Reconstructing The Muslim Mind

Salam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

hamdu Lillah wa Salatu was Salam ala rasulillah Wanda Ali, he was a busy woman while a hammerberg. I must have delivered a few 1000 lectures in my life. This was the first time that before any lecture, I was told where the fire exits are, it's kind of got me worried. But I hope and shout Allahu taala, that it was just an extra degree of caution and safety. And these days, we need those extra degrees of caution and safety. So let us begin.

The first question or the first issue is the title itself, reconstructing the Muslim mind. By the way, the topic title was not chosen by me, but I have no problems with it. And I was bombarded with emails and queries. What is this reconstructing the Muslim mind? Is the Muslim mind in need of reconstruction? Why are you choosing such a provocative title? or What does it mean to reconstruct the Muslim mind? Well, the fact of the matter is that Firstly, all of us should be striving to refine our understandings of religion, and should always striving to have a better understanding and a better application. So if we understand it properly, then inshallah there's nothing wrong with

this title. And my talk today will center around five points, five issues one after the other, each one of which we'll spend a few minutes on, and then inshallah, after the break with the fundraiser, I'll open the floor for all questions. The first question the first topic, is there truly a need for a reformation for a reconstruction? This is the first question, do we really need to rethink through our tradition, are our problems truly unique? Because a lot of times people are talking about Islam and modernity, and how compatible or how incompatible Islam is with today's values with living Islam. In the modern context, some people point out that there's nothing new, we've always had

problems. And our problems today are the same as the problems yesterday. So there's one strand or one group that says our problems are exactly the same, nothing new. And they say, for example, Muslims have always had internal and external problems. Internally, we've always been divided theologically. We've always had different groups, different understandings from the time of the Sahaba groups began after the death of the process. And by a few years, by 2030 years, we had groups beginning and these groups trickle down. And so we have so many theologies of Islam, politically as well. The Sahaba themselves disagreed about politics. And in our days as well, we have so many

nation states, so the Muslims have been divided politically since the times of Isley and while we wrote the law of mind, as for external threats, we've had always islamophobes since the time of the origin, maca, we've had islamophobes, correct. They've hated the process of them from the very beginning. They have mocked our religion throughout the Middle Ages throughout the crusades, throughout colonial times throughout good pre modernity. And now in modernity, they've always smeared out religion made fun of it called it barbaric and backward, they will say it's nothing new. So this group will argue, if you look at the core problems and issues, that in reality, they're

exactly the same. You see what they're where they're coming from, that internally and externally, we have the same problems. But I would say this way of looking at our problems is extremely simplistic. It's not taking into account the different dynamics. True. At some level, the problems have precursors, we've had different theologies, we'd have different groups, we'd have different politics, we've had problems within and problems without, but the undeniable reality is that the nature of our modern problems, the peculiarities of our situation, the specifics of our dilemmas, are totally different than any other era that we have ever seen. How so? Frankly, where does one

begin? Perhaps of the most significant changes for us is that none of us in this room, unless you are Mashallah subotica, above 93 years old, none of us in this room has seen or witnessed a legitimate caliphate. We have for 14 centuries of our tradition have had a powerful, separate political entity called the caliphate for 13 centuries. And the caliphate only collapsed quite literally in the era of our fathers and grandfathers, ie post World War One. It was post World War One. And if I'm not mistaken, it was only last year or two years ago, where the last veteran of World War One died here in your country. I read about this on BBC recent there were people alive

that probably still obviously they're people above the age of 94. They probably wouldn't remember the caliphate, but they were

Born into it, the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate has had serious implications on our understandings of what it means to apply Islamic law at a social level, at a national level at a societal level. These are new dilemmas. We never had this issue before. Because once upon a time 319 24, there was an Islamic land, there was a land that was ruled by Islamic law, we don't have any such land anymore. This is totally new. In addition to this, in the West, we've had a new phenomenon political in the east, we had the collapse of a phenomenon. And that is a collapse of the caliphate. In the West, we had the rise of a new phenomenon. And that phenomenon is the phenomenon of the

nation states, the modern countries. Now, once again, most of us here, we just assume the world has always been divided into countries. But no, that is not the case. This is a very modern phenomenon in the history of mankind, to have well defined borders. These well defined borders are not well defined. They were fought over, they were negotiated. And pretty much all of them are modern. All of these borders that we have between the modern countries, they go back 50 years, 70 years, 90 years, not more than 100 years, the very notion of nations is modern, to give allegiance to your country is modern, some have dated it back to 16. To 1645 or so the Treaty of Westphalia, they say that that

was the first time a border was defined. But the fact of the matter is that it was the French Revolution and the American Revolution that solidified the idea of loyalty to a country. Because philosophically speaking, what does it mean to give your loyalty to a country? Because the country does not exist? It's a figment of imagination. What do I mean, it's a figment of imagination. It's what groups agree is a border, it doesn't actually exist the border, right? The border does not actually exist. Before countries, what were your loyalties given to, to

kings and queens, and borders changed between depending on words? Or if you lived in the Middle East, your your allegiance was given to tribes, depending on your tribe? And there were tangible you could measure? Are you loyal to your king? Or your queen or not? Are you loyal to your tribe or not? But the problem comes this whole notion of being a American citizen or a British citizen? Well, what does it mean? What exactly unifies all British citizens? Tell me? Tell me, we can say clearly what unifies supporters of a dynasty? Clearly you either support the dynasty or you don't, we can clearly identify people who are a part of a tribe, either your blood lineage is there, or it's not. But what

does it mean to be British? What is that one or two or three intrinsic values that combines all British people and separates them from the French separates them from the Canadians separates them from the Americans will allow you think about it, and you will not find a single common characteristic? Anything you will say you will find it in other nationalities as well? Do you understand what I'm saying here that the fact of the matter, these modern nation states are quite literally modern, they didn't exist. And they are, to a certain extent, imaginary. We've all agreed to have these boundaries. But they don't mean much. The only thing that British citizens have in

common is the fact that they carry a red passport, basically. Correct. Which is a circular definition. What Why are you a British citizen? What makes you different? Because I have the passport of, of the UK. Otherwise, in terms of actual values, now your government is talking of British values, my government talks of American values. Okay, fine. Let's quiz them. What do you mean? What do you mean by American values? And we will say in America, oh, good ethics, hard work tolerance. Okay. Are you going to tell me any civilization in the world says, Oh, we our values, bad ethics, we don't believe in good ethics. Our value is dishonesty, our value is intolerant, even

intolerant regimes will claim they are tolerant, correct? Correct. And we are more and more worried that they're getting intolerant of us, but they're saying they're tolerant. In the end of the day, my dear brothers and sisters use what Allah has given you to look through the height. What are British values? What are American values, pause and quiz the people give me some adjectives give me some notions that are uniquely American, uniquely British, that no other society will agree to, so that this defines it and they will not be able to do that, because in the end of the day, whatever value they say this value, every civilization and society will at least verbally say we are also the

same, because these are positive values. And Allah has ingrained in us we should have these positive values. So this is a new phenomenon, the phenomenon of nation states and the phenomenon of citizenship and the phenomenon of being all citizens being equal. Another new system another new way is modern democracies.

