It's very short and quite unsettling. Is there something like a trumpet out there? Virus, I, yes? I'm gonna be real honest, I don't know what this is. I don't really know what to make of it. I'm doing my smoke and mirror. That's upside down. I'm doing my smoke and mirrors review a little bit differently. I'm gonna do a vlog which you probably know if you clicked on this because I'm assuming it said vlog and the thumbnail or the title. But yeah, this is my second time going through all of smoke and mirrors. I've experienced several of the stories several times. So I'm, as I finish, Kaz, can we not do that? As I finish each of the stories, I'll do a quick clip telling you my thoughts about them. I finished the introduction and the introduction for the whole book, not the, they put all the introductions for all of the individual stories in the front, which is not ideal. So I read the introduction for the whole book and the first story, which is Shilory. The introduction to the book has a story embedded in it.  It's very short and quite unsettling. That's Neil Gaiman. Anyway, but the actual first story is Shilory. And I've actually gone through that story four times because I've read this, I read this book before. Then I've seen him speak twice. And both times I saw him speak, he read aloud Shilory. And now, just now I reread Shilory. So Shilory is a sweet story. I think I like it more every time I go through it because it's not, unlike the story that's in the introduction, which has more unsettling ending, more, not exactly a twist, but I don't know. It's a darker story. And Shilory is just very sweet. And I feel like the twist is that there is no twist or just that like the twist is that everything that should be epic isn't. So if you don't know, you're not familiar with the story of Shilory. It's about an elderly lady who has the Holy Grail because she picked it up at a charity shop. And Galahad comes to her door saying, his quest is at an end. He's been searching for the Holy Grail. And here it is, she's got it. And Kenny have it.    So Shilory is the sweeter story. But again, like this, it's just this quick little kind of like glimpse into the life of this elderly lady, as well as the people at the charity shop and Galahad himself and the people that she knows. And just, I feel like Gaiman, he's just a real student of people. Like the way he just writes people is amazing and it's so efficient. It just blows me away every time. But yeah, so Shilory is just like a sweet story that doesn't have like a twist or a bang or like an eerie and settling something. It's just very quaint. And the more times I go through it, the more I just appreciate all the like the little bits in it that kind of make it so quaint and make it feel so real. Like this completely real authentic portrait of like a little old lady that's, she doesn't feel like a caricature. She feels like, for all I know, maybe she is an old lady, the Neil Gaiman knew. But I, it's very sweet and I do like it a lot. So yeah, one story down, however many more to go. Nicholas was, doesn't even count as a short story. It's so short. So real quick, Nicholas was is, to say anything about it is to spoil the entire thing, but it is just one of those Gaiman things that I've ever read. So, yeah, I love it. Story number three, the price. I don't have too much to say about it. It's about cats or at least it's ostensibly about cats. And speaking of cats, mine is chewing on the cord, powering this camera right now. So why can't you be like the cat in the story, huh? Yeah, I'm talking to you. It's like one of those, like a lot of short stories where I feel like, what was the point of that? Or like, I expected there to be like some twist or some meaning at the end and there like really isn't one. It feels a little bit just like a, for appreciation of cats, I guess. What most struck me about it is that like, cause it's, you know, it's obviously fiction, but it's obviously also like basically about Neil Gaiman or at least Neil Ga- a very Neil Gaiman-esque person is the voice of the story. And the fact that like, what's occupying this person in the background is like they're trying to produce an adaptation of Let in the Mist by Hope Merleys. And I feel like, yeah, it's like inescapable now. Like I don't know how I never realized or noticed before how much he likes that book or is into that book. Cause like, now having read the book, I pay attention to it more and like he mentioned it in View from the Cheap Seeds and Stardust is inspired by it. And he mentions it in this short story. So yeah, my favorite part of the story was just like one, I was like, and there it is again, Let in the Mist. So yeah, it was fine. Honestly, Nicholas was, which was like the short story right before it, which is like barely even a short story is has more to it, has more meat to it. But anyway, on to the next one. Troll Bridge. I really liked the story. I had mostly forgotten it. Like I, well, I forgot how it ended. I remember when I was reading it, I was like, I remember this story, but I don't know what the ending is. It a little bit reminds me of Ocean at the End of the Lane. It's not a ton like that, but it does remind me of it a little bit. I think the ending unlike the one for the previous story, it is more of like a comes full circle. There was a point to this kind of like meaning, I would say, not like, not a ton of one, but like, I feel like short stories like they do or don't feel like at the end. Is there something like a trumpet out there? It feels like we kind of like, I don't know, had a bookend to it. Like it went somewhere. It came to a point it resolved somehow as opposed to just stopping. So yeah, I quite like that story. It's not like my favorite in this collection from what I remember. Or I mean like, it's not my favorite so far and from what I remember, there are stories to come that I liked better anyway. Yeah, it's dark and whimsical. And those are the key words when it comes to gaming, I think. Don't Ask Jack is a very short story. Not as short as Nicholas was. Nothing will be as short as Nicholas was. Quite short and quite creepy. And probably I think the better for not really having a clear resolution or clear answer. Nonetheless, it's like slightly disappointing to reach the end and like not have an answer. But it is I think creepier for not having an answer. And it's just once again impressive how quickly Neil Gaiman creates atmosphere and tension like within a couple pages and then you're done. Other books struggle to achieve that in the hundreds of pages. So certainly not my favorite story but a pretty solid little story. Goldfish and other stories. I remembered this one pretty well although I didn't remember how it ended. As soon as I started reading the first few lines of it I was like, I know this one. I remember this one distinctly. Partly because it's one of the longest stories in this collection and also it feels like, I mean, it's not a true story as far as I know but it is very inspired by like Neil Gaiman. Like the protagonist of the story is like very much like a Neil Gaiman.  And about this English writer sort of like being in LA, being a fish out of water. And yeah, I liked it the first time I liked it this time. It's just a very people-y story. It really again showcases Gaiman's ability to just kind of like set a scene and set people in your mind and make you really know them and visualize them and the place they're in and what's happening and emotionally connect with it pretty immediately. And also just like the kind of like caricature but purely accurate caricature of LA and Hollywood. I just find amusing being an Angelino myself. And yeah, I really enjoy that story. It's not like, I feel like most of the stories or at least like the aim of this collection is kind of to be like eerie and settling, chilling, dark. And this story isn't. I don't, it kind of doesn't belong in this collection if like that's what this collection is supposed to be.  Well, not the smoke but definitely mirrors. So I guess by like technicality it belongs in this collection. But it is a much more just, oh, I guess. I mean, chivalry also is this way. So yeah, chivalry and goldfish, they're both just kind of like a slice of life kind of stories. This is the closest I think that I can think of of like cozy fantasy that I like, because Gaiman wrote it. And because it's not that cozy, there is still an undercurrent of something kind of like sad or sinister or a cervic. But anyway, yeah, I really liked that story. That I liked it then and I like it now. The White Road, I definitely remember that story. More of a poem. And I remember it being like, if not my favorite, one of my favorites, still remains one of my favorites. It also stands out because of the style of it. Cause it is more like a, feels like an old tale and old poem, something like that. I really think, I think it's so atmospheric and so chilling. And I think in addition to Millennial Gaiman has many, many talents, but like he has a way of like coming up with these like little phrases that are said by characters or said as a rhyme or said as like significant words of like importance or magic or prophecy or whatever. Like in Coraline, the be bold, be brave, be tricky. Was that it? It doesn't be bold, was it? Well, apparently it's so memorable that I've forgotten. I'm overthinking it. But anyway, there's that line in Coraline. There's other stuff like that he's done. Anyway, there's something, I think it's cat. And here we have be bold, be bold, but not too bold. And I just, yeah, I think it doesn't have like the traditional structure of a poem but there is a kind of like propulsive pattern and rhythm to it. And it's simple and it's chilling for its simplicity. And the twist, if you can call it that kind of, it doesn't really like shock you so much as kind of sneak up on you, which is just I think quite appropriate for the kind of little story that it is. So I have always liked this one a lot and I definitely still do. It came back to me. It's be wise, be brave, be tricky in Coraline. Not be bold. Okay, just wanted to clear that up. Queen of knives. This story, I feel like has haunted me since I first read it. Still haunts me now, now that I've reread it. I think partly because I'm not entirely sure I know the ending. Like I'm not sure that I get the ending. And maybe if I did get the ending, it wouldn't haunt me so. But yeah, the opening is a quote. The reappearance of the lady is a matter of individual taste, meaning like a magic trick. It's quite short, quite impactful in my opinion. And it is, like with most game, and I think not gaming can do like big world ending set pieces. Like that's not to say that he can't. But I think a lot of gaming, both the charming and happy and the unsettling and creepy is very a small scale in mundane. And I think that to some degree makes it feel more quaint and also more creepy. So like imagining like things on a world scale, it was hard to relate to that. And gaming story is like Queen of Knives. It's just so entirely plausible and so small and so day to day that your ability to imagine and countering that scenario or that situation or that thing or whatever it is is just so much higher. You know, like it doesn't take that much for you to imagine yourself in that situation as it would for like a greater, more epic, more absurd, more ridiculous, more intense thing. So I feel like it just kind of sneaks up on you. Like a lot of gaming does that.  And are going with and you're buying. And so then when it does something creepy, I don't know, it's just you're left more vulnerable to it if that makes kind of sense. Like I don't know, if I'm reading something big and epic that I'm like, oh, this is big and epic versus something like quaint, something small, something about normal people doing normal things. Then I'm just like leaving myself open in a way, because I'm not guarding against things or I'm not, I think I'm making sense anyway. So I think that's what is kind of amazing about Queen of Knives. The story itself isn't like the most intense or most amazing or most whatever, anything that I've read. Anyway, yeah. Again, to this day, I don't know that I know what this story is about. That is to say, well, I know what it's about. What I don't know is what the ending means. I think I know what it means, but I'm not totally sure that I have it right. So anyway, quite like that story. And I do again think that it is quite haunting. Changes is, oh, I did not remember this story at all. And oh boy, reading this now, like in the day of our, you know, or the month of our Lord May 2023, given everything that's going on in the news and in legislation concerning like gender and sexual identity, medical treatment for the same, as well as just generally discourse on medicine and on healthcare and gender affirming care and also still remaining conversations about COVID. This story, like this was written quite some time ago and it feels so insanely relevant for right now. You know, with short stories, it's hard to summarize without spoiling, but like essentially someone has invented a drug that for all intents and purposes, as far as they can tell is a cure for cancer. But the side effect of the drug is that it like changes your sexuality, like your physical, like it changes female parts to male parts and male parts to female parts. And so then the short story explores various implications of this, reactions to this, unforeseen consequences of this, uses of this. It's a fascinating little story, like not perfect. I think if Neil Gaiman wrote it today, he would write some things in it slightly differently, but still very thought provoking and so like timely and relevant and well done, very, very thought provoking. Yeah, I don't, I didn't remember that story at all. And now it's a real standout. So yeah, Neil Gaiman ahead of his time. Who would have thought? The Daughter of Owls. I don't really know what to make of it. I really like the vibe of it. It feels very much like Stardust era Gaiman. It has that like, this is an old story written in an old way kind of vibe and it's like still cheeky and kind of, yeah. It feels like also inspired by Blood in the Mist, which Stardust was inspired by. So like the tone of it and the vibe of it, I don't really know what to make of it. It's not a twist and not really a message. I think, I don't know, maybe it was inspired by a different story and it's a twist on it. I'm not sure, I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure what the point of it was. Shogoth's old, Shogoth's old, I don't really know how to pronounce it. The most reminds me of Neverwhere in kind of like its vibe and the type of story that it is, obviously it's a short story, but the kind of like Fish on a Water character who's kind of this like Average Joe Shmo type. Kaz, can we not do that? Come here. This like Average Joe Shmo type character and is like encountering like quite peculiar things and is kind of like, what is happening right now? I guess I'm just going with it. It's like if Richard Mayhew was like a Texan in Britain. Yeah, at first I was like, what, I don't remember the story. And then as it went I was like, oh yeah, yeah, I remember the story. It's like quirky and fun and has a lot of like just quintessentially game and flares in like the style of the humor. Humor being kind of like subtle and dry and like his humor, he is maybe. He's so cute. His humor is often like part of why his characterization works so well because like the humor is like this like kind of like mundane everyday observation type humor. Like little things that like happen and get noticed and get commented on. It just makes it kind of like feel lived in and real. That's the part I enjoy the most about it. Yeah, I quite like that story. Yes, baby, you like it too? You're so cute. Why is your face wet? Why is your face wet? Did you like the story? Did you like the story? Let me hold you this long. Okay, bye. Virus, I, yes? Well, hello. Virus, I think is another example of game and suppressions. Yes, my darling, what are you doing? Kids, can you get down? I think virus is an example of game and suppressions because he wrote this in 1998 or at least that's when actually, I don't know when he wrote it. I know that this collection was originally published in 1998 and he, the way he describes gaming kind of being the obsessive thing where people constantly do it and constantly think about it and the game itself is the virus rather than a computer virus coming with the game or something is just much more relevant and descriptive of how we live now and how people, especially because we have games on our phones, we didn't have smartphones in 1998 but the way he describes this obsession with gaming and pretty simple games or this pretty simple game is just so much more of a reflection of people and games on their phones now than of anything in 1998. So I think this is proof that Neil Gaiman is a time traveler. Looking for the girl is a bit dated but I still think it's a pretty good commentary on sexuality and objectification and commodification of sexuality and the gap between desire and reality, the gap between fantasy and reality as concerns like desire and sexuality. Yeah. Yeah, I went back and read Neil's introduction to that one because I was like, it was another one where I was like, I'm not completely sure I know what the point of this is but I feel like it's getting at a somewhat timeless universal truth and I feel like the line in the introduction that made me go, yes, that's what this is about. I just was looking at it, why did I close the book? It occurred to me when I was looking at two decades of penthouses and the penthouse and magazines like it had absolutely nothing to do with women and absolutely everything to do with photographs of women. And that was the other place the story began. And yeah, I think that's kind of mostly what it is about. Yeah, that the photograph of a woman has almost nothing to do with a woman and like the desire felt by looking at a photograph of a woman has almost nothing to do with desire for a actual woman. It's an interesting story. It's very game and esch take on that whole idea and concept and thing.  So you could write this story today and it would be almost no different. So yeah, only the end of the world again. It's such a game and title. Even though the title is kind of has that game and humor I don't feel like the story actually does and that's what it's missing for me. It's not wholly serious. There is like an edge of tongue and cheekness to it but it's a little more on the dramatic and serious side. It's quite kind of like out there and strange. Not the most game it is kind of out there and strange. Not my favorite. I kind of don't know what the point of it is. Yeah, it wasn't like thought provoking or funny or interesting. Like I kind of get what he was going for with it. It just kind of goes nowhere in my opinion. And the ending, yeah, it's not really a twist per se. Like it's kind of a twist but like not really. So the best part of that story in my opinion is the title. Bay Wolf isn't that interesting as a story because it really doesn't have much of a story but it does have such an insane amount of fun wordplay. Like that's the entire charm of the story. He's given the title. So yeah, it's not terribly long. I think that's pretty much the entire point of it is to like be bursting with references and wordplay. And Neil Gaiman is good at doing both things. So it's an enjoyable little bit of words. We can get them for you wholesale. I definitely remembered this story. I had forgotten about it but when I started seeing where it was going, I was like, oh yes, yes. Like the title, I was like, I think this rings a bell. All right, I loved that story the first time and I loved it the second time. It's, the humor is kind of reminiscent of, well, hello. Yes, my darling. Yes, yes. What are we doing? Yeah. It's kind of reminiscent of Good Omens. I don't know if I said that. Yeah, so the humor of it being kind of like, it's like really, really dark what's going on, but the way it's told is like very silly. Isn't that right, baby?  So violent but so silly. Yeah, I just, oh, that's one of my favorite things that Gaiman does that I go to him for is like this style of like blending the macabre with the like kind of like mundanely silly or treating really like epic dark things in a very like mundane silly way. I love that. My darling, what are you doing? So yeah, that's one of my favorite stories, poor sure. Possibly my favorite story in the whole collection. I really, really like that story. So if you haven't read it and you have read Good Omens and you like Good Omens, then go find yourself.  What is it called? We can get them for you wholesale. It's so good. One life furnished in early Moorcock reminds me of Ocean at the End of the Lane. If Ocean at the End of the Lane was like cute and fun and didn't have like all the darkness in it. Cause like both Ocean at the End of the Lane and this story feel like they're about like little Neil Gaiman. Like what Neil Gaiman as a kid had been like or what have been like. And a little bit like what a lot of fantasy readers are like have been like were like. So it's kind of kind of cozy, familiar. And you're like, oh yeah. Yep, that's what it was like being a kid and loving fantasy. So yeah, it's cute. It's got some darkness in there that kind of sneaks up on you, but mostly it's cute. Cold colors. I'm gonna be real honest, I don't know what this is. I very hopefully went to the introduction for that particular story, hoping it would shed some light. And it did a little bit, at least I don't know. It made me feel like I was not crazy for not knowing what the heck to do with it. Cause Gaiman kind of said that he sounded like he kind of like was like, I don't know what this is. Cause what he said, this was just an idea. I wanted to say something about infernal machines, computers, black magic, something about the London in the 80s, the London I observed in the 80s, financial excess and moral bankruptcy and wasn't sure if should be a story or a novel, but I tried it as a poem. So like that's even his introduction to it.  What is this? I weirdly enjoyed it though.  What hasn't it, it's like, I feel like this, it's called cold colors. I can't even tell you why it's called cold colors. I genuinely, I don't even know what the title's about. I feel like the title should be like everything, but the kitchen sank.   So yeah, I don't have anything to insightful to say about that. Yeah, I don't know about that one. The sweeper of dreams feels very like Sandman era gay men or like in keeping with like the vibes and style of Sandman, although it's obviously not in the comic book. Yeah, I guess the sweeper of dreams. The sweeper of dreams feels almost like they would be the co-worker, the like sidekick of the Sandman, right? Like it's a double act. First one brings on the dreams, the Sandman, and then the sweeper of dreams takes care of it. After the fact, you've got the waiter and the bus boy. So it's quite short and still manages to be quite chilling. I feel like that's why I always say Neil Gaiman's art is in his brevity. It's oftentimes like, I mean, even in longer works, you'll have like these moments where it's like just this sentence. It's like, how did you do that in one sentence? But I feel like a lot of a short fiction, like the shorter, the more impressive. Like the longer ones will sometimes be interesting and sometimes quite good, but a lot of times like it'll be the one that's like half a page that you're like, oh my God. How did you just do that? So that's kind of, sweeper of dreams isn't like the most mind-boggling, brilliant one, but it is like a good example of Neil Gaiman just like showing up and like taking care of business in like one page. Yes, my precious one. Are you the sweeper of dreams? Yeah. Yeah? Yeah, so quite enjoyed that one. Foreign parts, I had forgotten about it and as soon as I started reading it, I was like, oh yeah, this one. I think it's really good. I think it's one of the ones where actually it like, it has kind of a twist and kind of a point to it. I can't say that I enjoy reading it, but like, it's not because it's bad. It's just because it's kind of like, kind of gross and kind of eerie. Like at first it's just gross and then by the end it's like eerie and unsettling. So there's like no joy to be had, but it's well done. And I think it is interesting and thought-provoking, but yeah, it's got sort of like body horror element to it. I think it's well done. I think it is one of the better stories in the collection. Vampire Cestina. I mean, I've read this before, but I forgot that I, well, I didn't know then and I re-forgot so relearned about this format, like this style of poem, about that as like a type of poem, which is, oh my gosh, it's like we're the