Yasir Qadhi – Whats Behind the Hijab Bans An Analytical Look Ask Shaykh YQ – EP 261

			107 ami COVID ad in Regina and no he him first IRLO lickity
		

			Joomla John
		

			mill Alhamdulillah wa Salatu was Salam ala Rasulillah ala alihi wa sahbihi woman who Allah Hama,
back.
		

			As we are all aware,
		

			in the land of India, there's a lot going on when it comes to our sisters and the law of wearing
hijab. And one of the states has now banned the wearing of hijab in schools, for teachers and for
students. And as you have probably all seen some very distressing video footage from many different
incidents across the country. And this is a part of a much larger trend of the Hindutva BJP party to
try to marginalize all the minorities, and to make the claim that their land India is a land only
for Hindus and all minorities should feel out of place. And there's more and more pressure that is
being reached up and we ask Allah as protection for them and for all of the minorities around the
		

			world. Now today's talk is actually going to be probably part one, there's going to be a part two as
well. Instead of jumping on the Quran, and sooner which is very important, it's the beginning to the
religious side. Today, I'm going to take a step back and talk about it from a sociological
perspective to understand what is going on. Because the fact of the matter is that it's not just
India where this is taking place. In fact, almost 15 years ago, the discussion began in France even
30 years ago, one can see in the 90s, the first case of a French Muslim, reached the court, where
the when she was wearing hijab, and this continued to circulate in the 90s after the events of 911
		

			until finally in 2010, France became the first western country to officially ban the burqa and niqab
and to put restrictions on the hijab. So this is the first European country to open this door. And
this opened up the floodgate, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, parts of
Germany, certain localities in Italy, some spaces in Spain, Russia, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway,
every single almost every single country started passing laws to ban the burqa or to ban the niqab
or to have restrictions even on the hijab and across Europe and even in India Parliament's debated
the niqab Parliament's. I want you to understand what this means. People that have been elected to
		

			take care of a country are discussing for days and weeks and months. A piece of covering that some
ladies wore when France was discussing the niqab for weeks on end, some journalists calculated that
in the whole country of France, there were probably 1900 Nickleby ladies in a land of 70 million
people, less than 2000 Ladies chose to wear the niqab and the parliament is stopping his business
and not talking about health and taxes and whatnot. And for days and weeks. This is front page news
until finally the end up banding the niqab. One wonders what is going on here? Why should the
Parliament of a country of 70 million people get involved in the issue that barely touches 0.002% of
		

			his population? Have they nothing more important to discuss than something so trivial? Of course we
all understand and every political analyst that is neutral understands it's not about the Hedgehog
is not about the niqab. It's not about the issue of covering or uncovering. It is crystal clear that
the hijab the niqab, the burqa has become a symbol of Islam and the Islamic civilization. And it is
now the visible understanding of what it means to be a Muslim. And hence these types of legislations
have nothing to do with the job they have to do with this perceived clash between cultures. They
have to do with what it means to be a European or an American, what it means to be a Muslim living
		

			in France. And in fact, we should not even start in France of 2010 or even France of 1995. If you
really want to start about the veil and about how the veil has been used as a token of colonization
as a token of demonstrating the oppression of the colonizers against our called the nice people. We
need to go back almost 100 years. We need to go back to Algeria and Francis occupation of Algeria.
This is a chapter of colonialist history that very few of us in this audience understand
		

			have studied unless you happen to be Algerian, in which case obviously, you're familiar much more
than most other people. The French occupation of Algeria was one of the most brutal. And one of the
earliest we're talking about France invaded Algeria in the 1830s 1830s, one of the first
colonization that took place, and it ruled over Algeria, brutally talking about concentration camps
that the Nazis France was before them talk about mass murders and killings, France was before them,
so much volume was done. And one of the things that they did, one of the tactics that they employed
was to force women to Annville. This was a tactic that France used in colonized Algeria, you have to
		

			understand Algeria was viewed like like Texas, in America, it's a state of America. That's how the
French viewed Algeria, and they ruled over Algeria for 135 years, only in the 60s, some of our elder
brothers are still alive when France exited Algeria, only in the 60s, did France exit Algeria. But
of course, the impact and of course, the tactics they remained. And one of the most famous
incidents, or one of the most famous public debate calls was the Algerian War of Independence in
1958. When Algeria tried to expel the French they lost. So the French gathered up hundreds of 1000s
of men and women, and they literally forced women to unveil in public and there are pictures of
		

			this, they forced women to unveil and the wives of French military officers, they physically got
involved in the crowd. And these are all if you like, almost prisoners, I mean, not quite prisoners,
but it's they're, they're under occupation, what are they going to do, and they are forcing the
sisters to take off their hijab. And unfortunately, as you probably understand some of the Algerian
sisters, they embrace this, and they thought, this is a good thing, and many of them were forced to
do so. These highly publicized ceremonies were given the debacle we should say they were framed as
empowering Muslim women, they were framed as liberating Muslim women. This is the 1950s Forget
		

