Explanation of the Book of Ablution, Ghusl, Menstruation, and Tayammum-04a
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: Hafs ibn 'Umar narrated to us, saying: Shu'bah narrated to us from Ibn Abi al-Safar from al-Sha'bi from 'Adi ibn Hatim, who said: I asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said: Sahih al-Bukhari 175.
The Shaykh : It appears that al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) leaned toward leniency regarding the impurity of the dog, from the beginning of the chapter heading until he cited this hadith.
Trained dogs are those sent for hunting, and their training is to accustom them to hunting such that if the dog holds the prey, it does not eat it. This is the first point, and it is the most important. Its evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:4] Because if it eats, it has held it for itself, for if it had held it for its owner, it would not have eaten.
The second point is also that it should run when sent, meaning it should not run on its own; it should run when sent. Otherwise, it sees the prey but does not move until its owner tells it to proceed. Why?
Because if it ran to the prey without its owner sending it, it would have hunted for itself.
The third condition is that it should stop when called back, meaning it runs, and while it is running, its owner calls it back, wanting it to remain or stop. If it stops, we know that it is fully trained and that it hunted for its owner.
As for if he calls it back after sending it, but it does not raise its head to him and does not mind disobeying him, and continues until it catches the prey, is it considered trained? No, why? Because it hunted for itself.
If it runs on its own without its owner ordering it, but when he orders it, it runs faster, is what it hunted to be eaten or not? Be careful, it ran without its owner knowing, so when the owner saw the prey and saw it running toward it, he called it back, and it ran faster?
It is to be eaten, because when it ran faster, it became holding it for its owner, even though the initial running was without its owner's order. This happens often; the owner of the dog is unaware, and the dog is a hunting dog that is alert, so he is unaware, and then he finds it has run off. Here we say: call it back. If it runs faster, it has held it for you. If it continues on its path, it has held it for itself.
The scholars derived from this legal ruling the virtue of knowledge, and they said that the prey of trained dogs is lawful, while the prey of untrained dogs is not lawful. This is evidence of the virtue of knowledge, and indeed it is so, without doubt.
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih al-Bukhari 175 This is authentic. He sent his dog, and then the dog came with another dog, and they had carried the prey. Here, he does not eat. Why?
Because he did not invoke the name of Allah over the second dog, so he does not eat. And it is known from this that it is necessary to invoke the name of Allah over the dog. If he does not invoke it, the prey is forbidden and not lawful, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-An'am 6:121] And the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stipulated, saying: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1464Sahih (Darussalam) And he said: Sunan Ibn Majah 3178Sahih (Darussalam).
Therefore, the stronger opinion is the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that what the name of Allah is not invoked over is forbidden, whether a person leaves off the invocation out of forgetfulness or ignorance. This is because eating slaughtered animals or prey has two aspects:
The first aspect is that of the hunter or the slaughterer, and the second aspect is that of the eater.
So if the slaughterer or the hunter does not invoke the name of Allah out of forgetfulness, there is no sin on him, due to His saying:[Al-Baqarah 2:286] What remains is the second level, which is eating. If the eater eats from this prey that the name of Allah was not invoked over, out of forgetfulness or ignorance, he owes nothing [Al-Baqarah 2:286] But if he intentionally eats it, we say: No, the name of Allah was not invoked over it, and you have been forbidden to eat from what the name of Allah was not invoked over.
So if he says: Allah says:[Al-Baqarah 2:286] We say: Yes, but your action now does not involve forgetfulness or error. You now want to eat from what the name of Allah was not invoked over, and you are aware of that. As for the first one who slaughtered, there is no name on it because he was forgetful or ignorant.
And it is strange that Ibn Jarir (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the consensus on eating what the invocation was forgotten over, except that Ibn Kathir said that Ibn Jarir (may Allah have mercy on him) does not consider the disagreement of one or two people as breaking the consensus. But the majority of scholars say that if even one scholar disagrees, there is no consensus.
If you let loose (with Allah's name) your tamed dog after a game and it hunts it, you may eat it, but if the dog eats of (that game) then do not eat it because the dog has hunted it for itself." I further said, "Sometimes I send my dog for hunting and find another dog with it. He said, "Do not eat the game for you have mentioned Allah's name only on sending your dog and not the other dog."
إذا أرسلت كلبك المعلم فقتل فكل ، وإذا أكل فلا تأكل فإنما أمسكه على نفسه . قلت : أرسل كلبي فأجد معه كلبا آخر، قال : فلا تأكل فإنما سميت على كلبك ولم تسم على كلب آخرThe Shaykh : It appears that al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) leaned toward leniency regarding the impurity of the dog, from the beginning of the chapter heading until he cited this hadith.
Trained dogs are those sent for hunting, and their training is to accustom them to hunting such that if the dog holds the prey, it does not eat it. This is the first point, and it is the most important. Its evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted:
So eat of what they catch for you
فكلوا مما أمسكن عليكمThe second point is also that it should run when sent, meaning it should not run on its own; it should run when sent. Otherwise, it sees the prey but does not move until its owner tells it to proceed. Why?
Because if it ran to the prey without its owner sending it, it would have hunted for itself.
The third condition is that it should stop when called back, meaning it runs, and while it is running, its owner calls it back, wanting it to remain or stop. If it stops, we know that it is fully trained and that it hunted for its owner.
As for if he calls it back after sending it, but it does not raise its head to him and does not mind disobeying him, and continues until it catches the prey, is it considered trained? No, why? Because it hunted for itself.
If it runs on its own without its owner ordering it, but when he orders it, it runs faster, is what it hunted to be eaten or not? Be careful, it ran without its owner knowing, so when the owner saw the prey and saw it running toward it, he called it back, and it ran faster?
It is to be eaten, because when it ran faster, it became holding it for its owner, even though the initial running was without its owner's order. This happens often; the owner of the dog is unaware, and the dog is a hunting dog that is alert, so he is unaware, and then he finds it has run off. Here we say: call it back. If it runs faster, it has held it for you. If it continues on its path, it has held it for itself.
The scholars derived from this legal ruling the virtue of knowledge, and they said that the prey of trained dogs is lawful, while the prey of untrained dogs is not lawful. This is evidence of the virtue of knowledge, and indeed it is so, without doubt.
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
If you let loose (with Allah's name) your tamed dog after a game and it hunts it, you may eat it, but if the dog eats of (that game) then do not eat it because the dog has hunted it for itself." I further said, "Sometimes I send my dog for hunting and find another dog with it. He said, "Do not eat the game for you have mentioned Allah's name only on sending your dog and not the other dog."
إذا أرسلت كلبك المعلم فقتل فكل ، وإذا أكل فلا تأكل فإنما أمسكه على نفسه . قلت : أرسل كلبي فأجد معه كلبا آخر قال : فلا تأكل ، فإنما سميت على كلبك ولم تسم على كلب آخرBecause he did not invoke the name of Allah over the second dog, so he does not eat. And it is known from this that it is necessary to invoke the name of Allah over the dog. If he does not invoke it, the prey is forbidden and not lawful, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned
ولا تأكلوا مما لم يذكر اسم الله عليهIf you send your dog and you mentioned the Name of Allah upon it
إذا أرسلت كلبك وذكرت اسم الله عليه(Use) whatever causes the blood to flow, mention the Name of Allah
ما أنهر الدم وذكر اسم الله عليهTherefore, the stronger opinion is the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that what the name of Allah is not invoked over is forbidden, whether a person leaves off the invocation out of forgetfulness or ignorance. This is because eating slaughtered animals or prey has two aspects:
The first aspect is that of the hunter or the slaughterer, and the second aspect is that of the eater.
So if the slaughterer or the hunter does not invoke the name of Allah out of forgetfulness, there is no sin on him, due to His saying:
Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred.
ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأناOur Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred.
ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا او أخطأناSo if he says: Allah says:
Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred.
ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأناAnd it is strange that Ibn Jarir (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the consensus on eating what the invocation was forgotten over, except that Ibn Kathir said that Ibn Jarir (may Allah have mercy on him) does not consider the disagreement of one or two people as breaking the consensus. But the majority of scholars say that if even one scholar disagrees, there is no consensus.