Abdullah al Andalusi – Refuting CRITICAL RACE THEORY – Islam Left or Right (Day 4)
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the theory of critical race and the negative consequences of racism, including "landless race" mentality. They emphasize the importance of creating a movement for systemic racism and empowering people to fight it, as it is a fundamental problem for most-Native Americans. They also touch on the history of slavery and its use of "landless race" as a term used by people. The conversation then shifts to the topic of "oppressed versus non-oppressed," and the potential impact of the pandemic on the economy. The speakers also discuss the success of their new drug candidate, Envision, and its potential benefits, including improved physical health, reduced symptoms, and increased productivity.
AI: Summary ©
Okay, so this Mala.
So, left wing is the left wing and right wing is the right wing. And I've made it more interesting for you guys. So the more the more rights you go, the more the system believes in political individualism whereby the individual is given less duties to society and more,
more individual freedom.
And on the left hand side is where they still believe in individuals being being free and being liberated, and so on, so forth. But they're given more obligations towards each other, in order to convey that freedom to help facilitate that freedom amongst each other. So basically, on the left hand side that you need to cite to make you free on the right hand side, you need to cite it to leave you alone, for you to be free. That's a good way of putting it if you'd like.
Now, you'll probably see some very confusing things like I don't get it. Why is
fascism linked to a bit of conservativism and it's also linked to socialism that's read those are two very fundamentally opposing things, but might remind you that the Nazi Party why they called the Nazis, I don't know why they called the Nazis. Nazis, sorry.
National Socialists, so they were both nationalists and socialists, socialism for the German people and no other people are well known within their within the territory. So it's about duty to the state. And they did German National Socialists was certainly believed, that people that fellow Germans can share resources can the means of production can be owned by the state for the sake of the nation, right? Whereas a socialist is not nationalist necessarily, because a socialist believes that his the their alma is the workers or the people that socialist or more internationalists. So nancies and nationalists, both hate socialists, because socialists, are not nationalist. Right? They
think that everyone's the working class versus the bourgeois. So in essence, the working classes are the Ummah, of the socialists, they are the people that their community.
So as you can see, fascism is really hard to classify because it's not like people say it's the far right, because a fascist or far right, the far right implies they want to go back to some time in the past, but fascists are very,
they innovate new social circumstances they think is better for the nation. So for example, in Nazi Germany, they, they had companies where the boards had a mixture of both the the top level executives are representative of the workers, and mid level managers all being an advising or consulting on the boards of each company, because they thought that makes the companies more efficient, that supports the nation fashion is all about making the nation strong. That's where the term comes from, fascist from the Italian word, or the Latin word for Shia meaning to basically, well, it's a bundle of sticks together, basically, you can't come break them. So it's about strong
strength. It's come from that that Roman Symbol of the an x and x with, with its handle going through a bundle of sticks tied together, so you can't break it, it was actually a symbolic
object that Romans carried into the Senate to illustrate that Romans are better united. So that's where it comes from.
Okay, so it's pretty hard. So those five crashes are not center.
But they are hard to classify because they both want to bring back some imagined golden age in the past that never existed, but using modern
modern institutions and creating modern myths, so are they really going to want to take things back into the past? Or are they want to just take a few ideas in the past or romanticize past and then to create a new myth for the future? It's hard to classify fascist basically, some people say that they're from the right. Some people say that historically, fascists are from the left. There's a big debate amongst political philosophies, philosophers on this matter. As you can see, Neo Marxism
is kind of its kind of parallel with social democracy is basically let's say, socialism, like you could say, in a liberal state. And post modernism, as you can see, is somewhere. It's very with woolly concept at the bottom there, because post modernism or post Marxism affects every school of thought is basically it it teaches people about, well, it teaches people its perception of language itself, that language is arbitrary. It's constantly changing meta narratives are not to be believed. But that doesn't mean now that people abandon them.
To narratives of being liberal or being conservative or being sort of Democrat or socialist and Marxist, but they might adopt a more pragmatic approach and say, Well, okay, maybe, you know, there's no, the historic inevitability of macro Marxism isn't true. But maybe pragmatically Marxism is very good to help individuals flourish.
With the considerations that
kind of post modernism has taught us tells about you don't need to know about that so much. But we will mention where post modernism has affected things like critical race theory and other Neo Marxist frameworks that has affected the thinkers there's difference of opinion amongst Critical Race theorists concerning it. As I like to do I want to start with a question to get your brains all we're wearing nothing about Zionism today. Of course.
Today is the question.
What is a white person?
strange creature I've been hearing about I don't know where it's located.
What do you think is a white person just when the back
was to the color of skin but yesterday morning
I was in a workshop, I was there I was told that
one person is a social construct.
So I'm not sure
either a person
or so this little box right and to make
that okay. So white person is a social construct. Okay. You Madam weights person would be the bowl for the dominance class or group in society. Okay, so a white person will be labeled for the dominant class or ruling group in society. But like, let's say for example, would you describe the ruling class in society in in Japan as being white because they are the ruling class? I'm seeing thoughts in this world, like, you know, how people describe us why people are all over the world. And
what I say is thoughts. wise person would be labeled for that superior ethnic, race or group which ethnic racial group that would be Caucasians Caucasians. Okay, so it's a term for everyone that came from the caucuses potentially you think Okay, anyone else on that's the site now we're going to move it then to you.
Anglo Saxon, Europeans like maybe Anglo Saxons are Europeans so Russians aren't white people then
or
or Lebanese aren't my people because they're not Caucasian. Nor are they European but some of them that really really kind of pale pale ish or not exactly North European pale or but like that but some something slightly lighter in skin of course anyone else what is the white person
you brother
a divide
so she to describe Westerners but then the question would be then are Russians not white people then
as a white person
as a white person stereotypically? It would be yeah but then But so then
you say quote, but what would be the definition wipers Do you think? Okay is there is typically you see in Europeans, but what is the description of the white person what would be a white person?
A person in the West
a customer Okay, let me flip the question on its head what would be what is a black person
you so confident with the white one for now you're just you're less confident and on this side you
the West
African lose
some characteristics, some of some of African roots darker skin and curlier hair
will usually go Okay, so like the average Egyptian is it would be a black person because they are darker skin curlier hair and their African roots.
It's good question. Okay.
I'm going to be mean to you guys because I studied ethnology
and divert diversification of the human family. So there's it's not as clear cut as you think I was.
Same as black and white, but
perhaps not the right thing to say. Or perhaps the most apt thing to say who knows? Okay, anyone else most definition of a black person then
since you failed to give a definition of a white person
would you do better? Yes.
Somebody
from African or Indian
anybody other than Kenya? anybody other than Kenya West? Okay. Okay, so someone who you say you say a black person someone who's black that's kind of a tautology
so roots from Africa so basically well, because I'm part North African. So my part black
right. Africa is a big continent. It's like saying, you know,
it's like Sega. Well, like definitely what does the definition of an Asian anyone from Asia sake okay, but then also Asians Asians Asian culture they have record it and they have you know,
masala and sounds like yeah, but that's not all Asian. Is it right? You can't that's generalization. It's a continent. It's a very massive continent. I love that diversity in that continent. Not not all one size fits all type classifications. Yeah.
social construct, okay. You Brother. I think it's arises from like the Western Hemisphere. It arises from the Western Hemisphere, okay.
Because
society wouldn't be
fair.
Say, it'd be more like feral dog. Well, if you look at the the preponderance of myelination for out the follows the the equator basically right. So the dark the closer to the equator you live, obviously with the sun beaming down with that radiation that causes skin cancer, you need some help, you need some eating, you need natural sunblock. Otherwise, you're going to be like the US the white Australians where they get eight times more skin cancer then aborigines and others that have more melanin in them. So almost like they weren't adapted to be there.
All right. Yeah. So but Africa isn't the only place that goes up. That's along the equator now. Is it? Yeah. You've got places that are close to the equator such as obviously South India. And there are many. Was it the form MSA president is actually quite deep some Bengali right, I believe. Yeah, he's quite it's quite dark in skin color. Compared to mele yourself. He's darker.
But is he black then? Because he can be darker than people that are black or called Black anyway? But why is he not cool back then if he's got darker skin than many people will call black who because it'd be back in society
if he's in the west with a mistake is black what not quite because I don't think he ever tell you that he he's ever been called a black person before so what else is also what else is going on? Then there's more uses to
black person is a social construct. So again definition a black person is a person from a racialized as it were so whites person is a person from a non racial ISIS it
Okay, so a white person is a person from a non racial, racialized society and a black person is from a person from a racialized society. But wouldn't you say that a society that obviously will say, well, white teen dominant, they are in a racialized society, they just happen to be on the top, the top rank of that society? So you're saying not okay, how can this apply in a country where its dominance?
Well, I'm just saying like, can we do we have a definition this is not just not a trick question to anyone I know. I know. You might think okay, what's going on, but it's just simply what would be a definition How would you define white person black person?
Interestingly enough, when the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam said, there's no there's no superiority,
he didn't say, of a white person over a black person who said over a red person have a black person and the black person have a red person didn't use the term white. Interestingly enough, yeah. But you think like, well, Arabs would be a mixed with a spectrum of, of colors. And some obviously, in Arabia, you've got many of the typical analogies.
People from Raman Plensa would look like of skin tone, approximating many Indian subcontinent tones, as
Well, not that not that far away, despite the fact that they're racist against people from Pakistan in India, who the workers amongst them, there's dead there's recorded racism against it anyway. So I tried to get your brains moving on this because
if I was if someone was to say for example that, okay, well a person is black, if they are literally the skin color is actually black then most people wouldn't be black because no one actually has literally black skin color. Some of you said that nilotic peoples in Central Africa are close to if not some actually almost almost kind of jet black. But most of them don't. In South Africa actually is lighter skin because they're far away from the the further away from the equator. Yeah.
If he was to say was a type of having short curls, for example, well, then that would exclude a lot of Somalis because Somalis don't have short curls. They have cars similar to an Egyptian might comparable, you know, and if Europeans
they also if you say it's a type of nose shape, like maybe it's a rounded nose, someone must have a rounded nose to have the typical phenotypical features that that distinguish. Again, Somalis have usually longer noses similar to Arabs, actually. So that means no black by that definition, but the people say but but here we would call them black in Canada and United America. So the the question is, what is a white white person and a black person? Well,
it depends who you ask and robot criteria, but in essence, the in the ancient world, there were really wasn't much uses of the such terms.
Yeah, they will just simply describe what the Greeks encountered Ethiopians first, and so they did they called everyone from Africa that was of darker skinned Ethiopians, because, but that was typical, right? The Muslims encountered the Franks first in Europe, of Western Europeans francs. So they could everybody Frangie all Europeans are Frangie. Even the you know, even the Anglo Saxons or the Crusaders were called Frangie, even though you had Germans and English because they're just because they cooled them based on the first ethnic group, they found the say, Okay, well, you will look similar. So your role, we're going to name you what is the collective identification thing that
we've done on the first
kind of ethnonym that we encountered, we'll just use that to as a generalization for you guys. So
in the ancient world, white black wasn't used so much, right? Although part of the time of the Prophet Muhammad Salam he didn't use it wasn't white black. And even though the translations say that which is incorrect, it's which was read why? Because people who have less marination you can see redness at times and through their skin, you will almost view that the skin was almost were not transparent, but you can see what underneath it basically. So the extreme isn't like white versus black. But the other extreme is basically it's it's basically a transparent so you can see the redness something.
Right? Anyway. So what is this lecture is about big massive disclaimer for any of you who thought that this was what's going to bunking critical race theory. Just like yesterday when I talked about refuting Zionism doesn't mean that you are anti semitic,
the prevailing of racism, the statistics, the historical evidence, the economic evidence of disparities and things like this.
The the the recorded surveillance, the document prevents people's testimonial surveillance of the recorded prevented testimonial perception of the prevent of injustice, hatred and harms caused by Kippur. And that's the BIA, which is called racism in the West book, Islam, we have our own terms Kibber. And our Subbiah is much more precise, which we'll get into this lecture will not challenge any of these facts. Why? Because they're facts, because they are recordings of observations, statistics, record observations, yeah. economic statistics, surveys, all this stuff, record observations. So no one's here to dispute observations. I know some conservatives do be and and some
liberals do because they believe that liberalism and conservatives is so perfect to a system that you cannot get once implemented properly, you would not have racism anymore. Everyone would just hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
And of course, Neo Marxist would argue against that saying that, Oh, you're just doing that because you're racist. And you do want to hide that fact? But really, no. For most cases, no, they just are so they believe so much in their system that they think it's working. Yeah. And they just think that, oh, the the purveyors of crime and
in minority communities is because they're not pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. That's what conservative because a conservative believes that in the society
With such as under their ideology, where everyone is given freedom to do what they wish by the law of the states not interfering with you, everyone can can make money if they have good ideas and they're clever enough that it's a meritocratic. Yeah. Strictly meritocratic. So they would, because they believe in their system so much. They play down race, they don't deny that people are racist, but they play down the surveillance of it or they play down. What you might call is described the systematic racism war in so institutional racism that may exist across the board. So this lecture won't be debating these, these observations because these are statistical observations. We're not
here to debate that, but what are we here to discuss them for not discussing the statistics? We are discussing? The explanation behind the statistics? Theory is not why did you call they're called theories? You know, all theories are called theory, this was not facts. Does anyone know why a theory is called a theory and facts could affect
the specter
theory cannot be proven through scientific testing, so that
it can be disproven are proven. Okay, so since I said, a theory cannot be proven by scientific testing, but a fact can be proven by, obviously, scientific testing observation,
can kind of something which can be proven, like, for example, the, you know, heliocentric theory or geocentric theory, at one point was the theory, and now we kind of proved it, but at the time, it wasn't able to be verified by the Greeks and others, but now it can be verified. What would you say the definition of factum theory
is reality revealed where OS YUI is just something that explains what's going on and what is present. Perfect system. She said that facts are basically what you ascertain by observation,
or by evidence, clear evidence that the evidence is themselves. And theory are explanations of those facts. Right, explaining the causes of those facts, the underlying causes. So we're going to be discussing whether critical race theory correctly explains the causes behind racism. And we'll be assessing it versus other models that assessed the cause cause of racism. Now,
long story short, the liberal would simply say to you that racism is the quarters caused by people's people just vote, with their freewill just being evil and what have you. But they might they probably will say, racism is just a relic of a past time. And anyone who's still racist, because they're still keeping the the radical, these these ideas. But once we've implemented equality under the law, and we have an education system that makes it that tells everybody, don't be racist, and then people publicly will say, Yeah, I'm not racist anymore, to the point that it's not socially, no one goes around saying, Yeah, I'm, I'm a racist, and therefore, they can't say that anymore. So
that's sufficient. But the liberal was like job done. Yeah. Onto the next thing. Yeah. Whereas,
well, we still see racism in, in liberal societies, we still see racism, not just in the West, we see racism in every single country on planet Earth. And we see all kinds of different types of racism on between all kinds of different types of ethnic groups, regardless of which color you are, what they would you speak, everyone seems to be racist. How does the Neo Marxist explain this? And how does what would be an Islamic explanation behind this? So let's have a look. But first, let us talk about what is critical race theory.
