Mh Podcast #5 – Controversial Questions to Daniel Haqiqatjou

salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato. Welcome to the fifth episode of The mph podcast and how the job podcast and I'm joined with a man who needs no introduction, Daniel, choose a person who synthesizes Islamic knowledge with his studies and philosophy. He's got a background in philosophy and degree in Harvard University and a postgraduate as well in philosophy. Is that correct? Everything that's physics and philosophy. Yeah. And so what he does quite effectively is he synthesizes his secular knowledge. And with classical Islamic knowledge that he's also acquired through training, and to make robust arguments against people who are against Islam. And Muslims,

then the first thing we need to probably talk about, because it's quite hot now, in terms of social media, is your debate with this, the apostate is one, which went quite viral, and, you know, was quite a destruction, even by the admission of some of his fans. And and this debate really was a mismatch of, you know, tremendous proportions. First question is,

what made you want to debate someone who is, in his own words, because I did ask him on Twitter, are not qualified or trained in any of the fields that

that he was talking about.

So that's on our server. First of all, just love her for having me on your podcast, very happy to be speaking with you, brother. And that's fair question. Honestly, I'm not sure why I think he made a mistake. And what he did was he made a video attacking me and my stance on certain issues. And it was unprovoked because I haven't really spoken anything about him, but he thought I was an easy target. So he made a video mocking me and all of this. And at the end of the video, he makes a kind of offhand remark. And he says, in a taunting way, if you know, maybe I'll have this extremist, fundamentalist etc, on my program for a q&a, something like that. He said something like that. And

this one, I think, a mistake, because you usually shouldn't provoke or challenge someone directly. You're not ready to actually live up to it. So I just as soon as I saw that, I said, Okay, fine. You want to have a q&a? No problem, let's let's do it just named the time in place. I think he wasn't expecting me. I think in his own mind, his criticisms of Islam or his mockery of Islam would kind of make any Muslim cower and not want to be in the hot seat against him. So I think he had some of his false confidence. And that was his mistake.

I mean, what was really apparent in that there in that discussion, was that he was really and truly well out of his league. He was he was dealing with someone that was basically his teacher, for all intents and purposes, someone who you are educating him, and making making it seem as if there was some kind of quality and that kind of interaction.

But it was a humiliating experience, because I saw afterwards he brought some of the kind of excuses that he was making. And even in the midst of it, he was having an anxiety attack him and he couldn't handle even

speaking about it with confidence. I think it was one of his worst moments, and he's trying his best to do damage control. But what's your advice on dealing with people like this? I mean,

some people say less employee, maybe a more civilized approach, and more calm approach. But it seems like you went straight for the jugular with him

and taught me lessons straightaway. So what do you what do you say to people who

advocate this kind of compassionate approach to enemies of Islam, ladies?

So

I'd like to get your views on that, personally, Mashallah. But, you know, my perspective is that practical advice, whenever confronting atheists, they have this false sense of security because they feel that they're always on the attack, critiquing religion, and religion has to be on the defensive, and believers have to be on the defensive, to justify belief in God or religious morality and so forth. But we, I think, practically should turn the tables on them. And even though they might think that they don't have any beliefs themselves, in reality, they have many beliefs. They have many commitments. They might not be religious, per se. You know, they might not believe in an

actual God and they might not have a theology per se, but they

They have many beliefs about what is right and wrong, they have a belief about the history of the world, they have a belief about materialism and the structure of the universe. All of these can be very explicitly attacked. And I know that you also use this method in your own debates, to put them on the defensive, so that they have to justify, instead of presenting themselves as the judge, jury, and executioner sitting there and evaluating other beliefs like Islam, or what have you know, they need to do allocation, they need to show how, why are they so much more rational, supposedly, than everyone else. And with a little bit of probing and asking some pointed questions, then it's over,

it's pretty much over because they haven't because of the false sense of security, they haven't actually thought through some of their own beliefs, they've only adopted them, because that's the status quo around them, they have the advantage of playing on the home field, because they're surrounded by a world. But

some of you know liberalism, for example, secularism, this is in the air, this is in the water, this is what people breathe, and is common sense to people. So this is a home field advantage that they are operating under. And they're using that to attack others in a sense of false security. So we just turn the tables on that. We show them that actually these assumptions that you believe are so rational, they are nothing. There's nothing more rational about them at all.

Well, yeah, I think that's a brilliant, that's a brilliant way of dealing with them. And the way you dealt with the squirming apostate, as we might want,

was maybe a demonstrative way to see how that's all done in practice. But talking about controversy, I think one of the main things now that has been attached to your name,

doing a bit of research just today, have you sent me some articles and done some reading is about sort of controversial opinions that you've had, especially with your cleaner situ and your responses to them.

So maybe just put this in a blunt way? What's the beef? What's going on? We'll see. We'll see if you guys have

a disgruntled boy, he has

some.

Yeah, this is something that the attain itself seems to be spreading. But the issue is not with European Institute.

You know, I was their Director of Research when they first began. And, you know, for various reasons, me not believing in the direction that organization was. Because of some of these issues that I criticize now publicly.

You know, there was a split, and approach. And it's not a problem with European Institute, there are many, unfortunately, of these types of organizations. And even do I or II moms, that preach a kind of apologetic, apologetic in a negative way, approach to addressing some of these issues like jihad, like evolution, the conflict between Islam and evolution,

the conflict between Islam and feminism, and this kind of modern women's rights. And what I find from not just me, but many have noted this, that what you see from these institutes, and from these figures is that they claim we have to sugarcoat, we have to water down. I mean, they don't use that those words, but that's essentially the message we have to on the subject like cruddud.

That is very clear. In Islam, we have to minimize this or we have to say that no, this is not really applicable or this is not really relevant for our time, or there was they were never apply all these kinds of apologetic means to minimize and sugarcoat and watered down. And this has a very negative impact on the faith of Muslims today, who are looking to these Institute's and these religious authorities, for guidance on how do we think, how do we feel about what we find in our Deen that contradicts the status quo, this liberal secular feminist, materialist status quo. My approach and I believe this is your approach as well, is we want to challenge that status quo. We want to say that

no Islam is how Islam is clear. The truth is clear from falsehood. And yes, Islam is true. We have no qualms no hesitation and stick stating it in no uncertain terms. And we're not going to compromise. We're not going to water down. In fact, we are

Want to engage in bait? We're going to engage in conversation, intellectual academic. And we're going to show and bring evidence, how Islam is superior is the truth is bringing guidance on these matters of life and governance and everything. So this is the approach that I very strongly believe in. And I know that yourself in many other drives, believe in this method, but you have countering this with a watered down, kind of No, we have to accommodate let's try to make Islam fit into this liberal secular box so that we can live comfortably and we can fight Islamophobia, quote, unquote. So let me tell you how I feel like in terms of

some of the research material is very good. I don't I don't see like I think you're right to say that in all the same.

This is not all the same right is some research material that's very good. I don't have an NGO problem myself with with the organization did finalize doing good job, however, I do share some of the concerns that you have, with some of the research papers, especially two things which I saw your response to,

which I think were worth outlining and worth responding to and worth refuting even, namely, the confusion on LGBT.

The the confusion on when we say LGBT here, we're talking not just about the sexual acts of a man have insisted on man, we're talking about all of the other issues like same sex marriage, and advocating that or, you know, the, the rescue approach of Jonathan Brown, which I think you've you've written something on, and also shared it mostly on on the actual European website itself as a response to. And the second thing, which I found was most problematic as well, and was the evolution article of allegorized. And who Adam was

almost missile,

creating some kind of ecology of him a mythological approach that a lot of the Christians are forced to do. So these two things stuck out to me as points of concern, like real concern, because there's no set up for that. There's no precedent for those things that have been said, in those articles at all. So I, in terms of refuting those particular two articles, I'm aware of, obviously, all the articles that they've written, but those particular two, I think they're obviously prioritize. And so let's talk about those two. First, let's talk about those two articles. First, the LGBT article, and the and the evolution article. And why do you think that this approach is now being allowed?

And,

you know, in a mainstream traditionalist organization line up, and how can we influence the organization to try and limit that kind of discourse, which is clearly almost I would say, outside of the paradigm of?

Well, I tried to influence them from the inside. And clearly that didn't have any effects.

You know, I knew many of the people working there at the high level of the organization. And I know what their mentality is, and I know what they've said and what they actually think about these issues. On the actual article, the public material that they have, I think it's absolutely unacceptable to preach this idea as religiously acceptable that Muslims their claim is, and this is in in the article of Jonathan Brown, that Muslims should support many LGBT rights, including same sex marriage in religion, what the others you mentioned, what the others? Yes. You mentioned, you mentioned same sex marriage explicitly. You mentioned for example, transgender bathrooms, and

transgender those kinds of transgender issues. So it's not all we say LGBT, it's not just homosexual behavior and homosexual rights, lesbian, bisexual, also trans gender. This is all included in their statement, Muslims must support or should support many LGBT rights. So and who is Jonathan brown to make this kind of claim? Is he a Mufti? Is he a kind of religious scholar? Does he claim that for himself? The Why is your thing if they're traditional, as they might want to claim, orthodox then who How do they give a platform to such a article into such a claim to be made, and then promoted through videos and infographics and so forth? This is something very shocking, and I think Muslims,

the Muslim community has in the US, and maybe even overseas have this idea that well, LGBT is just this other issue. It's not going to affect us. So let's just put our head down and ignore we don't have to condemn. We don't have to say anything about this kind of political wheeling and dealing that's going on LGBT and we'll be

Fine, but this is the wrong mentality for many reasons he had this parable of, if you're in a boat and there's one person rowing, and the other person's, you know, you have to come up exactly the tunnel you use but it's basically an argument from Dora. It's an ultimate from necessity almost, it seems like this is an argument from necessity, which for me, doesn't make me for me looking at that it made no sense to me an argument

or necessity or even Musleh which would be less than Dada and all of these things even reference to like the the mistake which was made, which is a completely different specimen fair, you know, it's a false analogy, because

I mean, the idea that as a mistake would allow certain minorities to practice certain things which was not like for example, drinking alcohol and all these things were allowed in a non Muslim spaces within a Muslim lab. That's a thin me

allowance, right for in a Muslim land. These things are there by scarce malefactor. Now to say that so and Kalia as a minority group in for example, the West have to not only acquiesce to the issue, or to allow the issue but now to, to, to argue for the issue. Now I have to actually go and say, gay marriage, I have to go and say gay marriage is should be done. I mean, that seems to be such an aberration. From the Quranic message. That is his biggest belief that this could be said, and I was actually quite shocked because I respect Jonathan Brown. You know, I've read I read all of his articles, I've read all of his stuff. And like he's a great word for the oma. I'd love to have him

on the show. I'd love to speak to him about this, this matter. But this is such an aberration from that, which is you cannot find center for this. I'm not talking about that. Yeah, not only about Muslims, allowing them to practice certain things because that's, I guess, my fabric, we're talking about a Kalia a minority Muslims arguing for the fash rights of the non Muslim majority. And doing so like it's basically the opposite of what is the opposite?

was in other minority. Exactly. The opposite of

the analogy, the analogy with ethnic Vemma. If we look at Ivanova em, is I can I have a demo? He is specifically addressing this issue because within that work, if not by him or her allies, talking about how we might allow, for example, incest, marriage, mother son marriage was just arianism which was already steriods material that might be permitted. But he makes a distinction he says yet we would not allow even if it is Hello, in their Dean,

we would not allow same sex

Luwak basically, man on men, penetrative acts, he said we will not allow that why he makes a distinction because incest is something that is rejected people naturally they are rejecting this. But the shadow that comes with the behavior of overload, that has a danger of spreading so it could spread to the Muslims. It could spread and corrupt Muslim. So that's why even if it's hot, according to the or permissible, according to the Dean of this minority. The vim means the Muslim authority still still would not endorse that or allow that or in any way promoted. Doesn't mean if he had made the argument from Muslim, if there was a Muslim majority in the Emmys, I can see him making a more

robust, robust argument you could do is to shed somewhere I haven't done it. I don't know exactly what Matt said. Well, that's a different one. What I'm trying to propose is that that's a completely different case, because we're talking about minority who are not who are not the lawmakers who are not in power. They are Kalia, the other minority and they are actively, according to this view, should be promoting gay rights in order to ally with the left wing gang as if I agree with you. That is the only option. Yeah, this is, which is a false analogy. Like, you know, the idea that he's one person's rowing the boat and a current exactly the language used, but it's, it made it seem as if

this is the law, it's almost life or death.

On the line, you hear many of these kind of pro elgi figures, they will appeal to the holder. And they'll say that this is if we do not accept LGBT will literally be rounded up and put into concentration camps. They appeal to this type of emotionalism and fear tactics. Where is the evidence for this? Where what how are you determining that this is actually the case? Or are you just fear mongering because on that basis, you can fear monger for it. If it's true that for example, we're going to be rounded up. What about the issue of Zionism. For example, should most

I'm start supporting Israel because we're worried that because of the influence of Zionism and Israeli lobby so forth can be rounded up, because of our stance on Philistine on any issue, you can appeal to this kind of Aurora, if you have the specter of Oh, this imminent genocide, this eminent concentration camp, you can justify anything. So you have to be very careful and circumspect when you make such claims, and not just, you know, make these kinds of sloppy analogies with people in boats. As you mentioned in this European article.

I wanted to also ask you about the evolution article. I mean, you've written some evolution articles, which I think was subsequently removed from the website. And unfortunately, was being put in its place, or I'm not sure if it was really there was this article which argued for the fact that Adam Allison, from from not mistaken, it is an allegory is, is not actually the sort of figures that the extent of the claim?

Yeah, I mean, there's some details, but this article on European site is saying that there's no problem with Muslims accepting evolution in whole, and including the evolution of human beings. And to reconcile this as Muslims, we have to recognize that Adam isrm is mythology, this is akin to mythology. And there's nothing wrong with myths. These are things that we can accept as myth. And that's how we accept Darwinian evolution of human beings, while still being quote unquote, orthodox Muslims. This is the argument that the paper makes. And I'm shocked that a Institute can claim to be traditional and Orthodox and host such a paper on their web. Yeah, I would agree that that's, that's

taking it to like, we don't have anything like that. In our literature. If you look at the Christian literature, I think you can make that argument because they have the alexandrian school we have origin of Alexandria, you have this they can they can, they can miss a lot. They can miss a lot allegorize all these things and say this is a myth and this and that, they will have their own problem. If they do that, then the question is, to what extent I mean, this is a big problem. If you say that Adam was a myth, then was us stop us from saying that Moses was a myth. And the isol Islam was a myth. And even that Mohammed Salim was a myth. I mean, we can wait, right. And so it's when

you have a hermeneutical principle, which is fetid, which is totally corrupt, and has no essence, has no self has no precedents, then you can start doing things with it, which are going to break down the religion of Islam. So this is I would even go as far as to say, this is called kufri. This is a disbelieving

statement, I'm not saying that we're gonna make you feel the person who's written, oh, I'm not advocating that because there's all kinds of are all kinds of, but it is kind of, I have to be honest, and surprising to see that this is on the same website, same forum, where you have great articles being written by people that I think we both respect, we both love and respect that including almost like minded people, like, you know, gentlemen, I do love and respect them, I have good opinion of them. I don't I don't disrespect them. However, when you see them making these cases, brown making slash your claim, and then this other, of LGBT, pushing the rights of LGBT

marriage, whatever it was that he said, and then you have this claim, now with evolution just kind of to be honest with you, it weakens the position. And you can even argue, because you're not really and truly this is what creates radicalism. Because if people go to

yaqeen, and see these, these kind of diluted opinions, they will know that the paradigm or the language or the, the vernacular that's being used is outside of the scope of Islam. And so they'll want to seek something more Islamic and many times that will come in the case of some cult group or some radical group or something like that. And then so it really does not do Muslims any favor when you have people operating outside of that paradigm as if they're working within the paradigm.

Now, of course, I agree with you. And I mean, we're just talking about these two articles, but they have many that are problematic. And I wrote, myself and some other scholars and students of knowledge, collaborated to review about, you know, over a dozen of their articles, and provide peer review, peer review and critique which any academic institution or any academic person should welcome and invite. And we evaluate these dozen or so articles. It's on Muslim skeptic calm, which is my website. And it's a yaqeen review. And we found some very shocking things like this is not even the most shocking in my opinion that evolution is not the most shocking the LGBT is not the

most shocking. There's things that were even more shocking that we discovered in this

This kind of review.

What are the other big problem that we raised with caffeine is that they are involved with counter extremism officials, and they have a board members who have worked with, and were actually architects of a CVE, countering violent extremism was, which was the Obama administration

program to control the Muslim narrative and to basically police Muslims and make sure that Muslims are thinking in the wrong ways. So the analog or the descendant of CVE, in the UK is prevent. And one of their board members was one of the architects of CV, and their Director of Research operations, is a former counter extremism specialist who worked with the US Army in Syria and in the Middle East. So they have people like this we're influencing and directing their research. This should raise many red flags for the community that you have a organization claiming to be authoritative Lee Islamic and Orthodox traditional, and yet they have such people who can influence

their output can influence what they are presenting to the community.

So these are the kinds of everything is based on, not my personal private experience I have in the organization, all of the review that we have is evidenced by public material. We're not spying on them, we're just looking at public material that they have put out, and they are advertising as an organization, we just put a spotlight on it. And we ask questions, that's the only I think that's legitimate. What's wrong with asking questions? Okay, now, so far we agree, but let me just give you some let's play devil's advocate for a bit because otherwise, it's going to be just mean you agreeing for an hour now.

Let's let's talk about, let's say bonds advocate.

And what I was gonna say, is that, okay, so far these concerns, I think, especially in Britain, I think, I have a reason to believe, though I'm not sociologically. So it's not that the if you want to call it this this way, the SAM community is more conservative or conservative in Britain than it is in the US. I mean, I've been to both countries, I've been to different parts of the US. And compared to the EU, us and North America seems like the UK has

more of a strong and solid stance on some of the key issues, especially on,

on on the stuff that we've been talking about. And but having said this, I mean, some would say that some of your attitudes towards people like Jonathan Brown, and people like almost a man that actually is comparable now, between you and them, to the extent whereby you say things like, you know, Jonathan Brown is a liberal Muslim. I'll be honest, I think I when I read that, when I heard you say that, one of the videos that you put up preparation for this podcast, I was thinking to myself, when I when I think about liberal Muslims, I think of people like anime, or people like Amina will do it. People that on almost all matters explicitly operate outside of the paradigm Eonni

they justify it from them themselves to operate outside of the Islamic paradigm.

I thought that was a bit harsh to put Jonathan brown in that category. I don't think he does operate without the paradigm. I think this LGBT select specifically said, they specifically say he's a liberal Muslim. I think you did this. I'm not sure what what do you what do you consider him as a liberal Muslim? I don't think we have to put these labels unnecessarily. I agree with you. But we don't need to say that this person is X or Y. Okay. We just need to look at what they have said. What they have said and what they have written? And do they stand by what they have said and what they have written. And if they do, then people can come to their own conclusions. I think that the

Amina will dude, no Muslim hamdulillah or very few, especially in the UK are going to be affected by someone who was clearly, you know, making these kinds of deviant statements. Cofer statements called

deadbeat dad and all this garbage, contentious gap. And, you know, when for 34, he had a contentious gap and almost as if she's rejecting Yeah, of course, she says no. In her book. She says we have to say no to the Koran, wherever that case, the question is, is she Muslim or not? That's destiny. Yeah, of course. But but she's not influencing the community, because she's seen as clearly outside of it, but it is more problematic. In my opinion, when you have those individuals who are seen as orthodox they wear the cloak of Orthodoxy and traditionalism yet they preach a message that is very heterodox

When you have an article from Jonathan Brown, you mentioned that Muslims should support LGBT rights. The article that says that a non believer mushrik, who has been reached by Islam, they know about the message of Islam, and they reject it. And they reject it knowingly, this person will look in the mushrik can forgive a lot may forgive this person writing an article like this on your pain and publishing it.

That is, you mean it's distorted? or something? I haven't seen this No, no, even if it is reached, fully the message of Islam and he rejects it, then it is within Allah's mercy to forgive this person. And I mean, this is clearly contrary to what is in the Koran. Obviously, I would love to have it on brown and actually bring him on the show and ask him about that, because maybe he does the benefit of whatever, you know, maybe he doesn't have to wait for this. I mean, the thing about rhassoul, I read it, like, so I know exactly. What he said on that side, on this one here, I haven't read Exactly. So you could you could send it to me and I could try and get in contact with him.

Because he's not he's representatives of I don't want to, you know, that's fine. Maybe you can go and look and read the quotes in that review. And you can see what they have published and judge for yourself. So don't take my word for it actually look at what they have written. Do you do? Like, here's a question. So you have all these criticisms of people like a man. And then

I think this guy called Justin parrot as well, who's who's also written? I've not read too many of his articles, I think I've read a few of them. And

almost a man named Jonathan Brown, I think these are the three main ones that you kind of covered their stuff on your, your, your article. My question is,

do you label them after that? So do you say okay, they have now straight forward, but should you consider them upside down, for example, you consider them deviance,

I don't feel the need to go to that extent. And I'm not in a position. I don't consider myself as a scholar. I'm just a student of knowledge. I don't consider myself in a position of authority to make those kinds of declarations. All I want to do is and it's not just me, by the way, because this article is written by me and other scholars. And we cite other criticisms, other actual scholars who have critiqued European. So for example, this Jonathan brown article about the forgiveness of mushrikeen, we cited articles from Sherif Mateen con, for example, the US, oh seven will be invade of the US, who also critiqued his article and condemned the article along the same lines. So it's

not just me, as a disgruntled ex employee of the opinion, many others are waking up. The problem is that their articles are very long, so many people don't actually read them in depth. And you yourself said you hadn't read them before you you kind of just read them in preparation for this podcast. But it's shocking some of the things that you'll you will find, but we don't need to go to the extent I think if we go to the extent of just throwing labels, then we want we want a slot, right? We want that to admit that you have made a serious mistake here. And not only correct it but own up to it say we did make a mistake, this was a problem. Because if they just go back and they

scrub all of their articles, then what about all of the people over the years because this institute has been around for four years now who read these articles and their understanding of Islam was corrupted because of what they read. So European has a duty to not only scrub the errors, correct the errors, but also correct the doubts and the problems, the wrong understanding that they created in the community through these articles. I'll be honest, when I was looking at your kind of reputational article, like it was an article that was dealing with all the kind of you compartmentalize it into, okay, women's rights, you know, evolution, whatever, it was kind of exact

categories. When I was looking through it, I had to say some of it I thought you could have done it must have been for like some of it. Yeah, I agree with you totally. Like, for example, the ratio thing totally in agreement, and the evolution thing totally in agreement? Well, there were some things I was thinking, Okay, this is not as they're not on the same level, right? So

don't think it would be more effective. If we just focus on the top three, two or three main problems that they have. And for probably the ratio thing is one of them. Right? And evolution thing for me is another one. Maybe the counter extremism thing that you just mentioned is a third one. But instead of having like 20 things that you're criticizing them, maybe hone in on three of two or three things, which are the priorities for you, because when you when you talk about other things, like for example,

The criticism they had on the dust study that was done. I mean, you could argue it's immaterial either ways inconsequential, whether you're whether there was bias, they were not there or they had an agenda there. I mean, this is a sociological thing. Sometimes when you mix something like as important as

hell, halamka for any man with something like that kind of maybe weakens the case a little bit. So do you think that maybe, because nowadays, people find it very difficult to read? I mean, let's be honest, people find it very difficult to read maybe five or seven or 10,000 words, I'm not sure how many words that would have been. So to to to abbreviate it and to just focus on the main contentions that almost everyone will agree with the ratio thing, the evolution thing, maybe the extremism thing, and then a slow and gentle pressure, you know, on the happiness issue to to rethink their position on those things. And what do you think of that as a strategy?

Well, two things I'll say, one, we wanted it to be a comprehensive review, as much as we could manage with our limited time and resources, we want it to be comprehensive, so that it wouldn't be said that, oh, you're cherry picking, and you're not fully appreciating this work that we're doing, you're only focusing on one or two articles, and you're missing the forest for the trees. So we want to avoid that accusation by being comprehensive. Second of all, I would say that, yes, it is a long review this, but you know, when you're comprehensive, it will require a lot of words, it'll require a lot of work and research to put everything in front of the reader. But our audience is mainly the

scholars and the academics and the love of the students of knowledge, who are used to reading more, they will appreciate the depth of analysis and research inshallah, that they can be aware, okay, they can be aware, because those are the people those key moms are true. They're the ones who are going to refer to your team's work, to their peers, to their communities. So we want to make sure that those that class of intellectual within the Muslim community is aware, and has a full picture. The third point is that I don't actually agree with you on this, that it's just a matter of one or two articles that are major, and then everything else we can do her cell phone, I think that there

are many articles that have serious problems. And it represents an entire ideology that yaqeen represents and abides by lives by does their work by their vision for how to address these issues, which you talked about a few minutes ago, their entire vision is what is the problem that is, and these articles are at the symptom of the bigger problem. So to argue that and to substantiate that you have to present this to this larger analysis and a comprehensive review, so that's why it's, we took the route that we did, acknowledging that some people won't have time to read everything, but we made it as simple as possible with links and with, you know, a table of contents and so forth, so

that people can Okay, I want to read what your team has to say about women's rights, and how they say that certain aspects of the Sharia are myths, or certain aspects of what scholars have said are erroneous. For example, the study that we brought up that you mentioned, their study is saying that the biggest challenge, they look at this the biggest challenge facing Muslims in terms of their Eman, what's affecting their email in this day and age

is what religious Muslims, religious Muslims, quote unquote, are causing that is the biggest source of doubt for the Muslim community, but to me, least shocking, shocking. This is essentially saying, oh, the bearded Muslim, the bearded hijab or niqab the Muslim is causing a doubt, we have to so if that's the you've identified the source, then all of your material is going to be against fighting those religious Muslims, as opposed to what do you think is the biggest source of living? To be honest, I I've done a few surveys myself, I'll actually read them off if you like, you know, um, these surveys are done on them on my YouTube channel, on the community page, and in these

questions I asked, I asked them different questions. It came I'll be honest, it came with very similar results. So for example,

I said which group of a man are the biggest threat to which group of people are the biggest threat to him? I've had other questions in the past from the following, right. So I put those muslims for example, and you know, as pups, ISIS, extreme Shi eyes or extreme Sophie's for example, I'm just giving example example. or new atheists second category, like Dawkins, Harris, etc.

apostates eg apostate rezwan Let's see how cruse

Christian apologists like David Wood etc or none of the above. So, this got 16,000 votes okay and which is quite good i mean is is quite good in terms of a sample as anonymous. So, in terms of the biggest people, number of people, fringe Muslims ie the modafinil as pubs and the fees the ISIS and the extremists from different Shiite groups and different Sufi groups, they were 30% the new atheists were 11% the apostates like Islam, only 6% unfortunately,

David weren't surprisingly, Christian apologist 5%.

Which is quite surprising because I thought they would with Moses COVID. Behind them, the apostates none of the above 50% so in terms of Yanni, the the the group of people that are causing most doubts, I think you could make an argument that for religious people, and the people who are creating the most doubt for Muslims are actually some religious

people, but not most, when you call them fringe, you're those guys fringe day calling them religious,

religious people, I remember that reading that that particular article, to be fair, and I remember actually referencing it as well, and one of my other, because I think there's only one of the only doubts studies, I'm not sure if you know any other ones, that was done Muslims, like studies on Muslim doubts with the cross section of community in the West. And to be fair to us if I forget his surname, whoever conducted this study, and he, he says that he defines religious Muslim see, they say that Muslims who have won only one particular understanding of Islam. So, if you have multiple, do you have more

religious dogmatism? So someone who thinks that folks, what does that mean?

My Are you dogmatic? Or am I dogmatic and within Islam, so we would say land coffin, Salah Killa, for example, like it's a Hanafi is praying a certain way or, you know, a chef, a chef is praying some way, unless we want to impose there's only one opinion on these maps?

It's difficult to to so this is this is your gloss of that, right? But this is not in his definition. And it's how do we know what the people who are taking the survey what they have in their mind when they read, religious Muslim? Do they have this kind of nuanced understanding that you yourself have as a student of knowledge as someone who is well versed in these issues? Or do they have the idea that the religious Muslim is the bearded The one who is going to say that? No, in Islam, let's say if the lot or taking off the hijab is wrong? Okay? No, this is dogmatic. You're insisting on not drinking, and you're insisting on not having a homosexual best friend, you're being

dogmatic? You're being this and that. So we have to understand like, why these are the I think these are legitimate interrogations here, is that the end user or the participant might not know it, because it's not very strictly defined? Or what do we mean by religious or dogmatic Muslim? So there's still scope, there's a big scope of interpretation there. Obviously, that's going to be a methodological kind of barrier to any kind of

survey that you're going to do. And that's fair enough. But I think to go one step further, and say it's an agenda based thing.

You could we not say this hospital thunder, that may be I mean, you didn't make a compelling case that they had certain questions, and then they changed those questions. Afterwards, when I was reading article, they had certain questions, and they changed it. But

what I fear is that this contrivance said, and now, you've got your own agenda. Yeah, getting to see the point against Epstein and you're trying to force the narrative that they are, you know, the the, the antagonist that we must repel, rather than Okay, this is an organization, which I think is more of an organization, which has different kinds of writers, different kinds of

academics that are writing on different issues, many of them are operating fully within the paradigm, you know, not saying anything wrong, some of them are saying things which are wrong, which can be corrected, and other things are being said, which is core for ambala, which is the like the ratio, the ratio and the evolution, and so on and so forth. And it's that third category. Yeah, this is how I would put it, it's that third category that we need to kind of really focus on and the other two categories, I think we can have a more calm approach to, would you What do you think of this?

Yeah, I think that, you know, I, in the article and the review, we make the case for why this is a more comprehensive issue and

You know, people can judge, they can read it. And they can judge for themselves. It's a lot to read. But until, in the future, we'll have more bite sized points. But like I said at the beginning, this is not an issue of one organization. This is a more systematic problem that is affecting downloa in the West, and now it's even creeping into the east. So I mean, I think that we have to recognize what is going on. And I mean, the way that you describe it is like, Oh, you have this organization that they have good articles, and then they have also Cooper and Bella.

very casual way.

I think it's very eye opening.

Yeah, but the question that we have to ask ourselves is why like, how can you trust someone or an organization that has hosted this conference? on your site for years? Yeah, I guess like,

I think there should be a strong evangelist especially on and also, by the way yourself Mashallah recognized and can make these distinctions of this is this is this is this and this and this, but the average reader who is there looking to yaqeen, to learn about the deen

that's my concern. I agree. Because I want to be honest with you, there was some young people and in Canada as well, which I visited, I don't know how many times I lost X amount of years. But the problem I find is with the youth, when the young people come to me and say, Well, what is our stance on these gay marriages? I mean, should we really be having a discussion on that? I mean, isn't that is that one of the most hottest things in religion? It's like saying to a Muslim, what is your stance on? One God, would you believe in one official, or if it was a stance from the prophethood, or from the house celandine is a final personal deer or something like that is, it really made me

think that conversation I was having in North America is very unlikely to have been had in Britain, if that makes sense. And I do fear that the religion is going to set us up being Mumia is gonna dilute diluted is going to become,

it's going to go in the direction of progressive Islam, it's going to be capitulate, or it's going to look weak. That's what it looks like, it looks weak. And then it opens the doors for outsiders, non Muslims to say you don't tell what you're doing not told al Qaeda, actually, you're doing? You're speaking in folk tongue? You're, you're not? That is my real concern with it. But I do think that these people, and these students have knowledge and these academics that are on your team. I do think they're on our side in the sense that they're trying to do the same work as we are. I do believe that they're trying to say what and I think sample Jonathan Brown's book on slavery is very

good. I think it was his work on slavery is very good. And his even his his article on apostasy. I didn't see anything Aboriginal conflict at all. I thought he was engaging with the literature. He mentioned Selassie mentioned this person absolutely mentioned that is clearly that is operating within that, within the paradigm, you could argue whether he was saying was accurate or not, whether it's correct or not. But all of that I think is still happening within the paradigm. And

like, for example, your approach with with pasta, pasta, the pasta, and when he was he was asking you about the hotel, and you gave him straightforward answers like cutthroat answers. And Jonathan Browns on the other side of the spectrum. So he'll give you an answer, which is there maybe. Maybe it was possibly totally like giving you what you want to hear.

And actually not being fully in line, this versus two sides of the the spectrum. But isn't there somewhere in the middle where we can say we can give an answer, which is a little bit more nuanced than the answer you give, like as cutthroat, for example, on the issue of

homosexual punishment. Like when he asked you What's the punishment of homosexual sex in Islam? I mean, we know this killer. Among the four schools, there was hella Bonnie facies, though the Hanafi school says that there's no punishment at all. That's that's the that's the official position and there is a punishment.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. There's no death penalty. Right. As far as I know, of the Hanafi school, there's no that's but that's irrelevant. You see that that is there. Like those nuances if we are studying the tradition. We're studying our Deen. Yeah. We take note of this if the left but does that if that actually functionally make a difference to the morta or to the non Muslim audience or some of these Muslim youth who are confused. They want to punish you get this behavior is Love is love is just two people consensually agreeing. Why should they even be? Why should that even be seen as immoral? They don't they're not even agreeing on the fact that it's immoral, let alone that it's criminalized, let

alone that it's being harmed. Yes, I agree. I agree with that sentiment is clearly there. homosexual sex penetrates.

sexes is the most one of the most clearly immoral things or aberrational or haram things in the Koran forget what the Hadees it's very clear. But now the question of the punishment. I mean, the punishments that are good, some of them have nuanced discussion on them. And the issue is what I want to speak to, for example, people, I wouldn't want to put my neck on the chopping board, if you like and say, Okay, well, this is the, because in 1400 years, to be honest, let's be honest, like, you know, that the Hanafi school of thought has a complete different opinion on the homosexuals, for example, that the question of I wrote a small treatise on the small book that I wrote was actually a

dissertation. I'm not sure if you've come across it or anything like that.

And what I found when I was doing my research on it, like, there are more nuances is not just okay, the punishment of the apostate is death. I wouldn't put it that way. Like, the reason why I wouldn't put it that way is because the puppet masters element in

when he was asked to, when he was asked about the

lamb sorry, when he was doing a lot with him or discussions with him. And he stipulated in this, that if you have an apostate, bring them back.

Bring them back to our lands. So in other words, they're not they're not killed. Yeah. And that now I was really able to play with Josie. And he said, Matt, as far as I'm with what he wrote about you the reference, if you like, and it will kind of Dozier he says, This is very much so first of all, it's not abrogated, which means it's within the state, right? If it sees it within the muscle of that state, to not have a capital punishment for apostasy.

That, does he say that? Or is this is yes, no inferences, not in terms of that.

He said that because he, because of the fact that this, this agreement was done with a promise assignment. And they do. He did. He did this agreement with the with the disbelievers. And it was a condition that any mortality goes to them. He said, there's only one exception that you can't bring back a Muslim woman to them. He gave only one exception based on diversity of time, like in surgery, the makalah. But the point is, is that is it out of the scope of Islam? Is it against the Hadith is against the tradition, to say that in Muslim states, so long as there is a contractual agreement between a Muslim country and a non Muslim country to do so that the more tense or the apostates are

then strategically relocated to

another non Muslim land based on agreement. So it will hide will say no, is this permissible, based on the researcher as opposed to something much like pro parliament on this? And they agreed with that? So the point is, since that is there in the tradition, right, I would, why would fear to do is to remove that nuance from the discussion? Because if I remove that, from the discussion, sometimes when I speak to Muslims who have doubts, that that nuance can make the difference between them saying and leaving the religion.

Gender, I mean, if they knew about that nuance, they could say, well, actually, it's not a one size fits all policy, etc. so that they can see that there's there's a degree of malleability in the Islamic induction, not only with the the homosexual punishment, as we said, there is collapse. And you mentioned the lesbian things. There's your way, there's no, there's no point there's no, there's no capital punishment for that. They say Tassie rot, some discretionary punishment. But this is also with apostasy, which we just discussed. Now.

I obviously think, simple things that people don't know, like, people don't realize that we're talking about Islamic governance, and that we're talking about the fact that if there was an Islamic State, and even cutting the hands, if there's a state of war, there's no such thing as horrible things like that, which I'm sure I'm 100% sure you're aware of. But it's those little nuances that can. And I fear that if we don't introduce those nuances, and put those nuances, it just seems like the evidentiary bar is way less, or that the threshold is less than less

than it actually is. And the nuances are not there. And that is like you know, it kind of confirms some of the biases that these individuals that's the only fear fear I have and also the fact that these motor Dyneema will compile your little sound bites and make it sound like this is this was lamb as we write, you know, if you want a religion, which XYZ creates a mental image.

So the approach where you're using a bit of nuance and Islamic inquiry, I think is required I do really I do really believe it's required because Mashallah, me and you if you say to me the weirdest opinion or the opinion that goes against the status quo, whatever, it's not gonna shake me it's not gonna shake you I know that for a fact passage you know, that says this, it says that x y Zed,

There's this opinion that says this and you're not, it's not gonna it's not gonna faze you. But there are some youth out there that one thing like that can actually completely throw them off track. Now, Jonathan Brown is attracted to those people, because he will, he won't speak in that straightforward language. But then

those people are going to be sometimes I fear Johnson Brown, or they almost never be attracted to that. But then they may feel that this person is not being honest. Right? So then, then they go to someone like yourself, and it's like concrete from go from

somewhere like we're both Okay, we can employ we can both learn from each other in a sense that Yaki needs to learn from, like, not yaqeen. But those people the proto, we're not scared, we're not scared, we're here to challenge like you said, Sometimes there's more nuance. So can we say this, there's something to be done by way of

approach nuancing the approach.

So I think that nuanced can sometimes be used as a shield,

blocking the actual core moral problem that people have the reason why these produce or any aspect of the Sharia Islam, that people have a problem, and the reason that they have a problem with it is a deeper issue. They're operating their worldview, their understanding of right and wrong is based on a liberal, secular, Western hegemonic philosophy, that they don't put it in those terms. But that's the reality. That's where their doubts, that's the source of their doubts. So if you want to address these doubts, it's not like you can bring Okay, this nuance with this mess. This nuance with this mess, Allah, and you can go day and night just addressing these kinds of issues through nuance.

And, and but the problem is, you're not addressing the core source, you will not address the core source, so you're not providing a comprehensive solution. And you mentioned yourself like that person, like on this, these nuances of on red.so. You will mention him. No, I am you'll mention others, but the majority view is what it is. And then furthermore, they will read the hottie that they had is based on where the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam he makes it very clear whoever changes his religion. So that Heidi, they that's what they will read and the moral problem there is how could the best of creation, the final messenger from Allah sallallahu Sallam make such a

statement? say such a thing that is so clearly contrary to everything that I feel is the truth. Everything that I feel is mortal. That is the core sword. So I like about your approach I like about your approach that you do. The roots of the issue is in pet issues. And this Islam issues the fact that you do actually believe that this man was a prophet. This is a quick question. Do you believe that his what he came with was the hack from the alley? And that's that's one thing that, you know, I think that you do really well. Another thing I want to speak to you about which I think I picked up a lot from in terms of that debate, you had the reason? Well, let me finish my point with you and

move on to another point. Yes. So by giving these nuances, I agree completely with you that we have to have a nuanced discussion and be nuanced about how we represent our scholarly tradition. But we have to also not postpone the problem. Let's not post on the discussion that this fundamental issue is, or even with the issue of slavery, for example, you can give all these kinds of nuances about the history of slavery, and what is the treatment of slaves in Islam. But all the person who has a problem with slavery needs to know is that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam own slaves, even if he owned them for one day, even if he owned them for one hour, that is considered a major moral

failing in according to the modern mind, right? So you have to be able to address that with directly you have to address the issue of slavery directly. So I mean, from what I saw, what I like about someone like to be fair to Jonathan Browns approach is that he will tell you like what what is slavery to find us and he like in the beginning of his book, he will tell you this is the definition of slavery. You have this I think you mentioned this as well, actually, you mentioned the same kind of thing.

In your debate, you mentioned that, you know, you've got this kind of slip is this referred to as slavery Now, is this kind of label referred to as prostitution of other human trafficking is that slavery? So So unpacking what the concepts mean, right, in a sense, and that explanation that you gave, which actually funny enough, the apostate agreed with you on Oh,

The year the point where you agree with me said that I think it was historically justified, even though in another video, it's not historically just I think he had a good video on this. He says it's not historically just another video and then he said it is historically or something to that effect. And that I believe you me, I swear it has such an impact, because it rationalizes it for them. Like when you were doing that, I just saw him kind of sink into his chair thinking what the hell did I get myself into like quicksand, thinking this guy has no responsibility. And to the extent we have to agree, on this point of slavery, he thought the only way I'm gonna get out of this

is agreement. So so it's that discussion that what do we mean by the terms? Let's unpack that civil slavery. You know, this, that the other? And also the fact I mean, there's one thing one nuance, I think that you might have added to the discussion with ridhwan. Is that when you were saying that

if this happened now, right, 10 zielen? Because I think it's very important to differentiate between top sealant and the top seal. Obviously the hokum accept that the the, the ruling on what is the ruling, and then how its implemented Tenzin. One thing I would have put in terms of nuance, because I've had discussions with many scholars about this question. The question being, if there was an Islamic State again, today, would they do? Would they take basically slaves or slaves? And and from a genuinely seems like there's two opinions? It genuinely seems like there's two opinions on this. One opinion is that yes, because of the injunctions. And the other one seems as if it's not

something that is out there. And that surely I came to slowly do away with it, then it's not something you'd like to introduce. But once again, that nuance there can make all the difference to someone who's thinking, Okay, well, Islam only operates in one way. So I think that so long as it's within the tradition, and this is kilometer, and then there's actually based on US based on some kind of evidence, and scholars are talking about it. I mean, my job is not to give you, Roger, what is the opinion the battle is the job of the Mushtaq the the person who's able to research now his opinion, or her opinion. But for me, my job is just to present what the left is, so long as within

the bounds of Sharia. Okay, this is what the hanafis have said, This is what the chef has said. And I have to have some awareness on that. And sometimes doing that, from my experience, I genuinely feel like it can save someone's life. And also, it's a sad state of affairs. And I agree with you. So it's tackling the root of the problem. But sometimes we need to deal with something, put some kind of bandage on the bleeding wound quickly, before we do the surgical operation. That makes sense, because if we, if we just do it, leave it to bleed out, it will literally bleed out to the point where the person dies, and the man is analogy is lost. So I just say that I say that a little

bit that if we're too cutthroat with people and not giving them those nuances, which are within the tradition, that they will eventually leave the dean. And obviously, there's lots of thought on a coil of the professor salamanders, ha Baba.

bully him speak to people on their level and you would you like them to answer something you would like them to leave the religion. And so that being careful here, not to say something which could trigger

a theologically emotional response, which, for someone who's young in law half ready on the edge, which could mean that they would leave the dean, I fear that. So even though I might believe that this is the actual punishment for this, this is the actual punishment for that. It's not for me to kind of say this is one thing, I said,

a spectrum of opinions x y Zed that exists within 1000 for all of them have backing the backing of the scholars, the classical scholars before liberalism even existed before liberalism was even a thing. This was the conversations that were being had, what happens, what happens on those issues where there is no if the left and there is no no, that case is bad. So that's part of the deal is if they're on the edge, okay, so if they're on the edge and one more word is going to throw them off the edge, then what's going to happen if your approach is just going to the left going to the nuance then on the issues? Yeah. Now I think it's like my approach is not just that I think that what you

said is right, I think you have to deal with the root of the issue. So we always say like deal with the root, which is belief in God believe in the Prophet you know, we will call it a go rap. We have to go around

an IRA which is you know, God, oneness, Revelation and the prophets. So this is who the some of the if, if someone doesn't believe in God or the oneness of God or hasn't got yochanan that not to you

The term

or the revelation? Or why is the Quran from Allah subhanaw taala and the prophets?

If they don't have that as something which is established, then it can it then there's going to be issues. So we obviously deal with that. But when someone has a persisting

doubt that they just can't overcome this he left with them as I won't give them only one opinion. So you're Are you talking about a one on one conversation? Because I agree in a one on one conversation, you have to be very careful about how you speak what you say, What are you presenting, but we can't take that one on one context, and mass produce it. Because if we mass produce it, it's going to create all these problems that you're speaking of, in terms of lack of confidence. Trouble has just being confused on very basic issues within the deen when we, I think that there needs to be a systematic approach, and a systematic projects that we are presenting on these kinds of issues

that go to the root. And there'll be nuances in that as well. But it has to keep in mind that the conversation that you have on a one on one individual basis, you can't mass produce it, right. For example, if I talk to you about the issue of

LGBT again, in a one on one conversation that might have with someone this brother, maybe he is suffering from these lusts, or other men, and he has fallen into the sin, and I'm not going to go and the first thing I say to him, is that okay, there's a hat for this or there is Tansy or whatever it may be? No, I'll have a different approach where I'm trying to understand his state of Eman and then work on the fundamentals and then have that kind of gradual

in that one on one context. But I don't take that. And this is what I teach from the member, this is what I teach to Muslim masses that they're not on the brink of Apostasy, they're not falling into major sins. They're just the average Muslim community that needs to know about the higher ideals and principles of the deen. So I teach will teach them on that level. Otherwise, if I appeal to the lowest common denominator based on my one on one interactions, then I'm lowering the discourse, the discourse, the discussion, I'm lowering the level of knowledge for the rest of the community, this is a huge harm that would be caused. I see I see the point you're making. And I think there's a lot

of truth in that. I think you just have to pitch it in such a way as that. And this is, I think, the difficulty, that doesn't compromise the religion at all. So you're not forced to do totally Yeah. And you're not forced to be. Because that's the worst. I think that's the most ugly thing of it. To be honest, when it seems like you're being pressured and you've been weakened by the enemy. I think we both agree on this. I just feel sick even thinking about having to,

to change any fundamentals, because the enemy is telling me or that the dominant culture is telling me that, you know, this is something unacceptable. So I have to I have to appease them or make them happy. That's out of the question. But at the same time, the other side of it, which is a thorough approach, this is you know, this one line is the one liners on issues, which could potentially for let's say, even if it's 5%, or 10%, of the Muslim population, who's serious doubt, I would say that's a dangerous approach as well, from from, you know, doubt perspective. And so just, I would definitely prefer that approach. I mean, I would definitely agree with that. Over over that one all

day long. But still coming to the middle a little bit, introducing a little bit more nuance, and not giving those sound bites because they just want those sound bites. And to be honest, you know, having those sound bites for someone who

is not going to watch, for example, a four and a half hour debate.

Those sound bites will be effective enough to put someone off completely out of your doubt, for example, right? So those sound bites might be and it's not what you mean, because you had a confrontation aspect of it. But those little sounds I try keep every single sentence watertight so there's no sound bite that can be taken out. There's basically no one line you could just take out it. I think that when you have recent experience with this

the Christians using certain songs

they take that they take on someone else. No they do it with me as well. Oh, yes. of Yes. A copy. Yeah. So I think that that's, that's another issue as well, you know, which we have to

kind of talk about because especially nowadays with dealing with the enemy, no, we're dealing with people that are just looking for any reason or any way.

The unfortunate truth is PR is a very strong thing right marketing. If you must

Someone's an extremist, or this this is like a que Leah, we do have to try and limit that to some extent. I remember reading one,

one bed of

Simon Hardy, which is I cannot remember the exact phrasing but something like had them cut little coverage little something like this, which is that you don't want to kill the whole adage, who at the time of the relegates. I don't know how they characterize those individuals, not killing them in order to create unity or something like that, but also that the enemy, as he says, does not

say that Mohammed kills his friends. Right? So So Professor Salam was clearly a

Eonni, concerned of the PR aspect of, of the deen, because he knows that people can be put off the whole religion, it because imagery is more powerful than audience like. And I think you realize that when you do your own point, you're talking about something like, like your caricaturing the West thing that, you know, you've got this and then the person dies. But come in the old folks home, I kind of like the way you put it, because it's probably not even a caricature, it's probably the case for about 30 or 40%. of population. That's what happens to a lot of people in the West. But when you were doing that, that image sticks in, they'll forget everything you say, maybe all the arguments

you make, but that image, they'll go to sleep that night, and think of themselves when they're 75 years old, in an old folks home dying and no one knows, as you said, No one knows where they are, who they are, that image is powerful. But the image also of the Barbarian Muslim orientalist type images, stuff like that, that's also a very powerful image. And it's sometimes it's like an ugly smell, you don't want to be near it, you know. And so having that connected to Islam is also problematic. So it's all about, it's all about trying our best. I know, it's difficult, but that's the only thing I would recommend. Because what I think you should do is my recommendation is to

start doing formal debates, and you've had your fun with this unworthy opponent.

This unworthy opponent, despite a sparring partner,

who doesn't have any qualifications or training, but I genuinely feel like because you have Harvard education, because, you know, postgraduate level, you've done Islamic training. You know, what the next step for you should be formal debate. Have you considered that yourself doing like formal debates, you know, on stage doing these kinds of things?

Yeah, definitely conservative. The thing about the us is that it's not the, it's not really popular in the US.

We're not as manly. Mashallah, as in the UK, so,

UK, you can do

something for you.

But yeah, it's a cultural difference in the US. This is not like, it's not the only debate that's in the public consciousness generally is like a presidential debate for presidential candidates. But other than that, it's kind of seen, it's even frowned upon, like, oh, why do you need to debate let's just have a friendly conversation. And that's, so this kind of confrontational or oppositional, even, just oppositional is kind of frowned upon and here, so I haven't been able to get many debates, actually. But I agree with your advice. And I'm not trying to say that I have the, my approach can't be improved. So I appreciate your and I'll say hi. And I really appreciate what

you're advising to bring, you know, I I'm only saying it because I think that you are one of the intellectuals of the Muslim world that can cause the most if you like intellectual damage to the opponents. And going forward. I think you know, you're doing I don't you don't need me, I'm only telling you from my experience with with more like YouTube and social media, what people are going to do, like on a marketing level PR level, they're going to try and destroy you as a character. You're gonna try and he really use it. They're going to try and do ad homonyms. They'll do that anyway. Right? Yeah. If they're going to do that anyway, then why should I?

You know, yeah, myself do anyway. Give them less to chew on basically. Okay, that's a fair point. But let me give you a

small counterpoint Just so

you know, about how the before came to one of the Sahaba. And mentioned we're mocking and ridiculing and saying look at this religion, that even you are being taught how to wash yourself. Yeah.

Exactly.

And they were using this as ridicule and mockery. And what did some nfrc say to that? He said, Yes. You know, he was very upfront, you know, yes, our Deen does teach this. And this is how and he went and proceeded to explain. So I think there is a value in certain circumstances because they will change

They want to challenge you and they want to they're waiting for you to start waffling and not gay, and they want to put you on the backfoot because they want you to continue to not say it. Don't say it. Right. So this is a kind of a bullying tactic. And sometimes for the bullying someone like ruthven like this, mort that you just have to say yes, yes, that is true. Whatever. Yeah, what you did that completely neutralize. It just sounded like he could see his deflation in his eye, you finished him, there's no doubt about that. Like, you know, he was out of his depth, he had no idea what he was doing. He was deflated. He was psychologically disturbed. He had a panic attack

Afterwards, he was sickened by his performance, he was disappointed to the core, he had no business being in the same conversation as you in that capacity. Only you should have said that the only thing you should have been honest about is saying, you know, I'm your student. You know, I'm here to learn from that fillet how it should have been someone on that level, you should have come and said look, I'm just I'm here to learn. If you came at that humble level, then maybe he would have sped himself the

humiliation which I'm sure is encroaching his every thought every mic is probably eating food now and thinking about Oh, damn, you know, this and that and his wife and driving down the street and having a panic attack red light.

I believe Believe me, you've that you've really damaged his confidence. I can see it. You know, and I quote him to Islam. You know, I know he's listening to this. And I we both call us Islam, I'm sure. Because it comes to the hacker you've been all of your your arguments, your main arguments have fallen straight on their face. And you've had it all explained to you in very academic terms, which are not just referencing the tradition itself. I think that aside, so I think we've read one, there's no, there's no discussion, that is even his munsif fair person from his own supporters will say, this guy was destroyed. This guy, he has no business debating that, you know, and I do think

people are gonna lose interest. Because when the fire gets knocked out, you know, people don't want to see him play again, even his own I see on Twitter and stuff like that, you know, just leave it, you know, don't debate these guys. You know, I see his own fans kind of like putting them off and just stick to the kind of content videos that you're doing, where you have no challenge, immediate challenge. So that way, I think you're basically finished him, you've practically finished. But

he, I don't know, I went on this long rant about him. But despite this, what I was gonna say now is what I found really, really interesting in that discussion, and I learned from my passion to close on as well. And I like this is your concentration on the family, about the stable family is something which we don't really do as much in the Dow here. And it's something which I thought was a gaping hole in what we what we do and say,

in terms of the family. Now, the argument that you are making is that Islam, basically prioritizes the health and functionality of the nuclear family, if you want to call it that, but they're the family unit. And anything that is counter to that fabric to that is something which Islam rejects. So which is why a lot of the homosexual acts that we talked about this and that all of us have wounds that he has a problem with, makes more sense when you see it through that prison, from that paradigm that there's some trinity of the family, the stability of the family, what research Did you come across and have you seen, which sticks out to you in this regard, in terms of the family unit

and the priority and happiness, this really key aspect of how having a stable and united family connects with human happiness.

So there are different angles to approach it, you can take a historical approach, you can take an anthropological approach, you can take a psychological approach, yes, this is really interdisciplinary, because as people are finding out within academia, non Muslims, is that the liberal idea of happiness, that we just need to maximize personal autonomy, personal choice, personal freedom, as an individual, that this is really the key to happiness and utopia. This is a lie, this is a complete lie in a myth, and it shows in every aspect of the research. So if you look at historically, why is it the fact that so many societies historically had this kind of model?

Where family, the extended family or you know, the kinship unit, this is the this is the building block of their societies? Why is this the case? Why when we look at supposedly the evolutionary even the hardcore atheist evolutionists, they're looking at why is this evolutionarily adaptive? Why is this being selected for in Darwinian terms, these family structure that we find even amongst chimps that are supposedly quote unquote, our closest common ancestor, they have this same kind of family unit, they have patriarchy, they have polygamy.

They have all of these kinds of things. Why? If you're an evolutionist, then you believe that this is selected because it is the best in material terms for your species. So then the liberal has a challenge here, that you want to accept this atheistic evolution on the one hand, but it is speaking completely against your political philosophy or moral philosophy that you're preaching. On the other hand, this is a very easy conflict to exploit. And then when we look at the psychological literature, same story, what is actually leading to people's happiness, in in purely material terms, because they don't have this idea of the ephemera, and they don't know the full depth of the soul,

and what is actually going to bring peace to the soul, in terms of love of Allah and Allah, but they recognize that there's a big component of happiness that comes through this this family unit, I mean, not only family, another big component is community.

Having a in group is the technical term that they use the in group that humans naturally they want to associate with those who are similar to them. Unfortunately, because of the loss of faith, you have people that are aligning on the basis of culture or nationality, this kind of patriotism, or they're aligning with even football teams, you know, they're forming groups, and they are deriving happiness and pleasure from being part of a group. And men especially feel this that you have the feeling of being a part of a group and willing to fight with your brothers for your cause. Being able to sacrifice for your group, even your own self sacrificing your own self for your group. This

is a major source of contentment and sense of purpose and happiness that human beings feel. But it's contrary to individual happiness like individual autonomy, that Oh, no, me first forget about the group. Me first forget about the community, me first forget about the family. This is contrary to individualism. But the psychological studies are showing that.

Do you have any mind like the ones that the top studies that you've read that show this? It's I mean, it's there's so many, it's not just one, just google search in group versus out group.

But the point being that what do we have in Islam we have and when I was brought up, though, we we have this kind of sentiment in inscribed in our Deen that, yeah, as believers, we have to have an OOMA first mentality, that we care about each other, we're sacrificing for each other we're working, that is a huge source of societal stability, peace of mind, psychological happiness, and all of these kinds of benefits from the concept of lol aldora. Yet we see this de emphasized, unfortunately, by some modernists correct? So many different when we look at this literature, and I'm telling you, it's not just one or two papers, there are many. And inshallah, you know, I'm

bringing some of this onto my website and social media, but the point is that we can appeal to their own sources. Okay. It's not contradictory for us, okay? They're the ones that claim they want science and they want research. Okay, hello, you want science and research, then your own books are saying this, your own books, we know it's the truth. We know it's hot, because it's coming from Allah and His Messenger solo. So that's all we need to know. But you are not convinced you morta Dean or modernists or non Muslims, you're not convinced your own books are showing you the truth of Islam.

I found quite interesting as a corollary to this discussion, and the subsequent question you had with the attack on

polygamy as well and you referenced hypergamy and I think do you know how, psychologically how some woman maybe would prefer to be in these kind of relationships? What kind of research Did you

What color is this? Did you come across it that

I think my wife is gonna watch this, please.

Brother, we need to

know I only textual research.

One last Oh, yeah. This is a I mean, I think polygamy is also one of the clearest

Signs of the that this is from Allah this Deen is from a law that, you know there are when we have polygynous society. My dad always used to say that as well.

many wives did he have?

To be honest, he actually was monogamous.

I think it was only

How can you be polygamous once?

He had two wives at one time, then it was all good. So then he was practicing it. That's

awesome. Yeah, my own. My grandfather had two wives at the same time. So he had an he had 20 children. So that's how they're practicing it in the previous generation. But yeah, I mean, this is something that

many women themselves, like if you claim to be a feminist, and you want to maximize women's choice, then we can even concede that point and say, Fine, you want to maximize choice, then some women prefer to be a second or third wife. It's a source of social mobility. You're coming from a poor background or a less well to do background, and you want to move up, your family wants to move up and be connected to stronger, more wealthy family than you do. It's

easy to justify justification, right?

I'm

sorry, pro woman.

You

have to look out people say that, you know, this is not Islam. It's not misogynistic. It's pro woman.

Hmm. Every in every aspect. Obviously, a feminist would argue that, you know, if it's happening for men than it should happen for women, it should be equal, right? No, the women actually wouldn't want to be

none of the woman actually looks down on a man who is going to be a essentially cuckolded where she is the matriarch. And there are several men that are, you know, equal as in status as her spouse. This is actually disgusting. It's disgusting. Is any psychological evidence for that claim? Yeah, there are, there's plenty of psychological evidence for this. And evolutionary evidence, and all of these kinds of non Muslim sources and science can be brought to bear. But when we look throughout human history, the majority of societies were polygamous, and that means that polygamous means only maybe three or two 5% of the men are actually practicing polygamy. Most men are monogamous, even in

polygamous societies, even in the Muslim community, we know.

Maybe not your family, but for the most. Most families are monogamous. But why is it the case? Why in every society, separated by geographic region and time are the majority. polygamous, explain this? Explain, they should explain why this is the case I'm getting the majority polygynous because they can come counter argument and say, Well hold on. In India, you have these kind of women that have multiple sexual partners and

you can find counter evidence, it's very, those kinds of studies are extremely rare. They're extremely they exist, they acknowledge that there are some societies are matriarchal, but you will notice that there are very small groups, and they're always on the brink of extinction. They're always on the brink of extinction and being dominated by other groups, is because it's very, contrary to the interests of your group and the the existence of your group to have a matriarchy. patriarchy is much more stable. It's much more safe. This is what allows a flourishing civilization. And all of the most powerful civilizations have been polygamous in his in history. And it's only

this modern Western

civilization that is monogamous. But it's also suffering from all kinds of diseases and problems and it's on its way to collapse. But I mean, this is many arguments that you can bring to defend the morality and the wisdom of polygamy.

And another thing I found quite interesting in the discussion was your discourse of flooding.

You actually, I was not aware of this book in defense of flogging that you

the guy called Peter Muslims, I think Moscow's must go Yeah. I was really not aware of it was the gist of the argument with with flogging, obviously, just for the for the end user who might not understand what we're talking about. We're talking about whipping

But also we're not talking about something which is going to implemented.

Okay, these people just talk about polygamy. And so, you know, put them together. We're not talking about anything we're planning on doing on a physical level. These are just abstract, classical discussions. Oh, no, no, we are I mean, maybe not you. But I, in the ideal sense, in the ideal sense if we were had any authority, which we don't.

Yeah, we would.

Yeah, I meant governmental.

Oh, I thought you meant like, go

outside right now.

People think this. People think that people think that one of the misconceptions, for example, is

that you actually got to, you know, implement the you got to be Judge Judy next execution. So not just a caveat, but

that what what what is the argument that sounds too fluffy? I think you cough a few times, so I wanted to kind of give you a chance to expand.

So the author his book, in defense of flogging, he starts with a very simple question. Is it really barbaric? to induce corporal punishment? isn't what what makes it barbaric, or what makes it immoral. And if we just reflect on it for a few moments, we realize that there's no real rational reason why actually inducing corporal punishment is more of a harm, or is more brutal or barbaric than caging, someone locking them up for a portion of their lives. In fact, if you gave people the choice between a momentary physical pain through a whip, versus being locked up for years of their life, most people would actually break from their families separated from their children separated

from everything the other life, yeah, their entire life is going to be derailed and separating from their family and all of this harm that comes, that seems much more brutal, and torturous. No, that's it's a simple argument. But then he elaborates and shows that corporal punishment was a part of Western culture. But in the 20th century, I mean, the it was completely banned within the 20th century. But the beginnings of this opposition to corporal punishment is from the enlightenment. So from the 19th century, basically philosophers who, on the basis of their own musings and their own philosophy, atheistic philosophies, they decided that this is barbaric, and we shouldn't punish,

rather, we should rehabilitate or reform. But you can't rehabilitate and reform someone without holding them against their will and caging them against their will. So really, what is the what is more or less barbaric or brutal about that, in fact, it's more brutal.

So his he gives a historical analysis and says that we should actually bring back flogging, this should be an option, a penal punishment, instead of stuffing people into prisons, and cages and ruining their lives giving this them this label of being convicts. Rather, they taste the whip for the punishment. And actually, it's more of a deterrence when there's a physical pain to something it is very effective at deterring future crime or future is done in the community saying where people can see worse, of course, and that's exactly what I remember, ml duckhorn was talking about his discourse on the terrorists.

In punishment, I think this was one of the guiding rationale he had terms of that. But what if you have to summarize the differences? I mean, it seemed from the discussion that you were saying that basically, Islamic primitive law system, the evidentiary bar is very high, but the punishment is also very high as well. So both of those things are higher at the same time, whereas in many Western states, the evidentiary bar is much lower. So an accusation can get you in serious trouble, even just a mere accusation. And the punishment is lower than the Islamic punishment in many cases, but still quite high compared to where the evidentiary bar is. And this being one thing that I thought

about as a general difference between like maybe a Liberal government, punitive system, what are the main differences are there in terms of people who want to understand and why do those differences exist? I mean, why is it that these punishments which now seem like caricature or seem like a orientalist

trope, why are those things rejected so vehemently by the liberal mind, and how can we bring people that are secularists and liberal a bit closer to understanding

the rationale behind the punishments generally speaking?

Well, the liberal mind

has a problem with all punishments. Because the liberal mind is utilitarian, utilitarian meaning utilitarianism, meaning they want to maximize overall pleasure and for the most number of people and reduce the greatest good for the greatest number. So punishment, inherently his counter utilitarian punishment is counter to the logic. Why, because the crime has been committed, the harm has been committed, if you punish the person, you're going to cause more harm, you're going to add to the total sum of harm because the crime is not going to be resolved, like the harm that was caused is not going to go away, just because you punished a person. So is there a way to rehabilitate

so that you're not causing harm, you're not increasing the level of pain in society, but you get the benefit of deterrence or reducing crime. The problem is that this is fundamentally incoherent. For what I said, The reason I mentioned before is that you're putting someone against their will into a cage and take derailing their entire life. That is a serious harm. That's a serious pain that's caused. And there, I think there's a place for imprisonment. And that's found in the Sharia, and sometimes for tazzy, or punishments that are they might say, okay, you have to be in prison. Nothing wrong with that. But the point is, against contrary to the liberal contrary to the utilitarian,

there is still a great amount of harm caused, and in fact, the punishment from the whip is going to be less severe and more effective, it's going to be less damaging to the individual and more effective in deterring their misbehavior than just pure prison punishment.

But this is a kind of argument that the liberal enlightenment thinker could not anticipate, okay, because he is using his

logic or what he thinks is his logic. And he's thinking, reflecting on this and coming up with his philosophy. But when the actual data is compiled, using millions of data points, and the reality is seeing, we find that the wisdom of Islam shines through the wisdom of the Sharia shines very clearly.

So where is that from? Did the Prophet sallallahu I sent him if he was a false prophet, as they claim, and he was just making this religion up? How did he know? How did he know that this is a much more effective punishment than mass imprisonment or rehabilitation or all this enlightenment nonsense? How did he know that? No, he didn't know what it was revealed from the creator of human beings who has all knowledge and knows what is going to be more effective, what is going to be more beneficial, what is going to be so this is clear signs in the even the thing that they are attacking us for for dude and punishment. Even in those things, the clear evidence and sign of the superiority

of Islam is found.

Is that law fair and it's been a pleasure having you on this podcast. Before we end, I just wanted to ask you to inform some of the listeners about some of the courses that you do some of the blogs that you have, or some of the articles that you've posted, working to find these things, and you've got YouTube channels. Well, what's the what's that called? And how can someone access more of your material?

Yes, they can just search my last name Hey vachel they have very difficult

spelling, it's very difficult, but they can look at Muslim skeptic.com spelled with a K the American way Muslim skeptic calm. I also have an institute where I teach a lot of material on these subjects and lesnar.org ls the institute LS nadar. It comes from Ellis Island. How are we not on the truth? To say Ma'am, I'm out on the lawn one more and he became Muslim. So we want to invite that kind of attitude of are we not on the truth? This is we are on the hump and we have to be confident we speak with confidence. And we show and we invite the world to Islam for their own benefit and for the benefit of all of humanity. So unless that Institute Muslim skeptic calm, and then the YouTube

channel is Muslim skeptic, the Muslim skeptic, and it's on YouTube control. Well, Joseph and Raphael has been a pleasure having you on I'm sure many of us have benefited. All of us have benefited including me. And if you're going to be probably called to the show, again, Zack lockira for the time being the brothers and sisters, and go to the links and to the websites that he's provided

by Alfie Kohn