The Truth About Liberal ‘tolerance’
Channel: Mohammed Hijab
File Size: 14.20MB
I'm not kind of saw that the state guarantees security. So if there's no freedom and security of that state, so if there are any ideas or beliefs that could potentially threaten the stability of the state, then that is that's a good reason to limit and prevent people from from holding those ideas. And he also mentioned that you were correct when you mentioned about Mohammed sins, right? So he said that Hamilton's don't have a claim for toleration as well. I've got the quote here. Actually, yeah, if you can read out the exact quote, so that people have got the one for atheism, though. Yeah. So So those those are not at all to be tolerated, who deny the being of a God promises
covenants and an oath, which are the bonds of human society can have can have no hold upon an atheist? Yeah, he says, The took the taking away of God, though, but even in thought dissolves all besides also, those that by the atheism undermined and destroyed, all religions can have no pretense of religion were upon to challenge the privilege of toleration. Yeah. So clearly, I mean, this is Joe, once again, john Locke is
opposing. Actually, you know what, I got the, I have the quotes here, actually, and this is in chapter 20 of it. Yeah. There you go. So he says, I'll try to kind of I just talked about the Muslim side of it. So he talks about what he alludes to Catholics. Right. And then he says,
and this probably sounds like some islamophobes. Today, right. He says, it is ridiculous for anyone to profess himself to be a Mohammedan only in his religion, but in everything else, a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate which bases government, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield a bit blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the ultimate Emperor basically the Khalif and frames the feigned Oracle's or hokum of the agencies would hook him he says Oracle's but it means outcome of that religion, according to His pleasure, pleasure. And this Mohammedan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently
renounced their government, if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his church, who is the supreme magistrate in the state. So basically,
Muslims can't be trusted. Yes. Because they're the head of their religion, or their leader is the Khalif isn't the leader of the Christian state, they live in a conflict of interest, yes, which is why he argues that it is ridiculous just to think that we should only with that, with that Muslim can only be
can only be a Muslim in a spiritual aspect and not in the political aspect to right, so it shows you I mean, to the extent to which liberalism is malleable from the inside and elastic, if you like as well, from from its very from the outset, because obviously, if toleration can be stretched, according to public good and
community interest and social interest to this extent, then to what extent is liberalism, in fact, individualistic in this in the sense that it claims to be, you know, it's, it's going to be as you would call HD howdy? Right? Yeah, I got something for Miller. So I know we're kind of skipping 200 years. So right. But this is what I found quite interesting.
I'm not sure once again, I think I was talking to you about this before. But I'm not sure if this is authentic or not. So I have to put that as a big caveat before I read this out. But he's talking about blasphemy, sure, and blasphemy laws. And he says, Yeah, if such prosecutions be necessary for the well being of the community, if the prosperity of England requires that some martyrs should be made by the religion, for which so many have been made informal times, then by all means, let them continue and be multiplied and let Christianity which benefits the country in so many other ways, also benefit by the sacrifice of its own character for mercy, toleration and consistency. It is
however worth well worth considering whether we will be reduced this dilemma So in other words, I'm not sure once again up as a caveat, I'm not sure to what extent this is accurate, but what Mills seems to be indicating here as well, once again, we're fast forwarding 150 years or 200 years or whatever it may be,
is that there are certain things that society are unacceptable and therefore should be universalized in law
and, and those things will then be used to curtail human interaction and liberty for like from an individual's I've got one more example of
looking at this, because this could be contested manuscript right but
in page 166
on liberty, very famous book.
He basically john Stuart Mill talks about certain acts which are
publicly and not acceptable.
And he talks, you know, potentially, like, for example,
about like a husband wife having sex, emotional, he talks about himself why both from a secondary source material?
Maybe a husband wife having sex in public, right? So this kind of thing, sex in public is an unacceptable offense according to even I think law today, this public Yes, yes. It's not an awful person, even though you might think is not when, by by some people's antics we hear about on the news and so on. But no, it's generally prohibited. It's prohibited. So yeah, that kind of thing. So if there is something which can be universalized in law,
and enshrined in law in such a way as would prevent human beings from
enacting their kind of individual or doing what they want to do individually,
then according to mill, and Locke, and all of those theorists, once again, there is a intrinsic malleability, or you can say, such a malleability as, ironically, with allow for rigidity. At a certain stage, you can't be free at all stages, because you could argue this doesn't harm anyone. It goes against the harm principle. Right? Yeah. So you know, to people having sex, maybe can harm a child, but if they do in a certain area, yeah. You know, I mean, why not, you know,
quantum quantum, to their creed coincident with that. So the point I'm making is that there's always and probably this is probably a good way to segue into this
is always going to be that tension between social contract, the universality of law, and the individual self expression.
So this is a problem for liberalism. Right? How does you How do human being so out these things, especially when you put democracy into the equation, I think I saw you one time on YouTube, you're not sure if this is correct, you can correct me if I'm wrong. You questioning someone on
black? I think it was Middle East in context, you're talking about politics and say, for example, something what let's just be controversial here and this kind of bring out right, I think me controversial.
So one of the punitive laws of is a kind of the hand of a thief, for example, say for instance, which is in the Koran. Okay. And we're not saying it's applicable for all times and places, certainly, we're not saying it's applicable in the United Kingdom, right? For the non Muslims, or whatever it may be, right. We've
cut the hands off. Judge Judy and execution. Judge jury?
