← Back to Videos
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
For weeks, my brothers, we have been clarifying that the child law in Jordan is poisoned, and it is necessary to confront it to protect our families and children. The Jordanian experience is expected to have repercussions on other Muslim and Arab societies. Concurrently with this clarification, a committee in the House of Representatives met to study the law and came out with amendments.
Now, there are voices saying that these amendments have solved the problems of the law. We, in the "Poisoned Child Law" campaign, affirm that these amendments are merely formal and have no value. The amended law is still poisoned, and its approval is still a disgrace. Here, some may fall into confusion, especially as they will hear voices attributed to the Islamic bloc that reassure people that the law in its current form is acceptable and in accordance with Sharia. Therefore, we wanted to publish this word for you, and it will be followed by others, if Allah wills, so that you hear our evidence and be aware of your affairs, for the matter is, by Allah, serious.
Much of what we will say, we have said before in words, tweets, and broadcasts, but here it is organized and centered in a way that you can confront everyone who defends this poisoned law with its amendments.
As an introduction to understanding the provisions of the amended law and how they are still poisoned, you will notice that phrases were deliberately placed in the law and remained after the amendment. These phrases seem completely innocent, but they have a detailed interpretation by the United Nations in entire reports, and this interpretation clearly shows that they contradict our religion and destroy our morals and families.
If anyone objects to referring to these interpretations by the United Nations, we say to him: the law came to meet a convention with the United Nations, and accordingly, everything stipulated in the law is subject to the definitions and descriptions of the United Nations. It is not valid to claim to find excuses and unjustified good intentions to overlook this clear fact and this basic introduction. It is not permissible to interpret the law according to local customary terms that have no legal weight when implementing and explaining the law, as well as local legislations that have no governing role on the law, but the law is interpreted according to the definitions of the term setter and the law demander, which is the United Nations, because international conventions are superior to local legislations in international legal custom.
In the studies volume affiliated with the Deanship of Scientific Research at the University of Jordan, volume forty, issue one, issued in the year two thousand and thirteen, you will find a study titled: "The Rank of the International Treaty in National Legislations and the Jordanian Constitution." In this study, the following text is found: "The Jordanian judiciary has taken a clear position in stating the rank of the international treaty in the Jordanian legal system, as the esteemed Court of Appeal has consistently in its rulings taken the view of the supremacy of international treaties over the applicable law in case of conflict."
So, what? The supremacy of international treaties, meaning they override, are superior to, and govern the applicable local law. Therefore, since the child law came in response to the United Nations' request, it is necessary to search for the United Nations' definition of the terms used within the law, and not be satisfied with the definitions of the media and supporters that have no basis or reference. So, what if we know that the United Nations is not only the one who requested the law, but it is also at the forefront of the competent authorities to interpret its clauses and follow up on its implementation through its direct and indirect arms in Jordan, which are some of the civil society institutions.
If we agree on this introduction, there is no room for anyone to object that we are misjudging or exaggerating. We are not misjudging; we are simply presenting facts and information and building our knowledge on correct premises. And to those who say that the United Nations can leave the definition of this term or that to Jordan, we say: especially in the absence of any alternative terms published on the official Jordanian websites. The research team in the "Poisoned Child Law" initiative conducted extensive research on the official websites to find alternative definitions for these poisoned terms, but found nothing, or found the websites blocked, or links deleted after our reference to the topic. If alternative definitions are not provided by an official authorized party, should we resort to taking the definitions of the terms as they came on the United Nations websites literally?
Well, after we know the malice of the law from what we will review, what do we do? Do we surrender? No, our demand is not only to reject the law but also to withdraw from the Convention on the Rights of the Child entirely. The original signing of this convention is optional, and countries can withdraw. So, what about when the malicious intentions have been revealed, and the United Nations incites our sons and daughters against us with their clips that we have published and talked about.
Now, esteemed guests, we will start article by article to review some of the articles today, and, if Allah wills, we will review others later.
Let's look at the beginning of the amendment of clause (A) of Article Two of the law, and this is an example of the formality of the amendments and their lack of value. The article before the amendment states: "Taking into account any special provisions contained in the applicable legislation, the term 'child' shall mean any person who has not reached the age of eighteen." What is the amendment? "Agreement after its rephrasing to become as follows: Taking into account the provisions of the Personal Status Law and the Civil Law and any special provisions contained in the applicable legislation, the term 'child' shall mean any person who has not reached the age of eighteen."