			Afghanistan, the American Vision, this is the 1950s this is perhaps the first time where a
colonizing power is literally telling the people that, hey, this is for your own good, just like a
child is given, you know, it's medicine, they don't understand. So this is for your own good. We
have to free you from the veil that has oppressed you. And there's a really good book that you can
read Neil McMaster a professor here, he wrote a book, this is the title of the book, burning the
veil, the Algerian War and the emancipation and quotation marks of Muslim women 1954 to 1962, an
entire book called Burning the veil, the Algerian War and the emancipation of Muslim women 1952 To
		

			1962 1954 to 62. In this book, he goes over and chronicles multiple spectacles ceremonies that took
place. And he mentioned that a lot of times these women were recruited from very poor areas, they
were bribed, they were pressured, they were pressured for public safety. In one of the highest cases
of disregard, they enlisted a very vocal young lady by the name of a museum, and her brother had
been imprisoned and tortured. And they said to her, if you take your hijab off, then we will release
your brother, otherwise, he's going to die in our chamber in our jails. The people didn't know that.
She was a prominent activist, she was a freedom fighter. And she had to encourage and pretend that
		

			she's eager to take off the hijab. Nobody knows the behind the scenes story, her brother was being
tortured. And she was given this chance out if you do this, we will release your brother and her
story became a very big story. Oh, she was a freedom fighter and this and that. Now she is saying
she's gonna take the pill. And she publicly took the hijab off. And she said, this is you know,
embracement and French values and laces and everything. And the people did not know Allah Hoon was
Stan and of course Yanni Sharla, she's forgiven and all this but we have to understand the tactics,
we have to understand what is going on. It is far beyond just the issue of the hijab. The Hijab has
		

			become a token, there's a symbolic power in the veil, and the veil itself, the hijab itself, it
became a tool that was used both by those fighting against the colonizers, and by those who were
attempting to colonize. And in fact, one of the most brilliant minds of that era, he is considered
to be one of the founders of post colonial theory, a French, an African Frenchman, by the name of
Franz Franz Fanon, Frantz Fanon, fa N. O. N. Franz Fanon. He wrote a number of books, including
Algeria, unveiled, unveiled the notion is the hijab Algeria unveiled and he wrote them his most one
of his most famous books is black skins, White Masks, you should all know this basic stuff about
		

			post colonial theory if you want to, if you're if you're interested, Franz Fanon.
		

			died 1961 He states in his works, and Franz Fanon was a non Muslim pause here footnote, some say he
embraced Islam. He did adopt the native Brahim. He was, by the way, history is very interesting.
This is my first tangent after two years, guys give me some some slack here. History is very
interesting. And all of you should at least know this much about him. He was born on a French Island
Martinique, something like this. As an local person of that island, who has been colonized. He
studied in France, he became a psychiatrist. He was hired by the French military, he was sent to
Algeria to counsel the soldiers, and also the local Algerians who work for the French government.
		

			Okay, so he became a psychiatrist sent by the army. And as he's talking to the soldiers and the
local Algerians, he begins to see the world in a very different light. He quits his job, he joins
the resistance. He writes some of the most powerful anti colonialist books, he he launches an entire
trajectory of the humanities called post colonialist theory, and he talks about so many deep ideas
that are beyond the scope of our lecture today. One of them being that the colonized the one who has
been colonized. In fact, he has no identity anymore, because his real identity has been stripped
away. He must speak the language of the colonizer better than the colonizer himself. He must act
		

			like the colonizer, hence the title, black skins, White Masks, he was black skins, white man, you
have to pretend to be who you're not, and act and speak and get the degrees and whatnot of somebody
that you're not, and you lose your identity in the process. So it's a very deep book. And it's very
interesting and a separate subject for us. We're interested in the job. And Franz Fanon mentions the
obsession of the Algerian occupation with the hijab, they're constantly worried about the hijab, and
he says, quoting one of the French generals, or one of the French, the psychology, he says, and this
is from his books, if we want to destroy the structure of Algerian society, its capacity for
		

			resistance, we must first of all, conquer it's women, we must go and find them behind the veil where
they hide themselves and in the houses where the men kept them out of sight and take them out of the
veil. Take them out of the houses. This is an explicit tactic of the French colonizers to change the
social structure, and to destroy the cultural identity of what it means to be a Muslim and a Muslim.
And they're targeting women and the role of women and the hijab of women. And he has a very famous
phrase, Franz Fanon very famous phrase, he says, memorize this, this woman who sees without being
seen, who sees without being seen, frustrates the colonizer and quote, in other words, the
		

			colonizer, the French, are frustrated that they cannot see this lady, she is hidden. She's
mysterious. She's beyond the gaze of the French, and so they want to strip her away, and he in fact,
uses the word. The * of her identity uses those words, he Frenchmen wants to strip her away of
her own dignity, and she becomes a token and upon and her hijab becomes a pawn in a far more vicious
game. It's not about her hijab, it's about identity. It's about what it means to be colonized and
colonizer. It's about being or not obeying status quo standing up and rejecting the colonizer. So
the hijab becomes a symbol of standing up against colonisation. And the French hated that the French
		

			could not stand that it was as if Muslim women were saying, We don't care who you are. We don't care
what your culture are, we are who we are. And the French could not stand that. So they attacked the
hijab. They tried to outlaw it. They had public demonstrations where women would take the hijab off
and they would embrace our sisters who took their hijab off. And this is the reality again, we find
it to this day. Ironically, in claiming to liberate women. From the constraints of the veil, the
colonizer was forced to liberate them with violence, thus becoming the culprit of the very crime
that he accuses Muslim men of. He says Muslim men force the women to cover so what did the French
		

			do? They forced the women to uncover so they become blatantly guilty of the alleged crime. That is
not true that they accused us of doing and this is the irony of the colonizer as he attempts to
liberate the subjugated women. When we also look at the modern day ex Muslim movement that primarily
focuses on freeing Muslim women from the hijab, we can trace it back to colonial times. There is a
trend in Egypt in India, Pakistan, in Bangladesh, there is a trend across the Middle East of women
		

			Men who embrace feminist ideals and also embrace aspects of colonialism. The first figures in this
movement, were actually people who wanted the British rule over them who wanted the French to rule
over them. Don't be surprised when they're also embracing the values of clothing and rejecting the
scarf. And these were the people that were groomed by the British and the French and they were
propped up. And this is not just by the way, in hijab, all of us in India, Pakistan, there were
various movements, pseudo religious movements of people who claimed to be mystics and prophets that
were propped up by the British, the British and the colonizers use these tools. And one of the tools
		

			they used was to give this notion that women are empowered when they give up the hijab, women are
liberated when they don't dress the way that they were supposed to. So one of the ways we need to
look at this entire discourse is through the lens of colonization, and the complex that still exists
to this day. Another lens is the lens of secularism and humanism, because once again, the veil
becomes a token in another vicious battle. What is this battle, the battle between those who think
religion is an integral part of their lives, versus those who think religion should be left in their
house? Keep it private? Because the hijab shows that the one who wears it does not make a
		

			distinction between the House and the street, that the Lord is the same, the God is the same if I'm
at home, and if I'm in the street, I My Lord is still the same. But of course, secularists
humanists, they don't want this, especially the far right type. The French type of humanists and
secularists pause here, you should be aware, there's two main versions of secularism. There's many
but there's two main you have the American version, and you have the French version, right? The
American version, generally speaking, is much more accommodating to religion. The reason is that our
founding fathers in this country, generally speaking, were themselves religiously persecuted by the
		

			Anglican Church, they came here seeking religious freedom. Once upon a time, all of our 13 colonies
here in America, they had a slightly religious flavor, every colony had a different sect of
Christianity. So they wanted religion to be separate from state and they encouraged private
religion. Hence, America, amongst the western democracies still is the most religious contrast this
with Europe obviously has a totally different trajectory. And the French in particular, they
despised religion, because the French Catholics, the papacy, it's supported the monarchy, and the
monarchy was completely despised by the French, you know, the scholars for dollars. And just like in
		

			many Arab and whatnot, regimes, you have those Roma Salatin, so when the Pope supported the
monarchy, so it destroyed the Catholic church even. And so when they revolted against the monarchy,
they actually pretty much wanted to outlaw almost religion, they just wanted to get rid of religion
completely. So they're far more militant in their understanding of secularism. And they have a term
called a city. This is the term that the French use the point being that in this version of lace
city, they don't want to see religion. They don't want anything to do with religion. Now, in the
course of the last 200 years, the French have softened towards Catholics once upon a time, they were
		

			much more anti Catholic. Now they've softened, so the long term history, but who's the new religion?
Who is the new kid on the block? Who's the new civilization that is religious? Obviously, it is. It
is us. And by the way, why is it us because you guys colonized Algeria, North Africa, there would
not be 10% Muslims in our in France, had you guys not ruled over 140 years, right? Don't blame them
for going to their own country. Algeria was France. So there was a complete back and forth, it was
the same nationality. You guys wanted them to come, especially after World War One and World War Two
when you needed men to come. So it's a very,
		

			it's a very hypocritical type of attitude that we get to invade you. We get to take over your lands,
by the way, the same with England and India, right? England and India. Now the British are angry
that there's so many Asians Indians in India, well, where were you for 300 years, what were you
doing in India since the East India Trading Company, so again, it's as if they forget their history,
they're allowed to do to others, what nobody can do unto them. And it's not as if Asians or Muslims
are doing and they're just living. They're just living in Egypt, sorry, in France and in and in
England and whatnot. In any case, my point being another battle that is being waged is the battle
		

			between secularism and between religiosity. And once again, we as Muslims need to see through this,
unfortunately, we have across the Muslim world, so many men and women not understanding this
recently in Pakistan, there were many protests in the streets, many just in many modesty type of
protests, right? Very common in that land and SubhanAllah. For the Arabs in the audience, this means
a woman are saying, This is my body, my choice. This is the slant
		

			The slogan a feminist, my body and my choice, and one wonders Subhanallah Where is Islam and all of
this? Where is Islam in all of this? The paradigm that they're coming from is not the paradigm of Al
hamdu lillahi rabbil aalameen It's not the paradigm of somebody who believes in Allah is Magical
Monk, Allah is the rub. Allah is the One who is in charge. Yes, it might be Teddy mercy but it's not
that he just him for sure. It's Allah's just him. It's Allah's monk, Allah controls you, you are not
your property, you are not your God. You have no right to say my body. Who are you to say my body?
Did you create your body out of nothing? I'm holding human radiation a human holophone How can you
		

			say my body it's not you or me who is this This body belongs to it is Allah subhana wa Tada. You and
I are servants of Allah. So don't say medi, just a medi mercy. If you're a Muslim, and you believe
in La ilaha illAllah Muhammad Rasool Allah, you can say many mercy and you have to answer to Allah
for Your Mercy, yes, but you cannot say Mary Joseph, it is not your just or my jism you belong to
Allah and I belong to Allah. But this paradigm of this is mine means they want to remove God from
the picture. And this is where secularism comes. And we as Muslims don't believe in this type of
dichotomy. We belong to Allah and to him, we shall return. So once again, the veil becomes a
		

			sacrificial pawn in yet another battle in yet another clash between different versions of religion,
different versions of culture, and race and colonization. And what it is, is that the colonizer or
the dominant race and culture like the BJP, like the governments across Europe, what they want to
do, they want to flex their muscles, they want to show their power against our women, they choose
women as their target, they choose the hijab as the symbol to flex their identity, this is who we
are, if you don't like it, then leave this land. And the fact of the matter is, again, the only
reason Muslims are there as you guys went everywhere else and brought them back. That's the only
		

			reason they're there. And secondly, that notion obviously contradicts their understanding of freedom
and liberalism. And everybody points this out. Look, you want to ask me what I believe. I believe
that Allah azza wa jal is one who decides good and bad. But when we live in these secular lands, we
respect the lands, we understand this is their law, we we are following their law, even if we don't
agree morally with their law. I say this publicly many times, right. Alcohol is sold in public. I
don't agree with it, but I'm not gonna buy it. I have to follow My law. I understand alcohol is sold
same * marriage, it has been legalized, I don't agree with it. It's their law. They have done it.
		

			What can I do? It's their law, but I'm never gonna say that it is acceptable. I'm never gonna say
it's morally permissible. And when somebody criticizes me, I say, Hey, your own evangelicals think
that abortion is murder, and your own Supreme Court allowed abortion? Are you going to kick all the
Evangelicals out? Are they any less American for saying that abortion is murder for disagreeing with
the Supreme Court? We as Muslims, who are American need to claim our American identity under Islam
don't need to be embarrassed about this. I don't have to agree morally with the law. I must obey the
law. Yes, I cannot act in civil disobedience. You know, I cannot go and harm people and whatnot.
		

			Okay, fine. But I don't have to respect the morality of the law. I don't have to say I agree with
the law in terms of its morality. I can say I'm going to follow it. Okay. That's, that's understood.
So the point being, when somebody comes in, says, How can you support liberalism, we say we are not
supporting liberalism, we agree to live under a liberal lifestyle, we agree, live and let live, you
are who you are, I am who I am. We agree to live like this fine. This is how we are living. And it
is a civic responsibility for all of us to do so. Now, according to your laws of liberalism, live
and let live. Everybody should have the freedom to dress as they please. By the way this is
		

			enshrined in our Constitution, it is enshrined even in the Indian constitution, all constitutions
that claim to be secular and neutral. They say the right of religion is not going to be infringed
upon. And yet, of course, the one right that they cannot stand is the right of Muslim women to cover
their themselves. That's the one thing they cannot stand and SubhanAllah. This needs to be said. It
needs to be said a few years ago across Europe, prime ministers, parliamentarians, so many people
were mocking the niqab, the famous incident of the Prime Minister of England, saying that those who
were in a pub, they're like post office boxes, okay? There could be potential terrorists and
		

