Yasir Qadhi – 5 Points to consider before making an Islamic political stance – Q&A

			woman
		

			saw the how
		

			many Mina mostly me,
		

			salam alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatu Alhamdulillah, who began by praising Allah Subhana Allah to
Allah, the One and the unique, it is he alone that we worship, and it is his blessing that we seek.
He is the Lord of the oppressed. And he answers the dua of the week. As to what follows today is our
usual q&a And I'm going to begin with a very difficult and awkward question. Over the last two
weeks, I have been inundated with questions about my thoughts regarding the political developments
in a particular Muslim land, where Western forces have withdrawn and the government that aspires to
rule by the Shetty or has taken over. Now initially, I have declined to comment. But the the
		

			incessant messages and emails and Facebook messages and Twitter comments and YouTube comments even
all asking me to comment and wanting to know my thoughts, I feel compelled to answer. However, I
will answer generically without mentioning the country by name for reasons that should be obvious
and also to extrapolate more benefits. So that insha Allah to other the generic thoughts that I
share will be useful, not just for this particular scenario, you know, this lecture is being given
in August of 2021. Allah knows how many more, you know years, people will be listening to lectures,
and I want to comment in a way that other incidents may be somebody's living, listening 10 years, 20
		

			years, maybe even 50 years from now, that insha Allah Allah, the comments that I give today will
reflect generic benefits for multiple scenarios, and not just specifically to this one particular
incident that has happened in this particular month of this particular year. So ask Allah for
tofield and hedaya. It's a very, very awkward question. And that is why I hesitated to respond. But
Insha Allah, Allah, I hope there is hair and Barak and benefit in what I'm about to say. And if what
I say is correct, it is from Allah. And if it is incorrect, then it is from myself and the
whisperings of shaytaan, my response will center on five points. The first point, I must begin by
		

			mentioning that I find it very problematic. I'm frankly very troubled by a very common sentiment
amongst our religious folk, that our scholarship that our odema that our clergy are the best
political commentators. One of the main points that I have continued to drive home in all of my q&a,
is that people should ask, the specialists have their own specialities and that those who are
specialized should stick to their own areas of expertise. And I would venture that one of our one of
our problems, not the biggest problem, not a major problem, but it is definitely a problem is that
large segments of the religious community and by religious I mean, those that are overall practicing
		

			and praying and Masjid going and enthused about, you know, the sciences of religion, and we thank
Allah for them. And for that, you know, sentiment, but those that are so religiously inclined,
because they're so attracted to their Obama and scholars, and they listen to them, and they look up
to them is that they feel that their scholars are qualified on all fronts, and in matters that are
beyond the areas of expertise. And I say this, frankly, as somebody who has trained amongst Ruda and
is considered by some to beat them, even though I'm always going to say I'm a student of knowledge,
a minor student of knowledge, but as somebody who's been with aroma for 25 years of my life, who's
		

			associated with them, who you know, considers them to be still my mentors and peers, and I look up
to them and with our community, I say this loudly and clearly, that specialists and Islamic sciences
are specialists in Islamic sciences, they are not specialists in fields outside of those sciences.
We are all human beings, all of us, no matter how much we've studied, we remain human. And that
means we have our strengths. And we have our weaknesses. We have our areas of expertise, we have our
areas of ignorance, just because one of us has studied of seal, or Sierra or fic, or al Qaeda or any
signs of Islam. It doesn't mean that that person is more qualified to speak about psychiatry or
		

			investment, you know, or even political analysts, then people that are trained in those areas. In
fact, let me state that
		

			Generally speaking, not just clergy, religious folks overall, are not the best suited for political
office and political institutions simply because religion by its nature is ideal and idealistic.
religious folks are idealists. They're accustomed to piety and purity in their leaders and they
should be. Politics is not idealism. Politics is compromise. Politics is the least of many evil
solutions, politics is dirty business, and therefore the world have in an earlier map, and the world
of running countries and politicians has historically never been the same other than the time of the
whole of Russia doing and that's why we idealize those 3040 years of our entire Ummah otherwise,
		

			throughout the Obama years and Ibis is throughout all of the rise and fall of all of these
dynasties. Politicians were one group of people and early AMA and clergy were another group and it
is rare to find a merging between those two, let politicians be politicians, let earlier map your
bureau them and let the tensions between them be clear, because religion should be idealistic. And
politics is far from that. In fact, dare I say that when are the Imams and scholars get involved in
politics? Usually, it's not a very nice business, you know, look at a land where Pharaohs once
roamed, and where perhaps many Pharaohs still roam. We would much rather that the scholarship of
		