Ah, meaning that the clause after the amendment is that, taking into account the Personal Status Law, which is assumed to be derived from Islamic Sharia, the term 'child' shall mean any person who has not reached the age of eighteen, contrary to Islamic Sharia, which considers that a child is anyone who has not reached puberty. Meaning, he is no longer a child as soon as he reaches puberty. So, the insertion of the word "Personal Status Law" did not change anything, but rather gave a sentence that negates its end with its beginning.
Well, why the insistence on childifying those under the age of eighteen, even adults? Treating them as children at this very sensitive age, which determines the path of the young man and girl in their life, usually exposes them to the whims of the competent authorities, stirs up desires, and prevents marriage, which helps in corrupting them early.
Clause (b) of Article Two, we are still in Article Two. What was the clause? "The term 'competent authorities' wherever it appears in this law shall mean any public, private, or civil body concerned with the child or tasked with providing services to him in accordance with the applicable legislation." We, your brothers, in more than ten detailed words and direct documents with the brothers, explain the reality of these competent authorities and their evil agendas, and how the United Nations lures our daughters at the age of fifteen to run away from their religious fathers and conservative societies to work and fight so that each of them lives with her lover within the LGBT community, meaning the perverts. We explain in detail what makes it necessary to hold accountable and punish those who put such a poisonous text.
What is the amendment made to this article? "Approval after being rephrased to read as follows: The term 'competent authorities' wherever it appears in this law shall mean the authorities concerned with the child and tasked with providing services to him within the Kingdom." So that the issue does not appear to allow foreign entities to intervene between us and our children.
Okay, all the entities that have been proven from their available sources on the network, as we have presented, have been proven to seek to turn our children into sexual maniacs. All these entities have branches in the Kingdom, whether foreign institutions or foreign-funded ones such as UNESCO, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Population Fund, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The term "competent authorities" is disseminated throughout the law, and according to the law, these competent authorities have unlimited and unrestricted powers.
Also in Clause (b) of Article Two, we are still in Article Two, see how everything is rigged. The phrase "in accordance with the applicable legislation" has no value, as the work is ongoing from the competent authorities and others to change this applicable legislation. One of the clearest examples of this is amending the legislation in accordance with the concept of gender. Whoever thinks that this applicable legislation is something fixed that prevents deviation will go to it and find it a mirage that changes and moves. What indicates that the law is poisoned is that they did not put controls and determinants that prevent misinterpretation or excess by the enforcers of this law in the law itself, but rather referred to what they know is variable: applicable legislation, but they are the ones who work to change it.
Come now to Article Four, which some people think has resolved the issue because it added controls of religion and morality. This has never resolved the issue, and this needs detailing, which is why we postpone it until after finishing some other points. I will also skip now Articles Seven and Eight due to their danger, as they need detailing.
Come now as an example to Article Ten, another example of the poison disseminated in the law. What does the article say? "The child has the right to receive free primary health services." Committee decision: "Approval," meaning no amendment. Okay, why are you angry? Do you know what the primary health services include according to the United Nations definition? Go to the website of the World Health Organization affiliated with the United Nations to find within its definition of primary health care, you will find within the definition sexual and reproductive health. There are those who rejoiced at the deletion of the phrase "sexual health" from the law, while the drafters of the law do not care because they can introduce this poison under the name "primary health services" in this clause.
And according to the United Nations definition on its website and under the term "sexual health," the World Health Organization says: "Sexual health is essential for the general health of individuals and couples" (meaning everyone, not just the married), and it says: "Sexual health requires such and such and the possibility of having enjoyable and safe sexual experiences." And it says: "Sexual health issues are wide-ranging and include sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual expression" (meaning including perversion and expressing it openly without any hiding). And it says: "It also includes negative effects or conditions such as the following, such and such, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion." All this is under primary health care, this term that appears innocent in the law.
Of course, there is nothing in the law that criminalizes a text, a text not in generalities, any of the above practices, from fornication, perversion, and abortion. So when the competent authorities come to interpret primary health services with these United Nations interpretations, what will prevent them? In addition to that, the International Planned Parenthood Federation for the Arab World region, which has a branch in Jordan, says on its website: "We work with fourteen member associations and three cooperating partners." This institution and its comprehensive sexual education are very infamous even in Western countries among non-Muslims, people. There are many non-Muslim fathers who organize protests against it and hold events against it because it promotes in its books and programs all forms of moral depravity, fornication, perversion, and incest, preparing the ground for incest among brothers themselves under the name of comprehensive sexual education, as we explained in the word "when the devil personally directs the battle." If there are sleeping officials, this word we mentioned "when the devil personally directs the battle" has risen and set and revealed the reality of these institutions, so your ignorance or neglect is no excuse.
The branches of this evil institution in the Arab world promote clips of extreme evil in the local Jordanian dialect prepared with funding from UNESCO from the competent authorities, which declare that they want to spread them among students, such as the clip we published to you yesterday. So you can imagine all this poison under a seemingly innocent name, "primary health services," which passed through the law study committee and with it calmly.
Another shocking example of the toxicity of the law is Article 11. This article states: "The Ministry of Health, in coordination with the competent authorities, shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the child enjoys the highest attainable standard of health." This seemingly innocent term, "the highest attainable standard of health," has a full report by the United Nations entitled "General Comment No. 15 2013 on the Right of the Child to Enjoy the Highest Attainable Standard of Health." The report states: "The right to health of the child includes a set of freedoms and rights. As for the freedoms that increase in importance with the growth and maturity of the child, they include the child's right to control his health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom to make responsible choices" (meaning fornication, deviance, and abortion as we have seen in the definitions of the United Nations, the United Nations Population Fund in Palestine and UNESCO, which also has branches in Jordan). I noticed that Article 11 includes the phrase "all necessary measures to ensure" so that it includes all these details. In the amended law, this article was not amended, but it was all "approved, approved, approved."
This is one example that shows you why the Child Law is poisonous, and the amended law is poisonous, with the poison spread in its clauses and words. What malice made them choose the word "the highest attainable standard of health," which has a complete definition that contradicts our religion to the utmost extent. Under this Article 11 is also (J) "the prevention of infectious, dangerous, and chronic diseases." They always use this phrase to teach debauchery under the pretext of safe sex practices to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. We can ask the authority that put this law into effect: Does this authority expect the state to allocate funds for children to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health? Those who are eager in the government to pass the law, are they in a hurry to pass a law that adds a financial burden to its treasury, to the state treasury that is in debt by tens of billions? Does this explain their enthusiasm for passing it? Or is this clause placed for foreign and foreign-supported authorities to intervene and provide our children with their health services according to their definitions and methods?
Returning to Article Four after the amendment, which some promoted as solving the problems of the law because it regulated the rights of the child with public order, religious and moral values, and any other relevant legislation. What does this clause say? Before the amendment: "The child has the right to enjoy all the rights stipulated in this law." Usually, the amendment: "Approved after being rephrased to become as follows: The child has the right to enjoy all the rights stipulated in this law and in a manner that does not conflict with public order, religious and social values, and any other relevant legislation, and in a manner that enables the family to maintain its legal entity as the basis of a society based on religion, morality, and patriotism."
Why is this clause just makeup that does not remove the poison of the law? We will mention perhaps eleven or twelve reasons.
The principle of anyone intervening between us and our children with a reference other than our religion, which we adhere to, is rejected regardless of the intervener. Let's be clear, even if the private and civil entities are removed from the law's texts and the matter is restricted to public or governmental entities, if you are going to intervene in every small and big matter between me and my son according to changing legislation not derived from the revelation's reference, so that tomorrow you can tell me that teaching my son this religion interferes in his private life or limits his freedom, then this in itself is destruction and sabotage of the family. And I do not guarantee nor even the guarantee of all those present in the official circles. The principle itself, the principle of intervention with a non-religious reference that we adhere to, is a rejected principle. Our first problem is not who will intervene, but the principle of intervention, and intervene with what? With things that know rights and duties as if they were a religion other than Islam imposed on me in my relationship with my son. If Islam has ruled over all of us, fathers and sons, judges and officials, then it is on the eye and the head. We are all subject to it equally. But do not open the door of the house for an unknown entity to enter with changeable and tamperable standards. The lawmakers wanted, with malice, a foothold for the competent authorities in our relationship with our children. The law achieves this despite the additions of religious, social, and moral values.
Any additions or amendments in the law, such as this addition about religious values, are governed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Any texts in the law are penetrated by the meanings contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The added terms, religious and social values, are not legislated, and there is no legal reference authority obligated to them. Therefore, when a conflict of laws occurs, bring us laws, we have laws as a competent authority, you have your laws.
These additions, "in a manner that does not conflict with religious values," are additions in a specific article that can be erased over time, while the idea of intervention by competent authorities represents the spirit of the law spread throughout its general articles. We can compare the situation to a vehicle in which we and our children are riding. The law puts the vehicle on a road heading towards the United Nations, and the bus driver is the competent authorities. The addition, "in a manner that does not conflict with religious values," works like brakes. But they are ineffective, worn-out brakes. Also, these brakes can be easily removed, and the driver remains the driver, the road remains the road, and the destination remains the destination. No, no, no, it is not possible to erase this article. It is not possible? Why is it not possible? After seeing the state of the United Nations in many episodes and its cover was revealed and its stench came out. There are many institutions. If all of this does not urge us to throw the United Nations Convention in its face. At that time, we ourselves will have a psychological normalization with all this corruption. And whoever remains silent about accepting a law that he knows is poisonous even after the amendments, will remain silent tomorrow about removing an article from its articles. And someone will tell him at that time, do not be afraid, there are guarantees.
If the deputies say, "No, we will not allow the removal of this clause." Who are you to allow or not allow? You are tomorrow the council, the term of which ends after you have legalized this law and left the generations to suffer its bitterness. Even if you are re-elected a hundred times. If you are a deputy who knows that the law is poisonous, and yet you say it is not up to me to do more than I have done to improve and perfect it. Will you prevent the removal of an article from its articles in the future? If you yield instead of investing the popular anger against the law and try to boast about finding middle solutions and satisfying all parties. And whenever something is proposed, you try to improve it instead of pushing it away. So, is there a certain limit you can stand at? Will you continue to yield and deceive yourself and the people that you have improved as much as you can?
The "best interest of the child" clause in Article 13, the term "best interest of the child" is the second dangerous weapon with the competent authorities in this law to destroy our communities. This section shows, as it shows important points, how the law paves the way for taking our children from us by the competent authorities for many reasons, including the poverty of the parents. And I cannot imagine how a father or mother in Jordan would not care about this information and spare time to know its dimensions and warn and warn against it.
When the law contradicts religious values, who has the right to know that it is contradictory? The competent authorities. The competent authorities will tell you: "No, no, this clause does not contradict religion, it contradicts the narrow interpretations of religious texts." This is the phrase that is repeated by every offspring of the United Nations and foreign-funded institutions. By the way, they are happy that they added a clause about preventing access to pornographic content for children. Simply, my dear, the competent authorities will tell you: "Who told you that these clips that teach the boy how to establish a sexual relationship with a boy and those that teach the girl how to lure and seduce boys sexually, who told you that these clips are pornographic? These are called comprehensive sexual education." The IBBF states this and UNICEF states this. And we mentioned to you in the episode "When the Battle is Led" or "When the Battle is Directed by the Devil Himself" I showed you how they consider these clips not to be pornographic clips.
The competent authorities state that they want to support tolerant and moderate religious men, just as the Arcus Foundation, the owner of the huge budget allocated to support homosexuals and gender transformation in the world, which states on its website that it targets the Islamic world and encodes religious leaders who agree with its agenda. And the competent authorities state that they want to support Islamic feminists to amend the personal status law, just as the US Aid says. Therefore, it is expected that a generation of religious men and veiled women will emerge who justify all the evils under the names of renewing religious discourse, combating extremist understanding, and absorbing all spectrums. If the competent authorities corrupt our children and one resorts to Article 4 and its religious values, these religious men will tell him: "And morals remain ink on paper as is the case with many laws in Jordan and the Islamic world." While the poisoned clauses are implemented because behind them are bodies and protection and follow-up from the United Nations, and even from entire countries eager to obliterate the religion of this country and the morals of their children.
Tenth: If the law is approved, what are the best scenarios? It is that the competent authorities do not monopolize the decisions. That is, at best, the victims of the law, the victims of the competent authorities, will resort to the courts. While their children are subjected to the mischief of the competent authorities and the parents wait for court sessions.
Eleventh: The phrases "public order, moral values, and any other related legislation" are all vague, illusory, and changing phrases that are flexible according to time and media influence. The competent authorities themselves work to change public order, moral values, and related legislation. So look at how the law has been keen to add poisoned phrases with specific implications in the materials of the United Nations published, while making the worn-out, cosmetic brakes floating and flexible without meaning.
Twelfth and finally: What made the amendment of Article 4 valueless is that this entire law was not based on the principle that the rulings are derived from the principle of submission to Allah the Almighty and obedience to what He has legislated. Rather, the amendment was made as a mere cosmetic text for a poisoned law.
All of the above reminds us of the saying of Allah the Almighty: {Enter in peace, all of you} [Al-Baqarah: 208], meaning enter into Islam with all its legislations and details, for going out of any of them is following the steps of the devil leading to destruction. And for the aforementioned reasons, this clause, Clause 4, is a mirage with no value, it does not change anything from the fact that the child law is poisoned and the amended law is poisoned, and the approval is a disgrace.
Send this speech now, my brothers, to everyone who can contribute to the approval of the law, and tell them: Do not try to laugh at us with your amendments, and by Allah, we will not forgive you if you participate in this conspiracy. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.