Fourthly, the Shafi'ite interpretation would make the verse mean:
Do not eat of the animal over which Allah's name has not been mentioned in case of the animal's most certainly being abomination on account of other-than- Allah's name having been mentioned over it.
The question is, if the idea was simply to declare unclean the animal slaughtered in the name of other-than-Allah, does the first part of verse not become totally meaningless and redundant? For it would be senseless to forbid the eating of the animal over which Allah's name has not been taken. It would have sufficed to say: "Eat not of the animal over which other-than-Allah's name has been mentioned." Could it be reasonably explained why the orders (Eat not of that over which Allah's name has not been mentioned)
