whether due to forgetfulness, ignorance, or deliberate omission. Rather, as we have previously said, it is evidence that pronouncing Allah’s Name is obligatory, and they had already understood that it was indispensable; hence, they asked about the permissibility of eating this meat.

The third point: if you declare unlawful an animal over which Allah’s Name was forgotten, you will have caused the Muslims to lose a great deal of wealth, for forgetfulness often occurs in the course of action—especially when the animal is strong and one wishes to finish it off quickly. In his haste, a person may forget to say, “In the name of Allah.” Thus, if you say that the slaughtered animal is unlawful and must be thrown to dogs and wolves, you have destroyed a great deal of people’s wealth, while the Prophet ﷺ forbade the wasting of wealth.

The reply is this: if we are addressing those who follow this legal school, we say: You hold that if a person forgets to pronounce Allah’s Name over game, then the game is unlawful—even if it is among the most precious and costly game, even if it is among the finest, largest, and most valuable gazelles! Yet being distracted from pronouncing Allah’s Name while hunting is more likely than being distracted from it when slaughtering an animal. This is clear, for game comes upon a person suddenly, and he fears that it may escape him; whereas the animal to be slaughtered is before him, and he slaughters it calmly. Yet you say that it is lawful. So what is the difference?

If the interlocutor is one who holds that pronouncing Allah’s Name is waived when forgotten, both in hunting and in slaughtering, and he says: “If you declare unlawful that over which Allah’s Name was forgotten, you will have caused the Muslims to lose much wealth,” then the reply is that we deny that this is wealth. For that which