everyone we have learned of among the scholars; among them are Mujahid, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion. There is no difference between an Arab Person of the Scripture and others, except that there is a disagreement regarding the Arab Christians, which we have mentioned in the Chapter on Jizya (6). Makhul was asked about the slaughtered animals of the Arabs. He said: As for Bahra', Tanukh, and Sulayh, there is no harm, but as for the Banu Taghlib, there is no good in their slaughtered animals. The correct view is the permissibility of the slaughtered animals of all of them, due to the generality of the verse concerning them.

Section: If one of the parents of a Person of the Scripture is from those whose slaughtered animal is not lawful, and the other is from those whose slaughtered animal is lawful, our companions said: Neither his game nor his slaughtered animal is lawful. This is also the view of al-Shafi'i if the father is not a Person of the Scripture. If the father is a Person of the Scripture, there are two opinions regarding it. One of them is that it is permitted. This is the opinion of Malik and Abu Thawr. The second is that it is not permitted; because something that necessitates prohibition and something that necessitates permissibility have both been found, so that which necessitates prohibition is given precedence, just as if a Muslim and a Magian both wounded it. The explanation for the existence of that which necessitates prohibition is that his being the son of a Magian or an idolater necessitates the prohibition of his slaughtered animal. Abu Hanifa said: His slaughtered animal is permitted in all cases, due to the generality of the text, and because he is a Person of the Scripture who is allowed to remain in his religion, so his slaughtered animal is lawful, just as if he were the son of two People of the Scripture. [And if] (7) he were the son of two idolaters or two Magians, the implication of the school of the three Imams is its prohibition, and the implication of the school of Abu Hanifa is its permissibility; because the consideration is based on the religion of the slaughterer, not on the religion (8) of his father, by evidence that the consideration in the acceptance of Jizya is based on that, and due to the generality of the text and analogy.

Section: As for what they slaughter for their churches and their festivals (9), we examine it; if a Muslim slaughters it for them, it is permissible. Ahmad stated this explicitly. Ahmad and Sufyan al-Thawri (10) said regarding a Magian who slaughters for his god (11) and gives the sheep to a Muslim to slaughter, and he mentions the name of Allah: It is permissible to eat from it. Isma'il ibn Sa'id said: I asked Ahmad about what is offered to their deities, which a Muslim man slaughters. He said: There is no harm in it. And if...