Mohammed Hijab – Mh Podcast #6 – Controversial Questions to Prof.Jonathan Brown and Dr. Shadee Elmasri

Mohammed Hijab
AI: Summary © The speakers discuss the idea of gay pride parade, which is a political rally focused on addressing issues with marriage and marriage. They criticize the idea of a "slacky liberal" argument and suggest the government should not define marriage as a man or woman. They also emphasize the importance of finding people who have been true to their beliefs and finding people who have been true to their values. They suggest writing a statement about the history of transphoria and finding people who have been true to their values.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:05 --> 00:00:38

So, welcome to Labor Council and welcome to the sixth episode of The mph podcast, the Mohammed hijab podcast. I'm here with special guests, two very notable individuals that are contributing, contributing to the academic kind of work and knowledge production in the Muslim world. We have Dr. Shadi and masuri, who is a teacher in the Safin Institute. Is that correct? Yes, Venus society? Yep. Society. Apologies for that. And we have, of course, Professor Jonathan Brown, who is well known, and also a professor at

00:00:39 --> 00:00:39

the University of

00:00:40 --> 00:00:44

Chicago. Georgetown, Georgetown.

00:00:46 --> 00:00:51

University. No, cuz you're not to be not to be mistaken with George Washington University.

00:00:53 --> 00:01:29

in DC, it's all in the air now. Because you went to George Washington University. Didn't you? Did your your MOS? Yeah, I went to GW Yep. Yeah. And use on your PhD and other university names on the planet. Yeah, I was gonna bag on George Washington, shout out, but I'm not gonna do that. I don't want to be I don't want to be rude. Well, with the consortium, I was able to take one third of all my classes at Georgetown. So I did enjoy that nice, musty library downstairs. And I spent hours there. I took classes with Scott Redford, almost all yeah. Yeah, that's really interesting. He was into like,

00:01:32 --> 00:02:15

Scott Redford, his dad was like, some politician who ended up being ambassador in Lebanon. And he fell in love with the Middle East. So he went to Harvard, he became an Islamic Arts and Architecture, you know, guy, and ends up being teaching at Georgetown. So these classes were really good. Okay, let's get started. What wanted to talk to you guys about today was some of the controversial things that have been in the air in terms of our approaches as Muslims as the Muslim community to the LGBT rights movement. And I think we're all on the same page, from my reading of your works, in terms of how we view a man having * with another man, for example, the act itself

00:02:15 --> 00:03:04

and the permissibility of the Act, as per the Islamic edicts and understanding. The question really isn't about this. The question is about how do we engage as the Muslim community with LGBT groups? Now, what I wanted to do is because obviously, on the website, you have you've Dr. Jonathan Brown has written an article, which Dr. Shadi Masri, then response to is kind of like a refutation of that of that article. So what I wanted, and Dr. Jonathan Brown was Professor Jonathan Brown, I get confused. And that's just I think, maybe we can just go right. I'm jack, that Shadi. I think Shadi, are you okay with that? Works for me? Yeah. Otherwise, we're gonna spend half the half the podcast

00:03:04 --> 00:03:09

is going to be saying our names. Yeah, that's right. Okay. So but, jack,

00:03:11 --> 00:03:16

can you outline your position in terms of what is this ratio idea that you've had?

00:03:17 --> 00:03:24

You get this idea from? How did you come to this conclusion? And then we'll get a chance to respond to each other.

00:03:25 --> 00:03:28

Okay, I mean, Bismillah R. Rahman r Rahim.

00:03:29 --> 00:03:37

First of all, thanks a lot for having us on. It's always really pleasure to talk to people in the UK or wherever is watching this in the universe. Right.

00:03:39 --> 00:03:53

I think first of all, I think you actually introduce the issue really well, which is, you know, when when we, when we have been so me and Omar sorry, chick, Omar right when me and chick Omar

00:03:55 --> 00:04:33

were talking about doing this right. So as back, you go back to kind of 2015 there's the obergefell Supreme Court ruling United States which basically makes gay legal, gay marriage legal in the United States, everywhere. And 2016. There was a discussion at Amgen, the American Muslim jurists Association. I think it was in Texas, I can't remember in Texas, it was that year. So an AMA there's like a whole discussion about this issue about the gay marriage ruling and how Muslims should, like sick he positioned themselves and it's socially positioned themselves. So um, and like, exactly the same issue, the kind of the exactly the same things that Shadi and I were discussing in that count

00:04:33 --> 00:04:43

corner point counterpoint came up in that discussion. So our aim with that point counterpoint was your claim was basically to say okay, let's, let's

00:04:45 --> 00:05:00

show very clearly what's agreed upon right. So the religious issue we want to show there's no disagreement on this. So there's no disagreement about lewat is haram. In Islam, we have a certain understanding of Section gender. Let's just put let's put that aside so that that's not bad.

00:05:00 --> 00:05:39

To get question because otherwise we're gonna go down the path of Muslims questioning things that are my Lumina Dean but the Rudra and before we continue with words in Arabic, can you translate them? Yeah Okay. So things that are known as sent you know axiomatically as part of the faith, whatever the prohibition on, on on homosexual acts in Islam is copyright. Right. It's, it's absolutely certain it's known from the Koran from the Sunnah from, from Israel, right, etc, etc, right? Yeah. Um, so that's what the idea was, let's put this religious like Dini issue aside, and then we'll be we're gonna talk about the political questions. So what now Muslims, you know, we can

00:05:39 --> 00:06:14

very clearly articulate what our religious views are, how do we deal socially and politically with the challenges in our society. So that was the idea was like, me and Shadi are going to kind of Shadi was, you know, he wasn't part of the discussion yet. Right. But it was that he has it, we're gonna set kind of show the religious parameters very clearly. And then within the, we're going to get into the political discussion, and there, we're going to show what the different perspectives are. So I was going to come up with this idea of kind of engagement and notion of kind of pluralism and create, you know, promoting a sort of soft, liberal pluralistic society in which different

00:06:14 --> 00:06:35

groups can kind of pursue their own moral religious visions or lifestyles under a shared protection of rights. And Shadi was, you know, obviously going to take the position he took. So that was it was really about having like a political discussion about how the American Muslim community was going to position itself socially and politically, on this important issue of question, just before you continue, yeah.

00:06:36 --> 00:06:38

I'm not sure if everyone would agree

00:06:40 --> 00:07:09

that the two spheres are mutually exclusive. So in the sense that, you know, we can have a discussion about blew up and so on. And that is strictly political discussion with no kind of religious ramification. What do you think, share the cookie before we continue with this? Because there seems to be an assumption here that we're we're here, I would say I actually completely agree with you. Right. So that's, that's, that that's exactly the kind of ground he wanted to feel out in this discussion. Sorry. Go ahead, Shadi. Yeah.

00:07:10 --> 00:07:15

Yeah, there's it's a very important point, you know, that that Jonathan making in and

00:07:16 --> 00:07:31

what he's not doing what is not, it's not separating between religion and politics, but it's really separating between what's my Lumina Dean, but the Aurora. And what is up for what's nasbla a new matter that requires maybe some PS,

00:07:32 --> 00:07:44

translate nasbla is a new matter that we are facing right now. That requires an HD head, we're not talking about he had like the four methods level HD head, but we are forced to make a PS

00:07:45 --> 00:08:25

based upon and we're forced to make a decision. So what does that what that does is it removes the the the difference of opinion from one of which would render a person like a cafard rejecting that which is known in religion, as Indian. So it removes it from that and brings it into the sphere of a difference of opinion, I might feel that you're, you're holding something that's sinful. But surely there's one thing I would want to just kind of probe you on here with this. I agree with the fact that no one's trying to classify anyone that you know, this is not definitely not all we're trying to do is respect everything, everyone respects one another. And we don't feel about this dichotomy

00:08:25 --> 00:08:45

of either it being something which is within the religious scope, that is difference of opinion. Or something which renders someone a Kaffir is something which someone might object to someone could say, there's a third option here. The third option is that what you're seeing is Barton, it was outside of the religious parameters.

00:08:46 --> 00:09:22

And it doesn't render you a Kaffir. or move to our facet, or whatever. That is there as well, like in the religious literature, many things about a meaningful, outright false. So from a religious perspective, the works of a man has them or the works of any of the scholars, they will be things in them which we could consider as as incorrect is exactly that's exactly why it's not it's not gonna we're not gonna know you know, use this to try and classify that individual is x y, Zed faster caffeine. Or even let's say we don't classify him but the view itself. We've we've exited

00:09:23 --> 00:09:31

Wko for and the bit and heresy bit from we've exited that realm to a view that can be either bolted or so or, you know,

00:09:33 --> 00:09:59

correct. Is I once again, I don't think there's a problem with if someone says the view is bad. That is different from saying that someone I want once again, this is I'm sure everyone here knows it. But for the for the kind of average viewer who's watching this. If someone says this view that for example, Dr. Brown has his beta is which is newly invented into the religion for the sake of argument. It doesn't mean now that he is

00:10:00 --> 00:10:50

The right, innovate so yeah, which look like of course, yeah, of course this is like that's the point of nasbla. Right? The idea of analysis of this is, we Muslims have not been in a position that we know of in history. In fact, as far as I know, no society has been in the position that we are in now regarding how modern Western societies view, sexuality and gender. Like this is a it's a it's a, it's a novel. So any, you know, whatever our discussion and our potential solutions are almost certainly going to be unprecedented in our tradition. So I think that like, using words like I mean, I'm not I know you're not trying to attack me or something. But I think when we start talking about

00:10:50 --> 00:11:30

words like bid die, it's like, yeah, like, obviously, there's we're in, we're in unprecedented situation. We're just trying to figure out what is the way that we, as Muslims, I think I chatted, you can disagree with me if you if you do, but I mean, I think our both of our objectives are, how do we as Muslims preserve our faith and our community? How do we do a marinara for nahan amonkar. In the best way in our society? How do we preserve our religion and spread it? Right, because this is wisdom and under law that we believe benefits people don't you're after, right? So how do we do that best? Yeah, that's the that's the discussion. Yeah. So what is your position? How would you outline

00:11:30 --> 00:11:46

it in a nutshell, like, I've read, obviously, your article, and you kind of categorized or classified different views and rejectionist view, the neutral list view? And then you had your own rational view? How would you now in terms of trying to abbreviate it as

00:11:47 --> 00:11:52

least was as possible? What is your view in terms of how we do the LGBT movement?

00:11:54 --> 00:12:05

You know, oh, first of all, by the way, Shadi, like if I if I'm talking too much, just, you know, go like this and be like, Hey, man, you've been talking too much. No, put my hand cuz i don't i don't want to I don't want to distract from your, your chance, right?

00:12:06 --> 00:12:52

I, I this is gonna really annoy you, Mohammed. But I actually don't think you can talk about it succinctly. Why? Because the situation has changed so much since that article was written. Right. So 2018, that article? Yeah, we wrote the article. It was 2017. I can't remember when it was, but like, that's, it was a very beginning of Trump year, I think. Right? So things have changed so much that that article, in some ways is like it's obsolete, not because I'm because the discussion around the LGBT LGBT discussion has moved so far. So things like gay marriage are not even an issue anymore. Now, it's issues of like gender, how we understand gender in schools, how we talk about

00:12:52 --> 00:13:03

discrimination and things like that, what our kids are going to be taught in school and public schools, that that's I think, the bigger issue and so, but I'd say like, you could look at it as an as a developing discussion.

