A look at the evidence on Andrew Tate

The Deen Show


Channel: The Deen Show

File Size: 58.45MB

Share Page


WARNING!!! AI generated text may display inaccurate or offensive information that doesn’t represent Muslim Central's views. Therefore, no part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.

AI Generated Summary ©

The speakers discuss the lack of evidence for accusations of sexual abuse and the negative impact of mainstream media on women's safety. They emphasize the importance of researching and finding out why police use it, as well as the history of the situation and the potential for negative mental health for the judge. The speakers stress the need for proper research and evidence generation, as well as appropriate training and support for employees, as well as finding ways to address workplace misogyny. They emphasize the need for a culture of change and empowerment for employees, as well as a culture of change and empowerment for employees.

AI Generated Transcript ©

00:00:00--> 00:00:27

For a lot of people, this is very, very sensitive. You did give a voice not Off Ted speaking eyeshadow on La ilaha illa Illa illa wa Shalu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah. You don't have to like the guy. But at the end of the day when you got two people put on a list as now being the victims, but then they're coming out. Those two women are coming out and say, Hold on. Why did you put us on the list? We're not supposed to be on that list. We didn't tell you to put us on the list. We're not victims.

00:00:29--> 00:00:40

I don't know what's happening, right? Like what really happened in Why is Why is Romania going after him? Are they being pressured by someone else to do this story? You should be covering it what evidence is there against?

00:00:41--> 00:00:53

That should be the story on the news. He's covered that there's no victim. Find out why the last two women who have come out and said that the police have made those into victims, but we're not victims.

00:00:57--> 00:00:57


00:01:01--> 00:01:02

a politician,

00:01:03--> 00:01:13

you're getting closer to the truth, impactful moment where he walks in with the Quran PSB upon him, this is our religion, Islam.

00:01:14--> 00:01:16

This sister dijo.

00:01:19--> 00:01:20


00:01:23--> 00:01:32

explaining how much respect I have for the faith of Islam. Show. Welcome to the deen show that the show.

00:01:38--> 00:02:23

My next guest is PhD candidate, researcher, author, blogger teacher. And he is currently taking on the role of an independent investigative reporter as he's been reporting on the Andrew Tate situation and has been quoted as a source from many different outlets that have sourced his work. So let's find out more and why he's taken on this role and what he has uncovered. Thank you for having me on. My mother is a major fan of yours. So it's an honor to be here and be your guest. Mashallah. Nice to have you on so on. Thank you for thank you for having me. So you've taken on this role as an independent reporter pretty much investigating this case, is this something you do for a living?

00:02:23--> 00:03:00

It's not. And it was never my intention to do so. And the reasoning for doing it was actually quite simple. What happened was the tip brothers had been arrested. And you saw an almost trial by media and social media and social media was having a large impact. And we'll go into greater detail in that once if you if you raise a letter, but social media was having a big impact and social media is having a big impact on societal views on what was happening as well as the Romanian judiciary. And so after a few days, I mean, I did not engage. I don't know Andrew tett, and neither do I

00:03:02--> 00:03:42

never been spoken to him. But when I saw the vilification, I thought, you know, it's our duty as Muslims to look at the evidence and look at the information. And so that's all I did, my plan was never to, you know, start supporting him or trying to provide evidence to support his position. But as I delve into the evidence, I found it to be quite different to what was being portrayed hence. And I just felt like, because nobody was supporting him, in terms of from a academic investigative point of view, I thought it was my religious imperative, as well as my moral imperative to try and analyze the content and try and see what the situation is. So are you saying you weren't like a

00:03:42--> 00:04:19

fanboy on the side, and now you are just blindly jumping into this, you know, at whatever costs, you know, to try to defend him, you are objectively coming into this as a shot. And I mean, the only My only knowledge of undertake was twice, or once that happened to visit my brother in law's house, and you had him on and he was on a debate with some Twitter stream, and I said, Oh, he's won that debate. And then I walked out, I never thought about it again. And then some students in my school in school, I spoke to them. And they told me, they were telling me was the most like, popularize things, because I think it's always important as educators as Islamic scholar, as a teacher to know

00:04:19--> 00:04:46

what's happening with the youth. And so they told me are the two famous people are Andrew Tay, because he's a misogynist. And the other one was IsoSpeed, who was famous for apparently barking. So I then analyze, analyze that with them. They told me some of his comments and then I tried to explain it from a from a, from a from a logical point of view, the other side of the argument. And then more recently, because certain

00:04:47--> 00:05:00

people on Twitter, we're talking about him, as looked into him just before he actually became arrested maybe about four weeks before looking into just basic videos and what the context was. But then other than that, that's it I've never

00:05:00--> 00:05:39

Uh, like had any kind of affiliation, it was merely because when I saw him arrested, I thought, You know what this seems a bit dubious and hence that that was my thought but just in a putting a thought out there. But after that it was just solely independently analyzing if the information come out that he was guilty, I would not be supporting him. That's clear. I mean, that's obviously if you if you felt at all that he was guilty, you would not be supporting him, you you would not be doing what you were doing. 100% and not supporting him, also wasn't just that he's a Muslim is a Muslim brother, and we love him. But at the same time, it doesn't matter if he's Muslim or Christian. You

00:05:39--> 00:06:22

know, our guidance is the Quran and the Sunnah. And the statements of the scholars and the Quran is very clear, you know, in a variety of places, but for example, in Surah, Nisa, were estates that one should be folk what we are the custodians of justice, it's our moral imperative to be to do justice, even if it's against yourself or your own family. So this is just an imperative for all Muslims. It's not about whether you liked it or disliked it, you agree with them, or you don't agree with him. Just be just look at the information fairly. When someone provides me with information. And it's looks problematic for TA I will say it's problematic. A good example of this is and before this

00:06:22--> 00:06:31

case, someone did say, Oh, look, here's a video of Andrew Ted. And he was saying in that video, ISIS are the real Islam. Or when I watched the video said, yeah, that's, that's just silly.

00:06:32--> 00:06:40

But then what happened was, I think a week before he was arrested, he went on piers on the Piers Morgan show, and he said, Look, that was my view, when I was an atheist.

