Channel: Mohammed Hijab
It says that
a problem, or I would say, a misappropriation
that a lot of people make, in terms of understanding Islam is when they put on their secular glasses, or the liberal glasses or the democratic glasses, and they try and look at Islam, or measure Islam in accordance with that. Let me tell you something, if you do that, Islam will not measure up.
You have to change your perspective, because the thing is this.
The ruler of the West, and this is a post colonial narrative. Yeah.
After the colonial, you have to understand that the Age of Discovery and the British Empire, these were not easy. empires, they really had an encroachment of the earth.
And the last colonial colony of Britain was likely the 50s. They're not just going to give all of that easily, right. The Western world has a strong ideological
encroachment on the rest of the world. It's because of his his demonic power position. Yeah. It wants us to believe what it believes. It just does. Okay. If it makes sense for its foreign policy, it makes sense for domestic policy, it makes sense for us economic policies,
why believes now is not necessarily a religious framework. It's no longer the time of Christianity anymore. Christianity is not does not inform Western, domestic or foreign policy anymore. It doesn't. Yeah, now it's secularism. Now it's liberalism. Now, it's democracy. And the point is this.
To what extent can we say that these ideologies are objective truth,
and do the propounded of those ideologies or the philosophies that originally initiated them, and intend for them to be seen as objective truths? These ideologies were never intended to be seen as objective truth. So now, if you measure
Now, what I'm saying is that, for example, the idea of liberalism,
which was refined by like john Stuart Mill, you can say re liberalism side of Thomas Hobbes, you could argue that with the Leviathan and continued adjustment, and it was refined by him, the idea that you could do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm anyone else, which is okay, to some extent, but not is not what we go with. Because if you accept that premise, you accept incest, for example, you accept it.
Yeah, but we can say it's morally wrong. Right.
Okay, but liberalism, on a liberal ideology, ideological framework, it wouldn't be wrong, it would just be an expression of someone's desires.
Right, I get I get that point. But then then I would ask, how can we prove that that is the truth?
Okay, good. Yeah, proof. Good, excellent. So if we, if we can't prove that that's something which is absolutely or objectively true, then measuring Islam, according to it is like measuring something with a stretch ruler. Okay, if you if you use a stretchy ruler, a stretchy ruler to measure something, then you're never going to get a precise measurement. 100 years ago, today, women were not allowed vote in this country. And it was a strong case. And if you think about it, it was a strong case for it. If you look at their parliamentary records, how, how people were actually talking against women's rights, it was normal for women not to vote, and it was radical for women to
be to be enfranchised to speak. If that is the case, look, 100 years, which is like one generation has completely shaped the way we think about women's rights in society. 100 years, 100 years. Right? In 1967. In this country, it was illegal to be homosexual. There was a death penalty in this country. That's some that's some 50 years ago. Yeah, we're talking about 50 years ago, homosexuality, and now homophobic so everything is just turned up. So we'll look at the structure rule that we've got. Look at the structure, you put the structure like you're trying to establish if Islam is the truth, it is the truth with it. Or if Islam does not, is not compatible with my morals,
my aesthetic value judgments, which are based on today's present day more popular morality, then it's not true. I would say to you, then, how are you sure that in 2057, or 2000, or 2100? Yeah, that we're not gonna have a new set of morals that we're gonna now have to change Islam to and stuff like that.
Yeah. All right. So what I'm saying is that, yeah, of course course.
was, can you
All right. So
I'll say that, but just let me finish off our thing here. Sorry. Yeah. So the the Islamic thesis, in its essence, is a different thesis. The liberal thesis, it prioritizes the
Human being over and above everything else, right? The Islamic thesis, prioritize Allah over above everything else was completely different.
The differences are just one main difference is this is that Islam attempts to, you know, it's really interesting Islam and the Quran has a method of falsification. Yeah, it does attempts to prove itself, whereas liberalism, democracy, secularism does not even attempt that. It doesn't even attempt to do that.
By the way, I'm not saying that liberalism as an ideology is or practically speaking, is at odds with Islam. I'm not saying that I'm saying that, generally speaking, it's epistemological roots are different. The presuppositions of liberalism and the presupposition of Islam are different.
As an ideology, trying to say this is absolute truth.
Yeah, I'm saying if it's not, then the thing is, we're saying that Islam, the case for Islam, is that it's an absolute truth. Okay. Islam as a framework as a religion, attempts to prove that it's absolutely objectively true. liberalism, secularism, and, and all these other ideologies, they don't even attempt to do that. Yes, exactly. Right. Right. So we both agree with that, right? So why why measure something which is attempting to be an ultimate truth was something which is not even. It's not even the philosophers that propounded it didn't even intend for it to be an absolute truth. You get what I'm saying? It's a misplacement. So here going back to it about what is the Islamic
governance system, what is it? What is it actually, as some people have heard something, and I'm not refuting anyone here? I'm not refuting anyone. But a lot of people say Islam is democracy is democracy. It's not. Islam is not democracy. Democracy comes from a Greek construct demos and criteria, meaning people power.
