to continue in that which he has adopted; and the law will ftill con-
fiderhim, with refpeft to Zabbah, in the fame light as the people o f
that faith which he has embraced.
or an idola- : T he Zabbah of an idolater is unlawful; becaufe he does not believe
in the prophets.
Game flam A n y fpecies of game flain by a Mohrim * is unlawful, although it
I B M be not flain within the holy territoryf : - a n d in the fame manner, any
is unlawful, CTa ■ the holy territory is unlawful, although the flayer be not
any other a Mohrim. It is : otherwife where a Mohrim, or any other perlon,
^ ° n t h0ly flays an animal that is not game either in the holy territory or in any
other place; for this is fanftioned by the l a w , beca-ufe the holy territory
affords no protection to goats, and the flaying of goats by & Mob-
rim is not prohibited.
Rules with . I f . the flayer wilfully omit the ïafmeeâ, or invocation “ in the
^ a ; °th= H n a m e 0j G o d , ” the animal % is carrion, and muft not be eaten. If,
invocation, however, he omit the invocation through forgetfulnefs, it is lawful.
Shafei is of opinion that the animal is -lawful in either cafe.— Malik,
on the contrary, maintains that it is unlawful in both ; and that Muf-
fulmans and Kitâbees are confidered as the fame, with refpeft to the
omiffion of the invocation. T h e fame difference is to be found in the
opinions of our dodtors concerning a man omitting the invocation on
lettingloofe a bound or a flyinghawk at game, or when he Ihoots hi's
arrow. T h e opinion of Shafei, in this particular, is; oppofite to that
*, T h e appellation given to a pilgrim during his refidence at Mecca.— I t is alfo applied
to any perfon who, having refclved to undertake a pilgrimage, lays himfelf under parti-
cular reftriétions.
f A rab . Arzal haram : the territory in the neighbourhood o f Mecca-y where no animal
o f thz game fpecies is ever put to death.
X A rab . Z abeeha> meaning (literally) the creature/lain.
o f all our facres 5 for, previous to Lis time, it was the utdverfally allowed
opinion, that an animal flain under a wilful omiffion of the invocation
was unlawful; the only point on which they differed being
refpedting the omiffion o f it from forgetfulnefs. The fed! of Ab-
doola Ibn Omar were of opinion that an animal flain under an omiffion
óf the invocation from forgetfulnefs is alfo unlawful; whilft, on the
contrary, the ledts of Alee and Ibn Abbas deemed it lawful, but not
under an omiffion made wilfully.— Hence Aboo Toofafimd the other
Haneefite_dodtors have declared an animal flain under a w ilful omiffion
o f the invocation to be utterly unlawful; and that the Kdctee cannot
authorize the fale of meat fo killed, it being contrary to the current
opinions of all our dodtors. T h e arguments o f S èdfet'ón this point
are twofold. F ir st , the prophet has laid, “ L e t Mussulmans fa y
“ in the name o f G od, whether they mention it with their tongues or
“ not."— Secondly, I f the invocation were eflential to the legality
o f the animal, it could never be remitted on a plea of forgetfulnefs,
any more than the purification eflential to prayer.— Befides, admitting
the invocation to be eflential, ftill the Mtijfulman faith is a fubftitute
for it, in the fame manner as in a cafe o f omiffion through forgetful-
nefsi The arguments of oür dodtors, on the other hand, are threefold.
F ir st , G od has faid, in the K o r an , “ E a t not a n y
t!‘ THING OVER WHICH THE NAME OF G O D HAS NOT BEEN MÈN-
“ t ioNed.’ ’— Secondly, it is the univerfal opinion, as has been
already remarked.—-T h irdl y , the prophet has laid, regarding Addee
the fon of Hdtim, “ When thou h a f lel loof thy hound cfter game, and
“ repeated the name o f G od, thou mayefi eat o f that game', but i f an-
other dog tffifl thine in killing the game, thou Jhalt not eat o f it, bt-
‘ ‘‘ caufe thou repeatedf the name o f G od over thine own dog and not over
“ the o t h e r it is therefore evident that the omiffion o f the name of
G od renders the game unlawful. The argument of Malik is founded
upon a literal conftrudtion xof the paflage of the K oran, which we
have quoted above, it not being particularly exprefled therein that the
w ilful omiffion is unlawful, and the omiffion from forgetfulnefs lawful.
V ol. IV , K But