Food & Nourishment - , Ruling on unknown meat from kaafir countries.,Dought & clear - ,

meat that is frozen and we do not know who slaughtered it or how it
was slaughtered. Can weeat it?.
Praise be to Allaah.
If the region where the meat mentioned is found has only People ofthe
Book, namely Jews and Christians, then theirmeat is halaal, even if it
is not known how they slaughtered it, because the basic principle is
thatmeat slaughtered by them is halaal, because Allaah says
(interpretation of the meaning):
"Made lawful to you this day are At-Tayyibaat [all kinds of Halaal
(lawful) foods, which Allaah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered
eatable animals, milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits)]. The
food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the
Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful
to them"
[al-Maa'idah 5:5].
If there are other kaafirsin the region, then do not eat it, because
that means there is doubt as to whether it is halaal orharaam.
Similarly if you know that those who sell these meats slaughter the
animals in a way that is different from the shar'i method, such as
strangling or electric shock, then do not eat it, whether the one who
slaughtered it is a Muslim or a kaafir, because Allaah says:
"Forbidden to you (for food) are: Al-Maitah (thedead animals -- cattle
--beast not slaughtered), blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which
Allaah's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering (that which
has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allaah, or has
been slaughtered for idols) and that which has beenkilled by
strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by
thegoring of horns -- and that which has been (partly) eaten by a wild
animal -- unless you are able to slaughter it (before its death)"
[al-Maa'idah 5:3]. End quote.
May Allaah help the Muslims to understand their religion, for He is
All Hearing, Ever Near. End quote.
Majmoo' Fataawa Ibn

Food & Nourishment - , Ruling on accepting foodand sweets from a kaafir.

person gives me sweets or food or a drink, is it permissible for me to
askwhether it is halaal or not, or whether there is pork in it or not?
Or should I keep quiet and mention the name of Allah and eat? What I
mean is asking one of the Muslim brothers for his opinion about what
it contains.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
It is permissible to accept a gift from a non-Muslim because he is a
relative or neighbour, or for the purpose of softening his heart and
calling him to Islam, but it is haraam if it is done as an act of
friendship or love, because Allah says (interpretation of the
meaning):
"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as
Awliyaa'(friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa' of each
other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa'),then surely, he
is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the
Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)"
[al-Maa'idah 5:51]
"O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitaanah (advisors,
consultants, protectors, helpers, friends) those outside your religion
(pagans, Jews, Christians,and hypocrites) since they will not fail to
do their best to corrupt you.They desire to harm you severely. Hatred
has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal
is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayaat (proofs,
evidences, verses) if you understand"
[Aal 'Imraan 3:118].
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) accepted the
invitation of a Jewish woman and ate her food.
In his Saheeh, al-Bukhaari included a chapter entitled Chapter on
Accepting Gifts from Mushrikeen, in which he (may Allah have mercy on
him) said:
Abu Hurayrah narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah
be upon him) that Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) travelled withSarah
and entered a village in which there was a king or a tyrant. He (the
king) said: Give her Haajir (the mother ofIsmaa'eel, peace be upon
him). And the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was
given a gift of a sheep containing poison. And Abu Humaydsaid: The
king of Aylah gave the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) a white mule and a cloak. And he quoted the story of the Jewish
woman who gave the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
the poisoned sheep.
Secondly:
It is permissible to eat meat slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian,
subject to certain conditions:
1. That it be slaughtered in the same manner as the Muslims; so
the throat and oesophagus should be cut and the blood shouldbe allowed
to flow. If he kills it by strangling, electric shock or drowning in
water, thenit is not permissible to eat his meat, just as if a Muslim
does that, it is not permissible to eat his meat.
2. The name of Allah should be mentioned over it, and no other
name should be mentioned such as the name of Christ or anyoneelse,
because Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): "Eat not (O
believers) of that (meat) on which Allaah's Name has not been
pronounced (at the time of the slaughtering of the animal)" [al-An'am
6:121]. And He says concerning haraam things (interpretation of the
meaning): "He has forbidden you only the Maytah (dead animals), and
blood, and the flesh of swine, and that whichis slaughtered as a
sacrifice for others than Allaah (or has been slaughtered for idols,
on which Allaah's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering)"
[al-Baqarah 2:173].
If it is not known how the meat was slaughtered or whether the name of
Allah was mentioned over it or not, it is permissible to eat it and he
does not have to ask about how itwas slaughtered, because of the
report narrated by al-Bukhaari (2057) from 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be
pleased with her), according to which some people said:O Messenger of
Allah, some people bring meat to us and we do not know whether they
mentioned the name of Allah over it or not. The Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Mention the name of
Allah over it and eat it."
Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
So it is permissible to eateven if we do not know whether the
slaughterer mentioned the name of Allah or not. Similarly, it is
permissible to eat even if we do not know whether it was slaughtered
in the proper manner or not, because if an action is done by the
appropriatepeople, then in principleit is valid and sound unless there
is evidence to the contrary. If we receive some meat from a Muslim or
a Jew or a Christian, we should not ask about it and we should not ask
how it was slaughtered or whether the name of Allah was mentioned over
it or not. It is halaal so long as there is no proof that it is
haraam, and this is one of the ways in which Allah has made things
easy for us. End quote.
Liqaa'aat al-Baab al-Maftooh, 20805.
See also the answer to question no. 20805
This is with regard to things in which proper slaughter is stipulated,
such as animals and birds.
With regard to fish, sweets and vegetables, there is nothing wrong
with eating them, unlessit is known that something haraam has been put
in them, such as alcohol or lard (pork fat).
The ruling of prohibitioncannot be confirmed on the basis of doubt.
But if a person tries to be careful and only eats that which he knows
and is certain that it is free of haraam things, then this is better.
The Jews adhere to the proper method of slaughter, and they

--
- *-Visit -http://aydnajimudeen.blogspot.com/- [ Usefull Islamic &
General Articles]
- - - - -
Presented by :->
" M NajimudeeN Bsc- INDIA "

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

Common painkillers can lead to hearing loss

Loud music or noise isn't the onlything that can damage your hearing.
A new study in men hints that popping over-the-counter painkillers
regularly can also lead to hearing loss, especially in younger men.
In the study, researchers found that men younger than age 50 who
regularly took acetaminophen more than two times a week had roughly
doublethe risk of hearing loss comparedto men who did not take
acetaminophen regularly. Acetaminophen is the active ingredient in
Tylenol and certain other pain relievers.
The researchers also found that men younger than age 50 who regularly
took ibuprofen (the main ingredient in Advil) or othernon-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) at least twice a week had a nearly
two-thirds higher risk of hearing loss than men who took NSAIDs less
often. Men who took aspirin twice a week had a one-third higher risk.
So should middle-aged men empty the medicine cabinet of these pain
relievers? Not necessarily, because each individual's actual, or
absolute, risk of hearing loss with these medicines is likely fairly
small.
The overall absolute risk of hearing loss in the population is 1
percent per year. Those who take an analgesic have an increased risk
beyond the 1 percent, Dr. Sharon G. Curhan, of Channing Laboratory and
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston explained in an email to Reuters
Health.
"But if you consider that people continue to take the analgesic
foryears, then after 10 years the risk would be 10 percent in the
overall population and the risk in those taking an analgesic would be
proportionately higher," Curhan said.
"Even though these analgesics are available in the drugstore without a
prescription, they are still medications and there are potential side
effects," Curhan said.
"If individuals find a need to take these types of medications
regularly, they should consult with their health care professional in
order to discuss the risks and benefits and to explore possible
alternatives," she advised.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Medicine thismonth,
stem from nearly 27,000 men enrolled since 1986 in the Health
Professionals' Follow-Up Study. As part of the study, the men, who
were between 40 and 74 years old at the outset, provided information
on analgesic use, hearing loss and other relevant factors every 2
years for 18 years, during which time 3,488 men were diagnosed with
hearing loss.
In the group as a whole, the risk of hearing loss, after factoring out
relevant risk factors, was 12 percent higher in men who used aspirin
at least twice a week relative to men who used aspirin less than twice
a week. The risk was about 21 percent higher in those who used NSAIDs
or acetaminophen at least twice a week.
Among men younger than 50, therisk of hearing loss was higher by33
percent, 61 percent and 99 percent with twice weekly use of aspirin,
NSAIDs, and acetaminophen, respectively, compared to risks in men of
the same age who used these painkillers less often. For NSAIDs and
acetaminophen, the risk of hearing loss increased with longer duration
of use.
In contrast to the findings in younger men, regular aspirin use did
not increase the risk of hearing loss in men aged 60 and older, and
the ties between hearing loss and regular use of NSAIDs and
acetaminophen were weaker in the older men.
Curhan's team points out that very high doses of aspirin are well
known to have toxic effects on the ear. These effects include
reversible hearing loss and tinnitus (ringing in the ears). On the
other hand, low-dose aspirin has been reported to protect against
hearing loss caused by certain antibiotics and excessive noise.
Very high doses of NSAIDs are toxic to the ears of animals, and there
have been a few reports of very high doses of NSAIDs causinghearing
loss in humans.
In their study, the researchers didnot have information on dosages
taken by the men or why they were regularly using these medicines --
only how often they took them. They also did not have information on
lifetime exposure to loud noise, a common cause of hearing loss.
"Hearing loss is the most common sensory disorder in the US and
factors other than age and noise might influence the risk," the
researchers note in their report. Aspirin, acetaminophen and ibuprofen
are the three most commonly used drugs in the US and they could be
"one of the few preventable causes of hearing

