is it true that if you eat non-halal meat your dua wont be accepted for 40 days?

thanks for that aH bro!

 

concerning the article linked in:
the problem with la-madhabism and its influence of pick-and-choose is that one can find an anomaly for almost any ruling/opinion and then claiming difference of opinion, relax or make concessions according to one's whim. this kind of reasoning is dangerous and is deplored as talfiq.

in our age, all a body has to do is dip into some book and pick the 'differences' or the ikhtilafat. and argue about how pious people already did it, ignoring the fact that our elders KNEW about it; because they reported it, didn't they?

setting this ikhtilaf as a basis, they simply use this to rationalize or justify an opinion that they have already formed.

---
let us examine the short article which cites imam al-baghawi's tafsir to adduce reason to his argument.

first of all, it is from a book of tafsir citing various opinions and glossing over the minutiae of these opinions.

secondly, is this the opinion of imam baghawi and the shafiyi school? the article says:

this is misleading because it sets the expectation of the reader; the undertone is: 'after all, he is an ardent shafiyi; why would he quote it if he did not profess it?'

however, the same imam baghawi in the same tafsir says under verse 2:173 about "uhilla bihi li ghayrillah" : and he said: that on which a name of someone other than Allah has been uttered.


and the article makes no attempt to clarify the fact that as an exegete, imam al-baghawi is simply mentioning other opinions, not necessarily agreeing to all of them. the tafsir is itself not a very detailed analysis of the sayings either. for example, these elder scholars differentiated between the types of christians; converts and original christians. israyili christians and arab christians; they differentiated between the various permutations of a christian uttering the name of masiH alayhi's salam; they differentiated on what the christians professed before the time of RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam and after his advent and so forth.

see badayiy as-Sanayiy vol.5, pgs 67-74 for a detailed explanation of what they meant when they said: 'Allah ta'ala KNEW what the ahl al-kitab say and yet permitted their slaughter.'

----
kitabi, ahl al-kitab: jews and christians; people of the book.

from badayiy pg.68:

it is permissible to eat the slaughtered meat of a kitabi when [a muslim] has not witnessed the act of slaughter and has not heard what the kitabi has uttered. or if he has heard only the uttering of Allah's name. because if he [a muslim] has not heard anything, it is assumed that the name of Allah ta'ala and ONLY the name of Allah ta'ala has been uttered; and this is merely having good faith [taHsinan li'DH Dhann] of the kitabi just as we would do with a muslim [and his slaughter].

suppose [a muslim] heard the kitabi mention the name of Allah, yet the kitabi intended that name to mean jesus `alayhi's salatu wa's salam; scholars have said: such a slaughter is valid and is [permissible to be] eaten [by muslims] because externally, it is the same name uttered by muslims. unless it is specifically mentioned; for example, if the kitabi specifies by saying: 'in the name of Allah, who is the third of the trinity..' in which case, it is impermissible.

it has been reported from sayyiduna `ali karramAllahu wajhah that he was asked about the slaughter of the ahl al-kitab and that they say what they say. and he replied - may Allah be well pleased with him - "Allah ta'ala has made permissible the slaughter of the ahl al-kitab and He Knows what they say; however, if you hear the kitabi utter only the name of MasiH `alayhi's salatu wa's salam or the name of MasiH along with the name of Allah ta'ala then do NOT EAT IT.

that is how sayyiduna `ali raDiyallahu `anhu has been reported to have said and there is nothing contradictory to this attributed to him which makes it a consensus/ijmaa'a [that is the opinion of sayyiduna `ali is just one and as mentioned above in this case]

​

-------------
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

Found this on a website. A shafi view?


Baghawi’s Tafsir of 5:5 ; Can we eat the meat of the christians, even though it may be slaughtered in the Messiah’s name?

 

If we are to take the principal that actions are based upon intentions & thus if one accidently or unknowingly consumes that which is unlawful then following this logic I do not assume you would be punished or held accountable for it.

 

i mean madani bhai, not the haram bit but the 'no dua qabooled for 40 days bit'

 

how can it have no basis in shariah,eating non halal meat is haram

 

Yes, I have heard similar accounts.

But, I wonder...........surely if it is consumed un-intentionally or by mistake, then your dua can't be nullified....can it?? Just thinking out aloud..........

 

As-salamu 'alaykum

Well, there are some ahadith in the light of which people say such things: For instance it comes in Tirmidhi that:

One who drinks Wine, Allah does not accept that persons Salah for forty days.

I once heard from a doctor, that when you eat something, precisely (or maximum) after 40 days, "the last rest/part" of it (what you ate) leaves your body. This could be the hikma behind it, that you inside your body has haram.

There is another well-known hadith in Miskhat saying:

A person after travelling a long distance, with dispersed hairs and covered with dust, raises his hands for the prayer and says O Allah!, O Allah! But his food is Haram, his drink is Haram and his dress is Haram. So how can his prayer be accepted by Allah?

Allah Hafiz

 

...or is this just another saying which is common amongst the awaam but has no basis in shariah?