Hamzah Wald Maqbul – Asiya Bibi Pakistan and Blasphemy 11042018
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
All praises to Allah Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala. And may his peace and blessings be
upon his servant and messenger, our master, Saydna
Muhammad salallahu alaihi wasalam,
who is the greatest of Allah ta'ala's blessings
to
all of his creation,
the ins and the jinn,
the animals,
the heavens, the earth,
this world, and the hereafter,
who is the pride and the joy and
the happiness of anyone who keeps faith
inside of their heart, not only of this
ummah, but from the time of Sayidna Adam
until the last person who knows the divine
name and says the divine name Allah Allah
leaves from this earth.
The question
of blasphemy has come to me a number
of times, especially in light of this,
case that is,
now,
shook,
both Pakistan
and the world,
in regards to
what should be done with a
non Muslim subject of a Muslim,
sovereign,
polity,
in in
in response to
that non Muslims'
cursing of the messenger of Allah
or
blaspheming of the
messenger of Allah
And,
this is a very
it's a very important issue, and it's a
very sensitive issue from
many different sides
because it involves
dealing with the sensibilities
with regards to the sacred, both for
Muslims as well as for secular minded people
who may claim that they don't have a
religion, but they do hold,
certain things to be moral morals and virtues
that are,
nonnegotiable
with a type of religious fervor. And so
issues like this are very sensitive because,
because they make people different groups of people
head toward,
conflict,
conflict a type of conflict that's
irreconcilable
without some sort of violence or without some
sort of,
without some sort of chaotic,
response, which is something that all people of
common sense, whether they be Muslims or not,
wish to avoid at all costs.
And, you know, the the the issue is
this is that
both the world view of Islam and the
world view of,
the kind of dominant hegemony of liberal secularism,
both of them
basically espouse an exclusive claim to truth,
an exclusive claim to truth that that excludes
all other than them.
Islam
making such a claim
openly
and liberal secularism,
not necessarily being cognizant of that claim,
but, but,
keeping,
the the belief that its claim to truth
or its claim to enlightenment is,
somehow,
somehow
manifest and and self apparent,
and and,
it's manifest how it's supreme over all other
claims
and how its claim,
engenders for its followers the right even to
violence in order to, in order to establish
it in the earth.
Obviously, if you say everything is true,
or every
person has a right to say or do
whatever they want, then,
you enter some sort of paradox because if
a person,
says that that, no. People don't have the
right to do or say what they want,
then
you have not given them the right to
do or say that. So, you know, from
a rational
point of view, it can go to certain
places that are
that are
irrational.
But that's not necessarily what what we wanna
talk about today. We wanna talk about
the case of
Asiya Bibi,
who was a,
a a a Christian woman from Punjab,
who was accused of cursing the messenger of
Allah, sallallahu alaihi wasalam,
in a dispute with other
manual laborers, farm laborers.
And the case there's so many weird and
messed up things about the about it, at
so many different levels.
It doesn't surprise me that it's this entire
thing has become such a mess.
And I don't know the specifics of the
case in the sense that I haven't, like,
gone deep into it and investigated it, but
I just wanted to give some comments,
with regards to the general concept,
of blasphemy and what it's you know, what
the what the punishment is for it in
the Sharia and why.
But the specific case is really messed up
on on so many levels. So supposedly,
this Christian woman
from Punjab and in Punjab, you know, for
for those of us who are from,
the Indian subcontinent, particularly in Punjab, Punjab has
a
a fair fair sized
Christian community,
and,
many of them were from the,
from from the cast
of of of of sewer cleaners and garbage
collectors,
in Hinduism.
And en masse during the British, colonization of
the subcontinent, they became Christian,
whether it was out of sincerity or out
of some sort of desire for social upward
mobility by identifying with the colonizer.
Knows best what's in the hearts of people.
But at any rate, they they all,
they all
became Christians at the same time so much
so that the the word for that cast
or class of people,
in Punjabi, which is it's not a really
complimentary word, so I don't wanna I don't
wanna say it right now because I don't
wanna repeat what's essentially turned into a racial
epithet.
The word for that cast of of cleaners,
of sewer cleaners and and garbage,
collectors,
hasn't now become I mean, it's become
one of the meanings of it has become
Christian. So a person by context, you'll know
if that that word is used, whether they
mean somebody who is
a collector, a garbage collector,
or cleaner,
or, whether they are Christian by context.
And people people now use it interchangeably for
the 2 of them. And,
the,
Muslims in the Indian subcontinent,
most, if not all, I wouldn't say all,
but a great majority of them, there is
still some latent caste consciousness
amongst them. Even though majority of them are
converts from
Hinduism,
to Islam, and thereby therefore, they should have
left their castes behind
with their Islam, but there is still a
caste consciousness
amongst them. And the really weird part is
even like the sadat, the Ahlulbayt of the
prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, the Ashraf, the
people of noble
lineage and descent,
from Quraysh and from the other tribes of
the Arabs,
they they they they still have a caste
consciousness
in the sense that,
they moved into the Indian subcontinent, which had
a caste culture.
And so,
they they, I guess, fit in by
by showing their their their upper castedness, for
lack of a
proper way of saying that. And it just
gets really strange. It gets really weird.
And suffice to say that, you know, a
lot of the manifestation of caste
is utterly just a remnant of of jahiliyah,
amongst the Muslims. And so what happened what
happened is that,
supposedly
in,
in in in in Hinduism, upper caste people
consider it to be, like,
bad bad luck, ill fortune, or, you know,
sort of a,
something that destroys a barakah in an upper
caste person's upper castedness,
that they should eat and drink from the
same, utensils that someone from a lower caste,
should eat or drink from. And so what
had supposedly
happened is that this woman,
drank from from some vessels and then filled
them with water and then gave that water
to drink to these other Muslim women.
And all of them are farm laborers. So
it's like it's not like any of these
people, even
if the Muslim women consider themselves to be
from a higher caste, I mean, all these
people are dirt broke and probably all illiterate
and,
not, you know, none of the above are
in any sort of, like, enfranchised position within
society,
because such people don't, you know, don't don't
do farm labor.
So the,
you know, they
they apparently, some row broke out between them
because the Muslim women were upset
that this Christian woman had drank from the
vessels that they then drank from.
And that upsetness obviously has no root in
our deen,
where you can share vessels to eat and
drink from from all sorts of different people.
But, unfortunately, I've witnessed this even in the
houses of the Asaraf, in the houses of
people who pray 5 times a day, in
Pakistan,
that,
the servants, they won't let them drink and
eat from the same vessels and utensils. Rather,
they'll have a separate set of utensils marked
marked for the servants.
And when asked, like, why do you do
that? That's like an old Hindu custom and
you're obviously Muslims.
Some of them even claiming to be sadahs
from the Ahlulbayt to the prophet sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam.
They'll say, oh no no no, well, you
know, those people may be sick or they
may this and that and the other thing,
so we don't wanna get sick. To which
I'll reply, you know, why don't you just
wash the dishes after after they're done, which
is what everyone else does? Because surely, it
couldn't be more dirty than the dishes that
have been sitting there the whole night.
But, it's just something people won't let go
of. So these women apparently had a row
with one another. They fought they, you know,
got into a fight with one another. And,
in in a core in the course of
that argument where,
undoubtedly,
this Christian woman's,
Nasr bin lineage was probably,
attacked and impugned,
she supposedly
said some curse about the prophet
back,
and, this caused the entire thing to get
out of hand. And, then a mob
apparently got a hold of her and, under
force of duress, forced her to admit,
that she cursed the prophet and
blasphemed him. And,
then she was whatever, the case was lodged
against her, and then she was found guilty
in 1 court and 2 courts. And then,
finally,
the the the verdict was overturned in in
in in
in in,
a higher federal court.
And now, a great number of people are
up in arms
in in in Pakistan,
who has a really horrible record of
their judiciary being influenced
by the military and by foreign governments.
The Raymond Davis case having happened a couple
of years ago, where
a private contractor or intelligence officer of the
United States of America literally, like, ran over
with impunity in a SUV, a large SUV,
several Pakistanis,
and he more or less got off scot
free and was allowed to leave the country,
despite his impunity because of
pressure from the outside. So there's already a
sensitivity to this issue. And when the the
the person of the prophet, sallallahu alaihi wa
sallam, is is is at question, then the
Muslims are even more sensitive with regards to
that. And,
there has been rioting in Pakistan,
and even possibly murders in Pakistan,
in the in the last, couple of days,
with regards to this case and with regards
to this idea of,
did the high court, let off
a blasphemer of the messenger of Allah sallallahu
alaihi wa sallam
or not?
And then the question arises that, is it
true that the blasphemy of the messenger of
Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam is a capital offense
in in the law of the Muslims, and
is it true that,
such a law also applies to the non
Muslim subjects of a Muslim country?
And, you know, what's the deal? How do
these 2 you know, all these pieces fit
together?
So I wanted to start with,
with a couple of mentioning a couple of
things. One is that it's true in the,
Maliki's school,
the person who curses the messenger of Allah
that one once that case reaches the judge,
the judge,
if he is to establish that this thing
happened with proper
evidence,
be it a
the testimony of upright witnesses or be it,
which is the admission of guilt from the,
the defendant,
or,
you know, be it through other material means
like a recording or something like that. Whatever
means is used to establish guilt in such
a case. It's true that not only is
that person,
has have they committed a capital,
offense,
But there's no Tawba in it. There's no
Istitaba, neither are they asked to repent,
nor if they repent will that repentance be
accepted by the court. It may be accepted
by Allah Ta'ala,
on the day of judgment, but it will
not be accepted by the court. And there's
a lengthy discussion of that and why that
is,
that you can find in the books,
the idea being that the Haqq of the
prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam is the Haqq
of the of the creation, and it cannot
be forgiven except for by its people. And,
in this case, the people who forgive
are the, inheritors of the messenger of Allah
salallahu alaihi wasalam, which is the entire ummah.
And so in that sense, to get forgiveness
from from all of them is not possible.
So both in a Usuli sense and,
also in
a a type of logic that appeals to
the iman of the believers, it's not it's
not to be forgiven,
and that person is executed.
In the,
Maliki school, it doesn't matter whether it is
that subject is a Muslim or a non
Muslim. And it's important for people to understand
because there's a lot of, like,
Fox Newsy and scaremongering
going on around.
