Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (7/452)

The fifth condition is that the animal must not be forbidden on account of Allah’s right, such as game hunted within the Sacred Precinct or game hunted while one is in a state of ihram.

If a person slaughters an animal or hunts game within the Sacred Precinct, it is unlawful, even if he mentions Allah’s name and causes the blood to flow. Likewise, if he hunts game or slaughters it while in ihram, it is unlawful, even if he mentions Allah’s name and causes the blood to flow, because it is forbidden on account of Allah’s right. This is why the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, said to al-Sa‘b ibn Jaththamah, may Allah be pleased with him: “We only returned it to you because we were in ihram.” (1)

This is made clear by the Quranic wording: “O you who believe, do not kill game while you are in a state of ihram.” [al-Ma'idah 5:95] He did not say, “Do not hunt game.” This shows that when a person in ihram hunts game, it is regarded as killing rather than hunting, and an animal killed in this manner does not become lawful.

If, however, it is forbidden on account of another person’s right—such as an unlawfully seized animal—does it take the same ruling as that which is forbidden on account of Allah’s right, and thus become unlawful, or does it not?

The correct view is that it does not become unlawful. This is the well-known position in the Hanbali school. They distinguished between the two by saying that another person’s right may be compensated for, or the person may be appeased and may grant permission, unlike the right of Allah, Exalted is He.

There is another narration within the school stating that an animal forbidden on account of another person’s right is like one forbidden on account of Allah’s right: its ritual slaughter is not valid.

If, by way of discipline, discretionary punishment, and guidance, we considered it appropriate to say to one who unlawfully seized a sheep and slaughtered it, “It is not lawful for you to eat it, nor for anyone else, and you must compensate for it,” then this would be justifiable as a discretionary punishment—depriving him of this property which he sought to obtain through an unlawful means.

(1) Its source has previously been cited on p. 142.

الشرط الخامس: أن لا يكون الحيوان محرماً لحق الله، كالصيد في الحرم، أو الصيد في الإحرام. فلو ذبح الإنسان أو صاد صيداً في الحرم فإنه حرام حتى لو سمى وأنهر الدم، ولو صاد صيداً أو ذبحه وهو محرم فهو حرام، ولو سمى وأنهر الدم؛ لأنه محرَّم لحق الله، ولهذا قال النبي ﷺ للصعب بن جثامة ﵁ قال: «إنا لم نرده عليك إلا أنا حُرم» (١)، وهذا يتبين بالتعبير القرآني: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَقْتُلُوا الصَّيْدَ وَأَنْتُمْ حُرُمٌ﴾ [المائدة: ٩٥]، ولم يقل لا تصيدوا الصيد، فدل هذا على أن صيد الصيد والإنسان محرم يعتبر قتلاً، لا صيداً، والقتل لا تحل به المقتولة. فإن كان مُحرَّماً لحق الغير كالمغصوب مثلاً، فهل يكون كالمحرم لحق الله ويحرم أو لا يحرم؟ الصحيح أنه لا يحرم، وهو المشهور من مذهب الحنابلة ﵏، وفرقوا بينهما بأن الغير حقه يمكن ضمانه، أو إرضاؤه، ويمكن أن يسمح، بخلاف حق الله ﷿. وفيه رواية أخرى في المذهب أن المحرَّم لحق الغير كالمحرَّم لحق الله لا تصح تذكيته. فلو رأينا من باب التأديب والتعزير والتوجيه أن نقول لمن غصب شاة وذبحها: لا يحل لك أكلها ولا لغيرك، وعليك ضمانها، لو رأينا أن هذا من باب التعزير بحرمانه هذا المال الذي تعجله على وجه محرم لكان هذا متوجهاً.

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٤٢).