Yasir Qadhi – Gender Roles, Apostasy and Modern Issues
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
With, our Sheikh, our mentor,
Sheikh,
Hatemal Hajj. And, we had already had a
past one about a very sensitive topic. Today,
we will continue, insha'Allah, with other
sensitive topics that are, insha'Allah, of practical value
to the Muslim community. So welcome, Sheikh, to
our second podcast.
Today, inshaAllah, we wanted to talk a little
bit about
the issue of the application
of fiqh in modern times
and the fact that sometimes
what we find as the ideal position
is not
one that is the most conducive to the
time frame we live in. And that raises
a whole host of questions.
The issue of gradualism, the issue of pragmatism,
the issue of understanding
classical fiqh in modern times to what level
there's allowed, to what level there isn't allowed.
So today we're gonna be talking about a
number of topics
that overall
deal with
the internal
leeway
that the Sharia provides and where that leeway
crosses the red line in terms of
fine tuning the akham
of our fiqh. So with this overall introduction,
Sheikh, can you summarize for us certain
principles that every single student of knowledge should
be aware of when it comes to,
understanding
akham and you know the famous principle,
and
all of these types of maxims and al'ulfaamuhaqqam.
Can you help us for whatever, you know,
you have in mind to summarize the most
essential
and maxims that the student of knowledge should
be aware of?
1st, the second for
the invitation.
And then,
as as as you said, the there are
certain principles that are immutable principles, Islamic principles
that are immutable, they are unchanging.
The beauty of Islam and the genius of
the Sharia of Islam is that we have,
constant objectives. We have overarching maxims that do
not change,
and we have a very flexible legal framework.
When we say flexible legal framework, people should
not misunderstand
this to to mean that we can
basically play around with our,
detailed rulings whenever we want by Tashahi
or by passions and desires
and biases.
This is not true.
So Alimam Shattabi has a statement,
that that that is
very accurate, very precise, and very thoughtful
about the divine address not being subject to
change.
He says that had the Sharia,
had had it been meant for this world
to be eternal,
the Sharia would never need to be changed.
We would never need a new,
divine address to humanity. It's done. Khitab al
Illahi has been fulfilled
by the Sharia of Islam and if this
world
was meant to be eternal or were meant
to be eternal, which it is not,
the sharia will be
relevant and applicable for eternity.
And he says when customs change,
it's
and
and new rulings are applied to new customs,
this is not a change in the divine
address itself. However, it is
basically,
those customs
falling under different principles
different principles of the Sharia that are that
continue to be fixed.
So imagine 3 layers, the highest objectives of
the Sharia,
the overarching maxims and principles of the Sharia
and then the flexible
legal framework.
The Sharia,
the objectives
are stable. They are fixed. They're up here.
The principles
are here,
and those are basically,
the the the legal maxims, the manatahab alakam,
the effective cause of alakam,
and and so on. Those are fixed.
And then,
underneath,
you know, there is the,
changing customs, the changing circumstances,
changing realities.
And those changing realities,
when they move, when they change, they fall
under different principles.
The principles are fixed. The reality is changing.
They would fall under different,
principles.
There is
there has been and there will continue to
be if we were
to keep the relevance and the
practicability
or practicality, I'm sorry, of the Sharia,
then we will have to
recognize that there has always been a dialectic
between
the law
and the reality.
And this dialectic
was recognized
by the scholars. The the erudite,
verifying
scholars have always recognized this
and have always been,
ready to
adapt to new realities and to adjust Ilhakam
to new realities.
If you remember in our previous discussion
about the Khalifa, we talked about how
the scholars,
you know, out of their
interest in and desire for peace and order,
they were flexible enough to accept
sort of different
forms
of conferring legitimacy
on,
you know, imams, whether it's through ahad
or passing on the covenant or
even forceful seizure of power in the interest
of peace and order.
You could say that this is like a
manifestation of their pragmatism
or their,
basically,
adaptation
to different realities of their of their times.
So
we we need to make sure,
at the end of the day that,
only qualified
scholars will be entrusted
with
this
very important work of the jiddeed or the
renewal and revival
of the Sharia
and and the prophet
used the word Tajdid
Allah
will commission,
send to this
Ummah,
you know, at the beginning of every century
or at the turn of every century.
He who will or they who will,
many people say it is they, not he.
They who will renew its theme for it.
Renew.
He used renewal.
He did not use restoration.
He used renewal.
And many people want to say
that it is only about restoration.
It is only about bringing the people back
to the way things were during the time
of the prophet
and the companions
radiallahu anhu. And of course it is,
mainly about this. It's mostly about this. It's
mostly about the fact that the Ummah can
drift away from the Islamic ideals and needs
to be reminded
of the Islamic ideals,
but it is also about its tahari renewal.
It's also about
adjusting to new realities and adapting
to new realities,
not simply
restoration. Because restoration would
be suitable
for,
basically restoring a, a fixed structure, like
a static fixed structure, like a building,
to its old glory.
But Islam is a lot more dynamic than
this. So, Sheikh, all of this is fine
theoretically. As you know, the devil is in
the details. Right? Of course. And as you're
aware, there's a constant pushback and internal struggle
and dialogue going on between
rilemmah and dua'at, between movements. As you're aware,
you have the hardcore traditionalist,
and then you have you know, the both
of us are coming from the Tajdidi Wasati
revival paradigm exemplified by Rashid Irulah and others
of trying to rethink through. And then you
have, of course, modernists and progressives who really
don't seem to care about the Sharia. So
you have this entire spectrum. So again, the
question is in your mind, what is the
what is the red line like up to
what level? What when it when would it
be considered,
that you are actually rejecting the sharia or
or trying to do that which is not
allowed to do?
Okay. So when you try to change things
that are not meant to be changed ever,
there are certain things. There are,
the creeds,
that are not meant to be changed.
There are the,
morality, the principles of morality,
in Islam. These are not meant to be
changed.
There are
There are the sort of
the fixed,
instructions
of the Sharia
and quantifiable
instructions of the Sharia that are not meant
to be changed.
There are,
mostly in the area of Ibadat. The Ibadat
are never meant to be changed,
So there will not come a time where,
fasting in Ramadan will start from Zuhr and
end at Asro or Maghreb.
These things are never meant to be changed,
but there is plenty of room for a
change in
certain areas, in international relations,
in financial transactions,
in
some adaptability even
in family rules or family laws,
that's
less amenable to change. We'd be closer to
Ibadat than it is to Muhammad, but there
should still be some room for adaptation to
new realities in the world.
There Who gets to decide, Sheikh?
The qualified scholars, the and that's why we
have it. There will be an internal
disagreement at times.
