FULL DEBATE! Does Traditional Islam Need to be Liberalized - Mohammed Hijab VS Lars Gule (2019-11-05)

Description

🌴 Do you want a House in Jannah? 🌴 If yes, donate now & help us establish the first Norwegian Masjid & Dawah center: https://SaveIman.com The Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever builds a Mosque for Allah, Allah will build for him a similar house in Jannah.”

➡️ Donate NOW ➡️ https://SaveIman.com ⬅️

Iman is dying! To #SaveIman we URGENTLY need to establish the first and only Masjid combined with a Dawah, Tarbiya and community center in Norway. And we need your support! Please donate and share this campaign on all your social media platforms. Help us #SaveIman

You will get the reward of all those who are:

✔️ Praying in the Masjid and worshipping Allah.

✔️ Converting to Islam.

✔️ Coming closer to Allah.

✔️ Learning the Noble Quran and becoming Hafidhs of the Book of Allah.

✔️ Brought up with Islamic education from childhood.

✔️ Learning Arabic, the language of the Quran.

✔️ Studying the religion of Allah and becoming imams and leaders in our community.

✔️ Learning Dawah and calling people to Islam.

✔️ Saved from bad places and spend time in the youth club instead.

➡️ Donate NOW ➡️ https://SaveIman.com ⬅️

Does Traditional Islam Need to be Liberalized? Join Mohammed Hijab in his debate with Dr. Lars Gule on this very HOT topic! Can liberalism be proven to be true, Hijab asks! Why does Gule believe liberalism to be superior to Islam? Are Islamic punishments for crimes barbaric and outdated, as Gule claims to Hijab? Doesn't liberalism open for death penalty, Hijab challenges Gule! Why does Gule defend incest and sex with animals and still believe he is morally superior to Muslims? All of these questions and many more are explored and debated by the two opponents in this amazing debate!

Summary of FULL DEBATE! Does Traditional Islam Need to be Liberalized - Mohammed Hijab VS Lars Gule

*This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies.

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

discusses the idea that liberalism is based on a fallacy and that traditional Islam should be liberalized in order to be more in line with modern values. The presenter argues that liberalism is prevalent in the Western world today, while traditional Islam is still prevalent in the Middle East. They also discuss the idea of colonialism and Islamic imperialism and how they are not the same thing. Finally, the presenter argues that liberalism is based on a hypothesis, which is not supported by evidence.

*00:00:00 Discusses the importance of liberalizing Islam in order to make it more compatible with modern values and human rights. Fahad Qureshi, the chair of this debate, argues that traditional Islam needs to be updated in order to be more compatible with modern society. The organization Islam Net is raising funds to establish a Norwegian Dawa center in order to help reconnect young Muslims with Allah subhanaw taala.

00:05:00 Dr. Large Lula is a philosopher and associate professor at Oslo Metropolitan University. He has a doctorate in philosophy and is a pro-Palestinian and pro-Islamic individual. He is not the kind of person who would spread Islamophobic theories or fabrications about Islam and Muslims.
00:10:00 is a debate between Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule about whether or not traditional Islam needs to be liberalized. Gule argues that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to take it in a more progressive direction, while Hijab argues that there are internal resources within traditional Islam that can be utilized to develop more progressive interpretations of Islam.
*00:15:00 Discusses what Islam is and traditional Islam, highlighting that while they may have similar elements, there is still a lot of variation in interpretation. He goes on to say that reform of Islam should entail liberalization, as this is the majority view within the Islamic world.
00:20:00 The traditional Islamic beliefs of Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule differ in many ways, with Hijab arguing that the Quran and Sunnah need to be interpreted literally, while Gule believes that traditional Islamic values and practices can be integrated with modernity. The disagreement between the two men on Islamic interpretation divides Muslims into different camps, with Hijab representing a more literalist view, while Gule represents a more tolerant and integrated approach.
*00:25:00 Discusses the need for traditional Islam to be liberalized in order to be more compatible with modern values, including human rights and democracy. advocates for a process of liberalization that is based on recognition of human dignity and worth of every human being, with a focus on freedom of religion for everyone. If this process were to be steered by a free and liberal practice inspired by Masla ha, it would lead to a gradual reduction in segregation of the sexes, tolerance for differences within the Muslim community, acceptance of non-believers, marriage across religions, freedom of religion for children, acceptance of sexual minorities, and respect for fully freedom of expression. Finally, there would be acceptance of critique of Islam, with the right to a vigorous defense.
*00:30:00 Discusses the differences between Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule on the topic of traditional Islam needing to be liberalized. Hijab believes that traditional Islam can be more liberal, while Gule believes that traditional Islam should be more strict. Gule also argues that the definition of "traditional Islam" is influenced by political and social outcomes, while Hijab says that there is a variety of traditions within Islam. Finally, the video discusses the history of liberalism and how it is connected to traditional Islam.
00:35:00 Mohammed Hijab argues that liberalism is a false morality based on a prime model state of nature and a barter system, which does not account for human rights. He also points out that liberalism is based on a genetic fallacy and has been followed by many of the greatest thinkers in history, including John Locke and Immanuel Kant.
00:40:00 Mohammed Hijab argues that liberalization of Islamic law is possible and that traditional Islam does not condone death penalty outcomes for apostasy. Lars Gule counters that liberalism does not allow for racism, colonialism, and tyranny, and that Islamic principles do not allow for such outcomes.
00:45:00 argues that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to be compatible with modern democracy. He provides historical examples of liberal regimes that have committed genocide, and argues that these examples are evidence that liberalism does not produce non-death penalty outcomes. He also argues that liberalism is contradictory, and that if a Muslim wants to use their religious beliefs to influence policy, that is not allowed by secularity.
00:50:00 Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule debate liberalism vs. traditional Islam. Hijab argues that liberalism is based on false premises and that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to harmonize with modernity. Gule counters that liberalism is based on human rights and individual liberty, two values that are intrinsic to traditional Islam.

Mohammed Hijab argues that liberalism is based on false premises, and that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to harmonize with modernity. Lars Gule counters that liberalism is based on human rights and individual liberty, two values that are intrinsic to traditional Islam. Gule concludes that liberalism is the best way to live, and that Mohammed Hijab is mistaken in his assumptions about the traditions of both liberalism and traditional Islam.

*00:55:00 Discusses the idea that liberalism is based on a fallacy and that traditional Islam should be liberalized in order to be more in line with modern values. The presenter argues that liberalism is prevalent in the Western world today, while traditional Islam is still prevalent in the Middle East. They also discuss the idea of colonialism and Islamic imperialism and how they are not the same thing. Finally, the presenter argues that liberalism is based on a hypothesis, which is not supported by evidence.

01:00:00 - 02:00:00

"FULL DEBATE! Does Traditional Islam Need to be Liberalized - Mohammed Hijab VS Lars Gule," Hijab and Gule debate the morality of traditional Islam. Gule argues that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to accommodate the modern world, while Hijab maintains that traditional Islam is based on individual conscience and should not be changed for the sake of other cultures. The discussion becomes contentious, with Gule accusing Hijab of being racist and elitist, and Hijab accusing Gule of being ignorant of Islamic tradition. Ultimately, the two agree to disagree on the issue.

01:00:00 Mohammed Hijab provides a rebuttal to Lars Gule'sargument that liberalism needs to be liberalized, stating that it is impossible to argue from first principles because one needs a systemic perspective to understand human rights. He also points out that liberalism is a birthchild of liberalism and human rights promotion is a birthchild of strictness.

01:05:00 , Mohammed Hijab argues that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to be more in line with modern liberalism. He also says that feminism is not the same as liberalism, and that racism is a problem in the Middle East. Lars Gule challenges Hijab on these points, pointing out that traditional Islam does not allow for women to be equal to men. Gule also argues that Islamic colonialism is wrong, and that if a neighbor is about to take over, it is morally acceptable to attack them.
01:10:00 , Mohammed Hijab, a Muslim scholar, argues that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to be equal to other religions. Dr. Dale Lodge, a Christian scholar, responds that traditional Islam is not equal to other religions because people are born with different physical abilities. This discussion leads to a discussion of human dignity and worth, which Muslims believe are equal for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs.
01:15:00 , Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule debate whether traditional Islam needs to be liberalized. Hijab says that from an Islamic perspective, all children are born equal in terms of dignity and worth. Gule agrees that from an Islamic perspective, all children are born equal, but argues that from an empirical perspective, we have good evidence to show that we are born believing in a higher power. Gule also points out that from a metaphysical perspective, we can't prove that we're equal, but we can thank Allah for making us equal in our spiritual worth.
*01:20:00 Discusses the difference of opinion among Muslim scholars regarding the theory of divine command, and points out that this theory is used by some Muslims to justify their views on social issues, such as colonialism. He goes on to say that there is a discussion among Muslim scholars about the theory, but that he believes a combination of views would be more accurate.
*01:25:00 Discusses the challenges of reconciling traditional Islamic morality with modern human rights values. They discuss the case of a country in which a referendum determined that amputation as a punishment for thieves should be implemented. argues that this is not compatible with human rights values and should not be done.
*01:30:00 Discusses traditional Islam's views on human dignity and human worth, and how these views can conflict with liberal views on human rights. Dr. Gouda argues that, because slavery, colonialism, and racism are all possible in a liberal state, traditional Islam cannot be considered a legitimate source of human rights.
*01:35:00 Discusses a debate between Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule regarding traditional Islam's need to be liberalized. Gule argues that the idea is conceivable, but is not implemented due to human rights violations happening all over the world. Hijab argues that the ideals of human rights should be defended even if the majority disagrees with a practice.
01:40:00 Dr. Gula discusses the human rights of Muslims and how they differ from those of liberalists. He argues that if Muslims were to be deported on the basis of their human rights, it would be wrong because of the reality of human rights.
01:45:00 The traditional interpretation of Islam needs to be liberalized in order to be compatible with human rights laws, according to one of the participants in the debate. However, there is no guarantee that the liberalization will be accepted by all Muslims.
*01:50:00 Discusses the issue of traditional Islam needing to be liberalized, with Mohammed Hijab arguing that it doesn't have to be separate and that it should be based on human rights. Dr. Lodge argues that there are instances where traditional Islamic values do not align with human rights, and that it is important to define boundaries.
01:55:00 Mohammed Hijab, a Muslim dissenter, and Lars Gule, a secular humanist, debate the morality of traditional Islam. Gule argues that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to accommodate the modern world, while Hijab maintains that traditional Islam is based on individual conscience and should not be changed for the sake of other cultures. The discussion becomes contentious, with Gule accusing Hijab of being racist and elitist, and Hijab accusing Gule of being ignorant of Islamic tradition. Ultimately, the two agree to disagree on the issue.

02:00:00 - 02:55:00

, Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule debate the need for traditional Islam to be liberalized. Hijab argues that it harms the people, while Gule argues that it is an empirical statement that can be investigated empirically by the science of Medicine.

02:00:00 a debate is held between Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule on whether traditional Islam needs to be liberalized. Gule argues that while traditional Islam may need to be liberalized in terms of some aspects, such as sexual matters, it is ultimately divinely guided and will always be true, regardless of time and place. Hijab counters that while liberalism may be in development, atheism is not a life stance and does not constitute a religion.

