The answer: according to the established school, it is the first—that is, he must say, “In the name of Allah,” using these exact words. If he says, “In the name of the Most Merciful,” “In the name of the Lord of the worlds,” “In the name of the All-Creating, All-Knowing,” or the like, that does not suffice. The correct view, however, is that what is intended is the name of the One denoted by this name. Accordingly, if he says, “In the name of the Most Merciful,” “In the name of the Lord of the worlds,” or the like, this is permissible and the slaughtered animal is lawful. For Allah’s saying, exalted is He, “Eat, then, of that over which the name of Allah has been mentioned,” and, “Do not eat of that over which the name of Allah has not been mentioned,” refers to the name distinctive to the One so named: Allah.

Question: Is it prescribed here to mention the name of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him?

The answer: It is not prescribed. Accordingly, do not say, “In the name of Allah, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah,” for this is a setting requiring sincerity to Allah, exalted is He, and the name of another should therefore not be mentioned alongside His name.

His words, “Nothing else suffices in its place,” mean anything other than these words, “In the name of Allah.” Thus, if he says, “In the name of the Most Merciful,” “In the name of the Lord of the worlds,” “In the name of the Creator,” or the like—among names exclusive to Allah—it does not suffice. The correct view is that it does suffice.

His words, “If he omits it,” mean the naming of Allah.

His words, “If he omits it forgetfully, it is permissible; not if he does so deliberately”: forgetfulness means that the heart is diverted from something known—that is, from a matter he had known. Thus, if he omits the naming of Allah forgetfully, the slaughtered animal is lawful.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that if he omits it while remembering, it is not lawful, even if he