Yasir Qadhi – Reflections on Current Political Events – Ask Shaykh YQ EP. 217

			One
		

			hour to sell me Kobe, deca Reja learn No Hey lay him first.
		

			Recovery.
		

			Sit on wanting her to law he will bought a couch what hamdulillah we began by praising Allah
subhanho wa Taala that one and the unique It is He alone that we worship, and it is his blessing
that we seek. He is the Lord of the oppressed. And he answers the day of the week. As to what
follows today is our usual q&a. And I'm going to begin with a very difficult and awkward question.
Over the last two weeks, I have been inundated with questions about my thoughts regarding the
political developments in a particular Muslim land, where Western forces have withdrawn and the
government that aspires to rule by the city or has taken over. Now initially, I have declined to
		

			comment. But the the incessant messages and emails and Facebook, messages in Twitter comments and
YouTube comments even all asking me to comment and wanting to know my thoughts, I feel compelled to
answer. However, I will answer generically without mentioning the country by name for reasons that
should be obvious and also to extrapolate more benefits or that insha Allah to other the generic
thoughts that I share will be useful, not just for this particular scenario, you know, this lecture
is being given in August of 2021. Allah knows how many more, you know years, people will be
listening to the lectures. And I want to comment in a way that other incidents, maybe somebody is
		

			living, listening 10 years, 20 years, maybe even 50 years from now, they didn't show low to either.
The comments that I give today will reflect generic benefits for multiple scenarios, and not just
specifically to this one particular incident that has happened in this particular month of this
particular year. So I asked Allah for tofield and hedaya. It's a very, very awkward question. And
that is why I hesitated to respond. But inshallah Tada, I hope there is clear and Bala can benefit
in what I'm about to say. And if what I say is correct, it is from Allah. And if it is incorrect,
then it is from myself and the whisperings of shade on my response will center on five points. The
		

			first point, I must begin by mentioning that I find it very problematic. I'm frankly very troubled
by a very common sentiment amongst our religious folk, that our scholarship that our odema that our
clergy are the best political commentators. One of the main points that I have continued to drive
home in all of my q&a, is that people should ask the specialists have their own speciality and that
those who are specialized should stick to their own areas of expertise. And I would venture that one
of our one of our problems, not the biggest problem, not a major problem, but it is definitely a
problem is that large segments of the religious community and by religious I mean those that are
		

			overall practicing and praying and Masjid going and enthused about, you know, the science is a
religion that we thank Allah for them, and for that, you know, sentiment, but those that are so
religiously inclined, because they're so attracted to their odema and scholars, and they listen to
them, and they look up to them is that they feel that their scholars are qualified on all fronts,
and in matters that are beyond the areas of expertise. And I say this, frankly, as somebody who has
trained amongst through the AMA and is considered by some to beat them, even though I'm always going
to say I'm a student of knowledge and miners should know knowledge. But as somebody who's been with
		

			earlimart, for 25 years of my life was associated with them, who you know, considers them to be
still my mentors and peers and I look up to them and and with our community. I say this loudly and
clearly that specialists in Islamic sciences are specialists in Islamic sciences. They are not
specialists in fields outside of those sciences. We are all human beings, all of us, no matter how
much we've studied, we remain human. And that means we have our strengths. And we have our
weaknesses. We have our areas of expertise, we have our areas of ignorance, just because one of us
has studied the seal, or Sierra or fic or al Qaeda or any signs of Islam. It doesn't mean that that
		

			person is more qualified to speak about psychiatry or investment you know, or even political
analysts, then people that are trained in those areas.
		

			In fact, let me state that generally speaking, not just clergy, religious folks overall, are not the
best suited for political office and political institutions simply because religion by its nature is
ideal and idealistic. religious folks are idealists. They're accustomed to piety and purity in their
leaders and they should be. Politics is not idealism. Politics is compromised politics is the least
of many evil solutions. Politics is dirty business, and therefore the world of ill and rula map. And
the world of running countries and politicians has historically never been the same other than the
time of the Hooda, Russia Dune. And that's why we idealize those 3040 years of our entire oma
		

			otherwise, throughout the oma years and Abbas's throughout all of the rise and fall of all of these
dynasties. politicians were one group of people and erla. And clergy were another group. And it is
rare to find a merging between those two, let politicians be politicians, let the roadmap be roadmap
and let the tensions between them be clear, because religion should be idealistic. And politics is
far from that. In fact, dare I say that when roadmap and scholars get involved in politics, usually
it's not a very nice business, you know, look at a land where Pharaohs once roamed and where perhaps
many Pharaohs still roam, we would much rather that the scholarship of that country had not gotten
		

			involved and justified what these mini Pharaohs do. So my my first point this is all part of the
first point is that I want to explicitly reiterate what our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam
advised us 14 centuries ago in the Hadith narrated by our mother I showed the Allahu Allah that she
said Amara narrow sort of like it's a little awful it he was sending them a New Zealand na semana
Zilla home, that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam commanded us that we put people in their
appropriate places. We put people in their appropriate places, ask doctors about medicine, ask them
about the religion of Islam and the Quran and the Sunnah, asked psychiatrists about human
		

			psychiatry, but when you ask a person who's not a specialist of something outside of his area of
speciality, then take it with a grain of salt. Now, I begin with this first point, and for sure one
of you is already going to comment or think Hold on a sec. You're saying that, are you saying, Are
you saying that people of knowledge should never talk about politics? And I respond? No, I didn't
say that. I simply said that, to equate the scholarship of a scholar with his views on politics is
the problem. So brutally honest, and very frank, when I speak in shallow data about the Koran about
too soon, about the COO of the professors, and when I give you my personal opinion about a fatwa, I
		

			genuinely believe that that's coming from years of research, it means something, it's not coming out
of thin air. This is I asked Allah xojo for tofield confer hidin for your class. But when any
scholar gives a verdict or an opinion, it is based upon years of research is based upon background
information that takes a long time to acquire, it's not coming out of thin air. However, when I
speak about the situation in this land, or that land, when I talk about the political parties in
hearing there, it's not coming from the same area of expertise. And therefore, if I were to say
something about politics, or about current affairs, or about situations that are dealing with
		

			particular incidents of a modern time, then what I am saying is not as authoritative, if you like,
as what I might say about the Koran and about the sooner. So am I allowed to speak about other
issues? Of course, I am just like you're allowed. And you know, politics is an area where everybody
talks, I'm allowed to talk, you're allowed to talk, I'm allowed to hold opinions, you're allowed to
hold opinions. However, what I'm saying is that when a religious person, when a person of your
intent, when a person of knowledge says something about a political analysis, please do not take it
with the same level of authority that you would take that person's fetch work or from you will take
		

			it as you will take any other opinion from any other person. It's not any more binding. So
understand what I'm saying here. I will continue to talk about politics because I like politics. I
read a lot and I, I talk a lot about these issues. However, my analysis is not any much greater or
better than anybody else's, just because I've studied the Quran and the Sunnah. Now, I've said this
to one of the brothers who came to me in our community, and I kind of you know, made this point and
he goes, Okay, you know, I agree with all of this point, you know, but in the end of the day, Am I
not allowed to know your opinion. I mean, I'm
		

			curious. Okay, I agree with your caveats. I agree with your disclaimers that it's not affect what
you're giving about that land, you're not giving me a verdict about that group and that party, but
the brother said to me, this is what he said to me that, you know, I consider you to be more well
read than myself. And I respect your analysis overall. So I just want to know your opinion. Like, I
want to know the opinion of anybody who might have read more than me. And that's a valid point. So
as long as that caveat is understood that an opinion of a scholar remains an opinion, it's not
binding, it's not a fatwa. It's not a verdict. It's not, it's it doesn't have, it doesn't have the
		

			authority over him, just because an alum says it about a political issue. And if you disagree, or if
you reject no big deal, it's just an opinion. So as long as you have that caveat on understanding,
then I don't have any problems, you know, sharing with you some generic points or comments that I
have. And that's gonna then allow me to move on to the next point out of our five points. So the
second point, still speaking about overall politics and talking about politics, when it comes to
political analysis when it comes to taking sides when it comes to holding a position about a current
affair about which party which bill to support about which tactic or what not.
		

			This is not an issue, generally speaking of how Rahman hella it's not an issue of how can barter
generally speaking, in reality, it's hardly ever a black and white issue. In the time of the Sahaba,
when the Civil War broke out between the last one and the last one between Wow, it'll be a lot worse
than the last one. When those civil wars broke out. You had people of piety in all of those camps,
piety, transcends politics, piety, transcends political divisions, and it is very, very likely that
on any given set stance, or any current event, you will find people arguing and bickering and
disagreeing, and the both of them are people have agenda and will end up in gender. In this world,
		

			they might even go to war as the Sahaba did. May Allah have mercy on all of them. They disagreements
might be extreme, but they are sincere in their own views. And they think they're doing this for the
betterment of the oma as long as their new year is for Allah subhanho wa Taala. And they genuinely
think that this tactic or this group will be better for the deen of Allah subhanho wa Taala. If
that's their worldview, even if they're mistaken, in their analysis, they are forgiven in the eyes
of Allah subhanho wa Taala. And so just because somebody supports one side against another in any
modern political scenario of any Muslim land of any country, as long as the both of them want to
		