So, critical race theory is a theory is it is a critical theory, where we mentioned that yesterday from Neo Marxist perspective, critical theory is both an explanation and an attempt to change. Right? That's what makes it different from a simple theory, the like, how liberals would view theory, it's an explanation behind the cause of something and a means to change it at the same time, they're called critical theories and every Neo Marxist application race, gender, sexuality orientation, all this stuff, these they all called critical theories, okay. This is simply the application of the of Neo Marxism into this because Karl Marx said that, you know, previously
philosophy was just about explaining the world, but it should be about changing it. So the Neo Marxist took that hit Marx's ideas, okay. All philosophy is the philosophy of practice of changing of practicality of how do we practically change and so this is called critical theory because the method is day
Want to refute? The the Western kind of ideology, that's the dominant ideology, they want to refute it as a means to change it. Okay. And of course, bringing their own explanations as to as to kind of
in place of the dominant Western ideology, which is currently liberalism. And it's, it's kind of this brother conservativism. So
a critical theory, it's a critical theory aimed at exposing the origin of racism in societies, namely that such racism is structural, systemic and institutional in order to change it. Racism is described as discrimination based on race, ie not treating as equal, because remember, the argument is that the basis point good and bad is equality. Okay. So being being at a at a, having more power than someone else means that you're subjugating them. Okay? Yes, subjugation causes what they call harm. But it's not the harm issue. That is that the Origin of Evil, The Origin of Evil is the inequality, the harm comes as a result of the inequality. So yes, harm is the issue that they're
trying to reduce, they will say, alienation, as well, as Marx would say, but it's, it's arises from inequality. So they have built the inequality and then you deal with the harm.
Institutional racism, you don't need to be a NEO Marxist to believe in the concept called institutional racism or liberal completed to, it just means that we get if you have a police department or school, a local government administration department, where they're so filled with racists, that the the collective product of that institution is going to be racist and discriminatory, because they're so filled with racists in it, that the tired collective group produces racist outcomes. A liberal will become believe that no problem in fact, the liberal even
invented that term in the 1960s. So it wasn't the Marxist to talk, but they used it, it's an interesting, but what but Marxism or the Neo Marxism, you can hear it when they say racism is structural. That's a NEO Marxist. That's definitely Neo Marxist, outward Marxist. In fact, the market the market is conference, I traced this back to Marx conference in the early 1960s, which first used the term structural racism that I could find
where, because Karl Marx has an idea of what structure is, and we'll get to that just in the next slide. But if anyone says that it's described as racism that exists within the ideology and culture of society, including its physical institutions, like, you know, like media and, and government, and so on. So for police,
which emerged from a racial hierarchy in the structure of society, so it emanated from an economic system 400 years ago, that still is with us. And so it is now it is now hidden in the ether, between the spaces of these physicals, and within these Institute's physical institutions, it's in this thing called this ghostly canopy above us called the structure. Okay. Which makes it hard to find, because then, like, where is the structure? Exactly? You know, but they'll explain it what could exist in people's minds and exist as a as beyond the mind?
And it's kind of that's where they have issues with trying to locate it, or what will rather they'll say, what is located here, here, here, but then you, you say, Well, I want specifics. And you might be materialists, too. So what give me no specific but they'll see me, they will agree that it also exists within people's heads as well, people's minds. And of course, systemic racism are not to be confused with structural systemic racism is just simply that if you if you combine all the institutions together, all the racist institutions together, you get it being systemic, and then structural, is the system plus the ideology, right. So all these institutions plus the globe, the
ideology that dominates it, okay. So critical race theory is about exposing the origin race, some basics posit in the exist in the structure of society, and not just the hierarchy of it, but also within the ideology, the culture and so on, so forth. It emanates from ideas, or culture that ultimately emanate from an economic system. That's how that's what makes you a critical race theorists, I suppose, or just a NEO Marxist, generally speaking, because Neo Marxist would say the same thing every year about about gender disparities about sexual orientation, disparities, and so on, so forth. Okay. Why is critical race theory called a NEO Marxist framework? Am I just saying
that? Nope. The two main
the two main thinkers who coined critical race theory, Derek Bell, and Kimberly Crenshaw, who is also a Oh, I miss mispronounce the name there. So it's Crenshaw
day, who also was calling who's also notable for inventing the term
intersectionality and also being a feminist.
She writes in the book critical race theory, so, like no one's gonna say that she's not a critical race theory theorist. She's actually one of the OGS of the critical race theory, terms of thinkers. She says critical scholars derived their vision of legal ideology, in part from the work of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Neo Marxist theorist who developed an approach to understanding *, which transcend some of the limitations of traditional traditional Marxist accounts. He's called Neo Marxist, because he kind of moved away from old Marxism and tried to better understand how ideology
maintains itself and reproduces itself and survives in society, even if you you change the demographics around, or you change the economic system. So
critical race theory is essentially, they, the top scholars of it, or the leading founding scholars, they will quit, they would say, itself emanates from Neo Marxist thinkers. It's not just a label a pejorative term. Okay, so for anyone that wasn't here for Tuesday, and anyone that wasn't here yesterday, I'm going to help. I'm just going to give you a recap. So if you're a Marxist, and you're materialist, you have to explain where religion politics, culture comes from. So quite simply, society has two components, the base and the superstructure. The base is the all the economic stuff. So it's the factories, it's the, you know, a lumberjack with his with his chainsaw, or an axe or
what have you, this is the best what produces the material goods, because the materials would say that making the first thing humans did was they made stuff together to survive, and culture comes afterwards. But that's that's the case then coach, it comes from, and language comes from economic production then.
So I know it sounds crazy, but that's exactly what he argues exactly what he argues. So,
that was Marx's idea.
And Marx explains that your mind is a mixture, but your mind is a reflection of all that all of what society is, is reflected in your mind. So that's a little picture of the hierarchy then you're in the in the in the person's mind and it comes from the economic system. So you live in a society with an economic system, with with economic relations, which are which also are the same as social relations, they all want the same thing.
So, it is a hierarchy in society is reflected into your mind to Okay, so if people if there's if the bourgeois are on top ruling, then your culture, your religion, your politics, our bourgeois culture, religion politics to the ruling capital capitalists, basically. Okay, that's just a recap from the Karl Marx is very important, because critical race theory is will be based on this did this this thing is what makes it different from other theories of racism. Okay, so Marxism kind of failed to meet a number of productive predictions about what would happen in Europe, great workers revolution, it didn't happen. There was no workers revolution in the most advanced capitalist societies. Karl
Marx was basically wrong. Right? And Neo Marxist came in like Graham machine to try to explain why Karl Marx's predictions didn't work, didn't come out to be the way they were. And they explained it that that once the once the superstructure is created by the economic system,
if you if you destroy the economic system, or you change it, or you try to make it fairer, what have you, the superstructure has now a life of its own. Right, and it will try to preserve itself, it will resist, but even if you see change on the ground, the structure will preserve itself. That's what that's what makes your Neo Marxist if you think that you're a NEO Marxist, basically, that's what makes you near Marxist. Okay.
So then let's just go through then the tenets of critical race theory, what they believe, you know, I've often found slightly different peoples to say the word tenant, like, it's not a lodger that lives in your flat. Right, but tenant tenants guys.
Anyway.
So
the first main tenets of critical race theory derive from this. Okay, so let me explain, just briefly the origin. So there So Derek Bell was involved in law in the United of America. Obviously, he was around during the time of the Civil Rights movement in America, the where they had the Jim Crow laws in the south. So after people, people, African Americans didn't have the right to vote given to them during the 1960s they had the right to vote given to them
During the 1860s, yeah. But then what what was the civil rights movement happening for what because in the south, they were worried that obviously African Americans who used to be obviously, from large majorities, many areas, they would elect representatives who were African American, they would then go into the deep, they would kind of go into the individual state legislators, or the south southern states, and even eventually into the federal government. So it didn't like that very much. Because for wealthy, you can raise this reasons. And of course, they didn't trust the fact that these these people who were their slaves, would treat them nicely or be so concerned about their
rights when that because after 100 years of being treated as slaves, right, this doesn't, it's not conducive to fostering unity and sympathy and love. So they didn't trust it. So they implemented segregation laws, separate but equal. So African Americans had the right to vote, but and they had the right to, to shop and buy things and then to the contracts. But they were to be kept separate from white people in the south, right as being separate. But equal was there, because that doesn't violate the American constitutional as long as everyone's equal under the law.
They could the federal government couldn't argue against it.
But the issue is that they also implemented Jim Crow codes, which made it harder for African Americans to register to vote, right. And they will do a lot of shenanigans during election times where it would be very difficult, practically speaking for an African American to actually find the voting booth to vote, or even be allowed to register for it to meet a long criteria. Now, here's what they did. They applied a very long criteria of things you need to satisfy before you can register to vote. They just they just selectively didn't apply that on white voters. But they maintain that on black voters. So in theory, everyone has to sign has to achieve has to meet those
criteria. They just happen to not apply it when a white person comes into register to vote. Yeah, it's quite similar to what how Israel treats Palestinians. It has, yeah, it has a law for everybody in many areas. It just doesn't apply it to the settlers and other social but they apply it to the Palestinians basically. So very similar.
So the civil rights movement was about removing separate but equal and and and just leave it as equal and no, with equal opportunity, as well, no segregation.
And of course, there was there's many of the horrors of that, but I'm summarizing for the sake of, of time. So So Derek Bell studies, American law studies, federal law. And he notices, he argues that the law is colorblind doesn't look doesn't concern itself on race, you might think it's a good thing. Well, he'll say no, because the law assumes that like, for example, let's say you, you're starting a race, okay? And one person starts the race.
The gun shoots and they start the race and other persons kept back for five minutes, and then they start the race afterwards, who's gonna win the race you even though the rules the race are the same? But if you start one person first and all the person second? Well, the first person to go wins, isn't it? So if you have a law system whereby
at the get go, white Americans already have economic and financial advantages. They're not going to it's not going to be equal outcomes, or equal opportunities. Is it right? So Derek Bell sees the the federal law and he decides that the law he feels is actually favoring
white people because they have certain conditions that they that they started off in, which is more welfare and, and so whereas black peoples didn't start off with those same conditions after emancipation. So there's a disadvantage in the system.
So they first sight the spin of critical legal studies, but they felt their critical legal studies was was too much focused on the working classes generally, because all the Marxist right, they said the working class is our main concern.
Working class, but what about the black working classes? And so they kind of branch off with Kimberly Crenshaw, and they form critical race theory to discuss how black people in America are disadvantaged.
But how to explain this disadvantage, is it because again, you just you just say, right, we mentor people to black people in America. We don't give them we don't give them any resources or compensation or any or like, you know, even on the Prodigy. There you go. You're under a free system now with equal for everybody, but you have nothing in your pocket and you've just got the shot in your back. Yeah, it's going to be you're not going to be at a at a similar advantage to somebody who has inherited, you know, like a family home and land and things like that. You're not going to be in the same starting positions anyway. So that's why critical race theory was it was an is a popular,
but the explanation behind this is
is although they might accept that that is that's also that makes sense. But they will say no, no, no, there's something else going on. There's structural racism, there's this hidden hand of racism, which is part of the structure that is keeping these things, keeping racial disparities. There in, in America, basically now, I say America, because this is where quick race theory comes out from. Okay. It typically wasn't designed for other countries, because they weren't really focused on America and its specific reality. But eventually, they would want to the others, new people coming into critical race, they will want to apply everywhere in every country. You know, even in
countries, you might say, oh, yeah, you will play in England. Look at my North Street in England. And they say, Yeah, but you can't say they are treated unfairly because there was a structural racism that was created four or 500 years ago. For violin he goes, there's only Anglo Saxons, oh, well, Welsh and Scottish people. But so there's only white people in England, England wasn't designed with a racial hierarchy in mind ever. Right? It just had immigrants coming in at some point in the, in the late 19th and 20th century, there was no
the economic system was already established before immigrants of minorities coming in. Doesn't seem to make sense. But it doesn't stop them from from applying it though. Because then your Marxist, they have to explain the whole world via a system their assumptions anyway. So the first tenet of critical race theory is they criticize liberalism, a critical race theorists or a NEO Marxist, if you say you, if you say to them,
you've got liberal ideas, and they'll be very angry at you, because they hate liberalism, even though them and new Marx, liberals, liberals and Neo Marxist would agree on things like, you know, people should be allowed to do Zina. And that's fine. People should be able to drink alcohol, people should be allowed to, to same * marriage should be permitted to they'll agree on all those things. But you think they agree on those things? Because they're liberal? No, they feel those things because they're socialist and Marxist, or they or Neo Marxist. So you call them liberal, that'd be very angry with you. And they say, How dare you call me liberal, not liberal.
But they follow the Western Enlightenment ideas still, right? They just follow a different month hub? Yeah. It's like, basically, it's the equivalent of let's say, you know, you meet you meet a Muslim who you meet someone who's a Shia, and they say, Oh, I believe in the Prophet Muhammad Salam and the Quran, about your Sunni, right. And they'll get very angry. Because well, yes, technically, you know, Sunnis between the two, but not only Sunnis, right. So anyway.
So the second main tenant is race realism, or racism as normalcy. So in liberal in the liberal narrative, racism happens very exceptionally because you don't hear people say, you know, racist terms. Like Like, like in those movies, and in the south, where, you know, some southern meat sees a black person says racist, racist term to them.
It doesn't happen like that, they will say, it happens, it is normal, and it happens all the time. Even if you don't know it, as in you are being racist all the time. Even if you don't know it, basically. So it's normal. And it's meant to be and they'll say, it is meant to be as this is what the society was constructed for, it's deliberate. The reason the society is deliberate is part of the structure is what the structure does, right? It's what structure or doesn't matter and come demands. And the third thing is social construction of race. Now, going back to that question, they'll say, yes, the idea of who is white and who is not depends on the classification system that
the Americans adopted? Well, I suppose you can say the English colonies adopted around the late 17th century, where they basically they look, long story short, so they wanted indentured workers from Ireland, from England, where they needed as many people to come to work the fields and the land. But there was a bit there was there was some complaints amongst the indentured workers. indenture workers means basically, you agreed to go to America, and they will give you free right there. But you then now owe them seven, eight years of work. And your life is controlled by them, almost like a slave basically, except it's for a limited period of time. However, of course, if you make mistakes,
you're late for work you late for by five minutes, whatever, yours will be added to your time. That's an intention worker.
Anyway, so there was a bit of a but but but they generally have legal rights, that the English that the laws are the different colonies recognized. So technically speaking, they're a little more harder to control there was a rebellion by them there was there was a by indentured workers it was actually because they wanted the British government to conquer more land from the natives to to have more land for these because they didn't better workers hope we'll get we're promised to
be given land in return for these years of service. So they weren't really the good guys, of course.
And it was realized that indentured workers are to a lot of trouble. Whereas then some of them, some ones, some people suggested, hey, you know what, you know,
we could, why don't we just buy slaves from the West African States? They're really cheap. And basically, they don't we, you know, we can we don't they don't necessarily have to be given rights because they're slaves, right, that we can put them under a different legal category. Yeah. And that's what kind of in a way happens, right? So that's slaves are easier to manage, because they don't enjoy the same protections of the law, because you create a new legal status. But of course, then many slaves have free and liberated, right, they might be freed after some period of time. And then you can have an influx of people who, who in essence, you brought them in, in large numbers,
and not in the not under the best conditions. And now they become free. And how do you manage all this? So they simply made a very basic code, which is basically Okay, we have laws for people called Black people called White. Right? That was basically it very, very simplistic, didn't imagine Russians will be coming over or polish will be coming over, they didn't think like that. But imagine
Arabs that look like skins would be coming over, they didn't have them in mind. It was simply big for European people versus
people brought against their will to bid for servitude. And of course, there was no other states that selling slaves, except that they could find in such numbers except West African states. So that's basically where they got it from.
Interestingly, enough Christians when encountering people around the world, who would not didn't look like them, actually, for everyone, like Muslims that were from the tribe of Adam, were from Benny Adam. They fought the sense of Adam and Eve. So for them, it was the issue that these people weren't Christian these people were
they thought people are infidels. But you couldn't you couldn't convert an infidel to being a Christian. Okay.
So they didn't think that these people was not human. Right, that the slave they were importing didn't think initially. However,
it was the it was the Enlightenment era materialists that? Well, if you don't believe in the Bible, when you don't believe that we will from the family of Adam Alayhis Salam, then, what is What do you mean human? Right? And what do you mean? Like, you know, how do you know they're even part of the same species?
