MO HIJAB, JAMES ALI DAWAH, EasA DEBATE! ARAB MARRIAGE SLAVERY LIBERALISM – speakers Corner 3/3/19

Last Updated on



Views: 5379 , Video Rating: 4.63 , View Time: 11: Minutes, # of Likes: 38, # of Disslikes: 3

MO HIJAB, JAMES ALI DAWAH, EasA DEBATE! ARAB MARRIAGE SLAVERY LIBERALISM – speakers Corner 3/3/19

41 thoughts on “MO HIJAB, JAMES ALI DAWAH, EasA DEBATE! ARAB MARRIAGE SLAVERY LIBERALISM – speakers Corner 3/3/19”

  1. Ali dawah to quick use the slave trade .Muslim had slave back in the day as well Ali dawah is a hate preacher that hate anything that's in the Western world but he loves the money and a con man if Ali dawah does not like the western way go live in a Islamic country it's all i all double standards with Ali dawah

  2. JAMES YOU ARE PIG SHIT' I REMEMBER THAT JAMAICAN ABDULLAH SCHOOL U ASS ON COE ABOUT AGE OF CONSENT LAW IN UK, EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA, WESTERN COUNTRIES,etc. AND HE PENDED YOU UP TO CONFESS THAT YOUR OWN WHITE BRITISH FATHERS ARE THE BIGGEST PEDOS AND THAT PEDAEPHILLIA WAS A STAGNANT OVERALL SUPPORTED LAW IN BRITAIN BY THEIR GOVERNMENT JUST NEARLY 100 YEARS AGO, CAUSE YOUR WHITE RECENT FATHERS WAS FUCKING 10 AND 11 YEARS OLD ALL OVER BRITAIN AND THE REST OF EUROPE. you said:-

    "How are people who allegedly had sex with a 10 year old bigger paedophiles than a man who had sex with a 9 year old? If any person in the past molested a child I have no problem condemning that,"

    YOU IS A BRITISH WHITE PARTIALIST: " How are people who allegedly had sex with a 10 year old bigger paedophiles than a man who had sex with a 9 year old? If any person in the past molested a child I have no problem condemning that," JAMES I HAD TO QUOTE YOUR WORDING LOL' NOW LET ME ASK YOU, WHY DID YOU PUT "allegedly" like you didn't got educated by the jamaican muslim guy before about the overall pluralistic paedophillia state of britain which made it a legal law to fuck 10 and 11 year old girls, [atleast aiisha's age of what she was in the 7century at the time of marriage is still disputed amongst different muslim groups]
    james you said you "have no problem condemning" if any person in the past molested a child[read my next comment below this one], but i found it shocking how i never seen you come to speakers corner one sunday with a massive mirror for yourself and approach your fellow white men in the park from europe,britain and north america and initiate a proposing critical and condemning interrogation by asking yourself and your fellow white men many questions revolving around paedophillia and ask yourself and them' why are we not changing our last names,take injection to be black and orally disown our family tree that goes back to many of our great, great, great…..grand pedo parents and a whole paedophillia country and state that only just change the age of consent for fucking children at age 10 and 11 years old to 13 in just 25 years before the recent 20th century[1875] and later changed it again 20 years after the 20th century, james keep in mind me are currently now living in the 21 century

  3. A 1576 law making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years" was generally interpreted as creating more severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England's North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years.

    An underage girl did not have to physically struggle and resist to the limit of her capacity in order to convince a court of her lack of consent to a sexual act, as older females did; in other words, the age of consent made it easier to prosecute a man who sexually assaulted an underage girl. However, since the age of consent applied in all circumstances, not just in physical assaults, the law also made it impossible for an underage female to consent to sexual activity. There was one exception: a man's acts with his wife, to which rape law, and hence the age of consent, did not apply.

    In trials, juries were often unwilling to simply enforce the law. Rather than focusing strictly on age, they made judgments about whether the appearance and behavior of a girl fit their notions of a child and a victim. It was not only that relying solely on age seemed arbitrary to them; at least until the end of the 19th century, age had limited salience in other aspects of daily life. Laws and regulations based on age were uncommon until the 19th century, and consequently so was possession of proof of age or even knowledge of a precise date of birth.

    Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth. This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty. The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years. The age of consent, which applied to boys as well as girls, was increased to 13 years in 1863.

    Like France, many other countries, increased the age of consent to 13 in the 19th century. Nations, such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, that adopted or mirrored the Napoleonic code likewise initially set the age of consent at 10-12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century. In 1875, England raised the age to 13 years; an act of sexual intercourse with a girl younger than 13 was a felony. In the U.S., each state determined its own criminal law and age of consent ranged from 10 to 12 years of age. U.S. laws did not change in the wake of England's shift. Nor did Anglo-American law apply to boys.

    Behind the inconsistency of these different laws was the lack of an obvious age to incorporate into law. Although scientists and physicians had established that menstruation and puberty occurred on average around age 14 in Europe at this time, different individuals experienced it at different ages — a fluid situation at odds with the arbitrary line drawn by whatever age was incorporated into law.

