Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "And it is not forbidden to [hunt] a human animal, nor the catch of the sea, nor the killing of one forbidden to eat, nor the aggressive beast"

The Shaykh : Below the location, or on both of them? Well, do you say that his chest and head are forbidden, but his belly and rump are permissible, because two things are involved in it, so we divide it into two halves! Or is the right side permissible and the left side forbidden? We have a rule, my brothers; you see that applying rules is important. Both permissible and forbidden are involved in this game, and it is not possible to distinguish the forbidden from the forbidden, so what is the ruling?
The audience: It is forbidden.

The Shaykh : It is forbidden. So, it is forbidden if it is actually shared, meaning the share of the permissible and the forbidden are combined in the body of this game, then it is forbidden because it is not possible to avoid the forbidden except by avoiding the permissible, since the forbidden is not distinguished. Well, these are two: independence and sharing. Indication or assistance, meaning the one in the state of ihram did not participate, but he indicated or assisted, and the one who carried out the hunt was in a state of permissibility. So, is it forbidden, or is it permissible because the one who killed it was in a state of permissibility and the one in ihram did not participate in it? The scholars said it is forbidden for the one in ihram who indicated or assisted, but not for others. For example, the one who indicated: these are a group walking on their camels or on foot, so one of them who was in ihram turned and looked at the game and said to the one in a state of permissibility, "So-and-so, look at the game," so he went to the one in a state of permissibility and hunted it. It is forbidden for whom? Only for the one in ihram, because he indicated it. And we say to the one in ihram, you were treated with the opposite of your intention. You now indicated to the one in a state of permissibility, saying, "This is permissible, hunt it for us and we will eat kabsa with it," but now it is forbidden for you, while the others eat from it. Does the other one in ihram who did not indicate eat, or not?
The audience: He eats.

The Shaykh : He eats. As for assistance: the one in a state of permissibility saw game, so he mounted his horse to hunt it, but he forgot the arrow on the ground or the bow, so he said to the one in ihram, "Hand me the bow," so he handed it to him, and he went and hunted it. Is this game forbidden?
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : This is a man in a state of permissibility who mounted his horse to hunt game that he saw with his own eyes, but when he mounted, he realized he had forgotten the arrow or the bow, so he said to the one in ihram, "Please hand me the bow or the arrow," so he took it and handed it to him, and he went and killed it, right?
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : Is it forbidden for everyone? It is forbidden only for the one in ihram who assisted, and it is permissible for the one in a state of permissibility and for the other ones in ihram who did not indicate. How many categories are there now? What he did independently, what he shared in, what he indicated, what he assisted in. Well, if the one in a state of permissibility hunted game and fed it to the one in ihram, is it permissible for the one in ihram?
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : Some scholars said it is forbidden for the one in ihram due to the generality of His saying: They said this is land game, so it is forbidden for the one in ihram, even if the one who killed it was in a state of permissibility. They found support for their opinion in the hadith of al-Asib ibn Jathamah, when he hunted a wild donkey and brought it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who returned it and said: He did not say, "You hunted it for us." Their saying is strong, without doubt. But the correct view is that it is permissible for the one in ihram, and the meaning of His saying: is that "game" is a verbal noun, meaning it is forbidden for you to hunt land game, and it does not mean "hunted game." And this one in ihram has no effect on this game, neither indication nor assistance nor sharing nor independence nor hunting for his sake. So the game is permissible. This is supported by the story of Abu Qatadah (may Allah be pleased with him), when he went with a detachment on the coast in the year of Hudaybiyyah, and he saw a wild donkey, so he mounted his horse but forgot his bow or spear, so he said to one of his companions, "Hand me the spear." He said, "I will not hand it to you, I am in ihram." He dismounted, took it, and walked, then struck the game and brought it to his companions and fed them from it. But they had doubt in their hearts until they reached the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so they asked him, and he permitted them to eat it, even though they were in ihram. This is reconciled with the hadith of al-Asib ibn Jathamah by saying that Abu Qatadah hunted it for himself, and al-Asib hunted it for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This reconciliation is preferable to abrogation, because some scholars said that the hadith of al-Asib is abrogating because it is later, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) returned it and said: The correct view is that if reconciliation is possible, there is no abrogation, and reconciliation is possible. If someone says, "Abu Qatadah (may Allah be pleased with him) was with his people and hunted the donkey; how can he want it for himself when he only hunted it for his people?" The answer is that Abu Qatadah (may Allah be pleased with him) hunted it for himself originally and for his people secondarily. This is if we do not go beyond and say that Abu Qatadah was angry with them and upset that they refused to give him the spear, but this is far-fetched. The last one is far-fetched because they did not refuse out of stinginess with their assistance, but they refused for a legal reason, saying, "We are in ihram, so we do not give it to you." So I do not think Abu Qatadah would have anything against them in his heart and want to take the game for himself, but it occurred to him that he hunted it for himself and would feed his companions, unlike the one who did not hunt the donkey except for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon them). There is a great difference between the two intentions. This is how the reconciliation of the evidence is achieved. Well, let's see if there is time left.

The questioner : ...؟

The Shaykh : The original rule is not to ask.