Liberalism as Religion || Turkey Lecture (2018-12-22) #

0:00:00 okay Sarah you're gone knocks Erica and
0:00:04 iron Fox my ass for Easter piston and
0:00:08 the piston of the facility was fighting
0:00:14 so I want to over you all here as our
0:00:19 first event of the year
0:00:20 as a newly forming student society and
0:00:25 as we all know liberalism
0:00:29 you know affects our big rifle up from
0:00:32 every point every aspect and the more
0:00:35 than just to use and family it max
0:00:39 it impacts your our life and like from
0:00:45 society to family to politics to work
0:00:47 ethics and first almost everything and
0:00:51 therefore we have our honored honorable
0:00:57 guests and conducted a talk about who
0:01:00 lives in here and to talk about how much
0:01:07 she's up a little bit info he's a
0:01:10 British debater and public speaker of
0:01:13 Egyptian descent who in caves and
0:01:15 discussions and politics on wide variety
0:01:17 of topics including religion politics
0:01:20 and society he completed a BA in
0:01:23 politics and MA in history from Queen
0:01:26 Mary University he has told and
0:01:28 instructed closest or nearby readings
0:01:30 and language in many contexts
0:01:32 he has numerous is as live in some
0:01:34 Islamic Sciences and has study in
0:01:36 multiple Islamic seminary including
0:01:40 Asian including Asia to the Institute
0:01:42 which employs a traditional for
0:01:45 attendance part of teaching the
0:01:48 sacrifices Mohammed is currently during
0:01:52 political stories research in some
0:01:54 cities across University of London so I
0:01:58 want to invite for further up to the
0:02:01 stage and on to the speech
0:02:06 so I wanna come what happens layer get
0:02:10 handle a lot of celebs will laugh on le
0:02:13 us I ve woman will air this topic of
0:02:17 liberalism is a very very important one
0:02:19 not least because liberalism is the
0:02:23 leading ethic of the Western world and
0:02:26 obviously the Western world which is the
0:02:30 Europeans and their extensions whose
0:02:32 America now are the hegemonic powers of
0:02:35 the world so to talk about liberalism is
0:02:39 to talk about a very important topic
0:02:41 which I believe in our circles as
0:02:46 Muslims is not spoken about as much as
0:02:49 it should be
0:02:50 there was a time where maybe in Islamic
0:02:54 circles we thought that the global
0:02:56 competitor to Islamic ethics was other
0:03:01 religions so we think for example of
0:03:04 Christianity we think for example of
0:03:07 potentially Hinduism and so on but
0:03:11 research suggests to us that liberalism
0:03:14 is more powerful in terms of demographic
0:03:19 effect than all of those religions and
0:03:22 could be said to be in many ways more
0:03:26 penetrating than even the Islamic ethic
0:03:29 ironically even in Muslim countries so
0:03:32 it's a very important topic to discuss
0:03:35 and I want to divide what I'm going to
0:03:37 talk about today into three different
0:03:38 subsections I don't want to spend too
0:03:41 much time here talking I want to spend a
0:03:43 little bit more time interacting so we
0:03:45 can have a question answer session we
0:03:46 have an all-star cast from London and
0:03:49 Charlotte so it's not just gonna be me
0:03:50 taking the questions it's gonna be me
0:03:53 brother zakir husain brother Hashim I'm
0:03:56 brother Mansour who you guys might be
0:03:58 familiar with all of which have their
0:04:01 kind of subject-specific specialism and
0:04:03 have engaged in numerous debates in and
0:04:06 of themselves so that's something
0:04:08 insha'Allah we can look forward to so
0:04:10 I'm gonna divide this discussion to
0:04:12 three different parts just for brevity
0:04:14 and conciseness the first thing I'm
0:04:17 going to talk about is the discussion
0:04:21 surrounding liberalism in academia the
0:04:24 discussion surrounding liberalism in
0:04:26 academia and in this we're talking about
0:04:29 we're going to be talking about some of
0:04:31 the common critiques of liberalism by
0:04:35 you know academics in the Western world
0:04:38 for example the second thing we're gonna
0:04:40 talk about are the problems with
0:04:43 liberalism even as identified by
0:04:45 liberals themselves some of the issues
0:04:49 when you put liberalism and practical
0:04:51 implementation what are some of the
0:04:53 issues with liberalism and number three
0:04:56 we're going to be talking about the but
0:04:59 it's a big word here I'm going to try
0:05:01 and simplify it when we get to it but
0:05:02 the epistemological problem of him of
0:05:04 liberalism meaning how do we get to know
0:05:07 if the liberalism is true can we prove
0:05:09 it's true and so on and I've done an
0:05:11 essay on this you can check on salamba
0:05:13 aldo UK on a publication section this
0:05:15 was what I focused on in the essay the
0:05:19 epistemological problem of liberalism so
0:05:22 these are the three things that
0:05:23 obviously will link this to Islamic
0:05:24 society and so on so just to get started
0:05:27 with this in terms of liberalism in
0:05:31 terms of the academic discussions that
0:05:34 are had by academics you could say there
0:05:38 have been many different kinds of
0:05:39 critiques levied against liberals by
0:05:42 different Western scholars for example
0:05:47 very famous is the Marxist critique of
0:05:50 economic liberalism the Marxist critique
0:05:53 of economic liberalism and liberalism
0:05:56 itself should not be seen as one
0:05:57 monolithic thing it's divided into
0:05:59 social you know some people to make
0:06:02 things simple divided into social
0:06:04 economic and political yeah so we have
0:06:07 Marxist critiques utilitarian critiques
0:06:09 I mean even Jeremy Bentham himself
0:06:11 attacked what would be then referred to
0:06:14 as liberalism but what's become quite
0:06:17 popular nowadays is something called the
0:06:19 communitarian critique of liberalism
0:06:23 communitarian now who are the
0:06:24 communitarians the communitarians are
0:06:27 basically a group of scholars like
0:06:29 Charles Taylor and Michael Sandel who
0:06:33 who say that liberalism is problematic
0:06:35 because it references the individual in
0:06:39 abstract ation in other words human
0:06:42 beings are not individualistic by
0:06:45 psychological and social necessity there
0:06:48 are more communal creatures hence the
0:06:51 name communitarian so they say that why
0:06:53 do we give they ask the question why do
0:06:55 we give primacy why do we prioritize the
0:06:58 individual over and above for instance
0:07:03 familial or communal units why is it
0:07:07 that the individual they ask yes is
0:07:10 prioritized through human rights because
0:07:13 if you look at for example view and
0:07:14 Human Rights of the 30 articles of the
0:07:16 UN Human Rights you'll find that most of
0:07:19 them if not all of them are centered
0:07:21 around individual human rights you don't
0:07:24 really find as much emphasis if any
0:07:27 emphasis at all on communal or fam
0:07:30 familial rights you don't find that so
0:07:33 the the communitarians would argue this
0:07:35 is problem this is problematic because
0:07:37 why is it that you've been given why is
0:07:41 it that you have this false
0:07:42 presupposition that we are autonomous
0:07:46 and independent when in fact the truth
0:07:48 is were not autonomous and we're totally
0:07:51 interdependent we are dependent
0:07:53 therefore and so this is the the
0:07:57 argument and say that as a result of
0:07:58 that this causes bald decadence and
0:08:00 decay because when you prioritize the
0:08:05 individual over and above the family
0:08:07 units and the communal units then what
0:08:09 you have is you have the individuals
0:08:13 atomized this is the word they use
0:08:15 atomized in society almost as if to say
0:08:18 that there is no common linkage between
0:08:20 those individuals now live the
0:08:23 individual individual ists the Liberals
0:08:25 they come back and they say but this is
0:08:27 not necessarily the case you can still
0:08:29 give preference to the individual whilst
0:08:32 at the same time you know considering
0:08:35 communal linkages etc but the case
0:08:39 stands for the communitarian
0:08:41 they say look look at society they look
0:08:44 at sociological statistics say
0:08:47 for instance the amount of people the
0:08:49 amount of rape that's going on the
0:08:50 amount of murder that's going on the
0:08:51 amount of XY is that all of those say
0:08:53 the destruction of the family unit and
0:08:55 so on you know and they look at these
0:08:57 indicators as indicative of the
0:09:00 individualistic effect if you like this
0:09:03 is the problem of liberalism they would
0:09:04 say and there's there's an additional
0:09:07 interesting criticism which is that I
0:09:12 think this was made by Michael Sandel
0:09:14 where he said that look liberalism
0:09:17 claims to be neutral it claims to be
0:09:20 neutral so in other words by nature it
0:09:23 doesn't try to favor any of any
0:09:26 particular religious or moral ethic it
0:09:28 doesn't do that but by given individuals
0:09:31 rights and defining what those rights
0:09:34 are you've introduced an ethic here
0:09:37 which is biased by definition so you
0:09:40 can't maintain a neutral thesis and at
0:09:43 the same time say well individuals
0:09:46 should be given preference because this
0:09:47 would be a contradiction and this is a
0:09:49 very good argument it's a very strong
0:09:51 argument because how could it be the
0:09:53 case that liberalism is on one hand
0:09:57 neutral objective meaning it's looking
0:10:01 at all things equally to use libertarian
0:10:05 jargon but at the same time it's giving
0:10:09 more preference to individual rights
0:10:11 over and above familial and communal
0:10:12 rights this is not a neutral objective
0:10:15 stance and so someone like Michael
0:10:17 Sandel will say there should be a
0:10:21 process of arbitration whereby all of
0:10:25 the ideas even if they are moral ideas
0:10:27 or if they're religious ideas are put on
0:10:30 the table and there is a democratization
0:10:32 of ideas in this sense and then a
0:10:35 process of arbitration where we choose
0:10:38 which ones we think are the right ones
0:10:41 or the correct ones and so on because
0:10:42 the neutral thesis cannot be maintained
0:10:45 so if the mutual caesars cannot be
0:10:47 maintained you might as well put
0:10:49 everything on the table and let people
0:10:51 decide and this is a very strong
0:10:54 argument but of course this is where you
0:10:56 find tensions between secularism lip
0:10:59 and democracy because we always think
0:11:03 that liberal democracies liberalism and
0:11:07 democracy work hand-in-hand like a hand
0:11:09 in a glove but there are tensions
0:11:11 between liberalism and democracy and
0:11:14 secularism and this is one of them you
0:11:16 can have in liberal democracies as
0:11:18 possible and you can have Democratic
0:11:19 tyrannies that's also possible so it's
0:11:22 not necessarily the case that just
0:11:24 because you have liberalism that you
0:11:26 should have democracy and secularism as
0:11:28 always following suit like a shadow of
0:11:29 the intellectual ideology no it doesn't
0:11:32 work like that and so therefore we see
0:11:36 here some tensions because secularism is
0:11:41 the you're divorcing the state and
0:11:44 religion and the church but according to
0:11:47 these kinds of communitarian theses you
0:11:50 shouldn't divorce them because by
0:11:52 divorcing them
0:11:53 you're not giving that human being in
0:11:56 society an ability to express their
0:12:00 identity in the most democratic or
0:12:02 liberal way possible you can't tell
0:12:04 someone look be yourself do whatever you
0:12:06 want to do and then they tell you look
0:12:08 I'm a Muslim I'm a Christian I'm a Jew
0:12:10 and so on and you say but hold on all of
0:12:12 that stuff we don't want to hear about
0:12:13 it but that's that is what defines the
0:12:15 individual so communitarian would say
0:12:17 this is a contradiction you can't tell
0:12:20 me to express myself but then when I
0:12:22 come to do so through religious
0:12:24 terminologies for example or phraseology
0:12:26 you tell me to be quiet
0:12:28 and this is why secularism is
0:12:31 problematic from a liberal perspective
0:12:33 and that's never thought about we always
0:12:36 saw a wise secular and secularism
0:12:37 problematic then we go into religious
0:12:39 jargon oh because it goes against God's
0:12:41 law and whatnot we don't even need to go
0:12:42 there we can we can show you how
0:12:45 secularism is problematic from a liberal
0:12:48 perspective when was the last time you
0:12:50 heard that ever being said by someone
0:12:51 right or liberalism is problematic from
0:12:54 a democratic perspective and so on these
0:12:58 tensions exist so with this I'm going to
0:13:02 move on swiftly to the next part of this
0:13:06 discussion which i think is an easy way
0:13:08 to segue now because we talked about
0:13:10 what are the problems in implementing
0:13:14 with liberalism and I've already kind of
0:13:17 touched upon this is that you have these
0:13:20 superfluous notions these abstracted
0:13:23 notions that only makes sense in the
0:13:26 theoretical world and one once you put
0:13:28 them in the real world they don't really
0:13:30 mean much I'll give you a couple of
0:13:31 examples one of them is freedom
0:13:35 obviously a liberal believes in freedom
0:13:37 yes so what is liberalism say look is
0:13:39 freedom to do whatever I want to do if
0:13:41 you go on the dictionary the Oxford
0:13:43 Dictionary say go define freedom the
0:13:46 ability to do whatever you want to do
0:13:48 the ability to do whatever you want to
0:13:51 do
0:13:51 that's impossible for any human being
0:13:54 it's a utopian concept that has no
0:13:58 bearing on the real world how can you do
0:14:00 ever you want to do you're always going
0:14:02 to be curtailed by some kind of
0:14:04 environment or otherwise extraneous
0:14:06 variable yes if you go to the whatever
0:14:10 example you want to give them and
0:14:12 everything you're cut you can't do ever
0:14:13 you want to do simple as that okay you
0:14:16 cannot do whatever you want to do that's
0:14:18 a false notion so some define it like
0:14:22 Nozick and others like some liberal
0:14:24 thinkers as freedom from coercion so no
0:14:29 one is stopping you to do certain things
0:14:32 yes
0:14:33 and obviously this links to ideas of
0:14:35 tyranny and obviously all those things
0:14:37 let me give you a full experiment to
0:14:40 show you the problematic nature of this
0:14:42 kind of conception let me give you two
0:14:45 case studies you have case study one
0:14:47 somebody is there and you say listen
0:14:53 you're gonna do what I want or I'm gonna
0:14:57 shoot you I'm gonna kill you yes
0:14:59 what would you refer to that person as a
0:15:01 slave yes because they do what they want
0:15:04 this is this is exactly how you make a
0:15:07 slave a slave right if he doesn't do
0:15:10 what you want he's there consequences
0:15:11 death for example okay so it's that
0:15:16 person coerced yes because you're you're
0:15:20 telling them do this or else this you're
0:15:22 blackmailing them yes what if I say
0:15:25 you live in a very impoverished country
0:15:28 and you have someone who's totally
0:15:30 disenfranchised and the only option they
0:15:34 have is to work that's the only option
0:15:37 otherwise they're gonna die you know the
0:15:40 only option they have is to work
0:15:42 otherwise you got a transnational
0:15:43 company comes in and says do do this
0:15:47 make this jumper you're gonna work 12
0:15:50 hours 18 hours if not we're gonna fire
0:15:52 you yeah you're finished so what's
0:15:56 really the difference there's a lack of
0:15:58 options on both of those in both of
0:16:01 those examples you could argue well the
0:16:03 second person has some degree of
0:16:04 autonomy here but what what is that
0:16:06 degree of all time you know in both
0:16:08 cases the person doesn't do what you
0:16:10 want to do they're gonna die so the
0:16:12 economic conditions led one person yes
0:16:16 to be forced or coerced in effect into a
0:16:20 certain reality we're in in the first
0:16:23 example obviously the the violent
0:16:27 ramifications led them to do what they
0:16:29 want to do so what is freedom then we
0:16:31 really have to reassess if you ask a
0:16:33 liberal what is freedom they won't give
0:16:35 you a comprehensive answer what is the
0:16:36 freedom you're fighting for what is the
0:16:39 freedom you're dying for they won't give
0:16:40 you a comprehensive answer they can't
0:16:43 give you a comprehensive answer because
0:16:44 as soon as you put this idea of freedom
0:16:47 into the real world although all of
0:16:49 those questions come into play we're not
0:16:51 free simple as that
0:16:52 like Rousseau said man is born free but
0:16:54 everywhere in Chains there is no exact
0:16:57 freedom here there is only some freedoms
0:17:01 and that's all there will ever be right
0:17:05 another problematic notion is equality
0:17:08 say we were born free we are born equal
0:17:13 what you mean were born equal seriously
0:17:16 this is it's problematic on every level
0:17:20 we're definitely not born equal 100% not
0:17:24 born equal by every psychological and
0:17:26 scientific standard that's the one thing
0:17:28 we can guarantee that we're not born
0:17:30 equal anything else you can guarantee
0:17:31 but we're not born equal unless you have
0:17:34 twins that's maybe one case study where
0:17:37 okay there's some son
0:17:39 to be said about that but in most cases
0:17:41 were born completely unequal
0:17:44 psychologically physiologically
0:17:46 biologically emotionally totally unequal
0:17:49 we live in different parts of the world
0:17:51 come from different families with
0:17:54 different economic provisions some are
0:17:57 born with diseases some others are not
0:17:59 born with diseases some are born like
0:18:01 this and some are even John Locke
0:18:03 admitted this himself and his true
0:18:05 treatises of government that he wrote
0:18:08 one of the first books to kind of talk
0:18:11 about the liberal position so what do we
0:18:14 actually mean we were born equal
0:18:15 it's just what do we mean by that how
0:18:19 are we born equal so they've realized
0:18:21 the problem with this it's a problematic
0:18:23 notion what do we mean by equality so
0:18:27 they've had to refine it and say look
0:18:28 there's a difference between equality of
0:18:30 opportunity and equality of outcome yes
0:18:34 and what we're trying to do is secure an
0:18:37 equality of opportunity not an equality
0:18:40 of outcome or some would say yes we want
0:18:43 equality of opportunity and equality of
0:18:45 outcome but that's the discussion
0:18:47 amongst themselves what equality of
0:18:49 opportunity is in and of itself
0:18:50 impossible what do you mean by equality
0:18:53 of opportunity what do you really mean
0:18:56 by the way do we all have the same
0:18:58 should we all have the same
0:19:00 opportunities because when you start
0:19:02 bringing in the exception then you're
0:19:06 gonna see too many exceptions as a
0:19:07 disabled person they don't have the same
0:19:10 opportunities as the rest of us should
0:19:11 they have I mean when I came into this
0:19:13 university I'm sure you have like a
0:19:15 ramps and and and and and lifts and
0:19:18 whatever for disabled people that are
0:19:19 not the same for people that have
0:19:22 functioning fully functional abilities
0:19:26 that's not equality of opportunity
0:19:29 should we have blind people driving
0:19:31 buses that's not that's not equality of
0:19:34 opportunity so uh we should have a
0:19:35 quality of opportunity there for blind
0:19:38 people should drive buses knows we have
0:19:42 come
0:19:43 there are so many examples of where it
0:19:46 makes sense for there not to be an
0:19:47 equality of opportunity so then we start
0:19:50 questioning the whole preset yes we
0:19:54 start questioning the whole precept to
0:19:55 what extent should we have equality
0:19:57 opportunity and usually a generally
0:20:01 accepted rule or maxim is where we don't
0:20:04 define the exception by the rule so
0:20:06 you're not going to accept the rule by
0:20:07 the exception when you have so many
0:20:09 exceptions like this in society then the
0:20:12 rule becomes undefined now it's
0:20:15 problematic and that's why they talk
0:20:17 about this amongst themselves how can we
0:20:18 maintain an egalitarian Equal
0:20:22 Opportunity premise when we're doing all
0:20:24 of these things yes not everyone can
0:20:28 vote children can't vote and so on
0:20:30 there's so many examples why they have
0:20:32 reasons for it but that's the that's
0:20:34 that's the whole point if you have
0:20:35 reasons for it's not equality of
0:20:36 opportunity
0:20:37 so these are some implementable things
0:20:41 which are frankly contradictory when put
0:20:44 into implementation and shows you the
0:20:49 feeble nature of liberalism
0:20:51 especially when putting contre
0:20:54 distinction with other ideologies like
0:20:57 democracy and secularism is feeble
0:21:00 natures what are you actually trying to
0:21:02 say all of your all of your precepts
0:21:06 when put into implementation they change
0:21:09 completely but usually when I have a
0:21:13 discussion about liberalism I don't
0:21:14 mention all of those points I mentioned
0:21:16 my main argument with liberalism is not
0:21:18 the communitarian argument the
0:21:21 ontological argument the sociological
0:21:23 it's not any of those things I've just
0:21:24 mentioned these are good arguments yes
0:21:27 you can use them but the argument I use
0:21:29 is what you call the epistemological
0:21:30 argument and this is a very important
0:21:35 argument and that's why I explained it
0:21:36 to you ok what I'm saying is why should
0:21:41 we believe in liberalism now someone
0:21:49 will say because it gives people all of
0:21:50 those things we just said freedom of
0:21:52 opportunity freedom of expression and
0:21:53 all those things someone other people
0:21:55 say what are the alternatives
0:21:57 all of the other alternatives you know
0:21:58 liberalism stops bloodshed it stops
0:22:00 people from killing each other allows
0:22:02 cohesion and harmony Allah no problem I
0:22:04 agree and we are we are for all of those
0:22:07 things and by the way there is an
0:22:09 intersection ality like an if you had a
0:22:11 Venn diagram or for example from an
0:22:13 Islamic perspective all the things we
0:22:15 believe in and all the things that are
0:22:16 are in liberal theory there is a you
0:22:20 know a flesh that joins if you like the
0:22:23 two kinds of ethics it's not like
0:22:25 everything we believe in is completely
0:22:28 in opposition to liberalism there's a
0:22:31 lot of things we agree with them
0:22:32 anti-corruption transparency in
0:22:34 government transparency generally
0:22:35 speaking you know tolerance for other
0:22:38 people of other religions and so on I
0:22:40 mean we agree with all of those things
0:22:41 in the Quran like Rahab Dean you know
0:22:43 there is no compulsion in religion we
0:22:45 are not against those principles you
0:22:47 know but what we're saying is that why
0:22:49 should we take this ideology on
0:22:51 wholesale as if it is the truth because
0:22:55 that's the way it's being marketed to us
0:22:58 now someone will say look I mean this is
0:23:00 a sentiment that's kind of widespread in
0:23:04 Western circles and even now Eastern
0:23:07 circles as well that they try and keep
0:23:09 away from religion so look I don't want
0:23:11 anything to do with religion we've had
0:23:13 the religious experiment in the West and
0:23:15 it went terribly bad look what the
0:23:17 church did it inhibited all the
0:23:18 rationality and freedom of expression
0:23:20 and thought and we don't need this again
0:23:22 yes and their liberalism gives us a
0:23:25 mechanism out of this yes it gives us a
0:23:28 mechanism out of all of this so we need
0:23:30 liberalism to ensure rationality etc and
0:23:33 to ensure expression and ideas are
0:23:35 continually debated in public and
0:23:39 whatnot that's a fair enough argument
0:23:42 but here's the problem liberalism itself
0:23:45 can be seen as a religion what is
0:23:47 religion now obviously if you look in
0:23:50 the dictionary definition of what
0:23:52 religion is they will connect it with
0:23:54 things like God and or some sacred thing
0:23:57 that is worshipped or so on
0:23:59 but the truth is if you look
0:24:02 terminologically at the word religion
0:24:04 and some of the definitions of the word
0:24:08 religion and for example
0:24:10 history sociology and so on you'll find
0:24:13 that religion has more inclusive
0:24:15 definitions any system of life a social
0:24:19 structure an idea that explains the
0:24:21 meaning of life
0:24:22 for example Brian and I'll try and put
0:24:25 his maybe his his reference in the
0:24:27 description box to this video he has
0:24:30 like a comprehensive definition like
0:24:32 this in the book called the world
0:24:34 religions or something of that nature so
0:24:35 if you have such an inclusive definition
0:24:38 which includes fundamentally the
0:24:40 ideologies then really liberalism is a
0:24:42 religion because they say an
0:24:45 organization of ideas which allows
0:24:47 people to live a life in a certain way
0:24:49 and to think of themselves ontologically
0:24:52 in a certain context in a certain way so
0:24:56 really and truly from an Islamic
0:24:57 perspective especially I mean the word
0:24:59 in the way of life the word Deen means
0:25:02 way of life right so liberalism is a
0:25:05 Dean of some sorts in the Arabic
0:25:07 language certainly from our conception
0:25:09 is and that's what we have to think of
0:25:11 as relieved realism is a Dean with with
0:25:14 Co ID and a soul and fora and all of
0:25:18 these things it has fundamentals has
0:25:20 everything liberalism is a Dean and
0:25:22 we're looking at some of the or soul now
0:25:26 and thinking okay those all the
0:25:27 foundational premises of liberalism I
0:25:29 think there's some problems with the
0:25:30 also and I'll give you a few examples if
0:25:33 you look at the initial works of people
0:25:37 like John Locke who who is probably the
0:25:42 most prominent liberal who ever lived
0:25:43 and one of the most influential men who
0:25:45 ever lived
0:25:45 yeah he wrote a book called the truth
0:25:47 two treatises of government you'll find
0:25:49 that in his explanation of how what are
0:25:53 we basing liberalism on he based her on
0:25:56 you could say two or three different
0:25:57 principles two of them I'm going to
