Yasir Qadhi – Banning Child Marriages – Or Can We Pass Laws Restricting the Mubāh? – Ask Shaykh YQ #226

			One
		

			hour to sell me Kobe deca Reja learn No Hey lay him first
		

			recovery
		

			Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. Who would hamdulillah how praise is due to Allah the one
and the unique he revealed the Quran and he taught man how to speak it is he alone that we worship,
and it is His blessings that we seek. So we ask Allah subhana wa tada to censor that and Salam upon
al Mustafa, the one who reached the prophetic peak, as to what follows today, shall we have two
questions that I get to either let's begin, firstly, brother Rashid, from a certain African country
best not to mention, as you'll see why, right, that there's a lot of discussion going on in his
land, regarding a new legislation that aims to curb the minimum age of marriage, that they want to
		

			make a minimum age, that is, you know, regulating it. So they want to curb child marriage, that's to
say, and they want to regulate
		

			marriage to a certain age. And he is saying that there is a debate amongst the aroma of his land,
some saying that it is a good step, whereas others are saying that the Shetty does not have any age
limits. So therefore, to put an age limit goes against the Sharia. He asks for my thoughts on this
issue. And another question that is similar to this is that sister hardrock, from Sri Lanka asks to
what level can social culture be used to limit rulings? or fifth, this is a similar question. So
we'll just lump them together. Now, I want to begin by stating that my talk is generic. That's why I
did not mention your country's name. And that it is not my place to take sides amongst your LMR of
		

			your land and your country regarding the specifics of whether a particular law is justified in their
situation. It's not my job speaking from 1000s of miles away to talk about your particular land, and
what the roadmap are saying in that land. I will answer generically, the question can be broadened.
And we can say whether, from a theoretical perspective, it is allowed for an Islamic political
system to restrict what might otherwise be the default of halaal. And to what extent can it restrict
what is the default that is headed? And as you've already mentioned, that the scholars of your land
have differed, which already gives you an indication that this is an issue which obviously there
		

			will be some back and forth some sensitivities, some various interpretations, and there's no doubt
that this question is one of the most hotly debated amongst them of all the lines because the the
the reality that we're dealing with is that governments and legislations obviously have their own
paradigms and sources. Sometimes there's direct clash, sometimes there's conformity, but usually
it's this type of gray area here. So let us first eliminate the problematic areas that we're not
talking about the problematic areas clearly for an entity for a Muslim government to legislate
making that which is why Jew, prohibited so it is obligatory to pray five times a day, it is
		

			obligatory to foster a month of Ramadan, it is obligatory to, you know, maintain Islamic decorum and
public to wear the hijab, whatever it might be, for any Muslim entity for any government to ban to
prohibit that which the shittier has made obligatory. There is no question that this is a rejection
and a something that is completely by unanimous consensus, it will be something that is prohibited,
and we as Muslims should try our best to maintain the Shetty eye in our personal lives. And if
possible to flee from that land. If the wajib has been made, quote, unquote, how long if the wajib
has been banned, then that has crossed a red line? The exact flip side, if the How long has been
		

			made obligatory as well, the same thing it is how long to drink alcohol, it is, how long to eat
pork, if these types of things have become obligatory in the country that you're living in, that you
are required to do the How long? Once again, you know, there is no question that that is not allowed
for us to do if we're forced to do it. May Allah forgive us, it's not allowed. If we're able to
leave from that line, we should leave from that land. Now. Let's just again, be realistic. The vast
majority of laws that Muslim countries enact are not in those two extremes, rather, we're talking
about that middle. And that is where all of these discussions come. And the fact is that this branch
		

			of Islamic knowledge is in fact an entire branch of Islamic science, which is called CSR sialorrhea.
It is basically the knowledge of how Islamic politics works.
		

