Channel: Hatem al-Haj
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
da da, da da li or Sahil manana.
Today's homebuyers this number 33.
This Hadith is reported by by happy rahimullah from the lamina bus or the local animal from the Prophet sallallahu sallam.
la Europa and Zoo middleware Home
Alone Amala Coleman was the home. Well I can tell by UNITA
di Wali Amina
actually the profits on some of them said we are UCLA and NASA bit our home if people were to be given according to their claims, or people were to be given what the claim
like da regeneron some men and women as well.
Some men would have claimed the right to the fortunes and lives of others.
The right to the fortunes of others, the light to the right to the lives of others in retribution and pauses.
So, the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said, where we give everyone what they claimed, is there's some people who would have
claimed the right to other people's fortunes, and other people's people's lives through sauce.
While I Kindle by iannetta, Allah,
Alamo die, but the onus of proof is on the claimant.
Well, he Amina Allah, I'm an anchor,
and the oath will go to the defendant, or the denier,
or the denier will take the oath.
So the onus of proof is on the claimant ultimate die.
And who takes the oath, the defendant or the denier?
Basically, if you claim
that the house that I live in is yours,
you claim to have given me money at which I did not return to you.
You claim that I
took your you know, merchandise and did not pay you for it, or I killed someone,
then as a claimant the onus of proof is on you.
My role as a defendant is basically or as a denier. I could prove my point just through a mean, which is taking oath.
The BNF takes precedence over the oath, because if you have the banana, then that is that takes precedence. But if you don't have the banana, which is the banana is the proof.
And banana in particular in this sense, and this 50 cents is the admissible admissible proof that proof that could be taken in the court, because not every proof could be taken. In the court certain proofs cannot be taken and certain proofs can be taken.
So, once again, let's repeat the Hardys law, your otter and now
c'est la vie auto n so with our la region Amala comin what the MA home while I can buy iannetta wanna kill by Yuna to whichever one is right well I can tell by UNITA Allah Alamo die one year Amina Allah, man and
if people were to be given what the claim some people would claim the right to the fortunes and lives of some other people however or you know but the the you know the onus of proof is on the claimant and the oath would be taken by the denier or the defendant.
There are so many things that we could discuss about this hadith this hadith is reported by by happy with a hasulam chain of narration in this phrasing however, the parts of this hadith the different parts of this hadith have been all reported in Bukhari and Muslim. So ask the officer Hi, hi, the origin of this hadith in Bukhari and Muslim. So why would the amendment now we choose the wording of it may have a verses Bukhari and Muslim because it is the most comprehensive
and briefest you know. So it has both brevity and basically
Yeah, so it is comprehensive and brief.
And therefore, the last part of this hadith has been taken as is and used as a legal Maxim. Sometimes you need to do a little bit of manipulation to use a hadith as a legal Maxim. Because legal Maxim's need to be very brief and memorable. But this part will begin at Rada with di D, Amina lm and Anca was taken and used as a legal Maxim such as what La da da da da da da was taken just like it is, and users are the maximum.
Now, so the Prophet sallallahu wasallam says that there has to be some rules, some principles for the judicial system. People can't be disclaiming things left and right. And we have to use those rules and you have to use those rules across the board with all people with no distinction between people. So not because of your status, that you know, you will be able to basically use your credibility to prove anything, your credibility will not be of any use is you see how valuable nicob an entrepreneur club when decisiveness habit and the argument about something and He rules the rules in favor of obey even carving into somewhat of a pub because obey him in the car, but had the proof
this does not mean that one of them was not telling the truth. Sometimes you may think that something is yours when and when it is not right. You know be too too good people may disagree over something each one of them thinks that it is there is so when should I judge for the Jewish man against Ali or the allow Anwar it was because the Jewish man had
the baby you know or Alia did not have the beginner Alia did not have to be you know the Jewish man have the shield which which means that
backup mechanic auto mechanic means you know to leave things as they are, basically
leave things as they are. So if you have the seal that is yours until I prove it as mine. So the Jewish man have the sheet with the RA needed to prove that it is his so I lay his claim Omar's claim would not be taken in the court and the Muslim court even though these are you know, the greatest
and most credible but if I lay his claim and homers claim would not be taken in the court, just by their mere claim than anyone else any Muslim regardless of their status.
