Yasir Qadhi – Why is there Sectarianism in Islam Q&A
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of tanning and animal clothing for protecting individuals. They emphasize the value of tanning and avoiding clothing items, and provide examples of how it can be used for decoration and clothing. They also mention the use of animal skins for decoration and clothing, and the potential for it to make pride. The speakers stress the importance of tanning and avoiding clothing items.
AI: Summary ©
Send
me those slaw need how
many Mina most need me
Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato Alhamdulillah wa salatu. salam ala Rasulillah, who either early he was behind woman while I have my bad. Welcome to another episode of our weekly q&a. And we begin with our first question from Sister Sasha from Pakistan. She says that she begins by saying that she is Sunni, but she is very distressed by what is going on, of seeing other groups always declared Kaffir. And she is asking, why can't we just let people claim that they're Muslims, and let Allah azza wa jal judge these days, there's a lot of anti and then she mentioned to specific groups that for this question, I'm not going to mention them going on in our country, and this sectarian
bias is destroying our society. So she is basically asking what can be done about all of this sectarianism? And why should we even care about whether another group is within or outside the fold of Islam? Now, this question is actually very pertinent, it's actually very difficult. It's also very necessary. This is a very important chapter in all of our books of theology. And I'm going to try to summarize some important aspects that we need to be aware of with, of course, the understanding that this is, of course, a much more detailed topic. And in fact, it is one of the branches of theology, it is one of the branches of the science of al Qaeda, which is who gets to
declare, and how is that declaration made? And why is that declaration made about which theology expels one from Islam or not? So I'm going to start off by stating that, firstly, she asked from a very specific nation state, and I'm going to answer theoretically, I'm not going to get involved with that particular nation state. I'm going to talk about theoretically, the the issue of why we care what are we what are we worried about? Why do we say this group is right and wrong? Or this group is outside the fold of Islam? Why can't we just self identify? That's the question she's asking that if somebody says they're Muslim, why do we have to get involved and say, Hold on a sec,
your belief here is, is right or wrong? So I'm not going to mention specifically about that one country. And then towards the end of my remarks, Inshallah, we'll talk a little bit more about the practical realities, that might be cultural specific, because the question has two paradigms, to look at it from the theoretical, which is independent of where you are in the world. And then the practical which might change from time to time and from place to place. And I'm more interested in the theoretical and analysis give some remarks about the practical. Now the issue of who is or isn't a Muslim, it has concerned every single group of Islam since the beginning of Islam, and it should
be of concern to all of us, we should be very concerned because Islam is our way of salvation. And just like we are concerned with what does it mean to be a good human being? What does it mean to be a good citizen? How can we be better people, we should be even more concerned about how we can be better Muslims and we will not know what it means to be a good Muslim unless and until we also know what it means to be the opposite. We will not know the reality of iman unless we also study the reality of the opposite of Eman because one understands things by the opposites right? One understands things by looking at the good and looking at the bad so you know, what is the importance
of being healthy for example, now you study what happens when you're not healthy. You study what happens when you smoke cigarettes and what what happens to your lungs, right? You study what happens when your cholesterol level is high. And you get an awareness that is different than the awareness of the positives of being healthy. Put together, knowing the positives of being healthy and the negatives of being unhealthy, you automatically develop an awareness to live a better lifestyle, you need to know the positives. And you also need to know the negatives and this is in the Quran. Allah says in the Quran, Waka Adekunle vasiliou iOttie what it is the Bina servido Mooji remain, and this
is how we clarify the signs so that the paths of those who are criminals or those that are wrong, can be made clear to you, the Pats of those that are doing wrong should be made clear to you. And also the famous Hadith as well of her they follow the Allah one that he said the people used to ask the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam about good things, but I would ask him about the problems and the fitness and the trials, I would ask you about the evil things because I wanted to avoid falling into them. So a part of our religion is to know what is bad religion and therefore we should be concerned about definitions.
