Historical verdict by Turkish courts to revert Hagia Sofia as a Mosque.
[Hassan Ilyas] Ghamidi Saab, you are aware that a Turkish court has issued a verdict
to revert Hagia Sofia's current status of Museum back to its real status
of a mosque as it was prior to 1935.
We are hearing the majority of public opinion is in support of this.
The reasoning is based on the fact that it was a mosque converted into a museum.
Although it was initially built as a church, but once Sultan Fateh conquered
Constantinople he become the new, rightful owner of the land as
justified by our historical reasoning and juristic reasoning.
The Muslims under their possession, converted it into a Mosque.
Since it was a mosque before its conversion to a museum,
reverting it back to a mosque should not entail any deeni or legal objections.
What is your opinion on this?
How do you feel this would impact the Muslim world?
[Javed Ahmed Ghamidi] I wish Muhamad Fatih had not converted it in the first place.
All places of worship around the world, belonging to Christians, Jews, Hindus,
or Muslims, deserve our utmost respect.
Places of worship should neither be demolished nor be converted by force.
This is something morally unacceptable to the human conscience.
I agree that conquerors used to become the rulers and rightful owners of the lands
that they invaded.
The lives and honor of the people were at their disposal.
The subjects would be made into slaves and entire cities would be massacred.
But do you think such treatment was morally or ethically correct?
Should they be presented in this light?
The world should aspire to progress and not regress.
While we cannot re-write the past; what is done is done.
We should try to adopt a tradition of respect towards all places of worship.
In fact, this is respect for human honor.
I have a profound love for my place of worship as this is a representation of
my identity and a symbol of my religion.
If you were to insult it, or try to snatch it away from me,
you are actually insulting my being.
Allah has placed great emphasis on the importance of human dignity and honor.
We should be mindful of that at all times.
Sometimes there is a valid purpose such as a command from Allah,
say, Allah has decided to impart punishment to a certain nation.
There is an element of Allah's directive in such matters which is then enacted by
the messengers of Allah which may even involve measures
against a place of worship such as making changes to it.
The place of worship constructed by Syedna Ibrahim was a center for Tawhid.
Unfortunately, its custodians converted it into a temple for idol worship.
Allah then sent His final Prophet to complete His proof on earth.
Once this Divine Truth had spread far and wide, the Arabian land was declared
as the land designated only for Islam.
'Yakun-ad din kulluhu lillah'
Here, only Allah's deen will reign supreme.
Similarly, Masjid-e Zaraar in Madina was demolished through Allah's decree.
An act carried out on the orders of Allah is of a completely unique status.
All other actions around the world are governed purely by our moral principles.
When you establish your empire over a territory; Actually, empire in itself is an issue
that should be questioned because there should be a basis for attacking another country.
Let's agree that these were tyrannical governments.
One tyrant arose only to be overthrown by another such tyrant.
It's irrelevant that neither Ibrahim Lodhi nor Babar were democratically chosen
by the people of India.
This was a way of that era. It was the custom.
Rather than presenting this an example to follow, they should be considered
as historical events not worth of being replicated in the future.
Let's now talk about its conversion to a museum.
In my view, this was a completely wrong action towards a place of worship.
Had Attaturk reverted it to the original Hagia Sofia, it would have been a
different matter and we could have debated on the validity of the decision.
This would have been an act of restoring a place of worship back to its original
status as opposed to a converting a centuries old mosque into a museum.
If you were to view the judicial verdict without taking the past into account,
you would not be able to object to the current judicial verdict.
They have actually restored it to its original status.
This was regarding law. We cannot object to this legal aspect of the situation.
Another aspect to consider is the message sent to the rest of the world.
How will the world view this?
There are underlying political reasons as to how nations decide to act on issues.
Alternately, you can envision the scenario that Edrogan would have nullified the
acquisitions by conquest, and restored the control back to the Christians.
This may as well have been an outcome.
But converting a place of worship into a museum was not a good decision.
Although we cannot have any legal objection on this but we can definitely
discuss the political aspects in depth.
UNESCO along with others have raised their objections,
which may have weight, and we, as Muslims can be sympathetic to such views.
However, legally a place of worship has been restored.
A place of worship should always be maintained as such except if the people
who constructed it decide freely to change its status.
They may choose to move it or to terminate its existence as a place of worship.
Nobody should take such steps by force or through legal coercion.
[Hassan] Okay Ghamidi Sahib, they say deeni law grants a conqueror the right of
ownership over the territory he acquires with the subjects at his disposal.
Sultan Fatih's decision is justified in terms of deeni law and jurisprudence.
You have stated that a better option was to not have done it but
why should he not have done it when he had religious authority to do so?
[Ghamidi] What are the sources of deen? The Holy Quran? Does it state this right?
If you were to attack a territory, you would have to provide a basis for it.
If Allah gave His permission, as a final judgement of punishment on a nation.
These are Allah's verdicts and you have to identify Allah's command in it.
This can be through a Prophet or through His Scripture.
When you say this principle is in our deen, you must specify the source.
