meelad more abhorred than the sheep of an idol-worshipper, that the former is Haraam while the latter is Halaal?
Alhamdulillah, it has clearly been established that the’ animal for Gyarwee, etc. is Halaal and that this action is a means of reward.

OBJECTIONS and ANSWERS TO LOOKING AFIER ANIMALS ON THE NAME OF THE FRIENDS OF ALLAHعزوجل
OBJECTION 1: “وما اھل بہ لغیر اللہ”the word ‘Uhilaa’ comes from the root word ‘IhlaaI’, which doesn’t mean sacrifice according to the dictionary, but to term something absolutely. Therefore, whichever animal is labeled on the name or other than Allahعزوجل whether in its lifetime or at the time of sacrifice, is carrion and impure. So, the sheep for Ghaus Paak رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ ., etc. is Haraam even though it is sacrificed on the Dame of Allahعزوجل.
Note- This objection is raised by Shah Abdul-Azeez, who has made a major mistake in not understanding this issue.
Answer – Definitely, the literal meaning of Ihlaal is to term or address something absolutely. However, its urfi (general usage) meaning is specifically to call out at the time of sacrificing. The urfi meaning is intended here.
The literal meaning of Salaah is dua absolutely, but it is generally used to mean Namaaz. Thus, we take the ayat “Establish your Salaah” as an order to read Namaaz, not make dua. Commentating on the verse, Imam Fakhruddin Raazi رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes, “Ihlaal means to raise the voice (callout). This is its meaning according to the dictionary. Thereafter, it has been used in relation to a Muhrim (one in the ihram of lIajj).” 19.14 – Tafseer Kabeer
The marginal notes on Tafseer Baidaawi by Shuhaab states under this ayat, “In other words, he has been called out. This is the literal meaning of ‘Uhilaa’. After that, it is used to mean the animal that has been sacrificed on the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل ” 19.15
If the literal meaning Ihlaal is taken here, it will necessitate certain ills,
1. This Tafseer (Commentary of the Holy Quran) will be contrary to the rulings and elucidations of the Sahaaba and the Consensus of the Mufassireen. The opinions of the Mufassireen have already been presented in the first chapter. We now present the rulings and statements of the Sahaaba. Tafseer Durre-Mansoor states under this ayat, “اخرج ابن المنذر عن ابن عباس فی قولہ تعالی و ما اھل الایۃ قال ذبح و اخرج ابن حمائر عن ابن عباس و ما اھل یعنی ما اھل للطواغیت و اخرج ابن ابی حاتم عن مجاھد و ما اھل قال ما ذبح لغیر اللہ و اخرج ابن حاتم عن ابی العالیۃ و ما اھل یقول ما ذکر علیہ اسم غیر اللہ”. Tafseer Mazhari
We come to know that according to the decision of the Sahaaba and Taba’een, the ayat refers to sacrificing on the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل .
2. The meaning you adopt goes against the Holy Quran itself. It states, “Allahعزوجل has not adopted Baheera, Saaiba, Waseelab and Haam; but the Kaafirs assert lies towards Allahعزوجل 19.16 – Surah Maida. Verse 103
These four animals (Baheera, etc.) used to be left free by the Kuffaar of the Arabian Peninsula on the names of idols, and they used to deem them to be Haraam. The Quran, however, refuted them being Haraam despite being taken in the names of idols during their lifetimes. It also ordered that these animals may be consumed.
Under the ayat, “ما جعل اللہ من بحیرۃ الخ” 19.19 Tafseer Fat’hul-Bayaan states, ”This ayat aims to reject the impermissibility of those animals which the Kuffaar used to deem Haraam (i.e. Baheera, etc). The animals are not Haraam due to being regarded by Kaafirs as so.” 19.20
Imam Nawawi رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes the same in his Sharah on Muslim, Kitaabul-Jannah, Baabus-Sifatilati Yurafoo bihaa fid-Dunya,
This establishes that the bull or cow raised on the name of idols does not become Haraam. Thus, if a Muslim slaughters it while taking Allah’s عزوجل name, it becomes Halaal. Naturally. It is prohibited if the animal is in the ownership of another individual.
