Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
So you mentioned that there are some means we can take that are outside of the system that we as Muslims can take. From that, a lot of people ask the question, is protesting from the means, is protesting in a non-Muslim country, is it from the means that are permissible for us to undertake to try and impact some kind of change? Okay, before we place a ruling on the issue of protesting, the scholars they say to place a ruling on something you have to first have a correct perception of it. So there are terms which are slightly similar to in the Arabic language or in English demonstration, which is what is called sit-in or strikes.
Okay, what's that? So sit-in, for example, in the Arabic language, they call it it basically means a group of people come together, they sit somewhere, they said we're not going to move until this decision is done. And strikes, we see a lot in the UK, especially London, bus strikes happen or hunger strikes or whatever. All of these are what we're talking about.
Okay. So we mean that by the concept of demonstration and the protest and we mean all of that. The mudaharat are types.
If we don't mention the types of mudaharat, then we can't give one blank ruling for all of them. Okay, that makes sense. And that's why I feel like many people who spoke about it, whether it be in the Arabic language or whether it be in English language, or even many people who've written books on it, whether it be shuyukh and mashayikh who've written it, a lot of them personally, in my personal opinion, they didn't deal with the issue in a very scholastic, scholarly method, a lot of them.
The reason for that being, they didn't mention the aqsam al mudaharat, the types of mudaharat there is, and then each one given its suitable ruling. They gave a complete ruling for different types, and then it's always a type that doesn't really fall under that reasoning. So the types of mudaharat are the following.
The first one is mudaharat, which is with the intention and the aim of changing the system. And that happens in three forms. The first one, which is trying to change the system, or trying to upthrow the system, and it happens in three different ways.
It's either in a Muslim country, where that Muslim country doesn't allow protesting. The second one is, it's trying to change a system where it's under a Muslim power, under a Muslim leader, but it doesn't prevent people from doing mudaharat. The Muslim leader allows protesting? He allows it.
And the third one is under a non-Muslim country. So it's not a Muslim country. The second type is mudaharat, or protesting that is done, with the aim and the objective of changing a situation from the situations that are there.
You're not trying to put the system down, you're not trying to drop the government or anything, or upthrow the government. The aim here is just, you just want a situation to be changed from the situations out there, or you want to take a position in something. The third form, which is the last, is that the aim for this protest is just to bring to the government, to their attention, a particular issue like global warming or something like that, and bring this situation to the world.
Those are the three forms. So the scholars, they gave a ruling on mudaharat. They said it's not allowed, it's not permissible.
They got it from the Quran and the Sunnah, but they had to explain their reason for why it's haram. And there's five points which they took. The first point is that it's, بِأَنَّهَا بِدْعَةُ الْمُحْدَةَ, they said it's a newly invented matter.
The second reason is because بِأَنَّهَا مِنَ التَّشَبُّهُ بِالْكُفَّارِ, it's imitating the non-Muslims. The third reason they gave is that they said this is من وسائل الإنكار, a means of rejecting something. And the means of rejecting something has to be taken from the Quran and the Sunnah.
The fourth one is بِأَنَّهَا مِنَ الْخُرُوجِ عَلَى وَلِي الْأَمْرِ, it's going against the Muslim leader. And the fifth reason the mudaharat that they said is not allowed is because لَا تَخْلُوا مِن مُخَالِفَةِ, there is in it things that are in opposition to the Quran and the Sunnah وَأَنَّهَا يَتَرَتَّبُ عَلَيْهَا مَفَسِدٍ, and there are harm and problems that come from the mudaharat. Now let me go through each reasoning that the scholars gave, not all of them are valid.
The first one which is, it's a newly invented matter. To say that something is newly invented, it means, to say something is newly invented and it's an innovation, it means that this person is attributing this to the religion. So there are a group of people who basically do believe that mudaharat is an ibadah, an act of worship.
These people, this applies to them, it's an innovation, where's your evidence for it? And they won't be able to bring any evidence for it. Because it's a newly invented matter, it's an innovation, and we then read a hadith, مَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلَ لَيْسَ عَلَيْهَا أَمُرُنَا فَوَرَدْ. But there's a party of people who say no, for us it's not an act of worship.
It's actually an adah, a norm. And a norm, we can't refer to it as a bid'ah, because it's outside the realm of ibadah. It can only be considered an act of ibadah, or a mu'amalah, to be considered it to be innovation.
The person has to have done it for what? يُقْصَدُ بِهَا التَّقَرُّبُ وَالتَّعَبُدِ لِلَّهِ. So what we understand is that the person is trying to get closer to Allah by this action, or they are trying to worship Allah through it. So if a norm, or a custom, or a mu'amalah, is done to get closer to Allah by it, and you're doing it to worship Allah, then it becomes an innovation if it's not legislated.
So a man says, I'm not going to marry a woman, and I'm going to get closer to Allah by that, the Prophet said that's bid'ah. He could leave the woman if he wants to, he doesn't have to marry if he doesn't want to, but to say I'm going to get closer to Allah by not getting married to any woman, it's an innovation. Even though originally it's not, it's a mu'amalah, which the person could just do if they wanted to, but now that they've chosen to get closer to Allah by it, it becomes an innovation.
So a group of people will say, I am doing the mudaharat, and my aim and objective is not to get closer to Allah by it, I'm not worshipping Allah with this action, and it's a means, it's just a means for me. So we come to that one. The second reason that some scholars bring forward by saying that it's imitating the non-Muslims, again it's also a very weak argument.
The reason is because, what is the dhabit for tashabbuh? We kind of mentioned that before. What's the dhabit for tashabbuh? What is tashabbuh of the kuffar? Tashabbuhu bil kuffar, Shaykh al-Islam al-Taymiyya has a kitab, one of the strongest books that's written in this field of tashabbuh, there are many books written on it, but one of the greatest books is the kitab ikhtidha'u salat al-mustaqeem mukhalifat al-ashab al-jahreem by Ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Taymiyya clearly and categorically, I know Shahr Tibi and other great scholars mention that the real, the concrete point for tashabbuh is that this is an action, la yaf'aluhu illa al-kuffar, only the non-Muslims do this.
It's khas for the kuffar, uniquely known for them. And if it's something that the people all do out of norms, this is not a tashabbuh, even if the non-Muslims do it. It has to be something uniquely known for them.
And rather, we see this concept of mudaharat actually present at the early times of Islam. For example, Uthman ibn Affan, when the people went against Uthman and they uprose against Uthman, and they took him down on khalifat al-rashid, Uthman ibn Affan, that was demonstration, and then it turned into violence. Also, we have the issue of Abd al-Humari ibn al-Ash'ad, when he went against al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, that was mudaharat, and it was happening at that time.
So saying it's a thing done by the non-Muslims, I mean, it's very far-fetched. And also, this concept of rejecting oppression and pushing away oppression, it's something which human beings are generally used to doing that. Whatever means they take is different, but people don't like to be oppressed, and they don't like to be wronged.
So again, the concept of it being a tashabbuh bil-kuffar is also not a strong argument. Now we are left with a point which is that it's going against an oppressive Muslim leader, and that's again, not applying to the land of the non-Muslims. Because if it's oppressive, the Muslim leader is one of two situations.
He's either a rightful, he's a righteous, noble, just leader. He's a just leader, because people wouldn't generally want to go up against that one, except dim-witted, ignorant people. The second one is that he's an oppressive leader.
And this we have clear-cut evidences that state that we can't go against an oppressive Muslim leader, which the Prophet ﷺ had mentioned, patience, endurance. And the three things that we do for that Muslim oppressive leader is to make dua for Allah to guide him, that's clear evidences for that. We go and we give him nasihah, we advise him.
And the third one is as-sabr, patience, on what he's doing to the Muslims. But that doesn't apply to non-Muslim countries. So we now come to the non-Muslim country.
The fourth one is that it's a means of rejecting. So wasa'ilul-inkar. Their argument is, Habibi, Akhi, I'm rejecting falsehood.
Now you might ask yourself, isn't that, and if you're rejecting falsehood, isn't that innovation again, or the first one that we mentioned, what's the difference between the two? The difference between it is wasi'ilah means can lead to good and it can also lead to bad. Whereas bid'ah only leads to bad, because it's not something. Also, the wasi'ilah, the means a person can take, there are specific evidences that come for it.
Whereas the bid'ah, of course, is without evidences. Also, means can enter into ibadat, mu'amalat, adat, acts of worship, people's interactions, and it can also enter people's norms and customs. Bid'ah only enters acts of worship.
So they say it's wasi'ilah for me then, which is the fourth reason. It's a wasi'ilah. So now what we have to do is we have to divide the wasi'ilah means into two.
There's a wasi'ilah known as wasi'ilah mahda, it's pure means. We have to do this in order to understand the whole discussion and the whole dialogue. The wasi'ilah mahda, it's pure wasi'ilah, it's pure wasi'ilah.
The wasi'ilah which is mahda is the person intends this action, he intends this means in order to reach something. But this means cannot be detached from the means. That is a pure means.
It's a means that's connected to the objective, like walking to the masjid, for example. If someone walks, he doesn't get rewarded for it by itself. But the minute he walks to the masjid, the reward is connected to the, yeah, it's connected to.
He walks to a brothel, the punishment is on him. So the walking, it's a pure means, meaning it's purely connected to the aim and objective. There's another one which is called wasi'il nispiyah, means which by itself can stand, like wudu' for example.
Wudu', whether you're doing it for salah or not, just by doing wudu' itself is a reward. By itself, it's a means that can stand by itself. That's important that we understand it.
Another point I want us to understand is that there is a qa'ida for us, which is called al-wasi'ilah hikam al-maqasid. The means takes the ruling of these objectives. So if the objective is wajib, the means becomes wajib.
As long as that means is not prohibited, pay attention to that. If for example, going to the masjid for the men is wajib, right? So you know the only way you can go to the masjid is by driving. Driving becomes obligatory.
The means takes the ruling of the objective. As long as that means is not haram, if you take a means which is haram, then it's not permissible. The means has to be permitted, allowed.
There's a qa'ida shaytaniyah that some people use, which is al-gha'yatu tubarriru al-wasi'ilah, which has nothing to do with Islam. It's a qa'ida shaytaniyah, which means the goal justifies the means. The goal justifies the means.
And when you look at the mudahara today that we see, that's the qa'ida that is built upon. The goals justify the means. So the means here can be corrupt.
So this qa'ida shaytaniyah which is al-gha'yatu tubarriru al-wasi'ilah has nothing to do with Islam. The goal justifies the means. If a person wants to, for example, do something which is evil, something good, if he takes an evil means for it, it's no problem.
Example is, for example, I steal 10 dirhams from you, but I give 9 in sadaqah, and I just take 1. So how many sins do I get? 1, right? But I give 9 sadaqah. This is al-gha'yatu tubarriru al-wasi'ilah. Just because you're trying to achieve a goal doesn't mean the means justifies it.
And this is what demonstration falls under. Now I need to speak about something very important which is, is means in da'wah tawqifiyah or ijtihadiyah? And I think this is very important. And this is what I'm trying to get to.
In order to reject falsehood, which is a means of da'wah, is it tawqifiyah or is it ijtihadiyah? What does it mean? Does it have to be taken from the Qur'an or the sunnah? Or can it be independent reasoning? There are also three terms that people generally try to use with the concept of wasi'ilah, means. They use the word wasa'ith, and the issue of dhara'i, and the issue of maslaha. Before I answer that question, I have to explain those three.
Dhara'i, for example, is microphones. They say for example, if you say that the means has to be sanctioned by the shari'ah, Allah Azza wa Jalla, they say microphones. And they say, for example, radios and mobile phones that we use for khair, for da'wah.
We say that's not wasi'ilah, that's wasa'ith. It just projects what's there. It doesn't interfere with the message itself.
And there's also something called dhara'i, which is a term that's also used similar to wasa'il. Dhara'i are things that will always lead to evil. And there's a third term, which is maslaha al-mursala.
Whether maslaha al-mursala exists or not, I'm not going to be speaking about that there. I've already explained my position on maslaha al-mursala. There are maslaha three times.
Maslaha al-mutabara, maslaha al-mulghat, and maslaha al-mursala. In the shari'ah there's only maslaha al-mutabara and maslaha al-mulghat. Amma maslaha al-mursala, we don't believe that.
And anyone who claims there is maslaha al-mursala, anyone who claims it, will say either this maslaha was mutabara, the shari'ah already stated it and you didn't know about it, or it's mulghat, the shari'ah dismissed it. What's the best translation for it in English? It's benefits that came about after. Okay.
So even if we do say that maslaha al-mursala exists, just so we get the discussion flowing, maslaha al-mursala means it's a means that will lead to good. That's why it's called maslaha al-mursala. So it's a means that will lead to good.
When we look at the means that is taken for protesting, it doesn't lead to good. It leads to evil. It's actually closer to being dharia' than maslaha al-mursala.
It's a what? It's a dhari'ah, meaning dhari'ah is, for example, a man touching a woman, which will lead to what? Zina. Mudaharat leads to evil, which is going to bring us to this point, which is the last and final point, which is the harms that are in protesting. Protesting, first of all, goes against the da'wah of the Prophets, which work towards what we mentioned before, islah al-ra'iyah, changing the people from the bottom upwards.
Protesting is from the top to the bottom, which we will get fighting against. It goes against the da'wah of the Prophets and the Prophets. The Prophets started with the people.
They go to the leaders first. Second thing that it has in its protest is, it corrupts the concept of al-walaa wal-baraa. The third one is, people lose their lives and bloodsheds, and a lot of the protests that happen.
Four, people lose their honors, and people rob and steal people's belongings, and black lives matter, for example. Muslim people suffered more from it, because it started in Minneapolis. People own shops, were losing their products and everything.
It destroys safety. It disrupts the people's day-to-day. Roads get blocked off, people can't go to work, people are stressed, what route am I going to take? Also, it opens the door for the criminals.
Corrupt people are, men and women are getting a free mix. It also prevents the people from remembering Allah and the salah, and people miss the salah from this. Also, this is an opportunity, I know brothers who said, yeah, I met a girl there, I'll link, I'll go there because I want to get her number.