This is a new way of governance. It was not known in pre modern times, where Technically, the people will get to decide their politicians and their laws were theoretically at least a change is possible if the public changes its mind that it can cause a change in public policy. Now, it is true that a lot of times it doesn't work that way. I mean, the classic example is the Iraq War, where in western history, never have larger crowds gathered to oppose their own governments, right, especially in England, never have we seen larger crowds. And yet it had no impact. Right? We all know it didn't have any impact. Yet, I say, we should not lose hope. We should not lose hope. Why? Because there

are also positive examples of change. Yes, they're also negative, not every time does it work. But there are clear tangible examples in our own lifetimes of changes that have come about. And in previous times, as well, I'll give you one simple example in America, that clearly demonstrates that change is possible at the grassroots level, even if the elite do not want it. In America, the racial rights movement, African Americans, the right to be equal. My father came to America in 1963. When he landed in Houston, Texas, Texas was a racially divided state. My father went to restaurants and whatnot, where there were signs whites this way, blacks that way. This is not something in the

ancient past, this is my own father telling me that when he came, it was racially divided bus, you sit in the back, if you're brown skin color, black skin color, right? You all know, this was how America was? And do you think the elite wanted any change? Do you think the people in power do you think the rich Do you think the businessman Do you think the government? Of course not. But what happened? Of course, it's true to say that it's not fully equal, we know that, but compared to what it was analog, we can say that this change was at a grassroots level, and it did impact the entire society, even though the percentage of African Americans was 20 25%. That's it. They weren't like

60 70% 22 a little bit more than Muslims basically, you know, in London back to the you guys are Mashallah good concentration here a little bit more, and they caused an impact across their country. So there are tangible examples, the modern democracies, the phenomenon of ruled by the majority it does have when they change public perception, when the public when even Middle America began to support them. That's not right. You can't hold these protesters down, you cannot fire gunshots, you cannot do so slowly. But surely, it did cause an impact. And therefore, yes, we're living in modern nation states that are democratic, these are new. In classical, you know, times, it was, it was the

king, whatever the king decides to this day, that is how most of the Muslim world Israel, as we know, well, the countries we live in are not like that. This changes the dynamics of us what we do here, you see where I'm going with this. This is new, new understanding, also, that I've talked about political issues, the collapse of the caliphate, the rise of nation states, the rise of democracies, we also have changes on the moral level, completely unprecedented, completely new phenomena, Western phenomenon we have now, two things are mentioned in the moral level, liberal secularism, which is the modern religion of the West, liberal secularism is the modern religion of

the West, liberal secularism, where you are taught from the very beginning as a child, that religion is something private, don't bring theology to the public sphere, that everybody should be the same religiously private, and publicly, we argue for a common good. And they are taught that all beliefs are equal, that people should be free to do anything they want. As long as they don't physically harm somebody else. I have the right to say what I want to address how I please, as long as you're not physically harmed. This is a very modern concept. Very modern concept. You go back 70 years, 100 years, 200 years, you'll go back 400 years, this part of the world was embroiled in religious war,

as we all know, they went to war, because one group of people thought Jesus Christ like this, another group, but Jesus Christ like that, they were willing to kill one another because they felt these things were so important, right? These are modern changes, where now I want to be a little bit advanced here, secularism. secularism, is a European development that was necessitated by the intolerance of medieval Christianity. They had no other mechanism of letting people live and stopping the bloodshed and warfare, other than to invent this doctrine, which is now the standard doctrine, and therefore it could be said that secularism is a type of modern society.

Christianity that is shorn of the Christian theology. It is Christianity be good to others and be nice and let people do mindless theology. No Jesus Christ. Okay. And this is a theory that many political philosophers have that secularism is in fact, a development of Christianity that can be called modern Christianity. Therefore, by the way, if somebody says, Why aren't why isn't the Muslim world secular, you might say, why isn't the Muslim world Christian, because the Muslim world didn't have the problems that needed secularism to solve it? Right. So the point being, again, this is a new phenomenon that did not exist 100 years ago, 200 years ago, the notion that religion should be a

private matter, people are disturbed when they see religion in public, right? They don't like it. They wouldn't mind by and large if you pray five times a day in your house, but when they see that a job, when they see the beard, when they see something that is overtly religious, they get a little bit concerned, why is this guy being religion, religious in public, this is a modern notion. Once upon a time, everybody wore their religion on their streets asleep, you could tell a Jew by how he dressed, you could tell the Muslim by how she dressed you could tell her a Christian by how he drove everybody was they proud of their identity, all of this is now being taken away another ethical

change. Another moral change, which is extremely significant, and unprecedented in the history of humanity is gender roles, and feminism and sexuality.

The change for the bulk of human history and by the way, each one of these topics deserves many lectures, you understand? I'm just combining these points so that you can get food for thought each one of these topics deserves entire lectures, the notion of changing gender roles feminism, for the bone in history, every society in the world have certain roles for men and certain roles for women. And those roles were markedly different, political, social, familial, economic, I am not arguing what was right and wrong. I'm simply stating a fact. The fact is that for the bulk of human history, nobody ever said men and women are equal in every area. Nobody, it was simply unthought of. Neither

Muslims or non Muslims either Jews nor Buddhist, everybody understood men have a role. Women have a role. Of course, this notion now is considered antiquated. This notion is considered backward. This is new, to consider it backward. This is new, and it is unprecedented. And I don't need to talk to you about sexuality and the changing sexual mores. Never in modern and pre modern history, were certain types of sexuality is considered morally permissible. Yes, they existed. Yes, under the cover behind closed doors, things happen between the same genders but never in Christian, Islamic Judaic cultures, ie for the last 2000 years. Yes, maybe in ancient Rome. Yes, maybe. But not

basically, for the modern history was ever this type of same gender considered to be acceptable. But of course, now that is all changing. Not just this, but premarital. And extra marital premarital is the norm. If you don't engage in it, something's wrong with you. That's what society says. Whereas even 50 years ago, 50 years ago, it was never done by the middle and the upper class. They consider this to be beneath their dignity. They wait for marriage, we're talking about Western society, not Muslim Western society. Even 50 years ago, this was an unknown phenomenon. And if it was done, it was a shame for the family. They were just wanting to hide it or whatnot. In 50 years, what has

happened, fathers and mothers couldn't care less that their own sons and daughters are engaged in these things before marriage. This is the norm of society. Again, this is unprecedented, really, for the last two 3000 years, right? All of these things are changing jumble all of this together. And we have what we see around us. By and large, almost all of us in this room are Muslims coming from diverse nation states, created by colonialist powers over the last century, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Middle East countries, born and raised with political ties to Western nation states, in your cases, England and my case, America, having been imbibed by and shaped by even if many of us

don't recognize it, post liberal and post feminist values. We're living in a society where we are raised to look at the world through these lenses struggling to maintain what we have left of a constructed religious identity, we are all products of this new global world that we live in. And therefore, our situation is completely unique. And we need to recognize that novel problems call for novel solutions, unique problems call for unique solutions. Now, when I say things like this, some people legitimately get concerned and they say, What do you mean? Are you going to change everything or you're going to change our heritage, our canons of law, and that is a legitimate concern and

fear. They're worried about those groups within our own tradition that basically conflict

to modern values, and they still call themselves Muslim. And they will say, and this is well known to all of us that are even same gender marriages are permissible islamically there are people here in your own country that are performing, such as the guys, and they're saying this is Islamic, or they will say that. I mean, you all know what I'm talking about that this movement that calls themselves progressive Islam, there is a fear that if we open the door for change, it will lead all the way to progressive Islam. Because of this fear. Many Muslims just close the doors to any change. And this is the other mistake, because they're worried that opening the door a little bit, we'll

open it all the way they refuse to change at all. And therefore here is where we need to have a middle ground. We allow for change where change is allowed by the shediac. So the first question out of five and this is the longest but don't worry, the rest will be shorter. The first question was, do we need a new thought or reformation or reconstruction? And the bottom line is yes with conditions. Yes, we do. But with conditions and of those conditions is we don't change that wish to shed he does not allow to change. And there are other conditions beyond the scope of this of this one talk. The second question, or the second issue that I want all of us to think about is we need

to differentiate between slogans and actual solutions. This is the second point. differentiate between slogans and solutions. All too often. We fall prey to beautiful slogans to emotional phrases. We start trumpeting the slogan as if it is a solution.

slogans help win elections, not solve problems. slogans don't solve problems, slogans, appeal to your emotion. They sound good, and many times they're legitimate and true, but they are useless in providing actual solutions. So we need to be intelligent enough to differentiate between slogans and solutions. So for example, we have all heard many of these slogans. Islam is the answer. This is a slogan, Islam is the answer. For Firstly, what's the question?

And then secondly, okay, what do I do with that? Hamas? Okay, it is I agree with you. It's a good slogan. But what do I do with that? How will it answer my problems? How do I battle Islamophobia? What do I do with this? This counterterrorism bill that's coming up in a few weeks in your own Parliament? Okay, Islam is the answer. But what what is the answer? This is a slogan. It's not an actual solution. Another very good slogan. It's very good. I mean, of course, Islam is the answer. But what does that mean? Another very beautiful slogan. It's true, but it's a slogan, not a solution. We must return to the Quran and Sunnah. I agree, we must. But then what? Okay, I've

agreed. Now, what do I do? You still haven't told me about the counterterrorism bill? What do I do with that? You're not gonna find a Quran or Hadith that is explicitly telling you about what to do, right? Or there are groups that say we must return to the example of the setup or the righteous predecessors. And again, it's a good slogan, it has an element of truth that we follow the Sahaba, who respect the Sahaba we respect the students of the Sahaba. But tell me, how did those early generations mobilized against the Islamophobia, media? How did they challenge their politicians in Parliament, when their parliament was gonna pass anti terrorism legislation that would actually ban

and criminalize religiosity? You're not gonna find anything like that? Because it didn't happen to them. So when you tell me to go back to the past, okay, I agree, we should respect the path. But it doesn't give me what what doesn't give me a solution. This is a slogan. And you know, there's a beautiful incident, you know, the first group to have a slogan, it was a heretical group called the holodeck. You can look them up. I've given talks about them a fanatical group coverage, and they were in the time of illuminated butala. And they opposed it. And they had a beautiful slogan, what was their slogan, we want to judge by the Quran.

This was their slogan. We want to judge by the Quran, how beautiful, who doesn't want to judge by the Quran, and they opposed it, because they said you're not judging by the Quran. So it is narrated in the books of Saudi Arabia, and others that are legally allowed to call them, their leaders, the ones that are willing to talk to him to his matchless, his, his, whatever room, and he called for a copy of the Quran to be brought out. And in those days, the copies of the Quran were bigger than this podium, because there was no paper they would write on Campbell, and it was massive, you might have seen pictures. And those days the Quran was like three feet by five feet by by four feet high,

massive books, right? Because we imagine every paper is leather. Imagine how thick you're gonna have it. And the copy of the Quran was something kept in the main mustard or something, though the houses only had sewers. They didn't have the whole Quran until paper came. So he brought this massive copy of the Quran into the part of the into his, you know, the legislation room and he said

In front of these college, he said to the Quran judge between us? Of course nothing happened. He spoke again. Oh, Quran judge. And nothing happened until one of the hardest said, Oh, I mean, oh, Ali, the Koran is not going to speak to you and tell you the judgment. So how do you said rhodiola? One? That's exactly the point. You're calling for the Quran to judge. What do you mean by this slogan? Do you expect the Quran to speak to you directly? What do you mean it's a slogan, it's not a solution. And he showed them the difference between a good sounding slogan and between an actual solution. In the end of the day humans have to read the Quran and interpret it. The slogan sounds

good returned to the Quran and Sunnah. Okay, valid, but then what? So we need to differentiate between a slogan and the solution. Unfortunately, a lot of times we get emotional and we use the slogan to trumpet any solution, no slogans have their pays place and solutions have their place, this is the second point. The third point is straight from

our processing them said, give everyone the right that is due to him famous Hadith, right, there is equal to the help and help the who give everyone the right that is due to him. And I say this heading is also one of our solutions, how so

we need to understand that the problems we are facing, require multiple speciality is not just one speciality, give everyone the right that is due to him. So give Islamic scholars the right that is due to him and then and also give specialists in the media specialists in politics specialists in economics specialists in campaign financing specialists in whatever field give them their right as well. One of our problems is that the conservative Muslims, by and large, make scholars the ultimate encyclopedias of everything. And the Muslims that are not so conservative, simply tend to dismiss scholars as being backward and no use at all. And as usual, Islam is in between the two scholars

have a role. Roma are trained to be specialists in what in Islamic law in Hadith sciences, and classical theology. Great, but every one of us understands if I wanted to build a building, if I want to have an architecture, when I go to my shift, when I say I want to building Can you devise the building for me? Right? I remember once and I'm not making this up. Once the brother came to me, and said, Shut up, sir, can you tell me These are two stocks? Which stock should I invest in?

Well, I'm here Luckily, my jaw just dropped.

Like do you really think I am the person you should come to, to talk about which stock is better for you to invest in? Well, I this is the problem with the Muslim mind. Now, if we are laughing at this, why don't we understand that ma are not our primary reference in everything? This is a problem because it's a two way street. And by the way, so one of the most common issues is family issues, marital disputes, right? These types of questions. Believe me, brothers and sisters, I have studied in Medina for 10 years, 10 years, I specialized an ad and an athlete that have a Master's, I could have done a PhD if I wanted to. That training does not teach you at all, how to help a marital

problem,

how to give counseling to a teenager with drugs, how to how to talk to a person who wants to commit suicide. That's a totally different field. They don't train you in Azhar or Medina, or omokoroa, or Malaysia university or Islam, but they don't train you. But that's counseling. That's psychology. And yet many of us think because the chef can read good Quran, he can solve my marital problems as well. That's not necessarily the case. And I had to myself realized very early on that no, in order to be an effective di, you need to gain speciality for the people. And as you know, some of you know, I've done some of this issue online and whatnot. But the fact of the matter is that when you

look at what is happening today, the Islamophobic campaigns, this panorama documentary that took place last week or so your counterterrorism legislation, our odema are not the best resources to go to, to combat these issues. We asked them what is halal and we leave the rest to the specialists. And by the way, it's a two way street as well because unfortunately, what happens is and I speak as somebody from the scholarly community, when people keep on coming to you and asking similar questions, you begin to be diluted that you are the expert.

After a few questions of which talk to invest in maybe I will say oh, you know, this one is the one to go to, right. It's definitely a problem because in the end of the day scholars are human. Now when I give talks like this, some of our more Mashallah religious and conservative brothers and sisters, they get very good

irritated sometimes they say, Are you making fun of the cinema and there's even YouTube videos that some people who hate me have done that the so called the is making fun of their own amount of stuff stuff little love, little love their own amount are human beings that's not making fun of them. We are the problem when we drag them into a speciality that is not their own. It's not their problem. It's our problem for assuming that they're all knowledgeable. No, they're not. We give them other rights. And we give modern specialists their right. And by the way, so modern specialists might not be practicing Muslims. They might actually be non Muslims, God forbid. But they're experts in media.

They're experts in whatever field, and they're willing to work with us maybe for a sum of money, but they're willing to work with us and support us, call us as long as it's Helen. So yes, the album should be referred to just Is it okay to do this? That's it. But the details of the solution. This is not done by our scholarly community. And by the way, our actual sellers, our actual earliest scholars were far more tolerant of this than those who claim to follow them in our times are when the early hodaka, when Roman kabob conquered Rome, when he conquered Persia, the Roman Empire when he conquered Philistine in Syria for the next 80 or 90 years. now realize I'm gonna build called Bob

is the greatest so how the after the buck stops rolling, nobody's gonna. But did he have experience in running an empire? Did he have experience in having different ministries? Did he have experience in in basically taking care of a country or a republic larger than any country around today? Did he

know what did he do? What did the early Sahaba do? What did the early hola fire? Do? They actually allowed the Christians and the Zoroastrians, who are already running the bureaucracies to continue running the bureaucracies under them? Yes, of course, they monitor the monitor. But in the end of the mind, you shape the Ministry of collection of taxes, the Ministry of revenue, the Ministry of Agriculture, who was running the day to day affairs, read the books of history, the Sahaba were intelligent enough to note you know what, this is not my area. I'll give it to you or monitor overall what's coming in what's coming out. Of course, they want to have checks and balances, but

who did the mind you shape? The Sahaba? realize they're not they're not they're not trained for that, and they gave it over. So in early Islam, the bulk of the ministries were run by Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians, it was only in the reign of the fifth or may yet halifa Abdul Malik even more one, the fifth Omar Khalifa, what he's known for Google him read on Wikipedia, what is he famous for? It says he aerobicized the ministries. This is what he's famous for. He issued coinage for the first time. Up until that point in time the currency that was being used was the currency of other civilizations and cultures. The Muslims had not issued their own currency. They were writing

the ministries by non Muslims, they were writing it in policy, they were writing it in Latin. Can you imagine the Muslim Empire being run with with with edicts in Latin, because the bureaucracy is all reading that language, right? Only in the fifth oma year hollyford America number one, when some experiences gained generations to generations, one son experience experiences gain when they figure out what to do then abdul-malik even what Juan says Carlos from now on everything in Arabic. And he issued currency for the first time our first currency was issued by American number one we have plenty of I'm a I'm a numismatist, one of my hobbies and I collect ancient coins. And my speciality

is when we get coins are plenty of coins from the time of the medical number one, the first coin is that was that was issued, we have plenty of that of those of those coins in our time. Point being he was the first to do this. What does that show before him? They were open minded enough to do what to go to even non Muslims for speciality is that was beyond just a media campaign for running ministries, for taking care of an entire Republic.

And that tolerance, unfortunately, will like is almost missing in our times. If we invite a sympathetic politician, to our platform, if we invite a community leader of another faith to our Masjid law, how would our Lakota live in LA see what happens? We are so narrow minded in this regard. Well, like it's problematic, it's problematic. We cannot see beyond some type of very narrow minded vision, the Sahaba and the setup were far more tolerant than those who claim to respect and follow them in our times. And that is very clear. If you look at at history, and the fact the matter for the the third point is we give the people of speciality is the right that is due to them. We go

for whatever problem we have. Right now. There's going to be a counterterrorism bill that's going to be passed this counterterrorism bill. I hope all of you are aware of it. It is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation that will be passed in your own land.

And if it is passed, it is very likely that your religiosity will be criminalized that anybody who spreads speech that is against, quote unquote, British values, which means what? If we talk about modesty, this is against British values. If we talk about sexuality within marriage, this is against British values. If we talk about anything of this nature, this could be potentially criminalized, or at least you will go on some lists, you will be monitored, things will happen, people might not be allowed to come in and out as it is, they're banning so many famous scholars into it. And honestly, if we don't stop, this is only a matter of time before I myself will not be coming to your country.

They banned many of my friends and colleagues for the most innocuous things not because their actual stuff, but a lot violent people. They're not none of them are, but because they didn't like a phrase, and it goes against British values. So this is a hate monger.

Unless you guys act, this will become legislation. How are you going to act? Come to me come to your shift, go to your Imam? No, you need organizations that are politically savvy, they understand how best to challenge this. Sometimes those organizations will have people who are not even Muslim, or they're Muslim, but not that religious, or they're Muslim, but whatever, it doesn't matter. Well, it doesn't matter. You're not going to them because you want to learn a man, you're going to them to stop that legislation. And they're the experts. And what needs to happen. And unfortunately, this is not happening is that we have two camps of Muslims. Again, I'll be very honest, because we don't

have the luxury of being vague. We cannot beat around the bush anymore. Our problems are very dire. And therefore I need to be blunt here. We have a huge gap between conservative Muslims and liberal Muslims. Each one can bring things to the table. Conservative Islam has many things. Number one, it has numbers, numbers, liberal Muslims do not have those numbers. They're disparate, they're just jointed. Conservatives not go to the largest massage, go to the largest conferences is basically conservative Muslims, they have the numbers, but they have a fear and a hatred of the other liberal count. They have this disdain because they're not practicing enough. The liberal count by and large

has education, they have wealth. They're better integrated in society, they have contacts, but they disdain the conservatives. Because these are fanatics. These are all they talk about his beard and hijab, and they have no value to us. It's not for the law, guys, we're all Muslims. I agree, of course, to be a practicing Muslim is better, no doubt about that. On my own experience, you can see that of course, I mean, to pray and whatnot is much better. But does this mean that if a Muslim is not to my standard, I have nothing to do with him, I'll never cooperate with him. No, there are people that have contacts, there are people that have mass appeal, the two of them need to come

together. And for the sake of the greater good, have a platform where each one brings to the table, what the other doesn't have. This is necessary. And again, I'm being very blunt here. This is a huge problem. Liberals are doing an immense amount of good in the PR in the in the media, in the in the campaigns in the elections, by and large, conservative Muslims don't run for office, do they? They don't want to get corrupted by politics. And we got to be honest here, by and large, conservative Muslims don't get involved in journalism at high levels, because you have to compromise, at least at some level. So who does get involved people that are of a different persuasion. So both sides need

to lose some of their phobia, some of their prejudice, and we need to come to a common ground and understand what is at stake in our community. And this leads me to the fourth and there's only five and the fifth one is very brief. This leads to the fourth point, and that is fourth point of my talk, we need to rethink through sectarianism. We need to rethink through our sectarianism. You see, one of the problems that we have as an oma is that in order to be trained to be an alum, you need to go through a school, which is of course understandable. And when you go through a school, each school is very eager to protect its own interests. And one of the ways it must do that is by

separating itself from the other schools of thought.

In other words, it has to Trump in its own and denigrate the other groups, they have to this is survival. So what happens is we send our students to these schools, but they're coming back with baggage that we don't need over here. We don't need over here. They're coming back with disparaging remarks about other movements, other groups, because that's what their own teachers have been teaching them, because that's the society they're living in. And we need to understand that sectarian lines are being redrawn in front of us right now.

No longer does anybody care about what is your opinion about

last names and attributes. There's a huge controversy in classical Islam. Nobody cares about this anymore. Where do you place your hands and Salah these are issues let the advanced students of knowledge debated, but do not bring them to the public sphere and have one group of average innocent Muslims hate another group of Muslims because of these issues. We need to move beyond this type of rhetoric. And this is a deep topic, and I've spoken about it in more detail. You will find it online dealing with sectarian issues that yes, there is a middle ground I'm not saying to ignore. There are certain things that are theologically very painful to me and I cannot tolerate from another Muslim.

But does this mean that we ignore the good in this person? So many times the best person to help the oma might not be the one who is the most theologically similar to me and you. He might have a different belief. And our teachers will teach us Oh, because of his belief. don't pray behind him because of his belief hate him. Okay, maybe I don't pray behind him. But can I invite him for a conference? Suppose let me give you a practical example without mentioning names. There is somebody in this land. I'm very impressed with journalist debater, it comes on TV, right debated in Oxford, very, very good debater. See him online all the time. I've met him a few times seems like a nice

guy. It just so happens. He's born into a family that is not suddenly. So his heritage is non Sunni. Okay. I understand he's born into that family. That's what he is.

