If one forgets and does not mention the name of Allah over the slaughtered animal, is it permissible to eat from it? And a mention of Ibn Hazm's statement.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : So now we return to Ibn Hazm's statement, that the one who slaughtered and did not mention the name of Allah over it, the original ruling is that it is obligatory for him to mention the name of Allah over it. So why did he say that if he forgot, his slaughtered animal is not to be eaten? What is the evidence? This requires specific evidence regarding Ibn Hazm, who adopted the principle that there is no accountability for forgetfulness. Did he bring the evidence? The evidence is specific; this is general evidence Sunan Abi Dawud 2819. This is sufficient to prove that the slaughtered animal of the one who forgot the mention is not to be eaten. So he would have contradicted the application of the principle he adopted. Did he bring a text? I do not think so.
The questioner : He brought the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:4].
The Shaykh : I tell you this is the principle.
The questioner : ... regarding Ibn Hazm.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
Al-'A'id 'Abassi: But the general texts are cited as evidence.
The Shaykh : No, I mean, he contradicts [them] sometimes. For example, it is well known that he does not hold to analogical reasoning, yet you find him sometimes ... .
The questioner : The most difficult thing is that he follows the logicians in analogical reasoning by induction, even though this is more dangerous than analogical reasoning.
The Shaykh : So this means I do not have [an answer] regarding this question? Please go ahead ... . Please go ahead.
Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced
لا تأكلوا مما لم يذكر اسم الله عليهThe questioner : He brought the saying of Allah the Exalted:
and mention the name of Allah
واذكروا اسم اللهThe Shaykh : I tell you this is the principle.
The questioner : ... regarding Ibn Hazm.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
Al-'A'id 'Abassi: But the general texts are cited as evidence.
The Shaykh : No, I mean, he contradicts [them] sometimes. For example, it is well known that he does not hold to analogical reasoning, yet you find him sometimes ... .
The questioner : The most difficult thing is that he follows the logicians in analogical reasoning by induction, even though this is more dangerous than analogical reasoning.
The Shaykh : So this means I do not have [an answer] regarding this question? Please go ahead ... . Please go ahead.