Modern Trends: Secularism | Mohammed Hijab (2022-11-24) ​

0:00:00 oh
0:00:06 foreign
0:00:09 to the second session on the modern
0:00:11 Trends module today we're going to be
0:00:14 talking about secularism and its
0:00:16 connection with Islam in the Muslim
0:00:17 World
0:00:18 um of course secularism is something we
0:00:20 didn't actually formally cover in the
0:00:22 London area and it's something very
0:00:24 important not least because of something
0:00:26 which keeps coming up in discourses with
0:00:28 Muslims and non-muslims when I had
0:00:29 discussion with Jordan Peterson this
0:00:32 kind of was uh uh brought up in effect
0:00:34 before I had my first discussion with
0:00:36 him
0:00:37 it was one of his major criticisms of
0:00:39 Islam and so and this is something you
0:00:41 find in the western Academy a lot of
0:00:43 people will say like you know
0:00:45 uh why Islam isn't secular is the reason
0:00:49 why it's behind for example and this is
0:00:51 one of the main arguments they use
0:00:52 in fact they say that
0:00:55 this is connected to issues to do with
0:00:57 the Reformation
0:00:58 I try to enumerate the kind of uh
0:01:02 the kind of arguments the main arguments
0:01:05 that are used about this they say the
0:01:08 first catalog is Islam slash Muslims
0:01:11 needs to modernize and so really what
0:01:14 they mean by modernize is to secularize
0:01:16 and that's one of the things they one of
0:01:17 the staple part of a modern world is the
0:01:20 secular order
0:01:21 the second kind of argument is uses like
0:01:23 Islam or Muslims need to secularize and
0:01:25 they just say it like that they need to
0:01:28 do that
0:01:29 and the third one is Islam Muslims need
0:01:31 to westernize
0:01:33 and they are less likely to put in those
0:01:34 in those terms because it has Colonial
0:01:36 connotations
0:01:38 but these are the three kinds of ways
0:01:40 that it can be put across now the word
0:01:43 secular itself
0:01:45 etymologically comes from the Latin root
0:01:48 word meaning that which relates to the
0:01:49 world yeah
0:01:51 and is in opposition to the church
0:01:55 and it's a belief or ideological
0:01:58 commitment to the separation of religion
0:02:01 and this uh worldly effect this is from
0:02:03 Kenny
0:02:05 uh secular secularization is the process
0:02:07 because secularism is the word and
0:02:10 secularization
0:02:12 according to Burger is the process by
0:02:15 which sectors of society and cultures
0:02:17 are removed from the domination of
0:02:19 religious institutions
0:02:21 vernacularly if you look at the
0:02:23 dictionaries
0:02:24 secularism is really the separation
0:02:26 between church and state now already
0:02:30 what if if you really think about this
0:02:34 which should strike you as one of the
0:02:36 main things about the word secular
0:02:38 is that the definition itself
0:02:42 I should ask maybe I should ask what
0:02:44 does the definition depend on
0:02:46 the one second what is the definition
0:02:48 depend on
0:02:49 if I say
0:02:51 secularism
0:02:53 a separation between religion religious
0:02:55 institutions or religion and the state
0:02:57 what does the definition of secularism
0:03:00 ultimately depend on the the definition
0:03:03 of
0:03:05 yes
0:03:06 it presupposes that there's already a
0:03:09 distinction between those two things
0:03:10 okay but what so what do we need to if
0:03:13 if you didn't have this thing you
0:03:15 couldn't have secularism
0:03:17 there you have it thank you very much
0:03:18 okay that's right without religion they
0:03:20 cannot be secularism
0:03:22 think about this about it's quite ironic
0:03:24 actually
0:03:25 because secularism is a is it is a
0:03:28 separation between religion and
0:03:30 institutions or government or whatever
0:03:31 it may be so you can't have secularism
0:03:33 without religion so it's not ironic that
0:03:35 the thing you want to get rid of is a
0:03:37 thing you need to form what you have
0:03:40 think think of that for a second then
0:03:42 you have another issue here which is
0:03:43 that if we're saying secularism is a is
0:03:47 the division between religion and the
0:03:49 state or the institutions or whatever it
0:03:51 may be
0:03:52 then now what do we need to know what
0:03:54 the definition of is religion what is
0:03:57 what constitutes us religion what
0:03:58 doesn't constitute as religion
0:04:00 and this is an area of great controversy
0:04:03 because if you look at addiction
0:04:05 obviously they're going to say all kinds
0:04:07 of things about what religion is a
0:04:08 belief in a Divine being and ritual Acts
0:04:12 or these kinds of things this is
0:04:13 dictionary definition but when you look
0:04:15 at closely when you look at what
0:04:17 sociologists have said
0:04:19 some sociologists
0:04:22 have stated
0:04:23 I think Charles Taylor is one of them
0:04:26 Charles Taylor
0:04:27 has has stated that
0:04:31 religion can
0:04:33 include any transcendental idea
0:04:36 even durkheim from what I remember once
0:04:39 again included
0:04:41 ideologies into the mix many
0:04:43 sociologists said you don't necessarily
0:04:45 need
0:04:46 a divine
0:04:48 being or something like that for
0:04:50 something to be a religion that's why
0:04:52 Buddhism is not really some say it's a
0:04:55 religion some say it's not religion but
0:04:56 it depends on what kind of definition of
0:04:58 religion you're using
0:05:00 man not all Buddhists believe in God not
0:05:02 all Hindus believe in God we covered
0:05:04 this when we talked about Hinduism so
0:05:06 something we even discussed the fact
0:05:07 that it can be an atheist Hindu
0:05:10 some Hindus classify themselves as a
0:05:12 atheist
0:05:14 you know they say we don't believe in
0:05:15 these Gods this is just like a you know
0:05:17 myth for us but it's part of our culture
0:05:19 and whatever
0:05:21 so the point is is what is religion
0:05:23 that is itself something which is open
0:05:25 to discussion
0:05:27 but then if we say it's a transcendental
0:05:29 idea we have a real big problem here
0:05:31 because if we say liberalism is a
0:05:33 religion
0:05:35 if we actually state that liberalism is
0:05:36 religion
0:05:38 and most secular states are liberal
0:05:40 democracies
0:05:42 then secularism is on the mind
0:05:45 do you see what's going on there it's
0:05:46 very problematic
0:05:48 so if you say no religion must be those
0:05:51 things which you have a divine
0:05:53 you know you know being worthy of
0:05:56 worship
0:05:58 or something like that so Buddhism is
0:06:01 not a religion then so can I have a
0:06:03 Buddha state
0:06:04 if I have a Buddhist state am I am I
0:06:06 endangering the secular ethical if I
0:06:08 have a hint to say am I endangering a
0:06:10 secular ethic or not but then if I'm
0:06:12 allowed the Hindu say why am I not allow
0:06:14 the Muslim one
0:06:16 then you know this thing has become very
0:06:18 dangerous now they don't even know where
0:06:20 to start and where to end and this is
0:06:22 where the conversation conversation
0:06:23 should start
0:06:24 what are you defining as religion and
0:06:26 why should those things only be religion
0:06:29 especially when there's a scholarly
0:06:30 backing for all these other things to be
0:06:32 called religion
0:06:35 and so these Notions of modernization
0:06:37 and secularization or westernization
0:06:42 are all contingent on these on these
0:06:44 Notions first we have to Define what we
0:06:46 mean by secularism or we have to Define
0:06:48 by religion and what is the separation
0:06:52 so any questions on this one on this
0:06:54 point so far
0:06:56 no okay
0:06:58 we'll go to the next thing
0:07:02 a lot of people
0:07:04 actually cite the verse in the Bible and
0:07:07 I'll read it to you which is in Mark
0:07:09 chapter 12 verse number 17.
0:07:11 give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar
0:07:13 and give to God what belongs to God
0:07:15 and to be honest with you this is taken
0:07:17 out of context
0:07:18 because the context here is taxation
0:07:21 it's like you know give to Caesar
0:07:22 belongs to Caesar doesn't necessarily
0:07:24 mean that's God's rights should overtake
0:07:26 or the Caesar's right should overtake
0:07:28 God's rights
0:07:30 this was not if you look at the the
0:07:32 verses before and after it's talking
0:07:34 about give tax to your state basically
0:07:37 it's not saying that you know God's
0:07:38 rights are undermined and if if you know
0:07:40 about the biblical uh discussion you'll
0:07:43 know that James and Paul had a I'm not
0:07:45 sure if you guys are aware who James
0:07:47 who's James
0:07:50 yeah he's the brother of Jesus Christ
0:07:51 yeah according to the biblical discourse
0:07:54 and stuff like that yeah there's the
0:07:55 Book of James and he had his he had beef
0:07:57 with Paul
0:07:59 you know had big beef with it
0:08:01 and Paul basically was of the opinion
0:08:04 that you know you don't have to follow
0:08:05 the laws
0:08:07 and you know there was a big scandal
0:08:09 with him and if you look at the biblical
0:08:10 discourse and the records and stuff
0:08:12 there's a big Scandal between James and
0:08:13 Paul
0:08:14 because they're of circumcision and
0:08:15 stuff like that you know but basically
0:08:18 James is saying is James was saying
0:08:21 you need to follow the law you need to
0:08:23 follow the Old Testament law so he's
0:08:24 very much and if you look at the Book of
0:08:26 James and other parts of the Bible
0:08:27 saying that you know you cannot abandon
0:08:30 the Old Testament law as Paul is saying
0:08:31 no God died on the cross Jesus died on
0:08:34 the cross and as a result of it you have
0:08:36 you yeah you don't need to follow all
0:08:38 this now you don't actually need to
0:08:40 follow all of all of this stuff
0:08:42 the reason why I bought that to the
0:08:44 table is because uh in in many ways Paul
0:08:47 was the first protagonist of the secular
0:08:50 ethic
0:08:51 it wasn't Jesus it was actually Paul
0:08:54 himself
0:08:56 because he in many ways abolished the
0:08:57 religious law the relevance of the
0:08:59 religious law but if you look at the the
0:09:01 verse of give unto Caesar what is the
0:09:03 season give unto God words to God that's
0:09:05 not enough overrageous enough
0:09:07 for us to conclude that the New
0:09:09 Testament is secular
0:09:11 if you look at the writings of Paul yes
0:09:14 he was more if you like
0:09:15 uh because he was less concerned with
0:09:18 the laws if you look at James he's way
0:09:20 more concerned with the law who was
0:09:21 right who was wrong that's the
0:09:22 discussion that James Dunn and others
0:09:24 from the Christian Scholars and you know
0:09:26 have written about and that's a
0:09:27 different discussion for another day
0:09:29 however to cite this verse and to say oh
0:09:31 Christianity is therefore secular I
0:09:32 think it's a weak argument and we need
0:09:34 to be aware of that
0:09:35 I mean before I did my first thing with
0:09:37 your Peterson he actually mentioned this
0:09:39 is a quote unquote Miracle of
0:09:40 Christianity
0:09:42 he doesn't know
0:09:44 that this is the context and the one I
0:09:46 spoke to him I might have gone on the
0:09:48 read under the radar
0:09:50 because he mentioned it like before but
0:09:52 I said it quickly I don't think many
0:09:54 people heard what I said
0:09:55 you know give on to Caesar what is on to
0:09:57 Caesar and give unto God what's unto God
0:09:59 yeah
0:10:00 and I said to him what if Caesar what if
0:10:02 Caesar was Hitler
0:10:03 and he just brushed off and didn't
0:10:05 answer it so you know what if Caesar was
0:10:08 Hitler because you know on the one hand
0:10:10 if you say well give on to Caesar what
0:10:12 is the Caesar yeah
0:10:14 if Caesar is Hitler then you have
0:10:16 totalitarianism then you have Nazism
0:10:18 then you have all the things you hate
0:10:20 you can't choose your Caesar
0:10:22 you can only give it to you can give it
0:10:23 give them the taxes give them what you
0:10:25 want so this idea of a perfect
0:10:27 separation between sessions and stay and
0:10:30 give on to See's always and using these
0:10:32 verses in a tenuous way to try and make
0:10:34 a point I think it's actually a very
0:10:35 weak argument when you look at all the
0:10:37 context behind behind it any questions
0:10:39 on that
0:10:42 so
0:10:44 Peter Berger who's a pro basically this
0:10:46 person's a prominent sociologist okay
0:10:51 he helped propound uh secular
0:10:54 secularization theories in 1960s
0:10:57 believes that there is a trend of
0:10:59 desecularization
0:11:01 I said now we're moving away from
0:11:03 secularization to desecularization
0:11:07 and he even says that the assumption
0:11:09 that we now live in a secular world is
0:11:10 false now it's interesting when you look
0:11:12 at the UK as an example
0:11:14 because the question is is the UK
0:11:16 secular it's actually one for discussion
0:11:17 it's not one way is the UK not secular
0:11:20 is it not secular because there are
0:11:22 institutions which are religious like
0:11:24 the Church of England for example
0:11:25 the Anglican Church
0:11:27 and that is in the this intertwined with
0:11:30 aspects of the government the second
0:11:32 chamber or whatever I think they even
0:11:34 have seats that are designated for for
0:11:38 the church event you'd know right is
0:11:39 that correct they have seats I don't
0:11:41 know how many of them though there are
0:11:42 in the lows maybe 12 seats
0:11:45 but they're designated for for people
0:11:48 from the heart from the church right
0:11:49 and so this is a clearly an imposition
0:11:53 and then on the other hand so we said
0:11:55 the Church of England you have uh
0:11:57 schools which are Church of England
0:11:58 schools now
0:12:00 so they have a special privilege uh
0:12:03 Church actually Church of England
0:12:05 pastors and Priests they have more
0:12:07 privileges than almost any religious
0:12:10 person from anyone else anywhere else
0:12:12 because they get these big houses
0:12:14 you know and these kind of uh
0:12:16 accommodations the Church of England
0:12:17 owns so much land in this country uh
0:12:20 people think there's some kind of
0:12:21 Toothless
0:12:23 thing but they have money these guys
0:12:25 have a lot of money you know
0:12:27 I remember having a conversation when I
0:12:29 was doing my in Oxford because a lot of
0:12:32 them were training to be priests
0:12:34 I said how much you get and he was
0:12:35 trying to play it down he's like no 20
0:12:37 30 000 35 000.
0:12:40 so why would you be doing all of this
0:12:42 he said because you know we get house
0:12:43 and we get this and we get but I said
0:12:45 okay well you know
0:12:47 we don't get any of that
0:12:49 so clearly there are privileges that are
0:12:50 afforded to Christian people that are
0:12:52 not afforded to the rest of the
0:12:53 religions so the question is is this
0:12:56 country secular or is this country still
0:12:59 somewhat at least religious to what
0:13:02 extent is this country secular it's not
0:13:03 going to be or this country is secular
0:13:05 it's not secular so this country is
0:13:07 certainly not like America
0:13:08 America is way more secular than this
0:13:11 country don't have a church like that
0:13:13 and then the ceremonial uh role of the
0:13:16 king now is he is that he is the head of
0:13:19 the Church of England as well as being
0:13:21 uh someone who has uh the power to form
0:13:24 governments you know it's kind of
0:13:25 Monarch ceremonial Monarch all this kind
0:13:27 of things
0:13:28 so
0:13:30 how do we reconcile the fact that the
0:13:33 West is telling us to be secular
0:13:35 when they themselves haven't expunged
0:13:37 themselves of the secularism that they
0:13:38 espoused
0:13:40 it's it's a bit of a it's a bit of a
0:13:42 contradiction actually and it's not just
0:13:44 the UK many Europe Western European
0:13:47 countries are like this
0:13:49 the Denmark has a monarchy I think
0:13:50 Norway has a monarchy Belgium has a
0:13:52 monarchy they have the same kinds of uh
0:13:54 situations despite the fact that from a
0:13:57 census data perspective almost all these
0:13:59 countries have a downhill trajectory