00:06:41--> 00:07:17

I had the incorrect view. And I will apologize for this view, that high 10 years ago when I was an atheist, and that's no longer since I've converted to Islam, my view. So that's just an example of being objective. If he says something, which is ridiculous, we will say, and if there's something that he said, which is good, we will say it, it's just it's very simple. This has nothing to do with duty or some kind of, you know, affiliation, just because he's a Muslim brother. This is just about looking at what's right and what's wrong. Because if we live in a society, where we don't look at the evidence, and we don't look at the data, and we don't look at the information, and we base

00:07:17--> 00:08:00

everything on our emotions, that is an anarchistic society, and it will lead and we'll talk about this later will lead to much more worse things. So this seems like right up your forte. So you you're a PhD candidate, and your specialty is what research. So my actual Spanish specialty is Islamic theology, beta, Islamic law, as well as philosophy. So that's actually my speciality. But in terms of analysis, and analyzing content or information, I guess, does come into that. So what have you uncovered thus far? What are some of the key points that kind of kicked it off? And you went further? And further? Yeah, so firstly, what happened was, there was a number of large and and why

00:08:00--> 00:08:34

this is important is this, because when I looked at the judicial document, and we're gonna go into that more detail, I presume later, but when I looked at the judicial document, and the reason for remand, one of the reasons they gave was about information that they've garnered from social media. So that told me, or that made me realize that actually, what's happening in social media, as well as the people's psyche within social media is very important, because if that's been used to determine to remind him for longer, it means that one needs to have provided the other side of the argument. So there was a number of

00:08:36--> 00:08:51

people in social media who were producing content, which were a guest, a guest anti tear, but trying to demonstrate or say that he was guilty. So my first point of call was to look at what they produced, and analyze the information and see whether it stood up. So as an example,

00:08:53--> 00:09:00

one piece of information one, the first round we can, I'll just give that example. So the first round I saw, it was showing, you know,

00:09:01--> 00:09:32

Andrew tett having relations with someone with consent, which based on our Islamic paradigm is not acceptable is haram is wrong. That's something that you can't defend. But again, that's Jabalia. That's what we say when someone comes over to Islam, they came from a day of ignorance. And we have many people like that, who like we have a past life you come in, you just you don't have the guidance, and you're living according to your desires. And that's like, you know, the majority of human beings out there. I mean, we've got so many examples.

00:09:33--> 00:09:49

As you mentioned it, for example, Omar for the alarm. In the camera, Janelia. They used to have bets. So a woman would be pregnant, and they have bets and say, Look, is it a boy or a girl and then caught out while the woman was alive, just to see if they want to bet so that was a level of

00:09:51--> 00:09:59

level of acting, which was in bad badness before coming to Islam and then we became one of the best people

00:10:00--> 00:10:43

units of Islam was essentially a genius. And so that shows how someone can completely change and become an important factor within Islam. I mean, these guys, these these, these men who are the greatest men of all time now, these are people who are burying their baby girls alive. 100% I mean, they were they tried to kill the Prophet Muhammad Salah Salam, they did the most just notoriously evil things. But then they changed. For sure. And, and the Quran came to make that change, and so 100%. And so but just that point, because they brought it up. So that was before, but even then when it was before, within that Western liberal paradigm, that's considered acceptable behavior. And

00:10:43--> 00:11:27

that's the paradigm he was living in. And that was the paradigm of his belief system. Within that paradigm, which is linked to the laws, well, what he was doing was not illegal. And it wasn't even considered bad according to their paradigm. So I just highlighted down show that looked a woman came out, she actually said that, look, I consented. So that was one example. The second example was this information that had been spread about about him. And then after that, what I did was that was the first thread. And the second thread was I looked at the DI CT reports. So the DI CT report is basically when the police arrested and duty in April, as well as in 29th of December, they produce a

00:11:27--> 00:12:08

DICOM report for the public to read. And in that report, there was nothing about the US woman being present when the house was raided. But across social media, that was one of the main arguments they were making, that the woman was kidnapped. And it was the police would come in and save her. But the report in STATA, so again, I had to demonstrate that that was inaccurate and refute it. So that was another example of of that of going through information because that last part again, yeah, so basically, they argued that she'd been kidnapped, and she was being held without her will. And they use and what and they said it without evidence. But then what they did was, first of all, they

00:12:08--> 00:12:14

provided a 16 second YouTube clip of the woman in the house walking towards the exit.

00:12:15--> 00:12:57

So what I did was I went through the DICOM report and showed that actually, when DICOM went in dimension, they gave no mention about the woman being present during the red. The second thing is that the YouTube clip that that we presented had been snipped from a longer three minute and 22nd video, which was available on YouTube for four months. And, and if you actually produce the whole video, it shows the woman was going in going out, go and get some pizzas, you know, coming back. And so it presents a totally different picture. And why that's a problem is it just shows the nefarious nature of what was happening in terms of taking snippets. And that's been a significant problem

00:12:57--> 00:13:09

through all of this has been snippet is this the woman that you're talking about? Who had the conversation with her boyfriend and then she told her boyfriend that she was being held against her will? Is that the one and then

00:13:10--> 00:13:55

and then the police then the police came? And pretty much she went out got some pizza came back? And is that the same one that was later on came? There was an allegation of woman being great. I'll you know what I'm talking. I'll just use the word. And then there's video you can watch this. I mean, but it's like of them twerking and they're back party again, that the same one. It is the same woman and the woman isn't that specific woman hasn't accused him and it's actually the Moldovan woman. So there's two women currently that we have information on, which is the US woman. Yeah. Because you said she can. So just think about this, like a woman travels from the United States on her own, and

00:13:55--> 00:14:06

goes all the way to Romania to meet a man, a man who, who is very, on his Instagram, and his social media. He's dammit because it was Tristan Turner, Andrew,

00:14:07--> 00:14:27

who demonstrates a very specific type of lifestyle with, you know, pot yin and women and this type of luxurious lifestyle, and yet she was aware of that and still traveled to another country. So that's so this woman makes that decision. She goes there and then as you said, those things happen.

00:14:28--> 00:14:48

So then the one that you're talking about there's there are two distinct use mentioned Moldavia this. So this is not the same one then. No. So what basically you've got an acquisition, which is allegedly the six women accused the tapes of human trafficking, or as you said,

00:14:50--> 00:14:59

grip. The problem is that the Moldovan woman has made the acquisition in terms of their relations, and the other five women have made X

00:15:00--> 00:15:06

positions in terms of human trafficking. Now the you know, you said, six, but hasn't.

00:15:07--> 00:15:44

You also post about there was two that actually were put on this list that said, we're not victims. So he's kind of gets. That's right, that was gonna come to that. Yeah. So you're basically got those two women who have come out and said that the police have made those into victims, but we're not victims. I mean, you can just you can like, not like the guy and you can just you know, but I mean, you got to be fair, I mean, come on, like, this is a huge problem. I think you've just pointed onto a very important point because and the Quran causes like you quoted earlier, as soon as he sought to be just, you know, even if he'd be against yourselves. So I mean, this is just obvious stuff. You

00:15:44--> 00:16:19

don't have to like the guy. But at the end of the day, when you got two people put on a list, as now being the victims, but then they're coming out, those two women are coming out and say, Hold on, why did you put us on the list? We're not supposed to be on that list. We didn't tell you to put us on the list. We're not victims, we're actually in there stalking positive. It's just like what's going on here? But that's just scatters. And I'll explain why. Because we're living in a society where the complete opposite. So just as we are we critically analyze our own tradition, for example, sometimes within Islam, unfortunately, men used to use marriage as

00:16:21--> 00:17:01

a form of control of women, and only men, and that's a weakness. But similarly, we've gone on the other way now, and and in more ways than one. And I'll explain it because basically, what's happened here is what they're seeing is these two women who have come out and said, Guess what, we never been victims of human trafficking. And he actually treats us like family. What they said is, guess what, don't believe the guy and don't believe them women because they've got Stockholm Syndrome. So just imagine what kind of society that is, I can actually take you out if I want, and say, Guess what, you've had incorrect relations with somebody and took advantage of them. And you said, No, I never

00:17:01--> 00:17:07

did it. And then the woman says, No, you didn't do it. And I'll be and then I can say, no, no, no, she's got Stockholm syndrome.

00:17:09--> 00:17:32

And then you can go to jail. And Stockholm syndrome for the people don't know, what does that mean, calm syndrome is that you know, when you've been taken advantage of, and you'll be under the control of a person, you start developing feelings for the person, and you do whatever the person says, or even if that person has kidnapped you, in your mind, you say, you've convinced yourself No, no, he hasn't. And so you'll stick up for that person, even though he's taken advantage of you.

00:17:34--> 00:18:17

That's what Stockholm Syndrome. So Can that be flipped around the other way, as far as because we live in a time of like, you know, that everything has to be fair across the board, everybody's rights, so cannot be flipped and said that now the man is the man was warped. And he was, you know, the, the woman had made him do these things like, you know, no, no, we don't live in that society. You see, so we live in our home. Fortunately, we live in a feminist society, which has a significant man hatred. And that's the society we live in. Just look at, just look at our society look, within the Western marriage. So for example, just marriage in the West, marriage in the West is basically a

00:18:17--> 00:18:33

one, especially in the UK, because I don't know you American laws much. In the UK, marriage is a one way contract for a man to promise that he's going to be monogamous. But it's not the other way around. And let me explain why. Because if the man

00:18:35--> 00:18:46

cheats, she gets 50% of what he gets off everything, right? But on the other hand, if the woman cheats, the man has to make a decision now

00:18:47--> 00:18:49

I'm gonna let her cheat.

00:18:51--> 00:18:54

Or I'm gonna say no, you can't cheat, and I'm gonna lose 50% of everything.

00:18:56--> 00:19:35

So essentially, it's a one way monogamous contract, and only a woman can choose. So this is. So we're not living in a fair society anymore. And that's what we should be fearful of. Because these things that we're seeing, and I'm going to come up with another example of that these things that we are saying, Actually, man hatred, and it's not just my hatred in terms of men, is more even more deeper. If you look at LGBTQ, the trans community, even within that, if you look at it, they'll always attack trans women, biological, biological men, but they'll never attack trans men. You'll never see you never see Dave Chappelle or anyone from the left or anyone from the right. Rarely I

00:19:35--> 00:20:00

see it whether attack a woman who's who's a trans man who's become an adult who is a biological woman who's changed. But the other way around, it happens a lot. So that's the app so someone like JK Rowling can get away with a feminist with attacking somewhat a trans man but not and she would never think about attacking a trans woman. So the death of man hatred in feminine

00:20:00--> 00:20:01

Islam is actually very deep.

00:20:03--> 00:20:23

So let's continue on with some of these points. And I know for a lot of people, this is very, very sensitive. And I know just touching on this, you know, it's something that now, people are like, why are you even, you know, bringing this up. But this, this can set a precedence for tomorrow, let's just, you know, make an extreme example, let's say, this happens to one of your favorite public speakers,

00:20:24--> 00:21:02

and somebody who has a great track record. And now they want to go ahead and try to persuade you that he's done, you know, this X, Y, and Z, and you're not looking at the evidence, and then you're, like, almost like a magic, you know, the media machine that's out there. So if you don't end up, you know, looking at the evidence, like you said, having a stand for justice, and whatnot, and we're trying to make a clear line, because obviously, it's very clear, you know, these things from John Alia, that a person does, these things are totally prohibited in Islam, these are things that, you know, we don't stand for, and we're the most adamant against these things, webcam, porn, all these

00:21:02--> 00:21:35

things, I just totally but this is this is not what we're talking about. We're talking about looking at the facts, looking at the evidence, and when you're holding somebody hostage, now, no evidence, you know, and then you have witness tampering you have, that you're not supposed to be doing, but you're actually bringing on witnesses, right, that are not supposed to that are not victims, and now they're coming out, I mean, and then you're still, you know, holding on to the person and whatnot. I mean, you know, people who don't even like the guard coming out and saying, Hold on, this is fishy, this don't make sense this is so you've uncovered some of these things. So let's continue on with

00:21:36--> 00:22:17

what you were, you were bringing to light, cos I will do just to add to your point, in any society, whenever you want to create a dictatorial measure, you always target somebody that that you will get support about having another person. So as an example, when they wanted to integrate a Ban, ban certain things that went for Donald Trump, for example, now, Elon Musk wants to ban certain people, he's went for Kenya. So there's always a scenario where there's always been someone where everyone's like, yeah, that guy's a bad guy. Or we don't like that person, or we disagree with his lifestyle. Okay, we're not gonna say nothing about the reason for the banning. But then that reason is then

00:22:17--> 00:22:58

deployed on society. And then you have no way of speaking out. And so that's why it's always important to speak out in these scenarios, because once they confer them, once they both of those you don't like they will deploy them same reasoning for the people you do. Like, in terms of them, what I uncovered was, in the next right, then what happened was, within that short period of time, there was a report from Romania, allegedly Undertale had been messaging some 16 year old girls of Romanian officials. So again, I looked into that. And what we found was a lot of the information that was being presented looked very, very weak. As an example, first of all, the women, the girls,

00:22:58--> 00:23:20

they claimed that Andrew had been had millions of followers. But at that time, as far as remember, 2019, you only had it in the hundreds of 1000s. The second problem was that the images that they provided, didn't marry up, so they said it was Instagram, but the, the what the images they provided didn't look like it was from Instagram, and they have even been doctored.

00:23:21--> 00:24:07

And then more concerning than that these women, and this should be the biggest concern is women or girls, or sorry, the second. The third point is they claimed that they knew about the intricate intricacies of the webcam business, but then they'd never be part of it. And then the last point, which is the most concerning is and this is concerning for me as well, is these girls were connected to Romanian officials. So, for example, one of them was the daughter of Kuzmin Bouza. And Kuzmin. Gusa is a right wing, according to my own reading, so I couldn't be Miss reading him because you are using Google Translate in this aspect. But he looks very conservative, and quite right wing. And why

00:24:07--> 00:24:53

that is important is this. Sometimes people like Andrew K don't realize he is mixed race, and he is a Muslim. And what happens is you don't realize the level of what impact that can have on Eastern Europe because Eastern Europe, not completely but does have a tendency to have Islamophobic ideas as well as reverse racism. This is well known within eastern Europe, and not completely obviously not I'm not putting everybody in that bracket, but this happens. So it's very, very possible that when his conversion to Islam happened, this probably thought you know what we're gonna allow you even though you're mixed race, but you know what, we're going to allow it, but now you become Muslim,

00:24:53--> 00:24:59

that's just taking the bar too far. Now you're basically acting like this adran in your business in our country.

00:25:00--> 00:25:05

it, whatever it may be, because maybe people who are close to him have said that he stopped the webcam business.

00:25:06--> 00:25:45

Before he joined Islam are quite very soon, very close to when he joined Islam. Is this correct? Is it the correct statement, this is from like 10 years ago plus. And so this is what's confusing. So basically his the report, the daikon report is the investigations from 2021. afterwards. So we have to look at the evidence. And I have looked at the evidence, so we're going to go into the specific allegations. But this is after 2021. In terms of the webcam business, it was before that, but they've arrested him, basically, three weeks after he joined Islam. I remember he was in Dubai for most of that. So it's not been long since he joined Islam that he has converted to Islam, that he's

00:25:45--> 00:26:24

gone back to Romania, and then this has happened. And so when reports coming out from the judiciary, one is to always think that there's going to be some short enough in the dish from politicians wants to always think that there's maybe some kind of ulterior motive. And just to give you an example of that, you know, when he was raided, you had the judiciary, the prosecutors, and journalists all involved, because the journalists were there, they were ready with their, you know, for for the cameras, or whatever the latest cameras are, they were ready for the raid, and they did the raid. So they were all working together. Similarly, there's been certain leaks that have been coming out from

00:26:24--> 00:27:04

the prosecutor to the press, again, showing that there is some kind of relationship between them that they're presenting these ideas, ideas in this manner. So that's a point of concern. And now my thoughts about that is when I've looked at the things that have been leaked, they've been so weak that if that's the strongest evidence they've got, there's no case. If that's the weakest, then let's see, let's look at the evidence. And Matt, my view is this. We are not supporting tear, because he is Andrew, Ted, if some unequivocal evidence comes the show, he's he's guilty. I will definitely say, look that evidence, unequivocal, there's nothing we can say about it. But up to now,

00:27:04--> 00:27:08

that's not happened. So that's in terms of the early part of it, then what happened was,

00:27:09--> 00:27:48

then, so now we'll move on to the more specifics of the actual allegations. So in terms of specific of the specifics of the allegations, you've got a scenario where I went through the judicial documents, and you basically got a nine page document that the judge released to provide his reasoning you went through that you went through these judicial documents yourself, you want, okay, how do you go through them? If they're in Romanian? Or if they're a different language? How do you very good question. So I basically, Google translated them. And then I got them double checked by somebody who can speak Romanian. Nice. Okay. Yeah, I think that's important to do because Google

00:27:48--> 00:28:06

Translate is not always, always perfect. Perfect. Yeah. And now, what those documents say is this, which is points of concern, this now I'm going to specifically I'm going to first talk about the allegations are great, and then I'll talk about the human trafficking allegations. So the first allegation

00:28:08--> 00:28:23

you've got a scenario where it's only the Moldova and woman who claims this to be the case. The SEC, the EU, the US woman does not claim this, and we'll talk about a bit more we talk about the trafficking accusations. Now,

00:28:24--> 00:29:04

the Madhavan woman has made this accusation and the only evidence they have is a witness statement. The witness statement was done. Sorry. Her witness statement was done weeks later. So as you said, you had these allegations, you had those videos of these women partying and doing inappropriate actions after the fact, after the fact. I mean, I want people just don't lose your place, but just just picture that, like you make an accusation of something. Then you come back to the accusers resident and you party there. And you talk yourself there. And you are you know, what's your phone? You know, you're taking

00:29:05--> 00:29:41

Tik Tok videos what what's going on? Exactly, it's just, it's just ridiculous. And what you see in the videos is they've got the phones. So if you've got access to phone, you can text on Instagram, you can text on Facebook, you can contact anybody so it kind of defeats the whole I mean, there are legitimate victims out there this is like it seems like it takes the fuel the energy people who are suffering who are this is such a horrific crime. This is something that Islam is like so, you know, hard on and you know, it just said to take you know, you taken away from the real real victims out there. While you're over here partying, you know, you're coming back to your accuser and you're just

00:29:41--> 00:29:46

having a blast, you know what I mean? And put it out there for the whole world to see and then this now,

00:29:47--> 00:29:59

this comes up. I'm so glad you mentioned that because that's an important point to know, myself. I've got family member who's been a victim of domestic abuse. I've helped a woman who

00:30:00--> 00:30:50

she said that she'd been taken advantage of by a religious scholar. So we're not saying don't believe any women. But similarly, we're saying don't believe all women, because you can't have both. And as you said, anytime you go into one of the extremes, no one's gonna believe real victims. And similarly, innocent people will go to jail. And that's what Islam stops. And hence why we have this idea of doing things from the legalistic point of view, having witnesses. So going back to the Madhavan woman, kits, and pets, personal assistant, as well as someone who's involved in her career company, went out went on Romanian national TV. And she said that when the alleged incident

00:30:50--> 00:30:53

happened, there was actually two other women present at the same time.

00:30:54--> 00:31:05

And those women are saying it didn't happen. So now you got two more witnesses? Who were there when the situation was supposed to have happened? They are

00:31:06--> 00:31:45

reporting that they're making accusations for and these two witnesses say no, it's not true. Exactly. Because they would have been accomplices then, exactly. Okay, and then show you that you've got that incident. And then after that, when you look at the judicial documents, what the judge is saying is, guess what, we've got the witness statement of the woman. And what the women did, what woman the women did was the two of them, even though one only accused, and they went to a psychologist and made report. But it wasn't a court approved one, even though it is an expert psychologist. So they're the only two pieces of evidence they've got. And what the judges said is,

00:31:45--> 00:32:26

that's enough evidence to remind them for 20 ideas. So 30 days, that's enough evidence to remind them for 30 days, but it's not enough evidence to prosecute or convict. So therefore, Mr. Prosecutor, you need to provide a new evidence or add additional evidence so that we can actually prosecute the test on this allegation in my mind, so this is now just my opinion, in my mind, I can't see what evidence they could get, that could prove that allegation. Even because they've had nine months to find this evidence, this when you when you accuse someone of something like that, that evidence is going to be more closer to the time rather than after the time, if it's taking you

00:32:26--> 00:32:50

nine months to find this evidence, I find it hard to believe that they will find this evidence later. Further, further, just to in this specific case. And just to show you that there's something strange going on between the judiciary, and the prosecutor they only gave and the TED team, the legal fires 45 minutes before they were going to take him to court to decide about reminding him.

00:32:52--> 00:33:10

So this is the problem. We have this a huge in terms of that specific case, the evidence is weak, the women have disappeared. So you don't know Have they gone to the US if they have that seems suspicious, where have they gone? No one knows. And the evidence specifically for that is very, very weak.

00:33:12--> 00:33:18

Now this, and I'll go on to the human trafficking in a bit, but also what's been proliferating throughout

00:33:19--> 00:33:24

source social media, as well as the normal reading media is, there's a company called vise.

00:33:26--> 00:33:45

And that company has released two articles, as well as a TV documentary hit piece. And they were definitely geared to be hit pieces, because you can see from the direction that there was no balance. There was no positives in terms of the way things happened during because what happened was the vice reporter went to

00:33:47--> 00:34:08

Andrew to interesting Ted's house and spent three days there where they did miss mixed martial arts. And he presented that as something which was very bad, like men being violent, doing martial arts and never looked at the positives. And I'm aware that you're involved in martial arts. And I don't think, would you you wouldn't agree that it's some violent, aggressive sport, and there's no benefits to everybody.

00:34:10--> 00:34:52

Exactly. There's going to be huge amount of there's a huge benefit to all martial art. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Huge amount of benefits, whether it's physical benefits, mental benefits. Yes. There's a huge amount of benefits. And he didn't he didn't speak about any of that. But specifically talking about the vise hit pieces. There was an allegation against the TED in 2050. And this is the first allegation, and there was two women who accused him. And what happened was, those two women went to the place and they accused him. Now in that time in the United Kingdom, we used they used to be a room that whenever someone accused someone, you would take their phones, both the accuser and

00:34:52--> 00:34:59

the accused. So they took the women's phone, they looked through it and what they found on those phone

00:35:00--> 00:35:09

was worried that the women were speaking to each other and colluding with each other about the acquisition. You can look this up. This is something that's out there. Yeah.

00:35:10--> 00:35:50

Yeah. It's actually on bases piece, but they don't highlight it. How come? Why isn't mainstream media showing that part? Well, that's the problem, because everything's about the way you present it. And so, when, for example, there was a vice reporter, Sophie, who presented this and she made it look like the reason it was dropped was because the CPS made mistakes, and the police delayed, but in reality, that's not what happened. The police didn't make the layers which was unacceptable, this, they took four years to investigate. That is not an that is unacceptable. But the police's delays actually affect both parties. If you're a victim, imagine waiting four years, it can be

00:35:50--> 00:36:12

heartbreaking. But at the same time, if you're innocent, waiting four years for your name to be exonerated is very, very stressful. So that was the police but when the information with the CPS because the CPS in the United Kingdom, what they do is they look at the information. And they say, you know, what, is this strong enough that we can prosecute? If it's not if the evidence is strong enough, not strong enough that they drop the case and they don't take it forward?

00:36:13--> 00:36:53

So the CPS, when they were deciding the merit of it said that, look, these two women are colluding. They send each other voice notes, and then various other reasons for it, and then they dropped the case. And so that was the reason for that piece, but they didn't highlight that they presented it in this way that actually it was dropped because of the CPS, which is hugely problematic, you should always provide things which are balanced. But then the second vice headpiece was even worse. In terms of agenda driven. You had a woman from 2013 who accused Andrew tech and what they did was very nefariously again the please had both evidences provides never demonstrate presented it. You did

00:36:53--> 00:37:33

give voice note of case speaking or shadow on La ilaha illa Illa illa wa Shalu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah. Wow. Mashallah, I feel like a new man. Now it's time to marry a Somali bad one in Islamic marriage and create Abdi Trump Jr. to run my new barriers and hello vampire. From now on, please refer to me as our Mohammed in Trump. Which sounds bad, it is unacceptable. Again, I said in the Islamic in Islam, It's haram. But in the western paradigm, this type of like pink type behavior, they consider it acceptable. So he was speaking in in a vulgar manner.

00:37:35--> 00:38:21

But we don't have the woman's voice. So imagine the cutting just half of it. That is very, very nefarious. Because you should always listen to both sides of a conversation, so that you can fully understand what's happening. And they did the same thing with the messages. So in the message is says, I want to, you know, you I want to do something bad to you. But they don't put her messages in the article. And then it's only in the documentary, they flush it for one second. And luckily, some people were astute enough that they paused it. And they saw the message, and in and then they put a message on social media, which I added to my article where it said, where she says, it can't be

00:38:21--> 00:38:22

great if I consented.

00:38:24--> 00:39:06

So it can't be great. If unless I can she's saying this. Yeah, that's right. So this is the part that they conveniently left out. Exactly. And so that's the horrendous nature of the vise report. And because they had an agenda, they went ahead with that agenda. And even with the video, there's many videos showing how they cut certain things to make, make them look bad. But when people put the full video on it, it's just totally different to the scenario. So that was basically to answer the why isn't why have I mentioned that even though they're not relevant to the case, is because the bias nature of reporting, but the bias niche of social media, and normal media reporting, and then

00:39:06--> 00:39:22

what's worse about that case, sorry, is in 20. So they realize that guess what you're gonna get they're gonna get backlash, because what that woman in 2013 did was she continued relations with Andrew tech for six months after the allegation.

00:39:23--> 00:39:26

So I'm talking relations as well as being still being her girlfriend.

00:39:27--> 00:39:47

They knew this was a problem. So they tried to combine. So how they come back at it was they got a feminist researcher to say actually, this is normal behavior. So I looked into this feminist researcher, and she had RA or presented a conference paper on Simone de bois de Beauvoir, and

00:39:49--> 00:39:59

why that's important is if she is somebody who considers who thinks of Simone is in such a positive light. Well, Simone is the

00:40:00--> 00:40:34

Easy for second wave feminism. She is the one that called Second wave wave feminism. For more than that these are the type of people that they're using as evidence. She was known that she wanted to decriminalize pedophilia rules. And more worse than that she with, we used to basically seduce minus, with John Paul Sartre, and then have something called the trios, you know, like how you heard about Giselle max. So Giselle, Maxwell, and Epstein, they had that type of behavior going on, but with minors,

00:40:35--> 00:40:37

and she is considered

00:40:38--> 00:41:06

the authority of someone that this woman looks up to. So this is the ideology of feminism, or, well, it seemed like that she's doing a conference paper on it, it may not be the case, but I'm just presenting to you in terms of what they did to try and combat the problem that they knew they had. So in terms of advice, the, the information is very weak. Finally, the last allegation is human trafficking. Now, the problem with the human trafficking is this.

00:41:07--> 00:41:52

And again, in Islam, I want to be clear we're against, we're against the webcam business, were against quality funds, or were against, you know, even Instagram, women are using projection projecting themselves, in order to gain money. Again, this type of, we're against all of it in our paradigm, this is not allowed. This entire paradigm is actually more, it's the manipulation of a man rather than a woman. It's actually men who have not got access to women who have not married or have got no way of, you know, having relations with women, or given away stupid amounts of money, just have some kind of interaction with a woman, even if it's something as measly as watching her drink

00:41:52--> 00:41:58

water. So that's the level of Western Western society is gone, and men are definitely being

00:42:00--> 00:42:05

are being used in this manner and manipulated. So definitely, this is a manipulation of men,

00:42:07--> 00:42:15

is exploited exploitation of men, and it's an exploitation of women, to a smaller extent, because women actually make money, whereas the men are just given away money.

00:42:16--> 00:42:58

But coming back, I think that's an important point to know, because people, unfortunately, when you look at the case and analyze it, they try and paint you as being someone who supports these ideas, but we don't. Now, in terms of the specific case, you've got a scenario where you've got six women, two of the women have said that we are being called victims, or we are not victims, he has family. So if we take their word for that leaves only four women, two of the women are the US woman and the Madhavan woman, the US woman was not there long enough that there could have even been human trafficking because there's not as there's no evidence being presented and nor has any statements

00:42:58--> 00:43:22

come out from and she was, yeah. But she's been presented by, for example, Eliza and a few people who are quite popular on social media, who read her statement out publicly, and she's the one. She's the one that went to get the dominant dominant, I got Domino's Pizza over there. She wants to go. I think it was Domino's. Yeah, it was some kind of pizza shop. And so that that's her. So now the question becomes of the three women.

00:43:23--> 00:43:32

Which one? So one of them is saying is one of them has given us a different accusation. So we want to go to women. So my question to the other side has been actually which asked recently,

00:43:33--> 00:44:06

which ones are actually accusing of human trafficking? Who's accusing of it? What's the evidence and what's the information, they've provided nothing, they don't even know which women accusing him, accusing him of it, accusing them of it, and why they accusing him. That's an important point to note. Now, the second point is now let's look at the judicial documents. So again, the judicial documents explain the level of evidence that they've got in terms of human trafficking, and I am going to be writing a thread on this. This is the thread I'll be releasing on Wednesday, Thursday. So my these are my initial thoughts without detailed analysis, but I think it's good enough to

00:44:06--> 00:44:51

present on your show. So the judicial documents say that guess what there has been human trafficking. And that, again, the information they have is based on witness statement, as well as wiretapping. Now, the wiretap in this area is on a social app. So I'm presuming that could be WhatsApp, or Instagram, or something like that, where conversations are occurring. So this is the information we've got. Now, like I said, what the judges said is, the information that they have on this is only enough to remand, but isn't enough to prosecute again, and isn't enough to convict. So now after nine months of wiretap, and if leaked certain things to the press, and like I said

00:44:51--> 00:44:59

earlier, if those are the strongest piece of evidence they've got, they've got no case. But let's go with the worst case scenario. Let's say the weakest evidence they've got

00:45:00--> 00:45:05

We need to wait for what that information is on the white hat. But currently, what the judge is saying is, even after I've seen that information,

00:45:06--> 00:45:52

the evidence isn't strong enough to prosecute or to convict who said that now, this is the leader, the leading judge, he said this, that's right, in his nine page judicial judicial document. So now what that means is the prosecutor and the police and the DICOM, whoever it may be, while they got the tapes in prison, actually looking for evidence. So imagine putting someone in prison, detaining them of their freedom. And now you're looking at evidence. And remember, as Muslims, we've experienced this. And to a great extent, it was in Katana MOBA where people were sent to their without a trial without ever been given an opportunity to defend themselves. And we were against it,

00:45:52--> 00:45:58

then. And we're still against it, because everything should be based on evidence. And if the under judge explained

00:45:59--> 00:46:43

that the evidence is enough to remand for, you know what he's even said, Guess what the evidence is enough to remand. But um, I think it's still good. I put my basis of deciding why I want to remand is that Andrew Tate is a social media personality, social media personality, he's well known. If he goes out, it will make our judicial system look bad. So for me, my interpretation of that is, they're afraid that when he comes out, he'll speak and make them look worse. So they want to stop his speech as well. The second, so he's, they said, We want to stop. That's one of the reasons and another reason was they said, we looked at social media. And we looked at that information on social

00:46:43--> 00:47:26

media to make it online to make a judgement. Now, the problem with this is this. That's horrendous. Because I've seen it myself. While I've been looking into this case, when people take clips out of context, of course, he looks horrendous. But whenever you look at it in a longer form, or when he's given a detailed explanation, it doesn't look as bad. Let me give you an example. So for example, he says, you know, women are dumb, they'll say women are not as smart as men. Right? So me, I'm an academic, and I'm an Islamic scholar. So for me, I can give the evidence say, look, in Islam, in the Quran, we have this idea of the big two female witnesses to make one male witness. What's the reason

00:47:26--> 00:47:40

for that? Well, we know in the 1970s, and 80s, there was a significant amount of research done to demonstrate that showed that when a traumatic event occurred, women's recall was much worse than men's.

00:47:41--> 00:48:19

That type of research is haram now, according to Western is blasphemy according to Western liberalism, so that research won't be happening now. So that's why we have to look up all the research. So now I can get my academic example and Quranic example and say, Guess what, you know, and women's recall is not as strong, and hence why we have this legislation in Quran and it makes logical sense for it, and so on and so forth. Whereas undertake will say in a more amplified way where younger people can understand. So women are not smarter whenever they ever learn something, but so he'll say in a more in a way that actually it works with the youth. But in reality, when you

00:48:19--> 00:48:58

look at the basis or the foundation of it, there is some basis or foundation behind it. So that's just an example of when you can take someone out of context up in that scenario, but then another scenario is when you click in, and you show only a few seconds or a minute and not look at the longer form. And if the judge is using that, which he said is as a way of deciding to remand and I think that's hugely problematic as well. And the last thing that they said that they that they used to remand him was, you know, the two cases that I've explained to you in detail, the 2013 case and the 2015 case in the United Kingdom. But that, again, is problematic, because if you're using that,

00:48:59--> 00:49:32

and the United Kingdom have said, This is not strong enough. This was not strong enough. We've looked at the evidence, we've not looked at what's on, we've not looked at what advice have said, well, we've actually looked at the Women's phones, we've looked at the fact that the woman was having relations with him for six months later. And we've now decided that the evidence isn't strong enough. And we look at the text messages back and forth. And the evidence isn't strong enough prosecute. Why are they then using that in the Romanian case? Again, that is hugely problematic? Yeah. I mean, it doesn't make any sense. I mean, this is something that was dropped in another

00:49:32--> 00:49:51

country. This is like, isn't this out of your jurisdiction? How does that yes, that's another point. So that's a secondary point, which is a second, not secondary is a second point, which is as important. It's a different jurisdiction as well. Why would you rely on something in the United Kingdom? You don't know what the threshold is? The United Kingdom would never rely on Romania dropping a case because they don't know what threshold is.

00:49:53--> 00:49:54

Wow, there's a lot of

00:49:55--> 00:49:59

things here that are and you pointed out also some political

00:50:00--> 00:50:40

Reasons that this was used also, for sure there's a lot of things coming out of our past or this political reasons, as I've explained, where you can see that the politicians are voting and someone just released another one. So there's two fours. There's another reason first of all, not to be released. Romania, in their standings for human trafficking is very low. So the United States have a like a ranking system. And they've said that the Romanian, Romanians are very low down, and they want to try and improve that. And they want to get in the Schengen zone as well. And what's the best way to do that is to try and go after a world famous guy, and try and get him on these charges. And

00:50:40--> 00:51:21

if you get him on these charges, you I mean, you've got the most famous man on the planet on these charges, you then given yourself a good standard to go up in those human trafficking rankings, as well as your application to the Schengen zone. That's the first aspect. The second aspect is that there's a lot of things coming out, which I've not read too much into detail on now, to understand me, it just, it was literally just before your show, I retweeted it, but I have not looked into it in detail, where again, politicians are basically using this as a leverage to be able to get elected in 2024. So there's a huge amount of politics involved in the judiciary involved. The prosecutor

00:51:21--> 00:52:00

involved. I know people don't like me talking about this as much because whenever I bring it up, they always try and change the conversation. But I really, really believe it. I'm not just sent to defend him. In Eastern Europe, in some of these countries, there is a significant amount of Islamophobia. There is huge, yeah, and there is a significant amount of racism. And so to ignore that, and think that this never happened, because this was a guy who made Romania look good. He was free advertisement for them. People used to think, wow, we're concerned about the perils of the West, where Liberalist ideology is going. And, and so they thought, you know, what, what's the

00:52:00--> 00:52:16

alternative. And the alternative was, he was trying to present Eastern Europe as a solution. And Romania as a solution. Obviously, it's demonstrated that he made an error, he did not realize that his how his his

00:52:17--> 00:53:11

his race were more so his religion was going to be impact Romania, and it clearly has, and you saw, and I made a bit of a like, sarcastic tree about this. But when you saw that strong, impactful moment where he walks in with the Quran, that was huge. For Muslims, it was huge for him. But what that showed me is, his conviction about the bean is so much that he is willing, in a very orthodox Christian country, a country which will have racist tendencies, and has Islamic phobic tendencies to show that and allow and risk being prison imprisoned, and risk that the judge is going to have a negative mind frame about you. That is just major. I'll be honest, if it was me, I would not have

00:53:11--> 00:53:48

done it. Because I would have tactically thought you know what, if I do this, they're gonna get me guilt. They're gonna say, I'm guilty, and then people are going to believe that I'm guilty. So let me prove my innocence. And then I'll, and then I'll show my strength and belief of the deal. What a risk that it takes a huge amount of character strength and thought to say that you know what, convict me. But I'm not bothered. Because what matters to me more is the religion. And Allah, that for me was huge. Wow, we're almost out of time. Yeah, if you just think about it, just paint that scenario you're coming in. And if anybody knows the history there, I mean, just being a neighboring

00:53:48--> 00:54:05

state down in Bosnia, former Yugoslavia and you know, the history there. We've I don't know if you've heard of the techniques and all the greatest genocide that happened after World War Two. And this is religiously motivated. And there's a deep hatred, a lot of huge Islamophobia there. And this is

00:54:06--> 00:54:49

something that if you look into Romania's history, and if you look at their from from that point of view, you have a now to walk in with all this hanging over your head to walk in with the Koran. Well, I can give you some anecdotal anecdotal stories that basically, I traveled to Bulgaria, which was again, in the same type of scenario as Romania. But anyway, I traveled to book it for Garia. And it used to be part of the USSR. And what they had to do was they, the USSR at that time came to eradicate Islam. And so what they did was they used to hide the Islamic books, the Islamic classical books, as well as the Koran's on the underground so that they weren't destroyed. And then so many

00:54:49--> 00:55:00

years later, now, they showed me a labyrinth and look, these are the books that we buried. And now we've taken them out, and we've put them in the library. So just assume that that kind of stuff

00:55:00--> 00:55:03

Psychology is completely died out is not right.

00:55:05--> 00:55:29

So all of these factors need to be considered. So I will just say as my final thoughts because you said that you're, we're about to close my final thoughts, this is very simple. We are not supporting Undertale. And even my support them, I wouldn't consider a support, we are looking at the information on its mirror. If, and the merit is showing the Andrew tech based on the evidence that we have right now is innocent.

