Minute with a Muslim #012 – Islam, Human Rights & The Role of Debate with Abdullah al Andalusi
Channel: Tom Facchine
File Size: 67.77MB
So the idea that there's human rights and the fact and the fact that you can interpret, for example, the Human Rights document any which way, even if you adopt the United Nations kind of concoction there, it could be interpreted in so many ways that so many countries actually signed up to it only because it was so broad or so or allowed so much variation that they could get away with whatever they were believing in the first place. This will be handled outside so as to the last time when they come after live, everybody, welcome back. And we have a very, very esteemed and special guest here with us today, Abdullah Andalusi, who needs no introduction. But among other things involved
with i three, and I learned that hamdulillah it looks like we'll both get the opportunity to meet each other in person this fall at the AI three conference in Canada, and also the co founder of the Muslim debate initiative, an initiative that I've benefited tremendously from, and I think, everybody if you haven't heard of it, that you should benefit tremendously from Welcome and thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today. Salaam aleikum Warahmatullah wabarakatuh Baraka, Rafi come for your invitation, brother. And yeah, inshallah I look forward to going over there of the pond that we can have many discussions over a Tim Hortons.
We don't we don't have any Tim Hortons in UK. So I do appreciate the chances
to take advantage of all of the rarities. Excellent. So to get started, the main discussion today I think is about human rights. Both of us just happen to have released content on human rights, discussion on on human rights and ethics. Not that I gave actually, it was kind of more of a workshop where I tried to deconstruct it, and then more recently sort of doing various things. But before we get into that, I wanted to talk about your wonderful organization, the Muslim debate initiative. And we were talking offline a little bit about how the forces of secularism they attempt to turn our Islam and how we relate to Islam into a very private matter, a very private affair. And
so it de emphasizes all of those things that are fortify that our community obligations that every single person is sinful for, if no one or not enough people are doing it. Right. And it gets us to focus to focus exclusively on sort of the you know, prayer, and your fasting, your charity, all wonderful things all important and essential things to a SNAM. But things that if we have only the thought of dying, our Islam is not fully established. So I'd like for you, if possible to just talk briefly about the Muslim debate initiative, specifically, or debate in general, or the idea of sort of intellectually representing and defending Islam. And where does it fit in with the Fortify lens?
Sure, well, I mean, look, the history of Muslim debate initiative was initially just a bunch of Muslims who were already doing debates individually. And we noticed that there were some Muslims, mashallah very enthusiastic, well intentioned brothers, but they perhaps
weren't suited to do debates. And so what we tried to do is, we kind of tried to bring together
brothers who you could, and some sisters who would debate as to in a kind of almost a peer reviewed manner of when we see that person performs well in debates, then we kind of say, well, let's be part of this organization that in some way can help lead by example, and do kind of quality control on the on, you know, on Muslim debating, and because we realized that many non Muslims would pick specific opponents for debate that would make them look good and will make them appear to be
appear to be really clever, very knowledgeable. And one of the problems of that is that this then does a disservice to Islam because you're getting someone who is not very not necessarily the best person to do the baits
being given the platform by by non Muslims today we're picking who represents Islam it was non Muslims are doing so and they do this all the time with the media as well. That media will often pick someone they and Muslim they know would fulfill the expectations of what they want the Muslim to fulfill in a certain platform. So that's what we kind of started up you know, the the Muslim they should have to kind of give a platform to debates were very good. Now I want to say that you know, because many other Muslim do are to a very good debaters they had all the organizational commitments they they didn't they didn't want to like join another organization would have your bring some
kind of who they were with because they wanted to promote once there's us which is totally fine. Not you know, but it was just an attempt anyway by some of us to do so. And it was simply judged on you know, can a person is a person do
during debates based on ego, or are they doing it based on fees to beat Allah and we tried to filter out as best as possible looking at decorum, other research and how they approach things now, I suppose to explain what why debates and why not just people say speaking to somebody, and you know, giving them that our
Well, if you meet somebody who is you could say open minded enough, such that they're not restricted by the cultural upbringing they had, and viewing it as absolute documents, but they are so open minded that they're willing to consider that the dogmas that they were raised with are not necessarily true, then fine. There's no need for debate. But as soon as you encounter anyone on the street, your fellow coworker, online, in a Twitter comments, God forbid, or anywhere, where you
as soon as someone disagrees with the message that you're calling to. And you have to help them overcome the assumptions which they have adopted, which which are act as the roadblock in their minds, for preventing them from seeing the truth. That's a debate.
If you could say, my colleague handles oats as he used to call it dialectical data, right? But it's really just you have to overcome their assumptions. And you know, as I mentioned before the Quran, the Quranic verses were intended to be used in Makkah. Many of them, many of them, not all, many of them are tend to be used as as polemics against the Schick Dean on the Qureshi was rebutting them. It was refuting them it was pointing out the inconsistencies in their beliefs while advancing the Islamic worldview. And some of them are actually begin with the political right. So it's actually a it's a divine command to say this to others. I think that strengthens your point, that if it were
simply a last moment, informing us about these inconsistencies, or the weaknesses in these sorts of systems, then one could maybe get away with the interpretation that well, that was just meant to inform and not meant to challenge but some of these things last month, I was telling you to say it to somebody else, which kind of establishes the necessity to bring forth the word to somebody else, and maybe in a in a debate like scenario. Yeah, I mean, I often point out that you could almost say that the shahada 10 Is is
it starts off with polemics lair, ILAHA, and then in Allah, so that there's no it first refutes the falsehood. There is no false idols, no, no human being who should be worshipped no animal, no creature, no celestial object, no set of values and morals, which are man made or concocted from the minds of men that should be worshipped, that should be our criteria for a con, there's nothing that should be the basis for human life and meaning other than Allah subhanaw taala. And there's nothing else that exists
of such absoluteness as a last mandala, there is no other absolute except on this model. So this is the shahada begins with with almost like a polemic. It's clearing, you know, when you when you want to arrange your room or clear your room, you first who you know, vacuum it, you clean it, and then you write, you know, and then you put the things that need to be put there in their present in the right place. So a bit of cleaning needs to happen first. And then before you you pause it or while you're positing the correct truth. So in essence, you know, like, we all do debates in every arena, whether you're, as soon as you disagree with someone, or you're having a negotiation with somebody,
or you're simply just telling your neighbor, could you just park your car bit to the left cuz I want to put my or what have you, right, if you park on the street,
is that's where the baiting comes in, or simply what it is. But in the West, there is something
why it wasn't only in the West, but there's something of a phenomenon called formal debates, where you have an audience, and you have to interlocutors and they're discussing with each other. And
you know, many Muslims look at it superficially and say, Well, why are you doing this? Because he, the other person is not going to change their mind. And I often say, but but it's not about the other person, right? It's an educational tool to teach the audience you like a court case, you you make the audience, the jury, but you need to have a defense lawyer and a prosecution lawyer to make the best case for the both sides and that the audience can make that decision for themselves. While they see that the evidence to hand so that's basically why I saw there was a little niche for the necessity to engage in this area of Dawa because many people will not listen to Islamic teachings or
non Muslim referring to it
They won't bother to look at Muslim websites, or
go to lectures. And I give a typical example. In many universities, I'm invited to, when I invited to a lecture or any any of my colleagues and our are invited to lecture, maybe that the audience is packed out, but full of Muslims. Yeah. So you might get a handful you can count them usually on one hand of non Muslims that might be in attendance.
