← Back to Child Law
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.
A friend sent me part of a discussion in which the former MP Dr. Rula Farra defended a child protection bill being discussed in Jordan, which is expected to be similar in other Muslim countries, to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child signed by Muslim countries at the United Nations.
I want to go through this clip with you and respond to what Dr. Farra said, paragraph by paragraph. I hope if you are convinced by what I am going to say, you will express your conviction under the hashtag #Child_Protection_Law_Poisonous.
So the law is based on a clear convention, meaning we are betraying it and it is apostasy. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and we enact it, and the Kingdom's ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by law. Apostasy, apostasy from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, apostasy. Do you think she sees the Convention on the Rights of the Child as administrative and technical matters that do not contradict her religion?
The Convention does not recognize any reference to divine revelation in the view of the child, his rights, and his duties. Rather, its principle is: "Put your religion and your rulings aside and let us enlighten you." While the Lord of the Worlds said: {Indeed, to Him belongs creation and command} (7:54). Just as He created us, it is He, the Most High, who has the right to command and prohibit.
The Convention contradicts our religion, starting from the definition of the child, as it defines him as under eighteen, while the Sharia of the Lord of the Worlds considered those before puberty. The Convention states in the preamble that every human being has the right to enjoy all the rights and freedoms set forth in those instruments, meaning human rights instruments.
And we saw in the episode we published titled "When the Devil Leads the Battle Personally" that this slogan of rights is a slogan used by the United Nations to enslave peoples. And we stood with only one term, which is the right of the child to comprehensive sexual education. And we saw the forms of debauchery, lewdness, depravity, and vulgarity they want to teach our children, and how they began to implement their plans in Muslim countries with legal cover from the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
And we saw how, based on this Convention, the practice of sex is considered a right of sons and daughters even without marriage, and even encourages fornication and criminalizes marriage before the age of eighteen. So we must ask: What is all this? Some technical principles that do not contradict our religion?
The Convention does not make the upbringing of the child on the correct religion, chastity, modesty, and good morals, because it does not consider him a slave of Allah with a purpose. The Convention is rather contradictory, saying in its preamble: "Bearing in mind that the child, for the very reason that he is a human being, should be able to enjoy all the rights set forth in the said instruments." Meaning, it acknowledges that my little son is not mentally mature and needs special protection.
Then, in Article 13, the Convention itself says: "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Regardless of any boundaries! Meaning, if any of our sons wants to watch pornographic films that poison his morals, we must allow him. And he no longer needs protection because he does not have mental maturity.
And we saw that UNICEF tried to pave the way for this wicked idea under the slogan that what you call pornography can be sexual education, a right of the child. And if one of our sons follows YouTubers who doubt his religion, who are controlled by America and the governments of Muslims, and the U.S. State Department allocated a grant last month to spread atheism in the Islamic world, and the news is published, not hidden. So we must allow him to access this information that poisons his mind and soul because it is his right. So where is the protection because he is not mentally mature? Or should I protect him from physical poisons while the poisons of the soul and morals are welcome with you?
Then, we see Article 14, which says: "States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion." And its arms that move it: What is all this? Some humane and innocent principles that do not contradict our religion? When in Article 14 it says this Convention on the Rights of the Child: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."
Meaning, if the child or the minor under eighteen causes his apostasy through the poisonous directed media that is forbidden, I am not allowed to protect them from him. If this son wants to announce his apostasy and atheism and mock the idea of the existence of a Lord and lie about the Prophet, peace be upon him, that he is the Messenger of Allah. Then no one comes to restrict these freedoms of his. And note that when they mentioned the things that can limit this freedom, they did not mention religion. Rather, they said to you: "Except for the limitations prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health, public morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." All this, what is it? Some technical matters that do not contradict our religion?
These are only some of the articles. So, we want to hear Dr. Farra's response because it seems from her speech that she is aware of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. So, is she in agreement with all these things in it? And is she defending it? All these articles we talked about, what are they? Faith and Islam? And if not, then what is there after the truth except misguidance? Is it only the explicit apostasy that people must reject? Or are there other things besides apostasy, such as debauchery, sins, and calling for depravity, that we must also reject?
Let's stand with another paragraph from her speech: "I said that it is based on Western thought, Dr. Yes, small. You are mistaken. It is not Western. What is Western? Western. One hundred and ninety-three. Million. International. All countries of the world."
Yes, the United Nations has gained its credibility by being international. And by being international, it means that its agreements are in line with Islam, and it is keen on the interests of Muslims and Muslim children. Can Dr. Farra tell us what the United Nations is doing now for the children of Gaza whose heads are being blown up by the occupation's bombing? And who buys its planes that it bombs with from America, the permanent member with the most influence in the United Nations?
Isn't it a great farce that we see some people want to make a law to implement the orders of the United Nations in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, while the United Nations provides political and legal cover for all crimes against Muslims? What has the United Nations done for the children of Syria who have been fed with barrels and gases banned internationally? What has the United Nations done for the children of Burma who are being burned alive? Or for the children of East Turkestan who are being taken from their parents by China and placed in camps?
And let's not forget when the United Nations peacekeeping forces handed over Srebrenica in Bosnia to the Serbs, who slaughtered their men and children and raped their women. And all the killers have representatives and officials in the United Nations and contribute to drafting these treaties. Does Dr. Farra not know that the striking force of the United Nations is composed of five permanent member states? America, which destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan, and a few months ago stole seven billion of the Afghan people's money from the World Bank. Russia, which every week and the second enjoys bombing Muslim children in Idlib, blowing their heads off and demolishing their homes on top of them. And China, which kidnaps hundreds of thousands of Muslim Uighur children from their families and raises them in disbelief in the camps, and turns some of them and their parents into spare parts by trading in their organs, as in the episode "China and the Organ Theft" that we published in the Economic Investigator. And Britain, which until now the Islamic world is suffering from its repeated handing over of Palestine to the Zionists and India to the enemies of Muslims.
These are the five permanent member states that control and draw in the United Nations. So when Dr. Farra tells us that the United Nations is not Western but international, this is how she came up with the convincing and shameful argument.
Let's move on to another paragraph: "Is this enhanced capitalist leader not a party to the convention? No, it's not a religious matter, by the way, no, no, no, she is not a party to any human rights convention."
Well, isn't this itself a farce? The United Nations wants to impose on the Islamic world a convention that destroys the religion and morals of its children under the pretense that it is a convention for all societies and the whole world must adhere to it, while the capitalist leader is not a party, meaning she is not committed. If America is not a party to any human rights convention, this means that America sees itself above accountability and above agreement with anyone. Isn't this itself mocking these conventions and making them necessary to throw them in the nearest trash?
Dr. Farra defends the child protection bill that the government made to adhere to the United Nations treaty, saying: "Prohibiting smoking in the presence of a child. How many people smoke in front of their children, men and women, and poison their lungs, both themselves and their children. This law prohibits smoking in the presence of a child."
First, we say this law opposes Islam in its principles and details, and it contradicts our religion. The doctor responds that the law has positive aspects, such as prohibiting smoking in the presence of children. What is the connection between these two? We tell her that the law she presented paves the way for poisoning the souls, minds, and morals of our children, and she says it prevents poisoning their lungs. Many are more concerned about poisoning their lungs.
Additionally, perhaps she can tell us if this clause about preventing smoking is a serious and enforceable one? In many government departments, it is written that smoking is prohibited, yet most employees go ahead and smoke? Are the agencies expected to enforce the laws not filled with individuals who smoke while performing their duties? A government that does not effectively prevent smoking in these places will it enter homes and prevent parents from smoking in front of their children?
Let's assume a child complains to the court that his father or mother smokes in front of him at home. The judge will summon the parent and punish them, and the one who deserves it will pay. Is it expected that the father will say to him, "Thank you, my son, for complaining about me, and I am a smoker, my addiction is not far off," and hug his son in a romantic, emotional scene, and the melodies will play? Or will you tell me, "There is no law for a child to prevent the father from immediately hitting his son." Okay, if he hits him, what will you do? Will you punish him as well? Are you not following the news of family crimes that occur in our country due to financial hardship, charged emotions, and distance from religion? Or will you take the child and protect him from his parents? Where will you put these children? In care homes, spend on them, raise them with a trained and equipped cadre and budget?
Preventing parents from this sinful act of smoking in front of their children will not be achieved by law, but by spreading the principle of piety to Allah in secret and public, and that His Sharia, may He be exalted, must be dominant over us all, ruler and ruled. This, in turn, is not achieved by the memorization centers, Quran memorization centers are being squeezed, and the sermons of mosques are being controlled. Is there seriousness in preventing smoking, no matter what laws are put in place?
Drugs, which are more wicked than smoking, what is the value of including in the draft law the protection of children from drugs when series with the capacity to promote drugs among youth, such as the series "Jinn," are shown in Jordan with Jordanian characters and more than adolescents? Does this indicate a serious desire to eradicate drugs? All the decoration of preventing smoking and preventing drugs is ink on paper that is not implemented.
And if the doctor says, "Well, why are you afraid of the other clauses in the child law, they will also be ink on paper and not implemented?" We will tell her, "There is a big difference between their evil agendas that we spoke about in detail in the shocking episode 'When the Devil Leads the Battle Personally.'" And if the doctor or any listener does not know what we are talking about, they can go watch the episode and see the fire that has begun to enter our homes and see how foreign organizations, governments, and international bodies are preparing to corrupt the beliefs and morals of our children and destroy the structure of our societies and spread the poison of the agenda concept in education. Therefore, preventing parents from smoking is mere decoration with no value, while the poisonous words are seeds of corruption there is a complete system waiting for it to be employed.
We say the same about the rest of the clauses: "Ensuring the quality of education in schools and institutions of the Ministry of Education and providing an adequate number of teachers and counselors." This text has not been mentioned in any law. Providing an adequate number of teachers and counselors? Government schools that do not have proper sanitation facilities, and the child has to hold it until he gets home, who is really concerned? Who ensures the quality of education there? The curricula that year after year remove everything that connects the child and youth to their Islamic identity, history, and Islamic civilizations, and the names of the Companions. The teacher who is paid a salary that is not enough and does not motivate him to give, and the most competent teachers look for jobs outside of schools so they can open a home. Will all of this be solved by two clauses placed in the child law? And will there be any seriousness in its implementation by the party that did not even allow the establishment of a teachers' union? And they tell you that we have included in the draft law the provision of an adequate number of teachers and counselors. But first, they should provide reasonable salaries for the existing teachers before talking about the adequate number.
Let's continue: "The right to protect the child from cybercrimes and not encourage him towards pornography. The state is obliged to take preventive measures to protect him from cybercrimes." Well, what is the definition of cybercrimes? And who has the right to define it? Can opening the eyes of children to some information that is hidden from them be considered a cybercrime? Those who criticize forms of corruption in the country through social media sites are sometimes held accountable for committing a cybercrime? Why does the law not specify something clear, such as protecting children from pornographic sites? What is more dangerous? Smoking or pornographic sites that have destroyed many of our children? How many high-profile voices in the country have emphasized the need to block pornographic sites and obligate telecommunications companies to do so? Yet, there is no life for those who advocate for this. And let these sites poison the minds, morals, and souls of the children.
"And accuse him and inform him of his rights in a language he understands and with treatment that suits his age and preserves his dignity." You know, this text I fought for it for adults, not for children, and I was not able to pass it in the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. You know that I failed to give this right to the Jordanian citizen, even though it is stipulated in the Arab Charter on Human Rights and stipulated in the International Covenant on Human Rights, whether civil and political rights or economic and social rights. All treaties give him this right. So, if it is stipulated that in the end there is selectivity in the enactment of laws in accordance with the whims of some. How can the people of the country trust those who are in this condition in the implementation of the poisoned child law?
I, brothers, wanted to stand with you only on some expressions so that we see together how the facts are being obscured. Otherwise, we are following a very important series for every Muslim, filled with precise documentation, awareness, and shocking facts. We have published two episodes so far: "Let Me Steal Your Children" and "When the Devil Leads the Battle Personally." I urge you to follow the two episodes. By Allah, they are very important. And I hope you will share with us the hashtag #القانون_الطفل_المسموم on all social media platforms. Spread awareness. Do not let anyone poison your future and the future of your children. Peace be upon you and mercy.