Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/62)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

because the presumption concerning what is in their possession is that they themselves slaughtered it.

Question: Do we say that the food of those who were given the Scripture includes everything they consider to be food, even if it is not prepared according to the Islamic manner?

Answer: No. This is the well-known view held by the majority of scholars. Some scholars, both early and later, held that whatever they regard as food is lawful for us, because the specification in Allah’s saying, “And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you” [al-Ma'idah 5], would serve no purpose if it conferred no particular benefit. That benefit, they say, is that their food is distinguished from ours by their considering it food. Thus, if they were to regard, for example, an animal killed by electric shock or the like as food, it would be lawful for us. This is like the case of a jurist who differs from us regarding one of the conditions of lawful slaughter and slaughters an animal according to his own view: it would then be lawful for us. Let us suppose that a Shafi'i slaughtered an animal without mentioning Allah’s name over it: it would be lawful for us and for him, because he considers it lawful. But if it were slaughtered by someone who believes it to be unlawful, then it is unlawful.

In short, some scholars held that whatever the People of the Book regard as food is lawful, and that we do not require the windpipe and esophagus to be severed, nor the mention of Allah’s name. However, the correct view, held by the majority of scholars, is otherwise: it must be lawfully slaughtered such that the blood flows, and Allah’s name must be mentioned over it, as will come, Allah willing, in the forthcoming conditions.

Regarding the phrase “a Scripturian”: is it a condition that both of the Scripturian’s parents be People of the Book?

Answer: The correct view is that it is not a condition for both of his parents to be People of the Book, and that each person is judged according to his own state. Thus, if the father were, hypothetically, a communist or a pagan,

لأن الأصل فيما بأيديهم أنهم هم الذين ذبحوه. مسألة: هل نقول: طعام الذين أوتوا الكتاب كل ما اعتقدوه طعاماً، وإن لم يكن على الطريقة الإسلامية؟ الجواب: لا، وهو المشهور عند أهل العلم عامتهم، وذهب بعض العلماء ـ من الأقدمين والمتأخرين ـ إلى أن ما اعتقدوه طعاماً فهو حلال لنا؛ لأن الاختصاص في قوله تعالى: ﴿وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ﴾ [المائدة: ٥] لولا أنَّ له فائدة لم يكن لذكره فائدة، وهي أن طعامهم يتميَّز عن طعامنا باعتقادهم إياه طعاماً، فإن كانوا مثلاً يعتقدون أن المصعوق بالكهرباء ونحوه يعتبر طعاماً فهو حلٌّ لنا، كما لو أن أحداً من الفقهاء خالفنا في شرط من شروط الذكاة، وذكى الذبيحة على اعتقاده فإنها تكون حلالاً لنا، ولنفرض أن شافعياً ذبح ذبيحة ولم يسم الله؛ فهي حلال لنا وله؛ لأنه اعتقدها حلالاً، أما لو ذبحها من يعتقد التحريم فهي حرام. فالمهم أن بعض العلماء قال: ما اعتقده أهل الكتاب طعاماً فإنه حلال، ولا نحتاج إلى قطع الحلقوم والمريء، ولا إلى التسمية، لكن الصواب الذي عليه جمهور العلماء خلاف ذلك، وأنه لا بد أن يذكى وينهَر الدم فيه، ولا بد أن يسمى الله عليه؛ كما سيأتينا ـ إن شاء الله تعالى ـ في الشروط المستقبلة. وقوله «كتابياً» هل يشترط أن يكون الكتابي أبواه كتابيان؟ الجواب: الصحيح أنه لا يشترط أن يكون أبواه كتابيين، وأن لكل إنسان حكم نفسه، فلو قُدِّر أن الأب شيوعي، أو وثني،