This doesn't mean that somebody cannot say that
they don't believe that the prophet sallallahu alaihi
wasallam is a prophet,
or,
cannot refute his claims to prophethood
or
it's well known, you know, to us that
that there are many amongst the Jews and
the Christians who
and,
the messenger of Allah
is
is,
absolved of of any connection to their claims,
but many of them believe that he was,
not telling the truth,
in his claims.
And, that's that's understood. That's not what the
shatam is here. Right? Because when we say
blasphemy,
I guess people think about it in a
Christian or in a Catholic sense. Here
here blasphemy means sub or shut them. It
means going out of your way to curse
or speak ill,
or denigrate the prophet
which is different than saying I don't believe
in him or I don't believe he was
telling the truth or I don't think that
he is a messenger of Allah or etcetera
etcetera
from the from the the you know the
the beliefs of
non Muslims which are known it's known that
they believe them.
And may Allah,
pardon me for mentioning it, but, you know,
to,
relate the words of of another person is
in is in and of itself, not not
not Kufra.
At any rate, the idea is this is
that that that's not what the
is. Here,
is going out of your way just to
denigrate the prophet, salaw, and someone just being
nasty about it, just being foul about it
and and and and just doing it on
purpose to hurt people's feelings, that in our
in our,
in our sacred law, it is a crime,
and it is a really severe crime.
And in the Maliki school, even if a
non Muslim subject of this of of of
of a sovereign Muslim polity
were to do that, then they would also
be subject to the same penalty that a
Muslim would have had they had they,
done the sub or shut them of cursing
of
prophet and just like them, there would be
no
nor would there be any tawba accepted. They
would not be asked to recant
nor would that recanting be accepted except for
in the case of a, a non Muslim
who,
accepts Islam in front of the judge.
That person would be, would be,
absolved and let go of their,
let go of their sin. They're not asked
to become Muslim or demanded. It's not demanded
of them to become Muslim. But if they
should happen to accept Islam at that time,
The act of accepting Islam will will erase,
those things that come from before.
And for that reason, that is a way
that that that that the
the punishment that the Malekus consider a had.
They consider a an immutable and unforgivable,
divinely mandated punishment that that it will be,
that it will be absolved. But the Maleku
position on this issue
is far from the only position,
in in in the, you know, in the
in the different Sunni schools
of thought.
And it's known that the Hanafi position,
is that, that the has the prerogative
to or at least the classical Hanafi positions.
The Qadi have the prerogative to
punish,
such a non Muslim for their,
for their extremely poor judgment and cursing the
prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.
But the judge is not obliged
to, order the execution of,
of such a such a person.
And,
it's very interesting. A number of people,
including the brother Ismail Royer,
who,
have written papers or written,
you know, to the effect of, well, look
at Pakistan, they're,
executing non Muslims who,
cursed the prophet
or at least that's their their their civil
code. To my knowledge, they haven't to date
executed anybody,
who cursed the prophet
but at any rate,
you know, they say, oh, look, these people
don't even know the Hanafi school.
And, with all due respect,
all of the people, the Madrasah graduates and
others like brother Ismail,
that have said this.
I don't really see that they have
the amount or the requisite amount of study,
or,
review of the of of the of 5th
text to be able to make such a
claim,
in any sort of,
in any sort of scholarly way or with
any sort of thoroughness.
And the proof of that is is that
all of them will quote Ibn Abidine,
which who is a a Muhaqqiq and a
of the Hanafi school,
in the 18th century.
In his in his claim,
you know, at places I mean, it's actually
his text is ambiguous, but at places that,
that the
the is that that the,
that that that's
is not,
automatically necessarily executed for his for, blaspheming
of the prophet
The fact that Ibn Abideen isn't the only
word on the Hanafi madhab,
if we put it to to the side
for a second,
the Indian subcontinent
has its own fatwa collections. And it has
its own fatwa traditions,
a tradition, and it had its own its
own empire through which,
through which the Hanafi was turned into and
and it was
the law of the land. And,
you know, the
his,
paper that he wrote,
quoted absolutely no,
subcontinental
Hanafi source.
And,
it's known,
that, the
the, the Hanafis of the subcontinent,
their local tradition was what? Was,
on this issues, the same as the,
as the Maliki position. And this has been
a a precedent that's been held in our
lands for,
for centuries.
And, the the Hudud Ordinance,
with regards to
with regards to sub and shutam of the
prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam and the Hudud
ordinances in general.
They have a lot of administrative,
issues.
The way that they're
implemented, there's a lot of issues in them.
However, the actual text of the code was
written by the ulama themselves, and it's actually
relatively accurately written. It's relatively it has fidelity
to
to,
the established traditions of the Indian subcontinent
with regards to, with regards to these issues.
So kind of, like, English language,
poor researched, like, done
newspaper type claims that somehow the British are
the ones who originated
the punishment
for blasphemy in the Inuit subcontinent. This is
all nonsense. It's from people who don't read
classical Arabic and don't read books of fiqh,
that, you know, the Indian subcontinent
has had its own tradition of,
for centuries.
You'll look through even Bhais Ma'il's
bibliography for the paper that he wrote. There's
no subcontinental,
there's no subcontinental
source that's even cited over there.
