In Article 206 of the Kuwaiti Penal Code, the sale and importation of intoxicants are prohibited, but embassies were exempted from this, and the embassies have exploited this.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In Article 206 of the Kuwaiti Penal Code, the circulation of intoxicants, their sale, and their consumption are prohibited, and embassies were exempted from this...?
The Shaykh : I think the reasoning needs clarification. Do you mean to say the embassies of disbelievers?
The questioner : There is no distinction between disbeliever or Muslim; there is no exception.
The Shaykh : This is contrary to what we heard!
The questioner : I am telling you what happened... the embassies were exempted... whether Muslim or disbeliever, or...
The Shaykh : I did not intend for it to be so; it could be an Islamic embassy... Saudi, Tunisian, and so on.
The questioner : No, there is none...
The Shaykh : Are we within the text?
The questioner : We are within the text.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The questioner : The embassies have exploited this badly... they import through some Kuwaiti companies for Kuwaiti individuals... and then they give a type of gift to Muslims, including citizens, and... there is also room for selling and buying... so we submitted the bill to the Council... to amend this article and cancel the exception...
The Shaykh : For what?
The questioner : To keep the text general and cancel the exception; there is no exception there... but the truth is, we encountered some statements... that they have the right to use intoxicants even in the lands of Muslims, and therefore it can be imported. What is the ruling on this matter?
The Shaykh : It is certain that the decision is not Islamic, and since it exempted the embassies without restricting them to the embassies of disbelievers, this explicitly means that the law allowed Muslim embassies to drink intoxicants, buy them, and bring them into Kuwait. This is a clear violation that contradicts the intent of what Muslim groups submit as a proposal to the state, namely the obligation to prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, namely intoxicants, not only drinking them, but also selling and buying them, and anything else that helps them to drink this abomination and intoxicants. Therefore, the decision is not Islamic in its origin. If it must be amended, the permission should be restricted to the embassies of disbelieving states, and they should be conditioned to: first, not to compel any Muslim or Muslim company in the state to import those intoxicants for them; and second, not to announce their drinking in front of Muslims in their communities, and not to appear in the streets drunk or half-drunk, but rather to consume their intoxicants in the privacy of their homes and premises. If they adhere to these conditions, we will hold them to their pledge and allow them to bring in with their luggage and belongings, and their food and drink, whatever they need of their intoxicants. However, if they compel, even secretly, some individuals or companies to import intoxicants, this is prohibited first, and it is a condition upon them that if they breach this condition, they will be prevented from bringing in intoxicants, even as they say, via the diplomatic bag. It is absolutely not permissible. This is what can be said regarding this question.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, there are Muslims and non-Muslims... bribery through the prohibited intoxicants in...
The Shaykh : ...all of this is a reason to revoke their license...
The questioner : And for this reason, in the context of blocking the means to harm, we submitted this bill.
The Shaykh : No, we just, especially in the first step in the path of implementing the Shari'ah ruling, do not go to extremes by forbidding other religions what is permissible for them. It is not part of Islam to forbid them eating pork, which is forbidden for us by the explicit text of the Qur'an, but... they slaughter and eat the pork, but within their circle, in their homes, in their private establishments. We do not want to go to extremes... because the wisdom in the matter is what the wise poet indicated:
"If you cannot do something, leave it, and move on to what you can do" I think that if you ask the state to prohibit intoxicants absolutely, even for these disbelieving diplomats... your request will be granted. Therefore, we should move past this, because this moving past is not contrary to the Shari'ah, but it is exactly the Shari'ah. And we suffice by saying that you import intoxicants through the same channels you import any need you have, but you do not exceed that to other people, even as a gift. As for what you mentioned, that they serve intoxicants at their parties and there are Muslims present, this is also another Shari'ah violation. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saidMusnad Ahmad 125Hasan lighairihi (Darussalam) meaning we become bound by them, these disbelievers, when we tell them, "You know that there are Muslims at your parties..." They will say... Islam says such and such. This is if they know what is with us, and there may be some Orientalists who know the details of the Shari'ah rulings with us. Therefore, we do not open a path for them to attack, and the right would be with them. We block the path before them and say, "This is permissible in your religion, but in our religion and in... this is forbidden, so it is not permissible to..." I see that this is first more in accordance with the Shari'ah, and then closer to achieving this proposal.
The questioner : No, it is closer to... they argue with diplomatic relations and the Geneva Convention, which does not distinguish between diplomats, Muslim or non-Muslim, and that many Muslim ambassadors in their countries... so it is impossible for the government to come and distinguish between an embassy and an embassy, whether disbelieving or Muslim? They do not distinguish between them... we...
The Shaykh : You say they do not distinguish, meaning you do not want them to distinguish?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it impossible? How is it impossible! If this is impossible, it is even more impossible to ask them to prohibit the importation of intoxicants absolutely. They will not argue with Geneva or the Geneva resolutions either!
The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh, they know this matter... we... the proposal we are proposing to the government, they may accept it or they may not accept it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ...the bill... is binding for implementation...
The Shaykh : The issue, may Allah reward you, is understood, but you say there is a Geneva Conference, they argue...
The questioner : The Geneva Convention.
The Shaykh : They argue with the convention that the state is not prepared to break this convention. In what is it not prepared? In distinguishing the Muslim ambassador from the disbelieving ambassador. It is prepared to allow even a disbeliever to drink intoxicants... which is milder?
The questioner : No... in Islamic countries, the embassies of Islamic countries... they object to Kuwait, "How did you prohibit us and allow..." from the Islamic perspective, in our country this thing is allowed... diplomatic bags... because the embassies... can bring in what they need of intoxicants through diplomatic bags. We were exposed to the issue of importation and the issue of allowing... them.
The Shaykh : Importation absolutely now... importation, we said, is with the condition that they do not compel the Muslim company to import intoxicants for them. This importation is absolutely prohibited, meaning the proposal must be so, there is no disagreement. But does the proposal include prohibiting disbelieving diplomats from drinking intoxicants in their embassies, or...?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : Importation is not... the condition is that the company imports or Muslim individuals import... importation here is understood... allowing it to enter...
The Shaykh : It is known...
The questioner : Importation is understood as allowing them to enter... through... the embassy... by the text of the law... and therefore the argument of non-reciprocity!
The Shaykh : So if... your detail on importation is a formal issue, because if it is importation by any means... at the customs, the customs will allow the dhimmi to import intoxicants, and in the origin, you all know that there is nothing in Islam called customs. So naturally, if a Christian enters from one town to another carrying intoxicants... just as if a foreign woman entered, no...
The Shaykh : I think the reasoning needs clarification. Do you mean to say the embassies of disbelievers?
The questioner : There is no distinction between disbeliever or Muslim; there is no exception.
The Shaykh : This is contrary to what we heard!
The questioner : I am telling you what happened... the embassies were exempted... whether Muslim or disbeliever, or...
The Shaykh : I did not intend for it to be so; it could be an Islamic embassy... Saudi, Tunisian, and so on.
The questioner : No, there is none...
The Shaykh : Are we within the text?
The questioner : We are within the text.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The questioner : The embassies have exploited this badly... they import through some Kuwaiti companies for Kuwaiti individuals... and then they give a type of gift to Muslims, including citizens, and... there is also room for selling and buying... so we submitted the bill to the Council... to amend this article and cancel the exception...
The Shaykh : For what?
The questioner : To keep the text general and cancel the exception; there is no exception there... but the truth is, we encountered some statements... that they have the right to use intoxicants even in the lands of Muslims, and therefore it can be imported. What is the ruling on this matter?
The Shaykh : It is certain that the decision is not Islamic, and since it exempted the embassies without restricting them to the embassies of disbelievers, this explicitly means that the law allowed Muslim embassies to drink intoxicants, buy them, and bring them into Kuwait. This is a clear violation that contradicts the intent of what Muslim groups submit as a proposal to the state, namely the obligation to prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, namely intoxicants, not only drinking them, but also selling and buying them, and anything else that helps them to drink this abomination and intoxicants. Therefore, the decision is not Islamic in its origin. If it must be amended, the permission should be restricted to the embassies of disbelieving states, and they should be conditioned to: first, not to compel any Muslim or Muslim company in the state to import those intoxicants for them; and second, not to announce their drinking in front of Muslims in their communities, and not to appear in the streets drunk or half-drunk, but rather to consume their intoxicants in the privacy of their homes and premises. If they adhere to these conditions, we will hold them to their pledge and allow them to bring in with their luggage and belongings, and their food and drink, whatever they need of their intoxicants. However, if they compel, even secretly, some individuals or companies to import intoxicants, this is prohibited first, and it is a condition upon them that if they breach this condition, they will be prevented from bringing in intoxicants, even as they say, via the diplomatic bag. It is absolutely not permissible. This is what can be said regarding this question.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, there are Muslims and non-Muslims... bribery through the prohibited intoxicants in...
