16
people who deemed it permissible to marry women within the forbidden degrees of kinship. For that reason the Companions unanimously ruled that eating their slaughtered animals and marrying them is prohibited, and that the Magians are not counted among the People of the Book. They even debated the status of their cheese because of the rennet it contains, for their slaughtering is like the slaughtering of idolaters, and their cheese is no different from the cheese of idolaters. Thus, when Ahmad ibn Hanbal learned that Abu Thawr classified them as People of the Book and declared their meat lawful, Ahmad invoked supplication against him and cited the unanimous consensus of the Companions to the contrary (1).
(1) Ibn al-Qayyim writes in Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, 1/96: “The prohibition of their slaughtered animals and intermarriage with them was unanimously upheld by the Companions. For this reason Imam Ahmad and others reproached Abu Thawr for applying analogy so broadly and for issuing a fatwa that their meat and marriages were lawful; Ahmad even prayed against him for opposing the Companions of the Messenger of Allah. The Companions were more learned, more insightful, and sounder in their analogical reasoning. Concerning blood, they opted for sparing it, in harmony with the Prophet’s words and actions, for he accepted it from them; but with regard to sexual relations and slaughtered animals they ruled for prohibition, acting cautiously, preserving the original ruling, and classing them with idol-worshippers—there being no difference in this matter between idolaters and fire-worshippers. The default with blood is to spare it, whereas the default with private parts and slaughtered animals is prohibition. They therefore left everything upon its original rule, and that is the height of jurisprudence and the soundest exercise of judgment.”}
يَسْتَحِلُّونَ نِكَاحَ ذَوَاتِ المَحَارِم، وَلِهَذَا اتَّفَقَ الصَّحَابَةُ عَلَى تَحْرِيمِ ذَبَائِحِهِمْ وَمُنَاكَحَتِهِمْ وَأَنَّهُمْ لَيسُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الكِتَاب، وَتَكَلَّمُوا فِي جُبْنِهِمْ لأَجْلِ الأَنْفِحَة، لأَنَّ ذَبَائِحَهُمْ كَذَبَائِحِ المُشْرِكِينَ، وَجُبْنُهُمْ كَجُبْنِ المُشْرِكِين؛ وَلِهَذَا لمَّا بَلَغَ أَحْمَدَ أَنَّ أَبَا ثَورٍ يجَعَلُهُمْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الكِتَاب، ويُبِيحُ ذَبَائِحَهُمْ دَعَا عَلَيهِ أَحْمَدُ، وَذَكَر إِجْمَاعَ الصَّحَابَةِ عَلَى خِلَافِ ذَلِكَ (١).
(١) قال ابن القيم في أحكام أهل الذمة (١/ ٩٦): (وأما تحريم ذبائحهم ومناكحتهم فاتفاق من الصحابة ﵃؛ ولهذا أنكر الإمام أحمد وغيره على أبي ثور طرده القياس، وإفتاءه بحل ذبائحهم، وجواز مناكحتهم، ودعا عليه أحمد حيث أقدم على مخالفة أصحاب رسول الله، والصحابة كانوا أفقه وأعلم، وأسدَّ قياسًا ورأيًا، فإنهم أخذوا في الدماء بحقنها موافقة لقول رسول الله وفعله، حيث أخذها منهم، وأخذوا في الأبضاع والذبائح بتحريمها احتياطًا، وإبقاء لها على الأصل، وإلحاقًا لهم بِعُبَّاد الأوثان؛ إذ لا فرق في ذلك بين عبَّاد الأوثان وعبَّاد النيران، فالأصل في الدماء حقنها، وفي الأبضاع والذبائح تحريمها، فأبقوا كل شيء على أصله، وهذا غاية الفقه، وأسد ما يكون من النظر). =