Numan Attique – Have Muslims Become Orientalists
AI: Summary ©
The speakers emphasize the importance of understanding the "verbal" concept of modernity and the need for practical lessons to be taken. They stress the importance of learning and protecting one's faith in various fields, including psychology and political science. The speakers also emphasize the need for structured learning to change the paradigm of shroom and create a human being. They argue that modernity is rooted in one's emotions and that individuals should not be just trying to achieve their goals but rather interested in their emotions to achieve their goals. The use of the British permanent system of society culture is deeply ethical, and the system is the body of scholarship that makes claim to it. The speakers also touch on the importance of objectivity and the use of the WOMADIX curriculum and project.
AI: Summary ©
I would like to welcome all of you
back to the 4th episode
of our podcast, Rooh Revival.
We're
after a 2 month hiatus.
So
I hope you guys all had a wonderful
break, wonderful wonderful break. And, may Allah fill
your days with happiness and prosperity.
Before we get started, I'd like to send
a special thank you to the Graduate Students
Association for sponsoring this episode. So thank you
to the GSA.
And,
I don't want to spend too much time
on introduction.
We're gonna get right into the discussion or
the topic of discussion.
Today's topic will be about the
about Orientalism. Have Muslims become Orientalists?
How often do we, as Muslims, turn to
the criticism
that is raised
about the West
from the Islamic perspective? Of course, you hear
a lot of secular arguments. But often, we
look at it from the Islamic perspective,
and, you know, it's becoming incredibly
common to hear understandable criticisms about the West,
especially
under the current circumstances.
And you often hear the, the, you know,
the clear dichotomy between the the Muslim world
and the Western world. And this becomes so
common that sometimes you feel that the,
you know, we're falling into the,
like, this criticism seems to adopt the same
or similar characteristics to the classical Orientalism, which
labels, you know, the West versus the rest.
So by engaging in this discussion, how are
we really benefiting the Ummah, or,
are we doing more harm than good? So
that will be some of the questions that
we hope to answer. Of course, I would
like, before we get started, to introduce our
esteemed guest, sheikh,
Norman Atiyik.
Sheikh
Sheikh Naman
is, has memorized the Quran at the age
of 13
and has continued to study the sciences of
Sharia for approximately a decade in Riyadh in
Saudi Arabia. He graduated from a 5 year
dawah and Sharia program in Riyadh from the
Ministry of Islamic Affairs and also has an
undergraduate degree in human kinetics at the University
of Guelph. He is currently the imam of
the Muslim Association of Hamilton.
Sheikh Naman is currently pursuing a 10 plus
year specialization
in Al Mir Aqidah from Mecca under the
supervision of doctor Sultan Al Umairi, a well
known theologian.
May Allah preserve Sheikh Salman. Hello, Marami. Hello,
let's get started with the discussion.
I think
the word Orientalism is something that, it's a
very common word. I'm sure, like most of
us, if not everyone has heard it, but,
I don't think
everyone clearly knows what it means. And, of
course, it's not the most
straightforward
definition that's been used, obviously, in different contexts,
and under and in different,
I guess, yeah, different contexts. So before we
get started, can you introduce to us the
concept of Orientalism,
especially
as popularized by doctor Abdul Saeed?
I
yeah.
And how does
how does Orientalism
manifest here in the west?
Sure.
I really appreciate being invited. And may Allah
bless everybody's organized this. Everybody's here given their
time,
and allow it to be beneficial. So
as you kind of said, Orientalism
is
it's a word that ever since the ending
of the 19 seventies when Edward Sarris first
wrote his book in 1979,
it's become a staple word in,
most humanities studies. It's not something that you'll
find to be rare. You know, Accusations of
Orientalism are always thrown around. Anybody who starts
talking about the Islamic world, the Eastern world
from the West is,
potentially an Orientalist.
Whether you be Muslim or non Muslim.
And,
you know, in popular usage, the word the
orient is generally used to describe Far East
culture,
thought, philosophy,
people,
you know, aesthetics,
and so on.
Edouard Saied's definition of Orientalism
revolves around 2 major
pillars,
constructs.
In our tradition we talk about Alcan, right?
You talk about pillars.
So his definition of Orientalism
stands on 2 pillars. The first is representation
and the second is via this representation
political,
power.
Political power over the orient, which is the
east. So the occident is the west, and
the orient is what you're orienting yourselves to.
So the two things that, are the are
the is representation,
and the second is power, political power over,
those who you are representing.
And he speaks of the word orient to
occident because it has to do with, like,
you know, like how you're on that side
of the table. Right? So I'm orienting myself
towards you. Right? And so there's this distance
between us, and that distance will always
otherize
the other.
This is
the key notion
of Orientalism,
which then
it it kind of took off and it
became its own genre,
its own study,
within
post coloniality,
within the study of the post colonial. Right?
And,
you know, so many scholars say for the
time, it was very
beneficial, for sure.
Now
I feel like personally, we can't speak of
Orientalism
without,
shall we say
deconstructing it, without criticizing it very heavily.
And the reason for that is because
what Orientalism
went out to achieve,
it did not do. It actually missed it
entirely.
Right? And
somebody who's very,
very,
very important
when it comes to
furthering this discussion,
these ideas is Wa'il Hallaq
in his book Restating Orientalism.
Right? Because as you know, Wa'il Hallaq
is
a Christian, Palestinian, Edward Said Christian, Palestinian,
Edward Said, University of Columbia, and now he
has the exact same seat as him. So
I felt like it was like
a to be type of, situation.
So what what he does, and he gives
some very good tools for us to analyze
this subject, which is that look, this entire
discussion of Orientalism is extremely
lacking
because
it's taking
sheep to be wolves.
He's saying you're talking about Orientalism as if
it's this very unique special
science
that has come about
that has nothing to do with anything else.
That's not true.
This very distinction
you're talking about,
let's put it like this, this very distinction
you're talking about, it where does it come
from? If you say it's racism,
if you say it's distance,
then why is it that we never found
oriental studies in the Islamic world, which was
at its peak for a 1000 years?
Why is it that the Bu'kha didn't create
orientalism?
Why is it that we instead we have
almir al nahad, you know,
the study of others, you know, theologies, nations,
and civilizations that ikhilims,
right?
But why is it? We have an episode
of ikhilims. Oh, interesting.
With the star of Narashid.
I kind of gave it away, but why
is it that orientalism
does what it does, and is what it
is? Why orientalism?
Why this distinction?
Right? If you say it's racism, are we
saying that racism never existed before?
At the very basic level of it distinguishing
between,
not white and black, so on and so
forth. Where is it? It existed. But why
didn't we have Orientalism?
So he says that, look,
this discussion has deeper issues, which is that
one of the things that he really tackles
in the book is
what type of knowledge is orientalism
and why does it give rise
to such type of effects,
such atha, such influences.
Right?
And,
so he he gets into the epistemic
formations,
the nalariyatul marifa
of modernity.
Right? And how these structures
of knowledge are unique
not only to orientalism,
but modern
knowledge itself. So that's why in the subtitle
of the book is a Critique of Modern
Knowledge. Right? It's quite fitting.
So what he does is he just, you
know, he says it quite aptly in the
introduction. He says, I took the boat that
Edward Said set out with, and I take
it in an entire different direction
towards the actual
problem, which is the epistemic one.
Which is when we're talking about, look, are
Muslims,
you know, seeing themselves as oriental? This is
a valid issue. Right? And this issue is
not stemming from orientalism,
it's stemming from how we conceive how we
do the sabwar of knowledge.
Modern knowledge you know we hear this saying
quite a lot I'm not sure who it's
originally said by but the one that knowledge
is power.
Knowledge is power. Right?
Nobody from our toil'ath, nobody from our traditions
ever said that.
Why is it that modern knowledge specifically, uniquely,
is that which gives rise
to power?
So,
Waheed Hallap calls modern knowledge a type of
knowledge
that not only is used for *,
but it has a complete
free will and power. So he calls it
sovereign knowledge,
Calls it knowledge that exists for itself
with no other reason to be. Right?
And this can only occur according to him,
and this is any,
you know, this is accepted,
which is
when you divorce the is and ought dichotomy.
Right? When you can talk about
real politicking
and let alone the ideals. So listen, this
is how politics are. This is how it
is. This is how the world is. Deal
with it. This is the is
and not the ought. The ought.
And another wording for this is the the
distinction between value and fact,
right, within modernity.
This is at the very this is at
the very center,
of this discussion of modern knowledge which is
when you divorce
the ethical, the moral
from
the
from that which is knowledge.
Right?
And this leads you to a type of
knowledge that exists for itself. And
what that ends up doing is it becomes
a tool
for power.
So one of the questions that what Halakh
asks
is leading from orientalism
is why why then is it that Islamic
knowledge was never used this way? Why is
it that Islamic knowledge was never used
to enact power in this manner?
And his answer is because our knowledge was
innately ethical.
You know, it our knowledge was to create
within us
atat techniques, tools of the self, you know,
from the sharia
and from tizqih, which is also known as
soul.
Right? And so it's to formulate something else,
and it's dissipated within
the general
grassroots,
consciousness of the Muslim masses.
Nobody can say that I can control the
sharia.
I know. You might have exceptions, but just
like I have exceptions to democracy.
They still work within
the domain of the democratic. So Trump, you
know, he was called oh you're so non
democratic, you're so etc. But he's still working
within what paradigm? He's working within the paradigm
of democracy.
And so just like that,
the sharia
and
the fawuf,
they build a type of ma'ifah, they build
a type of knowing, an oasis, a knowledge
that is deeply ethical,
that serves the deeper reasons for being.
You can't take knowledge
and call it knowledge without the ethical.
It's as if you have collectibles that you
can just bring together without any
reason for them. So basically modern knowledge in
and of itself, the way we conceive of
knowledge,
the way we
understand knowledge, the way we seek it
is deeply problematic.
And part of that issue is Orientalism
and how that gave rise, sovereign knowledge,
gave rise to a type of knowledge which
is Orientalism
and coloniality
and you know genocidal knowledge. Knowledge that is
used to
weaponize power to kill. Not to say that
colonization never occurred before,
which is usually something that people will respond
back with. Well, isn't it just then that
people before also colonized
and, you know, they used power and they
were bad to people, the people who they
conquered?
Of course, that was the case. But to
say they
are equivalent,
they are the same
between
modern knowledge, what it does, and how it
tries to rule over everything,
how it creates a new insight. It creates
a new human being.
It's so it's very anti human
and it's and it creates a new type
of human being, a new subjectivity.
So, the point, I guess we can summarize
this entire question and say can knowledge be
subjective?
The answer is knowledge is only subjective. Subjective
to what? Your ethical and moral paradigm.
Outside of that, there is no knowledge. And
if you were to clean knowledge outside of
that then it's absolutely useless.
What benefit is knowledge that does not have
a perspective?
That's not knowledge anymore. It's quite useless to
anybody.
Do you follow? Right? Even science itself, it
works off of, you know, the philosophy of
science. It works off of theories, you know.
There's no such thing as purely empirical science.
That's that's not a thing, you know.
And, you know, Kuhn and others
who were at the core of this whole
resuscitation of the field of scientific theory,
were heavily heavily,
involved in this and Foucault took from this
and basically everybody else who comes after does
the same thing,
So the point is Orientalism is more harmful
in its creation, in its establishment
because
what project was it serving? It was serving
the liberal capitalistic,
secular humanistic project, Right? Which still took the
same presuppositions.
So basically, Edward Said wasn't able to really
get to the truth of the problem. So,
you know, okay, Carlos, say for instance, we
go we go with what he's saying. You
know? For the sake of argument, you know?
We go with what he's saying and you
say, Marche,
we can't do any distinction,
of the other. The moment you start representing
them, the moment you start talking about them,
you have now
misrepresented them. You have now spoke so effectively,
you can't even speak about Islam anymore.
Let alone China, Hinduism, etc. You can play
any for our purposes, you can't speak about
Islam?
Yeah. You'd either be a bigoted or an
exoticizer. I think that's a term. Exactly. You're
either a bigoted or an
exoticizer.
And what that means is then no I
I mean, what the question that that then
is being begged to ask is
effectively in your world view,
Islam has no real value.
Right? Because it's equal, it's equal to everything
that we do. No no you can't talk
about it because it's equal.
It's equal to a
set of maiil, a set of standards,
and those standards are secular liberal modern. Do
you follow? So effectively Islam is and must
be secular liberal modern. Do you follow what
I'm saying? So
much can be said but I hope that
gives an idea as to why,
the category
of
oriental studies in and of themselves in post
Edward Said era, which was meant to be
a rehabilitation,
a proper rectification
representation,
whatever else, how that's deeply problematic because
everything that's happened after that time, all post
colonial sayy that's occurred after that time, it
hasn't really been
beneficial to the Muslims. It hasn't changed anything.
We have we've had more wars,
we've had more
neocolonial power in the east in the Middle
East than ever before. Right?
So, yeah, I mean,
it it what did it really do? It
didn't do anything because it didn't solve the
deeper problem. It couldn't because it was working
within that paradigm. It worked within that structure,
that
what
what Allah would call that central domain, that
paradigmatic
structure, and it cannot see its own biases.
In fact almost all modern scholars cannot see
their bias because they work within that epistemic
structure.
And it's not only epistemic, it's ontological,
it's what we live, we breathe, we see,
the way we function in the world, it's
all within that scope, within that central domain.
Yes. It's interesting. You mentioned
the idea that knowledge is, used to control.
Knowledge is used to roll over
and subjugate.
And,
you see, like, a lot of the oriental
studies, they, the attacks that they
the attacks that they make against the science
of Hadith, for example, and they they make
the same claims because that's the paradigm that
they know. That's the the the one way
they know of,
I guess, utilizing this kind of knowledge. You
see all these claims they make about Imam
Zuri and, the scholars of Hadith, specifically how,
the science of hadith was was a political
tool.
