Reading from the author's text with commentary on it: "Also, in the two Sahihs, it is narrated from Rafi' ibn Khadij that he said: 'I said: O Messenger of Allah!

The reader: "Also, in *the two Sahihs*, it is narrated from Rafi' ibn Khadij that he said:

I said: O Messenger of Allah! We will meet the enemy tomorrow, and we have no blades with us. May we slaughter with reeds? He said: Whatever causes the blood to flow, and the name of Allah is mentioned over it, eat it. It is not the tooth or the nail. And I will inform you about that. As for the tooth: it is a bone. And as for the nail: it is the blade of the Abyssinians.

قلت : يا رسول الله ! إنا لاقوا العدو غدا، وليس معنا مدى، أفنذبح بالقصب ؟ فقال : ما أنهر الدم، وذُكر اسم الله عليه، فكل، ليس السن والظفر، وسأحدثكم عن ذلك، أما السِّن : فعظم، وأما الظفر : فمُدى الحبشة

Sahih Ibn Hibban 49:4

".

The Shaykh : His statement: Is this a relative pronoun or a conditional particle here? Yes, both are permissible. And his statement: . And "not" here is not one of the particles of exception. This is from the speech of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), as evidenced by the fact that it came in some wordings as "As for the tooth" without his saying: . "The tooth is a bone." Which tooth is meant? Is the intention the human tooth, or is the intention the tooth in general? The reasoning indicates that it is the tooth in general, due to his saying: . He did not say, "As for the tooth, it is because it resembles the animals with fangs." He said: . "Muda" is the plural of "mudiyah," which is a knife. Does this include every nail, even the nails of animals, or is the intention the human nail? Both are possible, so let us look at the custom of the Abyssinians. Do they use their nails as blades, such that a person keeps his nail until it grows long and becomes like a dagger? Yes, one can split the vein and the belly with it, and the like. Then we return a second time and say: "The tooth is a bone." Does this reasoning indicate that no bone is permissible for slaughter? Yes? Yes, this is the apparent meaning. And some said: No, that is not the case. They said: The reason for the tooth is that it is a tooth, and slaughter is permissible with the remaining bones. But this is contrary to the apparent meaning of the hadith. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say: "As for the tooth, it is a tooth." He said: . And the reason encompasses the generality of the meaning. And based on this, we say that slaughter with any bone is not sufficient and is not permissible. Because if the bone is pure, and it is the bone of the slaughtered animal, it will become contaminated with the impure blood, and this would be contaminating the food of the jinn. For this reason, we are prohibited from using bones for cleaning oneself. And if the bone is impure, it cannot be a means for slaughter, which is purity. Therefore, the correct view is that no bone is valid for slaughter.
"The nail is the blade of the Abyssinians." Do we also say, like the first case, that this reason indicates that every blade specific to the Abyssinians is not permissible? The apparent view is no, because the apparent meaning of "As for the nail" is that the Abyssinians slaughter with it. "Because the Abyssinians slaughter with it" is the meaning of "the blade of the Abyssinians." Because the reality of the matter is that it is not a knife, but the Abyssinians made it a blade for themselves. Yes.
Has the time for questions come?
The student: Yes.