Is the mention of Allah's name excused by forgetfulness in hunting and slaughter?

The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions. As for what follows, may Allah reward you, Honorable Shaykh, and benefit us with your knowledge. The questioner asks: Is the mention of Allah's name excused by forgetfulness in hunting and slaughter?

The Shaykh : Yes, there is scholarly disagreement regarding the mention of Allah's name in hunting and slaughter. Some said it is a recommended practice (sunnah), and that if a person intentionally leaves off the mention of Allah's name in hunting or slaughtering, the meat is lawful. Others said it is a condition for the lawfulness of the slaughtered animal and the game in all cases, and that it is not excused by forgetfulness or ignorance. And others said it is a condition for the lawfulness of the slaughtered animal and the game, but it is excused by forgetfulness and ignorance. So how many opinions are there?
There are three opinions, and we have a just scale for judgment in cases of disagreement. What is it? The Book and the Sunnah, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: return it to Allah and the Messenger . So when we return this dispute to the Book and the Sunnah, we find that the stronger position is that any game or slaughtered animal upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned is forbidden; it is not lawful, whether the person left it off out of forgetfulness or intentionally.
This is because we have two things: the slaughter and the eating, the slaughter and the eating. They are two different actions. As for the slaughter, the condition for it is the mention of the name. As for the eating, the eater is forbidden from eating what the name of Allah has not been mentioned upon, regardless of whether the one who slaughtered left off the mention out of forgetfulness or intentionally. This is because we have two actions: slaughter and eating. As for the slaughter, the one who slaughters is commanded to mention the name. If he mentions it, he has done what he was commanded to do. If he does not mention it, he has left what he was commanded to do. As for the eater, he is forbidden from eating what the name of Allah has not been mentioned upon. Allah the Exalted said: . So if the one who slaughters leaves off the mention out of forgetfulness, we say that there is no sin on the one who slaughters; there is no sin on him. Why? Because of the saying of Allah the Exalted: . So when the eater comes to eat, we say to him: This slaughtered animal was not slaughtered with the name of Allah mentioned. So if the name of Allah was not mentioned upon it, what is obligatory?
He must avoid it, and eating it is forbidden, so it is not lawful. The matter has become confused for some people, and they said: Why is the slaughtered animal not lawful if the one who slaughtered it forgot to mention the name of Allah upon it, when Allah the Exalted said: ?
We say: We agree with you in acting upon this verse, but there are two actions: the slaughter and the eating. As for the one who slaughters, since he left off the mention out of forgetfulness, there is no sin on him. And we say, by virtue of this verse: . If the one who slaughters had left off the mention intentionally, he would have sinned. But since it was forgetfulness, we say: there is nothing on you. But we have the action of the eater, the eating. We say: Do not eat . If he eats out of forgetfulness, there is nothing on him. At that point, we say: . But as for intentionally eating from something upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, when Allah the Exalted said: , this is not correct. And so we say to the eater: If you forgot and ate, or you ate and you did not know, there is nothing on you. . This is evidence from the Qur'an. As for the evidence from the Sunnah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . And is this a conditional statement? The ruling in it is not established unless the condition is established. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made two conditions for the lawfulness of eating. The first is his saying: . So if a man was ignorant and slaughtered the animal without letting the blood flow, or forgot and slaughtered it without letting the blood flow, the slaughtered animal would be forbidden. So likewise, if he forgot and did not mention the name, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made these two conditions for the lawfulness of eating. How can we take a ruling that contradicts the ruling of the second condition, when their course is the same, the One who spoke of them is the same, and the One who knows their meaning is the same, peace and blessings be upon him? There is no difference between leaving off the mention and leaving off the flow of blood; there is no difference between them. So if the flow of blood is a condition for lawfulness and it is not dropped by forgetfulness or ignorance, so too the mention is a condition for lawfulness and it is not dropped by ignorance and forgetfulness. This is what I have established, and it is what I see as the preferred choice of the Book and the Sunnah. It is what the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose, and he said that what is left off regarding the mention is not lawful, whether it was out of forgetfulness, ignorance, or intentionally. And the wonder is that some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said that leaving off the mention in game out of forgetfulness is forbidden, but leaving off the mention in a slaughtered animal is lawful, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) , so he made the mention a condition for the lawfulness of eating. It is said to them: He also said: . So how do you distinguish between the slaughtered animal and the game?
Then, who is more deserving of an excuse: the hunter or the one who slaughters? The one who slaughters. The hunter. The hunter. Why? Yes, because the game comes quickly with haste, and the hunter fears that the game will escape, so you find him forgetting. But the one who slaughters brings the animal to be slaughtered with calmness and tranquility, and forgetfulness is far from him. And yet they made a concession for the slaughtered animal and did not make a concession for the game. And the result of reflection should be that the matter is the opposite. But even so, we see that what is left off regarding the mention of Allah's name is not lawful, whether the mention of Allah's name was left off out of forgetfulness or ignorance. So if someone says: If you say that what is left off regarding the mention of Allah's name is forbidden, you have wasted wealth. A man slaughtered a camel for two thousand riyals. For two thousand riyals, two of them. But I forgot to mention the name of Allah. What do we say to him? According to the stronger position, what do we say? We say: Dragging it to the dogs is forbidden. You, people, bought it for two thousand riyals. This is wasting wealth. We say: You are the one who wasted the wealth on yourself. You are the one who wasted the wealth on yourself.
And be assured that if we forbid him this slaughtered animal because he did not mention the name of Allah upon it, that when he slaughters the next one, he will mention the name of Allah a thousand times before he slaughters it. Did you understand? Because if he tastes the bitterness of being prevented from the first slaughtered animal, he will not forget. And by the way, some people said: You cut off the hand of the thief, and this implies that half the people would be paralyzed. So we said: Yes, if our people were like your people, half of the thieves, then half the people would be paralyzed. But if we cut off the hand of a thief, how many will stop stealing? Thousands of people. Thousands of people. So if he says: Cutting off a limb from a person is a crime, because Allah has forbidden blood, wealth, and honor. We say: The One who forbade blood, wealth, and honor is the One who commanded the cutting off the hand of the thief to preserve wealth. Because if we cut off the hand of a thief, many people will stop stealing. And another said: If you kill the killer, you increase the loss of lives. The killer killed a man, so if we kill him, a man is killed. We said: Woe to your minds. How foolish you are. The Lord of the worlds, who is the most knowledgeable...