Channel: Yasir Qadhi
Backhand tiny, tiny, tiny Allah then the
coin to mean Ruby
jelly either call le europei Ernesta Hey, DA Seanie wanna
Mina na intervie
we begin by praising Allah subhanho wa taala, the one and the unique, it is he alone that we worship, and it is a that we seek. It is revealed onto the prophets of Allah where it was said them, and he taught them how to speak. So maybe that's the one who was sent to embody the prophetic
as follows. There's an interesting narration of the Prophet saw in
it tells us a story of the past. He says in the days gone by in the previous stations, there was a mall the Christian time, there was a mock, who would worship God in his seminary in this monastery. And in those days, the monasteries were away from society, and it was not allowed for women.
So this monk, his name was Dr. George and Joe, he, his mother went to the monastery, outside and second your age, I need some help, can you come up to help me and your age was inside up. So he said, to Allah Yara between the solder and between my mother.
So he chose
The next day his mother came again. He's a pervert, he's a monk. He's not about to end up. He's at the monastery worshipping, 20%, fasting, whatever they do in the monk in the monastery, next day, and his mother take the same story. He was in Salah. He said
he chose once again.
The third day his mother came and the same story. Then his mother got angry and said, Oh Allah, may You punish joy. By humiliating him with the evil ladies, the prostitutes should be partners with them. And she walked away angry.
It so happened that that type of Lady became pregnant. And she became pregnant by a particular person in the community. But once she was challenged, she was older. No, it was during July. It was your age. He's the one who impregnated me. And so the people became so incensed. They said, What's the moment? The Urban's the one who's supposed to be worshiping God, they went to his monastery while He was praying. This time they interrupted, they didn't ask permission. They broke down the monastery, they dragged him out reaching and whatnot. And they took him to the center. And he said, What is going on? They explained the story. And remember that his mother, because he heard the door
outside, remember, the dog was mother, and he smiled, while they're beating, because this is Allah responding to my mother. Before you kill me, let me pray about it, pray to God. And he made a lot to chew on miracle. So he pointed to the baby. And he said, Who is your father, and the baby said, So and so is my Father, not my father. So the townspeople witnessed the miracle of not only three spoke from the cradle, Jesus said to marry the child that was in the soil, and then the daughter or the son of the Homesmith.
device. So three people spoke. Now this narration, remember, no comment on it. And they say, in one version, the prophets have said have added, may Allah have mercy on July on George, on July, if he had knowledge, he would have responded to his mother.
If he had knowledge, he would have responded to this mother.
I began my talk with this story, because it really embodies some of the potential dangers of an innocent understanding of what religion is.
When you think something is religious, and you are committed to that understanding, tragedy could result. In fact, we have an incident in the theater of the Prophet SAW said that one of the expeditions soldier became injured, and this wound was in the attic was festering, and the journey back would take weeks, as you know. And so on the way back, the soldier this morning, was frustrated. He went to sleep, and he woke up in the state of Georgia. He said to his colleagues, what do I do now? What do I do now? I'm in the state of Java, but I can fetch water. So one of them said, oh,
you know what? He says,
Parents and family cannot prefer without Google, you have to go with the golden doodle. So he did.
He did. He did. Also he poured water on this egg. And that festered the moon, it caused the entire body to become gangrene and he died before reaching.
When they came back, they told the news to the professor. He became so angry, His face became red. And he said, They murdered him. A lot person. Why didn't they ask before giving the facts? Why didn't they get knowledge before answering this? This question? For indeed this is a heading for the process of the cure to ignorance is asking question what is the cure to ignorance is asking questions. Once again, we see in this hadith, some of the potential dangers of the innocence, perhaps a bit a naive understanding of the faith, that doesn't match up with reality.
And the problem comes in our times, all too often we have genuinely sincere people. Nobody is going to doubt the sincerity of directions, all white is dedicated to the Hermitage to the wall. Nobody's doubting his sincerity. But he didn't have a Buddhist most understanding. Nobody's doubting the companion who say, Oh, you got to do also there's no he thinks he knows. And he's intransigent. There is this dogmatism, you have to do this, there's no way forward. But in that dogmatism, or in that the heat innocence, you literally end up hurting or killing people. You end up disobeying your mother thinking your obey God, when, as the process itself says, Allah have mercy on this person, if
he had knowledge he would know he should have quickly finished.
The answer is whether he really thought prolonging the Salah is going to be more pleasing to Allah.
Now, the opposite the end spectrum, or the exact opposite side of the spectrum, is the dangers of written interpretation or outright rejection, which is also a huge problem. And again, so many instances can be said of this. And the people who embodied this the most in the prophetic era, are those the hypocrites? Again, there are many narrations of disregard one simple narration comes to mind where the processing was significant, where people are all eating, and there was one of the leaders of the American people. And he was eating with his left hand with his left hand. So the promises unsaid also and so who will be a meeting? Eat with the right now eater with the right time
Unless you're sick or whatever, you're
the man became limited. That How dare you tell me which
now to become irritated.
It's not a trivial matter, to become irritated that the proper system is telling you to do something, and to reject that, that is not a trivial matter. And so in his anger, he said last year, I cannot eat with my right hand
out of arrogance that our interest, this was sheer arrogance. And the one thing that God that Allah despises the most is arrogance, as we know, as the promises and said nobody with an attitude of average will understand. The one thing that he despises the most is happiness. So the man said, I can't do it not to stop here. So the proper system gave him his own verdict. And he's even
Okay, in that case, you shall not You said you cannot, okay you shall not right then and there is right time became permanently paralyzed.
You could not lift it up a finger.
This is Africans, you don't show arrogance to Allah and his messenger is not a joke. When Allah says do something, and you say, I'm not going to and you show that it's one thing you don't do say Allah, forgive me. That's not arrogance. So since we're all sinners, that's not arrogance. As I said, it's another thing
to say, I'm not going to do it, which is the the paradigm of disagreement. So the response was, as you have seen, now, the problem comes brothers and sisters, we are kind of sort of navigating that internal that middle line where we don't want to be this dogmatic, intransigent not understanding the goals of the city. And at the same time, we don't want to reject the guy either, right? And these problems and these tensions, frankly, I would say are one of the greatest crises that religious Muslims and even the not so religious Muslims are facing, because religious Muslims are grappling with, how much can we inherit from our tradition, and what are we allowed to take from the
tradition, those that are not so religious, a lot of times are turned off, they're turned away by what they think is religion. It's not necessarily that
Religion is a man's interpretation of religion, it is a manifestation of a human interpretation. So we are truly battling between all of these different fronts here. And one simple lecture is not going to solve this problem. But I hope that it shall have data. Today's lecture will simply allow us to begin the awkward conversation and allow us to start contemplating from perhaps a paradigm of more empathy and tolerance, and I'm gonna summarize my electric in, we're able to do this, I have 10 points. So let's see if I can do 10 points. And I'll try to do this as quickly as possible to open the floor for q&a in Java.
The first point we begin, which is perhaps the most important ones, we must differentiate between the law of God and the law of men that they derive from what they think is,
or to be technical, we separate Shediac from
Sharia is Allah is Revelation liquidity dynamic.
Allah revealed Misha, Allah revealed the city it is the way it is.
Now, the Sharia is basically the book the Quran, and the teachings of the prophets of Allah. These are the two sources. However, from these sources to extrapolate our voluminous tomes of law known as fifth, that is a human project. Now, just because it's a human body doesn't mean it's dismissed. It simply means it is the best attempt of the greatest minds of our own, to extract from the divine forces. But those tomes of law those examples it works are not God's revelations, they're not Allah's revelations, we have to be very clear about Allah's revelation is encompassed in two sources. And that is the book that he sent, and the Prophet upon whom he said, these two are what is
demanded. These are ultimate sources. Everything that happens after that is a great attempt. It is a magnificent effort. But in and of itself, it is not the revelation of us. I know the easiest ways to to show this is that from the time of the Sahaba, from the time of the next generation, from the time of the great demands, there have been a diversity not only in the laws, but in the epistemology of deriving was not only in fifth, but it was full. There has been a standard diversity that has crossed geographic regions time space, and in our time, we think there are four main hubs in reality once upon a time, there were 3040 50. In the early Islam, it wasn't just put it by before the tabby
those regenerations their diversity of fifth is far broader than what we now have as the fourth letters. And this will get to me within non Sunni
Muslims as well. There's plenty of these men are greater types. I'm not dismissing them. But you understand we must differentiate between the human attempt and between the divine revelation and never should we substitute the human attempt for the actual divine revelation. And this shows us the great demands themselves in my mind even shocking.
Sometimes for the same issue, you will have four different opinions in the order.
This indicates that human extrapolation, the Quran, and Sunnah did not reveal compendiums of law, and you cannot extract those companions without the human effort without an epistemology that is itself slightly contested. And without a final result that is even more contested. Now, just because it is contested. Once again, it is not meant to be dismissed. But I'm saying we should never substitute the human product at the end for the demand.