So if you read Hashem Tatvi or,
or, you know, look through the Alumgiri,
Tatarkhani, Qazi Khan, the different
Fatwa collections which were
compiled
under imperial,
under imperial patronage
during the Mughal Empire. None of those books
have even been cracked open or cited. Rather,
Ibn Abidine, who is writing halfway across the
world,
in a different tradition and diff with with
different set of precedents,
he's the one who's being quoted in order
to somehow
make it look like,
the the code,
and the in the subcontinent
was written by illiterate,
yahoos or fanatics or or whatever. And this
idea of the the the fanatical mullah is
a complete trope.
And, you know, my experience is the only
people who hold it are people who are,
like, fanatical,
fanatical modernists. But, kher,
we digress.
So the idea is that this is a
part of the sharia,
and it is within the amate of difference
of opinion.
Both that the the the dhimmi, the non
Muslim subject of the sovereign
Muslim polity,
that that that such a person is is
killed without
without,
opportunity to
recant their statement or repent from it. And
it's also
an opinion within the Ambit of the Ahlul
Sunnur Jama'ah
that, that person is not necessarily killed, but
it is the purview of the Qadi that
that such a person should be killed. And,
look,
the idea is that,
you know, cursing the prophet,
it is
essentially undermining
the,
it's undermining the,
society
and the the civilization
of Islam, the spirituality of Islam, that a
human being, doesn't
listen to, you know, someone being cursed again
and again except for, it makes them lose
respect for that person.
And this this the fact that the US
Constitution or that modern secular democracies
at least bandy around as if, you know,
you know, sticks and stones will break my
bones and there's absolute freedom of speech, but
words will never hurt me, so we have
absolute freedom of speech. This is actually not
true. And it's interesting when the Charlie Hebdo,
issue happened, oh, in, 2015.
Some reporters went to the pope and asked
him, you know, like, wasn't it horrible what
these, you know, like, Yahoo Muslims did and,
you know, shooting up the, Charlie Hebdo and
things like that, thinking that, you know, the
Pope is the Pope. He's,
at the end of the day, he's the
highest authority
of Western Christianity,
and, so he's going to, you know, get
in a cheap shot on on Muslims. And
the pope gave a really interesting response. It's
the same Mario
Bergoglio,
pope Francis.
He basically pointed at his papal legate who
was standing right next to him. And he
says, look. Even if this guy, said, something
about my mother, I would punch him. Meaning
what?
There's something human about, you know, someone you
love and someone you revere,
not accepting,
you know, garbage being spoken about
about about that person. And I think, you
know, Muslims who are
true to themselves as a human being and
true to themselves in their iman,
they understand that. And that's one of the
reasons that was there such an incredible
emotional and cathartic release happened when this Habib
Nur Muhammadov
had this fight with MacGregor because we we
know we're sick and tired of people just
mocking our deen. And the the the issue
is not this that we establish the the
supremacy or the truth of the deen through
killing people who disagree with us.
Rather, it's quite the opposite. Muslims have,
from before the idea existed in Western Europe,
not only allowed but legally enshrined the right
for non Muslim subjects of the state to,
to to to say what their point of
view is with regards to religion and what
they believe and why they believe it, even
if that belief includes them not accepting the
prophet
as a prophet or not accepting him as
truthful or whatever.
But there's a line that's, crossed that's drawn
that shouldn't be crossed, which is mocking him
and and and jeering him and denigrating him,
as if as if he has no respect
whatsoever.
And, that's, you know, that's that's something that,
you know, I guess Muslims and,
you know, people who believe, like, in the
religious,
sense with religious fervor, believe in secular
liberal democracy are just gonna have to agree
to disagree about,
because the locus of their disagreement is actually
quite similar
when when when, an allegacy looked at,
you know, with respect to what the actual
speech is that they will tolerate and what
actual speech is that they will not tolerate.
And that's why, you know, we have, this
idea that you can send an army to
go in and destroy,
sovereign nations and kill innocent people as, as
collateral damage in drone villages, etcetera, etcetera, because
we're quote, unquote
bringing democracy.
The idea is that that there are certain
matters of speech
that are,
that are, you know, that are things that
people will kill for, and there are just
different reasons for different people doing them.
So
that's that. And,
all I can say is if somebody doesn't
feel the pain and suffering in their heart,
whenever they hear of someone denigrating the prophet,
that person is but from a great portion
of iman. Because to stay sticks and stones
will, break my bones, but words will never
hurt me. The pope the pope even doesn't
accept that. So how can someone who believes
in Allah, his and
believes in the last day, how can they
accept that? So, I wanted to I wanted
to read uh-uh a,
excerpt from a Maliki Fatwa in the,
Al Ma'arib
from the, Qadi Abul Hasan Muqabisi,
who was asked a series of was asked
a series of questions.
Sorry. Nan Takadi, he was sheikh Abu Hasan
al Qabi, see one of the fuqaha of
the of of of the western Arab lands.
His, Fatawah appear in the mayor al Mu'rab,
a canonical collection of Fatawah and, court verdicts.
In response to
a judge,
to whom
a man who cursed the prophet
has brought, and the testimony is
rendered against him in a way that that
proves, that he he did curse the prophet
and then that judge instead of,
instead of giving the,
giving the verdict that he was supposed to,
he said, just take him to the Amir
and have the Amir deal with him. You
know, have the Amir decide his case, meaning,
essentially, absconding on his case. And so he
talks about, you know, he talks about, you
know, what the details, you know, in which
situations is that appropriate, in which situations is
it not appropriate, what should happen,
when the case actually gets to the emir,
etcetera. So in his kalam, in his in
his words in this verdict,
he he writes,
so he mentions that that the when, you
know and it's interesting because
the from the from the the the text
of this hookah,
this judge himself realizes how precarious the situation
is that
a man should be killed just for his
words.
