I am a Jew, albeit not a very Observant one… (candidate for “Doper Understatement of the Year,” anyone? :D) So – I’ll try
Eggs – No. Eggs are considered parve (that is, neither meat nor dairy.) Poultry – Yes, although I’ve seen arguments that poultry should be permissible with dairy, but has been disallowed in order to prevent mistakes and misunderstandings.
Fish, however (excluding Treif de la Mer :), of course – that is, shellfish and various other fish that are considered non-kosher at all), are not considered meat, but rather parve, and can be and are eaten in diary meals.
IANAMuslim, but AFAIK there are no such restrictions in Islam.
Many, many Halal foods (or combinations thereof) are non-Kosher. OTOH, the only Kosher foodstuff I am aware of that is not Halal is alcohol – otherwise Halal is pretty much (AFAIK) a subset of “Kosher” (and in fact I believe that in some places Muslims will buy meat from a Kosher butcher, if no Halal meatshop is available, safe in the knowledge that any meat that is Kosher is also, by definition, Halal)
Hopefully more knowledgeable Jews than I, and actual Muslims, will come along and critique my answer shortly…
Kosher meats are not halal, because they weren’t killed properly by a Muslim. Many Muslims aren’t that strict about eating halal foods, but are strict about making sure that they don’t eat pork products, and that’s the reason that they would buy from a Kosher butcher.
EM wasn’t being pedantic. He mentioned that the reason he corrected your spelling was to help you search further if you were interested in learning more about halal foods. BTW, the answers to your questions are easily Googlable.
Thank you for helping me preserve what is left of my sanity I remembered similarly that all Kosher meat was, pretty much by definition, also halal, but was willing to acknowledge that I was in no way an authority. So I was right after all?
Yep. Otherwise halal meat slaughtered according to the regulations of People of the Book is by definition halal, and any species of animal permitted under kashrus is permitted to Muslims, no matter what tradition they’re following. The only kosher food that isn’t permitted to Muslims is alcohol.
The strictest definition is Jews, Christians, and Sabians (whoever they were, nobody is really sure) – people who worshipped Allah and had received a revelation at some point.
Later Zoroastrians were sorta added to the category, though not without reservation, and when it comes to marrying them and eating their food a lot of authorities don’t permit it. Even later Hindus were nod-nod-wink-winked into the category for the purposes of taxation, so the jizya could be extracted from them, but there’s even more reservations about them than about the Zoroastrians. When “People of the Book” is mentioned it almost always refers to the first three groups mentioned.
That’s nonsensical. The OP asked, “What are the differences, if any, between kosher and helal food?” Once the food has been prepared with alcohol, the food may be kosher, but not halal. This should be enough evidence alone that kosher food is not necessarily halal.
What more do you want? You said earlier:
Just to re-clarify: this is false. Even by the strictest guidelines on what is halal and what is not, kosher meat is halal.
I think these cites clearly show your above statement to be false.
I said, with the exception of alcohol, kosher food is halal. If a dish is prepared according to kashrus and it contains alcohol, everything in that dish is halal except for the alcohol. Except for alcohol, shari’ah as it relates to food does not prohibit anything that kashrus does not also prohibit.
Those cites are worthless, as they do not cite either their reasoning from the sources, or what authority they are relying on, so we have no way of judging the soundness of their conclusions. A random webpage is not a reputable cite. If you’re going to claim that reciting Bismillah is fard when slaughtering, and not just sunnah, you’re going to need something better than that, since I have already quoted a reliable source that disagrees with you.
The last sentence is not the point of the hadith. The point of the hadith is that even when it is unclear whether Bismillah has been recited or not over the meat when it was slaughtered, it is still permissible to eat. If we have some meat slaughtered by a Muslim in accordance with shari’ah, we know the meat has had the name of Allah pronounced over it already. If it is slaughtered by a Jew according to the rules of kashrus, it may or may not have had the name of Allah pronounced over it, but since according to Surah 5.5 the food of the Jews is permissible to Muslims, and since per that hadith food is permissible even if it is unclear whether the name of Allah has been said over it or not, then that meat is halal.
If every molecule of alcohol could be removed from the food, the food would become halal again. Just because something has once come into contact with najasa does not mean that thing is forever unclean.
It says nothing about whether reciting Bismillah is fard or not, and it doesn’t say where it draws its information from. You know as well as I do that anybody can state their opinion on what shari’ah is, but without backing, that opinion means absolutely nothing.
Did you even read the hadith? Muhammad didn’t say that; `A’ishah did. It was part of the narration, not a quote from Muhammad, and was an explanation as to why it was unknown whether the people slaughtering the animals had pronounced the Bismillah or not.