0:25:58 outline to you now one of them the idea
0:26:01 of being born equal and free is taken
0:26:03 from theology says god-given rights
0:26:07 there's no doubt about it John Locke
0:26:10 believed in God he believed in by the
0:26:11 way he was not a Trinitarian which is
0:26:13 quite interesting yeah he rejected the
0:26:15 Trinity it's quite clever man yes he
0:26:19 rejected it but he still believed in God
0:26:21 so
0:26:22 John Locke he based his philosophy on
0:26:26 two premises one of them is called the
0:26:29 hedonistic principle some say hedonistic
0:26:33 tomato tomorrow no problem yeah
0:26:35 what is heaviness what is hedonism
0:26:38 hedonism is the idea it's really like
0:26:41 pain and pleasure yes its pain and
0:26:44 pleasure so you're trying to maximize
0:26:46 pain you're trying to maximize pleasure
0:26:49 yes not maximize pain and you're trying
0:26:53 to minimize pain that's the eye that is
0:26:55 really it yeah and the other thing is
0:26:58 that we're in down these equal and free
0:27:00 rights from God this tradition of
0:27:03 hedonism or hedonism was continued up
0:27:07 until for example John Stuart Mill
0:27:09 another very important figurehead in
0:27:13 liberalism so what do liberals based
0:27:16 their philosophy on the idea that you
0:27:20 yourself as an individual have the best
0:27:23 understanding of yourself and what makes
0:27:27 you happy and therefore you have to
0:27:30 minimize as much of life's pains as
0:27:34 possible and maximize as much of life's
0:27:36 pleasures as possible so long as you
0:27:39 don't harm anyone else and this is the
0:27:40 hump principle that John Prince John
0:27:42 Stuart Mill put into play so long as you
0:27:44 don't harm anyone else
0:27:45 this is liberalism so long as you don't
0:27:47 harm anyone else through fraud or
0:27:50 forgery because that's an invalid type
0:27:52 of action in liberalism that's that's
0:27:55 basically it but if we take a step back
0:27:58 and say but hold on okay no problem I
0:28:00 understand where you're coming from but
0:28:03 the issue is this the issue is how can
0:28:06 you prove the hedonistic principle as a
0:28:11 true morally objective moral
0:28:16 I'm not talking about something you feel
0:28:19 as a subjective experience where you say
0:28:22 I like this and I don't like everyone
0:28:24 can have their own subjective beliefs
0:28:26 but for my morally realist perspective
0:28:29 there's no way of proving this is the
0:28:31 truth so there is a degree of axial
0:28:35 Massa tea
0:28:37 which means an axiom is something you
0:28:39 believe in without evidence that's what
0:28:41 an axiom is so there is a degree of
0:28:43 axial Massa T involved in believing the
0:28:47 hedonistic principle you believe it
0:28:49 without evidence basically so you
0:28:52 believe in a whole philosophy a whole
0:28:55 political philosophy a whole ideology
0:28:56 which you've based your whole Western
0:29:00 Empire on but really when we get down to
0:29:04 the first principles we realize there is
0:29:07 nothing proving that at all it is a
0:29:11 subjective value judgment of a man an
0:29:15 English man named John Locke and then
0:29:17 his disciples and followers and those
0:29:20 who expounded upon his philosophy who
0:29:22 lived in the 17th and 18th century he
0:29:25 died in 18m this is where you're taking
0:29:28 your ideology from so hedonism has to be
0:29:34 looked at very closely epistemologically
0:29:38 are we saying that hedonism
0:29:40 yes is true is a truth just in the same
0:29:47 way as two plus two equals four is true
0:29:49 yes that's a mathematical truth you can
0:29:52 argue otherwise some people have by the
0:29:54 way we're not going going to go into
0:29:56 that much deep philosophy today but just
0:29:58 in the same way as two plus two equals
0:30:00 obviously the Christians you know one
0:30:02 plus one plus one I'm not gonna make any
0:30:03 jokes here but but you know I mean but
0:30:07 two plus two equals four is a
0:30:08 mathematical truth yes so can we say
0:30:13 that hedonism the idea that there's pain
0:30:16 and pleasure and they constitute you for
0:30:18 us basically the ultimate God that's
0:30:21 what Bentham called them and I was so
0:30:24 Paulo I was actually amazed when I read
0:30:25 this
0:30:26 he says you have two lords Bentham
0:30:28 utilitarian he Bentham was a great
0:30:32 contributor to the liberal tradition
0:30:33 even though he didn't agree with it he
0:30:36 said there's two Lords pain and pleasure
0:30:38 oh you know when he said this I
0:30:39 remembered and the karana sophora item
0:30:42 and it's AHA they allow how I have you
0:30:44 seen the one who must take his desires
0:30:46 as his good
0:30:47 so how Allah everything
0:30:49 is in Yanni is in the Quran my fella in
0:30:53 shape Allah has put everything in there
0:30:56 the same person who existed a long time
0:30:59 ago now he's justified his his his
0:31:03 animalism right his head anism so I
0:31:08 don't know if animalism is the right
0:31:09 word by the way
0:31:10 yes well that's that's the point here
0:31:13 yeah so you can't prove that liberalism
0:31:16 is true they'll say we know that a lot
0:31:17 of them will agree to that
0:31:18 I was I was reading for example John
0:31:20 Charvet I think his name he's got a book
0:31:23 talking about the UN it's called
0:31:26 something like liberal humanism the