00:13:04 --> 00:13:50

And so in that sense, what I would say is the question I was trying to, or the point I was trying to make in the ratio, which I think means rights affirmation common cause it's on the orthodoxy or something like that. I just made it up when I was writing the article. Yeah. is kind of what is the vision we have for the United States as a country, right? So one vision would be this kind of Wonka call kind of Abrahamic tent vision, right? So, which is that the United States is sort of this Judeo Christian Muslim theistic nation that honors God even though it it grants religious liberty, it's sort of the substrate of the country is one that respects revelation that kind of has a respect to

00:13:50 --> 00:14:37

natural law respects like human human beings linked to his own or her own nature, right? Under that nature means something that has some degree of claim or control over us that our own subjective identity doesn't determine our nature. And so that would be one vision, right? And that sort of Muslims would be allowed to function and flourish in that society. The criticism of that would be that the christian right in this country is simply too Islamophobic and too hostile to Muslims historically, and in the present to really allow Muslims to exist in this country. And this evidence for this would be things like the fact that in 43 states now there have either been passed or

00:14:37 --> 00:14:59

proposed anti Sharia bills that make it illegal to follow Sharia in those states. And you can imagine, by the way, what that means it potentially about things like marriage like Dr. Shadows, marriage or my marriage, right, I have a Sharia marriage, which is a little certificate from the mosque, someone come and say, You've broken the law by having this marriage. That hadn't happened yet, but that's just potentially what might happen. Right?

00:15:01 --> 00:15:42

And the other vision is the kind of rash your vision was that this country would be much more like pluralistic, diverse, demographically pluralistic, morally, even legally, right? And that you can imagine almost like a millet system and the Islamic tradition where you have basically little communities. So there's Amish people here, there's Christian people here, there's Muslim people there, the Muslims have their own schools, they have their own social associations, right? And that the law is, the actual law of the land is is very minimal in the way it imposes moral or cultural views on these different communities. So that's much more when we talk in political sciences, like

00:15:42 --> 00:16:21

kind of a soft liberalism. So if you're familiar with South Africa, much more like South Africa, where, you know, polygamy is legal, all sorts of different animal sacrifices legal because you have such a culturally diverse country, where as opposed to what the United States is now, and Britain is now which is much more of a hard liberal state where, yeah, there's freedom of religion. Yeah, there's freedom of, you know, moral beliefs. But really, like there's expert, you know, you polygamy is allowed, certain beliefs are considered intolerant, certain beliefs, speech is considered hate speech, right? So, I was really arguing that the US should go and have a more morally pluralistic

00:16:21 --> 00:16:41

diverse direction. But I think the problem is, and this will be the last thing I say, I will be talking for a long time, which is, if you look at the development of American law, since that article was written 2017 it's we've gone further down, not we haven't gone down the path towards something that would make the ratio

00:16:43 --> 00:16:50

view possible. We've gone the other way, right, which we actually become more hegemonic. There's like more of a hegemonic

00:16:51 --> 00:17:11

progressivism and liberalism in our society. And actually, right now, literally, right now, in the next few months, we're going to see, with the Supreme Court decision on what's called St. James school, we're going to see I think whether there's going to be the final nail in the possibility for a really morally and religiously plural country, or if that were if that's going to be allowed.

00:17:13 --> 00:17:46

One question before I get Shadi on if that's all right, because I think there's still something to be said about the main controversy about this particular essay. So let me read something that you've written. You said, according to the ratio position, American Muslims should support the rights of gay marriage under US law. This is really the crux of the problem here. In terms of controversy, because people are saying, On what grounds on what Islamic grounds? And when you say the word should here is this what a MOBA is it?

00:17:48 --> 00:18:33

Is it is it obligatory? Is it recommended? What What is the classification? That you're making it? I mean, when you're saying we should, in fact, engage in so much as we would support the right of gay marriage? Doesn't this seem very contrary to the Tao of law tally salon, for example, who very much was opposed to these kinds of practices, let alone facilitated it on what Islamic? I don't think lewd? I don't think Luther lays out and talks about gay marriage. Or he talks about six, three men and men, okay. I mean, look, if we want to talk about * between men and women, that's wrong. Like if someone comes and ask me, you know, what should Muslims say about the watts? They should say,

00:18:33 --> 00:18:54

this is hot on and they should do, I'm going to be my roof and it no longer on that they should say this is this is considered sinful in my religion. And I don't believe it's pleasing to God, that defy doesn't defy common sense that if the thing is haram, then which leads to it and facilitates it. No, because you because you're not I mean, you don't

00:18:56 --> 00:19:39

I don't know. You know, not to get too graphic, but you don't need to be married to do this stuff. Right. So like, and it's legal like this. The walk is legal in the United States. That since since the early 2000s. I mean, why is Muslims do you need to support gay marriage in particular, why have you recommended this? Well, I don't I don't I don't support gay marriage. I support the right to marriage for gay people. Why is that? Because? Because I I want the same. What is look at what is the what was the gay marriage case about? It didn't say, it wasn't, you know, can gays get married? It was is does the government have a right to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

00:19:41 --> 00:19:53

That's the that's the debate. Right? Now, my marriage and my marriage is a Muslim is nothing to do with the US government. My marriage is between is a contract between me and my wife, my wife's family.

00:19:54 --> 00:19:59

In the eyes of Allah spawn Tada. That's it. Like it doesn't matter if the US government acknowledges that or not.

00:20:00 --> 00:20:17

So this is the Muslim marriage, and what is pleasing to God is one thing right? Now we have to look at the issue What? What is the? I have a question, do you want the US government to say that marriage, the only marriage is going to be legally recognized is between a man and a woman?

00:20:19 --> 00:21:01

I'm not politically active in that sense. I don't I'm not trying to persuade the US government to do anything. Okay, so I would I want I'll tell you what I want. Why my position? Yeah, my position on my personal position, the matter is that it for me the kind of defies common sense, especially if you're trying to use Muslim type arguments. Like one point seemed like you were trying to insinuate that because it's kind of bodily is kind of necessity now. We need these people to help us in order to they're the only one one of the only groups out of us which is actually that the gay rights groups that so that we should help them in kind? So i'm not i don't i don't i don't think that I say

00:21:01 --> 00:21:17

very Akashi. I say very explicitly in the article. This is not a quid pro quo. This is not a quid pro quo. Because it would be we are not allowed to advocate for something that's wrong, because somebody did something nice for us. Says gay marriage Hello then.

00:21:18 --> 00:21:33

Of course not what do you what what you I'm sorry to get upset like what universe are people in that they think it's * out? Like, not only is it not Hello, but I've written the most extensive article rebutting any arguments that it is halaal in Islam.

00:21:34 --> 00:21:38

Okay. You say that Zoo Roger Roger lane, but Islam

00:21:39 --> 00:21:59

and Islam. Okay, you know, then but you said the word hello. Hello means. Hello, Islam. Okay. I want to say you want to say legal or not legal? Yeah, that's not that's not even it is legal. That was already that decision was made before this article was written. Right. It's illegal. And it's it is legal in the United States. Right.

00:22:00 --> 00:22:43

Like that. So are you are you arguing on Muslim background? No, let me let me make me mainly repackage, sorry, sorry. Go ahead. Because you wrote a refutation what what is your what I think jack was just saying right now, is that he's arguing that he does not want the government involved in making moral claims and position on the libertarian view. Okay, what's your position? And what do you see as you've written a response? So okay, so one of my things is when I read this, about this interaction between the Muslims and the law, etc, one of the articles that you could read that also summarizes something I don't know if it's exactly Jonathan's opinion, but at the end, Professor

00:22:43 --> 00:22:51

Faldo Mohamad falls off from Toronto, he writes in his article basically summarizes his position is that

00:22:52 --> 00:23:31

if we allow discrimination against gays in the workplace, you open the door for Muslims to be discriminated against in the workplace. That's his argument right? Now he has to come upon the issue is okay, well, are we therefore, are we supporting something that Allah prohibited by doing this by backing that group? Are we therefore backing something that Allah prohibited? He says, and this is where I'm going to note, no, my disagreement and nowhere, you know, the seeds of secularism are really in his article, He notes that we are obligated as Muslims to uphold the contracts that we are upon, and we're upon this, you know,

00:23:32 --> 00:24:22

constitution and these of us and therefore, by advocating and supporting and fulfilling those laws, we're doing our job because it prophesized them said it will be known I in this regime, believers have to observe their contracts. Now, my response to him, is that protecting covenants and contracts? That's that part is correct. But there's a condition that the contract is valid, and not what we said also bots, it right. So Mike, my response to him is that we're only supposed to observe contracts that are in line with the shutdown. Now, let's say, well, all of us are citizenship, we're bound by laws of nations that, you know, we would never author, right and aren't even valid for us.

00:24:22 --> 00:24:59

Good. However, they became binding upon us by virtue of our birth, it that doesn't necessarily mean we support them. Right. So there's a big there's a, this is tough sealer, we're constantly separating between matters. Just because something is bound upon me, doesn't necessarily mean I support it. Right? I'm stuck with it. What can I do? Okay, but I'm not forced to support it, just because I benefit from something. And that's what Jonathan, jack was saying. Just because they benefit from it does not necessarily mean I gotta go and support it, right. So that's those were my couple other points.

00:25:00 --> 00:25:27

On the issue of this idea of supporting the rights of LGBT, just because the Muslims will also benefit from that, I would say, okay, yes, I may benefit. But I will sit back and watch, right? I'm not going to actively support I may benefit I may not. Right. So those were my points. And my main issues were the separation of a political judgment, from a 50. Judgment, okay, for from a moral judgment.

00:25:29 --> 00:25:34

As a method, that's a problem. And as and as a concept of

00:25:35 --> 00:26:16

covenants, we can't forget the condition for which we're to support a contract or covenant or a law or whatever, is that it's valid in the city, by the view of the shittier. Alright, so the soul would have shut I. Yeah, so for me, what I was thinking immediately is that, and I think we're gonna run out in five minutes, I'm gonna have to restart the session. If it does cut out, then we'll just start again. Yeah, the session. So I was thinking in my mind about, okay, so if we're arguing for muscle health, which it seems like effectively, this is what this is an argument from DOD, or I'm Muslim, then Muslim, I can be, you know, Muslim, Allah and non Muslim or it can be Muslim masala.

