Refuting MARXISM & SOCIALISM – Islam Left or Right #2
Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
File Size: 160.47MB
So before I ask you to stop the lead to come up, I just want to give a brief introduction. So, cycle Andalusi is an international speaker, thinker and intellectual activist or Islam and Muslim affairs. He's an instructor and the head of the department of Oxford ontology at the Quran Institute and co founder of the discussion forum at the Muslim debate initiative. So started Allah has delivered talks internationally on the question on the purpose of life, the existence of God, the miracle of the Quran is superiority of the Sharia, as the social and political system, as well as Islamic economics. For the morals of the law, Allah has given extensive talks and written articles,
rationally critiquing secularism, liberalism, secular democracy and materialism.
He has spoken in community centers, universities, colleges, and had numerous appearances on various programs and TV radio channels, including the BBC ITV Al Jazeera Press TV, Islam channel and Wipro TV. He also engaged in a number of debates with ACA, atheists, secularists, agnostics, liberals, and Christians on a variety of topics from theologically, from theology to political philosophy. So inshallah without further ado, I would like to invite the startup Lula to stars like
Bismillah R Rahman Rahim Al hamdu, Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salatu salam, the bakery Muhammad Ali taping was a happy sign him agree to Islamic rings a piece of salam Wa alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.
Okay, so we've made it to the second day of the, as one of my, as one of the colleagues in the UB UBC MSA said Cofer Awareness Week where we discussing non Islamic ideologies, philosophies, and belief systems or worldviews.
So, just some, some ground rules.
Many anyone that wants to challenge anything I say, Has any contentions? You're most welcome to and please do you discipline disappoint me if you don't, I always tell my students that come into my lectures with the intent of refuting and disproving everything I say.
And of course, if you strongly disagree, you will, you will be greeted with with welcome just to make your contentions open. And feel free to express whether you disagree with what I say whether you disagree with Islam, whether you disagree with even God's God's existence, feel free to voice your disagreement. This is a an open space for truth and discussion. I co founded an organization called the Muslim debate initiative. And as that might suggest, we welcome debate and discussion. There's not there's no offense given in debate, because debate is about people coming to the truth by expressing different opinions. You can't debate someone who doesn't want to express different
opinions to yourself. And so it's all about then expressing it. So I do well commit. Now.
Now, Marxism is a bit of a
complicated bag compared to liberalism, because Karl Marx had very, very copiously and some of his works weren't even published until many, many decades after he passed away. And that even made that made Marxist even more confused as to what he was what he believed his earlier, earlier writings. So, Karl Marx, you'll have difference of opinion amongst Marxist scholars as to what Karl Marx was trying to say,
books. Today, I'm not going to be discussing the areas of contention between Marxist scholars, but the very general key concepts of Marxism themselves, although there'll be issues where I will mention when Marxist will disagree and I will mention where they disagree.
But Inshallah, my style of presentation is usually you get these presentation slides, usually at university and they just give you these bullet points with just general concepts and say, and the lecturer generally just tells you, this is what you know, trust me, this is what this people believe or this person believes or this is what happened in history. And of course, you respect the electric electrical idea to lie to you, and of course, you you respect their knowledge. I always come at it from the perspective of as I said, my students attempting to refute me and to disprove what I say and so, my approach is always to make make the the concept
very bullet pointed concept you could say, and then put a bulk piece of text where the concept comes from or where you can derive it from the the writings, and usually a bulk of the text because you can see the context. So if anyone disputes the interpretation that I've given, we can just read out the texts in context on the screen. But you don't have to read the bulk text that's just there in case you want to challenge you say, I show Kamag said that was okay. Let's read what he said. And let's read it in context. Two, very important. I do understand that there might be people here that, that believe in Marxism, or Neo Marxist, or, or a shade in between somewhere, or maybe you've
apostate from Marxism, and you're just your post Marxist.
Or you never were Marxist to begin with. Your opinions are welcome here. And as I said, I do invite contentions. So without further ado, we'll get into it. But we're not going to be just talking about Marxism, because maybe if anyone has studied political science, or because they call it political science, you do so anyone else publicize any policies. Now, anyone who studies sociology,
there must be one sister there.
But it's like I did on the maybe I don't
know, just one. Okay, well, I was hoping for more. Okay, I'm gonna study economics.
And also the economics too boring for you to consider that. Okay, well, if you study economics, sociology, or political philosophy, or they call it political science, you would have encountered Marxism, because two Marxists, or those three subjects are one in the same thing. Right? And so, you probably would have encountered Marxism anyway, we will be discussing Marxism, Neo Marxism, and what does Islam say about these things? And where would you stand as a Muslim believing in certain Islamic concepts, and we will discuss what some Muslims who have succumbed to belief in Marxism, how they justify it, and where their thinking has gone awry. So, let's get started.
So, in this week, we'll be discussing the Western schools of thought the mother had been Arabic because we call it the schools of thought. And we will be looking at the right side of things, I should have put it on the left I mentioned yesterday.
But we'll be looking at the the red branches, there were these two basic concepts in the West. individualism and equality between individuals, which were the two key concepts emerging out the enlightenment, individualism being the idea that the human, the individual, is sovereign over themselves, there's nothing higher or more important in value, then the individual human beings are not culture, not religion, not God, nothing, just the in the human individual. And of course,
they just because they will say the individual is the highest concern doesn't mean that they negate people's belief in God, or they negate
culture or religion, but they merely say that from the political perspective, these things will not supersede the individual cannot supersede the individual, unless there is some pressing, a pressing need for those things. So the conservative will argue that there might be a pressing need for religion, because inculcate values into individuals to make them be behave as responsible individuals. And therefore, to aid a society where individual rights are protected. You need to have religious religion, or you need to have in the traditional institutions of marriage, and so on, so on, so forth. So everyone makes an argument after the Enlightenment in the West,
from the basis of the individual and freedom of the individual, every single school of thought, but where they end up in their discussion, you'll see is very divergent. So the strand here that that we'll be discussing more is the equality strand. Now, I know I've put them as like almost two separate things individualism and equality, but a liberal and a conservative believes in equality, a Marxist believes in the individual, right for freedom and sovereignty of the vineyard to they just put different weighting on those concepts and different interpretations on those concepts. So we're going to discuss the red branch today.
The origin of the two political schools enlightenment, you could say, the rationalism from Rene Descartes and empiricism from Thomas Hobbes. These would lead to generally two approaches to political philosophy in the West. So Anglo Saxon philosophy now called analytical philosophy is the kind that very much people who are liberals and conservatives revolve around and those who are Marxists Neo Marxists, social idealist and someone emanate will have some connection with you might call the rationalist
School, the mind first school the idea that mind precedes knowledge, whereas mind proceeds is the most important thing in epistemology, the first principle, whereas empiricist would say, sensation is the first principle of knowledge, you get a sense your sensation first that fills up your brain, right? Whereas the rationalist would say, well, actually, before you get outside information you have, you can be out, you'll still be able to think and have consciousness and your mind is the basis for knowledge, without looking at sensation first. So, these things lead to a divergence of opinion. Quite interestingly,
to recap, liberalism believes that individual humans are the owners of themselves. So there's nothing higher than the individual.
And of course, this is shared by the various other schools of thought.
They believe that, of course, good and bad is based purely on respecting each other's self ownership, you'll find that socialists to believe the same thing they don't disagree. A social socialists and liberals agree on things like
people's right to have a private life, where they can sleep with whoever they want, as long as it's consensual. They'll believe in those same kinds of things they might believe, or they might have different opinion regarding for example, can you have alcohol and things like that, but they generally believe that everyone can believe in a religion of their choice, and so on, so forth, because it is the individual sovereignty, to decide for themselves, what they want to believe, rather than a religion that's greater than the individual, which has to be respected. So they will generally agree on you might call the private affairs how liberalism grinds and grants private
affairs to individuals, the Socialist degree where they disagreed on economics,
on economics, and you could say social relations, but we're going to learn how those things are not different in the socialist perspective.
Okay, so No, mine is out of focus here. But this was a this was a slight we covered yesterday. And it's basically, John Locke argues that the Earth initially everything on planet Earth, doesn't belong to anyone. It's common property, you could say. But as soon as you, you grab something, and you work on it, it becomes your property, because you've mixed your labor with it. So it becomes yours.
He would be disagreed with
this at the Anglo Saxon. So the scope, the act, the Anglo Saxon thinker, will be disagreed with by the French thinker, of course, not not an original English people and French people disagreeing, that's just oh, this time,
Jack, who saw will argue that the origin of injustice in the world is private property.
Private property is the origin of injustice. And he cites an argument that if people fight and kill each other, and they rob, and they steal, when they cheat, because they don't have access to property or the same amount of property, you'll never see a wealthy person. This is roughly kind of his argument, you'll never see a net real wealthy person, succumb to some of the predictions that poor people might do, because the wealthy person has everything they need. So they can be they can be good and generous because they don't need anything. Right? It's easy to be generous, and to be
polite, and well mannered. When you've got everything you need. You've got everything you need.
Not so much when you don't, and you have to fight for it, then there is the origin of what he would say injustice.
was the battery.
this would start a divergence between the Western schools of thought. Now, you might think, you know, okay, maybe you agree or disagree. But yesterday, I made I told you, I said one thing to you, I said, if you were to read the books of any of these western thinkers, and you what yourself didn't follow religion, in particular, any particular one, you would be convinced by every single one's argument. Right? And I'm going to argue convincingly for John Jacques Rousseau's arguments, okay?
He'd say, we all week, right? Don't Don't we all believe that everyone's equal, and everyone will say, Yeah, of course, we believe we're all equal. Okay, that's great. You know, if we're all equal, then how is it? Would it be fair if someone gets something when he lacked the merit to, to to deserve it that they got it out of without merit? And someone who had that has been
merits that is capable is a hard worker doesn't have doesn't get something doesn't get some resources. And I'll say yeah, that's not fair. So okay, so then how is it fair that a kid born to the rich family
would inherit money doing nothing, and they did nothing for it. And a poor kid born to a poor family, that might be very capable, doesn't get that money doesn't get those those those properties and things. They didn't do anything to earn or not on what they received. That's not fair. And if there's only this life, there is no hereafter there is no kind of restoration of justice in a hereafter restorative justice, or retribution of justice, then all we have is this life, right? And if all you have is this life, how can you tolerate people getting things on equal to each other? How can you tolerate that? That's very compelling, isn't it? When you argue it from that perspective, of
course, you know, liberals have their counter arguments, and the people like along this line of thinking will have their arguments, each one is very compelling, that they will will cap could counter and say, Well, if you told people that they couldn't give their property to their children, when they die, then what is the point of of people being entrepreneurs and doing anything to improve their lot when that should monk anything? That was the that was the point like like, you want to build a home, you want to you want to get
land, or you want to get shares and what have you, and then that you can give to your kids to your children, because your children, you want your children to have a better start to life than you did, right. So then you lose motivation was won't be the point then. Right? So that will be the counter argument. And they could go back and forth and back and forth coding and then social would say, oh, but if we had a welfare state or a state that, that gave everyone the same education in state schools, then every child would have equal opportunity. And so we who cares if they don't get a lot of inheritance, and it will go they will continue having back and forth, and undecidable. You
couldn't decide which one was right or wrong, because based on which principles, which interpretations good and bad is, does it have any meaning? If if you take God out the equation, if you take human purpose out of the equation does, does that which value is more important than any other value? Right? It's just relative, depends on your tastes, what you think is more important to yourself.
to understand the differences between liberalism and socialism, I suppose to really break it down based on yesterday's lecture, liberalism, concept of freedom is everyone should be given equal legal rights to form their economic and social relationships, as they see fit. Social liberalism is because of freedom is everyone should be given the legal right, and government assistance, to have opportunity to form their economic and social relationships as they see fit. Right? Social liberalism, and socialism more simpler. Everyone living in everyone should live in equal economic and social relations. Because you're, you're going to be free if everyone has exactly the same power
as you in all spheres of life. Right, then if no one is, is more economically powerful than any other, then you're automatically free. So no need to,
to kind of focus on trying to create freedom from creating laws and things like that. Okay. Socialism has laws. Yes, of course. And they believe in equal laws for all Yes, of course. But that's not their focus. Their focus is creating freedom by giving you the social conditions for freedom, which is everyone having
the same wealth as you in a way now that's a gross simplification, because socialism socialists will differ as to what they mean by distribution of wealth fairly and equally, but I'm going to start I'm going to summarize anyway, in that sense.
Okay, so let's check. So, Jacques Rousseau argues in a social contract that wealth inequality creates sweat slaves, if you have more money than other people, and there are people who don't have much money, you can make them do pretty much what you want them to do, or at least you can find someone that will do whatever you want them to do for the right price. And depending on their level of desperation, which will be there, there isn't enough there isn't a wealth to go around, or there isn't. They don't have enough to satisfy their needs. So redirect Rousseau, not Karl Marx
was the one who argued that wealth inequality creates slavery, a type of a type of slavery.
Now, Jacques Rousseau wasn't the only person to say that the government should take
money from the rich to give to the poor. Even Adam Smith said that surprisingly, you think what Adam Smith isn't the libertarian. No, he's not. He's not libertarian. He's a classical liberal.
But he's not libertarian. classical liberals are different from libertarians in that classical liberal is cut off again. Is it?
I'll just extend my voice then and do the test my my throat muscles.
All right. So
yes. So basically the
the Libertarians and classical liberals are not the same thing people tend to think they are a classical liberal believes that the state can take your money to, to give to poor people in the state because you can't have a bunch of people who don't who are starving on the streets, robbing everybody. And because they have to survive, right. So even a classical liberal has a heart. A libertarian is a is a is a very pure a purist, liberal. Right. They believe no, no, no, no, no, the state only is that to leave us alone. And only we need the state to protect each other from each other's violence. So we only pay taxes to the state for police for fire brigade, and for armies to
protect from invasions. That's it. You don't get the money for anything else. No, no taxes for roads, no taxes for hospitals. Nothing libertarian is is a fundamentalist liberal, you could say fundamentals classical liberal,
by a classical liberal, like Adam Smith had no problem with gradated taxes for people from the from the rich, to pay to the poor. They didn't have a problem with that. Okay.
But the classical liberal differs from the social liberal because classical liberals don't believe that the state should spend money to create equal opportunity. That's not the state's job. Right, you know, like, let people
let people fare as they will, but not equal opportunity, just equal under the law, whereas
a socially liberal would say, No, you need to have equality and equal opportunity.
Okay, Russo's concept of alienation. He was one who came up with it, not Karl Marx, the idea that you can alienate means to separate in a way you could say to separate from yourself. Self alienation is where you, if you sell yourself to slavery, you've alienated yourself, you've sold yourself to someone else, it's no longer you don't want to own yourself. Right? So Rousseau came up the concept of alienation. Karl Marx will later take that concept.