			support the deen of Allah. Now, again, I'm not talking about By the way, if one group says I don't
want to support to run his messenger with a bit out with a Bella, if one group says that one person
says that I don't want the laws of Allah and I don't want the shadow of Allah, that's clear cut that
this might potentially be Cofer or even be, Cofer. But we're not talking about somebody about that
worse. That was we're talking about somebody who says, No, no, this particular group, this
particular group, it's not manifesting the shadow of this particular group. It's not applying the
shadow properly. If somebody feels that rejecting a group of humans who claim to be applying the
		

			shittier is not the same as rejecting the Sharia if you believe that that group is not applying this
video, but I hope my my point is clear here is that when it comes to political fdlr fat, and I say
this as somebody who has very clear stances in many Muslim lands in cases that have happened, where
I believe that, you know, one side is definitely wrong, and the other side is definitely right. And
yet I am aware that there are scholars whom I love, and I know are sincere on the other side, and
they support a particular regime or a particular government or a particular rulership. And I am not,
you know, generally I'm not somebody who's ever been a blind supporter, or flagbearer, of any of
		

			these regimes or kingdoms. And I find myself always the the posing camp, but I'm not blind to the
reality that there are pious rude ama, who genuinely think that the lesser of two evils is to be
with the supporting, you know, regime or government or whatnot. And they think that that will be
better for the oma as long as their Nia is for the oma and as long as their loyalties to Allah and
His messenger and not to a courtesy or to an individual. And you can tell by the way, by the
language and by the stances, and by their track record, it's very clear, there are those people who
will go with the flow and go with the money and go with the power and those people have sold
		

			themselves for a measly
		

			Price, but there are those who might support the currency but not because of the currency. They
support it because they think the corsi corsi, I mean, the current political establishment, they
think that that is better for the oma, that is an interpretation. And that's exactly what happened
in the time of the civil wars between the Sahaba. Why were pious people on all sides, because pious
people thought this is best, no, this is best, no, this is best. And each one thought that one is
best, and Allah as origin will judge them based upon their intention. So my second point here is
that we have to be very, very careful about considering our opponents to be evil people, as long as
		

			those opponents love Allah and His messenger and want the religion of Allah to benefit. I'm not
talking about somebody who says, I don't want the deen of Allah, that person is not somebody I'm
even discussing in this regard. That is almost a rejection. Or it might even be a rejection. If
somebody literally says I don't want the religion of Allah, that's really a rejection of Allah
subhana wa, tada directly. But if somebody says, I'm just giving an example, if somebody says, I
love Allah, His Messenger, of course, I want to benefit the deen. But this group that you support, I
think they will harm the dean, I think they're going to be detrimental to their religion. That's
		

			their analysis, you might disagree. But you have to understand that the person who disagrees with
you is not an evil person necessarily, or a Catholic or a baller moved out there or whatnot. So
politics is a tricky business. And politics is not black and white, and supporting political
parties, and supporting current events and disagreeing about the best analyses of this, these events
should not lead to us considering the people on the other side to be necessarily evil people, as
long as as as I said, their faith remains to want to benefit the religion, and their loyalties
remain to Allah and His messenger. The only person whom if you oppose him, you are instantaneously
		

			evil in a coffered is the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu. It is the only person even amongst the
Sahaba, there were those who opposed it to the loved one, there were those who were on the other
side of it, there'll be a loved one, how did that make them evil? There were people on the side of
while we're on the side of it on the side of it sure. All of them praying to God loving Elon is
messenger. There were scholars on all of these sites. That was their analysis, if that happened
during the lifetime of the Sahaba. Do you think in these gray areas where there are politicians of
all stripes on all sides, that the issue is crystal clear, not at all. And if anybody thinks this,
		

			then frankly, their understanding of reality and human history and of politics is not very profound
and deep along with that. So the second point, I want to, you know, mention here is that, even if
somebody analyzes, even if somebody does, you know, pontificate about these, and is very passionate,
allow room for disagreement, and understand that your opponent in a political view, is not
necessarily an evil or a bad person. The third point that I want to bring up about these difficult
issues out of the five points that I'm going to mention is that we also have to be aware that our
knowledge and our assessment of the situation is as good and as credible as our sources. And our
		