It's just very,
but, obviously, all of it has been refuted.
And there's,
like, Sheikh Mustafa Sabai. Mhmm. I think that
was the Yeah. Yes. It's interesting. It's interesting
to see how they try to shoehorn a
lot of these values into our knowledge, into
our,
heritage.
No. No. Absolutely. I mean, that's a very
good example. Let's just let's just go off
of that one because it's the most well
known one in in,
at least in the EINI circles, right, of
of the critics of hadith and how they
wrote volumes
on this, subhanAllah, right, volumes on this, and
things that we still benefit from up till
today ironically, right?
Let's take that example and let's kind of
broaden it a little bit, right? Let's look
at its structure so that we can take
the theory that we just spoke about and
apply it to the scenario.
What was their problem
with the Hadid studies?
Their
essential problem
was that
this type of knowledge
is scattered,
is something that is not structured in a
way that
modernity
is comfortable. It's not centralized.
It's not something that can be controlled.
It's not something that can be regulated.
You can't put it into a penal code,
a law,
aqa'inoon.
You can't do it to that.
And so
by virtue of it being
dissolved into the masses of scholarship
and now one person being able to claim
sovereignty,
hukum, over the science, it's problematic.
Do you follow what I'm saying? Interesting. You
know,
like, say for instance, when we talk about
Asha'i being
the reviver
of fiqh and usul and its paradigms,
even he can't make claim
to fiqh itself. He can't make claim to
usul itself. He merely just
organized it in a fashion to push it
forward. Right? Within his own research, within his
own manners,
he gave he gave verbiage, language,
to to that which was already known. Nothing
new.
Yeah. He got it from the ether and
formulated it into a gisada. Precisely. Right? All
he did was he just simply gave words
to what was already known. Right?
This for modern knowledge,
it it it doesn't make any sense.
It it needs to be that which can
be
controlled, that which can be used. And if
it can't be used for the political,
if it can't be used for the state
at the service of the state, then it's
not real practical knowledge.
So this is why usually when we when
we ask the question, what type of practical
lessons do I have from this? There's very
good much of leiany, I want sala, I
want ameria, I want actual actions that I
can have from this. That's that's phenomenal. But
the underlying premise here is how does this
affect my material
physical
world around me? Do you follow what I'm
saying? Right? And that's deeply problematic because,
those are things that are controlled by the
state structure, right? And that's the only type
of knowledge that is, acceptable. So the reason
why they delved into it in this nature
is not to,
is to show
the inconsistency
of structure,
epistemic structure,
in hadith studies, in the corpus of hadith,
and say, look because of these reasons, because
no one person can make claim to it,
I can't put it in a code and
be able to do it in this way.
It is
lacking. It is
backwards.
It's too traditional
and it can be used. Does that make
sense? Truthfully, it's, too complicated for them. It's
not it's not, backwards. It's all quite the
opposite.
Like, if you, compare it to the western
academia now, I I think,
a lot of people will be surprised.
I mean, that we like, we land ourselves
what we have.
I mean,
This
is why the like,
you know,
Ali Madini. Ali Madini. And Imam Sheik Mokha.
You know, they were said to be like,
sahras, magicians, you know, they could they could
listen to hadith and be like, this is
life, this is this, because of the subtle
subtle hidden fact that we couldn't come to,
right?
And the reason for this is because our
knowledge was deeply ethical, like the
force that was moving the hadith corpus, the
hadith study, the riyama, the jahabi of hadith,
was not
you know just some physical empirical standards,
even though that was obviously the outcome that
they had, the depth and veracity of knowledge
that is, it cannot be mastered even if
you spent your entire life,
being having memorized a million hadith and athar
and being the greatest imam of athar,
you know by by by all of the
Muwaddithian standards,
the reason was deeply ethical.
It was
knowing what God I said know God, know
his akhiam, know his rules and know how
to live life by that ethical standard. So
the the proper domain of push was ethical.
In the modern world that makes no sense.
It doesn't it doesn't make sense to study
something for its deeper ethical,
paradigm because it doesn't exist anymore. Knowledge just
is. It just is. Like people will study,
you know, their entire life a specific subject,
do their PhDs in it. And if you
ask them why did you do it, they
won't really be able to tell you why.
Right? So this is a basic level, being
able to give you a reason, let alone
the ethical standard underneath which this makes sense.
This is beneficial to, the world. So,
secular humanism,
secularism,
capitalism, and liberalism, when you kinda bring them
all together,
they become very anti human
because a human being is deeply ethical. He
deeply stands for something, you know.
But this divorce, this distinction
between the is and the ought, between the
fact and the value,
leads to sovereign knowledge,
as Wael Hallam calls it.
And this is then at the disposal
and the usage
of the modern state, which is the representation
of modernity at its,
you
know, at its basic law.
Zach Mahir,
I think,
we mentioned this before the,
the the the recording, but,
you see there's,
it's probably human nature as if people just,
really focus on others and focus on the
divisions,
standard divisions. So you have, even within religious
circles, you'll have,
I guess, debates and, just focus on other
groups other groups. So in the west, it's
the same thing. So, I guess, a different
manifestation of a similar concept. The idea that
Muslims in the west, we have a,
let's say, like, there's there's a lot of
focus that's being placed on other ideologies, other,
other,
you know, other theories, other perspectives.
And,
how do you think that affects us as
Muslims?
So I guess I'll,
let's talk about it from the perspective
of
the general
and then the specific. Inshallah.
Right?
In general,
I would say it's quite healthy to be
able to recognize that we live in a
world that has a new being, a new
way, a new world view. And that world
view needs to be understood if you need
to be able to move forward
in not the progressive sense of the theology
of progress, that data of progress, which is
uniquely materialistic and, you know, it just assumes
a lot about the world and, you know,
we don't believe that. I guess we'll we
can get into that maybe.
But,
it's very important, you know, because,
you know, to have a proper hokum is
it's
just a branch of your conceptualization
of it. If you're not able to conceptualize
something correctly,
you won't be able to solve the problem.
And, this is why, you know,
Major Ollama
were part of the movements.
They
were
so successful
in being able to penetrate the masses
because they gave words to issues
that
know, if you just come from a traditional
circle of, like,
or even, like, any med have or just
tradition, you won't be able to give words
to them. Okay. So by,
by focusing on these different ideologies and theories,
do you think that kind of, makes
like, we're at risk of making Islam more
of a reactionary movement because we're spending so
much time and effort and energy,
like, just learning and focusing on these other
ideologies,
and sometimes we forget our own.
So this question
is,
you know, it can be expanded into different
areas. Right? The question of are we focused,
are we are we really too focused in
on,
the out, you know, the questions of the
outside and the forces from outside.
