And indeed, it is a sin. The pronoun refers back to the source of the action that the prohibition letter entered upon. This means that eating from it is indeed a sin. Or it refers to the relative clause: and indeed, its eating is a sin. Or it considers what has not been mentioned the name of Allah upon it as a sin in itself. If you say: a group of scholars has gone to the permissibility of eating what has not been mentioned the name of Allah upon it due to forgetfulness or intentionally... etc. Ahmad said: The view of Malik and Abu Hanifa is weak in that what is left without naming intentionally is not to be eaten, whether it is due to negligence or not. And Al-Ashhab has a rare opinion allowing the one who is not negligent in leaving the naming. The verse supports the view of the two imams clearly, for it mentioned after what is not named upon it His saying: And indeed, it is a sin. This is because it refers to the action of the one obligated, which is neglecting the naming or naming other than Allah. Forgetfulness does not enter into it because the one who forgets is not obligated, so his action is not a sin, nor is he a sinner. And if the sin itself is the slaughter that has not been named upon, and it is not a source, then the slaughter is called a sin by transferring this name from the source to the essence. Thus, the slaughter that was left without naming upon it due to forgetfulness cannot be called a sin, as the action from which this name is transferred is not a sin. If that is established, either he says: there is no evidence in the verse for the prohibition of the forgotten naming, so it remains on the original permissibility. Or he says: there is evidence for its permissibility from the perspective of the concept of specifying the prohibition to what is a sin, for what is not a sin is not forbidden. This perspective is supported if the dead animal is not included in this verse. However, if it is established that it is intended, then the sin must be directed to the eater and the eaten, and the pronoun in His saying: And indeed, it refers back to the source that is prohibited, or to the relative clause. At that point, the forgotten naming falls under the prohibition and does not stand, on the condition that the dead animal is included as the forgotten. Because the way in which the dead animal is included is the same way in which the forgotten is included, as the sin is either for the eating or for the eaten, transferred from the eating, and it does not extend to anything else. Because the one obligated has not performed an action in it that is called a sin other than eating, and the forgotten naming cannot be called a slaughter in it due to forgetfulness, so it must be directed to the eating. Hence, Al-Zamakhshari strengthened the general prohibition even in the forgotten, for he sees that the dead animal is intended from the verse and it must be, as it is the cause of the verse's revelation. And it is confirmed that the apparent generality whenever it comes upon a specific cause is a text in the cause, appearing to remain in its appearance regarding what is besides it. And if it is established that the dead animal is included, then the forgotten must be included as previously mentioned. At that point, the one who permits the forgotten is compelled to a specification, so he relies on his saying, blessings and peace be upon him: "The mention of Allah is upon the heart of every believer whether he named or did not name." And the one who forgets is considered to be remembering in ruling even if he is not remembering in existence. And this, upon investigation, is not a specification, but it prevents the inclusion of the one who forgets in the generality, and its support is the mentioned hadith. And it is supported by the fact that the generality that comes upon a specific cause, even if it strengthens its inclusion for the cause until it rises to being a text in it, is weak in its inclusion for what is besides it until it falls short of the appearances in it. And it suffices from opposing it with what would not suffice for it were it not for the cause. And this discussion is approached with various arts on exquisite points, and Allah is the Granter of success to what is correct.