Liberalism & Individualism
Date:
Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
File Size: 50.92MB
Episode Notes
The true cause of doubts about religion and God – an Islamic Response
Related
- Nouman Ali Khan – Amazed By The Quran – Skies & Earth Exalt Allah
- Mohammed Faqih – Connecting with Allah through Salaah
- Abu Bakr Zoud – 4 Aspects to Seek Refuge in Allah From
- Riad Ouarzazi – Walking with the Prophet #38 Battle of the Trench
- Mohammed Faqih – True Value of wealth
- Mufti Menk – Dealing With Hardship Zimbabwe
- Lauren Booth – Ramadan Reset #04 Ramadan Reality and Duas – Tez Ilyas
AI Generated Summary ©
The speakers discuss the negative impact of lack of social interaction on children, particularly in the setting of monster culture. They emphasize the need for parents to empower children to pursue their interests and educational opportunities, and the importance of "arthing happiness" as a way to achieve personal pleasure. The negative impact of media coverage on children and the importance of a positive mindset are also highlighted.AI Generated Transcript ©
All right, so next we have our guest speaker,
Lucy
Lucy
Lucy is an international speaker and the current sexual activist for Islamic Muslim affairs. His work involves explaining and demonstrating by rational argument intellectual proofs for the Islamic belief system and promoting this public way of life and Islamic solutions for contemporary problems. And the loss of liberty talks internationally on the question of the purpose of life, the existence of God and America is the priority issue sugar as a social, political and Islamic economics as well. Furthermore, Allah has given extensive talks and written articles rationally critiquing secularism, liberalism, secular democracy, and materialism. So pretty popular atheism and secular humanism. He
has spoken in community centers, universities, colleges, and has numerous appearances on various programs on TV channels, including BBC, ITV, BBC Arabic, BBC Radio 400, press DVDs on Channel Four, TV, and one. He has also engaged in number of debates of atheist secularists, agnostic liberals who issues a number of topics, from theology to political to political philosophy 2009, he co founded the public discussion forum, the Muslim debate initiative, a forum that promotes open dialogue, critical debate between thinkers, academics, political and public speakers of all backgrounds. And I know that a second time I've read hosting in here in the GTA, and he'll be speaking at other
locations for the next three days. I know he's tired, he was jet lagged today, may Allah bless him is excited to be with all of us and share
his expertise with all of us. So without further ado,
before I start off, I just want to say that I am
ecstatic to be here, I kind of on I've only been here in Toronto wants to years ago, but I met so many brothers, and made so many new friends that I kind of consider this homecoming to see family. And I want to give a big thanks to i three, and the two Dear brothers here for inviting me. And I think I think the best reward they can have given me is to give him the chance to see to see you and see them. And I think I prize nothing higher above that. So I'm really grateful. And I'm and I look forward to seeing you more over the next couple of days, both formally and informally, and so on. So please,
don't be a stranger and approach me whenever you want. So
for this, this lecture is about doubts, concerning or in an era of individualism. And when you when you hear these big words, individualism you can be most people switch off. Even people that follow the creed switch off, they don't really know exactly what that kind of means. They mean, they think it means something to do with just being an individual. But isn't that just obvious? They would say like, aren't we all individuals? In a way? Aren't we just all like, separate human beings, so to speak? So why was what is individualism? And why you concern about all this doubts in an era of individualism? What do you have to hide? Or what do you what are you scared of by having such
concerns? But of course, they most people who hold this belief don't actually understand individualism, even if they followed it themselves. But they all give you the same kind of responses and answers when you ask them. What's the what is the purpose of life? And you ask them, they say, Well, I don't know what purpose of life you might mean, but I'm just here to enjoy myself. So that's what
they'll say, if you ask them about
what they do in society, how they, what the work, they're doing society, they'll say, well, it's great to help other people and that's really good. But first and foremost, I'm here to do me.
And then other people can do them themselves to you, as they say, and yeah, be great. It's not that it's bad to help other people and they might be very helpful for the people. But primarily, they say that their lives are their own business and other people's lives or other people.
business and
they no one should tell them how to live, what to do, and so on. Even though they might watch TV programs that tell them how to live, and commercials that tell them what to buy,
including fashions that that say by this, by this fashion or by this electronic equipment, it gives you freedom. It gives you a be unique and buy these sneakers, or what have you, even though he's a mass produced items that 1000s of other people are going to be buying and wearing. But some of your unique for buying these things, these things represent your uniqueness. So this idea that we must be we must be ourselves authentically ourselves. And we must live free. And you think free from lot to like, Are you trying to escape slavery is someone trying to enslave you in the chains would you mean you're trying to live free in your life.
Because what you you're not free to to not pay taxes. So you have to pay taxes, you can't escape. If you have to, you have to make money, you can't escape being told what to do to do by a boss, or trying to please clients by giving them what they want, and what they demand. If you don't please clients, then they don't give you the money and you kind of stop. So you're always trying to serve other people's expectations of yourself. So I don't know what you're free from Exactly. You're not free from adverts or commercials unless you switch off your TV and you stay in the house because they're everywhere, telling you what to buy, telling you how to live your life. So I don't know what
they mean by that. But we're not going to talk too much about how their leader of individualism contradicts human nature. We're not gonna talk about that today so much for maybe a different discussion maybe over the coming week. Today we're gonna talk about how individualism will cause Shabbat or doubts. And not just doubts amongst Muslims, but doubts amongst religious Christians, will is Jews, many people who follow Abrahamic faiths and even people who don't follow Abrahamic faiths. individualism, causes doubts amongst them. And why is that?
Well, let's talk about the aqeedah of individualism. And just so you know, just so you understand what I mean by terms is so individualism. It's up to nakida. When applied politically, it's called liberalism.
And the economic system, based on the Akito of individualism is called capitalism.
