It's not the system, it's the kufr

I I don't see that they've changed in any way whatsoever from preenlightenment to enlightenment to postenlightenment to modern age, pre modern age, whatever. I don't see any change. So, I mean, I I have a problem with even agreeing to go along with the European definition of a pre enlightenment, post enlightenment, and that there was even something called the enlightenment in terms of it being something that drastically radically changed you as a civilization, so called, because that's not a thing that happened. The only thing that happened with the so called enlightenment, as I've said many times, is just changing who the authorities were. But it didn't change anything about your actual morals or your morality or your approach to the world, and it was always in terms in terms of, like, what he said about, what the validity of the law requires a state or whatever.

That's just a club. It it just means a club that can that can beat you over the head and make you do this or that, and that was always the way you were. There was never any internalized morality, any internalized goodness, any internalized ethics or principles or values. It was always might makes right, and it's just whether that might is, the the head of the clan who has the biggest spear, or the the might is the state, as you as you call it the state. It's the same thing.

There hasn't been any change in these people. That that's just believing and and and going along with their myth about themselves, that that their so called modernity is any different than their primitiveness. There's no difference. This is what I'm saying. Just because you've changed doesn't mean you've evolved.

Just because you have whims and desires today and different whims and desires tomorrow doesn't mean that you have matured. It just means that you just do different things, you have different urges and and desires. That's all it means. That's all that's how they have lived, and that's how their society has been. Their so called civilization has been pre enlightenment, enlightenment, modern era, and in the into the future.

Unless and until they accept Islam, they don't have any system. They just follow their whims and desires, always have. And they just call it, you know, because because our our whims and desires are different now. They say, well, we've evolved and we're advanced. No.

You just changed your appetites. That's all. When they talk about us, we listen for some reason, and we take it seriously. Rather than looking at it, as you said, we we can learn from it the way they think rather than lit listening to them so that we can learn about ourselves. And that's what the danger is, That if we're going to listen to a or anyone else from their side who sort of pretends to be an expert on our deen and on our and on our law, that we're going to learn from them about ourselves and about our deen and about our ummah and about our law.

No. We can't do that. If we listen to them just so that we can know what they think, then it's fine. Then it's valuable. But if we're gonna listen to them as if they are teachers about ourselves and about Islam, then, obviously, we're gonna go astray.

And my my suspicion always is that that's the only reason they're talking is actually to change our minds about ourselves and about our deen. They're not doing it because they want us to understand how they think, because they think that whatever they think is right, and they want to change our minds. So I I just I approached someone like a and and any of these other types. I I I approached them with a great deal of suspicion, with regards to their motives. He attributes the problems of the West to their model, not to their kufa, And this is essentially where he's completely missing the boat.

Because for Muslims, it doesn't matter what model it is. We can approach it Islamically. You can put us into any situation, and we will approach that situation Islamically. And that's how fit works. That's how ijtihad works.

And that's how that's one of the most brilliant and beautiful things about the sharia is the flexibility and adaptability to all circumstances and conditions and situations. So give us whatever model you give us, and we can make it Islamic by our approach to it. That's what he doesn't seem to understand, that the that the the West is the way it is because they are the way they are. Their system is the way it is because they are the way they are. And whatever model they come up with, whether it was, as I said, pre enlightenment, enlightenment, or or modern or postmodern, that model is going to always reflect the contents of their own hearts and minds, which is which is where you get your problems.

And the same will be true for the Muslim world and is true in the Muslim world today. Whatever even if we have what you call a modern state model, a nation state model, or what have you in throughout the Muslim world because it was maybe imposed upon us by colonization. But we approach our situations. We approach our societies. We approach our legislation.

We approach our governments. We approach the management of society as Muslims. We approach it as Islamically as we can. There there there are there are aspects of the sharia that are present. There are laws from the sharia that are present, and there are laws from the sharia that are absent.

But that has been the case for fifteen hundred years almost. That's almost been the case for the entirety of our history except for the period of and the We've had periods of time where aspects of the Sharia were suspended. We've had periods of time where aspects of the Sharia were more strongly enforced, and and even that changed from place to place, not just time to time. But, I mean, at one at at at any given time, you would have more, conspicuous enforcement of sharia in one part of the Muslim, so called empire and less in another part. So, I mean, these things differ.

And then also there's the there's this there's the aspect of something that was talked about earlier. I can't remember exactly at which point it was about legality and morality that that that the that the Muslims don't make a difference between that and the Kufar make a difference or the sorry. The West, the modern state. For me, it's Kufar. You you you they make a distinction and that the Muslims don't, but we do.

There's there's a difference between a crime and a sin in the sharia. Not everything that's a sin has a hard punishment attached to it. Not everything that's a sin has legislation attached to it by the state, by the government, by the taadi. And you are required in Islam to fear Allah as much as you can in public and in private. And it's your public behavior that the that that the state or that the government or that the authorities are concerned about.

And not all of your public behavior even necessarily has a prescribed punishment for it if it's a violation of some kind, if it's a sin. For example, there's no hud for a woman not wearing hijab or or, you know, on and on. There's many examples of things that are sins that if you commit them, you can expect a punishment from Allah unless he forgives you, unless you repent, and unless he forgives you or chooses to forgive you. There, you know, there are there are people who will say listening to music is a sin, but is it a crime? Is it something that's that that that the state can now legislate and say that if you listen to music, we're gonna put you in jail or do this or that or the other?

No. There's there's there's a whole area in fit in in Islamic jurisprudence to Azir where there is a punishment that is allowed for the judge, that the judge has judicial license to issue a punishment that hasn't been ordered in the Quran and Sunnah. So that's that's that's literally a man made punishment, a man made legislation based on, based on what they think is in the best interest of the society. Okay. It's gonna be guided by, most of the time, what is regarded in Islam as a sin.

But either way, it's not something in Islam that has been regarded through, through the revelation of Allah through the Quran and Sunnah as something that is a punishable crime. So even even we make a difference between moral and legal. Now if if the idea is that in the West, the legality determines morality, that what what's legal then is therefore moral, and what is illegal is therefore immoral, you might have an argument for that. Maybe that's the argument he was making. You can't say that we don't make a distinction.