Channel: Hatem al-Haj
Series: Hatem al-Haj - Fiqh of Penalties
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Knock on the door
to proceed. So we continue with our discussion about the, the of the Muslim woman, we're talking about the the of the Muslim woman and the disagreement over what it is.
And in the previous segment, we talked about the issue in the scriptures and tradition, and I try to be as impartial as I could.
And honestly speaking, we all are under pressure, to look enlightened or to look orthodox,
or to look balanced between enlightenment, enlightenment and orthodoxy. So everybody is under pressure, and you try as much as you can, to not succumb to the pressure,
there is a very high cost for people to basically say something that they know when this please, the majority of their people, you know, that they associate with the identify with
whether they come from like a more Orthodox background and a more enlightened background, or sort of a more, or even from that group that is trying to basically strike the balance between enlightenment and boxy. No one, no one is free of pressure.
No one does not care at all about what people think of them, and they only have God.
Basically, they only have the pleasure of God.
And the watchfulness of God, in their mind, everybody has
sort of that concern about how they will be perceived. And that is a concern that they have to fight.
And maybe they can like, and people who are in different phases of their recovery from being
captive to this concern, being completely sort of
enslaved to their parents concern about how they will be perceived.
As you are moving from there, or hopefully trying to move from there, and get to a point where the pleasure of Allah subhanaw taala is the only thing in your mind.
And keep in mind, some of us have, like more reasons to be concerned than others. Like, honestly speaking for myself, and I'm not trying to be look more impartial than than others, and so on. But for my circumstances, I don't really connect socially with anyone that is of a particular leaning, so that I am afraid that, you know, if I say this, they'll get upset, and then I'm not going to be able to invite them to my blue bar or something.
Or eat, be invited by them to mclubbe.
So, if that's something that you that you that you want, that's an important thing, I believe that it is an important thing. But this is not because I am more impartial than other people who are more sincere than other people because this is how I just handled my life.
But again, at the same time, I also have that concern about, you know, how my discussion will be perceived.
And oftentimes, you basically step over millions of people, to look orthodox, and to be perceived as orthodox and to ignore the feelings and concerns and intellectual contentions and barriers. Hundreds of millions of people just look orthodox, and that's a that's basically rampant among the DA.
And at the same time, the Dryad are committing to enlightenment they can always sort of
dismiss any amount of proofs that will basically
make them accept a position that will look that will cause them to look and enlightened.
And that is a huge pressure. It depends on which we're like where you like, which
Why'd you pick and sometimes people pick a side and stay committed to that side. And it is, no matter what, no matter what the discussion is about, no matter what the proofs are,
they had already picked because they're because they pick the side, they have already picked that conclusion, regardless of the premises, regardless of the discussion, that is,
like an intellectual,
a very bad word, but, but it's intellectual dishonesty, to be polite.
So you are trying to deal with the pressures that you have in your mind that you're trying to also recover from being subject to those pressures all the time, and hopefully, you seek the pleasure of Allah subhanaw taala. And this would be our ultimate goal. And we are in different phases of treatment and recovery. Some of us may not want some some of us have not diagnosed themselves at all.
But like after diagnosis, then you're you hopefully would be in we would be on our way to recovery,
which we may be able to reach or not with us a different issue. So I'm not going to so we're done with the issue of
the discussion in the scriptures and the tradition. And it seems that
the issue is subject to discussion despite the fact that someone like me with my own hermeneutics, my own hand, but as a my own hermeneutics, I would be comfortable in the position that the day of the woman is half that of the man
but is still subject to discussion.
Now with the person and the foundation of the inquiries, and we said that we have discussed what is moral right, just in terms of ethics, and in terms of and we will talk about the mother in more philosophy also.
So what is right?
What is just, is it unjust, it is wrong. Is it wrong? To say that the day of the woman is half the day of the man?
Okay. Yeah, no, I'm not, that's fine. Here, you say it's unjust.
Some people may say,
we will come to this discussion may be later.
But what about the people who are saying that, throughout the history, in terms of sort of financially throughout the history,
up until now, and in most of the world outside of the Western world, where women can have like eight to five jobs, the white collar jobs,
and so on, where they can make as much as men,
even though still in the West, they are still behind men. But if we will have to figure out sort of a number to compensate the family for the loss for their financial loss, not their emotional loss, which cannot be compensated keep in mind that there except the interview that the CIA had, which is, to me like very awkward view that
if you want to kill a woman for him, if you want to kill a woman or medu, Arkansas secret tribution
and kill a man for killing a woman, you will have to pay the family of the man half of the the, because that is the difference. Like if a man killed the woman, and the family of the woman wanted to kill the man who killed the woman, according to this position, you will have to pay the family of the man who will be killed half of the day
to make up for because it's not an equal. But But that is not a position that we have in the sun. So we don't have to worry about this position. Not a position that we have. Okay, so keep in mind here here's one thing that we have to be what we have to remember when we talk about the DNA of the woman. We're talking about financial compensation, not compensation for the emotional emotional loss, of course.
In fact alarm then intentional killing when a woman be killed when a man be killed for killing a woman. by consensus, right. Okay. What about
A man being killed for killing a seven year old girl with a man be killed for killing a seven year old girl. Yes. What about 10? Men killing a seven year old girl will be will they be killed?
What about 1000 men carrying a seven year old girl? Will they be killed? Yes, by consensus. I agree. I mean, that weren't the consensus itself, but by agreement of Addison, at least.
And I know I may actually say by consensus, that's that would also be this yes position, even though they will say that you'll, you'll have to pay whatever. But since 1000 men will be killed by forgetting a seven year old girl. So we have to. So this is basically Islam's understanding of the equality of men and women in terms of their humanity. And in terms of the quality of blood, the blood of the woman is equal to the blood of the man. Now, when it comes to the deer, let us say they will not seek equal retribution. And the family wants that they hear that there is a financial compensation, this is not a compensation for the emotional trauma, can't measure that you can put
the value on that, can you put a value on that? No, you can't put a value on that you can't measure that. This is basically like a rough because it's a law that has to be for all people, because someone may make sort of billions.
Bill Gates used to make $150 per second.
From the time he established Microsoft until now, if you measure
his sort of
not hourly rate is rate per second $150 per second, the D is equal to a homeless person in the street.
So it is a rough estimate, but it is it is a form of compensation for financial loss. And if we agree that throughout the history, throughout the history, and all places in all cultures, men have made more money than women and we are making now this compensation for the financial loss, not the emotional trend, nothing, in fact, just financial loss, then it would make sense to say that,
yes, but have the may be reasonable. In fact, in their time, you know, where women did not contribute that much financially.
Some people may say that, you know, financial loss, there was not that much financial loss. Now, we're not talking about the emotional trauma. Keep in mind, like, as a child, have I lost my mom, I would have grieved 10 times more than losing my father. You know, I lost both, you know, Grant and mercy. But when I was a child, have I lost my child, my mom at the age of, let's say, 10 or 12, I would have grieved a lot more than losing my father.
And that, for most normal people here, that is true.
So the emotional trauma, certainly no, we're not putting a value on this. You know, the loss of a mother is more emotionally damaging, but we're not putting a value on human life. And we're not putting value on the emotional trauma. It's basically only a financial loss. So what is just what is right? What is
Okay, so we have here
this is mainly Western philosophy now. Um, but, but that is the Western philosophy.
Westerners have dominated the world in the last 500 years, not only militarily or economically but also culturally and intellectually, and and so on. So, is Western philosophy pertinent, it is pertinent.
Our, you know, aren't the people that Muslim lands impacted affected influenced by Western philosophy? Yes. And it is not all evil? Of course not, you know, and it's not all wrong. Of course not. So a discussion of the Western philosophy is a person to discussion completely pertinent to discussion, because that is the dominant philosophy in the world, no matter where you live, if you live in
How's the hair, that is where my ancestors come from.
It is also the dominant philosophy or the trickle down of that philosophy is the down is the dominant philosophy. So in Western philosophy from the time of Aristotle, and you know, through antiquity, Thomas Aquinas and so on, we had something called virtue ethics.
And virtue ethics, basically, the RS 30, on top of virtue ethics is basically to try to reach your potential and have fulfillment, human Fulfillment by being virtuous, you know,
the difference between the pre socratics and the socratics, the difference in the Hellenistic tradition between, you know, the poetry of his yacht, and Homer, and then the pre Socratic philosophy, and then the Socratic philosophy, we have clear distinctions between these different phases. So, the respect and veneration of beauty and wealth and strength and so on, in the early Greek tradition, like literary culture of the Greeks was obvious, but then the pre socratics started to talk about, you know, other issues, virtue and so on. And then Socrates, in particular, then play to an Aristotle, the four had a greater focus on virtue and virtue ethics. And for human
fulfillment, you want to reach your potential and in virtue and you want to have ethics to reach your fulfillment. Now, Socrates did not believe in a personal God. Socrates lived in a, you know, and certainly as Socrates was, was not like the Greek for the early Greeks who were pagans, but Socrates believed in a deity, a supreme deity that is transcendent, that is remote and detached, and that's not a personal God. So at the end of the day, it is you want to be ethical, because you want to be fulfilled as a human being, because that's how to have eudaemonia good life. So you want to be ethical.
So virtue ethics dominated the scene, until the modern times and in the modern times, then we have two different types of ethics we had
consequentialist and categorical ethics, categorical ethics
This is called deontological. Like It Is, duty based deontological duty based, this is called teleological. It is purpose based.
It's about the outcome. It's about the result, the ontological teleological, categorical ethics, Kant would be the main philosopher that basically defended categorical ethics. consequential ethics would be the utilitarians, utilitarians, you know, that Jeremy Bentham and john Stuart Mill and other utilitarians what is ethical, ethical here, in the according to category code of ethics, is has things have intrinsic or basically, there is intrinsic quality in human action that's called right and wrong in trinsic ly and is wrong. in the category of ethics of Kant. Lying is always wrong. So someone is hiding in your home, and then like the Nazis come, because we use the Nazis
because that's how so the Nazis come for them, for guy hiding,
and the Nazis come forth, for them.
Kant says, You should not lie. You should tell them he's hiding in my home, because lying is wrong.
Is that Islamic? No. But is Islam utilitarian? No. Islam has a mixture of both and Islam can do this. Why? Because we will come later to the issue of the Divine Law giver.
Because that is the only way you could justify a fusion between a categorical and consequentialist because you will be able to draw the line. Do you remember our discussion about, you know,
the commander and the executer of killing
And how we have this discussion and if you are under the authority of someone they commanded you to kill, you still should not kill and if you can, you will be killed in all cases,
even if you are compelled, but then if you drink wine that is fine. So, all those lines, all those lines are philosophically philosophically
cannot be attained by philosophical investigation
cannot, you cannot arrive at them. If you want to be completely consistent, you will have to cross those lines.
However, because there is a divine law giver even though the scholars disagree among themselves, but there are areas where they don't disagree, because there is a divine law giver, then you could have lions, lions, lions, but the major problem here between the consequentialist and the categorical is that there are always examples where you could prove these right or wrong and always examples where you could prove these wrong.
So the categorical ethicist would say lying is not permissible.
Lying is not permissible. If if, like if someone was caught planning to detonate a bomb or someone was caught, he's a member of a fanatic group. And you have intelligence that they are about that detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of Karachi.
And you caught one of them, would you torture him
to get information about the bomb, and spare millions of people from eminent thus?
If you're counting if you're categorical emphasis, no. torture is impermissible. torture is immoral. torture is unethical. That's it stop for
a utilitarian would certainly say yes, we certainly say yes, because it is the greater good for the greater number of people.
So these two, but this discussion, this discussion is all about what
and that is what, you know, brilliantly this lady.
And, you know, in in our history, there were
hundreds 1000s CFM anatomy has a book in the Mojave Desert, but there were 1000s of Muslim
women who are scholars, but in philosophy, we've not heard the philosophers except very recently, women philosophers, except very recently in modern times.
But but one of the brilliant women philosophers or female philosophers of our time
is this lady g. anscombe.
And she wrote a book, she wrote an article called modern moral philosophy.
And in this art, again, she said that all of this, all of this discussion, categoric and consequential. It is the art to ethics,
art, to ethics, it's duty, even though this is that the ontological the duty,
basically bound ethics versus purpose based ethics and so on. They're all art to our to you are to do what is
in the best interest of the greatest number of people that will produce the greatest amount of pleasure and avoid or spare people of the greatest amount of pain,
basically, and she said that all of the art to ethics is completely in coherent. Why? The question is why you ought to do this, you ought to do that. Why? She said, she said that without a law giver at Divine Law giver that gives you incentives that motivates you that basically puts a
an ontologically real value
The action, because at the end of the day, so you ought to do this. What if I don't do it?
What was, you know? I mean, if, like, if you don't believe in a divine law give it What if I don't?
And if we're all dusted if we're all chemicals Come on this Mother Earth sized planet, then what if I don't.
So she pointed this out that all of this discussion is incoherent to the Divine Law giver. All of this art to ethics is incoherent without Divine Law giver. And keep in mind, that in our countries and in our own in the, for humanity in general, without a divine lawgiver, no matter how much philosophers think that they can replace religion, by culture, and art, and all of this need to enslave, each has business,
that they can replace religion by these things. It's just not happening and will not happen.
So this modern moral philosophy, this is a very influential article, by the way, I'm not talking to you about someone who's like, like, wrote an article like
you know, now this is an extremely, extremely influential article that has been cited in philosophy journal journals, over and over and over again, and people have been busy since she wrote this article with this article.
Now, she herself was a devout Catholic.
But she was also a virtue ethicists.
People have rt carea, against religion, particularly in Europe. So they interpreted what she said to mean that she was suggesting going back to virtue ethics,
going back to virtue ethics, that ethics should not be odd to ethics, because art to ethics has to be based in a divine law giver. Ethics
has to do with fulfillment, not out to just fulfillment if you want to be fulfilled, this is what you do.
If it's possible that this is what she meant, but being a devout Catholic herself, it is also possible that she was inviting people to reconsider that sort of
divorce with religion.
