Library Chats #8 – On Inquisitions and Refutations In Our History

share this pageShare Page
Yasir Qadhi

Channel: Yasir Qadhi

Series:

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:03--> 00:00:05

Miss min Hill was

00:00:14--> 00:00:58

sent out while he was with a workout to welcome to another library chat. We are witnessing a spike in the online reputation culture. And while it is ugly and irritating, it is not new. Our history is replete with refutations and counter refutations with criticisms and counter criticisms against ideas against movements against people against theologies. In fact, refuting others isn't something that is unique to religion. It's it happens in every single social group of people. It is the reality of any trend of any enterprise of any business. It is a part and parcel of the way human beings interact. And the more precious something is to a person, the more they're going to be

00:00:58--> 00:01:39

willing to defend or critique ideas that they think is a threat to the idea that they hold a value and of course, there's nothing more precious and nothing more important than religion and what a person believes or one's either or one stances. So it is understandable therefore, that correcting other people or refuting other people is something that is a part and parcel of being a faithful Muslim. And we can very easily extrapolate from the Quran and from the sooner the reality of advising of even correcting on yes, even a refutation. Allah says in the Quran, which I want to add ability with taqwa, one that I would write, if Mildred one, we help one another in piety, we don't

00:01:39--> 00:02:19

tell one another in evil. Our Prophet sallallahu I sent him said, help your brother whether he is a volunteer or a Muslim, and they said, How can we help him if he's logged in? So the reply was to hold on to his hand and stop his boom. And there is no question that holding deviant beliefs or or misguiding people is a type of boon. In fact, our Prophet system himself criticized specific people by name, and he criticized the Koran obviously criticizes other theologies, and therefore, of course, we can also the Sahaba. Of course, they criticize the Kataria and the hybridized. they criticize their theology of an Ibis debated with them. So it is really a defining characteristic of

00:02:19--> 00:03:06

our intellectual history. Every single group refutes the other critiques the other sometimes brings in social pressure of society of the people, and not uncommonly sometimes brings in the arm of the state, you, Brett, you get to the halifa, or the soul bond, or the governor involved in order to fight against what you deem to be heresy. And therefore, there is definitely a role. There is definitely a role. My video here, there's definitely a role that the religion has, when it comes to refuting when it comes to correcting misguidance is my talk today, therefore, should not be interpreted as somehow completely dismissing the entire concept. Please do not understand that at

00:03:06--> 00:03:23

all. My talk today will cover a few historical incidents of the past, and then try to derive some lessons. And these are incidents that I just you know, I chose because I have an interest in them. There's no, it literally is random, meaning it's in my head. And I like these incidents. And so I just decided to just quickly

00:03:24--> 00:04:03

give you a rundown of some of some of the incidences in our Islamic history of refutations of societal reputations of government involvement in refutations and of the impact that those have had, so that we can shallow to either benefit from it. Now, the argument that I'm making though, is that we simply analyze a little bit more, could it be a little bit more critical? That's always been my argument, especially in these talks, by the way before I move on. So a number of people said that some of these talks are advanced and they should not be put online or it's going to be confusing to people. And I fully sympathize with this. I want to say this, that indeed, we're supposed to speak

00:04:03--> 00:04:44

to people at their level. And that's a part of teaching and of Tobia and it is important that we don't confuse the people at the same time with utmost respect I have over 2000 videos online of inshallah hundreds of topics that are for the you know, people to benefit from that don't have the background. So the library chats generally speaking unless otherwise said they're meant for an audience that is that has some knowledge and and I think there's a need for that. So I understand the concerns that some people are worried that I'm, I'm teaching advanced stuff in these classes. At the same time, YouTube and social media has made everything online and I cannot dictate, you know,

00:04:44--> 00:04:59

who isn't isn't watching. So I'm just going to give the disclaimer that this talk is a bit of an academic talk and I expect that people have a bit of a background when they listen to this particular talk in it. It's not an emotion building talk per se if you don't know the basics of Islam inshallah, you'll find plenty online to

00:05:00--> 00:05:32

To listen to that, and also want to make an announcement here as well that I am I'm very serious. This is not just statements I'm very serious and shallow, slowly withdrawing from social media completely and, and having alternative platforms because I feel that I am not. I don't want to be involved to longer on public platforms and we're going to be gravitating towards not being involved in public anymore. And I'm just I'm just preparing the way for that inshallah. Donna before it happens in Charlotte, this is my golden a few years of Max inshallah. So, to continue where I left off from,

00:05:33--> 00:06:14

theoretically, we agree that we're supposed to refute deviance, we're supposed to criticize wrong ideas, theory is all fine and dandy. The problem comes when you move from theory to reality, right? The problem comes when you look at the lived example of refutations and refutation culture. And the the analogy that I'm going to give, which is of course, it's a flawed and all the Gru can find faults in it, but listen to my setup, the analogy I'm going to give is you driving on the highway, okay, you're going on the highway. And as you're driving on a long on a long road, you come across eunos, one lane, you come across the elderly lady driving very slow, right from your paradigm, and

00:06:14--> 00:06:47

you begin getting angry, and why are you even driving and whatnot, and you get irritated. And you know, you're just cursing out at her stuff that allows you to do that. But you just get angry, you get so angry, even take a picture and say, hey, look, this person, you know, should not be so you use social media against that. That person who's driving very, very slow. Okay, few minutes goes by half an hour goes by. And now a teenager comes behind you zooming right behind it right behind you. And then he's honking his horn, and you become angry again. And not only do you get social media involved, you get the law involved, and you call the police and you're like, hey, there's this kid,

00:06:47--> 00:07:23

you know, teenager, he's speeding and whatnot. Now, the what I'm trying to say here is actually quite simple, is that you are judging everything from your paradigm. And as long as you're satisfied with that, it makes complete sense for you to get angry at the one who's going slow, and to get angry at the one who's going fast. But let's say for the purposes of our paradigm being hypothetical, let's just say that the old lady was wearing the type of glasses that allowed her to look at the speed signs differently than you. And so from her paradigm, she is going at the right speed, and you're the one speeding, okay. And let's say that the teenager is looking at different

00:07:23--> 00:08:00

signs out there. And from his paradigm, he's actually going at the right speed. And you're the one going slowly. The point that I'm trying to say and I know it's a flawed analogy, is that really when it comes to refutations all of us are on a continuum, a spectrum. And every single one of us we have a window of acceptability, we will tolerate differences within that window. Anyone to one side of that window on the let's say the more conservative side becomes too fanatical, too extreme. Now, from their perspective, we become too liberal from our perspective, Mashallah, we're not we are the middle people, right? Why? Because we have somebody on the other side that we can say, Oh, those are

00:08:00--> 00:08:37

the real liberal guys. Those are the guys that have gone beyond to too far. But then again, from their perspective, once again, they're gonna look at other goalposts. So the problem then comes where do you define who gets to define? Now you can say, theoretically, oh, but I have the hack, and I'm upon the methodology of the correct version of Islam, is that go ahead. May Allah guide you and me, that's your opinion. And maybe you're right, you know what, but guess what the other people from their paradigm are just as convinced and just as sincere. And just they have as many signs as you do, and they have each other, maybe it's stronger than you do that there upon the help. And so from

00:08:37--> 00:09:13

their paradigm, again, it's you who are either to left or to right. And this reminds me of a story that happened to me when I just got back from it into my biggest learning curve. When I just returned from Medina 2005. That was a very steep learning curve for me. And I met, this was literally my first year and I met the Vice President of there was a very progressive movement called the progressive Muslims of America, or PMU, or something like that, the progressive Muslims, or something like that. I mean, this was the official progressive movement of America. And I was attending a conference where I was the token, you know, selfie with the conference, and I met the

00:09:13--> 00:09:18

vice president of this, of this progressive movement, and we got to talking and

00:09:19--> 00:09:56

so when she heard my credentials, everything she goes, Oh, so I take it, you must be a part of Israel, right. And I'll mention names. I don't mind mentioning names here. This was 2005. At the time, I wasn't really involved with this. Now I'm really not involved in religious courses or their conferences. I'm not a board member or anything, but at the time, I'm like, No, I'm not. I mean, it's no wouldn't want me It's too liberal for me, right? So I said, Islam is too liberal for me. Both too at the time was a two way street, okay. And she was like, What? Islam is too liberal, in our perspective, from our paradigm is known as ultra fundamentalist. And that really was like my

00:09:56--> 00:10:00

first awakening to this continuum in the spectrolite. While there are people

00:10:00--> 00:10:38

But actually view, you know, like an organization that I'm doing on one side, they're actually viewing it on the exact opposite side of the spectrum. And this is the whole point where again, I'm going to be heading here is that, frankly, you know, we have to understand that refutations generally speaking, are preaching to the choir, we have to understand that when we refute others, what we're doing is that we're spoon feeding the people who already look up to us. And we're validating their own paradigm, it's like you and your car, driving it your comfortable pace, and you get angry at everybody who's slower than you and faster than you, because you are at the point of

00:10:38--> 00:11:13

reference here. So all I'm saying is, before you jump into the refutation culture, take a step back and look at where you are, who you are, and what you are doing. And today, what I'm going to do very quickly, because again, time is always limited. What I'm going to do very quickly is go over seven examples, seven examples of historical significance, each one of them is worthy of an entire study. And I'm going to zoom over them. And frankly, as I said, there's nothing necessarily in common in all of them. These are just examples that I'm interested in and came to my mind, I just wanted to introduce them to you. And

00:11:14--> 00:11:50

as well, as the saying goes, those who don't learn from history or history are doomed to repeat it. So let's learn some lessons from history when it comes to refutations when it comes to bringing in social media, well, you know, social pressure, and when it comes to bringing in government pressure as well. And we'll begin with obviously, the two most significant examples for most of my audience that is generally coming from a particular understanding of Islam. And that is the missionary mom at number one. And number two, the mayhem within Tamia. Okay, the mission of Mr. Mohammed, when we say interrogation, when we say Inquisition, the Inquisition, there is number one in Islamic history. The

00:11:50--> 00:12:29

biggest Inquisition that ever took place is that of Mmm, humble, that is definitely worthy of an entire lecture. Maybe another time we'll go into that. But in a nutshell, the halifa of the time, along with the visit of the time, they adopted Morteza like theology, and they wanted to enforce it on the masses. And they made the question of the creativeness of the Koran, their hallmark, and they forced or they tried to force it down everybody's throat pretty much, you know, everybody acquiesced or hate or whatnot, except for my my husband, humble, who stood up, went all the way to the court was Georgia was jailed, was imprisoned was tortured. But he stayed firm. And eventually, of course,

00:12:29--> 00:13:09

he won. And of course, the way that historians interpret this and whether you accept it as a different thing, the way historians interpret this, this was the winning of Orthodoxy soon ism was, this was the triumph of Satanism. And forever soon as it would be the dominant again, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but still, that's how it is interpreted by many historians. Now, the reasons for that debate. Sorry, the reasons for the Inquisition are still debated to this day. Why wouldn't moon do this? Was he a bigot? He just wanted to enforce his views on people. Did he want to extend extend the power of the caliphate to include what is called papal authority to religious verdicts? Was this

00:13:09--> 00:13:47

a stepping stone to discard the idea? These are all theories that we really don't know, my interpretation is that he really just was a bigot, that he thought this was an important issue, and he wanted to enforce it on the masses. But one of the main things that came out of the men of human movement, one of the biggest perks that came out, or the biggest positives that came out, is that it forever enshrined and defined the role of the ruler Ma, versus that set out in the role of the rulers vissa v. The scholars, and the scholars were the ones who are supposed to keep the rulers in check. This is definitely one of the biggest positives that were that were that was to come out of

00:13:47--> 00:14:27

this Inquisition, that forever it is ingrained in the psyche of Sunni Islam, that it is the scholars who define Islam, it is the scholars who keep the rulers in check and not the other way around. And this is food for thought for all movements that are connected with regimes that look up to specific kings and and governments and whatnot, that it is their own Ummah and it should be the ruler, mother independent, that really keep those in check. The the interesting point here is that when it comes to the Inquisition, I've imagined that generally speaking soon ism as a whole, obviously sides with Mr. Mohammed, I'm not aware of any strand of Islam, and he's trying to Sunni Islam, obviously,

00:14:27--> 00:15:00

believe it or not, not all strands are on this, but I'm not wearing any Sunni strand that would sympathize with the government in this particular incident to mount Mohammed was the victor and his his muhabba was written in the hearts of the people. And as historians say, soon ism was established that the power of the masses, either mainstream theology, was triumphant over the power of the of the palace. Now, fast forward to even Tamia, right, the man of the men Tamia and we see that times have changed, you know,

00:15:00--> 00:15:44

The mammogram has took place in 230 Digital events A me as man took place in 710 or 705 to 720. Very different timeframe. Right. So 400 years, 500 years. Fast forward to that. And even to me, I had multiple inquisitions, multiple interrogations, not just one. In fact, he was sent to jail, probably around five times. And most famously, he was interrogated and basically a trial took place in front of a salon Bay, but I said, Joshua, give the the famous Salon of the mamluks. And in the court of the salon, his enemies, you know, charged with heresy, and five or at least four different occasions, maybe five different occasions. They took him to court and they sued him so they got the

00:15:44--> 00:16:26

law involved. Just like with Mohammed the law was involved. But in this time, or in these situations, the law generally sided with the opponents that have been Tamia. Tamia was sent to jail multiple times for various fetch was for various opinions that he held. And of course, even for the thought out issue, for example, he was jailed and eventually he passed away in jail. Now, what's the contrast between him 110 me many, but for our purposes, the following Mr. mahama, sorry, Mr. Mohammed's trial. Yeah, it was clearly very clearly a one sided in the sense history views one side as being the victor. Even Tamia is a far more ambiguous case. In terms of reality. I, myself am

00:16:26--> 00:17:08

sympathetic to him and Samia, but there are plenty of people that are viewing the trial of even taymiyah in a very different light. And the same opponents have had been Tamia, those same mentality, the same mindset, the same group, literally the same Philco. I mean, you have your modern study photos to this day, right? That same mindset is viewing this entire episode as a vindication of their theology against the heretical Ibn taymiyyah. Whereas the followers of him in Tamia, they view all that happened in a very different light, and they say, Oh, he was persecuted for his religious belief. Now, what is the point here? Does anybody and I mean, anybody actually study both

00:17:08--> 00:17:47

sides? And look at who said, What, and then form an opinion, who was right and who is wrong? Or do they simply side with the scholars that they look up to in the first place? Right. So if you're a Shadi Sufi, for example, you're going to look up to Suki and his camp. And if you're a selfie, humble, even taymiyah, or even Abdul Wahab, you're going to look up to another camp, those two exact same groups, their intellectual descendants To this day, look at the exact same facts, and they interpreted each one in accordance with how they want to my point is that if you look at it, historically speaking, those debates by and large, did not establish truth, they did not prove who

00:17:47--> 00:18:22

was right and wrong. To this day, every one of these camps, each of these camps, I should say, is viewing what transpired from their own lens. So for those who admire even taymiyah, he becomes the martyr, he becomes the hero, he becomes the legend that you know, stood up and whatnot. And for the critics that have been Tamia, he becomes a heretic, he becomes somebody who is a persona non grata. he'd become somebody whose theology was so extreme. He was such a rabble rouser, that even the governments and the settle clean, had to get involved and throw him into jail Of what use was all of that countered back and forth, you know, up until our times, you know, again, that's what we're

00:18:22--> 00:19:02

going to be discussing more towards the end as well. Now, these are two that were political. Okay, I want to move on to now one or two that were not political, that were social. And perhaps the most important one that comes to mind is that to be mom and Bahati running mobile, Hola, hota, either. And the moment Buhari is trial by enlarge. I mean, there's an element of sort of a political but that was separate the politics was that the governor didn't like him not because of theology. By and large, the main issue of your moment, Bahati was the societal pressure against him. And the the mission of Mr. mahadi is very, very interesting. And it shows us the results of social drama gone

00:19:02--> 00:19:42

haywire. What happens when you ferment the masses, what happens when the masses are confused? What happens when an enemy takes a quote that's ambiguous and reads into it and start spreading all of the slanders and innuendos, we kind of see in the moment Bahati, a tragedy that is very, very painful. Now, again, this is all of these topics are worthy of longer, you know, longer discussions, but very briefly, one of the main points of this as well, which I teach in my class as well, is the development of theology. Right? Mr. Mohammed has a view and in his view, whoever says my love of the Quran is Matthew Luke is a Jeremy is a cafard. He's a body's and will be, whoever says my recitation

00:19:42--> 00:20:00

or my speech or what I say of the Quran is created, then Mr. Mohammed had none of it he would consider this to be misguided heresy. Now, a generation goes by and ideas develop and thoughts are extrapolated, and people are thinking from different angles than a generation ago. This is the reality of knowledge right? You

00:20:00--> 00:20:35

build upon the previous generations we build upon what our predecessors did. And this applies not just in engineering and science, yes, it also applies in theology. And we can prove this to you by many examples. One of the simplest one being this right here that Mr. Muhammad said something a man Bahati says something else, a generation later. And today we follow Him, Ahmed Bahati, we kind of are trying to reinterpret all him, I didn't mean this or whatnot. But again, this is our back projecting, Mr. McMahon did mean it that is exactly what I meant by a member of what he developed to a different understanding. And that is that, you know, and Bahati said, hey, look, guys, we have to

00:20:35--> 00:21:17

differentiate between our actions and between Allah speech, and we have to understand that our actions are created. And that's why he wrote a book called a violent rebirth, right? And so when I recite the Quran, it's kind of sort of combining between a divine element and between my human recitation my vocal cords, the air that is expelled, so your body is being forced to think a little bit more deeper, and he develops the rather a little bit more simplistic, you know, creativity amount, and he extrapolates from it, and he goes, No Look, guys, you know, my actions are created. So, the action is created, but what is recited is uncreated. So the recitation versus what is

00:21:17--> 00:21:58

recited So, remember, Heidi had to, you know, go a little bit deeper than that. Now, this type of statement, prove too much for an entire generation raised on a simple slogan that whoever says my recitation of the Quran is created is a coffin. They've an entire generation raised on that simplistic sloganeering. What's going to happen human body wants to be more, you know, academic, more nuanced. He's trying to push the envelope trying to make people think a little bit more critically, you cannot just say that my recitation is uncreated, because that's not correct, because I have a voice, I have air being expelled my lungs, etc, etc. So amendment Buhari, his statement was

00:21:58--> 00:22:37

the actions of men are created, right. And that's why he has the book colorful of itinerary, but his opponent in the city jumped on this phrase, and it is pretty obvious that there were tensions and shavon put some jealousy you know, in the in the in the hearts of the other people. And he jumped on this phrase and began spreading that Imam Buhari is a deviant he's a bald, he's a mobile, how dare he say what Mr. Mohammed and again, this is this trump card of quoting a scholar against a scholar that Oh, of a man Buhari had not achieved the fame of Imam Muhammad yet he is still alive, right? He's still a person that is there. And so the people of the city are confused their local chef and

00:22:37--> 00:23:13

move the home they look up to for 50 years, 40 years, whom they know personally, a mumble hottie is walking back in or coming back to the city after an entire generation of being abroad, of traveling, and they don't know what to do. And it affects the popularity, it affects the head of the mind, body, and human body is human, it affects his psyche, as well. And it did affect him. And that's why he made the right to Allah subhanho wa Taala, to allow him to return back to him. And he left the city because of the social drama. And he passed away as he's leaving the city, the famous incident took place over here. And this shows us again that look, sometimes these social dramas, this this

00:23:13--> 00:23:57

creation of a controversy out of nothing. It was absolutely nothing. Yet it was something because what you said was not 20 Mohammed said, and to be very, very technical here that it is likely it is likely that if he were alive, he would have sided with the other person against him Ahmed Bahati, because that's what we see from what Mr. Mohammed was, and yet still remember how it was right in what he was doing. And the other person is taking this generic phrase and just throwing it out. This is kofler This is the banana and whatnot, and he fomented an entire controversy, literally how to do something that these days is now of course the correct or the mainstream opinion. So we see in this

00:23:57--> 00:24:41

example, that you can create a social drama and that history, it is possible that history will vindicate who was right and who was wrong. The next two examples are actually more tragic because they show that sometimes when you keep on fomenting hatred, when you keep on preaching and teaching your followers to hate a person, that eventually some of them are simply going to harm or even in our cases, killed the other person. So we're going to mention four and five. Both of them are tragedies, both of them ended in the death of greater Adama, simply because their opponents kept on kept on harassing and and preaching hatred and accusing of heresy and Kufa and Bala and whatnot.

00:24:41--> 00:25:00

Until finally what is going to happen is going to crack somebody is going to do something because they've been taught by their teachers by their whatnot that this person is bought and molded in all the problems of Newmar because of him and if only he were out of the way then everything was fine and dandy standard been there done that this notion of you know, trying to find the person

00:25:00--> 00:25:40

That you connect with or that you can. So again, this is the notion of the far enemy the near enemy if you know if you know that type of jihad is thought that you start getting angry at the near enemy worse than you get angry at the foreign enemy. And again, all of this is the more you study the more you see the replicas in all of these strands. So, example number four is the famous scholar urban food rock who died. 406 hedgerow urban forest is one of the main founders of the Chinese school. And he was engaged he lived from Indonesia, and he was engaged in a vicious social battle, not a physical battle with another sect called the karamea, called the karamea. And the karamea and even

00:25:40--> 00:26:24

Fuhrer were at each other's throats metaphorically speaking, writing counter writing, refutation, counter refutation, and the karamea accused in full rock of every type of slander of heresy. Finally, they took him to the court of mood in a civic taking this, my mother has no way the famous, the famous, you know, founder of the listener, not the founder, but you know, one of the main icons of the husband of Empire, and this is the land of honey, Stan. And they accused him in front of the soul bond of denying that the prophets of the law of war I sent him as a prophet, they said, This person says that the Prophet system is not a prophet. And again, this shows us one of the most

00:26:24--> 00:27:04

important lessons we should learn once we study history, never, ever get somebody opinions from his opponent, never derive what person x says, from person y, who doesn't like person x. This is the number one rule when it comes to any research, right? Go straight to the person himself, go straight to the and not just a 10 second clip, go through the entire context, because this is very common, you take a snippet, or you take an idea, and you read into it and you bring out something that the speaker never said or other speech of his clearly indicates he didn't mean now. How did they derive that?

00:27:05--> 00:27:43

It been denied that the process of profit is a very technical thing. It's a shoddy theology. And it goes back to the issue of accidents and bodies. And that accident is don't persist for two consecutive periods of time. And that prophecy is an accident. So prophecy does not exist for for two subsequent portions of time, now that the processor has passed away, therefore his prophecy, which is an accident, so this is all offensive. It's all like talk, even full doc never ever said anything about the Prophet system. And him being a prophet not and not being a prophet anymore. Nothing at all. The talk whether even if I don't agree with a shoddy theology, the talk has nothing

00:27:43--> 00:28:22

to do with this subject. But his opponents extrapolated, his opponent said, Well, if he says one plus one, then he must mean 11. And they literally extrapolate one plus one equals 11. And they presented this whole bond and they said, Well, he says that the Prophet system is no longer a prophet. The Sultan lost his temper, and sent a letter to mahalo has never sent a letter to urban forest. And he said, Come to me immediately, even for rock was brought immediately to the court in the other city. And he stood trial in front of me with the miscibility. Again, because even civitates effect again had said, if this has confirmed I show, you know, slaughter him myself, I

00:28:22--> 00:29:01

should execute to myself. He defended himself very eloquently. His opponents had nothing that they could do. He is an item he is a shift. I mean, he defended himself that this is completely I mean, I never said anything of the nature. And he explained his theology and whatnot. And Muhammad, Edna civic again, actually rewarded him gifted him gave him money and sent it back on a royal, you know, entourage back to his city. Now, what do you think his opponents did? What do you think is a bonus did they lost reality, their jealousy consumed them, and on the way back from the palace of Modelo has never been back to his home, on the way back, they paid somebody money to surreptitiously give

00:29:01--> 00:29:38

him a drink that had poison in it, and they poisoned him on the way back. This is the karamea they poisoned him. They literally murdered him and he died before reaching home. He died on the way there and he was buried somewhere there. And this is the reality of what happens when you're going to foment hatred so much, there's an even more greater tragedy because this is a person that you've all heard of, and that is Imam anessa. He, the famous Imam died three or three of the six books write a great scholar of Hadith one of the greatest scholars of his era. And also the second body mount in Mombasa is like the second body in terms of his his strictness of Hadeeth and whatnot, a moment and

00:29:38--> 00:29:59

Nyssa he actually also suffered a lot of enemies and a lot of rumor mongering in his lifetime. He was accused of being pro sheary now, at that time, when you say pro shooting, you don't mean the 12 rasheeda ism you mean a softened version of natives sadism? Because again, before orthodoxy was established before you had your

00:30:00--> 00:30:35

your your your theology developed, there were spectrums there were continuums, within what we now call Sunni Islam. Within Sunni Islam, you had a spectrum of opinions about the position of idea of the law, one deposition, and while it'll be a long line, you know, who was better, none of them different about blue book and on the Allahumma. But after that there was some gray area and we find people in early Islam that had different opinions, there is this spectrum here that you keep on going before you get to what you call the the Shia Islam, and then you get to twelver, Shia Islam, and so on and so forth. So in my mind this, it was definitely on the more of the left side, then

00:30:35--> 00:31:12

what we are with right now, and frankly, had he been alive right now. the very people that read his book would have considered him to be a deviant. There's no question in my mind about that, if you listen if you know, his beliefs, and whatnot, but in and in that timeframe, it's on the one level of acceptability spectrum, okay, his views about the loved one, and about morality of the law. One were views that, you know, they are what they are. Now, everybody knows that knew this. And there was already tension in his own lifetime, while he's alive. There's already rumors, and there's enemies that you know, are trying to exaggerate and whatnot. And towards the end of his life, he was 8586

00:31:12--> 00:31:12

years old.

00:31:14--> 00:31:55

He decided to visit Damascus and to teach in Damascus. Now Damascus is of course a bastion, it was a bastion, even at that point in time. Of course, this isn't the time of the buses, but Damascus was still a bastion of pro oma, we thought, okay, because again, that's where their capital was for 100. And something years, from the time of your mom while we up until there were 90 something years, and there were very pro omiya tendencies, generally speaking, generally speaking, let's just say not as much Pro Audio de la Huntington disease, this is in, in Damascus. So the moment he came to Damascus, and he began lecturing in the Grand Mosque of Damascus, you know, the the famous oma the mosque of

00:31:55--> 00:32:30

Damascus is still standing to this day, in my mind. So he gave his lecture there. Now again, remember his whole life he's been the tensions been there, people have been murmuring, and whatnot. And so somebody stood up and asked a very, you know, awkward question in public. And he said, narrate to us the blessings of while we robbed the loved one, okay. Now, everybody knew this was a setup. Everybody knew that, you know, this is like teasing him. This is like, you know, jabbing, just just poking and prodding him had he became irritated as an elderly man, he's 8586 years old, he became irritated. And he

00:32:32--> 00:33:14

let's just say he gave a smart aleck response, you can look this up what he said and the context or whatnot. I mean, he was irritated, because he knew that this is a joke question. The person asking did not intend a serious, it's meant to mock him cement to make fun of him. And it's meant to put him on the spot after all that has happened. And so, you know, he, he just gave a quick response and whatnot. And the tensions just erupted in the audience. And one thing led to another, and it's very, very tragic. The The sad fact of the matter, right then and there, in the grand oma, we mosque, a mob broke out and began hitting, punching, pulled her from the chair and literally stomped him. They

00:33:14--> 00:33:52

didn't kill him right then and there, they wounded him so severely, he was dragged out by his, you know, entourage and whatnot. And he died, I think, a day or two later, but basically, from that, you know, the mobs that attacked him in the Grand Master. Why, because of the fomenting of hatred, because of the rumor mongering, because of all of those decades of, you know, preaching that a moment is that he is, you know, a pro this an anti that, and he's this and that, and all it required was One Spark. And that's it, just everything broke, and the mob literally attacked him and killed him. I mean, again, he didn't die in the mosque. But as a result of what happened in the mosque, he

00:33:52--> 00:34:33

died because of that. And this shows us again, the realities of fomenting hatred and of accusations that sometimes they actually have real world repercussions as it happened in in Florida. And as it happened with him, and this is the sixth example. There's actually an interesting one, what one could say that sometimes bringing in the state actually seems to have helped certain causes. And this is the famous incident in Islamic history when one of the greatest scholars of karate and Mujahid when he accused two of his adversaries in the year 320 200. Or sorry, 330 200, he accused two of his adversaries of heresy, of doing things that are unorthodox of doing things that are not

00:34:33--> 00:35:00

allowed. And again, it's a very interesting topic and it should be discussed in other lectures. This is not the point here, but even Mujahid is, of course, the first person to codify the famous you know, seven, karate is the one who standardizes the karate before him. There were, you know, many different books, many more books, 35 4045 different types and the science was at a different stage of development was flourishing. It was a vibrant science after him. You know, as

00:35:00--> 00:35:41

was a different phase and the science kind of sort of dwindled down became more codified. So even Mujahid is a chef is an island. He's a party. He's an author. He's a person writing books there. And by the way, he was also friends with the wazoo at the time. His name is Eben McCullough, and the Vizier in macula was actually a calligrapher. hotpot is the famous urban macula. If you just Google urban macula, you actually have manuscripts, he has very beautiful handwriting he could find it to this day. And his origins are still preserved to this day. He was the Vizier and he was a hotspot, and he was friends with even Mujahid now. There were other Pura in the city as well. And in Baghdad,

00:35:41--> 00:36:24

and they had views that were against that even Mujahid most famous amongst them is an urban Shinto booth. Okay, these are two very famous if you look at current history, and even Mujahid accused, these two have heresy of basically breaking that which is allowed, and he sued them in court, he brought them to court and he accused them of heresy. Now, in this case, both of these people were learned scholars in the era nobody denies that they were an ummah. I mean, read that. Have you read any person? They had books about their subjects? They had his nods. They had, you know, they had defenses of what they were doing, by the way, both of them. They invoke precedents, both of them in

00:36:24--> 00:37:02

in myths and ancient Abood. The both of them said, we're not the first people doing this. We have, you know, people who first I mean, let's just say that they have a different understanding of the the nature and the sort of the terror. Let's put it that way. So even Mujahid accused them of heresy, and of course, even mccullers his friend, Adrian McCullough, basically said, if you don't recant, you will be jailed and you will be persecuted. So as for Eben Mixon he recanted. And he signed a confession saying, I'm sorry, I apologize. I was wrong. I'm never going to do this again. And he went his way. By the way, if the Josie and others say he continued believing and doing what

00:37:02--> 00:37:37

he was doing privately, he just didn't go public about this. I mean, here's another question. Do you really think somebody is going to change his mind just because you forced him to do you really think that you put the government or you bring social pressure, you're going to change what he believes inside of you. So anyway, so it looks on basically and he gave up and he stopped any publicly saying what he said, privately he did whatever he did ask for even Shana booth, who was an older and more senior scholar and definitely more learned, and also it seems a very person of course, if you read his biography, as revision Abood, he refused outright. And he defended himself that what he was

00:37:37--> 00:37:51

doing is valid and he has precedents and he has his his nods, etc, etc. And even McCullough basically ordered that he be tortured and he'd be whipped, and eventually became so angry, he raised his hands and he made up against

00:37:52--> 00:37:53

against

00:37:55--> 00:38:35

which we'll call it to Eben Mujahid and David McCullough he made he made against them. And he said, that I've been macula you who are basically there was zero here your thought May Allah subhana wa tsala cut off your right hand he made this drug against him. And to Eben Mujahid the famous audio paddler, he said, may you lose some of your children, this is the drop of the maluma got so angry. And in general poverty, he mentions that as a result of this drop in McCullough In fact, his hand was cut off a few years later, he got into some political intrigues with the Khalifa, the halifa accused him of you know, basically double plotting and whatnot. And as a punishments of hannula. His

00:38:35--> 00:39:08

hand that used to write with it was in fact, cut off. And even which I had as well, he lost some sense of loss of how to let me throw out of the mudroom. Be careful, you know, brothers who are going around speaking of other people, be careful if they make against you, and you are wrong in what you're doing. So Pamela and I have seen the effects as well of making throughout the drive the mudroom, but anyway, so be careful about this. So it mentioned a booth may drop against these people who physically whipped him, they whipped him a great Adam and chef and scholar. And he basically said, I'm not doing anything wrong. Because I have my precedents. These are the people that ended

00:39:08--> 00:39:48

before me, how can you accuse me of heresy? In any case, they did what they did, they whipped him and they and they tortured him and then they forced him to recant. Like it doesn't matter whether he said he would do it or not, once again, by the way, he in private continue to recite it just in public, any whatever they told him to do, obviously, what are you going to do in this in this case? Now in this particular case, very interestingly, of course, this did have a very, very profound impact. And in this case, one could argue that in many ways, in fact, yeah, I think it's fair to say it was actually a successful establishment of what was to become the the definitive position and had

00:39:48--> 00:40:00

been which has not only his books, but his views became the acceptable one and both urban myths some and eventually a booth. They are viewed heretics and they're viewed outside of the box.

00:40:00--> 00:40:40

mainstream. And so in this case, one can argue that in fact, for the side that one, it was useful to bring in the the arm of the army, it was useful to bring in the the was it it was useful to bring in the court of law. And in fact, we did establish a normative thought in this regard. So again, that is an interesting point that hey, one could argue that sometimes it does seem to work and it's not always going to be a failure. The final incident that we're going to mention of social pressure, and of reputation, cultures and whatnot, is to me one of the most intriguing and definitely deserves a lot more thought. And that is the winner of the famous hamburger scholar, urban appeal who died

00:40:40--> 00:41:22

513 111 20 See, if an outdated was the greatest humbly scholar of the generations before even taymiyah, even appeal, was the most erudite, most well read scholar of the Hamburg tradition before even taymiyah. And no doubt even athletes, or his trial is, you know, one that I'll be honest, I definitely resonate with, it resonates with me a lot. And if you understand the story, you'll understand why it's just the reality of what it is, by the way of an athlete, he wrote the famous book called wall they feel sort of filled, which is again, it shows you his his, his his level of education, he also wrote what the amount of that would be called the largest book ever written in

00:41:22--> 00:42:01

the history of mankind. He, it was kuttabul funan, the the book of all the branches of knowledge, it was in over 100 volumes, remember that he said, no one in the history of the world has written a larger book, it is not existent in its entirety, who's going to copy all of it, but he wrote this massive encyclopedia, which no one else wrote before him or after him even appeal. Of course, every story has two sides, I'm going to present the site that I'm sympathetic with, obviously, even though the the lecture that I'm giving is about the fact that one shouldn't be refuting I know that this lecture will also be refuted, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. That is the reality. So I'm going to present

00:42:01--> 00:42:35

to you my views, obviously, others are going to, you know, present their facts. And that's the reality, especially history. By the way, history is not black and white history is all interpretation, history, how and what and well, you can always take the incident and look at it from a different angle. From my perspective, if an athlete was a forward thinking humbly, obviously, those who disagree are gonna say he was a NEO Morteza like, that's just all depends on how you you view it. If an athlete didn't restrict himself to studying only from his fellow Hammadi scholars, if an athlete would read the books of the philosophers who would read the books of the Martha's era, he

00:42:35--> 00:43:16

would read outside of his own jamara. And obviously, that made him a very different person, and his fellow humblest became very troubled at the fact that he was no longer on the same wavelength as them, you see why I sympathize with them? If an athlete okay. And I think that the camel that sorry, the straw that broke the camel's back, apparently, once he was asked about his views about certain fellow humble lights, and he responded in a very harsh manner, he was not praise worthy of his fellow humble eyes, he called them basically literalists, who can't think beyond the text. They don't examine other opinions. They have a false sense of self piety. By the way, deja vu about the

00:43:16--> 00:43:48

movement to this day. I mean, this has been updated describing his fellow humble lights in the fifth century, just look at the modern movement as well. Now, obviously, this was blasphemy to his fellow humble eyes, obviously, for him to say that, you know, they don't really think critically, or they're just, you know, taking texts and not looking at other opinions. They're not going beyond what they themselves teach, obviously, I mean, this is, you know, you're criticizing your own movement, right. And at this stage, in the fourth, fifth century, the homies had lost political power. They couldn't sue him in court anymore, right? They couldn't take him to the court and accuse

00:43:48--> 00:44:21

him of heresy. He didn't get to that level. So what did they do that somebody had an entire district above that, and they had their own message that they had control over is called the jam activity, the big mystery of the boat that it was in their control, and he had a chair he had a professorial Chair of an athlete, and as soon as the news spread, what he had done was that was it again, this was building momentum, murmuring and it was the on the manhood of the men had, you know, a number of PDFs here, you know, you get the point standard stuff running against a bit outdated for a long period of time. When this you know, phrase or whatever was was exposed or whatever how lost that's

00:44:21--> 00:44:59

it. Immediately. He was declared persona non grata. He was not given permission to teach and can you believe the chief humble like the great any other May Allah forgive him and all of us who should if Abuja he actually gave a fatwa that his dumb is his head and basically he can be executed Yanni on site. And, again, they have their interpretation, I'm sure and along with Stein is just the way that it is, you know, so obviously, if an athlete is now he's going to be killed if anybody sees him and and he goes into hiding in his own city in his own town above that he goes into hiding and he is

00:45:00--> 00:45:37

Forced to negotiate a truce within his own social group, right? This is not you can't bring in the government now because this is completely independent of the government within a government. You have your own groups of people that are demonstrating who they really are. And so we've been forced to basically negotiate a truce. He, he is brought to a trial that is non governmental. It is a social trial taking place, you know, as a mock trial in front of all the Hamlet's of the town in the midst of the Jamia with the sharifa. Buddha and had been updated on one side and it is not a it's not a two way like he is basically forced to recant. He has to sign a confession that he was

00:45:37--> 00:46:16

mistaken. He was wrong. he repents to Allah subhana wa Tada, May Allah forgive him dadada standard stuff. And of course I mean, do you really think that he's going to change his mind just because you did as seen in public I mean, so how to live is it really going to work nonetheless, after this recantation and whatnot, he tones down and lives a quiet life until you know death comes to him. And this is called the mission or the the trial of an athlete. And again, it just shows you the reality of what happens when you don't tow the the the party line if you like. So, these are seven quick examples I gave about in classical Islam but refutations, counter refutations bringing in social

00:46:16--> 00:46:52

pressure and bringing in the government as well at times now, what are some of the lessons that I have learned from all of this and again, this is just my thoughts Feel free to agree or disagree and I have also had experiences in Medina has spoken about in my other lectures that have shaped me and I know that we're all products of who we have what we've gone through I mean, you are as well so am I we are all products of our own histories and our own lived experiences and you know my own going through the refutation culture and being the object of refutation of great dilemma that had a lot of in but they considered me to be deviant and other Odom I did not from that timeframe and again this

00:46:52--> 00:47:15

is those were in Medina they know this firsthand the reality of that modality strand of of Salafism going through all of that and then studying all of this it has given me a very different understanding of the realities of refutation and counter refutation. And I want to just leave you with how many points do I have here? Four or five, five points. Okay, I'm gonna leave you with five points.

00:47:16--> 00:47:16

Number one,

00:47:17--> 00:47:52

refutations rarely work. refutations are generally a waste of time. refutations preach to the choir. Hardly anybody changes his mind after listening to a refutation. On the contrary, what it does, is that it entrenches the mind of your follower deeper and deeper into your own narrow bubble. Literally fire every refutation. You dig yourself deeper and deeper into your own echo chamber. And I think the best example for all of us that are watching this is Trump and his followers, right?

00:47:53--> 00:48:32

Look at the last four or five years nothing, nothing changes their mind, nothing. Everything that you want to say is simply quote unquote, refuted by his group. And the refutation lacks complete substance. It doesn't matter if the guy opens his mouth with anything. Oh, he refuted that, oh, he defended himself in reality. And if you can understand this, by the way, please understand the same is happening with your group and my group as well. You are not listening to the academic merits of the arguments anymore. It has become a personality cult, you have already decided who is right and wrong, your heart is already predisposed towards one of the two groups. And so when you hear your

00:48:32--> 00:49:12

guy dis the other guy your team has won, even if nothing of intelligence comes from his mouth. It's simply because your guy has spoken how lost End of story he refuted the other person even though there was no actual refutation. So refutations don't really work. You are feeding your own followers, p birds of a feather flock together and people are gonna flock to they're the people who may look up to the scholars or the art or the ignoramuses. It doesn't matter. Human beings, they're going to be like the sheep who follow the the shepherd they want to follow. And whatever the shepherd says whatever, even if he doesn't say anything of substance, and we see this with Trump and

00:49:12--> 00:49:50

his followers, right? It doesn't matter what you say, you have already made up your mind. And the same goes for sectarianism by and large. The same goes for their personality calls. And I say this as well, to those who look up to me, and I know this is the reality. I'm not asking you to do that. But you've already made up your minds in this regard. Who's right, who's wrong, and therefore refutations hardly ever work. Of course, you're always going to find the odd exception that proves the rule. But that's the exception. The general rule refutations just don't work. The second point, refutations do not decide who will be the winner in the long run. refutations do not decide who will

00:49:50--> 00:49:59

be the winner in the wrong one. In fact, it is common for those who are refuted and they are sincere and they're people of knowledge It is common that they might even lose

00:50:00--> 00:50:39

quote unquote in this world, but they shall be the winners in the long run. Even to me as an example of this even Elpida was his an example of this emammal Bahati is an example of this. Even fuller is an example of this that in their lifetimes, they did suffer at the hands of their, their, their futures, their accusers, you know, even taymiyah died in jail. They've been fooled. I can't imagine he were poisoned, right. And yet, in the long run, that that is irrelevant, their legacies lived on. And even though in their own lifetimes, it might have appeared that the opponents won. In the long run Allah xojo show reward sincerity and genuine scholarship and knowledge. So never forget that

00:50:39--> 00:51:23

point that in the long run, what wins is taqwa and knowledge. Don't worry about the refutations, don't worry about the back and forth you might even die in this dunya. But it is the long term legacy that we're looking for in this world. And in the next world. Point number three that you learn from history point number three, no one becomes a person of nobility. Via refutations no one spends a lifetime and refutation and then lives on legacy wise in the oma. In fact, we don't even know the names of the detractors of most of the people we don't literally they're assigned to the dustbin of history. If your only accomplishment in life is to dis and find faults at others. History

00:51:23--> 00:52:06

teaches us that history shall forget about you. And this is even true. If you're a scholar of merit, you have the potential to lose your entire legacy and to erase your entire heritage if you go down the path of overzealous refutation. And the best example for this is the opponent David Mamet, Bahati, who was a respected alum who had contributions and had written books. And now nobody studies his legacy, except as the guy who went against Buhari even though he might have been sincere. And we ask Allah for his forgiveness, because look, that's one thing, whether you're sincere or not, that's between you and Allah. But if you spend your life just talking about other people, even your good

00:52:06--> 00:52:44

has the potential to be canceled. What if you never had good in the first place, and all that you're doing is talking about other people. And of course, even if some of the reputation might be a little bit valid, if you have produced something of substance, still, your legacy shall live on you, Mama Nyssa is an example of this perhaps just perhaps some of what his opponent said might have had an element of truth that maybe you know, that's not what is mainstream orthodoxy? You know, for our times. Now, maybe there was an element of truth in this, but still, who are his opponents? What are their names? What have they done? and What has he done in the end? Mmm is Sally produced something

00:52:44--> 00:53:33

of substance and quality and that is what remains and the critics go into the dustbin of history. So point number three, No one leaves a legacy simply by refuting never happens never will point number four. This is not necessarily a historical point, but it is a psychological one that I ask all of you to understand the psychological and the sociological functions of refutations, we need to understand that refutations help in maintaining boundaries for one's own social group, right? Understand this point by negating another. By negating someone else, you automatically affirm you, you you draw your demarcate clear boundaries, right by saying that's wrong. You're showing the line

00:53:33--> 00:54:10

that that's not who you are, you are something else. So by critiquing others, one automatically endorses self endorses one's own values, understand the psychological and the sociological function of refutations. It's more about yourself and I and and identifying yourself and affirming yourself than it is about the other. And if you want to understand this, again, I quote Trump not because I just just because everybody that's listening will understand. Right? What they want to understand is that they should apply Trump parable to their own group as well. And that includes, by the way, even those that look up to me as well. Some of you are guilty of the same thing. And I know this because

00:54:10--> 00:54:55

it's a human reality doesn't matter who you are, that with Trump again, when he refutes other people, when he talks about other people. what he's doing is validating himself, all you need to do is to look at how he looked how he speaks about Mexicans and immigrants, right? Look at what he says about Mexicans about immigrants about Muslims would bite by talking about others, he is validating himself and his followers and that is why generally speaking, the more quality stuff that you have to give, the less you have to refute others because when you're offering something, you don't need to prove your point by negating what others are offering. I mean, let me give you a radical example.

