were ignorant—that is, he did not know that invoking Allah’s name was obligatory. This is also the position of the established school. They thus distinguish here between ignorance and forgetfulness, saying: if he omits the invocation forgetfully, the slaughtered animal is lawful; if he omits it out of ignorance, it is not lawful; and if he omits it knowingly and deliberately, then it is, a fortiori, not lawful. There are therefore three cases:

First: that he omits it while knowing the ruling and remembering it; then it is not lawful.

Second: that he omits it while knowing the ruling but forgetfully; then it is lawful.

Third: that he omits it out of ignorance of the ruling, while acting deliberately and remembering; then, according to the established school, it is not lawful. Thus, they distinguish between ignorance and forgetfulness.

The evidence that it is waived in the case of forgetfulness is Allah’s saying: “Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake.” [al-Baqarah 2:286] This concerns forgetfulness. It is also established in the Prophet’s saying: “The slaughtered animal of a Muslim is lawful, even if he does not invoke Allah’s name, so long as he did not deliberately omit it.” (1) They say: this is clear evidence, for the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, explicitly stated that the slaughtered animal of a Muslim is lawful when he did not deliberately omit the invocation. From this it is understood that if he deliberately omits it, it is not lawful, even if he was ignorant, due to the general wording of the hadith.

With regard to this issue—that is, invoking Allah’s name over the slaughtered animal—the scholars differ into three views:

The first is that invoking Allah’s name is not a condition but only recommended. If he invokes it, that is better; but if he does not, the slaughtered animal is lawful, whether he deliberately omits it or not, and whether he remembers or forgets. This is the school of al-Shafi'i