last line of every like six line grouping or the last word of every line of the six line grouping repeats itself in the next six line grouping in a different order. Is that, did I explain that right? A verse form in which the last word of each of the first six lines repeat an ever-changing sequence over the next verses and in one three line end piece. The like vampire kind of love story that can be called that. I think it's like pretty poetic and well-told in it, but I was more fascinated when I realized that this is the format and I was like, oh man, that's so hard and like not that I thought that he messed up at any point, but I was like looking at all the lines and I was like, it surely does repeat. Wow, yep, yep, yeah. So yeah, I guess I can see why that isn't a verse form that I've seen that often, not that I read a ton of poetry or anything, but yeah, I feel like it's really limiting, but also I guess like that type of constraint like forces you to be quite creative. So I think it's quite nice, even if you don't know that that's the type of like verse form that it is, but yeah, it's nice, it's pretty, it's impressive. Yeah, it's a good one. Mouse is quite intense in a quiet way. I read it twice over actually because I think it kind of sneaks up on you with what it's about. If you're not like playing super close attention and I read Neil's author's note on it and didn't really say anything about like the message of it, just kind of like the style of it and him never having written a story quite in that style before or whatever. He doesn't say anything about like, oh he does say that there's the radio broadcast that's in the story. He was like, I did really hear that radio broadcast like that was based on something you'd actually heard. I think having read it twice now that I think it's commentary just kind of on how hypocritical we are about death. I don't want to say too much. It's not really spoilery because it kind of tells you it's about this from the beginning, but not in a direct way. It kind of dances around what it's about. And it's still, yeah, it never actually says but it's very clear by the end whereas in the beginning it's not so clear.  This one is also like weirdly topical considering especially this was written not that these issues weren't topical decades ago but I feel like they're much more in discourse now than ever before. Anyway, yeah, I kind of have to sit with this story. I still don't quite know exactly what he's getting at but I know Gaman and I'm fairly certain that Gaman has not written a main character here that he personally agrees with or thinks is correct in the way he's behaving.  I think he's a vehicle for exploring hypocrisy. And just like the weird kind of cognitive dissonances that we have about death. That's kind of my reading of it. But anyway, it's an interesting story. So, I thought provoking one. The sea change is filled with some really beautiful imagery but it's another where I just kind of don't know what the point of it is. Neil Gaman's others now just says that he was like by the sea when he wrote it and that he's also writing The Sandman around the same time. So it's like, I don't know if it was part of something larger that would make me have context or attribute more significance to certain pieces of it. I could see it being really impactful but just out of context the way it is. It's got a haunting quality and yet that haunting quality feels kind of unearned because I don't know that anything about it is actually haunting. It's more just the way that it's told. But it's nice enough. When we went to see The End of the World by Donnie Morningside, age 11 and one-quarter. This story gets to be quite dark but it most reminds me of The Ocean at the End of the Lane and it's just another great example of Neil Gaman being one of, if not the only, then one of the only writers that has this ability to unlock that part of his mind that remembers what it was like to be a kid and then enable you to do the same by reading it. In Ocean of the Lane and in this short story there from the perspective of children, this was written by Donnie Morningside. Like as soon as you read it, as soon as you read when Neil Gaman writes from the point of view of a child, you're like, oh my gosh, yes, that's how it was to think as a kid but I would not have been able to access that memory of how it was to think that way and be that way without him putting it into words and me reading it. I don't know how he's retained the ability to remember that but I'm glad he has and he keeps using it for the greater good. So yeah, it's a short story. So there isn't a ton to it but it's a haunting little story just like Ocean of the Lane is a haunting little story and the fact of it being from the perspective of a child arguably makes it more haunting. So yeah, I like that one. So Desert Wind was apparently commissioned by somebody who wanted Gaman to write something that would go with a song of the same name, Desert Wind. I have not heard that song and I don't think about it. It's really short, the story. I think it can even be called a story but I really like it. Unlike many of the other ones, often times that are longer, even though this is almost too short for it to even be possible for it to have a point, I feel like it has more of a point than some of the others. I feel like it's about things that feel real are more real than real things. It kind of reminds me of a line from American Gods which I don't remember word for word but it's something like, it's like in a conversation and someone says, but it isn't real and he's like, yeah, of course it's not real. People only fight over imaginary things. So I think the story is kind of in keeping with that perspective, that point of view, that point in a much, much briefer way. American Gods is a behemoth. So yeah, I like it. I for sure remember tastings. I remember because the whole story, the whole short story is just one long sex scene and the characters like chat through the entire time and it ends kind of shillingly on a speculative note. But I remember it because of Neil Gaiman's introduction to it, talking about how it bothered him that in sex scenes, in books, in movies, people never talk.  But he also said that he felt so awkward writing it that it took him like forever to actually write the thing. So I mostly enjoy the story now because I remember him saying that about it and I find it amusing imagining him writing it and feeling really awkward writing it. It's an interesting enough story and he's right. It's not until you start reading it that you realize how unusual that is because people don't really talk in sex scenes in books and shows and movies. So anyway, it's kind of a funny reason to write a story and a pretty amusing story. Baby Cakes definitely feels like it was written by and for vegans and he did write it for PETA, but Neil Gaiman is a carnivore. So it's kind of amazing to me that he could write it and then not be convinced by it himself because he says he finds the story himself quite disturbing. And he thinks it makes its point. So, yes, I mean, I don't know how he can think that his own story is really convincing if he's not convinced by it, but I think it's pretty convincing. Murder Mysteries, I feel like, is what we would have gotten if Neil Gaiman had written Good Omens by himself instead of with Terry Pratchett. I remember really, really liking it the first time I read it and I still really do. I think it's probably the best story. Is that, do I? Yeah, probably the best story in spoken mirrors. The longest or close to the longest story as well. Yeah, it's a detective story, but it's an angelic detective story. And yeah, quite thought-provoking, while still being kind of a bit tongue-in-cheek, but like mostly serious. So yeah, I think Good Omens and Terry Pratchett is more like obviously funny. And Neil Gaiman kind of like slips in jokes, but it's not like ha-ha jokes. It's more like, ha, you know, like I see what you did there. But the overall tone is more serious and dark. So I do wonder if season two of Good Omens, now that it'll be written by, I mean, I think Gaiman's writing it with the screenwriter. He won't be like writing it completely alone, but I wonder if it will be a little bit more serious. But then again, there's an established tone with Good Omens that would be, to write something with a different tone would be sort of a betrayal of it. So yeah, probably not. But if, again, if Neil Gaiman had written Good Omens on his own without Terry Pratchett ever, I think it would be a lot like murder mysteries. Murder mystery, murder mysteries. Murder mysteries, plural. Yeah, I think it's the most like complete narratively and also in terms of like having a point to it and like just like, yeah, just the most complete feeling story in this collection. So yeah, it's super solid. Snow glass apples, the last story. And I think it's one of the best examples of fairytale retelling. Gaiman in general is pretty good at doing that. I think I'm on record as saying I don't really like fairytale retellings. Not because I dislike the concept, but because most of the time the execution is pretty bad in my opinion, at least the ones I've read. Because to retell a story, there's different ways to do it. There's no one right way to do it, but you have to be doing something with it, I guess. And they often come off to me really, really lazy or really feeling to understand what the original was or not bringing anything to the table or, you know, just like most of the time when I read fairytale retellings I'm like just the fact of this resembling a fairytale is not sufficient for it to like justify itself, if that makes sense. So if you tell a story and you're like, well, it's a Cinderella retelling. It's like, okay, but like that in itself isn't like a point to the story. Anyway, so Snow Glass apples is creepy because it's a game and story, but I do think it like does interestingly subvert the original Snow White story. While being just like, even if you'd never heard the Snow White story before, I think it would still be just like a chilling tale. And then the fact of it being a retelling and the way that it twists, the way that it twists the events of a familiar fairytale to suit a different narrative I think is very clever. But yeah, that's it. That's Smoke and Mirrors. This, I don't know how long this vlog is going to be. I feel like it's going to be really, really long. It seemed a good idea to me at the time to record a little thought, a bit of thoughts about each story as I read it. And I still think like generally it's a good idea, but there's so many stories and so many of them are so short. And this took me so long to do just because like the book isn't that long, but like having to stop to record something, I never wanted to read it unless I was in a position to do that because I wanted to record my thoughts like right when I would finish it. So if I was like, it was like really late or I look terrible or whatever it is, I was like, well, I can't read Smoke and Mirrors right now because I'm not in a, I can't be recording a clip right now. So anyway, I don't know if I'll do this again for the other short story collections that I have this year to read Fragile Things. Fragile Things I've never read before, so maybe I will do that for Fragile Things. Trigger warning I have read before. So I don't know, we'll see. You like this style of video for Smoke and Mirrors and let me know and I can do this again for the other short story collections. But if not, you know, this was a lot to do. So more than I expected. But anyway, yeah, I did, I do feel like I have a greater appreciation for basically all the stories in this collection because I did this. So I kind of want to do this for the other stories or the other collections because some of the stories are really, really short. So like I probably would have just been like, okay and like moved on and not really like stopped to think about it, which I kind of had to do because I was recording these clips. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed. I hope this was helpful or interesting or something. But let me know your thoughts about these stories, about Gaiman, about this style of video, whatever you're gonna let me know. I post videos on Saturdays, other random times about only Saturdays while I can subscribe, join my Patreon if you feel so inclined and I'll see you when I see you. Bye.