			Subhanallah between the morning and evening of a day, Allah subhanho wa Taala sent down the plague
and the very people who mocked the niqab were forced to wear the niqab and are still wearing the
niqab for two and a half years. If this is not a miracle. And it is not a sign for us to think
about. They were saying how can society flourish when you cover your face? Then we're saying all of
our infrastructure is going to fall down
		

			They were saying there is no such thing as economy as interacting. How can I talk to you one of them
said, How can I talk to you when your face is covered. And within a few weeks of that, when she said
this Subhan, Allah, Allah sent down from above something that caused all of them to talk behind the
veil for two and a half years, and they're still talking behind the veil. After this incident, no
one can dare say, How can society flourish while somebody is covering their face? We need to never
forget what has happened in the last two years. We need to be at the forefront and always bring it
up. How can you possibly say that society is going to be harmed if some people cover their face, the
		

			whole society had to cover its faces for two years, and everything was still flourishing. The point
being that, we need to understand that this aspect of the veil and covering and whatnot, there are
so many different battles going on. So we talked about the Battle of colonized and colonizer and the
remnants of colonization, we talked about secularism versus religion, there's yet another motif as
well, that we need to understand, again, today's lecture is really about psychology and sociology.
So we understand all too often, when we are confronted with this by a non Muslim, the first thing we
say, we bring in religion, and Allah says, and whatnot, and that's fine, we're gonna get there, yes,
		

			indeed. But you need to understand the person you're talking to. He's not interested in your
religion, he's not interested, he needs to understand. And you need to understand this is a far more
vicious game. It's a far different game than just quoting things. And that what is being done here
is, as we said, the attempt to strip away independent identity from minorities, the attempt to
remove individuality from anybody who dares to be different from the dominant majority. So there is
yet another motif we need to be aware of. And that is the motif of the dominant class, in this case,
Caucasian white to a Christian Europe and whatnot, even though they're no longer Christian, the
		

			dominant class feeling that they are entitled to take their culture and force it on other people.
There is an intrinsic understanding, sometimes even verbalized, that we are God's chosen, and we
have a superior way of life. And whether you like it or not, we're going to force you to follow our
way, because our way is better than your way. Now, this motif, this understanding, was actually
explicit 150 years ago, when they went to colonize Africa, when they went to colonize India, when
they're bombing of Han iStan. And Iraq, it is explicit, we're gonna bomb democracy into them, right?
That is very explicit, that we need to get rid of dictators, not that we agree with dictators. But
		

			frankly, the dictators of the 80s were better for their people than your democracy and bombs of the
2020s. This is a brutal fact, whether we like it or not, we hate the dictators, they were definitely
not good. But the dictators of those lands, the GDP was better, the education was better, the
healthcare was better. You guys with your bombings and your SUTA democracy have left the entire
country in shambles, there is nothing to save anymore. But still, while at least there's a stable
democracy in that region, after you've exiled 6 million people after you've killed half the
population after you've bombed the entire infrastructure, what is left over there, but still this
		

			notion that our way is better. And they say this sometimes explicitly, when it comes to democracy,
they'll say it extra sleep when it comes to Christianity. They used to say this 150 years ago, and
they would call it white man's burden. This is a term you should memorize White Man's Burden. Why
are we in Africa? Why are we in Asia? Why are we in the Middle East? Yeah, we don't want to be
there. We don't want to go pillage and plunder and *. But we kind of have to because we're
spreading Christianity, we're spreading civilization. We're saving them from their backwardness. And
a part of what they're saving us from is what's the hijab. So now we come into this motif of the
		

			Savior of oppressed women, the Savior, we're going to save those people save from what from your own
bombs from your own pillaging and plundering What are you saving them from? The notion is their
culture and religion is inherently oppressive. Who said so they said, so we didn't say so. Muslim
women didn't say so. We didn't feel this, but they made a judgment call. And they said, your
religion is oppressive. And they said, We have to save you from religion. And they said, We're going
to invade and stop you from wearing the hijab. Look at how convenient it is for them to be judge,
jury, and executioner, which is exactly what they did. So here we have another notion of this, this
		

			this. And by the way, this is why they're able to sell this notion of liberating Muslim women
because they've already spread the notion that hijab is oppressing. And the average Westerner the
		

			average american to this day, when they see our hijabi sister, they think, oh, Myskina which rd? She
is oppressed? Well, they're not going to say Miskin a majority. But you get the point. You know,
they're gonna say poor lady, she's oppressed. This is the intrinsic understanding across Europe
across this country that now has settled in the minds of the broader society, that if a lady is
wearing a veil, she must be oppressed. Now, if you feel now, again, it's human nature. If you feel
somebody is oppressed, what are you going to want to do? You're going to want to help them, you're
going to want to save them. What if the one who's being oppressed doesn't realize he's being
		

			oppressed?
		