The Shaykh : ...all of this is a reason to revoke their license...
The questioner : And for this reason, in the context of blocking the means to harm, we submitted this bill.
The Shaykh : No, we just, especially in the first step in the path of implementing the Shari'ah ruling, do not go to extremes by forbidding other religions what is permissible for them. It is not part of Islam to forbid them eating pork, which is forbidden for us by the explicit text of the Qur'an, but... they slaughter and eat the pork, but within their circle, in their homes, in their private establishments. We do not want to go to extremes... because the wisdom in the matter is what the wise poet indicated:
"If you cannot do something, leave it, and move on to what you can do" I think that if you ask the state to prohibit intoxicants absolutely, even for these disbelieving diplomats... your request will be granted. Therefore, we should move past this, because this moving past is not contrary to the Shari'ah, but it is exactly the Shari'ah. And we suffice by saying that you import intoxicants through the same channels you import any need you have, but you do not exceed that to other people, even as a gift. As for what you mentioned, that they serve intoxicants at their parties and there are Muslims present, this is also another Shari'ah violation. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said
Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him not sit at a table where alcohol is being passed around
من كان يؤمن بالله و اليوم الآخر فلا يقعدن على مائدة يدار فيها الخمرThe questioner : No, it is closer to... they argue with diplomatic relations and the Geneva Convention, which does not distinguish between diplomats, Muslim or non-Muslim, and that many Muslim ambassadors in their countries... so it is impossible for the government to come and distinguish between an embassy and an embassy, whether disbelieving or Muslim? They do not distinguish between them... we...
The Shaykh : You say they do not distinguish, meaning you do not want them to distinguish?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it impossible? How is it impossible! If this is impossible, it is even more impossible to ask them to prohibit the importation of intoxicants absolutely. They will not argue with Geneva or the Geneva resolutions either!
The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh, they know this matter... we... the proposal we are proposing to the government, they may accept it or they may not accept it.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ...the bill... is binding for implementation...
The Shaykh : The issue, may Allah reward you, is understood, but you say there is a Geneva Conference, they argue...
The questioner : The Geneva Convention.
The Shaykh : They argue with the convention that the state is not prepared to break this convention. In what is it not prepared? In distinguishing the Muslim ambassador from the disbelieving ambassador. It is prepared to allow even a disbeliever to drink intoxicants... which is milder?
The questioner : No... in Islamic countries, the embassies of Islamic countries... they object to Kuwait, "How did you prohibit us and allow..." from the Islamic perspective, in our country this thing is allowed... diplomatic bags... because the embassies... can bring in what they need of intoxicants through diplomatic bags. We were exposed to the issue of importation and the issue of allowing... them.
The Shaykh : Importation absolutely now... importation, we said, is with the condition that they do not compel the Muslim company to import intoxicants for them. This importation is absolutely prohibited, meaning the proposal must be so, there is no disagreement. But does the proposal include prohibiting disbelieving diplomats from drinking intoxicants in their embassies, or...?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : Importation is not... the condition is that the company imports or Muslim individuals import... importation here is understood... allowing it to enter...
The Shaykh : It is known...
The questioner : Importation is understood as allowing them to enter... through... the embassy... by the text of the law... and therefore the argument of non-reciprocity!
The Shaykh : So if... your detail on importation is a formal issue, because if it is importation by any means... at the customs, the customs will allow the dhimmi to import intoxicants, and in the origin, you all know that there is nothing in Islam called customs. So naturally, if a Christian enters from one town to another carrying intoxicants... just as if a foreign woman entered, no...