And,
he he, in some ways, seems to sympathize
with this that it's difficult for him to,
execute such a, such a verdict.
And,
he says that but let that let that
judge and let those people who carry this
case,
seek help,
in in in implementing their verdict,
through every person who,
wishes to have the shafa, the intercession of
this,
unlettered prophet, the seal of the prophets, Muhammad,
the messenger of the Lord of the worlds
to all,
of mankind
who has a mercy to the world. Because
he says that the Ummah, there's no life
left in the Ummah, and there's no good
left in it,
to exist,
in a world in which,
it's Nabi is cursed and there's nobody who
even gets upset about that. And he he
seeks refuge in Allah Ta'ala from
ever, ever being alive and having to witness
such an age that, is struck with such
a tribulation.
And I read this the first time I
almost wept because I said, look at these
pious people,
They made this Dua and it was answered.
And we made this Dua and Allah has
chosen
for us to have to see and witness
this age. So I say I bear witness
to you that anybody who doesn't get upset
and angry about the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa
sallam being cursed, They may be a very
good citizen and they may, you know, get
get a lot of,
Shabashes and be lauded on the Huffington Post
or God knows what. But,
but there's no there's no iman in in
in such a person. There's no in such
a person. There's no good in such a
person. And he actually gives,
you know, near the end of the same
fatwa,
he gives he gives,
words of tashjiah, of encouragement.
He
and and he says that, once the the
case is is proven,
then it gets to those people who are,
who are
responsible for,
for for
for carrying out,
for carrying out the due,
process after such a case is established.
Then he
quotes the book of Allah Ta'ala.
Remember that Allah Ta'ala is able to do
all things.
That, nothing will overwhelm Allah Ta'ala neither in
the heavens nor in the earth, and he
has all knowledge and he has all ability.
And he said,
and Allah most high,
majestic is his mention.
Said,
So if Allah wished,
he would have, delivered his aid and his
victory,
against the enemy against their enemies. But Allah
wishes to test some of you with others.
And it says that, no, that there there
were those who were tested,
in the past who were put through tribulation,
with a tribulation like this,
and they were they were unable to they
were unable to
find help in order to,
in order to implement
what was said
and we we seek our help from Allah
So he ends the the the the
the the the the job there. So the
idea is this is an anyone who says
that, you know, this is not part of
our this is not part of our tradition.
Such and such a person is,
either speaking from ignorance or lying through their
teeth. It is part of our tradition,
and,
it you know, we we we believe in
it. Now what does that mean for you
and me?
Does that mean that every anytime someone,
says something, you know,
disrespectful about the prophet, sallallahu, sallam, if we
have imam, we're just gonna go kill him
or her. Absolutely not. In fact, the the
siyak of the the the fatwa is such
that the only person who can who has
a prerogative to implement
such a, implement such a punishment
is the person who's invested with sovereign authority
on behalf of
on behalf of sovereign power.
And, that's why
that's why, Abu Hassan al Qabisi was
saying what he said about such a judge,
that that person was vested with sovereign authority,
and he weaseled out of wielding it properly.
And such a person at such a time
should not be weak, rather they should seek
help from,
from those who believe in Allah and his
Rasool, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, and seek assistance
through Allah
and trust in him in in carrying out
the execution.
As opposed to somebody who's not in sovereign
authority. We in the in the in living
as minorities in lands that are not ruled
by the Sharia, we're not in sovereign authority.
And, those who live in the Muslim lands
but aren't judges or, you know,
officially,
deputed by the, government in order to enforce
the law. You're not the sovereign authority. So
you can't just go and kill people
or destroy property or make a mess out
of things, which is exactly what, unfortunately
unfortunately, a number of people
in, Pakistan have been doing, which is rioting,
looting,
rampaging,
causing harm to others. In some cases, possibly
even killing people and assassinating people, possibly even
making against
people, saying anathematizing
and saying that people aren't Muslims. Why?
Because they don't hold the opinion that the
non Muslim dhimmi who curses the prophet sallallahu
alaihi wasallam
is,
subject to
a mandatory death sentence without
the possibility
of of recanting and forgiveness.
And,
look, I don't even I don't even subscribe
to the school that says that nor do
the the does the majoritarian opinion nor does
the president of the sub sub continent subscribe
to that school. But it is a valid
school from amongst the people of the Sunnah.
And, to say that somebody who holds a
different opinion,
from the valid opinions of the sunnah is
a kafir for holding such an opinion is
obviously a very dimwitted take, and it is,
it is not, the way of
the, and it is, not sound methodology neither
in
nor in,
nor
in nor in fiqh.
And that's exactly what's happening over there,
in Pakistan is that there are groups of
people who claim to be lovers and are
shocked of the Rasool
and,
they're just going on
a they're going on a vigilante rampage, destroying
property,
possibly killing people, calling for the blood of
people, making Takfir of different people. Why?
Because they,
they, I guess, ostensibly just don't agree with
their opinion,
in regards to this matter. I guess,
a great number of the the the great
folkaha of the Hanafi Madhab didn't agree with
you. And, you know, I don't I I
like I said, I don't even agree with
their their their opinion. However,
to say that they don't have the right
to have it or that whoever holds that
opinion is
somehow in manifest error.
This is this is,
this is itself a a manifest error.
And, you know, there's there's a lot of
problem
going on. First of all, this case of
of of this woman
is, you know, was the the testimony against
her,
was it correct or not, or was it
taken from the coercion of a mob?
You know, did she really, you know, what
were the exact words that she,
that she used against the prophet
even if it's if it's you know
if it's if it's
established that she said something against and that
was it Shatham or was it just her
expressing her,
Christian beliefs,
and, you know, what's the line between the
two of them? And what's the intention of
the law? And this is something really important
for people to understand. Look. Pakistan is not
Pakistan I mean, it's a nation state that
definitely weaves a mythology of being established on,
on on Islam and for Islam, etcetera, etcetera.
But, like, you know, the reality is is
it's somewhat of a chimeric freak,
in the sense that,
many of the laws that are on the
books and the mechanisms for enforcing those laws,
are not native to the Sharia. Rather, they're
native to European not even European, to to
British common law.
And so
in Islamic law, the
Mujtahid. The Qadi is a Mujtahid. He's neither,
neither,
forced to or required to,
make taqlid, following a particular madhab nor is
he allowed to. Rather, every verdict that he
gives, he has to be a and he
has to look at the circumstances
and at the sources of Deen
and put them together in order to craft
a unique verdict
or ruling in every case,
which is,
not from Taqleel, not from following someone else's
scholarship,
but,
you know, based on his own
learning as a as a as a master
of the Sharia,
and as a pure expression of what the
ruling of Allah and his rasul sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam in a particular case is. Which
means what? Which means that the Qadi actually
has purview to look at circumstances
and give different,
different rulings in different cases.
And so you have to ask yourself as
a,
you know, is the reason that that that,
you know, that the the the ruling of
is handed down of death. His descendants of
death is handed down in
the cursing of the the the prophet
is the reason of it to
settle the squabbles of,
illiterate,
farm women in in in their weird cast,
in their little cast squabbles with one another
over who drink from what glass of water?
Or is it in order to protect and
establish the honor of the prophet that,
he shouldn't be ridiculed to the point where
people,
lose respect for the mention of his name,
amongst the the the Muslims and amongst their
sovereign,
their their sovereign, governments and their civilizations.
And and that question, Akadi not only is
allowed to, Akadi is obliged to ask that
question.
And he can give a ruling according to
his in that situation that's not bound to
any madhab. Rather, he can give any of
their either of those two rulings, whichever would
be more appropriate. And I would suggest without
myself being a Mujtahhid or being, worthy of
being the qadi, the judge, that perhaps it's
possible in such a case where this, woman
who's probably illiterate,
and and and she got into a fight
with these other illiterate women over something which
is a vest vestige from the days of
Jahiliya
and otherwise has no record of anti,
Islam or anti Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam
animus,
that as a Qadi, if there was actually
a Sharia court,
there, the Qadi would have taken care of
this case before it became
famous and well known and in the 4,
corners of the Earth. I know the Earth
doesn't have corners. It's just an expression. But
they would have taken care of this case
and ended it before then without anyone having
to be killed or whatever. It would have
just been settled with some sort of hikmah.
But
what do we have? We don't have a
a a Sharia court with a Qadi.
We have a western court that doesn't function
on Ijtihad.
Rather, the judge is a glorified magistrate,
and the judge is not somebody who looks
at the law holistically
in in a in in a in in
a British court. Rather,
the the the law is dictated to the
judge,
and the judge is obliged to dispassionately
put on the blindfold
and,
way, has this law been broken? Yes or
no? And then
very mechanistically
throw out,
throw out a response. And, you know, the
problem with with dispassionately
doing things is good because you're, you know,
you're not, you know, you preclude or reduce
the amount of possibility for,
for being inconsistent in the application of the
law or being unfair. But the problem is
this, when you have blindfold on, you can't
see what's going on around you.
And so, you know, you will meet out
the letter of the law with a great
amount of efficiency, but the spirit of the
law is essentially a a, you know, collateral
damage in that whole process.
And so you have this, you know, these
judges
that are Western trained, Western system, Western,
when I say Western, I mean literally like
British judges
enforcing,
laws that are, you know, interpreted through the
lens of the British common law.
Essentially now
forcing this legitimate law, the Sharia, in a
case that it may not even be appropriate
for, and it may actually be a.
And the fact that the law is written
so well,
from one point of view, doesn't allow the
judge to consider that there are different points
of view
with regards to this law that that, that
that the subcontinental
tradition and the Maliki tradition,
is not the only tradition.
So either
you have 2 you know, you have a
false binary. Now you have a whole country
that's, like, upset and a whole Muslim world
and whole world in general that's upset with
this false binary. You have 2 choices. Either
you throw away the blasphemy law and let
every idiot crow on the corner, whatever their
stupid ideas are with regards to Allah and
his Rasool, Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, thereby undermining the,
entire,
fabric of the state. And, you know, the
thing is that the the Muslims have a
mandate to rule according to what they see
as best, and Muslims see Islam as best.
So he said, no. No. No. You cannot
rule according to Islam because of this one
issue that,
that's been muddied up because of poor administrative
execution.
Or on the flip side, you have this,
gang of, like, Labekh Arasulat
dudes that are, like,
just going around,
essentially making Takfir of everybody and killing everybody.
And all of them, the fact that they're
Sufis and they carry, Tasbes in their hands,
are not stopping them from essentially acting like
ISIS. I mean, Takfir of the prime minister,
I mean Takfir of Olamada don't agree with
them, or Meng Takfir of Olamada may even
actually agree with them,
but are politically allied with the prime minister.
So it's kinda like tech fear by association
or by contagion,
but they're going about, making tech fear of
other people all on a case in which
it's not even established properly whether or not
shut them of the prophet
was made. And even if it was, it
it should be clear to people that the
context of it is not,
the deliberate undermining of,
of the civilization of the Muslims, but something
that happened in a, essentially,
spat of Jahiliya,
a spat of, like,
the bad practice of cultural Hinduism by by,
2 groups, 1 Christian and 1 Muslim, which
makes the entire thing so nonsensical and have
so many layers of nonsense.
And my wish would be that that that
the the Ulema and the subcontinent
would
speak with clarity about this issue, but I
feel like there's a sensitivity. They know that
this case is not a 100% right, but
they don't want to admit that that
there's there is leeway for the judge to
forgive such cases because they're afraid that,
Allah knows best, but it it seems to
me that they're afraid that perhaps if they
let that cat out of the bag, then,
the the type of political,
the type of political
or
deterrent,
for people saying something ill about the prophet,
sallallahu alaihi wasallam. Perhaps they're afraid that that's
gonna that's gonna leave. The problem is now,
Islam is being bandied around as,
as,
as barbaric.
And I really don't care, honestly, like, what
a non Muslim thinks about Islam.
I mean, I care about my non Muslim
friends and neighbors,
that their rights should be observed and that
we should treat our neighbors well, and we
should be good to them, and we should
render their rights to them, and we should
be above their rights, be good as good
to them as as as we can. That
part I care about. I don't care about
whether or not they, you know, what their
what their feelings about Islam are.
You know, if they accepted it, they would
have been Muslims anyway. So, you know, just
like,
just like, I wouldn't want them to, like,
hate me because I believe something. I just
what their thoughts
and, you know, what are their thoughts or
their ideas about Islam are. They just really
they don't they don't bother me all that
much. What bothers me is what? Is that
that because the media, which is an arm
of a soft arm of power,
of this kind of postmodern
liberal,
hegemony that that certain countries
have imposed upon the world.
They're using it as a way to convince
Muslims that somehow there's something wrong with Islam,
and many Muslims are really genuinely
in, in doubt,
with regards to that insinuation because the abject
murkiness of this this case
and the sheer, like, number of, like, layers
of of just nonsensicalness
in this case. And somehow, the blame of
all of it is being heaped on Islam,
even though,
colonialism,
the leg legacy of colonialism,
and the legacy of,
of essentially,
a post colonial puppet state
that bandies around as, you know, God's, representative
of his religion on the earth where it's,
you know, it is a Muslim country, and
there's a lot of good in it even
for Islam, but it's definitely not,
you know, whatever the ideal, state that it
claims to be that people say Pakistan.
That was the meaning of Pakistan.
Well, you know, we have to have a
little bit of of
of of humility when we say stuff like
that. I know Pakistanis don't like to hear
that, because they're patriotic fervor. I myself am
a Pakistani origin. The thing is this, if
Pakistan means,
as I once asked my father,
who was not happy that I said this,
I said, if Pakistan means,
what does it mean that you left it
and that you immigrated away from the United
States? What does that mean?
The fact of the matter is Pakistan, like
all other fallible entities in this world, makes
make mistakes. And so it shouldn't
look at itself as being this infallible,
manifestation of god's will on the earth,
and nor should others judge Islam based on
it because there's nobody who's the infallible
manifestation of god's will on the earth after
the messenger of Allah
Salam.
And so,
and no community has the right to that
mantle except for the totality of the Ummah.
That in the totality of the Ummah, at
any given time, at least somebody is going
to be on guidance.
So that doesn't even mean that the totality
of the Ummah has that mantle, but in
the totality of the Ummah, some part of
it has the mantle for for for some
part of,
for some part of the deen at all
times that between them you can reconstruct
at any given time a complete Islam.
But, you know,
a lot of these these these issues that
boil down to stuff that has nothing to
do with Islam. Now all of the the
burden and the the guilt for all of
that wrongness is being heaped on the deen,
and it's causing people to doubt their own
deen and want to change it into something
that it isn't. And I'll tell you,
the idea that that, society is there where
where,
the one that Allah sent
as a mercy to the world and as
the only source of
deliverance and salvation on the day of judgment,
through his teachings and through his Shafa'a, through
his intercession,
for us to say open season, anyone can
say whatever they want to about him despite
the fact that it's, you know, you're gonna
go to jail, and you're gonna be punished
for screaming fire in a theater, and you're
gonna be taken to jail for saying that
I'm gonna beat you up to a person,
or you're gonna be taken to jail, in
some cases, for denying the holocaust and all
these things. And no one should do any
of those things. But I'm saying if those
types of speech are protected, but somehow the
foundation of our life in this world and
the hereafter as Muslims is not going to
be protected in a Muslim majority country. That's
that's just ridiculous and unreasonable.
And so may Allah
give all of us tawfiq to,
you know, to to be able to think
through these issues clearly and to see them
clearly with a level head. Love of the
prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam doesn't equal acting irrationally.
Love doesn't equal acting irrationally until until or
unless you are already mentally incapacitated in the
first place. In which case,
we will institutionalize
you, and we will love you and take
care of you and give you the help
that you so richly need.
But we're not going to look at you
as a model for what we, consider to
be Dean.
And,
on the flip side,
because such people exist, we're not gonna say,
oh, look. You know, anyone can say anything
that they want to,
at any time because truly nobody believes in
that. Not even
a secular liberal democracy believe believe in a
type of absolute freedom of speech.
And, and we're not going to blame these
issues that are human issues
that have to
do with colonization and nationalism and all these
other, you know, cast, you know, cast,
rivalries and cast
mutual hatreds and all these other things. We're
not going to we're not gonna put that
on on on on Islam. They're not part
of Islam, and they're not Islam's fault. And
if we practice our Islam well, hopefully, we
can try to work through those things and
get beyond them. But they're not they're not
what the deen is. Allah give all of
us so much and
may
Allah protect us by not putting our fitna
in our deen. And may Allah protect,
the Muslim lands,
from such types of strife,
that that people should get to, you know,
fervor, pitch fervor,
where they cannot find solutions to their problems
and they resort to violence and things like
that. Allah protect us from those things and
give stability and peace and calm,
to the Muslim lands and give people
a a a type of respect and honor
to the sanctity of human life and safety
that has hitherto been,
unfortunately
and depressingly elusive,
for the last, several centuries.
Give all of that
to the people in the Muslim lands. And
Allah protect us wherever we are. We're in
America. Allah protect this land also and give
it safety and peace in amen.
Because in that amen, in that safety, and
in that peace, people, can see the beauty
of Islam, and it can spread to people
as well. And if, you know, if it
spreads to them, great. And if it doesn't
still, you know, we pray for peace and
safety wherever we are for ourselves and for
our neighbors.
Protect inside of our hearts. Whether we live
in the Muslim lands or not, the,
realities all of us are going to die
one day, and all of these feuds and
disputes and fights and
PR, Vectiv, media,
etcetera. All these things are gonna end, and
we're going to all have to give answer
in front of our lord to what we
did with our lives. And the only thing
that's gonna, that's going to buy us salvation
on that day is Iman, is faith. So
Allah to have fought safe the reality of
that faith inside of our heart that we
never leave it or abandon it or compromise
it for anybody to make anybody happy. That
we prioritize the happiness of the lord and
the creator over the happiness of the creation.
Allah protect us iman in all of our
hearts whether we live here or there or
wherever,
we live in. Allah give it to our
friends and neighbors who live around us as
a,
as a gift for their and their goodness
toward us,
in this life. And may Allah give all
of us the tawfeeq of saying
My humble request that I made from before
I make it again that when you see
the the Ummah going through these difficulties
that we all look,
face the
and make and make toward Allah, our concentration
focus toward Allah,
and we turn to him in repentance,
and we
cry out the prophetic cry of
There's no god except for you.
Glory be to you, exalted. Are you over
all other things in your perfection?
Indeed, I was one of the transgressors,
which is the cry of, Sedna Yunus
Jonah,
alayhis salaam, from the belly of the the
whale,
through which he attracted the
the the the divine aid,
to get him out of tribulation and difficulty.
That we we do that also
for ourselves and for this that
we call upon him so that
the and the concentrations of his mercy and
his deliverance
and his salvation in this world and the
hereafter,
should should should touch and honor,
every,
forehead of of every every believer in this
world.
And in the hereafter as well that that
when these overwhelming types of situations happen and
Pakistan is by far not the only place
that's going through difficulty.
Our brothers and sisters in in in in
in in Turkestan,
what the Chinese call Xinjiang that we were
speaking, brothers and sisters are going through difficulty.
Our brothers and sisters in Burma
and and Bangladesh and in India, where, you
know,
you know, one, Christian woman is,
even if it's dubiously, but she's accused of
blasphemy, and her life is in danger, and
the entire world erupts into chaos. Our brothers
and sisters in India are getting, killed,
with impunity for the suspicion of eating beef,
and, it seems that nobody cares.
Burma, they're killed for being Muslims. It seems
that nobody cares,
what's happening in Syria, and Iraq, and Yemen.
Those are even more shameful because those killings
are happening at the hands of different Muslim
powers that are using
the the the poor
and the sincere and the humble people who
say
is their playground for their political
machinations against one another,
Syria
and Iraq and Yemen,
Egypt,
the Central African Republic, all of these places.
Allatah, wherever we know and we don't know,
wherever we named, we didn't named. And we
turn to allatahal in repentance and ask for
his divine aid,
that that that it should reach us like
the aid of Allah. Reached in
the in the belly of the will, and
it should redeem us in this world. And
it should redeem us in the here in
the hereafter,
on the day of judgment, a day where
entire nations will be thrown into the garbage
heap of the fire for their disbelief and
for their profligacy and for their sin and
for their transgression that Allah to Allah should
have mercy on us and save us on
that day.