A person who believes that forgetting to mention the name of Allah does not harm, and he slaughtered and ate; is it permissible to eat with him?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : A man who believes that forgetting does not harm, then... the slaughtered animal... that it is a condition; is it permissible to eat with him?
The Shaykh : Who is the one who eats with him?
The questioner : The one who believes that it is a condition.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible for him to eat, neither from the meat nor from the food in which it was cooked.
The questioner : What is the difference between this and the issue of camel meat?
The Shaykh : The difference is apparent, because camel meat did not come into contact with impurity, nor did it come into contact with what is forbidden. But this person now believes that this food is forbidden for him, while it is lawful for his companion; it is forbidden for him, while it is lawful for his companion.
The questioner : He believes that the prayer is invalid, and he is a scholar exercising independent legal reasoning.
The Shaykh : Yes, but as for me, regarding the prayer, I believe that I did not eat, I did not eat, and he has eaten. He believes that the ablution is not broken, so his prayer is valid in my view. But my prayer, if I have eaten, is forbidden, meaning I do not pray because the ablution is broken. And if I have not eaten, I am in a state of ritual purity. For this reason, I do not prevent the man who eats from the meat where the name was left out; I do not prevent him from eating comfortably. But I do not eat, just as if it were smoke: if I believe it is forbidden and he believes it is lawful, is it permissible for me to smoke while I believe it is forbidden? It is the same thing, yes.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No, there is a great difference between them, because the issue of prayer is the action of the other person, and this is my action if I want to eat from this thing; it is my action.
The Shaykh : Who is the one who eats with him?
The questioner : The one who believes that it is a condition.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible for him to eat, neither from the meat nor from the food in which it was cooked.
The questioner : What is the difference between this and the issue of camel meat?
The Shaykh : The difference is apparent, because camel meat did not come into contact with impurity, nor did it come into contact with what is forbidden. But this person now believes that this food is forbidden for him, while it is lawful for his companion; it is forbidden for him, while it is lawful for his companion.
The questioner : He believes that the prayer is invalid, and he is a scholar exercising independent legal reasoning.
The Shaykh : Yes, but as for me, regarding the prayer, I believe that I did not eat, I did not eat, and he has eaten. He believes that the ablution is not broken, so his prayer is valid in my view. But my prayer, if I have eaten, is forbidden, meaning I do not pray because the ablution is broken. And if I have not eaten, I am in a state of ritual purity. For this reason, I do not prevent the man who eats from the meat where the name was left out; I do not prevent him from eating comfortably. But I do not eat, just as if it were smoke: if I believe it is forbidden and he believes it is lawful, is it permissible for me to smoke while I believe it is forbidden? It is the same thing, yes.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : No, there is a great difference between them, because the issue of prayer is the action of the other person, and this is my action if I want to eat from this thing; it is my action.