What is the Islamic Ruling on Blasphemy Q&A

Logging. Those saw the

border in

nanny Mina most Nene

Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato Alhamdulillah. Wa salatu. was salam ala Rasulillah. Why Allah Allah, he was so happy woman, voila, my bad. 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 Allah 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 killings that took place. And many people are asking, Well, what is the Islamic ruling the Sharia ruling on

those who commit 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, and 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 wa sallam?

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 ask ALLAH SubhanA, wa taala, for if loss and PhotoFiltre and ask ALLAH SubhanA wa taala, to guide me to say, the truth in the manner that is the best and the wisest. When I found that nobody is 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

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, or 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,

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 know, years even not just before this controversy from the beginning, that the killing of people, even if they have done something wrong, or immoral or unethical, is itself immoral and unethical and unjustified. And I have said this from the beginning. So we 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 against established, let's say, clerics or 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 your mom so and so has worship the devil or shake 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 social social media becomes a buzz. And we have people like this as well that if a person there, unfortunately, these brothers not only are they not qualified, because they're not they're not capable of differentiating between legitimate opinions that are based on each Jihad 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 limited knowledge is on

magically interpreted as a rejection of the *tier of Allah subhanho wa taala. Even though ironically, none of them have studied the *ty, none of them have actually trained with Obama, 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 a butthead. So we're walking into a line for 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 SubhanA wa Taala for his protection if you allow me to speak the truth in this regard, to be fair to our Sharia and to be faithful to

our Sharia, and also to take into account the allowances that the Sharia 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 10/22 clue, 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 position of the mazahub? The

classical schools about blasphemy? What do the Hanafi Shaffir Malika Humphries very briefly discover them? What exactly is found in our textbooks? These are the canons of law. This is what is taught to you know, when you're studying Islamic law at any type of institution, this is what is taught. So what is there about the Sharia 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 history. And it is important to

contextualize and understand how even our own societies how the OMA years and Abbasids how, you know, the great empires of the past actually apply 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 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 lands. 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 and Australia, in Germany, and across you know, the the European and Western worlds, we are 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, vis a vie 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 Sharia, 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 inshallah Allah can be of benefit, first and foremost, the books of fic. Now, before we begin, again, to

contextualize and to understand, the goals of Islamic law are very different than the goals of Western law. Islamic law, the Sharia 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 Shetty 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 because the shady AI 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, selling drugs

or visual representation representations of pornography obviously the *ty out 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 neighbors missus to go barging in that's between you and Allah subhanho wa taala. 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 pornography publicly, there is no question that the Sharia would not allow this because that is not conducive to a morally upright society. And 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 that the Sharia gives to non Muslims to be practicing their faith. We all know there is no controversy in this regard. That the earlier them, the Al Kitab they have the right to practice their faith, even under the whole of Russia and they were practicing their faith. You had Christians you have the restaurants you had you had the Persians, the restaurants, you had the Jewish people, all of them are living their lives very visibly Christian or Jewish or

Zoroastrian in, in Mohawk lands, there were also the Hindus living there, the Mughal, because they followed Hanafi felt 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 from our perspective, Shere Khan Cofer right when you worship other than Allah subhanho wa Taala decision, when you claim that God has a son, or there's a trinity, this is cool for this type of *. Because well, the Christians are allowed to believe and practice 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 conditions of umbrella Rhodiola one, 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 of Christian rituals was to drink wine. And our books are filled or 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, why they're doing this in their houses of worship, and in their, you know, dinners

they're having that that's their allowance in the Sharia, it is not something that they can do upon the Muslim. So it is very clear that the Sharia allows the private confidentiality, 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 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 mazahub 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 I will do biller disrespect the Quran, because again, this is an open invitation to to Cofer to a rejection of Allah subhanaw taala and the Sharia aims for a morally

upright society. It is quite clear, therefore, that there is unanimous consensus and all of them are that when all the books are fake, that public provocation in the lands of Islam, against the signs of Islam would not be allowed. And this is with regards to the Quran, or with a beloved, you know, doing something sacrilegious to the Quran, or verbally abusing Allah Subhana Allah to Allah or verbally abusing the messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, 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 talking about a non Muslim

doing what is a part of his faith or her faith, and that might include something that is you

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, while 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 lands 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 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 hey, 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 Surah mme, 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 lands of Islam, something that is

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 recipient, and basically doing what His restaurant is 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 are filled would not allow. Now, after this comes the issue of the punishment. What is the punishment

for 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 Iijima is that a person who blaspheme 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

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 seen 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 blasphemy is indeed execution and there is no this is the reality of what our books are fixed 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 Allah subhanho wa taala. Some other scholars differentiate between somebody

who bless you against a law versus somebody who bless him is against the messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam a lot of discussion, you know, that is again beyond the scope of this shellcode Osama bin Tamia, by the way, has a very thorough book in this regard, which is entitled A Sodom and Massoud Allah shatta. Rasool, which is basically a very detailed exposition. It's 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 Iijima on this issue, and they quote me on Monday, one of the earliest scholars of Islam, who wrote a book

about each matter unanimous consensus among dimensions, what age marital elements undermine suburbia sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and Allah whole Cottle that there is a GMAT that whoever curses the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that he is to be executed. However, it appears that this edge mark is for a Muslim who curses the messenger Salallahu it he was seldom as for the non Muslim that the me who curses the messenger, there is a dissenting voice amongst the Hanafuda AMA. In fact, many of the early NFU scholars are quite explicit in this regard. Yamamoto how are we in his Mater sort of theological roadmap? He says others have been a few months have been Nabi SallAllahu, ala he was

sending more Alba who what kind of Muslim men for Gazzara more than one Oh, Canada million rows zero. Well, um, you could tell that he says the Hanafi say that. If a Muslim insults the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam This is death 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 more festival in Harlem and Chef he died 370 Hegira. He writes in

his book,

The shorthand or closer to how we feel called Hanafi. So it is mentioned in this book that I'll just saw says that whoever is from the alley, the MA, meaning the non Muslims, and he makes fun of the messenger, that person is 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 Allah, their religion, 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

that type of belief and cause chaos. That's basically the philosophy and then he mentioned this is a 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 up to you who the background and said to him Assam or Alikum. Assam means the plague the death be upon you rather than a Salam or Aleikum. And the prophets have understood, and he said made up and they may be upon you, as well. And the famous Hanafi jurists who do it who of course wrote the most famous beginning or introductory method of Hanafi. Kaduri also says that if the eyelid Zima, if the people of the non

Muslim background, they curse Allah subhanho wa taala, then 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 applies if a the me were to say something bad about the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, it is simply a different type of golfer, other than the coffee 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 by Dr.

Asana. So now he says the same thing, look at it closer but maybe a little Allahu Allahu wa sallam lie you lie on top you do Hooli and Maha Xia the two COFRA and other kufrin the same mentality or the notion that Cassani says the same thing. Now so what we see here is that the Hanafi, ruler, ma the giants of the Hanafi school of early Islam, these are all major names Fluticasone just sauce these are the Giants. These are the founders of the Hanafi law after Imam Abu 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 shaft fairies and the Maliki's and the ham buddies and also later Hanafis came and they also adopted the other three positions, which is, as you know, common in our lands to give India Pakistan or whatnot, it is understood that their modern physician 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 state to conclude, in a land governed by the Sharia that is, you know, found in the medina basically all of them without him, 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 SubhanA wa taala, you haven't gained anything. So we do not make fun of or ridicule 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 they should be reprimanded but not killed. So this is the first

question and that is classical Islamic field. 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

religions saying bad things about other people's religions. Everybody under

stood that this is sacred to the other person. And so it would not be done. And because of this one does not find a 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 sent you 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 Sodom and Massoud, he wrote it because of a very public case of a Christian person by the name of ASAF,

who was 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 admin 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 wanting that attention. They wanted to drive the point home, when you're in a line 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 many incidents that are that are that is now called the incident of the martyrs of Cordoba of Cordova. That ought to be 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 bizarre whatever, and publicly making fun of Allah and His Messenger loudly shouting

out the most vulgar things, you know, against our beloved 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 will come around, you will be arrested, he will be

adamant. And so more than 50 people or up to 50 people were executed over the 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 and de Lucia. 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 the cause of Christianity to empower to embolden other Christians to make them wake up from their prospective slumber right to stop converting to Islam. Obviously, it didn't succeed and undiluted ended up majority Muslim land for over 750 years, as we all know, but in early and the Lucien 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 for their causes, for a reason that they thought was legitimate. And by the way, the, you know,

there's always this is 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 Sharia, by the way, in Saudi Arabia, I will build a person from Makkah, one of their citizens one of 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, I mean, somebody is doing especially in Makkah, and so he was, in fact arrested, and he was tried, and scholars came to

speak to him, and eventually he repented from his claim, he asked Allah's 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 know, if they don't repent

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 Makkah itself. When somebody repents when a Muslim repents, and whatnot. The third issue then so we talked about the classical fifth books, we very briefly mentioned some historical incidents. Now, the third issue, which is the one of the most sensitive ones, and especially our you know, Muslim audiences,

they get very agitated with regards to this topic.

And that is, when somebody comes and 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 Al Hamdulillah, there is precedence for any filthy position I hold, there's always people far more knowledgeable than me that have said it and

hold it. I do not consider myself qualified to make independent HDR, and issues of filth, I have never done this, I always caught you people that I think are more knowledgeable than me. And I respect them. Yes, I make each day 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 a hold of a filthy nature that is unprecedented. Alhamdulillah. And the same goes for what what I'm about to say in the

next few 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 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 Shediac. And one of the causes of this knee jerk emotional 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 they call themselves progressives, or they're

Ultra 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 Shetty out. 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 the Sharia. But are they the same? Are they 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

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 Rohde 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 chair has become Ultra liberal, this shift has become progressive. And so they start refuting, they start criticizing. And

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 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 filth, that is called a Scioscia Sharia, which is basically how to rule in accordance with the Sharia. Now, the CRC to Sheree the concept of see asset based upon

Sharia is a separate branch than fic. This is something that a lot of people simply do not understand. 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 Sharia 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 Scioscia of the shady or 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 discussed

even from the beginning of time so you have no claim rights quite a lot about this. You know, you have also great aroma of the past you know, Janie Alma, what are the the writing about camsell pioneer 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 idea of Allah never changes. And the response back is nobody is asking to change the Sharia of Allah. But fic is not the Sharia and books of fic are not the Sharia, and

the Sharia take circumstances into account. And the best example that insha Allah all of us can understand is the 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 fiqh, in any book of any mishap. And 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 fiqh, 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 are fake, 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

few basic books of Islamic finance, you would think that this has nothing to do with classical Sommerfeld. You're not going to find the 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 1960s, the first book of Islamic finance in the modern world

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 shear has not been abrogated. This isn't a modernist or

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 1000 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, 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 Adam 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 the field councils around the

globe, the field councils of Makkah, differ councils of Europe differ councils across the globe, those ulama that are global rule AMA, almost all of them. In fact, I'm not aware of anybody, any that would disagree with what I'm about to say. Or arguing that when it comes to Islamic governance, how a Muslim majority country should be run, that 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 read in our laws of blasphemy, I'm not arguing for that. What I am arguing is that to have a conversation about how modern countries and nation states should deal with

these issues is not read the in and of itself, it is not a rejection of the Sharia. This is a part of CSR to Sherry, 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, Roma 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 have felt mentioned, 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 talking to a very famous, I'm not going to mention names, very

famous Mufti today, today, the one or getting lecture today. In the afternoon, I was talking to a very famous move to South Africa, and speaking about various issues, including this one as well. And again, he's deemed to be in a 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 Shetty 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 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 to utilize the tools that they surely are 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 fic. 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 any particular position, but we do 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 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 Sharia and apply them in this nation state where by definition, everybody in the nation should be equal? See, here's the point the *ty as concept is very different than the nation state. I'm not saying that the *ty I was out with a

biller is better is out of a worse I'm not saying that I'm saying the Shetty as a different philosophy than the nation state. How much of the Sharia 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 shady cannot be applied in the modern world is that the nation state is a different concept than the Shetty as concept of what the state should be. And you're trying to force a concept is very different on to this nation state. And that's why we see these tensions and problems. There's again, let me be honest here My background is Pakistani let's be very blunt here. Look at the reality of blasphemy

laws in the country of Buxton. 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 mob mentality

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

I am not advocating that these laws must be changed, but I am saying Rula ma 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 Sharia. 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 rush, you don't if you study with Obama, Rathmann 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 siesta of the

land is different than what is found in the books of filth. And this is something that is well known. So to answer this third point, I didn't give an exquisite 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

that country, given the circumstances, that country and let those Aloma 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 Sharia of Allah subhanho wa taala. Because obviously, that is never that is going to be forever there until the day 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 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 is 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 whole dude 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 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 lands 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 middle of Fifth, 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 land, 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 Al 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 them but these are unknown people

until memory discovers them memory is a very, very Islamophobic far right group hate group really that wants to spread hate

Truth of the religion and they find these clips from people that are totally obscured 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 beams in the lands that are outside the lands 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 mythos are their cost benefit analysis from the goals of the Shediac. As for the technical perspective, if you 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 Allah says in the Quran, when the denominator ma 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 will indeed Abdullah tahona Allahu wa rasuluh with the Hooroo Amana to come and die the moon are you believe do not betray the trust of Allah 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 we're in mental health fundamental Coleman planet and fun bit Elohim 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, 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 Udall here in Attica Fahad Han Allahu Allah for em condominium, if they want to betray the treaty with you. Allah azza wa jal says they have already tried to do so. And Allah is all powerful against them. Allah did not say if they tried to betray you betrayed as well. No

betrayal is never allowed. Treachery is never allowed. Our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, I'll Muslim Munna Allah she wrote to him, Muslims abide by the principles they given to others, they abide by their conditions, you are living in the lands that you are living and as an American citizen, as an immigrant in Canada, as a refugee, 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 Taala to have that citizenship or that visa or that immigrant status or that refugee status, and then go around

literally backstabbing and killing and plundering the villa. This is a complete betrayal of your own promise. And our Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam said the Muslim abides by what he has promised. And there are plenty of evidences in the Shetty app for to justify this, for example, are they victims in Yemen, the famous Sahabi today for the very famous Sahabi

the one who kept the secret of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, when he was migrating from Mecca to Medina, who they for by the way, was neither Karachi nor wasn't on Saudi. He was basically of a tribe that is neither from Medina or Maccha. So when Khalifa was migrating, the Quran stopped him and the Kurdish were about to kill him. Because he had no protection. There is no government that's going to come and protect him. And her they first 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 don't

fight against us. So they gave up all of his wealth. And he fled on the Hijra to Medina. And at that time the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was calling people for the battle of butter, where they first 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's being dressed, he's being forced. The Prophet system said fulfill your contract with them. And we will find help from other people not to you do not participate. He enacted

That promise that her therefore had taken had given the people of Makkah the Quraysh that her they for has said, I'm not going to do anything. Despite the fact that Muslims needed people are better the Muslims fought and better for therefore did not go together. Okay, we all of us have a contract with our lands, the Quraysh in this case, we are being like crazy 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 insane Muslim. It's a very long story. I don't have time to go into all of it. But in a nutshell, in the not in a nutshell salatu salam atabrine Aqua narrates to us what happened in the Treaty of who they

be. And he says that there was peace between the people of Makkah and the people of Medina, the Kurdish and the Muslims had a peace treaty and three of her debut, and we began intermixing with one another visiting and going back and forth trading meaning in our hood, Selim is 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 Makkah of the pagans. They are he was on a journey. He was on a journey with them. They came and sat with me where 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 supposed to be right here, guys, listen to this. This is in the prophetic era. This is while the process is alive. This is the famous Sahabi Salah Salem at Aqua. And he is saying I was sitting under my tree minding my business. And these four Porsches came, and they began saying bad things about the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, but this is treaty of her day, BIA, there is a peace, there is a contract that there is not going to be warfare until blood is shed simply saying things that are not going to bring about blood. So what did Selma do? He said, I got angry Subhanallah, we all should get angry, we have the right to get angry, our blood should boil.

And then what? And I stood up and walked to a different tree and planted my tent over there Subhanallah 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. It's 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 Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam. But it's the Treaty of the BIA. And that treaty allows for conversations, it does not allow for bloodshed. And so nothing happened. Despite the fact this is

happening in the time of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and other there are a number of incidents that are available to jarhead becomes both in Abyssinia. Nobody does anything to him. Obviously he says things that are on 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, masala Han Mufasa. Do you weigh the pros and cons the cost benefit analysis? It is self evident to your 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 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 wa sallam and you end up bringing harm to those who follow the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam dear Muslim? Is this the only way you can think of to defend the Prophet salallahu Alaihe salam 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 sunnah? Have you ever thought to rather than kill somebody to teach somebody about

the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, rather than enact something that might be found in the books of filth? I'm not denying that there there there are found in the books of filth. 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 onma like selama realize that I can't do anything over here like for the for realize that have given my oath to the courage 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 did

you channel your love to education channel you love to tell people about the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam tell them about the incident of Thor if and how he forgave an entire city that made fun of him. Tell them about the prophets, Allah Allahu Allah he was sending and the mother of Abu Hurayrah, Abu Huraira came crying to the Prophet so I sent him and he said O Messenger of Allah, 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 on Messenger of Allah make

to offer my mother here is a lady cursing the Prophet salallahu Salam in Medina, here is a lady under the jurisdiction of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam she was saying really nasty things about her. I was crying his eyes out, he comes to the Prophet sallallahu. I said, What is the process? Some 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, Oh Allah guide the mother of Abu Hurayrah. Abu Huraira goes back home to give the good news that Oh, my mother, the prophet system has made dua for 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 or Abu Hurayrah don't come inside. I'm taking a bath and then when he comes inside after he gives her permission, she says lie a shadow Allah Allah had a lower shadow under Muhammad Rasool Allah, the dua 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 I believe innovativeness saloon, tried to make fun of the Prophet sallallahu Sena with that derogatory manners. He said the most vulgar the

most nasty things the most, how will the biller 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 sound or Oh, the biller even for mentioning the story, but he gave this example when the process some of the Sahaba passed by and they were now growing in number this evil hypocrites said that any Summon, callback Iacocca, 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 I will do Billa Of course you understand the connotation what is meant to do Billa This is Abdullah bluebay me salute saying this in Medina, and so many

other things were said and the Profit System never once in fact, when people said let me go kill him. I said no, it's gonna 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 he made dua to Allah until Allah said in the Quran enough, don't make dua for this hypocrite, even if you make dua 70 times Allah is not going to forgive him. Subhanallah 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 these stories? How about all of

this that shows the Rama and the compassion and the mercy is your love for the Profit 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 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 in wanton disregard for the Sharia and the principles of the Sharia, 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 Cafe NoCal Musa zine, 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 of the Sharia, and

frankly, that is consistent with the Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam himself, may Allah subhana wa Taala guide me and you and all of us to that which he loves a May Allah subhanho wa Taala allow us to be respected in the company of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam inshallah we'll continue next week was salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.

What goes along there fee a yummy

feminine Dad Dad fe, meaning fella is gnarly he woman

is gnarly. Haley man it dunkel what Delco long hour Oh

II lady to show