Middle Nation Book Discussion: The Crusades Through Arab Eyes | Session Three

Glad to have you.

How are you?

Hope you

hope hope that

you're fine. Okay. So let us start. Last time, we had stopped at the siege of Antioch or the siege of Antioch, like, where they like to to to pronounce it. So the siege of Antioch was very, yeah, impactful event.

Yarisian, the and we gave an introduction to as as to what an means in that era. Essentially, a Turkish prince Turkish warrior prince responsible for the upbringing of the children of the sultan because the sultans of the subjects usually died on the battlefield, such a radiant fate, either being trying to expand the frontiers of Islam or unfortunate infighting within the house of the subject itself. So the autabaks came to it came yeah. It came it came to be that the autabaks were a phenomenon very, very consistent during the. And so those were powerful emirs or powerful princes in as we mentioned.

And, of course, all of you forgive me if I am repeating, but I think it's always worth repeating to just give some sort of context. So we we already established that the great soldiers were once a great realm that stretched all the way from China to the Levant or and into Asia Minor. And after the death of the third great soldier Khutan, which is Malik Shah, They disintegrated into states. So we had the sagels of Khurasan, the sagels of Iran, the sagels of Al Arak, the sagels of Lebshem, and the sagels of Asia Minor. And within each of those rounds, there was infighting with the notable exception of the subjects of of of Asia Minor or the subjects of Rome.

Thus, this house was intact to a great extent and was able to even harass the the Ferengi armies that were headed from Europe all the way to the Revance. So during the siege of Antioch, which was held by the Altaic Yerelician, it there were rebellion efforts to save the city. The city was impregnable, and they had supplies. And there were multiple attempts by emirs of the strongest of which, of course, were the emir of the and the emir of Halep or Halepo to to to aid. However, unfortunately, because those Seljuk princes and those and yeah.

Was a was a a a multipart. So had Turkish Seljuks. It had Turkish, and it had Arabs ruling. So, for example, just to give you an idea, the Mashk and Aleppo were ruled by Dukak and RID1, respectively, as we mentioned. Homs or Homs was ruled by, which is what which was an an Arabic as well.

Tripoli or was ruled by an Arab family called. They were judges. And this is especially, for me, interesting because they were not they were not rulers of the city. They were the judges of the city. But during the process of the political fragmentation of Beyad Heshem, those judges rose to the state of of of rulership.

However, they maintained the title of judge, which was entertaining and interesting because across the sea, across the Mediterranean Sea, at the other side, which is Spain, there was an Arab ruling family of as well in in Ishbelea at the same time, almost the same time, Sivi in in Spain or Ishbelea in Arabic, which was ruled by an Arab family from Benelach, the tribe of Benelach. They were descendants, and they were called the Benelach. The the most famous ruler of the Benelach was an, which was an Arab poet, an Arab ruler, and he was one of the people who invited the the the Moravids or the northern African Moravids to help against the Reconquista in in Spain. So it just, yeah, caught my attention that there were those kinds of similarities across the Mediterranean Sea. Also, another Arab family ruling in Bledishem was the family of Banu Mukhin in the city of Shaizar.

And descendant from this family was the historian that has been dependent upon in this book, which which is he is called Usama bin Muqa, and he was the man who in the in in the chapter, I think, the chapter two or three, I'm I'm not sure which one, he said that the where they didn't have any virtue except the virtue of being brave during battle, and and they have the the the patience of peace. That's it. So and even the the the author of the book commented on this and said that this was very this was very a very attentive detail from who was the member of a much, much more superior civilization than the civilization of the Faranj. Of course, the Faranj had any civilization at all. But, of course, at this time, the Arabs, the Muslims, they had a much more superior civilization than the Faranj.

