كلمة محمد حجاب الافتتاحية خلال مناظرته مع لارس جول حول موضوع الليبرالية Liberalism vs Islam Debate (2020-03-23) #

0:00:09 so are they coming Rach mental labor
0:00:11 together can you guys hear me this is a
0:00:12 bit low
0:00:13 should I bring up a bit is this better
0:00:16 is it better or is it mm all right well
0:00:20 thank you very much dr. Gould for your
0:00:23 presentation it was a bit more moderate
0:00:27 than your previous presentations I must
0:00:29 admit with other debates I've seen of
0:00:33 yours so I appreciate the more nuance
0:00:36 that you put into the discussion let's
0:00:41 start with definitions because I think
0:00:43 this is a point of difference actually
0:00:46 between me and gule gule a good I said
0:00:50 that the definitions that he took were
0:00:52 from dictionaries vernacular definitions
0:00:56 or dictionary definitions are invariably
0:00:58 influenced by ideological ones and so I
0:01:01 would put to him that dictionary
0:01:03 definitions are actually influenced by
0:01:07 political and social outcomes around
0:01:10 around those particular definitions when
0:01:12 they're being written in order to avoid
0:01:14 such bias one has to go before the
0:01:16 sixteenth century for example when
0:01:18 liberalism was around and find
0:01:20 definitions then that would be I think
0:01:22 an appropriate recourse for someone who
0:01:24 wants to use addiction definition
0:01:26 however I would say is that dr. Goulet
0:01:28 went on to talk about human rights which
0:01:30 is actually an outgrowth of liberalism
0:01:32 human rights is an outgrowth of
0:01:34 liberalism you cannot understand human
0:01:35 rights without understanding liberalism
0:01:37 therefore the liberalism that we are
0:01:40 talking about is the social liberalism
0:01:43 that is the political philosophy that
0:01:48 was well introduced by John Locke one
0:01:50 karate you some say Thomas Hobbes and
0:01:53 has a tradition all the way up to this
0:01:55 day and so that my definition of
0:01:58 liberalism is actually a politically
0:02:00 floss philosophically one which I'm sure
0:02:02 he'll be able to resonate with being a
0:02:03 philosopher himself traditional Islam I
0:02:05 agree with dr. Goulet we no one has a
0:02:08 monopoly of traditionally the slam so
0:02:10 for example I follow the Humber Light
0:02:12 School of Law I can't say that my school
0:02:15 of law is the only correct one I
0:02:16 understand that there is different
0:02:19 strands of traditions Islam mortis
0:02:21 Ollie's were accepted
0:02:23 four of the each man for example and
0:02:25 that's even mentioned by him Tamiya who
0:02:28 is a literalist as many of you know so I
0:02:31 accept the nuance there I don't disagree
0:02:33 with him I don't think anyone has a
0:02:34 monopoly of traditional traditional slam
0:02:37 so I think that's the first thing the
0:02:39 second thing I want to put to dr. Goulet
0:02:41 is that before we say that we should
0:02:45 move into a liberalizing direction I
0:02:47 think it's very fair to ask the question
0:02:50 how can we prove that liberalism is true
0:02:53 in the first place and of course John
0:02:56 Locke who is the founding father of
0:02:58 liberalism had an essay or a book that
0:03:00 he wrote when he talked about morality
0:03:03 and in that he said that morality is
0:03:05 something which is you can be
0:03:07 demonstrated like mathematics he said
0:03:09 that you can prove the truth of morality
0:03:12 in the same way as you can truth you can
0:03:15 prove scientific truths or mathematical
0:03:17 logical truths in his own system he said
0:03:20 that liberalism is true and he gave
0:03:22 theological reasons for it he replied to
0:03:24 Robert filmer for example who was a
0:03:26 Christian and he was using God as the
0:03:29 example so in other words he was using
0:03:31 an anchorage a moral epistemological
0:03:34 anchorage which was theological and of
0:03:37 course the liberal tradition is not just
0:03:39 John Locke so across time there has been
0:03:42 different philosophers all of which have
0:03:43 tried different things in order to
0:03:46 anchor their respective moral philosophy
0:03:48 so we have John Stuart Mill we have John
0:03:51 Rawls de Tocqueville Montesquieu all of
0:03:54 these individuals wrote books and there
0:03:56 is a vast wood there is a rich tradition
0:04:01 of referring back to a particular
0:04:04 underpinning whether it be
0:04:05 utilitarianism the hedonistic principle
0:04:07 or whatever but in any of those cases
0:04:11 liberalism has proven to be a creature
0:04:13 of convention what did you say I said
0:04:17 liberalism is a creature of convention
0:04:20 meaning it's a subjective morality
0:04:23 something which is and has been the
0:04:26 subject of change it's not an object of
0:04:30 might therefore before we even proceed
0:04:32 in this conversation you have to prove
0:04:34 to me that liberalism is
0:04:36 I mean you had a debate with Hamza
0:04:39 sources some time ago about God's
0:04:41 existence 54 minutes into the debate
0:04:44 doctor Goulet said there is no
0:04:46 scientific evidence of God just bear
0:04:50 that in mind
0:04:51 there is no scientific evidence of God
0:04:52 is a problem with his understanding of
0:04:54 philosophy of science but where is the
0:04:57 scientific evidence for liberalism you
0:05:01 can't have one standard of truth when
0:05:03 you're trying to discover one system of
0:05:06 morality and then this band that discard
0:05:08 that completely throw that out when
0:05:11 you're talking about your own beliefs
0:05:13 which are axiomatic otherwise unprovable
0:05:17 so before you tell us to be liberal why
0:05:19 don't you prove liberalism stop
0:05:21 preaching to us and start proving to us
0:05:24 that's the reality you have taken the
0:05:27 stance of an ideologue a liberal
0:05:31 ideologue preacher don't be a preacher
0:05:36 be a teacher don't be don't preach prove
0:05:40 I want to learn give me some proofs
0:05:44 however what we saw in the second half
0:05:48 of the presentation was dr. GU or Goulet
0:05:52 is that he started talking about
0:05:54 discrimination human rights and all of
0:05:57 those things and he mentioned the death
0:05:59 penalty here's my claim and I stand in
0:06:04 front of everyone today with full
0:06:06 confidence that this claim will not be
0:06:09 refuted listen to the claim liberalism
0:06:12 can and has and is wait a minute now
0:06:18 you're using too many words
0:06:19 rewind liberalism can and has and is
0:06:25 capable of producing death penalty
0:06:29 outcomes for non-religious to the state
0:06:31 for example her dude the laws barbaric
0:06:35 outdated dysfunctional laws which is a
0:06:38 genetic fallacy by the way and you
0:06:40 should know as a philosopher that
0:06:41 presents in cases like this is weak then
0:06:43 he mentioned democracy which is even
0:06:45 look it's even older than Mohammed so
0:06:47 it's even more outdated so it should be
0:06:48 even more wrong
0:06:49 your understanding but then here's what
0:06:51 I'm saying to you the point is this
0:06:55 liberalism can allow why because ladies
0:06:58 and gentlemen liberal contract arianism
0:07:01 or contractual ism which is the only
0:07:04 liberalism that you will find on the
0:07:06 face of the earth assumes that we had a
0:07:08 prime model state of nature and that we
0:07:11 entered into a prime model barter where
0:07:14 we traded our freedom for the security
0:07:17 of the state meaning what the sovereign
0:07:21 becomes the ultimate authority John
0:07:24 Lucas himself said in his letters of
0:07:29 toleration ironically that if someone in
0:07:32 a Jewish state John Locke the founding
0:07:35 father of liberalism someone in a Jewish
0:07:37 state a post Assizes this believes in
0:07:41 Judaism he is to be killed when he a
0:07:44 minute is this for Muhammad no no no no
0:07:47 this is John Locke the founding father
0:07:51 of liberalism which is the very ideology
0:07:54 you are trying to preach to us today
0:07:56 this of course did not stop at Locke it
0:08:00 continued to mill it continued all the
0:08:02 way up to rules actually Immanuel Kant
0:08:05 all of these individuals have messages
0:08:09 similar to that that you have to fully
0:08:10 obey the sovereign listen to this listen
0:08:14 to this me and you I was born in London
0:08:19 28 years ago you were born maybe 29
0:08:23 years ago I don't know in Norway and and
0:08:27 what happened was I didn't get a choice
0:08:30 did you get a choice that you had to
0:08:33 obey the law or not or to be a citizen
0:08:35 or not I was just forced into the social
0:08:37 contract freedom of expression and
0:08:40 freedom of religious expression and
0:08:43 freedom of thought and so on and so
0:08:45 forth all of that was curtailed that the
0:08:47 very starting point for me I didn't
0:08:50 choose to be here and to be a citizen
0:08:52 and obey the law yet I have to be obey
0:08:55 the law the point is the social contract
0:08:57 is is dominant and therefore
0:09:02 when the law is in place I have to
0:09:04 follow the law if the law is that
0:09:07 there's treason which is associated with
0:09:09 some kind of religious authority then
0:09:11 that is the law
0:09:12 therefore it's conceivable through
0:09:15 liberalism to have death penalty
0:09:16 outcomes philosophically and by the way
0:09:19 it's also conceivable in Islam as he
0:09:22 alluded to to refer to him that you
0:09:24 don't have to have death penalty
0:09:26 outcomes for a public apostasy in an
0:09:29 Islamic state let me give you the
0:09:30 evidence for that some brothers are
0:09:32 gonna say wait a minute
0:09:33 he now you become liberal no no no no
0:09:37 for example the prophet muhammad's allah
0:09:39 - in a hadith in Bukhari where he was
0:09:43 talking to the people of in had a beer
0:09:45 he spoke to some head of Muhammad and
0:09:47 there was a pact that he created so hey
0:09:50 Lebanon who was the leader of the
0:09:52 collages at that time said that if
0:09:53 anyone opposed Assizes even publicly the
0:09:56 assumption was then they are to be not
0:09:58 killed but returned to us the Prophet
0:10:00 agreed to that now the question is is
0:10:02 this still applicable today if no crime
0:10:04 will josiya he mentions in said Matt
0:10:06 just as Elmer Dell we also pronounced
0:10:09 mouth now he mentions as well in his
0:10:11 books Noel Insaf the other one he wrote
0:10:13 another big book we can give the
0:10:14 references after he mentions that this
0:10:16 is still applicable today so it's not
0:10:19 been abrogated in other words it's
0:10:21 conceivable fully to have a fully
0:10:23 fledged Islamic state where there is no
0:10:26 war and someone apostates in public and
0:10:29 there is no death penalty outcome why is
0:10:32 that despite what the Prophet Muhammad
0:10:35 said and because of liberalism no no
0:10:37 this is because of what Prophet Muhammad
0:10:40 said so Allah volumes and therefore it's
0:10:42 conceivable in Islam for such
0:10:45 punishments to be waved as well as
0:10:48 implemented fairly and illiberal ISM for
0:10:52 such punishments to be waived or
0:10:53 implemented so what's the issue the
0:10:55 issue is you're actually calling us to
0:10:57 something which we don't need we have
0:11:00 within our own system the point is this
0:11:03 as he said correctly there's Muslim the
0:11:07 jurists can and have argued to that
0:11:10 effect now let's look at something else
0:11:15 a point I wanted to make him which I
0:11:18 think we need to be very clear on it's
0:11:23 not to have colonial amnesia the most
0:11:27 bloody massacres in human history and I
0:11:31 say this with full confidence have been
0:11:34 perpetrated by liberal states let's take
0:11:38 one example 1830 the French annexation
0:11:42 of Algeria 1 million people were killed
0:11:47 genocide oh and by the way I was a
0:11:50 history teacher in the UK for some time
0:11:52 never did we teach this and it wasn't
0:11:54 even on the national curriculum but we
0:11:56 teach about the Holocaust those kinds of
0:11:58 genocides why because the French were
0:12:01 adamant on censoring this information
0:12:04 because it included rape pillaging of
0:12:08 human beings and pictures are them
0:12:10 because this was the time where pictures
0:12:12 could be actually generated many Muslims
0:12:14 don't even know what happened in Algeria
0:12:16 for a hundred and thirty years by a
0:12:19 government a French government which was
0:12:22 not only liberal listen to this but the
0:12:25 founding fathers of that Liberal
0:12:26 government and philosophers like Alexis
0:12:29 de Tocqueville in his essays to Algiers
0:12:32 actually supported the colonial
0:12:34 discrimination against who the Algerians
