Asrar Rashid

Apostasy, blasphemy and abandoning the prayer

47:08 “…if a man is married to a Muslim woman, has Muslim children, and then chooses to declare himself a non-Muslim, this leads to the breakdown of the infrastructure of the family as well as the infrastructure of the society. And this is why this is counted as treason. But is the person killed straight away? The answer is no. The person is taken to court, goes through a trial, a process, is jailed, scholars will be brought in to discuss with him as to what his reasons for leaving Islam are. They will determine are the reasons politically motivated, then the final judgement will be left to the ruler. So the law is not as clear as some make [out], including some Muslims, that anyone who leaves Islam is killed so they attempt to apply this rule outside of a Muslim country, or within a Muslim country but doing this through vigilante means…The same would apply here for the person who abandons the prayer…the person who abandons the prayer is only punished if he is deemed as a non-Muslim, if he considers himself as a non-Muslim. But in some schools of thought the action of abandoning the prayer is considered disbelief. So the same judgement will apply to him also. The ruling of someone abandoning the prayer, or rejecting the prayer, is the same ruling as someone who apostates from Islam. Also, to clarify this, the killing of the apostate is carried out by the government, which I mentioned at the beginning, this ruling is known as (Arabic) judgements of the government, and the individual has no right to apply this law.

49:37 “So what about someone who blasphemes against the Messenger of Allah (SWT)? If someone blasphemes, and in the UK we had the case of Salman Rushdie when a fatwa was placed on him by the Iranian Government and many clerics, the question here would be is it an obligation to kill him? The answer would be that the judgement on Salman Rushdie would be the judgement of an apostate, someone who has left the fold of Islam. So every individual Muslim is not tasked to carry out that punishment. So someone may say why are Muslims exhorted or encouraged to kill someone like Salman Rushdie? The answer to this question would be that what people are confusing is that if someone kills a blasphemer within a Muslim country, the person who carries out the attack , if the person he has killed was in fact guilty, then such a person is not killed in retaliation for having killed such a person. This is the meaning of the carrying out of killing a blasphemer.

44:25 “…when the hadith orders the ruler to kill the apostate, the underlying ruling, or the underlying reason behind that judgement is warfare, is treason. That when such a person leaves the fold of Islam within a Muslim country, within a Muslim society, and decides to have the intention of warfare against the society, the ruler is given the dispensation to kill him.”

1:07:56 “…blasphemy is considered a part of the murtad law, the apostate. So anyone who commits blasphemy is an apostate. What type of apostate would they fall under? They would fall under a specific category of apostate. Every person who commits explicit intention of blasphemy would fall under the category of someone who commits treason against a Muslim state. So therefore the punishment of treason would apply to them with its conditions.”

44:02 “…the apostate law is similar to the law of treason and is only carried out by the ruler when he deems the apostate a danger to society. So the apostate law is nothing to do with, in reality, freedom by choice because the person has the choice to leave the Muslim country and become an apostate in a non-Muslim country. But the fact that he chooses to apostate within a Muslim community, within a Muslim country, it may be an act of treason. And the ruler determines this and therefore carries out the apostate law.”

Mumtaz Qadri and the murder of Salmaan Taseer

1:05:52 “…the court that passed the death sentence on him [Mumtaz Qadri] did not give him the right to re-appeal. This is a miscarriage of justice. He must be given the right to re-appeal. Secondly, in sharia law the death penalty cannot apply to him, but the Government can give him discretional punishment. This is what I stated. The government can punish Mumtaz Qadri with discretional punishment. And discretional punishment is not the death penalty…the death penalty cannot apply on Mumtaz Qadri according to Islamic law…there is no way the government of Nawaz Sharif was able, according to Islamic law, [to] apply death penalty upon him because of the numerous factors involved within the case of Mumtaz Qadri. So many factors, like the statements of Salmaan Taseer, whether he had committed blasphemy or not, these issues were to be debated in a court of law, which they were not.”

8:28 The Muslim world was successful until the pillaging came and the colonialists deconstructed those institutions within the Muslim world. And today we see the state of our country. When the colonialists left India, the modern-day Pakistani army, how could a country be formed and very quickly, within a short period of time, have an army? Think to yourself, the very army of Pakistan that we see today is the leftover remains of the British colonialist army. This is why when you go up the ranks of the Pakistani army you have generals that drink alcohol, you have generals that hang people like Mumtaz Qadri, you have generals that have secular views away from Islam. Why do we have that? Because the system that was left behind by the colonial powers was the system that they wanted the Muslims to be governed by.

