Open Q&A: Iran, Sectarianism, Free Will, Marriage & Modern Issues | Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi
By Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi | 2026-05-26T11:32:39.183056+00:00 | Topic: Khutbah
Open Q&A: Iran, Sectarianism, Free Will, Marriage & Modern Issues
So today inshallah we have our open Q&A that we try to have at least once every month and alhamdulillah within a day of announcing we had over 160 questions. So obviously I cannot do all of them, I'll try my best to do maybe 20-30 inshallah with the time that we have. So bismillah, let us begin.
Addressing Sectarianism: Iran and Theological Differences
We have a number of questions, I'll put them all together about a very sensitive topic and that's why I'm beginning with this topic and that is the issue of sectarianism with regards to what is happening in Iran. We have 4-5 questions asking the similar thing: How important is it to look at our theological differences when we see what is happening in the world? There are some people that are claiming that because this country is of a different firqah or sect that we should not be as sympathetic and maybe take a distance and some are even saying it is equal what is happening between these two countries, Israel and Iran - they're basically, that's the claim that some people are saying they're equally tyrannical so we should not be taking any side in this regard. And others are saying that how come Epic has not made dua for our brothers and sisters in Iran? Then one brother says I know you made dua once in Ramadan but how about the rest of the people, they didn't make dua. So all of these questions are coming, even within the questions you find people are coming from different wavelengths.
And as I explained when I gave the longer talk here, no matter what a person says with regards to this very difficult topic, some people will be happy, others will be sad. We cannot please the people, so let every person have a clean conscience and preach the truth.
The False Equivalency
For me to claim that a country that might have a slightly different theology but it is praying, fasting, reciting the Qur'an - it has clearly the semblance of Islam, the sha'air of Islam - to claim that that country is the same as a country that is rooted in injustice, tyranny that has had nothing but bloodshed, has made fun of Allah, rejected the prophets... wallahi this is the height of injustice to equate the two. How can you equate the two?
Any disagreements we have with somebody that prays to Allah, lowers their head in sajda - that cannot be equated with a disagreement with tyrannical, murderous people that have done nothing but fitna and fasad for the last 80 years. So from my perspective, audhu billah to equate the two - this is the essence of injustice.
And without a doubt, this is by the way, even like Ibn Taymiyyah who is considered to be very conservative in this issue - even Ibn Taymiyyah said that we can never equate a person who has knowingly rejected Allah and His messenger with somebody who might even have deviant beliefs but they are believing in Allah and His messenger. This is common sense, wallahi it's common sense.
The Status of Twelver Shia
So I am firmly rejecting this notion that the two have any sense of equivalency. On the contrary, there is no equivalency. On the one side you have people that we consider them to be as a default Muslims. Yes, if an individual comes from amongst them and that individual says, I have these really bizarre beliefs - okay, that's a separate hukum - but as a default, 12 Shia are Muslim. This is the default.
Now somebody says, they say this, they say this - now we get to the more detailed issues. Not every person says what every single scholar of that firqah says. Aren't there Sunnis that have bizarre views and you have nothing to do with them? Can't you find Sunni clerics somewhere in the world that has some weird interpretation? What if a Shia says, oh so you follow this person? We need more academic, more wisdom in this regard.
As a default, 12 Shiaism does not have within it elements of blatant kufr. They have elements that we consider to be misguided - it's not blatant kufr. They are not rejecting Allah, rejecting the messenger, rejecting خَاتَم النَّبُوَّة (khatm al-nabuwwa). Any issues that mainstream believe - they are within the fold of Islam but we say incorrect.
Israel's Use of Sectarianism
So from my perspective, I do not believe that the two are any sense equal and especially when we know for a fact that Israel is using sectarianism to divide the ummah. I mean there's an IDF spokesperson who's speaking broken Arabic in which he is quoting extremist fatawa against Shia. He is telling the Sunnis you should not support Shia - the IDF! I'm sorry, you want to listen to him? You want to get your fatwas from him? This is what we find here.
So no, I'm sorry, I don't think it is equivalent. And whatever disagreements we have with Iran politically, we can solve inshallah in a civil manner. Whatever disagreements theologically, they are not going to be solved - on the day of judgement these two strands have been in the ummah for 1300 years. We are not going to solve it tomorrow.