And I think the question in itself assumes
that we're not already living something that was
made from the outside, right? That we're not
living underneath modern nation states, that we're not
living underneath systems that are inherently non Islamic,
that came from the outside,
and that, you know we're focusing too much
on it. But I can recognize and I
deeply appreciate,
the sentiment
which is that there is no moving forward
without our tuath. There is no moving forward
without a depth of connection to
the Quran and sunnah. A depth of connection
to the Madahib al Fakhriyah,
to everything that's written within
siyasa
and everything
moving forward. And to be able to see
ourselves
within the vision, in the mirror of the
seal of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.
If these things were to be
left, then what is there? Absolutely. We just
become a reactionary
group,
a post
colonial,
postmodern,
faction that's just competing,
for a revisioning of modernity.
And, you know, to be honest, that's not
our goal. Our goal is,
you know, the very clear cut tawhid of
Allah
His oneness,
His sovereignty,
His beauty,
submission to Him, turning to Him. Right? And
so,
you know, Sheikh Baran says something very beautiful.
I think it is in his
talibur
of the Quran where he says that,
he says
he he says the exact same thing where
he says some people are so caught up
in studying
these ideologies
and, you know, the humanities.
And to be honest,
if they were only to give
even half of that time to doing the
proper reading of the Quran,
they would find all their answers with it.
Right? They would find that this is more
beneficial to them and structuring and giving them
answers to the deep questions of existence
and being human than
they ever would in being able to critique
other ideologies.
So there's a place for both of these.
In my
very limited
and
humble
understanding.
I believe that
the the dua of the populace,
needs to be only and only,
Quran and Sunnah and based off of the
Siya and being able to reform. And I
know that word carries the modernistic tendency behind
it, but that's not the one I'm using.
I mean
and actually reform as to
the vision,
of not
progress,
but the way we have always worked, which
is
true ethical moral progress came to a conclusion
with the revelation
of the prophet sallallahu, right?
And
so,
actually Shoaib Akhtar says in his book, the
Quran in the Secular Mind, he says that
from that point onwards we went from a
point of
revelation
to an era of contemplation.
Contemplation over the completion
of the project of humanity.
The the human project itself was completed,
at an ethical moral point with the death
of the prophet sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam. Right? And so
without a shadow of a doubt the the
dua, the populace is
referring back to the Quran, the sunnah connection
to it, but at the same time bringing
about awareness
of that the modern standards that we do
live by. And when I'm using modern hair,
I guess I'm using in both ways, the
epoch sense of it and, you know, the
the temporaneous sense of it and also the
ideological
worldview sense of it that, these are not
our standards, these are not our to live
by,
but they have been enforced upon us. And
so, going back to the Quran, going back
to our tradition to find the answers for
the issues of today
is truly the only salvation
that we do have. Right? But studies within
this era and having who
are or
who are who
are strongly grounded
within usul, within hadith, within sirk, within aqeeda,
to then move into these sciences
is important. I'm not gonna say it's for
everybody because we need people to specialize, you
know on
like the dawath of the sheikh right and
you know to to specialize on like a
bejul right and to yeah I mean we
need that that's that's that's absolutely critical
but within that ethical framework of knowledge being
for the sake of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala
And this study also needs to be for
that sake as well. And not just like,
you know, just
like this, you know, fulfillment
of desire,
of knowledge, even though love for knowledge,
it's
absolutely positive. There's nothing wrong with it, you
know. And it's only through learning more you
might transform. Right? If you if you're seeking
guidance from Allah
asking for sincerity. Right? But,
that's not that's not how we base
our moral
framework and standards. It's it's it's definitely only
in all the the bonds.
That's true.
As, Lalbir says,
The idea of knowledge is, the fruit of
knowledge is the action.
I there's much to be said, but Yeah.
Oh, honestly. Knowledge. Yeah. Deserves its own episode.
Absolutely.
I mean I mean for me,
and you know I guess we can discuss
about, if you guys want to keep this
part in or not. But, for me the
the debate of,
what modernity is in essence is Irja,
right? Is is in essence
Irja, which is the
the total separation
of the ethical, your belief, your standard
from Amin, from action. Right? And so the
further these two split from one another,
the the more you find,
the
the use of knowledge in a manner
that,
is what's it called?
At the
at the disposal of political power, at the
disposal of the nation state. Right? I'm not
saying it's it's a one to one equation.
I'm saying you find a parable, you find
you find a reflection of it in Ijazah,
and you see it likewise in,
the liberal tendencies of today, right,
that we have within,
our da'wah,
within our communities,
that that require
a subtle touch of mercy and at the
same time,
you know
you know,
proper awakening.
Oh, man. Yes. It's
it's very common, to hear that, you are
criticizing ideas, not people, or we only talk
about ideas we don't, which is the exact
opposite of,
a chemical. But going back to the idea
of, or the example of the Hadith scholars
and how,
the
the
the and the
the person is inseparable from the whatever hadith
he's narrating. So they will not they will
not accept
anything that comes out of the mouth of
someone who is known to be,
yeah, of immoral character. Let's just put it
that way, which is the,
Daniel why when you read sometimes about these
western thinkers, and you'd be shocked
in some cases.
I think that's a good segue to the
next point.
I think this question is important, especially for
university students
or even
I was gonna say Western Muslims, but, honestly,
now with,
how global this, these,
secular, liberal,
values, all these isms, how global they've become.
It's become a global issue as well for
global
global issue for Muslims around the world. The
global west. Global west. Yes. It's called the
it's called the global west because,
the west is a,
it's a worldview. It's a culture, it's a
way, it's a way of being, a way
of thinking, a way of living,
and it's across the world. So the west
is not,
it's not positioned as a land, but rather
it's a position of a way of being
in the world.
You look at the books that were written
in the seventies, and now you see the
manifestations of such books. And, when you travel
back to the east, and you're
you're surprised to see that it's not so
different from here.
Yeah. Yeah. You know, subhanAllah,
growing up,
in, you know, in the east,
when I first went, you know, the the
idea was, oh, you know, mashaAllah, we're in
Muslim lands, you know, things people will be
more religious.
People
people will,
will flock to,
worship, devotion, you know, having those types of
characters and akhlaq.
But obviously a lot of people when they
go, they tend to feel very let down
by the reality that most people are
quite secular.
They're,
and,
it's deeply embedded in them,
to the point where,
they see it to be natural
that the religion
is something that's private,
something that's, spiritual, it's something to do with
the household, the private life,
and not to do with the public. And
they will actually,
you know, proselytize this. They'll give that way
to this. They'll they'll speak about this. And
you'll be shocked, right? You'll be shocked that
this is the case there.
And this shows you,
you know, just going back to the point
of the Oriental and and Orientalism,
where Edward Said seems to be saying that,
Orientalism has more to do with how the
west sees itself
than,
the east,
than the orient itself.
That's absolutely false.
You know, it,
you're right. It first started with
colonizing itself, creating new subjectivities in Europe, and
then it proceeded to do the same at
the same time in tandem,
in co comatants across the world through colonialism.
So it's
not a surprise nor is it just
a random
fact
or coincidence
that
modern economics,
modern companies, limited
liability,
colonialism
and
the modern state in its final form that
we have today all came about at the
same time.