See, those those are how it links, so all these things that the they come from an Akita, and that P that is individualism. So now what do I mean by that? Now
Mastership also went through some discussion on that as well, it's short, so that sort of shuts it off. So these things have already been kind of discussed. So I'm going to try to present it to you in a kind of formula as the founding fathers of individualism came up with so yeah, you know, john Locke, Hugo grotius, and Thomas Hobbes. So basically, in, in about the, the 17th century, so about 1600s, I'm not going to get into why this came about, that's a different discussion. But a bunch of thinkers,
were didn't trust religion anymore, to be the basis for government because they thought it was causing too much instability. So they tried to think of a different way to create a government system, not based on religion, not based on basically Christianity, in essence. So they came up with an idea of that, let's study human beings, and find out, you know, they studied the universe, and they coming up with ideas of the natural laws of the universe, right? So they fought let's study human beings and come up with an understanding of what is the natural laws for human beings? So that they did they put human beings in any experimentation that they use the scientific method? Did they
do experiments and studies?
Nope. They just started to develop their imaginations to say, my wonder what human being what is the natural law for human beings.
And they came up with a night with a theory. And the theory is, you know, before people came into society, what were human beings doing? Maybe human beings were just like, wandering around by themselves, in nature, through the forests and through the prairies, all by themselves as a individual humans running around. And but because that situation was not stable, because human beings could fight each other, and a strong human would, you know, bully a weaker human, they kind of came together and created a government or a society by which they could have a law that would defend themselves from individual
Strong individuals from pulling weaker individuals.
And they've believed in this kind of primeval state that these individuals just walking around, that they basically had no interaction with each other. They didn't care about each other. They were in a state of pure freedom from any other human being. And then and then you said, well, then how do they even have children? Like have the date and exist if they've all individuals, right? Like, what about families, right? And there's Oh, maybe, maybe that's what happened was, you'd have a woman and a man wandering around as individuals, and then they just bump into each other. And then basically, the man would get the woman pregnant, and then they would, then the man would leave, and the woman would
then leave pregnant. And then basically the woman after she could, because she delivers the child and the child becomes an adult, the adult then separates from that from his mother, and becomes an individual and just walks around with all these like, like, you know how marbles are like, going floating around a plate just waiting and they bump into each other. But they imagine that humans will let these marbles just like running around and not having any contact with each other. Despite the fact that any anthropologist any historian will tell you that there's never been any time in human history where this model could ever possibly exist will happen. It's ridiculous. Because
humans form families, they come from family, they form tribes, for mutual protection. There was never any time humans popped out of existence as just a bunch of individuals. And then later on formed, said, You know what, let's just get together, and but be excited be society. So these people, Hugo grotius, and john Locke and others, they come up with this idea. And they said, this was a scientific idea, even though not based on any experiments at all whatsoever. It's purely just imagination from their heads.
And then, Hugo grotius, when he discussed natural law, he said that this natural law, he believed what made it a natural law is that this law would exist, even if God didn't exist.
And that's important thing to remember, you know why? Because that means that this conclusion they came up with, they believe to be more superior than God, because it doesn't require God to exist, to be a law, to be what they thought was, how things are in the universe.
And of course, john Locke, Dennis then came in and made some other points, he said, if you are individuals, then you have absolute sovereign control over yourself, as in you are the owner of yourself, you own yourself. You You are the sovereign you the highest load of yourself, no one else can be a load of yourself, or nothing else can be greater than yourself. You are the highest level of yourself. You control yourself and you own yourself, even though you didn't create yourself. Did you create yourself to own yourself? No, you didn't make yourself?
And even if you said okay, well, okay, you could say the parent, you came from your parents. Okay. But did. Do you have a did you have? Do you have a bill of sale? Where you bought yourself from your parents? Or did your parents say, okay, we give ownership of you back to you, because some ancient sites believe that the parents own their children, because they create their children. But even then, we don't believe that, of course, but you didn't make yourself. So how do you actually own yourself? You didn't buy yourself from something else? So how do you Where's your bill of sale? to say, I own me? You don't? You say, oh, but but I can control myself. So doesn't that mean I own it?
Well, if I can get a rental car and control where I drive it and smash it into things, but doesn't mean I own it, and it doesn't mean I'm not going to be charged for it afterwards. Just because I can control it doesn't mean I own it. Oh, so does that mean, then you could then put chains on a person and lock them in your basement? And if the police come they say no, no, I own the person because I control them.
Or I've got them under control. And say, No, you don't own that person. Or let's say, in case you get smart alec atheists that we don't actually control their movements and say, Okay, let's say you put a gun to someone's head and say, Do what I say and it's good enough to obey you.
And move when you tell them to move and not move when you don't have to move. Do you? Can you say you own them, then? No one would ever say that's ridiculous.
So basically, the aqeedah of individualism, it believes everyone owns themselves absolutely nothing beyond that no one nothing else owns the body, you own it, nothing higher than you own your body to what is the purpose of individuals then? What are they here to do? What they are that john Locke and Thomas Hobbes argued, is a classical scholars of the West in the West. They argued that humans have a desire, they have desires, they want to do things they want to eat when they're hungry, and they want to
Chase off the men or women, right? When they have that desire, right? Or they want to.
They want to basically have wealth or build houses for themselves or, or, or if you're ancient humans, like have a nice cave.
Right? They have these desires. So then they came up the idea, they said, What is happiness? How do you define happiness, and they came to the conclusion, that happiness is the constant satisfaction of your desires. You eat, and you, you, you fill yourself to your belly. And then once you do that, that's maintaining happiness.
And you even if you're not, even if you're kind of fallen, you're not really hungry. But the food is tasty. And you kind of have a bit of, you're kind of like, Oh, it's really like, nice. Should we donut from Tim Hortons? Right?
Have another one. I don't need it. But I have another one. Right? They'll say that's you maintaining your happiness. keep feeding yourself, keep looking for pleasures, going to playing games or chasing after people what have you all this? Is you being happy? That's definition constantly satisfying what you want to do at any moment in time. And even though isn't the adverts remember the adverts? They sell things to you by pointing to the Akita saying,
because you Oh interview Oh, individualists and buy this product, it will help you achieve what your purpose of individuals as individuals, as they say, act on impulse. Just do it. You know, like the Nike sneakers, just do it. Where's that come from the aqeedah. It comes from the aqeedah of individualism.
They sent it to you saying you can fulfill yourself as an individual by buying these sneakers or buying nice shirts or buying what have you.
