Yasir Qadhi – Should Women Get an Education or Stay Home
AI: Summary ©
The segment discusses the controversial topic of women's codes in public, which is a problem for young people. The speakers argue that protecting people's rights and bringing forth the "we" movement is crucial, and that sharia and love are a combination of multiple madhab positions. They also discuss the success of Islam in various countries and the potential harm and negative consequences if not comply with laws. The segment also touches on missing privacy and the need for legalization of certain aspects of the culture, including the agenda of a backward and impressing agenda.
AI: Summary ©
So today's topic is going to be one
of those controversial ones.
As you're aware, I try to mix classical
Islam, Tafsir, Hadith with history and with modernity.
And I have to give an introduction before
I talk about this topic because what the
issue or the scenario is that some of
our youngsters came to me, a country not
to no need to mention the name of
the country has recently instituted a policy of
very strict women's code in public, banning women
speaking in public, curtailing the education of women,
and they are doing this in the name
of Islam.
And our youngsters, our youth, our sisters, especially,
they're wondering, what do we do?
Should we criticize in public?
Should we defend?
Is this Islam?
What exactly do we do?
It's a very awkward scenario.
This is in the news for the last
week.
And especially our Muhajibah sisters, they're put online,
they're put on the inquisition, people ask them,
are you supporting of this policy?
Or is this something a part of your
Islamic tradition that even the face is covered
and you cannot even speak and whatnot.
So this is a awkward reality that we
have to explain and discuss.
Now, the fact of the matter is, these
are very difficult topics, it's not easy.
And when I venture into these complex topics,
as usual, I open the door for a
whole barrage of criticism.
If you are aware, everybody is aware, subhanAllah,
I am criticized by every single front for
every single thing.
Either I'm a fundamentalist fanatic, or I'm a
CIA agent, or everything in the middle, or
I'm a reformer of Islam, or Iran scholar,
or a sellout, or a jihadist, or whatnot.
Everything you can imagine I have been labeled.
And I sometimes wonder, should I just leave
talking about these topics and just do some
classical non-controversial stuff?
But wallahi, my conscience cannot allow this.
Wallahi, I find it, with utmost respect to
all the other scholars, is good for them.
I am genuinely concerned about the iman of
our next generation.
And if we do not talk about these
difficult, complex topics, if we leave them in
the dark, then who else is going to
explain?
Do you want them to be educated by
CNN?
Do you want them to get their information
from Fox News?
So we have to discuss some very difficult
topics.
And when I discuss, one of the problems
is that so many of our insiders, if
you like, the religious folks, they want a
simplistic black and white answer.
They want a yes or no, halal and
haram.
And when you don't give it to them,
and when you try to be nuanced, and
if you listen to my talks, you know
me, I always try to give context.
You know, this is a multi-faceted, difficult
topic.
It's not a simple yes or no.
When you try to do this, and therefore
the simple-minded, I call them one-dimensional
fundamentalists, you don't give them what they want,
immediately, oh, this means you're destroying Islam, you're
reforming Islam, you're a kafir, you're a zindiq,
you're a daal.
No, a'udhu billah, a'udhu billah, a
'udhu billah.
We want to defend Islam.
But sometimes these are complex issues that are
involving multiple arenas.
And so there's no easy answer.
This is a regime and a group of
people, they have a history, they're not coming
out of nowhere.
And the reality is that you cannot give
a simplistic one-syllable answer, yes or no.
So what we're going to try to do
today is to educate, to begin the conversation.
And even if I'm mistaken in some views,
the goal is to defend Islam, and the
goal is to raise awareness.
If you disagree, come to me, let's have
a discussion.
The goal is to provoke thought.
The goal is you do your research.
I'm going to be mentioning specific points here.
And the way to respond to this is
twofold.
There is a defensive way, I'm going to
go over a few points defensive, and then
there's an offensive way.
Okay, so bear with me, we're going to
go defense mode, two or three points, then
we're going to switch over to offensive mode,
two or three points, then we'll conclude.
Okay.
As for the defensive, the defensive way, these
critics, they come, and they say, Oh, how
come your Islamic religion has all of these
codes about morality and whatnot.
And the response is they are comparing apples
and oranges.
Why?
Because Islamic law, and the Islamic society, and
the Sharia aims for more than what Western
law aims for.
Western law is not concerned with private morality.
Western law is not interested in akhlaq, in
tahzib, in kamal of the nafs.
Western law has had to force itself to
withdraw from morality.
Western law is up to you what you
want to do.
Islamic law is not like that.
And so you cannot compare liberalism and democracy,
you cannot compare secularism with the Sharia.
It's apples and oranges, completely different paradigm.
And therefore, there's no point in trying to
equate, oh, this or that.
No, because Islamic law, and the Sharia, and
a Muslim society aims to preach a type
of morality, to better your soul, to protect
akhlaq, to protect, you know, one's iman, one's
ruhaniyat.
Whereas Western law, Western society has no such
intention.
And this goes back to their history, in
which they were not able to live with
religion and the state together.
If you know your European history, they could
not live under the church, the church became
so tyrannical, the church became so backward, that
they had to get rid of the church
completely in public life.
And they said, khalas, we don't want anything
to do with the church in public life.
They had a very bad experience, call it
PTSD with religion.
We as Muslims never had that PTSD.
Frankly, we look at the past with glorious
lens, we have a sense of nostalgia, romantic
nostalgia, that in the good old days, we
had the pinnacle of technology, the pinnacle of
ulama, the pinnacle of science, everything was combined.
We never had the types of church inquisitions,
Galileo wasn't burnt at our stake, it was
burnt at their stake.
So Western society had to divorce itself from
morality, or else they could not live together.
And our Eastern society, we flourished under Islamic
law.
And it was only under colonization, that we
had to come under these nation states and
strip away from the sharia and have these
difficult contradictions.
So fact of the matter is, when a
Westerner complains about Islamic law, you have to
sit back and educate them.
It's apples and oranges.
Islamic law has a very different goal than
Western law.
Also still in the defensive mode, is that
given the reality of the world we live
in, question arises that what exactly does Islam
say about personal akhlaq and personal morality and
personal dress code.
And fact of the matter in an ideal
Islamic land, if we lived in a utopia,
if everybody MashaAllah was a good Muslim who
wanted to abide by the sharia, there is
no question that in an Islamic land, we
would want to land in which there's no
*, there's no fahisha, there's no *, there's
no drugs, there's no alcohol, there is decency.
Now, what level of strictness and what are
the penalties, this even within Islamic law, you
have a bit of variation, right?
And so some interpretations of Islam say that
the face does not have to be covered,
it's not obligatory.
And some interpretations say that the face should
be covered as well.
So this is within mainstream Islamic law.
And me personally, I even though I don't
view the naqab as being obligatory, but still,
I respect all opinions that are mainstream.
And we have to say that within the
mainstream views, there are views that say that
the face veil is something that should be
protected and covered.
With regards to the voice of a woman,
factually speaking, the four madhabs as a default
say the voice is not an aura.
It's a very, very minority opinion that says
a woman's voice should be aura as well.
Generally speaking, the default and this is the
classical Hanafi position as well.
Some modern Hanafis have a different view, but
the classical Hanafi school and the Shafis and
the Malikis and the Hanbalis, all of the
madhab, the default position, a woman's voice is
not an aura, nobody has to put any
restrictions if she speaks in a dignified manner.
And by the way, this is the Quran
and Sunnah because Allah says in the Quran,
that when you speak, do not speak in
a flirtatious manner, which means you can't speak.
Do not speak in a flirtatious manner.
And throughout the seerah, I cannot even count
how many instances a woman comes and complains
or challenges or asks a question and never
once is she told, hey woman, your voice
is aura.
Never once in the entire seerah.
And we have, again, the examples are too
numerous.
And that is the men and women talking
to each other in the marketplace, in the
masjid, people recognizing, people questioning, the women questioning
the Prophet ï·º, too many examples.
So then what is the evidence of those
that say woman's voice is aura?
They don't quote Quran and Sunnah as much
as they quote a principle, and that principle
is shutting the door of temptation, i.e.
we don't want to open this door.
It's better, you know, to be cautious, right?
To be extra over cautious, we should go
down this route.
So that's what the principle they use.
And obviously, this is a Pandora's box, because
how cautious do you want to go in
this regard, but that is the reality that
they use that.
And I say in an ideal world, in
an ideal world, there should be some, no
doubt, soft power, which we want morality, we
want covering of the men and women, we
want interaction to be in a dignified manner.
Now, what level one goes, it depends on
which interpretation of Islamic law.
That having been said, however, that having been
said, however, we also have to point out
that we are not in an ideal world.
And those countries, and I'm trying to be
very soft here, there's only two or three
countries in the world that have mandated covering
the hair.
Oh, actually, I think I think only two
now.
There's only two or three countries that have
mandated covering of the Muslim countries.
And what we see, and this is an
awkward reality, so please listen to me, because
this is where my critics, they kind of
love to just put in their two cents
here.
What we see those countries that have been
overly harsh or overly conservative, there is a
backlash.
And the reality is that this strictness actually
causes many people to leave spirituality and leave
loving Allah and his messenger.
And we see in one country that had
a very strict law, but recently they shifted
it.
SubhanAllah from hardcore covering to now nightclubs and
dancing overnight.
Where did all of that strictness go?
It was completely superficial, we can tell like
this.
Another country has this mandate.
And since they have been mandating it, the
levels of Rida and leaving Islam has gone
from 1% to 30%.
Like there's such an animosity to this rule,
that it is actually now become something that
people Astaghfirullah, Astaghfirullah, hate Islam for.
Whereas those countries that haven't mandated it, but
have allowed preachers to preach, have softly encouraged
it.
We have found hijab increasing by tenfold.
In the 80s, hardly any Middle Eastern in
my own country, my parents' country as well,
it wasn't common amongst the elite.
We know this, I know this, you all
know this.
Now you go there, MashaAllah, TabarakAllah, you see
religiosity, prayer and hijab everywhere.
Which one has been more successful?
Harsh power or soft power?
So I say, and I'm sorry to be
blunt here, but especially our young men who
are very overzealous.
And if they don't get their fatwa immediately,
you become the murtad or the ziniq or
whatnot.
My dear brothers, with utmost love and respect,
harshness only works in some situations and scenarios.
And the general rule is softness will accomplish
more.
And this also applies to Islamic laws as
well.
If society is not ready, and you come
and you be ultra strict, you might end
up causing more damage and harm.
Wallahi, we're on the same wavelength.
Don't misquote me.
I'm not saying that, you know, Islamic law
doesn't mandate modesty.
Of course it mandates modesty.
But I'm just being factual with you.
You're getting angry at me.
I'm pushing back at you.
The majority of Muslim lands do not mandate
this level in public as the law of
the land.
The majority Muslim lands have allowed the preachers
to preach and soft power.
And you want them to do that.
But you don't put in the government and
whip people if they don't, because there's going
to be a backlash.
So again, this is the tension between ideal
and between what?
Reality.
This is the tension.
And when I quote reality, I am not
endorsing it.
I wish we lived in a utopia.
I wish we live where everybody's iman was,
mashallah, 100%.
And if their iman is strong, then yes,
you can bring a system that is to
their level.
But when people are not at that level,
what did our mother Aisha radiallahu anha say?
And this is something we need to think
about.
We're still on the defensive.
We're going to get defensive now in a
bit.
Our mother Aisha radiallahu anha said, the first
verses of the Quran that Allah revealed, they
dealt with heaven and *, jannah and nar,
iman and taqwa.
And iman then grew in the heart.
Once iman became strong, then Allah revealed, don't
drink.
And Allah revealed, don't gamble.
And Allah revealed, don't do zina.
Our mother Aisha herself said, if the first
commandment that Allah revealed would be don't drink
and don't gamble, the sahabah themselves would have
said, we can't do this.
And unfortunately, our many of our youth, they
want to jump to 100 when the people
are at level five.
It doesn't work that way.
You have to slowly build them up.
Now, how do you do it and whatnot
will vary from time to place to culture.
But I am saying the shariah asks us
that if a policy is going to result
in worse backlash, then use your wisdom and
go step by step.
Gradualism is a part of the shariah.
There's nothing wrong with this.
It's not kufr to say this, that listen,
the ideal is there.
You are way down here for you to
come and start at point 100 when the
people are at point number five or something.
It doesn't work that way.
Also, you have to be fair.
Islamic law, what has it primarily come to
do is the veil number one on the
list.
How about prevention of crime?
How about safety?
How about elimination of poverty?
How about justice?
Isn't this more important in the Quran than
one of these other aspects?
So let's begin with the big issues and
work our way down.
Listen to me carefully.
The goal, yes, is the full program, but
you don't start from the bottom by ignoring
the top because it's going to result in
a backlash.
So organically, slowly, but surely, this is how
it should go.
And eventually, when the people are ready, we
give we give them inshallah a higher level.
So this is on the defensive.
