Chapter: The Mentioning of Allah’s Name over the Slaughtered Animal and the One Who Deliberately Omits It

The Reciter: Chapter: The Mentioning of Allah’s Name over the Slaughtered Animal and the One Who Deliberately Omits It. Ibn Abbas said, “If one forgets, there is no harm.” And Allah the Exalted said: And the one who forgets is not called an open sinner. And His saying:

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Chapter: The Mentioning of Allah’s Name over the Slaughtered Animal.” And there he mentioned hunting and the mentioning of Allah’s name over it. The apparent practice of the author, al-Bukhari, is that he distinguishes between hunting and the slaughtered animal, and that he holds that the mentioning of Allah’s name in hunting is not dropped whether by forgetfulness or deliberately. As for the slaughtered animal, it is dropped by forgetfulness. There is no doubt that this distinction is not based on evidence; rather, the evidence is to the contrary. This is if we look from the perspective of evidence. As for from the perspective of analogical reasoning and consideration, we say: if we excuse the omission in the case of the slaughtered animal, then we are even more deserving of excuse in the case of hunting, because hunting comes with haste, confusion, and fear that the game will escape, unlike the slaughtered animal. The slaughtered animal is slaughtered by a person who is taking his time, and the animal is before him, so there is no reason for forgetfulness in reality. So we say: if the Lawgiver did not drop the mentioning of Allah’s name by forgetfulness in the more severe and more excusable case, then not dropping it in the easier and less excusable case is all the more so. Therefore, the correct opinion, without doubt, is that it is not dropped by forgetfulness. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Even though Ibn Jarir (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the consensus of the scholars that it is dropped by forgetfulness in the case of the slaughtered animal, Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) refuted him and said, “This is not correct; there is no consensus.” However, Ibn Jarir (may Allah have mercy on him) does not consider the disagreement of one or two scholars to be a violation of consensus, so he does not regard the disagreement of a scholar or two scholars as breaking the consensus. But this path taken by Ibn Jarir (may Allah have mercy on him) is a weak path, because if the one who disagrees is a scholar of independent legal reasoning, how can we say that the scholars of the Ummah agreed or reached consensus while this disagreeing scholar exists? The apparent indications of the evidence show that the mentioning of Allah’s name is not dropped by forgetfulness, ignorance, or deliberate omission. However, the sin is dropped from whom? From the one who forgets and the one who is ignorant. And the dropping of the sin does not necessitate the permissibility of the slaughtered animal. Allah the Mighty and Majestic says: And this is a general address directed to the eaters, not to those who mention the name. Therefore, al-Bukhari’s statement that his saying: And the one who forgets is not called an open sinner, is subject to scrutiny. Because his saying: refers to the eating, not to the omission of the mentioning of the name. Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) holds that the pronoun in “it” refers to the omission of the mentioning of the name. He says that the omission of the mentioning of the name is open sinfulness, and open sinfulness is not realized unless it is deliberate and true. One who is not deliberate does not commit open sinfulness because he is excused. But we say that it refers to the original ruling, which is His saying: Meaning, “Indeed, your eating of it is open sinfulness.” If someone asks, “What do you say about a man who slaughters a camel worth five thousand riyals and does not mention the name?” We tell him to throw it to the dogs, because it is carrion. If he says, “This is a waste of wealth, and Allah the Mighty and Majestic has forbidden the wasting of wealth,” we say: because he did not mention Allah’s name over it, it did not become wealth, because it became foul carrion. Foul carrion is not wealth. It was wealth before it was slaughtered in a manner that does not make it lawful. So there is no wasting of wealth in this; rather, there is purification from impurities. If someone asks, “Does this necessitate that the economy of the butchers be disrupted, because they often forget, and this disrupts their economy? Perhaps they do not earn five thousand in half a year, and you are saying now that this slaughtered animal, this camel, is carrion and foul, throw it to the dogs, and he loses five thousand every five months, which is a thousand riyals a month. This harms their economy.” We say: if we tell him once to throw it to the dogs, he will never forget the mentioning of the name. He might mention it ten times before the knife reaches it; he will not forget. But if we say, “By Allah, you are forgetful and excused,” the second time he will also forget. He will forget, and all his slaughtered animals will be without the mention of the name. And what does the one who says, “You are harming the economy of the butchers,” say, except like the one who said, “If you cut off the hand of the thief, half the people will become paralyzed, having only one hand. After the two hands, the remaining left hand has lost writing and industry with the right hand, because writing is usually done with the right hand, and work is done with it.” We say: you cut off the hand of a thief once, and we guarantee that he will stop stealing. A thousand thieves, and at that time, the cutting off will cease among people, or not? The cutting off will cease among people, and theft will cease. These are objections; whenever a person considers them, he finds them to be of the utmost weakness. Every objection raised against a ruling established in the Shari'ah, know that it is shattered, because it is raised against what? Against a rock. And it is nothing but as the poet said:
He who struck a rock one day to weaken it, *** But he did not harm it, and his horn was the one that was broken.
