Whatever is positive OK because obviously very quickly has something to do with the idea of

morality so political theorist not legal theorists because legal theorists are concerned with once
the state is established this is what’s happening right, but they’re also concerned with political
because how is state stablished in the first place?
This state creates laws. It has a particular procedure for creating laws that’s provided in whatever
laws basic laws there are to be constitutional it could be anything else right so the state follows
that procedure and creates laws which let’s say against natural justice basic tenets of natural
justice like you should have fair hearing for that you must not be face to the bias strike you or
that you know your life and property should not be taken without just cause or whatever right so
this state is creating these goals now just the fact that this law has come through the proper
procedure and has been posited by the state is good enough to make it glow in the eyes of
positivist legal scholars.
OK because the definition of positivist legal scholars is whatever is positive by them very
important point here is probably the most important point they do not want to get themselves
concerned with more questions.
Saying that law is simply what state is producing to govern society; it’s these rules that the state
creates to govern society whether it’s moral or immoral
What is the school of thought that contrast with the positivisim? The natural Law. Precisely. It
says that morality is an essential part of life so you cannot remove that element from law. If Nazi
Germany were to create a note that puts XYZ into a concentration camp without cause, that’s
wrong right? OK it’s not a question of being and it’s not that it’s law but immoral it’s not law to
begin with because its immoral.
The national scholars place a lot of emphasis on morality but unfortunately the definition of
morality varies across the globe. Whose definition of morality should we follow? This is one of
the objections that the positivists have right they say that they say that how are you going to
determine what morality is and if anything you know needs to be determined in certain because
you need to have an idea of what outcome is going to come out of the legal process I mean if you
know quote you know I’m thinking that it doesn’t maintenance of society so that’s the objection
that obviously the natural law there are certain elements of morality OK let’s take the right to fair
hearing the bias strike again right so obviously if you do this kind of thing enough right if you
don’t allow people to voice their opinion or anytime that or you know you have missing person
issues or you know people will just get you know kind of like what’s happening in Saudi Arabia
right now right so you tweet something and you’re gone so if you have if that keeps happening
again and again and again and again ultimately it’s going to lead to political revolution
ultimately right history is clear example of that I mean how many instances French Revolution
was the problem in America you get you got certain people and others in you know very
ultimately it is right so OK so you’ve got you’ve got both sides any argument is you know one of
the classic arguments the messengers the natural law versus positivist anyway so where is trying
to say to you is I was just giving you a flavor of the fact that there have been various definitions
of row across history and not just these two caps there are others that I’ve talked about whether
you know one things that you know there is an element of law that must remain constant and if
some society goes against that it’s illegal to do so or whether law has nothing to do with the
question of morality is a very important question in the definition of row some definitions
definition of natural question Basis everybody’s I don’t thi talk about morality they talk aboutnk
so because I mean talk about morality they talk about for example
l
Obviously the positive is classic positive is Collins right today people being put into jail without
the science of flow pure OK if you bring morality OK morality is not bad thing so they might not
say it’s a bad thing they might say OK very good but don’t confuse it with love OK maybe if it’s
sort of growing organically on the side it’s fine but this is a pure rule based system if you want to
understand this don’t confuse it with that right so they might have you know just the same
definition definition of justice that should expect that

So he says that he says that there are certain from history certain things that in human beings
right and those are basic elements of reality that all legal systems should so for example worship
is something you you've already found in history right The right to fair hearing is another one so
there are certain basic sort of natural treats human society that you can see and observe in any
part of history and so that’s the method that finish uses to say that you know if this is always
been consistent then how can you have something that’s so they're all years of history you know
patches in between you know greater history where you will find such kind of you know rules
but

That’s it this question is not as relevant right because there is clearly a static element of flow
which is provided in the primary sources Islamic close unchanged and then there’s which is done
on the secondary level so the question of you know whether voice entirely positive or entirely
natural is there’s other questions that are important there what’s the connection with oh again the
reason why we start from this you know western standpoint because this discussion we’re having
here is the kind you could see working within the mind you might think you probably doAnd it’s
not clear to you yet so there’s a very important taking out the western standpoint about that OK
now the next thing that we need to talk about
Is the connection of these schools the positive the school the natural law school and come and to
come to your point how it’s evolving today and has evolved to this point across history is the
next question that we need to take up right and while it’s doing that sort of looking at those
various definitions of go on the plane at historic levels we need to understand why is it that these
definitions are changing OK and what’s the connection of how someone is defining goal with the
social circumstances in which they are OK so that brings me to what you were talking about
earlier which is antiquity and OK so whatever we’re talking about is spoken about so far just put
it in a drawer and lock it and clean out your slate and other just from with a fresh perspective
listen to this world history

Generally divided OK again from the western state divided into and and the second stage is
called modern there be that second stage modernity modernity so one of the ways you could you
draw horizontal line OK and somewhere in between my point I mean like maybe there’s this one
transition takes human society from antiquity to modern right they might think well you know
you exist in 714 why is it that we’re talking about things in these eurocentric western the reason
is that you know integrity there is a homogeneity there is a uniformity in world history that
allows us to do this number 1 #2 by the time you get to modernity right European history starts
becoming world history right so pretty much anywhere you can go in the world it’s colonized by
some European powers OK could be France could be Spain could be England could be whoever
right and so whatever is happening in Europe it has a sort of externalities that say the economic
happening in the rest of the world right which is precisely why the entire world is sort of
westernized right it’s because of that connection via colonialism so you might raise the objection
and say you know when you talk about antiquity and modernity you’re actually talking about
perhaps European history but no because there’s a clear parallel between that I’m using terms
that are so you’ve got this timeline ticket there’s this inflection point with transition the middle
the first stage is called antiquity in second stage what do I mean by antiquity speaking in general
terms OK not talking about exceptions
antiquity was a stage in world history where all peoples in the world all right some divine the
general jobs all peoples had it could be any kind of theism right so I have never come across any
civilization that does not some kind of belief in a divine OK you’re not talking about monetarism
particularly so for example according to me this is this is this is true pretty much actually it is
true you know in even in all lands here right in ancient according to you know but I mean it
doesn’t really matter where you pick it up right what I’m saying to you here is that you can’t put
yourself put your hand on any civilization in the end unless they’re no atheists in the age that’s
so you pick up you know we’re not talking about sometimes when tends to happen is that is
considered and mortality is considered you know I mean let me give you an example of this so
the pyramids now you’ve got obviously they are you know very high level construction with
with AI and you know with very high level of technology people are still egyptologists scientists
are still trying to figure out how these things were constructed right and they were obviously
made so this is a clear example of the fact that from antiquity doesn’t move you know lack of
scientific development or clearance in any way OK sometimes what the sort of automatic
conclusion that tends to come and obviously as as people who have you know sort of broad
minds you need to people tend to think that you know antiquity is just people in ignorance and
modernities when human beings wake up that’s not correct but anyway so that’s what antiquity
is wherever you go in the world whichever civilization you pick up whether it's you know
ancient China or ancient India or ancient Egypt or mayans in South America or whoever you
have right semitic peoples whoever it is you will always have not saying one right but there is
this you know practices society now there’s this transition that takes place in history where
suddenly the world steps on the spot of secularization OK no that’s called modernity mortality
putting aside this idea of worshipping right No this doesn’t happen everywhere at the same right
but I mean if you’re honest to yourself you will realize if you take the world let’s say on on the
span of you know 5-6 centuries of history and if you plot graph then you will see right so for
example in Europe move closer to the admin modernity was Christian right with a very strong
Christian Church as a political institution and if you look at Europe now well you know people
don’t really like the idea and now but it’s starting to happen in you know Muslim majority right
so it’s starting to spread even more now but anyway so modernity is this stage of history people
keep aside the idea of getting confused so you could divide into two stages antiquity where
wherever you go the idea is that you know creation comes from source one several you know
they keep the idea aside right why is this important why is this important it’s important because
very quickly I mean coming to the conclusion but go back to talk more about this it’s important
for you and me right now because you’re an antiquity when people believe that there is a
supreme divine being for several supreme they might believe that right then what what is the
source of law and therefore that hang on you know whatever law you are creating right is subject
to the ultimate divine law right whereas in modernity you would not have that inception taken
the definition of depend on what that’s right so if 51% says you know it’s righteous to be you
know redhead so it becomes fluid right because obviously the end and obviously I mean there
there will be natural laws all still secular natural law scholars who instead of saying that you
know morality comes from divine source going to say morality comes from reason or rationality
or whatever right and they will have some corporality but for the most part you know human
beings are going to take so the reason why this timeline is important for you is because the
definition of do you have that that you have modernity you have that and this is the reason you
get and I’m just gonna sort of hint at this and then you know go back to the detailed discussion
but just to complete the idea oh you know states that have escaped religion you can escape
religion which means that all laws in this like Armenia right Christian state you know in terms of
the door so the constitution says all those in accordance with the right even in states which
adhere to escape religion legally OK you will not find that the sources of that religion are of
primary importance in the system I mean if you go to court you don’t find the judge referring to
a child number this says there’s no they’re referring to you you’ll find out what comment they’re
trying to comment right and the reason for that is that you know we are now far which is the
motherland of modernity right part of that creative which is quote UN which is quote UN quote
right and it has its effect on the way we understand going way north so I would have to keep
talking about this a bit more there’s more detail that needs to be spoken about here we’re not
through with this but you had a question so yeah so can we pinpoint the exact without it so I can
start can we know the exact point can you pinpoint the exact point where antiquity ended and
modernity started I have my theories about this I I think it is the publication of accounts book to
create the fewer reasons OK but that is just my conception the idea is that it's a period it's a
period known as the European life OK and that’s what I want to talk about now OK but before I
do that after we after is there any possibility that near future we could have missed elements of
antiquated morality I I don’t think that’s possible I think because they’re fundamentally conflict
of interest you can’t have two Supreme Court yeah OK so slightly complicated question so I
think you do not have to do not see it as you know and it’s system and there’s there’s a lot of and
obviously what that does is that it it for all practical purposes it makes it a modern project right it
makes makes it a humanist project project it does have sort of an Islamic but what you need to
question is whether it’s something substantially so when it comes to when when you’re in a fork
in the road you know when you know a country like Pakistan let’s say for example because
you’ve taken up the example has to decide you know something which is more and that and
that’s an indication that I think banking another example is As I and but has that happened yet
OK it’s it’s it’s it’s quite easy to I mean I’m not sort of pointing fingers at politicians and saying
that you know they’re they’re they’re stating things but it’s very easy to make that discussion

