The Middle Way

Rahim al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil alameen wa salatu salam Vickery Muhammad Ali.

He agreed to the summit greens of peace. Assalamu aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. So,

I'd like to thank ny Inc, for setting up this event. You esteemed audience for attending.

And I suppose trying to

organize organizers for kind of picking a subject, which I think many Muslims are very confused about, as caused, I think a lot of fitna, especially in the Muslim community, not just in the non Muslim community. So what we mean by all this kind of chaos and

polarization, what they really mean is this kind of war between the left wing and the right wing. And many Muslims are kind of find themselves in the middle of this war, not knowing how to support the right wing, some of the right wing are like conservative Christians. And they certainly have certain beliefs, which are very similar to us. But these very same individuals don't like Muslims, or don't trust Islam being in their midst. And on the other side,

the left wing welcomed us with open arms to say, we will defend your right to have an identity. But of course, there's a price tag that comes with that, which is in the name of tolerance, they'll say, because we tolerate you, you have to tolerate others, and how we define tolerance is that you have to believe that other people's lifestyle choices, beliefs, and religions are just as equally valid and good as yours.

According to your moral worldview, so all they are they they're happy for you to, to keep your identity, they just want you to change your beliefs.

Whereas the right wing, they want to, they want you to kind of change your identity, or at least eliminate what they view to be, as not loyal to the state or not loyal to the culture of the societies until when you call yourself let's say, a Muslim, first, they will have a problem of that. They want you to call yourself an American first or Canadian first, or a French person first or a British person first. And then Muslim, if you say you're Muslim, first, they have a problem with that.

And of course, the far right, just want to get rid of you full stop. And, and preferably, they would probably want to see

Muslims not and perhaps even immigrants, or sons of immigrants, or anyone who is not of the particular majority ethnic group to leave their lands. So those that's kind of where we find ourselves.

Many of you, and if you go to university, anyone who go to university, put your hands up university students, what open assist, is there anyone whenever you go to university,

okay, quite a few.

Well, a university, that's where a lot of you will encounter

this kind of a choice between left wing and right wing, and many Muslims, because sometimes it's happened. Our mosques are very apolitical. They don't want Muslims to kind of say they don't want to talk or discuss how Islam is a comprehensive way of life can provide practical solutions for the world's problems, because they already be too controversial that the media would pay too much attention to them. And the politicians wouldn't put them in a spotlight. So they want to keep things just purely on let's say, ritually by the actions only and discussions of aqidah limited only to the belief of monotheism. And that's more or less it, more or less. But there's a cost to that to

avoiding the avoiding fitna avoiding controversy by not discussing Islam holistically, there's a price tag to that. And the price tag is that many of you young individuals, as young people are wanting to do want to make the world a better place. They want to combat injustice. They want to find their place in the world to do something to make a change. But if Islam isn't given them any option to make a change or given given them any guidance and make a change, they'll find plenty of other ideologies that do promise to make a change and these ideologies like secular liberal

Buddhism and social justice warriors and all the stuff they have, they have their own idea of what change looks like. And so many Muslims who desire to, to combat racism, for example, and to combat discrimination, and to combat some of the kind of excesses you might see in Western society. So to combat

sexual harassment, for example,

we told you can combat this if you adopt a particular belief, which which we define as, let's say, the idea of feminism, and, and in his belief, the problem is not that humans are fallible and do and commit acts of crimes, and it doesn't really matter what gender you are, because criminals are in all kinds of criminals, all kinds of genders, right? You can be any kind of agenda and you commit to crime, and want to commit crime and be selfish and be abusive to others doesn't really matter. No, they explain it as it's there's a conspiracy called the patriarchy.

And the patriarchy is basically a consistent Matic

hierarchy of society devised by men, purposely to keep women down.

And so many sisters and some brothers

will will think, yeah, that sounds that sounds like a bad thing. Yeah, let's fight against that. And of course, this didn't precipitates a gender sectarianism, when basically things which are bad are called toxic masculinity. But But then at the same time, gender is a social construct. So masculinity is a social construct. But yet,

at the same time, it can be it can be toxic, or men are prone to being misogynists. So is it men as a, as a sex or men as a socially constructed gender? what is causing the problem? Where is this how comes in almost virtually every culture and society around the world? You've had roughly very similar gender roles throughout history, going back hundreds by literally 100,000 years. Right? So they will give you the big conspiracy, and this is how we have to deal with it.

What about against racism?

Well, Islam has an A analysis where racism comes from, is just a type of a severe, or what we call tribalism. In fact, Islam doesn't have a word for racism, the hatred of a race, but we all have the same race, human race, right by the atom. But what you do get is because humans have different tribes, or they tend to hate each other based on different tribes, and is not limited to how much melanin melanin is in your skin, people with the same ethnic group, same religion, but different tribes can hate each other.

Just as much as a

white supremacist might hate immigrants. So the idea, the western, kind of, let's say, SJ ww concept of racism, coming from what they call critical race theory, which is the ideological construct they come up with,

really starts discriminating off the bat. In fact, in a way, using the word racism is racist.

Because if you say, oh, you're discriminating against black people, you're saying you're a different race, if you call that racism, but I'm all the same race. If you speak to any anthropologist in human history, anthropology and university, or knows an anthropologist, Professor,

now, MD studies, engineering and things like that, all right. All right.

Just asking if apologies, people have posted someone who studies humans and human history, what would they tell you?

They'll say that it's ridiculous to use the term race,

completely ridiculous,

to say, to call everyone from Sub Saharan Africa as black people, as if black people only are in Sub Saharan Africa, and they're only one tribe and only one ethnicity is ridiculous. There's multiple drives, multiple languages, multiple religions and cultural backgrounds. And of course, they're not the only places in the world that has skin shades of that color in South India, the same in

Australasia. They have the same you know, shades of skin. So to say that people in Sub Saharan Africans is inaccurate, to say the least, and using the word white people as well, to say that there's a problem with white people, people being

been historically racist towards other people's Well, there are Arabs who have skin colors which are paid and then some Europeans

are they white people? What about Iranians? Are they white people Persians basically they white people, there's Pakistanis who are who are pale Some even have green eyes.

Are they white people or not white people?

Hispanics, which are called some some of generically just called brown people, Hispanics, Hispanics are actually a combination of European, African American and Native American.

They but they were married over many centuries. And so they just became one, well, maybe not homogenous mass, but they just been labeled as one hit, you know, the Hispanics.

But according to critical race theory, which is the ideas which are taught by SJW, by kind of promoting by SJW, and things like this, there is a race in between whites, and blacks. And they might make allowances for a browns and the quote unquote browns and Asians we call Southeast Asians and England Asians refer to people from the Indian subcontinent. So critical race theory, the problem in that is where it originated from. It came from basically in America, United States of America, because United States America, you had a whole bunch of immigrants, immigrants from Europe, immigrants from well, immigrants, all the possible from obviously, from India, and of course, the

descendants of slaves that were brought against their will from West Africa. But here's the problem that developed in the United States, because when all these Europeans came, and after a couple of generations, they spoke English somewhere like polish, for example, some of French, some, some were from Spain, they were they're not Hispanic, but their Spanish. Italians

are the couple generations they spoke English. And you it was hard to tell where any one of those formulas that you hear their name, or you know about their background, or you know, where maybe which part of the United States they're from maybe thinking from Jersey, probably Italian, or telling the sentence, right. So instead, they made these broad categories, they just say whites, and blacks, and reds to refer to the Native Americans, they made these very general categories, because you can't tell the difference between a Polish, a Polish descendant in America, from a Irish descendant in America, from English and in America. And so they've made broad categories. But in in

Europe, people tell the difference all the time. And one of the many reasons for Brexit was signed by people who were pro Brexit was they didn't want all these Polish immigrants coming into UK and taking their jobs.

They were very much discriminating against Polish people.

But in America, they just kind of amalgamated them into one category.

And so when when Muslims adopt these ideologies, trying to solve real problems, there are real problems of discrimination in the United States of America probably exist in Canada to exist in Europe as well for but Europe is a bit more multifaceted. So they would discriminate against other Europeans, as well as people from outside Europe. So it's multifaceted in Europe. The problem is, is that it perpetuates the problem as much as it consultants. Because when you say that there must be a striving of the people of the non whites against white supremacy, a belief of white supremacy or a white preeminence. What you do, is you make everyone everyone's skin color politicized into into a

community reinforce it, you reinforce the idea that people are categorized by skin color.

And not every let's say, white American is rich and powerful. Not every white American is rich and power. Many of them are what you call was it Hicks or hillbillies or

red rednecks and

denizens of trailer parks.

These people, these people,

they they pull and look down upon they called, you know, poor white trash. We buy the upper classes in the United States. And so for them when they don't have any power, and then they see that

that there's all this campaigning and positivity equal positive discrimination for minorities, which are non white minorities in the States. They feel that they've been left out. And because they're white, and no one cares about them and then they become radicalized and they will support politicians they think will care for them like a certain politician with orange skin and strange hairstyle. Right.

Now, as I said,

cooling this, these these things out, doesn't mean that there isn't problems of course.

But as a Muslim, we would analyze things differently. We would say the problem The United States is the problem of Serbia,

where people define themselves into tribes and claim their tribe is better than others or their tribe. It deserves special privileges over others, or they only care about if something happens to their tribe, or member of their tribe, they will care about that somehow, as a member of the tribe, they wouldn't care about that.

And the Quran says, stand for, for justice, even against yourselves.

So as Muslims, anyone who's being mistreated, and anyone who's been treated unjustly

deserves our concern and deserves us to fight for them.

But you see, when we start looking at when we look at the standard lens for the Samak lens, and we see everybody, we see everyone for the lens of money, Adam, these are the one tribe of Adam alayhis salaam.

And as Muslims were meant to be witnesses, to be Shahada witnesses to bear witnesses, to mankind of the truth to guide mankind to show to show people there's a better alternative. There's a better alternative to the the false dichotomies that you have in your society,

trying to group people into different racial groups, and then pit them against each other. Because you have collectively said all whites are privileged, and All Blacks are underprivileged. It creates rank or intention. By the what you should say is, everyone who's poor United States of America deserves to be held outside of poverty. And anyone who is maltreated by the police deserves to get justice against the police and any police person who mistreats anyone should get punished for doing. So.

That's the that would be the Islamic perspective. It destroys of Serbia, because on the Day of Judgment,

don't care how much melanin in your skin, I don't care. I don't care how much sin you've done, how much capital you have.

And whether you had sincerity in your heart. That's what I was wonderful judge.

And those who will be those who are righteous, and receive His mercy, their faces will be brightened. And those people who rejected the truth, who were hypocrites who are arrogant and had pride, their faces will be darkened.

And the Day of Judgment,

there'll be all different races in each of these groups.

And you don't want to be in the face that you don't want to be in the group of those whose faces become darkened. Because they're going to be punished for their sin. You want to be in the group of people, those faces who are brightened with a nor it's not afraid to skin color for into the nor of those who will say it.

And as because going back to the issue or going back to feminism

it's a we revisit that. Does it mean to critique or not adopt feminism Does it mean that we deny that there are women who are raped, that women who are sexually harassed, there are women and even looking into the Muslim community, there are women who are who are kind of misled and divorced or abused in the domestic home? Doesn't we're not denying any of this stuff.

And if we hear about it,

we should come down upon the perpetrators of this abuse with full force if we find out.

And of course, not only and but Islam wouldn't limit it, to just looking at the gender.

A man who abused his wife is guilty, a wife or a husband, which does happen as well, maybe not as much, but it does happen. That's also guilty. It's also wrong.

Islam doesn't care, the gender of the perpetrator.

There's only one gender for perpetrators of injustice, and they're called criminals. That's the only gender that Islam looks at.

And so, but to then, to then address the problems that some women face, or that many women face by saying these problems come from a war between the sexes, the war between men and women. Well, that's just ridiculous.

That's completely ridiculous. I mean, have you ever heard of a domestic abuser, say a male domestic abuser in court? tend to judge? Well, the reason why I did it,

Your Honor, is because we're part of a war against women and we have to keep them down. And I saw I had to do my bit.

No, he doesn't. He didn't say that.

The charge would would come down really harsh on him or maybe he goes

To a mental hospital to check his sanity, because it's ridiculous.

But when feminists would use terms but See, the thing is this.

If Western ideology rather liberalism believes everyone is equal, I'm going to tell you where this will come from, where the idea of, of misogyny and patriarchy, why they have to why they have to come up with these ideas, why they must come up with these ideas is to is to hide the reality that they don't like.

Which is they believe everyone's equal, everyone has equal power and equal capability.

Okay.

But then how comes nature never got the memo. How comes in terms of human beings,

males have a particular type of nature's nature's steroids, basically, testosterone, which makes you taller, bigger, and tend to be stronger. So in the family, between a brother and a sister, both from the same parents, brothers will tend to be stronger than their siblings. I mean, you might get a woman that's stronger than some men. Yes, but but generally speaking, between brothers and sisters with a when the genes are roughly kind of from the same parents, all things being equal, testosterone causes a difference.

The purpose of testosterone is to basically make you bigger, stronger, more muscle mass. It also is, and it also is the reason why in the Olympics, and in most sports, they keep the genders segregated even in the West, gender segregation.

Oh, everyone's equal, why not participate together? Oh, well, you don't want to do that. Why not? Isn't gender just a social construct? Right? It's not. Right. Now we can debate as to the effects of testosterone? Does it? Cause it? Does it cause a lack of aggression or the ability to engage in more risk taking perhaps, does that have an advantage when human beings are in the wild? And basically, but facing wild animals or trying to try to achieve goals related to protecting the tribe which will involve risk? That's a whole lot of discussion and debate. But testosterone, I think there's no debate about it, it causes physiological differences, okay? Now imagine in a society or any society

whereby there's one group of no group, but one type of human, which is stronger than not a type of human and say that in a society 3%, just roughly what happens in most society 3% of society are criminals, right? 3% of society of serial criminals. So 3% of women will be criminals, and 3% of men will be criminals, okay.

But the 3% of women who are criminals,

being the fact that not as strong as men will not be able to have the opportunity to commit physical abuse by as much as their counterparts because they would be physically weaker.

But the 3% of criminals amongst men

who are stronger, have more ability to use that strength to cause prevent equals abuse.

That's that's unfortunate nature

doesn't mean that men are more prone men are more desiring to commit criminal acts. Although there is a possible you could argue that the fact that 95% of the jails are filled with men might might best be a bearing on what testosterone does. But then here's a problem. If you admit, if a liberal admits that nature makes human beings a bit different, then it contradicts the idea that everyone's absolutely equal.

But then how can you explain maybe aggression born of testosterone perhaps, or the ability to do to have

to be more willing to take risks, which is debated at the moment we've amongst psychologists, between liberal psychologists and those who just want to just want to study the facts of what biology says, but anyway.

So how do they explain it? They say, No, no, this is not biology. This does not come from biology. This is invented by society, the parents teaching men to be like this, and the parent teaching women to be another way that what what creates the personality differences? Because to admit that it's actually something that might be a biological component means that human beings are not all equal in terms of they're not identical. But liberalism wants to believe that everyone is a Peter starts with everyone is identical.

But that's not really that's not really important. You can't really see that in nature anyway. I mean, some people can have their immune system

than others, some people are more intelligent than others. Some people are fitter more athletic than others. Some people have a better metabolism than others. I was just telling

one of those of having a conversation with one of the brothers who picked me up at the airport today. And I was saying that of talking about like obesity in United States of America, and the statistic that one in three Americans are extremely obese, and I fought as hard to believe until I went to America. And I actually saw it for myself. But in Canada, you don't seem to have the same kind of not the same degree. But that being said, I've noticed two things, which is I've hardly seen, I haven't seen many. I haven't seen many Iranian men or Somali men who are fat.

And he was telling me the Bible was smart. He was saying Yeah, like in my family, you know, like you started to Sunday, you know, eats a lot like incredible amounts but doesn't get doesn't really get fat.

And I say that's genetics, I suppose.

Doesn't mean that there's no there's apps there's no fat Persian men and fat Somali men but you know, it is certain tendencies in amongst Persians perhaps and, and tamales, Somali men anyway.

So, metabolism, you're born with me suppose. So there are there are differences that human beings are born with. But liberalism doesn't want to admit that because it goes against the idea that everyone is identical when it means equally means identical. So instead, how do they explain that this portion of mouth men commit crime or abuse or physical abuse in marriage, they say that this is all part of a deliberate conspiracy called the patriarchy

designed specifically to oppress women and keep them on the lower tiers of society.

And every culture, which has made use of men being stronger by being a warrior, caste, or, or defender cost against, like wild animals, or other tribes and things, this, this was not because men or men weren't chosen to be soldiers, just because they were stronger and fitter, and some of which would be criterias you'd want in a soldier would be more advantageous? Surely, no, no, they were the warrior cost because they wanted to keep the power for themselves in order to oppress women.

And that's where the aqeedah of liberalism leads people to necessery to have a necessity have these these leads these conclusions

and I've seen I've seen in the Muslim community it's starting now or no, it's starting it's supposed it's getting bigger and bigger conflict and tensions between Muslims based on their sex and based on their, their, their ethnic group, but not just the old the kind of generally that we know in the Muslim world where like a colleague will look down on an Egyptian and Egyptian might look down on a North African and so on so forth, even amongst Arabs, right? They have you know, that the typical answer be a no, no, no, no, it's it's now an even even advanced form of this. It's they will group

white Muslims into one group, black Muslims to one group, Pakistanis in a way Asian Muslims, oh, Asian, Asian, Indian subcontinent Muslims into one group, and then pit them against each other.

And they say they say to white reverts, all you have you have you have privilege because of your race. And you don't understand how, how other Muslims of different races are experiencing and feeling. And it's like, why we even looking at ourselves through this lens. And it's also ridiculous, because, as anyone, if you ask any revert that's converted to Islam. As soon as if they look Muslim, if they look visibly Muslim in the Western society, they've lost any privileges they have. They no longer a privileged white person, they're just a Muslim.

And I've seen I've seen Muslims

being called have become a revert to Islam, from European backgrounds, who become Muslim they get called race traitor.

traitors against their own race, which is ridiculous.

What race is that?

You know, the descendants of Adam La Silla. I'm pretty sure he's a Muslim, too. So

it was ridiculous. But you see how that lens is now influencing in the Muslim community now? It's getting more into the Muslim we're seeing each other is different. Because what they'll say and they'll, but there is, you see thing is all truth. So all false, it has a little bit of truth in it. A little bit of truth. They'll point to the via the tribalism amongst the Muslim criminal and jarhead Muslims.

They'll say oh, look how Arabs look down upon Sub Saharan. Sub Sahara Muslims, Howard Wilson depend upon sub Sahara Muslims, or how Turks look down upon Arabs.

And they'll simplify it and just say, Muslims of light skinned looked down upon those that have darker skin.

And then they'll start to cause attentional animosity, whereas the reality is, is it's not some conspiracy between a particular race of Muslims get lower rates of Muslims. No, it's just that the Muslim world because we're not united by Islam, because we don't see

each other as one oma.

And we don't look our interest as one interests, like our ancestors used to do.

What happens is that we look out for ourselves and our own family, and first our family than our own local locale in the city than our own town, in our tribe, or, or basic area. So we might say,

a person maybe who lives in, in, in Lahore, for example, in Pakistan, might be looking after their family first, they will, they'll prioritize their family over all the neighbors families, and then they'll prioritize their neighborhood of all the neighborhoods, and then there'll be partial to, to the whole against let's say, karate, perhaps. And then they'll say

they'll prioritize or affiliate with Punjabi against Pilates. And then as expands up their potential, they'll deal with like Pakistanis versus Bangladeshis. And it just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. It's not a dedicated hatred between races that exists amongst Muslims. No, it's a Serbia

Muslims all viewings are is different just based on geography just even being a different family on the same street.

We don't don't bring critical race theory into Islamic discussions don't bring it into it will divide us It will completely divided us

we are Muslim

peace is one Our God is one

wall our walls are one so the Prophet Mohammed has taught it's all we're all one there is no difference.

And you know what, it's not like there wasn't also be at the time of the Prophet Mohammed sauce Allah

you know, Arabs looked down upon people from happy

and they said, you know, with with below.

Further,

they said they were below they said one particular America was having a discussion

and got angry with below and said are you son of a black mother.

And when the Prophet Mohammed slawson have heard of this, he, he just dies that that that, that Sahabi said what he was doing? It showed that the Soviet what he was doing was ridiculous. Adam alayhis salaam was an Arab was a particular ethnic group. And Adam came from mud. And people having pride over their lineage ridiculous. And the person felt so much ashamed that he's put his head on the ground. And he said, I'm not going to lift my head until Bilbao puts his foot on it, which as you know, amongst Arabic culture, is like to put your head to put to show someone your shoe is viewed to be a bit of one of the powerful insults because it means you're worth less than the

underneath their feet. So for someone, this is a hobby, he put his head on the ground, and he wouldn't lift it until below, put his foot on top of it. Was it because there was a conspiracy or a a, a structured racism whereby Arabs just necessarily hate it? People have darker skin color? Well, no, because Arabs actually have a variety of skin colors amongst themselves. No, it was just common everyday of Serbia, tribalism.

That's what it was.

But what the critical race theory is, do they say, look, you see this hatred between this person of this color skin and this but this cause skin? It's because of the color of skin? So no, it's because of jolly.

It's because they don't see we don't see each other as one tribe.

One drug, if you know what, there's only one, there's only one racist, I can actually think of real racist that I can think of, and that's really beliefs. Because he's a different race. He's the jinn and he didn't like humans.

He was arrogant. He fought genius better than humans. You could say he's a racist, because it's a different race, but amongst us with the same race

so my brothers and sisters

don't join in in the sectarian wars in the West happening between the two middle hit. In the West, the right wingers and left wingers. don't join in. Don't Don't think that you have to adopt their Kedah or their beliefs, but rather you tell the conservatives

You say look, you believe in some of them believe in the Bible. That's good. If you want to believe in the Bible, it's your choice, right? It's better than being secular. All right? But we believe in the same God. We believe in Allah Salaam. We believe in the Torah, the Torah, and all everything you find in the in the Bible, or anything you find the Quran that you don't like, open up your Bible, you'll see it there times 10

it's all there not you know do you think sample something completely new? No didn't when when they say oh, you know Muslims can can commit polygamy, this is against our values. So tell me the way the Bible polygamy is outlawed. In the Old Testament, it's allowed and and Jesus never abrogated so

and in West Africa, Christians practice it.

They and they would allow I was discussing in some of my lectures about misconception against Islam, the word Allah they say is a foreign name for God. It's a form of God. It's not our God they say. So really, so Jesus used the English word God today.

Jesus spoke which language Aramaic, Aramaic, it's a it's a Semitic language like Arabic is Semitic language, like Hebrew, Semitic language, Aramaic is related to Hebrew basically it was the Arabic was the he was the Aramaic word for God. But if you look at passion for Christ, whether this is film, using the actual spoke Aramaic to simulate the language that was most likely spoken by around the time of Jesus, just wait for the subtitles to say God and listen to what what they say, when the subtitles say God, you the act of playing, playing a lead the legends character, the legend, the depiction of Jesus in the New Testament. Whenever you use the word God he says Allah. Why? Because

in Aramaic, and in Hebrew,

God is spelt and I'm using Hebrew letters here. lf lamb Head Head, that's Hebrew letters. lf lammott hair in Arabic.

What's the what is the word of God? Well, how's it spelt? Olive? lamb ha, good to lambs. But Ilana as well, you know, the Word of God is the same. same route Alif Lam

same word. If Jesus came today, he wouldn't understand dios or do or God from the gym, the gym the pagan German word got. He would understand those words. He'd understand the Muslim Salah when he said Allah, oh, that's talking about God. He'd understand what our language

so make make the conservatives realize that we're not an alien religion. We are Abrahamic. And if they would do well to make alliances we've asked to protect the religious rights that we believe are the common beliefs we have in in Abrahamic faiths and the common values we have. Now to the left wingers. When they say to you, we will protect you your right to identify as a Muslim. However,

could you also be tolerant to certain people certain lifestyles lgbtqi or transsexuals? or so on and so forth? Could you be tolerant? And what we mean by tolerant is that you affirm that what they're doing is morally right, morally, okay, it's fine. It's good. I say excuse me, since when did tolerance require require conformity or conformance? That's not tolerance, you know, actually being tolerant to ask them.

Just because we don't believe that you should go around committing violence against people just because they have a preference of sexual preference. And we're talking about preference.

preference is different from activity, by the way, just so you know, there's no word in the Quran or sauna, or in the Bible even for homosexual heterosexual bisexual that was invented in 19th century. The words in the Quran and in the in the Bible talk about like loot roti refers to people who do actions, not people who have desires. Make sure you tell you the difference clear on this. Because if you say, homosexuality,

will put someone in hell, what a Westerner understands when you say that. His use is you're saying that someone who has a desire they can't choose will go to Hell, no matter what they do. That's what they understand when you say that don't use the word homosexual, or bisexual, or even heterosexual is not a chronic term. It's not in the head if it's not in the Bible. Heck, even Ancient Greeks never had a word for that. Even though some of them did certain practices of same sex practices. They didn't they didn't they didn't discriminate people by labels. Remember, we were talking about labeling with the with critical race theory and the kind of labels with

of men versus women and that kind of sectarian fighting. Well in that idea of

In the world, that kind of liberal discuss with concerns lgbtqi they say, if you have a desire of same sex desire, you are now part of a community, which has a culture

which has a certain a certain what they are a distinct human t distinct for all the communities say, wait a second, since when there's having a particular desire mean that you have to have a culture or it's linked to a culture that you will just if you like, the people the same sex, you must like Broadway musicals.

As That's ridiculous. you're defining people buy a one preference.

It's ridiculous.

It's like saying, we can divide the world into people who like routine and don't like routine.

Yeah. Oh, you like routine, you're part of the routine community.

With that follows routine culture. And what's putting culture?

Well, that you take showers and gravy well.

And but that's how ridiculous it is. Right? And what I said yesterday, when someone asked me this question that in the q&a in in Vancouver,

was, I said, what they say what is some little say about homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexual would have it? Well, homosexuals mostly right? And I said Islamic law doesn't discriminate homosexuals, because it does not discriminate homosexuals and abuse, like, what do you mean just by repeating ourselves? And no, it doesn't discriminate, because we don't label people by by that in the first place. If you don't give them a label, how can you discriminate against them?

Straight up in the western history in their history, in 19th century guy called Richard von craft on eBay, he invented this term in tight as an equal to sexual psychopathy. And then everyone who had that design was labeled according to that that desire, and then they started to be singled out for discrimination, treat as insane or mad or what have you. And that's what led to, you could say the kind of oppressions that that could well be people who just had a desire they didn't even act on it, but they were treated in a bad way. They treat in the bad way.

That's the all history it's not Islamic history.

In Islamic governance, the government the government, the government's does not care the government does not care what you do inside your own home.

And doesn't ask questions privacy, your own home is respected. But if you go out into public and let your kids dinner for example, in public, you're gonna get punished. Right? You know, you ever realized that the punishment for adultery was only ever mid minister the time the Prophet Mohammed salsa them, because people would come up to me and admit to it, I wanted punishment, because he'd never be able to find it. Otherwise, they didn't their own house, and one person and one person could resolve asked his companion to go to the problematic and confess to adultery. And when the Prophet Mohammed heard about this, he said, Oh, Hassan, if only you had kind of ratul companion, the

cloak, which was like an Arabic as an expression, that means if only I told you a campaign to keep it secret, and ask others forgiveness.

So in Islam, we never went hunting around against anyone for whether they did Zinner of any kind.

We never went hunting around, we never label people groups. That's Western history. Don't come to us with this. Yeah, we believe same sex relationship, same sex, intimacy, physical intimacy is a sin. Of course, we believe that, of course, this is this is the sonic present position. But it doesn't mean now that we treat people who have that desire or even engage in activity, we treat them unjustly, or we attack them, or we do bad things to them doesn't mean that you can, can you know, disagree with someone without attacking them or hating them? But the left wing liberals, they say to you, no, no, unless you approve of what they do, you're intolerant. Say, excuse me, You're the ones

who are intolerant now. Because you're forcing us to change our beliefs.

Otherwise, you won't protect us. Sorry.

That doesn't mean that you should kind of just give them you know, say give them the hand talk talk to the head, right doesn't mean you say that you can just you can give it out to them and make them understand, say, look, if you're saying that people should not be mistreated or to or people should not be treated unjustly, purely based on their desires, we agree with you. We agree.

And if, if you believe that people shouldn't just be attacked on the street because of what they do in the privacy of their own homes. We agree people shouldn't be attacked, or mystery or discriminate against what they do in the privacy of their own homes. We agree with this. But don't ask us to morally accept

some people's lifestyle choices that contradicts the Quran and Sunnah. We're not going to compromise, or why Islam says but you don't have to ask us to compromise. make them realize, made them realize there's another way they could just say you know what?

You disagree with that person's lifestyle choices, you don't prove it, you think it's not moral on your basis, but you're willing to, you're willing to let them Dena Kamala Dean, follow your dean and leave people to follow the other day, Dean, you know, what we liberals, we've learned to accept this, we will, we will accept this now, we will accept that you can do that. And we will protect you still. That's what you have to make them realize. Not that you should go to them and say protect us. But I'm just saying that when they want to do collaboration with you, make them clear, make it clear your limits, and your conditions.

Say that we believe that everyone should have the right to not be molested, attacked, mistreated, abused, for what they do in the privacy of their own home, according to their own belief system following their own Deen. Yeah, of course. But remember, will will kind of appear platforms if that's what you're gonna say. But if you're gonna say, coming off platforms and have pride in some people's lifestyle choices, well, I'm sorry, I'm not what do you need me to approve of people's lifestyle choices?

That's not, that's not tolerance. So anyway,

I hope this has kind of given you some guidance,

that when dealing with left wing and when dealing with right wing, don't compromise, you don't have to wear a hijab using the Canadian flag, the American flag, or the English flag to convince conservative that you're loyal, and that you're not a threat to the state.

I mean, since you know since when do do they wear clothes made out of uni? Jackson's Canadian flags and American flags and so on? Okay. Americans do but I mean, apart from them, right? How come they don't require loyalty tests? to someone, some of them some of some of these, these these

Americans who are not immigrants, they're advocates. So they hate the American government.

Or they hate they have they prefer the governments that the American government but no one ever says to them? We don't trust these people they need loyalty tests are no barriers, because they're viewed as indigenous, even though in America, they're not indigenous anyway. But ultimately, but they're viewed as the majority group, right? Whereas in England, that's sort of the case anyway. Whereas when it comes to us, oh, no, you have to take law to test we have to see that you are like, more Canadian, more American, more British, and even the British and American Canadians are one that sorry, that's discrimination now, oh, you could have asked for us, we could have asked from us is

that we stick to the law of the land.

We made an agreement to live here. It's like it's a

contract a covenant. Right?

We will stick to what will stick to the covenant. That's all you should be able to you should always should ask for us and from any citizen, but then to say, No, no, you have to do more than that. You have to follow our values as I define the values to be so I'm sorry, who are you? If we're equal citizens, then who are you to tell us what values are the minute to define that, that you that you're the ones who define those values nos. Right, even though we're not gonna, we're not going to impose our values on one, we're gonna call you to our values. But if you want them to set fine, one of the demand, you follow our values, so make sure conservatives know this the right we know this,

as for the left wing, make sure they know that they know and that we're not going to follow without the proof of what they approve of, in order to be to be protected by them.

And I think Finally, as a final point before I end this,

I think it's a final point out is what to do the right wing. Right, those are those areas are in supremacists. Right. Well As for the army supremacists, you can just remind them that Aryans came from India and so basically

they they are in essence Indian.

Right? But wait, okay, those they really can't be reasoned with, generally speaking, but

you can discuss with the conservatives and you can discuss with the left wingers and make them understand you that Islam is not is not left to right wing, you're not a conservative Muslim. You're not a liberal Muslim. You just a Muslim. We're a third way. We're an alternative way of life. And we hate to call people to it.

Because the people currently they're stuck in a dichotomy with conviction they can't solve, show them as an alternative, call them to an alternative. And that's what that was all about. And that's why we're here today to learn about is to be able to call mankind to an alternative, an alternative they don't know and attempted they desperately need to know about. So