الليبيرالية دين القرن الواحد والعشرين محمد حجاب - The Liberal Religion (2020-10-16) #

0:00:03 [Applause]
0:00:08 very good
0:00:09 um very happy to be here first and
0:00:11 foremost i'm very happy to
0:00:13 see all those lovely faces all those
0:00:15 it's a very diverse hall
0:00:16 um amsterdam has a lot of muslims in it
0:00:19 and from different places of the world
0:00:21 so i'm very happy to be
0:00:22 in your beautiful country in your
0:00:24 beautiful city very clean by the way
0:00:27 you know um yes it's a very clean city
0:00:30 we're just kind of observing things and
0:00:32 good infrastructure
0:00:33 lots of things to talk about but to
0:00:36 delve right into the topic
0:00:37 um now i used to work as a teacher right
0:00:41 and
0:00:41 this is how we used to start every
0:00:42 lesson with high school kids we used to
0:00:45 have objectives
0:00:46 so i haven't kind of lost that touch
0:00:49 still got that a little bit these are
0:00:51 the objectives of today right i've got a
0:00:52 laser here
0:00:53 so the first objective is to know the
0:00:55 first principles basic history of
0:00:57 liberalism
0:00:58 number two is to compare islamic
0:01:00 traditionalism and obviously these are
0:01:01 all key words
0:01:02 right um and liberal contractarianism in
0:01:05 particular i'll tell you what that means
0:01:07 as well and number three is to be able
0:01:09 to make a judgment based on those
0:01:11 comparisons
0:01:12 now obviously here when we're doing a
0:01:15 comparative study
0:01:16 we're talking about two things
0:01:17 fundamentally we're talking about
0:01:18 similarities and differences
0:01:20 so when we talk about liberalism and
0:01:21 islam or islamic traditionalism
0:01:23 which will come to define um what we're
0:01:26 going to be doing
0:01:27 is we're going to be looking at not just
0:01:29 points of conflict and tension
0:01:31 but we are going to also be looking at
0:01:32 points of overlap
0:01:34 and i think that's the healthy approach
0:01:36 some people like the brother mentioned
0:01:38 masha'allah very
0:01:39 very well i really applaud his approach
0:01:42 on this one
0:01:43 um some people have this conversation in
0:01:46 a different kind of way in an
0:01:47 apologetic kind of way you know and that
0:01:50 is because as he's mentioned we're
0:01:51 minority groups in this country
0:01:52 so we're asked lots of questions all the
0:01:54 time we're asked about
0:01:57 things that relate to human rights right
0:01:59 and human rights have become
0:02:01 a buzzword right very important you know
0:02:04 after 1948 as we'll come to know
0:02:06 the convention the euro the the human
0:02:09 convention uh human rights convention
0:02:11 1948
0:02:12 with the 30 articles have become almost
0:02:14 like scripture
0:02:16 so questions like you know your religion
0:02:19 is against human rights for x y z reason
0:02:23 and this kind of trajectory that we're
0:02:25 introduced to which
0:02:27 assumes that we have to go from the
0:02:28 primitive kind of state that we're in
0:02:30 right now
0:02:31 and follow through the european um kind
0:02:34 of
0:02:34 progress trajectory that the christians
0:02:37 have already done
0:02:38 and we need to now follow the same kind
0:02:39 of you know the same kind of course
0:02:42 and of course there are a lot of
0:02:44 presuppositions and assumptions with
0:02:46 this which we are going to
0:02:47 discover but the first thing we need to
0:02:49 kind of talk about is
0:02:51 what is referred to as the
0:02:53 epistemological basis
0:02:55 okay of of of liberalism now it's a big
0:02:57 word what does this mean
0:02:58 epistemology is how you get to know
0:03:02 making sense of the world making sense
0:03:04 of making sense of the world
0:03:06 basically how do you know about the
0:03:08 world right
0:03:10 when we're talking about the
0:03:11 epistemological basis of liberalism in
0:03:13 particular we're talking about
0:03:15 what grounds liberalism what are the
0:03:18 assumptions of liberalism
0:03:20 what are the first principles of
0:03:21 liberalism now what are first principles
0:03:24 generally
0:03:25 you can break something down like for
0:03:27 example this thing here
0:03:29 or a mobile phone you can break it down
0:03:31 to smaller constituent parts
0:03:33 okay everything is broken down to basic
0:03:36 parts
0:03:36 those are the first principles of the
0:03:38 thing
0:03:40 so when we're talking about the first
0:03:41 principles we're asking if we break
0:03:43 liberalism down to the lowest common
0:03:45 multiple if you like
0:03:47 to its kind of basic building blocks
0:03:50 what are we left with
0:03:53 what what is the foundation by which
0:03:56 liberalism is built on you can't build
0:03:59 you know castles
0:04:00 on thin air can you right i mean i'm
0:04:02 sure
0:04:03 you guys know in amsterdam you've got
0:04:04 great infrastructure you've got
0:04:06 incredible engineers here right so it's
0:04:08 about foundation what are the
0:04:09 foundations
0:04:11 you know of liberalism and so to know
0:04:14 that you have to look at the basic
0:04:15 philosophy of liberalism
0:04:17 and if you look at that you'll find that
0:04:19 there are some themes which
0:04:21 are consistent and what are the themes
0:04:24 that are consistent basically
0:04:26 if you look at the works of all the way
0:04:28 from john locke who is
0:04:30 you could argue the founding father of
0:04:32 liberalism a man called john locke
0:04:34 you could say he's the founding father
0:04:35 of liberalism all the way down to john
0:04:37 rules
0:04:38 who was probably the martin last major
0:04:40 contributor of liberalism
0:04:42 you'll find that they believed in
0:04:44 something called the hedonistic
0:04:45 principle
0:04:46 now the hedonistic principle is simple
0:04:48 right it's about
0:04:49 pain and pleasure it's as simple as that
0:04:54 they argued that morality should be
0:04:57 premised predicated
0:04:59 aligned with pain
0:05:02 the human propensity to pain and
0:05:04 pleasure
0:05:05 and the idea was you should maximize as
0:05:09 much pleasure
0:05:10 as you can and you should minimize as
0:05:12 much pain
0:05:13 as possible this is the you know the
0:05:15 most desirable and moral way to live
0:05:18 this evolved as we'll find out into
0:05:20 something called utilitarianism
0:05:22 which is the literally the greatest good
0:05:24 for the greatest number
0:05:26 the greatest good for the greatest
0:05:28 number so eventually this made
0:05:30 this meant that we are trying to
0:05:32 maximize pleasure
0:05:34 for as many people as possible
0:05:37 and we are trying to also by extension
0:05:40 minimize pain for as many people as
0:05:42 possible that's the
0:05:44 the model that's point one number two is
0:05:47 you'll be quite surprised
0:05:50 is theology now if you look at the work
0:05:52 of for example john locke you'll find
0:05:54 that he often time makes reference to
0:05:57 god
0:05:58 he says we are created equal right
0:06:02 and remember when he was writing his
0:06:04 major book called the two treatises of
0:06:05 government
0:06:06 he was writing writing it to someone
0:06:08 called robert filmer and he was arguing
0:06:10 using the bible
0:06:11 so a lot of the things here and this is
0:06:13 an important point and i want everyone
0:06:15 to remember this right
0:06:16 a lot of the assumptions of liberalism
0:06:20 depend upon a theological backing
0:06:24 in other words the fact that we were
0:06:25 created equal
0:06:27 listen to the terminology here you're
0:06:30 created equal
0:06:32 that's taken from john locke it was put
0:06:34 into the declaration of independence it
0:06:36 was put into
0:06:38 the constitutions of major countries
0:06:39 like america and france
0:06:41 but it's taken from john locke he was a
0:06:43 theist he believed in god
0:06:45 now the question is now obviously in
0:06:47 europe especially western europe there's
0:06:48 a rise in atheism
0:06:50 but you still find that atheist
0:06:52 politicians
0:06:54 use the same kind of terminology we're
0:06:57 equal we're born equal
0:06:59 now the question is well john locke had
0:07:01 god to promise that one
0:07:03 he had god to predicate that on he had
0:07:06 the bible to go back on
0:07:08 but what do you have now as an atheist
0:07:10 how can you prove as an atheist
0:07:13 right or naturalism say or something
0:07:15 else
0:07:16 that you are born equal in fact on
0:07:18 naturalism
0:07:19 we're not born equal in fact on
0:07:21 naturalism we're fundamentally
0:07:23 unequal why because you've got someone
0:07:26 like me
0:07:27 who's about six foot six
0:07:30 yes and someone
0:07:35 else might be much shorter you have
0:07:38 black people and white people you have
0:07:41 people who are born in different
0:07:43 geographic places and have different
0:07:46 kind of opportunities as a result
0:07:48 people who are born disabled who people
0:07:51 who are born
0:07:52 conjoined to a twin people who are born
0:07:54 in this way and that naturalistically
0:07:56 where is the equality here
0:07:57 in fact one thing we can guarantee is
0:08:00 inequality even with twins you have
0:08:02 different fingerprints
0:08:03 everything on naturalism is unequal for
0:08:05 an atheist then to say look
0:08:07 we're born equal on what basis because
0:08:10 actually john locke was
0:08:11 arguing using god before so what are you
0:08:14 arguing base
0:08:15 basing what are you basing this on
0:08:18 so you know a straightforward question
0:08:20 to an atheist liberal
0:08:21 how can you prove that we're born equal
0:08:25 how are you going to do that in fact
0:08:26 evolution
0:08:29 the theory of darwinian evolution
0:08:32 would tell us and not just darwinian
0:08:35 evolution any other kind of
0:08:36 outgrowth of evolution would tell us
0:08:40 that actually we're not born equal in
0:08:41 fact it's survival of the fittest
0:08:43 that we are we have no tendency to
0:08:45 equality at all in fact we have a
0:08:47 tendency
0:08:48 to survival and reproduction so on what
0:08:51 basis are we born equal
0:08:53 you see this discussion
0:08:58 which has now permeated the mass media
0:09:02 and infiltrated almost every academic
0:09:05 circle in the west
0:09:07 is predicated on something
0:09:11 which has been dumped away in the
0:09:12 dustbin of history which is religion
0:09:15 for the most part i mean obviously
0:09:16 there's lots of christian liberals who
0:09:18 can justify this
0:09:19 or jewish liberals who can say well
0:09:21 actually we still believe in equality
0:09:22 but then we go to the bible and see what
0:09:24 kind of equality does the bible talk
0:09:25 about
0:09:27 seriously that's what we're gonna have
0:09:28 to do now how does the bible define
0:09:29 equality
0:09:30 that's the discussion now and that was
0:09:32 the discussion by the way that robert
0:09:33 filmer
0:09:34 and john locke were having in the
0:09:36 beginning they were both making
0:09:38 references to the story of genesis
0:09:40 and the bible and all these things
0:09:43 so what equality do you mean exactly and
0:09:46 that's important
0:09:48 now
0:09:52 we we talked about john rules this was a
0:09:53 guy who was
0:09:55 you know he's a very influential
0:09:56 individual
0:09:58 and he came he's one of the he's
0:10:00 probably one of the individuals who
0:10:02 people do their phds on now he's one of
0:10:06 the only individuals people still do
0:10:07 their phds on
0:10:09 in in the liberal thought he's probably
0:10:11 the last one they do that on he's like
0:10:13 in terms of contribution his
0:10:16 contribution was quite
0:10:17 big and he's probably the biggest you
0:10:20 know philosopher in the 20th century
0:10:22 in in europe and
0:10:26 he he argued for equality on a different
0:10:29 kind of basis we'll talk about how he
0:10:30 argued for equality
0:10:33 but this is my claim and i'll come back
0:10:34 to it and i want you to remember it
0:10:36 all liberal thinkers who argue on the
0:10:39 basis of equality
0:10:42 as a first principle either do so number
0:10:44 one religiously
0:10:46 as we've seen with john locke or number
0:10:48 two with reference and i'm going to use
0:10:49 my terms
0:10:50 blatantly here with reference to a type
0:10:53 of mythology
0:10:55 and you're going to say what are you
0:10:56 talking about how can you substantiate
0:10:58 that yes
0:10:59 there is such a thing as liberal myth
0:11:01 and we're going to just
0:11:02 uncover and unearth today what we mean
0:11:04 by liberal myth
0:11:06 because usually when sorry to say the
0:11:08 white man or let's say the westerner
0:11:11 when they use the word myth in circles
0:11:13 or if you look at vernacularly in the
0:11:14 dictionary
0:11:15 what do you let's be honest what do you
0:11:17 have in your mind when i say myth
0:11:19 you have some hindu god in your mind you
0:11:22 have greek gods in your mind that's what
0:11:23 you have
0:11:24 in your mind let's be honest right you
0:11:26 might even have genesis in your mind
0:11:28 you might even have quranic images in
0:11:30 your mind
0:11:31 why because that is the orientalist
0:11:33 understanding of what a myth is
0:11:36 it's a story of some sorts which is not
0:11:38 substantiated in real history isn't it
0:11:41 so to what extent is liberalism based on
0:11:44 a story which
0:11:45 is predicated on a real history that's
0:11:47 an important discussion
0:11:49 we'll come to it so
0:11:56 individualism is another kind of thing
0:11:59 which liberalism
0:12:02 i mean not all of liberalism but a large
0:12:04 part of it kind of promotes and this
0:12:06 individualism is
0:12:07 this the idea that
0:12:10 human beings know what's best for them
0:12:14 okay so individualism
0:12:17 it literally comes from individual right
0:12:20 that the individual knows what's best
0:12:21 for him if you abstract the individual
0:12:24 you take them out of their social
0:12:25 circles and their community and their
0:12:27 country and so on
0:12:28 that individual by themselves is better
0:12:31 off
0:12:31 knowing what's best for them and
0:12:33 obviously
0:12:34 even now to be honest to be fair there's
0:12:37 a new debate that's circling which is
0:12:40 individualism versus communitarianism
0:12:42 now communitarianism
0:12:43 you have people like michael sandell
0:12:45 who's right now one of the biggest
0:12:46 scholars in
0:12:47 probably the western world talking about
0:12:49 liberalism
0:12:51 and he talks about communitarianism he
0:12:53 says no
0:12:54 he says human beings are not individual
0:12:56 in that way we're all interdependent
0:12:58 communities are actually more effective
0:13:02 than individuals in terms of social
0:13:05 organization so there's a big
0:13:06 discussion now between individualism and
0:13:10 communitarianism
0:13:12 it's a new debate all right so in terms
0:13:15 of history to get
0:13:16 straight into the thick of it the
0:13:18 question is when did
0:13:19 liberalism kind of begin so
0:13:22 you could say liberalism began out of
0:13:24 england and i'm not saying that because
0:13:25 i'm
0:13:26 a british guy and i'm trying to enforce
0:13:28 my you know history on you
0:13:32 it came out you could say it was around
0:13:35 this time around the 1600s which is
0:13:37 about the 17th century so the mid 17th
0:13:39 century
0:13:39 when you had english civil war
0:13:42 now the english civil war was a long and
0:13:46 drawn out
0:13:46 kind of war you can look it up i'm not
0:13:48 going into that too much
0:13:50 otherwise i will feel like i'm back in
0:13:51 um school
0:13:53 it's and then then you have something
0:13:55 with a bit of rights now the thing is
0:13:56 now here with the bill of rights
0:13:58 the question is the question the
0:13:59 all-important question was
0:14:01 to what extent should government's power
0:14:03 be limited
0:14:04 and obviously at this time you had
0:14:06 tensions between the monarchy and
0:14:08 parliament
0:14:09 and we wanted to know what parliament
0:14:11 how much power should be given to
0:14:13 the sovereign which in this case is
0:14:14 parliament
0:14:16 so john locke who died in 1706 actually
0:14:19 contributed to this discourse massively
0:14:21 because when he wrote his book the two
0:14:23 treaties of government
0:14:25 this was incorporated in to the bill of
0:14:28 rights which is a
0:14:29 very important document in english law
0:14:33 this is which was written in 1689
0:14:36 so a lot of his ideas his what would
0:14:38 then become liberal ideas
0:14:40 about you know life property
0:14:44 uh you know uh these these important
0:14:47 things that you have to be protected the
0:14:48 protectables right
0:14:51 so for example life and property etc
0:14:55 that would be incorporated into the bill
0:14:57 of rights so this was a turning point
0:15:00 you could say in the history of
0:15:01 liberalism now john locke died around
0:15:03 1706
0:15:05 which is the early 18th century so in
0:15:08 terms of
0:15:09 liberalism and its developments you
0:15:11 could argue that it became known really
0:15:13 as a tradition
0:15:14 in around the 18th century
0:15:17 which means it's quite a young tradition
0:15:21 in the grand scheme of things it's about
0:15:22 300 years old
0:15:25 so after that you had the obviously the
0:15:26 us founding fathers
0:15:28 and the documents that were associated
0:15:30 with the found you know the beginning of
0:15:32 the the you know the republic of united
0:15:35 states
0:15:37 and a lot of john locke's ideas and and
0:15:39 other people's ideas were incorporated
0:15:41 into those documents
0:15:42 so once again liberalism started to
0:15:44 become institutionalized
0:15:48 and it became the it became the slowly
0:15:51 it's becoming the dominant ethic now
0:15:52 don't forget religion was very important
0:15:54 at this time as well
0:15:56 but if you look at the the rising
0:15:59 importance of liberalism
0:16:01 you'll find that it coincided with the
0:16:03 decline of
0:16:05 enthusiasm about religion so people were
0:16:07 becoming more
0:16:08 enthusiastic about liberalism about an
0:16:11 ideology which
0:16:12 in in and of itself you don't you
0:16:14 couldn't argue is
0:16:15 abrahamic for example in religious uh
0:16:18 complexion
0:16:19 it was something different and they're
0:16:21 becoming less enthusiastic about
0:16:24 they're becoming less enthusiastic about
0:16:25 christianity
0:16:27 you had someone like rousseau who was a
0:16:31 very important figure
0:16:34 and sorry he died in 1778
0:16:37 obviously this is not an exhaustive list
0:16:40 of you know
0:16:41 this is just a suggestive list to show
0:16:43 you some key points of history
0:16:46 and we said that the not only did the
0:16:48 usa
0:16:50 have an important impact but france as
0:16:52 well because as you guys know
0:16:54 france was founded on these kinds of
0:16:56 ideas as well because of the revolution
0:16:57 yet the french revolution
0:16:58 you had the american revolution against
0:17:00 the british you had the french
0:17:01 revolution against the
0:17:03 the bourgeoisie right the elites and so
0:17:05 on
0:17:06 uh a very important philosopher in the
0:17:08 history of liberalism is immanuel kant
0:17:11 he you could argue really he was one of
0:17:13 the most important philosophers
0:17:15 you could make this argument in western
0:17:17 history you could make this argument
0:17:19 maybe right after aristotle or something
0:17:21 he's a very important figure
0:17:23 not only in liberal thought but in all
0:17:25 of western thor emmanuel kent
0:17:28 and he gave some contributions as well
0:17:30 as you can see here this is a time
0:17:33 where it's kind of the industrial
0:17:34 revolution things are starting to change
0:17:37 here
0:17:37 you know steam changes trains were being
0:17:40 invented and so on
0:17:41 so he was at a time where there was
0:17:43 technological developments and so on
0:17:45 then you had john stuart mill who was
0:17:48 around in the victorian era
0:17:50 this guy is important in liberalism and
0:17:52 generally because a lot of the
0:17:54 dominant ethics that we have today
0:17:56 especially in social
0:17:57 circles are based on his ideas by the
0:18:00 way
0:18:01 and he was way to use a colonial you
0:18:03 know postcolonial term
0:18:05 beyond his time in the sense that he was
0:18:08 for universal suffrage for both men and
0:18:10 women which we don't have a problem with
0:18:12 as muslims by the way just in case
0:18:13 anyone tries to chuck something at me
0:18:15 right but he was you know the prophet
0:18:17 muhammad by the way and islam they gave
0:18:19 you know the muslims gave baya men and
0:18:21 women gave bayer
0:18:23 1400 years ago that's just an
0:18:25 interesting kind of tangential point
0:18:27 there
0:18:27 we're in the year what 2000 what we're
0:18:29 now 2018 or 19. now
0:18:30 i forget nine times yeah so this was
0:18:33 about 100 years
0:18:35 ago that women could both men and women
0:18:37 can vote
0:18:38 right 100 years ago that's when you know
0:18:41 in in in the uk
0:18:43 at least in in um in canada it was 1917
0:18:47 but he was beyond this time in that
0:18:48 perspective if you wrote a treatise on
0:18:50 uh on women and women's kind of
0:18:53 uh universal suffrage and other kind of
0:18:55 things
0:18:57 the most important thing that you could
0:18:59 probably pluck out of his philosophy
0:19:00 which is very important
0:19:01 is the harm principle and you'll find
0:19:05 that this is the logic
0:19:08 that almost everyone uses you know to
0:19:11 justify whatever moral they want to
0:19:13 justify
0:19:14 and the harm principle going back to our
0:19:15 hedonistic principle now
0:19:17 the hedonistic principle was what that
0:19:20 you are you want to
0:19:21 you want to minimize pain and maximize
0:19:24 what
0:19:25 pleasure okay so everyone's with me yeah
0:19:28 so obviously this guy called jeremy
0:19:29 bentham came along and said but hold on
0:19:32 he said yeah we want to maximize the
0:19:34 amount as much
0:19:36 pleasure as possible and as possible
0:19:39 generally yeah
0:19:40 so you had scenarios like you know a
0:19:42 gang grape scenario so if you have ten
0:19:44 men and one woman
0:19:45 and they all want to enjoy themselves so
0:19:48 they can all yeah exploit the woman
0:19:52 this was the issue with utilitarianism
0:19:55 so
0:19:56 john stuart mill came along and said
0:19:57 there's a problem with utilitarianism
0:19:59 which is that it allows this kind of
0:20:01 infringement of human rights
0:20:04 or he didn't really refer to as human
0:20:05 rights as we'll come to know but on
0:20:07 individual liberties and so you can do
0:20:09 whatever you want to do
0:20:11 so long as you don't harm anyone else
0:20:13 this is the harm principle
0:20:16 let's say one more time you can do
0:20:17 whatever you want to do
0:20:20 so long as you don't harm anyone so now
0:20:21 if you're asked
0:20:23 it's a bit of controversial topic but if
0:20:25 you ask why is homosexuality
0:20:27 why should it be or any kind of thing
0:20:30 right not just homosexuality any
0:20:31 non-normative sexual practice any
0:20:35 non-normative sexual practice should it
0:20:38 be allowed
0:20:39 so a liberal would should answer at
0:20:41 least so long as it doesn't harm anyone
0:20:43 else
0:20:44 it should be allowed
0:20:47 have you heard this so obviously
0:20:50 those religious people who were arguing
0:20:53 against for example homosexuality
0:20:55 were saying that
0:20:59 it's not natural and all those kind of
0:21:00 things yeah a liberal turns around and
0:21:02 says that's not the ethic that we're
0:21:04 dealing with right now
0:21:05 the ethic that we're dealing with is
0:21:07 that so long as it doesn't harm anyone
0:21:09 else
0:21:10 you can't get involved that's the ethic
0:21:15 okay if that's the ethic my question
0:21:17 would be
0:21:18 what about incest rights that's my
0:21:21 question because it's not really
0:21:22 something which is emphasized
0:21:23 now someone might argue that hold on
0:21:25 deform babies
0:21:26 you can have deformed baby coming out of
0:21:28 that situation
0:21:30 i would say hold on what if a father
0:21:35 and a son there's no babies going to
0:21:38 come out of that
0:21:39 actually or a brother and a brother
0:21:42 that's not something which liberals have
0:21:44 actually in my
0:21:45 estimation at least as a movement has
0:21:48 tried to
0:21:49 guarantee the rights of incest rights
0:21:51 even though it goes along
0:21:53 the same kind of principles as john
0:21:55 stuart millsand principle
0:21:57 right so there has been a kind of
0:22:00 favoring of
0:22:01 one kind of non-normative practice in
0:22:03 this case homosexuality
0:22:05 over other kinds of non-normative sexual
0:22:07 practices for example
0:22:08 incest and so on but this kind of the
0:22:12 reason for that is just simply because
0:22:14 homosexuals in the 60s and 70s or those
0:22:17 groups who represented them
0:22:19 had more of a chance and had more
0:22:21 success in being
0:22:23 able to mobilize social support
0:22:27 for their cause if there had been a
0:22:30 million
0:22:31 father brothers coming out together with
0:22:34 placards incest rights we love each
0:22:36 other
0:22:37 you know seriously i mean would they be
0:22:39 guaranteed the same rights in many of
0:22:41 the countries
0:22:42 which are liberal countries this is
0:22:45 illegal
0:22:46 this is illegal incest is illegal but
0:22:49 the question is why is it illegal it
0:22:51 doesn't go against
0:22:52 the harm principles they deform babies
0:22:53 but what if they're using contraception
0:22:55 what if his
0:22:56 two brothers brother and brother there's
0:22:58 no babies going to come out of that
0:23:00 seriously so there has been a double
0:23:03 standard in the way
0:23:04 even liberal principles have been
0:23:06 manipulated
0:23:08 in order to make cases
0:23:11 so if i've had lots of conversations you
0:23:13 can maybe see them on youtube
0:23:15 what i find problematic is the most
0:23:17 consistent answer by the way some of
0:23:18 them are just straightforward to say
0:23:19 you're right
0:23:21 if we're gonna off if we're gonna afford
0:23:23 rights for one
0:23:24 non-normative sexual practice like
0:23:26 homosexuality
0:23:28 we should afford it for all
0:23:30 non-normative sexual practices so long
0:23:31 as no harm is done
0:23:32 that's a consistent answer i would say
0:23:34 you know what you make
0:23:36 at least you're consistent but some
0:23:38 homosexuals
0:23:39 or other people who claim to represent
0:23:40 their interests actually
0:23:42 argued among along naturalistic lines
0:23:46 they said no it's not natural for
0:23:49 uh a brother and a brother to have sex
0:23:52 so why is it not who defines natural now
0:23:55 because you just told off that christian
0:23:57 guy
0:23:59 that he told him off when he said you're
0:24:01 what you're doing is not natural
0:24:03 so what gives you the right to determine
0:24:04 what's natural not natural
0:24:06 so a secondary explanation could be well
0:24:10 we're born gay and this is something
0:24:14 david hume referred to as the ought is
0:24:17 problem just because you're born let's
0:24:19 just say for the sake of argument i'm
0:24:20 not going to go into the genetics i'm
0:24:21 not a geneticist
0:24:22 let's say for the sake of arguing say
0:24:24 you're born gay no problem but just
0:24:25 because you are something
0:24:27 it doesn't mean you ought to be that
0:24:28 thing and there's no way
0:24:31 that any philosopher has been able to
0:24:33 solve this problem
0:24:35 david hume himself in his book inquiry
0:24:37 into moral ethics
0:24:39 he described the problem he said well
0:24:42 just because something is
0:24:44 the case it doesn't mean it ought to be
0:24:46 the case what if someone
0:24:48 is born with an incestuous gene does it
0:24:50 mean that they should be incestuous
0:24:52 what if someone is born with something
0:24:54 more pernicious than that
0:24:56 or you know in our estimation of course
0:24:59 you could argue
0:25:00 morals are relative frankly i mean who
0:25:02 is to make the judgment
0:25:03 however the point is the or is
0:25:05 distinction
0:25:07 is always going to be a problem for
0:25:08 someone who wants to say we're born that
0:25:10 way
0:25:10 so the problem is when now we're asked
0:25:14 okay
0:25:14 in islam let's be honest in islam
0:25:19 why is homosexuality a sin we say wait
0:25:23 hold on
0:25:24 why is that type particular type of
0:25:26 non-normative
0:25:28 sexual practice permitted on your world
0:25:30 view they say because the
0:25:32 the harm principle say okay well the
0:25:34 harm principle should apply to two
0:25:35 brothers having sex
0:25:36 and two sisters having if you want to
0:25:38 call it sex you can call it sex
0:25:40 whatever it may be right or even a
0:25:43 brother and a sister so long as some
0:25:45 kind of contraception is used and so on
0:25:46 and so forth
0:25:48 but you're not using that they are using
0:25:50 that
0:25:51 hats off to them well done you're being
0:25:52 morally consistent and you're being
0:25:55 in accordance with the harm principle if
0:25:56 you're not using that and you're giving
0:25:58 preferential treatment to one kind of
0:26:01 non non-normative sexual practice of
0:26:02 another frankly it doesn't even make
0:26:04 sense
0:26:07 so this is the last thing i'm going to
0:26:09 quickly touch upon
0:26:11 now and we've talked that we've kind of
0:26:13 touched upon the idea of some of the
0:26:15 questions we're asked as
0:26:16 let's say traditionalists or you know
0:26:19 conventional orthodox whatever you want
0:26:21 to call it muslims right
0:26:22 why this why that well the reason why
0:26:24 they're asking that question as we've
0:26:26 just discovered
0:26:27 is because they have a dominant ethic
0:26:29 which frankly
0:26:30 for the most part has not been
0:26:31 consistently used in western circles
0:26:34 is not predicated on anything which is
0:26:37 objective
0:26:38 you can't put any of that stuff under a
0:26:40 microscope all of those morals frankly
0:26:43 have not been
0:26:44 verified
0:26:47 so they don't really have a reason to
0:26:49 ask us any of those questions in the
0:26:51 first place
0:26:53 now when you when we talk about this
0:26:54 thing human rights
0:26:56 because now this is a guys this is
0:26:58 almost the trump card
0:27:00 if you want to knock out not trump
0:27:02 donald trump
0:27:03 if you want to knock out a muslim ask
0:27:05 them about human rights
0:27:06 ask them about freedom of expression and
0:27:08 speech what's the ruling on blasphemy
0:27:10 laws
0:27:11 what's the ruling and we'll talk about
0:27:12 this in detail in the next section
0:27:14 on apostasy law i'm going to bring this
0:27:16 up as the case study
0:27:18 what happens in an islamic state yes
0:27:20 what happens is isn't that
0:27:22 is it is there a death penalty there is
0:27:24 it will come to it
0:27:26 it's a bit of a suspense we'll talk
0:27:27 about it in the next session
0:27:29 but isn't that against human rights
0:27:31 let's say for the sake of argument yes
0:27:33 it's against human rights
0:27:34 all of the things that you mentioned and
0:27:35 other things
0:27:37 anything yes it's against human rights
0:27:40 but let's go back what is human rights
0:27:42 and outgrowth of
0:27:43 human rights is an outgrowth of this
0:27:45 shaky destabilized
0:27:50 liberalism which frankly has not been
0:27:52 substantiated in the first instance
0:27:54 so there's a problem there
0:27:58 so in history we're going to talk about
0:28:00 quickly i mean first of all this word
0:28:02 human rights it was not referred to as
0:28:04 human rights
0:28:05 until quite recently it was referred to
0:28:08 usually as natural rights
0:28:10 so even when people like jeremy bentham
0:28:11 was attacking it he called it nonsense
0:28:14 and stilts
0:28:14 because what natural rights how can you
0:28:16 prove it jeremy bentham the one who
0:28:18 talked about
0:28:18 utilitarianism the one who actually
0:28:21 taught the teacher of john stuart mill
0:28:23 and the one who was he inspired him in
0:28:25 many ways he called it nonsense on
0:28:27 stilts
0:28:28 but we'll come to that this is an
0:28:29 interesting thing there's the last slide
0:28:31 for today
0:28:31 um for this session and then we'll come
0:28:33 back and talk about the other things
0:28:35 the this is an interesting thing it's
0:28:37 called google engram you can use it to
0:28:39 see how much a word has been used in
0:28:40 literature
0:28:42 and if you can see here the word human
0:28:44 rights itself
0:28:45 only started to become popular
0:28:48 around 1948 and obviously that's when it
0:28:50 was written the
0:28:52 convention of human rights but before
0:28:54 that this term
0:28:55 human rights wasn't even in the common
0:28:58 vernacular
0:28:59 of either the academics or the
0:29:00 non-academics
0:29:02 so all of a sudden after the world war
0:29:04 ii after world war
0:29:05 ii this thing that you guys made up
0:29:08 frankly
0:29:09 called human rights which we're gonna
0:29:12 talk about
0:29:13 right we're gonna talk about human
0:29:14 rights this thing you guys made up
0:29:16 called human rights
0:29:17 which you insisted is universal with any
0:29:20 without any proof
0:29:23 is now being used to colonialize
0:29:26 to colonize this is
0:29:29 it's being used to spread the you know
0:29:31 liberalism by the sword
0:29:34 and that's the irony of it all so the
0:29:37 question is
0:29:38 to what extent are human rights
0:29:40 compatible with traditionalist islam
0:29:43 we're going to look at a case study and
0:29:45 we're going to be very straightforward
0:29:46 today guys
0:29:48 in the after the break we're going to
0:29:50 look at
0:29:51 some of the most controversial case
0:29:53 studies you can think about
0:29:54 the most controversial questions those
0:29:57 which i was talking about which
0:29:58 reference the punitive law of islam
0:30:01 those which reference for example the
0:30:02 had the hadood
0:30:04 the punishments in islam and we are
0:30:06 going to do a thorough
0:30:07 comparison inshallah between liberalism
0:30:12 and tradition as islam and what we're
0:30:14 going to uncover
0:30:15 on earth in my opinion is going to be
0:30:18 something which will put things
0:30:20 in perspective so i'll let you guys have
0:30:23 the break now
0:30:24 because the time is up and we'll see you
0:30:26 after the break
0:30:29 all right good
0:30:32 so um this is going to be the last part
0:30:34 of like the monologue if you like
0:30:36 you know and then after that we're gonna
0:30:37 try and create more interactivity
0:30:39 because it is important that we engage
0:30:40 with one another you might have
0:30:42 lots of questions i'm sure you do um and
0:30:45 so
0:30:46 just to kind of carry on from where we
0:30:48 pick up from where we left off
0:30:50 we talked about human rights as not
0:30:52 being a term that was commonly employed
0:30:55 um throughout the centuries frankly
0:30:57 right it wasn't really a term which was
0:31:00 goes all the way back to liberalism or
0:31:02 all the way back to for example the
0:31:03 ancient greeks or something like that
0:31:05 instead it's a term which
0:31:08 became very popular after 1948 that's
0:31:10 not to say it didn't exist
0:31:12 before 1940 a it did exist but it just
0:31:15 become much more popular because of
0:31:17 well because as you know the un which is
0:31:20 an organization which is
0:31:22 pretty much steered by united states of
0:31:24 america
0:31:25 and other allies took control of the un
0:31:29 and obviously they had the convention
0:31:31 and after that convention was put
0:31:33 forward it became part of the media
0:31:35 became part of academia and so on
0:31:38 but taking a step back now the question
0:31:42 is
0:31:43 because i mentioned and alluded to this
0:31:44 in the beginning
0:31:46 of this lecture we talked about some of
0:31:50 the mythologies that
0:31:54 liberalism is predicated on what did i
0:31:56 mean when i say liberalism is predicated
0:31:58 on mythology
0:32:00 now what i meant was this the state of
0:32:03 nature
0:32:05 the state of nature is a very important
0:32:07 part of liberalism
0:32:10 and it's mentioned by many different
0:32:12 scholars and thinkers
0:32:13 like john locke like thomas hobbes like
0:32:16 rousseau and others and
0:32:20 for instance thomas hobbes
0:32:23 talks about this hypothetical state
0:32:26 before human beings were contracted to
0:32:29 the state
0:32:30 so let's take a contemporary example we
0:32:34 live in the west for example you guys
0:32:36 live in holland i live in the uk
0:32:38 i'm born into you know that state you
0:32:41 guys many of you
0:32:42 uh except for the illegal immigrants i'm
0:32:44 sure
0:32:46 which is the majority no
0:32:50 we're born here right so you so you come
0:32:52 or you're born here or you decide to
0:32:54 come over
0:32:55 through ship or whoever you guys did
0:32:57 right
0:32:59 yes you decide to come over here
0:33:04 and when you come over here what are you
0:33:07 obliged by the law the universal law
0:33:10 in other words you have to obey the law
0:33:12 of the land you know
0:33:13 it's a straightforward thing but the
0:33:15 question is who gave the government the
0:33:17 power in the first place
0:33:19 who gave government the power in the
0:33:20 first place so liberal theory would
0:33:22 suggest
0:33:23 that there was a state of nature
0:33:28 there was a primordial if you like say
0:33:30 of nature
0:33:31 and then we contracted to
0:33:35 a sovereign or a representative or a
0:33:37 power
0:33:38 now when did this take place when did
0:33:41 this thing take place where there was
0:33:42 man against man
0:33:44 whether it was a brutish poor and short
0:33:48 thing it never actually historically
0:33:51 took place at all
0:33:52 this is a fake history and it was made
0:33:56 this is mythology this story this
0:33:59 fiction frankly this was made up
0:34:02 it wasn't a scientific investigation
0:34:05 that was done
0:34:07 it wasn't historical records that were
0:34:09 retrieved
0:34:10 it was simply a story a bedtime story a
0:34:14 fairy tale
0:34:16 seriously i mean this is what it's
0:34:18 predicated on
0:34:20 thomas hobbs john locke and others
0:34:23 this they talked about a time a pre
0:34:26 maybe a prehistoric time or a
0:34:28 pre-government time where people were
0:34:30 fighting each other
0:34:31 and so they needed to give up some of
0:34:33 their rights in order to allow
0:34:35 the sovereign master to come and protect
0:34:37 them
0:34:38 and all of the subsequent generations of
0:34:41 people
0:34:42 would be subsequently contracted to that
0:34:46 government
0:34:46 even if they didn't consent to it
0:34:48 because we
0:34:50 living in a country we didn't say we
0:34:52 consent to there being a government
0:34:54 we consent to their being you know a
0:34:57 representative that's gonna
0:34:59 make law on our behalf sometimes you
0:35:02 have voting yes
0:35:03 but it's not we didn't even consent to
0:35:05 the system of government
0:35:07 so how do we justify from a liberal
0:35:10 perspective that there is a government
0:35:12 it's this idea which we're going to come
0:35:14 on to of social contract
0:35:16 but the primordial state
0:35:19 is a story it's a bedtime fiction
0:35:23 it's fake it really is fake now the
0:35:26 story
0:35:27 is different depending on which
0:35:30 philosopher talks about it so for
0:35:32 example kent he says all mankind
0:35:35 who will but consult it that being all
0:35:38 equal and independent no one ought to
0:35:40 harm another in his life liberty or
0:35:41 possessions
0:35:43 so in the primordial state for for locke
0:35:46 he he envisaged
0:35:48 that there were some rights that ought
0:35:50 to be protected in the first instance
0:35:52 hobbes saw it more about man against man
0:35:54 but
0:35:55 both made up the story that there was a
0:35:58 time
0:35:59 or there ought to have been a time this
0:36:01 is hypothetical
0:36:03 metaphysical mythological
0:36:06 fictitious thing that happened
0:36:10 where we were all human beings were all
0:36:13 like in the jungle if you like of life
0:36:15 and we're all fighting each other and we
0:36:17 needed some
0:36:19 leader to come that we could con consult
0:36:21 with or contract with
0:36:22 in order to stop the chaos and the
0:36:24 anarchy that's the story
0:36:29 so humans initially have rights
0:36:32 of liberty lockwood argue and property
0:36:36 hobbs would disagree with him but both
0:36:39 have made up the story it's a fake story
0:36:43 now the social contract
0:36:46 was required now and
0:36:50 the social contract
0:36:53 we've already mentioned is
0:36:57 this contract that human beings took
0:36:59 when they were in the state of fighting
0:37:01 each other in the state of nature
0:37:02 they took this contract with the
0:37:04 sovereign some kind of
0:37:06 leader maybe the the sovereign had power
0:37:08 military power
0:37:10 maybe they were able to grant protection
0:37:12 whatever it may be there was a contract
0:37:15 subhanallah this is actually quite
0:37:16 similar to islamic theology
0:37:18 because we also believe in a contract as
0:37:20 well you know that
0:37:22 you know and it's in the quran but we
0:37:24 believe our contract was
0:37:25 with allah so we were contracted with
0:37:28 allah
0:37:29 they believe we were contracted with an
0:37:31 imaginary
0:37:32 fake figure in fact the book that
0:37:36 hobbs talked about is called de la vicen
0:37:38 it's called the levison what is the
0:37:40 levison it's a monster
0:37:42 it's a monster creature it's a it's a
0:37:44 fake like a
0:37:45 something sci-fi like a sci-fi image
0:37:48 tell me if this is not mythology why is
0:37:49 it not mythology is it because the white
0:37:51 man wrote it down
0:37:52 be honest with yourselves seriously is
0:37:54 it because it's secular
0:37:55 it's pure mythology
0:37:58 and there's nothing to justify it
0:38:00 whatsoever but as muslims we believe in
0:38:03 a contract
0:38:04 right with allah where allah says in the
0:38:07 quran
0:38:10 allah took the message the contract with
0:38:12 adam with the children of adam
0:38:15 you know uh
0:38:23 their back you know and he said allah
0:38:25 become he said are we not your
0:38:27 am i not your lords and your master
0:38:30 we said yes so for us as muslims we was
0:38:33 we were contracted to allah
0:38:35 for the liberal we were contracted to
0:38:37 some imaginary figure
0:38:40 which didn't really exist even according
0:38:42 to them if you ask any liberal today
0:38:44 do you believe in this uh this thing no
0:38:47 we don't believe it so they have a
0:38:48 mythology as well
0:38:50 we don't have a mythology we would say
0:38:52 we can justify the existence of god
0:38:54 from first principles which is a
0:38:55 different conversation for a different
0:38:57 time
0:38:58 all right so what are the entailments of
0:39:00 social contract and this is a key point
0:39:03 here in the discussion
0:39:04 because we talked about human rights and
0:39:06 some of the questions we're asked as
0:39:08 muslims relate to fundamental human
0:39:09 rights
0:39:10 so for example equality of men and women
0:39:13 this is
0:39:14 by the way according to what strand of
0:39:15 feminism second wave feminism
0:39:17 third wave feminism you know first wave
0:39:20 feminism even
0:39:21 what do we mean by equality according to
0:39:23 who's feminism is it the eurocentric
0:39:25 understanding of feminism
0:39:27 is that an african feminism is it a
0:39:29 middle eastern
0:39:30 that's a different discussion but they
0:39:31 say also that we have to have
0:39:34 freedom of expression of whatever
0:39:37 religious belief you want
0:39:39 to what extent though because obviously
0:39:41 society even in this country and other
0:39:43 countries has decided that there are
0:39:45 certain kinds of things which can't
0:39:47 exist which jeopardize security and so
0:39:49 on
0:39:50 so the question is when now we've come
0:39:53 out of the state of nature from a
0:39:56 liberal perspective we've come
0:39:57 out of the state state of nature and
0:40:00 we're socially contracted
0:40:02 to this representative which in modern
0:40:05 parlance would be referred to as
0:40:07 government right
0:40:08 when we're now where we're tied to such
0:40:10 representative
0:40:12 the question is what are
0:40:15 the things this representative can do on
0:40:18 our behalf
0:40:20 this is a key thing and i want everyone
0:40:21 to remember this right
0:40:24 this is something which immanuel kant
0:40:25 which we said already was one of the
0:40:27 biggest philosophers in all of liberal
0:40:28 history but
0:40:29 not only that but one of the biggest
0:40:30 philosophy of all the western history
0:40:33 he basically says i'm not going to read
0:40:36 this whole thing you can you can kind of
0:40:37 read it yourself
0:40:39 he basically says that if the supreme
0:40:42 sovereign this socially contracted thing
0:40:47 or body or government or whatever it is
0:40:50 they can that has pretty much ultimate
0:40:53 authority
0:40:54 even if he decides to kill you or kill
0:40:56 some people or
0:40:57 jail some people or hurt some people
0:41:00 there's a there's a hadith inside muslim
0:41:03 that says which some people make fun of
0:41:08 that you know if you've got to be
0:41:09 obedient to the leader even if he whips
0:41:11 your back
0:41:12 or takes your money obviously there's
0:41:15 such a big discussion on this we're not
0:41:16 having in that discussion but
0:41:17 this is the same kind of thing in
0:41:19 liberal theory
0:41:20 so in liberal theory it's conceivable
0:41:24 that there is a law which so
0:41:27 limits which so limits
0:41:31 human freedoms so as to allow
0:41:34 someone to be killed as a result and
0:41:37 john locke says
0:41:38 in one of his books i think it's the two
0:41:41 truths of government
0:41:43 he says if someone is commanded to stand
0:41:46 in the face of a cannon if a soldier is
0:41:49 commanded
0:41:50 to stand in the face of a cannon
0:41:54 yes in other words a blowing cannon he
0:41:56 should do it
0:41:57 and it's not illegal for someone to do
0:41:59 that which is kind of like suicide
0:42:01 bombing by the way
0:42:03 think about that no seriously it's this
0:42:04 what is that you know tell me what that
0:42:05 is
0:42:06 standing in the face of a cannon is
0:42:07 destroying yourself it's killing
0:42:08 yourself suicide
0:42:10 so according to john locke and by the
0:42:12 way also according to john rules
0:42:16 who says that you can kill innocents by
0:42:18 the way this is what he says
0:42:19 he says you can kill innocents in war
0:42:21 it's just war you can get you can target
0:42:23 the innocent
0:42:24 not collateral damage no you can target
0:42:26 them
0:42:27 so you can not only be subject to a
0:42:30 suicide type scenario
0:42:32 according to john locke but all the way
0:42:34 through to john rules who said
0:42:36 you not only can be subject to such
0:42:38 scenario but you can subject
0:42:40 others to such scenario as well in other
0:42:42 words you can kill children
0:42:44 if it goes back to the social contract
0:42:46 and if it goes back to the
0:42:48 mandated legitimate sovereign leader who
0:42:50 we have been socially contracted to
0:42:53 in this mythological state of nature
0:42:56 bearing that in mind the question now is
0:43:00 what's the relevance of this and
0:43:01 apostasy well you know the liberal would
0:43:04 ask what is this thing
0:43:06 that you guys have in your old books of
0:43:09 of jurisprudence and i said in the
0:43:12 beginning of the lecture
0:43:13 that when i describe i'll be defining
0:43:16 what islamic traditionalism is so i'll
0:43:18 do it quickly now
0:43:19 islamic traditionalism to me is a
0:43:22 jurisprudential understanding of islam
0:43:25 for example through the four schools of
0:43:27 thor in sunni islam
0:43:29 for example right so that's my
0:43:32 understanding of
0:43:33 islamic traditionalism so obviously if
0:43:36 you open a book of islamic
0:43:38 law which is like a classical book
0:43:41 and you go to maybe the you know kitabul
0:43:44 jinayat or something like that
0:43:46 you might see this the punishment of
0:43:50 apostasy
0:43:51 and you'll see that some of those
0:43:53 scholars will say the one who changes
0:43:55 his religion
0:43:57 you know they should be killed in an
0:43:59 islamic state
0:44:01 and you think wait a minute doesn't this
0:44:04 strongly oppose human rights and on the
0:44:07 face of it it
0:44:08 does strongly oppose human rights and
0:44:10 this is not
0:44:12 on the face of it prima facie what we
0:44:13 believe in anyway
0:44:15 this is and deconsexualized
0:44:17 understanding of islamic law and i'll
0:44:19 explain that in a second
0:44:21 but what's interesting is this so long
0:44:24 as something is justified through a
0:44:27 social contract
0:44:29 on liberalism look what john locke is
0:44:31 saying
0:44:32 john locke who is the founding father of
0:44:34 liberalism
0:44:36 says that there can be
0:44:39 an apostasy law
0:44:43 wait a minute what does he say he says
0:44:46 the first is those of who
0:44:48 being initiated in the mosaic right he's
0:44:50 talking about the jewish
0:44:52 states or jewish states and made
0:44:54 citizens of that commonwealth did
0:44:57 afterwards apostasize means become
0:45:01 from the worship of the god of israel
0:45:04 these were preceded against
0:45:06 as traitors and rebels guilty of no
0:45:10 less than high treason listen to this
0:45:14 no less than high treason for the
0:45:17 commonwealth
0:45:18 of the jews different in that from all
0:45:21 others was an absolute theocracy
0:45:25 nor was there or could there be any
0:45:27 difference between that
0:45:29 and the commonwealth of the church now
0:45:31 what does this mean what's he trying to
0:45:33 say
0:45:33 he's saying because the the
0:45:37 the state of the jews is predicated
0:45:40 on your contracting with god
0:45:44 and you're being jewish in the first
0:45:46 instance
0:45:47 that it's justifiable on liberalism
0:45:51 listen to this carefully it's
0:45:53 justifiable on
0:45:54 liberalism from this social contract
0:45:57 understanding
0:45:59 that if someone publicly says i'm not a
0:46:01 jew anymore
0:46:02 for the state to say come hold here come
0:46:04 here we're going to
0:46:06 execute you now is that what the quran
0:46:08 says
0:46:09 the quran doesn't make this kind of
0:46:11 articulation by the way
0:46:12 this is what john locke says who is the
0:46:15 founding father of liberalism
0:46:17 so how conceivable is it
0:46:21 how conceivable is there on liberalism
0:46:24 that these laws can be put in place it
0:46:27 is
0:46:27 fully conceivable in principle now one
0:46:30 could argue
0:46:31 that was john locke that was 300 years
0:46:33 ago
0:46:34 we're no longer looking at luck my
0:46:36 argument is not about
0:46:38 john locke he is looking at the
0:46:41 conceivability
0:46:42 through the principles of liberalism
0:46:46 i am saying because the principles of
0:46:48 liberalism through social contract
0:46:50 allow such possibilities you cannot
0:46:53 argue that liberalism
0:46:55 is against a public apostasy law
0:46:58 which would entail a death of a person
0:47:02 you cannot argue that it's impossible to
0:47:04 argue that you could argue as a liberal
0:47:06 i'm not really
0:47:07 you know in tune with that and i think
0:47:08 it ought not to be
0:47:10 but if a country decides if a country
0:47:14 decides for example
0:47:15 that this country is not a secular
0:47:17 country not this country obviously is
0:47:18 but we're talking about a country like
0:47:20 you know a jewish
0:47:22 state not talking about israel that's a
0:47:24 different discussion
0:47:27 but if it decides okay this is not we're
0:47:29 not our social contract is not a secular
0:47:31 one
0:47:32 it's a theocracy of some sort let's say
0:47:35 for the sake of arguing
0:47:36 or is something which is predicated on
0:47:38 religious scriptures
0:47:39 if that's the case the question is how
0:47:42 illiberal is it on social
0:47:43 contractarianism
0:47:45 to have such law john locke answers in
0:47:48 fact
0:47:48 this is not illiberal at all and not
0:47:51 only would john locke say that
0:47:53 emmanuel kent would say that i've seen
0:47:55 manuscripts of john stuart mill saying
0:47:57 that
0:47:57 it's quite consistent so
0:48:01 the question now is what does islam have
0:48:04 to say about that
0:48:06 but before i go into that question about
0:48:08 apostasy in islam
0:48:10 there's an argument i want to make and
0:48:12 the main argument is articulated
0:48:15 here because this is part of my book
0:48:18 i've actually written a book here it's
0:48:19 coming out
0:48:20 maybe the end of the year yes yes i've
0:48:23 been doing the research
0:48:26 by the way this is not something i just
0:48:28 whipped up this i've spoken to a lot of
0:48:29 academics about this
0:48:31 all right my main argument liberalism or
0:48:34 liberalization efforts
0:48:36 are epistemologically fruitless
0:48:39 if they are predicated on the assumption
0:48:42 that such liberalization
0:48:44 necessarily entails more freedom from
0:48:47 government
0:48:48 interventionism in cases which relate to
0:48:50 administration of the death penalty for
0:48:52 non-allegiance to a state now that's a
0:48:53 very long-winded statement
0:48:55 but you have to be careful with
0:48:56 academics what i'm saying is
0:48:59 there is something similar between
0:49:02 for example that which is referred to as
0:49:06 which is the what is referred to as the
0:49:08 punishment for apostasy
0:49:10 and treason and the common denominator
0:49:14 is
0:49:14 non-allegiance to a state so for example
0:49:16 if you look at the american constitution
0:49:19 if my memory serves me correctly i think
0:49:21 article 3 talks about
0:49:23 the treason it's a clause on treason
0:49:26 treason clause
0:49:28 and basically what it says is the future
0:49:30 of non-allegiance
0:49:32 different states have different rules in
0:49:34 america it could be punishable and
0:49:36 has been punishable by death and by the
0:49:39 way
0:49:40 what's interesting is as a side note in
0:49:42 terms of
0:49:43 actual case study examples you'll find
0:49:46 that america has conducted many
0:49:48 extrajudicial
0:49:50 killings outside of obviously the
0:49:53 parameters of the judiciary as you know
0:49:55 for example
0:49:56 many of you may have heard of anwar
0:49:58 al-awlaki yes
0:49:59 his son was killed his name is abdul
0:50:02 rahman al-awlaki
0:50:04 and his daughter was also killed they
0:50:05 were kids by the way
0:50:07 they were killed by a drone attack on
0:50:09 them yes
0:50:10 they were killed by a drone attack on
0:50:12 them why because the american government
0:50:13 were afraid
0:50:14 because okay their father is a radical
0:50:16 the child will also grow up to be
0:50:18 a radical right so they literally sent
0:50:21 little drones
0:50:22 to kill the kids now that wasn't those
0:50:24 kids didn't
0:50:25 deserve to be killed and no moreover
0:50:27 they didn't even stand trial
0:50:29 if that was possible for a child to
0:50:30 stand trial at the age of six years old
0:50:32 or whatever it may have been anyway
0:50:34 so the question of extrajudicial killing
0:50:36 is something completely different anyway
0:50:38 i'm talking about when the treason law
0:50:41 itself has been implemented and what's
0:50:43 interesting if you look at
0:50:44 constitutional law in america
0:50:46 is that those defendants who are subject
0:50:50 to such
0:50:50 encroachments from the military
0:50:52 establishment in america
0:50:53 actually try and get the treason law to
0:50:56 be enacted on them in other words they
0:50:58 try and
0:50:58 a lot of them argue that we want to be
0:51:01 tried in accordance with the treason law
0:51:03 because they know they have more chance
0:51:04 of being not killed for example
0:51:06 in in that case but there have been
0:51:09 those extra
0:51:10 judicial killings now that's something
0:51:12 else the point is this it's conceivable
0:51:14 principally
0:51:16 it is conceivable principally that a
0:51:18 government because it
0:51:19 deems you as non-ally now
0:51:23 you're no longer a citizen depriving you
0:51:26 of your citizenship and so on
0:51:28 they can make a subsequent decision to
0:51:30 kill you
0:51:32 and it has been done but it's just been
0:51:33 named something else
0:51:35 this is the point now the truth is this
0:51:39 in islam
0:51:44 you have to first ask what is apostasy
0:51:46 and what is treason
0:51:48 right now who gets to define treason now
0:51:51 someone might argue treason is this and
0:51:52 they'll go online and you know this
0:51:54 pseudo-intellectual approach oh treason
0:51:56 means this listen spare your white man
0:51:58 definitions
0:51:59 keep them to yourself seriously who
0:52:01 wrote the dictionary
0:52:02 who was it was it someone who we all
0:52:04 agreed this is the authority yes let him
0:52:06 be the one no come on be let's be honest
0:52:09 oxford dictionary webster dictionary no
0:52:12 it wasn't something which we all
0:52:14 as humankind decided yes this is no no
0:52:17 vernacular definitions from the
0:52:19 dictionary are fruitless to me
0:52:21 you can't use a secular definition
0:52:23 impose it on a religious
0:52:24 framework and explain try and explain
0:52:26 things that way
0:52:28 treason is defined differently yes
0:52:30 because you have a secular framework
0:52:32 versus a religious one why should you
0:52:33 impose a secular framework on a
0:52:35 religious one
0:52:36 as much as why would you ex impose a
0:52:38 religious one on a secular one
0:52:40 they both have two different standards
0:52:42 right
0:52:44 however the principle of non-allegiance
0:52:48 is the same so in other words really and
0:52:49 truly what is the common denominator
0:52:51 when a state deems that you're no longer
0:52:54 allied now here's the point
0:52:56 is it to do with what you believe now i
0:52:59 would
0:53:00 put to you submit to everyone here today
0:53:03 that it's not to do with what you
0:53:04 believe and the evidence is not like
0:53:09 that there's no compulsion in religion
0:53:11 there is that that's for the muslims
0:53:13 by the way that verse by jamaa is for
0:53:15 the non-muslims there's no compulsion in
0:53:16 religion
0:53:17 chapter 2 verse 256 means you can't
0:53:20 force a non-muslim to become muslim
0:53:22 but what about meaning
0:53:31 where it says it's not from a man or a
0:53:32 woman who's a muslim or a mukmin
0:53:34 that when allah and his messenger decide
0:53:36 something that they have any choice in
0:53:37 the matter
0:53:38 the point is this even then it's not to
0:53:41 do with belief
0:53:42 and it's conceivable and possible for
0:53:45 someone to lose faith in their religion
0:53:48 as a muslim in an islamic governed
0:53:50 government state or whatever you want to
0:53:51 call it i'm not talking about those
0:53:53 things which exist
0:53:54 but it's conceivable and they would have
0:53:55 no repercussion whatsoever
0:53:58 it's not to do what's the evidence for
0:53:59 that two pieces of evidence
0:54:01 one of them is the the list of hadith
0:54:05 had a list of people who are unafraid
0:54:08 who does not believe really in islam he
0:54:11 does not believe in islam
0:54:12 that's the true understanding of munich
0:54:14 yes he might walk around in society and
0:54:17 not necessarily publicate
0:54:18 that he's left islam but he does not
0:54:21 disbelieve in he doesn't believe in
0:54:23 islam that list
0:54:26 even though muslims were aware that
0:54:28 those people were not muslims
0:54:29 they didn't kill those individuals
0:54:31 because there was no rupture of the
0:54:33 social contract there
0:54:35 in other words it's conceivable now if
0:54:36 someone in the west becomes
0:54:38 non-muslim and they were muslim we're
0:54:40 not going to say go and kill that
0:54:41 individual no way
0:54:43 this is an understanding of islam which
0:54:45 is orientalist
0:54:47 decontextualizing completely wrong in my
0:54:49 opinion there's no way you can do that
0:54:51 because there was no contract between
0:54:52 you and that person that okay you are
0:54:54 now
0:54:55 allied to that state in that way there's
0:54:57 no state in fact the state here
0:54:59 says you can do whatever you want and
0:55:00 you can have whatever belief you want so
0:55:02 in fact their contract is different to
0:55:04 your contract the quran says
0:55:07 those all you who believe fulfill the
0:55:10 contract so in other words there is no
0:55:13 contract there there has to be a
0:55:14 contract you have to be under an islamic
0:55:17 and you have to have agreed to the terms
0:55:19 if those conditions are not met
0:55:22 then we can't say there's any going to
0:55:24 be any ramification
0:55:26 now another point is this is that you
0:55:30 have and this is one of the final points
0:55:31 i'm going to make
0:55:33 is that you have another example and
0:55:37 this is one of the biggest
0:55:38 hadith in sahih bukhari it's in kitab
0:55:42 the book of conditions and then you have
0:55:44 a discussion between prophet muhammed
0:55:48 and and the quraysh was saying if
0:55:51 listen to this carefully if
0:55:55 your people in in your state become
0:55:58 non-muslim
0:55:59 bring them back to us do you agree to
0:56:01 those terms and he agreed to those terms
0:56:03 say that one more time he said if people
0:56:05 in your state become non-muslim
0:56:08 under this contract that we have now
0:56:10 bring those guys who have left islam
0:56:12 apostated back to us he said no problem
0:56:15 he agreed to those conditions
0:56:17 meaning what really this what this means
0:56:20 is that it's totally conceivable
0:56:23 both on islam and liberalism for there
0:56:26 to be some kind of social contract which
0:56:28 would bind somebody
0:56:31 to a state of being now
0:56:34 even if they decide to change their
0:56:35 religion it's conceivable on both
0:56:38 liberalism and islam
0:56:39 that it's not a problem and it's
0:56:41 conceivable on both liberalism and islam
0:56:43 that it could have ramifications
0:56:45 depending upon how it's perceived by the
0:56:47 state
0:56:49 now next
0:56:53 the reason why the the topic today
0:56:56 was referred to as liberalism as
0:56:58 religion and this is a really
0:57:00 interesting quote
0:57:01 i'm going to read it out it says
0:57:02 theories of modernization are not
0:57:04 scientific hypotheses
0:57:06 but theodicies narratives of providence
0:57:09 and redemption
0:57:10 presented in the jargon of social
0:57:12 science
0:57:13 what we're saying is that liberalism the
0:57:16 reason why it's been able to have this
0:57:18 perceived epistemological upper hand on
0:57:20 the religious narrative not just the
0:57:22 islamic one
0:57:23 it's because it seems like you're
0:57:25 speaking scientifically when you're
0:57:27 talking about secular ideology
0:57:29 what we've been able to show today
0:57:30 ladies and gentlemen is that that is not
0:57:33 the case
0:57:34 and that the the first principles of
0:57:36 liberalism are
0:57:37 unfounded unsubstantiated unproven
0:57:40 we've also been able to show ladies and
0:57:42 gentlemen that actually
0:57:45 not only are the first principles
0:57:46 unproven but a lot of them are based on
0:57:49 mythology fiction
0:57:50 stories and so on
0:57:54 and so to favor that kind of a narrative
0:57:56 over and above the islamic one
0:57:59 or any other religious narrative for
0:58:00 that matter is frankly
0:58:03 academically unfair in the first
0:58:05 instance
0:58:06 epistemologically unjustified in the
0:58:08 first instance
0:58:09 philosophically unjust frankly you can't
0:58:12 do that
0:58:14 and ask us questions so before any
0:58:16 questions are asked
0:58:18 from a person who claims to be a liberal
0:58:22 who might be now thinking that they have
0:58:24 found the ultimate truth
0:58:26 how can you prove liberalism as an
0:58:28 objective moral standard number one
0:58:30 from a scientific perspective or
0:58:32 otherwise or from a rational first
0:58:34 principle perspective
0:58:36 number two why do you expect us to
0:58:38 believe in your myth
0:58:41 why even even your philosophers that
0:58:43 propounded that myth
0:58:44 didn't believe in it fully themselves
0:58:46 they didn't conduct any scientific
0:58:47 experiments
0:58:48 number three do you not realize that
0:58:51 it's as
0:58:51 conceivable on a contractarian
0:58:54 understanding of liberalism
0:58:55 to have as much punitive law
0:58:58 as could conceivably be the case in an
0:59:02 islamic state with all of the punitive
0:59:03 laws being implemented
0:59:06 so if that is the case what do you have
0:59:07 to offer us
0:59:10 what is modernization why should we be
0:59:12 like you
0:59:14 what have you got for us the answer is
0:59:17 really you have nothing for
0:59:18 us sorry to say i need to be blunt you
0:59:20 have nothing to offer
0:59:21 liberalism has nothing to offer islam
0:59:23 that's the answer
0:59:25 liberalism has nothing to offer islam
0:59:29 it's there's nothing there for us
0:59:32 everything that's conceivable in
0:59:33 liberalism
0:59:34 can also be potentially conceivable in
0:59:36 islam and vice versa
0:59:39 in terms of punitive laws and so on so
0:59:41 what's the issue
0:59:42 now they'll say human rights human
0:59:44 rights and i'm going to say this once
0:59:46 and everyone should remember it
0:59:48 they human rights is a metaphysical
0:59:51 construct
0:59:52 which cannot be actualized in the real
0:59:54 world it's impossible to have an
0:59:56 actualization
0:59:58 of human rights with the existence of
1:00:00 social contracts you can never have
1:00:02 ultimate freedom of anything
1:00:04 that's nonsense on stilts as jeremy
1:00:07 bentham said it's impossible
1:00:09 now the answer is this that liberals
1:00:11 will say
1:00:12 we define the extent to which freedom of
1:00:14 speech expression and so on thought and
1:00:17 religion should be exercised in the
1:00:19 state
1:00:20 in accordance with democracy or this or
1:00:22 that or the other
1:00:23 but those things themselves are
1:00:25 problematic because they number one
1:00:27 could be in conflict of liberalism
1:00:29 and number two could bring out results
1:00:31 like hitler
1:00:32 which had you know retrospectively
1:00:34 everyone looks back and says how immoral
1:00:35 was he
1:00:37 in sum therefore what i want to say is
1:00:42 the question needs to be questioned
1:00:45 whenever they ask you a question which
1:00:46 is predicated on human rights
1:00:48 you should say no thank you you have to
1:00:52 first
1:00:53 justify yourself the last thing here
1:00:56 i've got
1:00:57 sorry it's okay for me to go over a
1:01:00 little bit
1:01:00 okay is this is there is an orientalism
1:01:04 here
1:01:04 by the way orientalism is not just a
1:01:06 book that edward side wrote
1:01:08 which places the east as the subject of
1:01:10 investigation
1:01:11 the abject the other but it's a kind of
1:01:15 orientalism which
1:01:16 actually also exists in liberal
1:01:17 discourse so what many liberal
1:01:19 orientalists and progressive muslims
1:01:21 groups attempt to do
1:01:22 is demonstrate the extent to which the
1:01:24 or punitive laws refer to in the
1:01:26 traditionalist discourse are totally
1:01:27 aberrational and therefore
1:01:29 unacceptable in the context of human
1:01:31 rights and liberalism in particular
1:01:32 from this abduction muslim minorities in
1:01:35 the west who have no intention of
1:01:36 bringing to life such abstract rulings
1:01:38 are further abject to social imagination
1:01:41 of large sways of the majority of
1:01:42 populists in other words
1:01:44 real and truly all of those punitive
1:01:45 laws of islam have nothing to do with
1:01:47 the muslim
1:01:48 minority existence in the west we have
1:01:51 no
1:01:51 intention whatsoever of implementing
1:01:54 any of the punitive laws in the western
1:01:56 world but those laws
1:01:59 are used as an ammunition against a
1:02:01 minority
1:02:02 which produces an irony frankly
1:02:05 the irony is use those things to instill
1:02:10 fear in the majority
1:02:12 in order for you to juxtapose yourself
1:02:14 or define yourself against
1:02:17 the muslim minority and that is frankly
1:02:20 a tyranny of the majority type logic
1:02:22 which liberalism itself came to dismiss
1:02:24 irony it's an irony almost all liberal
1:02:27 thinkers talked about tyranny of the
1:02:29 majority
1:02:29 now you have this guy what's his name
1:02:32 gates
1:02:33 what's his first name again i don't care
1:02:36 about his name
1:02:37 you know wilder whatever his name he's
1:02:39 talking about
1:02:40 attacks for women wearing headscarf in
1:02:42 this this is against
1:02:44 liberalism because it is frankly it
1:02:46 doesn't understand that when you have a
1:02:48 law in a liberal state it has to be
1:02:49 consistent to all people he's not even
1:02:51 liberal
1:02:52 his part is called the freedom party you
1:02:54 should take this ammunition
1:02:56 and it's not physical ammunition no take
1:02:59 the
1:03:00 it's intellectual bullets and shoot this
1:03:03 guy and others
1:03:05 physically not not physically not
1:03:08 feeling
1:03:09 intellectually where should i am
1:03:12 so i'll end with does that
1:03:15 come like i can open up for questions
1:03:16 and analysis
1:03:18 give me this thing yes now you can stay
1:03:20 on there
1:03:22 so q a um guys about the questions
1:03:25 please no fatawa i love it i know we
1:03:27 love fatawa
1:03:29 last year two years ago we were i was at
1:03:30 medina expo and we had a two hour
1:03:32 lecture about community building
1:03:34 first question that comes in is isla
1:03:37 guys please keep it at the subject and
1:03:41 challenge muhammad hijab a bit okay i
1:03:43 want to see him sweat on his forehead
1:03:45 okay so who's got the first question
1:03:49 assalamu alaikum brother thanks for your
1:03:52 presentation
1:03:54 i have a question about your debating
1:03:56 approach
1:03:58 you told us about the harm principle
1:04:03 and also so basically
1:04:07 more enjoyment or what's the word
1:04:09 exactly more enjoyment less harm
1:04:12 and more pleasure that's the word
1:04:14 exactly
1:04:15 after that you also used another example
1:04:18 um
1:04:19 saying that if you don't harm at least
1:04:23 people saying that if you don't harm the
1:04:25 other
1:04:26 person then it's okay you can do
1:04:28 whatever you want and in your debate
1:04:30 you approach people for example by
1:04:32 saying
1:04:34 what about incestual relationships
1:04:38 but what i was thinking is suppose the
1:04:40 other person
1:04:42 you convince the other person and the
1:04:43 other person turns around and says
1:04:45 you know what i'm actually for brother
1:04:48 and brother
1:04:48 or sister and sister relationships be
1:04:51 then going towards a
1:04:52 society that's even more uh
1:04:57 you know there's more fitnah in the
1:04:58 society so we don't actually
1:05:00 at least i don't like we don't want that
1:05:02 i assume
1:05:04 so is is that the right approach to go
1:05:07 around it i can see
1:05:08 i can see you're concerned i could
1:05:09 definitely see it
1:05:12 um i think it's important to show people
1:05:15 sometimes the inconsistencies if someone
1:05:17 turns around and says
1:05:18 you know i'm for that thing i'm full
1:05:21 brother and brother having
1:05:22 intercourse with one another or sister
1:05:23 and sister and so on
1:05:25 then to be honest with you they're being
1:05:28 uh consistent with their moral and their
1:05:29 ethic
1:05:30 right but my issue is not with those
1:05:32 individuals that are being consistent
1:05:34 with their ethic my issue issues with
1:05:35 those individuals are not being
1:05:36 consistent with their ethic
1:05:38 they would allow one kind of
1:05:39 non-normative practice and not another
1:05:40 now
1:05:41 is this what i think underlying this
1:05:43 concern is
1:05:44 doesn't this bring people now closer to
1:05:47 maybe legalizing incest in certain
1:05:48 countries and so on
1:05:50 well to be honest with you my friend
1:05:51 i'll be honest you know even if they
1:05:52 didn't
1:05:53 legalize it it would still be happening
1:05:55 would just be more socially acceptable
1:05:56 or unacceptable
1:05:57 that's that's the only thing i think
1:05:58 that incest is actually happening it's
1:06:00 just socially unacceptable
1:06:02 and from islamic perspective there is a
1:06:06 reason for that which is the fitra the
1:06:07 fitra
1:06:08 is the innate disposition which
1:06:10 recognizes certain moral things as
1:06:12 abhorren
1:06:13 naturally right and we would use that
1:06:15 same argument with anything which is
1:06:16 non-normative and non-compliance with
1:06:18 the quran by the way not just
1:06:20 incest so if we can get them to kind of
1:06:23 reflect
1:06:24 using this kind of thought experiment or
1:06:25 this you know method of debate whatever
1:06:28 you want to call it
1:06:29 sometimes it activates the fitra and
1:06:31 that's that's the
1:06:32 if you like the objective of of doing
1:06:34 that not not necessarily because i'm
1:06:36 going to go outside of 10 downing street
1:06:37 or
1:06:38 the was it the hague here i don't know
1:06:39 where it is or whether you guys have
1:06:41 parliament and say you know brother and
1:06:43 sister should really
1:06:44 i'm not gonna i'm not a campaigner for
1:06:46 that just you know to be clear
1:06:48 but yeah i see your concern i think it
1:06:49 is a bit of a double-edged thought
1:06:51 but we have to do we have to do it you
1:06:52 know sometimes the
1:06:55 the advantages outweigh the
1:06:56 disadvantages okay
1:06:58 thank you very much okay next question
1:07:01 who wants to
1:07:08 see thank you very much
1:07:11 my brother with your presentation
1:07:16 but one thing is very important in at
1:07:18 this moment
1:07:19 you talk about john locke and
1:07:24 aman merkant dear metaphysic
1:07:28 a person and he has done a lot of things
1:07:31 to
1:07:33 recognize god in the community
1:07:37 emmanuel kant and about 12 years he
1:07:40 researched about that that means after
1:07:44 a very dark period
1:07:47 we have a renaissance period in european
1:07:50 country
1:07:52 my question is now the liberalism is a
1:07:55 fact that we have to compare with islam
1:07:58 law how you can compute it that
1:08:01 islam can be practicized in liberalism
1:08:04 all
1:08:04 regularism can have effect in islam
1:08:08 that is a sort of reconciliation that we
1:08:11 can
1:08:13 justify and also bring the people
1:08:17 for a sort of peace
1:08:20 community and it will be very useful for
1:08:23 the
1:08:24 future of the new generation
1:08:26 [Music]
1:08:27 okay thank you uh emmanuel in in
1:08:29 critique of pure reason
1:08:31 he was criticizing the cosmological
1:08:32 argument it's difficult to know where he
1:08:34 stands religiously by the way i think he
1:08:36 there's a good case of him being an
1:08:37 atheist and to be honest because he
1:08:39 criticizes the arguments for god's
1:08:40 existence
1:08:41 but it doesn't mean just because he
1:08:42 criticizes them that he doesn't believe
1:08:43 in god
1:08:44 um so it's difficult i think scholars
1:08:46 have struggled with the what is
1:08:48 emmanuel cancer religious background
1:08:49 that's a question i'll leave open
1:08:51 but in regards to your second question i
1:08:53 think you're absolutely right i think
1:08:55 there should be an accommodationist
1:08:56 approach
1:08:57 um and that accommodationist approach is
1:08:59 a recognition by both muslim communities
1:09:02 and majority for example non-muslim
1:09:04 communities
1:09:05 that actually where muslims are
1:09:08 minorities yes they will
1:09:09 they must be subject to the law of
1:09:11 whatever land they're in and that's by
1:09:13 the way part and parcel of what they
1:09:14 believe in
1:09:15 so even so you cannot impose a law which
1:09:18 is islamic on a liberal state
1:09:20 but what liberals must understand is
1:09:22 that they cannot impose
1:09:23 a law which is liberal anti-islamic in
1:09:26 an islamic state as well
1:09:28 and that is a fair approach i believe
1:09:30 and if that is understood
1:09:32 then this colonial attitude of or we've
1:09:35 got the
1:09:36 right metaphysic and you don't have the
1:09:37 right metaphysic that can start to be
1:09:40 put aside and we start realizing that
1:09:42 actually okay
1:09:44 we have our way and you have your way
1:09:46 but when there's this approach which
1:09:47 actually is linked very strongly with
1:09:49 the colonial
1:09:50 um you know the colonial empire of the
1:09:52 hegemonic west at the moment
1:09:54 and pre and in the maybe last 200 300
1:09:57 400 years
1:09:58 with slavery and all that stuff it
1:10:00 becomes more problematic because it
1:10:02 becomes sanctimony western sanctimony oh
1:10:04 you should be like us basically as if
1:10:06 god made the world in
1:10:08 western image so that is i think where
1:10:10 the problem is well we have to challenge
1:10:12 it
1:10:13 but there is a truth there if we're
1:10:14 living in western countries we have to
1:10:17 abide
1:10:17 by western law so long as that law does
1:10:20 not
1:10:21 arbitrarily discriminate against muslims
1:10:24 like the kind of laws we're seeing
1:10:25 unfortunately being passed in this
1:10:26 country with the niqab ban for example
1:10:29 or in france with you know head covering
1:10:31 being
1:10:32 taken off which clearly is is targeted
1:10:34 against one community over
1:10:35 and above all other communities which is
1:10:37 against liberalism
1:10:39 it's not only just against islam but
1:10:40 it's absolutely against liberalism
1:10:42 because it destroys the um arbitrariness
1:10:45 of
1:10:46 law and it destroys the principle of
1:10:49 you know trying to look after a minority
1:10:51 rather than tyranny of the majority
1:10:53 so we have to remind them of their own
1:10:55 principles sometimes as well
1:10:57 maybe a sister now come on be feminist
1:11:09 we've been very critical tonight about
1:11:12 concepts like democracy
1:11:14 secularism human rights and
1:11:17 you've just in continuation with the
1:11:20 previous question
1:11:21 how can we see the rule of islam the
1:11:24 sharia basically let's name things as it
1:11:26 is
1:11:27 how can be fit within the the laws that
1:11:31 we have nowadays
1:11:32 in western countries or in any country
1:11:35 whatsoever and that they apply
1:11:36 secularism
1:11:37 and you said we should remind the white
1:11:40 men
1:11:40 how how we as muslims um
1:11:44 prefer to live which like according to
1:11:47 which laws
1:11:48 but the question is as i said we've been
1:11:50 very critical
1:11:51 the self-criticism is how we as muslims
1:11:54 should remind them and what should we do
1:11:57 like
1:11:58 to be a positive and active part in this
1:12:02 kind of
1:12:02 discussion or procedure to reach that
1:12:05 point
1:12:06 i think you're right you're absolutely
1:12:08 right we should be introspective
1:12:09 but introspection comes after uh the
1:12:12 insurance of protection
1:12:14 so black people in the united states
1:12:16 couldn't start saying we're gonna
1:12:17 you know attack our own community in the
1:12:20 1960s and be introspective
1:12:22 unless they first established themselves
1:12:24 as a community
1:12:26 we're able to secure certain civil
1:12:28 rights and then we can have discussions
1:12:30 about how to fix things within our own
1:12:32 house
1:12:33 but if we're not being given and this is
1:12:34 the issue if we're not being given
1:12:36 equal treatment you know through this
1:12:39 kind of unarbitrary law that's the
1:12:40 starting point we have to start with
1:12:42 that first
1:12:43 once that conversation is done or during
1:12:46 meanwhile we can also talk about
1:12:48 like you said how we should be you're
1:12:50 absolutely right positively contributing
1:12:52 through charity and through community
1:12:53 work and through
1:12:55 you know i'm not gonna use the word
1:12:56 integration by the way but through
1:12:58 economic contribution to a state which
1:13:00 doesn't jeopardize any of our principles
1:13:02 so
1:13:02 i think these are parallel conversations
1:13:04 we can have at the same time
1:13:06 but we should make a focus uh of the
1:13:09 discussion
1:13:10 our own rights otherwise they're going
1:13:11 to tell us what our rights ought to be
1:13:13 i think that should be a focus
1:13:18 you started off with some epistemology
1:13:20 and um so lately i was
1:13:22 uh reading some books of philosophy some
1:13:24 skeptic works
1:13:26 about knowing things and i read this
1:13:28 skeptic paradox and
1:13:30 i don't know if you've heard of it any
1:13:32 about knowing whether we have hands
1:13:36 no i haven't read this robert nozick
1:13:37 george immortal oh robert nozick is a
1:13:39 liberal himself
1:13:41 yes okay go ahead so the paradox goes as
1:13:44 this
1:13:45 i know that i have hands yeah i don't
1:13:47 know that i'm not a brain in a vet
1:13:49 if i do not know uh that i'm not in
1:13:52 brain in a vet i do not know if i that i
1:13:54 have hands
1:13:55 so i read a internalistic
1:13:59 approach to on this internalist answer
1:14:02 externalist answer
1:14:03 but they could not really convince me so
1:14:05 i would
1:14:06 like to ask you how would you answer
1:14:07 this paradox i don't know paradoxes are
1:14:09 unanswerable by
1:14:10 nature you know i mean to be honest with
1:14:12 you i can give you the i can give you 20
1:14:14 paradoxes it's the whole point of a
1:14:16 paradox is that many of them are
1:14:17 unanswerable right
1:14:19 but are they implement are they
1:14:21 physically relevant to the real world
1:14:24 so a lot of a lot for example let me
1:14:25 give you another paradox which
1:14:27 a lot of you might have heard right that
1:14:30 and this relates to theology
1:14:31 so can god create a rock so heavy that
1:14:33 he can self can't
1:14:35 lift yeah and after thinking about this
1:14:38 for a long time
1:14:39 here's my answer right the existence of
1:14:41 such a rock would disprove god's
1:14:42 existence
1:14:44 because god by his definition is you
1:14:46 know it's an omnipotent he's
1:14:48 all powerful so certain things that god
1:14:51 does
1:14:52 that if he does he stops being god like
1:14:54 he becomes a man or starts having
1:14:56 limitations or something like that or
1:14:57 weaknesses
1:14:58 so in other words these paradoxes and
1:15:01 this is something which hopefully will
1:15:02 help you with every single paradox out
1:15:04 there
1:15:04 some of them are problematic in
1:15:07 semantics
1:15:08 in other words the way you're phrasing
1:15:10 the question has no
1:15:12 material relevance in the real world it
1:15:15 does it's not possible it's like saying
1:15:17 can god create a square and then change
1:15:19 it can god create a squared circle for
1:15:21 example right
1:15:23 can no but but that such a thing squared
1:15:25 circle concept
1:15:26 is not an applicable one to the real
1:15:28 world and most paradoxes are like that
1:15:31 the paradox itself is not applicable in
1:15:32 a cosmological reality
1:15:34 so it's only um it's only something
1:15:37 which can be said
1:15:38 by syntax but cannot be shown
1:15:41 by physical necessity so all of the
1:15:44 paradoxes of the world almost all of
1:15:46 them can be solved like that
1:15:48 even the mathematical ones but in terms
1:15:51 of the actual
1:15:52 physical ones and you know there's
1:15:53 there's a book on the guy called
1:15:55 jim jimmy uh khalili i think he wrote a
1:15:58 book on paradoxes
1:15:59 and you know jimmy kalili he wrote a
1:16:02 book on like
1:16:02 i don't know 100 paradoxes in there and
1:16:05 the answer is the same usually the
1:16:06 paradox can be solved by saying
1:16:09 that these things are not implementable
1:16:10 in the real world they're not physically
1:16:11 tangible there you can't
1:16:13 you can't engage with them really
1:16:19 no more paradoxes everybody's confused
1:16:21 [Laughter]
1:16:25 i wrote down my question to briefly ask
1:16:28 it
1:16:29 you stated liberalism has nothing to
1:16:31 offer
1:16:32 islam and as a believer i am convinced
1:16:35 about the moral
1:16:36 superiority of islam but i can imagine
1:16:39 that
1:16:40 liberals might think where are the
1:16:43 examples of a
1:16:44 sound peaceful economically and socially
1:16:46 healthy community in islam
1:16:49 so the lack of good practices whereas
1:16:52 there are plenty of them
1:16:53 in western liberal countries how would
1:16:56 you reply to this question
1:16:57 the quran says
1:17:00 you know there's a there's an
1:17:01 interesting book called the rise and
1:17:03 fall of great empires the quran says
1:17:04 that these are the days which we
1:17:06 alternate between the people in the
1:17:07 thousand four hundred years of islam's
1:17:09 civilized i'm not gonna say
1:17:11 civilizational existence but certainly
1:17:13 in terms of its timeline
1:17:14 you'll find that there were times where
1:17:16 it was if not the superpower one of the
1:17:18 superpowers of the world
1:17:19 you know so if you look at for example
1:17:21 the abbasid empire
1:17:23 that is an example it's a historical
1:17:25 example of
1:17:26 a thriving you know civilization which
1:17:28 incorporated different
1:17:30 parts of the world and where people you
1:17:32 know dealt with intellection if you like
1:17:34 civilizationally in the libraries of
1:17:36 baghdad
1:17:37 if you look at for instance the example
1:17:40 of
1:17:40 spain you know that's a very big example
1:17:43 you had so many a plethora of scholars
1:17:45 coming out there
1:17:46 so so much so that some people even said
1:17:49 that
1:17:49 that movement started the renaissance in
1:17:53 the west
1:17:53 don't forget the west even despite the
1:17:56 fact that liberalism existed within it
1:17:58 for many years was not in fact in that
1:18:01 peaceful state of existence that you
1:18:03 think it was in
1:18:04 i mean the european dark ages which many
1:18:07 historians say
1:18:08 started from about 4 10 when for
1:18:10 historical
1:18:11 purposes they say the anglo-saxons
1:18:15 came into britain up until about you
1:18:17 know
1:18:18 maybe about 1400s or something you know
1:18:20 that was the european decade a thousand
1:18:22 years of
