Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/67)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and the other says that his slaughtered animal is lawful because he is not an apostate. In that case, the one who does not regard him as a disbeliever may eat from it, whereas the one who regards him as a disbeliever may not. However, if the one who holds that he has not apostatized refrains from eating it as a disciplinary measure and in order to shun him for what he has done, perhaps causing him to desist, then that would be better.

The second condition: the instrument. Prescribed slaughter may be performed with any sharp instrument, even if it has been usurped, whether made of iron, stone, reed, or anything else, except for a tooth or a nail.

His statement, “The second condition: the instrument,” means that the second of the conditions for lawful slaughter is the instrument. Thus, slaughter must be carried out with an instrument. Strangulation is not valid, nor is causing the animal to fall—for example, causing it to fall from a mountain until it dies—nor striking it with a thrown object until it dies, nor beating it. None of these renders the slaughtered animal lawful. Rather, an instrument is essential, and it must be sharp. This is why the author says:

“Prescribed slaughter may be performed with any sharp instrument,” meaning, one that has an edge which cuts. If it has no cutting edge, prescribed slaughter cannot be performed with it. Thus, if the animal is electrocuted, it is not lawful, because electricity is not sharp and does not cause the blood to flow. A sharp instrument that causes the blood to flow—that is, makes it run out—is essential.

His statement, “even if it has been usurped”: the word “even” indicates a point of disagreement, for some scholars hold that prescribed slaughter may not be performed with an usurped instrument, or with one prohibited due to Allah’s right, such as gold or silver. They argue that whatever results from something unauthorized is invalid, based on the statement of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “Whoever performs an act that is not in accordance with our matter, it is rejected.” (1) Thus, if someone usurps a knife from another person, or steals it and then slaughters with it, the slaughtered animal is lawful according to the author’s view, whereas according to the second view it is not lawful. The author’s evidence is that

(1) Narrated by al-Bukhari in Al-Sawm (Fasting), chapter: “Whoever does not abandon false speech and acting upon it while fasting” (1903), on the authority of Abu Hurayrah.

والثاني يقول: تحل ذبيحته؛ لأنه غير مرتد، فهنا يأكلها من لا يكفِّره، ومن كفَّره لا يأكلها، نعم لو أن من يقول بعدم ردته يترك أكلها تعزيراً له وهجراً لما عمل لعله يرتدع، فلو فعل ذلك لكان خيراً. الثَّانِي: الآلَةُ: فَتُبَاحُ الذَّكَاةُ بِكُلِّ مُحَدَّدٍ وَلَوْ مَغْصُوباً مِنْ حَدِيدٍ وَحَجَرٍ وَقَصَبٍ وَغَيْرِهِ، إِلاَّ السِّنَّ والظُّفُرَ. قوله: «الثاني: الآلة» أي: الثاني من شروط حل الذكاة الآلة، فلا بد أن يكون الذبح بآلة، فلا يصح الخنق، ولا التردية ـ أي: أن يرديها من الجبل حتى تموت ـ ولا الحذف بأن يحذفها بشيء حتى تموت، ولا الضرب، فكل هذا لا تحل به الذبيحة، بل لا بد من آلة، ولا بد في هذه الآلة من أن تكون محدَّدة؛ ولهذا قال المؤلف: «فتباح الذكاة بكل محدد» أي: له حد يقطع، أما إذا لم يكن له حد فلا تحل الذكاة به، فلو صعقها بالكهرباء فلا تحل؛ لأنها غير محددة، ولا تنهر الدم، ولا بد من آلة محدَّدة تنهر الدم، أي: تجعله يسيل. قوله: «ولو مغصوباً» «لو» هذه إشارة خلاف؛ لأن بعض العلماء يقول: إن الآلة المغصوبة، أو المحرَّمة لحق الله كالذهب والفضة، لا تحل الذكاة بها؛ لأن ما ترتب على غير المأذون فهو فاسد؛ لقوله ﷺ: «من عمل عملاً ليس عليه أمرنا فهو رد» (١)، فإذا غصب إنسان سكيناً من شخص، أو سرقها ثم ذبح بها فعلى كلام المؤلف تحل الذبيحة، وعلى القول الثاني لا تحل، وحجة

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الصيام/ باب من لم يدع قول الزور والعمل به في الصوم (١٩٠٣) عن أبي هريرة ﵁.