Mohammed Hijab – Feminist Contradictions – Malaysia Lecture 2019
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
For
you please start off this very evening by the stoic salutations and purchasing you also
got your money on every single one of
my dear friends, today's event is very simply put on a poster that we have seen abundantly, whether it was through social media through a poster or through word of mouth with a very close friend.
Equality and equity equality or equity. dictionaries or definitions have been very much seek it out in different ways. For example, when we keep on speaking of equality, the mistake of being equal, especially in status, rights and opportunities are going to be completely different and we start talking about equity is certainly not the value of shares issued by a company. However, it is truly the value and tricks of being fair and impartial. equity and equality are two very important strategies. Together. Exact same effort can make us promote and achieve fairness. However, what is the problem? What is the problem when it comes from a religious perspective? Are we talking about
equality and equity animals that human beings? Are we talking about equality and equity between men and women? Are we talking about equality and equity between two different parties that are you really busy? Now, these questions I'm quite sure are running through your mind as you pretty much already put in front.
Please rest assured that all your questions, especially questions from our friends from different faiths are prioritized because this event is demanding questions that can help us reach a place of comfort, and really try as much as possible to make sure that we know what it is we're grasping, and what it is that we are being answered from or to our various standard speaker. rulers who haven't been paid yet AJ, as discussed earlier and have more and more phenomenal talks. Previously, we today have our very speaker humbler who is a debater and a public speaker, who engages in discussions and political on wide variety of topics including religion, politics and society.
He completed a politics degree and a master's in history from Queen Mary University. He has taught in the structure courses on humanities, and languages in a context. He has numerous ejss in some Islamic sciences and has descended multiple Islamic seminars, including Bishop Beatty Institute, which employs a traditional mortarion organic style of teaching the sacred Sciences
is currently doing further postgraduate research in Islamic Studies at s OAS, University of London. Right after the events inshallah we'll be opening the floor for question answers, please do prepare them. And as it is very much clear on the bottom right corner, we have a form, or you can simply submit your questions through for the ushers will help you out with filling out a form and it will pass out so to speak.
Thank you very much and peace.
So the question of equality, or equity.
And whether one entails the other that's the crux of the question, especially in relation to gender, or *, or both. And we'll come to describing the distinctions between those categories. If there are,
this lecture is gonna be divided into three different parts in sha Allah. The first part is going to be an examination of the first principles of feminism, and of traditionalist Islam.
And the second part of this lecture will be what I deem are in consistencies in the application of those first principles. And the third part of this lecture, we'll be talking about what's referred to as intersectional feminism.
And that's going to be an important part of this lecture. And it's important for the Muslim community to know what that means, and how
it can be effective, both for us and how it's contradictory in many ways, as well.
So to draw kind of like
a generic sketch of
what second wave in particular second wave feminist assumptions
Until,
and I've made this point before in many other lectures. The idea is that there are biological and anatomical differences between men and women. But despite those differences, a second wave feminists would argue, like Simone de Beauvoir famously argued, there should be equality of opportunity. This is the presupposition.
Now, before I start talking about this in more depth, it's important to note that feminism and women's rights are not interchangeable terms. Feminism is a political ideology, which most of which has, has its writings based in the Western Hemisphere.
Some say it's divided into three waves. And it has its own conceptions of women's rights. It does not have a monopoly of that. So you can have a non feminist understanding of, of women's rights. And that's a possibility because
to argue otherwise, we'll be arguing actually in the circle will be a circular argument. So
when we say as Muslims, that there are tensions and contradictions, and this will, this is definitely something we're going to put forward today, between especially second wave feminist discourse, and traditionalist Islamic discourse.
This is an important note to make, that we are not saying that from a traditional Islamic perspective, from our perspective, as Muslims, we are against women's rights, we cannot say this, because the Quran is very clear about the fact that women's rights is a project
is something that Muslims must adhere to,
just like men's rights, just like the deities, rights, laws, rights, animal rights, and so on.
And so a Muslim cannot say we're against women's rights, this is actually counter textual goes against the sacred Texas, the sacred texts, for example. Well, lots of Hana hotel is no Quran in the La la,
in the Quran, or bakuman. But that certainly Allah does not lead to waste.
Any deed of those who does good from you,
whether you're a man or a woman, and both of you are from each other.
In other words, there is an equality in spiritual opportunity between men and women in Islam.
And that even is a general equality in front of the law.
Because the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam he says, in them, and he said he Hi corrigin. And he said this in a context where a woman was doing, the prophets wife was doing with all and she asked, Is it the same for men and women? So he turns around, he says, certainly, in the money cell, Jihyo agenda is the same for men and women, women, men and women are equal in this regard, meaning in front of the law. Now, this is a general equality. But of course, the tensions will arise when we say, Well, hold on, there are exceptions.
according to Islamic jurisprudence, for example, what women wear is different to what women want men wear.
There is a, from an Islamic perspective, a justified binary between men and women, we should start by saying that, that we do believe in the category of men and the category of woman, and that there are certain regulations that apply to men that don't apply to women and vice versa. And those are the exception to the rule of equality.
Now, if you pick up a like a,
maybe
a popular book on feminism, like there's one that when we go to in the UK, a bookstore, bookstore, there, they're almost like right next to that where you're going to pay the money for the book. So it's like forcing you to buy this book a, it's a new popular, it's not really an academic work. It's called the feminist Manifesto, by negozi. She's very famous now in terms of popular feminists. And in the front, like things, the first five pages or something, she candidly makes it clear that we believe in an absolute equality
where there's no exception whatsoever.
There's no exception whatsoever. And I think she made the exception of breast milk. And she talked about breast milk might be an exception, but this that and the other.
Right. Now.
This brings us to our first point
in examining especially second way feministic discourse is clear the premises
The premises there are physical differences. Simone de Beauvoir makes that candidly clear. There are physical differences between men and women, we know them.
We're not ignorant to them. She even mentions emotional differences. In her book, the second *. And her chapter on biology, she says, even biological differences, anatomical differences, physiological differences, psychological differences, emotional differences. But the argument goes as follows despite those differences, there should be equality.
Does that make sense so far? So a second way feminists would say, despite those differences, there should be equality afforded what kind of equality, political equality, social equality, economic equality.
This is pretty much in a nutshell, what the argument is, obviously, one could justifiably ask, what's the proof of that? What's the evidence for that? Why should that be the case? How is that entailment made?
from first principles? First of suppose How can you justify that?
And that's really not a question that there is any answer to, frankly, or that there is any formula given for us on how to answer those questions.
However,
and this is moving on now to the second part of the lecture, which I want to spend a little bit of time on.
Are we consistent?
Or are feminists consistent?
In particular, second wave feminists? Are they consistent in the application of those principles? Now, there are three things three life examples I want to give you.
To show you how problematic these assumptions are for feminists. The first one relates and I'm sure many of you might have been exposed to this.
It's a big thing on the news. Now Actually, that's what I'm bringing up is the idea of transgendered sports. Now, I'm not sure if this is kind of spill over to Malaysia.
But this is certainly something a hot topic in the West in America in the UK, Western Europe. The question is, say for instance, you have someone who identifies and who is identified biologically, as a man, they do a gender reassignment surgery, and they become
self identified as a woman.
Okay, so they do a gender reassignment surgery, and they become self identified as a woman.
Can they participate in sports with women? Now, second, wave feminists, on the whole seem adverse to the idea. Now you can't make a generalization with anything. But big time second wave feminists, like Germaine Greer, who wrote the book in 1971, the female Eunuch, she's like one of the founding
mothers of feminism.
And she, in an interview, she completely rejected the idea. And guess what she invoked?
She invoked anatomical and biological advantage. Wait a minute.
Hold on now.
Hold on. Now.
Let me hear the argument. So the argument goes, that sense since the person and this is a very sensical argument to me, as a non feminist, right,
the argument goes, since men have anatomical, biological advantages, hormonal advantages, and even having gone through that process.
And then the assignment, the gender reassignment happens, if they now compete with women, it will give them an unfair advantage, and it will give them an entitled over privileged position in that context. Wait a minute, this is important now.
I thought you said * was a or not * because that's a third wave construct. Some say that * is a social construct, Judith Butler hinted to this in her book gender troubles 1990 but not this, some do say that.
I thought you said gender was a social construct.
No.
And you know, it becomes even more problematic.
You know, when it becomes more problematic, when we start to see.
So the question is now should there be an equality of opportunity
for men and women
in certain sports,
should we or should we say
aggregate and separate them.
You don't like segregation, but you have it in sports. But no, it's justified for anatomical and biological reasons. So you're saying that on biological and anatomical grounds, you can justify separation?
What holds hold on now, but men will be given an advantage? Why don't you make that argument in all context of categories? For instance, if you look at the 100, meter dash?
And I made this argument before, I'll make it again, the 100 meter sprints the last 100 years, I don't know of one white man, who's one that
no, I don't know. I don't know if one white man has one that is dominated by black people, not only just black people, West Africans, and Jamaicans
should we separate the blacks and the whites?
Now, if you say, we shouldn't separate the blacks and the whites, you're contradicting yourself, you know why? Because you said, In cases where there is biological and anatomical advantages, for one category of person, over another category of person, there should be separation. So why should that be the case only for gender? why shouldn't it also be the case for race? Because you be called racist? This is selective invocation.
You see, they are not even consistent with that principles.
East Africans are very good at long distance. You know, we have someone called Mo Farah, very good runner, you know,
they have an advantage, as Africans bodily they have a bodily advantage. Why people have an advantage in something swimming. And I don't want to be controversial, but I've never seen a black man when that swimming race I was at Michael Phelps. How many times do you want it?
Well, we're going to separate the blacks from the whites, we're not going to separate the blacks and the whites. So what kind of equality do you want?
So some feminists would say we want equality of opportunity. And some would actually say we want equality of outcome.
All right. So some would say we want an equality of opportunity.
But almost all feminists would say that, in fact. So why don't you have an equality of opportunity? In schools?
Why don't we arrange parameters, that mean that people have the same weights, whether there are men and women, they go together?
in competitions?
We can do that. It's not difficult.
It's not difficult.
in boxing, for example, you don't think there's 75 kilogram woman? That's the most popular category for men. Let's bring them together. Fight. You want equality of opportunity? No, but that's Vantage man. But what he said the anatomical thing, you see is really problematic. You have segregation, acquiesce segregation.
In some states, where the feminists we need,
we need to stand against this. Seriously, if you're, if you're principally averse to a biological anatomical arguments are range parameters, which does not discriminate on gender and the field of sports. But they will never do that. Because it's not about equality. It's about entitlement.
It's about where can we find the advantages? That's the problem.
And this case becomes more exacerbated. When we look at war.
We need to rectify the social ills and problems
of the past patriarchal society.
And we need to have equality of opportunity
in all spheres in all industries, political, social, and economic. There should be absolutely no exception to that, but what
that entails death that entails injury.
We don't really know about that one.
I've never actually come across
and movements.
The aim to rectify a historic
accumulation
of gender
Discrimination against men in the field of war.
Almost every military, in every country in the world in all of history has been male dominated men have died. Now, if we're being honest, we should say that's a severe matriarchy, you have forced men to be society inclined or forced to kill themselves and fight themselves.
So for the protection of the country, so on feminism, if there's an equality of opportunity, we should address that historic discrimination. And we should look at all the wars that men was dominating the armies in them. And we should have female only conscription
and draft forcing the women to fight for the men for at least the amount of time that would equalize the historic imbalance. No, but Brother
What about the dangerous jobs
which have been flooded?
by males? men?
Is that hlt? Or is that actually a matriarchy? What should we call that men have felt the need to go to
mining jobs?
There all kinds of dangerous work for the most part, so if we're gonna go with the equality, fairness,
shouldn't we rectify that? The problem is guys, it's just too selective. You choose want to be absolutely equal, and you choose your own exception.
This is the problem.
So these are some clever examples of inconsistency is even using the first principles of feminism, even using exactly what they're talking about.
Now, we want to set up our discussion.
I want to talk about something which recently has come about which is called intersectional feminism.
And this is coined a term which is called by someone called Kimberly Crenshaw.
And the feminists have had
a battery
from different groups from within,
because of the
colonialist, and white supremacists inclination. So in the beginning, as you know, first wave feminism was concerned with universal suffrage, it was concerned with giving women the right to vote, which is a fair enough thing. I mean, I don't think anyone in this room will have any problem with that, you know, women have the right to vote, women have the right to vote, whatever, I don't even vote myself. I don't care about voting. But, you know, it's not something we care about, you know, whatever.
The point is this.
In the 60s, many black people black feminism is kind of like a movement. One of the main people I think is still alive, and it was Bill hooks. She wrote many books talking about the fact that really The truth is, the experience of second wave feminism has been a wild experience. It doesn't include the black woman.
And it doesn't include the and the privilege and so on. And so there was hovering from within was a ton of photos colonial feminism.
The idea that this is actually the ideas of white women wanting to privilege themselves they don't really care about in their books and their articles in academic academic pieces. They weren't making the argument for women of color, they were lacking in the literature, lacking in movement, lacking altogether. Think about it the first way feminism was a time when Britain was an empire. But there was never a coup for decolonization of the common human. For example, me this comes to this colonized by the British Empire that time wasn't only in 1957 was it freed from the shackles of colonial administration
So at that time, why would the White feminists in America and in Britain, and in France say, Well, you know, are women in Malaysia, and Indonesia, and India and Africa, they need to be free.
In fact, they were saying opposite things. They were saying
that we How can you get black people to vote before you give us the vote, and so on, and they were making racial comments about the aborigines about black people are all kinds of things it was raised to a large extent, and I explained this to one of my lectures is called the dark face of feminism on YouTube, if you want to watch it, it's done and the dark face of feminism, some of the history of early feminism, but because of the fact that they were kind of battered from within, right.
So they will force around like, say, 70s, or 80s, or something right? To consider this idea of intersectional feminism. So intersectional feminism considers not only gender, it says that the way a person identifies themselves is not primarily reduced to gender, they might and this is true, they might identify themselves according to race,
religion, race, class, and sexuality. Usually they focus on
race, class and sexuality. Yeah, we they they will say,
they will say that we have to consider all of these entangled and interlocking
identifiers. We can't just think about race, sort of think about gender anymore. We have to think about agenda in conjunction with race, we have to think about gender in conjunction with class and so on.
And so on this thesis of black woman, say, for instance,
I don't know, you know, Zambia, or something. Yeah. Who is underprivileged? in her own society, she is of the proletariat, she's working class, she's a completely different category
than a white woman.
There are two separate categories.
If that two separate categories, they should be looked at differently, according to this, and it's true. Why are we only looking at one parameter gender? Why?
So the issue with the intersectional feminism is that's a contradiction, because we prioritize them though, when you say feminism.
What, who gives you the right to say feminism?
Why have you prioritize? Now, first thing to say, on their worldview, is they believe in self possession.
And they believe in self determination would be
the first thing to say would be let the woman decide
what she's, the man decides what they think, yes, what they think are the most important identifies for them in the order that they think is most important for them.
But this is a hierarchy
which is superimposed by colonial feminist discourse, in other words, white feminists in England, and in the USA, and in France,
as if they're saying,
Let us ask prioritize your ideas for you.
The most important thing you have to think about your analysis is gender. Then after that, maybe it's race. Maybe it's cost and the monsters will have something different to say about that. And you know, I read it, you would have something different to say about that, and so on. Yes.
But why are you making the hierarchy? You can either write to prioritize gender.
No one gives you the right to conduct a survey. If you really want to be fair on your own worldview.
I don't know million million women. Yes. And ask them in order. What are the things you want to identify as the most? So for example, if the Malaysian let's say that one region, number two nationality, number three gender, for example, right? Then you have no right to say to her that she should be a feminist because our house view
on how worldview she has prioritized religion over and above Gender Analysis. The thing about intersectional feminism is it has a propensity to philosophically self implode.
Just like democracy.
So in other words, if you really want to give someone the opportunity
to make a decision for themselves, when they make a decision, which falls in line with a dominant discourse of some source, you have to leave them. You can't tell him now, no, you should always prioritize this. What is there is a tension and contradiction between white feminists understanding of gender Eurocentric understanding of gender and Islamic understanding of gender, which there are, what should you do?
On intersectional? feminism justice?
So, the question we usually ask guys, and they usually ask us, is how can we accommodate for feminism?
That's the question. And they force people, you know,
Islamic feminism is to come to the status of society, and also to do anything, but they might not be doing great work. I'm not sure
if there is one.
But there isn't.
The point is this.
Well, I just say no.
Right? So the point is this.
If you give her the choice, as she says, actually prioritizes religion over your conception of gender,
then
the question, therefore is, how should
accommodate feminism? So the question is, how should feminism accommodate for Islam?
Yes, it's not how she
will accommodate sorry. That's how that's my personal choice.
And there's so
many women will also really
what is a contradiction?
We will prefer religious narratives over and above Eurocentric feminists did once.
And you have to allow that. And if you disagree with that, you will get your own principles, your colonialist. You want to bring up you want to go to force, your fundamentals, your fundamentals.