And we should be broad minded and tolerant enough to understand that just because a great scholar in seventh century but that said something, it doesn't mean it is definitively final. Were there other scholars that disagreed Were there other geographic regions and other opinions. So the researchers did research you don't just one particular strength, especially when it comes to modernity. The second point, there has always been from the very beginning of time, a slight tension between extreme literalism and between rationalization of the loss. There has always been a slight tension, sometimes a market tension between extreme literalism and between rationalization, and we see this
slight tension, even in the lifetime of the practice of law. Many examples can be given perhaps the most obvious example is the famous incident of the
authentic reporting. And it's well known for the zero that after battle paper when a loss of dataset the miraculous leaps to get rid of the 10,000 troops that had gathered outside and the promises of the Sahaba came back home to
Finally relaxed after one month of being on the border one month of being on x one month of just sacrifice they came home they took off their armor and they're finally just taking a break that needs to be taken to me it comes down as the report says and he says to the promises that if you have taken your armor off realize the angels in their armor. Why? Because you haven't dealt with the traders on the inside that oh boy up famous incident the little boy up while they were on the inside they one of the many times they were supposed to have decided they made a secret alliance with the Polish they said they will open up the door we'll let you in you can attack from behind an attack.
So they were traitors of the highest magnitude. This is treason during war, and they literally collaborated with the enemy. So the promises of a multipurpose armored Julissa, hey, if you have taken your armor off, we have not taken on. We're going to go straight to Allah has commanded you have to deal with them. Now the process and can't back up the budget and give me time to pull them up. So after Uber comes and the people have come to prego, so the promises and makes the announcement that I have been commanded to go.
So none of us should pray also, until we get to the point where this is the command. Now usually,
none of us should pray also. So we get to the Bible. The Bible presents like a two and a half hour walk. So if they leave an hour after they should get there, enough time to create
but it's been a month in the Bible. People have just come home they haven't seen them for a month they're tired some of them are wounded you just so by the time the news spread, and by the time they were their armor up again, it was basically already in the heat of the process already gone this I'm waiting for you to do not pray awesome. Acceptable the Korea I'm waiting for you there, he already won his 30. Now he used to go the rest of the companions, they took their sweet time for legit we understand they left after us or not, after all. And by the time they're walking their mother is now about to come there is no way they're going to reach wonderful Isla before sunsets, but they haven't
prayed. Are you guys following? What an upgrade?
Awesome. Right now, what's the dilemma here? What's the dilemma? Should we just continue walking? And watch the sunset? And not pray awesome. out of obedience to the literal commandment do not pray Yasser accepted?
Or should we understand that the meaning was, what was the meaning?
Reach us as soon as possible, right? The way that it was expressed?
Is it meant to be literal? Or is it meant to be hate trying your best to get there? If you can't get there? Well, then, obviously, you're gonna get there. So the Sahaba began debating the meaning of this.
Realized processes are like these three miles away, but he's not right there.
So they began debating, and guess what they could not reach.
So half of that stopped and prayed also, and the other half continued onwards. And the both of them came to the offices to explain what happened on the way. And guess what, he did not get irritated.
They both try what they thought was the best. They both have different epistemologies. Their goal was to honor this, and they ended up disagree, you can want to honor the sooner and still ended up disagree, it is possible to do so neither of them reviewed, neither.
One understood that this was literal and they acted upon it. The other understood there's a reason behind it. In this case, the reason for the back.
And that type of tension between literalism and between rationalization is found throughout all of the opinions that I've disagreed. So many times, we'll find this type of issue. Therefore, we need to understand this point as well. When we look at trying to apply modern times that you will find some people they're trying to rationalize with that person. And some people are wanting to be liberal, that is also coming from a paradigm of innocence and wanting to call this.
A third point that we can bring is that it is a part of the pseudonym, to take context into account, take external factors into account. And you don't just derive laws from an ancient book written that helps
you to look at reality around you. And it is a part of our students to understand reality before you give a particular word, and we find this even the time of the Prophet sallallahu it was said
Now in classical elite, it's very clear that we can talk. I'm not endorsing this, simply saying, This is what classical Islam teaches that those that are traitors and those that are enemies within the faith. They're supposed to be executed. This is the standard law of
action, accurate sandbar across the
community, then you have to leave,
for example. So there is these laws, if you're a trader, you're not going to be amongst them. So that was the law. Now, the head of the one after port Abdullah
had caused so much irritation and uses softly refuting the promises and causing mass chaos.
After a particular incident, where it just really crossed the line, he came to the zoo, I said,
Why don't you execute it?
Why don't you just get rid of this person?
If we were to apply literalism in this case, he doesn't deserve to question his own life. He was not.
Why the prophets of sunset? No.
I don't want others to say that.
Let that sink in. The Muslims knew even so good as a trader. But do you think the Irish would care about this distinction? The PR scandal that would happen if he executed even salute bye.
Circle was the senior most leader in the city of Medina before the migration to the process. And he was a respected politician, right? Well known in Arabia, the only person who attended with the process of politically was because he was the only elder statements of statement alive. If you remember your theater history, there was a civil war. But the process, that Civil War decimated all of the senior
politicians, except what if Mr. Liu was the only one who was remaining from that batch? And when the processing of tape, he felt his tiny had been taken away? His eyes were on the prize, the process, okay, and who's in the room now? Nobody. So he became the leader of the hypocrites, okay. The promises understood, if I were to execute this, the PR that would come from outside of Arabia, would damage the entire community. So it is better for the community to deal with it internally that to worry about the PR externally. What are people going to make of this old because there's no followers you I've ever
read. That scandal would have been so bad. It's actually easier to deal with this nuisance internally.
Also, when you factor buckets,
and now market is all his the Sahaba are just new conference while we have this new convert, right? The leaders of the price, they're literally an hour old it is now and there is not at that time was shaky. It wasn't firm, the promises that he confided, he said,
if only for the fact that your people are brand new in this town in all this, I would have actually destroyed this structure of the cover and rebuilt the original structure.
It was that semi circle that you do they call it? A semi circle? What if he built that guy, but it was actually a rectangle on the square when it
was a rectangle square. When the porch rebuilt it in the trailer, the cost of the processor was 25 years old.
When they rebuilt it, they ran out of funds, no funds to build the Masjid. So they built it as a square with the intention that when they get the funds, they'll build it as a rectangle. Those funds never pay the rest, as they say history is still a sweat, right? And so the prophets was remembered for or 1000 years, obviously. And while he was a child and a teenager, when he was a teenager, this battle was a rectangle. So he says
just because your people are brand new Muslims, I know if I were to do this, they could make this into a huge matter. He destroyed the guy, but he did. So in order to placate them in order to let it be. I'm going to leave it as it is.
Once again, there's a sense of taking into account that reality. And point number four, sort of point number three, that difficult times do call for difficult interpretations. This is well known extenuating circumstances allow for extenuating interpretations. And the classic example for this is a loved one multiple times in his caliphate. He quite literally it seems modified or adopted or reinterpreted what others might think we're clear
Could rulings. But he understood that, hey, things have changed. And I need to just fight you for the sake of people, many examples of electronic dissertations on this, but one simple example comes to mind that during the 18th, year of the digital age, there was a massive drought and famine, and people are dying of starvation. And when you're dying of starvation, you do crazy things. So people started breaking into houses and stealing food and whatnot, right? Now, technically, if you're an undergraduate freshman, and you study your basic death, right, so the penalty of the one who breaks into a house and steals a certain amount is the cutting off of that. This is level one, there is no
room for fraud is very clear.
Understood, context doesn't matter. There is no Quran or Hadith that says, in time of doubt, suspend this a criminal. Because no, now we can't apply this. What somebody steals out of hunger. He's wanting to feed his family.
And so he's suspended the boronic ruling for that entire year, because there's an element of extenuating circumstance here. Once again, we find a type of forward thinking pragmatism, not a fundamentalist?
Well, yes, the book does so with the book also says that Allah is He also says that don't kill yourself, the book also some other things. So you take your context into account. And just because there's a rule doesn't mean there's no exceptions, doesn't mean there's no extenuating circumstances. And it is the job of the real copy anybody that we share Google and look up on Google on your basic, what the text says, the real puppy understands the text and understands the context. That's what the real job of the lawyer is, if you just open up a book and apply it, you don't need to go to law school, you can just Google it, you can just be a great one student or level, you know,
freshmen in college to do that. The real hourly understands where the exceptions are and when to apply them. Naturally. Real Fitness demonstrated not in extreme literalism and the Sahaba, the greatest of them were exactly like this and had many such understandings. For example, GCM,
for example, the issue of
which is basically one of the categories of categories. And
one of them, which is the only one that's an offer anonymously. Otherwise, you could say, what categories are offered. And that is why
what are leaders and movers and
enemies, who you can basically give money to, so that they don't attack you. They can soften their hearts. So there's a potential enemy, and you're worried about him? Money talks, and they're, they're productive. You don't have any money, but really,
so you give money to them, and they kind of sort of calm down. If we give somebody a million dollars, they will appreciate you and realize, okay, so the promises and use one of the number of times in his life development is a classic example. Rose a fall in his timeframe is not was powerful. There were no we are tribes.
So he said, we no longer
and he stopped giving.
Now, once they get to level one.
But you're reducing the time thinking,
there is a rationalization there's a contextualization that he understands this particular ruling, we will really need to apply that. And he said we bypassed it. Also, we move to the next point here that who gets to decide these exemptions? Who gets to understand where a particular ruling doesn't apply? And is this something that is a rejection of the idea? One second, there are so many examples of the power, if you really study or fifth, and you study evolution, and you study the lives of the greatest giants, the great,
you actually become far more tolerant. And I speak from my own experience, but when you begin your studies, you are the most intolerant person in the world, you will follow the one on one diversity. And you think that is it this is versus this is truth versus falsehood. You're very Manichaean when you're level one. When you really research and you explore and you study and you read the rich traditions we have you temper down that you become far more tolerant. It is a sign of fanaticism, that sorry, it's a sign of a superficial knowledge.
