Apostasy Punishment in a Liberal State? (2019-01-28) ​

0:00:04 so the brother asked the question about
0:00:06 apostasy yeah so the punishment for
0:00:13 apostasy in Islam so I think a lot of
0:00:16 time we ask this question what is the
0:00:19 punishment for apostasy in Islam and a
0:00:23 more interesting question for me
0:00:25 recently has been to what extent can
0:00:29 liberalism or does liberalism or do
0:00:32 liberal philosophers talk about this
0:00:37 because that's like that's for me a
0:00:39 really interesting discussion in it the
0:00:41 argument goes as followers right you say
0:00:43 that look everyone should have freedom
0:00:47 of belief it's a human it's an
0:00:48 individual human right and therefore if
0:00:52 someone changes their religion they
0:00:54 should be free to do so based on human
0:00:57 rights and based on the fact that they
0:00:59 should have freedom of consciousness and
0:01:01 so the argument is not a bad one because
0:01:04 actually coincides with the Islamic
0:01:06 understanding of free will and actually
0:01:09 it coincides with the version of Quran
0:01:11 which says like Rajas with Dean tucked
0:01:13 away in a rush to Delhi in chapter 2
0:01:16 verse 256 of the Quran which there is no
0:01:18 compulsion of religion that truth has
0:01:21 been made clear from falsehood so the
0:01:24 the idea that there should be freedom of
0:01:26 consciousness and freedom of belief is
0:01:29 actually a principle part of the Islamic
0:01:32 discourse because we believe that there
0:01:34 are two things that's here which is free
0:01:37 will and there's determinism over
0:01:39 Lazcano Taliban he writes things etc so
0:01:42 we believe everyone does have a right to
0:01:44 believe in whatever they want to believe
0:01:45 and the idea is not one-off and this
0:01:51 should be very much stressed in Islamic
0:01:53 discourse it's not one of individual
0:01:56 belief
0:01:58 this is to do with social contracts okay
0:02:01 now this is a big term in political
0:02:04 science what do you mean by the term
0:02:05 social contract now in liberal
0:02:08 philosophy there are two things right
0:02:10 there's the primacy of individual and
0:02:13 their right to do whatever they want
0:02:15 without intervention from the government
0:02:17 and on the other hand you have the
0:02:19 universality of law you're stuck between
0:02:23 two things as a liberal you have the
0:02:27 primacy of being an individual you're an
0:02:29 individual right you have the freedom to
0:02:30 do everyone and for a liberal expression
0:02:32 a libertarian they'll say you should the
0:02:34 government should keep away from putting
0:02:36 obstacles in the way of the individual
0:02:38 so that it can be as free as possible
0:02:40 right but then obviously they realize
0:02:43 almost all liberal theorists realize the
0:02:46 need for number one representation and
0:02:48 number two law which is why they have
0:02:51 social contract now what is social
0:02:54 contract social contract is number one
0:02:57 is forced upon us so by virtue of the
0:03:01 fact that I'm a British citizen you're
0:03:02 British isn't as well your British is
0:03:04 now we're gonna have to check on that
0:03:06 okay by virtue of the fact that we're
0:03:12 British citizens we have to abide by
0:03:14 British law and that's not something we
0:03:16 have any say on because of the
0:03:19 citizenship that we carry in other words
0:03:20 we're forced into a social contract it's
0:03:23 not a social contract which is a
0:03:25 voluntary or something I have any choice
0:03:28 in write the terms of that social
0:03:31 contract indicate that I have to follow
0:03:33 the law of this country isn't it okay so
0:03:36 almost all liberal theorists agreed with
0:03:38 this now the question is not one of
0:03:41 personal belief I can believe whatever I
0:03:43 want to believe from a liberal
0:03:45 perspective and from an Islamic
0:03:46 perspective and not not have any
0:03:49 punishment in any context exerted on me
0:03:51 in any way because belief is something
0:03:54 which is personal belief is something
0:03:56 which is between me and God and it's
0:03:59 only known through the publication of
0:04:02 that belief or profession of that belief
0:04:04 in public settings right so in other
0:04:06 words people won't know I believe unless
0:04:08 I don't declare it
0:04:10 question to what extent are what are
0:04:16 referred to as laws of apostasy which is
0:04:21 for example if I come out and say I'm no
0:04:23 longer say for instance a Christian I'm
0:04:25 not going to use the Muslim example say
0:04:26 it's a Christian country and I come out
0:04:29 and say I'm no longer a Christian to
0:04:33 what extent can social contract theory
0:04:36 the lack of which were which was
0:04:38 advocated by people like Rousseau and
0:04:39 obviously John Locke before him Thomas
0:04:42 Hobbes and almost all liberal theorists
0:04:45 even Jay s mill can it facilitate for a
0:04:49 kind of punitive punishment for those
0:04:52 who renounce their faith publicly now
0:04:55 I'm gonna make a very bold claim here
0:04:57 I'm putting a slam to the side right now
0:04:59 I'm putting a sum to the side it's not
0:05:01 about Islam I'm gonna say that from my
0:05:05 reading of liberalism that that can be
0:05:08 facilitated what am I talking about I am
0:05:11 saying quite clearly that if someone
0:05:14 comes in a liberal state which also
0:05:17 claims to be for instance Christian
0:05:20 which can happen according to Jay's mill
0:05:23 that number one point one that in that
0:05:26 liberal state it would be it could be
0:05:30 seen as a rupturing of the social
0:05:32 contract if someone professes publicly
0:05:36 yes that they are not X faith anymore
0:05:40 that is if that faith is connected with
0:05:43 the social contract
0:05:44 why is your evidence for this I will
0:05:46 give you the evidence for this right now
0:05:47 John Locke wrote a book obviously
0:05:50 everyone knows it called the two
0:05:51 treatises of government I think he wrote
0:05:53 this in 1687 when he also wrote I wrote
0:05:56 a book called on tolerance in chapter 19
0:05:59 of this book in chapter 19 of this book
0:06:02 on tolerance he talks about Jewish
0:06:06 States John Locke talks about Jewish
0:06:09 states and up if it's not chapter 19 is
0:06:12 somewhere in the book and he says it's
0:06:14 legitimate to allow Jewish people to
0:06:18 implement Mosaic law and we know full
0:06:21 well that in Mosaic law there are laws
0:06:23 of apostasy and he continues by talking
0:06:27 about the social exclusion of a certain
0:06:29 amount of certain people of different
0:06:32 faith groups he talks about Mohammedans
0:06:33 and atheists now Muslims wouldn't say
0:06:37 this by the way so in essence you could
0:06:40 argue that Islam applies a more rigorous
0:06:44 type of liberalism than John Locke
0:06:46 himself why because Islam says in us in
0:06:49 an Islamic state or some a governance if
0:06:52 you're a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew
0:06:54 you can live in your respective
0:06:57 province without harm now someone will
0:07:02 say but then they say that you have to
0:07:03 pay the jizya but according to the
0:07:06 hadith
0:07:08 jizya is one dinner so it's a tax it's a
0:07:13 tax that almost everyone has to pay for
0:07:14 the protection of the people one dinner
0:07:16 is less than there's a cat which is
0:07:18 usually typically 20 dinars of my Saab
0:07:22 so therefore the jizya is less so this
0:07:27 idea this false notion of GCR being a
0:07:29 discriminatory tax it's only
0:07:31 discriminatory against Muslims because
0:07:33 Muslims have to pay more by the way if
0:07:36 you want to call it discriminatory
0:07:38 Muslims actually have to pay more as a
0:07:39 cat's yeah so going back to I was saying
0:07:44 about apostasy I came across in my new
0:07:46 campus work and I also came across John
0:07:48 Stuart Mill's work and there was a
0:07:51 manuscript that was attributed to John
0:07:52 Stuart Mill which actually specifically
0:07:56 talks about blasphemy law and he talks
0:07:59 about blasphemy law and he says John
0:08:01 Stuart Mill says
0:08:05 Joshua mill actually says equivocally
0:08:08 that if killing someone this is John
0:08:14 Stuart Mill not the Prophet Muhammad not
0:08:16 Moses not Jesus it's not a medieval text
0:08:20 this is one of the prime figures of
0:08:22 liberalism in the Victorian era in
0:08:25 Britain by which and through which most
0:08:27 other subsequent theories take their
0:08:30 liberalism from he actually says in that
0:08:32 manuscript that killed them yes
0:08:35 he says kill them kill them if you have
0:08:38 to kill many of them kill them in other
0:08:39 words it seems to me an Immanuel Kant
0:08:41 has some similar sayings it seems to me
0:08:44 that the question we should be asking is
0:08:47 not whether Islam allows apostasy law
0:08:49 it's where the liberalism allows
0:08:51 apostasy law because actually when we
0:08:54 look at the primary source materials of
0:08:56 the most regarded liberal theorists the
0:09:00 highest founding fathers of liberalism
0:09:02 it would seem that a social contract
0:09:04 theory could in fact facilitate of a
0:09:08 kind of apostasy law right - that's from
0:09:12 a liberal perspective Aslam is something
0:09:15 quite similar in many ways but has some
0:09:18 fundamental differences
0:09:21 so relatable ooh a man who's one of the
0:09:25 prophets companions you had a list of
0:09:28 people who are munafa corn and those
0:09:31 list of people were people who had
0:09:33 rejected Islam there were not Muslims
0:09:35 the Quran says in Delhi would have
0:09:37 Athena Fidel kill s Philemon enough that
0:09:39 certainly the the hypocrites are in the
0:09:42 lowest part pit of the Hellfire they are
0:09:45 not Muslims they are not believers they
0:09:47 are not movements yes yet
0:09:51 there was no apostasy punishment applied
0:09:54 to those individuals there was no
0:09:56 apostasy pub thing applied to them why
0:09:59 because it regarded to personal belief
0:10:01 so I'll because I'll be unequivocal in
0:10:05 saying this that which regards to
0:10:07 personal belief is that is different
0:10:10 from that which is expressed publicly
0:10:12 and thereby from a liberal perspective
0:10:14 before even becomes an Islamic one
0:10:16 ruptures the social contract now the
0:10:19 question is is it fair and is it okay is
0:10:22 it possible is it conceivable in a
0:10:25 liberal state bearing in mind social
0:10:28 contract theory to have these laws and
0:10:31 therefore can liberalism can a liberal
0:10:34 state slip into a kind of nationalistic
0:10:37 stay intolerant state the answer is
0:10:40 unfortunately yes that is the elasticity
0:10:42 of liberalism liberalism because of the
0:10:45 tensions between the primacy of
0:10:46 individual versus the universality of
0:10:49 law could sway in either one of the two
0:10:52 directions could either become very much
0:10:55 libertarian in the sense that you know
0:10:57 we don't even allow I mean think about
0:10:58 this this way yeah libertarians would
0:11:01 argue why do we have seatbelt laws yeah
0:11:03 we have Seaborg known you have to go in
0:11:05 your car you have to put on a seatbelt
0:11:07 don't you but why do I have the policy
0:11:10 bro why is they a libertarian would
0:11:12 argue this is a paternalism they'll say
0:11:16 it's like the state is acting as your
0:11:18 parent now put under what it's not to
0:11:20 live even if I hurt myself it's none of
0:11:21 your business if I help myself someone
0:11:23 could argue a libertarian would
0:11:24 definitely argue but even if I hurt
0:11:26 myself in the car tonight I create a
0:11:27 crater crash it's not I'm not harming
0:11:29 anyone else by doing this why are you
0:11:30 telling me what to do so I'm allowed to
0:11:32 drink alcohol think
0:11:33 this because this is the this is the
0:11:35 ignorant of some people of their own
0:11:37 philosophy right I'm allowed to drink
0:11:39 alcohol yeah and in some places smoke
0:11:42 weed and have you know unlimited amount
0:11:45 of sexual partners polyandry and that
0:11:48 could cause problems for myself sexual
0:11:51 problems all of that is permissible but
0:11:53 I have to put on a seatbelt
0:11:54 I mean does that sound reasonable to you
0:11:56 seriously think about it I'm allowed to
0:11:58 compete in mixed martial arts well I
0:12:00 could injure someone and and die I can
0:12:04 go to a complainer I could be but I have
0:12:06 to put on the the seatbelt what kind of
0:12:08 nonsense is this
0:12:09 think about it it doesn't make any sense
0:12:11 let's be honest about this yeah why are
0:12:13 why is the state telling us you have to
0:12:15 put on the seat belt if I if I don't put
0:12:17 on the seat belt well I harm anyone else
0:12:18 think about it am I gonna harm any I'll
0:12:21 have myself yes but I'm not going to
0:12:24 harm anyone else by not putting my see
0:12:25 boy yeah boy if I hit the no no my point
0:12:30 is this my point is that liberal
0:12:33 philosophy can go in two different ways
0:12:35 yeah you have on the left side let's say
0:12:37 for the sake of argument and extreme
0:12:39 libertarianism where we don't want the
0:12:42 state to get involved in any matter yeah
0:12:44 like for example we shouldn't have
0:12:46 seatbelt laws that's one side on the
0:12:48 other side is where liberal philosophers
0:12:50 will say actually there should be
0:12:53 restriction and that should be enforced
0:12:55 through the context of social contract
0:12:58 theory into the universality of law
0:13:01 which should be applicable on the
0:13:02 individual laws should be applied and
0:13:04 John Stuart Mill's has something very
0:13:06 interesting you know he says he says for
0:13:08 instance he goes if a husband and wife
0:13:10 they have sex in public is that harming
0:13:13 anyone else you could argue no you could
0:13:15 argue no not physically harming anyone
0:13:17 if for example not to point anyone out
0:13:20 someone brings his wife and you know in
0:13:22 the park in the middle here sorry to say
0:13:24 has sexual it takes his trousers off
0:13:26 yeah and all of those things sorry to
0:13:28 say Annie is that going to harm anyone
0:13:30 no they're having sex you can decide to
0:13:32 leave you can go you don't have to look
0:13:34 at it you can't you don't need to be
0:13:36 offended by it what why is that censor
0:13:38 yes you could argue this yep now I
0:13:41 understand children and all that but we
0:13:43 can have an area where they can do it no
0:13:45 problem you can have an adult park why
0:13:47 not right Colin yeah I'm just I'm just
0:13:51 yeah I agree with you I agree with this
0:13:53 point I'm not telling you should I do
0:13:55 deal for us yes yes my friend I agree
0:13:58 with you yes but I'm saying
0:13:59 so John Stuart Mill said look there's
0:14:02 some things this is what he said there's
0:14:04 some things which keys our sensibilities
0:14:06 we have a culture and that's not
0:14:09 acceptable in our culture and he says
0:14:11 therefore the universality of law and
0:14:13 the social contract should put
0:14:15 restriction so here John Stuart Mill is
0:14:18 talking about in on Liberty in his book
0:14:20 he's saying that there are certain
0:14:21 things which should not be accessible
0:14:23 for people
0:14:24 ie having sex with your wife in public
0:14:26 spheres or your husband yes so the
0:14:29 question is now is Israel question what
0:14:31 should be allowed to be done in publicly
0:14:33 without fear of reprisal or other or
0:14:36 otherwise a fear of a consequence from
0:14:39 the law this is a thing that liberals
0:14:41 struggle with that's why you have
0:14:42 different schools of thought within
0:14:43 liberalism and I've something about
0:14:44 elasticity of liberalism yeah it's not
0:14:47 something which all can be liberal now
0:14:48 now the question is when they come to us
0:14:50 this is what I'm going to say to
0:14:51 everyone to answer your question sorry
0:14:52 yeah when they come to us and say look
0:14:54 you need to modernize what did I say you
0:14:57 say you need to modernize Muslims you
0:14:59 know you need to modernize what do you
0:15:00 mean come on tell me white man what do
0:15:02 you mean by well yeah what do you mean
0:15:04 by modernize I want to know what you
0:15:05 mean yeah okay you'll say look I'm by
0:15:07 the way gonna say white man I'm not
0:15:08 talking about you know I'm talking yeah
0:15:10 yeah the Western man what do you mean
0:15:12 what do you mean by it all right I tell
0:15:14 you what you mean
0:15:15 you mean become more liberal because
0:15:17 that is the dominant ethnic in the
0:15:19 Western world yes
0:15:20 okay now I'm liberal I have embraced
0:15:23 liberalism brother today I mean okay
0:15:26 what do we do let's go look at the
0:15:27 liberal books
0:15:29 let's look at the works of John Locke
0:15:31 and John Stuart Mill and Rousseau bottom
0:15:37 I'm not an ambassador for Saudi Arabia
0:15:40 yes I agree with you all I I don't yeah
0:15:44 yeah I agree with this point yeah I do
0:15:45 it that way yeah yeah sorry come back
0:15:48 I'm a liberal now yeah so yes I've
0:15:51 embraced liberalism let's go to the
0:15:53 books of the Liberals so we find within
0:15:55 the books of the Liberals you haven't
0:15:57 you have a spectrum of understanding of
0:16:00 to what the question the main question
0:16:02 is to what extent should the government
0:16:04 intervene and you don't have one answer
0:16:07 for that you have ten answers from ten
0:16:09 different liberal thinkers yes and so
0:16:12 here's what I'm saying to you is that
0:16:13 going back to apostasy law yeah gone
0:16:17 back to apostasy look I'll come to our
0:16:19 speaker after cuz I can yes I agree I
0:16:22 agree with you brother yes yes yes you
0:16:25 have to have rules yes that's that's my
0:16:27 that's my argument I agree with you yes
0:16:29 I do with you
0:16:30 yeah the man made a good point there you
0:16:32 must have rules otherwise people who
0:16:33 behaves anarchy he's right but the
0:16:36 question is just yeah think about it
0:16:39 think have you ever thought about this
0:16:41 before
0:16:41 they talk about human rights so to watch
0:16:46 that kind of liberal state institutional
0:16:48 institutionalize the law universalize it
0:16:51 and apply a death penalty for those who
0:16:54 don't go against it
0:16:56 well according to John Locke according
0:16:58 to John Stuart Mill according to your
0:16:59 manual can according to John Russo Russo
0:17:02 according to most even Voltaire I
0:17:04 believe as well
0:17:05 according to almost every liberal they
0:17:07 have full right to do that because of
0:17:09 the social contract therefore don't tell
0:17:11 me about liberalism I mean that's what
0:17:12 that's the issue here they come with a
0:17:14 false pretense they're even know their
0:17:15 own philosophy that's the issue they
0:17:17 don't even know their own philosophy
0:17:19 that's why America gets away with panel
0:17:22 of death penalties they have a death
0:17:24 penalty in America it's not against
0:17:26 liberalism to have a death penalty it's
0:17:28 not against it
0:17:29 yes sir yes sir yes sir that's a
0:17:36 political question if you're asking
0:17:37 about Parliament obviously going back to
0:17:39 charles ii and his but we don't want to
0:17:41 go in this country there's a whole
0:17:43 there's a whole tradition and if you
0:17:44 want to go back to william ii will name
0:17:45 the first William the Conqueror in 1066
0:17:47 I don't know how far back you want to
0:17:49 take this we can talk after I say it's a
0:17:51 long when I go and go Vesely we should I
0:17:55 go back to the room but at newman's I
0:17:57 don't know I don't know
0:17:58 so here ladies and gentlemen don't be
0:18:01 deceived as my as my is my point when
0:18:04 you ask her and this is the
0:18:05 presupposition which we have to
0:18:07 investigate because when they say human
0:18:09 rights what do they what do they
0:18:11 actually mean they mean 1948 convention
0:18:14 of human rights that was put in place
0:18:15 after World War two that's what they
0:18:17 that's what they mean right all right so
0:18:20 that convention if you read it it's got
0:18:22 30 articles
0:18:23 it's got 30 different points 30
0:18:26 different points in everyone in those 30
0:18:28 different points you have the right of
0:18:30 this the right of that the right of this
0:18:32 right now
0:18:45 here's my criticism of the whole thing
0:18:48 I've got a criticism of the whole I've
0:18:49 got a criticism of the whole thing I've
0:18:51 got criticism you know when you tell
0:18:54 someone you've got a right to do
0:18:55 something if I tell you brother you have
0:18:57 the right to do this you know you know
0:18:59 what is telling you to do to be entitled
0:19:01 that's what it's telling you to be right
0:19:03 so it's it's a negative way of asserting
0:19:06 something it's a look you have this
0:19:07 right it means you are entitled to this
0:19:09 the question is why does this why does
0:19:12 the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948
0:19:14 not have anything on responsibilities
0:19:17 because by telling you how to write is
0:19:19 telling you what you deserve but it's
0:19:21 not telling you what you need to do and
0:19:23 that's the problem with a lot of the
0:19:26 rights culture that we have any moment
0:19:27 you have the right to this yeah the
0:19:29 right slap you have the children a child
0:19:30 has a right to education but a teacher
0:19:32 does not have a right to a
0:19:33 responsibility to teach how does that
0:19:35 even work
0:19:36 you need to counterbalance rights with
0:19:39 responsibilities that's that is a
0:19:40 communitarian criticism which has been
0:19:43 made of liberal human rights culture
0:19:46 look I want to wrap up by saying yes I
0:19:49 want to wrap up by saying in the in the
0:19:51 context of the West we don't believe in
0:19:53 if someone changes their religion yes
0:19:55 whatever it is well hi you're there we
0:19:58 don't care if they're Muslim we don't we
0:20:00 don't look good even in the context
0:20:01 although Islamic state we don't care
0:20:04 about personal beliefs the extent to
0:20:06 which we care about personal beliefs is
0:20:08 the extent to which it's connected with
0:20:10 concepts of rupturing a pre-existing
0:20:13 social contract which is put in place
0:20:16 with the permission yes of that
0:20:18 individual because they have to obey act
0:20:20 they have to pledge allegiance they have
0:20:22 to give legitimate is a legitimacy of
0:20:24 that state
0:20:25 so in some I would say the laws the
0:20:29 punitive laws of Islam and this is my
0:20:31 final statement my final statement every
0:20:34 single punitive law in Islam the death
0:20:38 penalty is what they call the rid the
0:20:41 punishment every single one of them can
0:20:44 be justified not Islamic lean through
0:20:46 liberalism and through the social
0:20:48 contract
0:20:49 yes we would be going away from
0:20:51 libertarianism but you can justify it
0:20:53 through the universality of law so it's
0:20:55 not even a liberal critique of Islam if
0:20:58 we're honest with ourselves and
0:21:00 therefore it has no moral or ethical
0:21:02 basis it's just a subjective Mally a
0:21:05 value judgment of 21st century
0:21:07 complexity
0:21:09 Duprey