    At the end of 19th century, moral reformers drew the age of consent into campaigns against prostitution. Revelations of child prostitution were central to those campaigns, a situation that resulted, reformers argued, from men taking advantage of the innocence of girls just over the age of consent. W. T. Stead's series of articles entitled, "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon," published in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, was the most sensational and influential of these exposés.

  4. I don't know why people even debate with Hijab, when he makes a point he doesn't let you respond, or he touches you on the shoulder and laughs. Both Ali Dawah and Hijab's etiquette is quite poor in this video, as a viewer ask yourself: Did I just watch a reasonable and fair exchange of ideas or did I watch a group of guys verbally swarm another guy? Definitely the latter.

  5. This guy gets distroyed, goes home studies about different subject comes back gets distroyed again lol so what if Arab woman can only merry an Arab man. What is he trying to merry an Arab woman?

  6. Topic is not liberalism or any other liberalism, or comparative study of Islam and liberalism, Topic is slavery in islam., an ignorant muslim man is not face of islam. There is no slavery in islam. There is slavery in Wahhabi and saudi arabia, and isis

  7. As for Hijab's comments about Liberalism, I maintain that he has constructed his own strawman conception of liberalism that is at best is totally anachronistic and thus completely unsuitable for him to try and link to claims about contemporary western society like he frequently does whenever he tries and fails to show that Muhammad's legal teachings and the resulting society is better than western society and its legal system. Muhammad hijab wants to characterise liberalism by only a single idea, the social contract, which is absurd. There are many other ideas to liberalism like individualism, liberty and equality under the law.
    The idea of a social contract, basically that a government has the authority to make laws, is not the final word on liberalism and says nothing about what laws a liberal society SHOULD make and whether a law is good or just or righteous or not. Muhammad is essentially claiming that liberalism says that any law a government makes is as good, just and righteous as any other law because the only thing that matters is that they can be considered social contracts. Which basically boils down to saying that moral status of laws in liberalism is arbitrary, meaningless, non-applicable. This is crap. It's the kind of insane misreading that only someone high on salafi islamist coolaid could come up with. Classical liberals collectively believe that say a law obligating the yearly sacrifice of 50 babies is as good and righteous as a law stating say that theft is punishable by 5 years imprisonment? As if.

  8. Just before this part of the conversation , Muhammad hijab brought up racism in liberalism so I brought up racism in islam. I claimed that islam as a doctrine is not consistent in its disavowal of racism. The strongest evidence against racism is the report that muhammad said "Surely, there is no advantage (preference) for an Arab over an aajami (non-Arab), nor a non-Arab over an Arab, nor a white over a black, except by piousness and good deeds.
    " Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 22391; al-Silsilat al-Saheeh, 2700 . A variation of this hadith is also found in musnad ahmad and this hadith is generally classed as authentic(sahih)
    But on the other hand, there is also the report that muhammad said "Wathila b. al-Asqa' reported:
    I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma'il, and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana, and he granted eminence to Banu Hashim amonsgst the Quraish, and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim. " sahih muslim Book 43, Hadith 1 (arabic reference)
    This report endorses racial arab supremacy by virtue of the superiority of lineages closer to that of muhammad. Some might try to claim that this hadith has been mistranslated and that it merely says "chose from" not "granted eminence to" , and while it is true that the arabic used in this hadith can be translated as "chose from", that leaves out the connotation within the arabic that this act of choosing from implies preference of that thing over the thing that was not chosen or superiority of the thing that was chosen. This is not merely my interpretation but something understood by the classical scholars of islamic history as well.
    To support this , I stated the fact that multiple classical islamic scholars stated that arab women should not be allowed to marry non-arab men.
    Muhammad hijab tried to whitewash and cast doubt on this claim but I told him and the crowd in the video that if they try to deny this then they are going to end up with egg on their face. So here it is:

    The Reliance of the Traveller by al-misri. This book is considered authoritative within the shafi school of islamic law and considered to transmit in general the sound, well-agreed positions of the school :
    " m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another:

    (1) a non-Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because of the hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him

    and give him peace) said,“Allah has chosen the Arabs above others'');

    (2) a corrupt man (def: o24.3) for a virtuous woman (O: though it is sufficient for the would-be

    husband to have given up his wrongdoing);

    (3) a man of a lowly profession for the daughter of someone with a higher profession, such as a tailor

    wanting to marry a merchant's daughter (A: though an Islamic scholar is a suitable match for any level

    whatever);

    (4) or someone with a defect that permits annulling the marriage (def: m7) for someone without such

    defects. Being wealthy has nothing to do with suitability (O: for money comes and goes, and those with self-respect and intelligence do not take pride in it), nor does being elderly."

    Notice how non-arab men are considered to be unsuitable matches for arab women in the same way that a corrupt man is considered to be an unsuitable match for a virtuous woman. Note how it sites the exact same hadith evidence for this position which I brought up with Muhammad Hijab but which muhammad hijab tried to dismiss asinsignificant or misunderstood. Note how point (4) says "or someone with a defect" meaning that just like being corrupt is considered a defect in comparison to being virtuous, so too is being or a lowly profession considered a defect compared with a higher profession , and so too is being non-arab considered a defect compared with being arab. Arab supremacy.

