Discussion regarding the slaughter of non-Muslims.

The questioner : One of the students of knowledge among us in Kuwait says—and I think he is unique in this opinion, according to what some of the brothers said—first, he says: that all the Shi'ah are disbelievers, their scholars and their ignorant ones, all of them without exception; their ignorant ones are like the ignorant ones in Christianity and others.

The Shaykh : And what do you say?

The questioner : It was said to him: Do you eat from the slaughter of the Rafidi Shi'i? He said: My school of thought is that I eat from anyone who mentions the name of Allah, regardless of their creed, if they slaughtered for Allah and in the name of Allah, So does he have a predecessor in this opinion or...

The Shaykh : What is his orientation?

The questioner : He was with the Muslim Brotherhood in Lebanon and abandoned most of what they held...

The Shaykh : Meaning he deviated, and I think he does not claim to be a Salafi.

The questioner : No, he says, on the contrary, he now distinguishes between the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he was with, and the Salafis, and his methodology is the complete methodology of a Salafi, except that the Salafis are afraid of him because of his belief that...

The Shaykh : Who are his predecessors in what he says?

The questioner : He says: I do not know if I have a predecessor, but he understood it this way, however, he said: If there is scholarly consensus on the issue, then I will retract; if there is scholarly consensus on the issue, I will return from my statement, but in this way.

The Shaykh : How does he interpret the verse ?

The questioner : It was said to him about this verse, he said: The implied negation (mafhum al-mukhalafah) is not always correct.

The Shaykh : Correct, but where is the evidence that the food of those other than the People of the Book is lawful?

The questioner : So as long as the name of Allah is mentioned on it, from whatever person it is, I eat.

The questioner : The complete verse is .

The Shaykh : No, this is a point in which some of them here agree with him. If a Christian slaughters and says: "In the name of Christ," some say: that his slaughter is not eaten, because he slaughtered in the name of other than Allah. But if he says: "In the name of Allah," I eat his slaughter. It appears that this person you are referring to is on this pattern. So what I brought against this is brought against him: If a Christian says: "In the name of the Lord," there is no difference between that and his saying "In the name of Christ." And if he says: "In the name of Allah," there is no difference between this and that and the other, because the issue relates to the creed more than it relates to the words. So I said to this one who sees a distinction between the Christian who slaughters in the name of Christ and the other who slaughters in the name of Allah: Do you not agree with me that when he says: "In the name of Allah," he means the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? He said: Yes. We said to him: Then what is the difference between this and that, as long as both are polytheists? So does this one who argues with the previous verse believe in Allah the One who has no partner? This is not conceivable. I do not mean the one who says it, I mean the one who slaughters. I do not think we are now doubting the Muslims that when he says "In the name of Allah," what he means, let alone the others. Do you understand? And so, this person's clinging to this verse is, without a doubt, at the very least, inaccurate. Then he should review the books and review the statements of the scholars so that he proceeds with insight, and not say, as you quoted from him just now: "If there is consensus, I will retract." Well, did he research? He did not research. So this is one of the people we always and forever complain about: that everyone has a little knowledge and an opinion seems to him, so he adopts it and says: "This is what I understand," and then he does not avail himself of the efforts of the scholars, neither the earlier nor the later ones. Does this person have writings? He has none.

The questioner : He published a hadith... years.

The Shaykh : He was from that group and now he opposes them.

The questioner : He opposes them, yes.

The Shaykh : Where does he live, in Riyadh?

The questioner : He moved from several prisons; I do not know the last prison he was in. He stayed seven years. He was arrested before the incident; he brought books for Juhayman.

The Shaykh : Meaning he did not participate in the incident.

The questioner : No, they released them all now.