00:54:55--> 00:55:00

I mean, you all know that there's fake stuff being sold. You know, like, let's say imitation iPhone.

00:55:00--> 00:55:25

From China, whatever, you know, like not the real deal, like, you know, the fake stuff being sold out in America, I mean, in other places, right? I've seen this myself when you go to like, you know, Malaysia or others, you go to certain places, the entire district is full of goods that are ripoffs, right, that you, you you look at it outwardly, you might think it's an iPhone, but in reality, it's stuff that's obviously, you know, not the real deal is made in whatever, you know, China or whatever, imitation goods, let me ask you.

00:55:27--> 00:56:09

And this is a huge market, as you're all aware, in third world countries, let me ask you, do you think that Apple should spend millions or billions of dollars refuting these, these imitation goods? Do you think they should teach their followers that there's no competition between what they produce versus what these imitation goods are? I mean, if they actually did that, to be honest, it would cheapen their own brand, the very fact that they would have to defend themselves against that cheap imitation is an insult to the quality of their own product, I'm giving you a bit of a harsh example. But to get the point across that, generally speaking, when you have something of quality to give,

00:56:09--> 00:56:47

right, then somebody comes along, and you know, they have that cheap imitation stuff. It's an insult for you to have to even go down to that level. And that's why Michelle, for example, famously remarked, I mean, you know, that, anytime I argued with an idiot, he went over me because I couldn't compete with him and his idiots, you just be quiet. And another poet poem of your mama shafter. He said, when the fool says something, don't answer him, because the best way to answer a fool is to be quiet. Because if you say something, you unleash and unlock him. And if you stay quiet, then you make him die out of rage. And one of the scholars of the past I believe it's, you know, Monaco, not

00:56:47--> 00:57:23

sure what it's called, as the pastor was asked, Why don't you refute, you know, so and so and whatnot. And he said, you know, the best refutation against them is to be silent. Because for that mentality, it really is like oxygen, if they want to have that attention, they're craving that attention. And if you have quality products to give, you don't need to prove yourself by by talking about, you know, the cheap imitation stuff you have, you have something to offer and let others do what they are doing. And so the final point, therefore, the fifth point is what exactly to do. And I think by now you know exactly what I'll be saying here. My advice to myself, which is what I

00:57:23--> 00:58:06

inshallah try to follow to the best of my ability, even if I slip once in a while, my advice to myself into all of you is to not concentrate on refutations that much, but rather, to concentrate on output on positive output on doing something of substance, be productive, not reactive, build, show, prove, demonstrate, don't destroy, don't refute and critique all the time. Indeed, I understand. refutations are sometimes needed. And that's why I'm saying let nobody derive from this lecture that all reputations are wasted waste of time. However, what I'm saying is, let not refutations take up the most of your time. Let it not be what you are associated with what people know you for. That's

00:58:06--> 00:58:46

not if you do that, learn from history, you're going to do nothing with your life, your entire life will be wasted. Also, if you need to refute, then refute ideas, not names, refute concepts, not people, because the goal is not the person the goal is the idea if there really is an idea that is dangerous, that needs to be refuted. Understand that as you refute, you're not really talking to the other group, as much as you're talking to your own group, right? The primary reason to refute is to make sure your group stays with you. There's nothing wrong with that and needs to be done as well. But do it with wisdom and do it trying to not make it personal. Make sure that you do not become

00:58:46--> 00:59:24

consumed in the refutation because if you do, you will lose all objectivity. And you will become a laughingstock in front of all of mankind, when you lose objectivity. And you just lose the plot as we see the reality of what is going on. without mentioning names. It's self evident that some people have literally lost track of reality, they have dug themselves so deep in that culture of hatred and of refutation, that they have literally become disconnected from reality, you cannot get to them anymore. Why would you want to associate with that type of mindset? You know, and and again, to be honest, that is one of the reasons why I don't really I find it insulting to even have to defend

00:59:24--> 00:59:59

myself against some of these types of characters and accusations and I may Allah protect from arrogance I, I literally want to say if you feel that certain of these individuals have something of substance to offer, then to further any go with them. I don't, I don't think I can offer you anything. If you really think that there's a competition between certain of these critics of myself and others, certain of them that are completely untrained and without any knowledge and wisdom, it would not and you think that they're doing something constructive and productive. I genuinely believe then that our wavelengths are just insanely strong.

01:00:00--> 01:00:37

I'm not being harsh, our wavelengths are totally different. You the way you look at the world and your, your background and your level of knowledge and whatnot is totally different than then than and I'm gonna sit not saying that a negative I'm just being realistic here that this one of the reasons why I really don't see the need to even get involved in this back and fourth like it is self evident to me it is self evident the reality of what some groups and people are offering versus the reality of what others are offering. In the end of the day. What I advise myself and all of us to do is really always ask Allah for hidayah ask Allah for humility, ask Allah for a pure hard to make

01:00:37--> 01:01:16

plenty of the art for yourself. And I conclude really by saying that the most successful person who refutes and critiques will be the one who critiques himself more than he critiques other people concentrate on your own faults more than than the faults of others be worried about your own mistakes, far more than you worried about the mistakes of other people. And if you do so, then inshallah, inshallah, you will live a successful life. ask Allah subhana wa Taala, for Hidayat, and for humility and for a pure heart ask Allah subhana wa Taala to guide me and you and to guide others through what we do. ask Allah subhana wa tada for the fate of this world and the fate of the next 10

01:01:16--> 01:01:21

inshallah I'll continue on another topic next time said on Monday Mohammed's will lie about a casual