People waste their time and their money on things that have no benefit sometimes. Also, the way to go about things is either nasiha, knock on the door, advise a person, or make dua for Allah to guide them or whatever, or be patient. Another problem that we see is raf'a ash-sha'arat al-jahiliyya, people are pulling up symbols that are not Islamic, sometimes concepts that are shirkiyat and kufriyat when you look at the billboards.
Also, finally, it's a way of actually affirming the concept of democracy and secular liberal states. Democracy can't exist if there's no demonstration. The whole concept of democracy is what? The people, the power is in the hands of the people.
It's giving the people, the word democracy, it means the people, the power is in the hands of the people, the people choose. So it goes against, and Allah is the one who chooses what can be or can't be. Finally, mudaharat is about what do the majority think.
That's when the government starts looking. If a minority is screaming, they don't care. And the majority are always going to choose what is corrupt and not what is good.
So the fifth reason is what the real strongest point is, Shahid, which is the final one. La taqloo min mukhalafat. The first four are not strong.
Okay, especially in a non-Muslim country. The strongest reason for mudaharat is, I'm talking about a non-Muslim country. For the Muslim country, the issue of khuruj, that's there.
But the non-Muslim country I'm talking about. The non-Muslim country, the strongest way to speak against democracy, sorry, protest and demonstration is to say, bi anna la taqloo min mukhalafat, wa anna yatarattabu aliha mafasit. And I want to go into this.
You've mentioned a lot of information, and I want to break it down. I want to go into it. So at first you mentioned that there are actually three types of protests.
There is one to overthrow the government, and that breaks down into three. There's one in the Muslim country with a Muslim leader who doesn't allow protest. And then there's one in the Muslim country who does allow protest, and then you've got the non-Muslim country with a non-Muslim leader.
The second type of protest is when you're not trying to overthrow a ruler, but you're trying to change one of his laws, for example. And then the third type is you're not trying to change anything, but you're just trying to raise awareness of a particular issue. I want to go back and really apply some of these five reasons why protests are haram, and see where they fit into this.
The first one, you have a Muslim country with a Muslim leader who is not allowing you to protest. Obviously, the reason why this is not permissible is because of khuruj. Agreed? It's a Muslim country and it's not allowing you to do it.
What if it's a Muslim leader in a Muslim country and he is allowing protest? Does this still take the meaning of khuruj or not? Yeah, it does. It goes under khuruj, even if the Muslim leader allows it. The reason is because Sheikh Moula Uthaymeen pointed this out.
It's very important. He says that the Muslim leader generally does it because of pressure from outside. The non-Muslim country is saying, you're not a democratical state.
You're not governed by democracy. So to please them, he says to the people, you can't uprise. But he's really finding it as a problem.
And so the Muslims, they were already commanded way before anybody. When we say we don't go against the leader, we're not doing it because of him. We're doing it because Allah's Messenger told us this.
So yes, it's not allowed for us to go against him. Now we come to the non-Muslim countries. And this is where we can talk about three different things.
Overthrowing a non-Muslim ruler. Using a protest to overthrow a non-Muslim government in a non-Muslim country. Out of the five that you mentioned, the reasons for protesting not being permissible, which one applies here? The last one, which is bi-anna laa yaqloo min mukhalafat.
This applies to all three. Overthrowing a non-Muslim ruler, whether you're trying to change a legislation or whether you're trying to raise awareness, you're saying protesting is always going to fail because of this last one. The last one is for everywhere.
Okay, here's a question then. You've just connected things to protesting, like free mixing, like missing the Salawat. You've connected these things to protesting.
I'm saying, what if there's a protest? This is not a ruling for protesting in and of itself. You have a protest that takes place between Fajr and Dhuhr. No Salawat is being missed.
It is segregated. Just brothers come to protest, no one else. Is this permissible or not? If my reasoning for saying that there's an opposition in it was only that reason, there's many reasons.
Okay, go on. There's no robbing the stores, there's no breaking down. It's a peaceful protest.
What's wrong with that? First of all, it prevents the people from the remembrance of Allah because people chant. Each one, let me go through. Okay, go through each one.
Do you want to challenge each one or do you want to go through to the end and then I'll start bringing my challenges? Okay, let me mention the biggest reasons. The first one is Taqreer al-Kufriyah. You're affirming one of the strongest branches of democracy.
Democracy stands on protest. This is a democratical system. If people don't demonstrate and people don't vote, democracy crumbles.
This is what democracy is about. Voting, demonstration, protesting, all these things are the branches or full that democracy stands on. So by not doing these things, by not voting, by not people will destroy democracy.
Democracy will go out of the window. You're not going to destroy democracy in a non-Muslim land where you're a very minute percentage. The Muslims are a very small percentage.
By you not protesting, you haven't destroyed democracy. All you've done is bring more harm unto yourself because the government have said, if you want us to change something, this is the way you do it. And guess what we've done? We've sat at home.
We haven't changed anything. I already told you before, Allah says, يَا أَيُّ الَّذِينَ أَعْمَلُوا إِسْبِرُوا وَصَابِرُوا وَرَابِطُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ عَلَيْكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ فَلَحَ Success, we're already being told it. And I agree that we should do that.
What you mentioned for the first two hours. I'm not going to take a path I know it's corrupt. I just told you right now, what's happening here.
This means that I'm taking right now, or this, it's got Mafasid connected to it. أَصَدُّ عَن ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَعَنِ الصَّلَاةِ إِخْتِلَاتُ الْرِجَالِ بِالنِّسَاءِ I just said a protest, there's no free mixing. I want to get to the issue of protesting itself in and of itself.
Oh no, that's my point. That's my point. You see, in the Shari'a, some things in and within itself it hasn't got a ruling because demonstration itself غير مُنطَبِط.
It's all over the place. I'll give you an example. Travelling right now.
Travelling. What's the reason why we can have Rukhsah? Why can we fast in the month of Ramadan when we're travellers? Because the fasting itself. Sorry, because it's the travelling itself.
You can't say مشقة. You can't say means, يعني hardship. Because hardship is غير مُنطَبِط.
It's not something you can, a guy can say look, I travelled and I never even felt like I travelled. Like I was sleeping, I was picking up, you know, by my bed. Because he has an option to carry on fasting.
Because he hasn't felt the hardship. A person's a traveller. Travelling.
Travelling. What's the reason why travelling you can break your fast? You're saying it's not hardship? No, no. Why? Why can a person who's travelling break their fast? What's the إِلَّى? What's the حِقْ? What's the إِلَّى? Reasoning? What is it? The travelling itself you're saying.
So here we're speaking in a very solid perspective. A person's a traveller. A person is a traveller and they are travelling.
You said that person, he can break his fast. He doesn't have to fast. He can combine between the prayers, right? He can shorten the prayers.
This رُخْصَة. Why was he given it to him? Why was he given? Because he's travelling. And with travelling there is hardship.
So my point is that the issue of hardship, the reason it cannot be hardship. The reason why the hardship cannot be the reasoning is because someone who's travelling, that reason might be lifted from them. He might say I travel a lot.
It's a general principle and most people who travel do feel hardship. But what if he doesn't feel it? Then he has a choice to come and fasting. No, but it's not choice.
That option, why is it given to him? He's not even going through any hardship. Okay, I see. One brother can say I was sleeping.
I was picking up. I'm a heavy sleeper. My family just threw me into the car while sleeping.
I was tired, I was sleeping. Then I went on the private jet that my family owned. I see your point.
The option is given to him not because of hardship. Another guy goes I work in the tannour. I work in the furnace.
I make bread. في نهار رمضان. I'm burning.
We say, yeah, no problem. You still have to fast. Yeah, I see.
The reason is because this issue of مشق مشق is غير منضبط. مشق means hardship. It's غير منضبط.
It's something that cannot be, we can't narrow it down. مظاهرات is like that. So the reasoning for it comes from outside.
Hardship is something intangible because some person might say it's subjective. I'm feeling hardship. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I get it. I get it. But how is protesting subjective? As I told you, the situations change from one situation to another situation.
It could be striking. It could be non-striking. What can't be stopped from protest is that it's not something in and within itself.
It's always external reasons that the prohibition comes from. The prohibition for it is the مفاسد that are with it. And our religion is what? درء المفاسد مقدم على جلب المصالح.
Repelling the harm takes precedence over bringing any good. You're telling me you want to bring good for the country, the people. Repel the harm.
And we've got all of these harms. Now you have an argument which is strong now. Which is for anybody who believes protest is allowed.
If now these 13 harms I mentioned. They go away. No, they're still there.
But a greater harm is outstanding now. Like for example, the government said. But before we get there, you're saying that these harms can never go away.
Not all of them. Some of them can be removed. Because of the democracy issue.
You can remove one or two or three out of the places. I'm saying to you in the totality, I only mentioned 13. I'm sure if we sit down and we think more about it, we can bring hundreds of reasons why protest is not allowed.
Hundreds. It wouldn't be a problem. But what the question is, is that some of them are present.
Some of them are not present. Sometimes it's here. Sometimes it's there.
The point I'm trying to say to you, you can't deny. I've sifted through the arguments. And I'm saying this is the strongest one.
Which is, التعلير بأنها لا تخلو من مخالفات وأنها يترتب عليها مفاسد I've yet to hear about a protest that people went. That things didn't go wrong. Who's controlling? Who are the people going to listen to? There's no إدارة or organization.
It just seems like a weak argument. Because you're saying the protest in and of themselves. I can't say that's wrong.
It's because of everything connected to it. I can just feel like, can you have a protest with none of these things connected to it? In which case you'd have to say it's مباحر, it's permissible. Yeah, but I'm saying a person can give you an ideal situation of مظاهرات.
But I say that's in the mind of the person. But that means that you can't place a ruling on protesting. You place a ruling on free mixing.
You place a ruling on missing your Salah. You can place rulings on these things. But don't place a ruling on that.
No, that's not fair. Because we can't have an idealistic situation. Okay, give me a situation.
I'm not saying it's happened. People waste their time. Not necessarily because you're doing for a مصلحة.
You're trying to change. Homosexuality being taught in schools, for example. That's a good thing.
It's not a waste of time. Okay, people, do they get, from these protests, do these مجرمين and criminals come and always try to? Even Black Lives Matter. If you look at the protest that was going on.
A lot of people were crying and screaming. I've been following these things. You see, a lot of people were screaming.
Please don't let some people hijack our mission. We've got an aim. We've got an objective.
Shahid, you're in the West. How can you segregate people in protest? How? Where did you get this from? The government will be like, what are you doing? You can't have a peaceful protest. There's always going to be people who come along.
I'm saying, I'm not always saying. Sometimes it can be, it can happen that no bloodshed happens. But the other مفاسد.
The other مفاسد are always there. You're telling me in London, you're going to have a protest and a demonstration where men and women are not free mixing. I don't know how that's going to happen.
I don't know. Okay, what about leaving off what the Sharia actually did sanction for us? Like النصيحة والدعاء والصباح. You can do that as well.
There's a ساعة والساعة. You can do that in this hour. You can do that in another hour.
But the Sharia didn't choose that. What about اختلال الأمر? What about the safety going slightly? People fearing now. Getting scared.
Again, it goes back to a peaceful protest instead of a violent protest. I remember SubhanAllah watching what happened in Egypt when the protest took place. Women were crying and getting raped.
They got raped, gang raped by men. Yeah, but there's a peaceful protest like Gandhi when he protested against the British. Did you question everybody who was there who felt some people might have got bullied? No, did you? And I'm saying to you, but I know it doesn't detach itself from it.
I've seen 99.9% cases where women feel like they got touched by somebody from behind or somebody pushed her over. Let them stay at home. Let the men protest.
I'm saying there is a way that we can say a protest is halal. It's not like alcohol. It's not like we can say this.
Why would you tell the sisters to stay at home if you need their numbers in the first place? You need their numbers, right? For the whole point of the demonstration is the numbers. So if you tell the sisters to stay at home, and they're the majority, by the way. They're the most.
Shahid, you see my point? It's a demonstration. The best argument for it is not that it's bid'ah, not that it's تشبه بالكفار. I don't think it's not strong enough.
The strongest argument to say it's محرم is بأنها لا تخلو من مخالفات. That there is one way or another a harm that's going to be present in that protest. Do you mean harm that is connected to the protest in and of itself? I mentioned مخالفة دعوة الأنبياء.
It goes against, especially دعوة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. Our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. His دعوة stood upon what? على إصلاح الرعية التي هي طريق طبيعي.
Starting from the people and making your way up. Yeah, you can do that as well. I'm saying you can do that, but also we can protest.
You have to show me it's impermissible to protest. No, you can't do that. The protest does go against the way that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was.
For example, the protest, what is it doing? It's speaking to the leader. Fix this or this problem won't be fixed. That's what you're trying to say, right? Non-Muslim leader.
We're talking about a non-Muslim country. Yeah, whatever leader it is. You're speaking to a leader and you're requesting that leader to rectify the situation.
And you're saying it will trickle down. Yeah. I'm saying to you that the people, generally speaking, this is a general state.
They should believe that the rectification comes from them, not the leader. The leader is just, he could be sitting in that seat and the people could. This is just an action they're taking.
Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the companions at the time was not to protest. That was their custom. That was their norm.
In the 21st century, we live in non-Muslim lands where protesting does raise awareness. I'll quote you the civil rights movement, for example, in America, an entire nation, an entire legislation was changed because it started from protesting. We might not agree with the feminism movement, but they ultimately did make progress through protesting.
These are ways that people change. You can't sit here and tell me that just because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't take this means. The Ibadah is not connected to protesting in and of itself.
The Ibadah is connected to making better laws for the Muslims in the UK. This is just a means, just like me driving to the masjid. That's not an Ibadah within itself.
It's just a means to get to the masjid. Again, I told you before, it is strengthening the pillars of democracy. This is allowing something we wish for it to go.
You're strengthening it, you're empowering it, you're endorsing it by doing that. I don't want you to always try to push the example away because the point is that one example may apply on a situation and not on another situation or another street, but there is always a problem in demonstration. That's what my point is.
The poet, he said, صاحب المراقي, وَالشَّأْنُ لَا يُعْتَرَضُ الْبِثَارُ إِذْ قَدْ كَفَى الْفَرَضُ وَالإِحْتِبَالُ Every situation, there is always going to be a mafsidah present in demonstration, one or the other. Which is going to be? All that which you are mentioning to me, that there won't be this problem, I'll make sure the men and women don't freemix. It's all hypothetical.
It's always in your mind. But that's how fiqh is. But we need to work with the waqf that we see and what's happened in the past.
We've not yet seen a process where there's no freemixing. We've not yet seen that. It doesn't mean we can't see one in the future.
Fiqh is based on theoretical rulings. I'm saying to you all of these mafsidah. I didn't mention one.
I said, for example, فَتْحُ الْمَجَالِ الْمُفْسِدِينَ مِنَ الْمُجْرِمِينَ وَالْمُخَرِّبِينَ Opening the doors for corrupt people. Criminals. People who غوغا.
They take this. They use this opportunity. They like that numbers in order to commit a crime because they can hide in the people.
So they loot. They do things. And this is every single protest.
I've looked at. I've always seen that which I could say. حَرَام حَرَام حَرَام حَرَام حَرَام Let's not go too far back.
Let's look at the last protest that took place that we will know about. In a non-Muslim country. Yeah.
Western country. Gone. The protest for the Black Lives Matter.
Okay. It started in Minnesota. People were doing it.
A whole entire police station got burned down. Shops were looted. People's shops.
Muslim people's shops were looted. They can't stop it now. It's out of hand.
Go on YouTube and watch it. People are begging. Please do not hijack what we're trying to represent here.
Within that. Some people put a spin to it. And they started using that protest for some other people that they remembered.
And things like that. All my point is is that. Protest.
Once it happens. You can't stop it. It was through protest that Uthman was killed.
You know what I mean? That's how it started. People protested around his house. Sieged.
The sword was shattered. And he was killed. I agree that protests in the past.
Because once it starts. Once it starts. Police have to come.
Why do police come? If there's no safety. If there's safety. Why do they have to bring their shield and protect.
Why is fire always. Why throwing things at the police. People lose their composure.
So. Protests. Saying it doesn't have.
Islamic. This is all I'm trying to draw home to you. That this last final reason.
Of being. Of there being harm. Sharia harms.
It's high. Safety. You think at the beginning.
Okay I've got this under control. We've got people. You can't promise.
Because people are more than you. And you don't have. Soldiers to pin the people down.
And take them to. The corner and drag them out of the machine. You don't have that.
This is all assumption. But just because the likeliness is high. Does that mean that we can say this is.
We base things on. But watching. Watching TV.
For example. The hustle of watching TV. You can watch a nature documentary on TV.
Is that. Which one. A nature documentary on TV.
For example. Is that. From the time of.
Yeah. It's. Now I'm saying wasting your time.
Okay. But let's just say you're pondering over the creation of Allah. MashaAllah.
We would go outside. So there's. But there's.
But there's nothing wrong. I say you. There's health problems.
And you want to stay inside. I'm just saying. Rare situations don't have a ruling.
Giving me an. Like obscure. Random.
Minute situation. And then trying to make me say. Yes to something very big.
I'm saying to you. We've not. We've got demonstration.
Killing. Massacring. You know the.
Civil rights movement. Look at the. Look at what happened.
How many people died. How many people were killed. Were murdered.
With that being said. All I'm trying to say here. Is I want people to.
Who are listening to understand. I'm saying. That protest.
Is haram. Because. Of these.
Of these. Mufasset. Which are.
Inevitably going to come. Unless. One or the other.
Presents like a complete hypothetical scenario. Which has never happened in the past. Talking about.
Muslim brothers. Coming with a small group. And no sisters there.
And. It's between the time of. Zohr and Asr.
So no. Salawat are missed. Etc.
Etc. Etc. And I don't think anyone should.
Try to argue. And say. Protesting.
Does not have any. Mufasset. No.
That's just. Far-fetched. And I think it's not being fair.
Okay. I think a valid. Yeah.
I'm going to come on to that now. So this is. This is the next thing that people say then.
Now. If you have a protest. And we agree.
That there is Mufasset. Attached to the protest. Which means that it shouldn't be done.
Question. If what you're protesting for. Is a. Mufasset.
Atheema. Greater harm. That's coming.
Let's say for example. The UK government. Want to.
Shut down all the. Masajid. And now you have a chance.
To change that legislation. Through protesting. Are you allowed to do it then? Now.
Beautiful. So let's. Look at this issue.
Protest. Is Haram. Okay.
It's a Mufasset. Yeah. We have.
We don't deny that. We say. Okay.
Because the group of people. Who say that. It's not a Mufasset.
It's fine. What's wrong with it? It's an issue. We want them.
First of all. To come to the conclusion. That it's Haram.
Muharram. It's got Mufasset. One.
I mean. There are tons of Mufasset. That we can mention.
Now we have a. Greater Mufasset. Greater than the current one. Yeah.
I mean. Greater. Than.
Mufasset. Greater. Than.
What we. Some of that. Which we mentioned.
Which is. We have a. Greater. Harm.
Than that. At this point. And it's very strong.
Argument. He brought forward. He said.
It's now. In this situation. Especially.
Western governments. It's. They hear.
Your voice. Through. Demonstrations.
That's the way. That the government hears. What you have to say.
And there's no other way. They will listen. Unless they feel.
Under the pressure. That the whole entire community. Is against them.
On this issue. So. In a situation like that.
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen. Gave the fatwa. The permissibility.
That he doesn't see any problem with. The Muslims. Demonstrating.
In order to. But. The harm that's there.
Has to be. Less. Than the greater harm.
That's going to come. If they don't protest. Okay.
Which is what is called. Irtikabu. Aqalil mafsadatayn.
Yani. Protesting. For the lesser.
Of the two harms. Now. The lesser harm is.
What we've mentioned. Compared to the massages. Being closed.
Or. Yani. Qadaya.
Azeema. For the Muslims. In a situation like that.
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen. Rahimahullah. Who's a great scholar of our time.
Said it's permissible. And. I can see that as a valid.
Yani. Differences. Where both parties can.
I still hold the opinion. That it's not allowed. Even in that circumstance? I believe personally.
It's best to avoid it. Okay. And to leave it.
And not to go. Even if the UK government. Want to close down the massages.
For example. Still. The thing is.
The ends don't justify the means. Yeah. And also.
It's really hard. To actually say that. It's going to actually work.
True. Because. The reason I'm going to do this.
I've said that. Is I'm sure. That this must.
This harm. That I'm going to tread on. Is definitely going to be a result.
I don't. I don't think. There's no certainty for sure.
That they're going to listen. And there's no. Also.
The number of Muslims. Are very small. And the people.
Who are against the Muslims. Are very large. And the government.
Is definitely not. In any way. Shape or form.
We need to. To even consider. What the Muslims say.
So I don't think. It's a working method. If somebody else chooses.
To take that approach. And he feels like. It's going to work.
I think he's got. A great bona fide. Okay.
Undisputed. Imam. Of our time.
Sheikh Mohammed. Who based it. On a very strong.
Perspective. To say that. It's less.
Of two harms. But I don't think. It's.
My humble opinion. I don't think. Looking at.
The way he. Sheikh sees it. And the way that.
The reality. Turns out to be. It doesn't change anything.
I'll give you. A prime example. Black Lives Matter.
In America. Right now. The biggest protest.
They did. That protest. Went from border to border.
Went to countries. I don't think. In any way.
Shape or form. That's going to change. Police brutality.
Towards black people. I mean. I'm not.
I don't want to. Weaken the effort. That was put in.
And I don't want to undermine. The people's hard work. I just think.
Some things. Is. Just.
Demonstration. Just seems like. A weak way of.
Voicing your opinion. It's like. Please.
Take the palm. Off me. It doesn't.
And when you say that. In my humble opinion. I disagree with.
Sheikh Ibn Thaymeen. For example. It's not necessary.
You've. Other ulema. Are on your side as well.
Okay. I'm not there. I'm not able.
To go to. The evidence. Myself.
And disagree with. The great imam. Of our time.
Like that. I'd say. There are other scholars.
Who said. Otherwise. In that instance.
When someone is trying. To identify. What is the.
Lesser of two evils. It goes back. To the people.
Okay. And we are ready. Even the situation.
Of the misogynists. Is the. Is the threat.
Real. Is it actually. A real threat.
Or is it just. One news. Outlet.
Release something. Is it actually. A real threat.
What's the. What's the reality. Of it actually.
Even happening. Or. Or is this.
This guy. Just saying it. Just to.
Provoke. He just wants a voice. And he wants to.
Get a voice for his. Because nowadays. Anything you say bad.
About Muslims. He gives you voice. From other communities.
So is he actually. Really got to do it. All of that.
Are the ones who determine it. Okay. And your solution.
For the people. Who say. The.
Scholars who are not in the West. Don't understand our reality. Is for the students of knowledge.
In the West. Who do understand the reality. To take it.
Back to the Ulema. Okay. What's weird.
Is actually really. Weird about some people. Is that.
They. They say that. And they say.
That's not important. And then the same. Time.
They tell you ours is a Permitted demonstration.
