Zaid argues that since stunning animals before slaughter is only Makrooh Tahreemi, it is permissible and the slaughtering cannot be labelled haraam.

Answer

Zaid has mentioned the term 'Makrooh Tahreemi' without understanding what this term signifies. Zaid should be told to first learn the meaning of the term, then comment. We do not know from whence he obtained this term. If Zaid has any Ilmi expertise then he should check up the definition and consequences of Makrooh Tahrimi.

The notion that perpetration of Makrooh Tahreemi is acceptable because it is not 'haraam', is absolutely preposterous, baseless and tantamount to kufr. In fact ascribing the word, only to describe Makrooh Tahreemi is by itself kufr. The Ulama of the Shariah have categorically said that Istikhfaaf of any Deeni act, be it a Mustahab, is kufr. Thus, Imaam Abu Yusuf threatened to slay a person who had mentioned eating dubbaa' (marrow, a kind of pumpkin)

with Istikhfaaf despite the fact that consuming marrow is not even technically Mustahab. This is mentioned in the kutub of Aqaaid.

Zaid should be asked to provide his Shar'i daleel for his idea that perpetration of Makrooh Tahreemi is acceptable. This view testifies to Zaid's gross ignorance of Shar'i issues.

Stunning and the meat being halaal are two separate issues. But Zaid out of ignorance is confusing the two. He is in fact arguing that every act which accompanies a halaal effect is halaal, hence he avers: "Had stunning been prohibited then the Ulama would not have classified Halaal the meat of pre -slaughter stunned animals." In this statement Zaid is contending that stunning is not prohibited. But in the same breath he concedes that stunning is Makrooh Tahreemi, albeit 'only' so. This displays his ignorance of the meaning of Makrooh Tahreemi. He should be asked from just where did he gain the notion that Makrooh Tahreemi is not prohibited?

A man marries a prostitute after indulging in zina with her. The Nikah following the zina is halaal. Does it stem from this hillet that the pre-Nikah zina is not prohibited, and that it is acceptable? Three Talaaqs administered in one statement are valid. Does it stem from this validity that this form of issuing Talaaq is not prohibited? Although the effect is validity, the three Talaaq act is prohibited regardless of the classification of the prohibition whether it be Haraam-e-Qat'i or Makrooh Taheemi. Either of the two classifications is practically prohibited and acts of both classification (Haraam and Makrooh Tahrimi) warrant Uqoobat bin Naar (Punishment in Jahannam) according to the Fuqaha.

Defining Makrooh Tahreemi, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) says in Beheshti Gauhar: "Makrooh Tahreemi is such a law which is evidenced by Daleel-e-Zanni. The denier of it is a Faasiq just as the denier of Waajib is a Faasiq. The one who abstains from it (Makrooh Tahreemi) without valid reason is a sinner and deserving of athaab."

The severity of Makrooh Tahreemi has constrained our Fuqaha to refer to such acts as being Haraam. In Shaami,