			sources are only as good as what we ourselves want to trust. And what we want to trust is generally
speaking, going to ally with and be in sync with our own preconceived biases. What do I mean by
this? I mean by this, all of us have to be aware of what we call confirmation bias. Look it up if
you don't know what it is. And that is that you selectively take bits of information that you
already want to believe, and that reinforces your pre existing belief. And this especially applies
to those of us who are speaking about issues from 5000 miles away on the other side of the world.
And it applies to those of us that are not ethnically from a particular region. We don't have family
		

			and friends over there, we've never lived over there, we should humble ourselves to our limited
scope of knowledge. All of us are speaking from somewhat a position of luxury, a distant view, a
bird's eye view, not a first hand view. We don't know who to trust about each news item. Each one of
us including myself has our echo chambers, because we hear what our friends and colleagues tell to
us and our friends and colleagues generally sympathize with us in the first place. That's why
they're our friends and colleagues. Therefore, if you're with the far right, and your Facebook is
full of far right, and your colleagues are all far right, don't be surprised when you get one skewed
		

			viman image of that land or of any land and if you are a person who is sympathetic to the the regime
where the people in charge and you want to get the good news about them, then don't
		

			be surprised when your friends and your Facebook colleagues and whatnot are forwarding you the
snippets that talk about the positives. And perhaps the truth lies in between those two. My point
being that my third point is that we should not be so so arrogant as to presume that we actually
know what is going on when we are so far away. And we are not connected directly to the
circumstances, who really knows what is going on. Those who want to have a negative view will find
plenty of quotes and stories that reinforce that image. And those who want to get a positive view
will also find plenty to get that positive view. So be vigilant against confirmation bias, and
		

			understand that our knowledge of the situation is only as good as our sources. And our sources are
generally speaking, sources that we already are inclined towards. So there's somewhat of an echo
chamber being created in all of our little bubbles and lives. And it is a little bit healthy, to be
honest to step into other echo chambers and see what is going on. Because sometimes the truth
transcends any one little echo chamber bubble. So be careful because your analysis of the situation
is going to be based upon the facts that you believe. And the facts that you believe is going to be
based upon the sources that you trust. And the sources that you trust is going to be based upon your
		

			own preconceived biases. And so very likely, your analysis is confirming your preconceived biases.
It's a vicious loop and cycle, just be aware of this. And sometimes it is healthy, to listen to
other perspectives just to understand where they're coming from. And just to think about maybe some
aspects of your own understanding, you might be flawed. And in the end of the day, it's very
difficult to really transcend our own human biases. So these are my first three points that I have.
Now we get to another very interesting point. And you realize, by the way, that's why I said, my
answer will be generic, most of you wanted to specific happened bolted in right and wrong, and I'm
		

			trying to explain to you, the world doesn't work that way. political analysis doesn't work that way.
It's far more difficult than what we think. And perhaps in these words, in shallow data, there's
some food for thought and rumination and contemplation, which is really what I want all of us to get
to. Now, this leads me to perhaps my longest point over here.
		

			And that is that what people have been asking me is about
		

			this group's understanding of human rights and the Sharia and women's rights and what's going to
happen. And this is where it was troubling for me to see how easy it was to absorb a set of
questions, and a set of problems that are not coming from within our own paradigm. I advise all of
us to not get caught up and become a pawn in a game that was not invented by us. And it is not being
played by us. And in reality, it is being played against us. Our Prophet salallahu it who was
sending him said, Leia could come in your own animal or nurse. And I said, and I said to when I said
when I said was that to what I can walk in one foot second in us and a nurse and toys, you know,
		

			when I saw Oh, fella, who in the reported and tell me the our Profit System said, I'll translate to
lingue I need the meaning of it. Don't be a blind fool. Don't be like a leaf in the wind. If the
people do good, he'll say I follow the people. If they do good, he follows them. If they do bad, he
follows them. No, strengthen yourselves, fortify yourselves, anchor yourselves. If the people do
good, and they speak good, they'll be with them. But if the people don't speak and don't do good,
then don't do wrong. My point is, a lot of our brothers and sisters are getting caught up in
questions and concerns that are not emanating from people of piety and integrity, but rather
		

			emanating from people who want to play a very, very vicious game. What do I mean by this, I'm going
to have to go into a little bit of a detail and tangent here. We are being told by the media and by
our politicians and by many Western countries, that there is a great concern for the people of that
country for the human rights of that country for the women of that country. Now, before I move on,
on a personal level, I will tell you honestly, I too, am concerned about some of these things about
what views this particular group might have of the shittier and if their policies might potentially
backfire. We all know that if you're too harsh on the people, that if you're too strict on the
		

			people and not they're not ready for that strictness, they might end up rejecting and rebelling and
in rejecting you
		

			You are who the biller some might end up rejecting aspects of Allah shadia. Even mistruths. rhodiola
famously remarked, speak to the people at their level. Otherwise, you might end up causing them to
reject Allah and His messenger. If this is mere speech, what do you think about policies and
politics, if you're too strict with the people, and they're not ready for it, you might cause them
to reject what they should not reject because of your foolishness. So at some level, I am actually
concerned myself about some of these questions. And those in charge of any Muslim land need to be
wise and gradual, even those that want to implement the Sharia. And start with the larger issues.
		

			The most important issue is civic security. The most important issue is safety. The most important
issue is the security of all of the people there they need to feel free and safe. And then after
that, they need to have houses and food and shelter. This is far more important than implementing
the tertiary issues of modesty and of dress code, or even the gray areas of what type of
entertainment is allowed, and not so yes, I as well have some concerns, however, and listen to me
carefully, dear Muslims, my concerns, as a Muslim, do not blind me to the reality of the sheer
hypocrisy of this incessant chatter about human rights and women's rights by a group that cares
		

			nothing about humans rights and women's rights, the same entities, our own countries of American
Europe, our own countries of NATO, have invaded and bombed and destroyed this country for almost two
decades, the United States of America, my country, the one that we live in, has dropped. And I
calculate it today. And it looked up today at 1638 bombs on this particular country, a country that
is one of the most underdeveloped in the world where people are living, as if almost a living 500
years ago, a country that has no military, no Navy, it doesn't have any air force, almost 100,000
bombs were dropped in the last 20 years, a country that was invaded, and the invading troops were
		

			directly involved in the massacres of 10s of 1000s of people. We don't even know how many people
were killed because the same country that is claiming, championing human rights, that same country
has absolutely no idea how many people were killed. You know why? Because they announced as a public
policy, that they wouldn't even count the number of civilian deaths that their own bombs caused,
because they couldn't care. You're talking to me about human rights. You didn't even care about the
humanity of the people whom you bombed, where was human rights back then the same country that is
talking about women's rights and wondering about women's rights, we now know for a fact that they
		

			supported. They supported the types of warlords and the types of mafias that were well known for
engaging in child soldiers and in child rapes and in something called Bacha bazi. well known in that
part of the world, this same country that is talking about women's rights, publicly supported those
mafias and warlords that were rampantly guilty of that type of abuse, what happened to women's
rights at that point in time, so really, it is distressing to see so many of our righteous brothers
and sisters not understand the tactic, the screen tactic, it is a tactic of the boy who cried wolf
to bring attention to a false reality, or one can say it is an intentional red herring tactic. Do
		

			you know what a red herring tactic it is? It is a tactic to draw attention away from what you should
be paying attention to, to something you should not be paying attention to. That's what a red
herring is that you bring it into an argument you bring it into a debate so that you draw your
attention away from something that you should do something that you shouldn't it is an intentional
and deceitful tactic and frankly, it is a unique tactic that I was the one who mastered and invented
this tactic perhaps even because when musoke comes to fit Alan and Moosa walks into the rounds
palace right, will fit out and says to Moosa Frauen, says to Moosa, who are you to come back to me
		

			after we raised you in our own palace, and you committed the murder that you did what file to file a
tickler defaulter, you don't remember the punch that most I gave to the, to the typically the punch
that he gave him that typically died? And so Sharon says to Moosa, that, who are you to come to us
we were the ones who raised you and nurtured you along neurotic afina what Eden were they
		

			Feed me normally Cassini wafaa altre phyletic Latif alto one terminal caffine. And how did moose
respond? fit our own is telling Moosa what an irony that owl is telling Moosa You are a cafard will
contaminate caffeine You are a rejecter, an ungrateful person. And Moosa responds indeed file to
hate and you're right I did this mistake, why am I not balling and I made a mistake and I fled from
you because I was fearful of you. Then Allah azzawajal brought me back to you. And then he said,
What till Can you remember to enter mu her Allah and Bani Israel? You are considering it a favor
that you raised me after you enslave the entire Israelites, 100,000 people, you killed them,
		

			massacred them, enslave them. And then you say Oh, but I'm worried about you. I took care of you.
Don't give me your you know, half baked.
		