Okay, pursuit of happiness. And just so and just so you know, interesting little quick on things. JOHN Locke was very influential to the Americans, right, they based the Declaration of Independence on john Locke's teachings and the Constitution, as well. And they said that, you know, these things we held to be self evident that all men were created equal, apart from the slaves that they were owning at the time.
The ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence in the Constitution, but anyways, different discussion. And they also said that the that all people should be free to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And they got that from john Locke's original statement, that people should be pursue life, liberty, and material things. But they thought doesn't sound romantic, let's change the material things to just happiness. But that's pretty much what they meant.
Pretty much what they meant.
Okay, that's the so you can you own yourselves, and your purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness. Okay, so then how do people do transactions? How do people allow other people to touch them? or what have you, they say, you can only ever interact with any other person, any other person's body or their property, which they also own, by their consent, that you need their permission, you need their consent, because they own their body and they own their property. So you can only touch their property or their
body by their consent. And you might say, well, and it says a small point, but it's actually interesting, or how comes they can text me without my consent. Right? Well, they can text you without your consent, because anyone, when when the people vote in elections, that's considered giving your consent to the government. The reason why the politicians want you to vote, they don't care who you vote for, they want you to keep voting is because you vote and that gives legitimacy to the government to actually charge you taxes. And you think, where'd you get that from? But not only that, john Locke said, and not only did you know Thomas Hobbes just kind of discussing similar, but
why do you think the Americans rose up against the British in the first place? You know, why no taxation without representation. what they meant by that is, the Americans couldn't elect any MPs into British Parliament. What they first wanted was MPs in the British Parliament, right? That's what they first wanted. And if we had given it, they probably wouldn't have rebelled. They're probably more or less in America, probably. So because they didn't have a chance to vote. They said, It's not fair for you to tax us then.
So, next time you grumble about taxes, just reconsider whether you should continue voting on to keep it to me. I mean, they'll still they'll still charge you taxes. But if everyone didn't vote next elections, the government would could find it hard to justify its own existence. And that's what they're very scared about that. So they need they need to have you voting and they love it. When there's two candidates that are so different. That makes you want to vote because that gets majority people
They'd like that. Anyway, as a bit of a segue there. All right. So people own themselves pursuit of happiness or pleasure is the purpose of individuals, things are only right or wrong by consent.
And the fourth one, is that because this comes by the natural law, as they say, that it they believe this is the highest principle. So individualism is higher than anything, because as Hugo grotius said, it natural law is such that if God didn't exist, it would still be true.
Which means he's arguing is higher than God.
You might think, okay, that's interesting to know about the Akita of individualism. How does it relate to doubts about Islam, about religion? How does it relate to it? Well, you've probably been asked this question yourself, they say,
You're, you're Muslim might say, yes. Explain me something. Why do you have a problem with people having relations outside marriage, if they consent to it? And and I mean, they might they might say, they might say, What's your problem with people of the same sex having relations outside marriage? But generally speaking, they could argue, argue more broadly, anyone having relations outside of marriage, right? Why Is that wrong?
If they consent, they own their body. They consent to it. So it's not harming each other harm, harm being violating someone's body without their consent. So there's no problem.
So why is that wrong?
And many Muslims don't know how to either say, oh, it causes STDs, sexually transmitted diseases.
It's, it doesn't have responsibility. There's kids. And they say this, and they and then they might say, Well, look, you know, there are people who you might find people out there who don't have STDs, and they check themselves before engaging in a relationship. And they intend to stay with each other for the rest of their lives. So what's wrong with that, then?
Then it becomes a bit a bit difficult to respond. Because you're trying to argue, argue that it's not beneficial for individuals to do it, but by arguing is not beneficial. Firstly, it's not that not only that, not not the reason why is prohibited in Islam. But also, is that not beneficial in this life, if you do it from that perspective, but also, you're you're actually kind of agreeing with the individualist their key that because you're saying that, okay, okay. It's, you know, what you're saying, You got a point. But the reason why we don't we don't like it is because it causes harms to individuals for this, or it causes people to be not getting pleasure.
Which is work, which is part of the Akito individuals, right? harm to people's bodies, as in the STDs, sexually transmitted diseases, is a harm right to a body. So and making people sad, because you're not showing responsibility, or looking after the kids. That's because it'd be against the pursuit of happiness. So you, you actually, you're actually arguing within the aqeedah within the aqeedah it's like, just so you know what I'm saying by this, it's like, imagine you were in the time of the crash before the Medina before Yes, I became a Deena so at a time of the Prophet Mohammed is also and the,
the, the Quraysh were coming to you and saying, you know, like, why do you Why do you Muslims? Like, sorry, you, you complain to the Christ thing? Why are you persecuting the Muslims? And the Quran said, we're saying, Well, what what's wrong with persecuting Muslims? And you say, Oh, well coupon wouldn't be I wouldn't be happy with you for doing this.
It's like, well, you don't believe in Hobart while using that as a basis to argue for your rights.
Is it a hobo gives us a right to be like, I mean, the Quran should be amused by and bemused by it because you don't believe in Hobart. So why using that your kita to argue for your rightness. That's not how Muslim should argue and that's going to give Muslim doubts. Why does Allah prohibit this, then why does Allah prevent people from making consensual choices, then? It's a tough one. I mean, it's not it's not the toughest of all other ones. But just to start off, just to start off, right.
Well, here's an argument.
Here is the real response. Okay, you say it's wrong
to do something to a body without the consent of the owner of the body, right? They say yeah, yeah. thinks that you might see what I'm doing with this.
Who owns your body?
Who owns the heavens and the earth and every single atom in it, who owns it? Who owns everything?
Allah owns it, and has the owner of the body given consent.
For you to use his property that he made and he's constantly sustaining it if you did if you stopped to stay in you, you top out of existence
right you know, hey, you know the idea of a mana like if someone gives you something as a trust you can't misuse it right? So Allah has given Allah hasn't given you ownership of the body has given you control of the body like a rental car as an Amana
so does God has Allah Subhanallah giving you the consent to misuse his property to have in relations outside of marriage, or in relation to marriage full stop, wherever it seems sex or other sex, just full stop relations outside of marriage. And they say and and then they cannot they won't know what to say to the individualist because if they don't believe in God, that's fine, but they can't say you don't have a basis for this. And as a Muslim, this is our basis, our own God doesn't give consent for it. Because that's not what he intended his property to be used by. It's not in the way of the fitting that he intended us to, to kind of the natural way of has to exist and live you know,
what the Sharia means, in a linguistically
I mean, the way a pathway it was used by I have to say pathway to water, like a Sharia you know, pathway to where you have somewhere you can get you can drink and sustain it's it's a path. It's a path that represents our natural our natural law law that Allah intended for us by our fitrah.
So this is how you defeat that doubt. But don't accept the Rachida. That's what causes you to doubt and we're going to go over stuff.
What about Okay, here's one. They say.
God gives you free will. Right? So yeah.
So you we have freedom to choose? You know, everyone has freedom to choose? And you might say, Yeah, okay, yeah, everyone has freedom to choose. Okay.
So then why does he punish people for making choices?
Isn't that not fair?
It just because you choose something that he he doesn't like, why does he punish you?
Why does he punish you? That's not fair. If you're not harming anybody, if you're not harming anyone, why is he punishing you?
Well, simple reason, you see in the Akito of individualism, because they believe that you own yourself, you own yourself completely.
they've they've made God to be just like, another, another individual.
Someone else
who's interfering in your life by telling you what to do.
And likewise, you know, if your neighbor tells you to, let's say you have a neighbor, and your neighbor says to you,
you know, that red jumper you're wearing, I hate it, don't wear anymore. And then next day, you continue wearing it, you think my neighbor telling me this, and then you You're still wearing a red jumper, and then your neighbor basically punches you for wearing a red jumper they didn't like you say, How dare you punish me? It's not your business, to tell me what to do.
That's exactly how the individualist would see God.
he's a he's another individual. I'm my own individual. Why is he interfering in my business? telling me what to do? If I'm not harming anyone? Oh, they don't mind God punishing people for harming other people. Because they say, you know, human judges do that. In the courts, and the police have in mind that.
But if God is punishing you for doing sins or not worshiping Him, they say, why is it God's business to demand people worship him?
Why he doesn't need it. So why would he? Why is it his business to ask you to ask your question, and then he punishes you for not worshiping Him. That's not his business. Because they treat God like he's a neighbor.
They don't treat God like God is the one who owns you. He's sustaining you. And He created you for a purpose. And that good and bad isn't about consent. Good and bad, is whether you are following the purpose he created for us or not.
And I explain that if you have a car, I know everyone had drives lots of cars around in these big wide open roads. Not so much in London is too much traffic. So people just take public transport, but if you have a car, right?
What's the purpose of a car? Can anyone tell me?
What is purpose?
take you from point A to point B. Okay, good.
So if you have a car that can take you from point A to point B,
is it a good is it a good or bad car?
Okay, it's a good combination. There can always be things are better, but let's say it's a good car. Let's say you have a car that has no engine and no one
Wheels? Is it good or bad car?
Sorry?
You don't think it's a car at that point?
Yes, good point.
But is it good or bad car, let's say has wheels, but no engine or let's say as an engine, but it's broken.
It's a bad code. Why is it bad?
Yes,
it's not fulfilling the purpose. That's what good and bad It means.
You're good. If you're fulfilling the intention, or the purpose that the creator of the entire universe intended for you, and your bad, if you don't fulfill the intention that he created for you. Your purpose as a creative thing, like the car is a great thing.
So that's what good and bad is.
And Alas, point Allah is when he created everything creation itself, is a manifestation of God's power. Your existence is an Ayat of Allah, your existence is a proof of him, there is then there is nothing else. We have no other purpose or that intend to be an Ayat of Allah. You have no other purpose,
then to be something that glorifies God in
proofs or manifests his ability to create.
You bear witness your body bears witness to God's existence.
So if you if you then choose with your freewill not to bear witness to God's existence, then this is a very big crime. And he has he has full right to the madness, because, well, he made you he grades you and he's currently sustaining you and everything else for that purpose. There is no other conceivable purpose that we could ever have ever.
Then they say, Okay, why does suffering exist? or evil? Why does evil exist?
And many Muslims have doubts about? They say, Oh, look, you know, there are children that die young, there are good people that get persecuted by tyrants and dictators.
People get tortured. People have diseases that gives them lots of pain.
And even they'll say, or look in the animal kingdom, right? There are like a lot of suffering sometimes happens with animals eating all the animals or, you know, chicks being born and you know, tumbling from the nest, that that what did they do to deserve that? Why is God punishing them?
That's not fair. Why do they say that? They say it because the aqeedah of individualism that says your purpose is to pursue happiness, meaning pursue pleasure.
So if they they say, okay, we can accept that God exists. Yeah, we can accept that john Locke was a Christian. Right? I mean, it's strange. Funny to believe that, but yeah, it's funny. That was even the case. But yeah, he was a Christian.
But they say, okay, God made everything.
And we now believe that we are our purpose is to pursue happiness and pleasure.
So then why is God making a universe whereby we don't always have pleasure. And in many cases, we have pain. That's not fair. That's not fair, based on what we think our purpose is, which is the pursuit of pleasure.
And that causes downs.
And when most of us were to say, Oh, well, you know, like,
like, okay, we need pain and suffering as a test to make choices to make choices. But they'll just they'll just respond to you saying, okay, but why does God made a universe where even needs tests were of suffering and pain when I put our purposes pursue pleasure. Because again, if you accept the aqeedah, without thinking about it, they always win in the argument.
Don't subconsciously accept their aqeedah don't do it. Start with your Akita first. And just say that Allah smart Allah made things creatures to move and decide to change and work with using pain and pleasure both have to be there to motivate you that you know, car engine, right?
It needs to have fuel to make it go, needs to have fuel.
And it needs to have a spark plug to create the ignition
need those two things. We need pain and we need pleasure to motivate us everything in this universe does but Allah is merciful. If Allah was evil, as they tried to say as they try to make it out, then why is it that plants don't feel pain, he could make plants feel pain, we would have no reason no purpose for it. Doesn't every creature and every creature only feels the amount of pain because not every creature has the same kind of nervous system that we do.
Eat like insects and bugs and things like this. Everyone only feels every of these creazione for these certain amount pain, they require too much
Take them in their own world in their own situation they don't need, you know, they don't have the same nervous system as we do. We don't feel the same out pain, a cricket won't have the same nervous system as a human or, or don't kill an animal.
But ultimately, pleasure and pain is to motivate creatures to move
in worship to him to live, as out of Allah as a manifestation of God, and pain and pleasure. You see, if we all if we only experienced pleasure, or if animals only experienced pleasure,
they would never know how much they depend on God and how limited they are.
But because everything animals and humans, we experience pain
we see in this universe, we feel and experience that we are limited things. We are not gods.
And every animal will bear witness that they will limited and every human will bear witness and their judgment and that we are limited because we couldn't stop certain pains. And we couldn't gain certain pleasures. But you need to have both as part of our existence because both pain and pleasure bear witness to Allah. Pleasure bears witness Allah's mercy. And pain bears witness to our limitations as created things.
That's the Islamic response to the don't accept the aqeedah.
And I think the last point, I'll kind of raise up, I'll make a point on this is
they'll say,
they'll say, Why? Why does it have to be Islam? Why one religion?
Why not other religions?
How can Why can't people just choose whatever religion they want?
Why does God punish you, if you're in the wrong religion? That's not fair. You may have free choice. They say, again, from the argument that human beings own themselves, and they should consent, what makes something good is they give a consent as in choice to do something. So if they want to be a Hindu, they then why they should be punished for being Hindu, because they chose and they consented to it. Why be a Muslim? And it should be allowed, if they consent to it. And that's what makes it good. Not that if it's true, or not just what makes it good is that they chose it and they consent to it. What makes it good to be a Christian or makes it good to be any kind of a polytheist? or what
have you, is their choice. So they view it as injustice, to be punished for making a choice about what religion you're in. And some people try to
some people who tried to be like liberal Muslims, Muslims who just fully adopted Yaki double individualism, and just retain the label Muslim.
They say Yes, okay. all paths go to God. Say what So,
even a Satanist that goes to God, or someone who believes in multiple gods, because that's a whole bunch of paths there. If you believe in like a whole number, Zeus and full of some things that as a pastor got to
know there's truth and falsehood. And Allah subhanaw taala made us to bear witness to the truth was in the Quran, he made the universe but Huck In truth,
if you don't follow truth, you are rejecting Allah, and you are rejecting this everything that he made.
I mean, sure, if you're following the wrong religion, because you didn't know any better, you're in Amazon rainforest and you tried to search for the truth and you are Hanif, rightly inclined, then it's not your fault. You tried your best, the truth wasn't shown to you, you can't be punished if it's not if the full truth wasn't shown to you. But even even many of the hanifah and I'm referring to those who are Hanif that rightly and guided, they will be judged whether they believed in one God, above everything, or they worshipped humans or creatures, I think because that you should be able to tell with your mind, you don't need the revelation to say that's right or wrong, you should
be able to tell that with yourself, with your mind.
Because you're here to what you're here to be a witness to the truth. And if you're not, then you're going against your purpose. And that's bad. From the Islamic perspective. You have a purpose, you don't fulfill your purpose. That's bad.
Not choice or my free choice makes it good. Nope. If you choose felsted, that's bad. If you choose it deliberately, or you choose it, not caring whether it's false or true, that's bad.
So
this is this Akito individualism, from Miss Akita springs, all the doubts about Islam about religion, because the Muslims who hear it, who grew up grew up in the West and even in the Muslim mode of colonialism. They have unwittingly and subconsciously adopted the aqeedah of individualism and they try to defend Islam using that
individuals, you might as well try defend Islam saying that Kabbalah, Kabbalah supports it.
Right. That's how ridiculous it is.
So in essence, brothers,
if you want to maintain your faith, and you want to justify and show your true faith to be true in an era of individualism, don't follow what everyone else is doing, and adopt the Akito of individualism adopt the Aikido of Islam, and you'll find that it is it stands on the strongest of supports equality for the hardcore stuff at the moment.
All right, let's take some time. charma not too long, she has to eat and sleep.
Let's take some time for question and answer. We don't have hundreds of people here. So think just raise your hand, I'll select the person inshallah.
I'll try to repeat the question so everybody can hear it. And then if you have somebody specific, your honor system, then the name then the chairman. If not, then I'm a little brother and sister and back and forth, and Sharma.
Brother in law,
state of nature, Thomas Hobbes.
What's interesting to me is that the state of nature has an assumption that humans are evil and self interested. And that this is an idea that's in Christianity, that human nature is essentially evil. And similarly, that the aid that human nature, the agency of the human of the human being, should rule over all, you know that that should be the rule and not the exception, that agency of human being, nothing should get in the way of it. That kind of goes back to the idea of God, we are that the human being made in the image of God. So my question is, in what ways do these enlightenment values in what ways do individualism go back to, I guess, occidental Christian doctrine? Because
it's not Pure Reason, a lot of this is kind of a succession to certain Christian ideas, Christian doctrines. So are there any examples of or other ideas that are inherent that
can be put into question very briefly, okay. I'm gonna give you a brief answer. There's a big debate as to how these enlightenment values will be run by white men. It's just a period of time in European history where liberalism was invented, they call it the Enlightenment, not to be confused with the Renaissance, which was a technological development development in Europe 600 years prior to the environment, or at least before that, it was realized in politics. Okay, so Christianity believed that human beings were irredeemable and evil. They were not prone to sin. And they can only be redeemed by God rescuing them, it's not a Jewish idea. It's not an Islamic idea. But that they
had they needed Jesus to die for their sins in order to be redeemed, or, and the original sin of Adam alayhis salaam, forgiven amongst humans, they believe that everyone shares the same sin of Adam. So you, automatically you're born with the sin of animalism, something that's not not Jewish doctrine, non atomic doctrine. And maybe some Christians even dispute that, but they're a tiny minority and equal heretics. But
Thomas Hobbes actually didn't depend on Christianity to get his idea. He just viewed that
humans need government. Because in without government, they will be in a natural state of nature, just fighting each other like animals would. And so we need government to basically stop us from fighting and killing each other.
And living short lives because of that, you know, like, like how, you know, gang gangsters and gang warfare. The gangs don't last long, because they live in a circumstance or Vika of chaos and anarchy. So that's where he came up with the idea.
JOHN Locke actually strangely argued the opposite. And he and like, people reckon Tom was an atheist. But john Locke was the one who argued
he was a Christian, but he argued that the opposite in a way he said that he didn't say that humans are naturally evil. He just said that,
as individuals in this in this state of nature and of in some distant past have never really existed anywhere in the state in this distant past. Humans, just like humans just had disputes and squabbles because they couldn't agree. You know, if you're arguing your neighbor, you might just might not see eye to eye you need a judge to help you be a mediator. So for the purposes of having a mediator
and and just kind of restoring justice in case you have an argument, people
Straight up government as to how that was linked to Christianity. Allahu Allah, maybe people say that Christianity had been, had been using the fact that humans were still evil, and they needed religion to save them. But those who wanted to have a government without religion said, kind of left that behind went the other direction and said, No, no humans, not necessarily evil, they deserve freedom, and not to be under control of, of
a priesthood.
Anyway, but that's fine. We can, we can explore. And I said, I'm still researching as to how did Christianity have any influence in the environment values without fully resolved materialists creating it? Or anyway, that's a better
discussion, but I want to give people not all chances. But yeah, interesting discussion. So one system that
no one's really Hands up.
So question
assuming that individualism has become more popular in recent times,
and previously used to in, in previous times, you know, the main goal of life was just to survive.
Is that change? Now, we have a lot more technological advances, we have a lot more we can do. Do you think that has increased the just naturally made us more individualistic?
So basically, as it is appear that religion is increasing, partly due to technological advances as well.
Okay, so, interesting question. As soon as you make this more individualistic, I would say,
it could be argued in different ways. If we had a society whereby you had family being the center of that society,
people really wouldn't have enough time, or to kind of run to their rooms, and go on computers and things like that people would eat together, you know, it's that instant, instant, before even people had smartphones. And before Facebook, and before even internet, right? teenagers being raised on this aqeedah would some would go to their room and eat and not eat with a family.
Then watch TV. And even if you didn't have a TV, they'd read magazines or things like that, you know, they'd read
even before internet before, even they didn't afford to have a TV in their house, people would want to do their own thing.
But as time goes on, people want to the technology was invented, and it was sold to people as something that can make you a better individual, as in more independence by yourself.
So now you can control when you talk to people, you don't have to have people decide when they can talk to you by coming up to you and say, Hey, you know, you got five minutes to talk.
And it got to the point. Now you see, you know, with a telephone, you know, when you had the telephone before the smartphone, the telephone that was in your house, when people called it, you picked it up?
when people call it you picked it up? Who's calling? And what's it about? Right? But with smartphones, have you noticed now, that same feature, the same call function feature, you can be cold. And if you don't want to pick it up, you don't want to pick it, you know, you don't want to pick it up.
And even now, they say, Oh, don't call send the message instead. Because why that gives that person the freedom to respond back to you when they feel like it.
So it's a it's a but it's a maybe it's a question that maybe academics might debate? Because they might say, was it the technology that's making us accelerating individualism? Or if we lived in a society with a complete different culture?
Would we use this with our technologies in a different way? Would we be more individualistic, or, I mean, I think that there are many brothers I know who are very strong family, men
spend lots of time with their kids lots of time with their family.
And they have smartphones.
Don't think that that's made them more individualistic.
But in some ways, you could say it's what you can tell by the lack of a person. So some kids, they'll meet they'll meet up let's we'll meet up and I've seen in all around the dinner table or coffee table, and they've all got their phones tapping away.
I even heard a an apocryphal story that in one case, they were talking to each other via their phones. I don't know if that's true, but would be a funny joke. So that's interesting question.
It could maybe that people could debate in different ways, and maybe my
say, well, maybe it has some effect. But I think if you live in a different culture, people would use the technology in a different way. Remember, technology isn't attached to culture. It's not attached to culture. People say that the variability of spirits, you know, the high alcohol content drinks, causes a binge drinking culture, right causes binge drinking culture, right. And England is famous for that work hard play harder, right? binge drinking culture. But if you look in France, which has spirits, you can find the same shops, they drink wine, and they don't they don't engage in the same kind of binge drinking. Maybe they get drunk what happened, but not the binge drinking
where, you know, people can go to hospital just because they drank too much alcohol. And that very night, not over study limit liver damage, which happens cumulatively. But that one night they overdose on how cold basically. Right? So France, they have the same same access to the drink of spirits, but their culture makes it their approach to it differently. So does does our approach does our culture affect how we use the products. I mean, although I'd like to think that there's evidence to show that it does, and that we might use it differently for culture was different. So
you know,
in olden days, people's main goal was to survive, right? And just not to die. Okay, so individualism wasn't really a choice back then.
But now, since we're, we have a lot more,
we have a lot more comfortable bikes, we can we can be.
Okay, so the brother is saying that, in the olden times, people will just focus on trying to survive. And so maybe they couldn't be individualistic, but now we have so much comforts and modern, modern conveniences that may be this allows us to be more individually individualistic now than before. Well, what I would say is, I mean, look, look, what are people using this energy for? Right? Are they using it to communicate with each other, just not in person.
But back in the medieval times, you still you're still social networks, they will just in person social networks.
Instead of people posting gossip on their on their page, they would just make gossip by their tongues, and that would spread via the people talking to each other. So people, humans always social. But the thing is that we use the technology now to be to try to control when people come to us to ask to be social, if that makes sense. So you say, you know what, I don't want to talk to people right now. Or I don't want to actually have to kind of like sit down listen to someone in a coffee shop, or, or like look interested, or maybe I haven't done on my face. And as if you're a woman or, or maybe I'm just in my PJs guy, and I don't want to dress whatever you I don't want to
meet people by must want to talk to people. So they'll still be posting stuff. And talking to people online, they're still talking to people, but they just don't want to, they just find it convenient to maybe talk to people they want to talk to and if people they don't want to talk to come, they can just choose to ignore them for a bit.
Right? or ignore them completely. So that's how it's made you individually. Because they said they said isn't it against your Isn't it like a push pressuring your freedom? If you're forced to talk to people, because they come up to you. And you want to be impolite about it. Well, social media, all this stuff offers you way too, and smartphones offers you a way to, to kind of like ignore people for a bit. Because you're an individual, you should have some freedom, you should have more freedom. That's how they sell it. Understand. So and besides people still, people still like we still kind of worried about not dying and things like that. But the point of talking to people was Hi, how are
you? Why is like, Do you need something? They ask How are you? Are you sick? That's where people we need each other. Right? That's why we still we still use it to this day. So what you say is interesting point, I will say that I lost my last kind of response to you. And this is that maybe there is a genuine point to make with village life and city life. Even in the medieval times, even in medieval times. In a village life, it was a small village, everyone knows each other. You can't do anything without everyone knowing about it. You know, everyone speaks you can't go out without talking to anyone. But in a city
you had a bit more like you know, you didn't know everyone in the city was too big. But you might know your neighborhood might you might know your neighborhood but you don't know everyone in the city. And so you could basically live a little a little bit more in separate or isolated a little bit from everyone. compared to if you live in a village maybe that that was true, but that was true back in the medieval times as well as now. So anyway.
So I think that
time doesn't change anything humans always the same, but this Akito
individualism, this has made something a new circumstance a new situation.
I guess from, from my perspective, last few years in the States, at least,
the statistics of people living with their families have increased. And that's because of the economic situation, let's say, a couple of decades ago, most youth basically, at least after graduating from university, or even after leaving high school, it would leave their parents go get some loans, get university degree and get a job and really just like leave their families nest since then, and totally live on their own pure, individualistic life. And I do agree with you basically, I think, changes in the economic situation, the ability of the individual to survive on his own is that does impact the behavior that results from individualism. But I do like to basically also
separate the individuals in ideology. So like prior societies before the the
intellectual revolution in Europe, were not individualistic in terms of their
losses societies, for example, Arabia was tribalistic in nature, that Southeast Asia and China and Asia Pacific, we're very, very family oriented conservative societies. So without a doubt, basically, first of all, the idea itself basically impacted people. But the what I like to basically add here is that the economic situation allowed people to really live it to the max within a specific period of time. And right now, it seems basically things are reversing, and you'll have more kids, basically single parents until they're 25, and maybe a little bit more, and now living with their parents, but it doesn't come as free. So they're not going to be as interesting as they
can, because there has to, they feel that somebody is taking care of them. And they need to give back, and so forth. So that does basically kind of lesson at least and what I call the individualistic behavior of people. So I do agree with you from that perspective. And then technology and specific, I personally see that the phone does basically keep people away. But I'm not sure if this is I would call this individualistic behavior. I think this just keeps people busy.
You know, when I'm when I when a husband goes and works for 12 hours a day, he's nothing to be realistic, he's just basically busy with being able to get things done. And, you know, using a phone could be because of individuals because we don't care what nobody else, but just basically that you're trying to get certain things done, and you're just busy to get that task done. So it also separate technology and wouldn't basically generalize. So from technological perspective, I said, basically, it depends on the reasonably behavior. Number two economic situation and the social structure basically does impact individualistic behavior. And societies pre and post basically
intellectual revolution in Europe due to individualism, secular capitalism and liberal capitalism, basically, it does have a huge impact on the individual.
One sister question, and we're gonna wrap up there, you can speak to the ship. But we do need to run out of this building by 10
suspecting the management to shut down and you know, given that time as well. So we'll take a question from the sisters.
Question is,
is it
your house?
This is my question. And what do you suggest the solution to constantly keep reviving the appeal of
this law in an individual because sometimes consciously or subconsciously,
even those involved that our happiness and our brains have already decided?
To what do you suggest that youngsters What is your strategy?
This is how you should sleep.
eradicated from the
okay. So I'll repeat the question in reverse order. So the sister was saying, in this kind of era of individualism, what how can we educate kids so that they don't fall into this? This this creed? And how can we show Muslims an alternative? How can in what approach can we do to revive the stomach credo? How do we keep reviving it in order that it keeps the younger generation can can not fall foul of individualism. And
her first point is, is is individualism discipline.
portions are inversely proportionate to kind of the, someone whose ability to control their nuts, their their desires. So, well first and foremost,
one of the things I think is miraculous about the Quran is that it could have, it could talk about one reality that was at the time that Prophet Mohammed sauce Allah with a form of words, and then 1000s of years later in a different reality, those words still make sense
and give really good guidance. So when it says you know, when it says in the Quran, and I have not seen one who's made their desires, the rub the Lord's the Lord, right.
Referring to someone who they reject the truth about Islam because they've chosen their desires, over choosing the truth.
But now, you know 1400 years in the future,
individualism is quite literally making a person's desires actually into their God
be an authentic you. Authentic, what was authentic about you?
Like, what is even you what you your combination of DNA, your teeth, your parents teacher, raising you and inculcating you certain desires and tastes, random things that happened to you in your life. And of course, the culture that you use around you in the language that you were taught. All these things are external things making human building you up things that that came into you, so to speak, but not there's nothing was intrinsically you. What's intrinsically what's you super unique about yourself. But individualism. I actually call individualism, the the tawheed of, of liberalism or the West is there totally, because we believe that Allah Spano Allah is unique. There's nothing like
unto him, he's independent, nothing controls him.
And that he is he's infinitely creative. You can create, he has infinite power to create whatever he wants.
And he is there was nothing that came before him.
And he actually has true freewill. True freewill. Why? Because he doesn't depend on give being given choices or tests to make, to make to make a choice, our free will we depend on into ham, right? We depend on tests, the whole point of tests is to allow you to make a choice. If God didn't test you, you wouldn't be able to manifest freewill. But Allah Subhanallah can create things without any choices being given to him, or any waiting to be in any circumstance or situation he just creates, like he doesn't even need to have enough to give him desires, doesn't have enough that gives him desires that he has to then follow those desires. No, he literally just wills it straight with no,
no nature that pre exists His will.
True Free Will God is truly has free will. But guess what, what we how we describe a had the one.
individualism describes people or individuals.
The human is has infinite creative potential.
You are independent, self sufficient.
Be self sufficient, isn't it? They always tell you to be self sufficient. You're self sufficient.
self sufficient?