Thank you so much. Thank you for... I would like to thank the chair and everyone who came today and decided to lend us your ears for another maybe one and a half hours. Now the theme of the conference is what are the lessons for development economics. And I was asked to talk about transition economies and this is a very peculiar case in development economics but I think it is very much linked to development economics. I was going to talk about three lessons. To link it to the general theme of the conference, Joe Stiglitz was talking today saying that development economists were basically failing quite a number of times with the Washington Consensus, he said, and with quite a number of other things. In fact, if you look at the whole post-war period, unfortunately, development economists cannot take credit for any success story in development. Success stories in development that happened mostly in East Asia, not only but mostly in East Asia were happening with the experimentation of strong hand politicians. Development economists previously were developing the theories of the big push and input substitution which basically failed in Latin America and maybe in India. Then they were experimenting with the Washington Consensus, so they are pretty much responsible for the failures. But unfortunately, not really responsible for successes. When successes occurred, everyone had a different reason why they occurred. They were saying that it proves our theories, everyone who is anyone was saying this is something that proves our theories. Unfortunately, in transition area, the story is pretty much the same, even worse. Nobody was able to predict what is going to happen in transition. This was a major experiment which was staged by history itself. We cannot stage big experiments in social sciences, but this was an experiment what happens in a middle-income country when you cut the state in half. I wouldn't say eliminate the state completely, but you weaken the state dramatically. The state institutions, the state capacity, institutional capacity is being defined for the purposes of this kind of conversation as the ability of the government to enforce rules and regulations. It doesn't matter what are the rules and what are the regulations, but think about the shadow economy. The government has a monopoly on collecting taxes. If you are not paying taxes, then you are not complying with the government regulations. The government has a monopoly on violence. If you are doing the crime, if you are saying the murder rate would be a very good indicator, not the crime rate because crimes are registered differently in different countries. But the murder rate would be a very good indicator of the institutional capacity of the state. Maybe the laws are unfair, maybe you put people to jail for crimes that are not considered crimes in different countries, like entrepreneurship and things like that, but the ability of the government to enforce rules and regulations, this is something very basic. Once this ability decreases, then what happens in a middle-income country is a recession which is greater than the Great Depression. Just to remind you, in East European countries, the reduction of output was 20 to 30% and it continued in the course of... Here is the line for Central Europe. It continued in the course of say two or three years and some countries more, but no less than two or three years. And the only countries which were able to escape this transformational recession is China and Vietnam. And in former Soviet Union, the record was even worse, it was greater than the Great Depression. The Great Depression was from 29 to 32, 30% reduction in GDP in the United States in different countries, a little bit more, a little bit less, but here it continued for nearly 10 years as a rule of thumb for 10 years and the output was going down for 10 years. Then it was recovering for another 10 years, so 20 years were taken away from the economic development of those countries just like that. This is the Central European line. You can see that most of the former Soviet republics are below this Central European line, so the recession was deeper and the recession was longer. The reduction of output by 50% is greater than the Great Depression. And the story that used to be the story in 1990s and even today, they discussed the story in terms of gradualism and shock therapy. This was not the major story. Today it's pretty much obvious, even Joe Stiglitz today referred that there was a gradualism in China and there was shock therapy in East European countries and perhaps in former Soviet Union. This was not the major story in transition. The major story in transition was whether you are able to retain the institutional capacity of the state institutions or you are not able to retain. Countries that were able to retain this institutional capacity are very different in other respects. Central European countries on the one hand, democratic and authoritarian regimes like China and Vietnam. These are exactly the countries that retain the state institutional capacity and they either avoided transformational recession altogether or the transformational recession was not that pronounced. If you look at countries at this chart, this is the pace of privatization. Countries that didn't privatize much of their assets, this is the share of output, the share of GDP created at private enterprises. Turkmenistan, Belarus and Uzbekistan, they privatized less than 50% of their assets and these are exactly the countries that are doing better than the others, better than East European countries, better than Central European countries today. Today, if you evaluate the growth rates from 1989, then today things look very different from what they looked. These countries were called procrastinators of authoritarian regimes, Belarus is the last dictatorship in Europe, but today things look very different. They proceeded with a gradual transition and gradual transition is better than shock therapy but this is not the major story. The major story, Vietnam did shock therapy, Vietnam deregulated, nobody knows that. But in 1986, Vietnam enacted Doi Moe cause for three years which was kind of gradual Gorbachev type reforms, but in 1989, before Poland, Vietnam deregulated all the prices and there was some reduction of output in manufacturing but oil industry was growing up, agriculture was growing up and overall there was no even declining growth rates. So Vietnam was growing previously at 5% then after transition, 6% and 7% in China, previously 5% then 10%. This was a transition in Asian countries that retained strong state institutions. So basically, I have quite a number of articles, basically the story of transition is this one. There were two factors that were impacting transformational recession. The first one was distortions. Distortions is the supply side shock. It's like conversion of defense industry. Some industries were overdeveloped in Central Atlantic one. It's like machine building for instance. And this industry collapsed. Once you allow the markets to be in charge of the allocation of resources, there was a reallocation of resources from non-competitive industries to competitive. And there was a recession associated with that, like with the conversion of defense industry in all the countries after the Second World War. But this was not even the major story. The major story was the supply side shock caused by poor institutional capacity, deterioration of institutional capacity, previously, constraints and property rights and law and order in general were enforced. Then they are suddenly not enforced. The crime rates, the murder rates went up two times, three times. And this caused, because businesses had to protect their own contracts and property rights and everything else, this caused the increase in costs, right? It was like the increase in energy costs. And this caused the supply curve to move to the left and upwards. And this was the transformation of recession, the story of transformation of recession. If you look at the expenditure of the government or revenues of the government as a percentage of GDP, you see that in Central Europe there was a small reduction, even though the governments for countries of this level of development were very large in Central Europe, right? But there was a small reduction of the expenditure in Central Europe and there was a small reduction in China. In other countries, there was a lot of... If your Central Europe is a non-transition economy, this is your benchmark, right? No, no, it's a transition economy. Central Europe, five countries. Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Hungary. Five countries, this is called Central Europe. And they were most successful in transition, right? Now, if you do some adjustment and you separate ordinary government from something which was the government in Central European economies, this is not associated with the institutional capacity of the state.  So the ordinary government story is even worse. The ordinary government story is such that in China there was no decline in ordinary government. In Poland there was no decline in ordinary government, but in Russia there was a considerable decline in ordinary government and this contributed to the decline in institutional capacity. I can go through this story, but I'm afraid I will run out of time. The reduction of state expenditure was dramatic, right? This is the share of state expenditure in GDP. It used to be, excuse me, over 60% it went down while the GDP itself was also going down. So in real terms, the government spending declined by two-thirds. So when you have three policemen to guard the law and order, now you have one policeman. Or you have three, but you don't pay them. You pay the salary of one. So the policemen try to replenish their salary by the means they have. If you look at the, I rent those regressions. If you look at the reduction of government revenues with GDP, this is an important explanatory variable that determines the dynamics of output during transition. And I'll skip. These are some indicators of the murder rates and of the crimes, just to show you how institutional capacity declined. At one point Russia and other transition economies, these are 10 countries with a high rate of the death from external causes. And death from external causes are deaths from three causes. Suicides, accidents, and murders, right? And at one point among 10 economies with the highest death from external causes, the year is 2002. At this point, out of 10 economies, five were transition economies, from Russia to Belarus to Estonia to Kazakhstan to Ukraine. Now things change today. And let me come to the second lesson. The second lesson is the very interesting story of the increase in mortality. This is the third mortality crisis in the history of humanity. And Wider did quite a bit on the issue. Wider was the first institute to issue the book, which was called Matality Crisis and Transition Economist. Giovanni Andreconi, Renato Ponicce, these are the editors of this book. Now they explain this mortality crisis, sudden increase in mortality, by stress. Not material factors, by stress factors. The first mortality crisis happened during the transition from paleolithic age to neolithic age. 5000 years before Christ, 5000-7000 years ago. Now the second mortality crisis happened right before the industrialization in Britain. It was the enclosure policy in Britain. Life expectancy at that time went down from 1560, 40 years to 1760, 1680, so 1700, nearly 30 years. What was, there are different explanations, but the fact is, five minutes, thank you, it's okay, but the fact is that this mortality crisis occurred without any epidemics and sudden decline in life expectancy, without epidemics, without eruption of volcanoes, without tsunamis. There are just so many cases in history of this large mortality crisis, right? There are two explanations. First, the change in the diet because it was industrialization, which was coming so the people were moving to the cities, so some material factors. The second is the stress factors. So in transition economists, this was exactly the impact of stress. In just five years, the life expectancy went from 70 years, this is the right scale, from 70 years to 64 years, in just five years, right? So this was a huge reduction, there was no epidemic at that time, there was no cholera, there was nothing like the tsunami or the eruption of volcano or some kind of other natural disaster. And there were no deterioration in the diet. On the contrary, the major increase in deaths occurred from cardiovascular diseases and the change in the diet from meat and milk products to cheaper vegetables and to cheaper pasta and other products was actually good for your heart, so at least you cannot explain that you were dying from the heart disease. The reasons for this mortality crisis, and this was documented, sorry, it was factors of stress. If you take the increase in unemployment, the increase in labor turnover, the number of hiring and firing, the increase in migration, the increase in divorces, the increase in inequalities, and they are all correlated, so there is a multi-coloniality problem, but if you make a stress index out of it, they explain 70% of the changes in mortality and changes in life expectancy because life expectancy is a better indicator because mortality depends on the age structure, but life expectancy does not. So then they explain a considerable portion of decline in life expectancy. If you look at the old transition economies of Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union and also if you look at the regions of Russia, there are 80 regions in Russia approximately, so if you do, I did a paper on the regions of Russia, it explains a lot. Now, before I come to lesson three, let me just tell you that, you know, economists usually, I have two minutes, right? Maybe you could concentrate on the conclusions. Yeah, we will come to the conclusions. Yes, this is inevitable, right? Now, if we look at these changes in mortality and life expectancy, then basically the lesson is that, you know, the transition, first it's a speed of transition. You cannot take too much shock. Journals like Lancet, the medical journals, they publish one article after the other. Economists somehow are not interested, but for the physicians, this is a big thing. This is a very big thing that tells you how the humans can do in the situation of shocks. Now, the third lesson is this one. There is a recovery taking place in the indicators of institutional capacity, very rapid recovery everywhere. The crime rate is going down. The murder rate is going down. The mortality returns to the previous level. It happened just in, you know, ten years after 2000. So the worst point in Russia was 2002, 2003. After that, the recovery of institutions is extremely rapid. So there are two views. One is that the communist past is something that is lasting. You cannot throw it away just very easily. Because in the communist past, the institutions were very strong. If you look at the life expectancy in, say, 1960s, life expectancy in Russia was only two years less than in the United States. At that time, Russia had a GDP per capita of 20% to 30% of the US level. So if you predict life expectancy based on GDP per capita, you'll get much worse results, right? But in all former economies that had the communist past, the life expectancy is higher. Even for the year 2000, for the year 2000, if you run a simple regression of life expectancy on GDP per capita and you add a dummy variable, which is a communist past, you will get five years more. You will get the coefficient in front of this transition variable would be five years more. So one theory is that communist past is something that lingers on, that doesn't disappear, and that's countries. Now, restore their institutions and they would be much better in future economic growth than, say, Latin American countries. Of this point of comparison, Latin American countries, the same level of development. Now, Russia has the lower crime rate than Latin American countries. The second theory, and these are the very last words that I have to say. The second theory is a pessimistic view. So I am arguing with myself. And the pessimistic view is in the recent book. The recent book says that institutions are determined at the trajectory of several hundred years. And Chinese institutions are very different from the Russian institutions. Russian institutions are basically Western institutions, which were imported since at least 1600. And these institutions are high inequality country with poor institutional capacity. And the attempt of the communists to change the course of history is not very successful, so it gets to the Latin American track. And China, the westernization in China continued after the war, for only a hundred years. And the restoration of the, after the liberation, it was like a restoration of the traditional Chinese development. Strong institutions, low inequalities. And if you think that inequalities in China are high, I have the arguments to tell you that inequalities in China actually low because billionaires, there are much less billionaires in China. And also because China is a big country, if you consider inter-provincial inequalities, then it turns out that Chinese inequalities are very low. Thank you so much.


Hello, and welcome to top 10 emerging technologies, a show from the World Economic Forum that looks at the performance of some of the most promising technologies from the past decade. I'm your host, Alice Hazelton, and in today's episode, we're talking about precise genetic engineering techniques, which made it onto the 2015 list. So this story really starts with DNA, you probably know that DNA is the code of life that gives cells the ability to function, gives organisms the ability to develop. But when there are mutations in that code, it can also give rise to disease. And we know a lot about the sequences of DNA in cells right now, and we know about mutations. But up until now, it hasn't been possible to do much about those mutations. Imagine that we had a tool whereby we could actually fix individual mutations in DNA, much like you would do with a word processor to cut and paste and edit text. What if we had a text editor for DNA in cells? Here today to tell us more about these genetic engineering techniques is Fang Zhang, a professor at MIT and one of the pioneers of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system. Hi, Fang. Thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you for having me. So Fang, you've helped pioneer a technology that allows us to edit the genomes of plants and animals, including humans, in a quick and efficient way. But can you just tell us exactly how it works and why it's different to some of the genetic engineering techniques that we've seen in the past? So the human genome is very large. It's got, you know, three billion letters in the genome. And if you think of this as a book, there could be typos in this document. And so the way that you would actually fix something in the Microsoft Word is you open up the find function and you type in that typo, and then the program will take the cursor to exactly where that typo is. So now you can backspace to delete and you can type in new letters. The way CRISPR-Cas9 works is that it works in a chemical environment inside of yourself. You can give it a string in the form of RNA. CRISPR-Cas9 will take the string and the search along the genome to find out where that mutation, that genetic difference is in the DNA. That's where you can delete sequences and that's where you can insert new DNA sequences. We hardest it so that we can use it in the human genome to make genetic changes to treat disease and also to be able to better understand biology. Great. Is the CRISPR-Cas9 system the first time that we've been able to do this? Or were there other techniques in the past that maybe they just took longer? Tell us how CRISPR is different to the past. What is really unique about CRISPR is that it's far simpler and easier to reprogram and to be able to use inside itself. Before, it used to take researchers maybe several weeks or even longer to be able to engineer a new gene editor to be able to edit a specific gene. With CRISPR-Cas9, you can design a new editor within minutes and then you can design tens of thousands of editors to study many genes and edit many mutations. Great. If we think of CRISPR-Cas9 as some molecular scissors, I guess, what are these molecular scissors already being used for today? CRISPR-Cas9 has been used in a lot of different places from research to biotechnology in agriculture and industrial organism engineering, all the way to the development of human therapeutics. And all these take advantage of CRISPR-Cas9's ability to make precise changes in the genome so that we can engineer function or to restore health in patients. And so looking ahead, what do you think we can see from genetic engineering techniques over the next five to 10 years? Scientists have developed CRISPR-Cas9 as treatments for sickle cell disease or beta thalassemia and also for congenital genetic disorders in other parts of the body, like in the liver, but also it's being used in agriculture. Researchers or scientists are engineering crops that are drought resistant, pest resistant, producing higher yield. So overall, these are just the tip of iceberg. I think we're going to see a lot of additional applications in the future. And hearing from you now, it sounds like there's so much opportunity for the future. But are there any challenges that you see on the horizon as well? So we heard a couple of years ago that there were scientists who have used gene editing to edit embryos and then created gene-edited babies. And these are things that should not have happened and they certainly breached ethical considerations. And these are the things that is really important to deal with as we move forward. We'll have to come up with ways to be able to regulate and ways to be able to consider what are the things that we want to do and what are the things that we don't want to cross the boundary. Great. Fang, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on, you know, the progress to date, but also the opportunities and indeed the challenges for the future. Thank you for joining us. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. As we've heard today, precise genetic engineering techniques, such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system, have made significant headway since making the top 10 emerging technologies list back in 2015. Gene editing is such a powerful technology that has the potential to upend both the environment and humanity. For example, we've heard how researchers can now use this editing tool to engineer crops so that they're resistant to drought or to even treat genetic disease. Opportunities to improve planetary and human health are clearly plentiful, but governing the use of this technology will be paramount to its success as it's clear that there are some ethical issues that still need to be resolved. If you enjoyed this episode, please join the conversation on social media and we'll see you next time for another episode of top 10 emerging technologies.


وأقول في القرآن ما جاءت به آياته فهو الكاريم المنزال وأقول قال الله جل جلاله والمصطف الهدي ولا أتأواله الحمد لله رب العالمين له الحمد الحسن والثناء الجميل وشد الله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وشدو أن سيدنا ونبينا محمد صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وأصحابه والتابعين لهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين أما بعد إن شاء الله تعالى في this episode بإذن الله الكاريم I'm going to speak about الغلو في باب العلاقة بالولاة والفكام Extreme either exaggeration or negligence Extreme exaggeration or extreme negligence regarding the rulers We have extreme both ways This topic of the relationship between the Muslims and the leader is a very important chapter in the religion of al-Islam In the shari'a it is a very important topic And the shari'a has given it precision And it has dealt with it correctly Has dealt with it with utmost diligence So if anybody goes outside the shari'a I will either become extreme in exaggeration or extreme negligence And our great scholars of al-Islam have documented to us that middle part that we need to take regarding the Muslim rulers إن شاء الله تعالى my aim is to talk about those who fell extreme in exaggeration And then إن شاء الله تعالى I'm going to speak about those who fell into extreme negligence So let me start with الطائفة الأولى The first party who went into extreme exaggeration When it comes to the chapter of العلاقة بالولاة والفكام How to deal with the leader The Muslim leader How to deal with it The first group They fell into it from two perspectives So I'm only going to focus on two perspectives إن شاء الله تعالى The first one is They label the leader a kafir without evidences The evidences that they bring forward are not from the shari'a It's baseless It is their feeling And how they feel a crime has been committed The atrocities that were done The tyranny of this leader So for them it's kafir They see something to be very big And it may even be very big It may even be a very painful issue A very serious issue But whether it's kafir or not It's not taken from our feelings And the way we rationalize things That is, تكفير is the right of Allah and his messenger They are the ones who can label a person a believer or not And that is why the leader of the mercy of Allah He says in his Kitab, the second volume He says في بيان ما هو من المقالات كفر وما يتوقف أو يختلف فيه الإمام القادي عياض اليحسوب رحمه الله has a great book called الشفاء where he talks about the rights of the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم In there he has a chapter where he mentions what statements are disbelief and what statements are the difference of opinion amongst the scholars whether they are kafir or not So he says فصل في بيان ما هو من المقالات كفر وما يتوقف أو يختلف فيه وما ليس بكفر Those statements which are kafir and there are evidences for it and those which are not kafir and those which are disputed He talks about it in that chapter Then he says إعلم after him gives the chapter He says إعلم أن تحقيق هذا الفصل وكشف اللبس فيه مورده الشرع ولا مجال للعقل فيه تقفير تقفير ويقول أن هذا الناس is a believer and this thing is this act is disbelief and this act is not disbelief He said this issue goes back to the Sharia and the logic has no place in this issue شايق الإسلامي بن تيميا He said إن الكفر والفسق أحكام شرعية ليس ذلك من الأحكام التي يستقل بها العقل فالكافر من جعله الله ورسوله كافر والفاسق من جعله الله ورسوله فاسق بن تيميا He says in his Kitab من هاج السنة النبوية the fifth volume page 92 He says إن الكفر والفسق كفر and he says someone is a faser I'm a fisk or to say this act is fisk as well أحكام شرعية It's a شريع jurisprudence of warning It's like saying You need to bring evidence something is haram You need to bring evidence something is sunnah You need to ليس ذلك من الأحكام التي يستقل بها العقل It is not something that independently is rooted from the akal Somebody uses the akal Think about it They look at a couple of videos They see how bad this situation looks and they say you know what كافر No فالكافر A person who is a kafir من جعله الله ورسوله ورسوله كافر It is the one الله is the messenger who makes him a kafir والفاسق and a faser is who من جعله الله ورسوله فاسق الله is the messenger who makes you a faser So the person who wants to say that you are a kafir or you are a faser or you are this or you are that they need to bring evidence from the Qur'an and the sunnah It's not something you see personally I'm inclined I like this My sheikh in my local in my street said this is kufr The mufti of this country said that this is kufr PJ He said إن تكفير سمعي محضل لامتخل للعقلي فيه تكفير is textual based where you get تكفير from is from the Quran and the sunnah And he said إن تكفير سمعي محضل It is purely based on text لامتخل للعقلي فيه Rationality and intellect has no place in it That's why ابن القيم رحمة الله He said الكافية الشافية في الانتصار الفقة الناجية نونة زن نونية فقال الكفر حق الله ثم رسوله بالنص يثبت لا بقول فلاني من كان رب العالمين وعبده قد كفره فذاك ذو الكفراني التكفير is the right of Allah سبحانه و تعالى and it's the right of the messengers صلى الله عليه وسلم anyone Allah has messengers label them as a kafر then verily that person is a kafر and the takfir is a concept of احكام شرعية it falls under احكام شرعية the way you can't say this is halal and this is haram with no evidence you can't say this is kafر and this isn't kafر you need evidence for what you say and that's an evidence can be used is لا يفلحون the second gulu they fall into this group is they go extreme and exaggerate in the concept of going against a muslim oppressive leader now we said labeling a leader unjustly with no evidence that is a kafر we spoke about that what about the other side which is a muslim I'm not saying he's a kafر but he's oppressive leader and I'm allowed to go against him this is gulu this is extremism in the religion of Islam because remember what we said anything that is not based on the Quran and the sunnah is gulu it's either ifrat or tafrid الله سبحانه و تعالى He said in the Quran الله سبحانه و تعالى He said Oh those of you who believe obey Allah and obey the messenger and those who have authority over you و لذلك the ayah has a very powerful meaning and سبحان الله he has a powerful way that Allah تعالى said this الله said and then Allah repeated the word again and he said you could have said اطيع الله و الرسولة obey Allah and the messenger but Allah repeated the word obedience twice so he said اطيع الله و اطيع الرسولة and obey the messenger because the obedience of Allah and his messenger are unrestricted but the obedience of anyone other than Allah and his messenger their obedience is only when they are in line with the Quran and the sunnah so Allah said اطيع الله و اطيع الرسولة و أقول الامري منكم الله didn't say و أطيعوا أقول الامري منكم obey those who have authority over you He didn't say that He said و أقول الامري منكم and those who have authority over you because the obedience of those who have authority over us is not unrestricted they tell us to do something evil something that goes against the religion we say we don't obey you in this particular act that you are calling us to we obey Allah we obey the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم we obey Allah and we obey the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and we will not obey you in this عبد الله بن عباسر رضي الله تعالى عنهما as he is found in بقاري المسلم he said that the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said من كريها من أميره شيء anyone who sees from his leader something he dislikes يعني that leader is oppressive he is tyrannical he is causing mischief on this earth and he is monk evil is doing the prophet said فليا صبر عليه be patient on it فإنه ليس أحد من الناس خرج من الصلطان the messenger said there is not a person who leaves the leader شبرا حنسبا فمات علي and then dies from that إلا مات ميتة جاهلية except that person dies the death of a pre-islamic جاهلية because the people before Islam what they believed is the jahilia before Islam what they believed is that they have no one that they need to obey they had no respect for the concept of leadership the concept of law and order they didn't like that they love the concept of corruption ولي ذلك if you read the شعراء العرب like كمروط إيس and شنفارا and the likes of these people even if you read the وحرق الباه written by أبو طيب المتنبي and others when you speak to say for Dawla and you see this the way that they were this is before Islam and even some of them after Islam this concept of not seeing for the leader any some or obeying him and listening to him it wasn't so that's what the hadith means for matter the person dies ميتة جاهلية ومسلم رضي الله تعالى عنها she said that the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said إنه إنه مسلم رضي الله تعالى عنها she said that the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said إنه يستعمل عليكم أمراء فتعريفون وتنكيرونة they will be used against you they are going to be leaders on you that are going to run your affairs they are going to be in charge of your lands فتعريفون وتنكيرونة you'll see things that you recognize and you'll see evil things from them فمن كريها فقد بريا anyone who dislikes this evil فقد بريا he is free from it ومن انكر فقد سليما and anyone who rejects it is safe ولكن مرضي وتابع but the one who follows and the one who obeys him in the evil then the Sahab is يا رسول الله أنا نقاتهم should we not fight with these leaders we are coming with long crimes they are committing should we not go against them the messenger said لا ما صلو no as long as they prayed and as long as they prayed is a representation according to the scholars as long as he is a Muslim because this is what makes the person a kafir and this is one of the evidence that scholars used that leaving the Salah is كفر أكبر because they said this in this hadith the prophet said لا ما صلو as long as they prayed and another hadith حديد عبادة المصامة the messenger said إلا أنتروا كفران until you see كليكة كفر from the leader so if you bring these two hadiths together okay you realize that إلا ما صلو إلا أنتروا كفران بواحن is the same it's one and the other so leaving the Salah is كفر أكبر if we do that with the two narrations now what I want to say brothers and sisters is that going against the Muslim leader who is oppressive I already gave an ayah from the Quran and I gave you two hadiths of the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم I gave you ayah from the Quran وقولي الأمر منكم I gave you the hadith حديت عبادة المصامة which is in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim the two most authentic books after the Quran and I gave you the hadith أمو سلمة حديته أمو سلمة رضي الله تعالى عنها which is narrated in Sahih Muslim now where do you go from there if you're a true believer who believes in Allah in the day of judgment you will obey what the messenger told you to do عليه الصلاة والسلام to obey your leader to not go against him because والله يوم القيامة you're going to be questioned you're going to be called out and you're going to be asked did you obey the messages that were sent to you الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم يناديهم فيقولوا ماذا أجبتم المرسلين يوم يناديهم the day that they're going to be called out فيقولوا it will be said to them ماذا أجبتم المرسلين what have you obeyed from the messages that were sent to you so when the nusus come to you you need to obey so what we learned is تقفيرون بغيلي دليل making تقفير or making a person a kafir with no evidence is غلو it's extremism in the religion going against a muslim tyrannical leader uprising against him protesting against him is what it's غلو in the religion it's extremism in the religion because نبي الله محمد clearly and categorically commanded us what فليصبر عليه to be patient upon him so these are the two extremism that the first group of people fell into الطائفة الولى the first group this is what they the two that they fell into now insha'Allah I'm going to go into بإدن الله الكريم what the other group fell into الطائفة التانية the second group what they fell into regarding the muslim leader now insha'Allah I want to show the great scholars the great scholars of Islam أئمة الهودة وما صابح دجال when they saw these narrations regarding going against the tyrannical leader how did they understand it I'm only going to mention the statement of what two great imams إن شاء الله I'm going to mention the statement of two great imams the first one is أليمام أحمد بن أحمد this is actually taken I've taken it from the كتاب الأداب الشرعية بن مفلح this first volume paid 195 to 196 and also the full story is narrated in the كتاب السنة by Al-Khalal I mean the قصة the story here is narrated in its length in the كتاب السنة by Al-Khalal the way I'm going to mention it إن شاء الله إن شاء الله حمل رحمة الله he said اجتمع فقهاء بغداد the jurists of بغداد they came together في ولاية الواتق at the time of الواتق واتق was one of the عباسي ليلة who called the people to خلق القرآن the Qur'an being created so they all came together the jurists these are the فقهاء of بغداد at that time is the capital of the مسلمين the big great scholars of Islam came together they all united to who إلا أبي عبد الله they came to يعني they came to رحمة الله وقالوا له they said to him وفشاء the matter has spread now أحمد أحمد the matter has spread it has gone to all over the world it's spread it's gone everywhere now it's gone over to all of the Muslim lands what are they referring to the matter when they say إن الأمر the amr here they talking about is إبهار القولي بخلق القرآن they are referring to the statement of the Qur'an being created this has now spread over the land ولا نرضى بإمارته we are no longer pleased with this man's leadership and we are no longer happy with his authority over us this individual الواثق who is now chosen to force يعني it wasn't just calling they are imposing on the people they are making the people say that the Qur'an is created this matter has now gone out it's gone out of hand أحمد in this issue has spread فناظرهم في دالك أحمد started to debate with them وقاله he said to them عليكم بإنكاري في قلوبكم Upon you is to reject this in your hearts يعني what did the professor say he said reject it right أحمد tell them tell them reject it in your hearts ولا تقلأوا ريادا من طاعتهم do not pull your hands back don't don't leave the obedience of this leader لا تشقوا عصة المسلمين do not divide the Muslims and break their ranks ولا تسفقوا دماءكم ودماء المسلمين معكم do not be a cause for your own blood to spill and the blood of your Muslim brothers don't do this and your brothers and your sisters don't let their blood spill and your own blood spill وانظرو في عقبة أمركم look at the final ending of this issue look at where it's going to lead to وصبروا be patient حتى يستريحة برون أو يستراحم be patient until the one who is obedient is going to find ease and an opening and the people are going to find ease and opening from the oppressive one وقال أحمد went on to say لي سهادة and this isn't what is he referring to نزع ايده من طاعته يعني pulling their hands back from his obedience أحمد said لي سهادة this is not صواب it's not the correct thing to do this goes against the text حنه here أحمد is saying going against a man who is calling the people to kufr أحمد believes خلق القرآن is kufr أحمد statement is clear the imams of Islam and the muslims are unanimous in agreement that the خلق the Quran is a خفر بالله العلي العظيم بل القي mentioned that 500 imams transmitted consensus in this matter يعني say جمع that the saying that the Quran has created is kufr with that being said واتق is imposing on the people it's been forced on the people it's been spread on to the people أحمد is saying going against this man opposing him uprising against him أحمد is saying لي سهادة صواب this is not correct هذا خلاف الأهثار this goes against the آهثار what is he referring to he's referring to the حديث that we mentioned by the way those are حديث are just little compared to the many other حديث so does it make sense to call yourself أثري and you say I am أثري مع ذلك you are in a position to the آهثار you are in a position to the what آهثار and then that statement it's the statement of أحمد رحمه الله what he said about this issue and how he understood the أحديث that we mentioned regarding going against the Muslim oppressive leader the second quote إن شاء الله I am going to give you is ألمام حسن البصري رحمه الله ألمام حسن البصري a man came to him and he said to him he said to أحمد he said to حسن البصري the man said to حسن البصري لقد كنتوا أعرفوا كثير القولي في الحجاج كنتون إعتemة حجاج أن ترحلتم Edit اعلم Moon قائل والدخان فقال الحسن ايه ملاهي بي الله ايسوي اني اليوم لا اتسوأ فيه رأيان Today I hold even a worse view regarding him و اكثر و اكثر عتبان And I blame him even more today و اشد دمان and I put him down even more now ولكن but لتعلم اعفاك الله but for you but no ما الله kill you سبحانه وتعالى from any harm and any problems ملاهي بي اتسوأ from harm and any problems ان جورة الملوك نقمت من نقام الله تعالى The oppression of the leaders is a punishment from the punishments of Allah و نقم الله and the punishments of Allah لا تلاقى بسيوفه it is not faced it is not responded with by the sword و انما تتقى وتستدفع ربي الدعائد The way to repel this oppression of this tyrannical leader and this punishment that Allah has sent to us سبحانه وتعالى is by what? By doing du'a to Allah سبحانه وتعالى و التوبة and repenting to him سبحانه وتعالى والإنابة returning back to Allah و عزي و جلّة والإقلاع والإقلاع يعني ذنوبي and also to free ourselves from our shortcomings ابنو الجوزي يشهد هذا في كتابه ادابه حسن البصري قدر 115 فهذا قدر حسن البصري يشهد رحمه الله وتعالى that the way to self the way that the self رحمه الله is that even that though this leader is an oppressive leader a criminal a tyrannical leader and he is doing so much mischief the self رحمه الله they believe to make du'a for that leader فالله تقايده بسبحانه وتعالى they also believed to repent to Allah سبحانه وتعالى they also believed to turn back to Allah سبحانه وتعالى they also believed to ask Allah سبحانه وتعالى for the removal of sins and the rectification of their own sins and the self رحمه الله if they actually feared and they were scared رحمه الله that the people are going to go against a ruler and is going to come from it evil and bloodshed and the honor of women and children and everyone becoming destroyed what the self رحمه الله they would do is to get rid of this or bring an end to this uprise and this protest they may even praise a person a leader they may praise him for that particular situation like for example حسن البصري رحمه الله he was asked about Hajj and when the uprise happened against حجاج ابن ويوسف and the people were going against him حسن البصري was asked at that moment he realized what he says to his people can change the course of many people's lives حسن البصري رحمه الله he said حجاج يتلو كتاب الله he reads the book of Allah ويعضوا وعض الأبرار and he gives reminders the reminders of the righteous people ويطعموا الطعامة and he feeds food to the needies ويؤثروا الصدقاء he chooses truthfulness ويبطشوا and he grabs بقش الجبارينة the grabbing of the oppressive ones قالوا فما ترى في القيام علي then they said to him what do you see in regards to going against him to uprise against him and then he said اتقوا الله حفي الله سبحانه و تعالى وطوبوا إليكم وطوبوا إليه وطوبوا إليه and repent to Allah سبحانه و تعالى يكفيكم جوره الله will suffice you from his oppression this you can find it in the Kitab دابه حسن البصري لبنور جوزي paid 107 to 118 so the Salaf رحمه الله that was their manhach that was their طريقة that was their way now insha'Allah و تعالى I want to go into the path of the other group of Ba'ifa to Tania the second group who also fell into extremism and insha'Allah و تعالى I want to point out how they fell into extremism with regards to the Muslim leader the first thing is اشتغالوا الدعات they visit the Muslim دعات the Islamic Duaats the people in Dawah they visit them with what بذكني محاسين الولات by sitting down and mentioning the good of a leader and praising him and going overboard in praising him in private sittings and public sittings you see them on social media on Twitter all day praising a particular country or a particular leader يعني consistently and going overboard and rather some of them go overboard by نظم الأشعار I mean poetry for him writing مقالات and تغليدات and tweets and virtues and claiming زوراً وبهتاناً وطبليلاً with ignorance calling this منهج that they've created and they've made up calling this منهج اهل السنة والجماعة saying that this is the methodology of اهل السنة والجماعة without a doubt لا شك أن هذا جهل بديين الله this really shows the ignorance of the religion of Allah سبحانه وتعالى وتقول على منهج itself and lying about the methodology of the self and it really goes against what ومخالفة صريحة لهادي علماء it goes against clear cut statements of the great scholars of Islam when it comes to the issue of the leaders whether that leader is oppressive or whether that leader is just an upright doesn't matter I'm going to quote a couple of scholars إن شاء الله وتعالى the first Imam I'm going to quote is الشيخ عبد الله رحمان أبا بطين رحمه الله he said وولي الامر the Muslim leader إنما يدع عليه we make dua'a for the Muslim leader لا يمدحو he's not praised and we make dua'a for the Muslim leader we say اللهم ماهده or Allah guide him that's what we say لكن لا يمدحو he's not praised لا سيما بما ليس في especially in that which is not in him I want you to understand the statement of Abu Boutain here he's saying لا يمدحو he's not praised that's unrestricted he's not praised لا سيما especially he said بما ليس فيه يعني he becomes even worse to praise him in that which he isn't so if you praise him in what he is then he said لا يمدحو he's not praised it's evil and then he said especially if you praise him in what he gets worse بما ليس فيه that which is in him وهؤلاء الذين يمدحونا وهؤلاء الذين يمدحونا وهؤلاء الذين يمدحونا في الخطبي those who are being praised in the khutab يعني the leaders are being praised in the khutab هم الذين أماتوا الدينة they're the ones who kill the religion يعني they kill this religion فما دحوهم مخطئ the one who's praising them is wrong فليس في الولاة اليوم أبا بطيني سدي there isn't in the leaders today من يستحقوا المدحة the one who deserves to be praised there's no leader who deserves to be praised ولا أن يثنى عليه وإنما يدعى عليهم but what we do is we make dua for them بالتوفيق والهداية that Allah gives them the ability to understand and the ability to follow the religion and guidance so look at this statement again he's saying فليس في الولاة there is not in the leaders today اليوم today من يستحقوا المدحة I want you to understand أبا بطين أشغب أبا بطين رحمه الله he's been a caber علماء دولة السعودية الثانية the second Saudi government and the second Saudi dollar was built by who? it was built by تركي بن عبد الله بن محمد بن السعود who died a year 1282 هجرية he's saying then that there is no one فليس في الولاة من يستحقوا المدحة that really shows the importance of understanding what is manhajussalaf in a matter and we were told to listen and we were told to obey we were told to not go against the Muslim leader who is tyrannical all of that is manhajussalaf because the messenger said it and that's what the salaf الصالح رضوان الله عليم أجمعين was upon as for sitting down and praising the leader especially sometimes in things that he isn't for example ليس من طريقة سالف الله this is not from the path of the salaf especially when Allah gets worse if he's praised for بما ليس فيه من صفان when the people praise him that which is not and this is what then makes manhajussalaf look like a تنظيم and makes it look like what it isn't this is what makes manhajussalaf among the salafi way look like what it isn't another quote إن شاء الله تعالى شيخ صالح الفوزان was asked وقد سؤل عن مدح الداعية للولاد أي مسلم داعي is praising the leaders he said يلزمه الصمت upon him to be silent وإذا أراد أنه يوبيين للناسي if he wants to clarify something to the people يوبيينه he clarifies to them أن حكم الإسلام طاعة ولاة الأمور he should clarify to the people that the ruling in the religion is tawat it is to obey the Muslim leader وسمع وطاع we listen to him and we obey him لهم بما أمر الله به وما أمر رسوله that we obey him the leader and we listen to the leader in that which الله سبحانه وتعالى commanded and that which is a messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and commanded والصبر على ما يحسل منهم من خطة إن لا يصل إلى حد الكفري and that we show patience to the mistakes that come from them as long as it doesn't reach disbelief that's what's upon us هذا من هدوث سلف as for praising الشخصالح الفوزان he said يلزب وخصمت one used to be silent be quiet الشخصالح الفوزان that's his statement الشخصالح على الشيخ he mentions a kalam which is jam a very comprehensive speech I'm going to read it on you إن شاء الله تعالى he said شخصالح على الشيخ وفقه الله he said أما الدعاء لولاة الأمور شيء والمدحو شيء آخر making dua for the muslim leader is one thing making dua for the muslim leader is one thing والمدحو شيء آخر and praising the muslim leader is something else المدحو لا يجوزه praising is not permissible لأنه يراد به الدنيا the one who's praising is looking for a worldly gain و أما الدعاء أسفد الدعاء فيراد به صلاح الدين والدنيا but the dua the aim for it is what to perfect this dunya for the leader himself and the people who is governing حديد آخر فالدعاء the dua he said is what فالدعاء مبعثه أمر شرعي للله the dua where it comes from is what it's rooted from is a commandment from الله و عز و جد يعني الله كمان لله سبحانه و تعالى و أما المدحو as for praising فلأهلي مقاصد و مختلفة the people have different objectives in why they praise the leader و لهذا العلماء and because of that the scholars يدعونا they make dua the scholars ولا يمدحونا they don't praise مدحن مطلقا an unrestricted praise قد يثني بعضهم بثناء إنخاص some of them may be praised in a specific restricted place مقايداً unrestricted لظهور فائدة because of a benefit that might become clear عمله و لي العملي that the Muslim leader might have done and so he makes a dua and I gave an example of حسن البصري he praised someone he said that was what evil he sought حجاج to be evil but when he saw the people going against him there was a maslaha for him to praise حجاج so the people don't go against him if there's a maslaha no problem if there's a maslaha a greater maslaha is going to be achieved no problem or the person is doing this so that it encourages the leader specifically in this restricted issue to do something better then no problem to make it a norm is the issue that we're talking about that your منهج your طريقة is wherever you sit where social media you've got the flag of a particular country on your Twitter the name of that country is on there you're always praising that country this is the word we're talking about look what he says لكن هذا على استثناء صالحة فوزان شخصالحة للشخص says this is an exception to praise him for a maslaha is an exception لي سقاعدة مطردة this is not an ongoing thing يثني لتسجيعه على القير you praise him to encourage him in good وترغيبه فيه وحثي عليه أم المدحر as for praising him فإنه ليس منصنيع صالحة صالحة this is not the way of the pious predecessors وإنما منصنيعهم the way of the salaf is الدعاء it's to make dua for them لأن الدعاء من ما يرجع به صلاحه دينه آخرة is what is desired for making dua for the leader the person when he makes dua for the leader it's يوم صلاحه الدنيا صلاحه دينه you're making dua for Allah to perfect this person's religion and of course if he becomes perfected then of course it's going to benefit the people who is governing وإذا صالح حجين ولي الأمر صالح به شيء كثير and if the religion of the leader becomes perfected then many of the things are going to be perfected like in these people their whole entire agenda سبحان الله is to praise a particular leader a particular country and they refer to this as من هدوث سلاح the way of the salaf the second thing that this extreme party fall into when it comes to the leader the Muslim leader is they consider some وطاع obeying and adherence only to a particular leader of a particular land أما ولاة المسلمين الآخرين as for all the Muslim countries their leaders they see that they can uprise against it they can speak about it rather some of them ولي لا سف الشديد they speak about other leaders of other countries they speak about them when on the other hand they claim to be calling to what السمع وطاع obeying and listening so what do they do they've actually combined between the two extremism these people they've combined between two extremism which is what praising one leader by going extreme and calling to the uprise and the خروج of another government or another system or another leader that's the truth and if they only stopped there it would have probably been better but what do they do they try to make usul for this they started to make usul but أصطل ويهادي وضلالة this misguidance of theirs they try to make ضوابط and usul from it by bringing a hadith and quotes here or there from the salaf filling it up with a book or a رسالة that they've written and this subhan Allah made the Da'wa Salafiyah the balanced way look well like what it's not and they falsely attributed this to the manhadi of the salaf from one of the greatest extremeism that they fell into which is أدقوا في فتن الدماء they entered into the fitna of blood والصراعات الداخلية بين الطوائف المتنازعة في بلاد المسلمين they entered into issues of another country for example Libya and they gave very to a particular group over another group and from their blood spilt happened something that Salafiyah أهل السنة were always known to be further from and called against not to call the people to fitna of blood but what did they do they entered into these issues they spoke about fitna الدماء والصراعات الداخلية بين الطوائف المتنازعة في بلاد المسلمين and they gave تشجي to a فريق على فريق and they said you are right you are wrong and then this caused blood amongst the Muslims and it caused none Muslims to enter the land and take the tharawat of the Muslims all under the what من هجو أهل السنة من هجو سلفي تعظيم روابق الجاهلية venerating and glorifying جاهلي bond إسلام came with the bond of Iman and Tawheed they've replaced that with the concept of مصطلح الوطنية ناشنلزم and they've pushed aside رابطة الديني والعقيدة in which the sharia came with they removed and put that aside which then allowed the liberalists and the secularists to come under your ناشنلزم your country شيخ بن عثيمير رحمه الله في نقاء داب المفتوحة في رقم 48 he spoke about this issue he said ثم إن الواجب يا إخواني that which is obligatory upon us brothers اللي نكون وطنيين which will not be nationalists وقوميين أي لا اللي نتعثب لقومنا we don't have fanaticism to our people and our country لأن التعصب الوطني قد ينضم تحت لوائه المؤمن والمسلم والفاسق والفادر والكافير والملحد والعلمانين والمبتدع والسنين under the term ناشنلزم many people fall under it أي مسلم أنن مسلم كافر ملحد and atheists a secularist a liberal liberalist أي مبتدع عن الانبيت السنية شيء لهم وطان يشملوا كل هؤلاء a country that is shared by everybody فإذا ركزنا على الوطنية فقط إبن وعثيمين says if we only focus on nationalism فهذا لا شك أنه قطير then the matter becomes very problematic becomes very dangerous لأننا إلى ركزنا على الوطنية because if we give our importance to focus on nationalism جاء إنسان مبتدع an innovator will come to us إلى إنسان سنين you come to a person of the sunnah وقال له I would say to him أنا وإياك مشتركاني في الوطنية you and I will share this country ليس لك فضل ولا لي فضل عليك ليس لك فضل عليك ولا لي فضل عليك I have no virtue over you and you have no virtue over me وهذا مبدأ خطير إبن وعثيمين says this is a very dangerous path and a very dangerous way في الواقع in reality والصحيح هو التركيز على أن نكون مؤمننا and that which is right is that we focus on being believers وقال في الشرح رياضة صالحين the first volume page 66 يقول حب الوطن loving your country إن كان if it is لأنه وطن الإسلامي if it is because it's a Muslim country فهذا تحبه then you will love that no problem لأنه الإسلامي is a Muslim country ولا فرقة but there is no difference بين الوطنية your country الذي هو مسقة رأسك ويو أبوان أو الوطن البعيد من بلاد المسلمين أو آخر فا مسلم كنجري there is no difference for you كلها وطن الإسلام لأنه all Muslim country يجب أن نحميه we should protect that Muslim country as well okay so this is a very important powerful statement that the concept of الوطنية and what it is إن شاء الله تعالى we will do a lecture on it and speak more details regarding it the extremism that they fall into is a سكوت عن المكرات إذا صدرت silence of if evil comes from إذا صدرت من المقربين من الولات والحكام if it comes from the Muslim leader if a sin is done a crime is committed and if something wrong is done they are silent about it and they won't say anything about that evil rather سبحان الله what's even shocking is sometimes they may even try محاولة تبريب to make excuses and they create وخلق العضاء they create excuses for the leader if they were only silent then maybe but they're not only silent they make excuses and they come out with justifications إنه اللي الليه وإنه الليه رجال number seven اتها مهم they start to suspect you ملاي وافقوم if you do not agree with them in a political stance regarding two countries that may have a conflict if you say I have nothing to do with this I don't enter these issues my men had never changed for a particular country or the fight and the battle of a country my دعوة is nothing to do with a country has nothing to do with countries my دعوة is based on the Qur'an and the sunnah once you say that they start to throw at you what they start to throw at you accusations and they start to call you اخوانيون صروريون حزبيون they start to call you مسلسلوا لا ينقطعوا من التوهن suspicions and accusations that have no ending or because you didn't agree with them in their political stances it's like that they taken the innovated political concept which is known as if you are not with me you are against me I'm going to conclude there إن شاء الله تعالى anything which I have said that was wrong or incorrect is from me and Shaytan and Allah has messaged me I'm free from it سمحانك الله و بحمدك أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله أستوفروا كواتوبوا لي السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته how can you do a two second action right now that will give you a share of the reward of everything we're doing on this YouTube channel simple like this video and click subscribe why it will allow YouTube to recommend our videos to other users and imagine the huge amount of reward that could be waiting for you on the day of judgment if you did that with a sincere intention of spreading the Dean of Allah you'll be rewarded for every single person who benefits from one of our videos as a result of your like or subscribe that's an easy two second action that you definitely don't want to miss out on do it now click like and subscribe and don't forget to make that intention