[Q 406]Halal Status of Meat from a Non-Muslim Franchise, when workers are all Muslim

Question

What do the esteemed scholars say regarding the following matter: If a meat or chicken franchise (like a takeaway) is owned by a non-Muslim, but its manager and entire staff are Muslims who slaughter animals according to the Islamic method and sell the meat, then will the ownership of the non-Muslim make the meat ḥarām or not? Kindly guide on this matter.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الجواب بعون الملك الوهاب اللهم هداية الحق والصواب

Answer

According to Islamic law, when it comes to the permissibility (ḥalāl) or impermissibility (ḥarām) of the slaughter, the determining factor is the one performing the slaughter, not the owner of the animal. Ownership of the animal by a Muslim is not a condition for permissibility. Rather, if a Muslim slaughters a halal animal, fulfilling all Islamic conditions and saying Bismillāh (i.e the takbir) at the time of slaughter, the meat will be considered ḥalāl—even if the animal belongs to a polytheist.

Therefore, once it is confirmed that the slaughter was performed by a Muslim under Islamic guidelines, the fact that the franchise is owned by a non-Muslim does not make the meat unlawful. In the case mentioned, if the franchise is non-Muslim-owned, but the slaughter is done properly by Muslims—ensuring the animal is lawful and the name of Allah is recited—then the meat is ḥalāl, provided there is no other Shariah violation involved.

The Qur’an says:

“وَمَا لَكُمْ أَلَّا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا ذُكِرَ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَقَدْ فَصَّلَ لَكُمْ مَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ”

Translation (Kanz al-Imān):”And what is the matter with you that you do not eat from that upon which Allah’s Name has been mentioned, while He has already explained in detail what He has made Haram upon you.”

(Surah al-An‘ām, 6:119)

Under this verse, Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī states:

“المعنى ما المانع لمن أكل ما سميتم عليه ربكم وإن قتلتموه بأيديكم”

Translation:”The meaning is: What is preventing you from eating that over which you have pronounced the Name of your Lord—even though you slaughtered it with your own hands?”

(Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, Vol. 7, p. 73, Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, Cairo)

It is stated in Fatāwā ‘Ālamgīriyyah:

“مسلم ذبح شاة المجوسي تؤكل؛ لأنه سمى الله تعالى”

Translation:“If a Muslim slaughters the goat of a Magian (someone who practices Zoroastrian), it is permissible to eat it because the Muslim took the name of Allah while slaughtering. As has been mentioned in Tatar khaniya from jami’ al-fatawa (summurized)”

(Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah, Vol. 5, p. 286, Dār al-Fikr, Beirut)

Imām Aḥmad Riḍā Khān رحمة اللہ علیه writes in Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah:

If a non-Muslim has an animal slaughtered by a Muslim—e.g., he gives a sheep or goat to a Muslim to slaughter—and then the Muslim purchases it from him before it leaves the Muslim’s sight, then it is permissible.”

(Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, Vol. 20, p. 289, Raḍā Foundation, Lahore)

In another place, he elaborates:

The ruling in this matter is that the permissibility or impermissibility of the slaughter depends on the state, the statement, and the intention of the slaughterer—not the owner. For example, if a Magian slaughters an animal that belongs to a Muslim, it becomes ḥarām—even though the owner is a Muslim. But if a Muslim slaughters an animal owned by a Magian, it becomes ḥalāl—even though the owner is a polytheist. Similarly, if Zayd owns the animal, and ‘Umar slaughters it intentionally omitting the takbīr, it becomes ḥarām—even if the owner stands beside him repeatedly saying Bismillāh Allāhu Akbar. On the other hand, if the slaughterer recites the takbīr, it becomes ḥalāl—even if the owner doesn’t say it even once. If the slaughterer slaughters with the intention of glorifying or worshipping other than Allah, then the slaughter is ḥarām—even if the owner’s intention was to sacrifice for Allah alone.”

(Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, Vol. 20, pp. 269–270, Raḍā Foundation, Lahore)

He further states:

This person becomes sinful, (when slaughtering) because of exercising control in the wealth of another without the owner’s permission. However, if the person is qualified to slaughter and did not intentionally omit the takbīr, then the slaughter is valid. Even to the extent that if the animal was purchased by the owner specifically for Qurbānī (ritual sacrifice), and this person slaughtered it during the days of sacrifice, and the owner then accepted that slaughtered animal, then the Qurbani will be valid. If instead, the owner demanded compensation, then this will counts as Qurbani for the one who slaughtered it.”

(Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, Vol. 20, pp. 290–291, Raḍā Foundation, Lahore)

Note: If the meat being sold at the franchise is not slaughtered on-site but delivered from a slaughterhouse, then it becomes necessary to confirm with a trustworthy Muslim present at the franchise that the meat was indeed slaughtered by a Muslim.

In matters of religion, the principle regarding reliance on another person’s report is:

If the person providing the information is a just, pious, and trustworthy Muslim, then his report is valid in Shariah. However, if the informer is not ‘ādil (just)—i.e., he is fāsiq or mastūr al-ḥāl (whose character is unknown)—then his report will only be accepted if the listener’s heart is satisfied with his truthfulness. Otherwise, it is not permissible to rely and act upon his statement. As for the report of a disbeliever, it is not considered valid in religious matters.

As mentioned, regarding the statement of a non-Muslim in religious affairs, in Durr al-Ḥukām Sharḥ Gharar al-Aḥkām:

“لأن الحل والحرمة من الديانات ولا يقبل قول الكافر في الديانات”

Translation:”Because the matters of permissibility and prohibition pertain to religion, and the statement of a disbeliever is not accepted in religious matters.”

(Durr al-Ḥukām Sharḥ Gharar al-Aḥkām, Vol. 1, p. 311, Dār Iḥyā’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyyah)

It is written in Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah:

“Yes, as long as the meat was slaughtered by a Muslim and did not leave his sight, then that Muslim and others may act on his report that this is the same meat slaughtered by a Muslim. In that case, the report is from a Muslim, not a disbeliever. However, if the one informing is not trustworthy, then it is a condition that the listener’s heart is convinced of his truthfulness.”

“Al-Tanwīr states: Justice (‘adālah*) is a condition in religious matters. When the person is fāsiq or mastūr al-ḥāl, one must carefully contemplate.”

(Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, Vol. 20, p. 289, Raḍā Foundation, Lahore)

In another volume:

“The informer must be either a trustworthy and just person, or the one being informed must reflect and if the truth of the report settles in his heart, then it is permissible to act upon it. But if the informer is not trustworthy, and the listener is not convinced, then acting upon such a report is improper.”

(Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, Vol. 23, p. 186, Raḍā Foundation, Lahore)

Answered by: Mufti Sajid Attari

Translation checked by: Muhammad Aqib Attari

Date: 3rd May 2025