Mohammad Qutub – Islam and Religious Tolerance #2
AI: Summary ©
The segment discusses the misunderstood religion in Islamic history, including the transition from the previous century to the present, the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and the history of religious tolerance. The discussion also touches on the confusion surrounding the acquisition of Jerusalem by the new Muslims and the use of religious terminology in people's minds. The segment also touches on the history of Islam, including its strict rule against non- Muslims and its use of religious terminology. The speakers emphasize the importance of protecting human rights and the need for a strong Christian system.AI: Transcript ©
You know what Imam you know, have you been a middle class in Mohammed bin Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and woman Tabea home your son and Elijah within? Subhana Allah and Milena LMR lantana in a cantilever Hakeem rubbish rally Saudi westerly Emery. What have you looked at Emily Cerny? Hopefully I praise Allah Almighty and I can send prayers and blessings upon Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam his noble family righteous companions and all those that follow them with the right guidance until the day of judgment. I mean
Glory be to You, Oh Allah, no knowledge have we accept that what you have taught us you are in the old knowing the all wise Dear brothers and sisters Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. It's very nice to be with you again.
In this blessed place in sha Allah in this blessed gathering, which we ask Allah subhanaw taala to accept from us. Ask Allah azza wa jal to increase our knowledge, our faith, our action.
Brothers and sisters, we spoke about religious tolerance last time
as part of the series on Islam, the misunderstood religion.
And I mentioned a lot of what happened in history regarding Islamic tolerance. And I will continue a little bit today and then inshallah transition into the next topic that we will cover.
As part of this series, as you know, as part of the series on Islam, the misunderstood religion, we're dealing with many of the modern
you can say, misconceptions,
and wrong ideas about Islam due to several reasons, which I mentioned in the first introduction to the series.
But since religious tolerance is one of the hot topics, okay, this is why we will give it a little bit more attention, inshallah. We mentioned a lot of the
maybe less known and less common stories, and sometimes even amazing tales of religious tolerance that we saw in our Islamic history, which a lot of times, by the way, is painted with a broad, dark black brush.
So a lot of times we hear and sometimes even from Muslims themselves, that, you know, our Islamic history is nothing to be proud about. And this is an exaggeration, okay. And
a generalization which is not accurate and imprecise. Okay. There are a lot of beautiful shining, glowing areas in our Islamic history, there are obviously issues, okay, what civilization and what Ummah did not have problems, okay, in their history, right. But there are a lot of things that we take great pride in. And some of those stories we mentioned last time. And when I say stories, we're talking about historically accurate stories, we're not talking about tales, they're not fairy tales, they're real, even though sometimes.
They're so incredible, even sometimes by our modern standards, that we seem to think that these are more like tales, rather than actual history. And we'll maybe see some of that today as well.
We spoke about
some of the early
the early stages immediately following the death of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him during the time of the Khilafah Rasheeda. We talked about the era of Amara bin Abdulaziz, we even talked about and de Lucia and Muslim Spain, right through to the Crusades, the time of the crusades, and later even the Ottoman Empire. And let me quickly say something about the Ottoman Empire.
Even though the Ottoman Empire lasted for so long,
longer or less than Muslim Spain,
longer or less, less, right, but not too much less. How long did the Ottoman Empire last approximately? Yes, Baraka Luffy, around 600 years or so, okay. 620 Okay.
Something like that.
If you claim that it was all done by 1918 by the First World War, you would say 618 Because Because the Ottoman Empire started in 1299 with earthmen urban or rural
So, the Ottoman Empire, which lasted for those six centuries or so,
was essentially a nightmare
for Christian Europe
because the Ottoman Empire was strong, especially in the first three centuries or so,
before weakness started to set in.
We said weakness started to set in around 1571 with the Battle of Lapan. All right, we can settled started to set in them. And that weakness just increased and increased until it finally fell apart in the early 20th century.
But for those first three centuries, Ottoman Empire was a nightmare. They were so strong, they were taking one European country after another. But this is for Christian Europe in general for the rulers, right.
As for the minorities, the oppressed minorities of Europe, the Ottoman Empire was a refuge. It was a refuge for Jews and Christians, fleeing oppression from their own coreligionists. In Europe,
Jews and Christians alike, but not only the Christians,
even the Jews. So the Jews found refuge in Muslim Spain and later on in Muslim
Davila with mania. Some people don't like ottoman, right, because Ottoman is is a European term. So they call it though they lost money or Osmanli in the Turkish.
So those minorities started finding refuge in the Ottoman Empire.
But to go one step further, is to say they didn't only find refuge in the empire, they even found positions.
They started having political positions, they started enjoying positions of power in the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
But after a while, unfortunately, they started plotting against the same empire that was a refuge to them,
through those political positions that they gained.
Slowly, slowly,
they started getting into every different
field ministry.
And eventually, they were a reason not the reason but one of the reasons of the downfall of the Empire.
To say it in general,
in a way that not only Muslims would support but even some objective non Muslim scholars and researchers. The excessive freedoms that the Ottoman State gave to its non Muslim residents
was one of the reasons for its downfall eventually, it didn't give. It didn't only give freedom, it gave too many freedoms.
And that was one of the reasons for the downfall eventually.
The Sephardic Jews, who are the Eastern Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west, to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria, which was part of the Ottoman Empire then in the north, to Sudan in the South,
as mentioned by Yuri of nary a Jewish scholar.
Yes, brother.
Okay, thank you.
To claim that the Ottomans demonstrated more tolerance, then they're contemporaneous those the people who were at the same time the contemporaneous Habsburg Russian or French counterparts is a foregone conclusion. In other words, we're not only saying that the Ottomans demonstrated more tolerance than their contemporaneous
counterparts such as the Habsburg the Russians are the French. That's well known.
We may even say and some may even contend
that the line of our
government holds, even in comparison to I quote, modern nation states as well, that define citizenship through ethnicity, race, or religion.
In other words, some may contend that Ottoman Empire of some four or five centuries ago demonstrated more tolerance than even some modern nation states today who define citizenship in such ways.
Unfortunately, that legacy of
Osmanli multiculturalism eventually did come to a halt, when
if someone has a skewed understanding of Islam, they would say it came to a halt when Islam was implemented.
Interestingly, it is exactly the opposite.
As a secular state,
supplanted the Ottoman Empire
when did the secular state supplement or supplant rather, the Ottoman Empire with the demise of the Ottoman Empire,
which we can say started with the first world war than the beginning, which was 1914.
So as the Ottoman Empire The Ottoman Islamic empire is now becoming secular, mind you, in the in its last days, it was much less Islamic than it was in the beginning, right. It was much less Islamic in the 18th and 19th centuries than it was before.
But just for the sake of argument, it truly became secular with
the notorious Turkish general Mustafa Kemal Ataturk right. This is when the secular state supplanted the Muslim Ottoman Empire.
I quote,
a millennium of multi confessional history,
religious tolerance and multiculturalism was swept away in only 10 years,
between 1914 and 1924.
So, again, people that are influenced by modern propaganda against Islam would think the opposite.
The secular era was the time of religious tolerance. And the time where Islam was supreme, was the opposite and it is the contrary, according to one famous authority.
He says, When the Ottomans implemented Sharia, their lands housed 10s of millions of Christians.
But after discontinuing Islamic law, and following the ways of the Franks, okay, the Europeans, Christian numbers diminished to a few 1000.
So who's responsible for tolerance then? Secularism or Islam?
It is the inherent tolerance of Islam.
Let us talk about some of the key
fantastic examples and unique ones of leniency and justice in Islam. That is usually mentioned in the context of talking about Islamic tolerance.
There's a famous story
that occurred in 93
Hijiri
93
Hijiri, right.
712
C E.
Okay.
So just under a century after the hijab Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam,
to tayberry been Muslim.
The famous
military commander entered triumphantly into the city of Samarkand.
Summer candy candies were
Ohara
because
they
are colourfix Yeah, I can get confusing the stands was Pakistan, Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, right? The five Soviet republics, formerly Soviet republics.
Modern day it was Pakistan.
Why did he
entered triumphantly into some napkins
because the city had apparently revoked the truce that was signed decades ago. decades before
93 Hijiri
after the conquest of side a Ben Rothman, an alpha
side an Earth man, an alpha and this is according to early mammal Bella Dory.
So when they revoked the truth that was signed between them
after sorry them in Earth man and I felt entered. This is what caused Otaiba
to
enter some are current, however, violating the treaty between them
because in such a situation is supposed to inform them first.
That the pact between us
is void.
So technically put a bourbon Muslim here has violated this Quranic injunction?
Does Allah subhanaw taala tells us and so little unfurl. And you've if you fear, if you fear betrayal from people then renounce their treaty, on terms of equality. So before you actually do something, which is in violation of the treaty, you tell them you inform them that this treaty is void, because you revoked it because of something they did, right.
Certainly, Allah likes not the trailers.
Eight years later, imagine after eight years of the entrance of potato, Evan was eight years is a long time, right? Just think about
what you were doing eight years ago, where you were, what was your situation 80 years
during the reign of Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz,
the fifth righteous Khalifa, right.
The violation of Fatima Eben Muslim,
reached the Khalifa
how
through the complaints of the residents of samarqand.
Interestingly, the non Muslim residents of Somerton so they complained to Al Khalifa Omar Abdulaziz.
What did he do? He assigned the judge
to look into the matter to look into the complaint. All right.
To everyone's surprise, the judge ruled in favor of the residents of samarqand.
Imagine
that he did so retro actively after eight years. That's all finished. The Muslims are there, right.
And he called for the immediate withdrawal of the Muslim army.
The astonishment of the residents of samarqand
forced them to reconsider
and request the Muslims not to leave.
They couldn't believe it. What is this? What is this justice?
Who would do such a thing? Right?
People are used to taking things by hook or by crook.
Look at look at the justice that the Muslims practiced. The judge ruled in favor of the non Muslims against Fatima have been Muslim.
Who's a pious man. Right. But this is in violation. It's a violation of the Quranic injunction retro actively he, the judge ruled as such, and the residents not believing it, you know, in awe of what just occurred, requested them not to leave.
I say if it wasn't for the established historicity of this incident,
over 13 Centuries ago, we may declare that it never occurred.
If it wasn't for the fact that this is established, historically, and well known, we may claim this never occurred. This is a fairy tale. It almost seems imaginary, right? But this is what this is what the Muslims used to do when they understood their religion, right? Even when they had the upper hand.
They always had this very keen sense of justice. What happened
means to be just right no matter what, not to oppress even the enemy
much less their own.
We spoke a little bit about Jerusalem.
That's a very important topic and can be controversial, right? And it stirs up emotions, right?
You have to know that Jerusalem was not always
a place of peace. We usually think about Jerusalem as a place of peace specially under Islamic rule for centuries right?
Before that, it was always
an area of conflict between Jews and Christians, between Christians themselves, it was always a place of conflict and violence.
In fact
Jerusalem when the Christians had control over it
became a purely Christian city.
And what developed was a Christian. Alia you know that term earlier?
The Jewish migration
to Palestine is called the Jewish Alia.
At one point there was a Christian earlier
where the Christians took over,
exiled everyone else
and made it a purely Christian city.
It was not until the Muslim acquisition
of Jerusalem that it became pluralistic
and the Muslim acquisition of Jerusalem under Satana Amara Nakata Radha Allah Wang occurred when
Baraka, la Fick, something like that, because there's some difference of opinion. Some say 15 Some say 16. And some say 17. And I chose the latter. I.
When I researched the issue I chose 1717
and 638. See?
That's one side now Omar entered Jerusalem. And we spoke about the memorable encounter between Omar bin al Khattab, Radha Allah Juan and the patriarch Sophronius. I believe I mentioned it last time. I won't repeat it today.
However, let me mention another aspect, another facet of the acquisition of Jerusalem.
The Jews were were the Jews when Amara entered?
Were the Jews inside the city.
There were no Jews. Why? Because they were prohibited.
They were prohibited from entering Jerusalem by the Muslim terrorists.
No, not by the Muslims, but rather by the emperor of Rome.
Emperor Hadrian
in 138 ce
Emperor Hadrian banned the Jews from entering Jerusalem in 138 C.
Five centuries before the Muslim acquisition, okay.
Who removed the ban
on criminal hubbub?
The tough, harsh man who was so harsh against the non Muslims, who banned them and exiled them and did God knows what.
He's the one who allowed the Jews to enter the city after being banned from it for five centuries by the emperor of Rome. He's the one who gave them the man the famous man
to non Muslims in general to the city. So Jerusalem became pluralistic
with Rama Rama Hatha Raja Lavon, not the other way around.
If you ask, you know, any typical non Muslim or maybe an ignorant Muslim
For that matter, they might say, oh, Jerusalem was pluralistic and then became monotheistic when the Muslims entered it, and then only the Muslims controlled it right? Some Muslims who are brainwashed might be thinking that the opposite.
If only we knew our history. He's the one who removed the ban. Okay. In fact, according to one Judeo Arabic chronicle
after Omar, probably Allah negotiated on the part of the Jews, because the Christians holding the city, you have patriarchs of Fronius. He's negotiating on the part of the Jews now, for the Jews, not against the Jews, right? Because the Christians are the ones who banned them. So he's negotiating on their part, he allowed some 70 households of Jews to return to Palestine after having been banned from it, and to dwell in the location of their preference.
So they chose where the south of the city because that's where
the market of the Jews and some of the holy places lie.
What happened after the Crusaders took Jerusalem?
Right, they took it from 1099 to
1187.
Just less than 100 years, okay.
Guess what the Bible was reinstituted by whom? By the Crusaders.
They reinstituted the ban on the Jews.
When the Muslims liberated Jerusalem and 1187
they again removed the ban.
The Muslims are insisting on the pluralistic
nature of the city. Unfortunately, again, in stark opposition to what the Jews are doing today
this is why saleha Dean was hailed as the new King Cyrus.
King Cyrus was the famous Persian king who helped the Jews
so when they saw that Salah had been
removed the ban and allowed them to reenter the city, Salahuddin was hailed as the King Cyrus the king Cyrus who delivered the Jews imagine Salahuddin who took Palestine back. Okay. It's amazing when you think about it, because we talk about Salahuddin as the great hero who liberated Palestine, the Jews of today. Maybe they curse Salahuddin.
The Jews of them understood and they hailed Him as the new King Cyrus, who delivered the Jews and removed the ban after it was
reinstated by
the Crusaders.
And for that matter if Salahuddin is the new King Cyrus, so was Amara Nakata, who removed the bat in the first place, right? After five centuries.
How ironic my brothers and sisters, that the Islamic acquisition of Jerusalem encourages Jewish migration to the city
and not an exodus from it.
Again,
in stark contrast to what the Jews are doing today, simply exiling the Palestinians even claiming,
with repulsive audacity, that there is no such thing as Palestinians.
You might have heard that statement by the first prime minister.
He said
what Palestinians it's not like, you know, there were Palestinians in the first place.
As if they came to an empty land, right. Aligned without people the famous phrase a land without people, for people without a land. Oh, it was just empty. There was nobody there. Subhanallah
and then we are the terrorists.
We are the intolerant. We are the extreme. Low Akbar.
Salah had Dean I told you
You was known for his magnanimity or his forgiveness for his forbearance right? To the extent that he was even criticized that he did it too much. Right. So in a really rare display of postwar pardon,
after he took Jerusalem
he
when when the Crusaders took Jerusalem how many people did they massacre?
10s of 1000s the number may reach as high as 70,000 Muslims.
How many
70 1000s
during the capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, as opposed to the bloodless acquisition of Jerusalem by Omar
and Salahuddin.
saraha Dean when he took Jerusalem, he took it without bloodshed my brothers and sisters. Yes, he
partook in battles before that, right, such as her plane. But when he entered Jerusalem, He could have said Alignable it was synonymous sin, right, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. You massacred 70,000 When you took it less than 100 years ago, our turn now?
No, that's not the way Muslims deal. Even Salahuddin took it without bloodshed. And he allowed its inhabitants to live safely with their possessions. Okay.
Some women,
some women,
along with their children fell to their knees.
To beg Salahuddin to release their husbands who are POWs the prisoners of war, right?
Even though it's not really a war, because it's a bloodless acquisition, but now these people are prisoners.
Salah had been allowed many of them to go with their families with their wives.
And by the way, a lot of this is mentioned by non Muslim historians. This is not all by Muslim sources so that you don't say oh, the chef is just bringing Muslim stories and Muslim sources. This is well established and historically authentic, and therefore mentioned by non Muslim sources as well.
It is said that Salah had Dean had wept at what had wept had cried and ordered a search for the daughter of a Frankish woman who came to him pleading for her daughter
who was taken by soldiers during a raid.
So that's why some people in the West we said the Jews considered Salahuddin the new King Cyrus many in the Christian world called Salahuddin a Christian Knight.
Alright.
He even assured the safety of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Heraclius, who was allowed to exit with all his gold and his treasure,
which unfortunately he preferred to keep him for himself rather than to ransom
many of the poor who were crying for funds who needed funds
but Salahuddin again, when he saw that they weren't able to ransom themselves. He pardoned them without ransom for Immerman number two were in mal feeder for who Amanda Allah him
the King of Jerusalem himself, ghee, the Eleusinian
who was captured by Salahuddin was quote unquote, treated like a guest
amazing
was the fall of Acre.
acre fell
in 1191.
Richard the Lionheart demanded rich
Your call will acid. The Lionheart demanded a hefty ransom for the hostages that were in his possession.
But before the negotiations between him and Salahuddin were over,
he committed a brutal massacre
where he killed over 2600 Muslims.
Did Salahuddin respond in kind? He could have his right.
But he did not. Because Salahuddin had 1000s of Christians in his possession as well.
He did not follow
his counterpart.
And this is why, after commenting on such instances of pardon, my Salahuddin, one military military historian laments, such action sorrowfully never lead to a positive relationship between Christianity and Islam. So here you have these incredible examples of leniency Okay, and pardon and magnanimity, but
it didn't lead to the same on the other side.
Another person who followed the example of Salahuddin is a famous hero to the Turks
known as El Barcelona, Barcelona, a famous
warrior
and hero.
So
Alpar silang followed the example of Salahuddin in his clemency towards Romanos the fourth Romanos the fourth after he spared his life in the famous battle, known in English as massacred in Arabic Mullah could famous battle in history. Okay.
Earl porcelain forgave him.
He even drove his point home by asking Romanos What would you have done if the fate was reversed?
If you had captured me, if you were the victorious What would you have done?
Romanos honestly replied that he would have shown him every type of cruelty.
At least he was honest, right.
But ALPA salon accepted to ransom him.
A few years later, in 1074.
A letter was sent by the emperor, Michael the seventh.
And they were sent to Malik Shah and Malik Shah was the successor of Arsalan
where he praised his tolerance, but even when he was praising tolerance, he expounded the validity of Christianity. So it was very normal in these letters that were exchanged between the rulers and the commanders
to talk about religion, it wasn't something
unacceptable, said there was no secularism at the time. So here he is praising the tolerance of Malik Shah and the Muslims, but at the same time, calling him to Christianity and talking about the validity of Christianity.
And there were many other similar examples.
There is there's a very famous incident, a beautiful one
that occurred around the turn of the
seventh
13th century, seven theory Thirteen's see,
and that was during the final attempts of the Mongols against Villa de Xiang against the Levant.
So there was an incident that very much lionized the famous scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah Rahim Allah
which
was narrated in a letter to the Cypriot king of his time.
What had been Tamia did was that he pleaded with the Mongol invaders, alright.
Gaza and Goodloe Shah
and he was pleading for the release of the prisoners under their charge
There's an accepted but qualified that the Krisztian prisoners that they picked up from outputs would not be spared.
Even Tanea refused.
And he insistent on freeing all of the prisoners, Muslim as well as non Muslims.
To here is even Taymiyah negotiating on the part of the non Muslims as well.
The Muslims were keenly aware that the non Muslims who lived under them, were part of them, even though they are 100 of them, but they're part of us. So even Taymiyah refused to free the Muslim prisoners alone. He said all
the Muslims as well as
the man in other words, no militina What a Hulu the mattina
this is even Tamia again, right. The harsh color.
The one who, you know the earth shakes, because he's so harsh and extreme Subhanak.
Even Taymiyah again,
even Tamia was harsh at times. Yes, against the heretics against the unorthodox and so on. But when it came to justice,
justice is justice. It's like a sword.
Whatever it is, even if it is against their own selves,
Justice must be served. So he refused and insisted on all of the prisoners. So he said rather all of them under us, Jews and Christians will be free.
Then eventually, the Mongols accepted and freed all of the prisoners.
How much time do I have?
I think I might leave
religious tolerance there. Even though there are so many beautiful examples, especially even even with the exceptions to the rule I mentioned to you last time. Sometimes there are exceptions to the rule where some Muslims violate
the Quranic the Islamic injunctions towards tolerance.
There will always be exceptions, right? But they are exceptions. They're not the rule.
But most interestingly is when there are those exceptions. There's always someone to tell them, hey, what you're doing is wrong.
And it will come from the more religious, not the less religious.
The scholars
the ones who are more extreme, more Islamist, they always like to use the term Islamist, they're the ones who defend what you're doing is wrong. They'll defend tolerance, okay.
In the let's go back, let me give you one example. And then let me transition to the other topic. In the double bass here, the Bassett era,
some of the residents of Mount Lebanon
committed a breach of their pact with the Muslims. Okay.
The ruler then sila had been highly responded by fighting them. And by exiling them, treating them in kind. You breached your pact, he treated them in kind.
The illustrious scholar Emmanuel zeri,
the famous imam of a sham, wrote to silence an ally reproaching Lee, telling him what you're doing is wrong. And he faulted his collective punishment of the masses.
And he reminded him of the Clarion instructions of Prophet Muhammad wa sallam to avoid harming them. And he added, quote, they are not slaves. And back then there was slavery.
How long has slavery been abolished? My brothers and sisters.
Slowly very recent.
And you may even say there's still some form of slavery today, you know?
Some remains and vestiges of slavery, if not
100% slavery as it was before.
So he said they are not slaves, such that you could remove them from one land to another, but rather they are free and entitled to protection.
So there's always someone to remind people who violate the rule, or maybe not completely violate the rule, but
act in a way which is less proper.
So Imam Lozada is reminding him of Allah subhanaw taala and the
injunctions of Islam.
And this was and there are so many examples of this SubhanAllah. So therefore, my brothers and sisters, we said, religious tolerance is an inherent Islamic trait
as
evinced by the Quranic
and the Hadith of Prophet Muhammad, Salah Salem, and the actions of Muslims, who put those commandments and those injunctions into practice throughout Islamic history, okay.
And this is very much related, then
to the very popular issue today of human rights,
we can easily transition now, from tolerance to human rights, nowadays, everyone talks about human rights, almost as if it is something so natural and inalienable,
that, as if it is something that is history is old.
But we all know that the discourse of human rights is very recent, right?
Who was talking about human rights, way back then,
during the time of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
During even in the, the Enlightenment period of Europe, even if you talk about, you know, the 16th 17th and 18th centuries, you think people were talking about human rights, then
the French Revolution, right? Where the end of the 18th century is talking about liberty and equality and things like that. Why? Because
these things were not implemented at the time. There was so much oppression, there was so much injustice, that they needed a revolution to try to bring these things about.
And even then,
the human rights discourse, as we know it today, is very different. When we talk about the EU and Declaration of Human Rights. Right, the famous UN Declaration of Human Rights, how old 1948
Coincidentally,
with the
what do you call it?
The
one of the biggest
violations of human rights,
you can call it the violation, Maximus
of the Declaration of Human Rights when the occupation of Palestine.
That's when the terrorist state of Israel was formed
in the same year of the
famous Declaration of Human Rights. So again, this is all very, very recent. So then when you look at this history of Islamic multiculturalism, pluralism, religious tolerance,
way back then when nobody even understood what human rights meant, okay? People weren't talking about human rights, then they were talking about the divine right of kings.
They were talking about the divine right of kings to rule. Kings are ruling by the Divine Right of the Almighty people were talking about the rights of the people.
That happened very much later. Obviously, there were precursors to it, but the discourse as we know it today, is very recent.
So what does Islam say about human rights? Well, when you go back all the time, all the way to the very beginning, from the time of pop
with Muhammad peace be upon him. You see that the Prophet salallahu Salam is establishing rights that didn't exist in Arabia.
Right?
Eventually we will talk in more detail about Islam and women and the
the emancipation of women.
The liberation of women, not the liberalisation of women notice the liberation of women. Yes, it started from the time of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Women were oppressed, right? Not by Islam, women, but we're liberated by Islam by Prophet Muhammad Salah by his injunctions by his treatment.
By spreading the awareness, we'll get to that in sha Allah when we come to women, but one right after another,
the right to life, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, was talking about the sanctity of human life, Muslim or non Muslim, for that matter.
That's why, when people were living under Islamic rule, there was a sanctity to Muslim life. This is not just something the human soul is not just something that you take, wantonly. This is something which is sacred. Okay, why the sacredness that Allah subhanaw taala has given it as we see in the Quran and the Sunnah being the first right, if there is no right to life, if there is no security, if there is no peace, then you can talk about any of the other rights, it makes no sense to talk about the right to freedom of expression or freedom of speech, or freedom of property, or freedom of anything else, right? If there is no right to life in the first place. In many different places,
there was no right to life.
People will just take other people's lives,
haphazardly, without due process.
without crying,
he just pulls out his sword and
cuts his head off.
Human rights people were warring, sometimes for the most futile and ridiculous of reasons.
Human Rights
started to be established by the Prophet sallallahu wasallam. For Muslims and non Muslims, this is something sacred, this is sanctified. This is not something that this is actually ownership of Allah.
This is ownership of Allah, you cannot just remove it, even when you slaughter an animal for God's sake.
Even when you slaughter an animal, can you just take its life, that's how
you cannot just take an animal for fun and slaughter it.
You do it
with the permission that Allah has given you,
for the sake
of eating it, and even then you say Bismillah, Allahu Akbar.
You don't just take it on your own, it's not for you to take. So if this applies to animals, then imagine how it is with other human beings.
If we have the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, we have something else in parallel called the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. How many people have heard raise your hand? Don't be shy, be honest, of the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, raise your hand?
Anybody?
So this can mean
one of two things or maybe three.
Either that this declaration is so unpopular, right? Or has been so badly marketed, that nobody's heard about it. Or for one reason or another. You did not hear about it. Okay. Or what was the third possibility? Does it exist? It's not even there. No, it does exist. I can assure you of that. The declaration exists. What's that?
No, no, no, no, no. There is a modern declaration called the Cairo declaration of the Islamic declaration Cairo Islamic Declaration of Human Rights
which is
A which was drafted by the OYC.
Organization of Islamic countries or cooperation, I believe it was 1990.
Never heard of it. SubhanAllah. So basically, a declaration of human rights from the Islamic standpoint based on Sharia, obviously will be criticized by many who have the enemies of Islam. Okay. But it's drafted in a similar fashion. Okay, in a modern fashion. But yes, as the brother mentioned, okay.
We can talk about one right after another, I will eventually talk about freedom, right? This is a right. Okay, and one of the greatest rights.
But
the way it was expressed,
and sometimes implemented in history, maybe a little bit different than the more modern discourse. So for that reason, they drafted this document. Okay. Almost in parallel, and similarly to the UN declaration in points, right, in bullet points. So yeah, it does exist, you can look it up, okay. It's not bad. It's not bad. Alright.
Now,
I'll go into, because I think I'm running out of time, I'll go into more of the details of Islam and human rights, and talk about specific rights. Freedom is one of the important ones, which is very misunderstood, okay, for different reasons. But
some people may scoff,
if we start talking about human rights,
not because Islam as a system, per se,
does not espouse human rights, but rather because of the state of human rights
on a practical level, in the Muslim world today.
So they will ask us, you're talking about human rights? What human rights, look at your countries.
Look at the Arab and Muslim countries where human rights there. And by the way,
in that situation, we will put our hands in this will say, yes, we agree, what human rights
but not because of Islam,
not due to a fault in Islam.
Right. Yes, the situation of human rights is deplorable in the Arab and Muslim countries. Does that mean it is la dee da and perfect in the non Muslim countries? In the non Arab countries? No, there are violations of human rights there as well.
But overall, we may say it's better than in the Arab and Muslim countries. Why do you think the Arab Spring happened? Which is unfortunately, no longer a spring? Because of the counter revolutions? Right. So winter, turned into a winter it started as a spring. Why do you think 2011 happened because of those violations of human rights? Because Arabs and Muslims want to live like free human beings like the rest of humanity?
That's why 2011 happened in the first place. So when we talk about Islam and human rights, we're not talking about its situation today, yes, this situation is deplorable.
We are screaming for human rights. We want the human rights that Islam gives,
which we are deprived off.
So in these situations, when someone who has a doubt be they're Muslim or non Muslim, and they say, what human rights look at your countries, yes, who told you that these countries represent Islam? This is number one.
So we have several responses, and it's very important number one,
who told you what's being implemented in those Arab and Muslim countries is representative of Islam.
In fact, it couldn't be further from the truth.
Even with the this recent,
most unfortunate incident in New Zealand
things are becoming clearer.
Slowly
things are becoming an earth exposed.
It turns out
A lot of these right wing, Neo fascists, extremists, white supremacists, you know who they're supported by, by some of the Arab tyrants
that are supporting this extreme. right wingers
who hate the Muslims and the Arabs,
and maybe even other minorities, for that matter, not only Muslims.
So when you talk about
these Arab and Muslim countries and the lack of human rights, who said that they represent Islam in the first place? Number two, this is very important when we're dealing with misconceptions. Okay, these Shewhart
always differentiate between Islam as a system
as a religion, and its adherence.
So a lot of people confuse Islam, and what its adherence and followers do. A lot of what the followers of Islam, let's claim, okay, that whoever is ruling, the Muslim countries today
are truly trying to implement Islam, let's just make that claim.
But in the end, when you look at the practical situation,
Islam has hardly being implemented, again, hypothetically, even then, we would defend Islam, we would say yes, the people in power are trying to implement
the Islamic System Islamic law, but unfortunately, it is completely different than what Islam espouses.
But now we go one step further, and we say excuse me, who told you who's in power is trying to implement Islam in the first place? or His representative of Islam in the first place? Right. So, in both cases,
we absolve Islam, the religion of Allah subhanaw taala have any semblance of violation of human rights. In fact, just the opposite, as we will inshallah detail further in the future, Allah Allah,
Baraka Luffy
or sobre la silla, welcome Amina Muhammad Wanda and in some ways, right well, hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen.
Are there any questions or comments at this point?
Yes, brother
salaam, so, like always let
the Christian one
as soon as
it came in.
So now, okay.
So it means that the Christian introduce what is the Jerusalem when they are probing before Islam.
Jews were banned.
Jews were banned
from 138
all the way up until 638. Understand that no Jews only Christians. That's why I mentioned the Christian Alia. Now their words when the Christians took over, Christian started migrating to Jerusalem from everywhere, just like the Jews did in the past century. Okay, when they took over Palestine, they exiled its inhabitants and the Jews started migrating to it from the rest of the world. So it was a purely Christian city for these five centuries
until Rama entered and made it a multi religious city again
that's the idea so every time
the non Muslims take over Jerusalem, they turn it into
a purely okay, you can call it
a uni religious city, alright, only for their own. And then once the Muslims come, they make it a multireligious city again. That's the idea
so don't allow
any enemy of Islam and ignoramus to tell you Oh, when the Muslims had control there was only Muslims and everybody else was exiled.
Baloney
it's exactly the opposite.
So the measure but and that's what makes the the terrorism
the oppression of the Jews today, okay, in Palestine, all the more audacious
not only, I mean, it's on several levels
not only because they were oppressed,
so they themselves were oppressed, right? Their whole history. In fact, their whole history is a history of, you know, guilt. Okay, and we were oppressed, and we were killed and massacred by everybody. And we didn't have, you know, homeland for 3000 years. And we were always, you know, going between places and so on. So you are the first people to understand the meaning of oppression,
exile, right injustice. So when you take power, you shouldn't be the first people to implement otherwise.
This is different than what I'm saying here. Now, I'm saying something else. Put that aside. Forget the fact that they were oppressed. Let's say that throughout their history, they had the upper hand. Let's just give that example.
Throughout history, and you admit, whenever you lived under the Muslims, that was your golden age, every time you're banned by the Christians, the Muslims brought you back. The Muslims made refuge for you. And once you have the upper hand, you go around and you did the exact opposite. It's mind boggling, really.
And then they talk about Israel and the only democracy in the Middle East and blah, blah, blah and the State of Israel and they are the ones who made Jerusalem
a multicultural and a pluralistic city and tolerance
try trash
anything else
what does that has this person? Sorry? Yes. He says Chairman tamer Yes. When you're more than happy this is a sham. The area of a shadow the Levant right remember when we talked about a sham?
So the area of
Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, this is a sham. So the Mongols had their eyes on a ship their eyes on a shaman Egypt scammy and aegypti. This is what they wanted. And they almost took it if it wasn't for the great
for the great heroes, Elma Malik Patos right
they are the ones who stopped the Mongols in their tracks.
So it wasn't for them after Allah
anything else?
Second low Hi Ron Subhanak along the hamlet Masha Allah Allah land, Mr. Pharaoh calling to really
Related Episodes
- Kamil Ahmad – The Strangers Episode #4 The Strangeness of Islam in the Beginning
- Musleh Khan – Life #26 Religion – Do I really need it
- Haifaa Younis – Ramadan Series Day 03 – The Month of Islam
- Majed Mahmoud – May We Reach Ramadan #2 of 29 – Fasting on The Day of Judgment
- Mirza Yawar Baig – Purify your heart if you want to learn Islam
- Muhammad West – Islam From Scratch #12
- Nadim Bashir – Kaleemullah #17 – Musa and Khidr Part 1 of 2