But you do a debate University, and it is you'll get 5050 at least Muslim normals and who will never would have turned up? Had it not been for it being advertised as a debate. And not Not, not in my debate. But the debate that MDI did before this with my colleagues, like it was saying, debating a Christian could Dr. Michael Brown, at the University College London, which is a college of the University of London, the audience was majority Christian.
You actually the Muslims were Canada have the Christians came early. Unfortunately, it is currently a Muslim time, unfortunately, as it is, was a bit you know, they came late, and the seats were mostly taken up by by Christians. So Subhanallah majority of Christians, they would never have turned up if we had made that into a lecture. Sure. And they would never watched a YouTube video if it had been just a lecture. So it's we found it as a very efficacious way of bringing non Muslims into contact with Islam. Yeah, that's fascinating. I mean, so yeah, just to drive your point home further. So there's a performance aspect, especially to formal debate. There's a performance aspect
where it's not even necessarily any more about trying to change your direct interlocutors opinion. No, of course, that would be wonderful if we, if we could, but it's almost the main point, or at least the more likely target would be people in the audience, maybe they're on the fence, maybe they haven't heard anything for a while. Anything from this particular perspective, now, they're able to access it in a way that they probably otherwise wouldn't have. And, you know, it's, it's really, I think, also a testament to, it's almost like we have this thing within Islam where we're permitted to adopt cultural forms of other cultures, as long as they don't explicitly contradict the Sharia,
right. So for example, poetry, right, permissible to utilize poetry as a form as a medium in order to communicate Islamic values. We see in you know, in North America, we have spoken word and sort of things like that, and debate, this at least formal debate is a cultural form, it's something that has a tradition, you know, in the West, especially in the UK, and and it and it goes back, and it has rules, and it has sort of expectations to it. And so this is kind of another example of using a localized cultural form, in an Islamic way, in order to do Islamic Dawa. And I think that that's really fascinating.
When you say that one quick point in the crash in Makkah, obviously before before they convert to Islam, of course, before the fact
they had this cultural form. And in order to Cornish Arabs, generally at the time,
poetry poetry and sutra, especially rhymes prose. And, you know, if you want to make an argument if you're going to insult someone's tribal and think and magnify the glories of Your tribe or your clan against them,
or make anything say any make any kind of argument especially persuasive ones, you do it in such a way you do it, you know, using various forms of poetry, that persuasive speech it was,
it was viewed by by Arabs, as you know, if you want to persuade someone, you do it in this very melodic sense. And the Quran comes in like a wrecking ball, right and smashes the limitations of manmade such and it just does things which is not possible, which there was no primitive Well, you just couldn't do it in, in Arabic, maybe not even in in human language. And it does it with with a powerful argument attached to it. Yeah, that so the both it's leaked literary style, as well as you know, it's the meaning contained within it.
Just demolished. The falsehoods of the Qureshi just really overpowered them. They were their minds were blown and they had to react in very irrational ways. The only one thing they could say really,
usually is oh, this is just magic. It is brainwashing you it is affecting your mind.
So that was you could say the Quran itself is an evidence of this that it takes something which was deemed to be the best means of communication. At the time the best means of rhetoric the best means of persuasiveness. And it just surpassed anything that humans could come up with. It took them on on their game, and it just showed them that it that it
far surpasses anything that they could ever produce. So I take inspiration from,
from, you know, how the Quran does that and of course, you know, as Muslims we the inspiration we can take from the Quran is it when we did that was to be more been right to be clear, to be persuasive. We can never match the eloquence of the Quran. But in essence we should try to, you know, argue with wisdom or hikma of your spare speech as the Quran tells us to do. unbeliever right and allies in sorts on the set, I believe he uses the adjective believer to, you know, like a, a concise and convincing and and sort of a no, no, how we would translate that but something that is going to be effective, right and effective. And I don't want to get too far afield here but another
argument for for this is, is about the Sunnah of Allah when it comes to sending messengers, right he takes the forms are the forms of knowledge are the cultural forms that each society is best at. And just as you said, like what the Koran comes as a wrecking ball transcends surpasses and completely dominates that that field. So if you look at the, you know, Benny Israel, either at the time or ISA, Allah, he sat down, right, it was medicine. And so the miracles, the nature of the miracles of Esau that he said, I'm we're medical miracles, right, but they far surpass, surpass anything that any medicine could do. He's bringing people back from the dead, he's healing lepers everything. Most of
the time, musalla, he said, was magic. And so the miracles that he were given were in surpassing any sort of magic that they had known. And so there is something of a Dalit tactic there that has to do with analyzing your culture, and seeing what is what are the sort of predominant forms that people are engaged in? What do they take pride in, you know, whether it's to be somebody who is a poet or debater or this sort of academic or whatever it is, and then to not just match it but surpass it? We definitely have. I think we're on solid ground when we're when we're sort of engaging in data that way. Yep. I'd like to give two, you could say two conditions to be it's not about doing that our
now, the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam said,
If you no one, even if you want to convey it, okay, that's fine. But
you, you can't go beyond the remit of your knowledge, when it comes to that one. And many, many dogs sometimes feel pressure to do so on a public platform. And what I will say to this is that look, you know, anyone if you don't even know when you can propagate it, but you can't, if you only know one is so to speak, then don't go beyond that, and simply relate as is. And if someone asks you a question, you don't know, it's, it's not hard, you don't lose the debate by saying that, look, I haven't started that in that particular depth. This is first time I'm hearing of it. But I know friends of mine, or colleagues of mine that do know, so Inshallah, I will go ask them, and I'll get
back to you after the bait are published on the online, or respond to you to that point, simply because they I don't know, but they know. So you don't relinquish the point, you don't say that your opponent has got a point of view, because no one will blame you. If you as an individual, just don't know the answer. Right? They'll blame Islam, if it looks like Islam doesn't have the answer. So you make a delineation between Islam and yourself, to your to your opponents, and so on so forth. And, you know, as,
as Imam Malik said, you know, half of wisdom is saying, I don't know. So there's, there's no shame to say, I don't know. So anyone could give that out, as long as you restrict it to what you know, for absolute certain and you Don't speculate you don't go beyond their remit, because non Muslims, even in interpersonal discussions you have and we're not talk about formal debates, but just like with your co workers, your friends, your neighbors, or what have you. No one's gonna say, Well, look, if you don't ask me all my questions right now, I will never come back to discussing Islam with you. So no, they will wait. Oh, okay. Come back to me, then I want to have an answer for this.
So there's no problem with doing that. But also the other the other limitation, I would say is that if a Muslim is prone to conflating, again, Islam with their own self, such that if they are not seen, if they if there seem to be caught out by their opponent or their opponent makes personal attacks, they need to understand that
your opponent really doesn't hate you in particular, they hate they might have an issue of Islam, out of ignorance or out of, of cough or whatever motivates them. It's not you personally, especially many of these debates, they just meet you the first time they might hate what you represent, or they're angry about what they perceive you represent. So never take things personally.
If you have the Huck, it is their problem with the hackers is their problem. It's not it's not a problem with you. But if you react
by taking personal offense, then you have the problem. And that is something I'd like to warn people. So there's no problem going to the baits, as long as you stick to your lane. Don't go beyond what you know. And if you ask anything, never ever, ever speculate, right, so as the client says Dan does not evade Yvonne speculation or doubt is not available.
And it is extremely important points about a coffee come, one last sort of thought or maybe clarification for those not familiar with the Muslim debate initiative or your work? Do you do sort of inter Muslim or more sectarian debates? Are you focused mostly on non Muslims? And maybe people who are, maybe even ascribe themselves to Islam that are very, very far afield? Should we be sort of, is there a proportionality at play? Like, should we where should most of our energy go? Or talking about debate?
I'd say, my personal opinion, and I'm gonna say this is my opinion, as in I could be wrong. And so I differentiate from when I took a report facts like, in this year this thing happened or as a factual claim, but but in this is my opinion. I think currently, a lot of the Muslim world isn't mature enough for inter Muslim debates. It usually ends up with rank or insults.
Sometimes even talks here, and I'm not talking about between Sunnis antibodies and cheer I'm talking about amongst Sundays even right.
And so I would I try to avoid that. Because I don't see, I don't see much benefit in it, considering that our problems
are far larger than the discussion. Now, of course, for some people, you know, the baiting of Smarter thoughts, for example, and the nature of it is the biggest issue for them, they think, Well,
if you don't take our position on this, you this is covered, and what have you. So they would say it's a matter of cover. But you see, I, I kind of stick with the edge mark as a die, I stick with the edge amount of the score of the classical scholars, and I can't I make as my limitation, what the Sahaba has had HML upon, and what the classical scholars had HMR upon. So the classical scholars never had H ma upon the debates on things like smarter fat. And so if I'm going to weighed in, as a non scholar, as a lay person, as very presumptuous of me, to start to argue with full confidence, when people fall far beyond me, had mode, different positions on the matter, I will simply say, I
confess my ignorance, and I can't engage in that with any kind of confidence due to my ignorance. So, and the classical scholars have often said that the layman have different sides of the of these discussions, or not to not to be condemned as coal fired or what have you, because it is beyond their knowledge, these these matters. So, that's really where I stick their position, which might be controversial because many Muslim, many lay people want to wade into these debates, as if they're the ones that are going to resolve something that wasn't resolved for 1300 years between people far more qualified than themselves. So I'm not saying that people can't discuss it, it's great, we
should discuss everything. I'm simply saying that I will confess my ignorance to the math even though I've read quite substantially in this because I'm very, very curious my than I read as much, but I confess my ignorance and so I don't enter those subjects, which are a matter of the afterlife. But as a die, I've limited myself to only those things, couldn't those things where there is each mark, and make and make two exceptions on the matter. One is, of course, I am someone from Atlas and the watcher, Matt. So I won't be advocating, for example, a Shia concept of Khilafah or a, which is an Islamic summit governance that all Muslims are meant to be under. And I won't be arguing, you
know, the about the conception of
rulers and things like this, because they deem that maybe if a moolah commits a major sin, and they are, they've left Islam, right, so I'm from Atlanta, Georgia, Matt. So I have to say, Well, look, the majority precedents of human of Muslim history was Sunni caliphate system. And
to some extent, it was under Hanafi Hanafi conceptions of how to deal with that or demand things like this. So that's where I might step and say, Well look, because these were played in the past practically and it was majority Hanafi thick. I will, I will attempt to discuss some of those things, even if I know if I might not follow those particular schools of thoughts and everything. But that's just as an adoption for the sake of arguing for a practical model today of re implementing the philosopher but apart from that, I
They're far clearer from any matters of love amongst the most of them.
Yeah, and Shala eloquently stated and mashallah, I think that's an extremely mature disposition and orientation I have, Allah bless you and the work that you do.
Switching gears a little bit, you know, we had coincidentally sort of released some things about about human rights and human rights as one of the dominant frames that occupies bodies and minds,
to say nothing of international law and policy. These days now, when I presented sort of a workshop, deconstructing human rights at econo mass convention, some time briefly ago, the first thing I did was I told her when to close her eyes. And I asked him a question. I said, raise your hands, if you think that universal rights are applicable to everybody, and generally a good thing. And this was a young Muslim audience, probably, you know, 30 and under, and probably around half, I'd say, 50% of people raise their hands. And so I said, Great, well, that means that I have a purpose in speaking here today. And we proceeded for it. But it goes to show sort of diagnostically that there are many
people that are committed Muslims, they pray five times a day, they are asking Chanology Ma, they, you know, have normative sort of Islamic identity and, and faith, yet they think that human rights is something that is neutral, it is something that is universally applicable, and it's something that is generally good. What would you say in response to such a person?
I'd say don't believe the propaganda that arose after World War Two, by the Victorian Western nations, but
I'd say be care, beware anyone who argues
that their values and ideas
obviously, except for those who are Muslim and who believe in the deen of Islam, because, well, if when they created the entire universe decree is something that it pretty much is quite literally universal, right. But anyone who declares manmade things to be universal, is that should raise very serious red flags of us. The one obvious argument is that anyone could make is that no one agrees with what human rights means.
Human rights is something that people invoke simply based on imagination, I have a human right that for my pronouns to be mandatorily recognized right? By anyone I demand of, so they must use my pronoun that's my human rights that's sorry, according to which, which book of Revelation Did you receive? You know, which, you know, engraving on stone? Really?
Ancient engraving Are you are you relating to refer to our rights here that seems to be universal nature to whatever your WHY NOT they just made it up. It reminds me of the story of the King who has no clothes I don't know if you if you know this story. Oh, yeah, very famous. To paraphrase and simplify the story. So basically, you know that the king goes to tailor the tailor
kind of is scamming the king in a sense and pretends to sell something, pretend to sew a garment, but the king can't see anything. And then he puts it on the king so to speak, and the kings like, this is nothing. I don't see if he looks he doesn't see anything. And then a Taylor says, it's a special, special Fred's special clothes, these clothes like magical, only those people who are truly worthy can see it. So the king doesn't want to look like he's not worthy. Because Oh, yes, yes. Yes. Very nice. Very nice cloth, thank you very much. And he goes walking down the street in the parade, or what have you and everyone and then you know, it gets told that these are special clothes, the
only people worthy of their station, can can see. And so every one that pretends Oh, yeah, very nice clothes, very nice clothes. But that reality is the king is walking down completely naked in public.
And it's that's very much a kind of a metaphor for for Human Rights, which is, if we will pretend that a particular right exists, but based on someone's declaration, then we all just pretend go along with the pretense, but it is it is a pretense it is something that was just simply concocted. And it changed over time.
If you if, if you could take the most avid human rights defender woke is of woke individuals, as I say, referring to modern Neo Marxist movements, and you take their videos, and then you let's say you put into a time capsule for 20 years and you open up in 20 years time. And the people who see them say, oh, this person is such an intolerant bigots or is a bit bigger. They're clearly against these human rights of things that never was even conceived of in that time. So that is, is basically what happens in the West is that
it gets changed because
You know, it's like fiat currency, you know, paper money, the bank could just print out more and print out new denominations and with new new engravings on immune design, and you know, people just accept it. But even though it's devalued, because it could be just printed up, but it has its artificial value, but only has value because we will pretend that it does. And that is the best metaphor for humans speculated. Right? That's excellent. So in a nutshell, like, the critique that you're putting forth, right here is that as foundationally, right, human rights is coming from a human effort, and human intellectual output, and therefore,
it's literally and categorically impossible that it could be universal, okay, because for various reasons, through time and through space, and we see actually, all you have to do, you can empirically observe this, if you only just pay attention to the unfolding of history, the human rights that people thought that they were entitled to say in 1945, are very different from the human rights that people thought they were entitled to in 1985, are very, very different from the human rights people are claiming to be entitled to in 2023, which is already a condemnation, that this is not really a universal thing. If it had been universal, then it should have been unchanging, and it
should have been equally applicable to everybody. So that's a very important critique. What else do people do have any other thoughts? I have my own sort of thoughts, I approach it in sort of a different way. But are there? What are other sort of angles of critique that people need to really understand about human rights and the human rights frame? Because it's, it's like everything? In these days, like, it's presented so beautifully, right? You know, it's like, who could possibly be opposed to human rights? I was what sort of barbarian Are you? Right? And so, for a lot of people, it's very, very difficult to get through and get past that sort of beautification, how it's been
attached to all the hill, and, and the pageantry of being enshrined in the United Nations and international law. And there's all these sorts of like you said, The Emperor's New, new clothes, there's all these sorts of pageantry and ceremony around it, that gives it sort of credibility. So are there any other sort of lines of critique that you'd like to open specifically about human rights that somebody should say, okay, not only is it the effort of human labor, and therefore is going to be, by definition, limited and not universal. But there are other sort of very fundamental things that are that are wrong with thinking that this is the frame that we should advocate for what
Yeah, well, I want to make clear that there's a difference between believing in rights for humans, and what the West understands as human rights. So everyone, every dean out there, all the different ideas that are out there, they all believe in particular rights for human beings. But we all differ as to what those rights are. In essence, human rights is like a propaganda buzzword used by usually by liberals
to refer to their rights as being universal. It's much like for example, the, you know, that the Catholic Church or give an example. So often people don't understand what the word Catholicos means. It's a Catholic, but the origin of the word, and it means universal enough, because they then the nickname that what they call themselves wasn't just we're just the church of Rome.
No, they are the is to translate it for Muslim I suppose. The Universal Jamaat, right? The church means from Ecclesia means Gemma Mike gallery community.
Yeah, congregation. So they made themselves out to be universal, but there was rival Christian sects out there, but they declared themselves not aware the universal ones and so you know, you, you just accept it. Of course, the Eastern Orthodox they call themselves offer doxa which also means saying that they are of correct belief, the alrights belief. Everyone gives themselves fancy names, as the Quran says, you know, they will, they will refer to themselves with these fancy names. A smartphone, right. So yeah, yeah, just just names you've made up for yourself. Yeah, of course. And liberalism, as a you could say, as a particular religion,
amongst others has given itself this this kind of universal name, that the Soviet Union who were Marxists,
ostensibly anyway, they actually were hesitant to sign the United Nations Human Rights declaration because they fought it was a capitalist bourgeois document,
guaranteeing things which, in capitalism will cause it to be human rights such as the right to private ownership.
Ship of properties which gives wildlife example owning your own farm, a cap, a Marxist would say that is not a human right, that deprives the people of wealth producing properties, which should be commonly owned by everybody. So they would disagree with that as a human right?
Even though they've also materialist. So this is one of the angles we should criticize is that it's not universal, because not everyone can agree, even liberals don't agree on rights within liberalism, there's a famous joke about liberal
kind of ethical philosophers and things like this, which is, the only thing that they can agree on is the word liberalism. And that's it, because they disagree with anything else. So the idea that there's human rights and the fact and the fact that you can interpret, for example, the Human Rights document any which way, even if you adopt the United Nations kind of concoction there, it can be interpreted in so many ways that so many countries actually signed up to it only because it was so broad or so or loud, so much variation that they could get away with whatever they were believing in, in the first place. Kind of there was loopholes that allowed you to kind of put aside or limit
certain rights for the what is necessary for a state or a quote unquote, democratic society? Yes, no, that was that was actually one of the slides of my presentation showing the discrepancy between the so called a sort of right in the UN Charter to religious freedom, and practice. And then you scroll down to I forget which article 3031 or something like that, where it basically says all the rights are limited by the state, according to public order and public morality, what are the sort of sort of dictates of the nation state? So very disappointing, a supposedly universal, bold, ostensibly document about the human spirit, we're still trapped in the nation state to recognize and
and, and create sort of enforce those rights? Which is another sort of important Yes, go ahead. I tell you something that might shock you. So when France implemented the hijab ban in schools, some people some Muslims took France to court in the European Court of Human Rights, saying that this undermines their religious freedom with his rights, and the French Republic, relied upon
its article 29,
which said that you can limit rights in accordance with what is deemed to be necessary for prediction of morals and the functioning of a democratic society. It was argued by French products successfully in the court ruled in the in favor of France, that they were not in breach of quote, unquote, human rights, because they were implementing restrictions that were deemed required for the functioning of a democratic society, quote, unquote, and France said, we are a secular society and we hate we're aiming to protect people from religion. So that's our secularism is to protect people from being coerced or forced by religion. So our schools must be neutral, and so on, so forth.
And that and that passed in favor. So intolerance against Muslims practicing their Deen was accepted as part of human rights. Yeah, now that there are similar other cases.
So that's not shocking to me at all. That's actually very on brand.
That Allah said enough footnote of one of his books, he pointed out the history of the term crimes against humanity, I thought it was also very telling is that the first use of the term crimes against humanity was actually instituted in the treaty, I don't speak French, I can't pronounce it have several that sort of carved up the Ottoman Empire and what basically, they had, as I'm sure you're aware, had a portion parts of Anatolia, to different European powers they had given they were planning on giving some to the UK and some to Greece and some to Italy and whatnot.
And they were preparing sort of the language of the treaty in order to justify this land grab. Of course, we know historically, what happened, most of our canals sort of fought back at Gallipoli and one and actually, you know, got the sort of the borders that the colonial plan never happened. But in their justification, you know, they were pointing to Armenia and they and the sort of, you know, there are legit atrocities against Armenians, and they use the language crimes against Christendom. Okay, but at that point, I think I believe it was France that intervened and said, Wait a second, we can't say that. Because if we do, it's going to be Islam against Christianity. We have a lot of
Muslim colonies, Algeria, etc. And so they change the language from crimes against Christendom to crimes against humanity. And so we see that humanity is merely just, again as Matlin Some may two more her words with no content really, that's really a euphemism for the Christian European self, that the concern that animated the use of this term was a particular subject not a universal subject, a particular subject which was the European Christian
But we can't in polite society say that anymore. So we have to use the word, the terms of the crimes against humanity and human rights in order to sort of disguise the partisan nature of the regime of rights. I found that absolutely fascinating. Yeah, I mean, as I said,
as soon as soon as Muslims adopt the word,
human rights, and argue from that basis to non Muslims, you are already conceding that in this particular case, liberalism really is the arbiter of what is good and bad. And therefore you must argue, on their basis. Now, I would say that the best approach is simply you can you can argue to non Muslims that you say, well, like you guys, per se, you believe in x, y, and Zed particular rights and look how you contradict yourself on these matters. I also give an example from the Quran, where Allah subhanaw taala, you know, argues that, you know, has Allah preferred for you sons and taken for him, himself, daughters, because the Quran was believed that it was a big shame for
someone to have their firstborn child to be female, and the preferred males. And of course, if a man had only female daughters, this was the worst shame of them all. And yet they ascribed it to Allah subhanaw taala. Now, now, in the Quran, Allah subhanaw taala is not, you know, kind of justifying? This particular idea simply is pointing out the inconsistency, the hypocrisy in their own belief systems than what they are happy to do to do this, and which is also shaped by the way to do this to our last point, I'll let you ascribe them only daughters and he is the highest upon high and yet for humans, is considered to be Oh, no, we could only have sons. Of course, having daughters is really
bad. So this is, you know, how we one of the ways I've suggested and how I've engaged non Muslim Advocates of quote unquote human rights, I often say, I use their own ideas to reduction absurd and but also to show the contradictions, how they behave inconsistently with it, how in of itself, it is inconsistent. And how then I can say, now the deen of Islam is consistent, it offers consistent sets of rights. That's an extremely profound point about how Allah subhanaw taala uses that sort of line of argumentation. There's a group of verses and sorts of Matiu that I'm sure you're familiar with, that Christians and Jews sort of always refer to, as indicating that their religions are valid and
remain valid. And those are the sorts of verses where last patata is sort of claiming are basically issuing a literal imperative for them to follow what's in their books. However, in the context is exactly what you're mentioning, Allah is found I was actually blaming them for their hypocrisy, because they were coming to the Prophet Mohammed salah they said I'm for rulings. And they were choosing them when they wanted when it when it suited them and then abandoning them when it didn't suit them. And so the context of this, this verse, or these groups of verses, is actually pointing out that hypocrisy is that they're not really looking to follow the guidance that allows found data
set and they're only trying to, you know, game it, and she and follow whatever they want.
There's another interesting sort of line. So when I had sort of had my presentation and subsequent sort of gave it at our local masjid, the entry point that I used to critique human rights, beyond everything that you've mentioned, is the definition of what is a human being that's implicit, is that a lot of people when they talk about human rights, they focus immediately on the rights. And that's fine, because as you said, the rights are mutually contradictive. Nobody, nobody agrees on what they are. People have different conceptions about what they should feel entitled to as rights. But the definition of who is a human being in the first place, completely determines our idea of
what we think we're entitled to in terms of rights. And so if you have a secular definition of a human being, right, that the human being is material matter, that's it. And they only have this life, there is no God, there is no afterlife, or at least, they're not essential. You might believe in that as part of your culture and your heritage and tradition and things like that. But we're not taking it ontologically seriously, that it's actually actually exists. The things that I think I'm entitled to, are vastly different than a person who believes in the afterlife, they believe in a creator, they believe in heaven and hell, right? If you're somebody who's a materialist, and your
definition of a human being is materialist, then this is all you have. This life is your one shot. You know, you only live once they say, and so now to be deprived of any opportunity, whether that opportunity is to sort of self actualize, to be called by your pronouns, to have sex with whoever you want to have it with, to own anything.