    Muhammad hijab tries to claim that this is not racial, but simply about making sure that people of different cultures or with language barriers don't misunderstand each other, but then why is the specification only made between arabs and non-arabs and not whenever the partners are of different races? Why is the term specifically relating to one's lineage – arab used? Why is being non-arab designated as a kind of defect?

    This is an example of the kafa'a system, which literally means equality or equivalence and refers to the compatibility or equivalence between a prospective husband and his prospective wife which should be adhered to.
    The Distinguished Jurist's Primer by Ibn Rushd. Ibn Rushd is one of the most esteemed scholar-jurist's of the maliki school of islamic law and his primer summarises the positions of jurists of all 4 schools. In page 18 of volume 2 of his primer published in english by Garnet publishing (translated by professor imran ahsan khan nyazee) it says:
    "They disagreed about lineage whether it constitutes a part of kafa'a, as they
    did about liberty, financial ease, and freedom from bodily defects. It is well known of Malik that he permitted marriage between the Arabs and the clients, for which he. argued on the basis of the words of the Exalted, "Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct". Sufyan al-Thawn and Ahmad [aka Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, founder of the Hanbali school of islamic law] said that an Arab woman is not to marry a client. Abu Hanifa [founder of the Hanafi school of islamic law] and his disciples said that a Quraysh woman can marry only a Quraysh, and an Arab woman an Arab. "
    So this arab supremacist view that arab women should not marry non-arab men is not just found in the Shafi school but the Hanbali and Hanafi school of islamic law.

    Fatawa-e-Alamgiri. The Fatawa-e-Alamgiri was compiled in the late 17th century at the command of the muslim mughal emperor Aurangzeb, by 500 Muslim scholars from Medina, Baghdad and South Asia, in Delhi (India) and Lahore (Pakistan), led by Sheikh Nizam Burhanpuri drawing on rulings by earlier hanafi jurists. It says , in the translation by B.E.Baillie titled "A Digest of Muhammadan law" second edition of 1875 published by Smith, Elder and Co. Page 62
    "He has said on whom be blessings and peace, that 'women are not to be married except to equals.' To make marriages binding, the husbands should be the equals of their wives; that is , not inferior to them. But it is not required that the wives should be the equals of their husbands. Hence, if a woman should marry a man better than herself, a guardian has no power to seperate them; for he is not disgraced by a man having subject to him one who is not his equal.
    Equality is to be regarded in several particulars. Among these are , first, descent or lineage. Among Koreishites all are equal; so that one who is not of the family of Hashim is the equal of a Hashimite; but an arab who is not a Koreishite, is not the equal of a koreishite ; while , among the other Arabs, one is equal to another, the Ansar and the Mohajirite being in this alike. The Bani Bahalu are not on an eqaulity with the general body of the Arabs; and it is correct to say that Arabs are equals , as Aboo'l Yusur has stated in his Mubsoot. Mawali (who are all persons are than the Arabs) are not the equals of Arabs, but among themselves one is the equal of another. "
    Even as far as south asia we can see south asian muslims continuing the ideology of arab supremacy.

    These are just a couple of the books of classical islamic law and rulings of islamic scholars available in english but you can find virtually the same sentiment expressed in many other books of scholars not yet translated like Al-mughni by ibn qudamah and Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shamsuddin Muhammad al-Sharbini and many others that you can see discussed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmdi1iQ8Vbw&t=2h21m30s from 2:21:302:33:00 plus extra material from 2:04:00 onwards. Credit to Bayat al Ghadeer for documenting these and showing the texts to non-arabic speakers.

    As for Hijab's comments about Liberalism, I maintain that he has constructed his own strawman conception of liberalism that is at best is totally anachronistic and thus completely unsuitable for him to try and link to claims about contemporary western society like he frequently does whenever he tries and fails to show that Muhammad's legal teachings and the resulting society is better than western society and its legal system. The idea of a social contract, basically that a government has the authority to make laws, is not the final word on liberalism and says nothing about what laws a liberal society SHOULD make and whether a law is good or just or righteous or not. Muhammad is essentially claiming that liberalism says that any law a government makes is as good, just and righteous as any other law because the only thing that matters is that they can be considered social contracts. Which basically boils down to saying that moral status of laws in liberalism is arbitrary, meaningless, non-applicable. This is crap. It's the kind of insane misreading that only someone high on salafi islamist coolaid could come up with. Classical liberals collectively believe that say a law obligating the yearly sacrifice of 50 babies is as good and righteous as a law stating say that theft is punishable by 5 years imprisonment? As if.

  9. "Is Muhammad wrong enslaving people?"

    Are British and American wrong throwing people in prison?
    If I was a hostage of war I prefer to be a slave in a Islamic state than been tortured in Guantanamo in USA

    Many people think there is no slavery anymore because we are good people now
    But the reality is it is replaced with something more barbaric

  10. He's the same james who defended the slavery of black people defending his god Darwin while debating to Br Suboor, Poor James got refuted so bad he actually got mad lol

Leave a Comment