Yasir Qadhi – Should Hijab Be Enforced Q&A
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of protecting privacy and the need for individuals to prioritize their own lives and values in publicity and social interaction. They emphasize the need for individuals to prioritize their own lives and values in publicity and social interaction, as well as the history of the political system and the importance of avoiding morality and realities in political settings. They also touch on the topic of dressing up and the need for political savvy to protect people's privacy.
AI: Summary ©
Woman sent an
email he saw the how
many Mina most Nene
assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh Alhamdulillah wa Salatu was Salam ala Mala Nebia by the AMA by mashallah it's been a bit of a hiatus I've never break up my apologies for that but inshallah Allah we're getting back in the swing of things. And we will be resuming our regular episodes in series and today we have our regular ask why Q and once again remember feel free to email me your questions ask why Q at Epic Masjid dot orgy once again, ask why Q one word, no spaces, no dots at Epic Masjid one word, dot orgy and insha Allah data from the questions that come, I choose the ones that I think are the most pertinent for the larger audience, please do realize I cannot respond to
individual emails. So in the last two weeks, I have been inundated with dozens of emails with one particular focus or theme. And so I will inshallah with to either answer that question today, I'm going to take one particular question, but it is responding to a much broader issue. And that is regarding a recent political event, which we're not going to comment on the politics, but it has certain Islamic issues to discuss as well, regarding the enforcement of the hijab in a particular country. And apparently, it causes the death of somebody and whatnot. Now, in this q&a, we're not interested in political specific political country, so we're not going to mention any name. Neither
am I a political commentator. But let me give you one question that I got from Sister Maha, a high school student in Toronto, who writes that again, out of her long email that is it true that our religion forces the women to wear the hijab? Can an Islamic government have this right? Shouldn't worship be done freely? And then she goes on and on. And she says, Since I wear hijab, in my school, all of my friends and teachers are asking me about and then she mentions what happened specifically in that country. And I don't know what to say. So can you share your thoughts? And what do I say to my colleagues and my teachers in this regard? And so I'm going to use sister Ma has question even
though it was much broader than this. And even though our sister was in high school, I will treat your sister mom as an adult, and I will answer your question in a way that inshallah Tada it's a little bit detailed, it is multifaceted. But I feel that in order to do justice, I need to mention a number of points. So in response to this question, basically, can or should morality be enforced in an Islamic land? Or what does the political Islamic structure look like? Let me take a step back and respond to this question in nine specific points, nine points, each one of which is worthy of much longer lecture, but the point is to, to summarize, and then I want you to do your own research and
all of these nine points. Point number one. While I do understand why this question is in everybody's mind in the news, and people are emailing me, I want to remind myself and all of you all of those listeners, that in the end of the day, we should be careful to get involved in issues and matters that are beyond our responsibility. All too often, we become passionate and very spend a lot of time talking about some hypothetical theoretical issue for us in particular, what should happen over there? How should Islamic lands are what should or how about this are hypothetical that and in the end of the day, what we are responsible for is what we ourselves can do. Therefore, I am not
responsible for something happening 5000 miles away and to discuss in heated anger, what should or should not happen is of hardly any tangible value in the end of the date. Let us prioritize that which is pragmatic and practical. Let us prioritize our own lives and lifestyles. And let us ask ourselves, how should I be a better person, a better worshipper of Allah subhanaw taala, a better believer, a better human being in today's world? And let us ask ourselves, What does Allah want me to do? What is the best way for me to live my life? And once we know the answer to that question, let us try our best to live up to those ideals in case we fall short, we ask Allah's forgiveness and
make up our shortcomings via other good deeds. And I say this because all too often we concentrate too much and over emphasize discussions that are
are not of benefit to us. And Allah azza wa jal says and reminds us in the Quran, you are Latina, I'm no ILA come and full circle are you who believe you are responsible for yourselves, I command you to take care of yourselves liable. Roco Mombasa is data data, if another person goes astray, that person is going astray is not going to cause you harm as long as you are consistent and good and rightly guided in your own lives. So, let every person take care of himself or herself and let us prioritize bettering ourselves what is most important what I am responsible for in the eyes of Allah is myself not what a regime does not what we go back and forth with conversations. And I say
this because, okay, I understand you need to have a conversation with your colleagues and friends, or teachers have one and then move on. And don't let this issue bother you don't let this issue become the most important issue of you know, your life when in the end of the day, no matter what position you hold, no matter what position your friends hold, it's not going to cause any benefit in the grand scale of things. And perhaps Perhaps, in these types of discussions, people become so involved that they forget what they are required to do in and substituted for something that they're not required to do, we're not required to comment on things 5000 miles away, we're not required to
have a stand about something that is not within our purview, and domain. So first point here, look at the broad picture, and understand that you need to prioritize your life and your own manners and your own worship and your own lifestyle. And that is what Allah will ask you about. But I do understand this is a very, you know, it's a perturbing question to some of you, I do understand that you have to give a response. Because in the end of the day, you are probably one of the few hijab is in your school. And so you become somewhat of a representative even though you weren't asked to it's not fair, I understand. And so you're reaching out to me, you're wanting some response and answer.
So I'll try to give you a little bit. But like I said, point number one, don't get lost in the details. Don't lose the forest for the trees, as they say in the end of the day, you're responsible for yourself. Point number two, take another step back in a different direction.
This is a very deep topic, point number two, I don't have time to go into all of it. But I just want to sprinkle a little bit of understanding in all of us, let us discuss the goals of politics, political theory, what is the purpose of having a civil ordered society? What is the purpose of a government? What is the purpose of law of order? Well, that question has plagued mankind since the very beginning of writing, Plato discusses in his Republic, the greatest you know, theologians and political scientists continued to debate what is the function of law, what is the purpose of a government and law and order. And I have to be a little bit simplistic here. But our western notions
of law of politics, by and large, the modern world that we find ourselves in the modern world, you have been born into my dear younger sister Maha our western systems of government, have, by and large, put it upon themselves to be secular. They claim that they're not going to preach morality or theology. And you need to understand that is a system of government, a philosophy of government, a paradigm of government, not every philosophy and system follows that model. And you must also understand, dear sister Maha that the reason why Western governments are the way they are is because of the trajectory of their own history, you need to understand that these modern notions of
secularism and of humanism, they have been forced upon these own lands, because they could not live at peace with one another when the church ruled over them. The Middle Ages, what they called the Middle Ages, and the dark ages resulted in mayhem and chaos, there was extreme persecution, there were religious civil wars, there was strife, there was stifling of science, a myriad and host of problems. Because of this, the West was forced to discard morality and theology and develop a system of laws that claimed to be secular in nature, and that ideally, ideally, according to their their philosophy, the law should not at all take sides on a religious issue or on a moral issue. Now,
again, whether that should be done or not, I'm being just factual here. That is how Western law views itself. You need to understand the Islamic system is not coming from this paradigm. The Islamic system of governance is coming from a very different paradigm. It is meant to nurture the soul, it is meant to protect one spirituality, it is meant to make you a better morally upright person and also to protect you physically as well. Hence, Islamic political theory is radically different and historically has a very different trajectory to the Western notion
strands of political theory. And I have to be a little bit simplistic one can say that by and large in Muslim lands, the notion of law, being divorced from spirituality from from morality from ethics was simply inconceivable. And it also did not have any of the negative repercussions that western lands palpably saw demonstrably saw. In other words, for a millennia, for over 1000 years, it is true to say that Muslim lands flourished. And I'm not saying they didn't have their own set of problems. But without a doubt, the set of problems that existed in medieval Europe under the church, the the the clash between science and the humanities, the notion that any type of theological
dissent could not be tolerated and must be persecuted. This is something that by and large, did not exist in Muslim lands. And our system, therefore, did not need to undergo the radical change that the Western system did, because the problems that it faced were totally different, and not related to the problems that western systems faced. So what happened to our system again, I'm being very simplistic here. But our system was destroyed by the advent of colonization, and the eventual abolishment of the caliphate more than 100 years ago, and the OMA then broke up into these nation states that were arbitrarily assigned by the colonizers. And now we are struggling for the last 100
years, every single one of these lands is struggling with how best to implement the laws of the Sharia, if even they're interested in implementing the laws of the Sharia in the modern nation state point is point number two, when a person in our society born and raised in these lands, or your teacher, or your professor, or your colleagues, or your friends asked about the reality of Islamic law, they're comparing apples and oranges. And unless you take a step back and try to explain to them the trajectories of Western political science, and Islamic political science, frankly, it will be completely incomprehensible the aims and goals hence, the methodology and procedure of Islamic
political science of how an Islamic land should be governed is radically different than those of Western secular laws. And so we get to the more fundamental question, which of the two is better? Or maybe you know, which of the two has you know, and that's a discussion again, it's far beyond just one issue of the headscarf and enforcing morality, it is what is the goal of a political system? What is the end result that is that is aspire to in a set of laws? And what should a government an ideal government aspire to? Should it also help its citizens become better people become morally upright people? Or should it not care about this? And so on, so forth? So this is point number two,
to understand that? Well, in order to to explain Islam as position or political Islam position on this, you need to understand what is the goal of an Islamic society? What is the goal of an Islamic institution, and Islamic laws versus that of the world and the last that we find ourselves in point number three.
While we do say that, by and large, these western lands we live in, and our citizens have that they have, by and large, maintained a level of secularism of circularity that they are, they don't really get involved in aspects of theology anymore, you know, no Supreme Court case is going to discuss the nature of Jesus Christ and what not, they don't dictate, you know, internal beliefs about about God, to claim that western lands are totally secular, and morally neutral, is simply false. In other words, government, by its nature cannot be neutral in all aspects, even in western lands that claim to be free, and that claim to be morally neutral. And that claim to not support one, you know,
theological belief over another, perhaps when it comes to abstract theology of God and the angels. That might be true. But when it comes to theology that impacts us in this world, when it comes to morality that we live our lives based upon, well, then, by and large, these governments do need to take a stand, and they cannot live up to this illusion of complete neutrality. Now, again, much can be said here. But let me give you some examples of this. I mean, recently, we went over the we just have are coming out of the COVID crisis Alhamdulillah Alhamdulillah. Now, again, I'm not going to say what's right or wrong in this regard, about the government policies of what they did and the
vaccines that they did. I'm not talking about, you know, the pros and cons of this. I'm simply pointing out that the government decided that I mean, at least most Western governments decided that their peoples must be vaccinated.
And I myself got vaccinated, we all got vaccinated, I'm not talking about whether it's pro incarnate, positive or negative. The government then decided that those people who are preaching against the vaccine and saying that the vaccines are harmful and dangerous, they should be stopped and banned. And so the government, at least in many Western countries, including America, actually stopped and banned people's speech from telling others to not take the vaccine, or from saying that the vaccine is harmful or whatnot, YouTube videos were taken out, and people were banned. And in some countries, even fines and then one or two cases, people were jailed for simply expressing a
belief about something that really, by and large, you would expect to there should be freedom for but no, over here, the government said that your beliefs are going to be harmful to society. You know, again, I'm not taking sides here, I'm simply pointing out that there is no neutrality in the end of the day. So another issue that clearly the government has taken a stand in all Western governments is sexuality and the definition of marriage and the issue of same * and LGBT and the issue of trans rights and what not, and the state has taken a stand and Supreme Court rulings have given edicts that are enforceable. And therefore, if a person has a certain understanding of
morality, of sexuality, of marriage of LGBT, well, then there are laws that are in place that will not allow you to act upon those beliefs, they will force people of a certain understanding of this issue to abandon that belief or to not become public about it. And therefore the government has taken a stand about a moral issue. The same can be said of abortion. Once again, there are religious beliefs, ethical beliefs here is abortion murder, is abortion legal? Is abortion, a manifestation of a woman's right to preserve herself? Or is abortion hurting an innocent baby? Well, again, this is a very deep, ethical, philosophical, spiritual question. It does have a lot to do with theology,
because people who believe in God, they're going to ask when does this entity when does this fetus become a human being? That's a theological question, an ethical question, a moral question, guess what the government has gotten involved, and the government has decided, and the government has enforced, and it has criminalized. And as a result, one finds protests in these lands against the government's version of morality. Hence, when you see those lands far away, and you see the protests against their governments, and then you think, oh, that's only in those back where I'm talking about, you know, people outside of our faith, they say, it's only those backward lands, well, guess
what? The same concept and the same notions. And the same battle is taking place here in our lands, except the causes are different, instead of wearing the hijab, it's over morality, or it's over sexuality, or it's over abortion. So this struggle between what the government thinks is best, and what the people think is morally best. It is not unique to the Muslim world, it is not unique to one land or one regime, it is universal. And in every land and every society, in every civilization, you're going to find the same types of struggles taking place, and those who believe in a higher power, and those who believe in ethics and morality coming from the Creator, well, then
collectively, they should all have a recourse to what should be done. And those who don't believe this, well, then they're going to have to battle it amongst themselves, as we see taking place around the globe. So point number three, what I'm trying to say is, we need to rid ourselves of the notion that western lands truly are secular. And there are plenty of modern thinkers who are talking about this Tala Tala Assad is a very good name you can read, while halacha is another one you can read Saba Muhammad, these are all people that are showing that a reg, a modern nation state that claims to be secular cannot possibly be fully secular in the end of the day, they have their own
equivalents of religion, and they are enforcing their own code of morality is just that they don't call it religion, or they don't send the name of God and they don't. But in reality, there is still that struggle across the globe. So we need to understand it's nothing unique in some Middle Eastern country far, far away. This is universal, that is point number three, point number four building off of this last point, building off of this last point, and that is that
there is no such thing as neutrality. There is no such thing as morally neutral and every government must make certain decisions with regards to how its people live building off from this point. Let us understand that. Even in the West, there are laws against indecency and there are moral prescriptions about what one can and should and must wear. Of course, society enforces in it
sway. And we're not talking about that. In other words, there are social norms. And if you don't follow social norms, you shall be socially ostracized. Everybody knows this, right? You don't go to a fancy business meeting where you're wearing your pajamas, right? Nobody's gonna say, Oh, this is my right, I'm gonna give a presentation in front of a massive audience, you know, wearing the clothes, I sleep and their social norms. We're not talking about that. I'm talking about legal norms, legally, in every single state in this country of America. Legally, I noticed you're from Canada, but I know in Canada as well, they have certain laws, but I'm more we're aware of the laws
of my own country, in every single state, there are laws against indecency. And if you show certain parts of the body, and if you show certain organs of your body, you shall be fined. And if you continue to do so you shall go to jail. Now, the issue therefore, is not over. Can the state control what you can or cannot show? The issue is, how much can you show, so some Middle Eastern countries might have a lot more. And here in America, it is a lot less, but the notion of the state telling you a minimal amount that you can wear that is pretty much universal. And even in those lands where there is no law against *, there are some countries in Europe and whatnot, where you're not
going to go to jail or whatnot, there is still laws against obscenity, practicing, you know, conjugal relationships with somebody in public, that will get you into jail pretty much anywhere in the world. Nobody's going to say this is freedom. There are laws against indecency in every single country on Earth. So it's not a question of should the government have the right, it's a question of how much right does the government have? And so it's just a question of, you know how much it is here in Texas, it's a certain amount, and in the Middle East, it is another amount. But both Texas and the Middle East, they have laws about what a woman and a man can and cannot show. And so we have
to understand this point here, that there is no such thing as ultimate freedom to address as you please to do as you please to say as you please. Again, this whole notion of freedom of speech, these very lands that talk about freedom of speech, look at what's happened, what happens to political dissidents, people like Snowden, for example, and whatnot, where if you dare say something that exposes the corruptness of the government, well, then you shall be sent to jail, and you will be banned and your rights will be taken away. So what I'm asking you to think about your sister is to look through the double standards. And to understand that this notion of fetishizing, the hijab
and the headscarf and saying, Oh, they have the right to not wear it, well, then why aren't these same people fighting for the rights of * here in Texas? Why aren't they're fighting for the rights of no man and woman or sorry, every man and woman to wear nothing in every single state in Europe and every single country and city across the world? They're not doing that. So why then should the norms of one land here in America be the norms of the Middle East, it's not a matter of control, it's a matter of how much control and by the way, even how much it varies from time to place, and from state to state, even in this land of America. In the 1920s laws were passed, that
would literally tell women here in America that you have to have, you know, four inches beneath the below the knee covered, for example, when you go to the swimming pool, right, and women were arrested for wearing clothing, that if you look at it now, you think this is so decent. And so you know what is immodest about this, women were arrested in the 1920s, for wearing a bathing suit that covered the entire body. But let the shin part of the you know, beneath beneath the, beneath the knee, the shin part was uncovered. And this was considered obscene back in 1920. And now, if such a woman wears something that much, he's going to be considered to be backward, how come you're
covering so much. So what happens when you do not have a consistent standard is that quite literally, every single time you allow a little bit more skin to be shown, that's going to be the norm. And then a little bit more, that's going to be the norm until finally we see what is happening now. Even in our own lifetimes, we see the percentage of * and the amount of the body that is shown in mainstream television when I was growing up in the 80s, it was radically different. And it was, you know, my parents thought this was obscene back in the 80s. But now if you look at the 80s television shows that are relatively you know, so decent, and you know, so wholesome and so full and
pure, even though my parents generation, they thought oh my god, I look at these jokes and look at these things well, but if you compare 1980s to, you know, 2020 In what not, you see what happens. This is called the floodgate argument. There's an element of truth is if you allow one inch, eventually you're going to allow a mile and this is exactly what has happened. B
by bit more and more * has become mainstream. And we see this in our own Western culture over here. Look at any movie, as I said in the 60s 70s 80s, you know, look at how women's bodies are being objectified. And here we get back to the notion of the goals of Islamic law versus the goals of Western law. Do we really want a woman's body to be displayed in a provocative matter in large billboards? Do we really want all men lusting after women in every magazine, they open it up and they see a woman like this? Is this dignified? Is this appropriate? Well, if you don't pass laws to, you know, bad it again, in a Muslim majority line, what is going to happen? Again, slowly, but
surely, you're going to reveal more and more, and * will become mainstream. And what was for once considered immoral will be the norm. And then they're going to raise the bar and raise the bar and raise the bar until finally, hardly anything will be left. And this is a projectory. All of you can see what is happening. Hence, Islam comes and says, Let's just shut the door from the beginning. Both men and women there should be dressed appropriately. Let's not tinker with this. Because once you start with one thing, and then one inch here, and then another inch, and then because once you go, you know open about this, and once you show one part of the body, that becomes normal, what's
left, it's not going to become more decent, you'll automatically automatically become more and more indecent. And again, I mean, I don't want to get too explicit here and whatnot. But even swimwear that is now common amongst Western cultures, it was considered immoral and immodest, even 3040 years ago, this, the swimwear known as this bikini, as we're all aware of what it is, right? The notion of a woman just wearing that piece, it was illegal in the 40s and 50s. And when this piece was introduced, it was considered to be extremely obscene, and no dignified lady would wear this up until the 70s and 80s was when it became mainstream. So this shows you what happens when you don't
have laws in place, that one thing will lead to another and then will lead to another until finally that which was considered in decent will be considered decent, and therefore what do you have left? So Islamic law actually makes sense that you just shut this door from the get go and say, We're not going to tinker with morality and reality. And we're not going to objectify and sexualize and fetishize the body of a woman or or that of a man because again, realize Islamic law also has mentioned where dignified and decent clothing as well. So this is the fourth point. And that is the realization that there is no such thing as complete freedom to dress as you please, in any land in
the world to do as you please there is no such thing is just a level of how much the government's prescribe and prohibit the fifth point, then you asked me, dear sister that, you know, what then should a Muslim society look like? And should we enforce these types of
moralities?
On people in Muslim lands, and to respond to this, I say that, ideally speaking, ideally speaking, given the fact that Islamic law does aim to protect decency and chastity, that it would make sense that in an Islamic land, where the majority of people are Muslims, and the majority of people want to live righteous and pious lives, that we would have laws that, for example, will not give them access to drugs, they can't just walk into a store and buy alcohol, they can't just have access to *. And yes, indeed, there will also be laws about dress code. So ideally, yes, indeed, this is what an Islamic land would look like. However, under no interpretation of Islamic law, would
a person who you know uncovers their hair, you know, be allowed to be manhandled or beaten up much less tortured or executed? And so we have to differentiate between what is ideally there versus you know, what is going to happen if somebody doesn't do that in again, an ideal land, how an effective Islamic political system would handle such an infraction is something that can be discussed, but there is no question that the Sharia does not allow for manhandling for beating for violence. The Shetty does not allow for stuff for execution or persecution in this manner that the person is going to be killed because of an infraction such as this. So we have to be very clear in this regard. That
yes, ideally, ideally, in a land where people want to live according to the Sharia, there will be such laws in place but the punishment is not going to be anything harsh or severe. Might be a fine might be something of this nature, which is by the way as we said even in this country. If you show what you're not supposed to show, you will be given a citation. The police will come the police will force you to dress up and the police will give you a fine this happens in this land as well. This leads me to my
Six point. And I speak here now to a Muslim audience, especially those who wish to abide by the Sharia. We have to separate the ideal, from the real, we have to separate the utopia from the lived from the pragmatic reality as I keep on saying, and the vast majority of lands in which Muslims live and Muslim governments are in charge again, listen to me carefully. And I'm not saying this is right. I'm simply pointing this out pretty much every single Muslim majority country from the east of North Africa, all the way to the west of Central Asia, and all lands north and south and that entire belt, pretty much the entirety of the OMA, except for one or two countries, does not enforce
the wearing of the headscarf. And I need you to understand this point. I'm not saying it is correct. I'm saying this is how culturally the world has become. And most of the Ulama we look up to and respect from across the Middle East, from across Southeast Asia, the their own lands, and their own governments and their own countries do not enforce the headscarf on women. So let us here in America or Canada, understand that ideal laws are not the same as lived reality. And let us keep our rhetoric in check here because here we are living in a land very different than Muslim majority. And even Muslim majority countries are not having these types of laws enshrined. And I say this not to
say that that makes it valid, but to tell you how reality is. And this is a message especially to those who are very involved in Islamic activism and who think that Utopia will be achieved if a strong government comes into office, immediately they'll implement the Sharia, and it will be all you know, beautiful and hunky dory and Michelle, everything will be fine. Hello, I have a message for all of you. And that message comes from our mother I should know the Allahu anha. Our mother Aisha Radi Allahu anha said that and this is a message to those who I have no doubt love this idea, and I have no doubt they want to see it applied, but sometimes their love and romanticism causes
them to become disconnected from practical steps of how to get to that reality. Our mother Aisha famously remarked, the first revelations of the Quran were about EMA and Allah and the hereafter. So if so, faith grew in the hearts of the Sahaba, when faith grew, then Allah revealed, don't drink, and don't gamble, and don't do Zina. And because Iman was in their hearts. So the Sahaba said, we're not going to drink and we're not going to gamble. And we're not going to do Zina. Aisha herself says, if the first commandment that Allah said were don't drink, the Sahaba themselves would have said, We're never going to go give up drinking. And the sin of drinking is a million times worse
than the sin of not wearing hijab. And our mother, Aisha is talking about the Companions who are a million times better than me and you and our societies and Muslim lands. With the reason I'm saying this is as follows.
Those people who speak about ideal Islamic political science and in a shady government and in or whatnot, please brothers, please floater down to reality, the Muslim majority countries that your ancestors are from the people where your own cousins live amongst the people back home. If that government were to enforce the hijab, upon all of its civilizations and peoples, there will be mass revolt, and perhaps your own extended family will be in that revolt here. You cannot expect people to go from one to 100 overnight, you have to work with them. And frankly, the ultimate goal of the Shediac is not the hijab, that's one of the tertiary issues, the ultimate goal of the Sharia is to
provide safety and security and to bring about a peace and justice in the land. So our sister Maha and others are struggling, what would an ideal land look like? And I say to them, before you get to the ideal land, think of the steps you have to have to get to that ideal reality. So frankly, speaking, hypothetically, if you were to put me in charge of a majority Muslim country tomorrow, right, I can assure you and happily, I would never want to be in charge. May Allah protect me from ever being into politics, but I can assure you, theoretically speaking, the first thing I would do would not be let's make the hijab obligatory, and not because I don't believe in Islamic morality,
but it's because that's not the primary function of a land of Islam. The first
thing, there should be safety, there should be justice, there should be security, that is where you begin with. And then you realize that, hey, if I were to enforce something as small as the hijab relativities, being the hijab is not amongst the major things, it's there, it's important. But hey, murder is far worse, crime is far worse, I had better make sure that I'm concentrating on the bigger things. Now, if I want my society to go to level 100, well, then I had better work to facilitate them going up from one to two to three to four, and slowly, gently pushing them so that they can aim to get to 100, our mother, our Isha told us, You have to build a man, before those laws come, you
cannot expect that society is going to be utopian and perfect, and you establish these laws top down, the society itself is going to reject you. And frankly, look at recent history and look at what has happened, and learn from those mistakes, learn from those mistakes. And please don't misunderstand me, I am fully an advocate of the Sharia. And I believe in the Sharia as being the ultimate and the only legitimate system. But there is a mechanism and a methodology, there is a wisdom, there is a prioritization. And frankly, look at some of the regimes and governments in the world that when they came to power, this became their focus, women's issues and women's hijab and
women's education, and look what has happened in those own countries. And is it really the most conducive to those countries? Again, one can say a lot of things here. But another example comes to mind the, in the entire world, there were only two or three lands where the hijab was mandated. Recently, one of those lands one of the most ultra conservative, you know, very wealthy, you know, country recently, they're going undergoing a radical change and their version of Islam that was the most austere, the most literalist, the most radical one of the most hardcore versions. And the last few years, you know, the government has relaxed all the rules, you know, open dance festivals, and
music, and no more hijab and whatnot. Now, one would think listen to this, one would think, in a land where 4050 years of preaching Islam, and of the clergy being in charge, and of you know, towhee, than the Tao of being preached, one would think that an entire two generations raised upon that version of Islam would be the first to reject all of these changes, and say, No, we're not going to embrace this. On the contrary, these reforms have proven to be so popular, that the person that is enacting them is now the most popular person in charge. And the youth, men and women are loving and embracing this. And we're has all of that to hate and all of the talk and all of that
totally gone out the window. So this clearly shows that mistakes are being made. So here, this point is to the activists, to the preachers to the idealists, and utopias, who really have this romanticized vision of Islam, please learn from history, learn basic human psychology, you cannot go from one to 100. And you cannot force people to be religious in this manner. And if you try to do so, without providing them what they need, well, then you're going to expect some of this backlash that we see over here. And therefore, this point number six here is that even if ideally, the Shetty I would want this to be to be there. Realistically, how does one go about doing that is a separate
issue altogether, and where it will be put in charge of a Muslim land tomorrow. And again, I seek refuge in that, but if I were to be, I would convene a group of Rolla, ma and a group of, you know, activists and whatnot. And we will prioritize this where we begin, and then this and then this, and eventually somewhere on the list would be a public morality, but it would most definitely not be number one or two, it would most definitely not be something that immediately we enact, because the people are not ready and willing, and you're going to cause people listen to me carefully. We see this in those countries. By by enforcing something that is relatively small in the grand scale of
things, you're going to cause people to hate that which is relatively bigger. In other words, you will make people are we the biller, we seek Allah's refuge, maybe even hate aspects of this religion, because you are not going about it in a wise manner. So what is wiser here to cause people to hate the religion because of something relatively small or to work with them and to facilitate an environment and an ambiance? We're slowly but surely, you know, we bring about you know, moderate preachers would bring about an ambience of religiosity that is genuinely admirable. We talk about o'clock we talk about love of Allah and His messenger, we bring about an internal spiritual
flourishing. Before we get to these finer details. This is what I would say, if I were in charge of Elon, but again, thank God I'm not in charge, but my point here is to especially the active
The US and the
EU Topix, you know, dreamers and visionaries out there is that your versions of political Islam, no matter how nice they sound, to enforce those versions, would actually cause so much backlash, that frankly, it would probably be better for you to not enforce than to enforce it overnight. You do it gradually, and you bring the people with you. This is my sixth point, my seventh point out of nine. So we're probably coming to an end my seventh point. And again, all of these are different points that we can discuss more.
Our sister asks about what is in the media, and you know, all these pictures that are being shown of, you know, the freedom of women to wear as they please and whatnot? Well, we have to point out here, the hypocrisy of those lands, who claim to fetishize a woman's choice of clothing, when they themselves do not allow a woman to dress as they choose. Here, we are talking about a Middle Eastern country. And all the media is getting involved with this Middle Eastern country and the freedoms of these women to dress as they please. Well, why is there so much silence about a fellow European country when it refuses to allow Muslim women to dress as they please? Where did all of this anger
go? Where did this fetishization of freedom of choice go? In France, it is not allowed for a woman to cover her body on the beach. She cannot wear full dressing garment by the way, the same garment. Ironically, that was legislated. 100 years ago in France is now banned in France. 100 years ago, you had to cover the entire body to be at the beach in the swimming pool. That was the law. Well, these days, the UK, you're allowed to be totally naked over there. But a Muslim goes and wears her clothes, she will be fine. And eventually she will go to jail. So all of you who are talking about freedom of choice, why are you not irritated with Belgium in advance the niqab? Why are you not
irritated with half a dozen European countries that have banned the burqa? Why is your irritation solely on a Middle Eastern country and the headscarf be fair be universal take on your own fellow Europeans in France, they have fetishize the hijab and the boycott, and they have made a crusade against Muslims wearing it. And they have made a fine of hundreds of euros for a lady who covers her face. Why do you not have the same standard and fight those bands over there? Surely there's something more and we're going to come back to this point. So the seventh point, you point out the hypocrisy. This is not about freedom of choice, really, it's not? If it were, well, then why don't
we apply that freedom of choice across the globe, and to Muslims who want to dress as they choose? They don't do that. So their shows, there's more at stake. We're going to come back to this point number nine, point number eight. Point number eight, these protests that we see about the hijab, we should be a little bit more political savvy.
The fact of the matter is that in all likelihood, actually, we know for a fact, what is being protested in that region is not the hijab. It is the policies of a government. The irony of ironies, many of those people protesting against the hijab, would actually wear their hijab on their own, if they wanted to. It's not about the hijab. It's about protesting against the tyrannical regime and the hijab has become a symbol of the protest. True, I admit, no doubt, I have no doubt there are some people that are so against the hijab, that they do not want to wear it at all. That's okay. That's something they have to answer to, to Allah. I'm not responsible for that. But we have to be a
little bit more political savvy. What is going on in that region to your sister Maha what is going on is not about Islam. It's not about the hijab. It's about what they perceive to be an unjust system of government. And what has happened with this lady, and you know, apparently the torture or the killing or whatnot, it has sparked a revolution, not because of the headscarf, but because of the tyranny of that government. So understand there's a lot more politics about these protests than there is religion. understand there's a lot more about the freedom to live from many other issues, whether it's taxation, whether it's stifling of other things, whether it's disagree with the
government, it's not about the religiosity. It's not about the commandments of Allah and modesty. It is about the tyranny of a particular government. And so do understand your sister that these aren't all of them, you know, Muslim ladies fighting against the hijab. On the contrary, many amongst them, dare I say the default is that these are citizens who are taught
I have a regime, they're tired of a government, and therefore that is up to them, perhaps they shouldn't have chosen this symbol. But again, I'm not one of their nation or whatnot. And I'm not a part of that country. So I don't have really the right to say, You know what not that's between them, which who should the government be what their policies be, but do understand us as outsiders, we should not be so naive as to think that it is just about the hijab. On the contrary, it is more about politics, and it is more about the government than it is about your job. And the final point, we're going to come to the ninth point. And that is, perhaps, to me the most important one, after
all of these theoretical and partially theoretical issues. The ninth point, after all has been said and done. We need to point out the fact that Western media, and our superpower countries pick and choose their battles, in order to suit their own interests. And we need to be politically savvy enough to not jump onto their bandwagon. In other words, do not believe for a second, that our governments and I speak as somebody who's a citizen of this land, I am happy to be an American citizen. But that doesn't mean I agree with all of American policy, I'm thankful for the good, but as a part of who I am, as a Muslim, and as an American, I will preach and speak against the bad do
understand that our governments claim to champion human rights and freedom. But as every political analyst knows, this is a mere claim that has no actual truth to it. Our governments pick and choose the battles that suit their pockets and their policies and their interest. And so this whole debacle about the hijab in this country has become a useful tool because they do not like the regime of that country. Now, I'm not saying I like the regime either. But again, I refuse to be a pawn in a vicious, cynical battle taking place, way beyond me, a social political, a geopolitical battle taking place between various powers. And they have chosen this battle, they have chosen this token
of the hijab and the protests taking place. They have chosen it, because it fits their narrative, not because they have a genuine interest in the freedom of women, not because they genuinely care about the people living in that region, whatever your position might be about the hijab, whatever your position might be about that government do understand, there is a reason why this government and this media is showcasing that entire debacle and is mainstreaming it and is spinning its own narrative. Sometimes a cause might be partially legit. But those who support it have illegitimate goals, they jump on to the cause, not because of the cause in and of itself, but because they have a
far more perverted or an evil cause. And this partial cause fits the agenda that they have. And this is exactly what is happening with this particular country. And this entire incident about the hijab, these countries, our country's fact of the matter is, they do not care about human beings forget women, human beings in that region, these countries, our countries have invaded and bombed and starved millions of Muslims of that region. Look at what is happening and have honest and what has happened in upon his time. Do you think they care about the hijab when they've literally killed millions of Muslims made orphans, millions of children made widows, millions of women have what you
said, is it to say to a lady, you have the right to wear a job when she has been bombed when her husband has been killed when she has no house to live in when civil society has gone completely to disorder when there's Civil War as a direct result of our bombings and our false invasions. So spare me this rhetoric that our countries are genuinely interested in the human beings of that country? No, there is no genuine interest. These governments, our governments are only interested in economic prosperity of their own corporations, and whatever fits that agenda or whatever suits, you know, that narrative, they will latch on to it. The fact of the matter is that there is no genuine
interest in the freedom of women to dress as they please over there. No, they are linking this battle to the animosity they have with the current regime. And again, as somebody who perhaps doesn't like that regime also, okay, but I have my own ways of expressing that I refuse to be a pawn in a vicious geopolitical battle that has nothing to do with me. And if I wish to criticize I will do so on my own grounds on my own terms for my own reasons, so dear sister, Maha and all of you who are watching, please do your homework. Don't just jump onto the bandwagon. Don't just, you know, champion the same slogans that you find in the mainstream media on
Understand, and I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here. But this is, again, a factual matter that really, there are agendas very different than mine and yours. And none of it has to do with the genuine dignity of women of that region. All of it has to do with geopolitical interests with interest that, frankly, will be enriching financially to specific people, and has nothing to do with the peoples much less than women. In fact, there was an article in the Times of England, the Times of London, one of the most mainstream articles, one of the most mainstream newspapers of the world, mainstream eating establishment pro establishment, the article, I read it yesterday, it literally
had a title, something like, you know, the battle for the freedom of hijab of this country, is a battle against the regime of that country. So the article was very clear, it's telling you point blank, they're not interested in women, they're not interested in freedom. They're using this as a token to get against the regime. Now, again, you might have your problems with the regime, fine, great, fine, by my fine by me, I'm not defending the regime. But I'm saying, Do you really want to jump on the bandwagon of a country that has invaded three other countries that has been the direct that has been the direct cause of the death of over a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, that
has destabilize the entire Middle East that has supported dictators for the last 50 years, that has given weapons of mass destruction to dictators to kill their own people, including women. So please spare me the notion that you care about women, when you're willing to sell weapons of mass destruction to brutal dictators that have gassed their own people that have tortured their own people, those techniques of torturing and gassing and whatnot, frankly, our countries have a lot to do with them. So please, brothers and sisters, do your research, do your homework and understand what is happening here is a vicious chess game, you're seeing only one move, there's actually a lot
more moves behind the scenes, do your homework and understand there's a whole multifaceted layer at stake here. And so to summarize, all that I have said here,
the narrative is not that simplistic that oh, we're fighting for the women's right to dress as they please know, it's far more nuanced. And the fact of the matter is that the goals of Islamic law are different than that of Western Western political lands. And also that the shady would never ever advocate a level of violence, even if this is not done. And also that even in the real world, how would one go about doing this is subject of discussion, and it doesn't mean that it has to be enforced. Immediately. All of these are aspects of discussion, we also flip the site around and talk about the hypocrisy of the lands we live in that in fact, in the end of the day, they also have
their versions of morality. They also have their versions of preaching and enforcing their morality and others. They also have indecency laws. And one has to ask, is it really beneficial to objectify women? Is it really useful to sexualize and fetishize the bodies of women? Is it not more decent and dignified to maybe enact laws against this? And again, by the way, there's a lot going on these days. I don't want to get too explicit here. But again, about * and whatnot, is it something healthy or not even Western Lazar discussing this, right? So it's nothing new. And these are topics that really are worthy of discussion. So we need to move beyond this simplistic narrative
that this is about freedom and and whatnot. And then the end of the day.
As I said in point number one, what we are mainly responsible for is ourselves and not something happening 5000 miles away. So I ask Allah subhana wa to either to guide myself and you to that which is the most beneficial. Ask Allah Subhana Allah Allah to grant us wisdom to see through these difficult topics and to understand that they are not as simplistic and to we seek Allah's refuge from ever being upon and ever being utilized in a tool as a tool and something that has nothing to do with our religion, frankly, is used against our religion. May Allah guide us all to that which he loves. Until next time, she's locked in the bulkhead was Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
in Muslim me now almost Lima de one meaning me 91 quantity now look on it. The War saw the pain I was longing for the one song beating I was Slavia the one before she you know before she
was before she I mean I want to call she is the one downside btw now one downside the party was all me I was all in.
When have you Lena photo gentlemen, one half year warranty. Was there good enough?
What's going on? I don't law hula.
Now Lena