Is Sharia Timeless?
Date:
Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
File Size: 58.80MB
Related
- Abdul Wahab Saleem – Forgot and Missed a Salah Do This – Explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari #13
- Kamal El-Mekki – The Holiday Season An Islamic Perspective
- Ismail Kamdar – Jafar, Najashi & The Original African Dawah
- Ismail Kamdar – Parenting & Self-Confidence
- Ismail Kamdar – Aqidah al-Tahawiyah 2 – Beliefs about the Prophet – PBUH
- Taimiyyah Zubair – Taleem al Quran 2012 – P28 281E Tafsir Al-Saff 12-14
- Ahsan Hanif – Quran Tafseer – Page 18 Allah’s Judgment and Disputes
AI Generated Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of religion and protecting the Native American community, emphasizing the need for individuals to focus on their individual values and not allow others to dominate them. They stress the importance of creating a culture of y'all to empower individuals to live their own lives and empower individuals to live their own lives.AI Generated Transcript ©
All right, so, everyone, thank you for coming today. And today we have a very special guest of note of the line Lucy giving a title of a Sharia Thailand. Now Abdullah has been involved for many years with giving Dawa, talking about Islam. And he must have seen it from different you know, on channels such as ITV BBC given us and lectures and obviously, you know, an intellectual intellectual activist for time, you know, renowned internationally speaker thinker and everything. He's talked about the existence of God talks about, you know, the miracle that is the Quran and obviously about Sharia law, which is why we have him here today. So no further ado, let's bring him along.
To his stomach brings a peace. Assalamu aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
I'd like to thank the Islamic Society of Cardiff for inviting me, the University, the union, and all of you for your attendance at this event. And we've obviously just come off of this very sobering message of problems that are happening the world, refugees, wars, famines, and killing. And this really kind of brings us into the question as to well, how, how can we solve these problems? You know, it's interesting, the technological development of humans today, we can over produce an abundance of food. We can synthesize chemicals of various nature's quite easily, quite efficiently. We have global distribution systems, and a planet that can support without causing pollution, more
population than there is on the earth today. And yet, currently, we're seeing gross famine, we're seeing, at the same time of this epidemics of obesity on the same planet, we're seeing areas of peace, we're seeing areas of war humans possess within our grasp the capability to solve all these problems without requiring charity donations. So then how comes we're in a situation whereby we need to give donations as individuals, because governments and international organizations are not solving these problems, or don't want to solve these problems, or in some cases, are the cause of these problems have one maybe not some cases, in fact, maybe most cases.
Now the question is, is Sharia timeless, and generally, the the argument that you hit today is religious laws or laws based on religion, or any or any idea, which is metaphysical. It's not about it's not materialistic or any metaphysical idea is somehow obsolete. It's somehow in the Middle Ages, it can't deal with the modern world today. This is the common narrative that we hear. We hear that in the secular world, we have science and science can be freely unfettered, to investigate and solve problems, unfettered from the shackles of religion. And this is the perspective and of course, what you're generally taught will actually not degenerate in your schools. But you're told this
unfortunate by the media via film, especially Hollywood, is that religion causes retrograde backwardness causes dark ages in Europe. And this is the common narrative you hit. Now many Muslims will generally argue that Well, after looking at our own history, we saw that this wasn't the case with Islam with the Muslim civilization. It wasn't made retrograde or backwards because of religion because of Islam. Although they tried to make an argument that of one to one typical was actually fallacious. That example, around the mid midpoint of a semi civilization, you had a scholar Cooney mom Khazali, who had refuted all the philosophers, the Greek philosophers and so on and so forth.
And this caused the downfall of the Muslim civilization as it became retrograde backward and archaic, or stuck in time or ultra traditionalist, which is not the case at all. Anyone who's even familiar with the works of the monk was either classical, bizarrely, he basically actually helped delineate the boundaries between religion and science, that science should be pursued without speculation on to religion and religion and religious discourse.
theology should be pursued and studied without speculation into the material sciences, because these are two areas that are dealing with different different things, things, which are the things that you can't see. And things which you can see physically in front of these are two different areas that humans can study and study differently. And, of course, many of the classical thinkers in Islam, were both theologians or semi scholars, as well as scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, and so on so forth. You had polymath, Islamic
scholars,
but I'm here to tell you that this idea before I actually go into the whole Sharia discussion, the idea that religion is causes backwardness is wrong, even from the European perspective, it's actually false. religion or Christianity did not cause the Dark Ages wasn't the cause behind European retrograde backwardness, technologically. And so in fact, if you look into history, it's actually Christianity that helped revive the west from a backward state. And why is that? Well, let's let's circle back in time, and I just really want to do this very briefly, because this underpins the idea that religion causes backwardness and that resist laws have stuck in the past.
And because you're dealing and we are in a kind of Western environmental offices called ifs in the West, it's not in the Middle East or Far East, you will encounter this trope constantly, so you have to be able to deal with it, because it's false. So you had around the fifth century, the collapse of the Roman Empire. Well, actually, no, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Latin speaking part, the Greek speaking part, the Eastern Roman Empire, it never fell. And you know that my other name you couldn't Byzantines, but they weren't busy, they wouldn't didn't call themselves Byzantines, they call themselves Romans. That was the that's what they called themselves. The
capital growth wasn't Rome. It was Constantinople. They had moved it to cause before the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. These are general facts. So what happened has yet only Germanic tribes long story short, you had these Germanic tribes migrated into the Western Roman Empire into Western Europe. And they were basically taken over Roman land Roman restaurant Empire fell to these Western Germanic barbarians. Taking over over it, it collapsed. These people weren't cultured, they weren't sophisticated, they couldn't repair Roman technology that they encountered. So what do you think is going to happen when Western Europe is, is taken over by all these Germanic barbarians? It becomes a
force into dark ages. That's what happened. The Roman Empire was Christian by before it fell, by the way, and the Eastern Roman Empire was still Christian, and was still technologically advanced the progress What do you think Muslims encountered all this Greek knowledge of medicine and astronomy? And so what do you think they got it from? They didn't dig it from the ground? The old the old, old books on by Plato and Socrates. No, they found that in the academies still being taught in the Eastern Roman Empire, that's where the Muslims founded, it was still being taught in the Academies of the Roman Empire or the Eastern Roman Empire, as we say, anachronistically call it today.
And what happened was, that it was actually the the Catholic Church that, let's say, survived the collapse of Rome, that many 100 years later it preached to these Germanic tribes to convert them to Christianity is what pagans are they converted to Christianity. They became Christian over hundreds of years. And when they encountered the Islamic civilization in a landless, or Iberia, and they took this information, they started to translate. It was the Catholic Church, clerics, monks and priests and so on, who are translating because they were the only ones who were really educated to do translations, they will translate from Arabic into Latin. And then they started to establish the
first universities in the West, that taught the sciences they got from the Muslim civilization, and this Kickstarter renascence, around about the 12th century, and for 600 years, the West progressed, technologically changed radically under non secular religious governments. In fact, the steam engine was invented 70 years before the first secular Liberal government ever arose in the West in the period we called the enlightenment. And the enlightenment and a renaissance are two different epochs. The Renaissance was a technological dividend knowledge renascence of the West, and the Enlightenment is what they call the development of a new ideology, which we now call secular
liberalism, what it produced a few different ideas but secular liberalism ism is the one that is the most dominant one from the Enlightenment period. And this was an idea that you should have laws which are based on materialistic and secular concerns and not on concerns of a hereafter or on God or religion.
