 What about religious toleration? This to this day, I get surprised by this. I couldn't remember the first time I read this. I was so surprised. So Muslim scholars had a debate. They talked about this issue because it happened. What happens if there's a Zoroastrian in Zoroastrianism, and this is true. This was true in Zoroastrianism up until the 1300s. You can have brother-sister marriage and father-daughter marriage and mother-son marriage. Actually it happened. It wasn't just a theory. It actually happened. And so the question was, can a Muslim judge, let's say a brother-sister-married couple Zoroastrians come to the Muslim judge. Can the Muslim judge adjudicate their marriage? Let's say they have some dispute over maintenance or property. The answer is the majority answer for Muslim scholars is yes, you can. Even though this is something that is completely haram in Islam, the Muslim judge, he said, this is your religion. You have your religion. I have my religion. I disapprove of it. I don't accept it, but I acknowledge you have this right. Similarly, if people who weren't Muslims had riba contracts, Muslim, if you have a riba contract, is invalid contract. No judges. It's like having a drug dealer is coming and saying, you know, he cheated me out of my cocaine shipment or something. Judges aren't going to listen to that. The same thing in Islamic law if you have riba contract. But if it was people who are not Muslim who have riba contract, Muslim judges had no problem adjudicating it. Even Sati, the widow self-immolation, the tradition, especially amongst the Rajputs in India, where a Rajput noble woman, when her husband died in battle, she would throw herself on the funeral pyre. And you can go, if you go to some of these old cities in Rajasthan, India, you can see on the walls of some of the big fortresses, these hand prints in Henna, where women would put their hand print on the wall as they were going out to throw themselves on the pyre. And of course, it's a very controversial, and in fact, the British ended up banning it in 1829 and still to this day, and people will talk about this, and it's still a very controversial practice. Muslims allowed it. On one condition, you had to get the permission of the Sultan. We know this in the case of the Delhi Sultanate, the Delhi Sultans allowed this. But you had to get permission of the Sultan. Why? Because the Sultan Muslims have a rule. We will allow non-Muslims to practice their religion amongst themselves, even doing things that we think are haram, like drinking alcohol and raising pigs and marrying brothers and sisters and having ribbit contracts. But nobody, as long as no Haqadimi, as long as no one's rights are being violated. So let's say there's a religion where it's okay to go up and just knock someone on the head with a tack hammer and take their money. No, that's not okay, because this is violation of acknowledged rights that people have. You have right to property. That's a human right in Islam. You have a human right to property. But if the woman herself wanted to do this, if she wanted to throw herself on the pyre, the Muslim sultan, at least the evidence we have, there's not a lot of it, but at least the evidence we have says that they didn't have Muslim rulers had no problem if they did this. This is a level of toleration. Imagine, imagine in America today, American court acknowledging brother, sister marriage. American courts don't even acknowledge polygamous marriages. So this is a level of Muslims are very serious when they talk about religious liberty.