Transcript of Ep. 33: Debates, Disagreements & Disunity with Dr Shadee Elmasry

Listen to the podcast here.

[00:18]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: It is not an exaggeration to say that one of the challenges the Muslim community faces is that of unity. We tend to fall out with one another on spurious grounds, yet our communities erect mosques around divisions and we are always ready to call one another out. Our public discourse is caustic, we are ready to condemn each other on the flimsiest of reasons. If we contrast our modern predicament to our history, we find that Muslims at a higher threshold of tolerance towards one another. The tent was big and the ummah flourished. Our vision was lifted above the petty squabble and differences and we excelled. No doubt the divisions we currently find ourselves in is exacerbated by outside actors that look to sow division. And that has been the case for over a century. However, we enable these schisms to open up and failed to appreciate the true meaning of the verse innamal mu’minuna ikhwan, the believers are all brothers.

This week, I speak to a regular guest, Sheikh Shadee Elmasry, about division within the Muslim community. I ask him: How does Islam help us to navigate our differences? What makes a valid Shar’ee opinion? How do we know whether a scholar or commentator is sincere to the sources of Islam? What makes a mujtahid and what are the limits of the muqallid, the follower?

We discuss the recent trend amongst pro carriers of Islamic dawah to call out one another and defame one another in public. We also discuss the duty of enjoining ma’ruf and forbiding munkar? How does a layman fulfil his duty without falling into acrimony? What gives the commoner the right to question even scholars on issues and what are these guidelines? How do we forbid wrong while transmitting respect and not exacerbating divisions?

We look at the notion that is often repeated on social media, only Allah can judge and the anger that pervades much of the modern social media discourse. What does it mean to be smart in conveying Islam? And is being smart sometimes a way to not confront issues?

Dr Shadee El Masry jazakallah khair for joining us once again and welcome back to The Thinking Muslim. And how are you today?

[02:43]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Alhamdulillah. I’m very good, Alhamdulillah. How about yourself?

[02:46]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: Alhamdulillah, we’re good. I think the last time we spoke we were deep in the COVID situation. I mean things still remain very problematic, of course. It’s quietened here, we are out of lockdown. I remember you were in lockdown the last time we spoke. It seems like America has been the worst hit by the crisis. And things look pretty bleak at the moment from where I’m sitting.

[03:12]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: We’re still pretty much……I mean there’s nothing going on. Pretty much everyone is at home, you could go out for things here and there. But you know, it’s pretty much we’re in lockdown.

[03:20]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: Why do you think that is? What went wrong in America? Why did the Trump administration just fail to deal with the crisis and why is that cases are still on the increase in many parts of the United States?

[03:34]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: He kept giving bad messages, that’s the problem. It’s not even about the policies per se, but he gives out bad messages, like you don’t care about this, it’s not really real. So, he’s been giving out this bad message and he’s telling people to go out, it’s over and so as a result of that people did do that. And governors, like the governor of Florida does his bidding, right. Anything that you know he’s a big Trump guy. And that governor, his state is now suffering pretty badly.

[04:08]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: Dr Shadee, I called you on the show to talk about disunity and how Islam deals with the subject. But I’m quite fascinated by the problems that your country currently is facing. We’ve been told for many years that liberalism creates a population, a citizenry that acts on rational impulses, reason, right, is the basis of the contemporary world. Yet, we see anything but reason, especially from the supporters of Trump in America that deny COVID-19, or refuse to wear a face mask in a shop, and believe it’s all a hoax, you know. What’s gone on there? Why is it that the ideology that claims to be the font of all rational reason has descended into such chaos?

[05:04]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: The liberalism, one of its problems is that reason does not necessarily tell us how to control our impulses nor satisfy our souls. And when the soul is not satisfied, it's going to go to the temptations for satisfaction. Then when it goes to the temptations then you have a miserable, miserable, miserable life and existence. And that's really where we're headed to because your temptations and desires will be very different from mine.

[05:36]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: How does a Muslim living here in Europe or in America? How does one navigate around the very problematic ideas that undergird these societies? And how does one remain true to their faith in this type of environment?

[05:54]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: I think that the move towards the West itself, you know, was not smart. That you’ve witnessed the conquest of France and England over your lands, you witnessed they do not like you. Yet, you still went over there, right? To eat their bread. Okay. And to work for them. And now you're going to turn around and wonder where is the fairness? Does this make any sense? To me…I was thinking about this the other day, right. And America is no different, but in America it's on racial lines, right. Europe is too, but Europe also has a religious element, you know the Christians crusader history and all that. But in America, have they not made it crystal clear that a big chunk of it wants this to be a white society, right? And they view it that way. And they conquered. And they removed the Native Americans and they enslaved Africans.

Have they not made it clear and yet we still came over here? I mean scientists that came over here because they were competing with the Russians, the Americans were competing with the Russians, the Soviet Union for brains, for science through scientists. Scientists tend to not read history, right. They tend not to look at where the past was, and how that's going to impact the present and the future. And how the present, that period between the 60s and 80s was more of a blip of welcoming in the brown folks. But it was more of a blip. And to me, I have sort of nothing to say about the social strife in America because in one sense what are you going to do, you’re going to go and ask for? You wonder, “Why am I being mistreated?”

Are you kidding, like you didn't know what you were signing up for? Right? They’ve set every possible precedent to make it clear that they have, you know, racial agenda. That enough of the population has that racial agenda. And again, they give off a mixed message because they welcome people in. Lyndon Johnson signed this bill in 1965 to allow these immigrants in. And these immigrants come without examining the matter and thinking ahead. And then you wonder now what's going on? Why us people from whether Egypt, Pakistan or whatever, were truly not welcome or are we welcome or not blah blah blah?

To me, just like the only real victims are the ones who are dragged here, which were the slaves, right, they were dragged here. They had literally no means, the next generation, even after emancipation they had no means to go back, that's out of the question, right. So, they're the real ones who are like hold on a second this is not a fair shake, right. But for someone who came willingly and then you're complaining about oppression and sometimes an inflated claim of oppression by the radical left, right, it just to me doesn't make sense make any sense for you to whine and complain. If you don't like something, you know, you can fix it. But to whine and complain about a fairness that was never, the opposite of it was advertised to you, right.

[08:56]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: The reason I wanted to invite you on to the show really is to talk about differences between Muslims and disagreements between Muslims. Now, I think it’s probably not an over exaggeration to state that we’ve got a number of intellectual fault lines within the Muslim community. Whether it's perceived fault lines like madhab fault lines, or aqidah issues, or political positions, or ideological positions, you know. You were talking there about the progressives, but the progressives have incorporated a good number of Muslims into their grouping. And many Muslims today regard themselves to be progressive Muslims, right. But at the same time, you hear other Muslims who would rather be defined as conservative Muslims. And so, you’ve got these ideological fault lines that are developing, especially amongst Muslims in the West. And I suppose with all of this, there is a sense of disunity whether it's real or perceived, and every time I go on social media it's a depressing world, right.

[09:59]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Well, first of all to address is, I don't think that intellectual differences lead to disunity. I think that emotional trauma leads to disunity. And the reason I say this is that if you take people who are of sound intellect and they’ve had a normal family life, okay, and they are emotionally stable. They don't have financial crises. They don't have family crises. I'm not saying hardship, I’m saying crisis, right. If you take two of those people and you make them live next to each other. You say, you guys are going to live next to each other your families are going to live next to each other. And they are worlds apart ideologically. They might share 5% in their beliefs about life. But you tell them your interest are right here in the neighbourhood you live in the same cul de sac.

I guarantee you they will find ways and they will create code of conduct to get along. Because both sides, if their heads are clear enough, they realize this is mutually destructive right. Any act I do against you will result in my own destruction, cause you're going to respond, right. And so, I actually believe that two emotionally stable, rational groups can realize that they have a loss. Any aggression is going to result in a loss. So, they will find a way to get along. May not be happy, may not be comfortable. But they'll find a way to get along and preserve their own growth, right, advance their own growth in a way that doesn't clash and cause a mutually destructive complex.

Now, I'll take you to the opposite. Take now, and let me give you an example of where this actually happens. This literally happens in so many communities in America. You go to any random hospital in the city in America, and you're going to end up with a ton of Hindu doctors and a ton of Muslim doctors. The Hindus will have their temple and their clubs, and the Muslims will have their masjid and their gatherings. They will cross in the hallway, they’ll see each other at the meetings. They know very well that they both teach the opposite teaching to their kids, right. They know both well that they root for India and Pakistan, the opposite, they are rooting against each other politically and in every way shape and form. But we find that there is civility there. Why? Because both have realized if we got each other's throat we’ve both losing, right. So, there's, that's the element that really causes conflict. It's that they're both financially and emotionally stable groups, so they’ve found a way to coexist. And they do co-exist.

Let's go to the opposite now. Remove financial stability from both parties. Remove education from both parties. But bring their aqidahs together. And let's say that one is a progressive leaning Muslim and the other is a, let’s say, a very strict, maybe Salafi leaning Muslim or any conservative-leaning Muslim. Okay. It could be any conservative, Shafi, Maliki, Hanafi, whatever you want. Sunni conservative leaning Muslim and a progressive leaning Muslim. That's it. But remove their level of education, remove their emotional stability. Let’s say both have like daddy problems like they both have dads that abandon them, right. Or and remove their financial stability, neither of them is striving financially at all, both unemployed. Now let's take a look at them, I'm telling you. And then take them, let's add another factor. Take them from living very close together to the point of discomfort, like the Hindu and Pakistani doctors in America. Let’s put them across continents, one is in England one is in America. They will find a way to make conflict. Like you've removed everything, like you don't live near each other, okay. You have the same deen pretty much. You're both Muslims, right. They will find a way to be at each other's throat.

So, my belief is that intellectual division is not the source of disunity. But the source of disunity is emotional unwellness, financial unwellness, and then lack of education. And then actually if you bring these two together, education might not be a factor. In fact, if they became educated but they’re emotionally unwell and they're financially unwell, education might make matters worse, right. So, let's really narrow it down to just these two. And I truly believe that that's the actual source from my analysis of things. I shouldn't say belief because it's a rational assessment from my observation is that it's an observed conclusion. That that's the real source of disunity.

[15:09]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: But what about the Islamic factors that many would cite? There are lots of different Islamic viewpoints in the Muslim community and often it's a case that masajid are erected as a way of reflecting these different viewpoints, right. And you know, just the other day I was speaking to a relative of mine and he was saying to me that his son that was warning him against a particular masjid because it's a place of bid’ah or something like this, right. And so, you know to what extent do these differences of opinions in Islam contribute to the sort of feeling of division that exists in the Muslim world?

[15:54]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: I would say you know close to zero. Because it's again the will to conflict and it's the will to find a way to conflict. I mean you don't have in Pakistan, Hanafi Sunnis who are at each other's throats, you know literally the doctrine of many groups is one. The law is one. The culture is one. The nation is one. The interests are one. Yet, they find way to conflict, right. Because it's there. It's there, a hatred that passed down from father to son, right. And you can't underestimate that too.

That's also an element, hatred that is passed down. Also, peace that is passed down, right. So, yeah, we differ with that family over there, but we like each other, we pray with each other, we smile at each other we might not marry into that family, but we get along, right. So, that is passed down.

Whenever human beings are itching for conflict, they will find something. And yeah, the opinions in Islam provide fodder for that, they provide ammunition for that, I should say. Yet, if you had taken that away they would find something else. Conflict is truly rooted, in my opinion, in emotional, financial instability. And when you have competition, I think it’s a very big difference than conflict. Rational beings will observe civil competition. Civil competition means you know like where I'm trying to advance, you’re trying to advance, there's a limited number of resources. But both of us will stop at an action that destroys our collective industry, right. Like Coke and Pepsi they’re at each others’ throat. Coke is trying to bankrupt Pepsi, right. Coke is not just trying to get ahead; they want to bankrupt Pepsi. But neither of them will go to a course of action that will move people away from soft drinks, for example. Like they're going to stop there. that's what you might want to call civil competition. It's competition to the point of a limit and that's what rational beings will engage in.

[18:16]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: What about the Islamic dimension to this? We know that in Islamic history there was a sense of adhab of ikhtilaf, right. When we disagreed, we developed a set of procedures by which we could mitigate those disagreements and I’m sure the scholars of Islam have discussed this in length. That didn't come out of a rational civility. That came out of some sort of textual understanding and an emulation of the sahabah radhiallahu ‘alain and lives of the early Muslims, right. Can you shed some light on this concept of adhab al ikhtilaf or of the etiquette of disagreements?

[19:03]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: It did come out of the teachings of the Prophet Shal Allahu ‘Alaihi was Salam, teachings of the sahabahs. But out of what motive? The motive was to keep the group together as much as possible. And where the group cannot be kept together then to go down to a sort of plan B, a triage now of well what's next when we can't actually be together. What's next? And this is the wisdom of Sayyidina Ali’s khilafah, Sayyidina Uthman and Sayyidina Ali’s khilafah, right. People wonder and many people who want to say something bad about the Islam. Well, the khilafah lasted for a few years and then it was these wars, wars, wars.

But in fact, part of the guidance of the khilafah is how to handle disputations, how to handle rebellion, how to handle a second arrival khilafah, how to handle rebels in your midst, right. And so Sayyidina Uthman and Sayyidina Ail they both give us sunnahs for that, right. But if you look at their motive, they made ijtihad. Their ijtihad is a sunnah for us, right, because the other sahabahs witnessed it and no one spoke against it, right. So, it becomes a sunnah for us. However, there was not a nass, a textual evidence for what they did, right. There was none. They were doing mashlahah, what is the best of both, what is the least harmful. And the least conflict is the best situation for Muslims, right.

The only time that Sayyidina Ali entered into conflict was in the hope that it would end the conflict, right. It would end the other harm. As soon as he recognized that it was not going to end and that there was another alternative, he took that alternate. Even though the sharia actually told you the opposite, right. But the sharia also tells us that certain rulings of interactions are only to be practised if they will not cause a worse harm. So, for example, when the Syrians were rebelling against Sayyidina Ali, he fought them. As soon as they were willing to stop fighting, he accepted the willingness. What does sharia say? Surah Al-Hujurat: rebels should be fought until they submit. But Sayyidina Ali looked and saw the Romans are right there, the Persians are right there. If I wipe out the Syrians because they're refusing to stop, if I wiped them out, we lose Syria, right. And the Romans will just come in and there’ll be a weak army and that's it, right. And so, Sayyidina Ali is an example of that.

Now, let's go into, probably what you're intending, is within Muslim discourse. Where are our guidelines? And the guidelines, there are a couple of points here in terms of the guidelines, is that, who is the brother, who do we consider a brother in Islam? And that is innamal mu’minuna ikhwa. So, a person is your brother in Islam as long as they have not done something that would remove them from ahlussunnah, and ahlussunnah is Islam. It is that which is the explicitly stated verses and hadith. Their meanings are explicit in the Arabic language. And they are transmitted through a sound authority, right. And that is Islam. So, to go in conflict with any of those texts is what is categorized as ahlulbid’ah. And that's pretty much that what Islam and ahlussunnah is. As long as someone is not conflicting with those ayahs, then you have to consider that person is your brother, and you must afford that person certain considerations.

We, often times, don't do that, right. But we should, okay. Hopefully, you know, most of us, I mean me included, we may not do that at one point but then we feel bad about it, like you know over tea or something. I shouldn't have said that, right. And then you sort of go and patch it up smooth it up later, but you do come to the realization of that. And that's really, those are the red lines. Within that red line you have to consider everyone your brother, so you have to come with an attitude of hope for their goodness. Whatever you do, however you talk, when you come into with an attitude of hope for their goodness, it's going to be fine in my opinion, right. And even if you’re sort of like sound like you're really, really upset about something, and you're so angry, but if it's from an attitude of hoping for a good result for them, then I believe that actually that message reaches peoples’ heart, right.

And so that's the first point is to recognize what are the boundaries. And by the way just because people that may be outside those boundaries does not necessarily mean that they deserve to be harangued, right. But what we're talking about is many Muslims sort of dismiss other Muslims imagining that they're outside of those boundaries. When in fact they’re not. And so that's the most important, that's the number one point is to realize that these boundaries are very broad, and that person will be your brother whether you like it or not.

[24:28]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: How do we determine these boundaries? So, we know that we can’t, I mean I can’t, you know. I am not qualified. I can't just come up with an Islamic opinion and say, “Hey, look, I’ve got an Islamic view and I would like you to accept my view because it's based on Islam,” right. So, how does one know how to objectively observe an Islamic view versus an un-Islamic view?

[24:58]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Yes. So, we don't have to do that, these scholars have done it for us. And they've summarized these doctrines for us. And as a practice, none of us should imagine that we have to go this alone. We have peers. We have colleagues. We have imams that are available that you can talk to on the computer, on your phone, through social media, you can ask.

And Allah said ya ayyuhalladzina aamanu aaminu, “Oh, you who believe, believe.” So, what does that mean? One of the meanings of that is Oh you who believe, what's the first belief and what’s the second belief? Oh you who believe is that Laa illaha illalahu muhammadur rasulullah., general Islam, belief. Now, learn the details. So, there's no lazy way to do this, right. And that's the one point there's no lazy way to do it. But number two, it's actually, you are not alone either, right. And therefore, we're a religion of the sanad, the chain of transmission. And that chain is more like, rather than a chain, is more like chainmail, right. Because it's horizontal and vertical and in all different directions, meaning that there are people around who have studied who can answer questions. And as long as you plug into that. It's a tradition, it's passed down knowledge, right, of scholarship. As long as you plug into that you can get answers to your questions, right.

So, “Hey my brother has done x, y, and z, do I have the right to cut him off?”, right. That's a question you ask somebody. So, on the one hand don't be lazy. Not you, I'm saying in general. Number two, you’re not alone. And you're not relying on one person or one counsellor or one marja’ or one whatever. There are many, many different imams. One imam, one set of imams, that crew you may not be comfortable with them. Fine, don’t be comfortable with them. There are others, right?

So, there are a lot of imams. There are women of scholarship for the sisters that they can go and seek scholarship from. You don't like one thing that makes you uncomfortable, there are many others. So, we should be asking, we should be talking. I may not have had this question come up, “You know such and such a person has done such and such, do I have right to cut them off,” right. “I want to cut them off”. And then the scholar, I’ve asked my peers, right. Because I’m biased. I’m emotional, because I’m emotionally invested in this situation so I'm biased. So, I have to ask others.

And so, anything in Islam, if we're itching for a quick fix or we imagine that we have to do this alone, both of these are wrong. And so, we go out there and I guarantee you anyone who observes this, as a practice, you will come to learn over time if you ask the right questions and you listen to the right talks, right, and you listen to enough. So, one of the virtues of the Tablighi jam’aa is that they have a very, you know, at least some of the ones that I’ve seen, and I’ve heard about, is that they have a very gentle view towards the Muslims because they’ve seen so many Muslims. They’ve been to so many mosques. They’ve seen such a broad spectrum that they have this generous attitude towards Muslims. So, that's the, you know, the way forward, is getting to know the scholarly community and the scholarly history. This is what's going to inform us of what are the actual boundaries of what a Muslim is, right. And what the Sunnah is. Wherever there's a fuzzy line or a debatable in a person's perspective, leave it. Leave it suspended, right. Don't make a judgment on it until the matter becomes clear in your head. So, in any matter where there is fuzziness, you know, the Prophet said leave what gives you doubt, fuzziness, for that which gives you no doubt. Which means don't treat them as, just leave it suspended. We don’t have to have an answer for everything at all times, right. And so, if somebody has those types of doubts, they should leave it off.

And when we talked about unity, we don't need to look at the entire landscape of Muslims to figure out how we're going to unite them. You just have to look at your own family. You got to look at your friends and your community. You have to work in a small bubble first, in your own neighbourhood first, in your own group of friends first. So, this view itself is a contemporary view or almost sort of like an unrealistic view too at the same time. Where, you know, people I always get, you know, every once in a while, a young person, he’s giving me the broad landscape of the ummah and how we going to stop this problem. And I'm thinking to myself, I bet you don't even get along with your dad, right. So, work at the micro-level, which is far easier to deal with because now you can learn more too. When you work at the micro-level you can learn. Let’s say, oh my dad smokes cigarettes and he refuse to believe it’s haram. Is he actually a Muslim or is he out, right? You start learning by asking questions, by dealing with a reality. A reality where your knowledge can be implemented on the spot.

[29:49]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: Isn’t there a potential problem with the schema that you've developed there? And that is that today we have an extra component to the mess in which we seem to live in right, and that is that many scholars may actually say some very outrageous things. Just the other day, my wife was speaking to me about an article she read. Five scholars that say that the khimar or hijab is not an obligation, right. And they had sort of supposedly well thought-out opinions based on kitab and sunnah as to why this is you know it's a mubah, if anything, right, that you don't need to. We see that time and time again, and there is a lot out there from, you know, even from respected scholar sometimes, you know, you without naming names, you know. Especially when it comes to political opinions that have a political dimension. I mean how many scholars in the Muslim world today in effect condone the activities of the Chinese government when it cracks down on Muslims. And if one just digs a little deeper, one finds out there in the pay of an Arab government or a Muslim government who wishes them to give some legitimacy to their viewpoints, right. So, that mess we find ourselves in where scholars are not judicious when they give opinions. Many people then respond to that by saying, well, that section of the community have sold out. So, who can we rely on then if that is the case?

[31:30]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: I've said this so many times before. To navigate clarity in Islam in this era that we’re in requires a lot of effort. And you cannot be a commoner, you have to be, you know like your podcast says, ‘the thinking Muslim’, you have to put effort and study. Five imams from the West in the 2020s is nothing. Twelve imams from the west in 2020 is nothing, it’s not a consensus. The word we are looking for on debated matters is a consensus. And whenever there has been a consensus in the past, you cannot be overridden by anyone in the present.

So, when we talk about a consensus on a matter of worship or matter of religion like hijab, you're not just looking at the imams of today. You’re looking at history, which is why I said if anyone imagines this is going to be a quick thing, you know, that's the mistake. So, you're going to be looking for the historical consensus and you're going to be looking around at the, you know, there is a lot more than five imams in the world, right. So, five is nothing. I'm telling you, twenty is nothing, right. Especially, when we have translations now. You have access to what scholars have said in the past, right. And so, when we talk about large swaths and the Quran itself and the Prophet sahllalahu ‘alaihi wassalam he is telling us when large swaths of my community come to a conclusion, if it gathers upon, that conclusion will not be a misguidance, right. Which means if a small group come to a conclusion, it could be a misguidance, right.

So, when we're talking about that consensus, go look in the past. Why is it that certain scholars say with such utter confidence when they transmit a ruling. It’s because they know that they have a hundred thousand scholars in the past that have come to the same conclusion. Which means that the Quran was clear, right. Unlike other disciplines where, for example, you can have ten generations of scientists get it wrong, right. That will not happen in Islam by the testimony of the Quran and hadith.

Surah An-Nisa which tells us, the group, fis sabilul mu’minin,, it talks about the way of believer. Wa yatabigh ghayra sabeelil mu’minin nuwallihi ma tawalla wa nuslihi jahanam wa saaa’at maseeraa, whoever goes away from the way of the believers. Which believers fashion a way for us? It’s the imams, right. So, not all the believers, not the mass of believers, it's the believers who etch out a path, Sabilil mu’minin. Which believers etch out a path? Not the common Muslim, but the scholar. He writes the book, and he tells you this is the paths to believe, to practice, to worship. This is how you do everything, right, and this is what Allah said. So, they have etched out a path. So, Sabilul mu’minin, according to ash-Shafi ,is the scholars. When the scholars have, there’s what we know as a mainstream, and the great vast amount of numbers are upon a conclusion. That conclusion in the sight of Allah will not be invalid to worship Allah with. There will not be misguidance. In contrast, the path of one, or two, or three Muslims or twenty, it can be a path of misguided. So, that's how we understand things.

[34:56]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: I wonder whether we as Muslims, modern Muslims, or Muslims living in so called secular modernity, we underestimate what it means to do ijtihad and to be a mujtahid? Now I’m going to, maybe argue a basis here which you may question, right, but my understanding from a very young age, is that only a mujtahid can derive an Islamic law. A Mujtahid is responsible for deriving from the primary text and the Islamic opinions. And everyone else who may be brought under the sort of umbrella of being a scholar, they are no more than echoing the opinions of those mujtahidin. And by in large, you know, we live in an era where mujtahidin are in short supply, probably. Again, is that for question. Whereas in Islamic history, mujtahidin seem to be in, you know, not few and far between, especially in the golden era of Islam.

So, if that is the case, who is a mujtahid? How do we know whether x person who claims to have an Islamic opinion, that person is qualified to derive from the primary text those opinions?

[36:21]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Ok. There's two points I want to make here. The first is to answer your question is let me ask you back. How do you know who can perform heart surgery on you?

[36:31]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: I suppose they would have studied, they’re qualified. So, they would have a certification to become a medic.

[36:38]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: So, in a medical school, a student will study with what 20-30 doctors, right. And he passes, each one of them give him a passing grade, right. And then the head of the school signs the document that he has passed, right. And then, but those doctors who passed him, where did, who made them doctors, right? All the way back until Hippocrates himself, right. The Hippocratic oath, I don't know who is considered the founder. So, where did that start? That’s the question, right?

So, but that's the chainmail that I'm talking about of generations upon generations. And so, if you go back to our texts for example, if you go back for example to the history of, no, there’s no diploma, there is no mujtahid diploma, right. But is that what makes a doctor? I could print one tomorrow. That's not what makes a doctor. What makes a doctor is the reality of multiple doctors who know him who have seen his exams, who have seen his res work as a resident. That's what matters, right. So even if you had 50 doctors and they brought some kid off the street and guy, and this guy spent 10 years with us. He’s never been to medical school, but he’s spent 10 years with us doing heart surgery. He can do the heart surgery, right. Is it going to change that he doesn't have that piece of paper? Or he has the reality of it which is he spent 15-20 years with us and we all say and know that he can do surgery.

In the past, you had statements from scholars, right. For example, Imam Malik said about al- Uzaee, the Syrian Imam Al-Uzaee. Imam Malik said about him and called him Imam, right. That's the signing off of one mujtahid to another, right. And so, we have this concept of thabaqat, which is biographies in which the scholars will speak about other scholars. It's also maybe you can call al-jarh wa ta’dil if you want to get into specifics. So, this is where scholars speak of other transmitters and they give their assessments and then you know the reader can see that. So, for example, you probably will never see anybody have anything bad to say about Malik for example, you won't have anyone, maybe some people that just have disagreements with them, but nobody will say he's not an imam, right. Nobody will say Shafi is not an imam. Nobody will say Ahmad is not an imam, right. So, that’s out.

Second point I want to make is there's a big misnomer and a misunderstanding that it's mujtahid or bust, that it's mujtahid or just an echoer, a transmitter. That’s actually false. There is something called mujtahid fin nazilah or mujtahid al-nazilah. This type of mujtahid is in the middle. He's not a mujtahid and he's not a follower either. But what does he have the right to do? He does have the right to take analogies from past conclusions. He's not going to go to the sources himself and develop a methodology, right, and rule upon a new issue. But he will make qiyas or analogy based upon the rulings of the past so that past ruling was given by a mujtahid imam from the Quran and Sunnah directly. And he now the mujtahid fin nazilah takes that ruling and uses that as a primary source and applies it to a new matter. And we're going to have that for example on, you know these new meats that are made, type of meat that is made from a piece of blood of a cow or whatever, and then you know grown in a petri dish or however it works, in a factory. And so, who's going to make those conclusions? Someone, who is mujtahid fin nazilah.

Well, how do I know who is mujtahid fin nazilah? In the same way that you know who's mujtahid? If the scholars of that time, you know, this person does not come out of a vacuum, doesn’t pop out of nowhere. He came from a school. He came from teachers. He came from circles. He has peers, right. And so, by looking around does anyone know him, yeah, we all know it, right. And he's had a history for 25 years been studying, talking, and writing, and we know him, right. Then you can trust them. So, it's really a question of, very similar to how Imam Ghazali talks about the mutawattir hadith. And he says it’s very similar to how do you be satisfied? And when you're eating food is there like a measure, is there a moment that you know “I'm satisfied”, or is it sort of a gradation that slowly comes into play? Likewise, the trust of a scholar. And so, you know after 2 years of being a student, you’re a good student, and the scholars say, “Yeah, he's a nice, good student.” After 5 years, now he teaches a TA. Now he's a teacher. Now he's had, he's been on his own for 5 years. Now it's 20 years later.

So, you should know how that gradation grows, okay. And then you know he's studying fatwa, how to get fatwa, how to become a mujtahid fin nazilah. And then the students say, “He’s studying and yeah he talks about it.” And then another 10 years past and all of a sudden now nobody doubts his conclusions. His own teachers go to him as a reference sometimes. That is the gradation like that of how trust develops.

[42:06]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: We are mostly muqallidin. And I’m a muqallid. I follow a madhab, and I follow an opinion, and I tend to sort of live my life reading the book. Now I’m reading books and I'm trying to understand what is my duty in relation to Allah subhannallahu wa ta’ala. Some people, they go one step further and they acquaint themselves with the evidences of a scholar, right. And that type of person does he have a right then to debate scholarly thought with others who have done a very similar thing?

For example, you may have a student who follows the school of Imam Malik and a student who follows the school of Imam Shafi. They’ve studied the evidences, they’ve acquainted themselves with evidences. Can they now engage in a full-on debate? Which you often see, right, you see on twitter a lot, where people engaging in these debates about different masaahil, different views and different issues based on, not based on the fact that they are anywhere close to being a mujtahid or faqih or anything like that, but actually just because they’ve acquainted themselves with the evidences. Does that make sense?

[43:26]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Yes. So, you basically have put it right. So, you have the mujtahid, the opposite end is the muqallid. You have two levels of grey in between. One notch up of the muqallid, according to Ibn Rushd, is the faqih, and the faqih is the advanced muqallid. He said most imams are just advanced. What is an advanced muqallid? Either that the person he knows a lot of the rulings or he knows a lot of the rulings and some, or many, or even all of the imam’s basis for the rulings. So, scholars today, when you look at a scholar, is going to be a faqih of either you know, he will either know the basis of the ruling, the evidence that the imam used, or he will simply know the ruling. You can benefit from both sides. Someone who speaks in public to the people in a wide range of a wider audience should be the type of faqih who knows the ruling and the evidence for the rulings. Instead of saying the Hanafi position is this and that’s it, someone may say can you explain, give me something else more that I could calm my heart. He said, oh you sure, this is the saying of Abdullah bin Mas’ud. So, the person, the common person says okay my heart feels good now that you gave me the evidence, right.

And then we just we already said the other shade of grey, lighter even shade of grey, is the mujtahid imanaazilah. He makes ijtihad based on the qiyas. So, the ruling of the madhab becomes a primary text. Now, the faqih and the students who know the evidences of their imams cannot really engage in a debate. They can get engage all they want, but it's meaningless. Because in reality they still have not developed the understanding or the tools to understand why their imam that they're debating came up with those ushul to begin with. And they could not at their level of understanding tell you why he came up with that and what would the responses be to that. So, because we lack that ushuli capability, then comparing our apples and our oranges makes no sense, right.

[45:46]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: Could you not be a muqallid and acquaint yourselves with the evidences, the ushul of a scholar and debate both?

[45:54]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: You could. But you don't have the tools to have developed that on your own, right. So, okay. So, at that point if you did have that tool you would be a mujtahid imam, right. And then you could debate them. So, (it's) you don't understand how I came to this conclusion to begin with. Okay, yes you understand my formula, but do you understand how I came to concoct this formula? How I came to develop this formula, which is my ushul, right? Can you debate me on that? No. I'm sure that none of us can stand a chance to debate Shafi on his ushul, right. So, you know that's really where the ulama they say is that “Okay fine you studied his conclusion, you've studied his ushul, can you develop a rival ushul? So, develop it.” And they say, “Oh yeah I could!”. So, develop it, publish it, send it to the Islamic world. See what they tell you, right.

Suyooti did it and was closed down, in the sense that the scholars didn’t like it. They don't like it because we already have a nice, neat, four madhabs, right. We don't need a fifth one. And so, I would say go develop it. And they might shut you down, so we don't need a fifth madhab. But if the ushuli scholar in the world, in all the languages, Urdu and Arabic and all the languages, will say, “Wow, I mean we don't need a fifth madhab, but this is the stuff, right. This is from the sources, it’s researched, there's no holes in this.” Then you can say, “Yes. Your word matters.”

We can't tell people to debate or not debate, but we can tell them when their word will matter and when it won't matter. And until you have proven yourself with the people of the field, it doesn't matter, and you can talk all you want.

[47:52]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: And so, I’m a muqallid and I know my place in the great scheme of things. And I know that there are much more learned people out there, who know much more than I do. So, I need to be very careful about my engagements and the way by which I debate my disagreements with others who follow different viewpoints.

However, we know that when Allah subhanallahu wa ta’ala gave us a duty to enjoin ma’ruf and forbidding munkar. He didn't just make that a duty for scholars I understand it, right. This is fardhu kifayah, this is for all of us to, within our capabilities and our reach, all of us to engage with. And often that’s used as an excuse. Maybe excuse is a wrong word. But a reason for us to get involved with debates because when we're enjoining ma’ruf and forbidding munkar.

Can you just outline what is this concept of enjoining ma’ruf and forbidding munkar? And how does a Muslim like myself, who really doesn't have that expertise, how do I involve myself in this duty?

[49:13]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: That's a great question and the answers are actually quite simple. In that, if the common Muslim, who is not a student of knowledge or anything, just a regular Muslim, he has the right to forbid the wrong with his tongue for the public sphere when the matter is contrary to what is known in religion by necessity. What does not need parsing out, right.

So, what is it that is known in religion by necessity? Drinking alcohol is haram. The Hajj happens in Mecca. So, when I see an imam, and this happened, I don't know if you know about it, but there is some imam out of Australia that is Egyptian, is really like a fraud it turned out to be. But he was promoting. I don't who is paying this guy, promoting that Hajj originally was never in Mecca. It was the Umayyads who made it in Mecca, but the Prophet’s Hajj was originally to Al-Quds. Such a bizarre insane idea probably just meant to anger the Muslims, right. You do not need to be a scholar and you do not need to say, “Well, you know, I'm a muqallid, maybe there's a perspective here.” No, you are confident every Muslim knows this.

What's the litmus test? It’s the 10-year-old Muslim. 10-year-old Muslim.

Where is Hajj? In Mecca.

Who's the last prophet? Muhammad.

Is there another prophet coming with a new law and new book? No, last prophet.

When is fasting? Ramadan.

Are you allowed to eat in Ramadhan? No.

Okay, so these are, you can literally list them on your head, right, with the dharuree knowledge. Any Muslim may speak on these matters in the public. Can the muqallid or the student of knowledge or in the middle, someone who's maybe “I'm not a scholar but I'm not a commoner either”, right, I would say like yourself, you're not acting as a scholar but you're not a common person either, you know how to have a discussion, to think, and do research. If you have researched the matter you have asked the scholar on the matter and have gotten a conclusion that xyz is forbidden then you may forbid the wrong on it in public.

You are not silenced provided that you have acquired that piece of knowledge from the right sources. Then anything else is to be forbidden by the fuqaha who will parse through matters, right, and see. And by the way, the silence of the scholars does not mean that's their permitting it. Only the silence of the Prophet indicates permissibility. But the silence of scholars does not indicate permissibility. Many people say, “We have to talk about this, cuz everyone is silent.” First of all, have you been to their local mosque? All the imams are silent. Wait, they’re silent on this application of social media. That doesn't mean they're silent in their communities, doesn't mean the silent on their mimbar, this doesn’t mean they're silent you know in other sources where they talk, right. But even if this was the case, the scholar has the right to be silent on a matter if he deems, number one, mainly that a greater harm will come about.

He has the right to do that. He is not obligated at the moment to forbid the wrong. So, if I see something wrong and I know I have to address it. But I'm thinking what is the best way to address it? And it takes me a week, it takes me a month, all right. Or it takes a scholar in a long time. He has the right to do that. So, his silence on it is not indicate permissibility.

Now, eventually silence is a problem. If everyone silent on a matter, it's a problem. Also, the manner in which a scholar speaks.

If he sees that the best way to forbid a wrong is through a subtle, you know, a subtle comment repeated over many years and over many platforms to many different audiences. So, that my point will actually be made, but no one realize that I'm making the point. So, that avoids the conflict with the other person that he knows that conflict between me and this person is not going to benefit anybody. So, they may, and they have the right to do that, which is repeatedly make subtle comments over time. Okay. So, he can do that.

The problem comes if people are looking for blood and that's because they may be emotionally immature, like I told you emotional maturity is the key, psychological health is the key. And often times people are emotionally stable or psychologically healthy, but one event traumatized them, one person traumatized them, so on that subject matter of that individual he’s not rational. He's not rational and the scholars have talked about this, by the way. The scholars have said that when a contemporary criticizes another contemporary you take it with a grain of salt, because there's emotions involved. There is a rivalry involved. Even if it's like within the halal, right. But they personally have a type of rivalry, right. And they’re at each other's heads, next to each other, butting heads all the time. So, the critique of one to the other is taken with a grain of salt.

So, we can do that with individuals. So, yeah, he's a very level-headed guy, perfect, but he does have a problem with that person who hurt him. So, anything he says about that, we take that with a grain of salt. So, that's the idea of commanding right and forbidding wrong. The scholars in the past have truly limited it because they realized that misapplied will lead to more wrong. Someone going try to be hero will actually end up causing more problems. And sometimes they don't transmit bad messages, but they transmit bad emotions. And that's something as important, it's the emotion that you're transmitting with your forbidding of wrong. And I’ve done it, I've done it in the past. I forbade wrong and transmitted a lot of hate too. I'm guilty, but I learned. I hope I learned from my past.

And that when you forbid wrong against another Muslim, you should forbid it while transmitting respect, honour, dignity, okay. Even if he's doing something very bad. Why? Because transmitting hate among the Muslims is not going. And we all know hateful commentary when we see it. Often times you can say, “Well, is what I said wrong?”, right. No, you might’ve said something that’s totally right, but your emotional state has set a fire in the community and that is a big point to observe when forbidding wrong.

[56:30]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: Can you forbid wrong on the issues that are subject to differences of opinion?

[56:36]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Oh, you cannot. You can advise. You can simply say, “Well our madhab says this.” And I find that in the West, in our setting, in our township, it's far more practical. It leads to more cohesion, you know. So, you cannot forbid a matter that is up for a debate or up for a discussion.

[57:00]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: Something that I hear especially amongst young people is a Muslim should not judge other Muslims. Someone does a haram, right, that is known from Islam by necessity to be haram. And they do it publicly, say it's not something that’s a private problem in their own lives but it’s a public thing. And sometimes they do it with showing and with a lot of, a sort of an expectation that they are somehow doing something which is grand and great. But yet they would label themselves, regard themselves, to be Muslim, sometimes even good Muslims.

How should we understand this phrase that often goes around, ‘we should not judge one another, only Allah subhanallau wa ta’ala can judge us’?

[57:46]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: I like your… It’s a very important topic. In the past I had a very rudimentary view of this. I’ve sort of, I think, added to it. Not contradicted it, but added to it.

First thing is you can always judge actions. Acts, a behaviour, or an action, is what Islamic law come to define for us, right. We know that, for example, you know drinking is haram. There is no way to. And that is not a judgment on the person. So, what people mean by passing a judgment on a person is, really in my view, is what they really mean by that, is making a conclusion about their status with God, for example, or making a conclusion about them that seems absolute that is not qualified by that behaviour.

So, we have every single right to say that behaviour is haram. But what we should keep in mind is that we're witnessing a sliver of that person's existence. Sayyidina Umar bowed down to idols and he fashioned them, and he drank wine, and he hit his sister, and he went to kill the Messenger (peace be upon him). Yet, what was that? That was a sliver of his existence, what is the end result?

So, it is not of the way of the imams of the past to again forbid a wrong or pass a judgment upon an action, while at the same time putting down the person as opposed to giving them a beacon of hope, right. Now, one of the things about this is that when you want to talk about like giving someone a beacon of hope, not attacking the individual per se. It takes, number one, a lot of spiritual discipline and number two, it's not as outrageous as social media needs think to be. Social media need conflict, right. That's what gets airtime. A measured commentary does not garner attention. However, the measured commentary on matters is what lasts. That's what lasts and that's what earns the barakah from Allah SWT.

And so, the great imams of our tradition in our path they have rarely been, rarely have they been, those who spark. You know fires and attention and all that, they rarely been there. But they've lasted and they've had the biggest, not only have they had the biggest, they had the biggest impact because of the decades in which they've lasted, right. They’ve been working for decades for a great impact, but their impact lasts. In contrast, sparks die out. And the one who views a spark, as soon as that spark dies out, he leaves, right. But the one who is going to a consisted well; wells aren't that exciting but it's consistently nourishing. That person will grow. So, you actually have transformed the person over a spirit of decades. And that’s the path of our imams have had. The mashaaikh, they care very little about the flashy attention, but they care more of that you consistently drink from this well. And don’t even care if you think we're flashy, if you're paying attention in that fashion like my eyes are glued. No, they want consistency.

So, when we talk about people and I have to catch myself all the time because anyone who loves the deen gets angry, right. You get angry when you see the article the other day of “I'm a Muslimah and I have tattoos and I'm proud of it,” right. I know you get angry for a second, right. But you got to realize a couple things. Number one, you got to clarify the rulings of the people. You can stay silent. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to do it right now, cause what you’re doing is feeding attention to that thing. You can do it later, right. Particularly if it's not something sneaky, right. It's not something that the Muslims don't know about, then you would have to do it right away. Okay. Like for example, you know that you know we have little bit of mould in the basement. I know that I could do it tomorrow, I don't have to deal with it today, right. But I'll deal with it. But if you know that there's a little bit of poison in the soup that's on the stove, you have to act right now because nobody sees it. Only you see it. So, that's the differences. Sometimes you have to act right away. Sometimes it's not smart to act right away cause you’re just fuelling the fire. And later on, after that you know buzz dissipates, then you can address it to the people. That you know, well you know tattoos are haram, without giving attention to the thing. Cause whatever receives attention grows. So, you don't want to give it attention. And if you don't need to, you shouldn't.

Secondly is the idea that we have to ask ourselves, “Hold on a second, have I never been astray before like on a matter? Of course, I have.” Have I never, my mind told me, maybe an angel, the angel that supposed to whisper good things to you has whispered to you don't do this, you know it's haram, right. And we, every Muslim knows that voice in this. Don't, don't do this, right. But you did it anyway. What's the difference really, she did that, you did that, so how did Allah treat you? He gives us some rope, give us some slack. So likewise, emotionally speaking, it cools you down. It really cools you down, right.

So, you address two things, the harm that person is spreading, we will deal with it, we will deal it, we're not going to let it go. But the anger at the person also cools down so a Muslim made a misguided mistake. And do you know how many phases a mu’min goes through, right? Ups and downs. And you know, “I'm this this day and I'm not the next day.” Just calm it down. And the problem is that it takes time to discover that, like when you reach… I'm not even an old guy, I'm like… I'm probably in the middle, right, but I'm thinking to myself. I had so many, pretty much always have been in one box, I’ve made my mind up on certain things. That didn't change, Alhamdulillah bi Fadlulillah, for like 25 years, right. But within that box, I've had moods. I've had, you know, been influenced by this a little bit, little less influence on that, a little bit, you know. Dying to find a ruling for that, you know, always desiring something. So, I've been like that.

And when you flip it on yourself it cools your heart down. And when your heart is cooled down, your mind makes a better decision, right. Your mind makes a better decision. When your heart is inflamed with fire, you make a bad decision.

So, that's where I go with the don't judge the situation is, no, I'm not going to judge that, I'm not going to pass a heavy commentary on the person who said, “I'm tattooed up Muslim and here it is. this is me.” And she's got hijab and everything, but she got these tattoos. So, I'm just going to say, alright, eventually at some point I need to repeat the hadith, repeat the ruling to the people that tattoos are haram. I'm not going to go crazy right now. My heart is actually calmed down when I realized that. You know, like not everyone has teachers, not everyone has guidance, right. And I myself did not have guidance on so many things. And this person is like what 23, writing this article? So, were you smarter now? Or are you more measured, knowledgeable, mature, guided now or at 23? So, we were all like that to different degrees. It cools your heart down. And you start viewing the person as they’re part of our ummah, right. They made a misguided mistake, they are misguiding others which is adding to their mistake and we will address it when the time is right, okay.

But this idea that I'll allow the rage that is mixed, really influenced by my love of the deen. No, I've identified that rage is going to lead to a bad result, that is going to lead into a war and it's going to lead to that person doubling down. That's it. And then they're going to have supporters who sympathize with them, who help them to find evidence for their cause. And what did you’ve done? You pit the community into two camps on the issue of tattoos now, are you pro whatever ‘Mrs. Tattoo article’ or are you against ‘Mrs. Tattoo article’, right. And then all her fan base and her fan base are going to be probably people who share her, you know, demographic, who sympathized. They see a guy is going against, a born Muslim guy is going against this convert girl, right. A middle age born Muslim guy, young convert girl. It's going to split demographically. I mean you can script this stuff, right? This is all from following emotions over, you know, trying to cool down your heart and try to see things in a positive light, while at the same time addressing the problem.

[67:18]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: Back to that question of the point you just made about dealing with the root and dealing with the substance rather than the person. And dealing with the issue and trying to change thinking rather than just trying to sort of create animosity for the sake of animosity. Isn’t there an argument today that we have another actor in this relationship between Muslims? And that actor is the liberal state. And the liberal state isn’t this benign institution. It is trying actively to create, for want of a better term, a reformation within Islam. It’s trying to change Muslims’ views, you know. It's trying to change, in particular, the Muslim youth, and their attitudes, and their morality of the way by which they think. And its funding programs in Britain, for example, you know, every other week we find out the home office has been funding this Islamic website or this Muslim cause or this.

So, what we have is we’ve got a very malicious actor here that’s trying to create, trying to almost penetrate this Muslim community with foreign ideas. And in the face of that, one needs to respond not with measure, but one needs to respond with force, right. And so, the argument then is, if you don't do that, then you’re giving these people a free pass. And you're allowing the munkar to be normalised. And it would get to a point where the next generation wouldn't be able to…., you talk about enjoining maruf and forbiding munkar, at the very basic that requires you to know what is known from Islam by necessity. But I fear that a generation of Muslims are not even going to know that. You said that the 10-year-old knows x, but we’ve now got to a stage potentially where a 10-year-old Muslim doesn't really know that, because it's been normalised and no one's ready to challenge it in a very forthright way.

There are some opinions that are allowed to fester and foster in the Muslim community for a very long time. And because everyone's sort of taking this long-term approach, it’s not directly addressed. And so, what I mean by force is, you know, the force of argument confronted with a with a very forthright tone.

[69:53]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Yeah. I mean who would disagree with that. Nobody should disagree with that. But at the same time, when I say measured, I mean measured towards another Muslim. The emotions have to be measured towards another Muslims, so that you don't end up creating, you know ‘for tattoo lady against…’, you know, ‘tattoo girl against tattoo girl’ within the community. Outside the community I'm totally for completely clarifying. But also, you still have to have a measured emotional state. Do you want to produce like a teenager who’s gone rabbit crazy against liberals and all he sees is liberalism in everything? He looks at a chair and he see liberalism, right.

We have that… does exist already within the secular world. You do have, for example, radical left that sees oppression in anything. Do you want that inside the Muslims? No, I want a Muslim who has, is emotionally stabilized, but solid in their religion. And the way this is going to happen is that many people fear they live only on the realm of ideas, and internet, and articles. But Islam is not like that. Islam is lived in the home. It's transmitted from father to son, from imam to teacher. It's in the local mosque.

And when you have, before the coronavirus you take any of the kids, the youth. Take a random 13-year-old from our community. I have Alhamdulillah bi fadhlallah random 13 years old at the least five meetings a month. Whether it's they take my classes, whether it’s youth night, whether it’s jum’aa’, whether it’s dhikr night. I'm looking at his face and I'm talking. And he has the ability and saying salam. And he can talk back. He can talk. He can say salam. He can ask a question five times a month. When you're doing something five times a month, 60 times a year; so if I take a random kid from the community, yeah, I see this kid, I give a message, I interact 50-60 times a year, right.

You don't need to shout at the top of your lungs and repeat it again. There's something of subtly repeated over and over and over, right. They will get the message in the span of one year. Let alone real community life is 15 years, right. So, from time he is like seven, ten years old until he goes, and gets married, or goes to college, that's when maybe you won't see him that much, right. How many years is that, right? Let’s see 10 years, right. He sees my, our Islam. He sees how all the families operate, right. We've interacted, we laugh, we eat, we have fun, we go out, right, we have tarawih, we have laylatul qadr. He’s seen people in the masjid weeping, he's seen funerals, he’s seen weddings.

So, what is the paranoia, right, when we have this arsenal that our liberal foes do not have, they do not have that? Even if they're reaching him through the cell phone. We know they are reaching everyone through their cell phone, through You tube, through Tik Tok, through movies. Yeah, but this outweighs it. Family and community outweighs that stuff. And we address it, like in my youth classes I always address these things, right, I address it. But, if you're going to address it to public school kids, and be going berserk and crazy, they will not listen. So, they will observe, they will digest.

For example, there was a Tik Tok thing that went crazy about a Lebanese American Muslim who has now come out as a female, right, and the mom in hijab. I think this is an act by the way, I don't think it's real. The mom in hijab, “Oh, habibti, you're now so beautiful and I accept you with whatever you are.” I guarantee wallahi, billah, that is not a real Arab family that exists. It's an act. But anyway, leaving that aside, I showed them the video. We had the class based upon this, right. But from experience, that class has to be almost like monotone. That piece of knowledge that the Muslim is two genders it seeps into their head. They've heard it, right. It may come again because it's such a sensitive issue that if they sense a reaction that’s emotional, they’re going to go the other way. I know this as a fact because they may say, “Oh my friend is transgender.” Because what you’re doing now, you're creating a big conflict within their life. It may be in the balance with them, right.

But that this is one interaction, they still come to every event, every youth event, every fundraiser, every Ramadan, all of that is also part of the equation. So, I don't need to win the battle at that moment, right, as long as I've said it. It's downloading, they’re still young, we are talking about 16 years old, 15 years old, right. They haven't even lived, they’ve just have been born and they are affected by society just as we were, right. And they are going to come maybe in 5-10 years and things will change. But in that 5-10 years we have a relationship, as they have a relationship with the community, with the masjid, with the older sisters, right, in the community. And that relationship is what’s going to make the difference. And that physical and personal relationship is the difference that we as a Muslim community have because our religion is a lived religion. We do stuff together, right.

What our rival messages from pop culture does not have. The messages from pop culture will not be there when your mother dies. Pop culture will not be there, you know, when your brother goes blind. Pop culture will not be there to celebrate your graduation. Pop culture will not be there in Ramadan to give you 30 days straight of spiritual activity. They would not compete. It would not compete with hajj, with umrah, taking you on umrah trip, right. Who paid for it, scholarships for umrah trip?

That's why I feel that if we limit the debate to what goes on social media and in abstract ideas, you’re losing, right. And you're not using the arsenal. And I guarantee you, anybody who has the arsenal of being able to be in a community, is accepted by a community, is told by the parents ‘teach our kids’, right. Once you realize that you have that you don't need to bark so loud. Because you are affecting people. You will still talk. And I say it all the time, Muslims, we are not by the right nor left. We are against racism, against economic injustice. We are against what's happening to the undocumented, okay. We are also against sexual deviation from traditional marriage. Against all that, not supporting it. We are against it. We are against high taxation, right. We are against that. We are against, you know, the corporate corruption of the corporation's being treated like individuals, and therefore, being able to, you know, donate and control, you know, more than they really should and getting away with murder sometimes. You know, getting away with destruction and then saying, “It’s the corporation, not us, not the individual.” We are against so many things out and we’re for certain things that it's on both sides. So, we end up having to travel our own path.

[78:01]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: It's an interesting point you raise about the extent to which Islam has a position on a number of contemporary issues, whether political, economic, or social or religious issues. I think you would agree there’s a trend at the moment in the West for young Muslims, in particular, to find solace in political activism that doesn't derive from the sharia, but rather derives mostly from left-wing activism, right. And that becomes a gateway by which they adopt a host of principles which, some of which, may accord with Islam, but most of it actually disagrees with Islam.

And I came across the young lad the other day and he said to me, “Look I’m a Muslim.” He went to Islamic school from day one and he spent most of his life in Islamic education. And from what I gather, he has lived in a good community. But he had no problem in saying to me, “I'm a Muslim, that’s my religion. I'm an economic socialist and on social issues I’m a liberal. And I see no problem with that position.” Okay, now, I took the approach you discuss there. And it wasn’t really about slamming this brother and saying to him your position is unacceptable, but rather to develop ideas. But in the discussion, it became evident to me that the means by which he came to these political views was through an activism that he embraced, right. How should we approach this activism that is impacting and affecting the minds of many young people?

[79:49]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Well, if you want to alter and change a person, then you don't, and that person is headed in a direction, you cannot. You’re not going to get a result if you tug on their back or you logger them from the front. What you will achieve by doing that is looking like a hero. And you will get people who already agree with you, to sympathize for you, and with you, and assure you more. That's what you will get. But if your true interest is to change the mind of a person who is headed in a direction, whatever that direction maybe, left-wing activism today, in the past it was maybe who knows what, and in the future it’s going to be who knows what, but it's going to happen, right. Because there's not enough. We're not reaching because of population, and means, and whatever.

Muslim kids are being reached by outside foreign forces, outside forces and ideas before the teaching can reach them. So, that's going to happen. It happened in the past, it is happening now, and it will happen in the present.

The way that you change a person's mind is through the side, by sideways, right. What do I mean by that? By any link between that person and the Muslim community, any link. And you just increase that link. And their change will be gradual. If anybody expects that a debate will just change someone's mind, it is not going to. If you truly want to change people's mind, you're not going to go pulling them or face fronting them. But rather in any way, shape and form plugging them into the greater community of knowledgeable or practicing Muslims. And then I would say let that do its work because it will do its work, right. They will come across so many instances, in which somebody's telling them or saying something opposite of their. But I will say do not engage in a debate because a debate only makes a person more rigid.

And my method, and of course it's a case-by-case basis, right. But my method is that there are some times, yes you do need to state that I do not accept this premise on economics or sexuality because the Quran states this very clearly, right, and then change the subject. So, you dropped it in. Change the subject. Cause what you want is, you want the person, you want the people to, this is sort of a psychology thing. I truly believe that people actually come to rational conclusions or , conclusions I should say, often times through their heart. Not necessarily through their mind. And so, I want this person to feel comfortable in the masajid without me condoning what's wrong. I will never condone what's wrong and I will always state, you know, what we are against.

I don’t want to have to go that route of misleading people in thinking that we're okay with something. No, we are okay with you coming in the masjid, and being in our lunch, and being in our dinner, etcetera. You going to know what we believe, but we're not fighting you about it. And I would hope that it's going to take time for that person to really see the points.

Over time, right. Over time things will round out. And not only that, sometimes you need the trend to die out. But sometimes you need the trend to die out and cool down a little bit. Sometimes the trend is too hot to face and you need it to cool down a little bit. In the meantime, you're establishing your relationship. So, really the word is relationships. And knowledge is transmitted through little itsy bitsies of interactions in a positive relationship. Now someone may say, well, I don't know what response I have to that, but that's my methodology. If I have to do that and I truly want to change a person, that's the method of changing a person. Its idea is by showing them the community that, number one, this is the community that really cares about you. If that's the case, then show that, right.

[84:25]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: What about the place for alternative ideas, for a discourse or a narrative which contradicts you? You really quite rightly pointed out, that you know, we are neither left nor right. We hold positions that the left would find abhorrent and we hold positions that the right would find abhorrent. And maybe some positions where both sides would feel comfortable with, right, so economic issues, political issues whatever. But often, a young person is forced into this type of activism when they do not see the discussion in the Muslim community. So, a discussion about Islamic economics, I suspect, a large number of young people who heard for the first, would probably have heard the first time the idea that Islam is against high taxation, right. Because we presume it must be for it, right. You know that’s the sort of assumption we make.

Is there a case to argue that the Islamic tarbiyah, the Islamic discussion, especially among the young people has to broaden to include these political, economic and social themes so that we can give the correct Islamic viewpoint, so that a young Muslim can then measure the right from the wrong? I think there is an absence of that viewpoint.

[85:52]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: Yes and no. The Islam has its own agenda. You read the Quran, you look at the sirah, Islam has its own agenda. And you never want to be just responding with an agenda. We have our own track, right.

I don't go into the Democratic party and say, “Hey, I need to know what do you say about the divine attributes?” And then go criticise, you know, this, you know, this meeting here, this Democratic party meeting, this Democratic party whatever, and you know you guys didn't address divine attributes. Do you believe that they’re literal or metaphoric? What the heck, right.

It's completely out of place, right. Islam has its own agenda of tarbiyah and discussing certain subjects are there. But not in this time. Not when you tell us to discuss them, not when society inform us. Islam has its own track and its own train. And it's going at its own pace to cover issues, right. And we will not be forced to cover a specific issue at a specific time in such a manner that forces us to give up our grounds and our control over our narrative. Because if you look at all throughout, the concern of Muslims, were not necessarily the concern of the greatest society, right. Doesn't mean that we don't have a position on that. But what the society prioritises as crisis number one, is not crisis number one in the light of the Quran. I’m sorry it is just sometimes not, right.

And we will not, I don't think that Muslims should, right, budge and become responders to society's crisis, right. Yes, it's that we have, and we have our ways of solving problems. This doesn't mean we don't care about society at all. It doesn’t mean we don't have action in society at all. What it means is that we will take the actions in improving society based on our priorities, right. The priorities of that the Quran has given us.

So, the health care issue in America, it's an important issue, let’s say. It's not going to be Islam’s number one issue, ever. It's not, right. It will be somewhere down on the totem pole, okay. There are a lot of issues where they’re extremely important, and they're very close. But I don't think that Muslim should go the route of whatever setting we’re in, let's mould ourselves, okay, you know to that set of priorities over our set of priorities. I don't think that's the right way to do things. I would never do this in my personal life, right. I'm not. Nobody's going to box me into a situation where I now am a responder, right.

So, financially speaking, my neighbours put up a beautiful fence while I'm actually fixing my kitchen. But the neighbours put a beautiful fence and everyone's looking. Everyone's putting a fence up. I know, it doesn't meet my finances, right. That's not what I'm going to do right now. I'm not going to be forced to put up a fence because the neighbours put up a fence, right. I'm not spending $300 on a fence when I want to spend my $300 on something else. I'm going by my agenda, right. And I'm in control. I don't care what anyone says or cries and claims that I'm this, that or the other.

We're taking, we're moving. When I look at imams, we are moving. They are doing so much work, right. It's not in your arena, that doesn't mean it's not, we're not doing work. It is such a Eurocentric thing, just like we said earlier. I don't know if it was on the episode or not, before you recorded or not. That the Europeans saw different religious views as a source of conflict and they had religious wars. So, they assume that every religion has different views, source of conflict, right. And it's like, that's not the case in America. This has never been a religious war in America. Never been a religious war in many countries. So, they took their experience and plastered it everywhere else. Likewise, because their societies focusing, or certain societies focusing has certain crisis, this must be the number one thing that you’re talking about. No, I don't think so. It’s not going to happen. And if someone says, “Well, you're not talking about this.” I'm not taking that critique seriously. And you're not going to dictate. And your method of judging is incorrect. We have to insist on our grounding and being in control of our agenda.

[90:41]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: And finally, Sheikh Shadee, I want to ask you about the work you're doing in your local community. We know about the Safina Society and the courses that you run. We also know about the outreach work that you talk about in your podcast. And can you shed some light on what the grand narrative is? What's your grand aim behind the work that you're doing? What are you trying to achieve as a net result of this work?

[91:11]

DR SHADEE ELMASRY: So, we have a masjid that has taufiq by the fadhal of Allah. In which, I would say that, you know, people do get along in that masjid. And the headquarters and all my operations are out of that masjid. And the concern and the movement, I view it as a movement. Like the local mosque is a local mosque, right, but within that I'm able to do my work through Safina society. I’m able to have a foot in your average neighborhood mosque and a foot in Safina society to do what I. Really, it's a movement. And it's a movement to start viewing ourselves as inheritors of this message, whether we like it or not. We are inheriting this message from the Prophet sahllalahu alaihi wassalam by virtue of being Muslim.

What is that mean? And how are we going to improve and transform lives? Our life first. Our life first and then the next life that you can change, right. And so, on and so forth.

So, it's not just about learning stuff. It’s about learning stuff and I called it Safina Society. Safina is salvation our salvation is by knowledge and dhikr, right. So that's ilm’ and sulook. So, we have dhikr.

We're actually starting a full-time program. Online full-time program this coming fall. It's going to be knowledge. It's going to be dhikr. But it's also going to be certain relief work. We're now in relief work. So, we focus so much in our community on a of couple things. Number one, knowledge, number two, we have dhikr. But family is so important. Family activities are so important. Bonds, like we have guys’ night coming up next Wednesday, right. Cause the guys don't see each other at the masjid anymore, we don’t see each other, so we are having guys’ night. It's building relationships through families. It's the most important thing.

We are against this single culture, right. I remember London had this type of thing where people work, and they go into their 30s single. Sometimes by choice. And that's the problem. We have a problem with that and that whole life of the singles life. And it's not the way Islam is going to spread and it’s not going to benefit. So, we focus a lot on family and getting together as communities. And even the young guys and the sisters when they get together this is how they meet each other. We don't get together in mixed gatherings, but you do cross paths, right. It's not strictly with a wall, but it's separated, as you know sunnah would require and want us to do. But they see each other and hopefully they get married through that.

But we also have relief work. Every Friday, we go in and we are fortunate to have, literally 3-4 miles away from us, is a very impoverished area. And one of the best times of the week is going out there every Friday afternoon. We go out there with bags of food and we pass it around.

That's our belief. And we have connection now. We have traction with youth. We have traction within the family level. We have traction in the city, or not it's really city, it's like the four areas of the town. We have connection with scholars, all around almost the world, through students. So, we want that connection and it's that chainmail, like I said, it's all these things coming together that is going to be the protection of Muslims.

And whatever happens between right and left, I think they are, unfortunately, you know, and they're killing each other. They're going to hurt each other badly, which means forcing each other to extremes that are untenable, and the country suffers. We will outlive that, right. We will not be in that. We may physically suffer because of it. However, the country goes economically, right, maybe even some clashes even and rise of crime, etcetera, etcetera. We’ve physically been impacted, no doubt about that. But our identity and who we are and our states with Allah subhanallahu wa ta’ala ,inshaallah will be protected. And we will continue in 30 years and 50 years the same deen is transmitted to the next generation, right. That’s what survival means.

So, whereas if you look at those groups, every secular justice group will end up in a generation of diehards who have been rejected by their kids, right. Your typical Ataturk person, right, in the eighties and nineties, they got old and they saw no inheritors to their version of secularism, right. And they’re died miserable, alone in the living room, probably filled with smoke, right, because they were all big smoker, right. We don’t have that. You're going to turn 60, 70, 80 surrounded by kids, grandkids, great-grandkids, and the community that loves you. Because you're like their grandpa or like their grandma. And you’re buried, right, in a procession that's looks more like a wedding, right, because you've done your job in this world and you’re going. And everyone's testifying to your uprightness. And that's how we die. That's what we have. And when our youth see that funeral. Go, find that anywhere else! Where literally, we havehad one funeral, subhanallah, of one of the elders of our community who have been there for decades in the community. And he has children, and has grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. And everyone loves him. And literally the funeral. And what did he do? He isn't like the hero, or imam, or anything, he was just an upright Muslim who is there all the time and did not sow discord in the community. But he was there. He was always at every gathering, and every event supporting. And his kids are all into Islamic work. He did produce that ethic inside the love of the ummah, inside of them. So, in that respect, he's a hero. But in terms of the outward? No, he's a regular man worked as a professor in science and lived a normal life. So, that funeral to me is one of things I'll never forget. It was literally like serenaded with the burdah that was coming out of the masjid. And people, the munshid when he opened up with the burdah. It was such a sight to see it was unbelievable. And it's like this is victory. That's how you live. It's how you die indicates how you live, right. And show me who else has that, anything close to that?

That's what we're trying to foster. That stuff will outweigh Tik Tok videos. It will outweigh so many other influences that were fighting against. That's a community that we're trying to foster within. The community that it has the mission, but the mission is not the end result. It is continuity, that’s the goal.

[98:31]

MUHAMMAD JALAL: May Allah subhanallahu wa ta’ala reward you Dr Shadee. And InshaAllah ta’ala we hope to have you back again. And jazakallah khairan for your time with us today.