And for the record, me personally, I do
not view women's voice as an aura and
women's education.
Again, personally, again, we're going to have a
sheikh who has written 30 volumes about female
scholars of Islam.
He has a book muhaddithat 30 volumes about
the female scholars of Islam.
We've always had female scholarship.
We've always had muhaddithat and muqriat and scholarship
has been a part of the tradition.
So I personally do not agree with this,
but they have their their views.
And even if we disagree, khair it is
what they have done.
Now this is the defensive.
Now let's go on the offensive, the offensive
against the critics.
We need to understand that while it is
true that Western lands are largely secular, they
don't get involved in private morality.
Still, you cannot have a law that is
completely immune to morality.
Even the West has morality laws.
They must because by system by government, you
must talk about private issues.
Simple example, the West is still discussing issues
of abortion, issues of LGBT.
They're discussing it because it does affect public
and private.
And they're having their own agendas about this.
They themselves have laws about modesty and *.
Every single country in the world has certain
laws about indecency.
Every country in this country, you have different
laws for men and women about what they
can and they cannot wear.
This is the reality.
And person will say, but hold on a
sec.
The laws of America don't deal with the
headscarf.
They deal with maybe the upper body or
the lower body.
And we say, so the point is the
law of the land is getting involved in
covering the body.
Yes or no?
Yes.
The law of the land, philosophically speaking, let's
not ask the percentage of the body is
not this government also dictating that a man
and a woman cannot walk around publicly without
anything on.
Yes, there's indecency laws in the federal level.
And there's indecency laws at the state level.
There's indecency laws, you will go to jail,
you will get fined in every Western country,
even those stuff for Allah for saying this,
but some countries, you're not going to be
fined for being absolutely no cloth, but certain
acts, conjugal relations cannot be done in public.
Why?
Because it's indecent.
So every single country has indecency laws.
So then the issue then becomes who gets
to decide what is indecent and what isn't?
Who gets to decide what percentage of the
body should be covered?
Our country, this country, America, it's indecency laws
keep on going down and down and down
and down.
Every one of us who grew up in
the 70s, 80s, 90s, we see how society
has changed.
What was not allowed on public TV is
now mainstream and public TV.
What even the cables did not allow, now
it is mainstream completely.
So when you don't have a system in
place, when you don't have a clear cut
methodology, indecency will continue to go down and
down and down and down and down.
In this country, in this country, sorry to
be a little bit explicit, a two-piece
bathing suit was considered to be indecent and
immoral up until the 60s.
60s, you would be arrested.
In fact, there's a famous picture, it is
so halal I can even show it in
the masjid, nobody would get angry, that's how
it is, that a woman is wearing a
full bathing suit in this country, 1920, a
full bathing suit, but it goes only to
her shin, to her, beneath the knees, it
only goes to here, full bathing suit, and
famous picture, she's being arrested in California beach,
why?
Because her shin is showing.
This is 100 years ago.
100 years ago, she's wearing full bathing suit,
which we now call a burkini, burqa, the
women's, our sisters wear it, right?
She's wearing basically a burkini, right?
And she goes to jail in this country,
in this country, why?
Because her feet and her upper shin, lower
shin, lower shin is being exposed.
So in 100 years, from going to jail
because your feet are showing or your lower
shin is showing, to now astaghfirullah, complete almost
in the beaches, complete almost *.
What happens when you don't have a system
in place?
This is what's going to happen.
So every government, every country has decency laws,
and you will go to jail for being
indecent.
If other countries have different laws, we need
to push back.
Why should American morality and American indecency be
the standard of the whole globe?
What gives America the right to dictate decency
laws?
Why can't other cultures have their own decency
laws?
So we push back at them, who are
you to dictate to the rest of the
world when you yourselves are debating, and you
yourselves have constant cases and whatnot back and
forth between and now the AI images, another
debate is happening.
If the AI comes in, and pretends to
be a living person and creates a indecent
image, is that legal or not?
Now the courts are debating this child AI,
the courts are debating this.
So indecency laws are universal around the world.
If a certain regime has a different standard
than your regime, they're all standards, and no
one culture should have the right to be
the definitive.
So we go on defense over there as
well.
Another defense that we can do or another
sorry, offensive, sorry, offensive.
Another offensive we can do is that you
seem to be overly concerned only when Muslim
women are involved.
You never get involved when the Western laws
seem to criminalize against Muslim dress code.
You only want their quote unquote freedoms in
Muslim lands.
Why are you not complaining about Belgium and
about France and about other countries that have
banned the hijab or the niqab?
Where's the freedom of women over there?
And as you're probably aware, I just told
you that woman was arrested for you know,
exposing her lower leg in 1920.
Well, a year ago, two years ago, a
woman was arrested, a Muslim sister was arrested
in France.
And again, I showed the picture and I
put it on my on my Facebook.
She was arrested in France because she wore
a headscarf and she was fully covered on
the beach.
The French have a law, it is not
allowed to be covered on the beach.
This is their law.
And she got fined, I think 500 euros.
Why?
Because she's wearing a headscarf.
And she's wearing a full you know, modest
clothing sitting on the beach with her kids.
And the police came and wrote her a
fine.
You're not allowed to be covered on the
beach.
How come the same institution CNN and Fox
News don't get irritated at France?
Where's the freedom of the women in France
all of a sudden, selective outrage only when
Muslim women are covered, they just cannot stand
it.
And they want to get rid of the
covering.
Okay, how about in Western laws when Muslim
women choose to be covered?
How about then so we can be on
the offensive over here as well in this
regard that there is a selective outrage.
Also another offensive in reality that we have
to point out is that this regime that
you're so irritated about, it's not coming out
of thin air.
You used to control this very land.
And in your timeframe, this land was completely
subjugated to internal civil war, to mobs to
hysteria, people were not safe on the streets,
women would get raped always under your watch.
Under your watch, it was not safe for
men and women to live.
This regime has come, whether you like it
or not, they have brought a semblance of
civil law and order.
Women can actually walk safely on the street
without being intimidated.
Now, which would you rather have a society
where a woman can wear whatever she wants
while Astaghfirullah the possibility of being raped which
happened under your watch, or a society where
she might have to be a little bit
extra, but there is civil law and order.
You see, again, it's so easy for the
critics to point out the negatives, but how
about the positives, this society and this regime,
whatever you want to say, it has brought
stability.
And it has brought a sense of order
that this country has not had for over
40 years.
And then I go to my final point
here.
And this is really the harshest point here.
Who exactly are you to tell us that
you care about women, especially in that region,
when you directly have been involved in massacring
and killing over a million people by your
own invasions in that country.
Wallahi, the hypocrisy of America, and I say
this as somebody born and raised here, the
hypocrisy of our government and our media to
point fingers at a local group that is
from their own tradition and background for having
women cover and say, we want the freedom
of women, the very fingers you are wagging,
they are dripping with the blood of a
million widows, a million children have died because
of our invasion.
And even now, as we speak, you talk
about caring for women, 50,000 children have
died in Gaza, because of your lands.
So many women are without children without husbands
massacred because of our bombs, we have to
push back and say, who do you think
you are to make us pretend that you
care about women and children, it is obvious
that you'd have no concern for actual sanctity
of life rather, or Muslims understand, understand, I
don't like using the conspiracy card.
I'm not going to say conspiracy, but I
will say it's a vicious game that is
being played a vicious game.
What is that game?
The game is we need to pretend to
the world we are morally better, we are
superior to those people, we need to pretend
that we are better.
And of the ways we will pretend is
we will pretend to care about women's rights
and women's education.
Wallahi, we care about women's rights and education.
But you guys cannot claim you care about
women's rights when you have bombed that very
region back into medieval times, when you have
invaded under false pretenses, when you have physically
raped your own troops, when you have had
your own, you know, background bases over there,
your own torture chambers over there, when you
have literally kidnapped women, we have sister Afia
slitting literally a few miles away, kidnapped in
of the very land over there, the very
land over there, literally the very land.
So please spare us your hypocrisy that you
care about women's rights, because wallahi, your actions
speak louder than words.
You do not care about women's rights.
You do not care about education.
You do not care about freedom.
You have an agenda.
And as a part of that agenda, you
must portray that civilization as backward and barbaric,
even though in terms of covering the hair
versus bombing, you are the real barbaric aliens
and invaders.
You are the real people who have massacred
and killed.
There is no equation between covering the head
versus literally massacring a million people.
So please spare us this rhetoric of caring
about women and wanting their betterment.
You have no right to preach to the
very people whom you have bombed into being
of the middle ages.
And it is because of your invasions.
And it is because of your meddling that
this group has actually achieved legitimacy, because it
is the only group that gave stability when
you could not give stability.