			confessions are your claims of wanting to protect your care. You don't care about humanity. You
don't care about the children of Israel, you took care of me but you bombed and killed while you put
on didn't bomb but he massacred 10s of 1000s of people. And this is the reality of our own lands,
this RV this country that we are talking about? I don't want to go too deep right now. And not
because I'm worried of anything but because of time. But what many people don't understand they do
have to summarize a little bit brothers and sisters, because
		

			some people they are not understanding why these questions are being raised if human rights and
women's rights and what not in the book and all that they don't understand the reality of why the
series of questions is being drugged out and constantly paraded in the media. What is happening to
your brothers and sisters is that a vicious game has been played, it's already been played. So
already done. A vicious game has been played the game of war. And it was the game that was done. Not
for religion, not for human rights, not for women's rights, not to free women from the boycott, not
even for democracy, not even for Western civilization. All of this is not correct. No. This game was
		

			played because of money. Simple as that. greed for money. In a nutshell, very briefly so that we
understand in a nutshell, our country of America raises almost $3.5 trillion in taxes annually. Do
you how much a trillion is do you know on which a trillion is? a trillion is a million millions, a
trillion is a million millions. It's just words, our minds go blank, we can't even envision how much
is a trillion. There is no trillionaire yet on earth. And this government raises $3.5 trillion
		

			every single year in taxes. Now, that is a huge pile of money. People are greedy for that money.
politicians who control they can't just dig into that money put into their pockets that would be
against that would be blatant stealing. They can't do that. So what do they do? greedy politicians
figure out a way how to tap in to that massive treasure chest of $3.5 trillion. What do they do? One
of the tactics that has worked very well for the last few decades, is to declare war on a country.
War is profitable. For some groups of people. It comes at a cost. Some people die. Lots of people
die. But some people become very, very wealthy. War is profitable for 1000s of politicians and 1000s
		

			of companies. Why? Because when you go to war, what happens? The government has to purchase weapons,
it has to purchase bedding and material and cloth it has to purchase food, it has to purchase
everything. So the government has to enact treaties are not treated sorry. The government has to
make purchases from private corporations that are producing for the government. And these
corporations are going to supply the military and to supply the contractors in the countries that
are being invaded. And of course, they're going to overcharge this as well known. The contractors
have no oversight, it's going to overcharge. So well known there was an article about some of these
		

			examples of overcharging for example, the screw might cost 20 cents and the contractor will charge
the government $20 for a nail, you know a nail you will get a new local sir, for 20 cents, the
contractor will charge $20 for that particular nail. What's going to happen, the government writes
checks for millions of dollars to these corporations and lots of people become very wealthy. When
they become wealthy, they will reward the politicians who made them wealthy as well. The politicians
have direct contact with the corporations. So the politicians become wealthy directly by making
those corporations wealthy. And perhaps the most obvious and blatant example was our form.
		

			Mr. Vice President Cheney himself, who was the chairman and CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Do
you know our Vice President Dick Cheney had a severance package from how the Burton that was close
to $36,000,000.30 $6 million. He was awarded when he went into the government service. And then what
happened? He declared war on Iraq. And Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract in which only
Halliburton had the right to bid for that contract. One man bid one, show it bid and it got it and
no questions asked. Do you not see what is going on here? The politician gets rich, and the company
he works for gets rich? And where does that money come from, from my taxes and your taxes. So the
		

			fact of the matter is, those who vote for war, don't care about human rights. They don't care about
the burqa. They don't care about democracy, they don't even care about American lives or Iraqi lives
or have long lives. They care about money. And the tactic to go to war is to access that money and
put it into their pockets and the pockets of their constituents. But see, there's one problem. It's
a big problem, that money has to be justified to the people who gave it. That's me and you, that's
the taxpayers, how do you justify the people paying that money, because in the end of the day, if
you don't justify, then the people who gave that money will vote you out of office, because you're
		

			not spending that money for my children's school. You're not spending that money for health care,
healthcare, still not free. You're not spending that money for inner cities. We have so many
problems in this country. And we are spending trillions of dollars in war $6 trillion were spent on
in our false invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 20 years. $6 trillion. Can you imagine if
that money were to be spent over here, this is where the narrative is created, the story is drawn,
and the lie is sold. One of the greatest political thinkers of our time is Noam Chomsky. He calls
this manufactured consent, you manufacture consent, people think that they are giving you consent,
		

			but it is not real consent. What is the narrative or the lie that is created, you see the guy
working in the factory, who is paying his taxes, working nine to five, whose son is going to join
the army, you can't tell the factory worker that you're going to war to make his boss rich while he
remains where he is because the middle class doesn't gain at all. It's only the rich that gains the
CEOs is the business owners. You can't tell the factory worker that he's going to send his kid to
die in a war so that his boss gets rich. That's not the lie. You can sell the factory worker. So
what do you do? You tell that honest, hardworking worker, that you're the good guy, you're a nice
		

			person, you're a patriot. And those guys over there, they speak a different language. They dress
different than you. They're the bad guys, they're gonna kill you. They're all terrorists, you defame
them, you dehumanize them, you make the religion look evil, you make fun of their practices, their
cultures, their holy book, their Shetty and even their prophets a lot. Why do you say that? You
frightened your own people by creating a monster out of those people, a bogeyman, and when they're
frightened, they're like, what am I going to do? What am I going to do? You come along as the
politician as the government, you say, Don't worry, I shall protect you. The same person who created
		

			the myth of the enemy, and made you into an innocent, you know, Patriot, that same person will say,
Don't worry, I shall defend you. Just allow me to do with your taxes as I please, your son shall go.
And he shall fight not on behalf of the CEOs for his country, he's not fighting for his country is
fighting for the rich, he shall fight for his country, when the sun comes back in the casket, he
shall be given false honors and a medal and a flag and what not and the the innocent worker will
feel proud my son died for my country, he didn't die for the country. Those people that were killed
in those lands would never have hurt or harmed you they don't even know of your existence. But the
		

			profit has gone, you know, the profits, meaning the money has gone to the CEOs. So you create this
narrative. What is the narrative? Those guys are evil, they mistreat their women. They're barbaric,
Sharia is bad. They're going to be head. They're going to put the burqa, we have to save those
women, you create this myth. They don't care about human rights, what human rights are they caring
about when their own bombs have killed 100,000 people? What women's rights? Are they caring about
when their own troops have plundered and raped? So please spare me this drama of pretending to care
about humans rights and women's rights. But you see, unfortunately, us Muslims, were also absorbing
		

			the same media. And so many of us fall prey to the same lies as well. And many of us start thinking
the same way. Oh, those poor people and human rights and whatnot. And as I said in the beginning of
this point,
		

			At some level, I too am concerned about some of these groups and how they're going to do that. But
my concern is stemming from a very, very different paradigm, I'm not going to be a pawn in a game
that is based on hedonistic capitalistic Neo con principles. And even if I have my concerns, they're
coming from a faith based to another faith based and not because of a capitalist agenda that wishes
to paint a picture that is very different than reality. So I hope that this point is clear with your
brothers and sisters, that before you jump on this bandwagon of questioning, questioning,
questioning, question the questions, ask yourself, where are these questions coming from? Ask
		

			yourself why are we being spoon fed these questions at this point in time by a very group that has
gone against the principles that they claimed to be defending? What human rights Can you be talking
about, when you're the ones that have ravaged this country for the last 20 years, you didn't care
about the people or the cultures? Or the religion or the women? Who are you to come and tell us
about human rights and women's rights? So if you want to ask these questions asked from your
paradigm, and don't just jump onto the bandwagon, because this is the essence of a red herring. This
is the essence of distracting from the for bigger and more important issues so that we ignore the
		

			war crimes we ignore the above arrives, we ignore the Guantanamo's, which is still open as we speak
to this day, we ignore all of these had we concentrate on maybe even the mistakes I'm not defending
I have not yet defended, you know, some mistakes that might have occurred. But what are those
mistakes in comparison to the mistakes of the other side is not even apples and oranges, there is no
way you can compete with 100,000 false debts or 100,000. At least civilians. Again, we don't even
know how many civilians died. Because our government refused to collect statistics on civilians
dying, they refused. They didn't allow any agency to do that he was not allowed to collect
		

			statistics, if any party is doing that they're doing that on their own without any governmental
support. But we know that around as I said, 85,000 bombs were dropped. And we know the number of
soldiers killed from our site and contractors kill from our side, which is already in the 10s of
1000s. So if this is our numbers, then the Avalon population and civilians would be in the hundreds
of 1000s in the very, very least. So because of this point number four is very simple. Don't jump on
the bandwagon and be more cautious about parroting lines that are not coming from a script based
upon the genuine care of the people of that country. And this leads me to my fifth point. And by the
		

			way, I still haven't responded explicitly, because of the reasons I have mentioned. But still
generically, let me conclude with this fifth point.
		

			Any mainstream group that is affiliated with the religion should have some loyalties and be more
beloved to us religiously, than a group that doesn't affiliate with the religion, I say mainstream
to dissociate myself from terrorist groups and from fringe groups. Overall, any pie artistic
mainstream group, we make draw for the people of piety, that they are successful, and we hope the
best for them. But we also point out that piety alone is not enough to rule and that no matter how
much dakwah you have, that doesn't substitute knowledge of governance, and that no matter how much
Quran you know, in and of itself, that is not going to help you or your knowledge of Nigeria is not
		