Allahعزوجل also states, “The Kuffaar said, ‘These animals and farms are forbidden. No one will eat these things except those who we wish through our thought 19.21 _ Surah Anaam, Verse 138
And, “The Kuffaar said, “Whatever is in the stomach of these animals is specifically for our deceased and Haraam on our women,” 19.22 – Surah Anaam, Verse 139
These were the farms and animals that were dedicated (waqf) to the names of idols.
The Kuffaar used to enforce severe restrictions on the permissibility of these things, but the Holy Quran refuted them. So, when animals that have been left free on the names of idols do not become Haraam, how does the animal that was brought up with the intention of slaughtering it for the Fatiha of the Friends of Allahعزوجلbecome Haraam?
3. The meaning you ascribe to ‘Uh1iha’ is also contrary to the rulings of the Jurists. Refer to the previous chapter wherein the verdicts of Alamghiri and Tafseeraat-e-Ahmadia are quoted.
4. Adopting this meaning also goes against rational thinking. because if the literal meaning of ‘Uhilaa’ (i.e. emplacing the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل on an animal during its lifetime or at the time of slaughtering) causes it to become Haraam, it impels other things besides these animals which are asserted to someone other than Allahعزوجل a to also become Haraam, as the Holy Quran states, “Eve’l.thing that is called out on the name of someone other than Allahعزوجل 19. 3
There is no restriction on animals in the word ‘Maa'(Everything). So, irrespective of whether it is made with the intention of worship (Taqarrub) or anything else, prohibition must be leveled unconditionally. Thus: the sheep of laid, the buffalo of Amr, my house, the well of Umme Sa’ad رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ, the Madrassah of Deoband, the book of Imam Bukhari etc. all become forbidden and their usage Haraam because they have now been related to someone besides Allahعزوجل! Friend, sometimes association to other than Allahعزوجل causes an increase in the value of the object (e.g. the handwritten Quran of Huzoor Ghause Paak e, etc). In short, this meaning of ‘Uhilaa’ is incorrect in both academic proofs and rationality.

5. Consider a person who raises an animal on the name of an idol but repented from this (i.e. he accepted Islam) afterwards in his life. If he slaughters the animal with the correct intention and procedure, it is considered Halaal unanimously. However, this is also incorporated in ‘Uhilaa’. In fact, the restriction of ‘Uhilaa’ falls into place if the name of anyone other than Allahعزوجل is used on the animal even once! Therefore, we have to accept that the taking of name at the time of slaughtering is credible, not the labeling before it. If a person slaughters the animal on the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل but intends the name of Allahعزوجل on the carcass, this is absolutely not credible.
In any case, accepting this meaning is totally incorrect.
OBJECTION 2: It is an accepted rule of Fiqh that if ‘Bismillah’ is said OD an animal at the time of slaughtering but the intention of slaughtering was to attain closeness through worship (faqarrub) to someone besides Allahعزوجل , it is Haraam. This is found here, because the intention a person has behind the commemoration of Gyanvee is to please Huzoor Ghaus Paak رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ.So, even if ‘Bismillah’ is said at the time of slaughtering the animal, it is Haraam based on tbis rule. Its proof follows in Objection do.3.
Answer – There are four types of slaughtering (zabah):
I. When the purpose is merely the dropping of blood for the pleasure of Allahعزوجل (the actual meat is not the primary concern). It is performed for Qurbaani, Hadi (during Hajj], Aqeeqab and the animal slaughtered in a vow. It is also an act of worship though restriction of time or place is found in it, e.g. Qurbaani is only performed at a particular time, not before or after, and Hadi is counted in the Haram of Makkeh, not anywhere else.
2. Slaughtering to test the sharpness of a knife. This is neither an act of worship nor a sin. If ‘Bismillah’ is said here the animal is Halaal. Otherwise, it is Haraam.
