Is it permissible to eat the meat of an animal slaughtered by one who forgot to mention the name of Allah over it?

The questioner : ... seven years or something similar to that.

The Shaykh : I know this, and perhaps you know that I visited Kuwait once or more than once.

The questioner : No, but only once.

The Shaykh : But now my legs do not support me, otherwise I would have performed 'Umrah and perhaps Hajj, but Let us start with the right side; if the professor has something, please go ahead.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, if a person slaughters his animal and forgets to mention the name of Allah.

The Shaykh : To mention what?

The questioner : To mention the name of Allah; is it permissible or not?

The Shaykh : It is permissible for him; because the human being is one from whom the accountability is lifted, as is the principle and the rule. And if accountability is mentioned in some cases, that is due to a specific text, based on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): And before that, His saying in the Qur'an: And the response came down from our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) from above His Throne. Whenever the believers said: to the end of the supplication, the Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He) would say, Yes. So Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has been gentle, compassionate, and merciful to this Ummah, so He does not hold them accountable except for what their hearts intended.

The questioner : We quote fromThe Shaykh : Ibn Uthaymeen a fatwa that he saw, meaning that forgetfulness here lifts the sin, but the slaughtered animal is not permissible from the outset.

The Shaykh : This is the view of the Hanafis, as a rule for them that contradicts the view of the majority, meaning their interpretation of the previous hadith: And they differed in the interpretation; the majority said that both the sin and the obligation were lifted, whereas the Hanafis say that the sin was lifted without the obligation. And from the difference in the interpretation of this hadith branches the difference in the branches that occur, each referring to his interpretation of the hadith. So whoever interprets it as meaning that only the sin was lifted says that repetition is necessary in every ruling that resulted from forgetfulness, except what the text has excluded, and vice versa completely. Whoever interprets the hadith with the broader interpretation, and we are with the broadeners, that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has lifted and removed the error and the accountability, both as sin and as obligation, except where the evidence obliges the person... Therefore, what you quoted fromThe Shaykh : , if the quotation is correct, this is a view preceded by many scholars, and we say with another view as I told you just now. Add to that that obliging people and holding them accountable for this obligation in what they forget is similar to obliging what is not possible, and this also is not from the methodology of the people of the Sunnah, contrary to what Imam al-Ghazali quoted in his book al-Ihya, where he mentioned that Allah has the right to obligate His servants with what they cannot bear, and this is contrary to the Noble Qur'an.