The FIRST ONLINE Islamic Conflict Resolution & Fact-Checking Authority
AI: Summary ©
The British Muslim population is facing challenges, including attacks on reputation and fake news, and differences in mentality between Muslims and non- Muslims. The speakers emphasize the need for practical solutions and evidence-based methods to prevent harm and improve behavior, while also emphasizing the importance of protecting public information and verifying the facts of cases. The speakers stress the need for practical solutions and finding out who is more likely to call for help, while also seeking out other people and finding out who is more likely to call for help.
AI: Summary ©
I'm not thinking of any one particular individual or one organization. I've seen it actually in 15 years of my kind of public work. I've seen it in a whole number of places. This is where you have acrimonious invective thrown at each other attacking people's reputations, perhaps slander, perhaps, you know, rumor and so how to resolve we go back to the cornerstone that I know everyone says this, but what does it mean for we need practical, specific technical solutions from the Quran and Sunnah?
None of us want to humble ourselves. So I'm so Allah, welcome to our special guests. Abdullah Andalusi. This is our first time in person together. Yeah. hamdulillah Al Hamdulillah. I'm so used to seeing you through a screen. Exactly. Same here, same here, but I follow your work and I admire your work quite a bit. I also admire your demeanor, and how you approach your work. And you're very fair minded and balanced person, and it's just the accent but yeah, you know, we assume neutrality and the British accent always so hamdulillah So, I wanted to ask, in your opinion, what are some of the maybe obstacles or challenges that we face currently, when the English speaking dollar US, UK,
Canada?
And in your mind, will how can we move forward? So I don't know him? hamdulillahi rabbil Alameen wa salatu salam, the bakery Muhammad Ali Devi wasabi Sani hain. So, Mike, you have me on houseguests. You know, you're from United States of America. I'm from UK. So we met in neutral ground, which is Canada. Yeah.
So, so in essence, we don't, I don't live on the ground in United States of America. It's a big place. There are different Muslim communities in different areas. You've got those in Texas, you've got those in New York. You've got those in California, that I visited. And each have got their own local dynamic going on. I've also seen the Muslim community in Canada, both West west and east coast. And also see in the UK, UK, the Muslim community dynamic can be different just two hours away, because it's a small island, but loads of Muslims sure Hamdulillah. So, the general dynamic, which I see is that in the UK, currently, Muslims have been feeling under siege by the British
government, which has been very meddlesome in Muslim affairs,
and has implemented draconian laws since the quote unquote,
war on terror or should be called War of terror.
And so, in such a situation, the Muslims have kind of rallied around each other have kind of dropped the rivalries which have seemed to be completely
irrelevant in the face of much more present danger for the British government, which isn't. We had recently case in Birmingham, where chilled Muslim children were kind of taught books that were deemed to be pro LGBTQ or promoting it as a morally equally valid lifestyle, which is something that the British government or the school system shouldn't actually be getting involved in, because they're not here to talk about what moral equivalence is.
They should have, they should be talking about just giving you an education as to maths, physics, chemistry, you know, PE, physical education. Anyway. So in the UK, it's about the data to non Muslims. It's about defending the Muslim community, collectively speaking. And our focus is generally no outward.
The kind of rivalries that used to be the case we haven't seen since the 90s, early 2000s. But that soon, kind of withered away when Muslims realized there was
only false fight on a burning ship. Right. Right. So just detail for us, because maybe there is some difference in the context. Obviously, in the US, we have the Patriot Act, we have, you know, CVE, right, we have different sorts of things. But what specifically changed? Post 911, post seven, seven, that is an existential threat that is seen as a common cause to unite in the face of what are the specific things that are going on? I mean, it's an interesting question, the difference in the general mentality between us Muslims,
and UK, Muslims, somewhat subject to certain debates between analysts and the RAND Corporation
published I think it was building modern Western networks and the they themselves noticed this difference that the Muslims of UK were more intractable
and were harder to, to change or to pressure or to inculcate kind of liberal ideas amongst I asked for us Muslims. I mean, I obviously won't make a blanket discussion on it, but the RAND Corporation seems to think that liberal ideas are more easily kind of pervasive in amongst Muslims in the in the US, or they're more vulnerable to them. I don't know exactly why the RAND Corporation prefers a hypothesis, which is that the Muslim migration
To united to America was mostly for middle class backgrounds, was most of migration to UK was mostly from working class backgrounds or rural backgrounds. And so this different element difference in mentality, Lee led to a difference in susceptibility to
liberal ideas that you could make the argument that in England, we have, you know, small island, and everyone's all up each other's faces, there's no, there's no space to kind of, in a way, completely separate yourself and do your own thing. Whereas in North America, a Muslim couldn't apart from going to their job, where they might be non Muslims, they could, and maybe the supermarket, they could quite happily exist, driving their car around, go to the mosque, go into their house, go into the Muslim neighbors, and not really interact much with non Muslims, ie not have non Muslims imposed upon them or feeling that they're being opposed by non Muslims, pressuring them to adopt cultural
norms, or what have you. So they feel that there's a lot more
leeway, and of course added to the fact that you have general comfort and success for Muslims in the US, where you know, it's not, it's not unknown to have two cars, for example, right? You don't have to be a millionaire to have two cars in England, if you've got two cars, it's likely that you're approaching a millionaire, basically, because things are much more expensive down there. Certainly real estate is more expensive. American houses are much bigger than UK houses just across the board. So what do you make of that? Does that play effect? Is it hard to hate the system that feeds you? So well, and you know, gives you a nice big house and the two cars?
Is it? Or is it the case that, you know, us Muslims are just because they came from a different economic bracket or background or this is something which is a matter of discussion, I couldn't ask the question, why there might be a different mentality. And what that difference is because you might find very strong stalwart Muslims in the US who are not compromised. Yeah. My question was a little bit different, though. It was about actually from the government end, right. Like, what are the differences between what the governments of the United States and and Britain are doing to their Muslims? Like for us? I'm more familiar, I know that you guys have prevent, right. You know, I think
that the LGBTQ curriculum in the UK is much more invasive, from what I understand. Because with us, at least we have differences from state to state. So you have some states where it's no worries, and then you have other states where it's very, very heavy handed. So as far as government surveillance, as far as people getting thrown in jail, as far as ideological imposition, right? That's more of my concern, like, like, because this is what Muslims are coming together, sort of and burying the hatchet, right, burying their differences in the face of right. So what are the specific things that are going on in the UK? That, and do you have any sense of comparatively with what's going on in the
US? Like, is it a bit worse? Would you say the pressure from the government, or is it a bit less, that that pushed this sort of at least attempt of unity?
Well,
United America has the First Amendment. Okay. And so in North America, you can say anything you want, well, Jonnie within an hour, a whole bunch of limits.
But I mean, the, like obscenity as she isn't protected under the First Amendment. So if a judge deems what you say to be, or what you've communicated in some way, shape or form to be obscene, which depends on the local communities definition of that. You can't You're not, you're not protected against some kind of prosecution or civil suit.
In the UK, of course, there's much more restrictions on speech, not just bans on racial rate, expression, racial racial hatred, but also expressing hatred against LGBT people. And now you can criticize, I suppose the ideas of LGBTQ
ideologies which equate
such practice of lifestyle to be morally equal to heterosexual lifestyle, or heteronormativity, as they call it. But
there's, there's a bit more, and that, which is that, for example, even if you would be arguing in let's say, you are, if you argue in defense of a, of a prescribed group, a group which has been deemed to be a terrorist group, or it was prescribed group,
that's illegal. Not that you're encouraging people to kill people. Not that you're encouraging people to even join up the group. But if what you're saying is interpreted by a court, and of course, the prosecution Crown Prosecution Service to be
supporting that group that itself is a terror offense in the UK, which is which is very
unclear. Of course, in the UK. That was the case of
I think it was a
A Muslim who wrote on his Facebook, all British soldiers should die and go to *. He just said they should die and go to *. He didn't say, kill them. He just said they should die go to *. And they couldn't prosecute him exactly and encouraging violence or terrorism, presumably because it was the it was written in such a form as they should just drop dead, I suppose. Right. But they, they arrested him and prosecute him successfully under the grossly offensive kind of communications. Well, the Act is an Act of the Communications Act, and it was a crime of
grossly offensive speech, or tech, which is a crime, apparently, in the UK. So there's a whole bunch of things that Muslims fall foul of concern of the lack of quote, unquote, free speech in the UK. And at the same time when that Islam is attacked, or when the Muslim community is demonized, with speech, which arguably could be of the kind that would be inciting hatred of a religious community. These these are argued that it's this is just free speech. And you should allow the when Muslims kind of respond more vigorously, we've felt the sharp end of the of the hypocrisy whereby we get prosecuted for things that we do, we're not allowed to say, I see. So we see double standards quite
clearly in America because the First Amendment is deemed to be sacrosanct. Generally speaking, you can, you can say a whole bunch of things you can tell people to sign up to the most prescribed organization there is, and it's not technically illegal in the United States of America. As long as you yourself, I'm not actually a member of that organization or financial support or things like that. I think aiding and abetting is sort of the language of the law. You know, if you're if you're caught aiding and abetting and prescribed groups, and then that's a serious offense. But yeah, it has to be explicit
support and this support has to be more than just ideological, from what I understand has to be material in some sort of way. But in England, now that this brings us to the crux, here's a very clear difference. In America, the American government has put funds for a program called countering violent extremism C V. There's a V there, violent extremism, the British government
took out the Wii and just said countering extremism.
That's quite broad. What do you mean now? Because it because if it's not related to violence, per se, then a whole host of things could be deemed subjectively Flat Earthers are extreme, though. Yeah, in a way, right. It's just the concept is very plastic. No, yeah. I mean, you could say beacons are extreme, you know. So at one point, depending on again, it's very subjective. And the Overton Window shifts, and so on either edge of it would be these will be deemed to be extreme ideas.
So that faced a lot of backlash and such that the British government failed to make it law that they tried many times to make laws that could ban the expression of extremism, not related to violence, arguing that it is a precursor to violence. Sure, yeah. It's like the Chinese justification. It's like, well, we knew that they would commit the crime, so we got him before he even did it. So So then prevent then uses what we call soft power. So if he can't ban things outright by law, it can do a whole number of things to interdict Muslim speakers and organizations in the UK. So the Charity Commission, they put someone who was actually part of the neoconservative Henry Jackson society, of
which has made many, many of these individuals from his organization, this organization has made many arguably very Islamophobic blatantly Islamophobic
arguments about the dangers of Muslims in Europe and what happened, they put him in charge of the Charity Commission. Now the Charity Commission is one that regulates charities. So anyone that claims charity status will come is regulated by the Charity Commission. And while technically speaking, the Charity Commission doesn't have a mandate to remove charity status from organizations deemed to be extremist,
not a legal one, per se. They do harass and targets,
disproportionately Muslim charities and Muslim charities accused of hosting extreme speakers quote unquote, calling to extremism or advocating extremist ideas, and so on so forth, but they keep it nice and vague.
What is extremists because although there was a kind of a few bullet points criteria of what it is, was very general was, in essence, sunrise, it's like anything's called on British. But it's very vague because what is British Of course, basically, you know, so in that sense, that's where Muslims have been feeling the bite.
Muslim events are organized by either political parties or groups or speakers can be canceled because a prevent office up there
In the local region will call up the venue or get the police to call up the venue because the police will work with to prevent, of course, to simply dissuade the venue owner like please counsel this. This is a very, you know, dangerous event. And of course, we've also seen bank account closures or or suspensions or freezing occurring in the UK. So Muslims have been facing a whole host of measures
to have soft power interdiction of harassment. And now I know in America, there was a case of
entrapment by the FBI. Oh, yeah. I know more than one. Yeah, well, yeah, more than all the time.
But of course, the phenomenon of flying while Muslim in the US, but by and large,
the like, we haven't hidden heard much of the same level of harassment and interdiction on Muslim events, organizations. I know that maybe musky moms probably feel the pressure from government officials talking to them or breathing down their neck generally. And they're quite squeamish anyway. But in UK, it's even more so. You know, mosques are renowned in the UK for being scared to host any events that talk about anything political, and to whatsoever. Also, because most have charity status to I was going to ask that. Okay, so I see. Yeah, interesting. Okay, so I mean, so that leaves us in a terrain where we're saying that, you know, British Muslims might feel the teeth
of the law a little bit more, or at least now, because I think maybe after immediately after 911, there was a peak. And then around 2015, when dash came on the scene, there was also another peak. And I think in the United States, it was more the situation of some cases, some people being made examples of, you know, and then sort of the message was sent,
you know, but we're saying that perhaps Perhaps British Muslims are feeling more pressure on average. And so this is sort of caused them to attempt to, to squash the differences between them.
