Channel: Mohammed Hijab
This audio is brought to you by Muslim Central. please consider donating to help cover our running costs and future projects by visiting www dot Muslim central.com. forward slash donate this audio is brought to you by Muslim Central. please consider donating to help cover our running costs and future projects by visiting www dot Muslim central.com. forward slash donate.
Yeah. So what do you what do you think now? When people say okay, well this is freedom of speech.
There's no such thing as now you know, this hate speech? It's it's freedom of speech. You're trying to limit our speech, brother? Well, well, I will say to them is that this is actually something that Joe Rogan mentioned quite a lot freedom of speech. There was a recent interview with someone called Jordan Peterson and Kathy Newman, Newman, Australasian and Channel Four,
where this topic of freedom of speech came up. The question is, what are the parameters of freedom of speech because freedom of speech is a is a precept which which is an offshoot of liberalism, liberalism is the idea of liberalism, the different kinds of liberalism is like economic liberalism, there is a social or fiscal liberalism. You could say there's, you know, a political liberalism, of checks and balances, and what john Locke was talking about Montesquieu, and all these things. The truth is, on a social level, liberalism is, as JS mill said, the ability to do whatever you want, so long as no one else, you don't harm anyone else. This is called the harm principle. So you can do
whatever you want, so long as you don't harm anyone else.
What is harm? Because if we're talking about philosophical liberalism, then when we talk about freedom of speech, we have to kind of test our freedom of speech, we have to refine this concept of freedom of speech, we have to qualify it with this harm principle. Otherwise, you'd have what you'd call utilitarianism, which is what Jeremy Bentham believed in, which is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, which is what jspl refined. So the point is, this idea of liberalism is is actually refined by JS mill with this hump principle. What is harm? One could argue that, for example, using the N word as harm is harmful, that's what we don't do it. Even if some
comedian felt it funny. To use the end with some white comedian felt it funny to use the N word. Most people in society will say, well look at the historical timeline. Look, what we've done to black people, and now you try to humiliate black people with something you know, is going to aggravate them. So they're not going to accept the N word is socially unacceptable, really, and truly, the parameters of freedom of speech are defined socially or socially constructed. What we're saying is that if there's a significant number of Muslim people that are offended with certain things, like for example, he keeps mentioning the drawing of cartoons, if they're offended by that
if they find that harmful, right? If you're saying that that doesn't matter, then I would argue that you're going against the harm principle. Because you're defining harm is the only harm that matters is the harm that I define that matters. So you wouldn't say the N word. You wouldn't say certain things about Jewish people. You wouldn't make Holocaust jokes. Would you make Joe Rogan ever make Holocaust jokes? No, even he's a comedian. He was a stand up comedian. Do you have a damn make Holocaust jokes? No, because he knows it's gonna offend him? Yeah. If he's really about PSP, if you if you believe in absolute freedom of speech, and Reza, this other guy that he had, he also said he
believes in freedom of absolute freedom speech, I challenge you to make a few jokes about the Holocaust, a few jokes about the N word, a few jokes about other communities, homosexuals, make a few jokes, but homosexuals, say something about homosexuals. So you know, you're not going to do that. Because actually, society has define for you. What is appropriate freedom of speech? And what is inappropriate freedom of speech. So why are you so upset with the left wing people that are being socially consistent, and philosophically consistent, that don't necessarily want to harm Muslim people. And this links to another precept, which is really interesting, called the tyranny of the
majority. Now, in democracies,
one of the things that most democratic commentators said was a problem was what is referred to as a tyranny of the majority, when you have a majority of people that believe in one thing, and a minority of people that believe in something else, and those majority of people actually exploit somehow, or take advantage of the minority of people that can take different forms. And in our discussion today, we can say actually does take the form of insulting or saying something which would be insulting to a segment of people, which in this case will be Muslims. What what media streams have to understand if they want to be democratically consistent, is that actually what they
should be doing is amplifying the voices of the minority in order to create an equilibrium if what they're doing is counter to that and actually amplifying the voice of some segment of the majority, which is actually antithetical to the minority that does anything but exacerbate the situation and create a higher exploitation for the minority which is anti
democratic, if you think about it philosophically, so Joe Rogan, frankly, in his,
in his commentaries and with the people he's brought on the on, on the bandwagon, frankly with panelists, has been nothing but fueling
a tyranny of the majority that I would claim is happening already in America in the West, and being Therefore, by extension, quite anti democratic. If he wants to be consistent,
and he wants to humanize him, he doesn't want to dehumanize human beings. He wants to allow human beings to celebrate the human dignity, that what they should do. what he should do is allow for the counterbalance, amplify the voices of the minority, even if you don't like it, Noam Chomsky said something really interesting. Noam Chomsky is a very famous liberal kind of thinker. I think it was one of the most quoted people in in a certain time period. In certain publications and books. He said, You don't really believe in freedom of speech, until you allow
the people you despise the most to say what they want to say. Bring us on, Joe.
That's, that's a good sign, Joe. Yeah, go ahead. Finish. That's what I thought I was gonna say. So what else anything else you want to tell Joe? That's perfect, man. If we can see him, No. Okay, brilliant. Hopefully, God Almighty Allah and you know, can get this to him. And you people, like you said they can share this, they can go ahead and comment on his videos on his podcasts on his Instagram. That's a good way of he will he will know, mentioned mentioned the deen show mentioned Mohammed hijab mentioned Eddie from the deen show. mentioned those things in the comments. And if there's enough of those comments, you'll see them and if he sees them, and even put the link of this
video on that on the comment that would be even better. Beautiful. Yeah. And he can look you up Muhammad hijab and you can see some of your work and every dollar beautiful. Thank you, my brother. Thank you. And thank you guys for tuning in. take that advice. Share it if you care, share, and tune in here every week to the deen show. We'll see you next time until then. Peace be with you sound like