As yourself? Don't you see animals with slight variations, and then different species? They're the ones who started to make arguments and points and some, and then some made arguments and points to say, Oh, well, maybe they're not fully human as we are. And so you know, we can use them as slaves. Then you see, those who are Christian try to retrofit an argument that isn't in the Bible to say was the curse of ham, which is that people who are an African or darker skinned are part of the children of Ham, which was a biblical figure who was cursed keep it doesn't make sense because the children hammer the Semites. So it's like Jews and Arabs, so doesn't make any sense. But anyway, it was, it
was they were, they were playing mental gymnastics, you know, with the Bible, much like liberal Muslims do the crime. So anyway.
So that's the social construction of race. It comes from there. Some some English colonial administrator in the North American territories, basically wanted a way to distinguish Europeans from important slaves. So you said white and black, that's it. Right?
There was there was issues with people who like they couldn't classification like like Chinese, but where do they fit in, and all this stuff they didn't, you know,
early on, but generally speaking, that's where it comes from. So now, technically speaking, when Neo Marxist say that race is a construction, social construction, there's a part truth to that. These categorizations are socially constructed as in they were made by some pepsin person up and they became like taken on board. Whereas anthropologists will tell you that it's you can't read the fine people by something called Race and it doesn't make a genetically speaking, there's so much variation amongst human beings within one group of people that you just there's no way to delineate one group from another group. Much might you just say, What about phenotype phenotypical features,
but would you call race is just a collection of phenotypic features. Typical of that word, high frequency in one region. That's it, right? But it's
almost good segue into ethnology, but I want because but I could easily do so because it's fascinating, actually.
Okay.
All right. So the rest of quick, quite easy and quick to go through
whiteness as privilege and property.
So that Neo Marxist, they just can't get rid of their Marxist origins. So Karl Marx said the difference between the workers and the bourgeois is the bourgeois own property on capital, right? Well, if that makes more wealth, right? Well, but whiteness is not being white is not really a property apart from it apart from the
meaning of being an attribute, but it's not physical property. It's a property attribute, but it's not a it's not property, right?
Well, they, they wanted so much to keep the Marxist idea of, of using property to to or property explanations to, to kind of classify classes that they basically called whiteness as property. You might think what like you buy it? Well, they wouldn't say you buy or sell it. But well, they would say you said it, but you don't lose it. It's weird to say. So they say. It's like, it's like a it's like, it's like capital, right? Capital, keep generating wealth, right? So if you're white, if you have a white card, you know, American Express white cards, you can pay for goods and services, and beyond get a certain level of service for that. But if you don't have the white card, then you don't
get access to the same treatment and services and so on, so forth. So in a way you exchange it's been exchanged as a property has. It's a currency, basically. And so those who are the ruling classes, the white people in America, they have that as a property. And those who don't, who are not white don't have that as a property.
Yeah, so racism has emerged from social structure. I've already covered that. That's the main key idea of critical race theory, interest convergence on material material, determinism, how do you explain why white people got rid of the Jim Crow laws? How do you explain why there was emancipation of slaves? In America? If White people want to be on top? Surely
that would go if they want to maintain supremacy, why would they do those things? And of course, the Neo Marxist will simply explain that that's what they want you to think it was only only when it was in them monetary interests. Did they abolish slavery? And did they abolish the separate but ego but equal? Jim Crow laws? Okay. Remember, what is today we're talking about how Neo Marxist conspiratorial, so there's never any, there's no, there's never any benign or good reason, or virtuous reason why the class that they're fighting against does anything that appears to be good. It's always done for a negative reason. Now, I don't doubt there were many in that, that did. So
abolished slavery, and so on, so forth, because they viewed material interests. Adam Smith, for example, said that slaves are motivated as much as paid workers are Yeah, that's a true point. But
you know, the Wilberforce and the Quakers and others who led coup, a Christian based movements, who deemed to be anti Christian,
to maintain the institution of slavery, and led powerful lobbies. I don't think
the critical race theory said that's what they want you to think. But I don't think it's very unlikely he did it because they were gonna get money out of it, or they were somehow beneficial. They didn't own didn't even own slaves. They didn't have any investments in slaves. They were against it. They were a strong movement in Britain, the British system to abolish slavery and the British were the first people to abolish it, because of these people's campaigning. And in in America, of course, you have the Civil War, you have all this fighting over the issue of states rights, yes. But it's because they were conquering westward, and they didn't want to keep slavery as
institution for the new states. Right. And then the south fought that that would threaten them they say, Well, if we're gonna make new states what does have to be like what you northerners say it has to do with no slavery? That's not fair. Like why can't we just have so so the creek race Davis was say, that's all that was. That was just a front it was it was all part of the the destructive civil war that killed 600,000.
Americans American people's
it was just because it was in the interest to do so to liberate in equals liberate slaves, slaves. It's hard to swallow as an explanation. Although, yes, I do agree that one could argue that Abraham Lincoln was wanted to increase the power of federalization over the southern states. That doesn't argument this but it doesn't fully explain all the data, that that's the issue. But the Neo Marxist would say, No, no, no, no, this is all they want you to think that but there was only in their interest. That was why they engaged in that civil war and so on, so forth. So anyway,
this is this is where they bring their presumptions. They don't let the evidence speak for itself. They bring presumptions into it, okay.
You
differential racialization they say that in society, there is negative negative stereotyping of minorities. By the way, just to revert go back to the interest convergence point, a liberal would would clearly argue that the liberal values of many of the founding fathers were against slavery from the beginning.
The French Revolution was actually the first state to abolish slavery, and they had no reason to do so. Because it was against the revolutionary principles of all humans are equal. And because they follow content of philosophy, everyone has a mind everyone's equal, and so on, so forth. So how would you explain that one? Right, then it got reversed with the counter revolution. Anyway, Napoleon Bonaparte reverse there. But anyway,
the inadequacy of colorblindness, this is a big one.
So they say just acting like you don't see color is is bad. Because they say that well exists, racism exists. So if you pretend that you don't see color, because you want to be neutral, you're covering up racism.
Yeah, and you're blind to it. So they'll say that definitely.
Color based standpoint, subjectivity. So basically, yes, if you are in a minority of some kind, your personal experiences, however you wish to interpret the world has a higher
epistemological value than someone who has an attribute of the of the dominant classes, whether you're a female, whether you're black, whether you're queer, whether you're
not neuro don't know neurotypical, neuro, atypical, whatever, whether you're disabled, you have a higher epistemology in your statement rights. And if anyone changes, you also can have evidence, they are denying your subjectivity. And they are trying to oppress you. Basically, if they ask for evidence, they're trying to impress you.
I'm not joking, but we'll get to that.
So many of the more Marxist of the Neo Marxist, more kind of old guard, they would argue the way to achieve racial equality is wealth redistribution, right? Because this the structure is based on the economic base, right, so But of course, they would say that even if you had a society where proportionally, all African Americans had the same amount of wealth proportionately as white Americans, black Americans are still a minority about 16%. Also, so they're still disadvantaged. So I suppose they would the only way you could truly have
a harmonious system of with no racism, according to these economic determinist is, the population is 5050, white, black with 5050 wealth going either side, then possibly, but not guaranteed.
Here's an interesting one. Many of them who have adopted post modernism have talked about counter narrative campaigning, storytelling, to tell stories to to white people about what it's like to be black, and what it's like to experience racism and so on, so forth. This is the one thing of critical race theory that actually agree with this is actually a very good idea. Right? But not because it's of Neo Marxists. This is this is the post modernist influence, where it talks about making counter narratives, you know, to stereotype to negative stereotypes.
As a good idea, I totally agree. That's a great idea. You know, Jordan Jordan. Peele, not Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peele and
keep Jordan key is Key and Peele, those two the two guys can't peel. Yeah. So data, movies and things were very, very interesting movies, where they've tried to show in very sophisticated ways, what it might be like to be a black person in, in America, basically. And yeah, these are, these are some good, these are good things because it's not using any any.
Okay, I mean, the general idea of telling your own story to people so that they can see things for your eyes, in principle is not probable, but that we have a problem that telling a different narrative, is actually it's not only it's for critical race theorists, this is a universal way of persuading and challenging. So this is the only thing I agree with them. It's not unique to them, it's only thing I agree that they they say, which I say has good merit in it. Okay, so one of the, one of the key issues now
raising racial consciousness, Critical Race theorists like any other Neo Marxist, they say the key to liberation is to create your, your identity group into a group into actual faction movement, or class, basically, to fight against the oppressive classes. So it's not about
we as individuals who have a particular attributes we need to just integrate better with society, but no, no, no. You need to form your own movement group. bond with each other first, then fight the rest fight.
The ruling classes as a class, basically. So they're all about equality, race, race consciousness.
And the feminists have gender consciousness, you know, and so on so forth. And so because they all follow the same methodology just that they applied to different angles. Now of course, as Muslims Islam would critique this, we'd say that hold fully firmly to the rope of Allah and do not be divided amongst yourselves.
The Ulsan has Raj were two tribes in Medina or yesterday who had a history of fighting each other one tribe was the majority or the one was a minority
did after Islam came to me yesterday and the United there is some still had some Janelia in them. Some still remember the old days where they had to fight each other and they almost burst into actual fight between the two. Okay. Did the Prophet Muhammad was awesome say to the minority tribe? Well the only way to get rid of this old Janelia is you guys need to form one class because you're the minority against the majority group to fight against that's the way you change that is the way you change the bigotry from the past Nope. He couldn't then that they even brought it up and he called them by one name but unsolved the helpers not they also know as large as as two separate
peoples. Yeah, okay. Use the term now and get but not he called them it by a collective. The collective word. Yeah, so the unsolved Yeah. So
that would disagree very much with what critical race theory with the mind of Muslims that we separate into and and gender theory and so on, so that we separate into factions in order to fight injustice, fast that you can't fight injustice, by doing something that would Islam will cause it to be unjust, it you can't fight fire with by making more fire, basically. So the way to fight racism is a race war. That was their argument.
But the way to fight racism is race was not that they wouldn't say race wars that simply say that, as a minority. They the need to be conscious of their of their oppression. And only when they're conscious of it, that they've been oppressed. Can they fight against it, because only they truly realize that they are oppressed.
Which is strange, because that means you're saying that they don't realize they're oppressed, but only but no one else can help them because they only they can realize they're oppressed. But they don't realize they're oppressed at that point in time. We need to make them realize that they're oppressed.
It's called Raising class consciousness, oppressed as a class not oppressed because they have an attribute. Oppressed as a group. That's what they mean by that. Yeah. So yeah, of course, of course, anyone, like, if you're Arab, in America, you're not you're not you're not gonna be treated, you know, given a good time on planes and things like that.
They would say, if there was a critical race theory for Arabs, they wouldn't say that you need to be you. Arabs need to know that that tree differently because they know the tree differently. But you need to know that you're being treated differently as a class as a collective group. That's what they're talking about. Okay.
Now, I mentioned yesterday and day before by midwives are mentioned today again, Sigmund Freud, Sigmund Freud talks about the you can have hidden ideas in your mind that makes you do things. So this makes Neo Marxist Oh, psychoanalyst, because they are going to interpret your actions.
And they're going to interpret it in a negative way. Because of course, if there is racism, and you are part of the system, and the racism benefits, you, then you are part of the racism and hence everything you do is racist, even if you don't know that you're doing it.
Okay.
All right. Well, I was gonna go through this, but that's not
what you really mentioned. You mentioned that. Okay. So, critical race theory believes in what's called standpoint epistemology. I mentioned this before, but just very quickly, they said that knowledge is socially created, right? There's no knowledge outside of society. So if you're basically
if someone tells you say, if you're If knowledge is socially created, then your knowledge in your head is due to position society. So you could never know what it's like to be someone who's oppressed, and you could never understand oppression because you're, you're situated in a place when you can't have that knowledge, because you're the oppressor.
So, if someone tells you that they're being oppressed, or and they tell you how they're being oppressed, and in what way, or how they feel they're being oppressed, then they have more pistol political weight than you do. Because if you're not the majority group in any particular situation, so if you're the majority group, then you won't know what their oppression feels like. And then you'd have no basis to deny them. They say you have no reason to say they're wrong. Why? Because you are the oppressor or press the class and for you your privilege.
is invisible. So if you're denying what they say, or even ask them for evidence, you have no reason to do that. Right? Because you should know that you don't know you can never know unless they tell you. So by stopping them from saying it, you're basically maintaining your oppression on over them will argue, okay.
Roland Barthes, who is a French philosopher, post modernists, he would add few things to Neo Marxist soup. He would simply say that is equal to the death of the author. Books are no longer judged by what the author intends. Right. And he will say, he won't say that we should stop doing we should stop caring what the author intends. He simply says that, that's what humans have always done. They don't care what the author says. It's all about what they can interpret. So as you as Muslims, if you say, but the Quran and Sunnah says, they'll say no, you say, and you're the oppressor class. Therefore, you your interpretation is a depresses interpretation. Right? It's not what you don't
know what all at once, and it's all about what it's all about what the Cryosauna
can do for us, not what we can do for the Quran and Sunnah. Basically, that's their approach that has affected how they would, how they assess you say, Cryosauna, they'll say no, it's just that's just you, right?
Michel Foucault, he, he would argue that power is, is, is manifested by individuals, but oppression can occur. His understanding of oppression would be by following a common narrative that might be a bad a false narrative or bad narrative, and that you adopt that narrative. And then you are a manifestation of the narratives of oppression, you know, the person the narrative creates, makes you commit oppression as an individual, now, he left Neo Marxism. But he continued to love Marxist ideas in new forms, which is what he was, he was saying, why I mentioned him is because he would argue now that in all your social interactions, your personal social interactions, every interaction you have
with someone who is a minority in any characteristic, their sexuality, race, gender,
disability, whatever the case might be, every individual interaction you have with them, is you reinforcing unconsciously, if you don't, whether or not your superior relations over them, you're your group superiority over them. So this would make Neo Marxist basically, obviously, a site. The concerns of microaggressions we covered yesterday is where micro aggressions whereby you might do things where if the person feels or interprets that what you're doing is offensive against them, that you're, you're you're exhibiting arrogance against them, or you're judging them by a stereotype that they don't like, right there. And it's up to them to decide what that is, then you're coming in
micro aggression, and you have to apologize and be sorry for it once they raise it to you.
Because you were doing it because you're reinforcing your superiority of your your group over them. That's what they argue. Okay. If you think I just made the up the critical race theory there is who is actually Japanese Matsuda. He says racist racist speech is particularly harmful because it is a mechanism of subordination, reinforcing a historically a historical vertical relationship. So racist speech, and they didn't define what racist speech means. But to give you an example, I want to give you an example. So let's say you have an organization that you your organization wants to eliminate racism.
And you want to do so by asking
anyone who is subjected to racism, whether it's black Muslims, whether it's Kurdish Muslims, because because maybe took them as majority Turks there, whether it's, you know, a majority led organization and there's minority Pakistanis there, whatever, if you want to eliminate racism, and you speak to the you get to the minority, Muslims will have my minority attribute, as they say, and you say, We'd like you to, to voice your issues that you experienced, and we want you to tell us what you're doing, how you're experiencing racism, what we can do to help you.
You're reinforcing racism.
Alright, by doing that, you're like, what doesn't make sense? Yeah. Well, Read on
to the jump to hit Yeah. Audrey Lord.
Not referring to the reaction you get when you read what she says or not what she's saying, but here we go. She says, whenever the need for some pretense of coming
The question arises, those who profit from our oppression call upon us to share our knowledge with them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes. Black and third world people are expected to educate White people as to our humanity. Women are experts to educate men, lesbians and gay men are expected to educate heterosexual heterosexual world, the oppressors maintain their position and evade their responsibility for their own actions. There is a constant drain of energy, which might be better used in redefining ourselves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the present and constructing the future.
Also, and Lopez and Gaytan, John Murray, similar to Audrey Lorde said, saying thanks so much. They said, We share the theoretical framework of critical race theory that has got our research and thinking educators must examine their positionality engage in self reflection, and come to understand what they need to learn and unlearn. It is not the responsibility of black people to teach others how to engage in anti oppression education, while at the same time experiencing the pain, trauma and suffering of anti blackness and anti racism. So basically, if you want to eliminate racism in your in your organization, or organizations, and you reach out and say, Please tell us,
you know how to do it to people suffering from racism, you're doing it, but you're doing it to as a pretense. And in reality, you're maintaining racism, you're maintaining supremacy. That's why I say that there's nothing good you can ever do to Neo Marxists because they are they are, they're meant to interpret everything you do as being racist. Right? The only thing you could do, which they can't argue against, and that would they'd like is, you basically say, Okay, I'm gonna shut up, my job is to give you my platform and amplify your voice. Basically, you take control, and you we put you above we put you into going into control of the management and what have you
to put big, they become the majority, then they would accept that maybe you're you've done your you've got good intentions, but you still have to say they're racist to you. So I am racist. I can't change that. But I can only be more aware of my racism. So I'm going to shut up and just give, I'm going to amplify your voice by giving you my platform. That's how you meant to That's how you're meant to treat. Anyone who argues that or whether it's sexism, whether it's heteronormativity, whatever, whichever attribute, that's how you're meant to approach those things. But in the middle of question,
they contradict themselves.
responsibility of the press to educate. Yep.
Oh, no, no, they said that they didn't educate, did not observe.
The other slides mentioned that it is the responsibility of the press to educate, you know, didn't say the oppressed mentor. No.
No, it doesn't say that. So
they're not saying that it's their responsibility the they're not gonna take themselves off, you know, didn't say that the oppressed have responsibility to educate the oppressors. They're saying that by the oppressors demanding or or or
asking the oppressed to educate them, they're already it's already a kind of real reinforcing this relationship whereby they say you're not human until you tell us why you're human. That's how they're interpreting it. Okay, which is crazy isn't as crazy interpretation, but that's exactly how they interpret it. Right? You know, the back
these people
become the majority don't they become the oppressors mentally?
Well, quick, well, critical race theory, feminism, Neo Marxist feminism, queer, queer theory, a cisgender theorists, all these these these people, they don't care. They don't care to think about what would happen if, let's say, if everyone was queer and the majority people queer the majority people will even majority people were a minority, Latino, black, Asian would have you they don't look, they don't care so much about that. Because then yeah, then the problem would disappear. And that and that's their job is done and they can retire. Right? But so that they don't have a plan for what their future would look like, you know, how to prevent oppression. But that could be all
because they materialists and some have said that even if they were to get into a position of power and to oppress because they've been oppressed for 400 years in the past you know, there would have to be an equal amount of oppression from them to balance things out.
Not majority don't say that though. But wanted to do but as I said, like you know, everyone's got got the got some more rack wacky radical elements amongst them, right. So that doesn't represent a majority of them at all. Just one second. Let me just finish and then we'll, we'll go. Okay. So as I mentioned that they
They have suspicion about social relations. They say social relations are oppressive relations.
This is similar to what I mentioned about about what feminists said yesterday that feminists will say the same thing about how women are treated.
Islam, we reject standpoint epistemology, we say if people were given in accordance with their claims, men would claim the wealth and lives of other people. Right? The burden of proof is upon the claimant, you must insist for evidence. Okay. You can't simply say, Well, someone feels like it's no, we need evidence before we act. Right? It's as simple as now that's different from that's different from saying that because people say, you know, for example, the feminists will say women should be should be listened to and believed. Right. So now what we're what the court of law requires is that women or anyone would should be listened to, and their testimony checked. Right?
But same with men. You need you need a law legal system that does that. But they'll say, but in this, the legal system is structurally sexist, because in the majority of * cases, it's hard to prove, because it's the man's testimony versus the woman's testimony. That means that the majority of rapists get away.
And we'd say, well, that's because you guys, you allows in, you allow alcohol, you allow seclusion, this happens if you're going to create that society that allows that it's going to happen, because they are crazy. They're criminals. And if you give criminals opportunity, they're going to take it. Yeah. So Islam, we would prevent those things from happening in the first place. Not that there's no no that goes against our liberal and socialist values. It's not that there's not the rights, we give people sort of freedom. The problem is that the law is structurally sexist. Because if it wasn't sexist, then the majority of rapists will be punished. That's exactly how they argue. And I
encountered one individual on okay, it's only one individual on Twitter doesn't represent all feminists of course.
Hashtag not all feminists. But But she said, if, if some if men if innocent men need to go to prison for 20 years, to save to for justice for * victims, so be it. Okay. But what does Islam say? Why is better?
The Prophet Muhammad said to paraphrase, better criminal go free than innocent person be punished. Okay. So that's, we would disagree with that. Yeah. How do you solve the problem of *? Well, Islam does have solutions. Yeah, our Dawa should be that maybe you shouldn't Laos in alcohol and seclusion. Maybe you know, what's funny, there was this atheist guy. I'm not gonna mention names, right. But as atheists guy, he, when it comes to debate with Muslims against Muslims, and he's very arrogant, so that the classroom is like, segregated, but because most of them women are going on one side and Muslim men go on the side, right. But he said he started to accuse the organizers of
mandating gender segregation, and they didn't either there was no Muslims mixing in the in the middle and all over the place. So he says, I'm going to lead this debate in this, you know, it's not so grated. And the organizers say, look, look, we're not telling people where to sit. Okay, in making all big hullabaloo big hullabaloo about this couple years later, about 10 to 15. Women testify that in atheist conferences that he attended, he'd been the he's been groping them.
Yeah, maybe that's why he was angry. He was angry, but just disintegration it's like, I can't get my group in
the cramping my style, you Muslims.
Right. So so, you know, we would say, Yeah, we want to we want to eliminate majority of rapes that happened to we want to have our prevention is better than cure. Right. Let's prevent it. Yeah, go for that. Yeah, you liberals and socialists, you can't prevent it. Because you want to give people the right to to be put in situations whereby criminals have opportunity to get away with it. We focus on prevention. Right. Okay. As I mentioned yesterday, Islam is against the doctrine of suspicion, the Prophet, the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam said beware suspicion for suspicion is the worst of false tales, and many verses of Quran that say the same thing, making negative
negative assumptions. The Neo Marxist is filled with suspicion and filled with reinterpreting your actions. Whereas in Islam, the actions we must judge on the forehead, we judge on the apparent right when you can only judge on the parent you cannot judge by people's hearts. Yeah. It's interesting, because many of these Neo Marxists they'll say, you can't like we can tell what your intent is. But if someone says, Well, I think you believe in cover ideas. Oh, why don't you just my heart? Say?
Okay.
Right.
Michael
aggressions. Sometimes they'll argue that speaking the truth to them is a microaggression. They'll say, Screw you, like you talked, like telling us that you need evidence or even refuting us. This is a microaggression. You're denying my, my humanity. As I mentioned in the, in the feminism discussion yesterday, if you see at the bottom of the quote, it says that gender oppression is the process that limits
or prohibits one's freedom, dignity or subjectivity. Yeah. Your meaning your opinion. So if someone doesn't agree with your opinion, and the dispute says or, or questions you about it, they are limiting your subjectivity. They are limiting the value of your opinion by not embracing it unilaterally. Right. So it's viewed as oppression, to not accept what the blind this tell you
also
D'Angelo, again, a critical race theory scholar, although some people follow critical race theory have this read who has this love hate relationship with her because they love her stuff. They use this white fragility, they use this as a concept, but she's a white woman. So so they both say that she's not a critical race theorists and but then they use white fragility as an argument. And we've documented that. Anyway. I've seen that once, at least once. I'm okay. So. So they would argue that if if you accuse someone of being racist, let's say you accuse a white person, or anyone being racist, and that's it, they're not racist. But of course, if they get it, they're not racist.
But they react angrily. Or they don't like to be upset, like, Don't accuse me of being racist to say, oh, that's your white fragility. You're just it's just a defense mechanism, because you are racist, and you don't know what to say. So that's why you're being angry about it. I'm not you read it, it's there. Right. And, and you being angry about being called a racist, is deliberately so to reinforce the racial hierarchy. You're reinforcing the racial oppression. So even being angry if you get called a racist, you should just accept that go yes, I'm racist.
I'm sexist, I'm Europe, I'm homophobic, I'm disabled. Just whatever, ablest. Sorry. You have to accept those things. If you don't, and you react, you're reinforcing the oppression and reinforcing
reinstating the racial equilibrium.
Okay.
Now, we're about to finish. But basically,
if anyone thinks that they can just be a critical race theorist, and they don't have to agree with queer theory, for example, let's just say
that that can't happen. Why? Because the same principles that are used to condemn racism,
right, the same way that no human being should be discriminated based on an attribute they have, yes, well, your sexual orientations and attributes according to the same Neo Marxist and therefore,
you have to also be against heteronormative oppression, or supremacy.
Right. Or Phallocentric set fellow centrism, you have to be against
anyone who called who believes or argues that different * relationships is the norm.
Right? Because you're now discriminating against someone who doesn't, who doesn't feel that way or doesn't like doesn't believe that, and you're marginalizing them. And you're oppressing them by saying they're not, that's not normal. Right? For the same reason that you can say white people can do the white attribute.
You can't say that white attribute is the norm and you know, what have you, right? So that's their, their basis for their judgment on this argument on these arguments, right. As a Muslim, some people don't realize they see no problem of adopting the general principle and then they they are forced to be consistent with that principle and then have to say that they adopt, they have to criticize heteronormativity as well. Okay. Whereas as Muslims, we simply say that the creator of the universe, were equal initially, in front of the eyes of the Creator, because the creator of the universe considered considered us to be of equal value in his eyes, when we initially created of course,
those of you who are righteous, you rise up in that value.
But if you do that, as Muslims, we believe that same * * is a sin. So if you do that, then you go down in value because this is against his or her prohibitions. That's our soul. That's our basis.
Right? And of course, if someone has kippered if you think you're better than another human being because you've got, I don't know you're the ginger or something or you don't know whatever you think about them. Then this is Kibera. I
And this makes you go all the way down, you know in value because this is haram this is some people say Kippur is a kind of shook, as well, it was close to shirk, yet associating partners to God because like you didn't make yourself to think yourself better than then another creation of God, which is like, which is like you went, Oh, the same state and while you're, you know, divine or something. So some of you say there's almost like a type of shook.
So that's why we would condemn Kippur and our Subbiah right, forming factions based on an attribute, same tribe, same language, same whatever you forming a tribe and defending that group, whether it is just or not just to defend it. But that's different from Aamna. Right home as a family understanding, and with us as OMA Yes, we care for our family, our fellow Muslim brothers, sisters, but if you have a Muslim is doing injustice. We don't defend them from bad for different doing injustice, we don't fit in no matter what. Yeah, we prevent them from doing injustice. Right, and we defend them against injustice. So that's the difference with Islam and phobia. Okay, so what is the
standard response of humanity for humanity? Humanity isn't classified by oppressor and oppressed, but believer in truth, a disbeliever in those who disbelieve in truth, or humans can oppress if given the motivation, and opportunity.
All humans?
So how is giving everybody power? How is empowering everyone going to solve this? Is like the NRA saying, which they do. We can stop school shooting, if everyone has guns.
Give everybody guns? What's the worst that can happen? Right? Yeah, well, if we give everyone a gun, that it's not going to stop, the shooting is going to increase the shooting, basically, giving everybody power. I'm not saying it should be on equal power. I'm simply saying that using thinking that is the solution. When humans are the oppressors, right? You just whether you're male, female, black, white,
heteronormative or not, we're all whatever you want to call ablest disabled, whatever you want to call, right?
You're anyone and everyone can be the oppressor.
Right? They just need the opportunity and motivation to do so. But anyone can and they can and anyone can be motivated to do so from a variety of reasons.
By this word, pressure volume in
general is relative frequently referred to as volume when you are the oppressors. So this
breast presser seems to be a great speaker. Yep. So how would I respond to the fact that Courtney has a ton
of volume? Well, what's definition of volume in in the Quran, sunnah, right? It's you transgress the limits of who of Allah Spano, Allah, those who transgress the limits of God, then you then you commit to them. Right? And usually you transgress the limits of God or the or you fail to to give what is deserved to someone else. You do follow them on them. Even if you're not harming them, you just don't give them what they would that they deserved from you. You're they have your obligation, you're not fulfilling obligation to them. volum right, this is how we define it. Right? So
as I said, in the Quran, I mentioned yesterday I'll say it again, which is it's not about pressing a presser in the Quran it says If only you could see what the wrongdoer is who will be the time before they're Lord throwing blame at each other is oh Rob do is all wrong this and who are these people? Below Lee? Those on the lower class will say to those to the arrogant those know the upper class, had it not been for you we would certainly have been believers and the arrogant will respond to the lowly did we ever hinder you from guidance after he came to you? In fact, you were wicked? You're You're wicked as well, not just us. We were just in different parts of the boat on top deck and
bottom deck but we are both going in the same setting in the same ship going the same direction. Yeah, that's in essence that the counter argument okay, but it's at the low levels. It's arrogant. No, it was you're plotting by day and night when you ordered asked to disbelieve in Allah and to set up equals with him. Right but they will all hide their hide remorse when they see the torments right. So they will be punished.
That it here's the fascinating thing about this right, which is
take the patriarchal white supremacist, capitalist bourgeoisie class, okay? Within the worldview that other Neo Marxists they believe in equality, but Neo Marxist says they don't they don't follow it. Okay, they don't follow it. They believe in individualism. They just don't allow everyone to be fully individualistic to be individual. The problem that the Neo
Marx would say is that they're not the ruling classes are not letting the lower classes be sovereign over themselves truly, and, and be and own themselves and do whatever they want. Right? That's their complaint. But the reason why both of them are going to be punished is because while the ruling class is believed in equality, and indeed, then the individual can do whatever they want. Right? The lower classes wanted the same cover the same disbelief idea that I did, that the individual owns themselves, you are suffering of yourself, there's nothing higher than yourself. Right? The lower classes wanted the same cover. They just were angry, didn't get it didn't get it didn't get to fully
live it. Right.
So So part of the Quran, the Quran is the best arguments I've always I've always said this book.
Also, the Quran says, Oh, you believe be staunch and justice witnesses for God, even though it be against yourselves or your parents or your Kindred, whether a rich man or a poor man. Now, look at this, right?
So a critical race theorist, and also a feminist Neo Marxist feminists will say this.
When you ask, what is sexism, what is racism? They won't say it just means discrimination of somebody negatively or precedent because their racial gender, and they'll say, it is the instantiation of a set of power relations between those who have more power and those who have less power. And you might think, Okay, why would they say that? Well, why is that important? Well Put very simply, is, let's say, let's take for example, okay, well, let's say a woman goes up to a man and says, All men are stupid and dumb, and they should all be sent to a camp where they will be where they'll only be asked to donate their genetic material, but otherwise remain in there for the
rest of their lives. There's one crazy feminists actually said that actually, but radical one and the minority of course.
And that's not sexist. Why? Because you can't be you can't oppress the oppressor. They say, you can be rude, insulting. And also you can be racist. You can say that, you know, you can you can say, Well, why people are evil. You can say that why people are the spawn of Satan. You can, depending on which which hierarchy you're gonna cite, you can say, why are people the spawn of Satan and evil? As long as you're under, you're in a classification. Or you're in a class that is that you would say is in an oppressed position visibly Arab, for example, right? You could say that, and that wouldn't be racist. It's only raised as if it comes from if you inhabit an oppressor group, against an oppressed
group.
The Quran says not to insult each other or use nicknames or, or things like this, it doesn't matter whether you're oppressed or oppressor, that also goes against the Quran what it says, as well. Why because you as an individual, are only responsible for your deeds, not for some oppressive group or class. But Neo Marxism assigns collective blame, much like there's like the Zionist regime, collective punishment for the Palestinians. If because one Palestinian, shorter mortar or something like this, they all must be they all must be punished. Right? So Neo Marxist thinks exactly like that. So they say they call it reverse racism and reverse sexism and they say, you can't be reverse
racist, and you can't be reverse sexist, and, and so on and so forth. Okay.
And lastly, to finish off, what's the Islamic perspective, then
well, keep it in US Obeah are not the product of structures of society.
A bliss had Kippur was a part of a socio economic system, where genes were the were the top and humans were the bottom and he was merely instantiating the oppressive groups power relations with the oppressed human group. No he was not
but Kippur is spontaneously arises even you see amongst kids, kids just spontaneously amongst kids, between two siblings, now I beat you I'm better than you why it spontaneously arises among because humans are fallible creatures, and prone to two very stupid assumptions and errors about themselves.
Asked to be forming groups randomly and being proud of those groups. It forms it because spontaneously, I when I was at university, I went to paintballing. Right to with my university friends, and we were grouped we were put into one big group, the organizers came around they just said, you know, red, red tag, blue tag, red tag, blue tag Rector blue tag, and suddenly within maybe like a minute or two
Like red teams the best way the best, like you all randomly assigned, you don't even know who's else on your team. And you're suddenly the best now because of your, your, your you've got that little color banding on your arm. Okay? Guess what? Imagine that But humans with ethnicity, what village you're from, or town or tribe or so on. You see my point. Okay. But also, humans act upon suspicion for against foreigners and foreign people they don't understand or they don't know that their motivations they act suspiciously. And they don't trust you don't trust people that you don't know strangers, and you don't trust people, especially the people that look different from you. It's a
naturally occurring, unfortunate problem that humans have, if they're not guided by revelation. If they're not guided by revelation. Yeah, there's a famous Arab proverb. I think Vernier will tell you, Megan's my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me, my brother, my cousin against the stranger.
That's pretty much humans and in Janelia, basically. So then in Latin America, who is the dominant group? It's not to say white people is an oversimplification. We all know who they are the Anglo Saxons, basically. Right? Because French because they don't speak French. Right? In Canada, where they haven't been able to force the French speakers to speak English, there is rank or hatred even between the two. Okay, I want spoken though, I said this quite often, but I was on mute couple years ago, I was on a plane sitting next to some white Canadian guy, European Canadian.
And we just got talking, I'm I'm quite sociable on the plane because I'm bored. So I started talking to people and I start talking to him. And as he's talking, he starts saying things like, you know, you know, I, you know, cuz I'm a British person, here's my accent, I'm from England, he feels like he opened up to me, because he's like, he's like, he's, like, he feels he's oppressed in his country. He said, I support Trump. I think he's a good leader. But you know, my girlfriend doesn't Did she really disagrees me on this. And, and I'm so glad I could talk to you about this. Because for me, it was like a, you're like a,
like a zoo. ologists or something? No, like, you're, you're, you're going through the forest. And you just think, Oh, look at this animal. And I'm just gonna let the animal be as it as I'm not saying a Trump supporter. And by the way, I'm just simply saying that I was a passive observer, I was learning I want to, I want to understand the thinking of this person, right? So I was just listening wasn't saying much, wasn't it? Listen, I asked him a question. Why do you why do you say this? Why do you say this? Anyway, he opened up to me, and then I asked him
about French speakers and Canada and the domestic issues. And he was telling me quite interesting. He said that
he's a Trump supporter, right. And he doesn't like immigration so much into Canada. But he says that he hates French speakers more than immigrants, basically.
Yeah, of course, critical race theory couldn't explain that but the stomach understanding of humans, the Kubler Ross, the BIA model, you could say had been has been discovered, also be a quite
in quite depth detail how it affects people. But basically, I'm asked to be a is a dominate or be dominated type of concept, okay. And in every country, especially nation states, with a state represents the nation, which nation,
then there's a fight in that country. And it's my way, whichever country you go to, you want to go to Ethiopia, multiple ethnic groups fighting along ethnic lines, and they are racist. You want to go to Somalia, you think, oh, everyone's Somali there. Right? What would be the racism in Somalia? Well, against the Bantu Somalis, there's quite a lot of racism, actually. Because Somalia was a was a place that had slaves. They were slavers. And they took
non Somali slaves which were which are generally called band twos, but they nicknamed them as Algeria. I believe if correct me for this money, you can Oh, yeah, he's laughing because like, he knows he knows our secret Quick, get him to let him tell people, right. Yeah. And because the Bantu and these are Muslims, by the way, who they being racist against. They have more you could say, sub Sahara typical typical Sub Saharan African features wrapped more rounded noses, that the hair is more tighter curls. And they are they are derogatory insulted for these attributes. Right. So
so well, just guys just come tomorrow you can have we have some fun with that with what's going to be discussed tomorrow about this topic. But anyway,
is it because they have internalized whiteness that they few other Africa? No, they were like this beforehand, as they were the racism has existed in the Muslim world and in every part of the world. Forever, right? Chinese, right? They don't let the quiet low very much today. The foreigners down there. The Chinese call the Middle Kingdom. Why? Because they're the center of the Earth and everyone around them is
barbarians. Yet Ancient Greeks. Were asked when we get the word barbarian from Barbarossa. Do these foreigners sound the same to us? Yeah. Again and again and again humans have are racist, or you might call it racist. But let's say us A, B and kibin are Serbia and Kippur all the time. Okay. Creek race theory doesn't understand that, that that humans can spontaneously be could be evil goes against the Enlightenment values, especially goes against their Cartesian idea of that we are, we are disembodied minds, and the mind is only corrupted by bad ideas. And in this case, by that is comes from bad material circumstances, you know, the Marxist idea, but if you say no, no, no, it's
not material circumstances. It's just humans. were given the opportunity motivation will be oppressors will do bad things will be racist, and they'll be racist to any or anyone else different from themselves. Okay. Like, the like, go to Japan, right? You might be at white western, that doesn't get you very far. In Japan, they don't go Oh, you're the superior race was no, you're you're the strange foreign and weird and like you and, and get out the country and in many cases, right? Yeah. Don't care. Right. They don't in every country, they the majority group thinks they're the best.
Right? They're the best and everyone else are inferior, or strange or weird or what have you. Right? More or less? Right? That's someone said that there are instances where, where, like, those black women go into workplaces in America. And there's been stories where they say that the people just touched their hair, like, you know, you know, like, Oh, you got nice hair. They said like, like if I was grabbing and touching it. Yeah, that's when and ran like ridiculous. Yeah. I mean, as infants for that had because you meant to be professional work. They're not gonna be touching people's hair. I can, I would agree with that. But the motivation to do so. Okay, is not a white thing. There's a
documentary where someone goes into Papa New Guinea, and also into
Papa New Guinea. And the people there obviously, they're not white, right? And they see a white person with a straight blonde hair. He's just coming to meet them. And they're like, ah, they'll start growing around him and just touching his hair right in front of him like, Okay, guys, okay. He's not really expressing bother about it. But, but I would agree. I would agree that it is ridiculous for me to do so in the office space. How do you touch people's hair other than the office that is going over the limits? That's definitely going over the limits. But I'm simply say, but the going over the limits in the office is the valid argument. But the motivation to touch people's hair
when you're not used to that type of thing is a typical human thing that you see across the whole planet is my is my point. Okay? It's not necessarily racist, but touching your hair in the office. Yeah, that's definitely a problem. massive problem there. And yeah, racist, probably racist in that situation. So
anyway, as Muslims, Islam has a solution to this, which is, once we realize that we're all one tribe and the Adam, and once we realize that as Muslims, we can't revel in our lineage or land or nationality. And when the Prophet Muhammad said and done it, undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of Jehovah, and the glorification of ancestors. Now, people are of two kinds, either believers who are aware or transgressive, who do wrong, you are all children of Adam and Adam was made of clay. People should give up their pride in nations because that is a code from the code of hellfire. If they do not give this up, Allah will consider them lower than the
lowly worm, which puts pushes through Hara dung.
excrement, right.
So
that's the Islamic perspective, is a human we answer humans as they are. Okay. And we condemn what's called racism. But we have more specific and better descriptive terms for that Kipper, and ASA BIA. And there's a few other Arabic words we can use for different other such things. But let's say keep an eye out to be the two main ones. So brothers and sisters, if someone says to you that your mosque, your MSA, your business or company needs to institute anti racism policies, be careful, because their definition of what is racism might not be according to Cryosauna. You say, Well, look, I don't I'm not anti racist, because I don't believe that humans are humanity because it has
multiple races within it. We are one race, I reject the social construct. Why are we going to fight against the social construct by reinforcing the social construct? Right? By the way, this discussion of the post modernists have said the same thing as I've just said, now they've they noticed this as well. They say this is incorrect. A broken clock is right twice a day, so don't worry, but those buddies
so so as associate
and people insisted you say, You know what, no, I'm Muslim. I'm going to implement anti Kippur and anti Serbia policies, right from the Quran and Sunnah. I'm going to implement that. And we're going to tell Muslims if we encounter any Muslims that demonstrate Kibet, or demonstrate our Serbia, we're going to warn them that they are Punjab Alia, and they could be from the cost of health. This is the cause of hellfire. Yeah. Right. And, you know, it's in Jahannam, everyone's all one color burned. Yeah, so so so like, like, if anyone wants to be homeless, I've given us a beer they should avoid and they care about not being burned, they should, they should avoid those things that send them to
such a place. But a coffee can burn sisters, thank you for listening. And I look forward to your questions, contentions and comments and Shawn.
By the way, just to add to point that this is actually a point of good data for Muslims to do that is Islam has the means within it, to implement the solution to keep at a loss of beer globally, you know, even though we ourselves represent perhaps the least best example of eliminating keeping us to be amongst ourselves. But that's only because we don't implement Islam and because we don't want to implement Islam to be honest. Right? Yeah, it's that's more shocking thing to say. Because if I tell people unity, let's unite and they say, oh, but how can we unite with with with the the afshari, the Moto EDS, and
the Turks and what have you and the Arabs and what have you? And I say, well, then you don't you disbelieve in the verse of the Quran that says that do not be divided amongst yourselves. I don't believe in the verse. Well, if, if Allah says, do not be divided amongst yourselves, and you're justifying to me why we shouldn't be divided, then is that not disbelief in that verse? Right, then then you don't believe in it? Yeah. So as Muslims, we are the least unfortunately, representative of the Islamic goals, unfortunately, I'd say arguably, but we actually do possess the solution to it. The solution because, as I said,
without revelation, the mentality of Janelia it will be a keep it off the beat will naturally arise in India Halia, it naturally arises, right? If you're a materialist, why can't you be why can't you say you're superior to other people? If you're a genius, and that's not that's not genius, and you're materialist? You'd say, Well, yeah, I'm superior to these plebeians. Right, you know, you so why would why would the materialist say that? Yeah, that's what materials in a way invented the kind of modern racism, you can understand the idea of racial superiority, they invented it, because was one set of atoms that are compared to No, it's not a set of atoms, you know, that you just make any
on the any arbitrary criteria. So you're better? Yeah. So of course, they said it. But as Muslims, we have a basis, we know, Revelation
shows us our cosmic place.
Anyway. contentions questions
I have, I've always give privilege,
a privilege to the, to the contention class, the class of people in this unit, or in this university, we have continued with me an ever growing class, no doubt, but I'll give you I'll give this oppressed class privilege to to contend with me and voice your disagreement. So if anyone disagrees with anything I've said, maybe if I misrepresented critical race theory, you know, even if I've, I've studied for eight years. But did I miss something in my studies, perhaps? Yeah, please tell me. I'd like to know. So if I misrepresented it, if I lied about it. And my ignorance, have a knock, given that evidence is pleased anyone disagrees? Me on anything I say. Please go ahead. I'll
give. Now before what happens is I give asking for contention before I see questions and answers. But unfortunately, the contention session goes on quite long as there's everyone's got contention. So I will give one contention. And then one or two questions, then a lot of contention who will mix it up a bit. Okay. So does anyone had a disagreement with me on anything?
No. Hand up on Are they just eating? Okay. Yeah.
No. Okay. Questions then.
But you
missed the beginning. So can you quickly sum up what
rescue means because I've always, like tried to understand it when it popped up in the news when they were trying to
teach in the US. Yes. I was trying to understand, I really never understood the meaning. Okay, so critical race theory is a theory as a new Marxist theory. And what makes any a Marxist is they argue that racism
is is racism
is part of the structure of society. And by structure they mean it is part of the ideology, the culture, it is embedded in the law in and in the eye, the idea is both conscious and unconscious of the people of a society. So it comes from people believing it is a set of concepts. And it also it being present and kind of permeating the legal system and institutions and so on so forth in this kind of ghostly ether, it's permeating these things, and it emerges from from, from this, this this ether coded structure. Okay, that is a NEO Marxist, applying it to race or a critical race theorists basically.
Because of the differences in like,
the classes, that's what causes the racism, they're saying.
They'll say the differences, the differences in power between the classes is the reason for,
for why this the entire structure is racist, because of the unequal power balance. And the unequal power balance causes those who don't have the power as much to be oppressed. And because they are subjugated, those who have more power over them. Yes.
Sure.
I'm correct. Like the ones who were advocating for this, were liberals, right? us
serve as publicans. They will advocate for what sorry?
No, no, the liberals, the liberals don't believe in critical race theory.
The Democrats want the liberals. The Democrats are a mix
of liberals and socialists, Marxists Neo Marxists, they mix. So again, that's where that's where we, we generalize
what people are and what people do. So yeah, they're mixed bag basically.
Okay.
You, brother. So you talked about how getting together
within factions to fight the other race or whatever it is not used, shouldn't becomes
kind of stood. Again, a practical example. For example, we talked about in the 17th century English colonies, you had the Europeans, and you had the slaves. So in this situation, if you're a slave,
what what do you do? Like you're just stuck in a situation? Like, like, if here's a situation where I'm just trying to imagine it like the other? Like, obviously, the slaves, they don't maybe they don't want to be slaves, right? Like,
whatever pain points or whatever? Yeah. So how do you go about it? And then obviously, this is a kind of extreme or extreme example. Right? But as you could apply it into like,
you saying, if you're in if you're living in the Senate, in the 17th, or 18th century colonies, and you're, you're a slave on the colonies, should you not unite with other slaves to apprise against the not the slave owners? Uprising, but I'm just I'm just asking like, well, you couldn't form a political campaigning class if you're saved, because you're saying they're going to put they're going to kill you or whip you or whatever. You can say, Well, I'm not gonna press against you. But we're going to form a political lobby, which will let you know even be locked out of the plantation. It's not so. So unless you're uprising, there's nothing else you can do. Or you're escaping or
uprising. One of one of the two things, you don't need to do those two things. Right. But well, yeah, if you want to be Spartacus, you know, he was a Roman gladiatorial slave and he up rose against the Romans and led Okay, didn't work out so well eventually for that for them. But the slaves back then were multi ethnic crime. They didn't there was no idea of,
of racial slavery, or slavery that should be taken from one race. But that being said, it's not like the Europeans went to a market and go, Oh,
well, why don't we buy the white slaves? They've been more pricier but let's buy the white slaves. Now. There was for them West Africa was selling so they they bought Okay, everyone forgets that, you know, that was that that that film came out woman king or something like this? You know, talking about bit of controversy around that wasn't it because the Dahomey were some of the worst slavers in West Africa.
And they didn't just enslave their con their fellow
compatriots in the region.
They did gratuitous violence that didn't even need to be done. You go can you call it the people that have to kill the survivors? Or just gratuity randomly killed people, you know, just for fun? But they did. So you want to make a movie about them? The slavers. They are the suppliers to the European powers.
Of course, you know
The people talk about the danger was different that, you know, racial slavery was, was something concocted by it was concocted by liberals to justify why they're the universal values should there should be an exception for the universal values. Before that they didn't people who didn't believe in universal values, or at least, like Christian thought Christian values for Christians and don't care about non Christians, but liberals thought that all humans, you know, deserve the rights they were talking about. But But Oh, but maybe not those guys, because we want to make we want to benefit from slavery, so not them.
Although John Locke made an argument, he said that,
that slavery is not not you didn't care about race, he didn't mention race. He simply said in his Second Treatise of government, you mentioned race elsewhere, but not in that, that. In that book, he said, he said that if anyone's enslaved, you can buy them and you can use them. So like, slavery is valid to be done, if that's their initial condition, but he said, he said it. That's their condition, because they fought in a war. And they were due to be killed, because they fought in a war. But instead the the cap the captain, the cap tours, decided to spare them
when they could have been killed. So it's not like I own your life now, because I could just kill you. Right? That would have been what you deserve, but I'm not going to kill you. So I'm going to stay killing you if you just work. Right. So don't look argued that was fine. Right? So he used that logic to justify and use race, race based logics, at least in that book, history as his Second Treatise of government.
But in the, in the medieval world, ancient world, you know, slavery was was equal opportunities.
You know, that for many ethnic ethnicity, as long as maybe it's not your own City's ethnicity. But you know, Spartans would would readily make slaves with their fellow Greeks all the time, actually, and Athenians to it, who knows they could capture
the Muslim world. Again, they enslave loads of Europeans and North Africans were made up in an industry of enslaving Europeans, actually in selling them in the markets of North Africa.
So yeah, Somalis were slavers of bamboos and others East Africans
so much. Yeah. But see, here's the fascinating thing, unlike what happened in Europe, whereby in America because they didn't want to marry they want to have intermarriage, they had laws against into marriage and to keep everyone separate so that it prevents
it prevents some kind of takeover by you know, a people that that is a different nation to themselves as opposed to be the Anglo Saxons viewed it in the Muslim world, people basically like saves. They had they, they had a huge influx of slaves. But where were the slaves going? Because like we don't see your multi generational slaves were like someone says, I My father was a slave. My grandfather's slave, my great grandfather's they were, were they disappearing off too? If you do genetic tests, right, a lot of Arabs not as they have a high degree of this will say African genes in themselves. Why? Because they basically refried them and intermarried them.
But when you do that, you didn't you didn't use slaves them because the slaves have become free and you've married them and you have children have them we need new ones. So the Europeans was shocked with because they knew they knew they knew that the Muslims had high turnovers of slaves. But they they couldn't see them anywhere. There wasn't that many they'll be like a message to like book in the plantation in North America. There's like tons of them. Were very austere. Don't want to only see a few guys. A few people read what happened to them? Yeah, well, you know, like, Oh, you mean my grandma? You know, that kind of thing? You know, that would be the kid. Yeah. So it was it was
different. It was a different it wasn't race based, per se. But it didn't mean that they weren't. They weren't
believed by some Arabs who fought that I've asked for the best. And
let me put into perspective here, just just so you understand. So you've been doing I've been had done he followed the kind of the climate theory of, of human temperament that the humans resemble the climate they live in. Okay, it was popular back then. So, he explained. So he explained that people often say, oh, it will have done is antiplaque races. Why? Because he says that those people in far deep Africa
blow the blow the Sahara Desert. They are like closer to savages and animals and things like that, right? Because they have
extreme climate on them. And I say yeah, but that's wrong, of course. But he also said that white people were slaves all the way up in the cold north, but also animalistic and close to animals enslaved because they lived under the extreme climate of coldness. But he said that, you know, those who are Ethiopians and Arabs and so on, they are part of the civilized peoples. Yeah. So what
Does that tell you,
it tells you that everyone thinks that their race is the center of the world and everyone else barbarians? That's what it tells you basically, that the further out you are from that central group, the more barbaric you are basically, that's just common. But the critical race theory makes it some kind of cosmic story that it was only the white people that did this. And, and the reason why that everyone around the world is racist today is only because of colonialism because white people told people to be racist. So you should, because I'm pretty much don't think that's the case, historically speaking, and then people have been pre racist for centuries. Anyway.
So yeah, hope that answers your general question about the origin of kibin of Serbia is humans is Janelia. Right? Sorry. It's not the human mind given given being taught by bad ideas, the human mind making assumptions of its own accord. Yeah, he believes the first person that had who manifested Kibber, as far as far as we know, anyway, there was no society that gave him that he wasn't given structural racism by a society of genes against humans, right. He was an individual, he hated humans, because he thought he was made of fire on the hill or off saying firing us some fire in us and humans are made of and use that as an excuse to assume that he's better than them. Okay. So,
yeah, of course, as I said, Neo Marxism thinks and post structuralism and post modernism thinks that language was made by society socially constructed, well explained Adam link salaams language then that was taught by what he learned language and an article before there was even a second human being around so explain that one. Yeah, so it's this is not our model of understanding human beings is not how we understand human beings. And the standard model explains human behavior much better. So if you take it as a theory, it explains all the data points much more consistently with no gymnastics of dry it's the most frugal explanation that you know, so use Auckland's reader razor,
the simplest explanation is the best. Right? So that would be our argument. Okay, don't accept the new model is rubbish, basically. And yeah, you don't need to fight up by making a
class faction as Muslims. Muslims, we need to stand for justice we witnessed the mankind is the only class faction that's fighting is those upon the truth against those who are not upon the truth, mainly because if you're not upon the truth, you won't know what to fight for. Anyway, so of course, by necessity, the class faction has to be those people who believe the truth because they don't want to know what to do, you know, correctly anyway. Any other comments, contentions or
not from the site? Okay, so probably the back
to critical race theory
perspective.
Okay, so how do we convince non muslims so, so this week, like in three weeks time, we have, obviously, Islam Awareness Week, and this week, as my colleague has mentioned, is a call for awareness week. So, awareness of comfort,
of disbelief.
This is primarily designed for Muslims, because coffee Cafe does know about Kofi already, because they follow it. Whereas, whereas
Muslim, most Muslims don't are not meant to know we're not meant to have that awareness of goodbye following it, but some do, unfortunately.
And you need to know how to explain that what they're following is not Islamic. Because they'll say they don't see that they won't see any problem with it, because their knowledge of Islam is not that deep, or their knowledge of these theories, not that deep, and they don't see the problem of it. So they'll happily call other Muslims and they'll insult they'll use racial insults, quote, unquote, against other Muslims, and they'll justify it by saying it's okay. Because they're the oppressor class. And we're the oppressed. I say, so I thought we will probably be on there. You know, like, they say, oh, yeah, but just being a part of me doesn't mean that Muslim can't be bad to each other.
So yeah, I know that, but we meant to be better than the valley mean, we don't join the valley mean, in in the game of Gollum.
You know, don't be don't join the game. Yeah. And just say, Okay, well, I'll fight back against you. We've we've counted on them. Like, I'm sorry, that's not how we work as Muslims. Yeah. So
it's, it's
bad for debating non Muslims. There's a problem which is, you're starting basis. Okay. You have to start from a basis not just the initial ideas they talk about, but you have to start from there Kedah attack there.
Key the first. And the first thing you attack is basically individualism, the idea that the individual owns themselves, we that we made ourselves, we didn't make ourselves, obviously, but that we somehow have sovereignty over ourselves. If you, if you destroy that basis, if you say that there's no possibility of good and bad, or the purpose of life and the creator, and so on, so forth, then they all everything, everything built,
everything built on that top idea, you doesn't use to destroy that top idea. Everything that's attached to it falls down, you snip it, and it all falls down, basically. But of course, you can debate Critical Race theorists and mention, you know, okay, well,
you know, please explain in South Africa, why South South Africans are racist against Mozambicans, even though they're not, like,
visually diverse or significant significantly. There's not much diversity in terms of the physical physical appearance phenotype.
What one is Portuguese speakers, other ones, obviously, English and regional language because like
Rosa, clicking it, it's x H, O. S, a regional language,
and Zulu. So, you know, how do you explain that? Well, the critical race theory and I have heard some, I've heard one of them say that,
due to white colonialism, the South the black stuff, Africans have internalized whiteness ideas, that makes them treat Africans as white as the white people viewed Africans to be, you know, so they like their self hating Africans in this day, they see black fellow black Africans, through the lens of whiteness, you know, it's so meant the mental gymnastics they used to explain, to make a universal way to explain racism is so ridiculous.
That yeah, that just doesn't, you just have to try to point it out and hope that they're sincere enough to accept that, you know, the Islamic perspective explains all instances around the world of it, simply and beautifully. If you can say that it's a simpler explanation makes more sense. Humans are racist,
spontaneously, the job of humans spontaneously generate what you call racism, kibin, wasabia, spontaneously, you know, so
not even human even Jinn
in you know, so, so that's the way to argue
about it. But like, as I said, it's like,
it's like you, let's say you have the bait with on LGBT, same * marriage. So the debate is not whether it should be legal in America, what have you, because you say, well, whatever non Muslims do amongst themselves, is not our concern. But we will merely bear witness to what is the moral value of these things? And what should we shouldn't be done, but, but we don't participate in the internal politics,
which is based on covered concepts. Right. So we just simply advise we say, this is not what the Chris intends for us to do. And that's all that's all we say.
But if you were to get into the bait and say that, you know, I don't I don't think same * marriage is same *, same * family met, under a contract of marriage is morally equivalent to a opposite * marriage, in a family and so on so forth. What basis would you have to debate with that person and say, Well, why are you saying that for I think they're the same. I think, you know, what they both are marrying based on a sexual preferences to date, so that there's, there's consistency in my view, they'll say, and say, Well, what would you argue against them? Well, you'd have to say, Well, look, at what
don't do you believe that it is wrong? To sleep with someone without their consent? And say, yes. Okay. Why is that? Because, you know, like, it's not you don't you don't own them. And they're not It's not you do not, do not own their body. So you can't make them do stuff against their consent, because they're the ones who own themselves. Say, Okay, now, you know, I agree, it is wrong to sleep with someone against the consent of the one who owns the body. I agree with that.
Who made the body?
And you see where I'm going with this, right? That's how we argue we attack the Aqeedah issue first. I mean, you can argue bits and bobs with them about like, if their theory predicts something and it doesn't happen. You could say your theory is wrong then because it didn't predict, you know, makes bad predictions and things like that, although they can use mental gymnastics to say, Oh, actually, the reason for this is because there's you know, whatever, whatever, whatever. But
ultimately, you have to attack the Akita first.
Otherwise, it's pretty hard to attack anything else that they say.
Anyone else questions, comments, contentions?
Going back to what you mentioned about that analysis?
She wins the race. Second, or onward to us right now. But like the race with two people, one person, the gun fires starts running, whether the person is held back from it. Right. And so if we acknowledge that, I don't know, he didn't have made a mistake while filming, if we acknowledge that to be a reality that for some people, maybe there is this disparity due to previous circumstances or things that happened
to that, and should, how do we address that? Okay, so the, but that's a very good question.
So, because African Americans were started out with a worse condition than obviously, European Americans,
white people, you as you call them,
then isn't that unfair? And of course, they're always going to start with always going to be on the backfoot. Or they're always going to be behind because the other started out further ahead. And it's not like everyone's laid out the same circumstances. And of course, why do you get police officers more likely to shoot a black person than shoot a white person? so on so forth? Why does that happen? Right, so that the Neo Marx would say, it's because of structural racism that makes the black of the white officers reinforce the oppression of the black people and really, and perpetuate the supremacy of whites by basically being more willing to shoot black people, and so on, so forth. And we would
say more simpler argument, which is, it's just as bad. The effect has happened. But let's, let's find an explanation that makes more sense. And let's just give you an example from let's just give you an example from India. Okay. Right. So India, right? Muslims and
Hindus are gonna be Hinduism as a social construct, anyway.
by the British, by the way, right. So the British construct, anyway, okay, the ideas predate British, but the idea is a group of people and that was one group one religion, not multiple religions, that's, you can take the bridge for that. Okay. So
a Muslim arrested by the Indian police, is going to get a worse time than in a Hindu arrested by the police. And they're probably going to end up being more likely to be killed, beaten, tortured, or what have you. Right, more likely, but ethnically, and the Muslim is from the same ethnic groups as the Hindu because it's multiple ethnic groups in India for those who don't know.
And Muslims are from the same ethnic groups as all the other
fellow Indians from the area. Okay. So then has explained that my structural racism whiteness, right now, I can't explain it, because
the the CRT people might say, well, they were colonized by the British. And so the Hindus have internalized whiteness, and they view the labor but but like, I guess Muslims, like how, how you explain it? So like, why? Because the British looked down upon all of them equally, you know, so,
you know, who's, where are you getting this stuff from?
So they will say, though, they can't explain it properly, we'd explain it very, very simply. They they view that group, they have us appear for the trade group, they say that we can trust, they can trust the intentions of the encounter an unknown man on the street, who's Hindu, they can say that the police officer psychology would think I can trust that person a bit more, because I know their mindset better. Right? Because their mind, they follow my mindset. So I can approach them in a certain way. I know I can trust them more, because I know that they have the similar mindset to myself, they have the same subculture as myself within India, which is basically religion in that
case, and they look similar to me, they've got the, they might even have the tilak on the head. But anyway, they, they don't have the coffee and the Jollibee and that kind of stuff, right? That looks different to me looks, that looks that creates an air of unknown of,
of a chaotic air of unknown pneus. Like, what could they do? Right? So in such circumstances, of course, and the fact that and they and they view that Muslims could be deemed dangerous because they say well, Muslims are more likely to be criminals because because they're the minority and they don't get much opportunities, statistically more Muslims will engage in criminality than the majority because they lack opportunities and many other such things and looked down upon and yada yada yada.
So they're going to most likely shoot first to Muslims in India. Okay. And that same probe mental processes will go through the white person, the white the European American police officers head when he encounters African Americans
in in America, mindsets and so on so forth, what have you. But here's the here's the thing that now this is a tick tock anecdote, so I don't know if it's true or not, but it was shared to me. So there was a British, a black British man, when when
To America again the police officer looks at him in dodgy funny way thinks that he's going to up to no good. So approaches him and like sauce to talk to him about what you're doing and whenever you so he's not speaking with British accent and say, Where are you from? I'm from England. Oh, sorry, I thought you were black. And then
he's black.
Yeah, because in America, black is an African American. Yeah, not just a black, not a black person, but an African American with African American African American subculture or subcultures, and mindsets and for someone. So it's a it's a, a, a perspective, not perspective, though the stereotypes associated with it in the minds of the European Americans on so forth. It's that category, right. But it doesn't apply to maybe
an African individual who comes over first generation African individual who has a different mindset, right? So has would not be viewed in the same category. Right? And likewise, a British person comes over to America won't be viewed in the same category because they're, they're different cultural mindset, different stereotype. What have you right? Now, here's the thing.
Now, the Quran says the ultimate destination is a tribe that we may recognize each other, right?
Just to put that aside for one moment, okay? Because the problem is if you have a negative stereotype about, so if you, if you don't trust people, because they look different from you, or they act different, or they have different subculture to yourself, then you're going to react against them in a negative way, assuming the possibility of the worst. Okay, that happens in any culture, any nation and so on, so forth. Islam has a solution to this. Yeah, I can be any Muslim from any background. And I know when I know that they're Muslim.
I feel assured, you know, that I have some basis with them. I have some think a common set of principles. I know their interests. So they're no longer a stranger to me. Right? They're no longer unknown, and that Islam can solve the problems have asked to be in the West. Right but they can't solve they can never solve it no matter how liberal you are.
You're always gonna think that someone doesn't look like you or look different from from you, and has a different culture to yourself, or religion or whatever you there's something you can't trust them about them. And it wasn't just with African Americans, it is with Catholics and in America. There was a there was a bit of Catholics are going to take over and make Americans on the under the pope for some reason.
There was
OCO killed Of course, there was fear of Jews as well because they have they have different practices and rituals to Europeans and they didn't seem to look very distinct. There was a point in time where almost every country in Europe and he was majoritarian, the anti Jewish has anti Jewish view of them not because Jews did anything bad per se more than anyone else, but because they had different customs and coaches and they had different dress and everything they look they look very different. Okay, so as Muslims we can we can explain a lot of office solutions to this right which is when when I know that that my my brothers and sisters are Muslim, it don't matter that they like I'm when I
see them looking different from me. I'm now intrigued. Oh, what is this fashion you're wearing? Was this was it? Was this a quarter per quarter? Okay, can I try it? Was it very nice? Yeah. No, it's wait turns it around. It's now not strange to me anymore. Right. Now my family is I just had a really big family. But don't expect EAD cards. Okay. Right. So but, you know,
I'll group a group message or something on WhatsApp. Anyway. I'll do on the UBC. That's quite a good place for a mass messages. Right. So.
So. So Islam has a solution? Yeah, it changes, it changes by the change the innate fear you have of the stranger. Right to to, you know, if they're Muslim, that they basically then you can that your family and even in an Islamic system, but those people who are not Muslim, okay. But the the society, the peace and the Justice decides is guaranteed by the by the hokum of Allah subhanaw taala. Then, you know, we still are, you know, we're still assured that we've, because we live in a system whereby the Justice Allah reigns right now we have we have faith that all of Justice will obviously prevail. And of course, the Prophet Muhammad Salam prevented us from oppressing the enemy.
Right. So we if we, if we said that those who hammered me has harmed him as a prophet, or something so so we don't want to have the Prophet moments of them. So even then the minorities are protected from us. Because it's according to him in the Prophet Muhammad SAW Saddam harming them right. The American the white American police officer does not have that motivation. The white American Peace Officer will simply say,
Do I want to trust an individual looks
Different from me, and of whom I've heard a bad stereotype about or about crime, or the more crime statistics that could prevent me from going back home to my kids, by me going to in a body bag, or should I just shoot first? Yeah, you're gonna get them doing that then. Right? It's not justified is bad. But this is the problem of Janelia. They don't have a solution.
They are stuck in their, in their ignorance, their suspicion of each other, their hatred of each other, they don't see a reason to unite with each other. A liberal might just say, I wish we could all live as if it was one big human family. That's all nice and airy fairy, but because they believe in nation states where the state represents a culture, what have you, and there's always going to be a fight of whose culture determines the state? And is it me and my culture that is on top or someone else's culture on top where I might be the oppressed? Yeah, there's always that worry and suspicion, isn't it from far right or right wing or conservatives? Isn't that what they always say? They're
worried about high levels of immigration, because that might mean that they become the oppressed. Isn't that what they say? All the time? Yeah. Liberals have no solution to that they can't argue they say, Look, if we if the law guarantees that we can all do what we want anyway. Who cares? What's the who the majority is? Right? The Liberals very naive. Yeah, the conservative because they think that will persuade the conservatives. It doesn't. Yeah. And of course, as anyone who studies history will know that liberalism collapses into fascism, yo Yos from person to liberalism, like Spain, Portugal, Italy, okay, Germany, we all know, Mexico, everyone forgets them and Japan,
liberal, very liberal regimes until they became fascist and various xenophobic, before very open, then very xenophobic. Okay, because liberalism can't resolve this problem amongst the problem of Janelia. Of, of Jaco nature, the nature of the human being in Janelia. It's a recurring problem, they can't solve it, we can solve that problem. That's a bit of a downer. Yeah.
Any question on this side? So keep doing this. And we're not not okay. Then you.
Something you said? I'm not sure if I understood it correctly. Sure.
Personally, I don't think there's a problem of taking into account statistics. Because let's say you weren't here at the beginning. Right. Okay. Let me just
just read that.
Okay, quick question answers. Really?
Good. Good. All right. There you go. All right. So that's why maybe it was one of my first slides that we're not debating how prevailing racism is. We're not we're not going to we're not going to debate the the statistics. We're not going to debate that a disproportionate number of African Americans will go to jail for the same crimes compare and for longer jail sentences, then the white coat citizens? Yeah, no debate on that. The stats are quite clear. Yeah. We're not here to debate those things. We're here to explain those things. Right. And to say that the critical race theory has no explanation has no good explanation for those things. Just so you know, the Conservatives
hate critical race theory. Liberals do too, but that's vocal about because liberals, liberals,
they, they want to make minorities feel, because social liberals want minorities to feel they have equal opportunity. So they will do the street less. Right, but a conservative will, because the conservative thinks that the society is a utopia and or at least the best that humans can get, and the conservative views that the critical race theory incites race of suburbia. Right? Race consciousness and, and fighting and we have you not physical faith in a sorority, but just the separation division on race, and the conservative hopes that people wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't make race the thing. Okay. And the critical race theory count says back to them or the Quick Race
differences back to them. But your colorblindness makes you
unable to see the racism in society for what it is. And to an extent they both are right about each other? Yeah, to an extent they both write about each other, the conservative believes too much in the system, that he can't see that the system itself console racism is really what's happening. I think I need to clarify my question more. Okay. Because
this is I know this correct, but that's not what I want to pass.
My point is about suspicion. So, I don't think you correct me if I'm wrong, of course. But I don't think there's a problem with being suspicious about a certain ethnicity or something. If there's statistical reason to like, for example, last year, I was trying to be like open minded and stuff like that and not be suspicious because I was kind of stuff like that.
So
yeah, you're Indian next to me. Give me a name is John. Yeah. Okay.
Why you think you can be called John racists? Anyway, go ahead. So we have structure recent here.
And he told me that I was being arrested or something like that, because I was new to Canada, I believe, right. But afterwards, I realized, I realized that I should have been more suspicious because I've never met an Indian, my whole life was a white thing, unless he has a white accent. He lives in Canada, stuff like that.
So that's why there is no problem to be suspicious, you have to be like realistic in the situation. Similarly, if you're like in a, in a high crime neighborhood where there's a lot of gang violence by black Africans, for example, I mean, African Americans, I don't think there's a problem to be suspicious, I have to be realistic about the situation. But I won't go to a place courses. I don't know, there's like a mix of people evidence of any violence by like, both sides or something, and just pick and choose. I think he's more protected because of the Scotland. Okay. So the brothers saying that, rather than the other controversial question, potentially, and UBC, that should he
retained some suspicion of of the statistical likelihood that if he gets called up by a person with a very thick Indian accent, who's called John and informs him that he's under arrest, but hey, it'll be resolved. If you just give them some money.
They should have suspicion? Well, I think he should have suspicion if someone says you're gonna get arrested as you get some money anyway. Right, regardless of the XML, so if they used an actual European American, you would, then you would, then you would fall for it to I hope not. Okay. Okay. I mean, look,
the thing is that humans work on stereotypes. The Quran mentions, within a verse we're talking about that Allah made us made us the nations of tribes, that we may recognize each other. What that means is that stereotypes by themselves aren't bad. Okay? So if I, if I have an Arab guest around my house, and I'm going to serve some extra spicy food, I should realize that the stereotype is the Arabs, like their food, mostly bland, and they shouldn't have Africa. Right with the heavy stuff. But
But unless you're that, then I should assume, due to statistical probability, which is what stereotype is, based on what I've heard, which can be wrong, but he, that that could be the case, and but I might meet the one, the one Khalid Yara that loves spicy food, and he even can, like, eat me under the table in spice. Yeah, that might be the case. Yeah. But of course, the Quick Race theorists would say you can make the micro aggression against that person by assuming an Arab wouldn't like spicy food, that's a microaggression.
Now, the thing is this, you can't get rid of stereotypes, because everyone forms stereotypes that, again, I'm not an emergent property. So all you should do is just be conscious that maybe the person you're speaking to might not be an exception would be might be an exception to that, right? Critical Race Theory theorists is an individualist like, like all the liberals. So they will say How dare you subject an individual to a collective stereotype but that they are that does not does not cater to them? Because they are an individual? They could that's why they could be different hence this not that's not necessarily how they follow that stereotype. I see you and you're now imposing on them or
whatever, you that kind of thing. So I would say that as to saying that, well, if you're in a high crime neighborhood, should you suspect African Americans in a high crime neighborhood? You see them walking in the in the group towards you? Should you suspect that? Well, you should expect it because you're in a high crime neighborhood, I suppose that more than it was because African Americans or what have you. So you're in a high crime neighborhood. But if you're in Orange County, California, very rich place right. And you see a group of African Americans, they're probably rich people that live nearby you would you suspect them too because no one knows because you're in Orange County.
Right? So anyone who's there is probably rich. Yeah. See, they're not going to you know, steal from you what have you. I know I know that you're trying to say that. That's sometimes negative stereotypes do form like for example, me saying that the Muslim world is predominantly has is filled with wasabi and kibble
is that is a generalization hence a stereotype Okay, technically speaking a craigory if you want to play games with a critical race theorists when they say that you know, oh, well you people are all racists and you say as a microaggression Yeah, well, so just because you the stereotype that my people are racist that I have to be racist. You could could play it, you could turn it back on them, but But my point is this
If you're gonna use statistical probabilities, just be aware that the person you're speaking to might not, might not
be fulfilled, that will be a typical instance of that. And that you might, and they might get really irritated that they you suspect battled them. Because every day they get it like 100 times or something like this, which is, which is, boom, I know that micro aggressions, they mentioned that this is the reason that Michael Crichton causes harm, because every day you get treated in certain way it makes you it wears you down and makes you very annoyed and frustrated. And that's, that's the true aspects. That is a true point. All right. Fake fake news when they make a true point. Yes, that might be very annoying. You know, if every time you go on the fly, I know. And when I went to states
anyway, and they just didn't even care about just they will openly say you've been randomly selected even looking at you funny, like,
I'm trying to keep a straight face. Yeah, you you've been randomly selected. Can't just come this way, sir. And so everyone, all the other, you know, Americans look at me like, yeah, you shouldn't randomly select these Muslims, pretty much like normal. They don't even like a poor guy. We always, you know, have quite annoying, like, No, I hope they they lock him up. That kind of stuff. You know, they're looking at me like that. Right? So ya know, it can be annoying, I get it. But just just beware to give the benefit of the doubt. But But I say this about our deal dealing with those who are not benefited by revelation. Okay. To your fellow brothers and sisters, that your family? Yeah.
So as Muslims, you should assume good about your family. That's the stereotype you should go with. And isn't it interesting, I bet. If you assume good about people, more people actually then become good. They actually rise to that to your expectations of them. Right. Although, as I said, they might be in there. And there are Muslims who are a bit who don't care about that and will fleece you for con you and do all kinds of bad things. So don't just blindly let Don't be stung from the same hole. But at the same time, assume good intentions, as my points assume good intentions. Just don't give your wallet out, you know, readily at the drop of the hat. Yeah. So that'd be my advice to you.
Generally speaking, from what I from what I've seen are the cornerstone, no, and so forth.
Oh, I mean, by the way, the Prophet Mohammed Salim said to read this, he talks about like, either Yemenis have some hearts, for example, he makes comments about Syrians and comes like, when we imagine the Yemeni was falling critical race theory said, How dare you assume that, oh, I'm a human. I have a soft heart. I find that the micro aggression against just because I'm a Yemeni, I'm have to be soft hearted. Right. You know, that's what they'll probably say the Prophet Muhammad. That's what these critical races we probably say, How dare you stereotype? There could be a hard hearted Yemeni Of course, yeah. But you know, we have to go by statistical generalizations at times because because
the Yemeni culture might produce that as a as a as a common theme. But it doesn't mean every Yemeni has, you know, it has encoded has been inculcated with that. So yeah, we have to stereotypes have usage, they have utility, but just don't do them with them. And don't do Kippur. Don't look down upon someone based on a stereotype that's very important stereotypes. Don't give you permission to do keep it by the way. Yeah. Remember, remember that? Okay? Questions, contentions? Anything like this? On this site, now?
quite rapidly at that site. Okay. You sir.
So going back to the point where, let's say you want to argue against those ideologies.
So like, when you argue against them, right, and tell other people who are those ideologies
debating with you, if you tell them that they're wrong, and then bring them evidence, they will not only accuse you of being homophobic or sexist or racist, then also because we as Muslims represent Islam, that accused Islam of being racist, and almost constantly praises, right. So how can we tell them that?
The problem is not us. It's
okay. We depends on who you speak to. So, okay, it's the brother says,
If you criticize someone who believes in these ideologies, they'll accuse you of being racist, but they also accuse all Muslims and accuse Islam being racist and sexist and homophobic and so on, so on, so forth. So what do you do? Well, the thing is, is So, if you speak to someone who's not Muslim,
and they hear you say this, now, because Muslims are minority, and you know, so the Greek roots of Neo Marxists will, that will consider them part of the one of the lower rungs of the classes in society. That's why socialists notice, they love to recruit Muslims into them and they say welcome Muslim. We want
persecute you, we accept your rights to label yourself any way you want. Just as long as that label has no content, basically, yeah, you call yourself a Muslim just don't represent actual Islam says, anyway.
But to those who are who would dare say that Islam is sexist and so on, so on so forth.
You'd have to you just argued them like well, we have different worldview from you a criticize their Aqeedah protect the Akita, as I said, refute their Qaeda. If we're not, we're individuals, individualists, we're not, we don't own ourselves, the Creator made us credit owns us, when we anything other than having a creator, is a worldview that can't justify good or bad in the first place.
Use that against them, basically might refute the Creed and that should be sufficient for you. However,
if they I mean, okay, I suppose if they said if they insist you have to undermine the basis of their argument, do you can't just argue that I think I think what you're doing is wrong, I think this lifestyle is wrong. Because they'll say, well, then you're a bigot for not thinking for thinking that Yeah. So okay, well, your big, big is a value judgment, and what are the values you're using to make that judgment? And let's criticize those values? That's what I would recommend you do. As to those who call themselves Muslim.
And have those same beliefs and ideas. That's a problem. Because they won't say Islam is the problem, but they're certainly say you're the problem, then they'll say that not Islam, but they'll say your interpretation of Islam is the problem, and is bigoted and sexist, and so on, so forth. And so so that the only difference between them and non Muslims is that the novelist might say that Islam itself is a problem. But they'll say that, because they want to call themselves Muslims. Still, they'll say that your understanding of Islam is the problem. Even if it's the mainstream, they'll say, okay, yeah, the mainstream science is a problem and so on, so forth. So they have to,
again, attack criticize their kid, but those who want to call themselves Muslim, you have the extra weapon, you could say, of arguing that. Well, epistemologically speaking, the mainstream Islam is the only Islam has ever been for a history. So unless the creator of the universe and the Prophet Muhammad, so some are really bad communicators, and somehow messed up and everyone around did understand what they were saying on most, most key issues in the EU and the wording they use what was wrong in the crime? Because it wasn't clear enough. Yeah, that's you're saying that, then you have to concede that what you call mainstream Islam? Is that is actual Islam.
Yeah, or the or the incorrect version of Islam is that it's actual Islam. Yeah. Someone did it yesterday, actually, someone not judging him, maybe he's maybe he's a sincere brother, who just has been lied to. He's read the wrong book. So he's got confused, I don't judge the person per se of Allah knows what's inside him his heart. But you all thought my response to him yesterday, we could check out when the video comes out. So So debating someone who's a Muslim who adopts these ideas, you have an extra
set of weapons you could say you could use which is, is the summary pistol model is pretty solid. And the point of of this whole week is to actually refute anyone who calls himself a Muslim and adopt his ideologies to be able to refute that from the Islamic basis. If you want to see how to refute it from a
just using rationality I suppose be the best way of putting it as in using the mind using article using general thinking and so on so forth. You know, I've done a lot most of my debates are with non Muslims actually debate non Muslims on these ideologies themselves. So you can check them out if you'd like to, just to see an example. The other dogs that do the same as well.
Which of which should debate liberalism and Marxism and sound sources of chicken? Check that check it out? If you want guidance on that.
Anyone else don't. When you bother with the green, the
Muslims aren't as strong in the religion for example. Yeah.
So is it aligned to give the partial view of prayer in terms of its physical benefits and merits rather than its spiritual, which they will not relate to just to hook them into prayer
that we considered lying or someone's not praying as much as they should or not doing all their prayers should should we give hikma reasons wisdoms behind the prayer as much as long as as well as the obligation of the person with obligation which they probably already know?
Well say look, you know, do whatever you can to actually get someone to pray really a man because of the Prophet Muhammad. Solomon says he wants to commit Zina. He wants permission to commit Zina, right, you will know this, right? And the and the Prophet Muhammad SAW someone doesn't say, haram Allah
Take like shame upon us for beating upon you I barely shame upon you didn't say that right?
It says, To paraphrase, would you like if I made it permissible for your mother to commit Zina? He goes, No. So they're not gonna make it permissible for you. And the guy actually understood that and was satisfied with the answer. So any which way that conveys the wisdom wisdoms behind it. Wherever it is held the prayer it mat fulfills our nature as human being created beings, because that's what he is hikma is explaining how it fulfills our our intended nature and purpose. That's what he explained him explaining is as as an approach rather than just saying it's obligatory. You know, many, many Muslims or liberals because they don't see the hikma behind Islamic laws. Right.
And I think in 2011, I pioneered doing lectures explaining just the hikma of the Sharia, like how it's how it makes it makes better sentence and so and so's human problems better than liberalism does, which is why I can reference it to you right now. Because that was I was 12 years ago when I started doing those things in UK universities basically got quite popular actually if you wanted to see how the standard real competitive liberal liberalism and how he has better results when applied that is so that's what yeah doesn't there's no probably convinced that that person the trainee which way you can feel hikma and,
and, and exploitation to, to the truth, basically, what is the current cycle to call with, with with wisdom and fair, free and fair, fair speech? Right. So we should be doing
okay, but the right corner down there?
How to
how to respond to Muslims who say they're spiritual, and not religious?
Let's simply ask them, What do you mean by spiritual? Because like, it's a very vague term. I think many Muslims even know what spiritual even means. I think they just mean that basically. They, they want they liked it. They enjoy the feeling of bleakness garden, like thinking about it sometimes, but they don't want to do anything about it. Basically. Yeah.
Just me.
As long as the intention is there, okay.
I'll tell you what
we should do that person is nice. As long as the intention is,
let's say say say to him, you know, that you need to borrow, let's say $120. Okay, from that person. All right. And then you say, you know, I'm going with this, okay. And then I say, I don't have to pay back. One month goes by one year goes by and goes like, brother, you borrowed $100. From me, can I have your back? My say, look, I intend to give it back to you.
And I say, okay, but can you give back not it's not a problem. The NEA is there. It's fine. Yeah. So
just simply say that look,
you know, between between will say, I don't need to praise between me and my God. Well, you praying is between you, you're praying to God, right. So you're you're being deficient in prayer in ways between you and your goddess, this is what we haven't discovered in the first place is not we were not praying for us, you know, praying to us, right? So obviously, it's ridiculous to say to me, my God, like, of course, but like, you know, if you were taking crack cocaine, and I wanted to, and you will lose failing in your studies, and you will gain you having health problems? And I'll tell you, Hey, don't, you know I'm concerned for you don't take any serious between me, me, my, my crack
dealer say, Well, look.
Well, I mean, yeah, I guess your transaction is, but you know, it's not good for you. And I can tell you that right? Or you could simply say, yes. And me, giving advice to you is also something I'll be accounted for between me and my, my God, two. So I'm here. I'm here satisfying a relationship that's between me and my God. Right? So you can just use that against them. It's just it's a ridiculous argument to simply say, Look, if you're not convinced by
it, there's some aspects of Islam that you're not convinced by, or you don't see the importance in, then let's discuss that. But don't make an excuse for that by
and large, it is on the intent, again, not on the action
on the intent.
For example, again, the title, they said My intention was not to
All right, well, it's kind of like, it's like, it's kind of like, you know, let's say someone gets a pistol goes out in the middle of the street, start shooting people, right, Please arrest him, and it's like, Why are you killing people? So
No, that wasn't my intention. I was just doing target practice. I wasn't moving targets. Right? That was my intention. Right. And, you know, humans are very good at moving. So I just thought I'd target them. But I didn't intend to kill anybody just to wound them, you know? Right. Does it feel crazy, right? It's stupid, right? Intention relates to action, because I call it intent as you can attend to no action, but
but not doing any action is intended to not act. Right. So yeah, you're right. Because an action just by intention, if you're doing actions, if you do any actions, yeah, if you don't do any actions, is there's no intention, then is there.
So just just point out the ridiculousness of it really.
Any other points and think before we wrap up?
Because before anyone else goes, just going laughs goes, I want to make the announcement. Basically, the two points, one of them is the
those there's been questions that that Muslim students need access to good trading providers for a holistic understanding of Islam, and how to deal with issues and problems and so on and so forth. So I know that there's a there's a free there's free courses being offered by the i three Institute's that do Yong Yong di program, why the program. So because your students on a budget, if MSA is want to consider basically having free holistic training to get trained all the way from from touch weed all the way to, perhaps of life all the way to,
to, you know how to deal with day to day problems, including Qyburn, Nasai, and things like that, then like to benefit from those courses, and so on so forth. Because the journey offered for free. So your students might might as well do stuff of it, because some students were asking questions about like, how can MSA students be the avail themselves of training that can help them you know, without having to pay for the nose, so to speak, and, and give a holistic understanding of slime instead of just just having to tweak classes and but not teaching them about these things and how to avoid falling into the traps. These ideologies are delicious. I want to make that one clip. But the
second public announcement message is
so how many people here from SFU? still remaining? Okay, so. So brothers, I want you to implore implore all Muslims in SFU to come here and all the many UBC students to come here tomorrow. Tomorrow will be a day of Days. All right. And trust me, it's not it's not hype. It's not it's this is not just high price husband this year, it shall be a day.
It shall be a day of a day of hisab. But not a day, not the day of his.
Yeah. So a day of accounting.
Regarding all these, everything I've been teaching for this whole week, gets brought together and applied to practical case studies. Let's just collect that. Yeah. So you guys need to be there. Because I think your university needs to be inoculated your students need to be knocked out against
any problems that may arise in the future. You think? Well, I haven't written that much in the past. Well, yeah, but you know, some other MSPs forgot until it happened, you know, just, you know, a couple years ago, two, three years, who knows? Anyway, so you need to inoculate yourself.
And we need to hear the truth of the matter. Because I know, Vancouver is a very small community, and in a sense that everyone knows each other kind of right. So there's going to be a lot of things that are going to be going around and we want to discuss them openly. And let everyone talk about it and mention it. And everyone's welcome. Like, regardless of who they are, or whichever beliefs they follow, or who their friends are. Everybody is welcome to that. And yeah, just bring as many brothers and sisters as you can. It will be of high relevance to any students who goes to university and especially anyone who's part of an MSA, extreme relevance to yourself. So that would be my
second public announcement. Okay, that is all. Go ahead, brother.
Good luck for the lecture.
I wanted to ask a question regarding the new Marxist when they use this claim, check your privilege. Yes, this is something that they always put forward. Yep. Whenever they talk want to talk about some types of racially motivated? Personally, I've been asked this question and then I've never in any Islamic discourse, but as to check my privilege as a white man. So who see me as it was, it was a shock. why this happened, and I just want to ask you, what does that relate in their theory? Is this Oh, please theory is this Oh, chica privilege is in both put Neo Marxist feminist theory Neo Neo Marxist race theory.
Neo Marxist, queer theory everything. So quite simply, they argue that it comes from standpoint epistemology where basically they say that the oppressed know better than the oppressors about the oppression.
And that if you reject what they say, or disagree or just or do the unforgivable crime of saying, can have some delete, maybe just some little bit evidence, how dare you
write a memo, and they could probably slap you because you can't oppress the oppressor, by the way. So that's, yeah, yeah, of course. I'm not joking. If there is, theoretically, they could do that. And they'll say they're not oppressing you because you're in the oppressor class, as a white Arab, basically. So, so.
So yeah, so because you don't know, they know better than you about the oppression that you're clearly doing.
But they will say that they have a, they just have a simpler way of saying it, same thing, which is they call it your privilege, or blind to your privilege or privilege is invisible to the one who has it. So you need to check your privilege. Okay, because you have a privilege. Now, if he's a Muslim are saying to us more difficult, but if it's Oh, actually, it's not. If a non Muslim says it, you say no, you're, you're non Muslim. So you're the majority. I'm the I'm a Muslim, I'm the minority. So I'm in the oppressed class here. And you're in the oppressor class. And of course, if it's a Muslim saying it to you, you say well, yeah, again, I'm a, a non Marxist, non left wing, non non
right wing, non anything Muslim, and you're Muslim, that follows the dominant ideologies of this, of this state of this land. So I'm in the minority, and you're in the majority. So I'm the oppressed group. And it's not No, but that's not. But I'm not I'm not the oppressor. Oh, that's because you're blind to your privilege, and you wouldn't be able to see it. Yeah, you can just turn it turn it back. But I'll tell you this, right. These Muslims have adopted these these ideas, that the unscrupulous ones amongst them, if they fail, or they lose,
achieving their objectives and might get against whatever they want to do for you, MSA or what have you, they will have no problem in it. calling their allies non Muslim allies to come in and enforce stuff against you. Yeah, these people, they will go they will go to the elderly are that true? Or will ya and it's not you, it's not the fellow Muslims. It is there it is those who believe in left wing stuff amongst non Muslims that they are and of course, some might say, I'll cover militar wider, right to call for is one religion. Right? And they said they're going to their CO religionists for help against us, they will oppress you, if they can't win. Because they tried. They
think they're trying to liberate you or rather stop your oppression against against minorities, whereas obviously, they're the ones who are doing the oppression in that case.
Okay, you bought a ticket shirt?
Did you have like a gradient of like, how white you're more privileged? Yeah, basically, do you have a great, yes, the more white you have, the more vivid you have. But the more closer you are to whiteness. So why adjacent? Because Because if you're not European, but you could pass as a white person to your skins lighter. Let's say you look Arab, right, but you've got lighter skin. So let's say you're white, adjacent. You're next to white, but you're not white to yourself.
Yeah, Asians are Yeah, so Asians would be a bit lower down than white passing Arabs, but they would be higher than African Americans and so on, so forth. Sorry, by Asians, I'm using the British meaning of that, which is
South Asian, like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh.
I'm using that definition. But yeah.
So if you're like me, the white lady just like really poor and you're like in a single mother, family house.
broke in
privilege. So if you're a broke in a trailer, Park dweller type in the or even a homeless white person that has no money at all, and so on, so forth. Uh, yeah, you still have privilege, privilege of privilege in your whiteness, because whiteness, you might have no property, but whiteness is your property.
So they say that yes.
So back to the privilege thing, okay.
Whiteness, more like physical or on
identity basis. This say race is a construct. And that, okay, you you're physically White, a quote unquote. And then you meet the criteria that that will be granted the privilege of this social construct called whiteness. So you could you could fit into that meeting because I mean, technically speaking, you can't identify as being white if you're not white. Because of physic physicalities or doe, postmodernists could argue that you can identify anything you have anything you want.
and post modernists have fights with Neo Marxists I mentioned yesterday, you know, there was
a, a white English man, I think who did the fight as a Korean woman. And he was arguing against a, a Afro Caribbean.
Woman, UK, in the UK, we could be Africa, we could Africa be in this category not
African, British. We don't we don't have European, British, African British white British, we just have Afro Caribbean or white or that kind of stuff anyway. So the argument and because she was arguing that he's appropriating and other cultures and the races, culture by calling himself
he identifying himself with that race with another race. Yeah. So Neo Marxism, post modernists would fight each other on these things. So because the post was was say, you can identify as a seven year old Chinese girl.
reason I was asking this is because for example,
I'm the third generation that was born and raised in Africa. So if I come in to argue with them, and I say I identify as black person.
Well, I've been privileged or not privileged, no, not the postmodernist would say
that? Well, regardless of what people's opinions might be of you, due to the narrative they hold in your head to head, you can legitimately identify as a as a black person, they don't really care.
Whereas the Neo Marx would say that it's not you, that gives yourself identity, it's the it's the structure of society that that gives you the classification. And so it's not you that gives you stuff your classification, your your classified by the structure.
But
affiliation to a certain culture, for example, you reach the point of
okay, what I just taught
once I see and I read the history of Yemen, and knowing that the majority of Sahaba
were coming from Yemen, you will get a sense of being proud about being the origin from that specific part of the world. But at the same time, there are two conditions that must be met in that context. The first one, don't look at others with lowering their positions at all. The second one,
consider the affiliation to Islam to be much important and to be much concentrated than the affiliation to toward that specific culture. So in this position, am I in the same place?
Well look at the Hadith says that Allah has removed from us the pride of arrogance of the age of Joliet and the glorification of ancestors. Okay? So
you can say I'm from this land or you know, I'm I have ancestry in this land, okay. It's no problem. You can say that you love the land, you know, like the land, but you know, you're always gonna love the land you grew up in, it has a sense of home for you, when especially during your childhood, the Prophet Muhammad Salam, actually, he loved Medina. Right. And I think this will relate to the Hadith where he talks about herbal Watton you know, like love of the land, not the country, not the nation state is misunderstood today. Love of the land is like faith. It's like it's, it's from faith, to paraphrase.
But he's not from Medina.
Right. He's from Makkah. Right, isn't it? Yeah. So that should be he has no ancestry. Well, okay. There's, I think there's a maternal
uncle on social media, but he doesn't have actual he's not from Medina or yesterday before and yet he's had love of it as love as a lab. You can love a land you grew up in or land that you're not your parents of grandparents or great grandparents didn't come from ultimately, you can sort of love Allah. I like Vancouver's nice political mountains arounds very beautiful. So I like it.
But to to, to say that your ancestors
give you some kind of moral value, or that you it gives you more value that you have ancestors that are this this and this
would be glorification of ancestors basically, and what you can't do,
however, a Muslim can be a Muslim can be happy that he has ancestors who were upon the if they were upon the deen that did good deeds that were righteous. Right. So that is the ethics
option but that doesn't make you special. It just means it's something that you can love and enjoy the fact that my my aunt is ill upon the dean.
And they did good deeds. Right? That is allowed. Now because there's a hadith on this. I don't have it to hand but there's a hadith that allows that. Yeah. So that would be that would be what the Hadith says. So yeah
I'll just remind me so the the, I believe there was an issue between the himedia Southern Arabs right and
Well, that'll be it on the good the northern Arabs the himari are used to us to be take pride that they were more pure Arabs from the northern Arabs because the northern areas had mixed with Ismail, right. And they'd become like watered down, quote unquote, you know, kind of, yeah, this is Kipper. You know, where the real Arabs for the Israelites came in and just Ishmael and met him into marriage. These are these are not pure Arabs. This is Kippur? And also be him that, you know, so that would be
bad
as well. How do you do it Marxist like rationalize acts of oppression between the same minorities that haven't had this white colonial history? Like, for instance, state before the so how do they rationalize
that the tone could be an oppressor group without being white and being part of the white oppressive system that living under? Oh, very easily?
Let's take a random example.
Is the Arabs are presses. they oppress black people in Africa. Therefore, if you are black yourself, you can say bad things by Arabs because Arabs are the oppressor group against black people in Africa, even though we're in Canada. So what's it got to do with Africa?
But well, yeah, but you know, applies globally. So, but there's still the oppressor group, you know, so,
yeah, that's how they justify, they can find something they can find something right, I suppose. I suppose if they're disconnected, I don't know. Like, I don't know. I'm gonna give example. Now, let's say Sri Lankans versus African Americans.
They could just probably say that they're not oppressors, but they have more privileged and African Americans because at least they're not recognized as black and black is like on the lower rung of the African American society, structures, stratification, so. So they will simply say that they wouldn't say necessarily that Sri Lankans are oppressors but there's probably say that they are benefiting from an oppressive system more than those lower down the rungs on the on the system. That's how they say.
Anyone else? Look, I want to call it a day big