Is it funny that the Quran talks about this Qureshi guy who's arrogant, who's a person who is arrogant, because he believed he was self sufficient. He rejected the truth because he believed he was self sufficient. This is where it's COVID comes from arrogance, arrogance. So before the choir was talking about people who made who made the designs into the into the Lord, because they just chose that their desires over following the truth. But did that verse, I think,
who was revealed to us by the one who created both the past and the present and the future, knowing everything that's going to happen? I like to think in Allah's hikma, Allah Allah, Allah knows best obviously the meaning of his verses, but I like to think that it talks about those who literally created a religion based on making their desires the Lord literally declaring it now The Lord be impulsive, just do it.
So
I don't think it's inversely proportional controlling enough because
they don't believe Yeah, they don't believe that. Okay, maybe maybe, you could say it's true. They don't believe in controlling enough so they believe in following your knifes, whatever it says.
Yep.
Oh, okay, so well, so from the Muslim perspective, in essence, you can't control the whisperings of enough I was actually talking to Brother on the way here about this. Your, and we know from, I believe some former headquarters of Los Alamos was talking about Allah spawn a saying that Allah will forgive what you're not the whispers of your knifes, as long as you don't act on it, right? Because you're not always gonna whisper it's gonna you can't stop it from whispering and telling you desires from giving you motivations, you can't stop it, you can't, you'll have no choice about it. What you can do is not act on it, avoid situations that cause it to whisper louder. And try to find
situations by which you can train your nerves to whisper different things, good things instead of bad things. Right. So training. But that's that point.
As your as your second point, which now just kind of so my jet lag has now made me forget it.
The second point after that was the
kids. Children? Yes, yes. How do we kind of train our children to,
to kind of not feel that they're not saying the wrong things and not being individualistic, but act at correctly? Well, you know what
a famous Western philosopher said recent one kind of said that.
You can't escape, you can't basically escape suffering. But what would you but kind of getting happiness is just understanding why you're suffering or what you're trying to achieve, basically purpose. Right, you have to give the children purpose, if you don't give them purpose.
You're just telling them to live their lives. And all that. And all that's left is their nuts, talking to them, and telling them all kinds of things, and being manipulated by adverts and society, because society, all that culture, and adverts and all these commercials and all this teachings that they get from their school, tell them, it's there to manipulate them and enough to whisper certain things, bad things. But if you don't get an alternative, then of course, they're going to follow that. And what I mean by an alternative is, because they're living in the West, right, you have to give them a vision beyond the West, if you tell them that their purpose of life is just to get to
rise up in society and be and be respected in society, then they're going to think about how to do that, in a society where the culture is based on individualism. But if you tell them,
there is an Islamic World project that little solarsoft salaam started, and that all Muslims have to strive towards, which is bearing witnesses to mankind, but there is only one God and this God is a last point either
that there should be justice between mankind, and that there should be mercy and compassion between mankind. And we should use the guidance of the Quran and the Sunnah, to realize this, and not just turn to Muslims, but also that non Muslims should be living under justice, and should be living under compassionate mercy, and that the animals should be well treated, and that we should ban this kind of the kind of cattle farming and that that causes suffering to cattle, this mass produced capitalist based kind of farming, this global warming and the destruction of the environment, we need to protect the the waters the amount of Allah spent Allah we need to establish a civilization
that is a bears witness to the to the oneness of Allah spawn to Allah, His justice, his ye. And that gives us a way of life that fulfills our fitrah our natural purpose, and that bears witness to non Muslims seeing us as the people who are content, fulfilling ourselves with the guidance of Allah subhanaw taala his law and his commands, give that vision to your children. And they won't, they won't deviate. They'll think now I have a goal. And doesn't mean ignore being in society on Oh, I give up, give up going to university. No, they're going to they're going to start striving. They're going to start developing themselves. They're going to start maybe getting very good jobs, because
they can use that money and they can use that knowledge and they can use their networks and connections to try to bring about the world that there are so la Salam
envisioned and taught us about which is a world where Allah Spano Allah is the highest and the worship of Allah is the highest and the highest reference point and criteria for all mankind. Give that to your children and they won't be diverted and swayed away.
Yes.
last comment on the same question yourself, you know this, it seems the question came from because
Mother, because she does have several children. Is that correct? Sir? How many mothers do we have over there? Put your hands up very quickly. So we have several, how many fathers do we have here? Okay, so that's
a question of raising children is that one of the most difficult, okay? They have fewer children myself. And I can tell you this is a challenge. So there is an Islamic secret recipe for, okay. Now, unfortunately, it's not being implemented in many families. And I think we want to help out the families to, to implement the Islamic divine recipe for pedophilia of children.
This means a real practical project. I know, people know me here, I don't like to talk, I like to get things done. So if people are really serious about it, I can tell you what the recipe is in terms of the title of the recipe. But I'd like the sisters, specifically, since they're the one who asked to promise that they're going to start a group of specifically mothers that come and execute the strategy and train other mothers in the city because everybody needs us. Are you willing to do so? So I can tell you the recipe or no, put your hands up? I want to say, I want to hear you guys. Are we up for this task?
Since if I didn't hear much Yes, we're gonna do this Yes or no? Yes, brothers, fathers. We can do this yes or no. Okay, the secret recipe, really, there's a few things. But the most important of all of them is something called one word is called stories. Okay, now, I'm not going to tell you more. It's just one word I'm going to give you today. And there is word way more to explain this in detail from a psychological perspective, and from an Islamic Sharia perspective. But since people basically did declare, yes, we might start basically with lecture after I come back from Sharla. From our trip to Halifax, we have a trip that we're taking it to Halifax to train the city in Dhamma and Islam and
maybe Charlotte something Hawaii in Halifax, Nova Scotia, this coming Thursday. within that time, after we come back.
The sisters need to make the effort to set up a lecture specifically for young mothers and mothers basically to be and fathers and fathers to be so we can discuss the therapy and the fundamentals of Islamic therapy of children and give a roadmap so you guys can implement it on a weekly or bi weekly basis within the community this message in Sharla can host this such a session, and this session is very, very needed if we do it the right way. Vertical Luffy comm I'm gonna give the mic which I'm not too sure for sure. So we can finalize. This is the last moments of this lecture today
on public
markets and their insights into law