00:26:17 --> 00:26:53

But in this situation, it seems that it's very clear, Muslim, moreover, meaning something, which is, as you mentioned, something which is in opposition to the Sharia argument here is that if it's something which you can, if it's more seller, if it's something which is MOBA, and there surely hasn't spoken about it, or this millennium, obviously, the Sharia allows itself mentioned in this text, then it's different. But the issue here is that you have this issue. If we take, for example, the view that a marriage outside of Islamic law, I think the argument that I make is, in fact, Muslim masala, and it's not normal, then you have a third, you have a secondary problem, which is

00:26:53 --> 00:27:31

what has only mentioned is the idea that for Muslim to be matsubara, there has to be a hot icon. And it has to be done only. Now, it doesn't seem to me, you can make the argument that clearly this is for the collective interest. But it's very difficult to make the argument that this is what I do. In other words, if we don't support the gay rights movement on homosexual marriage, that we will be in danger of, for example, death, or one of the rotten humps that is going to be an impending genocide that will take place. This is why I think the whole thing if we want to make an argument would literally flat fall flat on his face. And I find it difficult to make an argument after that.

00:27:32 --> 00:27:34

Because my question then would be

00:27:35 --> 00:27:48

if you can't prove it's a tie that there's an imminent threat to one of the for example, who comes to one of the five essential things that we should ask him to protect. That are what are solely grounds? Is this argument being made?

00:27:49 --> 00:27:56

So I want to I want to be very, very clear, like I don't even consider this to be a

00:27:57 --> 00:28:33

silly argument. Okay, this is not a 50. This is not a 50 argument. There's a political argument. I mean, so I agree. By the way, I think Shadi makes a really good point. Which is that it and you've also said this, right, which is that you can't really separate politics and morality, right. I completely agree. And, and this is, I mean, the irony about this is like, I have all the positions I've taken in my life. This is the position to which I'm least attached, right? I mean, I have zero Hashem in public. You have the AMA, so when I had the sub mosqueda, I was sure

00:28:34 --> 00:28:35


00:28:36 --> 00:28:37

article they had they

00:28:40 --> 00:28:48

came in like playing some stereo. So so I'm asked if y'all hash and buzz Haha, I know and we'll call it a yes. Guilty.

00:28:50 --> 00:28:53

The the two this is like I don't have a

00:28:55 --> 00:29:13

some attach strong attachment to this vision. I could well be wrong, right. This is about what is like the what is the decision is best going to promote Muslims and our ability to be Muslim in this society. That's what I'm concerned with. I get your point. I get your point. here's the here's here's here's the issue, right.

00:29:14 --> 00:29:15


00:29:16 --> 00:29:22

don't I've never advocated for gay marriage. Right. I've advocated for

00:29:24 --> 00:29:28

the change of law that says that.

00:29:29 --> 00:30:00

I've advocated that it is not right. That the US government says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That's the only thing right so i if i that's what I want. That's what I thought Muslims should support Muslims should support the minimal restrictions of what marriage means in our country legally, according to our government. You know what your your maneuver would have been better if if you had not given a specific and went back to jack? Yeah, yeah, it would if you had not entered into

00:30:00 --> 00:30:35

to a specific, and just backtracked and said, I believe that the US government should not determine certain moral moral should not enter and define certain moral matters. Okay, yeah, I agree with you. Fine. That's a good point. Shadi. But then I have a question. Okay. So let's say that's what you let's say, that's what we've decided we're going to try and push for. And now somebody comes and says, Okay, do you support this, which side of the obergefell case you're going to come down on? The one that says marriage has to be between only between man and woman, or the one that says that marriage doesn't necessarily have to be between man and woman? If that's our objective, as we've, as

00:30:35 --> 00:30:40

you've suggested, I'm not saying that's your opinion, but your your strategy that you're proposing for me, right.

00:30:41 --> 00:30:51

That would necessitate us taking the quote unquote, gay marriage side in the obergefell. decision. Right. So that was actually precisely what I was not taking on side.

00:30:53 --> 00:30:56

Because what I mean, that that may,

00:30:57 --> 00:31:10

that might be a good position, right. But I think that, that doesn't really reflect the reality, the social reality in our country, and probably in Britain too, which is that people want to know what your opinion is, like you.

00:31:11 --> 00:31:45

My opinion not to have an opinion of me, you can't tell Muslim kids in high school who are getting asked this question by their friends, you know that you got to give them an answer. You have to give them gifts, equip them to answer these questions. That's really what I was trying to do is to how have you how do you equip young Muslims with a way to think about this issue publicly, but you know, that sometimes arriving at silence on a matter is a thought out? process. And that's the result is that I literally cannot choose one or the other. Like, you cannot choose either one, for example, the left and the right.

00:31:47 --> 00:31:54

Okay, in America, and probably England, same thing worldwide. Right. Not the nativist cultures in Europe versus the leftist?

00:31:55 --> 00:32:41

The the, I think the most accurate position is that you cannot take a position that's a judgment that I've went through it. And you cannot choose a side, because both sides have something that we would stand for. And both sides have mutual have non starters that we cannot ever side with, right? So it is a sort of result, it results in we have to form our own platform of things, right on things. So our platform is going to be very unique. We're dead against racism on one side, right? We're very much for racial, racial diversity, equal distribution of wealth, sounds like all these, like left wing things, right. But at the same time, we're, we're not we don't support tax taxation

00:32:41 --> 00:33:21

without you know, do cause cousin shutdown. That's an issue. We don't support homosexuality. So it's not only we don't support it, we're against it. Right. So our platform is going to become a merger that nobody recognizes, right. And that's why that's really the best thing to teach our youth is that we have a platform that's neither left nor right. And you can never be you. I agree with you. 100%. Yeah, and I've actually not to promote my own work. But like, you know, I've written about this on your theme on issues of toxic masculinity and things like that. So I agree, like, the prophetic model is not a right model or a left model, right. It's a prophetic model. And we should,

00:33:21 --> 00:34:01

you know, considering the deadlock, and state of non functionality that American politics and society is in right now. I'm probably British too, right? Like people need answers. And we should provide an answer, which is, we have this prophetic model. And just because you support the idea that the government should not define certain things, does not necessarily mean that you have supported all the secondary consequences to that. Right. So it may you may argue the wisdom. But if I say listen, government, Uncle Sam, I don't want you telling us, you know, what marriages? But that's true. He is he can't I'm basically saying Uncle Sam, don't make tissue here. So that's

00:34:01 --> 00:34:02

actually a valid position, right?

00:34:03 --> 00:34:31

The secondary consequences of that maybe, you know, certain things that are have certain things that are crazy, right? But I haven't necessarily, I'm not guilty of supporting those hot on things. Right. So the question may be, is it wise, or is it not? Is the current status closer to this idea? Or is are those secondary consequences? Positive and negative, closer to the shittier? So that you do a Muslim offset or kind of analysis? Actually, um, let me let me say something because,

00:34:32 --> 00:34:36

you know, to be honest, like, in the year since that article was written,

00:34:37 --> 00:34:48

the way things have changed have developed, honestly, I become much closer to a shoddy position. And I'll tell you why. Right. It's not actually it's because of how,

00:34:50 --> 00:34:59

okay, let me let me start again, right. So since, let's say, the beginning of the Trump presidency, right, there were two there were two options, right. So there was this

00:35:00 --> 00:35:16

The kind of democratic party that laughed so to speak right, especially the progressive left left embraced Muslims. So there were two possibilities, right one is that and this was always the danger that nobody agreed with, right? Or that I know of, right, which was that Muslims would

00:35:18 --> 00:35:23

by the progressive argument, hook, line and sinker, drink the whole bottle of Kool Aid, right?

00:35:24 --> 00:35:38

Um, that was what we were always afraid of, right that Islam would just become an identity, you know, you have the the like, the, the Latino person, the LGBT person and the Muslim person. These are just all these different equivalent minority groups

00:35:40 --> 00:36:20

who all agree with us who are all the same, same moral vision, this was the danger, right? So then you have Muslims celebrating things they can't celebrate in their religion, right? Doing things like dancing and gay pride parades, Muslims shouldn't dancing gay pride parades. You can't celebrate these kind of actions. You can if you want, you can say I support certain rights. I want certain the law to be a certain way right to protect the rights but I'm not going to actually support a certain lifestyle that I agree with. The problem is that of the most prominent Muslims involved in the kind of left wing Social Justice Alliance have completely gone after they've jumped in the Kool Aid

00:36:20 --> 00:37:03

completely and then they've they've engaged in expressions that are really compromise their positions as Muslims and make it impossible for me as a Muslim to come out and support what they've done. Now, I will not I'm not gonna gang up on those people. Right. You know, if I see these, someone like you know, Ilhan Omar congressmen, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, this woman gets so many death threats from right wing lunatics, she has her own security detail provide her by Congress. Okay. So this, this is a this is a fellow my Muslim Sister, I will not, I will not gang up on her and engage in some kind of public trashing of this person to increase the burden on her shoulders.

00:37:03 --> 00:37:35

But I do not agree with some of the things she said and done. And doing those things and an advocate nursing she's made it effectively impossible for me as a Muslim, I think, to support her program is a very difficult decision. It makes me very sad that this is the course has happened over the last two to three years. I didn't I hoped it wouldn't happen. But I unfortunately, I think that's the path we've been going down, which as I said before, is a path that is making the rachio position almost impossible to advocate for as it's just it's not a realistic possibility right now. So I'm

00:37:36 --> 00:38:17

sorry, just unfortunately, gets involved. I just wanted to kind of summarize what I've understood from from both of you. Obviously, I think that about two years ago when this article was, was first published. And so now you're saying that there's been changes, which have made it kind of impossible, very impractical to advocate such a position and that, from the fan perspective, masala wouldn't be as maybe you you calculate entropy at that time. He also admitted really, that this is not an Islamic argument. You weren't using the language of the soul and, and all of these things, it was more of a political argument. So you could put it another way that this, this rasio approach has

00:38:17 --> 00:38:29

got nothing to do with Islam, in a sense. And if that I actually I actually, I mean, I. Yeah, in fact, yeah, I would I mean, I don't, I don't I mean, I don't say it's nothing to do with Islam, because I'm Muslim. And I wouldn't be thinking about this stuff if I weren't.

00:38:31 --> 00:38:54

I'm not making some like, silly argument. Definitely not. Yes. Well, that's, well, something like this war, he had more struggle. I mean, I'm sorry. Like, what are Muslims like smoking some kind of weird drug or something like when does this say as like, this is a federal law? I mean, this is like, this is our Muslim, so immensely unsophisticated that they can actually talk about political issues. They can.

00:38:55 --> 00:39:35

Yeah, you know, when you put something on your pin, the issue is is more apologetic remit. Right. So obviously, if it's got an apologetic remit, people are thinking that what you're going to be talking about or writing about is in line or at least through the prism of the religious groups. So I see what you're saying I, you know, it's not something which is Islamic is something which you didn't intend them to be like a federal sense, and it's got nothing to do with Islam. But then one could question the fact that why is it on European that because European is more an apologetic, remits, it's more of a academic No, no, no. That's I mean, look, I i understand that, you know, that's your

00:39:35 --> 00:39:59

view. And some people might view that, but that's actually not one of the things we were trying to do with this point counterpoint with you, Dr. Shadi and I was actually to try and provide some guidance and structuring the discussion around this issue. So not in an apologetic sense. Like, I mean, let me let me make I again, I'm not criticizing what you said. But like if we're trying to promote something like

00:40:00 --> 00:40:20

wishy washy liberal brand of Islam? Why don't we invite Dr. Shadi to give the CounterPoint. They would just have my article and then be like Doctor showed is an idiot he kid writes up here. So you don't you don't invite someone who gives an argument that, you know, is a really good argument book shot doctor shot his argument is an excellent argument. It's an excellent argument. I said to this

00:40:23 --> 00:40:36

what could someone could come back and say is that look, well actually was what's going on is that you're making it seem as if there's a religious debate, where there's no religious divide according to your own admission? Well, what what right, it's not a religious debate. It's a political to

00:40:38 --> 00:40:57

what it was, is an academics do this, and maybe some people aren't, aren't really aware. But academics conduct war games, right? Like, what if we said this right, then what would their response? I viewed it as a type of that, like it that, that your position was sort of a what if what if we did this? What if that

00:40:58 --> 00:41:17

were the case, sort of exploring an option, right? And then my, my job was to come in and be, you know, like, they when they hire a retired general, come and you're the opponent, right? And let's just see if this strategy is going to work in a war game. Right. And so that that was my job to poke all the holes in it.

00:41:18 --> 00:42:02

So what that's how I felt that it was rather than a, you know, a hard and fast program that he's going to be doing speaking tours on. So that's how I viewed it was just like, I'm really interested in the, the soft, liberal type of war game where we say, What if it was promoted in a society that every grouping, and I actually believe this is, you know, probably better for us. Your forget citizenship of where you're born? It's what is your law? Right? What is your law? That's a more accurate way to categorize people than what land you're born in? And then based upon what your law is, that's how you'll be judged and interact, right. Okay. And so I could say I'm listen to someone

00:42:02 --> 00:42:18

else could say I'm a progressive liberal, someone is someone. And then when I when I go to court with a Muslim, I'm going to go to court, right in that court. And then, but we'd have to extrapolate that because it's going to lead to a whole bunch of different classes. But that's what there's a guy in England and LSE. What was his name? JOHN?

00:42:19 --> 00:42:25

jack, what was his name? That guy? He put forth this idea that it's it's this is a super soft liberalism.

00:42:26 --> 00:43:01

Yeah, I know, you talk about by their law, he is he has like a really, he's like your Eastern European name. His name is impossible for me to remember. Yeah, no, you're talking about, he's an Eastern. Now, the US has gotten the exact word like fascist liberals right now. So it's, but it's, I think this is I this is the point I was trying to make, which was that, if you go back to like 2016, until and I want to stress this, we are going to see within the next few months, we're going to see a shoe drop. And it's either going to be in this place, or it's going to be in that place. It's the chain James school case, that has to do with the scope of the administrative exemption, which I sent

00:43:01 --> 00:43:42

you guys readings on, right. And if that scope is narrow, if it takes if it takes a vision of the Ninth Circuit Court, the ability of Muslims and other religious communities to have their own bubbles of existence is going to be extremely limited. If that case comes down within expansive, wide understanding of what the ministerial exemption is, then it's going to make it a lot more possible, nothing close to what Dr. Shadi suggested, but a lot closer to what he's suggesting than otherwise. So that's what I was hoping is we would go down a path more towards a soft, liberal, morally pluralistic, even legally polis, just society, and not one in which a either a kind of

00:43:42 --> 00:44:24

progressive hegemony, or Judeo Christian, Western European hegemony was going to be enforced on everybody in the country. In fact, what we have right now is a battle between these two things, neither of which are very welcoming to Muslims. Yeah. And we should hope that Gorsuch maybe feels a little bit guilty and owes one to the right. Right. That's, that's what I was thinking. Like, when not when the both both county court decision came down. I was like, This is only gonna work. If the St. James school comes with a really expansive understanding of industrial exemption. So you say, No, no, no discrimination based on gender and sexuality, cetera, et cetera. But the area in which

00:44:24 --> 00:44:45

you can have discrimination because of religious belief is going to be big. Yeah. But if they make that area small, it's going to be a disaster. It's gonna be a disaster. And, but this also goes to show them that there are some method of methodologies that can last longer than others. So a methodology where it says, Listen, I'm just gonna go by, you know, the letter of the law. I'm not gonna,

00:44:47 --> 00:45:00

you know, engage in some kind of, you know, political operation because the game the game is changing constantly, right? Everything's constantly changing and who you have

00:45:00 --> 00:45:41

To be with now is you may be, you know, harms you later. So that's where the idea of where when I make the conclusion that I'm actually stepping back, okay, may actually end up having, you know, a long term stability to that view, because the game keeps changing, you know, and who knows that how Muslims in the future will not be viewed as, you know, these people of color that can be banded into an already groups we might actually be viewed as eventually be viewed in with the opposite side, or in our own hand, my biggest my biggest fear of this whole situation, and I'll be honest with you is, especially on I go to North America, and interact with young people, my biggest fear is that when I

00:45:41 --> 00:45:43

actually have conversations with them,

00:45:44 --> 00:46:06

what it seems to be because you've got more like an handlebar model and others, like, who go to the grave. The gay pride parade and the dancing around with with them is it seems to be a lot of these young people have this assumption or belief that people like Ilhan Omar and others like them are getting the backing

00:46:07 --> 00:46:27

of people like Jonathan brown because of articles like the ones he's written, which if you think about what you said today, obviously what you've just said today and Wait, hang on. I want to say I wrote in that article against why Muslims should not go and gay five rates I wrote in that article a year before she danced to the great gay pride parade.

00:46:29 --> 00:46:39

But to be fair, what I remember you saying was that the best you get exactly what you said, you can you can quote exactly what I say. Because I gave precisely why Muslims should not I

00:46:41 --> 00:47:00

don't think you said don't go to the gay pride parade what you said I did. I 100% said it. Go don't don't don't look at a piece of paper, man. Go to the website, read the article. I've written it word for word, believe me, believe me. I was looking very closely at what you said. And because what you said about it, is that basically something to do with

00:47:01 --> 00:47:20

they shouldn't Muslims shouldn't do something to hurt us. Muslims should do something they're not comfortable with. But you didn't make it categorically clear that Muslims should not go to gay pride parades. You said, You nestled in your couch? No, no, no, no, no, no, I'm very clear. I said Muslims should not participate in gay pride. Go, go go. I mean,

00:47:21 --> 00:47:22

let me say something.

00:47:23 --> 00:47:58

I'm gonna defend myself or I'm gonna find a website. I'm gonna read it to you. Okay, while you while you're doing that, let me make a comment. While jack is finding it. that a lot of people on the internet, people actually need to learn a tool of how to make a conclusion on the internet because a single quote, let's say he did say that right? Well, we have in the Quran. Yeah, you have multiple lawsuits, right? And you have to bring all the suits before you make a conclusion. Right? This is this is a 45 minute essay. It's not like 77,000 words of the Quran. This is much more easy to make. Oh, no, but a person

00:48:00 --> 00:48:18

should go individually individual, an individual makes multiple statements, let's say, right? Yeah, in the course of a year, 234 years on an issue makes multiple statements. Right. So you have to catch one statement. That may be ambiguous. You have to also put it in line with all the other statements, right? And see.

00:48:20 --> 00:48:45

I have I'm gonna read I'm gonna read to you guys first. Dr. Shadow, Dr. Saudis position is correct. And one of the things I think we should be doing, by the way, I mean, I'm not, you know, people like you. Muhammad hijab people like Shadi who really like have a podcast if you guys need to raise the bar, you guys need to pull Muslims off. None of this like nonsense. Have I heard this? Somebody told me that. Did you really say this? Look at

00:48:46 --> 00:48:46


00:48:48 --> 00:48:51

I didn't write I didn't write like a 500 page book. This is like, you know,

00:48:52 --> 00:49:06

really nice. By the way. For those viewers who are watching, you've written a very good I don't know how many page book it was, but it was about slavery, which I recently bought. It was a very good book. It's a doorstop. Yeah, Mashallah, Okay, I'm gonna read it. I'm gonna read it.

00:49:07 --> 00:49:46

I am frequently asked by Muslim student groups about how they should respond to invitations to participate in gay pride parades, which can be let's just say a little bit too edgy for Muslims sense of public propriety And my response, don't lapse into thinking that supporting someone's right is an all or nothing relationship. Let's imagine a comical Muslim rights parade, or Muslims parade with burkas and long beards, angrily chanting and condemning physical contact between sexes outside of marriage, for crying pork and alcohol. Would we expect our allies in the LGBT community and other groups to march with us? Of course not. They'd be understandably uncomfortable with some of these

00:49:46 --> 00:49:59

expressions of Muslim this quote unquote. Similarly, Muslims can affirm their support for some eligible I wrote here for LGBT rights, but I would say some LGBT rights, right. commitments. What did you was it something that I wrote I wrote, I wrote

00:50:00 --> 00:50:37

LGBT rights, but I made it very clear in the article that I don't support all of them right. commit themselves to being president other rallies and an effort to lobby lawmakers without participating in events that might be outside Muslim country. But you said they can commit themselves to go to rallies. That's what you say you'll go go to a rally about discrimination. Like if there's, if there's a rally, right where someone says, you know, we're being beaten up, or we're being abused by police. We're being called names in public. Yeah, I would go to that rally. And I'd be like, no one should be caught treated like this. Sure. Well, jack, right. You just said, Hey, you said that you

00:50:37 --> 00:50:46

say you read it yourself. Right? You said that. You can go to the rally, but just don't do things which are XYZ, right? No, no, no, there's a gay pride parade is not a rally.

00:50:48 --> 00:51:27

Okay, gay pride parade is a gay pride parade. A rally is a political rally. But you can have a political rally that's premised on on gay LGBT rights. Now, I have a there's a problem that always comes up on this. And that problem is that there is a type of link where oftentimes normal human rights, like dunk not getting beat up while walking in the street is oftentimes couched as an LGBT, right? And there's sometimes a confusion there, right? I get that. But I'll be honest with you, I'm an outsider. And I'm a fan of Jonathan Brown. I've got nothing. You know, I love Jonathan Baldwin has to live with his stuff, and I share his stuff. And I read, I actually referenced you in one of

00:51:27 --> 00:52:08

my books as well. So this is not this is not from a person who's a hater or someone cuts you up. I'm just being honesty. It's like the Muslims are all complementarily trying to achieve the same objective. What I'm saying is this is that when you when I read that myself, my question is my question to myself, is he saying that you can go to the valley, but not do certain acts in that rally, for example, maybe dancing or something like that? So in other words, it's not categorical enough by way of prohibition. Like, in terms of if if your view is that there should not be Muslims, young Muslims go into rallies, which are LGBT related, and you don't want people to use your own

00:52:08 --> 00:52:09

material as

00:52:10 --> 00:52:51

as a kind of backing for that, or a way to try and legitimize that practice that I believe that that the physiology in that, in that particular passage, there was not decisive, I have to be on Okay, that's, you know what I can, I'm happy to go and actually edit that. And say, and because I didn't, I didn't think that I didn't think of rally and the pride parade is the same thing at all right. So I will, I will go and I will edit that, and I will make it clearer. And in fact, I'll even put in some rights, because I wrote that very clearly in other parts of the paper. I don't you think it makes more sense? Because you just said in this podcast that I mean, you're being introspective, and

00:52:51 --> 00:53:28

you said that you've kind of moved away from the whole ratio approach is something you don't really believe in anymore. And you move more towards Charlie's opinion, to just take this whole thing down. Really? Wait, wait, hang on, I believe in the ratio approach. I don't believe it's been me. I believe it has been foreclosed on by developments in American politics, society. I still believe in it. So what I don't believe it's I believe it is much less possible. Now that it was part of it do because we've already established that you this is not really an Islamic argument. You've accepted that the criticisms that okay, there's a lot of this stuff can be used as a way of justifying

00:53:28 --> 00:53:54

people, you know, literally supporting things which might be prohibited in Islam, don't you think? No, I haven't. I haven't accepted that. But I don't think that's true. I think if somebody looks at this article and thinks that somehow I'm trying to say that we should support things or haraam in our religion, that that's just not accurate. I think that's not accurate at all. I don't think it was the idea that you accepted. Also, you've accepted that something like this article is not really meant.

00:53:55 --> 00:54:06

It's not trying to reason through the Islamic paradigm. It's not trying to reason to it is actually a liberal, like, it's a secular argument. Like, oh, like what showed this ad in his article says, Yeah, it's

00:54:07 --> 00:54:44

I say it's a true liberal argument. So why would you put that on a Muslim website? It's a try. I'm actually happy to own that. Like, yes, I'm making a soft liberal argument for minimal state invasion in telling people how to live. But that's not your that's not that's not who you are. Gentlemen, bro. You are a person who usually argues through the Islamic paradigm your progressive Muslim, that's at least how I interpret like, yeah, okay, but let's like, I mean, I'm not I don't want to I have a tendency to get really angry. So I'm just gonna go it's not when I say that.

00:54:46 --> 00:55:00

I'm saying when I say it's a soft liberal argument, right, what I mean is something exactly what Dr. Shadi was saying earlier, which is in the West, and by the way, this is the state of the nature of the pre modern state in general is it did not get

00:55:00 --> 00:55:37

Get involved in people's lives. The state basically provide law and order. They had an army to defend against invasions. And pretty much everything else was up to the up to civil society. Right? Yeah. The modern state gets involved in everything tells you what your kids are going to learn when they're kindergarteners tells you what color you can paint your house, if you can have chickens in your backyard, etc, etc. Right? So that's the modern state. It's omnipresent and it's invasive. What I'm arguing for is a true like, original, pure liberal idea of the government not getting involved in people's moral lives, right, that people that are religious community has a right to live its own

00:55:37 --> 00:55:43

life, and interact with other communities in a society that is minimally invasive. But

00:55:44 --> 00:56:05

if you said that and not specified gay rights, or gay, sorry, gay marriage, which you explicitly specified, Muslims should support gay marriage under US law. I said the right to gay marriage. Yeah. Okay. Same big difference. Big. Not the same thing. Big difference. Okay. I agree. Big difference.

00:56:06 --> 00:56:09

Do you support gay marriage? No, say no, I don't I don't believe this is pleasing to God.

00:56:11 --> 00:56:45

What do you believe in? And do you believe in a law that defines marriage as something which gay people have a right to marry? Because we don't we're not going to define marriage as the man or woman? I'd say yes, of course. I support that. So you but you basically what you're saying then is, you're saying that you don't believe that the government should decide on the form of the marriage, what it should look like or how it should be defined? Hmm, Yes, exactly. Okay. See, you see, you see this? Yeah. If you said that there would be no controversy. Well, I I genuinely believe if you said this, if you said it the way you just said it now, which I'm very happy with. And I don't have any

00:56:45 --> 00:57:10

problem. But if you had that, there would be no controversy. But unfortunately, because of the possibility of misrepresentation here. And the fact that some people could be using what you're saying to say, well, as Muslims were allowed to support gay marriage or get the rights of gay marriage, which, for vernacular is for people in the in the lay audiences, they're not going to really see the differences in that.

00:57:12 --> 00:57:48

It kind of rescues the spiritual disaster that could be right. People thinking that people actually not knowing the dividing line between what's heroin, heroin. That's the I believe that's the biggest problem that can come out of this. Like I said, when I speak to people in North America, many young people were concerned. I have to say, they were saying this is what's happening. This is happening this Linda sarsour antiochene. staying quiet. Not yet. Sorry. I think that people like Jordan Brown, Jonathan Tranter jack is staying quiet on the issue. And in fact, it seems like he's giving them the ammunition you see. Now, obviously, you would come back and say, No, it's not really as you think it

00:57:48 --> 00:57:56

is. And you didn't mean it like this. And you do hostile government, we try and argue your case. But if you if you have things like Muslim should support

00:57:58 --> 00:58:16

the right for gay marriage, and you're explicit, very clear, that I think that there can be that tissue wish, or that can be that confusion and that in the minds of young people? Yeah, look, I mean, sorry. Sure. I know, I want to give Shadi a chance to talk. So I'm gonna say this, and I'll let Shadi talk. Right. Which is,

00:58:18 --> 00:58:18

you know,

00:58:20 --> 00:58:38

I think I've talked to people like advisors of Ilhan Omar about this issue about a number of issues that have come up. And I've, I've expressed my I've explained my concerns in, in the years since this article was published, right. But as I said before, I don't think

00:58:39 --> 00:58:54

I'm not going to do this kind of public lambaste thing of, of her the other Muslim sister, right. Yeah. I'm asking you to. Yeah. So and I have actually, I have written about this stuff. on my Facebook.

00:58:56 --> 00:59:37

I've said explicitly for essentially these things for example, like on the on the masterpiece CAKE CAKE case, or the ash or wedding cake case in the UK, I said the UK Supreme Court was completely correct. It was It is definitely the right of the baker not to be forced to make a cake that forces the baker to engage in expression doesn't agree with so I totally side with the baker on this, right. I've explicitly talked about issues of things like trans education in for young children, things like the Birmingham school issue, where I said children should not be exposed to this kind of issue at that young age. Um, so I've actually come out a lot and talked about these issues. I

00:59:37 --> 00:59:39

haven't written a clean article about it.

00:59:41 --> 00:59:44

And to be honest, that's really more of like a personal choice of mine.

00:59:46 --> 01:00:00

I don't want to get into I don't want to feel comfortable getting into the details of why I haven't done that. But I have done my best on my social media to weigh in on those things. Because I think they

01:00:00 --> 01:00:35

are very, very important. In fact, they are much more important than the obergefell decision. Awesome. I mean, I think, and this is some of the stuff I was sending you material on stuff about what kids are taught in school, what rights parents have to opt out of certain classes. This is really, really, really 1000 times more important, because it gets when you talk about you can't separate politics and morality, that the collision of those two is in education, especially early childhood education. No. Mice are understand that Shadi would you want to add to that?

01:00:36 --> 01:00:42

Maybe that that the article that was initially wrote, written by jack is an

01:00:44 --> 01:00:50

article you check. And it was potentially something which can cause confusion. And would you be

01:00:51 --> 01:00:55

at least for maybe a complete re editing of the essay?

01:00:57 --> 01:00:59

Yeah, I mean, I would.

01:01:02 --> 01:01:35

I mean, if they want to re edit, it's up to them what to do, what to write, and what's up to date, and what's not up to date. But the rebuttal, the fact that they put the rebuttal is, you know, that's also a, you know, something to be considered. And when people are going off on the internet and youth and people reading, I just want to keep it just give people one point is that, when you look at a statement from an author, the right way to make an analysis is to look at all the state authors of that statements of that author on a particular point, right? Whether it be

01:01:36 --> 01:02:20

Yeah, Gemma Diller. And sometimes what I see is going on is a little bit of unfairness. Not necessarily just to john and brown, but because as obviously, I wrote the I wrote a rebuttal on it. So that's my perspective on that line or that point. But to a lot of people, one line is taken one image, one picture, and we have a saying that, would you then XML, right, but the lesson learned, if there is a possibility that that picture does not represent 100%, and it could be explained away, then I can't make a conclusion. So likewise, I look at a lot of people whose a quote was taken from here, here, here, here, three or four, but five, and seven, and eight and nine, have the complete,

01:02:20 --> 01:02:59

you know, opposite conclusion. quotes. Yes, we're not taking. And to me, this is nothing less than slander, in a sense, it's it's an intellectual version of slander, where I would just take that quote, and ignore that evidence, right? And if we did that in FIFA, we we'd laugh, right? If someone eats Ramadan, and says, well, Allah says cooler was horrible, eat and drink, Allah said it right alongside it. But hold on a second, he also said, fast, though I do. I do agree. There has been there has been some, quote, mining and all these kinds of things, especially to Brandon. And I want to stress the fact that I believe I haven't, I'll be honest, I haven't read too many of your books.

01:03:00 --> 01:03:40

But because I've actually read a lot of the articles from some of the books and seen some of the work that he's done. I mean, this is not to take away from any work, that we're just having a conversation here about some of the controversies that potentially constitute the weakest link of the portfolio of work that needs to be readjusted. And it's not about you know, anything else we want to promote? Goodness, and we want to promote we as we do have, as I said, before, I've referenced and continuously actually lead people to some of your your work. It's not, it might sound like a deep criticism is definitely not that I'm not coming from a point of trying to label or

01:03:40 --> 01:03:41

cancel or anything like that.

01:03:42 --> 01:04:24

I mean, I would say I would say this. I mean, I don't I think that article is fun. And people are still talking about it, as I said before, because I think it's so out of date. I mean, it's not the situation, the the Walker, the reality has changed so much since that article that it's it's sort of a pointless article to read now. So what I would say without a doubt is and I've been arguing, you know, we've been discussing this theme for a while, is we need to write a kind of part two, about this issue now, because we in the Muslim community are in a very different situation. I think one of the reasons we haven't done it is because this St. James school case is such a big deal. I think

01:04:24 --> 01:04:52

when that case comes down, I think at that point, it's going to be really time to if you're going to get involved in a discussion, which we did, right. If you're going to get involved with discussion, you got to follow up. Right? I think at that point, we're gonna have to write something to address a lot of these issues. And also, yeah, sorry. Yeah, I'd like to make the point that when we're in a gym as we are as colleagues, people endow with people who are concerned about the matter. It's actually being in touch with the

01:04:54 --> 01:04:59

benefits like this. It allows. Maybe I had a slip up or I said a word that didn't work out.

01:05:00 --> 01:05:42

But being in the gym out, and this happened to me recently, right, like I made a statement that wasn't 100% accurate, you know, in a month of definition. But had I cut myself off? Number one, I wouldn't have had the benefit of being shown that there was an error. Likewise, if somebody had when attacked me so viciously, and emotionally, I would myself not want to engage with anyone, so therefore I'll never be corrected. So there's two opposites. There's the one person who is arrogant, who doesn't want to be part of the group, then there's like the rabid attacks on people, rather than having a discussion. And and how do we know the difference? Right? You know, the difference by

01:05:42 --> 01:06:04

someone's track record, someone has a track record that pretty much they want to be part of a lesson, and they want to do the right thing. And they want to reach the right conclusion, that person went, if they make a statement that I totally disagree with, they deserve, they've earned the right of, you know, decent interaction, maybe Can you explain, can we discuss this a little bit more, very different, much different than someone with a complete,

01:06:05 --> 01:06:45

completely insane view? Who has a track record of other insane views? And that point, then, yeah, you can bash them all, you want to trash him and ignore him, because that he's proven himself that that's what he wants. So there's in our dialogue, I think these these points are important to realize that if you go on that attack, you actually disallow that person from ever reviewing his work, right? And getting to the goal that you want, which is for them to see your perspective. So it's all about these manners of acts enough to actually arrive us at the conclusion that we want to. I wanted to ask Dr. Brown one more question that was probably as controversial, if not probably a

01:06:45 --> 01:07:30

little bit less controversial. It was to do with an article written about salvation for non Muslims. Now, I'll be honest, I read the entire article. And I made sure to read it more than once as well. I didn't see anything in the article that says that you have the really brilliant greatness to view or anything like that, that kind of view or the view that all paths lead to the same truth or anything like that. But then when I did a bit more digging, I came across a part of the essay, which was removed, and this is what it says it says, to be clear, what follows here is just my idea. And it thus also seems possible that God could forgive the sin of ship for a reason other than repentance,

01:07:30 --> 01:07:45

perhaps as an expression of his measurable mercy. And this was subsequently removed from the article, someone would argue, then, why would Why didn't you clarify that this was removed? And, you know, in a sense, make the correction public?

01:07:48 --> 01:08:03

Uh, well, I mean, I actually can't remember what my argument for. I can't remember what argument I had for what I said. I mean, that that's not the question you asked. But I'm actually trying to remember, like, what evidence I add for that? I can't I honestly can't remember.

01:08:04 --> 01:08:20

But I assume I had some decent idea. some reason I thought it was worthwhile. Um, I'd actually. So this is a great example of exactly what Shadi just talking about. So I wrote that article. Yes. And mobian vade, for whom I have great respect,

01:08:21 --> 01:09:05

wrote a public critique. Very, very forceful, serious, but extremely polite, and, and respectful, you know, something that you couldn't you couldn't hold it against him. Right, you had to look at what he was saying, you had to take shots. He also talked to me. And, and I took, I took that part. And there was another part I took out as well, very small thing. Um, you know, why didn't I make it? Why didn't we make it public? I can't remember, honestly, I can't remember if we did make it public or not, like, why was it there in the first place? Then what did you intend by that? Meaning that then you removed. So I went back, and I looked at the article right now, and it doesn't mention that

01:09:05 --> 01:09:23

it was changed. And actually, this is something we've discussed, we've actually agreed upon a theme that we're gonna, like, when there's a change made to an article, you know, significant change, not like, you know, somebody added something in a footnote, but when something changes made the article there, we're just gonna say, this article has been updated. But

01:09:24 --> 01:09:46

I mean, I so I, honestly, I can't remember like what we did or didn't do in terms of noting any change to that article when it came out. But I mean, I would just say right now, like, what I mean, yeah, we took those two sections out those two sentences out, and that was it. I mean, I'm not sure what critics would prefer would they prefer that we

01:09:47 --> 01:09:59

have something at the bottom that says what I originally said so that somebody can get misled by them. I mean, the whole art, the whole, the whole idea is that you remove these because they're confusing to people. So the idea that you would sort of like remove them, and then

01:10:00 --> 01:10:23

include them in some, like, the only issue would be that if someone had read it before, I'm not seeing the correction, that they can have the same impression that, you know, they've already seen that, you know, I mean, but then that would mean that we'd have to have some kind of method of alerting anybody who had read the article with some kind of like pain that a change had been made. And that just you know that, that doesn't happen. I mean,

01:10:25 --> 01:11:04

so I, to be honest, I think, look, I'm going to tell you what I think really, this is about, right. This is about people want me to engage in some kind of like self flagellation. They want to like put me on a donkey and parade me around town, you know, do that tissue video. They want to like tissue theater of me. And like, Look, I'm sorry, I'm not gonna, you know, look, I I 100% accept criticism. I accept criticism when it's done with incredible and propriety like people like Dr. Shadi, I accept criticism when it's done by complete a holes. Okay? If the if someone's a, like a jerk.

01:11:06 --> 01:11:09

No, I mean, if someone's like a slanderous, bloated jerk, and

01:11:11 --> 01:11:20

they write something, you know, Dr. Brown, spelled this word wrong. That's a good point. You know, Matt, Matt cannon nakulan for shorthand, who fee

01:11:21 --> 01:11:37

for LA yada jophiel Amanda inocula. Right. So you know, if someone makes a point that you made a point two plus two is not five. I gotta change. That doesn't matter. The guy's nice or not. So I'm happy to take criticism we Athene are very happy to take criticism, very happy to take.

01:11:40 --> 01:12:06

Like, why? Why didn't you like, come out and draw attention to the mistakes you made in the article? because the whole point is not to draw attention to the mistakes because the mistakes are misleading. Okay. That's the that the issue of that article. Um, and by the way, those criticisms were made, I mean, within I'm just gonna say like, within days of when the article came out, if I remember correctly.

01:12:08 --> 01:12:17

And so the other question you asked me about was the issue of insulting the Prophet lace. Awesome. Yeah, I wanted to ask you about that. I want to ask you about

01:12:18 --> 01:12:36

that I just I that's fresh in my mind, because some genius just like brought this up to me yesterday. Like he's like the first person who brought this criticism to my attention. I was like, Oh, thanks a lot, man. Like I didn't where I was like, have you been in a coma for three months or something? or months? When did this take place? When did you make your comments?

01:12:38 --> 01:13:08

I think it was the end of January I was in the UK I was in High Wycombe. No, yes. Yes. I look Um, so yeah, I and I wrote about this so much online. I said, I I really regret my choice of words. I shouldn't I regret my choice of words. I regret I and I have to bow last final words of Allah. I knew the character similar to a loss of a large lm bee, bee. bee bee Snoop en la

01:13:10 --> 01:13:15

la la la la demande. La who hadn't McAllen Mahmoud. Right. So

01:13:17 --> 01:13:18

I have no problem.

01:13:20 --> 01:13:33

Admitting my error. Right. In the last talk, I would if I had gone back, I would have said I would have used very different words. I do still take the same position. Right. So let me just be clear, I

01:13:36 --> 01:14:19

think, no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, I'm gonna explain right. So I regret the way I phrased it. Or to go a lot the mother cups, right? Yeah, too. I do not want anybody to insult the Prophet. And they said something. Yeah. And in a Muslim society or in a Muslim country, I actually think it should be illegal to insult the Prophet. Right. And by the way, in societies where they already have strict hate speech laws, or anti defamation laws, or laws about public order and incitement against strife, places like Singapore, even some places like France, I think that those laws should be enforced equally, and that people should not be allowed to and so that somebody like Charlie Hebdo, should

01:14:19 --> 01:14:43

not have been allowed to have those cartoons, because Charlie Hebdo is not allowed to have cartoons that, for example, have anti semitic or anti Jewish sentiment, right. So I think if you're going to have a law that says you can't insults, you can't cause communal hatred, you can insult religious figures that should be applied across the board and it should not be allowed to salt across profit, whether it's the west or not the West, right.

01:14:44 --> 01:15:00

But in societies like the United States, where you don't have hate speech laws, so there are no laws. There are no laws against hate speech. United States, as far as I know, it's certainly not at the federal level, right. I do not think that Muslims should advocate

01:15:00 --> 01:15:40

laws that restrict speech because it's considered hateful or restrict speech because it insults figures were venerated because the first people who will be restricted in their speech because of that will be Muslims. And yeah, I and you've seen we saw this in the UK go back and look at the all the articles about the Trojan horse issue, right? Look at the what the Ofsted reporter said not in their written report. But in their oral mentioned or oral discussions. They mentioned how they went into the library of one of these schools and it was quote unquote, filled with hate speech with hate literature. What was it filled with the Koran, right? So if you believe and you can see this, oddly

01:15:40 --> 01:16:19

enough, in Muslim countries, countries like Indonesia, countries like Egypt, right? Where they have this thing now where you can't call someone who's not Muslim, a Kaffir? Because it caused like, imagine, how are Muslims supposed to talk about their religion or teach their children their religion, if basic things in the Koran like criticisms of another religious tradition, criticism and other religious beliefs, calling someone who's not Muslim, a Kaffir? If you can't do that, the Quran itself becomes an article of hate speech. So if, by the way, freedom of speech laws or hate speech, are never used to protect, to protect vulnerable minorities, like Muslims, they're used to protect

01:16:19 --> 01:16:38

the powerful when minorities get out of line. Yeah, I should say, and but I think this would become problematic if you phrased it. I'm not saying I mean, obviously, you've recounted what you've said, Well, if you phrased it in a way, which is like, I support the the right for, you know,

01:16:39 --> 01:16:52

a person to insult the Prophet. No, well, well, I see this as being the exact same thing. Same thing as a gay marriage, isn't it? Yeah, you're Yeah, you're supporting, or you're supporting the idea why I think it's no longer

01:16:54 --> 01:16:56

that the government doesn't engage in

01:16:57 --> 01:17:14

most of it. Because with the whole, from what I understood from both Brian's argument with the gay speech, the gay marriage, one is that he doesn't think that gay marriage has any place in the Sharia, like, it's a non factor from that perspective, like gay marriage is just, it's nothing, it doesn't exist, it has no chalet

01:17:15 --> 01:17:38

placement. Whereas with this sub nebby, even if it's been done, or which is really important, even if it's been done to someone who is not Muslim, there's clear Sharia guidelines on the kind of at least attitude that we should have to those people. So it would be very ethical send the wrong message. If you say what I, you know,

01:17:39 --> 01:18:07

I support you put in this phrase origin, I support the right, for someone to insult the Prophet Mohammed, that physiology is extremely I'm not saying you would endorse that physiology. But technically, based on your soul you put in place, that statement wouldn't be bothered, that statement wouldn't be disagreeable to the soul you've put in place. But I think that you can No, no, I think it would I mean, both. Whether it's whether it's lewat, or sub nebby, these things are wrong.

01:18:08 --> 01:18:25

Yeah, literally. Right. And so if you if you had if you had a Muslim government, like a Muslim state, right, oh, they want to be Haram. And Southern, nobody would be wrong, they'd be both illegal, right? If you did luat, you could be taken to court. And if you did something, you could be taken to court. Right, whether you're Muslim or non Muslim.

01:18:26 --> 01:18:29

So I think that they're there.

01:18:30 --> 01:18:41

I don't I don't see a lot of difference between them in the kind of from the Sharia perspective. I think that there is a similarity that Dr. Shah is bringing up, which is that

01:18:42 --> 01:18:45

it's, it's looking at how to Muslims

01:18:46 --> 01:18:56

thrive and function in a society in which they are vulnerable minority. Right. So that's why I mean, I think that it's it's my,

01:18:57 --> 01:19:40

I mean, first of all, there's we talked about this before, like, you know, there's, there's a lot of people in the United States who want to who essentially want to make having Muslim beliefs illegal, right. And you don't i don't want to give the government any power to make that happen by giving the government power to restrict speech to restrict belief, right. So that's why I don't I don't believe in laws that restrict hate speech. So basically, what you're saying is that you you want the government to stop legislating matters, and become more soft of take a soft, liberalist approach, because we'd be able to breathe too.

01:19:41 --> 01:19:59

That's really that's what you're saying, okay, I kind of get this now. But what I would like to put him put forward, submit to you guys today. I think you make it very, if that's the position you'll take, and I understand it. There's two things I would want to suggest and I don't know what you think of these recommendations. Yeah.

01:20:01 --> 01:20:19

recommendation number one, if one believes that there should be like more of a libertarian approach in terms of government intervention, social matters, relating, for example, to marriage, divorce, to religion to rally, etc. If that's the stance,

01:20:20 --> 01:21:03

then I would stop there like, yeah, instead in the sense that I wouldn't build upon it and say, so therefore, I support the right of x plus gay person to get married on US law, or that I support the right of a person to insult the profit and hammer etc. Because that secondary aspect is where the short hair can come in, I believe the shop I can come in, I really can. It really, really can. And people can really confuse your statement, which you're building upon different muscle. Yeah, which now we understand what they can really, really understand that this person has capitulated to Western narratives, and it's bending over backwards to try and please those individuals, a secondary

01:21:03 --> 01:21:41

thing I would want to recommend is, I think there's a big difference in saying this would be better for the Muslims. Yeah, in the sense that it would be better for Muslim minority achillea in a Muslim land, for such law to be in place instead of x law instead of white law. So it's better, it's young, or it's less of an evil after that our aim, for example, the lesser of two evils to make that very clear, and to use that language, the lesser of two evils for this law to be in place, then this law, then to say, this is why I believe should the law should be this as if this is the US London utopian

01:21:42 --> 01:21:48

kind of consideration that this is what we want the law to because for us, the utopian thing is obviously, Mark Oliver loves

01:21:49 --> 01:22:27

Russell. So I think things if they're made very clear, because I understand Dr. Brown, no, I understand what you're trying to say, Yeah, I understand how you build your argument. But if you package it in that way, say, Look, I'm not advocating that these doors are the best laws, I'm saying the lesser of two evils is bad for the Muslim community, I'm not in support of anyone insulting the Prophet, one support this and that it makes your position while they did the very clear that it is almost impossible for it to be attacked in that sense, unless you're going to get some water 100 feet, or people from the, you know, fringes attacking you. But from that angle, you're firmly within

01:22:27 --> 01:22:52

the prison, we are firmly within the paradigm. You don't need to carve the paradigm or become a liberal or to any, to write two terms into your soul. I think if you do that, then you've kind of cleaned it all up, you've locked it all up. What do you what do you guys think of this? And let me add something else to if you if you put forth the libertarian view as the preferred better than the lesser of two evils.

01:22:53 --> 01:23:35

You can only be attacked on one ask on one side, which we can close that attack. And that attack would be someone saying, well, you're opening the door to Xyz horrible things also being said, right. But you're you would close the door by saying that's a veneer that's possible to happen. What's guaranteed to happen is that Muslims will have their right to do their to worship their properly or worship as they see fit. So that's guaranteed, and the guaranteed matter, you know, will take precedent and is heavier than the possibility because if you say government do not talk about any speech, do not ban any books, Uncle Sam don't make tissue do and don't get involved. Right. So

01:23:35 --> 01:24:11

yeah, that means we can write all we can have our Quran and write all our books. The thing Yeah. And, and and someone say, Yeah, but that also allows for people to curse the prophets. I saw them. Were saying that, we're against that, but that's a veneer. That's maybe. And what's certain is that by this we guarantee our right to, to practice our Deen. So that's just an argument that's offered or anything is it's very, it's in the names. It's like the lesser of two evils. Right? Both they're both even the ratio thing is, that is there's not two options. There's the opt out option, there's the rejection is that you mentioned it was like four or five options. So it would it would be

01:24:11 --> 01:24:49

difficult to make a lesser of two evils argument with the Russia thing. But I think that with this situation where you're talking about generally speaking about laws which don't infringe, would you rather have laws that do in French and they would infringe the Muslim? Right, would you rather have to infringe, don't infringe and then Muslim to be more protected in terms of I bet that and etc, etc? Yeah, but I think that initial initial framework where if you lay it out like that, then very easy for someone to follow with you say, Okay, I understand what, yeah, which is most of it. Yeah. Which is why and also that I was taught early on and also that they actually tend to like to give

01:24:49 --> 01:25:00

outlandish examples. Just so that you don't get bogged down in a specific example and what happened with this. We you know, what jack was saying is that, I think

01:25:00 --> 01:25:41

Because the example was a real thing that's happening right now, like gay marriage, or something to be everyone's attention went to that example. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And I think so could we agree then, in terms of because, obviously, what we're trying to do is, in a sense, we're trying to make everything clear for the people. I'm not here to try and you guys Mashallah both of you are senior to me in every single way. I'm just giving you my feedback from that from the lay from the ground. From from why genuinely fair, there is because I've had a lot of these engagements with young people, especially because my demographic is my 18 to 35. There can be confusion. Yeah,

01:25:41 --> 01:25:45

forget about what the letter of like we're not literalist, in the sense that you know,

01:25:46 --> 01:25:52

exactly what he said. And the word is that it can be construed and certain.

01:25:53 --> 01:26:25

Can we, on this topic here on these kind of topics that we just talked about? Can we tighten up in terms of making the position very clear? Can we is can we do it? re edit or rethinking? Or, you said that you're going to move more into this kind of perspective on things? Can we reflect that in the writings of the brand, I think that that's something could, based on the feedback that we've been getting from from the ground from people that are just observers and being confused by some of those words, or using it as ammunition to do certain things which are in Islamic or even make arguments.

01:26:27 --> 01:26:37

Okay, would be a good idea? I mean, I mean, I think that on the second thing that insulting the Prophet is, that's what I'm definitely getting feedback on. That was,

01:26:39 --> 01:26:43

like, you know, it gave me a chance to correct what I you know, correct myself.

01:26:45 --> 01:27:17

But, you know, I also want to make it feel like I didn't write some article, where I laid out this argument for why I wanted to say it's okay to insult but like, you know what, this was, yeah, I was literally I think I was like, 8pm on a day where I had gone. So I was given a talk in Birmingham, to talks in Birmingham. A talk in ox High Wycombe. I mean, literally, it was like, six hours of talks. It was like the end of six hours of talks, right? I know what you mean, and the q&a, right. And?

01:27:18 --> 01:27:53

And so I mean, I don't I obviously, have, I've already told you my position, or what I said, right. But I mean, yeah, it's not like I wrote an essay where I drew attention to this. In fact, I would actually say that if someone wanted to criticize me, they should have contacted me personally, and said, Hey, man, I just saw this, what do you think, instead of just some of these people wrote, like, started tweeting about this and being looked at horrible Jonathan Brown is, which I actually considered a pretty low, you know, if you really care about me, if you really care about honoring the Prophet, then then tell me about it. And I would immediately had them take that out of the

01:27:53 --> 01:28:21

video, right? But instead, now let us know he will do they want to go and get their pound of flesh and, and insult their brother and stuff like that? So, um, I would say about the the thing about the LGBT issue, I think that what we definitely should do your clean is to write another because this thing needs to be discussed again, because the reality has changed so much. Yeah. And the issues have changed, right. So gay marriage is not an issue anymore. There's a lot more issues around

01:28:23 --> 01:28:36

education in schools, notions of what gender is what sexuality is, you know, issues around trans rights. And so those ways are much more pressing. And I think that needs to be written about what's your view on this transgender toilets?

01:28:38 --> 01:28:54

Oh, yeah, this is I think it's so funny. People get so upset. I don't understand people get so upset about this. So like, you might know my gym, you know, we are in our neighborhood, which I haven't been to for God knows how long because this COVID-19 thing, but you go in there and it's like one room and there's like a bunch of old dudes showering,

01:28:55 --> 01:29:09

you know, totally naked. When I was in boarding school. I spent four years showering with like, 20 other guys in one big room playing hockey and trying not to get peed on. That was what we spent four years doing right? Yeah.

01:29:11 --> 01:29:22

I will. I don't want that for my kids. Right. I don't want I have to take my kids to the bathroom. When I go to the gym. I take no swimming lessons. I have to go and be like, you know, don't don't look.

01:29:23 --> 01:29:42

Oh my god. Can I say something? It was really funny. Actually, I think this is okay. Like there's there's this guy. There's all these naked old guys in there. Right? So I'm like going through I'm like, kind of like guys can't don't look at this stuff. Right? So this one guy standing there. And my kid thank God I taught them to speak Arabic because he's like,

01:29:43 --> 01:29:52

they should rule higher than men do. Men do sting do men do still do. I sound like nah and ended up with a script like this.

01:29:53 --> 01:29:59

It's like, so scared. If you said that in English. It would have been the end of the world, right? I don't know. If you want to edit that.

01:30:00 --> 01:30:23

out or not, but it was pretty. My point is, my point is like, this is what I don't want to happen. What do I want? It's very simple. You go to a bathroom, there's a door, open the door, there's a shower, there's a toilet or if you're not in a gym, there's a toilet, right? You go to the door. None of this, like space under the bathroom. None of this. You can see through the cracks. I'm looking at your You said you want men and woman to be in the same toilet?

01:30:24 --> 01:30:46

No, what are you talking about? No. I don't want. I don't want anybody. I don't want anybody to be in the same toilet with anybody else. Okay, so right. So you go into a room. Imagine this, you know, an English in you guys have water closet. I want a water closet, right? You go and there's a closet, you go into the toilet, and no one else is in there. That's what I want.

01:30:47 --> 01:30:48

And that's exactly

01:30:50 --> 01:31:25

what I didn't even look at. To be honest. I just someone said because I don't know, because people are crazy. I'm not sure what their what they think. But they somehow they think that I want like men and women, you know going to the bathroom or next to each other. So but that's not what I'm saying. If you you have a sink a bathroom, it's not even a stall, right? It's a door. I don't know if you've seen this in under Have you seen this in like your universities and stuff? Or buildings, right? So there's like a an offseason is like a men's room now and there's a women's room, which has multiple toilets in them. And then there's like a they have this like gender neutral bathroom, which is just

01:31:25 --> 01:31:37

one. It's like just one toilet. It's only one person, one person you're saying. Yeah, that's what I want is everything is just a bunch of one person toilets. None of this like multiple toilets. What's that got to do? Why does it have to be gender specific? Like what?

01:31:38 --> 01:31:44

What's the agenda discussion about this? Because that's the same thing that a lot of trans advocates want?

01:31:45 --> 01:32:01

Or they just want that. Nope, they don't just want that. Right. But they want that, sir. In terms of bathrooms. A lot of trans advocates want to have bathrooms that are just like, gender neutral, single use single stall. So you don't have to be

01:32:02 --> 01:32:07

the man or the woman going in together? No, no, my God, this is Adobe. It'd be a nightmare. I would never use

01:32:09 --> 01:32:29

I mean, who I don't know anybody who wants that even women like even women get upset about this. So like, you know, you can't go in and like women that you know, women go to the bathroom if they put makeup on. It's like a safe space. They talk basically like a disabled toilet what you're saying? Yes, exactly. Exactly. And I love I go to those all the time you can make will do it. No one's gonna bother. Yeah, exactly.

01:32:30 --> 01:32:34

The sink is usually quite low, isn't it? It was not a problem for me. Maybe for you?

01:32:37 --> 01:32:37


01:32:39 --> 01:32:45

Yeah. Yeah. I've seen some of your videos with that. You're like a black belt in Egyptian Kung Fu, aren't you?

01:32:48 --> 01:32:48

If only

01:32:49 --> 01:32:58

we had civilized, we had a good enough civilization and culture to do that. What's the most libertarian government out there? I think it's South Africa. Right? I don't know.

01:32:59 --> 01:33:28

Yeah, it's got to be South African. If that's the case. And we should see that. You know, there's a lot of stuff going to thrive in South Africa, where we're fighting these fights against really like an increasing cultural fascism. Right? Yeah. And what it's doing is it's hardening, it's also hardening the Muslims, right. And when they're hardening, whether we realize it or not, they're actually taking a lot of it out on their own kind of people were actually on their side who may have made an expression or a statement that they didn't really,

01:33:29 --> 01:34:11

that wasn't exactly perfect, or according to them perfect, or whatever. We have this culture of making Muslims, as a listener do are really uncomfortable with their own kind is a big problem. The bad we always say, never scare your kids, because your kids will then seek happiness outside of the home. Right? It will seek security and fulfillment outside of the home. So they said always, when you discipline your kids, keep that in mind. Likewise, when we have people doing commanding, right, forbidding wrong and trying to get to the right, you know, results and conclusion of things. If they do this in a way that disgusts and injures, in fact, other dots who are venison as well trying to do

01:34:11 --> 01:34:51

the same thing, right? Then what they're gonna do is people are going to click off they're not going to go online anymore, and many people will not benefit from them. Whereas had they had a moderate of discussion with them then the point would have been corrected and the people who still benefit right so there's everyone benefits but what's going on now is I don't know what it is people pent up frustration with COVID-19 Why is it that Twitter I this is what I see I don't know if you tell me it's been taken over by dislike had a giant attitudes of if you have one mistake one thing we're going to meet you to death we're gonna attack you have people have no name.

01:34:52 --> 01:34:53

To be honest for me, I

01:34:54 --> 01:34:57

have that you know my myself but

01:34:58 --> 01:34:59

to be honest, I think is good for myself.

01:35:00 --> 01:35:10

gloss black is really good because when you just consistently Praise, praise, Praise, praise it, that's the worst thing for your, like psychospiritual state like sometimes you just need to get the spray.

01:35:12 --> 01:35:15

But would you do that to somebody else's? And do

01:35:18 --> 01:35:32

those those guys those rodents how that flies? Yeah, these the they have a function and the function is to keep us could see these these cockroaches that's their like, sort of cockroaches and rats and hyenas really hyenas.

01:35:33 --> 01:35:46

They like to attack someone at the moment that they're down and laugh at it. In the meanwhile, we don't even know his name. He's like go Evo something or some silly name or whatever, their boss? No, almost.

01:35:47 --> 01:36:25

I think that we really, it's hard to direct it because we're directing it at a general audience. But this culture, to me is disgusting. And it's almost like, Yeah, and I do this, why am I part of this? You know, it's actually true. And what I wanted to ask you guys is maybe as a general advice now, because you guys have spoken about some of the controversies. People, I'm sure full of some of you guys's work, and I've read some of your stuff, and certainly has been effective. I mean, to be, because we've spoke about all the controversies, like some of the stuff that historical analysis done from Brown on slavery, as I believe, genuinely saved some people's man, I genuinely believe

01:36:25 --> 01:36:50

that and surely must have been so as familiar with your work until quite recently. But once again, I'm very sure that people have benefited from that can can ask from you guys now, for people that are suffering from doubts. I mean, this is something yaqeen Institute has focused on quite often quite a lot. They're adults and trying to rectify them. And what kind of things would you recommend this either actions or readings or

01:36:51 --> 01:37:03

for people that Muslims are growing up in a little bit confused with these topics of controversy within Islam, like slavery? Like, you know, I don't know how dude, but you've also written about

01:37:04 --> 01:37:05

apostasy, all these things?

01:37:07 --> 01:37:28

What kind of general advice? Would you give a closing advice would you give to people in regards to dealing with it out? and tackling some of these intellectual challenges? Let's talk about the shotgun angle. All right. So I would say look, yeah, you don't look at the specifics. Look at the source. And ask yourself, do you trust in the source?

01:37:29 --> 01:37:48

If your answer is, I want 100% believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that their words have been protected. And you know, the understanding of Islam and the media and the mainstream media is what they intended. Okay, so there's two parts to it.

01:37:50 --> 01:38:06

And I trust in Allah and His messenger. And I know that they are there, they have more knowledge than any of us are going to have. They have more wisdom, they have more mercy. And they're seeking benefit for humanity. Okay, more than I will ever want those things or possess those qualities.

01:38:07 --> 01:38:11

If that's Foundation, is there stabilized, then

01:38:12 --> 01:38:33

it's a matter of just remembering that whenever one of their rulings does not sit with my head, and I just have to remember, who will allow you I don't want to latch on him. That's how simple it is. I'm not coming, I might not be comfortable with a specific matter, then I should recuse myself, because I've already been trusted. I've already trusted the foundation.

01:38:34 --> 01:38:42

And so I should remember that it's me who myself who may not understand may Yes, temporarily feel a hardship. Okay. And maybe I've

01:38:44 --> 01:39:23

maybe I've misunderstood their ruling to begin with, as well. So I have to look at who am I learning from because I may have been learning from someone who's not clear. So these are the points that anytime that this happens, we should go to these simple points of remember who you trust, make sure you've understood their words properly, because maybe you have misunderstood, number two. And number three, remember to accuse yourself, if you truly understood and I still feeling something, why am I feeling something Who am I? Right? Look at me and look at the universe, Allah created this universe, right. So if we just go back to the source, and realize that and also just study with the right

01:39:23 --> 01:39:29

sources is the right sources of education may clarify what you have misunderstood about the revelation.

01:39:33 --> 01:39:44

I mean, I would say, you know, I would say I would start by second which Shadi said in the second part, which is you know, you have to find people who you respect people who are good teachers.

01:39:45 --> 01:39:59

And you have to find more than one right so like, you know, there's often you hear people say like master fed dementia can best fit together the Messiah, right? So like, you, you you have, if you you have to, it's really this is this is it's tough, man. It's really tough.

01:40:00 --> 01:40:18

for Muslims in the West, and I mean, I think it's probably true for Muslims in the Muslim world too. But it's really, really, really tough because it's really hard to find good teachers, it's hard to find people who can, who know this tradition really well, who understand the reality around them really well. And then who understand how to put the two together that is very rare.

01:40:20 --> 01:40:43

But between online lectures between people, you know, in your community between books, I think there's resources out there Ukraine tries to be that type of resource shadie Safina society tries to do that kind of reverse shoddy teaching is one of those resources Chinese books that he's written a book on towhee that I have an Akita, which is very good. Maybe you can do classes like that online shot, no, if you already have that, we gotta

01:40:44 --> 01:41:21

put those out for people, right? Um, so finding people that you trust, and but also realize that those are people right. So that's why I think you have to have more than one and then we've seen a lot of this, unfortunately, last couple years, right? somebody puts their all their like, for them, Islam becomes tied to this one, do I die? Yeah, this one shift, and that person has some kind of problem and then that person then that that Muslims, man is crushed, they don't know what to do. You don't remember, these are not our people. scholars are people leaders are people, they have their own problems, their their imperfections, right. And especially they face the temptations. When you

01:41:21 --> 01:41:28

become a public personality, you are faced with temptations that you never imagined having before that, right.

01:41:30 --> 01:41:43

Okay, so that's the first thing. The second thing I'd say is, and this is this is really what I've tried to hit over and over and over again, in my writings in my lectures, which is have some humility.

01:41:45 --> 01:42:28

Our world, the modern world is a world of immense arrogance, in which, whatever the latest thing is, it's correct. It's the best everything else before that was wrong. And that is not we are human beings, we are species, we are an animal, we are a rational animal. We belong to a tradition that has been around for 1000s of years, that has received the wisdom of God for 1000s of years, right? That has been raising kids and eating food and making bread and drinking milk for 1000s of years. And the idea that somehow, we're going to come around and come up with some totally new vision about how we're gonna think about reality and our species and our bodies and everything. And somehow,

01:42:28 --> 01:43:04

we're going to go and prescribe this for everybody else, when we literally don't even know it's really its result on our own society. I mean, look, you know, my parents, and your, you know, Chinese parents, your they were like the hippies, you know, the 60s and 70s generation, we don't even have one full generation of people who lived through the sexual revolution, let alone seeing what that does their kids, let alone seeing what that what recent developments have done to families and to society, and to go and say that not only does everybody in the world have to live this way, but if you don't view the world this way, that you're some kind of monster, that is the pinnacle of

01:43:04 --> 01:43:40

arrogance. And it's not just arrogant, it's it's highly unwise. I mean, we do go in and take a medicine and say, without even seeing its effect on someone's body over the long term, but when prescribe this for everyone else in the world, and tell everyone else in the world, that they're a horrible person, if they don't take this medicine or accept it. This is extremely unwise, it's unwise for us as a species to make these kind of, to have this arrogance about the modern period about the present. So that's what I try over and over again, is, is if you really study the past, you realize how giant and enormous and wide human experiences and you stop being what makes us a

01:43:40 --> 01:44:17

loan. And what makes us afraid, is when we look at our religion, and we look at our beliefs that were taught, and we put them against these, these present standards that are given to us that are, reign over us all around us. We feel terrible. When you look into the past, you realize that this is a long story. We're not alone. There's huge variety in our species, and in our experience in our history, and that becomes something that's comforting. That's why when I wrote this book on slavery, that's like, I wanted to understand for myself, how do I morally make sense of this? Like, I'm not some kind of monster, like I hear about slavery, It disgusts me. How do I make sense of this? as a

01:44:17 --> 01:44:30

Muslim, that's what I wanted to do and what the conclusion I came to, which really helped me and I hope help other people is like it once you realize it, you know, in the grand scheme of human history, that these moral certainties are simply not moral certainties.

01:44:31 --> 01:44:59

That is a very liberating, it's very liberating thing. And I think that humility, it gives you peace, it makes you a more productive, helpful member of society, a member of society to understand that other people might have different views than you that you still have to live together and deal with one another. Which is by the way, something that people in our society in the UK in Britain are increasingly not willing to do right. Okay, those are my Those are my two things might be advice. I love bless you both has been a pleasant, very pleasant

01:45:00 --> 01:45:09

And action packed podcasts. And obviously you guys are welcome anytime to join me again on this podcast. Thank you very much man.

01:45:10 --> 01:45:13

I was able to get to

Share Page

Related Episodes