Rousseau argued that individuals can,
can only be developed by a society, they need society to help them develop. They need the right social conditions, the liberal might would say that the individual should just be left alone, to develop themselves. But Jacques Rousseau actually noticed or argued anyway, that you need society to make you an individual. Because you can in the state of nature, fine, you know, you live in the wild, you you as yourself are an individual, but then again, you face the perils of fighting other human beings and animals and things like this. But in civil society, civil society, which protects you from the state of nature. Civil society, is the society that you need to bake you into a
obviously a citizen, a civil civil citizen, and you make you into a truly developed human being in a civil state.
So he talks about you lose, you lose Liberty going into a state and becoming part of a state you lose your, the Liberty you have when you're in the wild, but you gain moral liberty. Right, you gain moral liberty, which is liberty and the rules, right liberty under universal codes that protect you.
Even Adam Smith, out notice that modern society doesn't doesn't really
kind of develop the individuals, people who have to strive to make ends meet, are not developing their artistic side not developing. Maybe they have they have a creative ability elsewhere somewhere. But if they are too busy just trying to live day to day, they don't get to develop those characteristics. Adam Smith noticed that again, classical liberal, not Karl Marx. Right? Not Not that it was just an observation of society, right. So Karl Marx wasn't the first person to notice that either.
So now we have
the famous Federico Hegel, who is someone
which really changed the constitute the continental philosophy, the philosophy of Europe, German and French philosophy. It's called continental philosophy not as opposed to
Anglo Saxon philosophy. Now he was the person who came up with Zeitgeist, right spirit of the age, the idea that everyone is a product of their time. You can thank Hegel for that for at least popularizing that, in his formulation, that you are a product of the ideas of the time you live in. That was Hegel.
And that was very influential on Karl Marx. But Hegel wasn't so much a materialist, he was an idealist hence, that ideas create the material circumstances. Right?
Come on, I would say the opposite. Right, which we'll come to.
He was the one who argued that that history has a type of dialectic.
There's a clash of forces in history, or is it a clash of contradictions, which creates change? Because if history has a set of ideas in each moment, there's a set of ideas, what creates change. So change can only come about by obviously, there must be movement of some kinds, but how do you how do ideas move, they move by clashing with other ideas that are jostling with each other for position of being the mainstream. And he was wondering about the idea of thesis meets antithesis, becoming synthesis, becoming the next idea that will become the mainstream the next epoch or what have you. And then then, until a new interface will be generated that will fight with that and so on and so
Now, Hegel isn't isn't claimed only by the left wing, the right wing, also can claim Hegel. He talked about having a state, a rational state, based on rationality took kind of the ideas of Immanuel Kant. I'm not going to discuss that here because we were going to segue so very interesting to look into. There's the left he aliens, but there also the right to aliens, right wing followers, conservatives, and just liberals who followed Hegel's ideas.
So Karl Marx, coming off the Hegel coming after, obviously, Jacques Rousseau coming after all about what coming after Adam Smith, certainly.
He takes all these ideas. And of course, he's a materialist, he's an atheist. He's a materialist, he doesn't believe there's, there's this kind of woolly spiritual needs Zeitgeist type thing. He wants to render it into a material process. How does matter? Generate what you call ideas? He's a strict materialist. He wrote papers on the Greek Atomists, who are those who believe that everything's just particles flying through void, everything, just particles? So what where do ideas come from if you're just particles, right? So he will attempt to give an answer for that. So now we're going to go into Karl Marx's ideas, because these ideas, assumptions, he has starting assumptions, generates
Marxism generates his worldview, and becomes how he deems to solve human problems based on his, his materialism. So let's discuss this.
So if you want to know the first principle, Marx, which is take Hegel and say the opposite, right? So Hegel says the ideas come first, and then material humans generate the material conditions based on ideas, he'll say, the opposite. Because you say, you say ideas came first, and they create material conditions. But what created those ideas, you know, the chicken in the egg? Well, those ideas came from previous conditions, and that came from previous conditions and that given previously, okay, so take the first human being ever, where do they emerge from in the wild? What were they doing, what they were surviving, right, they were trying to survive them making ends meet,
by hunting by living off the land, physical things. So Carmack simply says, Well, then, physical thing physical activities came first before ideas and physical activities were what surviving right working in a tribe or community to survive. So that comes first, then ideas come later. But then if I did, if this come later, the ideas come from what to which you will say ideas come from the material conditions of production, ie, the your economics determines your beliefs. The economic system of any society determines its beliefs and ideas, its religion, the doctrines in that religion, everything.
So he says, Okay, well, I'll read this quote out for you rather than just making claims so he says, morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, first no longer retain a semblance of independence. They have no history, no development, but men developing their material production and their material intercourse.
Along with this, their real existence they're thinking and the product of their thinking life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. So he's arguing that the material production, someone cutting down trees with an axe, someone plowing,
someone, someone using a spade, these things determined the religion of the time, the political system, the time, the culture, the time, those things with Tobin by the means of production.
And then he further explains that the ideas you have in your head, because what the brain the brain has ideas, right? So it's does that mean that that the brain has a mind body duality? Is there a mind which is separate from the body? That can think like most aliens and and continental philosophers thought? He says, No, the brain is just simply a receptacle, receptacle for what? Because there's only matter, right? So he would argue the brain isn't a receptacle, so much for something called ideas which are immaterial, the brain merely reflects the material conditions, it's like a mirror in a way it lit it almost kind of literally reflects the material conditions of your
society, literally its economic system and how they produce things. So everything in your head is merely the economic system that you live under
being reflected in them, right.
Now, this is why Karl Marx would make a major turn, you take continental philosophy, and he'd make it materialist. And that determined what Marxism would be basically, although later on, it would turn back to being idealist again, via the post modernist, you might quit and others and some Neo Marxist, but we'll discuss that lead. So first of all, what do we mean by socialism? Why if someone's a socialist, what do they mean by that? Right? And why is Marxism so socialist?
But no socialists and Marxists, right? So why can a Marxist Marxist is a socialist, but not all socialists are Marxists? Simple. A socialist simply is someone who believes that the state state owns the means of production and distributes produce and resources via some idea of equality to the population. Okay, it's equality of resources, using the state to do it. So people talked about, you know, the Soviet Union, right. So the union was was implementing communism. But while they called the, what would they call the Union of Soviet of Soviet Socialist Republics? Yeah. Why are the people called socialist and communist at the same time? It's very confusing. Why? Well, it's because
they, they were socialist, because they believe that the state owns the means of production owns all the capital. So any piece of wealth, or object that generates wealth or generates produce, and the state distributes that organizes the distribution, the equal distribution of that via the population? If you believe that you're a socialist, basically, that's what it is. It's quite fair and simple. No socialist agree of Marx. Marx actually had an idea beyond socialism. But that's what it means. So at least, you know, that
socialism developed Karl Marx was the first socialist for those of you who don't know, there were socialists that came before him. He nicknamed them the utopian socialists. He thought they were too idealistic. They they noted, like, like, competent, sassy, more. These were the utopians, you don't know much about them, because they don't really influential, but they saw the Industrial Revolution, they saw how inhumane it was, to workers and things like this, they thought maybe we need to go back to a simpler time where humans could live in communes. And they would share resources amongst each other in his communes and go back to a simpler state of nature, you could say, not not going back
to, you know, being hunter gatherers, but maybe like, you know, the, the Amish, for example, you know, would be would be, and it was very influential such that you get the the Amish coming out of the
Industrial Revolution, you get people at the Luddites, who are anti technology, because of the inhumanity seen during the Industrial Revolution in Europe. So this is where the utopian socialists arise from. But Karl Marx would be very much against them, he would think that that too, you know, pie in the sky, airy fairy, they don't give any real program of how to achieve their objectives and they just too fantastical and he invents what he calls scientific socialism. Right? How, how you can explain human nature, human society, via materialism, because science is the study of matter, right? Physics is study of matter where biologists lives matter. So then
The study of humans should also be the study of matter to enhance science. Although what he argues is not scientific, but anyway.
Okay, the major the major diversions amongst socialists is on what they want to achieve. So a socialist might want to be happy with just simply a state that distributes the resources and is elected by the people. Whereas a communist or a Marxist wants eventually the state to disappear. And everyone live in a, in an anarchy of collective ownership of the means of production. That's actually the end goal for Marxists, which which a revisionist socialists would not agree with? And of course, how do you achieve it you achieve by Revolution by gradualism, like one approach?
Or do you achieve it with a coup. And without bloody revolution, there are differences of opinion among socialists, don't worry, you don't need to know this aspect, because it's not really relevant to Marxism.
The other schools of thought so much, okay, but the first socialist utopian socialism,
we saw Claude on the sassy more was one of the first individuals to argue against the industrial revolutions in humanity. He also argued against the you could say, the first idea of the bourgeois, the ruling class who are rich, and they are lazy, because they don't do anything, they just own land, and they get profit from the land. So he was the ones raising these issues, what it wasn't Karl Marx, coming up with that. And he also use the phrase, to each according to his ability, to each according to his works,
which is from basically everyone who has something to do who can do something, they should do that. And you should be paid according to the work you do. Yeah. So if you don't, if you're a rich, lazy person, you just don't get deserve to get paid, basically, right. Karl Marx would borrow that he'd steal it, and he changed it a little bit. And he'd say, to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, so basically, from from everyone who works to everyone who needs something who needs to eat needs to live and so on, so forth. It was he actually stole it from SEMA. Okay, let's start on to Marxism. Now, you've got a bit of the background, the the background behind Karl
Marx, where he was inspired by different ideas, where he stole different ideas from and it's he wasn't the originator of these things, or these observations.
What made him different was him, he rented it into a fully materialist worldview. That's what made him different from his predecessors. He put it he combined it all into a holistic, materialistic worldview. And he called it scientific socialism. That's what made him different from his predecessors basically.
Okay, Karl Marx lives in the early 19th century. He reads the Atomists. The Greek philosophers who believed there was only matter, which was particles flying through the void.
He was he was kind of he he benefited from the patronage of Friedrich Engels, who is technically a bourgeois property owner.
He gets funded by a bourgeois property owner to abolish the bourgeoisie abolish the property owners. So there's some degree of irony there.
Now, Karl Marx, Engels, Engels is who we have to thank or blame for publishing, Karl Marx's work of Karl Marx wasn't, couldn't afford to publish his own books. And of course, he didn't have much
ability to publish anything, because he was poor, and dependent on angles. And so we get a lot about Karl Marx's works from angles. And Engels here describes how come ox is different than the other socialists, because he creates his holistic worldview that explains everything from the materialistic view. And that's why he's very popular, he's very attractive, because humans want one narrative, we want a holistic explanation. It's part of we'd say, our fitrah our nature to do so we enjoy the human being will believe the first will believe zealously the first holistic explanation they're given, regardless of what it is, that makes the most sense, and they'll grab onto it.
Basically, many students like yourself when you get to university and you start reading tons of books, and you start to read books that seem to explain everything, some philosopher some intellectual, some, whoever it is, you will start to you will start to kind of close correspond to it, and you'll find yourself defending those those individuals. Why? Because they make sense though, you really you want to grab on to something that makes sense. But and you assume you assume it's true. If
explains even a few things. It's an unfortunate habit amongst human beings. What we have to do is, of course, you should delay your sense of complete belief until you've investigated every aspect of something. And you've investigated the counter arguments against it to and made a proper assessment. Unfortunately, many students don't do this. They say, Wow, this explains everything. And they jump on board, unfortunately.
Okay, Karl Marx, like every enlightenment thinker before him, was, in a sense, an individualist. Okay, he wanted to free the individual liberation of the individual, but he simply posited that the individual needs something, okay, so a liberal would say, the individual needs a state, to protect your rights to do whatever you want to stop people from harming you. If they don't like you, or they don't like what you do. So the liberal says, you we need the state to help us be free. And anarchists would say, we need no one to help us be free. Let's just be free without a state without anyone tells what to do. And the socialists or the Marxist would say, that we need the community to
help us to be free.
And that's so then you need the question is, what kind of community is required to help you be free, and come up with simple notes, like Jacques Rousseau said, that, if you're trying to survive on bare minimum wages,
you're a slave, your slave to your employer, but you're a slave to your boss. That's not freedom. Yeah, you might, you can quit the job. Sure. But you have to find another job. Otherwise, you starve. In essence, all you all you all, you suffer in some way, shape or form, you might think, well, maybe, maybe I don't suffer in Canada, because we have welfare system has, you'll get some food, you'll get what have you, but it's not going to be the best cars are gonna be the best kind of welfare compared to others, there's going to be some issues, you're going to air for the state cannot cannot
kind of give you sufficient welfare for everything you might need, on a timely basis. Right, because the state doesn't know you personally, right. And you have to make your application forms. And you have to hope that someone that someone, some civil functionary understand your plight and so on, so forth, but you need to be fully liberated as a contra Marxist, you need to have a society whereby the means of production isn't owned by these rich people.
The means of production is owned by everybody, right? The wealth that can make wealth, right needs to be owned by everyone, then you can be free. I'm gonna give an example. There's probably shows my age, but there was a TV series called Star Trek Next Generation, whatever, from the
90s. And it was quite popular, and they have this technology.
But the cool replicators, right, you just say I want some food, you just tap into the machine, or you just tell the machine make me a cake, and they just makes it appear. Right? It just takes matter and rearranged it into a cake into and you can make anything you want them as many times as you want, basically. And in such a society in the future, they didn't have any money, you don't need money anymore, because anyone can get anything they want at any time. So then you no longer have to work to feed yourself. Because you can just use a replicator and it's sorted for you. So then it was some maybe an episode or what have you, someone from the past was born to the future, and asked you,
why do you work them? And I thought we worked better ourselves, we work because we enjoy it, we work because, you know, we pursue our passions. So the monks would say that there's a space Marxist, that's actually the market would say that person, then you're free. You're free now society because if you work for leisure, you work for fun, you don't work because you have to, then you're free. No one controls, you know, tell you what to do. You know,
I think there wasn't there was.
There was this kind of, I think, a funny clip from this TV series called a billionaire. I think it was about a rich person that has billions of dollars. And
I don't know if someone upset him in a series or what have you. I just saw the clip. And he was trying to be polite to this person to like, because he needed something from them. Well, I didn't need it, but you just being polite. Then you realize, wait a second.
I have I have like, you know, billions of dollars. What's the point of having a lot of money if you can't say if you so if you took government functioning, just walked off? Why didn't have to be polite, doesn't have to doesn't have to appease anybody. Because they're independent, right? They have lots of money, so they don't need anyone. So they are now free to do whatever they want. Right? So that's what Karl Marx would say
to was arguing
Now, do you see how convincing the sounds of so I often find that the best way the to judge if I've done a good lecture on different ideologies, I first convert you to that ideology to lecture make you really attracted to it before I give you the reputation that the very end so you're going to be temporary Marxists I'm sure Marx Nolan's would rejoice and just say, Well, do we have to cut the reputation big to stop it just before the reputation? That'd be great. Okay, so,
so yeah, he repeats this a number of times where Karl Marx talks about freeing the individual, because he's an enlightenment thinker, not not think of the Enlightenment era, but he follows the stream of thought of the Enlightenment.
He's not some counterculture person, his counter counter the Enlightenment project, he's a child of the Enlightenment project. Right? It reminds me of, there are some, okay, well, I'm gonna say there are some Muslims
who they, they decry colonialism. They say killing was bad, we need to free yourself from the west kind of the West tells what to do. And they change our culture, and they change our education system, though, that sounds so good and so good. And then you talk to them about their values. And they say, yeah, so I believe that individuals, you know, you know, it's my body, my choice, I have a right to choose, like, you know, hijab is just a, just a fashion choice for myself. And let's say we, you sound very much like, the Western civilization, of which you decry for colonialism kind of sounds very much like the colonizers.
And unfortunately, irony is that those who decry Connolly colonialism are generally the children of colonialism, they are the products of it, they are cursed in their own father and mother.
That produced them. There's no point criticizing colonialism, if you yourself are a product of it, and you've embraced it. So then what you criticizing that they just did it too, too harshly. They were too they're a bit rough, when they did it. But if they weren't rough, you would have taken it anyway.
Just often put a point on note. So anyway,
Karl Marx is a child of the Enlightenment, and there's no escape from that, you can find all these ideas, you could probably trace even up to Plato some of these ideas anyway.
Right. alienation. So this is where Karl Marx uses uses. Exactly. So this idea of alienation. And this is very key, this is very, very key. Okay, so bear with me here, because Karl Marx has some very fascinating ideas, which are also a little bit odd, in a sense.
Karl Marx denies that we have some abstract thing called human nature, or fitrah. Right? What do you mean human nature, your your particles, the oldest particles in your body? What particular nature do you have that compels you to do anything beyond just physical processes eating and sleeping and what have you, right? So he denies that, but then humans tend to do things and humans tend to have, you know, similar tastes and things. So how'd you explain that? So he simply explains that what makes you different from an animal? Right? It's not that you eat and sleep and we produce and so on because it because the animal does that. So what makes you different from the animal? Anyone? What
makes you different from animals?
human is called the gosh.
Yeah, the humans call the rat the rational one What does rational mean?
Rational means in the sense that the
human can think for themselves I mean, an Arabic it's called Taiwan, nothing, if I'm not wrong, yeah. So the human can think for themselves and think about
abstractions, can think about things that aren't really
material, but they can at least bring it to that thoughts I guess. Okay, so you say that they can think about things no material what, but we're just we're just atoms and flowing through the void. What do you mean by not material not material the material is immaterial for if you're a materialist. So, so, what are we thinking then okay, we can think
we could think of things that are not necessarily to do with eating and sleeping or that because because he would argue that Karl Marx argued that an animal could do that
animal can imagine it wants some food and imagine it, you know, it wants a mate and imagine it wants some sleep or place to to highway sleeping.
You're you have ideas right? You have you think you have ideas, but according to Karl Marx's principle, which I mentioned earlier on, ideas come from physical activity of the physical activity of human beings in collectives, right? You collectively work together to is tribe or what have you, or clan or social unit of 30 people roughly, to survive and that
came first before people had culture and ideas and so on. So you'll simply say that your ideas are just a reflection
of the social relations of your tribe.
Because ideas reflect matter of physical matter of physical reality. And the physical reality is beyond just surviving. And what have you is that you are working together with fellow human beings, for your mutual survival, right?
So then your ideas in your head are simply this combination of your social group, all their relations together, all how they interact with each other, all that is in your head, I suppose. For once the battle weapon, your thinking is just what to put it another way. But it's not exactly how you'd mean it. Your thoughts are just society in your head.
Okay, but the physical aspects of society, not the not some immaterial aspects of society. That's how Karl Marx would would argue it. And he mentioned it here, I'm not making this up. Although you could say he's making this up. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. There's no such thing as a human nature, you might call it in, in its reality, it is the ensemble of social relations. So you live in a society. So here's how he would argue it, right? So he would say, Okay, let's say, you believe in a culture that people should be ruled by their betters, let's say so. So if someone is like, is more intelligent than you, that they should be your
boss, or they're more capable, they work harder, they should be your boss, okay? That idea, it was given to you by the capitalist system, whereby those at the top, who rule portrayed themselves out to be the better betters of the society, in entrepreneurs. And so it's only fitting that they have more money, because they are the entrepreneurs that drives society. That is a capitalist fiction that was put into your head, not invented by anyone, but it just represents the system you're in. Okay, so that's how he would argue it. It's very weird and strange. I get that. But that's his argument, that He's pure materialist. Where does ideas come from ideas don't come from anywhere.
They're just a snapshot of your entire society in your head, basically.
You have a comeback to come up?
I suppose. Because I mean, you gave the example of like being in a capitalist system, and that sort of vision or that sort of point of view being put in you.
But that would make it impossible for you to even question the system itself. The fact that you're able to question the system is, in my opinion, it's one of the things that reflect that, there is an inherent human nature where you can see what is right and what is wrong. Okay, so
Karl Marx responds to you in that in that quotation, Karl Marx would argue that your ability to challenge the system comes about because, so, okay, so each society is produced by the means of production, that technology has a hand. But when new technology is available, which could change things, that's when you realize there's a problem with the previous society or the society you live in. So the means that the new means of production that comes into being
creates the possibility of an over new society, and that causes the clash, and that's caused you to challenge your existing society. That's how the way he would explain it. And that's how he, that's how expensive Okay, for those of you who are you sure, he he responds to you there. So let come up to respond to you.
So, then Karl Marx says that you basically as a human being, you want to be your essence is a species essence, as they say, you, all of humanity is in you. Right, so to speak, and, but not in the sense that you're just a human being a member of a subset of people, humans, no, no, no. The soul the social relations of your society and all humans are in you. And you are content only content when you work for your fellow human being as part of the society but working for yourself just to survive. That is that's a pressing your natural desire and that desire is they'll say, for example, just look at the coffee book, The the artisanal coffee, barista, they love their work. They
love serving people coffee. They love it because they're interacting
their fellow human beings, and they just made and they're seeing them enjoy themselves and having their coffee and so on. So they are connecting with the with the wider people, you know, they say, Don't you enjoy making someone happy or like, you know, helping someone take the cat from the tree or helping your neighbors? Doesn't that feel nice? He'll say that's because you are a species being you. You're different from animals, you're not selfish, although animals are. Ants are quite, quite collected. But anyway, he will say you're different for animals, you're selfish, you your thinking is of your species. And so modern capitalism makes you selfish. And that creates alienation. It
separates you from your nature.
Okay, again, that's how he would argue it. Usually, to explain all this stuff, you'll probably need a course about, you know, 10 sessions or something that's probably anyone's studied poli sci, you're studied Marxism over number of sessions. And they'll they'll spend one lesson on just one of these topics. So I'm heavily summarizing it for you. But that's how we August I'm only mentioning this to you not because I want you to to write down every single point I mentioned. But rather, I just want you to see how he uses his assumption of materialism, to explain everything.
Right. That's how he uses his assumption.
He'd argue that He nicked an idea from Hegel was still saying, hey, Hegel, he said that you're this you, you want to objectify yourself. And that sounds weird, because you use the Immanuel Kant understanding of that, but he takes a different way.
You want to imprint yourself onto external reality physically. So if I make you, if I make you a bottle of water, and I give it to you, I've made it I've made the bottle and I filled it with water. And I've given it to you, right? I imprinted myself onto the physical reality of my society by giving it to you. If however, I'm some functionary in a factory, and I just press a button, and all these bottles are made, designed by somebody else filled person has to be given to people that I will never meet meet with, and I just get paid a wage for just for pressing butter that I have pressing the button, I am alienating myself, I'm not I'm disconnected from my species. I'm just a
cog in a machine. Right? That's how Karl Marx would argue it, basically. Okay.
so let's just get into the bullet points here. And because I've, in essence, he argues that the your consciousness is determined by your economic system,
your your economic system, is exactly the same as what you call social relations, your relationship with your neighbors, your relationship with your children, with your parents, with your teachers, with the local government, with the police, with a stranger, these are the these are exactly the same as economic relationships. And you might think, what I don't like, employ my neighbor, I don't employ my parents. And so really, well your parents give you resources for you to to grow up and, and survive, and so on and so forth. The transfer of resources as economic,
your neighbor, right, you live in, okay? Even just agreeing with your neighbor not to transgress upon their property is an economic relation, even if that's all you have of them. And basically,
the the teachers is paid to teach you. But
again, that's an economic relation with the UK the university money to do so. So that's your economic relations with your teacher. Right? So every social relation, you have even that one that might be voluntary, like you distribute food to the poor on on Sunday nights, for example.
That's an economic relation, because you're still giving them you're giving them resources doesn't doesn't have to be just finance about with pay with money. Yeah, it's social relations, or economic relations, because you only relate to somebody to transfer something with them or from them or whatever do to do services, or to do exchange of product or commodities. Right. So whether you're your Mazouz or whether you you cut hair, or you know, services, or your waiter still economic transaction you're having with them, we're services or commodities. Okay. So from Karl Marx, social relations, and economic relations are exactly the same thing.
Right? So that's why, if you're sociologists, you study Karl Marx, you'd be sending Karl Marx if you're an economist to be studying Karl Marx, from an F or an academic reason, at the very least, because economics and sociology are the same thing to a Marxist. Right? That's, that's what they would say.
Now, you might think, okay, like, Does anyone ever even believe that this is called economic determinism to be called economic determinism? Does anyone even believe that? Well, no one believes that in its literal sense anymore. But the idea that you are a product of society around
and you have social relations, it will continue after com models. Right? And you don't you don't hear it like that you hear it using all the words, all these ideas you believe their social constructs. You need to liberate yourself from social constructs, right? Yeah. That's how you hear these ideas now that they've they've evolved over time into what you hit today. Okay?
The the the culture, the dominant culture of society is the ruling ideology of the state is or the or the society is by it's the ideology of the ruling class. You're not following the ideology, the culture, the religion of you, the working people, you are following the culture and religion of the rich people. Why? Because who produces the stories and the movies and what have you? It's not it's not the average guy down the coal mine? Yeah. It's
It's Hollywood. It's those rich producers. It's was it was a Harvey Weinstein, he produces a story is that you? You show your kids? Yeah. So it's the ruling class that make the stories and you consume them. Even in the medieval world, even in the classical world. You know, poets would be given patronage by kings, to teach the people or to, to make their poetry popular. So that's how you would argue it. And here's Now you might think, but what about religion? What about religion?
Karl Marx, is sometimes misquoted to say that Religion is the opium of the masses, you've probably heard this before my ears open the masses. Now, that
is not exactly exactly how he means it, but it's close to. He simply says that religion is a reflection of oppressed human nature, you could say, right, didn't use the word oppressed, but I'm going to just summarize it for you, your religion, like you imagine a God up there and a heaven up there, because you you are, you're the Knight of Heaven on Earth, and you're denied connection with your true self. And because you've been disconnected from your true self, so you imagined as the ultimate self, in the in the heavens, and a paradise, because you're just you're, you're disconnected from it on Earth, as you're meant to be according to come across as you desire to be
Karl Marx. So he says, religion is inverted consciousness, because you have to explain where the delusion come from, is because surely, if you believe that ideas are reflections of reality, then that then falsehood is impossible. falsehood is impossible. So he, he's been credited with this, and he says, it's inverted, you like looking for a prism. You know, it's the image has been inverted all around him that the Camera Obscura, when it produces an image, it makes it upside down. So you have an upside down, though you think that God is up there, and there's a heaven up there. But it should be the other way around. But he argues, is because society itself is an inverted capitalism, it's
made an unnatural situation, that you create a supernatural religion. That's how he argues it. Now, I am baffled how any Muslim
can believe in Marxism or call themselves Marxist.
When I engaged some individual on Twitter, a couple, maybe a month or two months ago, I made I made a tweet about Marxism, that some Muslims are adopting Marxism is like, really, they've been dusted it off and brought it back.
And so I mentioned that will come up because against religion, and they say, oh, no, no, he's no, no. He, he praised Muslims. He fought you know, he was the foremost vote we're, we're a good force for revolution. Yeah. And I say,
it's very naive. Do you know why he thought that Muslims and of course, other religions were good forces revolution, because religion is a symptom of oppression. So the more religion you have, the more oppressed you are, and therefore you're the you're a great starting point for fighting against the oppression.
You Yeah, your religion is a symptom of your oppression. So the more religious you are, the more the more oppressed you are. That means and that's why you're great. You're great to be soldiers that for the for the, for the new front against change, for changing the society. They didn't understand. And they were like, they would say to me, Oh, you're, you're ignorant about Karl Marx. He loves Muslims. Like, I don't care if he loves Muslims, of course, but he probably views us in a condescending way. Like all these all these poor guys, don't make great soldiers of my army, you know, that kind of thing, so to speak. He didn't obviously, argue for Muslims being an army. But basically, that's how
we're pawns, you know, and today, socialists will view socialists tend to favor anyone who's viewed to be oppressed. Why? Because it'd be great pawns in their army for socialist revolution, Obama's revolution if you're Marxist so that's what Marx is always always interested in recruiting minorities and anyone deemed to be disadvantaged because you'll be great cannon fodder for them, send them for off sinful for minorities, into the fields of fire.
So yeah, so this is this is the entire quotations, it's actually one quotation, but it was quite big. So I put on both two slides. But you can see there in the middle, where he talks about it as the opium of the masses, which is the opium of the masses. But he does what I've just told you is mentioned. He says that the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people, is the demand for their real happiness. So the abolition of religion is what he was calling for, because religion gets in the way of your happiness. How any Muslim can call themselves a Marxist, I understand, but it doesn't. And so historical materialism is what I've already explained to you that
every that, remember, I told you that Karl Marx, so not come up to Hegel said that ideas change over time, because there's a clash of ideas, you know, thesis antithesis, but there's also things he's airy fairy ideas, things, good ideas, Karl Marx, the materialists. So he takes Hegel's idea, and makes a material version of it basically says, that society change because it's a clash of classes, a clash of forces in society, the ruling class versus the oppressed class wherever it slaves, serfs, or workers or the proletariat as he calls it, right? So that's how he explains it.
So it's called historical materialism.
Now, Karl Marx argues How do you change all this? What do you do? Well, simply you abolish private property. Now, property is not that you start taking off your shoes and taking your shirt because it's your private property. And no, no,
he calls that personal property.
Right? You can have your you can have a house, and you can have your own shoes, and you can have your own bags if you like, no problem. But you can't own land. You can't own factories, you can't own anything that produces wealth. Basically, that's what he would argue, okay, you can't do that.
And if you were to abolish capital, it's called capital wealth that produces more wealth, it's called capital. If you abolish it, then everyone will become one class.
And now, Karl Marx didn't believe in equality.
Right? He didn't believe in equality. You might think what socialist all about equality? Well, yeah, socialists generally. But why? Because equality is a bourgeois concept, a concept from capitalism caused by from liberalism. What does it mean? Right? He says, Forget about that. From everyone. According to them durability, if everyone should work controllability to everyone, according to their need is sufficient. Because people have different needs and different abilities. So equality doesn't make sense. And he was refuting socialist saying, Don't to buy equality. Equality is an idea of the capitalists. Talk about the abolition of classes, and the abolition of private property.
That's what he would argue, because he's a materialist. Remember, equality and justice don't mean anything to materialists. Karl Marx is quite consistent materialist. He doesn't even use the word. I mean, he doesn't use the word often oppression, because again, it's very vague term. Equality vague justice vague. He wants materialist terms, clear cut material terms, okay.
Okay, he argues that if you, if you employ someone, and they take a wage, you're exploiting them, because they say they're doing 100 100 units of labor, okay. And they generate wealth from that labor. So he argues that,
that the measure of value is how much labor you do. So they do 100 units of labor, and you paid them out of money and you make profit from them. That means that they're not getting the full value of their labor. Okay, so you are exploiting them. So he would be against that. He also say that the family is a microcosm of capitalist oppression and must be abolished and he's what oppression but I kind of put that as a summary
in the family, who owns the wealth or who is controlling the wealth for the family would be the father of the husband, right? And if the, the the the wife and the children depend on the father, right, he says, this is a microcosm in the sense of capitalism, and should be abolished to the family structure should be abolished, to liberate the individuals, right. So children should depend on the state or being the common property, so that they are not slaves to their parents. And of course, the wife should be shouldn't be slaves to her husband by depending on him to provide money and so on and so forth. Right? Where's that sound familiar? Anyway,
okay. So quite simply, the contradiction between Islam and Marxism, very, very clear cut, human consciousness is not socially produced. Okay. Adam Alayhis Salam, what society was even when he had consciousness was in any he was only one person, right?
He was taught language from the Creator. You
He wasn't taught language because language is a collection of the social relations reflecting in his brain. Yeah. So again how you can be Marxist and Muslim at the same time it baffles me.
He was able to use the his intellect before there was even a second human being. So how would a Marxist Muslim explain that? I don't know. Now a Marxist who would say this is refute me I don't believe in Islam. Well, okay, that's fine. But but the topic of this series is Islam left to right. It's not. You know, is there rational reputations outside revelation for these ideologies? That's a different set of lectures, right? This is about Islam here. Some doesn't fit in Marxism is my point doesn't fit in Marxism.
The human brain doesn't reflect like a matter like a mirror. Islam posits that human humans store information as knowledge as in, right. It's not a reflection, it is just knowledge. And likewise, you can have false, you can have falsehood that was concocted by yourself, not by your social relations, and the Quran talks about that. People inventing falsehoods? Yeah, no, society made me invent falsehoods. No. on their judgment, you can't say yeah, I'm sorry, God, I just believed in the truth. But, you know, society, I'm the assault ensemble of social relations. And so I was, I was determined to believe in these things and to believe falsehood, so doesn't doesn't wash
marks and holds that religion and God is a man made illusion to cover up an oppressive world,
not deliberately to cover up an oppressive world, but rather produced by an oppressive world by the economic relations of an of an oppressive world. Neo Marxists would come later and say, No, but it is it is deliberate. It's a deliberate COVID cover up. That's what makes them stay that will make them different from Karl Marx. And a NEO Marxist would argue with me and say, no, no, no, Karl Marx didn't believe that and believe in economic determinism. According to our interpretation of Karl Marx, we think he believes that the ideology, the ruling ideology is a deliberate, deliberate, productive product of the ruling class to fool you. Okay. That is what makes the Neo Marxist and not
Marxist anymore. Okay. And they're full of suspicions, they're very suspicious people, because anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory is suspicious. Right? And in a sense, in essence, they take Marxism into conspiracy theory territory, which makes them Neo Marxist. Okay. quick fire round, you could say, Marxism, abolishes private property, the private ownership of capital, Islam permits it. Right? By the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu. wasallam said, Whoever started the piece of land with a wall, it becomes his.
Yeah, Jacques Rousseau wouldn't like that. And of course, Karl Marx would be a firm objection to that.
Marxism seeks the abolition of the family unit, including patriarchy, he himself mentioned the word patriarchy by the way, he mentioned it in the or is it turnkey? Someone says no, he didn't say well, okay, I'll show you how
to do or is it family family family?
So, it is in the the first one in his book, The German ideology, the first paragraph, the source the social structure is therefore limited to an extension of family, patriarchal family, chieftains, below them, the members of the tribe and finally slaves and so on, so forth. So he mentioned patriarchy. So, if you want to be against the patriarchy, Karl Marx agrees.
obviously mandates that, that the families are that males are responsible for their family members, this responsibility, and I'm not going to give you narrations and Quranic verses today. I'm going to give that tomorrow because tomorrow's but all about feminism. So that's going to be especially spicy day.
Islam allows wage labor contracts. So basically you in Islam you can employ people for wages. Of course the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam said, even if you hire the worker, he has to inform him of his wage. That's the exploitation of surplus value of the worker Karl Marx would not approve
it's not a payments to welfare to be wealthy right you can be wealthy in Islam and have lots of property beyond your needs. And the current even talks about you know that Allah gives different people different things, different amounts, different stations, and have to to try you in your responsibility. So if you if more is given to you, then you're more accountable to God for what you did with that wealth.
Marks and demands class abolition, they can't be wealthy in in Moxham. In Islam, you can be wealthy and no problem with that.
Now many markets Muslims will say but there's a car. There's a car tax, it's a wealth tax, right? It's not an income tax wealth tax every year. If you have amount of money or property above a certain value, you must pay 2.5% All
Have that in perpetuity while you have that that amount of money or that amount of property doesn't matter you only pay tax once in the west you get income tax, you pay tax ones you'll pay anymore. Right? In Islam if you're above certain amount you have to pay every year 2.5%. So it's not marked that's Marxism Islam but agrees of Marxism, some Marxist Muslims told me on Twitter, and I say no, the the percentage of Marxist Sarkar isn't 2.5% It's 100%. Basically, yeah, you take all the while the private property of the of the wealthy and Surplus Personal Property, and you distributed to according to need, right? So that's not stop Marxist. And remember about what else was talking about
liberalism, many Muslims will be will take some aspects of Islam that seems similar to a particular ideology, and then generalize and say, Oh, Islam must be liberal, Islam must be conservative, Islam must be Marxist. Okay? Because they take some slight similarity or wealth tax up, they must mean that that Islam is Marxist now. That's, that's foolish and naive. And unfortunately, is obviously, unfortunately,
people need to investigate, truly what Marx is really calling to, before they jump on board onto his his ship.
And finally, Marxism holds a theory at the vet the labor theory of value, which is this, this bottle is only worth as much as the amount of labor required to make it. Okay. So if it took two hours to make it, that it's got two hours worth of value, so to speak, of a single person, if it takes 10 hours to make it, then it's 10 hours of value. Okay? That's how they argue, Karl Marx didn't come up with that. He stole that from Adam Smith, because the the labor theory of value was popular back then. So he didn't invent it, he just stole it. And he just assumed it was the case, and he took it. But that's false. Because if I'm walking down on a garden path, so we say, and I see a diamond in
the rough, and I pick it up, and I polish it and clear it, it's clearly worth more than the time it took for me to find it, basically. Right To put it simply, anyway. So the
I'll leave it here. The lecture was meant to be about also including Neo Marxism. However, I've only given you a little, a little taste of Neo Marxism, in that the Neo Marxists would realize that Karl Marx, either was wrong about things, or Wow, he was wrong about stuff. Or they bought reinterpret his ideas to explain why his predictions failed, he believed that history is inevitably going to lead to communism.
And that the more the most advanced capitalist state, is, is the next candidate to become to jump to the next Progress, the next progression of human history and become a socialist states, he said was inevitable. It was like physics, it was never gonna happen. So the most advanced capitalistic was England and he fought England was gonna be the next place of revolution by the workers. Guess what happened? It didn't happen like that, a a more backward technological state, like Russia,
experienced revolutions and it became, you know, Marxist or communist. Although, you can arguably say that Lenin realized he couldn't implement it fully. And so he adjusted it, but anyway, it's different discussion. So then when Neo Marxists realized that Marx was wrong, and he also realized that he predicted that the workers would be continually exploited and become more and more exploited over time,
their wages would keep going down. And the profits would keep going up of the of the rich class, which didn't happen. When those things didn't happen. Many Marxist thinkers tried went back, you know, they said, Oh, you know, what, Karl Marx was just wrong. And he was actually, you know, he's completely wrong. Let's just leave Marxism. No, they didn't say that. Because obviously, that would be too easy. No, they just said, No, maybe we have to rethink his ideas and adjust them to explain why the working class didn't rise up against the capitalist oppressors? Surely, they can't they see they're being oppressed while they're not rising up. Right. And that would lead Neo Marxist to
develop ideas, such as hegemony and cultural hegemony, to believe that the ruling ideology, yes is produced by the economic system, but it can, it is almost it has a life of its own and it defends itself and reproduce itself. So it's now kind of detached from the economic system is like now it's been created by it lives by a separate existence, and which maintains itself and by delusions, in CO creating cultural products that that continue to delusion. And anything that the the Western governments do that the campus governors do like giving give workers rights give working men the vote, which was also an issue they didn't have the vote before that. And then finally women the vote
How'd you explain that? Because Karl Marx predicted that wouldn't be the case. So that would that that would be to to, that would be hard to explain from a Marxist basis. Why would the ruling classes do the very opposite of what you said they will give the opportunity for the, for the poor people to have more power and influence? How would you explain that? Well, it's instead of viewing that as a refutation of Marxism, they adjusted Oh, no, that's what they want you to think the bourgeois it's all part of the plan, but you're even more enslaved. Because you think you're not enslaved? Right? That's how they would argue it, right? So, you know, let's just say if you as an
organization, do something to help a minority,
because you view that, you know, okay, this minority has not been getting enough representation or there's been oppression against the minority or what have you. So we're going to do something to make sure that our organization is more inclusive, or make sure that there's no prejudices that will be interpreted by Neo Marxists as Oh, that's what you want us to think. But deep down, you want to entrench your your position of supremacy even more. So Neo Marx is a very suspicious people and everything you do, including nothing will be you will be taken down and used against you in a NEO Marxist court. But there is no way to please a NEO Marxist because they have to explain why Marxism
is still right. By producing a conspiracy theory.
That's what by now, I'm not gonna go into the details because there's there's the Frankfurt School and there's had an accused and then as the post modernists, the post modernists who would basically apostate from Neo Marxism and Marxism completely, and they'll simply say that
there is no such thing as as any worldview, whether it's Marxism, capitalism, Islam, Christianity, no worldview, we can know for certain why do we try to play one particular one day? Why don't we just let people just live without meta narratives or without narratives, they call it meta narratives. Now,
we will discuss that those things in two specific applications of Neo Marxism, in gender and in race. So tomorrow, we'll see Neo Marxism being applied in gender feminism, or currently feminism. And on Thursday, we'll see Neo Marxism being applied in race, otherwise known as critical race theory. Right. And as I said, some people who defend Quick Race physics they all had that you call it Neo Marxist say, well, just Just could you just read Kimberly Crenshaw, his work, she herself describes it as sheets that were derived from Neo Marxist thinkers like Gramsci and others, which we will discuss. So anyone who knows these ideas knows that yeah, like, is Neo Marxist. So what they'll
say, you know, so
that in a nutshell, is the presentation so particular freaking thank you for your patience listening to a topic that usually requires a few semesters to teach at university. I've I've horribly summarized it, and I've left obviously a lot of bits out that wasn't relevant. But inshallah you have a basic idea. And you're able to respond to it from Islamic perspective saying, Well, you know, it disagrees with Islam on a whole number of points. So Islam clearly does not fit into Marxism. So particular fi comm I look forward to your contentions and questions. Okay, so I've said a lot of stuff I tried to do give you lots of quotations and things on the screen to kind of like demonstrate
what I'm saying. It's not just me venting it or misunderstanding it, or what have you.
So but if you think I've said anything that you disagree with either that I've misrepresented Karl Marx's ideas. Why misrepresent Neo Marx now I haven't mentioned the out any evidences for Neo Marxism just yet. So then I'll say put a pause on that and come tomorrow and after tomorrow, where I'll be mentioned, the evidences and the quotations of all these Neo Marxist thinkers, and and so on, so far as you can see for yourself, but only on the Marxism section. If I've misrepresented Karl Marx in any way, shape, or form, please go ahead. If you think that it somehow does agree with Islam, you are welcome. We are looking at even though I made some kind of some comments of
derogation nature against people that might believe it, but you may be I may be I'm ignorant, perhaps I don't know something that you might know. And you can educate me on this. And so that's why I'd like people to be able to speak and feel that they can speak without being judged. And of course, and maybe you you sincerely thought there was a compatibility. And but you didn't know these are the issues and maybe want to explore these are the issues maybe because Karl Marx wrote a lot of books, right, a lot of writings were published. So I know that most youngsters who are Marxist, probably not read all of them. So no judgment on you as to your choices. As I said, if I was
if I went to university and I had not encountered Islamic political fit and ideas and thoughts, I too would have jumped into any of the one of these boats
The first boat that printed itself because that's what most people do. And that's what most people most likely to do. And I said, Marxism is quite persuasive at the the hook aspect of it. And that hooks you into it. It's very persuasive convention site where you all you have to do is you just work because you wanted work, you only you only work like three, four hours a day, and it's whatever you want to do, basically. Right? So, and you and everyone's working for the pleasure and the greater good of humanity, and so on so forth. That sounds all nice and interesting and lovey dovey. But in practice, humans weren't so easy, it's easy to be motivated for a greater good interrogation,
debonair family, and of course, the Soviet Union had to find very creative ways of motivating people to when you know, when, when if you do the bare minimum in your job, the bare absolute minimum, or you excel in your job, and you get paid the same wage regardless, it's not going to incentivize you to improve, is it? So anyway,
I don't think it's more to do with marks, but just your comments about
colonialism. Yes. So you said that most of the well educated sort of liberal liberals are just
children on colonialism in that sense, where in the Muslim world, yes, they're against the colonialism that took place in their,
in their own countries.
