B&U Pakistan
Mohammed Hijab – LGBTQ Q&A
AI: Summary ©
The lack of cooperation between the West and the United States in the conflict between the two countries has led to the West's social and political stance centered on the social and political fronts. The strategist suggests that people should be careful in their own communities and systems, and that changing behavior and engaging with moderately liberal and feminist ideologies is crucial to building a "monster" position. The speakers emphasize the importance of avoiding cultural bias and being oneself, and discuss the potential risks of transphoria and genetic diseases. They also emphasize the importance of avoiding certain words and phrases and being "redigging" in their decision to pursue Islam.AI: Transcript ©
So the question he asked was, why do you think the West is very silent when it comes to the Palestinian conflict? Because as Manuel put it, he's one of the political philosophers. He says that America has not acted strategically, America has never acted morally consistent is always acted strategically, consistently. So in other words, it's not in the West's interest, necessarily, to do anything for the Palestinian cause. Joe Biden, who was, who is now the president before then, he said, If there wasn't an Israel, in the Middle East, we'd have to make one, they realize the importance of having influence in the Middle East in countries like Pakistan. You know, in countries
like Afghanistan, we've seen all of these things before. And this is where you guys have to be careful, because, frankly, frankly, speaking,
you know, the West doesn't have any military bases in this area anymore, right, used to have military bases here, and then was removed, the use of military bases in Afghanistan now has been removed, it doesn't have any military bases in Iran. So the entire area and in Turkey, as NATO bases, but not in a US bases. So you don't really have military bases, then you have Russia and China, which are two opposing powers, I think the West is now starting to become a little bit anxious about the situation. And so their second order of business, so the West has two strategies has always had two strategies we call hard power and soft power, hard powers through the
geopolitics. And Soft power is through ideological warfare. And the second part of it is where we'll influence people like me and you, our people in this university, because the way they dispense that particular kind of soft power, is through things like Netflix through things like the media through things like education.
And so what you'll have is, you'll have, you know, the movement of movement away from, for example, hard power kind of politics, to try and to kind of manipulate you into thinking the way they think. Because if you sympathize with the West, in Pakistan, and you support them, then you're more likely to do what they want. So that's why I would say,
just bear that in mind. The West does not act
in a way that would benefit you. The West acts in a way that benefits themselves. Let's take one other example. So we're gonna see the Palestine example. Let's take one other example. Let's take the feminist movement in the West.
As an example, the feminist movement in the West if you do a data analysis, on the talking points of the feminist movement in the West, you'll see that some of the main things have been speaking about, for example, relates to equal pay, abortion, and these kinds of things. Great.
But we've seen women decimated and annihilated in Palestine recently, 20,000 women and children have been killed.
In Kashmir, we've seen the * in the oppression of women. In the Rohingya province, we've seen the *, and the oppression of women, the Uighur Muslims, which are all close by to where you live? We've seen a lot of that. My question is, to what extent have Western feminists shown any care for that comparative to
the equal pay an abortion in the West,
yet,
the dispensing if you like Western feminism to Pakistan, or Western liberalism to Pakistan,
they're selling you an illusion, making you think that if you act like them, talk like them, dress like them be like them, that somehow you will get the same kind of rewards as them that they will accept you. But the truth is, they don't care about you. For the most part, they're indifferent. For the most part, of course, many people have been on the roads and streets protesting,
you know, from the liberals in the United Kingdom In the United States, to give credit where credit is due. However, for the most part as a comparison, even the populations, for the most part, have not shown that kind of care. Indifference if you compare it, pound for pound comparison,
pound for pound comparison. So what I'm saying to you is, you've got to start thinking properly now. Because
the notions that the West is best, or why it is right.
These kinds of things are being drip fed into our systems, through Netflix, through series through movies through education.
And this is where the warfare is before there was communism, colonialism, and it was very direct. They would come into your country and say we're gonna take it over. Now we have groups of people who are volunteering to be colonized by the West.
groups of people in the Muslim world who are saying I will adopt your way of life, I will try and be like you try and have the same beliefs as you.
And the irony of all ironies is that they're not respected by Western people, for the most part.
People have voluntarily put themselves under the boot of the white man. One of the case of colonial feminism, the white woman,
this is not Liberation's criticality, thinking clearly, and so on. This is actually a kind of subjugation, as I said, and that's where the fight is. That's where all of us have to be careful. That's where it concerns us directly.
And so that's where it starts. We have to expunge from an our own systems and our own communities, these notions, these colonial notions, which are making us more sympathetic towards the west, and his projects, and his ideologies. I've noticed something about the higher echelons of Pakistani society. Now Pakistan is a big country, the second most populated Muslim country in the world.
And if you think about it, right, if you did a referendum, or you did some kind of polling data, on what people actually believe on social issues, you'll find that people are quite conservative on as a whole comparative of foster West, there's no doubt about that.
But if you look at the firt, like the top 1%, of income earners, if you like, in Pakistan society, there's a different dynamic going on. And I have noticed this dynamic all the way from Karachi all the way through here to Lahore and up to Islamabad and other places in Pakistan. And the dynamic is that the proportionality of
traditionalist versus if you like, liberal is actually a little bit different.
And the more and more I have conversations with people, of course, I don't have studies to back this up, because there's no studies that can be done or have been done on this issue, the more I have realized, that is an odd state of affairs, where the traditionalist Muslim or the religious guy, oh, woman would feel a little bit alienated by some of these people who have been, if you like,
you know, convinced of the Western project, let's just call it what it is. And so they feel alienated, they feel like they are weakened, they feel like they can't be themselves. And in fact, if they try and express any kind of traditional values, that people from a more secular leaning, will attack them, not physically afford, you know, I think that needs to change, frankly. Because those people from that kind of leaning with all due respect to them, they have volunteered, they volunteered to be colonized, they have volunteered to be subjugated by the West. So why are they in a position to tell the traditionalist Muslim, that he should be doing this, that was the other, I
don't think they really are in that kind of position.
So I feel like the dynamics need to change.
That's what I feel like. And this is something very well known. I mean, in the Quran, this is actually even alluded to, where Pharaoh festa Huffer Homer HuFa Thau you know, he humiliated his people, so they obeyed him. It's a very interesting verse, first alpha comma HuFa, Tao humiliated these people, so they obeyed him. The West is humiliating,
you know, the east in many ways Orientalizing them other rising them.
And they feel like the only way to respond to that is to okay some, to capitulate, to culturally capitulate to them, say, Okay, well, we'll do whatever you do, then.
If that's the case, if that's what you if that's your response to the west, then you're not in a position to tell me as a traditionalist, Muslim, for example, what to do.
If you want to volunteer to be a slave,
then you can't act like my master. That's how I see it. And so I think you need to change the dynamic. And the way to do that is to have confidence in what you believe in.
And it's not just by what you wear, and what you say is how you say it and what you do.
You see, so another way of doing it, frankly, if I meant and I have met many of them in throughout the Muslim world, where I will do is argue with them, if they really feel strongly about how they feel. Why is it that the for example, the Muslim has to justify his position the traditionalist has to justify his position? Why isn't it that the feminists must justify their position for example, like if I were to ask a feminist, can you prove on a philosophical and rational or epistemological level, your ideology from bottom up to be true as an objective truth? They wouldn't understand half of what I've said, and if they tried to respond to me, they would make a mockery of themselves. I
think so. Because why have you accepted an ideology like liberalism or feminism, or atheism, whatever, maybe and you don't even know
The start how to prove it.
I thought that you were trying to be critical. So if we're going to be critical, we have to employ the same kind of criticality that you did in the first instance with Islam employ the same kind of criticality with liberalism and feminism.