But honestly speaking, well, you know, no mother can know anyone who studied a little bit of philosophy will understand the extreme difficulty, extreme difficulty, insane, insane,
they have a woman being half of the of the man is an just or wrong.
Because it is not that straightforward. We have our personal makeup, we have our personal constitution, we have our culture constitution, there is no judgment as cancers that is
basically, perspective, there is no presupposition list judgment, judgement, there is no judgment that is independent, that's just in a vacuum separated from you. Therefore, it is much more expected of a woman to find that that's unjust than it is for a man to find that unjustly. Because it is in part emotive could be in part rational, but it is in part emotive and as human beings, it is extremely difficult for us to separate the two they are fused inside this, you know, our hearts and minds do not hear it's not like you can basically turn your mind off or in your heart on and switch. No, they are sort of fuse that and it is very hard for us to separate the motive from the rational.
So this is an important
concept that we need to be aware of that with the without the Divine Law giver, it is a going to be extremely hard to locate value in any of these morals or to decide what is moral, what is right and what is not.
Having said that, the next thing that I wanted to talk about is the importance of this. That's the end
The Tesla team and that is not the silence opponent or
the interlocutor? Of course not, but I and that is why I will discuss interpretation because oftentimes, religious people use the card after stupendously theme to force people to submit to them.
And to believe them to believe their interpretation and to submit to it and that is something that we have to be careful not to do, so to speak and the tasleem are is essential. This is the essence of Eman and Islam. And if that is taken away from us, much will be taken away from us and as minorities living in the midst of non Muslim majorities the subliminal messages that are reaching our subconscious mind are working every single moment of the day to alter conservative our understanding to change our understanding, sometimes there are basically positive messages, positive messages, you know, I'm gonna last What did he say? We live in a, basically
a Greek or Roman more than Judeo Christian honestly, but a Greek Roman civilization a civilization that is based on Greek Roman
tradition more than it is based on to the Christian although it is based on both but it is becoming more and more Greco Roman than Judeo Christian. And what did Amina last say about the Romans, one of the women who started the Ministry of karate told him that they will be the sort of the most powerful, excellent last
remarks are announced that they will be identified, there will be the lens or the
most numerous, numerous, or most powerful, or both of all the people in adamawa said to me, You heard this from provinces? He said, Yes, I heard from provinces on him. And he said, If you then this is why 1234 and five, and the first one that he said, is a hamanasi and the fitna is the most far bearing people. In the time effect. Now we're in time of chaos and mayhem. They have that forbearance they can keep it together. And how many times the prophet SAW Selim tell us because he knows that his Omar will be mainly is the you know, be manspreading among, you know, warm blooded nations. So how many times did he tell us that? bla bla bla bla bla bla up and how much emphasis did
he put on for forbearance? Helen, that's a beautiful word. You can't even translate this as forbearance. It just means a lot more it means integrity, it means composure means it means everything it just mean.
It means a lot more than forbearance. Is there a translation for him? Yeah, so that's okay. forbearance, but it's like a beautiful word. And that is why we lose it all the time. You know, whenever we discuss anything, you will find people just you know, Why are you getting angry if you're working for God, if you're an if you perceive yourself as an agent, working for God, not by direct commission, because this is certainly not your nonprofit. But if you are truly working for God, just calm down he is in control. You know, that does not mean that we will not that does not mean that we will not get angry for God because that is not what law talks about means. The prophets
of Salaam used to get angry when automatic Latin tak when vile people violate the bounds of Allah. But if you look at how he got angry, he almost ordered Ansari says A man came to the prophet and I'm going on a tangent here. Should we go back? But Mr. Ansari, he said the prophets Allah said said that I saw a man came to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam and he said to him,
any letter Carranza la Tierra del mar taquito philosophia I come late to the morning prayer because fulla x person
makes a very long prayer or lengthened, said
too much. And then upon Masada Ansari said word for it Rasul Allah is Allah Allah Islam and as a great companion. So he said, from our it Rasul Allah is our southern accept the rubberband Minh who FEMA everthing. As FEMA, whatever 10 min who Yama is in Femara it taught us all
the hubbub and FEMA has attained men who have not seen the profitable some more angry in a given advice or in exhortation. Then he was
On that day and he said he yohannes look at the process don't get into anger You know? So are you harness in an income mana fury mon sama bin NASS for you captive for no I mean home al Kabir then I'm inhuman married well Kabir wasn't had okemah pensado Lhasa. So Oh people, some of you are scaring people away from faced scaring people on welfare in European Europe scare people away from faith.
Whoever leads the people in prayer, let him make it light with light, because some of them are sick, some are old, and some have urgent needs to take care of.
