Yasir Qadhi – Gender Roles, Free Mixing, Divorce Dowry, & Apostasy
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Welcome to another podcast 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, inshaAllah, with other
sensitive topics that are inshaAllah 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'ul from wa hakam. 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?
Of.
For the invitation.
And then,
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
Imam Shatabir has a statement,
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. Is
done, has been fulfilled
by the Sharia of Islam and if this
world would,
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 a
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 manataatahab
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. And if we were
to keep the relevance and the practical practicability
or reality, 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 Al
Hakam 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 forcible 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
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 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 need the both
of us are coming from the Tajdidi Wasati
revival paradigm exemplified by Rashid Doolittle 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
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 aqa'id,
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 Zohr 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 would Who gets to decide, Sheikh?
The qualified scholars, the and that's why we
have it. There will be an internal
disagreement at times.
Certainim of certain names. Outside of that circle
should understand
where qualified scholars disagree and where they are
unanimous in this regard. Right? Yeah. 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 insha Allahu Ta'ala. So I wanna
hear the sheikh's view and obviously I have
my views and 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 hudood 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 countries' name. Suppose a Muslim majority country
and Islamist party comes to power. Right? And
now they have taken over, Alhamdulillah, 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
or 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 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 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 had legislated
for us
is,
infant infinitely wise.
As
said,
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
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 scholar
of the 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 Qam al Majah or during the famine.
And
they would recognize
how Omar changed certain things because of the
changes in social political
realities. You know? The the the deya that
used to be that
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 sociopolitical realities of of their times. People
moved around, and by the time you collected
the data from Al Aqed, it would have
taken months or years and would have been
unfair
to the family of the victim. But Omar
changed it to Adel 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'i's 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. Well 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? The simple. Exactly.
Not a hard double.
Hard double is a new one.
Yeah. I use those things. Okay. But but
but why why there is why there is
no hard for
a team? That that small bikat, you know,
for for Riba.
So
if you look if you examine the the
Hadood punishments, there is always this
huge force,
that is pushing you or pulling you, and
Allah wants to deter you. This this this
is not meant for revenge. It's meant 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
purification but mainly deterrence.
So you have, like, the zine. You know,
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
kazf, 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. That are
left for this this 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 are prescribed whatsoever or encouraged whatsoever.
So 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
be so let's be firstly, give an example.
Again, hypothetical.
So And you talked about apostasy, right? Yeah.
We'll get back to the we'll get before
we start that one. Hypothetical example, a majority
Muslim land has had an Islamist party. They
win the party, they win it. They they
they're now in parliament or at least they
can maneuver.
But the country has allowed,
has allowed,
has allowed so much for war.
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 example, 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
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. This is.
But that was for
the. That's for. Yes. So
the idea that you will never find Khamr
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 want to 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 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, Shaikh, as you're aware, no scholar
is of that nature, but unfortunately, we have
to deal with so many especially in the
west, they they don't understand
the gradualism or
and they assume that,
you know, we have to implement 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 Narmarwan, Abdul Malik bin
Nohmar bin Abdul Aziz and what he said
to Umar bin 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?
So
so Imam Abu al Aziz told him if
I if I do it all at once,
they will rebel all at once. Yeah.
That's what it is. Like, aren't you happy
if you if no day passes
except that your father will be Yahi sunnayim
bida? Yeah. It's getting better by bit. Yes.
Exactly.
I I think that this the the that
this is the difference between Abdul Malik,
ibn Omer Abdelaziz, and Omer Abdelaziz. Theoretical,
youngster, idealistic,
seasoned politician,
wise, experienced. 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, so we have to always deal
with it. So, Sheikh, 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 a selection 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 sallallahu
alaihi wasallam.