That's only fair. You did that with Islam, you're saying, Okay, well, let me question the assumptions in the presuppositions of Islam. Okay, fine, let's question them. But let's also question the assumptions and the presuppositions of feminism and liberalism. Why not?
Why are you afraid to engage with the truth claims of these ideologies? Why do you just want to be underneath the foot,
the crumpling foot, the stamping foot
of the white colonists.
And so that's why I say,
I say you need to start engaging these people,
in my opinion, and some of them will be flagrant about in a country like Pakistan. They'll mention things like homosexual rights.
And they'll say there's nothing wrong with being homosexual. Okay, that's a position, isn't it? If you're saying there's nothing wrong with being homosexual, that's a moral and philosophical position. I'm happy to argue with you on that position. But you have to be ready to argue.
So how do you argue yes or no? If it's right or wrong to be homosexual? Tell me where your starting point is, for example, what's your morality that you're basing right and wrong? One, they'll say the harm principle, for example, if they know what that means, even because frankly, I've noticed that in the Muslim world in general, the liberals and secularists and feminists you find are too bit want to be liberals, they don't even know what it is.
There to be there has to be tech version of it. You know, like you have the the real deal authentic version. And then you have the phony version, like the replica one.
You know, you have like a Rolex and then you have like Timex
you know, you go to the market and Lahore and the guy has got Cumin is spelt wrong.
I was just eating in the restaurant. And I was drinking coffee. And I looked out the window and said Marks and Spencers. And that's meant to be an English saw, obviously, you saw that, right? There's Marks and Spencers and I knew that was not Marks and Spencers you can say you're liberal or you're like you're not actually a liberal because you don't even know what it is or how to justify it.
You can say you're a feminist or you like
was unlikely that you're going to be able to do this work in justifying your ideology. It's unlikely. Just call yourself what you are. I'm just say this, I'm a more color and I blindly follow the West, just say that Be honest with yourself. Because I see them as successful. They have tall buildings and clean streets, I want to be successful as well. Therefore, I'm going to call myself a liberal. I'm going to just follow the talking points of the white man or the white woman, be honest about the situation.
Because if we had that discussion of why is homosexuality right or wrong, we can put Islam fully to the side. If you wanted to speak about Islam, if you want to claim to be a Muslim,
if you want to the argument is not even an argument. But putting Islam to the side, justify on secular ethical grounds. Why you think homosexuality is a moral position?
You see in the West, there are two kinds of ethics.
Okay, there are two kinds of ethics. Really, there are three but two prescriptive ones. One of them is called consequentialism.
Right.
And the other one is called categorical imperatives, or deontological. Ethics. These are two, if you like, schools of thought.
The third one is called virtue ethics.
That one is not prescriptive. So I'm going to speak about that. And by the way, I do like virtue ethics. I mean, virtue ethics is not problematic to me is, for the most part, I think, is good. It was first written by Aristotle and there was a book called the Nicomachean Ethics and stuff but that's something that aside, it's not prescriptive, doesn't tell you what to do and what not to do, as a lot of wisdom, in fact, virtue ethics
but consequentialism is the idea that something is wrong because of its consequences.
Something is wrong, why consequences okay.
And deontological ethics was put forward really by Immanuel Kant. And that one says, if everyone in a society done something, if the society will be dysfunctional, then that thing should be wrong. So for example, for Kant, suicide was wrong, because if everyone done it, the society would, wouldn't continue. Right? He said, lying was long, because if everyone likes we wouldn't be able to transact with each other. Do you see? Okay, so let's bring homosexuality as a case study.
Remember, this is the oh, these are the only two real schools of thought in all of Western ethics, outside of religion, what do you have? You have consequentialism and you have the other one was called deontological ethics. Are you with me?
So consequentialism says that something is wrong because of what
the consequences. The first question is, who gets to define what the right and wrong consequences are?
Anyway, let's just say for the sake of argument, for the most part, they would say, a bad consequence is harm, physical harm,
physical harm for whom the individual or the community, really, they would say both for the most part, especially utilitarians because utilitarians believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
And that's it. It's a liberal principle really.
Okay, no problem. The greatest good for the greatest number of people. Let's examine homosexuality.
Why nots? Not using Islam?
Not using the Bible.
Not using the Bhagavad Gita,
not using this religion or that religion. Let's use Western ethical principles. Isn't that only fair? Yes, it's fair. Okay. Go ahead, proceed.
So let's really assess this site. So Hans, statistically, homosexuality,
causes or spreads more diseases than heterosexuality. Is that true or not? Of course, it's true. According to most organizations, even the NHS, the National Health Service, they say a homosexual is 15 times more likely to get AIDS 15 times. That's just one example. But there are many things like it, it's a consequence, isn't it? Yes. What kind of consequences? Is it positive or negative?
Would you agree it's a negative consequence? Sure. All right. We look at some sociological studies, we start to see what does a homosexual household look like? Hmm. What did the children end up being like, and almost every study that I've seen, without any exception at all, shows that the child is more likely to have pathological disorders. Psychologically, there'll be disrupted, more likely to be delinquent, more likely to achieve less than education. There are so many negative things. In fact, I have a conversation with one demographers they must Nicholas Wolfinger. Okay, you can see this online that he's gotten peer reviewed works.
And I asked him, so okay, we know this, why is the best and most prosperous type of family according to your research, he is not a Muslim. He's an atheist, in my opinion, my understanding, he said, objectively, it's a nuclear family, objectively, it is a religious nuclear family, where the people in that family are practicing religion, continuously. That's what he said to me.
If you want to follow the west so much, well, I've got all these studies from the west, from the white man himself, from your God and your prophet.
I can tell you all of them, and this is one of them.
So I'm saying okay,
so from a family perspective, it's negative, from a medical perspective, it's negative.
And we don't even want to talk about the military perspective.
I recently saw a video
of the US Army.
And it started off with a lesbian girl inside.
And she was like, when I decided to join the US Army. And then she went through a LGBT story and whatever. And then they put right next to it, the Russian army video, and you had these men shooting guns and climbing the wall and this and that and join the army. Now tell me when the Russians are watching the recruitment video for the US Army.
Tell me how they're going to feel fear. If I knew that I was going to be fighting a group of sorts of say transgenders.
Because when you remove your testicles, you remove the testosterone that comes with those testicles. And it's objectively the case that when you have less testosterone, you're weaker physically, objectively. That's why steroids are not allowed in sports, because they are testosterone to give you an advantage.
So you have homosexuals and
who might have 15 times more likely to have a disease, and you have transgenders who have removed the greatest assets
and now they
Gonna go against the Russian army
self sabotage
so militarily doesn't make sense. familiarly doesn't make sense. All of these things you cannot argue from a consequentialist perspective, since you told me that's your morality, that this brings about more good than harm.
You can argue, tell me how well because these people aren't going to be happy.
We don't know if they're going to be happy because if they have AIDS, the question is this because they're more likely now to have AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, to send sickle warts, genetic warts, syphilis, all of this more likely that 20 times more likely. Tell me if you ask them. Are you more happy now?
What are they going to answer?
Well, about a transgender. And we have many books written on the issue, irreversible damage and this one or that one.
i How many people that when they do the s, RS surgery,
how many of them are happy with that? How many of them regret it, but it's irreversible damage.
You're cutting it off.
You can't go back in this been disposed of thrown away.
You can't get it back and stitch it back on it is finished. You're telling me this more happiness in this area, and there is sadness, and dystopia and consequences and harm? I don't believe you because the evidence is against you.
So from a consequentialist perspective, you can't make an argument? I don't think so. But when we go to a deontological perspective, it gets even worse. Because if everyone was homosexual, there'd be no human beings.
So in the same way, as Ken said, if everyone committed suicide, there'd be no human beings. If everyone was homosexual, you have to do the same thing. There'd be no human beings. Because it because after two or three generations
how so how's it gonna work?
There's gonna be reduction of human beings at least, and then dearth and then maybe extinction of human beings.
So it doesn't promote society to do this.
So from both of the Western paradigmatic perspectives, I'm sorry to say there's no argument. So now that we've defeated
the ideal the proposition that homosexuality is illegitimate morality, from an ethical liberal perspective, because liberalism is based on utilitarianism, social liberalism, and that's a form of consequentialism. Since we've defeated it, tell me what's the evidence that you have now.
You don't have any evidence to you just want to do it.
You just want to do it. You just want to be like the white man.
You just want to copy the white man. So just admit it.
If that's what you want,
this admitted,
you're impressed by them on you. You're not very impressed with yourself, you're insecure.
That's what you have. You have insecurity issues, you have deep insecurity issues. So you're not a rationalist. You're just fundamentally insecure?
And how could this fundamentally insecure person twist the religious guy's arm?
into thinking, oh, you know, you should follow what I follow and do this. How can you accept this?
When you realize the weakness, the psychological weakness of the girl complex? Padget
whoever they call them, right? So what you're doing
what you do it
then you there's no way they can bully you, or try and make you feel uncomfortable.
So that's why I was say about I don't even know what question I was answering them. Let's go to the next question. You see, when someone when someone identifies with what they were formerly, you know, they have a psychological grudge. Like, for example, if I had the wife, and Jani and then I divorced her, and then you asked her, What are you she goes, I'm an ex Muhammad hijab wife.
Now that might be justifiable because of my states or in my searches.
Who I Am. That's mine. She might want to just mention that what usually if someone does that is very weird thing to do, isn't it?
What are you I'm an ex such and such wife.
We're not asking you to define the negative.
We're asking you to define it. The affirmative in the positive, someone to define it as an ex Muslim is, you have to say is a typical, isn't it? I mean, I don't defy say What are you I'm,
I'm a non atheist.
I'm a non Christian.
Who does this? Only someone who is
still affected by the thing. And that shows you the power of Islam that is so powerful that even when they leave it, they still have to mention it in the description.
There's no way of getting away Islam. for them. It's like a shadow. They're trying to run away from it.
Well, they can't do it.
And that's an indication that they're not actually secure about their beliefs. It's like when, for example, let's be honest, right? If one of the guys here
had a friend,
and you asked him, What are you and you say, I'm an X such husband? Yes.
What would you think of such a man? He's not overheard?
Whoever she is? You wouldn't you think that? Honestly, I was saying that. I say what on earth? Are you talking about my friend?
He's not over her. He's embittered. He's resentful.
He's jealous. He's this. He's that all the negative emotions. So someone to define themselves, the next Muslim? Muslims should see us as a flattering thing.
So this is not over us. He can't get us out of his mind. Congo Islam out of his mind.
So that's how I would deal with situation?
I would you got to look at the psychological cues here. It's very odd.
Like there's many people that convert to Islam in the West, you might know that hundreds of 1000s millions, millions on an annual basis, white people as well. Just in case, you know,
this, if that changes anyone's mind, hear what I'm just saying.
But it's true.
When you ask them, What are you You know, they say, Muslim. If you ask them like what kind of Muslim this a convert, revert? That's the answer. I've never once met one of them. And I asked him, What are you and they say, I'm an ex Christian. I've never seen it. Because they're comfortable in the new persona.
I've met literally 1000s of them. I've not seen X Christian have never heard this before. Might be around, but it's not trending in the same way that ex Muslim is trending.
So yes, I think that these things are certainly
an indication of the power of Islam itself. Next question, Charla let me tell you,
you answer one of his questions, no problem. Yes. But then you ask him your own questions.
Because the one who asked the question has the power?
The one who asked the question has the power and has no problem answering your question. But if you are in a situation, in Dawa in school, or in life,
whereby you're just being asked questions, you will no longer have a conversation, you are an interrogation.
Just remember this, don't accept to be interrogated, why? I'm not under review.
You're not my judge, you're not fit to be my judge. So remember this, you need to stop thinking about the questions you want to ask them.
And I've done that with Piers Morgan, for example.
It's true, because I know his tactic is gonna start interrogating me. So if I say, Fine, I'll answer a couple. But I have to throw some back. And you'll be surprised. Because if they don't answer your question, what happens? They look weak? They do.
You have to have your own questions.
I've learned that in marriage as well.
So where were you last night?
So this and that. So why did you have to keep going to Pakistan in this lesson? Who are you going with?
The real question is,
then wherever I want to ask, but
the real question is, even if I did do what you think, what would be the real problem in that?
Oh, would be the moral?
How can you argue on a consequentialist perspective on the categorical?
You can argue
so what I'm saying is, start asking questions that doesn't mean badger someone or humiliate them. But I'm saying don't accept to be interrogated. That's what I'm saying. That's the next question. Yeah, I don't think the white man will accept him because if, if a gay Palestinian died in Haza, he would look at him in the same way as he looks at all the other Muslim ones. If they're gay or lesbian, quote, unquote, lesbian, you know, woman from Kashmir was raped by some man. They would have the same indifference if a Uighur gay died, they'd have the same indifference. So
That's the first thing. The second thing is why is it?
Why is it that we identify? I mean, look, we call people gay, we say the LGBTQ community, right, we say this.
But I have a question. Why are we?
Why is it that we identify someone with their sexuality in the first place? Now, let me give you an example. Right?
You might have someone who is black, black person, but at the same time, they like men, and they're a man. So he's part of the black community. He's part of the homosexual community, you could say this himself, even Paul, both communities, but why is it that you identify yourself with your sexuality? Now, I'm not saying you should, or you shouldn't. I'm just saying why. Like, for example, I like to eat chicken.
I don't say I'm part of the chicken eating community.
You see, I like women. I don't say I'm part of, you know, the heterosexual community. And I'll say that, potentially, and particularly. So the first question is, why is it that this is even a community that's identified in this way? It's a question.
Well, what I'll say is, in the assumption of your question, is this presupposition that we should care about how everyone feels in a society?
The truth is, Who cares how an ex Muslim feels, with all due respect, or how a Muslim feels, the law doesn't care about how anyone feels. Like, for example, I'm driving the car, and it says 30 miles an hour, unless you're in the hall.
You, you know, I feel like I want to push that button doesn't matter how I feel. There's laws and regulations, and they are actually underpinned by something called a social contract. So how people feel, once again, this is not, this is not a therapy session. This is a country.
You know, and it's not like we have to respect how everyone feels.
That's not how it works. In all cases, that's a hedonistic understanding.
It's like, I'll do anything that comes to mind, I'll do anything that I want. Just go just do it. And these are all liberal principles, but they must be themselves. Proven like the hedonistic principle is unproven.
It's called the hedonistic principle is unproven. So prove that principle. First of all, it's okay. Well, why is it that doesn't that we don't agree with the assumption of the question. So what I'm saying is, you know, ex Muslim, this, that whoever homosexual it's not about necessarily how they feel. It's about how they deal with their emotions. There's lots of things I want to do. Like, for example, Islam
allows you to have four wives, or one man four wives. Yes, at the same time, by the way, just in case anyone doesn't know that. Now.
Islam doesn't allow you to have * and copulate with whoever you want. Yes, I, will you or anybody else, maybe I feel like I want to copulate with every woman. So let's say I, while I want to be here, and do the Zina and this. So I feel like I want to do that doesn't matter, because there's laws and regulations.
I always said, I've made the comparison between insults and homosexuality, because both of them are like the the harm principle, right? At the end of the day, when it comes to the harm principle, * is as legitimate as homosexuality, someone could say I have a very strong attraction with my sister or my brother.
