Should We Legalise Having Sex With a Dog
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 5.30MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
got the same answer for Well, I mean,
as long as you're not hurting the animals, I'm also in favor of animal rights.
And again, I mean,
excuse me for going over time, but since you are adding to the question here, the question here
has it. I mean, you can argue, based on principle, but you can also argue, as Mr. haber, his job is done based on empirical realities. And then the question becomes, how, how many people does this involve? What is the problem here? How large is the problem? Why should we have laws against something that I mean? A very small minority? And I would like to see the statistics on how many Norwegians are traveling to Denmark to have sex with animals? And what animals By the way, I mean, this becomes sort of absurd discussion.
Thank you. So I will take one question to Mohammed hijab. This actually, it feels like it's a follow up question.
The individual is asking, how does Islam regard these kinds of matters? sexual relationships with the same gender and with the animals? And why do you believe that that, that your moral views are correct?
First of all, I find it quite interesting that you find amputation of hands disgusting. But when we're talking about having sex with dogs and cats and horses, this is not something that maybe makes you feel disgusted. The problem is, he said, you'd have to see the dog of animal is I'm not sure if he said dog is harmed or not. But how can a dog consent when they can't even speak? as to when the bark is there? How is it gonna say, how seriously, I want to have sex with your dog? How? two dogs for years and one one box? How are you going to know I mean, this is this is the absurdity of consent theory and liberalism. You know, seriously, I mean, where do we draw the line? And frankly,
this shows you how much liberalism and human rights are creatures of convention, they are subjective, they are baseless. They're just basically what white people so to say, what why people find, okay, what white people find tasty, or for the sensibilities of the white people. That's what literally sorry to say, that is liberalism. In a nutshell, since a white man's not even woman for the for the most part, white man's sensibilities, subjective preferences. Yeah, it's okay for brother and sister to have sex but cutting the handle the thief? Oh, no, no, no, that's come on, man. We see. I mean, who, who's who's made this, the parameters, the correct parameters, for us is a
thing. And when I say white man, I'm not meaning that derogatorily I'm meaning that quite physically in the sense that the 1948 Convention of Human Rights, the ones who had the, the biggest say, in that were American white men, because America emerged as a superpower. And it was in charge of those particular institutions, and still is disproportionately considering the size of China and Russia, by the way, and there's lots of literature on that I'm sure he's aware. So when we say the New World Order, and the white man is in control of the, basically the preferences that with the rest of the world, we should be shaped in the image and the mold of the white man, post enlightenment
experience. This is the reality so you can have sex with a dog, potentially, right? He didn't want to really say it. You can have sex with your mum and your dad, sorry, children, or your brother or your sister can have enjoy your time freedom. But you know, this thing about cutting the handle? I don't know about that. It's disgusting. Well, he's giving us the, I mean, to be honest, it's like I eat this. I drink that sort of amount of taste. Now it's become ridiculous. can't force your tastes on me. I like Somali food.
You might like Viking food.
You might like Norwegian, I don't know what they eat him. You can't tell me you have to eat the sausage and this egg and column. I don't find that nice. We say the Mirage or the one who finally determines which is acceptable moral recourse? And what is not acceptable to answer the question is Allah subhanaw taala is God Almighty, and we have good reason to believe God's exists. God exists. We have good reason to believe the Prophet Mohammed is the actual final prophet, he gives evidences for that.
And so divine command theory would suggest that whatever comes from this is eternally true, which, by the way, can adjust in terms of time and place, but that's part of the Eternally true mechanism. And that's how we live our lives, sexual matters, financial matters, and so on and so forth. Like I said, if you want guidance, you have to seek guidance from the one who knows what guidance which we believe is