And it was first experimented with in Athens some, whatever, three, 4000 years ago, whatever. Yeah. Now, democracy, you have different types. In today's world, we have representative democracy. When we say democracy, we mean, pluralism, as well, sometimes with the word democracy comes pluralism, and liberalism. So sometimes, the construct liberal democracy is used to describe this phenomenon.
That is the Islamic system of governance, that No it's not. It has its own system of governance, whereby a leader is chosen by what you call and how you will act. And will Holly will act D are people who are literally, you could say, the highest of that particular community, so they could be higher could why, for example, they could be academics. So you can have professors, by the way, you know, you know, what's really interesting? Yeah. You know, you
never say what's really interesting, you know, because obviously, in the classical Greek period, we had different philosophers. One of them was Socrates. Yeah. And he said, the following about democracy, his his criticism of democracy is as follows. He said, why would you allow a whole community of people to vote on a specialist matter? Like, for example, he saw politics, as especially this matter, like, you'd have to be aware of economics of military policy, you have to be aware of those things. Here's Socrates. His argument is it doesn't make sense to entrust a whole population with the ignorance among them and others with this choice. Yes, of being able to choose
the representative or the policies. So it doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, no, no. So just you I'm saying, so the truth is this. That's one issue. The second issue is as follows. Do we actually have democracy and other trade offs with democracy? Because now in the world that we live in, you have two or three aspects, you have one, representative democracy, which is chosen through an electoral system in this country is called first past the post. And in most western countries, it's actually first past the post. first past the post amplifies the electoral the vote basically, right? So it's not an exact democracy, you have proportional representation, and a V which this country voted against. But then you have, for example, first principles. point is
this. Is one person's vote the same is my vote the same as your vote. For example, as I say, I supported the Labour Party and you supported the Green Party. Yeah. If you went to the ballot box, and you went and chose the Green Party, and I went and chose the Labour Party, my vote is much stronger than your votes. It's not one person, one vote. Why because of first past the post the electoral system. So I have here the issue that Socrates mentioned that everyone is not exploiting democracy. Number two, the issues with democracy. Yeah, the way that first post divorce works in any electoral electoral system is called first pastor post. A amplifies the, the votes of the higher
So it means say, for example, you get and this is arbitrary. I'm not I'm not giving you actual numbers, say 10% of the population or 15% of the population voted for the country.
70 party and save 15% of the population, or 10% voted for the Labour Party. Yeah. And then 5% of the population voted for the or 3% voted for the Green Party, the Labour Party who's got 15% of the votes of the population would get maybe 40% of the seats. So we didn't get 15%, you'll get 40% of the seats in parliament, which means that 15% of the votes amounts to let's say, 40% of that car. Again, this is arbitrary, but that's the way it works. Now, if that's the way it works, how comes this country voted against a V. A v, which is what the Liberal Democrats wanted, is when you have lower votes, so it's more proportionate. So my vote is worth more like proportionately multi over,
john. So maybe it's a bit complicated. Okay, so first past the post.
first past the post, is an electoral system, which means that bigger parties have a higher chance of being elected. Bigger parties, like the Labour Party in the Conservative Party, or in America, the Democrat Party in the Republican Party. Yeah.
No one is no one is.
No, no, no, no. So whoever was whoever wins becomes the government. Yeah. Anyways, just the point is, it's not it's not a full democracy, right. So the one vote one person thing is not what happens by capitalistic necessity, by capitalistic necessity, one person's actions in society is not going to be the same as another person's actions. If you have more money than me, you're gonna have more power than me. Okay? So pluralism is not actualized democracy is not actualized. Democracy, even if it was actualized, it wouldn't be. You couldn't argue that it's an objectively perfect place. Because we know that
democracy is mob rule, you have problems of Andy and people of democracy even mentioned, as they call it, the problems of tyranny of the majority. Well, you have literally mob rule, say, for example, we got 70% of people that vote on something for nothing, the 30% is disregarded. The 70% is actually actualized. So it's not to do with what everyone wants, not everyone is not equal
to 70%, you understand this, but at the end of the day, if our premises egalitarian,
equal equality, then what should happen is at every juncture, there should be equality. So my political ambition should be actualized in exactly equal way as your political ambition. Now, if you're saying that, actually, it's not going to be like that, because we're going to choose the majority, then it's not equality, you can either have democracy or equality, you can have both, you can either have capitalism or equality, you can't have both, you got it.