So the West revived technologically and the knowledge and in all aspects
Without any secular Liberal government for 600 years
prior to the development of secular liberals, in fact, secular liberalism, you could say was a byproduct, an unintentional byproduct, and late comer of the Renaissance, and not the driver on the creator of the Renaissance. So the idea in the West, that religion or Christianity causes backwardness and cause backwards in the West, is completely false and arose only in the 19th century, mainly by secular, secular, or atheist writers. So one in one in particular, that kind of popularized This was john William Draper, when he wrote a book called The history of the conflict between religion and science published 1874, which argued that it was Christianity and religion that
is in clash of science and causes retrograde or as a obstacle to science. And of course, you had Andrew Dickinson whites who wrote the book, the history of the War of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom, 1896 These were the books that popularize the myth that religion is backward and cannot deal with the modern world cannot deal with technological development. But this is very late. These ideas were coming about which almost redefined history rewrote history, to die. So we get to this point in time where we all think that the dark ages in Europe now was caused by Christianity, even though if you truly think about it, any one of you who went to secondary school
or at university in southern history here any history students, okay, you said you would not inquire not from that? Yes. So it's no mystery to history students, because in the university or in your school, if you think about it, the teachers never ever told you that. So where do you get the idea from? You got it from TV from films. That's where it came from, from popular media, but it's not actually factually correct. And the reason why I mentioned this in the discussion on Sharia is because Sharia in the western perspective, will be viewed in the same lens, that religion law, or low based on non materialistic concerns,
which is not related to pure self interest of the individual are going to cause a retrograde kind of mentality and can't we can't deal with the modern world. And that's false on a number of levels. But first and foremost, what do we mean by Sharia? Generally, people translate or use the term Sharia law, which fallacious because what Sharia in its link is in its legal meaning in Islam means law. It generally means law. So when you say Sharia law, never say that, because what you're really saying is law law. So kind of sounds like some kind of nursery rhyme. No, no, no, no, you don't want to you don't want to say that. So it's a tautology. Whereas in Islam, if you want to explain in English
language, we say Islamic law for a person who is doesn't know about this discussion. It's just us with Islamic law. And the biggest confusion for many people is that Sharia is only dealing with
politics. Many people, when you hear the word Sharia, they think it's a political system. It's a complete comprehensive system. So it deals with both it can, as an individual Muslim, It functions as a personal ethical code. And in honor society level, it has aspects to that deal with political organization, and purposes of society. So it has different levels and can be applied at different levels, depending on who's doing the applying, and what is the scope of your application.
Now, people generally ask the question, why do we need religious law? When I come? All humans agree that it's good to be just that equality is a good thing, that we should be compassionate that stealing is wrong, and murder is wrong? Why do we need religious law to tell us that this is wrong? Well, you see, the thing is, the the Prophet Mohammed, slowly or solemn, was described as a mercy to mankind most of the world's flat in fact, and I used to think about this, in what sense a mercy is it just telling us about the revelation of the hereafter about God, because any person who truly contemplates about reality can come to the idea that God exists and is only one God without needing
revelation. So where is the the mercy to the worlds and the mercy? That is meant when it's described the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi salam, and it's truly in the revelation of how to achieve the good, how to achieve justice, what and what how do we define equality and how do we achieve a some kind of equality? What does it look like? See The thing is, all political systems around the world are based and will claim they are supporting justice. They're pursuing good. They're pursuing a type of equality or compassionate and merciful all
legal systems throughout the world throughout human history have all said the same thing you won't find a legal system that supports or SAYS IT support injustice, you will never find that every civilization believed that their way of life supports the good. You know, and this is most mentioned the cron that, you know, everyone in their own eyes believes that what they're on is the right, you know, Allah will make everyone you know, think what they own is the right in the sense of those who want to be who wants to reject truth. So then how does Islam then achieve justice and goodness? Well, here's the thing, it deals with a very, very complex object, very sophisticated, very
contradictory at times object, and this object is humans.
Humans that were never born with an instruction manual.
And unlike animals, we are very complex and many of our
behaviors because we have both enough. So you could say an emotion instincts, and we have an intellect. MCs is akin or an ability to work if you want to be technical, metacognition, which means that for us, we become more complex than animals. Because animals might be angry with each other, they might love each other will be sad. But for us, we can be depressed, two levels of melancholic two levels, the animals probably couldn't reach that particular kind, we can have constant hate to actually be happy when we do harm to someone that we have a constant of hate towards, whereas an animal might be threatened might fight to defend itself, or might be angry. When this is not an
animal, we have a concept of hate, we and we make plans to discharge these ideas and these drives. And these plans make human society much more complex than a troop of monkeys or gorillas or or dolphins, or ant colony is much more complex.
So how then do we manage humans? Well, first and foremost, in dealing with the issue, is Sharia timeless, one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is have humans changed in 1400 years? Now, actually, I'll do one more half humans change in 5000 years, let's put put that kind of time scale. If someone if you took a baby today, and you to put it in the Time Machine and send it back in 5000 years in the past, to be adopted by a family 5000 years in the past, would the baby grew up grew up different to the society that it obviously goes up in or where they grew up, the same as society goes up in what you think
it would be the same. Likewise, if us take a baby from 5000 years in the past, bring it to the to the future, bring it to the present, rather, inoculate it, because obviously, immune systems have have
developed an immunity to current diseases, which are around inoculate it and raise it, will it be any different to the society it grows up in today? Or will it be the same as it goes up and say, What do you think you'd be the same. And here's the issue, humans haven't changed and human issues and problems haven't changed. Humans still want love. They still want protection, security, they still want livelihood, they want shelter, they don't need clothes, they need food, they need to treat illnesses. And 5000 years ago, they had medicines basic, maybe more basic than today, but they had medicines, or they had treatments for it. And the idea that society has to treat you has to help
it's sick. This 5000 years ago, humans had such methods, maybe not centralized hospital systems, but they had systems whereby families would look after look after the sick, or communities in villages, or towns or settlements will look after their sick, they have the same problems. And they had similar basic solutions. So just I usually check to the audience now, which is Can you think of any technology that we have today? That couldn't be explained to someone 5000 3000 or 2000 years ago? Would anyone like to take up the challenge? Can you think of any technology today, which could not be explained if you were able to speak the same language to someone 5000 years ago, 3000 200,000
years ago, anyone make any suggestion to stop the
airplanes? Very good.
