Chapter: The Slaughter of the People of the Book and Their Fats, Whether from the People of War or Others.

The Shaykh : In my view, it is not lawful from their slaughter except what is lawful of its equivalent from the slaughter of Muslims. It is sufficient for us to treat their slaughter as we treat the slaughter of Muslims. Now, if someone asks: Is the criterion that this person of the Book be from a tribe, meaning from two parents who are People of the Book, or is it sufficient that he himself is a Person of the Book, even if his parents are polytheists? The answer is: The second option, according to the stronger opinion among the scholars, which is that it is not required that his parents be People of the Book. Because as long as he is from the People of the Book, the ruling pertains to him himself. So, if we suppose that a Christian had parents who were polytheists from the Zoroastrians, but he himself became a Christian—meaning the missionaries entered his country and he became a Christian—the ruling applies to him. Yes, the ruling pertains to him. So if he is a Christian, his ruling is the ruling of the People of the Book; indeed, he is from the People of the Book. Yes. Al-Hasan and Ibrahim said: "There is no harm in the slaughter of the uncircumcised". Who is the uncircumcised? The one who has not been circumcised. There is no harm in it. This is the most apparent meaning of the wording. It is possible that he means by "the uncircumcised" the Christian, because Christians do not circumcise. Christians are impure; they love impurity and do not purify themselves from impurity at all. It does not concern them. They consider a drop of urine to be like a drop of water and do not care about it. This is the opposite of the Jews. The Jews are extremely strict in the matter of purity, because it is one of the burdens and shackles that Allah imposed upon them. It is even said that they do not purify a garment that has been touched by impurity except by cutting it, meaning they cut off the part that was touched by the impurity. The Christian wipes this impurity with his hand and does not see it as anything but wetness. The Muslim says this is impure and washes it without ruining his garment. For this reason, the Islamic Shari'ah is a middle path between two extremes. It is possible that he means by "the uncircumcised" the Christian, and it is possible that he means by "the uncircumcised" the Muslim who has not been circumcised. And whatever his intention, this is correct. Yes.