Their prestige, their their honesty, their piety, their righteousness. It's not only about status and prestige, it's not only about position, it is also about honesty, the judge should not allow himself this way away from justice, because of the halo that some people have around them, because he is a shave, because I have seen him pray in this mustard for the last 35 years, he never missed the prayer. So now he's coming in this disputation, where you know, again, as this, you know, common folk, like, from the street, and so I will just give it to him. No, you can't do this, you will always have to use the rules, you have to use the principles. So I'll begin at Walden with di
lbn. Allen with di is a concept that we have to follow throughout our lives. So in this Hadith, you know, albena, die.
This this concept that the onus of proof is on the claimant is a concept that you just want to use it throughout, not only in the court, but as a principle in life. The onus of proof is on the claimant any claim that you receive in order for you to cleanse your heart from suspicion which much suspicion is certainly is evil and wicked. And the Prophet sallallahu Sallam was a Muslim reporting from Abu hurayrah sediakan was one famous one acceptable Hadith. Beware of one suspicion, because suspicion is the worst of false tales. Suspicion is the worst form of false tales. In order for you to get rid of much of a suspicion, you will need to use certain principles the principle number one,
don't look for reasons to become suspicious. That is why in this very hadith of Bukhari and Muslim from Abu huraira Delano yakimov, one famous one that is about Hadith, he beware of suspicion or stay away from suspicion because suspicion is the worst of false tales worst form of false thieves in this very Hadith the Prophet then said while at the hustlers wallet to just settle,
so they're not sneak on one another and do not spy on one another.
Because these are, don't be spying, don't be looking for the shortcomings of others don't follow or look for seek out the shortcomings of others. That's the first thing that you do. Then Then second thing that you do is the second thing that you do is basically to work with this principle, which is elvina to eliminate that now, you did not spy you did not sneaky did not seek out the false follow up, didn't do any of that, but it came to your door, it came to your ears, you know some claims came to your ears about certain people.
What would you do with those claims have been at rotten wood die. So the onus of proof is on the claimant unless the claimant has the proof, you disregard the the claim
when you know so, so if you find that hard to disregard that claim,
either the claim is consequential The matter is consequential you need to investigate the matter is inconsequential, then just ignore it. So two things you know and what will help you here is the hobbies and this number 12 a lot of binary men Huston Islam and Morocco melayani. Remember this hadith is reported by Tara mizzi, from Avi Harare, Allahu Minh Hosni Islam and more, it is a sign on the perfection of someone's Islam or it's part of the perfection of someone's Islam to leave that which does not concern him to leave that which does not concern him. So now, you did not follow the shortcomings and you did not seek them out. They came to your door, you get the game to your ears,
what you do is to say, is there a proof? No, there is no proof than it is still a claim.
Do I need to investigate the claim? Ask yourself, is this really consequential? What do I you know, not not, you know, not the
oma, you know, needs to figure this out. You're not the, you know, in your role in your very little role. Very little nice that you're in, do I need to verify Do I need to investigate this and come to a final conclusion, come to a final conclusion.
So do I need to investigative does it affect me? Is it consequential? You know,
or not? If it is not consequential that doesn't concern me, then I don't investigate it, then I just leave it. And if it is, then I investigated and tried to look for, you know, claim that bona fide bona fide claim,
because Bina comes from banner, which means appeared, it is it is apparent, it is, you know, visible apparent, the proof that you that you need to see that you should use
to establish a claim something that's very apparent. So, lbn Now, what is it?
What is it be in Ireland with die, what is the proof, the onus of proof that is on the claimant
are the beginner limited, you know, one of the things that we have to be very, very careful with is that we should always, always respect and love are scholars of the past,
but should never you should never
consider the statement of one scholar to be final,
because it is loss statements and the Prophet statements that are final.
The problem is,
if the if the most Muslim courts nowadays do not accept, accept material proofs, do not accept scientific proofs, do not accept the whole science of
forensic investigations, forensic medicine and other forms of forensic investigations, then we will look extremely bad, not only that, we will look extremely bad, we will fail in achieving justice. You know, this is a very complicated world, you know, the criminals use very different, like very advanced,
basically, tactics, techniques. And if you fail to accommodate, you know, the changes in the world around you, you will be left out, you know, the Islamic foot itself, as you would ask, isn't it very obvious, in many, many of our Muslim countries in most of our Muslim countries, in 98% of the countries, you know, the Islamic factor is not the US then in the court of law,
partly because of defiance, partly because of rejection, defiance, lack of faith, lack of acceptance, but partly also because, often times our scholars failed in
renewing the st. hab to accommodate the changes in
in times, which would make the burden huge on the scholars that basically
continuously have newage the hab to address new, new changes.
At you know, for many centuries, the dominant position of the scholars is that the bayonet the proofs, are limited to the ones that we received from the prophet SAW Salah. So basically, it would be two witnesses.
And according to the marquees, and sapphires and honeyberries, in addition to the two witnesses, you will also have shed What do you mean one witness and taking the oath in financial matters.
So, and then, there are certain proofs that are, you know, various types of proofs in various
types of cases and offenses. But if we limit the proofs to this, and we disregard forensic medicine, with this regard to DNA testing, we disregard certain proofs that would sometimes be 100%. Certain,
you know, the testimony of two individuals is not always 100% certain, but it is very probable. And working on propensity is justifiable and Islam. You know that because the testimony of two witnesses is not always certain. So even Allah Harris Rahim, Allah great Hanafi scholar called the universe and even for whom a great medical scholar and even the time
hanbali scholar and others, other scholars, they
the reversal of this trend, the reversal of the strength, which is only accepting limited
forms of proofs that have been related to us that they were accepted by the prophets or southern keep in mind that the Prophet did not reject other forms of proofs. But these are the ones that he used. Yet the Sahaba at one ally ally in gave themselves the liberty to use other forms of proofs. We don't know that this the order of why in for instance, is a proof on drinking wine. That is the order of wine as a proof this was not used by the prophet sallallahu sallam, but was used by Amara de la Anwar northmet. So they give themselves the liberty to use other forms of
proofs, in addition to the ones that have been reported. So the ones that have been reported, are the most legitimate. And when it comes to the most sensitive cases, and dude, we should accept those to be finem. definitive, because they were related from the Prophet sallallahu Sallam
directly, but the so called Quran which is corroborated, evidences or, you know, assistive proofs should not be ignored in the Islamic judiciary, that includes all of the forensic investigations and so on. So now, when you hear of a case, that has been judged in some Muslim country, based on the position of one school effect, whether it is Hanbury shefali Hanafi, this or that, and people make a big fuss about, you don't necessarily need to deal with the case as Islam versus Gulf, because it doesn't have to be like this, because in Islam, there may be varying positions. And it may be that the judge, the Muslim judge, that used this particular position
was unaware of the other positions, or maybe he just limited himself to one position for you know, that he follows one set of rules, one book one map and he limited himself to this, but with the changes in time and the need for accommodating those changes, you really need to be open to the other methods or have an accepting of, you know, separate mcaren which is compared to that, well not limit Islam, limit the Sharia, to the statements of one Imam.
But we limit the Sharia to only one
you know, limitation which is nano Seuss of the decade per aaronson the text of the Quran and Sunnah, those are the red lines, those are the borders within those borders, you know, you you basically examine the legacy, the legacy our great legacy of the various legitimate which the headin that we have in our history and from their positions you choose that which is
most authentic and most suitable, keep in mind, this color is the verifying scholars now I've always can say their people's conditions and circumstances in her right you know, concluding a particular ruling or in choosing a particular
position that people circumstances were always considered that is without violating the text of the Quran and Sunnah. But many times he will find statements from the scholar is that you know, like what I asked him to
be, you know, that the conditions or the appearance of the people cannot be
you know, rectify except or nothing is suitable for the people's conditions except to this, this particular opinion, and then they will reach out to other emails from other mother.
Anyway, so beginner in Islam, there are certain types of bayonet in Islam, admissible proofs in the Muslim court, that are related from the Prophet sallallahu Sallam those are the most definitive but corroborative evidence is also to be accepted in the
Islamic Courts otherwise it will be extremely difficult to keep up with the criminals and to keep up with, you know, advances in criminality.
The scholars have, you know, in the past to use the different types for corroborative evidence or assistant proves, you know, such as when you see someone holding,
wearing a turban and holding a turban in his hand, and another person without a turban. And they're fighting over the that turban and that other guy's hand. So the the judge in this case will rule for the one who does not have a turban, because it is not likely in their times to walk out of your home without a turban. And it is unlikely to have two turbans, one on your head and one in your hand.
you may say, No, you can actually have two turbans, and someone could actually walk outside of his home without a turban, he is
unlikely enough to rule for the guy who does not have a turban. And keep in mind at the end of the day, the Two Witnesses are one witness and one oath is not certain either. It's not totally, it's not definitive. It is it is based on propensity greater likelihood.
So as a beginner here is primarily what has been reported, but according to some of the verifying scholars from the different mazahub Bina could include other forms of proofs, when it comes to the how to do that, in particular, then we will use the other forms of proof in Hadoop, which the Sahaba did, you know, use other forms of corroborative evidences in Hadoop, but we will not establish the hub without a banner that is reported from the prophets on Sunday morning that companions because the Hadoop for the prescribed penalties have a special position. And whenever we could repel them away,
you know, on the basis of doubt, then we should. But would we use corroborate of evidence also in Hadoop, to some extent in our in investing investigating crime? Yes, we will use them investigating the crime.
Could we apply some discretionary punishment, even if we did not establish the heart that apply the prescribed punishment? Because we use a discretionary punishment on the basis of corroborative evidence or assisted proofs? Yes, we would be. We could be in this case when women are get raped, and forensic medicine establishes the crime and the surrounding evidence supports the claim of the woman. If you do not, if you do not establish the prescribed penalty for rape, then at least you should have some discretionary punishment for the rapist discretionary tozier discretion discretionary punishment for the rapist, because with the amount of advances in forensic medicine,
and in you know, investigative technology, criminal investigation,
it is not befitting of us as an oma to always overlook those claims when they are, you know, quite clear, or they have a great deal of credibility.
And when we do, then we we cause ourselves great harm. We Cause you know, Islam great harm, the reputation of Islam, the name of Islam, we cause great harm.
Going back to Albion a problem with diversity, I mean, other men and Caribbean or the the onus of proof is on the claimant and the amine, the oath is taken by the denier or the defendant.
What is the argument?
Because the these types of admissible proofs have been and have not been reported from the Prophet saws on them. And as you know, we have the prescribed punishments reported from the Prophet sallallahu sallam. We also have the admissible proofs reported from the Renaissance Allah in the parameters to seduce a new marriage alikum you know
Make two of your men witnesses to the contract, felony equinology.
And if there are not two men, so we we've been given certain
specific instructions regarding the admissible proofs. And we're not saying that this, we're saying that those are the admissible proofs, but when other admissible what other corroborative, proves assistive proves be used in the judiciary? Yes, according to some of the scholars, it was not the dominant trend for many centuries, but it was a position of many of the verifying scholars from many of the mazahub. And it was also the practice of many of the judges, for many of them as a in all honesty, and that's why you find them Nevada's to VFR The moon is a comedy. And most of the people that supported this position were comedies because the felt the need for using corroborative
evidence, not only the admissible proofs that were narrated from the Prophet sallallahu Sallam directly, those are the basically the backbone of the admissible proofs. Those are the ones that were generated from the Prophet sallallahu sallam, and you can't take less than them, you can take less than them, but if you have, you know, like we said, there are certain types paternity, for instance claims, if you're the DNA says, This is the father of that this guy is the father of the other guy, you know, that the the the, the accuracy particularly if you
request the test to be done by two labs.
And they are not connected to disconnected labs or three labs, that level of accuracy, you know, is 100% is 100%, particularly for paternity, maybe between siblings, it's 99.999%, but in paternity, it is 100%. So, if you disregard the proof like this, it is not good for the name of you know, Islamic law.
And it will, it will backfire in huge ways. And it will not be accepted by the Muslims live alone the non Muslims and in this case, you will be forcing them into finding alternatives because they will say, you know, we just we can follow you guys, you know, you, you do whatever you want. And then we will continue to be teaching each other Hanafi fept Matic effect effects and all of the courts will be using French laws, British laws
was added that the level of disconnect will always be there. So it is it is unhealthy, and it is unwarranted and we have a you know, bona fide
legitimacy for the other position. And it was supported by many of the verifying scholars of the past, this is not a new thing, even for the godson payment, these are not contemporary people.
Okay, so and, you know, our our proof on this is is the practice of the Sahaba don't lie in the Sahaba did not limit themselves to the proofs that were transmitted to them from the Prophet sallallahu Sallam and they went beyond this and used other proofs, such as you know, this order of wine, vomiting wine, they use this as proof on drinking wine.
Albanian parliament, I would be no problem with die if you were to be happy, but you would die. The onus of proof is on the claimant. Like we said, it's a concept of life. And we said that you know, in the judiciary, it is not limited to the transmitted proofs, but it is it can it could accommodate all of the new advances in
in forensic investigations.
What do you mean are them an anchor? Now, if you fail to prove, you know your claim, you claim that I took money from you and you fail to prove the claim, then they are mean we'll go to the denier the defendant, I claimed that you took my money. I failed to prove abena
To produce a banner or to prove my claim, then the mean will go to you. Right?
Do you know that some people in the past and then the scholars disagreed over
abstention from taking the oath? Would it end the case or not? I failed to prove my case
that you will be taking the oath to say what law he he did not give me the money.
So the scholars disagreed over this, this ended or not?
If he abstained from making that oath, does it, end it? And then it proves my point. Many scholars said yes. And many scholars said no.
So if it doesn't end it, where does it go after from here?
And new cool,
which is his abstention from taking the oath should be followed by
an oath from the claimant.
So why did the scholars say this? Because in the past, righteous people would not take the oath, many righteous people would not take the oath, even if they were right.
Because of their fear from taking an oath in the court of law, do you know what this means?
You know, according to the magmatic if you're not certain and you take the oath, this is called the demeanor moves. You know, the mirror moves, is one of the cabana yamunanagar moose. Moose means what?
taught me so Sahaba halfhill is often not, it is a oath that will dip you drown you dip you into his
sin, or the Hellfire
is like an oath that will dip you into the hellfire. This is called an iminium vamos vamos the Prophet sallallahu Sallam as Bukhari
said al Qaeda yuru mean al Qaeda Erie sherco Bella, wild open Valley day will cut through neffs while yamunanagar most of the enormities or the grave sins are Sir kybella provided a mistreatment of parents.
Cutco Nazi murder, what do you mean like a moose and the museum in Oregon moose oath meaning the oath that dips you into the Hellfire or into sin
and the purpose of solemn said man Halifax amenia pottier obey bihac tomra in Muslim
out of Allah who taught away in Canada interlinear Allah tala and cara de manera.
So the in this is also reported by Buhari whoever takes an oath to usurp the right of his fellow Muslim Allah will make the narc
will bind him to enter the narc or will
make the his entry into an IRA inevitable. I would rather not make it you know,
incumbent to for him to enter or not.
And then they said even if it was like something live in messenger of Allah, He said even if it is it would mean artistic of Iraq, which is you know, the sewak is the this three years
it's called the Iraq so the the siac
is the State of Iraq that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam was talking about so if you if you take an oath to usurp the right of your fellow Muslim even as little as siac you know a toothbrush then Allah subhanaw taala will will make your entry into a not inevitable or will discipline you to unlock.
So the Amina Ramos was was huge. it you know, and that is why many of the coordinately Malik if you are uncertain, not if you're certain that you're lying, but if you're not certain that you're truthful, then the mean that you will take is Yamini Ramos.
You see how how dangerous that is how serious that is. If you're uncertain that you're right, Mr. Malik said this year mean is Ramos that you're thinking while being uncertain
If you make an oath, knowing that your mind gets the meaning it is the it will dip, you enter the fire.
For sure, according to all other scholars, according to Mr. Malik, and he has a valid point, because you should not be taking the oath until you're certain you're taking an oath on something, you must be certain of it. And he said, if you're not certain, you know, the rest of the scholar is not not say it's a good thing. But the Imam Malik said, it is the mean for most just like if you're, if you know that you're lying, it will count as if you knew that your life because uncertainty is just like, you know, knowing that you're lying or certainty that you're lying.
So, so the scammer has said that it would not end there. If you abstain from taking the oath, it will not end there, it will go back to that. And this is the last, you know, the final one here. So I made a claim, I failed to prove it. You abstain from taking the oath as the denier, that oath goes back to me. If I take the oath, and you abstained, then I will.
And that would be that would be final, if I abstained from taking the oath. And certainly the judge would remind them of either fear of loss of data and so on and so forth. If I fail to take the oath, then
cases dismissed. Because I am the claimant, that claim has not been proven. So
I asked Bara to them, or the default is the non liability, then I'm not liable. You're claiming that I took money from you. The default is Al Bara is the non liability. So you're innocent until proven otherwise. This is an Islamic principle of jurisprudence. Ask liberalism, the default is non liability. And if I could not prove that you're liable, then the cases dismissed.
after all of this, is there still a chance?
The Justice was not established?
Yes, surely there is the chance that justice was not established.
Basically, I make the claim.
And I forged the proof.
And I when justice Muna was not established, I make the claim. I'm truthful about my claim, I failed to prove that.
You know, you're, you know, the other party is wicked enough to take the oath. And he wins, justice was not established.
Because it is impossible to always establish justice on this earth
is just part of the human, you know, experience, phenomenal nature of this life, the Justice will never be established 100% with certainty all the time on this earth, even in a Muslim country, even in the Muslim society, there will be some people that are that would run away. That is why the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said in negombo, Simona, Allah, Allah Allah, Haddock, Manya, Kunal Hannah, jetty, min Bob from provided to the homeless, I am unhappy, and the map data will be generated in Milan.
So you come in dispute before me, and some of you may be more eloquently than others capable of proving their case or making their case than others. And I may judge in your favor. Even the prophet SAW some of them, but here in his capacity as a prophet, but in his capacity as a judge,
because the Prophet acted in the capacity of a judge, without receiving an inspiration about the ultimate conclusion, you know, because the Prophet needed to teach us how the judge would work without having this, you know, backup. You know, as a judge, you come and you dispute before me and some one of you may be more eloquent, capable of making his case than another and then I may judge in favor of one of you. But if I do, judge in your favor, and it is not your right
I'm giving you a hot piece of coal from the Hellfire, take it or leave it, take it or leave it.
So, just this may not be after all of this may not be established, here is one of the applications of when you should not, you know, rebel, you should not resist.
Because, you know, if you take it out on the judge in this case, you know, the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said, when garba harika wife has a mallet, even if he, you know, beats your back, or flags your back and takes your money. One of the applications of this is here.
After following all of the rules, just this was not established, I walk away feeling defeated, one of the two parties will walk away feeling defeated. Sometimes you walk away with this feeling of defeat when you know for sure that you are right, and that you have been oppressed. In this case, you must follow that prophetic command.
You should obey, listen and obey and not resist and not rebel, because that is part of the human
nature or part of the nature of this world. But justice will not always be established. Therefore, after you have done your best, you should accept it. And you should just walk away and ask Allah subhanaw taala to establish justice there, because justice would always be established in the hereafter in Yama, Yama. Yes.
The concept of lawyers, is it an Islamic?
Why is that Islamic?
It would be an Islamic if the lawyer knows for sure that his the that his client is guilty. And he takes his case, that would be an Islamic for that ruler for that lawyer. If he knows for sure that he has given his client who's guilty out of trouble, then that would be
But if he is defending his client,
and he's uncertain, then it is fine. Because everyone deserves the you know, a good defense unless you become certain of the guilt of your client. If you're uncertain and you do your best, even if you doubt that your client may be here now guilty.
But everybody does deserve the you know, the best defense they could get. So, in this case, it is not an Islamic,
but if you become certain of the guilt of your client, who then it would be an Islamic for this lawyer to take this case
the judge would not what?
No, because because some people may be incapable and they need help to basically present to their case, some people may not be eloquent, may not be informed, may not be savvy may not be they need help to present their case to the judge
occupation that is done out of goodwill only, you know, these are very good questions because a lot of our youth do think this way.
So, it is a problem that we have to deal with. So, you know, like one time I ask you, these are the very unrealistic ideas that when when tested on the ground, they fail and the cause so much harm to us as Muslims. When we come up with these ideas, people will will be able to perceive how far fetched the art
so one time, long time ago, I was asking one of the Messiah
so how is it without elections that we will be able to produce leaders
and the chief said to me, you know, and he's a very good shape.
It's just that that sometimes with the stagnation of it's the had he get to the to the
conclusions. Let's see if we said to me
that we have elections and certificate bunnies either.
You know, when the chose abubakr, after the profits or some, No, they didn't have elections. But have we been able to reproduce that effect? benissa either the ever since
we have really not been able to reproduce the proof of any side ever since.
How do we reproduce it? Now? How do we have certificate many sided now?
And I sent them, but tell me, how are we going to go about it like reenacting so many cida in our current times. And she had said that the leaders of you know, the facade, allometry Islami and so on the Muslim activists and leaders and leaders of the community and so on, be able to come together and choose their best to be the Khalifa.
Have they been able to do it? After the Russians went out of Afghanistan?
the Mujahideen that sacrifice their lives and their their wealth and, you know, put themselves in the way of danger? should be the most qualified for this work. These are people that show their honesty showed their sincerity, showed their devotion, have they been able to do it? You know, no. Yeah, they failed miserably. We have to be honest with ourselves in any other country, have we not failed miserably? Yes. Therefore, it seems it seems the only solution that is available is to have elections. Now we could say, is it the Iraq
vote or indirect vote, we then we could talk but at the end of the day, you will have to have elections. And you have to have the representatives of the people elected because otherwise you can't do it. Otherwise, you produce your own leaders. You know, I'm from a different group, or a different orientation, therapy orientation, aka the orientation, I produce my own leaders, and then we keep on fighting until we finish one another and wait around for someone to come and stop us. Yeah, you stop us. And we will take care of you we will, we will control and we will take care of you. Because otherwise we can't leave you guys alone. We just have to be here. Because once we leave
you alone, you're going to go back on it once again.
So in this case, unrealistic. You have to always think, unrealistic ideas.
One of the things that the US immigration law says that one of the premises upon which this is accepted, is that it does not defy Allah He did his will. But that
was that he said the same thing. If the husband said the same thing, even if they may have said the same thing. The Hadith does not defy the common senses and the mental, mental, Maxim's
Yes, like if the if the Hadees. Clearly, you know, so Hadees was. And this is not to basically belittle or undermine the importance of the work on the chain of narration. But if the Hadith according to some scholars, according some scholars, that chain of narration according some scholars is
fine, valid, acceptable, like these.
There's the whoever sneezes when he's speaking, you should believe him.
Soon as the chain of this hadith is acceptable, by the time said, it has been rejected by the scholars, even the chain is acceptable, because that is counter to the
proof, proven human experiences that
people could could do this alive at the same time.
that is when it comes to hobbies that have acceptable chains of narrations.
If it comes to
thoughts, ideas, convictions that have been passed down by some scholars now that can
sense of the home because the home does not all agree on a misguidance, but have been passed down by some scholars,
you have to have a reality check for those convictions you have, you have to have a reality check. Now this reality check does not necessarily mean that you will judge those convictions based on your common sense.
But it is based on the age the head of the qualified scholars.
Nowadays, we have Madonna Africa, we have assemblies, those assemblies addressed many of these issues. Should there be lawyers, we have assemblies that are addressed to this issue. And they said, yes, there should be lawyers, because that is basically
one acting as our kill of another as an agent variable of another.
And we'll call the managers fee in the habit of just fieldwork.
And anything where, you know,
acting on behalf of one at someone else is acceptable than agency in this case, would be acceptable. So yes, it would be okay to have lawyers. And the fifth assembly is also whether it's no ice or the Muslim League or whatever. They said, yes, it would be okay. To have elections.
It is important to then that we allow some, you know, that we have this reality check, and that we include the experts in our
judicial or in our 50 discussions, because we've been acquainted with the times and with the requirements of the times is essential for a healthy discourse on fact.
So lawyers, you know, using various types of admissible proofs, and and most of the contemporary scholars have agreed on this, whether the because Because otherwise, it's not doable. Otherwise, you you could not thrive, you could not really present a solid case for Islamic jurisprudence to go back and over retake the the courts in Muslim lands without accepting
forensic medicine, as as admissible proves.
nobody's saying that the judge would be able to know the law, all you need to do is to present your case. But will you be able to present your case in a way that is
clear enough for the judge, because the judge is at the end of the day, a human being and the prophet SAW Selim said one of you may be more eloquent than another. Well, if the one who is less eloquent brings his brother to talk on his behalf, you know, and to explain, you know, things for the judge, then it would be absolutely permissible, because that is agency that is absolutely acceptable. In this case, and there is not a shred of evidence, Lana's, while I'm on on us, there is not an text or an implication of any text that would counter this position.
No, I didn't say that this has to make sense.
Hobbies, you know, the scholars look, examine the map or the wording of the Hadith. And if it is counter to the senses, which is your hearing your vision, you know, or to the mental axioms, then they don't accept it, even if the chain is acceptable, counter to mental axioms, mental axioms are not the common sense your common sense and my common sense, this is basically
the agreed upon axioms of the intellect. So the whole is bigger than the part is an agreed upon axiom of the intellect. So it is not the variable common sense where your senses different from my sense, and I use my sense, you use your sense we're talking about
Mental axioms and the myth that axioms are not
controversial, they are accepted by all people.
These serve as well Mirage
trends transcend the axioms do not counter them, there is something there is a huge difference between countering and transcending the unseen, the world of the unseen, transcends our intellect. Now, it does not count on our intellect, because the counter our intellect, we have to be have the ability to judge it, we have not seen it. So there is so there is a difference between transcending the intellect and countering the intellect.
But keep in mind, it is not don't don't report this for me. He said that he's asked
what makes sense. This makes sense for sure, but I'm saying that this collar is examine the map of the hobbies and make sure that it is not counter to the mental axioms. And it is not counter to our analysts, which is the hearing the vision, the order the taste.