0:31:28 liberal project and basically he's
0:31:29 saying we should use the UN to
0:31:31 liberalize basically the illiberal the a
0:31:35 liberal and he uses three or four
0:31:37 examples of a liberals and one of the
0:31:39 main ones he uses in his book is Muslim
0:31:42 are Muslims Orthodox traditional Muslims
0:31:43 we need to liberalize them we need to
0:31:45 make them think like us liberalize them
0:31:47 and this is what I'm gonna move on to
0:31:49 the effect on Muslims you see just like
0:31:54 back in the days where people used to
0:31:57 worship statues yes these to worship and
0:32:01 even now I mean they used to worship
0:32:03 start and they still worship statues you
0:32:05 know studies in what's going on here man
0:32:06 we've gone past this you don't want you
0:32:08 in worship is that you why do we worship
0:32:10 a sauna my statue
0:32:12 yes why are you doing that you can't
0:32:14 help you econ you know do anything for
0:32:16 you and you ask them since because my
0:32:18 forefathers did it yeah my four foot
0:32:21 nowadays if you ask that person if you
0:32:24 ask them you know why you worship rings
0:32:26 - have you got any evidence for this -
0:32:27 say no I don't really have an evidence
0:32:28 but my forefathers were doing it except
0:32:30 trying and they're just so you know
0:32:33 deeply involved in the culture of the
0:32:35 day that is difficult to break away from
0:32:37 it to the statue but we look at those
0:32:40 historical moments we think that's very
0:32:42 weird but the truth is history is
0:32:45 present because that's exactly what
0:32:47 liberals do the same as axiomatic
0:32:52 applies you cannot prove that that that
0:32:55 particular statue can help you in the
0:32:58 same way you can't prove that liberalism
0:33:00 is true in the same exact way from an
0:33:02 episode
0:33:03 perspective there's no difference you
0:33:05 worshiping that statue is the same as
0:33:07 basically believing in ableism what's
0:33:09 the difference if you look at first
0:33:12 principles you can't prove they're both
0:33:13 unprovable they're unprovable so from
0:33:16 that perspective it's a religion it must
0:33:20 be seen as a religion and those
0:33:22 individuals now and maybe now maybe you
0:33:24 know some of them maybe I know some of
0:33:25 them secular liberal liberal minded kind
0:33:28 of individuals you look I'm going to
0:33:29 religion sinlessly you are into religion
0:33:31 man say I've had enough smoking
0:33:33 cigarette you know and they're with
0:33:35 their friends outside of a club and you
0:33:37 tell them less sucky let you know have
0:33:39 fear of Allah you come on is Haram what
0:33:42 you do and they smoking I'm going to
0:33:47 religion you know I'm trying saying say
0:33:49 wait a minute hold on man you are
0:33:50 religious guy you're a liberal you
0:33:52 believe in liberal principles you say
0:33:54 why you're not into religion because you
0:33:56 know it's done this and it's done that
0:33:57 and I just believe in this I believe we
0:33:59 should all be free and I believe in this
0:34:01 and I believe it there should be no
0:34:02 constraints and this what you're just
0:34:04 giving me your religious principles and
0:34:06 you're telling me you're not into
0:34:07 religion these are religious principles
0:34:10 let's change the language they don't
0:34:11 like that language because it makes them
0:34:13 look like going back into the dark ages
0:34:15 but they have to know that they're
0:34:17 already in the dark ages and there's no
0:34:19 necessary link by the way between
0:34:21 technology and liberalism there's
0:34:23 absolutely none because just because the
0:34:25 Western world found you know there was
0:34:28 the Industrial Revolution followed by
0:34:29 many other events that happened in
0:34:30 history in the 17th and 18th century
0:34:33 which coincided with the liberal project
0:34:35 it doesn't mean that liberalism was the
0:34:37 cause for in any of that in other words
0:34:39 some people have this false assumption
0:34:43 when you're looking at the supposed
0:34:44 colonial reality when you're looking at
0:34:46 Americans or English people or French
0:34:48 people say look they have clean streets
0:34:50 they have technology in their countries
0:34:52 and so on this must be because of what
0:34:54 they believe in what's what's that got
0:34:57 to do with what they believe in go to
0:34:58 Japan they've got even cleaner streets
0:35:00 and they've got even bigger cities
0:35:02 they're not the same as those
0:35:04 individuals technology is something
0:35:06 completely independent completely
0:35:08 independent from ideology that's the
0:35:11 whole point of technology is something
0:35:12 which is independent so you can't link
0:35:14 those two things look you know I
0:35:16 we've become liberal all of these good
0:35:18 things have happened to us there is no
0:35:20 necessary link correlation does not
0:35:23 entail causation that's one of the
0:35:25 fallacies they use so don't connect
0:35:28 those two things together and as we were
0:35:31 in Turkey obviously the best people that
0:35:34 should know this all the Turks
0:35:35 themselves yes what do you mean by that
0:35:38 man are you trying to be political are
0:35:41 you trying to get us arrested no no I'm
0:35:43 not gonna go anyway don't worry I'm not
0:35:46 gonna say anything controversial but
0:35:47 what I'm gonna say is that think of the
0:35:50 history of the Turkish right I mean if
0:35:53 we wanted to make this false argument
0:35:55 and it is a false argument I would say
0:35:57 well actually Turkey and its history
0:35:58 indicates to us the closer they have
0:36:00 been to Quran and Sunnah the more
0:36:01 technology they've had and the moment
0:36:03 literally successful they've been look
0:36:05 at 1453 there was no liberalism dead
0:36:07 tell me 1453 what happened
0:36:10 well Mohammed fat yeah go ahead I'll
0:36:12 give it away
0:36:15 yes inside this is Constantinople yes
0:36:18 Istanbul is Constantinople 1453 this was
0:36:22 before John Locke was even born
0:36:26 there was no liberalism at this time
0:36:29 yeah you can't say well we know the
0:36:30 Turks we we were very successful because
0:36:32 of liberalism 1453 was one of the
0:36:34 biggest military successes of all time
0:36:36 in all of history and there was no
0:36:39 liberalism involved in that so we're not
0:36:41 going to make a false argument here and
0:36:43 say that just because you are Muslim you
0:36:46 know typical a.m. they will have been an
0:36:48 S Alice in the Quran some days these are
0:36:52 the data which we alternate between the
0:36:54 people some days that the this the
0:36:56 non-muslims will be successful and other
0:36:57 days the Muslims will be successful it's
0:36:59 nothing to do that has something to do
0:37:01 with ideology to some our spiritual
0:37:03 perspective but from their secular
0:37:05 purpose but I have nothing to do with it
0:37:06 so they can't use that argument right
0:37:08 but now there are two things if you
0:37:11 really think about it deeply if you
0:37:13 wanted to compile an exhaustive list of
0:37:16 how they're trying to liberalize us it
0:37:20 boils down to two things
0:37:21 median education when we're in a
0:37:23 university yeah I thought about this
0:37:25 quite deeply yeah I thought really it
0:37:27 boils down to two things
0:37:28 median education
0:37:30 and the final message I want to leave to
0:37:32 you because I don't I want to make this
0:37:33 into an interactive session shot a lot
0:37:35 because we're gonna bring D everyone up
0:37:37 so we can have a question-and-answer but
0:37:40 a final message you want to put to the
0:37:41 people here today is that look
0:37:46 they couldn't colonize the Turks and
0:37:51 they were by the way if you look at the
0:37:52 old history and the records they were
0:37:55 very angry about this no jealous there
0:37:58 are times in history if you read the
0:37:59 colonial histories of the English they
0:38:01 were very jet if they were very jealous
0:38:03 basically of the Turkish people because
0:38:06 of what they were able to do especially
0:38:07 in the black 15th century 16 when it was
0:38:10 a strong Empire
0:38:11 yeah very jealous and they were still
0:38:13 you know at this time because the
0:38:15 English they only started to become
0:38:17 quite powerful maybe in the 17th century
0:38:20 yes the Age of Discovery and so on when
0:38:22 they found they found land yeah yes it
0:38:26 was considerable chunk of land United
0:38:28 States and you know it can even all
0:38:30 those thing but they found land yeah the
0:38:33 point I'm making to you is they couldn't
0:38:36 colonize the Turks militarily but we're
0:38:42 in a war in a point in history now where
0:38:44 they're trying to colonize the Turks
0:38:46 ideologically and I believe I'm sorry to
0:38:49 say looking at the data from Pew
0:38:51 Research other things
0:38:51 I feel like now Turkey is at a
0:38:54 crossroads and so is the rest of the
0:38:56 Muslim world where colonization might
0:38:59 not be happening militarily by it might
0:39:01 very well be happening ideologically and
0:39:03 they're using media and they're using
0:39:05 education to false they're false to
0:39:08 force their false gods on you and
0:39:11 they're not even telling you they're not
0:39:12 even giving you a reason why to believe
0:39:14 in that that thesis why to believe that
0:39:17 we are the you know we are in charge of
0:39:19 ourselves and we know the best and and
0:39:21 we are our own gods basically they want
0:39:23 you to be your own God but we are saying
0:39:26 to you don't know we believe in let
0:39:28 Allah and Allah we believe in that
0:39:29 there's no God worthy of worship except
0:39:32 for Allah yes and whenever we believe in
0:39:37 that like I'll do inside and his makan
0:39:40 demise an interesting thing he says that
0:39:41 when I when I
0:39:44 realization has that belief and they
0:39:47 don't fear death because and necessarily
0:39:49 a necessary result of believing in Islam
0:39:51 is that you care less about this life
0:39:53 yeah and by extension you care less
0:39:55 about death and what that does to a
0:39:57 community and society is to be honest
0:39:59 with you it makes it more brave and the
0:40:03 more braver society is the more
0:40:05 dangerous it is to other societies in
0:40:07 the sense that it cannot be manipulated
0:40:09 or messed around on an international
0:40:12 level yeah so they're afraid of that if
0:40:14 you go back to lie till I hit allah
0:40:15 muhammad rasool allah you will have an
0:40:18 advantage from that perspective
0:40:21 otherwise let the colonisation begin
0:40:25 salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa again
0:40:29 [Applause]