Practical Cooperation Despite Differences
So we have theological differences, they are going to remain. We must agree to disagree in a civil manner. We will not agree with their theology - I'm not asking them to agree with ours - and we will cooperate in matters of greater good for the ummah and we will part ways. I'm not going to invite one of them to give a khutbah in Epic because their theology is different, but can we not come together to vote an anti-Muslim politician out of office? Can we come together to bring awareness to what does it mean to be Muslim in America? Can we come together to fight Zionism? Yes we can, without a doubt. And in other areas we will have to agree to disagree. Don't get your fatwas from them, don't get your Islamic knowledge from them - they have a different strand or interpretation and we leave their affair to Allah.
The Root of Differences
So all of this I hope inshallah answers the issue of sectarianism between Ahl al-Sunnah and others. And in the end of the day, the differences that they have are based on their interpretation of history. I repeat: they have a totally different تَصَوُّر (tasawwur) - interpretation of early Islam. And the more you talk to them and they talk to you, the more you will realize that these differences are rooted in foundations of how we view what happened after the death of the Prophet ﷺ.
If you had the views they had of what happened, you would be more sympathetic to where they're coming from. And if they had the views we had of what happened, they would be more sympathetic to where we are coming from. But there's a big gap in our understandings and their understandings. There's very little communication - we rarely sit down and try to understand why do you say this? And vice versa, it's a two way street here.
Principles of Fair Assessment
Also I need to make a very clear point: we do not pronounce verdicts on other people based upon their verdicts on us. It's not a tit for tat. There are some Shia clerics who say all Sunnis are going to hell - we do not pronounce verdicts on them based upon that fatwa. We don't care what they say, we look at evidence, we look at the reality. Number one.
Number two: please go to their mainstream scholars just like you want them to go to our mainstream scholars. It's not right to go to some fringe mawlana in some small masjid in some far away village and say that represents Sunnism. No, go to the established clergy. Go to, if you're Deobandi go to Mufti Taqi Usmani. If you're a Salafi, you go to Shaykh Ibn Baz. If you're of the wasati, go to Hasan Wali Duddu. If you're this, go to that - go to mainstream clerics, get your fatwa from them.
Similar with Twelvers - don't go to some fringe lunatic in some small village in Bahrain or Kuwait or something, or some dissident. There's a crazy guy in London - he is literally crazy, literally, I think he's mentally disturbed - he has these weird views and whatnot. All of the mainstream Shia clerics have said this guy is fringe, avoid him. But we Sunnis love to promote the weirdos amongst them - isn't that strange?
Go to their main maraji - they're called marji. Go to al-Khui who is considered to be the greatest scholar that they had in the last century. Go to al-Khui's fatwa. Go to Khamenei's fatwa. Go to their maraji that they respect and you will find, by and large that in the last 50 to 70 years they have matured up and they've understood there's no point being so sectarian.
Khui, who is there and again, I'm not defending - even to make this caveat - to me I don't like it, you always have to have this. I'm not doing that, ya akhi, they're your fellow Muslims. They've been around for 1300 years, you're not going to solve their problems today. So even to say I don't agree with them, they have misguidances - akhi, for how long? What is the purpose of constantly provoking?
But I have to do this because there are people that they feel this view nonetheless. Al-Khui, for example, has said that it is haram for us أهل التشيع (Ahl al-Tashayyuh) to curse the figures that are respected by Sunnis, even if we disagree with them. This is Khui's fatwa that he's giving to his own followers. There's no PR—he gave it to his own followers. That's why in that strand they don't do this. They don't view this as being beneficial. They haven't changed their tasawwur of early Islam, but they're wising up saying, "You know what, there's no point. There's two different opinions. We're not going to solve it now. Why should we provoke this animosity?" This is wisdom, and I appreciate it. I want this wisdom amongst them. We should also have this wisdom.
Bottom line: it's not black and white. It is okay to say, for example, that we have serious disagreements with the foreign policy of Iran when it comes to Syria, the foreign policy of Iran when it comes to what they did here and there—serious disagreements. But right now the Zionists represent the biggest threat to global peace and to the Ummah, and we cannot equate political alliances with Assad's regime and Khamenei's regime to the political alliances of Zionism and other states. The two are not the same. And in the end of the day, our loyalty is to Allah and then to all those whose loyalty is to Allah. جيد (Jayyid).
Questions on Free Will and Qadr
Second set of questions—always these come over and over again, so we'll just do them. The second set of questions: I have three or four questions of theological nature. إن شاء الله (InshAllah) we'll just do them all together. I guess maybe this is a young man or something because it's the same question: How do I understand free will? How do I understand levels of qadr? If Allah has written everything, what's the purpose of du'a? Do we really have free will? All of these questions are here.
And again, very simply, this is a deep topic theologically. God—Allah—would not be God if you could outwit God, if you had more power than Him. That would not be God, correct? You all understand this point. So we believe: not a leaf falls except that it is by the will, the knowledge, the qadr of Allah. Nothing happens except with Allah's qadr. To say otherwise is to reject Allah as a God. You understand this point?
If Allah is God—which He is—then not a leaf falls, not a drop of rain comes, except that He has willed it. That's the definition of a God. But on the flip side, our God, our Lord, is a just, loving God. He is الحكيم (Al-Hakim), and He has given us—from our perspective, see what I'm saying here—from our perspective, He has given us freedom, and we live our lives as if we have freedom. So we don't think beyond this, because beyond this is the mystery that our minds will never understand.
Simple Example of Perspective
Simple example—maybe a trivial example, but I'm just giving an example. Suppose, ماشاء الله (MashAllah), it's a massive masjid here. Suppose we could communicate with the ant, and the ant said, "Do I have freedom to go anywhere I want?" And you know for a fact that this ant cannot go beyond this masjid. So you say, "Yes, you have full freedom," because the difference between our mindsets—in his mind, if the ant could understand, he would think this is ultimate freedom. He can do whatever he wants. But we know there are limits and barriers. But for all practical purposes, the ant has no limits and barriers. I'm just giving a simple example here.
From our worldview, we have free will. We sense it, we feel it, we live it, correct? This is the reality of our existence. خلاص (Khalas), let it be. You live your life as if you have free will, but you know that Allah is the one in charge. This is the reality of Sunni Islam. We affirm Allah's qadar, and we affirm we also have our own volition, and Allah will reward us and punish us based upon what we do, and Allah is not forcing us.
There is a group called Jabariyya—they used to exist in the past. They said Allah forces, and Sunnis said, "No, Allah does not force. Allah is not ظالم للعبيد (zallam lil-abid)." ولا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى (wa la taziru waziratun wizra ukhra)—we don't believe this at all.
The Wisdom of Ibn Abbas
So bottom line: Ibn Abbas said, "Qadar, qadar, qadar is a mystery of Allah that He has kept for Himself. Whoever attempts to reach it will end up rejecting Allah." Means: don't put your mind too much. Whoever attempts to try to understand qadar will end up rejecting Allah. Don't go there.
And this was the problem of Iblis from day one. When Iblis did what he did and Iblis refused to bow down, Iblis did not own up to the responsibility, and Iblis said, رب بما أغويتني (Rabbi bima aghwaytani)—"My Lord, You misguided me. You forced me to do this. I didn't do this." This is Iblis. Iblis blamed qadar for his evil. And the difference between Iblis and Adam: Adam said, ربنا ظلمنا أنفسنا (Rabbana zalamna anfusana), and Iblis said, رب بما أغويتني (Rabbi bima aghwaytani)—"You're the one who did this."
So don't go Iblis's path. Do not go the path of Iblis. You are responsible for your actions, and Allah will reward and punish, and in the grand scheme, nothing happens without Allah's qadar. That's it. Leave it. Put the full stop there. Don't go beyond this, because if you try, you will not be able to, and you will end up—أستغفر الله (astaghfirullah)—going down wrong paths.
Fiqh Questions: Divorce and Marriage
We have a lot of quick fiqh questions. We can do them very quickly. So question about talaq—very long one. I'm going to summarize it: Husband and wife both agreed for the Western talaq. They signed the documents and they handed it in, but the husband is saying that now I regret it and I didn't verbalize it Islamically. Does this count as a talaq or not?
Response on Signed Divorce Documents
Response: The fact that you signed the document is talaq. You do not have to verbalize. You willingly signed—nobody put a gun to your hand, nobody forced you. Signing a paper in which you are dissolving the marriage, this is talaq. So when you sign, that constitutes your first divorce.
If you are still within three months, you may take her back and then try to bring about arbitration. And if you are not within three months, then once the three months are over, basically you are allowed to have a second nikah if this was your first talaq. As you are all aware, talaq can be done three times. So if this was your first time, then this counts as one, and you can take her back either with a new nikah if three months are over, or if it's within the three months, you may take her back without a new nikah. And the details of this are discussed in many lectures I've given, other people have given.
When to Consider Divorce
Question here: a number of questions like this—basically brothers, sisters are asking the reality of when do we know it's best for divorce or when is reconciliation? What are the conditions for women to divorce if the husband is not fulfilling the rights? As usual, a lot of questions about divorce—meaning when to do it and how to do it.
As for how to do it, you may listen to khutbas and lectures I've given, so the technicalities I don't need to go over now. The when and why and should we—this is not fiqh, this is not Islamic law. This is psychology and reality of your situation. You should not ask a scholar, "Should I divorce or not?" That's only you know best. "Should I divorce or not?" I don't know your life. I don't know the pros and cons. You may get some advice, but in the end of the day, you have to live with your decision.
Guidelines for Making the Decision
So my suggestion to you is the following: Imagine your life for the rest of your life with your partner and imagine without. Keep this in your mind for a few days. Weigh the pros and cons. Number one.
Number two: Talk to your immediate family and friends, those who love you, care about you. Say to them, "You know the situation, you know what the person's like. Is there hope, or should I walk away?" Whether you're male or female, whether you're husband or wife. In this regard, do not take the decision alone. Speak to family and friends.
And if need be, try arbitration. This is very important. Allah says in the Quran, if you are thinking of divorce, then:
Bring arbitration—and bring one person from his family, one person from her family, and come together. Talk: what is going on? Be very explicit. "He says this, she does that. He made fun of me, she did that." Say all of the complaints you have. Let the elders listen that are your family members.
The arbitration people don't have to be PhD in Islamic law. They just have to be people who have lived life and know wisdom. They know how to live a good married life. That's arbitration—just a wiser uncle, an elder cousin that you can respect. Both husband and wife bring that and discuss. And you can discuss together, and you can discuss in private—i.e., let the husband speak to both arbiters, let the wife speak to both arbiters, then bring them all together and then solve the issue if possible.
If not, and the arbiters say, "You know what, this looks like the marriage is beyond any hope. It is what it is"—خير (khayr)—okay, so then with peace, with dignity, the parties should agree for the divorce and move on.
But before you do that, pray Salat al-Istikhara. That's the way to do it. Think yourself the good and bad, talk to the elders, have arbitration, and then last and definitely not least, pray Istikhara. Based on all of this, then you make a decision: Should I? Should I not?
Zakat for Masajid in America
And after that توكل على الله - there's nothing after that. You have to just put your trust in Allah سبحانه وتعالى.
Question here - so this is with respect I have following: After having done a lot of reading and asking in this regard, in America and in the western worlds where we don't have large governments to help us build masajid and masajid are a need to preserve the iman of people - then listen to me carefully: in cases where the community does not have funds to build or purchase a masjid, in those cases it becomes permissible for the members of that community to give zakat for their own masjid that they don't have.
But in places like mashallah EPIC where mashallah tabarakallah we have plenty of people who can help the masjid without zakat, we should never open this door.
The Reality of Muslim Communities in America
You see my dear brothers and sisters, we have to realize in this country of America there are not 30 cities - there are 3,000, 4,000 cities and towns across this country. The vast majority of them have maybe 30 Muslim families, 20 Muslim families, 15-20 medical students whatever, another 40-50 single people. So basically for Jumu'ah they might get 40 people, 50 people. For Eid they might get 100 people. For that community, where will they get 500,000 dollars, a million dollars to build a masjid? It's not possible for them.
We say in your case, let every family give a percentage of their wealth for the zakat. Where does this come? Again, Allah says in the Quran: Zakat is for 8 categories. Go read Surah Taubah verse 60. Zakat is for 8 categories, go read it.