Has that been successful? What does that look like? And are there obstacles that are stopping that from happening in the way that maybe it should? What when I've seen
that kind of
Sufis selfies
has been daiquiris too bleak is all of these individuals that they would have arguments and fights back in the day share panels with each other. Okay. They and also behind the scenes, there are talking shops, between discussions shored up between the behind the scenes that most people don't see have a window into where people were most was trying to coordinate campaigns, coordinate push back against the latest British government harassment. There's obviously there's things I forgot to mention of slightly below the Trojan horse scandal, where which was concocted but it was widely believed quite strong evidence for you could say that it was a concocted scandal by the the
government to clamp down on Muslims kind of influenced in their own education of their kids in school
by claiming that there's extremism being being taught in schools and schools being taken over by extremists, right. Right, which was false, but many Muslim teachers lost their jobs from so
as I said, Muslims in UK, we just realized,
eventually, that there's no point was fighting in a in a burning house is the correct kind of saying, and we're just that just to work together. Now. You might get the odd Muslim here and there on Twitter, we'll have you that will be making arguments and sectarian points now and again, but generally speaking, some of the more heavy hitters will the bigger, the bigger names, don't don't get involved in that insect in sectarian ends in the sign fighting and bickering. I see. Because I think a lot of people's experience and sense of, especially the online sphere is that it's quite oppositional. And it's quite sectarian.
So
what's what's the way forward? Like what do we do? How do we if would you say that the British situation is sort of a model like that there has been enough success when it comes to unification and collaboration that that is something that let's say Canadian, and American Muslims should be pairing themselves off of? And then what are the what are the obstacles? What's standing in our way from having that actually happening? Okay, so something I've been trying to champion
in Canada, and maybe to some, to a lesser extent, the United Sates of America is having seen what Muslims went through in the UK and what it took for them to learn their lessons and mature and realize that look, we can still disagree and we can still express disagreement on on the photo of Aqeedah and on discussions of Manhattan, what have you, but we don't have to denounce cut each other
or have a separate from each other, or leave each other to the wolves
or engage in a slander or attacks or tree or trying to grab followers from each other like that child's game hungry hippos, you know, they are hungry hippos where they did, like you press on these little plastic type of things. And they, they the mouth jumps to go and grab, like the food, food pellets in the middle of the game was for kids. And each one has to compete with each other just to try to hit the hippos to grab as many, many as it could. And that was in essence, I think something I see
in Canada, maybe use us to a lesser extent, I have no, no idea about the US exactly concerning its reality. But when I went to too many places in Canada, for example, I saw there was fighting and bickering between different organizations it was,
especially in small towns or cities, which are more isolated, there's a there's a fixed pool of Muslims, and everyone's fighting for their market share, in Muslim adherence to their programs, and to their courses, and so on, so forth. And it was, it was ridiculous, because, you know, if your organization is doing something good, then you should rely on the merits of what you're offering, to bring people in, you know, bring people in for quality. And as, as the Quran says, you know, to, for us to compete in the good. So, you know, as Muslims, we should be competing with each other, but not by undermining each other, we're attacking each other, but saying, Okay, you're doing something
good. That's gonna encourage me to excel and improve and do something better. And then that will then encourage you to excel and do something better. And then we mutually help each other to excel and improve, which is upon law is a great beautiful hikma, instead of actually undermining each other and attacking each other and future as rivals, and in in the UK now, because Muslims are collaborating across different organizations, it's kind of somewhat irrelevant, then, how many which organization has how many adherence or which people subscribe to who because we all work together anyway. You know, and I think that's the hidden secret is that if we are going to work together
anyway, then it doesn't matter who has which market share of what have you. And I've been trying to where I have seen encountered some fitna, in Canada, we're seeing rival
organizations, groups
Jamaats, will have you have issues with each other. I've been trying to counsel them on the UK experience and say, look in about maybe 1015 20 years, you're gonna probably realize this anyway, how about we cut all the pain out? And just learn from the experience of Muslims that well, that when did learn the hard way? Basically, have people been receptive to that? Your experience?
I'd like to say yes.
I mean, there are there are, there are many organizations that are you might call ecumenical. They look at the bigger picture, they look at the look of the OMA and they have a positive attitude. And they, they collaborate, and they even invite other people to go to like, to other people's courses and other people's services they are not just asked, but you also look at are these our fellow brothers here to do some good work. So they do there is such organizations in Canada, I'll name one because I was particularly impressed with them. I have three, they've always been trying to collaborate with others and encourage people to do to work of any other organizations for the common
good when there is good to be done.
But, you know, there's still a lot more work to be done in the Canadian sphere. And I'm not too sure, as I said, I don't have much knowledge about the US sphere. I don't like to talk about things I'm sure much about. But if I'm just judging
the US I can only judge by
the online chatter that we see coming from the US the smoke coming out of the horizon. And, I mean, okay, you know, there's issues it was seem, there's obviously kind of, there are disputes and arguments amongst American Muslims. I think a lot of those tensions are due to the rise of left wing forts and influence among Muslims in the US, and the tensions between those who are trying to oppose it, and having difference of opinion between each other as to how to oppose it. Sure, as well, I think that's that's just my speculation. I could be wrong. Sure, definitely. I mean, that takes us to I think the online sphere as a whole right in the English language, or at least between these
three countries and you know, a lot of people I think their experience is that there is quite a lot of dragging, going on quite a lot of infighting bickering, name calling, even slander sometimes in the online
Then sphere. And you and I have talked about how
unappealing that is and almost alienating that can be especially for new Muslims and they come into and they have their they have such good hope. In sort of this new OMA, we say these things I say I like to say that Muslims know all the right things to say, you know, unity in the family and all this stuff, but then the reality how people act is sometimes different, right? You're having people competing for marketing share market share even more so on the online sphere, you know, accusing each other of bid, accusing each other of, you know, the culture wars is another sort of, you know, delineation, your assembly, you know, your arthritis or something like this. We've got nice names we
call each other.
We're replicating the arguments between the left wing and the right wing amongst non Muslims. Yes, yeah. Yeah. So, what can you say about how we can get out of this? Because it seems to be something that is, as the broader Science Society is being torn apart? You know, by the Gender Wars, let's say, or the culture wars in general, in addition to other stressors, it seems like it's also infiltrating into the Muslim community.
So I'm curious as to your thoughts on that.
Okay, so there's a lot to unpack.
So I think that there's been there's been two approaches by Muslims, generally, in both UK
and across the Western liberal Muslims live. So you live in a majority non Muslim society, but it's not just a society of non Muslims. It's, they have a way of life for our deen. And it's you it's based on what they called the Western Enlightenment ideals, individualism and its political application, liberalism.
And other schools of thought which are similar or branches off or have seashells same creed. So Muslims have been, I suppose, initially, you know, deer in headlights when they probably came to the shores, what to do about this way of life, and they barely understood it themselves. Liberalism. What's that? Exactly?
You know, many people, if you say define liberalism, maybe even many non Muslims would struggle to actually give a definition of it too. And so then Muslims have been struggling to find a consensus about how to where to draw line and sand and how to oppose because on the one hand, they think that they are concerned that well, it's we live in a very permissive cultures where things which are prohibited in Islam are permitted in the wider society.
So if you appear to be too Stern, or too restrictive, or activate the Haram police button, you know, at the drop of a hat, people might be there was there's a concern that people might be pushed away from you that you you be viewed to be caustic and abrasive and generally, unwell, unwelcoming. But then on the other side of that, there's a concern that
not calling out what we need to call out amongst not denouncing the liberal ideology and those who follow it, and warning Muslims, including Muslims who might inadvertently have adopted the ideas because we were raised in a society just by a type of osmosis. You could say that we that many of us have inculcated the liberal ideas, just because we were born in liberal society watching TV when we were young, coming from such backgrounds for them, especially for reverbs. So
many have argued that we have to be we have to be stern on and write reputations and be bold and and also then be unapologetic about the Sharia. And you know, this the hikma of Islam, whereas the cap that is, obviously don't be too stern might want to shy away from areas of conflict stuff or something might want to shy away from discussing
aspects of the Sharia that the liberal society deemed to be a little bit shocking in their perspective or something that they disagree with.
Now, you know, there are tactics and their means and you know, like you can have you also have on extreme you have, for example, Anjem Choudary who were in the UK, who actually Muslims disliked. In the UK, even though you know, Muslims were very open about defending Islam and talking about those things, because Andrew and tralgy would basically not really explain the hikma thing of Islam, but he just simply
saved the most inflammatory things deliberately to make the wider population angry and the right wing newspapers loved him. Sure. And the news outlets, they loved him. They gave him so much airtime. He took my they even helped them take great pictures of him that outside of outside Big Ben. Yeah, we'll take it over and all this kind of stuff. Yeah. You know, so you
You have that and of course, the other extreme was imagined the was
who kind of, you know, was was used as a puppet for prevent, and was advocating liberalism and any reformation or weak or deformation of Islam. So what I would say is that, that what Muslims what Muslims faced in the West concerning both,
you know, not being too stubborn and pushing people away. And there's there are certain wisdoms in applying attack not always being stolen and serious with people in a way that that makes them want to run away from you in terms of interpersonal charisma, interpersonal, you know, being sociable, but at the same time, there's something to be saying to make things clear. So how do you now balance all these things together? You know, is a question that Muslims are grappling with, I think in the United States of America, that is a question. So I think,
how to deal with this. And what we need to deal with is we need to stop Muslims from because many Muslims, I think, honestly just don't know what to do in such a circumstance. And they usually they might get attacked by either side of this, this se perspective
for either compromising or, or for being unwise. And what we need is to we need to educate Muslims, we need to help Muslims to find that balancing act of of both hikma but not compromising at the same time, but also to stop Muslims. kind of
harsh, I say, advising each other in ways which are unhelpful, and by that, by publicly attacking each other, and using tactics which are which are not are not helpful, and actually might be breached of other sample, derogatory name calling,
or misrepresentation or spectating of people's motivations. Although that happens across the board, generally, these things kind of destroy any prospect of Muslims having a reasoned internal conversation that would that would help us reach a mature Iijima, you could say, now, that's very significant, especially I think, with the online sphere,
I think there's something of a slip of standards, right? Instead of, you know, some sort of structure such as MSG, you know, which they're very, very imperfect institutions, but there's a sort of process by which there's, you know, credentials and you get to a certain station through something, you know, we can critique that as well. But the point is that there's a slip even for that, in the online sphere in which anybody with a webcam, you know, can now get on say things, you know,
blast people, whatever, and it could be great entertainment, right? It could be great entertainment and get very, very popular. So how do we this is something that I've had discussions with with other imams in in the States. How do we institute standards among ourselves? Because I completely agree, I think that we're getting in our own way and holding ourselves back from actually resolving some of these issues. Like the point is not to make anyone feel better, or patting you on the back or let anyone get away with anything. The point that I always come back to is the the concept of loyalty that I believe Muslims have to each other. And loyalty begins with wanting guidance for the other
one and wanting the others redemption. That's something I take axiomatically, so if we want to conspire in beer, right, conspire in goodness and and goodwill towards each other, to try to maximize the likelihood that people are going to be redeemed and guided and resolve these sorts of issues. How do we reassert standards or change the conversation or take people by the hand and demonstrate that there's perhaps a better way to be doing this?
Well, so let's be clear about our aims.
If given enough time, if Muslims have a productive internal discussion, they can eventually reach the the conclusion they need to reach that will maximize both maintaining a compromised non compromising stance but also maintaining hikma in how you convey now, but that can only happen when most Muslims are free to have a safe conversation with each other, mature and respectful and with loving intent.
Things that disrupt that
kind of hold up this process of reaching this age mother we want them to reach
and this is where you have acrimonious invective thrown at each other.
Attacking people's reputations,
perhaps slander, perhaps, you know, rumor and hearsay and again, I'm not thinking of any one particular individual or one organization. I've
CNET multiple in the actually in 15 years of my, my, you know, kind of public work. I've seen it in whole number of places, even in the UK, you know, too. So
we need to resolve that. And so how to resolve we go back to the Cronus on that. I don't know everyone says this, but what does it mean? We need practical, specific technical solutions from the Quran and Sunnah.
So the Quran gives us Krusell to give us basically two things of use, relevant to this matter. One, we have a code of conduct, you know, we have a double lock. It's not it doesn't mean anything to anybody. It's not like subjective. It is there is objective things that we agree on. So for example, everyone would agree that you shouldn't be tortured as mothers, everyone agrees with that you shouldn't lie about someone's what they're doing. Everyone agrees that you shouldn't speculate or with no evidence about someone negatively. Everyone agrees that hospital done is a thing that you should assume the best from your brother and sister unless you have clear evidence otherwise. So
these are all things that we agree on. As much as Muslims debate have
heated debates, or they debate, politics. They agree on the Sharia aspects of other block and even the political aspects of the political laws of Islam, we have so much agreement on that more than any other religion or ideology could ever claim to do. So why not then use that? Implement that because if we don't, Muslims are going to see
Muslims attacking each other online, being rude being immature, accusing each other, and it not only demoralizes them, but it makes them question, the practicability of Islam itself. And maybe an extent is the way of Islam is actually a way a true way of life from the Creator. Because surely, if the way the critic gives us a way of life, it must be very practicable.
So if they don't know how Islam can be practiced,
they could cause them to have doubts, as well as the demoralization is that when they see that the Muslim thought leaders, whether you call them scholars or do art or whoever thought leaders, if they're not benefited by Islam, then how can a stamp give benefits to the OMA? If they themselves have more knowledge and it doesn't benefit them? Right? How does Islam benefit the Ummah then who have less knowledge, presumably? So
the first is that we have a code of conduct that is defined and we and to realize that we share this code of conduct you'll actually agree. The second is what the Quran tells us that if there's two sides, disputing the refer to a third party judge who judged by the Chronos on them.
So what we need and of course, none of those you want to bring about black people, not believing rumors and things but if they only they had referred it to the authorities who will do the correct investigation. Now, of course, we don't have an Islamic political authority in existence today. If we did this would be much more simpler. But what we can do as an ummah is we can attempt to institute an impartial
in fact finding institution that would adjudicate help adjudicate these disputes. You could almost say like almost an online Islamic court, you could say, where Muslims could have recourse to. And
you know, we've discussed this already. I'm, I've been working for a couple of months with a number of other stakeholders on we're on such a thing,
primarily for the reason to stop the fitna that's happening, stop the demoralization of Muslims, but also to show Muslims that Islam is eminently practical and practicable and can actually solve problems very efficiently. And so what Muslims need to see is, instead of they having a choice between one person that attacks this other person or one a person that attacks them back or denies and they each make rival claims, they need to have the industry a organization that will fact check the claims, look at the event, the evidence
juxtapose it with the Quran and Sunnah, and then be able to issue judgment based on the Quran and Sunnah, where people can't dispute that. And that the importance of this, the most important thing is credibility. Credibility is the only thing that can ever make that work. The slightest suspicion that it's being biased or prejudiced, it won't work. So I've been working on such a project with a few stakeholders who approached me and when we discussed this, it was based on post partially based on the observing that I did a similar kind of project on a small scale in to a university in Canada when at an MSA asked for help because they will be
He accused of being racist and sexist. Yes. So they need to help. And I said, Okay, well, I'm not going to come to your help just because you called me. But I can do an impartial investigation on it. And but my conditions are that if I discover that you have been racist and sexist, you must apologize for it and own up. But if of course, that's not the case, then the investigation should exonerate you. And my second requirement was that they give me access to all their communications, all their evidence is everything they have. They give me unstinting access. And then when I wrote the report in a fact based way, we use No, no emotive language, use no judgmental language, it was
simply like a like a police report really, or like, like a narrative, a criminology event you see in court, in a court case describing a particular set of events. It was completely dispassionate, completely factual. And also, when it would quote things it would quote in context with the full screenshot, or when the reader can see the full context of where the quote comes from, and so on. So when we published I published that and what we what turned out that was the MS. MST actually weren't racist and sexist, it was left wing Muslims. At the university, we're using the accusation of racism or sexism as a weapon to argue for various left wing ideologies. I wish the MSA were kind of
blocking or were resistant to so because of the success of that reporting actually was 380 pages.
But this, the success of it was that no one could deny what the report revealed it because it was factual it was it was just this is what happened. And here's the quote, and here's the full quote in context. It couldn't be disputed. And of course, when the report didn't just list the events, but it said, okay, the students said, use this term
of winter intersectionality, or they use this term on
was a white fragility, or what have you, this comes from this, this, this this thinker, this book, this comes from this ideology here, and I linked it and then I juxtapose it with the current Asana such that again, it revealed both what motivates these left wing students, where they got their ideas from the the specific books and thinkers, which some of them even mentioned by name themselves. And then what ideologies these books and thinkers are kind of part of which which stream they come from, and then how these things contradict clear cut, Hadith and correct such that, again, no one could argue against it, no one could dispute it. So in light of that, I was approached, in
essence, say, well, that works so well with such a small thing, because selling an MSA
could that be replicated to resolve disputes between
public figures and speakers? And so we, we thought, we looked into it, and I kind of saw that well, actually, in many cases, actually easier. But other cases where there's accusation that or this person or this organization is liberal, or this organization is Marxist, or this organ, or what have you, that's also something I have now experienced in right. Now investigating and I could again, I could, I could objectively assess that, whether this you know, if this organization has been consciously involved in certain ideological
prostitution, which on things which obviously, from either ideologies which are not stomach, so
we kind of came up with the idea was to call it hisbah. Because, as you know, hisbah is just means like accounting from your hisab, you know, hisab, which to us is just just hisab is for account accounting, and it's to hold people to account now can't punish people, and then therefore, under Tassie a punishment, so send them to the short audition, but it's more like arbitration, you could say, Yes.
Its aim will be two things, one, to clear up for the public, the disputes they're seeing so they can see okay, his factory the case. And that was also inspired by these fact checking organizations and institutions that they have fact checking websites. Where if a news if some false news has been reported, they can they usually dispel these false news Oh, this is actually a rumor this was there's no evidence for this is what really happened, or this image doesn't come from in from this event, but it came from actually 10 years ago, and it's been reused. So Muslims need that. Yes. And they also need to see how the adoption clock of Islam is practically applied. So how can we can we
say objectively, that speaker has crossed the limits right over over a dub and that's very, very important because right now, it's very impressionistic and very subjective right like
In fact, it just look in the comments of any spicy video. And you'll see people going back and we say, oh, so and so play the Edit card, right, and then people respond, they'll know and then there's it never really ends in any sort of thing conclusive. So it seems like this would add some authority and some conclusion to those sorts of maneuverings. Rather than being weaponized, basically, just to punish and prove that your site is right, it's actually going to be impartial.
And I think from what we discussed, we discussed this a little bit offline. It also gives a chance for redemption, which I believe, you know, the city is very much compared to Western law, let's say, much more structurally interested in redemption, than Western law. So there are sort of opportunities for the person who maybe did step out of bounds to turn back and to redeem themselves in public in honorable ways. So maybe you can walk us through sort of how this would work, or a test case, silly example, or something like that to just to make it clear to people and show. Okay, so as I said,
I think it's very important, because, you know, many Muslims have seen these debates, and we, you know, I've done debates myself with atheists. And the argument of the argument that we use against atheist is that it atheism in theory, since no, since there's no God and there's no meaning to the universe,
there's no good and bad. So technically speaking, anything goes, you can do anything you want, as long as you have a material justification for it.
So as I said, you know, in in a materialistic universe, the only thing the good and bad just becomes what is possible and impossible. And that's the only, that's the only thing that remains. So let's so it does Islam have a moral system? That is that is not subjective? Because if it does, then how are we any different atheists? Yeah, yeah. So now to kind of get into the nitty gritty of it, the how it would work. So, in essence, there's two components to the institution that I want to set up with this hisbah has been online.
One is the part which will be the fact checking the investigative part. And the second part, would we have a Council of Scholars and their, their role is to issue an authoritative judgment. Because as layman, we're not obviously we can't give such judgments. We're not qualified to. So in, even in Islamic Courts in the past, the judge might ask for the shorter the police to go forth and, and investigate the facts of the case, to verify the facts of the case. So that then the judge can just review the actual facts of the case, because they don't have time to do the investigation. So that's where you could say, like, I will come in, and others like me, where we will, someone will initially
raise a complaint. It could be anybody doesn't have to be the person that's aggrieved. So someone could say that, Oh, I saw this guy being attacked by this other guy, or I saw this, this rumor being being said, and I don't like I want to raise a complaint. We'd ask they'll submit it via complaint form. So we triage it may see is it something that is valid? You know, if someone just says, Oh, I, I think this guy is wearing a funny hat on like it, it's like, well, that's not really an issue. But if someone says, Well, this person has, let's say, called someone, you know, a donkey. Okay, well, that's something then and there's screenshots and things. Okay, well, that can be investigated. So
then the first phase would be that once we triage and see, is there a case of some cases or, or the potential for problem standing, almost like does this case have standing? Does it have some standing? Yeah. Then we were the first recourse, we'd go to the individual who's been complained of and we say to them that look, there's a complaint that's been raised about about you, which is we'll do this offline, you could say,
well, we've an official email be sent but won't be broadcast to the public. And there'll be given an opportunity to either defend what they say they said, or to retract and apologize. We call it term to self rectify. And if they retract and apologize, that no further action will be taken, and we nor will anyone be informed that they were approached by hisbah.
They can then then, you know, they need to do my duty, they should do so out of sincerity. But for those people who might just want to win, maybe not so sincere, or they or they have other motivations, competing motivations, it gives them a chance to save face.
If they say, No, I will stand by what I said or what I did. And it's only things that they've said or did intentionally in public, not what they did in private. people's private lives not are not within the remit of his spies, not subjectivist
To catch Marla conceals, it's no one's job to reveal.
So if they defend what they did, we'll move on to a full on investigation, we'll, we'll go to all their their public accounts and everything they've will record their public accounts, whether it's on archive.com, or something like this.
And we'll see with what they said. And then we'll compile a report or just be a fact based report on this date. This person said this on this day this at that screenshot, we included the full screenshot in context. On this video, they said X, Y, and Zed, maybe a transcript, and so on and so forth. And then once the all the facts are gathered,
will bring some, you know, Quran and Hadith, which might seem to demonstrate a contradiction between their actions or what the Cronus under commands, and then will be presented to the individual and said, firstly, all the facts accurate, is there anything missing? has anything been misconstrued or misrepresented? You can amend all that now. Right? So are you happy that this this this report is a accurate? depiction of the facts? Say yes, okay. I have no argument with it. Okay. Do you have a response to these Quranic verses or a hadith? Do you know of a scholars exception that you are following? Do you say, Well, you know, I believe that you can mock the Allah better. And I think
that these people are actually better. I say, Okay.
Mock mean, what do you mean by a mock, and, you know, show up, show me, your the fact that you're following? And in this case, for example, you know, there's no, there's no permission to insult the individual, per se, but but but you can use a reductio ad absurdum, where you show the absurdity of the absurd conclusion of the other person's arguments, that's fine. But to attack the individuals of ad hominem is that allowed. So then if they if they insist that it is, then say, alright, then we have to take it to the scholars, and the scholars will assess both your claim that you're following this fatwa. And they will, they will have knowledge greater than ourselves about niche fat was and
the afterlife, and they can bring that in, and issue judgment. But before we go to the scholars, we say, look, once we put these facts, and it does look like it could conduct this crime, and so now we brought, do you want to apologize a second time will offer Do you want to apologize yourself? If you do so no further action will be taken. No more No, than we approached you. And you can either do do it because you often you're now convinced, or the error of your ways, or you want to say face? That's up to your heart, we won't look into what motivates you. But either way, do you want to apologize now to the public or own up to what you did? Say it was wrong, apologize for it, or to the
individual that you will that was involved in if you attack someone? And if they say yes, all and good. If they say no, then it progressed to the scholars, then there'll be referred to the scholars for judgment. And if the scholars then look into it, and they see that this is actually a problem, and we indict that person, we will push that person a third time and say, what I mean, that will be the usual case, it depends how egregious it is, but we'll put the personnel even a third time and say, the schools have ruled against you, they have given this ruling here based on on some evidences that they might know of and so on. If the person says Actually, I didn't know this, okay, you know
what, I'm sorry. And okay. You can apologize, you can solve, rectify, no one will know that you that his first spoke to you. But if they say, Nope, I will not.
You know, in a Don Giovanni way, if they say nope, I will not. I will not
kind of take it back when you say repent the day.
And I say no, no. Okay. And if they don't,
then the report, will the facts that were gathered, the Quranic verses and Hadith and the scholars verdict will all be published online for everyone to see. And a video we done which summarizes what it was and in a sense, it's a kind of name and shame approach. And no one will be able to argue against they'll just say office impartial, whatever, because again, the person in question check the facts. Right, right. Right. They weren't misrepresented.
The Quranic verses and Sunnah will be used. If the person is from is for matalon. They will, they will accept the Aquasana sources. They won't dispute them. Or they might be issues with some Hadith that have been died, but that's something that scholars can take into account. Of course, if the scholars, you don't unanimously agree that this person has breached their Dublin Haluk obviously the standard requires, then this will there will be named and shamed, but very more importantly, the OMA will be educate
ate it, right? Yes, they'll see, ah, you can't do that action because of these evidences, you know, because people often say they have a special exemption exemption will show exception to the rule. No, the scholars might, might educate otherwise. And that's what I think is. That's what convinced me because I thought to myself, look, I don't have time for this course. Yeah. And I've stayed out of online fitness for a long, long time, because I just don't have the time to investigate. Because Because I wouldn't be able to comment unless I actually spend time investigating everything.
But when it was, someone said to me, you know, look,
the Muslims will learn from this, they will learn, you will, you will improve their knowledge of adapting o'clock, by seeing practical examples, showing them practical examples, and how the scholars addressed it. So that then Muslims can No, ah, then that's too far, I will No, to maintain that as a limit now. Whereas before, it was a bit of a gray area for me and my knowledge, and because of that I agreed to, to kind of undertake this, this endeavor, and so on. And, and, of course, you know, if the school is judged that the person's actions were fine, or Okay, or excusable or not haram that would be published to and there'll be exonerated from it. But there are other ways
there are other issues that will be can be discussed, not just maybe one person complains, but someone could come saying, Look, I've been slandered. And I have evidence to show that this room against me is verifiably false. Maybe maybe the room doesn't have any identifiable source. So that we can then investigate, they invite because the MSA of UBC in Canada, they invited me to investigate the claims against them. So people can can seek recourse they have going to the to Western law courts, and paying lots of money. Sure, right. And to sue or civil suits, they can use this institution as a as an as a recourse to, to protect their reputation, which is much more in
line with the Sharia, which Historically and traditionally has always been open access, easy access for public and I really am excited about that dimension, that that that convinced you that the education of the public because one of the things and HELOC points this out and his books that the you know, sort of traditional OMA pre colonialization had achieved was a common language of the shittier. Right, like through the easy access of courts and the juridical sort of apparatus. Everybody knew sort of how these things worked. Like they knew what the limits were, they knew what evidence was accepted or not accepted, they were at least literate, right in these sorts of things.
And that's illiteracy that we've lost as a literacy that we've lost. We're now illiterate, with this type of thing.
It's I think it's a brilliant idea. And it demonstrates not just a familiarity with Kabbalah, which I noticed, you know, from someone who who studied in Sharia, you know, and the the processes and almost the almost boring, methodical nature of a call the but
but I also noticed that
that, as we said, it has that redemptive dimension, it's very transparent, and just is profoundly fair. Now, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the notorious face. It's an
an organization that attempted to investigate supposedly predatory behavior, from Imams. And I remember hearing complaints I haven't done a thorough investigation of but I remember hearing complaints that people wouldn't learn that they had were under investigation until the whole thing was done. Now you tell me how profoundly it just goes to show we've been talking a lot this week together in Canada about activism and the importance of rooting activism in the city, rooting activism in Islam, we're not taking secular frameworks. We're not taking ideological frameworks as our basis, slapping some Islamic language on it and calling it Islamic. No, that actually is going
to ruin us. Right? So if we're going to investigate anybody, it has to be according to the Sharia. And it has to be according to the Sharia norms can't be, can't be a witch hunt. It can't be something that's, that's inspired from, you know, the metoo movement, or I believe every woman or these sorts of slogans that get thrown around that that just don't they completely contradict To be frank, they completely contradict the Cydia and we have these things on the books, it's very easy for anybody with basic training to be able to access this literature, the cobalt literature, the procedures, you know, conflicts of interest, right, how to avoid conflicts of interest. We have
loads and loads of literature about when the colony shouldn't judge when he's hungry when he's angry when you know if he has a commercial interest if he has, you know how the colony should behave that he shouldn't accept the gift, right even though there's some some
The ultimate, they have a blanket prohibition about Kula accepting gifts from anybody in their village. Because then what happens when it's time for arbitration, you're gonna feel a different sort of way. So the city I just is just profoundly fair and profoundly meticulous. You know, and I really see that, and how you and the other stakeholders have kind of approached this thing, and I wish you success. And I really hope that Allah puts Baraka in this because I do feel that it's a much needed thing.
You mentioned that she about a conflict of interest. So there's Yes, I was gonna ask the question that the audience watching this right now, right, would ask, which is, how would you stop bias? Judges? Yes. So there's, there's two, two things, two elements, that that we were implementing one is, the Council of judges are going to be multi denominational. Alright, so they're going to come from a different man Hodges, and Jamaats, and hypercars, across the board. And for multiple countries, any judge
that has any affiliation with anyone who's been investigated, or whether they have an animus against them, a personal animus like they've been attacked by that person before they don't like that person, or they are the person be investigated, they are sympathetic to they have a degree of sympathy to they have to be recused, they have to be as removed from the Council for that particular case. So that was the kind of the two elements one will be that anyone who has a connection, a conflict of interest will be removed from any adjudication of a particular case. And of course, the council itself will be multi denomination, or you could say, quote, unquote, it'll be from Salafi
Sufis, and different Jamaats, and so on and so forth. I mean, of Atlanta Sona, in order that the
that when they reach an edge Ma, it carries that much more authority. And as I said, credibility is key here, because maybe if there was only solid fees on board, of course, the SU P wouldn't accept that judgment. And if it was only students on board that suddenly when the judgment, but if ever Salafi, or a Sufi knows that there's at least one or two or three scholars that they respect on that panel, then and they know that there was a, an edge ma between them, then they're going to respect it and give it some attention. So so that was that's a key elements. And as you said, transparency are all our procedures, policies, and so on, will be published online. So in theory, you could
replace me with anyone else, as long as they follow those procedures, you'd come with the exact same outcome.
If someone complains that raised a complaint about myself or anything, I publicly say this, there will be someone that will be investigating me using the same methodology. And I'll be given the same treatment as anyone else would be.
And also, it's also the complaint procedures as first come first serve. So although with some, you could say an algorithm of some kind, like for example, if, if one individuals complained with, you know, the first first 500 complaints, and there's that one, if it has been complained that the first 200 of them, but there are they then and then the rest of the mix will say okay, we can't just spend the next 200 or 200 complaints just as one guy. So we'll you know, we'll pick maybe four or five and then alternate to one person or organization or whatever, and then all person then alternate between different individuals to try to get as many people as possible because I know that there's, there's
a concern that well, if someone gets to the complaint page first and just start spamming.
Yeah, so we have all we have, we've fought it out very meticulously. So that credibility is key, because there's no credibility, then it completely collapsed. And of course, just a couple of questions, and then we'll probably wrap up, it's getting a bit late here. What if an edge map can't be reached by the scholars that will make a judgement if at any, if the need arises? Well, if an itch Mark can't be reached, it will be because there will be a scholar or two that will present some past precedent. And that was required, where they say that this behavior is allowed in such a circumstance, if that's the case, because the organization must be
well must be non sectarian as a neutral and only going based on the quiz commonly agreed amongst Muslims. Okay, that's the most important then that you know, that the police then no indictments can occur on individual so it establishes a baseline like so. So that's as important right? So we're trying to establish a hard floor for for the end and conduct between duat and scholars and atoms and just, you know, whoever else
that's very good. So what if someone accuses someone of the DA okay. And that this basically attempts to, it shifts the the nature of sort of the proceeds
yours, right. And that's might be subjective, because we're talking you want to avoid sectarianism. You want to have a ecumenical, if you will, you know, panel of scholars, but the very label or
ascription of someone as being moved today or not, is along those lines, those sectarian lines. So how would a situation like that unfold? Oh, that's a good question. And we have measures in place for that. So basically, because hisbah is not going to be rooted in a particular school of thought, but where Muslims unanimously agree on what other backlog looks like. So if someone calls someone
albida Your family or Buddha or your Moqtada because you're you believe in a particular school of Aqeedah right. This would be judged to be away quite a good faith claim as in the person that uses that other person in in sincerely because they believe that look, according to my adopted Creed's
I think you are at a bidder. I'm not saying it to insult you. I'm not saying it to disparage you. It's my true belief that I hold no one could say, look, it's my true belief that your donkey, right, okay.