At the end of the day,
most societies will consider that to be abnormal or incorrect.
They will consider it to be abnormal or incorrect.
However, according to the harm principle,
one could argue so long as they're not harming anybody else. Why can there not be brother and sister or even brother and brother or sister or sister in a sexual relationship?
So the same idea,
a true liberal will say, you're right. A lot of them have said that
I've spoken to.
So you're right. And therefore * should be legal. That's what they would say. Some of them we've had conversations with homosexuals. And I've said this and made this point to them. They get very angry. They How dare you compare homosexuality and *? I say, just look at it from a principle perspective, put emotions to the side for a second. The reason why you said homosexuality is okay. Is because of the harm principle. You said so long as these people are not harming anybody else. They can do whatever they like. I'm saying the same exact logic can be applied to a brother and a sister.
So long as they're not harming anybody else. What's the problem?
We're using your same principle, because one of them said it's not natural. So what did you say? Can you repeat that again, please?
It's not natural. You're making an argument for what's natural and what's not natural.
You see, they don't read
have an argument against this. The only difference between homosexuality and * is homosexuality had a movement in the 1960s where gay people for uncle would walk in the street handing hand in hand and demand their rights. And brothers and sisters have never had that yet in the West. That's the only difference my friend so I want to know is it the beacons whether the places courses per school?
We knew you might have a track you might have. Okay. You might have a LGBT community. I don't know if you have one. Their society even we all the LGBT society, I will say it's very unfair that being you, being a liberal institution has LGBTQ society, and they don't have an * society.
How Debian you know, discriminate against *?
Why is it LGBTQ? And it's not LGBTQ. If
there's a brother and a sister out there that just love each other?
Well, you don't care about our feelings.
You only can only discriminate against them.
Because they came up in the same room.
And maybe some of them want to go back into the womb, sorry to say, in a different way.
How dare you discriminate against these people that just want to have fun and love their brother in a non platonic way? Or their father or their mother?
is disgusting. How can you talk about this?
What do you mean?
You don't like this?
This is where society is ready? When the white man will decide. Insist is okay. The Pakistani liberal will say, Oh,
he said it okay.
But when it Okay, now, we must have been specified.
You shut your mouth, you slave. You shut your mouth. You don't know. You see, you don't know why the white man said this.
You followed him.
You took his advice. And look at you now.
I spoke to one liberal walk last rule in Norway. And I said to them what about animals?
Sorry to say B C ality? And he said yes, animals is fine.
Like a dog, for example.
A donkey?
You have many donkeys here. So what are you going to have? When I come to be a new 10 years from now I'm going to have to see a stable of donkeys. And the humans standing next to them say this is part of the beast. This is a society because these people said it's okay.
Come on.
Come on.
This is servitude. This is docility. This is subordination. This is slavery.
This is intellectual molestation.
You're you're being said, intellectually molested.
That's true.
Stop it. Stop being intellectually molested. Stop it.
Shake it off you now.
Let this speech be some kind of an awakening for you.
The white man doesn't respect it.
The white man doesn't care. He's got his old life
does not care. He's not impressed. I guarantee you is impressed. If you died, you wouldn't care. The people who care about you, your family members, honestly, your people, your community. They care about you, the Muslims. This is how it is the Palestine issue has shown us that the masks have all dropped. You think they don't care? They don't care.
So there's no benefit in copying them. There's no benefit.
With that, we'll conclude in Sharla
Related Episodes
- Mohammed Faqih – Unit and Hold on Tight to the Rope of Allah
- Hijab And Advice To Our Sisters
- Mohammed Faqih – Improving Relationships in our Lives
- Mohammed Faqih – Prophetic Chronicles #13
- Mohammed Hijab – Agnost discussion with Muslim
- Mohammed Hijab – Embryology in the Quran and Sunnah
- Mohammed Hijab – Qur’an Burner Does Boxing With Muslim (Reaction)