Reading from the author's words, with commentary on them and collation of the manuscripts: "And there were markets in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, which the Muslims used to attend

The reader: "So there would be a reduction of evil. And there were markets in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance which the Muslims used to attend"

The Shaykh : Yes
The student: There were markets in the city

The Shaykh : And what comes after it
The student: The Muslims used to attend them

The Shaykh : I don't have markets in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance to look at
The reader: "The Muslims used to attend them, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) attended some of them. Among these markets were those held during the season of Hajj, and some were held for false festivals. And also"

The Shaykh : The pre-Islamic age of ignorance is better
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes
The reader: "And also, most of what is in the market is that things are sold there which are used to aid in sin. It is as if a man attended a market where weapons are sold to those who kill with them a protected person, or where grape juice is sold to those who will make it into intoxicants, and the man attended it to buy from it. Indeed, this is better, because the seller in this market is a dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Muslim protection), and they have agreed to this trade. Then, if a man were to travel to the abode of war to buy from it, it is permissible according to us, as indicated by the hadith of Abu Bakr's (may Allah be pleased with him) trade during the life of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to the land of Sham, which is an abode of war, and the hadith of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and other hadiths. I have elaborated on the discussion of this in another place. Even though it is necessary that their markets include the sale of things used to aid in sin. As for Muslims selling to them during their festivals what they use to aid in their festival, such as food, clothing, basil, and the like, or giving it to them as a gift, this contains a type of assistance in establishing their forbidden festival. It is based on a principle, which is that selling to disbelievers grapes or grape juice which they make into intoxicants is not permissible. Likewise, it is not permissible to sell them weapons with which they fight a Muslim. And the hadith of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the gifting of the silk garment"

The Shaykh : The silk garment, the silk garment
The reader: "Regarding the gifting of the silk garment to his polytheist brother in Makkah, indicating the permissibility of selling them silk. But silk is permissible in general, and only the large amount of it is forbidden for some humans. For this reason, it is permissible to use it for medical treatment in the most correct of the two narrations, and it is not permissible with intoxicants in any case. Its manufacture in the original state and trade in it are permissible. So there is confusion in this principle. If one says the first possibility in Ahmad's words, he permits it. And from Ahmad, regarding the permissibility of carrying trade to the abode of war, there are two explicit narrations. So it can be said: selling it to them during the festival is like carrying it to the abode of war. For carrying clothes and food to the abode of war is assistance in their religion in general. And if we prevent it from going to the abode of war, this is more deserving of prevention. And most of its principles and texts indicate the prevention of that. But is it a prevention of prohibition? Or a prevention of disapproval? It is based on what will come. And 'Abd al-Malik ibn Habib mentioned that this is something upon which there was consensus of disapproval, and he explicitly stated that the madhhab"

The Shaykh : ... according to, and I don't agree
The student: Agreed
The reader: In a copy, agreed

The Shaykh : Okay, that works.
The reader: "And he explicitly stated that the madhhab of Malik is that it is forbidden. And 'Abd al-Malik ibn Habib said in (al-Wadihah)" "Malik disliked eating what the Christians slaughter for their churches, and prohibited it without declaring it forbidden" "He said" "And likewise what they slaughter in the name of Christ, or the cross, or the names of those who have passed from their rabbis" " "

The Shaykh : Or names
The reader: "Or the names of those who have passed from their rabbis and monks whom they revere. So Malik" Or they revere

The Shaykh : Yes, they revere
The reader: Yes "Whom they revere"

The Shaykh : It is correct with the fathah, it is correct with the fathah and the kasrah
The Reader: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes
The reader: "So Malik and others from those who are followed disliked eating all of this from their slaughters, and we take this as our ruling. It resembles the saying of Allah the Exalted

and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah

وما أهل به لغير الله

[Al-Baqarah 2:173]

And these are their slaughters which they used to slaughter for their idols which they used to worship. He said" "And some men from the scholars used to belittle that and say: Allah has made their slaughters lawful for us. And He knows what they say and what they intend by it" "And Ibn Wahb narrated that from Ibn 'Abbas, 'Ubadah ibn al-Samit, Abu al-Darda', Sulayman ibn Yasar, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, Ibn Shihab, Rabi'ah, Yahya ibn Sa'id, Makحول, and 'Ata. 'Abd al-Malik said: And leaving"

The Shaykh : And leaving
The reader: "And leaving what they slaughter for their festivals, their oaths, their dead, and their churches is better. He said"

The Shaykh : People have differed on this issue regarding the statement of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: Does this include everything they consider food, even if it is not lawful for us, whether because they dedicated it to other than Allah, or slaughtered it for the cross, or strangled it, or did something similar? Some scholars said that whatever they make into food and consider food is lawful for us, and we do not ask how they slaughtered it or in whose name they invoked Allah over the slaughtered animal. The second opinion is that they must slaughter it in the Islamic manner and not invoke over it any name other than the name of Allah. According to this second opinion, if we doubt whether they invoked the name or not, we do not ask, because the original ruling is that the slaughtered animal is lawful. And if we doubt whether they slaughter it in the Islamic manner or not, we do not ask, because the original ruling is that their slaughtered animals are lawful. This second opinion is closer to the truth than the first, because if a Muslim were to slaughter it in a manner other than the Islamic way, it would not be lawful, then a disbeliever is even more so. Yes.