then it is lawful for the Arabs when they are living in comfort; but if they regard it as repulsive, it is not.
If the name of a given animal is unknown, they are to be consulted and their designation adopted; should they have no name for it, it is judged by comparison with the creature that most resembles it.
When a noticeable change appears in the flesh of a jalalah (an animal that habitually feeds on filth), eating it becomes forbidden, though another view considers it merely disliked. I say: the sounder opinion is that it is disliked, and Allah knows best.
If the animal is later fed on wholesome fodder until its flesh improves, it again becomes lawful. Even a substance that was originally pure—such as vinegar or flowing date molasses—becomes unlawful once it is contaminated. Any wage earned through direct involvement with impurity, like that of a cupping practitioner or a latrine sweeper, is disliked; it is recommended that one not eat from it himself but may give it to his slaves or to his draught camel.
It is lawful to eat a fetus found lifeless in the womb of a properly slaughtered animal.
Whoever fears death or a life-threatening illness and finds only forbidden food is obliged to consume it, though one opinion merely permits it. If he expects lawful food to arrive shortly, he may eat no more than what will keep him alive; otherwise, one view allows him to eat to satiety, while the sounder view is that he limits himself to what wards off death—unless he fears perishing were he to restrict himself to that amount. In such a case he may even eat the flesh of a dead human being and may kill an apostate or an enemy combatant for food, but not a dhimmi, a guest under safe-conduct, or a child of the enemy.
I say: the sounder opinion is that it is also permissible to kill an enemy woman or child for food; Allah knows best.
If he comes upon the provisions of someone who is absent, he may eat and afterwards repay the value. If the owner is present and likewise in dire need, he is not required to surrender the food unless he has more than he needs; should he still choose to prefer a fellow Muslim, that is permissible. If the owner is not in need, he must feed the person in necessity, whether Muslim or dhimmi; if he refuses, the needy person may seize it by force, even if that results in the owner’s death. He must, however, compensate the owner immediately if able, otherwise on credit. If the owner feeds him without stipulating repayment, the sounder view is that no compensation is due.
If a person in extreme need finds carrion along with another’s food, or if a pilgrim in the state of consecration finds carrion together with game, the prevailing opinion is that he should eat the carrion. The sounder view is that it is forbidden to sever a limb from a living being, though eating such flesh once removed is not.
I say: the sounder opinion is that severing it is permissible, on condition that no carrion or similar alternative is available and that the danger involved in cutting is less; it is, however, unlawful to cut it for someone else or from a person whose life is protected. Allah knows best.