Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/90)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

in it. Whatever is not permitted, where it is capable of being either valid or invalid, does not take legal effect. This is a principle of Sacred Law, as established by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: “Whoever does an act that is not in accordance with our matter shall have it rejected.” (1) Slaughtering property belonging to another is not sanctioned by Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace; it is therefore invalid and rejected.

Our qualification in this principle—“where it is capable of being either valid or invalid”—excludes that which is not permitted but can only occur in a prohibited manner. Such an act does take legal effect, as in ẓihār, which is not permitted yet takes effect despite being prohibited, reprehensible, and false speech, because it does not admit of valid and invalid forms; all of its forms are wrongful.

The second view is that what is prohibited due to another person’s right remains lawful. This is because the slaughter has been performed by someone qualified to slaughter, and the animal is not inviolable or forbidden in itself; rather, the prohibition and inviolability arise from the right of a human being, not from the animal itself. This differs from game hunted while one is in the state of pilgrimage consecration, or within the Sacred Precinct, for such game is prohibited in itself. That is why hunting it and eating it are forbidden.

This latter view is the established position of the school: the meat is lawful, though the slaughterer incurs sin, and this is the stronger view. If it is lawful, does that mean it is permissible to eat it? No, it is not permissible to eat it—not because the slaughter itself is forbidden, but because it is another person’s property. Thus, if someone unlawfully usurped meat that its owner had already slaughtered, it would be forbidden for him to eat it. If its owner then gave him permission, it would become lawful.

His statement, “It is disliked to slaughter with a dull instrument”: the root meaning of dullness is fatigue. A dull instrument is one worn down by use and no longer sharp.

(1) Narrated by Muslim in al-Sayd wa al-Dhaba'ih (Hunting and Slaughtered Animals), chapter: “The command to slaughter and kill properly” (1955), on the authority of Shaddad ibn Aws, may Allah be pleased with him.

فيه، وكل ما لا يؤذن فيه وهو ينقسم إلى صحيح وفاسد، فإنه لا ينفذ، وهذه قاعدة شرعية، ودليل ذلك قوله ﷺ: «من عمل عملاً ليس عليه أمرنا فهو رد» (١)، وذبْح مُلكِ الغير ليس عليه أمر الله ورسوله ﷺ، فيكون فاسداً مردوداً. وقولنا في هذه القاعدة: (وهو ينقسم إلى صحيح وفاسد) احترازاً مما لم يؤذن فيه، ولكنه لا يَرِدُ إلا على وجه محرم، فإن هذا ينفذ، مثل الظهار، فهو غير مأذون فيه، فينفذ وإن كان محرماً، ومنكراً، وزوراً؛ لأنه لا ينقسم إلى صحيح وفاسد، فكله باطل. القول الثاني: أن المحرم لحق الغير يحل؛ وذلك لأن هذا الذبح صادر من أهله، وهذا الحيوان ليس محترماً لعينه، ولا محرماً لعينه، لكنه لحق آدمي، فالتحريم والحرمة فيه لغيره، لا له، بخلاف الصيد في الإحرام، والصيد في الحرَم، فإنه محرم لذاته؛ ولذلك حَرُم صيده، وحرم أكله. وهذا الأخير هو المذهب أنه حلال لكن مع الإثم، وهو الراجح، فإذا كان حلالاً فهل معناه أنه يحل أكله، أو لا يحل؟ لا يحل، لا من أجل أنه حرام من حيث الذبح، ولكن لأنه مال الغير، ولهذا لو غصب لحماً مذبوحاً، ذبحه صاحبه حرم أكله، إذاً لو أذن فيه صاحبه لصار حلالاً. قوله: «ويكره أن يذبح بآلة كالَّة» أصل الكلل بمعنى التعب، والكالة معناها التي أنهكها الاستعمال، فلم تكن حادة.

(١) أخرجه مسلم في الصيد والذبائح/ باب الأمر بإحسان الذبح والقتل … (١٩٥٥) عن شداد بن أوس ﵁.