Ben Shapiro Refuted by Ben Shapiro

Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told us to whoever builds a mosque for Allah, Allah were built in a similar house in Jannah. And we know the great reward that will not only be gained but rather will fill your grave after your death. Whenever someone prays that whenever someone gives shahada in the masjid whenever someone learns something in the masjid, yes, that will be something that you will have on your scale

as salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. Welcome back. Welcome back to the couch. Welcome back. Welcome back to the place where we humiliate where we expose where we roast,

where we explicate where we intellectually decapitate intellect, intellectually discombobulate, and the shovel our opponents, and today, the main feature will be none other than Ben Shapiro. Let's take a look at the video and come back and respond in kind. We've been seeing these massive marches all over the United States in favor of Hamas, if that doesn't scare the hell out of Jews, I'm not sure exactly what will these campuses, which are supposed places of safety and an openness and diversity, well, when it comes to Jewish students feeling, you know, just a little threatened by people who are now defending mass murder of Jews. And then of course, there's nothing to be done, or

these people who, who are marching in favor of Hamas that you would want working for your company. I know, I know, you are in your dorm, and you're ensconced there, and you feel so comfortable with all your friends who tell you that you're just a great person. And all your beliefs are exactly right, toughen up sweetheart. Bottom line is that it's time for you to learn that there are lots of differing opinions, discussion is good for you. It makes your views stronger. It is that exchange of ideas that actually makes an intellectual community worth having. If you're not willing to engage in that intellectual community, you're in the wrong place. Now, a video like this doesn't actually

require much elaboration because it's pretty much self explanatory. What we're seeing with Ben Shapiro, is that he's a man who can give it but unfortunately, cannot take it. He's a man who can punch but see cannot take a punch. I don't think in physical terms, he can do either. But at least in intellectual terms, maybe you can just do one of those things. You see, when it's talking about the left wing,

the left wing, the lefties, the liberals with a small L.

He is mocking. He is trying to humiliate. He's trying to deprecate and diminish some of the concerns and some of the common things that are said by people. But then when it comes to this issue,

where it's the Palestine Zionist issue, he effectively adopts word for word, the same parlance, attitudes and behaviors as those who he criticizes. And this is absolutely apparent. And this is actually career ending, frankly, I mean, this level of hypocrisy, double standard, and moral cowardice. I cannot see how anybody from the right wing or the alt right, or from the center rights, or from any part of the political spectrum in the Western world, can look at this and in any way.

exonerate this man, absolve this man, excuse this man, justify for this man, or anything else, this man has ended his own career.

But what I did find quite interesting was that recently, this man actually debated one of the youths debated myself, Alex, atheist Alex,

in the University of Oxford, I'm sure this is very surprising, but he actually graduated. So he's not an undergrad. He recently graduated, if he's not an undergrad. So this is I think, the first actual debate. He's done with a graduate in his life. And unfortunately for him, he lost the debate.

He didn't even do will within an atheist Alex, actually done better than him. And I'm going to play one clip, which links to the previous theme of the previous of the previous video that we just watched, in which I think atheist, Alex delivers to

Ben Shapiro

for at least a knockout or knockdown blow for the round. Let's take a look at this particular clip. It's not permitting me permitting my Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg to do something immoral to do something to be immoral, that in the time was not considered immoral. It wasn't considered immoral. Was it immoral, not bound

by the Judeo Christian tradition, sure, but it by today's standards developed under the Judeo Christian tradition, immoral. So you're, you're living off that you're, again, not to get back to the island argument. You're living off the remains of this. I mean, where's your

you see, this is actually a very big mistake from Ben Shapiro. And it actually exposes to us something bigger, which is that the

Ben Shapiro does not have his epistemology in order. Ben Shapiro does not have his EPIs his moral epistemology in order. You see, the argument that he was effectively making was that since culture has changed, and he attributes the change of culture to Judeo Christian values, that such a different take, for example, on the punitive laws, or any kind of prescriptive injunction that may exist within the traditional Jewish corpus

must be reinterpreted. This is effectively the argument now atheist, Alex does a good job in teaching him or who look who's the moral relativist now, because a moral relativist is someone who believes that morals changed as cultures do. And there is a fine distinction between I mean, some ethicist distinguish between the moral relativist and this objectivist and all these kinds of things. But that's a different question from a different type. The point to be noted is what atheists Alec should have pushed and said is actually, why are you attributing the change in morality or an ethics in the West only to Jewish or Judeo Christian values. In fact, we know that

there's there was a renaissance and there was something called the Enlightenment period, which I'm sure Shapiro is well aware of, in the Enlightenment period, many of the great philosophers of that time especially the ethicist or those who engaged and indulged with ethics, like Immanuel Kant, no less, actually attempted to establish morality without, without a reference to religion. That was the entire project. That's why he had the hypothetical imperative in the categorical imperative. People like him, people like John Stuart Mill, yes, some early liberals, and that's liberal with this small l here, did in fact, invoke religious teachings, people like John Locke and others. But

in the Enlightenment period, you find you find people that effectively stripped themselves of religion, some of them are atheists, and still contributed to the moral landscape that we're finding today. People like Nietzsche, who is a compatriot and colleague of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, quotes very, very often, in his books, who happens to be effectively the father of post modernism.

Although in somehow Peterson and the daily wire team and all of them, they criticize post modernism, but they celebrate their founding fathers. It's a it's a juxtaposition, or an irony of pathetic proportions. However, the point to be noted is, it cannot be said decisively or definitively or in fact, at all, that the Enlightenment period, the Enlightenment period, consisted only of

the Judeo Christian referential point that people are looking at the Judeo Christian values, that in fact, many of the great ethicists and philosophers were looking at ways to establish ethics and philosophy, whether it's utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, and then obviously, John Stuart Mill, or categorical imperatives of Immanuel Kant or whatever it may be even the postmodernist school of thought, without reference to religion. That's the first point. The second point is this. And that, if you really want to see the scope of jurisprudential interpretation

in the Jewish faith in particular, then what you have to do is you have to refer number one to the Torah, or the Hebrew Bible. And then you have to refer to the halakhic tradition,

which you can see in the, for example, Palestinian Talmud, very conveniently named I should say, this is a Jewish Book, the Palestinian Talmud, and the Babylonian Talmud. You look at that, you look at the Midrashim, which is the exegetical framework of, for example, Genesis, they have something called Genesis Rabbah. You will see that the interpretive scope is unlike that which Ben Shapiro is espousing, that the majority of rabbis that were executing the Old Testament will do

So, looking at the prescriptive, the prescriptive and the halakhic, meaning the jurisprudential versus more on primer fishy value, metaphor, isolation or spiritualization of the text didn't reach that level, that Ben Shapiro, supposing that it did. And in fact, many, if not most, especially of the medieval sages, he misrepresents my Modi's previously would maintain that position. So in other words, you cannot attribute the liberalization with a small l here liberalism to Judeo Christian called Judeo Christian values. In fact, the liberalization of the small L of the West was despite mostly these values. Having said all of this, it seems to me that these people, I want to say these

people I'm talking about an atheist addicts, Ben Shapiro, and all of these people don't actually have a static objective morality, all of them are in the same boat. Someone like atheists, Alex would actually agree to that maybe he would say fine, and he has in the past, but I would say people like Peterson and Ben Shapiro, are being disingenuous with you because effectively they they adopt a very similar, similar framework, a very similar, atheistic, almost framework, secular framework, but they just don't have the guts to admit it to you. What I find surprising in this whole thing is that he actually put himself through that Ben Shapiro. But then he debated one of the youths that I

debated some years ago in the University of Oxford. The Oxford forum was a atheist, Alex, but he can't put himself to debate someone like myself.

And what does that say? He's picking his opponents. Maybe he's trying to build his confidence. But Ben Shapiro, I think you should surrender. Since you can't debate. Since you can't I think you should surrender. Yes, you should surrender all intellectual pursuits. You should surrender, trying to defend the Zionist project designers entity, Israel, you should surrender in every way, because you're not built for this kind of thing. You are not built intellectually, or disposition really, for these kinds of conflicts or confrontations. So I want to see the white flag, I no longer want to debate you. You're not interesting for me as you used to be. I'm not going to ask you for the 100th

time to debate. I know you need to build your confidence before you face someone like myself, it might take us some years.

What I want you to do, I think which is more reasonable and more aligned with your temperament is to wit to say I formally surrender. I surrender in all ways. And that I want to see happen very quickly. Salaam Alaikum wa Rahmatullah. How are you? Are you wasting your time on social media again, your brothers and sisters in Islam, Nat from Norway are establishing a masjid a Dawa center. Establishing a masjid to convey the message of Islam is one of the best deeds a Muslim can do. There's a huge need for an annoying you know this and I know this, so that makes the room even greater. So give generously and Allah azza wa jal give you even more