Internet, okay. Internet is easy to respond, because in the past, humans had either billboards or they would have right they would have public recitations of poetry to spread messages that were that were basically trying to be conveyed or they could give a message, a message to a courier who would take it long distances, or write down a piece of parchment or if you're part of the Hittite civilization, write down on
Some very thin stone or clay tablets, and that would be transported distances. You had public proclamations by kings 5000 years ago, how could they make public proclamation if there wasn't the ability to do so, of course, they had the ability to make a message popular or well known. And they had said you had the town billboards, they're all in 1000 years ago, town criers would ring a bell and would announce news, you had the same as for the plains, which is, which is very good, very challenging, when, in fact, the first one first students ever mentioned that for the lectures I've been doing on this very, very good. You could explain it, it's transportation, they had
transportation, where you put wood on top of a river and you could say, on a different medium, you know, you'd be floating above the riverbed, you wouldn't be actually on the riverbed, you'd be floating on it. So you could explain that someone is buoyant, and that transport your distances, they could still understand that transportation could still be understand on all camels, horses, donkeys transportation, it just happens. Technology just enables you to do things that that
physical things that couldn't be done, that were took longer before to do it. And to do things that couldn't be done, but in terms of the physical aspects of it, but they still follow the same basic
kind of motivations for why people use the technology for some medicine today is yes, we get it in pills, we get it in tablets, we get it in injections back then they would have it either on, they would have as well, soups, or they would make tons of Herbes, that would make your food or just give you a Herbes or they will crush you up into drinks, they'd have the same kind of, of ideas of medicine, that we would more basic, perhaps not as sophisticated, not with as much knowledge as to the details the material world as we have today. But the same basic issues, if you would tell someone 5000 years that we should be feeding the poor, those who can't feed themselves, that same
commandment could still be understood 5000 years later, and in fact, many religions which are that old, still have those commands and are still viewed as being relevant because those issues haven't changed. Don't steal, doesn't need to be abrogated by modern society.
Same eyes don't commit murder. Does that is that old archaic rule? No, of course not. We wouldn't say for that. Does anyone who study philosophy or political political science? Anyone here? Use?
A man of all seasons there anyone else?
No one else study study said you must be the most coached person in the room.
Well, if you studied in political philosophy or science at this university, I'm assuming Oh swanzey Okay. So my sleeve and even from this university for shame, what are you doing? Cardiff? What do you guys study here? Sorry.
Magazine. Okay.
So,
so, well, here's the thing, when you studied philosophy or or even political science, one of the first books that you may might be introduced you to our books written by Aristotle, or at least attributed to Aristotle, of course, Plato, discourses of people also talk about Machiavelli, his, his books, and so on, even though these guys were 100 years old, and for Plato and Aristotle, you know, 1000s, yet they're still viewed as being modern, speaking in the modern way that's accessible by the modern reader, talking about universal problems, universal issues of human existence, that is viewed as modern democracy, or Fenian democracy is 2500 years old. It's actually 1000 years older
than Islam, 1100 years older than Islam, and yet, it's viewed as a modern system for political organization society, whereas Islam or the Sharia is typically presented in many by many media pundits and those who criticize or criticize Islam as backward by medieval and so on. So even though Islam is more modern than democracy, actually more modern.
So when I put this is to put into perspective that if humans don't change, then laws of the or the basic structures of laws wouldn't wouldn't change. Of course, you wouldn't have laws to manage, for example, a barter system because bartering system doesn't exist anymore. Now we use money, although that being said, People can exchange goods, which are not money, but I'll sell you My, my, I'll give you my bike. If you give me your sofa or something like this, people still do those kind of transactions or barter. But generally speaking, we have this money, what you see with many legal systems is that when these new technologies are brought in, the legal system has to extend itself to
discuss these new new new technologies. So this, just look at how the
Say the law of England, Wales dealt with the internet. So it has these silos that deals with issues like for example, in England, it's wrong. It's obviously you can be sued for slander, and so on. That was Jimmy taken as you could if you insulted someone behind their back or and said something that does reputation, or you wrote a book that was that was printed or published, which insulted somebody or at least impute them something as a fact. And that's not true that damage the reputation, you could be sued for libel and slander. Whereas on the internet, now, the laws have just adapted to encompass that anything you run the internet, which also fulfills the criteria of
slander, libel is also equally to be punished under the under the same rules, even though the internet is a new invention. Why because slandering someone internet and soldering someone behind their back or in print is the same thing. As long as the local understand what this new medium does, and how it works, the principle is easy to understand. So how comes Islam and Islamic law is portrayed in this public discourse as being unable to deal with modern problems. And as many Muslims we know there is a mechanism to deal with modern issues, which is called h2, which means it just means exploitation, exploitation with the legal text, to understand the reality of what's being what
has arisen, and applying the timeless laws of the Sharia on to a new react project to work out what this reality is like what it is, and then what how it relates to something that already exists in the Sharia. And then you extend that application onto it. So it works any legal system.
Now, this is this is very basic, and I want to get into kind of particularities of these matters. Because I think my basis, Sharia is, is timeless and universal. And of course, we have the human component of understanding the Sharia, which is called fit. And fit is a means by which Muslims, we try to strive to understand what is the Sharia law, last one. And of course, as humans, we are ignorant, we only have limited information that many times we make mistakes. And so the difference between Sharia Sharia is considered by Muslims to be the revealed, you know, law of Islam with love or loss of God. Whereas fear is the human attempt to understand the Sharia and to apply it on to
current day situations, modern day situations.
I just give a basic basic example. And this is very simple example. So you had the invention of the automobile. Now, if the Sharia was to come to understand whether the automobile is something that was a good thing or bad thing, a very basic principle is what what does an automobile do? Or it enables transportation, its purpose is transportation. Did did the Muslims in the past ever use anything for transportation? Well, they did horses, camels, ships, sailing ships of that. So then if the purpose of the car is transportation, and its function is to transport to displace you physically on this on this earth, then if horses were allowed for the same reason to or camels or
sailing ships, for transportation, then the car can easily be incorporated into into law. Because it's the on the function of the car can be understood by an assignment scholar from 1005 vehicle, you could explain it, and they could then explain whether it was we called on whether it was allowed or not. And they could understand that, okay, this is just a new version of a horse, or a camel or a sailing ship. So in this sense, the Sharia is always timeless. But I want to maybe ask a more basic question. Our real question isn't?
Is the Sharia timeless? Because this implies that the Sharia has to deal with the modern world. And it's always argument as to can the Sharia deal with the modern world? And can the Sharia adapt to the modern world is always the implicit assumption behind this. But I have a more fundamental question that we should ask, is the modern world compatible with justice, and mercy? That's a better question. No one really asked themselves that question.
And we have to ask ourselves, that if the Sherry is timeless,
and the world is not compatible with justice and mercy, then can the Sharia give guidance in the modern world to solve the problems that humans encounter today? So let's look at some of these issues we see in this so called enlightened mode mode.
We see today in the modern world, that
62 people 62 people own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of mankind.
We see that this actually has gotten smaller
Since 2010, when it was only 388 people that had owned as much wealth as the poorest 50% of mankind, which is now coming up to what 3.5 billion people, people that the poorest half will be half of this the 77 billion, so poorest of the 3.5 billion, and it's going to reach a billion soon. So basically 3.5 billion people,
all the wealth they own equals the amount of only 62 people in presumably the wealthiest countries and on this planet. And it's got worse it's got since before, we also see that the wealth of the poorest half of the world's population has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010. So the poorest half of this planet has seen their wealth dropped by $1 trillion
since seven years ago, just seven years ago.
And this drop has occurred despite the global population increasing by around 400 million people during that period.
We also see that the globally the super rich, those who are viewed as the super rich individuals have as much money stashed as $7.6 trillion in offshore accounts.
And if tax was actually be it was actually charged on the income, that's what generates, it would create an extra $190 billion per year for every government to use.
We also see by many
research programs and looked into this, including one was a report by the world's Institute for development, economics research at the United Nations reported that the richest 1% of adults owned as much as 40% of global assets. So the globe, the assets on this earth, 40% of them, is owned by just 1% of adults, and this was in the year, just in year 2000. And now it's 50% of global assets are owned by 1% of the world's population. And this isn't just reflected globally. Also in the most richest countries, you see the same thing being replicated in the United States, as of 2010, which means got worse now, the top 1% of households owned as much as 35.4% of all privately held wealth,
the next 10% own 77% of all wealth, which leaves only 23% for the bottom 90% of the population of the United States of America, currently, the world's richest country at the moment,
we also see that 15% of American households reported they will not food secure every year. Now, if anyone has ever been to United States of America, you know that there's an overabundance of food, including high corn syrup, you know, fat content and sugar content foods. And yet for 15% of the American population to despite this still report that they will not secure their food is quite serious indeed.
And we will say in Britain is the same thing. We see that 1%, the top 1% in Britain,
have as much wealth as 54% or 54.9% of the population, the Britons so five of the richest families in Britain only as much as the poorest 20% of the population, five families, not 5%, five families have as much as a wealth as the poorest 20% of the population.
And these are the kind of problems that we're seeing, including the rise of food banks, the collapse of the NHS, and all this, in the midst of discussions that people are asking, well, who's who's behind this was causing these kind of problems, and it's always blamed on immigrants, or people who are foreigners or refugees, while the refugees and immigrants aren't that 1% that's owning the majority of the wealth in this country, that 1% are very much indigenous to this country. And yet, the many of the much the media distracts you from that, to look at blame others who actually have even less wealth than people who are oxes be indigenous here.
And this is the kind of problem you get in a system which we call capitalism. You see the thing is capitalism and anyone who studied the base of capitalism, first from Adam Smith, all the way up to may not Keynes, the base of it was actually meant to be freedom and equality and fairness. fairness, if you have money, if you have property, you should be able to do with your property, whatever you wish. Sounds fair on principle. And if someone if you make an arrangement with someone and they consent to it, then this is fair. If they if they consent to it, then this arrangement is legally
binding, if you both voluntarily consented to it, that sounds fair, that sounds totally fair. But what if you're in a society then where the rich will have arranged such that money can only is offered to the to the poor, with the expectation that the poor have to pay back that money, plus extra could interest banking, as we know, they will rebel, as the answers with 1400 years ago would understand it, trading of like, like commodities with increase, that's what the division of labor is. So our answers, we would understand what interest banking is today, you wouldn't need to, it's not a an idea that is so innovative, that the the RNC would know this. So if you have a society
where the rich make money available, and money is easily available, if you agree to the contractual agreement, that you have to return that money plus extra in such society, what you're going to get is you have gonna have the rich, the top tier, lending money to the poor, and returning that money back, plus extra, where is the net flow of money going to go? Anyone?
It could be to the rich interest banking.
We also see that if you add to that
fractional reserve banking, whereby those who are rich can actually lend out 12 times more money than actually exists, and still get interest back from that. So the whole process times 12,
fractional reserve banking, you're going to have a situation whereby the poor or don't, no one's forcing poor people or people who are even middle class to take money. But if you don't have the capacity to buy your own house, and you want to buy your own house, then you're going to have to take a loan. And here's the thing that most people don't realize. Do you know why the house prices are so expensive? Do you know why isn't anyone here know why they're so expensive, just because houses are expensive. Generally. If any of you have ever spoken to your great grandfather,
your grandfather who has spoken to his great grandfather, of course, they generally had houses that they owned, it was normal for humans to live in houses or dwellings that they owned. But in this day and age, it's actually getting rarer and rarer. So to the point they caught this current generation generation rent, because it no longer has the hope of being able to buy his own houses or dwellings. And why is that? Why is that come about? Well, here's the thing. Because people are willing to spend that amount of money on a house, it keeps the price up. And people are only able to spend that money, because they're given loans, that allows them to spend that money. And because these loans
are made available, people take take use of it, and it keeps the prices artificially inflated.
So in a situation society, no one's gonna force you to take a mortgage. Yeah, no one's gonna force you to take a loan. But guess what, due to the vagaries of of your work, you might become unemployed, you might have problems with oppressive tenant, oppressive landlords or what have you, you and you might want to get house security, many people, many poor people who have no other realistic option than to take mortgages, that in many cases, they wouldn't be able to pay off until they're old age. And when they're old age,
they'll they will manage to finally pay off that they'd have to sell the house again to pay for retirement home for themselves, because their families will not look after them, because of individualism. Right? Everyone wants to be free to do their own thing. And Family Ties become broken down. And that situation doesn't happen to all people. But I say this, how many? How many kind of people do you know, just generally in society, that live with their grandparents, or live their parents, in fact, at old age, that is, I'm not referring to those who are 35 years old living in the basement of their mom, we're
referring to those who they have a job. They they own a house, they pay rent in a house, and they decide to look after their parents along with them. Now many of you come from, let's say, backgrounds, which are very traditional, this is normal. It was normal for human sites do this and now nowadays is abnormal. People view their parents as a burden, as a weight on their shoulders. And this is this is the economic system that the belief of, of you can do your property as you see fit, and consensual agreements are for fair and valid. This is what these two principles have caused. In a world that has implemented these principles. I'm going to be quoting capitalism,
whereas in Islam,
it has a different perspective on this matter.
Also the financial derivatives market stocks and shares brokerage, where people are basically buying and selling and trading contracts.
In Islam contracts, not viewed as a commercial
So if you can imagine the economy and like there's two tables on one table, people are buying and selling commodities. On a second table, they're buying and selling promises or contracts on those commodities on the back on those who are buying and selling commodities, what you what you'll get is those in the second table artificially affecting inflating or deflating. The price is those in the first table, even though it's not related to any real world issue, really real world
driver. So the supply and demand basis, which should determine prices, is artificially interfered with by a parasite market, which is all about because people are adhering to it voluntarily, freely, it's fine. And people are seeing financial benefit in floating the the company in stocks and shares markets to get more money in, but then it's now interfering with their company, it's not interfering with the financial work of their company. And the derivatives market has become so so overinflated with money, it's now worth is a Buddhist worth $596 trillion.
Now, when you consider that the entire derivatives market, the world is $596 trillion. And you look at the world's gross domestic product, which is only $65 trillion, what you get is that the world GDP is only 10%, or roughly 10% of the value of the global derivatives market, there is quite literally not enough money on the planet to underwrite all these derivatives, if the bank started selling due to running into trouble, which is why when people realize that the paper money, which is Fiat system, of course, which can be obviously obviously printed at the command of the government, mostly at the behest of, well by private banks, such as the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a private
bank, it's not a government bank in the United States, it can create this money, when people lose confidence in this money, the entire system collapses. If everyone catches their money out at the same time, it will still collapse. There's not enough money in the system to pay for all the cash that's that's there because of the fractional reserve banking where the money is lent out 12 times in the same account, anyone knows anyone who studies economics.
Okay, so this is not brand new to you. You guys know this, right? Yeah. All right.
This is all the system that has arisen, when you had an unfettered and chaotic system arise due to human beings, this charging is very basic principles of what it seems fair to do with your property as you see fit. And it seems fair, that if everyone agrees into a contract that they should own that contract. Here's the situation that occurs. How does the Sherry deal with this? Well, off the bat, the Sharia prohibits interest prohibits the trading of commodities like for like commodities, with increase purposes straight up? And if you think about it, it's actually quite rational. Why? Because what's the purpose of an economic system? Any one of you, any one of you economic students want to
answer what is the purpose of the economic system, but you guys to the test?
Sorry,
to maximize product profits, very capitals of user but incorrect,
anyone else to distribute
the distribute wealth. But what is love means to
maintain maintaining the well being only habit? Yes, I suppose you could, you could say that.
allocate resources efficiently. All right, well, couldn't use it as correct. The purpose of an economic system is distribution of resources. Why? Because resources have been scattered around this planet in different areas. No one area has access to all the resources that people need. So the purpose of an economic system is so that people can distribute the resource so that everyone gets the results that they don't have locally, and sells that gives that surplus resources to those who need it, not locally. That's the purpose of an economics rationally, if you think about it, and Islam understands this, the currency has got us prohibited interest and allowed trade.
trade is the basis of economic system.
Islam also prohibited price fixing. So to allow the supply and demand the natural mechanisms supply demand to regulate, distribution, regulate prices. The economic system in Islam uses money, which is you could call it a bio metallic system, gold and silver
objects you have to spend resources to get out of the earth. You can't just print it. You can't print it. Therefore controlling inflation. Of course, he will say, Well, if you don't have interest, how do you control inflation or I say we don't have interest
And you don't have inflation to the fiat currency, you can get rid of both those problems, we use use interest the interest rates as a means of controlling inflation or fiat currency. Whereas you don't have either of those two, you have no problem.
And this was a very successful system. And it worked, because it was based on what was on natural resources. And most economic systems are based on some in some to some degree on gold and silver reserves, in their, in their backs, they need to be based on gold and silver reserves, the US government, or the US USA, for that matter, it was based on the gold standard, up until only very recently, only in the last century, it stopped using the gold standard, all that progress is developed, without needing a purely Fiat system detached from something that is actually objectively existence that comes from the ground and costs money to extract. So Islam understands these things,
and it deals these issues. But more fundamentally, Islam has a more fundamental solution to the many assumptions that man made us and come up with, as interview economics, students heard of what they call the human economic problem
is that it should be in the first class you ever attended in economics? Yes, you have what is it? You don't get to explain? I mean, I made you regret saying, you know, what was it?
Yeah, so
the human economic problem is the belief that humans have infinite needs, infinite wants, and scarce resources. So this is a problem that can never be solved, according to the human economic problem as devised by the capitalist system, which is taught to you as a de facto economic universal challenge, as it was this idea or this perspective, is somehow universal to all people who investigate economics, it isn't, it actually isn't. So but the solution they devise for is to maximize production, in order for hopefully, to try to address the problem, not solve it, because it can't be solved. But to try to address it the best, the best that humans can. That is the idea maximize
production, in order to hopefully through a trickle down effect everyone getting the resources that they need.
They have blind faith in this idea. Of course, it's fallacious. Why is that because humans first and first and foremost, those at the top of the pyramid, when the results come in, they they resources expand, they have, they can buy more of these resources. And it just concentrates with them, and only little bit condensed. But the idea that once those the top are fulfilled, you know, like when you see these, at some very fancy parties, where they put all these glasses into like a pyramid structure, and they pour whatever type of dubious drink at the top, and it goes to all the glass when the top was become filled, then the overflow goes to the scores and the second tier and the
third and the fourth 10, all the glasses get filled, right? That's not that doesn't work because, for humans, the capacity of humans or the belly of humans, to control own an infinite amount of resources, if they will lead up to it is insatiable. As the Prophet Mohammed does, a lot of them said, if you were to give the son of Adam, a valley filled with gold, they would want a second one. And nothing would fill that belly except dust mean, which generally means that they will never be satisfied until they're dead. Basically, they always be greedy. So if you're hoping that human greed will create a just system, an equitable system, then you're solely wrong. Whereas Islam views the
human outcome from a completely different angle, says that humans actually have finite needs. How much shelter Do you need to live under? To prove that to be satisfactory? How much clothes do you need? I don't care how many shoes or handbags or jackets or whatever you have, how much do you need to be satisfied as a human to to clothe yourself from the from the cold and to generally have a reasonable selection for different kind of events? You don't need an infinite amount. How much food do you need? I don't care how American you are, you only need a finite amount of food. You don't need infinite amounts of food.
So what Islam deals deals, deals This is a guarantee the human needs but when it comes to luxuries, like I don't know false calls and plasma screen TVs and what have you, then let then it laissez faire, let human meritocracy do all that retaining the profit motive.
But in communism, it's absolutely everything distributed absolutely equally, which removes the profit motive. What's the point of becoming or spending seven, eight years becoming a doctor when you can be a cashier and the same amount of money? all that stress the doctors go through? Why bother? Why bother to improve your work? If you're gonna get the same money
communists find very find it very hard to motivate themselves. They did hope that humans have a universal desire for justice. And so they would, they would do good. And they would Excel because they wanted International Justice they did had a desire for justice, but without a purely materialist perspective, they realized that humans if they were purely materialist, and there was no God, no religion, no hereafter no reward, no God, then humans aren't motivated to think of all the people outside their local family or their local, village town or what have you, they're not motivated to, to do good to others they can't see, or to strive every day to the absolute, if they
get no increase in their, in their circumstances, no benefits to it, at least some a bit physical benefit. Whereas in Islam, it retains a profit motive on the luxuries, to generate improvement to generate a desire amongst people who are more more, let's say materially motivated, of course, as humans, you can't detach enough from your intellect, right, you can be motivated to be the law. But you also have to, to if you work hard, you can also get more money to say gift your your kids gift to your wife, or gift to your husband or do something good to feed the poor, you can money was not viewed as a source of evil but as a source of good because you could use it for good things. You
could use it to excel, you could use it use money to worship Allah subhanaw taala. By investing it, the rich in order to avoid certain taxes could lend money out to the poor and step by their money not be taxed, because their money has been lent out and then poor, just repay back the money that they that they were lent and use that money to develop the industry, their businesses locally. That's just the kind of development Islam implemented a wealth tax, there's a car
and why is it called a wealth tax? Non income tax? Well, here's the thing, an income tax when you get money, when the rich person gets money in in England, in America, yes, they have to pay sometimes 40 to 50% of the of the of the income they get to the to the government, yes. But with that 50%. And if that's left over, they've got it, they put it back, they get guaranteed interest on it, and never the goes down, never goes down.
Whereas what you saw is they can just gather up more and more and more and more and more wealth, without no no further tax once you've paid your income tax is yours, no one can tax anymore. Whereas in Islam, as the Quran says less become less wealth circulate only amongst a small group have you implemented as a car to redistribute wealth from those who are wealthy to those who are poor, eight categories mentioned in the Quran, that the wealth be redistributed every year, anyone who reaches that has an aim above the minimum amount, the nisab amount of wealth has to pay 2.5% of it every year for the rest of their lives. on a couch was mentioned in the Quran, which include those who are
destitute, those who are poor, those who are in debt. Forget bailing out the banks, when there's a recession bailout the people Iceland tried that. They let the banks collapse. And instead they built up the people and their economy recovered.
almost overnight, bailout the people, the world those who have money, conscious selling it now concentrating wealth, they have to invest it so that they either they invest it, they lend it, or they're going to be paying Zakat on it.
So imagine a system where everyone, especially the wealthy, all the money they get, they reinvest it back, or they spend it back or they lend it back. Or they pay it back into the system.
Imagine the kind of economic progress that can create and historically did correct in the past.
And these are just two basic examples. There are many the summary economic system is actually very sophisticated. Many people only know these two basic things. There's other things such as, for example, in Islam, a person is not allowed to own public resources. So we know an example where a gentleman came to the Prophet Mohammed salario, solemn and said oh Prophet, could you give me this air of land to cultivate in Islam, we believe that it is uncultivated land. If anyone wants it. They can they can have it provided they cultivate it. And if they don't for free year, after three years, it gets redistribute to someone else who will cultivate it. No point holding land that goes unused.
Some people will tell me that just gave one example that in. In Pakistan, there were many individuals who were very wealthy land owners who owned huge swathes of land, completely unused. And it could be done. It could be used for so much, but it just goes unused because people want to hold it and keep the land for themselves. And they don't want to spend money on doing anything with that land. In Islam, it will get redistributed to those who are willing to work land.
produce and make produce.
But so there was a handicapped person who gave me this large area of land. And so he assigned it and someone said to the Prophet Prophet, do you know what you've given this person, an uncounted amount of water, lots, lots of water, it's a big area of water there. And so the proper amount of record the man and could have relinquished it off the head, given the grant off of him, because you can't own resource of public benefit. So imagine a modern economic system under Islamic government, whereby the resources of the land, the natural resources are not owned by the government, for his own personal benefit, the line his own pockets that you get in many, many countries, that was the
one unfortunately, is not owned by private corporations, who form cartels on and agree with each other to raise the prices so that everyone has to pay a high amount for their energy No, but that energy is provided to everyone only at cost price
will only increase in pricing only to invest in making it more efficient than to then make it more cheaper in the long run.
Imagine that comes a site where no one owns the public resources. But yeah, it belongs to everybody. That is what would be provided by in an Islamic economic system. And I and a system that will could generate justice in today's world, today's world totally needs. And I'll finish up with the another issue. Everyone usually questions the Islamic solution, and treatment of crime.
And they say the sonic solution to crime, many of its punishments, which are corporal punishments, and not prison sentences, they say it's inhumane, to have prison sentences is that the modern way to do you know how you do kind of how a civilized country should do these things? Well, actually, let's look at it. Let's look at what a puncher system does, how effective it is in the modern world. What is the purpose of a penal system? Does anyone like to venture?
Okay.
Okay, so retribution rehabilitation Anyone else?
So,
determined, determined to what?
Okay, you've completed sort of sentences, they're twins.
So you have some people say, Okay, so the punishment system is there to provide a sort of formal sole source of retribution, that is not left to the Celtic whims of individuals to discharge themselves, to rehabilitate people back into society, so that those who do break the law can be brought back into society and will be assured that they would stick to the Law Society, and of course, the term people who are not deterred by their conscience or by God, to deter these people from committing the crime in the first place. Well, let's look at how effective the western system is on that. So let's take the the figures we have from the Ministry of Justice. So basically, the
what they've noticed is that in the UK 50% of people who have been imprisoned once they are released, we'll refund within the first year of release. And this rises to 74%. Within the nine years that they will be reconvicted. And when I say we convict not not that they'll go out and commit a crime after nine years, no, no, no, there'll be caught and convicted of a crime of in nine years, that means multiple crimes, but they'll on average, 74% of them will be re convicted of and caught and punished for another crime, within nine years of being released. In the US.
It's 67% of ex prisoners will reoffend and 52% of them will be re incarcerated. Within three years of being released. It's become so much the normal United States, they turned into an industry now where private corporations via which to actually run prisons and control because they lucrative on public funds, basically. But here's the thing, so it doesn't work. rehabilitation is not working.
The US has the highest prison population in the world.
Contemplate that, because China is is the the country that has the highest population in the world. And yet America has more prison prisoners in prison than China does.
Which is quite significant. So is it working? Is it preventing people from committing crime, even in England, they reckon that the prisons Ministry of Justice figures published show that prisons in the UK are up to 98.1% capacity.
In the United States to have to release prisoners, who are minor felonies release them early in order to fit those who committed more major fentanyl patches.
But also people have requested another angle, our prisons even humane
locking humans up into cages into human zoos, where all they have is each other to fight to bicker, in some cases, to rape, many, many cases, many of you do not want to be in a US prison. Just put like this, some of the the the well documented stories that are coming out well documented studies that are showing these issues. And in fact, in prisons, people actually didn't share best practice of how to commit crime. So typically, you know, criminal universities, because they share best practice, of course, how much stock you should put in anyone who's in prison to teach you how to do better crime is a different question. But it certainly is viewed as that criminal universities. And
of course, we don't look at those who suffer the most, I would argue, those who are left behind the families who've been deprived of fathers, brothers, sons, mothers, daughters, sisters, what about them, who've been who've had their relatives removed from them. They didn't commit any crimes. They didn't they didn't break any laws, yet they are being punished, they have to suffer from being deprived their loved ones. So in this in this situation,
the Islamic solution
is no prisons. Instead, crimes are punished by fines or corporal punishment.
Which you might think of it as barbaric. But guess what, in a corporal punishment system, people are returned back to their families the same day,
the same day, unless they've committed capital offenses, such as murder. But even in that Islam has something that the western justice system doesn't have mercy.
The family of the victim can choose to forgive you.
No judge in any country can choose to forgive you. No judge in any western country can maybe president, certain presidents of the United States can but good luck being forgiven by President Trump.
Yeah, but you have to be taught they can pardon you. But you can't be forgiven by a judge. Yet in Islam, the family to grieve can choose to forgive you, you can plead your case to them if it was a mistake. But if it was a mistake, you won't be punished for murder, you'd be punished. Well, you wouldn't be punished, you have to pay obviously, a very hefty fine if it was accidental. But if it was deliberate murder, you'd have to plead your case with the victim's family for clemency. And the crown even encourages people to forgive and forgive and take the money take the compensation and not actually demand them on the punishment. Of course, people often say what about the punishment for
fifth?
What about poor people? Well, most Muslims don't realize when we debate this, this matter is that poor people can't be punished for theft in Islam. If someone steals food for themselves, or their families, or from unsecure locations, or they do snatch and run even in the street, they're not punished for theft in on a corporate account level, corporal punishment, there are less than levels that can be they can be punished on but if a person steals for food, to feed their own family, they're not punished. In fact, it becomes a shame on the state for allowing such a person to be so in need. He felt he had to steal
in Islam in the West, if you still because you're poor, sure, the judge might have a kind heart and give you a lesser sentence. But they still have to give you a sentence, you're still going to be punished. Version Islam, people are not punished. Which system do you think is merciful, is more merciful is more compassionate? Which which system do you think is truly a mercy to mankind?