This is just a way. So basically, the point I'm making is this, the liberal system is not only critique critiqued by people, but it's actually not feasible. You can't have a completely liberal, democratic society. And that's why there are trade offs at every juncture. There are trade offs at every juncture that politicians and societies must make. So for, for someone to come and say, Okay, let's make Islam democratic, or let's make Islam liberal, or let's make Islam. Whatever, say, look, it's not even, it's not even being actualized in your own space, in your own domain, let alone you come in and trying to impose it on us. It doesn't work. It's a as a useful system for people that
don't have morals. Let me tell you one more time, democracy, democracy and liberals is a useful system for people that don't have any objective moral basis. It's not useful if you know the truth. If you know the truth is not useful. Freedom
is subjective. For those who don't who believe it's subjective, right? It's objective for those who believe it's objective for us as Muslims, we have an objective outlook on Islam, we say it's true. So what I'm saying is we've democracy and liberalism and all these things, in the context of a western world, in the Western world that we live in, and the Western Europe whereby they don't know that we don't know the truth, right? We need always to ask about what the truth is, and have some kind, we need a mechanism to solve to solve epistemic truth. So democracy becomes that mechanism, right? But if you know the truth, we don't need to vote on it.
If you know, okay, look, just so I'm saying here, does that make no sense?
The Islamic system we have How do you know what's really interesting about the Islamic system, you have an old Hollywood acting, which is basically the people who as we said, Socrates, as he said that not everyone's proficient or professional enough to be able to vote. So Islam doesn't allow the non professional people to have an input. So I'll tell you and Holly will act, other people who are basically the elites, elites, not in necessarily the economic capitalistic way but could be academically, it could be people who are most intelligent, the people who are most qualified to understand things.
Yeah, so those who have, who have come up the academic ladder or scholars, the scholars of society basically now
This would mean, those individuals would decide, okay, who should be in charge? But hold on. There's another aspect of it. There's two aspects.
There's two aspects. One aspect, and this is very powerful, actually, I believe is this mechanism is a much more powerful mechanism, then we have, number one, the experts decide who should be put up. And by the way, this is done in democratic societies. Yes. Just like, for example, did we decide that Theresa May should be the leader of the Conservative Party, we would decide that? Did we decide when he was that Ed Miliband should be the leader of the Labour Party? No one's who decided Labour Party decided. So why did they decide because it was expected that they would have more political understanding of who should be the leader of the parties, you could argue that the leader of the
party is as important as the leader of the country, because they're making a decision as you should be the same thing. The Republic is a vegan decision that Donald Trump should be the leader of the party that made a massive distinction for us. Yeah. So we will say, and Holly will act, he would decide who should be the leader? No.
No, no, no, they can't. That's a good, that's a good question. They can't decide that they themselves will be the leader, they can't do that. They will decide who should be the who's most qualified. Now, when that's done, the second process.
So hey, the halifa has nine things halifa is a historically there's been nine things according to a morality, as far as I remember, that have to be met. Okay. But if we're talking about someone who's in charge of a country, that becomes much less, alright, so it's not the same condition.
The person who's in charge, let's say no, no Holly locked come and food and put this person for now there has to be a br.
br is when the people of that society now pledge allegiance to the leader.
And this is how that person gets a legitimacy and the mandate. Yeah. So this idea of a social construct. So a social contract, which Hobbes was talking about, when he wrote the book, the Leviathan, which holds by the way, was like some same. And I agree with this, that he was like the founding father of in a sense, he was the first liberal thinker, in a sense, because he discussed the idea of social construct social contract, a social contract is the idea that the representative, you're literally giving your will, your political will to a representative who will carry out that will, yeah, the idea of social contract is everywhere, right. But with monarchies, it's forced, you
have your subjects and subordinates.
And then you have the monarch. And Islam is not like that. So you have a system of
so look with Saudi Arabia, or Jordan or Morocco. These are all current contemporary examples, which
Yeah, I mean, he's got reduced powers in Yeah, but this is neither here nor there. We'll talk about whatever examples I'm talking about the actual Islamic framework. And
the point is, this
is now that the now this person, or these individuals give back. Now, what's really interesting is this, you know, that token that we just mentioned, is today, the new way, we said that
women were only given the vote, and what 1980 was, it was the 1980. That's what literally 100 years ago, 1971 it is, literally 100 years ago, yeah.
By ours was given by men and women.
This is a you know, we're saying it as if it doesn't mean much, you know, it actually means so much. You know, that was never done before, by I was given by men and women. You know, that's a very powerful thing. 1400 years ago, by I was given by men and women, whereas 100 years ago, they were debating in Parliament, where the woman should be given the vote.