To experience anything is seen as a crime of the highest order, because you're taking away the enjoyment from the one chance that this person has in their existence. Whereas if your calculus is based on the fact that this isn't your real life, your real life starts the moment that your soul is extracted from your body, you go down to the grave, you experience either punishment or bliss in the grave, and then you await resurrection, you're going to be resurrected. And then you're going to be judged, the entire calculus of what you think that you're entitled to completely changes, you're not entitled to those sorts of opportunities here on Earth, you actually have to restrict your desires
and things like that, and live within a certain frame, so that you're successful in the next realm. So it's very, very important, you know, language is extremely important. And many of these sorts of many of these debates and these battles are fought on what we call things, you see that the LGBTQ movement has been unfortunately successful with how they've shaped the language of the debate to talk about things in terms of homosexual or heterosexual is already something that puts us on the backfoot and shifts the terrain against us to talk about, you know, love is love, and love wins. And it's all just about all this sort of thing, as put us on the defensive in a very sort of compromised
position. So we say human, and everybody thinks we're talking about the same thing. But we're actually talking about completely different things, you and I believe in one type of human being very, very different from the type of human being that a materialist or a secularists believes in. And people need to think about that more I think, more critically, when they they consider or they imagine that human rights is something that's going to benefit them.
Well, not totally the foundational principle of what the West calls human rights is the the liberal model of human beings, which, arguably, it dates back to, I suppose, John Locke, although you could say Thomas Hobbes, inadvertently set the groundwork for it, which is, in essence, some academics call this possessive individualism, which is you, as any are an individual human who owns their own body. And I noticed this, that you mentioned that too, during your lecture, that, that this understanding this underpinning kind of foundation behind human rights is that the individual owns themselves. And then from that basis, then, good and bad is determined by what the individual
consents their body to be useful, or what consents the what to do with their body and, to some extent, their property which of the earth which was left a bit ambiguous by John Malkin, and led to late XLR as to who owns the earth and who owns the resources and the base between the mark systems and liberals and conservatives on on ownership, but the everyone there's edge ma across these different schools of thought as to the individual owns their own body. So that's the that's the agreement, you could say it's the enlightenment, quote, unquote, the Enlightenment ideal. So based on that premise, then consent is the full pan of good and bad of Halal haram in their viewpoint. And
as Muslims, obviously, you know, I just, we must critique this initial basis, if we just accept that as as the basis then we have to accept everything that comes with it, so many Muslims. And I think you again, pointed this out in your lecture, as well, that they say, my body my choice to let me wear the hijab fumble, and I say, okay, great, you know, all right, fine, but then you can't be in moral opposition to people who want to engage in same sex intercourse or extramarital intercourse, premarital intercourse, because it's their body, their choice. And if you think that this only has political ramifications, some people have imbibed it into
a kind of religious principles. So ever wondered why things is called Why secular liberalism is called secular liberalism. And like, why isn't that a tautology is because liberalism is secular why you call a secular liberalism. That's because it has a twin brother called religious liberalism. And that's when you just take the same principle and you apply it into religion. So you'll see
liberal Reformed Judaism and liberal Christians, they will argue that you know, what sent you to hell is not that you don't worship the Creator or you're you happen to be an atheist or what have you. It's only if you're if you if you rape people if you commit murder, but all the things that liberalism itself condemns. If you're as long as you're a good person, which just means more sociable maybe.
You respect Yeah, yeah. And you wish that you respect everybody's consensual choices, then that gets you into heaven with regardless
of your religion. And so religious liberals, whichever religion, whichever flavor of religion, they claim or label, vestigial remnant of religion they claim to be from they all will agree and you'll find this with those who quote, still call themselves Muslim, but they have adopted with the stipulation they are they agreed they would argue that all religions are a path to God, that it's not a problem, whether you
you kind of do Zina or what have you, as long as you're a good person it was it was consensual, you know, God wants them or what have you, and they they will change their religion. So the principles are not just political principles, but because these principles once you adopt them, and eventually humans will universalize humans will always universalize wherever inside themselves, whatever principles they adopt, they don't compartmentalize, okay, I'm only going to be liberal in my political and my understanding of politics, but I won't be liberal in my theology. No, if you adopt principles, it's human nature that they you begin to universalize them and if they're false, then
you're the falsehood will encompass all of your your worldview. And so that is a an issue that I've noticed. So yes, if we engaged with non Muslims on issue a few of us demanding our rights, it shouldn't be because my body our choice, but rather
quick, two points. One is that but as Muslims, we are sonically obliged to worship the Creator to, there is no other meaning to human life other than submission to the Creator, which really is just an acknowledgement of reality itself.
And we acknowledge it with our actions, our tongue, our hearts, that's really what submission means. And so, so we we have Dean our belief compels us to do this right. As one prophet said that in the Quran, our Salah was, as his people should ask, the law compels us to do this right? Our submission to create a worship of Him.
But you guys claim, X, Y and Zed, you guys say that we're, you know, we're allowed to do this. And now you are being hypocritical to your own principles here, instead, and then that's the the means we have to account there is a verse in the Quran, which I'm sure you're aware, which is this dispute, not with people the book unless you witness them committing injustice. But the thing is, you if, if, in this particular case, injustice refers to not following the Quran and Sunnah. Well, they don't because they're Christians and Jews, and of course they don't fall across on. But what is it that what does it then mean? What it means that they're not being consistent to the principles
they claim they adopt? Because if someone that's someone's principle, you can say, well, they might be wrong, but at least they're being sincere to the principles, and maybe they're just ignorant. But if they're hypocritical, then this is Norfolk. This is not
them being principled as a plumber, you see, it'd been Tamia and Imam Ghazali discussing
other civilizations who weren't Muslim. And how they had longevity because they were consistent applying the principles in Saudi brought the Persian Empire as an example that they had longevity because not because they were applying the Sharia or because they were believers in the deen and but only because whatever misguided ideas they believed in they were, they were consistent applying it and so that people were not going to be angry because it was said, Well, okay, at least you're playing it consistently, then we can't argue against that. So that's why I would argue, is, is what the Quran is kind of advising us to do on that value. It's commanding us to do that. Don't just do
the people the book, unless they commit injustice to their principles, basically, that's a crucial point. And and it's, it's dawned on me in the last year or two, that there seems to be a significant divide between people of principle or the concept of principle versus identity. And I think that especially the first couple of chapters of the Quran, Allah Batra and Adam Ron, are almost can be read as a call to principle and a call away from identity, that's almost to shift a little bit to another thing, similar to the the consent argument, obviously, the last one without a problem is is the idea of consent. And so it was a bucket where he says, perhaps you might like a thing and it's
bad for you. And perhaps you might dislike a thing and it's good for you. Well, there goes your consent right there.
So they're in a similar way, in a similar way, we have adopted the language of identity. And there are maybe there's there's a couple of ways in which that can be decent. Yes, you want to identify yourself with a righteous Muslim sort of either mentor or a figure or a model to pattern your behavior off of to sort of, you know, comport yourself to that makes sense, but identity has a severe
limitations for how we are sort of conceptualizing ourselves as individuals and this whole thing that we're supposed to be doing. And it seems to me that Allah is bound to audit criticizes bene Israel either. And then the Christians after them, for this departure from following principles to forming an identity around there, sort of basically what they did was Allah sent them a prophet, or in the case of any Australian, multiple prophets, and instead of realizing that the whole point was, Are you going to be people of principle, you're going to follow the guidance, wherever you find it, you're going to listen to Allah's commands, wherever you find it, they converted it into an identity
of what we are God's chosen people know, that's who we are. Now, we are saved due to who we are our identity. And that was something that actually set them up to fail the ultimate test, which is when what happens when another prophet comes, or another prophet is sent outside of your tribe, or sent to a group of people that you consider outside of your in group. Now you've set yourself up for kofler. Because you have ceased to be a person of principle, if you had been a person in principle, you would have follow the truth wherever you found it, you've become a person of identity, and your sense of identity is somewhat misplaced, or around the wrong things. And so you are going to do
whatever you have to do to preserve this identity that you've structured and built for yourself at the expense of following the truth and at the expense of following Allah's guidance. I'm not sure I'm sure you could add to that when it comes to identity. Well, unfortunately, it is a common human trait of Serbia.
Which means in fatwa like group ism, as opposed by groupism, not that you have groups, organizations, no, it's,
I suppose, best delineated by the term you know, my country, right or wrong, my group right or wrong. And, you know, there's many Hadith by the prophet muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa salam, who
kind of defined or explained to us what a Serbia is, Serbia, is to support your kind of your, your group or your people in wrong and in oppression when they are not in the right. And that's very interesting, because if you, if you only support people, when they're in the right, then your cause is, is was always going to be righteousness, and it will never be then based on quote, unquote, whatever gives worldly power to your group, or group interests. And it reminds me of
what as I said, you know, there's a hadith about that, you know, hikma, the last property of the believer and, you know, many non Muslims, for those who don't have revelation can be right sometimes I said, a broken clock is right, twice a day, right.
And so, you know, Abraham Lincoln said, I've once famously said, I don't care if I'm if God's on my side, as long as I'm on his side. Right. And so but that's, that's something that a Muslim Of course, we we believe, anyway, which is,
we have to we have to care about whether we are what we're doing is correct. Even if it means that we have to reprimand our friends, we have to
face some hard truths about those who even did favors for us. And they come calling for a favorite say, Brother, I, you know, I did this for you. Could you help me in this situation? And you say, it's not right, what you're doing so broke, I helped you? Are you going to be ungrateful now? And I say, Well, no, but I can't be ungrateful to Allah subhanaw taala instead, and that's really the mentality that as Muslims, we need to, we need to adopt. I wanted to make I want to make two points before I forget them, because they just occurred to me. So I hope you don't mind I'll backtrack very quickly.
I want to I try to, I try to kind of give Muslims intellectual ammunition to fight some of these, these discussions. And so when it comes to the issue of ownership, when you discuss the we own ourselves, was what materialists argue, you can attack it from one from one angle, which I usually do what you say, did you create yourself so as to own yourself?
In some cultures, it was believed that your parents own you because they made you that was the belief. Do you have a bill of sale where you purchased yourself from that which created you, partly in order to claim that you have ownership, excuse me for laughing because I had I had a Christian friend who was a practicing Catholic, he was Puerto Rican. And he used to say to his son, I brought you into this world and I can take you out of this world. And so it just came into an older sort of idea of property. So but do continue Cipolla.
Now, I used this argument, but then I realized I could go a step further, which is you could challenge any materialist and say, were in the material universe.
Is there the concept of ownership at all?
All you have in the universe is matter, energy and forces. There's gravity. I mean, like, do we say the sun owns us? Because we're in the sun's gravity? Well, does the Earth own us because we're in the Earth's gravity? Well,
there is no such concept as ownership outside of Revelation.
Because really, the only thing that ownership means is that from we have a from our perspective anyway. Or the human understanding of ownership could only ever mean for us that we were given temporary rights, but restricted rights of use usage, to use us ourselves in ways specified by the one who created us. But we don't have absolute right of ownership, only God has absolute right, of ownership, meaning that he controls us fully. And you know, some people say, Oh, but I can control myself. So surely, you know, I owe myself and you also said this as well, in your in your lecture, notice that as well that some people argue, I can control myself. So surely I must own myself and
say, Okay, well, then I can go and steal your car. And if I go to court, I say so. Right, Judge? I hope why it is. So I was in control. That's why I own it. Yep. Right. So that's obviously it's ridiculous. So materialists can't even justify the very concept of ownership, which is not a physical concept. But is it what you might call a metaphysical concept beyond the physical, let alone that we own our bodies, whereas at least as Muslims, we can justify not only that, it is Allah subhanaw taala that owns us. But that ownership itself is meaningless outside of that context of the of the Creator. And I think the last point wants to add, which I was kind of reminded to and I
wanted to say earlier on, and I'll say it very quickly, as I've noticed, and I've noticed for many years I've been I've debated, people who call themselves modernists. So basically, they're just liberals who are from a Muslim background who evangelize to Muslims. That's simple as that. They evangelize liberalism to Muslims, and they use Muslim texts. They do mental gymnastics and Muslim texts to justify. Now they they often, they often use the example of the mortality law. They say, these were the rationalists, or the martyrs. Allah doesn't mean that anyway, it doesn't mean the nothing to do with Apple did the name anyway. But they they believe that morality could be discerned
by the icon and didn't require revelation. So you know, that, you know, shows that there's some kind of universal morals that can be deduced. And our movement has universal human rights argument, a kind of
proposition that just coincidentally happens to be completely consistent with 20 of the 20th century Western ideas of human rights and now 21st century two, just coincidentally, of course, of course. So I often point out that well, you do, but you do know that the mortaza they believed in this, you know, that the the stomach kind of
conditions of, of, let's say, Well, I suppose you could say I'm gonna say slavery, the treatment of slaves wasn't they didn't believe that was abolished. They didn't believe that they didn't believe that, you know, Zina should be allowed because it's consensual between now they believe they should be punished.
Even if it is consensual between two adults, they believed that's, you know, same sex intercourse is forbidden.