So.
So in that sense, then there could be no investigation, because that would be just that would be a matter of Akerlof, which does not have jurisdiction, it's out of jurisdiction. But what his BA can investigate is if someone says, This person claims that, you know,
LGBTQ is practices are fully permissible in Islam, and they I have a binder for this. But the person never said any like that, nothing like that. Or they, they may say, oh, this person says, Marxism is compatible with Islam. And they didn't say that.
Then what his book can investigate is that the the factual part of the claim, sure, which is that? Well, if the person didn't say that Marxism is part is compatible with Islam, then that's false. And it's all because you called the battle a bit based on that allegation, both your allegation and your descriptive of that person that had been that are both false, which you must retract. And that's how we approach it. I see. Is there any space for something like a class action suit? Like you brought up a situation where if someone could have 500 complaints about one person, and sometimes before, we've seen situations where perhaps there wasn't enough evidence to corroborate one single
complaint, but if you start to see a pattern of complaints from different sources, that that might legally mean something different? Is there anything that you've thought about along those lines? Well, I mean,
like, if an individual action they do is not
a breach of other backlog per se, then just because he does it 10 times 100 times 1000 times doesn't doesn't make it
egregious, although
it depends on the nature of the film, and what have you, but then that would require the scholars to agree or not sure. However,
there is one issue that people often ask, which is
the in Islam, if you're if you mean good, well, for a brother or a sister, you advise them privately, and you get them to correct their own behavior without going in public because they might be more resistant to correcting themselves if you go public first, which is the reason why his spot actually gives people at least two to three chances to self rectify, and to apologize without and say face.
So some Muslims might say, well, I'm going to invoke the you know, the forbiddance of Mancha and according to morrow, and that, because that person said something I find objectionable in public, I'm going to respond to that person in public now, is that technically haram? If is indeed correct, that that person did say something that is objectively objectively objectionable?
Well, no, it's not haram, per se. But there's a preference you could say, you could argue that as Mandela was more recut is recommendable and more pleasing to Allah subhanaw taala that you approach to the individual that you find objectionable, what they've said, first, privately, get them to rectify themselves privately. And if they don't then going publicly. Now, in that situation where there might be an individual Muslim who says that look, I'm calling to the good and forbidding evil because I want to worship my last point Allah and I want to attain his pleasure. But I'm not going to pick the option that does the same thing in effect, and but attains more of his pleasure, right?
Right now I'm gonna just go straight to public attacks are not even going to ask them privately. So do advise them privately. I mean, what can we know is that it can be made public that this individual does that and where they could have taken a recourse that is more pleasing to Allah. I see. So So we're saying that the
The conclusion that that might be drawn right from the organization from hisbah might not always be so clear cut black and white as to, you know, this should have been fully This is a clear breach, right and or that this person is completely exonerated. There could be maybe a middle ground in some scenarios where it's like, okay, this may, strictly speaking, it might not, you know, it's not a breach of a double lock. But it could have been done better. Yes.
It could have been done in a way more pleasing to our last $1 or more efficacious, right. So that could be noted, to the public, but it's not an indictment. It's more like, because as Muslims, we should be striving to do the most recommended things we can Yes. Not saying, well, if it's not strictly haram, I want to do it. Right. And it's like, Well, okay, but you should be avoiding the macro and you should be pursuing what is my job? Ideally? Yeah. If if you're aiming to seek Allah's pleasure, if that's your sole concern, then why wouldn't you?
But yeah, those were the those will be things which,
you know, his bow will kind of mention, that's not an indictment, but it could have been done better. Something else is that this is a typical problem amongst Muslims, but maybe amongst non Muslims to the assumption behind people's motivations. Yes, of course, I'm Muslim, might not give us an advantage to their fellow brother or sister, even when they're meant to give hospital been to develop brother and sister. Now someone might say, well, I'm going to assume the worst possible motivation behind someone's mistake or action.
Because it is possible, and I think there's more evidence to support it. And I say, Yeah, but there's also a possibility that they did things by accident. There's a saying, which is
never attribute to malice, what can be better explained by ignorance, right?
So someone might say, Well, look, what I am said what I my accusation that this person is has a negative motivation, right, or an insincere motivation. Is is not you can't disprove it. It's unfalsifiable really near, but what his book can do when he investigates is that we can say, well, there's there's also plausible other explanation. And as a Muslim, it's recommendable for you to pick hospital done to make excuses and to say what is the possible explanation is possible. And in that case, it might you might not require you might not be able to do an indictment of that person for breach about them a hug of luck. But it can be noted, that person didn't adhere to hospital Dawn
requirements, when an alternative explanation was was was possible short that person could be right and what they're saying, but they themselves have no certainty. Yes, that's the Quran says that Yvonne does not avail on the truth. Speculation does not
avail and of course, beware suspicions as well. So these things can be noted. Of course, scholars might not always just say this is indictable. They might say it's not indictable, but it could have clearly been done better and in a way that's more rewardable and pleasing to Allah. So if an individual continually issues the way that is more pleasing to Allah subhanaw taala the public should be made to know about this and maybe Inshallah, the person who keeps picking the
the less recommendable acts of road will feel the pressure will feel shy and realize you know, what, I should be picking what is more recommendable first. So, but that's not a condemnation. It's not meant to be a naming and shaming. But it's a hope that Muslims will always pick that the better of two roads. And it's instructive. And as you said, I think that's one of the biggest benefits of it. It's a you were instructing and teaching Muslims how to behave and what should what they should aspire to.
I could come up with some technical questions, but I think I think we'll give it a rest. I think we'll end on that note and I really ask Allah subhanaw taala to bless that initiative and all the initiatives that you do, and to make it a means of attaining his pleasure and his salvation or your salvation from the Day of Judgment Inshallah, I mean, thank you so much.
It's always a pleasure. Many great conversations, and I hope to have more before we part ways, but for now Byculla panicle have like a shadow and, and to still feel called to be like Salaam Alaikum after law, while Aiken was salam, wa barakato