Abdullah al Andalusi – Response to Saajid Lipham Why Muslims should not respond to demands to condemn attacks

Abdullah al Andalusi
AI: Summary © The recent attack on Saudi Arabia's Eastern Kingdom has caused political confusion and controversy, with some suggesting that Muslims should protest against it, while others argue that it is politically motivated and may not be necessary for political gain. The speakers also discuss the potential consequences of the attack on Iran and its ties to the operation Deepgram. The conversation touches on the responsibility of officials and the history of the attack, including the use of Islam as a threat to Iran's legal system and the lack of free speech.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:00 --> 00:00:42

Assalamu alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh. Recently, a Muslim YouTuber by the name of Sajid Lippen produced a video commenting on a viral clip of a recent TV program that I appeared on, concerning Salman Rushdie and free speech in the West after his attack. And one of the guests on the show was an individual called Douglas Murray. I'd like to thank brother Sargent for raising the topic on his channel about the events that happened at the program as well as the topic in general. With respect, there is perhaps a slight disagreement that I might have with something that he suggested and maybe we can go through some of the details. Now brother Sergeant suggested that if you're going to go on

00:00:42 --> 00:01:23

such platforms, the wise thing to do is to condemn the actions committed by the assailant against Salman Rushdie. I feel like the very first thing that should be done is to condemn the attack. Such an attack is against Islam. And that's what you're being brought on this platform to represent. I'm following up with condemning Salman Rushdie is literature in tandem. And I want to be clear and also saying we condemn Salman Rushdie's book. Unfortunately, it isn't so simple as that. On that program, no one actually clearly condemned the attack on Salman Rushdie. And the host himself didn't even give a clear condemnation of the attack on Salman Rushdie. And not even Douglas Murray gave a clear

00:01:23 --> 00:02:12

and specific condemnation against the attack on Salman Rushdie for so why should I be expected to condemn the attack on Salman Rushdie when no one else was asked that question? They were too busy talking about whether Iran should be blamed for the attack. Whether Iran's description that Salman Rushdie bought the blame was horrific and disgusting or not. But no one actually clearly said that they find the attack on Salman Rushdie reprehensible the only person that was asked that question specifically, was myself, but it wasn't from the host. It was from one of the guests, Douglas Murray, a infamous neoconservative, here in the UK. Now, to answer that question from him would

00:02:12 --> 00:02:56

imply what two things? One is that firstly, he has some right to demand that Muslims answer his question when he's leaving the host, and that now you must be subservient to answering him. But second implies that Muslims must always be suspected of what their opinion is, after every single attack, and that the only way to resolve the opinion of any Muslim is that they must be asked, you might think or how is that a problem? Well, the problem lies in the fact that imagine there was a bunch of children were killed in a school. And then people went to Muslims and said, Do you muslim thing? That's bad? You would see the insult behind that. But you would also see the malicious

00:02:56 --> 00:03:40

suspicion present behind that question. Likewise, after every Israeli atrocity, would they invite Jews onto the platform and ask them? Do you justify these atrocities? Do you condemn these atrocities committed by the State of Israel? Even if they're just Jewish individual has nothing to do with the State of Israel? Would anyone go to Jews and say, Do you condemn the killing of Vilhelm Suslov, a Nazi propagandist in 1938, who distributed Nazi propaganda demonizing and denigrating Jews? Not necessarily at that point in time calling for violence against them, but just demonizing and denigrating them? He was killed by an angry Jewish individual who didn't like how Jews are being

00:03:40 --> 00:04:23

portrayed? Will we go around to every Jewish individual and say, Do you condemn the killing of the hemco? snuff? It would be insulting some even might we would call you anti semitic for asking that question. But maybe we put it more starkly imagine every time a Jewish individual came onto a TV program or onto a public platform. They were asked, Do you condemn the alleged killing of Jesus for allegedly breaching blasphemy laws according to your Torah? Do you think it should be expected for every Jewish individual to say, let me just say that I condemn the alleged killing of Jesus so that you don't suspect me anymore? So then why would it be expected for Muslims to say that too? And you

00:04:23 --> 00:04:59

also have to ask yourself about the mentality of people who would ask that question, demanding people condemn something, when they should presume they already do. If someone asks Muslims, Do you condemn an attack? It's because they suspect that that Muslim and most Muslims if not all, Muslims, secretly sympathize and justify the attack? If so, if you were to answer that question and condemn the attack, they'll mainly just suspect that you're lying and they want to trust your answers. However, if anyone actually doesn't suspect you to secretly simplifies or justify the

00:05:00 --> 00:05:46

Attack, then they won't ask you the question in the first place. So then really the question is actually pointless. And it's really politically loaded, of course, as we all know that Muslims are prohibited from breaching the covenant of a non Muslim country that they're in. And they're not allowed to transgress against the laws nor additionally, are they to enact vigilante violence outside of the state. What we also must understand if a Muslim was to go on that platform and simply acquiesce to any demand they make, and say that they condemn the killing of Salman Rushdie, that would not plicate the forum, condemning an attack is always met with a follow up question aimed at

00:05:46 --> 00:06:28

condemning Islam itself. Do you condemn Islamic blasphemy laws? Do you condemn what the Sharia says against insulting the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and Allah subhanaw taala? Do you condemn that anyone should be punished for insult. This brings a bigger topic of discussion. And the Muslim would be forced to either not have enough time to explain it and therefore anything they do say we'll be taken down and use as soundbites against them in newspapers, or they repudiate the Sharia. And they negate the very basis of which why they're Muslim in the first place. Or if they are on the defensive and don't want to offend the people. They are speaking to acquiesce to the

00:06:28 --> 00:07:12

liberal worldview and liberal moral system. Something of course, as a Muslim, we can't do so in the end, agreeing to the demand to denounce attacks doesn't get you out of the trap, but rather, the demand to denounce attacks is the trap itself. And I want to be clear and also saying we condemn Salman Rushdie's book we condemn this idea that people who are as disrespectful as humanly possible deserve some sort of praise and rescue tried to criticize someone launched his book in such a small segment without having enough time to to elaborate then this will always be met with outrage. How dare you when this victim has been attacked, and has come to have an inch of his life that you dare

00:07:12 --> 00:07:57

take this moment to condemn him? They'll say that then do you sympathize with the MO tips if not the actions of the killer, aiming to make you look bad and get a few sound bites out of it to be reported in the newspapers. Brother Sajid implied that the Iranian regime bear some responsibility for the attack against Salman Rushdie because they released a fatwa over 30 years ago. While that might be the case. At this current juncture, we simply don't know. And the main reason, or the main topic that I was brought on to discuss in that program, it would seem is simply do I condemn the Iranian regime, describing that the blame lies on Salman Rushdie's head, that was the main topic of

00:07:57 --> 00:08:36

discussion that was asked by the host, and what Repeat a few times by the host. So that was really what I was asked to discuss, not really asked to condemn the actual attack, except from Douglas Murray without detracting from their sin at all. So the person who committed the crime, of course, they are responsible for their actions, and also anybody who encouraged and promoted such behavior as probably massage, it's suggesting that the Iranian regime bear some blame because they encouraged to such an attack, and he quoted the Hadith. And I really want to draw his attention. And everyone's attention to the fact that the Hadith doesn't say that anyone who encourages something bad will be

00:08:36 --> 00:09:19

punished because someone perform that action. But the Hadith says that those who encourage evil are to blame if someone follows them. In particular, some people say that the perpetrator must have been motivated by the bounty offered on the head of Salman Rushdie. The problem is that if you're going to commit such a crime, you're probably going to get caught. And you can't really spend that money in jail, Kenya. And of course, if the crime was committed by somebody who hated what Salman Rushdie said against the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam, he wouldn't really need an Iranian fatwa to motivate him if he was going to break Islamic discipline and go commit a crime. So does the Iranian

00:09:19 --> 00:10:00

regime bear responsibility? Well, of course, if the attacker was actually motivated by anything the Iranian regime had said in the past or by the reward, then, of course, we currently don't know pending court case police investigation and the motivations discussed by the assailant himself. What we do know, however, is that there wasn't any fatwa against Charlie Hebdo when they produced very disgusting depictions of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu wasallam. And yet, they faced vigilante violence from some Muslims who were so angry that they couldn't maintain Islamic discipline. So why would we expect that the attack

00:10:00 --> 00:10:46

If Salman Rushdie to be any different unless we see further evidence, or we hear or further evidence, so I just asked why would a Muslim come on to that program knowing that this dare to bait and trap Muslims? Well, the simple fact of the matter is that any Muslim would know it's a trap. And of course, I didn't know it's a trap, and it's not my first rodeo. On such programs. The reason I go on such programs is to disrupt the echo chamber that these programs represent the channel I went on, or at least the guest seemed to be ostensibly right wing in opinion. And I simply went on to engage their ideas. More specifically, I went on to show that Douglas Murray was a hypocrite, or free

00:10:46 --> 00:11:32

speech that he claimed he has for free speech. And yet at the same time, he has gone on record as what would seemingly look like lamenting the government not banning Muslims speak as he deems to be extremists going on platforms that universities, the organization that he has headed, has worked for applying its restrictions on Muslim speakers going on to what they deem to be extreme as going on university platforms, as well as banning the burqa in public buildings and banning the burqa in society for a social kind of ban. But also to close down mosques, which are deemed to be quote unquote centers of hate. Doesn't sound like such a proponent of libertarian free speech. But yet the

00:11:32 --> 00:12:18

way he speaks, you'd be forgiven for thinking that he was until these facts are pointed out. And so I was happy to be given the opportunity to call him out in public on this, and also to call out as an additional bonus, his hypocrisy, and that they want to blame the assailant, actions on a third party external entity. And yet, in the case of the Christchurch mosque massacre killer, Douglas Murray didn't want to ascribe blame to anyone except the assailant himself, despite the fact that the assailant was clearly motivated by his own confession, into a view that Islam and Muslims are a threat to the west, something that many people describe Douglas Murray's writings as heavily

00:12:18 --> 00:12:56

implying many non Muslims have commented, including many longtime fans of Douglas Murray, but they were shocked by how angry he got, when he spoke to me is one of the many things that I felt was successful about that the best data out there is, even if you're not allowed to speak your manners, your decorum can speak more than the words that you can speak in a platform where you won't get much time. And you won't be interrupted from saying your piece as to what I expected would be on the show. That's the first time I went on that program. And I didn't know how much time I had. They told us we had 15 minutes, but then they got it seemed like it was actually seven minutes in the end more

00:12:56 --> 00:13:28

or less. And so you have to now pick and choose what topics you can say. So what's going to come out with such as there's no such thing as free speech, it never existed in the west and therefore, something can't be on the fret, which doesn't exist nor has ever existed in the West. There are many laws which prohibit speech that is less than the incitement to violence. I was going to correct if my federal panelists on this. Also, what is the purpose of free speech, I make a challenge to any liberal to justify me the purpose of free speech, beyond the pursuit of truth.

00:13:29 --> 00:14:10

Insult is not included the gratuitous insult using moral pejoratives are not justifiable, according to the whole purpose of why free speech was advocated by the founding fathers in the first place. And even if we exist in some non existent libertarian utopia, where the government truly allows you to say anything short of incitement to violence, or maybe even beyond that, as long as you don't do it, you would be restricted from speech by society, but you could lose your job if you say the wrong thing. Or people will react violently to you if you offend them. If you go insulting people's skin color, in an area where it's majority people all that color, someone's going to be violent towards

00:14:10 --> 00:14:52

you, maybe even fatally. So, for example, the irony is that if Salman Rushdie had written a racist book, I don't think he'd be revered as the Free Speech martyr he's being revered for at the moment. And you could perhaps make that claim when he disgustingly described Bilal, who's an Ethiopian companion to the Prophet Muhammad Salam, as scum and an enormous black monster, which is truly disgusting. I will double up and let's not forget that the West has had a history of killing people extra judicially outside their borders, Al Jazeera news outlets get bombed by Israel. America has bombed Iraqi TV station as well as the Serb TV station because it was just mainly promoting what it

00:14:52 --> 00:15:00

called propaganda. Go ask Julian Assange or Edward Snowden if they have free speech, and if the West permits it. I think you

00:15:00 --> 00:15:32

We'll find they'll give you a rather interesting answer. Just call a head on for making it this far and inshallah we'll do more of these and going ahead in the future so please let me know in the comment section Do you agree Do you disagree? I'll permit you freedom of speech to say whatever you wish except rude language that is and inshallah we can have a fruitful discussion going forward and inshallah an honest discussion going forward. So please like this video and subscribe and inshallah I'll see you in the next one us to learn what Alikum Rahmatullah. He will better cut

Share Page

Related Episodes