The root of their disagreement is this: Does a divine prohibition necessarily render the prohibited act invalid, or not?

Those who contend that it does declare: “A thief or a usurper is forbidden to slaughter, eat, or possess the animal; therefore, if he does slaughter it, the slaughter is null and void.”

Those who maintain that a prohibition does not entail invalidity—unless the prohibited matter is itself a requisite condition for the act—say: “Their slaughter is valid, for lawful ownership is not among the conditions required for a sound act of slaughter.”

In the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Ibn Wahb it is related that “the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—was asked about such a case, and he found no harm in it.”

There is, however, a report that grants permissibility while expressing dislike. Concerning the ewe that was slaughtered without its owner’s permission, the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “Feed it to the captives.”

This much suffices with respect to the foundational principles of this Book, and Allah knows best.