			You have a number of odema that have written about this, for example, Alma, what are the is camsell
tawnya, for example, even Tamia has written a treaties, and you have other scholars as well, in the
books of filt, you find brief mentioned is actually not something that is generally discussed in
detail in the books of Phil. And that is because the books of fifth are not meant to be
constitutions for governments, this is one of the biggest mistakes of the very beginning student of
knowledge. And, frankly, sometimes even those that have studied a lot, but they didn't study this
branch of CSS showed that they substitute books for constitutions. And we see sometimes in certain
		

			areas, especially rural areas where people that have studied very basic mothers, and you know, they
might be students of knowledge and toddlers, but they become in charge. And they don't understand
that ruling a country is not something that you just pick up a book of filth, and then you take the
ruling, and you apply that there is leeway that is allowed in this regard. And so today, inshallah,
this brief response, I'm going to just shed some light, and then I will state that this is a topic
that needs to be discussed on a case by case basis by local scholars in conjunction with their areas
of speciality. And again, I am not taking sides in your particular land and the scholars of that
		

			land, I'm speaking a bird's eye view, theoretically, because when you look at Islamic history, when
you look at 14 and a half centuries of the Muslim world, you actually do find that sold bonds and
hold, and governors many times in acted laws that conflicted with theoretical ideals, and sometimes
the scholars approved, sometimes they justified usually they grudgingly went along, because the
ideal and the real is always generally speaking different from one another, the ideal, and the real,
is something that there's tension in class, how the world should be versus how it actually is. And
this was the case, even in the time of actual whole of an actual soul phones. Do you really think
		

			every salon and every governor and every ruler acted like I'm gonna blah, blah, blah, viola, who I'm
obviously not many times, they enacted rules that were hotly disputed, opposed by the people of
their times. But what is to be done? rulers are rulers and the people simply if they, you know, they
obey along and they hate it in their hearts, then it is what it is, to compound this problem. If
this was the reality of actual horror, and Salatin, what do you think in our times when we don't
have Islamic judgments and governments what we have are nation states, with countries, some of which
have a Muslim majority, some of which might have, you know, Muslim minorities, but Muslims in
		

			Congress, and the majority of which the laws of these lands do not go back only to the shittier,
rather than a hodgepodge, a mixture of this and that elements of the shittier elements of other
laws. And of course, we also have to think about the minorities of other faith traditions living in
these Muslim majority lands, and the realization that modern laws must apply equally to every single
faith in the nation state. That is the nature of the nation state, if you're a citizen, all the laws
will be equal, the nation state was not meant to cater to, you know, different laws for different
faith traditions, by and large. So the point being, with all of this, you know, caveat over here,
		

			you're asking me, is it allowed to restrict that which the Shetty has made permissible? It is not
obligatory, it's permissible. Is it allowed for an Islamic government to restrict the permissible?
You asked me I'll give you my opinion, I follow the position, which is the mainstream This is not a
fringe minority. You know, this is our problem here is that people who don't understand or don't
know, they make this to be some type of deviancy and in reality, this is the default position that
an Islamic rulership has the right in consultation with the AMA, and with the experts to restrict
the mobile to restrict that which might be otherwise permissible, permissible, or to take charge of
		

			the rights that the Shetty might as a default, give to an individual, that the government can take
charge of that right and take it from the individual as a matter of policy as long as certain
conditions are met. And this position is what history itself shows us going back to the era of the
whole of Russia doing that there are so many examples of this. Some of these examples do actually
not only with you know running the country, they deal with core religious policies. In fact, one of
the first things that I will look at associated with a loved one who did as a matter of policy was
to compile the Koran in one book and this compilation of the Quran was one of the biggest blessings
		

			that Allah gifted to this oma as a matter of government he did this and then earthmen rhodiola when
he made that version, or that most half if you like, he made it the the only one that he said
anybody who has a personal copy by government policy, it should be destroyed. Now, some even of the
people
		

			objected to say, Hey, hold on a sec, this is my copy. I heard it from the profitsystem. And tomorrow
the lawyer said, I don't care right now we have a greater good to do. We have to unify the entire
oma and we thank Allah He did this because of those wise decisions, then a lot of fitna later on was
gotten rid of and the oma has remained united because of a matter of politics because of a political
decision of earthman rhodiola who died. And the same applies for other actual religious Institute's
such as the tarawih prayer that Omar Abdullah has instituted. Of course, when it comes to non
religious matters, so many policies were done in that era of the Hoda and the early oma years,
		

			whether it was to divide the government into various administrative bodies, or even to put into
place simple laws that we still see. Let me give you a simple example. Do you think that it is an
Islamic for an Islamic government to put in laws pertaining to traffic and pertaining to, you know,
stop signs and violations? What if the government says you must have a driver's license to drive a
car, and then some, let's say, you know, person who doesn't understand the Shetty or says, Oh, this
is how long Allah doesn't say that we need a driver's license Subhanallah if somebody brings this
issue, then honestly, the mentality of this person is so far removed from our level of discourse
		

			that frankly, I don't even know if we can have a legitimate conversation with this person. Eliza
just did not require these types of things simply because Eliza just said what's our ability what
taqwa cooperate on that which is good. So if a group of people come together, and they say, it is
good, that we put in traffic laws, it is good that we have red and and green and yellow traffic
signs, stop signs, it is good that we regulate, you know, the city in this regard, then it is
therefore a part of our system that we follow that there is no problem just because the shady I
didn't come with it, obviously, that's what society does. The shady is a very broad rubric. And it
		

			is something that is meant to be applicable in every single time and place. And therefore, if the
ruler wants to restrict that, which the default of the Sharia is permissibility, it is permissible.
And let me show you some examples that are even more explicit. I'm gonna follow the law one heard
that some of the people in the newly conquered land some of his administration, some of the senior
Sahaba were marrying ladies that were Jewish or Christian or Hindu Kitab or whatever, wrote them a
letter saying that you should not marry educated ladies marry Muslim ladies. So they wrote back that
Oh, ameerul momineen Oh leader, Allah has said in the Quran is allowed, are you saying it is how
		

			long? Allah has explicitly said, it is how that how are you saying for us that we should not marry
and Nikita and Obama have said, I am not saying it's wrong. I'm not using that word that Allah has
said is wrong. But it is I don't want to you as my government employees, as my officials, as the
governor, as people employed by the state, I don't want you to do this. Because you know, according
to one book of history, it says, if you were to start marrying the advocate tab, and you're the role
models, then all the Muslims are going to follow you who's going to marry our ladies who's going to
marry the Muslim ladies, and commenting on this event, probably the historian. He says that whatever
		

			hottub did not allow her and her visa and other of the senior Sahaba to marry Jewish and Christian
ladies out of a fear that other people might follow in that custom. And therefore, the female
Muslims, the Muslim art would be left unmarried. And so he commanded that as role models, they
should restrict themselves to Muslim ladies Now, did or Madonna hotdog or with the villa with the
will contradict the Sharia? No, because it's not obligatory to marry a kitabi. It's allowed, it's
MOBA. And in this point, by testimony of the Koran it is allowed to marry a kitabi lady, Allah says
in the Quran or Hadith, it is allowed for you right? That it is permissible for you to marry more so
		

			not in light of misapprehension, that as long as they're pure and righteous that you may marry and
make it up that
		

			by the testimony of the Quran is hella Rama hottap is not saying how long he is saying for you. My
government deploys at this time in place, I'm going to legally prohibited what has happened here. He
has taken the MOBA, the the permissible and he has restricted it. That's completely allowed. Another
issue of modal hubbub that he did famously I talked about this and other q&a that he took the issue
of the triple divorce, and he made the triple divorce actually a triple divorce again, this is
another topic altogether.
		

			And maybe I'll talk about it no longer q&a. I have given a brief q&a. Let me
		

			For Pablo de la Ron, he took the issue of the triple divorce. Before his point in time, a triple
divorce was considered one. If a man says I divorced you, I divorced you I do force you is
considered one, I'm going to hop out of your loved one took a diplomatic political decision. And he
said triple his triple. This is a political decision not to shutter a position. And he and now if
somebody were to say, as you change the Shetty, I know it's a political and he took this and it
became the law of the land. And in fact, not just political decisions and legal decisions. Some of
these decisions, even involved rituals are a model of the law one instituted to advance to advance
		

			for Juma, one of them in the marketplace. And one of them outside of the masjid as was the custom.
And the people understood that this was done for the benefit of the oma, there was no bidder, or no
evil or no contradiction of the Sharia. So actually, if you look at the early scholars and the
early, you know, the Holocaust,
		

			ironically, you actually find a level of pragmatism and forward thinking that is absent in many of
our students of knowledge. and dare I say, even many of our clergy, it is simply absent because we
have Hamdulillah, a massive tradition, 1400 years of scholarship, but in that scholarship, we also
have, unfortunately, some elements of stagnation. Because we have so many volumes written in the
last 14 centuries, a lot of people stick to what is written in those volumes. And they don't
understand that those volumes written in 700 hegira 1300 eijiro. Those volumes represent the
cumulative efforts of human beings. But the idea is broader than these books are fixed. And when you
		

