If we do not know whether the meat in the restaurant is local or imported, we ask the owner, who may be a liar, and he says: It is local.

The questioner : A question from Abdullah. We do not know if the restaurant has local meat from Kuwait or imported meat. So we ask him: Is your meat from outside or inside? Sometimes, if they see us bearded, they lie and say: This is meat from Kuwait, even though it is meat from abroad. The doubt is not about the quality of the meat, whether it was slaughtered or not; the doubt is whether it is imported or just local.

The Shaykh : This is not what was in the man's statement.

The questioner : This is his intention.

Another questioner : My intention, Shaykh, is that the meat present in Kuwait that came from abroad...

The questioner : ...what I said.

The Shaykh : You are repeating the same statement, so you are building while he is demolishing!

The questioner : It is the same statement you are making now, Shaykh; there is nothing else in Kuwait.

The Shaykh : ...He is saying: There is doubt about the imported meat.

The questioner : No, this is where the second inquiry comes in.

The Shaykh : You tell me: No; why? He says it this way.

The questioner : I mean, no, that is not what this "no" means.

The Shaykh : What would "no" mean?

The questioner : But the local restaurants now say: ...fresh meat, and sometimes they deceive, meaning the meat is not fresh, so we... ask in this manner, but the one coming from abroad, again, this is approximately what Abu Waleed said is the most common among us, that it is not slaughtered, especially the chicken, I mean.

The Shaykh : I understood your presentation from the start, but from the second sentence, this presentation is not that presentation; indeed, that presentation was repeated again, saying that there is doubt about the imported meat.

The questioner : ...It is the same issue. Is your question what we said or something else?

Another questioner : His self.

The Shaykh : In any case, the answer is known. This exists in all countries. If it is now the predominant opinion, as we said earlier, that it is the predominant opinion that when you ask him: Is this imported? We do not say now: Frozen or not frozen; imported or local, we say to him: Is this imported or local? He says: No, by Allah, it is local. We see if we are confident in his statement or not. If we are confident in his statement, it is on his responsibility and his guarantee; so it is lawful. And if he says: No, this is imported; that is enough, imported, as the brother here said, what is the percentage? Ninety percent; meaning it is killed and not slaughtered. The ruling in this case is very clear.

Another questioner : Because, Shaykh, they brought us chicken labeled: Slaughtered in the Islamic manner.

The Shaykh: This is well known.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, this, my brother, is completely known... that they said: They wrote on the fish: Slaughtered in the Islamic manner [Everyone laughs!]. We return, Professor, to the fact that since the matter is this way, it is not permissible to approve this on the basis of the cause you presented earlier; which is that this is food for the people, so if we forbid them this food, what would we be? We would have harmed them. I believe that this is not permissible Islamically, especially in a country like yours. So may our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) multiply the lawful good from various paths. Instead of approving this forbidden thing, and what more? We are able to import the lawful in a way that suffices all the people of the country, meaning we directly cut off the root of evil, we cut off the head of the snake, and then we sit and direct our efforts to arranging lawful food. Add to this that you are people of the coast, you have fish that suffices you, and you are not as is the case in the inland countries, who have no meat to subsist on except dried fish.
In "Dubai," it must have reached you that they formed a committee and sent it to some countries, perhaps Austria, and they send chicken from there, placed in plastic bags, and written on them that this is under the responsibility of the Islamic bank, and indeed you see the marks of slaughter in them very clearly. So this is a solution to the problem in a way that contains no violation of the Shari'ah and no harm to the people, as we imagined in your previous presentation that if we cut off this forbidden livelihood from them, we would have harmed them. So there is no benefit here that obliges us to approve this forbidden thing until what? We compensate them with the lawful. Rather, it is obligatory immediately that we strive to compensate with the lawful while cutting off the root of the forbidden; because as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the authentic hadith: .
This is in addition to His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): , so we are in a very deep error in misguidance that some of us imagine that the individual Muslim or the group of Muslims or the Muslim state, if it fears Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in its religion and obeys the Shari'ah of its Lord, it will be afflicted with misery and hardship and fatigue, and there will be no way out for it, even though the verse explicitly states the opposite: .
I often remind people of this verse, and I am sorry that I am forced to remind them of such a verse; because this reminder reminds me of the tragedy in which the Muslim world has fallen; which is their heedlessness of their religion. The rich man hardly hears the admonition and reminder that it is not permissible for you to put your money in the bank; because if you abstain from taking riba from it, under what they call by a name other than its name, interest, but you know that the bank will invest this money in the path of riba; so you become an accomplice in that; so you violate the saying of Allah (Mighty and Majestic): , as you violate some explicit hadiths that forbid cooperation in evil, such as the previously mentioned hadith with some of our brothers: .
I remembered this hadith earlier; because one of them conveyed to me that one of the shaykhs in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa that you, the employee in the bank, if your work in the bank does not directly deal with riba; then your work is permissible, and he gave as an example that you are a clerk. So I said: Subhan Allah! As if these shaykhs were created to support any deviation in the ruling. What does this one who writes write? He writes riba; so he is also cooperating with the one who established this huge department that deals with the forbidden, open riba. Therefore, I say, sorry, that I am sometimes forced to remind the Muslims of the verse of the Lord of the Worlds: ; directly one of them says: Where else do I go with my money? If I keep it at home, I fear for it from theft, I fear for myself from being killed; so he thinks purely materially, as the European man thinks who does not believe in Allah or the Last Day, and does not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden; this is very regrettable, even though this noble verse is in our hands.