It's the only group that gave the people
dignity, because they actually represent the people.
They're of the people and by the people.
And even if I disagree with some of
their policies, and I do for the record,
I do disagree.
Listen to me carefully.
My criticism will never ever be in the
side of those that have invaded this country.
My criticism will be as a brother to
brother.
Internally, we keep our baggage and our dirty
laundry inside.
I will not be used as a tool
in a vicious game.
I will not be using a pawn from
the very people who want to use me
as an inside native informant, as a tool
in a vicious game to legitimize invading, to
legitimize their notion of them being superior.
No, wallahi, they are not superior.
And even if I disagree with some policies
of this regime, and I do, I will
try to advise them privately, or I will
criticize them internally, or I will never ever
join sides with the others and go on
public TV and lambast them without pointing out
who the heck do you think you are
to get involved in all of this.
So, oh Muslims, the situation is more complex.
It's not a simplistic yes or no here.
Even if we disagree, and I do disagree,
be careful, be very careful that you do
not become an unwitting pawn in a vicious
game that is trying to legitimize the dehumanization
of our religion.
That's really the goal here.
That's really what is happening here.
They choose one of them who was no
doubt viciously attacked and shot, and no doubt
our sympathies goes out to this lady, and
they give her the Nobel Prize, right?
And why do they do this?
Because once again they want to portray that
we are the victors, we are the superior
race.
This is all a facade, it's all a
vicious game.
How are you the superior race when you're
the ones that bombed them back into medieval
times?
You're the ones that invaded, you're the ones
that have deprived them of becoming a modern
nation state.
It's your double invasions, and you're supporting, and
you're doing this and that.
So please spare us this false rhetoric, and
this hypocrisy of pretending to be superior.
And therefore, oh Muslims, and especially our youth
here, do not think it's a simplistic either
this or that.
No, the world is much more complex.
And when they criticize, they're not criticizing except
with an agenda.
And when they point fingers, those fingers are
not pure fingers that they're pointing.
So even if you disagree, then disagree from
a different paradigm, not from their paradigm.
And if they come and point something at
our brothers and sisters, before you join them
and say, yes I agree like that, make
sure you put a mirror to the very
people that are pointing fingers.
Make sure you show them, hold on a
sec, who exactly are you?
And there's a hypocrisy, and there's selective outrage,
and this and that.
So do not fall prey to this false
narrative, and understand the world is a complex
place.
It's not a simplistic place.
In the end of the day, we make
dua for our brothers and sisters in that
region, for the people in charge in that
region, to take the advice and the mashwarah
of the global scholarly community, to prioritize what
Islam wants them to prioritize.
I am not in a position to dictate
minute details, maybe some aspects are beyond my
knowledge, so I'm not going to be too
harsh and critical.
But for the record, I say that I
think that they need to also take into
account the PR and the positives, and even
from an Islamic perspective, really why follow the
strictest opinion?
Why?
When the sharia has multiple opinions, in my
humble opinion, if I were to advise them,
I would say, you know, be wise in
this regard, and prioritize other things for the
time being, and have a soft morality.
But to go to the very strictest, perhaps
this might result in a backlash that is
not good, but that is between me and
them personally.
When CNN comes and Fox News comes, I
will not jump on their side and point
fingers at my brothers and sisters.
No, I will defend their right to do
so, and I will say to CNN and
Fox, who are you to criticize when you
have far more bigger crimes that you have
to answer for?
You have no right to get involved in
metal and local affairs.
Would you like it if they started pointing
fingers at you, and they started saying things
about your industry?
And again, so much can be said here.
The filth of this land.
Imagine if the power was reversed.
Imagine if that country had superpowers, if that
country had the media, if that country was
invading this country, and constantly in the media,
they're talking about, I'm sorry to be blunt
here, the * of America, the *
of America, the filth of this country.
They're constantly saying, look at these innocent ladies,
how they're being misused and abused.
19 year old girls, and they're being abused
by these filthy men, and they constantly, constantly
do this.
And they're attacking this land, and they're throwing
bombs on it.
Would you like this to be to be
completely switched around?
And if that were to be switched around,
it would make more sense because we are
defending the honor of our sisters around the
world.
But in the end of the day, all
Muslims, please be more intelligent, more nuanced, understand
that it's not a simple yes or no.
And may Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala grant
us the wisdom to not be an aid
of an enemy against our brothers, even as
we advise our brothers.