Certainly. Most certainly. Outside of that circle should
understand
where qualified scholars disagree and where they are
unanimous in this regard. Right? Because one of
the problems we have is, again,
the the quickness with which any type of
discussion of the type that you're doing is
automatically disqualified
because there's a knee jerk reaction to any
type of fine tuning that the sharia actually
allows. So I'm gonna now do a deep
dive and do specific topics. And again, for
the record, this is not scripted. Yeah. We
were just, I have questions and ideas in
mind, but you know, this is something we're
coming organically, InshaAllah Wa Ta'la. So I wanna
hear the sheikh's view, and obviously I have
my views, and then we can, discuss them
back and forth. But let's begin with one
of the most
constantly
discussed issues over and over again, and that
is the Hudud
and apostasy laws.
What do you expect a modern Muslim nation
state, a modern Muslim country
that suppose a political party because theoretically, I
don't wanna mention specific country's name. Suppose a
Muslim majority country, an Islamist party comes to
power. Right? And now they have taken over,
a massive group of of of Muslims,
the majority of whom are not religious people
5 times a day praying. The majority of
whom are involved in sins like drinking and
whatnot. And now this party has come to
power, and they decide to
fine tune
and not apply the Sharia instantaneously.
Because according to their view, I mean, again,
let's look at Egypt when the spring happened,
Arab spring happened. As you know, the quick
modifications
that, the Islamist party had to do, like,
is there gonna be Jizyah? Well, okay, I
guess not. There's not gonna be Jizyah. Okay.
How about a non Muslim, power? Oh, they
can have power except for the president. What
do you mean he can't be there? So
as you know, the whole conversation took place.
Is that kufr?
The gradualism that these parties adopted.
Can they make a temporary change for the
sake of a greater good?
Or
must they apply instantaneously?
Or
is there actual leeway for rethinking through, for
example, apostasy and the
the the the the the the punishment for
apostasy? Some thoughts about these types of things.
And I have my views, but let's hear
yours.
Okay. So yeah.
The first thing that we have to agree
on, and we I think Muslims practice Muslims
all agree on is the perfection of the
Sharia and the ultimate wisdom of our lord
and mercy of our lord.
And whatever it is that he have legislated
for us
is,
infinite infinitely wise.
So Sharia is is based on the benefit,
and the well-being, welfare of people
in this life and the one to come
and,
sort of immediate and long term.
And he says it's it's all about mercy.
It's all about justice. It is all about
wisdom.
Anything that departs from this is not part
of the sharia even if it was interpolated
into it. So we
we have to,
accept,
the sharia in its entirety.
The prophet Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala said
which basically embrace Islam in its entirety. All
of you embrace Islam or it could mean
also embrace Islam in its entirety.
So we are embracing Islam in its entirety.
You
know, everything that comes from our lord is
good for us.
But at, again, at the same time, I
don't think that even
the the most
strict
I I shouldn't say that, but I think
that even the more strict,
there there are people outside of the scholarly
community, and we're not talking about the people,
the extremists outside of the scholarly community, but
within the scholarly community,
even the stricter scholars would recognize the need
for gradualism.
Even the stricter scholars would recognize that Umar
suspended the hadd for sariqa,
during Gamal Majah or during the famine.
And they would recognize
how Omar changed certain things because of the
changes in sociopolitical
realities. You know? The the the deya that
used to be that
it used to be, or the the the
blood money that used to be, the responsibility
of, which is the paternal
kin.
Omar changed it because of the changes in
the social political realities of of their times.
People moved around, and by the time you
collected the data from Al Hakad, it would
have taken months or years and would have
been an unfair
to the family of the victim. But Omar
changed that to Adi Diwan, the people that
are registered in the same or these people
in the same registry.
Same town, same Nakaba or Sendikit, same this,
same that.
And that that is basically a precursor of,
like, insurance companies. You know? Like,
interesting. So, yeah,
so
so even the strictest scholars
or the the the the stricter scholars would
recognize
adaptability and would rather
of course, you know, the Hanafis and Maryknives
accepted Omar's
position on on the issue of lahakila not
the Shafi'ez al Hanbari so there is still
this
there is still disagreement, and there is still,
like, a,
a dialogue between the scholars and this dialectic
between the law and the reality.
But,
gradualism
is is basically
just
it's untenable to think that you could impose
all of these things all of a sudden
on on people without
sort of gradual steps towards the the realizing
gradualism would not be considered Kufr. Oh, of
course not. Like, of course not. So to
be very specific then But also the the
Hadood, yeah, in all honesty, the the the
the hype about the Hadood, the the there
are,
you know, people disagree. How many hadood are
there? The the 3, 4, 5, all the
Yeah. So let's say 4 hadood,
that that that are fixed penalties.
Look. Why is it why is acclimatally a
team or devouring the wealth of the orphan
more? Less simple. Exactly.
Not a hard double.
Hard double is a new one. Okay. That's
yeah. I use those things. Okay. But but
but why why there is why there is
no hard
for acrimanidity a team? That that smoke your
cart, you know, for for riba.
So
if you look if you examine the the
hadood punishments,
deterrence, and the for deterrence,
and evidentiary
standards that were applied by the scholars throughout
the ages,
indicate that this is about deterrence. It is
not about revenge.
It is about it is about deterrence and
Great harm can can ensue from this family
breakdown, societal breakdown. And then,
the pull, you know, is is enormous. That
that lust has enormous power.
So there has to be a high wall
to deter people from this
crime that will cause this much harm,
you know,
to protect people's honor. The same applies to
qasf, to protect people's honor. And then the
push is also great because it's usually done
in a state of extreme anger.
You have, you
know,
not not hadood specifically, but but, which is
also severe punishment,
you know,
equal retribution,
to protect people's life. You have,
you know, the cry
the theft, for instance,
to to protect people's property. And then the
the the drive,
for it is is huge as well. So
let us
understand that we're talking about
4 or 5 punishments
out of
1,000
that are left morals are yeah. In the
are left for discretionary
punishment. Yeah. You know, tazir.
And out of
1,000 more where no punishment at all is
prescribed
or, like,
no penalties
are are prescribed
whatsoever or encouraged whatsoever.
So
it it we have to basically
think of the Hadood in in in light
of this and
understand that gradualism
is is an essential,
basically part of the application
of Sharia.
Gradualism is an essential purpose. There'll be so
let's be firstly, give you an example. Again,
hypothetical.
So And you talked about apostasy. Right? Yeah,
we'll get back to the before we start
that one. Hypothetical example.
A majority Muslim land has had an Islamist
party, they win the party, they win it,
they're now in parliament, or at least they
can
maneuver. But the country has allowed,
Zina, has allowed,
has allowed so much Fawahish.
The the Islamist party
tactically wants to get to a position where
more and more Islamic laws can be applied,
but they can't do it overnight. So they
say that, okay,
let us start, let's just say, taxing,
hamar. Let's just say. So that we wanna
deincentive or sorry. Sorry. Yeah. Deincentive. I wanna
make it, you know, more difficult for them
to acquire. They cannot shut it down immediately,
let's just say.
Critics are gonna say, this is Kufr.
They have
not applied the Sharia.
And even if they're trying to de incentivize,
the fact of the matter is
it's still allowed and their laws
are not banning and prohibiting. The counterargument from
their side is that, yeah, but we have
a group of drunkards, we have a whole
society that's immersed in this sin. They're not
gonna go from 0 to 100 immediately.
So as one simple Again, hijab for example,
right? As you are aware, those countries that
have tried to enforce it,
generally speaking, has been a harsh backlash.
You know? And
those countries that are organically
attempting to bring about morality have actually seen
massive success rates
in this regard. So comments and thoughts on
this type of these examples.
Well, you you know, the
the taxing the hamra, for instance,
this is what our Khalifa did, you know,
from the Rashidun, but not not,
you know, levying taxes on Muslims, but non
Muslims.
So non Muslims and,
and the Omar
said,
let them sell it, and then you take,
basically,
your taxes from them. You take the tax
your taxes from them.
So non Muslims in a Muslim country will
not be forced to shun ham.
They're allowed to sell ham to among themselves.
And to produce it and manufacture it then.
Yeah. Well, if you're there, they will sell
it, they will produce it.
Mhmm. And and
then they collected taxes from them.
And this is not
this is
not. This is.
But that was for the.
That's for. Yes.
So the idea that
you will never find Hamr in a Muslim
country and it would never be allowed, would
be completely eliminated
is has not been real or or true
even the time of Muhammad bin Khattab. Exactly.
So let's be clear on this. The the
second thing is
now if Muslims
like, if if we can do this with
non Muslims,
we wanted to sort of bring Muslims into
the fold of Islam,
gradually.
And if if,
taxing,
hamr
will be a step towards,
you know, the the complete prohibition
of Hamr
enforced
by
the government, complete sort of enforced
enforcement of prohibition
by the government.
Prohibition of hamra
can never be
sort of debated among Muslims.
Hamra is prohibited. You are a sinner if
you drink. You are a sinner if you
sell, buy, produce,
etcetera. Certainly, you know, there there is this
this agreement outside of the Muslim lands and
and and then so on in terms of
selling it. But
but the idea here is we're not talking
about the ruling of Khamri here. We're talking
about a Muslim government
who comes like or or or
and
and and in all honesty,
I I believe that,
I believe that,
Islam should be kept away from partisan politics.
Islam can never be
apoliticized
or can never you know, you can never
remove politics from Islam
or Islam from politics, Islam from influencing the
public space. But I don't think that Islam
should be
exploited
or used,
for partisan politics.
But if
a group of well meaning Muslims,
or like a well meaning party that is
Islamically oriented, that is
informed in their policies and their strategies and
their priorities and their objectives
by their Islamic values
and their commitment to their religious commitment,
come into power
and decide that they will,
try to,
take gradual steps towards,
you know, the the complete prohibition of ham
for Muslims
for Muslims,
then I would not fall to them, let
alone call them kuffar.
So again, Sheikh, as you're aware, no scholar
is of that nature. But unfortunately, we have
to deal with so many, especially in the
west today, they they don't understand
the gradualism or
and they assume that,
you know, we have to implement sharia instantaneously
overnight. And this is something that we have
spoken about multiple times. Let me give you
the, another example of that. You remember Abdul
Malik bin Marwan, Abdul Malik bin Omar ibn
Abdul Aziz, and what he said to Omar
ibn Abdul Aziz. Like, he blamed him for
Yes. You know, for his timidity to to
enforce all the Always the youngsters when I
have that immediatism. Yeah. Who's being blamed here?
That's what it is.
Like, aren't you happy if you if no
day passes
except that your father will be
Yeah. It's getting better bit by bit. Yes.
Exactly.
I I think that this the the that
this is the difference between Abdel Malik,
ibn Omar ibn Abdul Aziz, and Omar ibn
Abdul Aziz. Youngster,
idealistic,
seasoned politician,
wise experience. This is the difference between the
2. Pious. Pious as well. It's Much more
pious, much more knowledgeable. Yes. This is the
standard clash, Sheikh. So we have to always
deal with it. So, Sheykh, one of the
issues that we constantly get asked, and I
get asked this in public by non Muslims
in particular, and I've given my responses in
this regard. The issue of apostasy and blasphemy.
And my position has been no doubt the
Sharia has
the ideal laws, and nobody has the right
to permanently change the laws of the Sharia.
Given the nation states we live in, given
that the world has changed and we are
no longer under a khilafa,
just like in a nation state, we cannot
implement the jizya. Even though ideally, there is
just this notion of jizya. So given the
modern world we live in, that if somebody
changes one's faith
in a Muslim majority land,
it's up to them
if they're able to implement. Alhamdulillah, and that
is ideal. Nobody's gonna deny that. But if
in case an Islamic party is not able
to implement Allah's
ideal ruling in that particular
situation,
this is not in and of itself a
rejection of the Sharia as long as they
don't ascribe it to Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala.
As long as they understand that given the
modern dynamics we live in, that this is
not something that is possible for us to
do without repercussions that are worse than the
positives we think will be achieved. Right? So
that has been my position. That that is
something that a modern nation state,
because they're not a Khalifa and because they're
not applying they cannot apply all the sharia
anyway. So what are your thoughts on this
of,
apostasy laws and and, blasphemy laws?
I would even take it a step further
and say that apostasy, you know,
you know, that I'm Hanbali,
in in our method, it is not a
hard. It is not a fixed penalty. It's
a discretionary,
punishment,
a discretionary
punishment that was legislated. I have written a
paper on this. It's it's online. If you
put in my name and apostasy, you will
find my my detailed position
on this issue. I I don't think that
it would be possible for us to deny
that this
ruling had existed,
that this punishment has been executed,
by, you know, the the the the the
Khalifa.
It it is controversial whether it was ever
implemented during the time of the prophet.
There's
controversial
reports about this. I'm aware of them,
but it is unclear whether the prophet sallallahu
alaihi wa sallam ever implemented
this
in his face, you know,
who who were left,
and this punishment was not exact exacted against
them. And that is part of the reason
why in HambeliFEP,
this is considered as a discretionary punishment because
how they can never be
suspended once, you know,
it reaches the court and the prophet
was the court at at those times.
It has to be,
basically,
sort of applied.
But since the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam
waved it at at certain times,
then it makes it makes perfect sense that
this is punishment.
It existed.
This is the position of the 4 imams,
particularly with Muslim men. The imam Hanifa has
a different position, about Muslim women, which also
indicates
the the the legal justification,
the sort of,
racial lesions be behind this
law
that, why is he differentiating between men and
women? Because,
traditionally,
people who apostate
apostatize
or,
k, you know, went back into,
Khafre. They joined the
Kufar. They joined.
They they they, and they they started to
fight
against Muslims, but he they estimated that women
would not be doing this, would not be
fighting.
Anyway, the the discussion on apostasy and the
different positions the different scholars, particularly contemporary scholars,
have taken,
taken with regard to apostasy is is a
very lengthy discussion.
But in my viewpoint,
this is a discretionary punishment that does exist.
It existed in our history.
But being a discretionary punishment, it can be
suspended for a greater benefit. It can be
suspended
for a greater benefit. Even more radical than
what I have argued for. Yeah. Okay. So
you're saying, Uslan, in your view, it's not
a had. It's not a had. It's a
discretionary punishment. And in this case, being a
discretionary punishment,
it is within the jurisdiction
of the Muslim authority
to suspend it. It is within the power
and the authority
of the imam or the Muslim,
government
to suspend it for a greater benefit. And
the obvious greater benefit here is
reciprocation.
Yes, the right now. Keep the doors open.
You know,
as an Imam al Hazm said, that that
to prevail,
there are 2 ways to this,
by Hajja and Burhan, by proofs and, you
know,
evidences,
or as Saif and Sinan, or by spears
and swords.
Islam
will sometimes
prevail,
in both respects but will always prevail in
one respect,
which is.
So it would make perfect sense to keep
the doors open, allow people to walk in
and out,
you know, and,
basically, what what what what are you seeing?
What are you seeing in the world today?
When people are allowed to walk in and
out? Are you seeing people
basically,
walking out
more or walking in more? And which kind
of people are walking out and which kind
of people are walking in? Like, look at
it impartially,
but please look at the the people who
are converting to Islam.
Look at how sincere they are. Look at
how thoughtful they are. Look at,
their trajectory also after conversion.
They become scholars.
They become great Duais.
They have complete commitment to Islam. And look
at the people who leave Islam
and there's a trajectory post apostasy.
So
should we
keep the door open?
Is it for the
does it bring about a greater benefit for
the Muslim community? Of course, someone would say
that during the the colonial times,
you know, like in
Algeria, for instance,
during French occupation,
you know, and that is what Sheikh Abu
Dhabi
said that had had we not had the
that punishment of apostasy,
you know, the the community would have been
destroyed because you have a lot of pressure,
you know, under
a pressure to leave Islam.
You're being colonized.
You're
subject to,
non Muslim
tyrannical,
rule.
And in this case,
had there not been
mechanisms
for the religious community
to defend its integrity
and to defend
its,
identity
and,
this sort of faith,
there would have been a a great loss.
But in our time, Sheikh Jihad So in
our times, it's it's different. Exactly. It's different.
When you apply such pressure, we have seen
in multiple lands. Yes. When you apply this
coercive pressure, in reality, the people rebel internally.
Mhmm. And there is actually a detrimental
effect on their iman. And that's why people
actually have overthrown governments that they felt were
too strict on them or even in the
case of one land, don't like mentioning names.
But the minute, you know, the the ruling
party or the king relaxed, we see the
reality of the people. And all of that
strictness is literally was just completely
shallow to the point of one wonders what
level of Iman they had. So to be
clear therefore, and because as you know, I
get especially with a lot of pushback in
this regard to rethink through the modern applications
of these laws.
Not only is it not a rejection of
the Sharia, it actually might be the wiser
course of action for a person who wants
to apply the Sharia in the long term.
Yeah. Of course. It would be bring about
great benefit for for the community and for
the faith, for the deen and for the.
If we have,
you know, a realistic,
gradual,
pragmatist,
and I do
repeat.
I use this word,
and I understand that it has a bad
reputation within our community, but I I just,
I am basically trying to underscore
the positive connotations of this word,
pragmatist.
What if somebody were to say, Sheikh, that
this is reforming Islam?
No. It's not. Well, Omar Khattab did not
change Islam when he changed
the Excellent. Jay You know, when
he suspended
the, you know, the when he did not,
basically divide the conquered lands between,
between
the conquerors or between the, you know, the
army.
So this is not changing Islam. This this
is basically applying the Islamic principles to,
different realities
and adapting to circum circumstantial variables.
Excellent. So, again, this is the key point,
dear viewers, is to understand there's there's no
reformation going on. The only reforming we're calling
for is your understanding of what we're saying.
Islam doesn't need reformation,
rather it is the fine tuning that the
Sharia allows, right? There's no, you know, protestor
revolution going on. We're protesting the shallow understanding
of Islam that some, people have. In reality,
this is the wisdom that Allah has allowed
within,
the Sharia, the fine tuning, and the, the
the gradualism that overall brings about a better
sense of Iman and the closeness to the
Sharia. Now we talked about apostasy, we talked
about blasphemy. Obviously, there's multiple issues. One thing
we have to talk about, Sheikh, it's really
sensitive, but it needs to be done.
Marriage and gender,
one of the most sensitive topics of our
times. And we have
strong feelings
from the side of many of our sisters,
from the side of many of our brothers.
We have the rise of radical feminism. We
have the rise of the red pill and,
you know, alpha masculinity.
It's just a whole bunch of stuff going
on here. So, let's try to have some
Insha'Allah
deconstruction of this sensitive topic.
Do you believe that Islam
has come with specific gender roles?
No. Of course. Yes. They've asked about specific
gender roles, and no no one can argue
about this.
But like I said,
the the, you know, your understanding
may not be necessarily
what Islam is about. There is a spectrum
of,
different,
interpretations,
that that you have to be aware of
the spectrum. That is the that is knowing
the disagreement between the scholars. It will give
you this broadness,
of your horizons and your your your approach
to things. So you have you have to
know
what Islam says.
And,
when Islam says more than one thing, that
is basically
we have different interpretations, and no one can
can
say, Mayan is Islam.
There there are matters of agreement between the
scholars and then we can comfortably say, this
is what Islam says.
But oftentimes,
there are disagreements.
And in this case, you can't say this
is what Islam says. You know,
When we have this discussion, the Supreme Court
talked about abortion,
you you should not be saying this is
what Islam says. Islam says so many things
about abortion.
So when you say that
my interpretation
is Islam,
I think that this is just self deluded,
self conceited,
too arrogant.
So
before we get to the the, you know,
specific issues, can you give us I know
you have an entire book, by the way.
He has an entire book,
Sheikh Hadham has an entire book on gender
roles and gender interactions, right? Yeah. So can
you summarize in just a few minutes some
of the main points that you believe,
Islam has come with, that we can definitively
categorically state that of the roles of a
man in Islam and of the roles of
woman in Islam. So in a in a
nutshell.
Okay. So so so one of the things
that Islam clearly,
basically
prescribes here is that
there will be some degree of
responsibility
and authority for the man in in within
the household.
So that's the verse 34 in.
So men have,
and
here is the problem that we fall in
sometimes
when, you know
I would like to be an Islam a
Muslim apologist. You know, I understand the apologetics
a little bit differently. Apologists apologetics
or being a Muslim apologist is not about
apologizing
on behalf of Allah.
No. It's a, you know, the the word
comes from defense.
To to put like a systematic
defense
or to put together a systematic defense
for, you know, your your dean or your
your particular doctrines or
so the apologia
that comes from the apologia and how, you
know, Socrates,
basically,
it was
Plato calling
the Socrates'
defense of himself
in
the court,
Apollosia.
So this is where it comes from. It
it is to defend you, your deen. It
is not to apologize,
on behalf of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala. Allah
does not need anyone to apologize
on his behalf. Of course not.
But anyway, but what Islamic Muslim apologists often
do is that
sometimes when they are not guided, when they
are not grounded in Islamic knowledge
and where they're trying to be a little
too hasty
to conform to circumstantial
variables,
they can do, like,
sort of detrimental patchwork where they can
try to sort of patch different value systems
in a way that results in inequity,
injustice,
eventually.
So if you say,
for instance, that the is
not about
authority whatsoever. It is simply about responsibility.
Whoever said that responsibility
basically have
obligations put on them without corresponding rights?
Whoever said that you could be the president
of a country and have responsibilities
only and have no rights?
What sense does is there is no sense
in that whatsoever.
So
then we have to have,
like,
we have to have,
basically,
a moderate truly moderate understanding
of what that concept is about, that Puwama
is about. There's
there's responsibility
and
authority
at the same time. It's
you know, profit,
basically,
is linked to,
liability.
The it's it's always like this.
These concepts go hand in hand.
So now the the the,
we have to agree
that it means both responsibility
and,
authority.
But
but now,
for for instance, in,
some people think that,
there is a particular
arrangement that that is that is called Islamic
for for the household for instance. Can women
have careers?
Well, nowadays,
the problem is many people think that all
the changes in their reality
are caused by,
basically,
the trickle down effect of,
philosophy
and thought and stuff like this, and you
can push back
by,
counter philosophies,
counter thoughts. No. That's not true.
You know,
technological advancements
have caused a lot more changes. So the
changes in our reality
owe more
to Newton than they owe to Voltaire.
They owe more to technological advancement. A nice
way to phrase it. I'm gonna quote that,
Sheikh, if you don't mind. Yeah. They owe
more to technological advancement than the To intellectual
thinkers. To intellect yeah. Yeah.
And and and science affected philosophy
in the last 200 years. I changed the
rules. More than more than philosophy affected science.
So things, you know,
the industrial revolution, you know, slavery
And they have been banned after industrial revolution.
Colonialism,
slavery. There are so many things that changed
in our reality Mhmm. Not because of, you
know, intellectuals,
or the trickle down of philosophy or because
of
real
tangible
changes
in reality. Yeah.
In in people's reality.
So
now,
in the past,
and that's a problem that our Muslim women
also need to understand.
That it was not the tyranny of men
that kept them from realizing their potential.
It was just not doable.
Like, you know, nowadays women have close to
the earning potential of men.
Right? Mhmm. Not not exactly there but very
close.
Many women have, like, a higher earning potential.
In many fields in many fields, they they
have equal earning potential or even higher earning
potential. But generally speaking, they they they're not
quite there. You know? So the CEOs of
the Fortune 500 companies
are mainly men. You know, you know, the
wealthiest
100 people are mostly men, etcetera, etcetera.
So it's they're not there yet, and they
may never be there.
But in the past
in the past,
it it was not, like, basically,
like a
conspiracy, like, a mere conspiracy against them to
deprive them of earning potential. What were what
were the jobs that were available? Blacksmithing,
fighting,
you know,
who
Generally, for them, it was nurses and teaching
Yeah. That was in most of them. Yeah.
So so there were many professions that they
were not basically suitable for.
They were not suitable for.
They were not going to be and fighting
was not basically like nowadays,
like you press a button and you drop
a bomb.
No. It was like it required a lot
of physical,
strength.
So
so now
you have the women who think that there
was like a male conspiracy and it's time
for them to rebel
and you have the men who don't recognize
that things have changed and women now have
the earning potential that men have. So nowadays,
here is what happens within the Muslim family.
So
the
they get like,
2 working
people get married and Islam does not
prohibit women
from,
from working.
You know, the hadith of Khaled Jaber when
she went out Yeah. Basically during her, like,
during her period Yeah. She went out to
tend to her orchard. Yeah. And she was
she was told to go back home, and
then she went to the prophet and he
said, you know,
go out into your orchard maybe you'll be
able to give charity or to take care
of yourself
So
so Islam does not and and Asma used
to carry the, you know, the
the,
father first Yeah. Yeah.
Zubairah's horse and for for 3 miles
back and forth forth and so on. So
Islam did not prevent women from working outside
but Islam
wanted 2 things and it's clear for them
to prioritize their family
and for them to work within environments conducive
to their values. Modesty is is a signature
characteristic
of of Islam. So Islam wanted these women
to observe these two things, prioritize their family
and,
work in environments that are conducive to maintaining
their Islamic values.
Having said that, if you have 2 family
physicians,
get married, for instance,
and,
they they bring in the same income.
And and then
because we've been been trying to to tell
women that Islam,
basically gives you everything,
modernity
gives you and more.
So we are trying to say to them,
his money is his and yours, and your
money is yours only.
Okay? So she expects that he will be
spending, and she will be saving her income.
And she may even go as far as
expecting that he would be spending and splitting
his savings and she could save all of
her income.
And then she expects that he would also
basically, since she goes out to work,
that he would also be flexible
because she'll come back tired and she will
not be able to make dinner. So he
would should be flexible enough to make his
own dinner and stuff like this.
And he should pay for childcare
and and all of that.
Does
you know,
what nonsense is
that? How could this be considered equitable
in any way?
And then at the same time you will
have the man who expects that,
he could be married to his wife and
she could stay home,
be a homemaker,
and give up her career, give up advancing
her career,
be a homemaker, and after 30 years, he
can just divorce her and she about her
for 30 years ago. Yeah. Yes. He he
he can divorce her and give her the
deferred,
dowry, which, you know, sometimes there is the
3rd part of the dowry, sometimes there is
not. But he just can divorce her and
give her for
her, like, during her waiting period and give
her, you know, not not necessarily
because it's controversial between the.
That's it. You know? So so she she
goes out.
Okay. So so so now the problem is
her niece
would never want
to repeat that story.
Mhmm. Her niece would never want her her
daughter
will never want to repeat that story and
to be a homemaker and to prioritize to
prioritize her family.
What is the difference between now and 500
years back? Now they have the same earning
potential or close to the same earning potential
as men.
She would be seeing her,
like, friends, you know, like, from high school
who now has a career,
who is, independent financially,
and comparing herself to her.
So
now
we have to figure out how to adapt
to these new realities
and how to adapt to these new realities
without
changing compromise, like, without devastating
our value system.
So there has you know, men and women
have to complement each other still.