1:18:23 you know a lack of you know substantive
1:18:27 um you know contribution given from the
1:18:30 west so this narrative is problematic
1:18:33 islam has probably more examples than
1:18:35 any other civilization
1:18:36 if you look in a historical timeline of
1:18:40 multiculturalism number one because
1:18:42 frankly
1:18:43 liberalism coexisted with slavery it
1:18:45 coexisted with
1:18:46 racism it co-existed with colonialism
1:18:49 and
1:18:49 in fact it was spread by colonialism
1:18:52 napoleon
1:18:53 he spread liberalism by the sword he was
1:18:55 referred to as a liberal dictator
1:18:57 you know don't forget he was a liberal
1:18:58 after the you know the french revolution
1:19:01 so this narrative is really problematic
1:19:03 it really really is problematic
1:19:05 that you know racism was justified up
1:19:08 until the late 19th century in america
1:19:10 where you literally had slaves
1:19:13 which were black and the reason for them
1:19:15 being black slaves was
1:19:16 was was was actually given reason to
1:19:19 through liberal frameworks a social
1:19:21 contract and all those things
1:19:22 so this thing here that we're talking
1:19:24 about is not as black and white as many
1:19:26 people think
1:19:27 that's why the quran gives us a formula
1:19:29 it says look at those
1:19:31 people that came allah come that they
1:19:34 came before you
1:19:36 you know ken they were stronger than you
1:19:39 in strength
1:19:40 and there's many different ending of
1:19:41 that verses in the part of the quran so
1:19:43 in other words
1:19:43 look at the the civilizations that have
1:19:46 risen and
1:19:47 fell yeah and realize that actually this
1:19:50 is less to do with ideology and more to
1:19:52 do with
1:19:53 all other things military success
1:19:55 geopolitical circumstances
1:19:57 you know even natural resources why did
1:19:59 the
1:20:00 industrial revolution happen in 1760 in
1:20:03 in england
1:20:04 and not in india is it because you know
1:20:05 the english people were more clever and
1:20:07 you know how to deal with
1:20:08 no it's because there was a
1:20:09 concentration of coal in britain which
1:20:11 they could use to power
1:20:12 you know steam trains and so on so a lot
1:20:14 of it these things are you can't
1:20:16 correlate it's a false thing it's a
1:20:18 fallacy to think
1:20:19 i'm not saying you're doing the fallacy
1:20:20 by the way i'm just saying it's a
1:20:21 fallacy thing that correlation equals
1:20:23 causation
1:20:24 there are a plethora of different
1:20:25 contributing factors if we look at that
1:20:27 in all in totality we realize
1:20:29 that the situation is way more nuanced
1:20:31 than we think
1:20:32 maybe a question on that side yes thank
1:20:34 you bismillah
1:20:36 salaam alaikum um my question
1:20:39 maybe inshallah fits you very well
1:20:41 because the question was also a bit
1:20:43 a little bit of political issues um
1:20:46 today i came from austria vienna and my
1:20:48 question is
1:20:50 because of this area yeah many people
1:20:52 are very feared is it
1:20:53 it's a double question actually many
1:20:55 people are very feared about something
1:20:57 like a
1:20:58 great replacement which happens because
1:21:00 of increasing of muslim population in
1:21:03 central europe probably and my question
1:21:06 is
1:21:07 many people fear about this great
1:21:09 replacement
1:21:10 and this affects muslims too worldwide
1:21:13 you
1:21:14 know my question is how to handle these
1:21:17 um wrong narratives because it's
1:21:20 very um it touches many people the
1:21:23 people in europe and they also fear
1:21:26 islam will less liberate them
1:21:29 so to say so how what is your
1:21:31 recommendation on that topic
1:21:32 i think you guys are doing a great job
1:21:34 by the way in austria because he's got
1:21:35 an organization
1:21:36 you know it's called iman isn't it
1:21:38 that's great yes it's a it's a great
1:21:39 organization that's what we should be
1:21:40 doing we should be
1:21:42 raising our voices and making the
1:21:43 arguments and if we don't do it
1:21:45 that it's going to be the argument is
1:21:46 going to be put on us and i think what
1:21:48 you guys are doing in austria
1:21:50 knowing the social context because me
1:21:52 being from britain
1:21:53 and there's only so much i can offer
1:21:54 everyone else you know people in
1:21:56 specific contexts
1:21:58 you know must do their own homework look
1:22:00 at the social and legal context
1:22:02 and deal with the issues at hand you
1:22:04 know so the kind of work you're doing
1:22:06 is exactly what needs to be done and
1:22:08 sometimes it's just a matter
1:22:10 of like the sister was talking about
1:22:11 kind of self-reflection and things like
1:22:13 that and being contributive
1:22:14 to society literally mixing with people
1:22:17 because pure research has shown us
1:22:18 that the most racist or islamophobic
1:22:20 societies are the ones
1:22:22 which have the least interaction with
1:22:23 muslims you know so if we go and this
1:22:26 country is a little bit of an odd case
1:22:28 because you've got 20 million people but
1:22:30 you've somehow got this
1:22:31 guy in this far right thing with so many
1:22:34 seats in parliament
1:22:35 it's quite an odd situation in western
1:22:37 europe to have that many
1:22:38 you know seats so what i would say is we
1:22:41 need to go out to the areas where
1:22:44 there is not as many muslims we need to
1:22:46 with these are the areas we need to go
1:22:48 into
1:22:48 we need to tap those areas we need to
1:22:50 show these people as sad as it sounds
1:22:52 that we're actually human beings
1:22:54 you know i mean as sad as it sounds
1:22:56 because they don't believe that
1:22:57 you know and and really they don't
1:22:59 because if you look at what they've done
1:23:00 and
1:23:01 how dehumanization works it starts off
1:23:04 with this other rising and it ends out
1:23:06 it finishes off it plays out until
1:23:08 someone is killed
1:23:10 and you know one of my good friends his
1:23:11 name is sharif
1:23:13 where i did a podcast with as well he's
1:23:15 doing his phd
1:23:17 on on dehumanization and what he was
1:23:19 talking to me about
1:23:20 was how drones in particular are being
1:23:23 used because drones if you look at
1:23:25 how many how they're this little you
1:23:27 know remote control
1:23:28 almost game-like you know things where
1:23:31 you can go and kill someone when someone
1:23:33 is far away from
1:23:34 someone this is his conclusion if you
1:23:35 like if the further away you are of
1:23:38 someone
1:23:38 the easier it is to conceive of
1:23:42 killing them for your game it's not
1:23:44 they're not human it's difficult
1:23:46 if you see a human right in front of you
1:23:48 the closer we become to them right
1:23:50 the easier it is for them to realize
1:23:52 that we're human beings and
1:23:53 unfortunately what is happening is
1:23:55 there is a steady process of
1:23:56 dehumanization which we need to close
1:23:58 the gap of
1:24:00 by actually being active members like
1:24:01 the sisters were saying in society not
1:24:03 just concentrating in one area
1:24:05 there needs to be groups of people that
1:24:07 literally reach out to those communities
1:24:10 where demographics are homogenous if
1:24:12 you're like oh there's lots of white
1:24:13 people
1:24:13 and no one else that's the most these
1:24:15 are the most dangerous areas
1:24:16 just to let you know because these are
1:24:18 the areas where people are most likely
1:24:19 to have the worst opinion of you
1:24:21 not just a view of all other you know
1:24:23 based on research
1:24:25 and statistics on all other you know
1:24:27 racial groups now that's the
1:24:28 generalization
1:24:29 but for the most part that's what the
1:24:31 research directs us to
1:24:32 we need to go into those areas tap them
1:24:35 talk to people show them we're human
1:24:37 and keep doing the kind of stuff you're
1:24:38 doing man i got a hand over here
1:24:40 yes did you come all the way from vienna
1:24:42 for this event
1:24:46 we'll come back to vienna we'll go to
1:24:48 you as well listen at least i'll try and
1:24:50 do that
1:24:53 yeah i totally agree that dialogue is
1:24:56 needed
1:24:56 but i have a question uh for you i'm not
1:24:59 talking about
1:25:00 liberalism i don't know either if i'm
1:25:02 christian i'm uh
1:25:04 but a liberalist i don't know but i'm uh
1:25:07 i'm in favor of human rights and i also
1:25:10 have a muslim friend who
1:25:12 who wrote an article about
1:25:16 yes that human rights and
1:25:19 islam yes are really compatible yes
1:25:22 don't you think that for a dialogue
1:25:24 between muslims and non-muslims in this
1:25:26 country
1:25:26 yeah uh human the the the statement of
1:25:29 human rights is a good basis
1:25:32 yeah i agree and i i agree that
1:25:35 they are both myths in in the way you
1:25:38 that's not no no i i totally agree with
1:25:40 your sentiment i think you've asked a
1:25:41 very good question and a very pertinent
1:25:43 one to the discourse and i thank you for
1:25:45 your contribution definitely correct
1:25:47 um the issue of course is of one of
1:25:49 definitions right
1:25:50 so who gets to define exactly what human
1:25:53 rights are how they should be
1:25:54 implemented
1:25:55 and who should implement them because
1:25:58 going back to emmanuel kan he believes
1:26:00 in something called
1:26:02 this philosopher and this is enacted by
1:26:03 the way in the u.n it's called
1:26:05 cosmopolitanism that's a big word what
1:26:07 does it mean it means that there are
1:26:08 these universal laws
1:26:10 which have to be implemented because if
1:26:12 you have you imagine if you have a world
1:26:13 state
1:26:14 right you need to have a world police
1:26:16 and you need to have a world
1:26:17 military and you need to have a world
1:26:19 you know judiciary if you like and
1:26:22 i know this is going to sound
1:26:23 conspiratorial but the united states of
1:26:25 america is trying to do that basically
1:26:27 it's trying to create as many allies
1:26:30 with it as possible
1:26:31 and it's trying to be the world police
1:26:33 the world military and so on
1:26:34 so it's not just about human rights this
1:26:36 is an interesting guise
1:26:38 right for the fact that america wants to
1:26:40 encroach on as many countries
1:26:42 sovereignty as possible
1:26:43 and they do throw through the medium of
1:26:45 human rights
1:26:46 so we need to look at definitions
1:26:48 carefully hierarchies carefully
1:26:50 because as muslims and christians as
1:26:52 christians and muslims
1:26:54 we believe in god's right as the most
1:26:55 supreme right of all
1:26:57 now that's not indicated at all in any
1:26:59 of the human rights
1:27:00 and why or it not to be indicated
1:27:02 because of the secularism or the
1:27:04 secularistic
1:27:05 uh predis presupposition but we don't
1:27:07 believe in that
1:27:08 we're not secularists in that sense so
1:27:10 from that perspective i think
1:27:11 i agree me and you're both not
1:27:12 secularists because you'd identify
1:27:14 yourself as a christian
1:27:15 so we would want to see some of our you
1:27:17 know deities rights represented in this
1:27:19 right where about human what about um
1:27:21 mother's rights you know
1:27:23 30 of the articles that were written in
1:27:25 1948 in that convention
1:27:28 only the word mother i think comes once
1:27:31 in islam we have
1:27:32 a system where mothers come first you
1:27:35 know it's not mentioned in human rights
1:27:37 so we would say look we have our own
1:27:39 conception of human rights
1:27:40 where god comes first you know spouse
1:27:43 spousal rights
1:27:44 mothers rights husband's rights we have
1:27:47 our own conception and it
1:27:48 and it ranges from a societal
1:27:50 description
1:27:52 all the way to a domestic one all the
1:27:53 way through to a familial one
1:27:55 all the way up to a metaphysical one
1:27:57 that's our conception
1:27:58 and there's going to be a great deal of
1:28:00 overlap
1:28:02 and that's where we can have the
1:28:03 discussion but we can't start by saying
1:28:05 yes we must agree
1:28:07 that these are the objective human
1:28:09 rights that we all must universally
1:28:11 accept because
1:28:12 that conversation is unfair i believe
1:28:16 a lot of questions mashallah um let's
1:28:19 sister now and then we'll come to you
1:28:21 inshaallah
1:28:23 um in most of the conversations or
1:28:27 as you said um that we get very
1:28:29 apologetic
1:28:31 um do you have like more suggestions
1:28:33 next to what she said
1:28:35 to turn the conversation around yeah so
1:28:37 a lot of the lecturer was trying to give
1:28:39 you material for that right so
1:28:41 the most one of the most powerful things
1:28:44 in the world that you can do is ask a
1:28:46 question
1:28:47 okay asking a question unlocks
1:28:49 everything
1:28:50 right and usually the one who's asking
1:28:52 the question has the power
1:28:54 right that's not always the case but if
1:28:57 you just
1:28:58 think about three questions to ask them
1:29:01 about whatever presupposition they're
1:29:03 coming from
1:29:04 so for example the feminist right second
1:29:05 we're feminist it says how comes in
1:29:07 islam
1:29:08 you know no one brought out some
1:29:10 bringing out myself right because it's
1:29:12 usually the
1:29:13 issue of great controversy someone says
1:29:16 okay how is it the case that man for
1:29:18 example has different
1:29:20 inheritance laws to women in the quran
1:29:22 for example it shouldn't it be equal
1:29:24 the pre supposition is that different
1:29:27 things should be treated equally by the
1:29:28 way
1:29:28 whether it's anatomical and biological
1:29:30 and psychological difference
1:29:32 despite those differences which by the
1:29:34 way
1:29:35 second wave feminism feminists
1:29:37 acknowledge
1:29:39 if i said women as a more emotional than
1:29:41 men
1:29:42 do i sound misogynistic be honest a
1:29:45 little bit yeah if i say a
1:29:47 man is stronger he can control himself
1:29:49 better
1:29:50 you know a woman she gets emotional she
1:29:52 can cry
1:29:54 she should get palpitations she's
1:29:56 completely
1:29:57 say hold on man you're being
1:29:58 misogynistic say these are not my words
1:29:59 these are the words of simon
1:30:03 who is who the writer of the second sex
1:30:05 page 45.
