Channel: Mohammed Hijab
Why am I talking about contracts? And why am I smart? My dummy version? The reason is this, there is something which unifies Yes, Western soul and Islamic thought and it is the idea of contract
is the idea of contract. The Quran says here you will all fall below hoods. Oh, you who believe, fulfill the contracts. And in liberal theory, one of the underpinning things is gonna make sure that you fulfill the contract.
Because it's so obvious that chaos would ensue. This Listen carefully, chaos would ensue if contracts are not abided by. Imagine you have peace treaties between countries and their revolts straight away, because contracts are not respected. contracts are important.
on everyone's worldview, on our worldview, and on their worldview.
Why is that important? Because imagine?
What is the consequence, according to them, of
rupturing a contract?
You can have anarchy. But usually the law has in place legal consequences. Yes. If the law has been put in place legal consequences, which can range from prison sentence to finding to death. In the case of treason, the idea that there should be a consequence attached to a severing of a contract is universally understood almost, except with advocates and other people, right?
But imagine this imagine we, as human beings,
are severing a contract
with the ultimate source of protection.
Wait a minute, say that one more time? I don't know how you made that diversion, when you came back and what you're talking about.
The ultimate source of protection, we believe is Allah.
He provides the ultimate source of protection.
So isn't it the same logic to suppose to postulate to submit to say that if you break the contract
that was initially in place,
and that you agreed upon in the primordial states, few sell that contract, there should be a consequence. And it's within the rights
of the source of protection to remove that protection from you?
That's why the question that's usually postulated in these discussions, is if God is so merciful,
Then why the hell exists? Why is he putting the people in the Hellfire?
What kind of merciful God is that you're putting the people in the Hellfire? What kind of justice is that?
is an ultimate manifestation
of the removal of a lot protection from humans.
The Hellfire is an ultimate manifestation of the removal of a loss protection from human beings.
And since we agree,
on the premise that it's
consequentially justifiable to say
that protection should no longer be afforded to those who sever the contracts
contract more problematic to serve other than the one who's providing for you in all aspects and domains and spheres of life.
The answer to that question, is
the people that don't understand the Hellfire and the punishment they're in, are those same people that don't understand the severity of the contract they have agreed to, and that they were reminded of
in this world.
So you see, he'll make sense now. But someone may argue,
someone may argue and say, but hold on. No problem. I understand this concept. I understand. Yes. That's if you sever the contract, there should be consequences. Yeah. If you sever the contract, there should be consequences. From this perspective, God is within his rights to give
So what then about proportionality? For instance, if someone was a calf if, or disbeliever, someone who severed the contract because whether it is believer,
a disbeliever is someone caches literally means kafala from the farmer, the farmer.
Because he's literally covering the truth, like the seed, you coat it with soil. And the truth is you're covering it with falsehood. And that is the ultimate manifestation of the severing of the contract.
But the question of proportionality will come into play, because they'll say, Okay, if they were disbelievers for three years, or five years, or 10 years or 20 years, then why should they be in the Hellfire forever?
And this is a lack of proportionality.
Yes, it is a lack of proportionality. Well, we say
Who told you
that time should all be treated equally. And since should be connected to time, inextricably, let me give an example. And this brother of mine, codable and Lucy, were discussing this, he was giving me these pointers was a really good example he gave.
And I like to give him credit for that. He said, for example, if someone takes out a knife,
and he stabbed someone goes straight for the juggler and kills the person in three seconds. Yes. If someone does that in three seconds,
should they be punished for three seconds?
On this logic, there should be Why not?
Three seconds, you only were transgressing for three seconds. So go into prison for three seconds, we'll do this we'll go to Delphi for three seconds. No, clearly, there's a problem with equating time here. So the idea is,
or the Association of partners with a law is valued, so epistemically high, and the ranking of crimes, because he is the ultimate,
ultimate rupturing of the most important contracts, not even doing it for one second.
Even believing in that, and doing it for one second, it's conceivable for one second, two seconds, five seconds, and you die upon it. And those are the last five seconds, that you will be in eternal punishment in the hellfire.
And that is logically rationally justifiable on both worldviews because
we must understand shift,
and how dark and horrible and evil and grotesque and disgusting
this crime is, out there someone
that veneration they love that all that hope.
From the one who's offering all sorts of
sources of protection from
this is the most problematic, and egregious.
And the most vile of crimes, any human being can do.
was the murder was the rape. There's nothing worse than that.
Why is mother wrong?
Because it's an ultimate violation of someone's right to life.
Why is rape wrong? Because it's an ultimate violation of a man or a woman's right to dignity and to decision making in sexual intercourse.
So why should chrome because it's an ultimate redirection.
It's an ultimate redirection
the attitudes, the beliefs and the actions that should be positions to the one who allows them to be
position to anything in the first place to other than him.
It's the worst kind of oppression
shook is the worst kind of oppression