And was he, the manifestation of that civilization as opposed to the the Ferengi armies who were manifesting a much more inferior civilization. So there were valiant efforts to defend and to attack against the the the Faraji armies. However, because the Arab because the Muslim rulers in the in the region, as as you know, as we've discussed, they had different racial backgrounds. They had different ambitions on their minds. So they had one eye on on the Fernanji army laying siege to Antakya, but they had another eye on each other, which made things extremely difficult.

And so there were three attempts to try to lift the siege of Antakya by Muslim armies. All of all three of them were were a failure. However, in another book, the the attempt by to to to attend the Varang, in the crusaders to Arabized book, it it was deemed a failure. However, in another book, other sources mentioned that, no, it wasn't a failure. The French were indeed defeated in in in this mini skirmish, it could say.

However, it wasn't enough to lift the the siege and to talk return to Damascus. So the the the third and final attempt was why Karbuva, the strong attack of a nozzle, he tried to to to rally the the rulers of Bilal Hashem around him. First of all, he wanted to protect his rear by attacking Edessa, which was held by the. He wasted three precious weeks. That was a lot of manpower and effort and time that could have been saved elsewhere, especially that he lifted the siege and then continued on to Antakya.

So it it does appear that he could have made the journey anyway. However, those three weeks were precious time wasted. And when he went to Antakya, due to his inability to show leadership skills across the the other emirs of. They were suspicious of him, and they believed that he was there to stay. And it made them and, of course, this is not a justification, but, however, what came through their mind was that they were better off with the Faranj than they were with Kurbuka.

And so there were there was a lot of infighting and a lot of discussing and a lot of back and forth in a in an army that was supposed to be an army that was going to save Antakya with one goal in mind, which is to lift the siege, defeat the Faranj, and keep Antakya in Muslim hands. During this time, although Yerese Yen was a brilliant, brilliant ruler and a brilliant strategist, despite every precaution that he took, unfortunately, one of the the the the people inside of Antakya, a man called Feyrouz, was fined by Yarisian because he was trading some, I think I think it was oat in the black market or or wheat, something like that. It was a seed of some kind, and it was during the siege supposedly. And so he was fined by Yarisian, of course, understandably. And he was so upset with this decision, so infuriated with the decision that he decided that he was going to deliver the city to the French.

So he gave his own son as collateral to the to convince them that he was not tricking them in any way. And then at agreed upon time and place, he opened the doors, let about 500 in. They killed the guards. They opened the doors, and the city was taken. Son, was able to hold the castle of the city.

He had 3,000 soldiers with him, and they stood their ground. They had the castle. The city was fallen. So the branch closed the city doors, took refuge in the city, and they started, yeah, in Falos, attacking the castle. But, however, there was a Muslim army outside, the the the Karbuka army.

And this army, they it won't yeah. Karbuka was adamant that he will lay siege, and, of course, there wasn't much supplies because everyone inside the city was killed and all of the stores in the city, the food and the water and all of the supplies in the city were taken. And this is a common theme. Alright? The Fidelberg army, whenever they take a city, more often than not because there were some instances that they let the people go basically.

But more often than not, when they take a city, it's an absolute massacre. And this was I think this was on purpose. They wanted to give a message that if you even try the slightest trick to resist us, we will not let anyone live. This was part of their psychological warfare warfare. So they took the city.

They ate up all the supplies, and they drank everything. And now they had nothing, and there was an army outside, and there was an army inside the castle. So the so their situation wasn't really ideal. But it's there's a story mentioned that one of their priests hid spear, a he claimed that the spear was the spear that was used to poke a side. And he said that you guys have to make repentance and fast and do all of that all of that kind of stuff and inshallah inshallah.

And and then we will find the spirit by the will of of Jesus Christ and that kind of thing. And he then took it out, that boosted the morale of the of the somehow. And so they made the the the decision to get out of the city and face the Muslim armies. At first, they came out in very small numbers, and the generals of Kherbuka were screaming that they need to attack now. However, Kherbuka had another point of view, which was let them all come out because I don't want to attack them and then find that they are now entering reentering the city.

So it won't it won't be fruitful to attack them while they're exiting. Let them all come out so that we can finish them once and for all. Again, some people might might agree, some people might disagree, but this is what this was his assessment, and this was his decision to make. Of course, on the as we, again, mentioned, on the backside of things, Dukak, the the king of of Damascus, in other sources, it was mentioned that they're one, king of Aleppo, they were scheming behind the scenes to tell the other generals that if this man wins this battle here right now, it would be the end for all of us in. He will take all of our cities, and he will stay, and he will take our our our.

So they made they took the decision to escape under the the without escape unnoticed from the army, and the army of Karbuka did suffer from losses because many of the emirs of the took their armies and went away. And so after the the the the Ferengi completed their exit, the army of Kabuka was greatly less in number. And so he found that his situation was now dire because he was not having the same number of troops that he had before. And so he made made an attempt to to to make a treaty with the with the the French. Of course, the French, finding out that this mighty general was now asking for a treaty, they deemed that this was a weakness on his part, and so they attacked him.

And the Muslims lost this army, and Antioch was lost to her. So this was the fall of Antioch. I think there are many points that can be made. So if my beloved speakers and, of course, would like to make some comments, I would be more than happy to listen.

A few things that I would mention. I'm sure that that other speakers will have more to say on maybe some of the specific details about the sort of fractured leadership that led to the failure to to preserve Antioch. But one of the things that one one of the things that strikes me is what you were talking about, for example, the psychological warfare of the fringe in their absolute savagery and and and brutality and violence. And I would question whether or not that was a deliberate a deliberately thought out or calculated strategy on their part, or it's just their nature. It's just the way they are because that's the way they fought in Europe.

That's the way they fought everywhere. That's that's the way they fight until today. So I don't think that it was something that they particularly calculated and thought ahead that that this is what we will do. I think this is just their way. This is this this was their way from prior to the Crusades when they were fighting each other in Europe, and it's it's was their way when they were fighting in in in in in our lands, and it's the way that they fight until today and the way that they will be fighting again soon in Europe and even in their own country in in their head country in America.

This it just shows the the and and it will be I think it will be highlighted in other other incidents that that we'll probably go over today, inshallah. The the the drastic difference in culture, the drastic difference in sophistication, the drastic difference in morality, the drastic difference in character between the Muslims and the invaders and the French. But but I don't have much more to say about that. It it sort of speaks for itself in my opinion. But one thing that I wanted to mention that I find really interesting to look at is, you know, we have a lot of people who talk about the in a very sort of comic book sort of dream dreamy nostalgic way, that the Muslims were all united, and it was just this one great gigantic body politic, and we were all one one unified body, and that if we if we had that today, then we wouldn't have had the problem of Zionism.

We wouldn't have this and that and the other problem. But look at what was going on during the time when there was a. There were at least a dozen plus different sultanates, different emirates, different kingdoms, different different rulers, different leaders, different jurisdictions, different loyalties, all within the Muslim lands that were technically under the. You even had different simultaneous to one another. In fact, you had if you look at if you look at the lands where the crusades took place, like, Iraq, if you look at the lands where the crusades took place, there are fewer distinct governments today than there were at the time of the crusades.

There are fewer distinct governmental jurisdictions in 2025 in those lands than they were at the time of the Qilafa that everyone talks about being this great unified empire. We actually have a smaller number now. So technically speaking, we're actually more united now. There we're under under, you know, a fewer number of rival government governmental systems and and and rival rulers. And as you can see from what happened what brother was just talking about, the rivalries were very, very toxic at that time, extremely toxic, extremely destructive.

And and to to one extent or another, obviously, we're not in a position to necessarily second guess, but very shortsighted in that they were more concerned about another Muslim ruler sort of challenging their supremacy in a particular area, particular territory. They were more concerned about another Muslim ruler challenging their supremacy in a particular territory than they were about the French, than they were about the Crusaders themselves, than they were about the invaders, to the extent that they would actually sue for a peace or a treaty or or some kind of an agreement with the Crusaders just to avoid the possibility of their rival Muslim ruler taking over their territory. So these were extremely toxic and destructive relationships, and and I think that I I was sort of talking about this a little bit in the chat that over the over several different conversations, in fact, talking about this in chat, that the Muslims at the time of the Crusades were drastically more powerful drastically more powerful in every way. They were more advanced. They were more developed.

They had stronger militaries, better fighters, obviously more educated, obviously more sophisticated, obviously wealthier than the Crusaders were, and they outnumbered them vastly. And yet what happened happened. And the only thing that that that could have made that happen wasn't the the triumphant power and might of the Crusaders, but it was the disunity among the Muslims, and it was the rivalry among the Muslims. It was the political fracture among the Muslims during this mythical period of time when we were supposedly this united Khilafa. So I think that it's it's it's really important for us to to to read this history and to understand this history because, like I've talked about many times before, we have a very mythologized version of our history, and that causes us to have an unfair and an unrealistic assessment of our situation today.

Because objectively speaking, we have more unity today, right now, in 2025, than we had in October. And we have, in fact, fewer number of of competing rulers. And in fact, the rulers that we have now are actually cooperating and coordinating with each other on a at a greater much greater level, a great a much greater level of unity and great greater level of coordination than they were in October or even by the time of the second crusades. So we're going through this book because it's it's it's extremely important for Muslims to actually understand the reality of our history so that we can understand more accurately and more fairly the reality of our current situation today.

I also believe that one of the main points of this or my main reasons of this, what what do you call it, the success so called of the invasion was the sense of the Muslim rulers of their cultural superiority back then. As we said, Musam Abu Lukul had made this comment or remark that the Faraj are only known for the the good virtues that they have are their battle patience and their courage. Right? And so this means that culturally, they were much more inferior from from his point of view. And he let's not forget that Tusamun al Muqadd was the the sign of a of a of a ruling family.

Right? He was an emir. He wasn't he wasn't a commoner. Meaning that he he was raised in palaces, and he knew what riches were and how how rich how rich life and the sophisticated and the culturally and superior life was in the Muslim lands as opposed to when he visited because he made he did make some visits, by the way, to some of the uncle. He had friends from the friends, but we would say acquaintances.

Right? Like, an emir knows an emir despite the them having being them having different religions and different backgrounds and that kind of thing, but an emir knows an emir. And so he did make some visits to the king of Jerusalem, and he was, yeah, awestruck by the by the by everything. They were much inferior in every possible way. And so I think this was the thought process going through the minds of the emirs of the Muslim Nazis that these, yeah, courageous battle beasts, they're a phenomenon that are going to go away.

What's more important for us now is the is our our own infighting. So this culture's superiority was actually, what would you say, it was actually a a negative aspect. Instead of it being something that would help the Muslims, it it some some somehow sedated them on this, you know, on this sense of betterness. And so they were they were they were always late to recognize the danger.

Yes. And and I would also I I would I would add to that that even his assessment of the fringe is extremely generous. He's he's attributing to them courage, for example, and and bravery, because it's not in him to just call them savage. It's not in him to just call them primitive. It's not in him to just assume that human beings can just be like that and just like war and fighting and killing and carnage, but this is their nature.

This is this is their culture and has been their culture for longer than any of us can even estimate. But they're looking at things as always, and we still do this until today, by the way. We still have this same what I what I regard as a as a flaw in how we judge or evaluate others. And by others here, I'm talking about non Muslims generally, but particularly Westerners, Western non Muslims, in that we are looking at them through our own eyes, from our own perspective, and from our own sort of cultural assumptions that that we we we are seeing them at that time, they were looking at them. As you say, they were the Muslims were incredibly sophisticated, were incredibly educated, were very cosmopolitan, were very advanced.

And the level of primitivity that they were facing was sort of incomprehensible for them. They couldn't really wrap their brains around the human beings and this is probably one of the reasons why they didn't really regard them as a serious long term threat because these these people certainly couldn't be administration provide an administration for any sort of a government. They certainly couldn't become a a civilization and become the rulers. They're certainly not qualified for that. They're nothing but but warriors and fighters and savages.

So they weren't taken seriously in that regard because they didn't show any capacity for governance, for for being orderly, for being organized, for being disciplined. They showed no sign of that. But the the Muslims were looking at them from their vantage point of being extremely sophisticated people, being extremely advanced people, extremely educated people, and they they made a very generous assessment that that the the assumption is that there's a kind of inequality between people, that that you must be a little bit like us, at least. You must have some kind of a a nature the way our nature is. You must have some kind of a character the way our character is.

And so we don't actually properly judge how different their character is, how different their culture is, how different their ways are from our ways. And that's that's what I mean about when he when he referred to their tendencies as being courageous, when that when courage really didn't have that much to do with it. On the one hand, you could say they were actually just desperate. They're scavengers. They're, you know, hyenas.

You you generally wouldn't refer to a hyena or a jackal as brave. They just do what they do. This is their nature. They're scavengers. They're killers.

They're fighters. They're savage. And this is what they came up. This is this is how they came up in Europe, especially the especially the the lower classes, especially the peasantry who who made up most of the early fighters among the crusaders. Later, the knights came in and the the more experienced people came in, but even they didn't come from a particularly cultured background.

So he he was he was attributing qualities that you would he he was he was he was describing characteristics or qualities as you would describe it if they belonged to sophisticated and educated and cultured people. In other words, you say that they're courageous because, you know, they're not just, for example, staying in leisure. They're not just, you know, going to the masjid and and and praying and studying. They're not in the universities. They're not, you know, sort of staying in their palaces or what have you.

They're not merchants. They're not business people. They're not sophisticated people. So they they attributed those qualities to them the same way that you would attribute it to someone who actually was that way. In other words, someone who is who who lives already a life of sophistication and to one degree or another a life of leisure and a life of education and learning and knowledge and also goes out to fight in wars, well, that's a courageous person.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about peasants, the really, the lowest of the low who were living really in the mud and the muck and were very oppressed where they came from, just pillaging plundering and pillaging because that's what they know how to do. These aren't qualities of bravery and and courage and and assigning a sort of a noble definition to to these traits, but they're looking at it from a from a perspective of a people who are sophisticated, and that and that vantage point actually makes you misjudge the kind of people that you're dealing with.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes. Because in many incidents, as we should see, there are some deeds that are going to be made and they are more often than not, they are broken because, again, we as Muslims do perceive that the the the the other party was always will always deal like we do, especially the westerners, which is not the case, unfortunately. Karim, you have your hand raised.

What I found interesting that, you know, was also trying to engage somehow diplomatically. I think there were some emissaries being sent from the French camp to the, quote, unquote, Muslim camp or, like, the, you know, the other camp. Sometimes justice is to use force, and sometimes justice is to engage diplomacy, and that's based on your assessment of the enemy. And, like, nowadays, you know, people calling for conflicts and fighting and military warfare, etcetera. Okay.

That might have been possible in the case of the French where exactly as Ustash Shahid was mentioning, you know, uncivilized barbarians coming in, you know, walking, right, without any weaponry, without any sophistication, like but considering nowadays, diplomacy is the just way to go about it. Right? And it's the way to, you know, minimize the potential harm, the potential spillover that would have happened from a military warfare. I I I just think it's a very interesting contrast that sometimes using force is the just way and sometimes engaging in diplomacy is the just way. And a thousand years ago, probably miscalculated.

And nowadays, they calculated it very correctly. And so just a point of reflection that had we engaged in military warfare now, it would have had the same consequences that diplomacy had had back then. Alright? So

Can I just can I just add something to that? Obviously, it's very true that sometimes diplomacy is more effective is a more effective strategy than warfare, obviously. The only the only sort of clarification that I would put is that what's going on now because we're obviously, we're dealing with a repetition of the same situation. When we're talking about Zionism, we're talking about so called Israel. We're talking about the same situation as what the crusaders inflicted upon us a thousand years ago, which is an invasion and an occupation, and we're dealing with that now.

And the way that it's being dealt with now you used the word diplomacy, but the diplomacy that has been happening has been between ourselves, has been between the Muslim countries. For example, Saudi Arabia and Iran reaching an understanding, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt reaching an understanding with Qatar, and all of them reaching an understanding with Turkey when they had previously been, you know, sort of, at loggerheads and had been hostile to one another. And maybe even that hostility is still latent, but it's suppressed because they understand the importance of unity. So they have all come together. This And is this is what I was saying in the beginning, that now we have a greater level of unity and coordination, especially just over the last couple of years, especially over since the last two years, a great deal more coordination and unity among the Muslim countries, and that is has been achieved through diplomacy.

That's people of this of a similar character and a similar similar moral quality being able to reach an understanding, talking eye to eye, where we both understand each other, we're both coming from the same page, we're both reading from the same book, and we all know I'm talking about the book. We're all reading from the same Quran. We're all on the same page in this regard. We all follow the same prophet So we have the same culture. We have the same moral standards, and so we're able to have diplomacy in that regard.

But the what you're referring to as diplomacy with regards to the West, with regards to the invaders, because there's obviously no difference between the Zionists, between the so called Jews who are actually nothing but white Western atheists occupying Palestine today. There's no difference between them and what we call the West, what we call America or Europe. There's no difference between them. They're all the same people, and they're all and and and the same ones are backing them and so on, so they're all responsible for that. The the what you're referring to as diplomacy between the Muslim world and those people has been investment diplomacy diplomacy, has been financial diplomacy, has been paying them off, which is where you can see that they might have learned some lessons from the Crusades because we're not reaching a moral understanding with them.

The diplomacy or the the understanding that we're having with the West today that has arrived at this agreement that has stopped the bombs falling in Gaza and started the food reentering into Gaza, and is going to lead to the development and the liberation of Gaza, that has not been achieved because we reached a moral understanding with the West through diplomacy on a in a on a on a moral level, on a character level, on a values based, belief based level. No. It is it is based on the understanding that we may have, inshallah, they might have learned from the history of the Crusades that these people were only ever after loot. They've only ever been after money. They've only ever been after pillage and plunder.

And so it's possible to just pay them off, and you might be able to get them off your back if you if you pay them off. That's the kind of diplomacy that we have reached with the West, and I think that's the only kind that we can reach with the West because I think that they have reached the understanding that all of their moral talk is nothing but talk. They don't mean a word of it, and that that at the end of the day, they are still the same way that they were when they invaded us the last time, in the first Crusades and the second crusades and so on. They're the same type of people that they were then, and they're that same type of people now. So there's not it's impossible for us us to reach a moral understanding with them, a values based or a or a belief based understanding with them because they're not a people who have beliefs.

They're not a people who have morals. They're not a people who have values. But they do love money, so we understand how to deal with them that way. And as you say, in this case, had had we taken the approach of warfare, the entire situation, the entire what you can call the whole chemistry of the geopolitical dynamics in The Middle East does not allow for us to have taken that approach, because it's not even a question of whether or not we have a strong enough military to defeat them. It's not even that question.

It's a question of their entire system depends upon warfare. So it's like one of those one of those what they call the the the Chinese, finger cuffs that when you try to pull out of it, the more you struggle, the tighter it gets. So the more you cooperate with them if you if you, go into military conflict with them, that amounts to you cooperating with them, that amounts to you contributing to their system, and our leaders have understood that. They've understood that warfare wasn't the right approach. They've understood that diplomacy between the Muslim states and coming together and reaching an understanding and beginning to coordinate our positions and our actions, that required diplomacy.

And with regards to how we deal with the West, well, that just requires money.

Yes. And we also have to remind our speakers sorry, our listeners, this is the situation has changed everyone. Right? Last by the end of the Cold War, the situation has drastically changed. The end of the Cold War was, like, thirty years ago, more than thirty years ago.

Okay? And this meant that there was unequivocally across the whole world, and the Muslim leaders had very had a very limited set of options back then. Right now, in in in today's day and age where with rising economies across globe, the rise of the global South, the equation has changed, meaning that more opportunities, more options are available, and the least of the least option favorable and the the as as as as and as brother Karim said, warfare is an option, but it's not the right option. It's not the right choice. We have more other options, and we can we can pursue them, and that's exactly what the Muslim leaders are doing.

They are cooperating amongst each other. They are cooperating with BRICS plus. They are showing the West that there are alternatives both to the West's material goods and to their lifestyle and to their weaponry. So this has to be taken into consideration that even if the options or the the the the right decision was to be made, it it it is very well it is very possible that the right time was not there yet, especially after the the the the the the not the defeat of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Soviet Union because no one defeated the Soviet Union. It internally collapsed.

So after immediately after the internal collapse, the West was the supremely pole of the world, unfortunately. Now it's different. There are alternatives, and the global South is rising up with this challenge. So, you had your hand raised, please.

I just wanted to briefly make some connections to some of things shared. Mentioned how there can be different circumstances will call for a different approach, and I just wanted to make some connections to other aspects that we talk about and think about. This is something we see in the Sirof Arnavi Solo. Different situations call for different action. For example, when he was in Medina and the tribe in one narration of from came to Medina and they were struggling to acclimate to the climate, he gave them a prescription.

Don't go to my shepherd. He will give you such and such from my from my camels. This milk, mix it with this, have it, you will be cured. And indeed, did that. And all of a sudden, their weakening their weakened bodies became strengthened.

And on back of that, these accursed people, they slaughtered the shepherd of the prophet and stole his camels. And so the prophet didn't say now is the time for diplomacy. He sent people out to get them and he meted out a very deliberate and very clear punishment to them, stringing them up to rocks. And that was the time for that. Whereas then you can see with Quraysh and Mecca, we had the treaty of Hudaybiyyah because that was not the time to come in and overpower.

This was a different time which called for that kind of thinking, strategically thinking about all the different factors. And that just echoes what Shaykh was mentioning about the different factors and ramifications within the region and why the Arab leaders have understood a different way to go about it, which includes, you know, dealing with the disunity, which is where BRICS comes in, which is where getting GCC on the same page comes in, which is where the summit that happened in Doha comes in. Getting everybody on the same page, understanding the common enemy, and understanding the clear path forward. So for that. Just wanted to tie that into thinking about both the disunity as well as the different circumstances calling for different responses.

There's obviously a lot more to say, but I know we wanna continue, and we can always make more connections with the rest of what we will talk about.

Absolutely, And just wanted to to make it clear when when Ustad says that unity because people have this fantasy that unity, like, everyone is, like, they're hugging, they're they're shaking hands, and they're, you know, having what what would you call it? They have they're having festivities together. No. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Unity might be simple cooperation, simple goal in mind, not not not something that is media media card or anything like that.

So unity might be just cooperation, a basic understanding, and that's it. Because people really like to see propaganda as, like, look at the brothers and and religion. It it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to satisfy your eyes. All that has all that needs to be done is the concrete steps on the ground.

Okay? And they can still have their differences, and that's fine because at the end of the day, like, they're not they're not angels. Okay? They have each one of them has a kingdom or an emirate or a republic or what have state to run. And the state might have conflicting interests with other Arab or Muslim states.

That's fine. But at least they have the basic understanding right now of the common enemy and the greater goal. The greater goal is independence. It it expelling the western influence out of the Middle East, you know, what what they would call the new Europe project, which is making The Middle East recover from it. Re reclaim its rightful place in the middle of the world as a hub for trade and commerce and that kind of thing.

So it doesn't have to be romantic. It doesn't have to be like, look. They they they are in love with the there is brotherly love between no. Sticks don't function like that. They're like people.

You do you want to convince me that you like all the Muslims in the world? No. You you have some differences with some, and you love you like some more than others, and that's how it goes. So states are more or less like that. Yes,

It's pragmatic policies and and politics as opposed to idealization. I sort of mentioned one of the one of the thing when she actually had mentioned how you can see that from the lens of the Muslims when they talk about the because they're seeing their perspective and seeing how could anybody actually be that savage. And so then that's a very human thing to sort of look at others through the lens that you have. And it's important obviously for us to sort of divorce ourselves from that and understand the reality of these people that we have been dealing with for so many centuries. And you read this from, like, the eleventh century and you realize, well, we're in the twenty first century and subhanAllah, how little things change.

But from the flip side, the other thing is that they also see us through their lens. And that's important for us to remember because oftentimes what happens is we look at other Muslims in other countries and things within this region through their new sources, and that's incredibly important for us to digest from. And it's a plague that has it has generally plagued our our thinking and our psyche. This is obviously part of psychological decolonization, where then we look at what they say about Arab nations, about their about, well, these people They did this, and they funded this, and genocides here, and brutality here, and this thing. And you can just look at the the recent uproar about all of the comedians that came to the Yelp Comedy Festival, and you can see it through the lens because they don't see that anybody could be aiming for any higher purpose or thinking any differently from them.

So we have to recognize that knowing their ability, there's we cannot allow that to be predicted into how we perceive our brothers and people around us and within humans. So that's just a very important thing in in my estimation to understand. Both things are true, and we have to be able to divorce from both sides of the way we perceive them through our lens, and then not allowing their lens to inform how we see each other.

MashaAllah. Very, very important point that you made. That's incredibly important, and that that is something that we that that we are for for one reason, because the Internet is, predominantly in the English language, that that a lot of a lot of Muslims and especially Muslims, obviously, in the West and Muslims who speak English, even if even if it is English as a second language, but they're but they're very fluent in English, A lot of Muslims have been getting their news from the West, have been getting their news from America, which is getting its news from Israel, and then they share it. And and they start to view the Muslim world through the eyes of the enemies of the Muslim world. They start to view our rulers and our governments and our states and our people through the same eyes of the West rather than through their through the Muslim eyes, through the Muslim perspective.

I mean, I think that if you were to go if if you were to go through your who you follow, for example, if you go if you go through here on here on x, if you go through all of the accounts that you follow to get news that are Muslim accounts, Muslim accounts, and and unfollow every Muslim account from which you get news and information who is getting their news and information from the West, where you won't be left with anyone except for Middle Nation. There won't be any account left for you except for Middle Nation Because every single Muslim account that you follow that's giving you news and information, they're getting all of their news and information from the West. They're getting all of their news and information from America, or they're getting it from so called independent media sources that are also from the West. And and time and time and time again, for the last two years, we've been combating so many lies that are just blatant lies that can be debunked, within a matter of, of of minutes, lies about the Arab regimes, lies about Saudi Arabia, lies about The UAE, lies about Egypt, lies about even Somalia saying that Somalia was gonna take Palestinians, Indonesia was gonna take Palestinians, so on and so on and so on.

Lie after lie after lie that can easily be debunked. And if you if you trace the origin of that lie that was shared by Muslim so called news sites, so called Muslim journalists, the the source of that information is almost nine times out of 10 Israel itself. So, yes, you do have to be very careful to not start viewing our own people through the lens of the West and try to make sure that you also are viewing the West through the lens of Islam. Both of these things are incredibly important if you wanna have anything remotely like an accurate understanding of the world and our relationship to the West.