That is a sign of in depth knowledge that you are taught. So there are so many examples. There's a famous heavy recorded audience, that the promises are
Do not start saying a Santa Monica to a person that we
don't start saying if they say to say,
one of the areas of distance even. Now it's so happened.
The teacher of the teacher,
was traveling between two cities. And during that journey, you know, there's a group of people that care about that travels with you become friends to take time to think weeks and months, there were two priests, priests that were traveling in that character between two cities. And in the course of the time, they became very friendly and whatnot. When they got to the city, the priests went to their part of the city and even measured what takes practice. In those days, the cities were divided on religion by those days, the Christians that were one quarter the Jews.
So when they parted, if it was good set, a set
the student outcome as it were, and she was the one who narrated to us that the promises don't, we can set up an epic.
I mean, I heard this from you. And now you said set up. So he said, yes.
But the career the way that we
basically, the companions of the road, also have a right over me like I've been with them for the last few weeks. And I can't just go without saying set up to them, the companions of the road or the highway. I've been with them for so long, they have a half overeat. But what on itself says By the way, that one of the options you get is the
one that is your companion in trouble. So, but this is an exception, I understand the general.
But there is an exception. There's a human element here that I've been with these people for weeks, and weeks and weeks, I just let them go without giving them a greeting. So here we find one of the greatest of the sahaba. Understand that, hey, there are rules, yes, but sometimes there are exceptions to those rules as well. And he's demonstrating those exemptions in his own life. This leads us to the next one, I forgot which numbers you guys are writing. There's some benefit at the end. And that is,
we also have to take into account one of the biggest conundrums of our times when it comes to Islamic walls. And that is the idea of the nation's outspoken about despite a lot of many lectures, many people have written about this issue as well, we have to understand many of you are former knowledgeable than me in sociology and history. So I feel awkward telling you some of the stuff you're on the farm. But of course, when it comes to the notion of the nation states, we have to understand that it's a very, very recent human construct, to divide the world into nations, and to have these borders and to have identities for people within these borders. This literally,
especially the Muslim class is one century old, or in some cases, 6070 years old. And these borders are of course figments of imagination, right? So the Congress and famous political scientists, imagined communities, it's a very nice, imagined communities, the nation status, they have to imagine there's a commonality between them, they have to invent a shared heritage. In reality, there is nothing that combines the people of a nation state together except an imagined reality. Right? If you look at it, me as a second generation Pakistani, I have a lot more in common with the second generation Somali British than I do with many of my fellow, you know, neighbors in America itself,
right, have a lot more in common with a Muslim of another ethnicity born in another land, Denmark, let's say, and his parents are Turkish active, a lot more only with him than I do with my neighbors in America that are perhaps a different religious persuasion. What is their commonality to the point being that the nation state is an interesting construct, we are born into it. And we can't imagine a world without it to realize that 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, you were either a member of a religious community or you're a member of a tribe. These are the two main ways you would identify your tribe or religious committed and Islam. It was a mixture of both, you're always a Muslim, and
then you're a member of some subscribers, a group of people. So the point being that nation state is basic premise is everybody whose mother happened to be within a particular parameter when they were born, right. That's the notion that the definition of generally how do you become a citizen is your mother happened to eat within that geographic region when you were born? It's not really in your control. I happen to be born in America.
So because I was born in America, I automatically inherit American citizenship, I automatically get it. Okay. So this citizenship. According to the nation, state theory confers upon me rights and privileges that should be in complete equality with everybody else who carries that possible. That's what the nation state is about. Now, obviously, our
Sitting in a different time, a different place. And they have a very different understanding of social hierarchies. And from the teachers perspective, it makes a lot more sense to divide people based upon their faith and their ethics and their values. Those who follow a certain ethics and values are Muslims.
And those who disagree with whether the demo or whatever they might be put them in a different category, it makes a lot more sense to categorize people based upon their philosophy, and why would you choose not based on a particular truth? So the idea is understanding of society. While it might be more logical,
is problematic for those who are aware to the nation state.
And we see this clash I want to get into controversial
or whatever, especially in the state that we're in Boston, for example, the lawsuits?
We see this class right now, do we really apply laws that were meant to at a time when society was very different?
Can we apply those laws in the modern nation?
Let me give you a realistic example. The Muslim Brotherhood party, just a factual history, not taking sides and literally narrative history. When it was running for election after the Arab Spring.
They were asked for if you wanted Islamic Egypt, correct? Yes. Egypt is 10%. Coptic Christian, are you going to apply the laws of
10% calls it fully diction. Frankly, they're more Egyptian, the rest of us remember the call for
Islam came, and Egypt was 100%. Christian, over the course of the next 14 centuries. 90% converted 10% remain Coptic Christian. So the Islamic party was asking for some brotherhood. You weren't the Muslim nation state, are you going to apply?
And the guy was like, yeah, yes, we can apply.
Okay, so that means you can have full rights, regardless of their nationality, regardless of their religion. Um, I guess, yeah. But they can't be president.
President, but they're Egyptian. Yeah. But yeah, but you see, so the Muslim party itself began fighting amongst its own. How do we apply Islamic laws in a nation state, when the very premises of Islamic society and nation state are at odds with one another? Now, I am not making an argument here, for or against, I simply tell you that these are some really difficult problems. So much so that many academics say this particular problem doesn't have a solution. Because the epistemologies of these two paradigms are completely different. And there's a very famous author, Islamic academic life was written the impossible states.
Impossible, in which he goes over this issue of the impossibility of applying some of Islamic laws in the modern nation state, not because Islamic laws are backward. This is a Christian, by the way, his name South Africans, Americans, and Arab Christian is not a religious person. His entire thesis is, believe it or not, I'm being very simplistic, so Don't misquote me. And the reason is, is that the nation state is really very conditional.
And Islamic law makes a lot more sense from this paradigm. So the fact that you cannot apply to a nation state is actually an indication of how cool is Mr. Status, not tobacco.
This is a Christian, it's a normally Christian academic, pointing out the impossibility of the Islamic State. Right, the impossibility was like you can't have he said, I'm not necessarily you can't have a fully Islamic nation state, according to him.
Anyway, because I gave you some examples here, you better bring it GCF for your fellow citizens, then you're not they're not You're not your fellow citizen, then your hierarchy, then you're apartheid, then you're creating a system of injustice, then where's the nation state? There is no nation state, if there are people in Malaysia that are different levels of categories, that South Africa right there, how's that going to happen?
So there are some very, very difficult problems. And we have to rethink through them. Given the dynamics of our times, can we read the through now let's say for example, juicio, right. Classic example. The font is very clear about this, I think is very clear. But I challenge you, which was our time is taking
not one. So with my utmost love and respect for many of the people who are actively watching aspects of the show. I don't see them clamoring for this.
They're very silent about this. One wonders
Why are they picking and choosing if they want that 100%, they should also be championing for this. But then you do end up with this infinite conundrum. And by the way, I am a defender of the Jedi obviously, but how much of the Jedi out when you apply it modernity, when modernity is based upon constructs that are very imaginary, very human. So you must whether you liked it or not, you must at some level modify. Another ruling is, of course, very controversial issue of, you know, what to do with prisoners at work that
But if they're not grandson, nobody purchases that what happens to those prisoners of war, that institution is completely abolished, the Quran allowed it is prohibited that allows it, nobody's clamoring for that anymore. They understand that was passed nobody to replicate it. So we understand that even those parties, and even those clerics that are wanting a version of Islam, they think, and they they kind of tell themselves, they want the full version, but in reality, they don't.
I'm just being honest here, even as I sympathize, I don't think I sympathize with their sentiments, but I'm just being honest here, they have already demonstrated are picking and choosing, and they're not actually calling for a full fledged, you know, a revival because they can't. So if they have already tacitly acknowledged, can we then get them to do other things as well, that's going to be the job as well, that many of us another point that I can add, I think I'm putting seven or something down. Another point I want to add here is that much of our discussion is about Islamic policies at the nation state level or at the domestic level, we have to realize that very little
needs to change at the personal level. So we distinguish between the personal level and between societal
when it comes to personal level that morality and rituals generally speaking will never change. What is how long is how long you in a society allows it? What is halal is hella even if the government has in the eyes of Allah financing, you shouldn't do it at the government. That's a bit silly. What is haram is how in America we're allowed to drink, we're allowed to gamble with everything that the government allows, does it make it halal? No. So we distinguish Leafly personal morality and rituals, which are far far less susceptible to change versus governmental policies, which really, there is an entire branch of Islam, called CSL to Sharia, or the branch of Islamic politics. Now,
this branch is a bit of an advanced branch, and frankly, most madrasahs, don't even study it. And if anybody has studied the madrasa, I can ask you politely Have you even heard of this subject? It's such a difficult subject. And also because it's not practical. I mean, it's like Islamic political science to put it that way, Islamic political science, and there were a great amount will devote to book that he wrote a book about this, there's some really good books about this, you know, academics. So funny. Yeah, you know, the rules of governance in Islam, the rules of governance are not the same as your personal rules.
And sometimes the government, Islamic governments, Islamic qualify, had to do things that the common people themselves did not appreciate. But it didn't change the projector. So one of the fundamental differences that I find is that too many people focus on the macro, and ignore the micro.
