Among the causes of disagreement—aside from the clash between the general permissive verse and the requirement that the slaughterer believe that slaughter renders the meat lawful—is the issue of whether the act of slaughter can take effect only in part or whether it must do so entirely. Whoever holds that it can take effect partially rules that the animal’s fat may not be eaten, whereas whoever denies any partial effect permits the fat.

The permissibility of using the fat from their slaughtered animals is supported by the ḥadīth of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mughaffal, “when he happened upon a bag of fat on the day of Khaybar,” already cited earlier in the Book of Jihād.

Those who differentiate between what was forbidden to them in their original Scripture and what they later forbade themselves argue as follows: whatever was divinely forbidden is genuinely unlawful, so slaughter cannot change its ruling; but whatever they prohibited on their own initiative is a baseless restriction, and slaughter therefore renders it lawful.

The Qāḍī said: The correct view is that, from the advent of the Islamic dispensation onward, anything they were forbidden—whether by revelation or by self-imposed restriction—became void, for the Sharīʿah of Islam abrogated all previous codes. Their conviction on the matter has no weight.

Nor is it a condition that their conception of lawful slaughter match that of the Muslims, or even the tenets of their own Scripture. Were such a requirement imposed, eating their meat would never be permissible, for their scriptural rulings have been abrogated and the Islamic rulings cannot apply to them. Rather, this is a ruling with which Allah, exalted is He, has especially favored them. Thus their slaughtered animals—Allah knows best—are lawful for us without restriction; otherwise the ruling of the permissive verse would be entirely nullified. Reflect on this, for it is plain; and Allah knows best.

As for the Magians, the majority hold that their slaughter is impermissible because they are polytheists. Others permitted it, relying on the general sense of the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—statement: “Treat them in the same way as the People of the Book.”

With respect to the Sabians, the divergence goes back to whether they are deemed People of the Book or not.

Regarding women and children, the majority—including Mālik—consider their slaughter lawful and not disliked, whereas Abū al-Muṣʿab deemed it disliked. The root of the disagreement is the perceived deficiency of women and children. The majority nevertheless concurred about women because of the sound ḥadīth related by Muʿādh ibn Saʿīd: “A slave girl belonging to Kaʿb ibn Mālik was tending sheep at Salʿ when one of them was injured; she overtook it and slaughtered it with a stone. The Messenger of Allah—peace be upon him—was asked about this and said, ‘There is no harm in it; eat it.’”

As for the insane and the intoxicated, Mālik did not allow their slaughter, whereas al-Shāfiʿī permitted it. The difference turns on the requirement of intent: those who make intention indispensable prohibit such slaughter, for genuine intention cannot issue from someone insane or from one who is drunk to the point of stupor.

Concerning the thief and the usurper, the majority validate their slaughter, while others—among them Dāwūd and Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh—prohibit it and regard the meat as carrion.