When they could raise such objections after the verse as revealed allowing the marriage with chaste women of the People of the Book, then what was there to prevent them, before the verse was revealed, from asking about eating together with the People of the Book, or to eat the cereal grains purchased from them or the meals prepared from it like bread or other dishes; or other items prepared from cereal grains when these things were made by the People of the Book, because: they have their own religion and we follow a different religion!  Especially so when Allah had warned the believer in so many verses against establishing friendship and close relation with the People of the Book and inclining towards them.

Rather, we can trun the table against him when he says, ?There is a chance of confusion about meat whether it was lawful or not.'  Fine.  But how could they ask about it when Allah has described the general lawful items of meat in the chapter of "Cattle": Say: "I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine - for that surely is unclean - or that which is a transgression other than (the name of) Allah having been invoked on it." (8:145); and then in the chapter of "The Bee".  Both these chapters are of Meccan period.  Then details have been given in the chapter of "The Cow" which was revealed in Medina long before the chapter of "The Table".  And even in this chapter, before this verse, forbidden meat has been described.  And this preceding verse according to Rashid Rida explicitly shows that the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book are not forbidden.  Now, we may ask: How could they entertain any doubt about the lawfulness of the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book when verse after verse of Meccan as well as Medinite period was revealed declaring that it was lawful; and the Muslims were memorizing the verses and reciting them and teaching them and putting them into practice?

He has claimed that the verse of the chapter of "Cattle" confines the unlawful things to what has been mentioned therein; accordingly, unlawfulness of animals slaughtered by the People of the Book will require a clear proof.  Well, there is no doubt that every rule needs a proof to support it and his claim clearly shows that this exclusive confinement will be valid only when there is no other proof to show that some other things too are forbidden.

Now, if he wants proof from traditions then those who say that the animals slaughtered by the People of the Book are unlawful rely on the traditions, which are narrated in explanation of this verse, and we have quoted some of them earlier.

And if he wants proof from the Qur'an, then, first of all it is an unjustifiable arrogance, because tradition is the companion of the Qur'an and they are not separate from each other in being authoritative sources of the law.  Secondly, we shall ask him what are his views about the animals slaughtered by unbelievers other than the People of the Book like idol-worshippers and atheists.  Will he say it is unlawful because it is a dead body, which has not been slaughtered according to the shari'ah?  In that case, let us look at two slaughtered animals: On one of them the name of Allah was not invoked at all and it was not slaughtered facing the qiblah; and the other was not slaughtered in the Islamic awy.  What is the difference between the two?  Allah is not pleased with either, both are unclean in the eyes of the religion, and Allah has forbidden unclean things.  Allah says: (Who) enjoins them good and forbids them unclean things (7:157); and He has said in the preceding verse: They ask you as to what is made lawful for them.  Say: "The good things are made lawful for you."  This question and answer is a clear proof that lawfulness is confined to the good things and even in this verse, the words: This day have been made lawful for you (all) good things, point to this exclusiveness especially when they describe the favor of Allah on the believers.

If he says that the animals slaughtered by those unbelievers are unlawful because they invoke on it the names of other than Allah, like their deities, then there is no difference whether a name of other than Allah is invoked on it or the name of Allah is invoked but in a way which as been abrogated and with which Allah is not pleased.

Rashid Rida further says, "Allah has very forcefully forbidden the Muslims to follow the idolators of Arab in eating dead animals of all different categories mentioned earlier and sacrificing animals on their idols.  It was done in order that the early Muslims should not treat it as an easy matter according to their earlier habit.  As for the People of the Book, they were far from eating dead bodies or sacrificing for idols."

He has forgotten that the Christians among the People of the Book eat pork and Allah has mentioned and forcefully condemned it.  In fact, they eat all things the Idol-worshippers eat because atonement of Jesus Christ has made all things lawful for them.  In any case, this is an absurd reasoning that should not be used in exegesis of the Book of Allah or in understanding the laws of His religion.