Seminar: Does Islam curtail freedom? An analytical approach - with Hamza Andreas Tzortzis (2021-09-26) #

0:00:14 this is andres joses and today we're
0:00:16 going to be covering the question
0:00:19 does islam curtail freedom
0:00:22 and we're going to use an analytical
0:00:24 approach
0:00:26 now the first thing i want to say is
0:00:27 that i pray that every single one is
0:00:30 with good health and high faith high
0:00:33 iman
0:00:34 and i pray to allah that
0:00:37 he accepts
0:00:39 today's seminar and that it is
0:00:42 effective and makes an impact in your
0:00:46 individual and public lives especially
0:00:49 in the context of
0:00:50 sharing islam academically and
0:00:52 intellectually which is a key focus of
0:00:55 sapience institute we really want to
0:00:58 get people to
0:01:01 understand the importance of sharing
0:01:02 islam intellectually and academically
0:01:04 but also for them to be empowered to do
0:01:06 so
0:01:07 and this is very important because we
0:01:09 want to see a world
0:01:11 that
0:01:13 that
0:01:14 basically has the message of islam that
0:01:16 they are given the message of islam and
0:01:18 that
0:01:19 in our world
0:01:20 you have people who are able to share
0:01:22 islam academically and intellectually so
0:01:26 today's question is does islam can tell
0:01:28 freedom we're going to use an analytical
0:01:29 approach and we're going to basically
0:01:31 cover the following points today
0:01:34 the first thing is we're going to cover
0:01:35 why this discussion is important
0:01:37 and obviously i want to elaborate on the
0:01:40 existential spiritual dimension of
0:01:42 freedom i'm not going to get into it too
0:01:43 much because we have a previous
0:01:45 seminar called
0:01:47 born to worship which really unpacks
0:01:49 that further but i just wanted to speak
0:01:51 about because it's very important
0:01:53 then we're going to talk about the idea
0:01:54 of freedom and by the way we're not
0:01:55 talking about we're not talking about
0:01:57 political conceptions of freedom at this
0:01:59 stage we're talking about the
0:02:00 philosophical idea of freedom rather
0:02:03 than political conceptions and there is
0:02:04 a distinction here
0:02:06 so we're going to talk about freedom and
0:02:08 coercion
0:02:09 and we're going to articulate why and
0:02:12 under the understanding of freedom is
0:02:15 basically the the fact that you don't
0:02:16 have
0:02:17 coercion that there is an absence of
0:02:19 coercion and then we're going to unpack
0:02:21 what coercion actually means
0:02:23 then we're going to talk about the two
0:02:25 main theories the non-empirical account
0:02:27 and the empirical account
0:02:30 now
0:02:31 after that we're going to talk about why
0:02:33 the empirical account is incoherent and
0:02:35 why the non-empirical account is
0:02:37 actually more robust
0:02:39 and it's going to show us that freedom
0:02:42 is really connected to rights that
0:02:44 freedom
0:02:45 is when your rights have not been
0:02:47 violated
0:02:49 and
0:02:50 that's easy to say now but we're going
0:02:52 to go through this kind of intellectual
0:02:53 journey to show you why
0:02:55 freedom is really just about rights
0:02:59 and if your rights are not violated then
0:03:01 you're free if they are violated then
0:03:03 you're not free you've been subjugated
0:03:05 or you're oppressed from that
0:03:06 perspective but this raises a very
0:03:08 important philosophical question well
0:03:11 what set of rights
0:03:13 because there are different conception
0:03:14 of rights you have the kind of positive
0:03:16 view of rights the negative your
0:03:17 negative view of rights like the
0:03:19 libertarians and you have the positive
0:03:21 view of rights like the socialists for
0:03:23 example then you have the islamic
0:03:24 conception of rights so
0:03:26 what is
0:03:28 the correct set of rights and if you
0:03:30 understand that correctly then you
0:03:31 understand
0:03:32 when you are free and when you are not
0:03:34 free when you have been subjugated when
0:03:35 you are not subjugated
0:03:38 so we're going to be able to answer the
0:03:39 question does islam couture freedom in a
0:03:41 very easy way because islam gives us
0:03:43 rights and if those rights are not
0:03:45 violated
0:03:46 then you're free and islam also has
0:03:48 mechanisms in place to preserve those
0:03:50 rights and to protect those rights
0:03:52 so by definition islam
0:03:56 gives you freedom right
0:03:59 but the question that's very important
0:04:01 is actually a dollar question and that's
0:04:03 what we're going to focus on at the end
0:04:05 is to get you to realize not to fall for
0:04:07 the wrong for for the trap
0:04:10 i'm not saying it's a deliberate trap
0:04:11 but in some cases cases is but you don't
0:04:14 want to basically
0:04:15 adopt a conception of rights that is
0:04:18 alien to the islamic tradition
0:04:20 and you don't adopt therefore a
0:04:22 conception of freedom that is against
0:04:24 the islamic tradition because islam
0:04:27 is a world view
0:04:28 islam
0:04:30 has its own understanding of rights yes
0:04:32 there are overlaps and there are
0:04:34 commonalities for sure i'm not saying
0:04:36 you know it's night and day difference
0:04:38 of course not there are some you know
0:04:41 there is some common commonality and
0:04:43 some shared understanding of rights but
0:04:46 the point here is we have a fundamental
0:04:49 you know
0:04:50 different philosophical theo
0:04:53 philosophical intellectual basis the
0:04:54 quran the prophetic traditions and our
0:04:57 conception of rights come from that
0:04:59 intellectual tradition that intellectual
0:05:01 foundation we could prove that
0:05:02 foundation to be true so in endower
0:05:04 context we're going to get you basically
0:05:06 to take intellectual leadership
0:05:08 and not to basically adopt false
0:05:10 assumptions or the wrong assumptions
0:05:12 because when you do that especially in a
0:05:14 dial context when you're sharing islam
0:05:16 intellectually academically when you do
0:05:18 that what happens it creates a lot of
0:05:19 inconsistencies
0:05:21 and you actually start to contradict
0:05:23 islam itself
0:05:24 so it's very important for us to have
0:05:26 this kind of intellectual courage and
0:05:27 leadership to be able to show to people
0:05:29 okay well what do you mean by freedom
0:05:31 freedom is the absence of coercion and
0:05:33 the absence of coercion really means the
0:05:35 non-violation of rights and this raises
0:05:38 the question of what set of rights
0:05:40 are the right
0:05:42 set of rights to have
0:05:44 and that would allow you to link it to
0:05:46 the essence of islam which is tawheed
0:05:48 affirming the oneness of allah
0:05:50 submission to a submission to allah
0:05:53 and you'll be able to link it to the
0:05:54 intellectual foundations of islam to
0:05:56 prove that the quran is true and allah
0:05:58 exists and so on and so forth and to
0:06:00 show them that our rights come from this
0:06:02 intellectual foundation
0:06:04 and which is true and whatever comes
0:06:06 from truth is true so you could use this
0:06:08 question to give them a correct
0:06:10 understanding of rights which is the
0:06:11 islamic conception
0:06:13 and also to show how islam is true at
0:06:15 this in the same in the at the same time
0:06:18 now obviously you this is just a summary
0:06:21 but i just wanted to take you to what
0:06:23 we're going to be covering today
0:06:25 so first thing to understand is why is
0:06:27 this discussion very important well
0:06:30 there are a few reasons why this
0:06:31 discussion is very important you have
0:06:33 you know lots of ideological attacks in
0:06:35 our current social political environment
0:06:37 against islam you have politicians and
0:06:39 ideologues the frame the discussion as
0:06:42 the free world versus the unfree world
0:06:45 and the unfree world is the muslim or
0:06:47 the islamic world right
0:06:49 and you have this a lot
0:06:51 and you know these ideologues and
0:06:53 politicians you know they don't really
0:06:55 mean that what they mean is
0:06:58 the liberal world and the non-liberal
0:07:00 world generally speaking right that's
0:07:03 what they mean they don't mean free and
0:07:04 unfree
0:07:05 um now that they might do in certain
0:07:07 cases because in some parts of the world
0:07:09 there is subjugation and oppression for
0:07:10 sure obviously it's not always black and
0:07:12 white but the point here is that what
0:07:14 they really mean here is a liberal
0:07:16 conception of freedom right what they
0:07:18 mean here is you know secular liberal
0:07:20 values versus non-secular values they're
0:07:22 not necessarily they may do sometimes
0:07:24 but they don't necessarily mean free
0:07:26 world versus the unfree world right
0:07:28 because they have a particular
0:07:29 conception of freedom
0:07:30 which is based on their own
0:07:32 philosophical foundations and it's based
0:07:33 on their own conception of rights
0:07:35 nevertheless they frame the discussion
0:07:37 in that way and it affects the kind of
0:07:40 discourse right it affects the
0:07:41 perception of islam and muslims
0:07:43 specifically the islamic tradition
0:07:46 you know you have a picture here of
0:07:48 this
0:07:49 this incoherent and
0:07:51 immoral individual called gert wilders
0:07:54 he's the dutch
0:07:56 politician the right-wing politician he
0:07:57 said i believe that islam and freedom
0:08:00 are incompatible and if you unpack that
0:08:02 philosophically what he's trying to say
0:08:03 is islam and you know
0:08:06 my
0:08:07 version of secular liberal values or or
0:08:10 my version of rights are incompatible
0:08:12 with islam right that's what he's trying
0:08:14 to say
0:08:15 and from that perspective and you can
0:08:16 understand that a little in a few
0:08:18 minutes when we unpack this idea further
0:08:21 also
0:08:22 you know there are social psychological
0:08:24 implications as well because you know
0:08:26 sometimes some of our
0:08:27 you know
0:08:29 the muslims our brothers and sisters in
0:08:31 our community what they do sometimes
0:08:32 they like to react to concepts so they
0:08:34 will be like no islam hates freedom
0:08:36 right islam is anti-free which is in my
0:08:39 view a very kind of
0:08:40 incoherent and
0:08:42 not very wise
0:08:44 or even
0:08:45 rational approach to this topic right
0:08:48 you know
0:08:49 don't define yourself by just reacting
0:08:51 to everything you know it's that's not
0:08:54 how you
0:08:55 articulate a positive case for is for
0:08:57 the islamic tradition because when you
0:08:59 understand the context that we're living
0:09:00 in and i'm talking from a kind of
0:09:02 western context people living in the
0:09:03 west or people living in an environment
0:09:05 where there is non-muslims where you
0:09:06 know articulate islam compassionate
0:09:08 intellect and and intelligently to them
0:09:10 when you live in that type of
0:09:11 environment you know you have to
0:09:13 understand the connotations of terms you
0:09:15 have to understand the social
0:09:16 psychological implications and you have
0:09:18 to have hikma you have to have wisdom
0:09:20 so
0:09:21 just you know if for example there's
0:09:23 this idea of freedom you know uh in in a
0:09:26 certain culture
0:09:27 don't be sitting and say oh no we don't
0:09:29 believe in freedom that's ridiculous
0:09:31 because that's not even even in line
0:09:33 with islamic tradition anyway especially
0:09:34 what you're to learn today it's all
0:09:36 about rights right are you going to say
0:09:39 that islam doesn't promote rights that's
0:09:40 a ridiculous thing to do because in in
0:09:42 the classical tradition you even have
0:09:44 the concept of
0:09:46 the rights of the individuals you have
0:09:49 the understanding of you know preventing
0:09:51 oppression and subjugation and so on and
0:09:53 so forth you have the understanding of
0:09:55 the rights
0:09:56 of the wife the rights of the family the
0:09:58 rights of allah the rights of animals
0:10:00 the rights of non-muslims the rights of
0:10:02 your fellow human beings this is a these
0:10:05 these ethics and and these principles
0:10:07 are embedded in our tradition are you
0:10:09 going to reject rights because what
0:10:10 you're going to learn today is that
0:10:11 freedom and coercion is fundamentally
0:10:13 about rights so if you say no there is
0:10:15 no freedom in islam well you're actually
0:10:17 rejecting islam from that perspective
0:10:19 because
0:10:20 you know
0:10:21 it's equivalent of rejecting the notion
0:10:24 of rights which would be a ridiculous
0:10:25 thing to do
0:10:26 so don't react ideologically in that way
0:10:28 be nuits understand what the quran is
0:10:30 actually say and respond properly and
0:10:32 that's why from a social psychological
0:10:34 point of view you need to understand
0:10:36 that in liberal societies people value
0:10:38 this idea of freedom even in a popular
0:10:40 sense even if it's incoherent you know
0:10:41 for example you have this kind of you
0:10:43 know popular idea of that
0:10:46 one can do what they like as long as
0:10:49 they don't hurt anyone which is a
0:10:51 philosophically not very nuanced notion
0:10:54 or principle because how do you know the
0:10:56 implications of your action
0:10:58 uh on society and on individuals
0:11:02 now
0:11:03 and in the medium to long-term future
0:11:05 you just don't know right
0:11:07 right you might not harm someone
0:11:08 immediately but how do you know that for
0:11:10 example your particular action now
0:11:12 doesn't create some kind of harm so you
0:11:14 know it is a kind of uh
0:11:17 unknown notion but it's a popular notion
0:11:19 and even the idea of her what does what
0:11:21 does harm mean right
0:11:22 you know how do you define harm right
0:11:25 individual collective harm what is harm
0:11:28 and so on and so forth so there's a big
0:11:29 philosophical discussions here but
0:11:30 anyway notwithstanding i'm trying to
0:11:32 show to you there is a social political
0:11:34 atmosphere where people value freedom
0:11:37 and you don't want to be you know
0:11:39 antagonistic to it in a way that's
0:11:40 ideological because this is not the
0:11:42 islamic way of doing things
0:11:44 you need to appreciate this idea and use
0:11:46 hikma and wisdom and show to them yes we
0:11:49 agree one should be free but what do you
0:11:51 mean by freedom
0:11:53 and then you could articulate what we're
0:11:55 going to be talking about today well
0:11:57 freedom is centered around the idea of
0:11:59 the absence of coercion but let's let's
0:12:02 be nuanced and understand what this
0:12:03 really means well really the absence of
0:12:05 coercion is not having um
0:12:09 is is about the non-violation of rights
0:12:12 right
0:12:13 it's about the non-violation rights it's
0:12:15 not about having you know the best
0:12:17 possible options available right
0:12:20 and we're going to show some thought
0:12:21 experiments to show that you can be
0:12:22 basically
0:12:24 somehow forced to take a particular
0:12:26 option
0:12:27 and that's not the option that you
0:12:28 wanted to choose and it has negative
0:12:31 consequences but it doesn't mean you're
0:12:32 coerced you're only coerced if
0:12:36 someone has violated or an entity has
0:12:38 violated your rights and we're going to
0:12:39 discuss what we mean by this
0:12:43 so before we get into the philosophical
0:12:45 idea of freedom and unpack what i've
0:12:46 just said
0:12:48 i think it's very important to
0:12:49 understand that there are different kind
0:12:51 of perspectives on liberty and freedom
0:12:54 and there is a very powerful perspective
0:12:57 which is an existential spiritual
0:12:58 perspective which i really just want to
0:13:00 summarize but if you want to know more
0:13:02 about this go to the seminar that's on
0:13:04 our youtube channel it's called
0:13:07 born to worship and i think i delivered
0:13:09 that about six weeks ago or something
0:13:13 and
0:13:14 what is this idea let's summarize this
0:13:15 idea well basically essentially everyone
0:13:17 is enslaved right you have this
0:13:19 existential slavery from that
0:13:20 perspective and and this kind of
0:13:22 argument is derived from the quran in
0:13:24 chapter 12 verse 87 when allah says
0:13:29 god puts forward this illustration can a
0:13:32 man who has for his masters several
0:13:34 partners that odds with each other be
0:13:35 considered equal to a man devoted holy
0:13:38 to one master all praise belongs to god
0:13:41 to allah though most of them do not know
0:13:44 so this argument is derived from that
0:13:45 because where is allah was subhanallah
0:13:47 essentially telling us here so let's
0:13:49 ponder over this verse
0:13:51 what's interesting allah is trying to
0:13:53 say to us that if you don't worship
0:13:55 allah the one who knows you better than
0:13:56 you know yourself has more affection for
0:13:58 you than your own mother's right who is
0:14:01 the source of a goodness who's the one
0:14:02 who's actually worthy of servitude the
0:14:05 one who's worthy of worship if you don't
0:14:06 worship him you're gonna worship many
0:14:09 other
0:14:10 slave masters or deities and they are
0:14:12 they're crawling with one another they
0:14:14 don't really know what's good for you
0:14:16 right
0:14:16 they don't have the same affection for
0:14:18 you
0:14:19 and so on and so forth and this is why
0:14:21 it's it's very critical to understand
0:14:23 what this means from an existential
0:14:25 perspective allah is basically telling
0:14:27 us that you can't run away from the idea
0:14:28 that you're going to be at service to
0:14:30 something you're going to worship
0:14:31 something as there is the muslim thinker
0:14:34 martin ling's he said man cannot not
0:14:38 worship meaning man is in a state of
0:14:40 worship whether they believe in god or
0:14:41 not
0:14:42 now for you to understand this you have
0:14:43 to
0:14:44 have to unpack what worship actually
0:14:46 means or entails
0:14:47 now worship means to know something the
0:14:49 most which is really to focus on
0:14:51 something the most and and
0:14:53 and to
0:14:54 you know really revolve your life around
0:14:57 something the most is to love something
0:14:59 the most is to obey something the most
0:15:01 it's direct acts of worship like
0:15:03 gratitude ultimate gratitude and
0:15:05 ultimate praise to something the most
0:15:08 obviously from the islamic perspective
0:15:10 we want to know allah we want a lot we
0:15:12 want to love allah the most and we love
0:15:14 allah the muslim we want to we want to
0:15:16 we have to obey allah the most and we
0:15:19 believe that we have to direct all acts
0:15:21 of worship to allah alone the internal
0:15:23 acts of worship the actions of the heart
0:15:25 and the external actual worships like
0:15:27 the actions of the limbs
0:15:28 and obviously the actions of the limbs
0:15:30 also have an internal element as well
0:15:31 because you have to have the correct
0:15:33 intention and so on and so forth but
0:15:35 basically the external internal acts of
0:15:37 worship must be directed to allah alone
0:15:41 now if you don't worship allah
0:15:43 you're going to be worshiping something
0:15:44 else for example an ideology a celebrity
0:15:48 a
0:15:49 a culture
0:15:50 a nationality or whatever the case may
0:15:52 be the point is you're going to be
0:15:54 basically worshipping something the most
0:15:57 because it won't be one thing it might
0:16:00 be many things take for example you
0:16:02 might be
0:16:02 in love with their right wing
0:16:05 nationalist ideology right and all you
0:16:08 want to do is know about the history of
0:16:10 your nation
0:16:11 and your whole focus revolves around the
0:16:14 idea of you know your
0:16:17 your nation or your ethnicity and so on
0:16:19 and so forth and you love it the most to
0:16:22 the degree that you break natural
0:16:24 relationships
0:16:25 because of your ideological uh
0:16:28 infatuation right you know you won't be
0:16:31 friends with decent human beings or you
0:16:34 may break
0:16:35 family relations because they don't have
0:16:37 the same nationalistic right-wing ideas
0:16:39 as you and that shows that you love this
0:16:41 ideology more than you love people that
0:16:43 you should love right
0:16:45 and you would obey
0:16:46 the dictates of the ideology
0:16:50 what it basically you know wants from
0:16:52 you or even the kind of uh figureheads
0:16:54 or the symbolic figureheads like
0:16:57 politicians or the representatives of
0:16:59 this ideology if they tell you to do
0:17:00 something you would do it almost in this
0:17:02 kind of blind obedience right so you'd
0:17:05 obey the dictates of the ideology the
0:17:07 most more than anything else and you
0:17:09 direct acts of worship maybe you won't
0:17:11 pray
0:17:13 maybe you're an atheist but you're gonna
0:17:14 have ultimate gratitude for the nation
0:17:16 you know and you're going to have
0:17:18 extensive praise for the representatives
0:17:20 of this ideology you're going to have
0:17:22 extensive praise
0:17:24 for you know the nation itself and the
0:17:26 right-wing ideology that so from that
0:17:28 perspective
0:17:30 you know you're basically worshiping
0:17:32 this right-wing ideology
0:17:34 now
0:17:35 to unpack this further please go to the
0:17:37 seminar that we delivered which is
0:17:39 called born to worship but this is just
0:17:41 like a summary so the point here is in
0:17:44 order to attain this liberation to be
0:17:47 truly free is that you have to worship
0:17:49 allah because if you don't worship allah
0:17:52 you're going to be worshiping something
0:17:53 else or something else or some things
0:17:55 else right you're going to be worshiping
0:17:57 many other things that then they don't
0:17:59 know what's good for you they're not the
0:18:00 source of oh goodness they don't have
0:18:01 the same affection for you and so on and
0:18:04 so forth so from that perspective
0:18:06 if you don't worship allah you're
0:18:08 worshiping something else and what's
0:18:09 very interesting the arabic word for
0:18:11 soul in the quran is
0:18:14 and the word
0:18:15 shares the same root as the word
0:18:17 which means liberty and ease so it's as
0:18:21 if the
0:18:22 soul can only achieve that liberty and
0:18:24 ease if it connects itself and is
0:18:27 enslaved and is that service to the one
0:18:30 that created it to create the soul
0:18:33 to to worship allah subhanahu wa ta'ala
0:18:36 because if you don't worship worship
0:18:37 allah you're worshiping something else
0:18:39 and that's just a summary from that
0:18:40 perspective to show that you know you
0:18:42 know human beings cannot not worship so
0:18:45 choose your worship and if you worship
0:18:47 allah then you're truly liberated if you
0:18:49 don't worship allah then you're enslaved
0:18:50 to the shackles or all of other these
0:18:53 other forced deities if you like it
0:18:56 could even be yourself as allah says in
0:18:57 the quran have you not seen no one who
0:18:58 take his own desires as his lord you
0:19:00 could have this egocentric
0:19:02 megalomaniac kind of approach to
0:19:05 yourself and life uh you could be a
0:19:08 narcissist you know that's a form of
0:19:10 self-worship right
0:19:11 you could you could worship other human
0:19:13 beings allah says you know don't be like
0:19:15 those who who who took their rabbis and
0:19:17 their monks as their lords
0:19:19 so you know i do worship it's not just
0:19:21 about buying down to an idol it's also
0:19:24 the the worship of you know that you
0:19:26 could worship concepts or other people
0:19:28 or even yourself
0:19:30 but
0:19:31 that's a summary i want to get into too
0:19:32 much please watch that seminar born to
0:19:35 born to worship which really unpacks
0:19:38 this much further
0:19:40 so
0:19:41 freedom and coercion the philosophical
0:19:43 idea of freedom so the coherent and
0:19:46 uncontroversial definitions of freedom
0:19:48 are really centered on the idea of the
0:19:50 absence of coercion so in order to
0:19:52 understand freedom
0:19:54 you have to understand what coercion is
0:19:56 not only that in order to respond to the
0:19:58 question does islam can tell freedom is
0:20:00 islam anti-freedom
0:20:02 you have to understand what coercion is
0:20:05 so there are two main theories when it
0:20:07 comes to coercion you have the empirical
0:20:09 theories
0:20:10 and the non-empirical theories and by
0:20:12 the way i've termed it myself
0:20:14 non-empirical theories only because one
0:20:16 of them is called empirical theory so i
0:20:18 just felt the other one should be called
0:20:19 non-empirical theories you don't have to
0:20:21 call it non-empirical theories but it's
0:20:22 just for ease okay
0:20:24 so you have the empirical theories and
0:20:26 the non-empirical theories so the
0:20:27 empirical theories define coercion
0:20:30 from the point of view
0:20:32 that a person has no reasonable
0:20:34 alternative or choice
0:20:36 but to act in accordance with what
0:20:39 another person or entity has asked for
0:20:42 okay
0:20:42 now according to the non-empirical
0:20:44 theories of coercion
0:20:46 the person may have no reasonable option
0:20:49 but still remains uncoerced is still
0:20:52 free
0:20:53 so one theory of coercion basically says
0:20:57 you don't you're not allowed to make the
0:20:59 choices that you want
0:21:01 essentially the other theory of coercion
0:21:03 it says no
0:21:04 you may be forced in some way to make
0:21:07 choices that you don't want to make but
0:21:09 you're still free
0:21:11 and i basically focus on these two
0:21:13 elements of these two theories because
0:21:14 it's important when we unpack in a few
0:21:16 moments
0:21:17 in order for you to understand this
0:21:19 point further
0:21:20 so let's start with the non-empirical
0:21:22 account okay
0:21:24 so
0:21:24 the late harvard university professor
0:21:26 robert nozick he argued for the
0:21:28 non-empirical account of coercion just
0:21:30 to remind you
0:21:31 in the literature from my understanding
0:21:33 it's not called the non-empirical
0:21:34 account but i've called it that just to
0:21:36 contrast the empirical account with the
0:21:38 non-empirical account okay
0:21:40 so nautic was concerned with the notion
0:21:42 of whether a person's actions are
0:21:43 voluntary in the context of facing
0:21:46 severely limited options okay
0:21:48 so what is his basic argument he
0:21:50 basically argues that look to understand
0:21:53 if someone is coerced
0:21:54 you have to understand
0:21:56 what limits the person's alternatives
0:21:59 okay what limits the person's choices so
0:22:01 if you want to understand coercion and
0:22:03 therefore freedom you have to understand
0:22:05 what limits the person's choices
0:22:08 so let's understand the context here
0:22:10 with an example say for instance
0:22:13 one of the limiting factors is an act of
0:22:15 nature so me as a free agent as a free
0:22:18 human being i'm walking down i'm hiking
0:22:21 and i wanna and i meet a fork in the
0:22:22 road there's a road that's going left
0:22:25 and a road that's going right
0:22:27 i freely choose to go right i want to go
0:22:30 right but what happens is my friend
0:22:32 calls me and basically says there is a
0:22:35 tornado coming from that coming towards
0:22:37 that direction
0:22:38 so now i am forced in some way to
0:22:42 actually take
0:22:43 the left road the left fork or the left
0:22:46 part uh the left direction
0:22:49 now according to nausic
0:22:51 because now you've been limited in your
0:22:53 choices
0:22:55 you're still not
0:22:56 you're still not coerced you're still
0:22:58 free
0:22:59 why because your rights have not been
0:23:02 violated
0:23:03 okay
0:23:04 so nordic argued that someone is coerced
0:23:07 to do something if it is based on other
0:23:10 people's actions placing limits on one
0:23:13 available opportunities but in what way
0:23:16 that they would they would be coercive
0:23:18 if they did not have a right to act in
0:23:20 that particular way and if they violated
0:23:23 your rights
0:23:24 and this is very important to understand
0:23:26 so let's go through nausic's thought
0:23:28 experiment
0:23:29 which i have written down here to read
0:23:31 out as well
0:23:32 and notice thought experiment is is very
0:23:35 smart and shows
0:23:37 that just because you have
0:23:39 you have factors that limit your choices
0:23:41 and your maybe co forced rather to make
0:23:44 a particular choice that
0:23:46 is not your ideal choice or so it's a
0:23:48 choice that you didn't want to make it
0:23:50 doesn't mean you're not free it doesn't
0:23:52 mean you've been coerced now
0:23:54 okay
0:23:55 as long as your rights have not been
0:23:57 violated and the limiting factors on
0:24:00 your choices
0:24:01 that agency or those people that put
0:24:04 those limiting factors on your choices
0:24:06 they didn't act in a way
0:24:08 that they they were not allowed to act
0:24:10 in that particular way okay
0:24:12 that they basically
0:24:14 have not
0:24:16 uh they they did not that they acted in
0:24:19 a way that it was in accordance to their
0:24:20 rights that they did not it's not the
0:24:23 case that they acted in a way that they
0:24:24 had no right to act in that way that's
0:24:26 basically the point yeah
0:24:28 so let's read the
0:24:31 the the thought experiment it's a very
0:24:32 good thought experiment so he knows it
0:24:35 basically articulates the thought
0:24:36 experiment in this way he says there are
0:24:38 26 men and 26 women who are seeking
0:24:42 spouses then when they get married
0:24:44 so both sex groups are ranked
0:24:47 one group has been ranked a to z
0:24:50 and the other a apostrophe to zed
0:24:53 apostrophe okay
0:24:55 now the ranking is based on their
0:24:57 marital appeal right then marital appeal
0:25:02 a
0:25:03 and a apostrophe decide to marry each
0:25:06 other
0:25:07 however
0:25:08 b has also considered a apostrophe as
0:25:10 the person that they would most like to
0:25:13 marry but given that a apostrophe is now
0:25:15 married
0:25:16 b marries b apostrophe
0:25:20 now
0:25:21 the action of a has obviously limited
0:25:24 the alternatives but since there is
0:25:27 another person they still would consider
0:25:29 in marriage their actions are not
0:25:31 coerced
0:25:32 or in nazik's terminology not made
0:25:35 involuntary
0:25:37 eventually this concludes with zed and
0:25:40 zed apostrophe marrying
0:25:43 now zed and z apostrophe have no other
0:25:46 alternative other than to marry each
0:25:48 other but their marriage is still
0:25:51 voluntary
0:25:52 no coercion has taken place and nozick
0:25:55 says the fact that their only or other
0:25:58 alternative
0:26:00 is in their view much worse
0:26:02 and the fact that others chose to
0:26:05 exercise their rights in certain ways
0:26:08 thereby shaping the external environment
0:26:11 of options in which zed and z apostrophe
0:26:14 choose does not mean they did not marry
0:26:17 uh they did not marry voluntarily so
0:26:20 nozick basically maintained that since
0:26:22 other people have made decision based on
0:26:24 their right right
0:26:26 to choose whom they wish to marry and
0:26:29 there was no violation of anyone's
0:26:31 rights
0:26:32 zed and zed apostle free have not been
0:26:34 coerced and he continues and says
0:26:39 a through to why
0:26:41 each acted voluntarily and within their
0:26:44 rights a person's choice among differing
0:26:46 degrees of um
0:26:48 unpalatable alternatives is not rendered
0:26:51 non-voluntary by the fact that others
0:26:54 voluntarily chose and acted within their
0:26:57 rights in a way that did not provide him
0:26:59 with a more palatable alternative
0:27:02 basically just because you have an
0:27:04 alternative or you you even have only
0:27:06 one choice now you don't have many
0:27:07 choices you only have one choice and
0:27:09 that choice is not palatable it's it's
0:27:12 unreasonable you don't want to make that
0:27:14 choice or you didn't want to make that
0:27:15 choice but since now you have to make a
0:27:18 choice you've made a choice to marry
0:27:20 someone who you would not in a million
0:27:22 years marry but since you want to get
0:27:24 married and you only have one choice
0:27:25 then you're making that choice just
0:27:27 because you've made an unpalatable
0:27:29 choice based upon
0:27:31 limiting factors that have been somehow
0:27:33 imposed by other people's choices if
0:27:36 they haven't acted in a way that they
0:27:38 shouldn't have
0:27:38 have acted and they haven't infringed
0:27:41 upon your own rights and they've acted
0:27:43 in
0:27:44 you know within their own rights then
0:27:45 you're not
0:27:47 coerced
0:27:48 right you're still free
0:27:51 because they've acted
0:27:53 in accordance to their rights and they
0:27:55 haven't infringed upon your rights
0:27:57 yes it could be the case
0:27:59 that in in many scenarios you know you
0:28:02 may have a an an ideal choice but
0:28:05 because of
0:28:06 other people acting within their rights
0:28:08 and they haven't infringed upon your
0:28:10 rights you end up making a choice
0:28:12 and you have you have more limited
0:28:14 choices and you're making a choice that
0:28:16 is not your ideal choice
0:28:18 but that doesn't mean you're not free
0:28:20 as long as they haven't violated your
0:28:22 rights and as long as they haven't acted
0:28:24 in a way that is not within their right
0:28:26 and haven't acted in a way that is is
0:28:30 basically wrong or they have or they
0:28:32 they they act in a way that's within
0:28:34 their rights and they didn't act in
0:28:35 in a way that you know
0:28:39 was was an infringement upon your rights
0:28:41 and they had no right to act that way
0:28:43 right as long as they act in an
0:28:44 appropriate way
0:28:46 and within their rights and then
0:28:47 infringe upon your rights
0:28:49 then even if as a result of their
0:28:51 actions and what they've done you have
0:28:53 limited options and even just one option
0:28:55 that's unpalatable you're still free
0:28:57 you're not coerced
0:29:00 now the empirical account really
0:29:02 challenges the non-empirical account so
0:29:04 you have the political philosopher
0:29:06 serena osaretti she basically
0:29:10 disagreed with nausic and she argued for
0:29:12 an empirical conception of coercion so
0:29:14 what does she basically say
0:29:15 she says she postulated that when a
0:29:18 person has no other reasonable choice
0:29:20 their freedom is actually curtailed that
0:29:22 was her view
0:29:23 now we're going to understand that this
0:29:25 is incoherent
0:29:27 and in many cases impractical from a
0:29:28 social political perspective but what
0:29:31 what she's basically saying is that if
0:29:33 a person had no other reasonable choice
0:29:37 then they've been coerced
0:29:39 right their freedom is curtailed
0:29:42 so she makes a distinction she basically
0:29:44 says that
0:29:46 zed and zed apostrophe were free in
0:29:49 choosing to get married that is true so
0:29:50 they're not coerced in choosing to get
0:29:52 married however and this is very
0:29:55 important to understand she specifically
0:29:57 says that you have to understand the
0:29:59 specific choice
0:30:01 you have to understand whether zed
0:30:03 married z apostrophe free of coercion
0:30:07 that specific choice of zed marrying zed
0:30:09 apostle free
0:30:10 were they free of coercion when they
0:30:13 made the choice to marry each other so
0:30:15 she's talking about specific choices in
0:30:17 general yes zed and zed apostle 3 are
0:30:20 free in choosing to get married but the
0:30:23 particular choice that they made
0:30:25 were they free to make that choice or
0:30:28 were they coerced in making that choice
0:30:31 she she articulates that doubt is not
0:30:33 whether they married voluntarily rather
0:30:36 the doubt is whether they married that
0:30:38 particular partner that is
0:30:40 whether they voluntarily choose to marry
0:30:43 that particular partner that they
0:30:45 married
0:30:46 so also ritchie for example she slightly
0:30:49 changed nausic's thought experiment to
0:30:51 include that not getting married would
0:30:53 lead to unreasonable and negative
0:30:56 alternatives such as strong social
0:30:58 ostracism attached to being unmarried
0:31:01 and i think in the previous
0:31:03 uh statement i think you have to double
0:31:05 check i think she said not getting
0:31:07 married would result to death
0:31:09 right so say not getting married would
0:31:12 lead to unreasonable and negative
0:31:14 alternatives they had no choice to marry
0:31:17 to marry each other meaning zed had to
0:31:19 marry that apostrophe because if they
0:31:21 don't get married at all it would lead
0:31:22 to unreasonable negative alternatives
0:31:25 and the only option they have is to
0:31:27 marry each other because everyone else
0:31:28 has been married off and
0:31:31 the unreasonable negative alternatives
0:31:33 has forced them to marry each other
0:31:34 they've been coerced
0:31:37 and that's her counter argument to
0:31:38 nausic but we see how
0:31:41 how incoherent she is or or even from a
0:31:43 practical even philosophical perspective
0:31:45 when you start to understand alan
0:31:48 whiteheimer's argument right now
0:31:51 the political philosopher he wrote the
0:31:53 book coercion his name is alan
0:31:55 whiteheimer and according to
0:31:57 academics
0:31:58 this book basically solved the problem
0:32:00 of coercion it's actually a really good
0:32:02 book to read if you're interested in
0:32:04 political philosophy and these ideas i
0:32:06 suggest you read it so
0:32:08 a whiteheimer he basically argued
0:32:10 against the empirical account of
0:32:11 coercion and
0:32:13 he did that by stating that
0:32:15 the outcome of a choice proposal is
0:32:18 based on a particular context and what
0:32:19 he said was that what matters is not the
0:32:22 negative alternatives
0:32:24 and and we've echoed this before he said
0:32:25 what matters is whether or not
0:32:29 there is an infringement of one's rights
0:32:32 whether or not the proposal or the
0:32:34 choices being made or the limited
0:32:35 factors is an infringement of
0:32:38 someone's rights
0:32:40 so let me give you an example with
0:32:43 another full experiment and i've got
0:32:45 this written down here and this and one
0:32:47 of the examples include a patient that
0:32:49 has to undergo a life-saving operation
0:32:51 so
0:32:52 for example consider a patient that has
0:32:54 to go to that has to have a life-saving
0:32:56 operation
0:32:57 the medical staff propose that the
0:32:59 patient has to undergo surgery to ensure
0:33:02 the survival
0:33:03 in order for the surgery to happen the
0:33:05 patient has to sign a consent form
0:33:07 in this context the patient has no other
0:33:10 option other than to sign the form
0:33:12 otherwise they'll die
0:33:14 the consequences of not doing so would
0:33:16 lead to an untenable
0:33:18 situation which is the demise
0:33:21 now under the empirical account the
0:33:23 patient is forced to sign right
0:33:26 because they have no other option that
0:33:28 is that is desirable right
0:33:32 so
0:33:33 the point here is so they have their
0:33:36 because yeah they have no other option
0:33:38 that's desirable and
0:33:39 the the the and to basically not sign it
0:33:44 would lead to an undesirable option
0:33:45 which is death
0:33:47 however when this scenario is considered
0:33:49 under the rights based approach the
0:33:51 problem is solved
0:33:52 even though the patient has no other
0:33:55 option than to sign the consent form he
0:33:58 still does so without coercion
0:34:01 because their rights have not been
0:34:03 violated their rights have not been
0:34:05 violated
0:34:06 now their rights would be violated if
0:34:08 the surgeon were to operate without
0:34:10 consent then that would be tantamount or
0:34:12 equivalent to assault or abuse
0:34:15 now this example many other examples
0:34:17 show even in real life you can think of
0:34:19 them yourself like even buying a house
0:34:21 you could when you think of them just
0:34:23 because you have an undesirable option
0:34:26 right and that undesirable option
0:34:28 actually
0:34:29 forces you in some way to take another
0:34:31 option that that you may not wanted to
0:34:34 take but you you want to take it because
0:34:36 the other alternative is actually
0:34:38 undesirable it doesn't mean you're not
0:34:40 free it doesn't mean you're being
0:34:41 coerced you would only be coerced if
0:34:44 your rights have been violated in some
0:34:47 way so this is very important to
0:34:49 understand so let's uh let's unpack this
0:34:52 with another example buying a house
0:34:54 imagine you know you're buying a house
0:34:56 and you live in a city and there are for
0:34:59 example 1 000 houses that
0:35:02 are to be sold
0:35:04 now
0:35:05 999 people before you got in there
0:35:08 faster they saved money faster than you
0:35:11 and they basically bought
0:35:13 all of the desirable 999 houses and the
0:35:16 only one house left and that house is
0:35:19 not the desired choice that you wanted
0:35:20 to make in actual fact you wouldn't buy
0:35:22 that house at all but since you have to
0:35:24 live somewhere because if you can't in
0:35:26 in this social context say if you don't
0:35:28 buy a house you're going to be homeless
0:35:30 since
0:35:31 the alternative option being homeless is
0:35:34 is not desirable at all
0:35:36 and it has negative consequences then
0:35:39 you have to now
0:35:40 buy that house even though you don't
0:35:42 like that house and you would never have
0:35:44 bought that house anyway even you know
0:35:47 even if someone told you even if your
0:35:48 mother told you to buy that house right
0:35:50 you wouldn't do it because it's not a
0:35:51 nice house you don't like it it doesn't
0:35:53 fulfill your requirements but you need a
0:35:55 roof over your head if you don't buy a
0:35:56 house in this in the example here in
0:35:59 this social context you'd be homeless
0:36:02 so yes
0:36:03 it's an undesirable alternative being
0:36:05 homeless and therefore you have to
0:36:07 choose the undesirable choice of buying
0:36:10 the the house number one thousand which
0:36:12 wasn't a very nice house but that is a
0:36:14 better option than being homeless
0:36:16 now just because now the peop the 999
0:36:20 people who bought all the other houses
0:36:22 they've acted within their rights and
0:36:24 they haven't violated your rights
0:36:26 in this context even though you have no
0:36:28 other option right in some way you've
0:36:30 been forced to buy the house because you
0:36:32 don't want to be homeless in this
0:36:33 context
0:36:34 you're not coerced you still have
0:36:36 freedom because your rights have not
0:36:37 been violated
0:36:40 so what does it teach us brothers and
0:36:42 sisters that freedom is really about
0:36:43 rights
0:36:45 freedom
0:36:46 is about rights
0:36:48 so the question we could ask is well
0:36:50 what conception of rights but before we
0:36:52 get into that take into consideration
0:36:55 two distinct conception of rights the
0:36:56 negative and the positive so negative
0:36:58 understanding of rights basically is
0:37:00 that you don't impose any obligation on
0:37:03 others to provide you with anything
0:37:05 and the right to really just limited
0:37:08 they're based on
0:37:09 life liberty and property and this is
0:37:12 really echoes the libertarian approach
0:37:14 to rights they have a negative rights
0:37:16 understanding
0:37:18 another conception of rights is the
0:37:20 positive rights and what do they what
0:37:21 they say is that yes people should be
0:37:23 provided with certain things
0:37:25 now this implies that we have
0:37:27 obligations to each other and this is
0:37:28 the kind of socialist understanding if
0:37:30 you like now these obligations do not
0:37:32 involve
0:37:34 do not only involve not interfering with
0:37:35 other people people's rights but ensures
0:37:37 that one gets whatever has the rights to
0:37:40 so the society has to come together in a
0:37:42 social way in order to ensure that we
0:37:44 have uh our rights fulfilled okay and
0:37:47 that could include housing health care
0:37:49 and so on and so forth so that would be
0:37:51 the positive conception of rights
0:37:54 now
0:37:56 this leads to circular argument in what
0:37:58 way because if someone basically says
0:38:00 freedom is the absence of coercion which
0:38:02 is true the absence of coercion is when
0:38:05 rights are not being violated
0:38:07 therefore freedom is when rights are not
0:38:09 violated fair enough yeah we don't
0:38:11 necessarily disagree with this but the
0:38:13 point here is if they assume a negative
0:38:16 view of rights they're going to
0:38:17 basically say well the negative view of
0:38:19 rights is the correct view of rights
0:38:21 therefore preserving someone's negative
0:38:23 rights protects their freedom but that's
0:38:26 a secular argument
0:38:28 that's a circular argument on also known
0:38:31 uh circular reasoning also known in
0:38:33 latin as circulars in propandle right
0:38:35 it's a circular argument why because in
0:38:38 this case the libertarian that advocates
0:38:41 a negative human rights has presupposed
0:38:44 that these rights are true the negative
0:38:45 conception is true
0:38:47 this means that the premises of the
0:38:48 argument require as much justification
0:38:51 as the conclusion
0:38:53 because when they say that absence of
0:38:55 coercion is when rights are not being
0:38:57 violated
0:38:58 they are talking about a negative view
0:39:00 on rights but they have to actually
0:39:02 prove why those negative that negative
0:39:04 human rights is actually the correct
0:39:06 conception of rights
0:39:08 so whether you're a socialist or whether
0:39:11 you advocate a positive human rights or
0:39:13 negative human rights
0:39:14 you can't just assume
0:39:17 that if your negative rights have been
0:39:19 preserved and they haven't been violated
0:39:21 that you're actually free
0:39:23 because that
0:39:24 presupposes that the negative human
0:39:27 right actually correct but you have to
0:39:29 actually show that's the case
0:39:32 so
0:39:33 let's let's just break it down again so
0:39:35 libertarians for example they argue that
0:39:38 positive rights can tell freedom it's
0:39:41 against freedom because people are
0:39:43 obligated or imposed to to facilitate
0:39:46 there's an imposition on them to
0:39:47 facilitate other people's rights and
0:39:49 what they basically say is that the
0:39:50 negative view of rights is the correct
0:39:52 view on rights okay
0:39:54 so they would say
0:39:55 freedom is the absence of coercion
0:39:57 number one freedom is the absence of
0:39:58 coercion number two the absence of
0:40:00 coercion is when rights are not violated
0:40:03 and they're assuming here the negative
0:40:04 human rights
0:40:06 number three therefore freedom is when
0:40:07 rights are not violated
0:40:10 but here there are presupposing and
0:40:11 negative human rights so what they're
0:40:12 basically saying is for the negative
0:40:15 your rights then negative view is the
0:40:17 correct view of rights number five
0:40:19 therefore preserving someone's negative
0:40:21 rights protects their freedom
0:40:23 but these these these
0:40:25 this actually presupposes their negative
0:40:27 human rights which is a secular
0:40:29 reasoning what they have to do is to
0:40:30 show that the negative human rights is
0:40:32 actually the correct conception of
0:40:34 rights and you can apply the same uh
0:40:37 argument here to the positive human
0:40:39 rights to the socialists as well
0:40:42 so this is why this discussion so far
0:40:44 allows us to ask the following key
0:40:46 question
0:40:47 who has the correct conception of rights
0:40:50 is it those that advocate negative
0:40:52 rights like the libertarians or those
0:40:55 that call for positive rights like the
0:40:56 socialists or is the islamic conception
0:40:59 of rights correct
0:41:00 now obviously
0:41:02 so from from the perspective of today's
0:41:04 question
0:41:05 since coercion involves a violation of
0:41:08 rights
0:41:09 and therefore freedom if it's based on
0:41:11 coercion is basically the violation of
0:41:13 rights
0:41:15 then one's view of freedom would change
0:41:18 based on a different conception of
0:41:19 rights
0:41:20 now to answer the question does
0:41:23 you know does islam can tell freedom we
0:41:25 say no because islam has its own
0:41:27 conception of rights you have in our
0:41:29 tradition from the quran and the son of
0:41:30 the idea of
0:41:32 the rights of individuals the rights of
0:41:33 animals the rights of your neighbor the
0:41:35 rights of society the rights of allah
0:41:37 subhanahu wa ta'ala the rights of
0:41:39 animals right we have a detailed ethical
0:41:43 value-based tradition that's come from
0:41:44 an intellectual foundation that is true
0:41:46 and whatever comes from truth is true we
0:41:49 have a set of rights if those rights are
0:41:51 preserved and they're not being violated
0:41:53 then by definition you are free
0:41:56 so we would say no islam doesn't tell
0:41:58 freedom because islam has its own
0:42:00 conception of rights and the
0:42:02 understanding of freedom is based on
0:42:03 coercion and coercion is not just being
0:42:05 forced to do something or or or forced
0:42:08 to take an option that you didn't really
0:42:09 want to take it's more about that
0:42:10 someone hasn't acted in a way that they
0:42:13 had no right to act in that way and that
0:42:14 they basically didn't violate your
0:42:16 rights as long as your rights are not
0:42:18 violated then you're free by definition
0:42:21 oh but i i you know i islam doesn't
0:42:24 allow you to do this and islam doesn't
0:42:26 allow you to do that so but we don't
0:42:28 have a right to do that so our rights
0:42:29 haven't been violated
0:42:31 oh you're assuming a libertarian view of
0:42:34 rights i see
0:42:36 do you see now you've unpacked their
0:42:38 assumption so what that allows you to do
0:42:41 is to really bring it back to the
0:42:43 intellectual foundations of islam and
0:42:45 show how islam is true and we're going
0:42:46 to discuss in a few moments when we talk
0:42:48 about our context so just to summarize
0:42:50 you know the answer to this question
0:42:52 does islam could tell freedom no it
0:42:53 doesn't because according to the islamic
0:42:55 intellectual tradition you know god's
0:42:57 existence is a self of an evident truth
0:43:00 and it's a truth that can be infer that
0:43:02 can be affirmed through rational
0:43:03 investigation and allah grants us rights
0:43:06 and the quran is the miraculous text
0:43:08 book of
0:43:09 allah
0:43:10 and
0:43:11 the quran and the sunnah and the
0:43:13 prophetic traditions give us our rights
0:43:15 and that these rights have come from the
0:43:17 one who is maximally perfect he is
0:43:19 the source of all goodness allah says in
0:43:21 the quran he is the source of
0:43:23 all goodness in chapter 50 verse 28
0:43:26 allah has the picture we just got the
0:43:27 pixel he understands what's truly good
0:43:29 for us and he is perfectly fair and just
0:43:33 and allah has given us rights as long as
0:43:34 those rights are preserved and not been
0:43:36 violated then we are free because we
0:43:39 already discussed freedom is the absence
0:43:42 of coercion but what is coercion
0:43:43 coercion is not having limited factors
0:43:46 to the point that you only have one
0:43:47 choice or you have a choice that that
0:43:49 you have to make a choice that you
0:43:50 didn't really want to make no
0:43:52 it's about someone or an agency or
0:43:55 individual or a collective have acted in
0:43:58 a way that they shouldn't have acted
0:44:00 and that they had no right to act in
0:44:02 that way
0:44:03 or
0:44:05 they have basically infringed upon your
0:44:07 rights as long as they haven't infringed
0:44:09 upon your rights they haven't violated
0:44:11 your rights and as long as they have
0:44:12 acted in the way that they had a right
0:44:14 to act in that way then even if you have
0:44:17 one option that's and that you didn't
0:44:18 want to make originally and you're
0:44:20 you're almost forced to make that option
0:44:22 because the alternative is unpalatable
0:44:24 you're still free because your rights
0:44:26 haven't been violated
0:44:29 so since
0:44:30 it's about rights then we could ask the
0:44:32 question well what conception of rights
0:44:34 are true and we could say well since
0:44:35 islam has its own understanding of
0:44:37 rights yes there could be some
0:44:38 similarities with other traditions and
0:44:40 world views but generally speaking we
0:44:42 have our own understanding of rights and
0:44:44 our own priorities as well
0:44:46 then we should say because satan know
0:44:47 islam doesn't tell freedom you may
0:44:50 disagree with this because you may
0:44:51 disagree with the islamic conception of
0:44:53 rights and this is now
0:44:55 how you could articulate
0:44:57 a kind of
0:44:59 positive case for the islamic tradition
0:45:01 because you could use this question to
0:45:02 bring it to the essence of islam which
0:45:04 is the submission to allah
0:45:06 the submission of to god and you could
0:45:09 show to them the the intellectual
0:45:10 foundations of islam that they're true
0:45:12 and that's how we have to take
0:45:13 intellectual leadership and challenge
0:45:15 false assumptions we can't for example
0:45:18 assume a libertarian or socialist
0:45:20 conception of rights just to you know
0:45:22 make islam look good this is a huge
0:45:25 disservice to our tradition
0:45:27 and islam
0:45:28 doesn't need to be made to look good
0:45:30 islam is good because it comes from the
0:45:32 one who is the source of all good and
0:45:34 that's what we need to understand
0:45:36 so we need to obviously do it with
0:45:37 intelligence and with compassion you
0:45:39 know the prophet salallahu said in an
0:45:42 authentic hadith
0:45:44 narrated by bukhari
0:45:48 arabic is
0:45:50 for the people for humanity what you
0:45:51 love for yourself
0:45:53 so we have to and this means we have to
0:45:54 be committed to the goodness and
0:45:55 guidance of all people and this echoes
0:45:57 the teachings of the classical scholar
0:45:58 and now
0:45:59 and also of the maliki scholar even
0:46:02 the point here is we must be committed
0:46:04 to the goodness and guidance of all
0:46:05 people the well-being of all people and
0:46:08 in this context we need to articulate
0:46:10 this in a positive compassionate
0:46:12 intelligent way see no islam doesn't
0:46:14 control
0:46:15 freedom because freedom is an absence of
0:46:17 coercion and the absence of conversions
0:46:19 about the non-violation of your rights
0:46:20 even though you may have only one option
0:46:23 and it's unpalatable the point is just
0:46:26 because you have restricted choices as
0:46:27 long as your rights haven't been
0:46:28 violated then you're still free you're
0:46:30 not uncoerced therefore you're free
0:46:33 and islam has its own conception of
0:46:34 rights and since it preserves those
0:46:36 rights and it tries to protect those
0:46:38 rights and ensure those rights then by
0:46:40 definition islam does not curtail
0:46:42 freedom now obviously you're going to
0:46:43 say why i disagree with islamic
0:46:45 conception of rights no i'm like i
0:46:46 disagree with the libertarian conception
0:46:48 of rights
0:46:49 so how do we know which one is true will
0:46:51 go to the foundations i can show you
0:46:53 that god exists i can show you the quran
0:46:55 is from from the divine from god and
0:46:58 the prophet muhammad sallallahu alaihi
0:47:00 is the final prophet and this is the
0:47:01 kind of intellectual basis of the
0:47:03 foundations if you like in which forms
0:47:06 the kind of grounding of foundations for
0:47:08 our rights and this foundation is true
0:47:10 and whatever comes from truth is true so
0:47:13 these rights are true because they've
0:47:14 come from this true intellectual
0:47:16 foundation so what now you you what
0:47:19 you're doing now is bringing people to
0:47:21 the intellectual foundations of summit
0:47:22 and into tawheed because you make them
0:47:24 realize that once you understand that
0:47:26 god exists in the quran is from allah
0:47:27 then then what does the quran and the
0:47:29 prophetic teachings teach us about allah
0:47:31 he is maximally perfect to the highest
0:47:33 degree possible his names and attributes
0:47:36 have no deficiency and no flaw
0:47:38 and one of his names is albar he is the
0:47:40 source of oh goodness and his goodness
0:47:42 is maximally perfect he is the just
0:47:45 he is the wise he is
0:47:47 and he has given us rights and therefore
0:47:50 by virtue of who allah is the rights
0:47:52 that he's given us are going to be the
0:47:53 correct view on rights and the the most
0:47:56 and the true view on rights that we must
0:47:58 have and as long as those rights are
0:47:59 preserved and those rights uh have been
0:48:02 protected and that they haven't been
0:48:04 violated then by definition as we've
0:48:07 just discussed in this seminar we are
0:48:09 free islam doesn't control freedom and
0:48:11 we know these rights are true because
0:48:13 they come from god and we could prove
0:48:14 god's existence and they come from the
0:48:16 quran we could prove the quran is from
0:48:18 god himself do you see how you could
0:48:20 link it in a dial context but that this
0:48:22 requires intellectual leadership and
0:48:23 some kind of intellectual bravery
0:48:25 because when you consider the social
0:48:26 psychological implication of this this
0:48:28 discussion when you're talking about
0:48:30 freedom sometimes psychologically you're
0:48:32 like yeah i agree with you yeah you know
0:48:35 you know
0:48:36 yeah it's my freedom to dress in a
0:48:38 particular way and it's and it's and i'm
0:48:41 free to to do this or to do that but in
0:48:44 some cases in the islamic tradition
0:48:45 actually allah hasn't given that right
0:48:47 to make that particular choice because
0:48:49 the essence of islam is the submission
0:48:50 to allah subhanahu wa ta'ala
0:48:53 right so this is very important we can't
0:48:55 fall for the epistemological trap or the
0:48:57 metaphysical trap if you like don't you
0:49:00 fall into the epistemological and
0:49:02 metaphysical lizard hole we don't adopt
0:49:05 false assumptions you don't have to be a
0:49:08 libertarian just to make islam sound
0:49:10 good or socialist just to make islam
0:49:12 sound good allow islam to speak for
0:49:14 itself understand this in an
0:49:16 intellectual way and understand that
0:49:18 freedom is not just a libertarian uh
0:49:20 understanding of rights or a socialist
0:49:22 understanding of rights
0:49:24 it's about rights itself well what are
0:49:26 the correct conception of rights it's
0:49:28 not the libertarian it's not the
0:49:29 socialists it's obviously the islamic
0:49:31 why because islam came from the one
0:49:35 who knows everything allah it came from
0:49:37 allah subhanahu wa ta'ala who's a
0:49:39 maximally perfect being that created us
0:49:40 and that has more affection for us than
0:49:42 our own mothers and he's a source of oh
0:49:44 goodness
0:49:44 and he
0:49:46 he he sent down the revelation the quran
0:49:48 which is true and we could prove to be
0:49:50 true and he sent down the prophet sallam
0:49:52 and we know he is the final prophet for
0:49:53 so many reasons and these things gave us
0:49:56 our rights and this is a
0:49:59 an intellectual foundation that is true
0:50:01 and what comes from truth is true this
0:50:03 is what we should be talking about to
0:50:05 liberate humanity and even from a
0:50:07 practical perspective when people
0:50:08 appreciate that islamic conception of
0:50:10 rights are the true conception of rights
0:50:12 as long as they're preserved and they're
0:50:14 not violated then not only
0:50:16 intellectually they could understand
0:50:18 that they're free but they will actually
0:50:20 fill that freedom they'll feel that
0:50:21 liberation they'll taste the sweetness
0:50:24 of islam
0:50:25 this is what we need to do take this
0:50:27 type of leadership don't fall for the
0:50:30 kind of epistemological metaphysical
0:50:32 trap
0:50:33 you have to adopt their false
0:50:34 assumptions oh you remember what we said
0:50:37 it's a circular argument yes freedom is
0:50:39 the absence of coercion the absence of
0:50:41 coercion is a non-violation of rights
0:50:43 right
0:50:45 and therefore
0:50:46 as long as your rights are not violated
0:50:48 then you're free
0:50:50 but the libertarian would make the
0:50:52 argument but assume a libertarian
0:50:54 conception of rights
0:50:56 which is basically a circular argument
0:50:58 right
0:50:59 because they have to justify the
0:51:00 premises as well as the conclusion so
0:51:02 the point here is don't adopt that false
0:51:04 presupposition say no hold on a second
0:51:06 we don't have a libertarian view we have
0:51:08 an islamic view what does the exam of
0:51:10 you actually say
0:51:11 and how can we show to people that that
0:51:13 view is the correct view you have to
0:51:15 assume that allah exists that he's
0:51:16 worthy of worship that the quran is from
0:51:18 allah the prophet is the final prophet
0:51:20 teach them about who allah is his
0:51:22 maximum perfection and in his perfect
0:51:24 wisdom he's given us this these these
0:51:26 these these rights and as long as
0:51:28 they're preserved and not violated then
0:51:29 we're truly free and yes from a newt's
0:51:32 perspective a lot of the rights that
0:51:33 islam talks about
0:51:35 you know are shared with other world
0:51:37 views but there's many distinctions and
0:51:40 clear distinctions and even the way we
0:51:42 prioritize those rights as well so
0:51:44 that's why it's very important to
0:51:45 understand it from this perspective
0:51:46 brothers and sisters
0:51:49 so here's the bibliography for you uh
0:51:51 alan whitehammer white whiteheimer uh
0:51:54 his book called coercion robert nozick
0:51:56 his famous book anarchy state in utopia
0:51:59 serena alsaretti her book liberty
0:52:01 uh desert and um the the market
0:52:05 uh and so on and so forth uh these
0:52:07 slides should be available for you in
0:52:09 the near future insha allah
0:52:11 so
0:52:13 any questions
0:52:14 brothers and
0:52:16 sisters
0:52:18 any questions
0:52:22 so let's take some questions
0:52:29 let's take some questions now so
0:52:33 go back to the foundation
0:52:35 [Music]
0:52:38 okay so you're saying wouldn't that be a
0:52:40 circular argument too
0:52:42 uh wouldn't that be a second argument
0:52:44 too are you saying you can't prove
0:52:45 rights logically no no we're not saying
0:52:47 that what we're saying is
0:52:49 if someone's a libertarian or a
0:52:50 socialist or they have a particular
0:52:52 conception of rights
0:52:53 if they basically say well freedom is
0:52:55 the absence of coercion the absence of
0:52:58 coercion is when your rights have not
0:52:59 been violated therefore
0:53:02 freedom is when your rights have not
0:53:04 been violated that's true however the
0:53:07 libertarian will push that argument
0:53:09 to actually prove a libertarian
0:53:11 conception of rights because what rights
0:53:13 are they talking about
0:53:14 in order in order for it not to be a
0:53:16 secular argument they have to show why
0:53:18 the libertarian human rights are
0:53:19 actually true
0:53:21 so yes islam has a conception of rights
0:53:23 we can't just use that argument a basic
0:53:25 way we have to actually show why the
0:53:27 islamic conception of rights are true
0:53:28 and that enables us to link it to tawhi
0:53:30 to link it to the foundations to link it
0:53:32 to allah
0:53:34 to to actually call people to islam use
0:53:37 this question to call people to islam
0:53:39 which is the work of the anbiya the work
0:53:41 of the prophets and what we should be
0:53:42 doing in our discussions even of this
0:53:44 nature even when it sounds political or
0:53:46 ideological or whatever the case may be
0:53:48 use it as a need to bring them to the
0:53:50 foundations to bring them to the fact
0:53:52 that they need to submit themselves to
0:53:53 allah and worship allah
0:53:55 and you could do it in this discussion
0:53:57 so yeah no it's not a circular argument
0:53:59 as long as you
0:54:01 show that your conception of rights are
0:54:03 actually true and we can do that in the
0:54:05 islamic context
0:54:12 okay so
0:54:13 let's take more questions
0:54:24 any questions any other questions
0:54:26 brothers and sisters
0:54:32 i'm just waiting for some questions
0:54:38 okay
0:54:42 does the fact let's put this up
0:54:46 does the fact that if you don't follow
0:54:49 other than islam you go to hell
0:54:53 a coercion
0:54:54 just
0:54:55 in the example of zed
0:54:58 and zed apostrophe does the fact that if
0:55:01 you don't follow other than islam you go
0:55:03 to her coercion
0:55:05 okay so if you remember the example zed
0:55:07 marrying zed apostrophe they were not
0:55:10 coerced
0:55:11 yes they may have had no other
0:55:12 reasonable alternative because they
0:55:14 wanted to get married and they had no
0:55:16 other choice other than to marry each
0:55:18 other
0:55:18 but as long as the other
0:55:21 as long as
0:55:23 an agency on individuals they acted
0:55:25 within their rights and zed and zed
0:55:27 possibilities rights have not been
0:55:28 violated then they are not they are not
0:55:32 coerced they still uncoes they're still
0:55:34 free
0:55:35 and that's the point here so i think
0:55:36 you've got the question mistaken
0:55:38 so if you're saying that just because
0:55:41 you know allah says that if you don't
0:55:42 follow islam if you don't worship allah
0:55:44 subhanahu wa allah then the spiritual
0:55:47 consequences that you're going to hell
0:55:49 you are you saying that's a form of
0:55:50 coercion no because your rights have not
0:55:52 been violated what rights have been
0:55:54 violated here
0:55:55 do you see my point
0:55:57 so
0:55:58 in the context of our discussion there's
0:56:00 more to say about this and i really
0:56:01 recommend that you listen to abdullah
0:56:03 and lucy's uh clip on the whole notion
0:56:06 of
0:56:07 uh hell and if it's just or not
0:56:11 i saw it on sabor ahmed's youtube
0:56:14 channel there is a clip there's a very
0:56:16 powerful articulation
0:56:17 and i think bassam zawadi has written a
0:56:20 piece i haven't read it so i can't
0:56:21 advocate but i trust him and he's
0:56:23 written some really good pieces
0:56:24 especially on days and uh give give that
0:56:27 piece a read you can find on his
0:56:28 academic.edu profile he's writing a
0:56:31 piece on that i don't want to unpack
0:56:32 this now because your question is in the
0:56:34 context of the example so hopefully i've
0:56:35 clarified it from that perspective
0:56:40 okay so
0:56:51 it's bear with me
0:56:53 any other questions
0:56:57 [Music]
0:57:00 yeah
0:57:01 absolutely so
0:57:03 the question here is so this in a
0:57:05 nutshell proved to prove that islamic
0:57:08 rights is the true conception because
0:57:10 there is no coercion okay
0:57:12 i think the way i think maybe uh the
0:57:14 question could have been articulated a
0:57:16 little bit better but what i think what
0:57:17 you're trying to say is in a nutshell as
0:57:19 long as you can prove that islam has its
0:57:21 own conception of rights
0:57:23 and those conception of rights are true
0:57:25 and if they're preserved and not
0:57:26 violated
0:57:27 then therefore
0:57:29 you're free from this philosophical idea
0:57:31 of freedom absolutely absolutely that's
0:57:33 all you need to do and if you do it
0:57:36 without falling for a libertarian view
0:57:38 or socialist view and jumping into you
0:57:40 know false ideologies
0:57:42 if you do it correctly that would be an
0:57:44 amazing opportunity to call them to
0:57:45 allah that he is worthy of worship that
0:57:48 he must submit to him and and that you
0:57:50 should believe in allah and his
0:57:51 messenger and you believe in in his
0:57:53 books you believe in the quran because
0:57:55 in improving the rights
0:57:57 the islamic conception of rights you
0:57:59 have to show in certain contexts and
0:58:01 many contexts that allah exists that is
0:58:03 worthy of worship but the person is the
0:58:04 final prophet and that the quran is
0:58:06 actually a divine miraculous book
0:58:12 [Music]
0:58:17 any other questions brothers and sisters
0:58:22 sorry for it being quite heavy by the
0:58:24 way if you want to um obviously you
0:58:26 could revisit and re re-watch this
0:58:28 seminar it's going to be up online
0:58:31 but also there is an essay on the
0:58:33 sapience institute website if you go to
0:58:36 writings and you go to art articles
0:58:38 essays and articles i think it's the the
0:58:40 last one if you scroll down
0:58:42 it's called
0:58:44 um
0:58:45 does islam keto freedom it's the same
0:58:47 title i think i wrote that i wrote the
0:58:49 piece it was originally taken from my
0:58:51 postgraduate essay alhamdulillah a
0:58:54 distinction for it um and i wanted to
0:58:56 tailor it in our context
0:58:59 and i think and we don't really talk
0:59:01 about this
0:59:03 the idea of philosophical idea of
0:59:04 freedom usually we talk about political
0:59:06 conceptions like libertarianism and
0:59:08 socialism all that stuff or even from an
0:59:10 excessive ideological point of view but
0:59:11 i think this is a very powerful approach
0:59:13 if done properly obviously with the
0:59:15 right people
0:59:17 it could be quite a powerful powerful
0:59:19 perspective insha allah
0:59:27 okay so
0:59:29 any other questions
0:59:35 i'll put this up because it's quite
0:59:36 funny just want to say hamza being
0:59:38 follow you following you since 2017 not
0:59:41 physically don't worry
0:59:42 my love bless you bro
0:59:44 may allah make you follow much better
0:59:46 people than me they're much more worthy
0:59:48 to follow as well of course
0:59:49 which is quite obvious
0:59:51 and you know
0:59:52 anything good that i do has come from
0:59:54 allah and any bad that i do has come
0:59:56 from my ego in shaytan and please you
0:59:59 know overlook and forgive me my thoughts
1:00:01 and take me to account and correct us
1:00:03 and help us improve
1:00:05 um
1:00:05 [Music]
1:00:07 okay so
1:00:15 where where are we where are we so well
1:00:18 if it is true because it comes wrong
1:00:24 okay this good question
1:00:26 so he says well if the islamic if
1:00:28 islamic conception of rights is true
1:00:29 because it comes from a true from true
1:00:31 argument then i would say it's a genetic
1:00:33 fallacy any proposition that comes from
1:00:35 true doesn't necessarily mean it's true
1:00:39 yes
1:00:39 but let's now focus about even without
1:00:42 thinking a question properly let's just
1:00:44 say you're right this is irrelevant to
1:00:46 the argument because what we're saying
1:00:47 here is
1:00:48 what is this true foundation these
1:00:50 rights have come from allah subhanahu wa
1:00:52 to allah what is the nature of allah he
1:00:54 is maximally perfect his names and
1:00:56 attributes are to the highest degree
1:00:57 possible so
1:00:59 his he is al-hakim so his wisdom is to
1:01:02 the highest degree possible it has no
1:01:04 deficiency and no flow his knowledge
1:01:06 he's
1:01:07 the knowing he has the totality of
1:01:09 knowledge allah has the picture we have
1:01:11 a pixel allah is
1:01:13 he is the source of a goodness so when
1:01:15 you understand who allah is not only
1:01:17 could you prove allah is true meaning
1:01:19 that he exists but you can show this is
1:01:22 who allah is by proving the quran then
1:01:25 any rights allah has given you are going
1:01:27 to be true by definition not just
1:01:29 because of of of you know the source
1:01:32 happens to be true but because of who
1:01:35 allah is
1:01:36 right
1:01:38 allah is a maximally perfect being so a
1:01:40 maximally perfect being that is a source
1:01:42 of a goodness that knows all knowledge
1:01:44 all moral knowledge if you like has all
1:01:45 full wisdom has the picture we just got
1:01:48 the pixel when this being gives you
1:01:51 something that tells you something
1:01:53 then by virtue of that it's going to be
1:01:55 correct and true
1:01:57 so
1:01:58 don't straw man the argument it's
1:02:00 important to understand that when we say
1:02:02 the intellect the intellectual
1:02:03 foundations of islam are true what are
1:02:05 we really saying we're saying that god
1:02:06 exists the quran is true and the prophet
1:02:08 is true but what does that truth mean it
1:02:10 means that
1:02:12 it's divine revelation what does divine
1:02:14 revelation mean it means it's come from
1:02:16 the one who is maximally perfect who has
1:02:19 full knowledge full of wisdom is a
1:02:20 source of oh goodness
1:02:21 and when
1:02:23 this divine revelation in the form of
1:02:24 the quran and the statements of the
1:02:26 prophet sallallahu alaihi if someone
1:02:27 give you rights
1:02:29 then they're going to be true
1:02:31 so it's not as simple as what you just
1:02:32 said may allah bless you exactly
1:02:37 any other questions brothers and sisters
1:02:50 all right we'll just leave it at that
1:02:51 then may allah bless every single one of
1:02:53 you i hope you you have benefited uh
1:02:55 anything good has come from allah
1:02:57 subhana wa to allah anything that is
1:02:59 wrongly inaccurate has come from
1:03:01 my my ego and shaytan
1:03:04 may allah bless you assalamu alaikum
1:03:06 allah