They basically
they they can't be,
sort of
equal in all regards because
it wouldn't
make sense because,
or that there can there cannot be similarity
in in their roles in all regards
because how do we complement each other if
you're not different? You you need to be
different, have different roles so that you complement
each other. So we will have to be
mindful of this. We will have to be
mindful of the qawamah of the man to
want him to be kawab,
to want him to be responsible. You have
to give him some authority
to demand to ask of him to be
responsible
for his family. But that doesn't have to
be the same type of qiwama that was
practiced a 100 years ago. It it is
it it
it it has to be re envisioned.
It has to be basically reconceptualized,
but
he has to still be the head of
the household.
He has he still has the right to
obedience.
But in what you know, here's here's what
it is.
Obedience happens
in in different circles and sheikh Attaiyah Sakhra
has a very great he was like a
mufti in Egypt
He has a great book on on on
the Muslim family
where he says that obedience that there are
different circles for obedience.
There is one at the center of obedience
that is basically obedience when it comes to
the marital relationship.
There is obedience
that basically pertains
to marital life in general.
And then there is a wider circle of
obedience
which is obedience unless he asks for like
basically
obedience period unless he asks for something that
is nonsensical,
non purposeful,
non halal,
you know, not ma'ruf. Ma'ruf does not only
mean halal but it also means sensible. So
if he asks for something that's nonsensical,
non purposeful,
or non halal
then there's no obedience.
But
at least
at least
you have to preserve the right to obedience
when it comes to marital life.
Marital life. That circle.
And at the very least
when it comes to the marital relationship Yeah.
And and then, you know, certainly there are
certain hadith that talk about, you know, asking
for her permission
to to go out and to, you know,
not bringing in people into his his, his
home without his permission. Even that can, you
know, can can be nuanced and can have
different interpretations.
Is that because it is his house, he
owns it,
or it is because he's the husband?
So the Imam Anawi seems to think that
it is because he owns that house. So
what if she
co owns it? Oh my god. She pays
her You're gonna get into a lot of
trouble for this
guy. No. But but but I'm just saying
that,
you know, so there there are different circles,
and then
it is
unlikely
unlikely
that you would expect people to observe or
you expect women to observe the largest of
those circles. They would be recommended.
So, Sheikh, I have a different,
way of explaining which is ending in the
same result, and that is when Allah says
in the Quran,
This is the general rule. Rijal or qiwam.
There is a level of authority. There's no
question about this. Right? Then Allah gives 2
ilan.
Bima fadbar Allahu ba'alumaal about wabi ma'in faqoonamwadeem.
And the first of them signifies the physical
in particular. If you look at the books
of Tafsir,
it is the fact that the man is
hunting, the man is protecting, the man is
at war, So the man is physically
protective.
And so obviously because he's physically more qualified,
Allah has given him.
Number 2,
There are also intellectual differences between the way
women think and the way men think can.
More conducive for leadership. Prioritize.
Agreed.
Sort of yes. And the second one is
which is financial. Now
modern
the modern world we live in
has chipped away and eroded
the need for that physical prowess
and the
economic disparity between the two genders. This is
It is what it is. The modern world
has taken away
the need for that physical disparity. Now in
the office, everybody's exactly the same. Intellectually, in
terms of computer programming, whatever, it's really many
women are really the same in this regard
by and large. And the economic,
power that is now, you know, given to
both genders, it has also stripped away once
upon a time, the financial
responsibilities
and the financial preference the man had. So
when both of the ilal have been chipped
away,
understandably,
the result which is qiwama is also gonna
be chipped away. It's gonna have to be
rethought. It's not something we
are happy about. It's not something we're embracing,
but it is a reality we have to
deal with. And here's my point. In and
of itself, to rethink through the
implications
of qiwama
is not against the Sharara as long as
is maintained.
Right? And so the nuances of what entails
is cultural.
Is
but the manifestation
of
will change from time to place. So the
way that my grandfather and grandmother interacted together,
you know, in the 1800 in in British
India, whatever,
is not
binding on how myself and my wife, much
less my daughter and her husband in the
future, are gonna have to interact. So this
is the way I phrased it. Any disagreement
with that phrasing?
I would just say that the we we
have to maintain the qurama, and we we
also cannot basically restrict Bima Faddar Allahabadahumma Allahabadah
to
set of qualities that that we
assume
because of the qualities that Allah had favored
them with. Allah had favored men with certain
qualities. We cannot limit them to physical strength.
We we this
will continue to be there. Will it it
will stand.
Yes. I agree with, economic disparity that, you
know, has been
almost clearly eliminated
or or totally eliminated.
But
the will stay.
So will
stay. But again, at the same time,
because she is now contributing,
to to the sort of financial,
stability of the family,
then
it will not be the same
as it was 200 years ago. But we
have to maintain the family structure.
We have to maintain that structure. We have
to maintain the the husband as the head
of the household
because of the necessity
of having a head for any functioning,
successful institution.
Mhmm.
There has to be some
a company, a state.
There has to be eventually some if you
will have constant fighting,
constant negotiation
over all things
without decision making being granted to any party,
then that's a prescription for destruction
of the family and
the subsequent destruction
of the society.
Men have to
understand
that
there that things are different.
They they do have the close to the
same earning potential than men. And if you
marry her and divorce her after 40 years
and expect her to take her suitcase and
walk out,
and then expect her niece and daughter to
want to repeat that
story,
you you are deluded.
So Islam would come in now
and say,
no. We will protect that woman.
We will give her,
as you know
this was a part of the decisions of
AMJA and the AMJA family code,
which which I really recommend for people to
read AMJA's family code because it it is
very traditional, very orthodox, but at the same
time, very cognizant
of the changes in in our reality when
it comes to custody, when it comes to
maintenance, and things of that nature.
So so we will take the concept of
for instance, which is the bereavement gift, consolation
gift, alimony, whatever it is that,
you wanna translate it as,
but you take that concept of mohah and
you take the the scholarly position that
is for all diversity, for all diversity, not
only
for those who have not had, like, a,
you know,
the, you know, like a
designated
you know? So so and and and Islam,
there there is the before the be between
the contract and
or the consummation of marriage and after the
consummation of marriage.
Between the contract and the consummation of marriage,
if she had a designated sabak, she gets
half the designated sabak. If she doesn't have
a designated sabak, she gets the murta. Everybody
agrees on that murta
except that even Malik who considered it still
to be recommended, not obligatory.
But then after the consummation of marriage, they
disagree whether divorcees
will have,
a a or not. Be because they have
their.
The so some, of the scholars said they
are not entitled to muta'ah. But there is
this position which is in
agreement with the apparent meaning of the Quran.
Yes. Well, for
the the the the generalized
unqualified statement of the Quran that
the will have
a cancellation gift.
Which will vary from time to place. In
the culture. Yes. Exactly. Yeah. So in this
case, we can employ this,
and we can take the position of the
scholars who say it's for all, and
we can compensate this woman.
And there will be a panel of scholars
who would put in consideration the duration of
marriage, his contribution to the marriage, and and
so on,
and
the the the cause behind the divorce. So
in other words, to be very specific then,
and, like, we're both in absolute agreement as
usual, which is a bit terrifying all the
time, mashaAllah, always coming. In other words, Sheikh,
there is no astaghfirullah
rejection of the shari'a, there is no,
changing of Allah's akham if we say in
modern times,
for some couples,
a type of, you know, alimony or a
type of,
settlement that is done in which a divorce
lady will get more than her if she
hasn't been working, and if the husband has
no legitimate need to divorce her, and now
she has no other source of income, that
it is permissible
to
Quranically, there's nothing, you know, change being done
to actually allow for more than what perhaps
our earlier scholars would have allowed for.
And if if you think what our earlier
scholars had allowed for, they say, adnaha,
saubu alaha khadim. Yes. So the the least
is basically to give her a garment, and,
the highest is to give her a servant.
Well, do do you mean what a servant
means? Yeah. It's quite expensive. If if if
you actually
give her enough
to hire a servant for the rest of
her life,
that's that's quite expensive. But again, share what
we have Anyway but but Yeah. But you
but but then this is a statement that
this is a scholarly statement. But then we
can adapt to our new realities,
and we can figure out how much
what is fair for this woman. And so
What is fair to to to basically give
her financial security for the rest of her
life
and
what would be fair so that her niece
and her daughter
will think, no. She was not wronged.
She still have financial security.
I could still dedicate myself to homemaking.
I could still prioritize
the family. I can sacrifice advancing my career
for my family.
So in order for a woman to enter
entertain, in order for and you're not talking
about,
like
a small group of women
that
would basically,
would not entertain all of this or would
not be concerned about financial security in the
future, would not be concerned about no. You're
talking about the masses. The Sharia is not
for,
you know, your your small group that that
resides
in your small echo echo chamber
online
on social media.
The sharia is meant for
all the Muslims out there. Jayed, so what
we have, Sheikhara, as usual is,
knee jerk reactions on both sides. You have
those that are
acquiescing to modern notions of feminism
in which they do believe these simplistic ideas
that,
even if they're working, even if they're bringing
money to the table, even if they have
this notion that, okay, the man has all
responsibility,
and I don't owe him anything including kwama,
and everything that I earn is absolutely mine.
And no marriage is gonna function like this.
Then you have on the flip side,
some of our our brothers who are wanting
to
find cultural values of a century ago and
assuming that they are Islamic.
And each one feeds into the stereotype of
the other. What we are both arguing is
that
there is nothing wrong with taking our situation
into account and understanding
that it is
natural and normal that qiwama
will be rethought even as we still affirm
there is something called qiwama, and that financial
obligations
and financial responsibilities
and,
marital or or or divorce situations
can be changed in light of modern times.
In fact, what we are arguing, and I
think you're all on similar with, we meaning
the Fiqh Council and Amjad, is that we
should enforce an Islamic prenuptial agreement.
Where in a prenuptial agreement, we actually have
percentages put in such that it becomes a
for the Nikah, right? So this is one
of the ways we can get out of
it. So Sheryl, before we wrap up inshallah,
one other again sensitive issue, and that is
gender interactions.
And in particular,
the notion of of, you know,
living in the West as we do.
We have our sisters, you know, going pretty
much everywhere,
dressed inshallah. The point is they are dressed
appropriately.
We'll get to what if they're inappropriately dressed,
meaning they're not fully wearing the hijab. That's
what we mean by that in this particular
circumstance.
But then when it comes to our Islamic
gatherings, our Islamic conferences,
to what level of strictness are we required
to apply?
Must we bring about complete segregation
in our Islamic gatherings? Because there's arguments both
ways. As you're aware, and to summarize for
our viewers,
those that are on the stricter side have
a legitimate argument like, hey, this is our
space.
Let us control to the max, and let
us have full segregation.
And on the other side, you have the
I would say some pragmatists who say, hey,
look, many of our brothers and sisters, they're
not to that level.
And if we were to be ultra strict,
they're not coming and listening to the lectures.
And so we are not going to enforce
that type of complete segregation.
Rather, we have an understanding that, yeah, this
is an Islamic culture and environment. Nothing overtly
haram taking place. So we're gonna be a
little bit on the Lakser side. Fact of
the matter is the majority of conventions
are actually all mainstream conventions are on that
side. So you have the critics who then
come along and argue these aren't Islamic
because they're not enforcing and there are non
hijabi sisters coming along. And the speakers like
myself and yourself attend these conventions.
And
from our perspective, we feel that there's no
question hijab is mandatory. We feel that
there are bigger priorities at this stage because
many of the people in the audience
are not at a level where they're going
to be embracing
certain aspects of Islam. So we have this
back and forth between
those critics who accuse us and others of
selling out or of watering down or of
not enforcing
versus
our understanding, and it could be wrong here
where
we feel this is not the time and
place when we have 10,000 Muslims, the majority
of whom are not even praying 5 times
a day, the majority of whom are all
in major sin, this is not the time
to nitpick
something that is not on the top 5,
10 of our list here.
So little bit of thoughts about this issue
of segregation,
especially when it comes to Islamic conventions and
lectures.
Well, so so,
the book that you pointed out, the or
you
referred to the book that I wrote on
gender interaction, it's male female interaction in Islam.
I had a picture of,
like, a classroom, like, where men and women
coexist in the same classroom.
And
I have the speaker, which was,
supposedly a man,
facing the men, and the women
were to the side a little bit. They
are still able to see the speaker.
There is no partition between them and the
speaker, but they were a little bit to
the side where the speaker is not facing
the women,
all the time.
You know, I think that people would be
entitled to critique,
you know,
you know, like, a a young,
male
preacher or speaker
sitting across,
from,
like,
well good appearing
woman. All relative, Shaitan. We're gonna push back
here. It's all relative. It's all subjective.
All these adjectives you're using.
But but at the same again, at the
same time, the these Who's gonna define these
things? Recognizable.
Right? Recognizable,
things. Our scholars have always talked about about
these concepts.
Our,
you know,
forget about it.
Not completely,
not well dressed. Not,
like, for for forget about what appearing,
because
a young man sitting across
from a young woman for 1 and a
half hours,
I think it's it's a setup that's a
little bit
problematic.
Like if you have a young man sitting
here and a young woman sitting there
and they're basically,
face to face for 1 and a half
hours, and you're telling him lower your gaze.
Hold the.
Wait. So you say in just the 2
of them? Or you're talking about No. I'm
talking about
even if it is, like, 2
200 people.
But he's sitting right across
from,
like, a young woman,
that may not be
properly,
dressed.
And the he's sitting across from her for,
like,
2 hours, 1 hour, 45 minutes, half an
hour.
That is not conducive to lowering your gaze.
Like, doesn't Allah say, you know,
say to the believing men to lower their
gaze? Like, is is this arrangement
conducive
to lowering your gaze?
What what what is the lowering your gaze
about then?
If we're not going to to
try to
make arrangements
for this to happen.
So, like, you're you're 25 years old. She's
25 years old. You're sitting across from each
other for, like, 45 minutes,
and then supposedly,
you're lowering your gaze. Or how is that
happening? So, Shazrat,
one example which is, I think, definitely on
the more extreme side. Yeah. Let's be more
But okay. Okay.
So so
in in in in my in the drawing
that I have in the book, I have
the women to one side. There is no
partition between the speaker and the women
exactly like you had it yesterday at Epic.
Didn't we have the seminar? There's a guy
seminar yesterday at Epic.
I was facing
the men. The women were to the side.
Mister Dior. The women were a little bit
to the side. I think that if a
woman was given that lecture, I would have
placed her table across from the women. That's
exactly how we do it at Armitage. And
the men would be to the side
so that the arrangement
is
sensitive
to our values
and to the concept of lowering your gaze.
And in that picture that I had in
the book, I had a partition
And I wrote next to the partition are
optional. Mhmm.
In
you know, I go to different places.
Sometimes they have the partition. Sometimes I don't
tell them remove it. Sometimes they don't. I
don't tell them put it.
At Masjid where I where I usually conduct
my classes,
they have we have that partition
between men and women. But again, at the
same time, there's no partition between me and
the sisters. I am sitting here facing the
men. The sisters are a little bit Personally,
Sheikh, I agree with you. This is the
ideal and that's what we do in our
masjid. Personally, however, even this is too liberal
for some people,
and it is too strict for others as
you're aware. But the Masjid of the prophet
did not have a physical partition between men
and women.
Yeah. The argument given by the modern critics
is that
our modern women are not dressed appropriately,
all the time compared to the Sahabi'at. But
Sheikh, let's get now to the more
explicit question, and that is the conventions that
are beyond our control. Mhmm. You're invited to
these mainstream ones, so am I.
And you're well aware that
there is no segregation in 5,000 people, 10000
people. There is not even a organic, I
e.
Yeah. Sure. There are, you know, certain women
that just sit together, certain men, But overall
in the audience, the I don't think I
don't think that we we that we're required
to have physical segregation. I think that there
should be basically
self motivated segregation because the the speakers and
the Muslim preachers
need to be teaching people about Islamic
modesty
and appropriate Islamic behavior
so that there will be self enforced,
not complete segregation, but self enforced
modesty,
you know, where the the women would choose
to sit next to women, and the men
would choose to sit next to men,
and there would not be inappropriate
interaction. You're saying the preachers would teach this?
The the My But this is the shortcoming
of This is Yes. The preachers,
of course, must teach
this. But And I could be wrong.
But in these massive conventions,
the priority
at that point in time for these 5,
10000 but we know who they are. They're
the ones that don't come to the masjid
right there. They're the ones that for the
priority for them is not to be taught
segregation at this stage. The priority for them
is to make them feel the 'izzah for
the ummah. The priority for them is to
feel a sense of Khushua and Iman, to
come closer to Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, to
love their religion. There are people that are
leaving the faith at these types of conventions.
So
my philosophy,
these large mainstream conventions that I'm not in
charge of, where I'm in charge of we
have the segregation,
we don't bring up issues of segregation.
We don't bring up issues of the hijab.
Not because I don't believe in them, but
because I don't think this is the right
time or place or forum to do that.
These are the times where, as I said,
we bring them a sense of Izzah for
their ummah and a sense of pride of
being Muslim. Right? Now, the critics allege
that
this is a
watering down and a betrayal of the Amana
that is given unto us. And the response,
I simply say
I have given multiple lectures in my Masjid
about hijab, and about women's roles and issues,
and whatnot. And this is for those that
are now more interested in these topics. Right?
So, do you You yourself, when you go
And I know you go to these conventions.
You yourself do not talk about segregation on
those platforms.
I'm
Not to put you on the spot. Sorry.
I don't I don't go to those conventions,
but, like, you know, I rarely
go, to to those conventions, but I don't
blame people who go to those conventions.
And I don't basically decide for them what
they believe to be,
the right discourse
for at at at that time.
I just have one reservation
about people who
use the priority
card or the priorities
card. They never address those issues. Like someone
who's an imam in a masjid, for instance,
for 25 years,
and,
he has never addressed those issues
because it is not a priority. It's not
Fair enough. You have to you at,
like you have to help. We're talking we
talked about Erdogan,
before in a in a previous discussion with
you.
So you have to say to yourself, it
has been 20 years.
I we I took this congregation
from point a to point b, but you
can't basically be,
standstill in you know, and and say that
it it is not the right time. It's
been 20 years. Like, what have you done?
You know, you you need to be concerned
about Islamic manners, Islamic etiquettes, Islamic way of
life. You need to be Great. Okay. Basically,
you you need to consider
those things.
But when will you do it? How will
you do it? You know,
where
these are questions. These are you you will
have to figure out the answers to those
questions, and no one can dictate
to a particular preacher
when, how, and where,
to do these things. But they just need
to be concerned and they need to be
doing something about it. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. So inshallah, let us summarize and
wrap up inshallah.
So we were talking about gradualism and pragmatism,
and the slow, application of and,
in this regard is that,
there seems to be enough leeway
and,
permissibility
to have a long term vision that is
implemented in smaller steps. And this applies not
only the Muslim majority lands, but also in,
situations like here in America where we feel
the,
does require many steps to get to the
final goal. Any final comments you have about
this issue of pragmatism and, and and gradualism?
No. I I believe,
that this this this is the case, and
I believe that, there should always be priorities.
And I believe that, people who are not
praying,
it may not be a priority
to talk to them about Islamic etiquettes of,
England and to to address their,
greater like, like, if you have cancer, you're
probably not going to be that concerned
about,
like,
a benign mole on your hand or something.
So,
there is there is there is certainly must
be a prioritization
and
prudent approach,
to
and
to preaching and to dawah in general
is necessary,
is is vital for our success
everywhere,
men in Muslim majority lands or Muslim or
wherever we are as, Muslim minorities, but particularly
so,
where where there are Muslim minorities because,
those Muslims,
should not be pushed away,
of course. They should be accommodated. They should
be welcomed. That they should not
be pushed away because it is very easy
for them
to get lost. Mhmm.
And and when we do so, this
not a reformation of the religion whatsoever, and
contrary to what many of the critics alleged.
This is simply
applying the wisdom within the Sharia that is
allowed by Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala demonstrated by
our salaf and our rurama throughout history.
And, when we learn and study, we understand
this is what the Sharia itself allows us
to do inshaAllah. With this Jazakumullah kesha for
spending so much time. May Allah bless me.
And
InshaAllah, we hope to have further conversations.
Viewers, if you have specific topics you're interested
in, more than happy to continue these conversations
with our Sheikh. And inshaAllah, we will see
you until next time.