I don't know your country that well. But I would venture he is one of the most eloquent debaters that you can offer. Simple question. Are we allowed to take this person and put him with your Douglas Murray, let's say, right, and put them in a room on live TV? Or do you want one of you to stand in his stead? Just because you have the theology of the person you agree with? Think about that. That is my question to you. What's happening now we need to look beyond sectarian now, you know, maybe I wouldn't invite this person to leave the Salah in my master. I understand. I wouldn't advise him to get the hookah. But can we not understand that maybe this person, even if he doesn't

agree with me, theologically, but his interest is the oma. His interest is the freedom to be a Muslim. Correct? Right. So Paul's his theology is different than mine to the level that maybe I wouldn't even pray behind him maybe okay. But does that mean I cannot reach out to him for a help that the both of us have in common, which is defending Islam in the public sphere, we need to rethink through sectarian lines. And what's happening is sectarian lines are being redrawn, not over classical issues. Those are only the madrasa students care about those issues. 99% of the oma doesn't care about these issues. The bulk of the oma is no longer talking about those issues. But

madrasa students they're taught it because and I was taught it and other groups are taught it, because again, that's their heritage. But we are seeing a difference sectarian lines, for example, sectarian lines are being drawn by the modern society over quote, unquote, your values. If you are decent, chest, dignified, your wife is wearing out where the sisters rank the job, you don't want your sons and daughters to go on dates before marriage. It doesn't matter whether you're selfie, or Sufi, or Deobandi or sheary. You're in one camp. I mean, be as explicit as possible. The media and your politicians don't care what your belief is about the Sahaba. I do, by the way I do. Because I

don't want to pray behind somebody who of course, I'll be honest with you, I don't want to pray behind that person. But if that person has some positive for the greater community, can I reach out to him and ask him to help me on another platform, not on the masjid not on the member not to give me a class on theology, but to debate in public? Can I do this or not? Well, a lot of you, yes, you can. And this is what I'm saying. We need to rethink through sectarian issues now. And understand that the best person for the job might not be somebody with my same vision in mind. And there are plenty in America that I know that by virtue of their training, their background, they might have

very liberal views or whatnot. But they're the best to debate with the islamophobes. They're the best to be put on fox news and just destroy the interview.

I would not want to go on Fox News. Well, I'll be honest with you, by the way, I haven't been invited. If I weren't invited, I would really have to think long and hard. Those people are vicious. They're vicious. You need to be trained in a certain manner. Maybe I'm not the best person for the job. So my point is, we need to rethink sectarianism. And especially let me be as blunt as possible, especially within the broad Sunni tradition will lie It is high time we got rid of selfie and Sufi and the urban Indian ladies. No group should be teaching hatred of the other. Yes, I understand. Respect your tradition. I understand for

Although your tradition the way you want to, but do not treat your masses do not teach your masses to hate and disconnect from the other, because that will only cause fitna and problems for the broader community.

The final point, my dear brothers and sisters, and that's a very quick one. And then inshallah Tada, we are done. And you can write your questions down. And I don't know how they will collect them. But the final point, so these are, I said, five points. The final point I want us to think about,

for these issues, that are really problematic in our time and era, there is typically no one right answer.

There is no one solution. There is no one is it A, B, or C or D, maybe it's all of the above, ie, all of the above, in solving the problems of our times, don't ever think that there is simply one clear cut solution. Rather, let people have a healthy diversity of opinion. Let people do different things and perhaps some goodwill come out of this other goodwill come out of that. Don't be so critical of other movements and other attempts. Rather, you be productive, rather than critical. You don't agree with something, go do it in a better way, in a better manner, and then show that people this is what I've done. Anyone can be an armchair critic, it takes zero qualifications to criticize

zero. You don't need to have any college qualification to criticize and lambaste and destroy Oh, this Oh, that what have you done? You don't agree with it, go show me a better way. Go show me on your community a better way. And guess what, maybe the group that you criticized, you might end up agreeing with them? When you see your solution is not viable. You thought it was sitting in your armchair you thought it was you know, it's like the example I give is the the the sports fanatic who watches sports, right? And then he jumps up and down. He goes, why didn't you do that? Even I could have shot that goal. So you really, really, you could have shot that goal? Show me.

It's easy to be a critic. It's very difficult to be an activist, we need to stop being so critical realize that there is typically no one right answer and that perhaps every group, as long as their goal is the benefit of the woman. As long as they're trying to bring rights to the woman to bring it to the oma then honestly, as long as it is in that spectrum of halaal. Let groups do different things. And you do your thing. So simple example. political activism, political activism in America. We have as you know, two major parties, right. The Republicans, the Democrats, right, you have probably three I think large parties, right?

Large

to large parties, right. Okay. So now, do you think that it is wise for all Muslims to just join one party?

Think about that.

If you think yes, what is going to happen when the other party comes to power, and it has zero Muslims and zero Muslim support? You're in big trouble. It's actually healthy, to have Muslims here. And Muslims, they're Muslims involved with this Muslims involved with that. It's actually healthy. Because in the end of the day, this variety brings about hair as long as the people involved in it again, have the interest of the community at heart, the same for media tactics, that should we do this. Should we do that? Some people say let's protest in the streets. Others say let's do this. Others say let's do you know, I might have my opinion. I might say, you know, for this issue, I

don't want to do protests, fine. I don't do it. You want to go do it. You go do it. I think maybe something else is more useful. But you know what, in the end of the day, every one of these efforts does have some use, some head will come out of it. So Pamela brothers and sisters, Allah says in the Quran, that alcohol is one of the worst evils the process of them called the mother of all evils, and he cursed those who drink alcohol those who sell alcohol. Alcohol is one of the worst evils. allas Lana is not the one who drinks it. Despite this, what is a lesson in the Quran about alcohol?

There is much evil and some benefit and the evil outweighs the benefit. Even alcohol has some benefits. And that is clear cut out on what do you think about things that are not clear cut out on about political activism about media about any other issue? If Allah says even alcohol has some good so we are now facing Islamophobia. We're now battling against racist politicians, let the community to different things and inshallah tada each of their efforts will have some good you need to find some niche you need to find something that you are involved in so that you can do your two cents and inshallah conclude on this point. Brothers and sisters a number of advice to myself and all of you

is that realize my dear brothers and sisters that Islam is about many different things.

And no doubt we're facing problems of a social

And the ethical and political issue. And that's really why we're talking about these things. But don't ever forget or trivialize the rituals and the emotions of Islam. Because in the end of the day, that is what anchors you to your faith. What is really essential is to live your life like a Muslim, which means your Salah, your aka, your Ramadan, your hedge your moral values, your highlight and how long this is what is really essential, because that is what it is what a what that is what is going to get you into gender. As for political stuff, should I do X or Y, you can be passionate, you can be left or right, you can be centrist in the end of the day and shallow to other as long as

you were sincere agenda. So don't make your whole life around these issues and causes maybe we won't solve the Palestinian crisis in our lifetimes maybe, maybe we won't solve Islamophobia in our lifetimes. But as long as we had a commitment to Alan, his messenger that we tried, no matter how that trying was, no matter what we did, writing petitions, I don't know, right, or public awareness, or websites, whatever it was, and we lived lives individually as good Muslims, in our families, in our, in our humility, in our who sure in our club, as long as we tried some mechanism, and we had these personal lives as Muslims in sha Allah Tada, that is the goal. That is Jenna, these are

problems of this world, the problems of politics, the problems of morality, these are problems that as well as testing us, we might not see the end of the test. But in sha Allah, we will see the fruits of our efforts. Because we thank Allah, we are judged, not by the outcome of our efforts, but the sincerity of our deeds. Allah will not judge us whether we were actually succeeded in battling Islamophobia, whether we actually brought the Palestinians at stake. No, it's the only Alhamdulillah it's the only exam where the results don't matter. No other teacher in the world, no other professor is going to grade you on your effort, correct. Only Allah subhana wa Taala will grade you on your

effort and not on your, on your results. The results, you could be a complete failure, maybe you didn't change Islamophobia. But some handler you could earn top remarks, you could get to Agenda tuned for those. If you live your life as a good Muslim, and you tried to battle Islamophobia to bring awareness to the palace, whatever cause and final point, you can't choose all the causes, it's too much. You can't choose all the causes. Every one of you along with your rituals, along with your sadhaka and charity the organization's along with that every one of you should choose at least one if not more social and political causes. Whatever, whatever you know, you like and we thank Allah

has created us with this diversity. Some people they want to get involved in issues maybe I'm not gonna be at the forefront. I mean, animal rights in Islam. Okay, well, like good for them. Somebody should be talking about it. Right? Good for them. People want to talk about green, the green movement. You all know the green movement, right? Okay. Okay. Doesn't Islam tell us to conserve energy, conserve what lets people do that. And hamdulillah maybe it's not my passion, but we thank Allah He has given different people different passions. So choose some issue, whether it's Palestine, whether it's Islamophobia, choose the issues that you really have a passion for, and that

are affecting you, and then do something beyond just living mundane lives and do something for the community. And as I said, we thank Allah, Allah will judge us not based upon our actual results, but based upon our efforts. May Allah subhana wa Tada. Guide us to the straight path may Allah subhanho wa Taala cause each and every one of us to be keys that unlock the doors of good and not make us keys that unlock doors of evil May Allah subhanho wa Taala give us Baraka and blessings in our time and our efforts. May Allah subhanho wa Taala blessed us with wisdom to act properly and to act wisely and to act intelligently. May Allah subhanaw taala causes us to live as Muslims and to die as

mortal sins and to be resurrected with the prophets and the martyrs and then they've been in this kingdom that you hadn't saw that in what has to know like are a few of which is Akuma la halen was Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.

So the first question is Allah is does the Quran say don't take Jews and Christians as your earlier? How would you define seeking help from people of different beliefs?

Before I begin, are you all hungry?

I'm hungry too.

So the faster we finish these questions, the faster we'll get to food inshallah. So, the question was, Allah says in the Quran, don't take your hood and authority as Olia and this ayah is very easily misunderstood by many simple minded Muslims who just take a verse and don't go to

tafsir or even some extremist Muslims who don't have the knowledge of extrapolating the seed of the Quran, Allah says don't take them as Oh Leah what is oh Leah? And what is prohibited? Our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam when he migrated from Mecca to Medina, who was his guide that he hired? Was he a Muslim? Was he a Sahabi? No, he was an idol worshipper. He was an idol worship or pagan? Whom he hired as a guide to guide him from Mecca to Medina. Do you think our processing was taking him as an owner? I have an entire lecture you can find it on YouTube. It is called the legacy of a castle. The legacy of a castle, google it on YouTube. And it is all about one non Muslim pagan by

the name of Muslim even at home the Prophet system highly praised would regularly take advantage of and help from who the process of them took help from multiple times. Do you think istockphoto a lot of the processing was disobeying the Quran? Think about it. You're going to take a versatile interpretation and ignore the life of the process of them. Ignore the Sahaba ignore what our classic would not comment on it. What does it mean don't take them as Olia it means do not trust those people against the Muslims. So if there are people that are against the Muslims, and you take them as protectors, they will not protect you against Muslims if there's an internal issue, but amongst

the Jews, amongst the Christians amongst the agnostics amongst the atheists, amongst the Buddhists, amongst even the pagans, you will find individuals that stand for values that are human in nature, in our case, democracy and freedom, right? They want the freedom to be who you are. It is not against the Quran and Sunnah to take help from them against other non Muslims who don't want you to be Muslim. Because that is what we are doing. Right? We are finding the positives against the Aboriginals. This is what we are doing. And this is exactly what the process that I'm did. We are not getting a person who doesn't believe in Allah and His messenger to help us against other

Muslims. No, we are not doing that. And when we say against other Muslims, again, there's a caveat to that against other Muslims because he's he or she has a Muslim simple question. Brothers and sisters.

What do you call the police when we dial 911? What do you call 999? Right? Okay, suppose May Allah protect me and you suppose you see a burglar robbing your house? terrorizing you, stealing from you he enters your house with a gun or something? May Allah protect me on you, and he's a Muslim?

Are you going to call 999? Or not?

Are you going to think about this? I say, Oh, istockphoto law, I cannot call 999 because a gaffer will come against a Muslim.

If you're not that, so this is I'm asking you a question. Because I want you to think about this. When you call 999. And you call a coffee.

You are not calling a coffee because of his goofer against a Muslim because of Islam. You're calling a policeman to protect you from a criminal who happens to be a Muslim.

And Islam does not rely how simplistic Do you think Islam is gonna tell you that you cannot call 999? Because the intruder is a Muslim? Who cares if he's a Muslim or Kapha? Right now, he's a criminal. And you need to protect your family. This is that so how can you take this verse and say, Oh, we cannot invite a non Muslim politician who's sympathetic for us to Allah, you would not have any problems calling 999 to protect your business, to protect your assets to protect your house. And yet when it comes to protecting the oma because they happen to believe in values that are humanistic that our freedom and whatnot, all of a sudden this verse comes into a misunderstanding. No, my dear

brothers and sisters, there's nothing wrong with getting help from fair minded non Muslims against bigoted non Muslims. That is what I'm asking you to do. And Allah knows best. The other question, you want to just do you have another microphone?

Okay, the next question is some scholars argue that voting in Islam is a form of shoot. However, in order to build our community as Muslims and raise awareness of our values and practices, we must be active participants, therefore is voting in Islam allowed. I do not know of a single reputable scholar who says that voting is shook. The people who say this are self taught book clerics who have studied a few books and they are now self professed scholars. I'm being as blunt as possible because I'm tired of beating around the bush here. Even ultra conservative odema Rama do not say that voting is shirk, or corporate. How can it be? Because the system is there, my dear brothers and sisters

again, this era of the process of is the best

Example. The Muslims are the senior. The Muslim is about the senior, the aurash sent delegates to get them back. The delegates went to the joshy. And Naja. She said, I need to at least hear them. Let me hear why they're here. So he called them. The Joshua is not a Muslim. His system of government is a system of government. He calls them and as you all know, john, for them to be thought of is the one who goes and he argues in the court of Najafi in front of Najafi, and he explains who they are, and he asked for permission to remain. So he uses their system to defend the rights of the Muslims. Correct? Does he not do that? Right? Did the Sahaba argue amongst themselves?

No, we shouldn't go to the joshy. Because going to the joshy is confidential. The Sahaba were more broad minded than many of the people who claim to follow them in our times. The Sahaba understood these realities far better than us. The question never came to their mind. Are they worshiping other than a law? Are they are they deifying the joshy This is the system it's in place. Our Prophet system argued with the leaders of the arise directly he negotiated with them directly. This is our negotiation. No one is saying that these laws are become like the laws of Allah subhana wa Tada. These laws are how we run our lives. This is politics. It's not morality, supposed and the way I say

explain this to christian fundamentalists is very simple. And we have also Muslim fundamentalist amongst those who don't understand same thing is that if in America, abortion is legal, but you know, Christians and most Muslims as well, what do they say about what do we say about abortion, that with conditions is not allowed, right, these christian fundamentalists who say that abortion is not allowed there in a dichotomy, that their government allows it, but their religion does not allow it correct? Right? There is this dichotomy here. They understand that the government's legalizing is not allowed or God's legalizing and they are fighting against it within the confines of the law.