			going to help you and how to run a country. And the Sahaba understood this, by the way, you know,
when the Sahaba conquered, Goodson and the Byzantine lands when they conquered the region of the
visiting Empire and they increase their their their lands, you know, quadruple or fivefold, for the
first generation, they did not change the bureaucratic infrastructure of the Byzantine lands. They
did not change anything. In fact, the language of government remained ancient Greek, the language of
government or Latin, it remained, they did not change because they understood that they can't just
come in and change the entire system. They allow the infrastructure to remain, and they became the
		

			rulers of that infrastructure. And for an entire generation. The infrastructure remained Byzantium
Byzantine, until Abdul Malik Cuban but one one generation later about the Medicare but once they had
a climatized once they understood what's going on, then in the pinnacle of the omiya power of
dramatic a minimal one comes and he Arab assizes the government and he makes the language within the
government Arabic and the the the bureaus and the registrar's everything was then adopted by a
		

			The Muslim community after an entire generation, even the Sahaba, and they were infinitely more
pious than any current movement or group understood that when it came to the minutiae of governance
of these Byzantine lands, let the people do it in their own way, and they were the ones overseeing
it. So, as we point this out, as we point this out, and again, you know, without mentioning, you
know, any countries any country's name, we wish, you know, the people of all Muslim lands, that they
live under a sensible rule that allows them to follow the laws of Allah subhana wa Taala, while
protecting the lives and livelihoods of the people living there, we want to see every land flourish,
		

			and especially Muslim lands, we want to see them flourish while balancing the obligations of their
faith with the difficulties of their time. And we never wish any evil or destruction for righteous
people, by siding with those who despise our faith. A flawed and mistaken believer is far more
beloved to us than someone who rejects belief and Allah and His messenger.
		

			but merely pointing out that piety is not the same as governance doesn't mean that we're siding with
the other side. And if there's any skepticism or concern, then it is stemming from a real and
authentic concern that the people of that region love Allah and His messenger and are not turned
away by perhaps the overzealousness of one group of people who are who are at a different level of
demand in Tacoma, and not yet, perhaps ready, the population is not yet ready to reach that level of
emotion, and Dhaka. So even if we bring up certain elements of concern, it comes from a genuine love
for the Muslims of that region and for the religion of Islam, and not the false concern that is
		

			brainwashed into some of us about the alleged rights of some members of that society. And so these
are some generic thoughts, and will they be Bukit hrtf mo, and that inshallah, in this generic talk,
there is benefit from more than just this one particular scenario. So to conclude, this rather
lengthy discussion, and I hope each other there was some benefit here, to reiterate my five points.
Point number one,
		

			don't assume that religious clergy are more qualified to give political analyses than others. And if
they do so, take it as if it is their personal opinion, and not as if it's coming from their years
of training and expertise. My analysis of politics is not the same level as when I tell you a
verdict that I believe in about the Quran and the Sunnah about filk, about Hadith about tafsir, that
is coming from an area of specialization and expertise. And as for politics, I have the right to
hold it, you have the right to hold it. But my view is no more binding on you and rejecting my view,
you know, the second point that I have disagreeing with the political analysis of an alum or of a
		

			person doesn't make you a bad person. But that's my second point. There's, politics is a very gray
area. And if you ask 10 people about a political issue and analysis, they'll have 10 different
opinions, and maybe all 10 of them are people of gender. So disagreeing about politics, as long as
your heart is with a London's messenger, and your loyalties are to the oma, it doesn't necessarily
make you a bad person to point number three I brought up is that understand your own position of
privilege and your own bias of knowledge when you speak about issues far, far away, and understand
that your analysis and my analysis is going to be affected by our perception of what is happening
		

			over there. And the fourth point was a very long discussion of the reality of the dynamics of why
some questions are being raised. And some concerns were being asked by a group of people who don't
have those issues and concerns actually in their hearts. So we need to be careful by becoming blind
fools just jumping on and asking the same questions. Our concerns, even if they are somewhat
similar, are not coming from the same paradigm. They're not coming from the same game, we have a
totally different agenda and a totally different view. And so even if we have certain concerns of
this nature, it shouldn't be done by siding with group of people who don't really have those
		

			concerns. And the final point is that, as Muslims, we should want good for all Muslim people and
really for the entire world. And we would love to see a modern, viable practical manifestation of
the Sharia in any and all Muslim lands. And while piety is a very, very, very important factor, it
is not the only factor that brings about political success. And yet still we pray for the success of
all people of piety and taqwa and we ask Allah subhana wa tada to bless this oma with head and
Baraka and peace and security and
		

			allow each and every one of us to be a role model for all of those around us. inshallah with this we
come to the end of today's weather lengthy q&a. And until next time Zakho Aloha, Santa Monica
Rahmatullahi wa barakato
		

			Amish
		

			he can