Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
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.
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,
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
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