Yasir Qadhi – Understanding Classical Aqidah Debates In Our Modern Context – Interview with Islam21c
AI: Summary ©
The "naughty person" movement is a step stone to sh lending, but not a shrock. It is a step stone to shrouds and requires shproofing and understanding the reality of Islam. The "naughty person" movement is a step stone to sh lending, but not a shrock, and is a step stone to shrouds. The "naughty person" movement is a step stone to sh lending, but not a shrock, and is a step stone to shrouds. The "naughty person" movement is a step stone to sh lending, but not a shrock, and is a step stone to shrouds.
AI: Summary ©
One good thing about the Salafi school of
the 90s and 2000s was that the books
you guys are reading are human developments.
Understanding Wittgenstein's theory on language will actually help
you understand the Sifat controversy.
The problem is not the critique, the problem
is the critique is lax adab and it
goes from okay he's wrong to he's a
kafir and he's a CIA agent.
That's the problem right?
How many flights do you want to pick
today man?
Forget me, go listen to these other three
guys.
We were talking about this in the car
as well.
You famously, you kind of moved away from
a kind of let's say a passionately held
worldview that you used to have to a
different kind of someone could say a different
worldview and it was quite public about it.
Some of the criticism that might get from
people is you know people like that they're
just kind of flip-flopping around they're going
to keep changing their worldviews and so my
question is will you ever go back to
windows?
No, never.
Okay.
I have repented and there is no going
back.
Nice one.
We've been kind of following obviously your discourse
and some of your writings and your lectures
and stuff.
The last time we spoke was a good
few years ago, all three of us but
since then I've noticed you've been doing lots
of great work in terms of reaching out
to different scholars you spoke at you know
alongside different scholars from different backgrounds, Ash'ari,
Ath'ari and Maturidi and so forth but
one thing that we I noticed and we
spoke about briefly was you say that you
don't take a position in that traditional historical
kind of classification of Ahlus Sunnah but you
say they're all correct, we should all get
along.
Why the ambiguity is something some people might
be questioning?
Jay, so this is a deep question I
will ask you to allow me to elaborate
a little bit on that and also a
quick disclaimer that you've asked a bit of
a technical question so if our viewers are
not aware of any backgrounds of this nature
then this probably is not a useful conversation
for them.
The disclaimer is this is an advanced topic
that's what I'm trying to say.
So let me answer at different tiers as
well because this is an advanced topic.
At level one I would say to the
average Muslim that comes to me if he
were to or she were to ask me
which school should I follow I would say
whichever of the mainstream schools that you find
comfort in, whichever of the mainstream schools makes
you feel the most love of Allah and
his messenger, that would be my generic advice.
Whether you go to a Deobandi, a Tablighi,
a Salafi, a Ash'ari, a moderate Sufi,
I need the mainstream I'm talking about.
I'm not talking about the whirling diverges, I'm
not talking about it would be be sensible
here.
I'm talking about the ones that we know,
you know, the ones that we're aware of
and and attracting with, you know, Jamaat-e
-Islami, like these are the main Ahli Hadith,
fi kullin khair, they're all good.
I'm not saying they're all equally the same,
I'm saying okay this is at the level
one, okay.
The level two would be that where somebody
goes like okay but I've studied all of
them and I kind of sort of see
that there's good in all, you know, so
now we're talking about somebody a little bit
more muthaqqaf, a little bit more, you know,
understanding and now he wants to know but
I want to study a book of Aqeedah,
I want to be involved for a few
years in a madrasa, should I go to
Jamaat-e-Islami or should I go to,
you know, Al-Azhar or should I go
to, you know, Malaysia or should I go
to Timbuktu, all of these are different strands.
Now he knows a little bit and he's
interested in pursuing, to that person I would
say understand what you're getting into in all
of these and go to the one that
is the most conducive to multiple factors, logistics,
family, finances, the level of education, don't base
the primary factor on the version of Aqeedah,
I would literally say this, that is a
factor.
If you already understand these different schools to
a good degree and now you want to
further your Islamic studies then look at a
whole bunch of faster, political safety, literally, you
don't want to go to a place that
there's going to be a civil war in
a few years, you know, look at a
bunch of factors and then go there and
go there and absorb all they have to
teach you but with an open mind, meaning
understand had you gone to another university, another
institute, you would have been exposed to an
alternative that has completely proved itself internally, just
like your current system is internally consistent, so
go there with an open mind, understand that
this is a great interpretation, a great understanding
and Alhamdulillah there are other understandings out there,
this is level two, okay.
Does someone need to get into that though,
even level one, you described some, okay choose
whichever one you feel, well yeah Does someone
need any, do you need?
By need do you mean salvation?
No, but by need do you mean like
to fulfill intellectual curiosity?
Yes, because if somebody is interested in well
what is fiqh, what is Aqeedah, a complete
lay person, like just go to your local
masjid and study, that's what I would say,
go to the one that you feel the
most confident in.
Accessibility.
Accessibility, yeah, but it's not needed for salvation.
We need some instructional recommendation to the person
teaching that Who am I to instruct the
third person, I mean the person is coming
to me and wanting to be told, because
again the way the world works, they want
these simplistic answers and I'm not like that
anymore.
Maybe we need to provide that to them
in a non-partisan way.
So then you might become a part of
the problem, because my goal by saying what
I say, my goal is to put that
kernel of open-mindedness even in this person
here, my goal is that this person will
understand that actually in this particular field I
have studied and perhaps I am an expert
and yet still I'm saying, you know, maybe
that little idea is going to resonate with
them for years to come.
So that's level two I explained now.
Level three is now the more, if you
like, complex one.
So level two is basically like you go,
you study, you take a tradition, you come
back knowing your own tradition and understanding that
there are other traditions that are just as
internally cohesive and just as internally validating as
your own, so don't take them as the
enemy.
You do you and let them do others
and we have bigger fights to fight.
However, the problem with level two still remains
and that is that at level two the
average graduate who hasn't really critically thought still
internally believes, and that's what he will have
been taught, that my paradigm is the best
paradigm.
In fact, it is the only authentic paradigm
and all of the other paradigms, okay, I
don't doubt their sincerity, but they're wrong.
In fact, they're misguided about aspects of theology.
In fact, if depending on which school you
go to, they're actually muftadir.
Is this widespread?
Is this feeling, this, this?
If you go to any reputable mainstream seminary,
yes, because that's the whole point.
You are taught this is the particular aqeedah,
this is the particular manhas that we're going
to follow, this is the best way of
doing fiqh, and anybody who goes beyond this,
and these are all mainstream, those who go
beyond them.
Anybody who goes beyond this, accusations of misguidance,
tabdir, and heresy come.
The natural consequences of those views, is it
said or unsaid, I mean the main?
Depends again on which seminary and which era.
I caught the version of my institute in
the 90s in which it was very clearly
said.
Yeah.
It was explicit from top to bottom.
I believe that they have changed that a
little bit, but you can't get away from
it because in the end of the day,
if you believe that this particular interpretation of
Islam is valid, then automatically would imply the
others are invalid, okay?
So at some level, there will be this.
So what happens, the average graduate comes back
believing deep down inside that, yeah, my tradition
is the best, and these other guys, you
know, they kind of messed up along the
way, but you know what?
We're just gonna have to get along with
them because we have bigger battles to fight.
And this is how I was when I
returned from my institute in 2005.
Yeah.
It's exactly how I was.
My way is the only way.
19 years ago.
I know that the other ways are wrong.
Yeah.
But for the maslaha of the ummah, I
will come and cooperate with them.
Did you feel that in fiqh as well?
Fiqh was never an issue for me because
the institute that I studied with always emphasized
comparative fiqh.
So for me...
So from day one they gave you Yeah,
no, that was the book.
You're trying to make a joke of it.
It was my book.
I studied pretty much cover to cover.
That was the book I studied.
We didn't do madhhab-based fiqh.
Is there something in that where that led
to you being a bit more relaxed when
it comes to asr with madhhab?
Yes, yes.
Can you see something like that in aqeedah
now?
No, that's not happening in aqeedah.
This is where the line is drawn.
Something that could happen in aqeedah.
That's what I'm trying to do.
That's what I'm getting.
Is that 0.5?
That's 0.3 now.
That's what I'm trying to do here.
So one good thing about the Salafi school
of the 90s and 2000s was that it
really did teach us that fiqh is a
human development and that Allah's shariah is distinct
from human fiqh.
This is an amazing thing that they actually
taught us.
That we understood the madhhab are attempts.
Now to do so of course they opened
up a Pandora's box and that Pandora's box
is do-it-yourself fiqh.
That Pandora's box is you don't have a
consistent usool.
That Pandora's box is zahiri, like you know
literalism.
So there are negatives that come with that
type of opening up as well, yes.
But the thing is that the average well
-grounded Salafi student of knowledge will inherently be
more open-minded to fiqh differences.
Really?
The average open-minded Salafi student of knowledge,
not some strands of Salafism.
Like the strands that study fiqh, you're talking
about one Jordanian strand that's something else.
But mainstream Salafi fiqh, they will understand that
okay it's not that big of a deal.
Even to say this it's not a matter
of bid'ah or whatnot.
It's not that big of a deal.
Of course aqeedah, there is no compromise in
aqeedah.
That's taught by all of the schools.
This is level two.
My point with level two would be if
you get to that level where you're going
to work with others for the pragmatic good,
that is good enough.
But still there's a cognitive dissonance.
Something in your heart that is going to
create angst.
And it's not healthy for the ummah.
I was that person from 2005, I mean
even before, but I mean my active da
'wah was 2005 up until around 2015.
It did not make sense to me.
It just did not make sense to me.
These are not evil people.
And of course the worldview I held, we
were not just accusing them of bid'ah.
We were accusing them of shirk.
If you know what I'm talking about.
And for those who don't understand, you can
listen to my library chants.
I have them very clear.
I've been very open about this.
We're accusing them of shirk.
How do you compromise on somebody whom you're
accusing of committing shirk?
And this is my cognitive dissonance.
And then I know these people, I'm interacting
with them.
These people are more pious than I am.
Their tahajjud is better than mine.
Their actual love of Allah and His messenger
is shining through.
I don't see any shirk from them.
What your teachers say in a closed room
when it's only your group, that's just your
own internal box.
But when you actually go and interact with
them, you see a different side of things.
And it became clear to me that it's
not that simple.
But I couldn't understand why it's not shirk.
This is, again, 15 years ago.
Because what I had been taught, to me,
it seemed as simple as 1 plus 1
equals 2.
My version of Islam was solid.
Like, this is shirk.
This is exactly the Quranic shirk.
How come these guys don't see it?
How come they don't see what I'm seeing?
This is what led me to study for
a few years directly from their books and
ask their scholars very deep and probing questions.
An open mind.
And the difference was the open mind.
Because when you go with blinders, when you
go wanting to critique, when you go with
the mindset of finding false, you're going to
find what you want to find.
I went with the mindset of, I don't
think I've understood these guys.
Not with the mindset, I want to become
them.
With the mindset of, clearly, I haven't understood
what's going on here.
I think we call it empathic listening.
Empathic understanding and listening.
So that was the mindset that I had.
And of course, my master's and PhD is
all in Islamic theology, developed Islamic theology.
This is when, of course, a number of
years, the conclusions I came to are a
little bit technical.
And this is where it gets awkward, because
now the critics just jump up for the
30 seconds because it's difficult to elaborate.
And I understand, but I will try to
elaborate in a nutshell.
The conclusions that I have come to are
that all of these strands of theology are
human attempts shaped by, frankly, cultural and sociopolitical
factors to answer questions that trouble the minds
of generations long gone.
And I've tried to explain this in my
library chats about the attributes of God controversy.
Islamic theology is obsessed with the attributes of
God.
All the Ibadia, the Zaidia, the Mu'tazila, the
Ashaira, the Maturidia, before them the Kullabia, before
them the every single group, the Karamiya, the
groups that are not even in existence, maybe
30% or 40% of any textbook
of Aqeedah discusses God's attributes.
And when you're introduced to your firqah, or
even the other firqah, you don't even think,
why?
Okay, this is Aqeedah.
But the third level, the three dimension, the
higher level is like, hold on, why are
we obsessed with Aqeedah when it comes to
Sifat?
Why is the Sifat and Aqeedah question?
The Sahaba never debated Sifat.
When you go in, and I've done my
library chats, when the Muslims entered Damascus for
the first time, and Aqeedah was a clean
slate, there was no writing on the contents,
right?
They came across Christians arguing over the nature
of God, and the nature of God's attributes,
and how Jesus and God are interconnected or
not, and how is the logos, and is
the logos created, or the logos separate, or
the logos as God?
This is well known, and when they found
all of this controversy, and their slates are
blank, it's human nature, that controversy is going
to get a whiff onto our slates.
It's just like today with other things like
LGBT, everything, everything.
But the difference is that there was a
clean slate back then.
So on a blank slate, the first domino
then becomes the Sifat controversy.
So rather than saying, is Jesus nature one?
Is Jesus part of God?
It became, are the Sifat of Allah one,
or the Sifat muta'didah, or the Sifat this
and that, right?
And then, is the logos created or not
created?
Oh, what is logos?
Kalam.
Is the Kalam Allah makhloo ghair makhlooq?
You literally copy and paste, and then I
mentioned John of Damascus, go listen to my
library channel, the origin of the, John of
Damascus' analysis becomes the beginning of I'tizal.
Literally, the early Mu'tazila are copying, copying and
pasting John of Damascus.
That's where Mu'tazilism begins.
Then as a reaction, the Atharis come along,
the proto-Atharis, the proto-Sunnis, and say,
no, no, no, actually Allah has a Yed
that is actually a Yed, and we believe
in an actual Yed.
The Sahaba didn't say like this.
I'm not saying they didn't believe it, because
what the Sahaba believed is a back projection
of later groups onto them.
We don't know what they actually believed, right?
We really don't know.
We're just assuming.
So my point is that the 3D analysis,
the deeper analysis, you understand the entire Sifat
controversy is a contrived one as a response
to a socio-cultural phenomenon that took place
at a certain period in time.
Allah did not reveal the Sifat controversy.
The Sahaba were not involved in the Sifat
controversy.
So once you understand the origin, number one.
Number two, you understand we have the benefit
of hindsight that they did not have.
This is a key point.
We have 13 centuries of looking at what
actually happened because of the Sifat controversies, whereas
the founders of these movements and the icons,
Ibn Taymiyyah and Ghazali and al-Razi did
not have what we have.
This is not to say we're better than
them, because again, the critics come and say,
oh, so you think you are?
No, we are standing on the shoulders of
giants.
But here's the point.
Because we're standing on their shoulders, because of
their shoulders, we see what they cannot see.
It doesn't make us better than them.
It's just that they paved the way.
They did so much.
Now we have the opportunity to look back.
And what does this show us?
These 13 centuries of debates, what did we
gain by them?
It's awkward to say this.
It's like the kid who cried out, you
know, the emperor's no clothes, if you know
the parable here.
But the reality is, all of these strands
were bickering and fighting over semantics.
That's just a fact.
Those who affirmed Allah comes down, istawa, or
yanzil haqiqatan, versus those who said, yanzil is
a metaphor.
They're both praying tahajjud to Allah.
Yeah.
In the last day of the night.
Yes.
Those who said, Allah is yasma' bi-sama
'in huwa hu, wa la ilaha illa isa
huwa lana.
And basically, they're trying to make ta'weel
of sama' of Allah, which is the mu'tazila,
right?
And the asha'ara said this, and the
maturidi said this, and the athari said this.
In the end of the day, all of
them, including the mu'tazila, they're raising their hands
to Allah when their son is sick, and
they're saying, ya shafi, cure my son.
It's just how you're phrasing.
It's just a matter of philosophy of language.
That's how it is, right?
But there's a, sorry to interrupt, there's a
qualitative, there's a difference between that, I'm completely
with you there, but when you started this
convo, when it comes to tawhid and shirk,
in terms of somebody saying, oh, so-and
-so, oh, you know, be this and that,
or saint so-and-so.
Even this goes back to an understanding of
what exactly is intended, and what defines a
god.
But do you see that as a kind
of consequent?
No, it's a separate controversy to this one.
I'm giving the sifat one, and what you're
talking about is a distinct controversy which is
not directly related to sifat.
The claim is made that it is related,
but it's not related.
But wait, does it map onto the schools
historically?
Not the early schools, no.
This controversy is coming after the 7th, 6th,
7th century, whereas the controversy of the sifat
is from the 2nd to the 5th century,
the formations are done, okay?
So, and this is what I love to
do.
My actual passion and forte, my PhD, my
academic research that I do at the advanced
level is the development of ideas, develop Islamic
theology.
That's what I love to do, okay?
Political history, military history, that comes on the
side.
The real history that I write papers on,
I publish papers on, my dissertation is on,
is in my library chats, is ideas of
aqeedah.
So once you understand that it sounds sacrilegious
to the average student of knowledge, the aqeedah
books you guys are reading are human developments,
trying to solve problems that are relevant to
certain eras and epochs.
All of a sudden then, we have to
ask ourselves, do I need to teach my
kids the sifat controversy?
Do I need to brainwash and indoctrinate them
with one school versus the other?
Do I need to replicate the hatred that
existed in 3rd century Baghdad, maybe even legit,
because they didn't understand the repercussions.
I'm not even blaming them, I'm not even
faulting them, but we have 13 centuries, and
again, Allah protect us all.
I mean, may Allah protect.
I don't like the cancel culture, I don't
like the refutation culture, and I always have
to make these caveats here.
May the intelligent people understand what I'm saying
here.
The Ibadis of Oman are mu'tazili in creed.
Their worship of Allah is no less, frankly
it is better than most Sunni lands.
Frankly, if you've ever visited Oman.
Their akhlaq, their tahajjud, their Quran, their strong
iman.
I know the critics are going to go
absolutely crazy with this.
I'm not saying mu'tazilism is correct, but I'm
saying the way you guys made it out
to be the brother of shaitan, no, it's
not.
I think partly...
So let me finish this one quick.
So the accusation that if you say X,
this will imply Y, that syllogism is a
figment of the imagination of the critic.
If you deny Allah's then it's going to
happen.
Well this then is from you, not from
the people themselves.
The people who actually hold it, don't go
there.
And this is what I'm saying when I
say we have the hindsight of history.
13 centuries, we look back.
The Zaydis of Yemen are mu'tazili.
They're praying tahajjud and doing everything as well,
you know what I'm saying.
They clearly, the i'tizaad, they believe, the Ibadis
believe the Quran is makhluq.
The Ibadis believe the Quran is makhluq.
Their grand mufti is on YouTube literally defending
and then saying, but Sunnis, he literally said,
but Sunnis, you guys made this a bigger
issue than it needed to be.
We still recite the Quran, take the sharia,
that's his view, I'm not saying I agree
with it, right.
And look at their laws, and look at
the people.
So what I'm saying is, firstly, the origin
of the controversy.
Secondly, the hindsight that we now have, okay.
And then thirdly, at a deeper level, we
have access to various disciplines of knowledge that
earlier scholars did not have, that we can
employ as tools to better understand, and of
them is the philosophy of language.
For example, with the sifat controversy, we now
understand the usage of language, the functionality of
language.
Yes, true, Ibn Taymiyyah, mashaAllah, tabarakAllah, he did
contribute, you know, a little bit in the
nominalism, and great.
But the level we now have, because that's
what the modern world has done, it really
has gone to a level of ilm that
is unprecedented in human history.
And frankly, I mean, understanding Wittgenstein's theory on
language will actually help you understand the sifat
controversy to the point of it making a
non-controversy.
You can literally take Wittgenstein's theories of language,
look at the controversy, and collapse it all,
and say, well, actually, there is no controversy.
Have you thought about writing about that?
I have, but again, time is always precious.
My problem is I'm spread so thin in
different ways.
So to finish this off, so that you
look at the origin, you look at hindsight,
and then you look at ilm that we
now have that they didn't have.
Put all together, and you start to realize
much of what we took as being important
was actually superfluous.
We don't need the sifat controversy to be
good Muslims.
And if you are in ash'ari, or
maturidi, or mu'tazili, I know this is going
to get me cancelled immediately, in the sifat
issue, because the mu'tazila, here's the point, the
mu'tazila, the main issue with us and them
is qadr.
I say, and I will say this, may
Allah protect me from, the problem is not
the critique.
The problem is the critique is lax adab,
and it goes from, okay, he's wrong, to
he's a kafir, and he's a CIA agent.
That's the problem, right?
The problem is like, he's wrong.
Fine, I know you're going to follow mainstream
sunni, thought you were going to say I'm
wrong, I get it, but don't make it
bigger than it is, okay?
I am saying, the modern ibadi movement has
issues, but sifat is not one of them
that's going to cause any issues between us
and them.
They're good people in the end of the
day.
We see this, ra'ya al'ayn.
So we learn from all three of these
issues, the origin, the history, and the ilm
that we now have, that we can look
back to, that the sifat controversy was completely
blown out of proportion, and you don't need
it to be a good Muslim.
So when you ask me, what are you?
You understand, I don't believe in these boxes
anymore, because I understand where the controversy came
from, and I empathize, I know this sounds
weird, with all of them.
I genuinely see where they're coming from, and
I don't think any one of them is
divine.
They're all human attempts to answer questions that
were problems of their time.
It's a historical controversy.
I like studying it.
I don't find myself having to carry a
card about one of these past issues.
So on the shaykh, look, so there's three
options for the general population now.
Is it, one, that we minimize the engagement
with understanding qida in those classical boxes as
one option?
Number two, we deconstruct it to then just
educate people?
Or three, should we use a blank slate
and re-look at qida for modernity?
Excellent question, and that is a very profound
question, Mr Omar Suleiman.
I love it.
Number one, should we?
Yeah, minimize.
So profoundly you forgot the question.
It was, we should minimize the controversy at
the level of the masses.
This is what I've done.
On a personal note, I was obsessed with
the sifat controversy.
I mastered it.
Literally, my master's was on the sifat.
My master's published in Medina, 800 pages.
Go look it up.
Jahab ibn Safwan and his, you know, it's
all sifat.
800 pages of master's, alhamdulillah, and I'm not
trying to paragraph stuff, but it was awarded
and it was published and it was like
number one in my class.
It's there.
You can read it.
And I came back to this country literally
yaqeen, that the sifat as understood by ibn
Taymiyyah and his group is the correct understanding
of Allah.
There is no question in my mind that
all the others are batir or whatnot, but
again, that's your one-dimensional view.
You start doing 2D and 3D view and
all of a sudden you understand, okay, ibn
Taymiyyah is right, but he's not necessarily only
right.
Ash'ar are also right in their way
and Mu'tazil are also right in their way.
It all goes back to your paradigm, right?
So I stopped talking about these controversies at
the mass level completely.
Look at my khutbah and durus.
Ignored completely.
Recently, there was a massive debacle between the
Ash'aris and Salafis online and I got
angry at both sides.
I reached out on behind the scenes because
I'm not on social media.
I reached out to people on both sides.
There's a genocide going on.
Leave these issues.
So at the mass level, yes, completely bypass.
Your second question, should they be taught with
wisdom?
They should be taught at the madrasah level.
Yes, because you can't reinvent the wheel.
So when you go to a higher seminary,
when you go to any mainstream school, understandably,
the school has to teach you 1,400
years of history, intellectual history, and understandably, you're
not going to get rid of the schools.
I'm not challenging Ash'arism, Atherism, Salafism.
I keep on saying I've moved on.
I've always used this term.
I didn't switch sides.
Moved on.
I've been very precise because I no longer
view these schools as being divine.
I really don't.
Allah didn't reveal Salafism, nor did he reveal
Ash'arism.
I can show you human elements.
I can show you evolution in all of
these schools.
I can show you spectrums within them.
When you tell me to be a Salafi,
I will say, which version?
Abu Ya'la's version?
Or Ibn Aqi's version?
Or Ibn Jawzi's version?
Or Ibn Taymiyyah's version?
Yeah, that one.
Oh, that one?
Okay.
If you tell me to be an Ibn
Taymiyyah, who's going to interpret Ibn Taymiyyah?
Because after Ibn Taymiyyah, there's no additions, right?
The same with the Ash'aris.
Which version of Ash'arism?
Ghazalian version?
Razian version?
Which version?
Again, I can show you evolution.
I can show you spectrum.
But I think part of it, I sense
that none of what you said is that
weird.
You keep saying that, this is going to
get me cancelled or whatever.
I think the reason why you feel that
way is because you dedicated so much research
and learning.
And you're seeing that because from your expertise,
from your background.
When it comes to the average...
Oh, what I'm saying, the average layman will
understand 100%.
Not the layman.
Even people that delve in these books.
I think you give them more credit than
I do.
I'll be honest with you.
Because for most people, the tradition that they
subscribe to is the religion of Islam.
But I think maybe subconsciously you're bringing a
lot of your own expertise, your own background,
your own baggage maybe.
Maybe.
But look at what's happening over the last
few weeks online between people that are worthy
of respect.
Mainstream Western clerics battling it out while bombs
are dropping in Gaza over does Allah have
a hand or not.
Over does Allah have Istawa or not.
The massive debate is taking place right now
as we speak.
It's still going on right now.
And these are mainstream sheikhs, not little kids.
These are people with respect.
I'm not saying there aren't people who are
still...
But these are icons.
Yeah.
That's what I'm saying.
So I think there are always going to
be people like this.
And then your third point, deconstruction.
That's what I'm doing at the advanced level,
which is my library chats, which is the
Islamic Seminary of America, where I teach the
students.
In order to get to that level, you
need to have a background.
It cannot be done just as a public
lecture.
The final level was re-looking at aqeedah
in Lyon.
I'm getting there.
I'm getting there.
So deconstruction is taking place, and it's taking
place.
And I encourage everybody who has a solid
background and who is resonating with aspects of
what I'm saying.
I say this to anybody who says, I
want to study with the Islamic Seminary.
I say, listen to my library chats.
If you find my library chats appealing to
you, these are tidbits of the real philosophy
of the seminary.
Go ahead and apply.
And it is an accredited seminary.
You're going to get a master's degree that
is accredited by the western world.
So apply to that, because that's where we
go into that level of thinking.
Okay, that's level three.
Level four, then, which is when you ask
me, which class was I the most excited
to teach?
That's level four.
That is, what does modern aqeedah look like?
I don't care about the sifat.
We all have teenage kids.
None of them are debating about the sifat.
I know somebody's going to take that little
clip.
Yeah, okay.
I don't care about the sifat controversy.
Yeah, exactly.
Of course, the sifat of Allah.
I'm looking out for your best interest.
Thank you, yeah.
It doesn't matter.
If I say the sky is blue, they're
going to come and say whatever it is.
I'm a firm believer, as Allah says in
the Quran, that that which is done for
the sake of Allah will remain, and that
which is done for others will be gone.
So my goal is sincerity and ikhlas and
hidayah, and jokes aside, all of the criticism
will not even be in the footnotes of
the books of history.
If what we're doing is for the sake
of Allah, it will remain as a legacy.
Look at the critics of, I mentioned this,
even Umar Mukhtar, Ibn Taymiyyah and whatnot.
Look, where are they now?
The only reason you know about them is
because of those people.
Exactly.
So yes, it is painful now, and it
is causing drama amongst the masses now, but
it's not ilm, and it's not a benefit,
and it's just passing.
So the long term.
So my point, therefore, is that what will
modern Islamic theology look like?
And you know what it's going to look
like?
We take our teenagers, and we just have
them in a room while we're sitting there
taking notes.
Blank slate.
And see exactly, what are the questions they're
asking?
What are the issues that are troubling them?
And then we look at that and start
formulating Islamic responses.
This is what needs to be done.
Hardly anybody, I would say nobody's done it
the way I like it to be done.
It is one of the projects, you asked
me if I have any projects.
This is one of the projects I have,
inshallah.
Time is an issue, but wallahi, one of
my biggest passions right now, and I say
this to my...
Because I still have a massive soft spot
for the Salafis, for Ibn Taymiyyah.
Come on, Ibn Taymiyyah, you can't tell but
admire him.
One of the biggest things I admire about
him is the courage, the fearlessness.
He really did not care about popularity.
His views were so eccentric.
Salafis don't realize that.
Salafis who love him don't realize he came
with a whole bunch of shahad views.
Fiqh-wise and aqidah-wise.
But he didn't care because he felt it
was the haqq.
And guess what?
Those shahad views became mainstream Salafism today, literally.
I know it sounds blasphemous to the Salafis,
but it's true.
Modern Salafism has so many views that are
absolutely unprecedented, pre-Ibn Taymiyyah.
I don't want to get too quick because
it's a whole different...
I have an article that I'm writing about
Ibn Taymiyyah's contributions to the Salafi da'wah.
Meaning pre-Ibn Taymiyyah, Atheism was very different.
The main was Ibn Taymiyyah introduced the categorization
of Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah into Salafism.
Yes, one or two people referenced some concept,
but nobody took it mainstream and nobody interpreted
it the way Ibn Taymiyyah did.
Nobody brought this notion of, okay, you can
believe in God but worship other than God
and not call him a god.
That is uniquely Taymiyyah.
To differentiate between Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah as a
practical mechanism to pronounce verdicts on actions.
Yes, I know Ibn Manda and Fulan, two
people had, you know, statements where you kind
of sort of see a distinction, a categorization.
They didn't do anything with that categorization.
And that's why you're getting into a lot
of Rububiyyah.
Imam Ahmed would allow Tawassul.
Imam Mahdi would allow Tabarruk.
The Hanabilah were well known to be Mutasawwifah.
They didn't have an issue with this regard.
Look at Abdul Qadir al-Jilani and the
stuff that he would do, right?
Ibn Taymiyyah comes along, the first person in
human history to say, you cannot travel to
the Qabir of the Prophet ï·º with the
intention of visiting...
that becomes a bid'ah and a stepping
stone to shirk.
Again, I respect Ibn Taymiyyah immensely, but I
challenge you to find me based upon his
distinction of Ubudiyyah, Rububiyyah.
There are some that had other reasons, but
Ibn Taymiyyah is coming from a specific theological
paradigm, okay?
Anyway, you got me into a lot of
trouble there.
My point is that Ibn Taymiyyah redefined Salafism
completely with shahad, unknown views.
He brought them in.
They're now mainstream.
It is a fact.
Take it or leave it.
Qualitatively, they seem to be more about classification,
more about the human elements of the science,
no?
But they're still reading in a theology that
was not understood.
I mean, why is it that the previous
Hanabil, including Ibn Qudamah and others, are very
open about going to the Qabir of the
Prophet ï·º, speaking to him, asking him to
ask Allah for forgiveness?
This is Ibn Qudamah, right?
It's not even occurring to him that there's
a problem here in this regard.
By the way, I have never done this
in my life.
Believe it or not, I'm still influenced.
I have never once, and I've gone to
the Qabir of the Prophet ï·º more times
than I can count.
And I go and I have utmost respect
and there's awe and there's genuine awe in
front of me is the most sacred body
to ever have walked the face of this
earth.
And Allah knows that awe that I have.
But to this day, I have never said,
Ya Rasulullah, ask Allah for this and that.
But I don't have a problem with the
one who does.
And I know that's going to get into
a massive problem.
I don't.
How can you, Ibn Nawawi, Ibn Qudamah.
I can give you 50 scholars who said
that.
Qurtubi, they all say this, right?
Controversy comes when it's kind of applied beyond
that, right?
So we're opening up the door of what
is istighat and what is tawassul.
And you can go over my talk there.
But yeah, the controversy comes everywhere.
Even with this, I just said the controversy
comes.
So I am no longer emotionally invested in
this because I recognize all of these people
are coming from different paradigms.
I have to choose one in my own
personal life.
And because I was born and raised, well,
not born, but I was born in Jama
'at Salmi background.
My father was one of the founders of
Jama'at in America, Maududi and Haraki.
My critics say he's gone back to his
roots because now he's a Haraki activist.
You know what I'm saying?
Okay, it is what it is.
But my education was in a Salafi paradigm.
And I don't have a problem saying, yes,
Ibn Taymiyyah's impact on me will probably remain
till the day I die.
There's no problem with that.
But my point is, I don't have a
problem with all of these other mainstream normative
interpretations that would do things that Ibn Taymiyyah
and Ibn Abu Wahab would consider shirk and
bid'ah.
It's their interpretation.
I see from this other group's paradigm, it
goes back to your paradigm and your definitions.
Ibn Taymiyyah's definition and then especially Ibn Abu
Wahab's definition are radically different than the definitions
of Ibn Hajar.
They're radically different than the definitions of the
other strands.
Once you understand that this really goes back
to not simplistic issues, rather deeper issues.
Neither of them are committing shirk then, man.
Just you choose and you preach what you
want to in a positive manner and understand
that the other group has its ta'weel.
And even if they're wrong, Allah will look
at their ta'weel.
Allah will look at their good intentions in
this regard.
This is what I'm talking about having moved
beyond these.
I am not obsessed with bashing the other
groups even as I myself have not yet
celebrated the Mawlid, believe it or not, once.
I know, it's crazy, isn't it?
Tell me what your personal experience is, okay?
I haven't once spoken to a dead person
or wali or whatnot because I personally don't
like that.
I just don't feel the need to do
that.
But like I said, I'm not going to
criminalize or demonize those strands that view these
issues because I know they're coming from a
legacy.
They're coming from a trajectory of scholarship, right?
So to resurrect those past issues and make
them the defining factor goes back to another
point that I haven't mentioned yet, but I've
given talks about it, the narcissism of small
differences.
Once you understand this psychological concept that human
beings are naturally inclined to problematize similarities with
similar groups because they need to define themselves
against their closest competitors, it makes a lot
of sense, the animosity between asharis and atharis,
the animosity between Sufis and Salafis, even though
90% is exactly the same.
Once you understand this psychological reality, you just
cease to have, I don't want to have
animosity in my heart against any believer who
loves Allah and his messenger.
Wallahi, I don't want that.
I can disagree.
I don't want to have hatred.
So I've moved beyond these groups.
I don't consider them to be the defining
factor of who I am.
And therefore, when you ask me, which group
do you follow?
All and none.
Really, all and none.
It doesn't matter to me.
I'm much more concerned about defending Islam theologically,
politically, socially in the world that we live
in.
And therefore, I have that blank slate.
I don't care about the slates that have
been inherited by my ajdad and forefathers.
And I'm worried about what does it mean
to be a Muslim in the modern world?
Citizenship, liberalism, feminism.
These are the issues, you know, balancing Islamic
law.
And as you know, these are the critics
that come here because again, their paradigm is
madhabism.
You know, their paradigm is, okay, the law
of Ibn Qudamah should never be changed.
I don't want to say that, but that's
effectively what they're doing.
Okay.
The slate that has been filled by the
previous scholarship is the religion of Allah.
So when I come along and say, well,
no, actually that's not the religion of Allah.
That's their extrapolation.
Obviously, one dimensional minds, oh, he's reforming Islam,
destroying Islam.
No, bro, you don't know fiqh and usur
of fiqh.
The problem is, you know, your critics, some
of them are just nuts, right?
And they'll just do, take bits and pieces
and just have motivated by hatred or whatever.
But the problem is those drown out the
legitimate and constructive criticism and critique that you
might get.
Excellent.
Nobody is perfect.
Yeah.
And there's no doubt that some of what
I'm saying and doing is worthy of legitimate
criticism.
Nobody is perfect.
I mean, I found you too.
People have genuine critique and they're open to
email you.
And I mean, I'm against this whole refutation
culture I am somebody who loves positive criticism
that comes from adab and sincerity.
And anybody who has interacted with me, inshallah,
can testify to this.
I'm not perfect, nobody's perfect.
And we will become stronger when we criticize
for the sake of perfection, criticize for the
sake of mutual enhancement.
That's where we're going to come better.
If we're going to criticize to take down,
to put down, this is not the way
forward.
It's different, isn't it?
And it always comes across.
Yeah.
But the thing is, you know, so some
critics might listen to what you just said
and say, look, he's belittling doheed and shirk
and these types of things.
Because, and I think that's their definition of
doheed.
But part of the thing that might be
beneficial to, from your angle, the way you
describe these things is because I think because
of your expertise with background, maybe it goes
above certain people's heads or you're talking about
a very specific thing.
They think you're talking about the general, you
know, chapter or whatever is just to clarify
your, I think part of the problem is
we make it into an aqeedah issue.
We make it into an issue of theology,
of defining groups and sects and so forth.
When I think if you look at it
from the perspective of just draw a circle
around everything, those things that the vast, vast,
vast majority agree on.
Yeah.
You'll find people in that circle which happen
to identify as different groups based on these
man-made categories, Ash'arism, Ath'arism, Salafism,
all that kind of stuff.
But they would agree, for example, that, and
this might be a better way of maybe
phrasing it, that they all agree that, okay,
istighat ibn al-Mu'ad, or, you know,
asking a dead person for, you know, for,
you know, cure or children or assistance or
something like that, don't do it.
They won't, now they'll differ.
Is it shirk?
Is it this?
Is it that?
But they, I pretty much, you know, everyone
would agree.
But that's what I say too.
Yeah, but the way you kind of, the
way you talk about it is very sometimes
academic and you're talking about the shirk point.
Someone might think, because he's saying it's not
shirk, therefore they'll go to the opposite, they'll
assume the opposite and, oh, everything's allowed, go
and start, you know, go and asking someone
in the grave.
Just because it's not shirk.
No, I have very publicly said, multiple times
I've said it, it is haram, it is
munkar, it is a stepping stone to shirk.
Exactly.
But it is not inherently shirk.
But if you describe it as, as this
is, al-akhbi aqal maqeel, for example, you
know, this is like the common denominator of
the vast majority.
So, Jayyid, I get this point.
Because sometimes I feel that we have a
hang up with trying to prove whether or
not it's shirk, or talking about whether or
not it's shirk, rather than what's actually important
for a Muslim's life, which is, you know,
should I be doing something like this or
not?
Okay.
I feel it's, sometimes I feel that we
want to kind of win the argument.
Yeah.
Not yourself, but people who argue about this,
they would rather win the argument of is
it shirk, or is it not shirk, than
stop people doing it.
I would personally, I don't know how you
feel about this, but I would much rather
someone doesn't believe it's shirk, and never does
it in their life.
I actually said this explicitly.
Yeah?
Yeah.
But, okay, Dr. Salman.
What's up?
Dr. Salman Sahar.
Because I genuinely wish to raise the bar
of academic acumen and thaqafah and intelligence of
the masses that are listening, and I'm not
interested in winning points or just smoothing things
over.
I will push back at you, even though
it's going to open up a whole can
of worms.
I personally believe it is haram.
It is bid'ah.
It is munkar.
It is stepping stone to shirk.
And it's only going to be shirk with
certain aqid.
It could be shirk, but it is not
in and of itself shirk.
That having been said, with that big caveat
and disclaimer, the awkward reality is that there
are many, many famous, reputable, mainstream Sunni preachers
who say that it is mustahab.
Or at the very least, jais.
And for any random person, they're talking about
the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, right?
The Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
So, I mean, we can make that exception.
By the way, theologically, you cannot make that
exception.
Theologically, you cannot.
Just from the, I'm saying, from the perspective
of starting off with the biggest...
No, let me finish what I'm saying.
Let me finish this point here.
So, this nice, beautiful save that you want
to do, it works in our safe space.
And for the viewers who were jumping to
critique me, say, okay, khalas, he said that.
I'm going to give them ammunition now because
my goal is not them.
My goal is the people who are genuinely
trying to understand and make sense.
I don't want to mention names, but pretty
much every single, reputable, mainstream Western cleric outside
of the Salafi paradigm believes it is jaiz
or mustahab.
That's just a fact.
I've spoken to them.
I accused one of them one of my
heyday Salafi days of literally saying, you are
preaching shirk, but Allah will forgive you because
you don't know any better.
That's my ignorant 25-year-old idiot self.
Literally, you're a kid.
Your teachers tell you this, you go regurgitated,
right?
I literally said to somebody 20 years older
than I am, the senior most cleric, and
you get who I am, literally said to
him, and I feel so stupid now, but
it was what I felt, this is the
haqq, I need to make ghamid al-ujja.
You know, I say, look, I need to
tell you that you're going to hear this
from other people, but I am preaching that
you are preaching shirk.
And I will say this to your face.
I felt, mashallah, validated, okay?
And what do you expect him to do?
So to be pedantic, accurate here, this nice
simplistic back and forth we had is disconnected
from reality.
Those guys don't say it's haram.
Who cares if it's only for the...
You can't just do shirk with one person,
not with the other.
But that's the thing, the reason why they
make an exception about the Prophet ï·º, you
can see the...
So I know for a fact, I cannot
mention names here, because I mean, he has
public articles.
I know for a fact, one of the
icons of that strand literally has an entire
paper justifying it for anbiya and awliya, in
English, anbiya and awliya.
So your theory here and your attempt is
nice, but my interest really is the long
term.
Let the cancellations occur.
I hope, inshallah, when people listen to this,
do your own research.
What do you do when the bulk of
the ummah is not agreeing with you in
this regard?
This is the dilemma I faced 15 years
ago.
When you come to the realization, you're the
minority when you say that.
And you are when you don't understand the
default of the Shafi'is of Egypt, of
the Syrian scholars, of the Yemenis, of the
Moroccans.
The default is that it is jahiz.
That's why you have to go deeper and
understand where they're coming from and understand their
definitions of shirk and tawheed is radically different
than ours.
And then you need to understand where they're
coming.
You go deeper and deeper and the least
that you will come to is, okay, they
have a paradigm.
May Allah forgive them for it.
That's what I'm upon.
I'm not saying they're right.
I'm not saying they're right.
I'm saying I see where they're coming from
and in their worldview, in their worldview, it
is not shirk.
That's what I come to.
You understand what I'm saying?
So this is why we have to move
beyond the platitudes and the slogans and get
to the real nitty gritty.
How can you achieve unity with groups that
you think are worshipping other than Allah?
Even if you say, okay, Allah will excuse
them for their ignorance because you're still saying
that they're worshipping other than Allah.
And by the way, the haram doesn't save
you.
Why?
Because Ibn Abu Wahhab clearly, like literally says,
even if you say it's haram, but you
don't think it's shirk, you are a mushrik.
That's his view, literally.
That's his literal view.
So I see that as kind of on
the fringes, but there is...
As is the person himself.
Yeah, like the...
I think even those who would say, for
example, okay, it's Jaiz, it's Mustahab.
They, in their practice, and apart from the
more extreme ones, even that intuitively, the average
Muslim kind of looks upon and says, whoa,
this is a bit...
I agree.
The fitrah finds this...
The fitrah would...
I 100% agree.
...keep kind of like a magnet, draw them
to not going there.
And I think it might be kind of...
Sometimes I think almost talking about it and
think of it as a big thing, because
even if you're speaking against that, that mentality,
it's kind of accidentally reviving and keeping that
thing alive.
Okay.
Whereas maybe reducing...
I would feel reducing the commitment to convincing
people about that issue.
So...
I was thinking maybe ibadah, maybe we've got
the notion of ibadah as some kind of
simply definable thing wrong.
So I would, if I were to meet
one of these shuyukh, I would say to
them, my dear brothers in Islam, you know
this is a controversial issue.
And none of you say it's wajib.
None of you say it's wajib.
Why don't you just let it be?
I would literally advise them, just get out
of this controversy, because you provoke the other
side.
I know the other side's acting rash and
foolish as well, but by you constantly doing
this, you're going to provoke the other side.
And they polarize.
Yeah, they polarize.
So I would definitely advise them this as
well.
Don't get involved in controversial stuff.
But when all is said and done, I
am not interested in categorizing these other Muslims
as being the worst of mankind.
Of course.
I can cooperate with them for other needs
and goods.
Not just that, but you can feel that
they are brothers.
They are.
Not just feel, they are our brothers.
Not just like cooperation, so to say.
That cannot happen if I have this cognitive
dissonance.
And it didn't happen, because I know myself.
When I was on the old school paradigm,
you're smiling at them, but in your heart,
there's this ache.
You're sitting and eating with them, but they're
not really my full brethren.
You can't help it, because that's the way
you feel.
And now that's not the case, because I
genuinely view all of these strands.
Yes, Salafis included.
They're still my brethren.
Alhamdulillah, I'm not anti-Salafi.
I just moved on.
That doesn't mean all Muslims are exactly the
same.
I've said this as well.
There are red lines to believe in a
prophet out of the process.
And it's clearly a red line to believe
in a God other than Allah, which no
Muslim actually does.