			You're gonna see he doesn't understand she doesn't understand she's been brainwashed. She's been
under imagine May Allah protect all of us. Imagine if you saw, I mean, a mela pretend. Give me an
extreme example. Imagine if you saw somebody who was trapped as a prisoner in somebody's house,
okay, locked up for years or months. And he's lost track of reality. But you realize there's a
prisoner, he's lost track of reality. He doesn't know that he's a prisoner. He actually thinks that
his captor is a good person. Okay. You understand? It's called the Stockholm Syndrome. Look, look
this up, you understand this type of notion. He doesn't even know that he's a prisoner. After so
		

			many years, he's lost track of reality. Would you care if the prisoner said, Oh, no, no, don't save
me. I want to be locked up in chains. Would you care? You're saying no, I really care about you. So
we have to understand there is a segment of Western society, a segment whose hearts are not
necessarily evil. There's a segment that is there's a segment whose hearts are not necessarily evil.
They genuinely feel that yeah, these poor Myskina, which are the ladies, they don't know any better.
They're all prisoners, metaphorically, this veil. It's like it is a shackle to them. And only when
they're free of the shackles, will they understand what freedom is. So even if they don't like it,
		

			we kind of have to push them. And this has been explicitly said by a number of parliamentarians in
Italy and Belgium and others is that look, even if Muslim women don't say this, we know better and
Subhanallah the sheer arrogance, the sheer arrogance of thinking that they know better, what they
say they're empowering women. And yet they deprive women of their own voice to speak. Look at the
irony here. They say they're empowering women, but they don't even listen to the very women that
they seek to empower. You see how arrogant that is that they think that they are qualified to speak
on behalf of others. Their terms for the subaltern and others for those of you who post colonial
		

			theory, Homi Bhabha, and others go read his stuff, all of this is stuff that is known in post
colonialism. And I'm trying to present it in a way that we can all understand. Now, another point to
note here, by the way, again, so much to be said, these are all miscellaneous points.
		

			Another point to note here is that, historically speaking, they were actually successful for periods
of time. And this is something that is interesting. colonization, As you're all aware,
		

			did it come to an end? That's a good question. I don't want to go down that tangent. Direct
colonization by and large came to an end, correct. Direct colonization. Now there's indirect
colonization, something else, but direct colonization came to an end. Okay, especially after World
War One Sykes picot agreement. And then World War Two, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh in 73. And then
Israel as well, all these countries like their, the independence that's taking place across Africa,
across the islands of the Caribbean 40s 50s 60s. They're, they're seeking their independence, you
know, quite even until the 60s 70s. So all of these direct colonization, it is very recent. It's in
		

			the generation of my father and some of our grandfathers basically, it's very recent. Now, when they
left,
		

			it is true to point out that by and large, they had succeeded, because what they wanted to do was to
create a ruling class that was our skin color, but spoke their language, okay, our ethnic heritage,
but their racial identity. Hence, Franz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, okay. They wanted to create
a ruling class that was effectively British, even as their ancestors were Indian. Okay. And by and
large, they somewhat succeeded somewhat succeeded national language, the cultural identity, etc,
etc. All of this is there. One of the things that we can also say that they succeeded in for the
time being was the hijab or lack thereof. For those of you who are above the age of 50.
		

			Go back to your memories of Egypt and Pakistan and others in the 60s, in the early 70s.
		

			You would barely see a hijab amongst the middle class and upper class
		

			almost non existent. You would barely see it in contrast to the generation before. Okay, the
generation of my grandmother, my grandmother grew up in the 30s in India 1930s and 40s. She got
married in the 30s. So you can imagine her age, she would tell me, no lady would no respectable lady
would leave leave her house without a holder without an actual forget Hey, job and worker, shit,
they would be put in a special caravan covered up to go from house to house 1930s. Fast forward to
the 1960s where my mother and father were professors at University of Karachi. Nobody wore the
hijab, not one person, according to the people of that time, in their circle, not one hijabi in all
		

			of the nursery of Karachi, in the 60s If there was one, okay, but you get my point in the entire
student population in Egypt in the 60s in the 50s. Go look at the Egyptian cinema of the 40s and
50s. Who the biller you don't know if you're watching Hollywood will the HBO will Egyptian cinema,
go look at the cinema. Don't look at it, you get my point, Danny, it's complete fascia complete with
a bit of a black and white Egyptian television and forget hijab I live in a much much more than
this. So they embraced hook line and sinker the values of the colonizer. But Subhanallah, then
something interesting happened that nobody could have predicted, nobody could have predicted in the
		

			late 80s and early 90s. Across the Muslim world, there was a resurgence of Islamic identity, a
resurgence of religious Halaqaat a resurgence of Islamic activism and dynamism. And along with that,
a resurgence of hijabs. And if you were to visit Egypt, in the 90s, all of a sudden, maybe half the
population is wearing hijab, Pakistan, upper middle class beginning, if you were to visit in the
2000s, subhanAllah, no problem, more than half now, you can say is now returning to its roots. And
what this shows us is that a newer generation is actually embracing rebellion against those people
by returning to the roots, they feel a sense of pride. A lot of times it's not even that religious,
		

			per se. And I'm just being factual here. A lot of times it's not actually coming from Allah wants me
to rather know who are you to tell me I can't wear hijab, who are you to? I want to be myself and I
know my ancestors word. And this is our culture, so they will embrace it. And that's an interesting
resurgence, which has really shocked so many Westerners, and so many of those analysts, George Bush
Senior mentioned
		

			when they're going to insert saris George Bush Jr. When they invaded Iraq, you know, his wife
basically said, Laura, she said, You know what, we have to invade because we have to free the Avalon
ladies from the boycott, she said this right when they invaded and when America is controlling all
of Afghanistan, lo and behold, 99% of ladies are still wearing burqa, even though they have the
freedom to take it off. They didn't want to take it off. What type of liberation is this when you
are forcing your values on the very people that you're bombing and killing and *? So the point
being your brothers and sisters, as we talk about all of this stuff, we need to be a little bit more
		

			political savvy, a little bit more, take the step back and understand what is happening is not just
about the headscarf. It's not just about you know, the right of women to veil or not to veil? No, it
is a vicious game being played a game of identity politics, a game of which civilization will be
more dominant, a game of who's going to be more powerful than whom, and unfortunately, out of all
the symbols they could have chosen. They chose that of hijab. Why did they choose that of hijab?
Well, because obviously it is one of the most obvious right? I mean, Muslim beard for example,
there's not necessarily a beards are in fashion. Sikhs have beards what not hijab these days, it is
		

			unique, almost unique, even if nuns wear it, what percentage are nuns and in reality, the only
civilization that still has it is the Muslim civilization. Also, they can bring in the twist of
wanting to save women, because it is unpalatable even for Western liberals to force something down
people's throats. But when you say, Oh, we're saving them, we're doing this for their own good, then
even those that are hesitant, and I have met many people like this where they think they're liberal,
but they're like, You know what? We this issue? We have to understand that such a lady is not
independent. She's not thinking for herself. She has been brainwashed since she was born. We can
		

			flip this around. How about your daughters? Are they not brainwashed from your culture and society?
How about why are you Why do you think you're neutral? Why do you think that your children are not
brainwashed? If you think our sons and daughters are brainwashed? We can say so are yours. What else
is society?
		

			and culture what else is being immersed in a civilization other than an attempt of teaching your
values to your next generation? So all of this can be done one more point inshallah and then
inshallah we will break for today and inshallah we'll continue next week the same topic, but next
week will be your standard Yani Phil q&a, which everybody also needs to know. But today was the more
sociological and historical, we need to understand as well. One other thing.
		

			And that is, we all know this, by the way, but it's good to know in a little bit of detail.
		

			The covering of the head for women was almost universally practiced amongst noble ladies of all
civilizations and cultures. Ancient Egypt, many of them would cover ancient Persia, they would cover
in Jewish law they would cover even in Christian law, they would cover the Halacha the Halacha is
the Shetty, I when we say Shediac, they say halacha halacha is the Jewish law. The halacha requires
ladies of age to cover their hair. And Moses Maimonides, Rambam, they call him most of the Mamoon.
Moses Maimonides, he said, This is the law of Musa they must cover their hair. And that's why the
most ultra orthodox to this day in Brooklyn, if you go the most ultra orthodox, they will not show
		

			their hair, they will cover it but they're covering slightly different than, than our sisters. They
cover their hair, and they tie it in a bundle and the covering comes under it. So they call it the
tissue, the scarf, and they cover it in a different way. It's like, like a bag almost it covers
their hair. And so their head is covered, and the hair is inside of that type of bag. So they should
just have a hood if you like that covers their hair. And this is the this is the the belief and the
practice of most Orthodox Jews of our times. The same goes in Christianity. In the New Testament in
multiple verses, the command is given for women to cover their hair. We have for example,
		

			in one Corinthians we have, every woman who prays with their head uncovered dishonors her head, it
is as if her head is shaved. If a woman does not cover her hair, she should have her hair cut off.
And if it is a disgrace for women to be bald, then she should cover here. In other words, the New
Testament is saying, If any woman does not wear the hijab, she might as well be bald. And if you
think it's embarrassing for women to be bald, well then cover her hair. This is in the New
Testament, there's nothing we are doing. And this is why
		