What does it mean to be a Muslim? What does it mean to be a good Muslim? Hence, what does it mean to be a bad Muslim? as well? The concept of defining what is Islam? Actually every word needs to be defined, there's no question about it. Think about it. I mean, you need to define every single term, whether you're talking about a term in a scientific discipline, whether you're talking about a term in a political discourse, when you use a term, that term has to have a definition. And that's why legal contracts are so difficult for us to understand because they have to define each and every term in that contract. But that's what happens when you use important terms. Which term is more
important than the term Islam? Isn't it the most important term? And therefore, when you're using the term Islam, by definition, every definition has to have a definition, by definition, when you say Islam, you must mean something. When you mean something, you're excluding other things as well. So this notion of why should we care, we should reverse it around and say there should be nothing we should be more concerned with, than to know what is good faith and good email so that we can apply it now. We applying it or US applying it is different than obviously treating other people which we're going to come to my point right now, is this notion of why should we care? No, we should care,
because it makes us better people, we should care, because we should have a relationship with Allah subhanho wa taala, which is the best relationship. So we need to know what is Iman, and what is the opposite of iman. And we need to understand as well, that we are not obliged by Allah to pass verdicts about inner intentions or about heaven and *, but we can and we should pass verdicts on actions. You see, again, we have to have that fine distinction here. What we are seeing now in the modern culture is this notion of who are we to judge don't judge me, right. And this is a statement that has some correct and some incorrect meanings. Every society judges people based upon their
outer actions, every society, you're not, you're gonna go to jail because of certain actions that you did, right? You're not going to get away, you cannot tell the thief or the criminal cannot come to the court and say, Don't judge me, the criminal cannot come and say, Don't judge me, the murderer cannot come and say, Don't judge me. We will judge every single person based upon what they have done. So then why should Iman be any different? Why should orthodoxy be any different, we judge people based upon the outter. But we do not judge intentions. And most importantly, we do not judge the Hereafter. This is a very key point that a lot of times, sometimes even preachers and teachers,
they mixed up. And if I say something is wrong, Islamically I am judging the action. I am not judging the person doing the action and pronouncing a verdict that that person is going to heaven and *. That's the difference here. I can And I will say drinking alcohol is wrong. If I were to meet an alcoholic, if I were to meet somebody addicted to alcohol, that is a separate issue. And I'm not judging this person's Heaven and *, I'm not judging, are we to believe that Allah is going to be merciful or not. On the contrary, that is a totally distinct aspect that has nothing to do with saying alcohol and drinking alcohol is wrong. Am I not allowed to say that alcoholic drinks are
haram and sinful, and then if I meet an alcoholic, he's going to come and say, Oh, don't judge me. I still am going to tell him drinking alcoholic drinks is haram. But I asked him that you know, we are all sinners turn to Allah and repentance, Allah forgives sins. So we distinguish between theoretically talking about an action. And then between judging a person, we judge the action of the person and ask for the person himself or herself, we leave their affair to Allah subhanahu wa taala. And this applies to the Muslim and to the kaffir. We do not pronounce verdicts of the Hereafter on any individual. That doesn't change the fact that we shall pronounce verdicts on actions and on
beliefs in this world. And we shall treat people based upon their outer deeds. If you know somebody is a convicted murderer, or you're not going to be acting different around that person, it's the reality of life. If you know somebody is a very dangerous person, you're going to take your own precautions, you're you're not judging their hereafter, but there is a certain methodology that you will interact that person with so we have to be again careful of the middle line in the middle of balance here between understanding that we are obliged by Allah subhanho wa Taala to speak generically about good deeds and bad deeds, and we invite people to good deeds and we warn people
from bad deeds. We invite people to good theology, we warn people against bad theology, versus the individual that has good and bad that we might treat them nicely or am I treat them harshly when I treat them with sympathy or my treat them with a little bit of of harshness, with
They are like, a simple example is if a relative of yours is a drug dealer, right? You want to get the message across, I don't like what you're doing. I'm not going to be satisfied, you know, cousin of yours is, you know, a drug dealers in the local mafia. I'm just giving a very far fetched example. I hope it's far fetched Inshallah, but suppose you have a cousin that's in the drug mafia, the drug cartel? Can you just ignore the fact that he has, he's doing something that is harmful to himself to his family to his society, you're not going to ignore that even if you meet him outside of his cartel activities, you visit him and whatnot or his haram activities, you might meet him, but
even as you meet him, there will be this awareness in you and in him that there is something that is not 100%. Right. So all of this needs to be taken into account. And it's not an easy topic to summarize in, you know, 1520 minutes. Nonetheless, I'll try to give you some generic guidelines. Okay. That was all introduction. By the way. The first point that I wanted to mention is that the the issue of who is and who isn't a Muslim, it is something as already mentioned in the introduction that is of crucial importance. And in fact, one can say, the Companions themselves Radi Allahu Anhu. They showed us how important this is at the death of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam when
the wars of the apostasy took place what is called the Hooroo Beretta, when they took place, and the Companions themselves began discussing this issue, are these people within or outside the fold of Islam, and they had to treat them differently. Certain groups claimed that they were prophets after the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, most prominently more Salem and said Jah and they were considered to be outside the fold of Islam. Other groups said they're not going to pay Zakah and Abu Bakr Siddiq, basically. Now here's there's a controversy, did he view them as being apostate? Or did he view them as being rebels and Allah knows best but it appears that those people who denied the
obligation to pay zakat, he viewed them as being non Muslims, and those that well greedy, and they kept their money. But they didn't actually say that, you know, is it God is not obligatory that he viewed them as as rebels against the state, but still within the fold of Islam. So the point being that this issue of whether there were there outside of Islam, it was the Sahaba themselves showed us we need to have an understanding of what is a Muslim, and what isn't a Muslim, as well, the first splinter group to break away from orthodoxy. It broke away over this issue. And this is, of course, the heart of Christ or the Hermitage. And it's very, very interesting to note that this issue of
defining who is a Muslim was the first issue that the Ummah was obsessed over, and one faction broke away because of it's a very important issue. Also very important to point out that this issue is very, very dangerous. And we see this from the very beginning of Islam. That is why to err on the side of caution is better, because we see what happens historically, when groups take this issue to be the most important. And the Haughty Giants went fanatical in this regard. And they deemed everybody who disagreed with them to be careful. And their fanaticism caused many other Muslims to go to the other extreme, which is to say, let's not even talk about this issue. But we don't fight
extremism with another extremism, we fight extremism with the middle path, we fight extremism, with wisdom and knowledge. Just because one group of fanatics went berserk. And they did go berserk and they started excommunicating, the rest of the Muslim world, they started killing people. And we have these groups up until our times we have these fanatical groups that are going to bomb other misogyny or kill other people in the name of Islam thinking that there are other Muslim Brothers or Catherine, that doesn't change the fact that sometimes a belief might be wrong, or a belief might be tougher, but we're not saying we should be violent against them. The fact that some fanatics were
violent does not change the reality of what is right and wrong. We correct the violence. We speak out against the violence and we preach with wisdom and we preach tolerance This is the fine line is very difficult to do I understand, but that is what our religion requires us to do. We preach a version of tolerance not necessarily the full Western version of I'm okay, you're okay. We don't believe that. You we are not all the same when it comes to beliefs. And there are beliefs that are Orthodox and mainstream and beloved to Allah and His messenger. And there are beliefs that are wrong, we preach the correct belief. We say this is the right belief. And then we categorize other
beliefs as being wrong as being deviant as being within Islam but but not upon orthodoxy or as being outside the fold of Islam. And along with all of this we always preach tolerance of humanity, tolerance of live and let live we are not forcing any
Want It is always unequivocally, no exceptions haram, to force a person to accept your belief by threat of sword or death or killing, this is unequivocally haram, that we do not impose our beliefs on other people. The fact that we do not impose our beliefs on other people does not change the fact that we might disagree with their beliefs. So that is the one of the points that need to stress that the issue of who is and isn't a Muslim has been something that our Ummah has been occupied with since the beginning of our tradition. And there have been extremist movements, and there continue to be extremist movements in this regard. And in fact, every single Farrakhan every single theology
since the beginning of Islam, one of the things that it discusses is what is and what isn't correct theology. And then what is incorrect theology, but still Islam, and then what is incorrect theology outside of Islam. So there are, for our purposes, let's just say two simple boundaries, right? Even though of course, it was much more than this. But for our purposes, let's say there's two milestones. The first milestone is when you're outside of Orthodoxy, but still a Muslim. So your your theology is wrong, but not to the level of being non Muslim. Okay, this is what is called a halal beta, or the people of deviation. Okay, that level is one level, then you have another level
outside, which is the theology that negates your Islam, you're outside the fold of Islam. Every single group since the beginning of Islam has discussed these two areas, and has attempted to codify what it believes is the correct in this regard, and you will find variations within all of the movements and groups. Now, I'm not going to go into all of the controversy, but realize that this is a topic of controversy within the various groups. My opinion about this and this is an area of my expertise, the theology, my opinion about this is very clear in this regard. And that is that the position I advocate is very clear. And that is that to be a Muslim, from from non Muslim to Muslim
to to leave Cofer and to enter Islam. What is required is very simple and that is the Kalama and all that is necessitated by the Kadima that's it La ilaha IL Allah Muhammad Rasul Allah, and what disclaimer entails. If you do this, and you follow this up without bringing something that negates the Kalima then you are within the fold of Islam. So anyone who believes that Allah is their Lord and Creator and object of worship anyone who wants to worship Allah subhanho wa Taala and takes Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam as the Messenger of Allah, the One whom we turn to for how we worship Allah for our guidance for our role model, that person is within the fold of Islam, as long
as nothing comes that negates that simple Kenema of la ilaha illallah, Muhammad Rasool Allah, and anything that is obviously necessitated by that anybody who believes in something that negates the Kalima is not a Muslim anymore. It's that simple. And again, you need to understand this point. If somebody were to worship an idol, and say this idle created me and to sacrifice to the idle. How can we say this is Islam it is not Islam, right. Similarly, if somebody says there is a Nebby, after our NABI SallAllahu, alayhi wa sallam that we turn to for guidance, right? There is a human being after our prophets of Allah or Islam that Allah inspired. This is simply there is there is no question
that this is outside the fold of Islam, because the Kalima necessitates This is the seal of the prophets that are Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is the final messenger. And in fact, the Companions, they did not differ over the fact that will say Lemma and all of these false prophets that came are outside the fold of Islam unequivocally without any controversy. There is no excuse for a person who believes in a prophet after the Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam. So that is how we defined Cofer and Islam. Now, within Islam. What is the overall orthodoxy or the what we call Sunil Addison or Gemma? My position is that anybody who takes the Quran and the Sunnah as their primary
sources, and they affirm what is in the famous hadith of Gibreel, which is the five pillars of Islam that you the actions are there and the six pillars of Eman. If they affirm this, then generally speaking, they are within mainstream orthodoxy. And the differences beyond this are too petty to make a major issue, you know, within mainstream Sunni Islam. There are lots and lots of variations and interpretations and you know, whether it is the Obon D or whether it is stability, whether it is Barelvi, whether it is Addison Salafi all of
These generally speaking, they should discuss amongst themselves with an element of civility and an element of brotherhood that is different then if we are discussing with somebody who is outside of all of this so that what they have in common is a lot more than what others have. And there should not be any level of extreme animosity or hostility, not Not that you should be with other groups as well when I'm saying especially when it comes to those who affirmed the Quran and Sunnah, and those who respect the companions, and those who believe in the six pillars of Eman as in the hadith of Gibreel, then in this case, they are generally speaking upon a very similar understanding of Islam.
