its ritual slaughter is at the throat or the labbah (base of the neck). Similarly, a domestic animal, once it turns wild, is judged by its current state. By this, it differs from what they mentioned. Thus, if it falls and its ritual slaughter is not possible, then it is an animal whose slaughter is impossible, so it resembles a wild animal. However, if the head of the fallen animal is in water, it is not permitted, because the water aids in its killing, so its death occurs through a permissible act and a prohibited act, thus it becomes unlawful, just as if a Muslim and a Magian both wounded it.

1721- Issue; He said: (The Muslim and the Person of the Scripture are the same in everything I have described).

Meaning in hunting and slaughtering. The scholars have reached a consensus on the permissibility of the slaughtered animals of the People of the Scripture, due to the saying of Allah the Almighty: {And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you} (1), meaning their slaughtered animals. Al-Bukhari said (2): Ibn Abbas said: Their food is their slaughtered animals. Mujahid and Qatadah said the same. A similar meaning is narrated from Ibn Mas'ud. Most scholars also hold the view of the permissibility of their hunting. This was stated by 'Ata', al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). We do not know of anyone who forbade the hunting of the People of the Scripture except Malik, who permitted their slaughtered animals but forbade their hunting. This is not correct because their hunted game is part of their food, so it falls under the generality of the verse, and because whoever’s slaughtered animal is lawful, his hunted game is also lawful, like a Muslim.

Section: There is no difference between a righteous person and a sinner among the Muslims and the People of the Scripture. From Ibn Abbas: The slaughtered animal of an uncircumcised man (aqlaf) is not to be eaten (3). A similar view is narrated from Ahmad. The correct view is its permissibility, because he (4) is a Muslim, so he resembles all other Muslims. If the slaughtered animal of someone who accuses others of adultery (qadhif), an adulterer, and a wine-drinker is permitted despite their manifest sinfulness, and the slaughtered animal of a Christian is permitted while he is a disbeliever and uncircumcised, then the Muslim is more entitled to such permissibility.

Section: There is no difference between a belligerent (harbi) and a protected subject (dhimmi) regarding the permissibility of the slaughtered animal of the People of the Scripture among them, and the prohibition of the slaughtered animal of anyone else. Ahmad was asked about the slaughtered animals of the Christians of the warring factions, and he said: There is no harm in them, [based on] the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal regarding fat (5). Ishaq said: He spoke well. Ibn al-Mundhir said: Everyone we preserve from among the scholars has reached a consensus on this; among them are Mujahid, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion.