Hamzah Wald Maqbul – Mlik Fiqh Food of the Ahl al Kitab 07142022
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of presenting unified and integrated messages to people, rather than just quote unquote statements, and the use of definition of a goth in Christian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian-arian
AI: Summary ©
So
old we got through. But for the sake
of completion, inshallah, we'll finish this bab. The
intention being that, inshallah,
when we're done with this,
I don't know before leaving the turkey or
after inshallah, we will start a reading of
akhvari inshallah.
So that that can be recorded in a
recorded in a for anybody who wants to
get the basics of their and salat in
the,
without,
without having to guess. As I was discussing
with one of the brothers over here,
one of the
irritating noises
that scratches the chalkboard of my soul
is this idea that the Maliki Madhub is
praying with your hands down or that you
can keep a dog or whatever, like, stupid,
like,
things people have,
ideas that they have. And so they,
it it's like a person who, you know,
you show them a,
a, you know, a $100,000
car, Ferrari or Lamborghini or whatever, Tesla or
whatever.
And, the only thing they remember about it
is, oh, that car was red.
And it's like, yes. You can get, like,
a you can get a, a red bike
for that matter. That that's not really what
makes it what it is. It's not an
appreciation of the design of the form, of
the seamlessness of the perfection that goes into
it.
And so,
hopefully with the
recording,
of,
I'll have something that I can point to
people,
that, they can
listen to on their own
and have a solid foundation and a solid
basis with which to work. And then afterward,
we
can do, almurshid almoorinibnuashir.
And, it will be something functional for people
so that the Durus,
can transition from
a more general interesting discussion about to,
a a grounding and practice of the itself.
My
intention always with
teaching was never that I'm, you know, a
quote, unquote, Sheikh of the school because I'm
definitely not.
People who have read
from me,
have gone on to achieve
a far better understanding of the mad hub
than I do,
in a relatively short amount of time.
But
my purpose
has been always to present some sort of
unified and integrated
conception of Islam
through these
and these,
not necessarily for a specialist, but more for
a practitioner
to see how the,
the, the, all of them, how they
connect with one another and become an organic
part of life.
If a person can do that,
then they become a Muslim, and then they're
eligible
to have their heart and their mind opened
by the lord in order to understand the
deen.
Not in the way university professor understands it,
but in the way people like Hazali,
like
like,
like, those people whose intellects were truly enlightened.
Many names will never know or if I
throw them out, people won't know who they
are. But if you read their books, you
get the feeling that these people are not
normal.
That once you practice your Islam,
your mind is now eligible for being shown
what real ilm is,
which I don't,
purport or claim to be,
teaching anybody.
But I do know those who do teach
it to people, and you cannot get it
without mastering these types of things. Like, if
you think it's not worth your time knowing
what, you know, what's halal to eat and
what's not, or how to make wudu properly
or not, or whatever. These are trite messiahs
that belong in the that you, you know,
you wanna talk about interesting and quote, unquote
relevant things to the.
I'm sorry.
This is not really gonna go anywhere. It's
never how it ever went anywhere. It's not
gonna go anywhere in the future.
But, inshallah that, you know, my hope is
that we can present those things so that
we can actually maybe talk about something in
Elmi,
one day.
So,
you know, that's that that's that's the hope
and that's
the plan. And if even one person can
read the akhbari from me me properly,
if somebody can read
and the from me in that way,
in a way that not only is the,
understood by them, but it's something that a
person sees no other
option except for to practice because to not
practice it would be just to shoot yourself
in your foot with regards
and your
and
your mind and your heart and your spirit.
It would be it would make as much
sense as, you know, sticking your hand in
a hole and getting bit by a snake
or, you know, taking your money and, you
know, just throwing it out the car window
or whatever. If someone can get to that
point, I have no doubt that that person,
if they want wish to seek knowledge,
Allah
would give them something
that would,
that would impress others and maybe even be
a fitna for the person themselves that they
didn't know that this type of knowledge was,
knowable by people in this time, in this
age. Even though it's always the same Allah
to Allah, he doesn't change with time and
he doesn't change with space and place and
all of these things.
So
we continue,
the the Baba
Abi Zaid
He says,
I don't know why this is difficult for
me to pronounce right now.
So
means
it's suboptimal, but it's permissible to eat the,
the meat of the people of the book,
the slaughter of the people of the book.
And
although he said it's it's, to eat the
thatch from the animal slaughtered by the Jews.
And,
so we'll dissect that.
That we'll dissect that,
right now. And the first thing is what?
Is that anyone who tells you that the
slaughter of the people, the book is haram,
you know,
that's between them and
Allah That that Allah said that it's
And so if they wanna argue with Allah
Ta'ala about that, that's up to them.
This is a fiqhi hukum. This is not
a hukum of aqidah. This is not an
endorsement of their
brand of disbelief as being better than another
brand of disbelief in terms of the aqaid.
All of them are, are disbelief.
And,
but this is a legal difference. There's a
legal difference between their
slaughter and the slaughter of other than them
other than them.
And so whoever wants to say that that's
that's, like, somehow, like, not a part of
the din, that person doesn't know what they're
talking about. And I've seen various
permutations of this sentiment.
So,
you know, I one of the more ridiculous
and inexplicable
permutations of this
sentiment
is, oh, well, you know,
the the the Christians nowadays are mushrikeen, whereas
they weren't mushrikeen back in the day. And,
that that's
an excellent explanation except for once you read
the Quran, you realize it doesn't fall apart.
It falls apart. But other than that, you
know, other than, like, reading the Quran and
basic facts about history or whatever,
you know, in some people's mind, it seems
like a good explanation, but it's not.
In fact, they were always mushakin,
since the time the prophet
the baifa amongst
the Christians that worshipped Allah alone and without
any partner were essentially genocided out centuries before
the prophet
and any,
vestiges or pockets of them that existed. Once
the Muslims took over a place,
they seem to have,
basically come to Islam
and,
and that's it. And that's it. You know,
there's no appreciable numbers of them that that
are left. So you know what a goth
is. Right?
You don't know what a goth you know
what a goth is. Right? Like, in high
school goths, you know, I mean Okay. Yeah.
You know, like, they
dress up in black and this and that.
So being a goth is like some sort
of weird,
you know, type of thing. Maybe some of
you guys are goths as well yourselves,
when you're in high school or whatever, you
know, because it's a
nice way of having somewhere to fit in
when you don't fit in or whatever. It's
just Seattle. I think it feels like very
amenable to it. I definitely was definitely was
not a goth,
at all.
But, you know, that's what it is to
people nowadays.
What does being a goth have to do
with the?
And,
what it has to do with it is
what?
As we speak English, we speak a Germanic
language. It's called English.
Okay?
From the branches of the Germanic languages.
Right? Like, what they speak in, like, Scandinavia.
That's another branch, the Nordic branch.
Speak in Iceland, what they speak in Norway,
Sweden, Denmark.
That's a branch of Germanic languages.
What we speak is another branch of Germanic
languages connected Germany, connected to, like, Friesian,
connected
to Flemish,
connected to Dutch.
Right?
There's another branch of Germanic languages called Gothic.
There's
a large amount of writing in Gothic
comparatively
from the Middle Ages.
However, nowadays,
Gothic languages are all completely almost extinct.
There used to be large numbers of goths
that were in Italy.
There were a large number of Goths that
were in the Iberian Peninsula.
The Goths essentially ruled, they displaced the
the you know they displaced the local people,
Romanized local people, and they ruled over Spain.
Now why is it that
after having such prominence,
their culture completely disappears, their language completely disappears?
Goths were all they all followed the Aryan
creed, or many of them followed the Aryan
creed. Not like Aryan as in, like, a
r y a n, like
like like an ethnic
designation.
But Arian as in Arius, who was, I
think, like, the Bishop of Alexandria or something
like that at some point or another,
who
was contemporaneous
with
many of the old church fathers,
and he maintained stridently that Christ
was
not the same as God.
And that there's one God in Christ,
maybe has some sort of status higher than
that of a human being but that he
wasn't God.
And that he wasn't co eternal with God
etcetera etcetera. And
there used to be a lot of Christians
like that at some point or another, the
trinitarians.
Right? You have, like, this the creed of
the, you know, the creed of, the council,
the Nicene Creed, and then after that, the
Chalcedonian Creed, which excludes the monophysite Christianity of,
like, the,
the
the Egyptians, the Coptic church, and the Eastern
historian churches, and things like that. Right?
They basically got rid of the Aries through
what? Through genocide.
Their
church is completely gone. So we can
go on YouTube right now
and get lectured by Jordan Peterson
about why I should find a shia pen
pal.
Right?
Shias and Sunnis, we should find a penpal
and write to each other and get to
know each other and understand each other. Right?
Whereas any discussions of anything schismatic
in the Christian church
to the point that they're able to, they
basically killed they killed off the competition.
The only schisms that
still survive are where no one party could
get the upper hand over the other and
kill everybody.
However,
the cops considered the Eastern Orthodox church all
to be Kafirs and going to Jahannam, and
the Catholics to be Kafirs and going to
Jahannam, and the protestants to be Kafirs and
going to Jahannam,
and the, Orthodox
and Catholics
pronounce mutual anathema on one another in the
same way.
And, you
know, it's basically it never ends. Like, they
basically
the only way that they can have any
sort of ecumenical unity is by saying, you
know what? Let's just not talk about for
a while.
Now
coming back to the issue of
why the Unitarian creed doesn't exist anymore,
Andalus was a bastion of it. And in
the Reconquista itself, there is
a couple of antagonisms that run-in parallel. One
antagonism is definitely that of the Christians against
the Muslims.
But it's not just that. Okay?
The
the Reconquista, they were like the French. They
were a different they're the Germanic speaking the
German branch of the Germanic people, rather than
the Gothic branch. The Gothic branch cast in
lot with the Muslims.
Why? Because they had a different religion from
before.
And so
they
part of their thing is they wanted kick
the Muslims out. Part of their thing is
they wanted to annihilate the the gothic,
creed, which was also a agenda of the
Catholic church in Italy as well.
Because there are a number of goths in
Italy as well, and they basically
massacred them and got rid of them, destroyed
them. Right? This this
idea is
an idea that is very important to understand
if you wanna understand why Europe is the
way it is. Why is Bosnia an island
of Islam within, like,
basically, like, surrounded on all sides by Christians.
It's because the Bosnian church didn't ever follow
either the Catholic or the
protestant creed. It was a separate church that
had a different
ideology about the nature of Christ, and they
essentially made to survive.
And when the Muslims came, they're like, yo,
this is closer to anything that makes sense
and that that that
that, has that, you know, has to do
with our sensibility about,
Christ anyway.
So they just become Muslims because it integrates
with what they believe.
And,
you know, this is why Islam is such
a big,
you know, is such a big enemy on
in the crosshairs of the church for so
long, is not because it's different or that
it teaches anything different, but it's because such
an effective
competitor to the same claim. Now how is
this relevant to what we're talking about?
First of all,
Trinitarian creed was riding high at the time
of the prophet
Unitarian creed was like already shoved to the
peripheries. Most of these people have been killed
by genocide already at this point. The few
of them that are left will end up
coming into the fold of Islam. That's one
thing to understand.
The second thing to understand how this is
relevant is this, is that, Qadhi Abu Bakr
ibn al Arabi,
you know, by convention with Alif Lam. Right?
He's the civilian Qadi. Ishbeli Qadi that,
he wrote the Tafsir Akkam of Quran,
which was, you know, the genre upon which
Khortubi then writes later on.
Qadhi Abu Bakr, his mazar is
outside the gates of Fas,
but he is he is he is,
he is from Seville.
And he goes and studies in shirk,
in the east.
And he studied with Imam Ghazali and
he is an and he is,
you know, a great as well. He comes
with his own of hadith and things like
that,
and a very interesting writer.
Many of his opinions may may not have
been super popular at the time,
but he did write about a lot of
things and even the things that a person
disagrees with. It's interesting to see what his
point of view is about about,
about everything. And he is a great, you
know, he's a great,
figure
in that period of Malek I Fech.
His opinion with regards to
with regards to the
permissibility
of eating the meat of the people of
the book
is opposed to what's mentioned in Khalil.
What's mentioned in Khalil is that if they
slaughter according to the conditions of valid slaughter
in our Sharia, then we can eat from
it.
Opposed to his, opposed to the opinion mentioned
in Khalilah's, the opinion of Kadi Abu Bakr
is which is if they slaughter according to
their rules of slaughter,
then it's permissible to eat for us.
So
if, for example, the benchmark of that is
would a qesis or rabban eat from it?
You know? So if you go to, like,
you know, some god fearing
monk or priest
who's, like, sincere, not just like some Cesare
Borgia who's, like, whatever, like, having a, like,
whatever commits with his daughter or whatever pope
type weirdo people. You know? Like, they have
that as well in their tradition.
But,
so, yes, let's make a big alliance, you
know, with everybody. Right?
Okay. 1st, excommunicate
the,
you know, excommunicate the, you know, at least
excommunicate
the what's the word for this again? I
know it's
some cuss words in Urdu for it, but
what's the word for this again? *. Right?
Excommunicate your ancestral popes first, and then let's
then we'll talk about, like, how we can
ally with one another. You know?
Someone's like, oh, look. Melania is not being
very interfaith. This is the. I'm not saying
you have to cuss out your Catholic neighbors
or, like, every Catholic you see. But I'm
just saying, if you want it on an
ideological level, if you wanna talk about things,
let's talk about them. So you guys are
a bunch of terrorists, and you're violent, and
you're this and that. I'm so okay. Cool.
You know? Like, I get it. Some Muslims
have done violent things over the years and
whatever. You know? So, like, we can have
a discussion about that if you
want to. I'm not gonna say get lost.
Let's say let's talk about it. Right? So
no. You you also then we have a
right also to ask you about, like, why
is it that you have, you know, people
who receive sainthoods that are you know, basically
have, like, 17, 18 children out of wedlock,
and the you know, like, how how why
is it that you
still officially endorsed genocide? The same church still
alive today. You haven't repeated it. Say, sorry.
You know, we're wrong. No. You haven't done
that yet. Right? If you want us to
take you seriously as a partner for some
sort of whatever,
a dialogue or collaboration,
it's okay. We can ask that without being
haters or whatever.
So
a sincere not one of these cynical type
of people, but a sincere believer in, like,
the Gospels and in Christ and whatever. If
they would eat it and it would it
would be respectable for them to eat it,
then it's that's what the benchmark is, meaning
things slaughtered according to their laws. So with
Jews, it's a little bit easier because they
actually have,
something,
that is their attempt at
based on the laws of Torah. With Christians,
it's a little bit more murky because they
don't really have a sharia that they they
even purport to follow.
But
but, you know, it is what it is.
So the benchmark, at any rate, that he
mentions is that would one of their monks
or priests
be comfortable eating it?
And if the answer is yes, then it
would be valid. Even theoretically, he mentions this
mess Allah that even theoretically,
if snapping the neck of the chicken is
how they slaughter.
If a Muslim did it, said Bismillan
rung the neck or ripped the head of
the chicken out,
it would be Haram and Umaita.
But if one of them did it and
their priests felt
okay eating it and their monks felt okay
eating it,
then if they did it, it would be
halal for us to eat.
Again, these are 2 different opinions. 1 is
the one mentioned in Khalil,
which is the mashhur opinion, and this opinion
is mukabil al Mashhur.
It is a strong enough opinion that that
that in the usu according to the great
great scholars of the Maliki school, if a
person gave fatwa on this opinion, it's not
a weak opinion.
It's an opinion based on solid proofs, and
it seems to be the opinion that is,
preferred by one Sharisi and his,
Maryal al Mu'arib. And he actually
dedicates a great amount of explanation,
the entire tract from Qadhi Abu Bakr there.
And what did Qadhi Abu Bakr say? Because
this has to do with as well. This
is the intersection of Qadhi Abu
Bakr says, why is it that Allah
made it permissible for a Muslim man to
eat the meat of the people of the
book and to marry the women of the
people of the book?
Is it because he's endorsing their kufra as
being better than any other kufra? Absolutely not.
Absolutely not. Kufr is kufr. It's bad. It's
horrible. It's bad.
There's a discussion about the precept of.
Actually, Malik dissents with it.
But, again, it's a fiqi dissension. I don't
know that a person can say it's even
akhida dissension. If you're a kafir, you're a
kafir. You know? Someone's, oh, look. You know,
these people, they have faith. They pray. They
listen that. Right? It's, you know, it's all
a day late and a dollar short.
All of it is the the same breakdown
that happens. You know, it's like the chandelier.
You know, which
link in the chain that holds a chandelier
above your head is more important. Well, at
some point or another, any of them break,
you're gonna get your head hurt. That's the
that's the fact. Right? So it's
you can discuss about it, but it's a
very, like,
ivory tower discussion. Practically,
says
the reason for this is not
some sort of endorsement or love of one
particular type of kufr over the other,
But it is
because if a Muslim goes to a place
where people worship
wood and stone,
For them to make the argument and produce
the hijab that your idol worship is nonsense,
it's not gonna go anywhere,
That your idols cannot help you. These weird
spirits you call on don't help you. They're
like weird sacred wolf that, you know, see
in a vision when you, you
know, get high or whatever.
It's not gonna help you. It's not really,
you know, what's going on. It's all just
that you have swimming around in your head.
The is complete. You know it's true. They
know it's true. If they don't accept it,
it's just at that point. There's no real
further explanation that's needed.
Whereas if you bring the dua of the
Rasool
to in the salami or, they say we
already have the Torah, we already have the
Injeel, we already worship the same God, and
we suspect that, you know, you'd bring nothing
useful to us
as an addition.
And,
you know, we're already doing it. Thank you
very much. We don't need what you have.
And so he says that there is a
need for
that they have to mix with our people,
and we have to mix with their people
so that they can see our prayers are
not like their prayers,
that our are not like their
and that they have to see that our,
you know, men are not like their men.
Our women are not like their women. Our
children are not like their children. Our duas
are not like their duas.
That you cannot do from far away. You
have to mix. Because if you look at
the genre of reputation,
Christian refutation of Islam, in the Eastern church
and Western church, they're dramatically different. In the
Eastern church, they actually try to study Islam
and refute it, and they do a relatively
weaksauce job at it. What are their what
are their, you know, accusations?
Right?
Their accusations against the prophet that he's violent
man.
Who's the one who did Auschwitz, and who's
the one who, you know, depopulated the Iberian
Peninsula of Musa and who's the one who,
you know, you guys killed each other, like,
mercilessly. You know? Who's the one who did
all of this stuff? Then you can talk
to us about, like, who's violent, who's not.
Right? The first the first religious based violence,
intra Islamic violence based on religion was what?
Was the Mi'kna. Right?
It was relatively later on. And who did
it? It was the Martezilah who did it
not Ahlus Sunnah.
We have, like, solid several century, like, record
of our of really no scholarly figure endorsing,
intrareligious
violence.
We have a scholarly record of not forcing
people to convert.
And if someone
completely it's purely
political. The Qadi will invalidate it.
It
just doesn't even stand legally in our courts
if someone is forced to convert. If they
can prove it in front of the Qadi
that this was all under duress, then, like,
yeah, you're not you're not Muslim,
to our sharia because your conversion doesn't even
matter. It doesn't even count. It's not real.
And,
in general, that was a policy of the
Muslims not to do it. This is why
India is still filled with Hindus. This is
why, you know, there are still, like, huge
fractions of population in the Arab world that
are still Christian. This is why there are
Jewish communities that survived in,
not you know, in in large parts of
the Muslim world, etcetera, etcetera.
We didn't have pogroms like,
you know,
like the Christians didn't when we did have
them because they did happen.
The most important thing is that they were
not
driven or sanctioned by the ulama, but they
were driven
and and and pushed by the, by politicians.
Otherwise, the ulama, they they never, they never
sanction these things because they're clearly haram in
our Sharia. You cannot force a person to
convert to Islam.
And so
that's really easy to make radav
when someone makes a point. Like, what are
the Eastern Christian
objections about Islam?
You guys are sexual perverts. Why? Because in
in heaven, you know, you have * over
there.
I'm like, yeah. What is it? Well, you
wanna, like, read the bible and play harp?
What kind of Jannah is that? Nobody wants
to go to Jannah. Like, you guys don't
even wanna do that in this world. Like,
how are you gonna wanna go to Jannah
like that? Your own popes, your own priests,
your own pastors are,
you know,
getting caught doing this, that, and the other
thing. It's a halal. It's a nice thing.
It's a if it was so bad, why
would your mother have done it?
I tell people I like, the thing is
you have to when you're talking to people,
you have to get to the point. Not
everyone's gonna gonna be like, you guys come
to Malekith Iqdas and listen to me yak
for, like, 10 minutes. Right? So if it
was that bad, why would your mother have
done it?
Not only she did it, she enjoyed it.
Are you insulted by that? Why would you
be insulted by that? It's nice, it's beautiful.
You like it too. If you didn't like
it, this wouldn't
fascinate you. It's not a kabi thing to
do. Right? Like, * is kabi. It's it's
an ugly act. It's a dirty act. It
smells bad. It looks bad. It's a horrible
act. There's nothing wrong with it. A husband
and wife love each other. Masha'Allah. Family. That's
how that's how, like, all of it works.
Right? If you wanna be pro life or
whatever, right, the rational
of that is that you have to you
know, if life is a good thing, then
what causes it has to be a good
thing as well. Right?
So, anyhoo, like, whatever. It's nice, It's it's
it's a nice thing. It's you know, there's
nothing wrong with it. It's easy to make
right on this. Like any person on the
street, any person, atheist on the street, if
you tell them, like, okay, who makes more
sense to you, Islam or Christianity? And
original sin, and * is bad, and you
should just be a drunkard instead. And they
say, no. Keep your acola intact,
go
marry someone you love and enjoy yourself. Nobody
is going to, like, think that one is,
you know, that that that there's ambiguity of
over which is superior or over the other.
I remember I had in university, I had
a a Catholic,
classmate,
nice guy,
We got along.
He would come. We'd invite him to
our iftars in Ramadan.
He ate briyani one time, and he bit
into a stick of cinnamon. He goes, dude,
why is there wood in my rice? He's
a nice guy. You know,
you know, we have I have good things
to say about him.
And then there's another there's another roommate of
ours who was, like, kind of a
devout atheist.
And so I remember the Catholic one time,
he's like he goes, you guys are religious
lame, man. You guys don't can't even drink.
I'm like, yeah. I guess. You
know? I go, your religion is lame. You're
a priest. They they never get married. They
live a life in celibacy. And so he
was now hemmed into the into a corner.
And so, well, I'd rather drink than, like,
do it. And the atheist is like, nah,
dude. I'd rather do it.
So this is the eastern this is the
eastern
Rad on Islam.
The western church is like, are you kidding
me? This is gonna be a complete catastrophe.
We have to take a completely different tack.
What's their different tack? Just lie about Islam.
So, you know, for centuries, the the papacy
used to promote the idea that the Saracens
worship,
an idol of a man who dresses up
like a woman named.
Does this have any rooting in any sort
of reality?
No.
But
ironic, in fact, that the people whose churches
are filled with icons would accuse us of
idolatry. Right?
But it's a smart move because if they
actually made Radha on, like, the actual beliefs
and precepts of Islam, do you know what
a catastrophe that would have been? Because
this makes sense. That doesn't make any sense.
You know? It just it makes absolutely no
sense whatsoever.
And so,
anyhow,
there's a need to
to make to go talk to people. You
know? They may not accept it today, tomorrow,
or really ever, but they'll know inside of
their hearts it's the truth when they see
us praying 5 times a day and and,
you know, not getting drunk and not committing
zenai and not doing all of these things,
which, sadly,
many of our people are not really good
at
at at upholding that, and that's a double
fire on them.
Not only the fire on them for their
own sins, but for the people that they
also have,
dropped the ball with in terms of representing
the deen. It is haram. It is haram.
It is haram for people to live in
Dar al Kufr.
If it's a fitna for you, if you
wanna be a drunkard and you wanna be
a womanizer,
just move to the. Don't live here. It's
not good. It's not good for you. It's
not good for them. Look. What's worse than
being a Zani and being a drunkard? Is
being a Zani a drunkard and a kaffir?
That's where it's gonna end up here over
there. I've met drunkards in the Muslim world.
I've met Zani's in the Muslim world or
at least people who,
you know, don't seem to
project the projection of keeping the clothes clean.
And,
not not a single one of them would,
you know,
tolerate someone cursing
the
Why? Because they have iman inside their heart.
Whereas here, you can have people pray 5
times a day, and they're like, well, you
know, that's like, you know, that's their right
to say it and this and that. Right?
And so
put that issue aside.
But we have our Muslim societies. Our traders
used to go to different places and mix
with people.
And there was there were so many
Nasara that lived with the Muslims that would
come and go, get education,
and locals. Right? Egypt, all of these different
places. Right?
They know who we are. They know who
we are. They know our our shortcomings. They
know our
strengths and weaknesses,
and, it affects them, actually. If you listen
to a band that a or
a will give on,
you know, in Arabic about whatever, go listen
to the Arab Christian, like, evangelical channels. It
sounds very different than the way they talk
over here, and it sounds very much like
you know, except for certain formulaic differences, it
sounds very much like the way Muslims talk.
The Shanuda, the previous Coptic pope,
right, you know, they used to hate on
him because he told people not to eat
pork. He wants to ask the someone asked
how did your Arabic get so good? He
goes, you have to study the Quran. And
they're,
I said, well, that's a piece of literature.
I don't believe in it, but it's, you
know, it's really beautiful. And obviously, that's gonna
affect people. Right? And then they know it's
the Haqq a person who studied the Quran,
they can't say I didn't know. Right?
And so,
in a true sense will require what?
It will require that you eat together and
that you live together,
therefore, the
the the.
Now
coming back to
the state of Illinois or whatever,
someone said, well, why is it then, you
know, you guys try to shove this push
this halal stuff down people's throat all the
time?
Isn't this an issue that is really just
a difference of opinion and we should let
it go?
Is, you know, something that's based on methodology,
and it's something based on objective facts.
If I knew if I knew that
the food was being slaughtered by a Christian
or a Jew,
then I would say, go go ahead and
eat it. Go right ahead and eat it.
Now will say, oh, back up,
Hamza.
You know, they say that to me. They
say they call you know, all the all
the everybody else, all the the cool, quote
unquote, cool Maliki, you know, the bow tie.
I wanna have a dog Maliki public. This,
ah, this guy, he's not really Maliki. He's
basically just undercover Hanafi.
I know. People say it. And you know
what the Molana say to me? They say,
oh, this is Sheikh Hamza.
As if to say, oh, he's not a
mole. He's not a real mole. He's a
how can you be a mole? He's a
Hanafi. He's not Hanafi. He's a Maliki.
Right? So that's fine. I don't care.
One way or the other, I don't care.
So that's fine. They're not gonna they're not
gonna agree with this. Right? But I'll say,
well, it's the hap the hap is the
hap. I'm not there to antagonize people. The
hap is the hap. So if the farmer
at the Amish,
place that you get your, meat from or
whatever slaughters or, like, farmer gym from down
the road slaughters,
Is halal's jais go ahead and eat it
if it's a actual kosher place, because kosher
is a whole scam just like halal is
a scam in this country.
But if it's actually kosher slaughtered,
even if the rabbi doesn't say the on
the
or the
doesn't say
the on the animal that he's slaughtering.
The the madar is what? That they should
they should slaughter according to their standard, not
according to ours.
And in fact, you don't even have to
go that far to invoke this opinion. Why?
Because if a is slaughtered and he doesn't
say the Tasmee, the Maliki would say, we
would give fatwa that that it's not jais.
But if a Shafi'i is slaughtered and his
that it's
jais, then the hilaf means that you can
eat it.
So if we're not gonna make Ilzam of
Shafei to our sharia to that degree, then
how are we gonna make Ilzam of a
rabbi to that
degree? The problem in this country, is everybody
here a Christian?
No.
Someone's like, well, you know,
I don't even wanna mention, like, some of
the dumb things people say, but, like, you
know, so I'm sorry. You got pushed this
thing, and it's really a difference of opinion.
I go, it's not a difference of opinion.
I go, do you think you you have
that,
the person who's slaughtering your meat is a
Christian or a Jew? Well,
I said, what percentage of of Americans
are Christian by any Shar'i definition?
60% is a very, very, very generous estimate.
In the Shar'i school, almost nobody in America
is really Christian.
According to the school, the only person who's
legally valid Christian or a Jew in,
in the school is somebody
who whose forefathers accepted Christianity before the Rasool
Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam.
They're grandfathered into the system.
And the only valid Jew is somebody whose
forefathers were Jews before Sayidna Isa Alaihi Islam.
They're grandfathered into the system. So if somebody's
family converted to Judaism, which is really, to
be honest with you, there's a there's a
there you know, there are people who make
the argument that most of the Eastern European
Jews are like the descendants of Khazars and
things like that. They're not even according to
that standard, standard. They're not even many Ashkenazi
Jews may not even be actually
Jews in that sense.
I don't know, like, the actual
reality of that or not. You know? But
so push that aside, the Shafeh opinion to
decide.
Even in the Hanafi, even in the Maliki,
Mahavs that are not that stringent.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians.
Reform Jews are not Jews.
Mormons are not Christians.
If you keep tallying, tallying, tallying, you know,
you know, who's a who's a Christian, who's
not a Christian,
60% just doesn't cut it. That means every
2 days you're eating something haram. Like, it
doesn't work.
Statistically, like, play the number play the numbers.
Is like what? Like, how do you know
the Muslim guy who who slaughtered your your
animal is not really, like,
a Qadiani or something like that.
You catch those things. If it happened, it
happened. But, like, that's a very rare
a very rare thing. Once people catch it,
they they ferret it out and it's done.
It's known. Right?
Whereas,
you know, what is even Christianity in this
country? The Lord knows best, You know, like,
the Christianity nowadays just seems to be like
you're a Trump voter. That's not
that's not any
standard for who's a Christian, who's not.
And the issue is this is when there's
shock, when there's doubt,
then things return to their asshole.
You know? So you have this idea in
your mind that maybe I farted.
Well, did you?
I don't know. Maybe.
Well, did you hear anything? Did you smell
anything? Did you feel anything? Did you this?
Did you that? If the answer is no
to all of them, then you probably didn't.
Right?
It's not that there's some sort of, like,
ultra secret, ultra smooth fart that is a
fart but doesn't have any sifat of a
fart in the real world that doesn't break
your wudu. No. The point is, is what?
Is that when you have a doubt about
something, you ask certain questions to ascertain that,
yes, this happened, no, it didn't. If you
know it happened, then it happened. There's no
need to even ask these questions. Right?
So
if you have a doubt about something, you
assume
that the thing that is that you know
to have taken place to taken place and
the thing that you doubt take took place
until you have proof you, you know, you
don't know what took place. So for example,
if someone were to say, I went to
the supermarket and, you know, there's carrots sitting
there, and I don't know if the carrots
are soaked in pig's blood.
Is there any that indicates to you that
that happened?
If the answer is yes, look. There's like
a carcass of 7 pigs that pour on
this pile of carrots that is bleeding. Okay.
Then
don't eat the carrots.
If there's no karina and it's just something
in your head that that you have no
no no daleel for and no
nothing that corroborates that possibility even, then you
dismiss it.
Legally, you dismiss it. So even if it
turns out that there's some super secret operation
to soak it in pig's butt and then
wash it off or whatever afterward, you know,
then you legally, you're not at least you're
not liable for that.
So legally, the default position
for many things is that their Tahir,
what's the default position for meat?
It's not just
but Sheikh, people of the book, okay, Khas,
if you know it's been slaughtered by people
of the book, go ahead and eat it.
Did I say, no. You can't eat it?
I was in New York, Marshall. I took
a Moana Saba. I won't take his name
so that the other movies don't execute him.
You know? I took him to,
New York City to, like, you know, one
of the, like, legit
kosher places. You know? We had conducted an
interview with the behind the the counter, and
we saw, like, the rabbis with the
with the curls, you know, the 4 locks,
the pace, like, you know, and don't don't
be insured and all that stuff. And we're
like, okay.
You know, like,
let's see. Do you have, you know, like,
have a corn beef sandwich or whatever? Or
like there are places in Skokie and things
like that halal
diners, the kosher diners that are like that.
So take take take a rebel bowlie over
there and go eat with them, you know?
It's fine. Go ahead. Go for it. I'll
eat with you. But if you think that's
what they're serving at, like, McDonald's or at
Jewel Osco or at some random place,
you're
you can't say that the so and so
Sheikh e Fatwa. The
Mufti is like the
prisoner of the Mustafi, the person who's asking
the question. The Mufti can only answer the
question that was asked. If the assumption and
the question is that everybody in America is
a Christian, then
that's the situation he's giving fatu if we're
not what's actually happening.
So, you know,
that's what that is.
You like it. You don't like it. It
it is what it is. It's not really
a difference of opinion. It's not there's nobody
can until somebody can prove to me that,
you
know,
that that, you know, I can go more
than 4 days
without statistically eating something haram, then I'm not
it's not really a very cogent argument. If
you want it to be true, that's fine.
You can want something to be true so
much that it becomes reality for you. That's
like a like a discussion to have with
a psychiatrist. But, like, in the objective realm,
that's that's that's how that is.
And then he mentions this mas'allah that eating
the fat
of
the slaughter of a Jew is Why?
It's because
they
that's those are the parts that they throw
away.
So it's
technically not haram, but it's makru. Why? Because
you're humiliating yourself by eating the thing that
they wouldn't eat themselves.
In that sense,
the
for ruminants, you know, for like goats, sheep,
cattle, etc,
they only eat the front half of the
animal.
The back half, they don't eat.
So many unscrupulous people will sell it as
halal.
Look.
It may not be haram to eat, but
to market it as if it's
slaughtered by a Muslim or to maintain ambiguity.
This is itself a sin. It's haram,
you know, in the Buur. Anything that you
know that if the person or you have
a feeling that if a person knew about
it, they would think that this is some
sort of aid or defect or even suboptimality
with regards to the product that you're selling.
You are
obliged
to inform the person about it.
And so to eat the part of the
animal that's rejected by Hudi is
khilaf. It's against
and contrary to the honor of being a
believer. That's why it's
makru. Otherwise, the thing
is
is.
And so he says
the thing that was slaughtered by a
a Zoroastrian
fire worshiper is not permissible to eat. And
so the Persians,
they're they have this kind of legal status
that that the that's kind of like ahlul
kitab like.
You can't eat their meat and you can't
marry their people.
But they did receive them, that they were
allowed to pay jizya and,
and,
live in the society. They weren't they weren't
treated like the idol worshipers of the Arabian
Peninsula.
And, you know, Melania, you tell me about
is this essentially the same treatment that's in
the Fatwa books meted out for the the,
for in the Hanafis for the Hindus and
things like that also. Right?
Yeah that that was, you know,
that that was what the what the what
the fatwa is for that.
That they lived under the
in the Muslim state. They were not forced
to,
you know, they were not forced to convert
or whatever.
But they lived they lived with they lived
under the no matter what, like, weird, like,
fantastical BJP reports about, like,
slaughtering,
like, more Hindus than actually existed at that
time type of stories that they tell that
whip their people up into, like, an emotional
frenzy. But no, actually,
the most loyal soldiers
of the empire were all Hindu Rajputs,
and they would offer to convert.
And this the the
the Padishah would
decline the offer again and again.
The Muslim soldiers would sell out, but the
Hindu Rajputs would stay loyal to the throne.
And they had very high positions in the,
in the government. They were oftentimes the ministers
and things like that. Even when something like
for example, they, you know, they they would
happen. The Mughals would, like, sack a temple
or whatever. It would be for political reasons.
Why is the
why would you say that is because the
Hindus are the ones actually doing that. The
soldiers doing the sacking and things like that.
They're the prime ministers making the decisions. And
Molla, India, like, it's very,
it's really fascinating
talk to
about it. Right?
Such a such a minuscule minority, how it
reigned over such a huge country.
It was not possible without without collaboration from
the locals.
And that collaboration was very deep. That's why
even the most acrid Hindu nationalist who
hates Muslims by day night cannot say 5
sentences without using, like, 10 words of Persian
and Arabic in it.
You know? You can say instead of but
how what what what are you gonna use
to substitute for Lincoln?
For lack and how are you gonna substitute
for that?
It's just become part of the air that
they that they breathe.
I remember listening to some,
crazy, like, rabbit, like, idol worshiper who's, like,
ranting about genocide, you know.
Come on, man.
Right? Even the word, you know, it's they
can't they can't do anything about it. They
themselves are unaware about about about, you know,
how deeply ingrained it is in their into
the culture. That was
decision consciously that their forefathers accepted. Because what?
It wasn't so bad. Maybe you're okay. You're
a Hindu. You want Hindus to rule. Like,
I understand that, but it wasn't that bad.
Anyhow,
so the the slaughter of Majusi is not
is not valid even though they have
But anything that they eat that doesn't that
doesn't require, like, an animal to be slaughtered,
that's
that's not haram.
And so this is a a great proof
in the Haqq of the Hanaf.
And this is possibly why even Temi actually
sides with them against the in
terms of the cheese. Because cheese has rennet.
Right? Which is a microbial plaque that grows
on the inside of
the digestive tract of
animals that is it kind of polymerizes the
reaction of curdling
milk into cheese, is that the
would eat the cheese that the Persians made,
and there's no recorded
objection to this practice. Right?
And
it's understood that whatever is not slaughtered from
amongst their food
is,
is halal. Now both Malik and Abu Hanifa,
they actually said that the infiha, the the
rennet is not actually part of the animal.
How did they know that? You know, maybe
that's what something
gave to Imam Abu Hanifa, like, every night
when he was finishing the Quran. Like, somehow
showed him something that normal people don't see.
We talked about in the beginning of the
dars. Right?
Being pious is not just a waste of
time. There's and then at some point or
another, when people say this person has a
nur in their heart, like, it means something.
It's not just something like the say. Right?
You know, maybe some Malik
when he would see the
in a vision every night when he slept.
Maybe something or another he learned in that.
Like, I don't know how they knew that,
but it is what it is.
At any rate, the the point is is
that the the unslaughtered part of the food
you can go have, like, go have your
masala dosa with, you know,
you know,
your Hindu friends. That's fine.
Yeah. Yeah.
For what? Does it is it did it
have that classification
when it's mentioned in the books of the
Maliki, it means
is
just haram because there's no distinguish the the
distinction, like, and in a sense, in a
practical sense, what the Hanafis consider,
and Farhad are practically exactly the same.
If you do it, you receive a reward.
If you don't do it, it's a sin.
Right? And the same thing with the with
the Magru, Taharimi, and Haram.
If you do it, it's a sin, and
if you abstain from it, it's a reward.
The difference is that is the issue. Right?
That the fart if you make in kadav
it, you're a kadav. Whereas, you know, if
you denied the farthest, the farther you're kafir.
Whereas, you denied the wajib as a farthest,
it's a difference of opinion. We just say
you're wrong. And the same thing on the
you know? So the the Malekis don't,
to my understanding, nobody retains that distinction. Actually,
the distinction between Fardan and Wajid, this particular
author, Ibn Abi Zaid, he makes in his
in his book, but to my knowledge, he's
the only Maliki that actually uses that.
And on the flip side, he doesn't use
Makru to mean anything except for Makru Tanzihi.
Yeah. So what is what is makru, tanzihi?
Makru when we say Makru, it means
something that if you do it, it's not
a sin, but if you abstain from it,
there's a reward. It's the analog. If he
says this thing is a sunnah or it's
recommended, meaning if you don't do it, it's
not a sin. Like, if you don't pray
fajr,
it's a sin.
If you pray fajr, it's reward.
If you don't pray the sunnahs before fajr,
it's not a sin. But if you do
pray, then there's a reward. On the flip
side, the things that are makru that the
sharia prefers that a person not do, if
you abstain from it, it's a reward. But
if you do it, it's not a sin.
Whereas
in the Hanafi Usul, it's a sin if
you do it. It's haram. I mean, it's
it's haram. Functionally, it's haram. It's just that
akhideh shu is
murakab on on top of it.
I wish there was a different word, just
like wadz bin fard, so that there would
be no ambiguity about it. But who's gonna
go back to
Kufa, you know, so many centuries ago and
talk about that? And there's probably they probably
had the discussion and decided not to for
some good reason.
Okay. So that's that's
that's that. It says that, it says that
there are other food food that doesn't require
any slaughter. It's not haram.
So
To hunt
for the purposes of sport or entertainment.
Is,
Makru.
This is if you eat the
if you eat the catch.
If you waste the catch, then it's haram.
You understand what I'm saying?
Let's go hunting. We'll eat it, But it's
just for entertainment.
There's no need there's no need for it,
and it's not like, you know, it's just
for entertainment. It's because it's fun.
Whereas,
hunting for,
that's not for the purposes of entertainment, but
it's actually to catch something to eat or
something like that. There are other reasons that
are not lahu. Right? There are other reasons
that are not just entertainment.
Hunting oftentimes is a a way for soldiers
to hone certain skills that they need for
war,
stalking prey,
marksmanship,
these types of things.
These are sharia countenanced,
skills that need to be kept by certain
people.
That's permissible.
Now, obviously, not every not every animal is
edible.
To kill something that there's no Sharia sanction
used for at all,
and there's no benefit in killing them. Like,
for example, wild boars, you're not gonna eat
them. You're not gonna really use the hide
or anything for anything, but they do overrun
and destroy, like, crops and things like that.
So there's some Sharia sanctioned benefit. Just to
kill for the sake of killing and
no utility, that itself is haram.
But there are ways of hunting for entertainment
for the purpose of entertainment that you can,
like, you eat whatever you catch, or there's
some other,
there's some other, thing that you can claim
as a, you know, some sort of benefit
of it. That's,
there's a
a separation between those things.
And so to to hunt for for reasons
other than
other than lahu is is is permissible. Because
hunting is difficult. Right? Like, you have your
salat and you're stalking prey. You have to
stalk prey sometimes for, like, days on end.
And, you miss your salat and things like
that. You have to stock the prey from
downwind. And when you shoot it, then you
have to keep stocking it as well because
it'll run for some time. You have to
catch up with it. It's still dangerous. It
has to bleed a little bit before you
can get anywhere close to it, and things
like that. So the problem with the lahu
is what? As you miss your prayers, and
it kinda
it becomes a a a, enough of a
distraction that it's not why would you do
that if you didn't need to? Or if
there wasn't some
other than eating, like, you know, there are
other reasons to do it, but why would
you do it if there's no reason?
Yes. Question.
Someone raised their hand. Yeah. So there's no
situation where I go hunting.
You know? Like, for example, like,
if you cannot if you can purchase the
meat,
for example Mhmm. You still go hunting because
I guess Yeah.
I mean, the thing is if it's not
for entertainment, if it's for the purpose of,
like,
spending time with nature and
learning something about what's around you, and
keeping the skills that are necessary for war
or for self defense
or
whatever.
There should be a reason other than entertainment.
Killing stuff for sport, people who do that
are jerks.
And,
there's actually a good thing about modern sensibility
is we don't appreciate that.
It's good. We shouldn't appreciate that.
There's something inhuman about killing things for no
reason.
So you mentioned,
like, shooting the animal. Mhmm.
How does that work? Like, I know, like,
there's a specific way of the slaughter. Mhmm.
So is it permissible to shoot the animal?
So
the issue of bullets, let's put it to
the side for a second. Okay.
One of the things I think we mentioned
in last week's, Darce, is that whenever you
release,
the implement of hunting,
be it an arrow, a spear, throw a
spear, or if it's a hunting animal, you
let it release the animal or whatever. Yeah.
You say at that time, and then whatever
whatever you know you know, with the intention
that whatever you you're shooting it out or
possibly shooting it out or throwing it out
or releasing it on, that, that whatever it
catches is done halal, then it's halal. Okay.
And like we mentioned that if you can
catch up to the animal,
because wild animals will not go down without
a fight, if you can catch up to
an animal safely, slaughter it before it's completely
dead, you're actually obliged to do so. It's
gonna mention it,
in a little bit. We're not gonna get
to that part of the day Okay. Because
our hour is almost up. But,
you know, that's that's what that is. Now
the issue with the gun is what?
The bullet itself is not sharp, is it?
It can't cut. It rips.
Yeah. And so for this reason, many of
the modern
jurists have said that it's
improper to
make an analogy between it and between like
an arrow.
Why? Because the arrowhead is sharp. It cuts.
However,
I think it's still, you know,
Like, if you're using, like, hollow point,
you know, the slug, like, makes a huge
hole, like, exit wound or whatever,
that's different than something that has a tip
that actually, you know,
pierces in the the you know? I I
don't know. I think there's there's a a
discussion that can be made. Or and there's
a difference between using a bullet that has
a tip and using, like, shot, like, shotguns,
buckshot, and things like that. There's actually apparently,
Manojunayd
Kharsani. I don't know if you ever remember.
I don't know. You never got to me.
We had programs in Seattle. You were probably
still
you were still in the crib for Mahdi
Sabian when when he came. He mentioned that
there was there was, someone in South Africa,
a Muslim hunter, who actually,
patented a,
patent for for shot,
buckshot, and things like that in the shotgun.
But the sphere actually had, like, like, 2
rings,
2 orthogonal rings around them that were actually
sharpened
so that it cuts in instead of ripping
in.
Technologies that weren't developed by Muslims and not
fostered by Muslims.
But the point is is what is a
type of it's a type of cruelty to
rip the meat of the animal. I don't
know in that sense if one can say
that.
It's a discussion to be had. It's probably
beyond my pay grade to give my opinion
about it. I'm just mentioning that this is
this is a difference, and it's an ideological
difference. So go buy bow hunting and buy
your meat from
from the halal butcher inshallah. That's my advice.
Inshallah, we'll continue next
week.