It's not, it's because modern sovereign knowledge
was at the very core of this type
of thinking, right? And it created all of
this this at the same time. So modern
knowledge is it has it's it doesn't have
just genocidal tendencies, it is quite genocidal in
and of itself. And, the best way to
look at it is in what's happening in
Isla'id.
Why is Isla'id defended by the west the
way it is today? May Allah subhanahu wa
ta'ala your brothers and sisters in aza. May
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala elevate their status, accept
their martyrs insha'Allah
and you know make everything easy for them
insha'Allah.
Yani, why? Because it's seen as the bastion
of the true democracy
in the east.
What does that mean? It means it represents
the real civilizational
battle,
the history, the crusades
of the West within the East.
And it represents that secular model,
over there.
And this is what they publicly say. I
mean it's not even anything that's hidden. It's
just
we're not, we tend to forget that these,
that the that the battle lines are a
lot more
wider
than we seem to think, right? When we
say when we say to our young ones
you need to have a education
and you need to have a university education
and that's the only way of
you know succeeding in this world and you
know everybody needs to go through this system.
I
mean it's
it's actually unfortunately quite detrimental especially if you
don't know what
what we're up against, right? And most people
don't know.
So it's the job of,
you know,
community leaders, it's the job of people in
university, people who will be listening to this
podcast, to at the very least be able
to
have awareness of this, inshallah, so that they
can,
think about things in different ways.
It's definitely very scary. I mean, sometimes you
look at you go you open the television,
and you see these,
Muslim, Arab Muslim,
they call them illuminists. I don't know if
you translate Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Are like,
you know, illuminists
would be interesting,
you know, more like enlightenment colors. Yeah.
Of course. They take that they get the
term from the age of enlightenment.
They're heavily influenced.
And,
like you see, just the other day, I
was seeing someone who's, basically
attacking.
And his Twitter is filled with, like, quotes
from Dostoevsky
and, John Bach and,
Foucault and all these Francis Bacon. It doesn't
matter. Like, these I'm not saying don't take
from them, but it's just interesting to see
any of the the inferiority conflicts
and they,
understand.
But
the point that I I think It's it's
so, yeah, it it you know, the point
you made is is very valid. It's not
inferiority
in the sense that
history
was painted in one brush.
It's not like how we saw history. Right?
The questions that I was, you know, posing
in the beginning, which is that, you know,
we have our history of slim, we have
our history of him, we have our history
of Baghdad, you know, and so on and
so forth. But modern history,
modern history,
what it does is
it levels the playground
and it provides a mission for all of
humanity and it strings them all together in
1. And it says the mission is progress
and enlightenment.
And this mission is achieved
through going through time and working towards this
progress, which is uniquely materialistic.
And through the advancement of the material, will
we find emancipation?
Will we find tahril? Will we find taneeril
enlightenment?
And
you know,
you know, what what ends up happening then
is nobody before that is given any agency.
You're not given a choice before that. You
need to accept this. Only when
after
severe massacres, genocides, ethnic cleansings,
then you're given a agency,
but it's within, it's after you've accepted the
shahada of modernity.
After you've accepted the the testimony of there
is nothing but material and progress is through
enlightenment and material and ethics, you keep them
at home buddy, because they have nothing to
do with this world. Right? And then you're
given agency to have democracy. Then you're given
agency to have all of these things. And
this is why when you see people talking
about this, they they deeply believe, listen, we're
left behind.
We're at a stage before where the west
is. Because the west has proceeded in its
progress
and we need to follow them. And so
the best way to do that is to
take that out of their setaf, to follow
their pious predecessors. Do you follow what I'm
saying? Right? And so like I mean it's
within this it's within this theological,
worldview, this deen that,
such thinking occurs.
And as I said, the vast majority of
people who
who function within the the secular liberal,
they are not aware of their own biases.
They're not. That's why you will that's why
you will see them equate between,
Roman
colonialism,
Islamic
colonialism,
and between modern French
British occupations and colonialisms.
Do you follow what I'm saying? Not recognizing
the deep reality
of this,
departure
from,
humanity itself
into the material.
Right?
I think,
as university students,
of course, we are exposed to a lot
of desires, but that's an episode on its
own again,
but also a lot of doubts. A lot
of doubts you have, this is why I
mentioned in the west, and I said, you
know what? It's actually a global problem now.
But, actually, even specifically more specifically in the
west because the west is, the progenitor of
these ideas, and then and then they propagate
throughout the world. And we're at the epicenter
of, some of the some of the most
dangerous ideas. So as a university student,
I'm personally in computer science, so I I'm
I'm You're safe. I'm safe. You deal with
the numbers.
Yes. I deal with the numbers.
Some some ideas make their way through the
cracks, but, they're not as explicit
as they are in, more,
you know,
programs, like, within the social sciences and the
humanities and even even the life sciences as
well.
You hear a lot of horror stories about
people,
like, from people from those fields, either
secondhand accounts or first hand accounts, people telling
you that, you know,
I know this this many people and, like
or, like, let's say, 10 people enter in
the program. And by the time we finish
the PhD, only 2 were left Muslim. The
rest left Islam.
Allah protects us, and may Allah guide them.
So how does one protect
him or herself,
protect their faith, protect themselves from those ideas?
Again, we interact on those ID with those
ideas on a daily basis
could be a bit difficult, especially
for people who are in those fields. Like,
a lot of people a lot of our
brothers, a lot of our sisters
study, you know, psychology, political science,
anthropology, all these different
specialty sorry, fields of study that are heavily
influenced by the western ideology and the western
paradigm.
I think a easy way to put it
would be, you know,
If you have no humility,
if you have no bashfulness,
no shyness, no humility,
then do whatever you want. Right?
And this applies to knowledge
at the most center of it. If you
come to knowledge with kibab,
with,
arrogance,
with,
you know, this idea, I will subjugate and
I will figure out and I will, you
know, I'm gonna I'm gonna make sense of
it all.
You know, this is the this this is
the very notion of sovereign knowledge. Right? This
is the very notion of being able to
use what you learn to be able to
make the most money, to be able to
learn what you learn, to be able to,
you know, have the most greatest impact. Do
you follow what I'm gonna say? Right? Like,
you know, and unfortunately, this is even seated
into, like, Islamic studies where people, you know,
they'll go abroad coming back with, with the
intention that, you know, we're gonna be able
to, like, make a big effect and we'll,
like, have the most, like, most YouTube followers
or I don't I don't know what else.
Right? But the point is there's no humility
of knowledge. Right? There's no understanding that, look,
there
is any what where is my niyyah? Where
what is my intention? Right? If my intention
is not
to please Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala to submit
at the greatest level to him. To recognize
that all knowledge,
all knowledge is but,
an illumination
from the enlightenment of the Quran.
Right? From the enlightenment of the wahi of
the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Right? If
I don't, if if I'm not able to
recognize that and I'm and I'm coming from
a very modern notion of
objectivity,
of fact separate from values, coming really coming
back kind of holding in on this concept
here, You're you're already going to be setting
yourself up for disaster
because you've accepted the premises of modern
thinking, modern ways, modern beliefs,
and this is extremely problematic.