			go back to what I'm going to build a pub and others did they understood this point, given the
current dynamics that we're facing given the situation of the modern world, there is no problem for
forward thinking right Mr. To come together and to see what else can be done to make the Sharia
applicable as much as possible to make the shittier applicable as much as possible. Once again, and
this is the problem that we face, we do have a hypersensitive reactionary group of self professed
defenders of what they believe to be orthodoxy, and I have no doubt in my mind that if these groups
of people were alive during the time of rhodiola one, they would have considered him to be a deviant
		

			reformist, they will not understand this is what the Shetty itself commands to do. And throughout
history have so many examples of quota and subtlety in doing things that were in the gray area and
eventually the scholar said okay, well that I understand this needs to be done and sometimes it's
called who is opposed it not everything they do is this rulers do is automatically good. One example
that comes to mind is when the Mongols invaded Muslim lands, the rulers began to charge a special
tax now generally speaking, the rulers are not allowed to charge these types of taxes to the
population and there is even the Salah one of the greatest scholars of that time he gave a fatwa to
		

			the ruling family that you cannot charge these taxes unless and until your own personal wealth and
your own lifestyle and your own multiple palaces and horses have been sold off you know the ruling
family always gets fat and rich This is the reality wherever you know corrupt people are in the
majority of politicians are corrupt so the ruling family of the time also is extremely wealthy you
know this person is appointed his cousin the ministers here the second cousin here the brother there
and of course the ruling family gets rich off of the the money of the of the of the people. So when
there is an app, the Salaam said, it is how long for you to charge one penny to the peasants. When
		

			you have 1000 horses in your stables, get rid of all of your excess wealth live like everybody else.
And once you have gotten rid of your harem money, and we have to now pay to defend against the
Mongols, no problem at that stage, we will pay extra taxes. And that's what you know, was enacted at
that timeframe. So the point being that, you know, the situation called for taxes, even though
generally speaking, the Shetty out, you know, does not allow, you know, governments to have these
types of taxes being done. But when you have the mangoes at your doorstep, well, then you had better
you know, defend your land. So the point that you're asking about a minimum age for marriage, and
		

			this is clearly something that the Sharia did not come with that there's an age or no age, the
Sharia doesn't have an age number. So in some societies, it was the norm, it was completely
permissible and the surely I did not forbid it that as long as it is something that the culture and
the people are accustomed to. The Shetty is meant to be applied in every time in place. And
marriages done at young age was the norm across the globe, Western and Eastern societies. How many
go read up history. How many of the royal family of England of Germany of Bavaria have have the mum
looks they would get their children married at a young age to solidify the bonds and for whatever
		

			reasons
		

			This was the norm. No, you know, even in this country of America, that up until recently, to have
two teenagers, even 14 year old 13, you'll get married 100 years ago, it was not something that
raised an eyebrow, it was the norm. People are living shorter lives, children mature faster than,
you know than they do now. And so it is something that was considered normal. Now in our times, we
understand that young marriages might be potentially problematic in many cultures and societies. And
if the government feels that we should raise the age of marriage and make it something that is
reasonable, and the government therefore then restricts the MOBA can because child marriage is MOBA.
		

			It's not Haram. It's not worship, it's MOBA. If the government restricts the mobile, if one would
have no authority, a loved one can explicitly restrict the Quranic verse that says you can marry a
kitabi lady. And this is explicit in the Koran you can marry. He goes, No, I don't want you to
marry. And the people understood this, then how about when there is nothing explicit in the Quran or
soon about the age of marriage? And the ruler comes in and says the minimum age is 16 or 17? Or 18?
How can anybody say that to just hold on to do that is that ruler doing something more radical than
the last one, the point being that it is permissible to restrict that which is mobile, there's no
		

			problem and in fact, the majority of Muslim countries around the world have many laws in which the
mobile is restricted and it is understood that this is the norm and it is positive. And one simple
example for this is marriage registration and divorce registration as far as I'm aware, almost every
single Muslim country in the world with the approval of the dilemma has said that a marriage must be
registered with the appropriate authorities you must go to the ministry and register the marriage so
that we know who's married so that we know children born to which marriage so that when the divorce
happens you know everything is is registered now. If some you know ultra fundamentalist who studied
		

			you know, grade one fick comes in and says oh Billa the shady others not so you must register your
marriage. The shady art says you must have the Wali you must have the the bride and the groom, you
must have the Maha you must have the two witnesses, the German the COBOL. No book of fixes, you have
to register with the government, we say this person Yuffie botica, lo fique. Yanni learn some wisdom
and learn some fish and learn some CSS, CSS to shadia. You haven't understood it the goals of the
shediac we want marriages to be protected. And one of the ways to protect marriage in the world that
we live in is to register them with the government to make sure the authorities know who is married
		

			in case of divorce in case of something we need to have legal backup. And so we want marriages to be
registered. We want divorces to be registered. And that's why I'm not aware of any mainstream
scholar the body that is saying oh it is how long do register marriages. On the contrary, it fits
the goals of the Shetty act to protect women to protect inheritance to protect children, we want the
legal backup. And so yes, the marriage requires these conditions, do it in the masjid but then go
register with the court of law. Go register with your country so that your marriage is known and
your marriage is done acceptably. And the same goes for divorce as well that it should be registered
		

			so that the government is aware. This is another example of that which is mobile being restricted.
There are so many other examples that can be given as well. A simple example is the reality of Ric
and amilcare mean you know Melaka a Morocco's the Koran allows right at the concept of liberty and
servitude and whatnot. Once upon a time it was something that was the shitty allowed it the shady I
allowed it. Now, that concept of rec is completely banned in every single country in the world
Muslim and non Muslim, it is globally illegal to have a erotic or to have a milkman Now suppose
hypothetically, hypothetically, that a person went to another land where there's a legitimate
		

			struggle going on. And he legitimately acquires a prisoner of war. That's not ransom. And so he
takes this at I'll click back to his home country back to the this nation state that he lives in. He
goes, Oh, lucky, you know, I acquired this appeal legally from the Islamic Sharia. And this is now
my hierarchy of cookie essences, giving a hypothetical example. What do you think would happen?
Yeah, be again, be realistic, you know, from Morocco, to Kazakhstan from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan,
which land would allow our appeal and why should they allow? This is restricting the MOBA? It is not
wajib to have it appear? It's not wajib to have milcom it is not wajib it was MOBA for a time in
		

			place now the world has banded officially now I know unofficially, things happened but what not and
you know, there is still illegal slavery in the world. But I'm saying as a matter of policy, the
world the globe has banned this institution, including every single Muslim country without
exception. Do you know any item that is saying this is how long do you know an alum that is saying I
wouldn't be
		

			Now why has you know, every single Muslim land, you know, banned it, they understand that it is
allowed and maybe even desirable in this case to stop this institution and Hamas, it was something
of the past. We don't need to move it on. So the with utmost respect to your scholars that I'm not
taking sides, I'm just asking them asking you to ask them, these same scholars that are
problematizing, marriage age and whatnot. Are they also problematizing? The fact that the same
country that you're from has banded and Medicare mean, are they saying that, you know, to obey those
laws issue they can cover? They themselves? Don't have replicability, I mean, and they're not
		

			calling for it in their own countries. And globally, it is now completely gone. So again, this
notion of making an issue out of something that should really not be an issue, per se, again, I'm
speaking theoretically that, conceptually speaking, it is allowed for a proper Islamic government
that actually wants to follow the Sharia, to restrict the mobile, how much more so that when a
government doesn't even follow the shitty out and is doing these things, okay, you just follow along
that if a proper Islamic government were to do it, it would be highlighted. How about if it's not
even Islamic government? And they're just doing it for their political reasons? Okay, what are you
		

			going to say about this? And it just, you know, it's it is it is what it is? My point being many
examples can be given in this regard. The famous scholar author had been assured, perhaps one of the
most brilliant scholars of the previous century, North African scholar, Tunisia, he actually said
that a number of instances, he actually said, the rights that Allah has given to the individual can
be taken by an Islamic system and taken away from the individual. So for example, the right of
disciplining, you know, one spouse that Allah says, No, hold on, well, the ribuan authority been set
in light of all that is going on in the world. barrhaven, I should have said, this right, should be
		

			taken away from the husband. And it should now go to the Hakama to the government's, one of my own
teachers, very conservative, very traditionalist, you know, old school scholar, one of my own
teacher said that, that, in light of the misuse of divorce, in light of how divorce has become so
common and prevalent, there's no problem in stripping the right of divorce away from the husband,
and enforcing the husband to go to the court of law. And in presenting his case, so that there are
checks and balances, right? This is something that is coming very common in our times to hear this
type of rhetoric to restrict the MOBA is something that the Sharia allows, and so many other
		

			examples can be given in this regard. But I want to conclude with what a number of our scholars have
said that to restrict the MOBA is allowed when it is done for the common good of the people, when it
is done in consultation with Roma, and with experts is that simple, even taymiyah himself comments
on a particular case, that there's a Hadith of the Prophet sallallahu wasallam, in which a man came
and said, O Messenger of Allah, can you regulate the price of commodities amongst us? Can you
regulate the price of commodities amongst us? Because inflation has begun and prices have gone high?
So whatever was $10 did hums has become maybe 15 their homes right? So they sing a messenger of
		

