Dilly Hussain – responds to istighaatha debate
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Brothers and sisters. This is your brother, Jiri
Hussain from 5 Pillars.
I decided to make a short video response,
in light of this weekend's debate between Sheikh
Asrar Rashid and Ustad Abdul Rahman Hassan on
the permissibility
of Tawasul Istighata on the prophet upon whom
be peace.
So there's been a lot of discussion,
a lot of debate, a lot of arguments
on social media
about what actually happened and who won and
even some questions pertaining to why I decided
to chair it. So So what I will
do in this short video is just go
over some of these points,
as well as clarify some issues or misconceptions
that some have regarding what actually happened in
sat on on Saturday evening.
With regards to who actually won the debate?
This is a question that I have fired
at me and I've been inundated with messages
and emails about who won the debate.
I cannot comment on this matter because the
whole role and responsibility of an impartial chair
is that he doesn't take any sides. And
I stated myself at the beginning of the
debate when opening,
the event is that I wouldn't make any
specific comment, Any personal comment about each parties
performance.
So I will not say,
who won the debate.
Because this is something that the general public
and the Ummah should be able to see
the debate from start to end
and make that sound decision upon themselves.
There's also been a question, which has been
raised to me regarding
why did I decide to chair this debate
when I was quite critical of both parties
during the mawlid debate when I wrote an
article for Huffington Post. Well, there's two differences
between what happened there and the debate which
I shared.
The Mowgli fiasco was something that was brewing
online.
It didn't actually transpire into an actual debate
and I tried
just giving some of my honest thoughts and
opinions
in writing,
advice to both parties as brothers to just
nip this in the bud and worry and
and and focus on more important things.
Secondly regarding the moulded debate,
the Huffington Post was already going to write
an article about it. So to safeguard any
negative coverage
of that fiasco,
I took it upon myself to write something
just in case,
the HuffPost journalist
wrote something which was distasteful,
in terms of representing,
the the 2 groups.
However, regarding why I decided to chair this
specific debate, well the organizers
contacted me
and they wanted me to moderate this debate
and the condition was that both parties would
consider me to be somewhat neutral, just and
fair. Now the way I saw it was
that 2 groups of muslims
who were disputing with each other on a
specific matter
had turned to me to moderate this debate.
And I felt that this was a duty
upon me to moderate the debate to ensure
that rules, ethicals and principles
were abided by and there were no transgressions
from either side. With the ultimate hope
that the debate would conclude with brotherhood, love
and compassion.
I noticed
that
after the debate,
something happened and that was that
edited clips and sound bites were being published
on on on social media.
When I opened the debate,
I made it very clear that I discouraged
any of the parties to upload
edited clips and sound bites.
This was not a close,
of of of the contract itself. The contract
which was agreed between Sheikh Abdul Rahman Hassan
and Sheikh Asrar Rashid, which I have in
front of me here, nowhere in
the 20
nowhere in the 20
9 points does it say that no one
was allowed to or disallowed
to upload edited clips or sound bites. This
was a this was a point I raised.
It was something that I raised, that I
discourage.
So to clarify
that
uploading edited clips and sandbars didn't actually break
any rules in the contract. It was rather
it was something that I discouraged.
And and the fruits of that, you can
see now on social media with each party
claiming victory and accusing each other of all
sorts.
Then
I also noticed that one of the parties
decided
not to introduce, I would include
my introductory speech
because they felt that it contradicted
the overwhelming objective of the debate itself.
Furthermore, they also told me that some of
the things I had said in my
introductory
speech,
they disagreed with it quite heavily. So what
I will say to you now,
is what I initially included within the speech
itself.
What I said was that,
here we had on Saturday evening, 2 very
capable individuals, men of knowledge,
students of knowledge,
on a scholastic level.
And I personally felt that their skills, their
ability, their knowledge would be better utilized
in areas which are affect affecting the Muslim
community the most.
That was what I said. I also added
that
I personally felt that the 6 articles of
our creed, the belief in Allah, the belief
in the angels, the scriptures,
all the prophets that all good and bad
comes from Allah and the final day was
enough. It was sufficient
for Muslims to unify.
Whilst the branches
of our creed, there will always be differences
that exist. Just like they existed for centuries
and just like they're going to exist for
centuries to come.
But regarding the issue of debating or Munadwara.
Yeah.
The issue of debate is not a major
thing. You know classically
many great scholars did debate each other. However,
in the modern day,
in the age of social media and new
digital era, what it's become,
it's become a very kind of capitalistic,
very aggressive
kind of to and fro between Muslims. And
this is not how classically debates were ever
had. Debates were carried out between men of
lineage to establish the truth. To get closer
to Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and do what
is most pleasing to him. And
if one of the sides
had acknowledged a mistake
or a flaw or a discrepancy
or a contradiction in their arguments,
in many cases they would just accept it
and improve and adopt the correct position. But
what we find now in this day and
era is that we've adopted a very Western
secular model of debating where it's not necessarily
about the substance of the argument or an
attempt to really establish the truth.
Rather
is to debate one another and to make
each other,
look small,
to belittle one another and to actually
not accept the truth sometimes or even accept
a difference, a legitimate difference when it's been
conveyed to you. Now all in all, the
debate which I chaired on Saturday,
it was overwhelmingly
friendly. It was very brotherly, civilized.
I was there for the most part, but
for the through the entirety of it. It
was about 5 and a half hours and
there was no issues.
The issues arose towards the end of the
debate
wherein one side made takbir.
Now
it does state in the contract
in point
just bear with me.
It does state in the contract
that there will be no heckling,
there will be no takbir, there would be
no chanting during the debate.
Now the party
which,
said takbir,
they clearly understood the debate to have concluded.
Because they made the takbir after Sheikh Abdul
Rahman Hassan gave his last speech. And in
theory
that was the end of the debate but
it wasn't the end of the event. So
there clearly was a misunderstanding from my, from
how I perceived
it, that's what what was the case.
But it did it did stipulate in the
contract
that no heckling,
no chanting, no cheering, no takbeers, no nari
takbeers, Any of that would be said during
the debate. Clearly one side had thought that
the debate had concluded, whilst the other side
had thought that the debate was still ongoing.
Secondly,
what I also found was that
uploading edited images, I mean edited video clips
and and and selective sound bites,
it really does no justice.
Because we have a principle in Islam which
is basically that we judge from what is
apparent.
From we judge from one's speech and actions.
Now how do you expect
Muslims,
animal Muslims to establish the truth
when they cannot see one's actions and speech
in its entirety?
How do you expect
the truth to prevail
if you decide to upload clips? 5 minute
clips, 10 minute clips, half an hour clips
from a 5 hour debate? It makes absolutely
no sense and it actually shows an element
of insincerity.
And if you're not insincere in doing so,
then uploading these edited, clips
is what it seems like.
So I will strongly advise brothers again who
are watching this video from both parties
to refrain
from uploading
edited sound bites, edited clips
to make, to somehow convey that your side
had the upper hand. At the end of
the day, when it comes to this religion,
it should never ever be about getting one
over the other side. It should never ever
be about belittling your brother. It should be
and solely be for establishing the truth.
How do you expect people to establish the
truth? Forget establish, how do you expect people
to understand the truth? If what you're going
to do is you're gonna upload
edited,
sound bites and clips.
Now
I'm going to conclude,
basically just touching upon another topic which people
have been discussing
and that is, well is this topic relevant?
Is it really important in this
day and age where the Muslim community here
and abroad are facing
numerous issues? Well I will simply say this,
if one camp
understood this issue to be the difference between
belief and disbelief
and the other camp perceived this matter
to be them regarded as Muslims or non
Muslims and of course to both parties they
considered this to be an important issue. In
fact both parties perceived this issue to be
one fundamentally got to do with the oneness
of God, the monotheism of Islam and that
worship alone should be directed to Allah Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala.
However, I did include in my opening speech
that these credal differences,
these credal differences which have been debated for
centuries and would most probably be debated for
centuries to come will forever exist.
So in that context,
perhaps it was wiser
to just agree to disagree on these matters
and perhaps focus on issues which are
troubling our community here and abroad. And when
I say troubling our community what am I
talking about? We have
the current UK government which is pushing policy
after policy, criminalizing Islam and Muslims.
We have the lackeys of this government who
are adamant in secularising this faith,
in actually trying to reform this religion according
to secular liberalism. We're having our religious institutions
being targeted. We're having Muslim charities being targeted
by the Charity Commission.
We have the fundamentals of this very religion
being questioned
about its future in this country. And abroad,
well I don't need to tell you what's
happening abroad.
Abroad we are
an occupied nation. We are occupied, we are
oppressed, our resources are looted, we are ruled
over by tyrants from east to west, we
are disunited.
These are more pressing issues. In my humble
opinion these are more pressing issues.
But
if these two camps sincerely believed that this
specific topic
of calling to the prophet upon whom be
peaceful assistance
is so important that it goes to the
heart of,
the creed,
a religion which is the worship of God,
then I I am not one to
question that. I I do understand from a
perspective
that yes,
if you if there if there are Muslims
who think that it is okay
to call upon other than Allah Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala independently
to deliver benefit,
then of course this is a very big
problem.
So I do I do understand that there
is an importance of this topic.
Hence, why I did cherry. If I thought
it was absolutely fruitless and that it would
be counterproductive
and that it caused more harm than good,
then I wouldn't have cherry it. But I
did cherry it. But it's unfortunate how after
the debate,
we've now seen,
Muslims from both sides arguing each other, calling
each other all sorts. Ahlul Bidah,
Mushriq,
Grave Worshippers,
Najavis,
Wahhabis,
ISIS Apologists, Khwarij.
These are labels
which are highly problematic, highly divisive and they're
not conducive to brotherhood.
You know I I would even understand if
this debate was between a Muslim or an
atheist or a Muslim or a Secularist
or a Muslim and a Liberal or a
Muslim and a Far Right Racist. I would
understand that I could then understand that there
was some heat and some aggression between the
two sides but even then I would expect
Islamic etiquette,
to be in place even when you're debating
with non Muslims.
So brothers and sisters,
to conclude,
I really really,
hope that both sides when they've seen this
video that they take my advice seriously.
My brothers in Islam,
we should not waste our time with such
labels, with such a derogatory targeting of each
other. Actually questioning the fundamentals of one's faith.
Some of these discussions that I've seen on
Facebook are literally questioning whether one's even Muslim
or not. This is very dangerous brothers.
And I am saying to you
that the overwhelming majority of the debate was
carried out in a civilized manner. It was
carried out as brothers. It was carried out
in a good,
in a good polite fashion. I was there.
I I witnessed everything. Only towards the end
there were some hiccups.
So
why don't you allow? If you strongly believe
that this specific topic is so important to
the Muslims,
Why don't you just allow the Muslims to
see the full unedited debate which is around
4 to 5 hours and let them make
their decision.
And yes, there was a Q and A.
There was a Q and A which was
about 15 minutes
and one side initially decided not to include
it but then they included it. And yes,
there was an aspect of my introduction which
was taken out. I had agreed and discussed
with one of the parties behind why they
decided not to include that.
Okay? So
brothers and sisters
you know the Muslim Ummah are facing numerous
issues.
We are facing issues politically,
theologically,
ideologically,
militarily
here and abroad.
And I ask all the Muslims
to put these differences aside
and to unite upon La ilaha illallah Muhammad
Rasool Allah Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam.
Allahi this this this testimony of our faith
is enough for us to unite upon. Our
Prophet, upon him be peace, is 1. The
Kitab of Allah is 1. The Sunnah of
his beloved Prophet is 1.
And this is
more than sufficient
to unite upon.
So brothers and sisters this is it. I
can go around in circles, I can sit
here and lecture and preach all day long
about unity,
but I don't question that differences don't exist.
Yes differences do exist, but these differences have
existed for differences don't exist. Yes differences do
exist. But these differences have existed for centuries.
They've existed for centuries.
And if the Muslims,
the great Muslims of our predecessors of the
past had put aside some of these differences
for a greater cause, then why can't why
can't we?
So
may Allah bless you all. I do apologize.
This video went on for longer than I
planned.
May Allah bless you. Bless you all in
this life and the next.