And that is one of the problems, I would say with us most politeness and respect of many Islamic parties, they focus on the macro, rather than the micro change begins at the micro level, change begins in the individual. And slowly but surely, society will change. But to try to force change at the macro level, to try to force change upon people that are not willing to take it, that's going to be very, very difficult. And
on the flip side, many of those who want to completely reform Islam, they're focused on changing the micro to satisfy what they want, and they ignore the macro, right? So they want certainty today, at the micro level
should be allowed. And they want to change it at the individual level. But the general rule is that individuals will feel personal is very difficult to change. We're talking about nation states, but we're talking about laws of Islam, which is actually there's far more leeway with regards to that even from the classical sciences. But once again, frankly, most madrasa students only study personal values. If you look at the textbooks, they study the diet or whatever the textbook might be, and this is your personal, they don't study CSF or Shediac. They don't study the books and the authors and the methodologies that talk about how do we apply Islam in the time of the holder far, much less
in modern times? And this leads me to my next point, gradualism and pragmatism,
You cannot, you cannot apply a law 100 people that don't want to be applied to. America never fails to not learn this lesson over and over and over again, you can invade a bomb, you can solve public governments, you cannot rule over a people that don't want you. Even if you spent 21 years and $7 trillion, the same people you thought you'd innovate and take over the country in less than 48 hours when it happened, okay, you cannot control a people who don't want you to control. Now, this also applies to us.
Look at the Arab Spring,
it also applies to us, we have to be pragmatic here. You cannot live in some utopic you know, Lala Land of romantic idealism, when your own people would not be willing to embrace a type of Islam that you think is the Shediac. It's actually typically in our industry, but usually get it when your own people not willing to accept it, you're not going to be able to do so then what else is the alternative? gradualism and practices our mother, Aisha has a famous remark and cyber party. She says, the first revelations that came down in the Quran, they were about faith in Allah, and Heaven in hell. And faith grew in their hearts. Then when faith had become strong, Allah said, don't drink
and don't gamble. So the Sahaba said, we're not going to drink. We're not going to
our mother Isaac continue, she said, if Allah had begun the revelation by saying, don't drink,
the Sahaba would have said Allah, we can never give up drinking.
This is our mother Alisha, talking about the best of generations? Do we think our generation is going to be better than them? Do we think we can begin with the end result rather than the beginning, you have to begin from the beginning, you have to increase that level of faith and maturity. And all you need to do again is look around you when certain regimes or governments or whatnot, that they are fully Islamic, they bring a level of
practice, and the really, really honest truth that even their own children and cousins and relatives cannot practice.
They bring the version to society that their own extended family does not do. What is going to happen except the collapse of Soviet government. You cannot begin an Islamic state by banning use it, which is itself a contested area. And even if you think it's around, what percentage of your own family listen to it your own cousins your own, even if you must, if you're able to get to that level, and practically how many of them even able to support you, your own relatives are not able to follow your commandments. You think you're going to be in an Islamic society with this commandment? Why don't we start with eliminating, eliminating offers with making sure nobody's hungry? Before you
implement the law of death and stealing. Make sure there's a society that nobody needs to steal to live. So when you have your priorities wrong, right, and you begin with the net result, rather than gradually working your way there. And again, this is where the study of the Sierra is so important. in Makkah, what were the revelations, there was not even salah five times a day in early America, there was no Zakah there was no fastI none of the laws of Islam it was all about imagine Allah but even Allah, Allah is Rahim Allah, Allahu Allah was with all the names of Allah come down heaven in hell comes down life and death, the meaning of life and the purpose of being here, you install and
it's still your mind in the hearts of the people. Then when time comes, and you have an Islamic Society of Medina, gradually bits by bits, Allah begins to reveal one thing, one thing 1789 years come until finally, the last relation to the mind that comes, you know, inherited without comes down 10 years. That's the gradualism. Now, I am not saying we need to replicate that fully. Because obviously, we have to pray five times a day. I'm not gonna say to go back to the medical view. I'm not saying but I'm saying this philosophy of applying this [???]. Yeah, there's got to be an element that we take from the zero, we cannot begin from the end and ignore the entire 20 years that live up
to there. You have to have a group of people that are able to comprehend, Allah wants us to live ethical lives, when the majority of the Muslim ummah, let's be honest here is not even able to wake up, Professor. Do you think they're going to follow your very difficult laws that might even be valid, by the way many of them are not. They're contested? You know, but even if they are, where do you begin? So there's an element of gradualism. There's an element of pragmatism that the city itself requires us to do. And I also say here, that perhaps this this level of harshness, that we find that some of the people with these visions, it's perhaps an overcompensation, frankly, for
their own deficiencies or this deficiency the world around them. There's a there's a there's a there's a psychological complex entity.
restrictor here to overcompensate for might not able to do it elsewhere. But the point being that something is better than nothing. And if we can apply 10 20% of the city properly, it is better than attempting to apply 90% knowing we're going to be rejected. And the CLI teaches us this, we begin gradually, bit by bit with push the boundaries from within. We don't start from the very end. And this leads me to my next point. And that is that there are different groups of people out there all of them wanting to benefit, you know, the religion of Islam, they have the best interest of the Ummah as mine. And yet, for some weird reason, they take each other as the worst enemies, and they
ignore for bigger threats outside. And it is high time that we actively began preaching against this internal hatred and sectarianism. Anybody who loves their religion, and wants to come closer to Allah to God, to the prophets of the prophets, anybody, you should look at the good before you disagree with them. I don't think they're all the same. But what we find here is a level of religious intolerance and fanaticism. That is truly depressing, to be honest. And it goes against the spirit of our religion completely.
If somebody disagrees with your interpretation of the religion, but once to be religious, Surely you understand that that is better than somebody who does not want to be religious or look at the companions. They disagree about the praying of salata awesome to pray, to not to pray, that didn't lead them to say you're rejecting the idea, your goodness, they understood that their Nia was good. They understood we're on the same page. Even if we get to different conclusions. You're not my enemy, when you reach a different conclusion, because I know you want to please your Lord. That should be the premise. We have far bigger problems of modernity of post colonization of
globalization. We have physical threats from entities that want to harm our societies. And unfortunately, the religious folks and they are a minority anyway. What percentage of people actually are interested in the deen and the sciences within the religious folks, you find them to be the most antagonistic towards each other? And the non religious folks are in complete bewilderment. What do you mean, you guys don't pray behind each other, but you're both praying for the same God facing the same perimeter, but only the same number of times, and you're calling each other out even to pray, I know you're praying, I think you're both Muslim. Sometimes that innocent, you know,
irreligious Muslim, is more correct in his assessment, then the two strongly religious Muslims who can't see eye to eye, so we really have to understand that sectarianism, frankly, is one of the biggest turnips for the non religious folks. And I'm being honest here. And I think many of you agree with this. One of the biggest reasons that and there are many good people online in this country is those a lot of good at it. I visited many times, I'm from your ethnically, but I've never lived amongst you but mashallah, somebody that our call Michelle, let me be a little bit proud here in America, mashallah the majority of massages, we are the ones that are building them, financing
them, and being in charge of them, even though statistically we're 30 40%. But in terms of our religious zeal and Hamdulillah, you know, it has its negatives, but it has its positives.
But it really hurts to see so much sectarianism, because because you know, so much antagonism that people, for the most trivial reasons, cannot pray behind one another, consider those to be erratic, because it kept going and whatnot, even though they're all on the same side, if they only studied from the time of the Sahaba differences, the great imams are different from one another, tolerance, just be pragmatic and understand, you can love Allah and love the messenger and still come to a different conclusion. That person might be wrong. It's not your enemy. You might disagree, but disagree with a ticket and manners. So this is an important point as well that we have our bigger
fish to fry, as we say, and anybody who wants to come close to our Lord, we cut him some slack. We give him the element of what is called Krishna one, we think that that's thoughts of that person. And we don't think this person to be an enemy, even if we disagree, and I think you're all right. But I'm saying I disagree with some advocates and matters. And this leads me to my final point, which is that, of course, this does not mean that anybody who says anything about the religion, we should ignore. We understand that there are some people who really don't care what religion says. And they want to justify their lifestyles and their sins by saying things about the religion that
are false. There are two camps as we said, you have the ultra liberal reformers, you have the ultra fanatic consumers
Both of these camps are not the middle way. Both of them have their false, we need to be cautious of both of them. The one might be innocent, the 90, but they will literally end up killing people. Think about what I just said. And you all know examples, even though I'm referring to the Hadith, but you know, examples in our times as well, they're innocent fanaticism will end up killing people thinking they're doing something for the name of God in the name of God. That's very dangerous, very dangerous. On the flip side, you have people who just don't care what Allah has said, they don't care what the show has come down with. And if they speak of the religion, it is in a mocking tone.
It is like the hypocritical walk the prophets. And what good will that do that is a sign of arrogance. By the way, both of these feed off of each other, both of these feed off of each other, they justify their existence by quoting and using the other to make sure they validate their own paradigm. This is interesting, you know, sociological reality as well, if you think about it, each one makes the other to be the middle, even though they're both fringe movements, the middle majority of Muslims deep down inside, they know Islam is true. They want to be good. They want to be righteous, but they're turned off by both of these sites. So it's time that that middle majority
reclaims its majority status. And it needs to do so by navigating this difficult field. And understanding, as I said, many of these points and understanding that it is possible to rethink through aspects of our tradition, while still loving our tradition, maintaining our tradition, and understanding, we wouldn't be here without our tradition, we don't have to reject tradition, but it is allowed to fine tune and rethink and still be a faithful person who believes in Allah and His Messenger, hope that each other there was some benefit in my meandering thoughts. This was a bit of a last minute
talk that I prepared to open up at some benefit, and I can open up for q&a And how do you take it raise your hands? Or how do you
can raise your hands? It's up to you.
Oh, you want me to select? Okay. Okay. So
So in the article, that was that everyone struggle.
The struggle should be ideological and practical
100% of the capacity
will begin to pursue says, We can pick it off.
I can be so like, Thank
you. Excellent. So I have not said that Islam is a buffet, and we just pick and choose. That's not the point of my talk. What I was saying was that
there is, or there have always been a multiple series of interpretations, you have, from the very beginning of time, a sincere attempt to arrive at the truth with a capital T. And yet, when the scholars arrived, they discover that their truths are different from each other. So it should at least give us a sense of humility that when you arrive at what you think is the truth, understand that is your version of the truth. And if other scholars have reached other versions or other interpretations, there should be a level of tolerance here. This is why I think one of the points I might have wanted to add, I guess we should look at
the institution of unanimous consensus HTML. I think it's HMR. If you know what, suddenly it feels sort of this is a good indication of a red line that you don't go beyond this. When you find that everybody of the tradition has agreed to a particular ruling. For example, there are five prayers a day. There is unanimous consensus there are by President, somebody comes along and says, Let's make up for this make it six. There is no room for this okay. But where there have been a diversity of voices and you wish to choose your own even if you choose your own, at least concede the possibility that the others might be right umami shopping, and he is who he is famously remarked. I believe my
opinion is right but I concede the possibility
You can be wrong. And I believe the opinion of my opponent is wrong. But I can see the possibility can be right. So especially in matters where from the beginning of time, there have been a multiplicity of voices. In my opinion, it is unwise for the state to adopt a voice and make it the only opinion, in my opinion from the beginning of RDA have deferred, then why should the state choose a personal issue and make it the default? It doesn't make sense to me. And that's why in the time of the best qualified Mr. Maliki bananas, the greatest scholar of the time, was invited by the Khalifa. And the Khalifa said, I would like to make your school the official school of Islam. And
this will show a real scholar any one of us if I had been invited by the Khalifa, your opinions so far, they will be the OH, MY shall I'll be the first design. That's the sign of a real scope. You don't even Mark said, Don't do that. Don't ever do that? Because how do I know everything? What if something was lost? For me? What if a companion said something about the process? I mean, I don't know if you went to another land. I only know Medina, I've lived in Medina, how about even Massoud was in Iraq and whatever. So don't do this, and let the people differ as they're different. You know, if Imam Malik had an ego Hamdulillah he did it. If he had an ego, all of us would be Maliki
right now, there would be no other matter.
That's the power of the state. Imam Malik understood, the state should not get involved in interpersonal issues, there should be a diversity. So I hope you understand I'm not calling for pick your own, you know, choose your own menu. But I'm saying there should be a humility or not the average Muslim who has never studied Islam, you have no option but to do totally, like, I'm not a medical doctor, okay?
May Allah protect me but if ever falls sick, I go to the doctor, I'm not in a position to challenge what the doctor says the max I can do is to look at his credentials. He's a proper MD, he has a track record of good history, what not, if I want to get a second or third opinion, then I'll compare the credentials of the doctor, I will not compare the opinion my life is at stake. If my May Allah protect me to give a hypothetical example, if my life is at stake, I'm not going to choose the opinion that is the least costly.
I'm going to really think and choose based upon the credentials of the doctor, even if one opinion is more difficult or more easy. the veracity of opinion is independent of how easy it is or how difficult it is sometimes, the easier opinion is actually the correct one. And sometimes the difficult opinion is the correct one. This is another misconception that many innocent Muslims out just like dude, ah, my salah, or my mother, no, I'm going to follow the salah. Sometimes the easier opinion is what Allah wants you to do. So ease and difficulty in and of itself is not a primary factor. It is a secondary, tertiary, it's not a primary factor. Therefore, I'm not calling for an
open buffet. But I'm saying once you have chosen your menu, concede the right of another scholar, qualified person to choose a slightly different menu and don't impugn his integrity or his sincerity, that was my point. Okay, Charlotte, I guess
So, overall we have two major issues, one is
see that this system needs to be independent or coming from certain conditions.
But on the other hand, we have
others who say you know,
segregation is more important than establishment of
a commitment that sense which is some sort of expansion is So, what is your take on this? Because this leads us to a dilemma, how
difficult that is expansionist approach, we see there are a lot of problems that the different quality of establishment
but on the other hand if we google issue
so, what is your take on this? So, very good question. I have actually given multiple lectures about this interesting about the very last video on my YouTube channel, was an interview that was done in Turkey by Islamic organization. And I just uploaded it to my YouTube channel if you log on to my YouTube channel youtube.com. So, the very latest lecture is a q&a about this topic. So the a lot of information there, but I will answer you in that. I firmly believe both of these interpretations have legitimacy and good people and I don't doubt their sincerity. And I know they wanted to help Islam
still find my own life and teachings and methodology, more in line with beginning at the grassroots level. And if you look at my lectures, you'll see this. And the reason for this is actually, frankly, pragmatism, ie, if I were to clamor for an Islamic state in America, it's only a matter of time before they send me to Guantanamo, and what have I accomplished, and what has happened, and what is going to happen. Whereas if I begin by preaching and teaching my children, my neighbors, my community, be better Muslims, be ethical, follow the process, and be honest, be role models, preach Islam, through your actions more than your speech, then what happens, more and more people are
influenced which 100 I've seen in my own life, but I'm the deliverer, Allah give us all sincere and on the straight path. I have seen this in my own life, that when you concentrate on the individual, there are tangible benefits that happen. And people genuinely change. And they act as catalysts for other people to change.
Let's be again, brutally honest, the Arab Spring.
Again, I'm not taking sides, I'm simply narrating history, the Muslim Brotherhood founded you know, in 1936, by SN have been, overall, they have done a lot of good work 75 years, they are wanting to get to kursi they finally get it. And within a year and a half the people themselves turn against, and the environments and the deep states and the military, whatever does what it does. And once again, they go back to square one.
I'm not gonna say what have they accomplished, because they can say public awareness. But I will say, imagine if those 75 years were spent to make the people ethically, spiritually at a higher wavelength,
whoo, would a corrupt regime have been able to rule over such a pure people?
So there's two ways of looking at it. And
I respect I really respect both sides. And I'm not going to criticize any side. But I find myself just being on the more pragmatic side that I have one life to live. Allah knows how many more years I have left, I want to accomplish as much tangible good as I can. And I find that starting at the individual level, is where change can actually occur.
Allah, okay, yes.
Okay, it was very nice to see you live. My question. Actually, I have two questions for him. So his total payment, then you can apply accordingly. What is that? Just about my chain, there is a spectrum, there is diversity of opinions that we agree with. And you touched on one side that don't be fanatic. Right. But on the other hand, some people on the other end of the spectrum will try to, like the negative example say that LGBT is also like, Okay.
I remember songs in movies is also can
also have these things. Okay. Right. And they're also open for interpretations. Okay. So you basically just those elements I've seen, often, you know, people barely touch, although they have a lot of voice, even in Pakistan and abroad. So a lot of people are, in my opinion, in my humble opinion about embracing that the core issue is will we only aggressively issue about religious fanaticism? Organizations, and wherever that issue is not touched? The second question is that, as you said, that fit requires an understanding of the environment with
a lot of problems coming from YouTube, or where you have the one opinion coming from sitting in the waist. Then someone sitting in Saudi Arabia having two conflicting opinions. So for instance, I saw one of your videos, you said that shaking hands can be sometimes allowed. It's on on YouTube right? Now, a lot of people will be satisfied and they'll say I'm good to go.
that shake hand because so and so person said, so.
I would like your clarification on both issues. Okay. Okay. So the first issue that I don't in this lecture, I didn't address the other site as much absolutely right. I didn't, time is limited. And I made a judgment call. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I was right. I assume that most of the people who would come would already know a little bit about me, hence, they already be listening to religious lectures anyway. So they needed that site more. Right. I can assure you, when I speak to academic audiences, and to the other side, I emphasize them more. So I cater to my audience and I made a judgment call assuming that the people that would come today would
Generally beyond the more religious side, but I have plenty of times criticized quite harshly, and in fact even have a lecture online, done almost 1213 years ago called making progress with the progressives listen to that one, where I really took them to task and I have much less respect for that branch than I do for the fundamentalist, at least the fundamentalist love Allah and His messenger, you can give them that much, even though sometimes they cause a lot of mayhem and chaos, but at least they have something whereas the exact opposite side, frankly, there's arrogance, and the two are not the same. They're not the same level of evil, arrogance and innocent zeal, they are
not the same thing. So I have little respect for those that don't care about the [???]ty. But at the same time, one of our problems is that our brothers that are very religious and conservative, don't understand the difference between forward thinking traditionalism, and between liberalism, there's a huge difference literally world of a difference between those that are calling for rethinking through the books of 50 versus those are calling for rethinking through Allah Shetty up, there's a huge difference. And you need to have your element to know the difference between the two, or else it sounds all the same to you. And I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But frankly, the two
examples you gave illustrate this. LGBT are music. How can you possibly I'm not trying to put you on? How can you possibly compare LGBT justification with music? Even hasn't was a musician. There are books are in the mirror. I personally
don't like the DIS I'm not gonna use the words. I just don't like it overall. But we have to acknowledge that there has been from the beginning of time legitimate data, whether you like it or not, it's a historical fact. There are scholars who play musical instruments, and they justified it from Islam that music is haram only if it is linked with partnership with vulgarity. Otherwise, it is as a no this is a minority opinion. I agree. But is it an opinion or not?