Afterwards, they still espouse a well, colonial or Western mindset, what I sort of don't understand is,
you can have a criticism of colonialism as the force, but you can also see the benefits of Western values. And certainly your religion has changed quite a bit as well since the beginning. So that, you know, don't you think that religion itself is a evolving
force in the lives of people. And so therefore, ideas can be influenced and you can take different ideas, and you can apply them to your current situation to to help to help us better to help us have a better life.
Okay, did everyone hear that? Roughly? Okay. All right. So good, good contention. So let's get into it.
When people complain about colonialism, they don't just say we hate that we were invaded by people with guns and cannons and what have you, they say more than that, generally speaking, they will say that, you know, they impose their culture on us, is the issue they have, generally speaking, if you agree with me on that, okay. But their culture was Western values was a bus nowadays. And they came specifying that they would they were there to spread those values and ideas, because
the West thought that humanity was inevitably going to reach a liberal on this mindset and idea, again, they're taking Hegel's idea that, that there was a progression of thought into and into a rational future for all. And so if there were coaches and peoples who were not so far, intellectually advanced, they hadn't yet discovered these values. The question is, there was a debate amongst liberals as to what to do. Now, if the people are willing, but there's like a power structure in that society, that's not letting those people have access to those values, then you need to go into that society and remove the power structure and give the people what they deserve.
Because from a liberals perspective, all human beings are individuals, and everyone deserves to live under liberalism is their God given that whatever some universe given, right, God given right? Oh, if you're John Locke is God given right? So so then the people in these countries, they're, they have an entitlement to liberalism. There it is an obligation for them to live on because liberalism is justice. So then if the ruling system is not loving, that is being unjust, that isn't it your duty to defend your fellow human beings against injustice, right? So we should get on a boat and conquer them and
give delivered them Justice Kennedy, surely, they will welcome you. And that's basically the idea of of colonialism, he was justified by quite a few liberals. In fact, John Stuart Mill being one of them, who are also had a colonial interest in East India Company, but anyway, but of course, it's about in lining the masses, of course, so. So they would make the out now, now, then, to those people who decrying colonialism because they say it's the imposition of one culture or another. That's the reason why they colonized it, they they against colonization, it's okay. But then why have you Why are you still adopting those those cultural values and why do you why are you a product
of it? Why are you embracing it? If you truly want to reverse colonialism, go back to the values legacy
You know, in that land before the the West came there that I will take you seriously? Okay. Until then it's just lip service for you being fashionable. Oh, I hate cronyism. Yes, of course, well, Alright, great, but you are the child of colonialism and you're you celebrate it, you know? And that's that's the issue. That's the issue. So choose, right? Do you hate it then be consistent? If you love it, then fine, then fine as in, you know, at least you're being consistent. But the nature of the exchange of ideas is ended up itself not that you're allowed to pick and choose what works and what doesn't work. All I'm saying is that, I think a blanket statement such as your problem with
the, quote unquote, children of colonialism, and that they are, they are becoming the new force for liberal values. I'm just saying that no, that was my problem. I didn't say that. I'm very precise with my words.
Learn by bad experience, always be always be very accurate, clear, never say beyond your meaning. And my meaning was that those who say, I'm against colonialism, because colonialism is the imposition of values by a foreign power is giving values that are not indigenous to that land, and putting those values in that land. Okay, if that's your basis, why are you contradicting yourself by by gleefully adopting those values? And using them and so on? So forth? That was my point?
I mean, you can say,
That's okay. I mean, you can, we can fundamentally see that there are good ideas in Western liberalism. I'm not talking about good or bad ideas. That wasn't my discussion. I'm not talking about good or bad ideas. I'm simply saying that, if that's your basis, don't conflict your basis, simply demand for consistency. That's all I'm arguing is that be consistent in your arguments? I've been saying that for years and years and years. So in essence, you could summarize all my reputations of people by saying Be consistent.
That's all I'm saying. Be consistent. Don't say you're against you're against colonialism, then if you don't say it, then I won't. Because you say it's the imposition of a foreign culture on your people. Fine, but then don't contradict yourself and then revel in the values that were brought to your lands and so on, so forth. Now as for better or worse values. Islam does not have an issue with people being influenced by other people and of itself, okay. In the Quran, the word for a gold coin is what
do dinar Maya?
Does anyone know the Arabic roots the trilateral route in the Arabic language where dinar comes from the origin of it?
You're just saying the continents. It doesn't have one. Do you know why? Because it's not originally an Arabic word. It's a Roman word. The Latin word from denarius. Yeah, that became popularized. And look the crowds using crowds using a colonial word colonial term of a foreign currency. No, because it just means gold coin. Now know the Arabic language. All languages are formed by multiple peoples moving around and bringing words and changing words. The Arabic language, like every other language has many loanwords that then suddenly just become part of DNA. They're like retroviruses, they become part of the DNA of the language and they blend in. But you can tell they're not they're not
from an earlier form that language because they don't have a trilateral route. Semitic languages have traded routes to have like three letters that they derived from. So
the client has no problem with borrowing,
objects. certain ideas, like the I said yesterday that the Muslims borrowed the Persian accounting system, the one system because it was superior to manage a large landmass. It works with less use it because it's not attached to values of good and bad. So as Muslims, we can take anything, as long as it's not attached to a value of good and bad, but if you attach it to a value of what is good, what is bad, we take it only from Revelation.
We take it from the creator of the universe, but about the how to the how to do things, or objects how to make certain objects or how to treat people medicine, things about the physical world knowledge about the physical world methodologies that study the physical world that produce results. Take it all take it all from everybody. The Arabs took
Indian numerals you know, most of us know Arabic so we can't we're not gonna take that nobody took it in and and then it became part of the even took some people say the Indian the Indian numeral system was actually taken by the Arabs. So the whole new Moses, mushy Indian numeral system, but regardless, it doesn't make a difference. Okay, it's useful. We use it those what's the problem? Yeah, so take that, but
idea of good and bad? Well, good and bad has no meaning except with relative to human purpose and human purpose attempt by the Creator. You know, so like this mouse has a purpose the purpose is mouse is to obviously like move things on the screen and and to manipulate your, your computer. If this mouse was broken didn't work, is it good or bad mouse?
It's a bad mouse. Why is it bad?
Because it's not working according to His purpose. Exactly. It's not working according to His purpose. So only by knowing what human purpose is, can we determine good and bad? And of course who did the who gave us purpose? The Creator. Everything else is just the speculations of human beings to have zero weight.
Pick good. Any other contentions? Things You Didn't you dislike about me? You might say, either contention. I don't like your waistcoats. We'll just use a suit next time. I'm trying it out. Okay. So do tell me anyway, sisters in front of
the comments that
stems from hacktivism Marxism and
Marxism stems from the concept of equality. So
okay, so this, this is the ask a very basic, very interesting point.
She said she came in, not from very beginner, but she came in and Midway and she wanted me to explain to cover this before. So Mark, Karl Marx didn't use the term equality, because he felt that the term equality comes from capitalism is a product of the previous system, because liberals believe in equality, but liberals are produced by capitalism. So their idea is attached to the previous economic system that he wants that he doesn't like. And he must make a new economic system, a new system for society. So he doesn't believe in equality because equality believe it used to be the principle that was concocted by capitalists capitalists is just basically, liberal economists,
if you were to put it crudely. So that's why he was against the idea of equality as an idea here, because he also felt he also didn't like the idea of a principle that doesn't doesn't relate to matter. Like give me something material to work with. Don't just give me airy fairy ideals, justice. You know, equality rights, like no, I want my I want material explanations, I want material things, you know, Where is justice in the universe? You know, as Terry Pratchett said, and provide one of his characters, if you were to grind up all the all the atoms in the universe and see what's inside, you won't find justice or rights or any this stuff within it, right? Doesn't exist. These are, these
are immaterial things. Right. So that's why I come up with rejects it. But the stream of thought that he inhabits that stream of thought emerged came from the idea of equality. But Karl Marx would tell you would have no problem because he simply says that human AI thoughts evolve over time, because they represent evolving technology, they're the same, they come from evolving technology. And so of course, his predecessors believe in equality. But he is now the new the new, the new evolved intellectual with new ideas based on the new means of production that are available and new technology that's available. And so we don't need to do we don't need to be a care about equality
anymore. We will just care about abolition of classes, we will change we will replace equality with something more clear cut the abolition of classes, and we and that at the end of class is explained as those who who own private property capital, so we abolish capital being own privately and you and then you have
no class struggle anymore. No fighting anymore. So that's so he's need to use equality didn't say, I want to create equal future. He doesn't care about that about using the word equality or even citing it. And for him, it's irrelevant. He gives you in his mind a scientific concept instead. It's not scientific, but that's what he likes to call it. Equality is not a scientific word, is it? Yeah. But he gives you the abolition of capital and abolition of class of classes as the the the scientific definition now of what he wants to achieve a very clear cut in his mind. Does that make sense? Or permit you more confused?
doesn't care about it making people equal right? I mean, economically.
Okay. So sister says she doesn't feel that
equality comes from capitalism, because capitalism care about equality, but making people equal economically.
Okay, so, so a liberal or a capitalist because they thought the same thing. They would say that they do. Of course they do, because they but they say that equality in what? So they'll say equality under the law. That's the court they care about everyone gets
treat the same on the law. No, you know you're different kind of humans are you get less rights than another kind of human. That's the that they don't believe in they say everyone must be treated as exactly equal under the law. But that doesn't mean now that you have to have the same amount of money in your pocket, you have to have the same credit cards and the same you know, bank balance and so on so forth now,
whereas a socialist would say that you need to be equal in, in, in wealth for everyone to be truly free. And a Marxist would say, that will not will say why you keep Why are you obsessed with the word equality? Yeah, let's give you a more concrete better word that that is a scientific version of equality, right? The scientific version of it, which is no capital, no one owns private, no one owns capital, and there is no classes. There you go. It's a scientific version of equality. You think this old definition of use is from the Liberals time, the time that it should be in our past? Now, we want to make into the past, we want to go into a future of scientific terms based on his
materialism that, does that make more sense? As I said, a lot of this is trying to bend your head around Karl Marx's arguments, right?
Because I said, usually, this requires a course of quite a few sessions to learn just on one of these concepts. What do you mean by alienation? What does he mean by historical materialism? You will do one session with with a lecture on one of those topics, just one price. So I've kind of condensed it into this and tried to make it as understandable as possible. But all I wanted to tell you is just to to you can see how he is he's a very consistent materialist. But materialism is not consistent with observable reality.
So any other contentions? Well, because Okay, usually, I say we have a q&a, and we have questions and answers, but I give privileged to people who disagree with me first, and then we go for q&a. So gentleman in the back,
just the question isn't related to Marxism and Islam, Marxism and Arabic was the world. I noticed, historically speaking, a lot of communist socialist and Marxist support policies on
Tuesday, the Communist Party of Canada, so the party fascism.
Is this part of their quote, to attract the press? Or is there some deeper meanings?
Okay, so the gentleman asked a very good question, which is, why are Marxists and many socialists supporters of the Palestinian cause?
Is this a cynical attempt by them to recruit more pawns for their war against the bourgeois right, in a way that might be at that partial reason? in them? Certainly so and they and I say that because they mentioned it, right. There in the literature, they mentioned this, so I'm not just speculating here. But what they would see is they would say that, so this stems from their condemnation of imperialism. Now Imperialism is what they would call is, they call that capitalism's foreign policy. And like any, any falsehood, there's a degree of truth to the false. And so what they say has a degree of truth. But for them, they don't believe that the capitalist so little liberals want to
spread their ideology, because they want everyone's betterment. They want to make money. And they just pretend it's for, everyone's better. And they pretend that they spreading civilization, by the Western values. But really, they just, they won't exploit you. That's how the market would explain it.
But as I said, many liberals, who were pro colonialists were philosophers, and like John Stuart Mill, and others, and they, they, they honestly thought they were doing good, arguably. So they thought they were being that they were rescuing human beings around the world who just weren't fortunate enough to live on the justice of liberalism.
And they believe that if you if you're, you know it today, as they call it, they call it the very, insultingly universal term, because it implies that no one else believes it in it, human rights. That's how you know it today. As they say, we're here to spread your human rights, human rights are universal. And to which I say So whose definition of human rights and what was also no one else believes in human rights, just you guys that oh, well, that they didn't they denied data in this country, they denied this, well, they don't like that and so on. So they don't give you
the right to, to, to drink alcohol or to to publicly declare what you what happens in your own home, in the privacy of your own bed. It's like, I'm sorry, is that right? I mean, the right quantity. So today, we'll say that there's just breeding universal rights.
And they debate amongst themselves even to this day. They call it the
April, interventionism all humanitarian intervention ism to make it even more palatable about helping the people in these countries who are under regimes and religions and cultures that don't recognize universal human rights. Okay. Now, many of these human rights activists, which which are basically the the Duat, the coolers to liberalism, but they call themselves obviously just human rights advocates or activists, because they couldn't, because it's obviously it sounds too obvious to say, we're liberal activists, although some might even say a bit that
today, they will some argue many liberals in certain countries argue for cure for Western intervention. You know, there are many there are many Iranians who argue that they want the West to go and conquer Iran and liberated because the people there are suffering, and they don't necessarily have an economic incentive in mind. Right, but the Marxist would say, No, no, it's just all for economics just for economics, because that's how they view the world. That's how they have to view the world. So So now going back, so the Marxist views, liberal expansionism, but the spreading of liberal ideology, as simply a means of exploiting the proletariat in other countries. So the
bourgeois in this country don't just control the proletarian this country, but they can make even more money controlling the proletariat in other countries and their resources. So Marxists are against imperialism for that reason, and hence, many Muslims find common causes them, they think, Oh, well, you know, joined by is great. Our demonstration is being bulked up by a bunch of people wearing
blackberries and red stars. Okay, we ask any questions are welcome.
But what that what that leads to is then many Muslims, because many Muslims think, Oh, these are our allies. Now, you know, like, either they say, let's not offend them by refuting socialism or Marxism or what have you, and all some and when the socialists go to Muslims, that they know they're not going to that Muslims will not accept that religion is just invert consciousness. So they say, Look, you don't need to think about that. POF calm, you don't need to adopt that. Just adopt Karl Marx economic vision is sufficient for us, isn't it? It's about just about feeding the poor. Why do you hate the poor?
So if you don't, then you have to follow us. Yeah.
