Those who perform the slaughter in the city of Jeddah are Turks and are not on the religion of Islam, but if one of us volunteers, does that not constitute an innovation?

The questioner : May Allah preserve you, O Shaykh. In the city of Jeddah, those who perform the slaughter are Turks who are not on the religion of Islam, but if one of us volunteers, does that not constitute an innovation in the religion?

The Shaykh : Who are those who perform the slaughter?

The questioner : Turks, I am a Turk.

The Shaykh : Turks?

The questioner: Yes.

Another questioner : The Turks.

The Shaykh : Turks, yes? ...

The questioner : But secularists.
...

The Shaykh : The Turks as a nation are a Muslim nation.

The questioner : No, the Turks in the Turkish city.

The Shaykh : Do you not mean by the Turks those who live in Anatolia, Ankara, and Bosnia ... Bosnia and so on? Is that not so?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : These are Muslims, and these are the Ottomans who ruled the Arab lands and others with Islam for about six or seven centuries until the time of this atheist, Kemal Ataturk; where he imposed the hat on the Turkish people, and changed many of the rulings of the Shari'ah, then imposed secularism. So secularism is a transient matter in the Turkish lands, and perhaps you hear from the newspapers that now there is an awakening in Turkey where they demand a return to the religion and to the Arabic language, which this Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had abolished; until he distorted the adhan and made it in the Turkish language. Now there is a good awakening - also - in the Turkish lands where they demand a return to the Islamic rulings. So the Turkish people, perhaps you feel their coming in thousands upon thousands for Hajj and 'Umrah. These are the Turks. But when a disbelieving system is imposed on them, as is the case now - for example - in Syria, which is on the Turkish border, ruled by Hafez al-Asad - for example - and other Alawites; do we say that the Syrian people are a secular people? We say: No, they are a Muslim people, but a secular system. Likewise, the Turkish people are a Muslim people, but the system is secular. So it is not permissible - in this state - for us to say that those who slaughter these animals and export them to the Arab lands are secularists.

The questioner : No, they are now in Jeddah ...

The Shaykh : Fine; the best for us is to continue our discussion. I wanted to say that those who slaughter these animals and export them to the Arab lands are Turks, but the Turks as individuals, like any people, have among them the righteous and the wicked, ...
Fine; as for if he is an atheist ... now you have summarized the matter, and this helps in clarification. You say: they are now here slaughtering, meaning in Saudi Arabia in Jeddah?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine; has it become clear that these are atheists and that they do not testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah? My question is not a test question, but rather I say that they are undoubtedly one of two groups: either they are on the original basis we discussed, Muslim Turks, regardless of their righteousness or wickedness, or they are atheists. If it is the former, their slaughter is halal; and if it is the latter, their slaughter is haram. So have we known that they are of the second group; that is, that they are atheists, so that we can be certain that their slaughter is not eaten? If we know that, the answer is: their slaughter is not permissible. And if we do not know, we remain on the original basis. This concludes my answer.

The questioner : And if I wanted to be scrupulous and so on? Either way ...

The Shaykh : The door of scrupulousness is a wide door, so we say at that time: - and this is a hadith of the Messenger - (peace and blessings be upon him) - but it is not scrupulousness for us to say about these people without knowledge that they are atheists. Why? Because they are Turks; this is not permissible.

The questioner : ... in the slaughterhouse we do not know; do they pray or do they not pray? This is one thing. If it is known that they do not pray; is their slaughter eaten? And if it is not known whether they pray or do not pray, meaning the question has two limits: if it is known and if it is not known?

The Shaykh : Yes, if it is not known, you have known the answer; .

The questioner : From the door of scrupulousness.

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : From the door of scrupulousness.

The Shaykh : Yes, you do not know, you say: do they pray or do they not pray, but you know that they are Muslims; is that not so? But you do not know that they pray or do not pray, so .

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... the other possibility comes, which is that they do not pray; is that not so? Meaning you know that they do not pray. Here the discussion comes from observing the ruling of the one who abandons prayer. So whoever holds that abandoning prayer out of laziness is disbelief of apostasy and not merely practical disbelief; then it is not permissible for him to eat from the slaughter of these people. And whoever holds, like me, that merely abandoning prayer out of laziness while being a Muslim is not disbelief of apostasy; then eating is permissible. And the most cautious - as we said earlier - if one does not know this or that, is not to eat; because the slaughter of a Muslim is halal as long as he is a Muslim, and it is not required of him to be righteous and pious, unless it is said that it is a condition of perfection and not a condition of validity. Is my answer clear?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh: All right.