Yasir Qadhi – YQ Gems #3 – Charlie Hebdo Redux, Or The ‘Free Speech Get-out-of-jail’ Card

			Miss min Hill
		

			said I'm Ali Kumar is a law he wrote about our cartoons. So welcome to another episode of y que
gems. So my daughter said I need to follow YouTube channel protocol and I should say that you should
subscribe to the channel and like this no hold on say subscribe and like apparently that's the
nomenclature that is done for the channel. So I hope and shout out to either the setup is a little
bit better as some of you were talking about the lighting, I did get a light in there hope the
camera angle is better as well. But please leave in the comments. your suggestions are benefiting
from people telling me what specifically to do. Now. Today I wanted to talk a little bit about
		

			something that is in the news. And that is Shani Abdo the the cartoon, the newspaper that is
publishing the the cartoons that are offensive to us the cartoons that make fun of our Prophet
sallallahu Sallam is still full of love for that. And the fact that the President or the Prime
Minister of France, excuse me, Macron, he has refused to condemn the magazine. In fact, he has
proudly said that this is something that you know, the French This is one of the aspects of French
values, which is to the right to offend and the right to blaspheme is something that the French
prides themselves on. And so the freedom of speech is something that is
		

			integral to the identity of France. Now, obviously, we as Muslims living in the West, we are
grappling with the best way to respond, we do understand that there is an element to freedom of
speech, and we don't quite best norm, some of us are struggling how to criticize this aspect while
maintaining the reality that we do want an element of freedom in our personal lives. So I'm going to
comment a little bit about this. And of course, this is an ongoing conversation. 115 20 minute video
is not going to, you know, solve the problem decisively, I just wanted to give some talking points
in of course, the the Sharpie becomes very sensitive because of the the attack that took place from
		

			the rogue elements of ISIS when they massacred a number of cartoonists and journalists at the
magazine. And of course, that prompted world leaders across the globe to fly into France within 24
hours into stage a a protest, you know, against the the people who did this, and the show of
solidarity for France. And of course, once again, as as Muslims, we were put into this rather
awkward reality on the one hand, no Muslim, can, can can accept whether it happens or not
politically, but I'm talking about morally, no Muslim can accept, no Muslim can be happy at the fact
that our Prophet Sall Allahu Allah, he was sent them is denigrated or mocked or made fun of. On the
		

			other hand, at some level, we do understand that the laws of the countries that we live in, they
allow for making fun of people or even at times they do make fun of God. And at times, let us be
very clear here, sometimes they make fun of Jesus and others. Our one of our points is that they
make fun of us more than they make fun of others. But let us be honest and admit, well, yeah, there
are times I'm in the they're comedians, and they're far left, you know, wing people, and sometimes
they're far right wing, they'll say things that are very, very demeaning or derogatory, and the
freedom of speech is there for them. So what are some of the things that we can be thinking about as
		

			we engage in this conversation? Today, I wanted to go over four points. Again, this is all off the
top of my head, not quite prepared, per se, but just off the top of my head, first and foremost,
from a purely purely philosophical angle. Let's Let's leave aside the religious beliefs that I have
in you have less leave aside the laws of the lands of the countries that we live in, from a purely
philosophical angle. The the the, the fact that the freedom of speech is giving preference to the
one who speaks over the one against whom you know, the speeches done, the fact that the one who
instigates is given more power than the one who is insulted, that really does not seem to make
		

			sense. So let me phrase it this way. Why don't I have as well the right to not be offended? Where
are my own privileges, to be able to walk in the streets without somebody coming and saying
something negative about me about my skin color about my religion, about my mother or father? How
about my personal space and my safety as well? So there seems to be this, this clash or this tug
between, you know, to two competing individuals on the one hand, the one who is speaking and wanting
to insult on the other hand, the one who is spoken to and the one who is insulted
		

			from a purely philosophical angle, why are we privileging the actor? Why are we privileging The one
who does something versus the one who is passive and is not doing anything, do I also not have a
right to not be insulted when I'm, you know, in public unprovoked, again, without any, just cause
some simply walking on the street, and somebody comes, and it might be legal to put me down to put
my ethnicity down to put my religion down, but where are my rights as well. So what we're seeing
here, and of course, 100 years ago, 500 years ago, obviously, this was not acceptable in in any
Western society, and you could, you know, go to court, or you could even get physical and nobody
		

			would do anything, because they would understand that you were provoked. In fact, even in America,
some of the founding fathers would actually, you know, have these duels with the guns because of a
word that was said, because somebody those fighting words, as it is called in, in court documents,
the point being that what we are seeing here is a gravitation of individualism or extreme if you
like libertarianism against a democratic civil society. So in order for society to be civil, in
order for society, to be able to function, people have to get along, people have to, to to be polite
to one another. What is happening over the last, especially 3040 years, is this notion of
		

			individualism, this notion of even a type of selfishness of me, myself and I, I should be able to do
whatever I want to do. Okay, how about my right to not have to listen to your insults on me? So from
a purely philosophical standpoint, I think this does need to be mentioned that people seem to be
going a little bit Berserk about this notion of ultimate freedom of speech. And what I like yours,
if you look at Islamic law, Now, of course, you have before I get there, you have this this, this
criticism that might be said, and that is that, well, where were you going to draw the line?
Because, okay, it's clear that if somebody insults your God intentionally, he's trying to provoke
		

			you. But what if somebody, you know, is simply innocuous, but you have read in an insult, right?
What if somebody speaks about his religion, and that is insulting to you? And that's why the shady
our Islamic law seems to make so much more sense when you read the books of fit when you even opium
has a nice passage on this, where he basically says that, if a non Muslim says something within the
confines of his own faith, that is reasonable for him to say, even if the implications are
blasphemous, it is not in it in and of itself blasphemous. So for example, if a Christian says I
believe in the Trinity, okay, from a theological perspective, we think that believing in a trinity
		

			is something that is blasphemous, right? As Allah says, In the Quran, that
		

			together somehow to get a photon, I mean, who that is, the skies are going to split asunder, and the
mountains are going to crumble, that they dare ascribe unto Allah that He has a child, but a
Christian is allowed to say, even in a purely 100% Islamic land that Oh, no, but I believe in the
Trinity, a Christian is allowed to say, for example, within the confines of his own faith, oh, I'm a
Christian, I don't believe in your prophet. This in and of itself is not blasphemous. However, if he
were to go beyond this Now, obviously, understand when he says, I don't believe in your profit. This
is a factually true statement. If he did, he wouldn't be a Christian. Now, to say that he doesn't
		

			believe in our visa laws, and what are the implications? What are the adjectives that would come to
mind, he is not allowed to verbalize those, because that's becoming now I'm talking about ideally,
that is becoming now incendiary, that is becoming now blasphemy, because the only reason why you
would say those negative adjectives is to provoke. That's the only reason you can get your message
across, you can have a debate, you can have a conversation without provoking the religious
sentiments of the other. And the shediac actually allows this, the Christian can say, in an ideal
Islamic land, that I believe in the Trinity, I don't believe in your Prophet, there are
		

			implications. Those implications might be blasphemous, but that is not in and of itself. Wrong for
him to verbalize if the if he needs to do so. On the other hand, if he goes beyond this, and he
provokes, and he uses a negative adjective, which is the implication of what he said, when he says,
I don't believe in your profit. What exactly does that mean when the Prophet system says he is a
prophet? What is he accusing the Prophet system of? He cannot actually say that because that would
now be insulting. My point being there's a common sense between insulting and between a freedom of
speech that is meant to spark ideas and the shady eye takes this into account. Now, some would say,
		

			oh, but what's going to be the fine line? And the response is, this is common sense. You don't
really need to think too deeply. There are ways to get your point across without causing offence and
your right to offend. Why is it privileged over my right to not be offended? That's something that
needs to be discussed from
		

			purely philosophical level. Now the second point our dimension, which is something that a lot of
Muslims also bring in, and there's no problem with this, but I don't think it is the strongest
element but nonetheless it is brought in. So we talked about number one purely from a philosophical
point of view. Number two, let us bring in the second notion and that is, legally speaking, no
country on Earth allows ultimate freedom of speech, we all know this right? There is no such thing
as ultimate Otama. Legally, in other words, there are words you can say, because of what you are
going to go to jail, there are words, you don't have to lift a finger, you don't have to do
		

			anything, speech comes out of your mouth, air is expelled from your lungs, your tongue moves
according to certain vowels and consonants. And in every single country on Earth. Without exception,
there are certain things that you say that will land you in jail. Now every country is different.
And therefore, again, every every Muslim in whatever country they live in, they should know these
laws, and they should bring them up and say, hey, look, there is no such thing as the ultimate
freedom of speech. And I want to say that us here in America, we actually do have the First
Amendment, which is basically enshrined that the government cannot dictate what you can or cannot
		

			say. And that is probably one of the most liberal societies because of the First Amendment, that
Europe is, in fact, far more conservative in this regard. And because and the reason, of course,
obviously, is that Europe has gone through World War One Europe has seen fascism firsthand. Europe
has seen what happens when you allow evil dictators to go unchecked with their speech. They've seen
miscellany. They've seen, you know, Hitler, they've seen what happens when this type of radical
nationalism that is linked together with an ideology that is linked together with a government that
you're talking about global war, and therefore they have curtailed multiple types of speech. I think
		

			in England, you have something called was it race, racial incitement or whatever, that you cannot
incite against a race in America, it is legal to be racist, you're not going to go to jail for being
racist, however, even in America, so if you incite overall racial hatred, that's fine. Once legally
speaking, once you incite violence against an individual, you know, if you say that all people from
India should go all people of Africa should do this, you're not going to go to jail. But if you
mentioned somebody my name and give his address out and say, Hey, he should be harmed, then
obviously, you're going to go to jail. So obviously there's there's a incitement to actual violence.
		

			Now, of course, there's other free speech as well, that is curtailed by the government. Sorry, there
is speech that is curtailed by the government. There's a famous case right now in America, which is
now from what I understand is actually headed to the Supreme Court of a young lady who was who,
whose boyfriend was contemplating suicide, and he was depressed and whatnot. And for like a year,
she kept on egging him on, she kept on encouraging him, go ahead and do it, you're not a man, go
ahead and kill yourself. He eventually ended up committing suicide. And now she is in jail as we
speak, even though nobody has accused her of actually doing something. It's just speech, meaning she
		

			didn't, you know, choke him, she didn't, you know, give him the medication, she simply texted him
and spoke with him and encouraged him to commit suicide. Now, she is claiming freedom of speech, and
it's headed from what I understand to a higher if not the Supreme Court, then the court below that
it might end up in the Supreme Court. Also, again, I mean, a famous cleric in America post 911,
who's just been released Hamdulillah, that the reason that he was given a life sentence, a life
sentence is that he verbally said, allegedly, I don't know if he said this or not. But he verbally
said, and again, I'm not defending I'm not saying I'm simply saying that the charges that allegedly
		

			he said to a group of people, that they should go to the other side of the world and join forces,
you know, against America. Now, he was never accused of actually himself carrying a gun or firing a
weapon or no, it was speech. Now, again, I'm not defending, I am saying point number two, there is
no such thing as ultimate freedom of speech. Now, everybody's gonna say Hold on a sec, all of these
evidences or all of these categories that you're mentioning. They incite to violence, per se. And
the response is, you are correct. They do incite violence, that's apples and oranges to a certain
level. The point I'm trying to say there is no ultimate freedom of speech. However, in America and
		

			in Europe, there are certain types of speech that don't incite violence, and you will not
necessarily go to jail, but you will be sued. And you will have to pay a fine in America at least
for example, libel laws, for example, right. So defaming somebody, you're not going to go to jail
for that, but you're going to be fined and you will be penalized by law. Now in Europe, actually,
you do have certain speech that is not necessarily violence provoking, but it is something that will
send you to jail and of course, the one that is the Muslims always mentioned this, and it does need
to be
		

			be mentioned, even though it needs to be mentioned and phrased properly. Last time I checked, I
think 14 countries actually have Holocaust denial laws. And that is that if you deny the Holocaust,
or if you even doubt the number of people that were killed, then you are liable to be taken to court
and you will go to jail. And there was the case of some Professor somewhere, a British, a British
National, who was actually jailed for a period of time, because he was at the forefront of denying
the Holocaust and whatnot. Now, pause here, I need to give this disclaimer, because obviously, it's
a very sensitive topic. And people always jump on this, we are not, we are not Muslims, we should
		

			not go down this whole alleyway of denying the Holocaust, I have visited Auschwitz and found myself
I have met. So when I went to 2010, I met some three people, one after the other in three different
cities, I met people who had survived the Holocaust, I heard from them firsthand, I met a prisoner
who rolled up his sleeves and showed me the tattoos, you know, 87 years he has passed away since
then. And it is very clear that there was a Holocaust, that millions of people, not just Jewish
people, but people who disagreed with Hitler, or minorities or gypsies, were massacred for no reason
other than they had different ideas, then the Nazi Party, we should not go down this ridiculous
		

			route of of denying the Holocaust. In fact, many Muslims, many Muslims at the time, and Paris is
well known, they actually helped Jews and they hit them. In fact, even in the mosque of Paris, they
hit the Jews. And I'll say this, honestly, that if we had been alive at that time, I would have
expected that our Islamic teachings would have told us to protect the Abrahamic people against this
Nazi ideology. And I would have expected that people should do so and expect Allah to reward them
against the tyrant that was there. What happened after after was with the creation of the apartheid
country of Israel, and the injustices against the Palestinians. That is a separate topic, and it
		

			needs to be discussed, and the country needs to be criticized our criticism of that country and our
criticism of the justification of its existence should not impinge on the reality of what happened
before. And it was indeed a tragedy. My point being though, back to the issue here, as we're all
aware, there are laws that will criminalize a number of countries in Europe that will criminalize
anybody who speaks out against the reality of the Holocaust, and people will go to jail now, where
our global leaders and again, it's very distasteful is very vulgar to do. I'm not defending that at
all. But where are the glue, where's McCrone? and saying, we have the right to bless him? Why is it
		

			illegal to do that? And again, it is a fact you're not inciting to violence here, right? What you're
doing is you're offending large groups of people. And it is offensive. There's no denying if 6
million people had passed away, and now you come and you make fun of it. That's a very, very painful
memory, a very tragic thing. And you are actually inciting hatred and pain and suffering. So there
is a double standard when it comes to this issue. Now, again, let's look at other things as well
that are not necessarily provoking violence. Twitter and Facebook are having a huge issue right now
about misinformation. Today, I think yesterday, somebody in Australia, the police, you know, entered
		

			her house and confiscated her laptop and took away all of her and gave her a fine. Why? Because she
posted COVID conspiracies, I don't really know the whole details, but it was some speech that she
she did. And the government deem this speech to be dangerous is misinformation, there's no violence,
she's not telling somebody to go kill somebody. My point is that there are definitely in every
single country areas that you cannot speak about or else you will be banned, you will be fine you
will go to jail. So there is no such thing as ultimate freedom of speech. We can bring this in now
that having been said, generally speaking, we Muslims do bring this up. And the problem comes up
		

			almost all the examples that will quote as I myself have done, they actually result in the tangible
destruction or loss of life. And the counter to that is that other than the Holocaust denial,
generally speaking, there is no criminalization in Europe and America to make fun of somebody you're
not going to go to jail generally speaking for a ridiculing a person's faith, and that's something
we have to acknowledge that generally speaking that is the case now, especially in America, we have
the First Amendment you nobody's gonna go to jail for ridiculing, even if they're racist, even if
they say something that's very derogatory. There is no jail sentence per se unless it is actually
		

			provoking violence. Nonetheless, the point is, there is no such thing as free speech. This leads me
to my third point, which is actually more important.
		

			True, the law might not protect, ridiculing another person's faith.
		

			That is actually probably the correct interpretation of the law that hardly any country in Europe,
generally speaking, is going to criminalize a person that's saying something about another religion
that you find derogatory or offensive. So you can't really invoke the law per se. However, what we
can do is to show the double standards of our own society, we invoke social law, we invoke social
custom, we invoke social aspect. In other words, okay, the law might say something, what actually is
the practice of society? Is society tolerating every single mockery? Is society encouraging is the
President or the Prime Minister himself, basically coming on and saying, go ahead and mock and make
		

			fun of people. And let's give so many examples. I mean, across the country, now, we are seeing this
cancel culture, when a professor says something that is deemed, let's say racist, right?
instantaneously, the forces of society, not law, the professor is not going to get fired, but
society is going to come in and pressure that this person be fired. When an actor says something, or
does something that is deemed to be politically incorrect, see what is happening with the the author
of Harry Potter and her notion that there might actually be two genders or whatever, you know, even
though of course, what she's saying isn't even close to what Muslims might say. But look at the
		

			backlash that she is getting her awards have been revoked. social pressure on her has been immense.
There's no legal case against her, but certain things are not tolerated or encouraged. What we see
is that blasphemy against Islam is not only tolerated, it is encouraged. And we also have for
example, the the ethnic slurs, for example, right? Making fun of women, for example. And of course,
nobody should be making fun of genders nobody should be making fun of a person's ethnicity. And if
somebody does that society basically comes together and self police's it doesn't have to call the
Law Society police's what is polite speech, and we as Muslims have to point out that society has
		

			deemed that it is okay to offend Muslims, it is not okay to offend other minorities. So we point
that out. And as we pointed out, we have to say that this reality is something we're going to have
to work to change slowly but surely, this political correctness for some and not for others, it is
something that we're going to have to work we're going to have to point out why is it politically
incorrect to make fun of an ethnicity to make fun of a skin color, a politician or a cartoonist
will, who does this, you know, will be of very severely castigated. In fact, ironically, in France
itself, there was a minister of African heritage and she was shown in a cartoon with very, very
		

			vulgar caricatures, you know, of a, you know, an ape or whatnot. And society, basically unanimously
condemned this portrayal, and society put pressure on this cartoonist and this magazine. Okay. Now,
why is it impermissible, and of course, we don't want this to happen, she should not be mocked for
this. This is actually making fun of a lot of Georgian who said, when you make fun of somebody
characteristics, You're mocking not just the characteristics, but the creator of that of those
characteristics. But the point being, why has society deemed certain things to be acceptable, and
others unacceptable? This is definitely a point that we can bring up and we can discuss the double
		

			standards. And this leads me to my final point, and that is that and this is a follow up of society,
but I'll call it a practical manifestation. Okay, this is the practical manifestation. So we had a
philosophical issue, we had a legal issue that there is no such thing as free speech, the
philosophical one was, think about it, why should there be ultimate free speech? How about the
speech of the individual that is being How about the freedom of the individual that is being
offended? In terms of law, there is no ultimate free speech anywhere in the world, you will go to
jail for verbalizing certain things for saying certain things. So let's, let's stop pretending that
		

			there's ultimate free speech. Point number three, that there are social norms that certain things
are acceptable to say certain people are acceptable to offend, and other people are unacceptable to
offend. And so we need to be very clear about this and work within the system. And by the way, this
is doable. 70 years ago, 50 years ago, it was socially acceptable to say very vulgar things about
African Americans and American governors, even presidents 100 years ago would do that, and it would
be acceptable. The Civil Rights Movement is not a full success. Yet, of course, there's a lot going
on, we see the police brutality we see there's still a lot to do. Nonetheless, no mainstream
		

			politician, no actor, you know, there was a famous actor was it on Seinfeld or something that he
used the N word and then
		

			Sit his entire career is gone. And you know, we don't sympathize with that whatsoever. Nobody should
be using those slurs. But this shows you that the N word is now taboo and it should be taboo. Right?
Again, this is societal pressure. Society has done this now, how have they managed to do that we
Muslims need to study that we Muslims need to work within this system. We don't want our profit
system to be defamed in this manner. We don't want our religion to be mocked. Let us work within the
system to gain a level of respectability by ways that Allah azzawajal has allowed such that just
like it is not allowed to be anti semitic and a politician not going to get away with it. You know,
		

			it's not that loud to be anti African American and a mainstream movie star, it's socially
unacceptable. We need to slowly but surely work and increase the reason that Allah azza wa jal has
given us such that inshallah Tada, eventually, it is going to be politically incorrect, to make fun
of our religion and our profit in a derogatory manner. But it leads me to my final point, and that
is that
		

			this the the practical manifestation of this freedom of speech and the freedom to offend, when is it
invoked? When do presidents and prime ministers when to politicians? When do elected officials
invoke? When do they throw this card down? of freedom of speech? Typically, not exclusively, but
typically, they only invoke this card when the speech is insulting Muslims. And this is the reality
we need to point out what was the last time Macron tweeted that this is a French value, the right to
blasphemous of French value? Has he ever done this about a cartoon against any other faith against
any other civilization? Why is the prime minister himself getting involved? Why did the world
		

			leaders come in for this one terrorist attack? And of course we are against that terrorist attack.
But why did they all come in when Charlie Hebdo was attacked? And not when, for example, the far
right does a terrorist attack nobody comes in and flies in it. We're all united against them. You
know, why? Why this selective outrage? You see, here is the point we are against the assassination
of, of Charlie Hebdo cartoons and I give a hoot about that. That's not the way to defend the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wasallam. We are against that. But we're also against this politicization of the
tool of freedom of speech, it is selectively applied. And that's what we need to point out here. The
		

			worst aspect of this entire fiasco is this doubling down of this hypocrisy of the freedom of speech
of this revealing of this in your face, stick your middle finger out the sheer arrogance that the
politicians like Macron demonstrate it is this type of gloating that we find the most despicable It
is not about the freedom of speech, it is about an us versus them. They're bringing in this canard
of freedom of speech, and it's about identity politics, Muslims understand this point, it's about us
versus them, they need something to unite against us. We become the other and against the other, all
of these disparate groups of various French demographics and American demographics that are united
		

			understand this it is identity politics, it is group ism, it is a type of Jaya helia have the
highest magnitude. And the politicians know this full well. And they invoke it for their own
popularity. As you see, the point is, there's so much going on in their own societies. They need to
unite their people and they have chosen us as the scapegoat. So when they invoke freedom of speech
is a French value. What they mean is you Muslims, you brown skinned you from North Africa, you from
Algeria, you people from other places, you are the other and in response to the other. We French are
united they say or john Donald Trump is doing the same thing. The BJP government with Modi is doing
		

			the same thing. This is the essence of fascism. So please see through the hype, it's not about
freedom of speech. It is about shoring up your own popularity with your own groups and your and
trying to ignore the serious problems of your own society. And then bringing about this this this,
this trope, this stereotype this other nation, this is the bad bogeyman This is the the evil person
that's going to come to the Muslim community, and we have to unite against them. And this is the
main point we need to point out that in reality, it is not about freedom of speech, it is this
selective outrage. And again, look at the Charlie Hebdo thing. And this needs to be said and I have
		

			given an entire hold. By the way. ISIS put me on their hit list because I said it should not have
done the massacres even as we love the Prophet system and we live our lives to defend them in a
legitimate matter. But this is not to wait to do that. So they put me on a hit list because of this.
I am not at all condoning what Charlie Hebdo did. Neither am I condoning what ISIS did. We are
criticizing
		

			The both of them, but we stay here. We stay here that Muslims need to see through this hype of this
this baloney of free speech. Look what happened after the Abdo massacre. As I said over 50 or
whatever 40 world leaders flew in within 20 hours, they canceled everything. And what other
terrorist attack? Did they do this for telling me what other far right did they do this for one in
Las Vegas? You know, a far right guy guns down 50 people when somebody does this, when somebody does
that, when their own forces are right, when they own colonialist powers have done, look what the
French did in Algeria, have they ever even owned up to this, you know, to to, for them to dare bring
		

			an issue of this nature. So this selective outrage is what we are so irritated about. It's not
really about the freedom of speech. It is about shoring up publicity for various politicians and
political leaders. It is about an us versus them. It is about drawing the line between essentially
white Europe versus brown Muslim Europe. And the same thing is happening in America when Trump talks
about those Mexicans and those rapists and those immigrants and those Muslims, that's what it is.
It's identity politics at its worst. And Muslims we need to see through this next time you're asked
about Do you believe in freedom of speech? Understand it is a trick question. Yes, you can answer it
		

			in point number 123. Go ahead. That's that can be done. The the the the theoretical aspect of the
philosophical angle, the legal aspect, the social aspect. But but far more important, anytime you
have an interview, anytime you speak with your friends and colleagues about this issue, make sure
you bring in point number four. And point number four, I'll call it the the de jure versus the de
facto right the digital means the law, the de facto means the reality forget the law, what is the
reality when is freedom of speech invoked to insult when is freedom of speech used by the President
or the prime minister to actually solid it to gloat to to to feel a sense of pride, we are going to
		

			offend what other group is a den against. And that's what we need to understand that we are being
authorized over here. And the reason why one of the reasons is that they need to find something in
common amongst themselves because in reality, that's terrible home, Jimmy I'm okuu chatez. The Quran
says that there is nothing in common between them really, there's nothing in common, neither their
values, nor anything, nothing in common between them. But when they create an enemy, and that's us,
then all of a sudden, they have something in common, those Arabs, those Muslims, those brown people,
then they come together and they say, Oh, we are all together. In this regard, we need to see
		

			through this hype, we need to understand it's not really about freedom to insult freedom to offend,
it is about trying to draw lines between their own civil societies. And unless and until we
understand this, we will continue to fall to their games. Bottom line, dear brothers and sisters,
this is not an easy conversation to have. Because especially in America, there's nothing we can do
to change the laws because the First Amendment is very, very clear. So we'll have to work within the
category number three, which is the social reality of what we do. And we simply point out the double
standards. And we point out that the right to free speech might give you the right to offend. But we
		

			too have the right then to be offended and to take offense and then to take social action, not legal
action, to take social action. And we as Muslims need to have our own there is when a group or a
company or a publication does something of this nature, we should bring about a social boycott and
economic boycott, we should show them that that is not going to be tolerated whatsoever. And that's
why we have to really play their game better than they do and understand the reality of what is
going on. Nonetheless, I just wanted to share some thoughts in shallow tide about this whole issue
of freedom of speech as it stands, and in the end of the day. We'll Allah subhana wa tada has
		

			revealed, sort of telco third, because people thought that they're going to insult the Prophet
salallahu idea he was setting them and realize it doesn't matter what they say, in shanika, who will
abita dear Muslims, don't worry about whatever they are saying. And hamdulillah we have a lion, His
Messenger and hamdulillah we are of the oma of the prophets of Allah while he was setting them, let
them frothing at the mouth. Let them hurl their insults, they're going to face a lot on the day of
judgment and let them face Allah we will be in the company of the prophets of the love where they he
was setting them in our plain cocoa thorough for slowly cylinder a bigger one held in shanika whoo
		

			and abita those people who hate the profits of the law, why do you set up who insult the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, they shall have nothing of this world and the next they have been cut
off. They are amputated and all good in this world and the next gen and hamdulillah we have the
nebby and we have the Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam let us work to demonstrate to the
people to show that people the reality of our faith tradition, may Allah subhana wa
		

			Allah bless me and you within through the Quran and may make us of those who is vs they understand
and implement is halal and haram throughout our lifespan. Until next time set on Morocco to law.
What about a catch you