It was done by the choice of the breeder and by the choice of the investor, so there is no injustice in it. Therefore, it is lawful, if they present this to the one in authority.

The Shaykh : It was done by the choice of the breeder and by the choice of the investor, so there is no injustice in it. Therefore, it is lawful, if they present this to the one in authority. And if one deems riba (usury or interest) permissible based on this ruling, does he become a disbeliever? He does not become a disbeliever, because most rulers after the seventh and eighth centuries do not understand anything of Islamic jurisprudence. So here, we believe that the one who deems riba permissible is a disbeliever, because he contradicted the explicit text of the Noble Qur'an: . But applying this ruling to this imam is not appropriate, because he may have been deceived. But we say: the Shari'ah is complete in all aspects: in acts of worship, in transactions, in morals, and in everything. And the longest verse in the Noble Qur'an relates to transactions, so it is sufficient. And it is not possible to change the rulings of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) due to changing circumstances, or changing places, or changing nations, except where the condition upon which the Shari'ah ruling is based is compromised. And riba is forbidden whether it is investment-based or exploitation-based. The evidence for this is: when good dates were brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he was surprised by them and said, "Where did this come from?" They said, "We used to take this for two sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) and take two sa' for three." Is there injustice in this or not? Because the value of this is the value of that; the value of two sa' is the value of one sa'. There is no injustice and no exploitation. He said, "No, it is pure riba, pure riba." Then he said, "Return it." He ordered it to be returned. And this is clear evidence that riba is forbidden whether there is injustice in it or not.
In any case: I return to the hadith: We must see, meaning we must know with certainty, that it is disbelief. And this requires two things: First: the indication of the Book and the Sunnah that it is disbelief. And second: its application to this imam.
Also , if we see open sinfulness and we know that it is open sinfulness and that this imam is capable of open sinfulness, for example, if he loves singing, loves drinking intoxicants, loves unlawful sexual intercourse, and loves sodomy, this does not reach the level of disbelief. So is it permissible to rebel against him? It is not permissible to rebel against him, because we must see disbelief. The third: : "Clear" means the obvious, the clarity of the sun in the daytime. It is not hidden disbelief, but it is clear and manifest. So for example, if we see this imam using intoxicants, for example, it is possible that he deems it permissible because he is addicted to it, and it is possible that he does not deem it permissible but he is afflicted with it. So is this clear disbelief? No, because we do not know whether he deems it permissible or not. And there is a difference between the one who deems intoxicants permissible, who becomes a disbeliever, and the one who drinks them and believes it is a sin, who does not become a disbeliever.
Also: that you have from Allah clear proof regarding it. And this is a heavy condition, meaning that the evidence must indicate with decisive indication that it is disbelief. If it is open to figurative interpretation, and even if the stronger position is that it is disbelief, it is not permissible to rebel against him, because the proof is the decisive evidence.
The conditions now: knowledge, that it is disbelief, that it is clear, and that there is decisive evidence for it. This is a condition for the permissibility of rebellion. There remains an important condition: which is the ability to change. The ability to change is necessary, so we cannot rise up against this man who is a disbeliever with clear disbelief for which we have clear proof from Allah, and we do not have the ability. If there are tanks, weapons, and bombs, and one of us has a donkey stick and a kitchen knife, is it possible for us to rise up? It is not possible, because that means we have exposed ourselves to crushing and destruction. The ability is necessary, it is clear, my brothers.
So the issue is restricted by severe restrictions so that chaos does not occur. Because if the matter were left to what the rebel sees, every person would believe that this is disbelief and immediately rise up. All of this that you have heard is for the preservation of security and to prevent haste.