It's clearly a red line to abandon worship
of Allah, which one or two of the
extreme Ismaili groups have done.
There is no ta'abud, there is no
salah, there is no zakah.
There is no...
When you're not even worshiping, there is no
la ilaha illallah, there is no worship.
That means you've crossed the red line over
there, right?
So there are red lines.
But within these red lines, all of these
movements are Muslim.
Now, some are better and closer.
And without a doubt, Sunnism, alhamdulillah, respects the
sahaba.
That is definitely a positive thing to do.
I don't agree with the other school that
disrespects, but they're not kafirs for it.
Without a doubt, I still say this for
the record, the Atharic creed, overall, overall, this
is the more sensible one because it's not
going from John of Damascus's division of the
attributes.
But still, it's a trivial difference.
So my point, though, is these differences should
not be to the point of dividing us
such that we cannot come together for the
greater good.
This is the key point.
And for the record, before we finish off
as well, we didn't talk about the details
of why I say it's not shirk and
it's only haram and whatnot.
For that, you can listen to my three
-hour lecture on the Najdi da'wah where
I go into a lot of detail.
Please listen to it.
Take notes if you need to, but I
go into it and I explain why I
hold these views.
So that's explaining that, inshallah.
Inshallah.
Zakir Naqshband, did you have something on that?
I've got another.
Yeah, I was actually going to ask, Sheikh,
you know, it's dissonance.
And there's one thing within the Muslims, but
actually I think for a lot of Muslims,
especially for us growing up, kind of those
mid-40s, right, is with the kuffar as
well.
Even with the non-Muslims.
Yes, another issue.
The wala and bara versions we were taught.
This was one of the first things.
How many fights do you want to pick
today?
No, no, no.
But this is like, it's a natural consequence.
If you're talking about dissonance, a lot of
people, they've kind of reconciled with other Muslims,
but with non-Muslims, there's still that thing.
This is a topic I need to talk
about in more academic detail.
I was planning to give a library chat
about this because this is another massive problem
the average Muslim has.
The misunderstanding of wala and bara.
Again, to be academic, may Allah protect me,
but this is the truth.
It is the academic truth.
The understanding of wala and bara that was
taught by Ibn Abdul Wahab was unprecedented to
Islamic history.
Ibn Taymiyyah didn't teach it.
Ghazali didn't teach it.
Tahawi doesn't have that type of understanding.
The Ibn Abdul Wahab understanding wala and bara
became a politicized takfir.
If you don't agree with me and you
side with my political enemy, you are a
kafir in the eyes of Allah.
That's what he taught and that's what he
did.
And he fought and he killed based upon
that.
Again, well known.
Read the books.
That understanding of wala and bara, wala and
bara before Ibn Abdul Wahab is more of
an adab than fiqh and akhidah.
I.e., what do I mean by this?
You should have a generic love for the
Muslims.
And anybody who wants to harm Islam, you
can't like that person.
This is more of an adab.
You don't politicize it because politicizing it means
you are going to define who is a
good and a bad Muslim and who is
on the side of this and the side
of that.
That only occurs in the Battle of Badr.
There are rules though, Sheikh, isn't it?
Like Jizya, for example.
So there is some politicization if Islam is
- That's not wala and bara.
No, no, okay.
That's not wala and bara.
Not pure wala and bara.
Wala and bara comes into the reality of
the last 20 years of all that's taking
place in our nation states.
Taking sides means you're a kafir?
Well, but that's exactly what wala and bara
would entail.
Taking sides means you're- So this is
the whole issue here, right?
So this understanding needs to be deconstructed academically.
I haven't done it yet.
Others have done it.
I need to explain.
I have a big library chat about the
reality of wala and bara.
The misunderstanding that has come from Ibn Adwaha's
movement and then after that from the modern
manifestations, you know, al-Makdisi and others, how
they have resurrected that misunderstanding.
Ironically, I find this interesting for the academically
inclined.
SubhanAllah, so interesting, right?
This notion is purely coming from one strand
of Islam.
But because of interaction, it has trickled over
into other understandings.
You hear dear bandi ulama talking about wala
and bara.
It's not a part of the Deoband tradition
at all.
It's like interesting how they've taken these types
of things.
And, you know, when your queen died, right?
And something happened.
I forgot what, like, some child's in the
masjid.
The one saying, God save the king.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, central masjid.
Listen, I'm not taking sides here, but nobody
became a kafir.
Let me just put it that way, okay?
I mean, the whole brouhaha and controversy.
I forgot the details.
I should be careful here.
But I was just laughing, like, seriously, guys?
I mean, you can say it's not appropriate.
You can say kadha wa kadha, but accusations
of kufr.
Accusations of rida.
Bro, I mean, rida.
I mean, audhubillah.
Yeah, I don't think anyone was serious.
Anyone was taken seriously who was online.
They were there like those.
I mean, you're going to get that kind
of mentality.
It's like this extremism that has happened that
if you merely show any type of, you
know, you can say acting foolish in this
regard.
I get it.
Totally get it.
But there is no theology here in this
regard, you know?
And Allah knows that.
It is what it is, man.
So your expertise, your background is the evolution,
the history of ideas and sects and so
forth.
What would you...
Sects, S-E.
Sects.
Careful how you pronounce my English.
I had an expert on the other one.
MashaAllah.
My question is, what do you think historians
later on would say about today?
And how are they described?
Describe Muslim sects and groups and so forth
today and going forward?
So I think we are seeing a new
phase of interest and a new revival of
questions and epistemologies because of the circumstances we
find ourselves in.
And later historians, without a doubt, will have
a lot to say about our times.
We are one of the first generations, especially
in the West, that has to tackle sectarianism
in a very academic way.
You don't find ulema in Pakistan or in
Timbuktu or in Egypt tackling sectarianism head on.
Because there's no need to.
It's the Muslims of England and America that
are actually talking and producing academic papers.
Sheikh Haytham has produced something.
I have multiple talks about sectarianism, right, how
we deal with this difference of opinion.
Believe it or not, we're actually producing a
thought that is effective for the rest of
the world.
We're producing in the Western world.
Why?
Because we have been forced by circumstance to
think and to act in ways people outside
of us don't have to do.
The same applies for what I'm doing.
If I hadn't been forced to think along
the lines I'm being, I wouldn't have been
thinking along these lines.
I'd just be a card-carrying, you know,
Taimian all the way through.
But life and circumstances teach you what books
do not teach you.
And to see with your own eyes this
reality of, OK, this isn't the religion of
Allah to tell people the sifat are like
this and tawhid is like this and whatnot.
They're all tawhid.
They're all people of tawhid.
My version of tawhid is but one version.
All of these people are loving Allah and
his messenger.
None of them in their mind, I have
to go back to it, none of them
is equating the process with Allah.
That's the best definition of tawhid.
Knowing what you know now about what happened
in the 2nd century, 3rd century, and how
later it was, it took on a kind
of life of its own.
These groups, these...
That's not going to happen because the chart
has already been filled.
But do you think...
That's not going to happen.
Do you think there will be different sects
from different angles?
No, I don't think so.
Not really.
There will be fringe movements, but you cannot
reinvent that wheel because those are the original
dominoes.
Those, they have a certain privilege, a historical
privilege, not a theological privilege.
Theological, that might be because of the subject
they're talking about.
What about, for example, along the lines of
secularism or liberalism?
Well, we're already having these discussions.
We don't call them sects.
We don't call them schisms.
Or groups or parties, identities.
You really want to get controversial, let's go
for it.
You interviewed Dr. Haytham Al-Haddad two weeks
ago about secular mind, right?
I heard that interview.
Actually, it was done ages ago, but it
was just published.
Okay, I heard it two weeks ago, okay.
And I interviewed Dr. Akram Nadawi because he's
a public, I'll mention names, okay?
And I interviewed Dr. Hatim Al-Haj about
these issues.
And my views are also known, okay?
Us four, I mentioned by name because they're
all public.
Our views are very close when it comes
to Muslims living in modern times under secular
lands, very close.
We, and especially me, because I don't know
why it's just me, we are extremely criticized
by many other strands.
We're actually called sellouts, deviants, CIA agents, RAND
agents, reformers, whatnot.
You all know this, right?
This is an example of a modern theological
battle taking place in front of your eyes.
It's literally a new battle taking place because
we are attempting to navigate living in the
lands that we live in in a very
different way than our context.
Are you called any of that by people
with any kudos?
Or like, are you equating social media comments
with- Are you misunderstood, Sheikh, or is
it that you're- Is that you're a
CIA agent?
No, no, no.
Where's my paycheck, man?
Is it genuinely that you're bringing something different
or people are misunderstanding you?
Are they really understanding the points that you're
making?
Both, both are there.
I am- Look at what I just
said about aqeedah.
Very few people are this blunt about saying
I don't care about the sifat controversy.
I don't know, I think- You think
there are people saying this?
In my experience, it doesn't sound that outlandish.
It sounds like- It feels like you're
bringing your background as- Could be, then.
Okay, could be.
This is a huge schism, and this is,
you know, people are going to cancel me,
and people are going to- Well, they
are, but I'm saying that- I feel,
my anecdotal experience is that that's more like
social media kind of banter and stuff, less
so the average mulana in my masjid.
You know, even the Deobandi mulana in my
masjid, even if you push cuffs to shove,
he'll probably agree with most of the stuff
you said.
Likewise, you know, the moderate- I think
my experiences with clerics is different than yours,
then.
Yeah, clerics that are trained- Maybe you
rubbed them up differently.
Cleric, could be, could be.
Because, you know, with peers that you get
a bit of- Yeah, that are trained
in their traditions generally don't appreciate this sentiment.
And I suppose an expert- They don't
mind level two, and level two is, okay,
I'm right, you're wrong, but we're still-
Let's live and let live.
They don't mind that.
That, if you're talking about that, I agree
with you.
I'm not- Level two is fine, and
I'm happy if you get there, but for
the intellectuals, we need to get to level
three.
But you, within all this, I think part
of what it is is you see when
you're shining a light on, and I don't
want to say criticizing, because I don't think
it's criticism, but you're shining a light on
what many people's lives, entire scholarship has been
built upon.
Then it's like you're taking away the foundations.
And- What's the goal of doing that?
For them to- No, for me.
What is the goal?
No, no, there isn't a- But I
don't think you are, Sheikh.
This is what I'm saying.
We see what you may think is implied,
that actually you're building upon, it's how you've
understood the tradition, and you're bringing it into
how it's manifested today.
It's very different to saying, I disagree with
the tradition.
And sometimes it comes out as if you
are pushing yourself away from the tradition.
Just, and it doesn't help people understand what
you're saying.
So the tradition is how we got here.
We wouldn't be here without the tradition.
So where there's no need to rethink or
change, we should stick to the tradition, without
a doubt.
But where circumstances force us, where we find
the tradition is simply not working, then let
us go back and see, is the tradition
itself the religion of Allah, or is it
a development from the religion?
So the default, and this is where I
say I'm different from the modernists and progressives,
because I do, don't like the Rasul.
The default is we stick to the tradition.
And we admire the tradition, with the recognition
that the tradition is a man-made product.
But there are going to be specific issues
that are going to challenge us, and life
will be almost impossible or very difficult.
Where that happens, let us, not me, groups
of people, senior to me, elder than me,
come together and then discuss those particular issues,
and see, can we find a way that
respects the religion of Allah, because we can
never compromise.
There is no reformation in the deen of
Allah.
But the interpretations of men, without a doubt,
that's interpretations of men.
So who's going to make that distinction?
Qualified people.
I am the least of them, but perhaps,
inshallah, I can sit in the room with
them.
And I can do that.
So like I said, listen to the, I
liked the interview with Dr. Haitham.
I liked the interview with, you had it
with another person as well.
And then I gave two interviews with Dr.
Akram.
Tom as well, inshallah, good.
Before, I forgot, Dr. Akram as well, and
Dr. Hatim Al-Hajj.
I asked the viewers that are watching, forget
me, go listen to these other three guys.
Sheikh Haitham Al-Haddad, Dr. Akram Radhawi, Dr.
Hatim Al-Hajj.
They're all older than me in age.
They're all wiser than me in experience.
They're all more knowledgeable than me.
And all of them are saying pretty much
what I am saying, is that, yes, theory
is great.
But right now, we're living under a nation
state.
Right now, we have to carve a way
out, understanding that it might have to rethink
through some of the simplistic notions we had
in the past.
This is not a rejection of the religion
of Allah.
It is actually the proper manifestation of how
it should be applied, given our context.
But also within that, I think we can
say, Sheikh, that I have the humility to
say that, and some mistakes may be made.
Of course, but it's a journey, right?
Of course, but it's better than hiding your
head in the sand.
Exactly.
That's not going to get you anywhere.
Yeah.
Which is what traditionalism does.
Yeah.
It's better than saying that we cannot change
anything because the human product that we have
inherited is the religion of Allah.
No, that's not correct.
So yes, all of us are going to
make some mistakes, all of us.
But we hope, inshallah, that people will come
and help us correct the mistakes and make
a bigger and better product for the future,
rather than pull people down for the small
mistakes that are made.
So you mentioned, like, Muslims vis-a-vis
the secular nation state, the secularism today, that
could be one of the kind of fault
lines that emerge, or historians might look back
at.
I'm mentioning these so we can kind of
preempt it and maybe lay the foundations for
being careful not to let these kind of
schisms become too extreme.
I don't think they're going to result in
the creation of actual sectarian lines, but they're
going to be trends.
I mean, maybe the early, you know...
I don't see this happening, but you never
know.
Proponents of the Kalam and arguers against it.
Couldn't be, you never know.
But yeah, so sectarian, I mean, so you're
going to find these trends when it comes
to this issue.
Obviously another major elephant in the room is
the issue of gender wars taking place right
now about the role of men and women.
And as you know, this is one of
the biggest, hottest topics online.
You know, how should men and women, what
does it mean to be a Muslim man
in our times?
And again, my views are somewhere along the
spectrum, and you've got people to the right
of me, to be beloved to me.
So it is what it is, you know.
Another is going to be political participation, which
is a very, very awkward.
And we haven't solved this problem.
We have not solved this problem.
We have.
You definitely have not.
100% you have not.
We have because we have a Muslim mayor
and a Muslim president.
Okay, yeah.
Muslim prime minister.
Actually forget it.
I'm worried about these 20 mile an hour
zones.
Alhamdulillah.
20 miles an hour.
The American viewership has no idea what you're
talking about.
But the biggest criticism Salman Bhai has of
his mayor is that he has lowered the
speed limit to 20 miles an hour.
And Salman Bhai is so angry that he's
going to cancel the mayor.
Let's wrap it up then, inshallah.
It's been a marathon one.
Jazakumullahu khairan, Dr. Sheikh Yasir Qadhi for joining
us.
And jazakumullahu khairan for you at home and
also Omar as well for sorting out the
offices.
Jazakumullahu khairan.
Thanks for watching, tuning in.
Let us know in the comments, you know,
if you agree, disagree, if you want to
refute.
Anyone here?
Anyone here?