The wild goat, you know, is a type of gazelle with horns. It came upon a rock and became angry with it; for example, it fell from the rocks and became angry with them, so it started butting them with its horns. What happens? Does the rock break or the horns? The horns, and perhaps its head behind the horns. The point is that anything brought against a valid Islamic ruling established by evidence, know that it is shattered, but it requires understanding, because it may be brought against a person who cannot handle it, and he remains confused. At that point, the doubt does its work. I actually benefited from the substance of this statement from the words of the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) in his refutation of the people of innovation and others. I came across a statement by the Qadi, I think it was Abu Bakr, who was with one of the kings, and there was a Christian man with him. This Christian man was thinking about what he would use to attack this Shari'ah. He said to the Christian, "What do you say about what was said regarding the wife of your Prophet, meaning Aisha, regarding the slander? What do you say about it?" Because if the slander were proven, it would be one of the greatest attacks on the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). For this reason, Allah the Exalted said: The slander of Aisha or any of the wives of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is not like the slander of any other woman among the people. Therefore, the correct view is that whoever slanders one of the wives of the Messenger of Allah is a disbeliever. But the important thing is that this Christian said this word, implying the corruption of the bed of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whom Allah has purified from corruption. He said, "By Allah, Glorified is Allah." He said, "By Allah, they are two women who were accused. One of them was married and did not bring forth a child, and the other was unmarried and brought forth a child. Which one is more severely accused? The second one. Who is she? Maryam, whom you sanctify, is that not so?" So he put a stone in the Christian's mouth that he did not expect the matter to turn out this way. And the truth is, something like this, I see, is one of the greatest arguments for a person. Just as the Rafidah said about Abu Bakr and his fighting the people of apostasy and what happened. The Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "If you say this about Abu Bakr, then the Nasibi says this about Ali ibn Abi Talib. What happened during his time? Fighting among the Muslims, and the conquests did not occur during his time as they did during the times of Umar and Abu Bakr." So if you bring an argument that crushes the opponent from his own words, this is greater than bringing other arguments, even if they are evidence against him. The important thing is, our discussion has led us to these witnesses. I say that a person does not bring an objection against an established Islamic ruling except that this objection is shattered against the rock of the Shari'ah, but it requires understanding and intelligence, and it also requires knowledge. Even the person who said, "If he does not have knowledge, he cannot do it," because knowledge is the material and intelligence is the experience. If a person has experience but no material, he can make medicine. Or if he has material but no experience, he cannot make the medicine. Perhaps he mixes one medicine with another, and if they come together, the person dies. But if he has experience and material, then the objective is achieved. The time is up. Then he said: Who are the allies of the devils? The disbelievers. Every disbeliever is an ally of Satan and an enemy of the Most Merciful. So every disbeliever is an enemy of Allah and an ally of Satan. The devils inspire their allies to argue with the Muslims. How do they argue with them? They say, "How do you forbid carrion when Allah killed it, and you do not forbid what you killed?" Yes, for this reason Allah the Exalted said: Males and females. Yes, so they say, "How do you forbid carrion when Allah killed it, and you do not forbid the slaughtered animal when you killed it?" They argue, they argue with falsehood. Allah the Exalted said: Meaning in forbidding what Allah has made lawful, or in making lawful what Allah has forbidden, Yes.