Dutch language

How to pronounce darwinian in Dutch?

Full Transcript

so now I come what I want to learn is
this working
yeah it's working which time very good
very happy to be here first and foremost
I'm very happy to see all those lovely
faces all those it's very diverse for
Amsterdam has a lot of Muslims in there
and from different places of the world
so I'm very happy to be in your
beautiful country in your beautiful city
very clean by the way you know yes it's
a very clean sea we're just kind of
observing things and good infrastructure
lots of things to talk about but to
delve right into the topic now I used to
work as a teacher right and this is how
we used to start every lesson with high
school kids we used to have objectives
so I haven't kind of lost that touch so
got that a little bit these are the
objectives of today right I've got a
laser here so the first objective is to
know the first principles basic history
of liberalism number two is to compare
Islamic traditionalism and obviously
these are all key words right and
liberal contract arianism in particular
I'll tell you what that means as well
and number three is to be able to make a
judgment based on those comparisons now
obviously here when we're doing a
comparative study we're talking about
two things fundamentally we're talking
about similarities and differences so
when we talk about liberalism and Islam
or Islamic traditionalism which will
come to define what we're going to be
doing is we're going to be looking at
not just points of conflict in tension
but we are going to also be looking at
points of overlap and I think that's the
healthy approach some people like the
brother mentioned much I love her very
well I really applaud his approach on
this one some people have this
conversation in a different kind of way
in an apologetic kind of way you know
and that is because as he's mentioned
we're minority groups in this country so
we're asked lots of questions all the
time we're asked about things that
relate to human rights right and human
rights have become a buzzword right very
important you know after 1948 as we'll
come to know the convention the human
convention Human Rights Convention 1948
what the thirty articles have become
almost like Scripture
so questions like you know your religion
is against human rights for X Y Zed
reason and this kind of trajectory that
were introduced to which assumes that we
have to go from the primitive kind of
state that we're in right now and follow
through the European kind of progress
trajectory that the Christians have
already done and we need to now follow
the same kind of you know the same kind
of course and of course there are a lot
of presuppositions and assumptions with
this which we are going to this help but
the first thing we need to kind of talk
about is what is referred to as the
epistemological basis okay of of
liberalism now it's a big word what does
this mean
epistemology is how you get to know
making sense of the world making sense
of making sense of the world basically
how do you know about the world right
when we're talking about the
epistemological basis of liberalism in
particular we're talking about what
grounds liberalism what are the
assumptions of liberalism what are the
first principles of liberalism now what
are first principles generally you can
break something down like for example
this thing here or a mobile phone you
can break it down to smaller constituent
parts okay everything is broken down to
basic parts those are the first
principles of the thing so when we're
talking about the first principles we're
asking if we break liberalism down to
the lowest common multiple if you like
to it's kind of basic building blocks
what are we left with what what is the
foundation by which liberalism is built
on you can't build you know castles on
thin air
can you right I mean I'm sure you guys
know in Amsterdam you've got great
infrastructure you've got incredible
engineers here right so it's about found
eight what are the foundations you know
of liberalism and so to know that you
have to look at the basic philosophy of
liberalism and if you look at that
you'll find that there are some themes
which are consistent and what other
themes are consistent basically if you
look at the works of all the way from
John
who is you could argue the founding
father of liberalism a man called John
Locke you could say he's the founding
father of liberalism all the way down to
John rules who was probably the Martin
last major contributor of liberalism
you'll find that they believe there's
something called the hedonistic
principle now the hedonistic principle
is simple right it's about pain and
pleasure it's as simple as that
they argued that morality should be
premise predicated aligned with pain the
human propensity to pain and pleasure
and the idea was you should maximize as
much pleasure as you can and you should
minimize as much pain as possible this
is the you know the most desirable and
moral way to live this evolved as we'll
find out into something called
utilitarianism which is the literally
the greatest good for the greatest
number the greatest good for the
greatest number so eventually this main
this meant that we are trying to
maximize pleasure for as many people as
possible and we are trying to also by
extension minimize pain for as many
people as possible that's the the model
that's point one number two is you'll be
quite surprised its theology now if you
look at the work of for example John
Locke you'll find that he often time
makes reference to God he says we are
created equal right and remember when he
was writing his major book called the
two treatises of government he was
writing writing it to someone called
Robert filmer and he was arguing using
the Bible so a lot of the things here
and this is an important point and I
want everyone to remember this right a
lot of the assumptions of liberalism
depend upon a theological backing in
other words the fact that we were
created equal
listen to the terminology here you're
created equal that's taken from john
locke it was put into the Declaration of
Independence
it was put into the Constitution's of
major countries like America and France
but it's taken from John Locke
he was a theist he believed in God now
the question is now obviously in Europe
especially Western Europe there's a rise
in atheism but you still find that
atheist politicians used the same kind
of terminology we're equal were born
equal now the question is well John
Locke had got two premise that one he
had God two predicates that on he had
the Bible to go back on but what do you
have now as an atheist how can you prove
as an atheist right on naturalism say or
something else that you are born equal
in fact on naturalism we're not born
equal in fact on naturalism we're
fundamentally unequal why because you
got someone like me who's about six foot
six yes and someone else who might be
much shorter you have black people and
white people you have people who are
born in different geographic places and
have different kind of opportunities as
a result people who are born disabled
blue people who are born conjoined to a
twin people who are born in this way now
naturalistically where is the Equality
here in fact one thing we can guarantee
is inequality even with twins you have
different fingerprints everything on
naturalism is unequal for an atheist
then to say look we're we're born equal
on what basis because actually John
Locke was but arguing using God before
so what are you arguing base basing what
are you basing this on so you know a
straightforward question to an atheist
liberal how can you prove that we're
born equal how you gonna do that
in fact evolution the theory of
Darwinian evolution would tell us and
not just our winni and evolution any
other kind of outgrowth of evolution
will tell us that actually we're not
born equal in fact it's survival of the
fittest that we are we have no tendency
to equality at all in fact we have a
tendency to survival and reproduction so
on what basis are we born equal you see
this discussion
which has now permeated the mass media
and infiltrated almost every academic
circle in the West is predicated on
something which has been dumped away in
the dustbin of history which is religion
for the most part I mean obviously
there's lots of Christian liberals who
can justify this or Jewish liberals who
can say well actually we still believe
in equality but then we go to the Bible
and see what kind of equality does the
Bible talk about seriously that's what
we're gonna have to do now how does the
Bible define equality that's the
discussion now and that was the
discussion by the way that Robert filmer
and John Locke were having in the
beginning they were both making
references to the story of Genesis and
to the Bible and all these things so
what equality do you mean exactly and
that's important now we we talked about
John Rawls this was a guy who was you
know he's a very influential individual
and he came he's one of the he's
probably one of the individuals who
people do their PhDs on now he's one of
the only individuals people still do
their PhDs on in in the liberal thought
he's probably the last one they do that
on he's like in terms of contribution
his contribution was quite big and he's
probably the biggest you know
philosopher in the 20th century in in
Europe and he argued for equality on a
different kind of basis we'll talk about
how he argued for equality but this is
my claim and I'll come back to where I
want you to remember him all liberal
thinkers who argue on the basis of
equality as a first principle either do
so number one religiously as we've seen
with John Locke or number two with
reference and I'm going to use my terms
blatantly here with reference to a type
of mythology and you're gonna say what
are you talking about how can you
substantiate that yes there is such a
thing as liberal myth and we're gonna
uncover and unearth today what we mean
by liberal myth because usually when
sorry to say the white man or let's say
the west
when they use the word myth in circles
or if you look at vernacular Li in the
dictionary
what do you let's be honest what do you
have in your mind when I say myths you
have some Hindu god in your mind you
have Greek gods in your mind that's what
you have in your mind let's be honest
right you might even have Genesis in
your mind you might even have Quranic
images in your mind why because that is
the Orientalist understanding of what a
myth is it's a story of some sorts which
is not substantiated in real history
isn't it so to what extent is liberalism
based on a story which is predicated on
a real history that's an important
discussion we'll come to him so
individualism is another kind of thing
which liberalism I mean not all of
liberalism but a large part of it kind
of promotes and this individualism is
this the idea that human beings know
what's best for them okay so
individualism it literally comes from
individual right that the individual
knows what's best for if you abstract
the individual you take them out of
their social circles and their community
and their country and so on that
individual by themselves is better off
knowing what's best for them and
obviously even now to be honest to be
fair there's a new debate that circling
which is individualism versus
communitarianism now communitarianism
you have people like Michael Sandel
who's right now one of the biggest
scholars in probably the Western world
talking about liberalism and he talks
about communitarianism he says no he
says human beings are not individual in
that way we're all interdependent
communities are actually more effective
than individuals in terms of social
organization so there's a big discussion
now between individualism and
communitarianism it's a new debate
alright so in terms of history to get
straight into the thick of it the
question is when did liberalism kind of
begin so you could say liberalism big
of England and I'm not saying that
because I'm British guy and I'm trying
to enforce my you know history on you it
came out you could say it was around