Has this principle been been stated in the Holy Quran or explained by the
Holy Prophet (pbuh)? After the Prophet (pbuh), actions by the Sahaba,
as I have reiterated, were in fact a continuation of the mission of the
Holy Prophet (pbuh).
They took certain measures to advance this mission.
But as far I know, it is not that. Maybe somebody can point it out to me.
As an avid student of history, I am not aware that they took any such steps
against places of worship outside of the the Arabian Peninsula.
This should not be the case and they would have never resorted to such measures.
If you were to take this view from the acts of the Sahaba, you would see that
their actions are unlike those of other conquerors.
These actions were on Allah's Decree, declared by the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
They had the backing and support of Allah.
The unique Status of the Arabian Peninsula is endorsed by Allah's word.
And so is the exalted status of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
If the Holy Quran has specified the need for Jihad or war,
then there is a proof for it in the Quranic text.
How else do we derive Sharia?
I am not aware of any such Sharia
and to the best of my knowledge there exist no such actions by the Sahaba.
[Hassan] Okay Ghamidi Sahib. We consider the case of Masjid e Aqsa as unique since
the occupation took place post 1928
when the collective conscience of the world refused to accept the occupation.
However, this occupation took place before this pact.
On one hand, we are arguing for Masjid-e Aqsa to be restored to its status
prior to the 1928 pact but on the other hand we support old attitudes.
Given this inconsistent approach, can we convince the world
to free Masjid-e Aqsa and our other such places of worship?
[Ghamidi] There are two different ways to approach this.
The legal approach takes into account the law, as it is today or was in the past.
What was considered a norm in the era of conquests,
and the consequent changes in international law post 1928.
These arguments would be applicable within a legal framework.
But are we debating the legality of it?
Rather, we are discussing the ethical principles involved.
We must ask for the source if an order is ordained as Sharia.
It is entirely another issue if you link an issue with the law.
Laws can be either right or wrong. Clearly, the prevalent law is
in complete contrast to the one previously in place.
Only one of the two can be correct, as laws can be right or wrong.
One's action may be viewed as correct legally but does that make it morally correct?
Will it also be considered correct in light of Allah's Deen?
When you consider something to be correct or permissible in light of Allah's Deen,
you must quote the sources of the Sharia. You have to cite the Holy Quran along with
relevant sayings of the Prophet (pbuh). It is imperative to present in such a way.
Now if we were to talk about normal ethical principles,
then universal human sentiment would be the obvious foundation.
If one considers something to be right or wrong
it is one's moral faculty that helps one make that judgement.
As a result of this, certain norms come to universally exist in society,
and you can make a reference to them on ethical grounds.
When you refer to the Law, your reasoning is neither supported by Sharia or ethics.
Laws can be right or wrong.
I am not suggesting that all laws are against the principles of ethics or Sharia.
However, a legal reference only suggests that is no legal binding on it;
had Israel been formed 3-4 years prior to 1928, we would have no objection to it.
But I would have still protested.
An objection on moral grounds is valid as an ethical framework is eternal.
An objection on Sharia grounds is based on Allah's decree.
However, you have no basis to object legally as the law is correct.
The courts of law have given their verdict about the Masjid-e Aqsa case
with all the paraphernalia of legalisms and case law.
When we refer to Nation States being prevalent, we must understand that
they have a legal sanction but does that mean it is derived from the Sharia?
Is a Nation State the creation of the Sharia? Are we bound by the Sharia to
maintain the status of Nation States?
Can we not have a second opinion on this?
The prevalent norms in the world are at times undesirable and at times not.
For example, if there is a prevalent law that no entity can invade another
to make it their own.
This is an excellent law sound on ethical grounds as well.
On the contrary, there will be debate if a law of a morally dubious kind is made.
A legal reference is enough for me to justify my prerogative
within the framework of the law.
It gives me the opportunity to present my point of view.
Moral and ethical references are not linked to the legal history of an issue.
They sprout from the human conscience while religious objections can only be
ratified with the Holy Quran or from the sayings of the Holy Prophet(pbuh).
This would hold the status of Allah's Sharia.
Jurisprudence or norms of a particular era cannot be classified as Sharia.
Of course, we all have the right to debate and object on moral grounds.
Allah's decree states that the Arabian Peninsula is designated as land
specifically for the Muslims.
This ruling was declared by the Messenger of Allah.
'La yajtame hu fee hi deenaan'.
These are the rulings of Allah for eternity.
A non-believer has the right to challenge the absoluteness of this decree.
However, I reiterate that we are believers in Allah and aspire to live life set out
by the teaching of our Prophet(pbuh).
We will not only stand by Allah's decree but even risk our lives to protect it.
However, in the absence of Allah's decree or ruling by the Prophet (pbuh),
there is room for debate on the moral correctness of an issue.
The matter of legislation is such that it can not ban either right or wrong.
We may invoke a law because it is correct and should be upheld.
Alternately, we may refer to a law that has been accepted by us.
For example, as a resident of Pakistan I have to abide by the laws of the land.
I may not agree with the law, may even try to have it modified
but I am morally obligated to abide by the law of the land that I reside in.
Therefore, this reference is correct within the legal framework.