02:05:00 , Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule debate the need for traditional Islam to be liberalized. Hijab argues that it harms the people, while Gule argues that it is an empirical statement that can be investigated empirically by the science of Medicine.
02:10:00 Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule debate the need for traditional Islam to be liberalized. Gule points to cases in which traditional Islam has been too lenient with regards to punishment, while Hijab argues that a more humane system of punishment and rehabilitation is better.
02:15:00 In his video, the speaker discusses the idea that there can be a need for strict Islamic law, and that traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to be able to navigate in the modern world. He argues that an emotional argument in favor of this point can be made, and that it is unfair to punish a father who throws acid on a young girl if the girl's father chooses to do the same to another person. He also mentions that a person who chooses to enter an academic institution should abide by the rules of that institution, even if they choose to hide their face.
*02:20:00 Discusses the issue of freedom of religion for children, noting that Muslim parents should be able to teach their children what they believe is best. They also mention the freedom of non-Muslims in Western countries. argues that this freedom is not absolute, and that blind people should not be judges because they would not be able to see all the information that is presented to them.
02:25:00 criticizes traditional Islam for needing to be liberalized in order to be compatible with international human rights law. They argue that it is the responsibility of parents to provide a good upbringing for their children and that children should be allowed to opt out of the religion of their parents. They also argue that circumcision should be allowed to be performed at a later age by competent adults, and that the practice should only be performed on children who are well-developed.
*02:30:00 Discusses the idea of whether or not traditional Islam needs to be liberalized in order to be more in line with modern society. He points out that this would go against human rights, as parents have the right to choose what type of education their children receive.
*02:35:00 Discusses the idea that human rights cannot be proven, and that definitions of human rights can change over time. They argue that despite this, it is important to try and define human rights in a meaningful way. They mention the example of sexual rights, which have changed over time and are not always based in scientific evidence.
02:40:00 Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule debate the legitimacy of human rights, with Hijab claiming that they are a Western invention and Gule countering that they have a long history in the West. Gule argues that human rights are universal, and developed as a result of an intercultural process to protect the interests of all parties involved.
02:45:00 , two debaters discuss whether traditional Islam needs to be liberalized. Mohammed Hijab argues that it does, while Lars Gule disagrees. They both agree on the importance of human rights and the need for religion to provide justification for human rights, but they have different ideas about what kind of Islam is most compatible with those values.
02:50:00 is a debate between Mohammed Hijab and Lars Gule on the topic of whether traditional Islam needs to be liberalized. Mohammed Hijab argues that the Islamic discourse puts more emphasis on responsibilities in rights because if everyone is selfish nothing will get done at the end of the day. Lars Gule argues that membership or fraternity to a community is prioritized over individual interests and that this is something which many liberal scholars would call "communitarian."
02:55:00 The Islamic Network Islam net is working to liberalize traditional Islam, in order to save Iman, a woman who is dying. The organization is asking for donations to help establish a mosque and community center.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:02 [Music]
0:00:04 you have no right to infringe the basic
0:00:08 human rights of everyone even the
0:00:11 criminal with the infliction of torture
0:00:15 so if you say God has said we should
0:00:20 amputate the hand of the thief that is a
0:00:23 clear example of how certain commands in
0:00:30 Islam are against human rights and
0:00:33 therefore not compatible with modern
0:00:35 human rights thinking and I stand in
0:00:39 front of everyone today with full
0:00:41 confidence that this claim will not be
0:00:44 refuted liberalism can and has and is
0:00:48 capable of producing death penalty
0:00:52 outcomes for non-religious to the state
0:00:55 for example a dude
0:00:57 the laws barbaric outdated dysfunctional
0:01:00 laws which is a genetic fallacy by the
0:01:02 way and you should know as a philosopher
0:01:04 that presents in cases like this is weak
0:01:06 then he mentioned democracy which is
0:01:08 even look is even older than Muhammad so
0:01:10 it's even more outdated so it should be
0:01:12 even more wrong in your understanding
0:01:13 but then here's what I'm saying to you
0:01:16 the point is this bismillah
0:01:19 alhamdulillah
0:01:21 what salat wa salam o allah rasool allah
0:01:23 i welcome all of you with islamic greet
0:01:26 greetings
0:01:27 assalamu aleikum wa rahmatullah wa
0:01:29 barakato may the peace blessings and
0:01:35 mercy of allah spirit allah be upon all
0:01:37 of you I am
0:01:39 Fahad Qureshi the chair for this debate
0:01:43 today this very interesting debate about
0:01:47 Islam does Islam need to be liberalized
0:01:53 or not and we are talking specifically
0:01:55 about traditional Islam Orthodox Islam
0:01:59 and by liberalized we mean do we need to
0:02:03 renew Islam is Islam
0:02:06 suitable for the 21st century is Islam
0:02:11 suitable for the West and the values
0:02:14 that we are living within in the West
0:02:18 that's the main topic of discussion
0:02:21 today why is this topic so important the
0:02:25 reason why it is so important is that
0:02:28 politics are based upon this we see
0:02:33 different political suggestions coming
0:02:38 all the time wanting to change Islam or
0:02:43 restrict Islamic practices based upon
0:02:47 the notion that Islam is not suitable or
0:02:50 traditional Islam is not suitable for
0:02:53 the modern Western society Islam needs
0:02:56 to be liberated it needs to be
0:03:00 progressed in terms of being able to fit
0:03:03 in the modern context so that's going to
0:03:07 be our debate today and the organization
0:03:11 organizing this debate is as you know
0:03:14 Islam net and Islam net is a Norwegian
0:03:18 Dawa organization focusing upon giving
0:03:23 Dawa meaning spreading information about
0:03:26 Islam in the Western society with a
0:03:29 special focus on Norway and we also we
0:03:33 also have a big focus on inspiring young
0:03:37 Muslims to find their Muslim identity
0:03:40 and feel confident about their religion
0:03:44 so inspire young Muslims to come back to
0:03:47 allah subhanaw taala and one of our main
0:03:51 projects nowadays is that we are raising
0:03:54 funds to establish a norwegian Dawa
0:03:57 center and a mastiff a mustard and a
0:04:00 Dawa center that we hope that would help
0:04:04 the Muslim Norwegian youth reconnect
0:04:08 with allah subhanaw taala because as we
0:04:10 see the masses of young muslims they may
0:04:14 not be practicing islam they may not be
0:04:17 very interested in Islam but if we
0:04:20 reconnect their faith with Allah then we
0:04:23 believe that that would be bringing them
0:04:25 success in this world and in the
0:04:27 hereafter so if you want to know more
0:04:29 about this project who name this
0:04:31 projects save a man so you could go to
0:04:33 the website save a man dot-com and read
0:04:37 more about it save a man calm and for
0:04:40 those watching online we will have the
0:04:41 link in the description to read about
0:04:44 that project for you to be able to
0:04:45 support that project as well this is a
0:04:49 man she's 14 years old a norwegian
0:04:52 muslim living with her parents in the
0:04:55 next 20 seconds she is going to send
0:04:57 indecent pictures of herself to her
0:04:59 secret boyfriend this is why Norway a
0:05:08 Scandinavian country that Muslims
0:05:10 migrated 250 years ago with around two
0:05:12 hundred thousand Muslims but this is
0:05:15 changing Muslim names are increasing but
0:05:18 Eman is dying in the hearts of our youth
0:05:21 the vast majority of these Muslims do
0:05:24 not pray and are leaving their Islamic
0:05:26 heritage and adopting the western
0:05:28 lifestyle why is this happening why are
0:05:32 the youth leaving the Islamic way of
0:05:34 life the majority of Muslims came to
0:05:37 Norway seeking financial opportunities
0:05:39 the mosques that were established were
0:05:42 centered around culture from back home
0:05:43 and the next generation of Muslims
0:05:46 assimilated to the western lifestyle the
0:05:49 main source of Islamic knowledge
0:05:51 remained the Friday sermon that was
0:05:53 conducted in the mother tongue of the
0:05:55 first generation of Muslims so the youth
0:05:57 didn't connect to it a man is not happy
0:06:00 at home her parents often tell her to
0:06:03 start praying and stay away from boys
0:06:04 and that makes he-man feel suffocated
0:06:06 and depressed because no one taught her
0:06:09 why islam teaches Muslims to pray or why
0:06:12 it sets moral boundaries for
0:06:14 relationships with the opposite gender
0:06:16 a man doesn't know what to do on one
0:06:20 side she loves her family and she loves
0:06:22 Allah on the other side she doesn't
0:06:25 understand Islam and its restrictions
0:06:27 and guidelines don't make sense to her
0:06:29 so she is living a double life Muslim at
0:06:33 home and someone else outside a man is
0:06:37 not just an individual she symbolizes
0:06:39 the Eman of the majority of young
0:06:41 Norwegian Muslims they are struggling to
0:06:44 retain there is
0:06:45 identity and are drifting away from
0:06:47 Islam we need to save a man we need to
0:06:51 start at the grassroots level the
0:06:53 problem lies in a lack of Islamic
0:06:55 knowledge resulting in the weakening of
0:06:57 Eman so we want to build the country's
0:07:00 first Islamic Dawa Center combined with
0:07:03 a Masjid that will share the message of
0:07:05 Islam in a way that the youth of today
0:07:06 can relate to it will have a Youth
0:07:09 Center where the youth can come instead
0:07:11 of hanging in the streets or going to
0:07:13 Western clubs it will have Islamic
0:07:15 programs and activities where the youth
0:07:17 can learn their religion it will have a
0:07:20 studio for mass production of Dawa
0:07:22 material for social media it will
0:07:25 educate the Muslim community on how to
0:07:27 bring up their children on Islamic
0:07:29 values we have already raised about 1
0:07:32 million dollars locally and to make this
0:07:34 project come true we need to raise the
0:07:36 remaining amount there are 1.8 billion
0:07:39 Muslims but the question is are you one
0:07:43 of those very special people who will
0:07:45 help save Eman please click the link
0:07:49 give for the sake of Allah and earn your
0:07:51 reward also we need to make the Muslim
0:07:55 world aware of this campaign so please
0:07:57 do whatever you can share this video on
0:07:59 Facebook Instagram Twitter and all other
0:08:02 social media networks we alone cannot
0:08:05 save you man
0:08:06 but together we can
0:08:08 [Music]
0:08:22 so back to the debate our two very
0:08:27 respectable candidates for the debate
0:08:29 today are dr. large Lula and Mohammad
0:08:35 Haeju so to begin with let me introduce
0:08:38 dr. large Lula who will be the first
0:08:40 person to speak today dr. large doula is
0:08:44 a philosopher he has graduated with a
0:08:48 doctorate in philosophy and is an
0:08:52 associate professor at Oslo
0:08:54 metropolitian
0:08:55 University from 2002 the year of 2005 he
0:09:01 was secretary-general of the Norwegian
0:09:04 humanist association goona became famous
0:09:09 or known to the general public in 1977
0:09:13 when after having joined the DF LP group
0:09:16 gula was arrested in Beirut Lebanon with
0:09:19 explosives in his luggage intended for
0:09:22 Israeli targets leading to a six-month
0:09:24 conviction and subsequent deportation he
0:09:27 remains a pro palestinian a pro
0:09:32 palestinian and in regards to his stance
0:09:35 on islam and muslims my personal opinion
0:09:39 is that he is very balanced he is very
0:09:42 honest he is not the kind of person who
0:09:45 would spread fabrications about islam
0:09:48 and muslims he is not the kind of person
0:09:51 who would spread Islamophobic theories
0:09:54 in fact he is one of the most outspoken
0:09:58 individuals in a norwegian context
0:10:00 against right-wing extremists and people
0:10:04 who spread the conspiracy theories about
0:10:07 Islam and Muslims so we have great
0:10:12 respect for dr. Lodge Allah in spite of
0:10:15 disagreeing with him in some some points
0:10:18 and he is a critic of Islam and on my on
0:10:23 my left hand side is Muhammed job he is
0:10:29 a
0:10:30 famous debater and youtuber he is well
0:10:34 known from his debates from a Hyde Park
0:10:38 at speakers corner where he debates many
0:10:41 different people and he travels around
0:10:42 the world and engages in dialogue in
0:10:45 debates with academics so Muhammad hijab
0:10:50 is very well known in the in the Muslim
0:10:54 world and he completed a degree in
0:10:59 politics and a master's in history from
0:11:03 Queen Mary University he completed
0:11:05 another master's degree in Islamic
0:11:07 studies at the School of Oriental and
0:11:09 African Studies he has taught and
0:11:12 instructed courses on humanities and
0:11:14 languages in many contexts he has
0:11:16 numerous ideas in some Islamic Sciences
0:11:19 and has studied in multiple Islamic
0:11:21 seminaries including the champagne
0:11:24 Institute which employs a traditional
0:11:27 Mauritania style of teaching the sacred
0:11:29 sciences Mohammed is currently doing
0:11:31 further postgraduate studies in applied
0:11:35 theology so that's our two respective
0:11:41 speakers for tonight's debate and the
0:11:45 setup will be that each speaker will
0:11:47 have 20 minutes to make his case to make
0:11:53 an introduction to his case so we will
0:11:55 start with dr. Lodge Bueller giving his
0:11:58 presentation and then Mohammed hijab
0:12:01 will give his presentation in 20 minutes
0:12:04 each after that we will have ten minutes
0:12:09 each of a rebuttal session where dr.
0:12:12 Nash will be responding to what Muhammad
0:12:15 hijab has said and vice versa
0:12:17 after that we will have a
0:12:21 cross-examination where each of the
0:12:24 speakers would have the opportunity to
0:12:28 cross-examine to ask questions to the
0:12:31 other speaker and that speaker would
0:12:32 have three minutes each to answer those
0:12:35 specific questions after that we will
0:12:38 have our we will open the floor for the
0:12:42 audience so the audience could all
0:12:44 to participate and ask their questions
0:12:46 to each respective speaker and we will
0:12:49 conclude with each speaker having five
0:12:51 minutes to give their final statements
0:12:54 so without any further ado I would
0:12:57 request dr. Lodge to take come to the
0:13:00 microphone and begin his presentation
0:13:01 thank you thank you very much for the
0:13:14 invitation and I believe it is fruitful
0:13:18 to have serious discussions thank you
0:13:21 about these important questions and the
0:13:25 question posed today is thus traditional
0:13:28 Islam need to be liberalized the answer
0:13:32 is yes and I could actually stop here
0:13:35 and give the remainder of my time to my
0:13:37 honorable opponent because he will need
0:13:40 more than the allotted he's allotted 20
0:13:42 minutes to explain why his outdated and
0:13:46 dysfunctional religious tradition does
0:13:49 not need liberalisation in the 21st
0:13:51 century however for this to become a
0:13:55 meaningful debate I will give some of
0:13:58 the reasons for my short answer but
0:14:01 first of all there are internal
0:14:05 resources in the Islamic tradition in
0:14:08 traditional Islam that can be utilized
0:14:11 and that has been utilized in the past
0:14:16 to develop interpretations that take
0:14:18 Islam in a liberalizing direction
0:14:22 especially the interpretive principles
0:14:25 of HD had supplemented with the
0:14:29 principle of the common good Messala
0:14:33 furthermore my short answer of course
0:14:36 has to do with how we understand the
0:14:39 term and the concept traditional Islam
0:14:42 what is it what is this object that I
0:14:45 and many with me including numerous
0:14:48 Muslims think things are in need of
0:14:51 liberalisation
0:14:54 we also need to clarify what is meant by
0:14:57 liberal say
0:14:58 is it the same as reform or affirmation
0:15:02 it seems that what it seems that Islam
0:15:07 net organizing this event have made this
0:15:10 interpretation the most relevant for
0:15:13 this debate but I'm not sure that it is
0:15:18 but my honourable opponents views on
0:15:21 Islam and traditional Islam are not the
0:15:23 only views he and his followers attempts
0:15:27 at monopolizing their interpretation as
0:15:30 the correct interpretation or mainstream
0:15:34 interpretation of Islam flies in the
0:15:37 face of the fact that their position the
0:15:41 position of Islam net and the followers
0:15:44 of Islam net here today is a minority
0:15:47 position within the Islamic world today
0:15:49 it's not the majority it is not what
0:15:53 Muslims nor not even the majority of
0:15:56 scholars think is the right
0:15:59 interpretation so before I give my
0:16:03 reasons for why reform of Islam should
0:16:05 entail liberalisation I will say
0:16:08 something about this what is Islam and
0:16:11 so-called traditional Islam part of the
0:16:15 problem is that it is almost impossible
0:16:17 to give an all comprehensive definition
0:16:20 of Islam it is a religion in that sense
0:16:25 it is what Muslims believe within some
0:16:29 parameters one cannot say I'm a Muslim
0:16:32 and believe anything there are a certain
0:16:35 limits but those limits are fairly wide
0:16:40 Islam is even more it can be said to be
0:16:43 a culture and also a 14th centuries old
0:16:47 civilization and these three forms Islam
0:16:51 as religion Islam as a culture and Islam
0:16:53 as a civilization or these three ways of
0:16:57 understanding Islam will overlap and
0:16:59 they influence each other here we are
0:17:03 concerned with Islam as a religion and a
0:17:07 religion can be said to consist of the
0:17:09 following factors or elements
0:17:12 a cosmogony that is a narrative of
0:17:18 creation a story a story about how
0:17:21 everything came to be a cosmology and
0:17:25 understanding of how the world is
0:17:27 working and epistemology an explanation
0:17:32 of how we know what we know and ethic
0:17:37 rules for a good life
0:17:39 and finally cultic practices the short
0:17:45 Islamic answers to these points are on
0:17:48 the cosmic journey God Allah created the
0:17:53 world out of nothing
0:17:55 cosmology God has organized the world
0:17:58 and is the cause of everything that
0:18:01 happens perhaps in certainly
0:18:04 interpretations and we see how variation
0:18:07 in the interpretation enters very
0:18:10 quickly into the picture
0:18:11 some think that perhaps science can help
0:18:14 us understand how God had organized the
0:18:16 universe the universe ie everything
0:18:21 epistemology a theory of knowledge
0:18:25 saying that we have knowledge through
0:18:27 revelation perhaps science can help us
0:18:32 understand but revelation is the most
0:18:34 important source of knowledge ethics the
0:18:39 rules for a good life are the same as
0:18:41 the will of God for mankind or the
0:18:45 revealed law of God Sharia and Sharia
0:18:49 covers all aspects all aspects of man's
0:18:52 life especially or actually not only
0:18:57 between all men then WOM a lot but it
0:19:02 also covers when we come to cultic
0:19:04 practices man's relation to God Emma dot
0:19:09 which is also part of the overall legal
0:19:14 ethical perspective of Islam so of
0:19:19 course there has been differences in the
0:19:22 understanding of these building blocks
0:19:23 of Islam throughout is
0:19:25 history some have said that the world is
0:19:29 not created but eternal coextensive with
0:19:33 God
0:19:34 others say that man has free will and
0:19:37 therefore man can cause both good and
0:19:41 evil there are those who have said that
0:19:44 the revelation is as found in the Quran
0:19:46 and Sunnah cannot be understood
0:19:48 literally we need to understand the
0:19:51 metaphoric language of the Quran and
0:19:53 even the hidden meaning of the Quran and
0:19:58 interpret it in a rational way others
0:20:02 say we should take the word literally
0:20:03 and not try to understand the metaphors
0:20:08 of the Quran as God is sitting but he is
0:20:12 totally different from human beings how
0:20:14 can he sit below keifa others say that
0:20:18 we should take the word literally and
0:20:20 not try to understand while Sufis say we
0:20:24 should attempt union with God and they
0:20:26 have areas medet of techniques developed
0:20:29 for the purpose and perhaps the Sufi
0:20:32 traditions the two Sufi tariqas are the
0:20:35 largest organisations of Muslims in the
0:20:39 Muslim world
0:20:41 many Muslims mix traditional values and
0:20:44 Islam and still believe they are good
0:20:47 Muslims ie they are following the will
0:20:49 of God some find ethical guidelines in
0:20:53 what they believe is the will of God as
0:20:54 revealed in the Quran and the example of
0:20:57 their prophet but the will of God even
0:20:59 if seen by many Muslim scholars as
0:21:02 complete and total system needs
0:21:05 interpretation based on Quran Sunnah HT
0:21:08 had an edge man however there is no
0:21:11 unanimity on how to interpret
0:21:14 accordingly there are many
0:21:16 interpretations with major and major may
0:21:19 major differences in Sunni Islam there
0:21:22 are four surviving schools of law mada
0:21:25 him but there have been other attempts
0:21:28 at understanding the will of God those
0:21:31 schools so those attempts did not
0:21:33 survive the test of time and we have
0:21:36 numerous other differences in
0:21:38 metaphysical approaches in theological
0:21:40 approaches etc there are differences
0:21:43 that vary over time and there are
0:21:45 differences from place to place within
0:21:48 the Muslim world in the past and today
0:21:51 enjoyed our numerous versions of Islam
0:21:54 even within Sunni Islam and in addition
0:21:57 we have various Shia interpretations do
0:22:00 they all have something in common apart
0:22:03 from the five pillars difficult to say
0:22:07 as an outsider as a researcher it is not
0:22:11 my job to decide which interpretation is
0:22:14 the correct one
0:22:15 that's for Muslims to quarrel about
0:22:17 you're welcome
0:22:19 and I do mr. hijab has no serious claim
0:22:24 to represents the to the true
0:22:26 interpretation as a researcher I observe
0:22:30 that there are certain agreements on the
0:22:33 level of scholars and also certain
0:22:36 elements practical in a practical Islam
0:22:39 so to speak common practices across
0:22:43 various interpretations and cultures
0:22:47 some of these interpretations and
0:22:50 practices do need to change for example
0:22:54 the discrimination of knowledge
0:22:58 discarding scientific knowledge that
0:23:01 goes against revelation discriminating
0:23:04 internally within Islam against those
0:23:08 you disagree with like for example the
0:23:12 Shia at Medea but also within Sunni
0:23:16 Islam the MARTA Silla not respected not
0:23:20 accepted as part of traditional Islam
0:23:23 today furthermore the discrimination of
0:23:28 women needs to be changed as we can see
0:23:31 here today with the women relegated to
0:23:34 the back that sort of segregation is not
0:23:40 good for anyone and if you say well
0:23:43 we're separate but equal there is no
0:23:46 example in history of separate but equal
0:23:49 that's what the apartheid supporters
0:23:52 said in South Africa there was no
0:23:54 equality between blacks and whites
0:23:57 segregating men and women makes one
0:24:00 sexes oppressed compared to the other we
0:24:06 see it in the strict demands on women's
0:24:08 women concerning their clothing and
0:24:10 their behavior and in regulating their
0:24:15 education and choice of professions
0:24:18 which is something that Islam that has
0:24:20 attempted to do by giving advice on what
0:24:23 studies are suitable for women what
0:24:26 professions are suitable for women in
0:24:28 Norway there is discrimination of
0:24:32 non-believers on equal rights according
0:24:35 to interpretations of Islam unacceptable
0:24:38 you have the discrimination of sexual
0:24:41 minorities with the emphasis in certain
0:24:44 circumstances of the death penalty but
0:24:47 in practice in most countries social
0:24:49 exclusion chase them away they are not
0:24:53 part of us anymore we don't want to have
0:24:55 anything to do with them the change of
0:24:59 these attitudes and practices should
0:25:01 most move Muslims in the direction of
0:25:03 greater freedom and equality freedom and
0:25:06 equality for all that is what I would
0:25:10 call liberalisation when I advocate
0:25:14 liberalisation of Islam I am NOT talking
0:25:16 about replacing Islam with political
0:25:19 liberalism that's a different matter
0:25:22 that would mean abolishing Islam and
0:25:25 establishing political philosophy of a
0:25:27 certain kind as a substitute religion if
0:25:30 that would be possible at all I am
0:25:33 talking about the verb the process then
0:25:37 to libera liberalized means according to
0:25:40 dictionaries to make something search us
0:25:44 a law or a political or religious system
0:25:47 less strict or to make or become liber
0:25:52 then what is liberal or someone who is
0:25:55 liberal not necessarily some someone who
0:25:59 embraces the political philosophy of
0:26:02 liberalism again according to a
0:26:04 dictionary a liberal
0:26:06 is someone willing to understand and
0:26:08 respect other people's behavior opinions
0:26:11 etc especially when they are different
0:26:14 from your own believing people should be
0:26:16 able to choose how they behave or
0:26:19 wanting to or wanting or allowing a lot
0:26:23 of political economic freedom and
0:26:24 supporting gradual social political or
0:26:27 religious change that are reasonable
0:26:31 definitions of a liberal person and
0:26:35 liberalizing processes our movement in
0:26:39 that direction these processes and
0:26:43 attitudes are or should be compatible
0:26:45 with various interpretations of Islam
0:26:50 the theological resources for
0:26:52 interpretation in such a liberal and
0:26:54 therefore liberalizing direction are
0:26:57 there in Islam the interpretive
0:27:00 principle of each D hat can be used and
0:27:03 supplemented with the principle of the
0:27:05 common good Muslim as resources for
0:27:09 interpretive change however currently it
0:27:13 is narrow and confining interpretations
0:27:17 that have the theological and
0:27:18 ideological hegemony in the Muslim world
0:27:21 thus each D hat is often limited to
0:27:25 Kia's analogical reasoning and not used
0:27:28 in an innovative and progressive as an
0:27:31 innovative and progressive principle
0:27:33 which could in union with mass llaha be
0:27:36 the basis for a more dynamic
0:27:38 understanding of the Sharia and
0:27:40 therefore make Islam more compatible
0:27:43 with the modern world including modern
0:27:45 science and human rights but and this is
0:27:49 important it is for Muslims to decide
0:27:52 how they want to live this is a right
0:27:56 according to modern and liberal values
0:27:59 ie human rights it is a basic human
0:28:03 right you have the right to decide for
0:28:07 yourself nevertheless because it is
0:28:11 possible to make these changes I hope
0:28:14 and I argue for a process of
0:28:17 liberalisation that is based on
0:28:19 recognition of the
0:28:20 human dignity and worth of every human
0:28:22 being a process that accepts the best
0:28:25 instruments we have to protect every
0:28:27 human beings dignity namely human rights
0:28:30 and a lot and the logical attachment to
0:28:34 you equal human dignity and human rights
0:28:36 is democracy
0:28:37 thus interpretations of Islam that
0:28:41 embrace equal human dignity human rights
0:28:43 and democratic political organization of
0:28:46 states and societies is what I would say
0:28:49 represents much-needed liberalization of
0:28:51 traditional Islam and if the
0:28:55 liberalization of Islam in its various
0:28:57 interpretations today including the
0:28:59 so-called traditional interpretations
0:29:01 were steered by a free and liberal
0:29:03 practice of each DeHart inspired by
0:29:05 masla ha we would see a gradual
0:29:09 reduction in the segregation of the
0:29:11 sexes great the tolerance for
0:29:13 differences within the Muslim community
0:29:16 acceptance of non-believers including
0:29:19 marriage marriages across religions
0:29:22 freedom of religion and the right to
0:29:24 change religion without social sanctions
0:29:27 freedom of religion for children
0:29:30 acceptance of sexual minorities respect
0:29:34 for fully freedom of expression and
0:29:36 acceptance of what some might see as
0:29:38 blasphemy acceptance of critique of
0:29:42 Islam of course with the right to a
0:29:44 vigorous defense hopefully based on
0:29:48 reason an important part of this process
0:29:53 of liberalisation
0:29:54 is based on freedom of religion for
0:29:58 everyone thus those Muslims who want to
0:30:02 live their lives in different ways in
0:30:04 stricter ways are absolutely allowed to
0:30:07 do so nevertheless they have to accept
0:30:10 the rights of others to criticize their
0:30:13 interpretations and their ways of living
0:30:16 and conservative traditional or strict
0:30:18 Muslims should not try to force other
0:30:21 Muslims to change to their ways of
0:30:24 living they can use persuasion because
0:30:28 also the strict conservative traditional
0:30:30 or so-called true Muslims
0:30:33 are free to use their freedom of
0:30:35 religion and freedom of expression to
0:30:39 influence others this is exactly why we
0:30:42 need to respect the rights of others
0:30:44 Muslims and non-muslims to live their
0:30:47 lives as they wish
0:30:49 thank you thank you dr. lush for your
0:31:03 presentation so we will now have the
0:31:06 introduction of Muhammad hijab so you
0:31:09 may come to the podium please so Ari
0:31:15 come welcome to live all together can
0:31:16 you guys hear me this is a bit low
0:31:18 should I bring up a bit is this better
0:31:21 is it better or is it mm all right well
0:31:25 thank you very much dr. Gould for your
0:31:28 presentation it was a bit more moderate
0:31:32 than your previous presentations I must
0:31:34 admit with other debates I've seen of
0:31:38 yours so I appreciate the more nuance
0:31:41 that you put into the discussion let's
0:31:46 start with definitions because I think
0:31:48 this is a point of difference actually
0:31:51 between me and gule gule a good I said
0:31:55 that the definitions that he took were
0:31:57 from dictionaries vernacular definitions
0:32:01 or dictionary definitions are invariably
0:32:03 influenced by ideological ones and so I
0:32:06 would put to him that dictionary
0:32:08 definitions are actually influenced by
0:32:11 political and social outcomes around
0:32:15 around those particular definitions when
0:32:17 they're being written in order to avoid
0:32:19 such bias one has to go before the 16th
0:32:21 century for example when liberalism was
0:32:24 around and find definitions then that
0:32:26 would be I think an appropriate recourse
0:32:29 for someone who wants to use a
0:32:30 dictionary finition however I would say
0:32:32 is that dr. Goulet went on to talk about
0:32:34 human rights which is actually an
0:32:36 outgrowth of liberalism human rights is
0:32:38 an outgrowth of liberalism you cannot
0:32:40 understand human rights without
0:32:41 understanding liberalism therefore the
0:32:44 liberalism that we are talking about
0:32:46 the social liberalism that is the
0:32:50 political philosophy that was well
0:32:54 introduced by John Locke one could argue
0:32:56 some say Thomas Hobbes and has a
0:32:59 tradition all the way up to this day and
0:33:01 so my definition of liberalism is
0:33:03 actually a politically for us
0:33:05 philosophical one which I'm sure he'll
0:33:07 be able to resonate with being a
0:33:08 philosopher himself
0:33:09 traditional Islam I agree with dr.
0:33:11 Goulet we no one has a monopoly of
0:33:14 traditionally the slam so for example I
0:33:16 follow the hambo Light School of Law I
0:33:18 can't say that my school of law is the
0:33:20 only correct one I understand that there
0:33:23 is different strands of traditions islam
0:33:25 martelli's were accepted as part of
0:33:28 their age now for example and that's
0:33:31 even mentioned by Montaigne Ian who is a
0:33:33 literalists as many of you know so I'd
0:33:36 set the nuance there I don't disagree
0:33:38 with him I don't think anyone has a
0:33:39 monopoly of tradition traditional slams
0:33:42 I think that's the first thing the
0:33:44 second thing I want to put to dr. Goulet
0:33:46 is that before we say that we should
0:33:50 move into a liberalizing direction I
0:33:52 think it's very fair to ask the question
0:33:55 how can we prove that liberalism is true
0:33:58 in the first place and of course John
0:34:01 Locke who is the founding father of
0:34:03 liberalism had an essay or a book that
0:34:05 he wrote when he talked about morality
0:34:08 and in that he said that morality is
0:34:10 something which is you can be
0:34:12 demonstrated like mathematics he said
0:34:15 that you can prove the truth of morality
0:34:17 in the same way as you can truth you can
0:34:20 prove scientific truths or mathematical
0:34:22 logical truths in his own system he said
0:34:25 that liberalism is true and he gave
0:34:27 theological reasons for it he replied to
0:34:29 Robert filmer for example who was a
0:34:31 Christian and he was using God as the
0:34:34 example so in other words he was using
0:34:36 an anchorage a moral epistemological
0:34:39 anchorage which was theological and of
0:34:42 course the liberal tradition is not just
0:34:44 John Locke so across time there has been
0:34:47 different philosophers all of which have
0:34:48 tried different things in order to
0:34:51 anchor their respective moral philosophy
0:34:53 so we have John Stuart Mill we have John
0:34:56 rules de Tocqueville
0:34:58 Montesquieu all of these individuals
0:34:59 wrote books and there is a vast wood
0:35:03 there is a rich tradition of referring
0:35:08 back to a particular underpinning
0:35:09 whether it be utilitarianism the
0:35:11 hedonistic principle or whatever but in
0:35:13 any of those cases liberalism has proven
0:35:17 to be a creature of convention what did
0:35:21 you say I said liberalism is a creature
0:35:24 of convention meaning it's a subjective
0:35:27 morality something which is and has been
0:35:30 the subject of change it's not an object
0:35:35 of might therefore before we even
0:35:37 perceived in this conversation you have
0:35:39 to prove to me that liberalism is true I
0:35:42 mean you had a debate with Hamza's or
0:35:44 sir some time ago about God's existence
0:35:47 fifty four minutes into the debate
0:35:49 doctor Goulet said there is no
0:35:51 scientific evidence of God just better
0:35:55 in mind there is no scientific evidence
0:35:57 of God is a problem with his
0:35:59 understanding of philosophy of science
0:36:01 but where is the scientific evidence for
0:36:04 liberalism you can't have one standard
0:36:08 of truth when you're trying to discover
0:36:09 one system of morality and then this
0:36:12 band that discard that completely throw
0:36:15 that out when you're talking about your
0:36:17 own beliefs which are axiomatic
0:36:20 otherwise unprovable so before you tell
0:36:23 us to be liberal why don't you prove
0:36:25 liberalism stop preaching to us and
0:36:27 start proving to us that's the reality
0:36:31 you have taken the stance of an
0:36:33 ideologue a liberal ideologue preacher
0:36:39 don't be a preacher be a teacher don't
0:36:43 be don't preach proof I want to learn
0:36:47 give me some proofs however what we saw
0:36:53 in the second half of the presentation
0:36:54 was dr. GU or Goulet is that he started
0:36:58 talking about discrimination human
0:37:01 rights and all of those things and he
0:37:03 mentioned the death penalty here's my
0:37:06 claim and I stand in front of everyone
0:37:09 today we
0:37:11 full confidence that this claim will not
0:37:13 be refuted listen to the claim
0:37:16 liberalism can and has and is wait a
0:37:22 minute now you're using too many words
0:37:24 I mean rewind liberalism can and has and
0:37:29 is capable of producing death-penalty
0:37:33 outcomes for non allegiance to the state
0:37:36 for example her dude
0:37:39 the laws barbaric outdated dysfunctional
0:37:42 laws which is a genetic fallacy by the
0:37:44 way and you should know as a philosopher
0:37:46 that presents in cases like this is weak
0:37:48 then he mentioned democracy which is
0:37:50 even look it's even older than Mohammed
0:37:52 so it's even more outdated so it should
0:37:53 be even more wrong in your understanding
0:37:55 but then here's what I'm saying to you
0:37:57 the point is this liberalism can allow
0:38:01 why because ladies and gentlemen liberal
0:38:05 contract arianism or contractual ism
0:38:08 which is the only liberalism that you
0:38:10 will find on the face of the earth
0:38:12 assumes that we had a prime model state
0:38:14 of nature and that we entered into a
0:38:17 prime model barter where we traded our
0:38:21 freedom for the security of the state
0:38:24 meaning what the sovereign becomes the
0:38:28 ultimate authority John Locke is himself
0:38:30 said in his letters of toleration
0:38:35 ironically that if someone in a Jewish
0:38:38 state John Locke the founding father of
0:38:40 liberalism someone in a Jewish state a
0:38:43 poster size is this believes in Judaism
0:38:47 he is to be killed when he a minute is
0:38:51 this for Muhammad no no no no this is
0:38:53 John Locke the founding father of
0:38:56 liberalism which is the very ideology
0:38:59 you are trying to preach to us today
0:39:01 this of course did not stop at Locke it
0:39:05 continued to mill it continued all the
0:39:07 way up to rules actually Immanuel Kant
0:39:11 all of these individuals have messages
0:39:14 similar to that that you have to fully
0:39:16 obey the sovereign listen to this listen
0:39:20 to this me and you I was born in London
0:39:24 twenty-eight years ago you were born
0:39:27 maybe 29 years ago I don't know in
0:39:29 Norway and and what happened was I
0:39:34 didn't get a choice did you get a choice
0:39:37 that you had to obey the law or not or
0:39:40 to be a citizen or not I was just forced
0:39:42 into the social contract freedom of
0:39:45 expression and freedom of religious
0:39:47 expression and freedom of thought and so
0:39:49 on and so forth all of that was
0:39:52 curtailed that the very starting point
0:39:53 for me I didn't choose to be here and to
0:39:57 be a citizen and obey the law yet I have
0:39:59 to obey the law the point is the social
0:40:02 contract is is dominant and therefore
0:40:06 when the law is in place I have to
0:40:09 follow the law if the law is that
0:40:11 there's treason which is associated with
0:40:14 some kind of religious authority then
0:40:16 that is the law therefore it's
0:40:18 conceivable through liberalism to have
0:40:21 death penalty outcomes philosophically
0:40:24 and by the way it's also conceivable in
0:40:26 Islam as he alluded to to refer to him
0:40:29 that you don't have to have death
0:40:30 penalty outcomes for a public apostasy
0:40:33 in an Islamic state let me give you the
0:40:35 evidence for that some brothers are
0:40:37 gonna say wait a minute you know you
0:40:40 become liberal no no no no
0:40:43 for example the prophet mohammed salah
0:40:44 isil in a hadith in Bukhari where he was
0:40:48 talking to the people of in had a beer
0:40:51 he spoke too soon alien army and there
0:40:53 was a pact that he created so hey
0:40:56 Lebanon who was the leader of the
0:40:57 collages at that time said that if
0:40:58 anyone opposed Assizes even publicly the
0:41:01 assumption was then they are to be not
0:41:03 killed but returned to us the Prophet
0:41:05 agreed to that now the question is is
0:41:07 this still applicable today if no crime
0:41:09 will josiya he mentions in said mad just
0:41:12 as Elmer Dell we also pronounced murder
0:41:14 we mentions as well in his books no
0:41:16 aliens off the other one he wrote
0:41:18 another big book give the references
0:41:20 after he mentions that this is still
0:41:22 applicable today so it's not been
0:41:24 abrogated in other words it's
0:41:26 conceivable fully to have a fully
0:41:28 fledged Islamic state where there is no
0:41:31 war and someone apostates in public and
0:41:34 there is no death penalty outcome why
0:41:38 is that despite what the Prophet
0:41:40 Muhammad said and because of liberalism
0:41:42 no no this is because of what Prophet
0:41:44 Muhammad said so Allah Allah knows and
0:41:47 therefore it's conceivable in Islam for
0:41:50 such punishments to be waived as well as
0:41:54 implemented fairly and deliberate lism
0:41:56 for such punishments to be waived or
0:41:58 implemented so what's the issue the
0:42:00 issue is you're actually calling us to
0:42:02 something which we don't need we have
0:42:05 within our own system the point is this
0:42:08 as he said correctly there's Muslim the
0:42:12 jurists can and have argued to that
0:42:15 effect now let's look at something else
0:42:19 a point I wanted to make you which I
0:42:23 think we need to be very clear on it's
0:42:28 not to have colonial amnesia the most
0:42:32 bloody massacres in human history
0:42:36 and I say this with full confidence have
0:42:38 been perpetrated by liberal States let's
0:42:43 take one example 1830 the French
0:42:47 annexation of Algeria 1 million people
0:42:51 were killed
0:42:53 genocide oh and by the way I was a
0:42:55 history teacher in the UK for some time
0:42:57 never did we teach this and it wasn't
0:42:59 even on the national curriculum but we
0:43:01 teach about the Holocaust those kinds of
0:43:03 genocides why because the French were
0:43:06 adamant on censoring this information
0:43:09 because it included rape pillaging of
0:43:13 human beings and pictures are them
0:43:15 because this was the time where pictures
0:43:17 could be actually generated many Muslims
0:43:19 don't even know what happened in Algeria
0:43:21 for a hundred and thirty years by a
0:43:24 government a French government which was
0:43:27 not only liberal listen to this but the
0:43:30 founding fathers of that liberal
0:43:32 government and philosophers like Alexis
0:43:34 de Tocqueville in his essays to Algiers
0:43:37 actually supported the colonial
0:43:39 discrimination against who the Algerians
0:43:42 because of what because of the
0:43:44 superiority complex that they had and
0:43:47 this is to be honest what we find in the
0:43:49 discourse is supposed to
0:43:51 purity complex where you don't even have
0:43:53 an objective morality to give us so the
0:43:57 point is this listen to this liberalism
0:44:00 has can allow for racism and colonialism
0:44:05 and tyranny and authoritarianism whereas
0:44:09 Islam can never and what say it has
0:44:12 never but can never as a religion can
0:44:15 never allow for racism
0:44:17 so the question shouldn't really be now
0:44:19 if you if you like racism liberalism
0:44:21 can't stop you from being racist let me
0:44:25 say that one more time
0:44:26 liberalism as a political philosophy
0:44:28 cannot and has not through its
0:44:31 principles or its actions stop you from
0:44:33 being a racist and if it could then
0:44:36 surely the founding fathers surely those
0:44:38 who came after them and those who came
0:44:40 after them wouldn't have allowed a
0:44:42 race-based slavery to exist race-based
0:44:44 slavery in America until the Civil War
0:44:47 which by that were killed the most
0:44:50 people in American history in terms of
0:44:52 Wars so this is a colonial amnesia which
0:44:57 I think people are having and forgetting
0:44:59 about the fact that most genocides that
0:45:02 have been committed in history have been
0:45:03 by literally massive genocides have been
0:45:05 by liberal states in the in the in the
0:45:07 recent history the Native Americans what
0:45:09 happened to them Native America Native
0:45:12 Americans and what happened to them is
0:45:14 is basically Isis on steroids
0:45:16 if you if you don't like Isis you
0:45:18 shouldn't like I mean imagine 100 years
0:45:20 from now you speak to our Isis person
0:45:22 and they say this is our state we've
0:45:24 overtook you from the people no one will
0:45:26 accept it but now America is basically
0:45:28 premise this it's built on the same kind
0:45:30 of genocide and that's the reality this
0:45:33 is liberalism for you yeah
0:45:34 westward expansion manifest destiny
0:45:36 these were all liberal concepts please
0:45:38 don't try it we know your history we
0:45:42 know your history very well and we know
0:45:45 your present as well and the question
0:45:47 now is it can it be legalistically
0:45:49 justified you know I did some research
0:45:51 which I'm going to publish soon
0:45:52 inshallah maybe a week or two I did some
0:45:56 reach research on the amount of times
0:45:58 the Haddad have been implemented in the
0:46:00 Ottoman Empire of course there are gaps
0:46:03 in the
0:46:04 but it has actually been digitized and
0:46:06 archived and my understanding is from
0:46:09 the years 1500 to 1700 there was only
0:46:12 two or three cases and by the way there
0:46:14 was no death penalty outcomes for a lot
0:46:16 of them from the years 1700 to 1856
0:46:20 which is when the Tanzimat took place
0:46:22 when actually in 1839 in 1839 they
0:46:26 basically stopped a Sharia law as being
0:46:27 the arbitrator and Jew in the judiciary
0:46:30 in in the Ottoman Empire in that period
0:46:33 of time we saw the most but most of them
0:46:34 once again through muslin and other
0:46:36 reasons were stopped now look at America
0:46:38 of treason is I believe and not me the
0:46:42 scholars of Islam like his Selassie he
0:46:45 mentions in his mob thought he they say
0:46:47 that that is equivalent to high treason
0:46:50 America in 1862 William Mumford he tore
0:46:54 down an American flag now notice that
0:46:57 this was not an act of militancy this
0:47:00 was an act of symbolism he tore down an
0:47:03 American flag
0:47:04 this was after Abraham Lincoln and all
0:47:06 the founding fathers of liberalism who
0:47:08 wrote the Federalist Papers etc in
0:47:09 America he tore down an American flag
0:47:11 and was executed in front of a mass
0:47:14 amount of people in New Orleans
0:47:16 now this is not militancy so is it
0:47:19 conceivable yes has it been shown in
0:47:22 history yes even through the law so
0:47:26 liberalism doesn't produce non-death
0:47:28 penalty outcomes
0:47:29 that's fake that's false we're not going
0:47:31 to believe in that that's fake history
0:47:34 hasn't proven that bring your evidence
0:47:36 and so the present is even worse because
0:47:40 they don't even use the treatise clause
0:47:43 in the second the second article of the
0:47:44 Constitution of America and they do
0:47:46 extrajudicial killings and by the way
0:47:48 those extrajudicial killings and the
0:47:49 suspension of habeas corpus rights are
0:47:52 sometimes navigated and mitigated
0:47:55 through the liberal constitutional
0:47:57 rights and then you have people like
0:48:00 he'll allow look here's a six-year-old
0:48:02 who was killed by Americans by drones
0:48:05 yes by drones killing a child because
0:48:09 they're afraid that she'll turn out like
0:48:10 her father without any trial
0:48:11 this is liberalism
0:48:13 you in action don't talk to us about
0:48:15 liberalism and does it slam me to be
0:48:17 liberal and outdated democracy is much
0:48:20 older than proof Mohammed's time and he
0:48:23 mentioned it as outdated as if some kind
0:48:25 of argument
0:48:26 this is dysfunctionality in
0:48:28 argumentation actually to use his phrase
0:48:33 moreover liberalism is contradictory
0:48:36 with itself pluralism says that you can
0:48:40 use for example your religious
0:48:43 expression and so on to express yourself
0:48:46 in society circularity or secularism
0:48:48 doesn't allow that so if I'm a Muslim
0:48:50 and I want to use my religious belief
0:48:54 systems to influence policy that's not
0:48:57 allowed to me by secularity or
0:48:59 secularism why is allowed by pluralism
0:49:02 so it's contradictions what if something
0:49:04 which is democratic contradicts
0:49:05 something which is liberal what do you
0:49:07 do in that situation
0:49:09 so here the truth is there is nothing
0:49:13 you can say at all to convince us in the
0:49:18 same way as many colonial forefathers
0:49:21 knot off himself
0:49:21 I'm just saying of the Western people in
0:49:23 general used to come to our countries
0:49:25 and tell us to believe in what they
0:49:26 believe and just like in Algeria we
0:49:29 rejected this because they did not
0:49:31 provide any proof for what they believe
0:49:34 and today we're finding the same thing
0:49:35 again you're not providing any proof so
0:49:38 what I'm going to conclude with is a
0:49:39 list of just three questions the second
0:49:42 one has sub compartments which hopefully
0:49:44 the professor will answer number one is
0:49:48 straightforward give us proof of
0:49:50 liberalism
0:49:50 what kind of demonstrative proof have
0:49:53 you got logical give me a rational
0:49:55 argument using Monty for logic give me a
0:49:58 mathematical argument a scientific one
0:50:00 you can't just produce say be liberal
0:50:03 it's like coming here and say be
0:50:03 communist it's ridiculous
0:50:05 give me some proof number two give us
0:50:08 evidence for the presuppositions of
0:50:11 liberalism you mentioned equality and
0:50:13 freedom how can you even prove that
0:50:15 freedom exists as an atheist material
0:50:17 how much of your materials or not let
0:50:18 alone being a desirable thing you have
0:50:20 to prove this equality that's against a
0:50:22 theory of Darwinian evolution we're not
0:50:24 born equal that's what that's what
0:50:26 mentioned in the documents like the the
0:50:29 United for example the United States
0:50:31 Constitution was it sort of the
0:50:34 Declaration of Independence but how can
0:50:35 you prove that we're all born equal John
0:50:37 Locke said that we are endowed that
0:50:39 equality from God as an atheist how can
0:50:40 you prove equality prove it prove to us
0:50:44 that we're born equal that freedom
0:50:45 exists that is a desirable thing and
0:50:47 that individual rights should be
0:50:50 prioritized over collective rights which
0:50:53 is the basis for most moral liberal
0:50:55 systems you have to prove this and do
0:50:58 you admit that liberalism is capable of
0:51:01 producing legally binding death penalty
0:51:04 outcomes for non allegiance to the state
0:51:06 for example and if so how do you suppose
0:51:08 liberalism solves a problem that is
0:51:11 created by Islam please answer those
0:51:13 questions or salam aleikum wa
0:51:15 rahmatullah wa okay thank you so much
0:51:30 Mohammed hi job for your presentation we
0:51:35 will now have the rebuttal session where
0:51:38 dr. Lodge will have ten minutes to give
0:51:40 his comments on what Muhammad hijab have
0:51:44 spoken and you will have your time on
0:51:46 the timer in front of them
0:51:48 so without any further ado thank you I
0:51:58 must say that I'm surprised by the
0:52:02 mixing here of norm and fact by mr.
0:52:06 haire job because he assumes that we can
0:52:10 prove normativity norms in the same way
0:52:15 that we prove the existence of the Sun
0:52:17 or that we are here today these are two
0:52:21 completely different areas two different
0:52:24 spheres we don't use the same sort of
0:52:28 logic we don't use the same sort of
0:52:31 arguments when we are discussing norms
0:52:34 and when we are discussing facts reality
0:52:38 the descriptive part
0:52:39 of reality so here is a confusion the
0:52:45 confusion that he brings with him into
0:52:48 his presentation of the liberalist
0:52:50 tradition I am NOT in that tradition I
0:52:54 find parts of it sympathetic but he is
0:52:58 and it seems to me that he is reading
0:53:01 every text as a Salafi as something that
0:53:04 is there like the Quran unchangeable for
0:53:07 eternity the whole point with a
0:53:09 tradition in Pella in political
0:53:12 philosophy is that it develops of course
0:53:15 we do think and say liberals do you
0:53:19 think and say something different from
0:53:21 what John Locke said that is the whole
0:53:24 point of a philosophical tradition is
0:53:27 that those who follow John Locke looked
0:53:29 at what he wrote and so ah he's mistaken
0:53:32 I can do better we can improve and those
0:53:36 that followed him again says the same
0:53:38 thing
0:53:39 so liberalism now I'm speaking as a
0:53:42 teacher is different today than it was
0:53:47 at John Locke's
0:53:49 time and to say that we have to go back
0:53:51 to John Locke to understand liberalism
0:53:53 is plainly nonsense I'm sorry it doesn't
0:53:56 make any sense because liberalists today
0:53:59 say something else than what John Locke
0:54:03 said and wrote so so here there is a
0:54:07 confusion and actually a a rather
0:54:09 strange if not to say naive presentation
0:54:12 of the liberal tradition in political
0:54:16 philosophy of course people within the
0:54:21 liberal tradition are affected by the
0:54:25 circumstances John Locke was a Christian
0:54:27 many liberals political liberals today
0:54:30 are not religious they say and mean
0:54:33 different things and how the tradition
0:54:36 how the contradictions within the
0:54:37 traditions has been addressed and
0:54:39 changed
0:54:41 mr. job is quite correct in the liberal
0:54:45 tradition that has been raised it racist
0:54:48 attitudes there has been arguments for
0:54:50 the death penalty it has been practiced
0:54:52 and liberal
0:54:53 and legitimized justified by liberals
0:54:55 today if we say that liberal political
0:55:01 philosophy liberal political thinking is
0:55:04 predominant and there is a case for that
0:55:06 in the Western world today look at
0:55:10 Europe today they have all abolished the
0:55:14 death penalty so to argue that John
0:55:18 Locke was in favor of the death penalty
0:55:21 400 years ago and relating that to
0:55:25 liberalism today is simply absurd it
0:55:29 doesn't make any sense because
0:55:30 liberalism today is completely different
0:55:33 and then what about cannot avoid it
0:55:37 because if you are saying that Islam is
0:55:40 Islam and it's perfect from the
0:55:42 beginning and that is absolute there is
0:55:44 no relativity here it's the same
0:55:46 throughout the centuries because the
0:55:48 basis is the same the Quran is the same
0:55:50 and the Sunnah is there yes what about
0:55:55 today no you cannot you cannot justify
0:55:59 racism in Islam about the equal number
0:56:04 of slaves transported to the Americas
0:56:08 was captured and sold from Africa into
0:56:12 the Muslim world over several centuries
0:56:16 wasn't that racism and if you think it
0:56:20 is appeared well some time ago because
0:56:22 today we preach a more enlightened form
0:56:24 of Islam you're wrong some of you with
0:56:28 black skin having been in the Middle
0:56:30 East would know that skin racism skin
0:56:34 color racism racism is still prevalent
0:56:36 in the Middle East
0:56:38 don't tell me otherwise I have spoken to
0:56:41 blacks black Muslims studying Islam in
0:56:44 Syria telling me how they have faced
0:56:47 racism in that country amongst Muslims
0:56:51 and if you say that well the West they
0:56:55 have been doing committing atrocities it
0:56:57 is true and who who are those who have
0:57:00 addressed those atrocities critique to
0:57:02 them made interpretations of politics
0:57:06 change
0:57:07 well they are the same people in the
0:57:10 West criticizing France for its
0:57:13 occupation of Algeria where are the
0:57:16 Muslims protesting against Saudi Arabia
0:57:18 Muslims killing children Muslim children
0:57:21 in Yemen today where are they where are
0:57:27 all the Muslims protesting against Saudi
0:57:29 Arabia's killing of Karachi a year ago
0:57:34 don't tell me that oh you are to blame
0:57:38 for this and that colonialism what about
0:57:41 Islamic colonialism what about Islamic
0:57:45 imperialism oh no we just spread the
0:57:49 word we didn't use soldiers at all we
0:57:51 didn't conquer Spain you know we just
0:57:55 persuaded the Spaniards to become
0:57:57 Muslims I am not the one who says that
0:58:01 Islam was mainly spread by the sword
0:58:04 because that is not true but it was also
0:58:08 spread by the sword
0:58:09 jihad visible Allah don't tell me
0:58:13 otherwise so if you are saying that your
0:58:16 interpretations of this and that
0:58:19 political philosophy is different from
0:58:22 then you are comparing bad Western
0:58:25 practices with Islamic ideals you're not
0:58:28 looking at Islamic practices and
0:58:30 comparing them with Western ideals and
0:58:34 that is also a fallacy finally there are
0:58:38 many things that could be said here but
0:58:41 but finally when it comes to the liberal
0:58:44 tradition again mr. job is asking for
0:58:48 proofs and he's saying that liberalism
0:58:53 is based on a fallacy on something that
0:58:56 cannot be proven but that's true
0:58:59 no one pretended that the state of
0:59:02 nature could be proven at least not
0:59:06 today it might have been a hypothesis
0:59:09 that Thomas Hobbes John Locke thought
0:59:12 was plausible also in the empirical
0:59:14 sense not least because of the colonial
0:59:17 experience but the
0:59:20 fact is that when most of the liberal
0:59:23 theoreticians talk about a state of
0:59:25 nature it is a hypothesis it's illogical
0:59:29 hypothesis they use to establish
0:59:31 premises that you can use to argue in
0:59:36 favor of certain moral ethical
0:59:38 principles we're not talking about facts
0:59:40 we are talking about norms we are
0:59:42 talking about the basis for a logical
0:59:45 argument that can justify individual
0:59:49 freedom the states need to withdraw from
0:59:53 total domination of the individual and
0:59:56 so on so again there is a confusion of
1:00:02 the empirical and the normative and mr.
1:00:05 hijabs presentation which I find very
1:00:08 very strange finally if there is such a
1:00:14 thing that well we are influenced by
1:00:17 this and that and we have the colonial
1:00:19 past and colonialism is wrong why why is
1:00:26 colonialism wrong I would like to have
1:00:30 mr. hijab answer that because if he says
1:00:33 it's wrong because and I agree with him
1:00:36 then we have something common in spite
1:00:39 his religious starting point and my
1:00:42 non-religious starting point and that is
1:00:44 what is interesting me so to comment on
1:00:49 the questions and I cannot do but
1:00:51 comment on them I don't need to give
1:00:53 proofs of liberalism it doesn't make any
1:00:55 sense first of all I'm not a liberal
1:00:57 list in the philosophical sense and
1:00:59 second it is a sort of system that
1:01:02 cannot be given proofs it can be shown
1:01:04 to be consistent or inconsistent and
1:01:07 because of certain of its inconsistency
1:01:09 I am NOT a political liberal so there
1:01:15 and I've just commented on the evidence
1:01:17 of liberalism presupposition the state
1:01:19 of nature born equal etc born equal yes
1:01:23 are you saying that we are not born
1:01:25 equal
1:01:26 that is also hypothesis of course when
1:01:31 when Rousseau's
1:01:33 that we were born equal he did not
1:01:36 necessarily mean that in a literal
1:01:38 empirical sense but he said when the
1:01:41 baby comes out of the mother they are
1:01:43 equal some grows up slaves some grow up
1:01:47 as labourers some will be princes and
1:01:50 rulers of course he knew that it wasn't
1:01:53 a stupid man but he made a premise that
1:01:56 you have to argue why we are not equal
1:02:01 that is the important thing
1:02:04 so liberalism can produce various
1:02:07 outcomes as we have seen but so will
1:02:11 Islam as we have seen thank you thank
1:02:20 you dr. lush for your rebuttal now we
1:02:23 will have Mohammed hijab giving his ten
1:02:26 minutes of comments so I'm very happy
1:02:31 with that actually a lot of that is
1:02:32 exactly what I wanted to hear
1:02:34 he said liberalism cannot be proven and
1:02:36 then he said we're born equal and he
1:02:39 said to me the burden was a of proof is
1:02:41 on me well actually no the burden of
1:02:43 proof is on the one who's making the
1:02:45 claim the burden of proof is not on me
1:02:47 to prove I were not equal because that's
1:02:49 demonstrative when we're born out of the
1:02:51 mother's womb some of us are tall tall
1:02:53 dark and handsome like myself and some
1:02:57 of us yes and some of us are not and
1:03:02 certainly I'm not saying you right and
1:03:04 so on okay no what are we equal in we're
1:03:08 not equal in physical characteristics
1:03:09 we're not equal an opportunity some of
1:03:11 us are born in different geographic
1:03:12 locations some of us are born in in the
1:03:15 east west north south whatever it may be
1:03:17 what is equal about our opportunities or
1:03:19 our physical characteristics from a
1:03:21 strictly scientific perspective there's
1:03:24 nothing equal about how we're born at
1:03:26 all no the burden of proof is not on me
1:03:28 the burden of proof is definitely on you
1:03:31 now having said that we do believe in an
1:03:34 equal spiritual opportunity from an
1:03:36 Islamic perspective we can say that by
1:03:39 arguing from first principles the
1:03:40 problem is you can't argue from first
1:03:43 principles as admitted by yourself
1:03:45 because you need and
1:03:46 a systemic vantage point which doesn't
1:03:50 have the end as the beginning this is
1:03:53 how you argue in your debates you start
1:03:55 by saying Human Rights is a good thing
1:03:56 but you have no way of proving that
1:03:59 according to your own admission your
1:04:01 understanding of Human Rights
1:04:03 you cannot say I'm not a liberal now
1:04:05 because you've been promoting human
1:04:07 rights all your life that's what you've
1:04:10 been doing how can you not be a liberal
1:04:12 and Human Rights is a birth child of
1:04:15 liberalism is a birth child of
1:04:18 liberalism and you've been promoting it
1:04:20 harassing Muslims in debates telling
1:04:22 them you have to be this and you have to
1:04:24 be that and you cannot even prove human
1:04:26 rights because you cannot even prove
1:04:28 it's seedbed epistemic seed bed which is
1:04:32 liberalism don't run away from the
1:04:34 question saying that liberalism in his
1:04:36 definition is lack of strictness all I
1:04:40 can say the Prophet said don't be strict
1:04:41 but that's according to our
1:04:44 understanding our jurisprudential
1:04:45 understanding of strictness you have to
1:04:47 have a when you say strict what do you
1:04:49 mean you're talking about in like
1:04:51 post-enlightenment ideas this is perfect
1:04:54 this is the trap mode and then he's
1:04:57 tried to say because right now he's
1:04:58 running away from it sorry to say I'm
1:04:59 not trying to push you into a corner
1:05:01 but why I'm saying is he came today and
1:05:04 tried to equivocate it's called the
1:05:06 fallacy of equivocation use the
1:05:09 dictionary definition of the word
1:05:11 liberalism when all his life he's been
1:05:13 using the political philosophical
1:05:15 definition of liberalism and by the way
1:05:17 the dictionary definition is informed by
1:05:19 the political definition to run away
1:05:22 from proving what he has to prove that's
1:05:23 the reality of what's happened today
1:05:25 then he says talks about discrimination
1:05:28 not as confusing feminism with
1:05:30 liberalism says why I want women in the
1:05:31 back and men in the front this is a
1:05:33 second wave feminists ik interrogation
1:05:35 why should we go for a second wave
1:05:37 feminist ik interrogation not a third
1:05:39 wave feminist ik interrogation which
1:05:41 would ask you by a third wave feminists
1:05:43 would ask you how do you know they're
1:05:43 women have you asked who their pronouns
1:05:45 now honestly honestly how did you know I
1:05:48 mean a queer studies theory would say
1:05:51 that so you're trying to force us you
1:05:52 don't even know what you're arguing for
1:05:54 that's the reality of situation you've
1:05:56 come here with a gun with no bullets and
1:05:59 you shout the wrong man
1:06:01 because the reality is now you're being
1:06:03 questioned on your own ideology he says
1:06:06 don't look liberalism has changed since
1:06:08 John Locke if you listen to what I said
1:06:11 I said I don't care what John Locke said
1:06:13 I said it's the principles of liberalism
1:06:15 I use John Locke as a supporting
1:06:18 argument not as a main argument saying
1:06:20 that everything that John Locke says is
1:06:22 liberalism I said that contract arian
1:06:25 forms of liberalism or otherwise were
1:06:27 referred to as contractual forms which
1:06:29 are the only forms you'll see in the
1:06:31 whole wide world
1:06:32 give me one Robert Nozick style utopian
1:06:35 anarchy in his book I'm sure you've read
1:06:37 it non-contract arian form of a
1:06:40 liberalism on the earth today you won't
1:06:42 find it
1:06:42 therefore what's happened today is it's
1:06:45 as if I was debating someone about
1:06:47 Christianity and Trinity and say look
1:06:48 actually I don't really believe in
1:06:50 Christianity I only believe in parts of
1:06:51 it so of course you're gonna run away
1:06:53 from the question because you have to
1:06:54 prove yourself at this point and when
1:06:57 neo liberal yes Orientalists
1:07:01 commentators are questioned on their
1:07:04 principles they retreat they run away
1:07:07 from answering and if they do answer
1:07:09 they'll be honest like he has been to be
1:07:10 fair so I can't prove this and at the
1:07:13 end he tried to kind of run away from it
1:07:15 say actually you have to prove that
1:07:16 we're not born equal but actually no you
1:07:18 have to prove that we are equal because
1:07:19 that's the metaphysical equality it's a
1:07:23 metaphysical or it's not a physical one
1:07:24 you can't argue that we're physically
1:07:25 equal we're definitely so if you're some
1:07:28 metaphysical claim it requires
1:07:29 metaphysical proofs you have to provide
1:07:30 that he says well this racism in the
1:07:34 Middle East I agree with you but there's
1:07:35 racism against black people and racism
1:07:38 against Filipinos and raised them
1:07:39 against you know even Arabs race against
1:07:42 themselves and racism is a problem and I
1:07:44 agree with all of what you said there I
1:07:46 don't have any a disagreement with you
1:07:47 on these points but that's a straw man I
1:07:49 doesn't say anything about I'm not here
1:07:50 to defend the Middle East if I was here
1:07:52 defending lily's I promise you he'd win
1:07:54 the debate I'm here to defend slam call
1:07:56 Aloha Rasul Allah and the messenger I
1:07:58 don't care what the Muslims do Muslims
1:08:00 are only applicable to the discussion if
1:08:04 they form part of the a Jamaa for
1:08:05 example in a juice Prudential sense he
1:08:10 says
1:08:11 Islamic colonialism well look even if
1:08:15 there was Islamic colonialism I was made
1:08:16 very clear I can't hit stand here and
1:08:19 defend a thousand four hundred years of
1:08:21 Islamic history very clearly if there
1:08:23 was Islamic colonialism with the
1:08:25 connotations that implies and you asking
1:08:27 me to condemn it which is a
1:08:29 misappropriation of land taking people
1:08:31 out of their homes that's wrong we don't
1:08:33 believe in that but we do believe in an
1:08:35 age of empire where there was a medieval
1:08:38 realist form in and international
1:08:40 relations perspective of power relations
1:08:42 if you know your neighbor is about to
1:08:44 take you over and you have two choices
1:08:46 as a government then it's not morally
1:08:48 objectionable from my perspective to
1:08:50 offer them the ultimatum first it's not
1:08:53 a UN style a situation where we can
1:08:56 agree and Islam says Islam says if there
1:09:00 are peace treaties in place to stop that
1:09:02 from happening and we're sure that our
1:09:03 neighbors will not do that then those
1:09:06 peace treaties must be respected so if
1:09:09 my neighbor if I was living in the
1:09:10 medieval period and my neighbor my read
1:09:13 Geographic neighbor said I'm not going
1:09:15 to you know coming to you it trying to
1:09:17 overtake you
1:09:18 you don't overtake us and there was an
1:09:20 agreement I would say it's Haram wrong
1:09:22 morally unacceptable for them to invade
1:09:24 but unless the neighbor can provide such
1:09:27 guarantees then I would say it becomes
1:09:30 possible and an option in that in that
1:09:34 context because you either get eat
1:09:36 either you're gonna get eaten as you
1:09:39 would say in a in a pie graph in a
1:09:41 biological sense Darwinian sense so
1:09:44 really these are the points and he said
1:09:46 that men and women let's say let's take
1:09:47 the gender the dichotomous second wave
1:09:50 feminists think how is that
1:09:53 discrimination against women as well men
1:09:55 and women get exactly the same thing if
1:09:57 men can't go into women's area women
1:09:58 can't go into men's area isn't that the
1:10:00 same isn't that the rights of men a
1:10:02 woman exactly the same in that situation
1:10:03 how can you say that that's
1:10:04 discrimination against women it doesn't
1:10:06 make any sense because if the same rules
1:10:08 apply to men to women and that's
1:10:10 actually a form of equality now the
1:10:12 question is why do you allow certain
1:10:14 separations in certain contexts and from
1:10:16 UK we have girls schools
1:10:18 boys schools that's an educational
1:10:21 setting this is an educational site I've
1:10:23 never seen you condemn that
1:10:25 while you condemn that while you condemn
1:10:26 certain separate it why because the
1:10:29 white man said so that's the reality
1:10:32 when the white will liberal man decides
1:10:34 this is an acceptable form of separation
1:10:37 which has no problem with our
1:10:39 sensibilities then we have to hear some
1:10:43 a no apana we have to hear and obey the
1:10:45 colonial overlords no that's weak give
1:10:49 us some proof you've just come here and
1:10:52 said well John Locke liberalism has
1:10:54 changed therefore run away no you come
1:10:56 here to a debate that is entitled does
1:10:59 Islam me to be liberalized you need to
1:11:02 show us first
1:11:03 why liberalism is true and desirable
1:11:06 before you can convince us of that I
1:11:09 know that Muslims have a bad track
1:11:12 record but what I'll say to you is this
1:11:13 as Muslims what are we calling you to in
1:11:17 the last minute I will say this we're
1:11:18 calling you to forget about the
1:11:20 hedonistic principle where the
1:11:22 procurement of pleasure is the main
1:11:24 thing we're saying constricts your
1:11:26 pleasures in the same way as a loss of
1:11:28 Hana Italia has constricted the laws of
1:11:30 the heavens in the earth has constricted
1:11:32 the laws of nature we are saying as
1:11:35 Muslims we would rather constrict
1:11:37 ourselves on our behavior constrain our
1:11:38 behaviors in line with the de vanga
1:11:40 divine guidance
1:11:41 alas in the Quran which is actually a
1:11:43 response to liberalism I believe by the
1:11:45 audible mention he says
1:11:46 well oh it devil ha
1:11:50 laughs essa that is some too well oh man
1:11:55 well attain me the cream from the cream
1:12:02 if the heavens in the earth had followed
1:12:04 their desires everything in the heavens
1:12:06 and earth would have been destroyed we
1:12:08 have come with the reminder the reminder
1:12:11 is to follow allah slaws instead of
1:12:14 following your own whims and desires
1:12:15 which is the essence of liberalism the
1:12:17 hedonistic principle and then you'll
1:12:20 find meaning in life we should change
1:12:23 the title today after this discussion
1:12:24 too should liberalism be Islam Assizes
1:12:28 like an all-hands in a lacunae thank you
1:12:40 Mohamed hijab for your rebuttal we will
1:12:45 now have our cross examination where
1:12:49 each speaker will have one minute to
1:12:52 phrase his question to his opponent and
1:12:55 and the other speaker will have three
1:12:59 minutes to answer his question and each
1:13:01 speaker will be given three questions
1:13:04 each after that we will open up the
1:13:07 floor for the questions from the
1:13:08 audience
1:13:09 so we will start with dr. Lodge with his
1:13:14 first question that he would like to ask
1:13:17 Mohammed Haeju
1:13:18 I have just a couple of of question
1:13:25 first I didn't think it was necessary to
1:13:30 emphasize that I actually know that
1:13:32 there are a difference between men and
1:13:34 women when they are born black and white
1:13:36 we know that some people will be big and
1:13:40 burly some will be short of course again
1:13:44 then this has to do with physical
1:13:47 reality reality and that's not when what
1:13:49 we are talking about when we are talking
1:13:51 about human dignity and human Worth and
1:13:54 it is in that respect that we are equal
1:13:57 and my question first person is are we
1:14:01 of equal or
1:14:03 earth regardless men women born from
1:14:08 believers or unbelievers in this
1:14:11 normative sense okay to answer that
1:14:14 question directly we are born equal so
1:14:16 then the problem Hamas ilaria celebs
1:14:18 doesn't hadith from our perspective
1:14:21 coulomb alluding you would add value
1:14:22 throught e
1:14:23 there every born baby is born among with
1:14:27 the fitrah fitrah is a disposition to
1:14:30 believe in God so from a spiritual
1:14:32 perspective we're all equal and we are
1:14:37 not to be punished as well unless we
1:14:39 have equal opportunity to receiving the
1:14:42 message so allah says in the quran when
1:14:44 i couldn't my zubeen I had tenebrous
1:14:46 Allah in Chapter 17 verse number 15 we
1:14:48 were not going to punish them until we
1:14:50 sent prophets and by extension that
1:14:52 means we're not going to punish them
1:14:53 until we send someone to tell them the
1:14:56 message of tawheed which should resonate
1:14:57 with them instantaneously from a
1:15:01 monotheistic perspective because we have
1:15:02 an implanted primordial nature or as
1:15:07 they cooperate an autograph of God in us
1:15:09 obviously we don't accept the
1:15:11 phraseology of that but the idea is is
1:15:13 that we have a receptivity to use Justin
1:15:16 Barrett's terms who is in fact Justin
1:15:18 bar I'm saying is name correctly he was
1:15:22 the lead project lead in Oxford
1:15:25 University in the anthropological
1:15:26 society in 2011 who concluded 3m
1:15:30 basically checking out young children
1:15:32 that we do have in his words and in a
1:15:35 receptivity to believe in God or a
1:15:37 higher power so from these perspectives
1:15:39 from both an empirical perspective in an
1:15:41 experiential one we have good evidence
1:15:43 to prove that we are born believing in a
1:15:46 higher power and from an Islamic
1:15:48 perspective therefore we are born equal
1:15:51 in terms of dignity and in terms of
1:15:55 worth value no child born to for example
1:16:00 disbelieving parents is any less
1:16:02 valuable from that perspective than a
1:16:05 child born to believing parents and the
1:16:07 Prophet Muhammad Allah said in a hadith
1:16:08 Rufio Alcala man telleth
1:16:11 he says that the pen has been lifted
1:16:13 upon three people and now M hotta is
1:16:15 Turkish
1:16:16 sleeping person until he is woke up was
1:16:19 sabe you had a Elam and the and the
1:16:22 child until they become pubescent well
1:16:24 much known had died a pill and the the
1:16:28 basically the insane until they become
1:16:30 sane so Islam is a religion which can
1:16:33 anchor your belief system to a spiritual
1:16:36 metaphysical type of equality now he's
1:16:39 right he said that physically we're no
1:16:41 equal but he's making a metaphysical
1:16:42 claim you see the point I was making was
1:16:45 it's impossible unless you argue from
1:16:47 first principles convincingly with the
1:16:50 systemic vantage point other than that
1:16:53 which your end goal in mind first which
1:16:55 is a circular type of reasoning to prove
1:16:57 on liberalism or any other ideology that
1:17:00 we are born equal from a metaphysical
1:17:02 perspective and that was exactly the
1:17:04 point so I agree with him physically
1:17:05 we're different but metaphysically which
1:17:07 is what he's talking about you can't
1:17:09 prove that we're equal but we can thank
1:17:14 you well make a jump for your answer now
1:17:17 you will have one minute to phrase your
1:17:19 question to dr. lush okay I found it
1:17:23 quite bizarre to be honest to be fair to
1:17:26 you dr. Cooley that you tried to use
1:17:28 dictionary definitions to escape
1:17:32 defending the ideology that you've been
1:17:34 promulgating for many years in this
1:17:35 country with the proof of many debates
1:17:38 that you've had for example on human
1:17:39 rights I found even more bizarre that
1:17:42 when I checked the dictionary when it
1:17:44 used the word liberalized some
1:17:46 dictionary definition actually said
1:17:48 especially in regards to politics and
1:17:51 economy economics my question is how do
1:17:54 you decide what definition you're going
1:17:58 to base your arguments of for example we
1:18:01 used the word liberalize while another
1:18:03 word is religion ml Durkheim who we've
1:18:05 seen is like the founding father of
1:18:06 sociology said religion encompass any
1:18:09 metal ideas which include liberalism
1:18:12 actually so from this perspective how
1:18:14 can you and why would you choose some
1:18:16 selective definitions over others to
1:18:19 escape from answering questions thank
1:18:22 you perfect when we use definitions we
1:18:28 try to fill concept
1:18:30 concepts with meaning and a concept is
1:18:34 not true or false the concept cannot be
1:18:37 proven it is not a premise in a logical
1:18:41 argument as such a concept is something
1:18:45 that should be relevant and should be of
1:18:49 interest to the subject matter that we
1:18:53 are trying to understand this is
1:18:55 difficult but it is also very important
1:18:59 because many things that definitions are
1:19:01 true or false they are not they are
1:19:04 chosen they should not be chosen
1:19:06 arbitrarily they should be relevant to
1:19:10 the subject that we are discussing the
1:19:12 investigating this is very important and
1:19:15 when I am asked the question should
1:19:19 Islam be liberalized and I myself is not
1:19:23 an ardent defender of the political
1:19:27 philosophy of liberalism I'm looking at
1:19:30 more or less common-sense definition
1:19:34 what we call definitions of use how how
1:19:39 can we understand liberalisation in a
1:19:44 common-sense way and then you can go to
1:19:46 dictionaries you will find nuances in
1:19:49 those dictionaries and I made it very
1:19:51 simple for myself because I googled and
1:19:53 that comes up the Oxford the internet
1:19:56 dictionary and so on well that was
1:19:59 sufficient to make my point that we are
1:20:02 talking about changing certain dogmas
1:20:05 beliefs practices that is my point I
1:20:10 don't have to prove premises or the
1:20:13 basis not that that is a very strange
1:20:17 way of approaching this it's a very
1:20:19 Islamist way of approaching it I can say
1:20:22 that's that's his right okay so so be it
1:20:26 he can ask me to do that
1:20:29 but I don't see that as necessarily just
1:20:33 a point about my own position yes I
1:20:35 define human rights didn't defend human
1:20:38 rights I've been doing so for quite a
1:20:41 number of years
1:20:43 and of course there is a certain liberal
1:20:44 element in that I don't deny that the
1:20:47 history of human rights has been
1:20:49 strongly influenced by political
1:20:51 liberalism but you don't have to be a
1:20:53 political liberalist in order to defend
1:20:56 human rights can be a social democrat
1:20:57 you can be a Marxist you can be an
1:20:59 anarchist you can have many different
1:21:01 positions you can even be a Muslim and
1:21:04 if any human rights so you can defend
1:21:07 those from many different perspectives
1:21:09 coming to human worth it was a very
1:21:12 interesting answer because mislay job
1:21:15 has his position it's given to us by God
1:21:18 human Worth and dignity is given to us
1:21:20 by God I have a different story about
1:21:23 the origins of human dignity and human
1:21:27 rights then we have a liberal
1:21:29 philosopher John Rawls who is talking
1:21:31 about overlapping consensus we disagree
1:21:34 about the basic reasons but we agree on
1:21:37 the conclusion that we have human
1:21:40 dignity and human right the human worth
1:21:43 as an inherent value and that we can
1:21:47 build on even if we agree disagree on
1:21:50 the causes or reasons behind that worth
1:21:57 thank you dr. Gulen
1:22:01 may you phrase your question - yes it's
1:22:07 very simple it's colonialism wrong
1:22:10 because God says so or do we have a
1:22:15 common ground for saying that
1:22:18 colonialism is wrong thank you dr. lush
1:22:23 thank you just a comment on what was
1:22:26 just said in terms of popular usage or
1:22:28 academic usage the word liberalize is
1:22:31 certainly used to refer to popular
1:22:34 political philosophy and I'll give you
1:22:35 some usages here for example a book with
1:22:39 an anthology of different thinkers were
1:22:42 called towards an Islamic Reformation
1:22:45 civil liberties human rights and
1:22:47 international law this liberalized means
1:22:49 the political philosophy I said Talal
1:22:52 Asad here Oh a book ooh blasphemy injury
1:22:55 and free speech whenever
1:22:56 throughout liberalize he's referring to
1:22:58 the political philosophy John Charvet
1:23:00 who is LSE professor whenever he used
1:23:02 the word liberalize he used as a
1:23:04 political philosophy for example Evans
1:23:08 who's whose is in Britain he wrote a
1:23:12 book called liberal terror when ever
1:23:14 used the word liberalized he means the
1:23:16 political philosophy gray John Gray when
1:23:18 he wrote the book black mass whenever
1:23:21 you use the word liberalized he means it
1:23:23 in terms of political philosophy so if
1:23:25 we're talking about usage I don't think
1:23:27 you can argue that when people use the
1:23:29 word liberalized in the English language
1:23:31 that that means to make things less
1:23:35 strict even the dictionary you said
1:23:38 Oxford says with particular reference to
1:23:41 economics and politics now to answer
1:23:44 your question directly that we can say
1:23:47 there's something called divine command
1:23:49 theory which is divine command Theory
1:23:50 first I should I should premise this by
1:23:52 saying there's a difference of opinion
1:23:54 among Muslim scholars that would be the
1:23:56 most correct thing to say so this is
1:23:58 something called a takbir attack seen in
1:24:01 an Islamic moral theory and some people
1:24:06 have said that takbir hota seen or being
1:24:08 able to discern morality with fitrah
1:24:12 Salima is something which you can do
1:24:15 intuitively it when taymiyah said this
1:24:19 but he prayed he said that you can do it
1:24:21 you can find our intuitive morality only
1:24:24 but sometimes is very difficult to
1:24:26 realize what is actually socialized and
1:24:28 what isn't socialized so he says that in
1:24:30 order for you to be sure you have to go
1:24:32 to the textual evidences the ushe are a
1:24:34 school of thought are more in line with
1:24:36 divine command theory Marta cities say
1:24:39 it's to be they believe in terribly hard
1:24:41 a scene so there is a discussion among
1:24:44 Muslim scholars I can't tell you that
1:24:45 this is the way and this is the truth in
1:24:47 there there is a discussion but in my
1:24:49 understanding I think a combination of
1:24:52 views would talk about the scene in
1:24:55 Tamiya's V where he said about Fatah
1:24:57 is true with divine command theory as
1:25:01 well I think that's true is also looking
1:25:04 at what God said and looking at the
1:25:05 Sunnah is not the only access point to
1:25:08 morality yeah so we
1:25:10 you believe in intuitive which is
1:25:12 actually what John Locke believed is
1:25:13 intuitive morality as well however it's
1:25:16 a it's a way to save out those true
1:25:20 morality is from false morality I think
1:25:23 it's a bit of a complicated answer but
1:25:24 yeah thank you thank you for answer
1:25:28 would you pose your second question yes
1:25:31 dr. gulam third question how many
1:25:38 questions
1:25:39 yes second for hijab that's what I said
1:25:41 because you asked the first question and
1:25:46 you have one more question left and here
1:25:47 one exactly exactly I have one more
1:25:50 question and it will relate to nobody
1:25:53 but it's oh sorry yes okay you're not
1:25:59 trying to impinge on my freedom of
1:26:00 speech I I wanna do I'm talking about
1:26:05 freedom of speech and but particularly
1:26:08 the thirty articles of the human rights
1:26:10 which are school a large Cooley has
1:26:13 adamantly vehemently defended in the
1:26:18 past which I maintain our liberal
1:26:20 outgrowths one of them is democracy one
1:26:23 of the you know human rights is
1:26:25 democracy however I'll give you a
1:26:26 scenario I want you to answer the
1:26:27 scenario would you consider it
1:26:29 democratically legitimate if a state
1:26:31 were to carry out a referendum and
1:26:33 conclude that they want amputation for
1:26:36 thieves as an appropriate punishment and
1:26:39 if not why not
1:26:42 thank you the answer is no and that is
1:26:46 because of human rights and the question
1:26:49 is very relevant in the West because we
1:26:53 have had since 2001 a so-called war on
1:26:57 terror in that war on terror the
1:27:01 Americans found it reasonable they try
1:27:05 to justify it through law arguments that
1:27:10 we can torture suspects in the war on
1:27:14 terror between 60 and 80 percent of
1:27:19 Americans polled on this question said
1:27:22 it was acceptable it is not
1:27:24 acceptable you have no right to infringe
1:27:28 the basic human rights of everyone even
1:27:31 the criminal with the infliction of
1:27:35 torture that is an absolute prohibition
1:27:38 in human rights totally unacceptable
1:27:44 so if you say God has said we should
1:27:49 amputate the hand of the thief that is a
1:27:53 clear example of how certain commands in
1:27:59 Islam are against human rights and
1:28:02 therefore not compatible with modern
1:28:05 human rights thinking actually rather
1:28:09 few states including Muslim states
1:28:11 practice this I think it was Habib
1:28:13 Bourguiba who's known it was actually it
1:28:17 was actually the second-in-command in
1:28:20 Libya in there Gaddafi who had his
1:28:22 special interpretation of Islam and it
1:28:24 was criticized for that but he said it
1:28:27 was Islam and they should follow Islam
1:28:29 in many ways and this guy was asked why
1:28:32 don't you amputate the hand of the thief
1:28:35 he said no we can't have a we can't have
1:28:40 you know a stock of labor's with only
1:28:42 one hand we need people who can work
1:28:45 with both hands which is a rational way
1:28:48 of saying that it is not a completely
1:28:51 outdated method of of punished
1:28:56 punishment for rational reasons but the
1:28:59 main fact is that it is a cruel and
1:29:02 inhumane punishment and therefore it
1:29:06 should not be practiced this represents
1:29:08 a challenge and a problem for a number
1:29:12 of Muslims who want to maintain that the
1:29:16 will of God is clear and at the same
1:29:18 time defend human rights very
1:29:20 interesting person in this regard is is
1:29:24 Abdullah Naima Sudanese scholar who is
1:29:29 trying to square the circle but
1:29:32 recognizes that here there is an
1:29:34 absolute challenge and opposition
1:29:37 between
1:29:37 modern human rights thinking and certain
1:29:41 demands of the Sharia thank you doctor
1:29:49 loss you may pose your third and last
1:29:52 question yes that question relates to
1:29:56 the interesting point you made about the
1:30:00 various interpretations on human dignity
1:30:03 and human worth because then you were
1:30:05 approaching some of the rational
1:30:08 arguments that we have human dignity and
1:30:10 human worth because we are rational
1:30:12 beings and that leads me to a question
1:30:16 may be more out of curiosity than of
1:30:20 specific relevance to the this debate
1:30:23 but still what do you think of the
1:30:26 contributions of the philosophers in the
1:30:29 Islamic tradition I'm thinking about
1:30:31 philosophers like Farabi even Sina also
1:30:34 a little Sally but not least even rushed
1:30:37 because they emphasized that should as
1:30:41 good Muslims perhaps with the exception
1:30:44 of as early in this context should as
1:30:46 good Muslims we should use reason and
1:30:48 there is there should be no
1:30:51 understanding of an opposition between
1:30:53 reason and revelation
1:30:57 thank you dr. Lodge actually I've
1:31:01 written a book on this which I only give
1:31:04 to you here this is available online on
1:31:06 Amazon it's called Kalam cosmological
1:31:07 arguments all the names he just
1:31:09 mentioned are mentioned in the book has
1:31:11 aliens seen them the most I'm gonna give
1:31:12 you one the other books will come out on
1:31:21 liberalism and apostasy which I'm going
1:31:23 to bring out hopefully next week or the
1:31:26 week after and another one I'm gonna
1:31:28 have actually written called fifth wave
1:31:31 feminism in peer-reviewed as well so
1:31:32 hopefully I can send you those over or
1:31:34 something yeah so I'll quickly come back
1:31:38 to something that was said and then
1:31:39 answer your question directly the the
1:31:44 premise that barbarity equals falsity
1:31:47 because we heard he says something about
1:31:50 cutting the hands
1:31:51 he says it's barbaric cruel and barbaric
1:31:54 I think that's cruel and inhumane as to
1:31:55 words he used but just because something
1:31:58 is cruel it doesn't mean is false that's
1:32:00 a fallacy actually that's that is a
1:32:02 fallacious kind of reasoning barbarity
1:32:04 does not equal falsity and in fact war
1:32:06 is an industry or barbarity and cruelly
1:32:09 cruelty war is an industry of barbarity
1:32:12 and cruelty and unless you're a pacifist
1:32:14 you endorse that kind of barbarity and
1:32:17 that kind of cruelty you actually went
1:32:19 and tried to get involved in it yourself
1:32:21 I mean so so who gets to decide which
1:32:25 kind of barbarity and cruelty is
1:32:27 legitimate and which kind of barbarity
1:32:29 and cruelty is illegitimate and moreover
1:32:32 nothing is here we talked about the vote
1:32:35 you know if if a Muslim country for
1:32:38 example voted that they wanted
1:32:40 amputation of the thieves of the hand
1:32:42 should he said it's against human rights
1:32:44 but I don't of the 30 articles I don't
1:32:46 see the right to have a hand as one of
1:32:48 them actually the right to have a vote
1:32:51 was one of them and the right for a
1:32:52 state to be sovereign is another one so
1:32:55 here you have clear contradictions
1:32:56 between human rights which is what my
1:32:58 esteemed interlocutor is not telling us
1:33:00 that these human rights which are
1:33:02 predicated on axiomatic unprovable first
1:33:07 premises are actually human rights which
1:33:11 are outgrowth of liberalism and which
1:33:13 have no proof as we've seen it seen
1:33:15 today moreover they contradict each
1:33:17 other
1:33:17 sovereignty of state versus democracy
1:33:20 versus life versus is that is why I ask
1:33:22 them the question because if you say
1:33:24 well even if 99% of the population don't
1:33:28 one sorry they want application of hands
1:33:31 of Thieves we're not going to have it
1:33:32 this is in fact going against the human
1:33:35 right of democracy so you can you can't
1:33:38 have your cake in it you both it's going
1:33:39 to be a contradiction I'm afraid you're
1:33:40 gonna have to enjoy that contradiction
1:33:41 as for has I'll even seen herself
1:33:43 amazing scholars I'll say you can read
1:33:45 the book as a right to have the
1:33:47 philosopher and I think they're all had
1:33:50 an incredible impact on one another but
1:33:54 yeah I'd read the book for sure that
1:33:56 will give you an insight because it's I
1:33:57 can't I can't do it into two minutes I
1:33:59 think it's very difficult Thank You mr.
1:34:03 jab
1:34:04 you may pose your third and last
1:34:06 question to dr. Gouda okay I think you
1:34:12 can see that that slavery colonialism
1:34:13 racism and punitive punishments are all
1:34:17 principally conceivable in a liberal
1:34:19 state if so as a defender of Human
1:34:23 Rights which is an outgrowth of
1:34:24 liberalism why do you use them as main
1:34:28 arguments against this level sorry let
1:34:37 me let me say that one more time can I
1:34:38 repeat it yeah so I said I think in the
1:34:43 course of your presentation you conceded
1:34:45 that slavery colonialism racism etc
1:34:49 punitive punishments are all possible
1:34:51 conceivably possible in a state which is
1:34:54 liberal or even says that we follow
1:34:57 human rights a state that predicates
1:35:00 itself on human rights values therefore
1:35:02 if this is the case what you said how
1:35:05 isn't it fruitless to try and call us to
1:35:08 this because the conceivability of it
1:35:12 being implemented does not change in
1:35:15 fact you could argue it may even
1:35:17 increase based on historical data it's
1:35:21 conceivable and actually we see
1:35:23 violations of human rights every day all
1:35:26 over the world including in countries
1:35:29 saying that they are defending human
1:35:31 rights it's a continuous struggle but
1:35:34 the fact that something is not respected
1:35:37 fully doesn't mean that it is not right
1:35:41 to defend those human rights so of
1:35:45 course the the fact that people are are
1:35:49 anyway hypocrites or not practicing what
1:35:53 the ideals say that they should practice
1:35:56 doesn't mean that they that the ideals
1:35:59 are baseless and for example if we
1:36:02 should accept this ultra Democratic
1:36:06 position that the majority can decide
1:36:09 okay we now would like to torture
1:36:11 suspects in the war on terror or we
1:36:15 should cut off the hand of Thieves
1:36:18 then we are free to out vote Islam in
1:36:20 Norway and believe me that is not
1:36:25 impossible
1:36:26 we have strong parties groups advocating
1:36:30 prohibiting Islam in Norway and if you
1:36:32 say it's a democratic right goodbye why
1:36:38 is it wrong because you have human
1:36:42 rights because Muslims have the right to
1:36:45 practice their religion in the country
1:36:48 where the majority is opposed to it and
1:36:50 if you don't stand up for that right
1:36:53 when it comes to others not to be
1:36:57 mistreated not to have their religion
1:37:00 banned etc why should we accept your
1:37:05 right to be practicing Muslims in Norway
1:37:08 against the will of the majority if you
1:37:11 don't understand that a modern democracy
1:37:13 is not the rule of the majority or in
1:37:16 majority tyranny but it is always a
1:37:19 tempered democracy it's a democracy with
1:37:23 respect for the individual and groups of
1:37:28 individuals who want to live their lives
1:37:30 the way they see fit which is what I
1:37:34 emphasized in my introductory remarks we
1:37:37 are talking about the right of
1:37:39 individuals coming together in groups in
1:37:42 congregations in mosques to live their
1:37:45 lives as they want to do it even if it
1:37:49 provokes me even if I am don't like it
1:37:52 what should I do
1:37:54 I should defend the right to do this
1:37:57 while I at the same time use my freedom
1:38:00 of expression to critique religion to
1:38:03 critique these practices as I have done
1:38:05 today but if someone comes here and
1:38:08 tries to take those rights away from you
1:38:10 I will stand up and defend your right to
1:38:14 be Muslims the way you want to be
1:38:16 Muslims
1:38:20 [Applause]
1:38:28 thank you dr. Gouda that's the
1:38:31 conclusion
1:38:32 can I just add because I'm also a book
1:38:36 it's actually my doctoral dissertation a
1:38:39 little bit thicker than mr. jobs book
1:38:44 but this is actually an attempt to not
1:38:47 prove because I don't think that is
1:38:49 possible but an attempt to logically
1:38:53 justify human rights and I think it is a
1:38:57 fairly valid proposition that I'm making
1:39:01 so I will give this one to mr. hijab
1:39:05 [Applause]
1:39:13 [Music]
1:39:16 it's good to see that love is in there
1:39:21 so that concludes our second this is
1:39:25 actually the third session yeah first
1:39:27 one was the introduction second one was
1:39:28 the rebuttals and this one was the
1:39:30 interrogations so now is the last and
1:39:34 final session where the audience will
1:39:36 have the opportunity to ask the
1:39:39 respective questions to each speaker at
1:39:41 a time so first question will be to
1:39:43 mohammad hijab do we have any question
1:39:46 from to mohammad hijab from the gents
1:39:49 side or from the women's area any
1:39:52 questions no questions everything made
1:39:56 sense he won the debate so over and done
1:39:59 no okay any questions you may also send
1:40:05 your questions by message to our
1:40:07 Facebook page the Islam that Facebook
1:40:10 page if you wish you could send your
1:40:12 question to the Facebook page but
1:40:14 preferably we have the microphones
1:40:16 available and you will be given priority
1:40:17 if you step forward to the microphones
1:40:21 yeah yeah sure any questions for
1:40:24 Muhammad hijab
1:40:26 no questions yes yes okay come to the
1:40:30 microphone you may choose any microphone
1:40:32 you wish
1:40:35 I just uh thank you I just have one
1:40:38 question about what do you mention about
1:40:42 all the practice about cutting with your
1:41:04 punishment don't you think it's cruel I
1:41:10 think it is definitely it's not nice to
1:41:13 watch Xena but that's the whole point
1:41:15 some things need to be cruel we need to
1:41:17 be cruel to be fair sometimes the point
1:41:18 is this is that first and foremost is it
1:41:22 always applicable I think that's the
1:41:23 first question as it's not always
1:41:24 applicable that someone has to have
1:41:26 their amputee hand amputated but I think
1:41:31 the system of ethics of Islam is
1:41:33 different to the system of ethics of
1:41:34 liberalism so liberalism assumes that we
1:41:36 own our bodies and by the way that says
1:41:39 that's another thing you cannot prove by
1:41:42 the way you cannot prove logically or
1:41:43 metaphysically that you own your own
1:41:44 body you cannot prove that it's
1:41:46 impossible to prove on first principles
1:41:48 let alone your children which some have
1:41:53 stated actually in the literature
1:41:54 however when we say this that there are
1:41:57 some deterrents which are for example
1:42:00 cutting the hand of the thief and so on
1:42:02 which can apply sometimes in certain
1:42:04 situations we're admitting that this is
1:42:07 something which is not and the Quran
1:42:09 actually says when it talks about the
1:42:10 huddle Xena
1:42:12 it says wealth can be a marathon fee if
1:42:16 you didn't laughs include him taught me
1:42:17 no nobility with your man laughing in
1:42:18 chapter 24 verse number 2 says when
1:42:21 you're applying the punishment don't
1:42:23 have compassion in your heart when
1:42:26 you're applying the punishment meaning
1:42:27 there's a natural inclination to feel
1:42:29 like this is a bit this is a bit much
1:42:31 it's a bit you know however a lot of
1:42:33 thing despite this carry out the
1:42:36 punishment and the reason why is because
1:42:38 it has a deterrent effect now if you
1:42:40 look out for example the death penalty
1:42:42 in states where it's actually
1:42:44 implemented in the United States for
1:42:46 example
1:42:47 and compare it to states where there has
1:42:49 there is not implementation of them
1:42:50 murder rates are much higher in states
1:42:52 which don't implement the death penalty
1:42:54 that's a fact reoffending rates in the
1:42:57 UK about 30% of people riaf end
1:42:59 burglars reoffending that's one and
1:43:02 three people in prison have got to come
1:43:03 out and do it again so the whole point
1:43:06 of while cutting the hand off it reduces
1:43:09 reoffending rate it's very effective
1:43:11 it's scary
1:43:12 especially if people are watching it
1:43:14 this instills fear in the people's minds
1:43:17 we have a problem in in in London people
1:43:20 are being stabbed you know we have
1:43:21 thirty thousand stabbings a year and
1:43:23 because the gang members they are
1:43:25 stabbing they don't don't care about the
1:43:28 risk of going to prison that's the
1:43:30 bottom line the fear is not there in
1:43:31 their hearts if you don't have fearful
1:43:33 Authority like Emile Durkheim would say
1:43:35 then you can do whatever you want so the
1:43:39 point is it hasn't it has an intentional
1:43:43 deterrent effect now arguing as large
1:43:47 schoola has said going against human
1:43:49 rights are wrong because you have human
1:43:51 rights that is a circular argument
1:43:53 that's exactly what he said
1:43:54 he said it's wrong because you have it's
1:43:57 wrong to go against human rights because
1:43:58 you have human rights but how do you
1:43:59 prove you have human rights the way
1:44:01 you've described them this is the
1:44:03 problem in this debate that you cannot
1:44:04 prove your first premises therefore
1:44:06 there's no way of disproving this kind
1:44:07 of thing thank you thank you we have one
1:44:13 question to dr. gula you mentioned that
1:44:18 you believe in the human rights so I
1:44:24 will just summarize what I understood
1:44:25 you mentioned that you believe in human
1:44:27 rights and that if there was a
1:44:30 referendum to vote that Muslims should
1:44:32 be deported that would be wrong
1:44:34 because of the human rights but if there
1:44:36 was a referendum in terms of deciding
1:44:39 these human rights that it is okay to
1:44:42 discriminate against religion what would
1:44:44 you then do because what are your human
1:44:46 rights based upon at the end of the day
1:44:48 it's a there are human beings that came
1:44:51 together and decided or voted or
1:44:53 majority-minority whatever they did they
1:44:55 agree that these are the human rights
1:44:56 how would you
1:44:57 this question reality is reality if the
1:45:02 majority decides to throw Muslims out of
1:45:04 Norway they say we have a right to do so
1:45:06 and they change the laws well
1:45:10 Muslims could try to bring the case in
1:45:12 for the human rights court in Strasbourg
1:45:17 but if the majority had already decided
1:45:19 it wouldn't mean anything that is the
1:45:23 whole point of human rights
1:45:25 they are only respected as long as we
1:45:27 recognize them as important and valuable
1:45:31 that's why it's a daily struggle Germany
1:45:36 was a very democratic state in the late
1:45:40 20s and early 30s and it ended up with
1:45:45 Hitler and the abolition of democracy
1:45:49 that evolution of all sorts of liberal
1:45:52 values and ended up with with the
1:45:57 Holocaust a genocide that is why there
1:46:01 are no guarantees enemy okay we replace
1:46:05 this with God and the will of God so
1:46:10 what guarantee do you have for anything
1:46:11 then just a short comment I think you
1:46:13 may have misunderstood the question okay
1:46:15 because from what I understood he's
1:46:18 asking that who are those who actually
1:46:20 decide which human rights or what are
1:46:23 the human rights who have the right to
1:46:25 decide or define that these are because
1:46:27 you keep us
1:46:28 okay referring back to human rights but
1:46:30 these human rights are not god-given so
1:46:31 who is the one who where do they come
1:46:34 from that is a very good question and
1:46:37 the answer is that human rights are
1:46:41 actually in continuous development we've
1:46:45 had some basic human rights
1:46:48 understanding of what human rights
1:46:50 should be but it has varied over time
1:46:53 they have developed one example is
1:46:58 gender equality when they when the
1:47:03 Declaration of Human Rights was accepted
1:47:06 in 1948 it doesn't say one
1:47:08 thing about sexual minorities today it
1:47:13 is human rights law at least in Europe
1:47:16 that sexual minorities homosexuals have
1:47:22 equal rights should not be discriminated
1:47:25 because of their sexual proclivities we
1:47:29 have seen that even though the
1:47:32 Declaration and later on the conventions
1:47:36 legally binding conventions were meant
1:47:38 to give respect to women
1:47:41 it wasn't follow up team practice
1:47:44 therefore we deepened the rights of
1:47:48 women in a particular convention and so
1:47:51 on we have now the Convention on the
1:47:54 Rights of the Child who thought about
1:47:57 children in 1948 in 1966 so this is a
1:48:03 continuous development where everyone
1:48:05 can have their same in the public debate
1:48:09 thank you dr. guna and we have a
1:48:12 question for mohammad hijab from the
1:48:16 microphone right yeah I just wondering
1:48:20 why should we approve things from first
1:48:23 principles and how can you decide that
1:48:26 the accepted method for proving things
1:48:30 is the first principle from the first
1:48:32 principles thank you why should we prove
1:48:38 things from first principles there's
1:48:40 more than one way of proving things from
1:48:41 first principles is one of the ways you
1:48:43 can prove things from a logical
1:48:45 perspective there are other ways from
1:48:47 induction from abduction from some kind
1:48:49 of deduction which sometimes relies on
1:48:51 some kind of induction or abduction
1:48:52 there are different ways of proving
1:48:54 things in the world that's why the
1:48:56 scientific method works and by the way
1:48:58 weird we don't know against the
1:49:00 scientific method in fact we invented
1:49:02 the scientific method Muslims invented
1:49:04 the scientific method so the point of
1:49:05 there being a contradiction between
1:49:07 Islam and and the scientific method is
1:49:09 something I didn't respond to however we
1:49:12 know from the philosophy of science that
1:49:13 science is not incorrigible
1:49:15 so it's something which is subject to
1:49:17 change in fact Karl Popper said that
1:49:19 this was the thing that made science
1:49:20 what is it's false
1:49:22 my ability in his words having said all
1:49:23 of this to answer your question we don't
1:49:26 need to prove it from first principles
1:49:27 but what I was trying to do with my
1:49:29 esteemed interlocutor today was let him
1:49:32 use the same standards as he was using
1:49:34 with us when we were having to prove
1:49:36 God's existence which is metaphysical
1:49:38 right because God we wouldn't say is
1:49:39 physically dwelling in the sense that
1:49:42 he's can be detected by a microscope or
1:49:45 some telescope or something he asked us
1:49:48 for evidence in that respect so I wanted
1:49:51 to ask him for evidence using his very
1:49:53 methods of inquiring truth and what he
1:49:56 admitted today was that there's a
1:49:58 difference between facts and normativity
1:49:59 normativity means how something has
1:50:03 become part of the discourse of let's
1:50:05 say normality yeah so that's of course I
1:50:08 agree with this fact and normativity are
1:50:11 two different separate things it doesn't
1:50:12 have to be separate and it doesn't have
1:50:14 to be disjunct however what I will say
1:50:17 is if you're gonna make a case and tell
1:50:20 us to be something whether it's
1:50:21 believing Human Rights the 30 articles
1:50:24 which as the question and was quite
1:50:25 right in pointing out was a collection
1:50:28 of people that came in the UN Convention
1:50:30 1948 and decided on what 30 30 points
1:50:34 should be the human rights and that this
1:50:36 in his words is correct it's a
1:50:37 development meaning we keep changing
1:50:38 your mind what he means by development
1:50:40 is social forces are continually coming
1:50:45 back and asking questions whoever has
1:50:47 the loudest voice wins at the end one of
1:50:49 the human rights is not your right to
1:50:50 tribal lineage it's because tribalism is
1:50:53 not part of the Western orient sorry the
1:50:56 Western post-colonial narrative so it's
1:50:58 usually what happens in the West will
1:51:00 trickle down to the rest of the were
1:51:01 important in the West and that's another
1:51:03 issue with human rights there are many
1:51:04 issues with human rights they focus too
1:51:06 much on rights what you're owed and not
1:51:09 enough on duties what you owe that's why
1:51:12 you don't have any mothers rights in in
1:51:14 the thirty conventions of all the things
1:51:16 you've been mentioning do your right to
1:51:17 be good to your parents there's not one
1:51:19 of the rights is it can you imagine so
1:51:21 the point I'm making to you is you can't
1:51:25 you can't tell us to believe in
1:51:26 something which in your own admission is
1:51:28 not provable it's not static it's not
1:51:30 incorrigible and it's fluid and
1:51:33 subjective that's
1:51:34 fair I believe that's that's
1:51:36 unscientific as well thank you job I
1:51:41 would take one question here from to dr.
1:51:43 Lodge the question is about the doctor
1:51:49 mentioning that we have to evolve in our
1:51:52 ones in our understanding of human
1:51:53 rights so 50 years ago homosexuality was
1:52:00 not acceptable in accordance to human
1:52:03 rights now today we do accept
1:52:06 homosexuality in a Western liberal
1:52:08 society but some people are now arguing
1:52:12 also that we should accept incest
1:52:15 between brothers and sisters who
1:52:18 willingly participate in that kind of
1:52:20 relationship if there are prevention etc
1:52:22 and some people are also arguing that we
1:52:24 should accept or make it illegal to have
1:52:28 sexual intercourse with animals as
1:52:30 actually has been practiced in Denmark
1:52:33 for years and that it was a it was
1:52:35 actually in the news as well that people
1:52:38 from Norway they take sexual vacations
1:52:40 to Denmark to have sexual intercourse
1:52:41 with animals so people today are arguing
1:52:45 something and in the future they might
1:52:47 argue different things so how do we
1:52:49 reconcile the should we just go along
1:52:51 with whatever we now feel is morally
1:52:54 correct how do we define these
1:52:55 boundaries where are the boundaries of
1:52:57 moral morally correct why is it for
1:52:59 example not okay to have to have what
1:53:04 you disco yes for example mild
1:53:07 pedophilia that you for example a man
1:53:10 masturbates to a baby a baby wouldn't
1:53:12 take any harm of that from your values
1:53:18 what you should not do which is
1:53:21 unacceptable is that which harms someone
1:53:25 else incest is usually understand
1:53:29 understood as they a sex sexual
1:53:32 violation of the rights of a child if
1:53:36 you're talking about grownups who cares
1:53:39 I don't this is really a minority
1:53:43 question
1:53:45 and as a matter of fact there are
1:53:48 instances of the sexual intercourse
1:53:52 between consenting adults resulting in
1:53:55 children and the biological argument
1:53:58 that this is harmful to the baby has a
1:54:03 very weak foundation actually it's more
1:54:06 of a problem that cousins marry again
1:54:10 and again and again because that limits
1:54:13 the genetic pool that a brother and
1:54:15 sister on one occasion marries and have
1:54:19 a child it's not a big genatech problem
1:54:23 do I like it would I say hooray this is
1:54:28 great no why not why not well why should
1:54:33 I
1:54:33 I mean I wouldn't you do the same for
1:54:36 the homosexuals i right to practice I am
1:54:40 not gay and why why should I why should
1:54:45 I say because I accept the right of gays
1:54:48 to be gay and practice there with
1:54:52 consult consenting adults their sexual
1:54:55 proclivities it does it doesn't mean
1:54:57 that I have given an invitation I mean
1:55:00 that why should why should you think so
1:55:03 I am saying that I have my preferences
1:55:07 maybe I like blondes maybe I like
1:55:12 colored women that's a preference it
1:55:15 doesn't mean that I have to say that oh
1:55:17 it's not alright to do it otherwise I
1:55:21 mean you have to think through and your
1:55:25 initial reaction that I don't like this
1:55:27 this is disgusting well it's disgusting
1:55:29 with amputation and that's actually a
1:55:31 more serious case than having sex
1:55:33 voluntarily with another person of the
1:55:36 same gender actually so here we have
1:55:39 cultural ideas and that is the important
1:55:43 point how do these things change they
1:55:46 change because we recognize greater and
1:55:50 greater freedom for the individual as
1:55:53 long as the activities of the individual
1:55:55 does not harm physically or
1:55:57 psychologically
1:55:58 other people you say the same with
1:56:02 animals was that the same answer well as
1:56:09 long as you're not hurting the animals
1:56:10 I'm also in favor of animal rights and
1:56:15 again I mean excuse me for going over
1:56:20 time but since you are adding to the
1:56:22 question here they that the question
1:56:26 here has I mean you can argue based on
1:56:32 principle but you can also argue as mr.
1:56:36 Hobart your job is done based on
1:56:38 empirical realities and then the
1:56:40 question becomes how how many people
1:56:43 does this involve what is the problem
1:56:45 here how large is the problem why should
1:56:48 we have laws against something that I
1:56:51 mean a very small minority and I would
1:56:54 like to see the statistics on how many
1:56:56 Norwegians are traveling to Denmark to
1:56:58 have sex with animals and what animals
1:57:00 by the way I mean this becomes sort of
1:57:02 absurd discussion thank you so I will
1:57:09 take one question to Mohammed ajob this
1:57:11 actually it feels like it's a follow-up
1:57:13 question the individual is asking how
1:57:18 does Islam regard these kinds of matters
1:57:23 sexual relationships with the same
1:57:26 gender and with animals and why do you
1:57:31 believe that that that your moral views
1:57:34 are correct first of all I find it quite
1:57:38 interesting that you find amputation of
1:57:40 hands disgusting but when we're talking
1:57:43 about having sex with dogs and cats and
1:57:45 horses this is not something that maybe
1:57:49 makes you feel disgusted and frankly
1:57:52 this shows you how much liberalism and
1:57:55 human rights are creatures of convention
1:57:58 they are subjective they are baseless
1:57:59 they're just basically what white people
1:58:02 sorry to say what why people find ok
1:58:05 what white people find tasty or for the
1:58:08 sensibilities of the white people that's
1:58:11 what
1:58:12 sorry to say that is liberalism in a
1:58:14 nutshell since it white man's not even
1:58:16 woman for the most part white man's
1:58:18 sensibilities subjective preferences
1:58:21 yeah it's okay for a brother and sister
1:58:24 to have sex but cutting the hand of the
1:58:25 thief I mean who who's made this the
1:58:31 parameters the correct parameters for us
1:58:33 it's a straightforward thing and when I
1:58:37 say white man I'm not meaning that the
1:58:39 rug rhetorically I'm meaning that quite
1:58:40 physically in the sense that the 1948
1:58:42 convention of human rights the ones who
1:58:45 had the ha the biggest say in that were
1:58:47 American white men because America
1:58:50 emerges as a superpower and it was in
1:58:52 charge of those particular institutions
1:58:54 and still is disproportionately
1:58:56 considering the size of China and Russia
1:58:58 by the way and there's lots of
1:58:59 literature on that I'm sure he's aware
1:59:00 so when we say the New World Order and
1:59:03 the white man is in control of the
1:59:05 basically the Preferences that we'd the
1:59:07 rest of the world we should be shaped in
1:59:09 the image and the mold of the white man
1:59:11 post enlightenment experience this is
1:59:13 the reality so you can have sex with the
1:59:15 dog potentially right he didn't want to
1:59:17 really say it you can have sex with your
1:59:19 mum and your dad sorry children I here
1:59:22 or your brother or your sister can have
1:59:25 enjoy your time freedom but you know
1:59:28 this thing about cutting the hand I
1:59:30 don't know about that it's disgusting oh
1:59:31 he's giving us the I mean to be honest
1:59:34 it's like I eat this I drink that it's
1:59:36 all a matter of taste now it's become
1:59:37 bit ridiculous cut force your tastes on
1:59:39 me I like Somali food you might like
1:59:43 Viking food you might like Norwegian I
1:59:46 don't know what they eat him you can't
1:59:48 tell me you have to eat the sausage and
1:59:50 this egg and I don't find that nice we
1:59:53 say the Murat J or the one who finally
1:59:55 determines which is acceptable moral
1:59:57 recourse and what is not acceptable to
2:00:00 answer the question is allah subhanahu
2:00:02 wa'ta'ala is God Almighty and we have
2:00:04 good reason to believe God's exists God
2:00:06 exists we have good reason to believe
2:00:09 the Prophet Muhammad it is is the actual
2:00:11 final prophet he gives evidence is for
2:00:13 that and so divine command theory would
2:00:16 suggest that whatever comes from this is
2:00:20 eternally true which by the way can
2:00:23 adjust in terms of time and place but
2:00:25 that's part
2:00:25 the eternally true mechanism and that's
2:00:28 how we live our lives sexual matters
2:00:30 financial matters and so on and so forth
2:00:32 like I said if you want guidance you
2:00:34 have to seek guidance from the one who
2:00:36 knows well guidance which we believe is
2:00:37 God thank you I believe you have a
2:00:41 question from the microphone to the
2:00:42 doctor doula yes okay good I have many
2:00:45 questions actually I'll just make it
2:00:47 short
2:00:48 first of all question one is liberalism
2:00:52 changing with time I think you've kind
2:00:54 of answered it but I want to have a
2:00:55 fully answer because the past 400 years
2:00:58 today and then another 400 years from
2:01:00 now there's gonna come out of the person
2:01:02 like you who's gonna set different
2:01:03 things so he's there changing another
2:01:06 atheism isn't that a form of belief as
2:01:09 well you have some form of text or
2:01:11 believe you're holding on to third which
2:01:14 country we contact too many questions
2:01:16 because you only have three minutes to
2:01:17 answer I'm making sure that you talk
2:01:21 about homosexuality when it comes to
2:01:24 human anatomy human anatomy is not
2:01:27 created the way the homosexuals things I
2:01:29 work as a doctor and I see more cases
2:01:33 related to homosexuality diseases then
2:01:36 cousin women were married will come
2:01:40 there for their reasons the human
2:01:42 anatomy is not created the way the
2:01:44 homosexuality works no matter how you
2:01:46 try to define it change and you try to
2:01:48 make their human rights that they
2:01:50 deserve the human rights their Anatomy
2:01:53 is not made the correct way so evolution
2:01:55 no matter how much evolution you put
2:01:57 into it it's not gonna change so in in
2:02:00 terms of you talk about being good in
2:02:02 the society and making decided well good
2:02:05 for the people you're making everything
2:02:07 wrong for the the kids who are coming
2:02:09 after us they're gonna have more
2:02:12 diseases because of homosexuality I've
2:02:14 never seen any diseases we're cousins
2:02:15 and were married and they come because
2:02:17 of they have intercourse any other
2:02:19 reasons there are more diseases related
2:02:22 to homosexuality how can we change that
2:02:24 with time thank you yes thank you
2:02:31 liberalism is in continuous development
2:02:34 and I really hope that someone will come
2:02:36 with a good answer
2:02:38 in 400 years that differs from mine
2:02:41 today if not then the world had
2:02:43 stagnated so of course that is the whole
2:02:46 point liberalism or the defense of human
2:02:50 rights political philosophy develops
2:02:53 over time because it's a continuous
2:02:56 dialogue with history and the current
2:02:59 situation that is why philosophy is a
2:03:02 continuous process especially when we
2:03:04 are talking about morality ethics and
2:03:07 political organization the future will
2:03:10 be so different that to say now what it
2:03:14 should be like in 200 and 400 years is
2:03:17 absurd that's preposterous that that
2:03:20 would be like taking the position of God
2:03:22 and besides we have agreed here that
2:03:26 Islam and Islamic interpretations also
2:03:29 change over time
2:03:31 atheism is not a life stance not a
2:03:34 religion in itself it is a position on
2:03:37 certain aspects of reality you can have
2:03:40 good arguments you can have poor
2:03:41 arguments for atheism there are many of
2:03:44 them around my position is that I cannot
2:03:48 find contrary to mr. hijab good reasons
2:03:52 for believing in God I find all those
2:03:54 stories contradictory self contradictory
2:03:57 they don't make sense to me I recognize
2:04:00 that it makes sense to others so for
2:04:03 them you can believe whatever you want
2:04:04 of course you have the right to believe
2:04:07 what you want
2:04:09 homosexuality well if doctors if medical
2:04:15 science now and in the future discovers
2:04:18 problems with it well again we have we
2:04:23 are allowed to do a lot of things with
2:04:24 our bodies that some find stupid
2:04:28 discussed piercing for example tattooing
2:04:31 roof I don't like it
2:04:33 terrible women with holes in their ears
2:04:36 and rings and so on what's the point
2:04:39 I don't like it but it's there
2:04:44 right so if consenting adults have sex
2:04:47 with each other the same gender
2:04:51 it's up to them and no one should I mean
2:04:55 here it is interesting because the norms
2:04:59 of privacy in Islam are actually very
2:05:01 interesting what happens behind the
2:05:03 closed door is nobody's business so you
2:05:08 couldn't have sex with one of the same
2:05:10 kind it's nobody's business well to say
2:05:17 that it harms the people is a position
2:05:19 and that is an empirical statement and
2:05:22 that is something that can be
2:05:23 investigated empirically by the science
2:05:26 of Medicine and I say if you have
2:05:29 suggestions that it is harmful then you
2:05:32 can get give advice to those who
2:05:34 practice homosexuality and say you
2:05:36 should do it that way or not at all but
2:05:38 it's their business in the end thank you
2:05:41 eating is also harmful in my opinion
2:05:44 thank you
2:05:45 so we will take one question to Mohammed
2:05:48 a job that is actually very very
2:05:50 relevant now that you keep basing your
2:05:53 your arguments upon or bringing them
2:05:55 back to the existence of God how can you
2:05:58 actually prove that God exists this is
2:06:04 God the some of the proofs for medieval
2:06:07 proofs which are for example the
2:06:09 argument for contingency the Kalam
2:06:11 cosmological argument to find ash I
2:06:12 don't spend much time this is called
2:06:14 Kalam cosmological arguments the book so
2:06:15 it spends more time in Kalama
2:06:17 cosmological augment so if you want to
2:06:18 really know the answers question I'm not
2:06:20 gonna give you justice in three minutes
2:06:22 that that requires a long time so you
2:06:23 can get the book by it's wanted to
2:06:24 comment on a few things the gentleman
2:06:28 asked a very good question said 400
2:06:29 years someone else might come and say
2:06:31 something different and he admitted they
2:06:33 said hopefully that happens the thing is
2:06:36 if the white man has the edge on
2:06:37 hegemony on Hollywood and and and
2:06:40 political hegemony then really it will
2:06:42 be white people dictating how the rest
2:06:45 of us should live our lives and telling
2:06:47 us these are the correct kind of Rights
2:06:49 and these are not the correct kind of
2:06:50 Rights the truth is they have not done a
2:06:52 referendum on the rest of the world they
2:06:53 haven't gone to the African villages and
2:06:55 ask them what morality do you accept
2:06:57 what morality do you believe is true and
2:06:59 then predicated human rights based on
2:07:01 this kind of moral consensus of
2:07:04 for example so so could developing world
2:07:07 people's oriental people's and so on so
2:07:09 really what it's been in the
2:07:11 post-colonial world especially after
2:07:13 1945 World War two has been an agreement
2:07:18 among whites and that's what we've had
2:07:20 to be forced to kind of believe in or
2:07:23 that this course has been put has been
2:07:26 parameterised to that particular
2:07:28 narrative it's our these are the rights
2:07:31 which we consider the most important God
2:07:33 is not part of that it's a secular
2:07:34 discourse and therefore you have to
2:07:36 believe in it so for hundred years maybe
2:07:39 nowadays you might find burkas not nice
2:07:41 and bikinis are nice but maybe 400 years
2:07:43 you might like perky bikinis I don't
2:07:47 know it might be a white man but
2:07:48 basically whatever tickles the white
2:07:50 man's found fancy this is the problem
2:07:53 homosexuality is another thing you
2:07:55 talked homosexuality and bestiality and
2:07:57 so on the problem is he said you'd have
2:08:00 to see the dog or whatever animal it is
2:08:02 emotional visit dog is harmed or how can
2:08:05 a dog consent when they can't even speak
2:08:06 has he been the bark how's it gonna say
2:08:09 how a serious there I want to have sex
2:08:11 with you dog how to talks for yes and
2:08:14 one one part for how are you gonna know
2:08:16 I mean this is really this is the
2:08:18 absurdity of consent theory and
2:08:20 liberalism you know seriously I mean
2:08:22 where do we draw the line
2:08:24 you said stories contradict themselves
2:08:28 that's problematic because he said the
2:08:31 stories of the Koran contradicts itself
2:08:32 or in religion by neon last debate our
2:08:36 two minute twenty three I said you said
2:08:39 I don't spend much time reading the
2:08:40 Quran why should I
2:08:42 this is what you said so how do you know
2:08:43 the first contradict yourself you don't
2:08:45 even written the Koran properly and
2:08:46 moreover now you're enduring
2:08:48 contradictions when it comes to human
2:08:50 rights you enjoy the contradiction of
2:08:52 pluralism versus secularity
2:08:55 pluralism versus democracy individual
2:08:57 freedoms versus collective freedoms your
2:08:59 enduring those contradictions and your
2:09:01 acknowledging those and in durations and
2:09:03 therefore you shouldn't really be
2:09:04 sanctimonious in your presentation thank
2:09:09 you you were referring to me or to the
2:09:13 one who asked the question do you yeah
2:09:16 well I have not
2:09:18 about the Quran today you are not
2:09:20 reading the Quran with houses our
2:09:24 2-minute 23 I just I like to be
2:09:27 particular about those he said I don't
2:09:29 spend much time reading the Quran I know
2:09:32 I don't think I mentioned the quran at
2:09:34 all but we can go and find out I said
2:09:38 that stories about God yeah I find ok a
2:09:41 contradictory okay and that goes for the
2:09:44 Christian God and Hindu gods and so on
2:09:47 and so forth I don't find them
2:09:48 convincing ok so we have a question to
2:09:53 dr. lash from the other side I would ask
2:09:56 large cooler about one thing is the
2:10:03 cruel yeah it is cruel but one thing in
2:10:10 the television story now and I am
2:10:14 stealing from somebody who I have been
2:10:17 working from getting a television star
2:10:19 all the life I can go and steal another
2:10:27 place I'm not sure that I understood the
2:10:31 question is it good televisions thought
2:10:38 after I try to see from television
2:10:41 television ok yeah that that is the that
2:10:49 is the individual individual prevention
2:10:53 and in a quite physical way you try to
2:10:57 prevent the thief from stealing again by
2:11:01 making it physically impossible for for
2:11:03 him well you have arguments for that you
2:11:08 have had arguments for that in the in
2:11:11 the West in Europe that we need to be
2:11:15 strict
2:11:15 we had torture of traitors of Thieves
2:11:19 we had the burning of witches etc
2:11:22 etcetera to scare people
2:11:24 all of this was cruel and inhumane part
2:11:30 of the problem is that
2:11:31 you even can convict people execute
2:11:35 people for wrong reasons they actually
2:11:39 turn out to be innocent the whole idea
2:11:44 of modern penology the theories of
2:11:47 punishment is that we rehabilitate their
2:11:52 criminal
2:11:52 we condemn and punish the crime and we
2:11:56 rehabilitate the criminal and when we
2:11:59 are talking about the prevalence of
2:12:01 crime in the UK and in the States as mr.
2:12:06 hijab referred to I could inform him
2:12:10 that the Norwegian system far from being
2:12:14 perfect it is considered by many too
2:12:17 lenient but we have probably the lowest
2:12:21 recurrence rate in the world when it
2:12:24 comes to reoffending so actually a
2:12:28 humane system of punishment and
2:12:32 rehabilitation is better when it comes
2:12:35 to reducing crime than those with
2:12:38 serious with serious punishments and you
2:12:44 have the story from the Sudan when when
2:12:47 the Islamic Front introduced the sorry
2:12:53 after military coos there they started
2:12:56 with the the huddled punishments and the
2:13:01 story is that when they were chopping
2:13:04 off the hands of thieves in public with
2:13:06 huge crowds the pickpockets had a field
2:13:09 day so much for prevention thank you
2:13:16 do we have a question to mr. Ahuja yes
2:13:19 we have a quote not do he have a
2:13:20 question for Mohammed a job yes we have
2:13:23 a question tomorrow's a job great
2:14:13 question let me answer that question and
2:14:15 then move on to something I just wanted
2:14:17 to make a point on some of the comments
2:14:19 that were made
2:14:19 so we believe in Sharia consequentialism
2:14:22 yeah so something which is Hallel in one
2:14:24 place can be Haram in another and the
2:14:26 Quran says women at ography mussels
2:14:28 invite imagine if only it fella Geena
2:14:30 Holly so for example if you have to eat
2:14:33 pork in a certain time period if you're
2:14:34 if you're poor if you're forced to it
2:14:36 you can do it so this is where else will
2:14:40 comes in actually they take these
2:14:41 principles to do a soul so if you're
2:14:42 like a memory chef I said Colombo it
2:14:45 doesn't have to share how it does have
2:14:46 to share out the Kalama if the situation
2:14:48 becomes more constricted the Sharia
2:14:50 becomes more flexible and if the fear
2:14:51 becomes more flexible situation becomes
2:14:53 more constrict therefore yes there there
2:14:57 can be things which are completely Haram
2:14:59 like even saying Kelly met cover saying
2:15:02 words of court forget about Adam and
2:15:04 Eve's
2:15:05 children having intercourse which we we
2:15:07 don't have a problem with in that
2:15:08 context the same thing we don't have a
2:15:10 problem with someone making is can he
2:15:12 met Cofer in that context because their
2:15:14 maternal so where is the Aurora a dollar
2:15:17 ought to be her Novgorod as the spider
2:15:19 of the or the principle of a soul says
2:15:21 if there's if there's a if there's a
2:15:23 need for him and this absolute necessity
2:15:26 for the continuation of human race then
2:15:27 that becomes permissible and it's a
2:15:29 different context so to go so this idea
2:15:31 of a rigid Islam I totally agree with
2:15:33 Law School a people who believe in that
2:15:36 kind of rigid Islam will be able will
2:15:37 find it very difficult to navigate
2:15:38 themselves in the modern world just to
2:15:40 mention a point now because I have some
2:15:42 on barbarity or cruelty equals falsity
2:15:45 which is again cutting the hand of the
2:15:48 thief is cruel is an emotional argument
2:15:50 that's what that is I can make an
2:15:53 emotional argument as well I'll show you
2:15:54 for example in Islam we believe in
2:15:56 Turkish ass yeah so we believe it's
2:15:58 something I for an eye and an eye for I
2:16:00 doesn't make the whole world go blind it
2:16:03 makes it monocular because if someone
2:16:04 has one eye you see the other eye left
2:16:06 his ideas is false actually false
2:16:07 reasoning a bad logic but the point is
2:16:11 if you have a small daughter I'll make
2:16:14 an emotional argument yeah you have a
2:16:16 young daughter three years old a bad man
2:16:18 in East London where I'm not based but
2:16:21 I'm based in London walking around they
2:16:24 throw acid around like you know proper
2:16:26 acid yeah if you have a young daughter
2:16:28 and someone throws acid on her that
2:16:30 person gets a suspended sentence of five
2:16:32 years six years in prison ten years do
2:16:35 you think that's fair
2:16:36 I think majority of people from an
2:16:37 emotional perspective will say no and
2:16:39 this is an emotional argument say
2:16:41 actually the father should take acid and
2:16:43 put on that man as well let him live
2:16:45 with the consequences similar to that
2:16:47 which he inflicted on someone else and a
2:16:49 lot of people emotionally will accept
2:16:51 that kind of argument if you ask me to
2:16:53 prove it on first principles I won't be
2:16:55 able to I can prove it on divine command
2:16:57 theory but I can't prove it on first
2:16:59 principles that's the point I'm making
2:17:01 is subjective unless you have some kind
2:17:03 of anchorage and that is the point I'm
2:17:06 making if you want to make him emotional
2:17:07 arguments I can make emotional arguments
2:17:09 all day make you all angry talk about
2:17:10 pedophilia raping babies and so on they
2:17:13 should be killed and most of you will
2:17:14 agree with me but what I'm saying is we
2:17:17 can't prove those things from first
2:17:19 principles unless you have moral
2:17:20 objective Anchorage thank you we have a
2:17:24 question to dr. Lodge the sister is
2:17:27 wearing a niqab and she's mentioning
2:17:29 that dr. nasch he claims to be defending
2:17:33 the human rights and in the in in the
2:17:36 specific articles of Human Rights it is
2:17:38 constituted that everyone has the right
2:17:39 to education but dr. large he feels
2:17:42 disgusted that she is wearing a hijab or
2:17:45 sorry a niqab and he would not support
2:17:48 her right to education that's summarized
2:17:52 version opening
2:17:54 I'm not disgusted by much not any carbs
2:17:59 either but any cob prevents an open free
2:18:03 and equal dialogue and communication the
2:18:06 right to education is not absolute you
2:18:10 need grades you need to have qualified
2:18:13 we need qualifications in order to enter
2:18:17 higher education so there is a
2:18:20 meritocratic system here where you have
2:18:22 to have earned it through achieving
2:18:25 competence qualifications not wanting to
2:18:29 show your face to other people means
2:18:32 that you have said no to a lot of things
2:18:35 I mentioned piercing earlier if you are
2:18:39 wearing a lot of piercing including or
2:18:42 not even a lot of piercing but including
2:18:44 holes in your ears you have to remove
2:18:46 that if you are going to be a nurse or a
2:18:49 doctor in the Norwegian healthcare
2:18:51 system why not because it directly
2:18:55 immediately harms other people because
2:18:58 but because there are good reasons
2:18:59 medical hygienic reasons for that so if
2:19:03 you are choosing the profession of
2:19:04 Medicine you have to follow the rules of
2:19:08 that profession how to behave in a
2:19:12 responsible hygienic manner if you
2:19:14 choose to enter an academic institution
2:19:17 you should abide by the rules of that
2:19:20 institution and those rules are openness
2:19:24 equality trust etc and when you hide
2:19:28 your face behind any cop behind big
2:19:31 sunglasses or you wear a crash helmet we
2:19:34 do we see you down you are saying I
2:19:36 don't want to talk to you on an equal
2:19:38 footing so next time please address me
2:19:41 on the phone thank you okay so I've been
2:19:50 informed that at the time for the
2:19:52 question and answer session has been you
2:19:57 want to take one more question each okay
2:20:00 so let's take one more question is by
2:20:02 the request of the speakers so can we
2:20:06 have a question for
2:20:07 I'm in a job do we have a question from
2:20:08 the audience first and foremost because
2:20:10 the argot said we don't need to
2:20:12 liberalize Islam because we don't have a
2:20:15 proof that liberalism is true but if we
2:20:18 assume that liberalism is true is there
2:20:21 any part of Islam that happened to be
2:20:24 liberal last that last bit can you say
2:20:27 that if is there any part of this lambda
2:20:33 V was the word you said to summarize if
2:20:35 if we assume the premise that liberalism
2:20:38 is true are there any parts of Islam
2:20:41 that needs the liberal to needs to be
2:20:43 liberalized yeah well obviously if
2:20:50 liberalism is true everything this is
2:20:51 neutralized doesn't it because if that's
2:20:54 that's the point but we have to first
2:20:56 find out what liberalism are we talking
2:20:58 about we're talking about utilitarian
2:21:00 liberalism utilitarian consequentialist
2:21:01 liberalism what we're talking about a
2:21:03 hedonistic won a contract Aryan won a
2:21:05 non-contract Aryan won one that's based
2:21:06 on virtue ethics ethics a social
2:21:09 liberalism of political liberalism a
2:21:11 fiscal liberalism whose conception of
2:21:14 liberalism in what place what time so
2:21:16 first we have to discuss which
2:21:17 liberalism and then we have to discuss
2:21:18 if it was true that's something else
2:21:20 just just to make a comment on the niqab
2:21:23 issue so just to finalize the question
2:21:26 if obviously if liberalism is true then
2:21:28 we'd have to liberalize everything but
2:21:29 the point is that's not been proven
2:21:31 today with the admission of my
2:21:32 interlocutor to his credit and now
2:21:35 having said that the point of the club I
2:21:37 just wanted to mention that this was an
2:21:39 interesting discussion because in
2:21:40 Britain I'm not sure in no way if you
2:21:43 have any blind judges have you got any
2:21:45 blind judges in Britain we had a blind
2:21:48 judge in a place called Tower Hamlets in
2:21:50 London which means that judge you cannot
2:21:51 see and the main reason I see for those
2:21:56 advocates against niqab is that they say
2:21:59 well you can't see their facial
2:22:00 expressions right so that blocks
2:22:02 barriers to communication but if that's
2:22:05 the case in the same way as you would
2:22:08 need to ban any pub in a public space
2:22:09 then you'd have to say to blind people
2:22:12 that they shouldn't moderate certain
2:22:14 things including of course judiciary
2:22:16 because they wouldn't be able to see
2:22:18 people's facial expressions so all of
2:22:20 the
2:22:21 carry all of their judgments are
2:22:23 actually miscarriages of just justice if
2:22:25 seeing the face is so important you
2:22:28 should ban blind people from being
2:22:30 judges because actually that would mean
2:22:33 that everything that they're seeing is
2:22:34 not the full picture well of course this
2:22:38 is something you could have to be not
2:22:39 only with the judiciary but in many
2:22:42 other professions where it would be
2:22:44 deemed of course that such facial
2:22:46 expression is of paramount importance so
2:22:49 the the arguments will necessitate if
2:22:52 we're being consistent and if we from a
2:22:55 liberal perspective give equal privilege
2:22:57 to religious discrimination vis a vie
2:23:00 disability discrimination then we would
2:23:03 have to say that wherever there is a ban
2:23:06 on the pub because of communication or
2:23:09 the ILA with a positive reasoning is
2:23:11 communication problems then there should
2:23:14 be a ban on blind people being
2:23:16 communicators judges or otherwise
2:23:18 arbitrators in those settings as well if
2:23:20 you don't give those two things equal
2:23:22 ratings and you give disabled people
2:23:24 higher privilege then that is arbitrary
2:23:28 and arbitrariness is against liberalism
2:23:30 and there's no reason for it so I would
2:23:32 suggest that large schooling because
2:23:34 he's an intelligent man and a man who I
2:23:36 admire for his consistency on some
2:23:38 stances frankly to revise his position
2:23:41 on that based on his own principles
2:23:42 because I do think if he thinks about it
2:23:45 from those angles he may well change his
2:23:47 position she's like I'm not him
2:23:52 thank you
2:23:54 did we start with the first question to
2:23:56 dr. lush or to dr. Mohamed Merah job
2:24:00 okay so we have one last question for
2:24:02 dr. Kula so microphone please first
2:24:08 first of all I just want to say to you
2:24:10 never say woman called me on my phone
2:24:13 because she's never gonna do that so you
2:24:15 just if she's wearing nip-ups oh that's
2:24:19 hopeless yeah and my question is I just
2:24:28 got in Norwegian I will try to translate
2:24:30 it in English Shama so how would you
2:24:33 define the freedom of religion for
2:24:36 children like small kids because the
2:24:39 parents they just want to learn their
2:24:41 children what they think is good for
2:24:43 them yeah the same does Muslims as well
2:24:45 but in West whatever the non-muslims
2:24:48 does they it's like his freedom but if
2:24:51 like here in Norway we got like choosing
2:24:55 a boyfriend or girlfriend or dancing in
2:24:58 pairs and yeah I'm going to discos and
2:25:00 such things but if a Muslim for a father
2:25:04 or mother just avoids their children not
2:25:07 to do such things then their children
2:25:09 are oppressed so how would you define
2:25:12 like the freedom of religion for
2:25:15 children thank you thank you it's an
2:25:19 interesting and difficult question
2:25:21 because according to international human
2:25:25 rights law the legally binding
2:25:28 conventions parents are the ones who are
2:25:32 responsible for their children's
2:25:35 religious upbringing so they have a
2:25:37 right to to impart their religious
2:25:42 beliefs to children and I defend that
2:25:46 right because I cannot see anyone else
2:25:48 who should do it so this is a moral
2:25:52 argument and not a legal argument it is
2:25:55 and
2:25:57 it's an appeal not only to Muslim
2:26:00 parents but to all parents to give
2:26:04 children freedom to explore to
2:26:07 investigate to find out what they want
2:26:10 to believe in and one of the things that
2:26:14 parents should do is to give them that
2:26:20 the freedom to opt out of the religion
2:26:24 of parents by not telling them that if
2:26:28 you change your religion we're not going
2:26:30 to talk to you anymore
2:26:32 furthermore parents should not make
2:26:36 irreversible physical changes to their
2:26:40 children as a mark of their religious
2:26:42 belonging circumcision of men boys
2:26:46 should stop if a man wants to be
2:26:51 circumcised as a sign of his belonging
2:26:53 to a given religion he can do so after
2:26:55 he has become mature 18 years of age and
2:26:59 this goes of course
2:27:02 for female genital mutilation totally
2:27:07 unacceptable in order to make a
2:27:10 religious cultural identity statement
2:27:13 here children should have freedom to
2:27:16 decide if they want to cut off the whole
2:27:18 thing after they are have become 18 but
2:27:22 parents should not make that
2:27:25 irreversible decision for their children
2:27:28 and they should give them a liberal
2:27:30 meaning non strict upbringing so that
2:27:34 they can explore various life stances
2:27:38 religions etc that's what I mean but
2:27:41 about giving freedom of religion to
2:27:45 children but and this is because it is a
2:27:49 responsibility to parents to what is the
2:27:54 the good English world they are for
2:27:57 vaulted they are the keepers of their
2:28:00 children's safety and moral upbringing
2:28:03 and that is a big responsibility and it
2:28:06 has to be carried out in a very good way
2:28:12 so it's wrong but if they no no no no no
2:28:25 I'm welcome there are different ways of
2:28:29 teaching children religion you can say
2:28:32 this is what we believe but you are free
2:28:35 to choose or you can say this is what we
2:28:38 believe and this is what you are going
2:28:39 to believe and if you say otherwise we
2:28:41 are going to kill you
2:28:43 that's the difference you see the point
2:28:45 [Music]
2:28:49 sorry you need to use the microphone I
2:29:00 don't know if it's the acoustics of this
2:29:03 room or my age but I simply cannot hear
2:29:05 even if I've got the new hearing aid the
2:29:09 news of the adults should do then he
2:29:11 should decide and do circumcision so
2:29:13 what you said right again circumcision
2:29:15 yesterday yep that you said a person
2:29:18 should be adult and then he should
2:29:19 decide and then do it exactly have you
2:29:22 ever seen don't do it circumcision no
2:29:24 I've seen it
2:29:25 do you know which prognosis will be bad
2:29:34 a kid on the 5 years old
2:29:37 performing circumcision adult who is
2:29:39 well developed Oh 18 having some
2:29:42 decision who would have a backward
2:29:44 notice any good surgeon who is
2:29:47 performing what till you answer that
2:29:49 maybe you could tell me when you think
2:29:51 about that is irrelevant the question
2:29:55 here because you might not make it clean
2:29:56 no no no no no a person should be a dog
2:29:59 and then exhibition yet from science
2:30:01 it's proven that a kid has a better
2:30:03 prognosis and a better result of
2:30:04 services I I don't matter how much you
2:30:06 say that it's just a wider bundle I
2:30:09 don't care the point here is see there
2:30:12 you go that's the point
2:30:13 no I'm all give you enough to you
2:30:15 that point II understand I'm no I'm not
2:30:19 I'm not discussing medicine I'm
2:30:21 discussing right now drawing a claim
2:30:23 like that of course I can
2:30:28 what I'm saying is that if you
2:30:31 circumcised a child you have introduced
2:30:34 that child to a certain culture and
2:30:37 religion without wait let me speak
2:30:39 without the consent of the child that is
2:30:43 taking away from the child a possibility
2:30:46 to choose later on if you as an adult
2:30:50 decide to do something and it is very
2:30:52 scary because now move out this can have
2:30:55 complications that is your choice but
2:30:57 because it is more difficult when you
2:31:00 are older you cannot impose it on the
2:31:02 child when the child cannot consent
2:31:08 [Music]
2:31:11 gnosis is irrelevant gnosis a moral
2:31:14 question or fear is not an empirical
2:31:16 medical one second one second one second
2:31:19 so just a quick quick so if they do this
2:31:23 in America for medical reasons not being
2:31:25 Muslims then that would be okay you know
2:31:31 why not the arguments for medical
2:31:34 benefits when targeting drugs or
2:31:36 medicines etc the argument for origin
2:31:40 let me answer don't interrupt the
2:31:44 argument for medical advantages of a
2:31:48 child circumcision of of babies or
2:31:53 children are weak and nevertheless they
2:31:58 are irrelevant from a moral perspective
2:32:01 because it is the person who has the
2:32:04 right to decide on these things we are
2:32:07 talking about something that is
2:32:09 irreversible
2:32:10 an injection oxygen vaccine and so on
2:32:16 they are not irreversible and parents
2:32:20 usually it goes with an operation the
2:32:24 child has an illness they bring into the
2:32:27 hospital of
2:32:29 then the parents decides based on
2:32:32 medical advice on what is best for the
2:32:35 child
2:32:35 he/she needs an operation to get rid of
2:32:38 the appendix that has become infected
2:32:40 that is not a problem that is taking
2:32:44 care of a life that is saving life that
2:32:47 is protecting life you are not
2:32:48 protecting life by cutting off part of
2:32:51 the penis okay let's stop the penis talk
2:32:57 non go on so this went on quite a bit
2:33:01 long and we are getting more requests
2:33:04 that people want to ask their questions
2:33:05 and their kind of really any we're gonna
2:33:08 give one more question head and I have
2:33:10 to take one more for good as well to
2:33:11 make it fair understood that we cannot
2:33:20 approve liberalism that's why we cannot
2:33:22 go further with this discussion about
2:33:24 liberalism but what about if we say can
2:33:27 Islam or part of Islam be modernized can
2:33:31 we modernize Islam and the Methuselah
2:33:35 and philosophers did they modernize
2:33:38 Islam at that time mhm thank you
2:33:43 so theories of modernization usually
2:33:46 revolve around post enlightenment
2:33:48 thought processes and usually the
2:33:50 dominant ethic being referred to either
2:33:52 directly or indirectly is liberalism
2:33:55 democracy individualism and those things
2:33:58 as it's usually a Eurocentric basically
2:34:01 definition of modernization however just
2:34:04 to kind of point something out which is
2:34:06 very important two things actually which
2:34:08 I've been hearing just trying to listen
2:34:09 to the interchange between dr. gulam and
2:34:14 the audience members so the the point of
2:34:17 not introducing them to a certain
2:34:20 culture and religion goes against human
2:34:22 rights actually because one of the human
2:34:24 rights is right to education 0.3 says
2:34:27 parents have a prior right to choose the
2:34:30 kind of education that shall be given to
2:34:32 their child and this goes to the heart
2:34:34 of a problem which we were facing in
2:34:36 Birmingham in the United Kingdom which
2:34:38 is do does the school have the right to
2:34:42 young children for example certain
2:34:44 sexual things or do the parents have the
2:34:47 right the one of the best arguments from
2:34:49 their own paradigm and I'm saying from
2:34:51 their own paradigm to make it very clear
2:34:53 but we don't disagree with this that a
2:34:56 parent should have a right to to give
2:34:59 education to their child now you can't
2:35:01 limit the variables and say you can have
2:35:03 a right to give education but it can't
2:35:05 be an Islamic one because that will go
2:35:07 against the two points of liberalism
2:35:10 consent and reciprocity and goes against
2:35:13 this human right actually so from a
2:35:15 human rights perspective from a liberal
2:35:17 perspective you can't actually maintain
2:35:18 that I'm allowed to teach my child to be
2:35:21 an agnostic atheist liberal feminist but
2:35:24 this person from Somalia from
2:35:27 Afghanistan from Pakistan he doesn't
2:35:29 have their right to give them their
2:35:31 moral ethic that's actually a kind of
2:35:32 totalitarianism it's movies veering in
2:35:36 the in the direction of totalitarianism
2:35:39 which I'm sure is against but it's quite
2:35:42 odd that I heard that argument being
2:35:44 made moreover FGM is usually associated
2:35:47 with the Middle East and Africa
2:35:50 but that's because there's been a
2:35:52 problem convention with FGM FGM is
2:35:55 practiced most by Western women because
2:35:58 the way that a whu-oh defines FGM
2:36:01 includes things like piercings which we
2:36:03 know now dr. Guha is against in the
2:36:05 vagina and labiaplasty which are
2:36:08 construction surgeries to basically
2:36:10 sorry to be explicit thin the lips of
2:36:14 the vagina for a woman which is usually
2:36:15 done for cosmetic reasons the NHS which
2:36:18 is the National Health Service in UK
2:36:19 actually gives guidance to women on how
2:36:22 to do this so the point is there is and
2:36:26 this is becoming quite prominent in the
2:36:27 literature now FGM depending on how you
2:36:29 actually define it could be said to be
2:36:32 an epidemic in the Western world but
2:36:34 it's always looking at the Muslims or
2:36:36 the Arabs or the Africans with a view to
2:36:39 make them a subject of investigation and
2:36:41 peculiarities that makes them an
2:36:44 Orientalist point for liberal critique
2:36:47 which i think is hypocritical in all its
2:36:49 forms thank you we will take the last
2:36:52 question to dr. doula is there anyone
2:36:56 okay wait let me see the too many hands
2:37:05 did now this will be the last one
2:37:08 unfortunately when you say remember you
2:37:17 say uno rises human rights it's not the
2:37:21 definition but in social science as we
2:37:23 learn the definition is what the most
2:37:26 important thing when you want to have a
2:37:28 good theory and if you say in the social
2:37:31 science from Karl Marx and Max Weber to
2:37:34 did to this day with the body all they
2:37:36 have tried to do is redefinition the
2:37:39 culture for example so I feel I finally
2:37:43 problematic when he says we don't need
2:37:44 to defy the definition the human rights
2:37:48 but I can understand you if we say it's
2:37:50 a a priori but then you say later that
2:37:54 in the 70s that sexual rice wasn't there
2:37:59 and that human rights will develop and
2:38:02 that goes against a priori as we know
2:38:04 that count when he said that April you
2:38:06 have some principles and ice cannot
2:38:09 change over time so if human rights is
2:38:13 not a priori so how can you argument for
2:38:16 human rights with a definition please
2:38:19 thank you
2:38:21 of course you have to define human
2:38:23 rights I what I have said is that you
2:38:26 cannot prove them you cannot give a
2:38:29 scientific proof of human rights
2:38:32 you can argue to justify them but of
2:38:34 course you have to define them and you
2:38:38 can basically say that we have three
2:38:40 major human rights is the right to life
2:38:42 their right to Liberty and right - well
2:38:47 fair well being and what we find in the
2:38:51 different conventions are concrete
2:38:55 decisions of those three major types of
2:38:59 human rights now that is by itself a
2:39:04 definition of them and
2:39:09 or sometimes legally binding and then
2:39:10 you can extend them and give them moral
2:39:12 value and so on and they change as I
2:39:17 said because you can expand them and
2:39:20 give more rights emphasize certain
2:39:23 rights and so on so I'm not against the
2:39:26 attempting to define in a serious and
2:39:30 meaningful way human rights on the
2:39:32 contrary but I am saying that you cannot
2:39:35 give a mathematical proof you can give
2:39:38 good justifications for human rights I
2:39:42 thank you because if you say like when
2:39:50 in the social science when you don't
2:39:53 prove a thing
2:39:54 you put it in the a priori category but
2:39:56 as you say in the principles the human
2:39:59 rights when you as you talk about them
2:40:02 they don't fit with the principles of a
2:40:04 period so even for core with the
2:40:07 postmodernist
2:40:08 they have some principles so I'm looking
2:40:11 to understand cuz I want to understand I
2:40:13 want to understand how I can prove human
2:40:16 rights and fight for human rights with
2:40:18 reason so if I cannot put in the a
2:40:21 priori category and I have no principles
2:40:23 as the postmodernist so how can I find
2:40:27 principles to understand cuz I have to
2:40:29 understand as a human being as a
2:40:31 rational thank you you have one minute
2:40:33 to answer that question yeah there are
2:40:36 elements of a priori Ness here when we
2:40:40 are talking about human Worth and human
2:40:42 dignity as debate well human Worth and
2:40:44 human dignity is what is protected by
2:40:46 human rights human rights is a
2:40:48 consequence of human beings having human
2:40:52 Worth and human dignity and that is a
2:40:54 metaphysical position I agree it is
2:40:57 something that you can argue for you can
2:41:00 try to give it it's some sort of
2:41:02 empirical reference by saying that
2:41:04 social reality is normative we are all
2:41:08 living in a world where we are following
2:41:11 rules and we do so instinctively
2:41:14 actually so in that sense there is a in
2:41:19 a certain a priori Ness and also
2:41:22 actually
2:41:22 an empirical reference here but it is
2:41:26 but I would not claim to prove human
2:41:28 rights I I wouldn't this is an ongoing
2:41:32 philosophical discussion where human
2:41:35 rights have good arguments based on many
2:41:40 different positions something I will
2:41:42 come back to in the summation thank you
2:41:45 so we will end the question and answer
2:41:47 session with that and dr. last you will
2:41:50 have five minutes to give you final
2:41:52 earmarks and mohammadi job you will have
2:41:54 also five minutes to give your final
2:41:55 remarks then I will conclude the session
2:41:57 and after that everyone stay seated we
2:42:00 have a big surprise okay thank you
2:42:05 okay okay first of all we are not
2:42:22 talking about taste when we are talking
2:42:25 about cruelty we are talking about not
2:42:31 our subjective experience of taste we
2:42:36 are talking about something that has to
2:42:38 do with right and wrong we're not
2:42:41 talking about false or true false and
2:42:45 true relates to the empirical work it is
2:42:49 true that the Earth revolves around the
2:42:52 Sun it is not right or wrong it's not
2:42:56 right or wrong
2:42:56 right or wrong relates to it's not true
2:43:00 to say that it is wrong to kill someone
2:43:02 that's not true it is wrong to kill
2:43:06 someone the fact that the world is
2:43:09 divided into different spheres and where
2:43:12 we have an empirical sphere describing
2:43:15 reality telling us how things are is
2:43:17 different from morality law and politics
2:43:22 where we are talking about how things
2:43:24 should be that is something that has to
2:43:28 do with with norms norms is something
2:43:32 that we can discuss human rights are
2:43:34 norms they also represent
2:43:36 values those values are important
2:43:39 because they are there to defend to
2:43:41 protect human worth and human dignity
2:43:44 and therefore human rights have good
2:43:48 reasons they have been given by
2:43:51 theologians Muslim theologians Christian
2:43:54 theologians they have be given by
2:43:56 philosophers they have been given by
2:43:58 legal scholars political scientists
2:44:01 politicians have all given good reasons
2:44:05 for human rights and those reasons have
2:44:09 been accepted they have been accepted by
2:44:12 a majority of Representatives of the
2:44:15 people of the earth it is not true when
2:44:18 mr. hijab says that they were a Western
2:44:20 invention they have a long history in
2:44:24 the West but just as little as there is
2:44:27 a Western mathematics Western Natural
2:44:31 Science Western physics Western
2:44:33 chemistry there are no Western human
2:44:37 rights they are universal when they were
2:44:41 developed in order to be put on paper
2:44:45 made into a declaration that was an
2:44:48 intercultural process where
2:44:51 representatives of the Muslim world of
2:44:54 the Confucian world of the atheist world
2:44:58 as well as the Christian world took part
2:45:01 there was an argument we need God here
2:45:05 we need God to guarantee human dignity
2:45:11 and human Worth and then you would think
2:45:15 it was the atheist communist who said no
2:45:18 we don't go for God but it wasn't it was
2:45:22 the Confucians the Chinese they said
2:45:26 we're confusions we don't believe in God
2:45:28 and then the committee who drafted the
2:45:32 human rights declaration realized that
2:45:34 we can agree on the human rights but we
2:45:39 don't have to agree on the reason our
2:45:43 own justification for human rights
2:45:46 therefore you can have your is
2:45:49 justification for human rights as many
2:45:51 Muslims scholars legal scholars
2:45:54 philosophers have or you can have my
2:45:58 rationalist arguments in favor you can
2:46:03 have Christian arguments you can heal
2:46:04 Hindu and Buddhist arguments human
2:46:07 rights are not carved in stone they are
2:46:13 developing as we use our reason in order
2:46:17 to understand and improve the world we
2:46:20 are living in in order to prove improve
2:46:22 the protection of each and every one of
2:46:25 us and so far they have done a good job
2:46:29 it does not mean that they are being
2:46:32 respected universally even though they
2:46:35 are universally applicable even though
2:46:37 they have universal pretensions they are
2:46:40 not respected universally that's why
2:46:43 fighting for human rights including
2:46:45 freedom of expression and the right to
2:46:48 blaspheme including freedom of religion
2:46:52 also the right to change your religion
2:46:54 and I'm not sure that mr. hijab knows
2:46:57 but in dialog between Christians and
2:47:00 Muslims in Norway it was actually agreed
2:47:03 that the right to change your religion
2:47:05 is a basic human rights which should be
2:47:07 respected by Muslims without
2:47:09 repercussions for members of
2:47:12 congregations mosques or families who
2:47:15 changed their religion the final point
2:47:20 education has to do with becoming a good
2:47:23 citizen a functioning citizen that's why
2:47:27 in general parents can take care of that
2:47:30 right but sometimes they don't do it in
2:47:33 a good way that's why we have Child
2:47:35 Services barnevernet
2:47:36 that's why we can also make demands on
2:47:39 the content of education for children so
2:47:44 that they will function in a good way in
2:47:47 a democratic society thank you for your
2:47:49 attention
2:47:50 [Applause]
2:47:55 thank you dr. lush for your final
2:47:58 remarks so I would request Muhammad
2:48:01 hijab to give his final remarks as well
2:48:08 well just to comment on some of the
2:48:10 things that were said in the final part
2:48:12 of that summary is that it was an
2:48:14 intercultural process deciding human
2:48:16 rights was the intercultural process it
2:48:18 was an intercultural process to some
2:48:20 degree but one that the Western elites
2:48:24 presided over especially after World War
2:48:26 Two this is well known history I mean
2:48:28 there was a bipolar system of
2:48:31 international relations where Soviet
2:48:33 Union and America became the two
2:48:35 dominant forces and of course America
2:48:37 controlled the international
2:48:40 organizations including of course the UN
2:48:42 of course he was talking about Chinese
2:48:45 he refers to them as a confusion world I
2:48:48 would put him that probably the liberal
2:48:50 world is the one that's confused but
2:48:51 Chinese have a whole different set of
2:48:54 moral injunctions if you go to South
2:48:56 China sometimes you might see some
2:48:58 restaurant of people eating dogs for
2:49:02 example although Oba I mean they're not
2:49:05 making arguments to have sex with them
2:49:07 it's still completely different in terms
2:49:10 of the prioritization of Rights and we
2:49:13 don't see the world shape shaped in
2:49:15 Chinese or Russian rights images my
2:49:20 opponent today has been asked three
2:49:22 questions to prove liberalism / human
2:49:27 rights to prove the presuppositions of
2:49:29 those things including freedom equality
2:49:30 etc and then also to consider admit that
2:49:36 within liberal systems you can have
2:49:38 punitive laws corporal punishments
2:49:40 racism colonialism etc and to my
2:49:42 surprise he actually agrees with me on
2:49:44 all three of those points which is I
2:49:47 think a very good way to end a debate
2:49:49 where the two people agree on some of
2:49:51 the main issues were in regards to moral
2:49:54 theory so I want to thank my opponent
2:49:57 for coming today and putting up with my
2:50:00 hostile approach to debating which has
2:50:03 become a hallmark of my
2:50:06 my interchanges with people and I also
2:50:09 want to thank my family because they had
2:50:11 to put up with me as well preparing for
2:50:13 the debates like this but also preparing
2:50:15 for research material that I had to do
2:50:19 by going back to something about family
2:50:22 and I've kind of alluded to this before
2:50:24 within my discussion that aslam puts
2:50:30 community rights over individual rights
2:50:31 for the most part and put God's rights
2:50:33 above all of that that is the
2:50:35 prioritization of its land it's a
2:50:37 different completely different
2:50:38 prioritization to human rights
2:50:40 we don't disregard or deny some of those
2:50:42 30 articles of even rights in fact agree
2:50:45 with a lot of them if not I would say
2:50:46 most of them frankly I mean might come
2:50:49 as a surprise but we would just disagree
2:50:51 with the way in which their phrasing
2:50:52 prioritized we would disagree in the way
2:50:54 in which rights are poor of
2:50:56 responsibilities the Islamic discourse
2:50:59 it it puts more emphasis on
2:51:01 responsibilities in rights because if
2:51:03 everyone is selfish nothing will get
2:51:04 done at the end of the day if everyone's
2:51:06 thinking about what they owed then there
2:51:08 will not be reciprocity in a communal
2:51:11 space and so therefore membership or
2:51:14 fraternity to a community is prioritized
2:51:18 over individual interests and that is
2:51:21 something we say it comes from divine
2:51:23 command theory but also helps for the
2:51:26 welfare of human beings across time
2:51:29 actually this is something which many
2:51:32 liberal scholars I would call them
2:51:33 liberal maybe they wouldn't call
2:51:34 themselves liberal would actually agree
2:51:36 with me on they referred to as
2:51:38 communitarians
2:51:39 like Michael Sandel in his book theories
2:51:42 of Justice they actually say the
2:51:43 community spirit you're born into
2:51:45 membership in family and so on and
2:51:47 historical lineage and therefore you
2:51:50 should prioritize communal arrangements
2:51:53 before and above individual ones or a is
2:51:56 the case now going back to one thing
2:51:59 that we did disagree upon which was
2:52:01 definitions in this debate I think that
2:52:05 my opponent did employ a fallacy of
2:52:07 equivocation for example of someone in
2:52:09 front of me now had a heart attack may
2:52:11 be one of the Liberals when he saw my
2:52:13 first presentations and when I joke and
2:52:15 had a stroke and then maybe the doctor I
2:52:17 say is there a doctor the doctor
2:52:19 there comes and actually doctor gula
2:52:22 comes up and tries to I said I want a
2:52:24 doctor but in this case I meant a
2:52:25 medical doctor not a professor right so
2:52:29 it's using a word in a completely
2:52:32 different way in order to avoid a
2:52:33 particular argument so what I was using
2:52:35 the word liberalised as I've proven in
2:52:37 popular usage this means in reference to
2:52:40 political philosophy in particular
2:52:41 liberalism but he did indeed disengaged
2:52:43 from that because he knew the moment we
2:52:45 scrutinize liberal philosophy is the
2:52:47 moment that would be the end of the
2:52:50 debate however to end this debate on a
2:52:53 good note what I would say is that
2:52:55 instead of reform we should both and we
2:52:58 I think we do agree that there should be
2:53:00 reconciliation between Muslims
2:53:02 traditionalists Muslims and liberals and
2:53:04 both of us need to be as flexible as
2:53:07 possible in facilitating such
2:53:08 reconciliation as the Quran says Lacombe
2:53:11 Deen accumulating you have your way and
2:53:13 we have our way but we will build
2:53:15 bridges and we thank you for all the
2:53:17 good work you do so everyone a round of
2:53:19 applause for our schooling it has been a
2:53:34 great honour for me today
2:53:36 to hold to host this great debate
2:53:38 between Muhammad Hodja and large gula
2:53:42 and I asked Lost Planet Allah to accept
2:53:45 this efforts of ours and put barakah in
2:53:49 this and make us and give us more
2:53:51 opportunities to arrange debates like
2:53:53 this again say I mean and we ask allah
2:53:58 subhanaw taala
2:53:58 to guide all of us to the right path dr.
2:54:03 nasch muhammad hijab and all of us we
2:54:05 all need the guidance of allah say yeah
2:54:07 I mean so with that I thank our two
2:54:12 participants dr. Lodge and Mohammad
2:54:15 hijab and I will conclude this session
2:54:17 by this and for those who are watching
2:54:20 online and all of you as well as I
2:54:23 mentioned early earlier or in the
2:54:25 beginning of the program that we are
2:54:27 working on a project to establish a
2:54:29 Masjid and a Dawa Center here in the ha
2:54:32 of Norway in Oslo in the capital of
2:54:34 Norway so please go into the website
2:54:37 save Amman calm to read more about this
2:54:40 project save Amman calm and you will
2:54:43 find the link in the description of this
2:54:45 video and please participate with your
2:54:48 participation as much as you can thank
2:54:50 you so much the pod how's Amanda not
2:54:59 good ok it's not good is it really that
2:55:07 bad I'm really afraid of this is there
2:55:15 anything we could do to save Iman yes
2:55:18 Iman is dying but we can save Iman with
2:55:22 your donation please watch until the end
2:55:26 and give for the sake of Allah and he is
2:55:29 Subhan Allah Tala we'll give you up to
2:55:32 700 times in return and build for you a
2:55:36 house in general I am Fahad Qureshi and
2:55:39 I'm chairman of the Islamic Network
2:55:42 Islam net one of the most influential
2:55:44 Islamic organizations in my nation I was
2:55:48 born and raised in a European country
2:55:50 called Norway in search of a better life
2:55:52 my parents migrated to Norway in the 70s
2:55:55 what they didn't realize was that a man
2:55:58 may not be able to survive this journey
2:56:01 the population of Norway is around 5.3
2:56:04 million people with Muslims making up
2:56:07 200,000 of that population the number of
2:56:10 Muslim names is increasing but the
2:56:12 number of Muslims with Iman is
2:56:14 decreasing in other words a man is dying
2:56:17 in the hearts of our youth today it's
2:56:19 laminate has been for the last 10 years
2:56:21 working non-stop
2:56:23 and developing keed our projects to
2:56:25 maintain the Muslim identity for our
2:56:27 next generation so we are making a
2:56:30 change I was a non Muslim with no
2:56:32 purpose in life but Allah guided me and
2:56:35 Islam that gave me a platform to spread
2:56:37 Islam in
2:56:38 country slam net has given me an
2:56:41 opportunity not only to learn is am but
2:56:45 also to give Dawa and invite all the
2:56:47 children to Islam I can't express how
2:56:51 grateful I am for having Islam that in
2:56:53 my life through our projects we are
2:56:55 combating Islamophobia inviting
2:56:58 non-muslims to Islam giving thar beer to
2:57:00 the youth guiding non practicing Muslims
2:57:03 back to Allah giving support to reverts
2:57:06 fighting extremism and empowering the
2:57:09 Muslim community to get involved in Dawa
2:57:12 we have been operating from a small
2:57:15 office that no longer can cater for our
2:57:17 needs we need to establish a Masjid with
2:57:20 a dower and community center that can
2:57:23 host Islamic events and exhibitions have
2:57:26 a youth center and offices where we can
2:57:29 have full time to add expanding the Dawa
2:57:31 and Serbia programs so we can bring up a
2:57:34 generation of youth aspiring to make the
2:57:38 word of Allah the highest and that is
2:57:41 absolutely brilliant we have to do this
2:57:44 brothers and sisters donate generously
2:57:46 and help us to establish it is Masjid
2:57:49 and Dara centre don't forget to make
2:57:52 duaa and share this video on all your
2:57:54 social media platforms so everyone can
2:57:57 benefit from this amazing project we are
2:58:01 not going to let a man die
2:58:15 [Music]
2:58:22 [Music]

FULL DEBATE! Does Traditional Islam Need to be Liberalized - Mohammed Hijab VS Lars Gule (2019-11-05) ​

Description ​

Summary of FULL DEBATE! Does Traditional Islam Need to be Liberalized - Mohammed Hijab VS Lars Gule ​

00:00:00 - 01:00:00 ​

01:00:00 - 02:00:00 ​