When Students Don’t Adhere to Texts or Precedents

The Ikhwani Awakening resident ‘student of knowledge’ – ‘Nazeelu Chinguetti’ states:

“Secondly, some IS soldiers have beheaded other Mujahidin in Syria by hitting the throat and then cutting which is called Nahr in Arabic and it’s Haram to slaughter a sheep and goat in this way according to Malikis and Makruh according to other scholars! As for camels and giraffes then they are slaughtered by Nahr.”

Really? These are the kinds of results expected when those who are unqualified attempt to invent their own analogies in Fiqh.

Not that I would want to indulge this character, however, for argument’s sake, let us follow the above logic to its conclusion and verify what scholars have said on the topic.

Below one can read for themselves how several scholars held that slaughter by Naḥr is permissible. Let me say that I do not agree or disagree with drawing an analogy between beheading people and slaughtering animals for consumption.

Ḥanābilah

“Slaughter is permissible with anything sharpened whether of iron, stone, reed or other materials except fingernails and teeth; as for bones other than teeth then there are two transmissions; and regarding tools unlawfully acquired two aspects.

What is complied with regarding slaughter of that which is restrained is to cut the throat, esophagus, and nothing else; and on his authority it is stipulated along with that to cut the jugular artery. The Sunnah is to ‘Naḥr’ the camel and to ‘Dhabḥ’ everything else; if what should be slaughtered by way of ‘Dhabḥ’ is slaughtered by way of ‘Naḥr’ or the reverse, it is permissible. And when the head is separated by the slaughter, it does not become prohibited [to eat]; Abu Bakr related a transmission that it is prohibited.”- end quote

[al-Muḥarrar fīl-Fiqh 2/191 by the grandfather of Ibn Taymīyah, Majd ad-Dīn]

‘Thus Dhabḥ is on the throat and Naḥr is on the upper-chest; and it is the Sunnah to Naḥr camels and to Dhabḥ all other animals; [to do] the reverse is sufficient; and Naḥr is to stab with something sharpened into the upper-chest.’

[Al-‘Iqnā` 4/318 by al-Ḥajāwī]

Mālikīyah

‘Do you not see that if someone does Naḥr of a sheep in its slaughter, it is not eaten by consensus? That is because the slaughter does not take place except by cutting the jugular arteries and the throat, while the Naḥr does not entail that…’

‘And in the book of slaughter in al-Mudawwanah is that the slaughter is not eaten except when the jugular artery and the throat are cut together…’

[Al-Bayān wat-Taḥṣīl 3/309 by Ibn Rushd]

Ḥanafīyah

“So if one slaughters by way of Naḥr what is to be slaughtered by way of Dhabḥ, or [vice-versa], then he has opposed the Sunnah, thus it is disliked, however it is permissible due to the existence of the basis [for permissibility].”

[Ṭilbat aṭ-Ṭalabah 1/104 by an-Nasafī]

Shāfi’īyah

‘…that the weapon strikes its throat, then one has slaughtered it by way of Dhabḥ; or its upper-chest, then one has slaughtered it by way of Naḥr; or its midsection, then separates its innards- then it is permissible to eat.’

[Al-Bayān fī Madh’hab al-‘Imām ash-Shāfi’ī 4/549 by al-`Imrānī]

What is Dhabḥ and Naḥr?

“Our Shaykh said: ‘The issue is that Dhabḥ and Naḥr are synonyms and the correct view is that Dhabḥ is [cutting] the throat and Naḥr is [cutting] the upper-part of the chest [Labbah]- some of the jurists divided it as such’.”

[Tāj al-`Arūs 6/367 by Murtaḍā az-Zubaydī]

‘…because Naḥr is to stab with the tip of the knife at the bottom of the neck, and Dhabḥ is at the end of it next to the head.’

[Gharīb al-Ḥadīth 1/71 by ‘Ibrāhīm al-Ḥarbī]

‘…and that is when you strike with a knife or similar object in any place [on the body].’

[Al-Miṣbāḥ al-Munīr 2/649 by al-Fayyūmī]

It should be clear that some scholars did permit slaughtering by Naḥr. So the analogy between Naḥr, torture and the alleged prohibition of beheading with a knife is not a legitimate ruling with any precedent. Perhaps this student has tunnel vision because he has mostly studied the Mālikī school and is ignorant of the rulings of the other schools. At the very least, he should study the topic before making sweeping claims in Fiqh.

His next statement is:

“Al-Tamthil includes al-Nahr and al-Dhabh.”

Aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī believed that there was Muthlah in crucifying a person while alive [see al-Mabsūṭ 9/196], however as-Sarkhasī argues that the correct view in the Madh’hab is to do so while they’re alive and to leave them for three days. The fact is that there are going to be scholars that agree and disagree about whether there is Muthlah in beheading a person as well.

“Al-Zuhri is a Tabi’i, Muhadith and a Faqih and he determined that no head was ever carried to Rasulullah.”

‘Abū Naḍrah is also a Tābi’ī, Muḥaddith and major scholar of Basrah, and he related a Ḥadīth which stated that two heads were carried to the Prophet SAWS. Also, Ibn ‘Abī ‘Awfā, a Companions RA. narrates that the head of ‘Abū Jahl was transported to the Prophet SAWS.

So what is the relevant principle when we have two Tābi’īn who contradict each other, with one affirming something and another rejecting it?

Ash-Shāfi’ī stated that evidence is equally required for both denying and affirming a ruling. So on the one hand we have az-Zuhrī denying that anyone carried heads to the Prophet SAWS and we have ‘Abū Naḍrah and Ibn ‘Abī ‘Awfā saying that it did happen. The corroborating proofs are that other Companions RA permitted that heads be displayed and in order to counter that, the supporters of az-Zuhrī’s view would have to disprove those incidents or show a narration in which it is prohibited. Also, a lack of knowledge of something is not proof of its non-existence.

“Therefore the incidents of the heads of Abu al-Jahl and Ibn ul-Ashraf are unauthentic! Furthermore this action (carrying the head to another land or to the Wali) itself is considered Haram by al-Malikiyyah at least and Makruh by others!”

Ibn Ḥajar says in his Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr that the Ḥadīth is fair/Hasan. Al-Albani views it as weak. I do not think that a student is going to come along and settle the issue with his keyboard.

No, in fact many of the books of Fiqh mention the matter of transporting and displaying heads, with many scholars saying that it is not Makrūh, rather it is permissible. Ar-Rāfi’ī, aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Juwaynī, an-Nawawī and others state that transporting heads of Disbelievers is allowed or explain the `Illah behind the disapproval of ‘Abū Bakr RA as dealing specifically with Madinah. You are the one who made the analogy between transporting and televising, so by your own analogy they would have approved of that as well.

“And could these people only find these incidents from the books of Sirah???”

No. These events are discussed in books of Fiqh and ‘Aḥkām. It seems that you are simply unaware of the views that contradict that which you have adopted. To deny the existence of the other view and to threaten those who adopt it of wrongdoing is immature, arrogant and ignorant.

This is yet another attempt to mislead Muslims into judging the actions of one another on false premises under the guise of scholarship.