Mohammed Hijab – Muslim Responds to Indian News. Sharia Law, Taliban and Afghanistan

			That job 10 discount code for 10% discount on a wide range of products including premium Ethiopian
black seed products. Assalamualaikum warahmatullah wabarakatuh, I am going to respond to a video
that has gone semi viral, you could actually say it's gone viral, depending on your definition of
horse, a woman, a broadcaster from India, who has perpetuated falsehoods, really monstrous
falsehoods, one after the other blunders, she's made blunders mistakes, speaking with authority
where she shouldn't have done so. And I will be reacting to this video of this woman speaking about
the Afghanistan situation about the Taliban about the Sharia law. In fact, the video is entitled,
		

			what is the Sharia law? So let's assess in watching this video whether this woman understands that
which she's talking about, there was a time that Afghanistan was a modern state faith was a private
matter book. So already, we're talking about modernity, right? So there's an assumption from the
very outset that Western modernity progressivism, in that sense, is potentially the barometer or the
standard or that we should meet? Well, these assertions or these assumptions have to be evidence in
and of themselves. We don't need to go towards modernity or progressivism, or Western culture. And
if you do, if you do want to put us in that kind of category of going towards this and you think
		

			that's the right thing to do, then you have to argue for that from first principles. It's not good
enough to just say, well, it's modernity and assume it, you have to argue from from the beginning
that come to you with arguably the most controversial concept in the world.
		

			It's arguably the most controversial concept in the world. Of course, it's not maybe befitting for
me to outline the fact that controversy, ality does not equate to falsity. And I'm not saying that
she's saying that, but just to make sure that our audience or the end user here is fully familiar
with this point. But is it the most controversial thing in the world? I mean, there are lots of
things historically and contemporaneously that have been more controversial, the shape of the Earth
has been extremely controversial on the history of cosmology in the last 1000 years. Even more
controversial, you could argue a SETI, a practice called SETI, that was done by Hindu women
		

			historically, and even up until the modern age, actually. And this practice was involved a woman
burning herself in mourning, for her husband's death, spoke about women's rights are one of those
things. It took the colonial powers the British powers to come and outlaw this thing, the white man
to come and tell you what was right and wrong. Yes, no wonder why you're so obsessed with the white
man because he stops you from burning yourselves. I mean, I understand the inferiority complex here.
But let's not try and think now that
		

			this is the once again the barometer that we must all fulfill or the
		

			the standard that we must all meet the white man standard. Why is it so controversial? Why does the
world fear it will take Afghanistan further back in time?
		

			What do you mean by the world? Do you mean the white man
		

			is that we know the Western powers or colonial powers of x colonial powers or the super powers? Who
do you mean by the world? Okay, let's keep listening. You have spoken to a lot of scholars and
experts to put this report together. You spoken to a lot of scholars and experts. So I'm expecting
what you say about Sharia law is going to be something which is academically robust. And if not,
then you will be obviously to blame thanks to the misrepresentation, manipulation and misuse of the
Sharia, by whom, Islamic regimes politicians, clerics, radicals, terrorists, they've all used the
Sharia to rule in the name of God. So coming back to the question, what is the Sharia? Well, there
		

			is no, that's not the exclusive property of religious symbols. Many radicals and terrorists have
used secular ideology to do the same thing. So this is not this is not an exclusivist discourse. I
mean, we can we can point to Stalin we can point to even Lenin, we can point to Mao we can point to
many different people had materialist ideologies, and who did the same thing. So this is not an
exclusivist discourse. And you shouldn't make it seem as if it is where do the rules come from?
three sources. The Quran, which is Islam holy book, the Sunnah, which is basically the deeds of
Prophet Muhammad and the Hadees the sayings of the Prophet. This is the first major blunder. There's
		

			actually a huge blunder. It's the Quran, the Hadith, which is the Sunnah, I don't know why you've
separated the two things. And then the third thing is is ma which is consensus and a fourth thing is
PS and actually measure Medina tofi who is one of the specialists of the principles of
jurisprudence, Sol Sol. He mentions 11 sources altogether, including list sn, this is this hub
shamon cabela, cola Sahabi, the saying of this hobby, all the rulings of those who came before
		

			For us in terms of the other
		

			legal systems of Moses and for example, Abraham, Hassan Musleh, which is the idea of the common
interest, all of these things are also sources of Sharia. And this is the reductionist understanding
that has left a lot of people like yourself,
		

			reducing the Sharia to just one or two sources. This is not the case. And in fact, you haven't even
represented it correctly according to any school of thought. She also No, this is completely false
what you've said there is wrong. Listen to me carefully what you said there is wrong. Because once
again to reiterate the four major massada Sherry, if you like, or the four major sources of Sharia,
the Quran, as you've mentioned, the Sunnah, which is the Hadith, which itself is subdivided into
different types, authentic Sahaba Yamato where Tara Sahil, Hassan has only vaidehi naive Mandala
mushroom, so on and these categorizations are known by the people of Hades. And then you have ismar,
		

			which is a legal consensus, which is defined by well as the
		

			the consensus of the jurists in one specific time in one specific issue in one of the issues of the
Islamic law. This is h Ma, and then you have chaos which is legal analogy. For example, if something
is haram
		

			in the Quran, but then there's something which also has the same causative reasoning. They analogize
onto it. For example, alcohol is haraam whiners harmless see, they analogize onto that. That smoking
weed. is haram, smoking anything that in toxic hallucinogens are Haram, because it's smoky Sally's
analogized onto. And this is one of the massada, if you like one of the sources of Sharia. But there
are these are the four main ones there are other ones like Muslim and Masada. This is actually a
source of Sharia Muslim is the common interest. A lot of people are asking why is it that the
Taliban are acting in a more pragmatic manner now is because of this. So see if if you if you knew
		

			these things, then you'd know how to operate, and how to interact with those who you disagree with,
you don't even know the source of Sharia, therefore, your analysis is going to be reductionist is
going to be false as going to be lacking. Who are the scholars now that you said you didn't even
know what the basis of Sharia in Islam? There's a range of other sources to work out how God wants
Muslims to live. But there is no single law book, no definite statute, no set judicial proceeding.
That's false. There is a set judicial precedent. So proceeding is precedent. And there is a there is
a set precedent from the Jamaat. So when scholars make a decision on the part on the on whatever
		

			issue is, they look at the issue marked if there's an issue, or the consensus of a past that acts
effectively like a judicial precedent? It's basically a vast collection of different often
conflicting interpretations. These, that's not sure. Yeah, that's so you're confusing it yourself.
You said, Sure. Yeah, is different to fit because because the interpretations and Sharia is God's
will. Now you're saying that shut our eyes shut out is different interpretations, which is false.
You can't even keep up with your own script that you're reading in front of your face. This is
ignorance compounded depredations gave birth to five schools of thought five legal schools of
		

			Sharia. And you must know this, there are different kinds of Sharia, you, we must know this. Yeah.
And you're gonna teach us You must know this. By the way, there are more than four or 567 schools of
thought these are the ones which have survived. There are many schools of thought atari had a school
of thought I was I had a school of thought these big names had a school of thought they just haven't
survived. So if you want to be meticulous, and you want to be precise, then don't speak in the way
that you've just spoken. What's a hyperbole, Maliki Shafi Hanafi these four belong to Sunni Islam.
The fifth is a Shia version of
		

			a smiley she is about what sad she is, you've completely missed a big chunk. So you're all over the
place xavc eyes. They are the majority of the Yemeni population of shadows, you've completely left
them out in your analysis here. How comes
		

			ceria It's called jaffery. All five of them are named after theologists and jurists, the men who
theologians and jurists. Yes.
		

			interpreted Islamic texts. Now look at this map. The hanbali school is a smallest and strictest at
the mall. Its primary. Would you define a strict This is seems to be a very subjective reading.
Would you define this as strict as many rulings in the humblest school of thought? I'm not just
saying that because obviously I come from that school. But um, there are many rulings which are by
and large, more facilitative for many different people. So this is a very odd kind of subjective
value judgment coming from someone who has no knowledge
		

			Have any of the schools of thought and you probably wouldn't ask you why is it the strictest you
probably would not have to answer that.
		

			source is the Quran. It is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It also has significant followers in
these countries. Saudi Arabia, yes, they practice the a lot of a lot of people, a lot of Jerusalem.
I share her humbly there, but the law of salafists, who are not non math heavy, actually in Saudi
Arabia. And so once again, the, the the labor audience, the lay people, this is very important for
even us to know as Muslims, there's a difference between what the elitist so the clerics or whatever
it is they practice, and what the lay audience.
		

			The lay audience really doesn't have a madhhab allambie ulama tabela the army doesn't really know
about the humbleness school if you ask him, what's the difference between a humbling chef and Hanafi
they all know the difference. So this is only applicable really to the elitists. But you would know
that the Shafi School of Sharia relies on consensus over understanding of the Quran. I would dare
you, I dare you to find me one book, from mmm chef eyes reseller, the first book ever written on or
sold by the way in Islamic history. He's the one who wishes Islamic jurisprudence, I need to find me
one book of ShareFile or sword, which says that consensus is preferred over the Quran.
		

			There's no such statement made by any scholar in Islamic history. You've just made a fool of
yourself, not realizing it, speaking nonchalantly and casually. This is embarrassing. This is
totally embarrassing. Why are you speaking about these matters? Why are you speaking about these
matters? You clearly are an educated, you think you're educated, you're educated? You're being
educated right now. You've just made a huge blunder. You said the chef, a school of thought relies
upon consensus over the understanding the horror. And there is no such there is not even one scholar
in Islamic history from any school of thought has ever said such a thing. You fool. The Hanafi
		

			school the earliest the most flexible version of the Sharia. It relies both on consensus and
independent reasoning. The Hanafi school has a largest number, there's all of the schools of thought
have PS except for the Viterbi school of thought. So you're making as if this is a special
speciality of the hanafy method is not independent reasoning is PS which is analyzed and analogizing
causative reasoning and then enlarged, enlarged and backward forming. This is not especially a
speciality of the Hanafi madhhab. All of them as they have, except for the wajdi method, which isn't
mentioned is in fact, has that has that feature. They live in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, of
		

			Aniston, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. So you've called it the most flexible form. Sure, yeah.
But how do you square that with the fact that the Taliban are implementing it? You see, you see this
contradictory messaging here in your broadcasts? You don't? You don't even seem to realize it as how
embarrassing it is. But the problem begins when religion is mixed with governance. She says the
problem begins when religion is mixed with governance. That's that is a supposition. You're making
an assertion, you've gone from informed on informative broadcast to persuasive broadcasting. So now
you're inserting a secular ideal. My question is, the presumption of secularity. How can you assert
		

			that without giving any evidence, what what are your demonstrated proofs? That secularism is the
neutral way or the best way to live? Do you have any evidence in support of secularism? How do you
even how would you even define secularism? Because if secularism is a is a division between church
and state, or religion, and secular governance, my question to you is what constitutes as religion?
If you look at the sociological literature, you'll find that there's broad definitions which include
political ideologies, things like feminism, things like liberalism and things like ironically enough
constitutionalism, republicanism,
		

			nationalism, as well. So if that is the case, then to what extent can a government like yours, an
Indian Nationalist government, a secular, one that maybe claims to be liberal democracy, democratic
at the same time, all those things? Could that be classified as a religious type of reasoning, or a
religious kind of thing in the first place? And if it is religion, then it is religious and it
wouldn't be secular? And so once again, your ideal would be dismissed? Why should we prioritize even
if barring or bearing into consideration secularism? Why, why should we? Why should we privilege
political ideology over and above theological systems? Is there any argument that you have from
		

			first principles that lead us to that? So you see, you see, the problem is, you've inserted your
opinion, my day, and unfortunately, what you haven't done is provided any evidence and the Quran
states will have to borrow Hannah come in contents or the pin. Bring your evidence if you're
truthful, many Muslims who embraced the Sharia thought of it as a substitute for the law of the land
and that's where the problem lies. The Sharia was just supposed to be a way of living. So now you're
making a theological claim. You're saying it's meant to be a way of living it's not meant to be for
governance.
		

			So But well, how would you make sense of all the Quranic verses in that Hadith, which clearly
indicates that which are addressing in the first place, politicians, generals, and armies, and so
on. And while European nations later separated the church from the state, many Islamic countries did
not France, Britain and other Europe so.
		

			So
		

			opium powers had colonized much of West Asia, Africa and Asia, when they left, leaders of the newly
formed Muslim majority countries faced a dilemma. Should they govern based on previous Islamic
values? Or should they embrace laws inherited leaders of those nations that you're talking about?
Well, usually puppet leaders installed by the colonial overlords that just left. Well, they chose
the Sharia, as the basis of the legal justice system. Were you setting yourself they chose, if that
is what you believe that they chose, and the people of the country chose that. And we say 96%,
according to Pew of Afghani people want the Sharia. Isn't that a kind of democratic reasoning? And
		

			if it is a kind of democratic reasoning on your worldview, shouldn't you be respectable, respectful
of that and get out of their business? Sure. What Why are you getting involved in other people's
choices? You said they chose the Sharia. So what was it was to do with you as an Indian, what
happens in Afghanistan or Iran or anywhere else? You're, it's none of your business. With all due
respect, you should focus on the minorities in India that are being destroyed, killed and lynched.
If you want to talk about
		

			rights, human rights, what makes this law acceptable in some countries, and horrific in others, it's
understanding and implementation, some countries enforce the most discriminatory and patriarchal,
right, so what does? If that's true, what would make it different from any other system? And now
you've mentioned a key term patriarchal, what if I reject the term altogether as a social construct?
Because actually, if we say, for example, that patriarchy talks about oppression of men to women,
then there's a whole range of backlash literature now, in the West, even that actually caused them
to question that very notion. warfarin himself talks in the myth of male power about the fact that
		

			if you define power as somebodies ability to have control of their own life, then you can't say that
men being forced to go to war and go into dangerous jobs and so on. So that counts as power and so
your idea of patriarchy therefore, will completely change. Forget about Okay, backlash literature,
even third wave feminists, people like Judith Butler. In her book, gender troubles, she puts into
the question this notion of patriarchy. So why should we assume patriarchy once again, you're
assuming all these labels, patriarchy, modernity, progressivism, without arguing them? for them
first on first principles? Why should we be colonized mentally and ideologically, as you and I, in
		

			our respective nations were colonized physically by the British troops?
		

			Why are you submitting in this manner?
		

			Why is there some kind of inferiority complex? Perhaps, that you have? Are you weakened by Western
hegemony? Have you got nothing to offer? Or have you got nothing that you've extracted from your own
culture that can compete with Western ideological hegemony? And is that the reason why you have such
an inferiority complex? We don't feel the same way, unfortunately. And you know, the thing is, you
and I both know, the reason why you're speaking about Islam, and they're all scared of it is because
it's a sleeping giant that you don't want to wake up. Because it's the thing that for hundreds of
years, civilization, Lee had brought all of these different nations together, multicultural,
		

			multiracial
		

			and also multi religious under one banner, and it's the thing you're, you're scared of, which is why
in your country, your political leadership is doing what it's doing to the minorities there. Don't
pretend we know why you keep mentioning Muslims in your streams, and Islam because your scan of your
account is selectively pick certain verses from the Quran and legalize draconian practices, like
polygamy tripletail. How is polygamy a draconian practice? You seem not to even understand the words
that you're using. polygamy, by the way is something which is sanctionable by liberalism. There's
nothing wrong with polygamy on liberalism. Tell me one thing that liberalism opposes about polygamy,
		

			by the way, Hinduism, which is probably the religion of your forefathers and predecessors, I don't
know if it's your religion as well. But certainly as the majority religion in India, allows polygamy
in a secular Kawasaki, like the guy by the way, you tried to kick out of your country because he was
converting the people to Islam. Yes, because of free speech. Let's see what he has to say about this
matter. If you read our man, the father of RAM king, he had three wives.
		

			If you read the Vishnu sutra, chapter number 24, was number one. It says a Brahmin cannot fall wise.
If it Mahara, Krishna, how many bytes for 10,000 10,000? Krishna had 16,108 vibes? He didn't like
hearing his voice. Did you meet him?
		

			He made you angry then he, like many of the Hindus, nationalists, Hindu nationalist, racist, I know
how you feel about that man. But you can die in your rage with all due respect, you can die in your
rage, because he's still has changed the demographic of your country genital mutilation, the genital
mutation. You can't even say the word de you can't even say that what its mutilation mutation was
this kind of why is this Transformers was the cancer. You can't even speak English properly, can
you? It's mutilation. And you're saying this isn't meant in the Quran. And then underneath is not
mentioned the Quran in any Quranic verse.
		

			So I mentioned it in the list with with with polygyny should be polygyny. Why polygyny and
mutilation Why put them together? And by the way, triple talaq is haram? I mean, doing three talaaq
in one match this is something that Islam doesn't allow, according to all schools of thought, Does
God judge differently based on gender? No, the Quran actually answers that directly itself in the
law. Hello, you will do I'm alarmed many men come in their cat in our own fair Baba come in, but
that God does not let to waste any deed of those who do deeds from men and women and both of them
off from one another. Why are you mentioning this as if it's something that we believe in? And what
		

			what Who are you even
		

			putting this to? You know the answer if you if you're asking a theological question, the Quran says
no, for many clerics it does it shouldn't do because the Quran I don't know of any cleric scholar
Island, who believes that give me one name of a scholar who believes that there is not such a thing
as spiritual equality in this lamp we do not believe that equality in value means identic ality and
roles. So whether is physiological or
		

			psychological, wherever it may be differences between men and women, there may be some
		

			facilitation for either man and or woman in the Quran, Asana. But we will say that is fully
justified. Why should men a woman dress differently? In fact, you're talking about dress code. If I
were to take my shirt off, and a woman wants to take her shirt off in this very country that I live
in the UK? Yeah. Do you think we'll be judged the same even by the law in this land? No, the answer
is not. It's by the fact that women worked and fought alongside the profit. They won't tell you
this. In some countries, who won't tell you this. women cannot step out without an a buyer or a
veil. But men can dress the way they want really commend dress the way they want or is there not a
		

			restriction for them from the navel to the knee as well? Once again, you don't know Sharia. You
don't know fixie making blunders. women cannot stand for president but men can go on for a lifetime.
Who said women cannot stand for president in Islam? Who said this? This is a different matter of
opinion. If Okay, opinion, you mentioned this already. There's a difference between halifa he left.
Okay. And we Zahra.
		

			And it's not there's no consensus in Islam that a woman cannot stand for a president or a leader of
a country. There's no consensus on that, to that effect.
		

			women cannot choose to have an abortion. Women can choose to have an abortion before 40 days
according to the handling method if there is a reason for it. But abortion is not a Muslim specific
issue. I don't know why you're mentioning it. In fact, Islam has a more lenient view on abortion
than capitalism. Why are you mentioning abortion Anyway, after certain time period, many people will
say when their baby becomes viable or installment happens, the know shouldn't cause an abortion
because we are not going to prefer so called women's rights on children's rights. So what you're
talking about? Why Why are you now inserting abortion into this discussion? You seem to be
		

			sexualizing the discourse even to even to the detriment of the the American their discussion on
abortion? This is a discussion that's happening in America. Whether abortion is okay. Oh no. But men
are allowed to have four wives. So what if men are allowed to have four wives? What's wrong with
that? Why shouldn't men have four words? in this country in the UK, I can have 1000 women sexual
partners. 1000, just like Krishna had 16,108 wives, when Krishna can have 16,001 and eight, five, so
why can't Muslims have at least four? women cannot travel without a male guardian? Why would they
want to travel in a country like India without a male Guardian, their male guardians are being
		

			lynched themselves? Why would a woman want to risk it and get raped?
		

			Die, women cannot retain custody, whereas a woman cannot drive in Islam. And in fact, I don't think
any country now the last one was Saudi Arabia that that's implementing that. they've stopped
implementing that. And even their foreign minister, by the way, has said that this is a cultural
practice of ours has got nothing to do with Islam. So why are you mentioning that as if it's got
something to do? Is this something that was even practiced in Afghanistan? That woman can't drive?
Is this something that was practiced in India or Pakistan, or Egypt or Indonesia? So also
proportion. My question is now you're talking about demography is Saudi Arabia was the only country
		

			with
		

			bandwidth 30 million people is 1.8 billion. So why are you generalizing some such a small country
that has a population to the entire Muslim community in the world? 1.8 billion people? It seems to
me like you're really clutching at straws here. And it seems to me like you're embarrassing yourself
by using all these kind of oriented strokes, and kind of generalizing the discourse with it, how
embarrassing. Do you have their children after divorce. And that that's, that's actually false. You
said that women don't have custody of the children of the I don't know who you got that from, in
fact, women do have custody of their children over divorce, in fact, to the detriment of the man, in
		

			most cases, unless she gets divorced, and so on. I sort of get my remarried again, and there's
discussions about how that takes place. But what you're saying is false. Women do get custody of the
children after divorce. And there's a Hadees, in Timothy to that effect, where a woman came to the
prophet and said, I have raised the child and I've read thing I have gave it from my put on my lap
and given my milk console. And the Prophet said that you would be given custody of a boy if you get
married, that the custody will be given to the map.
		

			And so the jurors differ as to how this will take place. But your your what you're saying is false.
In fact, custody laws are bolstered forming in Islam. And in fact, there are so many things I can
even speak about in regards to breastfeeding and how breastfeeding can some schools of thought say
the man has to pay for it the humble school of thought which she said was more strict, because you
have to pay for the breast milk and so so you seem to me as an ignorant person who doesn't know
about Sharia? And is conflating between cultural practices. And the Sharia receive half of what is
awarded to their brothers in inheritance, yes, but they also receive the same if they're a man if
		

			sorry, they're the same of their parent, and they receive the lion's share if there's two sisters,
when can Anissa unfocused in a tiny fella hoonah Full Time Attack. The Quran states if there's if
there's more than two women, they get two thirds of what's left behind. It's a misconception to
assume, therefore, that women inheritance get less than men in Islam. All things, including religion
must evolve with time as an assertion, if that's what you think everything, including religion must
evolve with time. What is your evidence for that? And what is it evolving towards is evolving
towards Western enlightenment value and what makes Western life and value true, you have to be able
		

			to argue from first principles that liberalism is true, that secularism is true, that any ism that
you decide to pluck out from them post enlightenment or enlightenment discourse is true in the first
place before you save evolution because this implies progression.
		

			If some practices are outdated, they must end well while democracy is the most outdated practice non
to Western Western ideology is a 3000 year old. It's a 2000 year old practice two and a half 1000
year old practice, yet we still practice it in one form or another. So this is the genetic fallacy.
You're saying because of when something existed, it must end. What if something is true? What if it
happened 1000 years ago, but it's true, but he has interpretation and practice clashes with today's
way of life and bolster his way of life. What the white man said, Is that what you mean by what the
white man said, what the privileged white colonial white man said, social structures, then perhaps
		

			it's time for revision and reflection, and perhaps not rather than resentment. So as we've seen
here, this is misinformation, lack of proper argumentation, if her argument was a building, okay?
The foundations would now would be crumbled at the edifice, the building would be blown to bits and
would be a pile or a heap of rubble.
		

			Next time when you try and speak about a slum, Get your facts right, or get ready to be embarrassed
as you have been in this session, was Salam Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh