Jurisprudential benefits from the hadith

The Shaykh : Among the jurisprudential benefits in this is that when an action is performed by one who is qualified to perform it, the original ruling is that it is valid. Any action performed by one who is qualified to perform it is originally valid. If a sale is conducted by one who has the legal capacity to dispose of property, the original ruling is that it is valid and that the seller owns the item, so we do not need to say that ownership has been established. The same applies to a gift and to all contracts and actions; if they are issued by those qualified to issue them, the original ruling is validity. It also indicates that if the one slaughtering is qualified to slaughter and we doubt whether he mentioned the name of Allah or not, we do not pay attention to this doubt, based on the principle that the original ruling is validity. For this reason, they asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about the slaughtered animals of these people who had recently embraced shirk (associating partners with Allah). It is generally the case that one who has recently embraced shirk does not know the rulings of Islam. Nevertheless, he said, "You mention the name of Allah and eat." This indicates that if a slaughtered animal is slaughtered by one who is qualified to slaughter, we do not ask whether he mentioned the name of Allah or not, because the original ruling is that his slaughter is halal (lawful). Likewise, we do not ask how he slaughtered it, whether with a knife, by strangulation, or otherwise. We do not ask, because mentioning the name of Allah is a condition and the flowing of blood is a condition. If we say we do not ask about mentioning the name of Allah, then we do not ask about the flowing of blood, and there is no difference. If a Jew or a Christian feeds us meat, do we eat it, or do we ask how it was slaughtered and whether the name of Allah was mentioned? No, we do not say that. We eat it, but we mention the name of Allah. This hadith, by its implication, criticizes the question, because when he said: it is as if he said, "It is not permissible for you to investigate the actions of others, for this is excessive scrutiny and rigidity. But you should mention the name of Allah over your own actions and not investigate the actions of others. This is what is in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah. A person should not be rigid or engage in excessive scrutiny as long as the action was performed by one who is qualified to perform it. As for his saying: is the intended meaning the mention of the name of Allah over the slaughter, which is the action of another, or over the eating, which is their action? It is the latter, because mentioning the name of Allah over the slaughter is of no benefit, as the slaughter has already ended. So the mention of the name of Allah here is over the eating, which is our action. In this is the ease and simplicity of the Islamic Shari'ah. A person is not burdened with investigating. If we were burdened with investigating, matters would become difficult for us. If we were to say, "Who slaughtered this? So-and-so. Investigate whether he prays or not. Also investigate whether he owns this slaughtered animal in a lawful manner or not." They would say, "Yes, he bought it from so-and-so." "How did so-and-so get it?" They would say, "He received it as a gift from so-and-so." "How did the donor get it?" They would say, "He exchanged it for a divorce from his wife." "Where did the woman get it?" And we would continue tracing the chain to infinity. But by the grace of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), we do not engage in this kind of excessive scrutiny, and the original ruling for a transaction performed by one with legal capacity is validity and soundness.