			that country had not gotten involved and justified what these mini Pharaohs do. So my first point is
all part of the first point is that I want to explicitly reiterate what our Prophet sallallahu
alayhi wa sallam advised us 14 Centuries ago, in the Hadith narrated by our mother I show the Allahu
anha that she said Amara now Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and Luna Zilla na seminar Zilla
home that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam commanded us that we put people in their
appropriate places. We put people in their appropriate places, ask doctors about medicine, ask them
about the religion of Islam and the Quran and the Sunnah, asked psychiatrists about human
		

			psychiatry, but when you ask a person who's not a specialist of something outside of his area of
speciality, then take it with a grain of salt. Now, I begin with this first point, and for sure one
of you is already going to comment or think Hold on a sec. You're saying that, are you saying are
you saying that people of knowledge should never talk about politics? And I respond? No, I didn't
say that. I simply said that, to equate the scholarship of a scholar with his views on politics is
the problem. So brutally honest and very frank, when I speak in shallow data about the Quran about
the Sunnah about the seal of the prophets as and when I give you my personal opinion about a fatwa,
		

			I genuinely believe that that's coming from years of research, it means something, it's not coming
out of thin air. This is I ask Allah azza wa jal for TOEFL confer Hidayat for a class. But when any
scholar gives a verdict or an opinion, it is based upon years of research is based upon background
information that takes a long time to acquire, it's not coming out of thin air. However, when I
speak about the situation in this land, or that land, when I talk about the political parties in
here and there, it's not coming from the same area of expertise. And therefore, if I were to say
something about politics are about current affairs, or about situations that are dealing with
		

			particular incidents of a modern time, then what I am saying is not as authoritative if you like, as
what I might say about the Quran and about the Sunnah. So am I allowed to speak about other issues?
Of course, I am just like you're allowed. And you know, politics is an area where everybody talks,
I'm allowed to talk, you're allowed to talk, I'm allowed to hold opinions, you're allowed to hold
opinions. However, what I'm saying is that when a religious person when a person of your hidden when
a person of knowledge says something about a political analysis, please do not take it with the same
level of authority that you would take that person's fatwa or fake from, you will take it as you
		

			will take any other opinion from any other person. It's not any more binding. So understand what I'm
saying here. I will continue to talk about politics because I like politics I read a lot and I, I
talk a lot about these issues. However, my analysis is not any much greater or better than anybody
else's, just because I've studied the Quran and the Sunnah. Now, I've said this to one of the
brothers who came to me in our community, and I kind of you know, made this point and he goes, Okay,
you know, I agree with all of this point, you know, but in the end of the day, am I not allowed to
know your opinion? I mean, I'm curious. Okay. I agree with your caveats. I agree with your
		

			disclaimers that it's not a fatwa you're giving about that land. You're not giving me a verdict
about that group and that party. But the brother said to me, this is what he said to me that, you
know, I consider you to be more well read than myself. And I respect your analysis overall. So I
just want to know your opinion, like, I want to know the opinion of anybody who might have read more
than me. And that's a valid point. So as long as that caveat is understood that an opinion of a
scholar remains an opinion, it's not binding, it's not a foot towards not a verdict. It's not it
doesn't have, it doesn't have the authority of written just because an acronym says it about a
		

			political issue. And if you disagree, or if you reject no big deal, it's just an opinion. So as long
as you have that caveat on understanding, then I don't have any problems, you know, sharing with you
some generic points or comments that I have. And that's going to then allow me to move on to the
next point out of our five points. So the second point, still speaking about overall politics and
talking about politics, when it comes to political analysis when it comes to taking sides when it
comes to holding a position about A Current Affair about which party which Bill to support about
which tactic or what not. This is not an issue generally speaking of haram and headache, it's not an
		

			issue of how can battle generally speaking, in reality, it's hardly ever a black and white issue. In
the time of the Sahaba when the civil war broke out between Israel the Allahu anha and Alito, the
law one between Wow, it'll be law one and the law one, when those civil wars broke out, you had
people of piety in all of those camps. piety, transcends politics, piety, transcends political
divisions, and it is very, very likely that on any given set stance, or any current event, you will
find people arguing and bickering and disagreeing, and the both of them are people of Jannah and
will end up in Jannah. In this world, they might even go to war as the Sahaba did, may Allah have
		

			mercy on all of them. Their disagreements might be extreme, but they are sincere in their own views,
and they think they're doing this for the betterment of the Ummah, as long as their knee is for
Allah subhanho wa taala. And they genuinely think that this tactic or this group will be better for
the deen of Allah Subhana. Without if that's their worldview, even if they're mistaken, in their
analysis, they are forgiven in the eyes of Allah subhanho wa taala. And so just because somebody
supports one side against another in any modern political scenario of any Muslim land of any
country, as long as the both of them want to support the deen of Allah. Now, again, I'm not talking
		

			about by the way, if one group says I don't want to support Allah and His Messenger or the villa
with Ebola, if one group says that if one person says that I don't want the laws of Allah, and I
don't want the Sharia of Allah, that's clear cut that this might potentially be covered or even be
covered. But we're not talking about somebody about that. We're still we're talking about somebody
who says, no, no, this particular group, this particular group, it's not manifesting the Sharia this
particular group, it's not applying the Sharia properly, if somebody feels that rejecting a group of
humans who claim to be applying to Sharia is not the same as rejecting the Sharia, if you believe
		

			that that group is not applying to Shady I hope I hope my my point is clear here is that when it
comes to political FDLR fat, and I say this as somebody who has very clear stances in many Muslim
lands in cases that have happened, where I believe that, you know, one side is definitely wrong, and
the other side is definitely right. And yet, I am aware that there are scholars whom I love, and I
know are sincere on the other side, and they support a particular regime or a particular government
or a particular rulership. And I am not, you know, generally I'm not somebody who's ever been a
blind support or flagbearer, of any of these regimes or kingdoms. And I find myself always in
		

			opposing camp. But I'm not blind to the reality that there are pious or Allama, who genuinely think
that the lesser of two evils is to be with the supporting, you know, regime or government or
whatnot. And they think that that will be better for the Ummah, as long as their knee is for the
ummah. And as long as their loyalty is to Allah and His Messenger, and not to a courtesy or to an
individual, and you can tell by the way by the language and by the stances, and by their track
record is very clear. There are those people who will go with the flow and go with the money and go
with the power and those people have sold themselves for a measly price. But there are those who
		

			might say
		

			Put the courtesy but not because of the courtesy. They support it because they think the course of
accuracy I mean, the current political establishment, they think that that is better for the OMA,
that is an interpretation. And that's exactly what happened in the time of the civil wars between
the sahaba. Why were pious people on all sides? Because pious people thought this is best, no, this
is best, no, this is best. And each one thought that one is best and Allah azza wa jal will judge
them based upon their intention. So my second point here is that we have to be very, very careful
about considering our opponents to be evil people, as long as those opponents love Allah and His
		

			messenger and want the religion of Allah to benefit. I'm not talking about somebody who says, I
don't want the deen of Allah, that person is not somebody I'm even discussing in this regard. That
is almost a rejection or it might even be a rejection. If somebody literally says I don't want the
religion of Allah, that's really a rejection of ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada directly. But if somebody
says, Just give me an example of somebody says, I love Allah and His Messenger, of course, I want to
benefit the deen. But this group that you support, I think they will harm the deen, I think they're
going to be detrimental to the religion. That's their analysis, you might disagree. But you have to
		

			understand that the person who disagrees with you is not an evil person necessarily, or a Kaffir, or
ball or Muqdadiyah or whatnot. So politics is a tricky business. And politics is not black and
white, and supporting political parties and supporting current events and disagreeing about the best
analyses of this, these events should not lead to us considering the people on the other side to be
necessarily evil people as long as as as as I said, their faith remains to want to benefit the
religion and their loyalties remain to Allah and His messenger. The only person whom if you oppose
him, you are instantaneously evil in a coffered is the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam
		

			as the only person. Even amongst the Sahaba there were those who oppose it not the Allah one there
were those who were on the other side of it, you know, the Allahu Ana, did that make them evil?
There were people in the sight of while we're on the side of it on the side of Aisha, all of them
praying tahajjud loving Allah and His Messenger, there were scholars on all of these sites. That was
their analysis, if that happened during the lifetime of the Sahaba, do you think in these gray areas
where there are politicians of all stripes on all sides, that the issue is crystal clear, not at
all. And if anybody thinks this, then frankly, their understanding of reality and of human history
		

			and politics is not very profound and deep allow that. So the second point I want to
		

			mention here is that even if somebody analyzes, even if somebody does, you know, pontificate about
these, and is very passionate, allow room for disagreement, and understand that your opponent in a
political view, is not necessarily an evil or a bad person. The third point that I want to bring up
about these difficult issues out of the five points that I'm going to mention is that we also have
to be aware that our knowledge and our assessment of the situation is as good and as credible as our
sources. And our sources are only as good as what we ourselves want to trust. And what we want to
trust is generally speaking, going to ally with and be in sync with our own preconceived biases.
		

			What do I mean by this? I mean by this, all of us have to be aware of what we call confirmation
bias. Look it up if you don't know what it is. And that is that you selectively take bits of
information that you already want to believe, and that reinforces your pre existing belief. And This
especially applies to those of us who are speaking about issues from 5000 miles away on the other
side of the world. And it applies to those of us that are not ethnically from a particular region.
We don't have family and friends over there, we've never lived over there, we should humble
ourselves to our limited scope of knowledge. All of us are speaking from somewhat a position of
		

			luxury, a distant view, a bird's eye view, not a first hand view. We don't know who to trust about
each news item. Each one of us including myself has our echo chambers, because we hear what our
friends and colleagues tell to us and our friends and colleagues generally sympathize with us in the
first place. That's why they're our friends and colleagues. Therefore, if you're with the far right,
and your Facebook is full of far right, and your colleagues are all far right, don't be surprised
when you get one skewed vivid image of that land or of any land. And if you are a person who is
sympathetic to the the regime or the people in charge, and you want to get the good news about them,
		

			then don't be surprised when your friends and your Facebook called the
		

			He's and whatnot are forwarding you the snippets that talk about the positives. And perhaps the
truth lies in between those two. My point being that my third point is that we should not be so so
arrogant as to presume that we actually know what is going on when we are so far away. And we are
not connected directly to the circumstances, who really knows what is going on. Those who want to
have a negative view will find plenty of quotes and stories that reinforce that image. And those who
want to get a positive view will also find plenty to get that positive view. So be vigilant against
confirmation bias, and understand that our knowledge of the situation is only as good as our
		

			sources. And our sources are generally speaking, sources that we already are inclined towards. So
there's somewhat of an echo chamber being created in all of our little bubbles and lives. And it is
a little bit healthy, to be honest to step into other echo chambers and see what is going on.
Because sometimes the truth transcends any one little echo chamber bubble. So be careful because
your analysis of the situation is going to be based upon the facts that you believe. And the facts
that you believe is going to be based upon the sources that you trust. And the sources that you
trust is going to be based upon your own preconceived biases. And so very likely your analysis is
		

			confirming your preconceived biases. It's a vicious loop and cycle, just be aware of this. And
sometimes it is healthy, to listen to other perspectives just to understand where they're coming
from. And just to think about maybe some aspects of your own understanding, you might be flawed. And
in the end of the day, it's very difficult to really transcend our own human biases. So these are my
first three points that I have. Now we get to another very interesting point. And you realize, by
the way, that's why I said, my answer will be generic, most of you wanted a specific help and bolted
and right and wrong, and I'm trying to explain to you, the world doesn't work that way. political
		

			analysis doesn't work that way. It's far more difficult than what we think and perhaps in these
words, insha, Allah to Allah, there's some food for thought and rumination and contemplation, which
is really what I want all of us to get to. Now, this leads me to perhaps my longest point over here.
		

			And that is that what people have been asking me is about
		

			this group's understanding of human rights and the Sharia and women's rights and what's going to
happen. And this is where it was troubling for me to see how easy it was to absorb a set of
questions, and a set of problems that are not coming from within our own paradigm. I advise all of
us to not get caught up and become a pawn in a game that was not invented by us, and it is not being
played by us. And in reality, it is being played against us. Our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam
said, Leia could ima your old anima nurse in SLNs accent to When? When so it was up to what I can,
what do you do on Fusa? Come in us and a nurse and toys you know, when Sir Oh, fella, tell the demo.
		

			In the recorded interview, the our profit system said I'll translate to lingue I needed the meaning
of it. Don't be a blind fool. Don't be like a leaf in the wind. If the people do good, he'll say I
follow the people. If they do good, he follows them. If they do bad, who follows them? No,
Strengthen yourselves, fortify yourselves, anchor yourselves. If the people do good, and they speak
good, they'll be with them. But if the people don't speak and don't do good, then don't do wrong. My
point is, a lot of our brothers and sisters are getting caught up in questions and concerns that are
not emanating from people of piety and integrity, but rather emanating from people who want to play
		

			a very, very vicious game. What do I mean by this, I'm going to have to go into a little bit of a
detail and tangent here. We are being told by the media and by our politicians and by many Western
countries, that there is a great concern for the people of that country for the human rights of that
country for the women of that country. Now, before I move on, on a personal level, I will tell you
honestly, I too, am concerned about some of these things about what views this particular group
might have of the shittier and if their policies might potentially backfire. We all know that if
you're too harsh on the people, that if you're too strict on the people and not they're not ready
		

			for that strictness, they might end up rejecting and rebelling and in rejecting you or other Biller,
some might end up red
		

			ducting aspects of hola Shadia, Ibn mistruths, or the hola hola and famously remarked, speak to the
people at their level. Otherwise, you might end up causing them to reject Allah and His messenger.
If this is mere speech, what do you think about policies and politics, if you're too strict with the
people, and they're not ready for it, you might cause them to reject what they should not reject
because of your foolishness. So at some level, I am actually concerned myself about some of these
questions. And those in charge of any Muslim land need to be wise and gradual, even those that want
to implement the Sharia. And start with the larger issues. The most important issue is civic
		

			security. The most important issue is safety. The most important issue is the security of all of the
people there they need to feel free and safe. And then after that, they need to have houses and food
and shelter. This is far more important than implementing the tertiary issues of modesty and of
dress code, or even the gray areas of what type of entertainment is allowed, and not so yes, I as
well have some concerns, however, and listen to me carefully. Dear Maslow's, my concerns, as a
Muslim, do not blind me to the reality of the sheer hypocrisy of this incessant chatter about human
rights and women's rights by a group that cares nothing about humans rights and women's rights. The
		

			same entities, our own countries of America and Europe, our own countries of NATO have invaded and
bombed and destroyed this country for almost two decades, the United States of America, my country,
the one that we live in, has dropped. And I calculate it today. And it looked up today at 1638 bombs
on this particular country, a country that is one of the most underdeveloped in the world where
people are living, as if almost living 500 years ago, a country that has no military, no navy, it
doesn't have any air force, almost 100,000 bombs were dropped in the last 20 years, a country that
was invaded, and the invading troops were directly involved in the massacres of 10s of 1000s of
		

			people. We don't even know how many people were killed because the same country that is claiming,
championing human rights, that same country has absolutely no idea how many people were killed. Do
you know why? Because they announced as a public policy, that they wouldn't even count the number of
civilian deaths that their own bombs caused because they couldn't care. You're talking to me about
human rights. You didn't even care about the humanity of the people whom you bombed, where was human
rights back then the same country that is talking about women's rights and wondering about women's
rights, we now know for a fact that they supported. They supported the types of warlords and the
		

			types of mafias that were well known for engaging in child soldiers and in child rapes and in
something called Bacha Bazi. Well known in that part of the world, this same country that is talking
about women's rights, publicly supported those mafias and warlords that were rampantly guilty of
that type of abuse. What happened to women's rights at that point in time, so really, it is
distressing to see so many of our righteous brothers and sisters not understand the tactic, the
screen tactic, it is a tactic of the boy who cried wolf to bring attention to a false reality, or
one can say it is an intentional red herring tactic. Do you know what a red herring tactic it is? It
		

			is a tactic to draw attention away from what you should be paying attention to, to something you
should not be paying attention to. That's what a red herring is that you bring it into an argument
you bring it into a debate so that you draw your attention away from something that you should to
something that you shouldn't it is an intentional and deceitful tactic and frankly, it is a frown ik
tactic that owl was the one who mastered and invented this tactic perhaps even because when Musa
comes to frown and Musa walks into the grounds Palace right
		

			around says to Musa Frauen says to Musa Who are you to come back to me after we raised you in our
own palace and you committed the murder that you did what file to file a technicality filter? You
remember the punch that Musa gave to the to the clip to the punch that he gave him that clip he
died? And so if Iran says to Musa that, who are you to come to us? We were the ones who raised you
and nurtured you along neurotic afina with Eden would it be 15 m&r moody Cassini Wafaa Altova
		

			That's a collective alto one terminal caffeine and how did Musa respond fit around is telling Musa
What an irony frown is telling Musa you are a cafe with contaminated caffeine you are a reject or an
ungrateful person and Musa response indeed fall to hate and you're right I did this mistake one I'm
not balding and I made a mistake and I fled from you because I was fearful of you. Then Allah azza
wa jal brought me back to you. And then he said, What till can you remember to interview her? Allah?
Yeah, and Bani Israel. You are considering it a favor that you raised me after you enslave the
entire Israelites 100,000 people, you kill them, massacred them, enslave them. And then you say, oh,
		

			but I'm worried about you. I took care of you. Don't give me your, you know, half baked
		

			confessions or your claims of wanting to protect your care. You don't care about humanity. You don't
care about the children of Israel. You took care of me but you bombed and killed while you founded
and bomba T massacred 10s of 1000s of people. And this is the reality of our own lands. visa vie
this country that we are talking about. I don't want to go too deep right now. And not because I'm
worried of anything but because of time. But what many people don't understand that you have to
summarize a little bit brothers and sisters, because
		

			some people they are not understanding why these questions are being raised of human rights and
women's rights and whatnot in the burqa, and all that they don't understand the reality of why the
series of questions is being dragged out and constantly paraded in the media. What is happening to
your brothers and sisters is that a vicious game has been played, it's already been played already
done. A vicious game has been played the game of war. And it was a game that was done not for
religion, not for human rights, not for women's rights, not to free women from the burqa, not even
for democracy, not even for Western civilization. All of this is not correct. No, this game was
		

			played because of money. Simple as that. greed for money. In a nutshell, very briefly so that we
understand in a nutshell, our country of America raises almost $3.5 trillion in taxes annually, do
how much a trillion is Do you know how much a trillion is? A trillion is a million millions, a
trillion is a million millions. It's just words, our minds go blank, we can't even envision how much
is a trillion. There is no trillionaire yet on Earth. And this government raises $3.5 trillion
		

			every single year in taxes. Now, that is a huge pile of money. People are greedy for that money.
Politicians who control they can't just dig into that money put into their pockets that would be
against that will be blatant stealing. They can't do that. So what do they do? Greedy politicians
figure out a way how to tap in to that massive treasure chest of $3.5 trillion. What do they do? One
of the tactics that has worked very well for the last few decades, is to declare war on a country.
War is profitable. For some groups of people. It comes at a cost. Some people die. Lots of people
die. But some people become very, very wealthy. War is profitable for 1000s of politicians and 1000s
		

			of companies. Why? Because when you go to war, what happens? The government has to purchase weapons,
it has to purchase bedding and material and cloth it has to purchase food, it has to purchase
everything. So the government has to enact treaties are not treated sorry, the government has to
make purchases from private corporations that are producing for the government. And these
corporations are going to supply the military and to supply the contractors in the countries that
are being invaded. And of course, they're going to overcharge this as well known. The contractors
have no oversight, it's going to overcharge. So well known there was an article about some of these
		

			examples of overcharging for example, the screw might cost 20 cents and the contractor will charge
the government $20 for a nail, you know, a nail you will get a new local sir, for 20 cents, the
contractor will charge $20 for that particular nail. What's going to happen? The government writes
checks for millions of dollars to these corporations and lots of people become very wealthy. When
they become wealthy. They will reward the politicians who made them wealthy as well. The politicians
have direct contact with the corporations. So the politicians become wealthy directly by making
those corporations wealthy. And perhaps the most obvious and blatant example was our former Vice
		

			President Cheney himself. Who was the
		

			Chairman and CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Do you know our Vice President Dick Cheney had a
severence package from Halliburton that was close to $36,000,000.30 $6 million. He was awarded when
he went into the government service. And then what happened? He declared war on Iraq. And
Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract in which only Halliburton had the right to bid for
that contract. One man bid one, show it bid and it got it and no questions asked. Do you not see
what is going on here? The politician gets rich, and the company he works for gets rich? And where
does that money come from, from my taxes and your taxes. So the fact of the matter is, those who
		

			vote for war, don't care about human rights. They don't care about the worker, they don't care about
democracy. They don't even care about American lives, or Iraqi lives or of Fulani lives. They care
about money. And the tactic to go to war is to access that money and put it into their pockets and
the pockets of their constituents. But see, there's one problem. It's a big problem, that money has
to be justified to the people who gave it. That's me and you, that's the taxpayers, how do you
justify the people paying that money, because in the end of the day, if you don't justify, then the
people who gave that money will vote you out of office, because you're not spending that money for
		

			my children's school. You're not spending that money for health care, healthcare, still not free.
You're not spending that money for inner cities. We have so many problems in this country. And we
are spending trillions of dollars in war $6 trillion were spent on in our false invasions of Iraq
and Afghanistan in the last 20 years. $6 trillion. Can you imagine if that money were to be spent
over here, this is where the narrative is created, the story is drawn, and the lie is sold. One of
the greatest political thinkers of our time is Noam Chomsky. He calls this manufactured consent, you
manufacture consent, people think that they are giving you consent, but it is not real consent. What
		

			is the narrative or the lie that is created? You see the guy working in the factory, who's paying
his taxes, working nine to five, whose son is going to join the army, you can't tell the factory
worker that you're going to war to make his boss rich while he remains where he is because the
middle class doesn't gain at all. It's only the rich that gains the CEOs is the business owners. You
can't tell the factory worker that he's going to send his kid to die in a war so that his boss gets
rich. That's not the lie. You can sell the factory worker. So what do you do? You tell that honest,
hardworking worker that you're the good guy, you're a nice person, you're a patriot. And those guys
		

			over there, they speak a different language. They dress different than you. They're the bad guys.
They're gonna kill you. They're all terrorists, you defame them, you dehumanize them, you make the
religion look evil, you make fun of their practices, their cultures, their holy book, their Shetty
and even their prophets of Allah. Why do you sell them? You frighten your own people by creating a
monster out of those people, a bogeyman? And when they're frightened, they're like, What am I going
to do? What am I going to do? You come along as the politician as the government, you say, Don't
worry, I shall protect you. The same person who created the myth of the enemy, and made you into an
		

			innocent, you know, patriot, that same person will say, Don't worry, I shall defend you. Just allow
me to do with your taxes as I please, your son shall go. And he shall fight, not on behalf of the
CEOs for his country, he's not fighting for his country is fighting for the rich, he shall fight for
his country, when the sun comes back in a casket, he shall be given false honors and a medal and a
flag and whatnot. And the innocent worker will feel proud my son died for my country, he didn't die
for the country. Those people that were killed in those lands would never have hurt or harmed you
they don't even know of your existence. But the profit has gone, you know, the profits, meaning the
		

			money has gone to the CEOs. So you create this narrative. What is the narrative? Those guys are
evil, they mistreat their women. They're barbaric, Sharia is bad. They're going to be head. They're
going to put the burqa, we have to save those women, you create this myth. They don't care about
human rights, what human rights are they caring about when their own bombs have killed 100,000
people what women's rights are, they're caring about when their own troops have plundered and raped.
So please spare me this drama of pretending to care about humans rights and women's rights. But to
see, unfortunately, us Muslims, were also absorbing the same media. And so many of us fall prey to
		

			the same lies as well. And many of us start thinking the same way. Oh, those poor people and human
rights and whatnot. And as I said in the beginning of this point, at some level, I too am concerned
about some of these
		

			groups and how they're going to do that. But my concern is stemming from a very, very different
paradigm. I'm not going to be a pawn in a game that is based on hedonistic capitalistic neocon
principles. And even if I have my concerns, they're coming from a faith based To another faith based
and not because of a capitalist agenda that wishes to paint a picture that is very different than
reality. So I hope that this point is clear with your brothers and sisters, that before you jump on
this bandwagon of questioning, questioning, questioning, question the questions, ask yourself, Where
are these questions coming from? Ask yourself why are we being spoon fed these questions at this
		

			point in time by a very group that has gone against the principles that they claim to be defending?
What human rights can you be talking about when you're the ones that have ravaged this country for
the last 20 years, you didn't care about the people or the cultures? Or the religion or the women?
Who are you to come and tell us about human rights and women's rights? So if you want to ask these
questions asked from your paradigm, and don't just jump onto the bandwagon, because this is the
essence of a red herring. This is the essence of distracting from the far bigger and more important
issues so that we ignore the war crimes we ignore the above arrives, we ignore the Guantanamo's,
		

			which is still open as we speak to this day, we ignore all of these and we concentrate on maybe even
the mistakes I'm not defending I have not yet defended, you know, some mistakes that might have
occurred. But what are those mistakes in comparison to the mistakes of the other side is not even
apples and oranges, there is no way you can compete with 100,000 False deaths or 100,000. At least
civilians. Again, we don't even know how many civilians died because our government refused to
collect statistics on civilians dying, they refused. They didn't allow any agency to do that he was
not allowed to collect statistics, if any party is doing that they're doing that on their own
		

			without any governmental support. But we know that around as I said, 85,000 bombs were dropped. And
we know the number of soldiers killed from our side and contractors killed from our side, which is
already in the 10s of 1000s. So if this is our numbers, then the Afghan population and civilians
would be in the hundreds of 1000s. In the very, very least. So because of this point number four is
very simple. Don't jump on the bandwagon and be more cautious about parroting lines that are not
coming from a script based upon a genuine care of the people of that country. And this leads me to
my fifth point. And by the way, I still haven't responded explicitly, because of the reasons I have
		

			mentioned. But still generically, let me conclude with this fifth point.
		

			Any mainstream group that is affiliated with the religion should have some loyalties and be more
beloved to us religiously, than a group that doesn't affiliate with the religion, I say mainstream
to dissociate myself from terrorist groups and from fringe groups, overall, any pie artistic
mainstream group, we make dua for the people of piety, that they're successful, and we hope the best
for them. But we'll also point out that piety alone is not enough to rule and that no matter how
much Taqwa you have, that doesn't substitute knowledge of governance, and that no matter how much
Quran you know, in and of itself, that is not going to help you or your knowledge of territory than
		

			karate is not going to help you and how to run a country. And the Sahaba understood this, by the
way, you know, when the Sahaba conquered codes and the Byzantine lands when they conquered the
region of the visiting Empire, and they increase their, their their lands, you know, quadruple or
fivefold, for the first generation, they did not change the bureaucratic infrastructure of the
Byzantine lands. They did not change anything. In fact, the language of government remained ancient
Greek, the language of government or Latin it remained, they did not change because they understood
that they can't just come in and change the entire system. They allow the infrastructure to remain
		

			and they became the rulers of that infrastructure. And for an entire generation, the infrastructure
remained Byzantium Byzantine, until good Medicube and mode one one generation later, America but
once they had acclimatized once they understood what's going on. Then in the pinnacle of the Omean
power of the medical minimal Juan comes and he aerobicized is the government and he makes the
language within the government Arabic and the the Bureau's and the registrar's everything was then
adopted by the Muslim community after an entire generation
		

			Even the sahaba. And they were infinitely more pious than any current movement or group understood
that when it came to the minutiae of governance of these Byzantine lands, let the people do it in
their own way, and they were the ones overseeing it. So, as we point this out, as we point this out,
and again, you know, without mentioning, you know, any countries any country's name, we wish, you
know, the people of all Muslim lands, that they live under a sensible rule that allows them to
follow the laws of Allah subhanho wa taala. while protecting the lives and livelihoods of the people
living there, we want to see every land flourish, and especially Muslim lands, we want to see them
		

			flourish while balancing the obligations of their faith with the difficulties of their time. And we
never wish any evil or destruction for righteous people, by siding with those who despise our faith.
A flawed and mistaken believer is far more beloved to us than someone who rejects belief and Allah
and His messenger.
		

			But merely pointing out that piety is not the same as governance doesn't mean that we're siding with
the other side. And if there's any skepticism or concern, then it is stemming from a real and
authentic concern that the people of that region love Allah and His messenger and are not turned
away by perhaps the overzealousness of one group of people who are who are at a different level of
Eman and Taqwa and not yet, perhaps ready, the population is not yet ready to reach that level of
Eman and Dukkha. So even if we bring up certain elements of concern, it comes from a genuine love
for the Muslims of that region and for the religion of Islam, and not the false concern that is
		

			brainwashed into some of us about the alleged rights of some members of that society. And so these
are some generic thoughts. And we'll maybe we'll put a shout out TF hameau. And that Inshallah, in
this generic talk, there is benefit for more than just this one particular scenario. So to conclude,
this rather lengthy discussion, and I hope each other there was some benefit here, to reiterate my
five points. Point number one,
		

			don't assume that religious clergy are more qualified to good political analysis than others. And if
they do so, take it as if it is their personal opinion, and not as if it's coming from their years
of training and expertise. My analysis of politics is not the same level as when I tell you a
verdict that I believe in about the Quran and the Sunnah about filk, about Hadith about Tafseer,
that is coming from an area of specialization and expertise. And as for politics, I have the right
to hold it, you have the right to hold it. But my view is no more binding on you and rejecting my
view, you know, the second point that I have disagreeing with the political analysis of an item or
		

			of a person doesn't make you a bad person. But that's my second point. There's, politics is a very
gray area. And if you ask 10 people about a political issue, and an analysis, they'll have 10
different opinions, and maybe all 10 of them are people of gender. So disagreeing about politics, as
long as your heart is with Allah and His Messenger, and your loyalties are to the OMA, it doesn't
necessarily make you a bad person. The point number three I brought up is that understand your own
position of privilege, and your own bias of knowledge, when you speak about issues Far, far away,
and understand that your analysis and my analysis is going to be affected by our perception of what
		

			is happening over there. And the fourth point was a very long discussion of the reality of the
dynamics of why some questions are being raised. And some quote concerns were being asked by a group
of people who don't have those issues and concerns actually in their hearts. So we need to be
careful by becoming blind fools just jumping on and asking the same questions. Our concerns, even if
they are somewhat similar, are not coming from the same paradigm. They're not coming from the same
game, we have a totally different agenda and a totally different view. And so even if we have
certain concerns of this nature, it shouldn't be done by siding with group of people who don't
		

			really have those concerns. And the final point is that, as Muslims, we should want good for all
Muslim people and really for the entire world. And we would love to see a modern, viable practical
manifestation of the Sharia in any and all Muslim lands. And wild piety is a very, very, very
important factor. It is not the only factor that brings about political success. And yet still we
pray for the success of all people of piety and Taqwa and we ask Allah subhana wa Taala to bless
this ummah with head and baraka and peace and security, and to allow each and every one of us to be
a role model for all
		

			All of those around us inshallah with this we come to the end of today's rather lengthy q&a And
until next time just like a lot okay somebody can rahmatullahi wa barakato what guru longer fee a
yummy
		

			dude
		

			Femen died Jaffe remaining fella is gnarly he woman that I fall off
		

			is now really hilly man he dunkel what
		

			our
		

			ad to show