whoever is in a state similar to theirs is under their same ruling. Likewise, every person ignorant of a matter that is possible to be ignorant of is not judged as an unbeliever until they are informed of it, the ambiguity is removed from them, and they deem it lawful thereafter. Ahmad said: Whoever says, "Wine is lawful," is an unbeliever who is requested to repent; if he repents, he is left alone, otherwise his neck is struck. This is applied to one for whom its prohibition is not hidden; according to what we have mentioned. As for the one who eats the flesh of swine, or carrion, or drinks wine, he is not judged to have apostatized by that alone, whether he did it in the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb) or the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam); because it is possible that he did it while believing in its prohibition, just as he does other forbidden things.

1541- Issue: He said: (And the slaughtered animal of an apostate is forbidden, even if his apostasy was to the religion of the People of the Book.)

This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Ishaq said: If he converts to the religion of the People of the Book, his slaughtered animal becomes lawful. This is also narrated from al-Awza'i, because Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "Whoever associates himself with a people is one of them." Our view is that he is an unbeliever who is not permitted to remain in his religion, so his slaughter is not lawful, like that of an idolater. Furthermore, the rulings of the People of the Book are not established for him if he converts to their religion, for he is not accepted by paying the jizya (poll tax), nor is he to be enslaved. The marriage of an apostate woman is not lawful. As for the saying of Ali, "He is one of them," he did not intend by it that he is one of them in all rulings, as evidenced by what we have mentioned, and because he did not consider the slaughtered animals of the Christians of the tribe of Banu Taghlib to be lawful, nor their women to be permissible for marriage, despite his allegiance to the Christians, their entering into their religion, and their agreement to what they had settled upon; therefore, it is more fitting not to believe that regarding the apostates. Once this is established, if he slaughters an animal belonging to someone else without his permission, he is liable for its value while it was alive, because he destroyed it for the owner and rendered it forbidden. However, if he slaughtered it with the owner's permission, he is not liable, because the owner gave permission for its destruction.