The issue of taxidermying birds.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, in the authentic hadith, which is in *Sahih al-Jami'*, the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) , does this, Shaykh, not apply to the issue of, for example, killing for the sake of taxidermy? The authentic hadith, Shaykh, if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade us from killing a sparrow and then throwing it away, or
The Shaykh: Understood
The questioner : We do not want to eat it.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : Does this hadith, Shaykh, fall under the issue of killing for the sake of taxidermy?
The Shaykh : I do not see it that way, and I mean what I say. I do not see it that way, why? Because I understand from the first hadith, in which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade killing a sparrow and then throwing it away without eating from it, that it is a wasteful act. Because Allah the Exalted has made its consumption lawful. So when he throws it with a sling or an arrow or a bullet and then leaves it on the ground, this means that he has been extravagant in killing, wasted the money, and wasted the target that Allah the Exalted has made lawful. But it is not so if the shooter shoots a bird that is not eaten, but shoots it to benefit from it in another way. The least that can be said about it is that it is permissible, which is that this bird, which Allah created and formed and perfected its form, should be a spectacle in the eye of this person whenever he enters that place. This type of benefiting from the creation of Allah the Exalted is different from if he shoots a falcon, for example, or other birds of prey and leaves it on the ground; in that case, its status is the same as the one who shoots a sparrow and leaves it on the ground. Is the answer clear?
The questioner : It is clear, Shaykh. But, Shaykh, why deviate from the restriction in the apparent meaning of the hadith?
The Shaykh : What is the apparent meaning of the hadith, my brother?
The questioner : The apparent meaning of the hadith, Shaykh, is that this thing that was caught, or the thing that is for food, should be eaten. So if he does not intend to eat it, he should not kill it.
The Shaykh : Is it eaten or not eaten?
The questioner : The text specifies that this bird is eaten, but he did not eat it.
The Shaykh : Is the text about the bird that is eaten, or about the one that is not?
The questioner : The one that is eaten.
The Shaykh : Okay, so where is the generality?
The questioner : Shaykh, the one that is the issue of killing...
The Shaykh : Where is the generality?
The questioner : The generality.
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning, what should the one who shot the sparrow have done with it?
The questioner : He should have eaten it.
The Shaykh : Okay, he shot a bird that is not permissible to eat, but he benefited from it in another way. For example, he shot a lion. Does he eat it?
The questioner : Of course, he does not eat it.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible for him to shoot it?
The questioner : Of course.
The Shaykh : How? Of course, you rushed. I think, according to your school of thought, how? Of course, this is not eaten.
The questioner : The lion is not eaten.
The Shaykh : Yes, is it permissible to shoot it? I said, of course.
The questioner : It is permissible, yes.
The Shaykh : It is not like that. You must prove it against him. You must pull it back so that you are free in your speech. Meaning, we do not hold you to a slip of the tongue; think about what you say. The result that will come out of you now is that it is permissible for a Muslim to shoot an animal, whether it is a beast that walks on four legs on the ground or a bird of prey. It is permissible to shoot it even if it is not eaten. That is the result.
The questioner : Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : Yes, and this result contradicts the first result?
The questioner : It contradicts, yes.
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So now, if the result contradicts what you mentioned or claimed regarding the generality when you asked me why we contradict the generality, we did not contradict a generality here. Because the hadith is about shooting a sparrow that is eaten. He shot it and left it on the ground. As we said, this is extravagance. So if the image or example develops from shooting a bird that is not eaten, it does not mean that we contradicted the generality of the hadith. Because if we lump sparrows and their types together, and they are all from the category of what is eaten, we say we agree with you. There is a generality here. But this generality does not include all birds, even birds of prey.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, so if we reach the result that when we say it is permissible to shoot a bird that is a bird of prey for taxidermy, we did not contradict the hadith you mentioned just now, correct?
The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : And in order to increase the persuasion, we return to your correct answer when you said that it is permissible for a Muslim to shoot a wild beast, such as a lion, or a tiger, or something similar. You said it is permissible. Why are you asking now if it is permissible when it is not eaten? Why?
The questioner : Why am I asking?
The Shaykh : You say it is permissible to shoot and kill the lion. I am asking you now why it is permissible when it is not eaten?
The questioner : Shaykh, permission was given to kill it out of fear of its ferocity. Because there are hadiths regarding the prohibition of killing some animals and the permissibility of killing others.
The Shaykh : Yes, but what is the secret of the permissibility of killing? First, what is the secret? And second, we are not saying that the image is that the lion will attack your tent, so kill it. No, you chase it and go into the forests and kill it. Why is it permissible to kill it? If it attacked you or you feared it, that is a different discussion, not mentioned here. But why did you go out to hunt something that does not benefit you, and you see a wild beast far away and shoot it and kill it? You are a king, you are afraid of it, or perhaps it is afraid of you. Why did you kill it? Why do you say it is permissible to kill it? The answer is because one can benefit from it. This is the benefit I wanted to draw attention to: that the benefit is not limited to eating, correct?
The questioner : Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : Or are you not with me?
The questioner : I am with you, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : The benefit is not limited to eating. If it is possible to benefit from the skin of this animal, we kill it to benefit from its skin, correct?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And by that, you can infer that any bird from which one can benefit in one way or another, it is permissible to kill it, even if it is not eaten. The discussion is finished, if Allah wills.
The questioner : Schools, Shaykh, take this opinion. Instead of drawing and painting animals, they taxidermy them.
The Shaykh : It becomes a practical lesson.
He forbade killing a sparrow when it is not intended for eating.
نهى عن قتل العصفور لا يراد به الأكلThe Shaykh: Understood
The questioner : We do not want to eat it.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : Does this hadith, Shaykh, fall under the issue of killing for the sake of taxidermy?
The Shaykh : I do not see it that way, and I mean what I say. I do not see it that way, why? Because I understand from the first hadith, in which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade killing a sparrow and then throwing it away without eating from it, that it is a wasteful act. Because Allah the Exalted has made its consumption lawful. So when he throws it with a sling or an arrow or a bullet and then leaves it on the ground, this means that he has been extravagant in killing, wasted the money, and wasted the target that Allah the Exalted has made lawful. But it is not so if the shooter shoots a bird that is not eaten, but shoots it to benefit from it in another way. The least that can be said about it is that it is permissible, which is that this bird, which Allah created and formed and perfected its form, should be a spectacle in the eye of this person whenever he enters that place. This type of benefiting from the creation of Allah the Exalted is different from if he shoots a falcon, for example, or other birds of prey and leaves it on the ground; in that case, its status is the same as the one who shoots a sparrow and leaves it on the ground. Is the answer clear?
The questioner : It is clear, Shaykh. But, Shaykh, why deviate from the restriction in the apparent meaning of the hadith?
The Shaykh : What is the apparent meaning of the hadith, my brother?
The questioner : The apparent meaning of the hadith, Shaykh, is that this thing that was caught, or the thing that is for food, should be eaten. So if he does not intend to eat it, he should not kill it.
The Shaykh : Is it eaten or not eaten?
The questioner : The text specifies that this bird is eaten, but he did not eat it.
The Shaykh : Is the text about the bird that is eaten, or about the one that is not?
The questioner : The one that is eaten.
The Shaykh : Okay, so where is the generality?
The questioner : Shaykh, the one that is the issue of killing...
The Shaykh : Where is the generality?
The questioner : The generality.
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning, what should the one who shot the sparrow have done with it?
The questioner : He should have eaten it.
The Shaykh : Okay, he shot a bird that is not permissible to eat, but he benefited from it in another way. For example, he shot a lion. Does he eat it?
The questioner : Of course, he does not eat it.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible for him to shoot it?
The questioner : Of course.
The Shaykh : How? Of course, you rushed. I think, according to your school of thought, how? Of course, this is not eaten.
The questioner : The lion is not eaten.
The Shaykh : Yes, is it permissible to shoot it? I said, of course.
The questioner : It is permissible, yes.
The Shaykh : It is not like that. You must prove it against him. You must pull it back so that you are free in your speech. Meaning, we do not hold you to a slip of the tongue; think about what you say. The result that will come out of you now is that it is permissible for a Muslim to shoot an animal, whether it is a beast that walks on four legs on the ground or a bird of prey. It is permissible to shoot it even if it is not eaten. That is the result.
The questioner : Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : Yes, and this result contradicts the first result?
The questioner : It contradicts, yes.
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So now, if the result contradicts what you mentioned or claimed regarding the generality when you asked me why we contradict the generality, we did not contradict a generality here. Because the hadith is about shooting a sparrow that is eaten. He shot it and left it on the ground. As we said, this is extravagance. So if the image or example develops from shooting a bird that is not eaten, it does not mean that we contradicted the generality of the hadith. Because if we lump sparrows and their types together, and they are all from the category of what is eaten, we say we agree with you. There is a generality here. But this generality does not include all birds, even birds of prey.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, so if we reach the result that when we say it is permissible to shoot a bird that is a bird of prey for taxidermy, we did not contradict the hadith you mentioned just now, correct?
The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : And in order to increase the persuasion, we return to your correct answer when you said that it is permissible for a Muslim to shoot a wild beast, such as a lion, or a tiger, or something similar. You said it is permissible. Why are you asking now if it is permissible when it is not eaten? Why?
The questioner : Why am I asking?
The Shaykh : You say it is permissible to shoot and kill the lion. I am asking you now why it is permissible when it is not eaten?
The questioner : Shaykh, permission was given to kill it out of fear of its ferocity. Because there are hadiths regarding the prohibition of killing some animals and the permissibility of killing others.
The Shaykh : Yes, but what is the secret of the permissibility of killing? First, what is the secret? And second, we are not saying that the image is that the lion will attack your tent, so kill it. No, you chase it and go into the forests and kill it. Why is it permissible to kill it? If it attacked you or you feared it, that is a different discussion, not mentioned here. But why did you go out to hunt something that does not benefit you, and you see a wild beast far away and shoot it and kill it? You are a king, you are afraid of it, or perhaps it is afraid of you. Why did you kill it? Why do you say it is permissible to kill it? The answer is because one can benefit from it. This is the benefit I wanted to draw attention to: that the benefit is not limited to eating, correct?
The questioner : Yes, that is right.
The Shaykh : Or are you not with me?
The questioner : I am with you, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : The benefit is not limited to eating. If it is possible to benefit from the skin of this animal, we kill it to benefit from its skin, correct?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And by that, you can infer that any bird from which one can benefit in one way or another, it is permissible to kill it, even if it is not eaten. The discussion is finished, if Allah wills.
The questioner : Schools, Shaykh, take this opinion. Instead of drawing and painting animals, they taxidermy them.
The Shaykh : It becomes a practical lesson.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.