			Allah set the prices. So the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, I don't want to do so. Allah
is the one who sets the prices Allah is the Messiah, let it be somewhat of a free economy and Islam
is not 100% free economy but overall it is more free economy than communism overall. There are more
aspects if you like of some aspects. Don't misquote me, I'm being very simplistic here. Some aspects
of free economy are more in conformity with Islam than socialism and communism. But Islam has its
own because it does not allow interest and other things of this nature. My point being the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam explicitly refused to set prices, Ibn taymiyyah and he is not somebody
		

			who is considered to be a progressive or whatnot. He is very, you know, mainstream, Adam would not
even taymiyah comments on this. And he says that sometimes setting prices is justice and
permissible. Now, and he gives an example that if somebody, you know, has inflated the price of
that, which is not, for example, water, and if some groups of criminals have overtaken the water
industry, let's say two or three mafia gangs have overtaken the water industry, and for no reason
they're raising prices to exorbitant levels. Should the government step in bread? Should the
government step in to say, hey, you families that are running the bread industry, the rice industry,
		

			you're not allowed to, you know, form a cartel, you're not allowed to come together and you know,
make sure that everybody's paying double, triple five times the the going rate just because you have
a monopoly on the market, or should they follow the explicit Hadeeth I'm not going to get involved.
		

			Allah is the one who sets prices. You see, once again we get what we call what I call superficial
level one knowledge, the beginning student who reads the Hadith. And, you know, again, if you were
to, quote even Tamia to this person he was he noted, but he would never say that, how could you
contradict the Hadith. And again, the problem always is a very, very flimsy, superficial
understanding of the Quran and Sunnah. And the notion that the Quran and Sunnah have phrases that
are constitutions, rather than they have phrases from which we derive broad laws and ethics. And
there's always exceptions, even taymiyah himself says, The default is we don't get involved, yes,
		

			but if a commodity that is needed by mankind is being abused by a group of people, then to get
involved and to set prices becomes the essence of justice, you must get involved, and you must set
prices, even if it appears that you're contradicting the Hadith. explicitly, still, you do it
because the Hadith was not meant to be with no exceptions. Once again, this is the government
getting involved in legislation that the Shetty might default by saying don't get involved with So
in conclusion, the majority position, and it is the majority, in spite of Unfortunately, some of our
clergy and some of our students of knowledge, saying otherwise, then it with my utmost respect to
		

			somebody who's gone through training and scholarship, I will tell you that, frankly, many of the
people who study just a few years, they form hard line positions that those who study 2030 years,
eventually abandon. I'm just being honest here. And you will see for yourself, if you look at some
of the most elderly and senior scholars who have gone through life and gone through much knowledge,
and especially if you look at the council's of the globe, it had an aroma Islami and arrabiata Sami
and the others you know, in our case in America, you follow the European Council and imja and the
third council North America, if you look at these bodies, and the scholars on those bodies,
		

			generally speaking, you will find that they have gone through this stage of simplistic literalism
and they have broken beyond this. And they've understood that no, the shadow does not require you to
stick to a textbook written 500 years ago by a great Adam, but if a particular time and place and in
fact, the Shetty allows for thinking through specific issues, and perhaps restricting that which is
unrestricted in the Sharia. And let me give you a simple example. You asked about the setting the
age in Saudi Arabia recently, with the with the backing of the clergy, with the backing of many
odema, the government did restrict the minimal age. Yes, there was some pushback, yes, some scholars
		

			said, you don't have the right to do that. But the majority of scholars of that tradition understood
that it makes sense to restrict, and we don't want young marriages anymore, because generally
speaking, a person is not qualified to get married. And in fact, the harms are going to be greater
than the good. If a person is very young, you know, 10 years old, or 12 years old, they're not
qualified to understand the implications of marriage, and it's going to be problematic later on. So
even a very conservative land that is full of scholars, you know, like Saudi Arabia, recently passed
legislation with the backing of the scholars, and they raised the age of marriage, and it is now the
		

