Continuation of the answer regarding the ruling on imported meats

The Shaykh : ...which were directed to me recently. For example, water is purifying, and this is known, but its condition is that it remains purifying, meaning that none of its three properties—its taste, color, or smell—changes. So when a Muslim stands before water, he returns to the original state, which is purity, but with this condition. If it becomes clear to him that the condition has not been met, and something has occurred that removes its purity, then it is not permissible for him to purify himself with it. However, if he is in doubt and has not confirmed the change, he returns to the original state. But when circumstances surround this original state that cause a person’s doubt to strengthen regarding whether he is in a state of purity or whether that thing is lawful, then we do not say: the original state is permissibility, or the original state is purity. Rather, we say: , or . This is an authentic hadith, well-known, and its source is found in the books of Sunnah, including "Musnad Imam Ahmad" and "Al-Mustadrak" by Abu Abdullah al-Hakim, among others. Also, the hadith of Nu'man ibn Bashir, which we mentioned in the previous session, is in "Al-Sahihayn." He said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .
So, in this hadith and the one before it, an important issue becomes clear to us: that there are matters that are ambiguous to a person, and the ambiguity is strong. This is not from the category of waswas (whispers of doubt), but rather from the category of reports that have reached this person, causing him to have doubt about whether that thing is lawful or pure. In this case, we do not say: it is forbidden, nor do we say: it is lawful. Rather, we say as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , and we say: . In my opinion, these imported meats from the lands of disbelief, which do not prohibit or permit, and which know nothing of the religion of Allah, whose religion is their material wealth, and whose object of worship is their dinar and dirham; therefore, the soul does not feel at ease regarding the permissibility of their slaughter, despite the saying of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in the Noble Qur'an: . This is because reports have multiplied—and I almost say they have become mass-transmitted—that these people do not slaughter in the manner of slaughter, but rather they kill in the manner of killing. So whoever is in doubt about the truth of the report, his ruling is to apply the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and to obey his command, which is his saying: . And whoever is convinced in his mind that a type of these slaughters is slaughtered in the manner of slaughter, and naturally the other conditions are also met, namely that the slaughterer is from the People of the Book, then it is lawful for him. And whoever is convinced that it is killed in the manner of killing and not slaughtered in the manner of slaughter, then at that time it is forbidden for him by the explicit text of the Noble Qur'an and by the consensus of the majority of Muslim scholars, both past and present.
So, in such an issue, there are three positions: the position of prohibition, which is for the one who is convinced that they are not slaughtered animals but rather are considered as those that have been killed by beating or falling; the position of permissibility, which is for the one who is convinced that they are slaughtered in the manner of lawful slaughter along with the other condition; and the one who is not certain of either this or that, then he must be cautious and avoid the ambiguity, based on the hadith of Nu'man ibn Bashir and the hadith of al-Hasan ibn Ali, which is: .
And this is what I have as an answer to that question.

Another questioner : Is there anyone who has something on the same topic?

The questioner : Yes, but the Jews put poison in their slaughters, unlike the Christians.

The Shaykh : They put poison?

The questioner : They put poison in them. They do not slaughter except those they call the monks, but not the monks.

Another questioner : The Rabbis.

The questioner : The Rabbis put poison in them.

The Shaykh : What is the connection of this to the question in the previous answer? Clarify?

The questioner : The People of the Book are the Christians and the Jews.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : The Jews are one hundred percent slaughtered.

The Shaykh : The research—may Allah bless you—was about a detail related to lawful slaughter; which is that it must be slaughtered in the manner of slaughter and not killed in the manner of killing. The research did not remain about whether they put poison or not; that is another issue. The research was about this which is said to be slaughtered.

The questioner : If the law of the country states that the neck is cut while it is alive, not dead... in America, the text says so.

The Shaykh : My brother, you can take the answer to this in the previous research. I said: a person has a position from three positions; whoever is convinced that it was slaughtered in the manner of slaughter and not killed in the manner of killing, then it is lawful for him. And whoever is convinced that it is killed in the manner of killing and not slaughtered in the manner of slaughter, then it is forbidden for him. And whoever has not clarified it: .