Shubuhat Series #2 - "Riddah" (Apostasy In Islam) | Mohammed Hijab (2022-05-26) #

0:00:07 welcome to another session where we are
0:00:09 responding to some of the major hats
0:00:11 relating to
0:00:13 the religion of islam some major doubts
0:00:14 questions misconceptions that people
0:00:16 have and today we're going to be talking
0:00:18 about the ridder laws
0:00:21 and
0:00:21 really today's discussion is going to be
0:00:23 based around my own research
0:00:25 which was the subject of one of my
0:00:28 dissertations actually for one of my
0:00:29 master's degrees in 2019
0:00:32 and i'm going to actually read and which
0:00:34 have actually made into a small book
0:00:36 which you can get
0:00:37 online on amazon the treaties
0:00:40 of
0:00:41 treaties
0:00:43 on liberal critiques of radha
0:00:46 so i'm going to read out what the basic
0:00:48 to jump straight into it the basic
0:00:50 argument that i make
0:00:52 is
0:00:53 some of the novel you know contributions
0:00:55 i hope to have been able to make
0:00:57 are and they will have a discussion uh
0:00:59 thereafter
0:01:00 so i've written the very introduction of
0:01:02 the um
0:01:04 of that particular book that i'm going
0:01:06 to read out what i said so i am writing
0:01:07 this treatise not to defend
0:01:10 islamic penal laws but mainly to show
0:01:11 that our current critique of islam is a
0:01:14 poor one
0:01:16 so below the summary of my argument
0:01:20 point number one liberals seek to
0:01:22 critique islam's penal laws especially
0:01:24 the law of redder
0:01:26 because of its non-conformity with
0:01:28 modern human rights legislation now
0:01:30 we've already covered
0:01:31 uh modern human rights legislation
0:01:34 the obvious
0:01:36 thing that people say about that is that
0:01:37 well
0:01:38 if you punish someone for changing their
0:01:41 religion this is something which goes
0:01:42 against human rights
0:01:45 and this is number two islamist
0:01:47 punishment for it that can be
0:01:48 implemented or waived depending on the
0:01:50 context
0:01:51 obviously i give the examples of that in
0:01:53 this
0:01:55 in this small booklet but also that this
0:01:58 is something within the islamic
0:01:59 penal code but of course the shikhasai
0:02:02 can correct us if anything that i have
0:02:04 said is incorrect i'm actually happy
0:02:06 that the sheikh is here because now the
0:02:08 things can be checked on two different
0:02:10 levels
0:02:12 number three liberal principles assuming
0:02:14 a contractarian form of liberalism
0:02:16 theoretically allow for punishments
0:02:18 which can be implemented or waived
0:02:20 identical to those punish those
0:02:24 punishing read that so this is all i've
0:02:26 sent this to you guys in the group by
0:02:27 the way so i can send you these you
0:02:29 don't need to write every single point
0:02:31 but i'm just letting you know the line
0:02:32 of argumentation
0:02:35 so let me just revise what we've just
0:02:36 said already before we continue
0:02:39 number one we say that liberals cr
0:02:41 seek to critique islam's pedal codes
0:02:44 especially the law of
0:02:45 because of its non-conformity
0:02:48 with modern human rights
0:02:49 number two islam's punishment for it
0:02:52 that can can be implemented and it can
0:02:54 be waived
0:02:56 depending on the context
0:02:59 number three liberal principles which
0:03:01 we've already discussed in this class
0:03:02 before in the londoner series talking
0:03:05 about
0:03:05 contractarianism
0:03:07 assuming a contractarian form of
0:03:09 liberalism theoretically allow for
0:03:11 punishments
0:03:13 which can be implemented a way of
0:03:14 identical to those
0:03:16 of
0:03:17 in other words the argument is
0:03:20 that the laws or the punishments of
0:03:24 can be implemented in their liberal
0:03:26 state
0:03:28 in a contractarian form of liberalism
0:03:31 which by the way is the only kind of
0:03:33 liberalism which has been
0:03:35 implemented contemporaneously or
0:03:37 historically there's no other kind of
0:03:39 liberalism which has ever been
0:03:42 manifested in the political sphere only
0:03:45 a contractarian form
0:03:46 and just to remind myself and others
0:03:49 who am i uh
0:03:50 who knows what do we mean by a
0:03:52 contractarian form of liberalism
0:03:55 one particular what are the main salient
0:03:57 features of a contract heavy inform
0:03:58 before we continue
0:04:00 is it thomas hobbs why he introduced
0:04:03 that basically if we didn't have um
0:04:06 contracts um there will be disorder
0:04:08 thereby they'll be anarchy and people
0:04:10 will have the freedom to do whatever
0:04:11 they like however that will come at the
0:04:13 cost of
0:04:14 basically you know being robbed killed
0:04:17 so if we have some kind of a form of
0:04:19 contract um you have you're going to
0:04:21 some kind of agreement so you're letting
0:04:22 go of some of your rights
0:04:24 for a
0:04:26 greater purpose or a great
0:04:28 look like the government giving the um
0:04:30 um
0:04:32 i don't i can't remember it but what i
0:04:33 know is basically let go of some of your
0:04:34 rights for uh bigger objectives does
0:04:37 anyone want to ask that you're
0:04:38 definitely on the right tracks i mean
0:04:39 it's not anything necessarily wrong in
0:04:41 what he said at all is anything else
0:04:43 that one wants to add on this point of
0:04:45 contractarianism
0:04:48 subjects in a state
0:04:50 have indirectly accepted that
0:04:53 a
0:04:54 certain group of people who will have
0:04:55 authority over them so they've given up
0:04:57 freedom for for in return for safety or
0:04:59 security perfect that's that's well
0:05:01 phrased this is exactly what we're
0:05:02 looking for
0:05:04 um what you were saying was actually
0:05:05 correct as well because the idea really
0:05:07 is
0:05:08 what thomas hobbs in the levithan he
0:05:10 mentioned he wrote a book called
0:05:11 right
0:05:12 and he he mentioned something called the
0:05:14 state of nature we discussed this
0:05:16 and it was a hypothetical say it wasn't
0:05:17 an actual state so it wasn't a state
0:05:19 which actually took place in the real
0:05:20 world
0:05:21 a hypothetical state means a state which
0:05:23 is fictitious it's
0:05:25 an idea in someone's mind
0:05:27 it's not based on real events
0:05:30 okay so what thomas hobson was saying is
0:05:32 that basically if we take the idea
0:05:35 that human beings will be left free to
0:05:37 do whatever they want to do he had it
0:05:39 all against all mentality he thought
0:05:41 everyone would fight each other that's
0:05:42 what would happen
0:05:43 uh by the way this is depicted in a book
0:05:45 called lord of the flies i'm not sure if
0:05:47 anyone has read that book but it was
0:05:49 based on um it was based on this either
0:05:51 we do in school that's i mean that's why
0:05:53 a lot of you may have it we do it in
0:05:54 english literature right
0:05:56 anyway
0:05:58 the idea is that it's um
0:06:00 you know all against all but that's his
0:06:02 idea of contractarianism his idea of
0:06:05 sorry the the the
0:06:06 state of nature
0:06:08 that particular idea is not necessarily
0:06:10 shared by all like john locke didn't
0:06:12 have the idea that if people were left
0:06:13 in the state of nature that they would
0:06:14 all fight each other
0:06:16 so there was competing liberal ideas of
0:06:18 what the state of nature is
0:06:20 there wasn't one idea of what the state
0:06:22 state of nature is john locke had a
0:06:24 different idea to thomas hobbes and so
0:06:26 on but the point that might have
0:06:28 mentioned is the correct one
0:06:30 eventually whatever the sale of nature
0:06:32 is whether it's all against all whether
0:06:34 people are collaborating with one
0:06:35 another or whatever it may be
0:06:37 there's a
0:06:39 there is a
0:06:40 barter if you like
0:06:42 there is a barter
0:06:44 of of freedom in exchange for security
0:06:47 and this is the this is the main point
0:06:50 now in the modern day how is this
0:06:51 manifested
0:06:55 because every we said that almost every
0:06:57 liberal country
0:06:59 has is contractarian
0:07:02 so how is it how does it manifest how
0:07:04 how am i a new part of the social
0:07:06 contract now
0:07:07 development
0:07:09 yeah but how how
0:07:11 citizenship citizenship okay beautiful
0:07:14 right
0:07:15 so
0:07:16 if you have a citizenship in this
0:07:17 country that means what
0:07:20 you have entitlement well you're
0:07:22 entitled to some things at the cost of
0:07:24 you know obeying the law yeah absolutely
0:07:26 perfect right and how ianni what other
0:07:28 ways of acquiring citizenship i mean
0:07:31 what's how did you acquire it
0:07:33 me i came to the country when i was one
0:07:35 years old
0:07:38 tell them the truth how much did you pay
0:07:39 for it
0:07:41 that's a different story
0:07:45 what we're talking about is okay someone
0:07:47 who who was born here yeah okay
0:07:49 i was born here so that's different to
0:07:51 someone born to someone um come in here
0:07:53 because then you need to
0:07:54 give it kind of allegiance in that sense
0:07:57 yeah yeah because if you're born it's
0:07:59 like if you're if i'm mistaken you said
0:08:01 if we're born here yeah uh we we're from
0:08:03 the get-go yeah and nobody asked us you
0:08:05 know do you obey yeah like if you go
0:08:06 past the uh there's a camera speed
0:08:09 camera and you get fine you can't say oh
0:08:10 i didn't agree to this
0:08:12 from the get-go you have entitlements
0:08:14 and you have to obey by to those lords
0:08:16 um but if you are someone who seeks
0:08:18 asylum here
0:08:20 then i think it's a bit of a different
0:08:21 story it's a different story but
0:08:23 philosophically here what's the main
0:08:24 difference it's the ones because what's
0:08:26 born into it what's the word beginning
0:08:28 with c
0:08:29 t
0:08:31 well the opposite of
0:08:34 concern concern
0:08:35 yeah okay
0:08:36 so in one case there is what and what
0:08:38 other case there isn't so in one case
0:08:40 okay so um
0:08:42 you are being coerced when you're born
0:08:44 uh and when you uh seek asylum you are
0:08:47 consenting yeah okay it's not just
0:08:48 taking asylum you can get visa through
0:08:50 different and i know that i know
0:08:59 because we are forced into us i was
0:09:01 forced into a social contract this is
0:09:02 very interesting and important
0:09:04 the different diff the the difference
0:09:06 between an islamic social contract
0:09:08 sometimes
0:09:10 there are similarities you can be forced
0:09:11 into islamic social contracts as well
0:09:12 like if you're both parents are muslim
0:09:17 you're muslim as well that's as simple
0:09:18 as that really
0:09:19 you know so you can be forced into
0:09:21 social car otherwise you'd have what
0:09:23 disorder but if you become a muslim it's
0:09:25 kind of like acquiring citizenship
0:09:28 now
0:09:29 the reason why this is important is
0:09:30 because
0:09:32 actually there is
0:09:34 people look at these matters in a very
0:09:35 secular manner so they look at these
0:09:37 matters these masters but islam is is
0:09:39 not a secular system so it could it
0:09:41 conflates
0:09:43 religion
0:09:44 and politics it's both together there's
0:09:47 no conflict there's no separation
0:09:48 between church and state which means
0:09:50 that when you are a muslim now you have
0:09:52 and especially if you have given baya
0:09:54 which is additional thing if you've
0:09:56 given a pledge of allegiance
0:09:58 then now you are not only a
0:10:00 fully-fledged citizen but anything you
0:10:02 do or saying may be held against you and
0:10:03 called look quite literally like
0:10:05 you know so
0:10:06 this is what we mean by contractarian is
0:10:08 a very important thing okay because
0:10:09 contractarianism is the idea that you
0:10:11 are in a contract now a social contract
0:10:14 and
0:10:15 the the head
0:10:16 of government is
0:10:19 who in this country
0:10:21 now is the prime minister okay is the
0:10:23 prime minister the queen has a
0:10:24 ceremonial role
0:10:25 ever since charles ii i mean
0:10:28 parliament became sovereign so the queen
0:10:30 is no longer
0:10:32 you know she she she has a ceremonial
0:10:35 role but she's no longer sovereign in
0:10:37 that sense ever since in the 1500s and
0:10:39 so on that there was there was a
0:10:41 movement in this country the queen
0:10:42 actually had power
0:10:44 you know the last time the queen
0:10:45 actually tried to veto her law because
0:10:46 she can technically veto her law was uh
0:10:48 queen victoria i think it was
0:10:50 and she was out she was uh you know
0:10:53 overruled or something like that so
0:10:55 uh the queen is the head of the church
0:10:57 of england and all the kind of yeah this
0:10:58 is all ceremonial stuff it doesn't
0:11:00 really have any legislative implications
0:11:03 uh in terms of um
0:11:05 this country there's three types of law
0:11:08 in the uk
0:11:09 there's a constitutional law there is by
0:11:11 the way a british constitution
0:11:14 just because it's not codified it
0:11:15 doesn't mean it doesn't exist there is a
0:11:17 british constitution
0:11:19 and there is statute law and then there
0:11:21 is a
0:11:22 in in course they use case law as well
0:11:23 you know there's common law
0:11:26 but the constitutional law is fragmented
0:11:29 and it's uncodified
0:11:31 in this country so there is a
0:11:32 constitution in this country
0:11:33 it's fragmented and it's uncodified i
0:11:35 mean it's not written in one place
0:11:38 in america it's codified and it's
0:11:40 centralized
0:11:41 so it's all in one place
0:11:43 and it's not fragmented
0:11:44 but you should be aware of these things
0:11:46 because obviously we live in this
0:11:48 country we have to know
0:11:49 how the system works
0:11:53 so parliament is sovereign meaning
0:11:54 parliament
0:11:57 uh gets to make the rules and decisions
0:11:59 uh in this case it's the house
0:12:01 of commons
0:12:02 obviously the house of lords
0:12:04 it kind of uh
0:12:06 it ratifies or whatever the the the laws
0:12:09 but it's not created law creation is
0:12:12 happening in the house of commons with
0:12:14 the 650 odd i think
0:12:16 seats
0:12:18 but really those who make the laws
0:12:20 are not are not the backbench mps
0:12:23 they are the
0:12:24 the cabinet if you like the government
0:12:26 although technically it's possible for
0:12:27 someone to who is a backbench mp to
0:12:30 write down something called white paper
0:12:31 and get it done but for the most part
0:12:34 law creation is done by the cabinet and
0:12:35 the government the executive
0:12:37 anyway so this is uh
0:12:39 how it works and in all liberal
0:12:42 countries therefore there is a contract
0:12:44 that you have
0:12:45 and you have to obey the law
0:12:47 and if especially if you're a citizen
0:12:51 and obviously with that there comes
0:12:52 privileges
0:12:55 um
0:12:56 and
0:12:57 we should mention actually there's
0:12:58 recently a builder or maybe we should
0:12:59 put it's called the national
0:13:01 what's it called the national borders
0:13:02 bill that's how it's called nationality
0:13:04 national label right
0:13:07 nationally and borders built yeah this
0:13:09 is a a recent bill like literally like
0:13:11 we're talking patel literally wants to
0:13:13 put this on
0:13:14 yanny the last two two weeks or three
0:13:16 weeks ago
0:13:18 which is um trying to expand the scope
0:13:19 of deprivation of citizenship for people
0:13:22 that are basically like dual nationals
0:13:24 or whatever
0:13:25 uh
0:13:26 which is that if any if anyone some if
0:13:28 someone does something which is
0:13:31 in quote-unquote against the public good
0:13:33 then they can have their citizenship
0:13:35 deprived
0:13:36 and this law hasn't made it through yet
0:13:38 and it's been obviously challenged now
0:13:39 not just by muslims by the way but it's
0:13:41 being challenged by the lgbt uh groups
0:13:44 the black community
0:13:45 you know a lot of people are challenging
0:13:47 this group because they're seeing as
0:13:48 racist because it's going to
0:13:49 disproportionately affect
0:13:51 ethnic minorities but these are the
0:13:52 problems with citizenship
0:13:55 you can even be stripped of your
0:13:56 citizenship on grounds as flimsy as the
0:13:58 public with very broad
0:14:00 grounds
0:14:02 obviously deprivation of citizenship
0:14:04 which is
0:14:06 what happens when people think
0:14:08 it's called deprivation when they take
0:14:09 your citizenship away from you
0:14:12 this is very very very rare
0:14:14 i mean
0:14:15 considering the history of britain
0:14:16 considering the amount of people that
0:14:18 lived in it
0:14:19 it's there have been few few cases i
0:14:21 mean considering the population
0:14:23 of actual deprivation and taking away
0:14:25 your citizenship and they have to
0:14:27 to to do something pretty heavy for that
0:14:29 to be the case however as we'll come to
0:14:32 deprivation of citizenship which is a
0:14:34 very
0:14:34 harsh measure is not the only way for
0:14:36 you to be
0:14:38 to be
0:14:39 punished in a social contract
0:14:42 in this country they have trees and laws
0:14:44 for a very long time
0:14:45 uh laws of treachery and treason and
0:14:48 they still do in a sense but in a
0:14:50 different guys
0:14:51 through uh
0:14:54 discussion about terrorism and
0:14:56 which which which is inherently
0:14:58 discriminatory which is anti-liberal by
0:15:00 the way which is something we can come
0:15:01 to because liberalism says everyone
0:15:03 should be equal but these laws that
0:15:04 they're putting in place
0:15:06 is inherently favoring some communities
0:15:09 over others
0:15:10 so already the social contract is not in
0:15:12 accordance with the principles led down
0:15:14 we have issues here now
0:15:15 because according to liberalism everyone
0:15:17 should be the same
0:15:18 but the laws that i've been putting in
0:15:20 place now
0:15:21 are discriminatory to one group over
0:15:23 another so you can even argue within
0:15:24 liberal paradigm that the laws have been
0:15:27 put in place now are
0:15:28 clearly
0:15:29 like the patriots act in america in
0:15:31 america and you know these kinds of
0:15:32 terrorist acts prevent all these kind of
0:15:34 things
0:15:35 within the liberal paradigm you can make
0:15:36 strong arguments against this stuff
0:15:38 but anyway this is just a kind of a
0:15:40 tangent number four i just want to
0:15:42 revise the three points i just made yeah
0:15:44 the first point we made is liberal seek
0:15:45 to critique islam's penal laws
0:15:47 especially the law of religion because
0:15:49 of its non-conformity with modern humans
0:15:50 right new modern human rights
0:15:52 legislation number two islam's
0:15:54 punishment for it that can be
0:15:55 implemented away depending on the
0:15:56 context number three liberal principles
0:15:59 assume a contractarian form of
0:16:00 liberalism theoretically allow for
0:16:02 punishments which can be implemented or
0:16:03 waved identical to those
0:16:05 uh punishments of of lydia
0:16:09 uh number four
0:16:11 historically liberal governments have
0:16:13 applied laws that are identical to the
0:16:16 laws of regarding rudder so now it's
0:16:18 moved away from being an abstract
0:16:21 case we're saying actually in in history
0:16:23 this has shown to be the case
0:16:27 number five invoking non-contract terror
0:16:29 and liberalism is not an adequate
0:16:30 defense we've explained why because
0:16:32 non-contractarian anarchical types of
0:16:34 liberalism simply don't exist in the
0:16:36 world that we live
0:16:37 there is no government which is
0:16:38 anarchical right now
0:16:40 every liberal government self-proclaimed
0:16:43 liberal government in the world
0:16:46 has a contract theory every single one
0:16:48 there's no country that i know of
0:16:50 that it says i'm liberal
0:16:52 or puts that in his founding father
0:16:54 documents or constitution or whatever
0:16:57 and it's not contractarian at the same
0:16:58 time
0:16:59 therefore liberal critiques of
0:17:00 liberalism
0:17:02 of islam are self-defeating that's
0:17:04 basically the crux
0:17:06 of the discussion okay
0:17:09 now we have already discussed
0:17:11 in previous and we can obviously
0:17:14 we can go to
0:17:16 some of the things that we've spoken
0:17:18 about before in the london era as to
0:17:21 that because we can we can quote john
0:17:22 locke we have before and i can quote him
0:17:24 again right now i mean i've got him in
0:17:25 this book
0:17:26 we can quote john locke we can call
0:17:28 other people
0:17:29 about how
0:17:31 uh he he thinks himself john locke the
0:17:34 founding father of liberalism that you
0:17:36 can't even have an apostasy law
0:17:39 and that's not against liberalism we've
0:17:42 made this quotation before we can make
0:17:43 this quotation
0:17:44 uh again
0:17:46 but the problem is
0:17:50 uh the issue is not this the issue is
0:17:53 so i'm trying to get rotation
0:17:55 the issue is
0:17:58 i mean look in fact let's let's make a
0:17:59 few quotations let me let me read the
0:18:01 john locke quotation once again i think
0:18:03 it's it's worth reading
0:18:05 john locke mentions
0:18:09 the first is of those who being
0:18:11 initiated the mosaical rights and made
0:18:13 citizens of that commonwealth did after
0:18:16 afterwards apostasized from the worship
0:18:18 of god of israel
0:18:20 these were
0:18:21 preceded against the traitors and rebels
0:18:23 guilty of no less than high treason
0:18:25 for the commonwealth of jews different
0:18:27 in that from all others was an absolute
0:18:30 theocracy
0:18:31 nor was there or could there be any
0:18:33 difference between that commonwealth and
0:18:34 the church
0:18:36 so he's he's basically indicating here
0:18:39 very clearly that those who apostated
0:18:42 from the religion of judaism
0:18:44 they are guilty of no less than high
0:18:46 treason
0:18:48 clearly in that in that case then the
0:18:49 death penalty would be very easily
0:18:52 sanctionable
0:18:53 because treason was punishable by death
0:18:55 almost everywhere in the world
0:18:58 look at what emmanuel kapp mentions he
0:19:00 says there cannot be even uh cannot even
0:19:02 be an article contained in the political
0:19:04 constitution constitution that would
0:19:06 make it possible for a power in the
0:19:08 state in the case of transgressions of
0:19:09 the constitutional laws by the supreme
0:19:11 authority to resist or
0:19:13 even restrict in so doing
0:19:16 so he's saying basically when the
0:19:18 contract is put in place you cannot
0:19:20 resist it you ca you cannot go against
0:19:22 it
0:19:24 these kinds of
0:19:25 in a nutshell i mean you could say these
0:19:27 kinds of arguments in general mean
0:19:31 that
0:19:33 meanwhile
0:19:34 they mean that
0:19:36 the framework of liberalism and this is
0:19:39 it's very important to get us right not
0:19:40 that
0:19:41 liberal thinkers said xyz no the
0:19:43 framework of the usual the principles
0:19:45 the
0:19:46 kawaii the
0:19:47 you know principles of liberalism itself
0:19:50 they
0:19:50 allow
0:19:52 a treason law which means that if
0:19:55 someone goes against it that they can be
0:19:57 killed
0:20:00 look at what it says in the united
0:20:02 states constitution i'm going to read
0:20:03 from the constitution now this is the
0:20:04 united states constitution
0:20:06 which is a liberal document
0:20:08 is a liberal document
0:20:10 treason against the united states shall
0:20:12 consist only in levying war against them
0:20:17 or in adhering to their enemies giving
0:20:19 them aid and comfort no person shall be
0:20:22 convicted of treason unless on the
0:20:23 testimony of two witnesses interesting
0:20:26 to the same over act or on confession in
0:20:30 open court number two the congress shall
0:20:32 have power to declare the punishment of
0:20:34 treason
0:20:35 but the attainder of treason shall work
0:20:38 corruption of blood or
0:20:40 forfeiture except during the life of the
0:20:43 person attained
0:20:46 this is uh this is the very famous
0:20:50 article three of the united states
0:20:51 constitution okay so it does have a
0:20:53 treason clause
0:20:54 now how that has been used in history
0:20:58 now before we before we do so before we
0:21:00 get there i think it's important for us
0:21:03 to realize
0:21:04 uh what we've been saying here let's
0:21:06 have a little break and ask the question
0:21:08 what's the argument i want someone to
0:21:10 uh look at the five points i've put in
0:21:12 the group as well
0:21:14 and uh ask the question what's the
0:21:15 argument that is being made
0:21:17 and i'll answer one question if someone
0:21:19 returns and says well okay immanuel kant
0:21:21 said whatever he had to say john locke
0:21:22 said whatever he had to say but we don't
0:21:24 agree with john locke and we don't agree
0:21:26 with emmanuel can
0:21:28 are they missing the boat are they
0:21:29 missing the argument
0:21:31 before we get there we're gonna have a
0:21:33 two three minute session here now we're
0:21:34 gonna have a two three minute session
0:21:36 speak to the person next to you and then
0:21:37 we can ask and get the information from
0:21:39 everyone else okay
0:21:48 so uh basically if we're looking for the
0:21:51 before before we get that what did we
0:21:53 what did we um say about the two
0:21:55 questions that we had in place
0:21:58 what are the questions i have first of
0:21:59 all remember so uh we were asked um
0:22:03 if somebody comes to us and says well
0:22:05 you can't say john locke said this and
0:22:07 say that john locke is representative of
0:22:10 you know liberal contractarianism
0:22:13 uh so you saying john locke condones
0:22:15 this isn't an argument but our response
0:22:17 to that is
0:22:18 well we're claiming that uh liberalism's
0:22:21 uh underlying uh you know
0:22:24 framework suggests this and when you
0:22:26 look at people who have implemented uh
0:22:30 liberal constitutions like the united
0:22:32 states government
0:22:34 they have a very clear article in there
0:22:36 which uh allows for the death penalty
0:22:39 for the act of treason
0:22:41 um
0:22:43 so yeah okay the death penalty is not
0:22:45 necessarily a constitutional matter i
0:22:46 think that's a state matter by the way
0:22:48 so be careful with that everything else
0:22:49 is absolutely fine
0:22:52 now the question is how do we know how
0:22:54 can we establish
0:22:56 um
0:22:57 because by the way you know in some
0:22:59 states in the in some sense in america
0:23:00 the the
0:23:02 death the death penalty is applied and
0:23:04 some some others they're not
0:23:06 so it's a statement but but the question
0:23:08 is now
0:23:09 how do we establish that
0:23:12 it's uh found it's a foundational matter
0:23:15 or it's something which is principle
0:23:17 to liberalism how can we establish that
0:23:22 this is based on social contract theory
0:23:24 yeah stem from that so uh
0:23:26 basically if they're saying um
0:23:28 they disagree with it then they will
0:23:30 have to basically disagree with social
0:23:31 contractor if they do they basically
0:23:33 won't have liberalism good you're right
0:23:34 but how would you prove that
0:23:36 how would you prove that it's it's a
0:23:38 matter of if you reject
0:23:40 the fact that a treason or treachery or
0:23:42 treason law
0:23:44 uh which has the net effect of giving
0:23:46 someone a death penalty
0:23:47 is equivalent to rejecting the entire
0:23:50 social contract how would you prove that
0:23:54 how would you prove apostasy similar to
0:23:55 this no how would you prove
0:23:57 that one is equivalent to the other in
0:23:58 other words rejecting treason or
0:24:01 whatever is as as if you're rejecting
0:24:04 the whole social contract here
0:24:06 right because uh the idea of treason is
0:24:08 basically you're not accepting the
0:24:10 social contract theory right uh because
0:24:12 uh by the social contract that we mean
0:24:14 uh that you have given up uh certain
0:24:16 rights uh
0:24:18 to the state
0:24:20 in exchange for uh security
0:24:22 and then basically going against that uh
0:24:25 uh
0:24:26 that contract that you direct you uh
0:24:29 consensually or
0:24:31 coercively signed without without your
0:24:33 consent signed is basically treason
0:24:35 right right okay good so but here's a
0:24:37 question it might be a very basic one
0:24:40 there's a normal citizen in and we're
0:24:42 bringing in another ideology here
0:24:43 whether it's direct democracy or
0:24:45 actually direct they would act so in a
0:24:47 representative democracy format there's
0:24:49 a normal citizen okay
0:24:52 have legislative capabilities in direct
0:24:54 forms they would actually but in in
0:24:56 representative
0:24:57 democracy would they have it or not
0:25:01 so what do i mean by that someone tell
0:25:02 me what i mean by what i just said
0:25:04 you said legislation uh yes do they have
0:25:07 a legislative capability an individual
0:25:09 citizen yeah individuals no he wouldn't
0:25:11 because it would depend on the people
0:25:12 around him right in representative
0:25:14 democracy how does a representative
0:25:15 democracy work uh because a
0:25:17 representative democracy involves uh you
0:25:20 know the uh
0:25:21 consent of multiple people right you
0:25:24 know the choice or preference of uh of a
0:25:26 group around you okay and when they
0:25:28 become in power and they make laws
0:25:31 are you obligated to follow those laws
0:25:33 by the social contract yeah
0:25:35 right what if you don't want to follow
0:25:36 those laws
0:25:38 do you have a job yeah there's a
0:25:40 punishment for this
0:25:41 yeah so it's so does your does your
0:25:43 opinion count on the representative
0:25:45 framework no
0:25:48 okay so you so let's put it let's make
0:25:50 it clear
0:25:51 if you're born into a country and now
0:25:52 you've got a citizenship yeah
0:25:54 you've got certain laws
0:25:57 now you don't like some of those laws
0:25:59 because there's some of them hash
0:26:01 like many people in america don't like
0:26:02 some of the death penalty laws because
0:26:03 some of them are very harsh
0:26:05 do you have a right to say well my first
0:26:07 amendment rights are my second amendment
0:26:08 right so i don't want this or no you
0:26:10 don't can you elaborate on that a little
0:26:12 bit more you did mention a point
0:26:14 reference point i can't remember what
0:26:16 you did
0:26:16 i remember you mentioned it that
0:26:19 i i can't remember but that they have no
0:26:21 right to oppose that yeah they have the
0:26:23 right to opposite what did you mean do
0:26:24 you can you remember
0:26:25 i can't remember what you said yeah you
0:26:27 said basically they're kind of opposite
0:26:28 well they can't oppose it because why
0:26:29 what did you say was
0:26:32 because they basically agreed to the
0:26:34 contract so
0:26:36 they just can't say that um now i choose
0:26:38 to opt out of the contract
0:26:40 yes
0:26:42 you can't have your cake and need both
0:26:43 you can't have a citizenship and and
0:26:45 decide what
0:26:46 what the the representative
0:26:48 does
0:26:49 because you're not the representative
0:26:50 the only way out of that is what you
0:26:52 lose the function there's another way
0:26:54 out there
0:26:54 you just kill yourself
0:26:57 you make a new law
0:26:59 you run for office
0:27:00 that's the only way out there
0:27:03 that you become the representative
0:27:05 you come strong enough to make laws
0:27:08 that's that's how this country works
0:27:10 you've got protesting you've got this
0:27:11 you can become a part of a trade union
0:27:14 you know these these are the the ways
0:27:16 that people do it but you cannot just
0:27:18 decide but i don't like this load if i'm
0:27:20 gonna opt out that one
0:27:23 i mean last time like you mentioned
0:27:24 there's a three more power speed limit
0:27:26 i'm sure you've been given some of those
0:27:28 letters at home you've been driving 50
0:27:30 miles an hour on a three mile per road
0:27:32 you're gonna say well i decided it was
0:27:34 morally unacceptable for such road to be
0:27:35 30 miles an hour
0:27:38 but it's different how they apply it to
0:27:39 someone who's a citizen someone who's
0:27:42 become a citizen
0:27:44 because they can send them back
0:27:46 with the citizens they deal with them
0:27:47 differently actually well i mean i think
0:27:49 that they're quite consistent here to be
0:27:50 honest
0:27:52 yeah but they have to
0:27:53 the other is fine what they're doing
0:27:55 here is normal well if you don't have
0:27:57 this you have anarchy no no no we accept
0:27:59 it what we're saying is that the way
0:28:00 they deal with their citizens the one
0:28:02 which is born into it um actually even
0:28:04 then he's in trouble his wife is born
0:28:05 into it it depends his ethnic background
0:28:07 oh yeah you talk about the national
0:28:09 building yeah yeah yeah of course so
0:28:10 it's like that's yeah that's ridiculous
0:28:11 because there's a lot of people being
0:28:12 sent back but without the social
0:28:13 contract theory what do you have the
0:28:15 anarchy we have anarchy
0:28:17 you know that's why the people that keep
0:28:20 emphasizing individualism individualism
0:28:21 individualism or if you have an
0:28:23 individualism that's
0:28:25 a proper individualism it goes all the
0:28:26 way to being an anarchy
0:28:28 that's the purest version of
0:28:29 individualism and anarchical
0:28:31 individualism
0:28:33 but if you don't so if you you're gonna
0:28:35 have to deal with one or two different
0:28:36 kinds of uh
0:28:38 fright
0:28:39 or scare
0:28:41 either you deal with the fright of being
0:28:44 uh
0:28:45 of being
0:28:47 attacked and killed or money being taken
0:28:50 away from you from the other people who
0:28:52 have no laws to restrict them
0:28:54 or you deal with the fight or all the
0:28:56 consequences of the government itself
0:28:58 and since the latter is more
0:29:02 is more consistent in its application of
0:29:04 the laws
0:29:05 most people want predictability in their
0:29:07 lives stability so that's why we have
0:29:09 governments
0:29:13 anyway
0:29:15 uh basically islamically the classically
0:29:17 speaking the law of redder has been
0:29:19 almost
0:29:20 it is
0:29:21 actually i don't know of anyone who says
0:29:22 anything other than that you know the
0:29:24 person who does that in public is
0:29:26 is not to be killed in a public space
0:29:30 uh this has been the except for what
0:29:32 i've seen of the hanafi school when i
0:29:33 read a book called um
0:29:35 for
0:29:37 and he said that he basically said that
0:29:39 the female combatants are not included
0:29:41 in that
0:29:42 because they're not combatants but
0:29:43 that's interesting because it indicates
0:29:46 that it's because they have a new status
0:29:48 now they're happy they're combatants or
0:29:49 whatever
0:29:50 but here
0:29:51 how does that relate to you're talking
0:29:52 about a woman a woman apostate no you
0:29:55 said combatants yeah they said that it's
0:29:57 um she's not a combatant she's not happy
0:29:59 she does not become a herbie
0:30:01 in any situation she does not become a
0:30:03 combatant in any situation also are you
0:30:05 saying the illa is that the male can
0:30:08 become a combatant that's why he is
0:30:09 killed i don't know if it's highlight
0:30:10 because if if if i lose tab that's
0:30:13 something question another question i
0:30:14 have to look into the books again so why
0:30:16 are they saying that a female has not
0:30:17 become a combatant yeah that that's they
0:30:19 are saying she doesn't become a
0:30:21 combatant so therefore she's not killed
0:30:22 if she comes in a prostate so then
0:30:24 doesn't that mean that
0:30:25 the apostate is being killed because of
0:30:27 the threat that he poses to the state
0:30:30 therefore a female is not seen as
0:30:32 someone that yeah
0:30:34 that can be indicated yeah that's that's
0:30:36 sexism
0:30:38 now be careful with that kind of wording
0:30:40 because uh it's actually um no no
0:30:43 they'll say that i'm not saying oh they
0:30:44 they would they would say that
0:30:46 anything to do
0:30:47 if we say a word that seems
0:30:50 i think they won't have a problem with
0:30:51 that yeah
0:30:52 i don't think they don't have a problem
0:30:53 with that being seen it like that yeah
0:30:55 yeah no but it's you know this is
0:30:57 clearly different to muslims
0:31:00 men and women but yeah so that's that's
0:31:02 the only thing i saw and there's other
0:31:03 opinions here and there but like liberal
0:31:05 muslims or whatever they don't count
0:31:06 some of them are apostates themselves
0:31:13 i don't know
0:31:14 i haven't seen anything like that i wish
0:31:15 i could find that i've heard that as
0:31:17 well some people say but i don't know
0:31:18 how to share and so you know i saw other
0:31:20 people i don't know anything like that
0:31:22 all i know is that
0:31:23 basically people have done sakura on
0:31:24 this matter meaning they've literally
0:31:26 read every single book
0:31:27 on the what the mad of them
0:31:30 are for each matter in fact there's
0:31:32 there's one particular book which i can
0:31:34 give you the reference for afterwards
0:31:35 that indicates that there are eighteen
0:31:37 mahatma books of the hanafi
0:31:38 seventeen of the maliki twenty-two of
0:31:40 the shafai
0:31:41 and twenty-three of the hamburger and
0:31:43 all of them say the same thing about
0:31:44 this matter can you repeat that be so
0:31:46 sorry
0:31:47 yeah it's uh i can say all the time
0:31:50 that there are eighteen books for the
0:31:51 hanafi madhab which are like the last
0:31:54 they're seen as the authoritative books
0:31:55 that people study amazon
0:31:57 seventeen of them came
0:32:00 twenty-two of the shareholder
0:32:02 the brother can tell us more about you
0:32:03 know you know you know those books
0:32:04 yourself and twenty-three of the humbly
0:32:06 method it says
0:32:08 last but not least
0:32:10 and um
0:32:12 and if you include yeah any salafi books
0:32:15 books we will call it like the new ones
0:32:18 then there's more than there's more than
0:32:19 that as well but but basically all of
0:32:21 them
0:32:22 say
0:32:23 uh this uh thing which is except for
0:32:25 what i've just mentioned which is
0:32:28 which we'll come across in the hanafi's
0:32:29 obviously there's going to be more in
0:32:31 the handful school let's say if
0:32:33 said it but i'm just giving you
0:32:36 the only difference of opinion that i
0:32:37 have seen in the mother
0:32:39 that has been see i should be saying can
0:32:41 we imagine that opinion or should we
0:32:42 just like because there's so much well
0:32:45 look the the method that i employ
0:32:47 well now alan you know is that it it's
0:32:50 why not it's why not mention that it's
0:32:52 not
0:32:53 what are we more we are
0:32:57 we are people with lay people so we can
0:32:59 say this is what the math have to say
0:33:01 there's one difference of opinion
0:33:02 there's no problem i don't see any
0:33:04 problem
0:33:05 in uh
0:33:06 in that
0:33:07 so long as the opinion is is just what
0:33:09 even tamiya said in the shechem
0:33:11 i'm happy he's here because then he can
0:33:13 correct me when i'm when i'm done
0:33:15 he's going to tell you to make this this
0:33:16 time mistake i'm gonna have to make some
0:33:17 clarifications but uh
0:33:20 i had one particular
0:33:22 particular teacher his name
0:33:27 and uh he was in university
0:33:29 teaching me
0:33:31 and we were going through malam of ibn
0:33:33 taymiyah one time and the way he put it
0:33:35 in terms of this
0:33:37 opinions and so on as that so long as
0:33:38 there's an opinion which has thought it
0:33:40 for someone in our mind that i believe
0:33:42 in it it's a group of i believe in it
0:33:44 then it's
0:33:46 something which is seen as acceptable in
0:33:48 the islamic discourse so if someone says
0:33:49 what about this opinion which says xyz
0:33:53 but that opinion does not have backing
0:33:55 it doesn't have atari
0:33:57 believing in it
0:33:59 then
0:34:00 then that thing is not acceptable as an
0:34:01 opinion it shares there's something
0:34:02 which you can put to the side but if a
0:34:04 whole school of thought this is a this
0:34:06 is one opinion in the school of thought
0:34:07 now for the most part of course it can
0:34:09 be narrated because this is not it's the
0:34:11 whole group of scholars in a school of
0:34:12 thought says something and we don't have
0:34:14 a right to challenge that and say it's
0:34:16 wrong all right unless we are mushtaheds
0:34:19 which we are not well unless we have the
0:34:20 ability to yani
0:34:23 and say this one is right and this one
0:34:24 is wrong but we don't have the we don't
0:34:26 have the tools for that
0:34:31 his opinion of the treaty of debris
0:34:33 where does this fit into the israelites
0:34:34 so basically look
0:34:36 let's bring it what he said right so
0:34:38 ibrahimovic
0:34:40 and many others like i said something in
0:34:41 the group of madawi actually is humbly
0:34:44 um
0:34:45 who basically talks about the
0:34:46 permissibility of drafting a treaty like
0:34:48 the tree of hadhibiya
0:34:51 and he basically says there's more than
0:34:53 one opinion in yani this is allowed now
0:34:56 if you remember the treaty of hadibiya
0:34:59 those who came to the muslims the ones
0:35:02 who were like
0:35:04 abu jandal and so on who came and that
0:35:06 when they wanted to be rescued
0:35:08 they had to be returned
0:35:10 so now there's a question the question
0:35:12 is
0:35:13 can you can you have a treaty
0:35:17 with
0:35:18 with non-muslim nations
0:35:20 where they say for example
0:35:22 which would be the opposite of this
0:35:24 situation but a smaller shed actually
0:35:27 if
0:35:27 an apostate is in your land that you
0:35:29 send them over to us it's more it's more
0:35:30 severe because
0:35:32 to
0:35:33 to leave off uh a believer coming to the
0:35:36 muslims
0:35:38 is a big where jib it's a wedge of an
0:35:40 islamist worship so the question that
0:35:42 brings itself is
0:35:46 is a jib for you it would have been
0:35:49 where jib
0:35:50 to do to do
0:35:53 of abuja right but that treaty
0:35:56 it stopped our egypt from happening so
0:35:58 this shot in the treaty it stopped
0:36:00 something which would otherwise be
0:36:01 obligatory to happen from happening do
0:36:04 you see what i'm saying so what if okay
0:36:06 so it's obligatory what's let's say
0:36:08 what's the hokum what is the uh
0:36:10 uh the ruling
0:36:12 of
0:36:13 yani uh disposing of the
0:36:16 the the the the the
0:36:17 the uh the
0:36:20 public
0:36:21 so we say the classically is the death
0:36:23 penalty but if there's a treaty in place
0:36:25 would it be
0:36:27 a shout or a condition
0:36:30 which is an acceptable condition for
0:36:32 them to send them over if there's a
0:36:34 reason for that for example if it's uh
0:36:36 if that nation is weak
0:36:46 for example a believer who's coming to
0:36:47 you for help to give him the help that
0:36:50 he needs if a contract has overrided
0:36:52 that yes the lesser of that is for
0:36:55 example
0:36:56 the capital punishment for the murtaz so
0:36:58 if that is allowed how could that not be
0:37:00 allowed is that what you're saying yeah
0:37:01 we're saying so because this thing that
0:37:03 in in in the books of surah they have
0:37:05 these issues of like a shelter
0:37:08 the kinds of unacceptable
0:37:10 unacceptable conditions yeah
0:37:12 but it seems and this is why i spoke to
0:37:14 some
0:37:14 saudi arabia actually yeah let's talk
0:37:17 about it afterwards but um they were
0:37:18 saying that in in politics the matter is
0:37:21 more white because especially if there's
0:37:24 like the situation
0:37:26 the very famous qaeda principle that the
0:37:30 thing which is word
0:37:31 also thing which is necessity it makes
0:37:33 something which is otherwise not halal
0:37:37 so let's put this into action like for
0:37:38 example if brunei okay it's a country
0:37:40 which is tried to implement islamic
0:37:42 laws
0:37:43 the question is if they did so what
0:37:45 would happen to them they would be
0:37:46 economically sanctioned maybe
0:37:48 the country itself where the people in
0:37:50 it would suffer greatly if they tried to
0:37:52 implement this this kind of law
0:37:54 so is it legitimate for a country like
0:37:56 brunei or not even brunei like sorry to
0:37:58 say malaysia or a country which is less
0:38:00 weaker and that would be seriously
0:38:02 impacted by the
0:38:04 the consequences
0:38:06 would it be okay for such a country to
0:38:08 uh morocco even i think there have been
0:38:11 and i said something in the group there
0:38:12 was a legenda in morocco of alama that
0:38:15 used hadibiya
0:38:17 to make this ruling
0:38:19 so this i'm not just bringing this out
0:38:20 this thing there this ruling is already
0:38:22 there there's a legend in morocco that
0:38:24 had made this ruling already
0:38:25 um
0:38:27 would it be okay to say well any
0:38:28 apostate will send them over to whatever
0:38:30 nation
0:38:32 it's possible so what we're saying is
0:38:33 it's not the the fact that it has to be
0:38:35 this way
0:38:36 you know but we're saying that there is
0:38:38 there is sa there is some level of
0:38:42 movement here in the islamic tradition
0:38:45 there is uh
0:38:46 there's more than one option and
0:38:48 obviously we know that the hadood anyway
0:38:50 are not implemented in times of war
0:38:52 there's all kinds of like uh you know
0:38:54 issues yeah it's like for example in
0:38:57 terms of all that i'm not mentioned so
0:39:11 is
0:39:21 uh maybe it's because the other people
0:39:23 will defect to the other side imagine
0:39:24 trying to kill somebody and you want
0:39:25 them to fight for you
0:39:30 you cut their hand off you know you want
0:39:32 them to hold the weapon on the sword
0:39:33 you're going to cut the hand
0:39:34 so which one is it so it's maybe to
0:39:36 allah to prevent defection
0:39:40 but this is maybe one of the the
0:39:41 hekamata i don't know the reason but in
0:39:43 terms of warrior for sure
0:39:45 so uh this is basically it this is the
0:39:47 question
0:39:48 now this is the uh if you like the tasil
0:39:51 or or the the abstraction
0:39:54 the the how can we know what the hawkins
0:39:55 according to the motherhood
0:39:57 or the if you like the schools of
0:39:59 thought the exceptions we can see what
0:40:01 the exceptions could be based on the
0:40:02 actions of the prophet
0:40:04 number three and like the story of
0:40:06 gender and
0:40:07 how they be and all that kind of thing
0:40:09 finally
0:40:10 we come to the implementation
0:40:13 we come to the implementation
0:40:16 so
0:40:18 i give an example
0:40:20 of the ottoman empire now why did i
0:40:22 choose the ottoman empire
0:40:24 i chose the ottoman empire because the
0:40:26 ottoman empire has the best
0:40:28 uh kept records
0:40:31 of all the islamic empires that have
0:40:32 ever existed the ottoman empire has the
0:40:34 best records
0:40:36 okay they have uh something called the
0:40:38 sejil
0:40:40 we we call this a
0:40:41 it's a jew as well actually
0:40:43 they call it a jewel in turkey maybe you
0:40:44 know this
0:40:46 i don't know
0:40:47 yeah it's
0:40:49 what they call it
0:40:56 basically it's it's the archive of uh
0:40:58 call documents and they're actually um
0:41:00 they have
0:41:01 now
0:41:03 made them electronic copies
0:41:05 so we've got we know we have some people
0:41:07 in sapiens of course that are fluent in
0:41:09 the turkish language i'm not talking
0:41:11 about you
0:41:14 nobody actually can read the script and
0:41:16 they but before they had the ottoman
0:41:18 script so that this was a very
0:41:19 specialized script
0:41:21 uh and so uh
0:41:23 we looked at the we looked at the
0:41:24 records now we're not saying just
0:41:25 because we looked at the records that
0:41:27 that's because there are some gaps in
0:41:28 the records there's books written about
0:41:30 the gaps in the ottoman records
0:41:32 but we looked for a very very long time
0:41:34 to see what kind of uh
0:41:36 court documents there are and we found
0:41:38 this one
0:41:41 uh figure one let's just here
0:41:44 this person called varva nam okay this
0:41:46 is the uh granddad
0:41:49 can you i'm not sure if you can see it
0:41:50 there it's a very this is the code
0:41:51 document it's an official code document
0:41:52 right here we can see it here what's it
0:41:54 called
0:41:56 this is jill yeah
0:41:58 s i j j
0:41:59 il okay uh but it's all in the book so
0:42:01 you can you can find this information
0:42:02 it's not a problem but can you see here
0:42:04 they've got the um this is what it looks
0:42:06 like a court document that's what the
0:42:08 document looks like right
0:42:10 now i i wanted to
0:42:12 to look at a time
0:42:15 because the idea was i was going to look
0:42:17 at this this document and compare it
0:42:19 with the american equivalent
0:42:21 at the same time
0:42:22 because this is 1839 okay so
0:42:25 what was going on in 1839 in the ottoman
0:42:28 empire
0:42:29 there was a civil war in the ottoman
0:42:31 empire
0:42:32 and the civil war was with the greeks
0:42:35 very very famous
0:42:36 well-known war
0:42:38 but what was happening in america
0:42:40 10 years later
0:42:42 or 10-15 years later there was also a
0:42:45 civil war the biggest civil war that
0:42:47 happened in american history
0:42:48 actually the biggest war that happened
0:42:49 in america
0:42:51 so can you see here and this is what
0:42:53 when i was speaking with my supervisor
0:42:55 at the time he said this is why it's a
0:42:56 very good comparison he said because
0:42:58 you're getting this as a like for like
0:43:00 comparison
0:43:02 for
0:43:03 a situation
0:43:04 a a a and a lack of like time
0:43:07 so it's not like we're going 100 years
0:43:09 back and we're talking about 10-year
0:43:11 give or take
0:43:13 so now we can see we've talked about the
0:43:14 principles of liberalism in islam we can
0:43:16 see the implementation of it now
0:43:18 so look let me read to you what we have
0:43:20 actually this is the first time i was
0:43:21 trying to translate into english once
0:43:23 again now i've sent this phrase many
0:43:25 times but this time it's not from from
0:43:27 arabic it's from turkish
0:43:30 so there's this person called varva nam
0:43:32 okay this is the name of the person okay
0:43:35 this is my high permission granted
0:43:38 and this is not my command of the
0:43:39 release
0:43:40 for the christian woman known as varva
0:43:42 nam has been known to become muslim and
0:43:44 later on it came known that she has
0:43:46 apostated
0:43:47 and was brought to me
0:43:49 and later exiled to busra sorry
0:43:53 now
0:43:54 you are the deputy khadi and you are
0:43:56 informed quickly proceed to release the
0:43:58 aforementioned woman see how quick clear
0:44:00 is
0:44:01 so this person apostated
0:44:05 then she left the dean
0:44:07 and she was released
0:44:09 by the hanafi judges so this is a hanafi
0:44:11 courts
0:44:13 they release her
0:44:15 she was a christian woman
0:44:17 is it because she was a woman
0:44:20 or is it because this was a muslim issue
0:44:24 and i think it's the latter
0:44:26 it was a muslim issue because
0:44:28 they were well aware of what the greeks
0:44:30 were doing at that time the greeks were
0:44:32 trying to
0:44:33 rally their own energize the base and
0:44:36 the so therefore they were trying to
0:44:38 become muslim and leave islam so that
0:44:40 they can get more people to join the
0:44:42 resistance against the ottomans
0:44:44 but the ottomans were well aware of this
0:44:47 and so they were clear and didn't care
0:44:49 too much about these apostles the public
0:44:51 hypothesis of these people
0:44:53 and there's more than these examples but
0:44:54 there are only a few examples
0:44:58 like this and the whole sigil from
0:45:00 why is it the second by this well 15 or
0:45:03 whatever it was fifty or seven or the
0:45:05 only when he was around
0:45:06 so we only have a few examples
0:45:09 but when we look at the uh the i the
0:45:11 equivalent counter example
0:45:14 the case of william mumford okay this is
0:45:16 the case of william mumford okay so it's
0:45:18 like for that case an american area
0:45:20 there's a man called william mumford
0:45:24 and he was captured by union forces
0:45:26 obviously there was two different groups
0:45:28 and the union forces
0:45:37 william mumford
0:45:39 in 1862 okay
0:45:42 this person
0:45:45 there were different flags in the civil
0:45:47 war the american civil war
0:45:48 i'm not sure if you've seen the the two
0:45:51 counter american flags you know the one
0:45:52 with the confederate flag and the union
0:45:54 flag right you've seen how they're
0:45:56 different from each other but the
0:45:57 situation was such that the flag meant
0:45:59 so much and still does by the way in
0:46:00 american history
0:46:02 but he was he was waving the confederate
0:46:04 flag in the union territory in new
0:46:05 orleans
0:46:07 and as a result what did he do they
0:46:08 killed him
0:46:09 but what kind of killing was it it was a
0:46:11 public
0:46:12 hanging
0:46:14 it was a public hanging and there was
0:46:16 very little resistance
0:46:19 in america at that time
0:46:21 so what did he do what treason did he
0:46:22 commit he raised the wrong flag at the
0:46:25 wrong time
0:46:27 so this is why this is very important is
0:46:29 because number one
0:46:31 if you uh if you count up
0:46:33 kind of um
0:46:36 if you contrast this with the ottoman
0:46:38 example the ottoman example they're
0:46:40 releasing people the american example
0:46:43 they're killing them
0:46:44 and this is exactly in the same time
0:46:47 and this is based on a treason
0:46:49 explanation
0:46:50 that the ottomans were
0:46:52 who were hanafi's and we explained that
0:46:54 they do define these kinds of things as
0:46:56 treasonous
0:46:57 assad did that
0:46:59 and moreover
0:47:03 moreover he was he was actually killed
0:47:06 by hanging and the way he was hanged it
0:47:09 was like you know his neck was cracked
0:47:11 and people saw like honestly
0:47:14 look look at look what it says i mean i
0:47:16 found this newspaper clipping myself
0:47:18 1862 june and 1862. so the new york
0:47:21 herald stated rather i'm saying this
0:47:24 right we have no lack of excitement
0:47:26 today with
0:47:27 raising the stars and the stripes in one
0:47:28 public building and hanging a man for
0:47:31 hauling them down
0:47:33 another for holding down another one
0:47:37 mumford seemingly protested his
0:47:38 innocence i'm saying
0:47:40 he's mumford says i never committed an
0:47:42 intentional sin in my life
0:47:45 and i have
0:47:46 and all i have done
0:47:47 uh to others i would be have done by and
0:47:50 when tomorrow i'm no longer in this
0:47:52 world you can say no just and good man
0:47:55 as there is in the sea of new orleans
0:47:57 has gone numerous so he's trying to play
0:47:59 the victim cart i mean he is a victim in
0:48:01 many uh people's eyes
0:48:03 you know
0:48:04 definitely the confederates
0:48:08 so
0:48:09 then look at look at this look how you
0:48:11 look i was killed in front of the people
0:48:12 some of the big people were watching
0:48:14 this is 150 years ago in america right
0:48:16 less than that
0:48:17 the fall which was uh this is what the
0:48:20 the newer carol said about him
0:48:22 the fall which was about four feet
0:48:24 dislocated his neck
0:48:26 but owing to a slight accident the knot
0:48:28 was displaced and worked up his chin
0:48:30 leaving his windpipe partially free so
0:48:32 because they're hanging him
0:48:34 they didn't hang him properly so he was
0:48:36 being like
0:48:38 like he he was the result was the
0:48:40 muscular contraction did not cease for
0:48:41 10 minutes
0:48:43 10 minutes can you imagine this is the
0:48:45 problem with hanging someone if you cut
0:48:46 his head off sorry to say bianni this
0:48:48 would not have happened
0:48:50 like if you cut his head off
0:48:52 this this situation would not have taken
0:48:54 place this is a fact if you shot his
0:48:56 head this wouldn't have taken place
0:48:59 but because you hanged him
0:49:01 then
0:49:02 there was no time uh
0:49:04 though it was at no time violent
0:49:07 according according to this newspaper
0:49:09 right
0:49:10 and look look at how many people were
0:49:12 there this was filled by a crowd of not
0:49:14 less than 10 000 people
0:49:17 can you imagine they're all there
0:49:18 they're all they're cheering and
0:49:19 endearing well this is the american
0:49:21 culture
0:49:22 so we have here a situation which is
0:49:24 very clear look at the contrast if you
0:49:27 saw both situations and asked people
0:49:29 today to see which one is the islamic
0:49:31 example and which one is the liberal one
0:49:32 i'm pretty sure the mumford example
0:49:34 would be seen as the islamic one and the
0:49:36 other the
0:49:38 will be seen as he
0:49:39 would be seen as the liberal one
0:49:42 but you see a situation here where the
0:49:44 implementation of laws and this is after
0:49:46 by the way the amendment of the
0:49:48 united states constitution there was 13
0:49:50 amendments this is
0:49:51 after you know it's 19 this is 1863 so
0:49:54 it's in the midst of the civil war but
0:49:55 it's near the end of it because the
0:49:57 civil war finished in 1865.
0:50:00 and this is after abraham lincoln
0:50:03 i mean you've seen abraham lincoln this
0:50:04 is abraham lincoln was existed before
0:50:06 that and so we're talking about the
0:50:07 figures of liberalism and stuff they you
0:50:10 know
0:50:10 they acquiesce implicated to this
0:50:12 reality
0:50:13 so um yeah now we have issues the issues
0:50:16 are not necessarily
0:50:17 uh like this they have extrajudicial
0:50:19 killings they have all kinds of
0:50:21 implementation type issues
0:50:22 and
0:50:24 the point we're making is they'll make
0:50:25 an argument from contractarianism but
0:50:28 what we have seen ladies and gentlemen
0:50:29 watching at home is that not only are
0:50:32 these arguments unsound abstractly but
0:50:35 they are unsound historically as well
0:50:37 and contemporaneously and we can
0:50:39 obviously open that
0:50:40 the can of worms on that so just before
0:50:43 we finish
0:50:45 but bearing in mind all that we've
0:50:47 mentioned
0:50:48 you've been a bit quiet
0:50:50 yes
0:50:51 let's get you involved
0:50:52 what are let's start with the first
0:50:54 thing
0:50:55 what is the first main type of argument
0:50:57 if someone who's let's say liberally
0:50:58 inclined
0:51:00 came and said well your religion allows
0:51:01 x y and z
0:51:03 how would you in regards to the laws of
0:51:05 how would you respond to that
0:51:09 the first thing that we'd say
0:51:11 yeah i would say you see this
0:51:15 okay okay no but let's but this person
0:51:17 is a liberal so what do you want to show
0:51:18 them that is you want to show them that
0:51:20 this is something which is remarkable or
0:51:22 something which is unremarkable based on
0:51:24 his world view
0:51:26 i think i would say yes it does and then
0:51:28 i would say
0:51:31 this and i would obviously prove
0:51:34 why it's not wrong and
0:51:37 my argument
0:51:39 would have been before this
0:51:41 if you go to any islamic country
0:51:44 and
0:51:45 we know
0:51:46 a lot of people
0:51:48 that are
0:51:49 that are muted
0:51:51 or they don't believe or they don't
0:51:52 practice so they
0:51:53 or they don't follow islam
0:51:55 but
0:51:57 i never seen a case of someone being
0:51:59 hung or someone being killed
0:52:01 because of because of not believing
0:52:04 and
0:52:06 the only the only cases
0:52:08 that
0:52:09 if you ever were to see
0:52:10 would be someone that is openly publicly
0:52:13 uh molten and would
0:52:15 talk would go against islam
0:52:19 so
0:52:21 if he if we transported our case to a
0:52:25 liberal country
0:52:26 we have someone that openly goes against
0:52:30 the country against the values liberal
0:52:32 values
0:52:33 and becomes a
0:52:35 a danger for for it
0:52:36 they will find a way to shut him down
0:52:39 i'm with you but
0:52:40 look at the examples we've used today
0:52:42 with william mumford yeah was he a
0:52:43 danger
0:52:45 no well i mean was his act let's be very
0:52:47 specific to the questioning was his act
0:52:49 that he done a dangerous action or was
0:52:51 it symbolic action
0:52:53 symbolic same what was the action that
0:52:54 he done
0:52:55 he raised the flag
0:52:57 okay and what was the problem with that
0:52:59 i think he actually took down the sort
0:53:00 of the union flag he took it down yeah
0:53:02 he took down the union flag so is that
0:53:04 what is that that's creation of a flag
0:53:06 yeah just showing that it's not it
0:53:08 doesn't agree with maybe
0:53:09 whatever the values or whatever china
0:53:13 the values of the
0:53:14 uh union flag
0:53:16 okay and what happened to him
0:53:18 so
0:53:19 they didn't like the way
0:53:20 he expressed although they liked his uh
0:53:23 what did they say he was what was he
0:53:25 doing he was a
0:53:29 and then what they did to him
0:53:30 so they killed him they killed him and
0:53:32 they did did they do so despite the
0:53:34 constitution or because of or
0:53:36 following the constitution yeah
0:53:38 following the constitution
0:53:39 so yeah so what so therefore you don't
0:53:42 always have to be a danger to the state
0:53:44 in order to be killed for treason
0:53:47 okay
0:53:48 you see do you see the point it can
0:53:49 result in a symbolic action
0:53:51 which they see
0:53:53 as
0:53:54 unacceptable and that has happened
0:53:57 but now the question is does the
0:53:58 framework allow does the liberal
0:53:59 framework allow that
0:54:02 what do you think about that
0:54:04 and how do we know that it does
0:54:06 um because we have the the treason laws
0:54:09 in those various countries
0:54:12 and we have examples of people being
0:54:14 killed
0:54:15 because of treason
0:54:17 and uh if you compare that with the amer
0:54:20 with the islamic as we did with the
0:54:23 turkish lady
0:54:24 we can see that there's more we have
0:54:27 examples of leniency
0:54:29 we have the same
0:54:31 uh same issue with you know we have the
0:54:34 treason
0:54:35 it would be comparison with the treason
0:54:37 law
0:54:38 but we have examples of people being
0:54:41 actually
0:54:42 um
0:54:44 you know they weren't prosecuted
0:54:46 excellent so it's conceivable that
0:54:49 someone can be prosecuted and it's
0:54:51 conceivable that they'll that the
0:54:52 punishment will be waived
0:54:54 is that conceivability a liberal
0:54:56 conceivability or is it also an islamic
0:54:58 one
0:55:00 both
0:55:01 so since it's both the liberal
0:55:03 conceivability in the and an islamic one
0:55:06 what does that make a liberal argument
0:55:07 against this type of punishment
0:55:11 hypocrisy hypocritical it's uh fruitless
0:55:13 it's self-defeating
0:55:16 hopefully everyone understands that but
0:55:17 if if you
0:55:18 want to go back to the argument it's in
0:55:20 the very first page in this first page
0:55:22 or one of the first pages
0:55:24 second page or third page
0:55:26 of the
0:55:27 uh of the little book i've sent it in
0:55:28 the group as well guys uh that will be
0:55:30 it for
0:55:32 today foreign