Almost all of us we restrict zakat to the first two - إِنَّمَا ٱلصَّدَقَـٰتُ لِلۡفُقَرَآءِ وَٱلۡمَسَـٰكِينِ and we end the ayah. The ayah goes to another 6 categories.
The Category of "Fi Sabilillah"
One of those categories is وَفِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ - in the path of Allah سُبحانه وتعالى. What is the path of Allah? Some scholars said - and this is the majority opinion - the path of Allah means defending the lands of Islam from enemy attacks, and all 4 madhabs agree this is one of the ways you can give zakat. When the Muslim land is attacked to preserve Islam, you have to pay money. Then there is zakat for that.
Another opinion from Hassan al-Basri, from al-Zuhri, from a number of scholars of the past - they said anything that defends the religion becomes وَفِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ because the concept of وَفِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ is defending Islam.
So when Islam has an existential threat - if there is no masjid, the children will not be Muslim in 20 years. It's that simple. If there is no masjid in your town and village, there is no Jumu'ah, there is no Eid salah, there is no tarawih happening - how will the next generation be Muslim? So if Allah allowed zakat to protect the physical lives of Muslims, then zakat should be allowed to protect the iman and the qalb of the Muslims.
Scholarly Support for This Position
This is the fatwa from many councils around the world, including Kuwait. There was a Zakat Council of Kuwait I think 20 years ago where global scholars came and they issued a whole guideline of modern zakat. One of the fatwa that came out of this council from a group of global scholars was that in western lands, when there is no opportunity for masajid to be built, وَفِي سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ can be used for building the masjid.
And I add a caveat, I add a condition, and I say: only in those communities that cannot afford sadaqah for the masjid. Because if you can afford sadaqah, let's leave zakat out of it. So it is allowed to give zakat for masjid and the maintenance of masajid and the building of masajid for communities in which the critical mass is so small that you cannot reach sadaqah - you cannot build a masjid and maintain it via sadaqah. والله تعالى أعلم
Question About Masjid al-Aqsa
Question: Masjid al-Aqsa was closed for 40 days. I did not hear anyone of you mention this in Jumu'ah khutbah nor make du'a for them. Please, why was this the case?
The response: You are absolutely right. Number one, there are 3-4 of us that lead the salah and give khutbahs. We don't coordinate our topics at all, so I don't know what others say, they don't know what I say until after it comes out. So it's not a coordination - there was no policy that we had that we are not going to mention this particular issue.
Number two, you are right - there is no excuse. But in the end of the day, I cannot mention every single issue. But yes, this is a very important issue. But in the end of the day, it wasn't intentional - it's not something that happened and you are correct, it should have been mentioned that Masjid al-Aqsa was closed for more than 40 days. There was no salah over there, and indeed it was something that is very important and we should mention this.
So it was not a strategy on our part - it just so happened. We ask Allah's forgiveness in this regard.
Understanding Backbiting in Modern Context
Question: Can you talk more specifically about backbiting? Because we always mention other people in our conversation - for example talking about a politician or a celebrity and what they did, or for example mentioning an argument that we had to another person. Does that constitute backbiting?
This is a very important topic. It's a bit trivial but it is important. Why? Because some people think that backbiting is simply to mention somebody's name and that's it. But the reality is every single human being talks about other subjects and other people in our conversations. There is no way you can spend one day without mentioning another human being, and sometimes that will be something negative you say.
What is Backbiting Then?
To understand this point and realize that public knowledge with regards to people that are in a public light - so two conditions: public knowledge. If you know something private about somebody who is public, that's not your business to go tell other people. If you happen to see a person do something haram, you don't go tell publicly what he did unless you know there is a reason to do so.
But public knowledge of public people - Trump made a statement about whatever, I can give a khutbah about it. That's not backbiting. He made the statement and I want to criticize it - this is not backbiting.
Similarly, if a person is describing a situation that is well-known - we are not talking about rumors, we are not talking about slander - this is a fact, something happened, somebody did something that is known, somebody said something. There is no backbiting involved for this.
Seeking Advice and Venting
Likewise, if you have an issue in your life that you need to get feedback on - this word gets a little bit grey. All of us have a bad boss say something to us, an angry boss, a relative do something. You need to vent and you need to get validation and feedback: Was this right? Was this wrong?
Backbiting vs. Venting: Understanding the Difference
We all do that - you had a bad day at work, you are going to come and tell your wife, "You know what my boss did today? He did this." What if your boss is a Muslim? This means it is haram for you to ever mention what your boss did? You see my point here - this is not backbiting when you do it with the intention of getting some feedback, validation, therapy, being a better person.
Backbiting - you know the intention - you want to talk about that person, not your feelings about what happened. Backbiting, you want to mock, ridicule, put down the other person. It is very obvious what the niya is, whereas venting in order that you get some love, TLC - you had a bad day at work, you want your wife to hug you - khalas, go open up!
SubhanAllah, in the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم - what happened? You know, the Sahaba didn't listen to him. He felt very much pain. He went back and he told Safiyyah رضي الله عنها, "This is what they did, this is what happened," and she gave him some advice. He went out and he followed it, and then they followed. See, this is now validation, this is now countering ideas - let me get your feedback.
To mention what happened to you, wanting some feedback and emotion - this is human, we all do that. This doesn't come under backbiting. So understand this point, والله أعلم.
Clapping vs. Takbir in Islamic Events
Question here: "I notice that in our Epic events, a good number of people clap instead of saying takbir. Somebody told me that clapping is makrooh. Can you please shed light in our community?"
So I don't believe clapping is makrooh. I believe that within salah we should not clap. Outside of salah, we may do whatever needs to be said and done to express admiration, and this is cultural, not religious.
For example, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم - subhanAllah - when one of the Sahaba gave his... when his stepfather gave his money in charity, he gave his sadaqa, he gave his garden as sadaqa, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم expressed admiration in a way that no Arab does anymore - it's gone. He said, "بخ بخ، بخ بخ". Who says this anymore? No Arab says this. Is it sunnah for us to say "بخ بخ، بخ بخ" when somebody gives charity or something?
What was he doing? He was following the protocols and norms of his time to express admiration - that's how they did it. In our time and place, how do we express... every culture has this... every culture, how do we express admiration? In the western culture, we clap our hands. It's not a ritual. Allah says don't make clapping an ibadah. We are not - no Muslim claps as worship. If you do it as a ritual, it is forbidden. It's not a ritual, but if you clap for the sake of expressing admiration, you are not falling into anything haram.
And we have to be careful about turning culture into religion and making cultural things religious. No, culture is separate, and as a default, culture is mubah. As a default, culture is mubah. Only when the Sharia forbids - alcohol is haram no matter what culture allows it - it becomes haram. So when it comes to these types of things, we should take a more lax regard in this. والله أعلم.
Praying Isha Early in Long Summer Days
Question here: "In the long summer months, can you pray Isha earlier if a Muslim needs to go to sleep, or should they wait until after they wake up closer to Fajr?"
So this question should not apply in Dallas - it should apply in the northern latitudes. I understand in northern latitudes it really becomes a big problem. I was in Alaska a few years ago and I visited Fairbanks, Alaska, and over there in the summer months, there is maybe 20-30 minutes between Isha and Fajr - hardly anything. In fact, there even are some days where it's not even fully dark - there's some light over there. For those latitudes, let them follow their fatawa - that's a different issue.
But for us over here, a reasonable amount of exertion is something that we should expect. You cannot make the religion to be without a little bit of difficulty. Reasonable - what defines reasonability? You have to be the judge of that. But culture also, as a default, as a norm - 10 o'clock is reasonable, it's not unreasonable.
By the way, in Fairbanks it was like 3:30... one ending and then 3:50 Fajr, something like that. And then Salatul Maghrib would be like at 2:30 AM, and then Fajr is at 3:30 - like literally one hour. Now in that situation, you cannot expect an average human being to do siyam like this. It's not possible. Allah didn't create us to 23.5 hours no food and drink, and then especially the teenagers - it's not going to be. So they follow a different fatwa, and that is the closest latitude, whatever it might be. But for us here, we should not think about this issue, and a reasonable time frame means we do stay awake for it.
Marriage Difficulties in Our Culture
As usual, a lot of questions about single people not being able to get married. This is a common theme - every single week, every month we have the same... mortgage issues, this issue, this is always there as well.
So one of the brothers or sisters says: "If the Shariah has made nikah so easy, why has our culture made it so difficult?"
Response: Why are you asking me? I agree with you! I agree with you. This is a problem we all have - that we have put too many conditions and barriers.
Marriage Order Among Siblings
I have 4 or 5 questions like this. Somebody is saying that "I have found a partner, everything is fine, but because my older sibling is not married, my parents are saying until she gets married or he gets married, you cannot get married. What does Islam say?"
Response: In Islam, there is no such rule that you have to go in... there is no such rule. And if your parents are part of our community, feel free to have them reach out to us and we will explain to them this is not right at all. You found somebody good, the two of them are willing to get married, just because another person is not married and you will delay? No, no, no. This is really a major fault. So I don't agree with this at all, and if they are in our community, please come and we will try our best to convince them otherwise.
Financial Requirements Before Marriage
Another issue comes that "we are willing to get married, the parents agreeing, but they are saying that until there is more money and job, I don't want to basically allow the full rukhsati, the full living together. So what do we do in the interim?" - i.e., engagement period is getting very long and it's obviously awkward.
My response to this: So for example, let's say the young man is about to graduate and they have found the right partner, the parents are all in agreement, but then the family says, "You know what? You haven't started a job, you don't have your own apartment, wait a year or two when you are physically, financially willing, able, then you can bring her into your house." And obviously you understand - a 24-year-old young man, 23-year-old young woman, and they know they are going to get married - you are really not acting wisely as the adult to put these barriers.
If you can find an alternative that the nikah will take place... and believe me, at this stage of their marriage, they are not interested in a luxurious apartment. This is not fair in the society we live in - that you put hurdles and burdens on people that have found halal alternatives for love, for romance. It's human nature and they are at their prime, and you want to because of protocol, because of "what will people say?" I don't agree with this.
But if all parties are in agreement that "let's delay our life for a few years but we want to be together at least - have talk and go out and whatnot" - what I encourage is purely Islamic, purely halal, and that is: have the nikah contract done and then have an agreement that the actual consummation will occur after a year or two. But in that year, at least they are able to talk, have the emotional connection and bond, go out and have some restaurant, whatever - just be together, have a halal outlet.
Dear parents: if you do not facilitate the halal for your young men and women, they will fall into haram. Wallahi, there is no other way to say this. I keep on saying the same thing to you: if you make the halal difficult, the haram is easy in this country. So please think differently, think differently for the sake of preserving their iman.
Lower the bar! If there are two righteous brothers and sisters, husband and wife willing to get married, don't be a barrier, don't be an impediment. Believe me, they don't want the fancy apartment - they just want that love that they have. And believe you me, it will be a better marriage in the long run. It will be a better marriage in the long run if they go through financial issues, if they struggle - in that struggle they are going to cement their bonds for, insha'Allah ta'ala, the permanent life. But if you are going to be the elder that's going to be... I don't agree with this in any case. My goal insha'Allah is to make things easy.
Following Sharia vs. Laws of the Land
Final question: "We are living in a land that is ruled by non-Muslim laws. How do we integrate following the Sharia versus following the laws of the land? Do we follow them both, or some rules of each, or what?"
The response: You follow them both, and especially in this country, alhamdulillah, the laws of this land do not infringe on our rights to be Muslim. So we will follow both laws because there is no contradiction.
Where there is a contradiction... in that case, if you are forced to do haram - meaning haram that is theologically infringing on your rights... grey areas, ambiguous areas - opening a bank account, this is not the essence of haram, this is something that comes part and parcel of the territory. Haram would be like you are not allowed to fast, you are not allowed to pray, you are infringing on your rituals, you are infringing on your right to proclaim your Islam. That is persecution.
At that point, if you are able to migrate, you should migrate. And if you cannot migrate, then you do what you can in secret and ask Allah to forgive for the rest - like the Muslims of Andalus, the Muslims of China, the Muslims around the world that are being persecuted.
In this case, and with this, insha'Allah ta'ala, we will conclude until our next open Q&A. وجزاكم الله خيراً وسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته.