Seminar: How (Un)Free is Speech? With Hamza Andreas Tzortzis (2022-05-08) ​

0:00:04 brothers and sisters and friends
0:00:08 may the peace
0:00:10 and blessings of allah subhanahu wa
0:00:12 ta'ala be with you all
0:00:14 my name is hamza andres doses and
0:00:15 welcome to the sapience institute live
0:00:19 and it's the first
0:00:21 online seminar
0:00:23 after ramadan
0:00:25 ramadan 2022
0:00:27 and we would like to thank every single
0:00:29 one of you for supporting us
0:00:32 and promoting our work and engaging with
0:00:34 our work and giving us
0:00:37 constructive feedback as well
0:00:39 and this seminar brothers and sisters is
0:00:41 quite timely
0:00:43 because if you have been in tune with
0:00:46 the twitter and online world the
0:00:48 business world
0:00:50 you will see that elon musk
0:00:52 i believe he is now the richest person
0:00:54 in the world
0:00:55 sought to buy out twitter and there's
0:00:58 been a discussion on an interpretation
0:01:01 concerning freedom of speech
0:01:04 what type of freedom of speech what form
0:01:06 of freedom of speech
0:01:08 must we adopt as a community as a
0:01:10 society what type of freedom of speech
0:01:13 must the so-called public space of
0:01:16 twitter adopt
0:01:18 and we see this recurring over and over
0:01:21 every year almost and it's not just
0:01:23 about business and twitter and social
0:01:25 media although recently it has been
0:01:27 especially with covid and other
0:01:30 realities but it's also to do with
0:01:32 religious discourse we
0:01:35 understand or we are aware of the salman
0:01:38 rushdie affair the satanic verses we're
0:01:40 aware of the defamatory and degrading
0:01:42 cartoons portraying our beloved prophet
0:01:44 salallahu alaihi wasallam and there have
0:01:47 been many instances of
0:01:50 freedom of speech events if you like or
0:01:53 discussions that have taken place on and
0:01:55 offline
0:01:56 and i think it's very important that we
0:01:58 deconstruct this properly and we provide
0:02:01 a
0:02:02 nuanced and philosophically robust but
0:02:05 most importantly an islamically robust
0:02:08 perspective on this issue
0:02:10 and it shouldn't be done where we adopt
0:02:13 false epistemic biases or
0:02:16 epistemological biases or we adopt
0:02:19 false metaphysical assumptions because
0:02:21 sometimes when we address this space
0:02:23 when we address this question
0:02:25 we
0:02:27 come to this question and we try to
0:02:29 provide an answer
0:02:30 which is not in line with our tradition
0:02:32 what do i mean by that
0:02:34 we adopt
0:02:35 an alien worldview or we adopt
0:02:39 an epistemic bias a metaphysical
0:02:42 assumption that is not in line with our
0:02:44 tradition whether it's from the secular
0:02:46 worldview the liberal worldview or any
0:02:48 other world view
0:02:50 and we impose in our tradition
0:02:52 in other words we put it on our eyes as
0:02:54 lenses to understand our tradition and
0:02:56 understand the reality in this case
0:02:59 freedom of speech and related events and
0:03:01 we try and provide
0:03:04 an alternative or an answer but the
0:03:06 answer is going to be inconsistent so i
0:03:09 think it's very important for us to be
0:03:11 able to deconstruct what freedom of
0:03:13 speech is
0:03:15 and to provide
0:03:17 an islamic response to this issue in a
0:03:19 way that is empowering in a way that
0:03:21 calls people to
0:03:24 the creator of the heavens and the earth
0:03:26 that calls people to the oneness and the
0:03:27 worship
0:03:28 of
0:03:30 the one who created every single one of
0:03:32 us and it's very important when we
0:03:33 engage in these type of philosophical or
0:03:35 theo philosophical or political
0:03:38 discussions it's very important
0:03:40 especially at saint pence institute and
0:03:43 brothers and sisters out there in the
0:03:45 universe wanting to call people to islam
0:03:47 wanting to share and defend islam
0:03:49 academically and intellectually it's
0:03:51 very important to always bring it back
0:03:54 to
0:03:55 people's purpose of life our purpose of
0:03:57 life which is that we're here to adore
0:03:59 allah we're here to love god we're here
0:04:01 to worship god to obey god to focus on
0:04:04 god to recognize god and to direct all
0:04:07 of our internal and external acts of
0:04:09 worship to god to allah alone
0:04:12 and it's extremely significant that we
0:04:14 always bring it back to this point why
0:04:16 because this is the calling of the and
0:04:19 this is the calling of the prophets
0:04:21 as allah says in the quran the prophets
0:04:24 came to call people to what to call
0:04:26 people too
0:04:29 there is no deity worthy of worship
0:04:32 except allah and be very careful here
0:04:34 it's not there is no god or there is no
0:04:36 creator except the creator except allah
0:04:40 but rather there is no object of worship
0:04:42 there is no deity that is worthy of
0:04:44 worship except allah and that is and
0:04:47 that consumes within it the
0:04:48 understanding that there is a creator of
0:04:50 the heavens and the earth it's not just
0:04:52 focusing on just recognize god just
0:04:55 recognize an aspect of god's oneness
0:04:57 that he is the creator of the heavens
0:04:59 and the earth you know there is divine
0:05:01 creative power behind the universe it's
0:05:03 not just that it's more than that
0:05:06 which is very important to highlight
0:05:08 because this is the way of the prophets
0:05:09 the way of the and beyond this is the
0:05:10 way of the quran
0:05:12 the way of the quran
0:05:14 which is telling humanity it's
0:05:15 announcing to humanity
0:05:17 who allah is that yes he is the creator
0:05:20 of everything that exists he is the
0:05:21 master the owner the sustainer the
0:05:22 maintainer the shaper the fashioner of
0:05:25 everything that exists and that he is
0:05:27 worthy of worship
0:05:29 he is worthy of worship he is
0:05:31 transcendent he is uniquely one and he
0:05:34 is worthy of our adoration he is worthy
0:05:37 of our love he is whether to be
0:05:39 recognized he is worthy to be
0:05:41 appreciated as the ultimate truth
0:05:44 and
0:05:45 we must direct our internal and external
0:05:48 acts of worship to him alone
0:05:51 and this is very significant
0:05:52 so the whole point of today brothers and
0:05:54 sisters with regards to this
0:05:55 presentation is yes to unpack
0:05:58 what freedom of speech is from a kind of
0:06:00 philosophical perspective a theo
0:06:02 philosophical perspective
0:06:04 to talk about those who are the
0:06:06 absolutists and those who understand
0:06:08 that there must be some restrictions to
0:06:10 talk about this whole idea of freedom of
0:06:12 freedom of
0:06:14 expression in the context of
0:06:17 we have a freedom to insult and to
0:06:19 degrade and we're going to unpack that
0:06:21 we're also going to unpack the idea of
0:06:23 is this a natural right is freedom of
0:06:26 expression a right in itself
0:06:29 does that make sense on the kind of
0:06:31 naturalistic secular worldview
0:06:33 what can ground this idea that freedom
0:06:35 of expression is actually a right you
0:06:37 know we're going to talk a little bit
0:06:38 about natural rights we're going to talk
0:06:39 about social utility we're going to talk
0:06:42 about talk about
0:06:44 eudaimonia i mean in other words that
0:06:46 you know freedom of speech is important
0:06:48 for our happiness not just well-being
0:06:49 but our happiness is not just an
0:06:51 instrument to a particular goal it's not
0:06:54 a means to an end but freedom of
0:06:56 expression itself is something that is
0:06:58 necessary for our
0:07:00 eudaimonia our happiness right so we're
0:07:02 going to unpack that a bit and explain
0:07:04 that under the secular worldview this
0:07:05 doesn't make sense
0:07:07 and we're going to unpack further kind
0:07:09 of inconsistencies
0:07:11 and
0:07:12 the hypocrisy if you like of the
0:07:15 ideologues that use freedom of
0:07:17 expression freedom of speech as a kind
0:07:18 of ideological weapon and we're going to
0:07:21 expose some of these inconsistencies and
0:07:23 we're going to really explain the kind
0:07:24 of islamic perspective which is a call
0:07:27 to civility
0:07:28 it's extremely important that we become
0:07:30 civil that we promote the
0:07:34 god-centric civilization for human
0:07:36 beings because this is going to elevate
0:07:38 everybody it's going to help all human
0:07:39 beings whether they believe in god or
0:07:41 not where they whether they believe in
0:07:43 allah or not this world view this
0:07:45 perspective is going to elevate
0:07:47 everybody and
0:07:48 and really
0:07:50 help everybody with regards to
0:07:52 our collective humanity it's going to
0:07:54 take us forward and take us
0:07:56 to
0:07:57 a particular direction hopefully that's
0:07:59 going to be one of truth one of being
0:08:01 able to
0:08:02 hold
0:08:03 power to account and one of justice and
0:08:06 progress and that's why freedom of
0:08:07 speech is very important or the ability
0:08:09 to express yourself is very important to
0:08:11 have the liberty to express yourself in
0:08:13 that context is very important we're
0:08:15 going to show that you know
0:08:17 this kind of neoliberal secular
0:08:19 ideological weapon which is freedom to
0:08:21 degrade and to diminish people's dignity
0:08:24 and to freedom to insult excessively and
0:08:27 gratuitously insult is necessary to
0:08:30 achieve the objectives of freedom of
0:08:31 speech and we're going to expose that
0:08:33 feel philosophically or philosophically
0:08:34 at least and we're going to say that's
0:08:35 not the case at all because there are
0:08:37 many thought experiments that we can
0:08:38 show practically and in abstraction that
0:08:41 actually when you gratuitously insult
0:08:44 when you diminish people's dignity and
0:08:46 so on and so forth and you degrade
0:08:48 deliberately that could be an impediment
0:08:50 to the very objectives of freedom of
0:08:52 speech anyway so this we're going to
0:08:55 cover brothers and sisters i've already
0:08:57 discussed some of it but let's go
0:08:58 through it for me
0:09:01 with regards to the main objective of
0:09:02 this seminar we're going to showcase
0:09:05 that when we're talking about freedom of
0:09:07 speech
0:09:09 in the context of sharing islam
0:09:11 that the way to do that is to link it to
0:09:13 the idea of values and then to raise
0:09:15 certain questions
0:09:17 which values do we prioritize which
0:09:19 values do we adopt and where do these
0:09:22 values come from or what are the source
0:09:24 of these values okay and that's very
0:09:26 important as a way of sharing and
0:09:29 defending islam academically and
0:09:30 intellectually and you're going to
0:09:32 realize its importance is because
0:09:34 the kind of philosophical thinking
0:09:36 behind freedom of speech is that it's
0:09:38 not absolute
0:09:39 in other words the absolutist from an
0:09:41 academic point of view they hardly exist
0:09:44 right if they even exist at all but
0:09:46 rather there is a quasi consensus that
0:09:49 freedom of speech is not absolutely from
0:09:51 the point of view that you could just
0:09:52 say whatever you want but it's
0:09:54 contingent
0:09:55 it's it's it's dependent on a competing
0:09:58 set of other values that we have in
0:10:00 society
0:10:01 and that raises the question well what
0:10:03 values where do they come from where
0:10:06 we're going to derive these values from
0:10:07 how do we prioritize them and that's how
0:10:10 we're going to link it to the islamic
0:10:11 discourse and it's to show in actual
0:10:13 fact they have to come from allah they
0:10:15 have to be god centric they have to come
0:10:17 from god himself in other words islam
0:10:21 god's word the quran the word of allah
0:10:23 subhanahu wa ta'ala and the teachings
0:10:25 and practices of the prophet salallahu
0:10:28 because when we see these things
0:10:29 holistically and we derive values from
0:10:32 these from from revelation from what god
0:10:34 wants from us then it's only going to
0:10:36 push humanity forward and it's going to
0:10:38 solve this whole freedom of speech issue
0:10:40 between those who want to degrade an
0:10:42 insult for the sake of it and those who
0:10:44 use freedom of speech as a smoke screen
0:10:46 just to denigrate minorities and those
0:10:48 who use streaming of speech
0:10:50 as a smokescreen to actually deny the
0:10:54 truth and so on and so forth so from the
0:10:56 perspective of sharing and defending
0:10:58 islam hopefully at the end of this
0:11:00 seminar you'll be able to understand
0:11:02 that
0:11:03 when we talk about the idea of freedom
0:11:05 of expression when we talk about freedom
0:11:06 of speech we understand that it's not
0:11:08 absolute there must be some restrictions
0:11:10 necessarily so and those restrictions
0:11:12 are based on a competing set of values
0:11:15 and once you understand that then you
0:11:17 could raise the question in your
0:11:18 discourse in your dialogue and say well
0:11:20 you know what i believe the values have
0:11:22 to come from god himself
0:11:24 which opens the door to articulating a
0:11:26 positive case for the foundations of
0:11:28 islam to show that they're true because
0:11:30 whatever comes from truth is true so to
0:11:33 achieve all of this we're going to talk
0:11:34 about the philosophy of freedom of
0:11:35 speech the objectives of freedom of
0:11:37 speech
0:11:38 the limits of freedom of speech the
0:11:40 significance of values we can also talk
0:11:42 about ideological political context the
0:11:44 importance of civility because islam
0:11:47 you know muslims are supposed to be
0:11:48 civilized human beings are promoting
0:11:50 civil discourse and we want to push
0:11:52 humanity forward because you know we're
0:11:55 committed to the well-being of all human
0:11:56 beings whoever they are whoever they are
0:11:59 and this is part of our tradition the
0:12:00 prophet sallallahu alaihi was
0:12:03 was a mercy to the world he taught us in
0:12:06 an authentic tradition narrated by
0:12:07 bukhari you can find this in al-qab he
0:12:11 said love for humanity we love yourself
0:12:13 love for the people in arabic lin-ness
0:12:16 love for the people what you love for
0:12:18 yourself now other similar traditions
0:12:20 that echo this value and the sentiment
0:12:23 and this principle
0:12:24 and the scholars such as
0:12:26 classical scholar and even
0:12:29 they confirm that this is basically
0:12:31 being committed to the well-being of all
0:12:33 people being committed to their guidance
0:12:35 and to the goodness and we're going to
0:12:37 talk about islamic civilization when it
0:12:39 adopted at one point
0:12:41 these values how it pushed humanity
0:12:43 forward and it achieved the objectives
0:12:45 of freedom of speech namely truth
0:12:47 accountability and progress now
0:12:51 please note this seminar will not
0:12:52 provide an in-depth exploration of the
0:12:56 attempts to reconcile islam with
0:12:59 contemporary human rights international
0:13:00 law
0:13:01 that's a scholarly discussion i'm aware
0:13:04 of the scholarly discussion i'm aware of
0:13:06 the academic discussion concerning this
0:13:10 it's not the role of this seminar to do
0:13:12 that it's not the role okay
0:13:15 the role of this seminar is more of a
0:13:18 kind of principle-based seminar to show
0:13:20 you that when you discuss this this
0:13:22 issue how do you use it to call people
0:13:25 to the oneness and to the worship of god
0:13:27 and to the adoption of god's guidance
0:13:30 meaning the the values of of what god
0:13:33 wants how god wants us to live our lives
0:13:35 and how to you know push humanity
0:13:37 forward and to progress and to have the
0:13:39 ideal civilization that's the context
0:13:42 here
0:13:43 it's not the context of okay well how do
0:13:44 we now try and reconcile
0:13:47 you know ideas of blasphemy law in islam
0:13:50 ideas of human rights ideas of freedom
0:13:53 of expression within a liberal context
0:13:56 and reconciling with an islamic context
0:13:58 that's not our job in actual fact i
0:14:00 would even say that would be a
0:14:01 disservice to you because sapiens
0:14:04 institute does not want to adopt false
0:14:07 epistemic biases and metaphysical
0:14:10 philosophical assumptions that are not
0:14:12 really in line with revelation in with
0:14:14 regards to what god wants from us we
0:14:16 don't want to do an ice to jesus we
0:14:18 don't want to read into the quran the
0:14:20 quran to read to us
0:14:23 to speak to us and sometimes when it
0:14:25 comes to these topics and there's
0:14:27 nothing wrong with that generally
0:14:29 speaking especially an abstract academic
0:14:30 perspective but when it comes to these
0:14:32 topics sometimes we adopt false
0:14:33 epistemic and metaphysical assumptions
0:14:36 and biases and we adopt maybe a liberal
0:14:39 worldview or liberal assumptions or
0:14:41 secular assumptions to try and reconcile
0:14:44 and i i think that's an unhealthy way of
0:14:45 dealing with the issue let islam speak
0:14:47 for itself and yes there's going to be
0:14:49 gray areas there's going to be overlaps
0:14:51 of course because it's god's guidance
0:14:53 it's going to make sense to people
0:14:54 intuitively and even rationally it's
0:14:55 going to be based on common sense right
0:14:57 and it's going to be based on the sound
0:14:59 rational mind so yes this is not
0:15:02 our way of basically saying no you can't
0:15:04 you have to hate anything that is
0:15:06 liberal or secular i'm not saying that i
0:15:08 thought that's a very unknowing
0:15:10 perspective but rather what i'm trying
0:15:12 to show you is allow the tradition to
0:15:14 speak for itself
0:15:16 don't start with the assumption that you
0:15:17 have to reconcile don't adopt a false
0:15:20 epistemic or metaphysical or
0:15:21 philosophical assumption and bias that
0:15:24 you know you already presume that a
0:15:26 particular liberal notion of freedom of
0:15:29 expression is already true and therefore
0:15:31 we have to align
0:15:32 islamic values with that no no no that's
0:15:34 the wrong way of doing it because you're
0:15:36 already adopting or you're falling or
0:15:38 you're going into
0:15:40 the epistemological and metaphysical
0:15:42 lizard hole right
0:15:44 um many of you if you know the prophetic
0:15:46 tradition of the prophet sallallahu
0:15:48 alaihi for something you exactly know
0:15:49 what i'm trying to say here don't go
0:15:50 into that lizard hole i just allow the
0:15:53 tradition to speak for itself and when
0:15:54 you do that sincerely you don't do an
0:15:56 ice to jesus you allow the tradition to
0:15:58 speak for itself what would happen is is
0:16:01 that you would now you would see that
0:16:03 human beings would appreciate god's
0:16:05 guidance appreciate this god-centric
0:16:11 tradition right this truth which is
0:16:13 islam peaceful submission this way of
0:16:15 being that we peacefully submit
0:16:17 ourselves to the one who created us the
0:16:19 king of all kings
0:16:21 so
0:16:22 i thought that was important to add so
0:16:23 let's have some preliminary notes
0:16:25 why am i mentioning these preliminary
0:16:27 notes brothers and sisters just for you
0:16:29 to understand the context of
0:16:31 you know the motivation and the
0:16:33 theological and value based motivation
0:16:35 behind doing these type of seminars
0:16:38 you know allah says something very
0:16:39 powerful in the 25th chapter and the
0:16:41 50th second verse allah says and strive
0:16:43 against them those who reject the truth
0:16:46 with the quran in arabic it's be
0:16:49 with it meaning the quran a great
0:16:52 striving jihad and qibira a great
0:16:55 struggle
0:16:57 and this is very significant because
0:16:59 allah is telling us to use the quran
0:17:02 against those who reject truth
0:17:05 against those who reject reality
0:17:08 use the quran and what does that mean
0:17:09 doesn't mean taking the quran hate
0:17:10 people with it no
0:17:12 we're we are against aggression and
0:17:14 oppression of course
0:17:15 it's using the values and the
0:17:17 intellectual content of the quran as
0:17:19 many scholars including ibn tamir the
0:17:21 14th century login he basically said
0:17:24 that there's going to come a time where
0:17:25 we have to revive or use the rational
0:17:28 the sound rational arguments of the
0:17:30 quran so this is a motivation we want to
0:17:33 use the quranic values to solve these
0:17:35 issues not only for ourselves as a
0:17:37 community but to to give this to
0:17:40 humanity because the quran is for all
0:17:42 human beings is to take people out of
0:17:44 the darkness into the move into the
0:17:47 light into god's light in other words
0:17:49 god's guidance
0:17:51 in
0:17:52 the 12th chapter of the quran in the
0:17:53 108th verse
0:17:56 allah tells the prophet sallallahu
0:17:58 alaihi who are some and by extension us
0:18:00 to say this is my way
0:18:03 i invite to god i invite to allah with
0:18:05 basirah with deep profound insight and
0:18:08 wisdom
0:18:09 i and those who follow me and exalted is
0:18:12 allah and i'm not of those who associate
0:18:15 others with him
0:18:17 again key word here is or key words is
0:18:20 this is my way i'm inviting to god i'm
0:18:23 not inviting to
0:18:24 a kind of ethnic identity
0:18:27 or a secular
0:18:29 ideological worldview i'm inviting to
0:18:32 allah to god himself the king's king of
0:18:36 all kings i'm inviting to the lord of
0:18:38 abraham and invite the lord of jesus i'm
0:18:42 inviting to the lord of moses to the
0:18:43 lord of muhammad
0:18:45 solomon peace be upon them all
0:18:48 this is who i'm inviting to i'm inviting
0:18:51 to the creator of the heavens and the
0:18:52 earth the ultimate reality from that
0:18:54 perspective the ultimate authority
0:18:57 the independent necessary being who is
0:19:00 completely merciful and loving maximally
0:19:03 and perfectly loving and merciful this
0:19:05 is what i'm according to and i'm calling
0:19:08 to
0:19:09 our creator with deep insight with
0:19:12 wisdom with hikmah with barcera with
0:19:15 deep knowledge with with insight
0:19:18 and these are this is the key kind of
0:19:21 value i'm going to get from this that
0:19:22 when we discuss these issues that we are
0:19:25 according to allah not to some other
0:19:27 force worldview or adopting force
0:19:29 epistemic biases and metaphysical
0:19:31 presuppositions
0:19:33 and and
0:19:34 when i'm doing this i'm doing it in in
0:19:36 the best way with insight and with
0:19:38 wisdom
0:19:40 connected to this is a very famous verse
0:19:43 in chapter 16 of the quran 125 when
0:19:46 allah says
0:19:48 call to the seville to the way of your
0:19:52 lord
0:19:53 with hikmah wisdom and good instruction
0:19:58 and argue with them in a way that is
0:20:00 best indeed your lord is most knowing of
0:20:02 who has strayed from his way and he is
0:20:04 the most knowing of who is rightly
0:20:06 guided again the key points that we're
0:20:07 going to derive from this is that we
0:20:09 should invite
0:20:10 to do da'wah
0:20:12 to invite to call to the sibil the path
0:20:16 of allah not force epistemological
0:20:18 biases or metaphysical assumptions of
0:20:19 other worldviews but allah what does god
0:20:21 want from us what does allah want from
0:20:23 us and if you understand that we have to
0:20:25 understand what revelation says and we
0:20:27 must deal with hikmah with wisdom
0:20:30 interestingly it doesn't say within with
0:20:33 knowledge because allah elsewhere in the
0:20:35 quran makes a distinction between wise
0:20:37 judgment and
0:20:39 there is a distinction when allah says
0:20:41 and we granted him wise judgment and
0:20:44 knowledge there is a distinction why
0:20:46 because really wisdom is applied to
0:20:48 knowledge so allah is saying here
0:20:51 apply your knowledge be people of wisdom
0:20:53 make it relevant understand how you must
0:20:56 act and be in a certain context and do
0:20:58 it with eh
0:21:00 do it with excellence with goodness
0:21:02 and debate with them or discuss with
0:21:04 them in ways that are best the famous
0:21:06 grammarian jamashiri he mentions that
0:21:09 ways that are best basically means what
0:21:11 it means to discuss without any
0:21:14 gruffness or any harshness
0:21:17 again and i repeat this many times
0:21:19 chapter 4
0:21:20 the 41st chapter of the quran the 34th
0:21:24 verse
0:21:24 allah says
0:21:26 good and evil cannot be equal good and
0:21:29 evil are not the same respond with what
0:21:31 is best then the one you interfered with
0:21:34 would be like a close intimate friend
0:21:36 now interestingly
0:21:37 when allah says respond to evil what is
0:21:40 best allah doesn't mention evil here
0:21:43 this is an interpretation
0:21:45 but the original arabic it's respond
0:21:48 with what is best so
0:21:49 repel by what is better
0:21:52 now
0:21:53 in the original arabic the word repel
0:21:56 was not followed by a direct object so
0:21:57 it could mean repel anything by by what
0:21:59 is better and the
0:22:01 scholars say that what is better means
0:22:03 that which is more beautiful and that
0:22:05 which is more virtuous which requires
0:22:08 you to understand the context of your
0:22:09 discussion or the context of the reality
0:22:12 that you're dealing with in order to
0:22:14 repel
0:22:15 in ways that are better to repel with
0:22:17 more virtue and with beauty because
0:22:18 sometimes the most virtuous thing to do
0:22:21 is not to be too soft right
0:22:23 because people think oh repenting by
0:22:25 that which is better means you always
0:22:26 have to be soft and a walk over
0:22:28 no
0:22:29 there are times you have to be
0:22:30 positively assertive
0:22:32 and this is the beauty of islamic ethics
0:22:34 because it's almost like a virtue ethics
0:22:36 you have to understand the context in
0:22:38 order for you to apply revelation that's
0:22:40 why wisdom is so important because it's
0:22:42 applied knowledge
0:22:45 so
0:22:46 this is an important preliminary note in
0:22:48 order for you to understand
0:22:50 what the kind of values are when we're
0:22:52 talking about these issues with human
0:22:53 beings with our brothers and sisters in
0:22:55 humanity and how we must be when we're
0:22:58 interacting with our brothers and
0:22:59 sisters in humanity
0:23:02 another important preliminary note is
0:23:05 this prophetic tradition which is an
0:23:06 authentic tradition can be found in
0:23:10 where
0:23:11 the prophet sallallahu alaihi were
0:23:13 suddenly upon him vp said whoever fought
0:23:16 defends the reputation of his brother
0:23:18 allah would defend his face from the
0:23:20 hell fire on the day of resurrection
0:23:23 now this is very beautiful now
0:23:25 i'm extending this and i'm asking a very
0:23:28 big question
0:23:29 what then of the honor of the prophet
0:23:30 sallallahu alaihi he'll send him because
0:23:32 remember this whole freedom of speech
0:23:34 discussion it's not just elon musk and
0:23:36 twitter but it's much wider as you
0:23:39 should be aware because remember you had
0:23:41 the charlie hebdo
0:23:43 cartoons defamatory degrading cartoons
0:23:46 of the prophet sallallahu alaihi he was
0:23:48 the danish cartoons
0:23:50 i think almost you know a decade ago
0:23:53 and so on and so forth you had the
0:23:55 satanic verses
0:23:57 in the 80s i think it was the 80s i
0:23:58 believe so from that perspective
0:24:01 you know there's been this kind of trend
0:24:03 in
0:24:03 [Music]
0:24:05 western
0:24:06 discourse now obviously i'm using
0:24:09 western here with a small w not a
0:24:11 capital w because you know this whole
0:24:13 east west dichotomy in reality doesn't
0:24:15 really exist but i think you get the
0:24:17 point why
0:24:18 when i talk about western discourse i'm
0:24:21 talking about the kind of
0:24:23 liberal ideologues and the secular
0:24:25 ideologues from that perspective
0:24:27 so
0:24:28 in western discourse as being this kind
0:24:30 of defamation of the prophet salallahu
0:24:33 and an attempt to degrade the prophet
0:24:35 sallallahu alaihi he was our duty to
0:24:38 actually show that this is you know this
0:24:40 whole freedom of speech excuse is this a
0:24:42 smoke screen
0:24:44 just to attack the mercy to the worlds
0:24:47 which is the prophet muhammad upon whom
0:24:48 he peace is to attack habib allah the
0:24:50 love of god
0:24:52 is to attack the one that we love that
0:24:55 we love more than our own parents that
0:24:58 we love more than our own selves it's a
0:25:00 smoke screen to attract to attack the
0:25:02 truth of who he really was and we want
0:25:04 to show that this smoke screen of
0:25:07 so-called freedom of expression freedom
0:25:08 of speech actually goes against the very
0:25:10 objectives of freedom of speech and it's
0:25:12 self-defeating and we want to show you
0:25:14 our values which are sacred values and
0:25:18 it's going to push humanity forward and
0:25:20 achieve the original objectives of
0:25:22 freedom of speech which is truth holding
0:25:24 power to account and
0:25:26 progress
0:25:30 final preliminary note number three
0:25:33 the
0:25:35 prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam was
0:25:38 asked and this was from the as a result
0:25:40 of the battle of uh where the prophet
0:25:42 saw allah ayah was injured and he was
0:25:45 bleeding
0:25:46 and it was said to him pray against the
0:25:50 idolaters
0:25:51 think about the context here
0:25:53 the prophet salallahu
0:25:56 was injured his companions passed away
0:25:59 his beloved uncle was killed and
0:26:01 mutilated
0:26:03 and he was asked curse them how did he
0:26:05 respond sallallahu alaihi wasallam he
0:26:08 said verily indeed unquestionably
0:26:12 i was not sent to invoke curses but
0:26:14 rather i was only sent as a mercy and
0:26:18 this shows a lot about our beloved
0:26:19 prophet
0:26:21 in both extremes of his prophetic career
0:26:25 he was optimally merciful and
0:26:28 compassionate hence the quran describes
0:26:30 him as a mercy to the worlds why am i
0:26:32 saying he was optimally well when he
0:26:35 had full power in the conquest of mecca
0:26:39 which was
0:26:41 a conquest without any
0:26:44 bloodshed from a perspective of
0:26:46 conflict
0:26:49 when he had full power
0:26:52 he took over mecca with humility to the
0:26:55 degree that his face and his head was so
0:26:58 low almost touching his riding beast as
0:27:01 a result of the humility and the
0:27:03 understanding and this was because of
0:27:04 god's grace
0:27:06 and when people told him this is a day
0:27:08 of revenge he said no this is a day of
0:27:10 mercy
0:27:12 this is a day of mercy and by extension
0:27:14 a day of forgiveness
0:27:16 so he had full power
0:27:19 and remember the context he was abused
0:27:22 he was tortured his companions were
0:27:23 killed
0:27:24 his he he was so hungry because of the
0:27:28 the boycott that he had to tie two
0:27:30 stones to his stomach and so on and so
0:27:32 forth
0:27:32 he was expelled from his beloved city
0:27:37 he was degraded and they tried to
0:27:40 humiliate him and
0:27:41 assassination attempts and so on and so
0:27:43 forth and yet when he had full power he
0:27:45 didn't use that power to take revenge or
0:27:48 to say right now it's my turn he said no
0:27:50 this is a day of mercy
0:27:53 conversely when he was almost the lowest
0:27:56 of the low from the point of view of he
0:27:58 lost a battle the battle of he was
0:28:00 injured his beloved uncle passed away
0:28:03 and was mutilated
0:28:05 one would argue from an emotional
0:28:06 psychological perspective he has every
0:28:08 excuse to say oh god please you know
0:28:12 you know
0:28:14 take revenge
0:28:15 or
0:28:17 destroy them or you know curse them no
0:28:21 even in the kind of depths of emotions
0:28:23 of being injured and
0:28:25 the battle and his companions dying his
0:28:27 beloved uncle
0:28:29 being mutilated and killed
0:28:31 he says i was not here i was not sent
0:28:34 here to invoke curses or to condemn
0:28:37 i am here as a mercy
0:28:40 and yet in this whole context of freedom
0:28:42 of speech this smoke screen that people
0:28:44 use they like to use it to degrade the
0:28:46 most merciful person to have walked this
0:28:49 planet you know someone and i argue
0:28:51 let's be honest brothers and sisters you
0:28:53 know when people cite you know i don't
0:28:55 know
0:28:56 far eastern new age spiritual gurus that
0:28:59 they're so compassionate they're in the
0:29:01 forest with their begging ball or
0:29:02 whatever i know it's a crude
0:29:03 representation but you get my point
0:29:05 they're like oh thou must be loving and
0:29:07 compassionate would you respect this is
0:29:09 the slip service
0:29:10 let me know when you have power
0:29:13 and let me know when you have zero power
0:29:15 and you're abused and you're tortured
0:29:16 and you're boycotted and you go through
0:29:18 all of these issues
0:29:19 let me know how you respond let me know
0:29:21 what your way of being is in this
0:29:23 context because you can't really be
0:29:25 compassionate and merciful if you have
0:29:26 no power how could you be you're morally
0:29:29 naive you don't even have the ability
0:29:31 to be anything else but compassionate
0:29:33 you don't have the ability to be
0:29:35 anything else
0:29:36 you know then then just be passive
0:29:39 but when you're given power
0:29:41 in the context of
0:29:43 you being abused and tortured and so on
0:29:45 and so forth for many many years over a
0:29:47 decade let me know how you react
0:29:50 let me know how you react
0:29:53 so from that perspective brothers and
0:29:54 sisters you know the prophet sallallahu
0:29:56 alaihi wasallam he was the compassionate
0:29:59 merciful human being who was a mercy to
0:30:01 the world and we see this in the context
0:30:02 of his life especially when we
0:30:03 understand the social political
0:30:06 psychological emotional context of
0:30:07 certain events you're like how on earth
0:30:09 did he react this way
0:30:14 so
0:30:15 let's now focus on this whole current
0:30:16 twitter and elon musk discussion now
0:30:20 what's very interesting brothers and
0:30:21 sisters in you know
0:30:23 the past few days or few weeks has been
0:30:25 discussion about
0:30:26 whose interpretation of freedom of
0:30:28 speech must we adopt
0:30:30 elon musk's interpretation
0:30:32 or
0:30:33 the liberals interpretation of freedom
0:30:35 of speech
0:30:36 and i just want to read out two
0:30:38 different perspectives for you to
0:30:39 understand how interesting it is because
0:30:41 when it's moved away from a religious
0:30:43 discourse when it's moved away from
0:30:44 islam when it's moved away from cartoons
0:30:47 or the prophet sallallahu alaihi
0:30:50 there's actually time for nuance
0:30:52 this time for debate and discussion on
0:30:54 this issue but when it comes to religion
0:30:55 or islam or our beloved prophet
0:30:57 sallallahu alaihi wasallam there's no
0:30:59 new it's freedom of expression it's an
0:31:01 ideological weapon it's a smoke screen
0:31:03 and it's used as an ideological baseball
0:31:05 bat to show or to try and show that you
0:31:07 guys are backward and you don't
0:31:10 appreciate human rights and expression
0:31:12 and progress
0:31:14 but when it when it's amongst each other
0:31:15 if you use those terms
0:31:17 it's a different discourse right which
0:31:19 highlights highlights of huge hypocrisy
0:31:20 so elon musk in his twitter account he
0:31:22 said by free speech i simply mean that
0:31:25 which matches the law i'm against the
0:31:27 censorship that goes beyond the law
0:31:30 which from that perspective could assume
0:31:31 that if it's within the law then it's
0:31:33 not a problem so you know it's almost
0:31:35 islamic because if the law was derived
0:31:38 from the islamic sources then
0:31:41 we would not allow
0:31:43 blasphemy against the prophets of god
0:31:45 which include jesus and moses we know we
0:31:47 believe in something sacred we have
0:31:49 sacred values right
0:31:51 we don't change our values all the time
0:31:54 if people want less free speech they
0:31:56 will ask the government to pass laws to
0:31:58 that effect therefore going beyond the
0:32:01 law is contrary to the will of the
0:32:03 people which is a very interesting and
0:32:04 ambiguous way of putting things for sure
0:32:06 but let's now move on to
0:32:09 siva and i do apologize for pronouncing
0:32:12 the second name wrong
0:32:15 janathan from the guardian they he wrote
0:32:18 or she i do apologize i'm not aware of
0:32:20 their gender because siva is an alien
0:32:22 name to me so i i i don't know if it's a
0:32:25 unisex or a male female name so they
0:32:26 apologize
0:32:28 a comment is free on the 20th of april
0:32:30 2022 it was entitled elon musk doesn't
0:32:33 understand free speech or twitter at all
0:32:35 and they basically say it's unclear how
0:32:37 musk arrived at such a juvenile
0:32:39 understanding of free speech or the law
0:32:42 trolling is
0:32:44 ex is expression that crushes crushes
0:32:46 expression it undermines the ability of
0:32:48 groups of people to think collectively
0:32:51 and productively about serious issues
0:32:53 musk knows this he is the richest
0:32:55 richest
0:32:56 troll in the history of the world and he
0:32:58 is frighteningly unserious if musk
0:33:00 understood the real value of speech to
0:33:03 deliberately
0:33:04 to deliberately to deliberate deeply and
0:33:06 respectfully to work through differences
0:33:08 and arrive either at solid truth claims
0:33:11 or preferred paths of action
0:33:13 he would
0:33:15 understand that granting trans people
0:33:17 respect allowing them to participate in
0:33:20 conversations that do not get swamped
0:33:22 back into facile interrogations of their
0:33:25 choices and identities enhances the
0:33:28 diversity and quality of public
0:33:30 conversation respecting the humanity and
0:33:32 dignity of others makes everyone more
0:33:34 free to discuss and debate issues
0:33:36 seriously deeply and calmly oh my god if
0:33:40 you've been aware of the discussions or
0:33:42 freedom of speech and religion and the
0:33:43 process over the past two decades or so
0:33:45 you just have to laugh at this with all
0:33:47 due respect with all due respect you
0:33:49 have to laugh at this
0:33:52 because what
0:33:54 the person siva is saying from the
0:33:56 guardian comment is free is that you
0:33:58 have to respect people's dignity you
0:34:00 have to respect people's choices
0:34:02 you have to be nuanced you have to
0:34:03 understand that you can't troll and just
0:34:05 be gratuitous in your insult and in your
0:34:07 degradation because it prevents the
0:34:09 objectives of freedom of speech which is
0:34:11 thinking collectively and productively
0:34:13 about serious issues
0:34:15 why don't they apply this to the
0:34:16 degrading cartoons of the process or to
0:34:18 the symbols of islam or to islam itself
0:34:20 or to religious discourse or to
0:34:23 non-religious discourse
0:34:26 why don't we focus on this type of
0:34:27 civility
0:34:29 it's very interesting when it comes to
0:34:30 the internal
0:34:32 ideological debate within the liberals
0:34:34 of the secularists concerning free
0:34:37 speech there's nuance there's a call to
0:34:39 dignity there's a call to law
0:34:41 there's a court of restriction there's a
0:34:43 call to
0:34:44 not being a troll not defaming and
0:34:47 degrading there is a call to think
0:34:49 properly and come together collectively
0:34:51 and think productively about serious
0:34:53 issues and come to the truth
0:34:57 come on man
0:34:58 are you kidding who are they kidding
0:35:01 and this is why i encourage people like
0:35:03 this to be a bit more consistent apply
0:35:06 this
0:35:06 to the prophet
0:35:07 salallahu to the danish cartoons to the
0:35:10 charlie hebdo affair
0:35:12 apply this to the defamation the
0:35:14 degradation of our beloved prophet jesus
0:35:17 upon him be peace and moses upon him be
0:35:19 peace
0:35:20 and other religious traditions apply
0:35:22 this to all human beings irrespective of
0:35:23 religious background
0:35:25 have a call to civility have a call to
0:35:28 dignity i agree but be consistent
0:35:31 be consistent
0:35:33 so this is the kind of current context
0:35:35 and this is why it was very important to
0:35:36 have the seminal brothers and sisters
0:35:38 now when it comes to the defamatory
0:35:40 cartoons of the prophet
0:35:42 salallahu ideological extremists yes and
0:35:44 i call them ideological extremists
0:35:46 because they are
0:35:47 they claim that
0:35:49 you know we should allow these cartoons
0:35:50 to defame
0:35:52 the mercy to mankind the prophet saw
0:35:54 allah to degrade the mercy to mankind
0:35:58 because it's about freedom of speech
0:36:00 and
0:36:01 included within that necessarily so this
0:36:03 is the argument we must allow defamation
0:36:06 degradation and gratuitous insult
0:36:08 because it's about preserving the right
0:36:10 to express oneself including liberty of
0:36:12 thought now let's make a distinction
0:36:14 here we're not talking about freedom of
0:36:16 opinion
0:36:17 right you can have any opinion you want
0:36:19 we're talking about the public
0:36:20 expression of that opinion and the way
0:36:22 you express that opinion that's a
0:36:24 different kettle of fish so let's leave
0:36:26 that to one side for one moment we're
0:36:28 not going to be addressing the kind of
0:36:29 freedom of opinion although there is
0:36:31 some kind of connection what about the
0:36:33 right to express oneself
0:36:35 i agree we have a right to express
0:36:37 ourselves but how when in what context
0:36:40 with what values
0:36:43 and in what context concerning what
0:36:45 legal context
0:36:47 but before we unpack that i want to
0:36:49 unpack
0:36:50 the whole notion of rights under secular
0:36:52 discourse under a philosophical
0:36:55 naturalistic discourse where god is
0:36:57 outside of the political picture and one
0:36:59 could protract and understand and say
0:37:00 what god is outside of the philosophical
0:37:02 picture as well
0:37:03 so a world view that ignores or denies
0:37:06 or renders god as irrelevant in politics
0:37:08 and by extension in philosophy
0:37:11 from a secular perspective
0:37:13 how can they make sense of rights in the
0:37:14 first place
0:37:16 the academic david van mil he makes this
0:37:18 point in his book on freedom of speech
0:37:20 and he makes a really interesting
0:37:21 discussion
0:37:22 he basically says well
0:37:23 there's a kind of consensus amongst
0:37:25 philosophers that this notion of rights
0:37:27 under a secular or philosophical
0:37:29 naturalistic framework
0:37:31 doesn't make sense echoing i think it
0:37:33 was jeremy bentham this is nonsense on
0:37:36 stilts
0:37:37 what ontological philosophical
0:37:39 foundation do you have
0:37:40 to make sense of rights from a
0:37:43 naturalistic perspective when everything
0:37:45 is
0:37:47 non-intentional meaning the whole
0:37:49 universe is just reduced to physical
0:37:50 processes or physical things
0:37:53 and those things do not have any
0:37:54 intentional force directing them anyway
0:37:56 in any intentional way they are blind
0:37:58 and cold meaning they're not conscious
0:38:01 they're not aware of themselves or wear
0:38:02 anything outside of themselves it's like
0:38:03 electrodes is whizzing around from that
0:38:05 perspective
0:38:06 how can you get a sense of right
0:38:09 that it's it's a it's a mind independent
0:38:11 thing
0:38:12 that you have a right
0:38:14 of something or to do something or or
0:38:17 this should be given to you in the
0:38:19 context of a secular naturalistic
0:38:20 framework
0:38:22 you can argue it from a kind of
0:38:25 quasi-subjective perspective
0:38:27 but as a fundamental right how are you
0:38:30 deriving this right where are you
0:38:31 deriving it from
0:38:33 cold blind non-intentional physical
0:38:35 things and processes
0:38:37 please
0:38:38 so from the philosophical perspective
0:38:40 they don't have a basis now one would
0:38:41 argue there are three main ways to make
0:38:43 sense of rights within a secular
0:38:45 paradigm so you have the idea of natural
0:38:47 rights social utility or eudaimonia so
0:38:51 what does natural rights mean
0:38:53 natural rights basically means that this
0:38:55 right is mind independent it's people
0:38:57 independent it's government independent
0:38:59 it's universal it's it transcends social
0:39:02 consensus
0:39:03 so you have this right that this right
0:39:05 has to be given to you
0:39:07 and you know if we are p if we have
0:39:10 power we are duty bound to give this
0:39:13 right to others
0:39:14 and this right is going to be the case
0:39:17 irrespective of even if we disagree with
0:39:19 it even if there was a consensus that
0:39:21 disagreed with it it's it's still a
0:39:23 right to be given
0:39:25 and it's still a right to be had right
0:39:28 so it's mind independent from that
0:39:30 perspective but how does this make sense
0:39:32 according to an anti-naturalist or
0:39:34 non-secular
0:39:36 ontology
0:39:39 sorry how does this make sense uh
0:39:40 according to a naturalistic ontology or
0:39:43 a secular ontology it only makes sense
0:39:45 with an anti-naturalist or non-secular
0:39:48 ontology meaning if you're a theist or
0:39:50 you have a different metaphysical
0:39:52 philosophical worldview that you don't
0:39:53 just adhere to the ridiculous view which
0:39:56 is the view of the philosophical
0:39:58 naturalist that everything can be
0:39:59 reduced to physical processes in some
0:40:00 way
0:40:02 and
0:40:03 that these physical processes are
0:40:04 fundamentally non-intentional they're
0:40:06 blind cold they're the blind and cold in
0:40:08 other words non-conscious how can you
0:40:09 derive a right from that
0:40:12 it's just it doesn't make any sense
0:40:14 philosophically speaking
0:40:15 your worldview can't make sense of
0:40:17 natural rights as jeremy bentham said
0:40:20 it's nonsense and still so you require
0:40:22 an anti-naturalist if you want to use
0:40:24 that terminology or non-circular
0:40:25 ontology meaning a non-secular
0:40:27 metaphysic a non-secular way of seeing
0:40:29 the world
0:40:30 lenses that you put on your eyes to
0:40:32 understand yourself others in reality
0:40:35 and obviously we don't have time to go
0:40:37 into that and unpack it but the point
0:40:39 here is just from a very basic
0:40:40 perspective natural rights doesn't make
0:40:41 sense based on a secular
0:40:44 godless perspective right and godless
0:40:47 philosophical and political worldview
0:40:49 well the other argument would be why
0:40:50 social utility freedom of speech
0:40:54 and therefore freedom to degrade an
0:40:55 insult
0:40:57 increases the collective world being and
0:40:59 minimizes or reduces suffering because
0:41:01 it facilitates truth accountability and
0:41:03 progress well we're going to discuss
0:41:05 that in a few moments to show that in
0:41:06 actual fact
0:41:08 freedom to degrade and gratuitous
0:41:10 insults actually do not necessarily lead
0:41:13 to
0:41:13 facilitating truth accountability and
0:41:15 progress it could be the opposite so
0:41:18 that
0:41:19 that slight of hand to try and claim
0:41:21 that there is a necessary logical link
0:41:23 between the freedom to degrade an insult
0:41:26 and
0:41:28 acquiring truth accountability and
0:41:30 progress that there's some kind of
0:41:31 necessary link there is no necessary
0:41:32 link i'm going to explain that a few
0:41:33 moments but the kind of social utility
0:41:35 argument is freedom of expression
0:41:37 freedom of speech including degrading is
0:41:39 something people's going to increase our
0:41:40 well-being and minimize our suffering
0:41:43 actually that's not true at all
0:41:45 insulting people
0:41:47 harming people the dignity diminishing
0:41:49 the dignity of other people
0:41:51 actually rupture social bonds
0:41:54 it ruptures social bonds
0:41:57 it destroys individual well-being
0:42:00 and it presents barriers to expression
0:42:02 and the discovery of truth as we're
0:42:04 going to discuss in a few moments so how
0:42:06 does that increase the well-being of
0:42:07 others
0:42:08 i remember we're talking about human
0:42:10 beings as they are not as we want them
0:42:12 to be not as the secularist wants them
0:42:14 to be or the liberal wants them to be
0:42:16 human beings as they are as they are
0:42:19 they don't like insults they don't like
0:42:21 their
0:42:22 their dignity to be harmed or diminished
0:42:26 they want a preservation of social bonds
0:42:30 and gratuitously in some degrading
0:42:33 actually is the antithesis to that
0:42:34 therefore it increases suffering
0:42:38 it doesn't increase well-being it
0:42:40 decreases well-being and we're going to
0:42:42 discuss in a few moments in actual fact
0:42:44 this kind of gratuitous freedom or this
0:42:46 freedom to gratuitously insult and
0:42:49 degrade people
0:42:50 actually can lead to the lowering of
0:42:53 truth or not achieving truth and not
0:42:55 having progress and not holding power to
0:42:58 account which are the main objectives of
0:43:00 freedom of speech so social utility
0:43:02 doesn't make sense what about eudaimonic
0:43:05 which is a greek word
0:43:07 eudaimonia this kind of
0:43:09 you know we can make sense of freedom of
0:43:11 speech as a right because
0:43:14 it in itself leads to happiness
0:43:17 it's not an instrument to happiness like
0:43:19 social utility that it's a instrument to
0:43:23 truth accountability and progress but
0:43:24 the very fact that we can express
0:43:26 ourselves and just expressing ourselves
0:43:28 intrinsically
0:43:30 it's going to lead to happiness because
0:43:31 we just by virtue of being able to
0:43:33 express ourselves well again that's not
0:43:35 true because what type of expression are
0:43:36 you talking about if it's insult and
0:43:38 degradation and if it's lies and if it's
0:43:40 untruths and if it's putting barriers
0:43:42 towards truth especially if you're
0:43:44 people of who have power in society then
0:43:46 that's not going to increase individuals
0:43:48 happiness at all
0:43:49 or if you denigrate
0:43:51 minorities
0:43:52 what if you denigrate
0:43:54 what it means to be human right which is
0:43:57 happening a lot these days which is
0:43:59 another discussion so you can't just
0:44:01 claim a eudaimonic
0:44:03 uh perspective to make sense of rights
0:44:05 from us from a secular world do you know
0:44:07 because you have to try and show now
0:44:09 that there is an intrinsic necessary
0:44:10 link between freedom of expression which
0:44:12 includes degrading and insulting and
0:44:15 that leading to an individual's
0:44:16 happiness and remember it's not like
0:44:18 social utility we're not saying it's an
0:44:19 instrument to truth accountability and
0:44:21 progress which are the kind of
0:44:22 objectives of freedom of speech but just
0:44:24 expressing yourself
0:44:26 irrespective of how you express yourself
0:44:29 that itself is going to increase to you
0:44:31 happiness no it doesn't because if you
0:44:33 depends how you do it if it's degrading
0:44:34 and insulting if it's if it's anti the
0:44:36 truth if you have power and you start
0:44:39 you know
0:44:40 going against what is true what's the
0:44:42 right thing to do
0:44:44 and people who have the truth and
0:44:45 although they have the ability to
0:44:46 express themselves they don't have the
0:44:48 power and giving the fact that we have
0:44:50 social dynamics going on that those who
0:44:51 have influence are more likely to
0:44:53 control people and those who have power
0:44:55 more likely to control people then
0:44:57 that's not going to increase people's
0:44:58 happiness in any shape or form
0:45:00 and remember
0:45:01 think about human nature humans as they
0:45:03 are not as as we want them to be
0:45:06 human nature that people want respect
0:45:08 and dignity brothers and sisters and
0:45:12 friends so
0:45:14 let's move on
0:45:16 so this now unpack freedom of speech
0:45:18 okay so
0:45:20 with regards to is it absolute is it
0:45:22 instrumental
0:45:23 do we have restrictions
0:45:25 now this is something that you need to
0:45:27 understand
0:45:28 absolute freedom of speech does not
0:45:30 exist
0:45:31 literally it just doesn't exist anywhere
0:45:33 on this planet from a social political
0:45:35 perspective anyone who claims that it
0:45:37 does well i want to see it anyone who
0:45:40 claims that it does they probably living
0:45:41 on some other parallel universe it just
0:45:44 does not exist the minute that you're a
0:45:47 society there is a collective of human
0:45:49 beings under a framework of law it is
0:45:52 virtually impossible for you to have
0:45:55 absolute freedom of speech
0:45:58 and this is very important to know when
0:45:59 you study this property you look into
0:46:01 law and you look into values and you
0:46:02 look into even human rights
0:46:03 international human rights you would see
0:46:05 that every society has limitations and
0:46:08 restrictions on speech
0:46:09 and these restrictions occur because of
0:46:11 a competition of values
0:46:14 the academic david van milke highlights
0:46:16 his point very beautifully and you can
0:46:18 find this in the online academic
0:46:20 reference the standard stanford
0:46:22 encyclopedia of philosophy and he's
0:46:23 written a book on the topic as well and
0:46:24 he echoes some of the sentiments
0:46:26 and he says the first thing to know in
0:46:29 any sensible discussion of freedom of
0:46:31 speech is that it would have to be
0:46:32 limited
0:46:34 every society places some limits on the
0:46:37 exercise of speech because it always
0:46:39 takes place within a context of
0:46:41 competing values this is the key thing
0:46:44 that you have to understand brothers and
0:46:46 sisters today it's in the context of
0:46:49 competing values
0:46:50 and we see this
0:46:52 in law and society i'll give you some
0:46:54 examples article four two three five one
0:46:58 of the french criminal code punishes
0:47:01 outrage in other words grave insult of
0:47:03 the national anthem or the tricolor flag
0:47:06 yes i'm picking on the french ideologues
0:47:08 here because i find them the most
0:47:09 hypocritical the most philosophically
0:47:12 redundant and the most absurd when it
0:47:14 comes to things like freedom of speech
0:47:16 like literally they are they need
0:47:18 unschooling and reschooling on basic
0:47:21 philosophical principles and basic logic
0:47:24 and even ethics because they are deeply
0:47:27 deeply deeply and savagely hypocritical
0:47:30 when it comes to these things you know
0:47:31 when it came to the charlie hebdo and
0:47:33 the cartoons and so on and so forth it's
0:47:35 freedom of speech but when it comes to
0:47:38 gravely insulting the national anthem of
0:47:40 the tri-color flag
0:47:43 you get punished please
0:47:46 also political cartoonist maurice cine
0:47:48 who worked for the french satirical
0:47:51 magazine charlie hebdo for 20 years was
0:47:53 fired in 2009 and listen for his
0:47:57 cartoons mocking the relationship of
0:48:00 former french president sarkozy's son
0:48:03 with a wealthy jewish woman hold on a
0:48:05 second hold on a second
0:48:07 let's have you know
0:48:09 a longer memory than just a few months
0:48:11 when we see when we heard and we saw
0:48:14 unfortunately the cartoons defaming and
0:48:15 degrading the prophet
0:48:19 there was this didn't happen no one was
0:48:21 sacked but when it came to
0:48:24 sarkozy's son the former french
0:48:26 president sarkozy's son
0:48:29 and his relation with the wealthy jewish
0:48:30 women he was fired and he was in this
0:48:33 job for over 20 years
0:48:35 hypocrisy
0:48:36 smells like it
0:48:38 also a french court injunction banned a
0:48:40 jesus-based clothing advert mimicking da
0:48:43 vinci's last supper a french judge ruled
0:48:45 that the display was ruled a gratuitous
0:48:48 and aggressive act of intrusion on
0:48:50 people's innermost beliefs and i'm not
0:48:52 i'm not saying i disagree with this it's
0:48:54 very important to
0:48:56 to dignify people
0:48:58 all people and to give them dignity for
0:49:00 sure
0:49:00 but look at the hypocrisy here
0:49:04 why is it okay
0:49:05 for
0:49:07 our brothers and sisters in christianity
0:49:12 rather than
0:49:15 us as muslims concerning the prophet
0:49:16 salallahu alaihi hussain and by the way
0:49:18 as muslims
0:49:19 we disagree totally in defaming and
0:49:22 degrading any prophet of god which
0:49:23 includes issa jesus upon him be peace
0:49:27 in 2005 danish newspaper jillian's post
0:49:29 and published cartoons uh published
0:49:32 character chores of the prophet but
0:49:33 rejected the publication of cartoons
0:49:36 mocking jesus because they would provoke
0:49:37 an uproar
0:49:39 again inconsistency and hypocrisy and
0:49:41 just to know we disagree with any
0:49:44 cartoons mocking islam jesus no we
0:49:47 disagree with this of course but there
0:49:48 needs to be consistency here
0:49:50 and this is an example of restriction in
0:49:52 law and in society
0:49:54 inconsistent albeit
0:49:57 a form of hypocrisy
0:49:58 maybe for sure but the point here is it
0:50:02 is a restriction
0:50:03 in many other countries including france
0:50:05 there are defamation flaws and in the uk
0:50:07 and in the united states and in europe
0:50:09 there are hate speech laws libel laws
0:50:11 laws against the holocaust denial etc
0:50:14 etc even at home in the uk when you look
0:50:17 at the uk human rights act you look at
0:50:20 schedule 1 for example article 10 and
0:50:23 this is the human rights act of 1998 and
0:50:25 i don't think there's been any
0:50:26 amendments to this particular article it
0:50:29 states everyone has the right to freedom
0:50:31 of expression okay
0:50:32 then it says
0:50:35 however speech may be subject to
0:50:38 formalities conditions restrictions or
0:50:40 penalties
0:50:41 as are prescribed by law and are
0:50:43 necessary in a democratic society and it
0:50:45 elaborates further in the interests of
0:50:48 national security so these restrictions
0:50:49 are in the context of certain interests
0:50:51 or values national security territorial
0:50:54 integrity or public safety for the
0:50:57 prevention of disorder or crime and
0:51:00 listen to this one for the protection of
0:51:02 health or morals
0:51:04 and it continues for the protection of
0:51:06 the reputation or rights of others for
0:51:08 preventing the disclosure of information
0:51:10 received in confidence or for
0:51:12 maintaining the authority and
0:51:13 impartiality of the judiciary
0:51:16 so there are there are restrictions
0:51:18 everywhere and those absolutists if they
0:51:20 if they exist and i don't think they
0:51:22 exist anymore
0:51:23 but they may do those absolutists they
0:51:25 say hold on a second
0:51:27 if you have some restrictions this is a
0:51:30 a slippery slope
0:51:32 into tyranny so if you do have any type
0:51:34 of restriction on freedom of speech
0:51:36 it can lead to tyranny
0:51:38 but they need to understand the door
0:51:40 swings both ways this is this is a
0:51:42 ridiculously pretty slope argument why
0:51:45 because if you have no restrictions at
0:51:47 all it would lead to anarchy it would
0:51:50 lead to anarchy
0:51:52 remember think of it logically
0:51:54 philosophically there is no necessary
0:51:55 logical link between restrictions and it
0:51:58 necessarily leading to censorship or
0:52:00 tyranny there's no logical link
0:52:04 since there's no logical link then it
0:52:06 has restrictions have to be understood
0:52:08 on the values or case-by-case basis
0:52:11 and
0:52:12 excuse me to argue that you have any
0:52:14 restrictions it leads to tyranny or
0:52:16 censorship is a false argument as we
0:52:18 just mentioned there's no necessary link
0:52:19 between restrictions and
0:52:22 tyranny or censorship you have to
0:52:23 address it on a case-by-case basis in
0:52:25 terms of what these restrictions are and
0:52:27 where they come from and what the values
0:52:28 are
0:52:30 and one could also argue that the door
0:52:31 swings both ways because if you have no
0:52:33 restrictions at all that one would argue
0:52:35 it could lead to anarchy and if it needs
0:52:37 to any key then there'll be no truth
0:52:38 there will be there'll be no
0:52:39 accountability there'll be no progress
0:52:41 no justice which are key objectives of
0:52:44 freedom of speech
0:52:47 and as david van mil eloquently says
0:52:50 that basically restrictions are
0:52:51 inevitable and necessary especially in
0:52:54 the context of the slippery slope slope
0:52:56 argument he says those who support the
0:52:58 slippery slope argument tend to make the
0:53:00 claim that the inevitable consequence of
0:53:02 limiting speech is a slide into
0:53:04 censorship and tyranny it is worth
0:53:06 noting however that the slippery slope
0:53:09 argument can be used to make the
0:53:11 opposite point one could argue that we
0:53:13 should not allow
0:53:14 any removal of government interventions
0:53:16 on speech or any other type of freedom
0:53:18 because once we do we are on the
0:53:20 slippery slope to anarchy
0:53:22 it is possible that some limits on
0:53:24 speech might over time lead to further
0:53:26 restrictions but they may not so there's
0:53:28 no necessary link
0:53:30 and if they do
0:53:31 those limitations might might also be
0:53:33 justified the main point is that once we
0:53:36 abandon the incoherent position that
0:53:38 there should be no limits in speech we
0:53:40 have to make controversial decisions
0:53:42 about what can and cannot be expressed
0:53:45 this comes along with the territory
0:53:46 territory of living together in
0:53:48 communities and this is why brothers and
0:53:50 sisters it's so important to focus on
0:53:52 this point it's about values as david
0:53:54 van gaal says that it's about values
0:53:56 these restrictions are because of
0:53:58 a set of competing values
0:54:01 what values how do we prioritize them
0:54:03 where do they come from as muslims we
0:54:06 agree we should be able to express
0:54:07 ourselves in the context of law and
0:54:10 values
0:54:11 but whose values how do you prioritize
0:54:13 them where do they come from and as
0:54:15 muslims who should be compassionate and
0:54:18 and empathic but emphatic as well to say
0:54:21 it has to come from god's guidance it
0:54:24 has to come from god's guidance god has
0:54:26 the picture we just have a pixel and
0:54:28 we're going to discuss that later
0:54:30 so let's now move to the objectives of
0:54:32 freedom of speech remember freedom of
0:54:34 speech wasn't really understood as
0:54:35 having some kind of intrinsic value from
0:54:37 the point of view that you know it's
0:54:39 valuable because
0:54:42 it's it because it is right
0:54:44 the minute you could express yourself in
0:54:46 any way it's irrelevant what it produces
0:54:48 it's irrelevant if if if it's a means to
0:54:52 anything it's a value in of itself
0:54:55 freedom of speech was never understood
0:54:57 that way freedom of speech was
0:54:58 understood as instrumental it was an
0:55:00 instrument it was a path it was a means
0:55:04 to some very important virtues or very
0:55:06 important things such as progress truth
0:55:09 holding power to account
0:55:11 political accountability and so on and
0:55:13 so forth
0:55:15 and the british philosopher john stuart
0:55:16 mill he maintained that free speech
0:55:19 fosters authenticity genius creativity
0:55:22 individuality human flourishing
0:55:24 so you can see that freedom of speech
0:55:26 here is not intrinsically valuable but
0:55:28 rather it's an instrument it's a means
0:55:30 to certain important virtues or certain
0:55:31 important outcomes and in this context
0:55:33 it's authenticity genius political
0:55:35 accountability progress holding power to
0:55:38 account and so on and so forth and this
0:55:40 is a very important note to understand
0:55:42 so when we zoom in on the kind of
0:55:44 ridiculous accusation
0:55:46 you know against muslims and against
0:55:47 other religious people that are
0:55:48 defending you know sacred symbols and
0:55:50 sacred personalities like
0:55:53 you know the prophets of god obviously
0:55:55 we don't believe they're divine but
0:55:56 they're prophets of god so the sacred
0:55:57 from the point of view that they
0:55:59 received a revelation or they were they
0:56:02 were manifestations of
0:56:05 what god wanted for society they were
0:56:07 representations there were
0:56:09 representatives of god's guidance and
0:56:11 they wanted
0:56:12 people to worship god alone not to
0:56:14 worship creation but to worship the
0:56:17 creator to adore him to love him to
0:56:19 recognize him to appreciate him as the
0:56:21 ultimate reality and truth and to
0:56:24 to really direct the internal and
0:56:26 external acts of worship to him alone
0:56:28 and
0:56:28 and yeah so the the the argument of some
0:56:32 liberal ideologues and secular
0:56:34 ideologues extremists really if you
0:56:36 think about it extremist ideologues are
0:56:37 not that
0:56:39 they they always use the freedom of
0:56:40 insult to degrade as some kind
0:56:42 of smokescreen an ideological baseball
0:56:46 bat to try and hit you know minorities
0:56:49 and people who disagree with them and
0:56:50 say you're wrong and you're backward and
0:56:52 this is ridiculous we've already exposed
0:56:54 the incoherency and we're gonna expose
0:56:57 the incoherence of the argument as well
0:56:59 because
0:57:00 you know the kind of argument that they
0:57:01 propose is well freedom to insulin
0:57:03 degrade is necessary in order to achieve
0:57:05 the objective freedom of speech
0:57:07 and when you're saying freedom of speech
0:57:09 and when they claim that freedom of
0:57:11 speech is a right and it's very
0:57:12 important and that includes freedom to
0:57:14 inside the grade even if it's gratuitous
0:57:17 and therefore we should just get over it
0:57:18 because it's required it's necessary
0:57:21 it's necessary to achieve the objectives
0:57:23 of freedom of speech like accountability
0:57:24 truth and progress
0:57:26 wrong
0:57:27 this is wrong and i challenge anyone in
0:57:29 this planet this is totally wrong it
0:57:31 could be i'm not saying it couldn't be
0:57:34 but it's wrong to say it's necessary
0:57:37 there is no necessary link between
0:57:40 gratuitous insult and degradation and
0:57:42 diminishing the dignity of human beings
0:57:45 and
0:57:46 the objectives of freedom of speech like
0:57:47 truth accountability and progress
0:57:49 there is no necessary link
0:57:51 and if we can show
0:57:53 and if we can show
0:57:56 that
0:57:57 freedom to insult to degrade
0:57:59 gratuitously and to diminish people's
0:58:00 dignity goes against the very objectives
0:58:03 of freedom of speech
0:58:06 then
0:58:07 it highlights the understanding that we
0:58:09 have to have a value-based model when it
0:58:11 comes to freedom of expression and
0:58:13 value-based model when it comes to
0:58:14 freedom of expression as david van mille
0:58:16 discussed because yes there's going to
0:58:17 be restrictions but has to be based on
0:58:19 on certain competing values and it
0:58:22 allows us to further discuss what those
0:58:24 type of values must be because we now
0:58:26 know that in actual fact freedom to
0:58:28 instant degrade does not necessarily
0:58:30 lead to the objectives of freedom of
0:58:32 speech
0:58:33 and in many cases it goes against the
0:58:35 objectives of freedom of speech and let
0:58:37 me give you like an overall argument
0:58:38 before we go into some examples
0:58:40 for example to give to convince someone
0:58:43 of
0:58:44 and to promote the truth in many
0:58:47 circumstances requires good
0:58:49 argumentation
0:58:50 persuasion and civility
0:58:53 insults in many contexts are a barrier
0:58:56 to good argumentation argumentation
0:58:58 persuasion and civility
0:59:00 therefore insults in many cases prevent
0:59:02 truth therefore the objective of freedom
0:59:04 of speech is undermined this
0:59:05 archaeological argument this is
0:59:07 numbering number one
0:59:09 to convince someone of and to promote
0:59:11 the truth in many circumstances requires
0:59:14 good argumentation argumentation
0:59:16 persuasion and civility number two
0:59:19 insults in many contexts are a barrier
0:59:21 to good argumentation persuasion and
0:59:23 civility
0:59:25 number three the conclusion therefore
0:59:27 insults in many cases prevent truth
0:59:30 another conclusion number four therefore
0:59:32 the objective of freedom of speech
0:59:34 undermined because it's without a doubt
0:59:36 one of the key objectives of freedom of
0:59:37 speech is truth itself
0:59:40 acquiring truth and the pursuit of truth
0:59:42 so let's have some thought experiments
0:59:44 imagine the late
0:59:46 scientist stephen hawking he discovered
0:59:49 this amazing
0:59:51 new
0:59:52 well-confirmed theory with predictive
0:59:55 power which is a very high has a high
0:59:57 epistemic value in science in the
0:59:59 philosophy of science and he said that
1:00:01 this theory is going to help us in our
1:00:03 understanding of ourselves and our place
1:00:04 in the universe as well
1:00:06 and he starts his presentation
1:00:09 and spends 15 to 20 minutes insulting
1:00:12 everyone's ethnicity the way they look
1:00:14 their mothers the academic background
1:00:17 the ethnic background
1:00:19 is not going to facilitate the truth of
1:00:21 his theory
1:00:22 no
1:00:25 what about taking into account the
1:00:26 chinese government for the oppressive
1:00:29 ethnic genocide that they're committing
1:00:32 against the uyghurs
1:00:34 imagine
1:00:35 where political delegation and we go to
1:00:38 the chinese authorities the ccp the
1:00:40 chinese communist party and we say to
1:00:42 them
1:00:43 you know we want to take the hold into
1:00:44 account concerning the genocide that
1:00:46 they're committing
1:00:48 and we start by insulting chinese
1:00:50 culture the chinese language and chinese
1:00:52 people the way chinese people look is
1:00:55 that going to facilitate good
1:00:57 accountability no
1:01:01 i know you may think these are crude
1:01:02 examples but take the logical basis of
1:01:05 these examples and apply them in real
1:01:08 scenarios and you will see there is no
1:01:10 necessary link between freedom to
1:01:12 degrade an insult and fulfilling the
1:01:14 objectives of freedom of speech in
1:01:15 actual fact
1:01:17 freedom to degrade an insult could go
1:01:19 against the very objectives of freedom
1:01:20 of speech and it becomes self-defeating
1:01:22 consider also nazi germany the
1:01:24 propaganda of nazi germany
1:01:26 what if they argued this is my freedom
1:01:28 of speech
1:01:30 what about this this whole wider kind of
1:01:33 understanding in
1:01:35 academia where they're talking about
1:01:37 othering dehumanization and genocide
1:01:39 that there is a link between othering
1:01:42 and dehumanizing a group of people
1:01:44 saying that there is a group of people
1:01:45 and they're all a monolith they're all
1:01:47 the same and they're all bad
1:01:49 that othering and that dehumanization
1:01:51 actually has been shown to to to
1:01:54 facilitate genocide we saw this in nazi
1:01:57 germany we saw this in rwanda we saw
1:02:00 this in bosnia
1:02:02 aren't we learning our lessons we're
1:02:03 seeing this in china with the uyghurs
1:02:06 aren't we learning our lessons this
1:02:08 ridiculous ideological
1:02:11 extremism
1:02:13 right
1:02:13 this ideological extremism which
1:02:16 basically say that no we should do so
1:02:18 and we should defame and degrade
1:02:20 because it's necessary to achieve the
1:02:22 objective of speech is actually totally
1:02:24 wrong
1:02:25 because not only would it go against the
1:02:28 the objectives of freedom of speech like
1:02:29 truth and accountability but it will go
1:02:32 against a very other key value that we
1:02:34 want to promote which is social harmony
1:02:36 which is justice which is people being
1:02:39 able to live
1:02:40 free of oppression
1:02:42 but if you continue this narrative then
1:02:44 the logical ideological basis of this
1:02:46 point is that you you're okay with
1:02:48 othering people
1:02:51 and dehumanizing people and it's known
1:02:53 in studies concerning othering and
1:02:54 dehumanization that they lead to
1:02:56 genocide look at the studies concerning
1:02:58 nazi germany look at the studies
1:02:59 concerning
1:03:01 rwanda
1:03:02 bosnia
1:03:04 these genocides happen because of
1:03:06 othering and dehumanization and if that
1:03:09 happens over a period of time
1:03:10 excessively using the power structures
1:03:12 of a sus of
1:03:13 of of a state of a nation of a culture
1:03:16 of a society and it propagates these
1:03:19 messages continuously you're going to
1:03:21 end up human beings killing human beings
1:03:23 for no other reason than propaganda and
1:03:25 a lie about people
1:03:28 this is something that should not happen
1:03:32 and this is something we need to be
1:03:33 worried about
1:03:34 so i do suggest everyone to read the
1:03:36 works of our st prince senior instructor
1:03:39 and academic doctor uthman native his
1:03:41 his works and his book he's published
1:03:44 he's a post-doctoral researcher on other
1:03:46 dehumanization he's been published by
1:03:48 springer and by bro you could search
1:03:50 his works on google you could search his
1:03:53 bio on our website sapiens institute.org
1:03:55 to refer to those books and you could
1:03:57 download a book called unbeaten human
1:04:00 published by sapience it's free and you
1:04:02 can download it from our website
1:04:04 sapience institute.org forward slash
1:04:06 books and the link is here as well on
1:04:08 the screen and he talks about
1:04:10 stigmatizing people seeing them as other
1:04:13 as the other they're a monolith and
1:04:15 they're all evil they're all barbarians
1:04:18 and marginalizing them and so on and so
1:04:19 forth he unpacks some of these
1:04:22 concepts concerning othering and
1:04:23 dehumanization shows that this is
1:04:26 exactly what happened in arts germany
1:04:27 this will happen in rwanda this will
1:04:29 happen in bosnia
1:04:31 so you can't say there is a necessary
1:04:33 link between freedom of expression but
1:04:35 sorry freedom of to degrade and insult
1:04:38 and
1:04:39 and the objectives of freedom of speech
1:04:40 and actual fact it could be the total
1:04:42 they could be taught the total opposite
1:04:43 instead of holding government to account
1:04:46 that you become
1:04:47 par you become a tool the people become
1:04:49 a tool of an oppressive government to
1:04:51 oppress
1:04:52 the other and this is like very
1:04:54 significant very significant and you
1:04:56 could read this quote for yourself
1:04:58 actually i might read it out for you
1:05:00 dr uthmanity says by stigmatizing people
1:05:03 they come to emerge as society's others
1:05:06 barbarians those on the margins of
1:05:07 humanity between them and the dominance
1:05:10 that exist a supposed marginality this
1:05:12 allows the opposition between the self
1:05:14 and other to be aggravated these distant
1:05:16 others are restricted not so much in
1:05:18 frames of landscaping by other codes of
1:05:21 behaviorism by which the physically
1:05:23 distant cannot be rendered close
1:05:25 culturally or otherwise
1:05:27 between them and the dominance there
1:05:29 exists
1:05:29 a supposed marginality dehumanization is
1:05:32 a blurring of distinctions a rendering
1:05:34 of others as faceless and unlike
1:05:37 ourselves we as humanity are a
1:05:39 collective effort we must push back
1:05:41 against the emergence of genocidal
1:05:43 tendencies in our world theodor adono
1:05:45 attempted in his seminal essay education
1:05:47 after our switch to stress the
1:05:49 responsibility of education and
1:05:50 educators to herald empathic tendencies
1:05:53 in young people who challenge attitudes
1:05:55 of otherness
1:05:56 the secrets of genocides however wars
1:05:59 and mass killing killings since auswitch
1:06:01 are a testament that there is so much
1:06:03 more for us to do we must change global
1:06:05 media narratives and representations
1:06:07 that otherwise or exclude fellow human
1:06:09 beings from a collective state of
1:06:11 worthiness that unleash on others the
1:06:13 stigma of devalued dehumanized
1:06:15 identities is upon us to play important
1:06:17 roles in building societies that connect
1:06:19 people that bridge bridging allows us to
1:06:22 open spaces to foster understanding
1:06:24 communication and enhancing of the
1:06:26 collective human spirit so in essence
1:06:29 seeing the other as the other and as a
1:06:32 monolith and the old evil is something
1:06:34 that actually
1:06:36 causes genocide and suffering and
1:06:39 oppression of other human beings now yes
1:06:41 they're going to exist groups for sure
1:06:44 and but
1:06:45 not everybody is the same
1:06:47 even allah says allah says in the quran
1:06:50 in chapter 3 verse 113 i believe when
1:06:53 allah says people are not the same there
1:06:56 are upright people from other groups
1:06:58 don't otherwise or do not do not promote
1:07:02 othering which means saying that not
1:07:04 only there's another group but they're
1:07:05 all even all the same this is not part
1:07:07 of the islamic tradition this is not a
1:07:09 new it's a holistic approach from the
1:07:10 quran in actual fact if you do this this
1:07:13 is blameworthy and wrong and if you
1:07:15 continue to do it in a kind of powerful
1:07:17 and political way that the nazis did and
1:07:21 the
1:07:22 those who committed genocide in bosnia
1:07:25 and in rwanda if you do it like they did
1:07:27 then you have blood in your hands
1:07:30 and it's something that we need to be
1:07:31 very careful so i know i've spent too
1:07:33 much time on this and
1:07:34 if you want more details about othering
1:07:36 and dehumanization and
1:07:38 the islamic
1:07:40 solution and prophetic empathy then we
1:07:43 have a free course on a learning
1:07:44 platform
1:07:45 called on being human go to learn dot
1:07:48 sapience institute.org and register for
1:07:50 that free course to learn more
1:07:53 so
1:07:54 and you know one i know there's a lot of
1:07:56 debate on mills harm principle john
1:07:58 stuart mill he articulated the harm
1:08:00 principle
1:08:01 and there's lots of kind of academic
1:08:02 discussion what this really means
1:08:04 but i want to use this just to echo what
1:08:07 i said concerning freedom of
1:08:09 speech in the context of freedom to
1:08:10 gratuitously degrade and insult and
1:08:13 attack others and dehumanize others that
1:08:15 it can lead to oppression it could go
1:08:18 against ideas of truth and progress and
1:08:21 accountability which are the kind of
1:08:23 aims of freedom of speech you can go
1:08:25 against the very objectives of freedom
1:08:26 of speech and john stuart mill
1:08:29 he basically used 19th century corn
1:08:31 dealers as an example and he argued that
1:08:33 if a mob right
1:08:35 um a mob should incur some kind of
1:08:37 punishment
1:08:38 or they should be prevented
1:08:40 of of of trying to
1:08:44 degrade others if
1:08:47 they
1:08:48 happen to be outside
1:08:50 the house of corn dealers right and they
1:08:53 said that corn dealers are starvers of
1:08:55 the poor so he said if a mob was
1:08:57 assembled before the house of a corn
1:08:59 dealer and they're all saying corn
1:09:00 dealers are starvers of poor then that
1:09:02 could result to
1:09:04 unfavorable circumstance such as
1:09:06 actually maybe
1:09:08 harming a human being
1:09:11 so he understood that
1:09:12 narratives that discourses
1:09:16 not only in how they are uttered and
1:09:18 expressed but in the location of the
1:09:20 expressed can result into something that
1:09:22 needs to be rest
1:09:24 that should be prevented and restricted
1:09:26 and you could expand this harm principle
1:09:29 to the ideas of othering dehumanization
1:09:31 propaganda
1:09:32 um excessively gratuity degrading and
1:09:37 denigrating people
1:09:39 and this is you know extremely important
1:09:41 that's why you know you're starting to
1:09:42 understand here that we need a
1:09:44 civil based understanding concern of
1:09:46 freedom of speech something that
1:09:48 promotes the very objectives of freedom
1:09:50 of speech
1:09:52 and something to appreciate as well i
1:09:53 don't want to go into the history of
1:09:54 another speech because it would be too
1:09:56 long someone will be too long but if you
1:09:58 really study the history of freedom of
1:09:59 speech it kind of emerges an idea to
1:10:02 empower the weak
1:10:03 yes there's an athenian ancient greek
1:10:05 understanding
1:10:06 you know these ideas you know they're
1:10:08 not a kind of monopoly of any particular
1:10:10 worldview or group of people but
1:10:12 generally speaking from a european
1:10:14 perspective you know freedom of speech
1:10:16 re-emerged or emerged if you like
1:10:18 as a result of you know the need to
1:10:20 empower weak people to hold
1:10:23 to hold
1:10:24 hold people to account to to hold power
1:10:26 to account
1:10:28 and you know the catholic church in
1:10:29 europe
1:10:30 as you know censored and prevented
1:10:32 intellectual progress to a certain
1:10:33 degree yes i know there are nuances in
1:10:35 the history of the catholic church
1:10:37 concerning science and progress for sure
1:10:39 and i don't want to you know build a
1:10:41 straw man concerning the catholic
1:10:42 tradition especially from a kind of
1:10:44 medieval perspective but generally
1:10:46 speaking there were cases where if there
1:10:48 were ideas of in congress to churches
1:10:50 thinking they would censor that that
1:10:52 thinking
1:10:53 and so freedom of speech emerged to
1:10:56 challenge the power structures of
1:10:59 society
1:11:00 so you know one would argue therefore
1:11:02 it's antitheticals antithetical is
1:11:04 against the spirit and the foundation of
1:11:06 freedom of speech
1:11:08 that those who hold power are using
1:11:10 freedom of speech to oppress and
1:11:11 dehumanize minorities in the beliefs
1:11:13 which happens as a lot in in many um
1:11:16 european governments for example france
1:11:18 you know
1:11:20 what france does they are they are
1:11:21 ideological extremists the way they talk
1:11:24 about muslim normative muslim orthodox
1:11:26 practices the muslim community peace
1:11:29 loving compassionate civil muslim uh
1:11:32 community community the muslim community
1:11:34 mainstream community in france they're
1:11:35 dehumanized otherwise insulted and
1:11:38 degraded not only them but also their
1:11:39 symbols and the things that they believe
1:11:41 and they are old
1:11:42 things that they hold to be true
1:11:44 and how to be sacred they are basically
1:11:46 diminished and denigrated
1:11:50 and this is ridiculous because wasn't
1:11:52 supposed to be the week to use freedom
1:11:54 of speech to hold power to account not
1:11:57 the other way around
1:11:59 and what's very interesting we don't
1:12:00 have time to talk about this here but
1:12:02 this discussion also exposes a false
1:12:04 assumption
1:12:05 that we all have access to equal power
1:12:07 and influence because remember freedom
1:12:09 of speech and freedom to express
1:12:10 yourself and even to degrade an insult
1:12:12 let's assume that they're right you
1:12:14 should degrade insult irrespective of
1:12:16 outcome
1:12:17 that
1:12:18 if that were true
1:12:19 it would only make sense if everyone has
1:12:21 equal power but people don't have equal
1:12:23 power there is no such thing as equal
1:12:25 power in your society
1:12:26 study the discourse the dynamic of any
1:12:29 society and their competing power
1:12:31 structures or there are significant
1:12:33 power structures that dominate other
1:12:35 structures in society who dominate other
1:12:37 narratives and people
1:12:39 and i remember i raised this with dr
1:12:41 stephen law because he is a fan of
1:12:43 jeremy corbyn and i said look you're
1:12:46 assuming that there's equal power look
1:12:48 what happened jerry jeremy corbyn you
1:12:50 had a particular view on him which was
1:12:52 positive but the power structures of
1:12:55 society those who held most of the power
1:12:57 or had the loudest microphone if you
1:12:59 like or speakerphone or or they they had
1:13:01 the most popular platforms or the most
1:13:03 influential platforms they basically
1:13:05 defamed him and denigrate in your eyes
1:13:07 and that i remember caught him a bit
1:13:09 because he's like oh well we should work
1:13:10 on making everyone have equal power but
1:13:12 that's ridiculous that just doesn't
1:13:14 exist and with all due respect based on
1:13:17 anthropological studies based on the
1:13:19 history of the world thus far that's
1:13:21 never going to happen
1:13:23 so that's another thing to maybe explore
1:13:25 in the future the kind of power
1:13:27 structures
1:13:28 and freedom of speech but that's that's
1:13:30 for another time
1:13:33 so you know
1:13:34 coming back to this idea of denigrating
1:13:36 a despised minority and you know you you
1:13:39 you see this is exactly the case when it
1:13:41 comes to the muslim community in many
1:13:42 countries unfortunately especially
1:13:44 france
1:13:45 where you have double standards and
1:13:46 hypocrisy and the misuse of power
1:13:48 regarding muslims and their beliefs
1:13:51 and you see a selective application of
1:13:52 values like when it comes to one
1:13:53 minority then there's more of a care and
1:13:56 empathy but with another minority then
1:13:58 you could throw them and their beliefs
1:14:00 and their values under the bus and to
1:14:01 the degree that you could dehumanize and
1:14:03 denigrate and degrade them
1:14:05 and it's very important it's very
1:14:07 important because you know is it good is
1:14:09 it is it in in line with the spirit of
1:14:12 freedom of speech or the spirit of
1:14:13 humanity to denigrate an already
1:14:15 despised minority and this is something
1:14:16 that dr shubert
1:14:18 in his book in his article in the
1:14:20 jakarta post
1:14:22 um eloquently
1:14:24 summarizes he says humor and mockery are
1:14:26 powerful class weapons especially when
1:14:29 used to demean the voiceless and
1:14:30 inarticulate the multitudes who have
1:14:32 little or no secure alternative sources
1:14:35 of self-respect and dignity other than
1:14:37 their naked identities as human beings
1:14:41 so he's saying you know mockery and
1:14:43 humor are powerful plus weapons
1:14:45 especially when it's used to demean
1:14:47 these people who don't have a secure
1:14:49 alternative sources of self-respect and
1:14:51 dignity other than their naked identity
1:14:54 as human being as human beings and he
1:14:56 basically says
1:14:57 to ridicule such people is hardly a
1:15:00 noble ambition
1:15:02 is intolerant of diversity the onus is
1:15:05 now on policymakers can they live up to
1:15:07 the demands of the history as it has
1:15:09 evolved to arrive at this fatal state
1:15:11 still me can they allow a voice to the
1:15:15 six million muslim citizens he's talking
1:15:17 about france from this perspective
1:15:19 more progress in cultures is not
1:15:20 achieved through distorting the
1:15:23 self-image of a despised minority and
1:15:26 substituting a false and insulting
1:15:30 revisionist account of their origins so
1:15:33 what he's basically trying to say is
1:15:34 look this whole freedom of speech
1:15:37 malarkey has been used as a weapon
1:15:40 selective weapon
1:15:42 to denigrate a minority and this can
1:15:45 lead to to severe consequences
1:15:49 and it's not moral progress it could
1:15:51 create social disharmony and decay it
1:15:53 could lead to othering dehumanization
1:15:56 genocide violence aggression
1:15:59 and if you're going to use this
1:16:01 narrative then at least be consistent
1:16:02 with all your minorities not just a
1:16:04 selective application to only one or to
1:16:07 the other and this exposes an
1:16:09 ideological
1:16:10 uh attack against the political
1:16:13 community for so many different reasons
1:16:15 in my views because they know that
1:16:17 muslims hold the truth and they hold the
1:16:19 key to the solution for humanity's
1:16:21 problems to take the whole of humanity
1:16:23 forward in a positive way so
1:16:27 what this leads us to now the importance
1:16:28 of civility brothers and sisters
1:16:31 now
1:16:32 if you remember what david van mill said
1:16:34 he was talking about that restriction is
1:16:35 inevitable freedom of expression because
1:16:37 it's going to be based on other values
1:16:39 that are competing in society the minute
1:16:40 that you have a society they're going to
1:16:42 be other values you can't see freedom of
1:16:44 expression in abstraction it's within
1:16:46 another set of values but what are these
1:16:48 values so what i'm going to try and
1:16:50 propose is an islamic conception of
1:16:52 civility so what does civility mean
1:16:54 basically in the context of freedom of
1:16:56 speech it dictates that if we want a
1:16:58 society that values truth that values
1:17:01 progress that values accountability of
1:17:03 power holding power to account
1:17:06 one has to contextualize this speech to
1:17:09 ensure that these virtues are achieved
1:17:11 this is inevitable this is the common
1:17:13 sense but it's also what god wants from
1:17:15 us contextualize your speech in order to
1:17:19 have
1:17:19 the values of truth
1:17:22 to
1:17:22 to to manifest themselves to achieve the
1:17:25 objective of freedom of speech which is
1:17:27 the pursuance of truth the acquisition
1:17:29 of truth the acceptance of truth and for
1:17:31 slightly to progress and for us as as
1:17:34 individuals and as collective people to
1:17:38 hold
1:17:39 power to account
1:17:40 so what does this mean this means that
1:17:42 you have to understand your target
1:17:43 audience you have to dignify and respect
1:17:46 them as optimal as possible as much as
1:17:48 possible and this is the this is
1:17:50 foundational to civility this is what
1:17:52 makes a civilized society civilized
1:17:54 brothers and sisters so this let's
1:17:57 unpack this but before we do that i
1:17:59 appreciate this is very important there
1:18:00 are going to be great areas i agree i
1:18:02 remember jordan peterson the clinical
1:18:05 psychologist he mentioned something
1:18:07 similar i don't want to straw man him
1:18:09 but he mentions something similar when
1:18:10 it comes to things like insult and
1:18:11 offense because the moment one expresses
1:18:14 themselves they have to risk offending
1:18:17 others and risk being offended and
1:18:19 that's actually kind of true because you
1:18:21 don't know you're not going to get it
1:18:22 right so i do agree that there are great
1:18:24 areas but they're also obvious black and
1:18:26 white scenarios
1:18:27 but not only that it's about your
1:18:29 intention and your framework and your
1:18:31 values how are you approaching this are
1:18:34 you seeing freedom of speech and freedom
1:18:35 to insult the grade as intrinsic or as
1:18:39 means to particular ends if you're
1:18:41 seeing them as means to particular ends
1:18:43 which is generally the case then you
1:18:45 have to use them in application in the
1:18:48 most appropriate way and if you are
1:18:50 concerned about the objectives of
1:18:52 freedom of speech truth accountability
1:18:54 human flourishing progress then you're
1:18:56 not going to use gratuitous
1:18:58 insult and degrading of others in a way
1:19:01 to go against the very objectives of
1:19:03 freedom of speech so it is about your
1:19:05 approach to this as well and you know if
1:19:07 you want to be really civilized and if
1:19:08 you really care about truth
1:19:10 accountability and progress and these
1:19:12 are the amazing virtues and objectives
1:19:13 or do you just care about just being
1:19:16 nasty and uncivilized right and that's
1:19:18 why you know we argue here there is a
1:19:20 fine line between deliberate and
1:19:22 unintended insults right
1:19:24 yes one person's insults may be another
1:19:27 form and someone else's form of dialogue
1:19:29 but you know rather than just allowing
1:19:31 ourselves free to hate free to curse and
1:19:33 free to degrade right which is like what
1:19:35 happens in a children's playground right
1:19:37 and thereby not achieving the objectives
1:19:39 of freedom of speech i think the onus of
1:19:41 us as civilized people
1:19:43 is to establish a framework of civility
1:19:46 this involves trying to understand each
1:19:47 other's sensitivities so that we can
1:19:49 better convince educate and express
1:19:51 ourselves and remember
1:19:53 with freedom comes great responsibility
1:19:56 we have a responsibility to engage with
1:19:58 each other in ways that are best as
1:20:00 allah says in the quran
1:20:02 and discuss and debate with them in ways
1:20:04 that are best
1:20:06 and the famous grammarian i mentioned
1:20:07 this in the beginning you know talked
1:20:09 about no gruffness and no harshness
1:20:12 so another thing to understand as well
1:20:14 is look there's also a difference
1:20:16 between disagreeing with someone and
1:20:18 insulting and degrading someone like you
1:20:19 could really believe that the prophet
1:20:21 saws was not a good person
1:20:23 you could believe that he wasn't
1:20:25 merciful you could believe that he
1:20:26 wasn't a prophet that he was a liar you
1:20:28 may have those beliefs
1:20:30 and you could decide to express them in
1:20:32 two ways you could degrade and insult
1:20:34 and go against the very objectives of
1:20:35 freedom of expression which is to
1:20:37 acquire truth accountability and
1:20:38 progress and so on and so forth or you
1:20:40 could do it in a way that has an
1:20:41 intellectual tone remember muslims are
1:20:43 not that sensitive yes we believe some
1:20:45 things are sacred yes we have our values
1:20:47 we want to be civil we you know where
1:20:49 people are empathy and mercy we don't
1:20:50 want to harm other people as well we
1:20:52 don't want other people to be upset
1:20:53 either we're going to be as sensitive as
1:20:55 possible as civil as possible but if you
1:20:57 really disagree with us we don't have a
1:20:59 problem but just have an intellectual
1:21:01 tone
1:21:02 and islamic history is full of these
1:21:04 debates and discussions medieval baghdad
1:21:06 for example on the kind of public
1:21:09 platform the the public square discourse
1:21:11 you had christians jews muslims atheists
1:21:14 right the philosophical natures of the
1:21:16 time they were having discussions but
1:21:18 through the intellectual tone if you're
1:21:19 there just to deliberate degrade and
1:21:20 insult and thereby going against the
1:21:22 very objection from your speech then
1:21:24 you're uncivilized
1:21:26 you're uncivilized
1:21:27 and that can lead to not only going
1:21:30 against the very objectives of the
1:21:31 freedom of speech which is
1:21:31 self-defeating but it could lead to
1:21:33 other harms
1:21:35 many other harms
1:21:37 so remember the competition of values
1:21:39 right yes you
1:21:41 you may disagree with someone you may
1:21:44 hate an idea you may hate what people
1:21:46 believe in but it's about having the
1:21:49 other self com com the other set of
1:21:51 values that you believe that you hold
1:21:53 dear to yourself
1:21:55 uh that you hold that you that you hold
1:21:56 on to in order to be able to articulate
1:21:58 yourself in a way that that pushes
1:22:02 forward
1:22:03 the discourse that ensures the the
1:22:06 objectives of freedom of speech are met
1:22:08 but if you do if you're using a set of
1:22:10 values that actually
1:22:12 goes against the very objectives of
1:22:14 freedom of speech
1:22:15 and pushes back with the discourse and
1:22:18 human flourishing
1:22:20 then you're uncivilized
1:22:21 and i would argue you know islam is a
1:22:23 great example of this of being civil
1:22:25 when it comes to freedom of expression
1:22:28 so
1:22:28 let's take the quran itself the quran is
1:22:30 a book of reason
1:22:32 and it argues to the truth
1:22:34 as associate professor rosalind guin
1:22:36 writes reasoning and argument are so
1:22:38 integral to the content of the quran and
1:22:41 so inseparable from its structure that
1:22:44 that they in many ways shape the very
1:22:46 consciousness of quranic scholars and
1:22:47 when you study the classical
1:22:49 commentaries you see this manifesting
1:22:51 itself
1:22:52 also when you explore the values of
1:22:54 islam emanating from the quran god's
1:22:56 word and the way of the prophet muhammad
1:22:58 upon him be peace
1:23:00 god's messenger
1:23:02 you see that it paved the way to
1:23:04 progress truth and countability while
1:23:05 maintaining good etiquette and upholding
1:23:08 the best of all manners in dialogue and
1:23:09 discussion and being civil
1:23:12 and you know there are a range of
1:23:14 prophetic teachings and verses that you
1:23:16 know we could share with you right now
1:23:18 for you to understand this point take
1:23:20 for example truth and falsehood
1:23:22 allah says in the quran god says in the
1:23:24 quran god says
1:23:26 in chapter 2 verse 42 and mix not truth
1:23:28 and falsehood nor conceal the truth
1:23:30 while you know it god says in chapter
1:23:31 103 and enjoying on each other truth
1:23:34 what about accountability the prophet
1:23:36 muhammed upon whom he said what is the
1:23:37 best jihad the best struggle the prophet
1:23:40 said upon him be peace a word of truth
1:23:42 in front of a tiny ruler
1:23:44 also the quran says in chapter 3 verse
1:23:46 104
1:23:48 let there be among you people that
1:23:49 command good enjoying what is right and
1:23:51 forbid what is wrong they indeed are the
1:23:54 successful
1:23:55 and that includes holding
1:23:57 power to account
1:23:59 islam also promotes sincere debate
1:24:01 dialogue and discussion
1:24:03 you may be aware of you know the famous
1:24:06 verse when god says to moses in chapter
1:24:09 20 verse 44 and speak to him mildly
1:24:12 meaning pharaoh one of the worst
1:24:14 creatures to have walked this planet the
1:24:16 oppressor pharaoh speak to him mildly
1:24:19 perhaps he may accept admonition and
1:24:21 interestingly the classical 13th century
1:24:23 islamic scholar
1:24:25 he said if moses was commanded to speak
1:24:27 maori to pharaoh then it is even more
1:24:30 appropriate for others to follow this
1:24:31 command when speaking to others when
1:24:33 commanding the good and forbidding evil
1:24:36 similarly in chapter 49 verse 13 allah
1:24:39 says in the quran people we created you
1:24:40 from a single man and a single woman and
1:24:42 made you to races and tribes so that you
1:24:45 should get to know one another
1:24:48 in god's eyes the most honored of you
1:24:50 are the ones most mindful of him god is
1:24:52 all-knowing all aware so how do you get
1:24:54 to know one another
1:24:56 excessively gratuitously insulting and
1:24:59 degrading each other is not going to
1:25:01 facilitate what allah says
1:25:03 to know one another but it's not going
1:25:05 to facilitate that
1:25:08 also and we mentioned this in the
1:25:09 beginning chapter 16 verse 1 to five of
1:25:11 the quran allah says invite the way of
1:25:13 your lord with wisdom and good
1:25:14 instruction and discuss debate with them
1:25:17 in ways in a way that is best indeed
1:25:19 your lord is most knowing of who has
1:25:20 strayed from his way and he is most
1:25:23 knowing of who is rightly guided
1:25:25 also islam does not allow the wanton
1:25:28 insult of people's religious beliefs
1:25:30 or the idols
1:25:32 that they that that they idolize because
1:25:35 this could be a non-religious idol from
1:25:36 that perspective
1:25:38 and it would lead because it would lead
1:25:40 to
1:25:41 the adherence of these
1:25:42 other world views or religions to insult
1:25:44 god to insult allah and this is the
1:25:46 default position which promotes
1:25:49 social harmony
1:25:51 allah says in the quran in 6 verse
1:25:54 chapter 6 verse 108 all believers do not
1:25:56 insult what they invoke besides god or
1:25:59 they would insult god spite me out of
1:26:02 ignorance now do understand that you may
1:26:05 be aware of certain references in
1:26:07 islamic scripture they may steer away
1:26:09 from some of the above values however
1:26:12 there are more availables
1:26:14 exegetical contexts and other nuances
1:26:16 that when understood properly
1:26:17 effectively reconcile and make sense of
1:26:19 these apparent contradictions which are
1:26:21 not contradictions but this requires
1:26:23 maybe another seminar and it requires
1:26:26 another time to unpack this
1:26:29 so
1:26:30 from the islamic civilization point of
1:26:32 view when these values these islamic
1:26:34 teachings when this good
1:26:36 when god's guidance when the king of all
1:26:38 kings when the the lord of abraham of
1:26:40 moses of jesus
1:26:42 when his teaching and guidance is
1:26:43 implemented in society
1:26:45 it will be a beacon of light for society
1:26:46 in actual fact when they were
1:26:48 implemented in some cases or in many
1:26:50 cases they became a beacon of light for
1:26:52 europe itself
1:26:54 there was no gratuitous degradation but
1:26:56 a social political atmosphere that
1:26:57 intellectual progress
1:26:59 which by the way these secular
1:27:00 ideologues have benefited from
1:27:02 civility led to the progress we enjoy
1:27:05 today disregarding civility is taking us
1:27:08 back to the dark ages
1:27:10 ideologues have a self-defeating
1:27:12 attitude here are some brief examples
1:27:15 when islamic values were implemented in
1:27:17 the muslim lands truth
1:27:19 and progress were an inevitable outcome
1:27:21 now by the way i don't want to over
1:27:23 glorify muslim history islamic history
1:27:25 over glorifying one's history is a sign
1:27:27 of a defeated mind and it's not nuanced
1:27:29 and it's not based on reality
1:27:31 and we shouldn't do this it's not fair
1:27:32 or just however there were times when
1:27:35 these values were implemented and we see
1:27:37 what happened when you have a civil
1:27:39 based understanding of freedom of speech
1:27:41 because as david vanville mill says it's
1:27:43 not absolute there are going to be
1:27:44 restrictions it's going to be the
1:27:45 context of competing values if your
1:27:47 competing values are from god himself
1:27:49 you're going to have civil discourse and
1:27:51 you're going to move humanity forward
1:27:53 and you're going to achieve the
1:27:54 objectives of freedom of speech without
1:27:56 necessarily degrading
1:27:58 and defaming and harming people's
1:28:00 dignity
1:28:01 take progress for example robert brufo
1:28:04 in his book the making of humanity
1:28:05 explains how progress was not only
1:28:07 evident in islamic history but european
1:28:09 growth was facilitated by muslim islamic
1:28:12 civilization he says for although there
1:28:14 is not a single aspect of european
1:28:16 growth in which the decisive influence
1:28:17 of islamic culture is not traceable
1:28:19 norway is it so clear and momentous as
1:28:22 in the genesis of that power which
1:28:24 constitutes the permanent distinctive
1:28:26 force of the modern world and the
1:28:28 supreme source of its victory natural
1:28:30 science and the scientific spirit
1:28:33 also provides professor thomas arnold in
1:28:35 his book preaching the preaching of
1:28:37 islam
1:28:38 he says the european renaissance was
1:28:40 rooted in islamic spain muslim spain had
1:28:42 written one of the brightest pages in
1:28:44 the history of medieval europe her
1:28:46 influence had passed through providence
1:28:48 into other countries of europe bringing
1:28:49 to birth a new poetry and a new culture
1:28:52 and it was from her that christian
1:28:53 scholars received what a greek
1:28:55 philosophy and science they had to
1:28:56 stimulate their mental activity up to
1:28:59 the time of the renaissance
1:29:02 now before i end by talking about values
1:29:04 and what values we should select and how
1:29:07 we could use this as a way to share and
1:29:09 defend islam and bring people close to
1:29:10 god
1:29:11 you know it's important to know and i
1:29:13 took this from feedback of
1:29:16 for this presentation from
1:29:18 knowledge north brother the brother who
1:29:20 manages that youtube channel
1:29:22 the student of knowledge he made a
1:29:23 really interesting point he said look
1:29:24 generally speaking islam had a mechanism
1:29:27 of tolerance
1:29:29 and to the degree that muslims
1:29:32 would hate
1:29:33 for example the teachings of what is now
1:29:37 known to be biblical christianity which
1:29:38 god has a son
1:29:40 because the quran
1:29:42 sees this form of associationism this
1:29:44 form of associating partners with god as
1:29:47 like
1:29:48 not only this form but associating part
1:29:49 of god in general is seen as as the
1:29:52 worst sin the worst crime is it's a it's
1:29:55 a rejection of reality it's a crime
1:29:57 against reality therefore a crime
1:29:59 against everything
1:30:01 and muslims have that feeling
1:30:04 we're not saying we we're going to hate
1:30:06 christians no no we're talking about the
1:30:07 beliefs and ideas here
1:30:10 but it's to the degree that associating
1:30:12 partners with god
1:30:13 in in in the context of christian
1:30:16 minorities under muslim civilization
1:30:19 these ideas were abhorrent
1:30:22 the worst ideas the worst beliefs the
1:30:25 greatest crime
1:30:28 but yet islam had a mechanism to make a
1:30:31 distinction
1:30:32 between not liking ideas and being able
1:30:35 to live with people and giving them the
1:30:36 ability to actually live those ideas in
1:30:39 the public space
1:30:41 which is phenomenal concerning
1:30:44 the islamic tradition we have that
1:30:45 mechanism of tolerance now obviously
1:30:47 there's no such thing as a boundless
1:30:49 tolerance
1:30:50 it just doesn't exist
1:30:52 like even in kind of
1:30:53 liberal secular
1:30:55 political spaces or social spaces you
1:30:58 see that they only dignify and tolerate
1:31:01 liberalized or secularized minorities
1:31:03 they would they don't really tolerate in
1:31:04 the public sphere
1:31:06 and
1:31:07 you know minorities that are
1:31:10 self-confident and they go against the
1:31:13 liberal and secular grain right this is
1:31:15 going to do it and it doesn't happen
1:31:17 they only
1:31:18 tolerate a
1:31:20 subjugated ideologically subjugated
1:31:22 manifestation of a religion or a
1:31:26 minority a denigrated form or
1:31:28 secularized from a liberal form and
1:31:30 that's actually true you see this all
1:31:32 around you don't get me wrong you know i
1:31:34 believe for example the united kingdom
1:31:35 is one of the best places to live as a
1:31:37 muslim right
1:31:38 um especially from a european context
1:31:40 yeah compared to france you know
1:31:42 god save us from from from that from
1:31:45 that discourse from that reality so we
1:31:47 have to be grateful but let's just be
1:31:49 honest you know there's no such thing as
1:31:50 a boundless tolerance but when it comes
1:31:52 to islam
1:31:54 the things that we believe to be the
1:31:56 greatest crime and the greatest evil
1:31:58 associated partners with god which
1:32:00 the the the christians the christian
1:32:02 minorities living under islam actually
1:32:05 professed and lived because they
1:32:07 believed that god so-called had a son
1:32:09 and this is a form of associationism
1:32:11 which is one of the which is the
1:32:12 greatest spiritual evil and crime
1:32:15 um we still
1:32:17 and the history speaks for itself were
1:32:19 able to preserve other christian
1:32:20 minorities right and to allow them to
1:32:22 live freely together when christians
1:32:23 were fighting each other when they had
1:32:24 power amongst each other you know when
1:32:26 muslims took that
1:32:28 political space over they
1:32:30 you know create this kind of coexistence
1:32:32 this convivencia
1:32:34 this coexistence of christian monarchies
1:32:36 living amongst each other and living
1:32:37 with muslims in relative peace and
1:32:39 harmony
1:32:40 even though
1:32:41 even though
1:32:43 we believe that i that that idea of that
1:32:46 belief system
1:32:47 it was
1:32:49 the greatest crime but yet islam had
1:32:51 those mechanisms to actually
1:32:54 ensure that tolerance which shows the
1:32:55 tolerance of the islamic tradition and
1:32:57 the mechanisms within within the islamic
1:32:59 tradition
1:33:00 now contrast that to something that
1:33:03 i don't know the french government sees
1:33:04 as the greatest crime
1:33:07 uh would they be tolerant enough to
1:33:08 basically um
1:33:10 allow minorities who
1:33:13 believe or adopt
1:33:15 an idea that is representative of
1:33:17 a great crime
1:33:19 of the greatest crime that they consider
1:33:21 to be you know the greatest crime
1:33:23 um would they have the tolerance to
1:33:26 facilitate these minorities and allow
1:33:29 them to profess such beliefs
1:33:32 and to live them out in the in the
1:33:34 social spaces under their power that
1:33:36 would never happen
1:33:38 yes there's more time back here i do
1:33:40 appreciate but starting to think about
1:33:41 how powerful
1:33:42 uh islamic tolerance is from that
1:33:44 perspective and yes there is no such
1:33:46 thing as a boundless tolerance for sure
1:33:48 so to end brothers and sisters before we
1:33:50 do some question and answers i know
1:33:52 we've been going on for about an hour
1:33:53 and a half
1:33:55 now since we can conclude very easily
1:33:57 that freedom of speech is about values
1:33:59 because we know it has to be restricted
1:34:01 and those restrictions are based on
1:34:03 values and we know
1:34:05 freedom to degrade and insult
1:34:08 can go against the very objectives of
1:34:10 freedom of speech you can't use it um
1:34:13 you know you you can't claim that we
1:34:16 have a right to insult and to degrade
1:34:17 and to defame and it necessarily leads
1:34:20 to objectives in the speech it's not
1:34:21 true at all
1:34:22 because in many cases ago could go
1:34:24 against the very objections of freedom
1:34:25 of speech which therefore teaches us
1:34:27 that we need to now
1:34:29 apply it
1:34:30 in a particular context within a
1:34:32 particular values and also just the idea
1:34:34 of freedom of speech itself is not
1:34:36 absolute as we discussed and as david
1:34:37 van mil and many other academics discuss
1:34:40 it's restricted because of of other
1:34:42 competing values so based on what i've
1:34:44 just summarized concerning zionist
1:34:46 values then you know it should raise the
1:34:48 question and we should raise the
1:34:49 question to other people and say to look
1:34:50 don't give me this freedom of speech
1:34:52 ideological
1:34:53 malarkey with all due respect you have
1:34:55 to understand that there's no absolute
1:34:57 freedom of speech and it's in the
1:34:58 context of value you can give someone
1:34:59 certain examples and you can actually
1:35:01 actually show to them as well that you
1:35:02 know so-called freedom to degrade an
1:35:04 insult actually will go against the
1:35:05 objective freedom of speech so you have
1:35:07 to apply this contextually and that is
1:35:09 applied within a certain value so let me
1:35:10 ask you a question which values do we
1:35:12 adopt which values do you prioritize
1:35:15 over others
1:35:16 where do we get these values from
1:35:19 and these three questions you should
1:35:20 answer them with islam we should say
1:35:22 these guys should come from god himself
1:35:24 the quran islam
1:35:27 fighters do you prioritize over others
1:35:28 the ones that god and his messenger
1:35:30 prioritize
1:35:31 where do we get these values from god
1:35:33 himself
1:35:34 and then he gives you the opportunity to
1:35:35 talk about islam's intellectual
1:35:37 foundations that they are true and
1:35:38 whatever comes from truth is true so now
1:35:41 we could call people to talk to the
1:35:42 foundations of islam we could say god
1:35:44 exists he is worthy of worship he is
1:35:46 prophet muhammad sallallahu alaihi wazim
1:35:48 is the final prophet and the quran is
1:35:50 god's revelation and what these sources
1:35:52 say about dialogue speech and cohesion
1:35:54 are from the one who has the totality of
1:35:56 knowledge and wisdom
1:35:57 allah god has the picture we just have a
1:36:00 pixel and i invite you all to explore
1:36:02 the truth of islam
1:36:04 obviously we could unpack this further
1:36:06 but for you to now understand this
1:36:07 methodology go to our free learning
1:36:09 platform learn.say pinch institute.org
1:36:12 and go to the course awakening the truth
1:36:14 within our advanced our training course
1:36:15 and give you a methodology on how to be
1:36:17 able to do this
1:36:18 so in summary freedom of speech is not
1:36:21 absolute freedom of speech is restricted
1:36:23 based on copying certain values freedom
1:36:25 to degrade an insult can go against the
1:36:27 very objectives of freedom of speech so
1:36:28 it has to be applied within a context
1:36:31 and that contact is also values so if
1:36:32 it's all about values then call them to
1:36:35 islam
1:36:37 allah's values what allah wants from us
1:36:39 we could ask them these three questions
1:36:41 if it's true what we've just said about
1:36:43 freedom of speech which according to the
1:36:44 academics it's the case that it's based
1:36:46 on competing certain values which values
1:36:49 do we adopt which values do we
1:36:51 prioritize over others and where do we
1:36:53 get these values from and we should as
1:36:56 muslims should answer
1:36:57 god god god god and his messenger god
1:37:01 and his messenger god and his messenger
1:37:03 and introduce them to the intellectual
1:37:05 foundations of islam and show that
1:37:06 they're true and if they're true
1:37:08 whatever comes from truth is true and we
1:37:10 know that allah god himself is
1:37:14 the wise he is the knowing he has the
1:37:16 totality of knowledge and wisdom he has
1:37:18 the picture we just have a pixel we've
1:37:21 also alluded to that fact
1:37:23 concerning historical perspective that
1:37:25 when these values were implemented we
1:37:27 had truth accountability and progress
1:37:29 and you didn't have to defame degrade
1:37:31 and remove the dignity of other human
1:37:33 beings now
1:37:34 before we go to q and a one would argue
1:37:36 what about blasphemy
1:37:38 what about blasphemy
1:37:41 oh
1:37:42 think about this
1:37:43 we've said this before islam promotes
1:37:46 intellectual dialogue and discussion you
1:37:47 could reject god you could reject his
1:37:49 messenger you could reject the prophet
1:37:51 you could believe the evil people
1:37:53 if you have an intellectual tone will
1:37:54 engage with you
1:37:56 but degrading others and diminishing the
1:37:58 dignity of others including the prophets
1:38:00 of god is unacceptable and punishable by
1:38:02 law
1:38:04 islam respects the sacred
1:38:06 i repeat islam respects civil discourse
1:38:10 and the sacred
1:38:12 a society that has nothing sacred is a
1:38:14 very dangerous society
1:38:16 why because moral boundaries can easily
1:38:19 change
1:38:20 based on the changing winds of political
1:38:23 interest power and desire
1:38:25 it has the ability to destroy society
1:38:28 and we saw this in bosnia we saw this in
1:38:30 rwanda we saw this in nazi germany
1:38:33 and remember i'm going to repeat yes you
1:38:35 could disagree with islamic beliefs and
1:38:36 religious beliefs for sure you could
1:38:38 hate them just have an intellectual tone
1:38:42 to diminish the dignity of others
1:38:44 including the prophets of god is
1:38:45 unacceptable punishable by law and it's
1:38:46 not because we're sensitive it's because
1:38:48 we believe in morality in civility and
1:38:51 we believe in what
1:38:53 we believe in the objectives of freedom
1:38:56 of speech which is truth accountability
1:38:57 and progress
1:38:59 and acting in this way
1:39:01 by degrading and denigrating
1:39:04 viciously gratuitously people and even
1:39:06 the prophets of god
1:39:08 upon
1:39:10 upon all of them be peace
1:39:12 this
1:39:13 is an expression of more decadence of
1:39:16 being uncivilized and then to be
1:39:18 mechanisms within a society to prevent
1:39:20 this uncivilized behavior because not
1:39:21 just about sensitivities yes we love all
1:39:23 the prophets of god jesus moses abraham
1:39:25 muhammad sallallahu alaihi
1:39:27 peace be upon them all
1:39:30 it's not just about that emotional
1:39:31 aspect it's about helping
1:39:34 civilization helping civilization
1:39:37 flourish helping human beings flourish
1:39:39 and is putting mechanism in place to
1:39:41 prevent genocide hatred social disarray
1:39:44 disharmony and it's also to facilitate
1:39:47 truth accountability and progress the
1:39:48 very objectives of freedom of speech so
1:39:50 we have no no quant about this
1:39:54 intellectual debate and dialogue you may
1:39:56 hate islam hate beliefs hate the
1:39:58 prophets you may hate god himself
1:40:00 have an intellectual tone less dialogue
1:40:02 like with like what was apparent in
1:40:04 medieval baghdad
1:40:06 but if you're going to degrade an insult
1:40:08 deliberately and go against the very
1:40:09 objectives of freedom of speech and be
1:40:10 uncivilized then with all due respect
1:40:12 we're going to have mechanisms in place
1:40:14 in order to stop that
1:40:17 obviously this isn't the kind of
1:40:18 hypothetical scenario of a
1:40:20 ideal
1:40:22 social political space that has these
1:40:24 values implemented
1:40:26 and this in no shape or form
1:40:30 is encouraging anyone to be violent or
1:40:33 to be aggressive not at tall we have to
1:40:35 be compassionate peaceful citizens
1:40:38 but from a point of view of
1:40:41 theo political philosophy if you'll call
1:40:43 it that
1:40:44 then absolutely
1:40:46 it's punishable by the law
1:40:48 within the court of law
1:40:50 because it's a compassionate mechanism
1:40:53 to prevent disharmony decay and
1:40:57 to also prevent
1:41:01 and it is also to ensure
1:41:04 the
1:41:05 free the objectives of freedom of speech
1:41:07 are actually met
1:41:11 and you know there's a very interesting
1:41:12 article by roger scrooch and i know some
1:41:14 people may say how can you quote you
1:41:15 know the ideological philosopher of the
1:41:18 right wing look man just uh grow up here
1:41:22 uh i don't even have to justify it but i
1:41:23 just thought i'd mention it anyway uh he
1:41:26 wrote an essay for the reverend
1:41:28 renovation journal by zetuna it's called
1:41:31 sacred truth in a profane world and he
1:41:32 makes a really good point that which i'm
1:41:34 basically mentioning here
1:41:36 about the sacred if there's no sacred
1:41:38 then it's a very dangerous place very
1:41:40 dangerous place doesn't mean i agree
1:41:42 with all his views but he's what he said
1:41:44 he is is very powerful and in his essay
1:41:47 sacred truth in a profane world he says
1:41:49 by and large the educated elites in the
1:41:51 western world today are without
1:41:52 religious belief and often animated by
1:41:54 what i call a cultural reputation
1:41:57 repudiation
1:41:58 keen to banish old ideas of the sacred
1:42:00 from public life and to remake the
1:42:02 institutions and structures of civil
1:42:04 society so as to reflect their own
1:42:06 liberated lifestyle
1:42:08 one after another the sacred spaces that
1:42:10 our customs have protected are invaded
1:42:12 and spoiled that which has been assumed
1:42:15 to be unquestionable indeed protected
1:42:18 from the questions that might profane it
1:42:21 is for that very reason subjected to
1:42:23 question
1:42:24 the liberal mentality encountering
1:42:26 certainties that seem to place obstacles
1:42:29 in the pursuit of desire
1:42:30 is irres this irresistibly tempted to
1:42:33 undermine them
1:42:34 if people are certain that marriage for
1:42:36 example is a relation between man and
1:42:39 woman the liberal instincts to see this
1:42:41 as
1:42:41 a constraint on homosexuals the response
1:42:44 is therefore to propose marriage between
1:42:46 people of the same sex which is offered
1:42:47 as an entirely innocent reform and mere
1:42:50 expansion of our freedoms
1:42:52 if that attitude is pursued to its
1:42:54 logical conclusion then incestuous
1:42:57 relations 2 could be dignified with the
1:42:59 name of marriage precisely because the
1:43:02 name would have lost its dignity
1:43:04 if all social life is founded in human
1:43:06 choice and no institution derives as
1:43:09 validity from any other source then
1:43:11 there are no certainties and no
1:43:13 institutions that
1:43:14 encapsulate sacred ties
1:43:18 by extension and i know he uses example
1:43:20 i want to have used that example but
1:43:22 when you remove the sacred and you just
1:43:24 follow in the islamic discourse which
1:43:26 which which is called what is called
1:43:28 hearts
1:43:29 blame with the destructive desires
1:43:32 and
1:43:33 therefore the
1:43:35 the winds of change are going to be
1:43:40 will manifest themselves and take effect
1:43:42 and what you believe to be
1:43:44 more today won't be more tomorrow what
1:43:46 we civilize today won't be civilized
1:43:47 tomorrow in actual fact the only thing
1:43:49 that becomes important is just following
1:43:51 your desire and not being moral or civil
1:43:54 anymore
1:43:55 and that's the danger of not having
1:43:56 anything sacred something above me
1:43:58 something binding
1:44:00 and this is not based on some kind of
1:44:02 you know
1:44:04 instinctive beast you wish to have some
1:44:07 kind of authority above you know it's an
1:44:09 intellectual argument
1:44:12 which we can unpack much further but the
1:44:14 point here is you remove the sacred you
1:44:16 have a very very dangerous society and
1:44:18 we've seen this look at the history of
1:44:20 europe the past 50 60 70 years
1:44:23 you remove the sacred
1:44:25 then you remove that thing which is
1:44:27 binding that thing which
1:44:30 helps us continue a civilized life and
1:44:34 discourse
1:44:35 and if you remove the sacred he just and
1:44:37 the only thing that becomes sacred is
1:44:39 your so-called
1:44:41 pursuit of absolute freedom
1:44:43 the pursuit just to do whatever you want
1:44:46 then you're gonna have
1:44:47 social fragmentation decay in chaos
1:44:49 which is happening in even our own
1:44:51 cultures and societies in europe
1:44:53 unfortunately
1:44:55 you know the children society report was
1:44:56 published in 2004 i think was to that
1:44:58 2004.
1:45:00 it cited that uk and american children
1:45:03 have great social fragmentation decay
1:45:05 why and they cited excessive
1:45:07 individualism
1:45:09 which is really a manifestation of i
1:45:11 just want to do what i want
1:45:12 the pis you know this kind of pursuance
1:45:14 of absolute freedom which really is a
1:45:17 form of associationism because absolute
1:45:19 freedom is a feature of divinity only
1:45:21 god is absolutely free he is the riches
1:45:24 of the subsisting
1:45:27 so really their pursuance for this
1:45:29 so-called absolute freedom to do
1:45:30 whatever they want is really maybe the
1:45:32 innate desire for wanting god himself
1:45:36 and that's our job as muslims to show
1:45:38 them who allah is
1:45:39 and to say to them that your life is to
1:45:41 worship the absolutely free and
1:45:44 therefore you will become free in your
1:45:46 own
1:45:47 human-centric way human-centric way as
1:45:50 iqbal the poet said that this
1:45:52 prostration that you find so difficult
1:45:54 frees you from a thousand frustrations
1:45:56 as allah says in the quran in chapter 39
1:45:57 verse 29 when allah says that consider
1:46:01 the situation of two people one man is a
1:46:03 servant to many masters and they're all
1:46:04 quarreling but one man is assigned to
1:46:06 one
1:46:07 whose condition is best
1:46:09 obviously the one who worships the one
1:46:11 who is worthy of worship is free
1:46:14 he is liberated from the shackles of
1:46:16 worshiping himself or worshiping others
1:46:17 and all these other kind of
1:46:20 idols whether they're conceptual or
1:46:22 physical or internal or external
1:46:25 and when they break those shackles free
1:46:26 by worshiping the one that is worthy of
1:46:27 worship allah himself
1:46:29 and they're liberated spiritually and
1:46:31 existentially
1:46:34 and this is what we want for humanity
1:46:36 want people to be liberated and to find
1:46:38 their place
1:46:40 here at home
1:46:42 and hopefully in the home to come and we
1:46:44 want that place for them to be paradise
1:46:45 one good for all people
1:46:47 so we need to liberate people by showing
1:46:48 them who allah is and for them to
1:46:50 worship allah and it's interesting that
1:46:52 the word for soul in the quran is
1:46:55 and the word shares the same root as the
1:46:58 word
1:46:59 which means liberty and ease and
1:47:00 serenity
1:47:01 so the soul will only achieve this
1:47:03 liberty ease and serenity
1:47:05 when it is at service to the one that
1:47:08 created it allah subhanahu wa ta'ala
1:47:11 so brothers and sisters i'm sorry for
1:47:13 such a long
1:47:15 uh seminar one hour 47 minutes and
1:47:18 counting
1:47:19 but i felt is such a very very important
1:47:21 topic to unpack and i hope it was and it
1:47:24 was as nuanced as possible
1:47:26 um so
1:47:28 yeah let's have some questions and
1:47:30 answers
1:47:36 let's have some questions and answers
1:47:38 brothers and sisters and friends
1:47:46 okay
1:47:49 all good is from allah
1:47:52 thank you for your comment let's have
1:47:54 some question brothers and sisters we'll
1:47:56 only have about 13 minutes of questions
1:48:00 and um
1:48:05 13 minutes of questions and i don't see
1:48:08 any questions unfortunately here
1:48:12 so let me just scroll through all of
1:48:15 these comments to see what's going on
1:48:17 here it's quite a few
1:48:20 there's some discussions are not really
1:48:22 related to the topic
1:48:24 which is usually the case unfortunately
1:48:26 this is maybe this is another form of
1:48:28 misusing your freedom of speech and
1:48:30 expression right you want to know the
1:48:31 truth about today's topic but you're
1:48:32 talking about something else and some of
1:48:33 you seem to be maybe it looks like uh
1:48:36 insulting each other and you're not
1:48:38 going to find out the truth see
1:48:39 this is case in point
1:48:41 the comment section is case in point
1:48:44 showing that when you use the so-called
1:48:45 freedom to insult and degrade you go
1:48:47 against the very objectives of freedom
1:48:48 of speech and we're not even
1:48:50 understanding the truth about what we're
1:48:52 talking about about today let's be civil
1:48:54 let's be civil
1:48:56 brothers and sisters
1:49:00 let's be several
1:49:06 i think someone's laughing at what i've
1:49:07 just said yeah i is that's it this is
1:49:09 case in point
1:49:14 unfortunately we didn't have any
1:49:15 moderates today so i do apologize
1:49:20 okay so if there's no questions then
1:49:22 i'll have to basically close it
1:49:26 i'm not seeing any questions
1:49:28 unfortunately on the topic itself um
1:49:35 okay
1:49:38 this is interesting
1:49:44 yeah i'm not seeing many questions
1:49:45 unfortunately
1:49:49 it's quite interesting because people
1:49:51 are calling for moderators right
1:49:53 and
1:49:55 you know moderate is a form of
1:49:56 restricting your public expression
1:49:58 but people know intuitively if you've
1:50:00 been on youtube for a while you know
1:50:01 that moderates are important in order to
1:50:03 facilitate the objectives of freedom of
1:50:05 speech was coming to the truth about a
1:50:06 particular topic
1:50:08 so even even the call for moderation is
1:50:10 proof in terms of our need to be civil
1:50:25 okay so um
1:50:28 there's a question here
1:50:30 you said that there is a limit of
1:50:31 freedom of speech in every country
1:50:32 depending on the value of that society i
1:50:33 couldn't think of an example that limits
1:50:35 when was speech for usa except if
1:50:36 someone calls for direct violence that's
1:50:38 not true at all
1:50:39 libel laws hate speech laws product
1:50:41 defamation laws
1:50:43 you go on and on and on it's not just
1:50:45 about direct violence there's a
1:50:46 restriction of speech on so many cases
1:50:49 so many cases
1:50:50 in actual fact it's such a simple point
1:50:53 you just have to google it just type in
1:50:55 hate speech laws restrictions on speech
1:50:57 defamation laws product affirmation laws
1:51:01 and so on and so forth what you will see
1:51:03 is that there is there is law there are
1:51:05 laws that actually restrict speech even
1:51:08 in international human rights even the
1:51:10 uk human rights
1:51:12 uh article
1:51:14 10 i believe you see even about the you
1:51:17 know what is moral you know in order for
1:51:19 for for society not to have moral decay
1:51:22 that's not the words that they use but
1:51:23 basically they cite morality or the
1:51:24 common good and things like this so
1:51:26 there's so many so many restrictions
1:51:28 maybe you're asking this question
1:51:30 because you you haven't gone through the
1:51:32 whole seminar because i've given various
1:51:34 examples in france
1:51:36 in in in denmark
1:51:38 in the uk and other countries so
1:51:41 um please revisit this recording um or
1:51:44 even to search for it yourself this is
1:51:46 much more than someone calling for
1:51:47 direct pilots
1:51:50 okay
1:52:00 bear with me
1:52:11 i mean there was another question here
1:52:12 to spare with me okay
1:52:16 hamza please tell me if i'm wrong i
1:52:17 think that explaining what freedom of
1:52:19 speech is to oppressors is not going to
1:52:20 do any good the evil people will always
1:52:22 be evil and might not listen to anything
1:52:24 well
1:52:25 maybe um i think it's our duty to speak
1:52:27 to people look
1:52:30 he was told by allah to speak to pharaoh
1:52:34 now this is a lesson for us because
1:52:35 doesn't allah know that pharaoh is not
1:52:37 going to become a believer because we
1:52:38 know that's the end of the story right
1:52:40 he doesn't become a believer he doesn't
1:52:41 adopt god god's guidance right he
1:52:43 doesn't submit to god
1:52:46 but look what
1:52:47 allah god is telling moses to speak to
1:52:50 pharaoh
1:52:51 leaning softly nicely he may accept
1:52:54 admonition god knows he's not going to
1:52:56 accept admonition he knows the past
1:52:58 present and future he has a totality of
1:52:59 knowledge and wisdom
1:53:02 and his knowledge in wisdom transcends
1:53:04 time but he's saying to musa alaihi
1:53:06 islam to the pharaoh one of the worst
1:53:08 human beings to walk this planet an
1:53:10 oppressor
1:53:11 and this is case in point
1:53:13 speak to them nicely give them good
1:53:14 admonition speak to them
1:53:17 and we need to follow that quranic
1:53:18 guidance we need to follow god's
1:53:20 guidance on this issue
1:53:22 it doesn't mean falling into our you
1:53:24 know self-imposed oppression or it
1:53:27 doesn't mean that we're going to be
1:53:29 naive obviously there are other values
1:53:31 in the islamic discourse for sure but as
1:53:33 a general point
1:53:34 keep on speaking the truth
1:53:36 because there is something about
1:53:38 following god's guidance even though the
1:53:40 person that you're talking to may not be
1:53:42 guided may never be guided and would
1:53:44 always be evil and an oppressor there's
1:53:46 something about following that path
1:53:48 that would give a sense of increase in
1:53:50 our society a sense of barakah from a
1:53:52 progress point of view and human
1:53:54 civilizational point of view and we've
1:53:56 seen this in the actions of the prophets
1:53:58 themselves that's a very good question
1:53:59 thank you i hope the answer is
1:54:00 satisfactory
1:54:09 is there any other questions
1:54:17 okay we're going to close it here
1:54:18 brothers and sisters you know i
1:54:19 thoroughly thoroughly thoroughly
1:54:22 enjoyed engaging yes there's going to be
1:54:24 many other questions that come out from
1:54:27 this and you know we may need to revisit
1:54:29 this seminar in the future but i think
1:54:31 you know alhamdulillah i think
1:54:35 hopefully this can change the discourse
1:54:36 this can help you with the articulation
1:54:38 of islam in the context of freedom of
1:54:40 speech discussions in a way that's
1:54:42 assertive and that doesn't adopt false
1:54:43 epistemic biases and metaphysical force
1:54:46 assumptions right
1:54:47 so it's very important
1:54:49 to re-emphasize the fact that yes
1:54:50 freedom of speech there's restrictions
1:54:52 it's in the context of competing values
1:54:53 and tell them how do you prioritize
1:54:55 those values where are those values
1:54:57 coming from what is the basis for those
1:54:59 values and that is your way of bringing
1:55:00 them to allah bring them to god the king
1:55:03 of all kings the lord of moses jesus and
1:55:05 abraham and muhammad upon
1:55:07 peace be peace be upon be upon every
1:55:10 single one of them
1:55:11 and you want to call them to
1:55:14 the worship of
1:55:16 the lord of the heavens and the earth of
1:55:17 the creator of me and you and the whole
1:55:19 of mankind and everything that exists
1:55:22 and that's what it's all about brothers
1:55:23 and sisters and yes this is going to be
1:55:25 formulated into an essay on sapience
1:55:27 institute inshallah hopefully with the
1:55:29 essay that we're going to deliver before
1:55:31 the end of the year
1:55:33 and may allah bless every single one of
1:55:35 you so if
1:55:36 anyone wants to have a conversation on
1:55:37 freedom of speech
1:55:38 uh even if they oppose my ideas such an
1:55:40 email we'll have a discussion on the
1:55:42 podcast say voices or we could have a
1:55:44 live online discussion or a face-to-face
1:55:45 discussion no problem
1:55:47 as long as it's civil
1:55:49 we're on your side
1:55:51 may not bless every single one of you
1:55:52 anything good that i've said has come
1:55:53 from allah
1:55:54 anything bad has come from shaitaan or
1:55:56 my ego
1:55:57 is