We smuggle lawful meat across the borders of the country where we live in Europe, because the lawful meat there is doubtful, besides the quantity of meat in this country is little and thus very expensive. Is this permissible? The Muslim community needs this lawful meat. Please give us a fatwa in this regard – may Allah reward you.

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the One Who gives Mercy. Peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. Smuggling, whatever its content, place or source may be, cannot be permitted because it goes contrary to the system of the country where the Muslims live. Muslims have been enjoined to fulfill all their covenants. Thus, they should not contravene this covenant “O you who believe! Fulfill all contracts,” [5:1] “Thus, you shall fulfill the covenant of Allah whenever you make a covenant. And you shall not break oaths after their affirmation; for, indeed, you have made Allah a guarantor over you.” [16:91]
Nevertheless, if you can find a suitable way to bring in this meat without directly contravening the system, this will be more proper. Brothers who live in this country can, for example, buy this meat from a neighboring country or take any other means that does not lead to distorting the reputation of Muslims. For, if any of them is caught while doing something like this and the media broadcasts it, this will give a bad reputation to Muslims. Preserving Muslims’ reputation is one of the objectives of the Shari`ah. Allah knows best.

Our honorable sheikh! We talk about people who have excuses and are allowed to break their fast. What are the categories of inability that allow Muslim to break his fast?

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. May Allah send peace and blessings upon our master Muhammad and upon his family and his companions.
The shari`ah intends ease and does not intend to make things difficult or cause ruin to people. This is one of the characteristics of this gracious shari`ah. Almighty Allah said “[These are] the ones who shall follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find inscribed in the Torah [that is] with them and in the Evangel; who enjoins them with what is right and forbids them from what is wrong, making lawful for them wholesome things, and prohibiting for them impure things; and relieving them from the burden [of strict obligation] and the yokes that were [laid] upon them.” This is a complementary statement to your introduction.
Accordingly, we say that people of excuses include travelers and sick people as explicitly stated in the Quran “But one among you who is sick or is on a journey [shall fast] the same number of other days.” The sick person is excusable, and fasting is not obligatory upon him. He is not even permitted to fast if he is badly sick. But scholars differed in the degree of the disease that allows breaking fasting. All the scholars agree that severe sickness drops the obligation of fasting if it causes such harm that may lead- or almost lead- to perishing, which is the case of maximum necessity. There is also a slight sickness that does not remit the obligation of fasting except according to the view of a group of scholars such as al-Bukhary who held the view that the word “sick” covers every person who feels sick and so he dropped the obligation of fasting in the case of slight sickness.
This position finds support in reports attributed to some scholars from among the Successors. But scholars differed concerning mild sickness. The correct position is that if fasting will lead to prolonging or increasing the sickness, the obligation of fasting becomes remitted in the sense that one is permitted to give up fasting but he does not have to. This means that if he fasts, his fasting will be valid, according to the correct scholarly position, because sickness remits the immediate obligation not the reason of the obligation. This is the difference between sickness, on the one hand, and menstruation and postnatal bleeding, on the other hand. In case of menstruation and postnatal bleeding a woman is not permitted to fast. These are two other excuses considered by the lawgiver and fasting in these cases is not even valid or permissible, whereas if the sick person can endure fasting, his fasting will be valid according to the position of the majority. Traveling also remits the obligation of fasting.

We still discuss sickness that drops the obligation of fasting. You mentioned the categories of sickness including severe, slight, and mild. But who decides to which category the sickness belong to?

To determine such a point, reference must be given to experts or the sick person himself. This has become clear in this age as we have doctors. The issue is how to ascertain the presence of the effective cause of the ruling; that is, to decide whether this disease remits the obligation of fasting or not. There are diseases such as diabetes or nephritis where one may not fast. It is the doctor here who determines the level of seriousness that gives license to the person or even makes it obligatory upon him to break his fasting.
I should repeat the word obligatory in this context, because a lot of people are not convinced to give up fasting and think that they thus do an act of seeking nearness to Allah while they really do not, because Almighty Allah has remitted such a person from the obligation of fasting and thus breaking his fast has become the obligation he has to fulfill.

There is something we face in Western countries as you know, which is related to the doctor. Is it a condition that the doctor has to be a Muslim?

The doctor, who should decide break of fast because of sickness, has to be trustworthy and experienced. His being a Muslim is not a condition. Al-Harith ibn Kaladah was not a Muslim; nevertheless, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) authorized him to give prescription. Truthfulness and experience are the basic requirements and being a Muslim is not a condition. This is what we should do in Western countries.

What about temporary and chronic sickness regarding fasting and what is the ruling of the sick person in both cases? May Allah bless you.

In the case of chronic sickness, one ought to give the compensation of feeding. He neither has to fast, nor to make up the fasting, nor to attempt to fast to know whether he will be able to continue or not, for his sickness thus may grow severe. But with regard to temporary sickness, one does not give compensation but waits until he gains recovery to make up the fasting. This is the difference between the two cases: the ruling of the first case is to give the compensation of feeding while the ruling of the other is to wait until he can make it up after recovery.