would not have survived if left alone, for the flow of blood ceases only when parts of its body have become disconnected from one another, a condition incompatible with life.
Section
The ruling concerning the strangled animal and the other cases mentioned alongside it thus falls into these three categories. If their vital organs have not sustained lethal damage and they are expected to survive, ritual slaughter renders them lawful by agreement. If their vital organs have sustained lethal damage, ritual slaughter does not render them lawful, by agreement within the school, except by analogy with the report transmitted by Abū Zayd, whose anomalous character has already been discussed. If their vital organs have not sustained lethal damage, but hope of their survival has already been lost or their condition is uncertain, ritual slaughter renders them lawful according to Ibn al-Qāsim and those who agree with him in regarding the exception in the aforementioned verse as a connected exception.
Thus, where there is no hope of survival or the matter is uncertain, there are three opinions. The first is that the animal may be slaughtered and eaten. The second is that it may neither be slaughtered nor eaten. The third is that it may be slaughtered and eaten when its survival is uncertain, but may not be slaughtered when there is no hope of its survival.
Section
Ibn Bukayr held that the strangled animal and the other cases Allah mentions in the verse refer to animals that have died from those causes. He said that Allah mentioned both animals that die a natural death and those that die from these causes, declaring them all equally forbidden. This conveys the meaning of his statement, rather than its exact wording. According to this interpretation, the exception must in all circumstances be disconnected; no other reading is possible. He himself said as much.
His interpretation is far-fetched, however, because “carrion” is a general term encompassing both animals that die a natural death and those that die from these causes. If that were the intended meaning, there would be no point in mentioning the strangled animal and the other cases alongside it in the verse. Despite its implausibility, his interpretation does have a possible justification: Allah Most High was making known that animals which die from these causes are just as forbidden as those which die a natural death. Rather, the correct meaning of the verse is what I explained initially: the strangled animal and the other cases Allah mentions in the verse are