That's a show. Yeah. But what I was gonna say was that say, for instance, right.
We're bringing the democratic element, right, you have a society which the majority of principle dictates from, for example, in a referendum decide that this this should be the method by which and through which thieves ought to be punished. Now, you've got lots of tensions here, you've got the tension between the social contract, the majority principle, human Hindi, so called human rights, individual human rights, which one should take primacy in the, in the struggle for
making it onto law? What should be enshrined and become universal as law?
Well, you like when people look at Hadoop, and they think, Oh, isn't that isn't that so barbaric? and so on. And they don't they don't look at, let's say, in the history of English law, even during its post enlightenment, developed stage, less 19th century so it wasn't that long ago. In terms of history, Victorian Britain. Yeah, if you if you commit theft, you could be executed, you know, and killed and rendered dead just for committing theft. The hoodoo doesn't do that. Islam doesn't say it doesn't say that is what it's much more harsh. Yes. Certainly much more harsh. You also had forced labor for many petty crimes. Yes. So bases made into slaves, but they also move on now. They'll say,
Abdullah, look, we've moved on for that. That was something of the planet I know. But I would argue they've replaced it with something, which is still I would argue, inhumane compared to the Sharia at the mercy of the Sharia. Because the Sharia punishment system is very, it's usually it's corporal punishments. So punishment, the boy or the buddy, but the person is released back to their family that very day, right? They're not their family doesn't suffer. When that person is punished. The person who commits the punish commits the crime. They're punished, not their family. But in in western countries. They put people into these cages humans, they put humans into cages for long
periods of time and create human zoos. It's become an industry in the United States of America with the highest prison population in the world more than China. Well, China's got a billion people. Is that is that correct? Is that accurate? Yeah, it's the largest prison population in the world, not not as not as a ratio as numbers of individuals as numbers as numbers, and we're paying I think it's over. I think it's around a million or so.
So people a million Americans are in cages. And what I was gonna say to you here going back to the problems of liberalism. Yeah. Because couldn't one easily argue right? Just potentially, as Locke, john Locke did and potentially, as john Stuart Mill forward is
would would indicate himself that I mean, this this might sound a bit wacky, right. But let's bring one of the headman huddled around so now one of the punitive laws of Islam, right. Say for example, cutting the hands of the thief. Well can even bring that I suppose.
Execution that's not the flogging for
Xena basically floating for Yeah, makes sense. Yeah. According to the logic of john Stuart Mill here in paid 166 of his book on liberty, if there are certain things which are unacceptable publicly. So this this point is unacceptable publicly who's to who's to decide? It would be either, either or? It will be the population and all the ruler. Yeah. So if it's the ruler and the population, so there's kind of like, or the majority principle if they want to bring democracy, whatever it may be. But if that's the case, so from this logic, you can actually justify using liberal principles, couldn't you? I mean, couldn't you justify the kind of the thief but they don't really have an argument, like
john Locke, john Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes, suniel, Thomas would either wouldn't could not actually produce any argument to actually criticize, they might say, it's against our tastes to do so. But they were doing Far West in England ran those those times. Much worse than No, do Empire. I'm not sure what the thing was. I mean, I read it in two pieces of government has a lot of discussion on slavery. And obviously, there's no doubt in the United States, they were amputate MP, amputating the hands of, of slaves that ran away and so on and so forth. Whereas, in the Sharia, you don't you can't amputate
slaves and so on and so forth. But what I was gonna say was that there's no doubt on john Locke's position, for example, and slavery is unequivocally against it. Right? He talks about for the most part for why right apparently, there's some reports of him actually having slaves but in the Americas, but why did why against them and this, from what from what I remember who definitely wrote against this slave reason, institutional backing, it definitely wrote against, against a human being should never be enslaved and so on.
To an extent, he but he also defended, he defended slavery in the Bible, by arguing he wasn't in slavery, or you probably, I think he went to my kind of Islam and slavery lecture when I brought this up. Yes. Where he said that
if you're not allowed to execute your slave at will, and according to the laws of Moses, and what have you, after I think several six years you release them or or they can be released if they pay off a debt or what have you. But basically, you didn't you don't have unconditional absolute control over someone to do whatever you want. And we know that in Islam, you don't you know, there's
that there are rights that are safe has over you. So according to john Locke, that's not slavery. So Jewish, the kind of slavery that as defined in Jewish law, and slavery, as they would say, is in the Sharia, or at least how America manages it. And quanta, john Locke isn't slavery. And that's what he writes in his tutorials of government that that section on slavery, he writes, he actually mentions it by name, which is something that liberals would find them probably disconcerting if they knew that now and you're right. What you've said about they, these guys will not have any Christian will have the Sharia In fact, they could even argue, I could be argued, according to john Locke, and
Islamic government, under a Khalif with it with implementing Sharia is a free government. It's a free state, on the basis that he said the same thing about Jewish government? No, not even that. He gave a definition. So Robert Robert filmer argues that, well, if you believe in freedom, you're you believe that people can just do whatever they want. And he was robots in response, and no, no, I didn't say that. I what I meant by freedom is that you live under a government with known laws that apply for everybody equally, where the ruler can't do anything he wants you just because he doesn't like you. So I don't like that hat you're wearing, I'm going to kill you. He can't do that because
the law is prohibited right? Or the laws. The laws are defined. So whatever is is within the permissible area, the MOBA you have freedom. That's what he means by freedom.