Islamic law/Hudud punishments

16:00 For those who believe in the divine, in the divine creator, Allah (SWT) has revealed for them something known as shariah, the Islamic law. Based upon this, someone may say who is to apply sharia law, Islamic law? The response to this is that two thirds of sharia law is to be applied by governments, not by individuals. So one third of sharia law is personal to the individual…so governments are responsible for the majority of shariah law, not individuals.

[…]

“…the scholars mentioned that the non-Muslim minorities are judged in accordance with, are left to their own religious rulings within their own communities with the exception of those legal rulings which apply to universal laws. What do we mean by universal laws? Universal laws such as murder, universal laws such as theft, universal laws relating to other crimes. Those laws apply to all the inhabitants and citizens of that Muslim country…”

36:12 The hudud punishments will remain, from the time of the Messenger of Allah (SWT) until the end of the earth, as long as there are Muslims on earth, and as an obligation, but with their conditions, there are many conditions. For instance, the Messenger of Allah (SWT) said (Arabic) hands are not amputated in battle, meaning you do not apply hudud punishment of hand amputation for theft during warfare. So there is a condition. It is a time of peace. You need to establish peace before you establish the hadd. But it does not mean the hadd punishment is done away with because only Allah (SWT) has the authority to do away with punishments…when corporal punishments are to be implemented in a Muslim society the conditions must be met also. So if people are in a time of civil war, if people are killing one another, the conditions are not met but the hudud punishments, the corporal punishments are still valid when the conditions are met. So this is a common misnomer amongst people when they say the hudud punishments need reform, or they say the hudud punishments, corporal punishments need to be done away with. These are major mistakes of people that state such things. The hudud punishments are not to be reformed, rather the Muslims need to be reformed who have misunderstood the sharia law.

54:25 “…there are some people who are saying we must get rid of these laws entirely, or we must reform these laws, but I would say that these laws do not need any reform because they are fine and perfect because they were revealed by Allah (SWT). What needs reform are Muslims. Muslims today have gone to extremes in understanding sharia law. Some of them who are for sharia law have concepts which have no basis in Islam, and others have gone to the other extreme that they feel insecure, a sense of insecurity with the modern age and the western world, that they feel that sharia law must be done away with or be reformed, or they refer to these things as needing ijtihad. But in reality, they do not need ijtihad. Such people must read the ijtihad of former scholars and they will find this understanding that sharia law is applicable today as it was in the past.”

1:13:48 “If someone states that it is not an obligation upon them to rule by the laws of the sharia of Allah (SWT), this is kufr, disbelief…we would say that each individual would have to be investigated. If they reject the sharia then they would be declared as kafir, but anything which falls into a grey category would have to be investigated by a body of scholars, qualified people, who would have to investigate why this ruler is not ruling by the sharia.”

Homosexuality

2:54 “And in that documentary [Muslims Like Us] you had only two narratives. One narrative was the narrative of nine people, residents in that house and the other narrative of one individual in the house. When they were asked regarding simple things, those things which are (Arabic) known in religion by necessity, the nine residents of that household were unable to state the Islamic position regarding those things which are known in religion by necessity. Why were they unable to say this? For instance, when one of them stood up in the house and he said that I am a homosexual, and when he said not only is he a homosexual, he said homosexuality is halal in Islam, how many of those Muslims in that house were able to stand up to him and say that homosexuality is not halal in Islam, it is haram, prohibited by Allah (SWT). The one who did was a person who was pro-ISIS. Why was this done? Pay attention to this. The reason why this was done was to brainwash the masses into thinking that there are only two narratives. One narrative is the extreme narrative of ISIS and the other narrative is that of those liberal wishy-washy leftie people who claim that homosexuality is halal, permissible in Islam, when in reality we all know that it is known in religion by necessity that homosexuality is haram in Islam and the one who says it is halal is a kafir. He’s a person who is out of the fold of Islam. But why were those people unable to state this? The reason being that they do not know their beliefs, they do not know their creed, and if they do know their creed they are blind following. They are victims of blind conformity.”