			law of that land, and is the law of many Muslim lands as well. And so even though I'm not qualified
to judge in your particular land, and I don't know your culture, that well, and I don't know, you
know, your particular society, I will say, as a general default in the common world that we're
living in, it does make sense to me to raise the age of marriage to make it something that is
reasonable. And the Sharia does allow this even new chain, one of the great scholars of well suited
filk of the Hanafi madhhab. And he wrote a number of treatises that are considered to be referenced
works in the theory of Islamic law, he wrote that the leader, the mom has the right to
		

			enact laws that will be beneficial for the community, the leader has the right to make laws that are
not explicit in the Sharia, in order for benefit of the community. And therefore, if laws are
passed, that don't contradict the explicit Sharia. Join me contradict I said to make the wajib
illegal or to make the harem mandatory. These are the two extremes that we cannot tolerate that
which is wajib. If you say you're not allowed to do that, or that which is how long you say you must
do that there is no question that now you're in trouble. And if you're able to leave, leave that
land, if you're able to change change that that's law. However, the bulk of laws that we do are in
		

			the middle of these categories, and that is the idea of silent, or maybe even the Shetty has allowed
it as mobile not as wajib. And the rules come along and say hey, we want to restrict it. As long as
it is done with this, you know, I conclude the conditions. The first condition is that this change
must be in conformity with the goals of the Sharia law.
		

			With the goals of the pocket of the ruler, the goals of the shediac. So for example, child marriage
of the goals of the shediac is to protect children and to protect women and men and to protect
families, if in a particular time and place young marriages is detrimental, then in that case, we
should say, you know what, that has stopped young marriages and let us not go down that route. So
the first condition, we say that it must be in line with the goals of the city. The second condition
is that the scholarly community should be consulted along with experts, the scholarly community
should be consulted, along with experts, these decisions should not be done simply by a group of
		

			politicians, because we don't trust them to be honest, we don't trust that they're doing it for
their own good or for the good of the community, you should have a roadmap and you should also have
experts in whatever field that is, whether it is you know, whether it is a you know, child
psychology in this case or whatever, whatever it might be, there should be experts who understand
the reality of this situation to be involved as well. And then the third condition is that this
change, this change cannot be a permanent or an ethical change. It is a temporary legal one for the
sake of that particular time and place. So if this law is passed and says the minimum ages For
		

			example, 17 years old, they cannot say that all marriages that took place before this time in the
past, we consider them to be how long and against the shittier No, they have no right to dictate
ethics in the past. They can make something
		

			illegal, but they cannot make it impermissible in the eyes of the Shetty out what's the difference?
To make it illegal means that we're not going to accept this. They cannot bring the word how long in
Allah's religion? No, because how long is the right to Allah? See, I think this is the fundamental
point that most Muslims are many Muslims don't understand. When the government says you must stop at
the traffic light. Okay? They are not saying that if you don't stop you are committing how long that
will take you to jahannam they're saying you're doing something that is for the good of the
community. And if you don't follow these laws, and everybody is going Helter Skelter, it will harm
		

			the community. It's not allowed to bring in haraam and say, Allah is telling you to stop with the
traffic light. No, Allah did not tell you to stop with the traffic light. Allah said, live in a
civil society. Allah said wamu rabina home Allah as we just said, obey your rulers and your rulers
have come together and have enacted laws that are for the betterment of society, therefore for you
to follow these laws will bring your healthy society It's that simple. And the same goes for these
other areas where the Sharia is silent, or maybe even the Shetty out explicitly allows, but for
certain times in places, scholars and other people think that it is best to change for that time in
		

			place, it cannot be permanent, you cannot and no one has the right to permanently abolish that wish
the Shetty has considered to be permissible, but they may do so for a temporary period of time. And
so with that a shallow Tada. We conclude this question by stating that from a theoretical
perspective, it is permissible to do so and with regards to your particular country. Listen to both
sides and my position always is that track records speak volumes and go to those who are rooted in
the tradition but at the same time understand the realities of the world and you will always find
such aroma go to those aroma and stick with them. Time has finished brothers and sisters where there
		

			was time I was thought we'd had time for one more but unfortunately there's no time for that
inshallah we'll continue our q&a next week until next time, Joseph como la Whalen was said I might
even want to lie about a cat