Actually OK you know and to the state so you know sort of I mean there’s no Pakistani judge
that I know of will go to you know I don’t know Islamic university Medina to get you know
legal education and come back and become a judge if they will they’ll be they said to them I
mean this should be put your finger on the issue that’s it that’s precisely it I mean look also so
this is the question is sociological the level that you’re asking the question this question has more
to do with Islam as social logical level and how people perceive themselves as reserves right it’s
more than you know and even then you know it's it's the state also talking about I mean I don’t I
don’t really like I like to call it occupied Palestine as does most of the work except America so
the thing there is that not all this is a misconception not all you know government agencies in
that region religious OK I mean there’s very particular perception that we have of that part of the
world right but I mean I don’t know how many people from there you know you come across
looking secularism is very big in quote UN quote Israel yeah yeah I mean have you heard of So
what I’m trying to say is that they have the internal problems right with respect it’s also I think
unfair to say that they do not have the constitution and authorize the constitution yes there is
That were successful in Europe because they were actually present together right and through
colonialism they had to create a network in the rest of the world so things were still there the rest
of the world versus Southeast Asia or versus let’s say you know the Arab world took more time
because you know people were more religiously adherent so for example the equivalent of the
caliphate movement let’s say from Pakistan history you know you don’t find because people
were more religious add in the airport which is why you know the turn around much longer so
for example you see now in Saudi Arabia that’s here which is very conservative the turn around
secularism is not natural it has to be pushed otherwise it’s not going to happen so I mean in order
for Saudi Arabia to second arrest it has to be shoved into secularization it it won’t go naturally
right and that’s why you need you know persecution of religious followers and you need to
follow that to actually make it happen otherwise it’s not going to happen actually whereas in
Europe you know obviously we’re not talking about that was something which was much more
easier to give up for Europeans as compared for Muslims to give up by the time it became
European to the Roman Empire had changed considerably so you had various versions of the
Bible not to mention that the church itself had become political and corrupt in some ways so
people wanted to let go but you know even though political corruption at some level you could
say is pregnant in Islamic institutions quote UN quote the text is preserved so there’s something
that unifies and protects you know the muslima still so you don't have versions of the ground you
just have one also it it it kind of there’s also no point in scientific development where someone
would raise an objection against the Quran with respect to it being against science it’s always the
other way around it’s confirming as soon as to that point if it has to be done it has to be done
forcefully and it has to be done not in an intellectual level account for Christianity this was
saying you know just seeing and that’s disproved and so Christianity gets to one intellectual
battle of secularization secularism and Islam secularism can’t win hasn’t gone so far you can’t so
in Islamic societies it has to take some other kind of and normally that’s you know some sort of
social brainwashing or something for several reasons the first one is that people are unaware so
they don’t know what it is that they’re protecting or should protect those that you have generally
been in power conditioning of very particular kind so you know the trickle down effect so I
would say it’s a problem from from both ends yeah
Groups in various societies that you know that’s why I said From what you’ve described we’ve
seen that that let’s say the journey from is there any chance that in the future the world could
revert back to antiquity most certainly I think regarding postmodernism it’s just the natural
combination of modern and I think yes I don’t think the world generally is gonna go back to not
immediately at least the same kind of antiquity I think it’s going to be a very sort of mutilated
form of because of this experience but yes I think reverse yet but it’s

We’re going to do next so we're going to talk more about the historical timeline talk about the
transition what would happen putting these theories looking at the evolution and looking at you
know how these you know sociological factors affect the definition of

Shredded

Does the state have to be established by people right state that simply be established that simply
established right anyway let’s keep that aside forget about the political question now
again question OK so this is the positive no if we’re doing if we were in the what what is wrong
more about this and then you would eventually start talking about various positive scholars like
positive and various conceptions that they have regarding positive but we don’t want to do that
we just want to give you a spectrum of how people have defined and then get into the various
kinds of people systems and to contract right and so all our pause is kind of different but anyway
you need this background in order to understand what’s going OK So
yeah OK good so that’s precisely one of the objections that post to this have right and right after
I talk about this I’m gonna take you through to tell you how these definitions are involved we are
at this point but the answer to your question this is precisely
Today, I stand before you to address an important issue that has been debated for many years –
the legality of owning and using firearms. The conflict revolves around the definition of
defensive gun use—in particular, whether it should be defined as a response to victimization or
to prevent victimization from occurring in the first place. While there are certainly valid
arguments on both sides, I strongly believe that firm arms should be allowed, and I want to
explain to you why.
10,378 reported incidents of theft, 191 reported incidents of kidnapping, and 467 reported
incidents of murder and attempted murder in Karachi in just 2020 alone. Is Karachi even safe
anymore? The answer is no. Karachi is a bustling city with a high crime rate and firearms play a
crucial role in the protection of our communities. The ability to defend oneself and loved ones is
a fundamental human right. Firearms provide an effective means of self-defence and can prevent
violent crimes from happening. According to a survey conducted by the Pakistan Institute of
Legislative Development and Transparency, 77% of Karachi residents believe that having a
firearm with them is necessary for self-defense.
There have been several instances where firearms have been used to prevent crimes in Karachi.
For example, in 2016, a shopkeeper in Karachi used his licensed firearm to foil a robbery
attempt. The shopkeeper fired a warning shot, which scared off the robbers and prevented them
from stealing any merchandise.
Similarly, in 2017, a resident of Karachi used his firearm to protect his family from a home
invasion. The resident fired a warning shot, which caused the intruders to flee.
As you can see, when individuals are allowed to carry firearms, they are empowered to protect
themselves and others from potential attackers. In situations like these, firearms can be used as a
means of self-defense and can prevent the victim from being taken or hurt. They can be used to
neutralize violent attackers and prevent further harm from being inflicted upon innocent
civilians.
Furthermore, firearms are a vital tool for law enforcement and the military. Police officers and
soldiers put their lives on the line every day to protect us and maintain peace and order. Firearms
have been used for military defense, allowing countries to protect their sovereignty and defend
their citizens from outside threats. Police officers in Karachi are often equipped with firearms to
neutralize dangerous criminals and protect civilians from harm. According to a report by the
Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, there were 1,272 incidents of terrorism and violence in
Karachi in 2019. Law enforcement officers needed access to firearms to respond to these
situations and keep citizens safe. According to a study by the National Bureau of Economic
Research, the increased presence of police officers carrying firearms has reduced crime rates in
areas with higher crime rates.
Moreover, firearms are useful for many lawful activities, such as hunting, sport shooting, and
collecting. Hunting, for example, is a time-honoured tradition in many countries, including
Pakistan. In fact, hunting has been an integral part of our culture and tradition for centuries.
Firearms provide hunters with a means of obtaining food for themselves and their families, and
they also help to control animal populations that can become overpopulated and cause damage to
the environment.
Additionally, firearms are used in many competitive sports such as shooting, archery, and
biathlon. These sports require a high level of skill and precision, and firearms are essential for
participants to excel.
Now, I am not advocating for unrestricted access to firearms. However, we do have reasonable
laws and regulations in place to ensure that firearms are used for good purposes. For example,
individuals who wish to own firearms must obtain a license from the government, which requires
background checks and proof of proper training. Additionally, there are restrictions on the types
of firearms that can be owned, and individuals must follow guidelines on safe storage and
handling of firearms.