00:55:30--> 00:56:13

And based on looking at everything, because what people are doing is looking at one information cutting out or taking a giant leap. But just looking at the evidence on the face of it. It's our moral and religious duty to speak the truth. And I can tell you now, there's no benefit in volunteer, zero, I'm not receiving any benefit at all. It's actually the other way around, I've been canceled, up income article was taken down on my university post was removed. So I've been canceled considerably. Your article was taken down from where? So I wrote an article about about Greta and Andrew tear and the race issue about it. And then a leading black newspaper approached me and said,

00:56:13--> 00:56:50

Oh, your thread is so nice. Can you convert into an article? I said, Yeah, sure. I sent it to them. He saw it. And he said, your articles brilliant, didn't ask me for any corrections, put it up. And then once they got went public, and there's so much support of tech, they removed my article. Second thing was I was meant to teach a module on Islam and Christian ethics for undergraduates in university. Again, because they made complaints about my post about Tet, they said they investigate in the investigating and what by the time they've investigated, and I'm able to respond,

00:56:51--> 00:57:29

I won't be able to teach the module. So and so that's I've not received any benefits just cancellation. So there's no benefit from supporting it. But the only reason I'm doing it is because of my religious or moral duty is just the right thing to do. And if evidence does come out that and it's unequivocal, because not these kinds of fake evidences that we've been seeing now, well, I wouldn't call them evidences, but if only equivocal evidence comes, of course, I will say look, that evidence is strong, he should be convicted. And that will be the end of it. But up to now there's nothing. And so as Muslims, I will advise the Muslim community because I would say most of the

00:57:29--> 00:58:09

Muslim community has been spoiling him, and some awaited and then support them. But there is an element who are very vocal against him. And I'd say, as a Muslim, it's your duty to look at the evidence. And it's your duty to look at the information and make a decision. And also, my last point about that is this. In Islam, he's only converted to Islam for a couple of months, from our understanding of Islam, he's a child, he's learning, even if he has got activities that he was doing in the past, we have to judge him, or we have to look at the activities he did after that. Furthermore, there may be certain activities that he will do pre Islam, and what

00:58:11--> 00:58:52

what his friends have told me why Muslim, for example, so just some calm, that he is making moves to separate himself from DARPA, we know when you've got major businesses that are not a lot harder on SHA haram and Islam. It's not as easy as shutting them down in a day. But as long as you're putting the points in place, I'm taking the steps and the measures in place to stop them. That is good, that is good at this point. And once enough time has passed, and he stopped. And then we can then people can say bad things about him. But right now to basically go after him and attack him based on his Islam, I believe is unacceptable. And the second thing is to go after him about the charges, which

00:58:52--> 00:59:28

are very weak. I implore anybody that whenever you put evidence out there research, even me, whenever I see a piece of evidence, I guess now everybody, now that everybody's seen all the threads that I've written, I guess that a huge amount of information is made things easier to research, actually, because you get center. But whenever I see a piece of information, I always ask, Where did this come from? Where's the long form of this? And what is it? And you know, when and isn't legitimate? And only when I get that information? Do I ever post it as an example, there's a Romanian lawyer who posted and said that, you know, the law in Romania is that the the test team

00:59:28--> 00:59:59

should have received the evidence test within 10 days. So on the 29th of December 10 working days after that you should have received, you know, the case file. It's now been well over that and have not received the case file. But despite that, I didn't take that as evidence. I've now messaged him and said, What is the evidence that this 10 day rule exists? Now if I was the other side, they would have posted it straight away. But that's why I'm saying I'm asking everybody please look at the evidence properly. Look at the data properly, look at the information properly verify it

01:00:00--> 01:00:29

I understand that when you're presented an argument, how are you presenting the argument? And when you're using certain words, why are you using those words as an example, some people use the word pimp. And I had to write a long thread to refute how he's not a pimp and to provide evidence and provide literature to prove that why he's not so whenever you use terms and whenever you mix them as please please look at the evidence that's our duties as Muslims duties as human beings.

01:00:30--> 01:01:11

Just came to my mind when you were talking about the we touched upon the history there in Romania. Are you familiar with the history of this goes deeper? This silly you can do a whole segment on but I'm just curious, do you have you heard of this? Blood Dracula? Yes, I was gonna that funny enough. You I'm so glad you asked that, which is a guy used to spike Muslims. I was actually gonna include that in my thread. Yeah, I was reading my mind. If if the Romanian judiciary continues to demonstrate unjust injustice, and see more evidence of their behavior, that was actually going to be one of my posts is going to be within my thread. Yeah, this is deep. This goes much, much deeper

01:01:11--> 01:01:30

now. Like what you were saying So alright, so answering the question now, you know, people wondering and I guess we went through all of this. And again, Islam is clear Islam, eradicate all of this webcam, porn, you know, it's a, you know, porn industry, and does webcam, all of this account for more than the Hollywood industry.

01:01:32--> 01:01:59

All of this, all of this Islam has the solutions is the antidote to all of this. And now somebody could have been doing things from the past way, way back, then they come into Islam, they got a clear slate. Now, it doesn't mean that if somebody's done something wrong, they don't are not held to account. Absolutely. You know, if they've done something but you've uncovered, sir, you are uncovering certain things is now you've turned into almost like an investigative journalist, and you're looking at the facts. And you're

01:02:00--> 01:02:43

exploring this deeper. So to answer the question for that people are asking, Why is the Muslim, the defending Andrew Tate, why is the Muslim going this far? Pretty much in a nutshell, how would you answer this? And because it's my Islamic and moral duty to seek justice based on what the Quran has taught us, in Surah Nisa, which is aptly named the women, and it's our duty, and it's not just in that it's just as I mentioned, more than 20 times and Quran. So for us, that's our duty, our duty is to Allah, and is to speak the truth. And if the truth is even against us, and if the truth is against the judiciary, or even if the truth is, again, Ted, we will speak out against it.

01:02:45--> 01:03:20

And if there was clear, lucid evidence, on the contrary, your quit, you'd be you would change change your position in a heartbeat. Okay. All right. Thank you very much by last month, Allah God Almighty rewards you. Thanks for spending some time with us and sharing some of these things you've uncovered. Thanks for having me. I do appreciate it. You're welcome. Salaam Alaikum pullup Kanika Muslim. I cannot leave without giving you a gift. If you're not yet Muslim, and you tune in and see what these Muslims are talking about. And you'd like a free copy of the Quran. Go and visit the deen show.com. We'll take care of the postage and everything and get it delivered to you. And if you

01:03:20--> 01:03:30

still have some questions about Islam, call us at 1-800-662-4752 We'll see you next time. Until then, Peace be with you as salaam alaikum.