9:26 After Trojan Horse, what did they decide to do in schools after Trojan Horse? They decided to teach young children, young children younger than eleven, to teach them that homosexuality is permissible, that homosexuality is acceptable and no religion should reject this. This is what is being indoctrinated into our children. This is what is being inculcated into the minds of our children today.

54:29 “…homosexuality is a desire, a male for a male, or a female for a female. Sexuality, or sexual desire, has been placed inside of the human being for procreation. This is the purpose. Allah (SWT) created human beings as such that if Allah (SWT) did not place sexual desire in human beings they will not procreate. Why would a woman put up with a man, and why would a man put up with a woman? So Allah (SWT) created this desire in them so they would tolerate one another and procreate. This desire, some people, some men and some women do not have this desire for the opposite sex, opposite gender. Some of them will claim that they have desire for the same gender. Others will have the desire for children, which is known as pedophilia. Others will have a desire for animals, which is known as bestiality. Others will have even a desire for dead bodies, which is known as? What is it known as? Necrophilia. So all these different desires, where do we draw the line? And who draws the line? So Allah (SWT) legislates marriage between man and woman. And Allah (SWT) told us all these other desires people may have are prohibited.”

Prevent, identity, secularism.

48:41 “Someone may say why doesn’t the sharia law be determined by the people? And why don’t we have a secular law? The answer is that every human being will have his own thoughts. Every human being will think we need to do away with this law, this law is too harsh, we need to relax this law, we need to bring in a harsher punishment for this. Who will draw the boundaries? This is why secularism is un-Islamic, unacceptable. As Muslims we believe in sharia. In a Muslim society sharia law must be implemented by the Muslim ruler.”

32:31 The problem we have living in a non-Muslim country, we are fighting an intellectual war. This is a war for the mind. And George Orwell, who represents Britishness the best, how many of you have read Nineteen Eighty-Four in school or college? Put your hands up. I know this is Lozells but don’t fall into the stereotype of this area. How many of you read George Orwell in school? We have a few hands. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, in the novel he places thought crime and doublespeak. We have thought crime and double speak. Thought crime is if someone thought in an intellectual way he would be accused of terrorism. That is the war that we are fighting. And doublespeak is if someone says war is peace. You see the contradiction? This is a contradiction, it is known as doublespeak. What we are fighting is an intellectual war. Places like Lozells, places like Alum Rock, places like Sparkbrook are at the moment the vanguard of Islam in this country. That so many Muslims are living in those inner city areas, those young Muslims are being targeted now. But what’s being targeted? They’re not being assaulted physically. Their minds are being assaulted. What we are fighting is an intellectual war and the Ulema need to wake up.

10:55 “And now Muslims here have been forced to make a choice between British and Muslim, when the very question is flawed. How is the question flawed? The question is flawed because Islam is a religion that goes beyond borders. British is limited to an island, and tomorrow British identity can be finished if we have the devolution of Scotland, and then Wales asks for independence, and then Northern Ireland is done away with. Britain will no longer exist. But even when Britain is finished Islam will exist. Islam will remain…We should make it very clear that Muslims are global citizens, they may carry certain passports, those passports are only for residing in a country, from going across borders to travel from one country to another. But our religion is Islam. Our identity is Muslim. And we will not change this identity due to politics.

13:38 “Many Pirs…cry regarding the youth becoming Wahhabis, but at the same time they take funding from Prevent schemes. They take funding from anti-terrorism schemes, and they do not speak regarding foreign policy. They do not raise a voice regarding foreign policy. They do not tell our youth that joining the British Army is impermissible. Haram. Joining the British Army, if you look at most young Muslims who join the British Army you will find that when they join the army they become atheists. So which scholar, which mufti, from those who call themselves Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jama’ah’ Barelvi, which of our muftis have given a fatwa in this country that it is impermissible to join the British Army? It is easy to refute Wahhabis and Deobandis and Shia amongst ourselves.

[…]

So how many of us have objected to the British government in this country that they support the Qadiani religion? This British government supports Qadianis and the promotion of Qadianis amongst Muslims. In fact, the very inception Mizra Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was done by the British.  So how can you say to me that if we do not take Prevent funding, if we do not take the Government funding then the Wahhabis will take it? What kind of policy is this?…by not giving fatwa on the issues that are contemporary to us, like telling people that young Muslims it is impermissible for you to join the British Army…There are so many youth that have joined the British Army, once they leave the army they become disbelievers. How many of our scholars have raised their voices regarding these types of issues?

%d bloggers like this: