Critiquing Liberalism feat. @AbdullahalAndalusi | TAP #17 (2021-10-04)

Description

Thought Adventure Support ◄ PayPal - https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=6KZWK75RB23RN ◄ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ThoughtAdventurePodcast/join ◄ PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/thoughtadventurepodcast

Thought Adventure Social Media ◄ Twitter: https://twitter.com/T_A_Podcast@T_A_Podcast ◄ Clubhouse https://www.clubhouse.com/club/thought-adventure-podcast ◄ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7x4UVfTz9QX8KVdEXquDUC ◄ Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast ◄ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast

The Hosts:

Jake Brancatella, The Muslim Metaphysician

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcGQRfTPNyHlXMqckvz2uqQ
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MMetaphysician@MMetaphysician

Yusuf Ponders, The Pondering Soul

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsiDDxy0JXLqM6HBA0MA4NA
Twitter: https://twitter.com/YusufPonders@YusufPonders
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/yusufponders@yusufpodners

Sharif

Twitter: https://twitter.com/sharifhafezi@sharifhafezi

Abdulrahman

Twitter: https://twitter.com/abdul_now@abdul_now

Admin

Riyad Gmail: hello.tapodcast@gmail.com #liberalism #islam #critique

Summary of Critiquing Liberalism feat. @AbdullahalAndalusi | TAP #17

*This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies.

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

discusses liberalism and how it differs from Islam. It explains that Islam is true by definition and, as such, becomes a difficult topic to reconcile with liberalism. suggests that understanding liberalism's historical development is essential to understanding it.

*00:00:00 Discusses liberalism, its philosophy, and its impact on modern society. Brother Abdullah and Lucy He should join the discussion soon. Sharif Yusuf Salam provides an introduction to the topic. He points out that many non-Muslims don't understand liberalism because it is based on a philosophical premise which is controversial.

00:05:00 AbdullahalAndalusi discusses the challenges liberalism poses for Muslims, particularly in regards to how it relates to islam. He highlights the importance of individualism in liberalism and how it contrasts with islam's emphasis on society and the individual.
*00:10:00 Discusses liberalism and how it differs from islam. He explains that islam is true by definition and, as such, becomes a difficult topic to reconcile with liberalism. suggests that understanding liberalism's historical development is essential to understanding it.
*00:15:00 Discusses the definition of liberalism and its ideological roots in Karl Marx. It points out that while most people who identify as liberals do not self-identify as such, they still hold many of the same beliefs as liberals. Finally, it discusses the differences between liberalism and socialism, noting that while both ideologies believe in equal rights, liberalism accepts the idea that individualism is key to achieving those rights.
*00:20:00 Discusses liberalism, which is a political philosophy that defends the rights of the individual. It covers the basics of secular and religious liberalism, and explains why religious liberals may be against the idea of hell being literal. Finally, the video discusses the concept of individualism and its importance in liberalism.
00:25:00 critiques liberalism, arguing that it is based on an incorrect ontology and epistemology. It goes on to discuss the origins of social liberalism, which was invented in the 18th century to try and prevent the spread of violence between humans. It then discusses social liberalism's modern incarnation, which is called "social liberalism."
*00:30:00 Discusses liberalism and classical liberalism. Classical liberals believe in the state staying out of people's private lives, while libertarians believe the state should have no involvement in people's lives other than as an arbitrator. Today's social liberals, who believe in social justice, have a strong argument within Enlightenment ideas.
00:35:00 The clip discusses liberalism, socialism, and conservatism, and how each believes in treating all individuals as equals. The clip also points out that conservatism came from the reaction to social liberalism.
00:40:00 Liberalism is a philosophical school of thought that emerged from the Enlightenment era, where people disagreed about universal principles. There is a libertarian meta-narrative behind liberalism, which argues that humans have a natural right to freedom and liberty.
00:45:00 Liberalism, or the belief that humans should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people, has been criticized for its lack of safety regulations and its acceptance of staff turnover.
00:50:00 The clip discusses how liberalism has various contradictions within itself, specifically with regards to how individuals should express their opinions. Islam, in contrast, has a more clear-cut understanding of what is required of followers, with no room for error.
*00:55:00 Discusses how liberalism within Islam leads to conflict within the church, while disagreement on theology is not an issue. Islam also has a higher bar for prosecuting someone for leaving Islam, as the judge would need to have a clear-cut verse of Quran or Sunnah to convict someone.

01:00:00 - 02:00:00

critiques liberalism, and points out how it is hypocritical for those who support it to criticize those who critique it. It also mentions how recent Prime Minister David Cameron said that too long we've been a passively tolerant society, which has helped foster extremism and grievance.

*01:00:00 Discusses how Enlightenment-era Europe progressed technologically and philosophically thanks to contact with Muslim civilizations, and how this led to a skepticism towards ancient Greek claims. He also notes that even though these thinkers were living in a non-secular state, they were still developing ideas in the fields of science and philosophy.

01:05:00 critiques liberalism, discussing the origins of the philosophy and the different interpretations of it today. It also discusses the idea of freedom and how it is safeguarded in different ways in different countries.
01:10:00 Sharif, a liberal, argues that there are different types of freedoms, including positive and negative ones, and that the conflict between them is often ignored. He also notes that, under liberalism, wars have decreased, famine has decreased, and violence has decreased, but argues that these are not the only benefits of liberalism.
01:15:00 criticizes liberalism, and Abdullah Al Andalusi points out that there are problems with implementing it quickly in a society that is not used to it. He also mentions the need to consider how western liberal secular societies have been involved in the current global environmental crisis.
01:20:00 Abdullah al-Andalusi discusses how liberalism does not cause wars but rather the reasons there are not wars are due to the fact that there are nuclear weapons.
01:25:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses liberalism and its presuppositions, such as the idea that human beings are sovereign and that happiness is primarily pursued through gratifying sensual desires. He also points out that, while liberalism may be founded on these presuppositions, it is not the only philosophical perspective that holds these beliefs.
01:30:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses the tensions that exist within Western societies between competing freedoms. He mentions examples of tension within the United Kingdom between the rights of a Christian baker to refuse to make a cake for an LGBT wedding and the rights of the couple to be able to marry. He also points out that in America, the welfare system is much worse than in Europe and that because of this, the rich are able to keep more of their wealth. He argues that Islam bans interest banking because it is an abusive practice that allows the rich to accumulate too much wealth.
01:35:00 Abdullahal Andalusi critiques liberalism by discussing its contradictions and inconsistencies. He argues that, in practice, liberal systems often result in sexual harassment or assault against individuals who do not consent to being sexualized.
01:40:00 Brother Abdullah Al Andalusi discusses how liberalism can have contradictory principles, including that consent cannot be obtained when intoxicated. He argues that this inconsistency creates problems for men when they are accused of rape, as the female party is more likely to be considered responsible.
01:45:00 critiques liberalism for its inconsistencies and problems. He argues that liberalism is not conducive to giving dawah, as it is often inconsistent and limited. He also points out that liberalism can motivate people to adopt secular, modern notions of right and wrong, which changes Islam.
01:50:00 critiques liberalism, and points out how it is hypocritical for those who support it to criticize those who critique it. It also mentions how recent Prime Minister David Cameron said that too long we've been a passively tolerant society, which has helped foster extremism and grievance.
01:55:00 In the recent debate mentioned by brother Abdullah, one of the brothers said to an ex-Muslim Slim that why don't you call for so you like who's accused of like why you're in the west and you're you know why don't you just leave the west and go to some muslim or islamic regime. The response was that the one you tell those ex-Muslim liberals secularist atheists and the muslim world to leave the muslim because the world is not that the muslim murders clearly not following what you believe in and move to those poor countries which are liberal fully liberal like botswana and south america, is ridiculous. The point of freedom of speech is at least by the enlightenment you know thinkers was to pursue truth which we believe wholeheartedly, and so even in islamic societies where the west depicts them anachronistically as being oppressive or you couldn't express which you wanted to say like in the islamic caliphates in the past from you know from uh the right rightly guided caliphs to the umayyabs and so on so forth, muslims had academic discourses intellectual discourses christians jews even atheists um zoroastrians all having all kinds of discourses publicly and openly

02:00:00 - 03:00:00

Abdullahal Andalusi discusses how liberalism is not always the best option for society, and how it can sometimes lead to negative consequences. He argues that it is important to look at the benefits and drawbacks of liberalism before making any decisions.

02:00:00 critiques liberalism, with Abdullahal Andalusi discussing how it doesn't work very well and how it can be counterproductive in the long term. He goes on to talk about how different western countries have different strategies for dealing with communism, and how the west uses different tactics to hunt down communists. He also talks about how westerners can be discriminated against in their jobs, housing, and even in their religious activities. Finally, he provides an example of how western tolerance can be delayed onset of intolerance.

02:05:00 In the 2002 article "Muslim Fundamentalists Threaten Democracy," Jack Straw discusses how liberals can't accept that religious injunction takes precedence over temporal laws, and this would threaten the very basis of democratic society.
02:10:00 The two main differences between liberalism and islam are that islam believes that humans are owned by God, and that liberalism believes that humans own themselves. Liberalism also allows for different sexual orientations and practices, while islam condemns homosexuality. Differences also exist between how liberalism and islam view religious authority. Liberalism sees equality laws as necessary to maintain social cohesion, while islam maintains that different religions have different authority levels.
*02:15:00 Discusses the different philosophies of liberalism and islam. Islam teaches that the body belongs to Allah, and that people should not engage in premarital sex or consume alcohol. Liberalism, on the other hand, believes that people have the right to do what they want with their bodies. also discusses the different political philosophies of islam and liberalism. Islam advocates for a society where the public space is kept free from corruption, while liberalism advocates for a society where people are allowed to do whatever they want.
02:20:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses how hypocrisy is a common trait among humans, and how islam puts peer pressure on the side of righteousness. He also explains how liberalism has a total view of how individuals and society should behave, and how this worldview is not limited to just one aspect of a person's life. Finally, he recommends watching Jerry Muller's series on capitalism to gain a better understanding of the ideology.
*02:25:00 Discusses liberalism, and how it differs from Islam. It argues that liberalism is not just a reaction against unjust authority, but a way of life that individuals should aspire to. This is why it is important to understand the ideological basis and historical development of liberalism in order to understand it.
02:30:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses the difference between liberalism and absolute government. He argues that liberalism is the opposite of absolute government, in that liberalism trusts the majority to make decisions democratically. Andalusi also compares liberalism to Islam, arguing that both ideologies believe in the sovereignty of God.
02:35:00 Abdullahal Andalusi critiques liberalism, arguing that it cannot work without a teacher to govern by some principle. He uses the analogy of Islam to describe the situation of a teacher in a school who allows students to do whatever they want in class, with the goal of ensuring they are successful.
02:40:00 The critic points out that many liberal Muslims are concerned with how to live in a country that isn't dominated by Muslims, and that this dissatisfaction leads to the criticism of liberalism. He argues that this criticism is justified, and that Muslim scholars should take an academic approach to criticizing liberalism.
02:45:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses the merits of Islamic governance and how it can be applied to the Muslim world. He also discusses the need for Muslims to engage in open discussions about Islam and its values.
02:50:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses how liberalism is not always followed by respect in society. He argues that it is important to look at the benefits of certain ideas, rather than just judging them by their consequences.
02:55:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses how liberalism relies on the assumption that each individual has a unique set of goals and that those goals should be allowed to be pursued without interference from society. He argues that this assumption is not always correct, and that in some cases it can actually lead to negative consequences for society as a whole.

03:00:00 - 04:00:00

Abdullahal Andalusi provides a critique of liberalism, arguing that it often leads to unintended consequences such as the restriction of other people's rights. He also argues that Muslims must be careful when critiquing liberalism as it can lead to dissonance with Islam.

03:00:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses the problems that can arise from liberalism, which assumes the individual is always best suited to make decisions for themselves. He points out that this individualistic ideology can lead to problems such as a contagious disease and people pursuing greater wealth at the expense of others. He also argues that under a Muslim worldview, individual laws may still be necessary to protect the public, despite violating the ideology of liberalism.

*03:05:00 Discusses the different schools of thought within liberalism, and how each approach to ethics justifies different policies. The main point of the video is that liberalism isn't very good at mitigating the secondary effects of policies, and can lead to internal contradictions.
*03:10:00 Discusses how liberalism can be manipulated by those with power, and how islam has fixed principles and a methodology to derive laws. He points to examples of how colonialism and capitalism have shaped the way different parts of the Muslim world view women and sexuality.
03:15:00 critiques liberalism for its goal of allowing people to make as much money as possible without regard to Islamic law. He argues that this leads to a "pseudo-religious state" in which people are manipulated by false promises of happiness. He also argues that in Islam, each individual has a specific, higher goal that is beyond necessity.
03:20:00 critiques liberalism, pointing out that some Muslims may be manipulated into accepting things contrary to Islamic teachings on basic matters such as homosexuality. Abdullahal Andalusi argues that intellectuals can understand Islamic texts, while emotional manipulations in the west occur on the level of emotions, which inherently lack good and bad. He proposes that limits be put in place by someone who understands humans well, in order to prevent Muslims from being manipulated by those in the west.
03:25:00 Abdullahal Andalusi critiques liberalism and highlights its contradictions. He argues that liberalism allows for self-destructive behaviors, that humans have a greater purpose than just satisfying their desires, and that islam provides a more coherent and satisfying worldview.
*03:30:00 Discusses the paradox of liberalism, which is that it is based on the principle of individual freedom, but at the same time it often results in the restriction of other people's rights. also points out that this paradox is often expressed in liberal societies by the fact that there are only two political parties.
03:35:00 Abdullah Al Andalusi critiques liberalism by discussing the idea of individual rights impinging upon others. He points out that this is a common problem with liberal philosophy, as it often leads to unintended consequences. Al Andalusi also discusses the dangers of over-consumption and the spread of STDs. He argues that a society based on abstinence would be better for everyone involved.
03:40:00 Abdullahal Andalusi critiques liberalism and talks about some of the contradictions within it. He recommends reading books by Domenico Le Cerdo andSharif Abdullah Yusuf to further explore these contradictions.
03:45:00 provides a critique of liberalism from a Muslim perspective. argues that Muslims must be careful when critiquing liberalism as it leads to dissonance with Islam in conflict with itself. There are also books available on liberalism that Muslims should read in order to provide a more complete understanding of the ideology.
03:50:00 Abdullahal Andalusi critiques liberalism, pointing out that while liberals may claim to believe in tolerance, in reality they are conservative Muslims who are only advocating for the teachings of Islam if it requires change. He goes on to say that Muslims are actually subjects of the Islamic state, not the caliph, and that Christians who follow Islam have the same rights as Muslims.
03:55:00 <>

04:00:00 - 05:00:00

Abdullahal Andalusi discusses the problems with liberalism, arguing that it is inherently contradictory and that it leads to problems such as exploitation and violence. He suggests that Islam is a better system because it balances the needs of the individual and society.

04:00:00 thinks that liberalism is a necessary condition for an ideal society, and defines this as one in which everyone's desires are in accord. He also argues that without liberalism, there would be tension between the subjects participating in society.

04:05:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses the paradox of liberalism: on the one hand, liberals claim to want a society where individuals are free to do what they want, but in practice this leads to problems such as coerced conformity and selfishness. He argues that the ideology itself contains the paradox, and that it is not just incorrect application that causes problems, but the inherent contradiction in the creed itself.
04:10:00 Abdullahal Andalusi critiques liberalism, pointing out that it inherently has tensions between individual rights and the state, between authority and the individual, and between collective and individual rights. He also raises the issue of coercion, noting that under a liberal system, there is always the possibility of one person's actions having little impact on another. Ultimately, he concludes that liberalism is flawed because it prioritises individual freedom to the exclusion of other values.
04:15:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses the implications of liberalism, specifically social liberalism, on society and the individual. He argues that while liberalism is a good idea, it has negative consequences if it is not balanced with other priorities. Islam, he argues, is a system that values both the individual and society, and is able to avoid some of the problems associated with liberalism.
04:20:00 Abdullahal Andalusi critiques social liberalism, criticizing its reliance on the idea that individuals should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't physically harm others. He argues that this is unrealistic and leads to problems, such as exploitation and violence.
04:25:00 Abdullahal Andalusi critiques liberalism, pointing out its flaws in terms of human nature and the law of unintended consequences. He argues that islam, which organizes human instincts in a harmonious way, is a better solution.
04:30:00 criticizes liberalism for being reactionary, and for failing to incorporate religious values into the ideology. It says that individuals in a liberal society are not truly individual because they are defined by society, and that a secular approach to liberalism could work without religious belief.
04:35:00 Abdullah al Andalusi critiques liberalism, explaining that it is always reactive and has no foundational principles to guide it. He argues that, as a result, liberalism cannot ever really get anywhere because it always relies on opposition. He also notes that liberalism is not unique to the west - it exists in various forms throughout history, and has never resulted in lasting civilizations.
04:40:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses the difference between individualism and liberalism, and how Islam upheld individual freedoms while Europe was in the dark ages.
*04:45:00 Discusses the need for a renegotiation of the social contract within Islam, citing examples of corruption and abuse of power. He suggests that Muslim scholars have the knowledge and ability to solve these issues within the Islamic legal system.
*04:50:00 Discusses how liberalism is different from islam and how it is reactionary in nature. He also provides examples of where liberalism fails.
*04:55:00 Discusses how liberalism can be successful without democracy, and how liberalism doesn't need science and mathematics, which are part of democracy. He says that liberalism can work with an autocrat if the autocrat is the right one.

05:00:00 - 05:10:00

Abdullahal Andalusi discusses liberalism and how it is not connected to any specific structures or ideologies. He provides an example of how a Muslim ruler could implement Islamic law under a constitutional system.

05:00:00 Abdullahal Andalusi discusses liberalism and its various principles, discussing how liberalism is not connected to specific structures or ideologies, but to government efficiency and effectiveness. He provides an example of how a Muslim ruler could implement Islamic law under a constitutional system.

05:05:00 The presenter discusses how he will be discussing liberalism with professor Graham Oppy next week. He also mentions that he and another muslim student are working on an argument from space-time.
*05:10:00 Discusses liberalism and how it differs from conservatism. He also talks about how to find his posters and how to get them signed if desired.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:08 hey
0:00:33 welcome everybody to another uh stream
0:00:36 another episode of the thought adventure
0:00:37 podcast
0:00:39 uh today we have a uh
0:00:42 a very special topic like uh
0:00:45 you could say it's it's a bit outside of
0:00:46 outside of the normal like uh
0:00:48 philosophical metaphysical uh um
0:00:51 uh topics we have uh in in in the
0:00:55 context of like natural theology we're
0:00:57 talking today about liberalism and
0:00:58 critiquing liberalism
0:01:00 uh so yeah i mean this is not going to
0:01:02 be a really like this is not going to be
0:01:04 very in-depth this is going to be a
0:01:06 surface level analysis of liberalism and
0:01:09 a
0:01:10 basic critique of liberalism we're going
0:01:13 to have brother abdullah and lucy he
0:01:15 should be joining any second with us
0:01:17 and and uh yeah hopefully we're looking
0:01:19 forward to to to a good episode
0:01:21 inshaallah
0:01:22 sharif yusuf salam
0:01:32 so why don't we start uh one of one of
0:01:34 our one of our biggest fans here brother
0:01:36 and he's asking saying define it please
0:01:38 so let's start there let's say maybe
0:01:39 maybe sharif maybe you can
0:01:41 just give us a bit of a warm up
0:01:44 uh before bro
0:01:46 we're waiting for abdullah to define it
0:01:48 for us inshallah uh but it is it's an
0:01:51 interesting topic what it is is that
0:01:54 liberalism
0:01:55 uh
0:01:56 you know it is does
0:02:00 the type of
0:02:01 civilization the west has
0:02:03 they don't really name it you know so
0:02:06 you have like communism yeah so you know
0:02:08 soviet union is a communist country and
0:02:11 you sort of understand what that's that
0:02:13 tends to entail and then you have the
0:02:15 west and the west is called the west but
0:02:18 it's very it's very vague
0:02:20 uh although use certain things like
0:02:22 liberal democracies
0:02:24 again relatively vague or they would you
0:02:27 know and one of the terms that have been
0:02:29 used about the west is capitalism yeah
0:02:33 but again a lot of people when they
0:02:35 think of capitalism they think of just
0:02:36 simply economics some economic systems
0:02:39 or some free market system and i think
0:02:42 part of the reason why
0:02:44 the west per se
0:02:47 or you know
0:02:48 these liberal secular capitalist
0:02:50 societies don't really like to call
0:02:52 themselves a particular name they don't
0:02:55 say that we are this type of
0:02:57 civilization per se
0:02:59 is because i think
0:03:00 uh they don't want to give the
0:03:02 impression that what they hold on to is
0:03:05 a particular view
0:03:07 uh particular you know world view or
0:03:09 particular ideological view
0:03:11 of society of human beings of uh of a
0:03:14 way of life so they leave it relatively
0:03:16 vague or they'll use things like
0:03:18 universal human rights you know the
0:03:19 belief in universal human rights the
0:03:22 belief in freedoms i they use very
0:03:25 they use terms which give this
0:03:27 universalizing
0:03:29 type perspective
0:03:30 of their system giving almost the
0:03:33 impression that the ideology of the west
0:03:36 is something which is innately in tune
0:03:38 to all human beings yeah so so therefore
0:03:41 i think as an introduction point i think
0:03:44 that's that's why it's interesting that
0:03:46 we living in the west many non-muslims
0:03:48 who live in the west don't really have
0:03:50 an understanding about their own
0:03:52 ideology yeah and that's why it becomes
0:03:55 quite vague i've not gone into the
0:03:57 actual detail of definitely i can do
0:03:58 inshallah but i was
0:04:00 maybe just as a point of thought that
0:04:03 people could really appreciate because
0:04:05 like i said if you ask
0:04:07 a person who lives in the west born and
0:04:09 brought up in the west what is
0:04:10 liberalism they won't be able to tell
0:04:12 you yeah or what is capitalism you know
0:04:14 they might talk about free markets and
0:04:16 very vague but that's about it yeah
0:04:19 yeah and and i think i think that's
0:04:21 that's a very important point because a
0:04:23 lot of times people don't really um
0:04:25 aren't really aware of the philosophical
0:04:27 underpinnings of the views that they
0:04:29 hold to or the you know the the systems
0:04:31 that they live within and and even
0:04:34 advocate for so so that that is a very
0:04:37 important point and uh and as we'll see
0:04:39 later in sha allah the philosophical
0:04:41 underpinnings of liberalism are
0:04:43 are extremely significant and extremely
0:04:46 um
0:04:47 controversial i mean uh so so it's not
0:04:50 it's not something that's just you know
0:04:51 set in stone as many people make it seem
0:04:53 to be
0:04:54 uh brother yusuf maybe you want to come
0:04:56 in at this point and give us your
0:04:58 initial thoughts
0:05:00 yeah yeah
0:05:02 for me
0:05:03 one of the striking things about
0:05:05 liberalism is just how
0:05:07 it's not 100 clear to what
0:05:11 degree it actually can undermine itself
0:05:14 as well um so it's all about being open
0:05:18 um to some degree to new or different
0:05:21 opinions and ideas
0:05:23 um but what if those ideas themselves
0:05:25 are anti-liberal
0:05:27 um you know themselves uh
0:05:30 what does liberalism do with this
0:05:33 in particular and you see it sort of
0:05:35 express itself in common politics where
0:05:37 um it's sort of it's it's basically this
0:05:39 notion of um
0:05:41 that's what i'm looking for
0:05:43 uh tolerance um you know we're gonna be
0:05:46 tolerant of you and tolerant of your
0:05:48 ideas
0:05:49 um but there's certain ideas that
0:05:52 definitely do not fall under that
0:05:54 and uh there's certain ideas that when
0:05:56 these are brought up or if it's made
0:05:58 clear that anyone does hold them um they
0:06:01 become very intolerant quite quickly
0:06:04 and um yeah so like how is it that
0:06:07 you're supposed to sort of bridge this
0:06:09 gap um how do you deal with this is it a
0:06:12 case that
0:06:14 being tolerant isn't necessarily like a
0:06:16 sort of this universal value is it the
0:06:19 case that um
0:06:21 being like absolutely liberal
0:06:24 um isn't
0:06:25 a universal thing at all and not really
0:06:28 what they mean they mean we're a little
0:06:29 bit liberal or we're liberal to a
0:06:31 certain degree and which but you know
0:06:34 they never word it like that they never
0:06:35 sort of
0:06:36 um i've never heard it come across in
0:06:39 this kind of liberal manner it's it's
0:06:42 liberalism
0:06:43 tolerance and um
0:06:45 but yeah
0:06:46 yeah uh and and uh
0:06:48 sorry is that
0:06:51 just a little bit don't worry
0:06:52 okay
0:06:53 so so yeah yeah so so so definitely i
0:06:55 mean i totally agree i think i think uh
0:06:57 the idea is i mean
0:06:59 for me i mean one one of the main things
0:07:01 i wanted to ask abdullah and sharifah
0:07:03 yourself is here about the
0:07:04 the foundations of liberalism
0:07:06 specifically with regard to you know the
0:07:08 indiv individualist basis it starts with
0:07:11 that's very interesting for me
0:07:12 personally because uh because i mean as
0:07:15 i understand it like if you contrast
0:07:16 liberalism with something like very
0:07:18 broadly with something like nationalism
0:07:20 let's say as a political system or
0:07:21 something i mean i think the the core
0:07:23 philosophical uh presumption one of the
0:07:26 core philosophical presumptions is that
0:07:28 you know
0:07:29 the nature of man like
0:07:31 one
0:07:32 would see man as like a social animal
0:07:34 you know where there is society and the
0:07:36 society is formed of you know uh um
0:07:39 individuals that
0:07:41 are are are
0:07:43 formed within the society or or or form
0:07:46 their their their their personalities
0:07:48 and individual uh uh uh
0:07:51 you know uh desires from within a
0:07:53 certain social structure versus a
0:07:55 different philosophical uh
0:07:57 presupposition where
0:07:59 the individual is the core the
0:08:01 individual is the building block the
0:08:02 individual is what matters and in the
0:08:05 individual is what
0:08:07 basically forms the basic building block
0:08:10 of society so the individual is the core
0:08:12 versus the society is the core and just
0:08:14 as i see that just as like like a lay
0:08:16 person who's just looking into this it's
0:08:19 it seems like from that starting point
0:08:21 the the difference
0:08:23 for you know the the different routes
0:08:25 you're going to take in in in building a
0:08:28 uh political system is going to be
0:08:30 extremely extremely drastic
0:08:32 it's not going to be a a small
0:08:34 difference it's it's an extremely
0:08:36 humongous uh philosophical underpinning
0:08:39 uh and and uh
0:08:41 i think this idea of of individualism
0:08:44 sort of does make liberalism move from
0:08:46 this from like it's not a particular
0:08:48 ideology it's more of a universalist one
0:08:50 because if the individual has these uh
0:08:53 you know uh uh um rights that he's born
0:08:56 with and that are uh um indisputable and
0:08:59 uncompromisable just on a global scale
0:09:02 then all of a sudden you have a
0:09:03 universalist ideology so i mean that's
0:09:06 that's just
0:09:07 from the way i see it that philosophical
0:09:10 uh um foundation
0:09:12 about this particular point is very
0:09:14 significant i don't know if you have
0:09:16 anything to say about that sheriff yeah
0:09:18 yeah so i think
0:09:20 i think
0:09:21 as muslims we recognize isn't it that
0:09:24 liberalism
0:09:25 yeah uh or certainly the western
0:09:28 civilization
0:09:30 has it does form a challenge for muslims
0:09:32 and just form a challenge for how we
0:09:34 understand islam because
0:09:36 as i mentioned at the beginning you know
0:09:39 the way
0:09:40 the western civilization is projected
0:09:43 is that it's projected as though it is a
0:09:45 universal set of ideas
0:09:48 and so if it's a universal set of ideas
0:09:50 it somehow has some sort of objective
0:09:53 you know independent mind independent uh
0:09:57 ontology that
0:09:59 it you know is like a squared circle it
0:10:01 just hap you know it's it's or not so
0:10:04 it's like a three-sided triangle it's
0:10:05 true by definition so if something's
0:10:08 true by definition the then question
0:10:10 becomes well then how do you fit islam
0:10:12 within this you know observable
0:10:15 objective fact of how human beings
0:10:18 should act or how societies should
0:10:20 function and so then what happens it
0:10:22 becomes a case of how do we change islam
0:10:25 or how do we reconcile islam within a
0:10:28 liberal secular quote-unquote
0:10:30 universalist uh ideology how do we how
0:10:33 do we fit islam with that especially
0:10:34 with certain some of the rules and so
0:10:36 that's why it's so important to
0:10:37 understand take a step back and start to
0:10:39 understand what it is
0:10:41 yeah and really once we understand what
0:10:44 it is and we can start to understand and
0:10:46 unpick its you know presuppositions its
0:10:50 ideological underpinnings and the best
0:10:52 way to really understand what it is what
0:10:54 what this western civilization or
0:10:56 liberalism or capitalism is
0:10:59 is to really understand the history of
0:11:01 its development and the history of the
0:11:02 development of you know
0:11:04 pre-enlightenment period you know during
0:11:06 the reformation period then towards the
0:11:08 the enlightenment period and the
0:11:09 post-enlightenment period within europe
0:11:12 because that really
0:11:13 helps us to understand
0:11:15 and inform us as to what it is because
0:11:19 largely liberalism was a reaction
0:11:22 to the to the church
0:11:24 and to the to the
0:11:26 quote-unquote theocracies uh throughout
0:11:31 western europe or europe at the time uh
0:11:34 so it was a case it was a case that it
0:11:35 was a reaction to the church now
0:11:38 christianity had these two elements to
0:11:40 it
0:11:41 there's this
0:11:42 you know
0:11:43 religious scriptural element within
0:11:45 christianity you know we've talked about
0:11:48 this in other streams yeah but there was
0:11:50 also certain philosophical underpinnings
0:11:53 a lot of the you know whether it's the
0:11:55 latin uh christians or the orthodox
0:11:57 christians they saw themselves as sort
0:12:00 of the manifestation
0:12:02 of
0:12:03 greco-latin civilization and the
0:12:05 greco-latin you know uh you know roman
0:12:08 empire the greek empire
0:12:10 what they tended to push with this like
0:12:12 this idea of rationalism and philosophy
0:12:15 so you had this natural tension between
0:12:16 the scriptural aspects within
0:12:18 christianity and quote unquote the the
0:12:20 religious tradition
0:12:22 amalgamated with this idea of you know
0:12:25 uh rationalism philosophy
0:12:28 uh the discussions that you know people
0:12:31 like plato or aristotle play on his
0:12:33 republic
0:12:34 aristotle his politics had about you
0:12:37 know how human beings are and there was
0:12:40 therefore this attempt to try to
0:12:41 synthesize the two the scriptural
0:12:44 elements within christianity as well as
0:12:46 this sort of greco uh a roman
0:12:49 philosophical element that uh that they
0:12:52 had and obviously those tensions start
0:12:54 to become more manifest particularly
0:12:55 during the reformation period where more
0:12:57 of uh greek philosophy and philosophy in
0:13:00 general start to be brought
0:13:02 to christian europe and there was these
0:13:04 natural tensions particularly with the
0:13:06 development of science
0:13:08 and so the question then became well
0:13:10 hold on you know what's the nature of
0:13:12 religion this is the argument what's the
0:13:14 nature of religion because if as human
0:13:16 beings we can understand
0:13:19 you know moral rights and moral wrongs
0:13:22 you know from our mind if as human
0:13:24 beings that we can sort of understand
0:13:26 our on a rational level this idea of the
0:13:30 pursuit of happiness what motivates
0:13:33 human beings then really then then we
0:13:36 need to start to you know look at
0:13:37 religion and particularly christianity
0:13:39 within its domain which is purely from a
0:13:42 religious salvation point of view and
0:13:45 look at how we function in life from
0:13:48 this quote-unquote rationalist point of
0:13:50 view how do we form governments what
0:13:53 gives authority to governments what
0:13:55 gives them the right what type of laws
0:13:57 are they going to implement
0:13:59 so
0:14:00 this
0:14:00 secularization that we start to see
0:14:02 within europe was a reaction to what
0:14:05 they saw within christianity in terms of
0:14:07 its uh application within society and
0:14:10 obviously the the tensions that existed
0:14:13 uh
0:14:15 within it the christian tradition as a
0:14:17 religious tradition its application
0:14:19 within western europe and some of the
0:14:22 perceived oppressive and injustices uh
0:14:25 that that resulted in uh in terms of the
0:14:28 fact that they started to hold people
0:14:30 back from scientific inquiry and other
0:14:32 things but abdullah is here so in short
0:14:34 i don't want to carry on for too much
0:14:36 longer because i spoke too much
0:14:50 uh invitation uh sorry my i have some
0:14:52 problems with my webcam it wasn't uh
0:14:54 functioning properly though but i hope
0:14:55 you can all see me okay now it's a
0:15:00 so um so we we were just
0:15:02 speaking amongst ourselves a bit
0:15:04 basically giving our initial thoughts on
0:15:06 the topic
0:15:07 uh so right now maybe we can get into
0:15:09 the questions that we we've laid out for
0:15:11 for for this particular stream
0:15:13 uh so um we were talking earlier about
0:15:15 like the definition of liberalism what
0:15:17 liberalism is uh uh sharif and yusuf
0:15:21 gave their thoughts
0:15:22 uh and uh we maybe want to start with
0:15:24 this question about what liberalism is
0:15:27 is it an ideology what are your initial
0:15:29 thoughts on that brother abdullah
0:15:32 okay well um it depends obviously how we
0:15:35 define ideology
0:15:37 it also depends um i suppose how we
0:15:40 define um liberalism but basically
0:15:43 the word ideology was obviously famously
0:15:46 used by
0:15:47 karl marx
0:15:48 to refer to
0:15:50 a kind of a system or rather a kind of a
0:15:53 set of ideas
0:15:55 uh which kind of permeate a society
0:15:59 okay produced by the material structure
0:16:01 of that society and kind of to reinforce
0:16:04 and perpetuate the society so it's
0:16:06 almost like a controlling idea a
0:16:08 controlling set of ideas
0:16:10 a guiding set of ideas a dominating set
0:16:12 of ideas so that was ideology uh he
0:16:14 wanted the ideology and the west to be
0:16:16 obviously marxism
0:16:18 but he talked about the current ideology
0:16:20 in the west being capitalism which is
0:16:23 the term used really to refer to the
0:16:26 economic system of liberalism
0:16:29 because as a marxist he was a
0:16:30 materialist and he viewed
0:16:34 the culture of society to be
0:16:36 merely a product of its means of
0:16:38 production of the actual of the industry
0:16:40 or the actual the economic system
0:16:42 determines the culture of the society
0:16:44 its religion its beliefs quite literally
0:16:46 everything so the economic system the
0:16:48 means of production quite literally
0:16:51 determines how people think
0:16:53 and what people believe so that was in
0:16:55 essence what marxism um kind of view so
0:16:57 the idea of the idea of ideology being a
0:17:00 representation of the um the physical
0:17:03 system itself
0:17:04 um produced by the system reproducing
0:17:07 the physical system uh something to uh
0:17:11 let's say delude or misguide uh the
0:17:14 people's minds into believing into uh
0:17:17 believing that their system with their
0:17:19 their current circumstance was natural
0:17:22 so that's what he called ideology but of
0:17:24 course he didn't think ideology was bad
0:17:25 he just thought that the ideology
0:17:26 currently in the west was bad or rather
0:17:28 was not um not in line with the current
0:17:31 means of production we have evolved in
0:17:33 evolved and now this new industrialized
0:17:35 means of production means we the next
0:17:37 stage of human evolution will be
0:17:38 marxism so that was that's where the
0:17:40 idea of the idea of ideology in its kind
0:17:44 of political form comes from but now
0:17:45 it's kind of used generally just to mean
0:17:47 um
0:17:48 a set of organizing principles i a set
0:17:51 of ideas and formulas related to
0:17:53 good and bad and how society should be
0:17:55 organized and structured so that's
0:17:56 basically ideology as it's used today
0:17:59 um so liberalism is indeed an ideology
0:18:01 by um
0:18:03 most uh definitions of that term um in
0:18:06 that it is a a world view
0:18:09 which
0:18:10 from which stems forth
0:18:12 uh kind of certain political visions of
0:18:13 how society should be organized and
0:18:15 structured and so it has an akida so has
0:18:17 a creed which is uh individualism which
0:18:20 we'll get to in it in a bit and so
0:18:22 individualism is the apida and so then
0:18:24 how it is implemented the manhattan
0:18:31 political individualism or otherwise
0:18:32 called liberalism now most people when
0:18:35 you use what liberalism they don't
0:18:36 even like most liberals
0:18:39 who are liberal in by definition in what
0:18:41 they believe don't usually call
0:18:43 themselves liberals for the most part um
0:18:45 in america it usually is referred to
0:18:48 it's usually to refer to a certain type
0:18:50 of left-wing
0:18:51 position
0:18:52 um which has a different meaning to how
0:18:55 most people in the world have to
0:18:56 understand liberalism today so people
0:18:58 think it's
0:18:59 um liberalism as a moth hub
0:19:02 because there's a moth hub called
0:19:03 liberalism a school of thought within
0:19:05 liberalism called liberalism and you can
0:19:07 be a conservative and still be a liberal
0:19:10 or at least for a follower of liberalism
0:19:12 even though you
0:19:13 might that you hear these conservatives
0:19:15 attacking liberalism like what's going
0:19:16 on i'm really confused
0:19:18 so how most people know know it what
0:19:20 they the the most how most people are
0:19:22 intimate with this
0:19:24 way of life or worldview
0:19:26 is uh they call it for example um by its
0:19:30 um how should i say euphemisms such as
0:19:32 liberty human rights freedom
0:19:36 um
0:19:37 equality
0:19:38 is is we'll get to that in a bit yes it
0:19:41 does believe in equality but it has a
0:19:42 certain interpretation of equality uh
0:19:44 which led it to have disagreements with
0:19:47 its
0:19:48 cousin ideologies um which is socialism
0:19:51 um as well as uh even more left-wing
0:19:54 positions um post-marxism and so on so
0:19:56 which we can get to later on if you'd
0:19:58 like anyway so but but now i kind of uh
0:20:02 to i've told you how most people kind of
0:20:03 view it but what does it really mean
0:20:05 what does i individually actually mean
0:20:07 as a concept so individualism is
0:20:09 basically that the individual is
0:20:11 sovereign unto themselves
0:20:13 and they're not beholden to
0:20:15 uh to society uh to to a state and
0:20:18 definitely not to any higher powers
0:20:21 in the uh in the practical sense so that
0:20:23 so a liberal might say well you're
0:20:25 totally free to believe that you're
0:20:26 beholden to god um
0:20:29 and that but that must be done uh
0:20:31 voluntarily
0:20:32 why why is that is it because uh this
0:20:35 life is a test no not exactly they'll
0:20:38 say um
0:20:39 they'll say yeah it's a test but that's
0:20:41 only because
0:20:42 you have sovereignty over yourself and
0:20:44 so you must voluntarily submit to allah
0:20:47 not to submit but you must uh let's say
0:20:50 agree with god
0:20:52 from an individual's perspective um
0:20:54 that's how they probably how it would
0:20:56 psychology kind of pan out is that you
0:20:58 would agree to do what god tells you to
0:21:00 do um if you are persuaded to do so and
0:21:03 if not then uh god has no um
0:21:07 right on over you in this um in this
0:21:11 world at least in in terms of secular
0:21:13 liberalism perspective uh there is also
0:21:15 religious liberalism so it's it's like
0:21:18 the brother of um secular liberalism
0:21:21 uh which is why they call secular
0:21:22 liberalism secular buddhism why is that
0:21:24 because that's liberalism in this life
0:21:26 uh what about religious liberalism uh
0:21:28 well religious liberalism is the kind
0:21:30 where people take this idea into the
0:21:32 afterlife
0:21:34 such so for example um religious
0:21:36 liberals will probably be against the
0:21:38 idea of hell being literal um because
0:21:41 they'll say that
0:21:43 you know it's not fair for god to punish
0:21:46 you
0:21:47 for following your inherent right to do
0:21:49 as you wish as a sovereign independent
0:21:51 individual right so what they might say
0:21:54 is they might say
0:21:56 um
0:21:57 well maybe uh hell was a that may hell
0:21:59 is literal it's just a place where
0:22:01 people go voluntarily because they feel
0:22:03 so guilty that they didn't maybe worship
0:22:05 god right so you see some christian
0:22:07 liberal christians come out with that
0:22:09 conception
0:22:10 uh or they might say that it's just
0:22:12 metaphorical
0:22:13 um that hell is really just for um uh
0:22:17 hell is is a state of guilt uh that
0:22:20 people will have
0:22:21 uh bad people will have for doing bad
0:22:24 things and you say oh bad things like
0:22:25 what not worshiping god say oh no no no
0:22:28 because you know you should be free to
0:22:29 worship god or not no uh rape murder
0:22:32 torture that's the where where one
0:22:35 sovereign individual harms another
0:22:37 sovereign individual that's viewed as
0:22:39 the greatest crime in um liberalism
0:22:42 because of individualism every
0:22:43 individual is sovereign sovereign
0:22:44 meaning absolute
0:22:47 there's nothing higher than you that's
0:22:48 what liberalism says or individualism
0:22:50 says as a basic concept
0:22:52 so in practical in secular liberalism um
0:22:55 no one's higher than the individual not
0:22:57 society religion um or the state but
0:23:00 then what does the state do how does
0:23:02 they have power of view what
0:23:03 there's a little compromise that
0:23:04 liberals have to do practically of
0:23:06 course and then but in religious
0:23:08 liberalism
0:23:09 which is for people who who haven't
0:23:11 abandoned their theism or on their way
0:23:13 out uh eventually anyway uh when they
0:23:15 reach the ultimate conclusion which an
0:23:17 atheist will say as mikhail bakunin said
0:23:20 um a russian writer and philosopher he
0:23:23 said that as long as there is a god in
0:23:25 heaven will be slaves on earth right so
0:23:27 ultimately if you truly want to be an
0:23:28 individual if you truly want to embrace
0:23:31 um
0:23:32 individualism it's in its metaphor it's
0:23:34 metaphysical form it's in its full
0:23:36 glorious form uh from their perspective
0:23:38 they're you know the glorious form of
0:23:40 individualism uh then you'd have to
0:23:42 eventually negate god's existence who's
0:23:44 controlling you because you can't have
0:23:46 anyone controlling you um you know you
0:23:48 must be the highest um of moral
0:23:51 uh authority over yourself so those are
0:23:54 the kinds of things which um
0:23:56 which liberalism uh does but i suppose
0:23:58 today we we're really going to focus on
0:24:00 um the political form of it which is
0:24:01 called secular liberalism secular
0:24:03 meaning um
0:24:04 uh this worldly or you could say dunya
0:24:07 liberalism right so that the liberalism
0:24:08 of this world um
0:24:10 and the uh the the idea is of that the
0:24:12 individual is sovereign that nothing can
0:24:14 impinge the rights of the individual um
0:24:17 there was reasons there was a reason why
0:24:18 they came up with this idea where they
0:24:19 get this idea from um i know many people
0:24:22 who always cite john locke generally as
0:24:23 the guy the go-to guy but john locke
0:24:25 wasn't really the inventor of liberalism
0:24:27 as we call it today or classical
0:24:28 liberalism as it was known as we
0:24:30 anachronistically call it back then um
0:24:32 he kind of really took a bunch of these
0:24:34 ideas that were already developing in
0:24:36 western thought due to certain set of
0:24:38 political political and historical
0:24:39 circumstances
0:24:40 very unique to the west at the time
0:24:43 and he kind of brought it together he
0:24:45 submitted it he's like the uh you know
0:24:47 imam muslim bukhari of these
0:24:49 enlightenment ideas bringing them all
0:24:51 together
0:24:52 producing a a kind of cohesive and
0:24:54 consistent or at least relatively
0:24:56 consistent way of justifying all these
0:24:59 ideas being brought together into so no
0:25:01 arbitrary absolute government um the the
0:25:05 individual is is an individual because
0:25:08 in the state of nature so before society
0:25:11 uh he alleges
0:25:13 humans were just wandering individuals
0:25:15 in the wilderness right and in our
0:25:16 natural state of nature we were free to
0:25:19 do what we wish right we were free to do
0:25:21 whatever we wish that's so that's so we
0:25:23 have a natural right to freedom based on
0:25:25 the argument now i'm pretty sure that if
0:25:27 you encountered a few bears
0:25:29 lions and tigers um
0:25:31 in the in the wilderness i don't think
0:25:33 they'd respect or they got the memo that
0:25:35 you they have to respect your right to
0:25:36 life or right freedom to do what you
0:25:38 want they'll respect your right to be
0:25:40 tasty but nothing more than that
0:25:43 um
0:25:44 you know and so the idea that
0:25:46 humans are are have a natural life to be
0:25:49 um
0:25:50 individuals it goes against
0:25:52 what you know
0:25:54 anthropologists know of human society
0:25:56 since the beginning we've always been in
0:25:58 usually small units of tribes or clans
0:26:00 maybe roughly about 30 people you the
0:26:03 family units always been the basis of
0:26:04 our society of any kind of clan or
0:26:06 society um we come as collectives
0:26:09 doesn't mean that we have to be
0:26:10 collected the opposite the alternative
0:26:12 is not
0:26:13 collectivism as is envisioned by eastern
0:26:15 ideologies that's not the obvious
0:26:17 diametrical opposite but it's rather we
0:26:19 are a mix of both we're a mix of
0:26:21 collective so you know the language you
0:26:22 speak no one taught you that language
0:26:24 you never you'd never know language you
0:26:26 never even some people say of course
0:26:28 you'd never even be able to reason if
0:26:29 you if you actually didn't were not
0:26:31 taught language um
0:26:33 so there's a lot you depend on your
0:26:35 society for to give to you so that you
0:26:37 can then become um
0:26:40 a adult mature human being in the way
0:26:42 that we know
0:26:43 um so
0:26:44 uh so that's the the kind of the the
0:26:46 epistemology so the ontology of
0:26:49 liberalism is incorrect it's false
0:26:51 because it's based on an assumption that
0:26:52 john locke didn't even observe anything
0:26:54 just to make this claim
0:26:56 you know you've never find you never
0:26:57 find humans as just wandering
0:26:59 individuals in society but this was a
0:27:00 common motif or uh it was thomas hobbes
0:27:03 was saying it uh jack rousseau was
0:27:05 saying it many people believed that
0:27:06 humans were wandering as individuals
0:27:08 then but because we we kept bumping into
0:27:10 each other and like you know causing
0:27:12 violence to each other possibly um or we
0:27:14 couldn't resolve our differences by a
0:27:16 rational discourse um we formed
0:27:18 societies with a social contract
0:27:21 such that we would have a third-party
0:27:23 arbitrator which would resolve our
0:27:25 disputes uh would protect us from each
0:27:28 other's violence
0:27:30 and in return
0:27:32 we have to offer up some kind of
0:27:33 obedience
0:27:35 to that
0:27:36 validity
0:27:37 uh that that polity
0:27:39 basically guarantee the our natural
0:27:41 rights so we have to forego some of our
0:27:42 rights uh in order to reach now you
0:27:44 could say a social contract and become
0:27:47 having civic rights now which is rights
0:27:49 within a city um and that's a compromise
0:27:52 that just you know it's lamentable uh
0:27:54 some of these enlightenment thinkers
0:27:55 might say rousseau might lament it but
0:27:58 it's it's just what has to happen
0:28:00 because there's no other way of
0:28:01 protecting your your right to life
0:28:03 property and so on so from then they
0:28:05 discuss well what are the actual rights
0:28:07 that you have so your right to um bodily
0:28:10 integrity or well just the right to do
0:28:12 with your body as you see fit um
0:28:15 you own yourself you are the owner of
0:28:17 yourself
0:28:19 and uh but what about property right and
0:28:21 then and that's actually a major fisher
0:28:23 in them
0:28:25 in kind of enlightenment thinking
0:28:26 because
0:28:27 uh well you know
0:28:29 like property you're not born with
0:28:30 property so what happens john locke said
0:28:33 finders keepers if you find whatever you
0:28:34 find on the earth you and you can take
0:28:36 you it's yours jack russo
0:28:39 thinks it's the court it's the root of
0:28:40 all evil um the idea of private property
0:28:43 at least to the levels that we that we
0:28:45 see in society where the rich have lots
0:28:47 of private property and the poor don't
0:28:48 have much private property and you'll
0:28:50 see the beginnings of the split between
0:28:52 um
0:28:53 the enlightenment thinkers into what we
0:28:55 might call left left wing which is more
0:28:56 like socialism and eventually marxism uh
0:29:00 and liberalism going in one direction or
0:29:02 the liberalism would then be watered
0:29:03 down um
0:29:04 with a bit more socialistic principles
0:29:06 because it failed in the 19th century it
0:29:09 caused immense human suffering and you
0:29:11 know charles just read charles dickens
0:29:12 about to to to talk to know learn about
0:29:15 the kind of uh problems that liberalism
0:29:17 um in its classical form calls and so
0:29:19 then people had to invent um
0:29:21 uh social you know liberalism so they
0:29:23 said was it um
0:29:25 as i say as the same girls as the social
0:29:27 liberals the social liberal evolution um
0:29:29 saying goes uh man cannot live
0:29:31 on bread alone but without bread man
0:29:33 cannot live right so in essence the
0:29:36 state now must must ensure that people
0:29:38 actually get their daily needs met
0:29:41 otherwise they can't truly be you can't
0:29:43 be free if you're dead you can't be free
0:29:45 if you're malnourished you can't be free
0:29:47 if you have um
0:29:49 if you don't have
0:29:50 some kind of educational healthcare or
0:29:52 something like this so social liberalism
0:29:54 was invented and currently blizzard of
0:29:55 today uh is called it's basically social
0:29:58 liberalism it's because the it's it's
0:30:00 more pure version failed in the 19th
0:30:03 century um you had like rothschilds and
0:30:06 um
0:30:07 and and many of these big family con
0:30:09 conglomerate families owning uh in
0:30:11 america uh this the one percent owned 80
0:30:14 of the world you think it's bad now it
0:30:15 was worse in the 19th century they had
0:30:17 to invent anti-trust laws to break down
0:30:19 monopolies to prevent now even though
0:30:21 they're merely following the freedom of
0:30:23 ownership and doing with your property
0:30:25 fit walls fair make business deals with
0:30:27 consent they were following all those
0:30:29 rules and it led to uh massive
0:30:31 concentration of wealth massive misery
0:30:34 and so they had to invent ways to break
0:30:36 down these massive corporations so that
0:30:38 they don't have that that percentage
0:30:40 control of the economy as they as they
0:30:42 used to anyway that's in a nutshell um
0:30:44 you could say liberalism and some of how
0:30:46 it's it it has um
0:30:57 answer uh that that was very informative
0:30:59 um and i guess this is where we can go
0:31:01 into like you we
0:31:03 where where it breaks uh you know they
0:31:05 they they part ways into progressive
0:31:07 liberalism classical liberalism right
0:31:09 and then we can talk about social
0:31:10 engineering so i think maybe maybe
0:31:12 that's a good segue into that and
0:31:14 i mean is it is it
0:31:16 because like apart from libertarians
0:31:18 right you you can't be a liberal today
0:31:20 without
0:31:21 believing in like the necessity of
0:31:23 social engineering right uh you you have
0:31:26 to intervene and you have to like this
0:31:28 idea of positive rights right
0:31:31 uh it means that you it necessitates you
0:31:33 to to to basically uh do some kind of
0:31:36 social engineering that might end up
0:31:38 leaving you in a bit of a paradox in in
0:31:41 in terms of like
0:31:43 within uh within uh
0:31:44 the context of liberalism so um so i
0:31:47 don't know maybe you can you can say a
0:31:48 bit about that and and and uh you know
0:31:50 where that leads to in in today's
0:31:52 context
0:31:54 sure um okay so
0:31:56 um so libertarianism is really a more
0:31:59 modern um
0:32:01 reaction uh to social liberalism so in
0:32:04 essence you know not all classical
0:32:05 liberals wanted to join the social uh
0:32:08 liberal revolution uh the you know the
0:32:11 in america is the new deal um for
0:32:13 example uh certainly after the great
0:32:15 depression
0:32:16 um
0:32:17 and
0:32:18 they they want they believe that the
0:32:20 state should stay out of
0:32:22 um the affairs of people only kind of
0:32:24 intervening with a police force with an
0:32:27 army with a fire brigade uh where
0:32:29 necessary but nothing more than that um
0:32:31 now these libertarians are not actually
0:32:34 exactly classical liberals because and
0:32:36 there's there's a common confusion even
0:32:38 though they might call themselves
0:32:40 classical liberal um the original
0:32:42 liberals uh they might call himself the
0:32:44 the people of the s on the salaf of the
0:32:46 of liberalism right uh uh they we're
0:32:49 following the first we're following the
0:32:50 first generations of liberalism so one
0:32:52 well not not really um because the first
0:32:54 generation of liberalism um even
0:32:57 adam smith who's often revered
0:33:00 uh as a as a club you know classical
0:33:02 liberal economics and um sony john locke
0:33:05 and all these individuals
0:33:06 um they believed it that the state could
0:33:09 uh charge graded taxes uh means tested
0:33:12 based for for rich people get more taxed
0:33:14 and then poor people and the the tax
0:33:16 goes towards some of that tax goes
0:33:18 towards alleviating the poverty of the
0:33:20 poor they believed in those things um
0:33:23 they believe that you know that social
0:33:25 the core must be maintained it must you
0:33:27 can't be indecent in public even even if
0:33:29 you're not physically harming people you
0:33:31 can't be indecent in public right so
0:33:32 they believed that was part of what they
0:33:35 call the public interest
0:33:36 okay um but the libertarians are more
0:33:40 like more purer than the classical
0:33:43 liberals when it comes to the idea of
0:33:44 individualism because they say that the
0:33:46 state
0:33:47 really should have absolutely nothing to
0:33:49 do no other interference with society
0:33:51 other than as an independent arbitrator
0:33:53 before disputes you know police force to
0:33:56 protect your life fire brigade and of
0:33:58 course
0:33:59 um an army to protect from foreign
0:34:01 invasions
0:34:02 so libertarians are rather
0:34:05 are rather different as the same girls
0:34:07 they um they view they're more liberal
0:34:09 than classical liberals
0:34:11 so
0:34:11 it's um it's rather anachronistic of
0:34:13 them to call themselves classical
0:34:14 liberals and social liberals which we
0:34:16 all know today they're the ones who
0:34:18 believe that the state um so social
0:34:20 liberal they have a a strong argument
0:34:23 they all of them have a strong argument
0:34:25 within their the enlightenment ideas
0:34:26 that the thing is they all have good
0:34:28 arguments
0:34:29 because
0:34:30 there's there's a lot of contradictions
0:34:32 within the ideas of individualism itself
0:34:34 um and equality the idea of equality is
0:34:37 just that if we're all sovereign
0:34:38 individuals um over ourselves then we're
0:34:41 all by by default we're going to be
0:34:43 equal right because you're all equally
0:34:46 um
0:34:46 absolute and sovereign individuals
0:34:49 there's nothing beyond you know nothing
0:34:51 you can't it's not more absolute than
0:34:53 absolute so so classical liberal might
0:34:55 say that's that's as far as equality
0:34:57 quality for me uh which so that under
0:34:59 the law
0:35:00 we just get all treated as individuals
0:35:02 because we're all individuals whereas a
0:35:05 a social liberal might say um well what
0:35:08 we see in society is that there are
0:35:10 people who don't have the same
0:35:12 opportunities as each other and it's not
0:35:14 fair
0:35:15 for um an individual who's equally
0:35:18 individual to any other individual uh
0:35:20 who's born into a poor background to not
0:35:22 be able to at least have a chance to
0:35:25 using their natural talents be able to
0:35:27 rise the social ranks make lots of money
0:35:29 and do something um
0:35:32 economically
0:35:34 you know amazing or interesting for
0:35:36 themselves or what have you
0:35:38 um so the social liberal says that
0:35:40 that's not
0:35:41 that's not
0:35:42 treating everybody as equal individuals
0:35:45 because
0:35:46 some people are born into society that
0:35:48 that economically discriminates
0:35:50 and doesn't give you the same
0:35:52 opportunities but the social libra only
0:35:54 goes as far as making equal opportunity
0:35:57 the socialist
0:35:58 uh which ironically also is uh comes
0:36:01 from an individualistic creed karl marx
0:36:04 uh again follow the same enlightenment
0:36:06 ideas the enlightenment ideas just so
0:36:08 you know enlightenment
0:36:09 is just the western is the term that the
0:36:11 west gave to when they kind of
0:36:13 discovered individualism as a
0:36:15 as what they viewed to be a viable basis
0:36:18 for organizing society and ethics um so
0:36:21 that's what they call the enlightenment
0:36:23 not to be confused with the renaissance
0:36:24 which is where their technological and
0:36:26 scientific um
0:36:28 revival and renewal which happened
0:36:31 at least 500 years before the first
0:36:32 liberal state even occurred so
0:36:34 liberalism and the scientific revolution
0:36:37 uh has no connection whatsoever you
0:36:39 could you can more say that the
0:36:40 enlightenment
0:36:42 popped out as a byproduct of the the
0:36:44 type of renaissance thinking that was
0:36:46 coming out but wasn't but wasn't the
0:36:48 cause of the renaissance of course you
0:36:50 know any anymore as as a as a child is
0:36:52 the cause of parents it's
0:36:54 ridiculous right even though they're
0:36:56 related uh to some extent
0:36:58 so um
0:37:00 so socialists will say
0:37:02 um you know i see your equality and i
0:37:03 raise you yeah i see your equality of
0:37:05 opportunity and i raise you uh equality
0:37:07 of outcome so they'll say that everyone
0:37:09 should be treated um you're all equal
0:37:12 individuals you shouldn't be
0:37:13 discriminated
0:37:15 merely because of uh your social
0:37:17 standing or where you're born or what
0:37:19 have you
0:37:20 but the only way we can truly make uh
0:37:22 real equality where we stop society from
0:37:24 discriminating between equal individuals
0:37:27 is uh we give everybody in essence the
0:37:29 same
0:37:30 um
0:37:31 the same
0:37:33 economic outcomes
0:37:34 now uh socialists don't necessarily
0:37:37 believe that everyone should get exactly
0:37:38 the same amount of money but the general
0:37:40 formula is um
0:37:42 uh to eat from each corn to their
0:37:44 capacity to each according to their need
0:37:46 so in essence
0:37:48 a a single mother who's got like four
0:37:51 children she has to spend all you know
0:37:53 most of her day looking after the
0:37:54 children uh she shouldn't be paid the
0:37:57 same as an able-bodied let's say 25 year
0:38:00 old man who's a doctor or something
0:38:02 right um uh sorry sorry um she she
0:38:05 shouldn't be sorry as a as a minor
0:38:07 that's it as a minor or whatever because
0:38:09 he only has to look after himself right
0:38:11 whereas she has kids to look after as
0:38:14 well and these are certain needs that
0:38:15 need to be taken into account so she
0:38:17 must be given maybe more money for
0:38:19 example than maybe a able-bodied miner
0:38:22 would who's a young young lad and
0:38:24 doesn't really need much uh you know
0:38:26 just to to to live and survive and so
0:38:28 and so forth so that's kind of um
0:38:30 socialism but more specifically
0:38:32 socialism believes that the state is in
0:38:35 charge of ensuring the equal outcomes
0:38:38 for everyone in society and so that's
0:38:40 what a a
0:38:42 real full socialist state is um and
0:38:45 communism is is
0:38:46 is uh the end goal of marxists which is
0:38:50 that the socialist state will eventually
0:38:52 you know um
0:38:53 it will control the means of production
0:38:55 the the means of capital like for
0:38:56 example you know uh the industry the
0:38:59 factories all these things that make
0:39:00 things um and eventually it will ensure
0:39:02 that everyone has equal access and equal
0:39:04 partnership to these things and no one
0:39:07 will be able to privately own these
0:39:08 things
0:39:09 to the point that you'll create some
0:39:11 kind of utopic society where eventually
0:39:13 the state will wither away
0:39:15 and we'll be living under a type of in
0:39:17 essence um
0:39:18 utopian egalitarian anarchy
0:39:21 basically which is what which is which
0:39:23 is communism that's actually the end
0:39:25 goal of communism um and so so so in a
0:39:29 way this is just a few ideas about um
0:39:31 the enlightenment ideas the madahid and
0:39:33 of course you have a a big reaction to
0:39:35 social liberalism um which was the
0:39:38 conservatives conservativism um
0:39:40 so conservatism is basically the ideal
0:39:43 idea that
0:39:44 uh you can't trust
0:39:46 formulas to organize human society
0:39:49 because um our knowledge of humans are
0:39:51 is imperfect
0:39:53 um or subject to
0:39:55 you know flaws and humans are too
0:39:57 complex and things like this though the
0:39:59 conservative actually came from the
0:40:00 empiricist kind of school of thought
0:40:01 within um the west uh
0:40:04 mostly anglo-saxon uh continental people
0:40:07 continental philosophers tend to be
0:40:09 more idealists
0:40:11 uh so the the empiricist of the
0:40:12 continent looked at a french revolution
0:40:14 said no thanks
0:40:16 um we have the enlightenment can't is a
0:40:19 dangerous train that could go all the
0:40:21 way off the rails
0:40:22 so we have to keep it within a type of
0:40:24 moderation so uh conservative which who
0:40:27 will believe in individual rights
0:40:29 individual liberties freedom of
0:40:30 ownership and so on so forth but what
0:40:32 they'll say is that um society has a
0:40:35 certain culture
0:40:37 which was a kind of agreed way of how we
0:40:39 interact with each other that's been
0:40:41 developed over centuries and centuries
0:40:42 forming a an equilibrium so now that
0:40:45 we've got this individual liberty or
0:40:46 what uh the conservatives used to call
0:40:49 the freedoms of the englishman man
0:40:52 now we've got these freedoms
0:40:54 we need to just
0:40:55 conserve them and conserve the
0:40:58 circumstances that creates these
0:40:59 freedoms which are the social
0:41:01 institutions
0:41:02 which are the traditions and cultures of
0:41:05 the lands which produced these
0:41:07 individual freedoms so we need to
0:41:09 preserve the social institutions because
0:41:11 they're the ones that guaranteed um
0:41:14 freedom and individual liberty because
0:41:16 they produced it in the first place if
0:41:18 you get rid of them you start changing
0:41:19 all this stuff you'll lead to some crazy
0:41:21 situation where you know where mass
0:41:23 beheadings and um
0:41:25 uh gulags and things like that which you
0:41:27 know french revolution mass beheadings
0:41:29 they were doing it so much in the name
0:41:31 of liberty
0:41:33 that they invented a machine to do it
0:41:35 very efficiently which is called the the
0:41:36 guillotine and a a weapon um a method of
0:41:40 execution that france used until 1976 by
0:41:43 the way right most people don't know
0:41:44 this yeah beheading yeah
0:41:47 um they beheaded so much they they
0:41:49 beheaded uh so many people the french
0:41:51 revolution makes isis look like the good
0:41:52 samaritans
0:41:54 so um by comparison
0:41:56 um
0:41:57 so this is uh so the conservatives were
0:42:00 kind of shocked by this um edinburgh
0:42:02 famous kind of again he just brought
0:42:04 these ideas together
0:42:06 expounded upon them and so conservatives
0:42:08 will believe in individual rights
0:42:10 freedom freedom ownership all the same
0:42:11 kind of individualistic stuff you that
0:42:13 you've heard before but they will say
0:42:15 but we need to preserve the social
0:42:17 institutions um
0:42:19 that that created this these individual
0:42:21 rights in the first that created the
0:42:22 circumstance that we had this individual
0:42:25 freedom in the first place so that's
0:42:26 kind of a in a nutshell most of the main
0:42:29 madahid or schools of thought in the
0:42:30 west and how they sprung from the
0:42:32 enlightenment idea and where liberalism
0:42:34 kind of sits on that scale
0:42:38 yeah
0:42:39 i mean i mean
0:42:41 that was very informative again
0:42:43 i mean so so we spoke about the ideology
0:42:46 a bit of the history and and you spoke
0:42:48 about human rights and free markets the
0:42:50 philosophical underpinnings individuals
0:42:51 and all that stuff
0:42:54 before before i take
0:42:56 before any of the brothers takes us on
0:42:57 how we relate this to islam and i want
0:42:59 to bring the other brothers into this
0:43:00 question as well uh because uh abdullah
0:43:03 spoke about the ontology of liberalism
0:43:05 right and he also touched on the
0:43:06 epistemology of liberalism but i want
0:43:08 just very briefly very briefly to get
0:43:11 back to the epistemology because i think
0:43:13 also one one of the core
0:43:15 philosophical underpinnings of of
0:43:17 liberalism is that we cannot basically
0:43:20 reach universal agreement about first
0:43:22 principles and what it is to basically
0:43:25 live the good life or the way to lead
0:43:26 your life or like this this
0:43:29 it feels like it has a bit of a
0:43:31 postmodern feel to it in the sense that
0:43:34 we can't
0:43:35 have this sort of meta-narrative about
0:43:37 reality and worldview but at the same
0:43:39 time obviously that's not what it is
0:43:40 because there is uh this this
0:43:43 libertarian meta-narrative about human
0:43:44 rights and individualism and stuff so i
0:43:46 mean
0:43:48 does that does that
0:43:50 play a significant role in the liberal
0:43:52 mindset this idea that we cannot you
0:43:56 know we don't have what it takes to
0:43:59 uh reach absolute truth about you know
0:44:02 like let's say metaphysical questions or
0:44:04 worldview
0:44:06 um well um
0:44:09 basically liberalism uh emerged from a
0:44:12 circumstance where it was in essence
0:44:15 let's say
0:44:16 and agree to disagree between um
0:44:18 protestant
0:44:19 christian sects which were killing each
0:44:21 other and being intolerant um
0:44:24 some people think it was the catholics
0:44:25 but actually no it was between emerge
0:44:27 between protestants because
0:44:28 um every protestant suddenly started to
0:44:30 run away with the bible and say all
0:44:32 kinds of random things and then they
0:44:34 would say that their interpretation the
0:44:36 bible is is the correct one and everyone
0:44:38 who doesn't believe
0:44:40 that their interpretation is correct um
0:44:41 is a heretic that deserves to be killed
0:44:43 or um tortured or what have you um and
0:44:47 uh you know you've got intolerant
0:44:48 lutherans uh intolerant calvinists um
0:44:51 intolerant anglicans
0:44:53 um many people that went to america were
0:44:55 fleeing the anabaptists mostly were
0:44:58 fleeing um intolerant anglican church
0:45:00 the church of england basically
0:45:02 um so they wanted to have freedom to
0:45:04 have their different um beliefs and
0:45:05 ideas
0:45:06 um
0:45:08 but the the problem is this this is a
0:45:09 certain quirk in west because
0:45:12 they base their society around the book
0:45:14 in essence or the bible at least
0:45:15 extensively
0:45:17 and because they they argue that all
0:45:20 morality and all good comes from
0:45:22 how they interpret the book
0:45:24 uh and then falsehood is evil and bad
0:45:26 everything that's not that even could be
0:45:28 mistaken is bad and evil because it's
0:45:30 false how could you even ever respect or
0:45:32 tolerate falsehood which comes from
0:45:36 an old roman um uh or an emperor i think
0:45:38 and prophet does the second i believe
0:45:40 that said that era has no rights
0:45:43 so they had this idea um which led to
0:45:46 uh once they broke away from the
0:45:48 catholic church um it was a free-for-all
0:45:50 and it was and the protestants were
0:45:52 killing each other and being very nasty
0:45:53 to each other and so they said look okay
0:45:56 uh we can't resolve this so let's find a
0:45:59 more universal way um let's co-op this
0:46:02 this idea of you know natural laws from
0:46:05 from physics even though it has nothing
0:46:07 to do with human behavior and let's just
0:46:10 assume a bunch of things about how
0:46:11 humans should should behave based on
0:46:13 what we think they would behave in the
0:46:14 wild prior to human civilization let's
0:46:18 speculate call that natural laws and
0:46:21 then um build a system
0:46:23 where where it wouldn't rely on biblical
0:46:25 interpretation but on our speculation of
0:46:29 what is natural for humans to live to be
0:46:31 or to live or what have you and one of
0:46:33 those arguments was that um
0:46:36 you can't control human interpretation
0:46:39 of text or any or belief generally and
0:46:42 so what you have to do is you need to um
0:46:46 not make the state based upon any one
0:46:49 particular interpretation of the bible
0:46:51 now we're not talking about political
0:46:53 aspects because the bible the the
0:46:55 christians had really guided a lot of
0:46:56 the
0:46:57 i removed a lot of the mosaic laws
0:47:00 from
0:47:02 them to follow anymore
0:47:03 so instead what they did is they just
0:47:05 said um
0:47:06 because christians would kill each other
0:47:08 over
0:47:11 yeah topics about what you can't see
0:47:13 like for example
0:47:14 um at communion if you take uh if you're
0:47:17 drinking wine and the the bread is the
0:47:20 bread actually literally the body of
0:47:22 christ is the white actually literally
0:47:24 the blood of christ
0:47:26 so so some christians believe through
0:47:28 trans substantiation that there was
0:47:30 order so that it's not and they actually
0:47:31 would kill each other over these kinds
0:47:33 of things because it was heresy
0:47:35 right on things where
0:47:37 there's no uh there's no
0:47:39 definitive uh explanation in the bible
0:47:42 um for at least the new testament
0:47:44 uh for at least what paul was saying
0:47:46 about it there's no he didn't explain if
0:47:48 he meant it literally or figuratively or
0:47:49 what have you i mean you drink the wine
0:47:50 doesn't taste like blood you drink you
0:47:52 eat the bread doesn't taste like human
0:47:53 flesh whatever that tastes like um so
0:47:56 so the christians because they were so
0:47:58 like they were like that they would kill
0:47:59 each other over um following uh
0:48:02 incorrect interpretations of the bible
0:48:04 that will not relate to human affairs
0:48:06 anyway not related to life's affairs so
0:48:08 they said look let's keep that out of um
0:48:11 uh of politics like religion completely
0:48:13 or the bible um completely and we'll
0:48:16 simply have a state based on uh
0:48:18 maximizing um human
0:48:21 freedoms up to the limits of everyone
0:48:23 else's freedom so as much as someone can
0:48:25 do that won't affect anybody else
0:48:28 and the big debates that will come in
0:48:30 the centuries like later is
0:48:32 when they realize that humans affect
0:48:33 each other in so many different ways
0:48:36 right and
0:48:38 they're in then like the problem with
0:48:39 liberalism is that you can't simply say
0:48:42 well as long as you don't physically
0:48:43 punch people on the street as you're
0:48:44 walking by you can do whatever you want
0:48:47 well what if i'm a rich
0:48:48 multi-millionaire and i buy up all the
0:48:50 food in a society
0:48:52 and uh i ship it off
0:48:54 to someone else uh some other country
0:48:56 and there's well there's many people
0:48:58 that are dying on the streets of my own
0:48:59 country
0:49:00 that's all fair and good in liberalism
0:49:02 because i'm not physically attacking
0:49:03 people to do that i just use my wealth
0:49:05 and i bought it fair and square and i'm
0:49:07 i'm shipping it off and while there are
0:49:08 poor people starving in my country um
0:49:11 those are the kind of problems that you
0:49:12 had in liberalism um at the time or for
0:49:14 example with industrialization uh people
0:49:18 were expendable uh you had
0:49:20 a lot of people who were unskilled uh
0:49:23 and undifferentiated labor uh that you
0:49:27 didn't have to care about safety
0:49:28 regulations you know
0:49:30 a mine can be just as profitable with a
0:49:32 monthly death rate
0:49:34 um as a mind that um
0:49:36 that doesn't have a death rate but the
0:49:39 issue is that it costs money to put
0:49:41 safety procedures in in place right in a
0:49:44 mind so it's actually more profitable
0:49:46 for you to accept a
0:49:48 a staff turnaround uh and let your
0:49:50 workers die due to you know actions at
0:49:52 work and same in factories this was the
0:49:55 kind of thing that was happening in 19th
0:49:56 century liberalism uh which led to you
0:49:59 know abysmal conditions so this is in
0:50:01 essence um uh but this issue is still
0:50:04 plaguing us today in different forms
0:50:06 because then when people when social
0:50:08 labels got on board and said
0:50:10 now the state has to protect people's
0:50:12 interests
0:50:13 whose interest what interests who
0:50:16 decides these interests on what criteria
0:50:18 now you're gonna have to enforce a
0:50:20 particular interpretation of the
0:50:22 individual the interest of every
0:50:23 individual and enforce it on everybody
0:50:26 right so
0:50:27 oh um you're free to to you're free to
0:50:29 not practice let's say same-sex
0:50:31 intercourse in liberalism they'll say so
0:50:33 liberty says you're free not practicing
0:50:34 the intercourse okay but then socialism
0:50:36 comes along and says we've kind of
0:50:38 discovered that if you express
0:50:40 your disagreement
0:50:42 with i mean before we you know you were
0:50:44 allowed to express this agreement of
0:50:45 same-sex intercourse but if you express
0:50:47 it a bit too much
0:50:48 you kind of create a stigma in society
0:50:50 against everyone who does do right does
0:50:52 engage in same-sex intercourse and that
0:50:54 in a way affects them and limits their
0:50:57 comfortable
0:50:58 their comfort and their freedom to
0:50:59 engage in that so you should basically
0:51:02 shut up and
0:51:03 and limit your freedom of speech to not
0:51:06 express that anymore because you're
0:51:07 impinging their freedom
0:51:09 even though it's not physically
0:51:11 right and that and that led to this is
0:51:12 leading to so many internal
0:51:14 contradictions within um
0:51:16 uh liberalism where it now becomes a
0:51:18 state ideology uh it's interpreted by
0:51:21 you know priesthood of politicians and
0:51:23 philosophers um but then uh through uh
0:51:26 obviously elections and parties and
0:51:28 things one particular interpretation
0:51:29 becomes uh or is implemented by a state
0:51:32 and enforcement
0:51:34Music 0:51:36 sure the kind of issues that arose from
0:51:38 um the thing that liberalism uh came up
0:51:41 with but the historical circumstance of
0:51:43 liberalism was very different to the
0:51:45 islamic understanding
0:51:47 um also the muslim
0:51:49 experience of history and just i'll
0:51:50 finish on this before i kind of let the
0:51:52 next question which is so just to kind
0:51:53 of explain
0:51:55 what does islam do different right
0:51:57 um so
0:51:58 um
0:51:59 there was as we know there was a khalif
0:52:00 who asked you know he famously asked him
0:52:02 alec would he like his muata to be
0:52:05 his collection of narrations and his
0:52:07 opinions uh to be standardized and
0:52:09 become the standard um state enforced
0:52:13 uh kind of book and
0:52:15 fit instead of ideas and jurisprudence
0:52:17 so imam mike says you know like no he
0:52:19 doesn't want this at all
0:52:20 um
0:52:21 what you find in the islamic perspective
0:52:23 is that
0:52:24 the khalifa
0:52:25 uh rules by the quran sunnah yes that
0:52:28 does require interpretation of the quran
0:52:29 from that true but there's one
0:52:32 very well there's two very key
0:52:34 differences between islam and the
0:52:36 western experience of the catholic
0:52:37 church
0:52:38 the first one is that in islam
0:52:41 the no one accepts prophets
0:52:44 um and if you're a shia it does say
0:52:46 imams too
0:52:47 um um know for certain what the correct
0:52:50 interpretation is right so no human
0:52:52 after the prophet muhammad sallallahu
0:52:54 alaihi
0:52:55 can ever claim their interpretation of
0:52:57 islam is 100 definite beyond what is
0:53:00 very clearly apparent in the quran and
0:53:02 sunnah and mutual narrations of the sun
0:53:04 right so obviously one god the the
0:53:07 rasool allah is the final messenger
0:53:09 um
0:53:10 and so on and and profit and these
0:53:13 things yeah of course you know angels
0:53:14 exist heaven and hell there's no
0:53:16 disagreement on this um our salah we
0:53:19 have an amaze we have more agreement
0:53:21 amongst muslims
0:53:23 than uh christians
0:53:25 by the way right so our salah how we
0:53:27 pray the basic structure of that is
0:53:29 exactly the same across every school of
0:53:30 thought you can't change it you know how
0:53:32 many how many raqqa to do it for maghrib
0:53:35 you know it has
0:53:36 it has to be three it can't be five or
0:53:38 six or something like this um every
0:53:41 school of thought agrees on this matter
0:53:43 however where there is difference of
0:53:45 opinion there's usually minor things by
0:53:46 comparison to other religions by the way
0:53:49 um
0:53:50 it's understood that every muslim
0:53:52 is free to have
0:53:54 the their best opinion as to what they
0:53:57 think the prophet muhammad
0:54:00 would have intended or wanted by any
0:54:02 particular uh announcement or action or
0:54:04 what that what
0:54:06 allah intended or wanted by any verse of
0:54:07 the quran as long as you strive to to
0:54:10 get that
0:54:11 to seek out what is the strongest
0:54:13 opinion um on these things also what is
0:54:15 most likely they most wanted
0:54:17 um by giving an edict or by uh
0:54:20 explaining an action
0:54:21 um well free to to adopt any opinion you
0:54:24 want uh even if the khalifa adopts an
0:54:27 opinion the clip says right everyone um
0:54:29 when it comes to uh business
0:54:31 transactions for example let's just say
0:54:33 there's two opinions one opinion states
0:54:35 if i'm going to sell you if i'm going to
0:54:37 sell you a product
0:54:38 you i say take it as it is so i leave
0:54:40 you to inspect it and
0:54:42 if you find anything wrong with it then
0:54:44 fine if you're not if you find out later
0:54:46 after you bought it too bad the second
0:54:48 opinion is i have to the second opinion
0:54:50 might be to i have to state all the
0:54:51 problems with the product before i said
0:54:53 it to you
0:54:56 so
0:54:57 the khalif will say the cleveland might
0:54:59 adopt the opinion saying all right um
0:55:02 everyone must
0:55:03 announce all the errors of any
0:55:05 particular or problems with a product
0:55:06 before they sell it
0:55:08 right that's i'm gonna that's an
0:55:09 adoption that's tabandi i'm making
0:55:10 adoption this is law people must follow
0:55:13 it it's acknowledged that muslims can
0:55:15 must follow it because they have to obey
0:55:16 the khalifa even if they disagree with
0:55:19 the the idea they have a different
0:55:20 opinion that's not a problem and you can
0:55:21 even say um i'm obeying the khalif but i
0:55:24 disagree with that opinion i think it's
0:55:26 the other opinion not a problem in islam
0:55:28 yeah and we have a hadith from the
0:55:29 rasool which says
0:55:31 a judge that makes a let's say an
0:55:33 interpretation or an issue to help a
0:55:34 judgment
0:55:35 um and makes a mistake gets one reward
0:55:38 so even though the mistake is in error
0:55:40 so error still gets you reward from
0:55:42 allah as long as it was done
0:55:44 in sincerity whereas if you get the i if
0:55:47 you get the judgment right you get two
0:55:49 rewards so therefore you always aim to
0:55:50 get the correct
0:55:52 um judgment because you can double your
0:55:54 reward from god but even error is
0:55:56 rewarded
0:55:57 um in uh in terms of allah will reward
0:56:00 you for your errors even as long as your
0:56:02 errors in interpretations um even if you
0:56:05 would
0:56:06 even if they're wrong then in essence if
0:56:08 they're wrong they're false right so how
0:56:09 can god reward you for falsehood well no
0:56:11 because your aim was to sincerely find
0:56:13 the correct
0:56:14 understanding all right um so that's the
0:56:16 first thing that islam has that the west
0:56:18 simply didn't doesn't have and led them
0:56:20 to their
0:56:21 uh to kind of fall into this poll uh
0:56:24 that would be liberalism
0:56:25 um the second thing is
0:56:27 that sorry brother just just to
0:56:30 elaborate on this point maybe if you
0:56:32 could just so what what you're basically
0:56:33 saying is that
0:56:34 uh you know the fact that we
0:56:36 uh there is permissiveness within islam
0:56:39 for like disagreement
0:56:41 that means that it it it's less
0:56:43 susceptible to the kind of conflict that
0:56:46 the church fell into is that that's
0:56:47 that's the gist of it right
0:56:49 yes yes because um you can have this
0:56:51 agreement in
0:56:52 in
0:56:53 let's say legal and ethical
0:56:54 interpretations of islamic law
0:56:57 it's not a problem the disagreement
0:56:59 disagreement's not it's not an issue um
0:57:01 the second thing is disagreement on what
0:57:03 we would call what some people call
0:57:04 theology but
0:57:06 we'd say maybe in the middle of a
0:57:08 the unseen um which is a major area
0:57:10 where muslims disagree on um
0:57:12 even
0:57:13 though many muslims fell into the ideas
0:57:15 of sending to them the practice of
0:57:18 doing fear so let's say excommunication
0:57:20 or denouncement saying just but you're
0:57:22 not a muslim anymore
0:57:24 because you believe
0:57:25 uh or something regarding the smile so
0:57:27 far the particular position regarding
0:57:28 the the attributes of god and um
0:57:32 uh
0:57:33 you do tawir or or what have you on this
0:57:35 and whatever um
0:57:37 so even though people didn't do tak fear
0:57:40 they didn't say you're now a you've now
0:57:42 left the region of islam
0:57:44 but the state never
0:57:46 for the most part anyway um never really
0:57:49 got involved to prosecute people for
0:57:52 um right so reneging it their islam
0:57:56 because
0:57:57 uh the the judge would always would need
0:57:59 to have a clear-cut verse of quran or
0:58:02 sunnah whereby like the person
0:58:04 what they're saying is blatantly
0:58:06 rejecting this first or of this mutual
0:58:10 narration of that hadith right the
0:58:12 muttawato meaning multiple chains in
0:58:14 narration
0:58:15 so many change that we know the prophet
0:58:16 muhammad said it for certain in essence
0:58:19 as opposed to ahad narrations which are
0:58:21 single chains
0:58:22 and of course you know the different
0:58:24 schools are thought within when the
0:58:25 sunni schools disagree on i had
0:58:26 generations um would be amongst each
0:58:29 other they read some reject them some
0:58:30 years did some reject i had a reason to
0:58:31 always accept
0:58:33 um
0:58:34 because the narration is only like one
0:58:36 or two chains maybe three or four um but
0:58:38 basically we don't know for certain the
0:58:40 prophet muhammad sallallahu alaihi said
0:58:42 the purported narration and therefore
0:58:44 they can in theory be rejected but you
0:58:47 need a good reason why you can't just
0:58:48 say i don't like what it says so i'm
0:58:50 going to reject it and that's the
0:58:52 argument of the monarch or the hypocrite
0:58:53 right um
0:58:55 so as much as there was talk fear going
0:58:58 on uh even among between quote-unquote
0:59:00 sunnis right
0:59:02 uh what we see is um
0:59:05 the the criteria that a judge would
0:59:07 would have to expect before applying the
0:59:10 law of it
0:59:11 on the on an accused individual someone
0:59:14 who's accused of leaving islam
0:59:16 is is is a higher bar which is that look
0:59:20 if you say that for example let's say
0:59:22 are god's hands literal not literal uh
0:59:24 so does he let you have a hand but what
0:59:26 babila cave does he have jism does he
0:59:29 have a body does he have not have a body
0:59:30 um the judge would say well okay show me
0:59:33 where in the quran it says god does have
0:59:34 a body or god doesn't have a body before
0:59:37 we can prosecute someone for a blatant
0:59:39 rejection of a particular verse
0:59:41 right that's what we need we need that
0:59:42 to be met before it can be prosecuted
0:59:45 so
0:59:46 what you got was this kind of like um
0:59:49 uh an ill-tad lesson is the dad uh a
0:59:52 kind of gray area where people just say
0:59:54 you you're basically a type of heretic
0:59:56 right or ah
0:59:58 right um but
1:00:00 what is the
1:00:02 like where do we get from the hadith
1:00:03 quran and and hadith uh that you have to
1:00:06 prosecute or persecute
1:00:08 at a bidder like you like to torture
1:00:09 them kill them
1:00:11 you don't get that do you but it's kind
1:00:12 of almost this this gray halfway house
1:00:15 which was invented because you simply no
1:00:18 one could actually
1:00:19 uh to could kill each other for being
1:00:21 heretics quote unquote only renegades
1:00:24 right if you know more trades
1:00:26 so because we didn't have problems
1:00:28 the state never got involved in um
1:00:31 for the most part
1:00:33 um in iraq on the right uh there was
1:00:36 once where the mutasa lights uh that was
1:00:38 the satellites going gain control of the
1:00:39 caliphate for about three kalifes and
1:00:41 they started to implement a mehna a type
1:00:43 of inquisition to enforce their
1:00:45 particular opinion
1:00:46 um on on people as um
1:00:48 imam ahmed bin hanbal obviously uh
1:00:51 experienced unfortunately
1:00:52 um but apart from that that time and
1:00:56 very small um
1:00:57 moments with for muslim history the
1:00:59 judges never got involved in um
1:01:03 difference of opinion on on
1:01:05 for example in the west in christendom
1:01:08 uh yeah people will be killed for the
1:01:10 disagreements on the hype uh on what is
1:01:12 unseen and so that's why
1:01:14 in that context
1:01:16 because we we hear
1:01:18 you know uh time and time again from
1:01:19 from um certain peoples who advocate for
1:01:22 for secular systems that that you know
1:01:24 uh secular systems aren't perfect but at
1:01:26 least you know they're progressive in
1:01:28 the sense that we can learn from our
1:01:29 mistakes and it can be developed and you
1:01:31 know we don't have to stick to a seventh
1:01:33 century uh you know code of ethics uh
1:01:37 for an eternity so but but based on what
1:01:39 you're saying right now
1:01:41 um
1:01:42 there is a gray area through which there
1:01:44 can be a legitimate difference of
1:01:47 opinion and there can actually be a
1:01:50 progressiveness not in the modern uh not
1:01:53 not in the way it's used these days but
1:01:55 in the sense that well we can uh
1:01:57 basically have
1:01:59 genuine difference of opinion we can
1:02:01 have genuine disagreement and we can
1:02:02 progress with our ideas is is is there
1:02:05 is that included within that gray area
1:02:07 you're speaking about right now
1:02:09 well when i mean i always laugh when
1:02:11 people say um
1:02:13 that like you know a lot of secular
1:02:15 liberal systems are are modern or
1:02:17 progressive uh more progressive than
1:02:19 quote-unquote stone age islam even
1:02:21 though
1:02:23 islam was actually up um
1:02:24 past the iron age part into the medieval
1:02:26 age basically but anyway
1:02:28 um
1:02:29 is that they actually follow a
1:02:32 an ideology or an ideology but a
1:02:33 political system uh and aspects of the
1:02:36 of their political system like the
1:02:38 republic and democracy which are
1:02:40 basically
1:02:41 um iron age um systems they actually
1:02:44 come from not seventh century ce seventh
1:02:46 century bc right
1:02:50 so they are um
1:02:52 i mean islam is basically
1:02:53 uh around 1 000
1:02:56 300 to 400 years more modern than
1:02:58 democracy and
1:03:00 the republic system but maybe it's about
1:03:02 the dogma brother like maybe what
1:03:04 they're saying is the dogmatic factor
1:03:06 that's within religion
1:03:08 is my
1:03:09 maybe that's what might keep us back in
1:03:11 the stone age or in the 7th century
1:03:13 versus a secular liberal system that
1:03:17 isn't really bound by any you know
1:03:19 metaphysical truth that they need to
1:03:21 hold to and they can hold to a specific
1:03:24 foundation and progress from there so i
1:03:26 mean
1:03:28 what would you say to that well um two
1:03:31 things one historic historical um
1:03:34 example and two um
1:03:36 not so um i would say to that to that
1:03:39 claim so the first thing would be
1:03:40 historically the west progressed
1:03:42 technologically and scientifically um
1:03:44 from the 12th century onwards um due to
1:03:47 contact with the muslims it kickstarted
1:03:48 their thinking
1:03:49 um
1:03:50 the rediscovery of greek texts
1:03:53 um
1:03:54 their discovery of muslim philosophy and
1:03:56 also muslim science chemistry and so on
1:03:58 and so forth it just blew their minds uh
1:04:00 they wanted to know more and they
1:04:02 started to ask lots of questions and
1:04:03 they then they began to pick up
1:04:05 a method which one could say it was it
1:04:07 was borrowed from even hathan but
1:04:09 generally it wasn't really been hatham i
1:04:11 would say is the only person that was
1:04:13 kind of using this method which is why
1:04:14 don't we experiment rather than just
1:04:16 believe what the ancient greeks tell us
1:04:17 to believe um so it was skepticism on
1:04:20 the ancient greeks um their their claims
1:04:22 of medicine their claims of science and
1:04:24 and to see if we can replicate what they
1:04:26 claim happens in certain scenarios and
1:04:29 to learn knowledge for ourselves by
1:04:30 experimentation so once they they learn
1:04:33 that they start to progress materially
1:04:36 um
1:04:37 develop a scientific method
1:04:39 uh you know roger bacon monk francis
1:04:41 bacon not related but later on um
1:04:44 developing the scientific idea these
1:04:46 were theists they were living in a
1:04:49 in a non-secular society non-secular
1:04:52 state but science and technology were
1:04:54 developing as they started asking more
1:04:57 questions and and
1:04:58 were
1:05:00 kind of progressing in all those fields
1:05:02 um it was because they started to turn
1:05:03 their attention from natural sciences to
1:05:05 now uh the human sciences or humanities
1:05:10 which led to their enlightenment what
1:05:11 they call the enlightenment right which
1:05:13 is where they create a new ideology for
1:05:15 how to organize human beings right so
1:05:17 that had nothing to do with um
1:05:20 liberalism itself because everything
1:05:21 came much later we the first liberal
1:05:22 states were in in
1:05:24 in the world what america you're seeing
1:05:26 at the end of the night the end of the
1:05:27 18th century um so
1:05:29 america's only about what is about just
1:05:31 over 200 years old
1:05:33 in essence uh so that's you know but the
1:05:35 the west of western renaissance has been
1:05:37 what since uh it's been 800 years now
1:05:40 right
1:05:41 of development and change so no relation
1:05:44 um but it was a byproduct but an
1:05:46 unintended byproduct of um
1:05:49 the the west
1:05:51 asking questions
1:05:52 and natural sciences and then it was
1:05:54 when they moved on to the the non-uh
1:05:56 physical sciences
1:05:58 and started to question about how to
1:06:00 organize society um from first
1:06:02 principles that they're going to
1:06:03 speculate into existence
1:06:05 that they create their enlightenment
1:06:07 so that's that
1:06:08 the second thing is
1:06:10 does do secular liberal states have
1:06:13 a non-metaphysical basis for assessing
1:06:16 you know like public policy
1:06:18 you know good and bad and so on and so
1:06:19 forth well as we all know good and bad
1:06:22 is metaphysical uh justice is a
1:06:24 metaphysical concept these are not
1:06:26 concepts that exist in the real world or
1:06:28 in the physical world
1:06:29 so now um in the west they they can't
1:06:32 agree
1:06:34 as to what how to interpret the
1:06:36 principle of equality itself
1:06:38 which has led to socialists marxists
1:06:41 post marxists neo-marxists um social
1:06:43 democrats social liberals classical
1:06:45 liberals um
1:06:47 neo liberals are just basically uh
1:06:49 conservatives um who hankerful classical
1:06:52 liberal economics right
1:06:54 they're called neo-liberals which is
1:06:56 really confusing for everybody
1:06:59 in the terminology so so
1:07:00 all this yes and they fought walls with
1:07:03 each other they fought each other over
1:07:04 these different interpreters there's
1:07:06 guerrilla warfares revolutions um cold
1:07:09 wars proxy battles during the cold war
1:07:12 uh between
1:07:13 everyone following enlightenment
1:07:15 philosophies
1:07:16 about how to organize human beings
1:07:18 but they just had different
1:07:19 interpretations as to
1:07:21 um uh how to
1:07:23 uh how to fulfill the individual
1:07:25 and how to create an equality
1:07:27 between individuals because when social
1:07:29 liberalism now wants to give everyone
1:07:31 positive rights the question is what
1:07:32 does a free individual look like
1:07:35 right so what is a free individual look
1:07:36 like oh so france has a has an answer a
1:07:40 free individual someone who um there is
1:07:43 no absolutely no uh
1:07:46 no social pressure whatsoever
1:07:49 uh
1:07:50 they will experience due to their
1:07:51 religion
1:07:52 so to make sure that they don't get any
1:07:54 type of social pressure at all we have
1:07:57 to ban
1:07:58 uh many public
1:08:01 manifestations of religion in order that
1:08:04 they are free
1:08:05 so we we have an idea of what freedom
1:08:06 looks like and so we're going to force
1:08:08 them
1:08:09 to be free compel them to be free as
1:08:11 russo says uh
1:08:13 not commenting on the current era but
1:08:14 rousseau's ideas you know that's what
1:08:16 that's where it comes from um they must
1:08:18 be compelled to be free
1:08:20 so
1:08:21 um
1:08:22 the idea of like uh the state
1:08:24 uh so some people say the state is good
1:08:26 let the state control your lives because
1:08:28 the state is voted on by us the state
1:08:29 represents us our interests so let this
1:08:31 day have more control it will create um
1:08:34 less crime it will monitor everywhere
1:08:36 put cameras everywhere you know
1:08:38 a woman was killed recently there was a
1:08:40 uproar um about that in london and you
1:08:44 know the call is more state security
1:08:46 more increased state security state will
1:08:48 protect us and then you have other
1:08:49 people say well anyway but in our
1:08:51 history the state has gone crazy and if
1:08:53 he gets taken over by a cabal or or some
1:08:56 kind of um
1:08:57 uh people who have a um
1:09:02 a conspired agenda amongst themselves
1:09:04 they can take control of the government
1:09:05 and then we will we won't be able to get
1:09:07 our freedom back once they take it from
1:09:08 us and they ban elections and then how
1:09:11 are you going to get your freedom back
1:09:12 without fearing being to fight against
1:09:14 it and of course in america
1:09:16 as you know um they have uh you know a
1:09:20 certain amendment which they keep on
1:09:21 they really will jealously guard which
1:09:23 is the right the amendment that allows
1:09:24 them the right to bear arms why because
1:09:27 they follow an older interpretation of
1:09:28 liberalism which says you can't trust
1:09:29 the state so you have to have weapons so
1:09:31 that with the state goals if the state
1:09:34 goes um off them off the manhattan
1:09:37 off the of the dean of liberalism uh
1:09:40 then you have to be jihadi right and
1:09:42 fight against the state yeah so it's
1:09:44 jihadi it's liberal jihadism if you want
1:09:46 to call it
1:09:48 um yeah of course
1:09:49 yeah but that's why that's what the
1:09:51 founding fathers said right
1:09:52 yeah yeah so yeah
1:09:54 and and i mean that's that's that's uh
1:09:56 profound really i mean to
1:09:57 because because
1:09:59 people need to realize that you know
1:10:01 first of all everybody has you know a
1:10:04 you know metaphysical commitment i mean
1:10:05 this idea that that you know just
1:10:07 because you are religious you have
1:10:09 metaphysical commitments and i as a
1:10:10 liberal and just this you know blank
1:10:12 slate you know that that's not committed
1:10:14 to any kind of metaphysical truth it's
1:10:16 it's it's it's it's completely false and
1:10:19 so so the idea is i mean obviously
1:10:21 you're going to have certain
1:10:22 metaphysical principles upon which
1:10:23 you're going to
1:10:24 you know build a system and there's
1:10:26 going to be conflict within your system
1:10:29 just as much as there's going to be
1:10:30 conflict within a religious system that
1:10:32 basically builds a structure that is
1:10:34 based on metaphysical principles but we
1:10:36 want to say more than that and i want to
1:10:37 bring brother charity for a second in
1:10:39 here okay because we want we we don't
1:10:41 want to just we we don't just want to
1:10:43 say that there are two systems both of
1:10:45 which can have conflict and both of
1:10:46 which can have problems we want to say
1:10:48 that the the muslim system is superior
1:10:51 of course and so there was a comment
1:10:53 here maybe we can go off that right and
1:10:56 sharif i think we can bring you in here
1:10:59 for a while because you guys have been
1:11:01 quiet for way too long i'm starting to
1:11:02 get worried
1:11:04 muslims living in the west need a
1:11:06 reality check
1:11:07 trying to compare the days of the
1:11:10 ottoman empire to today will not help
1:11:12 any muslim living in the west or the
1:11:14 east
1:11:15 and and
1:11:16 just to to to combine it with this
1:11:18 comment now talk about life has improved
1:11:21 for everyone under liberalism fewer wars
1:11:23 less famine less violence equality
1:11:25 voting on leaders
1:11:26 now um
1:11:28 sherry if i don't i don't really need to
1:11:29 ask a question you can just take it from
1:11:31 there and give us your thoughts
1:11:35 you're muted sharif
1:11:37 oh you're not muted i
1:11:39 you're not muted but something is wrong
1:11:41 we can't hear you
1:11:42 maybe you need to
1:11:45 yeah you need to rejoin you need to
1:11:47 rejoin
1:11:52 yeah so i won't comment on that i'll let
1:11:54 sharif jump on that but um i i think
1:11:57 like one of the the biggest problems
1:11:59 that's often
1:12:01 not really addressed is just like how
1:12:03 there are different kinds of freedoms so
1:12:05 you have the positive freedom and the
1:12:06 negative freedom
1:12:08 and the positive freedoms often conflict
1:12:11 with negative freedoms
1:12:13 and this is the where this
1:12:16 notion of liberalism
1:12:18 really needs to be sort of
1:12:20 discussed mainly is
1:12:22 the us's
1:12:24 well we're nothing rather
1:12:25 here with all it will
1:12:26 his killer comment as always
1:12:29 yeah uh sharif
1:12:31 you still have a problem
1:12:33 what's going on nope no okay bro try
1:12:37 using your speakers maybe
1:12:41 okay maybe you can rejoin
1:12:44 yeah so so yeah yusuf you were saying
1:12:46 yeah so um
1:12:48 you've got the positive and the negative
1:12:49 freedom so negative freedoms are
1:12:50 generally referred to as like securities
1:12:53 um but they are still freedom so like
1:12:55 freedom from something freedom from
1:12:58 oppression freedom from
1:13:00 x y and z and uh and then you've got
1:13:02 your positive freedoms which you're free
1:13:03 to act in one way or another so freedom
1:13:06 to do
1:13:07 something and obviously the freedom to
1:13:10 stay up all night and party is going to
1:13:12 conflict with someone's freedom to you
1:13:14 know get a decent night's sleep
1:13:16 when they've got work and then the next
1:13:18 morning and things like that so
1:13:20 and if you and
1:13:22 the biggest issue is generally that like
1:13:24 especially if you've got this democracy
1:13:26 that's pushed by popular will
1:13:30 that most people laymen that is don't
1:13:33 really consider this conflict
1:13:35 in freedoms and they they don't really
1:13:37 think of freedom in in the sense that
1:13:38 there are two different kinds of
1:13:40 freedoms
1:13:41 they just think of it in the you know
1:13:43 you know the william wallace sort of
1:13:45 freedom kind of
1:13:47 notion it's just this one value
1:13:49 and we should get more of it as much of
1:13:51 it as possible more more and um
1:13:54 the biggest
1:13:55 problem with that is obviously when you
1:13:57 have
1:13:58 popular opinion on notions of freedom
1:14:00 pushing
1:14:01 um
1:14:02 political narratives in terms of
1:14:05 democracy and government et cetera um
1:14:08 then you're going to have a an
1:14:09 overlooking
1:14:11 of
1:14:11 these
1:14:12 the conflicts and freedoms
1:14:14 and you hear it in the discussions with
1:14:16 um many of the lay people and they're
1:14:18 just talking about these things they
1:14:20 don't really see how like they they
1:14:22 think you should be free and that the
1:14:24 government shouldn't really be impeding
1:14:25 on um this and the other but they will
1:14:27 talk about
1:14:28 certain freedoms in terms of just them
1:14:30 being madness
1:14:32 um and and things like that and it it's
1:14:34 it's framed in a different way rather
1:14:36 than being referred to as a freedom it's
1:14:37 it's referred to as madness or the
1:14:40 senate although it does fall under the
1:14:42 the category of freedom so i think we've
1:14:43 got
1:14:45 sharif back
1:14:48 up
1:14:49 that voice we hear you perfectly
1:14:52 i had to uh change onto my ipad iphone
1:14:55 sorry
1:14:56 um yeah so as abdullah and yourself
1:14:58 answered the question then i'm doing
1:15:00 that
1:15:01 no
1:15:01 uh
1:15:03 touched on it but then yeah you can go
1:15:05 ahead sure
1:15:06 yeah i forgot what the question is now
1:15:08 um i think the the the question i think
1:15:11 sort of presupposes that
1:15:14 as human beings we sort of solve the
1:15:16 world's problems with liberalism and
1:15:18 capitalism and that
1:15:20 you know
1:15:21 by by talking about islam or the
1:15:23 uthmanic hillary somehow
1:15:25 you know going back in
1:15:27 and de-progressing where we progressed
1:15:30 and like i said that assumes a lot that
1:15:31 assumes that we have progressed that
1:15:33 assumes that we have solved things like
1:15:35 wars now
1:15:37 since the the beginning of 2020
1:15:40 so the year 2000
1:15:43 you know the last 20 years or so we've
1:15:45 seen the war on terror we've seen the
1:15:47 invasions of afghanistan we've seen
1:15:50 bombings in pakistan we've seen bombings
1:15:52 and drone strikes within somalia and
1:15:54 yemen we've seen invasions of iraq we've
1:15:57 seen bombings
1:15:59 within syria
1:16:01 we've seen you know huge disruptions
1:16:04 within the economic marketplaces like a
1:16:06 with the 2008
1:16:09 crisis and economic global crash we've
1:16:12 seen
1:16:13 millions of people suffer because of the
1:16:16 global crash become homeless lose their
1:16:19 jobs uh you know suffer economically
1:16:23 lose their livelihoods lose their family
1:16:25 in certain uh circumstances with family
1:16:28 breakup you know so we've seen huge
1:16:30 amounts of problems regardless where
1:16:32 regards to what we see within the west
1:16:34 not least of which and i think i
1:16:36 mentioned this i think was it two days
1:16:37 ago when we had this stream not least of
1:16:39 which that this liberal secular ideology
1:16:42 has created one of the greatest
1:16:44 environmental crisis that the world has
1:16:46 ever seen to the extent now people are
1:16:49 talking about how the world may within a
1:16:52 hundred years or so no longer be
1:16:54 habitable for human existence at least
1:16:56 parts of the earth which are currently
1:16:58 habit habitable for human existence may
1:17:01 no longer be habitable anymore now what
1:17:03 basis is that on what whose watch is it
1:17:06 is it because the muslims are the
1:17:08 problem here is it because they've been
1:17:09 implementing sharia and as a result you
1:17:11 know we create this global
1:17:14 environmental crisis no it's because of
1:17:16 the liberal secular ideology that's
1:17:18 being implemented so i think people have
1:17:20 to really reflect about the current
1:17:23 problems and what tends to happen
1:17:26 whether it's talking about the metoo
1:17:28 campaign with sexual abuse and
1:17:30 exploitation of women whether that is
1:17:32 talking about racism which is endemic in
1:17:34 places like america or even britain as
1:17:36 well
1:17:37 what tends to happen is people sugarcoat
1:17:39 it as these are problems of the isolated
1:17:41 individuals and then say oh look over
1:17:44 there look at those bad muslims look at
1:17:46 those people who want to call for sharia
1:17:48 it's almost like you've got problems
1:17:50 here but you completely divert people's
1:17:53 attentions and talk about you know
1:17:54 what's going on in regards to
1:17:56 afghanistan and the fact that women you
1:17:59 know you know being segregated in
1:18:00 classes yeah so you know there's a lot
1:18:03 of this type of bait and switch type of
1:18:06 approach to get people to you know not
1:18:08 really see the real problems that exist
1:18:10 within within today's society what they
1:18:13 mean really when they say these things
1:18:15 is i've not experienced the war
1:18:18 that's it really it's
1:18:20 they're safe that where they are hasn't
1:18:22 been bombed where they are is is
1:18:24 completely okay but it but it's very
1:18:26 short-sighted that's you being caught up
1:18:27 in your bubble as if there isn't
1:18:28 problems you know elsewhere in the world
1:18:31 and
1:18:32 how
1:18:32 western liberal secular societies have
1:18:34 been involved in that
1:18:36 and fundamental to a lot of the crisis
1:18:39 that have been going on there you go in
1:18:41 we need to make sure we give them this
1:18:44 secular liberalism because they need it
1:18:46 you know um we need to compel them to be
1:18:48 free as abdullah uh mentioned earlier
1:18:50 and you know when it turns out that
1:18:52 they're you know they're not really that
1:18:54 fond of the ideas that we're giving them
1:18:56 um we're gonna have to destroy the
1:18:59 structures that they have in place and
1:19:00 try to rebuild something but one of the
1:19:02 biggest differences is obviously um
1:19:04 western secular liberalism has been
1:19:06 something that has been um gradually
1:19:09 introduced over very long periods of
1:19:11 time um relatively and then they think
1:19:14 that it's going to be just as easy to
1:19:16 adopt something instantly
1:19:19 like you know now let's uh let's
1:19:21 implement this now in a society that
1:19:23 hasn't been introduced to it gradually
1:19:24 that hasn't had to sort of acclimatize
1:19:27 or get used to these type of things
1:19:28 which itself causes huge problems and
1:19:30 then they leave
1:19:31 and the you know the vacuum that they've
1:19:33 left there gives rise to these sort of
1:19:36 um you know tribalistic warlords and
1:19:38 all of this sort of chaos that manifests
1:19:41 out of the problems that they've caused
1:19:43 um
1:19:44 you know not really considering how
1:19:46 these things might
1:19:48 work better in a western society because
1:19:50 of the gradual approach that they've
1:19:52 taken to sort of getting them um and the
1:19:55 other thing i wanted to mention as well
1:19:56 um
1:19:58 was it's there's a huge assumption here
1:19:59 that it's liberalism that has um
1:20:02 caused the quote-unquote the peace
1:20:03 within the west
1:20:04 um and not
1:20:06 the the you know the huge elephant in
1:20:08 the room um which is the introduction of
1:20:10 atomic warfare
1:20:11 each of these secular nations have
1:20:13 access to massive nuclear weapons so
1:20:16 there's a huge fear factor here and this
1:20:19 was very prevalent in um the cold war
1:20:22 era
1:20:23 like oh are we gonna you know all die in
1:20:25 some sort of like nuclear apocalypse
1:20:28 like that played a huge role in not
1:20:31 going to war with each other not
1:20:33 liberalism per se and not only that have
1:20:36 you noticed the countries that don't
1:20:37 necessarily have access to all of these
1:20:39 nuclear weapons are the ones where all
1:20:41 the wars are happening
1:20:43 so could we not sort of start to say
1:20:44 well maybe there's a correlation here
1:20:46 maybe the fact that there aren't wars
1:20:48 has nothing to do with liberalism in and
1:20:50 of itself but it's more to do with the
1:20:52 fact that there are nuclear weapons
1:20:54 there and the evidence of that is that
1:20:56 where you have these places that don't
1:20:58 have nuclear weapons that aren't a big
1:21:00 scary threat like russia or china
1:21:02 uh you know their free game let's go get
1:21:04 them let's let's fight them plus yeah
1:21:06 and these are these are western states
1:21:08 which are
1:21:09 invading like you had in the early 2000s
1:21:12 uh sierra leone being invaded by britain
1:21:16 quote unquote liberal interventionism by
1:21:18 tony blair at the time then obviously
1:21:19 afghanistan iraq
1:21:21 uh syria has been bombed by britain and
1:21:24 america and invaded by russia as well uh
1:21:28 you know so you know you're right uh
1:21:29 certainly yourself to a certain extent i
1:21:31 just wanted to just go back about what
1:21:33 abdullah mentioned earlier about
1:21:35 how the west had a very unique
1:21:38 experience
1:21:39 with christianity
1:21:41 that islam didn't really have so for
1:21:44 example
1:21:45 you know
1:21:46 the church
1:21:47 and the state
1:21:48 was completely
1:21:51 totalizing when it came to the
1:21:52 application of everybody's ideas you had
1:21:55 to follow
1:21:56 what that particular state's version of
1:21:59 the church understanding was and if you
1:22:02 didn't then you'd be considered a
1:22:04 heretic you'd be burnt at the stake or
1:22:07 executed or punished or imprisoned in
1:22:09 one way or another so this idea of
1:22:11 freedom of belief you know was a
1:22:13 reaction to
1:22:15 the church's complete control over
1:22:18 people's thoughts and ideas whereas as
1:22:21 abdullah mentioned we as muslims we
1:22:23 always had the idea of ichthy had
1:22:25 whether it's in the branch aspects of
1:22:26 the deen uh even in theology or whether
1:22:29 it was in the the
1:22:30 jurisprudence as well there was a set
1:22:33 criteria which you know everybody agreed
1:22:35 upon which was the definitive aspects of
1:22:37 islam and then within that paradigm
1:22:39 there was areas where scholars could
1:22:41 agree so we never had that similarly you
1:22:44 had a situation where the king
1:22:47 who was basically deputized to be ruling
1:22:50 on behalf of the church he had complete
1:22:53 ownership of all of the land if you
1:22:56 wanted to own land you had to get
1:22:58 permission off the church i think it's
1:23:01 even the case maybe abdullah can correct
1:23:02 me if i'm wrong but even today the the
1:23:05 mona the queen she owns everything in
1:23:07 the uk isn't it
1:23:09 yeah so it's just
1:23:12 yeah um yeah so basically
1:23:14 the um
1:23:16 uh so some it wasn't like the hollywood
1:23:18 depiction of the medieval era where the
1:23:21 church sometimes they depict it as um
1:23:24 usually with their sci-fi films they
1:23:25 talk about the future and they kind of
1:23:26 used an allegory for the church or the
1:23:28 catholic church and
1:23:29 it was like totalitarian what have you
1:23:31 uh not not exactly not quite um in fact
1:23:34 the kings and the and the the clergy or
1:23:37 the catholic church bickered with each
1:23:39 other he sometimes even ended up with
1:23:41 popes being killed and captured um
1:23:44 replaced a number of things happening so
1:23:46 it wasn't as
1:23:47 as people portrayed but basically the
1:23:50 the church had one um key insistence
1:23:52 which is uh a deal you could say it made
1:23:55 with every um christian monarch which is
1:23:58 uh they'll give them legitimacy so
1:23:59 they'll say you are the appointed waller
1:24:02 by god and no one can rebel against you
1:24:05 um and
1:24:07 you
1:24:08 in return you have to basically make
1:24:10 sure that everyone abides by the
1:24:14 edicts of the church so once a church
1:24:16 let's say
1:24:17 an inquisitor or a church council has
1:24:20 found someone to be a heretic um they
1:24:22 would then condemn that person and
1:24:24 they'll be handed over to the secular
1:24:25 authorities the secular authorities
1:24:27 being
1:24:27 the king and their soldiers and what
1:24:29 have you to be executed because the the
1:24:31 church can't uh didn't really have a
1:24:34 particular militant arm exactly to to
1:24:36 execute people's but the state each
1:24:38 state each kingdom had to execute the
1:24:41 um the heretics that the catholic church
1:24:43 deems to be to be heritage but apart
1:24:45 from that the the kings could do pretty
1:24:47 much what they liked and it was a good
1:24:49 deal between the catholic church um and
1:24:52 these kings but you are correct that the
1:24:54 kings in theory owned the entire land
1:24:57 and everybody was subject citizens of
1:25:00 the states they were subjects of the
1:25:02 king or the queen and they had to um
1:25:05 well they they had to do what they say
1:25:07 in essence if you buy a piece of land
1:25:08 you're technically leasing it from the
1:25:10 queen in england anyway um you don't
1:25:13 really own it uh
1:25:16 technically speaking but in practice you
1:25:18 know the queen does never ask for the
1:25:20 land back
1:25:22 i think the relationship
1:25:24 yeah uh what i agree with what you said
1:25:26 i think the relationship like you
1:25:28 mentioned between the monarch and the
1:25:30 church was that the monarch derived his
1:25:32 authority from the church you're right
1:25:35 there was tensions between the two and
1:25:37 they're able to get away but it was the
1:25:38 fact that once the monarch derived his
1:25:41 authority and the monarch was able to
1:25:44 literally own everything and you had a
1:25:46 very feudalistic type society so you
1:25:48 know somebody could may be made
1:25:51 you could be he's granted land he
1:25:53 becomes a landlord he has serfs that
1:25:55 work upon his land the serfs could be
1:25:57 literally turfed out of the land uh that
1:26:00 they're working upon made completely
1:26:01 homeless and if they have that then
1:26:03 they're literally going to starve to
1:26:05 death and even the king can do that to
1:26:07 the landlord as well because he
1:26:08 ultimately has ownership and you know
1:26:11 there's the whole this whole discussions
1:26:13 and
1:26:14 you know the the idea of robin hood and
1:26:16 magna carta came out about regards to
1:26:18 this but i think what happened was that
1:26:21 because they saw the the fact that the
1:26:24 the church had legitimized the king
1:26:27 there was this idea that hold on the
1:26:29 king
1:26:30 and the the monarch is abusive in its
1:26:32 power and in order to sort of talk about
1:26:36 monarchy and authority now you had to
1:26:38 define it in a way which was different
1:26:41 than just simply saying it's a religious
1:26:42 edict from either the catholic church or
1:26:45 the church of england or whatever it was
1:26:47 um
1:26:48 that gave that legitimacy and so
1:26:50 therefore they start to talk about
1:26:52 political freedoms and this idea that
1:26:54 you know people should be free to own
1:26:57 things free to think about things free
1:27:00 to express things because if you don't
1:27:02 have these type or free to do what they
1:27:04 want personal freedom because they don't
1:27:06 have these things then what's going to
1:27:08 happen is you're going to have this
1:27:09 totalitarian state and that's going to
1:27:12 impinge upon the sovereignty of the
1:27:14 individual and as you mentioned abdullah
1:27:15 the sovereignty of the individual they
1:27:17 see as the highest
1:27:19 thing for uh to be aspired to with
1:27:22 regards to society and i think the other
1:27:23 thing that's that is really important in
1:27:25 terms of understanding metaphysical
1:27:27 commitments of uh of liberalism that
1:27:30 they have is they had this view about
1:27:32 happiness as well
1:27:34 you know um
1:27:35 there was a famous uh i think he was a
1:27:37 dutch uh
1:27:39 political philosopher his name was
1:27:40 bernard demandeville um he
1:27:44 he wrote a book called the fables of the
1:27:45 bees
1:27:46 yeah the fables of the bees and
1:27:49 basically what it was it was like an
1:27:51 allegory about how you've got this bee
1:27:54 community this beehive which is purely
1:27:57 spiritual
1:27:58 and it tries to
1:28:00 you know just ignore the material
1:28:02 aspects of life and just
1:28:04 worship and do all these such things and
1:28:06 the bee colony fails and then you've got
1:28:08 this bee community which is purely
1:28:10 materialistic they're just purely out in
1:28:13 terms of pursuing this in self-interest
1:28:16 and the beehive succeeds
1:28:18 and so what uh bernardo mandeville is
1:28:21 trying to give as an allegory is this
1:28:23 idea that
1:28:24 virtue is not necessarily just seeking
1:28:26 spiritual value in fact it can be seen
1:28:29 as if you know uh non-virtuous to do
1:28:32 this and that this perception of greed
1:28:35 as being not virtuous can is actually
1:28:38 virtuous this was his argument so his
1:28:40 argument was that actually human beings
1:28:42 that drive their desire to pursue
1:28:44 happiness is for material gratification
1:28:46 or material satisfaction yeah and then
1:28:49 you had other thinkers like jean-jacques
1:28:50 rousseau who's as i think abdullah
1:28:53 pointed out earlier about how
1:28:54 everybody's
1:28:56 in this natural state this natural right
1:28:58 of freedom and he's in the ultimate
1:29:00 happiness because nothing restricts him
1:29:03 except nature
1:29:04 then it was a question well how do you
1:29:06 preserve that
1:29:08 natural happiness the greatest happiness
1:29:10 of an individual when you bring other
1:29:12 individuals together in a civil society
1:29:14 and then they argued about preserving
1:29:16 the uh
1:29:17 the maximum freedom of the freedom of
1:29:19 the maximum number of individuals as a
1:29:21 way to preserve this natural state uh or
1:29:25 the greatest form of happiness and that
1:29:26 each individual should be able to pursue
1:29:28 happiness as and when they want without
1:29:31 state intervention so there's there's a
1:29:33 lot of presuppositions when it comes to
1:29:36 the idea of human beings that they are
1:29:38 sovereign the idea that uh you know
1:29:41 human beings only pursue material value
1:29:44 that the means to happiness is
1:29:46 gratification of the
1:29:48 desires sensual desires and then this
1:29:50 idea that freedom of the individual is
1:29:53 the is the goal of society is what
1:29:55 society should try to preserve and uh i
1:29:58 think as i think it's already been
1:30:00 mentioned a few points which is that
1:30:02 there is always going to be a tension
1:30:04 now within western societies where there
1:30:07 is going to be competing freedoms
1:30:10 and which one prevails over another is
1:30:12 it the freedom of belief over the
1:30:14 freedom of expression or the personal
1:30:16 freedoms or is it vice versa and we've
1:30:18 seen this play out with particularly
1:30:19 within europe particularly there are
1:30:21 certain cases uh like in northern
1:30:23 ireland where there was a christian
1:30:25 baker uh they were asked by a uh
1:30:29 uh
1:30:29 an lgbt couple to produce a um cake
1:30:35 in which it supported gay marriage
1:30:37 because at the time it was illegal in
1:30:38 northern ireland and they refused and
1:30:40 they were taken to court and they were
1:30:41 prosecuted and then they went to the
1:30:43 court of human rights european court of
1:30:45 human rights and the european court of
1:30:47 human rights upheld uh the the gay
1:30:50 couple and crossing and upheld the
1:30:52 prosecution against the christian couple
1:30:54 even though the christian couple argued
1:30:56 well this is our freedom so our freedom
1:30:58 of belief that's being impinged here
1:31:00 we're being forced
1:31:02 to adopt this set of ideas that we
1:31:04 disagree with and they were told no
1:31:07 their freedom supersedes your freedom so
1:31:09 you have these natural tensions within
1:31:11 societies
1:31:13 built upon liberalism uh so yes i don't
1:31:16 need to go on yeah yeah
1:31:18 thank you no that was that was good
1:31:20 that's why that's why i'm not uh
1:31:21 stopping you and uh we're gonna have
1:31:23 collins uh very soon are we are we
1:31:27 if i may um kind
1:31:29 some additional points i want to give um
1:31:31 i want to give some other examples um
1:31:34 because i fear that
1:31:36 there might be some let's say
1:31:37 non-muslims of the liberal bent watching
1:31:39 this
1:31:40 um and they'll be saying they're going
1:31:42 to be saying oh what's so what about
1:31:44 baker and a cake who cares i'm not a
1:31:45 baker i don't care about cakes so okay
1:31:47 well let's take them three
1:31:49 major issues which have effect in the
1:31:52 west and are typical of the internal
1:31:54 contradictions in the west so
1:31:57 um the first and most biggest thing is
1:31:59 of course wealth
1:32:00 which is even if you have a social
1:32:02 liberal state which will aim to give
1:32:05 social welfare payments to the poor uh
1:32:07 to prevent them from starving to death
1:32:09 let's just say
1:32:10 so they say we have that we have welfare
1:32:12 payments so we know who so you know
1:32:14 what's wrong with having interest
1:32:16 banking what's wrong with having um the
1:32:18 types of practices and stocks and shares
1:32:20 that
1:32:21 lead to problems and um and printing out
1:32:23 fiat currency what's wrong with all that
1:32:25 stuff then if we have a state that at
1:32:26 least guarantees people can eat right
1:32:28 well the problem is that the state can
1:32:30 only pay people's welfare checks if it
1:32:32 has money and the money must come from
1:32:34 somewhere and so the money must come
1:32:36 from taxes but what we find uh just
1:32:39 currently in the uk is that the british
1:32:41 government um
1:32:43 despite having obviously access to being
1:32:46 able to to tax
1:32:48 the mega rich quite sick
1:32:50 successfully
1:32:51 and if they imposed if everyone actually
1:32:53 imposed at least a one to two percent
1:32:55 wealth tax
1:32:56 in all western countries or wealth tax
1:32:58 every year or whatever their wealth they
1:33:00 pay a percentage of that so to one to
1:33:02 two percent of their wealth every year
1:33:03 like zakat basically islamic concept of
1:33:05 zakar and we would have we would we
1:33:07 could eliminate poverty but then the
1:33:09 problem is that these rich people will
1:33:10 say okay we'll just take our money and
1:33:12 place it in the cayman islands or
1:33:14 somewhere else and you we won't invest
1:33:17 in your country and then you'll lose
1:33:18 money right so you need to not tax us
1:33:21 otherwise we'll make your country poorer
1:33:24 right so at least have something rather
1:33:26 than not absolutely nothing and so
1:33:28 because of that they don't tax the mega
1:33:30 rich and there's not enough money in the
1:33:32 coffers to pay the the poor uh when
1:33:34 there's when there's that much
1:33:35 concentration of wealth it doesn't
1:33:36 matter if the state's committed to
1:33:38 paying the poor it doesn't if it doesn't
1:33:39 have enough enough money what it does it
1:33:41 do it cuts
1:33:42 their welfare checks which is what's
1:33:44 happening right now in the uk they
1:33:45 they're cutting the welfare payments
1:33:47 america the welfare system even worse
1:33:49 right america is closer to the the
1:33:51 liberal salaf our idea a little more
1:33:55 closer to it um than than we are
1:33:58 um
1:33:58 and uh you know like the the welfare
1:34:01 based system the welfare system in
1:34:03 america i heard is united states of
1:34:04 america uh is um is is really abysmal
1:34:08 compared to to europe um anyway so
1:34:11 so there's that i mean you know because
1:34:13 you allow freedom of ownership so people
1:34:14 say well freedom of ownership if i want
1:34:15 to lend money to people and then we have
1:34:17 we have a contract a consensual contract
1:34:19 where they pay me more money back than i
1:34:22 let them you know that's just all fair
1:34:24 and square liberalism but what happens
1:34:26 in a society where the rich people lend
1:34:29 money to those who are poorer than
1:34:30 themselves and then expect money to come
1:34:33 back to them
1:34:35 extra
1:34:36 right what happens yeah you're going to
1:34:38 have money going in one direction net
1:34:42 net that is yeah
1:34:44 be very conducive for distribution of
1:34:46 wealth and the circulation
1:34:48 of wealth what does islam do obviously
1:34:49 we ban interest banking because we don't
1:34:51 believe you have an absolute right of
1:34:53 um
1:34:54 uh freedom of ownership to do whatever
1:34:56 you want of course liberism itself
1:34:57 doesn't believe in absolute freedom of
1:34:59 ownership because of all the internal
1:35:00 contradictions there's a lot of things
1:35:01 that will be
1:35:02 you'll be deprived of ownership from or
1:35:04 you will be restricted in what you can
1:35:06 do with your with ownership um such as
1:35:09 um
1:35:09 insider trading on the stocks and shares
1:35:12 and so that's prohibited for you to do
1:35:14 of course even though it's all fair and
1:35:16 consensual no um so that that's that's
1:35:18 number one and i'm not really just
1:35:20 touching touching to the tip of the
1:35:21 iceberg rather really just redis
1:35:23 skimming it on the issue of um the
1:35:25 wealth system in liberalism that's
1:35:27 capitalism let's take two more let's
1:35:29 take two social aspects of liberalism uh
1:35:31 to illustrate our point so in liberalism
1:35:35 um if someone was to go and let's say
1:35:38 expose themselves to women in public
1:35:40 someone like a dirty old man as they say
1:35:42 goes with a big trench coat or whatever
1:35:44 um
1:35:46 you know exposes themselves to them in
1:35:47 public right what would happen it was
1:35:48 they'll say well that's of course sexual
1:35:50 harassment right it's almost like a type
1:35:52 of type of sexual assault even if the
1:35:54 man doesn't touch them even if the man
1:35:56 does not do anything to them physically
1:35:58 just expose themselves they'll say a
1:36:00 sexual harassment because you're
1:36:01 creating a sexually offensive
1:36:03 environment uh to that person they'll
1:36:05 they'll be offended by it um they'll
1:36:08 feel
1:36:08 uh somehow emotionally assaulted
1:36:12 because you're exposing them to a a
1:36:15 sexual let's say stimuli against their
1:36:17 will okay and that's wrong and you know
1:36:20 what have you say okay well you know we
1:36:21 totally agree that's most sensitive with
1:36:23 that
1:36:24 um
1:36:25 however
1:36:26 what would you say if
1:36:28 let's say and let's just be consistent
1:36:31 here on this um if let's say women
1:36:34 and men as well
1:36:36 go out with scantily clad clothing which
1:36:38 reveals or uh and even accentuates and
1:36:41 points draws more attention to the
1:36:43 sexual aspects of the the men and
1:36:45 women's bodies in public
1:36:47 uh and that that is against the the
1:36:51 consent of people who want to go outside
1:36:53 just to their local to do their job to
1:36:55 go to the library people still go to
1:36:57 libraries these days um the coffee shop
1:36:59 or what have you and they are bombarded
1:37:01 with sexual stimuli that they have no
1:37:04 no one asked their consent for no one
1:37:06 asked them to and of course as you know
1:37:07 sexual stimuli produces um obviously
1:37:11 unconscious
1:37:12 uh reactions at least first stage
1:37:14 arousal and it's not a you don't choose
1:37:17 to be aroused or you don't choose to be
1:37:19 affected by sexual stimuli um you don't
1:37:22 there's no switch in a man and a woman's
1:37:24 brain that says i i choose not to be um
1:37:27 not to find someone attractive or not to
1:37:28 find something sexually
1:37:30 uh stimulating negatively or positively
1:37:32 whatever the case might be
1:37:35 so
1:37:36 could you not then make the exact same
1:37:38 case
1:37:39 that people going out with sexually
1:37:40 revealing clothes or sexually
1:37:42 accentuating clothes are committing
1:37:44 public sexual harassment
1:37:46 okay now the libertarian
1:37:48 the libertarian will will say to will
1:37:51 saying this look if people want to if
1:37:53 there are these dirty old men that want
1:37:55 to go out onto the streets
1:37:57 and flash themselves from the women as
1:37:58 long as they're not physically
1:37:59 assaulting them the libertarian will say
1:38:02 they have no problem with that right the
1:38:04 libertarians more consistent with their
1:38:06 principles but the social liberal and
1:38:08 the classical liberal will be uh no we
1:38:11 don't
1:38:12 we don't like that but but then okay
1:38:13 well then what about other forms of
1:38:15 sexual harassment which could be uh just
1:38:17 as much as harassing um arguably very
1:38:20 much so right um you know many many
1:38:23 people uh
1:38:25 muslim non-muslim male or female refer
1:38:27 to it as a type of
1:38:28 well they were not in the arab it won't
1:38:30 use word fitna but fitnah would be the
1:38:31 word that the muslims would use for it
1:38:32 right um
1:38:34 sexual harassment no oh no but that
1:38:36 impinges against um uh women's rights to
1:38:40 uh to control their bodies and say well
1:38:43 we're not talking about your bodies
1:38:44 we're talking about the clothes
1:38:46 yeah yeah because then doesn't the old
1:38:48 doesn't the dirty old gentleman also
1:38:50 have a right
1:38:51 to then let's say control his body and
1:38:53 do whatever he wants in public physical
1:38:56 hurting so here's a contradiction and i
1:38:58 will leave with another contradiction
1:39:00 which i find um
1:39:02 uh particularly
1:39:03 uh well humorous as well as tragic
1:39:06 because of the consequences so
1:39:08 um alcohol and drugs
1:39:11 so they say okay now uh social liberals
1:39:14 at one point did try to outlaw alcohol
1:39:16 they said that it does rob people's
1:39:18 capacity to make informed choices so
1:39:21 it's robbing their freedom makes you
1:39:23 dependent or addicted to a substance so
1:39:25 they managed to ban most drugs but
1:39:27 alcohol didn't really go very well and
1:39:29 of course in america there was a push
1:39:30 back against the prohibition era in
1:39:32 england they never reached it never
1:39:34 reached
1:39:35 being prohibited to even be repealed and
1:39:37 it wasn't that successful but there was
1:39:39 there was a drive amongst social
1:39:40 liberals to do it
1:39:41 society just wants wants to have some
1:39:43 beer so they they kind of ultimately
1:39:45 rejected it um but here's the thing
1:39:47 right here's the problem you get
1:39:49 so
1:39:50 in
1:39:51 in many liberal systems of course they
1:39:53 say that uh if you're inebriated so if
1:39:55 let's say a woman or or a man is
1:39:57 inebriated um you they can't give
1:40:00 consent to sex so if you if you actually
1:40:02 are going to these nightclubs to do what
1:40:04 is legally permitted for you to do in
1:40:06 liberal societies which is go up and
1:40:08 find someone maybe and take them back
1:40:10 home and sleep with them all legally
1:40:12 made as long as consensual
1:40:14 um but let's say they've had too much to
1:40:16 drink
1:40:17 okay then technically even if the person
1:40:21 appears consensual
1:40:23 uh says they want to do it wants to
1:40:25 engage in an agent but you could be
1:40:26 raping that person
1:40:28 because they might be too inebriated to
1:40:30 consent
1:40:31 okay
1:40:32 so people said well there's a problem
1:40:33 with that i say okay well there's but
1:40:35 but then just be consistent yeah
1:40:39 my argument is only on consistency i
1:40:40 don't know if you've seen one go on this
1:40:42 if someone then commits a crime
1:40:45 while inebriated
1:40:48 they can't be blamed for it then because
1:40:49 they they didn't make a rationally
1:40:51 informed choice it wasn't a choice
1:40:53 there's no men's rare men's rear being
1:40:55 latin meaning you have the intent in
1:40:58 your mind you intend to do bad you can't
1:41:00 give consent to be to have men's rare to
1:41:02 have criminal intent if you're
1:41:04 inebriated oh but they can't let people
1:41:06 off to do who do crimes while they're
1:41:08 inebriated though because so many people
1:41:10 do them so what do you do but it doesn't
1:41:12 make sense because then how how can you
1:41:14 punish someone for having sex with
1:41:16 someone inebriated because they are not
1:41:18 in their right minds to make any choice
1:41:20 and that you will punish someone who do
1:41:21 crimes while inebriated it also reminded
1:41:24 me of a situation in america though it
1:41:25 didn't go to the courts but it went it
1:41:27 was it was it was being attorney by a
1:41:29 university
1:41:30 um
1:41:31 an old student a female student
1:41:33 um
1:41:34 slept with each other okay in a in some
1:41:37 in the university dormitory but in this
1:41:39 particular case the woman um
1:41:41 actually was very aggressive she went to
1:41:43 the guy's room she kept going in uh
1:41:46 banging the door wanting to sleep with
1:41:47 him
1:41:48 her friends kept yanking her house
1:41:50 saying don't not like don't do it and
1:41:52 she kept going out of her room again she
1:41:54 and basically being very aggressively
1:41:56 wanting to sleep with that man so very
1:41:58 aggressive actually she was a physically
1:41:59 aggressive one
1:42:01 but she was inebriated
1:42:03 so after that after the fact they after
1:42:05 how many days after before she after
1:42:07 that she then said that she was too
1:42:09 inebriated to consent and so it was rape
1:42:12 um the only thing that saved the the
1:42:14 young gentleman from being a rapist and
1:42:17 it may be going to the police was that
1:42:19 there were witnesses to say that he
1:42:21 appeared also to be inebriated himself
1:42:24 and so in effect uh they raped each
1:42:27 other
1:42:28 but
1:42:29 um the woman wouldn't be accused of
1:42:31 being a rapist because she's the
1:42:33 aggressive one here right because oh but
1:42:35 she was an ebrade but if a man commits a
1:42:38 rape while a knee braid is not he's not
1:42:40 still a rapist does he not still deserve
1:42:41 to be punished for rape do you see now
1:42:44 all these contradictions that come into
1:42:46 it yeah yeah really
1:42:49 that was the comment i was going to make
1:42:51 it's like
1:42:52 even if there's no harm involved and
1:42:55 both parties are
1:42:57 consenting
1:42:59 and
1:43:00 one of them later if it's the woman that
1:43:03 generally changes her mind or feel shame
1:43:05 or guilt or whatever for the experience
1:43:07 um when she was drunk
1:43:09 that can still be considered rape even
1:43:11 though he was drunk
1:43:13 and
1:43:14 that's the huge question it's like well
1:43:16 where
1:43:17 how how is it that you draw this line
1:43:19 here and and then obviously there's an
1:43:20 inconsistency in in how it supply like
1:43:22 you mentioned there with regards to um
1:43:25 the woman when she's the aggressive one
1:43:27 um but even in the case when there's no
1:43:29 aggressive parties
1:43:31 there is
1:43:32 there's always still a larger chance
1:43:35 that the male will still be considered a
1:43:37 rapist despite him also being under the
1:43:39 influence
1:43:41 and
1:43:42 you know technically consenting to it at
1:43:43 the time and the the female being
1:43:46 under the influence and consenting at
1:43:48 the time later on
1:43:51 um you know that can still cause
1:43:53 problems for the the male party involved
1:43:55 in that and
1:43:56 very very rarely if never
1:43:59 um for the female part of the
1:44:02 yeah i think so yeah
1:44:05 yeah so um i just want to tell everybody
1:44:06 that the link is out for joining if you
1:44:08 guys want to call in uh the link is
1:44:11 right there you guys can just click the
1:44:13 link and and join to ask for questions
1:44:15 uh and and maybe while people are
1:44:17 joining
1:44:18 uh sharif or you suffer abdullah yusuf
1:44:22 you spoke the least so maybe you because
1:44:24 because basically based on what uh
1:44:26 brother abdullah just said this might be
1:44:28 relevant
1:44:29 because there seems to be a number of
1:44:30 questions they're saying why why why why
1:44:32 do you guys hate liberalism basically
1:44:34 why isn't aren't there good things about
1:44:36 liberalism isn't there some sort of
1:44:37 common ground but i mean brother
1:44:39 abdullah just said that there are things
1:44:41 we have in common which is like for
1:44:42 example the first incident he gave
1:44:45 but uh yeah but but maybe maybe you can
1:44:47 address this yourself is it just yeah it
1:44:49 touches as well so uh brother jordan i
1:44:51 think the comment's too hard to bring it
1:44:53 up now um but he did say um you know
1:44:56 do muslims not make use of liberalism
1:44:59 like with dawah
1:45:00 um you know that would they be able to
1:45:02 give dawah in the west if it wasn't for
1:45:04 liberalism
1:45:05 and then there was a little back and
1:45:07 forth with someone
1:45:08 after it uh willie the kid or woodley
1:45:11 ducked
1:45:12 uh who basically said oh well you know
1:45:15 we'll leave then
1:45:16 go
1:45:17 you know if you're going to be like that
1:45:18 it's hypocrisy if you don't leave but
1:45:20 this is the thing it's it's
1:45:22 the the issue stems from the fact that
1:45:24 there are constantly these
1:45:25 inconsistencies they talk about
1:45:27 liberalism but it is very rarely
1:45:29 consistently applied
1:45:31 and there's been lots of examples given
1:45:34 and so obviously there's an advantage
1:45:36 here with regards to being able to give
1:45:37 dawah
1:45:38 um insofar as it's being held
1:45:42 consistently but it really is
1:45:44 and like you see in um for example in
1:45:48 the
1:45:50 uh in scotland at the moment um there
1:45:52 are certain laws being passed which
1:45:54 allow
1:45:55 the teachers to if a child decides they
1:45:58 want to change their name and change
1:45:59 their gender et cetera uh the teachers
1:46:01 have the power um to facilitate that
1:46:04 without the permission of the parent and
1:46:05 they don't even have to tell the parents
1:46:07 um from as young as three or four or
1:46:09 something ridiculous like that
1:46:11 and so there's this
1:46:14 there's obviously a tension here with
1:46:15 regards to freedoms as well and the
1:46:17 religious and not just the muslim by the
1:46:19 way but the catholic and the jew etc um
1:46:22 are gonna say no like
1:46:24 i play a huge role in my child's life i
1:46:27 do not feel like
1:46:29 that they are old enough to be able to
1:46:31 even start thinking about the sort of
1:46:34 topics you're trying to push on to them
1:46:36 where they think that this is a
1:46:37 possibility like for example are we just
1:46:39 going to allow them if they start saying
1:46:41 you know
1:46:42 when they're playing pretend and they're
1:46:43 they're saying they're a bat
1:46:45 we're going to let the teachers
1:46:46 facilitate them
1:46:48 becoming a bat
1:46:49 like and if not why not and so there's
1:46:52 all these sort of weird inconsistencies
1:46:53 and all these problems and they often
1:46:55 conflict like
1:46:56 fair enough but you know when it comes
1:46:58 to talking about certain things
1:47:00 and talking about the islamic principles
1:47:02 on them it's referred to as bigoted and
1:47:05 shut down a lot of the times in
1:47:07 university there was a very clear line
1:47:11 that you just could not cross and you
1:47:12 there's no talking about that at all and
1:47:15 so a lot of conversations were avoided
1:47:17 because there was a huge amount of
1:47:18 anxiety in the room about them
1:47:21 and so this is the issue it's like you
1:47:23 keep talking about liberalism but you're
1:47:25 only talking about liberalism for a
1:47:27 certain group for a certain clique and
1:47:30 we can we can give nowa
1:47:32 and we can talk about certain things up
1:47:34 to a certain extent and at which point
1:47:36 we um it becomes very difficult to say
1:47:38 anything so you just have to not cross
1:47:40 that line or risk being subjected to
1:47:45 being shut down like your organizations
1:47:47 can be closed and this is happening like
1:47:48 you look at france as a a really good
1:47:50 example of this um where you know you've
1:47:53 got this quote-unquote liberal society
1:47:56 um where organizations are islamic are
1:47:59 being shut down
1:48:00 because they don't consider the state
1:48:02 to be higher than god
1:48:06 and
1:48:07 and they see this as a danger to
1:48:09 their liberalism and so so what do you
1:48:11 do here
1:48:12 what do you do here you like
1:48:14 we can give dawah yes um
1:48:17 but it's very enclosed and very limited
1:48:20 and it also motivates reinforces in many
1:48:23 cases especially with people who are a
1:48:24 lot um
1:48:26 very weak willed um
1:48:29 a transformation of of what islam truly
1:48:31 is and they end up having to adopt these
1:48:33 liberal notions in order to or the
1:48:36 secular modern notions of
1:48:38 um
1:48:39 right and wrong and it changes islam and
1:48:41 they they become different
1:48:43 as a result of the pressures put on them
1:48:46 um and so these are certain issues and
1:48:48 it's not hypocrisy like we believe islam
1:48:51 is true
1:48:52 and we believe we have
1:48:54 a duty to call people to it now whether
1:48:56 that's over in a muslim country or
1:48:58 whether that's here and also it
1:49:00 completely neglects um personal
1:49:02 circumstances like i have i have a
1:49:04 daughter and family here
1:49:05 i'm a reaver i'm not from anywhere else
1:49:07 why should i leave
1:49:09 why should i leave if if i'm here and if
1:49:12 i do leave that i'm not going to be able
1:49:14 to take my family with me
1:49:16 i can't take my daughter with me because
1:49:18 of the circumstances that i'm under she
1:49:20 there's there's no
1:49:22 and if i do leave then what islamic
1:49:24 influence is she's going to have i'm the
1:49:26 only muslim like that's practicing like
1:49:29 anywhere near her
1:49:30 um in terms of my family and the people
1:49:32 that she has around me and
1:49:34 so
1:49:35 why why should i leave why should i and
1:49:38 if i you know i have a
1:49:40 love for people here and i want them to
1:49:42 become muslims so why would i not stay
1:49:44 and do my best to try call them to that
1:49:46 which i see is true how is that
1:49:47 hypocritical it's not you want to grant
1:49:50 liberalism be consistent with it and
1:49:52 allow me to say it and allow me to
1:49:53 critique it
1:49:55 and yeah i mean i mean
1:49:57 yeah like so the way i see i mean what
1:49:59 you were just saying right now is just
1:50:00 it's quite silly because like if every
1:50:02 time somebody or a group of people
1:50:05 started to critique a political system
1:50:08 or an ideology within the country they
1:50:10 had to pack up their eggs and leave i
1:50:12 mean it's not very liberal what is it so
1:50:14 it's not really because it's not really
1:50:16 because you're you're you're critical of
1:50:17 a particular ideology it's more because
1:50:19 you're a muslim because i mean everybody
1:50:21 is critical of something i mean
1:50:28 as well the irony is is the hypocrisy is
1:50:30 on the person who called as a hypocrite
1:50:32 the hypocrisy is not if if liberalism is
1:50:34 that great then
1:50:36 let me critique it yeah let me critique
1:50:39 it
1:50:40 you know what it is
1:50:41 people who people who turn around and
1:50:43 they say
1:50:44 liberalism is fantastic and you know you
1:50:47 can say what you want to say
1:50:49 they live in in to be quite frank they
1:50:51 live in cloud cuckoo lang land yeah they
1:50:54 live politically
1:50:56 naive uh lives yeah
1:50:59 just a couple of examples
1:51:01 zac and nike's banned from entering this
1:51:03 country in britain yeah he's not allowed
1:51:06 because quote-unquote he's seen as an
1:51:08 extremist and a fundamentalist yeah
1:51:10 mufti menk here
1:51:12 this quite a
1:51:14 soft-hearted muslim scholar who talks
1:51:17 more about the personal development of
1:51:19 an individual he was banned across a
1:51:22 number of universities in the uk
1:51:25 i myself was banned across a number of
1:51:28 universities and colleges in the uk
1:51:31 because of talking and critiquing
1:51:33 liberalism and secularism and calling
1:51:35 for certain political ideas based upon
1:51:37 islam yeah so this idea that you know we
1:51:40 live in this totally tolerant everybody
1:51:43 can say what they want you can do all
1:51:45 your dour it just
1:51:47 boggles belief especially when you're
1:51:49 we're on youtube at this moment in time
1:51:51 and we know we could be shut down to be
1:51:53 quite frank yeah
1:51:54 like for example they've shut down any
1:51:56 videos which are anti-vaccines vaccines
1:51:59 now i'm not an anti-vaxxer
1:52:01 yeah but any videos which promote the
1:52:03 idea that vaccines are dangerous and now
1:52:06 being prohibited on youtube you can't
1:52:08 have them anymore where's liberalism
1:52:10 there where's this idea that everybody
1:52:12 should be free to express to ideas and
1:52:14 the that the best ideas will then uh win
1:52:18 through you don't see that in this
1:52:20 society there is a law called prevent or
1:52:22 cve countering violent extremism yeah
1:52:25 prevent now prevent is applied across
1:52:28 the board schools hospitals uh any
1:52:33 public building even mosques have to
1:52:36 abide by it where if they identify
1:52:39 somebody who may not break the law may
1:52:42 not break the law but he may express
1:52:44 ideas which are quote unquote seen as
1:52:47 extremists or not within the liberal
1:52:49 norm then their the the authorities of
1:52:52 that particular institution civil
1:52:54 institution are obligated under the law
1:52:57 to report him to the counter-extremism
1:53:01 uh authorities within the uk yeah and
1:53:03 the stories
1:53:04 and funds
1:53:05 yeah
1:53:06 quickly
1:53:08 so
1:53:08 in uni i was gripped by prevent um and i
1:53:12 thought oh crap like why
1:53:15 wha what's going on here and uh and then
1:53:16 i i went there and i went all like
1:53:18 muslim i had my little skull cap on and
1:53:20 that and i sat down and they were like
1:53:22 oh we weren't expecting this i was like
1:53:24 what why and they thought i was um a
1:53:27 right-wing extremist i see philosophy
1:53:30 and i was i was um looking up like what
1:53:32 was going on with tommy robinson and uh
1:53:35 a lot of the far right and one of the
1:53:38 reasons is obviously like a lot of their
1:53:40 stuff is very anti-islamic polemics and
1:53:43 i'm looking at what they're saying and
1:53:44 um i'm a philosophy student i'm engaging
1:53:46 with the thoughts that they're putting
1:53:48 forward um but because i went on one of
1:53:50 their websites it was flagged as a
1:53:51 dangerous website it flagged me as a
1:53:54 potential
1:53:55 uh far-right islamophobe
1:53:58 which obviously uh sent their head a bit
1:54:00 west when i yeah
1:54:02 yeah you know
1:54:03 a few years ago david cameron who's a
1:54:05 prime minister of britain for those who
1:54:07 don't know he said this is his statement
1:54:09 he says for too long for too long we
1:54:12 have been a passively tolerant society
1:54:15 saying to our citizens as long as you
1:54:18 obey the law we will leave you alone it
1:54:21 is often meant that we have stood
1:54:23 neutral between different values and
1:54:26 that and then he goes on saying that's
1:54:27 helped foster a narrative extremism and
1:54:29 grievance so david cameron when he was
1:54:32 prime minister leader of britain was
1:54:34 basically saying this
1:54:36 we've been too tolerant
1:54:38 yeah just allowing people to obey the
1:54:40 law is not sufficient we need them to
1:54:44 adopt a certain set of ideas and we see
1:54:47 this now across a lot of the schooling
1:54:49 system in britain where they have a
1:54:52 particular curriculum related to
1:54:55 british values which have to be taught
1:54:57 cross-curricular as well that means
1:55:00 across different areas of subject
1:55:01 matters including also things like
1:55:04 lgbtqi yeah has to be taught and anybody
1:55:08 who criticizes this whether that student
1:55:11 could be reported to the authorities
1:55:14 under the prevent uh
1:55:16 program yeah and then they put what they
1:55:18 call channel program it's called a
1:55:20 channel program where they're then sat
1:55:22 down and so called
1:55:24 de-radicalized by the state to adopt the
1:55:28 state set of values yeah so i think we
1:55:31 should stop bringing you
1:55:32 yeah sorry i could go yeah yeah
1:55:34 we're gonna bring on close by examples i
1:55:36 think brother abdullah sorry i think
1:55:38 brother say something and we're we're
1:55:40 bringing on the first caller but brother
1:55:42 abdullah is going to make a comment and
1:55:43 then he'll ask his questions sure just
1:55:45 on the um the freedom of speech now i
1:55:47 think there was a recent debate um
1:55:50 where uh one of the brothers said to a i
1:55:53 think ex-muslim slim that um why don't
1:55:56 you call for so you like who's accused
1:55:58 of like why you you're in the west and
1:56:00 you're you know why don't you just leave
1:56:01 the west and go to some
1:56:02 muslim or islamic regime and so the
1:56:04 response was okay well the one you tell
1:56:06 those um ex-muslims liberals secularist
1:56:08 atheists and the muslim world to leave
1:56:10 the muslim well because the world is not
1:56:12 that the muslim murders clearly not
1:56:13 following what you believe in and move
1:56:15 to those poor countries which are
1:56:17 liberal fully liberal like botswana and
1:56:19 um south america and so on so forth
1:56:21 right so why don't you just go there um
1:56:24 which is a valid point like why don't we
1:56:26 why don't all those individuals who've
1:56:27 been to preaching their um atheism
1:56:30 liberalism secularism feminism or what
1:56:32 have you leave the muslim world um and
1:56:34 go elsewhere now muslim is not ruling by
1:56:36 islam per se but it's not it doesn't
1:56:38 represent their ideal so why don't they
1:56:40 leave why doesn't why doesn't everyone
1:56:42 who touts an ideology different from the
1:56:44 state they're in just leave and find a
1:56:45 state that has that ideology all those
1:56:48 uh uh let's say rights campaigners in
1:56:51 china should leave china and go to
1:56:52 somewhere that believes in rights right
1:56:54 so
1:56:54 they shouldn't work to change their
1:56:56 society for the good um or to uh they
1:56:59 should just go somewhere else well
1:57:00 that's ridiculous um they would never
1:57:02 accept that but they're totally happy to
1:57:04 level it um at ourselves
1:57:07 of course in you know here in the west
1:57:09 um we uh we we call to islam but we also
1:57:13 uh because of the internet and because
1:57:14 of the fact that unfortunately uh the
1:57:16 world is becoming more anglophone um we
1:57:19 are in a very good position to actually
1:57:21 be able to reach out to the muslims in
1:57:23 the muslim world um even
1:57:25 it's because of the english language
1:57:27 unfortunately due to colonization but
1:57:29 anyway there's that the second point is
1:57:31 um in an islamic society
1:57:33 as we knew in our past
1:57:37 there was a freedom to uh to speak and
1:57:41 explain your ideas and seek out the
1:57:43 truth for the sake of seeking the truth
1:57:45 what's the point of freedom of speech
1:57:46 what is the point of it what does it
1:57:48 serve um is it just to serve to um play
1:57:52 people people who have an anti-social
1:57:54 tourettes that they must just say
1:57:56 expletives and swear words at people
1:57:58 right um voluntary and elective
1:58:00 tourettes just to play people who have
1:58:02 elective tourettes yeah not people who
1:58:04 obviously is involuntary
1:58:06 um but that's what's ridiculous right i
1:58:08 don't think people say i feel much
1:58:09 happier with my life because i can i can
1:58:11 shout and swear at people and make them
1:58:13 feel bad about themselves i think that
1:58:15 increases happiness in society that's a
1:58:17 ridiculous argument
1:58:19 the point of freedom of speech is at
1:58:21 least by the enlightenment you know
1:58:22 thinkers was to pursue truth which we
1:58:24 believe wholeheartedly and so even in um
1:58:28 in societies where the west depicts them
1:58:30 as anachronistically as being um
1:58:33 oppressive or you couldn't express which
1:58:35 you wanted to say like in the islamic
1:58:37 caliphates in the past from you know
1:58:39 from uh the
1:58:40 from the right rightly guided caliphs to
1:58:42 the umayyabs and so on so forth um
1:58:45 muslims had academic discourses
1:58:47 intellectual discourses christians jews
1:58:49 even atheists um zoroastrians all having
1:58:53 all kinds of discourses publicly and
1:58:55 openly because it was about the pursuit
1:58:57 of truth islam doesn't prohibit that
1:59:00 a muslim can even publicly say that they
1:59:02 have doubts about islam they're facing
1:59:04 some doubts they would uh they wouldn't
1:59:07 like to speak to people about it
1:59:09 um
1:59:10 that's not a problem that's not
1:59:11 criminalizing in an islamic state if
1:59:12 that's what you feel then express it
1:59:15 because then you can have someone come
1:59:17 to you and explain things and discuss
1:59:18 things and you know and because islam
1:59:20 has nothing to to fear to hide so we
1:59:23 don't have a problem with people
1:59:24 expressing they have doubts because
1:59:25 that's the best and surest way we can
1:59:28 have those doubts quenched with facts
1:59:30 and knowledge
1:59:32 so that's not an issue however um in the
1:59:35 west as for the freedom of speech issue
1:59:36 in the west um
1:59:38 the
1:59:39 as sheriff olive has correctly said um
1:59:42 it's rather deceptive but the the west
1:59:44 has
1:59:45 certain methods to restrict what it
1:59:48 calls to be existentially dangerous um
1:59:52 ideas ideas which are dangerous to the
1:59:54 ruling ideology it just realizes that
1:59:57 empirically if you lock people up it
1:59:59 makes them into a martyr people listen
2:00:01 to them more it doesn't work very well
2:00:02 to lock people up so the best way is
2:00:05 first you see most movements will fizzle
2:00:08 out so you just wait for them they
2:00:09 fizzle out you don't have to deal with
2:00:10 them no problem but what if they get
2:00:12 very strong and powerful and what if
2:00:14 they question the ruling ideology itself
2:00:16 okay as the mantra in many uh by many
2:00:19 politicians in the west which is um
2:00:22 no tolerance for intolerance as they say
2:00:24 right but that's what they used to say
2:00:27 to things which are not liberal they
2:00:28 just call it not liberal things are
2:00:29 intolerant
2:00:31 and we can't tolerate ironically
2:00:33 intolerance
2:00:35 so
2:00:36 they have different strategies so uh the
2:00:40 which hunts against communists um in the
2:00:43 united states of america um the
2:00:46 and of course the government which is
2:00:47 meant to be neutral the government's
2:00:49 meant to be neutral between different
2:00:50 values but will actively fund programs
2:00:53 of um you know some would say
2:00:55 indoctrination programs for kids in
2:00:57 schools to change their curriculums to
2:00:59 make sure that they don't subscribe to
2:01:01 an ideology that the state doesn't want
2:01:03 them to subscribe to um the agents of
2:01:06 communism were monitored harassed denied
2:01:08 jobs blacklisted happened in the united
2:01:10 in the united kingdom as well right so
2:01:12 you can't get a job so you can't fund
2:01:14 your you can't fund your communist
2:01:16 darwin you're cool if you don't have a
2:01:17 job you don't have money and you don't
2:01:19 and even you have trouble finding a
2:01:20 place to live um because no more rent to
2:01:22 you because you've been blacklisted and
2:01:24 because the government will make your
2:01:25 life very difficult
2:01:27 yeah because it has more power it has
2:01:29 agents and the agents as i said you can
2:01:32 take them to court but if you can't
2:01:33 prove what whatever they're doing to you
2:01:35 that they're they're these agencies
2:01:36 behind the scenes then what case do you
2:01:38 have in court or the government's
2:01:40 harassing me okay give us evidence well
2:01:42 they just call people and they contact
2:01:44 people and they tell people and
2:01:45 and the government just say we didn't do
2:01:47 it wasn't us it's just you know we
2:01:50 weren't behind these mysterious
2:01:52 individuals with was it black shades in
2:01:54 a dark sun dark time and so on and so
2:01:56 right not us so that's what the
2:01:58 government normally does in england
2:02:01 there was prevent to prevent duty uh
2:02:03 which gave government a mobility to
2:02:06 give the government ability to but
2:02:07 rather the mandate to start um harassing
2:02:10 and
2:02:11 uh limiting the platforms that muslims
2:02:14 who were
2:02:16 according to a holistic islam could
2:02:18 speak on so certain political parties
2:02:20 muslim political parties who are
2:02:21 non-violent couldn't find any public any
2:02:23 uh public space or building to have um
2:02:25 you know gatherings or congresses or
2:02:27 runners or what have you um
2:02:29 uh uh people again you know people were
2:02:32 harassing their jobs or kicked out their
2:02:33 job there was uh
2:02:36 as as i i've
2:02:38 also encountered people in the civil
2:02:39 service identify to hold certain
2:02:41 opinions which are not in line of
2:02:43 government ideology
2:02:44 just get fired and say that your
2:02:46 liability or your your civil service is
2:02:49 uh subject to
2:02:51 um we have doubt on your impartiality or
2:02:53 to your civil service like why would
2:02:55 that be a problem you're just a civil
2:02:56 servant right
2:02:58 you serve the people we believe
2:03:00 everyone's believed in serving the
2:03:01 people to help people oh no but you
2:03:02 don't call the state ideology you're a
2:03:04 liability so these are the kind of
2:03:06 things that um the west does and of
2:03:08 course
2:03:09 when that doesn't work they escalate so
2:03:12 in europe they escalate in austria
2:03:15 once they escalate to laws which
2:03:17 actually then stop for the foreign
2:03:19 funding of mosques in austria because
2:03:22 they are and making the imams must be
2:03:24 local and and in france they want to
2:03:26 have education program
2:03:28 monitored to ensure what the imams are
2:03:30 teaching and of course islamic
2:03:32 organizations can be shut down um in
2:03:35 england the church you can't have a
2:03:36 charity it's not like america in england
2:03:38 you can't have a charity in issue
2:03:39 register of the charity commission which
2:03:40 is like a government um
2:03:42 you could say agency to regulate
2:03:44 charities
2:03:45 and they can simply deny with withhold
2:03:47 or withhold from you charity status if
2:03:49 your charity is advocating something
2:03:52 which they deem to be um extremist
2:03:55 like like not not terrorist not militant
2:03:58 not violent just ideologically extremist
2:04:02 okay now although they can't officially
2:04:04 do it but they de facto can do it
2:04:06 although they tried to make it official
2:04:08 but there was a lot of um they were
2:04:09 worldwide they'd be you know challenged
2:04:11 in court so because like what is
2:04:12 extremism that's very hard to define so
2:04:14 instead it's more de facto they'll say
2:04:16 okay well if we just happen to um to
2:04:20 withhold giving charity recognition to
2:04:22 any particular charity that we don't
2:04:24 that we don't like and we can just find
2:04:26 any excuse or not even give an excuse
2:04:28 what can you do about it i think
2:04:31 so
2:04:31 in the west i often said that the west
2:04:34 western tolerance is the delayed onset
2:04:36 of its intolerance
2:04:38 and um anyway
2:04:40 that's just just my two cents oh and
2:04:42 last but not least sorry it was an
2:04:43 example in england uh a few christian
2:04:46 preachers aunties not muslims christian
2:04:48 preachers on the streets and have been
2:04:49 arrested once arrested arrested and
2:04:51 prosecuted successfully prosecuted um
2:04:53 for
2:04:54 um publicly condemning um uh same-sex
2:04:57 relationships it was according to the
2:04:59 bible in some street preacher and he
2:05:01 said something untoward someone
2:05:02 reporting to the police was arrested and
2:05:04 prosecuted for um hate crime against uh
2:05:08 same-sex relationships or people of
2:05:11 same-sex attraction um even though he
2:05:14 was calling to the bible according to
2:05:15 his christian belief and so on and so
2:05:17 forth is that freedom of speech
2:05:19 he wasn't called the christian wasn't
2:05:21 even calling to violence by the way he
2:05:23 wasn't calling for any harm to be done
2:05:25 but he was just saying that it's sinful
2:05:27 i think we got a was a unique traveler
2:05:30 yeah i just want to mention something as
2:05:31 well to
2:05:33 um the guests that are coming on we want
2:05:35 to prioritize uh liberals
2:05:38 specifically
2:05:39 so if you're not a liberal uh don't join
2:05:42 in because we have a limit on how many
2:05:44 people can come into this stream
2:05:47 and if it's being hooked up with like
2:05:49 four muslims
2:05:50 um then if there are any liberals
2:05:52 watching and they want to join they
2:05:54 can't
2:05:55 because you're on here we have enough
2:05:56 muslims on the panel we don't need more
2:06:00 um so please avoid and
2:06:02 you know have good etiquettes with the
2:06:04 regards of the conversation is to be had
2:06:06 with liberals um and so if you're
2:06:09 by any chance a muslim um i guess
2:06:12 liberal muslims we can
2:06:14 allow you'd fall under the the category
2:06:17 of um yeah liberal so
2:06:21 yes so keep that in mind uh if you do
2:06:23 come on and you say anything and it
2:06:25 turns out that you are a muslim and that
2:06:27 you're not a liberal we will ask you to
2:06:28 leave politely um so keep that in mind
2:06:30 but
2:06:31 oh
2:06:32 i guess that means again
2:06:35 we can ask their questions isn't it they
2:06:36 can ask no no no no no what ends up
2:06:39 happening is it just ends up being a
2:06:41 sort of pat on the back like that people
2:06:42 just agreeing with us so if you're a
2:06:44 liberal we can talk to you if you're not
2:06:46 then um i would say just save the space
2:06:49 for liberals so we can actually have a
2:06:50 conversation with them i try to say that
2:06:52 um the existence of liberal muslims only
2:06:54 proves the existence of mental
2:06:56 compartmentalization that it's possible
2:06:59 well i think i think i think
2:07:02 i think we might have one here brother
2:07:04 abdullah i'm not sure he has seen i i
2:07:06 believe he's a muslim and i believe he
2:07:08 was he was the one who asked some
2:07:10 questions and had some concerns about
2:07:11 why we uh
2:07:13 seem to like really hate liberalism so
2:07:15 you're seeing uh good to have you on
2:07:17 again
2:07:21 thank you
2:07:22 go ahead brother ask your question
2:07:23 um
2:07:25 just a point of criticism maybe um
2:07:28 i felt the conversation conversation
2:07:30 maybe lacked a
2:07:32 clear thread
2:07:34 and um
2:07:36 i still don't really get where the major
2:07:39 difference or
2:07:40 conflict lies between between
2:07:43 islam and liberalism
2:07:45 i think surely there are themes which
2:07:48 are in alignment with islam and are
2:07:51 very
2:07:52 valuable such as
2:07:54 religious co-existence and pluralism
2:07:57 and um
2:07:59 many different other
2:08:01 uh tenets
2:08:04 yeah so yes seen what what do you think
2:08:06 about the idea that
2:08:09 under liberalism uh it is the
2:08:12 the attempt to maximize the individual
2:08:15 sovereignty whereas under islam
2:08:18 uh for us it's about
2:08:20 the submission to the will of our
2:08:23 creator
2:08:25 yes individualism is uh isn't it just
2:08:28 one
2:08:29 tenet of um
2:08:30 it is a coordinate of liberalism but um
2:08:35 um i think it
2:08:37 it's not that much of an anti antithesis
2:08:42 to islam
2:08:43 there are clear certain um
2:08:46 uh boundaries
2:08:49 where one cannot
2:08:51 uh
2:08:52 exceed
2:08:54 but um
2:08:57 yeah let me quote you this is uh
2:09:00 he's a is a well-known politician in the
2:09:03 uk he was also justice minister he was
2:09:05 foreign minister and he was home
2:09:06 secretary so he he held very top level
2:09:09 positions within the british government
2:09:11 uh his name's jack straw and he's uh he
2:09:13 wrote in the political magazine called
2:09:15 the prospect in 2002
2:09:18 and he was discussing about what he
2:09:20 called quote unquote muslim
2:09:21 fundamentalists yeah
2:09:23 and he said
2:09:24 democrats for example can never accept
2:09:27 that religious injunction takes
2:09:29 precedence over temporal laws
2:09:32 to do so would threaten the very basis
2:09:35 of democratic society quite simply this
2:09:38 is a central tenet of
2:09:40 democratic political practice
2:09:43 so he's explaining the point and
2:09:45 obviously
2:09:47 understanding the philosophy of
2:09:48 liberalism and its history you'll
2:09:50 understand also that democracy is a
2:09:53 manifestation of a liberal secular
2:09:55 capitalist ideology yeah because it's
2:09:58 there to preserve the individual
2:10:01 now in this quote of his he's making it
2:10:03 very clear that if you accept this
2:10:06 liberal democratic uh process
2:10:09 then you'd have to accept that religious
2:10:12 injunction i what maybe the sharia says
2:10:16 what the islamic law says
2:10:18 has to fit underneath has to be
2:10:20 subservient to
2:10:23 what he calls temporal laws yeah or
2:10:26 worldly laws
2:10:28 so
2:10:29 you know it's very clear for a muslim we
2:10:31 would say no no the sharia would take
2:10:34 precedent and human actions have to be
2:10:36 subject to the sharia
2:10:38 not the fact that human actions you know
2:10:41 can overcome
2:10:42 what the sharia is yeah obviously human
2:10:44 beings might disobey the sharia but we'd
2:10:46 have to accept that sharia law is
2:10:49 supreme
2:10:50 is above us
2:10:53 all right um it's very difficult for me
2:10:55 to judge maybe
2:10:57 that is an isolated opinion
2:10:59 but i am
2:11:01 i believe
2:11:04 that most rules and regulations
2:11:06 really don't um
2:11:08 have
2:11:09 any overlap with uh many
2:11:12 matters in
2:11:14 in sharia
2:11:15 for example worship or
2:11:18 things that are very critical to the
2:11:20 practice of one's religion
2:11:24 um
2:11:25 uh was there a second part of your
2:11:27 question and maybe so you see so the
2:11:29 point here is this it's not about
2:11:30 whether there are overlaps there are
2:11:33 things which are similar in this
2:11:35 ideology with that ideology or whatever
2:11:37 it is the issue is is that what the
2:11:39 premise is
2:11:41 what's the basis
2:11:43 of the creed
2:11:45 of secular liberal capitalism compared
2:11:47 to the the creed of islam and then we
2:11:50 can you know maybe some of there are
2:11:51 some laws which may be similar at the
2:11:54 top level but the very creedal aspect
2:11:57 there is a fundamental difference now
2:11:59 what happens as a result is those
2:12:01 creedal aspects of liberal secularism
2:12:05 they then start to become the lens by
2:12:07 which now we start to see islam and
2:12:09 general religion
2:12:10 as as a whole yeah so we start to say
2:12:13 okay islam has to fit within a liberal
2:12:16 secular perspective yeah like you know
2:12:20 and you know the enlightenment political
2:12:22 thoughts like nation states yeah uh like
2:12:26 universe what they call universal human
2:12:28 rights
2:12:29 yeah or non-proliferation treaties or uh
2:12:32 you know non-expansionism and all these
2:12:34 types of perspectives which come from a
2:12:36 very particular liberal secular
2:12:39 perspective yeah similarly now you're
2:12:42 seeing within the muslims particularly
2:12:44 in the west not all muslims but some
2:12:46 muslims we you know you hear about
2:12:48 talking about how you need to have
2:12:50 female imams that you need to have
2:12:53 gender mixed mosques so men and women
2:12:55 pray side by side with each other that
2:12:59 gay marriages should be
2:13:02 solemnized or
2:13:04 contracted at mosques and mustards and
2:13:06 that imam shouldn't be
2:13:08 discriminatory against heterosexuals to
2:13:10 homosexuals and that is all because the
2:13:14 paradigm of liberal secularism is seen
2:13:17 as the the the supreme idea and
2:13:21 everything has to fit within this and
2:13:22 the best way to look at this is to look
2:13:25 at how christianity is operating with
2:13:28 within
2:13:29 within western europe today how
2:13:32 christianity has these debates now about
2:13:36 women priesthoods or women
2:13:39 in positions of uh religious authority
2:13:41 because it's updating equality laws
2:13:44 about gay marriages
2:13:46 uh about uh you know pushing certain
2:13:50 secular values within society all of
2:13:52 these things and and as a result as you
2:13:55 have an increase in secularization
2:13:57 within these countries and
2:13:58 liberalization within these countries
2:14:00 what you also find is a decline within
2:14:02 religious adherence to uh you know
2:14:05 christianity as well i don't know if
2:14:06 abdullah uh wants to add a point
2:14:10 yeah yeah so you can also come back but
2:14:12 i'll
2:14:13 come as well
2:14:16 um yeah so it's just a um kind of answer
2:14:18 yes as well first question or point um
2:14:21 so let's say fundamentally there's a big
2:14:24 difference between the starting let's
2:14:26 say
2:14:27 um
2:14:28 understanding of the world that uh islam
2:14:30 and liberalism has so liberalism says
2:14:32 that you own yourself islam says that
2:14:34 you're owned by god so you're the
2:14:35 property of god
2:14:36 um whereas liberation liberalism will
2:14:38 say you own yourself so uh liberalism
2:14:40 will say that same sex self same sex or
2:14:42 different sex intercourse any
2:14:44 intercourse is okay as long as it's done
2:14:46 consensually with people who can consent
2:14:48 let's just say because the crime would
2:14:50 only be
2:14:51 uh that if it was non-consensual the
2:14:52 owner of the body doesn't give consent
2:14:54 to how the body is being used that's the
2:14:56 crime
2:14:57 in islam we say that zinna well the
2:15:00 quran says
2:15:01 that it outlaws zina and punishes zinna
2:15:04 by
2:15:06 corporal punishment um because the owner
2:15:09 of the body doesn't give you consent to
2:15:12 use your body uh to to have that body
2:15:14 being used in the way you want to use it
2:15:16 which is that allah owns your body and
2:15:18 if you want to have sex outside of
2:15:20 wedlock um then that is prohibited right
2:15:24 so liberalism would say
2:15:25 there should be no problem with that if
2:15:27 it's consensual no problem islam says
2:15:29 the owner of the body
2:15:30 our last one that doesn't give consent
2:15:33 you know forget about you you don't own
2:15:35 the body you didn't make yourself if you
2:15:36 made yourself you own yourself
2:15:38 liberalism has a very has a very bad
2:15:40 metaphysics because it just can't
2:15:41 justify why
2:15:43 why you own your body or what does it
2:15:45 even mean what about you owns you and
2:15:47 things like that i want to get too much
2:15:48 into that that's one number one
2:15:50 if you want if you want to see about
2:15:51 inconsistent laws well there's there's
2:15:53 so many but um zina is one so
2:15:56 pre-marital sex is outlawed in islam and
2:15:59 it's punished by corporal punishment no
2:16:01 liberal would ever would ever say that
2:16:04 um consensual intercourse should be
2:16:06 punished at all right because because
2:16:09 liberalism does not provide a basis to
2:16:11 see to say that's wrong
2:16:13 right whereas islam is it's a clear
2:16:15 verse of quran and even says that the
2:16:17 punishment must be witnessed by the
2:16:18 believers so it's public a public
2:16:20 punishment for it yeah
2:16:21 that's not liberal
2:16:23 um i know that some um people muslims
2:16:26 who've been enamored by liberalism and
2:16:28 are now you know proselytizers for
2:16:30 liberalism in in the sheep's clothing of
2:16:32 islam
2:16:33 um they tried to make twists and turns
2:16:35 and use mental gymnastics on the quran
2:16:38 or that all the narrations of the
2:16:39 prophet muhammad
2:16:41 but that there's that one that they
2:16:42 really just can't twist there's no way
2:16:44 around it um what about gender roles um
2:16:48 you know is liberalism says that men and
2:16:50 women are individuals and so individuals
2:16:52 are all equally individual and therefore
2:16:54 there should be no difference
2:16:56 regardless of what biology
2:16:58 what biological differences there are
2:16:59 although in practice liberalism then
2:17:01 does make practical differences
2:17:03 regarding biology but really um regret
2:17:06 it does so with um much regret
2:17:08 um
2:17:09 whereas in islam we say that there is
2:17:12 there is gender roles in a family family
2:17:14 structure gender roles um in marriage
2:17:17 for example the idea that the husband um
2:17:21 is is basically
2:17:22 and the wife have sexual rights to each
2:17:25 other they have sexual rights to each
2:17:28 other so the the husband must uh satisfy
2:17:31 the sexual rights uh of of his wife and
2:17:34 vice versa
2:17:35 is anathema to lighten him that the
2:17:37 marriage contract in liberalism doesn't
2:17:39 give those rights you know it really
2:17:41 doesn't
2:17:42 it's just that's why they say it's just
2:17:44 a piece of paper because they've
2:17:46 abrogated what marriage even means
2:17:47 anymore
2:17:48 whereas in islam a woman can take her
2:17:51 husband to court if she's not satisfied
2:17:54 by him right and in liberalism that's
2:17:56 that would be a hilarious be a joke um
2:17:59 like that's there's no right they'll say
2:18:01 let's say you're the owner of your body
2:18:02 you know no one has a right over you
2:18:04 over you to to for sex um so husband
2:18:08 shouldn't have a right as such so the
2:18:09 woman shouldn't have a right over her
2:18:11 husband uh for sex but uh you know islam
2:18:14 uh gives women that right and vice versa
2:18:17 um
2:18:18 what about uh about drinking alcohol
2:18:20 taking drugs of course well you say
2:18:22 liberalism bans it well um okay fine it
2:18:24 bans out you know cocaine but drinking
2:18:27 alcohol uh to the point where uh just
2:18:29 just below the point you get inebriated
2:18:32 islam prohibits uh liberalism would say
2:18:34 yeah okay what's wrong no that's not so
2:18:36 much of a problem um you know interest
2:18:39 banking being prohibited by islam
2:18:41 whereas liberalism says freedom of
2:18:43 ownership it's your money you do with it
2:18:46 as you wish
2:18:47 um
2:18:48 and and in on a political scale or
2:18:51 political uh way of looking at it um
2:18:55 yeah islam you know prohibits people
2:18:57 wearing lewd clothing in public
2:18:58 liberalism doesn't mind so much although
2:19:01 it depends if they're dirty old
2:19:02 gentlemen or not
2:19:04 but uh in essence in islam the the
2:19:07 political philosophy of it you could say
2:19:09 is that
2:19:10 the public space shouldn't be
2:19:13 given away to the hypocrites to the
2:19:15 monathan to corrupt society by bringing
2:19:18 their nephak their hypocrisy
2:19:21 or their rejection of revelation uh
2:19:23 their their their their corrupt morals
2:19:25 um into the public and normalizing it
2:19:27 yeah and shoving it in our faces instead
2:19:30 if they want to be a hypocrite if they
2:19:32 don't want to follow islam and they
2:19:34 don't feel allah subhanahu wa to allah
2:19:36 they can they can do their hypocrisy in
2:19:37 their own homes but they can't bring not
2:19:40 bring their city out of their own homes
2:19:42 and into the public sphere whereas in
2:19:44 liberalism the the it takes the opposite
2:19:46 approach it even use it as a virtue it
2:19:48 says
2:19:49 if we allow everyone to be a publicly to
2:19:51 do what they want and and to manifest
2:19:53 the hypocrisy in public then all we then
2:19:57 we would know for sure that those people
2:19:59 who are righteous in public are not
2:20:01 hypocrites they are righteous they're
2:20:02 still being righteous i say well um
2:20:05 that's really a a kind of incorrect way
2:20:07 of looking at humans because most people
2:20:09 are neither super righteous or or
2:20:12 hypocrites they're just sinners who are
2:20:14 fallible and subject to peer pressure
2:20:16 and sometimes cave in
2:20:18 due to social peer pressure right so you
2:20:21 can tell women for example in the west
2:20:22 that they're beautiful and they're
2:20:24 strong confident women but when the
2:20:25 fashion industry shows um airbrushed um
2:20:30 uh kind of uh image manipulated images
2:20:32 of women and makes that the ideal you're
2:20:34 gonna get bulimia you're gonna get
2:20:36 anorexia you're gonna get self-harm
2:20:38 you're gonna get um you know the
2:20:40 depression amongst women um self-hatred
2:20:42 of their bodies because peer pressure
2:20:44 always wins um or mostly wins anyway so
2:20:48 what does islam do islam puts peer
2:20:50 pressure on the side of righteousness um
2:20:52 let everyone be a true believer in their
2:20:54 own homes demonstrate their true belief
2:20:57 in their own homes when only allah can
2:20:58 see them
2:21:00 because it's only allah needs to see it
2:21:01 not us i don't care if someone's a
2:21:03 hypocrite or a righteous believer i'm
2:21:05 not the one who decides their heaven and
2:21:06 hell allah decides it so the hypocrite
2:21:08 can still be have a test to be a
2:21:10 hypocrite whether
2:21:12 they will continue their righteousness
2:21:13 inside their own houses um but let's let
2:21:16 those struggling sinners when they go
2:21:19 out of their homes not face a bigger
2:21:21 struggle from society that's the mercy
2:21:24 of islam that's why it's a mercy right
2:21:26 you don't have to fight your human
2:21:27 nature or be in an
2:21:29 environment that is um hyperstimulated
2:21:32 um not conducive to your human the human
2:21:35 flourishing of your not of your
2:21:37 nature as a believer
2:21:39 but a society that actually helps you
2:21:42 helps you actually strengthen your deen
2:21:43 and makes it easy for you so that is
2:21:46 fundamentally the difference between
2:21:48 islam
2:21:49 and
2:21:50 liberalism in a nutshell i can go into i
2:21:52 can elaborate but i don't want to take
2:21:53 up too much time
2:21:56 all right um can you hear me
2:21:59 obviously generally all muslims agree
2:22:02 that
2:22:03 the major law giver is
2:22:05 god
2:22:07 there is no disagreement about this
2:22:10 but what often times
2:22:13 uh i think
2:22:15 many points you raised very well
2:22:17 illustrated this
2:22:19 is that people are under the oppression
2:22:21 does
2:22:22 adoption of some
2:22:23Music 2:22:25 liberal themes
2:22:27 automatically equate to a sort of lacks
2:22:30 understanding of the islam which is
2:22:33 not at all the case for example modesty
2:22:36 uh
2:22:38 a liberal society can allow for the
2:22:41 endorsement of a
2:22:42 um
2:22:44 of a more modest uh clothing statement
2:22:48 if it is only
2:22:49 in the understanding of the
2:22:51 whole society and they have the
2:22:54 um
2:22:56 certain other principles from where they
2:22:58 derive it for example in our case god
2:23:02 we can arrive at the understanding that
2:23:04 people ought to dress modesty modestly
2:23:08 um
2:23:10 but i don't think that
2:23:12 muslim
2:23:13 muslims need to to be so um
2:23:19 uh
2:23:20 throwing uh everything out wholesale
2:23:22 because
2:23:23 i still maintain there are many
2:23:26 uh values that are uh
2:23:29 yeah yeah
2:23:30 yeah yeah i understand what you're doing
2:23:32 well i think then someone you're trying
2:23:34 to say uh
2:23:35 i was having rosy glasses
2:23:37 no no but i think what we need to
2:23:39 appreciate is this is that
2:23:41 when when we're talking about liberalism
2:23:43 or capitalism or liberal secular
2:23:46 capitalism whatever particular term if
2:23:48 you're talking about this particular
2:23:50 ideology or world view
2:23:52 you have a total view about how
2:23:55 individuals and society should act yeah
2:23:59 it's not just something which is
2:24:01 for a particular aspect
2:24:03 of of a particular aspect of society or
2:24:06 a person's life it's it's totalizing it
2:24:09 tells you
2:24:10 what you should be aiming for it tells
2:24:12 you
2:24:13 how you judge in action it tells you you
2:24:16 know how to implement laws this is the
2:24:19 tells you what type of system that you
2:24:21 want to implement as well this is why
2:24:23 you know um you know i recommend to the
2:24:26 listeners if they ever get a chance to
2:24:28 check out jerry uh i think his name is
2:24:29 jerry muller dr jerry muller he's a
2:24:32 lecturer in capitalism and he has a
2:24:33 whole series about capitalism fantastic
2:24:36 series because he explains it from its
2:24:37 roots and he explains how capitalism
2:24:40 isn't just an economic model but rather
2:24:43 it was an economic model built upon a
2:24:46 world view
2:24:47 that had certain assumptions about how
2:24:50 human beings act
2:24:51 so you have this worldview on one hand
2:24:55 then you have islam
2:24:57 now how do we view islam we view islam
2:24:59 generally as a worldview yeah as this
2:25:03 creed a belief system from which we
2:25:05 understand how individuals and societies
2:25:08 act yeah so we have this so the question
2:25:12 is that do we have to go outside of
2:25:14 islam outside of the guidance of allah
2:25:17 in order to understand how human beings
2:25:20 should behave
2:25:21 obviously as muslims say no we've got
2:25:23 islam that tells us how human beings
2:25:25 should behave now that doesn't stop us
2:25:27 from looking at technology
2:25:30 or science you know and whether that
2:25:33 comes from the west or the east or china
2:25:35 wherever it is because that's universal
2:25:37 but when it comes to behavior how human
2:25:40 beings should act where law should
2:25:42 emanate from all of that has to be seen
2:25:45 within the paradigm of islam yeah within
2:25:47 the framework
2:25:48 of islam and you know abdullah is giving
2:25:51 you many examples
2:25:52 but just as a final example to ex maybe
2:25:55 to explain it
2:25:57 you're going on
2:25:58 yeah
2:25:59 uh
2:26:01 i still maintain that many of those
2:26:04 things here
2:26:06 mentioned are not necessary
2:26:08 entertainments of an endorsement of
2:26:10 liberalism
2:26:11 and
2:26:14 how do you define liberalism yes see
2:26:18 isn't it merely a stance against an
2:26:21 uh authoritari
2:26:23 authoritarian um
2:26:25 state or government
2:26:27 because it arose during the
2:26:30 isn't it
2:26:31 no no it's more than that it's more than
2:26:32 that if you look at whether it's bernard
2:26:35 de mandeville you look at jean-jacques
2:26:37 rousseau you look at john stuart mills
2:26:39 essay on liberty they're not just saying
2:26:41 we need to stand up against authority
2:26:44 they or thomas hobbes leviathan they're
2:26:46 talking about what is sovereignity yeah
2:26:49 what's the rights of human beings yeah
2:26:52 yes they've they said yeah we don't want
2:26:54 authoritarianism but then they're saying
2:26:56 okay so now what do we do how do we
2:26:58 understand human motivations yeah what
2:27:01 motivates human beings and from it they
2:27:04 develop a social political economic
2:27:07 system yeah they they develop a system
2:27:10 of laws and how humans should interact
2:27:13 so it wasn't just simply a reaction in
2:27:16 terms of we're reacting against or you
2:27:19 know unjust authority
2:27:21 rather it becomes more than that well
2:27:23 these are the rights that human beings
2:27:27 should be aspiring to
2:27:29 yeah that's where liberalism so
2:27:30 liberalism is like the ontological
2:27:32 maximization of the individual it's the
2:27:35 desire to how to maximize the individual
2:27:38 whether that is you know freedom of
2:27:39 ownership whether that's freedom of
2:27:41 expression freedom of belief or personal
2:27:43 freedom is how do you maximize that
2:27:45 within a society
2:27:47 where other human beings are also trying
2:27:49 to pursue that at the same time they are
2:27:51 trying to maximize it so that
2:27:52 individuals are able to gratify their uh
2:27:56 you know their own sensual what they
2:27:58 call sensual gratification yeah because
2:28:00 that's the direct motivation for human
2:28:03 humans tax so how do you maximize the
2:28:05 individuals for human beings to to
2:28:07 gratify as much as they possibly can
2:28:10 from that cayman economic system yeah
2:28:12 capitalism and free market yeah so you
2:28:15 know and then from that came a political
2:28:17 system you know if you read john stuart
2:28:19 mills where he talks about the essay of
2:28:21 liberty he talks about how do you ensure
2:28:23 that you don't have majority
2:28:24 dictatorship so he has a maxim the maxim
2:28:26 is is everybody should be free to do
2:28:28 what they want so long as not impinging
2:28:30 upon the freedom of it under another
2:28:32 individual yeah so this is how they
2:28:35 develop their idea in their system it so
2:28:38 this is why it's really important to
2:28:40 understand the ideological basis and
2:28:42 historical development of liberalism uh
2:28:45 in order to understand that it isn't
2:28:46 just a reaction against unjust authority
2:28:50 but rather it was positing a way of life
2:28:53 for people to follow yeah and that if
2:28:55 other people don't follow it then people
2:28:58 like tony blair he was a prime minister
2:28:59 of britain uh before david cameron he
2:29:02 said well we should have the right what
2:29:04 he called liberal interventionism the
2:29:07 right for our state to uh to invade
2:29:09 another sovereign state if they quote
2:29:12 unquote go against our liberal values or
2:29:14 what we see as universal liberal values
2:29:17 maybe they see them as oppressing
2:29:19 from their own liberal basis of crossing
2:29:21 their own people that we have the right
2:29:23 to intervene with these states yeah
2:29:25 so
2:29:27 you call that liberal offensive jihad
2:29:30 which is expansionist um they
2:29:32 colonialism was in essence um first
2:29:35 argued and justified
2:29:36 as
2:29:37 a type of you could say expansionist
2:29:39 jihad for liberalism the only the
2:29:41 difference between
2:29:43 islam and liberalism in that as well is
2:29:45 that islam didn't force islam on muslims
2:29:50 not commanded to force islam on people
2:29:52 to embrace it whereas under colonialism
2:29:54 um the state the structure the political
2:29:56 structure of that society and its uh its
2:29:58 its culture and everything must be
2:30:00 changed to conform to
2:30:01 um the labor views of the europeans at
2:30:03 the time uh when they uh entered in on
2:30:06 that society so that people were no
2:30:08 longer allowed to do the things as they
2:30:10 they did before whereas for muslims
2:30:12 going into syria going into persia going
2:30:15 into egypt the the christians jews
2:30:18 zoroastrians theirs
2:30:20 their basic culture their laws
2:30:22 everything wasn't touched wasn't changed
2:30:24 at all whatsoever
2:30:25 all that was changed was uh the
2:30:27 the the people who were guarding the
2:30:29 borders and protecting the the frontiers
2:30:33 and overseeing the internal security of
2:30:34 the muslims but that was that we didn't
2:30:36 interfere
2:30:38 with the religious life the laws and
2:30:39 systems
2:30:41 uh of the people liberalism will
2:30:42 actually say one law for all it sounds
2:30:44 which they say is it equal and fair
2:30:46 everyone gets one law but then who
2:30:48 decides uh you know who get which laws
2:30:50 are made or maybe the majority okay so
2:30:52 then you have majority oppressing
2:30:54 minority in islam uh christians and jews
2:30:57 their law is the same they stay as their
2:31:00 own law system um there'll be some
2:31:02 negotiation the beginning as to what
2:31:03 laws would govern interaction between
2:31:06 muslims and jews and christians and
2:31:07 those astronauts but generally speaking
2:31:09 amongst themselves they they can do
2:31:12 exactly live exactly as they want to
2:31:14 live um follow any rules or laws within
2:31:16 their their their belief
2:31:19 more or less
2:31:20 with no absolute no interference from
2:31:22 muslims but i just want to i want to
2:31:24 maybe give you an analogy really just
2:31:26 hopefully to um to hit it home perhaps
2:31:29 for you the difference maybe to make it
2:31:30 very clear
2:31:32 and before i do that i want to respond
2:31:33 to something you said about modesty yeah
2:31:35 you said um maybe in a liberal country
2:31:38 you have an idea of modesty and um you
2:31:40 can implement that and let's say
2:31:42 why can't you have a liberal state that
2:31:44 let's say believes that hijab is modest
2:31:46 i say well you can but you couldn't have
2:31:48 a liberal state that
2:31:50 would
2:31:51 um
2:31:52 would make that a dress code for the
2:31:54 public life and then have like unlike
2:31:56 maybe uh charge penalties or something
2:31:59 like you know charge people penalties
2:32:00 for not adhering to that dress code um
2:32:03 it's you know so a mandatory dress code
2:32:05 is very difficult uh what you can have
2:32:08 is you can have prohibitions in
2:32:09 liberalism so liberalism might prohibit
2:32:10 you from wearing particular clothes but
2:32:12 not from uh not wearing particular
2:32:15 clothes i suppose but the the more
2:32:17 important aspect would be
2:32:19 um
2:32:21 within liberal thinking
2:32:23 if you if the state starts advocating a
2:32:25 particular form of modesty okay
2:32:28 there can be a minority people who say
2:32:31 that's not fair i'm an equal citizen i
2:32:33 disagree with the state's idea of
2:32:36 modesty
2:32:37 i think it should be you know someone uh
2:32:40 people being naked on the street
2:32:42 whatever that's okay
2:32:44 and um this is going against my my
2:32:47 let's say scantily clad scantily clad
2:32:49 clothing i think that's okay i think
2:32:51 that's modest if you don't like it just
2:32:53 turn your head away right um so if the
2:32:55 state adopts a particular position of
2:32:57 modesty that's oppressing me as a
2:33:00 minority or what have you right so they
2:33:02 can make this argument and the state
2:33:04 what's the state going to say that's
2:33:05 taken to say i'm sorry your idea of
2:33:07 minor of modesty is wrong because it
2:33:10 goes against the majority
2:33:12 um it's arbitrary then then the majority
2:33:15 can do all kinds of crazy things right
2:33:17 and that then you're going and
2:33:18 liberalism actually is worried about
2:33:20 that actually it doesn't trust the
2:33:21 majority by the way that's why you have
2:33:24 constitutions why you have senates uh
2:33:26 why you have courts why in england you
2:33:29 have the house of lords which are not
2:33:30 elected it's because the the western
2:33:33 enlightenment founding fathers didn't
2:33:35 trust the majority of people they're
2:33:37 actually anti-democratic they and they
2:33:39 say so you can't trust democracy true
2:33:41 democracy it's crazy right the majority
2:33:43 can do all kinds of crazy things right
2:33:45 you can't trust them um and also who
2:33:48 defines modesty right who how is it
2:33:50 defined so liberalism just wouldn't
2:33:52 accept
2:33:53 that you have to say it's god uh because
2:33:56 then there is something about over the
2:33:58 individual right it can only say we
2:34:00 accept the majority position maybe but
2:34:03 only within a certain limits yeah that's
2:34:05 what liberalism says islam says god says
2:34:08 it
2:34:10 and god is the owner of all of us
2:34:12 and if god makes a command we hear and
2:34:15 we obey on this command because
2:34:17 god is the originator of the universe
2:34:19 why can't he be the originator of
2:34:20 morality too
2:34:22 right uh by dicta he made the universe
2:34:24 by his word why can't his word also be
2:34:27 the definer of morality too for the
2:34:30 universe he created right so
2:34:32 that's fundamentally the difference but
2:34:34 now to give you an analogy i promised
2:34:35 and i'll kind of um end my um
2:34:38 my my little segment so
2:34:41 one of the things that you're probably
2:34:42 thinking about is you're thinking that
2:34:44 liberalism is just the opposite to
2:34:46 absolute
2:34:48 government or absolute uh tyranny right
2:34:50 so a leader that can just do whatever he
2:34:52 wants
2:34:53 now yes john locke argued about this he
2:34:55 actually disagreed with thomas hobbs
2:34:56 thomas hobbes said you can have an
2:34:58 absolute leader and who can do whatever
2:34:59 he wants
2:35:00 because if the people elected him to
2:35:02 power even if he stays there for the
2:35:04 rest of his life it's kind of like they
2:35:06 gave consent so too bad whereas john
2:35:08 locke is now responding to thomas hobbes
2:35:12 and saying no no no no you can't have
2:35:14 the leader do whatever he wants because
2:35:16 then we're his slaves
2:35:18 then he just controls us and we he can
2:35:21 kill us at whim that's not that's not
2:35:23 freedom and that's where he explains
2:35:25 what liberty is liberty he says is um
2:35:28 not freedom to do whatever you want but
2:35:30 freedom from absolute tyranny or control
2:35:33 or leadership but that's not um
2:35:36 liberalism exactly but liberalism it
2:35:38 needs that so so that's not all of
2:35:40 liberalism but liberalism needs that
2:35:42 component right but every state or
2:35:46 system that is not based on absolute
2:35:47 tyranny um believes uh that absolute
2:35:50 tyranny is wrong right they just have a
2:35:52 different basis for
2:35:54 how the government what should control
2:35:55 the government then so if you're in rome
2:35:57 right the roman romans weren't liberal
2:35:59 but the roman republic was governed by
2:36:01 the culture and the traditions of romans
2:36:04 right so the romans and their culture
2:36:06 their tradition controlled what the the
2:36:08 the senate could do controlled what the
2:36:11 uh what they could vote for and things
2:36:12 like this generally speaking for
2:36:14 different mechanisms and powers they
2:36:16 didn't trust absolute leadership but it
2:36:17 wasn't liberalism it was just the
2:36:19 culture of rome and their gods and
2:36:21 whatever you what have you this is their
2:36:22 religion um in islam the khalif can't do
2:36:24 anything he wants to do right he is
2:36:28 the quran and sunnah and can be taken to
2:36:30 court and can move from his position and
2:36:33 and some ottoman caliphs were removed
2:36:36 from their position by um sheikha islam
2:36:38 by the constitutional uh court um for
2:36:41 going against the quran
2:36:43 right so so we don't believe in absolute
2:36:45 government either right but the criteria
2:36:48 for what controls the government is not
2:36:50 liberalism it's not roman culture it's
2:36:52 going to be
2:36:53 islam and of course marxists in theory
2:36:56 also or socialists will believe the same
2:36:58 for their government is controlled by
2:36:59 socialist ideals and so on so on so
2:37:01 forth
2:37:02 but um here's the
2:37:04 here's the the analogy now right
2:37:07 what liberalism does it imagine there's
2:37:09 a school okay and the school has kids
2:37:12 and there's this crazy head teacher that
2:37:14 doesn't know how to head teach he rolls
2:37:15 a dice or she rolls a dice randomly the
2:37:18 size different policies has kids doing
2:37:20 silly things and just just like anything
2:37:22 any crazy thing
2:37:24 you know mending socks one day making
2:37:26 iphones the other day
2:37:28 right just crazy things right so then
2:37:30 the the teachers get get tired of this
2:37:33 they say let's kick out this head
2:37:34 teacher let's put a head teacher um in
2:37:37 charge uh who will uh govern by some
2:37:40 principle the liberal analyst the
2:37:43 liberal analogy in this would be of a
2:37:44 head teacher who says okay guys
2:37:47 um i'm going to let the kids do whatever
2:37:49 they want in school
2:37:51 whatever they want whatever they want to
2:37:53 learn they can learn if they want to
2:37:55 learn even as long as they don't fight
2:37:57 each other like they don't punch each
2:37:59 other right that's it
2:38:02 but the kids don't know what they don't
2:38:03 know so they don't know what they should
2:38:04 be learning and how they should be
2:38:06 learning it some kids don't even want to
2:38:07 learn some kids are disruptive in class
2:38:09 and don't let all the kids learn they're
2:38:10 not fighting them they're just making
2:38:12 loud noises and all kinds of stuff it's
2:38:13 all chaotic not a good place in fact
2:38:15 that probably describes a lot of schools
2:38:17 today in the west
2:38:19 um the analogy of islam in this
2:38:21 situation would be you kick out the
2:38:23 crazy head teacher and you replace them
2:38:24 with a head teacher who's given a
2:38:26 curriculum that has been written down by
2:38:30 educational experts
2:38:32 experts on pedagogy who tell the who
2:38:35 tell the head the teacher
2:38:36 what the kids should be learning how
2:38:38 they should be learning it discipline in
2:38:40 class everything a full guidebook okay
2:38:42 and the head teacher has to stick to
2:38:45 that book or they will lose their job
2:38:46 okay that is the analogy of islam in
2:38:49 this case right it has a guidebook it
2:38:51 actually knows how to teach the kids
2:38:53 what to teach the kids to ensure they
2:38:55 are successful because the kids aren't
2:38:57 in school merely to do what they want
2:38:59 but they're in school to learn
2:39:01 right so that's the analogy between all
2:39:03 the systems we don't believe in
2:39:04 arbitrary government
2:39:06 hell no unfortunately many muslims in
2:39:09 the muslim world are told by
2:39:12 let's just say state controlled scholars
2:39:15 scholars quote unquote who tell them
2:39:18 that the rulers have been appointed by
2:39:20 god and that you can't even talk about
2:39:22 out against them which is not what the
2:39:24 quran actually says by the way but this
2:39:27 is exactly what the christians in
2:39:29 medieval europe were saying
2:39:31 right i remember the prophet
2:39:32 muhammad said that many of his ummah
2:39:35 will follow the ways of the christians
2:39:36 and the jews before then we will make
2:39:38 the same mistakes they made and lo and
2:39:39 behold there are muslims today doing the
2:39:41 exact same thing
2:39:43 as that some christians were doing in
2:39:45 the renaissance era they were saying
2:39:48 that divine right of kings do not speak
2:39:50 out against the ruler the ruler was
2:39:52 appointed by god if he punishes you it's
2:39:54 because of your sins
2:39:56 right so you deserve it right if he's a
2:39:59 tyrant it's it's because of your sins
2:40:01 god's punishing you by this tyrant if
2:40:03 you do just pray more be nice be more
2:40:05 personal do you do your more personal um
2:40:08 uh liturgy catholic liturgies and god
2:40:11 will give you a righteous ruler right
2:40:13 that's what the christians were told
2:40:14 right and that's what led them to uh to
2:40:17 basically ultimately make some kind of
2:40:18 say no we can't have arbitrary ruler we
2:40:20 can't have a king that just controls us
2:40:22 and makes us slaves we need to have
2:40:23 another system what's the system system
2:40:25 going to be let's just make it about
2:40:28 people do what you want right um and
2:40:30 your purpose in life is to uh is to just
2:40:34 feed yourself and and gratify your sins
2:40:36 as much as possible that's what they
2:40:38 replaced it with right whereas in the
2:40:40 muslim world today of course um because
2:40:43 many muslims don't understand what islam
2:40:45 says which is clearly why we have people
2:40:46 who are even going to be muslim who say
2:40:48 they're muslim but they're liberal at
2:40:49 the same time much like in the 1960s we
2:40:52 had muslim communists they're saying
2:40:54 we're muslim but karl marx says ideas
2:40:57 this is compatible with islam i'll say
2:40:59 they're not all compatible with islam
2:41:01 you can't be you know islam is both
2:41:03 compatible with marxism and liberalism
2:41:04 at the same time that's quite a feat to
2:41:06 be honest right or or is the real reason
2:41:09 that muslims are just copying um what
2:41:11 they see around from the west because
2:41:12 they feel islam is deficient
2:41:15 or their own ignorance makes them see
2:41:17 islam to be deficient so we shouldn't do
2:41:19 that we should read what islam says
2:41:22 revive islam
2:41:24 re-implement it as a holistic system
2:41:26 that can give rights and
2:41:28 a restrictive conditioned government
2:41:30 based on the quran sunnah and inshallah
2:41:32 uh brother you'll see a much better
2:41:34 success as had been successfully
2:41:36 implemented for one thousand uh two to
2:41:39 three hundred years longer than the west
2:41:41 implemented liberalism much more stable
2:41:43 system for society anyway and shall i
2:41:45 hope that's kind of answered um some of
2:41:47 your questions and and doubts okay
2:41:49 yeah
2:41:50 just uh just respond to that inshallah
2:41:52 because we have we have got other guests
2:41:53 but i'll let you respond and sure i'm
2:41:55 very appreciative of your input and then
2:41:59 i will definitely look into it more but
2:42:01 then
2:42:03 you
2:42:04 pointed out
2:42:05 something which is um
2:42:08 we should strive to implement
2:42:10 the implementation of a
2:42:13 certain form of governance
2:42:16 what um
2:42:19 so-called liberal muslims mainly
2:42:22 are concerned with
2:42:24 is the
2:42:25 um
2:42:29 for example i'm an immigrant child
2:42:31 and um we are mainly occupied with um
2:42:35 um how
2:42:37 do we deal in living in a country which
2:42:39 is not them
2:42:40 um
2:42:41 no islamic not muslim majority yeah yeah
2:42:44 yes
2:42:45 our concern isn't at all to
2:42:47 um
2:42:49 maybe implement this form of governance
2:42:51 or that form of governance
2:42:53 what the consequence is when people uh
2:42:57 have the impression that
2:42:59 liberalism is so anti anti
2:43:02 antithetical to
2:43:04 their religion is that they completely
2:43:06 are forced to completely retreat
2:43:09 and
2:43:10 not partake in societal life
2:43:13 this leads
2:43:15 to the
2:43:17 natives to
2:43:19 really really um see them all as
2:43:22 strangers and not being able to
2:43:25 to
2:43:26 to kind of have this um
2:43:28 together and feeling of togetherness and
2:43:30 then
2:43:31 um
2:43:32 i think there is where the
2:43:33 dissatisfaction with um immigrants come
2:43:36 comes from and then there rightly
2:43:38 the question comes up with
2:43:42 is here if you can't even partake and
2:43:45 completely have to retreat
2:43:47 um there i find the criticism is um
2:43:51 um
2:43:53 is uh justified in saying why wouldn't
2:43:55 you go there where you can uh leave your
2:43:58 practice so you so yes yes
2:44:00 the issue is this is that as muslims uh
2:44:04 when we criticize
2:44:06 uh liberalism with criticism or as if
2:44:08 some of us criticize liberalism we're
2:44:10 criticizing in the same way karl marx
2:44:13 may have criticized capitalism and
2:44:14 liberalism when he was alive now does
2:44:18 the does the argument mean that okay so
2:44:20 therefore karl marx needs to leave the
2:44:22 country and
2:44:24 you know go
2:44:25 create his own quote-unquote society or
2:44:27 anything like that nobody really says
2:44:29 that nobody really says that about
2:44:30 communists per se or even socialists
2:44:32 they don't turn around and say you know
2:44:33 leave our country if you don't like it
2:44:35 well he was a scholar
2:44:37 we are common muslims that's fine but
2:44:40 this is it's not whether it's common
2:44:42 muslims or scholarly or or whatever it
2:44:44 is or
2:44:45 the issue is that we are trying to take
2:44:47 an academic approach in terms of
2:44:48 critiquing a particular
2:44:51 set of ideas and world view and i think
2:44:53 as muslims even if we're commoners and
2:44:55 lay people we have a right to look at
2:44:58 ideas around us and to see whether we
2:45:00 should adopt it or whether we should
2:45:02 critique it and whether we have as
2:45:04 muslims some ideas which are benefit in
2:45:07 terms of human beings so
2:45:09 critique criticizing the environment or
2:45:12 the society that you live in uh you know
2:45:14 or
2:45:15 you know living in a society let's say
2:45:16 for example myself i live in britain i
2:45:18 think where do you live was it france
2:45:20 you see uh somewhere in europe somewhere
2:45:24 in europe okay somewhere in europe so i
2:45:25 live in britain so it's not the case
2:45:27 that i isolate yeah myself i suddenly
2:45:31 get a wise myself here in in a very
2:45:33 small little minority area yeah full of
2:45:36 muslims and that's it neither is it the
2:45:38 case i assimilate yeah within the
2:45:41 environment i just simply say you know
2:45:43 what they're all going to the pub you
2:45:45 know to get a bevy you know some alcohol
2:45:48 drink some beer yeah i'll join them as
2:45:50 well because i want to feel like one of
2:45:52 them no you interact you interact based
2:45:55 upon your values and principles yeah
2:45:58 rather than abandoning what you believe
2:46:00 to be correct and at the same time we
2:46:03 think we've got something to offer now
2:46:05 talking about islamic governance talking
2:46:07 about islam as this comprehensive system
2:46:10 might seem a little bit alien as a
2:46:13 minority living in a majority non-muslim
2:46:16 country but it does certainly have
2:46:19 a resonance when it comes to the muslim
2:46:22 world because we can see that the muslim
2:46:24 world currently
2:46:25 is a product of post-colonialism it's
2:46:28 not a product of islam
2:46:30 it's not that muslims have a set of
2:46:33 values and suddenly this is what we're
2:46:35 seeing within the muslim world today no
2:46:37 majority of the muslim world was
2:46:39 colonized majority of the current
2:46:41 leaderships within the muslim world were
2:46:42 imposed by the west by western states uh
2:46:46 either through direct colonialism
2:46:48 placing them there like king faisal of
2:46:50 iraq or even what we see today the saudi
2:46:53 royal family or it's through a you know
2:46:56 patronage type system where they supply
2:46:59 certain funding to
2:47:01 the military within certain parts of the
2:47:03 muslim world like in you know pakistan
2:47:05 the supplies that they have in the
2:47:07 previously that supplied a lot of money
2:47:08 to the military the military therefore
2:47:10 hold a lot of the political power and
2:47:12 therefore the military is able to decide
2:47:14 who is or isn't going to get into
2:47:16 political power within their country
2:47:18 because they've got this external
2:47:19 funding namely by you know mainly by
2:47:22 america but also other european
2:47:24 countries western european countries as
2:47:26 well so you can see that actually this
2:47:29 discussion that's taking place primarily
2:47:31 in the muslim world about what type of
2:47:34 system do we need to adopt in order to
2:47:36 create the revived progress societies
2:47:38 that we think our society should be
2:47:41 yeah well then that's a question about
2:47:43 ideas and so it's either this liberal
2:47:45 secular capitalist ideology
2:47:48 or is islam and the sad fact is is that
2:47:50 because
2:47:51 as muslims we don't really hear this
2:47:53 type of discourse about liberalism and
2:47:55 capitalism being critiqued uh often yeah
2:47:59 as on an academic level and secondly and
2:48:02 more you know prominently what we don't
2:48:04 hear about is any political discourse
2:48:06 about islam
2:48:08 as a political system or what does it
2:48:10 offer in terms of ruling or economic or
2:48:13 social or understanding of foreign
2:48:15 affairs or what policies it could
2:48:17 implement in order to help in the
2:48:18 industrialization process what policies
2:48:20 it has on monopolies uh or um you know
2:48:24 how does it define public and private
2:48:26 resources what can private yield what
2:48:28 can't be privately owned you know what
2:48:30 type of banking system it would have etc
2:48:32 because these types of discussions are
2:48:34 not taking place on a macro level uh
2:48:36 macro levels systems of islam within our
2:48:39 countries
2:48:40 then many muslims are unfortunately
2:48:43 looking at the west seeing the fact that
2:48:45 they've built their economies up they've
2:48:47 got some levels of technology and
2:48:49 therefore think that's the model to
2:48:51 follow as muslims whether we live in the
2:48:53 west or live in the muslim world we
2:48:55 should try to learn our deen as best as
2:48:57 possible and when it comes to
2:48:58 interacting obviously we interact based
2:49:00 upon our islamic values and to be fair
2:49:03 i'll be honest with you
2:49:05 that when you do that you'll find many
2:49:08 non-muslims will appreciate your
2:49:10 position and your belief and values
2:49:13 in a better light
2:49:15 than compared to what they hear upon the
2:49:17 media and the perceptions that they have
2:49:20 what will not help is to try to
2:49:23 sugarcoat islam or not engage in these
2:49:26 types of discussions because what
2:49:28 happens then they think you're hiding
2:49:30 something you're doing some sort of
2:49:31 takia yeah you're you're double speak
2:49:34 yeah you're saying islam is a religion
2:49:36 of peace and then hold on but it talks
2:49:38 about warfare in the quran where does
2:49:39 that come you know no no no no ignore
2:49:42 that we all do as well no no you have to
2:49:45 engage in these discussions and the best
2:49:46 way to engage in them is talk about it
2:49:48 in an open manner
2:49:50 and demonstrate for your own also
2:49:51 practical actions what it means to have
2:49:54 these certain uh set of values uh
2:49:56 manifest as an individual as well but
2:49:59 yesterday
2:50:00 sorry i i know we've sort of spoke a lot
2:50:03 as well uh but we're going to have to
2:50:05 move on to our next guest inshallah
2:50:07 otherwise you're supposed to shout at me
2:50:10 but i appreciate you coming on
2:50:20 you muted
2:50:21 or is it me
2:50:22 no it's me okay cool so you were the one
2:50:25 who was supposed to say let's move to
2:50:26 the next guest so that i don't look like
2:50:28 the nasty one and you still managed
2:50:31 to
2:50:32 frame it
2:50:33 as vba the nasty one because you're
2:50:35 scared of being shouted at me
2:50:37 sorry no it's me
2:50:41 the way you said that that as well makes
2:50:42 me sound scary but anyway so we're going
2:50:44 to bring on the the next guest as joseph
2:50:47 um he did write something i'm just
2:50:49 seeing that now um i don't know if you
2:50:51 just want to sort of reiterate what
2:50:52 you've wrote there
2:50:54 you're so right welcome to the the
2:50:55 podcast hello
2:50:57 assalamu alaikum uh how are you guys
2:51:00 doing
2:51:01 yeah we're good we're good so just to
2:51:03 just to clarify firstly are you liberal
2:51:07 i'm i would describe myself as liberal
2:51:09 yes
2:51:10 okay so go ahead
2:51:11 what would you like to speak about today
2:51:14 okay so earlier on the panel you guys
2:51:16 have been kind of taking a few jabs at
2:51:19 liberalism uh
2:51:21 kind of pointing out examples of how the
2:51:24 uk
2:51:25 and the united states implement their
2:51:26 laws and um
2:51:28 are somewhat contradictory i would like
2:51:30 to say first of all i don't really think
2:51:32 uh when these countries implement those
2:51:34 certain particular laws that they are
2:51:36 following a pure
2:51:38 sense of idealism or even a general
2:51:40 notion so like for example when they say
2:51:42 okay certain certain speeches certain
2:51:45 speech from like an islamic perspective
2:51:48 um is not tolerated yeah that would in
2:51:51 my opinion not be very representative of
2:51:53 what liberalism really stands for
2:51:56 um
2:51:57 uh so when i say when i say liberalism
2:52:00 and you guys have defined it before in a
2:52:02 very concise manner it's like it's we're
2:52:04 trying to maximize a person's agency and
2:52:06 choice
2:52:07 um and like kind of
2:52:10 for each individual person we're trying
2:52:11 to maximize their ability to choose and
2:52:15 do as they like right
2:52:17 when
2:52:18 when you but yourself
2:52:20 why are you why do you call yourself a
2:52:22 liberal why do you believe in it
2:52:25 well i believe i stand for um i think
2:52:28 this
2:52:29 kind of ideal is something that i guess
2:52:32 we all that will benefit us all even
2:52:34 like from whatever perspective you look
2:52:36 at it from an islamic perspective or
2:52:38 just from an uh from like a
2:52:40 materialistic perspective maximizing
2:52:42 people's choice and decision mak
2:52:44 decision making capabilities
2:52:46 uh will just benefit the whole everybody
2:52:49 okay so you think that
2:52:51 on what what basis are you defining
2:52:54 benefit here
2:52:56 um
2:52:59 okay it it it benefits a person because
2:53:03 um
2:53:04 i don't know all right so there is the
2:53:06 base there's the underlying assumption
2:53:08 that um if you're forces or something
2:53:10 that is not a good that is not a good
2:53:12 thing even if it's like forcing a person
2:53:13 to do something that's good
2:53:15 it's not necessarily uh
2:53:17 it's not something that we smile upon
2:53:20 even yeah i i understand that yes but
2:53:22 i'm just trying to understand what is
2:53:24 the benefit that you're looking at
2:53:27 what is it that maximizing people's
2:53:29 choices or sovereignty
2:53:32 what what what is it that is that
2:53:34 benefit what's the factors are you
2:53:36 looking at because we need to have
2:53:37 factors we need to be able to say okay
2:53:39 it does this this and this yeah these
2:53:42 are the things that we want as human
2:53:43 beings this is what this particular set
2:53:46 of ideas does for example
2:53:48 uh do we want respect within society is
2:53:51 that a good thing
2:53:53 all right um you want me to answer that
2:53:55 particular question or or do you want me
2:53:57 yeah yeah that's that particular
2:53:58 question because that might be help to
2:54:00 understand so do we want respect within
2:54:02 society is that good things
2:54:04 respect um
2:54:06 that's a very vague one but i would
2:54:08 think generally speaking yes
2:54:10 okay so
2:54:12 would the maximization of people's
2:54:15 uh
2:54:16 sovereignty and choices so let's say
2:54:18 they could say whatever they want to
2:54:20 whoever they want
2:54:21 would that increase or decrease that
2:54:23 particular aspect of respect so let's
2:54:25 say you want to make that any student
2:54:28 can swear
2:54:29 at any
2:54:31 teacher or that any person can be say
2:54:34 the n word
2:54:37 right now so that would contract that
2:54:39 would detract from that respect aspect
2:54:42 yeah and consequently yeah i agree i
2:54:44 agree that
2:54:45 um
2:54:46 liberalism might not necessarily um
2:54:49 increase or maximize the respect aspect
2:54:51 of society
2:54:53 okay so then we need it correct here
2:54:55 isn't it um but like what yeah
2:54:57 go
2:54:58 yes my criteria would be i guess
2:55:00 people's individual goals what theirs
2:55:02 what they strive to achieve in life
2:55:04 whether that be uh um pursuing worship
2:55:07 of god or like uh aspiring to have a
2:55:11 certain uh career
2:55:13 those kind of thing those kind of uh
2:55:14 choices that a person wants to get
2:55:16 achieve we should give them
2:55:19 agency to choose that for themselves
2:55:22 why
2:55:25 uh because it helps them achieve those
2:55:26 goals
2:55:28 yeah but why why would no because
2:55:30 normally we'd say why do we want to do
2:55:32 that because
2:55:33 it's not just that it's a goal because
2:55:36 but it's the case that they see this as
2:55:38 happiness
2:55:40 yeah
2:55:41 um
2:55:42 this is what pleases them
2:55:45 yeah but i want to shy away from the
2:55:46 pursuit of happiness narrative i want to
2:55:48 be
2:55:50 because because
2:55:52 there's a lot of uh there's a lot of
2:55:53 issues that you can run into if you say
2:55:55 that's the purpose pursuit of happiness
2:55:57 um okay so then what is it why
2:56:01 why should we allow a person to pursue
2:56:03 their specific goal
2:56:06 like for example should we want to allow
2:56:08 a
2:56:10 a satanist to pursue their particular
2:56:13 goal of satan worship
2:56:16 yeah we should uh
2:56:18 it sounds kind of funny but
2:56:20 i think we should allow a person to
2:56:22 pursue that although we shouldn't
2:56:23 advocate um it's not something that we
2:56:25 should uh try to
2:56:27 uh notion that it's acceptable rather
2:56:29 that it's um
2:56:30 that we that
2:56:32 if a person does it they're basically
2:56:34 damning themselves to whatever yeah yeah
2:56:37 agreed so but the question becomes what
2:56:40 i still don't understand oh i still
2:56:43 don't understand why you're particularly
2:56:45 saying they should be allowed to
2:56:48 because let's say you prevent it yeah
2:56:50 let's say we prevent
2:56:52 quote-unquote satanism as an exam just
2:56:54 giving us an example yeah
2:56:56 um
2:56:57 then you could say okay well this is
2:56:59 gonna increase
2:57:01 uh happiness within society because
2:57:03 people are gonna have that tranquil
2:57:05 belief
2:57:06 in
2:57:07 god let's say as opposed to the chaotic
2:57:09 belief in satanism and ultimately
2:57:11 they're going to get rewarded by god in
2:57:14 eternity so
2:57:15 actually the goal
2:57:17 that we're setting out here
2:57:19 uh would be benefited by restricting
2:57:22 certain actions
2:57:24 and beliefs over other actions and
2:57:26 beliefs depending but again it goes down
2:57:28 to the goal and what the what's the aim
2:57:31 of the goal for the human being
2:57:33 it makes sense see for me it makes sense
2:57:36 to be a liberal if you're secular in the
2:57:40 context that you don't believe in god
2:57:42 yeah you're not muslim
2:57:44 you're not christian you're literally
2:57:47 you know you're a materialist the major
2:57:50 problems with materialism by the way
2:57:52 yeah other issues you know whether you
2:57:55 don't have the ability to have agency
2:57:57 yeah because then you've got the whole
2:57:58 problem of determinism there but let's
2:58:00 just look at this
2:58:02 sorry just just on that point of
2:58:03 materialism but is it really you know
2:58:05 does it really make sense as a
2:58:06 secularist to be a
2:58:08 a liberal because i think i think that
2:58:10 the the fundamental assumption here is
2:58:11 that individualism is basically
2:58:14 uh there's some something good about you
2:58:16 know people individuals getting what
2:58:17 they want now the question is the
2:58:19 question is that that fundamental
2:58:21 starting point of liberalism is it
2:58:23 something that leads to the betterment
2:58:24 of society for example why can't we
2:58:26 start with another starting point that
2:58:28 for example man is a social animal and
2:58:29 start with society start with a system
2:58:31 that for example values family
2:58:34 the sanctity of family over
2:58:37 the individual wants of every single
2:58:39 person in society and let's say for
2:58:41 example you will
2:58:42 if on on this on this hyper
2:58:44 individualistic ideology you might have
2:58:46 people
2:58:47 uh wanting to to basically abort their
2:58:50 children so you have problems in like
2:58:52 abortion well it's it's it's a personal
2:58:53 it's a personal
2:58:55 uh you know autonomous choice for me to
2:58:57 abort my child or for me to leave my
2:58:59 husband and neglect my kids
2:59:01 or that i mean so when when you i think
2:59:04 even from
2:59:05 a secular perspective like
2:59:07 is it the case that individualism is
2:59:09 better for society
2:59:11 uh it might be better for the individual
2:59:13 temporarily but where does it take
2:59:14 society i mean i guess that's the
2:59:16 question so i mean i i guess the
2:59:17 question here for yusuf is why start
2:59:20 with the assumption
2:59:21 that it's all about
2:59:22 the individual rather than the society
2:59:25 right so i'm gonna say i'm not to make
2:59:27 that assumption because um i wouldn't
2:59:30 we'd like from it but that is the core
2:59:32 that is the fundamental assumption that
2:59:33 liberalism is founded on so i i don't
2:59:35 know how you can't make that assumption
2:59:37 and call yourself a liberal
2:59:38 no i would i would think you can also
2:59:40 make the assumption um
2:59:42 what was it uh we people have differing
2:59:45 opinions and goals and they're not same
2:59:48 so we have i
2:59:49 like earlier you said something about
2:59:50 respect not everybody values respect
2:59:52 right so for you might be a goal but for
2:59:55 another person it might not be so that's
2:59:56 where this liberalist agenda plays a
2:59:59 role like it has a utility where yeah
3:00:02 yeah but yourself the problem then
3:00:04 becomes is then you create a
3:00:06 schizophrenic society you're going to
3:00:08 have a situation where
3:00:10 what you do
3:00:12 disrespects and creates disrespect and
3:00:15 creates problems
3:00:17 you know the opposite of social cohesion
3:00:19 it would create uh distrust and
3:00:22 you know uh
3:00:24 a disintegration within society and then
3:00:26 you've got on the other hand some people
3:00:27 who do want to see the respect
3:00:30 within society and so therefore you're
3:00:31 going to have a clash within that
3:00:32 society and one of those positions has
3:00:35 to dominate you can't just have a
3:00:36 situation where everybody can do what
3:00:38 they want one of those positions is
3:00:39 going to have to dominate the the second
3:00:42 issue and i think abdul rahman raises a
3:00:44 really good point which is that
3:00:45 why assume the individual because let's
3:00:48 take for example the whole current
3:00:50 debate about vaccines you know i
3:00:52 recently was it today i think it was
3:00:54 yeah no yesterday uh i went through uh
3:00:57 this town center of where i live
3:01:00 and there's all this demonstration
3:01:02 against the vaccine saying don't give
3:01:04 the vaccine don't take the vaccine now
3:01:07 here's the situation okay under a
3:01:09 liberal individualistic ideology that
3:01:11 you're saying people should be free to
3:01:13 pursue what makes them happy but on the
3:01:16 opposite side
3:01:17 if you know this vaccine is safe
3:01:20 and if the fact that this covid19 is a
3:01:23 real threat to human survival then
3:01:26 to stop to
3:01:28 then the argument would be well actually
3:01:30 to help prevent deaths and disability
3:01:33 from the from the disease you need to
3:01:35 enforce vaccination
3:01:37 yeah so the overall goal of society
3:01:40 would be at the detriment of individuals
3:01:43 having the choice whether to take the
3:01:45 vaccine or not now islam has solved this
3:01:48 problem islam has its own rules
3:01:49 regardless of whether people have to
3:01:51 take the vaccine or not that's a
3:01:53 separate issue but i'm just saying from
3:01:55 this perspective
3:01:56 yeah you your your starting point of the
3:01:59 individual the maximization of the
3:02:01 individual choices
3:02:03 could in theory cause huge problems for
3:02:06 the rest of society like a contagious
3:02:09 disease and whether people should have
3:02:11 the free choice of whether to take a
3:02:13 preventative medicine
3:02:17 um
3:02:18 oh i i see i see your point for sure but
3:02:22 let me give you another one
3:02:23 okay
3:02:24 yeah
3:02:26 so yes
3:02:29 how to respond to that particular
3:02:30 example
3:02:32 my yeah yeah you hear me hey yeah i
3:02:33 don't care
3:02:35 can you hear me
3:02:37 um so my response to that particular
3:02:39 example is you could both allow people
3:02:41 to protest the vaccine and at the same
3:02:43 time uh as long as they don't intrude on
3:02:46 other people's ability to get the
3:02:48 vaccine um yeah yourself some problems
3:02:51 so yourself the problem is this
3:02:53 if not everybody is vaccinated or at
3:02:55 least 95 percent
3:02:57 then the the disease can still affect
3:03:00 every single person within that society
3:03:02 because vaccines are not lifelong
3:03:05 yeah to get rid of the disease you have
3:03:07 to vaccinate at least around about 95
3:03:11 of the population to create physical
3:03:14 barriers for which to spread of the
3:03:15 disease this is one example yeah so here
3:03:18 you've got a situation where the
3:03:20 individual freedom can affect the
3:03:23 society
3:03:24 yeah i'll give you another example you
3:03:26 have a situation where we're facing an
3:03:29 environmental crisis yeah
3:03:32 rising sea levels uh desifications
3:03:35 increasing in some parts of the world
3:03:37 but then you also have a situation where
3:03:39 people want to pursue greater
3:03:40 individualism greater desire to acquire
3:03:43 more and more wealth
3:03:45 yeah so what do you do in that situation
3:03:47 because governments are going to have to
3:03:49 impose laws now
3:03:51 yeah
3:03:52 which are going to contradict liberalism
3:03:54 and that's why there's always this
3:03:55 tension between
3:03:57 liberalism and authority because
3:03:58 authority by definition contradicts the
3:04:01 liberal
3:04:02 uh ideology but yet at the same time to
3:04:05 say the necessity of the authority
3:04:09 so what do you do in that situation
3:04:11 because now if you're saying well
3:04:12 actually in that situation for the sake
3:04:14 of humanity and
3:04:16 the criteria that we may have in our
3:04:19 heads we need to restrict the individual
3:04:21 laws then by definition individualism is
3:04:25 not the goal it's not the starting point
3:04:28 but all right so that well i think i
3:04:31 think i i i um
3:04:34 i would put the opposite contention
3:04:36 which it would be what if it would be
3:04:37 beneficial to the rest of society if we
3:04:39 kill off a few people
3:04:41 right if if we like low on uh low on um
3:04:46 food
3:04:48 food or yeah yeah kidneys you made that
3:04:50 example in the previous video i remember
3:04:52 that
3:04:53 yeah um
3:04:55 uh
3:04:56 in that scenario right it's people
3:04:58 soylent green is people i don't know if
3:05:00 you ever come across that
3:05:02 is it
3:05:07Laughter 3:05:13 kill a few individuals off yeah
3:05:15 yeah uh yeah that in that scenario i i
3:05:19 think that islamic perspective would be
3:05:21 like no you can't do that right
3:05:23 um
3:05:25 yeah but you're going back to islam
3:05:26 you're not going back to liberty
3:05:33 well i think utilitarianism feeds into
3:05:36 the liberalist agenda
3:05:38 yeah
3:05:39 but does it not but yes i think they
3:05:42 have i think they're different one talks
3:05:43 about yeah i think elective and the
3:05:45 other talks about the individual and i
3:05:46 think utilitarians and
3:05:49 liberals if i'm not mistaken are kind of
3:05:51 opposed to one another at least in like
3:05:52 in the political spectrum
3:05:54 i think i think this well you can look
3:05:56 you can look you can look at utility
3:05:58 from an individualistic perspective
3:05:59 versus a collective perspective
3:06:04 yeah
3:06:06 but
3:06:09 oh sorry
3:06:10 um
3:06:11 you could say a school of thought within
3:06:13 um western uh western liberalism perhaps
3:06:17 um
3:06:18 a school of ethics to to justify or to
3:06:21 measure
3:06:22 um
3:06:22 liberal ethics or political systems so
3:06:25 what is a good and bad policy for
3:06:26 governments to implement in a liberal
3:06:28 system uh john stuart mill of course uh
3:06:30 was was was a liberal um in fact some
3:06:32 say he presaged social liberalism
3:06:35 uh we're implementing policies which
3:06:36 actually might limit the rights of the
3:06:39 individual in order to
3:06:41 maximize the kind of collective rights
3:06:44 of of the society of all the individuals
3:06:46 of society and so maximize happiness to
3:06:49 use that as a basis
3:06:50 um you have people obviously there's
3:06:52 others like social idealists who said
3:06:54 that the purpose of um
3:06:56 of uh let's say political in liberalism
3:06:59 is the to create the self-realization of
3:07:01 all individuals and be all you can be or
3:07:04 be um
3:07:05 be your true self be live authentically
3:07:08 right that kind of school of thought
3:07:10 these are all thought within liberalism
3:07:13 right and they differ they disagree with
3:07:14 each other as to what to do and what
3:07:15 that even means and how to interpret
3:07:17 themselves um usually
3:07:19 economists and of course people who do
3:07:21 health policy planning tend to be
3:07:23 utilitarians because it deals with
3:07:25 statistics like that you can measure
3:07:27 um
3:07:28 whereas uh people in charge of social
3:07:30 policy tend to be social idealists that
3:07:32 talk about self-realization and
3:07:34 and what does it mean to be a
3:07:35 self-realized individual which then
3:07:36 imposes a particular
3:07:38 uh kind of cookie cutter framework upon
3:07:41 upon what it mean what is the end
3:07:42 product the person desires to see
3:07:44 society or every individual society be
3:07:45 like
3:07:46 um
3:07:47 but the idea some would say you know you
3:07:49 could live the the ontological freedom
3:07:51 for its own sake if you like uh the
3:07:53 kantian kind of freedom of freedom like
3:07:55 but what does that mean i want to be
3:07:56 free just to be free circular logic
3:07:59 um i think what
3:08:01 what a uh shadiful thing uh may be
3:08:03 asking you about was is actually a
3:08:05 typical theme you see of thought and
3:08:08 atheist debates um about morality
3:08:11 what is good
3:08:12 where is the should
3:08:14 the
3:08:15 a cold material universe there is no
3:08:17 should
3:08:18 right the only should and shouldn't in a
3:08:20 material universe is
3:08:22 uh can and can't right uh what you can
3:08:25 do what you can't do that's the only uh
3:08:27 halal haram the only uh permissible and
3:08:30 impermissible is what is is the possible
3:08:32 and the impossible that's all that
3:08:34 material universe
3:08:35 says if you are only looking at it from
3:08:37 materialistically but to come in and say
3:08:39 people should do what they want um as a
3:08:42 jet as your starting basis no
3:08:44 justification for that
3:08:45 leads to
3:08:46 more than just the problems that sharif
3:08:48 also um highlighted
3:08:51 just to give example if someone says hey
3:08:52 i want to be a cocaine addict i like
3:08:54 cocaine i want it you like then what can
3:08:57 liberism say about it okay all right go
3:09:00 ahead take your cocaine but then in in
3:09:03 the effect of cocaine make them make
3:09:05 that person uh kind of poor forced to
3:09:08 have crime to do crime uh because there
3:09:11 is secondary effects from what was
3:09:13 initially an innocent uh only affects me
3:09:16 approach to a oh now it affects society
3:09:19 approach by uh you know a secondary
3:09:20 effect it's the secondary effects that
3:09:23 liberalism isn't very good at
3:09:25 mitigating against uh and maybe
3:09:27 retroactively does so and leads to
3:09:29 internal contradictions um if someone
3:09:31 wants to be an alcoholic if someone must
3:09:32 be a deadbeat father or deadbeat mother
3:09:35 um
3:09:36 what about them if you're if you're
3:09:37 starting off with the basis that people
3:09:38 should be should do what they want to do
3:09:40 if you're telling people guys your
3:09:42 purpose in life is to do
3:09:44 whatever you want
3:09:46 to gratify your desires whatever the
3:09:49 desires might be okay
3:09:51 what if the cosmic dice rolled and
3:09:53 someone wants to be
3:09:55 takes a sadistic pleasure in serial
3:09:58 killing
3:09:59 in being a paedophile
3:10:00 they'll say i can't help my my tastes my
3:10:03 desires
3:10:04 it's a shame that it goes against what
3:10:06 society allows me to do
3:10:07 but because that is the only purpose in
3:10:09 life i have
3:10:11 um i'll just have to find a way to
3:10:13 make the two work make as in not be
3:10:16 caught by society and still pursue those
3:10:18 desires at the same time
3:10:20 because how would you argue against him
3:10:21 you say i better hurt other people and
3:10:23 he says but i'm not other people i'm me
3:10:25 i'm an individual and i can only speak
3:10:28 to my own satisfaction of my own desires
3:10:31 yeah because i i don't see i don't see
3:10:33 the world other people's eyes um maybe
3:10:36 they're a sociopath maybe they're a
3:10:37 psychopath so they don't have empathy
3:10:39 you couldn't what argument
3:10:41 could be made or even argument for
3:10:43 example someone i want to i like
3:10:45 gambling i want to be a gambler and they
3:10:46 gamble their the money of their family
3:10:49 um away and then their advertisements
3:10:53 which uh kind of play upon you know
3:10:55 women's bodies being a certain uh shape
3:10:58 or being sold as a certain kind of you
3:11:00 know using airbrushing and saying it's
3:11:01 unrealistic and then it makes women feel
3:11:02 depressed about themselves it makes them
3:11:04 feel inadequate and gambling shops
3:11:06 praying always spring up in poor areas
3:11:08 exploiting the poor by offering them
3:11:10 hope here's the thing here's the problem
3:11:13 if you make a society
3:11:15 where everyone is to follow what they
3:11:17 desire
3:11:18 they can be manipulated by those who
3:11:21 have the ability to make them want what
3:11:23 they want what these manipulators want
3:11:25 them to want yeah and that what happens
3:11:28 then they become slaves
3:11:30 to
3:11:31 consensual slaves but slaves of a
3:11:33 different kind and it's not to their own
3:11:35 um their own happiness and satisfaction
3:11:39 but that type of manipulation can kind
3:11:40 of happen in any kind of system really
3:11:42 if it doesn't like in my case it happens
3:11:45 on the individual level on like a if you
3:11:47 do like let's say sharia law for example
3:11:49 you can implement that on of a whole
3:11:51 governmental level if you can fool
3:11:53 people into thinking that syria has a
3:11:54 certain way or not um take saudi arabia
3:11:57 for example it uh it like not too long
3:12:01 ago had a law that
3:12:03 basically enforced that woman couldn't
3:12:04 drive right that's not necessarily
3:12:06 sharia but they they convinced the
3:12:08 people it is
3:12:10 no they didn't um
3:12:12 what they what the what saudis see the
3:12:14 thing is this has come to assumptions um
3:12:16 saudis just say it was part of their
3:12:17 culture and that it's just unseemly to
3:12:20 do that in their country whereas in the
3:12:22 islamists
3:12:27 in the islamic republic of iran and the
3:12:29 republic of pakistan and any other um
3:12:32 and in sudan women could drive right so
3:12:34 clearly the saudis knew that uh
3:12:37 every other even so-called islamic
3:12:38 republic or so-called islamic country
3:12:41 although they're not that they're not
3:12:42 really islamic um were allowing me to
3:12:44 drive um if you ever spoke to saudis
3:12:47 they wouldn't say because islam says you
3:12:48 can't there's no there's no text that
3:12:51 says that women can't drive um or can't
3:12:53 ride camels would be the
3:12:55 kiosks where the analogy would be taken
3:12:57 from
3:12:57 ride camels or horses by themselves um
3:13:00 so they just implemented a law because
3:13:02 it was based on their culture but you
3:13:03 assume that saudi arabia or the people
3:13:05 of saudi arabia care um that the laws
3:13:08 are islamic or even know what islam even
3:13:10 says about the matter right they don't
3:13:12 say i'm saying like
3:13:15 this in any system in any particular
3:13:17 system people can use an ideal and
3:13:19 manipulate the people to think that
3:13:20 that's what they want or want to pursue
3:13:23 uh based upon the ideal that they uphold
3:13:25 so like in the case of liberalism as you
3:13:27 mentioned earlier um
3:13:30 there was another point you made that i
3:13:31 want to address
3:13:33 but you're seeing on this issue of islam
3:13:35 islam has fixed principles islam has a
3:13:37 text and islam has a methodology by
3:13:39 which we derive laws it's not that these
3:13:42 things are just uh
3:13:44 clergy you know we don't have this idea
3:13:45 of clergy in islam where you just got a
3:13:49 class of people who can say this is
3:13:52 religious this is not religious or this
3:13:53 is a religious edict or not no there is
3:13:56 a principle which you have to go back to
3:13:57 the text the text has to allow it now
3:14:00 the thing with regards to saudi arabia
3:14:02 in many parts of the muslim world you
3:14:04 know and some people might not like to
3:14:06 hear this but they are post colonial
3:14:08 constructs they are not constructs
3:14:09 because they were built upon islam they
3:14:12 were built because the british invaded
3:14:14 in these lands or supported certain
3:14:15 tribes in order to take certain
3:14:17 positions of power because it bent
3:14:19 benefited the british uh colonialists at
3:14:22 the time yeah and similarly we see in
3:14:24 the same situation in regards to the
3:14:25 integration of saudi economy
3:14:28 particularly their oil resources with
3:14:30 american economy american companies and
3:14:32 and the american economy as a whole so
3:14:35 you know these are
3:14:37 if if you allow muslims to make their
3:14:40 own discussions and debates within our
3:14:42 own paradigm we would have a situation
3:14:45 where we wouldn't have these types of
3:14:47 you know uh manipulations because
3:14:49 and abdullah gave the example earlier
3:14:51 about imam malik and i think it was the
3:14:53 khalifa abdul malik ibn marwan i think
3:14:55 it was who wanted to adopt his
3:14:59 as a standard and imam malik didn't want
3:15:01 that he he rejected that he rejected for
3:15:03 a number of reasons
3:15:05 one of the reasons that he rejected it
3:15:06 is because one of the goals within the
3:15:09 islamic society is to allow people to
3:15:13 make as much each day had
3:15:15 ichihat means deriving islamic law but
3:15:18 obviously not for everyone and anyone to
3:15:20 really nearly try to interpret the quran
3:15:22 and the sunnah but for much to hide for
3:15:24 people
3:15:25 who have the the skill set and the
3:15:27 knowledge set of the methodology of
3:15:29 extracting the law yeah which yeah you
3:15:31 know the discussing about the particular
3:15:33 criteria is a separate discussion here
3:15:35 but it was to allow this because then
3:15:38 this allows us to understand what is the
3:15:41 more uh
3:15:42 uh any closer hook um
3:15:45 yes a closer ruling of god on the
3:15:48 particular matter and then there would
3:15:50 be peer
3:15:52 debates
3:15:53 and discussions in order to refine that
3:15:55 and then the khalifa could then adopt
3:15:57 upon what he then saw amongst the melee
3:16:00 of discussions in academia that's taking
3:16:02 place on this particular issue now in
3:16:04 the muslim world you don't have that
3:16:06 type of approach in the muslim world if
3:16:08 you criticize any of the rulers within
3:16:10 the muslim world those people in
3:16:12 positions of power the vast majority of
3:16:14 muslim world will not allow that to
3:16:15 occur not allow you even to critique any
3:16:18 of the particular positions of law that
3:16:20 they've uh adopted
3:16:22 within that society that's seen as you
3:16:24 know
3:16:26 you know because we have authoritarian
3:16:27 states and primarily the reason why we
3:16:29 have these authoritative states is
3:16:31 because they're post-colonial constructs
3:16:33 they're not something that was
3:16:34 constructed by the muslims themselves
3:16:36 whereas obviously under these under
3:16:38 examples of imam malik and examples
3:16:41 of
3:16:42 the scholars of the past you had iran
3:16:44 quran discusses this extensively uh you
3:16:47 know in the issue of if the shaft
3:16:50 adopts upon a particular hukam what do
3:16:52 the malikis do regardless of that are
3:16:54 they still do they have to adopt what
3:16:56 the khalifa does in terms of salah or do
3:16:58 they have their own rights in order to
3:17:00 adopt a matters of a burden which are
3:17:02 not societal issues
3:17:04 um
3:17:05 so
3:17:06 we have extensive discussions the
3:17:08 reality is we we don't gauge these
3:17:10 discussions from an islamic basis
3:17:12 anymore we don't learn about these types
3:17:14 of areas you know alhamdulillah you know
3:17:16 we may learn about salah and siam
3:17:18 fasting and prayer and certain rules of
3:17:21 zakat but some of these political
3:17:22 societal aspects which are necessary to
3:17:25 revive our lungs we don't discuss these
3:17:27 issues uh or study them in the depth
3:17:30 that our scholars of the past have
3:17:31 written about these issues and used to
3:17:33 discuss and engage in these discussions
3:17:35 before so yeah you can have situations
3:17:37 where a
3:17:39 quote-unquote pseudo-religious state
3:17:42 comes in which are
3:17:43 post-colonial constructs but they come
3:17:45 in and they say yes this is religion
3:17:47 yeah this is a religious law and they
3:17:49 may try to sign it off or it's a
3:17:50 cultural law that we're going to
3:17:52 implement and then nobody's able to
3:17:54 critique it yeah nobody's able to look
3:17:56 at the strength of the allele for
3:17:58 regards to the hukum on the particular
3:18:00 matter yeah so we don't we need to
3:18:02 return back in essence
3:18:05 to how the
3:18:07 the early muslim generations used to
3:18:09 engage in islamic law there was a
3:18:11 vibrant debate and discussion on
3:18:13 jurisprudence yeah and it's not
3:18:16 surprising that you know the early
3:18:18 period of islam you had many motherhips
3:18:22 many scholars of ichthy had
3:18:25 in the early period and you had this
3:18:27 debate between the malikis and the
3:18:29 hanifes and the sharafis and the
3:18:30 hambulis and the zahadis and the ones
3:18:32 who followed the imam tabi's
3:18:34 moth hub and things like this uh lathey
3:18:36 been sad he was a much to hit mud luck
3:18:38 as well had his own mother you had all
3:18:40 these debates and discussions taking
3:18:42 place so that you're creating this
3:18:44 legislative wealth
3:18:47 that then the khalifa can adopt upon
3:18:49 based upon what is best to be applied
3:18:52 within society and what fits closer to
3:18:54 the
3:18:56 the evidences from the sharia
3:18:58 um sorry if i just may just chime in
3:19:00 there and basically ask you um which is
3:19:05 what is in in the in the west i said
3:19:08 that people can be manipulated by simply
3:19:10 being told
3:19:11 that this product uh this this service
3:19:14 this company this look is what will
3:19:16 fulfill your desires this and so they
3:19:19 they offer suggestions because and
3:19:20 desires and means from all desires are
3:19:22 virtually infinite not literally
3:19:24 infinite but we just as a hyperbole
3:19:26 infinite right so
3:19:28 there's no way there's no one and since
3:19:30 every desire is equal to every other
3:19:32 desire within the liberal worldview
3:19:34 there's no higher or higher or lesser
3:19:35 desire um at least um beyond necessity
3:19:39 should we say um then there's no one to
3:19:41 say is which one is more important which
3:19:43 one's less important which one's a bad
3:19:44 way of doing which is a good way of
3:19:45 doing it um there's the the at the
3:19:48 possibilities for manipulation of
3:19:49 desires is virtually infinite whereas um
3:19:53 in islam the manipulation that you're
3:19:55 saying could occur when we don't have a
3:19:57 priesthood and islam is essence open
3:19:59 source every muslim can access the text
3:20:02 um i like i like i like the channel do
3:20:04 you think that muslims could be deluded
3:20:06 into thinking that there are two gods
3:20:08 perhaps or that um muslims could be
3:20:10 deluded to thinking that um zinna is
3:20:12 totally okay eating pork is totally okay
3:20:15 uh to to do so do you think muslims can
3:20:17 be manipulated
3:20:18 at least into those
3:20:20 those things to to uh could they think
3:20:22 they could be manipulated into
3:20:24 other than what the islamic commands are
3:20:26 on those basic things what do you think
3:20:28 um i i think i think for the most part
3:20:31 for
3:20:32 like the most basic sense all the like
3:20:34 foundations of islam are very well laid
3:20:36 out but there are things i would say to
3:20:39 say that i think
3:20:40 some muslims are having a lot of trouble
3:20:43 in the west in particular with like for
3:20:45 example
3:20:46 how islam deals with gay people right um
3:20:50 what what or not
3:20:52 or like i mean my bad sodomy what like
3:20:56 how how what's islam's attitude toward
3:20:57 sodomy right and some some muslims do
3:21:00 like cut all the edges and corners they
3:21:02 try to say that um
3:21:04 sodomy no sodomy oneself wasn't the
3:21:06 crime they were the people that were
3:21:08 cydomites but some they did something
3:21:09 else that that called for that um
3:21:11 punishment
3:21:12 um
3:21:14 let's see see here's the thing right now
3:21:16 uh it's true that any text can be
3:21:19 um can be played with not by changing
3:21:21 the text but you can't you can't change
3:21:23 the text you can just say it's all
3:21:24 metaphorical or it meant something else
3:21:26 that's not mentioned by the text but i
3:21:28 will speculate that it means something
3:21:29 else blah blah blah which is what which
3:21:32 is why we have you could say liberal
3:21:33 muslims in the first place as well as
3:21:35 communist muslims they'll just say oh
3:21:37 yeah the prophet muhammed uh
3:21:39 he was a comrade of the communists he
3:21:41 was a communist it just didn't come out
3:21:43 so well but if you read it in this way
3:21:45 and you you you tweet it and you squint
3:21:47 a bit and you turn the book upside down
3:21:49 you can read marxism from it um well no
3:21:52 because the clear text can't be changed
3:21:55 so what you're saying then is basically
3:21:57 that as long as we uh educate muslims
3:22:00 into what islam actually says
3:22:02 uh clearly all things then they can't be
3:22:04 manipulated because this is a this is an
3:22:07 intellectual issue
3:22:08 right do we understand an intellectual
3:22:11 body of text our minds can understand it
3:22:13 our minds can read it whereas the
3:22:15 manipulations that occur in the west if
3:22:17 someone says that women should look uh
3:22:20 very skinny and um you know shouldn't be
3:22:23 uh shouldn't uh be like a traditional
3:22:25 concept of a woman that was held by our
3:22:27 civilization for many years but instead
3:22:29 they should be this really skinny taught
3:22:30 anorexic woman
3:22:32 who's to say that's wrong and the other
3:22:34 the the traditional view is was right
3:22:37 right because it's arbitrary it's just
3:22:40 well if i can just persuade you to to
3:22:42 want to be super skinny as a woman let's
3:22:43 just say
3:22:44 then who's to say that's wrong right so
3:22:48 there's no right or there's no criteria
3:22:50 for right or wrong in manipulating
3:22:52 people's emotions so you could so your
3:22:54 comparison
3:22:56 is incorrect because in islam
3:22:58 the text is based is an intellectually
3:23:00 understandable text whereas in the west
3:23:02 manipulations happen on the emotional
3:23:05 level
3:23:06 for
3:23:06 emotions which inherently have no good
3:23:08 and bad right or wrong in them they're
3:23:11 just there and you can manipulate them
3:23:13 and tell people you want this i'm not
3:23:15 going to question what you should want
3:23:16 or not i'm going to show you how you can
3:23:18 get it with my product my my fashion my
3:23:22 thing and going you know you want to be
3:23:23 rich but you're poor it's okay you can
3:23:25 be rich just go to my gambling shop and
3:23:28 there's all these different special
3:23:29 options on there and of course they end
3:23:31 up poorer right
3:23:33 you so this is the issue and i'll give
3:23:34 you an analogy um from the prophet
3:23:36 muhammed uh
3:23:38 himself and it's really beautiful one uh
3:23:40 because it it's actually it's almost
3:23:42 like he knew about liberalism would come
3:23:43 about in the future right anyway
3:23:45 so he said that society like people on a
3:23:48 ship right some are on top deck some are
3:23:50 on the bottom deck right so it's one
3:23:51 known analogy
3:23:52 so when the people on the bottom want to
3:23:54 get water they go to the top they ask
3:23:57 people on the top could you fetch us
3:23:58 some water from the side and they you
3:23:59 know the people get the water from the
3:24:01 side and
3:24:02 and bring it to those in the bottom deck
3:24:04 but then someone said in something that
3:24:05 in the bottom deck
3:24:08 let me drill a hole
3:24:09 through our part of the boat so they're
3:24:11 in the bottom deck let me drill a hole
3:24:12 and get water directly you know be
3:24:14 self-reliant and not trouble those in
3:24:17 the let's not we won't i won't depend on
3:24:18 those on the top i'll do it myself
3:24:21 if those in the top left and let that
3:24:23 individualist do it
3:24:25 right they would all be drowned
3:24:27 right but if they were prevented from
3:24:29 doing so they would all be saved it's
3:24:32 very interesting because the the uh the
3:24:35 the guy drinking the whole actually use
3:24:37 it as a good intention like he doesn't
3:24:38 want to trouble those on top he wants to
3:24:40 be self-reliant right and get his
3:24:43 desires himself right but he doesn't
3:24:45 think about what is the consequences of
3:24:47 his individual desires and drills that
3:24:50 hole and it sings the ship right so this
3:24:52 is the case is that what we need are
3:24:55 limits
3:24:56 uh limits by someone who knows humans
3:24:58 very well knows human nature and
3:25:00 can organize our desires in a way that
3:25:02 we we actually don't contradict each
3:25:04 other we don't uh follow
3:25:07 self-destructive
3:25:08 behaviors uh that that you know we make
3:25:10 choices that actually destroy our own
3:25:12 lives and at the same time
3:25:14 the purpose because there is nothing
3:25:16 else other than our there's no other
3:25:18 purpose in this universe other than
3:25:21 our higher purpose and as the prophet
3:25:22 muhammad sallallahu salaam also said to
3:25:24 paraphrase that narration um if you were
3:25:27 to give the son of adam
3:25:28 um a valley uh so two valleys of gold
3:25:31 filled with gold and riches basically
3:25:33 they'd want a third one
3:25:34 right and nothing would fill the belly
3:25:36 except dust which is really beautiful
3:25:38 way of saying it in essence they would
3:25:39 not stop wanting until they die
3:25:42 clearly they're never going to be
3:25:43 satisfied and if you try to say well
3:25:45 guess what guys let's make a political
3:25:47 system that will just feed
3:25:49 infinite wants with limited resources
3:25:51 and hope for the best well that's not
3:25:54 gonna it's not gonna come out the best
3:25:56 there's gonna be a lot of people who are
3:25:57 deprived and they're gonna be people who
3:25:59 actually have satisfactory resources but
3:26:02 they still feel the pressed because
3:26:04 they've been told to want more and
3:26:05 that's their only purpose is to
3:26:07 constantly guzzle more so do you see now
3:26:09 perhaps the problem with the the liberal
3:26:11 worldview and how it addresses society
3:26:13 and the superiority and more enlightened
3:26:16 approach of islam which is based on um
3:26:18 humans having a purpose greater than
3:26:20 just filling their gut
3:26:22 before
3:26:24 you do i'm just going to say farewell
3:26:26 because it's quite late i need to get up
3:26:27 early um
3:26:28 so i'm going to say
3:26:30 and
3:26:41 foreign
3:26:54 i'll let you respond i don't know if
3:26:56 we've got anybody waiting in the back uh
3:26:58 abdulrahman
3:27:05 all right so um yes i acknowledge so
3:27:07 this is what i'm gonna give the clear
3:27:09 advantage to the islamic uh sharia way
3:27:12 of looking and things it's more concise
3:27:13 for sure it's more clear i would say
3:27:15 that right but i'm not but i think the
3:27:17 contentions you raise to a liberalism in
3:27:20 in those particular contentions you've
3:27:21 raised uh can be addressed for example
3:27:24 so like uh when a person's uh choice
3:27:26 right infringes on another person's
3:27:28 ability to make choices we that's
3:27:31 automatically deemed as okay you're
3:27:33 you're basically violating the central
3:27:35 tenants of liberalism which is to allow
3:27:37 other people to uh make their own
3:27:39 choices
3:27:40 um and then there's uh the other thing
3:27:43 right so some people can make choices
3:27:45 that are not in their best interest
3:27:46 right we do believe that people can lie
3:27:48 to themselves right
3:27:50 um
3:27:51 in in those scenarios like for example
3:27:53 the person that gets drunk
3:27:55 the person that gets drunk um or not is
3:27:57 not in the best
3:27:58 uh is not the best capability of of like
3:28:01 uh ascertaining or distinguishing what's
3:28:03 best for themselves so we don't
3:28:05 necessarily allow them to make those
3:28:06 choices uh so there's a little balancing
3:28:08 act on like uh a person's
3:28:11 education versus the choices they make
3:28:13 so they did we weigh these options in
3:28:16 liberalism
3:28:17 yourself what i would say is this is you
3:28:20 first of all before it's adopting
3:28:22 liberalism uh you have to ask ask
3:28:25 yourself the question
3:28:26 uh why liberalism and in order to ask
3:28:29 this question why liberalism you need to
3:28:31 ask yourself the question
3:28:33 what is the drive behind human beings
3:28:36 what is the goal yeah uh and
3:28:39 part of that would be to ask the
3:28:41 question
3:28:42 what leads human beings to well-being
3:28:44 and happiness
3:28:46 and that's going to be informed by your
3:28:48 understanding of your purpose of life
3:28:50 rather than what you seem to be doing is
3:28:52 jumping to liberalism but when i asked
3:28:55 you certain questions about why
3:28:56 liberalism and you said about it
3:28:59 progress i think you mentioned and then
3:29:01 i said what oh benefit and then i said
3:29:03 well what's your criteria i don't think
3:29:04 you were very clear because you could
3:29:06 have very different criterias and then
3:29:08 we could match it up
3:29:10 and then i said well why do you want to
3:29:12 have a person
3:29:13 uh allow him to make choices and you say
3:29:15 well it just is good but there's got to
3:29:18 be more than that yeah you've got to be
3:29:20 saying something more about the human
3:29:22 condition about why you think it's good
3:29:25 so you need to explain well it's good
3:29:27 because it of course the human happiness
3:29:30 it's good because it caused the human
3:29:32 nature or it's good because it achieves
3:29:35 this particular goal or whatever
3:29:38 so you need to make those arguments none
3:29:40 all of those arguments unfortunately
3:29:42 what you'll find is that will contradict
3:29:44 the islamic positions yeah about what
3:29:46 happiness is what benefit is you know
3:29:49 who is sovereign who makes choices and
3:29:51 decisions uh uh or where are we meant to
3:29:54 get our guidance from et cetera yeah the
3:29:56 other point is this and i think you gave
3:29:58 this specifically to your last point
3:30:00 you gave the example of a person
3:30:03 liberalism will say if a person's choice
3:30:06 if uh
3:30:07 stops impinges upon the freedom of
3:30:09 another individual
3:30:11 another individual choice the problem is
3:30:13 is that the examples i gave whether it
3:30:15 came to the example of
3:30:17 uh
3:30:18 the environment crisis or
3:30:21 vaccines whether you should make it
3:30:23 mandatory or not
3:30:25 or
3:30:26 you know abdullah gave the example of
3:30:28 cocaine other all of these different
3:30:30 people's dress all of these examples are
3:30:33 examples where
3:30:35 in the there's no physical direct
3:30:39 uh
3:30:40 taking away the rights of another
3:30:41 individual it's not like somebody's
3:30:43 murdering another individual somebody's
3:30:45 taking somebody else's wealth yeah it's
3:30:48 rather the case that your choices
3:30:52 by definition will have an impact upon
3:30:55 society and then that will have an
3:30:57 impact upon other people
3:30:59 indirectly now how do you deal with that
3:31:03 liberalism can't deal with that yeah
3:31:05 liberalism would have to say that the
3:31:08 individual
3:31:10 has the is the supreme he is the uh how
3:31:13 do you say he is the the goal of the
3:31:16 society he to maximize his you know
3:31:19 sovereignty and individual choice
3:31:22 irrespective of what other harms
3:31:24 potential quote-unquote social harms it
3:31:27 would have yeah so therefore they don't
3:31:29 have the ability to solve these
3:31:31 particular issues
3:31:32 and the other problem then becomes is
3:31:34 well you know we all recognize that
3:31:37 within a society you're gonna have to
3:31:39 have laws and so therefore then you've
3:31:41 got this tension between telling people
3:31:44 you're free
3:31:45 you have the right to make choices
3:31:48 that you are not accountable to anybody
3:31:50 but your own choices that you make
3:31:53 and that you're here to maximize your
3:31:54 benefit then you're going to create a
3:31:58 problem within society for example
3:32:01 if you have this and just give you an
3:32:02 example you have people who say you know
3:32:05 what i want to be you know
3:32:07 be you know you might have somebody says
3:32:09 i want to become a prostitute yeah
3:32:12 okay fine they make that choice but then
3:32:14 that has negative impact within society
3:32:16 and it would also have negative impact
3:32:18 upon themselves it may create an over
3:32:21 sexualized society it then affects how
3:32:24 people how men and women they start to
3:32:26 view each other in an over sexualized
3:32:28 society full of pornography sexual
3:32:30 imagery prostitution you know websites
3:32:33 that facilitate it etc all of these
3:32:35 types of things but at the same time
3:32:37 you're increasing the choices of
3:32:40 individuals yeah and then you've got the
3:32:42 other problem as well that abdullah's
3:32:44 mentioned which is that those people who
3:32:46 have the ability to manufacture consent
3:32:50 they are positions of power there are
3:32:53 positions to form public opinions yeah
3:32:56 they have the wealth they have the
3:32:58 resources whether that's through
3:33:00 facebook and social media they able to
3:33:02 have the ability to advertise through
3:33:04 social media or advertise through
3:33:05 mainstream media or they control the
3:33:08 majority of print press etc then they
3:33:11 can manipulate the likes and dislikes of
3:33:14 individuals that's not an intellectual
3:33:16 process that you can analyze but rather
3:33:18 these are emotional states and if you
3:33:20 can manipulate them you can then
3:33:24 define what their actions are going to
3:33:27 be and then you reduce the individual
3:33:29 who is here to try to make as much
3:33:32 choices as possible being individuals
3:33:34 that are making choices that big
3:33:36 corporations are defining for them uh oh
3:33:39 the political establishment is defining
3:33:40 for them what type of choices that they
3:33:42 make and so what's your fine
3:33:46 just one final point that's why you find
3:33:49 in liberal secular societies you have
3:33:52 very few political parties mainstream
3:33:55 political parties it's ironic isn't it
3:33:58 that when they're trying to maximize the
3:34:00 freedom you end up having
3:34:03 two political parties in most countries
3:34:05 yeah and you just choose between two
3:34:08 so yeah abdullah abdullah was gonna yeah
3:34:11 yeah i was just just very quick because
3:34:13 we need to move on i was saying that's
3:34:14 the point i was kind of trying to touch
3:34:16 on where where there seems to be a bit
3:34:18 of paradox for me you know so like i i
3:34:20 realized that someone like john stuart
3:34:22 mill right he had a utilitarian basis
3:34:24 for his for his liberalism but then
3:34:26 there does seem to be a bit of a paradox
3:34:29 and which i've seen expressed in some
3:34:30 places where well
3:34:32 the question is well if you're going to
3:34:34 start with that individualistic basis
3:34:35 well so if it's the individual you're
3:34:37 favoring is it that the individual's
3:34:40 rights lead to that greater good of
3:34:42 maximal happiness amongst the collective
3:34:45 so you have more individuals who get
3:34:47 what they want so that's good
3:34:49 or is it that you want to aim for that
3:34:52 goal and in the process of aiming that
3:34:54 goal you can legitimize or justify the
3:34:56 restriction of certain individual rights
3:34:59 and
3:35:00 i i guess that's the point where i i
3:35:02 just don't understand because it seems
3:35:03 like at
3:35:05 some point you're going to have to
3:35:06 restrict individual rights in order to
3:35:08 achieve an ideal that's not necessarily
3:35:12 a a a consequence of
3:35:15 individual wants
3:35:17 but the ideal of a society so that's
3:35:20 that's that's the yeah yeah
3:35:22 you've got racism banned within majority
3:35:24 of societies
3:35:25 because they're saying there's a great
3:35:27 greater goal so abdullah so
3:35:29 yeah i mean uh the united states because
3:35:31 they love their first amendments on
3:35:32 march they've um they they will allow
3:35:35 you to make say racial expletives and be
3:35:37 racist uh openly uh racist in america um
3:35:40 but that doesn't stop um
3:35:42 the kind of using social pressure and
3:35:44 getting people back you know kicked out
3:35:46 their jobs because of being racist right
3:35:48 so they find other ways uh which um john
3:35:50 stuart mill argued was actually more a
3:35:52 more pernicious form of control so even
3:35:55 if the state
3:35:56 um it was it was worse than the state
3:35:58 banning something because
3:36:00 if your state bans an expression of a
3:36:01 certain idea
3:36:02 you can say it secretly and you know in
3:36:05 hushed uh host rooms and maybe your own
3:36:07 house or with trusted friends but when
3:36:09 if a society creates creates basically a
3:36:12 culture of of um not criticizing a
3:36:14 certain idea like let's say same-sex
3:36:16 marriage let's say then any then there's
3:36:19 no way you can hide from it um because
3:36:22 your your colleagues your work
3:36:23 colleagues your friends and so on and so
3:36:24 forth will be will be kind of socially
3:36:27 enforcing this upon you right and this
3:36:29 was actually ironically used by social
3:36:30 liberals to argue that um against hate
3:36:33 speech so saying that hate speech
3:36:35 impinges hate speech upon um choices
3:36:38 that liberalism deems to be legitimate
3:36:40 should be
3:36:41 uh kind of should be challenged should
3:36:42 be basically
3:36:43 denied and actually should be intolerant
3:36:45 towards
3:36:47 intolerant social intolerance right and
3:36:49 that created ironically social
3:36:51 intolerance right so liberal social
3:36:53 intolerance now was now justified but um
3:36:55 to come oppositely to um
3:36:58 uh jose joseph um
3:37:00 so you said make you know you should um
3:37:03 people should have choices up until the
3:37:04 point that their choices impinge upon
3:37:06 others
3:37:07 um this really is very simple liberal
3:37:09 formula sounds so nice and simple and
3:37:11 easy
3:37:12 but when applied to complex creatures
3:37:14 such as human beings has uh
3:37:17 kind of force fouled the law of
3:37:19 unintended consequences and there is a
3:37:21 lot of unintended consequences which
3:37:24 leads to the current predicaments we
3:37:25 have in the world so
3:37:26 unfettered acquisition of wealth and
3:37:28 consumption um led to the kind of
3:37:31 climate crisis that we find that plastic
3:37:33 and our seeds poison in our uh and that
3:37:35 poison in our very foods now because the
3:37:38 the food chain comes right back to us so
3:37:40 uh we're getting basically cancers now i
3:37:42 think that the the life expectancy is
3:37:44 starting to go down again as we
3:37:47 basically poisoned ourselves through
3:37:48 over excessive consumption because but
3:37:50 hey as long as our choices don't impinge
3:37:52 upon other people's lives well not
3:37:54 directly but no one injected you with um
3:37:57 microplastics but if the water you're
3:38:00 drinking or the food you're eating is
3:38:02 filled with micro press microplastics um
3:38:05 the effect is much the same uh you might
3:38:08 say
3:38:09 maybe simply you know if someone just
3:38:10 buys an empty field of land where you
3:38:12 used to play as a kid and makes it
3:38:14 private property hey you can't walk
3:38:16 there anymore it's private property
3:38:17 they've impinged your joy your ability
3:38:19 to make choices if um if someone makes
3:38:22 loud noises uh stopping you from
3:38:24 sleeping
3:38:25 uh you could say well you're not allowed
3:38:26 to do that and they say but i haven't
3:38:27 stopped you from living in your house
3:38:29 i'm just making loud noises in my house
3:38:31 like having a let's say a party or a
3:38:32 rave in my house neighboring house uh
3:38:35 you'll say no but what you're doing is
3:38:36 affecting me even if it's not um you're
3:38:39 not stopping me from doing anything in
3:38:41 particular but it's affecting me because
3:38:43 i can't sleep and it's annoying what
3:38:45 have you right and then you're now
3:38:46 saying you're gonna demand that that
3:38:48 person in stop their rave impinge upon
3:38:51 their choices because it's affecting you
3:38:54 what about stds right so if you allows
3:38:56 enough you allow um you know uh
3:38:59 pre-marital sex say hey you know consent
3:39:01 make as long as it's consensual and no
3:39:03 one's inebriated um okay but then you
3:39:06 know stds um seem to you know uh is is
3:39:09 the law of unintended consequences they
3:39:11 become they spread they become right um
3:39:14 and you could say oh don't worry where
3:39:15 where are certain prophylactives like
3:39:17 condoms well yeah but hpv for example
3:39:20 human papilloma papilloma virus
3:39:23 is something which uh
3:39:25 you know condoms can't really can't
3:39:27 really protect you from basically right
3:39:29 so
3:39:30 um you're basically uh but it spreads
3:39:33 and it causes cancer it causes various
3:39:35 types of cancers in in human beings
3:39:39 there's like what are you going to do
3:39:40 about that are you going to apologize to
3:39:41 everyone you've infected no oh but i
3:39:43 didn't do it i didn't i did it
3:39:44 unknowingly well guess what if we had a
3:39:46 society where people only had sex in
3:39:48 marriage and in essence you have a high
3:39:50 degree of virgins marrying other virgins
3:39:51 in essence um in that society uh sexual
3:39:55 sexual transmitted diseases don't really
3:39:56 be aren't really spread so much anymore
3:39:59 right that you've actually limited their
3:40:00 vectors um what about okay freedom to um
3:40:04 what about let's say a man's freedom to
3:40:06 be a deadbeat father and leave you know
3:40:08 just leave a pregnant woman and leave
3:40:10 and who cares um well then you know that
3:40:12 affects the child maybe the one wants to
3:40:14 have the child uh the child will be
3:40:16 raised in a single parent family um or
3:40:18 all that will be raised with a with a
3:40:20 woman a mother who has maybe boyfriends
3:40:23 who might not care for the child so much
3:40:24 certainly not as as much as a father uh
3:40:27 might have had that certain attachment
3:40:29 maybe more maybe maybe the same maybe
3:40:30 not but um you have many horror stories
3:40:33 that occur from that um from uh people
3:40:36 with their step dads um but then you
3:40:38 might say ah but uh what if the the
3:40:40 woman can choose to um
3:40:43 uh to obviously abort the child then
3:40:44 that you know there wouldn't be a
3:40:45 problem
3:40:46 um okay
3:40:48 okay so she choose not to child won't be
3:40:49 a problem but then guess what happens
3:40:51 yeah
3:40:52 the man must pay uh must pay child
3:40:55 support right
3:40:56 yeah but this does the man have a choice
3:40:59 to pay child support
3:41:00 we say well no you know
3:41:04 you should in a liberal society but
3:41:06 but i'm just saying
3:41:08 but there's another contradiction
3:41:09 yourself these are the contradictions so
3:41:12 we're going gonna have to uh we're gonna
3:41:14 have to move on to our next guest story
3:41:16 man there's a lot of there's so much
3:41:18 we'd love to discuss uh maybe in
3:41:19 charlotte we can carry this discussion
3:41:22 uh
3:41:22 uh
3:41:23 another format sorry
3:41:26 really quickly really quickly i was
3:41:27 going to say i'm going to reflect
3:41:28 there's a lot that you guys said that i
3:41:30 have that i think very thoughtful that i
3:41:32 will reflect upon shall i go back and do
3:41:34 that and um i i guess
3:41:37 yeah i'm going to i'm going to step out
3:41:39 but i'll continue listening
3:41:41 yeah and as i said um if you if you look
3:41:44 at the statistics for the united states
3:41:46 of america um i was actually shocked to
3:41:48 find that he said one in three people
3:41:50 are morbidly obese like significantly
3:41:52 obese and i didn't believe that i
3:41:54 thought come one in three really like
3:41:56 really super massive that's not true
3:41:58 until i went to oh wow okay i went to
3:41:59 michigan michigan and it was it wasn't
3:42:02 one or three americans
3:42:06 yeah and so so while they're enjoying
3:42:08 more freedoms going to mcdonald's um
3:42:10 which has advertised itself made its
3:42:12 food so cheap so quick so easy so uh
3:42:15 moorish i think like they want it so
3:42:16 easy to eat and tasty and so on and so
3:42:18 forth and people are just following what
3:42:20 they want after being told and shown
3:42:23 what to want you to tell them that their
3:42:25 freedoms uh that don't worry you should
3:42:27 be happy and grateful because at least
3:42:29 you're free to follow your wants um i
3:42:32 don't think that their their uh their
3:42:34 blood pressure their um their high
3:42:37 cancer rates their diabetes rates would
3:42:40 agree with you um concerning their
3:42:43 their the wisdom of let people follow
3:42:45 whatever they want and let them be told
3:42:47 what they want um
3:42:49 the freedom of expression in speech you
3:42:51 see what happens so anyway
3:42:52 how to think about all that and insha
3:42:55 allah think about the hadith of the
3:42:56 prophet that the prophet muhammad
3:42:58 sallallahu alaihi
3:42:59 of the people in the boat and inshallah
3:43:01 reflect upon it with them
3:43:07 so there's a couple of super chats
3:43:09 before we go to our next guest
3:43:11 uh the i don't know if you read this one
3:43:13 have you guys this is from uh vandalist
3:43:16 so jazok look here for the super chat
3:43:19 uh he asked have you guys seen minority
3:43:21 report and i think this is when we were
3:43:22 discussing about prevent
3:43:25 uh programme that's in the uk so
3:43:28 it's i think it's a film
3:43:32 i'm
3:43:46 predict future crimes and then
3:43:48 prosecuting people for future crimes
3:43:49 they haven't yet committed
3:43:51 i'm not sure the relevance but uh to
3:43:53 this discussion but um
3:43:56 yeah i think it's the case that you know
3:43:58 they talk about thought crimes uh within
3:44:01 western societies liberal societies that
3:44:04 you might not necessarily uh and i think
3:44:06 this goes to the heart of the
3:44:07 contradiction within liberal societies
3:44:09 on the one hand they're saying we want
3:44:10 to be tolerant but they're only tolerant
3:44:12 of those things that they're tolerant of
3:44:14 they're not tolerant of those things
3:44:15 that they don't tolerate yeah so which
3:44:18 is the very definition of tolerance is
3:44:20 not to be tolerant upon what you
3:44:21 tolerate it's to be tolerant upon what
3:44:23 you don't tolerate but anyway so it's
3:44:26 it's interesting there's another super
3:44:27 chat here as well uh any particular
3:44:30 books or articles sharif abdullah yusuf
3:44:32 or abdul rahman would recommend further
3:44:35 for critiquing liberalism
3:44:38 there's any books uh
3:44:40 i think hamza sauces had a book denise
3:44:42 he still got that book
3:44:44 i've had a very good book recommended to
3:44:46 me i started reading it finished as is
3:44:49 the case with most of the books i read
3:44:50 it's called liberalism a counter history
3:44:53 by domenico le cerdo so
3:44:56 um you sort of like uh
3:44:58 breaks the whole
3:45:00 history down and how like
3:45:02 liberalism was really implemented in the
3:45:04 western world so i've i've found it
3:45:07 useful in the parts that i have read
3:45:09 but yeah maybe you could look into that
3:45:11 i'd like to advise some caution on the
3:45:13 matter um so in the past i've suggested
3:45:16 some books which are by western scholars
3:45:18 which produce very systematic critiques
3:45:22 but these are usually the problem here
3:45:24 is that these are one of the many
3:45:25 madahib
3:45:27 they follow of the west so one might be
3:45:28 a conservative
3:45:30 and produce a philosophical critique of
3:45:32 liberalism
3:45:33 um
3:45:34 as a school of thought
3:45:36 there's a there's a big problem with
3:45:38 muslims
3:45:40 and some people were actually involved
3:45:41 in islamic activism back in the day
3:45:44 and they they found these books which
3:45:46 seem to read the spell capitalism
3:45:48 liberalism really expose it uh show the
3:45:51 psychology behind it and so on and so
3:45:52 forth oh wow this is an amazing critique
3:45:55 amazing critique what they didn't
3:45:56 realize was they had picked up a book by
3:45:59 neo-marxists or post-marxists um they're
3:46:02 the ones that are you might know as the
3:46:04 woke
3:46:06 uh group
3:46:07 what have you
3:46:09 and um
3:46:10 uh the problem is that then in
3:46:12 criticizing liberalism the adopted
3:46:15 criterias of good and bad justice
3:46:17 equality from post marxists which are
3:46:20 more down the equality side of things
3:46:23 than uh
3:46:24 is more equality focused and liberalism
3:46:26 is
3:46:26 um and
3:46:29 leads to certain issues because then
3:46:31 when they then re-evaluate the islam
3:46:33 through that lens um they're even uh
3:46:36 they're even more
3:46:38 dissonant with isla islam in conflict
3:46:40 with islam than even when they were if
3:46:42 they were liberal in the first place so
3:46:45 um because post marxism that that's the
3:46:47 kind which would argue things like
3:46:49 gender as a construct
3:46:51 and so to impose any particular
3:46:53 expectation on an individual such as a
3:46:56 gender is an oppression of them you're
3:46:58 oppressing them you're confining them
3:46:59 into a
3:47:01 pre-pre-thought-out role which is not
3:47:03 their choice
3:47:04 uh they can choose to identify whatever
3:47:06 they want because identity is a social
3:47:08 construct people can control whatever
3:47:10 identity they want and that is post
3:47:12 marxism or the work workness so
3:47:16 whenever of course there's also marxist
3:47:18 critiques of liberalism which is
3:47:20 critiquing um capitalism uh done from
3:47:22 the marxist perspective
3:47:24 um some of it is is accurate but uh but
3:47:27 it it's factual claims about liberalism
3:47:29 yes but when it makes um
3:47:32 value judgments about liberalism you
3:47:35 can't you must be very careful these are
3:47:37 not value judgments from the islamic
3:47:39 framework these are value judgments from
3:47:41 its own framework
3:47:43 yeah but then again you don't really
3:47:45 need to read uh books about liberalism
3:47:48 uh unless you're talking about like
3:47:49 books on economics or books on on
3:47:51 sociology examining the kind of reasons
3:47:53 for depression in society reasons for
3:47:55 suicide rates reasons for obesity these
3:47:58 gives you factual problems with
3:47:59 liberalism
3:48:00 the psychologists will talk about how
3:48:02 people's
3:48:03 desires are manipulated by mass media to
3:48:06 be anorexic believe they'll they'll give
3:48:08 you the factual problems with liberalism
3:48:10 but because they just view it as a is it
3:48:13 just a part of society and so they're
3:48:15 making social com social observation
3:48:17 that's facts but when you get books that
3:48:20 say and here's why liberalism is wrong
3:48:22 or evil or bad or way
3:48:25 from which criteria are you judging is
3:48:27 it your marxist criteria your post
3:48:29 marxist criteria your liberal criteria
3:48:32 your conservative well not liberal but
3:48:33 maybe social liberty or libertarian
3:48:35 criteria or conservative criteria these
3:48:38 are not criteria that we can accept as a
3:48:40 means for judgment we must look at it
3:48:42 solely from the lens of islam
3:48:44 yeah there's also another one
3:48:48 i was going to say there's another good
3:48:49 book which talks about the interaction
3:48:51 of liberalism with the muslim world
3:48:53 called islam in liberalism by joseph
3:48:56 masad
3:48:58 he's a christian arab but he sort of
3:49:00 critiques
3:49:01 how the western liberal world
3:49:05 tries to otherwise uh the muslims and
3:49:07 sort of tries to justify its own
3:49:09 position by appealing to
3:49:12 the barbarity of the east uh and he
3:49:16 discusses this and he talks about the
3:49:18 19th century colonization
3:49:21 uh as well so there's lots of things
3:49:23 there but i think
3:49:25 as abdullah said is that you have to
3:49:26 have a grounding within islam because
3:49:28 our critique of liberalism is not just
3:49:32 a critique that comes you know as a
3:49:35 simple you know looking at the internal
3:49:38 problems but rather it's a critique that
3:49:40 looks at the internal problems the
3:49:42 incorrect justifications
3:49:44 but also from an islamic lens as well
3:49:50 some people uh again because muslims
3:49:53 view ourselves from the west within the
3:49:55 western lands and view it from the
3:49:57 western lands
3:49:58 um they say that the those who oppose
3:50:00 liberals are conservative muslims and
3:50:02 some even think yeah i'm a conservative
3:50:03 muslim it's like no you shouldn't be a
3:50:05 conservative muslim you should be a
3:50:07 muslim right we're not here to conserve
3:50:09 anything in particular uh we're here to
3:50:12 if required society required might might
3:50:14 need change muslims only needs change to
3:50:16 uh upon the dean of islam the prophet
3:50:17 muhammad
3:50:20 didn't come to mecca to advocate just
3:50:22 conserving the status quo or the culture
3:50:25 of the society and he advocated
3:50:27 something that was a change okay
3:50:29 ultimately it was going back to the
3:50:31 original
3:50:32 beliefs of ibrahim but basically
3:50:35 it was changed he brought change to to
3:50:38 the the arabs in arabia so we're not
3:50:40 here to conserve
3:50:41 um just because we're not here to be
3:50:44 quote unquote uh conserving traditions
3:50:46 but rather we're only here to advocate
3:50:49 to to the the word of allah and the
3:50:52 teachings of the rasoolallah
3:50:54 if that requires change so be that
3:50:56 requires keeping something which is
3:50:57 which has um which meets the ideal then
3:51:00 we'll conserve the ideal it doesn't
3:51:01 matter our roles aren't static what is
3:51:03 static is our ultimate aims
3:51:06 yeah
3:51:07 for that so right now we're gonna go to
3:51:09 rick rick you've been waiting for a
3:51:10 while i'm sorry but we want to just move
3:51:13 a bit faster right now so i'm gonna ask
3:51:14 for like all three of us myself brother
3:51:16 of the luxury to keep our answers as
3:51:18 short and concise as possible and then
3:51:20 we're gonna move on to danny right after
3:51:22 that so um so yeah please go ahead rick
3:51:25 introduce yourself and ask your question
3:51:27 hey uh hi
3:51:29 you hear me
3:51:30 yep
3:51:31 uh yeah i wanted to thank abdullah al
3:51:34 andaluci for the concise and precise
3:51:37 presentation he did at the beginning
3:51:40 uh thank you for that and uh i wanted to
3:51:42 ask directly a question to be quick
3:51:45 within islam there is this concept of
3:51:48 being me
3:51:50 and
3:51:51 i wondered so you were talking about
3:51:53 tolerance earlier and i was thinking
3:51:55 that there is tolerance within islam
3:51:59 within this contract of the me right
3:52:03 because one can uh subtract oneself from
3:52:06 the
3:52:07 sharia law to a certain extent within
3:52:10 islam
3:52:11 through the the me uh status right
3:52:18 uh do you mean answer or shreef go
3:52:21 because i spoke last
3:52:23 uh i was it was
3:52:28 okay
3:52:29 um all right then so some people say
3:52:32 uh so the me uh means a person under
3:52:34 covenant you could even say it means um
3:52:37 a contract citizen so they make a
3:52:39 contract with the
3:52:40 islamic state or
3:52:42 a caliphate which is
3:52:44 the successor ship to the prophet
3:52:46 muhammad sallallahu sallam's role as a
3:52:48 political leader
3:52:50 so um
3:52:51 i often say that muslims are actually
3:52:53 subjects of the in the caliphate not the
3:52:55 caliph but to allah allah who is the
3:52:56 king
3:52:58 and the khalifa is his executor um
3:53:00 executing the rules from the quran of
3:53:02 sunnah
3:53:03 but the the
3:53:04 the people who are non-muslims are
3:53:06 actually the only citizens of the states
3:53:08 um beca and their their
3:53:11 relationship with the state is one of a
3:53:12 contract right
3:53:14 so it's not about um being tolerant for
3:53:16 tolerance sake it's more like um the
3:53:20 islamic islamic law doesn't require
3:53:22 people who haven't professed to be
3:53:24 muslim
3:53:25 from implementing or
3:53:27 islam because what benefit would it do
3:53:30 to them uh to uh it's not gonna get them
3:53:32 closer to god if they reject god's
3:53:34 revelations all right so now they're
3:53:36 going to get closer to god just by um
3:53:38 following islamic law it wouldn't
3:53:40 wouldn't serve any particular purpose
3:53:42 but what would what would be the case uh
3:53:44 would be that um as long as there would
3:53:46 be an agreement whereby as long as they
3:53:48 don't in essence attack and kill muslims
3:53:51 in an islamic governance um the muslims
3:53:54 that they would have their religion
3:53:56 their culture uh their practices guarded
3:53:58 by the muslims the muslims would
3:54:00 basically protect them and their um
3:54:03 their them following their religion and
3:54:05 following their beliefs and so on so
3:54:07 forth so in that's that's basically that
3:54:09 now
3:54:09 uh someone once asked me does islam
3:54:12 believe that then christians on jews and
3:54:14 zoroastrians and
3:54:15 whoever have a right uh so there's a
3:54:18 show to give them a right to follow
3:54:19 their religion it's more like um china
3:54:22 doesn't give a uh gives a prohibition
3:54:24 for muslims to interfere
3:54:27 in their religion i mean
3:54:29 someone who no one has a right to reject
3:54:32 god's commands because then if they did
3:54:34 why would god punish them for it god
3:54:36 couldn't punish someone who has a right
3:54:37 to reject his commands right which is
3:54:39 why religious liberalism likes to say
3:54:41 that everyone could be saved because why
3:54:43 would god punish people
3:54:44 for for having a right for fulfilling
3:54:46 their right of to to reject him i say no
3:54:49 no you don't have a right
3:54:51 to reject god you have a respite
3:54:53 to reject god as he believes god at
3:54:56 least didn't have a wasn't given a right
3:54:57 to reject god he was given a respite to
3:55:00 it so god wouldn't punish him there and
3:55:01 then
3:55:02 so likewise
3:55:03 uh non-muslims and islamic governance
3:55:06 they would basically be um the the the
3:55:09 it would be the case that muslims would
3:55:11 be
3:55:12 would be prohibited from interfering in
3:55:15 their religious life um and from uh
3:55:18 forcing them to do anything uh which
3:55:21 they don't want to do muslims would be
3:55:23 prohibited that's what it that's what
3:55:25 happens um so it's not like
3:55:29 it's more like um
3:55:31 that we uh muslims have muslims have no
3:55:35 right to interfere with uh their life
3:55:37 and they reduce life until
3:55:39 those amongst them profess islam and
3:55:41 then they join the muslim community and
3:55:43 are under the obligations and
3:55:45 expectations of islam and within the
3:55:47 muslim community
3:55:49 right so so rick will you just give your
3:55:52 answer and then and then we can move on
3:55:55 to the next guest that would be great
3:55:57 yeah okay uh wouldn't you say then that
3:55:59 the very existence of the possibility to
3:56:02 have a contract that would allow you to
3:56:04 subtract yourself from
3:56:07 believing in
3:56:08 god in god within islam is
3:56:11 like
3:56:12 wouldn't that be some sort of liberalism
3:56:15 within islam a recognition of
3:56:17 individuality and individual desires
3:56:22 no um firstly why doesn't anyone say hey
3:56:26 you know islam prohibits murder
3:56:28 liberalism prohibits murder
3:56:30 marxism prohibits murder fascism
3:56:33 prohibits murder they're all the same
3:56:35 right well no they're not okay just
3:56:37 because they have a similar one similar
3:56:39 aspect to element which they're gonna
3:56:41 probably most likely all have
3:56:43 um it doesn't mean they're all the same
3:56:44 or it's an it's an element or it's a
3:56:46 liberal element in those things it's not
3:56:48 it's just that they all came to their um
3:56:50 they came to the same conclusion on one
3:56:52 thing through the different process for
3:56:54 different means and a different set of
3:56:56 values it's more like a coincidence than
3:56:58 anything else um but
3:57:00 to kind of explain to you is it's not
3:57:02 about in the individual it's it's quite
3:57:05 simply because
3:57:06 uh in islam the
3:57:08 uh the the the akam of islam the the
3:57:11 rules and laws of islam are for those
3:57:13 who basically um have assented to it
3:57:15 believed in it
3:57:17 and um affirmed it gave bayer to the
3:57:19 leader to worship to worship
3:57:22 and uh and worship allah
3:57:24 and maintain maintain that worship in
3:57:27 public not disruptive for the muslims or
3:57:29 the believers and to obey the uh the
3:57:31 leader in the islamic interests
3:57:34 non-muslim who hasn't
3:57:36 subscribed to that hasn't entered into
3:57:38 that kind of a contract
3:57:39 of islam you could say so they're under
3:57:42 so they're not under the conflict of
3:57:43 islam so what are they under then
3:57:44 they're under there has to be some kind
3:57:46 of contract some kind of of promise
3:57:48 and that and it's quite simply they're
3:57:50 under the promise of the contract of
3:57:51 dimma
3:57:53 and as the quran says you know um
3:57:55 they're you know like rafid of course
3:57:57 there's no compulsion in in belief or
3:57:59 religion
3:58:00 because why because truth is clear from
3:58:04 falsehood right so the truth of islam
3:58:06 is clear from false that you you can't
3:58:08 so that doesn't need us to compel
3:58:10 anybody and those who don't want to join
3:58:12 are basically they've chosen to reject
3:58:14 god and their punishment will be um in
3:58:17 the hereafter with
3:58:18 with god it's not for us to punish in in
3:58:20 this life so that's basically it that's
3:58:22 not really a liberal um that's not
3:58:24 really a liberal view um
3:58:26 because liberalism says all all choices
3:58:28 are equally valid um all choices and
3:58:30 hence that's why you have to tolerate
3:58:32 other people's choices uh or beliefs
3:58:34 because they're all equally valid but we
3:58:35 don't believe it's equally valid we
3:58:37 believe that the truth is
3:58:38 uh truth is is uh is not equal with
3:58:40 falsehood right there's quranic verses
3:58:43 let's say that the truth is not equal
3:58:45 with falsehood so that's a very that's a
3:58:47 not liberal way of looking at it but
3:58:49 that's the the true cosmic way of
3:58:51 looking at the way of the creator of the
3:58:52 universe um which made all of us so i
3:58:55 hope that makes sense to you
3:58:56 okay rick thanks a lot for coming on
3:58:59 thank you okay take care
3:59:02 uh danny how are you doing man hey how
3:59:04 are you thanks for having me on
3:59:05 good thanks pleasure very very brief i
3:59:08 know that y'all are
3:59:10 constricted on time but uh
3:59:12 i i guess
3:59:13 is it your position that liberalism as
3:59:16 an ideology is insufficient
3:59:18 uh altogether or are you saying that
3:59:21 um liberals right the way that liberals
3:59:24 think right now like they're that that
3:59:27 that that they have to modify
3:59:29 their view or they would find if they
3:59:30 really take their position to this
3:59:32 logical conclusion they'd find
3:59:34 themselves in a different camp let's say
3:59:36 maybe
3:59:37 in you know in your sort of camp where
3:59:38 you have some kind of theocracy
3:59:40 or like
3:59:42 they might find themselves to be
3:59:43 communist what is it that you're being
3:59:45 critical of exactly
3:59:49 oh i fear i haven't explained myself
3:59:51 very well then if it's not clear what
3:59:52 i'm being critical okay so um theocracy
3:59:56 is a misnomer um if you if you're taking
3:59:58 the greek greek ancient greek ways of
4:00:00 defining things um a theocracy refers to
4:00:02 a state structure like democracy is
4:00:04 meant to be a state structure but now
4:00:06 people use these terms to mean the
4:00:08 spirit of the things so
4:00:10 england is a democracy well it's not uh
4:00:12 it's a monarchy uh parliamentary
4:00:14 monarchy america this is democracy no
4:00:16 it's not it's a republic it's a
4:00:17 republican system very not democracy but
4:00:20 they say i'll be in spirit the people
4:00:22 ruled well in spirit yeah but
4:00:23 structurally no and the greeks used the
4:00:26 term to refer to the structure theocracy
4:00:28 was what the greeks would
4:00:30 refer to as a government by a priesthood
4:00:33 right so governed by those who speak for
4:00:35 the gods
4:00:36 we don't have a priesthood in islam um
4:00:39 islam is open source all muslims can
4:00:42 access and read islamic sources and so
4:00:44 on of course those who actually are
4:00:45 experts
4:00:47 by by pure merit should be listened to
4:00:50 first and obviously uh primarily of
4:00:52 course um but all muslims in theory can
4:00:55 access islam and uh the texts and
4:00:58 discuss it and ask questions about it
4:01:00 and you know
4:01:02 make arguments if they'd like um to do
4:01:03 so but scholars would be more listened
4:01:05 to of course because of their their
4:01:06 superior merit
4:01:08 so it's not a theocracy um if you'd like
4:01:10 a greek term if you to describe the
4:01:12 structure
4:01:13 it would be a democracy not from the
4:01:16 greek word nomos meaning law
4:01:18 right so it's a it's a rule of a
4:01:21 of a set of laws in in text which is the
4:01:24 quran and the teachings of the prophet
4:01:25 muhammad
4:01:27 and so it's the law that rules um not a
4:01:31 priesthood or a or the majority or the
4:01:33 minority
4:01:34 or like an aristocracy or what have you
4:01:37 or a type or an autocracy the one
4:01:39 individual notebook
4:01:41 maybe i can just clarify you think islam
4:01:43 is a solution to society's ills right
4:01:49 so islam is a solution to what sorry to
4:01:51 society's ills right now right
4:01:53 liberalism as seems like it's in place
4:01:55 it's not addressing society's ills
4:01:57 you're saying islam is the solution
4:01:59 better better than whatever the liberals
4:02:02 are pushing or whatever the ideology may
4:02:04 say
4:02:04 that's what i that's all i meant by
4:02:06 theocracy i might not be using the term
4:02:08 right
4:02:09 i don't care about how i'm i want to use
4:02:11 i want to just want to communicate my
4:02:12 point that you think islam um
4:02:14 solves the issues here
4:02:16 um i think it's it's it solves um the
4:02:19 problems and the need and provides for
4:02:22 the needs
4:02:23 of humans
4:02:24 throughout the globe of humanity not
4:02:27 just any particular society but humanity
4:02:29 itself
4:02:29 right now now now my question the the
4:02:32 gut of my question is do you think
4:02:33 something like the ideology of
4:02:35 liberalism
4:02:36 is the sort of a necessary condition for
4:02:38 that or do you think it should be
4:02:40 totally displaced
4:02:44 um well i'd say that for those for
4:02:46 people who then who embrace islam um the
4:02:49 their only recourse the only basis for
4:02:52 uh their entire world view will be islam
4:02:55 it won't be anything else it can't be
4:02:56 anything else
4:02:58 but
4:02:59 then this would mean of course that
4:03:01 obviously as muslims we are we're
4:03:03 bearing witnesses to mankind our job is
4:03:05 to bear witness to mankind to to the one
4:03:07 god and to the worship of the one god
4:03:09 worship meaning we follow the rules
4:03:11 morals and ethics laid out by god
4:03:13 because there is nothing else there is
4:03:15 no other measure of good and bad there
4:03:16 is no other good and bad except with
4:03:17 relevance to
4:03:19 our purpose and our purpose cannot be
4:03:20 provided by the creator so
4:03:22 uh so this is basically the you know the
4:03:25 aim of muslims is two uh we we are
4:03:28 calling the world to the mankind to the
4:03:30 worship of the one god and um following
4:03:33 uh god's laws for us to organize us and
4:03:35 also give us purpose and direction and
4:03:37 actually specify how we fulfill our
4:03:38 purpose
4:03:40 that's basically what we're calling to
4:03:41 so we would call all the world to islam
4:03:44 it's not only
4:03:45 that reflects the truth behind the
4:03:47 cosmos itself and human purpose but also
4:03:50 within its teachings and rules and laws
4:03:52 um provides contentment although well
4:03:54 you could say the most optimal system
4:03:56 not a utopia but the most optimal system
4:03:59 for free-willed creatures
4:04:01 that can organize their instincts into
4:04:03 non-self-defeating self-destructive or
4:04:05 mutually contradictory
4:04:06 um
4:04:08 activities goals and actions that's what
4:04:11 we're advocating
4:04:13 i see i don't know how much air time i'm
4:04:15 allowed i know there's a long list of
4:04:17 people but i guess my position is that
4:04:19 seems like liberalism is a necessary
4:04:20 condition for an ideal society and here
4:04:23 i'm just going to define ideal society
4:04:25 where everyone's desires in accord with
4:04:27 each other's okay basically there's no
4:04:29 tension with respect to the subjects
4:04:32 participating in society right and that
4:04:34 that's i think of a good working
4:04:36 definition it seems like uh there needs
4:04:38 to be for that to happen there can't be
4:04:40 any coercion right um at least amongst
4:04:43 the individuals themselves everyone's
4:04:44 desires are an accord now if there's no
4:04:47 coercion that means everyone's free to
4:04:48 some extent um they're uncoursed and
4:04:51 that what they do and how they operate
4:04:53 in society and to me elite liberalism it
4:04:56 seems to be just about that so i take
4:04:59 liberalism to be a necessary condition
4:05:02 for the ideal society perhaps not the
4:05:04 sufficient condition but i would i just
4:05:06 don't think to if we're looking at what
4:05:08 liberal liberals are doing today right
4:05:10 they might be i might agree with you
4:05:12 they're they're contradicting themselves
4:05:14 left and right you know they're talk
4:05:15 they're screaming climate change but
4:05:17 they don't want to reform capitalism
4:05:19 right that that kind of stuff i i get
4:05:20 that but i think as an ideology if it
4:05:22 all it is that we want to we want
4:05:25 uncoerced individuals in society right
4:05:27 it seems like that that's necessary for
4:05:28 the ideal society as i defined it
4:05:31 um i i suggest you speak to some
4:05:33 libertarians they'll tell you that we're
4:05:34 in a nightmarish coerced society right
4:05:37 now america united states america itself
4:05:39 the by their definition um the state has
4:05:42 overstepped all bounds and controls the
4:05:44 minutiae of its citizens lives in the
4:05:47 united states of america everything is
4:05:49 regulated in the united states by your
4:05:50 local government by your regional
4:05:52 government the state government or by
4:05:53 the federal government even your house
4:05:56 has to be tidy i went to america when
4:05:57 someone said there's a local ordinance
4:05:59 or local ordinances your house must be
4:06:01 tidy otherwise you get fined and even
4:06:03 when you're doing your own house you get
4:06:04 fined for um this is this is you're
4:06:07 actually quite a heavily coerced society
4:06:09 on many many
4:06:11 issues yeah that's the paradox right
4:06:13 that's the paradox the liberals are
4:06:15 you've just been told yeah you've just
4:06:16 been told that it's not coercive but but
4:06:18 see the thing is the paradox
4:06:20 what you fail to see is that the the
4:06:23 creed itself produces the paradox once
4:06:25 you apply it
4:06:27 right it contains the paradox you start
4:06:29 out with the parallel you say if every
4:06:31 one of you
4:06:33 yes yes you said that if everyone's uh
4:06:35 what desires are on the chord it reminds
4:06:37 me of something i used to say i i did a
4:06:39 debate in 2010 uh with a liberal
4:06:42 it was the president of the american
4:06:43 atheists or something it was um
4:06:45 it was a kind of organization called the
4:06:47 american atheist not he was the
4:06:48 president of all the american atheists
4:06:50 anyway um and i said that liberalism is
4:06:53 a really really good ideology just not
4:06:55 for humans
4:06:57 right maybe a b angel because angels uh
4:07:00 we believe their desires are in are all
4:07:02 unified and in accord with they only
4:07:04 want to worship god they only want to
4:07:06 follow the truth and they can never
4:07:08 actually exercise any free world to do
4:07:10 otherwise right so maybe it's for them
4:07:12 you can give them freedom because
4:07:14 they'll only ever do what they are meant
4:07:15 to do anyway but not for humans humans
4:07:18 these fickle crazy creatures which want
4:07:20 to one-up each other manipulate each
4:07:22 other extort control
4:07:24 um to
4:07:26 to to be selfish and then to make an
4:07:28 ideology that gives them the permission
4:07:31 and even the encouragement to be selfish
4:07:33 selfishness is good
4:07:34 causes these problems that we see the
4:07:36 ones i've been enumerating throughout
4:07:38 this entire um kind of you know uh
4:07:41 podcast um i i sense you're trying to
4:07:44 say that maybe it's current day liberals
4:07:46 um no
4:07:47 maybe by way of an analogy i can explain
4:07:49 myself because i don't feel like i'm
4:07:50 being understood let me just take islam
4:07:52 right if someone said that islam should
4:07:53 be uh should be thrown out as an
4:07:55 ideology that it's false right and they
4:07:57 cite the way muslims behave they point
4:08:00 at saudi arabia and they point at
4:08:02 afghanistan and at the taliban and say
4:08:04 look at what these people believe are
4:08:06 doing right look at the the particulars
4:08:08 right
4:08:09 of these people that hold the ideology
4:08:11 you see i don't think you and i would
4:08:12 agree that's not a very good argument
4:08:14 against islam right i'm just afraid that
4:08:17 what you're doing to liberalism is the
4:08:18 same thing right that there are liberals
4:08:21 out there right that don't don't know
4:08:23 that make strong criticisms of the
4:08:25 system but yet they support the very
4:08:27 pillars of the that make up the system
4:08:29 and which they're which causes all these
4:08:30 ills of society right so i'm the the the
4:08:33 opening question i had for you is that
4:08:35 art which one are you being critical of
4:08:36 are you are being critical of the
4:08:38 ideology or what the liberals are doing
4:08:41 no no he's
4:08:42 you might have joined a bit late because
4:08:44 i mean what what what brother abdullah
4:08:45 and sharif and and we were all doing is
4:08:47 critiquing directly the ideology and its
4:08:49 philosophical underpinnings from the
4:08:51 very roots so it wasn't just the the you
4:08:53 know
4:08:54 the the i don't know when you joined but
4:08:56 yeah sharif you might wanna yeah
4:09:00 so one second there's a technical
4:09:02 problem here um my my feed is showing
4:09:04 twice on the screen there's like um
4:09:06 there's there's two
4:09:07 three one to loosen
4:09:10 up
4:09:12 okay yeah
4:09:13Laughter 4:09:19 right so i was just going to say danny
4:09:21 uh i think the issue is this is that
4:09:24 what we're saying is on the one hand
4:09:26 there's a criticism about the
4:09:29 the actual liberal ideology itself some
4:09:31 of the presuppositions that it's built
4:09:33 upon
4:09:34 second thing is that the problems that
4:09:36 we're seeing
4:09:37 within the world today we're saying is a
4:09:40 manifestation of the application of
4:09:43 liberalism it's not just the fact that
4:09:45 liberalism has not been has been
4:09:48 incorrectly applied but rather it
4:09:50 manifests in problems one and two
4:09:53 there's an inherent contradiction in
4:09:55 terms of being able to apply this on a
4:09:58 societal level and so we brought up
4:10:01 various examples of some of these
4:10:03 inherent contradictions and that's why
4:10:05 you always have this tension between
4:10:08 authority
4:10:09 state and the individual like for
4:10:11 example there's a whole debate over
4:10:14 should the authority define for people
4:10:16 to wear masks or not you know and
4:10:18 there's this tension that's taking place
4:10:20 because people are saying or some people
4:10:22 are saying no this is against our
4:10:24 individual rights individual freedoms
4:10:26 and on the other hand they're saying
4:10:27 yeah but what about the collective
4:10:28 rights of all individuals within society
4:10:31 and henza you have this inherent
4:10:33 tensions between the two
4:10:36 all right thanks for answering my
4:10:38 question i don't want to take away from
4:10:40 other people in line um thank you
4:10:42 thanks for coming on danny you can re
4:10:44 you can raise your criticism if you want
4:10:46 unless you're busy it's not a problem
4:10:49 i saw the laws here as well now okay
4:10:51 well as long as i'm allowed um
4:10:53 i guess the the way i define liberalism
4:10:56 is is simply um utilizing the notion of
4:10:59 individual individual rights to create a
4:11:02 society where it's fundamental or
4:11:03 fundamentally there's no coercion and it
4:11:06 seems like there is a there is a giant
4:11:08 failure
4:11:09 um
4:11:10 but it doesn't i i just don't see how
4:11:13 um the the ideology entails failure
4:11:17 um it seems like liberals are just going
4:11:19 at it the wrong way
4:11:22 i don't know if assad allah wants to
4:11:24 come in or abdullah sorry i think the
4:11:26 the definition itself is a little bit
4:11:28 problematic hello definition itself is a
4:11:31 little bit problematic because in order
4:11:33 to ensure individual rights there has to
4:11:34 be coercion at some level
4:11:37 i don't is there is there a
4:11:38 contradiction
4:11:39 there it seems to be a definition
4:11:41 because in order for law to actually
4:11:43 even be
4:11:44 to manifest itself some form of coercion
4:11:46 has to be
4:11:47 i don't think that's true there are all
4:11:48 sorts of weird laws for where i live
4:11:51 that no one you know that no one
4:11:53 disobeys and that's not coercing them
4:11:56 well there's always the possibility of
4:11:57 coercion though right
4:11:59 well that's going to be true in any in
4:12:01 any case yeah well that's the point
4:12:03 that's going to be true under islam
4:12:05 right i think the way the point is is
4:12:06 that uh well just because i i'm sure of
4:12:09 what the criticism is right i i don't
4:12:11 think liberals are going to say that
4:12:12 there's going to be necessity with
4:12:14 respect to um if we try to employ
4:12:17 liberalism that they're you know that
4:12:19 we won't get coercion i mean the
4:12:21 question's always going to be a
4:12:22 possibility as long as we're talking
4:12:23 about subjects right in any system yeah
4:12:26 but danny you're not just going to get
4:12:27 the possibility coercion you're going to
4:12:29 get coercion
4:12:31 that you have prisons you're very fact
4:12:33 that you have prisons you have prisons
4:12:34 in your society
4:12:36 yes yes many so
4:12:38 coercion
4:12:40 yeah but you're saying that that follows
4:12:41 from the ideology of of liberalism
4:12:44 rather than just a missile because
4:12:46 because you can't because you can't have
4:12:47 a situation where everybody can exercise
4:12:49 that free choice
4:12:51 okay is there that's a contradiction
4:12:52 then you're saying there's a
4:12:53 contradiction
4:12:55 yeah there is a conflict can everybody
4:12:57 exercise their free choice
4:12:59 that's possible yeah
4:13:01 so everybody can exercise their free
4:13:03 choice to the point where
4:13:04 one person's choice doesn't have any
4:13:06 impact upon another yeah i don't see the
4:13:08 logical issue with just that statement
4:13:10 itself
4:13:11 i mean is it just about exercising your
4:13:13 choice or is it about exercising your
4:13:15 choice so long guys your choices don't
4:13:17 you know conflict with you know other
4:13:19 people's uh choices
4:13:22 rights i guess so i guess
4:13:24 i mean just to be a bit more charitable
4:13:25 to the view i i i don't i don't think it
4:13:28 has to be like this absolute you know
4:13:30 logical contradiction
4:13:32 yeah i in the sense that yeah well what
4:13:34 that what is prioritized
4:13:36 is
4:13:37 is is basically freedom of choice and
4:13:40 and and vigil riots but yeah i guess
4:13:42 that doesn't have to mean that there
4:13:44 won't be any kind of restrictions on on
4:13:47 what you get to do what you don't get to
4:13:49 do because you're you're
4:13:50 basically your
4:13:52 expression of of your own uh you know uh
4:13:55 right on your own yeah see danny what it
4:13:57 sounds like to me is that everybody has
4:13:59 the same ideas
4:14:01 well well not necessarily the same ideas
4:14:03 but they have the same goal right now
4:14:05 let me agree with you to some extent
4:14:07 it's especially about this this is true
4:14:09 i think where religious people get
4:14:10 things right um i i think where the
4:14:12 liberal goes wrong and where i agree
4:14:14 with them is to the extent that i think
4:14:15 that
4:14:16 this kind of individual rights uh
4:14:18 freedom all this stuff that's necessary
4:14:20 but not a sufficient condition for the
4:14:21 ideal society i think what religious
4:14:23 belief can do is make go beyond that hey
4:14:26 so society's not just about getting what
4:14:29 you want in an uncoerced way it's about
4:14:31 being part of a community it's about
4:14:34 caring about the other right and i think
4:14:36 that one of the one of the um criticisms
4:14:38 of liberalism is saying hey yeah you got
4:14:40 it right to a certain point but we need
4:14:42 to we need to go past the idea that it's
4:14:46 not just about being anything just sorry
4:14:48 let me stop you there for a second
4:14:49 because i don't think it's just that i
4:14:50 think so i think both liberalism and
4:14:53 like other other uh ideologies i think
4:14:56 they would value both in one way or
4:14:58 another both the individual and the
4:14:59 society it's kind of
4:15:00 it's more about which one you prioritize
4:15:03 which one you consider yeah i wasn't
4:15:04 clear i think it's i think yeah you're
4:15:06 right there but i think that what's
4:15:08 missing in lib the liberal ideology is
4:15:11 having the standpoint of
4:15:14 going from the individual i think it's
4:15:15 just a lot of emphasis on the individual
4:15:17 and less emphasis on how you see the
4:15:19 other
4:15:20 um uh but i think you can only so you
4:15:23 can't have it both ways i think you you
4:15:25 either i think you either start with the
4:15:27 with with society as your foundation
4:15:29 with a human as a social animal where
4:15:31 you consider the society more than you
4:15:33 consider the individual as the
4:15:35 fundamental building block of the
4:15:36 society or you you take that
4:15:38 individualistic approach where well it
4:15:40 is the individual that matters and the
4:15:43 society is more of a secondary concern i
4:15:45 don't think you can so so i think and i
4:15:47 think whichever path you take is going
4:15:49 to have its implications now i think
4:15:51 much of the arguments presented here
4:15:54 were to basically try to demonstrate
4:15:56 that if you do take that individualistic
4:15:58 approach you're going to end up with
4:15:59 serious problems uh on on the social
4:16:02 level on the societal level where you
4:16:04 know your prior where your
4:16:06 prioritization of such a you know what
4:16:08 we would call a hyper individualistic
4:16:10 approach
4:16:11 basically is going to come at the
4:16:13 expense of what we think are more
4:16:16 fundamental and essential aspects of
4:16:18 human well-being that necessarily come
4:16:21 at the societal level not
4:16:24 i see so that's where islam comes in is
4:16:25 that it's not simply about the
4:16:27 individual it's about the other right
4:16:29 yeah and it values the individual so
4:16:30 islam values the individual as well and
4:16:31 it's going to place restrictions on the
4:16:33 individual as well right i mean in the
4:16:34 same way liberalism values the
4:16:36 individual which doesn't have to mean
4:16:38 that they're not going to be any
4:16:39 restrictions on the individual the
4:16:40 question is you know
4:16:42 the the
4:16:43 what kind of restrictions you're going
4:16:45 to place on the individual based on
4:16:47 which of these two systems you're going
4:16:48 to prioritize whether you prioritize
4:16:50 that social well-being the well-being of
4:16:52 society versus you know the uh the
4:16:55 well-being of the individual
4:16:57 and on that basis the well-being of the
4:16:59 of of society so i mean i i think there
4:17:02 are serious implications to to to
4:17:04 whichever of these two paths you take
4:17:06 and what we would propose is that that
4:17:08 you know that individualistic approach
4:17:10 has serious harms that uh you know
4:17:14 uh islam
4:17:15 wouldn't would be able to evade
4:17:17 yeah i guess to close up my point
4:17:19 because i think i'm sympathetic to
4:17:21 what's being said the idea is that
4:17:24 on liberalism it it
4:17:26 the emphasis is just we want uncoerced
4:17:28 individuals that's that of course we
4:17:30 want free individuals but that kind of
4:17:33 misses
4:17:34 the the sort of overarching what is the
4:17:36 goal of of the individuals and plural
4:17:39 what the the the um the community right
4:17:43 the idea is that when i see a pic of a
4:17:45 piece of trash right um am i going to be
4:17:47 thinking about oh well that's our
4:17:49 responsibility to pick up the trash or
4:17:51 rather than just in terms of is it my
4:17:53 responsibility or is that my problem but
4:17:55 um no i i i see where this is going i
4:17:58 just think that there's a lot of
4:18:01 liberals out there that are fairly
4:18:02 inconsistent with their views i i mean i
4:18:03 i pointed that out earlier someone go
4:18:05 back to listen but yeah i i guess i
4:18:07 guess from the islamic viewpoint and one
4:18:08 of the others can come in it would kind
4:18:10 of be the other way around that you know
4:18:12 what you do value or what you do
4:18:13 prioritizes is the well-being of society
4:18:16 and i mean individuals are part of
4:18:18 society and you know as a secondary but
4:18:21 very important concern also
4:18:23 the uh well-being
4:18:25 of individuals and you know also we
4:18:27 don't want individuals to be coerced
4:18:29 into any beliefs or to any uh they need
4:18:31 to have their uh
4:18:33 rights as well but that shouldn't come
4:18:35 at the expense of
4:18:36 society i i so i i don't know maybe
4:18:38 brother abdullah he's
4:18:40 he can give some closing remarks uh
4:18:43 about this and then we can move on
4:18:45 and as a doula as well obviously he's
4:18:48 only just come on inshallah of course of
4:18:50 course
4:18:51 okay well um
4:18:53 i'll let uh i'll let uh abdullah speak
4:18:55 after me but as i said allah
4:18:58 i'd like to answer that
4:19:01 um sorry sorry dennis you're in joke
4:19:04 people um
4:19:05 can't tell us apart apparently um
4:19:07 everyone's racist when it comes to
4:19:08 portuguese and spanish people we all
4:19:09 look alike to them and we all we're all
4:19:11 related as well
4:19:13 so
4:19:14 anyway um yeah but i started live my um
4:19:17 cousin brother in islam and um janus
4:19:20 project
4:19:21 clone anyway um
4:19:23 so
4:19:25 right so um to to really kind of answer
4:19:28 you what you're what you're you've said
4:19:30 firstly um
4:19:31 as we intimated before it's liberalism
4:19:34 itself as an ideology
4:19:35 um the more you could say i don't know
4:19:38 if you could say a pure form was applied
4:19:40 before but let's just say um
4:19:42 a form a classical form of liberalism
4:19:44 was applied in 19th century and it and
4:19:46 it led to problems which failed and led
4:19:48 to the evolution of liberalism 2.0
4:19:51 otherwise known as social liberalism the
4:19:53 current liberalism as that is usually
4:19:55 today
4:19:56 that had about um two different
4:19:58 amendments to it um what one was like
4:20:00 more um
4:20:02 uh was
4:20:03 like
4:20:04 in you know it as a new deal i suppose
4:20:06 in the united states of america um after
4:20:08 the great depression um but now you have
4:20:11 um more problems coming up with it and
4:20:13 now there's like a third wave of
4:20:15 social liberalism um
4:20:17 such that talks about trans rights or
4:20:20 talks about um
4:20:21 gender identity and um identification of
4:20:25 you know the are you uh should we
4:20:28 uh uh should we basically um sorry
4:20:31 should it should it be the case that you
4:20:32 like gender pronouns are or are
4:20:34 honorable people have to choose what
4:20:35 particular pronouns to be called is it
4:20:37 discrimination if you don't use people's
4:20:39 particular pronouns so these are
4:20:41 different discussions are happening um
4:20:43 currently within the more modern forms
4:20:45 of liberalism
4:20:46 um but
4:20:47 to rewind everything back we need to
4:20:49 really ask the question so you you said
4:20:51 you want an uncoerced society or
4:20:53 unquestioned individuals
4:20:54 um so presumably that means individuals
4:20:57 who live in a society without coercion
4:20:58 well um that literally doesn't exist
4:21:01 unless you're a hermit on an island and
4:21:02 you live by yourself and everyone wants
4:21:04 to live on islands all by
4:21:07 uncoerced themse
4:21:08 but if they live in anarchy well the
4:21:10 stronger gangs gangs would foreman gangs
4:21:12 would start oppressing people if they
4:21:14 live in in any kind of government the
4:21:16 government coerces uh has to coerce
4:21:18 which is what it was already said
4:21:20 so the your only possible meaning i
4:21:23 could i could um garner from what you
4:21:25 said is that you you wish that
4:21:26 individuals
4:21:27 um had let's say the maximum amount of
4:21:30 possible choices they could possibly do
4:21:32 or the maximum amount of um
4:21:34 of uh
4:21:35 uh actions they could possibly do uh up
4:21:38 to the limit of physically harming the
4:21:40 other um or affecting everybody else now
4:21:43 if you go with just physical harm only
4:21:45 physical harm
4:21:47 and that's the only limit just as long
4:21:48 as you don't physically harm anyone do
4:21:50 as doubt wilt right well that leads to
4:21:53 certain problems because
4:21:54 in the 19th century they discovered that
4:21:56 yeah you'll be totally free uh to starve
4:21:59 to death because the mass corporation
4:22:02 the massive conglomerates take out all
4:22:03 the resources concentration of wealth
4:22:05 was worse than it is today much worse
4:22:07 than it is today um the bilderbergers
4:22:09 the rothschilds we're talking about the
4:22:11 one percent owning 80 percent of the
4:22:13 wealth in the united states of america
4:22:15 uh truly nightmarish um and that it just
4:22:18 didn't work right so you can't be free
4:22:20 if you're dead basically because you're
4:22:21 malnourished you're you don't have
4:22:23 access to healthcare and your um your
4:22:25 factory manager treats you like like
4:22:27 trash um and treats you as disposable
4:22:29 with no safety limits because you're
4:22:32 ultimately disposable and um your labor
4:22:35 is undifferentiated as a non-skilled
4:22:36 worker so
4:22:38 that they saw those exploitation so
4:22:40 classical liberalism failed in the 19th
4:22:43 century and they brought a new version
4:22:45 um social liberalism uh instead of equal
4:22:48 equality under the law it was equal
4:22:49 opportunity now
4:22:51 for everybody
4:22:52 um that's the liberals that we have
4:22:54 that's the liberalism that we have today
4:22:56 but now the problem is um if it the they
4:23:00 started to look at they started to
4:23:01 notice that people affect each other
4:23:03 without physically harming each other
4:23:05 you know so being a noisy neighbor um
4:23:08 uh being like
4:23:09 being harassing
4:23:12 in europe it's preaching hate uh quote
4:23:15 unquote whereas america they don't
4:23:16 really care so much uh at least under
4:23:18 the law anyway your first amendment
4:23:19 stops that from
4:23:20 from uh hate speech quote unquote like
4:23:22 racism uh from being outlawed um but as
4:23:26 i mentioned before um we have things
4:23:28 like um you know uh if someone was to
4:23:31 buy property uh or a piece of land that
4:23:34 you used to maybe play with in as a kid
4:23:36 you can no longer walk in that
4:23:37 property's private property you'll limit
4:23:38 your your freedom is limited um if
4:23:41 twitter wants to or youtube wants to ban
4:23:43 you from its platform stare property
4:23:46 they can do that right and you can't do
4:23:48 anything at all because you don't have a
4:23:49 right
4:23:50 um against them there's so many things
4:23:52 that people can do to limit your choices
4:23:54 to limit your life and to limit what you
4:23:56 can do and to deprive you um
4:23:59 if you want to talk about freedom why
4:24:00 not give everyone the freedom to take
4:24:02 cocaine if they like you know it's not
4:24:04 physically harming
4:24:05 um other people
4:24:07 by your own personal choice oh but then
4:24:09 it is because when you're
4:24:11 when your drug out of mind wants more
4:24:13 drugs you're going to do some crazy
4:24:15 crimes to get that drugs right oh and
4:24:17 that's a problem because it leads to
4:24:19 consequences so what i'm saying is that
4:24:23 to live in a with the idea that hey as
4:24:26 long as we don't hurt we don't punch
4:24:28 each other
4:24:28 let's all live um we can all live
4:24:30 together let's just get along as they
4:24:33 say right um it's very idealistic
4:24:35 because it just ignores human reality
4:24:37 and people are willing to kill each
4:24:39 other to fight each other why do they
4:24:42 kill each other why did they finally
4:24:44 fight from sadists serial killers why do
4:24:47 people
4:24:48 in a society where they know that they
4:24:49 could go to prison
4:24:51 why do they want to kill each other at
4:24:53 times why are they motivated to fight
4:24:55 and to steal and to
4:24:58 molest and all this stuff it's because
4:25:00 they're trying to fulfill their desires
4:25:01 maybe someone wants to kill someone
4:25:03 because that person disrespected them
4:25:05 slept with their girlfriend who they'd
4:25:06 spent 10 years with and given everything
4:25:08 to and they got so angry they killed
4:25:10 their girlfriend and her lover and they
4:25:12 are unrepentant because for them living
4:25:14 a life as a cuckold was worse it was a
4:25:17 worse disrespect for them than living a
4:25:19 life um
4:25:20 uh then living life in jail for example
4:25:23 people have different priorities of what
4:25:25 they want if you think they can all
4:25:26 agree with each other somehow or if you
4:25:29 think that um
4:25:31 if everyone was was given was told your
4:25:33 purpose is to follow whatever you want
4:25:36 and that's the key to your happiness and
4:25:38 what they want
4:25:39 isn't sociable right
4:25:42 um or leads to
4:25:44 anti-social um consequences like you
4:25:47 know mcdonald's and its advertising
4:25:49 campaign leading to one in three
4:25:50 americans being morbidly obese
4:25:53 uh you being perhaps the minority that
4:25:56 like not the the not normally obese but
4:25:59 um saved from that but you know these
4:26:01 fast foods are cheaper
4:26:02 some people are too poor to afford
4:26:04 healthy food why is healthy food so
4:26:06 expensive now only the rich people
4:26:07 although moderately rich can afford
4:26:09 healthy food now that the cheap food is
4:26:11 this fast food stuff that makes people
4:26:13 sick and poisons them
4:26:15 but as long as it's consensual hey no
4:26:17 problem this is the problem of
4:26:19 liberalism it doesn't understand human
4:26:21 nature it doesn't understand uh the law
4:26:23 of unintended consequences it doesn't
4:26:25 understand that we affect each other um
4:26:27 indirectly more than we affect each
4:26:29 other directly and that the indirect
4:26:31 effect will lead to direct effects such
4:26:34 as poisoning such as obesity such as
4:26:37 manipulation um taking people's money
4:26:40 and when they're poured because they go
4:26:41 to gambling shops because they've
4:26:42 offered a false hope of riches or maybe
4:26:45 just getting inciting them into violence
4:26:47 signing them into
4:26:49 into hate because uh you've you've hurt
4:26:52 them in a way you've offended them in
4:26:53 such a way that to live without that
4:26:55 offense being answered
4:26:57 um is worse to them than going to jail
4:27:00 liberalism has no answer to these things
4:27:02 liberalism has no you you've programmed
4:27:04 people not you particular but liberalism
4:27:07 programs people to desire just uh
4:27:10 just what whatever the random randomness
4:27:13 occurs in their heart and their hearts
4:27:15 can be manipulated
4:27:17 by a society by the advertisers what if
4:27:19 you are if you do psychology at
4:27:21 university i'm not sure if you do it
4:27:22 psychology of the university if you do
4:27:24 it you've got two main career routes one
4:27:26 as a psychotherapist or psychiatrist the
4:27:28 other
4:27:29 in advertising
4:27:31 right
4:27:32 so that's the issue um people if so my
4:27:36 question to you really is
4:27:38 what
4:27:39 do peop what do you want um liberalism
4:27:41 to achieve um what do you want to be
4:27:44 achieved by giving people uh the ability
4:27:47 to do
4:27:48 whatever they want short of physical uh
4:27:51 conflict because any your answers that
4:27:53 question
4:27:54 will show you uh we'll raise the
4:27:57 contradictions that you um that we have
4:27:59 highlighted that fulfilling the goal
4:28:01 that people are seeking leads to
4:28:03 self-defeating
4:28:05 uh self-destructive lifestyles and or
4:28:07 mutually destructive lifestyles uh
4:28:10 indirectly if not even directly that's
4:28:13 that's our criticism of liberalism and
4:28:15 our advocacy of islam in this matter is
4:28:18 that islam simply organizes human
4:28:20 instincts
4:28:21 and the satisfaction of the basic human
4:28:23 instincts of human beings into a
4:28:26 consistent
4:28:27 harmonious way both for the individual's
4:28:29 own life as well as how the individual
4:28:31 lives with other people so that they are
4:28:33 fully satisfied
4:28:34 um but they do they are satisfied in
4:28:36 ways that aren't self-destructive or
4:28:38 mutually destructive to their their
4:28:40 fellow neighbours and ultimately fulfill
4:28:42 a higher purpose of which it's all about
4:28:44 in the first place
4:28:46 yeah i i i guess so danny i'm going to
4:28:48 let you uh uh you know respond to that
4:28:51 if if i can um if i can just say because
4:28:54 i think what danny would say and then he
4:28:56 correct me if i'm wrong is that you
4:28:57 agree with the criticisms but your your
4:29:00 point is that well
4:29:01 you could you could take that you know
4:29:03 core aspect of uh uh
4:29:06 you know liberalism which is like
4:29:08 individualism and you know individual
4:29:10 rights and basically uh uh implement it
4:29:14 in a way
4:29:15 that would be more conducive to the
4:29:18 broader societal aspects that we
4:29:21 need as well so
4:29:23 you you're just saying that you know
4:29:26 this this individualistic approach
4:29:28 doesn't have to entail these problems
4:29:31 it can result in in something that's
4:29:34 more uh towards the ideal yeah i i guess
4:29:37 very two things i want to say first of
4:29:39 all i think liberals have failed us i
4:29:41 think they haven't correctly identified
4:29:43 the problem society namely the um the
4:29:45 consequences of capitalism right they
4:29:48 they they decry all these ills of
4:29:50 society like climate change and whatever
4:29:52 and then they fail to dismantle the very
4:29:54 thing that's causing these ills of
4:29:56 society uh and the second thing is that
4:29:59 it seems like for me liberalism is all
4:30:01 about um
4:30:03 uh
4:30:04 maintaining uncoercion having uncoerced
4:30:07 individuals it seems like if that's what
4:30:09 the ideology is about uncoursed
4:30:11 individuals it doesn't do enough to get
4:30:13 at what we should do in society because
4:30:16 if someone gets hit by i don't know
4:30:18 if there's a natural disaster right
4:30:20 there that that kind of that kind of
4:30:23 disaster right that wasn't um because of
4:30:26 any kind of societal structure but what
4:30:28 is the imperative on me to care about
4:30:30 that i'm not do no one's um coercing
4:30:33 these individuals but they're in need
4:30:35 right if i maintain this individualistic
4:30:37 approach that i should only care about
4:30:38 you know my individual rights my
4:30:40 individuality right that that doesn't
4:30:42 get me to i should actually kind of
4:30:44 contribute to to the aid of these people
4:30:47 right and i think that that's my
4:30:48 criticism of liberalism where i side
4:30:51 with liberalism is that it seems like
4:30:53 it's a necessary condition though it's
4:30:54 that for the ideal society we want to
4:30:56 get rid of coercion we won't we don't
4:30:58 want uncoerced individuals and that
4:31:00 that's that's my point
4:31:02 so maybe just a lot before you leave
4:31:04 danny
4:31:06 i don't want to bring you in maybe you
4:31:07 could just you know give a final remark
4:31:09 there and then
4:31:11 yeah
4:31:12 well you know
4:31:14 i think a lot has been already said but
4:31:16 the whole idea about
4:31:17 uncoerced individuals and individualism
4:31:20 itself like for me it's it's it's
4:31:22 problematic because the society as far
4:31:24 as i'm aware
4:31:25 is what really defines the individual
4:31:27 and what i mean to say is that
4:31:29 uh when you have a society where people
4:31:31 have their own thoughts their own
4:31:32 behaviors it's really all defined by the
4:31:33 values of the society prior the one that
4:31:36 they grow up in right i mean so
4:31:39 the boundaries that they see
4:31:41 or the constraints that they see
4:31:44 um are all created by society and the
4:31:47 the
4:31:48 what is it the the scope of being an
4:31:50 individual is even defined by the
4:31:52 society
4:31:53 so what you can and cannot do what is
4:31:54 that like you know yeah so many people
4:31:56 will not go out and kill people well
4:31:58 that's because they have been raised
4:32:00 within a society where it's normative
4:32:02 not to go around wanting to murder
4:32:03 people right and that's part of their
4:32:05 individual identity but an individual
4:32:07 does not define society society defines
4:32:09 the individual so what i have a problem
4:32:11 with liberalism is generally speaking is
4:32:14 like
4:32:16 and not just liberals within liberalism
4:32:18 but also conservatives
4:32:20 is that um
4:32:23 liberalism appears to me to be purely
4:32:25 reactionary
4:32:26 and it doesn't have any sort of
4:32:27 foundational principles
4:32:29 other than
4:32:31 sort of passing on
4:32:33 societal arbitrary societal expectations
4:32:37 um that's generally what i see so like
4:32:39 for example in a democratic
4:32:42 uh or theo democratic society you know
4:32:44 we have
4:32:46 certain moral values and constraints
4:32:47 upon people based in law
4:32:50 um and based on a sort of transcendent
4:32:53 source and you said that this is one
4:32:54 thing that religion gets right
4:32:56 in many respects is that uh
4:32:59 uh
4:33:00 at least that's what i recall you
4:33:01 stating and but within a liberalistic
4:33:04 society these values can change at any
4:33:06 point in time based on the majority
4:33:08 based on the sentiments of all the
4:33:10 individuals within that society
4:33:13 so yeah i mean that's my only biggest
4:33:16 that's my main contention with
4:33:17 liberalism and also i just find
4:33:19 individuals to be a very superficial
4:33:21 term to use because i just don't see how
4:33:23 you can actually have something called
4:33:24 individualism i understand that there
4:33:27 are individuals with more or less
4:33:29 constraints within society but
4:33:32 i don't think there's such thing as
4:33:33 individualism per se
4:33:35 because society is what defines the
4:33:36 individual
4:33:37 same way as a family
4:33:39 defines the individual members within
4:33:41 its structure
4:33:42 it's it's just it's impossible to have a
4:33:44 purely individual
4:33:46 person here's my closing remark then my
4:33:48 closing remark i promise you i'm gonna
4:33:50 be done right i'm just saying that what
4:33:52 when we i distinguish between an
4:33:53 individual in society in terms of
4:33:54 obligation take the natural disaster
4:33:56 right i just i just got hit by hurricane
4:33:59 ida right i had a lot of neighbors that
4:34:00 were in need right
4:34:01 uh do i have a legal any kind of
4:34:03 obligation to help them right it seems
4:34:05 like if i don't help them i'm not
4:34:06 coercing them to do anything
4:34:08 right i think where
4:34:10 par what i when i my remark about
4:34:12 religion getting something right is that
4:34:14 what religious belief uh religious
4:34:16 communities do is that they incorporate
4:34:18 they see themselves as having this goal
4:34:21 of we're here for for each other right
4:34:23 so when there is a natural disaster it's
4:34:25 in the name of allah the name of jesus
4:34:27 that i help you because you're one of us
4:34:28 you're a brother right and i'm saying
4:34:30 that a lot of the secular aspect of
4:34:32 liberalism right has kind of failed with
4:34:34 respect to that attitude okay and but
4:34:36 i'm saying that i think that attitude
4:34:38 could be reached without religious
4:34:39 belief i'm just saying that y'all got it
4:34:40 right first i think
4:34:42 um but
4:34:43 uh those are my closing remarks i think
4:34:46 that's a good point and i think the
4:34:47 reason is because liberalism itself
4:34:49 secular liberalism is like i said is
4:34:51 reactionary it's reacting to something
4:34:53 right it's reacting to what a
4:34:54 monarchical
4:34:56 if we're talking about the european
4:34:57 sense the monarchical religious
4:34:58 structure
4:34:59 right that's what it's it's a complete
4:35:01 reaction so it doesn't have its own
4:35:03 foundational principles to tell people
4:35:04 we need to get together and you know
4:35:06 love each other and do this stuff right
4:35:07 it's all about just trying to oppose
4:35:09 another system and that's where it came
4:35:11 from so i think that's a very that's a
4:35:12 massive problem that's why liberalism
4:35:14 can never really
4:35:16 get anywhere because it's always going
4:35:17 to be reacting to something freeing
4:35:19 itself from something else without
4:35:20 actually establishing something to be
4:35:22 freed to
4:35:24 um thank you for your time i think i'm
4:35:26 going to take my lead now thanks a lot
4:35:28 thank you thank you
4:35:29 appreciate that
4:35:31 yeah i just as i wanted to also make a
4:35:34 quick point in regards to this i think
4:35:36 uh
4:35:38 i think there was a motivation i i think
4:35:40 at the beginning of our show we talked
4:35:42 about you know that you need to really
4:35:43 understand the historical development of
4:35:45 liberalism or liberal secular capitalism
4:35:48 in order to really appreciate what it is
4:35:50 uh because otherwise it comes across
4:35:52 quite vague
4:35:53 the motivation from my understanding was
4:35:55 the fact as assad allah has mentioned
4:35:57 abdullah mentioned it was a reaction to
4:36:00 the authority of church and state and
4:36:02 how they were sort of seen as as one
4:36:04 thing
4:36:04 yeah or the at the very least
4:36:07 those in positions of power were
4:36:09 legitimized by the church and therefore
4:36:11 there was this sort of totalitarian type
4:36:14 of regime that controlled
4:36:16 people's lives in a way that was
4:36:18 perceived as unjust and irrational and
4:36:21 other types of problems uh that resulted
4:36:24 within christian western europe
4:36:26 uh however when they developed you know
4:36:29 a a new outlook they developed a new
4:36:32 outlook by saying okay nobody should
4:36:35 restrict an individual except the
4:36:37 individual's choice themselves so that
4:36:39 the individual should choose there
4:36:41 should be no external power then they
4:36:43 also argued that what is it that
4:36:45 motivates the individual to perform the
4:36:47 action well what motivates him is
4:36:49 gratification of his sensual desires now
4:36:53 that might differ from one individual to
4:36:55 another individual so everybody should
4:36:57 be able to pursue whatever makes them
4:36:59 happy there should be no restrictions in
4:37:01 origin so they came across it's not just
4:37:04 the fact that they were looking at no
4:37:06 coercion they were saying human beings
4:37:08 are motivated by this desire to be happy
4:37:11 they explained what happiness was and
4:37:13 then they said that differs for
4:37:14 different individuals and so therefore
4:37:16 we need to create a system a society
4:37:19 that sort of
4:37:20 seeks to maximize this individual desire
4:37:24 to achieve whatever makes them happy
4:37:27 in whatever way
4:37:29 and then from that came their moral
4:37:31 political economic and social uh
4:37:33 structures
4:37:34 from that perspective and so it i don't
4:37:37 think it was just simply
4:37:39 a lack of coercion that defines
4:37:42 liberalism i think there's there's more
4:37:44 to it that defines uh liberalism and
4:37:47 it's going to be inevitable that when
4:37:49 you have people who have different
4:37:51 desires of what makes them happy then
4:37:53 you're going to have to have
4:37:54 restrictions and this is what
4:37:56 you know the idea of you know
4:37:58 jean-jacques rousseau talked about when
4:38:00 he talked about the natural rights of
4:38:01 man and when it comes to
4:38:03 interacting in social societies and
4:38:05 whether discussion about social contract
4:38:07 the relationship between the individuals
4:38:09 and the state and state and the
4:38:10 individuals
4:38:11 uh or you know as i mentioned earlier
4:38:13 john stewart mills essay of liberty how
4:38:15 to prevent majority dictatorships all
4:38:17 these types of things they all sort of
4:38:19 flow from that perspective that there is
4:38:21 going to be conflict there is going to
4:38:23 be differences between one individual to
4:38:26 another individual within a community
4:38:28 and that inevitably there's going to be
4:38:30 restrictions
4:38:31 and so then how do you manage those
4:38:33 types of restrictions you're going to
4:38:34 have to have some sort of coercion
4:38:37 within the state yeah you know so
4:38:40 i think that uh just before we go ahead
4:38:43 no i was gonna say
4:38:44 going back on that reactionary point you
4:38:46 know it's very similar to atheism
4:38:48 right you know just it doesn't really
4:38:49 have anything to offer just having
4:38:51 everything to destroy
4:38:52 and liberalism if we look at the history
4:38:54 of liberalism it's praxis
4:38:56 across the board regardless of
4:38:58 interpretation states have not lasted
4:39:00 that long whereas traditional societies
4:39:01 have lasted for thousands of years
4:39:03 i mean islam islamic societies
4:39:05 regardless of their change of shifts in
4:39:06 power at least a system of values and
4:39:09 and the structure itself has lasted for
4:39:10 1400 years
4:39:12 in the very least you know uh but you
4:39:14 know liberal societies are still
4:39:16 all are actually always in their infancy
4:39:18 because they're constantly going through
4:39:18 these revolutionary processes where they
4:39:21 constantly shifting not even just the
4:39:23 people in power but the very structure
4:39:25 of the government itself
4:39:27 where it's just like it's no longer even
4:39:28 recognizable um and like i said it's
4:39:31 always going to be fighting something
4:39:32 else because that's the point that's
4:39:33 what liberalism is in its essence is to
4:39:35 react to something to free itself from
4:39:38 some sort of you know perceived
4:39:39 oppression it must always have a an
4:39:41 enemy in order to be relevant
4:39:45 and uh as i say about atheists you know
4:39:47 um you know one of the biggest evidence
4:39:49 against atheism and adult knows this as
4:39:50 well i say this all the time is that
4:39:52 they don't build civilizations they just
4:39:54 destroy them
4:39:56 yep yep so
4:39:58 yeah
4:39:59 yeah and it's that link is interesting
4:40:01 right between between uh liberalism and
4:40:04 and and atheism i mean it's it's it is
4:40:08 very interesting because um
4:40:10 well i mean i mean the idea really is
4:40:12 that sharif was saying earlier that well
4:40:15 as uh on a secular or non-theistic
4:40:18 worldview
4:40:19 it kind of does make sense to take that
4:40:21 individualistic approach and build upon
4:40:24 it
4:40:24 uh even though you know we're not really
4:40:27 entirely sure about that because maybe
4:40:28 even from within the secular society
4:40:29 liberalism might might fail and danny
4:40:32 seemed to agree with us about that just
4:40:34 before we move to abdul and he's been
4:40:36 waiting for a very long time uh
4:40:38 vandalist thank you for your super chat
4:40:39 what's the difference between
4:40:40 individualism and liberalism just very
4:40:42 roughly individualism is the ideology
4:40:44 that basically
4:40:45 focuses
4:40:46 on the moral value and you know
4:40:49 importance of individual freedom and
4:40:50 individual rights and liberalism is an
4:40:53 ideology that's founded upon
4:40:56 individualism and aims to basically uh
4:40:59 uh uh
4:41:00 implement an individualistic uh uh
4:41:03 system in society brother abdullah i
4:41:06 might have butchered that so if you want
4:41:07 to add anything to that that that's okay
4:41:10 you want to add anything there
4:41:14 okay so uh abdul sorry for keeping you
4:41:16 waiting for so long
4:41:18 uh please go ahead with your question
4:41:20 salaam alaikum
4:41:36 okay
4:41:37 so last
4:41:40 guest
4:41:42 about one second sorry one second uh
4:41:44 let's okay you can you can stay on here
4:41:46 shay cause abdul i'm not sure what
4:41:49 abdul are you there
4:41:51 hello
4:41:53 can you hear me yes we can hear you
4:41:58 oh i'm finally on
4:42:01 yeah yeah man sorry for keeping you
4:42:03 waiting for so long
4:42:22 yeah i just came here to say i love
4:42:24 abdulrah
4:42:26 i love you
4:42:27 oh okay
4:42:28 thank you bro
4:42:29 i have a poster of you in my
4:42:33 okay that's pretty weird
4:42:35 okay now you have 24 hours to live
4:42:38 yeah
4:42:40 okay okay let's just pretend that didn't
4:42:43 happen
4:42:46 hello can you hear me
4:42:48 yes near you all right hey what's up
4:42:50 guys
4:42:51 um
4:42:52 yeah um so i had a question about well
4:42:55 it's basically rehashing the same
4:42:56 question which we're just talking about
4:42:59 renegotiating the social contract
4:43:01 between the individual and the state and
4:43:04 but i i wanted to pick on something um
4:43:07 this brother said just a few minutes ago
4:43:09 about atheism and
4:43:11 this whole ideology that comes from the
4:43:13 west
4:43:14 well for me um
4:43:16 if i say if i want to put liberal in a
4:43:18 really
4:43:19 quick nutshell i would say like life
4:43:22 liberty individual freedom
4:43:24 bodily autonomy and things like this has
4:43:26 gotten really popular in the west
4:43:28 so i feel like these are the things that
4:43:30 are the good things that came out of the
4:43:32 west and
4:43:33 this idea of liberalism
4:43:35 so i feel like when we're saying
4:43:37 oh this liberalism is like
4:43:40 it's like a serpent that's eating his
4:43:42 own tail you know it's going to eat
4:43:43 itself up
4:43:44 um
4:43:45 but i was throwing out the baby with the
4:43:47 bathwater and like chucking away all
4:43:49 these ideas that came with the
4:43:51 enlightenment age
4:43:53 and this whole analytical philosophy
4:43:55 that purely the west credits
4:43:57 should get the credit
4:43:59 um yeah so could you like unpack
4:44:02 whatever i said a bit thanks
4:44:09 who wants to go first go for it
4:44:12 you're unmuted
4:44:14 um if you guys want a little bit more
4:44:17 for me to say to like narrow it down i
4:44:19 can
4:44:21 shake do you think that islam muslims or
4:44:24 islam doesn't have this idea of
4:44:27 life that islam didn't value uh
4:44:30 individuals to be able to
4:44:32 to choose within the paradigm of islam
4:44:35 or that islam
4:44:37 have its concept of rule of law
4:44:39 no i definitely think it did because
4:44:42 islam flourished and
4:44:44 starved i would say
4:44:46 without liberalism so that was the
4:44:48 golden age of islam when europe was in
4:44:49 the dark ages
4:44:51 so i do think that islam did do a lot
4:44:54 without liberalism but i'm saying
4:44:57 is are we saying that islam can't do any
4:44:59 more any better
4:45:01 yeah yeah definitely i think
4:45:03 i think islam can do a lot better or
4:45:06 isn't the same caliphate model when
4:45:08 we're thinking about
4:45:12 an islamic state or an islamic
4:45:15 social contract
4:45:17 yeah so yeah obviously whatever you know
4:45:20 some people call it the khilafah some
4:45:22 people call it amara you know the actual
4:45:24 particular term for the islamic
4:45:26 political system there's different
4:45:28 there's different uh
4:45:30 any uh
4:45:31 uh terminology with the even within the
4:45:33 sunnah of the prophet sallallahu alaihi
4:45:35 we'll send them
4:45:37 that's a whole topic in and of itself
4:45:38 you know what is the
4:45:40 the islamic political economic social
4:45:42 model yeah so it's a deep uh subject
4:45:45 area and it's a subject area that's been
4:45:46 written extensively by the class
4:45:49 like yeah imam jaweni he wrote his uh
4:45:52 his work already
4:45:54 in which he talked about the political
4:45:56 authority cardio
4:45:58 he talked about
4:45:59 uh
4:46:01 a sultania imam morwadi also had a
4:46:03 similar book at this uh early scholars
4:46:06 like cardio uh
4:46:09 or you had a imam mohammed shaiban he
4:46:12 talked about
4:46:13 uh
4:46:14 uh
4:46:15 you know in terms of foreign policy and
4:46:18 some of the rules related to that so
4:46:20 yeah there's there's a there's a whole
4:46:21 welfare of some heavy stuff man yeah
4:46:24 what's that sorry another like this is
4:46:26 some heavy stuff i really have to like
4:46:28 look it up and stuff so i was just
4:46:30 hoping that if you could just tell me
4:46:32 that
4:46:33 yeah um yes there needs to be a
4:46:35 renegotiation of the social contract
4:46:38 because you can't expect it to be the
4:46:39 same as it would be
4:46:41 let's say the ottoman empire that uh the
4:46:45 uh the duties and the responsibilities
4:46:47 of an individual
4:46:48 would be the same as
4:46:50 if you could point me a point in history
4:46:52 where
4:46:53 the state would expect the same from the
4:46:55 individual or if not it would be
4:46:57 different
4:46:58 do you see what i mean
4:46:59 yeah but i think the problem i think to
4:47:02 be honest the problem that i sense is
4:47:05 uh
4:47:06 we're not really you know i'm saying
4:47:08 just collectively as muslims generally
4:47:10 because we don't study this particular
4:47:12 topic of
4:47:13 uh the political system of islam or the
4:47:16 societal aspects of islam that we
4:47:18 somehow seem to think that islam
4:47:21 doesn't have or doesn't carry within
4:47:24 itself legislation that deals with a lot
4:47:27 of the problems for example i'll give
4:47:28 you an example um we have a lot of
4:47:31 corruption in the muslim world
4:47:34 and you have corruption that place takes
4:47:36 place within businesses marketplaces
4:47:39 there's corruption also within political
4:47:41 office
4:47:42 and
4:47:43 you know maybe many muslims don't
4:47:44 realize but you know the judiciary is
4:47:47 split into three because three types of
4:47:49 uh judges within islam or uh court
4:47:52 system so one one of them is the general
4:47:53 court system party am which is where it
4:47:56 has a sitting uh you have to go
4:47:59 to a particular port which is in session
4:48:00 bring whoever's a plaintiff brings it up
4:48:03 etc yeah and then you have uh also
4:48:05 another one which is called the cardi um
4:48:09 yeah or the cardi
4:48:11 uh so this is a a a judge that deals
4:48:15 with corruption that takes place within
4:48:16 the marketplaces or business
4:48:18 businesses it's like an ombudsman who's
4:48:21 able to investigate so even if a
4:48:23 complaint's not brought forward he's
4:48:25 able to engage in investigation as to
4:48:27 whether this is some practices taking
4:48:29 place and then we have a third type of
4:48:31 judge uh or court system called the
4:48:33 pardon
4:48:36 which is the court of understands and
4:48:38 that's related to those people in
4:48:40 positions of power and officials now
4:48:42 they again they have the right to
4:48:44 independently investigate if there's any
4:48:45 abuses of power that's taking place but
4:48:48 also ordinary citizens of that uh
4:48:51 society are able to go to that judge and
4:48:54 he's able to file a complaint and
4:48:55 petition against maybe somebody who's in
4:48:57 a position of authority so you know
4:49:00 here's an example uh of uh you know
4:49:03 aspects of judiciary that we're not
4:49:05 really taught about and it's not really
4:49:07 fundamentally implemented anywhere
4:49:09 really in its comprehensive sense within
4:49:11 the muslim world and so when we see
4:49:14 corruption we think okay we need to go
4:49:15 outside of the islamic paradigm and
4:49:18 outside of islamic jurisprudence in
4:49:19 order to try to solve this issue yet
4:49:21 there may be some new realities but
4:49:24 again if there's new realities like the
4:49:27 scholars of the past used to do they
4:49:28 used to perform which they had in each
4:49:30 they had is a process of deriving the
4:49:32 rules
4:49:33 from the islamic text
4:49:35 in order to derive what they understand
4:49:37 to be the hukum of allah the ruling of
4:49:40 allah upon the particular issue
4:49:42 so i don't think we need to go to any
4:49:44 foreign ideologies in order to try to
4:49:46 look for solutions uh when we've got all
4:49:49 this wealth of knowledge and uh
4:49:51 information within our own uh islamic
4:49:54 jurisprudence and classical scholarships
4:49:55 and we also have the capability area
4:49:57 much day-to-day scholar of each ad has
4:49:59 the capability to go back to the primary
4:50:01 text in order to derive
4:50:03 new rulings
4:50:05 on certain issues
4:50:07 um yeah actually that makes a lot of
4:50:09 sense now i'm sorry that i'm not aware
4:50:12 of much of these islamic texts that
4:50:14 you're speaking of because i'm mostly
4:50:16 like like studying in europe and stuff
4:50:20 no i understand and to be honest to be
4:50:21 fair it's a sad reality is is because uh
4:50:24 we've been without islam as a sort of a
4:50:28 system or application or civilization uh
4:50:32 for the last you know number of years
4:50:34 over a century now
4:50:35 that because of this
4:50:37 there is there hasn't been
4:50:40 there hasn't been a desire to
4:50:42 really thoroughly study this topic area
4:50:46 even amongst some of our
4:50:48 you know some of the scholars
4:50:49 contemporary scholars today they don't
4:50:51 really study this type of topic area
4:50:54 in depth um
4:50:56 because you know there's a host of
4:50:58 reasons for that but one of the reasons
4:51:00 was because after the fall of the
4:51:01 uthmaniki rafa it was seen that this
4:51:04 area was no longer
4:51:06 practically applied it's like for
4:51:08 example you know
4:51:10 a solicitor
4:51:11 trying to study the law of ancient greek
4:51:15 uh the ancient greek civilization well
4:51:17 it's no longer practically applied so
4:51:19 they no longer uh study it yeah they may
4:51:22 they may study as a historian but not
4:51:24 nothing to do with practicality whereas
4:51:26 i think what we need to do in order to
4:51:28 revive our uh you know the muslim lands
4:51:30 and revive our understanding of islam is
4:51:32 that maybe we need to go back and start
4:51:34 to study our jurisprudence and study the
4:51:36 text and deal with this issue uh in
4:51:38 order to understand how to apply it uh
4:51:40 in today's age and just as a final point
4:51:42 you know you can go to bukhari you can
4:51:44 go to muslim you can go to the books of
4:51:46 them and they will have like in the
4:51:48 books of hadith they will have a section
4:51:49 called kitab
4:51:51 yeah the book on ruling the book or
4:51:52 kitab
4:51:54 the book of leadership yeah or the
4:51:55 chapter on leadership so they so this is
4:51:58 like well established within the sunnah
4:51:59 when book imam bukhari and muslim around
4:52:02 tiramidi were collecting narrations they
4:52:04 would have
4:52:05 uh you know special categories of
4:52:07 narrations related to ruling and
4:52:09 politics
4:52:11 um yeah so is that what you'd recommend
4:52:14 me to look up um because hadith that has
4:52:17 these rulings
4:52:21 for us laymen it's very difficult to go
4:52:23 to like uh texts like hadith in order to
4:52:26 understand
4:52:27 uh uh rulings here um
4:52:30 why would probably maybe abdullah could
4:52:32 uh i think you know recommend some books
4:52:35 there are some books out there there's a
4:52:36 book called um
4:52:40 for islam so the ruling system of islam
4:52:44 which is a contemporary book written
4:52:45 recently by sheikh dakhideen and the
4:52:48 penny
4:52:49 there's also
4:52:50 a book on economics all right just just
4:52:53 the final point um and then i'm off guys
4:52:56 um so
4:52:57 just what i'm saying uh what i'm getting
4:52:59 the vibe is
4:53:01 um there's nothing
4:53:03 or i'm i think there is nothing or very
4:53:05 little to take in from liberalism and
4:53:07 incorporate it
4:53:08 in our understanding of
4:53:11 uh islam life
4:53:15 so uh first off i think there needs to
4:53:17 be distinction made between western and
4:53:19 liberalism
4:53:21 uh because yeah i think i'm
4:53:24 like using them yes
4:53:26 for example even myself not simply
4:53:29 because i was born in the united states
4:53:30 but
4:53:31 even our ancestors i think ability
4:53:33 agreed to some extent were western
4:53:35 um we just we never adopted liberal
4:53:38 liberties a very recent
4:53:39 ideology in the western tradition
4:53:42 so this idea that the enlightenment for
4:53:44 example even came about as a result of
4:53:46 that i think is also a little bit
4:53:48 uh incr is actually quite
4:53:50 it's erroneous uh because liberalism was
4:53:52 designed during
4:53:54 the period of the enlightenment
4:53:56 uh yeah outcomes like 200 years like
4:53:58 1700s yeah it's still very very very
4:54:01 young and even the contemporary form of
4:54:03 liberalism that we have today is not the
4:54:04 same as it was during the enlightenment
4:54:05 in fact the enlightenment philosophers
4:54:07 would be opposed to a lot of things that
4:54:08 are occurring right now within liberal
4:54:10 states
4:54:10 um i think to a large extent and uh with
4:54:13 regards to philosophy um you know so for
4:54:16 example
4:54:17 analytical tradition obviously
4:54:18 originated long before liberalism
4:54:21 um aristotelian philosophy i think would
4:54:23 mark the beginning of analytical
4:54:24 tradition
4:54:26 um this
4:54:27 most extent
4:54:28 and even like you know idea of
4:54:30 pragmatism which would they say was
4:54:31 developed in you know united states was
4:54:34 reality even william james himself
4:54:36 stated that it's a very ancient
4:54:37 philosophy and ibentania himself was
4:54:38 regarded as a pragmatist by many
4:54:40 academics
4:54:41 so um yeah i don't think liberalism has
4:54:44 much
4:54:46 to say here uh and because i personally
4:54:48 believe it's primarily reactionary
4:54:50 ideology there's no principles from
4:54:51 which it's actually operating off
4:54:54 to produce these things now i do believe
4:54:55 it allows for certain other values and
4:54:58 people and individuals to come in and
4:55:00 develop things and then it takes
4:55:01 you know it takes those people and
4:55:02 incorporates them into the culture
4:55:05 and then utilizes their productivity and
4:55:08 their ingenuity i think that's
4:55:09 definitely the case and i think in many
4:55:11 respects uh certain societies like the
4:55:13 united states in many places in europe
4:55:16 who focus a lot on technology and wealth
4:55:18 and material gain have really sort of
4:55:20 fast-forwarded you know technological
4:55:22 progress
4:55:24 that said that's not unique to
4:55:25 liberalism
4:55:27 um if you even look at the past i mean
4:55:28 there are many societies that were
4:55:30 technocratic
4:55:32 you could even think if you want to talk
4:55:33 about technology in a more you know um
4:55:36 ancient sense
4:55:37 rome comes to
4:55:38 mind you know pretty
4:55:41 pretty well
4:55:42 um
4:55:43 yeah
4:55:45 yeah um
4:55:46 i think i would
4:55:48 uh agree with you but i i wish if you
4:55:51 could just tell me a little bit more
4:55:52 about why don't you think why don't you
4:55:55 like credit the west for uh the good
4:55:58 things that came out of liberalism
4:56:04 um
4:56:05 well
4:56:06 basically
4:56:13 so um
4:56:14 so i think you may you me you kind of
4:56:16 like perhaps misidentified um
4:56:19 the the west is a geographical region um
4:56:23 yeah kind of i i i
4:56:25 think i'm i'm using this one
4:56:27 synonymously so by the west i'm
4:56:29 including the
4:56:30 let's say the philosophy that came out
4:56:32 of america and europe
4:56:34 and uh let's say after 1700s
4:56:39 well i mean you see the philosophy that
4:56:40 came out of europe um like which one um
4:56:43 because then you'd say that you know
4:56:44 marxism um
4:56:46 aspects of chinese marxism um
4:56:48 and the soviet union also these these
4:56:51 ideas uh that yeah
4:56:54 only the good one
4:56:55 they came from the west you know karl
4:56:56 marx is uh european right based in uh
4:57:00 writing most of his writings in england
4:57:01 basically
4:57:03 um so is that included as well i mean
4:57:05 the the thing is is that
4:57:07 if you're talking about technology right
4:57:09 so technology developed by people living
4:57:11 in the west um
4:57:14 sure i mean we can take technology
4:57:16 that's not a problem we took from past
4:57:18 civilizations before us um
4:57:20 that's not a problem at all uh the
4:57:22 material products material products
4:57:24 material learning
4:57:25 facts figures science
4:57:27 um we took from before us and then we
4:57:29 passed on and then europe took from and
4:57:32 continued um
4:57:34 continued uh progressing in these these
4:57:36 fields long before at least 500 years
4:57:38 before they one of the few of them
4:57:40 invented the idea of liberalism that we
4:57:42 know today
4:57:44 so
4:57:44 liberalism really hasn't done anything
4:57:47 that we can take from it right unless
4:57:50 you want to talk about climate change
4:57:51 should we take that
4:57:53 should we take uh you know the rampant
4:57:55 stds or you know um that have been
4:57:58 spread due to
4:57:59 pre-marital sex should should we take
4:58:01 that should we take one in three
4:58:03 morbidly obese people as our something
4:58:06 to to copy i mean i know that some
4:58:07 saudis are giving it run for their money
4:58:09 but
4:58:10 it's americans are still
4:58:12 americans still way ahead in that level
4:58:14 um
4:58:15 so what do we take from their belief uh
4:58:18 maybe uh let's reframe it i want to
4:58:20 reframe this question to make it to make
4:58:22 it maybe make more sense to you
4:58:25 um so you know india and hinduism
4:58:28 hinduism is a number of religions it's
4:58:29 not one but anyway hinduism
4:58:32 the indians historically produced you
4:58:34 know numerical systems advanced
4:58:36 mathematics which was then taken by
4:58:38 muslims at a point in time
4:58:40 so should we say as what part of
4:58:42 hinduism should we take uh what
4:58:44 successful part of hinduism should we
4:58:46 take and adopt as part of islam
4:58:48 of course you'd say well you know the
4:58:50 mathematical systems the the the numer
4:58:53 the numerals these are not part of
4:58:54 hinduism that's just part of the ideas
4:58:56 that people living in quote unquote
4:58:59 india
4:59:00 um developed over centuries that's not
4:59:02 nothing to do with hinduism per se
4:59:04 well yeah exactly so you asking me what
4:59:07 successful things from liberalism shall
4:59:09 we adopt is the same thing as asking me
4:59:11 what successful things of hinduism
4:59:12 should be adopt considering that there's
4:59:14 nothing really successful in it
4:59:16 which is unique to it um
4:59:19 yeah
4:59:20 yeah um and in fact nothing to do with
4:59:23 it in fact so yeah science isn't liberal
4:59:26 basically quantum mechanics isn't
4:59:29 yeah yeah i guess you see that the rule
4:59:31 of law or
4:59:33 um like the jurisprudence that um
4:59:36 sharif was talking about it's all
4:59:38 inherent within the islamic
4:59:40 sphere i guess so i guess that's why
4:59:42 you're saying that there's nothing to
4:59:43 take in from there am i right
4:59:46 well um you know what uh maybe i wanna
4:59:48 say something quite surprising but it's
4:59:50 absolutely true um
4:59:52 liberalism doesn't necessarily need
4:59:54 democracy it can also function with an
4:59:56 autograph autocracy actually um as long
4:59:59 as it's the right one right but yeah
5:00:00 they can napoleon bonaparte emperor of
5:00:02 the french
5:00:04 the french still love him today he was
5:00:05 an autocrat but a liberal autocrat so he
5:00:08 you know freedom the press quote unquote
5:00:10 free press and and um
5:00:12 liberal reforms in the in the penal
5:00:14 codes and so on and so forth in front he
5:00:16 did all that by dictat by the way french
5:00:19 love him till today he's a dictator um
5:00:22 literally a dictator you talk about you
5:00:24 know he actually could give dictation to
5:00:26 multiple secretaries at a time quite a
5:00:28 bit of a genius as a human being but um
5:00:31 dictate nonetheless
5:00:32 liberalism can accept that um
5:00:35 you know the some of the american
5:00:37 founding fathers sorry some of the um
5:00:40 some of the you could say curators of
5:00:42 that bringing the idea of liberalism
5:00:43 together like john locke
5:00:45 talked about three different kinds of
5:00:46 governments talks about autocracy talked
5:00:48 about um democracy where everyone votes
5:00:51 but he said that's not practical um or a
5:00:53 type of like you know a type of um
5:00:56 aristocracy or limited government uh or
5:00:58 government by uh above elected
5:00:59 representatives so he's talking about
5:01:01 these different types of government
5:01:03 so you know governed by one person
5:01:04 governed by a few people governed by
5:01:07 everybody right these are the standard
5:01:08 three models of greek understanding of
5:01:11 governments um and he said any one of
5:01:13 them is good any one of them is good um
5:01:15 but he felt he thought in some ways that
5:01:18 maybe um you know autocracy might be
5:01:21 uh susceptible to being subverted
5:01:25 um to being
5:01:26 and people's rights not respected but he
5:01:28 thought maybe they could be an autocrat
5:01:30 can be kicked out of power if he becomes
5:01:31 crazy or something like that
5:01:33 so
5:01:34 there's nothing um what liberals did
5:01:37 liberals not liberalism but liberals did
5:01:39 is they said hey you know what
5:01:40 this particular ruling system that
5:01:42 pre-exists liberalism might be a good
5:01:44 system the republican system might be a
5:01:46 very good system to implement our
5:01:48 ideology
5:01:50 okay a separation of powers is not is
5:01:53 not inherent to liberalism the roman
5:01:55 republic was so complicated the three
5:01:59 strata of society each had their highest
5:02:01 a high court there was like three high
5:02:03 courts in the
5:02:04 uh from the the plebs and the the senate
5:02:07 and you know um all the arrest
5:02:10 aristocrats of some kind three different
5:02:12 courts and they could overrule each
5:02:14 other it was com pandemonium and
5:02:16 confusion but it was it was there was
5:02:19 more separate and distributed powers in
5:02:21 rome than it is in america right now
5:02:22 right
5:02:24 um but the american founding fathers
5:02:26 they just picked they picked systems
5:02:28 that worked in the past um structures
5:02:30 government structures that worked in the
5:02:32 past to implement their ideology of
5:02:34 liberalism and which one do we should we
5:02:36 should we would implement liberalism the
5:02:37 best okay so these things are actually
5:02:40 not part of liberalism it's a common
5:02:41 misconception they think oh you know
5:02:42 liberalism is democracy democratic uh no
5:02:45 it's not um there's a great book uh
5:02:47 called liberalism against popularism um
5:02:50 which highlights the dichotomy between
5:02:52 democracy actual majoritarian rule and
5:02:55 liberalism liberals actually didn't
5:02:56 trust uh real democracy actual democracy
5:02:59 majority rule they didn't trust it
5:03:00 because the majority could take away the
5:03:02 right to the minority
5:03:04 so
5:03:05 um there is absolutely so liberals
5:03:07 looked around in history to look at
5:03:09 structures and things that were done i
5:03:11 said like what can we what would be the
5:03:13 best structure to implement our um our
5:03:15 system in but the system is not
5:03:17 connected to um
5:03:19 liberalism is not connected to these
5:03:21 structures that's so that's a
5:03:22 misconception so that makes sense so as
5:03:24 muslims um you know we can uh when we
5:03:27 when we when we reconstitute the
5:03:29 khilafah inshallah the the caliphate the
5:03:31 successorship to the prophet muhammad
5:03:33 in political ruling um we can look at a
5:03:36 number of different i mean the khalifa
5:03:38 has to be one leader and that that
5:03:39 doesn't change has to be one uh leader
5:03:41 of course
5:03:42 but we can look at numerous structures
5:03:44 um
5:03:45 we know that for example khalif
5:03:47 when um the conquest of the persians he
5:03:49 learned persian accounting and making
5:03:52 departments so he he learned that from
5:03:54 the persian empire just these things are
5:03:56 not related to ideology it's just
5:03:57 related to you know organization it's
5:04:00 how we organize things make them
5:04:01 efficient
5:04:02 um
5:04:06 so we can do that we can have a whole
5:04:08 number of different uh bodies and uh you
5:04:12 know uh
5:04:13 uh mothers
5:04:15 as much as but like you know uh types of
5:04:17 majalis
5:04:19 will be in a hilar system that serve
5:04:22 different functions and what have you um
5:04:24 and all underpinned by the bears of the
5:04:26 khalif not a problem
5:04:28 under a constitution
5:04:30 not a problem um but but that is not
5:04:33 related to liberalism not related to
5:04:35 marxism not related to any particular
5:04:37 ideology this is related to um
5:04:39 government or state structure and what
5:04:41 is the most efficient and
5:04:43 and uh would would make be the most
5:04:46 effective in achieving the goals of the
5:04:48 state as determined by the islamic uh
5:04:51 jurisprudence
5:04:52 does that make sense
5:04:54 um yes it does i was gonna help you
5:04:56 about what do you think about the eu
5:04:58 superstructure that
5:05:00 the west uh europe has made and um
5:05:04 you're gonna have to leave the question
5:05:06 for the end because unfortunately we're
5:05:07 gonna have to end it here now oh yeah
5:05:09 yeah virginia five hours yeah sorry man
5:05:12 i think
5:05:15 yeah thanks for taking my call guys i
5:05:16 appreciate it
5:05:18 i appreciate going on just want to
5:05:19 quickly mention uh
5:05:21 to hasan ibn talha who has become a
5:05:24 youtube member so you know just a
5:05:26 reminder to the audience that you can
5:05:28 support us through
5:05:30 uh becoming a member on our patreon
5:05:33 uh also you know the brothers here
5:05:35 uh you can follow them on twitter on
5:05:38 facebook and abdullah i i heard you're
5:05:40 doing a discussion with uh professor
5:05:43 graham oppy
5:05:46 um yes um
5:05:48 it was a i suppose a debate
5:05:51 stroke discussion um
5:05:53 which uh between me and um professor
5:05:56 graham he's a
5:05:57 a philosopher atheist philosopher or
5:05:59 agnostic philosopher how are we gonna
5:06:01 define it um he specializes in
5:06:03 philosophy of religion currently
5:06:04 um but has a long distinguished history
5:06:06 of the basically debating proofs of god
5:06:08 argument
5:06:08 he was he accepted to discuss
5:06:11 um liberalism uh with with myself uh
5:06:14 inshallah next week uh so it was this
5:06:17 well i suppose this coming week friday
5:06:19 at 11
5:06:21 11 a.m uk time but 8 p.m
5:06:25 australia eastern time because because
5:06:27 he's it's been organized in australia
5:06:29 and he's australian as well
5:06:31 uh so um yeah that'd be that'll be this
5:06:33 coming friday inshallah i mean i know he
5:06:35 specializes more in you know proof of
5:06:37 god arguments and so on and so forth but
5:06:40 he actually wanted
5:06:41 he agreed to discuss um liberalism um
5:06:44 the organizers obviously
5:06:45 um arranged it and uh yeah we'll have a
5:06:48 hopefully a good discussion no it won't
5:06:50 be as long as this
5:06:51 i don't think but um uh certainly uh
5:06:54 it'll be it should be interesting
5:06:56 because he's quite a distinguished
5:06:57 professor and
5:06:59 um obviously i think he knows something
5:07:00 of political philosophy that's not his
5:07:02 specialism per se but certainly he can
5:07:04 discuss ethical issues ethical and moral
5:07:07 issues um pertaining to materialistic or
5:07:09 you say naturalistic systems
5:07:11 um
5:07:12 uh
5:07:13 metaphysical naturalist systems
5:07:15 as opposed to obviously systems which
5:07:17 are theistic
5:07:18 in essence so that'd be quite
5:07:20 fascinating so inshallah um yeah um i
5:07:22 think you should see if you want to find
5:07:24 out the link to access the
5:07:26 accessory you can either my instagram or
5:07:28 facebook or twitter or just type my name
5:07:29 in and find it um
5:07:32 yeah all the all those the
5:07:35 the mcquarrie from pronouncing
5:07:37 university and
5:07:39 muslim student association
5:07:41 um as well but
5:07:43 he can't spell that name query
5:07:45 you can't explore the name of a query
5:07:47 just type my name in and
5:07:48 you'll see my posts and just click the
5:07:50 link
5:07:52 i said delilah you got anything planned
5:07:53 in the next
5:07:55 coming future any articles nothing
5:07:59 going on hamza's then this friday
5:08:03 i am okay maybe
5:08:05 i'm asking i don't know um no uh may
5:08:08 allah facilitate abdullah in his
5:08:10 discussion and
5:08:12 make it beneficial for the community
5:08:14 you know i hope i'm really praying for
5:08:15 you and i respect and uh gramopi is a is
5:08:18 a big influence in philosophical circles
5:08:20 especially among atheists online and
5:08:22 offline
5:08:23 is much bigger influence than you know
5:08:24 your random troll
5:08:26 so you know i think it's very beneficial
5:08:27 for the muslim community to really uh
5:08:30 examine this discussion deeply and to
5:08:32 learn from it
5:08:33 and so please do that and make it viral
5:08:36 when it occurs
5:08:37 and uh inshallah hopefully we'll discuss
5:08:39 it later as for me
5:08:41 i do have some stuff planned um
5:08:44 but you know i'm just not certain when
5:08:46 it's gonna be done so i'm not gonna say
5:08:48 anything
5:08:52 for coming on anyway we want the two uh
5:08:55 andalusians
5:08:58 i want to mention something um so
5:09:01 inshallah
5:09:02 um actually me and actually
5:09:05 are working on
5:09:07 um my kind of my argument from space
5:09:09 time so people have been asking me about
5:09:11 that um i've produced an argument for
5:09:13 argument for god from uh inference uh
5:09:16 from space-time and inshallah that that
5:09:18 is coming along uh it's going through a
5:09:20 quality control process bit bit slow i
5:09:23 do apologize because i had a number i've
5:09:24 got i'm doing i'm teaching a palestine
5:09:26 course at the moment i'm like how to
5:09:27 advocate for palestine and refute
5:09:29 zionism and
5:09:30 there's a few other things um now it's
5:09:32 obviously liberation debate so do i do
5:09:34 forgive me but inshallah is coming along
5:09:36 and obviously allah
5:09:38 is uh it has been um giving me some
5:09:40 valuable assistance with it inshallah
5:09:42 and then hopefully
5:09:44 take some time but hopefully we'll
5:09:46 publish it very soon
5:09:48 one for another
5:09:51 and sure
5:09:52 oh by the way i need to remind i need to
5:09:54 thank everybody for
5:09:56 uh joining our twitter uh thought
5:09:58 adventure podcast twitter
5:10:00 uh we've got two thousand subscribers or
5:10:03 two thousand followers searches off my
5:10:05 favorite before
5:10:06 everybody uh for following us
5:10:08 insha'allah uh
5:10:10 i don't know if you wanna last things to
5:10:12 say abdul rahman or
5:10:14 okay jazakahed for everybody listening
5:10:16 to this mammoth long
5:10:19 session
5:10:21 i said you're about to say something
5:10:22 then no wait i think i think someone
5:10:24 inquired about
5:10:26 um which is where to get his posters and
5:10:28 if preferably signed as well
5:10:39 foreign
5:10:49Music 5:10:52 ah
5:11:12 you

Critiquing Liberalism feat. @AbdullahalAndalusi | TAP #17 (2021-10-04) ​

Description ​

The Hosts: ​

Summary of Critiquing Liberalism feat. @AbdullahalAndalusi | TAP #17 ​

00:00:00 - 01:00:00 ​

01:00:00 - 02:00:00 ​

02:00:00 - 03:00:00 ​

03:00:00 - 04:00:00 ​

04:00:00 - 05:00:00 ​

05:00:00 - 05:10:00 ​