And no human animal is forbidden, nor sea game, nor the killing of an animal whose eating is forbidden, nor a beast that attacks.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "And no human animal is forbidden". The author (may Allah have mercy on him) began to mention the implication in his previous statement, his saying "And no human animal is forbidden". This is the implication of his saying "land game"; originally, no human animal is forbidden, such as camels, cattle, sheep, and chickens. Yes, none of these are forbidden. The generality of his statement is that it is not forbidden even if it becomes wild, correct? Meaning, if a chicken escapes from its owners and becomes wild so that it cannot be tamed by humans, and then you catch up to it and kill it or catch it, is it lawful or forbidden?
The questioner : It is lawful.
The Shaykh : Based on what?
The questioner : Based on the original state.
The Shaykh : Based on the original state. Now, similarly, if a camel runs away, if a camel runs away, it becomes like game; it is shot and becomes lawful. So if a camel runs away and becomes wild like gazelles, so that it cannot be caught, and then you catch up to it while in the state of ihram and kill it, it is lawful. Now, no human animal is forbidden; the reasoning is based on the original state. "Nor sea game". Sea game is not forbidden because of the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:96] When? [Al-Ma'idah 5:96] So sea game is not forbidden for one in the state of ihram. Therefore, he may hunt even if he is in the state of ihram. So if a person enters the state of ihram from Rabigh and passes by the edge of the sea, goes down, and starts catching fish, is this forbidden?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : It is not forbidden, because of the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:96].
"Nor the killing of an animal whose eating is forbidden". Yes, the killing of an animal whose eating is forbidden is not forbidden, because an animal whose eating is forbidden has no value and is not called game, such as a cat. A cat is an animal whose eating is forbidden. If a person kills it while in the state of ihram, he owes no compensation. Why? Because it has no value. This is from the perspective of the reasoning. And because it is not game, it does not fall under the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:96].
He said "Nor the killing of an animal whose eating is forbidden, nor a beast that attacks". This means that the killing of a beast that attacks is not forbidden. Meaning, if a gazelle attacks you and you fear for your life, and you defend yourself, and it refuses to do anything but kill you, so you kill it, what is the ruling?
The questioner : He owes nothing.
The Shaykh : You owe nothing, because you repelled its harm. And anything repelled for its harm has no sanctity. Listen to the rule: "Anything repelled for its harm has no value". And from this, even if it has already passed, if a hair falls into his eye, meaning it grows on the inside of the eyelid and starts to prick his eye, and he removes it with tweezers, and we say that the hair is general for the whole body, then there is nothing wrong with that. And if his nail breaks and starts to hurt him whenever he touches something or causes him pain, and he cuts off the broken part, he owes nothing because he repelled its harm. A beast that attacks is harmful, so if it cannot be repelled except by killing it, and you kill it, then it is not forbidden for you because you repelled its harm. And what is repelled for its harm has no value in the Shari'ah, even if it is a human being who attacks you and cannot be repelled except by killing him, you may kill him. Now, regarding the prohibition of hunting for one in the state of ihram, if he hunts while it is forbidden for him, may he eat it? No, he may not eat it because this is forbidden due to the right of Allah. Now, if someone forcibly takes a sheep from a person and slaughters it, is it forbidden to eat it?
The attendees: ...
The Shaykh : There are two opinions. One opinion is that it is forbidden by analogy to the game of one in the state of ihram. The second opinion, which is the correct one, is that it is not forbidden because this can be compensated to its owner by its value or its like, but the person is sinful. As for the game, if one in the state of ihram kills it, it is forbidden. Now, is it forbidden for him and others, or forbidden for him alone? It is forbidden for him and others because it is in the position of carrion.
Now, if he is compelled to do so and slaughters the game, is it lawful? Yes, it is lawful because there is no prohibition with dire necessity. So if a person in the state of ihram is dying of hunger, and nothing remains for him but to die or kill this gazelle, for example, or this rabbit, we tell you to kill it now. And if you kill it, it is lawful. Pay attention, or do we say it is forbidden? Do we say it is forbidden and he eats from it to the extent of the necessity, or do we say it is lawful and he provisions himself from it? The second: it is lawful, because when the killing of it was made lawful, the state of ihram did not affect it, and its killing has been permitted due to dire necessity, because a human being is more honorable in the sight of Allah than game. Now, what about what one in the state of ihram participated in? What about what one in the state of ihram participated in? What about what someone else participated in, meaning that this game was killed by two men, one of whom is in the state of ihram and the other is not? Is it forbidden for the one in the state of ihram alone, or for both of them?
The attendees: ...
The Shaykh : Now, do you say that its chest and head are forbidden and its belly and hindquarters are lawful, because two people participated in it, so we divide it into two halves! Or is the right side lawful and the left side forbidden? We have a rule, my brothers. You see that applying rules is important. A lawful person and a forbidden person participated in this game, and it is not possible to distinguish the forbidden from the forbidden, so what is the ruling?
The attendees: It is forbidden.
The Shaykh : It is forbidden. So it is forbidden if he actually participated, meaning the share of the lawful and the forbidden came together in the body of this game, then it is forbidden because it is not possible to avoid the forbidden except by avoiding the lawful, since the forbidden is not distinguished. Now, these are two: independence and participation. 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 hunting was not in the state of ihram. Is it forbidden, or is it lawful because the one who killed it was not in the state of ihram and the one in the state of ihram did not participate in it?
The attendees: ...
The Shaykh : The scholars said it is forbidden for the one in the state of ihram who indicates or assists, but not for others. An example of the one who indicates: these are a group walking on their camels or on foot, and one of them who is in the state of ihram turns around and sees the game, so he says to the one not in the state of ihram, "O so-and-so, look at the game." So he goes to the one not in the state of ihram and he hunts it. It is forbidden for whom? For the one in the state of ihram only, because he indicated it. And we say to the one in the state of ihram, "You were treated with the opposite of your intention." You now indicated to the one not in the state of ihram, saying, "This is lawful, let him hunt for us and we will eat kabsa on it." Now it is forbidden for you, and the others eat from it. Does the other one in the state of ihram who did not indicate eat or not? ... The one not in the state of ihram saw game and mounted his horse to hunt it, but he forgot ... .
The questioner : It is lawful.
The Shaykh : Based on what?
The questioner : Based on the original state.
The Shaykh : Based on the original state. Now, similarly, if a camel runs away, if a camel runs away, it becomes like game; it is shot and becomes lawful. So if a camel runs away and becomes wild like gazelles, so that it cannot be caught, and then you catch up to it while in the state of ihram and kill it, it is lawful. Now, no human animal is forbidden; the reasoning is based on the original state. "Nor sea game". Sea game is not forbidden because of the saying of Allah the Exalted:
Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food as provision for you and the travelers, but forbidden to you is game from the land
أحل لكم صيد البحر وطعامه متاعاً لكم وللسيارة وحرم عليكم صيد البرas long as you are in the state of ihram
ما دمتم حرماًThe questioner : No.
The Shaykh : It is not forbidden, because of the saying of Allah the Exalted:
Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food
أحل لكم صيد البحر وطعامه"Nor the killing of an animal whose eating is forbidden". Yes, the killing of an animal whose eating is forbidden is not forbidden, because an animal whose eating is forbidden has no value and is not called game, such as a cat. A cat is an animal whose eating is forbidden. If a person kills it while in the state of ihram, he owes no compensation. Why? Because it has no value. This is from the perspective of the reasoning. And because it is not game, it does not fall under the saying of Allah the Exalted:
but forbidden to you is game from the land as long as you are in the state of ihram
وحرم عليكم صيد البر ما دمتم حرماًHe said "Nor the killing of an animal whose eating is forbidden, nor a beast that attacks". This means that the killing of a beast that attacks is not forbidden. Meaning, if a gazelle attacks you and you fear for your life, and you defend yourself, and it refuses to do anything but kill you, so you kill it, what is the ruling?
The questioner : He owes nothing.
The Shaykh : You owe nothing, because you repelled its harm. And anything repelled for its harm has no sanctity. Listen to the rule: "Anything repelled for its harm has no value". And from this, even if it has already passed, if a hair falls into his eye, meaning it grows on the inside of the eyelid and starts to prick his eye, and he removes it with tweezers, and we say that the hair is general for the whole body, then there is nothing wrong with that. And if his nail breaks and starts to hurt him whenever he touches something or causes him pain, and he cuts off the broken part, he owes nothing because he repelled its harm. A beast that attacks is harmful, so if it cannot be repelled except by killing it, and you kill it, then it is not forbidden for you because you repelled its harm. And what is repelled for its harm has no value in the Shari'ah, even if it is a human being who attacks you and cannot be repelled except by killing him, you may kill him. Now, regarding the prohibition of hunting for one in the state of ihram, if he hunts while it is forbidden for him, may he eat it? No, he may not eat it because this is forbidden due to the right of Allah. Now, if someone forcibly takes a sheep from a person and slaughters it, is it forbidden to eat it?
The attendees: ...
The Shaykh : There are two opinions. One opinion is that it is forbidden by analogy to the game of one in the state of ihram. The second opinion, which is the correct one, is that it is not forbidden because this can be compensated to its owner by its value or its like, but the person is sinful. As for the game, if one in the state of ihram kills it, it is forbidden. Now, is it forbidden for him and others, or forbidden for him alone? It is forbidden for him and others because it is in the position of carrion.
Now, if he is compelled to do so and slaughters the game, is it lawful? Yes, it is lawful because there is no prohibition with dire necessity. So if a person in the state of ihram is dying of hunger, and nothing remains for him but to die or kill this gazelle, for example, or this rabbit, we tell you to kill it now. And if you kill it, it is lawful. Pay attention, or do we say it is forbidden? Do we say it is forbidden and he eats from it to the extent of the necessity, or do we say it is lawful and he provisions himself from it? The second: it is lawful, because when the killing of it was made lawful, the state of ihram did not affect it, and its killing has been permitted due to dire necessity, because a human being is more honorable in the sight of Allah than game. Now, what about what one in the state of ihram participated in? What about what one in the state of ihram participated in? What about what someone else participated in, meaning that this game was killed by two men, one of whom is in the state of ihram and the other is not? Is it forbidden for the one in the state of ihram alone, or for both of them?
The attendees: ...
The Shaykh : Now, do you say that its chest and head are forbidden and its belly and hindquarters are lawful, because two people participated in it, so we divide it into two halves! Or is the right side lawful and the left side forbidden? We have a rule, my brothers. You see that applying rules is important. A lawful person and a forbidden person participated in this game, and it is not possible to distinguish the forbidden from the forbidden, so what is the ruling?
The attendees: It is forbidden.
The Shaykh : It is forbidden. So it is forbidden if he actually participated, meaning the share of the lawful and the forbidden came together in the body of this game, then it is forbidden because it is not possible to avoid the forbidden except by avoiding the lawful, since the forbidden is not distinguished. Now, these are two: independence and participation. 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 hunting was not in the state of ihram. Is it forbidden, or is it lawful because the one who killed it was not in the state of ihram and the one in the state of ihram did not participate in it?
The attendees: ...
The Shaykh : The scholars said it is forbidden for the one in the state of ihram who indicates or assists, but not for others. An example of the one who indicates: these are a group walking on their camels or on foot, and one of them who is in the state of ihram turns around and sees the game, so he says to the one not in the state of ihram, "O so-and-so, look at the game." So he goes to the one not in the state of ihram and he hunts it. It is forbidden for whom? For the one in the state of ihram only, because he indicated it. And we say to the one in the state of ihram, "You were treated with the opposite of your intention." You now indicated to the one not in the state of ihram, saying, "This is lawful, let him hunt for us and we will eat kabsa on it." Now it is forbidden for you, and the others eat from it. Does the other one in the state of ihram who did not indicate eat or not? ... The one not in the state of ihram saw game and mounted his horse to hunt it, but he forgot ... .