Marxist, Neo Marxist will use that kind of argument all the time. He's like, if you're if you oppose us Marxists, because you hate the poor, and you support the bourgeois, if you don't, if you don't like, our version of feminism is because you hate women. And if you don't like our Neo Marxist framework for understanding race relations in America and the West, is because you are secretly a racist. Right? That's how that's the defense mechanism, basically, to how they would address it. They use it all the time. Anyway.
So that'd be my point to how I answer it's the Palestinian cause for the Marxist is anti imperialist, because they view Israel as an imperialist? Because it was because it involved Western influence that the British conquered Palestine, and they just installed the socialist would say they installed a Western compliant nation, a capitalist nation, a capitalist state there. So that's why they would have issues. But do you know what the irony is? That massive irony?
Does anyone know who the first scientists were the political scientists that was because there was like, there's like different kinds of political Zionists, you know, they wonder who they were?
Yes, yes. And in his Zionist Congress, who was the majority of his Zionist Congress, who, David Ben Gurion, what was his political politics about? What was politics?
Because he left wing right wing?
He's a socialist. Right? The majority of the early political Zionists were all socialists. Why? Well, because
the, what happened to what happened to the Jewish community,
living in the West when they were facing persecution, the motivation for them to be disillusioned with the West to be the solution of liberalism, in many cases, met led many of them to adopt to become Marxist become socialist, because that was counter
counter the existing culture.
And of course, we don't as you know, some Muslims, they read, they read the prophecy, but the Prophet Muhammad
said that Muslims will follow the same mistakes as the people of previous revelations, Christians and Jews. So these Muslims, some Muslims believe in that prophecy so much that they will consciously replicate it by being socialist, and Marxist, too. If the Jews are going to do it. The Chris is going to do it, we're going to do it too. And they jumped into the socialist socialist bandwagon.
And eventually, just like Jewish socialists and like many Christian socialists they become atheist. So many David Ben Gurion was an atheist wasn't didn't believe in the in the Torah doesn't believe in the Messiah is gonna come and go, there's none of that stuff didn't care about that stuff. Simply, they put it like this. They they needed to state they couldn't trust non Jews to give rights to Jewish people because everywhere Jews would choose where they were mistreated, or they faced racism in some shape or form. Okay, so a nationalist argument, but they said that, but the only way Jews can truly realize socialism is if they have their state, and then they can decide the political
system that that state and then then they can live under a socialist state. Right. So they socialism was a key motivator of the first Zionists.
Religious scientists only came about after the Six Day War, when they fought Oh, the this Israeli state which we fought is cursed by God because God, we believe God says that only. We must wait for the Messiah, the Messiah to come. And then we will unite the Jews. We wait for the we must wait for the magic. Sorry. So the Messiah to come before we do anything? And
was that sound familiar? The they weren't involved. For the most there were some but they weren't. They weren't mostly involved in caring about Israel as a government or real estate or migrating there to support it until the Six Day War when it was some and until obviously, the Holocaust happened as well, which didn't motivate people to change their minds. But were somehow to do it by necessity. But in the Six Day War, it seemed to kind of give some kind of evidence that there was divine approval over Israel look at the Federal Reserve nations by
fighting them first. Yeah, but but it seems to be Oh, like God must be supporting Israel, therefore, we must revise our, our religious opinions about it. So religious, religious Jews only got more interested in Israel after the Six Day War. Right. But before that, it was really only atheist socialists, but the majority of Ashkenazi Jews, Jews from European backgrounds basically. So irony of ironies socialist socialism created
Well, and a bit of nationalism too. Okay. Contingency Go ahead.
With what you're just saying there, I mean, I,
and my perspective is totally Western biased.
So no one's perfect.
I mean, wouldn't you say that, if you were a European Jew had been going through the Holocaust and what the Nazis did and everything, and you saw what,
you know, what the, you know, maybe before the United States came became involved in World War Two, you saw Russian,
Russian resistance against the Nazis, as
you know, the idea is that a possible
view as to why a Jewish person would be sympathetic to socialism, as well, because they saw what the what the Russians were trying to, and they did liberate the beats United States to liberate Berlin and to end the wars. So is there is there that
interpretation who and also so I, I wanted to ask you on that, so if if Israel was founded by socialists, that how, how is the current politics in Israel? So, like your your political options to vote in Israel right now? It's like a right wing party or a very laboring party. Yeah. So
like, what? I guess I need to have more fleshed out version of
what I'm saying. Okay. So there are no there are nuances in history.
So the early socialists was the early socialist, political, political Zionist, majoritarian was socialist, this is way before the Holocaust happens. Right? So we're talking
turn of the 20th century.
From the 19th to 20th century, this is when they operating this kind of
age or this kind of epoch. So there's no there's no Holocaust happened about that point in time. But there was discrimination against Jews, there was the the diverse affair, which was in France, where a loyal Jewish officer was accused of, of giving military secrets to the Germans prior to World War One, but because France and Germany has always had a bit of beef, it gets with each other
and so on.
And he was innocent but the fact that they just wanted the pins on on the in someone and they pinned on him of course there's evidence came on later that they suggested it was it was a non Jewish German that was doing it as non Jewish French officer that was doing it but there's but they didn't care they wanted just to blame the Jewish officer.
So there was many instances where Jews in the West were reminded that they weren't welcome or they weren't going to be just treat as equal citizens or just because it'd be citizens of the country they're in.
But but also the, the part of the Jewish world Jewry that was more comfortable with their society was many, many Jews in America. What was it like That's America, probably Canada too. Because it's more Anglo Saxon liberal, there's less interference in their religious life and so on so forth. And but they might still face kind of social racism and racism on a social level from people around them. So.
So that was, many Jews became was disillusioned with with Western liberalism, after the Enlightenment emancipation of Jews could before the enlightenment, Jews were not given full rights by the Christian governments. But on the enlightenment, they were given emancipation, they were given full rights and so on, so forth. But they became disillusioned due to the continued discrimination and mistreatment after the emancipation of Jews. And so they many became disillusioned and they adopted a rival ideology to liberalism, which is socialism or Marxism.
I mean, Karl Marx himself was Jewish, right? Maybe don't realize this. Yeah. Because socialism was viewed to be a counterculture a counter ideology to to liberate them, of course, Karl Marx was was clever enough to make
a more specific, a grandiose worldview based on materialism and so on. So if it was all socialists hadn't done up to that point, anyway. So that's why you need to explain why those Jews became socialist 5060 years before the Holocaust happened. So that's why we have to go back to the more earlier historical service itself circumstances. But yes, as to your second you'd make it so you made a second point is why you just looted me please, please remind me
if if Jews adopted socialism, so much, I guess I was using the foundation of the State of Israel after World War Two.
Oh, why the right wing now? That was it? Yeah. That was this. Yeah. I remember now. Sorry. Yeah. Well, I mean, when you have a states that that have multi party systems, or allowed multi party systems, and and when when Socialists were creating the State of Israel, they could socialism is a bit of a spectrum. And they differ as to how to establish a more pure socialist state, and what they have to work with so socialist, my aim for, you could say any one type system for those Muslims, you know about the one where they say, Okay, we'll create a state that initially is its initial conditions are not full socialist, but have many socialists characteristics with welfare programs
and so on. So if that match socialism, they had kibbutz communes, right in, in Palestine, where they, they they shared common property, they tried it on smaller scale experiments, which still exist in occupied Palestine.
So they had it but then, of course, maintaining a socialist state or even or progressing towards it, they were hoping they were going to progress towards it by by gradations gradually, but of course, as happens with socialism is that they tend to be great disappointments in achieving their goals. The Labour the UK Labour Party was meant to be a Socialist Party, and now it espouses close to neoliberal capitalist ideas and policies, right? Not so not so socialist anymore, basically, right.
Jeremy Corbyn I, when I was working with Jeremy Corbyn, it was like they were, who by the way actually debated once no one knows about it. I kept it hidden while while he was campaigning, because I thought that the Western media would then pick up on it and then say, oh, you know, Jeremy Corbyn on panel with Islamist or extremists, whatever, because obviously that's how they view Muslims. So I didn't want to get involved. So I just kind of like, Actually, I didn't do anything I just no one noticed. I'm not going to publicize it. I'm not gonna publicizing and because they will they want to undermine him. And and that would assume that I'm already a person that persona non
grata and I didn't want that. But I debate him on secularism, actually, quite interestingly, wasn't a one on one. It was a panel, but there it is, on my one on my YouTube channel, my organization YouTube channel, the Muslim debate initiative. You can see it there. I'll let you find it if you can, right. This is before he was famous, so I didn't know it was just some guy from parliament. I was debating it
Anyway, he represents Old Guard socialism of the Labour Party. But now obviously he got undermined and you know, and
kind of evicted from the Labour Party mainstream, the Labour Party is embraced full.
Well, not not fully neoliberal, but basically, more center right or close to center right? Policies, although before them, there was the there was Tony Blair, who again moved towards more conservative ideas, although the Labour Party did have more social welfare
programs at that time, but now now they're less social than they were before. It's much more than, shall we say, socialists, so. So things change over time in multi party systems, we're starting with with liberalism as the basis and so in, in the Israeli government, of course, with multi party system, you're going to have the right wing who were who were there since before 19, since 1929 30 is
Pinsky kind of faction, the not to hug now the stern gang and the bills, these kind of terrorist movements, which are right wing amongst the
pre independence is ready forces. And these individuals just just kind of evolved into that stream of thinking evolved into the modern right wing, the liquid party in Israel now. So they're always there in a sense, and socialists won't just won't just are not going to kill right wingers amongst them. Conservatives are often nationalist amongst them. But they just thought that you can have open fair elections, because don't worry that people will always vote for socialism. But that doesn't always happen, of course, of obviously. And so, over time, it's because of the change of, of the Israeli public's opinions. They've just adopted more Ultra protectionist
policies not just protectionist in terms of economic economics, but rather protection in terms of territorial protection, nationalism has been ranched,
kind of ramped up in response to increasing pressure to liberate the Palestinians who are given a kind of non citizen status or right in between citizens states. This is all statelessness in the West Bank and Gaza, and so on, so forth. So that's
a more fuller explanation, of course.
But yeah, anyway, I did a course which a 10 week course on person advocacy. So if anyone wants to see more details of that, you can, I did it for the Courant Institute. So you can just check it out. And I'll cover that more in detail.
Okay, so, before we get the question, are there any more contentions? Anyone disagreeing on anything? At all? No. Okay. Now we can begin the questions and answers.
Might I say I just want to reiterate for the sake of, obviously, the, the this week, of course, every day from now on it will be get spicy and spicy because people, we're going to get to more specific topics, which people are invested in, you know, so feminism is a topic which is not about sisters, but there are also brothers, which,
which now think everything that women say is feminist, and that's obviously a problem. And of course, there are, there are the women who think that feminism is the only way they can get their rights. And most women who think that feminism doesn't contradict Islam, because they can they can choose to define any way they want. Okay? So there's a lot more people invested with the word feminism, or connects to that term, even though they have different ideas about what it means. And hence, tomorrow's lecture is gonna be more spicy, I suppose. Because I'm going to probably step on people's toes on inadvertently, unintentionally. And then, of course, on Thursday critical race
people are going to come in I will, I'm going to place a bid. If anyone who's who's does come in, someone's gonna say, how can you a white person talk about critical race theory, or a white see me a white passing person that was it or a white adjacent person, talk about it. So I'm gonna place a bid, at least maybe one might get one person saying that, and hence a spicy topic, basically. But the spices of all the spicy topics will be this mysterious session on Friday, the grand finale, which I invite you all to attend, you will remember it. Let's just say your your unit, I would like to say that your university days will be will be marked by it, but you will remember it basically,
let's just put it like that. So that's an enticement for you to come, if you can, to the Friday well, it will involve all the things we've talked about. It all gets brought together, but there's a few extra bits that I won't say I suppose special ingredients to that lecture, which we will say for the phrase do do come even if you miss all the rest of the don't miss them. But if you do, at least come to the Friday one anyway. Tell your friends
uncles, aunties, mothers, fathers, whatever to come along. Okay. Any other questions you'd like to raise? I do apologize that I've condensed a lot of Marxism stuff and you probably won't remember all of it because
so at least remember the points where Islam and Marxism contradict each other. Because those are those should be clear points as it is anyway, you know, that, you know, we don't believe that you abolish the wealthy, we believe in private property as defined by Marxism, ownership owning land owning factories, we believe in wages can be paid for labor.
The Prophet Muhammad, Solomon himself admitted it. So how can Marx is probably prohibit something that we believe that the Prophet of the Creator of the Universe
relate to us that God Himself had permitted? You understand? So?
Okay, any other questions, contentions? Or do you want elaborate reasons why I've mentioned clarifications about what I mentioned about Karl Marx.
No, yes, you understand it, okay.
okay. Yeah. Because he is coming across the
board. I'm not sure if you're familiar with
this philosophy, because he's presenting the fourth political theory.
I just want to kind of get your opinion is that just like, is it just like,
he's not the first person to try to present an alternative to the dichotomy between liberalism and Marxism, there was a movement of people of social democrats called The third way, as well, trying to present a middle path between these two, he's even invented that kind of what attempt to transcend both, but it's really just a mix or hybrid of a few socialist ideas mixed with a few liberal ideas. Hence, they're called now Social Democrats, or
were they attempt to improve the lives of the proletariat of the working classes by through the electoral system, by gradations, but not to ever reach a state whereby no one owns the means of production anymore, and that kind of stuff, they that's pie in the sky, because they realize that you do need profit incentive, you need
entrepreneurs, to be dynamic in the system. So they are marked, they are socialist, to realize that,
that you need entrepreneurial ship, and you need capital to be owned privately to for things to work very well, but, but
you need to, to, to, to make accountable life, those who are on the lower classes of the of the,
of the property ladder, so to speak, you need to provide for them to the point that they don't feel that they have to struggle to survive. So it's kind of a that's already a hybrid social democracy is already a hybrid. What I've done with this with this diagram is
the more the more right well, the more left you go, there's meant to be a right wing, but the more left you go, the more individualistic you are, the more right to write you go, the more
the more societal, you are, like, the idea of, of realizing individual individualism via a community, right? So social democracy is more to the left in this diagram
tend to be more to the right in the the wings system in the west of the political spectrum, because it's more towards liberalism. But But, and social liberalism is more towards the left wing or more towards in this diagram on the other side, there so I will order this diagram the right way tomorrow, so you can know who can we get get the wings, correct. And right. Okay, that makes sense, though. So yeah, people don't hybrid, the hybrid way the hybrid third way, but it's just a mix miss a mixed matter pastiche of both sides. Anyone have any questions, comments, or contentions?
sonrisa Hana. Okay.
benification. Lux says that
you cannot own private property and classes should be abolished. But you're in a society where there is property, then divide that property would be you'd
have certain people determining who needs what. Yep. Wouldn't that be glass itself? Okay. So the protocol is very good question. If you're going to, to re distribute wealth in a society where you want to abolish class structure. Don't you need a privileged group of people who get to decide who what goes where? Government basically? Yes, you do, and it's called and cut
Marx said that after capitalism, the next stage will be socialism, where you have a state that controls the the cap the means of production, the capital and redistributed via the state. But that's not the end stage, the end stage of humanity, the utopia is the state will wither away, that's what he says it will wither away. And you'll live as in a, in a perfect commune of anarchy, panic ism, basically, that the state will just disappear, you won't need it anymore. It's like training wheels on your bike. When you're when you're when you're a kid, this, the triggers will come off, and you'll be able to write by yourself now. So he views that socialism is just a stage
the next stage but not the end stage. So that's how he would answer that, of course, some socialists would simply say, That's ridiculous. You need to have government and you'd have government that ensures the distribution of wealth use.
now or later on,
concerning relevant to Marxism or economic system.
What if you wanted to have any other questions concerning this? Do you want to hear him?
Yeah, okay, go ahead. Sure.
How do I do this? As respectfully as possible as a non Muslim? Just say, it's fine. Just say
the Prophet Muhammad
designer, and they're kinda or Sofia?
How, just the context behind those managers are very concerning to me. And how, like,
I just do I just find it very concerning the context and the background towards Niger's and like, one particular Well, I mean, Sofia's love your loved one has
a cap capture as a as a, as Ghana, Nima. And, you know, that, you know, after being after having her entire family massacred.
She, she essentially marries the Prophet and then with Xena, it's essentially is that
that the prophet sees her almost barely clothed, and then
he essentially abolishes the entire system of adoption in order to get married to her. So those are like some things that just don't sit right with me in general. Okay, so let's go through them Sofia first. So
So basically, Sofia is tribe is at war with, with the Muslim nascence community. And so the in the world that the town gets conquered, and so on, so forth. And
if we you're kind of interpreting
the actions or the mentality of people back then with what you think would happen under normal circumstances, now that you will be appalled or upset or what have you. Whereas in the medieval world,
there was an expectation that well, okay, men look after women, men protect women, if your husband gets killed, basically, then you need to find a new husband. It's as simple as that. And
you'd be surprised how, in those circumstances, people accept a new husband even from the amongst the conquerors happened many times in the medieval world and classical world and throughout history in any different many different cultures and civilizations.
You imagine, or you assume that every relationship back then was done out of love and romance, right? Initially, like like this kind of, you know, Hollywood type requirements, the Whereas humans were much more,
much more pragmatic back then. Right. And it was just, Okay, love builds up with someone off the marriage, in most cases, or sometimes it never does. But that was it was irrelevant. As long as the person is not going to kill you. And you can they can look after your children, then that's all you need, right? To survive and contain family name, and yada, yada. Now,
does that but there's also other reports where so here's what happens so
her husband gets killed, but she reveals that her husband actually so the the Prophet Muhammad salaam sees a bruise mark on there, but you get that from a husband and she used to beat her. Right? And so the Prophet he didn't say, Okay, well, you're captured now in war. So your mind now, he released her.
And then she married him voluntarily.
He didn't need to release her from because under the rules of warfare, you get captured your tribe fights fights, not a tribe.
The forfeit is basically then your tribe is becomes captives just straight up like this, but he releases her. So I don't see anything contentious with that at all. She made a she made a voluntary decision to marry someone when she was actually released. And she was under no obligation. And she also revealed that husband and wife beater bus poles that serve, that's just an additional point. Okay, as for
the marriage to Zainab, so people who criticize the Prophet Muhammad Salam, obviously, historians are usually having Catholic Christians who have done this, or the Christians were the first critics of Islam because it was viewed as a rival to Christendom.
Because in the West, you can have adoption and adoption. In Western traditional culture, as you take someone in, they become just like your blood relatives, they're not actually your blood relatives, you know, they're from a different dream gene pool, so to speak, they're not your cousin, they're not your, your son or your daughter.
So the in the interpretation by people who want to view it negatively, they say, Oh, he just changed the rules. So he could get get magazine adoption, that's a very pretty big change just because you want to get married or something, you know, you're changing a whole lot for society just for that doesn't really make sense.
Or you could view it from quite simply that Zeynep and the Prophet Muhammad wanted to marry each other. And then if you believe if you believe that the Creator God exists, and you believe and you know that the crime was revealed, not all in one go, and you know that the laws were not in one on one go. But whenever there was a pattern situation arise, then a ruling came for it, to resolve it, whichever way. So when this situation happened, where the two people wanted to marry each other, but they couldn't, then the credit units reveals, and it's not a radical idea that someone that you're not related to by blood, you can marry.
Not a radical idea that I don't think. Right.
And that was it. So as simple as that, so I don't feel there's anything controversial.
Maybe it's against one's
socialized tastes to use a NEO Marxist term, right? In the society, you brought up with this they Oh, well, we're gonna consider that if you're adopted. That means that your blood relative, you're just like, above relative? Because we say so. And we think so. It's like, well, yeah, but are you not really above relative value genetically speaking, like insects, laws on the dare to? Well, some people would argue there to prevent intermarriage within families have closed and didn't have genetic relation is not the point. Right? So then if they're not related to you genetically, at least by one or two times anyway, because we will relate, we'll cousins in a way, then where's the
issue, then? That was it.
That makes sense.
once you convince if it makes, it doesn't, if it makes sense to you, it makes sense to be not convinced. What do you think is?
What obstacles do you find in yourself? Do you think that like, Is there is there an objection in a way? Or do you just still find it distasteful? Because it's not what you were brought up with? For? Probably it's just because I was brought up with a certain culture and that culture.
Viewing your adult viewing an adopted child is akin to viewing them as a full blooded jealous. So then, it just,
it just bothers me, I suppose.
Would you not concede that that feeling was just an arbitrary an arbitrary value that was simply taught to you but has no authority beyond the fact that society around you held it?
It just doesn't sit right with my predisposition. That's what I would say. Maybe that predisposition is
Is it a predisposition? Or was it just a post social disposition?
I'm not sure for priests which implies that it was there from the very beginning of it, you know, they're part of your nature almost. Whereas
a socialized disposition is one that was inculcated to you by your environment by your by society. I'll try and find I'm gonna give an example maybe I'll give an example of something
of something that the West would that is acceptable elsewhere, but the West finds it has issues with but then you feel to flee all the way around actually because there's so many things are permitted in the West.
Which might be which might be recruited okay. So, so.
Do you find people marrying their cousins is tasteful.
You do? Why do you find that distasteful? It's against my religion.
It's against your religion to marry your cousin.
Alright, but what about your second cousin?
Religion where I'm from? Okay. What about your second cousin? twice removed? Again, my position, third cousin
is still against my fourth cousin.
Maybe that's allowed. I was definitely fourth cousin, fifth cousin.
Again, I'm not, I'm not too sure. It's just,
it's just a familial thing. It just feels a little bit. It just feels a little distasteful, I suppose.
And what is the difference between the fourth and fifth cousin.
To shorter, you do realize that we went by saying fifth cousin that will cover a very, very large area, by the way, even fourth cousin, you say you just you just find distasteful, it will cover like cities, so and so forth beyond because
in the ancestry, DNA tests and things like that, by for fifth cousins, pretty broad, it's massively broad. They, they do not that geneticists have discovered that in the ancient world, in people living in towns and cities. By that point in time, it was normal to marry your cousin, because everyone was pretty much a cousin, in some way to some degree of separation. And if you go, we're all cousins, if you believe in that, that will come from a single
pair of human beings. So what up cuz I didn't know, I could say, but we're all cousins. Right? So then we don't marry anyone, any other human being because we share we share common parents. It's just pre, pre long ago, but we do share common ancestors.
So do you think then that maybe that puts it into a different perspective?
Okay, good, but I can never ask from anyone is to think so. That's good. Okay. Any other questions? contentions arguments use?
What what to think? Question? Oh, great. Okay. It's actually kind of on the other side of the spectrum. So it has to do with fascism, the Nazis
during the war there, I don't know how familiar you are with with that.
With with the with the Nazi Party in the military, the SS? Oh, I was gonna say, oh, yeah, I'm familiar. The Nazi Party. And then I'm gonna click the little clip put on tick tock. Abdullah, is saying he has his bit too familiar with the way sorry, yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Yes, created. I believe there was more than one unit. There was a division made entirely of Bosnian Muslims. And I believe they were volunteers. I don't think that division there was a conscript regiment or division. But this one was volunteer. But my question is, if you were Muslim, why even if they just promised you, your homeland, if they did win, why then would you contradict your entire religion to
with that party? Or for that? The ideology? Okay, so the gentleman asked a very good question. You said, Why would Muslims
Bosnian Muslims who joined a SS division are so special unit? Why would they fight for the nonces if the Nazis are evil, and the ideology of fascism is contrary to Islam, as well as words specifically, the Nazi party's version of it is contrary to Islam. And I'll add another caveat not to point to that, that the Nazi ideology views the Arabs Semites, too, and also that inferior to
the German peoples. So why would people okay, I'll tend to keep posting this I suppose they will do them as not, not Semite. So I suppose that's not the case. But their fellow Muslim brothers would be viewed as, as inferior by these their allies, these the Germans so why would these Bosnian Muslims fight for the Germans? Well, what I would say this is it. No history historians wouldn't say this is controversial to say but people who have a very simplified understanding of the world war two and don't know much about the facts of of how people thought back then, like their perception of what was going on in the world. Many people just fought that, okay? Who colonizes the world is Britain,
isn't it? The British Empire colonized the world kills other people. Okay, well, they say well, we hate Britain.
Okay, Britain occupies Muslim land by that point in time Iraq, Egypt and so on, so forth. Yeah. Your songs of the day though. They had protectorates and things like this didn't make them. So then all they see is that well, oh, there's some other Europeans that they look like the British but they speak a different slightly different language but and they hate the British.
And they promised us freedom they promised like Iraq would be free therapy free so they just said and then they'll stop importing people into the into Palestine who have declared they want to take make an ethnos state which doesn't which is not based on on Palace Palestinian Arabs but based on okay, are the Semites too but they're not the Palestinian entity, not the Palestinians. So they they made according to their ignorance and they just made a calculation that well, you know let's go with this all the other European demons power because at least that demon powers not going to is not the particular demon of the British Empire and that which we hate the most stupid logic ridiculous
logic, ignorance but that's how they thought, okay now as for the Bosnians
oppose the Muslims I mean to
there was there was there are fault lines between slabs in bulk Linz Surprise, surprise. And the Germans were in essence fighting their enemies and so they just they joined them they thought okay, well the enemy of my enemy is my friend and very stupid argument. But you also have to understand that many Germans at the time, or people generally didn't know about the Holocaust until a bit later on because the Nazi Party was hiding it from their own population.
And why would they do so? Because we because they think well, but if they all hated the Jews, If Germans would be became popular to hate the Jews, why would the Nazi Party hide it from their own people? Because as products of the Enlightenment, they believe that they were humane, right? Even as much as like you. Okay? Yes, they shot Jews, they they stabbed us it is very nasty things. But why go to the bother of having gas chambers in showers? Like, why do that and design special gases that that are that will kill very quickly. When you can just like spell that and just use bayonets or whatever you want to be if you want to spare bullets now. Why all this because in in the warped
minds of the Nazis following Enlightenment principles, they thought they were human. So as much as you want to when you want to start to animals, you do it the most humane way. Right? So they viewed Jews as less than human beings, but they still fought themselves as humane so they want to they want to kill Jews in a humane way. But, but to tell the German public that you're massacring a bunch of people as much as the German public hate.
There was a common hatred that was amongst Germans for the minorities. It's only exacerbated by the Nazi Party.
The average German might be taken aback by men, women and children or going in to be killed in work camps and things like that. So the Nazi Party hid it from them. Although the Nazis look at some historians have argued that the Nazis
were intending just to all deport Jews, but because of World War Two, and the Allies coming closer and closer and all this stuff, they they move to the final solution, because they called it a final solution, because of World War Two, and because of
that, they thought they wouldn't be able to evict. So therefore they wouldn't be able to evict all Jews in time. If the allies do come and conquer Germany, then those Jews will return back to being German citizens. And they didn't want that so and they couldn't they wouldn't couldn't go out. We couldn't get them rid of them enough fast enough. So then they they enacted a more a much more drastic plan. Some historians have said that so these things, most of you probably don't know. Because
history is is requires
a lot a lot of of investigating. All the evidence has never really stopped to see a bigger picture that but some great historians have written about this, this stuff is very good thing just for your academic knowledge to learn this.
Yeah, I remember I think yesterday all knowledge is connected or knowledge is connected. So you see, you see the kind of things we have to talk about in a in a lecture series about Islam, right? Yeah. Because all things are connected. And so my I was bit of a World War Two, what will one buff?
And I was always fascinated by that, because it was very iconic. Well, I think so many people were. So that's where I started to learn about those kinds of things to understand the site. So anyway, I hope that in a roundabout way answered your question that
people make silly decisions based on very shallow criteria. You know, most of you make your political decisions, if at any you get involved in Canadian politics based in the most simplest of principles, which is which one looks like a crazy guy. Okay, let's not vote for him. Let's vote for the other guy. Yeah, that kind of stuff. You know, like, one press, I think was what was it? Which prison was it? Was it No, it wasn't in the B Johnson in America. He won an election because they say he was doing a presidential debate and he happened to be taller than his opponent. People voted for him, because he was taller, right? That is why people make very
Basic Decisions Right? On really set the criteria. Okay. And that's it. That's it. So, yeah. And the Bosnian Muslims who volunteered, probably did so.
Although I have no doubt that some of them might have been, you know what you call anti Semite in the sense of hating Jews because most of Europeans did
it not just the Germans, the French and Italians and Spanish. It was anti semitism was quite pervasive in America was quite pervasive. Henry Ford. Yeah, everyone forgets that the car industrialist Henry Ford, he wrote tracks about about the threat of Jews and Judaism taking over America. And he's got stuff like, like really nasty popular stuff, the kind of stuff you hear about Muslims today? From the most extreme of the far right. So yeah, unfortunately, Europe just doesn't learn its lesson. It seems like never again, caveat to the same people. But new people come in. Yeah, you can do it again.
You put a sign up first before I got back to you. And then I got to that
gave him a citation for his
publications of anti semitic
gave him a citation for it.
It wouldn't surprise me.
It wouldn't surprise me.
Did you know that many American media outlets play down reports of, of Jewish death camps coming out of Germany rumors of it, because they were worried that that might prematurely motivate the American public to get the American War involved in the war and the miracles biding his time. So they wanted to like, let's just tone it down and not tell people, these rumors that we were hearing. So clearly, sometimes humanitarian concerns are not really the major motivating factor of political regimes and things like this. It's very,
that there's no such thing as the you know, the the perfect good guy, right in World War Two. Yeah, every every regime has done did something quite nasty. Montes was arguably the worst of all, but But yeah, the other regimes weren't perfect angels and saints use up.
Hitler got his original ideas from my cough and the final solution from Jim Crow laws in the United States. So you could argue that Nazism that worst parts of it were born, they were the ideas were translated from what was going on in the United States. So feminine, didn't hear that the gentleman said that Hitler got his ideas written in mind Kampf my struggle, which is the translation from Jim Crow laws in United States of America, which was in the southern states, which was arguing for a separate separate but equal regime, as I, as I mentioned before, yesterday,
this really brings up an interesting question about fascism. Right? And now, I haven't talked about fascism in this because mostly because you don't see any Muslims saying, hey, fascism is compatible of Islam, let's be fascist, because no one would do that, currently. But I wouldn't put it past some actually, to be honest, just given time. And finally, is one or two.
Because Islam has very clear understanding of Serbia, which is the concept that
prevents Muslims from uniting based on any calls, or then truth and justice.
So we don't unite based on ethnicity. Well, fascism is a ramped up form of that. But Muslims follow a lighter version of fascists, some Muslims want a lighter version version of fascism called nationalism.
And nationalism is a lighter version of it, would you believe, which argues that a nation state
is the model for government whereby a state represents a nation a national group or national culture, a ethno linguistic group? Because that's what a nation is, right? So then, in such natural states, the question will always arise.
If there's multiple ethnic groups in such a state, who does the government represent? Which collective culture? Yeah, because if you say, oh, but the governor represents all the the ethnic groups in that land, but then it's not really a nation state anymore. It's just basically administration over arbitrary geographical boundaries. Yeah. And so then there are nationalists who then that's what you find nationalists are the racists and anti immigration and so on, so forth, because they say that the nation state represent represents a national culture
that originates one particular majoritarian majority ethnic
left a linguistic group.
And if you invite other ethno linguistic groups into that mix, it waters down what ever the state could represent.
And now it just becomes
an administration system for a geographical entity, nothing else.
And then it doesn't represent the people anymore, because it's not representing anything. Now a liberal would say, well, that's not a big problem, because as long as their freedoms and do whatever you want, who cares about what you might call culture? Yeah, it's irrelevant, like make your, your own individuals. So who cares about a collective culture? Or representing anything? As long as you vote for the government? The government represents you? Who cares? But the Nationals would say,
Nope, the why are we a separate country from other countries is because we represent something specific, not just a geographical area? You know, why do we have borders, then between, you know, some miles? Why do you have borders between the United States of America and Canada has a great example. And you might say, well, as Canadians we represent something a little bit different from the Americans, you know, like, we don't like shooting up malls and schools, perhaps Perhaps.
No offense to any Americans them but anyway, but you might arguably say well, you could argue Paul's be argued that well, you know, the the Americans in the South of you guys, then majority Anglo Saxon, you guys majority Anglo Saxons, minus Quebec and Montreal, but let's not talk about them. And so, so why not unite them? Because you speak the same language to a foreigner like me? You sound similar anyway.
So maybe close to Albuquerque accent perhaps? I'm not sure. Anyway. So. But you say no, no, no, but we Canada stands for something different to United for America, even though what you still have a political system that's liberal kind of and voted. And so what's difference, but you might see a difference because of that particular culture, you might see a reason for the borders. And that's naturalism.
Thank you, sir, for your question.
Thank you. Okay. I haven't so I haven't talked about fascism, because No, I haven't found any Muslims yet that basically say they're fascist and they're proud of it. So yeah, that's why, if I do, then we can add it. We can add it to next next year's Cultural Awareness Week, fascism as well were added to the mix.
Anyone else? Any other points? You, sir. You think that's more material, but at least he was? Consistent? Yes. He also said that he was socially determined, or economically determined to come to the terminus. Yes. And our thoughts in the reflection, he thinks are fictional to this idea of living in? Yes.
That will determine the dependent good, yes, it is also
He's morally relativist, yes. So
someone can be socially determined is morally relevant.
How could some be socially determinist and morally relativist and escape nihilism? He doesn't care about nihilism doesn't matter. So what you'll simply say, I don't care about morals, even morals, what Moses mean, don't mean nothing. Let's look at the science, quote unquote, all he cares about is just how metal works, or the matter of human beings and on what we call society. That's what he cares about. He doesn't care about. He says that you your concern of being moral or morals is a capitalist idea from the previous from the current system. It's not the it's not consciousness of the new system, they want to create.
Trust this one ideas
on the social economy.
How can you trust his own ideas? If it's based on the social construct he's living in? Well, I showed you your slide how he argues it? He says
okay, maybe I didn't let you read it. So I'm going to
just show you how he argues this. He basically says that you're the ideas that that he has are emerge from the new technological means of production that is possible. And when a new technology technology comes, it means a new society as possible. So his ideas which are different to capitalism, reflect the new technology that means that shows a new system is possible. So of course then that's where his ideas come from the new technology, that's how he would say it
and we find it.
Okay, yeah, so, here you go. In studying the such transformations, it is always necessary to distinguish between the Material Transformation of an economic of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of Natural Science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself.
So one cannot judge a period of transformation by its consciousness. But on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the conditions on the tip of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relation of production, no social order is ever destroyed, before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for the existence have matured within the framework of the oldest society, okay, it's a bit of a long one, but basically, to summarize, which is that if a new technology comes about a new society is
possible, and then then that creates the conflict within societies, then the conflict happens because a new something new comes and impacts the previous one. And the struggle begins. Because there is a connection between the society that was based on a previous technology and the existence of new technology. So for example, the internet being internet, the social media, Facebook, Instagram, this created radical changes, crashes amongst us new things like trying to manage our time not being stuck on social media and work productivity going down on his craft, because it's a brand new technology that requires a new society for it. Right. And so what you're seeing is, is a
new technology clashing with an existing order based on a previous technology, nine to five jobs and going to work and on trainer. So that's what he would say, is the reason for it, he represents the the future evolution that is now possible because of new technology,
the future evolution of society. That's how he would argue it. Yeah.
questions. First one is, when you said that, Karl Marx wants that,
like his end goal, view, or his course he wants to achieve the very end, the government, withers disappears. And then there's no more government and people live or live around like
housing, living in a chaotic state where people go about and like, feed, learn from each other's property and transgress on each other's properties? One question, the second question is not really related to Marxism, but like philosophy in general, why do people?
Like why do most people follow these types of philosophies that are not based upon any type of evidence?
I asked myself a question all the time, also in reverse order. So people adopt ideas that seem to explain the world despite the fact there is no evidence that that show says that the idea is the explanation. There called theories. Okay, that's how you know it. And people might believe it. Like many atheists, atheists, physicists will believe in the multiverse theory. There's the multiple bubble universes or even infinite bubble universes do want to know how much evidence there is for that? Zero. But they use it to explain why are why is this universe with very specific laws and rules? Yeah, very specific laws, specific size and expansion rates and constants. So if you, if you
don't give that explanation, then only one only way to explain it is something must have decided it, then. Oh, no, that means God's coming back. We don't want that in our lives. So let's make a new idea. Then, okay, the reason why this universe is a certain shape and size is because every other shape and size, it's also out there as well. Because if they're all out there at the same time, then you don't need to explain why one of them is to say, well, actually, just even by the logic anyway, but that's what they will say. Yeah. So if they've all been made randomly, then that's fine. Yeah. But if it's been made, specifically, why that particular size and shape is, you know, so they invent
a theory to explain,
to avoid a lot of explanation they don't like.
And they adopted zero evidence, people will believe stuff, because it explains, even though there's zero evidence for it.
But But that being said, there is part of our fitrah that does that, right? The part of our nature is because it's meant to be able to recognize the truth and because the truth has no contradictions with it, which means truth will explain everything. Right. The problem of humans is only when we think something explains everything, but it doesn't truly cuz you haven't thought about it enough. We haven't looked at all the possibilities. Look at Prophet Ibrahim alayhi salam, right when he was trying to seek the creator, the full revelation that we came to him right before okay, maybe
is the sun, the sun is the origin of everything. And then it said, maybe it's the moon. Now that it said that he realized, okay, can't be that. So he went with a theory saw there's a problem with it, then he changed it. Right? And then when he saw that, even the moon set, he didn't abandon the idea that it was any anything celestial, and then there must be something greater than, then those things, you see. So it's natural for us to believe things that explain the problem is when we we don't realize its contradictions with reality itself. But what does the Quran say? Right, had this come from any other Allah, you will have seen inside of many contradictions. So the Quran uses that
as a, as a means of testing. It's like test it out. Do you see any context between the chronic explanation of of universe,
life and human beings?
With what we can observe for those things? Do you see any conditions? Or do you see an internal conduciveness with a cry? If you don't, then surely only we know that only the truth? Only real truth has no context of reality? Because it is reality instead? So is it we have an innate nature in us to believe explanations? When we think they explain things, the problem is when we don't do enough homework, right? To check those things, if that makes any sense. Okay, anyone else?
Oh, yes. What was the second plugin? What
was the solution for like, after the government disappears? Yep.
What was the solution to maintain public order? Well, come on, come on. I will say that after the training wheels come off, everyone will be living in a state of, of mutual species. Everyone's like part of the species now part of working for the species. So if you're working for the species, and you're not selfish anymore, why would you kill anyone or steal anything? You don't need to? You don't need to steal, and you don't need to kill? Because you're not because selfishness is a product of capitalism.
That's very naive. Yes, very naive. But you know, welcome to Marxism. I'm not here to defend it by I'm here to explain exactly to you as as I can. His ideas were they are clear cuts or relatively clear cut anyway. You said Go ahead.
Yesterday, you have a slide. There was a couple of points, though, how
under Islam, economic systems that they they forbid, coordinate? Yes, there are a couple other points that can't, I can't remember as Whitehead, I guess I was
I was anticipating a bit more of a comparison between, you know, Marx's
perceptions of Western economic theory and Islamic economic theories, because they, I kind of see some parallels between what Marx would like Marx would say, okay, Don't hoard things, because that's a capitalist, individualist thing. And so Islamic economic systems also state so is there not a little bit more compatibility than maybe what your I felt like he kind of
brushed past that.
Okay, so there's just masks. Islam condemns hoarding of wealth, marks, condemned hoarding of wealth is not a compatibility. Why didn't I discuss those things, or compatibilities, or commonalities, or even common observations of capitalism that a Muslim would agree with?
Well, this is about where Stan fits in this, this, this these lectures. So I'm only going to mention things where there is a, a clear contradiction between Islamic ordinances and his particular ideologies.
But of course, you know, to say a broken clock is right twice a day, right. So of course, when Karl Marx makes observations of capitalism,
a lot of observations are accurate, which you don't need to be capitalist to a communist to or Marxist to see or to agree with the problem that many Muslims that hooked many Muslims onto Marxism or Neo Marxism was because they thought that the the criticism of capitalism was so apt was so was so accurate, that, Oh, let's take your other ideas, then. No, just because he's, you know, something's wrong doesn't mean that you're right. Right. So this is basically the point. Yeah, and you don't even need him to know and he didn't even invent these observations even came before and people noticed these problems of capitalism or industrial revolution. So we don't need Marxism in
that sense. But I stated yesterday, the problem of the connection between Islam and capitalism, which was there's many there's quite a few things, but admittedly, we didn't discuss capitalism as much as I wanted to because we were discussing the liberalism conservatism quite sufficiently well, quite in depth anyway. But I mentioned merely that Islam context, the clashes with the court
read of a capitalism, which is it's miss understand it's misunderstood Miss constructed model of the human economic problem which it gets completely wrong. Whereas Islam understands that you guarantee people's needs, the state can step into guaranteed needs, and leaves distribution of luxuries as laissez faire, you know, let everyone just do it as they, as they can put their strengths and weaknesses to maintain a profit incentive. You know, but there's other aspects that Islam has, which I do, I've done a lecture of net on two lectures on in my life on economic system of Islam versus capitalism, which is available on YouTube to see where I just talked about just that one topic,
which is capitalism, Islam, and so on. So, ironically, this is in 2013. I don't mention Marxism much in the, in my lecture, because I didn't think anyone still believed in it. But evidently, parents come back. So all right, maybe because people are the solution of capitalism, then they run back to what other options are there
is another way, what other options are there? Oh, yeah, Karl Marx is great. And that's what happens. Right? You know, so they just they, they, yo, yoing, between, between these two really bad options. And my exhortation to Muslims here is, let's give them a real third way. Actually, don't forget, we're the first way. Yeah, we came before capitalism and and communism were the first way they're the second and third ways, the the deviant ways we say with a straight path in that sense. So that's would be Yeah, so I feel that perhaps implicit in your your question is that I didn't cover the differences between capitalism, and enough with Islam and
Islamic economic systems more in depth. And I would agree with you. So I didn't cover it enough as I, as I wish I could, but their lecture would have been even longer. I'm more than happy
for if we're the MSA, wherever to invite me back to discuss the economic system
with the promise of Frenchmen and Tim Hortons, then I will come and I shall do so with great aplomb. And alacrity. Okay, any other points and things? Okay, you sir. I think my favorite color is
come up with some Jewish background, he didn't believe in Judaism anymore.
Because he was atheist.
If that's the background,
and like, his whole argument was your background and
all this social stuff is determined how you think.
Back when times what you think then why would he go through that religion is an illusion. Again, listen to what the brother asked what the next you will kind of ask which is why does he think differently to his smart society. And he would simply argue that
because his thinking represents the is a reflection of the new means of production available and the new possibilities of the next evolution of human material society onwards. So that's what he would say to you as he would respond to the by the next year, or basically so he represents the evolution the next evolution of humans of human
ideology, thinking, whatever. So he will literally say he reflects the new technological opportunities Literally. Literally.
Anyway, any other points comments, contentions? By the way, you know, May God reward you at all or guide you for staying this long. I always take as a great compliment. I can.
I can rant for a couple hours and you still we still around some points. All right. Particle rafiqul.
Okay, minimum income. Thank you. Okay, if that's it, then I hope to see you guys tomorrow for a really spicy session. And also does anyone know if there's any stab Proof Vests I can buy or bulletproof vests for the next sessions coming up especially on Friday
to campus security I'm joking right now like the shutdown events has been there's gonna be there's no there's there's gonna be no no actual physical records, so don't worry. All right. But a coffee come