Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him. Others say that it is lawful, because he intended the ritual slaughter, and the intention to perform ritual slaughter is valid whether he intended to benefit from it by eating it, to fulfill his oath, or to avert its harm.

Thus, two further conditions arise from this condition:

First: intending the ritual slaughter.

Second: Is the intention to eat it a condition, or is it not a condition?

This is subject to the disagreement mentioned above.

What appears to me from the textual evidence is that if he intends the ritual slaughter, it is lawful even if he does not intend to eat it. One might, however, argue that the general import of His saying, “except what you have slaughtered” [Quran 5:3], is an exception to His saying, “Forbidden to you is carrion” [Quran 5:3]. It is known that the prohibition here is a prohibition of eating; thus, the meaning would be: except what you have slaughtered for eating. In any case, Shaykh al-Islam’s preferred view, may Allah have mercy on him, is undoubtedly strong from a rational standpoint. Yet what appears to be the case is that applying the general wording is easier for people.

Issue: Suppose a camel attacks a man, and he has a sword with him. Wanting to defend himself, he says, “In the name of Allah,” and strikes it in self-defense, until he strikes its upper chest or throat. Is it lawful or not?

Answer: It is not lawful, because he did not intend ritual slaughter; rather, he intended to defend himself. That is why it makes no difference to such people whether they strike it on the neck, the head, or the back. But if he intends ritual slaughter and says, “Since it has attacked me, I will slaughter it,” intending ritual slaughter along with repelling the attack, then this depends on the disagreement over whether the intention to eat it is a condition.