Now LGBT Has anybody ever justified Islamic history? Never. Also, even if you were to follow the majority opinion, that music is how long we have to be teaching our audiences that the word How long does not mean it incurs the same level of sin.
The word haram basically means there is some sin involved. You can have the lowest level of haram and you can have murder and rape and Chinook which is the highest level and you'll still use the word Helm. So one of our problems is that the folks that are not that religious, and they don't understand the technical terms, you say to them, murder is haram. Yes, yes. Okay. Rape is haram. Yes. Yes. Okay. She's because your music is haram. Like, what? Hold on a second. You mentioned music in the same list, because they don't understand the technicalities. It's our job as far as people who teach them to explain how long is a huge spectrum. And there are certain things that are haram
that will take you to Jannah. And there are other things that are of the smallest Salah, the smallest of sins, and if you are overall practicing and praying and doing well boo and whatnot, they're going to automatically absorb the sense anyway, even if it is not good to do but not to that level of murder and [???]. So LGBT is of the worst types of pills of hand music is a contested area. And even those who said it, they would say this is like the very first thing in the spectrum of like the smallest thing you can possibly do not even comparable to Reba tuna Mima to Bhutan, which is a million times worse than music. So we are obsessed with these minutiae and sometimes lump them with
the biggest thing. And this confuses our audience that is not that religious. So this is my point here is that if I were
Kate catering to one side is because I'm catering to the audience here. And the second question about YouTube and whatnot. You're absolutely right. This is one of our problems, our previous brother said about the buffet. So once upon a time, there was only one menu, your local scholar, and in some ways that was good in some ways that was bad. Today, we have millions of menus.
And we don't even know what to do.
So what I advise everybody is to find a scholar of your community and your ethnicity and your people. I have always said this, you should find a scholar who is grounded in the tradition and understands modernity and lives with you people. That's your scholarship, because fatwas change from place to place. Famously Imam Shafi changed his opinions when he moved, you know, from Yemen to to to Egypt, he changed his opinions and Imam Ahmed and others, I mean, I have many examples I can give you certain issues certain issues because one of the principles of filter
culture is the primary source of law when the law is silent often what happens? One of the sources one of the sources of law is culture. I'll give you a simple example where there was Do you understand what I'm saying here?
Mr. Muhammad, the humble lived in Baghdad in the third century, where there was wealth and, and civilization ala Malik lived in Medina, in the early part of the second century, or poverty was still there. So the livelihood was different and whatnot. Imam Malik, there was one living room. Imam Ali Muhammad, there were multiple living rooms. Mr. Muhammad was asked, Should a wife sit with the guests when they eat food?
He said, Why would she do that she should sit in her own room,
in my mind was told, but Imam Malik said it is okay. In the multiple Imam Malik has a chapter that it is actually okay for the wife to sit with the guests if she is properly covered. So Mr. Muhammad said that must have been Medina of his time. And we're about that about basically I'm paraphrasing. So how strict are the and how strict? The law was to work that out in order
to like get into the reserve?
If it's a technical term intermingling of the of the genders, where it's a technical term,
how strict further and an intermingling, frankly, there is an area that is culturally sensitive, and then there are the no bozos. Okay? And here we have a classic example between Mr. Malik and between our modern humble about should we all eat together at the dinner table or not. And in the mom, Malik's Medina, which was poverty, less, you know, space and whatnot, it was still the norm that everybody says to go to the dinner table. And as long as she's dressed, and there's no inappropriate stuff, why not? And the mama didn't bother dad, but wealth is there, what not, we see this to this day in many cultures, you know, the families together with the the guest, and in many cultures, they
have to superluminal. Right. So here we have this issue of a room for more haccombe. You're asking me what is to be done, I say, follow local odema who live with you who are traditionalist, forward thinking I know a lot of it, that's what I say, with regards to this quote unquote, controversial fatwa that
I have given. I understand it is very problematic for many Muslims to hear this, and it makes people automatically dismiss me which I understand. But we live in a different world in America. And there are opinions in the chapter at a school that allowed the shaping of a hand between the genders when there is no sharp one, there's no lust or whatnot. So many of our scholars have said that, given the difficult circumstances of job interviews of going to this, and if a person is forced by awkwardness to do this, I didn't say it's, as I said, a small group, by the way, as long as there's no shower, this is a shock for me. So I'm not inventing something out of thin air. And listen, if you don't
like the opinion, no problem, follow the strictures. And I'm not forcing my opinion on you. Right? If you really no, it was for the American context, I would never give it in a Muslim context doesn't make any sense. And I was very clear, this isn't job interviews, or the you know, whatnot. So I would not give the notice.
Which is why if you really listen to all my lectures, I always say, Do not outsource your hours, always follow local amongst your own society who are forwarding anyway, I went some sisters, there was a sister here, and then your next book is
coming from America and very like gender like 50 50%. You know, thing, one man won't have to do this, or else I get in trouble. And I think that's the way we should always look.
So my question is
not the concept of patience. Faith is so much integrated in society, that everywhere we see a patient
be a person, or should stay into the religion. And it's all excellent question. The reality is that, and this is something that if you read some of the greatest minds of anthropology of our times, folic acid is one example. Seven, my mood is another example. These are two people you should definitely be reading. If you're interested in this question. They demonstrate the fallacy of this notion that the state is somehow a neutral actor. The state can never be a neutral actor. Because by definition, the state has a position on everything. And you see this from France to America, the First Amendment, you see this across the globe, to what level so the state is never neutral, it
cannot be neutral. The question therefore, is, to what level should a Muslim majority country try to influence the state to be in accordance with ideal Islamic laws? That's a totally different question. To put it to bluntly, should a Muslim majority country allow alcohol to be freely available?
Why would any Muslim say yes, no, we should want alcohol to be difficult. We don't want people to
just be able to go to the store and buy alcohol. Okay, but I live in America, what can I do? Nothing, I can do nothing about that. So then we have to deal with it and tell our children not to drink. But if I were to be in a Muslim majority country, should I not try my best that some reasonable laws are passed that we want to ban this? We want to do that? I think that's a common sense thing. Because you see, again, this is human psychology. See, evil has always existed. You know, when I say certain things people are shocked. My dear brothers and sisters, do you really think that nobody drank alcohol in the prophetic Medina? I mean, read your history. There was a
hobby in the time of the prophets of cinema sighs Howdy, howdy, Sahabi Sahabi. He would be brought in front of the processor for constant drunkenness and constantly with so much so that one of the companions got irritated and said, May Allah has landed on you? Aren't you embarrassed in the shame how many times we have to drag you in front of the promises from to punish you? And guess what it promises? Some said, he turned to the sahabi and said, Don't say May Allah has landed on you? Are you helping shape on against your brother make dua for I'm not against him? What Allah he I know that in his heart, he loves Allah and His messenger. This is an amazing Hadith by the way, I wish I
could comment on it. Right? The provinces have defended the drunkard against the one who would have been assumed to be the more pious Sahabi. But he didn't defend the drunkenness. He said, Why are you making matters worse? So even in prophetic Medina, there were drunkards, think about that. You cannot have this idealistic, utopian dream that some of these groups in the world thought they could have. There is no such thing because man is weak, and man is going to slip. But here's the point. We, the sahabi got drunk, he must have gotten some rated himself. We don't want him to just walk into the store and purchase it easily.
See, we don't want him to do that. And if as soon as discovered, we keep it discreet as much as possible. We don't want to name and shame and bring people and have scandals, he slept with sheep. Why keep it undercover? Because when you publicize a sin, you trivialize the sin, and you incentivize the sin. So we have a different philosophy about sin. We don't like scandalous tidbits in newspapers, and we don't the story of our issue, slanders perfect. Allah says in the Quran, when you heard of this, why didn't you turn away and be quiet? Why did you have to spread? Why do you have to just be quiet? Don't have to? We don't even if it's even there was a lot even if it's true,
why do you want to be scandalous and disbarred? So the question is not should the state get involved or not? Because the state is always involved? whether it does or it doesn't do that as an involvement, even the state not getting involved isn't involvement, right, because that is a position. So the question therefore is to what level should the state be involved? And the response is, every single country should look at its own situation and figure out what will work best but I am a firm believer in pragmatic gradualism. I'm a firm believer, you need to start with baby steps. You need to start internally and you let the preachers preach and teach and the laws are going to
follow behind the level of society. Okay, not 10 steps ahead, maybe one step ahead, but definitely not 10 Steps gradualism Allah I don't have I don't know where the mic is. I'm really have no charge. No, what? Who has? It has disappeared? What?
I can see you can talk without a mic, go for it okay.
What's your that's a very broad statement that we do what we can we leave the rest to Allah. That's agreed. Insofar as what we are doing is within the confines of allowability of the Sharia. If somebody goes beyond what is allowed, by unanimous consensus by the scholarly community, we cannot be quiet on this. We have to speak out and say no, you cannot do that. So judgment of Heaven and Hell is always Allah's, no matter what the person does. We never assign Heaven and Hell to an individual in this dunya never. We don't know the end result. But we may assign the actions of this person to be heavenly or to be satanic. With the actions we can say Eurocom Korea, it's wrong, you
should not do this. Whether he goes to hell or not. We should be quiet. That's up to Allah subhana wa Taala and we never take on the place of Allah. So your your your premise is valid insofar as what the person is doing is within the purview of what the Shetty allows, or at least there's a scholarly difference of opinion over but the minute you go beyond that,
classic example is these radical groups like ISIS or whatever, okay? We cannot be quiet and say, well, Joker and Cornedo let's gonna judge, Allah will judge them, but we cannot allow them to exist, we have to stop this level of fanaticism. The same goes on the other side, the complete rejecters and don't want to do anything related to as long as you cannot do this public, but you cannot, you know, make fun of Allah and His Messenger in public and think there are no repercussions, for example, so there is a middle ground and that middle ground is we allow people so let me give you the best example. I love this example, by the way.
The first splinter group that broke away from the OMA the first felucca, what was a look and tell me
they the holiday, right? The holidays are still around, and some lens, very small percentage, the first clip of the broke away, they had a very bizarre belief very different from mainstream Islam. In the time of ideology, a lot one day we'll do to broke away. So I do the law, one attempted his best to convince them to come back to what is mainstream Islam. And I love this example, because both Sunnis and Shias admire it for the loved one. So this becomes an example that both Sunnis and Shiites can do, as soon as she as represent 99% of the Hamdulillah. So, this is Allah, the Allah one is commandment. He sent the best theologian even above us to negotiate with this high wattage group
and to debate with them. The books of history mentioned the debate, he managed to convince some say half some say two thirds, he managed to convince, and they came back to the camp of it 1/3 That was 2000 people remained on their beliefs and ideologies, they did not convert back to a literally a lot once you know, version of Islamic Crucem knew that you're going to set that was Sunni, if you're sure you're going to go with whatever it was this group, camped away from Kufa and they made a city and civilization away from mainstream Islam and they practiced a different interpretation of Islam. Now, I know the Allah one was the Khalifa there was no Islamic say he was the Islamic State. Right?
And if you want to do he could have said I'm going to force them to follow my opinion. These are heretics. These are bility these are Moncada Hadid. They were Monica Hadid, by the way, the holidays did not really accepted the Sunnah. Okay, they didn't accept in the books of Hadith narrations of Hadith they were only like the type of Quran your title. Yeah, I don't want to go into too much technical they weren't full Quran this but they weren't Sudanese either. That's why they're there holidays. So these were heretics and they were definitely heretics. Ideally, Omar, one attempted verbally, when he wasn't able to what did he say? He famously remarked,
we have no right to force you.
As long as you don't harm other people.
If you live peaceful lives, we have no right to, to force you. He allowed a non Sunni or non cheery, whatever called fear of God to remain and thrive. He only got involved when they began massacring ISIS basically, right? Because ISIS is hydrojet. When they began massacring other Muslims, that's when he got the army involved, and he attacked them. This is Islamic pragmatic tolerance, you have no option but to live in that loop. Even if you disagree. See, here's the difference. I'm not saying all interpretations are valid, I have my interpretation, ask me any question and feel and I'll defend it and appeal and I'll defend it. And I'll say the other position like Mr. Michel Craig has
the potential to be wrong. I think my position is right. But there's got to be a pragmatic tolerance and sometimes a genuine respect of tolerance, not just pragmatic. I will be the first to say I don't agree with those who say don't like the sahaba. I don't like that. I don't like that attitude. But there's a pragmatic, what am I going to do about it? My anger or my fanaticism is not going to get rid of them. I don't want to physically harm them. So there must be a level of pragmatic tolerance, let them beyond this, those within the mainstream, you know, former times or whatnot, I shouldn't just be pragmatic, taller, I should welcome this diversity and say, I'm good enough some room for
breeding and whatnot is over here. So I hope that answers your question that in this regard, shall okay. Anyway, I have no clue where the mic is. But let's head back to sister. Okay, we have two sisters, which is Are you okay with that? Okay. We need to cut some slack and be tolerant. And again, the example of the salad differently. But as far as I know, that is
what would you have to say about when there is
An action is shared, and you're either
a river ship or something? How do you deal with that?
Study, study, study, study, more and more. I have given an entire lecture on this. Are you aware of the lecture I gave recently about this?
There's my longest lecture on YouTube, three hour long, three hours long.
It's called on the next day our listen to that one, okay. I have given a very detailed lecture about this reality of
calling out to the dead. And yes, even if you think it is [???], even if you think it is shipped,
you can oppose it verbally. You can continually try to correct your friend, your colleague, your cousin who's doing this, but you cannot become violent. You cannot. As long as they don't become violent, you have no right to become violent against them. This is a verdict of ideal of the loved one. So even if you feel you cannot live with this person, your cousin your breakup, that's frankly your prerogative, I can't even tell you that's your prerogative. If you think that his deviancy or her deviance is so bad, I cannot sit at the same table. Fine. That's your social boycotting. But you cannot become from verbal and intellectual to physical. That's where we draw the line. And we say
unless they harm other people, you cannot harm them. This is we learned it from Allah, Allah one, by the way, even this issue, if you know anything about my trajectory, I was of this opinion, once upon a time that anybody who invokes the dead has committed ship. But I did my own deep dive and research and whatnot. And to me, now, I am on the position that it is potentially should but not inherently should. And we should assume the best of our problem Muslims, and we should make an excuse and say it is haram. And it is bitter, and it is Moncur. And it is what see leadership. But in and of itself, it is not Schilke for multiple reasons that I've gone into in the lecture. And this is the
default position of mainstream Sunni Islam, historically speaking, and by the way, oh, she is it is the default position. It is a relatively new position by even Abdul Wahab that it is always shipped. It is unprecedented Islamic history, this position has become mainstream in many circles. And I also was of this opinion 10 years ago. But listen to that lecture. It's my longest lecture. And I was forced to give it because of many things that happened to me and whatnot. I gave this last year. So it's called on the Nestle that was three hours long. Take your time, and I will Insha Allah, deconstructing that lecture all of this issue. So I hope by the end of the lecture, you will
understand that I don't endorse this. And I think, again, I mean, I have my opinions of Islam, I don't think that we should go to the grave of a person and say, Hey, can you cure my son? I just don't think we should do that. I think we ask Allah, that's my position. I think the Quran teaches us this. But those Muslims that do that. They're Yes, incorrect. But they're still Muslim. It's very dangerous. When we say your coffee, you understand this? It's very dangerous. When we say you're no longer Muslim, you
not very, you're very perceptive. And I actually say this. In the car here, I was talking to you right around the corner. I have red lights.
I have red lines, those red lines are anybody who contradicts the basic Kalama.
So if you worship an entity, a God, Rama, Krishna, a Latin Rosa, you can't be a Muslim. If you worship Buddha, Jesus Christ, you literally intend that to be a god, what our fellow Muslims do a degree, if you were to go to that person and say, are you worshiping
He had sold me What a bargain if either
there was sold was a God, whatever, whatever interpretation they have. They don't intend worship, do you understand this point? Whereas when you go to the Hindu or the Christian, are you are you cryo invoking Jesus, of course, I'm invoking Jews, I'm wanting Jesus to say, there is a huge difference in the mentality of the Muslim who does these actions versus the Christian who goes to Jesus Christ. You see my point here. So if you listen to that lecture, I will do that. The I will explain. And the red line to me, like I said, is the Kalama. So if you and that's why it's the kalam I mean, that's why it's the foundation, isn't it? Right? That's exactly why so anybody who believes in a prophet
other than the Prophet system, that is a red light for me after and anybody who believes in a god other than Allah, that is a red light. Is that clear? Other than this, you can strongly disagree and I do and I said this, it is haram to ask the dead for your needs. I said this I If you disagree, that's my opinion. You follow your opinion, but it's my opinion, you don't ask the dead for your needs, it is theology that is leading you towards ship, but it is not ship in and of itself. Is that clear? I appreciate your questions and inshallah if you listen, I have so many electrodes on the if you listen to Sharla all of this has been this this is my topic. I love this topic. This has a my my
expertise, by the way is theology, but because of modernity, I've been forced to talk about Islam
I'm in modernity, and it is also an area I like, but my actual expertise. My PhD expertise is theology. Then after that it is had eaten Sierra and LUMO Quran then after that topics of modernity, whatnot. So your topic, I can talk hours and hours, but I can't because our last one last question. How can I choose organic?
She has the mic. I like this. I have the mic.
There are two mics. Two valid opinions, we should respect both opinions. Okay. These are the final two questions. Where's the other mic? Right here. So we have two mics.
ask you these questions. So I have two questions. First of all, we do see that these two extremes feed off each other. I also feel that in parenting, you see, children of extremely religious people.
And you see children are
So I want to ask you, in your experience with dealing with
Lucien in America is now in our society?
We do not so from a parenting perspective, what is the successful strategy?
I don't want them to be atheists or addicts, but I don't want them to be fanatics either. So what is the parenting strategy?
them in the soil? And the second question is that Muslims all over the world are suffering especially.
And we see that in our news. So why do you think that nation state such as
other nation states because the military and
power are not connected or totally disconnected to address these issues were
shaped by their everyday everyday we have nuclear weapons, sitting in our country's
smart Mashallah. The second question was very
blunt. And to the point, your first question.
See, once again, I don't want to project my experiences onto Pakistan. I was I was born in America, in America, my children in America. So I have a very different background and experience. I don't want to project it on to your society, because I haven't really lived here. But I will say one thing that I have noticed that
you're absolutely right, that there is this this yo yo effect, vacillating.
Many times, those that were born in extremely religious households, their children become extremely fanatical, actually, you're aware, you all know ISIS, right?
Your ISIS terrorist group 1015 years ago, or 10 years ago, there was a problem in western Latins of youth leaving the country and joining ISIS. Okay, we had 1000s of people from Europe, and
around 1000 from America, but in Europe, there were 1000s that were born in wealthy families, like, you know, upper middle class educated, and they're just overnight, they steal their father's credit card by credit and go there. So and I was a professor at the time, so I had access to a lot of research and whatnot, still a professor and already but I was in university back then.
Rhodes College, one thing that we saw over and over again, was invariably, like, 99% of the people that join these groups came from extremely religious families. They weren't practicing Islam, as youth. And they discovered Islam as young adults. And they went from zero, not to 100, but to 1000 in one day, and they jumped from quite literally, night clubbing and drinking and gambling and women and whatnot, to becoming Ultra fanatical. And then joining ISIS and doing some crazy things, and bombing and whatnot, right? Multiple times, this was the norm. And I was actually back in the day invited to communities, from parents who were so worried about the children going down this route to
speak to them and whatnot. And one thing we noticed you hardly ever found a child who was raised in a moderately religious family, healthy religion, ever embracing those ideals. Very interesting, right? And of course, we understand why that those who don't see what real religion is they construct a fake religion. Those who haven't experienced the real love of Islam and whatnot. They think that utopia is the only way forward and they believe in a utopia. So the best way forward.
Is and I know this sounds so cliche, but what he says
my own experiences and the experiences of my entire family and friends around me is to demonstrate Islam to your children in your lived life, not in your lectures to them. This is the best way. You need to live, the values you want to pass down to your children. They need to see Islam in the family household because here's a psychological phenomenon. Well known University experts, I'm not the expert here. You guys are experts in these sciences.
Surveys show simple example out
men who physically abused their wives domestic abuse, predominantly come from marriages where their own fathers would abuse their mothers, you understand what I'm saying? Right? Physical abuse, you know, deserting, whatnot, surveys, and studies show that a
higher than normal percentage of these men come from households where that occurred. Now, when I first read this statistic, like 10 years ago, I was like scratching my head, like, one would think that a young man who sees his father abused his mother. I mean, I've speak to the men here, as a 14 year old, 15 year old or whatever, that hypothetic you saw this, who would you side with men? Or would your heart go to men,
the mother instinctively, like that's our nature. So how can a young man who has seen this, then become one. And then of course, of course, I'm not a sociologist, of course, it's obvious. He knows appear, it's wrong. But he's seen and absorbed what you should do when you're angry, acting it out. So when he becomes the 35 year old that his father once was, and he becomes angry, up here, he knows it's wrong, but His hands and His own and His feet will do what he has seen his father do. This is the reality of human psychology that unfortunately, actions speak louder than words when it's negative, and also as positive fortune. So my generic advice, cliche advice, but it is so true. Live
the life you want your children to follow. Don't just preach to them, because children are going to go through a phase. And I've seen this anecdotally as well, in America, especially, especially in the teenage and college years, university years. The default is they're going to straight left and right, the default. I mean, you guys are at the prime and pinnacle of your youth and your manhood or femininity, and hormones are at your peak and whatnot. And that's why by the process that I'm said that seven are the people that Mullah shelters on the day there is no shelter other than the shelter. One of them is a young man or woman who remains firm in the way of Allah. If you can be a
good Muslim at this age, and you're set for life. You're not going to go astray when you're 5060. You can 21 year old 25 year old and you're praying five times a day one of the major sins, mashallah and then Allah is happy with you, and you're going to be in Charlotte and Charlotte, generally speaking, right? So what was I saying, absorbing the values of your parents, by their lifestyles, anecdotally, I have seen that even if young men and women go astray for a period of time, when they get married and have their own kids, they revert to the household they grew up in.
And if that household was good religion, they become good religious, you know, I grew up in the 80s Allah He there were kids. He did stuff. I could have sworn some they're never going to be religious force. But their parents are good people. And now mashallah, they're on the wards of the Masjid. They're on taking care of the Sunday school, they came back, despite those 510 years of completely lost, because it's human nature, for how long will you be astray before your soul says, You know what I need to, to correct. And when it corrects, it corrects what it knows. So that's my generic advice. Your second question is very, very blunt and controversial. And I don't see the need to be
too explicit here. But I'll go back to the question about Islamic governance versus personal spirituality. And I'll say to you bluntly, what can I do about this reality? How can I change that reality?
Gawker settlement? Whereas, can I change the reality of my family and friends to be better Muslims? can I influence my Christian neighbor to be positive of Islam? So why worry about the unreachable? When there's so much that is reachable right now? See my point here? I'm not trying to dismiss the question. But what I find is that, for some I'm not saying you for some people, such discussions become a panacea, blaming everything on the higher ups when they can't correct themselves in their families. Okay, maybe the higher ups are at fault. I don't know. Maybe they are. But
there's an anecdote that comes to mind. Have you heard of Hijjah been useful?
The worst tyrant of early Islam he killed Sahaba entyvio One of the worst phenomenons of the Ummah, right? There's an anecdote is not in the books of history that a group of young men went to Hassan Al Basri said, Why don't you speak against hijab? Why don't you fight hijab, you're going to be an insurrection, there was a actual physical instruction, you know, we're going to join and whatnot. And so has an abassi allegedly said,
All young boys or young men, one lever that you have done, will bring you more distress on the day of judgment than all the blood of Judge.
Later on those young men join the insurrection, and they were all killed. And has anybody said, Allah forgive them, but what have they accomplished?
You see my point to how judges had Judge, I can't do anything, what a judge, or on the Day of Judgment, one sin I have done, will bring me more distress than all the blood of head judge. So I'm not
a political have actually very political, if you listen my lectures, I'm not a pacifist, but I'm a pragmatist. Let's emphasize more what we can do, rather than the what ifs if other people, you see my point here, and there are some people, by the way, who are indeed in a position to influence the what tips and the higher ups, they should worry about influencing the higher ups. Maybe you are a Secretary General, somewhere, maybe you are in close contact with some ministers somewhere, then yes, you influence. But if you're like me, or everybody else who has no contact with those big guys or whatnot, then mind what your own business is actually capable of doing. And emphasize that and
you will actually be productive in that regard. You see what I'm saying? this regard? Okay. But
kind of get that. Yes, Michelle, last question. Where's our over here? Okay, Christmas. Okay. So, to begin with a very short,
very much for a lovely talk. I thought that pertains to the one thing that you said, Nobody, no religious scholar is asking to bring back
slavery, the institution of slavery, for example. And to that, I want to welcome you to my snack where you can actually, scholars
want to welcome the institution of slavery or
the state of New
attack such a such place, and we're gonna get the swing states. Okay, I wasn't, I wasn't aware of that. Okay. Yeah.
I respond to, again, the question about the nation state. In your personal opinion, in today's world, does it make sense to those of the time that distinguish between
So I don't feel qualified to make a global verdict on this, I really think this is a culturally specific question. And it should be answered by the locals of every single region differently. The Sharia allows for diversity. Why do we think that these difficult questions must have only one answer that is entirely global? If even the minutiae of field can vary from region to region? What do you think about the actual grandiose schemes of how to run a country? So I don't feel qualified to answer this question at a global level. And I fully understand that in some countries, this might be an ideal that they might try to strive for, even though I say, I don't know how they would do
that, given the reality of the nation state, that how can you actually enforce a hierarchy of different nationalities? I don't know. Maybe some countries do it. i By the way.
Okay, again, I'm not living in your country. So I never claimed to, you know, I am Pakistani ethnically, but I've never lived in the country.
I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm not saying that's universally right. And I'm not saying that just to be PC, by the way. I'm literally believing that in some areas and lands, it might be in the best interest and in some areas and lands, it doesn't make sense to do so. What is best for your country is something that people that are born and raised here living here should discuss amongst themselves. So what is possible in Egypt, or impossible in Egypt is not the same as what is possible in Basel that Boxtop. I mean, let's again, simplistically reality, Egypt was Coptic 100%. The ancient Egyptians were all Coptic. You cannot equate Pakistan that was meant
To be a Muslim state, I'm just speaking as a neutral person, even though Pakistani, you cannot expect that post partition India, when you know, Jenna and others had the vision that we need our Muslim majority state for Muslims, right? The only nation state that was literally founded in the name of a religion, this is something that is unique. And I am not saying this in order to endorse one opinion, I'm just being factually correct you is it not the case, that the only nation state in the in the postmodern world that post World War Two ever in human history, that's its literal, you know, rezoned the utter founding was that we want to have a nation run for and buy for people of
Islamic faith. I understand with that premise. Some would argue, let's live up to those ideals, I understand that they would say we should have some some laws in place. And I understand the push back and say, Hold on a sec, it doesn't make sense that we can't make an exception of bauxite. I'm not in a position to act as a judge between the two. But I will tell you, in my humble opinion, Islamic political science would allow for both of these opinions to be valid in two different places. So what I'm saying here, that both could be argued for from within the Islamic paradigm. And what is permissible in Egypt, you know, for them for the Islamic party say Yeah, well, you know, we
can't really bet anybody because Egypt has a history of Coptic Christians, they predate Islam in terms of you know, them being there. So for them to understand, okay, you know, we have to give you guys equality might be different than I don't know what you're referring by the way so just in case somebody reason, I really don't know what he's referring I'm just speaking generically, because I don't want to cause any issues. When I call the boxer. I'm just saying, I can understand from a 50 perspective, CSS [???]tier perspective, you could defend that we want a level of purity to the fate for those in government, given the dynamic is of a certain region, and another region can say we
cannot have that level of purity. You understand what I'm saying here? Okay, so, I'm being ambivalent. And I'm saying it is within the realm of FIP to allow local cultures to negotiate this given the different times and parameters of their of their realities.