Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/54)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

any part of its body when it cannot be brought under control. Thus, there is no need to qualify this by saying, “that can be brought under control,” because ritual slaughter applies even to an animal that cannot be brought under control, as will come, Allah willing, in the author’s words.

If you ask: What is the evidence that it is not lawful? The evidence is Allah’s statement:

“Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, the strangled animal, the animal killed by a blow, the animal that falls to its death, the animal gored to death, and that which has been eaten by a wild beast—except what you are able to slaughter.” [Surah al-Ma'idah 5:3]

Allah has therefore stipulated ritual slaughter. If Allah has stipulated ritual slaughter for the lawfulness of these animals that have been afflicted by a cause of death, then other animals are even more deserving of this requirement. For we say: if those that have been afflicted by a cause of death are not lawful except through ritual slaughter, then those not so afflicted are all the more so. If ritual slaughter is not waived for those afflicted by a cause of death, then it is even less likely to be waived for anything else. Accordingly, nothing is lawful without ritual slaughter.

As for the rationale, physicians unanimously agree that the retention of blood in an animal is exceedingly harmful to health and causes illnesses that are difficult to cure. Thus, we recognize the wisdom of the Lawgiver in making ritual slaughter obligatory. This is why the strangled animal, the animal killed by a blow, the animal that falls to its death, the animal gored to death, and that which has been eaten by a wild beast—these five have been afflicted by something that causes death; that is, they did not die a natural death. Yet they are nevertheless not lawful, because of the blood retained in them.

His statement, “except locusts”: they are lawful without ritual slaughter, even though locusts live only on land. Yet they are lawful without ritual slaughter. Why?

The answer is: first, as for the textual evidence, the Prophet ﷺ said: “Two types of carrion and two types of blood have been made lawful for us

أي موضع كان من بدنه عند العجز، وحينئذٍ لا نحتاج إلى تقييد ذلك بقولنا: «المقدور عليه»؛ لأن الذكاة تكون حتى في غير المقدور عليه، كما سيأتي ـ إن شاء الله تعالى ـ في كلام المؤلف. فإن قلت: ما الدليل على أنه لا يحل؟ فالدليل قوله تعالى: ﴿حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلاَّ مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ﴾ [المائدة: ٣]، فاشترط الله الذكاة، فإذا اشترط الله الذكاة لحل هذه التي أصابها سبب الموت، فكذلك غيرها من باب أولى؛ لأنا نقول: إذا كانت هذه التي أصيبت بسبب الموت لا تحل إلا بذكاة، فالتي لم تصب من باب أولى؛ لأنه إذا لم يُعفَ عن الذكاة في هذه التي أصيبت بسبب الموت، فألاَّ يعفى عنها فيما سواها من باب أولى، وحينئذٍ لا يحل إلا بذكاة. أما التعليل فهو ما أجمع عليه الأطباء من أن احتقان الدم في الحيوان مضرٌّ جدّاً بالصحة، ويسبب أمراضاً عسيرة البرء، وحينئذٍ نعرف حكمة الشارع في إيجاب الذكاة، ولهذا فالمنخنقة، والموقوذة، والمتردية، والنطيحة، وما أكل السبع، هذه الخمس أصيبت بما يُميتها، يعني ما ماتت حتف أنفها، ومع ذلك لم تحل؛ لاحتقان الدم فيها. قوله: «إلا الجراد» فيحل بدون ذكاة، مع أن الجراد لا يعيش إلا في البر، لكنه يحل بغير ذكاة، لماذا؟ الجواب: أولاً: من حيث الدليل قال النبي ﷺ: «أحلت لنا