So I finish off by saying that, in as many more problems in the world I just picked two, out of the many, the plethora of issues and concerns, but see how the Sharia is not a system that is stuck in the Middle Ages, or that the show has to adapt to the modern world no. Rather as Muslims, we should say that not only does the scarier deal, the bottom of problems, this chair doesn't adapt it guides in any situation. It guides and gives guidance in any time not that it guides it knows how to guide at any time with the right solutions.
So the real question is, as I said, but this is not whether Islam or the Sharia can deal with multiple problems. The real question is, does the modern world need the Sharia to uproot, to provide permanent solutions and effective solutions? And I'd say that it is Thank you for listening.
Before we take any questions,
analysis, can I give one final reminder for the human appeal? I mean, you got the forms in front of you and your donations will make a difference. Once you've completed it, you can bring it back
to where we are.
Right. Any questions, questions, comments or contentions?
You said that you're saying that we do agree that Sharia is needed.
But I would disagree with you on one issue. I don't think the problem is Sharia law.
Said, whenever Islam got into itself into a cul de sac, they would produce scholars that would get them out of the problem. The problem, as I see for you mentioned, who wrote the incoherence for incoherence. And basically, he wrote a book using the philosophical using the philosophical elements of these philosophers to argue against their their incompatible understanding of God, you actually use their own philosophical lens, what I'm trying to say, I believe that our problem isn't the sharing of the we're not producing the scholars of their quiet to guide us out of out of our problems. Because in Islam, we look at the scholars of the mountains, there are guides, and
unfortunately, we're living in a time where the scholars are
only a matter of time instead of Alomar. I think a problem isn't sure you're a tool, I think it's actual, the focal heart and the mathies, I don't think they're have the necessary ability to,
to lead us through where we're going. And this is the problem many of us was in when we're discussing things. We like to throw these scholars outside because they write these books. But unfortunately, many Muslims don't understand that the scholars from local books had problems in their time, which are not problems in the 20th and 21st century. My question to you is, if, as you said the Sharia is a modern time, how can we produce these scholars to guide us through our problems in the 20th?
Okay, so the gentleman said,
If, in times gone by Muslim civilization, produce scholars to get themselves out of any particular problems, they encountered worse today, that's that's not happening. Because if that was the case, we'd be out, we'd be out these problems were actually, in one way agree. And one way disagree. So the one way I would agree is that you're right, the scores that are produced by the institutions that we have today, these institutions are usually under the control of postcolonial secular states in the Muslim world. And of course, being secular states. They don't want
scholarship in stomach, political philosophy, some economics, what they want is people to say the importance of prayer, the importance of fasting, the importance of individuals occur, but that's it.
recitations make the matrices really great, really beautiful, excellent, but that is actually doing the meaning of these verses or policies meet the meaning of it. They don't want that generally, I generalize here and I can make an adequate reality. But it's pretty much the case.
After this is this comes from the time of British colonialism, as well as French colonialism, which control the institutions that produce colors in our countries. Certain curriculums were, Well, firstly, these institutions were best had their funding cut unless they provided certain curriculums which were agreeable. And it led to the idea that obviously, the poor had to rely on independent madrasahs to teach them. But of course, because they didn't, they weren't so well funded, or didn't have access to, to teaching or to the libraries, central libraries, developed the idea that those in the metadata systems are ignorant of the world because there they were, they would attempt to create
independent education system without any funding or resources, which centralized state could provide ease, or any kind of government could provide as it used to happen in the past.
So that's one thing I agree if you want, but I would also disagree of you because, okay, if, if we were to take, let's say, we will just say If only there was a silo deed in this time, and people who say don't use the cell odd this time, or or if only the MACD came back and revive the Muslims and so on. So if I say, Well, if something came back now or the Matthew, come on now, they'd be arrested folks, as extremists sent to jail, either executed quietly or just languish there forever, and none of you would be able to get them out. So next, what would happen in the Muslim world today, you can talk about several Deen, but guess what, something only has power of people follow him. And even in
his time, everyone was following him as well, because Muslims were divided, but he united those of the Muslims whereas if I always say the McAfee came today, he'd be called an extremist, arrested, locked up or exiled somewhere else. And that's what probably happened today. See
You have to have society receptive to all of these individuals and to give them the right place. See, generally speaking, the Muslim world currently is not a meritocracy. Right people who are the best talent, who often say who desire to revive the Muslim world, are viewed incomplete inconvenience to the ruling powers. And you know what's happened to them. They either go to jail, they have to leave, or they're under house arrest or they're restricted or whole number of things that demonized all this propaganda goes into goes into action, and they are viewed as as ignoramuses or troublemakers in our society, and those who believe it are most of us.
So there could be individually, I would say there are individuals who have amazing talent right now. And most of you will never hear about them know about them, or you know about them, but think they're ignorant so bad or wrong? Because it is a situate is a problem of the generality of the Muslim mindset. Now,
you know, they say the only is a workman is only as good as his tools. Yeah, well, the Matthew 17 is only as good as the to the people around them, that the people are not very good, or not willing or not thinkers are not people who think critically, or who
are independent minded to the extent that they basically want to excel want to develop the Muslim world, then the need can't do anything with the people they have to work with.
So I would say that that's where I would disagree in the sense that they weren't there some really great individuals normal always produced grace, God has great leaders. But currently now these people, the oma are not ready to follow these people of find these people even know of these people, they're more willing to believe. Let's take, for example, Egypt, I always bring Egypt a great example. No one saying that Mohammed Morsi was a genius or a great revival, right? There's no need to say that. But at the very least, we can everyone really concedes that he was much less dictatorial than Mubarak. For example, people could insult him and the writing, which they did on
media, and so on and so forth. And he didn't he didn't pursue his powers. He wanted to actually have an Egypt, which was unlikable barracks, Egypt, right. That was the that was really trying to do. But guess what the what they call the the saloon, the old guard, didn't like this guy. So they put the propaganda on the media and the full cycle. And it just caused numerous issues for for mercy. So basically, if he wasn't, he couldn't, he couldn't put any of the police would shop processes into jail because the the judges and the free 1000 judges and court system would have you were from the old, the old school, the old guard, so they don't want to do that than that. Then the people were
inside the gates and said, Look, he's not bringing in these please, please, that killed also soldiers that kills processes to justice. Because look at him, he's not doing anything. So he's not a good leader. He's unjust. Look, he doesn't really care. He promised that he would bring Mubarak's men to justice. He hasn't done it. So he so he had to say, all right, well, to do this, I'm gonna have to replace the judges because they're not these are the guys were the obstacles to this. Unless he did that immediately. Look, he's trying to replace the judges and take control of the judiciary.
There was nothing he could do to win.
Nothing that he do that he wouldn't be attacked, demonized, and that the majority of the people need to believe it. They believe that majority believed it went along with that. So you tell me what what difference would make of a great leader a great scholar would do, or Salahuddin all you would do next next society wouldn't do anything, because he'd get arrested, locked up demonized, would have said NO. MERCY is comparable and saying that Mercy is certainly better. But look what happened to him.
So that's why I would disagree with you in that sense. And that's why as Muslims I think that we should, the biggest enemy of Muslims, is Jabalia the ignorant mindset in a way jollier his Muslim version of anarchy. Because anarchy is true, and he doesn't exist. There's always going to be power structures, if there's no government that we can form tribes that form, you know, humans will naturally fall into a hierarchy. True anarchy is a society that doesn't have any higher values over itself is not united by any of the higher concerns then individual self interest benefit and competition in that society. Everyone's out for their for their own families with their own groups.
There's no higher value and sustained survival. And that if anyone is comfortable symbol is very much I would say it very much is what I've observed. In those societies. it you know, no one cues, four into four shops, what have you because queuing securing? It happens in a society where people are clumped in the system, that if you follow the rules, you'll get your interests, you'll get your interest fulfilled, whereas the site doesn't have any higher values than just
survival, self interest, everyone will just need to get to the shops and knock each other out the way. And you can even see it when in the hedge and how Unfortunately, when people come together, there's always jostling and pushing and shoving and kicking, and all this horrific stuff happening at the place we think we're the least place that would happen. Our ancestors, they saw this, they saw the hedge today, the biggest,
completely aghast. Now doesn't mean every country is exactly the same. Of course, there's some different countries on the Muslim board is a big mosaic of different cultures. But this is why I observed quite a lot. So the jelly is the biggest problem, the mindset whereby Muslims don't have any higher purpose, or they just survive exist. And Islam is taught to Muslims, as a checklist of just things you don't you do and don't do. That's it, just a checklist. So you're born in this life survive? Make your family proud of you. And if you can, don't, you know, don't break these rules. But But if necessity compelled you to? Well, us, Okay, then. Yeah, everyone, you know, the thing is,
the idea of Muslim
is a Muslim, the idea of self interest being used to abrogate parts of the Sharia is used in a way that the ancestors would never would never condone, or recognize and just become pure when, and that sense must love the idea of self of interest, what was the benefit of society was always viewed as whatever benefits Islam. When it benefits the Islamic world projects to bring peace and justice to mankind, that's what was must. But now, if you must have what is materially beneficial to the individual, was more convenient. The idea of must not if you isn't it today is completely different to the understanding that our ancestors had this issue that we have to deal with, to resolve these
problems, because brothers and sisters, as Muslims, were meant to be witnesses to mankind. That's what we should be at climate change poverty in the third world in South America. And this is where Muslims should be concerned. That is what we should have been protecting the Native Americans or the aborigines or those or minorities in when the random massacres happening, Muslims should have been right in that very beginning protecting Hutus and Tutsis. That's what Muslim should. That's where the Muslims, the Omar, Mohammed, some should have been at at the cutting edge of justice, and mercy mankind right now becoming doing our own backyard.
This is why we were not even cognizant of the Sonic World project. Islam actually came to transform the world. And currently we've been transformed by it. And what's worse, we view being transformed by the world as wisdom.
As hikma Oh, sounds adaptive, it's very, it's very adaptive conduct to any circumstance, by changing itself. What is the point of that thing?
You know, what was funny? on our end of this?
As I saw this, this
article online, it was written by someone who I called a modernist, who talked about Islam can change anytime place can adapt to whatever the values and culture the values and the morals and the way of doing things in any particular society any place in time, and it's non Muslim guy wrote in the comment section was a remarkably insightful comment. said, Well, if Islam just adapt and change yourself to to be like a chameleon, any any culture site, we're doing things, what's the point of it?
What's the point of that then? Exactly? What is the point of it, then? If the standards change yourself a chameleon? No, Islam came to change the color of the world not to be changed by it.
Anyway, anyone at the back?
No? Okay. So how am I doing? Okay, come back a second. Yeah, I have two questions. The first one is that, as you mentioned in the beginning, that humans and human needs don't change with time. So why did God send 124,000 properties with the different laws, although slightly different, two different laws with the time And my second question is that as I said that as personnel, there are
economic needs of a person of their infinite desires. So in this video, there is a belief that you should sacrifice on your desires for the good of others, but how would you convince non believers for that because they themselves
would say that we are good with this capitalist capitalistic system and that impressed and all the things so doesn't it all boils down to the belief
Okay, well, I would agree that as Muslims generally I was actually giving a talk on on some electronic system and it was an almost an audience who asked me the question I'll can almost unimplemented cuz it sounds like a good idea. So can normals do it? So you can but where you Where will you find motivation to do it because
For example,
the Prophet Muhammad sallahu wa sallam taught about, you can't hold wealth, right? So as Muslims, if you give, if you give in charity, if you invest, if you spend, then have have faith in Allah, Allah, Allah, that Allah will give you that money back. But if you don't believe that, you don't, if you don't believe that promise, then how would you do that? And of course, you know that in a society where everyone's investing everyone's spending, everyone's giving in charity, all the money that was that had was distributed in the previous day will be will go back into the market the next day, creating a constantly dynamic system, which you might call which a materials micro artificial
consumer competence. By creating an artificial consumer competence was not artificial. It's faith based consumer competence. You want to call it that, though, I wouldn't directly call human beings consumers. So you're right. It would, it would, it takes belief in Islam to implement these things. But here's the thing.
non Muslims, in an exchange with exchanging goods or trading with Muslim civilization, could be enlightened by us could could actually be heartened and inspired by the Muslims.
We know humans are very good at conforming themselves to any society, they grew up in many a you know, even atheists say I'm a good guy, I believe I have morals and so on. So provide any religion Well, actually, you kind of need your parents to teach those things and to discipline you and to sign the digital thing. You just imitate your society, which ultimately came from a Christian background. But you know, they you need imitation social imitation. So for non Muslims, the issue would be is that if they saw a better way, if we inspired them a better way, they will, they will embrace it, and in many cases, even even embraced Islam. What's the world's biggest or largest
Muslim country in terms of population? Anyone? Indonesia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the largest Muslim populations in the world? Well, Indonesia, anyway. But Malaysia, if you add it all together, if you take away the colonialism from the colonial borders, the Blaze, right largest Muslim population in the world in one area? Well, guess what, there was no forced conversions of Islam upon them, there was no armies that came to their countries or invaded or what any of that stuff, they convert to Islam purely from contact with Muslim merchants and traders, this sort of justice of Islam, in the Muslim economic system, and the trading and so on how it didn't want to exploit people, it didn't
come to such a result, the drug isn't a bad deal, but engage in equitable trading with them, and kept their word and kept the bond and designed not just material profit, but actually, the reward of our last bond Allah that inspired the Malays, to become Muslim. Understand, so that's how, as Muslims, we should be approaching this matter. So we should Don't be too concerned with non Muslims being inspired to adhere to the Islamic system, we may be the example of justice. And if they if we inspire them, then they will adopt that example. And maybe they'll choose to adopt Islam as well. Currently, we have fought from the example of justice. So I often say I made this point that we
might view that the means of bringing people to Islam is true, dour invite invitation, someone deliberately inviting or die is not historically that wasn't what converted the vast majority of people to Islam. It was the example this among civilization is actual example that convert them converted by the 100 1000s not one at that type guy that gave great debates and everyone became most enough. So it's it was all of us our collective example and that is where we have to be at and so on going going ahead.
Anyone else has questions, comments, or contentions
cowed into silence.
Anyone going once going to
once again
and this basically concludes our week of lectures.