0:12:37 because of what because of the
0:12:39 superiority complex that they had and
0:12:42 this is to be honest what we find in the
0:12:44 discourse a superiority complex where
0:12:48 you don't even have an objective
0:12:49 morality to give us so the point is this
0:12:53 listen to this liberalism has can allow
0:12:58 for racism and colonialism and tyranny
0:13:02 and authoritarianism whereas Islam can
0:13:05 never I am NOT saying has never but can
0:13:08 never as a religion can never allow for
0:13:11 racism
0:13:12 so the question shouldn't really be now
0:13:14 if you if you like racism liberalism
0:13:16 can't stop you from being racist let me
0:13:20 say that one more time liberalism as a
0:13:22 political philosophy cannot and has not
0:13:25 through its principles or its action
0:13:28 stop you from being a racist and if it
0:13:30 could then surely the founding fathers
0:13:32 surely those who came after them and
0:13:34 those who came after them wouldn't have
0:13:37 allowed a race-based slavery to exist
0:13:39 race-based slavery in America until the
0:13:42 Civil War which by the way killed the
0:13:45 most people in American history in terms
0:13:47 of wars so this is a colonial amnesia
0:13:51 which I think people are having and
0:13:53 forgetting about the fact that most
0:13:55 genocides that have been committed in
0:13:58 history have been by literally massive
0:13:59 genocides have been by liberal States in
0:14:01 the in the in the recent history the
0:14:03 Native Americans what happened to them
0:14:05 Native America Native Americans and what
0:14:08 happened to them is is basically Isis on
0:14:11 steroids feud if you don't like Isis you
0:14:13 shouldn't like
0:14:14 I mean imagine 100 years from now you
0:14:16 speak to our Isis person and they say
0:14:18 this is our state we've over took it
0:14:19 from the people no one will accept it
0:14:22 but now America is basically premises
0:14:23 it's built on the same kind of genocide
0:14:26 and that's the reality this is
0:14:28 liberalism for you yeah westward and
0:14:29 expansion manifest destiny these were
0:14:31 all liberal concepts please don't try it
0:14:34 we know your history we know your
0:14:37 history very well and we know your
0:14:40 present as well and the question now is
0:14:42 it can it be legalistically justified
0:14:44 you know I did some research which I'm
0:14:46 going to publish soon inshallah maybe a
0:14:49 week or two I did some reach research on
0:14:52 the amount of times that Haddad have
0:14:54 been implemented in the Ottoman Empire
0:14:56 of course there are gaps in the records
0:14:58 well it has actually been digitized and
0:15:01 archived and my understanding is from
0:15:04 the years 1500 to 1700 there was only
0:15:07 two or three cases and by the way there
0:15:09 was no death penalty outcomes for a lot
0:15:11 of them from the years 1700 to 1856
0:15:15 which is when the Tanzimat took place
0:15:17 when actually in 1839 in 1839 they
0:15:21 basically stopped a Sharia law as being
0:15:23 the arbitrator and Jew in the judiciary
0:15:24 in in the Ottoman Empire in that period
0:15:27 of time you saw the most but most of
0:15:29 them once again through muslin and other
0:15:31 reasons were stopped now look at America
0:15:33 of treason is I believe and not me the
0:15:37 scholars of Islam like his Selassie he
0:15:40 mentions in his most pursuit he they say
0:15:42 that that is equivalent to high treason
0:15:45 America in 1862 William Mumford he tore
0:15:49 down an American flag now notice that
0:15:52 this was not an act of militancy
0:15:54 this was an act of symbolism he tore
0:15:58 down an American flag this was after
0:15:59 Abraham Lincoln and all the founding
0:16:01 fathers of liberalism who wrote the
0:16:03 Federalist Papers etc in America he tore
0:16:06 down an American flag and was executed
0:16:07 in front of a mass amount of people in
0:16:10 New Orleans
0:16:11 now this is not militancy so is it
0:16:14 conceivable yes has it been shown in
0:16:17 history yes even through the law so
0:16:21 liberalism doesn't produce non-death
0:16:23 penalty outcomes that's fake that's
0:16:25 false we're not gonna believe in that
0:16:27 that's fake history hasn't proven that
0:16:30 bring your evidence and so the present
0:16:34 is even worse because they don't even
0:16:36 use the treatise clause in the second
0:16:38 the second article of the Constitution
0:16:40 of America and they do extrajudicial
0:16:41 killings and by the way those
0:16:43 extrajudicial killings and the
0:16:44 suspension of habeas corpus rights are
0:16:47 sometimes navigated and mitigated
0:16:50 through the liberal constitutional
0:16:52 rights and then you have people like
0:16:55 he'll allow lock use a six-year-old who
0:16:57 was killed by Americans by drones yes by
0:17:01 drones killing a child because they're
0:17:04 afraid that she'll turn out like her
0:17:05 father without any trial
0:17:06 this is liberalism for you in action
0:17:08 don't talk to us about liberalism and
0:17:11 does it slam it to be liberal outdated
0:17:14 democracy is much older than proof
0:17:16 Muhammad's time and he mentioned it as
0:17:19 outdated as if some kind of argument
0:17:21 this is dysfunctionality in in
0:17:23 argumentation actually to use his phrase
0:17:27 moreover liberalism is contradictory
0:17:31 with itself
0:17:32 pluralism says that you can use for
0:17:35 example your religious expression and so
0:17:39 on to express yourself in society
0:17:41 circularity or secularism doesn't allow
0:17:44 that so if I'm a Muslim and I want to
0:17:46 use my religious belief systems to
0:17:50 influence policy that's not Allah
0:17:53 to me by secularity or secularism why is
0:17:55 allowed by pluralism so it's
0:17:57 contradictions what if something which
0:17:59 is democratic contradicts something
0:18:00 which is liberal what do you do in that
0:18:03 situation
0:18:04 so here the truth is there is nothing
0:18:08 you can say at all to convince us in the
0:18:13 same way as many colonial forefathers
0:18:16 not of himself
0:18:16 I'm just saying of the Western people in
0:18:18 general used to come to our countries
0:18:20 and tell us to believe in what they
0:18:21 believe and just like in Algeria we
0:18:24 rejected this because they did not
0:18:25 provide any proof for what they believe
0:18:29 and today we're finding the same thing
0:18:30 again you're not providing any proof so
0:18:33 what I'm going to conclude with is a
0:18:34 list of just three questions the second
0:18:37 one has sub compartments which hopefully
0:18:39 the professor will answer number one is
0:18:43 straightforward give us proof of
0:18:45 liberalism
0:18:45 what kind of demonstrative proof have
0:18:48 you got logical give me a rational
0:18:50 argument using Monty for logic give me a
0:18:53 mathematical argument a scientific one
0:18:55 you can't just produce say be liberal
0:18:57 it's like coming here say be communists
0:18:59 ridiculous give me some proof number two
0:19:03 give us evidence for the presuppositions
0:19:06 of liberalism you mentioned equality and
0:19:07 freedom how can you even prove that
0:19:10 freedom exists as an atheist material
0:19:12 how much of your maturity to not let
0:19:13 alone being a desirable thing you have
0:19:15 to prove this equality that's against a
0:19:17 theory of Darwinian evolution we're not
0:19:19 born equal that's what that's why it's
0:19:21 mentioned in the documents like the
0:19:24 United for example the United States
0:19:26 Constitution was it sort of the
0:19:29 Declaration of Independence but how can
0:19:30 you prove that we're all born equal John
0:19:32 Locke said that we are endowed that
0:19:34 equality from God as an atheist how can
0:19:35 you prove equality prove it prove to us
0:19:38 that were born equal that freedom exists
0:19:41 that is a desirable thing and that
0:19:43 individual rights should be prioritized
0:19:46 over collective rights which is the
0:19:48 basis for most moral liberal systems you
0:19:51 have to prove this and do you admit that
0:19:54 liberalism is capable of producing
0:19:56 legally binding death penalty outcomes
0:19:59 for non allegiance to the state for
0:20:01 example and if so how do you suppose
0:20:03 liberalism solves a local problem that
0:20:06 is created
0:20:06 Islam please answer those questions or
0:20:09 salam alikum anonymous all over again
0:20:14 [Music]
0:20:18 with unicellular jabo italian well
0:20:22 aquella silica college aidid hysterical
0:20:24 and