So you know, to have a strong base
in the Quran and Sunnah, to be able
to, like look, I'm gonna be honest, right,
if you're in the humanities, then
at the very least, you should have already
gone through 1 or 2 tafsir.
At the very least, you should have gone
through a very nice, explanation of of the
Al Barang and Neva'i. Right? And you you
would have gone through tafsir multiple times. And
you would have read works like the old
works of Wael Hallak and others. You know?
Like, at the very least, you know, this
is the expectation.
You can't just go in,
like taking on the premises of secular liberalism,
right? And then assuming you're gonna come out
anything but a secular liberal.
Whatever version of that you are, whether you're
the hardcore atheist,
whether you're the skeptic, whether you're
the everybody's all good or,
you know, you know, modern de use of
which is like I'm spiritual but I'm not
religious.
There are many paths to God.
There are many paths to God.
All these notions. So if you can't recognize
where these,
where these Muharli cats, where these initial
movements are coming from, you won't be able
to solve them, right? And then this leads
me to the next point which is related
to to to modesty,
to Haya,
is is
constantly asking for hidayah, any,
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala can misguide you anytime.
You're not above misguidance.
You're not above
kufoor before death.
You really aren't, right? And so an Iftikar,
assuring your neediness, your weakness to God
in your knowledge,
in your seeking of it
is,
is an inner technique of the self that
the sharia and tisqiyah provides,
which is what the rilema'a or tawah our
scholarship has always emphasized. Right? That's why you
will that's generally speaking you'll never see a
faqih who is not
always praised for his qiyamulayb
who is not always praised for his quran
and
these things are not separate from one another.
Right? The more you have of this the
more barakkirah will be acknowledged and the more
you will constantly ask for hida'ah and the
more
humility you'll have and and more iftiyqa,
more submission to come. Right?
And that's why that's why you that's why
the prophet taught us to ask Allah may
Allah may not be able to communicate.
Allah may not be able to communicate from
you from knowledge that does not benefit.
Right?
And so real knowledge is knowledge that's ethical.
And anything outside of that then becomes problematic.
So I'm not saying to not specialize
in if
you if if you have, like, a very
deep understanding
the akhida, sharia,
you know, of of the things. I'm not
saying not do that, but generally speaking it's
quite detrimental, generally speaking, in all honesty.
But if you do, do it with the
sake of, I mean, I'm trying
to give a service, an ethical moral service
underneath
service to God. Right?
And service to Islam and the Ummah of
the Muslim. Right?
Honestly, I, deeply have deep respect for people
who enter those fields with a pure intention
to advocate and serve Islam.
But I do not envy their position. It's
a very difficult one. It's one that requires
a lot of,
I think it's not emphasized enough how much,
I guess,
how well equipped you need to be in
Islam
to be able to both protect yourself and
to have something to bring to the table
of discussion to produce something that the, community
and the ummah the the Muslim ummah and
the global ummah,
or umam
would benefit from.
No. Absolutely. We we take for granted,
the level of
depth you need in the Sharia
in,
our traditional sciences
to be able to move into these because
the way we see these sciences
is just that it's interacting
with the premises
of other sciences. This is why you see
in our tradition somebody being a Fakih and
a historian, somebody being a Muhamhadith and a
historian, somebody being something else and,
you know, something else. Like, they all go
hand in hand, you know, but the basic
training is shari'i. Right? And so today we,
you can't, you can't displace it with humanities
and think that that's fine. No, your basic
training needs to be shari'i,
to be a true academic
in the Islamic sense of the term. Right?
Mhmm. And so, yeah, I don't I don't
envy that place because it really is a
place of lots of doubts. You know?
So
what maybe I can pick your brain on
this, but,
what's some practical advice that you would have
for people who are currently studying those sciences?
They don't really have a strong,
background,
in the Islamic sciences. Maybe they don't know
Arabic, and they're now, like, 3rd 2nd year,
3rd year, 4th year Given the time constraints
and given that, of course, these people are
genuine, they do want to benefit Islam and
they want to protect themselves. What are some
practical steps that they can take given those
constraints?
The first thing is,
deeply rooted
love for the Quran.
Right?
There's a book, in the way of the
Quran,
by Khafam,
Murad,
and,
it's something that you can even teach children.
It's to adopt a love for the Quran.
The second would be to tasir for the
Quran.
One that,
you know, is written in the light
of that which,
is required within these
humanities, within these sciences.
So, like,
a basic one would be Abra Al Mujuduli's
Tafim Al Qa'a. It's translated in English. It's
very nice.
The second is
when you come to the sunnah of the
prophet,
when you come to the life of the
Sahaba,
come to it
looking
for
ethical, moral guidance.
Come to it for value.
Come to it
looking at the sunnah of the prophet
as this
is my real
role model. He's not he's not just
he he is the person that, emulates the
revelation. So
you
know.
For who? Who is he who is
he a real model for?
Whoever desires God
and desires the day of judgment
and mentions God a lot. So mentioning God
a lot through the Quran, getting to know
Allah
through his names and attributes, that's the fundamental
purpose of the names and attributes,
is to being able to have a ta'ab,
is to get to know Allah
letting your
life
not be
a mirror,
a mere representation
of the secular
by letting your life be full of sins
and,
preaching another. Right? So, yes, you might have
sins.
You might have major minor sins. You might
have those.
But your submission to God must be greater.
Let those sins be that which become mercy
and a bounty
and they allow you to go back to
a type of knowledge of Allah,
which is the best of knowledge, which is
mariif 'sallallahu, knowing God. And that is the
ultimate purpose of all knowledge. It's it's to
know God. That's why the Quran came. That's
why all the prophets came, you know. And
that's the first question you'll be asked in
your grave. And that's what will get you
into Jannah, where all your sins will be
put on one side and then a little
parchment
with the shahada on it will be put
on the other and it'll weigh heavier on
the scales. Right?
Where does that come from? It comes from
actually knowing Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala. So if
he if we actually knew Allah, we would
love Allah. If we actually loved Allah, then
we would then we would follow his guidance.
Right? And so
a deep connection to the Qur'an and a
deep connection to the seal of the prophet
and the sunnah,
and also these
these types of books that we've been speaking
about that are able to critically analyze the
modern condition,
from a lens of the Islamic. Right? So
He has another, like, letter,
which was a lecture actually he gave in,
I think, the US or the UK, the
Beware of, the new Western Islam.
The new,
Western Islam. And that, and that goes into
these problems that we're having today as well.
You know, Umazin Naidawi's,
work on,
you know, Islam
and,
you know, so so we can we can
provide a list at that, I think, insha'Allah.
Yes. Of course. But these works works on
secular power. Right?
There's a new work that just came out
by Ali Hafiz, I haven't read it yet,
but it's on secularism, I've heard it's pretty
good.
People who are, again these are all, these
second recommendations from here onwards, the mention of
Ali Hafiz and so on and so forth,
these are for people who are in the
humanities. Yes. And, and not for just the
general person.
The Quran and the Secular Mind by Shari
Bahtab,
Islam as Political Religion by Shari Bahtab,
you know, you have
what what lacks 3 fundamental works that are
must reads,
not to see to that that we necessarily
agree with everything that's in them or that
you need to agree with everything, but it
gives you a deep impactful
perspective
to and it gives you the tools in
the the language to be able to deconstruct,
criticize, and analyze,
the world as we know it today and
contrast it to Islam as a paradigmatic way
of life, right? So his first work Sharia,
which was published in 2008,
and second being The Impossible State, and the
third one being,
Restating.
Restating Orientalism.
Right? These are quite,
quite essential.
The the thesis is the same. He's just
elaborating on them in different perspectives and different
aspects as well.
Mister Macron,
Like, also, I would say that I need
everyone, like, looked at the like, the specific
sense of. I was I was wondering, like,
what
made someone like, yes, Wa Al Hallak like
a Christian?
What made a Christian like doctor Wa'al Hallaq
be this invested and produce this
number of amazing works that,
again,
so why we do not agree with a
100% of them had and a great, were
great contributions
to, Islam,
in the modern age.
And, and he was saying, I was watching
his podcast, and he's talking about, the first
books he read about Islam. And,
he said that his, actually, I don't know
if these were the first books he read,
but the first the first money he made,
his 1st paycheck, he went and bought, Tariq.
Mhmm. And,
and.
That's.
Honestly, what better way to get to know
the Muslim
history?
That would not be in the recommendation list.
Yeah. But it also not be
if you don't if you don't know it,
don't worry about it. Yeah. Yeah.
But, you ask, and you see you see
the the amount of effort that it takes.
And, you see the one other book he
loves is,
I know that Talal,
mentions it many times.
Yes.
Specifically, like, I think anyone who is into
the political sciences should read. There's multiple books
about,
or. Like like, of course, the language barrier
is a is a big issue here, and
I'm sure works have been written in English
about these books. But,
I mean, just
realizing the the richness of the Muslim,
heritage
in those fields, in those social science fields.
A lot of it gets,
I guess,
what is put put under the rug, pushed
under the rug. Right? Right.
Doctor,
Ovemir
Roemer, he's he's, he's he's to come out
with a seal actually that analyzes the seal
in the first two centuries,
from a histographic
perspective,
and and that'll be something to look forward
to.
He also has,
his book on,
politics
and,
Islam politics and the Tamian moment, and it
kind of it's a it's a reading of,
and that's also quite essential. I think I
think he's also,
done some works on,
I recently was reading a, like, a series
that he's been posting on an Islamic blog
about,
the supposed demise of the shayyah.
Right? And he starts off with, Aljuani, Muhammad
Halmin's
thesis.
And, you know, so there are works that
are there,
for sure, right? But these are all to
be like in line with, with the reading
of the Quran and Sunnah that is to
connect you to the Salah. Do you follow
what I'm saying?
This all comes after. This is where the
specialize is. Exactly.
I think we talked a lot about those
sciences, but, and those, like, the the the
orientalism and different ideologies and modernism,
escaping this paradigm.
How do we build an Islamic society that
focuses on, the core Islamic issues? And, rather
than just,
you know, new hot topic comes out every
day. People love to talk about new things.
So how do we focus on the core
issues?
I think the the most
effective
and fundamental
requirement
is to restructure knowledge.
Restructure knowledge and how
it's taught.
What is taught. How it's taught.
The the divorce of the is and the
the value in the fact
needs to be
gotten rid of.
We need to go back to a type
of knowledge where the essence is.
All of knowledge. A lot of people say
this, but I don't think they're I don't
think a lot of people are able to
appreciate the depth of what's being said, right,
which is this type of knowledge of science,
this type of knowledge of,
the world in and of itself needs to
be painted and colored within the paradigm of
the shahr, within the paradigm of revelation.
And if that's not done, we won't be
able to get any because, you know,
some movements might say, oh, you know, once
we have military power, we'll be able to,
you know,
do, you know, do a top down,
you know, makeover of society.
That's not how modernity took place.
That's also not how any
deep
change in the world, Foucault calls episteme, episteme
in most usage of the word,
occurs where these fundamental structures of knowledge and
and
and and world world in itself change. Right?
They change through such
deep,
reformation,
re engineering
of the human being in society. Right? And
so it's a type of knowledge
that,
is
desecularizing
in its nature.
And that's and that's that's really where,
you know, we'll find a difference. Right? So,
like, there are other movements,
you know, that, their effects are so phenomenal,
and you can't pinpoint them. You can't say
that, look, it's this that happened or it
is that person or that individual or, you
know, oh, you know, do that. You can
put as many people as you wanted to,
Jill, but,
you won't be able to get to the
root of the matter, which is what's in
the hearts of the people. And all the
way you can change that is through education.
This, you mentioned,
reminds me of.
My father, David,
his father.
Yeah. I mean, you know, the the saying
of
where, you know,
he was constantly under,
political,
pressure.
Yes. And then where where when they would
continuously threaten him with jailing, they would jail
him and then say and then he said,
you know, what can my enemies do to
me? You know if
they if they if they if they jail
me then, you know with me is what
I need which is the sustenance of the
Quran.
My agenda, my paradise is with me of
this world. And if I'm in jail, then
I can, you know, write
and read Quran. And then if they let
me go, then I can spread my dua,
you know. So what I need is with
me. And I think that's what's really lacking
is these these inner
techniques, these inner tools of what creates a
human being.
We deeply lack them. Like, and to be
honest, you know, modern psychology with all of
its problematic
terminology and all of its problematic paradigm, which
is innately secular and modern mind you, it's
deeply problematic how psychology is supposed to represent,
you know, the
human mind and how to explain it in
the world and its problems, mental health, you
know, it's deeply, deeply problematic. It's very secularizing.
It's one of the greatest tools of modernity,
right? To replace the techniques of the self
that,
that that a proper holistic traditional worldview
such as Islam would give you, right? But
the real ones are that which come from
an attachment to Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala.
One that come from a sajdah that anchors
you, right? One that comes from knowledge of
God in such a depth that masa'ib
difficulties come only to those who are beloved
to Allah
And, you know, financial material is not uniquely
goodness unless and until you use it for
the sake of Allah
And such a paradigm in its fullest form,
would then allow you to say what.
I think,
we've
discussed
or talked about different,
the issue from different angles. I think I'm
gonna give you the the opportunity to, give
any closing remarks or final thoughts about the
discussion.
Well, I,
I should I should have started with this
but,
I'm just a very simple student for knowledge.
Everybody keeps calling me that because of many
Ma'am and a Masjid.
But, you know, I ask Allah
to forgive all of us, inshallah, and everybody
who's listening to the podcast, Allow us to
be truly enlightened,
in the way that is meant to be
in our action, in our iman, in our
amen,
and, you know, allow us to draw closeness
to him and gather us in Jannawi, without
any ada, without any iqab, and without any
hussab.