Right? So we also understand the government legalizing something or in legalizing something has nothing to do with a machete. It's not a machete. How are you legitimizing other than the idea of a law when you want to bring about freedoms for the Muslims to worship a law? Honestly, people who say this, and I know there are groups that are these minority fringe movements, that talk a lot but have very little action in society. And that's the reality. No mainstream scholar, no mainstream scholar in the world says that the mere act of voting is Cofer and should, you are not associating partners with a lot when you go and you are you are trying to secure your freedoms. So do not listen to self

talk to them or listen to those who are reputable and who are qualified. There was a video that was done by many of England, over 15 people, this was last campaign and I saw it myself, Mashallah great video, people all coming to go out and vote, go out and vote, people from all stripes, they will ban these selfies and they are these, you know, Sufi is all stripes of LMR. But they're all coming out. This is the mainstream moment. Don't stick to fringe unknown stick to the bulk of the oma and Alhamdulillah there is no actual theological controversy.

The question is, do we have to wear the face veil? Do you think it helps or hinders the cause of Muslims in the West? Do we have to have a physical border or barrier between men and women in these types of programs, etc, etc.

Wearing of the Fayetteville is something that our classical scholars have debated from the very beginning. And I have a position it has gotten me into a lot of trouble. But this is the position that I hold to. And it is that we have to differentiate between a person who comes asking my legal opinion in the Islamic law and the person who comes asking my advice as a diary. As a person who was active in the in the West, my legal position for the fifth wise, I don't think wearing the niqab is watching. I don't think it is watch you. I'm opposed to those who say that it has no part of Islam, because it does have a part of Islam, and there are mazahub that said it is watching so don't mock

it, don't ridicule it. It is a part of our heritage and tradition and our prophets are some clearly mentioned it so it's there from the very beginning. So do not mock it Do not oppose it. If a sister comes to me wearing the niqab, it is my duty in this country to defend her legal rights to wear the niqab. No one should dictate upon her that she cannot wear the niqab. It is simply unethical and immoral. It goes against the liberal framework of this very land. I mean, let me be very honest and vulgar here. If it is allowed for a woman to go without wearing her shirt in public, then we'll lucky how who gives any care to them if they're going to stop

A woman from wearing niqab what type of immorality is this? that they can do that? And yet our sisters cannot do that. So when it comes to legality, I will be a defender of the niqab in the courts in the public sphere in the media. However, privately if a sister comes and says, Sure, do you advise me to wear the niqab in England or in America? Do you think it is better for the overall dollar? In my humble opinion, and this is just an opinion, and I am a human being and I could be right or wrong. In my humble opinion, I do not think it is the wisest battle to fight. And I say this basically to the Muslim sister, but in public, amongst the media, we say it's none of your

business. If she decides to wear it, that is her business. It's not yours to dictate upon her. But if she comes to me in private, and she wants my personal opinion, then I say in my humble opinion, I don't think this is the wisest, having said that. I think it is healthy, that some Muslim women are wearing the niqab. Why, because it is a tradition of Islam. It's not something that is foreign. And we want people to show the diversity of Islam. And we want some sisters to demonstrate it is allowed. And it is something that the government is not going to ban because we do worry if they ban the niqab, the next will be the hijab, the next will be this and that. So yes, for the broader oma,

it is better that some segment of our sisters is firm on this issue and that are good for them. If a sister comes to me personally, with my opinion, I will say, given the dynamics of the situation, I would not encourage you personally as a chef to you, but it can public in the media and the politicians and whatnot, I will say it's none of your business, and that is her business, and you don't need to interfere with what she wants to do. Does that answer the question? multifaceted, wait in sha Allah. As for the issue of having barriers, the process of did not have barriers? And I think it is, many times we make Islam stricter than the process of himself. Many times we bring about

issues that No, they didn't happen and in the society that we're living in, I do not personally, this is my personal opinion. Again, I could be right or wrong. I do not think it is wise or healthy, to have physical barriers. When we have our own conferences and this type of segregation, I believe the best. And again, I'll be very frank here. The best is to have an organic, organic segregation, where sisters who want to sit together should sit together, families want to sit together shoes fit together, brothers who sit together, I do not believe that, you know, non Muslims who just sit next to each other on the bus or on on the tube or whatnot. I don't think that is also Islamic. But at

the same time, I don't think that we should have a physical barrier between the two genders. Because we are creating a false dichotomy that doesn't exist in society, these same people that are insisting on the barrier when they go in the underground to or they're going to put a barrier between them and the person next to them. Especially on rush hour, the holder of huzzah. lavilla I don't know how you guys do it will like it.

Right? So where did the barrier go then? on campus when you go and you sit in class? Are you going to monitor who's sitting next to you when you will use stand up if a non Muharram of the opposite gender comes? No you're not going to not that it is allowed. But this is creating a double standard. And I think it is problematic to go to an extreme and the religion of Islam does not say to have a physical barrier between men and women the process of did not have it the early Sahaba did not have it an organic separation where as I said families sit together single sisters that together single brothers together obviously I am at the end of the day, somewhat of a conservative on the liberal

side if that makes sense. And I don't think that that is frankly who I am because I'm not fully a conservative I'm definitely not a liberal I'm pushing the conservative side to become a little bit more liberal but that's basically the for lack of a better term. So my point is that I think for example with this we have in this in this auditorium is great and in other places in the automotive classes that we teach for example, we have one organic separation where sisters on one side brothers on another I think this was good This or that this is something that is acceptable and Allah knows best How can we better understand Allah and Bara and the current climate This is an advanced

theological question. I'm currently writing something about this inshallah Tada. But the best way to understand this doctrine is to study the Sierra is to study the CEO of the processor, as you all should know, shall I finished 101 episodes of the Sierra May Allah xojo Blissett and accepted from me and in this in this series, I always concentrated on the interaction of the process that I'm with the community with the outside with the non Muslims. So look at the Sierra and you will find this strict understanding of what that Allah and Bara that comes from one region of the world is an exaggerated misunderstanding. Simple example. Some groups say we're not allowed to love non Muslims

we have to stop for a lot. This is their version they say we have to hate the kuffaar This is literally what they preach and will not hate this is so ludicrous. A simple reading of the Quran and Sunnah will show

This is patently false. Our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam in his uncle Abu Talib.

Allah affirms in the Koran, that he loved him a process and loved him in Nicoletta demon debita. You have hope for

our process and was depressed that's why it's called the year of sadness there you have sorrow because who died in it Khadija and butadiene. So the year is called the year of sorrow. He didn't lovable thought it you're going to say that he did not demonstrate the suffering alone without and Baba because he loved his uncle. Allah says in the Quran, it is allowed for a Muslim man to marry a Christian lady or a Jewish lady with conditions but isn't it allowed in the Quran? Now, this husband is not going to love his wife.

No marriage is going to last without love being romantic here, but this is the reality. Okay? No marriage is going to last without love. Allah is allowing a Muslim man with conditions not the time now to get into those conditions to marry a Christian lady. He starts a family with her he lives 1020 3040 years with her. He's not gonna love her. Think about it. Your brothers and sisters when you quote these these ridiculous fatawa from Rhoda that maybe they have an understanding, but that's not the mainstream understanding. What do you mean, Muslims have to hate the kafar? Do you hate everybody you see around? You know, Islam doesn't teach you such doctrines. You hate those who hate

the process? Yes. Agreed. No question about that. You hate those who are opposed to you being a Muslim? Yes, of course. You insult my mother, you think I'm gonna love you? No problem there, you will hate him back. I have the right. If you have the right to insult. I have the right to hate you back hate nothing physical. I hate you back. I'm not gonna love you like that. But the average non Muslim, especially the ones who want to help you. Or you have a physical relationship with them converts, they're not going to love their mother and father. Seriously. I mean, so think about these doctrines and realize that this whole notion of water and Bara, the understanding from one

geographic region needs to be rethought. Even if you have been taught it. I don't agree with this. And yes, there is a doctrine of water and bottle, but it is not as simplistic as it is portrayed in some pamphlets and whatnot. The final question Alhamdulillah.

Should we have sympathy for the people who killed the cartoonists in France? After all, they were sincere? Were they not? Well, firstly, we don't know their sincerity. Let me not talk about their sincerity, sincerity. You don't know what their motives were? You do not know. I do not know. I will not talk about their sincerity negatively, but you should not talk about it positively. You don't know. And then only Allah knows. Secondly, so I said in my talk that within a spectrum of permissibility, whatever people do, there should be some good in it. I clearly said within the spectrum of permissibility. So whether you should vote, labour or conservative or with another

independent, you have something like that

Lib Dems, right? Whether you should vote, this is a spectrum of permissibility. Okay, this is now suppose there was a party that was outright against Muslims? Theoretically, of course, because they don't exist in England, right? You don't have any such person being sarcastic? suppose somebody said, Okay, I want to join that party. Now, of course, I mean, it's not to the level of this cartoonists will say, Okay, this is foolish, this is utterly foolish, you're gonna give them money, you're gonna support them when their agenda is anti Islam. So within a spectrum of acceptability, then let everybody do what they're doing, and you do what you want to do. It's better to be

productive than to be reactive, and, and critical. But what these people have done, and I am very explicit here, I don't mince my words, they have damaged our religion, and the honor of our profits are seldom a million times more than what those cartoonists could have ever done. And simple reality. That magazine used to have a circulation of 40,000 people. That's nothing in France, it was a small magazine, not very well known, because of these people, more than 14 million people in the world have seen those cartoons. Look at how foolish This is. Forget the fact of whether it was technically head on. And by the way, it is my clear opinion. It was completely out on clear opinion

that you do not enforce the law in your own hands. You don't become judge, jury, executioner in an Islamic State. If something like this happened, you would go to the system, you would go to the judge, imagine the chaos that would happen if every Muslim became judge, jury executioner in an ideal Islamic State, you would be prosecuted and criminalized for becoming judge, jury and executioner. This isn't an Islamic State. How much more so when the country is not an Islamic country when the laws are not the laws of Islam? Who do you think you are to enforce the laws of Islam on them when you are allowed to live there with a contract in a treaty like the Muslims of

Abyssinia? They never aim to overthrow nature.

at US government, they never aim to reestablish Islamic law as minority citizens who have been given permission to live in that land with conditions. And those conditions are you obey the law, that is a simple condition. And frankly, it is a sensible and logical condition from the paradigm of the nation state, you expect every citizen to obey the law. If you don't like it, don't be a citizen. It's not logical for you to be a citizen of a country, go choose another country. If you don't like it, go choose another country. But it's not likely you cannot agree to be a citizen and have that nationality and then want to deceive them. No, it doesn't work that way. You're not allowed to

deceive in your contracts, you're not allowed to be treacherous in your contract. Allah clearly says in the Quran, if they're treacherous against you, then don't be treacherous against them. Allah will take care of them, we are not allowed to betray our trusts.

And again, this is not the time to go into more detail. But I do not know of any reputable alum, again, that has said the I mean, you have the Oh, I see the Robert an alum of the European Council of illuma, the American associated Muslim jurists, the fact the move to celebrate everybody from Egypt, everybody is saying, look, the cartoonists were wrong, they provoked, they shouldn't have done that. But the people who killed as well, they also did wrong, and they have damaged our religion. More than the cartoonists have done. All you need to do is look at the pros and cons way the good and the evil. And if we had just ignored this cartoon, and responded with academic

excellence, how so we write op eds. In the newspapers, we demonstrate the double standards, we say, this is not a freedom of speech, you're not going to publish anti black issues, you're not going to use the N word in America, they don't use the N word at all. And we don't want them to, you're not going to get anti semitic cartoons. We talked about the fact that two years ago, the same magazine fired an author for writing a piece they deemed anti semitic. So you fight fire with intelligent fire, you don't fight fire with ridiculous fire that's going to make the fire even worse. You fight fire with something that will actually kill it. And we could have done that. And we are doing that

many of us are engaged in doing that, that should point out these double standards. This is not freedom of speech. This is simply demeaning, a minority that has already getaways This is a type of legalized racism. And if they continue to do it, we don't have any any right other than legal. And we we can go to the law we can try to enforce but we don't have any right to enforce our physical understanding of the Shetty are on them. And this the damage that has come up is much worse. So bottom line, I didn't say any sincerity, Allah will accept it. I said within the spectrum of permissibility. And as I said, I do not know of a single reputable alum, and again, by reputable

alum, I mean somebody who has trained in the tradition who has established credentials globally. There are plenty of them out in the world. There is jurists in Europe, there's the European Council, the fatwa, these are reputable gamma, I might not agree with every factor, but I give them the legitimacy they have the right to give to the people who have allowed these deeds. And all of the clerics of ISIS and Al Qaeda and whatnot. All of them without exception, are self taught buka files they read a book or do they caught a hadith or two, and they become Messiah from their own people. I'm being as blunt as possible. Their own crowd considers them scholars, and they consider every

alum of the world to be a sellout. They are the epitome of account. That's exactly what a cult is. I am telling you go and benefit from people outside my understanding of Islam insha Allah This is tolerance and open mindedness, I am telling you I have an understanding others have other understanding, inshallah will help the community together. Any person who tells you don't listen to anybody outside of me and my friends, and why not? Something is wrong. Something is wrong. This narrow mind is in bigotry. And again, I speak as somebody who is well aware of these groups has spoken about them many times. They don't have a single alum, who was recognized as an alum before

911, who then joined their movements from bilad and tuza. Wahidi to everybody. And I'm being blunt here. Have they become a llama? Or were they doctors, engineers, rich businessmen who decided to do certain things on their own. Think about it. None of these people had the classical training. I'm not talking about their intention. Nobody come and say I know Allah knows their intention, and Allah will judge them. But I am saying as a fact that nobody can deny none of the people in that camp were reputable trained odema. None of them not a single one. And that is food for thought. Everyone that they turn to, for a fatwa are self taught, ie they became famous in their own ranks because of their

own fatawa that supported these issues. It's a vicious cycle. It's a loop. They're famous because they need somebody to say it. So they became it's a vicious loop. Simple question. Where are the roadmap of the world

I agree not every item is sincere. Yes, there are real Another pro government, but many are damaged or tortured by their own governments and they didn't support this movement. Okay, So bottom line? No, I don't have any sympathy for the people who did this act. I don't talk about their faith and the law will judge them. But me in this world I say, doing these types of evil deeds of Mayhem and murder of terrorism and chaos we have seen in the last 15 years, every single act of this nature has caused million times more harm than any potential good that you think might have come out of it. That is an undeniable reality if you're not going to listen to the Quran and Sunnah. If you're not

going to listen to the odema if you're not going to listen to the actual books that fit then please For God's sake, for Allah sake, look at the reality look at history. Look at what these movements have done of making all of our lives more difficult and please get rid of these movements don't support them, don't sympathize with them Alon is messenger need you but not to do stupid and ridiculous things. And may Allah azzawajal Guide us to the truth and to benefit the oma Docomo located on what's going on while they come on.