A man took his sacrificial animal with him in his car, went to stone the Jamrat al-Aqabah, and when he returned, he found his sacrificial animal had been slaughtered and taken from him, so he slaughtered another. Does this suffice or not?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : His EminenceThe Shaykh : A man had his sacrificial animal in his car, so he went to stone the Jamrat al-Aqabah, and when he returned, he found his sacrificial animal had been slaughtered and taken?
The Shaykh : Slaughtered?
The questioner : Yes, and taken.
The Shaykh : And taken without being slaughtered?
The questioner : Taken after it was slaughtered, because he found its head and intestines, so he slaughtered another in its place. Is his action valid?
The Shaykh : A man says he took his sacrificial animal and put it in the car and went to stone the pillars, and when he returned, he found the sacrificial animal had been slaughtered and taken except for the head and the internal organs. Does this suffice?
The answer is yes, it suffices, because he designated it as his sacrificial animal, and it was slaughtered after the designation, and according to the stronger opinion, the slaughter by the usurper makes the slaughtered animal lawful.
And on this basis, his purchase of the sacrificial animal afterwards is on the basis of voluntary charity, and may Allah reward him with good. Is the meaning of the answer clear now? It means that if the sacrificial animal had not been slaughtered in its place, it would have sufficed for him because it was slaughtered. But if it was taken and he does not know whether it was slaughtered or not, he must slaughter one in its place.
The Shaykh : Slaughtered?
The questioner : Yes, and taken.
The Shaykh : And taken without being slaughtered?
The questioner : Taken after it was slaughtered, because he found its head and intestines, so he slaughtered another in its place. Is his action valid?
The Shaykh : A man says he took his sacrificial animal and put it in the car and went to stone the pillars, and when he returned, he found the sacrificial animal had been slaughtered and taken except for the head and the internal organs. Does this suffice?
The answer is yes, it suffices, because he designated it as his sacrificial animal, and it was slaughtered after the designation, and according to the stronger opinion, the slaughter by the usurper makes the slaughtered animal lawful.
And on this basis, his purchase of the sacrificial animal afterwards is on the basis of voluntary charity, and may Allah reward him with good. Is the meaning of the answer clear now? It means that if the sacrificial animal had not been slaughtered in its place, it would have sufficed for him because it was slaughtered. But if it was taken and he does not know whether it was slaughtered or not, he must slaughter one in its place.