If it is known that those in the slaughterhouse do not pray, is their slaughter permissible to eat?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In Egypt, we do not know if those in the slaughterhouse pray or not; that is one case. If it is known that they do not pray, is their slaughter permissible to eat? And if it is not known whether they pray or not—meaning the question covers both cases: when it is known and when it is not known?
The Shaykh : Yes, if it is known, you have already understood the answer:Sunan an-Nasa'i 5711Sahih (Darussalam).
The questioner : Out of scrupulousness?
The Shaykh : Yes, you do not know if they pray or not, but you know that they are Muslims, is that not so? But you do not know if they pray or not, so leave what causes doubt for what does not cause doubt.
The questioner : So they remain on the original ruling?
The Shaykh : Yes? They remain on the original ruling. The other possibility is that they do not pray, is that not so? Meaning, you know that they do not pray. Here, the discussion arises from observing the ruling on one who abandons prayer. If one holds that one who abandons prayer out of laziness is a disbeliever who has committed apostasy, and not merely a practical disbeliever, then it is not permissible to eat from the slaughter of these people. And if one holds, as I do, that merely abandoning prayer out of laziness, while being a Muslim, is not apostasy, then eating is permissible. And the safest course, as we said earlier, if one does not know this or that, is not to eat, because the slaughter of a Muslim is lawful as long as he is a Muslim, and it is not required that he be righteous and pious, unless it is said that this is a condition of perfection and not a condition of validity. Is my answer clear?
The Shaykh : Yes, if it is known, you have already understood the answer:
Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt.
دع ما يريبك إلى ما لا يريبكThe questioner : Out of scrupulousness?
The Shaykh : Yes, you do not know if they pray or not, but you know that they are Muslims, is that not so? But you do not know if they pray or not, so leave what causes doubt for what does not cause doubt.
The questioner : So they remain on the original ruling?
The Shaykh : Yes? They remain on the original ruling. The other possibility is that they do not pray, is that not so? Meaning, you know that they do not pray. Here, the discussion arises from observing the ruling on one who abandons prayer. If one holds that one who abandons prayer out of laziness is a disbeliever who has committed apostasy, and not merely a practical disbeliever, then it is not permissible to eat from the slaughter of these people. And if one holds, as I do, that merely abandoning prayer out of laziness, while being a Muslim, is not apostasy, then eating is permissible. And the safest course, as we said earlier, if one does not know this or that, is not to eat, because the slaughter of a Muslim is lawful as long as he is a Muslim, and it is not required that he be righteous and pious, unless it is said that this is a condition of perfection and not a condition of validity. Is my answer clear?