They believe they was they adopted or believed everything that the common age might have all the Muslims believed for 1300 years. And yet, you refer to them because you say that they were a they believed in Auckland, awkward could discern morals, ie a universal, timeless set of morals and get you disagree with their morals, by which their morals were completely in terms of the fifth anyway, was more or less in line with at least the HMR of the classical scholars are pretty much almost completely. Right. So this is a little irony. I like to notice that, you know, don't try to anachronistically find
people from the back past and say they're, they're your team, they're not your friends, they would condemn you, yourself. If they were, if that's
it's a very, very well known trick. I mean, even how people martial the Greeks, right? And it's like, you know, how do I always try to bring this up to people who find it distasteful about slavery and the fifth books are what we call an English slavery, I would I would advocate for the need for further refinement in the terms that we use because usually, we think of chatel slavery when we use the word slavery in English and that's doesn't really adequately describe the system in Islamic law. So you know, someone comes to Islam or they encounter
Ansar Islam, and they are so horrified by the justification of our tolerance of slavery. And yet they look so fondly upon the Greeks, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, who were at least,
at least that took the existence of slaves for granted and defended it and actually worse, worse, worse than anything that can be found in Islam. Because in Islam, there is no slavery of an existential.
We could say, type, you know, like people don't inherently do to who they are, deserve to be enslaved. It is sort of a condition where they're prisoners of war, you know, it's a very sort of circumstantial thing. Whereas the Greek philosophers justify slavery as an existential fact that these people are intended to be slaves that can be nothing else, but slaves. And yet look at the emotional sort of relationship that people have, you know, one to the other. And you see people selectively marshaling the past as it as it suits them. So final law, I mean, just to add a quick kind of caveat for people listening in. I did a I did a lecture on this. And so So I would argue
that yes, the English word and isn't it's an English word, there's no there's no
hokum that says, you must use this particular English word to refer to
I know, you could say, Hola, meow, or you know,
use of those who are
like you, right. But
the in Islam, we, okay. People say, surely the condition which all English people are in English translation has been currently called slavery is something which is, in his view to be a negative condition. It's not a pleasant one, I say, Well, yeah, of course, liberalism views bankruptcy as a bad condition, when yet it allows bankruptcy to be a condition that will be will be bankrupt, there'll be labels bankrupt, they'll face certain social conditions for being bankrupt. And yet it doesn't abolish it. But every liberal would not want anyone to be under in bankruptcy, it's not the great condition to be in yet it is a it is allowed due to certain necessities, I'd say the Islamic
position is, is that
is also from all sorts of factors. Also fracturing rights, you can you can use, if someone has capital in warfare, you can use them to do labor, but not too much not and beyond their capacity, fructose to benefit from the fruits of their labor. So you can employ them to do work and make a profit from that work. But not applesauce, which is the right to, to dispose of them, right. But in order to fully own something, you have to have all three rights, which is read all source, fructose and abou sauce, right, which is formulated, but only our last part, Allah has all three rights upon human beings. And so as Muslims, we don't believe that in an absolute sense, there is a human being
can actually own another human being an app in a absolute cosmological sense, you could say, but rather, it's a name and you know, rep meaning to own the neck right so to speak, or to, to hold the neck or those which are right hands possess
is one of you have like a temporary control over them. But that even that the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu wasallam, forbade us from calling us and saying, you know, my slave, or they call you master, but they should call you say it and say that and things like this, and you should call them
like, Julia like my girl or my boy, you know. So this is the kind of, you know, this is the summit perspective, it's not translating a slave in English then connotes in people's minds. That is exactly the same as the Western understanding and also the Greek understanding of slavery were in certain conditions you could do whatever you want to say if you completely own them, you could abuse them, you could beat them, you could kill them. And the only time the west and in history they ever brought restriction and killing the slaves was because there was slave revolts, there was so many slave revolts because of bad and insane, abusive kind of owners that they wanted to limit that so
they said okay, look, guys who is right, you know, don't be you can't be up the slaves like this to this degree. You know, you can't beat them up but not to like this degree or you can't kill them because we want to stop having these slave revolts because it but it was more of a practical issue, some universal ethical issue that they derive and your rights, you know, Aristotle gave one of them, you know, deemed to be
the man who studied, made logical, the kind of subject of study and was deemed to be very, a man of Arkell, quote, unquote, a man of intellect
just to give a full blown justification for the natural condition.
Have there been three tiers in society? men than women than slaves? And yet, people argue that oh, it's against this universal human rights such that there can exist coerced labor, who was work, and I'll finish his last point that I've been dragging on a bit.
Because that's in front of that. That's the two funny points. And I often try to point this out to everyone who just doesn't seem to maybe be not aware.
The everyone knows the 13th Amendment is quite infamous, that slavery actually isn't abolished in nicest of America. It's only abolished for generally people who are who are free law abiding, but if you commit a crime, in theory, it is the state is within its full right to enslave you as a punishment for crime. Of course, there are some people who made some issues or made some issues of this, they say, well, that's not fair. And say, Okay, well, we'll pay them like 13 cents an hour or something, really, a whole tree
to say, oh, it's not technically slavery, because we are paying them something. It's just ridiculous. They are paying them. What was the joke is that they're not prisoners. Sorry, they're not slaves. They're prisoners with jobs right. Now, that's the joke. But there's also something else that people don't realize is the third Geneva Convention allows you to compel prisoners of war to do labor.
Right? Why is that not called slavery? That's called commonly held labor. Right. And yet, it's done pretty pretty much does the same thing with from the standard sending effect, which is, you know, captors of war, you know, can do labor, but there's restrictions on what you can, can make them do. And Geneva Convention does the same thing. So why is it that Islam is deemed to be, quote, unquote, barbaric, but the Geneva Convention seems to be modern and enlightened and civilized. So yeah, well done. Well done. That's excellent stuff. And subhanAllah, we, the time has flown, and I feel like we could have probably multiple, multiple discussions just like this. I think two of the two of the
things that that crystallized for me in this entire discussion is that Muslims are people of principle, and we should demand that other people be consistent. And I think that that dovetails really well with the sort of strategy and tactics that you use in a debate, as well as in your own life, right? We demand principles from ourselves, and we demand ourselves to be consistent. And we demand that of other people too. And if not, then we're definitely going to find it and pointed out shortly, I will caveat to that, that I I aspire to be a person of principle, I'm, I am keenly aware of the mountain of my mistakes I've done, all of us and all I can, All I can hope to do is to make
to continue the project of changing myself to align with Allah's decree, and to be a consistent worship of Allah subhanaw taala in all and every facet of the obligations that have been obliged upon me that mean for you and me and everybody watching as well. Beautiful words and I think appropriate ones to end on. Abdullah Andalusi thank you so much for joining us for today. I really look forward to meeting you in person inshallah soon, and hopefully before then we can have some further discussion about a coffee cup. Well, yeah. Thanks for having me on.