Now, obviously, somebody who rejects one of the six pillars of Eman doesn't believe in Kedah, somebody who rejects the Companions doesn't accept the books of the Hadith or whatnot. Obviously, they're now heading into territory that is not orthodox. And this is a different interpretation of Islam. And you know, that doesn't mean we are uncivil to them. But no doubt there is a level of difference now where it's not the same. And we understand that this is an incorrect belief system, even as we live with them in civil society. Now, another point here, that's very, very important. And unfortunately, many even preachers and scholars fall into this mistake is that they don't
differentiate between speaking in generalities and between applying specifics.
What do I mean by this? We are obliged by law to speak in generalities. We are not obliged by a law to pronounce verdicts on people, especially when we're not qualified to do so. Pronouncing verdicts on individuals is not the same as speaking in generalities. We as preachers and teachers must teach the masses you as parents must teach your children generalities do not teach them in fact, warn them against specifics. What do I mean by this? Let me give you an example. We teach our children that we dislike gopher and should we teach our children that it is wrong to worship other than Allah subhanaw taala we teach our children that we do not make fun of Islam or anything of Islam. We teach
our children that to make fun of Islam to make fun of the Quran to make fun of Allah and His Messenger This is gopher. We teach our children that to curse the Companions is heresy and deviation we should not do this. So we teach them the general rules. Okay, now we come across somebody who you know in some beauty video, whatever is as a Muslim, he thinks he's a Muslim, and he cracks a joke that seems to make fun of Islam. Okay, we have just taught our children that making fun of anything of Islam is code for which it is you don't make fun of Allah and His messenger you don't make fun of something that Allah commands you to do. So we find somebody that we think is doing this, do we then
say oh, this person is a catheter? Even though we have just said that making fun of Allah is cool for making fun of the Prophet system is cool for now, we find somebody doing it, do we automatically translate the rule which is making fun of Islamic school for into a specific verdict, which is you are a Kaffir the answer to this the lay person is not allowed to take a general rule and apply it to a specific person that is something that is a fatwa that is done by the people of Iftar the people of knowledge, you know, when I say you, I mean of course the general a Muslim, the average Muslim is not obliged. In fact, it is dangerous to open this door of stamping people and applying generalities
to specifics. So if you find somebody who is actually making fun of something Islamic, you may ask her share her item or the Mufti may look into this issue, but as a person who is not trained, you do not pronounce a verdict on the person, you may pronounce it on the action that hey, this is wrong, you should not be doing this. Why? Because to translate a principle into a reality to translate a general rule from a textbook into a lived reality. This requires knowledge that the textbook will not give you and the share or the item or the Mufti has to look at many things first and foremost. For example, you yourself might be mistaken you might think it's cool for but it's not covered. You
don't know you interpreted it to be covered, but it is not to call for your own knowledge misunderstood whether it is called for or not. And we see this all the time that so often, somebody says something that the other person interprets oh that is making fun of Allah his Messenger, but that is not he is simply making a statement of fact and an example can be if a Christian says if a Christian an actual Christian says that I don't believe in your prophet for example, right. That is his belief. Of course he doesn't believe in our Prophet in an Islamic land in an ideal Islamic land.
This is not blasphemy for him to say I believe in Jesus, the Son of God. And I don't believe in your prophet that is the definition of being Christian. In some Muslim lands, if a Christian says this, the people the villagers, they go berserk on him. This is blasphemy. This is, you know, stock that are sold and this and that. No, it's not, he is simply telling you or she is simply telling you what she believes as a Christian, that is the definition of Christianity, if she believed or if he believed that the Prophet system is a prophet, then they wouldn't be a Christian, would they? So you understood this to be derogatory, but it is not derogatory. And therefore, again, you miss apply the
general rule, and you didn't understand what is that general rule? Another point that needs to be done? Another principle is that the person who commits this this action, is he or she even aware that it is wrong? Do they even know? Do they understand the severity? Do they understand that this is something that Allah has forbidden? Maybe they don't know any better? And ignorance is an excuse in front of Allah subhanho wa taala. You can be excused if you don't know. And the famous example of this is the man, our prophets has mentioned him that he had committed some bad deeds, and he was worried that Allah might punish him. So what did he do? He told his children that when I die,
cremate my body and scatter the ashes everywhere, so that Allah cannot resurrect me, right? Because he said, If Allah resurrects me, then he's going to punish me and I don't want to be punished. Now. He thought that his action can outwit Allah, he thought that separating his body into ashes is going to allow him to be scot free. In other words, he thought he is more powerful than Allah, but he didn't actually think that it's his innocence. It's a simple mind. And our Prophet system said, Allah commanded the winds to gather his ashes resurrected him and said to them, Why did you do this? And the man said, I was scared of you, oh Allah. And so Allah forgave him because of his innocence
that I was scared of you not because of the deed here. If you were to ask me, what is the verdict of a person who thinks he can outwit Allah? And who thinks he can do something so that he's not going to be resurrected? I will say and any scholar will say that is Cofer, that is major Cofer. No one is more powerful than Allah and it is Cofer. But the man was so ignorant, or he we can say he was such a simpleton, that in his understanding, he was doing it out of innocence. And Allah forgave him because of that, right? So again, we speak in generics, we do not apply specifics until many conditions have been met. Also, we can say that what if there was a mistake? What if there was an
emotional issue that he just became overwhelmed? What if he lost his mind temporarily, and did something he shouldn't have done? And we find this in the hadith of Bukhari and Muslim that are processing a very long example of a man who became delirious out of happiness, and he thought he was about to die, he discovers he's not going to die. And he shouts out out of joy. He says that, oh, I am Allah's Lord. And Allah is my servant. I was a biller. That's what he says. And our profit system excused him and said, he was so happy that he made a mistake, he was so happy that he blurted it out, he didn't mean to say that. So even our profit system, excuse this phrase. And that's because
his emotions got the better of him. And of course, there's always other issues was he forced this and that, my point being that we need to be very careful about speaking in generalities versus speaking in specifics. And unfortunately, many of our preachers, they don't make this point clear. And they teach in a manner such that they expect you to take those generalities and apply it in specifics. I advise the preachers and I hope I'm doing this all the time, that we keep on distinguishing between speaking in general tones versus applying that tone to a specific person, there is no question that this issue is abused and misused. Now, once we understand this, what
should a society do? And Islamic society about people who have different beliefs, how should they be treated? This is where I say that the Sharia does have a spectrum of differences that can be done. Theoretically, it doesn't matter where you are in the world. Something that is wrong is something that is wrong. A deviant belief is a deviant belief. Theoretically, there is no it doesn't matter. An action is cool Photoshop, wherever you are, or it's not cool Photoshop. However, realistically, there are certain things that will change the application. There are certain things that are mitigating factors that change from society to culture to time to place, and therefore, how these
other groups should be treated. Is a culture specific and a time specific and a place specific question in Baghdad of the third century of the Hijra. For example. Maybe we can say our scholars treated these other groups better
harshly and they had every right to do so it was a different world, different time different place, should we treat somebody in modern day Pakistan or in modern day America and modern day other lands the same way. It depends on the culture and the time in the place. And the scholars of every region, the fair minded, you know, open minded, the Forward Thinking scholars, the men, and again, who you choose is up to you in this regard. So, you're going to find scholars of the entire spectrum here, but that is something that is culture specific. And I have said this many, many times that to take
the position of how Hirata groups were treated in mum, Luke times are in a bus at times or normal year times, and to apply them in America or even in Pakistan, it is very, very incorrect times have changed, and situations have changed. And what might have been major deviancy back in the third century of the hijra, in light of what we are facing now becomes minor deviancy. We have bigger challenges, different challenges, our children are leaving Islam. So these sectarian issues automatically become far more trivial. Differences in return petition are not how they used to be in the past, the freedoms that our societies give are also things that we're going to have to take into
account. And therefore,
without mentioning names of these groups, our sister mentions, you know, to two names. The first is the majority non Sunni group. By the way, I'm not mentioning names for this particular question. I have mentioned these names in other lectures. But for this question, I want to keep it theoretical. I have spoken about these other groups in other lectures, I don't need to mention specifically here, but our sister says that, for example, there's a group that, you know, is non Sunni, and they're always being cursed in the line, then they curse us back in this and that. And my position has always been that look, this group that does not respect the Sahaba it believes in a series of Imams
and whatnot. Definitely they are not mainstream orthodox Muslims, they have beliefs that are problematic. There's no question about that. At the same time, generally speaking, they are definitely within the fold of Islam. They believe in the Colombia they live in a lot. They face the Ebola. They do will do the fast Ramadan, they read the Quran, the Shah, or the main teachings of Islam are found amongst them. And this is the essence of what it means to be non mainstream or what is called a halal beta. This is exactly what it is they are Muslims, but they are not within what we consider to be orthodoxy. Allah will be the judge also realize the vast majority of all of these non
Sunni groups, the vast majority of them are simply following what their parents taught them. And if they are innocent, and they are sincere, and they are pious in their own way in sha Allah with that they will be forgiven by Allah because they don't know any better. Let me ask you an honest question. Aren't you a Sunni because your parents are Sudanese majority of us are that is the case. And we are taught a version of Islam and we accept that version of Islam. Now, I believe, I have gone on a study and I have studied intensely, I believe that what I believe is authentic, but that's my belief in the end of the day, the other innocent Muslim out there who is born in another field or
another group and other sect is taught another paradigm and other perspective. And they firmly believe that that is what the messenger of allah sallallahu wasallam taught them they firmly believe that the Al Bayt have a status and Fatima is this and Ali is that and Hussein is this, okay, that is their belief, I disagree with it. And I will politely preach and teach a different version of Islam and I will never preach hatred of another group or individual but I will say that it is incorrect to believe that they are Imams that are, you know doing things and and are still alive with this that we're going to say this is incorrect belief and does is not supported by the Quran or by the Sunnah
of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, nonetheless, we will allow them to be who they are, in fact, we will respect their humanity without respecting their beliefs. This is a very key point here, right? I will not respect the beliefs of those who are saying bad things about the sahaba. But I can give them the right to be who they are. I don't have to force my beliefs on them. They are who they are. I don't like it. But I'm not going to preach Civil War. I'm not going to preach that they should be harmed. I'm going to preach tolerance. I'm going to preach that. Okay. We have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with what you are what you are saying. And this is in fact exactly what Ali
Radi Allahu Anhu himself did when it came to the Hatha giants that he allowed them to be who they are without forcing pseudoaneurysm onto them. So we have to agree to disagree. Now, what if they believe something that is outside the fold of Islam? In this case? We say that ignorance is not an excuse. Ignorance might be an excuse if you're within Islam if you believe in Imams you believe in this not you know, ignorance is an excuse you believe in the Kalama. But if you believe that other than Allah is
Your Lord and you claim to be Muslim, there is no excuse. And if you believe in a Nebby, after our NABI SallAllahu, alayhi wa sallam, there is no excuse, everybody should know that the message of the Quran is very clear, and everyone in that group who believes otherwise cannot be considered a Muslim. Now, that does not mean that we harm them, we execute them, we throw them in jail, we persecute them, it's simply is a point that we don't believe that our Muslim, and whether they should live in a particular land or not, is something that's up to the government. And I don't see any problem whatsoever. If we treat this group like we treat other non Muslim groups in that land
that you mentioned, there are people who worship idols, and that is the worst sin in our religion to worship an idol, but they are citizens of the land and they have the right to do what they are doing. They are not considered Muslim, but they have their their their religion, Lacan, Dino Cambodia Dean. So we should also understand that it is not a problem Islamically to allow these groups to practice their version of their faith and to do what they're doing. And we have the right to say that that is wrong, and that is not within the fault of Islam, they have the right to not be harmed and to go about their daily lives within a fully Islamic land, obviously, in a land where
religion does not play a role in society where the government is totally neutral and all religions are free, even more so they have the right to do as they please because we too have the right to do as we please the bottom line with this. So inshallah we'll move on to the other question, I hope I've answered some of your points. It is very important to discuss correct beliefs from incorrect beliefs. But that does not translate into treating people nicely versus treating people badly. We can say this belief is wrong, and still treat somebody accordingly. This is what we need to get across. Anyone who says that this idol created me, I think this is the worst thing you can say
theologically still, if I were to meet this person who will smile, I will be nice and polite. My assessment of his belief does not translate into me treating that person rudely. That's what we need to understand here. And so the same applies to these other movements is other focuses other groups as well. We preach correct theology. We advise our children our community to what is correct theology, we try to correct incorrect theology in a wise manner, but we do not preach hatred we do not preach abbazia as you call it, in Urdu, we do not preach violence we do not preach forcing other people to to adopt to any other belief system lakum Dinoco Walia deen and that is the middle line
that we need to try to find that we ask Allah azza wa jal to help us in this regard.
Our second question for de filtering question. Our brother most of her emails don't know from where he simply is asking a question. Oh, sorry, it does say from India Okay. Mashallah, we have a brother Mustafa from India saying, what types of animal leathers are allowed? And if I Tan An animal leather, does it purify it? Does it make it permissible to you? So what type of leather is allowed? So this is a filthy question, obviously, that deals with animal leather. So I'll give you the brief answer, and I'll give the detailed answer. The brief answer is that tanning is a type of complete transformation called St. Hala that makes the net just into Taha that makes that which is impure
into that which is pure. And therefore, the the point of tanning the skin is to transform that which is not just in toto ahead. And from a technical perspective, there should be no difference between any animal's skin. Once it is transformed. Anything that was not just becomes pothead, and this would include pig leather, nonetheless, I advise you to avoid pig skin, because the majority position is that it should be avoided and because we really don't want to get involved with that animal and other than pig, all other hides and all other leather in Charlottetown is permissible. This is the photo that I am giving you. Now the detailed response. The longer answer. The skins of
animals, obviously a dead animal, obviously an animal that is found dead a meter that you have not killed. That is noxious and you cannot use it you cannot do anything with it in that state. It is a dead animal. We are talking about tanning the skin we're talking about taking the skin and there are methods to turn it in our time as chemically it is done in all in the good old days they would add ammonia and they will put it in the sun and they will do it a lot of things and they will do a chemical process and then the final product would now be the tanned leather that would then be used for garments we use for utensils will be used for a
Putting on things so again leather has been used since the beginning of time. And Allah subhanho wa Taala mentions in the Quran that women are suave, Oh buddy how you're going to benefit from animal skin, animal leather and animal fur. This is explicit in the Quran that it is allowed for us. However, the controversy exists over what animal skins are allowed. And this controversy has manifested amongst the four modahaus and beyond. Obviously, as usually, I always give the caveat. This is the short answer. There are actually 10 opinions on this, you know, exaggeration 10 opinions on this issue. We're not going to go over every single one of them very briefly, I'll just mention
four or five of them so that you understand what is the controversy. The first opinion I'll mention is the most restrictive position, which is found within the humbly school certain segments of the Humphrey School and certain segments of the Maliki school. And these scholars said that the only skin leather that is allowed to use is the leather of the animal that has been slaughtered properly, for you know, the Vihara that the animal that has been slaughtered properly, that is the only animal that you can then take. So obviously animals that are not allowed to eat automatically get kicked out the window, but even animals that are allowed to eat if they have not been slaughtered, some of
the scholars say you cannot use them at all. So if a goat dies, naturally, if a camel you know if an owner of a Campbell's comes one day and he finds a dead camel on in his, you know a flock of camels, according to this opinion that says nothing, you cannot touch it, it is completely gone. This is the most restrictive of the opinions out there. The next opinion the second one that I'm going to mention, it is the more common position amongst the hamburgers and Maliki's and it is the position of even Tamia and every meal Kodama and the most amount of teachers as well, which is that all animals that are permissible to eat may be utilized, their skins may be utilized, even if they have
not been slaughtered. Therefore, going back to our example, camels, goats, sheep's cows, whether you slaughter them or not, doesn't matter, you can take the skin, you can turn it and the tanned skin is permissible. Okay, so the difference between the first and the second category is the first category says you must slaughter the animal and only if the animal is slaughtered, the skin is then permitted this position. It as far as I understand has pretty much been abandoned in the modern world, it is almost impossible to implement. And frankly, the evidence is do not support it. The other opinion is the more common opinion and it is the general position of the modern humbly school and the Maliki
school. And as I said, I've been Tamio Kodama, and that is that all animals that may be eaten, their skin may be tanned and utilized, regardless of whether you sacrifice the animal or if the animal was found dead. And the evidence for this is the hadith of Ibn Abbas for the Allah one, that once the Prophet system passed by a, a dead sheep, and it had been gifted to Maimunah his wife, and of course it died. Naturally. So the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said to his family, that why don't you benefit from the skin? Why don't you benefit from the skin? So they said, O Messenger of Allah, it's amazing, it's dead. How can we benefit? So our prophets of Allah who I sent him said, in how
Roma, a Kulu Ha, what is forbidden is to eat the animal, this hadith in Bukhari and Muslim. This hadith is super, super explicit. And that's why the position of that is known amongst the hamburgers. And the Maliki's, which is the fatwa that is given is that it's very clear even if the animal is dead, you can take the skin off of it, peel the skin off of it, and then do the tanning process and then
benefit from it because our Prophet sallallahu wasallam said how do you design Muslim either dubizzle Ihar Boo from Tahoe hadith is a sign Muslim from Ibn Abbas as well. If the skin has been tanned it becomes pure. So tanning of the skin of the animal makes it pure. So this is the second opinion and this is the majority position and there is no question that it is a correct opinion. You do not have to slaughter the animal. Okay, now we get to even a broader we're going from the narrowest to the broader the third opinion and the third opinion is that of Imam Shafi and the Shafi madhhab is on this position and many of the 100 fees are on this position as well. And that is that
all animal skin is halal, except for two animals, pig skin and dogs. This is the shot vary, the majority shot for a position and he used the Hadith that any skin that has been tanned becomes poor here. He said the hadith is very clear and
nice skin he didn't just say lamb skin or sheepskin or goat skin or camel skin or cow skin he said any animal skin therefore Mr. Shah fair he said we make no exceptions but he did he made two exceptions. He said we'll make an exception for a pig because the pig is explicitly mentioned in the Quran as being rich it is never said it's something that is filthy. So he said the pig will make an exception for and then he said we'll make play us upon the dog because the saliva of the dog is not just and so the dog will make it similar category as the pig. Not that anybody uses dogs can anyway so we don't have to worry that much about that. But the point is this the shaft very position, and
even Abdullah borrowed the famous Maliki scholar he says Why did he do Moodle fuqaha. In Ireland, nobody will tell you will Hijazi will arrive to a sham. This is the position of the majority of the scholars of the Hijaz and a very raw kind of Syria. This is the default position of the majority of the scholars that he said. And this would imply that for example, in our times, crocodile skin is allowed for example, right because crocodile skin is used. Now again, I'm not talking about the ethical issues as another issue altogether. I'm not saying to ignore it. I'm simply saying I'm speaking as a fugly. What needs to be said from fifth? I'm not speaking as an ethicist. Should these
animals be done or not? That's a whole totally different issue altogether. So according to this position, the pig hide pig leather would not be allowed. But any other letter nobody uses dog leather, anything else would be permitted other than that now, the fourth position is that Imam Abu Hanifa and some of the Hanafi schools and they score scholars and they said that we will allow even theoretically dog we're simply only going to restrict it to pig so Abu Hanifa Rahim Allah to Allah He said all animal hide is allowed except for pig. The only difference between him and Shafi shot Imam Shafi said pig and dog animal Hanifa said on the pig, the fifth opinion and the final and will
quote is that of the student of Abu Hanifa, Imam, Abu Yusuf, and also the founder of the fifth month of Islam, you know, there's actually more than four methods. So they say the fifth method is called the vahidi method that would avoid it. And that would allow Haiti and Abu use have they made no exceptions. And they said, once the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said any animal skin that is tan becomes pure, they said Who are we to make any conditions so they said all animal skins that are tanned become pure, including pig leather, and from a purely technical from a purely theoretical perspective, I am sympathetic to this position, because it is based upon sound reality of the the
paradigm, ie what I mean by this I gave a whole talk is on the q&a, if you look at it, chemical change gelatin listen to that talk, and then link it to this one. I spoke a little bit about that some months ago, I think was it a year ago when I spoke about gelatin and the issue of chemical transformation and the position that a chemical transformation or what is called is the Haisla it changes not just into teuer and this is the correct opinion. If you follow this opinion, then tanning is an example of a chemical transformation. If you say the tanning is chemical transformation, then no matter what the product was in the beginning, the final product will be
taught here and therefore EMA will use of andother Doherty and those who gave this fatwa they are being consistent. And those who bring in pigskin, they are using an emotional argument that I love as well. So from a purely theoretical perspective, I understand imamo we use even though the body and they are consistent, and I like that, but the footwear that I give is that I remember what Hanifa which is that use any skin other than pigskin. Okay, that's what I said at the beginning. And if somebody were to insist and use the pigskin, they're following great aroma and whatnot. But why why go down this route? Let's just try to avoid at least the one animal that Allah azza wa jal has
said should be avoided. And really, it should. There's just no need to go there. Nonetheless, if somebody has a particular you know, item from beforehand that is coming from this animal and and it has been tanned, there is precedents to use it even though I would never personally advise anybody to go by this just to get out of the field and just to realize that the vast majority of the Ummah were uncomfortable in this regard, even if from a purely theoretical perspective, tanning does make the niches into toilet. That having been said,
there is another provision that you should be aware of, and that is, or I should say Qatar has not how long but it isn't mcru and that is to use the skins of predatory beasts for decoration. So lions and leopards and tigers you know we don't do this as Muslims. We don't have their skins why? Our Prophet systems that hadith is instead of me the narrator, but it'd be really from his father, and then absl
Allahu Allah He was so lemme Naha Angelou, the CBI and to flourish however to remedy the promises and forbade that the skins of predatory animals be laid out. You know, in those days, kings and arrogant people and the multimillionaires, they would have the skins of lions and the skins of tigers in the skins of leopards. And this would be a token of of pride, and they would make saddles on their horses and camels made out of leopard for example just to show the people that they have the power and the flaunting. So this hadith says the Prophet system forbade that the predatory skins be rolled out and used as carpets Imitate me, denarius, this hadith, and then Imitate me the says
wakad, about the anatomy and some of the people of knowledge from the sahaba. And those after them. They disliked that the skins of predators, even if they are tend to be used. And this is the position of Abdullah and Mubarak and Ahmed in Hamburg and Sakina Rahu. And they were even more strict that those skins should not be worn, or you'd be used as prayer rugs. Okay, so they disliked that you even have them. And they hated me, they made a level of haram basically, that you wear them. So it's one thing to display them, they said that smokers should not be done. And of course, this is I mean, in every issue, there's that but this is the humbly position and it is a Hadith here
you can not only the stick with the Hadith as much as possible, that our Prophet system is saying that they should not be used as fruit. And the least that can be said is that it is my crew. Because there is a level of arrogance that is done that when you have those animal skins, you are trying to be a type of boastful and whatnot. So it is best to avoid those skins not because they are not just not because they're not just because the issue comes up, showing off. And therefore to conclude this question, the first word that I'm giving is the fact to have basically any modified charter, if at all, because nobody uses dog skin, and the hamburger or sorry, the Hanafi position, which is that
the skins of all animals other than pig is permissible, and I don't encourage pig skin whatsoever. But if somebody were to insist and have it, there is precedents and it does make theoretical sense. Nonetheless we should avoid pig skins simply because Allah azza wa jal has called a pig in the Quran as being something that is filthy and so we should try to avoid it as much as possible and in the end, Allah subhanho wa Taala knows best until next week in sha Allah said mid Willamette Allahu Allah cattle
in mostly me now I didn't was Lima D one meaning I mean it will quantity now look on it the more slowly been I was born in Poland he was saw the Rena was Slavia right the one before she you know because she
wasn't for she unfortunately no one was polishing I think one downside the lino one downside the party was slow on me now was all in
one heavy Lena fold over gentlemen home one Hatfield lot the ones that get enough love that gets you Oh, what's the guilt or I don't love hula
nauseam