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
punishment. There are
some reports where it's clear that he had
not implemented it, people who apostasized
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 Hambeli FEP,
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 salallahu alaihi wa sallam
waved it at at certain times,
then it makes it makes perfect sense that
this is this discretionary 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 bias
behind this
law
that, why is he differentiating between men and
women? Because,
traditionally,
people who apostasy apostatized
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 the 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. This is even more
radical than what I have argued for. Yeah.
Okay.
So you are saying, Aslan, 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 I mean, keep the doors open.
You know?
As an Imam al Hazm said, that that
to prevail, there are 2 ways to this,
By Hajj al Burhan, by proofs and, you
know,
evidences,
or as Saif in 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 their 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 Rabadaibir
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, on the
a pressure to leave Islam.
You're being colonized.
You're
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,
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 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, is 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
deconstruction
of this sensitive topic.
Do you believe that Islam
has come with specific gender roles?
No. Of course. Yes. It has come with
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,
the the 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 rajalukhaumunalan
is a kaltiwama
is not about authority whatsoever. It is simply
about responsibility.
Whoever said that responsibility and authority can be
divorced from each other? Like, whoever said that
someone can 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 Pewamah
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 Piwama, 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 give 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,
slavery
And only have been banned after industrial revolution?
Colonialism, slavery. There are so many things that
change within our reality. Mhmm. Not because of,
you know, intellectuals,
or the trickle down of philosophy or because
of
real
tangible
changes in how we do things. In reality.
Yeah.
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?
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 made 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's 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 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 for Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Zubairah's horse
and for for 3 miles.
Yeah. Zubairah's horse and for for 3 miles
back and forth and 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 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 will 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 this? You know, like, 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 deferred
part of the dowry, sometimes there is not.
But he just can divorce her and give
her an
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
would 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 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 qwama of the man to
want him to be qawab,
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 re conceptualized,
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 different circles and Sheikha Tia Sakhra
has a very great he was like a
Mufti in Egypt.
He has a great book 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 is 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 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 it can have
different interpretations.
Is that because it is his house, he
owns it,
Or it is because he's the husband?
So at Imam Anawi seems to think that
it is because he owns that house. So
what if
she co owns it? Oh my gosh. What
if she pays 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 to
ilan.
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 And number 2,
There are there are also intellectual differences between
the way women think and the way men
think. More conducive for leadership.
Yes. 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 2 genders. This is.
It is what it is. The modern world
has taken away the need for that physical
disparity. We're now in the office, everybody's exactly
the same. Intellectually, in terms of computer programming,
whatever, it's really men and 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 men had. So
when both of the ila 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 sharah as long as
qiwama is maintained.
Right? And so the nuances of what qiwama
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 qawamah, and we we
also cannot basically restrict Bima Faddalallahu Badhamumalaaba
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 in the AMJA Family Code,
which which
I really recommend for people to read. I'm
just 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 and things of that nature.
So so we will take the concept of
mutah 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 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,
a designated
you know? So so and
and and Islam, there there is the before
the country 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 murtah. Everybody
agrees on that murtah,
except that even Malik who considered it still
to be recommended, not obligatory.
But then after the consummation of marriage, they
disagree whether the overseas
will have,
a a murta or not. Be because they
had their mahar.
So some, of the scholars said they are
not entitled to mutah.
But there is this position which is in
agreement with the apparent meaning of the Quran.
Yes. 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. 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 maha. 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,
Yes. So the the least is basically to
give her a garment, and the 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, sure. But
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, Sheikhna, 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 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 and some other way, we
meaning the firk council and amja, 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
shard 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 their 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 Laksa 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 man, 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 to 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 that 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.
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, if 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. Well, 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.
Good or messaged you. 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 what we do at our
mission. 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 on
optional.
And, 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 bastards of the prophet
did not have a physical partition between men
and women. Yes. Women were behind the men.
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
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 people, 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 in 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
to 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 the 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
is 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? How 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 to Muslim majority lands, but also in,
situations like here in America where we feel
that,
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 a key
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 is 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. May
Allah put it in mezzan alazanah. 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.