this time around the 1600s which is
about the 17th century so the mid 17th
century when you had English Civil War
now the English Civil War was a long and
drawn-out kind of war you can look it up
I'm not going into that too much
otherwise I will feel like I'm back in
school
it's and then then then you has a little
bit of Rights not the thing is now here
with the Bill of Rights the question is
the question there all-important
question was to what extent should
government's power be limited and
obviously at this time you had tensions
between the monarchy and Parliament and
we wanted to know what Parliament how
much power should be given to the
sovereign which in this case is
Parliament so John Locke who died in
1706 actually contributed to this
discourse massively because when he
wrote his book the two treatises of
government this was incorporated in to
the Bill of Rights which is a very
important document in English law this
is which was written in 1689 so a lot of
his ideas is what would then become
liberal ideas about you know life
property you know these these important
things that you have to be protected the
protectable 's right so for example life
and property etc that would be
incorporated into the Bill of Rights so
this was a turning point you could say
in the history of liberalism now John
Locke died around 1706 which is the
early 18th century so in terms of
liberalism and its developments you
could argue that it became known really
as a tradition in around the 18th
century which means it's quite a young
tradition in the grand scheme of things
it's about 300 years old so after that
you had the obviously the u.s. founding
fathers and the documents that were
associated with the foul you know the
beginning of the you know the Republic
of United States
and a lot of John Locke's ideas and and
other people's ideas were incorporated
into those documents so once again
liberalism started to become
institutionalized and it became the it
became the slowly it's becoming the
dominant ethic now don't forget religion
was very important at this time as well
but if you look at the the rising
importance of liberalism you'll find
that it coincided with the decline of
enthusiasm about religion so people were
becoming more enthusiastic about
liberalism about an ideology which in
and of itself you don't you couldn't
argue as Abrahamic for example and
religious complexion it was something
different and they're becoming less
enthusiastic about it becoming less
enthusiastic Russia Anna tea you had
someone like Rousseau who was a very
important figure and sorry he died in
1778 obviously this is not an exhaustive
list of you know this is just a
suggestive list to show you some key
points of history we said that the not
only did the USA have an important
impact but France as well because as you
guys know France was founded on these
kinds of ideas as well because of the
Revolution at the French Revolution you
had the American Revolution against the
British he had the French Revolution
against the the bourgeoisie right the
elites and so on a very important
philosopher in the history of liberalism
is Immanuel Kant he could argue really
he was one of the most important
philosophers you could make this
argument in Western history you could
make this argument maybe right after
Aristotle or something he's a very
important figure not only in liberal
thought by an all of Western thought
Immanuel Kant and he gave some
contributions as well as you can see
here this is the time where it's kind of
the Industrial Revolution things are
starting to change here you know steam
changes trains were being invented and
so on so he was at a time where there
was technological developments and so on
then you had John Stuart Mill who was
around in the Victorian era
the sky is important in liberalism and
generally because a lot of the dominant
ethics that we have today especially in
social circles are based on his ideas by
the way and he was way to use a colonial
you know post-colonial term beyond his
time in the sense that he was for
universal suffrage for both men and
women which we don't have a problem with
as Muslims by the way just in case
anyone tries to chuck something at me
right but he was you know the Prophet
Muhammad by the way and Islam they give
you know the Muslims gave baya
men and women gave bayer 1,400 years ago
that's just an interesting kind of
tangential point there where in the year
what 2,000 what we now 2018-19 okay
forget when I'm joking yeah so this was
about 100 years ago that woman could
both men and women can vote okay 100
years ago that's when in in in the UK at
least in in Canada was 1917 but he was
beyond this time in that respect if you
wrote a treatise on on women and women's
kind of universal suffrage and other
kind of things the most important thing
that you could probably pluck out of his
philosophy which is very important is
the harm principle and you'll find that
this is the logic that almost everyone
uses you know to justify whatever moral
they want to justify and the harm
principle going back to our hedonistic
principle now the hedonistic principle
was what but you are you want to you
want to minimize pain and maximize what
pleasure
okay so everyone's with me yeah so
obviously this guy called Jeremy Bentham
came along and said but hold on he said
yeah we want to maximize the amount as
much pleasure as possible and as far as
possible generally yeah so you had
scenarios like you know a gang great
scenario so if you have ten men and one
woman and they all want to enjoy
themselves so they can all yea exploit
the woman this was the issue with
utilitarianism so John Stuart Mill came
along and said there's a problem with
utilitarianism which is that it allows
this kind of infringement of human
rights
or he didn't really refer to as human
rights as will come to know but on
individual liberties and so you can do
whatever you want to do so long as you
don't harm anyone else this is the harm
principle they say one more time you can
do whatever you want to do so long as
you don't harm anyone
so now if you asked it's a bit of a
controversial topic but if you ask why
is homosexuality why should it be or any
kind of thing right not just
homosexuality any non-normative sexual
practice any non normative sexual
practice should it be allowed so a
liberal would should answer at least so
long as it doesn't harm anyone else it
should be allowed have you heard this so
obviously those religious people who
were arguing against for example
sexuality we're saying that it's not
natural and all those kind of things
yeah a liberal turns around and says
that's not the ethic that we're dealing
with right now the ethic that we're
dealing with is that so long as it
doesn't harm anyone else you can't get
involved
that's the ethic okay if that's the
ethic my question would be what about
incest rights that's my question because
it's not really something which is
emphasized now someone might argue that
hold on deformed babies you can have
deformed baby or coming out of that
situation I would say hold on what if a
father
the Sun there's no baby's gonna come out
of there actually or a brother and a
brother that's not something which
liberals have actually in my estimation
at least as a movement has tried to
guarantee the rights of incest rights
even though it goes along the same kind
of principles as John Stuart Mill some
principle right so there has been a kind
of favoring of one kind of non normative
practice in this case homosexuality over
other kinds of non normative sexual
practices for example incest and so on
but this kind of the reason for that is
just simply because homosexuals in the
60s and 70s or those groups who
represented them had more of a chance
and had more success in being able to
mobilize social support for their cause
if there had been a million father
brothers coming out together with
placards incest rights we love each
other you know seriously I mean would
they be guaranteed the same rights in
many of the countries which are liberal
countries this is illegal this is
illegal incest is illegal but the
question is why is it illegal it doesn't
go against the hump principles it
deformed babies but where they using
contraception what if his two brothers
brother and brother
there's no baby is going to come out of
that seriously so there has been a
double standard in the way even liberal
principles have been manipulated in
order to make cases so I've had lots of
conversations you can maybe see them on
YouTube what I find problematic is the
most consistent answer by the way some
of them are just straight forward to say
you're right if we're gonna offer if
we're gonna afford rights for one non
normative sexual practice like
homosexuality we should afford it for
all long moments of sexual practices so
long as no harm is done that's a
consistent answer I would say you know
what you make at least you're consistent
but some homosexuals or other people who
claim to represent their interests
actually argued among a long
naturalistic lines and said love it's
not natural for
a brother and a brother to have sex so
why is it not who defines natural now
because you just told off that Christian
guy that way yeah he told him off when
he said your what you're doing is not
natural
so what gives you the right to determine
what's natural not natural so a
secondary explanation could be well
we're born gay and this is something
David Hume referred to as the ort is
problem just because you're born let's
just say for the sake of argument I'm
not gonna go into the genetics I'm not a
geneticist let's say for the sake of all
you say you're born gay no problem but
just because you are something it
doesn't mean you ought to be that thing
and there's no way that any philosopher
has been able to solve this problem
David Hume himself in his book inquiry
into moral ethics he described the
problem he said well just because
something is the case it doesn't mean it
ought to be the case where if someone is
born with an incestuous gene does it
mean that they should be incestuous why
if someone is born with something more
pernicious than that or in you know in
our estimation of course you could argue
morals are relative frankly I mean who
is to make the judgment however the
point is the or is distinction is always
going to be a problem for someone who
wants to say we're born that way so the
problem is when now we're asked okay
in Islam let's be honest in Islam why is
homosexuality a sin we say wait hold on
why is that tie particular type of non
normative sexual practice permitted on
your worldview they say because the harm
principle say okay well the harm
principle should apply to two brothers
having sex and two sisters having if you
want to call it sex you can call it sex
whatever it may be right or even a
brother and a sister so long as some
kind of contraception is used and so on
and so forth but you're not using that
they are using that hats off to them
well done you're being morally
consistent and you're being in
accordance with the harm principle if
you're not using that and you're giving
preferential treatment to one kind of
non non normative sexual
of another frankly it doesn't even make
sense so this is the last thing I'm
going to quickly touch upon now and
we've talked that we've kind of touched
upon the idea of some of the questions
where asked us let's say traditionalists
or you know conventional orthodox
whatever you want to call it Muslims
right why this why that well the reason
why they're asking that question as
we've just discovered it's because they
have a dominant ethic which frankly for
the most part has not been consistently
used in Western circles is not
predicated on anything which is
objective you can't put any of that
stuff under a microscope
all of those morals frankly have not
been verified so they don't really have
a reason to ask us any of those
questions in the first place
now when you when we talk about this
thing human rights because now this is a
guys this is almost the trump card if
you want to knock out not Trump Donald
Trump joy if you want to knock out a
Muslim ask them about human rights asked
a lot about freedom of expression and
speech
what's the ruling on blasphemy laws
what's the ruling and we'll talk about
this in detail in the next section on
apostasy law I'm gonna bring this up as
the case study read dad what happens in
an Islamic state yes what happens is
that isn't that is their death penalty
there is that will come to it to be over
suspense we'll talk about it in the next
session but it's in that against human
rights let's say for the sake of
argument yes it's against human right
all of the things that you mentioned and
other things anything it works yes it's
against human rights but let's go back
why is human rights an outgrowth of
human rights as an outgrowth of this
shaky destabilized
liberalism which frankly has not been
substantiated in the first instance so
there's a problem there so in in history
we're going to talk about quickly I mean
that first of all this word Human Rights
it was not referred to as human rights
it's all quite recently it was referred
to usually as natural rights so even
when people like Jeremy Bentham wasn't
attacking it
he called it nonsense on stilts because
what natural rights how can you prove it
Jeremy Bentham the one who talked about
utilitarianism the one who actually
taught the teacher of John Stuart Mill
and the one who was he inspired him in
many ways he called it nonsense on
stilts but we'll come to that this is an
interesting thing there's a last slide
for today for this session and then
we'll come back to talk about the other
things the this is an interesting thing
it's called Google Ngram you can use it
to see how much a word has been used in
literature and if you can see here the
word Human Rights itself only started to
become popular around 1948 and obviously
that's when it was written
the convention of Human Rights but
before that this term Human Rights
wasn't even in the common vernacular
of either the academics all the non
academics so all of a sudden after the
world war ii after world war ii this
thing that you guys made up frankly
called human rights which we're going to
talk about we are going to talk about
human rights this thing you guys made up
called human rights which you insisted
is universal with any without any proof
it's now being used to colonial eyes to
colonize this is it's being used to
spread the you know liberalism by the
sword and that's the irony of it all so
the question is to what extent are human
rights compatible with traditionalist
islam we're going to look at a case
study and we're going to be very
straightforward today guys in the after
the break we'll look going to look at
some of the most controversial case
studies you can think about the most
controversial questions those which are
talking about which reference the
punitive law of islam those which
reference for example the had the hood
would the punishments in Islam and we
are going to do a thorough comparison
insha'Allah between liberalism and
tradition is Islam and what we're going
to uncover and on earth in my opinion is
going to be something which will put
things in perspective so I'll let you
guys have the break now because the time
is up and we'll see you after the break
all right good so this is going to be
the last part of like the monologue if
you like you know and then after that
we're going to try and create more
interactivity because it is important
that we engage with one another you
might have lots of questions I'm sure
you do and so just to kind of carry on
from where we left a cup from where we
left off we talked about human rights as
not being a term that was commonly
employed throughout the centuries
frankly right it wasn't really a term
which was goes all the way back to
liberalism or all the way back to for
example the ancient Greeks or something
like that instead it's a term which
became very popular after 1948 that's
not to say it didn't exist before 1940
it did exist but I just become much more
popular because of well because as you
know the UN which is an organization
which is pretty much steered by United
States of America and other allies took
control of the UN and obviously they had
the convention and after that Convention
was put forward it became part of the
media became part of academia and so on
but taking a step back now the question
is because I mentioned and alluded to
this in the beginning of this lecture we
talked about some of the mythologies
that liberalism is predicated on what
did I mean when I say liberalism is
predicated on mythology
now why men was this the state of nature
the state of nature is a very important
part of liberalism and it's mentioned by
many different scholars and thinkers
like John Locke like Thomas Hobbes like
Rousseau
and others and for instance Thomas
Hobbes
talks about this hypothetical state
before human beings were contracted to
the state so let's take a contemporary
example we live in the West for example
you guys live in Holland I live in the
UK
I'm born into you know that state you
guys made many of you except for the
illegal immigrants I'm sure which is the
majority I know we're born here right so
yeah so you come or you're born here or
you decide to come over
through ship or through ever you guys
did right
yes you decide to come over here and
when you come over here what you are
blige by the law the universal law in
other words you have to obey the law of
the land you know it's a straightforward
thing but the question is who gave the
government the power in the first place
who gave government the power in the
first place so liberal theory would
suggest that there was a state of nature
there was a prime model if you like
state of nature and then we contracted
to a sovereign or a representative or a
power now when did this take place when
did this thing take place where there
was man against man whether it was a
brutish poor and sure thing it never
actually historically took place at all
this is a fake history and it was made
this is mythology this story this
fiction frankly this was made up it
wasn't a scientific investigation that
was done it wasn't historical records
that were retrieved it was simply a
story a bedtime story a fairy tale
seriously I mean this is what it's
predicated on Thomas Hobbes John Locke
and others this they talked about a time
I pre maybe a prehistoric time or a pre
government time where people were
fighting each other
and so they needed to give up some of
their rights in order to allow the
sovereign master to come and protect
them and all of the subsequent
generations of people would be
subsequently contracted to that
government even if they didn't consent
to it because we living in a country we
didn't say we consent to there being a
government we consent to there being you
know a representative that's gonna make
law on our behalf
sometimes you have voting yes but it's
not something we didn't even consent to
the system of government so how do we
justify from a liberal perspective that
there is a government it's this idea
which we're going to come on to of
social contract but the primordial state
is a story it's a bedtime fiction it's
fake
it really is fake now the story is
different depending on which philosopher
talks about it so for example can't he
says all mankind who will but consult it
that being all equal and independent no
one ought to harm another in his life
liberty or possessions so in the primal
state for forelock he he envisaged that
there were some rights that ought to be
protected in the first instance Hobbes
saw it more about man against man but
both made up the story that there was a
time or there ought to have been a time
this is hypothetical metaphysical
mythological fictitious thing that
happened where we were all human beings
were all like in the jungle if you like
of life and we're all fighting each
other and we needed some leader to come
that we could consult with or contract
with in order to stop the chaos and
anarchy that's the story so humans
initially have rights of Liberty Locke
would argue and property Hobbes would
disagree with him but both would made up
the story the fake story now the social
contract
was required now and the social contract
we've already mentioned is this contract
that human beings took when they were in
the state of fighting each other in the
say of nature they took this contract
with the sovereign some kind of leader
maybe the put the sovereign had power
military power maybe they were able to
grant protection wherever it may be
there was a contract so Paola it's
actually quite similar to Islamic
theology because we also believe in a
contract as well you know that you know
and this in the Quran but we believe our
contract was with Allah so we were
contracted with Allah they believed we
were contracted with an imaginary fake
figure in fact the book that Hobbes
talked about is called ela vicen
it's called the Leviathan what is the
device in it's a monster it's a monster
creature I said it's a fake creep like a
something sci-fi like a sci-fi image
tell me if this is not mythology why is
it not mythology is it because the white
man raised it down be honest with
yourselves seriously is it because the
secular it's pure mythology and there's
nothing to justify it whatsoever but as
Muslims we believe in a contract right
with Allah where Allah says no Quran
with I have Allah who music of any Adam
Allah took the me suck the contract with
Adam with the children of Adam you know
the real reactor whom and he took from
the before him the reason he took from
their back you know and he said I'll ask
to be robbed become he said are we not
your am I not your Lord and your master
qalu bala' Edna we said yes so there for
us as Muslims we was we were contracted
to Allah for the liberal we were
contracted to some imaginary figure
which didn't really exist even according
to them if you ask any liberal today do
you believe in this this thing no we
don't believe it so they have a
mythology as well we don't have a
mythology we would say we can justify
the existence of God from first
principles which is a different
conversation for a different time all
right
what are the entailments of social
contract and this is a key point here in
the discussion because we talked about
human rights and some of the questions
where us as Muslims relate to
fundamental human rights so for example
equality of men and woman this is by the
way according to what strand of feminism
second wave feminism third wave feminism
you know first wave feminism even what
do we mean by equality according to
who's feminism is it the Eurocentric
understanding of feminism is that an
african feminism is that middle east in
some that's a different discussion but
they say also that we have to have
freedom of expression of whatever
religious belief you want to what extent
though because obviously society even in
this country and other countries has
decided that there are certain kinds of
things which can't exist which
jeopardize security and so on so the
question is one now we've come out of
the state of nature from a liberal
perspective we've come out of the state
day of nature and we're socially
contracted to this representative which
in modern parlance would be referred to
as government right when we're now rap
where we're tied to such representative
the question is what are the things this
representative can do on our behalf this
is a key thing and i want everyone to
remember this right this is something
which Immanuel Kant which we said
already was one of the biggest
philosophers in all of liberal history
but not only that but one of the biggest
philosophy of all the Western history he
basically says I'm not gonna read this
whole thing you can we can kind of read
it yourself he basically says that if
the supreme sovereign this socially
contracted thing or body or government
or whatever it is they can that has
pretty much ultimate authority even if
he decides to kill you or kill some
people or jail some people or hurt some
people with as there's a hadith enzyme
Muslim that says well another malik
which some people make fun of that you
know if you got to be obedient to the
leader even if he whips your back or
takes you
we money obviously there's such a big
discussion on this we're not having in
that discussion but this is the same
kind of thing in liberal theory
so in liberal theory it's conceivable
that there is a law which so limits
which so limits human freedoms so as to
allow someone to be killed as a result
and John Locke says in one of his books
I think it's the two treatises of
government
he says if someone is commanded to stand
in the face of a Canon if a soldier is
commanded to stand in the face of a
Canon yes in other words the blowing
cannon he should do it and it's not a
liberal for someone to do that which is
kind of like suicide bombing by the way
think about that now seriously it's this
why is that you know tell me what that
is standing in the face of a cannon is
destroying yourself it's killing
yourself suicide so according to John
Locke and by the way also according to
John Rawls who says that you can kill
innocence by the way this is what he
says he says you can kill innocents in
war it's just war you can get you can
target the innocent not collateral
damage No you can target them so you can
not only be subject to a suicide type
scenario according to john locke but all
the way through to john rules who said
you not only can be subject to such
scenario but you can subject others to
such scenario as well in other words you
can kill children if it goes back to the
social contract and if it goes back to
the mandated legitimate sovereign leader
we have been socially contracted to in
this mythological state of nature
bearing that in mind the question now is
what's the relevance of this and
apostasy well you know that liberal
would ask what is this thing
that you guys have in your old books of
fik of jurisprudence and i said in the
beginning of the lecture that when I
described I'll be defining what Islamic
traditionalism is so I'll do it quickly
now Islamic traditionalism to me is an
jurisprudential understanding of Islam
for example through the
for schools of thought in Sunni Islam
for example right so that's my
understanding of Islamic traditionalism
so obviously if you open a book of
Islamic law which is like a classical
book and you go to maybe the you know
cutable Jeanette or something like that
you might see this had to rid them the
punishment of apostasy and you'll see
that some of those scholars will say the
one who changes his religion you know
they should be killed in an Islamic
state and you think wait a minute
doesn't this strongly oppose human
rights and on the face of it it does
strongly oppose human rights and this is
not on the face of it prima facie what
we believe in anyway this is an Deacon
sexualized understanding of Islamic law
and I'll explain that in a second but
what's interesting is this so long as
something is justified through a social
contract on liberalism look what John
Locke is saying John Locke who is the
founding father of liberalism says that
there can be an apostasy law wait a
minute
what does he say he says the first is
those of who being initiated in the
mosaic rites he's talking about the
Jewish states or Jewish states and made
citizens of that Commonwealth did
afterwards a poster size means become
more Ted from the worship of the God of
Israel
these were preceded against as traitors
and rebels guilty of no less than high
treason listen to this no less than high
treason for the Commonwealth of the Jews
different in that from all others was an
absolute theocracy nor was there or
could there be any difference between
that and the Commonwealth of the church
now what does this mean what's he trying
to say he's saying because the the the
the state of the Jews is predicated on
your contracting with God and your being
Jewish in the first instance that is
justifiable on liberalism listen to this
carefully it's justifiable on liberalism
from this social contract understanding
that if someone publicly says I'm not a
Jew anymore for the state to say come
hold here come here we're going to
execute you now is that what the quran
says the quran doesn't make this kind of
attack articulation by the way this is
what john locke says who is the founding
father of liberalism
so how conceivable is it how conceivable
is it on liberalism that these laws can
be put in place it is fully conceivable
in principle now one could argue that
was John Locke that was 300 years ago
we're no longer looking at look my
argument is not about John Locke he is
looking at the conceivability through
the principles of liberalism I am saying
because the principles of liberalism
through social contracts allow such
possibilities you cannot argue that
liberalism is against a public apostasy
law
which would entail a death of a person
you cannot argue that it's impossible to
argue that you could argue as a liberal
I'm not really you know in tune with
that and I think it ought not to be but
if a country decides if a country
decides for example that this country is
not a secular country not this country
obviously is what we're talking about a
country like you know a Jewish state not
talking by Israel that's a different
discussion but if it decides okay this
is not we're not our social contract is
not a secular one it's a theocracy of
some sorts let's say for the sake of
value or it's something which is
predicated on religious scriptures if
that's the case the question is how a
liberal is it or in social contract
arianism to have such law John Locke
answers in fact this is not a liberal at
all and not only with John Locke say
that Immanuel Kant would say that I've
seen manuscripts of John Stuart Mill
saying that it's quite consistent so the
question now is what is this line have
to say about that but before I go into
that question about apostasy in Islam
there's an argument I want to make and
the main argument is articulated here
this is part of my book I've actually
written a book here it's coming out
maybe the end of the year yes yes I've
been doing the research by the way this
is not something I just whipped up this
is I've spoken to a lot of academics
about this all right my main argument
liberalism or liberalisation efforts ah
Epis topologically fruitless if they are
predicated on the assumption that such
liberalization necessarily entails more
freedom from government intervention ISM
in cases which relate to administration
of the death penalty for non allegiance
to a state now it's a very long-winded
statement but you have to be careful
with academics what I'm saying is there
is something similar between for example
that which is referred to as the had
already which is the what is referred to
as the punishment for apostasy and
treason
and the common denominator is non
allegiance to a state so for example if
you look at the American Constitution if
my memory serves me correctly I think
article 3 talks about the treason
it's a clause on treason treason clause
and basically what it says is a fuchsia
or non allegiance different states have
different rules in America
it could be punishable and has been
punishable by death and by the way
what's interesting is as a side note in
terms of actual case study examples
you'll find that America has conducted
many extrajudicial killings outside of
obviously the parameters of the
judiciary as you know for example many
of you may have heard of annual ow lucky
yes his son was killed his name is Abdul
Rahman Allah P and his daughter was also
killed there were kids by the way they
were killed by a drone attack on them
yes they were killed by a drone attack
on them why because the American
government were afraid because ok their
father is a radical the child will also
grow up to be a radical right so they
literally sent little drones to kill the
kids now that wasn't those kids didn't
deserve to be killed and no moreover
they didn't even stand trial if that was
possible for a child to stand trial at
the age of 6 years old or whatever it
may have been anyway so the question of
extrajudicial killing is something
completely different anyway I'm talking
about when the treason law itself has
been implemented and what's interesting
if you look at constitutional law in
America is that those defendants who are
subject to such encroachments from the
military establishment in America
actually try and get the treason law to
be enacted on them in other words they
try and a lot of them argue that we want
to be tried in accordance with the
treason law because they know they have
more chance of being not killed for
example in in that case but there have
been those extrajudicial killings now
that's something else the point is this
it's conceivable principally it is
conceivable principally that a
government because it deems you as non a
lie now you're no longer a citizen
depriving you of your citizenship and so
on they can make a subsequent decision
to kill you and it has been done but
it's just been named something else this
is the point now the truth is this in
Islam you have to first ask what is
apostasy and what is treason right now
who gets to define treason now someone
might argue treason is this and they'll
go online and you know this pseudo
intellectual approach or treason means
this listen spare your white man
definitions keep it to yourself
seriously who wrote the dictionary who
was it was it someone who we all agreed
this is the authority yes let him be the
one no come on
be let's be honest Oxford Dictionary
where Webster dictionary no it wasn't
something which we all as humankind
decided yes this is no no vernacular
definitions from the dictionary are
fruitless to me you can't use a circular
definition imposed on a religious
framework and express it try and explain
things that way treason is defined
differently yes because you have a
secular framework versus a religious one
why should you impose a secular
framework on a religious one as much as
why would you expose a religious foreign
a secular one they both have two
different standards right however the
principle of non allegiance is the same
so in other words really and truly why
is the common denominator when a state
deems that you're no longer allied now
here's the point is it to do with what
you believe now I would put to you
submit to everyone here today that it's
not to do with what you believe and the
evidence is not like referred in hot
tubbin or or student lie that there's no
compulsion in religion there is that
that's for the non-muslims by the way
that verse by admire is for the
non-muslims there's no compulsion in
religion chapter 2 verse 256 means you
can't force a non-muslim to become
Muslim but what about my candle emote
meaning well I won't meet it today like
all the long run I couldn't Peralta
marry him sorry I was I'd that quickly
but it's a little as AB where it says
it's not for a man or a woman who's a
Muslim or a movement that when a line is
messenger decides something that they
have any choice in the matter
the point is this even
then it's not to do with belief and it's
conceivable and possible for someone to
lose faith in their religion as a Muslim
in an Islamic govern government state or
whatever you want to call it I'm not
talking about those things which exist
but it's conceivable and they would have
no repercussion whatsoever it's not to
do what's the evidence for that two
pieces of evidence one of them is the
the list of Haleiwa holiday from me a
man has a list of people who are moon
after corn
what's the moon effort and what a
scepter someone who does not believe
really in Islam he does not believe in
Islam that's the true understanding of
malefic yes he might walk around in
society and not necessarily public eight
that his book I left Islam but he does
not just believe in he doesn't believe
in Islam that list even though Muslims
were aware that those people were not
Muslims they didn't kill those
individuals because there was no rupture
of a social contract there in other
words it's conceivable I have someone in
the West becomes non Muslim and they
were Muslim we're not gonna say go and
kill that individual no way this is an
understanding of Islam which is
Orientalists decontextualize and
completely wrong in my opinion
there's no way you can do that because
there was no contract between you and
that person now okay you are now allied
to that state in that way there's no
state in fact the state here says you
can do what everyone and you can have
whatever belief you want so in fact
their contract is different to your
contract the Quran says yeah your
Halloween Avenue Oh phoo block would in
those oh you who believe fulfill the
contract so in other words there is no
contract there there has to be a
contract you have to be under an Islamic
state and you have to have agreed to the
terms if those conditions are not met
then we can't say there's any good going
to be any ramification now another point
is this is that you have and this is one
of the final points I'm gonna make is
that you have another example and this
is one of the biggest a hadith inside
Bihari
it's incredible she wrote the book of
conditions and then you have a
discussion between perform salah salam
and the parish and and the Quraysh were
saying if listen to this carefully
if your people in in your state become
non-muslim bring them back to us do you
agree to those terms and he agreed to
those terms say that one more time
he said if people in your state become
non-muslim under this contract that we
have now bring those guys who have left
Islam apostate 'add back to us he said
no problem he agreed to those conditions
meaning what really this what this means
is that it's totally conceivable both on
Islam and liberalism for there to be
some kind of social contract which would
bind somebody to a state of being now
even if they decide to change their
religion it's conceivable on both
liberalism and Islam that it's not a
problem and it's conceivable on both
liberalism and Islam that I could have
ramifications depending upon how its
perceived by the state now next the
reason why the topic today was referred
to as liberalism as religion and this is
a really interesting quote I'm going to
read it out it says theories of
modernization are not scientific
hypotheses but theodicies narratives of
Providence and redemption presented in
the jargon of social science what we're
saying is that liberalism the reason why
it's been able to have this perceived
epistemological upper hand on the
religious narrative not just the Islamic
one it's because it seems like you're
speaking scientifically when you're
talking about secular ideology what
we've been able to show today ladies and
gentlemen is that that is not the case
and that the the first principles of
liberalism are unfounded unsubstantiated
unproven we've also been able to show
ladies and gentlemen
that actually not only other the first
principles are proven but a lot of them
are based on mythology fiction stories
and so on and so to favor that kind of a
narrative over and above the Islamic one
or any other religious narrative for
that matter is frankly academically
unfair in the first instance
stemologica free laughs eclis unjust
frankly you can't do that and ask us
questions so before any questions are
asked from a person who claims to be a
liberal who might be now thinking that
they have found the ultimate truth how
can you prove liberalism as an objective
moral standard number one from a
scientific perspective or otherwise or
from a rational first principle
perspective number two why do you expect
us to believe in your myth
why even even your philosophers that
propounded that miss didn't believe in
it fully themselves didn't conduct any
scientific experiments number three do
you not realize that it's as conceivable
on a contract aryan understanding of
liberalism to have as much punitive law
as could conceivably be the case in an
Islamic state with all of the punitive
laws being implemented so if that is the
case what do you have to offer us what
is modernization why should we be like
you what have you got for us the answer
is really you have nothing for us sorry
to say I need to be blunt you have
nothing to offer liberalism has nothing
to offer Islam that's the answer
liberalism has nothing to offer Islam
it's there's nothing there for us
everything that's conceivable in
liberalism can also be potentially
conceivable in Islam and vice-versa in
terms of primitive laws and so on so
what's the issue now they'll say human
rights human rights and I'm going to say
this once and everyone should remember
it they human rights is a metaphysical
construct which cannot be actualized in
the real world it's impossible to have
an actualization of human rights with
the existence of social contracts you
can never have ultimate freedom of
anything that's nonsense on stilts as
Jeremy Bentham said it's impossible now
the answer is this that liberals will
say we define the extent to which
freedom of speech expression and so on
thought and religion should be exercised
a to say
in accordance with democracy or this or
that or the other but those things
themselves are problematic because they
number one could be in conflict of
liberalism and number two could bring
out results like Hitler which we had you
know retrospectively everyone looks back
instead of how immoral was he in some
therefore what I want to say is the
question needs to be questioned whenever
they ask you a question which is
predicated on human rights you should
say no thank you
you have to first justify yourself the
last thing here I've got sorry it's okay
for me to go over a little bit okay
is this is there is an Orientalism here
by the way Orientalism is not just a
book that eduard side row which places
the east as the subject of investigation
the object the other but it's a kind of
Orientalism which actually also exists
in liberal discourse so what many
liberal Orientalists and progressive
muslims groups attempt to do is
demonstrate the extent to which the
hadoo or punitive laws refer to in the
traditionalist discourse are totally
operational and therefore unacceptable
in the context of human rights and
liberalism in particular from this
abduction muslim minorities in the west
who have no intention of bringing to
life such abstract rulings are further
abject to social imagination of large
swaths of the majority of populace in
other words real and truly all of those
punitive laws of islam has nothing to do
with the Muslim minority existence in
the West we have no intention whatsoever
of implementing any of the punitive laws
in the Western world but those laws are
used as an ammunition against the
minority which produces an irony frankly
the irony is
use those things to instill fear in the
majority in order for you to juxtapose
yourself or define yourself against the
Muslim minority and that is frankly a
tyranny of the majority type logic which
liberalism itself came to dismiss irony
it's an irony almost all liberal
thinkers talked about tyranny of the
majority now you have this guy what's
his name gets clip what's his first name
again I don't care about his name you
know while there wherever his name he's
talking about a tax for woman wearing a
headscarf in this this is against
liberalism because it is frankly it
doesn't understand that when you have a
law in a liberal state it has to be
consistent to all people he's naive
liberal he's a spy it's called the
freedom pie you should take this
ammunition and it's not physical
ammunition if no take the is
intellectual bullets and shoot this guy
and others physically not not physically
yeah no feeling intellectually where's
your time so I'll end with that okay
there's a cool head open up for
questions and answers
thank you this thing yes mate this thing
away
so QA guys about the questions please
know Fattah wha I love it I know we love
fat our last year two years ago we were
I was at Medina Expo and we had a
two-hour lecture about community
building first question that comes in is
is lobster Haram rice please keep it
that the subject and challenge Muhammad
hijab a bit okay I want to see him sweat
on his forehead okay
so who's got the first question Salaam
alaikum brother thanks for your
presentation I have a question about
your debating approach you told us about
the harm principle and also so basically
more enjoyment or what's the word
exactly more enjoyment less harm and
more pleasure that's the word exactly
after that you also use another example
saying that if you don't harm at least
people saying that if you don't harm the
other person then it's okay you can do
whatever you want and in your debate you
approach people for example by saying
what about incestual relationships but
what I was thinking is suppose the other
person you convince the other person and
the other person turns around and says
you know what I'm actually for brother
and brother or sister sister
relationship we then going towards a
society that's even more you know
there's more fitna in the society so we
don't actually at least I don't know
like we don't want that like I assume so
is that the right approach to go around
it I can see I can see you can serve
market
I think is important to show people
sometimes the inconsistencies if someone
turns around and says you know I'm for
that thing I'm full brother and brother
having intercourse with one another
sister and sister and so on then to be
honest with you there being consistent
with their morale and their ethic right
but my issue is not what those
individuals are being consistent with
there I think my issue is with those
individuals are not being consistent
with their ethic they would allow one
kind of non normative practice and not
another now is this what yeah I think
underlying this concern is doesn't this
bring people now closer to maybe
legalizing incest in certain countries
and so on well to be honest with you my
friend I'll be honest you know even if
they didn't legalize it it would still
be happening would it be more socially
acceptable or unacceptable that's that's
the only thing I think that incest is
actually happening it's just socially
unacceptable and from Islamic
perspective there is a reason for that
which is the Fatah the Fatah is the
innate disposition which recognizes
certain moral things is abhorrent
naturally right and we would use that
same argument with anything which is non
normative and non-compliance with the
Quran by the way not just incest so if
we can get them to kind of reflect using
this kind of thought experiment or this
you know method of debate whatever you
want to call it
sometimes they activates the fitrah and
thus that's the heart don't feel like
the objective of of doing that no not
necessarily because I'm gonna go outside
of 10 Downing Street or there's the
Hague here I don't know where it is or
wherever you guys have Parliament and
say you know brother and sister should
really I'm not gonna I'm not campaigner
for that just you know to be clear but
yeah I see your concern I think it is it
a bit of a double edged sword but we
have to do we have to do it you know
sometimes the the advantages outweigh
the disadvantages okay thank you very
much okay next question
who wants to
Schneider Morra him thank you very much
my brother okay with your presentation
but one things is very important in this
moment you talk about John Locke and a
monomer can't there metaphysic a person
and he has done a lot of things to
recognize God in the community at
Immanuel Kant and about 12 years he
decided about that that means after a
very dark period we have a Renaissance
period in European country my question
is now the liberalism is a fact that we
have to compare with the Islam law how
you can compete it that Islam can be
practices in liberalism or liberalism
can have effect in Islam that is a sort
of reconciliation that we can justify
and also bring the pupil for a sort of
peace community and it will be very
useful for the future of the new
generation okay thank you my new Canon
and critique of pure reason he was
criticizing the cosmological argument
it's difficult to know where he stands
religiously by the way I think he
there's a good case of him being an
atheist I'm to be honest because he
criticizes the arguments for God's
existence but it doesn't mean just
because he criticizes them that he
doesn't believe in God so it's difficult
I think scholars have struggled with
what is Immanuel Kant religious
background that's a question I'll leave
open but in regards to your second
question I think you're absolutely right
I think there should be an
accommodationist approach and that
accommodationist approach is a
recognition by both Muslim communities
and majority for example non-muslim
communities that actually where Muslims
are minorities yes they were they must
be subject to the law of whatever land
they're in and that's by the way part
and parcel of what they believe in
so either so you cannot impose a law
which is Islamic on a liberal state but
what liberals must understand is that
they cannot impose a law which is
liberal anti Islamic in an Islamic state
as well and that is a fair approach I
believe and if that is understood then
this colonial attitude or we've got the
rights metaphysic and you don't have the
right metaphysic that can start to be
put aside and we start realizing that
actually okay now come Dino come away
then we have our way and you have your
way but when there's this approach which
actually is linked very strongly with
the Colonials you know the colonial
empire of the hegemonic West at the
moment and pre and in the maybe last 200
300 400 years with slavery and all that
stuff it becomes more problematic
because it becomes sanctimony Western
sanctimony oh you should be like us
basically as if God made the world in
Western image so that is I think where
the problem is well we have to challenge
it but there is a truth there if we're
living in Western countries we have to
abide by Western law so long as that law
does not arbitrarily discriminate
against Muslims like the kind of laws
were seeing unfortunately being passed
in this country with the niqab banned
for example or in France with you know
head covering being taken off which
clearly is targeted against one
community over and above all other
communities which is against liberalism
it's not only just against a slam but
it's absolutely against liberalism
because it destroys the unbar
betweenness of law and it destroys the
principle of you know trying to look
after a minority rather than to many of
the majority so we have to remind them
of their own principles sometimes as
well maybe a sister now come on be
feminist
Selam aleykum we've been very critical
tonight about concepts like democracy
secularism human rights and you've just
in continuation with the previous
question how can we see the rule of
Islam Sharia basically lets name things
as it is how can be fit within the laws
that we have nowadays in Western
countries or in any country whatsoever
and that they apply secularism and you
said we should remind the white man how
how we as Muslims prefer to live which
like according to which laws but the
question is as I said we've been very
critical the self criticism is how we as
Muslims should remind them and what
should we do like to be a positive and
active part in this kind of discussion
or procedure to reach that point I think
that you're right you're absolutely
right we should be introspective what
introspection comes after the insurance
of protection so black people in the
United States couldn't start saying
we're gonna you know attack our own
community in the 1960s and be
introspective unless they first
establish themselves as a community were
able to secure certain civil rights and
then we can have discussions about how
to fix things within our own house but
if we're not being given and this is the
issue if we're not being given equal
treatment you know through this kind of
an arbitrary law that's the starting
point we have to start with that first
once that conversation is done or during
meanwhile we can also talk about like
you said how we should be you absolutely
right positively contributing through
charity and through community work and
through you know I'm not very used about
integration by the way but through
economic contribution to a state which
doesn't jeopardize any of our principles
so I think these are parallel
conversations we can have at the same
time but we should make a focus of the
discussion our own rights otherwise
they're gonna tell us what our rights
ought to be I think that should be a
focus
sorry oakum you started off with some
epistemology and so lately I was reading
some books of philosophy some skeptic
works about knowing things and I read
this skeptic paradox and I don't know if
you've heard of it
any about knowing where do we have hands
no I haven't really Robert Nozick Jorge
amor Robert Nozick is liberal himself
yes I guess so the paradox go says this
I know that I have hands yeah I don't
know that I'm not a brain enough that if
I do not know that I'm not in brain and
event I do not know if I did I have
hands so I read a internal istic
approach to whom this internalist answer
externalist answer but they could not
really convinced me so I would like to
ask you how would you answer this
paradox I don't know paradoxes are
answerable by nature you know I may be
honest with you I can give you that I
can give you twenty paradoxes the whole
point of a paradox is that many of them
are unanswerable right what are they
implement are they physically relevant
to the real world so a lot of a lot for
example let me give you another paradox
which I'm a lot of you might have heard
right that and this relates to theology
so can God create a rock so heavy that
he can self can lift yeah and after
thinking about this for a long time
here's my answer right the existence of
such a rock would disprove God's
existence because God by his definition
is you know such as an omnipotent
all-powerful so it certain things that
God does that if he does he stops being
godlike it becomes a man or starts
having limitations or something like
that weaknesses so there in other words
these paradoxes and this is something
which hopefully will help you with every
single paradox out there some of them
are problematic in semantics in other
words the way you're phrasing the
question has no material relevance in
the real world it that it's not possible
it's like saying can God create a square
and change it can God create a squared
circle for example right okay no but but
that's such a thing squared circle
concept is not an applicable one to the
rule
and most paradoxes are like that the
paradox itself is not applicable on a
cosmological reality so it's only it's
only something which can be said by
syntax but cannot be shown by physical
necessity so all of the paradoxes of the
world almost all of them can be solved
like that even the mathematical ones but
in terms of the actual physical ones and
you know there's a book on the guy
called Jim Jimmy Kelly Lee I think is
that he wrote a book on paradoxes and
you know Jimmy Kelly Lee he wrote a book
or like 100 paradoxes in there and the
answer is the same usually the paradox
can be solved by saying that these
things are not implementable in the real
world they're not physically tangible
they're you can't you can't engage with
them really no more paradoxes
everybody's confused I wrote down my
question to briefly ask it you stated
liberalism has nothing to offer Islam
and as a believer I am convinced about
the moral superiority of Islam but I can
imagine that rebel liberals might think
where are the examples of a sound
peaceful economically and socially
healthy community in Islam so the lack
of good practices whereas there are
plenty of them in Western liberal
countries how would you reply to this
question the answers will kill a yam no
they will have been an S you know
there's an interesting book called the
rise and fall of grey and Isaac Ryan
says that these are the days which we
alternate between the people in a
thousand four hundred years of Islam's
civilized I'm not gonna say civilization
or existence but certainly in terms of
its timeline you'll find that there were
times where it was if not the superpower
one of the superpowers of the world you
know so if you look at for example the
opposite empire that is an example it's
a historical example of a thriving you
know civilization which incorporated
different parts of the world and where
people you know dealt with intellection
if you like civilization lee in the
libraries of about that if you look at
for instance see the example of spain
you
that's a very big example you had so
many a plethora of scholars coming out
there so so much so that some people
even said that that movement started the
Renaissance in the West
don't forget the West even despite the
fact that liberalism existed within it
for many years was not in fact in that
peaceful state of existence that you
think it was in I mean the European Dark
Ages which many historians say started
from about 410 when for historical
purposes they say the anglo-saxons
came into Britain up until about you
know maybe about 1400s or something you
know that was the European dark in a
thousand years of you know a lack of you
know substantive you know contribution
given from the West so this narrative is
problematic
aslam has probably more examples than
any other civilization if you look in a
historical timeline of multiculturalism
number one because frankly liberalism
coexisted with slavery it coexisted with
racism it caused listed with colonialism
and in fact it was spread by colonialism
Napoleon he spread liberalism by the
sword he was referred to as a liberal
dictator you know don't forget he was a
liberal after thee you know the French
Revolution so this narrative is really
problematic it really really is
problematic they you know racism was
justified up until the late 19th century
in America where he literally had slaves
which were black and the reason for them
being black slaves was was was was
actually given reason to through liberal
frameworks and social contracts and all
those things so this thing here that
we're talking about is not as black and
white as many people think that's why
the Quran gives us a formula it says
look at those people that came and
ladina Holloman Kabbalah come that came
before you
you know can I share do men come over
they were stronger than you in strength
and there's many different ending of
that verses in the part of the Quran so
in other words look at the the
civilizations that have risen and fell
yeah and realize that actually this is
less to do with ideology and more to do
with all other things military success
your political circumstances you know
even natural resources why did the
industrial revolution happen in 1760 and
in England and not in India is that
because you know the English people were
more clever and you had to deal with no
it's because there was a concentration
of coal in Britain which they could use
to power you know steam trains and so on
so a lot of it these things are you
can't correlate it's a false thing it's
a fallacy to think I'm not saying you're
doing the fantasy by the way I'm just
saying it's a fallacy to think that
correlation equals causation there are a
plethora of different contributing
factors if we look at that in all in
totality we realize that the situation
is way more nuanced than we think maybe
a question on that side yes thank you
bismillah Salam alaikum warahmatu job my
question maybe inshallah fits you very
well because the question was also a
little a little bit of political yet
issued and today I came from Austria
Vienna and my question is because of
this area here many people are very
feared is it it's a dour question
actually
many people are very feared about
something like a great replacement which
happens because of increasing of Muslim
population in Central Europe probably
and my question is many people feel
about this great replacement and this
effects Muslims to worldwide you know my
question is how to handle these wrong
narratives because it's very it touches
many people the people in Europe and
they also feel is la will less liberate
them so to say so how what is your
recommendation on that topic I think you
guys are doing a great job either in
Austria because he's got an organization
you know it's called Amman isn't it
that's yes it's a great organization
that's what we should be doing we should
be raising our voices and making the
arguments and if we don't do it that
it's going to be the argument it's going
to be put on us and I think what you
guys are doing in Austria knowing the
social context because me being from
Britain and there's only so much I can
offer everyone else you know people in
specific contexts you know must do their
own homework look at the social and
legal context and deal with the issues
at hand you know so the kind of work
you're doing is exactly what needs to be
done and
sometimes it's just a matter of like the
sister was talking about kind of self
reflection and things like that and
being contributed to society
literally mixing with people because
pure research has shown us that the most
racist or Islamophobic societies are the
ones which have the least interaction
with Muslims you know so if we go and
this country is a little bit of an odd
case because you've got 20 million
people but you've somehow got this guy
and the far right thing with so many
seats in parliament it's quite an odd
situation in Western Europe to have that
many you know of seats so what I would
say is we need to go out to the areas
where there is not as many Muslims we
need to with these are the areas we need
to go into we need to tap those areas
when to show these people as sad as it
sounds that we're actually human beings
you know I mean as sad as it sounds
because they don't believe that you know
and and really they don't because if you
look at what they've done and how
dehumanization works it starts off with
this authorizing and it ends out it
finishes off it plays out until someone
is killed and you know one of my good
friends is Naima / sera Sharif well
they're a podcast with as well he's
doing his PhD on on dehumanization
anyway he was talking to me about was
how drones in particular are being used
because drones if you look at I mean how
there is little you know remote control
almost game-like
you know things where you can go and
kill someone when someone is far away
from someone
this is his conclusion if you like if so
if the further away you are of someone
the easier is to conceive of killing
them for your game it's not they're not
human it's it's difficult if you see a
human right in front of you the closer
we become to them right the easier is
for them to realize that we're human
beings and unfortunately what is
happening is there is a steady process
of dehumanization which we need to close
the gap off by actually being active
members like the system saying in
society not just concentrating in one
area there needs to be groups of people
that literally reach out to those
communities where demographics are
homogeneous if you like well there's
lots of white people and no one else
that's the most these are the most
dangerous areas just to let you know
because these are the areas where people
are most likely to have the worst
opinion of you know
just a view of all other you know based
on research and statistics on all other
you know racial groups now that's the
generalization but for the most part
that's what the research directs us to
we need to go into those areas tap them
talk to people show them we're human and
keep doing the kind of stuff you're
doing man
I gotta end over here yes did you came
all the way from Vienna for this event
we'll come back to Vienna we'll go to
you I'll try and do that yeah I totally
agree that dialogue is needed but I have
a question for you I'm not talking about
liberalism I don't know you I'm
Christian I'm but a laborious I don't
know but I'm I'm in favor of human
rights and I also have a Muslim friend
who who who wrote an article about yes
that human rights and Islam yes are
really compatible yes
don't you think that for a dialogue
between Muslims and non-muslims in this
country human the the statement of human
rights yes good places yeah I agree
the yeah and I agree that they oppose
myths in in the UAE hey that's not no no
I totally agree with your sentiment I
think you've asked a very good question
and I'm very personal on to the
discourse and I thank you for your
contribution definitely correct the
issue of course is of one of definitions
right so who gets to define exactly what
human rights are how they should be
implemented and who should implement
them because gone back to Manuel can he
believed in something called this
philosophy and this is enacted by the
way in the UN it's called
cosmopolitanism that's a big word what
does it mean it means that there are
these universal laws which have to be
implemented because if you have you
imagine if you have a world state right
you need to have a world police and you
need to have a world military and you
need to have a world you know judiciary
if you like and and all this gonna sound
conspiratorial but the United States of
America is trying to do that basically
it's trying to create as many allies
with it as possible and it's trying to
be the world police the world military
and so on so
not just about human rights this is an
interesting guys right for the fact that
America wants to encroach on as many
countries sovereignty as possible and
they do throw through the medium of
human rights so we need to look at
definitions carefully hierarchies
carefully because as Muslims and
Christians as Christians and Muslims we
believe in God's right as the most
supreme right of all now that's not
indicated at all in any of the human
rights and why or it not to be indicated
because of the secularism or the secular
istic pre dispersed opposition but we
don't believe in that
we're not secularists in that sense so
from that perspective I think I agree me
and you're both not secularists because
you'd identify yourself as a Christian
so we would want to see some of our you
know deities rights represented in this
right we're about human about mothers
rights you know thirty of the articles
that were written in 1948 in that
convention only the word mother I think
comes once in Islam we have a system
where mothers come first you know it's
not mentioned in human rights so we
would say look we have our own
conception of human rights where God
comes first you know spousal spousal
rights mothers rights husbands rights we
have our own conception and it and it
ranges from a societal description all
the way to a domestic one all the way
through to a familiar one all the way up
to a metaphysical one that's our
conception and there's going to be a
great deal of overlap and that's where
we can have the discussion but we can't
start by saying yes we must agree that
these are the objective human rights
that we all must universally accept
because that conversation is unfair I
believe a lot of questions mashallah
let's sister now and then we'll continue
shall love in most of the conversations
or as you said that we get very
apologetic say do you have like your
more suggestions next to what you said
to turn the conversation around
yes so a lot of the lecture was trying
to give you material for that right so
the most one of the most powerful things
in the world that you can do is ask a
question okay asking a question unlocks
everything right and usually the one
who's asking the question has the power
right and that's not always the case but
if you just think about three questions
to ask them about whatever
presupposition they're coming from so
for example is a feminist right
second-wave feminist and says how comes
in Islam you know you know and brew up
some bringing out myself right has
easily the issue of great controversy
someone says okay
how is it the case that man for example
has different inheritance laws to women
in the pariah
for example it shouldn't it be equal the
presupposition is that different things
should be treated equally by the way
with his anatomical and biological and
psychological difference despite those
differences which by the way second wave
feminism effort feminists acknowledge if
I said woman is in a more emotional than
man do I sound misogynistic be honest a
little bit yeah if I say man is stronger
he can control himself better you know a
woman she gets emotional she can cry she
should get palpitations
she's completely say hold on man you're
being misogynistic see these are not my
words these are the words of Simone de
Beauvoir here is who the writer of the
second sex page 45 wait a minute so am I
so so you're saying all those things but
but despite the fact that you she makes
the case despite those differences there
should be what there should be equality
but we say what hold on can you okay I'm
willing to go along please I'm really
happy to have this conversation with you
but before we continue I think it's fair
that you have to first justify that
first premise where there is difference
we should still be equal can you
elaborate can you elaborate on that can
you prove that I mean no problem I'll
I'm willing to take that on board but
what you have to prove because you made
the claim I mean if the burden of proof
was no one who made the claim they've
made the claim here so I'm willing to
listen to the argument you just have to
show me where
the principle of equality despite
difference should ought to prevail over
difference prescription where there is
difference for example right so the
point I'm making is one of the best
tactics is to to question
presuppositions and by the way on that
on that thing of inheritance we have
good researcher with us called chef not
off man
he's actually found that he literally
did an exhaustive vocalist o'clock
looking at all the cases and he found
that there are 20 major cases of
inheritance 16 of which by the way
according to his research women get more
than men did you know that it's really
interesting
where there's 20 different possible
cases of inheritance 16 of those cases
despite the fact that yeah the boy gets
with academia has their own thing we
know those vs. don't worry right the
despite that women get actually more in
16 out of 20 cases so if there isn't an
equality here it probably goes in the
way of the woman so let's go through the
next question in child but you gotta get
oh I'm saying yeah that's already a mic
yes thank you first of all would like to
thank you for your excellent
presentation it was a great insight
governor destroy this guy man this
noises as you were soaking this guy's
trying to what is it is it gets Wilders
here he's trying to kill us a or
something you found out where we are
thank you sorry go ahead
it's okay thank you very much for your
excellent presentation it was a crash
course in liberalism I also I also liked
your accent very much it was like
listening to we not as well so thank you
for that so basically the the the key
element of your speech of questioning
the question is a very interesting one
yeah and on a micro level on an
individual level it is a very effective
way to provide the your colleague or
your friend whatsoever with another
insight or another perspective to create
more understanding between one another
the question I would like to ask is that
if you take that questioning in the
question that concept that notion to
another level to a more strategic level
okay because I think the underline the
underlining an idea of questioning the
question is to influence the narrative
to a certain extent mm-hmm well you when
you influence a narrative there is a way
that you have the upper hand and there
is a way that you can teach the other
one something so if you would take that
notion through another level to a more
strategic level so not only not on an
individual level but more let's say more
on a political level or societal level
how would you advise us or what is it
what is your view on that how would how
do you think that we could do that in
the most effective way possible
I think formulating questions and gangue
wider society to think about them is one
of the best techniques you can do okay
really and you don't have to answer
everything I think your way of thinking
is excellent by the way right
you're thinking about how do we
implement these strategies on a wider
political level and to change the
narrative that's exactly what we should
be doing right but we can't I mean
Thomas Hobbes since we've mentioned him
today he says man is but covenants are
about words if they're not backed by
source and I'm not telling you to go get
some swords but what he's trying to say
is that your only your word is only as
worth as much as your strength so if you
speak as loud as you can but you're in a
forest or in you know an empty room no
one's gonna hear you right so you need
to put yourself
strategically in the right places
formulate the right arguments put
yourself in the right places and keep
keep rocking the boat basically
because if you don't rock the boat we're
not going to be able to once again this
idea we're not going to be able to
preserve our children's futures we know
now Western Europe is becoming way more
right-wing
so I'm believable how it's working and a
lot of that is our fault because we're
not rocking the boat enough we're not
shouting as loud to be fair as
homosexuals shouted in 1960 or as black
people did and and that's how they got
their rights right so what we're saying
is we need to rock the boat more I want
to get more involved and it's going to
be for the future of our children the
way your thinking is right just keep
thinking the way you're thinking right
put yourself in the right places and ask
the right questions it must be in the
right places though yep yes right here
by the way hello there I am I have a
pro-life question liberals tend to be
very pro-choice and you see more and
more Africa for the liberal position
being abortion on demand without apology
with no exception and preferably until
birth so as a Christian that obviously
it's a thorn in my eye so because I'm
ruggedly pro-life I'm hardcore pro-life
yes and as a Christian I see many
Christian organizations that advocate
for the pro-life position in the public
domain but I didn't barely if any see
any Islamic pro-life organizations so my
question is two-pronged number one is do
you know of any Islamic organizations
that argue for the pro-life position in
in in the public domain and two what is
your take on the Islamic position of the
pro-life argument I think very good
questions an excellent question in fact
you know what within Christianity there
is a spectrum as well so Catholics are
usually way more rigid than Protestants
and I think the sunni position and
usually the Shia position as well is
more in line with the prot
stern reasoning than it is with the
Catholic one so we don't believe that
conception happens when obviously sorry
that life happens at conception we
believe that there is either 40 or 120
days where in which you know the hadith
or Mossad you know and I had a camellia
Kuna if you bought neomi are buying a
omen not fathom I own a locket and by
the delica so my Kuna somebody moved
automatically that we or one of you is
gonna be 40 days in it sorry I'm just
getting the Haditha the hadith is that
if one of you is going to be in your
mother's room for 40 days and then
they'll become a la cárcel otherwise
scholars say that the the the soul the
insolvent period is either from 40 to
120 days I follow the hambo light school
of thought which says 40 days so
anything before 40 days is possible to
have an abortion
anything after 40 days I don't accept
that unless there is some kind of
extenuating circumstance and there are
some extenuating circumstances there are
some scholars in Islam which go further
than that and so on now that's point one
so in terms of that so we don't we're
not as rigid as the Catholic position
we're more in line with the process in
position point two to be honest with you
if we see Christians doing a good job we
leave them to it okay easily all right
some things that Christians are arguing
for and doing that we can't do okay do
you do that some Christians to be fair
in South America and other parts of
America to be honest are putting us all
kind of you know making us embarrass
just like some Muslims make us embarrass
us all because they're blowing up
abortion clinics and those things as
well
well that's problematic for us I'm sure
it's problematic for you so I think
there is there is scope for this for
agreement there can be collaboration
here there are points of interest but
for us the reason why we're not talking
about abortion as much which is a big
problem right especially when it's done
after let's say in these some country
some states apparently after six months
some ridiculous things like that
which we will see as murder as killing
someone right and you'd have to pay
blood money and all those things in
Islamic law and the reason why we're not
involved in that as much is because
we're
too busy a lot of the time looking at
how much of our children that you know
already born I've been killed in foreign
policy right so that's the issue I think
we're trying to prioritize minority
groups what to talk about first second
or third you're right to have a concern
and you're right to think that we should
be more involved but usually when the
Christians once again do a good job of
something we usually lead them to it
Jews would probably have more of an
influence on the problem okay well I
know maybe we could help you in some way
shape or form but we'd have to be in in
in compliance with our own principles
and I agree with your sentiments to a
great extent Thank You Ruby the other
microphone please yes different I want
to I want to ask when looking at liberal
loss for example in America what holds
more weights when for example children
must pledge allegiance to the flag in
the morning at school or the freedom not
at you not to do that or would that be
treason so in according to their loss
what will hold more weight or more yeah
I don't think they would deem it treason
if the kid decides not to do it by the
way but there are some things I mean
every state once again there are states
which have certain requirements for
treason to take place and so we have to
be very specific as to how we're making
the argument yeah I mean that's one of
the things which shows that there's a
nationalistic underpinning you're right
the whole allegiance to the flag thing
I mean desecrating a flag in many
countries in liberal countries is seen
as a criminal offense and that shows you
the extent to which for some reason
Republican liberal states decide where
and where you know how where and how
they can determine freedom of expression
it shows a contradiction in their
principles so it's good to outline that
from that perspective that this is a
contradiction your principles because
it's not in line with the funeral
session you promised us first instance
that's how I would kind of argue it
the mic is in the middle somewhere ya
know so I come thank you for your speech
I have a question what is the main cause
with regard to people from the West or
liberals we try to force down their
standard of norms and values and what
can we as Muslims do about this the
reason why they do it is the reason why
anyone does believes that their morals
are true it's usually because they've
been socialized into believing in that
like for example if we were all born in
ancient Greece and we were you know we
saw Athena as one of the Greek gods and
we knew that this God was responsible
for this and this it would be ingrained
in our culture so much so that we might
just feel it almost natural if you like
you know and so they've been brought up
into this and they can't strip
themselves away from this paradigm this
box is really difficult for them to take
themselves out of and so it's you do
have to engage with people in order to
take them outside of that box so they
can see that actually this is a rigid
box with its own you know problems and
so on and it has a certain amount of
dogma attached to it as well so I think
that it's difficult for anybody in any
society to see above and beyond their
worldview but with liberalism the
problem is that that's a problem because
liberalism itself talks about it doesn't
have any fixed positions on certain
moralities and then to also and the
issue is on foreign policy that if you
take this liberalism which is meant to
be espousing the self-expression of
someone and spread it you know that's
the real problem this in your
conservative understanding of liberalism
is the most problematic of all because
how can you force someone to I mean
you're forcing someone to be free it's a
that's a paradox I mean you're talking
about paradox that's that's the real
power so I think generally it's
difficult for people to think like that
because they're born and raised our you
know and it allows them to live a very
kind of heedless lifestyle frankly you
know I don't know how it is in the
Netherlands but you know we have a pop
culture in our country and UK I'm sure
that you have it as well yeah it's the
moral King as day or something yeah yeah
great party make sure you stay home
so allows them to live that life without
any regrets what really they have the
most regrets because if you look at
suicide rates and if you look at
depression rates this lifestyle isn't
doing it for them on a psychological
level less question in the front so make
it a good one you said liberalism
liberalism has nothing to offer to Islam
because it it's not based on objective
morality yes which you've demonstrated
very well tonight but what would you
reply to a liberal who in turn questions
the objective morality of Islam and
isn't the real question here tonight the
objective morality of Islam's versus the
subjective Ness of liberalism so a
liberal would say well what makes
Islamic of morality objective the thing
is it's not just Islamic of morality
well it's the idea of theism itself
right well you have a transcendent
entity which is all-knowing all-wise no
powerful which can endow these agents
agencies with freewill and the ability
to make it order be able to make a
decision and also you know morality if
morality does not come from such a
transcendent being such that if you wipe
off all of the humans on the earth that
the morals would stay the same right
then it's difficult to make a case for
objective morality therefore I would say
that if you want to argue on theism
you'd have to prove theism on first
principles so maybe an argument for the
existence of God really and then attach
to that something about the omnipotence
and the all-knowing nature of God once
you realize such an agency exists then
it makes sense that such an agency can
would and has endowed human beings with
such morality and from there you can
have a discussion but the only to be
honest with you in the history of
philosophy only a few philosophers have
actually dared to say you know we have a
mechanism not that there are objective
morals there are many people who say
that but we have a mechanism for
objective morality one of them was
Immanuel Kant he had this belief of the
categorical imperative I'm not going to
go into it but everyone has not in from
but it's been criticized disbelief
the mechanism itself is really
problematic but the idea is you can it's
very difficult it's very difficult to
have a mechanism like that so
philosophers have not really bothered
apart from afar a few of them in number
and so if you argue on theism then
obviously you can say object in mind it
comes from the all-knowing God simple as
that
if you don't argue on theism it becomes
very difficult
the Immanuel Kant found it very
difficult and it's been criticized with
this mechanism of the categorical
imperative well not many people believe
in the subjective model it can be proven
mechanistically if you like

so now I come what I want to learn is

Toggle Transcript

darwinian::noun | Spocien Dictionary

darwinian

noun

/dɑr'wɪniən/

an advocate of Darwinism

Type	Words
Type of	advocate, advocator, exponent, proponent

darwinian:: | Spocien Dictionary

darwinian

/dɑr'wɪniən/

of or relating to Charles Darwin's theory of organic evolution

Type	Words
Derivation	darwin

How to pronounce darwinian in Dutch?

darwinian::noun | Spocien Dictionary

abandonment

Related words

darwinian:: | Spocien Dictionary

abandonment

Related words

Related

Subscribe to our Newslatter