The story of a pious, wealthy man from Damascus and an Armenian (Christian) man.

The Shaykh : A man in Damascus, who appears to be pious, is a large merchant with cold storage for preserving meat and vegetables. One day, an Armenian man came to him. These are a group of Christians who migrated from Russia to Syria, known as Armenians from the inhabitants of Armenia, meaning... He said to him, "I have meat... I want you to store it for me for a period, and I will give you whatever you want." As a Muslim first, and as one committed to his religion and the rulings of his Shari'ah second, the mere mention of the word "pig" made the hair on his body stand up. But there was something in that generous offer that tempted him, so a debate arose between his mind and his nafs al-ammara bi al-su (the self that commands evil). Then the religious mind overcame the self that commands evil. He said, "I must ask the people of knowledge." So he went to the Mufti of the Syrian lands and presented the story to him, seeking a ruling on whether it is permissible or not. The Mufti said to him, "Write your question." He wrote the question and submitted it to the presence of the Mufti. This is the Mufti of Syria, not the Mufti of a district or a court, but the Mufti of all Syria. He told him, "Come back in a week to collect the answer." Praise be to Allah, it was a battle requiring preparation for a week of time, and I wish it had succeeded. He came back after a week, and the Mufti said, "By Allah, the answer is not yet ready." This happened three times, each trip taking a week. He endured the third week. He knocked on the door, but no one answered. He took the liberty of opening the door and found the Grand Mufti sitting like this at the table, absorbed in sleep. He made a gesture... The Mufti woke up and said, "Peace be upon you." "And upon you be peace." "We have found the answer for you," he said, meaning that after three weeks, he had found the answer. He gave him the answer. "May Allah reward you with good." He left the Mufti's office and went to the courtyard, standing there reading. He did not understand whether storing pork was lawful or forbidden. He read from beginning to end, and from end to beginning. He had an employee who was a car driver, one of our Salafi brothers in Damascus named Salah al-Jazairi. He said to him, "Salah, look at this fatwa. I do not understand it, or rather, it is not understandable." Our friend Salah took it and read the story. It was the same; he did not understand whether it was lawful or forbidden. They were perplexed. Our friend said to him, "Come, I will take you to some men. He is not a Mufti; he is my colleague, but he will explain the matter to you." By Allah, I was in the shop as usual. "Peace be upon you." "And upon you be peace." They told us the story and this fatwa, and we did not understand whether it was lawful or forbidden. I read it and said to them, "You are right, because the Shaykh does not understand whether it is lawful or forbidden. One who lacks a thing cannot give it."

The questioner : There are two opinions in this issue.

The Shaykh : What is the Grand Mufti doing? Allahu Akbar. We quote from some books of fiqh, which are not, of course, explicit on the subject of this issue, but yes, they have examples. For example, transferring khamr (intoxicants) on a Muslim's animal: is it permissible or not? Just as our friend said, there are two opinions in this issue. It is stated in such-and-such a book: "If a dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Muslim protection) hires a Muslim to carry khamr for him on his animal, so-and-so said it is not permissible and the wage is forbidden for him, and so-and-so said it is permissible and the wage is lawful for him." And so it is stated in such-and-such a book and such-and-such a book: "If a dhimmi hires a Muslim to build a church for him, is it permissible and is the wage lawful for him, or not?" We also say these are contradictory. The strange thing for the general public, like our friend here, is that they quote from books with strange names. For example, it says to you, "Please, rest, take your share, so that we can do a medical fast, just as the witness clarified." He is quoting from books with strange names. It says in al-Wulwajiyyah such-and-such, and in al-Bazzaziyyah such-and-such. We say they are contradictory. And unfortunately, with the contradiction of the quotes cited by the presence of the Mufti, he does not summarize by giving his personal opinion to this questioner. Rather, he concludes the fatwa by saying, "From what has preceded, the answer to the question is known..." The answer to the question is not given. Why? Because there are two opinions in the issue, and he cannot exercise ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), because ijtihad is forbidden for them. Their duty is to transmit the text and nothing else. And in this way, it is absolutely impossible for him to give an answer to this issue. As for me, my opinion is that the question is wrong.