Explanation of the Book of Foods-06b
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: Qabisah narrated to us, Sufyan narrated to us from Mansur from Ibrahim from Hammam ibn al-Harith from 'Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: Sahih al-Bukhari 5477
The Shaykh : "Khazaqa" and "kharqa" have the same meaning. Good. His statement here:Sunan an-Nasa'i 4265Sahih (Darussalam) The apparent meaning of the hadith is that the flow of blood is not a condition, and that if a dog hunts by strangling and brings it back strangled, it is lawful because it is true to say that it killed it. For this reason, when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to clarify that the flow of blood is necessary in the case of the broad-headed arrow, he said: meaning whatever it pierced through Sahih al-Bukhari 5477 do not eat. And if it bled it from the severity of the strike, do not eat it. Here, the apparent meaning of the hadith is that it distinguishes between the arrow and the dog; the arrow requires the flow of blood, whereas the dog does not. Some scholars held this view, and it is the apparent meaning of the noble verse as well as the apparent meaning of the hadith [Al-Ma'idah 5:4]. On this basis, it becomes a specification of the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): Sahih al-Bukhari 2507. Some scholars said that the flow of blood is necessary, meaning for the dog, and that if it strangled it, it is not lawful. In that case, the general wording in the hadith of 'Adi ibn Hatim would be restricted by his statement: Sunan Ibn Majah 3178Sahih (Darussalam). This is because it is more cautious, and because what flows blood is better, as the retention of blood in the slaughtered animal is harmful. This is the wisdom behind the requirement of the flow of blood. This second view is more cautious and closer to the principles, even though the first is the apparent meaning of the wording. The parallel of this apparent meaning with the restrictions in the restricted hadiths is the view of some scholars that the food of the People of the Book, meaning what they slaughter, does not require the flow of blood, and that whenever they consider it food for themselves and it is lawful for them, it is lawful for us, even if a Muslim had slaughtered it, it would be forbidden. This is one of the two positions in the school of Imam Malik, that the flow of blood is not required in what a People of the Book member slaughters if the People of the Book member believes that this is a lawful slaughter, because Allah said: [Al-Ma'idah 5:5] and they consider this food. However, the majority hold that the flow of blood is necessary. Here, the food of those who were given the Scripture is stated generally, and here in hunting he said: . So whoever considers the general wording of the specific text says it is general, and whoever says this general statement must be restricted says that restriction by the flow of blood is necessary. Yes.
Narrated Adi bin Hatim: I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! We let loose our trained hounds after a game?" He said, "Eat what they hunt for you." I said, "Even if they killed (the game)?" He replied, 'Even if they killed (the game)." I said, 'We also hit (the game) with the Mi'rad?" He said, "Eat of the animal which the Mi'rad kills by piercing its body, but do not eat of the animal which is killed by the broad side of the Mi'rad.''
قلت يا رسول الله إنا نرسل الكلاب المعلمة قال : كل ما أمسكن عليك قلت وإن قتلن قال : وإن قتلن قلت وإنا نرمي بالمعراض قال : كل ما خزق وما أصاب بعرضه فلا تأكلThe Shaykh : "Khazaqa" and "kharqa" have the same meaning. Good. His statement here: