Explanation of the Book of Foods-09b
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: Musaddad narrated to us, Abu al-Ahwas narrated to us, Sa'id ibn Masruq narrated to us from 'Abayah ibn Rifa'ah from his father from his grandfather Rafi' ibn Khadij, who said: Sahih al-Bukhari 5543.
The Shaykh : The point of interest is his statement, "so he ordered them to be overturned," meaning the pots, because they took these camels from the spoils of war before they were distributed. The camels, indeed, and the spoils of war before distribution, are shared property. Shared among whom? Among the spoils-takers, indeed, among the spoils-takers and all the Muslims, because the spoils of war are divided into five shares. First, five shares are taken, from which one share is taken for Allah and His Messenger. This is made into *fay'* in the treasury of the Muslims for all Muslims, and four-fifhs are distributed among the spoils-takers. So these people who took these camels took from camels in which all Muslims share, without their permission and without the permission of the guardian. So he ordered them to be overturned. This indicates that whoever slaughters something that is shared between him and another without his permission, it is forbidden. And whoever slaughters something for another in which he has no share, what is it? It is forbidden, a fortiori. And based on this, it is a condition for the lawfulness of the slaughter that the slaughtered animal be owned by another, intentionally, that it be owned by the one slaughtering. And this is one of the opinions in the issue, that it is a condition that the slaughtered animal be lawful. If it is forbidden, like the slaughter of the usurper, the thief, or the one who seizes from the spoils of war, and the like of that, then it is forbidden. Why? They argued with this hadith that the Messenger ordered the pots to be overturned. And they argued by reasoning, saying that this act, which is slaughtering, is a disposition of another's property, so it is forbidden. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih Muslim 1718b So the slaughtered animal is not lawful because it is not in accordance with the command of Allah and His Messenger. But the majority of the scholars are of the opposite opinion. The majority of the scholars said that the forbidden thing is either forbidden for the sake of Allah or for the sake of creation. If it is forbidden for the sake of Allah, then the prohibition is for its essence, so its slaughter is not valid. And if it is forbidden for the right of another, then the prohibition is for its description, not for its essence. For its description, and in that case, it is lawful. An example of the first, where the prohibition is for its essence, is the slaughter of a donkey, a lion, a wolf, and the like of that. This is not made lawful by slaughter because it is forbidden for its essence. And likewise, hunting in the Sacred Precinct is forbidden for its essence. And some said, rather, it is forbidden for its description, but it is for the sake of Allah. So if a person slaughters game in the Sacred Precinct, the game is forbidden. And for this, Allah described it by saying: [Al-Ma'idah 5:95] and He did not say "do not slaughter it," because slaughtering it is killing, which does not benefit. But if it is for the right of another and not for its essence, then it is lawful according to the majority, like the slaughter of the usurper, the thief, and the partner without the permission of his partner, and the like of that. And they said: The prohibition did not come specifically regarding slaughtering, but it is general. And what necessitates invalidity is if the prohibition is against the specific thing, because a prohibition and validity do not coincide. And they also said: By proof, if this one permits it and allows it, then it becomes lawful. And this is proof that the cause of the prohibition does not return to the description of the slaughter or to the slaughtered animal itself. And they answered regarding this hadith that it is from the category of discretionary punishment. Otherwise, it was possible for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to say, meaning in this situation, to grant them a dispensation. And if he granted them a dispensation, the prohibition would be removed. But it is from the category of discretionary punishment, where they hastened to something before its time. And whoever hastens to something before its time is punished by being deprived of it. And this is closer. This last one is closer, and it is what the majority of the scholars are upon. Yes, Ya Ali... so this would also be an increase in his punishment.
Narrated Rait' bin Khadij: I said to the Prophet, "We will be facing the enemy tomorrow and we have no knives (for slaughtering)' He said, "If you slaughter the animal with anything that causes its blood to flow out, and if Allah's Name is mentioned on slaughtering it, eat of it, unless the killing instrument is a tooth or nail. I will tell you why: As for the tooth, it is a bone; and as for the nail, it is the knife of Ethiopians." The quick ones among the people got the war booty while the Prophet (ﷺ) was behind the people. So they placed the cooking pots on the fire, but the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered the cooking pots to be turned upside down. Then he distributed (the war booty) among them, considering one camel as equal to ten sheep. Then a camel belonging to the first party of people ran away and they had no horses with them, so a man shot it with an arrow whereby Allah stopped it. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Of these animals there are some which are as wild as wild beasts. So, if anyone of them runs away like this, do like this (shoot it with an arrow).
قلت للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إننا نلقى العدو غداً وليس معنا مدًى فقال : ما أنهر الدم وذكر اسم الله فكلوه ما لم يكن سن ولا ظفر وسأحدثكم عن ذلك أما السن فعظم وأما الظفر فمدى الحبشة وتقدم سرعان الناس فأصابوا من الغنائم والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في آخر الناس فنصبوا قدوراً فأمر بها فأكفئت وقسم بينهم وعدل بعيراً بعشر شياه ثم ند بعير من أوائل القوم ولم يكن معهم خيل فرماه رجل بسهم فحبسه الله فقال إن لهذه البهائم أوابد كأوابد الوحش فما فعل منها هذا فافعلوا مثل هذاThe Shaykh : The point of interest is his statement, "so he ordered them to be overturned," meaning the pots, because they took these camels from the spoils of war before they were distributed. The camels, indeed, and the spoils of war before distribution, are shared property. Shared among whom? Among the spoils-takers, indeed, among the spoils-takers and all the Muslims, because the spoils of war are divided into five shares. First, five shares are taken, from which one share is taken for Allah and His Messenger. This is made into *fay'* in the treasury of the Muslims for all Muslims, and four-fifhs are distributed among the spoils-takers. So these people who took these camels took from camels in which all Muslims share, without their permission and without the permission of the guardian. So he ordered them to be overturned. This indicates that whoever slaughters something that is shared between him and another without his permission, it is forbidden. And whoever slaughters something for another in which he has no share, what is it? It is forbidden, a fortiori. And based on this, it is a condition for the lawfulness of the slaughter that the slaughtered animal be owned by another, intentionally, that it be owned by the one slaughtering. And this is one of the opinions in the issue, that it is a condition that the slaughtered animal be lawful. If it is forbidden, like the slaughter of the usurper, the thief, or the one who seizes from the spoils of war, and the like of that, then it is forbidden. Why? They argued with this hadith that the Messenger ordered the pots to be overturned. And they argued by reasoning, saying that this act, which is slaughtering, is a disposition of another's property, so it is forbidden. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: