Benefits of the Hadith Prohibiting Slaughter with Teeth and Nails

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This hadith contains many benefits. Among them is that it is not permissible for an army or soldiers to take anything for themselves until the imam distributes it. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the cooking pots to be overturned and then the contents distributed. Another benefit is that the division based on financial valuation is not like the sacrificial animals for Hajj or Eid. Here, in the chapter of division, ten sheep were equated to one camel. However, in the case of sacrificial animals, seven are equated to one camel. This ratio may also vary depending on the time. In a time when sheep are expensive and camels are cheap, five sheep might be equated to one camel. Or the situation might be the reverse, with one camel being worth fifteen or twenty sheep. The important point is that the chapter of division is not like the chapter of sacrificial animals. Another benefit of this hadith is that anything that cannot be slaughtered or ritually killed follows the ruling of game. If a camel runs away and we are unable to catch it, and we shoot it with an arrow until it is hit and dies, it is permissible to eat. Similarly, if a sheep or something similar runs away. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . Another benefit is the permissibility of slaughtering with anything that causes the blood to flow, such as iron, wood, stone, glass, and others, except for two things: teeth and nails. The apparent meaning of the hadith is that there is no difference between a connected tooth or a detached one, nor between a connected nail or a detached one, because the hadith is general. The reason given is that the tooth is a bone and the nail is the tool of the Abyssinians. Now, if someone asks: "The tooth is a bone, so what is the reason or wisdom behind prohibiting slaughter with bones?" The scholars said that if we restrict the ruling to the tooth, the wisdom is that if a person used his teeth as a tool, he would resemble the beasts of prey that kill with their claws. It is not befitting for a human to imitate beasts of prey. This is why the comparison of humans to beasts or animals in the texts is only in the context of condemnation, as in , and the dog and the donkey, as Allah used them as examples in the Qur'an, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used them as examples in the Sunnah, saying: . And he said about the one who talks while the imam is delivering the Friday sermon: . So, if we restrict the ruling to the tooth, the wisdom is to prevent a person from using his tooth as a tool for slaughter, thereby resembling beasts of prey. However, if we say the ruling is general and includes every bone, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , and did not say "as for the tooth, it is a tooth," this indicates that the reason for prohibiting slaughter with the tooth is that it is a bone. Now, if it is a bone, the scholars said that it is either the bone of a ritually slaughtered animal or the bone of a non-ritually slaughtered animal. If it is the bone of a ritually slaughtered animal, meaning slaughtered according to the Shari'ah method, the wisdom is that if one slaughters with the bone, it becomes contaminated with impure blood. The bone of a ritually slaughtered animal is meat for the jinn, as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said to the jinn when they came to him: . So, Ibrahim, if it is ritually slaughtered, you have spoiled the meat for them. And if it is not ritually slaughtered, it is an impure bone, and an impure thing should not be a tool for purification and slaughter, because this is a contradiction. Do you understand? Do you now understand that the scholars differ on whether the prohibited slaughter is specific to the tooth or general to all bones? There is disagreement in this issue. Some say it is specific to the tooth, while others generalize it due to the generality of the reason. Do you see, if I told you, "Honor Zayd because he is a student of knowledge," would you honor another student of knowledge if you saw one? Honor Zayd because he is a student of knowledge. Yes, you honor every student of knowledge based on the reason. But if I said, "Honor Zayd because he is Zayd," it does not generalize. Yes. The correct view is that the ruling is general and that slaughter with all bones is not valid. Now, the nail is the tool of the Abyssinians. Are the Abyssinians not human beings? Why is slaughter with their tool not valid? It is said that the meaning of "the tool of the Abyssinians" is not that it is their tool, but the tooth, because only the Abyssinians slaughter with it. I meant the nail; only the Abyssinians slaughter with it. And we should not imitate them. At that time, they were disbelievers, and only the Negus and a few others among them had embraced Islam, as Allah knows best. So the meaning is not that it is their tool, and if they had made special knives for themselves from iron or reeds, we would not slaughter with them. Rather, the meaning is that the nail is not used as a tool except by the Abyssinians, so we should not imitate them in that. And because if we permitted slaughter with the nail, it would lead people to keep their nails long to use them as knives. Instead of carrying a knife with me in my luggage, which might tear the luggage, I would keep my nail long until it becomes like a spear. The longer the nail, the thicker and sharper it becomes, until it is like a spear. If you cut the belly of a cow with it, it would split it. Therefore, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited slaughter with this for this reason. Then he said: . So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stipulated two conditions. The first condition is that the blood flows. What is the second condition? Mentioning the name of Allah. Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stipulate an additional condition beyond the blood flowing, such as cutting the windpipe and the gullet? No. The hadith does not stipulate cutting the windpipe and the gullet; it stipulates the blood flowing. When we look at the blood flowing, we find that it does not happen completely except by cutting the two carotid arteries. What are the two carotid arteries, Ahmad? The two veins. Where are the two veins located? In humans and non-humans. People don't see you. Don't mention it by name, just say "the two vessels flanking the windpipe." Yes, two thick vessels flanking the windpipe, surrounding it. These are the two carotid arteries. The blood cannot flow perfectly except by cutting them. For this reason, Abu Dawud narrated with a chain that has some issues: , meaning the two carotid arteries. Consequently, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed on what must be cut in the neck. Some scholars said that it is necessary to cut the windpipe and the gullet, even if the carotid arteries are not cut, and this is the well-known view in the school of thought. Some scholars said that it is necessary to cut the carotid arteries, even if the windpipe and gullet are not cut, and this is the apparent meaning of the Sunnah. Others said that it is necessary to cut three of the four. What are the four? We have the two carotid arteries, the windpipe, and the gullet. If the two carotid arteries and the windpipe are cut, it is sufficient. If the windpipe, the gullet, and one of the carotid arteries are cut, it is sufficient. And I think there is a fourth opinion that it is necessary to cut all four: the windpipe, the gullet, and the two carotid arteries. There is no doubt that this is the most complete slaughter, but the discussion is about what is sufficient. What is clear to me from the Sunnah is that the obligatory thing is to cut only the two carotid arteries. If the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) stipulated mentioning the name of Allah and the blood flowing for the permissibility of eating, it indicates that the ruling changes with the change in the condition. If the condition is missed or negated, the conditioned thing is negated. If a person forgets and strangles the sheep and mentions the name of Allah, is it sufficient? No, he forgot. May Allah guide us and you. Where is the saying of Allah the Exalted: regarding sin? The accountability is for sin. As for validity and invalidity, this is a legislative ruling, not a penal one. So if a person forgets and strangles it, or electrocutes it and it dies while he had mentioned the name of Allah over it, it is not permissible to eat. Now, if he cut the carotid arteries, the windpipe, and the gullet, but forgot to mention the name of Allah, it is also not permissible, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made this like that: . Now, if a person catches a bird and cuts it open with his nail and separates its head, is it permissible?
The students: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : Why? A bird. We say it is not the tooth and the nail. And the young ones, when they caught a bird, they also caught it with the "nabat" which resembles a thorn. If he saw it alive, he could not keep it until he reached the house. He would cut it open with his nail until he separated its head, or cut it with his tooth until he separated its head. It seems that the brother Hajjaj is indicating that he squeezes its head until it is separated. Yes, I don't know if it is used or not? Is it used as well? No, it is wrong. In any case, all of this is not permissible and not lawful. What about its feathers?