1:30:08 wait a minute so i am so you're saying
1:30:11 all those things but but despite the
1:30:13 fact that
1:30:13 she she makes the case despite those
1:30:15 differences
1:30:16 there should be what there should be
1:30:19 equality we say well hold on
1:30:20 can you okay i'm willing to go along
1:30:22 please i'm really
1:30:23 happy to have this conversation with you
1:30:26 but before we continue i think it's fair
1:30:28 that you have to first justify that
1:30:29 first premise
1:30:31 where there is difference we should
1:30:32 still be equal can you elaborate
1:30:35 can you elaborate on that can you prove
1:30:36 that i mean no problem i'll
1:30:38 i'm willing to take that on board but
1:30:41 what you have to prove because you made
1:30:42 the claim
1:30:43 i mean the burden of proof was the one
1:30:44 who made the claim they've made the
1:30:46 claim here
1:30:47 so i'm i'm willing to listen to the
1:30:48 argument you just have to show me where
1:30:51 the principle of equality despite
1:30:53 difference should
1:30:54 ought to prevail over different
1:30:57 prescription where there is difference
1:30:59 for example right
1:31:01 so the point i'm making is one of the
1:31:04 best tactics is to
1:31:06 to question presuppositions and by the
1:31:08 way on that on that thing of um
1:31:10 inheritance we have a good researcher
1:31:12 with us called shif man
1:31:14 he's actually found that he did an
1:31:17 exhaustive voice called istikra
1:31:20 looking at all the cases and he found
1:31:21 that there are 20 major cases of
1:31:22 inheritance
1:31:23 16 of which by the way according to his
1:31:26 research
1:31:28 women get more than men did you know
1:31:30 that it's really interesting
1:31:32 where there's 20 different possible
1:31:34 cases of inheritance
1:31:36 16 of those cases despite the fact that
1:31:38 yeah the boy gets
1:31:40 we know those verses don't worry right
1:31:43 but despite that
1:31:44 women get actually more in 16 20 cases
1:31:46 so if there is an inequality here
1:31:48 it probably goes in the way of the woman
1:31:50 so let's uh we'll go to the next
1:31:51 question in child but you get
1:31:53 what i'm saying yeah there's already a
1:31:54 mic over there yes
1:31:56 yes thank you uh first of all i would
1:31:58 like to thank you for your excellent
1:31:59 presentation it was a great uh
1:32:00 insight you're gonna destroy this guy
1:32:02 man
1:32:04 as you were talking this guy's trying to
1:32:06 is it is it
1:32:07 gets wilder's here he's trying to kill
1:32:09 us or something
1:32:10 he found out where we are
1:32:17 thank you thank you guys sorry go ahead
1:32:20 it's okay thank you very much for your
1:32:22 excellent presentation it was a
1:32:24 crash course in in liberalism i also um
1:32:27 i also liked your accent very much it
1:32:28 was like listening to queen i like you
1:32:30 guys
1:32:34 so thank you for that um
1:32:38 so basically the the the the key element
1:32:41 of your speech
1:32:42 uh of questioning the question is a very
1:32:44 interesting one yeah
1:32:45 and on a micro level on an individual
1:32:47 level it is a very effective way to
1:32:50 um provide the
1:32:53 your colleague or your friend whatsoever
1:32:55 with another insight or another
1:32:56 perspective to create
1:32:57 more understanding between one another
1:33:00 the question i would like to ask is that
1:33:01 if you take that questioning the
1:33:03 question that concept that notion
1:33:05 to another level to a more strategic
1:33:06 level okay because i think the
1:33:08 underlying the underlying
1:33:10 uh idea of questioning the question is
1:33:12 to
1:33:13 influence the narrative to a certain
1:33:15 extent when you
1:33:16 when you influence a narrative there is
1:33:18 a way that you have the upper hand and
1:33:19 there is a way that you can teach the
1:33:21 other one
1:33:22 something so if you would take that
1:33:23 notion to another level to a more
1:33:25 strategic level
1:33:26 so not on a not on an individual level
1:33:28 but more let's say more on a political
1:33:30 level or a societal level
1:33:32 how would you advise us or what is it
1:33:33 what is your view on that how would how
1:33:35 do you think that we could
1:33:36 do that in the most effective way
1:33:38 possible i think formulating questions
1:33:41 and getting wider society to think about
1:33:43 them is one of the best techniques you
1:33:45 can do
1:33:47 okay really and you don't have to answer
1:33:50 everything i think your way of thinking
1:33:51 is excellent by the way right
1:33:53 you're thinking about how do we
1:33:54 implement these strategies on a wider
1:33:56 political level
1:33:58 and to change the narrative that's
1:33:59 exactly what we should be doing right
1:34:02 but we can't i mean thomas hobbs
1:34:06 since we've mentioned him today he says
1:34:08 man is but covenants are about words if
1:34:10 they're not backed by swords now i'm not
1:34:12 telling you to go get some swords
1:34:14 but what he's trying to say is that
1:34:15 you're only your word is only as worth
1:34:18 as much as your strength
1:34:20 so if you speak as loud as you can but
1:34:22 you're in a forest or in a you know
1:34:25 an empty room no one's gonna hear you
1:34:28 right so you need to put yourself
1:34:30 strategically in the right places
1:34:32 formulate the right arguments put
1:34:34 yourself in the right places
1:34:36 and keep keep rocking the boat
1:34:37 basically because if you don't rock the
1:34:39 boat we're not going to be able to once
1:34:40 again this idea we're not going to be
1:34:42 able to preserve our
1:34:43 children's futures we know now western
1:34:45 europe is becoming way more right-wing
1:34:48 it's unbelievable how it's working and a
1:34:50 lot of that is our fault because we're
1:34:51 not rocking the boat enough we're not
1:34:53 shouting as loud
1:34:54 to be fair as homosexuals shouted in
1:34:56 1960
1:34:57 or as uh black people did in in and and
1:35:00 that's how they got their rights
1:35:02 right so what we're saying is
1:35:05 we need to rock the ball more and we
1:35:07 need to get more involved and it's going
1:35:08 to be for the future of our children
1:35:10 the way you're thinking is right just
1:35:11 keep thinking the way you're thinking
1:35:13 right put yourself in the right places
1:35:15 and ask the right questions but must be
1:35:16 in the right places though
1:35:18 yep yes
1:35:22 right here by the way
1:35:26 hello there i am um
1:35:29 i have a pro-life question um
1:35:32 liberals tend to be very pro-choice and
1:35:36 you see more and more advocate
1:35:37 for um the liberal position being
1:35:40 abortion on demand without apology with
1:35:43 no exception
1:35:44 and preferably until birth so
1:35:48 as a christian that obviously is a thorn
1:35:51 in my eyes so
1:35:52 because i'm ruggedly pro-life i'm
1:35:54 hardcore pro-life
1:35:56 yes and as a christian i see many
1:35:58 christian
1:36:00 organizations that uh advocate for the
1:36:04 pro-life position in the public domain
1:36:06 but i
1:36:07 barely if any see any uh islamic
1:36:11 pro-life organizations so my question is
1:36:14 two-pronged
1:36:16 number one is do you know of any uh
1:36:19 islamic organizations that argue for the
1:36:21 pro-life position
1:36:22 in in the public domain and
1:36:25 two what is your take on the islamic
1:36:28 position of the pro-life
1:36:30 uh argument i think very good questions
1:36:32 an excellent question in fact you know
1:36:34 but within christianity there is a
1:36:35 spectrum as well so catholics are
1:36:37 usually way more rigid than protestants
1:36:39 and i think the sunni position
1:36:41 and usually the shiite position as well
1:36:43 is more in line with the protestant
1:36:44 reasoning than it is with the catholic
1:36:46 one
1:36:46 so we don't believe that conception
1:36:48 happens
1:36:49 when obviously sorry that life happens
1:36:52 at conception
1:36:53 we believe that there is either 40 or
1:36:56 120 days
1:36:58 where in which you know the um hadith
1:37:02 uh you know in ahadeth
1:37:12 one of you is going to be 40 days sorry
1:37:13 i'm just getting the hadith
1:37:15 the hadith is that if one of you is
1:37:18 going to be in your mother's room for 40
1:37:19 days
1:37:21 and then they will become scholars say
1:37:24 that the the the soul the insolent
1:37:27 period
1:37:28 is either from 40 to 120 days
1:37:31 i follow the hamburglar school of
1:37:32 thought which says 40 days so anything
1:37:34 before 40 days
1:37:36 is possible to have an abortion anything
1:37:39 after 40 days
1:37:40 i don't accept that unless there is some
1:37:43 kind of extenuating circumstance
1:37:45 and there are some extenuated
1:37:46 circumstances there are some scholars in
1:37:48 islam which go further than that
1:37:50 and so on now that's point one so in
1:37:53 terms of that so we don't we're not as
1:37:54 rigid as the catholic position
1:37:56 we're more in line with the protestant
1:37:57 position point two to be honest with you
1:38:00 if we see christians doing a good job we
1:38:03 leave them to it
1:38:04 okay usually all right so some things
1:38:07 that christians are arguing for and
1:38:08 doing
1:38:09 that we can't do okay do you do you do
1:38:12 that
1:38:12 some christians to be fair in south
1:38:14 america and other parts of america
1:38:16 to be honest are putting us all kind of
1:38:18 you know making us embarrass just like
1:38:20 some muslims make us embarrass as well
1:38:22 because they're blowing up abortion
1:38:23 clinics and those
1:38:24 things as well that's problematic for us
1:38:26 i'm sure it's problematic for you
1:38:28 so i think there is there is scope for
1:38:30 this for agreement
1:38:31 there can be collaboration here there
1:38:33 are points of interest but
1:38:35 for us the reason why we're not talking
1:38:37 about abortion as much
1:38:39 which is a big problem right especially
1:38:41 when it's done after
1:38:43 let's say in these some countries some
1:38:44 states apparently after six months some
1:38:46 ridiculous things like that
1:38:48 which we would see as murder as is
1:38:49 killing someone right
1:38:51 uh and you'd have to pay blood money and
1:38:53 all those things in islamic law
1:38:55 and the reason why we're not involved in
1:38:57 that as much is because we're too busy a
1:38:58 lot of the time
1:39:00 looking at how much of our children that
1:39:02 you know already born
1:39:03 are being killed in foreign policy right
1:39:05 so
1:39:06 that's the issue i think we're trying to
1:39:08 prioritize minority groups
1:39:10 what to talk about first second and
1:39:11 third your right to have a concern
1:39:13 and you're right to think that we should
1:39:14 be more involved but
1:39:16 usually when the christians once again
1:39:18 do a good job of something we usually
1:39:19 lead them to it
1:39:20 jews would probably have more of an
1:39:22 influence on the
1:39:24 bottom you know maybe we could
1:39:28 help you in some way shape or form but
1:39:29 we'd have to be in
1:39:31 in in compliance with our own principles
1:39:33 and i agree with your sentiments to a
1:39:35 great extent
1:39:36 thank you the other microphone places
1:39:40 in front i want to i want to ask
1:39:43 when looking at the liberal laws for
1:39:46 example in america what
1:39:47 holds more weight when for example
1:39:50 children
1:39:51 must pledge allegiance to the flag in
1:39:54 the morning at the school
1:39:55 or the freedom not to achieve not to do
1:39:58 that
1:39:58 or would that be uh treason so
1:40:01 in according to their loss what holds
1:40:03 more weight or more uh
1:40:05 yeah i don't think they would deem it
1:40:07 treason if the kid decides not to do it
1:40:09 by the way
1:40:10 um but there are some things i mean
1:40:12 every state once again there are states
1:40:14 which have
1:40:14 certain requirements for treason to take
1:40:17 place
1:40:18 and so we have to be very specific as to
1:40:20 how we're making the argument
1:40:22 um yeah i mean that's one of the things
1:40:24 which shows that there's a nationalistic
1:40:26 underpinning you're right
1:40:27 the whole allegiance to the flag thing i
1:40:29 mean desecrating a flag in many
1:40:31 countries in liberal countries is seen
1:40:32 as a criminal offence
1:40:34 and that shows you the extent to which
1:40:35 for some reason republican
1:40:37 liberal states decide where and where
1:40:39 you know how
1:40:40 where and how they can determine freedom
1:40:43 of expression
1:40:44 it shows a contradiction in their
1:40:45 principles so it's good to outline that
1:40:48 from that perspective that this is a
1:40:49 contradiction your principles
1:40:51 because it's not in line with the
1:40:52 freedom expression you promised in the
1:40:53 first instance
1:40:54 that's how i would kind of argue it
1:40:59 the mic is in the middle somewhere yeah
1:41:01 hello so i come uh
1:41:03 thank you for your speech i have a
1:41:05 question um
1:41:07 what is the main cause with regard to uh
1:41:09 people from the west
1:41:10 or liberals um we try to force down
1:41:13 their standard of norms and values and
1:41:16 what can we as muslims
1:41:17 do about this the reason why they do it
1:41:20 is the reason why
1:41:21 anyone does believes that their morals
1:41:23 are true
1:41:24 it's usually because they've been
1:41:25 socialized into believing in that
1:41:27 like for example if we were all born in
1:41:29 ancient greece
1:41:30 and we were you know we saw athena as
1:41:32 one of the greek gods
1:41:34 and we knew that this god was
1:41:35 responsible for this and this
1:41:37 it would be ingrained in our culture so
1:41:39 much so that we might just feel it
1:41:41 almost natural if you like you know and
1:41:44 so they've been brought up into this and
1:41:45 they can't
1:41:46 strip themselves away from this paradigm
1:41:48 this box
1:41:49 is really difficult for them to take
1:41:51 themselves out of
1:41:52 and so it's you do have to
1:41:55 engage with people in order to take them
1:41:58 outside of that box so they can see that
1:42:00 actually this is a rigid box with its
1:42:01 own
1:42:02 you know problems and so on and it has a
1:42:04 certain amount of dogma attached to it
1:42:06 as well so i think that
1:42:07 it's difficult for anybody in any
1:42:09 society to see above and beyond their
1:42:12 world view but with liberalism the
1:42:14 problem is that that's a problem because
1:42:16 liberalism itself talks about it doesn't
1:42:19 have any
1:42:19 fixed positions on certain moralities
1:42:22 and then to also and the issue is on
1:42:24 foreign policy that if you take this
1:42:25 liberalism which is meant to be
1:42:27 espousing the self-expression of someone
1:42:29 and spread it
1:42:30 you know that's the real problem this
1:42:32 new conservative
1:42:33 understanding of liberalism is the most
1:42:35 problematic of all because how can you
1:42:37 force someone to
1:42:38 i mean you're forcing someone to be free
1:42:40 it's a that's a paradox i mean
1:42:42 you're talking about priorities that's
1:42:44 that's the real problem so
1:42:45 i think generally it's difficult for
1:42:47 people to think like that because
1:42:48 they're born and raised
1:42:49 you know and it allows them to live a
1:42:51 very kind of heedless lifestyle frankly
1:42:54 you know i don't know how it is in the
1:42:55 netherlands but you know we have a pub
1:42:57 culture in our country in uk i'm sure
1:42:59 that you have it as well yeah
1:43:01 it's tomorrow king's day or something
1:43:02 yeah yeah great park so make sure you
1:43:04 stay home
1:43:05 so so it allows them to live their life
1:43:08 without any regrets but really they have
1:43:10 the most regrets because if you look at
1:43:12 suicide rates and if you look at
1:43:13 depression rates
1:43:14 this lifestyle isn't doing it for them
1:43:16 on a psychological level
1:43:17 less question in the front so make it a
1:43:19 good one you said uh liberalism
1:43:22 liberalism has nothing to offer to islam
1:43:24 because
1:43:25 it it's not based on objective morality
1:43:27 which you've demonstrated very well
1:43:29 tonight
1:43:30 but what would you reply to a liberal
1:43:32 who in turn
1:43:34 questions the objective morality of
1:43:35 islam and is in the real
1:43:37 question here tonight uh the objective
1:43:40 morality of islam versus the
1:43:43 subjectiveness
1:43:44 of liberalism so a liberal would say
1:43:47 well what makes
1:43:49 islamic morality objective the thing is
1:43:52 it's not just islamic um morality
1:43:55 but it's the idea of theism itself right
1:43:58 where you have
1:43:59 a transcendent entity which is all
1:44:01 knowing all wise and all powerful
1:44:03 which can endow these agents
1:44:07 agencies with free will and the ability
1:44:10 to make it or they'll be able to make a
1:44:11 decision
1:44:11 and also you know morality if morality
1:44:15 does not come from such a transcendent
1:44:17 being such that if you wipe off all of
1:44:19 the
1:44:20 humans on the earth that the morals
1:44:22 would stay the same
1:44:24 right then it's difficult to make a case
1:44:26 for objective morality
1:44:28 therefore i would say that
1:44:31 if you want to argue on theism you'd
1:44:33 have to prove theism
1:44:34 on first principles so maybe an argument
1:44:36 for the existence of god
1:44:38 real and then attached to that something
1:44:40 about the omnipotence and the
1:44:41 all-knowing nature of god
1:44:43 once you realize such an agency exists
1:44:45 then it makes sense that such an agency
1:44:48 can would uh and has endowed human
1:44:52 beings with such morality
1:44:54 and from there you can have a discussion
1:44:56 but
1:44:57 the only to be honest with you in the
1:44:59 history of philosophy only a few
1:45:02 philosophers have actually dared to say
1:45:04 you know
1:45:05 we have a mechanism not that there are
1:45:07 objective immorals there are many people
1:45:09 who say that
1:45:09 but we have a mechanism for objective
1:45:11 morality one of them was emmanuel kant
1:45:12 he had this belief of the categorical
1:45:14 imperative i'm not going to go into it
1:45:16 but everyone has not anything but it's
1:45:18 been criticized this belief
1:45:21 the mechanism itself is really
1:45:23 problematic but the idea
1:45:25 is you can't it's very difficult it's
1:45:27 very difficult to
1:45:28 have a mechanism like that and so
1:45:31 philosophers have not really bothered
1:45:33 apart from afar a few of them in number
1:45:36 and so
1:45:37 if you argue on theism then obviously
1:45:39 you can say objective mind it comes from
1:45:41 the all-knowing god simple as that
1:45:43 if you don't argue on theism it becomes
1:45:44 very difficult emmanuel kant found it
1:45:47 very difficult
1:45:48 and he's been criticized with his
1:45:49 mechanism of the categorical imperative
1:45:50 but not many people believe in
1:45:52 this objective morality can be proven
1:45:54 mechanistically if you like
1:45:58 you