And then he says he said he didn't even address the person that was doing this and we didn't even mention the name of it. So anyway, ahem is a great, so but I'm going back, you know, I'm going on a tangent, but going back there are subliminal messages
we are receiving all the time. So the issue of the snake and the slim would become harder for us. And that is an issue of major issue that is a threat. People are you know, getting worked up over, you know, who's growing their beer Then who's like,
well, who's putting his hand where and soda and stuff. But we are, we are threatened by a lot more than this. The issue of those dependencies, particularly for Muslim minorities, who live in cultures that are worldwide dominant, and superior, militarily superior, economically superior, intellectually superior, in many, many regards, they will be affected, they will be affected. And
this particular area is an idea that we need, if, if we're not comfortable with this area, we have to make ourselves comfortable. And actually, you know, technology now is here. So I sent him a message because I was thinking about this. Yesterday I was sent him a message yesterday, I asked him when is the book coming out the Baba the prophethood the proofs on the prophethood of the Prophet sallallahu zetlin.
Because it is a extremely important for us
to come to terms with this idea what that means getting to that because it can really matter.
Who I send me out on him.
Okay, the word of your other words has been fulfilled, or your Lord worthy of your love has been fulfilled in truth, and injustice.
No one, there is no offering for his word or word. And he is all hearing the unknowing. The word of your Lord that has been fulfilled in truth and justice. Because the word of your Lord is two parts that declarative and the imperative,
the descriptive and prescriptive. So with regard to the descriptive second, in truth, with regard to the prescriptive, Artland, just so everything Allah tells us about the universe, about truth about reality
is true. And everything that law prescribes for us is just and fair. We have to come to terms with this. We have to hold on to this and we have to embrace this and we have to die with it.
Having said that,
there's also another beautiful verse in Surah. Zuma is that this isn't sort of an Anaheim. But there is also another view or beautiful verses in Surah zomer what Allah subhanaw taala says from women Kava Bala la casa de
la Sufi, Johanna Masada furrion mala Vidya was at the coffee when I came on with taco measure and under been very
upset and he brought forth
the truth and he who
believed that was not the cabbie is once it came to him. Once it came to him, backless leap always once it came to him believe that
those are the writers
Those are the pious level measurement under obey Him there will be for them whatever they desire with their Lord, that it could just mean that's the reward of the good doors. So this leads on to sleep is important than livers let let it not be stolen from our hearts.
Let them not be stolen from our hearts.
Islams distinction is an another important issue that I wanted to talk about.
And I understand that I will be over time.
beg you, if you have anything to run to, I can basically stop somewhere and defer the rest for another week. And you can carry on until I am done. Please. If you have arrangements or prior engagements, leave whenever you want, and listen to the rest on Facebook.
So Islams distinction is is something when I started this talk, I talked about Voltaire and Newton and there were a lot of people that really had hella, you know, intellectual vigor, moral courage, and honesty among the philosophers and the great intellectuals of the last couple 100 years.
And they just had, like, have a very difficult time accepting
the preaching of the church or accepting certain Christian doctrines. You have Tolstoy, for instance, you know, Tolstoy is a very, very honorable man, very, very honorable man, very, very honorable man,
you know, to give, to give all of your positions to the poor, and to live a life of sort of moderation, you must believe in what you're preaching, you must be, that's what Tolstoy did, he inherited a greatest state. And he basically divided that between his workers.
So we're talking about very brilliant people that were very honorable as well, that could not come to terms with the teachings that they were receiving in the church.
And I can go on and on and on and about the those examples that they are endless examples. But should we have the same difficulty with a slam?
Should we have the same difficulty with this meme and some of the teachings in Islam that because of personal and cultural
hardness and cultural constitution may cause us some discomfort, at some level, emotional or intellectual?
I don't think so, because of many reasons, you know, if you look at the history of Christianity, and if you look at how it came together and how it became a religion,
there were early Christians who believed that that there are that there is one God. There were early Christians that believe that that there were two. There were early Christians that believe that there were three, there were early Christians that believed that there were 30, there were early Christians that believe that there were 365 gods, and they were all calling themselves Christians. There were, you know, the Canon
was canonized. After hundreds of years, do you say to that yourself, there were already Christians who believed that Jesus died but not died for our salvation. There were other Christians who believe that Jesus died for our salvation. There were early Christians that believe that the Jesus did not die. There were other Christians that believe that Jesus was a man, completely a man, a Jewish man, if you read mark, that's what Mark says, there were any Christians who believed that Jesus was divine. JOHN says that there were the early Christians that believe that, you know, the law should not be followed. That's what Paul says, there were early Christians that believe that law, the law
should be followed. That's what Matthew says. There were early Christians that believed that they were the universe was created by a malicious God, other than the true God, other than the Father. And they were calling themselves Christians. There were like gospels that you cannot count. They were canonized by after hundreds of years by the church.
That history of Christianity, is it in any way similar to the history of Islam in that sense, the historicity what is rasathi wise, is it similar to the history of Islam? No, it is not.
If you look at the Quran, if you look at the uniformity of the prayer, if you look at the transmission of the Quran, is this like this? No. So when people have doubt
about Christianity, he has well that, you know, which Christianity are you talking about? There were tons of Christianity's. And some prevailed over others because of political reasons. Is that comparable to the history of Islam? No. But we will come to the issue of basically the tradition. And this is another discussion that we will, that we will touch on.
And now, you know, when it comes to Islam, what are the things that are making us uncomfortable? Do they have to do anything with the God himself? The disagreements between us?
You know, there are Christians up until today that believe that God is a big man in the sky.
And there are Christians that believe that God is ineffable, he can't even describe them that believe in an impersonal God, impersonal God and they call themselves Christian. And the distance between those who believe that he's a big man in the sky, who has emotions comparable to ours, and those who believe that he is that there is basically no God, but it is an impersonal, sort of being force. They're all Christians, but is the distance between us Muslims, when it comes to our understanding of God, ever that vast and wide? No, and in every regard, so we have the Quran, we have the Prophet sallallahu sallam. Christians, because Jesus peace be upon him is considered to be
God, they have apostles, those apostles did not actually need to prove anything to anyone. They were writing books, saying that this is from God, tons of apostles were writing books saying this is from God came after Jesus my own 100 years writing books, saying that this is from God, they did not need to basically prove anything by any miracles or anything is unknown people. You know, if you look at the author, authors of the different books in the New Testament, Unknown, Unknown, you know, can you imagine us? Do you see the difference?
A huge differences and what are the things that are causing us discomfort, we believe in one God that, you know, created this universe of the gods of Adam, new eyebrow, Ibrahim musasa. And Muhammad Ali, salam, the garden has the most perfect and Most Beautiful Names and attributes.
And that's in control of all things, you know, the basic beliefs should be like,
should be enough for us to have so much certainty and so much comfort and so much inner peace and just embrace that basic belief. And then approach the upper and with the slim and the, towards the end that extreme. All that we can basically invoke of sleep and sleep. And when it comes to that tradition, when it comes to the tradition, because most of the time for when Muslims disagree, they are not disagreeing with God. And they have complete comfort in their Islam, maybe a lot more than zealots who may become a pastor. It's one day, a lot of zealots became apostates.
So and, and some of those Muslims that are critical, they had solid belief all the way until death, so that
they are questioning that tradition. So when it comes to the tradition, when it comes to the tradition, and I'm going somewhere, like back and forth between these because I'm trying to mix everything now, when it comes to that tradition,
we have to understand that our tradition is not all over the place like in other religions, and there was no conspiracy under them. The vast majority of our scholars were great, good, well meaning people, great, good, well meaning people that you know,
you have to approach the tradition.
You know, was a loving, respectful, but critical, loving and respectful yet critical attitude, critical in the sense of that there is no one muscle after the Prophet sallallahu Sallam and yes if you want to disagree with the for a man's
certainly you know you want to be much the head to the there's agree at an intellectual level but if you find comfort, the
In your heart, against it towards a position that is agreed upon by the foreign a man's, you're not finding this comfort, the comfort of this country, you're not finding this comfort in your heart towards God. And anyone, any day that tries to make people think this way, is a criminal. Just the straightforward criminal.
If you're finding discomfort in your heart, against a position that is advanced, by the 40 mams, you're not finding this comfort in your heart against towards God, there are different but again at the same time, it is unlikely and very unlike the mountain Tamia is one with enormous and you know my love for him enormous moral courage and intellectual
vigor, and, and honesty like on the cutting edge of all of the above moral courage he was imprisoned flat five times he died in prison.
He fought in the Battle in different battles intellectual and real once and and intellectual dishonesty, he never shied away from saying the truth. But he himself said that if someone says that I will not take
he's he said two things. If you say that I will not take from the four emails, meaning I'm not taking from one of them, then you're fine. But if you think I'm not going to take from any one of them, you will be most likely wrong. And he said that the agreement of the frames is most of the time, right? And rarely could be wrong, rarely could be wrong. That is what I believe wholeheartedly, not because of my love for him. But what I believe wholeheartedly, and that is the position of all the people, whether they are pro me or against me, or him Allah, that's the belief of the vast majority of rational reasonable scholars who are still committed to the Scriptures, and
the tradition that the agreement of the 40 moms is most likely right. But not always. Right? Not always right. There could be a few issues, here and there, where the agreement of 40 moms is not correct. So that is the issue of the tradition and interpretation. Our tradition really has been superb in terms of
the honesty in terms of the commitment to the scriptures in terms of the commitment to the first community, but not infallible. And there were many mistakes, and sometimes the mistakes were also a product of their culture. And that is important because now we will talk about the temporality or thoroughfare to mass or the temporality
of the text. And that is a something that is being propagated in Muslim countries nowadays, and many people believe in this many intellectuals believe in this I, you know, left a good portion of my life. And I went back. And I I'm still connected to a lot of people in Muslim countries, many people believe in 35. And last and certainly the most common, the most famous proponent of Terra theater, nos is Mohammed.
Mohammed, he became the most famous because of because they have denied him, his doctorate and because people, you know, basically separated between him the court and Egypt separated between him and his wife because of Apostasy. And, yes, the court in Egypt still can do things like that. So the, the and then,
and then, you know, he became a very, very famous person, particularly, you know, like, because the idea of the temporality of the text, you know, this is for the intellectuals outside of the Muslim world and inside the Muslim world, it's a very appealing idea, because that will allow Muslims to stay Muslim, and at the same time, not have to worry about scriptures, and whatever the Scriptures tell us because all of it is
restrained Now, within a time period, and also
a particular location. And this idea of the totality of the mouse or the temporality of the text has a lot to do with basically the dialectic between the infrastructure
and the superstructure.
And most of the people that a believing that if you have to last
People that have Marxist leanings, and the dialectic between the infrastructure and the superstructure is is is a Marxist idea. So the infrastructure basically, as you know, money, labor, distribution, and all of these the economic factors at the bottom, and the superstructure is religion, and politics and philosophy, culture, all of that stuff at the top, and the dialectic between the infrastructure and the superstructure is basically a dialectic of cause and effect, cause and effect, both of them are cause and effect, but from a Marxist viewpoint,
which one is more dominant, more important, which one dictates sort of steel is behind the steering wheel,
of course, the infrastructure is behind the steering wheel and this, so, people will talk about that effectiveness, they are coming from that paradigm to say that the Quran was produced in response to factors like many economical factors, socio economical factors in Arabia during that time. And that is an N a zero, and it is funny how there is a spectrum and how many different people can find themselves,
or can claim to be Muslim, or can think of themselves as Muslim, and continue to propagate these ideas. Because after all, the profit, you could, the how people understand the product, where the profit and is very different. But at the end of the day, these people are, particularly at that level. And it's many of them, and it's a large number of them, particularly at that level, are really saying there is no divine communication, there is nothing, you know, that idea of the Quran being sent by Allah subhanaw taala, through to read through the prophets of Allah and that whole thing is just, you know, this is for the masses, this is for people who are intellectually use are
to appease them. But at the end of the day, the profits have
greater sensitivity to the realities around them, those who have like, basically, sort of kind, understanding golf profit within the profits, these are people who are brilliant, and he had greater sensitivity and greater qualities and greater mental capacities. And then in response to the reality they produce the scriptures, or they're produced the this, this message, and
but some of them also would say some of them would also say, there is a clear divine communication from the divine. They the people who say that they can still call themselves Muslims, because they say to themselves that this is the divine working within the prophets, the divine working within the prophets. So but some of them say there is a message, you know, coming from the divine to the prophets, but this message is that on response, and this message is larger, largely tailored for the circumstances of that area, in fact, time. And that's it. That's it, and how do we now distinguish between this and the concept of Docker In fact, whoever has made it I'm gonna try to try at that is
agreed on, not like readon
these words are almost problematic, but that is that is accepted by mainstream Muslim scholars that the fatwa will change, the fatwa will change, I will just eat because we don't have a lot of time and I wanted to say that. The difference here is basically sound hermeneutics using sound hermeneutics. The people who are saying that the fatwa changes are people that that are Muslim for perhaps the majority, you know, the mainstream Muslim for Korea. There is no the fatwa changes. They're saying that the divine message came
with rulings. And those rulings are often are often attached to element Babita to measurable causes, measurable causes. And the folks are looking, you know, the folks are not blinded by the details from basically finding those measurable causes of their rulings, measurable cause of the rulings. And whenever that change in circumstances or circumstantial variables, make the
Effective causes shift because of the changes in time and place, and one routing given becomes more befitting of this array of this effective cause of this 11. The other, and that is a process started with monarch Israel process, ascertaining the presence of those effective causes in the particular circumstance or reality is a process that is done by the FDA. So, it is basically surgical, it is not a wholesale, you know, times have changed. No, this is a surgical process that the fuqaha and the most distinguished of the fapa should always embark on, and should not shy away from, why, because if they don't, we will have this and it will prevail,
if they fail to
work in within that paradigm, and, you know, address that changes and the reality
by, you know, adhering to our sound hermeneutics, and, you know, using the scriptures, and our sound hermeneutics to address the huge changes in the reality, we will end up with this paradigm prevailing, and people will be talking about the temporality of the text, and you will have a very different Islam, and it happened to Christianity, and it's happened
before so don't think it is not, it's impossible, it may happen.
So, back to the data of the woman now, individually, what do we do? And collectively, what do we do? Well, I think that Yes.
know, what I mean, but by it can happen to Islam is that it can happen to Islam as as a practice as the practice of the Muslims, Islam itself will be protected. But again, at the same time, we are concerned about the Islam though, is being practiced by the Muslims all over the place that has not been protected by Divine Decree. And we have seen Muslims go up and down and their practice of Islam. So Islam is a practiced phenomenon, you know, extent practice phenomenon, versus Islam as the divine the last communication from the divine, which will continue to be protected.
But then, individually, what do we do in this case? and collectively, what do we do? And I think individually what I wait, individually, there are differences, we have to agree and I hope that I was impartial enough in this discussion, that I'm not denying other people, their feelings, their enlightenment, their feelings, and individually, we have to agree also that we may not have the same perspective
and we may not have the same understanding. And if you are having a difficulty of research, the issue of research, research, research research, and trying to find the good answers come to the issue was complete this momentous leap of the divine message, loving, respectful, yet critical approach to that tradition.
These are two important complete the statement was the to the divine message, loving respect, through respectful yet critical attitude towards that tradition. And then research, research, research, and then classify, where does it belong? Where does it belong? Do you believe it's a matter of consensus? It's a matter where the divine message is clear on the issue, please, please submit, accept, submit, submit and we listen and we obey. Otherwise your Eman will be taken away from you, you will go to sleep you wake up you have nothing. So if you believe that this is an issue, that that is basically that there were there is no certainty.
Continuing research. Meanwhile, meanwhile, if you decided to believe in a position that is eccentric
possession, but you believe it is the right possession, you believe that this would be the divine basically
or the divine intent of the largest nation?
That does not take away your email, if you're comfortable about this, but you have to be honest with yourself. You have to be honest, if you're truly comfortable about it, you have to be honest. Collectively, what do we do? Particularly if, if we're talking about not at the level of sort of intellectual discussion or
you know, it but the level of legislation and practical and legal issues and that is the the never ending conflict in the Muslim countries in modern times between people different strands who have different beliefs and different sort of thoughts about
you know, the relationship of Islam and politics are Islam and
law and, you know, Islam is position in the public sphere is Lam's position in the public sphere, whereas Islam is position in the public sphere. And, honestly, speaking, in order for us to like did I did I talk to you about the divine lawgiver, the idea that morality can be basically found
You know, among the masses, outside of the Divine Law, is an idea that is that is basically
weak, let's be respectful. That's weak. It's. So we have to agree that Islam, well always have as a place in the public space, as in Muslim countries. And we have to agree that we cannot prevent people from being informed by their beliefs. But in order for us, in order for us, because we have, when it comes to political philosophy, we have contractor in ism. And then we have the divine lawgiver. And then we have contract arianism contract arianism contract arianism is basically where right and wrong is based on our agreement. We agree we come into this, we move into civilization from the wilderness, and we agree that we will follow the rules of the game and we have a
parliament, and we, you know, whatever the parliament decides, then that is what is going to be right. Because the parliament, because contract is the contract between us, and if we don't agree and our contract. So where does this land fall between the two? is Islam with a divine lawgiver idea? Or contract? arianism?
And, again, because Islam is not Islam, you know, it is difficult for Islam to squeeze with anywhere, Islam is both there. There are elements of both. And in this case, why because Islam is not a theory of Islam is not a theocracy. Islam is not the mind what you mean by divine law.
Because, you know, do you remember when we talked about the the executer and the competitor and the disagreement among the former's I have the, you know, to
the there are different interpretations. And some of these interpretations may be called the eccentric, but they are there. And you cannot say that this is the divine law as if you are speaking on behalf of God.
There's certainly an area, you know, of clarity, but that area of clarity is limited compared to all of you know, that disagreement and the answer is contract arianism. When it comes to the wide spectrum of disagreement contractor in Islam, we agree there is a parliament and the law will be decided there. Now, the parliamentarians are Muslim, they some parliamentarians may not be in a Muslim country, some parliamentarians may not be Muslim. But if we're talking about a Muslim majority country, the majority of the Parliament, people in the parliament, members of the parliament will be Muslim. Islam will inform their decisions and their policymaking and their
choices. And that would be the way out of the perpetual conflict that will
result in seven unrest
Endless civil unrest, endless civil strife.
So in a matter of this, like there, Tamara, there's a morale.
You could continue to lobby members of the Parliament. I mean, we're imagining a different world here.
We're talking about like, if you are like in Egypt, for instance, one day inshallah.
then, and then you have members of the Parliament and then you have this deep conviction that they have the woman should be equal to they have the man
it's not you say
they should lobby members of the Parliament
to make the day of the woman equal to the day of the men.
And that's it. And if you believe like the rest, or the majority of the is half
the members of the
party have suffered