Londoniyyah - Part 6 - Political Liberalism | Mohammad Hijab (2021-11-15) ​

0:00:12 how are you guys doing and welcome to
0:00:13 the sixth session
0:00:15 of the shah or the explanation of
0:00:17 al-andaniyah today i'm going to be
0:00:19 talking about liberalism in particular
0:00:20 the political strand of
0:00:22 liberalism so we're going to listen to
0:00:25 the poem insha'allah and then we are
0:00:27 going to come back
0:00:28 and start discussing
0:00:56 yes
0:01:06 is we're going to go back to a little
0:01:07 bit of epistemology and uh liberal
0:01:10 prismalogy for that matter
0:01:12 and we're going to quickly go through
0:01:13 some of the historical points because in
0:01:15 the last session we did cover some of
0:01:16 the philosophical points especially with
0:01:18 social liberalism but it's important to
0:01:20 tie this in with some of the history
0:01:22 and then we're going to talk about human
0:01:23 rights
0:01:25 uh because human rights clearly is is an
0:01:27 idea which is connected to liberalism
0:01:30 we're going to spend some time on this
0:01:31 idea actually because it's important for
0:01:33 us to know what they mean by it
0:01:35 what are the human rights in the
0:01:36 convention uh the third human rights
0:01:37 we're going to kind of cover those
0:01:40 when they become popular
0:01:42 and then we're going to look at the
0:01:43 social contract which is a very big part
0:01:45 of political liberalism
0:01:47 or lackluster mari as the poem refers to
0:01:50 as
0:01:52 and we'll make some we'll make some
0:01:53 comparisons between the social contract
0:01:55 in islamic
0:01:57 um political theory if you want to put
0:01:58 it that quickly that way and also
0:02:00 between uh contractarianism in
0:02:03 liberalism
0:02:04 um
0:02:05 so that's really really what we're going
0:02:07 to go through today so let's start off
0:02:08 with
0:02:10 uh some of the epistemological stuff
0:02:12 that we spoke about last lesson to kind
0:02:14 of
0:02:16 interleave if you like what we studied
0:02:18 in the previous session with what we are
0:02:20 studying in this session
0:02:21 so what are some of the principles
0:02:23 that
0:02:24 facilitate
0:02:26 the liberal framework some of the things
0:02:28 that liberalism is predicated on my
0:02:30 friend here what's some of the
0:02:32 principles what do liberals
0:02:35 uh assume
0:02:37 um
0:02:39 we could say the energy principle
0:02:42 yes so the what principle yeah there is
0:02:45 a hedonistic principle yeah yeah the
0:02:46 hedonistic principle i believe uh
0:02:50 basically we have two doors paying them
0:02:52 yes yes sir good good good good right so
0:02:54 so this you're bringing it to bentham
0:02:57 but it's connected right so the idea
0:02:59 that you know you've got these visceral
0:03:01 desires and all you have these uh kind
0:03:04 of inclinations and whatever and that
0:03:06 you should be allowed to enact those
0:03:07 inclinations you should be able to do
0:03:09 those things that you want to do
0:03:12 uh what other things did we suppose
0:03:13 speak about in the previous session
0:03:14 which is relevant here some of the
0:03:16 principles some of the um premises of uh
0:03:20 of liberalism
0:03:22 utilitarian thing all right so with
0:03:24 social liberalism right you're right
0:03:25 social liberalism utilitarianism is
0:03:27 there's connection there
0:03:29 the connection is we talked about um
0:03:32 js mill and how he kind of put the harm
0:03:34 principle in place and so on in order to
0:03:37 avoid this kind of anarchical state
0:03:40 so we spoke about that but you know it's
0:03:41 really interesting as well because if
0:03:42 you look at john locke in particular
0:03:45 if you look at where he was seen as some
0:03:47 consider him the founder of liberalism
0:03:49 and this is an interesting point who is
0:03:51 the founder of who's the first liberal
0:03:53 if you like so some say it's thomas
0:03:55 hobbs um he wrote a book called the
0:03:56 leviathan and he we'll talk about him
0:03:59 today actually he has his own kind of
0:04:01 theoretical constructions
0:04:02 some say it might be john locke and when
0:04:05 john locke
0:04:06 who died in 1706 or
0:04:09 something like this um when john locke
0:04:12 was making his argument for liberalism
0:04:14 he was debating as someone called filma
0:04:16 this film
0:04:17 i think is robert filmer was um another
0:04:20 person who was
0:04:21 obviously a christian as well and so a
0:04:23 lot of the arguments used to actually be
0:04:25 theological arguments
0:04:26 really interestingly a lot of the points
0:04:28 of liberalism and that you find in the
0:04:30 constitution and the um the declaration
0:04:33 of independence and other documents in
0:04:35 the
0:04:36 american kind of
0:04:38 political landscape
0:04:39 you'll find we are born equal
0:04:43 these kinds of knowledges here we are
0:04:45 created equal even
0:04:47 religious language
0:04:49 why because religion
0:04:51 and in particular christian religion or
0:04:53 judo christian religion or the judo
0:04:55 christian tradition
0:04:57 was a significant
0:04:59 way in which
0:05:00 liberals in the beginning actually
0:05:03 formed their epistemology
0:05:05 this idea of being created equal i mean
0:05:06 how are we created equal when we're all
0:05:08 different in what sense are we equal
0:05:11 because we're not talking about we're
0:05:12 equal
0:05:13 in skin color or equal in height
0:05:16 or equal in
0:05:18 socioeconomic standing because we're not
0:05:20 equal in any of those things in fact
0:05:21 some are some people are born disabled
0:05:24 some people are born able
0:05:26 you know with extra testosterone in the
0:05:28 war whatever it may be
0:05:29 so there are disparities in
0:05:32 a biological sense so in what sense are
0:05:33 we born or created equal
0:05:35 what's referred to here is really we're
0:05:38 equal in value that we're all equal you
0:05:40 know in how moral standing if you like
0:05:42 but where do they get that from
0:05:44 because we we can't
0:05:47 we can't really argue that point
0:05:50 unless you invoke some kind of
0:05:51 metaphysical principle so john locke was
0:05:54 invoking at that time a religious
0:05:56 metaphysical principle making specific
0:05:58 reference believe or not to adam and eve
0:06:00 and the book of genesis
0:06:02 and these things so tradition or judo
0:06:04 christian tradition has a huge impact on
0:06:06 the liberal tradition it has a
0:06:08 theologian it's not just hedonism but
0:06:10 ironically you could say because
0:06:11 religion is many were senses
0:06:14 self-restricting
0:06:16 it's also religion and so this
0:06:18 interesting interplay between
0:06:20 uh those two things
0:06:25 so just to quickly go through some of
0:06:27 the um
0:06:28 the main things
0:06:30 you have the english civil war which if
0:06:31 you went to um i don't know
0:06:33 the secondary school in this country
0:06:34 you'd have covered okay
0:06:36 as from the year 1641 1651 then you have
0:06:38 the bill of rights in 1689. now these
0:06:41 bill of rights a lot of them when they
0:06:43 were being formulated actually use john
0:06:45 locke's ideas
0:06:46 okay he was around at that time
0:06:49 so john locke
0:06:51 he was directly responsible for some of
0:06:53 the formulations
0:06:55 the political um formulations which ex
0:06:58 which happened not just obviously in
0:07:00 england
0:07:01 uh but also in america as we know a lot
0:07:03 of the stuff there you know the founding
0:07:06 documents if you like the the the
0:07:07 constitution the declaration of
0:07:09 independence all these kind of things
0:07:10 they were based on lock they were based
0:07:12 on montesquieu and lock as well
0:07:14 um
0:07:17 we mentioned that
0:07:18 rousseau was a huge name as well in 1778
0:07:20 he was around and then of course in 1789
0:07:24 you had
0:07:25 the french revolution
0:07:27 and the documents that are related to
0:07:29 that revolution are in fact