			Christian societies by and large, across the world, many of them kept their tradition to cover their
hair up until very, very recently. Even in this country of America, if you watch any show that talks
about the 1800s, early 1900s You know what? I grew up watching Little House on the Prairie. Right?
That's your Little House on the Prairie. What are the women wearing bonnets? Every time a woman
exits the house, they show she cannot exit the house without wearing that bonnet. This is here in
America. This is an 1890 1900s 100 something years ago, not that recent. So look at the irony of
ironies were something that they embraced something that they and again, if I wanted to I have a
		

			number, of course we don't have time for this. If I wanted to, I could go down another genre of
quotations when these people colonized Africa and colonized this country, with the indigenous
Indians. They criticize so many things. And we're all aware they criticized nakedness and * as
well. They criticized the fact that these people are not wearing their clothes, and that we are
civilized look at how the table has turned. You all remember that picture of our hijabi sister
sitting on a beach in France surrounded by policemen forcing her to take her hijab off Subhanallah
from where to where right now the tables have turned now in India as well, they're being forced to
		

			take it off. So as we go down all of this, understand brothers and sisters that it's not just about
the right to wear the hijab, it is a far more vicious game. It is a game of who is more powerful. It
is a game of suppression. It is a game of feeling inferior, it is a game of getting away with making
you feel that you're not fully human. You're not full citizens in our lands, or you Muslims or
Belgian or you Muslims or France or your Muslims of India, get into a place Know your place. You're
second class citizens, you're not equal to us, we have the right to tell you what to do. And we're
going to tell your women what to do. This is the mentality that is going on. So when we respond
		

			back, please understand, it's not just about the hijab, it is about the religion of Islam. It is
about who you are as a Muslim and your freedom to be Muslim in these countries. So therefore, we
cannot just respond back and say, Oh, it's the freedom of a lady to dress as she pleases. That is
one thing. We're going to come to that more
		

			Fortunately, who are you to judge what is good and bad in our culture? Who are you to tell us how we
can and cannot dress after what you have done and your own histories of colonization of pillaging,
and plundering, you have no right to tell us what to do. And we are in your lands, we pay our taxes,
we are equally citizens, like all of you. That's the essence of your democracy. And I keep on
telling you in this much of than everywhere in this country, stop making yourselves into second
class, when you're an American citizen, you need to claim that identity, and you need to claim your
Islamic identity. And don't be embarrassed about either. We are Muslims, and we're proud of it. And
		

			we are Americans who are paying our taxes, and we have every right to be proud of our Muslim
identity. And we will be Muslim in this land. And anybody who comes and tells us we can't be we will
tell them go study your own constitution, go study your own history, we have every right to be who
we are, we're gonna fight for that right at every level of the courts. Now, unfortunately, in
Europe, they have a different system, lay city and the Constitution. And I keep on saying in many
ways Alhamdulillah, because of our First Amendment, because of our Constitution, we actually do have
many more privileges than our European counterparts. And it is very difficult to legally pass laws
		

			in this country, because of our Constitution. There are pros and cons wherever you go in this
country, we thank Allah for the Constitution. That is a very beneficial document in that regard. In
India. I'm not an Indian constitution lawyer. I'm not an American constitutional as well. But from
what I had been told the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion. This is enshrined
in their constitution. So now I have been bombarded with questions from India. We're going to answer
that next week now. So I'm going to stop here.
		

			I have been bombarded with questions from India. Can you explain to our Indian governments and
whatnot as if they're watching my videos, but anyway, can you explain? Is it obligatory to wear the
hijab in our religion or not? Can you explain from the religious texts? That question I'm going to
answer in sha Allah next Tuesday. And with that, in Shall I conclude for today? Today inshallah will
not have any q&a but inshallah next week, we'll open up the floor and Alhamdulillah we're back to
scheduled on a Tuesday Halaqaat everyday after a show over here. Zakouma la Hieron. Santa Monica
Morocco to La heat albaraka.
		

			Zhu Li.
		

			Anjali either call
		

			me Ernesta Hayden Darcy any wanna tell
		

			me what to feel
		

			at what
		

			feels cool Ruby to mimma Janita.
		

			Down
		

			Down