Hadith 3988

(1) The statement: “O Prophet of Allah, we are in the land of the People of the Book, may we eat from their vessels, etc.”: Abu Tha’labah asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) about two issues. The first was about eating from the vessels of the People of the Book. The Prophet (ﷺ) answered: “If you find others—meaning other than the vessels of the People of the Book—do not eat from them; otherwise, wash them and eat from them.” This distinction suggests dislike for using them if others are available. However, jurists said it is permissible to use them after washing without dislike, whether others are available or not. The response is that the prohibition refers to vessels used for cooking pork or drinking wine. They are prohibited even after washing due to repugnance and their association with impurity. The jurists meant vessels of disbelievers not typically used for impurities. I say: The reality is that Abu Tha’labah’s hadith prioritizes the apparent over the principle, as the principle is that the vessels of the People of the Book and Magians are pure. Yet, washing is commanded when no others are found. The correct view is that the ruling follows the principle unless impurity is confirmed. The hadith is answered in two ways: First, the command to wash is for precaution and recommendation. Second, the hadith refers to cases where impurity is confirmed, as supported by Abu Dawud’s narration: “We neighbor the People of the Book, and they cook pork in their pots and drink wine in their vessels.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “If you find others, eat and drink from them. If you find no others, wash them with water and eat and drink.” Understand this. The second issue is about hunting with a bow, trained dog, and untrained dog. He answered: “What you hunt, etc.” Several rulings are derived: First, hunting with a bow is permissible if Allah’s name is mentioned. In Abu Dawud’s narration from Amr ibn Shu’ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, a Bedouin named Abu Tha’labah said: “O Messenger of Allah, I have trained dogs,” and he asked about his bow. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Eat what your bow returns to you, whether slaughtered or not.” He said: “Even if it disappears from me?” He said: “Even if it disappears, as long as it has not spoiled or you find a mark other than your arrow.” The term “not spoiled” means not decayed. Second, mentioning Allah’s name is obligatory, as discussed earlier. Third, the dog must be trained. If one hunts with a trained dog and mentions Allah’s name upon sending, it is eaten. If hunted with an untrained dog and its slaughter is caught in time, it is slaughtered and eaten; otherwise, it is not eaten. Fourth, the dog’s color—white, black, or red—does not matter; it is permissible regardless, refuting Ahmad’s view prohibiting a black dog, even if trained. Fifth, the conditions are that the dog is trained and Allah’s name is mentioned. If an untrained dog is sent, a trained dog is sent without mentioning Allah’s name, or a dog catches without being sent, it is not permissible unless caught with stable life and slaughtered. This is stated in “Umdat al-Qari.” In “Al-Mirqat,” it is said: Since the question comprised two issues, the answer was detailed. Regarding the vessels of the People of the Book and eating from them: “If you find others, do not eat from them” for precaution, based on the Prophet’s (ﷺ) saying: “Leave what makes you doubt for what does not.” This is to avoid using their vessels, even after washing, and to discourage mingling with them emphatically. This is piety. What follows is the ruling for fatwa, and the generality of the wording, not the specific cause, is considered. “If you find no others, wash them” is a command of obligation if impurity is likely, and recommendation otherwise, as stated by Ibn al-Malik. The Prophet’s (ﷺ) command to wash disbelievers’ vessels applies when impurity is certain; otherwise, it is a dislike of avoidance.