3. Slaughtering for eating, i.e. weddings, waleemas or for purposes of trade.
This is the slaughtering made for the Fatiha of the Buzurgs. The single intention behind all of these is the attainment of meat. If ‘Bismillah’ is not said, the animal becomes Haraam. If it is, it is Halaal.
4. Slaughtering to please someone besides Allahعزوجل. This is made with the sole intention of flowing blood, not for the meat at all. An example of this is how Hindus sacrifice animals on alters of their idols and gods, intending to please their idols by presenting its blood. If such animals are slaughtered, even while saying ‘Bismillah’, they will still be Haraam as long as the person slaughtering has the intention of this sacrifice, not the one making him slaughter. These rulings of Fiqh refer to this. The Holy Quran states, ‘Those animals which are sacrificed on idols are Haraam.” I .24 _ Surah Maida, Verse 3
Allama Sulaiman Jamal رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes in the commentary of this ayat, ‘The animal through whose slaughtering the worship of an idol is intended, with the idol’s name not being taken at the time of slaughtering, is Haraam. The animal which is slaughtered in the respect of an idol is also Haraam. Therefore, ‘alaa’ here actually means ‘lee’ (effectively giving the meaning of for the alter of idols). Thus, this ayat does not reiterate the previous one because ‘Maa Uhilaa’ there refers to those animals which were slaughtered taking the names of idols. Here, those animals, through whose slaughter respecting the idol is intended (even though their names may not be taken at the time of slaughtering), are being referred to.” 19.25
Subhanallah! This clearly explains the issue. Whichever animal is slaughtered while taking the name of an idol is included in ‘Maa Uhilaa’ while those animals which are slaughtered with the intent of respecting someone besides Allahعزوجل under ‘Ma Zubihaa alan-Nasab”. Some Jurists have proven both categories from the ayat ‘Ma Uhilaa’, i.e. ‘Maa Zubihaa li Ta’zeemi Ghairilllah’ (whatever is slaughtered for the respect of someone besides Allahعزوجل). The extract of Durre­Mukhtaar refers to this. In short, there are two factors which affect the prohibition of an animal.
1. Taking the name of someone besides Allahعزوجل at the time of slaughtering.
2. Making blood flow as a sacrifice or to please anyone but Allahعزوجل with the implication that the meat is not directly the object of the slaughtering. But to gain closeness through worship (taqarrub) to someone besides Allahعزوجل.This is what the Jurists rule to be Haraam.
The animals of Gyarwee and Fatiha are from the third category not the fourth. This is why it is not Haraam, since the intention of the person slaughtering the animal is for the attainment of meat to make Fatiha on cook it and distribute it amongst the needy. Ultimately, the meat is the object here. This difference should definitely be remembered.
Some Deobandis say. “The meat of an animal is not intended by the person who slaughters it for Gyarwee. He is neither willing to exchange it for another one nor replace it for an equal amount of meat. So, if the attainment of meat was truly intended, why is he so possessive of it? We come to know that dropping blood on the name of Ghaus Paak رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ is intended not the meat.”
This is wrong for two reasons.
1. The reality of an intention (niyyat) is only known by the person who intends it. To have suspicions of Muslims without any proof is Haraam.
2. The sole reason for not exchanging the animal is due to preparation and sentiment. The person thinks that the meat being attained in the exchange will not be similar to the meat of the animal he has raised. Some people look after animals for Waleemas and also don’t like changing them. Though there are some who incorrectly believe that changing the animal promised in slaughtering for Fatiha is not allowed for Qurbaani, why should the slaughtering become Haraam due to this?

In the end, sentiment and preparation is one thing and sacrifice is another. The summary of all of this is that if the slaughtering itself is made with the intent of pleasing someone else besides Allahعزوجل. It is Haraam. However, if it is for Fatiha or feeding people, and the Fatiha or feeding is not to please any person, it is Halaal.
OBJECTION 3: Both Durre-Mukhtaar and AJamghiri in Baabuz-Zabah, as well as Imam Nawawi in his Sharah of Muslim Sharif, state, “The animal slaughtered on the coming of a king or an influential person is Haraam because the name of someone other than Allahعزوجل has been taken on it, even though Allah’sعزوجل name itself was actually taken.” 19.26
We come to know that slaughtering an animal for the pleasure of someone is Haraam even if it is slaughtered saying ‘Bismlllah”. Thus, the animal for Gyarwee is Haraam because it is-for the pleasure of Ghaus Paak رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ. Taking the name of Allahعزوجل at this time doesn’t change anything.
Answer – The complete reply to this has been given in the answer to Objection 2 (if the animal is slaughtered with the intention of sacrifice for the king or anyone else, it is Haraam). We have already explained the meaning of sacrifice (Its object is to please only Allahعزوجل. by the dropping of blood. The meat is secondary). If the animal is slaughtered for meat to feed the king, etc, it is Halaal even though the intent behind feeding is pleasing the king. Durre-Mukhtaar states, “If the slaughtering is for the guest, it is not Haraam because this is the practice of Hadrat Ibrahim علیہ السلام, and to respect a guest is respect to the command of Allahعزوجل.fllt. The difference is that if the meat of the animal is placed before the guest so that he may eat from it, this slaughtering will be for Allahعزوجل and its benefits for the guest (the same applies to slaughtering for a waleema or for trade).
If the meat was not given to the guest to eat was distributed to people, this is respect for someone besides Allahعزوجل and is effectively Haraam.-Kitaabul-Zabaaih, Baabuz-Zabah
This clearly proves that the difference between worship (ibaadat) and that which isn’t is the intention behind the meat. Durre-Mukhtaar further states, “Doing so is disliked (Makrooh) but the slaughterer will not become a Kaafir through it because we do not think negativell about a Muslim (that he worships other than Allahعزوجل through this slaughter}.” I .28 -Ibid
This verifies that having negative suspicions on Muslims is a crime. The marginal notes of Durre-Mukhtaar, Raddul-Muhtaar by Allama Shaami elucidate this even further. However, whatever we have provided is sufficient.
Under the ayat, “و ما اھل بہ لغیر اللہ ” Allama Ismail Haqqi رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ writes, The Ulama of Bukhara have given a verdict of prohibition (Hunnat) disallowing slaughtering an animal before the coming of a king to gain nearness to him. Imam Raafi states that the animal doesn’t become Haraam because these people slaughtered it on the happiness of the king’s arrival, just as in Aqeeqah on the birth of a child. Occasions like this do not make the animal Haraam. Sharah Mashaariq states likewise.,,19.30 – Tafseer Roohul-Bayaan
We learn from the above that in the past, it was a practice to slaughter animals in every home on the arrival of a king. This tradition doesn’t exist today. Whatever slaughtering was made with the intention of worshipping the king is Haraam, but the slaughtering to demonstrate happiness by feeding people is Halaal. The difference in verdicts (Fataawa) here is due to the change in times. In brief, the animal for Gyarwee has absolutely no connection to the slaughtering made on the coming of the king.
OBJECTION 4: The person who looks after a sheep with the intention or Gyanvee is an apostate (Murtad) because making a vow on someone besides Allahعزوجل is infidelity (kufr). The slaughtering of a Kaafir and Murtad is Haraam. Thus, the slaughtering of someone who makes Gyanvee is Haraam. Sbaami states, “و النذر للمخلوق لا یجوز لانہ عبادۃ و العبادۃ لا لمخلوق”- Vol. 1, Kitaabus-Saum, Discussion on Nazar-e-Amwoat
Answer – The comprehensive reply to this has already been given by us (that this is not a Shar’i, but an urfi Nazar vow. An urfi Nazar means gift or tribute. This is not polytheism (shirk). Refer to the discussion on Urfi Nazar for the complete answer [under the reply to Objection 3 in the discussion of placing flowers or sheets upon or lighting the burial places of the Friends of Allahعزوجل].