Study shows spanking boosts odds of mental illness

People who were hit or spanked as children face higher odds of mental
ailments as adults, including mood and anxiety disorders and problems
with alcohol and drug abuse, researchers said Monday.
The study, led by Canadian researchers, is the first to examine the
link between psychological problems and spanking, while excluding more
severe physical or sexual abuse inorder to better gauge the effect of
corporal punishment alone.
Those who were spanked or hit as kids were between two and seven
percent more likely to encounter mental issues later, said the
research in the US journal Pediatrics, based on a retrospective survey
of more than600 US adults.
That figure may seem low, particularly since about half of the US
population recalls being spanked in childhood, but nevertheless shows
that physical punishment can raise the risk of problems later on,
experts said.
"The study is valuable because it opens the conversation about
parenting," said Victor Fornari, director of the division of child and
adolescent psychiatry at North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System
in New York.
The rate "is not dramatically higher, but it is higher, just to
suggest that physical punishment is a risk factor for developing more
mental disturbances as an adult," said Fornari, who was not involved
in the study.
Previous research has repeatedly shown that children who were
physically abused as youngsters suffer from more mental disturbances
as adults, and are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior than
kids who were not hit.
But these studies have typically included more serious abuse.
The current study excludes both sexual abuse and physical abuse that
left bruises, marks or causedinjury.
Instead it focuses on "harsh physical punishment," defined as pushing,
grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting as a form of punishment from
elders.
While 32 nations around the world have banned corporal punishment of
kids, the United States and Canada are not amongthem.
Using a nationally representative survey sample of 653 Americans, they
found that those who recalled experiencing harsh punishment as
children faced higher odds of a range of mental problems.
Between two and five percent of disorders like depression, anxiety,
bipolar, anorexia or bulimia were attributable to physical punishment
as a child, the study said.
From four to seven percent of more serious problems including
personality disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder and intellectual
disabilities were associated with such punishments in childhood.
Researchers stressed that the study could not establish that spanking
had actually caused these disorders in certain adults, only that there
was a link between memories of such punishment and a higher incidence
of mental problems.
The survey data came from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol
and Related Conditions collected between 2004 and 2005,and included
adults over age 20.
Participants were asked: "As a child how often were you ever pushed,
grabbed, shoved, slapped or hit by your parents or any adult living in
your house?" Those who answered"sometimes" or greater were included in
the analysis.
Roya Samuels, a pediatrician at Cohen Children's Medical Center inNew
York, said the parents' genes may influence both their response to
raising an unruly child as well as their likelihood ofpassing down
certain ailments.
"Parents who are resorting to mechanisms of corporal punishment might
themselves beat risk for depression and mental disorders; therefore,
there might be a hereditary factor going on inthese families," she
told AFP.
Future research could shed more light on the issue. In the meantime,
the study offers a reminder that other disciplinary options such as
positive reinforcement and removing rewards are viewed more favorably
by doctors.
"The reality is, if 50 percent of thepopulation has experienced being
spanked in the past year, most kids are resilient. It is just that
there are better ways for parents to discipline kids than spanking,"
Fornari said.
"And for some vulnerable kids, the spanking may increase their risk
for the development of mental disturbances. So for thosereasons it is
important to really minimize or extinguish physical punishment."
The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes striking children for any
cause and the Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that doctors
strongly discourage the use of