Speaker 1 discusses the significance of the ancient beast in various ways, including its significance in cultural and scientific societies. They also mention the historical significance of the beast's name, which was given to the Spanish Church in 14ac meanwhile. The speaker briefly touches on the origins of the beast and its significance in various ways, including its resurrection as a beast.
00:00:00 -->
00:00:01
A warm
00:00:03 -->
00:00:07
out sell me Kobe league in
00:00:08 -->
00:00:15
new he him first, Blue Lake Erie,
00:00:24 -->
00:01:07
Salam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Alhamdulillah wa Salatu was Salam ala rasulillah. While he
was happy he woman what I'm about today's q&a is going to be one, one answer to a question that I
have received from many different people from around the globe for the last few weeks. And I have
hesitated to answer it. But I said Bismillah and inshallah huhtala will be answering that one today.
And so the summary of all of these questions that have come in, is with respect to the situation
that is ongoing, with the cartoon controversy, and the the the the killings that took place. And
many people are asking, Well, what is the Islamic ruling the Sharia ruling on those who committed
00:01:07 -->
00:01:47
this crime of blasphemy? And if the penalty for blasphemy is, as some of the clerics are saying,
well, then what can we say about the reality of what what is going on? And about the vigilante
justice that is being enacted by these people in their response to the cartoon controversy? So it's
going to be a very sensitive question. It is one that is pertinent. And so our question today is
basically the Islamic ruling on blasphemy and what is to be done in minority situations such as the
countries that we live in, when such blasphemy occurs against Allah subhanho? wa Taala? Or against
the messenger? sallallahu alayhi? wasallam?
00:01:48 -->
00:02:30
Now, this question is a very difficult one, and I hesitated to answer it, because it is a very
sensitive question, it is very easily misunderstood. Nonetheless, I asked Allah Subhana, wa Taala
for his loss and photofiltre and ask Allah subhana wa Taala, to guide me to say, the truth in the
matter that is the best and the wisest one, I found that nobody's really discussing this issue
explicitly, and people's questions are becoming more and more, I guess, some answer, inshallah is
better than none, if it is done properly. And I hope that this is the beginning of other
conversations, perhaps other people can also contribute. And of course, one of our main concerns in
00:02:30 -->
00:03:13
this, with regards to this question is the extremely sensitive nature of this topic, we have people
that are on all sides of the spectrum that are just waiting for any type of person of a Muslim
background, to make a 10 second clip that they can take and distort and then go run with it that
this person is justifying where this person is doing, whatever. And so we have people, for example,
on the far right, you know, that are just waiting to find anything that is that is, you know, I'm
going to paint Muslims in a negative light that is somehow going to be interpreted to justify this
act of vigilante justice, despite the fact that I have been consistent throughout all of these, you
00:03:13 -->
00:03:51
know, years even not just before this controversy from the beginning, that the the killing of
people, even if they have done something wrong, or immoral or unethical, is itself immoral, and
unethical and unjustified. And I've said this from the beginning. So you have to be careful that
there is no justification that is read in and I make this disclaimer from the very beginning. We
also have, of course, people of our own faith tradition, that are also looking for slip ups, but the
exact opposite. They are also looking to find there are people that are doing their own vigilante
justice online with their 10 second video clips and their quote unquote, exposes that are especially
00:03:51 -->
00:04:31
against established the safe. clerics are established, you know, people have knowledge, and they
have become famous or infamous, I should say, for scouring through hundreds of hours of video clips
and finding 10 second, you know, clips and then blasting them on social media that oh man, so and so
has worship the devil or she so and so has, you know, done such a shaky crime or whatever. And, of
course, I have also been under attack by this. And of course, it's a nuisance and irritating.
There's no question about this. It's something that takes some time. And so social media becomes a
buzz. And we have people like this as well that if a person there, unfortunately, these brothers not
00:04:31 -->
00:04:59
only are they not qualified, because they're not they're not capable of differentiating between
legitimate opinions that are based on HD hat that might be acceptable, even if you don't agree with
them, versus opinions that are outside the bounds of acceptability. And so we have to battle both of
these mindsets the far right from without and I call them the far right from within, because these
are also the Uber fanatical from our own myths that any disagreement from their mindset from their
lives.
00:05:00 -->
00:05:40
Knowledge is automatically interpreted as a rejection of the shittier of Allah subhanho wa Taala.
Even though ironically, none of them have studied the shitty, none of them have actually trained
with odema they are all self taught with a little bit of, you know, classes here and there. And then
they are critiquing people that have studied more than the butthead. So we're walking into a
minefield, a landmine, I'm walking into a landmine. And I know that this answer this entire video
that I'm going to be giving, that it is very easy to misinterpret and ask Allah subhanho wa Taala,
for his protection and allow me to speak the truth in this regard, to be fair, to our shady and to
00:05:40 -->
00:06:19
be faithful to our shady up, and also to take into account the allowances that the shady itself
gives. Now, today's so the entire talk today, the entire q&a is going to be about this question
because it's a very detailed one. And even in this is going to be summarized, I'm going to be
addressing this question from four different angles. And I need you to go along with me one by one.
And if anybody takes any 10 22nd clip, please just negate that and listen to the whole lecture so
that you can listen to the entire thing in context, I'm going to be answering this question from
four different angles. First and foremost. What do the books of Islamic law state what is the
00:06:20 -->
00:06:57
position of the mazahub? The classical schools about blasphemy? What do the Hanafi Shafi rheumatica
Humbert is very briefly, the school rhythm, what exactly is found in our textbooks? These are the
canons of law. This is what is taught, you know, when you're studying Islamic law at any type of
institution, this is what is taught. So what is there about the shady app in the classical books of
filth? Secondly, very briefly, we're also going to mention Okay, how has this law been applied
historically, because law is one thing and application is another and both need to be considered all
too often, sometimes even some of our madrasa graduates. They study law, but they don't study
00:06:57 -->
00:07:41
history. And it is important to contextualize and understand how even our own societies, how the
majors and Abbas's how, you know, the great empires of the past actually applied to these laws, how
often was it applied? So that's another angle that needs to be looked at. The third angle that I'm
going to be looking at very briefly, again, all of these are very brief responses. Is that okay?
classical law is one thing, Islamic history is one thing now, modernity, in our times in the current
climate that we live in, is there any room for interpretation? Can we rethink through can these
laws, are they immutable? Absolutely, in that they cannot be changed at all? Or can some
00:07:41 -->
00:08:23
circumstances allow for some fine tuning for some rethinking in specific times and places? So this
is the third question that we need to address. And then the final question, is that okay, all of
these are great for Muslim majority countries. The third question comes in handy for Muslim
minorities living in western lens. The fourth question or angle is, what do we do? Okay, the third
question is Muslim majority countries is the room to think through this and to fine tune, or is it
immutable? The fourth question, Muslim minorities, us in America, in England and France and Canada,
in Australia, in Germany, and across you know, the the the European and Western worlds, we are
00:08:23 -->
00:09:02
living in secular democracies, we're living as a minority. And we all understand that the laws of
the land are based on sources that are not our sources. So what is the responsibility of Muslims
living in western lands, Vista V, the laws found in the classical books, and the the rulings
pertaining to any type of judgment that is of a penal nature, ie criminal laws that are found in the
shediac. So we're going to be doing all four of these and again, time is always limited. Each one of
these can be written about and they have been written about in many, many volumes, but I'm just
going to introduce you to some key points that are shallow to Allah can be of benefit, first and
00:09:02 -->
00:09:04
foremost, the books of
00:09:05 -->
00:09:46
Now before we begin, again, to contextualize it to understand the goals of Islamic law are very
different than the goals of Western law, Islamic law, the shady aims to build a moral society,
right? It is of the goals of the shediac to have a moral society. It is not of the goals of the
Constitution of America to build a moral society in the United States of America, it's not of their
goals. So the shitty as fundamental sources and the shady as visions and the shady as methodologies
and the shady as goals are very different than the goals of the modern nation state and of the
modern constitutions of the lines that we live in. And therefore, it should come as no surprise that
00:09:46 -->
00:09:59
because the shitty I wants to build a morally upright and sound society, it is looking at overall
the benefits and the harms that will happen in a society if something were to be rampant therefore,
for example,
00:10:00 -->
00:10:41
selling drugs or visual represented representations of *. Obviously the shediac will not
cannot should not allow these types of things in public, regardless of what a private sin is.
Because even in an Islamic land, you know the what is happening the privacy of your house, it's not
your neighbor's missus to go barging in, that's between you and Allah subhana wa Tada, yes, if
somebody knows they can warn you privately, but to have this in public to have a sin happening in
public to have prostitution publicly done to have * publicly, there is no question that
the Shetty would not allow this because that is not conducive to a morally upright society. And
00:10:41 -->
00:11:23
therefore, it is no, it's not something that is that strange to say that obviously open mocking of
Allah subhanho wa Taala and open mocking of the messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would not be
allowed. Now. This is different than the rights the sharing our gifts to non Muslims to be
practicing their faith. We all know there is no controversy In this regard, that the Allah Zima the
Al Kitab they have the right to practice their faith even under the whole of Russia don't they were
practicing their faith. You had Christians you had Zoroastrians, you had you had the Persians or
Austrians, you had the Jewish people, all of them are living their lives very visibly Christian or
00:11:23 -->
00:12:02
Jewish or Zoroastrian. In in, in Mohawk lands, there were also the the Hindus living there the moral
because they followed Hanif effect, they're also allowing other faith traditions as well, some faith
traditions will not allow paganism, or idolatry and the Hanafi madhhab allows it as a part of, you
know, what is permitted under an Islamic lab. And it is very clear that these faiths were allowed to
practice their rituals, which included for from our perspective should go for right when you worship
other than Allah subhana wa, tada, this is, when you claim that God has a son, or there's a trinity
This is cool for this type of shit. Because Well, the Christians are allowed to believe and practice
00:12:02 -->
00:12:41
and teach their children and they do their rituals in their houses of worship, but they are not
allowed to proselytize outside this isn't, you know, in the the conditions of approval of the laquan
they're not allowed to proselytize to others, they may do that and pass their faith down to their
children, and they may do things that we deem immoral we deem to be unethical. A part two of
Christian rituals was to drink wine, and our books are filled are explicit that the Christians will
drink their wine in their churches, but they cannot sell wine in public, they cannot come and cause
Muslims or help Muslims to drink wine. They're doing this in their houses of worship, and in their,
00:12:41 -->
00:13:21
you know, dinners they're having that that's their allowance in the shediac, it is not something
that they can do upon the Muslims. So it is very clear that the Sharia allows the private conference
schilke, if you like of these individuals, and it does not allow them to be doing them in public in
front of the Muslims, or enticing Muslims in this regard. Now, obviously, this is in contrast to
modern notions of liberalism and secularism. And this is something that we are all familiar with
that in the lands that we live in, that the government has taken a neutral role, or it is supposed
to take a neutral role. And the government has more of an emphasis on individual choices, that as
00:13:21 -->
00:14:08
long as you do what you want, generally speaking, nobody's going to interfere in your faith
tradition. As we said, Islamic law takes into account both individual choice and effects on
community. And therefore, as I said, ridiculing Allah and His Messenger publicly, this is something
that no Muslim, no scholar of Islam has tolerated in the lands of Islam, any land that is governed
by the Sharia, that it would not be allowed to publicly mock Allah and His messenger that they can
nobody can go into the public square and say derogatory things, or disrespect to the Koran, because
again, this is an open invitation to to refer to a rejection of a lot subhanho wa Taala and the
00:14:08 -->
00:14:52
Sharia aims for a morally upright society. It is quite clear, therefore, that there is unanimous
consensus and all of them as I have been, all the books have felt that public provocation in the
lands of Islam against the signs of Islam would not be allowed. And this is with regards to the
Koran or the bill. You know, doing something sacrilegious to the Koran, or verbally abusing Allah
subhanho wa Taala or verbally abusing the messenger, sallallahu alayhi wasallam. This will not be
tolerated. And none of the classical books have allowed this to happen and they all said it must be
stopped. Now again, I'm talking about a deliberate, deliberate and clear provocation. We are not
00:14:52 -->
00:15:00
talking about a non Muslim, doing what is a part of his faith or her faith, and that might include
something that
00:15:00 -->
00:15:36
is, you know, derogatory for us, for example, worshipping other than Allah subhanho wa Taala. This
is something that we find offensive, morally speaking. But they're allowed to do this in the privacy
of their, of their places of worship, there's nothing that there should be I will come between them
and their rituals for the Christian to claim that they believe in a trinity. Well, of course, they
believe in a trinity. And the Quran says that do not say Trinity, meaning do not say it morally. But
the Christian is allowed to say politically, even in the lens of Islam, that if a Muslim were to ask
him, what do you believe? And the Christian says, Oh, I believe in the Trinity. This is a factually
00:15:36 -->
00:16:16
correct statement that is morally repugnant and politically sanctioned, this is not going to be
considered blasphemy. If the Christian were to be asked by the Muslim that day, do you believe that?
You know, Jesus is the Son of God? And the Christian says, Yes, I believe Jesus is the Son of God.
The Quran says Subramaniam the Quran says that, that the mountains are going to break asunder, and
the heavens are going to cleft into two because they claim that Allah has a son. So morally, it is
repugnant to say Allah has a son. Politically, it is not blasphemy. If a Christian simply tells you
this is my belief, what would be considered blasphemy in the lens of Islam, something that is
00:16:16 -->
00:16:54
understood. And this requires, obviously, you know, a judge and whatnot is something that is
understood that it is a deliberate provocation, it is a deliberate attempt to ridicule the signs of
Islam, a Christian being a Christian, a Jew, being a Jew, a Zoroastrian being as a restaurant, and
basically doing what is restaurants supposed to do, that cannot and should never be interpreted as
being derogatory in and of itself, that's their faith tradition. But to go above and beyond this,
and to make a point to be sacrilegious to the faith of Islam, this is something that the books of
film would not allow. Now, after this comes the issue of the punishment. What is the punishment for
00:16:54 -->
00:17:30
the one who would do this? Well, the books are filled to mention a number of things. There is a
differentiation if it comes from a Muslim or from a non Muslim. And also there's some discussion of
whether the person has the opportunity to repent or not to repent. And the details of this are much
longer than this topic deserves. The majority position, though, and some have claimed is that a
person who blast themes against Allah and His messenger is arrested by the state by the proper
authorities, he is tried. And he is allowed to defend himself as he's saying, Is he insane? Did he
know what he's doing? Does he actually, you know, if somebody saw him, you know, throwing something
00:17:30 -->
00:18:10
on the ground, and turns out, it's a must have? And he didn't know, for example, so does he
understand what he's doing? Is he intending to provocation? Does he have sane mind or not? If such a
person intended to blaspheme? If there was clear intent, then the majority position is that indeed
the penalty for public lasts for me is indeed execution and there is no this is the reality of what
our books are filk state now, some scholars say that he should be allowed the opportunity to repent,
and others said that a public provocation requires a public punishment and repentance will be
private between him and a lot subhana wa Tada. Some other scholars differentiated between somebody
00:18:10 -->
00:18:47
who bless you against a law versus somebody who bless him is against the messenger sallallahu alayhi
wasallam a lot of discussion, you know, that is again, beyond the scope of this shareholder Salman
bin Timmy, by the way, has a very thorough book in this regard, which is entitled A Sodom and
Massoud Allah, Chateau Rasul, which is basically a very detailed exposition is over 500 pages about
the ruling of the one who makes fun of the messenger and of course, he took the position which is
the majority position that this person should be executed. Now some have claimed that there's a Juma
on this issue. And they quote me on Monday, one of the earliest scholars of Islam who wrote a book
00:18:47 -->
00:19:29
about hmm unanimous consensus among the dimensions or edge metal elements and them and sub Bandha
BSL Allahu Allah, he was selling them another level of cotton that there is a Gemma that whoever
curses the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that he is to be executed. However, it appears that
this is for a Muslim who curses the messenger sallallahu it he was selling them as for the non
Muslim, the zimmy, who curses the messenger, there is a dissenting voice amongst the hanafuda. In
fact, many of the early Hanafi scholars are quite explicit in this regard. Yamamoto how are we in
his mcda set of data for Roma. He says others have one human seven Nebbiolo la vida he was saying
00:19:29 -->
00:19:59
that more about who what kind of Muslim and for pasado more than one oh can have a million or zero
while I'm you could tell that he says the Hanafi say that. If a Muslim insults the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam This is ryda and he should be killed. But if he it is a zimmy a non
Muslim, then this person is going to be punished but not going to be killed. And I'll just sauce,
the famous hanafy amorphous silicon Harlem and Chef he died 370 hegira
00:20:00 -->
00:20:01
He writes, in his book,
00:20:04 -->
00:20:48
The short term of thoughts as to how we fulfill hanafy. So it is mentioned in this book that I'll
just saw says that whoever is from the Zima, meaning the non Muslims, and he makes fun of the
messenger, that person has should be punished, but not by killing IE stop him, take him to jail,
find him, but he's not to be killed. And then he says, The reason being, that their religion is
itself, Cofer. their religion is the worship of other than a law, their religion, or their religion
necessitates them rejecting the messenger. And so their faith itself has enough comfort in it, that
if they were to go beyond this, then the thing that they should be punished for is to go public with
00:20:48 -->
00:21:04
that type of belief and cause chaos. That's basically the philosophy and then he mentioned this is
just sauce mentioning that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam was basically mocked in his lifetime, and
he did not punish the people who did that, for example, when a group of people came
00:21:05 -->
00:21:45
into the background and said to him, Assam or alikum, Assam means the plague the death be upon you,
rather than assalamu alikum. And the profits are some understood, and he said made up and it may be
upon you, as well. And the famous Hanafi, jurists alhuda, who of course, wrote the most famous
beginning or introductory method of hanafuda. kaduri also says that if the eyelid Zima, if the
people of the non Muslim background, they curse Allah subhana wa Tada. This is something that
automatically when they say that he has a child, it is a type of curse. And when the Zoroastrian
says that he's light and dark, God is light and dark. This is also a type of curse. And so the same
00:21:45 -->
00:22:24
applies if a the me were to say something bad about the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, it is
simply a different type of buffer, other than the COVID, he is already upon. So he doesn't deserve
the death penalty basically, because of that. But he does deserve that he should that you should be
stopped from basically publicizing it. And the same is the famous el cassani, the famous author but
not your Asana. So now he says the same thing where could it go to Serbia so the law while he was
selling law, you lie on top of the holy and harder zyada to cofrin Allah cofrin the same mentality
or the notion that cassani says the same thing now. So what we see here is that the Hanafi, Rama,
00:22:24 -->
00:23:02
the giants of the Hanafi School of early Islam, these are all major names caduti cassani, just saw
these are the giants. These are the founders of the Hanafi law after a mom of one hanifa himself,
they all held the similar position, that the non Muslim who makes fun of the Prophet sallallahu
alayhi wa sallam he is to be disciplined and punished, but not to be executed. However, this
position was not adopted by the sharp fairies and the Maliki's and the humble ease and also later
henna fees came and they also adopted the other three positions, which is, as you know, in common in
our lands today of India, Pakistan or whatnot, it is understood that their modern position
00:23:02 -->
00:23:46
interestingly, the classical school has a different opinion in this regard. So, this is the first
question that is answered What do the books have fixed states to conclude, in a land governed by the
the shediac, that is, you know, found in the mazahub, basically all of them at that hip, they have
all claimed that it is not allowed to publicly ridicule anything that is sacred. And in fact, the
Quran explicitly forbids even Muslims from publicly ridiculing the gods of the the idolaters. The
pagans that the Quran says don't curse their gods, because in response, they're going to do nothing
but curse Allah subhanho wa Taala, you haven't gained anything. So we do not make fun of or ridicule
00:23:46 -->
00:24:15
anything that is sacred, we don't make a provocation. And this is especially upon those that are
outside of our faith tradition, they do not and they should not make fun of our faith when they're
living in our lands. And they should be stopped if they do so. Now, if they do so, according to
three of the four schools of law, there is indeed the punishment that is the blasphemy, which is
execution. And the Hanafi is early Hanafi said that there should be reprimanded but not killed. So
this is the first
00:24:16 -->
00:24:57
question and that is classical Islamic filk. The second question, historically speaking, was this
ruling applied, it is definitely was definitely applied. There is no question that if you read the
books of history, every once in a while you come across an incident where somebody publicly said
something that was derogatory something negative, and was indeed taken to a court, and generally
speaking, a lot of times they were imprisoned or punished or even executed. However, one finds as
well that this is not a common occurrence. And the reason for this is that by and large there was a
level of civility and common sense. By and large people did not go around cursing other people's
00:24:57 -->
00:25:00
religions or saying bad things about other people's religion.
00:25:00 -->
00:25:35
everybody understood that this is sacred to the other person. And so it would not be done. And
because of this one does not find the blasphemy case every day of the week or every week of the
year, it doesn't work that way. On the contrary, if you read the books of history you find once
every few decades or even centuries here, so you'll find a very, you know, big case that happens.
And you know, indeed, a trial takes place. And sometimes, indeed, execution occurs. In fact, even
taymiyah wrote his book of Solomon muslin, he wrote it because of a very public case of a Christian
person, by the name of our staff,
00:25:36 -->
00:26:17
who is publicly making fun of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and the people became very
agitated, and they took him to the governor, and there was a big hue and cry, which should be done.
And even taymiyah therefore wrote his book, that public mockery of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa
sallam indefinitely in mameluke times should have the death penalty. So it even happened in the time
that we've been Tamia. But it happened once in the time of women Tamia. And it's not something that
was a common occurrence. Generally speaking, those who went down this path, they did it knowing the
results and one thing that attention, they wanted to drive the point home, when you're in a land
00:26:17 -->
00:26:58
where everybody knows that if you do something, the penalty is going to be death. Why would you do
that? You're doing that to bring attention for a greater cause, in your opinion. And we see this
most infamously in a very famous series of mini incidents that are that are that is now called the
incident of the martyrs of kotoba of Cordova. That Autobot, the capital of the Andalusian Empire,
you know, around 800 ce, there were a series of Christian priests and monks, that began walking in
front of the masjid, when the people are coming out of this after Juma or during the height of the
bazaar, whatever, and publicly making fun of Allah and His Messenger loudly shouting out the most
00:26:58 -->
00:27:33
vulgar things, you know, against Allah, the Prophet salallahu alaihe salam, this is a famous series
of incidents that happened many dozens of times, why are they doing this? What would be the result
of doing it, they weren't captured, they were put on trial. Many of them were in fact executed
because they did not change their minds. And they continue to defend their actions. It is said that
maybe up to 50 people were executed over a period of a few decades. It wasn't just one day, it was
actually a few decades happening every few months or something, somebody would do this cause a big,
you know, at the scene, people would come around, he would be arrested, he would be adamant. And so
00:27:33 -->
00:28:15
more than 50 people or up to 50 people were executed over this series of many decades, three
decades, maybe 30 years or so. Why? What was the goal? modern historians remark that the goal of
these priests, the goal of these clerics, the clergyman was to bring attention to what they thought
was the dying Christian Empire, because people were converting to Islam and mass and Christianity
was dwindling. Within a few decades, Christianity was a minority faith after it had been a majority
faith in Andalusia. And so these clerics wanted to bring attention they wanted to die for their
cause, you know, as they thought that Christ died for the sins of mankind. They wanted to die for
00:28:15 -->
00:28:54
the cause of Christianity to empower to embolden other Christians to make them wake up from their
perspective slumber right to stop converting to Islam, obviously didn't succeed, and Andalus ended
up majority Muslim land for over 750 years, as we all know, but in early andalusi, in time, this is
the first century of the capture of Andalus when people are embracing Islam and Christianity is
beginning to become a minority, this incident happened and it shows you the psychology, why would
somebody do this right, they would do this to bring attention to themselves to for their causes, for
a reason that they thought was legitimate. And by the way, the, you know, there's always this is
00:28:54 -->
00:29:31
something that brings controversy in every generation, a decade ago, I think, eight years ago, in
Saudi Arabia, which claims to be governed by the shitty I, by the way, in Saudi Arabia, I would have
been a person from Makkah, one of their citizens, one of their, their, their own, he tweeted or
Facebook, you know, something very, you know, derogatory about the prophets of Allah, Allah who was
one of their own, not some outsider foreigner, one of their own born and raised Muslim whatnot. And
the whole community, you know, basically became very agitated as they should have been somebody is
doing especially in Makkah, and so he was, in fact, arrested. And he was tried, and scholars came to
00:29:31 -->
00:30:00
speak to him. And eventually he repented from his claim, he asked to list forgiveness. And a number
of famous clerics said that they have spoken to him one on one, and they genuinely believe that, you
know, he admitted that he made some mistakes, and eventually he was actually let go and he is still,
you know, alive and healthy in Saudi Arabia after having done what he had done. So the point being
this type of issue is nothing new. Historically. We have had episodes and incidents within the lens
of Islam And generally speaking those who do this you
00:30:00 -->
00:30:38
If they don't repent and they are persistent, it has happened historically, that the message is sent
to the rest of society, there is a red line, it should not be crossed. So that is the second point.
However, it is not a common occurrence, it does happen, and you will find it. But it's not something
that is there every single time. And we also find leeway as what happened a decade ago, in the lens
of Mecca itself. When somebody repents when a Muslim repents, and whatnot. The third issue then so
we talked about the classical fifth books were very briefly mentioned some historical incidents.
Now, the third issue, which is the one of the most sensitive ones, and especially our you know,
00:30:38 -->
00:30:42
Muslim audiences, they get very agitated with regards to this topic.
00:30:44 -->
00:31:21
And that is, when somebody comes in says that, is there any leeway? In these laws in a Muslim
majority land? Is there room to rethink through? Or are they completely immutable. And this is a
very detailed discussion, which once again, I'm just going to introduce so that you are aware that
this is something that is going going on and inshallah maybe one day myself or maybe somebody who is
more qualified than me, I'm in the end of the day, I consider myself a minor student of knowledge.
As I have said many times that anything that I say to him that in that there is precedent for any
filthy position I hold, there's always people far more knowledgeable than me that have said it and
00:31:21 -->
00:31:59
hold it, I do not consider myself qualified to make independent HDR, and issues of fifth, I have
never done this, I always coach you people that I think are more knowledgeable than me. And I
respect them. Yes, I make HD hard within the scholars HD heart, right people bigger than me and
better than me, I feel qualified to look at what they're doing, and then maybe pick and choose but
to go and break away from their consensus or do something that they have not done that I consider to
be of the senior scholars of Islam, I don't know of any position that I hold of a Philippine nature
that is unprecedented. Alhamdulillah. And the same goes for what I'm about to say in the next few
00:31:59 -->
00:32:46
minutes as well. Now, again, let me preface this by saying that the majority of those who speak
about these issues, the majority of our brethren, who criticize myself and others, when they hear
something that they they don't have not heard before, and I say this with gentleness, they are not
qualified to speak or to criticize, they have not studied the Sharia. And one of the causes of this
knee jerk emotion, allistic reaction is the very real threat or danger of people rejecting the idea.
That's undoubtedly what is happening that we have in our midst. Many people who don't care what
Islamic law says many people who they are, they call themselves progressives, or they're ultra
00:32:46 -->
00:33:29
liberals, where they really have no care or concern for our tradition. And they are wanting to do
away with anything that is problematic in the media. And they want to basically consider our modern
Western values to basically be exactly the same as Sharia, which is nonsensical. They're completely
different paradigms. Are they compatible? Yes, you can be a Muslim living in western lands and
democracies being faithful to this idea. But are they the same? Are they the are they going to be
overlapping with one another at a national level? Obviously not. So what happens when you find a
group of people that are holding views that are clearly without any basis that are based in their
00:33:29 -->
00:34:10
own house or their desires, you have a knee jerk reaction from those who want to defend Islam, they
want to plant you know, the flag of Islam deep into the ground. And then Rhoda Ma, come along,
trained clerics come along. fuqaha come along, and they say well, okay, in this issue, maybe we can
rethink through for today, for this time in place for this era. And all of a sudden, these young
generally they're young, or they're overzealous or they're, even if they're sincere, many of them
are sincere, but they're not trained. All of a sudden, they feel this shift has become ultra
liberal, this shift has become progressive. And so they start refuting, they start criticizing. And
00:34:10 -->
00:34:52
of course, this goes back to the problem that they themselves have a very, very shallow
understanding of the Sharia. And as I have said, almost all of those that are commonly refuting you
know other, you know, people of knowledge online, generally speaking, they have never studied one
book of fill one book of actual cover to cover much less dozens of book much less for many years or
decades. And they simply they're not qualified to be critical. In fact, dear Muslims, there is a
separate branch of knowledge, a separate branch of filk that is called a CS a Sharia, which is
basically how to rule in accordance with the Shetty. Now the CRC to Sheree the concept of CRC based
00:34:52 -->
00:35:00
upon Sharia is a separate branch then this is something that a lot of people simply do not
understand.
00:35:00 -->
00:35:43
Generally speaking, when it comes to how to run a country, you don't open the books of fick to
figure out how to run a country or to run a land or to run a khilafah. It never worked that way. It
is a separate branch of knowledge, which the students of shediac study and they know very well. And
unfortunately, most of those who are criticizing don't even know there is a separate branch of
knowledge called the CRC of the shed er, they have no knowledge of the existence of this knowledge,
how do you expect them to then be qualified to criticize or to take this on? And to give you a very
simple example, so that you help understand this that? Look, this is a topic that was debated and
00:35:43 -->
00:36:25
discussed, even from the beginning of time Sybil caveum writes quite a lot about this, you know, you
have also great drama of the past, you know, a genie water the the writing about a council party or
the writing about governance in Islam, right? How does governance take place in an Islamic land, and
you have different schools and different philosophies of what to do. Added to that, dear Muslims, we
also have to understand that our times have changed dramatically. Now you get this simplistic
response, but the shutdown of a law never changes. And the response back is nobody is asking to
change this idea of a law. But fix is not the idea. And books of film are not the idea. And the
00:36:25 -->
00:37:12
shediac take circumstances into account. And the best example that inshaAllah all of us can
understand is this simple example of Islamic economics of Islamic economics. This is one of the most
clear cut crystal clear examples. You have classical economics, taught in the books of filk. You
have modern Islamic Finance and modern Islamic economics that you have many books in English and
Urdu and Arabic written about that deal with modern, the modern, you know, system in the world
today. These two genres, at first glance, are absolutely unlinked, they're not linked together
unrecognizable. In other words, you can study classical Islamic filk, in any book of any method, and
00:37:12 -->
00:37:55
you will be absolutely and totally ignorant about 99% of the questions that the average Muslim in
your community is going to ask about Islamic Finance, classical Islamic, dealing with finance has
almost no relevance to the modern Muslim living in the cities of the world today, connected with the
banking system dealing with fiat currencies, dealing with banks, and mortgages and credit cards and
stocks and options and home financing and insurance. You can study dozens of books of fic. And you
will not be qualified to answer the most basic question that your neighbor asks you, because the two
sciences are so different. Also, if you are a beginner student of Islamic Finance, and you took a
00:37:55 -->
00:38:35
few basic books of Islamic Finance, you would think that this has nothing to do with classical
Islamic film, you're not going to find it immediate correlation. It takes an intermediate level of
knowledge, it takes a deep study to understand modern Islamic finance is based completely on
classical finance, that modern Islamic finance takes its rulings from the philosophy of classical
finance, but it has extracted them extrapolated them so that it fits the situation of our times. And
this is something that is well known. In fact, Islamic finance only began as a discipline 70 years
ago in the 1960s. Right, literally 1960 is the first book of Islamic finance in the modern world
00:38:35 -->
00:39:17
6070s 80s 90s and is still an ongoing field where you have specialists on their own. Now, what does
this got to do with the topic at hand, very simple. If we all understand, even the most innocent,
basic, overzealous Muslim understands that I will not find the answers to my modern problems of
finance in the books written 1000 years ago. And I need to go to a scholar that is trained not only
in the classical but in the modern, and that the knowledge that this scholar has is a new knowledge
that is derived from the classical, if you can understand this, and you understand that the Sharia
has not been thrown out the window, the Sharia has not been abrogated. This isn't a modernist or
00:39:17 -->
00:39:59
liberal. Why can you not understand that the world has changed dramatically. The political landscape
has changed dramatically. The world as it exists today is radically different than the world as it
was 50 100 200 500,000 years ago, the rise of nation states is a major difference between classical
times and our times. The nation state concept is foreign to early Islam, medieval Islam, no one even
understood there was no nation state throughout most of human history, the concept that all people
of a certain nation should share the same rights because of geography, not because of ethnicity.
00:40:00 -->
00:40:40
Not because of race, not because of tribe, not because of religion. This is an alien concept to most
of human history, the concept of countries with land masses that are already demarcated the concept
of United Nations, the concept of global treaties and every country has a default pacifist
relationship with other countries. This is something that is totally unprecedented given all of this
dear Muslims, why is it difficult to understand that almost every major scholar that is worth his
salt almost every you know, reputable atom that has studied for decades and is global, I'm not
talking about myself, I'm a minor student of knowledge. I'm talking about the experts that sit at
00:40:40 -->
00:41:22
the field councils around the globe, the field councils of Mecca differ councils of Europe,
different councils across the globe, those ruler matter global dilemma, almost all of them, in fact,
I'm not aware of any but any that would disagree with what I'm about to say, are arguing that when
it comes to Islamic governance, how a Muslim majority country should be run, that's something that
we should go come to the table with an open mind and we should discuss now, I am not saying to be
very clear, I am not arguing here for a radical change in our laws have added in our laws of
blasphemy. I'm not arguing for that. What I am arguing is that to have a conversation about how
00:41:22 -->
00:42:02
modern countries and nation states should deal with these issues is not read in and of itself, it is
not a rejection of the Sharia. This is a part of siesta to Shetty, I this is a part of how
governance should happen within within Islam. And you know, again, because I am in that field, I
discuss so many issues with so many, you know, Rama far more knowledgeable than me, many who are
deemed to be conservative, you know, by the masses. And all of them are willing to talk about issues
that the books are filled might mention, but in our times to apply them as a policy in a nation
state that we have to think it through. And this is something that, in fact, ironically, I was
00:42:02 -->
00:42:42
talking to a very famous I'm not going to mention names very famous Mufti today, today is the one
giving lecture today. In the afternoon, I was talking to a very famous booth in South Africa, and
speaking about various issues, including this one as well. And again, he's deemed to be, you know,
mainstream, conservative whatnot. And he was also complaining that the problem is that our own
people are so narrow minded, that if you talk to them about any potential change, they think that
you know, you're throwing the shitty out the water. And so he himself complained. And he said, what
happens is that the only course of action for anybody who wants to bring about change is to jump
00:42:42 -->
00:43:23
over to the progressive side. And that's why so many of our own young men and women are jumping over
to the other side, because they're not able to utilize the tools that the shittier itself allowed
them to utilize. Why? Because of the overzealous backlash from some of our own members who don't
understand that the Sharia allows for the governance of a land to be different than what is found in
the personal books of fick. This is something that goes back to, again, what the scholars of that
time in place would allow, and this is something that should be taken into consideration. And again,
we have to deal with them many issues that I'm not advocating in a particular position, but we do
00:43:23 -->
00:44:03
need to allow the conversation to take place, the world has changed dramatically. And the notion of
people of different faiths coming together under one nation state right. And again, to be very blunt
here, this the problems that are happening, that have happened in the last 10 years with the Arab
Spring, with the rise of an Islamic party in Egypt, right. And they were challenged to this party,
they were challenged that you are governing a land that is 10%. Christian, are you going to bring up
the laws of the Shetty and apply them in this nation state where by definition, everybody in the
nation should be equal. See, here's the point the shitty as concept is very different than the
00:44:03 -->
00:44:41
nation state. I'm not saying that the shitty I was out with Ebola is better is are the better worse.
I'm not saying that I'm saying the shitty as a different philosophy than the nation state. How much
of this idea can be applied in the notion of the nation state? I hope you understand I'm trying to
say here. It's not that it's not that the shediac cannot be applied in the modern world is that the
nation state is a different concept than the shitty as concept of what the state should be. And
you're trying to force a concept that's very different on to this nation state. And that's why we
see these tensions and problems. There's a again, let me be honest, you're my background is
00:44:41 -->
00:44:59
Pakistani let's be very blunt here. Look at the reality of blasphemy laws in the country of
Pakistan. Look at how it is being misused and abused. Any person of intelligence any person that is
fair minded, will acknowledge that what has happened with this notion of blasphemy laws is opening
up the Pandora's box of them
00:45:00 -->
00:45:34
mob mentality of vigilante justice and we see the effects of this. So we have to take into account
how this topic is being misused and abused as well, just because the Sharia calls for certain things
to be blasphemous. When you teach and preach it to the masses who are not trained with the
technicalities of the law, you open up a Pandora's box, and we see the fanaticism that is opened up
against minorities, and unjust cases or injustice happens over and over again. So all of this is to
state that
00:45:35 -->
00:46:20
I am not advocating that these laws must be changed, but I am saying roula of every land have the
right to discuss which of these laws and how and to what level and what modifications and what
caveats. This is a discussion that is mainstream Sunni Islam is not progressive, it's not liberal,
it's not rejecting the idea. It is a part and parcel of the Sharia, given the circumstances of our
time and place. And frankly, if you study the lives of the qualified Raj, you don't if you study
what obaku runofmine alira, the Allahu anhu themselves did, if you studied the early oma years, you
find them this is why they were successful, that they understood that sometimes the CS of the land
00:46:21 -->
00:47:02
is different than what is found in the books of fiction, this is something that is well known. So to
answer this third point, I didn't give an explicit answer. But to answer this third point, in light
of the fact that the world has changed, and in light of the fact that there is a clear
misapplication and misunderstanding and frankly, abuse of these laws, and in light of the fact that
what one country does, has the potential to impact millions of Muslims in many other countries
around the globe. In light of the fact that we have nation states with its own types of laws, it is
possible for a conversation to take place in every majority Muslim country, amongst the aroma of
00:47:02 -->
00:47:39
that country, given the circumstances that country and let those are aluma in conjunction with other
experts and whatnot, but let those earlimart see what is or is not possible. And there is room or
leeway for them to decide that. And if they were to do this, this would be something temporary for
that time in place, it would not be a permanent cancellation of the shittier of Allah subhanho wa
Taala. Because obviously, that is never that is going to be forever there until the date of
judgment. So that is the third point here. The fourth and final point, which is really the most
important for all of us, because all of this is theoretical. In the end of the day, what the books
00:47:39 -->
00:48:22
have fixed date is good to learn and study, we should know that what happened in history very good
to learn and study what a Muslim majority country can do. It's good for them to discuss my audience
right now, most of you watching this are Muslims living in minority situations. So that's really the
crux of the matter here. The final point and the most important point, what does all of this mean
for Muslims living in western lands? by unanimous consensus, the Hadoop or the Islamic punishments
are not established outside the jurisdiction of the lands of Islam. You need a system, you need a
government need a court system, you need a police, you need a judiciary, to execute Islamic
00:48:22 -->
00:49:05
punishments. You need a trial, you need evidence to be presented, you need the accused to defend
himself, you need a third party judge that can see what is going on. And then you need the force of
the law, there's got to be a state that does this. Even in the lands of Islam. You don't have the
right to act as judge, jury executioner, you cannot enact vigilante justice, even in the lands of
Islam, it is not something that is allowed how much more so than in the lies that are not the lands
of Islam, when we are a minority, there is simply no argument to be made, that this is something
that would be allowed, even if the punishment for blasphemy might be death, in most of the Medina
00:49:05 -->
00:49:52
effect, that is a ruling that will only apply in the lands of Islam after a judge after a trial
after all of this has taken place. And then if that law is still being implemented in that line,
indeed, the classical ruler would say that the punishment for blasphemy is indeed death, that
punishment cannot and should not ever be done by an individual, even in the lands of Islam. How much
more so when the lands are not the lands of Islam. And and hamdulillah no reputable scholar of any
land has allowed this type of vigilante justice Yes, there are some, you know, clerics that you
know, this group memory and others they find their clips and they've tried to, you know, broadcast
00:49:52 -->
00:49:59
them but these are unknown people until memory discovers them memory is a very, very Islamophobic
far right group hate group. Really that
00:50:00 -->
00:50:40
them wants to spread hatred of the religion. And they find these clips from people that are totally
obscure, unknown, and they present them as mainstream Islam. And other other than that, generally
speaking, no reputable cleric has come forth with a fatwa that allows an individual Muslim to attack
somebody who blasts themes in the lands that are outside the lens of Islam. And the reasons for this
are self evident and obvious It is common sense. And two simple things can be said first and
foremost from a technical or legal perspective. And secondly, from an overall masala and Mufasa
there cost benefit analysis from the goals of the Shetty out us with a technical perspective. If you
00:50:40 -->
00:51:27
want to get technical, it's very simple. We are living here with the explicit understanding and with
the conditions that have been placed upon us either by citizenship or by visa status. We are living
here with it contract that is implied very explicitly really I mean, I say implied but it is quite
explicit that you are not going to cause chaos and fitna and bloodshed you're not going to go around
harming people of this land. You cannot be in this land with their citizenship with their visas with
the legal status of coming in, except that you have agreed to abide by the laws of this land. And
our Shetty does not allow treachery and it does not allow backstabbing, a Muslim honors his word
00:51:27 -->
00:52:04
Allah says in the Quran, what are the nominee Mr. Na team why the hammer on the believers are those
who live up to their promises and fulfill their common covenants. Allah says in the Quran, yeah, you
already know not to hoonah la hora Sula was the hudl a magnetic want to die the moon or you believe
do not betray the trust civil London and His Messenger and do not betray your trust. While you know
what you are doing. Don't betray them knowingly. And Allah says in the Quran, that what metal how
fundamental Coleman pianet and fun bit Illa him Allah. So if you have entered into a treaty with a
country or nation, with any group of people, and you feel that they're going to break the treaty,
00:52:05 -->
00:52:48
Allah says, you have to not betray the treaty. You have to know the treaty publicly. You have to
acknowledge it, you are not allowed to backstab This is one, two entities two tribes, two nations
have entered a treaty and one of them is going to betray Allah does not allow you to betray Allah
says you have to know publicly before you do something. And that's very explicit. We're in you need
to hear and Attica for cuando la Makoto for em condominium, if they want to betray the treaty with
you. A la xojo says they have already tried to do so. And Allah is all powerful against them. Allah
did not say if they try to betray you betrayed as well. No betrayal is never allowed. treachery is
00:52:48 -->
00:53:27
never allowed our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, and Muslim Muna Allah shirota him,
Muslims abide by the principles they give unto others, they abide by their conditions, you are
living in the lands that you are living in as an American citizen, as an immigrant in Canada, as a
refugee, in in in France, wherever you might be, you have been given permission to come in, that
permission entails it necessitates that you abide by the laws of that land, you are not allowed
islamically in the eyes of Allah subhana wa tada to have that citizenship or that visa or that
immigrant status or that refugee status, and then go around literally backstabbing and killing and
00:53:27 -->
00:53:47
plundering the villa. This is a complete betrayal of your own promise and our prophets of the law
who I sent him said the Muslim abides by what he has promised and there are plenty of evidences in
the show up for to justify this for example, are they particularly among the famous Sahaba who they
fit if they're very famous Sahabi
00:53:49 -->
00:54:24
The one who kept the secret of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam when he was migrating from
Mecca to Medina, who they are by the way was neither quarter sheet nor was he unsightly, he was a
basically of a tribe that is neither from Medina or Makkah. So one day for was migrating the Quran,
he stopped him and the Quran were about to kill him. Because he had no protection. There's no
government that's going to come and protect him and her they said, What if I were to give you all my
money? Would you let me go? They said, Okay, fine, give us all your money, we'll let you go. And
they said, We have one condition on you, that you do not fight against us, when you go to Medina
00:54:24 -->
00:54:59
don't fight against us. So they gave up all of his wealth, and he fled on the hegira to Medina, and
at that time, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was calling people for the Battle of better
are they if they came and told his whole story, and this promise was given to him under the threat
of death, by the way, right? They were literally going to kill him. If it was allowed to betray
one's promise, this would have been the best time the barrel of butter and he is being dressed, he's
being forced. The profitsystem said fulfill your contract with them and we will find help from other
people. Not to you do not participate. He
00:55:00 -->
00:55:38
enacted that promise that her they had taken had given the people of Mecca the whorish, that her
they said, I'm not going to do anything, despite the fact that Muslims needed people that better the
Muslims fought and better, who therefore did not go to better. Okay? We all of us have a contract
with our lands, the kurush in this case, we are being like today for you, we cannot do anything. The
same goes in the famous story of celebrated and acquire it's a very long story. It's a Muslim. It's
a very long story. I don't have time to go into all of it. But in a nutshell in the know in a
nutshell Salatu Salam aquat narrates to us what happen in the Treaty of Arabia. And he says that
00:55:39 -->
00:56:16
there was peace between the people of Makkah and the people of Medina, the Qureshi, and the Muslims
had a peace treaty in three different abiah. And we began intermixing with one another visiting and
going back and forth trading, meaning, you know, hood cinemas going back and forth, and he's trading
for some relatives in Makkah. So he's going there, he's meeting with the people. And then he says,
and one time for people of the people of MK of the pagans, they are he was on a journey. He was on a
journey with them. They came and sat with me when I was sitting under a tree, and they began to make
fun of Islam, and to say things about the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam notice this is
00:56:16 -->
00:56:58
supposed to be right here, guys, listen to this. This is in the prophetic era. This is while the
processor is alive. This is the famous hobby sellers sell them at one o'clock. And he is saying, I
was sitting under my tree minding my business. And this for Cora, she's came, and they began saying
bad things about the Prophet salallahu. It he was selling but this is treaty of her day, BIA, there
is a peace there is a contract that there's not going to be warfare until bloodshed, simply saying
things that are not going to bring about blood. So what did sedima do? He said, I got angry, so
Pinilla, we all should get angry, we have the right to get angry, our blood should boil, and then
00:56:58 -->
00:57:37
what? And I stood up and walked to a different tree and planted my tent over there. So Pinilla, he
left them. And he went away because he didn't want to hear this stuff. And he went to a different
place and sat down over there. And the story goes on as a long story. The key point here, he did not
stand up and kill these people. He did not stand up and spit in their faces, he did not take the
sword out and do anything, even though they are saying things about the profits of the law while he
was selling them sallam, but it's the Treaty of Arabia. And that treaty allows for conversations, it
does not allow for bloodshed. And so nothing happened. Despite the fact this is happening in the
00:57:37 -->
00:58:17
time of the Prophet salallahu, Alayhi, wasallam. And other there are a number of incidents that are
available and it becomes more debt than Abyssinia. Nobody does anything to him. Obviously, he says
things that are an Islamic, nobody does anything to him because they're in a minority situation. So
from a technical perspective is very clear. From an overall, you know, Masada and Mufasa. Do you
weigh the pros and cons the cost benefit analysis? It is self evident to Muslims? If a Muslim goes
and does this thing goes on a rampage. What do you expect? If this continues over and over and over
again? There are millions 10s of millions of Muslims living in these Western lands. What do you
00:58:17 -->
00:58:57
expect the governments are going to do? What is going to be the reaction? Would you blame them if
they kept on making our lives more and more difficult? And so who is at fault here by you think you
are defending the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam and you end up bringing harm to those who
follow the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam dear Muslim, is this the only way you can think of to
defend the Prophet sallallahu Sallam to go and kill somebody? Is this the only defense mechanism you
have? Have you ever thought rather than killing somebody to try to live his son? Have you ever
thought to rather than kill somebody to teach somebody about the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam
00:58:57 -->
00:59:31
rather than enact something that might be found in the books of filk? I'm not denying that there
there there are found in the books of faith. But who are you to be judge jury executioner Who are
you to take the law into your own hand in a country that you've already taken an oath from? You
already have a covenant with Who are you to do something that will bring about a greater harm to the
oma like cinema realize that I can't do anything over here like for the for realize that have given
my oath to the chorus despite all that they do. I cannot do anything to them. You as well do your
Muslim rather than channeling your love to hatred? Why don't you channel your love to education
00:59:31 -->
00:59:59
channel you love to tell people about the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam tell them about the
incident of thought, and how he forgave an entire city that made fun of him. Tell them about the
prophets of the law while he was selling them and the mother of Abu hurayrah, Abu huraira came
crying to the Prophet so I sent him and he said O Messenger of a law. My mother kept on saying bad
things about Islam. And today she said such nasty things about you that I just had to run away and I
came to you
01:00:00 -->
01:00:34
Almost interval law make dua for my mother. Here is a lady cursing the Prophet sallallahu wasallam
in Medina, here is a lady under the jurisdiction of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam she was saying
really nasty things about her it was crying his eyes out, he comes to the Prophet sallallahu I said,
What is the process of do send an assassin to kill her? What does he do send a mob squad to go and
knock on her door and drag her into the street says what happens in some Muslim lands? What does he
do? He raises his hands to Allah subhana wa tada and he says, I will law guide the mother of Abu
hurayrah. Abu huraira goes back home to give the good news that oh my mother, the prophet system is
01:00:34 -->
01:01:09
made to offer you but before he gets home, he finds the door shut and he hears the water pouring as
if somebody is taking a bath and his mother says wait, horrible Herrera don't come inside. I'm
taking a bath and then when he comes inside after he gives her permission, she says like a shadow
Allah Allah had a lower shadow under Muhammad Rasulullah, the daughter of the Prophet sallallahu
alayhi wa sallam was effective instantaneously. Why don't you understand this to be defending the
Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam? Look at how many times the leader of the hypocrites our beloved
new urbanist saloon, tried to make fun of the Prophet sallallahu I sent him with that derogatory
01:01:09 -->
01:01:46
manners. He said the most vulgar the most nasty things the most out of the bill evil things. And I
really don't even want to give you examples, but because of the times that we're living in one
example, that is found out Oh, the biller even for mentioning the story, but he gave this example
when the process of the Sahaba passed by and they were now growing in number this evil hypocrites
said that he and his son Min kalba colocar divulgar thing that you feed your own dog and is going to
become fat and attack you back right? Like this is a treacherous thing to build up. Of course, you
understand the connotation what is meant here would you be la? This is Abdullah bluebay me salute
01:01:46 -->
01:02:19
saying this in Medina and so many other things were said and the Prophet system never once in fact,
when people said let me go kill him said no, it's going to cause a bigger harm. Let it be he made
dua that Allah forgive him. He went into his cupboard, he put his own garment around him, they may
do out to Allah until Allah said in the Quran enough, don't make to offer this hypocrite, even if
you make the 70 times Allah is not going to forgive him. Subhan Allah, have you not studied the
Sierra that you want to mention those stories? Yes, there are other stories as well. And they all
have a context and a place to be mentioned. No doubt about that. I'm not denying that. But how about
01:02:19 -->
01:03:05
these stories? How about all of this that shows the Rama and the compassion and the mercy? Is your
love for the Prophet system only manifested in hating everybody else? Yes, sometimes punishment
needs to be shown by those qualified to show it but not you and me not individuals, our job we we
present the message of the Prophet sallallahu wasallam in our lives, in our compassion in our mercy,
and we demonstrate what it really means to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa
sallam. I have no qualms concluding this lecture by stating very emphatically that this type of
militant reaction, this type of wanton bloodshed, this type of perverted vigilante justice, it does
01:03:05 -->
01:03:47
far more damage to the honor of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam than those cartoons can
possibly do. Those people who kill in the name of Islam the way that they are doing it in this
wanton disregard for the shitty out and the principles of the shitty, they are harming the religion
of Islam, more than any cartoon could possibly harm the image of Islam. Dear Muslims, Allah says in
the Quran in cofina Kumusta as in Allah will deal with those who make fun of the Prophet sallallahu
alayhi wasallam Yes, Allah will deal with them. You and I, we need to do with ourselves and defend
the honor of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam in a manner that is consistent with the goals
01:03:47 -->
01:04:07
of the shittier and frankly, that is consistent with the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam
himself. May Allah subhanho wa Taala guide me and you and all of us to that which he loves. And may
Allah subhana wa tada allow us to be resurrected in the company of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa
sallam inshallah we'll continue next week was Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
