Writing and Speaking without Considering Reason, Law, and Shariah

blasphemy. This article also appeared in Urdu newspapers. The writer referenced Abdul Qadir Oudah’s book, At-Tashri’ al-Jina’i al-Islami (Criminal Law of Islam), which discussed “enforcing Islamic punishment outside one’s country.” The writer conveyed the belief held by many Muslim jurists (Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali) that Islamic law applies to every Muslim, regardless of their place of residence, due to the principle of internationalism. However, the Hanafi school of thought holds the belief that Islamic punishments would not apply to Muslims residing outside the Muslim-majority lands since an Islamic government cannot enforce its laws there (At-Tashri’ al-Jina’i al-Islami, Vol. 1, p. 278). By referring to this source, the author aims to demonstrate that, according to most Muslim jurists, the concept of “national borders” is not relevant when it comes to implementing Islamic punishment. Therefore, the author suggests that if Salman Rushdie, a UK resident, were in a foreign country, he could still be subject to Islamic punishment, as it would be considered an Islamic act. However, this argument is a complete fallacy and lacks conviction among jurists. The referenced source has no connection to the theory of “international enforcement of punishment.” Instead, it pertains to the jurisprudential debate between Dar al-Islam (lands under Muslim rule) and Dar al-Harb (lands at war with Muslim countries). It addresses the question of whether a Muslim’s life and property are safeguarded based on their adherence to Islam or their geographic location. Here is the translation of the