Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
They can say no, I know him well enough to say
no, no, no, when the pom poms lesson was alive, there was no need for anyone else to be able to do judgment on him when they were reciting the Quran when they go to the person who said that would.
Surely that is clear and concise. So what's the problem?
By definition, Sharia is an attempt to understand the Quran
during your previous
I'm a different person while I'm saying, Let me be clear 65
Yeah, well, let me hide the ones who have never had men straight before. If we say that this means
a pre mature, pre that have not had periods before. Yeah, we can accept this. No problem. Yeah, I'll accept that person at that interpretation. I'll say fine. What does it say in the verse that they can have sex with the man? It doesn't say that. As I said before, the Quran makes it explicitly clear in total.
It says that, if in the Quran, it says that if you have touched her, then you have if you have touched her, then you don't have to give her mother back. In other words, her dowry back. If you haven't touched her, then and you divorce her, then you don't you don't have to get you give him a motorbike. In other words, it's conceivable to excuse me, it's conceivable to marry and not touch. Yeah. And that is a form of marriage, which existed, it's actually not a marriage, is that in vernacular term, referred to as a contract of some sort. So I'm saying is this.
no problem is the opposite. Yeah.
Exactly. Thank you very much. Someone who understands a little bit of what I'm trying to say. Here.
He's, he's a
he's a young he's a young man. He's obviously all the ladies are very attractive. Very attractive. Now.
The eyes of the beholder. Okay, so having said that, what I'm trying to say is this is that, so when the Quran says, Well, let me let me hit
on this is that if we put jamaa dilla, or put all the deletes, together, which we have to do apart the method, then you'll find that the Quran says, Yes, the ones you you have never had personally, but it also says what he says.
Which is that which means you can't harm or reciprocate harm, which is the principle that everyone uses to say that you can't have intercourse with children with someone who's unable. The second thing they use is they use the fact that profit waits before he did it with Ayesha, so what was the point of the wait? are we are we are we assuming Yeah.
For those marriages that don't contain sexual relationship, because
so we had this discussion before, there's some things that are not in the Constitution. The Quran is a lot of Constitution and the Hadith is like the loose
elaboration. That's why I say to call on the Lord actually made this argument you're making I said that if you only took her Quranic understanding, then it would be permissible for you to have sex with minors.
We wait to get away from that is to have Hadeeth expansion if you only took the Quran, you're right. If the Quran was the only thing I have a video on this was crying aloneness. If you only looked at the Quran, based on the verse in the Quran 65. It would be permissible to have sex with minors. But what I'm saying is that we don't just say put on. So we take
and as a result of that, because of the actions of a Prophet and his saying that you can't harm anyone. The jurists have says, For example, I've mentioned with deli in Brooklyn soft and his chapter of Hadoop. He mentions anyone who has sex with
someone who's under the age of puberty, in marriage.
in marriage, they're whipped. So in other words, they're flogged in public. Now the question isn't as cold as he said, the humblest colors are different. Some said that they are whipped and some say they're not whipped. The point is, is that why is he talking about punishment? in marriage? Yeah, so so this is something What I'm saying is Islam is actually the only religion and my understanding is first of the Abrahamic religions, which makes it so explicitly clear
They are in fact having intercourse with unable people, whether they be minors or not, by the way, because it can be someone who's mentally, mentally Oh, by the way, like in the law now, can I ask you a question? How tough sex of a 75 year old? Me? Yeah.
Well, if I had I guarantee if I say, Sorry, but not from me.
Listen, I'm what I'm saying is what is illegal is how long though is how long?
What I'm saying is that
the one size fits all policies. Okay. 1516. And by the way, I don't care about that. I'm not even against the age of consent. But I'm saying that there should be should be more nuanced.
Look, no problem. I'm saying it's
no problem. I'm saying that look, in the day and age we live in now. I actually would, I would pose it to you. And I made this argument before, we said that look, because there's more than one factor is as a matter of wish to have control which means ability. It's a matter of which
means scholarly ability and to the sun.
So you suggested that the Quran in some places only needs extra Jesus in the scholars come together, and you said some Arabic words and they come together. And so I'm asking over time, so at the time of the Prophet, obviously, there weren't huge schools of electrical or scholars that were just
believers. So as time goes on,
obviously, they're human. But do you imagine that those things are heavily influencing their scholarly Yeah, 100%. And they should do as well? Because here's what here's what people don't understand. Here's what people don't understand about I just want to say to you before his honesty, as you look, every environment is different. Okay? Islam is not the Islamic law is not a rock, in the sense that is an malleable and flexible
in the sense that there is a degree of elasticity, and that's what a soul is all about, is to see okay, what works well, in this situation, what counts as harm in this situation? What counts as necessity in this situation? And the answer to that question is different. So for me now, if you if I bring someone my man, I say, look, go to primary school. Yes. Yeah, yes. a five
year five year 610 11 year olds, yeah, we go to those ages. And up to you, I promise you anywhere in London anywhere in the UK, or any of these kids ready for marriage? Absolutely not.
the reason why is listen to this, we would both say that it contradicts your ability Yeah. So I would harm them Yes. Okay. Anything that harms anybody is not allowed to get married Yeah, it's not
the kind of that we have which is similar to a liberal thing is the primary thing that we would
this is what I say to you look, this is what cool Shrek consequentialism Yeah, cuz the question why is it wrong top six or one year old forgot about explain that I'd say physically it's damaging morally is disgusting. Yeah. Within the context of God's law, but he's not prescribed good anyway. But if the picture for a second, morally
now, I'm sorry to say, we love Jesus as well. Now we do.
The same person
Never didn't have a discussion. All right, but was gonna say she says is that look,
if it's you're saying this wrong, primarily because of the harm the consequences of it, right. Okay.
Perfect. No, I totally agree with you. Right. So all I'm saying is that if this I let we'll call it causative reasoning did not exist, and it wouldn't be wrong. No, if nobody ever saw the wrong, perfect, so it's consequentially wrong. It's wrong as
a gut reaction is disgusting. But if you can Intuit something which is called a question the wrong something which is intuitively wrong is not always. It's not always categorically wrong. Now you can have something not explain you've got something which is intuitively wrong, what consequentially? Well, you can have something
Why is consequentially wrong, which means it's wrong because x y Zed.
You can explain why. Right? Now, I'm saying that with that explanation, I agree with you. If you don't have the explanation, then we say it's not one anymore. Therefore, therefore, therefore, what I'm what I'm posing to you is a scientific approach. I'm saying
into that if the person's ages 15
Yeah, it could be wrong. Depending on that person. If she's 16, it could be wrong.
If you got a 16 year old, I'm saying it could be wrong. Yeah. And it could be right. Depending on that person.
It could be wrong. It could be wrong. could be wrong, right? Depends on what the variable depends on if it harms them or not. But legally, legally, we decide that a minimum, what do you get is a different story.
In this country, by the way, yes.
14. Well, yeah, no problem.
No problem. So what I'm saying to you is this is that, if you say it's wrong, because of the fact. Yeah, yeah. Perfect. Yeah. I'm saying to you, I agree with you. Look, Islam agrees with you. Yes, I'm abusive. So I'm saying so long as that course is not then or more, then we can't say it's wrong.
always looks like Yeah, but it's not always the same.
Because you don't yet know what society is decide, like you said, Yes.
To ask a question, because if you really think about that, hey, you know, when did this change it change the night? 29? Yeah, yeah. When you had the marriage act 2012, two
times women didn't mention, anyway until around no problem. But the point is, here's what I'm saying to you before the age of 48 1929 for that parent, or legal paradigm shift. Now, when I was 12 years old, yeah. If you look at it, the marriage act 1929 was 12 years old before that time. What I'm saying to you is that wasn't the case, are all women that were having intercourse at that age were harmed? I would, I would suggest all of them 100%.
Correct. It's just there's no evidence for
The burden of proof is on the one who's making the claim
that you're asking the question, were they all damaged? And I would say, okay, maybe someone's claim they were 15 years old, and 364 days, maybe they were so so that's a ridiculous claim.
Under 16, are not not emotional. But in general.
You're, you're still thinking as quickly.
I'm saying to you, look, if you get an 11 year old testimony at the end the air
no problem. But if you're saying that is the case, that there was whites kill epidemic harm of women because of that all men for them? Ah,
can I just finish this point? The point is that
it's quite damaging, no problem.
I'm what I'm saying is, you can't possibly prove all women under the age of 16. Not having said that, if you go to it, what you have to do is a story. And then
let me give you
Do you mind if I just finished a sentence, please?
Just let me finish the sentence. And then you can say what you want. why I'm saying is this is that
if you wanted to do a historical project, which is done in many universities, in London, in the UK, in the US in the Western world, the effects of let's say, preteen marriage. Yeah. For the sake of argument, the effects of pre teen preteen marriage on women or girls or what have on females? mutual language? Do you suppose that within those societies that can I just finish?
Do you find
any studies? No, no, just let me finish I'm saying you would have to like what I'm telling you what you would do academically you'd make
good? No, I'm giving you an example. Right? So you'd have something like the effects of pre teen marriage on x society and go on females and exercise it from a from time to time white, then you'd have to go and get micro historical reports of like diary entries. I was so hot harmed and whether, you know, I'm saying to you, if you can produce this evidence, and actually take into consideration the contents.
That's the point. That's impossible. Right. Exactly.
Brilliant. So we have come to conclusion now. So if it's not old, then it's conceivable possibly that 1000 years ago, that 10 910 year old would not be harmed in these ways. That's That's what I'm saying. That's what we're saying.
That's all we need to say.
We recently arrived
so the argument here
is very important. So the argument here is
ministry. It shows that Islam Yeah. What is he this?
I'm gonna answer 22 minutes. Two seconds. Look at the camera. Okay, you guys ready?
Okay, the prophet was marriage.
Yes. Okay. Before the profit cosmic marriage at night.
We want to make our kids happy. Eight,
seven and a half. Yeah.
eight, okay. Okay. Now, we believe
if the profit divorce I shop at the age of seven. This promise you can see in action. Why? Because Firstly, the for marriage contract. Secondly, the prophet divorced her before she was menstruating. Yes. So your argument here that the Quran says that
he's going he's going through other scholars and I'm seeing you very clearly the prop is marriage to Asia. You know, when we said the interference for a guild that's not menstruating, they can who is using this argument to say that basically you can have intercourse with a girl. That is
what the Quran says. Okay, so I am By the way,
guys, please do remember that.
David was Korea finish by
Okay, so the Prophet married I shot at six, and he consummated at night. If we believe that she started ministering under the Prophet divosta at the age of seven. She is a woman that's been divorced is no ministry at
I just thought we completed quite nicely but 65 plus years ago.
So I can interpret that and so can everybody else.
past two menstruation is pregnant or during her menstrual
that you guys are trying to see that the prophet SAW. mentioned the Prophet wants to thank you very much. So in the Quran, it says that when you divorce, and he says
either you got my point and you don't like it because I believe this issue between six and nine the three year gap is so troubling for David Wood, but he had to do a
no problem. So what it shows us very clearly is that when you divorce a woman that is not menstruating,
understand when you get married, and consummation happens, it's technically perfect. You can have a contract with the Prophet even
was perfectly it was