What is the ruling on eating imported chicken slaughtered in the lands of the disbelievers?

The questioner : May Allah reward you. The questioner asks: What is your opinion regarding chicken imported from non-Muslim countries, which is labeled: "Slaughtered according to the Islamic method"?

The Shaykh : In my opinion, the chicken available to us is lawful because it comes from lands where the slaughter of their people is permissible, namely the lands of the Christians or the Jews. The scholars among us have investigated this matter and contacted the officials responsible for imports, and they stated that nothing is imported unless they have guaranteed that it was slaughtered in a Sharia-compliant manner. Therefore, I see that there is nothing wrong with a person eating it, but he should mention the name of Allah when eating. In *Sahih al-Bukhari*, it is narrated from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): They were recent converts from disbelief, so the obligation of mentioning the name of Allah at slaughter may have been hidden from them. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted them to eat, despite the doubt as to whether they had mentioned the name or not, and he said: For this reason, the scholars derived a useful principle from this hadith, which is: "When an action is performed by its rightful doer, the original ruling is validity and soundness" Is the principle clear or not? "When an action is performed by its rightful doer, the original ruling is validity and soundness" This slaughter was performed by a Muslim, a Jew, or a Christian. Is the slaughterer qualified for lawful slaughter? He is qualified for lawful slaughter, because the people qualified for lawful slaughter are three categories: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. If a Muslim slaughters it, the original ruling is permissibility. If a Jew slaughters it, the original ruling is permissibility. If a Christian slaughters it, the original ruling is permissibility. Every action performed by its rightful doer, the original ruling is validity and soundness. Otherwise, the community would face great hardship. Otherwise, we would say: If a person sells me a pen, and it appears to be his property, is that not so? Answer, everyone. He sold me a pen from his pocket. The pen came out of his pocket outside the mosque, and he said: Buy this? So I bought it for ten riyals. The original ruling is that the pen is what, everyone? His pen, and the sale is valid. But was there not a possibility that he had stolen it? There is a possibility. Do we say: The sale is not valid until we know where he got this pen? Yes, absolutely not. We do not say this, because if we did and asked him, he would say: By Allah, I bought it from so-and-so. We bring so-and-so and say: Where did you get the pen? He bought it from so-and-so. We say to so-and-so: Where did you get the pen? Until we reach factories in America or another country. This is something no one can say. The original ruling is that every action performed by its rightful doer is what? It is valid and sound.