Sure. I mean,
Yes. May Allah
protect us,
from all these
desires and also these doubts these doubts that
we're current we're being bombarded with and make
us beacons of, light on it. The way
I think of it is,
any people when they say that,
the world is things are getting more difficult.
And,
I don't know. I think about it like,
you know,
I don't know if someone else said this,
but it just keeps in my mind. Like,
the idea that, you know, the darker it
gets,
the brighter the stars shine. So becomes beacons
to,
enact his guidance, to spread his message, and
to,
I guess, reunite us with the prophet, alayhis
salaam, with their judgment. A lot of people
don't realize how shallow
these,
some of these orientalists claims are. You'd be
surprised that this is even more
common among the hab,
10miren again. Like, the idea that,
I was hearing someone,
like, he's well intentioned. He doesn't mean anything
by it. But he's saying that I watch
I wish to
study
the,
Islamic history,
from an orientalist
lens because they tend to be, I guess,
more impartial.
Right. Right. So this is this is exactly
what orientalism
does
is it brings the project of modernity
to the study of the oriental,
right, to the study of the oriental.
And
as we said, you know, like, it brings
certain ways of quote unquote objectivity,
standards of criticism
and theory,
that are
products of sovereign modern knowledge, right? And then
it then wheels it onto,
forces itself onto, dominates
over,
Islamic,
paradigms of knowledge. They did this with fiqh,
they did it in, you know, they did
it in Aljazahirutamaliki
fiqh, they did the same thing in, the,
you know, the British Hind,
British,
India,
where they took HanifImaniels, they got it translated,
took it away from its interpretive levels of
Arabic,
took the simple book and then codified it
and made it into law so that they
could then use it the way they wanted,
right? So again, again what it does is
it takes
our knowledge which is deeply ethical,
deeply
submersed
into,
a system of society culture that cannot be
taken out of,
and that's deeply ethical,
and no one person can make claim to
it.
In fact it's the body of scholarship that
makes claim to it in its entirety.
And then it tries to control it and
use it and weaponize it and use it
for its own state purposes.
And
you know, unfortunately, many people fall into the
trap of this being more objective
Yeah. And being better. So They, I think
most of these people, honestly, they probably only
read some of the more contemporary works, which,
of course, given the
current situation, we like, Muslims could use any
moral push. So, obviously, they're gonna be speaking
different about it. Like, I think anyone who
makes this statement have not truly read,
like, a Bidayah Mihayyah or Tariq Abbadi or
all these books. Like, if you want true
objectivity,
go look at these books and see the
way they they,
they they they do and stuff. They they
what's it called? They they do right by
their opponents.
Yeah. Like in Entebia, for example. Exactly. They're
as balanced
as,
as
they have the most academic ethical integrity as
possible. Right? Because they do it for the
sake of Allah. They don't do it for
any other reason. Right? Not to say that,
nobody makes mistakes. Everybody makes errors. Right? But,
you see the level of desire to get
the knowledge right,
not for the sake of power usage or
* or getting closer to a politician or
being sent on a colonial project to go
do genocide,
you know, that's not that's not the reason
behind any of these things or it's not
to study the other but rather to fulfill
a purpose.
And, when you say and you think about
the type of history written by a family,
say for instance, right,
Just going through that work
is monumental,
let alone authoring it. What makes a person
want to author in this way without another
objective outside?
Unless you're a modern, and, ultimately, you can
think through these lenses of another alterative
objective of power and control.
A lot of the scholars of hadith, actually,
they were, like, running away from,
because they did,
offered
positions in, the government and just run away
from them.
Not just scholars are heavy, but, as a
general rule of ethical conduct within the circles
of the Ayman, the ilama, and the in
general
was to abstain
from, like any, it was seen to be
high level of zood, high level of taqwa,
to abstain from any sort of money that
came from the government. Right?
It was only in later times where oqaf
were more heavily funded by,
you know, state. And even
then, those,
that funding,
you know, was only given so that
the the ulama
could give some credence to
the, the ruler with the masses.
And he was like, look, Annie, I want
the masses to be fine, so let me
fund your
oath off. Does that make sense? Right? Not
for the sake of control or any sort.
They had no say over what was taught.
They had no say over any of these
things. Mhmm.
So so, yeah, it it definitely is different.
About the idea of, these people doing,
what they did, like, the words that they
they they produced for the.
I just,
like, one saying by Imam al Bukhari, like,
really
struck me like that. I don't remember the
exact wording he used, but it was it's
basically saying that I wish that Allah or
I hope that Allah does not punish me
for anything I ever said about anyone.
And,
coming from someone whose
career revolves around talking about other people,
and you feel the the sincerity
in their project.
Doctor doctor Sultan Aruni has a good, work
and a good portion of it translated on
freedom and its paradigms.
So the paradigms of freedom,
from an Islamic perspective as well,
it's translated on the,
the page you know, the the academia?
Academia?
Abstract? I mean No. No. Academia is the
is the website. It's an open source website
for for papers and stuff like that. Okay.
Academia. And on it, there, there's a page
run by, a phenomenal
researcher called Bassam Zawadi on the modernist discourse.
It's called the modernist
discourse,
academia.
And on it, you'll find lots of different
articles,
translated from Arabic, from reputable Islamic scholars, Muslims,
that deal with these issues.
Doctor Zafaniemi's
book, Fala'atul Huriyyah,
these are selected chapters that have been translated
to cover the entirety of the concept in
English as well, and those are pretty good.
You know, I just wanna highlight that,
it's not just in the field Oh, of
course. But he does he does a good
job at it.
There are others also in English, as I
mentioned. Shaykh Bahtal. Oh, I'm a little I
just passed away last year, a couple of
months ago.
You know, you have, you have other there's
a book called the culture of ambiguity.
That's also very nice,
on the topic. And, yeah, so there's a
lot of work that's happening out there right
now.
Doctor Erthman Erthman Beddah from Australia is actually,
like,
a stat to me.
He,
he did his PhD on * tourism, and
he should be publishing,
his book on it as well very soon.
He's he's he's very good as well. So,
yeah, you know, there's a lot of work
out there. Well, Maddox, the WOMADIX curriculum, the
WOMADIX project, their podcasts, their material, everything they
publish is very good. I think these are
all very good resources to begin with. We're
gonna try to put as many as of
those as we can in the in the
comments. Oh, sorry. Not the comments. In the
video description.
Hopefully, people benefit from them.
Jazakum Hakir again,
Sheikh. I'd love to talk to you for
longer, but
Yeah. Time constraints. Time constraints. Pleasure, Heather. Is
there anything that you'd like to plug?
Well, I think you just plugged a lot
of things right now. Yeah. We just we
did we did. He plugged a lot of
Just giving you a final opportunity. Like, not
not related to the topic, anything in general.
Nothing that comes to mind right now. I'm
gonna be honest. We've talked a whole lot
of things. I'm just giving you a chance.
Yeah. Right. Plus,