You have your own understanding of patriarchy, which you've already showed us.
But let's go with it.
It is true.
And feminism is truly giving women the right to self determination, then it should allow a woman to consent to being in a patriarchal structure. Wait a minute, that sounds a bit like a poo, right?
Well, that's how it is my friend.
If yes, it's tokenism
purports to give women the right to make their own decisions, if they decide to live within patriarchal structures, that is actually in line with symbolism.
And if your job was to make a woman to make her own decision that you will
leave us alone. Your job is done.
If you want to free the space for a woman to make a decision, then when she makes a decision which goes against your central narrative. Don't be disappointed. Leave them alone.
Don't be disappointed.
That's how it is.
Obey the husband.
What did you say now that you're trying to manipulate the crowd
magnifies manipulate the crowd. By the way, this whole idea of being obedient to the husband is a character to one.
Yes, it is an orientalist caricature of the idea of a very
nice a look, because it's
exhausting, exorcising them, traveling delighting them.
And the Muslims. What is this woman there in shackles and the man she is? What happens in
court? Is this do you think this is what happens in Islamic households? Nobody.
That's what they say.
You know,
obedience is severely
curtailed.
I'll tell you a few things. It's not just for the non Muslims to know about Islam. Islamic ethos, the professor's left often
Looking for massive Park. Number one, you cannot obey the creation and the disobedience.
This is a very important principle. It's not
overlooked. Do you think that Muslim men can just tell the woman to go and do this? is against the plan?
I'm not going to do it. You do it.
It's against the law.
I made you only here
to advise me on what you think the law says if I agree with you. I will, yes. Okay.
If you say something, go drink alcohol. Let's go take care. And this happens by the way, take your jacket off.
Some Dale's husband says this to his wife.
So the problem here is they think that
this idea which
is fully
in function, no, it's not. What about if it goes against?
What there's no constraints?
So if you go
to marriage, by the way, she doesn't have to chicken, if she doesn't like money, and that decision the family has taken, she could take that money. It's not? Well,
that's why it was by the way, there's no form of feminism. So if Jesus is
I don't want to work.
myself, Oh, he's got a vehicle. I'm going to pay off the bill. You pay off the bill. Jesus, I'm not really interested in that.
Because law, civil law, you have to be obedient to me.
Carmen says sense. And there are
a plethora of examples for there is an aspect.
And there's something else I should mention is if it goes against bullying,
there's no harm in reciprocating.
So he says go to Mr. folder.
I don't know where the setting is.
Either to follow something
obedient Scotsman
have to lift the boulder?
Yes.
It
just knows that she goes and just lift the Boulder. Just do she has fallen back over.
It's not this is not
in line with the conception of law to the husband. What is talking about was as a consultation process, which by the way, and there are some tenants, right.
And then he decides to overcome adjustment
issues whether a B and C category.
Gets equality, my friend, there should be a perfect democracy on feminism.
There should be 50 50% in decision making.
This is the objection
50 50% decision making.
So what if what would that trade gridlock Tell me what parliament in the world offers?
You the every partner tries to forge a majority even even the ones are made was proposed a representation Israel rather than a systematic OPR.
presentation. Although there's no democracy, there
are other risks like the religion, you know, so something
on YouTube, as it was the Prime Minister's office saying some good things about this, as always, exactly.
Yes. What do you see the point, right? So how we're going to break the deadlock? Well, it's not actually allows to be said, there are some exceptions.
Processed faster to download, for example, you can't force him to breastfeed. And by the way, it's interesting. I was reading some books with 100
which is the method that I kind of follow.
For the most part, they said this,
that, you know, even if a woman marries one, because we know the most part, you should be paid for that personal but a married one. Yes, she should also be paid, but it's probably a weak opinion.
Let's not go without
it, isn't it? The idea is the point I'm making is that it's not reasonable Texas. There are cases there are cases
because a woman has certain
advantages
as well. She has certain advantages that
maternal advantages, and by the way, motherhood is a big kind of funds for that particular.
So what's another,
someone who gives birth to someone else? Or then so you said, anatomical differences? Yes and biology
is relevant, they are very clear with that
woman that takes the
adoption. All
right, so you're gonna have a clearer understanding of all of this, you don't have to find his references, you can't give him other spices you don't know who bought this off.
But the idea is
the mother was the science
to the child.
So
when the woman gives birth to the child, there are certain rights that are fortunate by virtue of being a mother, that are not afforded to the man.
Like she has a three time more
right?
to parent children, the child, the child is definitely going to be in most cases more influenced by the mother and the father, how do you
this is
equality?
How do you rectify the imbalance? So you give them maximum rights Max, give them some rights and boost? They can be equal agreeable?
No.
Even if they say no, this is our system. The question, we started off this lecture today is 38 minutes of lecture. And I try and keep things to a maximum of 45. Because I know that when I open this up is going to be a heated question and answer session. Because this brother has got some questions, if you look at me,
especially was talking about transport? I don't know something.
The question is,
to what extent is it?
So no one says is a piece of hidden it What To what extent, if any, should and biological differences, as well as psychological and physiological ones accounts
for moral or societal prescriptions to accept? And we have found, you know, looking at the first principles of second wave feminism in particular,
the answer is to no extent whatsoever, they should have absolutely, no say. But when an application that a thesis is presented to them, the first people to talk about maternity leave, most of the force of society is a society like England,
is the one that does
discriminatory practice in England, one year from I'm not sure the year now or what they change the laws of the last two weeks paternity.
And
so lots of examples of counter to the absolutely constant premise. So really,
what we'll take the advantages, we will find that
this is fallacious, contradictory, problematic. And that's why we say
that is why we say that Islam
proposes the following idea
that there is an all knowing, all wise, all powerful entity who we call Allah, who revealed at the message to his final prophet Muhammad Sallallahu wasallam. A message which has all of the required
rules and regulations regarding to whether there should be an exception. We both agree that there should be exceptions in a way Yes.
But the question is, where should the exceptions be? And by the way,
things like dress codes, for the most part romantics? I don't think so for sure, in a public roads is completely different in most western countries.
I remember one time just to go on a quick tangent of time. I was
posing in Leicester Square place in central London, given down to the normal speaking German, speaking to the bystander invitation
trying
To educate people about stem cell, and
a woman was that I think she was a bit tipsy little bit drunk.
So she was
talking to me.
But she came anyways. And I thought, okay, I'll give her a few answers. If I find that she can't continue this conversation, I'll try and make a swift retreat. So she says, Why is it that women have to wear the hijab? Basically, that was the question. I said, Look,
I said, but most of us agree
that anatomical differences have a say in what we wear.
Most of us agree to that. So socially, and culturally.
And I gave the example I said, for instance, in most cultures, even Western ones, semantics of Russia in the summertime.
And a woman takes a shower when Amanda is seen us, absolutely. No, to be honest with you. Yes, it's not seen as especially in London port, they take your shirt off in the park, no problem, especially in beaches, which is a different paradigm altogether.
But woman does is seen as public.
See, we don't agree with that.
Okay, we understand.
But the idea is that you particularizing specified Islam as a discourse of analysis, if you have a problem with men or women,
dressing differently, you shouldn't sing. Because in your own culture, you have that. That's the issue. That's the argument.
So the point is, is
to find a finance discussion, which we spoke about the fact
that anatomical differences, despite us trying to run away from as much as we can have shaped everything,
almost from A to Z.
Even to feminists, they consider it very closely. They look up what the advantages are. And they strategically play on those advantages. Probably the most consistent feminist in this regard of third wave feminists,
queer feminists and so on, who actually do make the argument for example, the trans example, that a trans person should in fact, participate in the sports
if they have done the gender reassignment surgery.
Finally, we talked about the discourse, Muslim societies now seem to have pressures on them, Muslims within those societies seem to be facing those pressures to federalize
and this should be seen as a Eurocentric type of colonial expansionism of ideological proportions. And we should realize that this is what they are doing without you.
Simple as that they are trying to find a way. And this micro feminist narrative is compatible with Islam.
And let's come in through
these means,
for so many reasons, we have discussed them.
In order to remove all cognitive dissonance and cognitive dissonance is the idea that you say one thing but you believe another and it gives you a psychological kind of problem.
To remove that from your life and have peace of mind seriously, you really do have to decide
to make a decision whether you want to submit to the law or not,
to submit to the will of Allah to the Scriptures, to the divine texts, or not. And you can make a feminist case for that through intersectional feminism, as we've discussed,
and they can't say anything about that.
But you have to have that decision made in your mind.
And with that, I will leave the floor scores I'm gonna leave the floor to questions and answers.