0:14:02 when it comes to population of religious
0:14:03 people
0:14:04 like in other words now I I believe the
0:14:07 the latest census
0:14:09 is going to show that England
0:14:12 has 40 Christians which is a minority
0:14:16 that I mean they haven't released it yet
0:14:18 it's going to be in May 2023 but I
0:14:20 believe it's going to show this because
0:14:22 based on British attitude surveys that's
0:14:25 the projected
0:14:26 so it's going to be for the first time
0:14:27 ever since
0:14:29 maybe the fifth century sixth sixth
0:14:33 Century 5th to 6th century
0:14:36 even before
0:14:37 what's his name uh William the Conqueror
0:14:40 because Christianity came to this
0:14:42 country around the fifth century
0:14:44 with missionaries and all this kind of
0:14:46 so so how long how long is this we're
0:14:48 talking about before Islam
0:14:50 that's that's pretty that is pretty
0:14:53 significant Islam was in the seventh
0:14:55 century so Christianity came to the
0:14:57 England like a spread and stuff around
0:15:00 the fifth century sixth Century which is
0:15:02 about 150 years 200 years before Islam
0:15:06 so that's a thousand seven hundred years
0:15:10 something like this a thousand six
0:15:12 hundred years something like this
0:15:14 and for the first time until that time
0:15:17 there will be a minority Christian
0:15:19 population in this country below 50 with
0:15:22 Christian
0:15:24 by by then we still have all these
0:15:26 Christian institutions
0:15:28 Muslims are likely to be around 10 8
0:15:30 Maybe
0:15:31 so maybe in 20 years 30 years when
0:15:33 Muslims and Christians are closer to
0:15:35 being that maybe 2020 or we can still
0:15:36 have Christian Church of England
0:15:40 why
0:15:41 then then you have some issues
0:15:43 well Democratic reasoning comes into
0:15:45 play now and this is another thing that
0:15:48 secularism and this is my second point I
0:15:50 wanted to make to everyone here today
0:15:52 uh
0:15:53 I think van his name is Van Mills yeah
0:15:55 van Mills made this poison he's a
0:15:58 scholar of uh politics or international
0:16:00 relations and all this kind of things
0:16:01 yeah and he's focused on philosophical
0:16:04 issues he said it's a mistake to think
0:16:06 that the West
0:16:08 all of the values of the West are in
0:16:10 unison with each other there's all
0:16:11 Harmony
0:16:12 he says that there are issues relating
0:16:16 to some of the values like for example
0:16:17 secularism is one value
0:16:19 but let me just give you a very simple
0:16:21 ex this is very simple but maybe you
0:16:23 haven't thought about it yet
0:16:24 in America tell me two or three
0:16:26 religious issues or issues which are
0:16:28 heavily inspired by religion which are
0:16:32 very popular for the public to know
0:16:36 abortion what else
0:16:38 transgender decisions
0:16:41 transgender surgeries like the SRS
0:16:44 surgeries
0:16:45 uh I think that's yeah it's not been put
0:16:48 up for referendum let's see so things
0:16:50 that are necessarily like something very
0:16:52 clear like recently there's been
0:16:54 referendums about and there's been
0:16:55 changing law
0:16:56 uh the teaching the um like Darwinism in
0:17:00 schools and the okay okay that's okay
0:17:03 fine creationism and stuff I don't know
0:17:05 if there's been changing or maybe state
0:17:06 by state I have to look at that but once
0:17:08 again a state by state one which is a
0:17:11 very important one to do with marriage
0:17:13 gay marriage
0:17:15 okay so so you have now think of this
0:17:17 yeah America is meant to be a secular
0:17:19 State correct all right
0:17:22 have there been referendums
0:17:24 have the public been asked about
0:17:26 abortion
0:17:28 yes
0:17:30 sometimes they said yes and sometimes
0:17:32 they say no sometimes the supreme court
0:17:34 of justice America and a very famous
0:17:36 course court case called Roe versus Wade
0:17:41 would uh would would say pro-abortion
0:17:44 things or anti-abortion things depending
0:17:46 on if there are conservatives in the
0:17:48 Supreme Court of Justice if there's more
0:17:49 conservatives or not or whatever the
0:17:51 Liberals they'll whatever
0:17:52 sometimes they'll vote against gay
0:17:55 marriage but now they've mostly
0:17:57 voted for
0:17:59 when they're doing all of these things
0:18:02 what's that tension where's the tension
0:18:05 the attention is between democracy and
0:18:06 secularism
0:18:08 because if you're saying to me
0:18:09 secularism is a separation between
0:18:11 church and state
0:18:13 but yet democracy allows me to make
0:18:15 decisions which are inspired by religion
0:18:18 about issues which are politics or
0:18:20 social socially relevant to politics or
0:18:23 whatever
0:18:25 then to what extent are you allowing
0:18:27 religion to be part of the state and the
0:18:29 government
0:18:31 either secularism is uh incapable
0:18:37 or is impotent the secular ethic has
0:18:40 failed
0:18:41 or the Democratic ethic must fail
0:18:44 so you can't have a pure democracy and a
0:18:46 pure secularism
0:18:48 what if you have a democracy and
0:18:50 everyone says I want this person to be
0:18:52 in charge who's going to implement
0:18:53 Islamic law fully in the land cutting
0:18:55 the hand and doing this and whatever
0:18:58 I had the conversation one time with
0:19:00 Adam Dean one of the guys from quillium
0:19:02 Foundation and I asked him this very
0:19:04 question
0:19:05 it's online Mariani I said what if I
0:19:08 gave him this what if and it was he was
0:19:09 buzzing he didn't know what to say
0:19:12 he just didn't know what to say I said
0:19:13 what if you have a country 99 of people
0:19:16 say we weren't cutting the hand what are
0:19:18 you going to say now
0:19:19 are we going to remove dead Democratic
0:19:20 legitimacy
0:19:22 or are you going to
0:19:23 remove the uh the secular ethic or what
0:19:27 are you gonna do
0:19:28 whatever you choose you're preferring
0:19:30 one set of morality over another because
0:19:32 the idea is that the West presents
0:19:34 itself as fully coherent
0:19:36 you have to copy a spot in order for you
0:19:37 to copy as we we have to appear that we
0:19:39 have one set of morality which you can
0:19:41 copy
0:19:43 that's the problem here and that's what
0:19:45 van Mills are saying that there is no
0:19:47 Harmony here there's no Harmony between
0:19:49 secularism and democracy and liberalism
0:19:51 and these things together
0:19:52 and I'll give you another great example
0:19:56 and these are very important examples to
0:19:58 Remember by the way because they're very
0:20:00 very powerful in discussions with
0:20:01 especially with non-muslims or people
0:20:03 that are antithetical to Islam or
0:20:05 detractors of it or something like that
0:20:06 or Muslims especially in this country
0:20:10 in this country once again the UK
0:20:13 in the 1940s
0:20:15 well 1930s and 40s or mainly the 40s
0:20:19 there was the World War World War second
0:20:20 world war yeah
0:20:23 and there was something called the
0:20:24 coalition government
0:20:26 now a coalition government means what
0:20:28 everyone comes together and they make a
0:20:30 big government it's a grand government
0:20:31 big government
0:20:32 in that coalition government what was
0:20:34 there a lack of
0:20:36 what wasn't them I should say
0:20:38 what didn't they do
0:20:40 diversity
0:20:42 but no but this if there's a coalition
0:20:44 government what isn't there
0:20:47 isn't a majority but how why is there
0:20:49 not a majority
0:20:50 because there wasn't any elections
0:20:54 they didn't have elections
0:20:57 can you imagine this now why did they
0:20:59 not have elections
0:21:01 because and by the way this is not even
0:21:02 controversial like it went over the term
0:21:05 and there weren't elections there's no
0:21:07 democracy in the country
0:21:09 they say because of the security and
0:21:10 National Security and these kinds of
0:21:11 things we can't do elections when we're
0:21:13 fighting the Germans how gonna we're
0:21:15 gonna kill this one but this battle and
0:21:17 that battle
0:21:18 Battle of the sum and Bismarck and then
0:21:20 do elections
0:21:22 no we're not going to do these things
0:21:24 so there's no election now what I'm
0:21:26 saying is
0:21:27 so you've sacrificed democracy for
0:21:29 safety
0:21:32 now is this right or is this wrong so
0:21:34 even National Security can dig can can
0:21:37 can compel you to do away with one of
0:21:40 your uh values
0:21:44 so this idea of we constantly need
0:21:47 legitimacy we constantly need a mandate
0:21:49 we hear it now even this new uh Rishi
0:21:51 sunak has become he's talking he's
0:21:53 pretending he has a mandate he has no
0:21:55 mandate in reality he has an individual
0:21:57 has a limited or Afghani zero almost
0:22:00 zero no one voted this guy
0:22:02 no one voted this guy man and yet he can
0:22:05 stand there with his five foot five
0:22:07 diminished physical stature and you know
0:22:10 in his 45 kilogram self and start
0:22:14 talking about
0:22:16 I'm the leader and I'm this he says
0:22:18 what's the I didn't vote for this guy
0:22:19 and I wouldn't vote for this guy and and
0:22:21 the list trust come out the same thing
0:22:23 this is nonsense we want to see an
0:22:26 election happen well maybe I don't care
0:22:28 if there's an election or not but at
0:22:30 least from a democratic perspective
0:22:31 that's what they should be saying and to
0:22:33 be fair that is what some of them are
0:22:34 saying
0:22:36 huh
0:22:38 yeah no but that's what I'm saying like
0:22:40 you know these people are unelectable
0:22:42 actually
0:22:44 like the only two okay with the
0:22:46 exception of Margaret Thatcher the only
0:22:48 two times you've got on a prime minister
0:22:49 that's a woman is when they were forced
0:22:51 into Power with the uh uh despite the
0:22:56 Electoral wish
0:22:58 and the only time you've got a brown man
0:22:59 in there when he was forced into power
0:23:01 and he's one of the richest person in
0:23:03 Britain
0:23:05 this was democracy and die
0:23:07 there's a diversity of a democracy for
0:23:10 example I mean what's going on here
0:23:12 Annie yeah
0:23:15 so the point is is that don't these
0:23:17 things that they espouse okay we want a
0:23:19 democracy and secularism you can't have
0:23:21 democracy what I'm saying is
0:23:23 it's impossible to have an unfettered
0:23:26 democracy and an unfettered secularism
0:23:28 at the same time that's my claim
0:23:31 and that's a simple enough claim so I'll
0:23:33 say we want you to modernize and
0:23:35 secureize say does that does your vision
0:23:37 of modernization include democracy yes
0:23:39 it does
0:23:40 so if your vision of uh if your vision
0:23:44 of
0:23:47 modernization includes democracy then
0:23:49 you must understand that you cannot have
0:23:52 an unfettered or unrestricted democracy
0:23:54 and unrestricted secularism so which one
0:23:56 should we choose
0:23:57 they say let us have the secularism so
0:23:59 what should we not have democracy then
0:24:01 oh let's have the democracies you don't
0:24:03 have the secularism then
0:24:04 and on what basis are you making this
0:24:06 decision well it's not to be a
0:24:08 democratic basis
0:24:09 because you can't be because I'm making
0:24:11 a secular decision and despite democracy
0:24:13 using a democratic basis
0:24:15 well it would be a liberal basis now you
0:24:17 have a third ideology
0:24:18 because secularism and and liberalism
0:24:21 are two separate ideologies they're
0:24:23 different things
0:24:24 like when I was doing my undergraduate
0:24:25 degree and there was a there was a book
0:24:27 that I read by Barbara Ross called using
0:24:29 political ideas she had a separate
0:24:32 chapter for democracy and a separate
0:24:34 chapter four
0:24:35 uh liberalism there's two separate
0:24:36 things yummy they're two separate things
0:24:38 we're talking about two different
0:24:40 assumptions different ideology different
0:24:42 thing so you could so if you have
0:24:44 liberalism now and liberalism is saying
0:24:46 the harm principle but then the
0:24:48 Democracy goes against the harm
0:24:49 principle it's either now the harm
0:24:51 principle of this so that there's so
0:24:54 many contradictions
0:24:55 there are actually so many
0:24:56 contradictions
0:24:58 and then when you bring in free speech
0:25:00 and free expression then you have the
0:25:02 real problem
0:25:03 because you got a free speech
0:25:05 absolutists
0:25:08 and they'll say we want for complete
0:25:09 free speech so long as you're not
0:25:10 inciting violence that's what they say
0:25:13 okay say what do you say about mocking
0:25:15 the Holocaust not just I'm not saying
0:25:18 denying the Holocaust
0:25:21 because it's illegal to do that in
0:25:22 Germany and many other countries I'm
0:25:24 saying what do you say about mocking it
0:25:28 they'll say well we can mock the
0:25:30 Holocaust but this will offend and this
0:25:32 will harm the people and this will do
0:25:33 this and that but no we can't mock the
0:25:35 Holocaust can you mock the Holocaust can
0:25:36 you not mock the Holocaust
0:25:38 so everything here is arbitrary and
0:25:40 unfortunately it goes back to the elites
0:25:43 and that's what we're seeing a lot of
0:25:45 the decisions being made on cancellation
0:25:48 on this on that whatever based on who is
0:25:51 at the top
0:25:52 certain things can be said certain
0:25:54 things cannot be said it's arbitrary
0:25:56 there is a false it is a facade the
0:25:59 veneer of yeah you guys are free Annie
0:26:03 have you heard of the panopticon is it
0:26:05 called the panopticon but Jeremy Bentham
0:26:08 it's basically this idea that
0:26:10 is a prison where you you can see
0:26:13 everybody in every cell from the because
0:26:14 there's mirrors everywhere you can see
0:26:15 it here
0:26:17 so it's the criticism the modern
0:26:19 criticism of the western world is that
0:26:21 you are letting us do what we want or at
0:26:24 least think that we're doing what we
0:26:25 want
0:26:26 you're letting us go here there but
0:26:28 you're seeing exactly what we're doing
0:26:29 and we're in your prison but as soon as
0:26:31 we go outside the bounds you're going to
0:26:33 start dealing with us in a way which we
0:26:35 don't know what you're going to do and
0:26:36 quite frankly in many ways honestly a
0:26:39 totalitarian system can be better than
0:26:40 that because with a totalitarian system
0:26:42 if you're living in an under
0:26:43 dictatorship you know where the
0:26:46 boundaries are if I do this this guy's
0:26:48 gonna beat me up the worst thing is I
0:26:50 don't know where the boundaries are I
0:26:52 don't know why this guy's going to kill
0:26:53 me put me in prison when the Drone is
0:26:55 going to come where there's going to be
0:26:57 an extra judicial killing I don't know
0:26:59 when it's going to be arbitrary based on
0:27:01 the Strategic decision-making of the
0:27:02 elites in many ways that's a more
0:27:06 trepidatious place to be
0:27:08 anxiety-ridden place to be then a
0:27:11 dictatorship because with a dictatorship
0:27:12 you know if I say these words about the
0:27:14 politics this ruler if I say these words
0:27:16 about this particular ruler here
0:27:18 I speak about politics if I do this
0:27:20 they're going to kill me or they're
0:27:22 going to put me in prison and torture me
0:27:23 okay I know the rules I get it I
0:27:25 understand it it's very straightforward
0:27:26 actually
0:27:27 a dictator is only one a very good
0:27:29 making us know what he's good what he
0:27:31 wants
0:27:34 in the west you go here you go there
0:27:37 your accounts are flow this morning my
0:27:39 account was frozen
0:27:44 is frozen this and that you you have to
0:27:48 go to this the police comes here what
0:27:50 every time you do this
0:27:52 you don't know what you yeah why they're
0:27:54 doing it even you don't know what you've
0:27:55 done
0:27:56 and in many ways that's a worrisome
0:27:58 place to be uh maybe I've just gone
0:28:01 abroad uh sorry
0:28:04 now
0:28:08 yeah so it was Charles Taylor who said
0:28:10 it's a transcendental system
0:28:17 and with that this is a very short
0:28:19 session
0:28:21 but with that we will conclude this is
0:28:23 the first session of secularism uh any
0:28:25 questions before we conclude on some of
0:28:27 the stuff that we said today
0:28:29 all right fantastic well we'll see you
0:28:32 guys later we're going to be speaking
0:28:33 about modern trends for the next three
0:28:35 weeks and then we'll move on to somehat
0:28:37 this is the second uh
0:28:39 I think it's four weeks sorry I should
0:28:41 say four weeks because it'll be six
0:28:42 weeks overall this is the second session
0:28:43 on the modern Trends and Insha'Allah
0:28:46 we'll be seeing you next week with Santa
0:28:48 Monica