then eat.” This was the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and it is the correct view.

The third view—and it is the authoritative position of the school—is that if he omits it forgetfully, the slaughtered animal is lawful; but if he omits it deliberately, even out of ignorance, the slaughtered animal is not lawful. Thus, they distinguished between ignorance and forgetfulness. Their evidence is the hadith: “The slaughtered animal of a Muslim is lawful even if he does not mention Allah’s name over it, provided that he does not deliberately omit it” (1), as stated in al-Rawd (2).

If you say: You have mentioned the evidence that invoking Allah’s name is not waived through either ignorance or forgetfulness; how do you respond to the evidence of those who hold that it is waived?

The answer is: The evidence cited by those who hold that it is waived is weak and cannot establish proof. Since it is weak, it cannot be set against the Quran and the sunnah. The Quran and the sunnah have shown that it is a condition, and that a slaughtered animal may not be eaten if Allah’s name was not mentioned over it.

If you say: The view you have deemed preferable is subject to certain objections:

The first objection is Allah’s saying:

“Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we forget or make a mistake.” [al-Baqarah 2:286]

This person has either forgotten or made a mistake—that is, he was ignorant—and therefore is not held accountable.

The answer is that we affirm this. We say that one who forgets to invoke Allah’s name is not held accountable. Likewise, one who is unaware that invoking Allah’s name is a condition and therefore does not invoke it is not held accountable either. Yet the absence of accountability does not entail the validity of the act. The evidence for this is that if you pray forgetfully while in a state of ritual impurity, there is no sin upon you, but your prayer is not valid. Likewise, if you deliberately pray while in a state of ritual impurity,