The questioner : The feathers of the bird. You pull a feather from its wing and insert it between the two veins?

The Shaykh : This does not cause the blood to flow.
The reader: Except, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : It is what causes the blood to flow. He says that he takes a hair from it, or rather a feather, and cuts the skin of the neck. I don't know, by Allah, we need to look into it. It requires consideration. It needs experimentation and also consideration. Is this permissible? Let's say it is not a sparrow, but for example a sheep. A rod was inserted into it, and then when it was inserted, it was pulled out until it was severed. Is this permissible, or is it necessary to make a wound? Yes, this requires consideration. We will look into it, if Allah wills, after I have considered it, we will rule on it. Now, in this hadith, there is a benefit, which is that it is recommended to provide the reasoning for rulings, especially those whose wisdom is hidden, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: and so on, as for the tooth, it is a bone. Now, here we have a point of discussion. It is not the nail and the tooth that I have; it says "not the nail and the tooth." It might be another wording. Yes, this is another wording. Now, "not the tooth and the nail." Why did we put "tooth" in the accusative case, Ya Mustafa?
The student: Because it is an exception.

The Shaykh : An exception, correct? Yes.
The student: Because it is the predicate of "laysa" (is not).

The Shaykh : What do you say? Yes, it is well known that this is in the accusative case due to being an exception. Therefore, the subject of "laysa" here is necessarily hidden; it cannot be present, meaning it never appears, so that it resembles the form of an exception. Yes.
The student : ... the one who released the arrow did not mention the name of Allah. Al-Bukhari cited it as evidence for ...

The Shaykh : How?
The student : So he aimed at it with an arrow and held it back