Interesting. Anyways, after that's done, after that's done, now that person has secured legitimacy, a political mandate, and becomes the leader of that particular country.
So look, the point is this. What I'm trying to say to you is that the Islamic model is very sophisticated, I would argue, is very fast and effective. And had it not been it wouldn't have been able to take over so much part of the world.
We don't assume that
untethered individualism is the be all and end all we don't believe that that's not our belief. So that's not a presupposition. You know, the question is this. When you deal with someone you have to deal with them as per the presuppositions of whatever they believe in is if you deal with a feminist you say, Can you believe in equality but how come you're not being equal? If you deal with a liberal you say you believe in liberalism, but you're not being liberal here? If you deal with a Muslim, you say you believe in submission to God, but how come you're not being Muslim here?
To find like,
you're never gonna find someone. people agree. You know, what I'm trying to say to you is that you're using live
Bro, stretchy liberal ideas to to measure Islamic theological precepts. And I'm saying if you can't even prove those to be objective, then there's no use you measuring it with the Islamic thesis because the Islamic thesis is no need to be measured by a by subjective morality of a white man who's forcing it had forced it for 400 years, and continues to force it down our throats today. We don't need the white man to force us. So why would advice?
We live in a world today? Well, let me tell you something, I just want to really hammer this point home.
We live in a post World War Two new world today, right? Where
the Allies had won the war. They were able to build infrastructures and spread their ideologies in a way that was not possible before. Okay.
It was possible in the colonial period, but it wasn't possible in the interwar period.
After 94, you could say in 1994, the situation became even more intense, because the Cold War ended. And the only ideological
military power, which was the Soviet Union had collapsed. We live in that context, which means we live in a dangerous world where you think you live where there is a monopoly of ideas, but you actually have the amplification of the Western post colonial narrative, and the suppression of the rest of the ideas. And that world. It's hard to take yourself out. It's hard to pull yourself out of the white man's shoes. We will continually
Yes, yes. Yes.
No, that's ridiculous. Maybe? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The same argument could be made with religion. Yes. If someone is not critical, whether they be living in a post colonial environment, whether they be a religious believer, and they don't want to ask questions, which strike at the heart of their own faith, okay, at the heart of their own existence, then they will invariably be overtaken by the currents of the New World. I believe that this is a serious situation, which could overtake us in the form of this globe, this wave of globalization, right.
Oh, this wave of American hegemony, I say this, I say that before asking, because the majority, I've been doing this now allow for a while, I've noticed that the majority of questions that are put
about Islam relate to someone putting themselves in this 21st century white man's bubble anachronistically looking back at the Prophet's life, and trying to superimpose their own value judgments on this. And also at the same time, assumingly false falsely assuming that everything they believe is true. And everything we believe is false. You can't start with that premise. Just because we live in your country, it doesn't mean we're going to believe everything you're going to believe. I'm not saying you guys. But that's that's the message I want to put to them.
Of course, of course, of course. No doubt about it. Yes. But the point is this. Yeah. So I say this, I say this, if you got if you if whoever is believed in liberalism, then the heart of liberalism is critical inquiry if you think about it, right. So we have to inquire critically is liberalism itself? Is democracy itself is secularism, are these things worthy of being used as pseudo ultimate truths, that we now have to measure everything towards? Or are these things as we've discussed, and shown, practically, when, when actually operational, not able to actualize themselves in a full sense? And if that is the case, then to what extent are they effective? And if they're not effective
completely, then we know that they're not perfect. And if we don't, we're not perfect, then how can we measure input? How can we measure what claims to be perfection with that, which we know for sure is imperfection. So next time we ask what you're seeing in order for something to be true, it has to be effective? Sometimes, yes.
Yes, no, what I mean is that the ruling of not drinking is effective to one spiritual and physical, you got it. All right. So
the point is this.
No, and hamdulillah. Now, maybe when I was younger, when I was young, go look critically and stuff you always doubt. But when there came a time where literally I believe that Allah I believe Allah gave me a very strong sense of yaqeen
Very strong sense,
which means certainty. How do you
how do I ground myself?
Thinking is true? Because it makes it makes sense to every. Yeah, well on the way that
to truly take on another perspective to challenge it. Yeah, I get that. But you know, because Islam has a way of proving itself, right. It has a falsification test. It has an inevitability check it has. It has evidences that aims to prove its reality. its core message, which is the message of hate, of believing in one God and worshiping one God is a message, I believe, not only appeals to my logical state of being, but also appeals to my existential, spiritual ism. And I believe that from all of those perspectives, Islam is is no doubt the most effective,
the most plausible, and the most, and the most rational recourse for me, you get what I'm saying.
So I've come to that conclusion.