0:07:31 many of them are based on the works
0:07:34 um the the political works of john locke
0:07:36 and of montesquieu and are liberal
0:07:38 liberally premised or predicated
0:07:41 emmanuel kant was a big name and he was
0:07:43 also a liberal but he also put in place
0:07:45 something called cosmopolitanism which
0:07:47 is uh
0:07:48 an interesting universalizing idea like
0:07:51 the u.n actually comes from this idea
0:07:53 that liberalism should be spread around
0:07:56 like liberalism should be spread around
0:07:58 this now not all liberals will say this
0:07:59 and we have to be very very clear clear
0:08:01 and careful with this because
0:08:03 cosmopolitanism is a sub-branch of
0:08:05 liberalism it's not the only branch of
0:08:07 liberalism but how do you how do
0:08:09 liberals
0:08:10 justify expansion or in america what
0:08:13 they refer to as manifest destiny
0:08:15 and this idea of manifest destiny is
0:08:16 westwood expansion literally westwood
0:08:18 expansion
0:08:19 uh
0:08:20 when they went into the natives and
0:08:22 stuff they were literally expanding
0:08:23 conquering new land and so on
0:08:25 it's interesting that most if not all
0:08:27 presidents in the united states believe
0:08:28 in this concept of manifest destiny and
0:08:30 there are articles written on this point
0:08:32 but it's westwood expansion
0:08:35 um and manifest destiny is the idea that
0:08:37 we are going to take over
0:08:38 to put it in a word
0:08:41 it's it's almost destiny it is destiny
0:08:43 that we we will take over with the our
0:08:45 liberal framework and this idea is
0:08:48 connected of course to imalink emmanuel
0:08:50 kant's idea of cosmopolitanism so it's
0:08:52 important to know these different kinds
0:08:54 of permutations
0:08:56 of liberalism and we talked about mill
0:08:58 last time
0:08:59 so we don't need to go into too much
0:09:00 detail but he was a key formulator of
0:09:02 course of social liberalism and then you
0:09:05 have world war one world war ii and
0:09:07 world war ii in particular
0:09:08 was very important because obviously
0:09:10 after world war ii 1945 you had the un
0:09:13 uh which was previously known as the
0:09:15 league of nations it changed name it was
0:09:18 called the league of nations and then in
0:09:19 1939 1945 1945 it changed name to the un
0:09:25 and
0:09:26 that's when
0:09:27 a lot of the documents that we're going
0:09:28 to be looking at today like the un
0:09:30 convention of human rights
0:09:32 that's when they were written they were
0:09:34 written on a post-war basis and why they
0:09:36 were written
0:09:37 is to ensure you know world stability
0:09:40 and these kind of things the league of
0:09:41 nations remember uh before even world
0:09:43 war ii
0:09:44 was established to create that kind of
0:09:46 peace treaties between nations and and
0:09:48 so on
0:09:51 so we're going to look at the human
0:09:53 rights declaration which was written at
0:09:55 the same time as israel became a state
0:09:57 in 1940
0:09:59 8.
0:10:00 now
0:10:02 let's talk about human rights when i say
0:10:04 human rights what comes to your mind
0:10:05 what comes to your mind if someone says
0:10:07 human rights
0:10:10 what what's the first thing that is what
0:10:12 connotation that brings about is it a
0:10:13 positive connotation let's be honest or
0:10:14 negative if you say it's positive isn't
0:10:16 it what other things come to mind
0:10:19 freedom of speech
0:10:20 freedom of movement
0:10:22 yes
0:10:23 um
0:10:28 yeah equality
0:10:30 equality yeah yeah yeah these kind of
0:10:32 things right yeah
0:10:34 anything else come to mind
0:10:40 freedom of religion as well
0:10:41 freedom of religion
0:10:43 what's the opposite of right
0:10:46 responsibilities
0:10:48 it's very interesting it's not human
0:10:49 responsibilities it's what it's human
0:10:51 rights
0:10:53 um
0:10:54 it's not even human rights and
0:10:55 responsibilities it's just human rights
0:10:58 and why is that significant that it's
0:10:59 not human rights and responsibilities or
0:11:01 human responsibilities but human rights
0:11:03 why is that significant
0:11:05 what what does it mean to have rights
0:11:11 that's true that's true yeah of course
0:11:13 but what does it mean in the first place
0:11:14 to have rights
0:11:17 yeah that you're entitled to something
0:11:18 you're owed something
0:11:20 but what does it not mean by extension
0:11:26 do you need to attain it that you need
0:11:28 to attain it okay but something else
0:11:30 which is more
0:11:32 diametrically opposed to the word rights
0:11:34 but you need to
0:11:36 let's let's use the word give and take
0:11:39 rights is what taking or giving
0:11:41 taking so responsibility is what
0:11:44 giving if you tell people in a society
0:11:48 take these things
0:11:51 and you don't tell them give these
0:11:52 things
0:11:53 what happens what's the problem
0:11:58 it's not reciprocal so you're not
0:12:00 contributing anything
0:12:03 what could happen theoretically let's
0:12:04 put it in more
0:12:06 precise language
0:12:10 if everyone's doing it you have the
0:12:11 freeloaded problem you have the fusion
0:12:12 of responsibility right imagine if you
0:12:14 told if you're raising children yeah and
0:12:16 you told them you have a right to eat
0:12:17 this and you have a right to do that and
0:12:18 you have a right to do this you know
0:12:21 but you don't tell you don't discipline
0:12:22 them you don't tell them this is what
0:12:24 you have to do this is what you should
0:12:25 do this is what
0:12:27 what kind of children what
0:12:29 what kind of children are you going to
0:12:31 raise
0:12:33 yeah
0:12:34 and this
0:12:35 this is one of the arguments against uh
0:12:37 liberalism and by extension human rights
0:12:39 culture that produces
0:12:41 um individualism to a very high level
0:12:44 diffusion of responsibility
0:12:47 like this actually this just on our side
0:12:49 now
0:12:50 this this thing of diffusion of
0:12:51 responsibility right
0:12:53 um there have been psychological
0:12:55 investigations done on it like someone
0:12:56 does it commits rape yeah
0:12:59 and stranger rape and it's happening in
0:13:00 the street the woman is screaming and
0:13:02 for some reason no one's even calling
0:13:03 the police
0:13:04 they're too busy
0:13:06 eating pot noodles or so you know
0:13:08 or chewing gum or something like that or
0:13:10 playing games or computer games the
0:13:12 woman is screaming outside it might be
0:13:13 at night time but whatever like you know
0:13:15 we'll drown out because i'm busy
0:13:18 you know so this this culture of or this
0:13:20 psychological
0:13:22 um phenomena which is it's referred to
0:13:25 as diffusion of responsibility let
0:13:27 someone else do with it
0:13:28 but it's not my business it's not it's i
0:13:30 don't have to do that it's not my
0:13:32 obligation to do that why because you've
0:13:34 already instilled in the person that
0:13:35 it's not they've got rights and they've
0:13:37 got responsibilities
0:13:38 but their rights are important a human
0:13:40 right for me to do what i want who cares
0:13:42 about this person here you know
0:13:45 and so
0:13:46 we'll come to this and in fact it's very
0:13:48 important very very important
0:13:51 criticism of individualism within
0:13:53 liberalism refers to as communitarianism
0:13:56 and one of the main um
0:13:58 well let me give you two names some of
0:14:00 the main names is uh michael sandell
0:14:03 who by the way he has an 11 or 12 part
0:14:06 series
0:14:07 in harvard it's called the justice
0:14:09 probably one of the best series
0:14:11 that you can watch yeah on this point on
0:14:13 these uh topics to increase your
0:14:16 knowledge on these areas
0:14:18 one of the because he teaches it very
0:14:19 well
0:14:20 and it's very lucid very clear very
0:14:22 clean
0:14:23 so people ask for book recommendations
0:14:26 start with this lecture series because
0:14:27 it's a very high quality very high
0:14:30 quality lecture series michael sandell
0:14:32 harvard lecture series has been watched
0:14:34 by millions and millions of people
0:14:36 and the production quality of it is
0:14:37 second to none yeah but he also writes a
0:14:40 book called theories of justice and he
0:14:41 he offers a communitarian criticism of
0:14:44 individualism which we'll explore in
0:14:46 maybe some more detail in what follows
0:14:49 but
0:14:50 let's let's talk about rights now a
0:14:52 little bit more
0:14:54 when you when you're talking about
0:14:55 rights human rights it's already
0:14:57 universalized
0:14:59 okay
0:15:01 so these are the rights that all humans
0:15:03 have
0:15:04 okay so it's not exceptional it's not um
0:15:07 categorized of these rights for these
0:15:09 people
0:15:10 and these are rights for other people
0:15:12 now obviously with the purpose of
0:15:14 equality all of that
0:15:15 makes sense but then we talk about
0:15:17 relationships in families
0:15:19 is the mother and the father the same as
0:15:21 the son and the daughter
0:15:23 well for them i mean you'll read and
0:15:26 we'll go through this together
0:15:28 the third human rights one of them isn't
0:15:30 mother's rights
0:15:32 this is you don't have a right for
0:15:34 mothers in this formulation mothers are
0:15:37 not separated and made
0:15:40 in any way
0:15:42 exceptionalized
0:15:44 they're not exceptionalized yeah
0:15:46 the category of mother
0:15:48 is drowned out in the in the
0:15:49 transcendental category of
0:15:53 human human is more important than
0:15:54 mother
0:15:55 mother is no there's of no special
0:15:56 significance in the 30 right formulation
0:15:59 should we give um like an islam
0:16:01 obviously we have the idea of um
0:16:05 um
0:16:08 you know your mother your mother your
0:16:09 mother your father your mother's so
0:16:10 important then your father is important
0:16:14 now
0:16:16 if
0:16:17 these are kinds of traditional notions
0:16:19 not just in islam
0:16:22 you have these notions of human rights
0:16:23 not really so what do we find in these
0:16:25 countries you'll find
0:16:27 you know care homes
0:16:28 with a lot of people in them dying of
0:16:30 kovid right now
0:16:31 because they're their children don't
0:16:33 think they have the right
0:16:35 to a special treatment from kids
0:16:37 because the parents are
0:16:40 you know they're just humans and there's
0:16:41 no special rights given to parents it's
0:16:43 not inco it's not inculcated in the
0:16:45 culture
0:16:46 it's just something that's uh well why
0:16:48 should i take care of them
0:16:50 you see but if you have a culture which
0:16:52 says actually
0:16:55 the mother you know is so important and
0:16:57 how could you just leave your mother to
0:16:59 die in in a
0:17:00 in a care home or
0:17:03 that's a different paradigm altogether
0:17:05 when did human rights as a phrase become
0:17:08 popular human rights became popular as
0:17:10 you'd probably imagine after 1948
0:17:13 because before that they were using the
0:17:14 term natural rights
0:17:17 and bentham he referred to this term as
0:17:19 um nonsense on stilts he said
0:17:22 he he didn't like it bentham you know
0:17:24 the reason says harry he didn't like it
0:17:25 he referred to his nonsense on stilts
0:17:28 but anyway
0:17:29 at the very least um
0:17:32 after 1945 the term became very popular
0:17:34 and i've
0:17:35 sent something called this is a very
0:17:37 good
0:17:38 it's called google engram
0:17:40 you look at and it's like how much of
0:17:42 what has been used in books throughout
0:17:43 the ages
0:17:47 um
0:17:48 i think i've
0:17:50 i've given you the old uh slides
0:17:52 actually what i wanted to do at this
0:17:54 time
0:17:55 we'll pause what i want to do before we
0:17:56 move on
0:17:57 to the state of nature which is a
0:17:58 secondary uh kind of thing that we look
0:18:00 at
0:18:01 is i want us to look at the human rights
0:18:04 30
0:18:06 points of human rights the 30 um
0:18:08 articles yeah
0:18:10 and i want us just to think about
0:18:11 continuities and discontinuities
0:18:14 what are some of the things
0:18:16 which are
0:18:17 our patterns
0:18:18 in human rights
0:18:20 and what are some of the things which
0:18:21 are discontinued
0:18:23 uh in in human rights and then we'll
0:18:25 come back and we'll see some of the
0:18:27 things that we've looked at it's
0:18:28 important for us to know what the human
0:18:29 rights are in fact
0:18:31 and
0:18:32 for extra points if you if you've done
0:18:34 that then the second thing we look at is
0:18:37 we look at some major debates that
0:18:39 happen in today's society and how some
0:18:41 of the human rights are being either
0:18:42 over utilized or underutilized
0:18:46 if you want even more points a third
0:18:47 question okay a third question is
0:18:50 are there any tensions between human
0:18:53 rights meaning
0:18:54 could you conceivably see contradictions
0:18:56 between the so-called rights that
0:18:59 exist within the 30 articles so just to
0:19:01 summarize the three points continue just
0:19:04 general continued continuities and
0:19:06 discontinuities one
0:19:08 number two where some of these rights
0:19:09 become relevant
0:19:11 in public discourse and the third thing
0:19:12 is
0:19:13 if there are any tensions that may exist
0:19:15 within those 30 human rights will come
0:19:17 back for
0:19:19 uh
0:19:20 for um kind of uh brainstorming and so
0:19:23 on
0:19:25 so let's uh start inshaallah ta'ala with
0:19:27 the first question that we what was the
0:19:28 first question that we had what are some
0:19:30 of the
0:19:31 continuities and discontinuities
0:19:34 with
0:19:36 with the 30 articles of human rights
0:19:38 yeah so yeah the big one that we noticed
0:19:41 was basically one of the rights is the
0:19:42 right to democracy yes yes um and that's
0:19:45 one that can you know very easily
0:19:47 uh have a there can be an attention with
0:19:50 all of the other ones because you know
0:19:51 if you have a right to democracy and the
0:19:53 democratic will is to go against you
0:19:55 know any of the other 29 articles give
0:19:57 me an example of another 29 article
0:19:59 which democracy goes against just one
0:20:01 example what could potentially go
0:20:02 against yeah
0:20:04 so for example the freedom of thought
0:20:05 and religion so if the democratic will
0:20:08 for instance is to you know take rights
0:20:10 away from say the muslim community or
0:20:11 the christian community or to say you
0:20:12 can't have halal me or you can't wear
0:20:14 hijab you can't do all of those things
0:20:15 and you immediately have attention
0:20:18 okay yes but is is this freedom of say
0:20:21 uh religion that you're speaking about
0:20:22 is it
0:20:23 um implemented on a state level are you
0:20:26 talking about on the individual level
0:20:28 i don't understand so for example
0:20:30 if you i will talk about a muslim
0:20:32 country which is trying to implement
0:20:33 islamic
0:20:34 laws for example
0:20:36 and where democracy goes against for
0:20:38 example it says that in constitution
0:20:40 they in saudi arabia that cutting the
0:20:42 hand of the thief is and then they
0:20:44 democratically vote against that or are
0:20:46 we talking about a situation where
0:20:49 in a country like britain or usa
0:20:51 someone's
0:20:52 uh religious right is to pray five times
0:20:55 a day but then the majority of
0:20:57 democratic voters go against
0:20:59 that
0:21:00 yeah okay okay give me another example
0:21:03 that's good that's a very good point in
0:21:04 fact democracy is a bit of a
0:21:06 double-edged sword and it can be
0:21:07 self-explosive in the same way that we
0:21:09 talked about intersectionality and
0:21:11 feminism can be
0:21:13 imploded upon itself
0:21:16 what other thing apart from freedom of
0:21:17 religion
0:21:19 are we what can go against democracy or
0:21:21 the democratic will of the people
0:21:23 so it says here yeah yeah
0:21:25 right six it says you have right to
0:21:27 you have rights no matter where you go
0:21:29 so if you let's just say if you go a
0:21:30 country
0:21:31 a muslim country where the mayor t
0:21:34 democratically decided that they don't
0:21:37 want lgbt
0:21:38 and you're a person that are pro-liberty
0:21:41 or you are
0:21:42 a lgbt power activity uh you can
0:21:45 you have a problem there because this is
0:21:47 a country that say that again so sorry
0:21:49 one more time yeah so you go a country
0:21:51 where where
0:21:52 uh democratically they decided that lgbt
0:21:55 rights are not part of their
0:21:57 part of the right the law
0:21:59 and it says here that you are wherever
0:22:02 you go
0:22:03 you have a right
0:22:04 so isn't that right for sexual
0:22:06 orientation
0:22:07 it says i'm a person just like you
0:22:10 no no but is is that because your
0:22:11 example was about homosexuality right or
0:22:14 lgbt yeah so it can be obviously quality
0:22:16 it can be anything else yeah okay
0:22:18 if
0:22:19 like like you mentioned uh cut in hand
0:22:22 yeah yeah yeah yeah so if you think that
0:22:25 the thieves shouldn't be
0:22:27 cutted off
0:22:28 then and you've got a country where you
0:22:30 live in a country where democratic
0:22:32 democratically decided that that is all
0:22:34 right that's that's yes then you have a
0:22:36 problem there great that's true this is
0:22:39 right i mean a more fundamental one is
0:22:41 right to life
0:22:43 is isn't that there i'm sure it's there
0:22:45 right
0:22:46 uh right to life is a liberal
0:22:49 there's a very found foundational
0:22:50 liberal principle like right to well uh
0:22:53 wealth uh life wealth and uh
0:22:55 what's the other one
0:22:58 yeah yeah you know that's another
0:22:59 formulation property yes yeah
0:23:03 with like abortion laws and stuff like
0:23:05 that it could be argued but more
0:23:07 fundamentally right death penalty i mean
0:23:09 in the united states how many states
0:23:11 have got the death penalty
0:23:13 so there's a tension here because it's
0:23:14 like does this person have a right to
0:23:16 his life or not or does she have a right
0:23:17 to her life or not
0:23:20 what if what if as you say you have a
0:23:22 situation where
0:23:24 the a country democratically elects or
0:23:26 democratically votes for a death penalty
0:23:29 99 of the population say
0:23:31 we want the death penalty so now there's
0:23:33 a democratic mandate for the desperate
0:23:35 penalty but then there's a tension with
0:23:37 life
0:23:38 because we use the construction liberal
0:23:40 democracy we we often assume that these
0:23:42 two things are always consideratory and
0:23:44 that they work together and harmonious
0:23:46 but what's sometimes difficult is you
0:23:49 have issues where
0:23:50 democracy dictates x but liberalism
0:23:53 dictates why and they are contradictory
0:23:56 and who's going to arbitrate that
0:23:58 you see this is a very important
0:24:00 question because if we say well the
0:24:01 state arbitrates it
0:24:03 then you have to justify that and you
0:24:05 can justify that through the social
0:24:06 contract which we're going to cover
0:24:08 but if you say well the individuals are
0:24:10 going to arbitrate that
0:24:12 then we have democracy over
0:24:15 representation
0:24:17 anyway we'll come to this and these are
0:24:19 tensions these are tensions that are
0:24:20 difficult to arbitrate basically
0:24:23 and um
0:24:24 so in other words we should note that
0:24:26 human rights are not always consistent
0:24:28 with one another
0:24:30 we always say we talk about human rights
0:24:32 as if they're monolithic and if they all
0:24:33 go together
0:24:34 and they're all in one direction but
0:24:36 sometimes there's serious con conflicts
0:24:37 that and contradictions that
0:24:39 a liberal democrat must endure
0:24:42 these they will they must enjoy them
0:24:45 any other contributions before we move
0:24:47 on to the uh to the next part of the
0:24:48 session
0:24:50 yes and then they just voted on
0:24:52 something like a law which goes against
0:24:54 any of the laws here then you just have
0:24:56 an immediate contribution exactly that's
0:24:59 great it's a great good way of pulling
0:25:00 it okay if you have a democracy which
0:25:03 goes against any of the human rights
0:25:05 then you have an immediate contradiction
0:25:06 because democracy is one of the human
0:25:08 rights
0:25:09 you have an immediate contradiction and
0:25:10 how do you endure that contradiction how
0:25:12 do you resolve that contradiction how do
0:25:13 you arbitrate that
0:25:14 contradiction
0:25:16 then you have to make arguments but are
0:25:17 you going to make an argument where you
0:25:18 favor democracy over liberalism or are
0:25:21 you going to make an argument where
0:25:22 you're going to favor liberalism or
0:25:23 democracy
0:25:25 yes
0:25:26 how do you measure human rights because
0:25:28 it's very interesting because when you
0:25:29 how do you measure when someone says
0:25:30 when a liberal says this person has a
0:25:32 freedom to do so so this abcdefg
0:25:36 so the thing is for example how do you
0:25:38 measure so for example pornography they
0:25:40 don't class it as some kind of a drug
0:25:41 because it doesn't they don't see that
0:25:44 effects
0:25:45 you know but we know pornography
0:25:46 actually destroys even a uh charity well
0:25:48 not a charity an organization called um
0:25:50 pornography destroys lives so how does
0:25:52 how do they measure it
0:25:54 so this the the idea of pornography
0:25:57 is less about human rights and more
0:25:58 about utilitarianism that we spoke about
0:26:00 last lesson
0:26:02 where you can make an argument on
0:26:04 utilitarianism that pornography has more
0:26:06 damaging effect on the society then it
0:26:09 has a positive effect it has more harm
0:26:11 than it has good yeah
0:26:13 human rights are not really concerned
0:26:14 with this kind of thing
0:26:17 it's unless we're talking about sexual
0:26:19 exploitation human trafficking and these
0:26:20 kind of things
0:26:21 it would actually i mean if we're being
0:26:23 completely honest pornography should be
0:26:25 allowed on this paradigm because
0:26:27 pornography is freedom of expression
0:26:30 it should be allowed on freedom but if
0:26:32 you want to make an argument within the
0:26:33 paradigm against pornography you
0:26:35 wouldn't use human rights you'd use
0:26:36 utilitarianism you'd say
0:26:38 well if you guys believe this great is
0:26:40 good for the greatest number
0:26:42 you believe in harm principles you know
0:26:44 so on
0:26:45 um then you can make an argument that
0:26:47 pornography is correlated to rape is
0:26:49 correlated to this exploitation
0:26:51 and pornography has been argued against
0:26:53 not by liberals per se
0:26:56 but in fact by feminists and by second
0:26:58 world feminist we talked about this
0:26:59 before it's called it was called the sex
0:27:00 wars in the 1980s and 90s
0:27:02 um the feminist sex wars and you have
0:27:04 people like andrea dawkin on the one
0:27:06 side she was a radical feminist who
0:27:09 vehemently you know
0:27:10 attacked the pornography industry so
0:27:12 there was some people within feminism
0:27:14 that vehemently attacked
0:27:16 making arguments similar like
0:27:18 exploitation to what we would make
0:27:19 exploitation objectification and so on
0:27:22 so it's not like you cannot find
0:27:23 arguments but i wouldn't use human
0:27:24 rights for that i would use if you
0:27:26 wanted to find an argument for
0:27:27 pornography
0:27:28 a moral argument it would be through
0:27:30 utilitarianism and or
0:27:32 these conceptions within the second
0:27:34 paradigm of feminism
0:27:36 uh of course you can make an uh a range
0:27:38 of other arguments outside those
0:27:39 paradigms as well but within if you're
0:27:40 speaking to a feminist and you don't
0:27:42 want to convert her to islam before she
0:27:43 agrees with you then you can you can
0:27:45 work within her paradigm if you're
0:27:46 speaking to a liberal then you work
0:27:48 within their paradigm just to get them
0:27:50 to be convinced of that particular point
0:27:52 but it's a difficult case to make on
0:27:54 liberalism it is a i have to be honest
0:27:56 if we're being completely honest it's a
0:27:57 difficult case to make on liberalism
0:27:59 because
0:27:59 it would seem to be in line with freedom
0:28:01 of expression all right let's talk about
0:28:03 something very important
0:28:05 this um
0:28:08 there's something called the state of
0:28:10 nature okay this is a very important
0:28:12 thing in liberal theory
0:28:15 so you might think that and i usually
0:28:17 say this in this language
0:28:19 that mythology is confined
0:28:22 to
0:28:23 the spheres of kind of religion and
0:28:25 these kind of things but
0:28:28 much of political philosophy is
0:28:29 predicated on mythology
0:28:31 like genuine mythology genuine when i
0:28:34 say myth i'm talking about narratives
0:28:36 which have no basis in the real world
0:28:39 like we said one of the people that have
0:28:40 been said to be the the founders of
0:28:42 liberalism although there is some
0:28:44 scholarly disagreement about this is a
0:28:46 man called thomas hopps
0:28:48 and we talked about his book called the
0:28:49 leviathan
0:28:50 and in this
0:28:51 book and other books that he writes he
0:28:53 refers to something called the state of
0:28:54 nature
0:28:55 now what is the state of nature the
0:28:57 state of nature for him
0:28:59 is a fictitious state okay it's not
0:29:01 something which is he went out with his
0:29:03 uh
0:29:04 psychologist friends and he went out to
0:29:06 see how human beings are and he started
0:29:08 to say well human beings exhibit x y z
0:29:10 trait and therefore the human beings are
0:29:12 like this by nature he didn't do that he
0:29:14 didn't do the work of
0:29:16 a cognitive psychologist or a cognitive
0:29:19 scientist and say this is how human
0:29:20 beings are born before socialization he
0:29:22 didn't do any of that
0:29:24 he said that human beings
0:29:27 basically
0:29:29 are
0:29:30 warring by nature
0:29:31 sources everyone's fighting each other
0:29:33 so it's everyone's attacking each other
0:29:35 by nature okay it's a clashing
0:29:38 environment everyone's clashing by
0:29:39 nature yes
0:29:42 and this is the original state
0:29:44 the original say is everyone's fighting
0:29:46 each other everyone's beating each other
0:29:47 up
0:29:49 uh
0:29:50 and he says
0:29:52 so what was initially
0:29:54 required in order to stop this chaos
0:29:57 is you needed
0:29:59 people who are beating each other up and
0:30:01 clashing and conflicting with each other
0:30:03 what was that name of the book uh that
0:30:05 they're studying there
0:30:07 in gcse is that you know the the
0:30:09 lord of the flies yeah what's the guy
0:30:11 named
0:30:13 guess yes you studied that in gcses did
0:30:16 you yeah
0:30:17 did you yeah i used to teach you for
0:30:18 gcses when i teach english
0:30:20 lord of the flies this is based on
0:30:22 hobbesian uh
0:30:24 characterizations
0:30:26 could you say that mad max
0:30:28 kind of world is like that
0:30:31 mad max you know they
0:30:33 everybody's fighting for resources and
0:30:36 you could say that why not yeah
0:30:38 yeah yeah yeah yes yes but remember this
0:30:40 is fictitious right so it's a fictitious
0:30:42 state of nature it's fake it's fake it's
0:30:44 a myth
0:30:45 so their religion the religion of
0:30:46 liberalism
0:30:48 is based on a myth
0:30:50 this myth of everyone's fighting each
0:30:52 other it's a fictitious state
0:30:54 and then there comes along this
0:30:56 leader
0:30:57 this big strong man i'm not talking
0:30:59 about muhammad the learned one
0:31:04 this big strong man comes along okay or
0:31:06 you know
0:31:07 monster leviton actually was a biblical
0:31:09 character uh in the bible was like you
0:31:11 know
0:31:12 and and or this uh
0:31:15 this
0:31:16 state or something you know this these
0:31:18 people they come along
0:31:20 and these people who are fighting each
0:31:22 other come to them and say look we're
0:31:23 going to give up part of our freedom we
0:31:25 are going to give up part of our freedom
0:31:27 in exchange for you to protect us
0:31:30 okay which is what happens in marriage
0:31:32 you know
0:31:33 but maybe not for you because you cannot
0:31:35 provide that service
0:31:36 [Laughter]
0:31:41 required to stop this war and you didn't
0:31:43 finish he said what said
0:31:46 say again
0:31:47 you know you said the hob said
0:31:49 fictitious nature
0:31:52 and then he said human beings are at war
0:31:53 by nature this is the this is the
0:31:54 original state what was initially
0:31:56 required to stop this war yeah so you
0:31:58 needed this big strong man a big strong
0:32:00 man yeah so this this
0:32:02 figurative metaphoric this monster to
0:32:05 come and say look i'm gonna take care of
0:32:07 business
0:32:08 don't mess around yeah don't mess around
0:32:11 so this big strong monster comes and he
0:32:12 says look you give me your you give me
0:32:15 your freedom in exchange for i'll give
0:32:17 you protection
0:32:19 and this idea
0:32:21 of let's call it the big strong man idea
0:32:23 for the monsters
0:32:25 comes and gives the protection
0:32:27 became known as the social contract
0:32:30 so how does a social contract work
0:32:32 social contract is we are born free
0:32:36 but then we give our freedom up
0:32:38 or some part of our freedom up to the
0:32:40 big strong man which is the state or the
0:32:42 government or the
0:32:44 parliament or parliament of sovereign in
0:32:46 this country
0:32:47 that's that's actually that's actually a
0:32:49 statement of uh
0:32:51 it's a statute reality right
0:32:53 parliament the sovereign you give your
0:32:55 freedom to whoever it may be that's in
0:32:57 charge and they'll protect you and
0:32:58 result in in return
0:33:00 now in truth this doesn't happen
0:33:04 in the real world it doesn't happen what
0:33:05 really happens
0:33:07 i mean where were you born
0:33:10 in pakistan
0:33:12 where were you born i was born in the uk
0:33:14 okay where were you born turkey that's
0:33:16 it
0:33:16 were you born
0:33:18 subhanallah this is like what
0:33:21 anyone born anywhere else
0:33:22 okay same place
0:33:25 okay when you were born in any of those
0:33:26 countries
0:33:28 right here right here in the in the
0:33:30 great nation
0:33:32 in the great nation
0:33:34 what happened was
0:33:35 when we were born
0:33:37 our parents
0:33:38 took us to the registry office so i
0:33:40 don't know what they're called
0:33:42 and then they did what you go your birth
0:33:44 certificate
0:33:46 and then they put your name on the birth
0:33:47 certificate and the man he brought this
0:33:48 nice special pen have you ever seen the
0:33:50 pen
0:33:51 have you seen a pen
0:33:53 no no no
0:33:54 it's like a it's a very special ink and
0:33:56 all this style and put your name in it
0:33:58 and that's it you are now
0:34:00 part of the the country you are you are
0:34:04 then after that what happens is after a
0:34:06 while take a picture of the child
0:34:08 you send it to whoever you send it to
0:34:11 and then they give you what a passport i
0:34:13 know you're still waiting for one of
0:34:14 those but
0:34:15 [Laughter]
0:34:19 but they give you a passport
0:34:21 red now they've made it black sometimes
0:34:23 it's blue in other countries it's green
0:34:26 and sometimes purple
0:34:29 now i want to ask a question
0:34:32 at what point did we agree
0:34:34 because when you have the passport
0:34:36 when you have that passport or that
0:34:37 document or the birth certificate or any
0:34:39 of that stuff
0:34:40 now you have to obey what
0:34:42 you have to you have to obey the law
0:34:44 right
0:34:45 and what happens if you don't obey the
0:34:46 law you're in trouble so we go back to
0:34:49 what the social how do they justify this
0:34:51 why are they taken away because me look
0:34:53 think about it
0:34:54 me
0:34:56 obeying the law is an infringement of my
0:34:58 liberties
0:34:59 of my freedom
0:35:01 how do you justify
0:35:03 forcing me
0:35:04 to drive 30 miles an hour
0:35:07 how dare you
0:35:10 right tell me to drive and if not i have
0:35:12 to do the speed awareness course that
0:35:13 i've done four times
0:35:18 you see
0:35:19 or i have to you know whatever it may be
0:35:21 drive this to do that
0:35:23 if i slap somebody i don't like i have
0:35:25 to go to something why do i
0:35:27 okay fine that one we can do the harm
0:35:28 principle but still you know i can't do
0:35:31 certain things why because the law says
0:35:33 so
0:35:34 why because there's a social contract
0:35:35 that's how on liberalism how they
0:35:37 justify
0:35:38 we've given up part of our freedom in
0:35:40 exchange for what protection because
0:35:41 they'll tell you but don't you also
0:35:43 benefit from the police
0:35:44 well i don't to be honest do you benefit
0:35:46 from the ambulance yes sometimes you
0:35:48 know sometimes not to be honest
0:35:50 do you benefit from the army actually my
0:35:53 people are not benefiting from the army
0:35:54 in the least but put that all that aside
0:35:56 you're benefiting from the nhs or this
0:35:58 or that whatever so we're protecting you
0:36:00 we're saving your life we're helping you
0:36:01 out
0:36:04 in exchange for your freedom
0:36:06 yes
0:36:08 but i never made that contract i never
0:36:10 signed anything it was my mom who signed
0:36:14 or
0:36:14 or my dad went to the place and
0:36:17 it was i was forced
0:36:19 let's be honest into a social contract
0:36:22 because yes
0:36:24 exactly good yeah very good but you know
0:36:26 so what's the difference between the
0:36:27 fictitious the fake the myth state of
0:36:29 nature which hobbs is talking about and
0:36:32 the real reality what's the one major
0:36:34 difference
0:36:37 yes that's right you don't decide in the
0:36:40 in the fictitious state of nature
0:36:42 the the the people in society they're
0:36:44 going to the big strong man and saying
0:36:45 we're going to evolutionarily give you
0:36:48 but in reality none of the social
0:36:50 contracts ever it's a contract that i
0:36:53 was forced into
0:36:54 it's like a forced marriage
0:36:55 it is a they talk about forced marriage
0:36:58 i have been forced into the marriage of
0:37:00 citizenship
0:37:02 you see
0:37:03 and i've been compelled into obeying the
0:37:04 law now
0:37:06 on liberalism this is really difficult
0:37:08 because how can you justify taking my
0:37:10 freedom away in this manner you have to
0:37:13 justify it through the social contract
0:37:15 just purely on liberalism but the social
0:37:17 contract
0:37:19 for it to be really efficacious and to
0:37:20 be genuine and legitimate like any
0:37:22 contract in liberalism it has to be
0:37:25 reciprocal and transactional and both
0:37:27 parties must agree
0:37:29 but that doesn't happen so you do have a
0:37:31 problem
0:37:33 just on this point
0:37:35 some liberals will say that
0:37:37 that
0:37:38 even though it looks like you're
0:37:39 potentially being forced into this
0:37:40 situation what's really happening is
0:37:42 that you're being guaranteed the most
0:37:44 amount of freedom you could feasibly
0:37:45 have because without that being the case
0:37:48 then within a state of nature you're
0:37:49 going to have a net sort of less amount
0:37:51 of freedom
0:37:52 of course that that's that is what it's
0:37:54 not it's not what they will say it's
0:37:55 what they'll say it's a lesser of two
0:37:56 evils it's not what we want
0:37:58 you know and depending on where they are
0:38:00 on the spectrum they want more or less
0:38:02 intervention so we mentioned robert
0:38:05 nozick who wrote state anarchy and
0:38:07 utopia it's a very important book
0:38:08 actually
0:38:10 and he basically argues that you should
0:38:11 have a very small state that does
0:38:13 minimal work
0:38:16 oh my god
0:38:17 yeah
0:38:18 and others argue the opposite right
0:38:26 sorry
0:38:27 so anyway um just to move on
0:38:31 lock john locke had a different idea of
0:38:33 the state of nature he said we're not
0:38:35 all fighting each other he said all
0:38:36 mankind
0:38:38 who will but consult it that being all
0:38:41 equal and independent no one ought to
0:38:43 harm another life liberty or possessions
0:38:45 yet more of a positive and optimistic
0:38:47 understanding of the human condition the
0:38:49 human condition is being defined
0:38:51 differently by these liberals
0:38:53 but it's interesting how they all define
0:38:55 it differently but come to the same
0:38:56 conclusion
0:38:57 so hobbs is they're all fighting each
0:38:58 other luck is not they're not fighting
0:39:00 each other they're more maybe
0:39:01 conciliatory but they're all saying what
0:39:03 we need is someone to come and take
0:39:04 control of the situation
0:39:07 now this is extremely important now
0:39:11 you're starting with the social we said
0:39:12 it's a mythological state of nature it's
0:39:14 fictitious because it didn't happen the
0:39:16 way
0:39:18 they are describing there was no
0:39:20 transaction that took place there was no
0:39:22 leviathan there was no whatever what
0:39:24 really happened i was born in this
0:39:25 country and i was given a birth
0:39:26 certificate
0:39:29 but we didn't consent yeah
0:39:34 so what you'll find is that this is
0:39:36 really really interesting
0:39:39 is liberalism and authoritarianism in
0:39:42 any way
0:39:44 conceivable to be put together
0:39:46 can hitler who was socially liberal in
0:39:49 many ways he was socially liberal in
0:39:51 many ways
0:39:52 you know
0:39:53 can fascism coexist with liberalism
0:39:56 can is there such a thing as liberal
0:39:57 fascism
0:39:59 well if you have a very strong theory of
0:40:01 social contract a contract you can
0:40:03 justify it
0:40:05 and i'll tell you how look at what kant
0:40:07 says
0:40:09 he is he says it is the duty of the
0:40:11 people to bear any abuse of the supreme
0:40:13 power
0:40:14 can you imagine emmanuel can't
0:40:17 i'm going to give you the slights don't
0:40:18 worry the writers yeah yeah
0:40:21 i'll send you it is the duty of the
0:40:22 people to bear any abuse of the supreme
0:40:24 power even though
0:40:26 even then though it should be considered
0:40:28 to be unbearable
0:40:29 and the reason is that any resistance
0:40:32 any resistance of the highest
0:40:33 legislative authority can never but be
0:40:37 contrary to the law
0:40:39 and must even be regarded as tending to
0:40:41 destroy the whole legal constitution in
0:40:44 order to be entitled to offer such
0:40:45 resistance a public law would be
0:40:47 required to permit it but the supreme
0:40:49 legislation capital l capital s capital
0:40:52 s capital would be such a law cease be
0:40:55 supreme and the people people as
0:40:58 subjects would would may be made
0:41:00 sovereign over the that which they are
0:41:02 subject which is a contradiction which
0:41:04 is a contradiction he's saying it's not
0:41:06 possible that now these people who the
0:41:08 sovereign is meant to be protecting and
0:41:10 and they are
0:41:11 subject to that they're going to tell
0:41:13 the law what to do
0:41:15 this is you could be reading out of mind
0:41:17 camp or something like that because this
0:41:18 is very much an authoritarian
0:41:20 understanding of how things should be
0:41:24 but it is not something which is foreign
0:41:26 to liberal thought you cannot argue it's
0:41:29 impossible a liberal thought because
0:41:30 with social contractarianism
0:41:33 these arguments can be made
0:41:35 they simply can be made and they have
0:41:37 been made
0:41:38 and i've mentioned this before and i'll
0:41:40 mention it again john locke
0:41:42 unsurprisingly we'll talk about the
0:41:44 apostasy law
0:41:45 he said he states the first it talks
0:41:48 about jewish
0:41:49 states
0:41:50 the first of those being initiated in
0:41:52 the most most silicon i should be mosaic
0:41:55 let's say rights and made citizens of
0:41:57 that commonwealth did afterwards
0:41:58 apostasize from the worship of god of
0:41:59 israel
0:42:01 these were
0:42:02 proceeded against as traitors and rebels
0:42:04 guilty of no less than high treason for
0:42:07 the commonwealth of jews different
0:42:09 in that from all others was an absolute
0:42:12 theocracy nor was there or could there
0:42:14 be any difference between a commonwealth
0:42:15 and a church
0:42:17 he's basically saying you can kill the
0:42:19 apostate
0:42:21 john locke the now someone will say well
0:42:22 we don't agree with john locke he it's
0:42:25 not about agreeing or disagreeing with
0:42:26 john locke it's about it's possible on
0:42:28 social contractarianism as possible
0:42:31 on this form of liberalism you have an
0:42:33 apostasy law he's literally mentioning
0:42:35 the process law and he's saying it's
0:42:37 possible that someone can be killed for
0:42:39 apostasizing in a country because they
0:42:42 are seen as rebels and traitors to the
0:42:44 theocracy
0:42:45 the same understanding as immanuel kant
0:42:47 that you have the supreme law and if you
0:42:49 go against it then you can be killed for
0:42:51 it
0:42:53 you know and john rules who came in the
0:42:55 20th century
0:42:57 he he made some very fascinating uh
0:42:59 comments to the effect of you can stand
0:43:02 if so if the supreme leader told you to
0:43:04 stand in the face of the canal cannon
0:43:06 like a suicide mission basically that
0:43:08 you have to and you should answer this
0:43:10 why because of contractarianism it makes
0:43:12 sense on contractarianism why not when
0:43:14 you've sacrificed your freedom what is
0:43:16 the use therefore i could ask of freedom
0:43:18 if you if you you have it and lose it
0:43:20 straight away it's almost like you know
0:43:22 the christian tradition where it says
0:43:24 you're born with original sin and then
0:43:25 jesus comes and takes it away so what
0:43:27 what what am i doing here then it's like
0:43:29 this whole mythology has taken place
0:43:32 and i've i've been completely excluded
0:43:34 from it you've told the story already
0:43:36 i'm not i'm a superfluous addition to
0:43:38 the story i was given freedom and that
0:43:41 freedom was taken away from me
0:43:43 all before i was born
0:43:46 and when i was born
0:43:48 i'm now subject to these laws which
0:43:49 could mean
0:43:50 me out my death
0:43:52 and so the death penalty from this
0:43:54 perspective can be justified
0:43:56 so there are contradictions within
0:43:57 liberalism because on one hand you have
0:43:59 to protect life but on the other hand
0:44:00 the social social contract idea says
0:44:03 well the supreme leader is in charge
0:44:06 so you have not only contradictions
0:44:08 between liberalism and democracy but
0:44:10 contradictions between notions of
0:44:11 liberalism from within the theory itself
0:44:14 because contractarianism is very
0:44:16 um
0:44:18 it's very straightforward actually
0:44:21 so now if you
0:44:23 go back to the islamic thing obviously
0:44:24 classically there has been the
0:44:26 laws and so on which
0:44:28 many of the as
0:44:30 uh in fact one of the hanafi jurors he
0:44:33 actually literally said this is treason
0:44:35 and he gave very similar reasoning as
0:44:38 did
0:44:39 uh in his book
0:44:40 by the way he has a book called
0:44:43 and he gives the same almost an
0:44:44 identical reasoning he said they're
0:44:46 rebels they're traitors you know all
0:44:48 this kind of thing
0:44:49 to
0:44:50 who to john locke so it's conceivable on
0:44:53 theory that it can be for the same
0:44:55 reason
0:44:56 now
0:44:57 here's what i say
0:44:59 this is actually a point of similarity
0:45:01 between muslims and
0:45:03 liberals if you like or islam and
0:45:04 liberalism as a political theory
0:45:06 because islam doesn't say you are born
0:45:08 free and no it doesn't say that in that
0:45:11 language
0:45:12 but it does say we have a contract
0:45:14 we have a contract with god and we have
0:45:16 a contract with the supreme leader the
0:45:18 idea is the same the idea is in fact
0:45:20 identical
0:45:25 promoting communitarian
0:45:28 community yes yes but here they they
0:45:31 wanna
0:45:32 promoting individualism right right the
0:45:34 laws are different but the structures in
0:45:35 terms of social contract are exactly the
0:45:37 same you have subject and then you have
0:45:40 the supreme leader you have the khalifa
0:45:42 you have the wazir or whoever is and
0:45:45 there is
0:45:47 you have to obey the supreme leader
0:45:49 and some some people go too far in this
0:45:51 regard you know we've seen
0:45:53 you know some groups of islam you know
0:45:55 they say even if he rapes my wife in
0:45:56 front of me that's disgusting
0:45:59 you know this is not what we're talking
0:46:00 about there's always limits in fact
0:46:01 there's limits in islam of these things
0:46:03 but
0:46:04 the idea is generally speaking you know
0:46:06 there should be obedience to this so
0:46:08 primitive otherwise curse would ensue
0:46:10 liberalism doesn't actually disagree
0:46:12 except for the anarchical strands of
0:46:14 liberal
0:46:15 kind of thought or moving into like
0:46:17 libertarianism and stuff like that which
0:46:19 we talked about with nozick as a prime
0:46:21 academic example but having said that
0:46:24 the idea of okay you have these laws
0:46:28 for this protection
0:46:30 whether it's military protection or
0:46:32 pensions that you're given or whatever
0:46:35 the government gives is that's identical
0:46:37 so someone says why is it in your
0:46:39 religion
0:46:41 that you have all these laws of uh death
0:46:42 penalty and then all these kind of
0:46:44 things
0:46:45 a very simple answer is we have a
0:46:47 structure which is identical
0:46:49 to the liberal structure
0:46:51 and the main argument will be it's
0:46:52 conceivable
0:46:54 in both liberal structures
0:46:56 and islamic structures
0:46:58 that those laws are implemented and or
0:47:00 waived
0:47:02 just as these structures have been and
0:47:04 have been shown to be implemented in
0:47:06 these countries they have also been
0:47:08 shown to be waived now i've written a
0:47:09 book
0:47:10 a very small book it's called the
0:47:12 liberal critiques of riddha
0:47:14 it's a green book you can buy it
0:47:16 and in it really
0:47:18 i argue
0:47:20 that in implementation because this is
0:47:21 very important in implementation when it
0:47:24 comes to things like death penalty and
0:47:25 stuff
0:47:26 there's no evidence especially if we
0:47:28 look
0:47:29 throughout history that there is more
0:47:32 when it comes to lidda for instance
0:47:34 there is more implementation of riddelos
0:47:36 than there are treason laws there's no
0:47:38 evidence of that
0:47:40 there is something called in the ottoman
0:47:42 records because they're the most well
0:47:43 kept
0:47:44 it's called the sejill
0:47:46 records
0:47:47 and they're written in ottoman
0:47:50 language okay so they needed the
0:47:52 translator they called the sigil right
0:47:54 and fair enough it's not a complete
0:47:56 record just like in any history there's
0:47:58 not complete records
0:48:00 but there's sigil you can see
0:48:02 basically the
0:48:04 the record from bayezid the second i
0:48:06 think it was all the way up to abdul
0:48:07 hamid the second or all the way and
0:48:10 beyond
0:48:11 and beyond after that what he called the
0:48:12 moth
0:48:14 reforms in the mid 19th century
0:48:17 this is a wide
0:48:19 or like a big chunk of
0:48:22 you know if you do a search on this gel
0:48:24 because you can actually do so
0:48:25 electronically you will not find and
0:48:26 write it there or keywords you will not
0:48:29 find more than a handful of cases and
0:48:31 most of the cases were pardons there was
0:48:34 no such implementation of the death
0:48:36 penalty because someone has changed
0:48:37 their religion
0:48:39 in fact in my book i give an example
0:48:41 within
0:48:42 i think it was the years
0:48:44 1860 to 1870 or something like this
0:48:46 because
0:48:47 as you know the american civil war took
0:48:50 place between 1861 and 1865
0:48:53 and this civil war
0:48:56 saw
0:48:57 death penalties take place
0:48:59 death penalties
0:49:01 because of symbolic acts
0:49:03 of treason not just
0:49:05 military acts of treason
0:49:08 so the case study i give in the book
0:49:10 is of a man called william mumford
0:49:13 and william mumford
0:49:15 he basically you know the flags were
0:49:16 different the new union flag versus
0:49:19 and so he he was burning the flag he
0:49:21 burned the flag yeah
0:49:23 so they took him
0:49:25 and they in front of everybody
0:49:28 put the rope around his neck and killed
0:49:29 him
0:49:30 and it was you know
0:49:32 this they killed him for what
0:49:34 they killed him for a symbolic act of
0:49:37 treason
0:49:38 so i looked at the same time period
0:49:41 in the sejiel records in the ottoman
0:49:43 empire because funny enough at that same
0:49:45 time the ottomans were having a civil
0:49:47 war
0:49:48 you could say it's civil or you could
0:49:50 say it's
0:49:51 with the greeks depending on
0:49:54 you know how you define it
0:49:56 and a lot of greeks were becoming muslim
0:49:59 but then apostasizing just like you know
0:50:01 some two weeks after or something like
0:50:03 that because they had uh
0:50:06 wanted to test the ottoman
0:50:09 groups
0:50:10 and i picked out the only
0:50:12 available
0:50:14 court record
0:50:16 uh judgment ruling
0:50:19 on this particular
0:50:23 case
0:50:24 what i found they were hanafi and they
0:50:26 used muslim a lot in their judgments
0:50:28 which is the idea of the common good the
0:50:30 greater good
0:50:32 they waved they waved that particular
0:50:35 person who became an apostate
0:50:37 who was a muslim and then went to being
0:50:39 christian
0:50:40 and they didn't execute them it's the
0:50:42 ottoman empire at the same time where
0:50:44 america was executing someone for a
0:50:46 symbolic act of treachery
0:50:48 so in implementation because the
0:50:50 argument is
0:50:51 well what kind of argument can you make
0:50:53 we're saying that it's conceivable
0:50:56 that these we're not saying it's
0:50:57 inconceivable that in islam these things
0:50:59 cannot be implemented
0:51:01 and we're not saying that it's
0:51:02 inconceivable that it will uh it will
0:51:04 always be implemented in the liberal
0:51:06 tradition i'm saying is conceivable on
0:51:08 both traditions
0:51:09 that these things can be implemented and
0:51:11 this is conceivable on both traditions
0:51:14 these things can be waived
0:51:15 so this so therefore
0:51:17 if it's conceivable
0:51:19 on both liberalism and islam that riddha
0:51:22 and or treason
0:51:25 can be punished or waived
0:51:28 in that case
0:51:30 the liberal critique
0:51:32 of
0:51:34 islam is fruitless and self-refuting
0:51:37 it's a shot on the foot because if you
0:51:39 don't like the way this works you've got
0:51:40 the same exact structure
0:51:42 it's not about the individual opinions
0:51:45 because this is i've made these
0:51:47 arguments before and someone says well i
0:51:48 don't agree with john locke i don't
0:51:49 agree with emmanuel county i don't agree
0:51:51 with john rules i don't agree with
0:51:52 rousseau i don't agree with any of them
0:51:54 fine you don't have to agree with any of
0:51:55 them
0:51:57 but the truth of the matter is
0:51:59 this is
0:52:00 on principle
0:52:02 how
0:52:04 social contractarianism or
0:52:06 liberal contractarianism works
0:52:09 it's a principle issue the usual of the
0:52:11 math if you want to put it in that
0:52:12 language allows it
0:52:14 it allows it
0:52:16 on both
0:52:17 the islamic of madison you know religion
0:52:20 deen and the
0:52:22 and the liberal deen if you want to put
0:52:23 it in that language as well the religion
0:52:25 of religion
0:52:27 why why i call it a religion because
0:52:29 depending on how you define religion i
0:52:31 mean emil durkheim sociologist he
0:52:33 defined religion a set of ideas and
0:52:36 he's a huge abuser so why not take that
0:52:37 uh definition of religion it doesn't
0:52:39 have to be divine worship
0:52:40 and
0:52:41 you still have symbols and important
0:52:42 words and and practices and and you know
0:52:46 human rights and it works in a very
0:52:47 religious way so the liberal if you want
0:52:50 to put it that way religion allows it in
0:52:52 some cases
0:52:53 historically it has implemented it for
0:52:55 symbolic cases i say symbolic
0:52:58 not military cases treason
0:53:01 espionage and treachery and betrayal in
0:53:03 america
0:53:04 has not been and does not even continue
0:53:07 to be
0:53:09 the exclusive property of what
0:53:11 of a military operation that is done
0:53:13 against the state no it can be symbolic
0:53:15 it can be uh things that and we've we've
0:53:18 given that example of william mumford
0:53:20 but these examples can be given even
0:53:22 easier
0:53:23 on these people that they kill with
0:53:24 drone attacks without even trials
0:53:27 and by the way how does it justify it
0:53:29 because the protection of the state it's
0:53:30 it really is a social contract area and
0:53:32 understanding and even then there's
0:53:34 there's peer-reviewed written articles
0:53:36 arguing of the neoconservative strand of
0:53:38 liberalism
0:53:40 because it is even in that leo
0:53:41 conservativism is underneath liberalism
0:53:44 you know
0:53:45 that these things are plausible and
0:53:47 possible and sometimes even preferred
0:53:50 so when someone comes with
0:53:53 why does your religion allow this
0:53:56 say
0:53:57 first of all you answer the question
0:53:59 okay
0:54:00 morality blah blah blah you know
0:54:02 whatever
0:54:03 and it's not always the case as we know
0:54:05 it's conceivable but then your religion
0:54:07 allows it as well if you want to put it
0:54:08 that way your religion allows that as
0:54:10 well actually
0:54:12 you know and if you if you eliminate the
0:54:14 social contract element
0:54:16 then you have anarchy
0:54:19 so either
0:54:20 you let the state kill the people or you
0:54:22 let the people kill the people
0:54:26 the more time it says that again
0:54:28 either you let the state kill the people
0:54:30 will you let the people kill the people
0:54:33 because you think anarchy is going to
0:54:34 produce
0:54:35 a
0:54:36 net uh aggregate
0:54:39 less number of people that are going to
0:54:40 be killed
0:54:42 look at yeah look at look at these
0:54:43 states that are failed states they're
0:54:44 great examples yemen or uh libya like
0:54:48 who is there more death or less death
0:54:50 when there's not a strong authority
0:54:53 then there's oftentimes much more death
0:54:55 because everyone's trying to get their
0:54:56 little plot of land or tribal warfare
0:54:58 and all this kind of we see this all the
0:54:59 time so it's you can't get away from
0:55:02 killing people
0:55:04 in societies in history so either you
0:55:06 let the people kill the people you let
0:55:08 the state kill the people
0:55:10 now you might say well it doesn't have
0:55:11 to kill the people can just put them in
0:55:12 prison fine you let the people punish
0:55:14 the people we let the state punish the
0:55:16 people
0:55:17 punishment is a part of the human
0:55:19 condition
0:55:20 obviously hobbs believes that more than
0:55:22 most of us probably would agree with him
0:55:25 on this point
0:55:26 but these are the issues relating to how
0:55:29 to govern human beings
0:55:32 having said that guys
0:55:35 this is the end of today's session
0:55:38 and it was a bit of a long session but
0:55:39 an important one
0:55:41 and i hope this has helped you as much
0:55:44 as this helped me we're going to
0:55:45 continue and do some discussions here
0:55:48 and until next time assalamualaikum
0:55:49 warahmatullahi
0:56:07 you