In the name of allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful What is sin in Islam?

The Views of Jurists

From among the juristical schools, the Hanafites, the Shafi'ites, and the Hanbalites are agreed that the animal over which Allah's name has not been taken is unclean, and that no harm is done by inadvertent omission of taking Allah's name. The same view is held by Ali, Ibn Abbas, Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, Zuhri, 'Ata, Taus, Mujahid, Hasan Basri, Abu Malik Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila, Jafar bin Mohammad, and Rabeea bin Abu Abdur-Rahman.

According to another group of jurists, if taking Allah's name were omitted, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the slaughtered animal would be unclean. Of the same opinion are Ibn Umar, Sha'bi, and Mohammad bin Seereen. Abu Thaur and Daud Zahiri also subscribe to that view. Ibrahim Natha'i thinks that if it is forgotten to take Allah's name, the animal would be "disagreeable to the point of being unclean" (al-makruhut- tahreemiyy).
Imam Shafi'i believes that taking Allah's name is no condition at all for the cleanness of the slaughtered animal. He agrees that the Shariah recommends taking Allah’s Name and the Sunnah, but adds that omission, intentional or unintentional, of it would not affect the cleanness of the animal. Abu Huraira is the only Companion and Imam Auzai the only mujtahid to hold this view. The view has also been attributed to Ibn Abbas, 'Ata bin Abi Rabah, Imam Malik, but their received opinion is a contrary one.


The Weakness of the Shafi'ite View

In support of their view the Shafi'ites argue that in verse 122 of the Cattle

And eat not of that whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned, for lo! It is abomination..

The taking of the waw as a conjunction would violate the principles of elocution. For, they say, the first part of the verse is an optative verbal sentence while the second is a declarative nominal sentence' and it is incorrect to conjoin these two different types of sentences. Taking the waw as the circumstantial waw, therefore, the Shafi'ites construe the verse as: "Don't eat of the animal if, in case of its being fisq, Allah's name has not been taken over it." Then they explain the word fisq with reference to verse 146 of 7he Cattle which reads:

" ...Or the abomination which was immolated to the name of other-than-Allah."

The verse is now made to mean that the only unclean animal is the one over which the name of other-than-Allah has been taken and that omission of taking Allah's name does not make for uncleanness.

But this is a very unsound interpretation. It lays itself open to various objections. To begin with, the manifest meaning of the verse is quite different.