Benefits with Explanation

The Shaykh : First, his saying: This indicates that it is necessary that the owner of the dogs be the one who sends them. If the dog runs off on its own when it sees the prey and chases it, is the prey permissible or not? The apparent meaning of the hadith is that it is not permissible, because he said: But the scholars said: If he rebukes it and it speeds up in its running to pursue it, then it is permissible, based on the fact that this rebuke became the cause of its speeding up. This indicates that it held it for him and did not hold it for itself. Because its initial running off when it first saw the prey, without being sent, was only to hunt on its own. So if you rebuke it and it speeds up in its running to pursue it, that indicates that it held it for you. For this reason, Allah the Exalted said: The second benefit from this hadith: He said: "The trained ones that have been taught hunting." The scholars said: And the teaching is that it runs off when sent, and it stops when rebuked, meaning it restrains itself when asked to stop, and when it holds the prey, it does not eat. So the teaching is achieved through three things: that it runs off when sent, that it stops when rebuked, and that it does not eat when it holds the prey. If it does not run off when sent, and you send it, if it takes long, it runs off; otherwise, you leave it, you shout at it to make it run off, but it does not move, then it has not been taught. Likewise, if you send it and it runs off to the prey, and you rebuke it to make it stop, but it does not stop, then it has not been taught, because it is not disciplined. Why would you stop it? You tell it to stop, but it does not stop. If it is not taught, the third is: if it runs off when sent, and you rebuke it, it stops, but when it holds the prey, it does not bring you the whole prey, but only half of it. Then this is also not to be eaten from; it is not to be eaten from its prey. Because when it ate from it, this indicates that it held it for itself. And it may bring the rest of the prey, either because it is full, or because it wants to be a partner with you, half for you and half for it. So it is not permissible. It is necessary that it does not eat when it holds the prey. The third benefit is his saying: When do you mention the name of Allah? You mention it when you send it, meaning at the time of sending it, not when you see it capable of hunting. The matter is broad: if you mention the name of Allah when you send it, then if it hunts for you and holds it for you, it is permissible. And it is understood from this that if one does not mention the name of Allah, then it is not permissible, whether one left off the mention out of forgetfulness, ignorance, or knowingly and remembering. And that is because the condition is not dropped due to forgetfulness or ignorance. So if he sends it and does not mention the name of Allah, and it brings the prey, then the prey is forbidden and must be discarded. Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made the mention a condition, and the condition is not dropped due to forgetfulness or ignorance. If someone says: In this situation, forgetfulness is frequent, because when a person sees the prey, he is flustered and sends the dog quickly so that the prey does not escape, and he often forgets. We say: Even if the matter were so, he is not excused for leaving this condition. If someone says: What is the answer to the saying of Allah the Exalted: And this is a great principle in the Islamic Shari'ah. We say: By virtue of this principle, this man who left off the mention out of forgetfulness is not held accountable. But if he left it off intentionally, he becomes held accountable. So we say: As for the one who sent the dog and forgot the mention, he is not held accountable, and we do not sin him. But as for the one who eats, that is the one we prevent from eating, because Allah said: But if a person eats from this prey that was not mentioned over, out of forgetfulness or ignorance, does he sin or not? He does not sin. In that case, the principle applies. We say: This prey, the condition for its permissibility is the mention. So if the condition is missing, the conditioned thing is missing. Just as if the dog runs off on its own, it is not permissible, so if it runs off by being sent by its owner and he does not mention the name, it is not permissible. There is no difference. There is no difference in this. And likewise, the slaughtered animal: if you slaughter and forget to mention the name of Allah, then the slaughtered animal is forbidden and not permissible, because the mention is a condition for permissibility, and the condition is not dropped by forgetfulness and ignorance. Allah the Exalted said: And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So he made two conditions: the first is the flowing of blood, and the second is the mention of the name of Allah. So if someone slaughters without the flowing of blood, out of ignorance, strangling the slaughtered animal until it dies, and he had mentioned the name of Allah over it, is it permissible? Why? But he was ignorant. Even if he was ignorant, because this is a condition. And if he forgot and slaughtered by strangling, and it died, and he had mentioned the name of Allah over it, then it is not permissible, because the flowing of blood is a condition. So the mention is like the flowing of blood; it is necessary. The scholars differed greatly on this issue. Some said: The mention over the slaughtered animal or the prey is a recommended practice (sunnah) and not a condition. And this is a very weak opinion. And some said: It is a condition in the slaughtered animal and in the prey, but it is dropped by forgetfulness in the slaughtered animal and not dropped by forgetfulness in the prey. Did you understand? And this is the well-known opinion of the Hanbali school, may Allah have mercy on them. They argued for the non-dropping in the prey by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So he made the mention a condition. And as for the slaughtered animal, the mention is obligatory (wajib) and not a condition, so it is dropped by forgetfulness and ignorance. And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The mention is not dropped, neither in the prey nor in the slaughtered animal. And if one forgets the mention in the prey or the slaughtered animal, then the prey and the slaughtered animal are forbidden." And his saying is more correct and more established. And as for distinguishing between the prey and the slaughtered animal, the implication of consideration is that the mention is dropped in the prey but not in the slaughtered animal, because the person slaughters the animal while he is calm and at peace, unlike the prey. And as for his saying, peace and blessings be upon him, "He made the mention of the name of Allah a condition in the prey," we say: And likewise in the slaughtered animal. Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The second issue in the hadith: He said: All right, and if it hits in its width, do not eat. The "mu'arraḍ" (striking with a blunt object) is like a stick. You throw the stick, and its head is pointed, and it hits with its head and pierces it until the blood flows, then it is eaten. And as for if it strikes the prey and hits the prey with its width, and the prey dies, then it is not eaten, because it falls under the saying of Allah the Exalted: The "muwaqqadah" (strangled animal) is the one that is struck with a stick or the like until it dies. All right, if you throw a stone at the prey and the stone kills the prey by its weight, not by its edge, then it is not permissible, because it is exactly like the "mu'arraḍ." Hunting with the "banduq" (rifle), the known rifle that is shot with "saddam" (shot pellets). Do you know "saddam"? The small pellets. Is it permissible? It will pierce. Yes, it is permissible, because it does not kill by its weight, but by its penetration. So it is like the head of an arrow. The scholars were confused at first when this type of arrow came out, whether it is permissible or not. But they agreed afterwards on its permissibility. And they said: Everyone knows that this "saddam" that struck the prey did not kill it, but it kills it by its penetration, so it is lawful.The questioner : If the dog were such that when you sent it, it would eat, because it is not disciplined. But when ... a share, you fed it until it was full, then you sent it, and it ate the prey completely ... is this permissible?

The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because it is not taught. Even if it did not eat .