In the firji
fpecies o f
Xabbaht it
muft be pronounced
whilft the
animal’s
throat is cutting
—and
in the fecond
fpecies, upon
ihooting the
arrow, or letting
loofe the
dog or hawk
at the game.
But the anfwer which we give to this argument is that the paflage
plainly alludes to an animal with refpeCt to which the invocation has
been wilfully omitted, the letter being here different from thtfp ir it of
the text, for i f the fpirit were according to the letter, the companions
of the prophet (who hold the fir ft rank in point of authority) would
doubtlefs have drawn arguments from it, and the difference of opinion
that is to be found amongft them would not have exifted. T h e anfwer
to Shafei is, that the analogy which he eftablifhes betwixt wilful omif-
fion and omiffion from forgetfulnefs, is not ju f t ; becaufe he that forgets
aCts under neceflity, and the Mujfulman faith is admitted as a fubftitute
in his behalf; whereas he who wilfully omits aCfs under no neceflity.
— With relpeCt, moreover, to the faying of the prophet quoted by
Shafei, it evidently alludes to a cafe of omiffion through forgetfulnefs.
I t is a condition of Ikhtiaree Zabbah, that the invocation be pronounced
over the animal at the time of flaying it ,— whereas, in the
cafe of Zabbah Iztiraree, (or of a man flaying an animal in hunting,)
the condition is that the invocation be pronounced at the time of letting
loofe the hound dr hawk, or (hooting the arrow, which is termed
an invocation over the inftrument. The reafon of this diftinCtion is,
that in the firft cafe the power o f the man extends to the flaying;
whereas in the fecond it is confined to the act of letting loofe the
hound or hawk, or of Ihooting the arrow, and does not extend to their
reaching the animal; wherefore the invocation muft be pronounced at
the inftant of fuch aCt, which is in the power of the man.— Hence if
a man throw a goat on its fide, with an intention of flaying it, and
then pronounce the invocation, and afterwards let that goat loofe, and
then, without repeating the invocation, flay another, this, is not ad-
miflible, and the meat is unlawful; whereas, if a man ftioot an arrow
at an animal, and pronounce the invocation, and the arrow, inftead of
the one which he aimed at, hit another animal, it is lawful;— and
the fame law holds in the cafe o f letting loofe a hound or hawk.— If
6 the
the man, having thrown the animal on its fide and pronounced the invocation,
ftiould caft away the knife from his hand and take up another,
and with it flay the animal, it is lawful;— whereas if he pronounce
the invocation over one arrow, and then take another and ftioot
the game with it, it is unlawful, the inftrument over which the invocation
was pronounced having been changed.;
I t is abominable to add any other thing to the name o f G o d at the
time of performing the Zabbah, fuch as i f a man were today “ O G o d ,
“ accept this from me!” —This may occur in three different ffiapes;
as, firft, where he fays any thing befides the name o f G o d , without
paufing between them, or making ufe of the conjunction 46 and, as
in the example cited above,— or, where he fays, Biftn Illah, Mohammed
Rajjool Illah, “ in the name of G o d , Mohammed is his prophet,’*
which would be abominable, but the meat would not be unlawful ;—
fecondly, where he fays any thing befides the name of G o d , without
making a paufe, but ufing the conjunction; as if he were to fay,
“ Bifm Illah wa Ifm Falan," “ in the name of G o d and the name of
“ another;” or “ Bifm Illah wa Falbn," “ in the name of G o d and
“ another;” — in either of which cafes the animal flain is unlawful:
and, thirdly, where he fays any thing befides the name of G o d , fe-
parately, and by itfelf, either before or after the invocation, and the
throwing down of the animal, which is o f no confequence, and does
not render the meat unlawful, for it is related of the prophet, that he
faid prayers immediately after performing Zabbah.
I t is a condition o f Zabbah that nothing but the invocation be faid;
that is, that no prayer or other matter be mentioned. If, therefore,
a man, during the Zabbah, inftead of “ Bifm Illah f ( “ in the name
“ of God,” ) were to fay, “ Illahoom agfar l i e f ( “ O G od, forgive
“ me !” ) the animal flain is not lawful, as this is a prayer or intreaty.
If, however, inftead of “ Bifm Illah,” he fay “ Alhumdolitldhf
(“ praife be to G od,” ) or “ S u b h a n illa h ( “ G od is pureft,” ) and
K 2 mean
Nothing muft
be faid except
the invocation.