Refuting FEMINISM & NEO-MARXISM - Islam: Left or Right? (Day 3) Abdullah Al-Andalusi

is an international speaker thinker and intellectual activist for Islam and Muslim Affairs he's an instructor at head of the Department of expedientology and under art institute and co-founder of the um sorry about the discussion forum the Muslim debate initiative has delivered talks internationally on the question of the purpose of life the existence of God the miracle of the Quran the superiority of the Sharia as a social social and political system and Islamic economic economics [Music] he has spoken in community centers universities colleges and programs on TV and radio channels including the BBC ITV Al Jazeera Islam Channel flat TV he has also he also has increased in a number of debates with atheists the clearest agnostics liberals and Christians on the various on the variety of topics from Theology of anti-political philosophy without further Ado please welcome alhamdulillah greetings of peace so on this day World turbine angelabia day right yeah okay anyway I'll just go with turban jelly be a day today um so we're discussing a very interesting topic feminism and gender Theory I'd like to apologize for my lateness my meeting with the patriarchy was a bit longer than I participated they told me that I have to fulfill quotas of getting more women to make more sandwiches and coffees and more application forms for houses University as well so uh that's probably what something you might think a man would come and say in a lecture on on feminism and gender Theory however in in correction of um perhaps a first misunderstanding people might think which is what's a man doing speaking about feminism uh of course tomorrow will be what's a white man or a white passing man doing speaking about critical race Theory and so on and so forth and if I was to talk about queer Theory what's a heterosexual man talking about doing talking about queer Theory well I'd like to think that ideas and of things you can discuss otherwise they the me the words have no meanings right the point about words is you can discuss topics that you don't necessarily um uh well you can discuss data that you don't necessarily experience most of you who study engineering and physics and what have you haven't done the experiments that determined the things that you believe in to be the case but you believe it because it's in textbooks and you can understand it because language is about describing things that you don't necessarily personally involve yourself in that's why people read fiction books about stories about Sinbad and about um you know Ahab and Moby Dick and the white whale because you don't have to go on the ship to experience it you read it in the book but hence the point of language I suppose however um we won't be uh contrary to popular belief you don't have to experience life as a woman or as a person of of color or as a person or even as a Muslim to talk about being a Muslim being a person of color or being a um sorry about about the facts related to IP the Philosopher's ideas about these topics you can discuss philosophy right about different topics right people come up with ideas you don't have to be a conservative to talk about conservativism you don't have to be liberal to talk about liberalism you don't have to be a market to talk about Marxism and so on and so forth however if this topic was today what's life like as a woman in 21st century Vancouver I wouldn't be very qualified to talk about that because I have no experience as a woman unless I choose to identify as one then maybe I can right so okay um so I'm gonna so in today's uh kind of schools of thought we'll be talking about feminism and feminism is oh wait a second where does where is feminism which one of these is feminism would anyone like to answer that which one of these uh ideologies is feminism anyone yes you're right all of them because basically um feminism if you want to give a more a more simpler answer is just you know uh when these were being concocted most of these ideas feminism is just a concept of these ideas for women too right that's it you know let women join in although technically Marxism started out as being for men and women but but then again karmac's mostly spoke about the perspective of The Working Man and although he had he he envisioned of course that women um would be equal to men once you abolish all classes and all independence but we'll get into that so we're going to ask a very important question this question regard to the audience so all of you I'd like I'm going to adopt the persona but I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate against you guys you'll be you guys versus me on this top on this question right it's ready for it you can handle it okay is it anti-semitic to criticize Zionism I thought we will start off with a nice light question for you guys right is it anti-semitic who would like to go ahead and say to an argue well whichever way you want to argue but is it anti-semitic to criticize Zionism sorry why is there not sister sorry about uh and it's about criticizing the Jews for their beliefs yeah more people with occupation of a particular land and based on histology inaccurities and all so that's that there's great so since it says they're very different because one is a criticism of Jews and what they believe another one is a criticism of uh occupation but Zionism isn't the same as occupation because sun isn't just an idea right the state of Israel is a occupation Zionism is a belief and it's a belief held by Jews so you initially said that anti-Semitism is criticizing Jews and they're what they believe and if Jews believe in Zionism then isn't that then anti-Semitism because you're criticizing what Jews believe and because Zionism is about is a belief about Jews as well what about Jewish rights so then if you're criticizing Zionism how is that how are you not criticizing Jewish rights then and of course if you work with us in Jewish rights how are you not anti-Semitic who wants to go uh uh you brother there with the blue dark blue top you have a question this is going to be answering the question you can't answer a question of a question okay but please let the question be what do you mean is what do you mean it what do you mean anti-semitic what do you mean criticize would you say it's a bit of an in joke for those who like John Pearson anyway go ahead what's your question is Zionism exclusive to Jews Zionism doesn't say it excludes Jews it just simply is a belief about Jewish rights and remember I'm playing devil's advocate here so you know I have to adopt the Persona to to get you guys your brains thinking uh okay so gentlemen in the back you exactly you want to call those populations of Jews anti-semitic as well and then you know you've got to argue your way out of time okay so gentleman says oh there's a minority of Jews that criticize anti-Semitism semitism I'm sorry um anxiety Zionism or they are anti designers sorry so am I saying would that would would they be anti-semitic because they criticized Zionism to which I could simply turn it around and say don't you have like many African-Americans who support Trump right uh you know can you and and you know like some some people in the African-American Community which I've seen online have accused him of being self-hating in his um characteristic of being a person of color so could it not be then using that same logic you could simply say that those Jews were and they could be self-hating according to and zionists do call them that uh so yeah so again is it antisemitic to criticize Zionism uh I'll go down to the middle now anyone in the middle would you like to stick your neck out Into The Gauntlet you brother depends on where you are in a social setting so yeah it depends where you are in a social setting okay so if you sit down you have a good view of something you can the map so if you're in the what sorry if you're in an organization yeah criticizing Zionism isn't considered anti-semitic then you're not anti-semitic but in an organization say a U.S member so if you're in an organization that doesn't consider it to be antisemitic it's fine but if you're in an organization that does consider to be antismatic it's not fine isn't that relativist like what depends what organization you're in feels like answer the question then that just means that it can be depending on whether the people around you agree with you or something as if you answered it anyone on this side uh would you already win I want to give anyone else no no one else you don't know how to to deal with this come on guys come over okay you write on the on the far far right but not far right ideologically speaking of course yes anti-Semitism is like a criticism of being Jewish as a religion anti-Semitism being Jewish as a religion okay yeah it's like if I'm pro-muslim but some of the Islamic nations are being for example corrupt or doing really bad stuff I can be against those Nations yeah okay well then well then uh well so you're saying it's Chris as a religion so if someone criticizes Jews as a race that's fine because that's not a religion but but it's only anti-Semitism you criticize Jews as a religion do you not see perhaps what you're saying so do you mean to include race as well or just religion criticizing Jewish religion but but what you're describing sorry what you're describing you said um criticizing you can criticize the Muslim countries that does bad things right so assignments would say we have no problem you criticizing policies of Israel as a government because you know everyone criticizes you know governments and governments are never never perfect but if you criticize Zionism the idea that Jews deserve rights as a nation state as everyone deserves rights to an estate then you are anti-jewish or anti-semitic how do you respond to that well I would say if you have to Define what the way you're putting it yes the way people interpret and act it out then that will be a problem okay she's in the way I'm putting it totally fine so then you then you you would you would agree that the way I'm putting it is anti-Semitic to criticize Zionism anti-zion is based on what anti what Zionism is causing what effect it has they don't like it has these effects therefore they're into that idea well are we because well because like they could say that look Zionism was just a belief that Jews deserve rights are you saying that Jews deserving rights causes Injustice yeah zionists would say that they don't they don't have to kick it all Palestinians out either but but that Jews deserve the right to live in a nation-state like every other ethnicity like every other ethnicity they'll say like you know well you know don't don't curds feel they have a right to live in a nation state Kurdish rights yeah so then why not Jews well if you're if Zionism means yes Jews deserve rights then it is anti-Semitic and even more basically anti-human to say it's wrong okay great so you agree with the question that's not really a debate here but yes anyone else come on guys okay now you're not you're gonna you step up anyone from this side any takers no it might have been scaring you sorry uh okay and then the the adjustment in the checkered kind of shirt that case it's not necessarily related to Zionism because Zionism is a belief and criticizing bigotry against a group of people just a criticism so you're saying that so if Zionism is the belief that users have rights and you are criticizing the idea that Jews deserve rights that's not bigotry no no Jews deserve rights well it's much more than just that it's also based on colonialism and taking land um that does not belong to that initial one of those Jews will say like well surely first he does say well no they're not they're not here to to steal anyone's land they're here to just take back the land that was theirs and that everyone supports people going back to their house to their home so Jesus want to go back to their home and they don't want to kick out anyone that's that happens have been there since they left or not all of them left but anyway long story but they just want to live there in peace with security that Jews will never face pogroms or put oppression ever again and Zionism is simply the idea that to achieve that they need a state that Jews control simply to guaranteed Jews don't be killed are not killed massacred and uh persecuted as they have been for centuries around the world are many other ways to guarantee that Jews don't get killed under other systems or oppress well well they say we tried that in you know like uh we in France we thought it was liberal country and the daifus affair proved that a a loyal Jewish military command that just got framed for a crime he didn't commit um because there was someone else leaking intelligence to the Germans and they just said I might as well must be the Jewish guy so this is like we faced persecution historically it's been rather consistent uh for our history so uh we've tried and failed the the to live with Gentiles and with the Gentiles being the ones who control the power over us and we as the as the uh controlled class we simply want to have power over our own destiny what's wrong with that why can't Jews have a powerful Destiny to guarantee that we don't get persecuted I'm saying as that as a speaking obviously um is that although technically I'm point four percent Jewish but anyway genetic studies long story long story anyway if that's not what I'm talking about anyway but I'm just saying that so they could say that do you want you to be persecuted is that why you're opposing uh Zionism because it seems to me that if you're that you know Zionism is the way to guarantee Jews are not persecuted and you're you're attacking that so the only way you that can be explained is that you want Jews to be persecuted well we've tried every other way so if it doesn't work and and now you want to take you want to take away the only way that has proven to work where we control like there's no Jewish programs in in the state of Israel so that's shown that that works whereas even in the United States of America you have racist parading down Jewish uh streets very famously uh to intimidate harass and and Jews get anti-faced anti-Semitism on a social level if they're not persecuted by the government the US government but they still face racing a social level at least we have a land where we're not we have a safe space where we are not persecuted so if you're against Jewish safe spaces then surely that must mean you're against your safety place I think that secular countries do a good job at mostly providing people or groups and societies well historically they really haven't that's I mean like just just go to secular India and ask the Muslims there how how wonderful the secularism is working out for them yeah yeah but but let me tell you this right so obviously we all agree that being openly anti-semitic is not acceptable in society okay and of course if someone wants to be anti-semitic yeah they obviously they can't just criticize Jews as Jews anymore because obviously they'll get exposed and arrested or what have you or they'll lose sneaker deals so so then uh the only way they could ever like Target Jews The Only Way Avenue left open to them obviously is is to criticize Zionism is it not because they can't criticize Jews as a race they can't criticize Jews as a religion so the only way open so would you not agree then that someone who hates Jews but can't say openly would say arguments very similar to what you're saying to me right now right well I'm just simply saying that I'm just simply saying that you know someone who is motivated to hate is motivates hating Jews do you agree would sound a lot like you're saying right now that you're saying you don't hate Jews but you just want to criticize Zionism all of a sudden yeah good too so that it does not necessarily make the fact that they're going to tastes good at all I know but they could simply say that there are many countries around the world that are occupations no one says that they should be removed like all the all the white people in North America should go well most people well I mean I don't know what's happening now but yeah like no one says oh go back home no one makes a big fuss but everyone makes a big fuss about Israel and Zionism which was no different uh even if you even if we we concede let's say that Jews are foreigners to the land of Palestine which we can argue they're not but let's just say they are um no one makes a big hullabaloo about the Canadian or white Canadians or whoever who's who's colon on this land and now they're just because there's even to be native strangely or just considered to be like just Canadians right everyone else has to have a little adjective in front of them or you know prefix so no one makes a fuss about America no one makes a fuss about China or any of these countries that do far worse things than the than the Israeli government massacres uh actual genocides so why are you picking on Zionism then doesn't that seem couldn't that seem to any reasonable person that you have especially animus against Zionism even though there are other countries which are worse doing worse than uh than Israel so what what are the possible explanation could there be other than there might be a hidden animus in you towards Jews the Canadians have committed those and there are and there are many Jewish scientists who disagree with some of the Israeli government's policies and they're still zionists so your issues only if you if you don't hate Jews then surely it's only the the Israeli government you don't like not Zionism no they'll say that's just the state of well the Undeclared State or the declared state of Palestine they they wanted to they accepted the Oslo Accords to have their own autonomous areas they have a Palestinian passport they're just a state it's not a step it's not segregation it's just a separate well a separate country with some complicated borders but basically it's it's a separate country could say easily that the the state of Palestine is declared and recognized to a limited degree by the U.N so they are a separate country it's just like saying that you know the Canadians keep the Americans uh you know segregated from you because by the border actually the bad arguments you probably do that's probably why you have the Border okay I'll pause it here because it's not it's not a talk because people said is this talk about feminism or this is the is this the wrong day let me check the schedule calendar okay why why do you think can anyone tell me why I entertain that question in the first place and why I argued in the manner I did against him right sister start about Beyond pattern design assigns and the origins and like the entire sort of histories I think we are trying to to bring our attention to that yeah well it was just an example conversation it's not really it's not it's not a serious argument and I um I was trying to highlight a different point altogether right we can maybe have a debate with Zionist at UBC you know again I'm available you just sort out my French fingers from Tim Hortons I'm all yours but um uh but like I said like the designers debate is not meant to be serious yeah it's like I'm about to redress that but I'll address it when I connect it to something else first yeah okay um so does anyone know why I brought out this random question and no it's not because I uh I kind of I forgot to write a presentation for the for the for the feminism thing and I'm just trying to waste time uh okay brother in the front there ah he gets it because or if you just replace the word um anti-semitic with misogynist and you place the word Zionist with feminist you get the exact same arguments exactly made by Neil Marxist feminists or now the kind of the more vocal ones I suppose against anyone who criticizes feminism you're not there because you believe it you're not criticizing because you believe in Revelation that talks about gender roles that organize a society based on principles Rules by the creator of the entire universe and the creator of human nature who knows better than us no no no no you're doing it because you secretly hate women you're part of a you're part of a patriarchy a group at a presser class dominate defined by the attribute of being male which is a social construct and you wish to enjoy privilege against and not a social construct defined as well not people I don't think we're in a male film men and women and so you you you can't say you hate women openly because that would expose you and so instead you have to Simply say you're against feminism but secretly that that's just a hidden animal in you against women in general and and any trans women can have to have control over their own lives and determine their own autonomy I made the exact same argument for Zionism and so on and and the anti the uh the zionists make the exact same argument I just told you right and you could take out uh take out anti-semitic take out and then replace misogyny and then you can replace it with anti-black and you can take out Zionism and replace it with critical race Theory and you'd have the exact same argument it'd work exactly the same right oh you're not well I don't want to give the game away tomorrow but that's pretty much what it is basically you're not really criticizing quick or race Theory because you think it's a new Market's framework that doesn't understand the Dynamics uh of of emergent human uh human biases and prejudices against each other from arbitrary reasons nope you just criticize it because you um want uh Supremacy for for whiteness or being white adjacent uh so you're not actually a white European person but you're kind of like you could pass for white or your of a lighter shade um then sub-Saharan African um people so the that I wanted to highlight basically now the counter argument you want to see just in case people say you know okay I'll just Embrace I don't know about the feminism whatever but Amazon is now after going to abdullah's lecture um okay well quite simply no Zionism isn't about um just rights for Jews because we all believe that everyone deserves rights right so we don't no one thinks that no one should have rights but Zionism isn't that right and that's what you should have challenged a bit more Zionism is the belief that in a particular geographical area of land the ethnolinguistic group known as Jews have a privileged position to determine the laws legislation and uh the uh the the government of the land right and that's what it is right that's what it is it is about uh well it's all about privilege concerning uh geography but because they would argue that every nation-state uh believes that one particular ethnic group has privilege and hence why is it a nation state in the first place because it's based on a nation Nations linguistic group so the only way to really respond to all of that is to take the Islamic position and say we don't believe in nation states or nationalism and if the linguistic group doesn't have a privileged right to determine the laws in a locality Allah the creator of the universe has the only right to determine the laws and the rights all over the entire universe that he created that would be our Islamic response so then to a feminist would say are you saying that men should determine the rights of women uh why not women determine the rights of women we say we don't get involved with who determines the rights of women because uh in terms of creative beings because we didn't make ourselves we have no right male female whatever to determine our rights it is to create of the universe who made us to find that purpose and he alone determines what we deserve and we don't deserve and the mutual obligations we have to each other okay that is the Islamic angle which I'll be coming today and you could say you could even leave now and say that's yeah I've got it but I'd like to tell you a little bit more about the um Western philosophies and how they came to all these conclusions and how you can rebut it at least from the Chronicles on the perspective anyway so as I always point out there is uh the two political Enlightenment schools of thought empiricism or Anglo-Saxon philosophy John Locke uh and Thomas Hobbs which led to you might call uh liberalism Classical liberalism and conservativism the rationalism descar he wasn't a political philosopher but he just believed that um knowledge begins with the mind the mind transcends the Body Mind Body duality why what's that going to do with Marxism what's really descar got to do with Marxism he obviously didn't intend it so you never intended that but um the empiricists thought that yes give men and women uh uh kind of like equal rights in law but we but only because the law has to be um because you can't account for individual differences and so on so forth so you just treat everyone the same but we won't expect much from women because our empirical data I.E just looking at our society currently which is which doesn't have an education system for women women don't seem to be as educated as men so in our society that doesn't educate women women are educated as men therefore conclusion women have a lesser intellect than men which is stupid and ridiculous right just because something is that that is a way doesn't mean it was ought to be that way and of course doesn't mean it was meant to be that way and so on so forth so they they could in Paris this but they're anything but basically they made assumptions liberalism was based on assumptions unproven non-scientific assumptions and so on so we see John Locke um I'm mentioning here about you know the husband and wife obviously they said the man should have the final decision in any practical um question not because he's stronger but also because he's abeler right so implying that he has a better intellect because that's what John Locke kind of in a way believed that men but just because someone has a lesser intellect doesn't mean they deserve lesser rights uh more or less although he left he kind of said that in the family unit the man should make decisions and so on and so forth but but politically speaking you can't give a man that has is who's a genius more rights than a man who is not a genius or less of less intellect so if that's the case then that would also apply between men and women if you assumed that men were had a greater interest than women right that's why liberals for just treat everyone equally but don't expect much from women initially the classical liberals that's kind of roughly what they thought like um but the the Continental philosophers went a different direction the mind transcends the body they said so if the mind transcends in the body then your body doesn't determine your mind right your body doesn't determine what's in your mind so then everyone's minds are equal right doesn't matter what skin color you have it doesn't matter your what genitalia you have or what hormones you have other than about hormones back then um everyone is equal and so we see as early as 1673 uh the kind of Cartesian philosopher Francois argued that the the mind has no sex okay not Simon De bevoir that was much later he argued at first it was of course the cartesians or the Continental philosophers because they said well everyone's mind is equal now that that would start the Continental philosophers more focusing on equality because well forget about the body everyone's minds are equal what makes you human and special is your mind therefore that's the source of your equality right whereas for the empiricists they treat humans like atoms right the individual is an atom and the individual control this atom controls itself and so every atom owns itself and should be allowed to fly wherever it wants to fly right that was more the empiricist side of things so that's what led to us a Divergence and of course on this side of things on the Continental side of things it would lead to the ideas of socialism and then markism and so on so forth and of course neo-marxism and even post-modernism because they would be taking the Mind route all the way to its logical conclusion as I mentioned yesterday Jacques Rousseau mentioned that the origin of Injustice is inequality in property inequality of ownership is the origin of Injustice I mentioned this yesterday just recapping so you're reminded for those that attended um socialism arose in the uh late 18th century going into the 19th century uh with a number of uprisings they had their own Arab Springs they also failed a number in many cases but she had worked her uprisings and so on and so forth the Socialists early socialists didn't know exactly what they were going to aim for but they wanted to decide to where workers had better better rights and so on so forth they weren't mistreated by the Industrial Revolution but on this period because you could vote or not vote depending on how much wealth you had so in in the United States of America and in England if you were poor you didn't vote because they didn't trust the poor people said what does the poor person know about voting for you know politics only if you have a certain amount of wealth uh then you have you're invested in the economic system you're invested in society enough and you have some spare time enough to study politics so study what's going on to make a educated decision so the workers never had a choice never had the ability to vote basically and that was one of the first things that was argued for that workers should have the right um to vote but even on but during this time the idea started to spread that well um if we have liberalism uh what about women you know liberalism for men what about women don't they deserve if if we have an idea of universal rights and the the Quakers and others were arguing that uh you know African slaves in the Americas were human as much as anybody else was and so they deserve the same rights as human beings then they'll say yeah but what about then women because women there's many laws that women or rather the women on don't benefit from similar laws that men do so if a man marries so a woman marries a man her property becomes her husband's right and that led to a number of of issues where the acrimonious divorces where women were left penniless and about property because the husband refused to divorce her because she couldn't initiate the divorce and didn't give she couldn't have access to her to her own houses that she bought into the marriage right so it caused a lot of um issues in UK so in it what started was basically a kind of me too movement but not in the way you might think where women say uh rights for us too equal to that of men because if you don't have a reason why not all right there's no reason why not you say that everyone's an individual well women are individuals if you're Anglo-Saxon philosophy or in the continent in the continent we have you know everyone that has a mind deserves rights or the human mind well we have human Minds so so there was no what counterorm could you make just convention says otherwise you know from the the old Germanic Roman laws that the Europe followed they had this discriminatory um or they had different laws or different regulations for men and women that couldn't be justified anymore like why are they still there so so liberal so feminism started out as basically liberalism for women right now then when Marx has come on came on the scene Marxism uh it came on scene and arguably was feminist from the from the get-go but the reason why you have specific Marxist feminists and they don't just say we're just marxists it's because Marx didn't talk about women so much but he did say very clearly that as I mentioned yesterday that he viewed the family was a microcosm of capitalist oppression you have the Bourgeois the ruling class I.E the the man who controls money going into the family and the woman and the children are both dependent on the man to provide money so then they are slaves just like the workers are slaves to the capitalist ruling classes the Bourgeois right so what's the solution create a system where the everyone owns the means of production and the women in all these families don't do no longer no longer have to depend on their husbands for for money and even the children don't have to depend on their on their parents for for sustenance either the abolition of the family he called it he wanted to abolish the family by creating one class everyone in a massive commune with Collective property if you don't want to look after your kids don't worry they'll be looked after by General Society anyway if you don't want to look after your wife or your wife doesn't look after you no problem you'll be provided by General societies so on so no one depends on anyone else for money because depend on money depending on people for money is slavery according to Karl Marx right and that'd be very influential because socialists were obviously debating liberals and the social would say well you liberals I know you might make women give women equal rights an equal right to vote but in the traditional families women are still slaves because they depend on their husband for money right so we need to need Liberation and the liberal goes I don't understand though but women have the same legal rights is that enough and and now their back and forth debate would be between those two you could have a liberal feminist debating a socialist feminist and they would they would be against each other even though they both call themselves feminists right so um now I want to mention because this this talk is really about Neil Marx's feminism that's very important or what you might call woke right you call it woke oh you know it by woke um why Neil markers and why is this this term Neil Marxism Neil Marxism was simply a term to mean a new type of marxist uh Karl Marx wasn't the prophet you know Kelsey priest so he made his predictions that according to his worldview and his formulas the the most advanced capitalist countries would would be the ones that would be the the next uh candidates for socialist Revolution or he predicts and the workers would take over and it would become a dictatorship of the proletariats whether the state would be owned by the people so to speak and the state would redistribute resources and and so on and so forth and then the next step would be communism whereby the state dies away and everyone just lives in a Anarchist communist Utopia basically um yeah so long story short that didn't happen um he predicted that wages would keep going down and profits would keep going up and of course that didn't happen either the workers rights were instituted he didn't predict that either the work that the the uh proletariat the working class of England seemed to be more content than ever under capitalism against his predictions so that failed although he passed away of course and then all these uh these markets that came after him tried to explain and as I said yesterday they said oh uh his predictions aren't working out um Marxism is just wrong then let's just move away from it okay no no they didn't do that they just say oh maybe maybe we just tweak it a bit right and we can make it work still so so did they do well they the only answer was like well why aren't the workers rising up yeah because surely we've told them they're being oppressed we're trying to create class conscious amongst them as a con as a class of people that you you are being you're on a press class realize who you are join of your brothers and sisters and rise up against your oppressors but they aren't doing it though they seem very content they think that and actually they start to think the Mark's still crazy what's going on so the neomar exists develops an idea well if the West seems more comfortable for workers than it was before if there's workers rights if there's uh all these uh the wages are there's a minimum wage and there's there's um a universal suffrage for working-class men initially and then obviously eventually uh women too that seems to go against Karl Marx's ideas that the the uh about these oppressed classes would rise up don't they realize their oppression don't they realize that they are they're still stuck in an oppressive system and they came up with the idea that wait a second it's on purpose or this the ruling classes do this deliberately to make the working classes think they're having rights think they're cared for think that they that they matter and that they have a comfortable existence but that only entrenches them more into their oppression because they don't even realize they're oppressed that was their argument and a lot of it came out strange enough from the encounter with Sigmund Freud right Sigmund Freud introduced something quite radical into um European thought by the way you don't have to write everything down um at the end of this week all these slides will be made available for you you can download but I'm gonna we're gonna put a download link on Friday because you have to attend Friday Friday is the big finale it's gonna be memorable let's just put like that right uh so you can download the all this from from the link given out on Friday I know someone can say I'll just get my friend to go and then I'll do that and I will just download it okay wait fine but anyway um Okay so so uh so don't have to read everything on a slide but basically I'm just going to summarize what's on the side but in essence um it kind of breaks it down for you for those who want details but in essence Sigma for his main idea was that people have subconscious ideas right hidden ideas for themselves okay so um the marxists believed that the you have the economic system all right you have this economic system I wonder if there's a does these things work you know I'm in the mood to draw Okay so system too low okay well this is the economic system and it creates something called okay the superstructure or ideology if you like or the superstructure includes buildings like government buildings and things like this but this is the the non-physical aspect of superstructure so for those of you who attended yesterday and this might sound crazy and if you didn't attend just just take my word for it and check out for yourself Karl Marxist materialists he thinks ideas are just a reflection of the physical world in your head so your culture isn't something that was uh about religion or Revelation or something that was developed by artists and philosophers and Poets in you know in the past no no your culture comes from the economic system being kind of reflecting in your head your society's structure hierarchy everything is reflected in your head and your head is basically contained at your head has a little like if this is um if this is the capitalist system I'm gonna use a green one but it's okay that's not working right so if this I'm trying to do a triangle if this is the this is the captive system then you as an individual you have it in your head right this captive system and that's but you you see it as religion you see it as uh culture as ethics and so on and so forth but really you're just reflecting a physical set of of uh networks which is social relations and economic relations in your head um he literally said he literally said that like we went for it yesterday so like take my word for it um so so then Neil Marxist tried to understand that a bit more and but it seemed a bit weird because like you know reflection of society in the brain or how does that work um why don't the workers realize their oppression then if they can reflect Society into their heads so but Sigma before it gave them the possibility that maybe the workers just don't realize it right and maybe the workers have been giving ideas in their head like they are equal that they have rights that they are sovereign over themselves these are capitalist ideas that make them think they live in a good Society a society where they are respected but really they are abused and they are um manipulated and so on so forth so he argues that Society causes the oppression of individual desires which um linked into karmark's idea of alienation which we covered yesterday which I won't go into now whereby you you face you suffer because you don't live as your true self in essence um and this led to the development of uh the Frankfurt School which was school designed to study why the working class and others aren't rising up against their oppressors in the west okay and these are called the name these are called beginning of Neo marxists basically and they took the ideas from Sigma Freud a little bit of nature just sprinkled in there and they came up with um some with uh taking some of Karl Marcus ideas about about the point of philosophy isn't to just describe society as it is but to change it they took the idea and they developed something called ideology critique critical theory right to in a way uh criticize and expose the hidden oppressive structures in society so that the working classes can wake up see this and then like you know grab their guns and start Uprising basically or something like that so like to wake up the working classes because they don't realize their oppression but then the question was that well there's more than what why are we doing this right why are we fighting for the oppressed class well it's because uh they are a class identified by attribute they have they don't have Capital they don't own capital and there are those who who are a different attribute class above them who have more power I.E more privilege than them and that's wrong right that's what we we're fighting against um but oh wait a second though that's not the only if you look at other identities that humans have because humans have all the attributes of themselves there seems to be other correlations we found between skin color between gender and eventually between sexual orientation between ableism and eventually between um transgender or versus or cisgender versus non-binary or what have you or transgender so the principle is that everyone that has an attribute should have the same amount of power and privileges in society as anyone else for other attributes and that's how you destroy classes because it's not only the working class versus the ruling class there are other classes that are there and the critical theory began to investigate all of those things simultaneously and explain that the reason why they have this stratification is deliberate there's a deliberate ideology created by the ruling Society um so yeah they mentioned that the individ the enlightenment project because these are people who are part of the Enlightenment project but they think that the alignment project failed liberalism didn't deliver true liberation of the individual they're going to deliver it um they say that liberal Society creates false individuality you're not an individual you're following mass-produced culture mass-produced products and so on you're not really individuals we need to we need to make this obvious to people that they're not they're not truly individuals and liberal Society um they argued that don't that academics don't trust academics and Scholars because they are products of the culture they are products of ideology the ruling eye set of ideas in society and so they can never really explain what's really happening they can't think outside the box okay they in fact their purpose is to reinforce the books right and you might you might not you might think I never heard this idea before well you did because Audrey Lord you heard when she replicated this idea when she said that the Masters tools will not take down the Master's house right she'd invent that idea it comes from the Frankfurt School a couple of decades before her but many people were influenced by Neil marks and hence it's so it's so widespread you have a question brother um yeah understood wrong or correct um this class structure is wrong yeah okay so why if Karl Marx didn't care about the ideas of equality because he was into he was so materialistic he felt the idea of equality was a Bourgeois idea that was had no it was immaterial it had it was just a like justice morals good and bad don't mean anything in material Universe right so for him he he tried to treat humans like a science um but the Neo marxists would change right they would um they would and eventually they would change more because his um Karl Marxist 1844 Works which weren't published when he died were published much later in the 1930s would become available and his earlier ideas are more basically humanistic they're about humans being individuals and expressing themselves and being able to to be free and outside of the control of um of the kind of the machine that is you know in industrialist societies before he developed his markism a bit more further so they said that they were less they were less economic determinist than he was that's why the Neil Marxist and not full marxists and they just they they took his idea that the social system was made up by economics but that what makes what makes Neo Marxist different is that they say that once the ideology is created once this ideology is created ideology right if you were to destroy the economic system the ideology could rebuild the system right whereas Karl Marx said that the ideology emerges from the system right you're not like you have a projector yeah these projectors right you switch off the projector the light disappears yeah so that's what Karma would argue the Neil marks would say the light doesn't disappear the light continues and it somehow uh triggers the reignites the lights in the projector to switch to switch back on again it reproduces itself they'll say reproduction that's why they when you hear note and your markers talk about reproduction they're not talking about their dating options they're talking about um how the the ruling culture can remake uh the economic system which as you know that marxists believe the economic system is the exact same as social the social system your social relations are the exact same thing as the economic relation so the new marxists that's what they are they're like they're like Karl Marxist children in a way they're not exactly like the father they've done they've made some changes they're a bit different but they are they have his genes basically right anyway they don't care about good and bad right so before humans would have the idea of God or religion okay something like that that would fit there or or you could call it um law like Dharma in in Sanskrit means law and then you'd have humans being regulated by these these things okay humans being regulated by these things okay uh this would determine good and bad but you're a materialist you don't think that exists you think that individuals are The Sovereign there's no higher level than the individual the individuals are The Sovereign so then they just wipe all this up and they say okay so individuals are left so then what determines good and bad but say well the only thing that's left is if they're all if only you only have individuals left then the only thing to the only measure left is to keep them exactly equal that's the only measure of good and bad left right there is no higher measure than that so neo-marxists don't care about um what you might call good and bad on morality or if ethics per se they care that everyone is equal because privilege equals servitude of those who are less though who don't have privilege right if someone is above here okay then everybody else slave basically then it just becomes like this and if you're and if you are a slave then you're you're very unhappy right you uh you have been harmed right Neil markers always talk about harm harm almost almost as much as your utilitarian would uh but they say that because privilege induces harm in those who lack it basically yeah so that is the good and bad of neo-marxists okay um so if the power if the ideology reproduces itself then you need then what if the ideology if you can change the economic system but the ideology Still Remains then what should you be targeting anyone do you do you keep talking the economic system would you target then right the ideology yeah you have to destroy the ideology itself and then once you destroy that then the people can be free to all be exactly equal because then the question was well where do people's privilege come from my people's previous they come from having more money and what have yes but they say because we're all equal Minds right from from Dayco we're all equal Minds if you think that you deserve something better than someone else this has been created in you one don't believe that God did it because they don't they don't think God exists so they think it's because Society put it into you the unfair Society you came out of because you're because like Karl Marx they think your head contains the the ideology of the of a society that was built on Fair principles yeah so Society is creating new ideas and concepts of privilege okay and they use that to explain every single relation between between humans and society and I mean every bit uh do they be the child the same as the parent when it comes to roles um well no they would say they would concede that the child hasn't developed into full maturity hasn't attained a full adult mind so no they would say the child depends on the on the parents until the child becomes an a adult individual and then they are independent yes that's what that's what they'll generally say um Okay so they'll say that um the the power structure like ideology is based on an illusion um because it's not doesn't represent truly how human beings should be is these are social constructs they're constructed by Society uh and uh but more specifically but well who in society has the most power to make stories and fun films and you know write books and publish them yeah who does who has the most power the rich yeah and they'll say not just a rich but relatively speaking males and females and and uh and heteronormative or final Century whatever versus um uh kind of a queer or homosexual um uh kind of attribute identity attributes classes so um the the critical theory is a is a method of destruction of the idea of Western ideology as it is right it's a method to refute it it's about breaking apart but what it really does what it really does is it does exactly what I did when I debated some of his brothers as a Zionist uh here playing there was Advocate is I simply what they do is they simply um they say they simply insert a conspiracy theory into the power structures of society they say these weren't developed by um process of just you know of climate historical forces um Revelation interpretation of Revelation human nature no no not that they put it aside no no no it's all deliberately created by the warning classes to to reinforce and reproduce their privilege and Power and even and even if uh you have no idea in your head or that you're better than anybody else but you have a negative Encounter of some way with someone who is deemed to have a of a to be of a disadvantaged identity class versus you and let's say you you don't get along with that person you just don't get along with them you have disagreement okay that won't be interpreted as you just disagree with one other person no no no that's you reinforcing your particular privilege against them uh by uh attacking them by disagreeing with them by denying uh their power because you disagree disagree means you basically you're negating uh their opinion and that is not not a an unequal power relation but we mutually disagree with each other like I don't see how I'm I don't know but you're doing it socially though you see you're putting a block on that person you're saying that you can your ideas cannot go any further yeah just because you don't agree with them right so they have a a different lens a different interpretation um just a sec um so the writer George RR Martin I believe spoke for one of his characters he it was a very interesting quote I saw someone a little meme with his quotes like oh that's so interesting where does this come from so apparently Game of Thrones or whatever but it was interesting um it was some some character who's a bit devious in the in the uh in the books or in the in the TV series and he said um I like to play a game I like to imagine what's the worst possible motivation that someone I know has could ever have the worst possible motivation they have then I see how well does that explain what they do and say right how well does it does thinking the worst of them of their motivations explain what they do or say okay then you might think uh well you know like that won't work for everybody ah no I couldn't you can interpret everything negatively everything yeah so brother comes up gives me some uh some uh water with with ice ice in it what you want to give me a code or something oh well you think I'm not capable of getting my own water I have to be served by you because I'm I'm just uh I'm some rich kid I'm not but anyway I'm just some kind of guy that's been served and I I can't get my own stuff and I'm independent to get my own water you see how I just interpreted that yeah so from that lens um if you are deemed to be in a uh identity class which has any kind of privilege any relation you have with sort of another class which is deemed to have lower privilege privilege by Neo Marxist um will be interpreted negatively whichever you do including nothing okay uh and so then you think well then what what do Neil Marxist argued and how would they argue what you should do yeah well they simply say your job is to be silent and just amplify whatever the the those of the of the Lesser privileged identity class say you just have to repeat what there's like a parrot or just give them your platform or whatever you know give them your social media login details and just post on your own so that kind of stuff you have to you're only there to amplify you can't do that if you truly want to um uh to to abolish uh kind of inequalities in power that's how they would say Neil Marxist would say across all of them now um I'm summarizing there's a lot of nuances here but um post-modernism and post-structuralism so Grammy is a very interesting individual because he was the one who really took Marxism into neo-marxism uh properly he was the one who talked about um ideology and cultural hegemony uh so if you hear people talk about hegemony well you can thank uh gramsy for this uh he was the one he tried to reinterpret Mark he didn't believe Marx was wrong we didn't want to say Marx was wrong he just said that no I think what Mark was trying to say was that you know ideology can exist separately from the economic system in a way and reproduced it it can be detached the head can be detached from the body and rebuild the body you know you don't have doesn't depend on the head and the pen on the body so um he was the one who talked about hegemony uh is maintained via institutional uh organizations Church trade unions schools and so on and so forth uh he was the one who argued that the state uh kind of it teaches the people these ideas of ideology through certain mechanisms and so on and so forth so Neil marxists are very much interested in education because they feel that the education institutions are the places where the state reinforces its eye its ruling ideology and so if they can get in there with pedagogy uh course discussions and and training courses and things like this they can then really change your mindset uh and get get rid of these false ideas and you might think what false ideas in particular uh Abdullah well we'll get to that to a degree but basically because they descend from the descar they don't believe that the human being has a nature and and kind of certain predilections right if you were to say well you know of course men are more aggressive because they have testosterone they know how dare you say that no no that's not testosterone it's because they have toxic masculinity it's an idea it's not a hormone you see but like if we look at the animal kingdom I mean like you know animals of different genders tend to behave rather differently say oh no no no uh we're human we're talking about humans here we're a separate creature let's just forget animals we're just talking about human they don't have intellects we have intellects and we can decide uh for ourselves what we are and what we our Essence is uh and you have a choice between either being autonomous like deciding for yourself or being authentic or you can let Society socially construct you as Karl Marx said that your your head is a The Ensemble of social relations remember yesterday that your head just contains uh the reproduction of society in it so so for them they want to argue that you have to that everything that you believe your character your decisions or choices are due to ideas plant in your head by Society there's nothing in your head in your mind well nothing in your brain that is affected by hormones so much right or that that makes you do what you're doing so if 95 of prisons are filled by men that's because of toxic masculinity that's not because of testosterone just does crazy things right especially when men metabolize 20 times more testosterone per day than women do oh no that's no effect no effect at all it's just uh it's just what uh uh it's just toxic masculinity or they'll say for example that oh well like when when uh like men go outside even at night you don't you don't tend to be you don't tend to think about oh I'm scared about I don't know someone could attack me and molest me or uh rob me from both parts of Vancouver perhaps um well mental didn't think that I told you to go for a nighttime run no problem right but then uh women would report that they feel not fully comfortable going out at two o'clock in the morning at night down dog Alleyways they don't feel as comfortable but men seem to be not so bothered about it how is that explained where you could say well you could say because men tend to be stronger no one really it can happen but no one really rapes men exactly although there our cases but it's a much lower probability let's just say especially because you have to overpower a man and you have to make sure that you're a man that cannot have overpower them in and so on so forth It's just lower probability right that's what it is um no that's not the case that's not the case it's men seem to be comfortable going out and women are scared because men want to create a space that privileges them to to own the public spaces and keep women on the sides basically it's all deliberate okay because there's not such thing as you having a real a real Essence to yourself that an essential nature no no no no it's socially constructed to you to have that basically that's how they would argue it from their world view they have to argue this from their world view um and so me coming here and let's say criticizing um neo-marxism and feminism someone they they cannot interpret what I do because they think I'm I truly believe that the creative Universe has mandated uh who knows human beings better than we do and mandates rights and and so on and so forth and he's the only one who can do so no they can't interpret that because while they say God doesn't exist yes but even those who kind of somewhat believe in God they think that the that human beings are incapable of being objective or following anything objective okay so we're all subjective they'll say everyone's subjective but we have to be equal then because the objectivity is a capitalist Bourgeois invention right to make capitalism seem to be Universal and and reified that's a Marcus term don't worry about to memorize all these terms anyway so so they would have to look at me and then have they'd have to interpret me that I'm someone who uh is supporting male privilege and I'm uh racist against anyone who's not white adjacent or what have you um or if I'm Arab I'm Arab supremacist uh again and what so on and so on and so forth they have to because why would I be criticizing neobox and neo-moxism is the is the truth right is how human beings are and if I am Christian Marxism it's because I'm against the rights that Neil moccasin wants the rights for women and of course because neomox I think believes that its rights women are the only real rights then I must be criticizing because I don't like women and I I'm misogynist or I'm racist or what have you they have to believe that because they've adopted that worldview they have to they can't see me any other way right it's sad actually I feel sorry for those individuals but um that's the case and and um and of course conservatives now I was going to mention is your point conservatives everyone has these these ideological lenses conservatives don't fully understand of course neo-moxism or Marxism either um they don't understand each other so the conservative thinks that Neil marxists just want to destroy Western Civilization for fun right which is not the case they don't they they feel they are creating a better civilization right but the conservative thinks that the social institutions which are important for human flourishing and that provides the Bedrock of of Classical liberalism or basic liberalism which is which is Justice for for the um the conservative if these new marketers want to take it down then they must be because they have a sense of entitlement they're not being satisfied with it with a sense of entitlement and therefore they want to destroy Western civilization and they will these the new Marxist and the conservatives will speak past each other right because they just don't understand because they are their lenses program them to think to view all each other in in this particular lens okay and of course from our perspective we're guided Beyond subjectivity by the creator of the universe to understand that this is all the cover vanities of people's speculation but hey you know what do we know we just have the creative Universe telling these us these things sir okay um post-structuralism and then we'll just end quickly on on some feminist points uh post-structuralism uh emanates from existentialism in essence uh in essence ironically um the belief that existence precedes essence you as a human being precedes any idea of essence you don't have in essence actual they start to disagree this caused Marxist to disagree with Marxism itself they say Marx believe that your your nature is just a mixture of society inside you they say that's too deterministic right you can determine your essence yourself in a way that makes humans God doesn't it Gods because you can what make your make yourself create yourself it's ridiculous but really this is what I call the apotheosis of the individual are making the individual into into deities um so Neil Mark says sorry post-modernists on they're not a particular ideology exactly they are more like a rejection of our previous ideologies so they they became the solution with Marxism and Neil Marxism and they believe that Neil marks and Marxism are just a meta narratives or grand narratives this is a postmodernist term which are false or because they believe that there is no such thing as a narrative that is decidable as in we don't know for certain anything they believe as an absolute certainty that all narratives are uncertain which technically is a narrative um if you're a true skeptic you you believe that there could be certainty but you haven't yet encountered it whereas they say no no there is they say that reality is is like infinitely interpretable you can interpret anything from reality so then do away with narratives you know like throw them out the window basically um usually I I was going to explain how um post-modernists um how they evolve different aspects of markism but it's beyond the scope of this lecture so I'll just go straight into um a modern critical theory movements so critical theory gets applied to different different areas you get critical legal studies tries to study how ideology makes the law create is is embedded into law but then you have critical gender studies or Marxism feminism which looks at um Society from the lens of of gender classes um critical race Theory race lens queer Theory sexuality lens and of course the disability Theory I bet you didn't know that one you look but for the lens of disability how this ableism and disabled are considered to be lesser human beings this is a a privileged power relation so this is what they would argue um so really to recap what I've said here um feminism really has waves depending on the ideologies which are becoming dominant in the west so the first way feminists are are classical liberals okay they just want women to be under equal equal application of law to women second wave is um social liberalism which we covered on Monday on Monday yeah equal opportunity basically you know you know it as equal opportunity um so that women should be should have the same opportunities to go to jobs and make money and so on so forth um the third and fourth wave is a mixture of neo-marxists and post-marks or you could say uh post-modernist um feminisms the idea well this is what you get gender Theory springing out of things which we will cover in just a second um but feminists will generally agree on a few things a liberal feminist might agree that the society can encourage gender roles uh as a good idea and that you might know them as social conservatives right these are early form of liberals but they they believe in liberal liberality or liberalism as a law system in a way the liberal classical law system but they believe that you the society can encourage certain certain traditional roles or whatever roles gender roles and so on and so forth whereas social liberal feminists second way feminists believe that gender roles or the encouragement of gender roles limits women's opportunities to do whatever they wish basically and they and they being influenced by socialists believe that women's emancipation means that women need to have their own income stream otherwise they're not emancipated um okay so differing schools of thought the different madahib of feminists of feminism is they're not really they're not really feminists they're more just different different schools of thought in Western philosophy but they each these just the the women's wing of each of these philosophies The Only Exception is radical feminism which I'll get to in a second so socialist feminism is known for believing that the the capitalism creates inequality but also patriarchy so they look at the the unit the universe through the lens of race uh it's not race uh gender and wealth gender and class Marxist feminists just look at it only through class just only class analysis they think that gender analysis and racial analysis are explainable by class as class mechanisms but not in of themselves they're not separate um separate types of of of of of of of hierarchy um that maintain themselves independently they just spring out of the capitalism itself um to maintain the the Bourgeois Elite you have material feminism which is um Marxist feminism but uh but capitalism patriarchy isn't the only reason for inequality then they look at other um other things um anarchal feminists basically the way to women's Liberation is no State no problem so there's no there's no government then no problem there'll be no different laws different um treatments of women um classical liberal feminism of course everyone equal in the law liberal feminism or mainstream or social um a social liberal feminism which is legal and social equality so women have to be in society where they are have the uh social the same social opportunity to get a career and and um be uh be successful and by defining us having lots of money if they want to be and there should be no impediments to that so no um so social liberals implemented sexual harassment laws whereas classical liberals wouldn't recognize sexual harassment laws they'll say freedom of speech no problem all right um that radical feminists um are the opposite so what's the best way to get rid of the uh the patriarchy create a matriarchy instead right because women can do it better and women won't be oppressors right because as you know because women are just humans and as you know you know like only some humans are oppressed and it's not like all humans would ever potentially oppress or could oppress because some humans are perfect right and other humans are not perfect anyway so uh this has variations you have separatist feminism which is basically let's stay away from the men because uh we because men just are encourageable and to do that unfortunately because women are dependent on men not just for money but unfortunately we need to change but they also depend on men for physical reproduction so the best way to solve that is lesbianism I'm not I know it's a stereotype but no this is this is true you just check it out yourself political lesbian lesbianism apparently um you have radical libertarian feminism which is why don't we gender is a kind of construct so let's get rid of the idea all together if there's no gender there's no problem we already live in one Club we'll be in one class basically but just one gender in essence and then there's Female Supremacy feminism which is basically let women rule and let women be the be the the the top because even if they are oppressors they won't be as bad as men basically um you have cultural feminism which is kind of what radical feminism has become more into now um after they've calmed down uh from their the more Hades or the 60s and 70s which are a bit more uh bit more Rough and Ready back then a bit more radical so um uh for them uh they they would argue that look uh it's not it's not feminism to to deny that women might have different qualities to men all right maybe so today it's not feminism to tonight yet you can affirm that maybe women have certain qualities that are actually that femininity is a thing and we should celebrate those qualities so instead of having these like these um stereotypical uh female Heroes on movies where they've they've kind of like they kind of shaved their head and they they do weights and all this kind of they carry guns and that's the way to make a woman seem to be equal to a man and be equal respect no why can't women be praised for femininity itself and femininity um is something that we should inculcate more into society uh and maybe make Society based on femininity actually because femininity is the better solution to the opposite which is toxic masculinity right so that would be so you could say it's not Female Supremacy but supremacy of female or female attributes and virtues because they'll say that the problem Society is that it values masculine virtues and attributes and so on so forth and of course um we have this we have these type of feminists in the UK I'm not sure how they fare in in Canada have they all been wiped out but they're called turfs trans exclusionary uh feminists they believe that feminism is for women females not people who identify as women right they reject gender Theory basically they they say that's not they are controversial in the UK but they're left wing like anybody else but the left wing fight themselves by the way there's major Wars between the left wing um remember because if you identify yourself as any gender you want and and make more genders than than just two uh you can also technically identify as any race you want but the new Marxist would think that that's just like if a white person says I and there's a case of it I saw a little debate on from the channel 4 UK between a gentleman who identified as a career he's white because a Korean and there was this a Neil Marxist lady who was um afro-caribbean which is um the term the UK term for uh it's like you know African-American we say afro-caribbean as as the the terminology of choice in UK um she she argued against him for doing so because it had the potential for a white person to say I identify is black right and that would be why it's taking over the black identity right but I didn't see the social construct and you should be free to choose anything that you want and now you see the fight that would happen between the left wing they're full of fights and they're full of contradictions um so yeah positions you have trans feminism so you can accept people identify it as as women that's not a problem um sex negative feminism which is that women should not be objective for intersexual objects that demeans them and of course you have sex positive um feminism which is I think named because it's with it's feminists that believe that women should celebrate um sexuality and if they want to be prostitutes great if they want to be uh porn models and what have you great let's celebrate that as long as they're getting paid for it no problem so we should so I think it was named after just being a positive about sex as opposed to uh the results they receive on the STD checks okay so what's the Islamic response all right and we'll and we'll end it very quickly soon um as was mentioned the Quran says or mankind indeed we have created you for male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another and the most noble view the size of Allah is the most righteous of you so uh there is no yes there is no greater value there's no moral value in gender from the in the eyes of the crater but there is different moral values you can go there can be people who are better than others based on what you choose to do your righteousness your actions you can choose your moral value right and you could be better than other people but just don't say a bit on the people because then whatever reduce your value of course yeah um but you can be better in the eyes of of the crater um we'll see or see in the Quran where Allah talks about the actions of of males and females um God says not the work of any of you of any that work among you be you male female one of you is as the other so basically we're from each other our actions are the same so if if a woman gives uh five Canadian dollars charity and A man gives five trillion dollars of Charity and they bought from same economic status whatever they would it would be the same reward for both of them for doing the same actions it wouldn't be because the man gets more wood because he's a man and a woman gets more work because he's a woman none of that stuff of course the Quran says and the male is not like the female there is a difference between us it's not socially constructed if you believe that to be the case you are conflicting the Quran itself um men are the caretakers of women as men have been provisioned by a lot of women and tasked with supporting them um but we'll get to that verse now it's not like no there are Muslims of course who have adopted left-wing ideas adopted any of these particular month hubs of of the West um not necessarily because they're nefarious or evil but because um they weren't educated in Islamic politics or Islamic law or Islamic system of of uh of of sharia and they don't understand the wisdom behind it but they're not the only ones most Muslims don't and so the Islamic system seems very archaic and weird and strange and just it doesn't make sense and so then because of that they think well the Quran if we believe still believe in the Quran um then the Quran justice but following those laws today doesn't look like justice to us so maybe what God wants us to do is he wants us to see what the recent updates about Justice are that they're coming from the west and we should just follow what they say if it makes sense to us oh this high quality idea seems a good simple principle let's adopt it what's the worst that could happen and um this will lead them as led many people to adopt ideas but when they reopen the Quran they see the Quran says things which have quite contradictory to that that set of ideas that they've adopted so what do they do they use a bit of mental gymnastics on the Quran and said oh the Quran doesn't mean what you think it means this word this verse this word that everyone for 1400 is thinking means that one no no no it actually meant something else right it just got corrupted by Men by um white adjacent Arabs by ableists by heterosexuals and so on and so forth yeah some of these individuals some of these individuals will argue right that people's sexual orientation is just an identity attribute and it is of equal moral value to um another sexual orientation because it's just an attribute that you are identified with and therefore they will interpret the verse on come alone as that the pro the problem of common Lords wasn't that they uh they uh wanted to they prefer to sleep with men interrogation of women which is what the verse the Quran says no no it's because they didn't do it consensually they raped men so it wasn't consensual say that's true because the Quran doesn't seem to mention anything about consent right I mean like is God a poor Communicator he left a very important thing out that would cause you to misunderstand well they don't deal with that they just say but if I can just I just take the Quran it just like if I squint a bit and I just like yeah I can think I can make up my interpretation out of it yeah they have to account to a lot that they they you know but they um have fooled themselves into it because they think that's what Justice requires and so they will retrofit their um these Western ideas into the Quran called icg system sort of exegesis um so the Islamic understanding is equality is not a value in Islam um in terms of uh believing something to be identical we don't believe that everyone is identical we believe that everyone starts out with equal moral worth in the eyes of the Creator yes of course but that doesn't mean that you have to have the same amount of power okay I was gonna I use this example but it probably doesn't work in Canada very much in England okay in England certain policemen can have guns not all but some can have guns you're not allowed to have guns there's no permit you can ever get they banned it after dumpling Massacre um and you would say that's not fair how come the police get to have guns they have a privilege they have guns and I don't have guns that's not fair of course it would be explained in England of course that well actually the police have to take a bullet for you they have to put their lives online for you and so because they have that duty to you they get that privilege and it so it's no longer a privilege it's just a responsibility so with power comes something not from a Disney movie or some Hollywood movie but but with power comes a commensurate's duty all right okay so in Islam uh what men are given in terms of higher responsibilities or or some degrees of decision making and um kind of kind of stewardship of the family comes with a commensurate amount of responsibility and Duty okay so women don't have to look after men grown men that is in Islam but men have to look after women have to die to protect women defend them and so on so forth yeah you can die a martyr in Islam dying to protect your women in your family right whereas the woman is not expected to protect to put her life on the line for you right that's what a catalyst but no but of course it's because um this is the the roles in nature animals uh you know fellow creatures that create Creator made have roles amongst themselves you know whether it's it's in um what people quote Lions particularly the line is quite lazy and just basically patrols and and pushes out all the lines from his territory and the female lionesses are the ones that hunt but anyway um I'm gonna say who's like a lion say oh he's right he's lazy and lets his women work for him anyway anyway but um in essence uh there are roles in in um in Animal Kingdom I like to look at the example of ants right this the bigger ant is the soldier the soil they have big heads with big mandibles uh they don't do the work as the workarounds do right um now I suppose the Marcus dancer would say this is because they are justifying a system of Oppression against the proletary ants uh controlled by the Bourgeois Queen um uh well of course they would if that was that they were humans they would say that was that was the case but with their ants so they would say oh they can't say anything about the ants but in essence that's what Marx would probably would say or Neil marks would say um but what do soldiers have to do they have to protect the hive and they will have they will die the the soldier ants are not generally the first line guys when they encounter a rival and Colony um I mean they can they they can they can they can kill their ants by pulling apart their legs and things like that but they don't really have the big mandibles to do that so so you have a special Soldier class in inside of course they all serve the queen right so it's a matriarchy basically right so if if aliens came to planet Earth and looked at human beings what would they conclude they'd conclude that oh there's one type of human uh has more aspects of reproduction on their body they basically can nurture babies and just date them and the other one doesn't have those things but seems to be a greater muscle mass uh greater long-term endurance running um Fitness um and of course height and stature and strength so what would the alien conclude if they was they were zoologists and we were the ones being studied as animals what would they conclude about us the males would appear to be the soldier class of society to maybe hunt a class possibly because they they can they have more burst of energy over long they have longer endurance that's why that's why no one believes that um the Athletics or football games should stop being gender segregated you know oh you're against your disintegration all really good okay well let's have everyone compete in the Olympics everyone complete in the football you know if if you did it'd only be men right and that's why women would say not to let in transgender because that's men taking off women's sports because women can't compete against men in physical Sports okay and as we know that's that's because of men are socially constructed so that's why they are they are superior physical so but but you know um I've seen some new markets well I'll go that gone down that route anyway um uh Islamic response to class-based analysis uh do you think that good and bad is all about class the Quran doesn't seem to think so what does it say if only you could see when the wrong doers will be detained before their lord throwing blame at each other the one the lowly ones will say to the out to the arrogance the the oppressors basically um had it not been for you we would certainly have been Believers and the Arrogant or the the upper class was will respond to the lowly did we hinder you from guidance after it came to you in fact you were Wicked on your own the lowly would that will say to the Arrogant no it was your protein by day and night when you ordered us to disbelieve in Allah and to set up equals with him and they all will hide their remorse when they see the torment they're all going to be punished all together the oppressor class and the oppressed or because they all disbelieved in God's Revelations they disproven the truth but they were more involved in their own internal issues interesting it mentions here it mentions equality setting up equals with God in the Quran equality is never really mentioned in a positive way ever not equal is the good and the bad right dosing up equals to God the word equality is generally not mentioned in a positive light in the Quran any way it's used interesting enough I was quite surprised when I uh when I was young and I I was reading this and say oh why is it not um saying this um so it's not about oppressor and oppressed it's about Do You Believe In Truth Do You Believe In Justice do you believe in who created you and do you believe in implementing the rights and obligations that he mandated upon us that's what we judged upon all right and interesting the the those who are on the lower rung of society are saying that are what we told um when you order us to disbelieve in Allah and to serve equals with him okay one could argue that this the ruling class is all the intelligencia telling everybody that we're all uh we all are sovereign over ourselves we all individuals we all own ourselves we all get to decide what is good and bad that's setting up equals of Allah and there's even the new Marxist who Reign against the capitalist system believing the exact same Doctrine yeah that we are The Sovereign as we are sovereign individuals they just they just think that the best way to manifest that is not in a capital system they want to change it because they think the capitalism doesn't really allow you as an individual to manifest your individual godhood to be authentic to do what to follow your own will all right to determine your own Essence okay it's very fascinating The Chronic versus sapana um Islamic response to relativism not are not equal are the good deed and the bad or not equal are the evil and the good or though the Abundant of evil might impress you um so very quickly them and then we wrap up um gender is social construct you have Judith Butler to blame for this don't worry you can I just put the quotation on there so that you can see I'm not making it up and you can see where I get it from that my style as my students will tell you is I like to put block quotations on my presentation slides with with the summary at the top because I believe that no one should take my word for it you know I'm a I'm a patriarchal uh kind of man and was subjective and the subject and it was a heteronormative and ableist so of course I can't be trusted fine but you can trust evidence and facts which have been quoted and referenced yeah I'm all about quotations and references you can't argue against them you can always check them yourself just you know copy and paste them to Google find out where I got it from you'll find this right in their books so she argues um that gender is a constructed identity and that there should the way to break the gender itself is a restrictive Force upon people the idea of the socially constructs agenda so the best way to destroy gender roles is destroying gender itself okay and that would lead the way to queer Theory and the idea that you can choose your your gender you can identify as whatever you see fit The Chronic response of course is the male it's not like the female we've been cut we've encountered that before um the uh the new marxists would argue that the the way the way Neymar's feminists will argue that the way uh to liberate women is to create class Consciousness just like the marxists did because they're they're from the same genetic root so to speak either actually speaking but instead of creating a class conscious of workers you create class conscious of women you have to and they that you have to have meetings with women and we will all talk about how men oppress Us and how it's actually deliberately so and they'll see by telling women that you know when like men you think some man talked down to yesterday well that wasn't because that guy was just an irritating person who everyone finds it annoying no no no no he was doing a deliberately to you as a woman from his class as a man so they they put the conspiracy theory into the world right and they call it Consciousness raising okay except from got it from the Marxist State and they themselves mentioned it where they got it from the old left the Marxist they got they will tell you where they got it from not me just sending it to you um the Quran mentions that this is a form of asabia the Arabic word Arabs think it means um being angry today just being angry but it actually originally comes from uh grouping together but it got changed over many centuries because um it got applied to the word nerves you know nerves like get on your nerves nerves are tightly wound together so also be a grouped together and hence became getting the nerves get angry right but it's time meaning it's a classical Arabic meaning is forming groups factions right forming groups that is not ordained by the Creator so the Quran tells us and hold firmative Allah all together and do not be divided um also the prophet Muhammad sallam said he is not one of us who calls to us sectarianism factualism is the best translation he's not one of us who fights for the sake of us he's the one of us who dies for the sake of asabiya um and in another region that's the B is defined as protect defending your own group even when they're wrong right because because if someone's in the right then you just you follow what is Justice and rights but if they're in the wrong if one of your members of your group or your class has made a mistake it doesn't seem really bad and you choose to defend them because well they're part of my group I must defend them against these men then you've committed right created by Neil Marxist because because Neil marks is like Comox so the only way to liberate yourself is you form a group and then you can fight okay so you can't do that as individuals you have to form a class recognize you are a class by recognizing that you're oppressed and then fight standpoint epistemology um standpoint epistemology uh which is basically the argument that um the oppressed class is no better in a society what Society is like because they're outside they get oppressed they see their oppression day-to-day basis so anyone who's a who's in a lesser class or a in any particular identity power relation should be believed no matter what right you must take what they say because they know better than you they have access to Hidden knowledge they see the hidden oppression that you know you don't see because you have privilege privilege is blind they will argue right you don't see it you say well could you explain to me objectively because we speak the human languages so we should be able to communicate to each other universally objectively how someone's being oppressed of course they can't because it is subjective they'll say that well I felt really bad when my boss spoke to me this way it's like was that is that the same boss that speaks to everyone in a nasty way yeah that one yeah he's a man so I'm a woman so he must have you know spoke to me that way because he's a nasty person who hates women say well no he pretty much does it for everybody but okay if that's when you want to interpret it as um because they say that knowledge is socially situated knowledge is created by Society it's a situated in society you can't be objective you can't rise above above it um now uh there's a great reputation of this which I think I brought I said yesterday which is um Adam alaihissalam was was an individual he he was created before there was Society he was given intellect and language language was not socially constructed it was divinely revealed and he had intellect before there was even a second human being to marxists that's impossible right to Neo marxists that's impossible language is in a way all languages derives from original revelation right but to the new marketers and certainly the post-structure is always known as the postmodernist no language is arbitrary made by human beings has no Authority no intrinsic Authority because made by human beings okay Power relations uh Foucault who is arguing is a French French philosopher who's obviously uh he's more postmodernist he's not neo-marxist and he argues that that power doesn't he criticizes Neil Mark as he says that power does not come from top down but power is exercised by every individual Society against each other and the problem is is when people are given narratives that make them um feel that they are part of they have they they gives them an unequal power relation or they they think they deserve an unequal power relation with anybody else this would influence um this would influence neomarxists to believe that on an everyday basis every relationship you have with anyone anybody else if they're of a different term or higher identity attribute uh group uh the new in the hierarchy uh that they their negative relations with you are reproducing the power structure so if you have a bad experience with someone of identified as from a higher class is deliberate even if it's unconscious in them because of because of Sigmund Freud you know the guy who said that um every every guy secretly wants to sleep with his mother and kill his father that guy yeah so um I I'm not making I'm not making this up it's called the Oedipus complex right everyone here knows it's all new to you guys they're like what not just Google it please I am not making this without one up okay so so uh they have a term for this they call it microaggressions basically uh whereby on a day-to-day basis you are reinforcing um the power structure by uh even if if you don't realize it and but who determines who's when who's committing a microaggression I.E um acting based on a stereotype it will be the person that's receiving the microaggression inter gets to interpret that and of course because they're receiving it and because they're the impressed Clause if they tell you that what you're doing is microaggression and you you ask could you give me an objective reason why now I don't have to give you a pretty reason why um I have special knowledge that you don't uh so if you don't accept what I'm telling you then you are limiting me and you are reinforcing the power structure against me so if you don't accept what I'm telling you you're an oppressor basically but you can't just tell me this is the case and I have to accept it could you at least give me uh like tell me what was my words I use with my tone of voice was it my facial expression what was it that that lended to no I don't need to tell you this you just need to accept it from me because you will never fully understand because you have privilege right that's because knowledge is socially situated it's not objective um okay reputation of of microaggressions um so microaggression is anything that's done that of someone dislikes yeah so if a man speaks to a woman and says to a woman um that you know okay look uh you know maybe you shouldn't wear a low-cut top and a you know short mini skirt and makeup and so on so forth and she said you can't tell me what to do say I know but it's like a masala and uh we're about to pray um and you're like at the mimbar so it's not the best place perhaps it's like oh how dare you tell me you're reproducing the the patriarchal power relations by telling a woman what to wear right that's how they would that they will interpret it so technically speaking they would they should be if anyone is allowed into the Masjid then they should be allowed with any clothes they desire and they could be anywhere they want in the Masjid and if you tell them not to do that they'll say that you have no right to do it and you're just reproducing the power relations against yourself but look the Quran says and tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their Chastity and not to reveal their dormants it also tells and tell the believing men as well it says the same thing tell the believing men who's telling the believing women of men all that believing in women and men right so if a man is if man comes up with like Speedos or whatever you want to call like uh like out of the pool a woman can say you're exposing your older and that's legitimate for her to say in Islam she can tell a man that he's breaching Islamic rules and that's totally fine good say it yeah and but the vice versa has to be the same thing too because the creator of the universe says tell tells you to tell right that's not microaggression um uh and for the Believers both men and women they are close unto one another they enjoying the of the doing what is right and forbid they're doing what is wrong so women and men they they are they are close to one another and they enjoying what is good and forbid what is evil men and women we work together in joining what the creator of the universe has mandated uh we should speak the truth even if it's bit bitter sorry about people's feelings it's not microaggression as Muslims we are obliged to speak the truth you must speak the truth and of course um a standpoint epistemology the idea that you know something better and that you can decide what is better good and bad is determined by whether you feel comfortable or not is a bad criteria for Morality why because the Quran says but also there's Quran if people were given in accordance with their claims men would claim the wealth and lives of other people uh rather the burden of proof is upon the claimant if anyone makes a claim they need proof if they don't have proof you don't believe them okay oh but believable women or believable men or whatever no no no no no no no uh respect all women and men take seriously all women and men but believe evidence right and evidence has no gender right um and the Quran says if the truth had been following their inclinations the heavens and the Earth and whoever is in them would have been ruined okay basically people's desires are not the basis for good and bad if they don't feel comfortable in your SP in your space I say okay well objectively am I doing anything Haram am I doing something that is that is a breach of Islamic banners in the Quorum no then I I can't there's nothing I need to do then I mean I might do something out of courtesy but if you think that I'm eating Crisp that's why I'm making crunchy noise and annoying you okay you know why a lot of garlic today a lot of tumiya sauce you know the garlic sauce and I shouldn't be going around saying hi everybody how are you doing keep a hair look all right then maybe okay I get it right okay but even then there's a Hadith talks about not going to to the mosque with um after having garlic right anyway um the criticism of patriarchy um the because that because materialists think there's nothing there's no higher principles the only principle is left everyone is equal in Islam you can have unequal power relations but everyone is on is equally under the responsibility of the Sharia and and and subservient to it the Quran says this and we have a portion among them their livelihood in life this world and raised some among of them above others in degrees that they may make use of one another for service yeah or men are in charge now in charge of women by right of what Allah has given one or the other now they will dispute the idea of of uh kawam being and say oh maybe it doesn't mean it doesn't mean what you'll say it means doesn't mean what you say means look at the etymology of the word and look at everywhere it's used in the Quran you'll be quite surprised at the the usages in the Quran it gets used to mean something that straightens or leads or stands above right straight it's the same root by the way leader yeah comes from leader or one that straightens or stands above um and yet the famous don't like that they don't like that not at all not one bit because for them good and bad is about equal power relations not about um you could say ultimately equal in responsibility equal uh responsibility and Power Balance out so if you're given something extra you have more responsibility that's how we see um the principal worker amongst Islam so um last but not least and it's the final slide Neil Marxist the problem with them is they believe in what I call the doctrine of Suspicion they're suspicious of everything and we will see a bit more tomorrow about that but basically if you are an organization you're a Masjid you're an MSA uh you're a university your workplace your company uh your government if you try to make an accommodation to say you know what I want to be more inclusive to women to Able disabled people whatever whatever um and you you have these programs you you uh you try to get more people of the diverse diverse backgrounds employee whatever you do the Neil Marxist has uh and there and I have quotations for this which I'll be showing you tomorrow they have interpretations of this the interpretation is this is that well the power structure hasn't really changed so you doing this is not that you you desire to make changes and make more inclusion no no no you're doing this to hide the fact that you have privilege and power you're given token token gestures uh but really you're hiding it and that makes you worse that makes you worse than organization that even bother in the first place so every good gesture you do of inclusion is really a gesture to maintain the power structure as is and you feel are you sure they say this wait for tomorrow I don't want to give everything away today because I've pretty much described neobox in in Tota and how it relates to modern day feminism but um when you see how it relates to race there are some uh I will show you quotations of how they people discuss that in terms of of race um but what does the Quran say beware of Suspicion suspicion is the most worst of false tales and do not look for the faults or those faults and do not spy and do not be judges of one another suspicion if I say you know I see brother let's say brother Tariq uh you know he's given he's given a gift to somebody um uh in in the MSA and I might say Okay um he's being generous he looks like he's being generous or I could say he's trying to bribe the MSA you understand you know glass half full half empty oil or even glass with something else in it um the Neo Marxist is propelled to find you know the the old Islamic well it's not an Islamic school of thought but just uh in Muslim history there was a group called The botania okay uh they believed that there was the Quran had hidden meanings and they were all about finding the hidden meanings in the Quran really wacky Twisted out because because you imagine it measures can run wild when you assume the intention behind actions okay Neo marxists are all about assuming intentions behind actions and they'll assume the worst possible intention why because the power structure is not changing so if you're doing something but the power structure ultimately is not changing then you must be secretly reinforcing that power structure no matter how good nice you are uh never tell Neil Marxist that you're not misogynist or racist or ableist um uh or uh uh heteronormative or not heteronormative or whatever they'll say that you saying this is denying the fact is actually covering up the fact that you are right because clearly you are part of a power structure that maintains it you are a cog in the machine so you denying it is covering it up it's worse what you have to say is I have racism inside myself I have ableism summer I have heteronormativity inside myself and and all I can do is to be silent and give my platform to amplify someone else that's all you can do you have to say you you have to say you know yes I am racist you have to say uh yes I have sinned and I have original sin and only for the blood of Jesus Christ can I be saved by amplifying his his message so anyway sorry sorry but anyway um parallels anyway so brother and sisters and I was a long one but I've basically took you through um most of 20th century developments in Marxism feminism I pretty much give game gameway a lot for how um tomorrow's lecture will be about race but there will be some interesting um specific applications of it in critical race Theory uh so all I can say is and as I always say to everybody at the end of my lectures I want you to approach this lecture with trying to refute everything I said disagree with everything I said uh well with reason or like give some argument or something but I want you to get you to give your contentions I will be giving giving power privileges okay to those or privilege to those who have contentions for listening and let me uh I'll wait your attention and questions and so on so forth foreign again later for another lecture in the future or even a debate okay so sister um on the left we've got left wing um foreign but I think grandchild is a very very sophisticated thing so I've engaged a lot with his work and I've read his presence notebooks and I think uh suggesting that he was basically uh he or a human were talking about inventions a bit simplistic because they were not concerned with what the intentions of our Elite are they they realize that there is a power in it which is quite diffused and which changes its own character and there are people who would take talk to you at one point and then they'll be replaced by another group of Industries they were much more concerned about structures so cramshi was concerned more about structures uh structures of material structures ideological structures discursive structures he was talking about certainly he was concerned about cultural hegemony but his um his discussion on how cultural hegemony is produced um is very nuanced in the sense that he talks about so many disjointed elements that come together not necessarily by Design or intention but how the events sort of bring them together so I think I see a lot of families in drawing from even when we talk even when we think about about building uh sort of discourses I think like there there is a space for some kind of maybe a bit of Unholy alliance against capitalism uh which is the predominant post today uh when it comes to sort of engaging with ideas of people like ramshi or or who has a very public critique of enlightenment important that it has death done so much damage to uh to our world um Societies in in particular so that's one point the other is um there was when you were emphasizing on equality uh there was a point where you said that there is when we do it's not a conversation about depression and oppressed and I'm pretty sure that you were talking about that in a very specific context and not generally but I thought that it's important to uh sort of qualify Quran emphasizes a lot on oppression and oppressed of course that's the definition of oppressor and oppressed and and that equation is very different from how the critical uh or new marxists but fighting against oppression has been mandated upon upon Muslims uh and that's uh that I thought was important and just one more Point um us so when we uh when we talk about language for example certain media is a capacity that Allah has endured us with through prophet Adam and there is a a Divine understanding of language but again I think uh when we talk about the evolution of language for example the other day the first day we were talking about categories of thought and you mentioned like how uh some of these categories have never been part of our disciplines or our way of thinking for example uh homosexual or not like characterizing people based on their gender identity and creating those terminologies except is very problematic I think it doesn't really like it has never been part of our tradition in culture and it's very difficult to sort of uh then engage in conversations which are just not necessarily our tradition uh and and their sort of language does become a social construct so there is a part of language uh which is evolving and which is socially constructed so can we completely dismiss that or should we even communicate this is I wasn't sure about that yeah and if there are it's like at the end no opportunity I have like I've talked about a couple of other people okay thank you sister so I'll try and summarize um reversible they just have to remind me um so the I'll start with the last bit you said first and we'll continue going reverse order uh is there an aspect of of language which is socially constructed well like words are neological neologisms are constructed all the time um to describe different aspects of reality of different things which have been noticed usually categories so language creates categories you think via categories um but the issue is that you can categorize people by there are people who like there are people who like uh uh who like Mom I as I mentioned before is a spread toast bread people who don't like Mama I've created two categories there simply by saying um a binary uh false binary no uh but by simply saying there's those who like those who don't especiate the negation so am I now socially constructing it well no because the reality exists there are people that that do are exclusively attracted to same-sex and those who are not exclusively attracted to the same sex um that those are realities the construction uh is not that reality has been constructed but rather that you give moral weight or you give some cons you give a consideration as a as a United group of some kind of shared Consciousness in some way by saying that there is a community of those who are the same-sex Community the same-sex attraction community and the different sectors of Attraction community and those in between the bisexual bisexual Community those are things which are uh are invented but based upon realities uh it's rather giving them political significance is the falsehood there rather because you're giving that you're giving it more of a weight to to make these categorizations but these categorizations exist in reality though they are like you know people you can group everyone you know it was a a bag of a bag of uh well I'm going to like a maths set theory a bag of a bag of green bags a bag of red bags a bag you know a bag of all possible numbers a bags of even numbers bags of odd numbers and so on so if you can create categories and sets basically set theory it's not constructed it's just um how you you can slice reality any which way you'd like into categories that's not construction it's just how do you want to do where do you want to make the slice basically so I would disagree um language is built on trying to describe aspects of reality and otherwise it would be meaningless quite literally and so and reality in a way is what's well reality is um the same we have the same we have the same reality in that we live in the universe uh as much as Adam and Islam lived in this in the same universe and he was told the first names of things and if you realize all language is built up and even new words are built up of constructions of previous words we have lots of Greek neologisms that we use to construct things now like um like sociology for example theology which is the account of socio Society yeah an account of all history and so on so forth anyway so no I would disagree it's not socially constructed um but our choices as to how what classifications we want to prioritize or what we want to give more weight or more or consideration for the political system that is the falsehood that humans invent not it's not that these things don't exist it's how humans slice these things and what they do with the slices right uh now how to go back did I miscategorize grahamshi and hawkheimer I don't think so but uh you expressed something and I respect I said I I I'm I very much appreciate actually that you um challenged me on on this matter and I think you highlights something and that's what my point was that you seem like a very sincere sister and I want to show tell people that if people that that read these thinkers are not they'll have horns growing out of their head and the evil what have you there could be genuine people who are trying to to get a good insight into capitalism itself to understand capitalism and they see these people who have analyzed capitalism say oh these guys can give us some insight into capitalism because isn't capitalism the shared enemy right the enemy of my enemy is my friend right not always the case if you read this what is hawkheimer criticizing what is wrong with capitalism would be the case what is it wrong with it right they say it oppresses okay give me a definition of Oppression well to do that I have to give you a definition of human nature that's being oppressed but human nature According to which definition whose definition well for him it's individuality he says that capitalism denies true individuality because he wants individuality but that's not the measure of how we determine good and bad is it so that's why I give a big red flag to any muscle I say don't read these thinkers from the basis that they're you think that they're going to give you objective knowledge all they can teach you is uh they can teach you about their moral lens and how they use their moral lens to understand the world they can't give you objective knowledge of the world okay like if you say oh but I want to know how capitalism works you know the booms and busts and the Cycles go to any Economist you don't need to read whole climber just go anywhere economists will tell you about inflation we'll tell you about interest rates we'll tell you about stocks and shares and so on and so forth this is not um a mystery you know that's just a reporting of the objective attributes of capitalism and its Tendencies any Economist will tell you they don't want to be Marxist it could be any a liberal economics will tell you the same thing basically right and tomorrow we'll learn that you don't need to go to a critical race theories to tell you about racism you get to any social statistician who studies statistics who does surveys who gathers data they are the ones where you get your your knowledge about racism from it's prevalence uh the inequalities of disparities how the police treat black uh people in America compared to how they treat white people in America how do you know there's a disparity because of statistics not because a critical race Theory looked uh uh just said well based on my subjective experience with my little of my lived experience no your lived experience means nothing it's anecdotal we want stats stats tell us stuff yeah that's why critical race Theory can give you no knowledge about racism that's why you can talk about it without being a a black or or non-white adjacent or what have you because it doesn't give you any knowledge right and we'll discuss that tomorrow it doesn't give you information it just gives a attempt to give an explanation from a particular lens of reality but what you want to start with is okay put that aside what does reality say itself let me just look at reality and see the stats and see this those are the objective things as best as we can anyway um do so hawkheimer is has a subjective idea about what the problem of capitalism is that's why he can't give us any information I don't think I've miscategorized gramsia I mean do mention um anything I said that that you think um I I was wrong about but he he clearly goes beyond Karl Marx's economic determinism Comox Comics was very deterministic although some people say his early writings weren't so much but his certainly his we had to go by his final Publications right he believed that the economic system determined without any free will involved what people are going to think and how they're going to be the way they are okay and gramshi was was attempting to to show that that's not the case ideology has a life of its own yes it might be some some food subconscious ideas of the ruling class but the class as a group maintains a cultural hegemony of the implementation of his ideology over the masses and they do so whether consciously or unconsciously but it the ideology lives and an independent life to economy after it's been created it's like a baby is born by the parents right it's born from parents the baby doesn't still depend on the parents to exist because it could be raised by anybody afterwards but once it's born you can't say well the baby emerges from the parents therefore it always needs the parents there to to exist no once it's born and that has a life of its own yeah that was gramshi's kind of addition to the Marxist thought and he tried to argue that he wasn't contradicting Karl Marx economic determinism he was giving a new spin on it so I don't think I've misrepresented him but if I have let's discuss quotations let's discuss uh texts and so on so I'm more than happy to anyway but thank you we'll come back to you because they're trying to give you a a chance and then okay so uh probably the checkered shirt on the back there any comebacks on the designers second your shirt is white and blue like the Israeli flag wow all right sorry how Muslims should act um and I want to make it due to the people here that as individuals we are not bound to these or methodologies for them for us to be called Muslims centralizing religion into the hands of stories is problematic when does not even write that or prescribe without any room for human critical thoughts or traditional analysis can easily become problematic uh on itself about different environments during the time it was still being revealed um so congratulations in Mecca for instance are different in nature than the Revelation by virtue of how the situation is in both geographical locations that are different um so claim that whatever methods we have today or whatever interpretations we have today are pretty much set in stone uh and they should dictate how we should um view entirely like how we should relate to today's social context isn't convincing for me okay where were you in Monday we I discussed um uh liberal reinterpretations of Islam uh making these exact same uh I I specified all the types of arguments made by a position which I think is similar to what your position that you're making so let's discuss um is it a valid interpretation that there are two gods is it a value to position the Quran there are two gods because maybe you know the the Pagan Arabs uh because they misunderstood polytheism and they weren't ready to to learn true polytheism so it was give they were given a simple lesson just believe in one God for the time being and when you're ready you can come to the true truth that there are two Gods a good Godly bad God like I say he believes versus God with a a manichan worldview why is that not about interpretation or do you think that could be that interpretation of the Quran do you think the Quran can import anything objectively do you think God can can say anything to us objectively so okay well the objective it certainly exists outside of our minds yes but do you think that the Quran or do you think God knows how to impart objective knowledge into our into our heads via his revelation as someone who believes God is all-powerful then yes God can uh and uh via revealed text but that's it's another question of whether or not that's the case no but Kenny though you said he can do anything so can he so then do you think that God didn't do that with the Quran that the Quran is deficient that it can't impart at least very basic of things objectively into the heads of human beings so it's not objective to The Chronic objective matters more flexible okay well let's go into more specifics what do you think what do you think the word interpretation means well what do you mean what do you mean by subjective genetics are just how migraine thinks and it's not necessarily uh impartial it's not impartial okay how did the creator of the universe how how did he impart um Revelation to us and what medium what form what a actual physical book the Arabic language then and then gave him some gave him specific Arabic words did so did the problem learn Arabic from from rev from the angel Gabriel basically yeah the Arabic language of the new Arabic grow up and where was Arabic stored um as as uh before the Quran came well um it's a language spoken in a certain Society okay okay we're getting there all right good and so everyone in that Society is speaking the same language uh ostensibly in one area anyway one locality yes well it changes over time of course but in that one situation time in in history the words have particular meanings don't do not yeah so if I use the word uh if I used the word hello to you and but really I intended it to mean um like get out of the class and but I used it but you almost hello as in a greeting but I wanted to give it the meaning that get out the class but I just say hello do you think it'd be a bit silly if we didn't under if we couldn't agree on what the the meaning of words are that were our common that have reached an age mind society which is what language is any particular moment it has a it's a cultural age ma a agreement as to what the words mean right okay so then are you saying that in a society where everyone has an isma on the meaning of words that God couldn't objectively at least impart basic information clearly via a language that everyone agrees on the meaning of words [Music] okay okay so I suppose by bias you mean that we have desires um or or we have assumptions which I totally agree the Quran says to eliminate assumptions right don't rely on done it's condemned in the Quran not around but don't go by your desires the Quran seems to think uh that humans can read stuff without assumptions and without it's possible humans can read stuff of our assumptions and can read stuff without desires and read it I.E objectively do you think the author of the Quran is wrong for for thinking that of humans what the word van in the quranis is many places London is not available so I think you've made an assumption right you're a bias because there is a possibility that of of multiple interpretations in some things you assume there's a possibility of that everything is interpretable in the Quran in multiple ways that are mutually contradictory but there has to be parts of the Quran that are quite clear otherwise the Quran couldn't do its job it'd be bit of a bad book if every part of the Quran just was undecidable you could think that there are two gods and you can interpret there too because and as I said with a human being with that with their creative imagination and creative desires you'll get a human being that can say anything about any text right all they have to do is just just change the meaning of the words that's all they do they they assume the words have a meaning of the society it comes from so now we've established this if the Quran talks about the only one God it's pretty I don't think you can have any interpretations there are others such that people could say that if you believe in two Gods you're no longer a Muslim right and if the verses of Quran which talks about kawamuna that men are called Moon Over women uh if you say oh that's interesting interpretation but yet every single Islamic sect group faction what have you and they were men's ones that split up very early everyone has ichma on this there is a consensus of it on this these are the the the the people who preserve the Arabic language who understand the Arabic words what they mean and they all have absolute consensus over a word but you 1400 years later seem to know more about the Arabic like not you particular but for know more about the Arabic language than people in its time are living amongst that consensus of people when everyone knew what the words meant so for you to prove your thesis which is a speculation by the way and let's just put that out there that um oh these things were brought into Islam 200 years later you'd have to find even just one piece of evidence that the prophet Muhammad was actually living under some liberal Utopia and with all liberal we've coincidentally exactly the same Loyals that 21st century the West um has in Liberal societies to prove anything of your Feast to prove there was a corrupt according to the corruption thesis that he was originally a misunderstood liberal and everyone around him uh was uh just didn't understand it's like what language is speaking I don't know I I speak Russian but you know so so there's that major problem with your speculation and again I'll specify it is speculation because you need to find at least one evidence of any kind of liberal understanding liberal law liberal uh cultural aspect that was done by the Arabs and you won't find now you argue about Medina you know there wasn't like like isn't that a based on time and place in geography there was a time where the Prophet member didn't have a state right and we didn't see any political laws but when he had a state there were political laws wow this is like this is doesn't this show that there's more relativism no it shows that if you don't have a state you don't need political laws when you do have a state you kind of need political laws it kind of helps you know so you really need to revise and I think you need to be um uh honest with the the thinkers that you you've read like I I I'm gonna guess like people are call it above that I'm going to take a wild guess right and and many others like he's not the only guy he's not the only guy um who make all these speculations interpreting a liberal Islam that historically has never existed in e in one in any even a single school of thought from the earliest factions that split off including the hawadesh who spoke pretty early on and they were all about opposing everybody else yeah so that's a problem that you have to solve uh you until then I will just follow the HMR and each month that has been continuous since the earliest sources of Islam that we can we have which is that um of of a patriarchal family structure of laws that punish Zina it's in the Quran uh of uh the the the sin of komelot which is again pretty clear-cut um you need to you need to give me evidence to to say that there's that actually I've misunderstood this but if you do you ha you you kind of run the risk of actually demonstrating that the author of the Quran is a bad Communicator because if you're saying that he doesn't intend the most obvious and clearest meanings in the in the book right and their verse in the Quran which and all the books right is very clear verses if he doesn't mean this then the oath of the Quran is a poor Community communicator but everyone understands John Locke's arguments and John Knox political philosophy it's very quite clear-cut very rare very very mindless agreements and minor things right whereas you're saying there are legitimate disagreements on the most major and most uh obvious things so you need to be be uh to self-reflect you have a comeback so yeah go ahead necessarily speculating that the problem of living in a liberal communists exactly what it was and um I guess my point so you're saying that we don't have access to no well well basically with what we have we cannot really determine that this is I would disagree let me show you why I disagree right I'll do it visually okay so people say that you know the the existence of um the Shia schools of foreign ironically that they're the most uh pro-muslim unification chilled out uh people in the Muslim world the Middle Eastern furious people are The Descent of the Quran ironic but anyway a man is quite sure Place actually very anyway so we have uh we have the onset of Islam you know here okay I'll just represent it as a sphere for some reason and we have a continuation of tradition yeah we have tradition when you say continuation of it which I'm writing like a doctor but you had Splinter groups very early on coming either side of that they splintered and became isolated so then they obviously had they gave us they they actually it's a great Mercy in a way because they gave us a snapshot of the early play of the Early Times where they separated from the Muslims or at least from the main Jamar anyway because they're all about their differences right they they guard their differences because that's what made them separate in the first place so they give us a really great snapshot into the past and what you find is that if these all agree on let's say that if these all agree on let's say uh uh that men are the gardens Guardians of the family and the response of the family if they're all agree on all those points on on hadul punishments which they generally do there is isma across all these factions from we have Moto water multiple chain narrations going back to the prophetamine Via all these Divergent schools of thought diverging at the most earliest junctures they're all reaffirm the same understanding so I would say this approach is absolute certainty unless you're the only criteria for absentee is getting into a time machine and traveling back but that's a form of of epistemological um epistemology that would that would render your knowledge mostly nihilistic because then you couldn't know anything unless you personally observed it and then maybe you could be imagining things maybe you could be bringing the vet and and so on and so forth so basically that's what we have backing up what you call Mainstream Islam across all the schools of thought in fact when I called to in any aspects about Islam although I am from schools of thought I I I didn't I don't need I didn't need to say because I wore like a black top here everyone thought are you sure I was like well like look it doesn't matter but because I I discussed the general igema right my dawah has only been calling to Muslims to the Collective Agreement of all schools of thought um across the entire history of the Muslims I don't call to anywhere where there's difference of opinion like it's beyond my authority to to make your hanafies or hamblies or arteries or asheries or whatever it's not beyond my my above my pay grade Scholars have been debating those things for years I'm not a scholar to to give you an authority and even many scholars couldn't couldn't resolve these disputes amongst themselves although they might claim certainty can I add something sure he said that we were Bound for the Four Brothers that's not true because himself said from me of course that doesn't need anyone who thinks he can interpret goes on so it's not down to the scholars people who are controlling us from behind yeah it's about tradition it's about a Hadith it's about it's about a historical record in essence it's historical record if all the historical records agree quite consistently but in a quiet consistent picture that the Muslims practice Islam and answer the Quran and answered the Quran in its most obvious meaning right then unless you have some like a you've found a time capsule that that you know that that says Abu Bakr was here and you open it up and it's like he's got like he tells you oh here's what prophet really said unless you can bring that you know and you can carbon date it and we can we can we can tell it was written by the prophet if unless you bring that you have literally no evidence to say that it was anything else which is my point right and if that's the case and and also we also have to consider Allah the creator of the universe must intended that to be the case that there is no other evidence of anything else other than the agreement that we that all Muslims have going back 400 years then that must clearly be uh uh quite quite clear that this is what the profit what the prophet was unintended and what the Allah intended when revealing his Prophet Muhammad so if you wish to have a different understanding of Islam I.E you wish Islam said something different to what the HMR of uh of all Muslims for 1400 years have said then you need to ask yourself um uh just to be sincere with yourself that um do you think that your desires that you have now are not uh subjective by the society that you're raised up in that's giving you ideas about what is good and bad that that has no Authority and do you think that that has made you see Islam as deficient and do you think maybe that you should try better to understand the wisdom Behind islamis these laws maybe they give you a much better solution to the solutions that the West tells you because it's not a question man do you think sure who might have come to an agreement okay that maybe things were um certain four types of Islam are the way they are and how it is but when it comes to certain details it becomes more great and you can't really verify that because and it's not true there so what do you mean by certain details so so let me ask some details like for example were were thieves punished by hand amputation uh that we have no other evidence to say anything else except yes uh was was what males expected to be the Breadwinners of the family there is no other evidence to shape to say anything else but yes right like society that show that certain gender uh structures um were not the case throughout the entire 1400 years of Islamic history so are you saying that human Corruptions after the time of the Prophet Muslim have any should have any moral weight to Muslims because there's a lot of most there's a lot of Corruptions that Muslims have done ever since since should our religion be Hotel held hostage by Hypocrites and sinners even uh yeah here when you're ready but am I advocating in Islam that denies women uh the the the opportunity or the the right to to make money if they if they sell Jews so to speak is this is this well classical Islam says it denies women does does any of the classical schools of thoughts say that women can't make their own money so then what's the issue then what's your issue then yeah as a general command which means that in marriage uh in in okay so in law that would mean that the husband is expected to but the wife can waver that right okay because just because you have a right in law doesn't mean that you you need to always press your rights you can waver our rights and say I won't hold you to this right I have okay you you need to dispute but the law itself didn't exist okay because every every other school of thought um that branched off through multiple chains of narration meaning independent chains that couldn't have all corroborated with each other or reaffirm which reaches what we call motawata which reaches a point of absolute certainty in Islam such that denial of that is you know will render someone outside the foe because you're denying Out Boy is absolutely certain unless you say the only way to go around there is to say that there is no certainty at all in anything that that it comes from Islam but then that would mean itself that Islam itself wouldn't be certain and we wouldn't and you wouldn't concern you know even that it was from the critic of the universe itself and you see where the logic then leads to which is nihilism or a type of epistemological nihilism that would be the natural consequence if you say well I I need to be there I need to make sure that I wasn't I wasn't in the brain in the vet and I need to make sure that I had I I was omniscient right yeah yeah um but we don't need to be there if we have independent gender narration well well clearly say there's more than four they've been houses guess okay you know ignore the idea of the four month hubs just just for the point being maybe that's just like disturbing you I'm talking about the the K the clear teachings of the prophetam of which there is there is um okay punishments all schools agree on them uh the punishment for ear to Dad I'm actually smart everyone agrees on it every single School in history every scholar in the in the history of the of the Muslims who ever could access on historical information or historical record um from multiple geographical locations where the sahabas went to to transmit this all agree testimony multiple agreement across uh geographically isolated chains of historical transmission denote certainty because how could they have all known was in children's Minds unless unless uh the sahabas or the those psychic and they can somehow one of them could could make a lying thought and it would then spread amongst all of them across great distances and what have you but you again you it would that even that would be impossible because then if one person would disagree with everybody else's minds but anyway I digress um yeah you need to be honest to yourself about the epistemology that you're trying to adopt like if you want to say that the problem when he when he mentioned about the rights of the wife and the man and vice versa that he didn't mean what what is in clear-cut multiple narrations across multiple schools of thought which have preserved independent uh copies of narration they're in all their own books their own Transmissions right not just it's not just a disciple because it's a Muslim there's only one that the bodies have their their books their shears have their books and they all corroborate the same thing despite their early factionism and they buy these the Hawaii they went out to the desert to separate from the Muslims so they went right to the edges to fight their Insurgency against the the caliphate system and of course of course unlike the Christians the Islamic civilization uh became a state at the very beginning of its Inception after the prophet Muhammad did Hijra that was a state he revealed laws that became laws of the State uh let me put it this way we know more about the laws and Napoleon bonaparts for certain then we know about his private life although you could say there's Diaries and things like that but but we know more about his laws we know more about the laws of Caesar than his private life why because the laws are made public right but the private life okay do we know I don't know is we hear say what have you the prophet Muhammad revealed a way of life implemented by a state system in a whole society right from the very beginning that was a preservation mechanism because they need to preserve the laws because they need to rule by laws every single day okay so we have overwhelming historical evidence to the point of certainty that the mainstream understanding of Islam and by mainstream I mean all schools of thought beyond the four magical four as you as you as you put it oh you don't put it as you seem to discuss it obviously I Want to Break these fours okay relax you can be you've been husband's waiting for you if you like um you can uh they have common agreements so we're not here to talk about mad hubs I'm here to talk about ijmar and that's the edgemar the question is do you want do you truly would you truly accept the word of God if that the word of God said exactly the idea is that the all the age of Muslims that I preserved for 1400s have said it is the case based on clear answering of the Arabic language from the Quran with clear verses in the Quran about the punishments from all this stuff it's quite clear okay things that liberals can't accept they wouldn't accept passion for dinner right I use that against a liberal they couldn't get around the verse The Chronic it was like I didn't don't talk about it so you need to ask yourself do you need to be honest with yourself about this seriously because what you're saying I'm not saying you say this but I'm just saying that the the road the road You're Going Down The Logical conclusion is that Allah is not a good communicator and that uh how would you know anything for certain and then the next logical step is that Islam is uncertain or that the author of the Quran is deficient because John look is quite clear on these most basic Creeds and and even his more elaborate Creeds everyone's quite clear this is John Locke bear communicated and then the creator of the universe you see so ask yourself that question something for you to ask yourself as a you could say homework then if we're giving out homeworks inshallah okay I want to let someone else uh speak anyone on this side comments questions or contentions I want to correct myself first okay well find them a mirror you can correct yourself I'm joking I wanna hey you I'm running outside okay okay go ahead if you want to create if you make a public correction s okay thank you correction noted all right then and tomorrow you must do public and uh okay anyone on this side okay go ahead um [Music] okay thanks sister all right um anyone that has comments or contentions disagreements or questions if you'd like uh no one from this side no okay so you win that so I'll go for the middle row brother in the back you yeah um sure yes in the sense that the way I assumed that power structures do not exist and they do not have a negative impact but that was fine from what I'm saying that power structures don't exist no of course they exist of course there's hierarchies and things yeah yep um that they do not exist and um so I've got you know I've got problems with that because my great day I do exist in a team that's what I am um then okay I'll Define what I meant so uh are there comments that are derogatory that assume something derogatory about yourself by someone yes that exists obviously it exists yeah um it's like oh hi brother oh you've got clean clothes today it's like okay that's not a compliment right like yeah you've got that means you got dirty clothes or some of this to say um I say uh uh uh oh you're from Turkey no I I don't want to Kebab Brothers okay it's like well not every turkey is kebabs and everything okay fine bottle of dog maybe people they might be proud of it who knows the question is do you intend an insult right actions are by intentions the the Western concept of microaggression is diff the new Marxist one is different to that um it's not about what you intended it's about what the person interprets you you say and they also assume that you're saying it with a consciously or subconsciously to reinforce the power relations in society that's what they call microaggression it's very specific the Quran does not give the epistemology to the person who is um a privileged epistemology to the one who is who is in the minority or is the oppressed or whatever necessarily um because the Versa says those who have disease in their hearts they imagine every cries against them right these are people who think that people anyone who says something will make even a slight comment is criticizing him as attacking them but they have this it's because they have a disease in their hearts it's not because it's true that means you can't trust humans interpretation human interpretations of where they are being insulted you can't trust it what you can trust is what was said you look at okay what was factually said if you were there for example and if there was any clear intention of conveyed by it okay um I want to cite a a scholar who did come to UBC a good friend of mine as well is an amazing scholar mashallah um very warm-hearted very warm-hearted brother and he he basically um he in a lecture two and a half years ago I think of some of this I think it was this lecture called elephant in the room but no no um elephant in the Masjid that was it so he was asked about microaggressions and you know he he gave the Islamic answer to it which is that um it's by the intention right that's something they intend it's not obviously but if someone is racist or is angry is has um uh kibber right they think they're Superior to others it will manifest clearly in an intended argument an intended claim or intended insult or what have you you know passive aggressive insult or you know a uh what are they called a computer salts or whatever whatever someone's giving compliment insulting at the same time well I thought the name of it now um so so it could clearly manifest in their intention right it would manifest in their intentions but you can't say oh subconsciously you're basically um Islam wouldn't consider it to be Haram because you actually by intention but if you think if you have kiber then that is the sin already the sin is that you have kibbed and you you choose to manifest it by speaking down to people you know um and insulting them and thinking they're less than you right so but the microaggression doesn't care about intention it just says that if if it is judged by the the perception of the of the recipient of the of the comment right and it says and it says a negative comment or um just to be of a negative stereotype that's its stereotype okay that's also a problem the Quran says the Alamedas and nations of tribe that we may recognize each other will recognize what that you have certain cultures that you're that you're you come from cultures that have certain age of uh of um sorry the non-arabic speaker uh someone uh that they have a consensus in customs and tastes and things like that they develop some rough consensus does it mean now that you know every person like Chila Kebab could be there you know I like it it's love it um does it mean now that um everyone from Pakistan has pakore or loves pakore no right if you say oh you're from Pakistan there's a great pakoda shop how dare you assume I like per quarter just because I'm from Pakistan I'm insulted by this it's like well I don't mean it insultingly but it's just statistically speaking there's a high likelihood because your Pakistani that you might like recorded because it's a thing in Pakistan right it's not an insult I like The Courier but I'm just yeah I'm making an assumption yes but I'm not doing it insultingly but that would be microaggression depending on how they want to take it you're judging me according to a stereotype okay it's up to them to determine whether it's negative or not okay right but you know like uh as I said but there are but if someone demonstrates kibber uh arrogance that I am they feel they're better than you that's forbidden Islam that's why as I said before into in the previous sessions um Muslims shouldn't use terms like uh anti-racism anti-misogyny or uh or microaggressions Western terms use Islamic terms with they have very good definitions clear definitions Haram and they are they're very general principles don't think you're better than other people don't be arrogant don't think that you have certainty when you don't and don't make factions other than the ummah and even then you stand for justice even against yourself yeah those are simple principles right but if you take the word Arab I want to use this Western term misogyny and all sorts of racism and ableism and I want to use this term microaggressions you surrender yourself to Western definitions of those terms they're not chronic definitions they're not Hadith definitions they're Western definitions and then you've let in Western idea Western uh concepts of values and good and bad into your Dean oh Islam is an anti-racism okay great so I'll take anti-racism and I'll and then those who defined it will tell you what it means and they're not going to take from the chronosunder right is instead say I don't want anti-racing policies I want auntie kibber and anti-assabia policies in the in this Masjid in my company uh in the government um in the MSA whatever that's where that would be the Islamic approach sure that's because they do not want to make it very obvious that they are being aggressive to you and so and I know this might be going through those Theory or something like that but then it's it's a thing right like because of political practice they cannot make it obvious that you know they let's say they look down upon you I'm just giving it give you an example if I'm an avocado person you're a white person I guess um and you asked me well I'm part of African but okay let's let's forget that where you're from right yeah and [Music] um yeah okay yeah all right and then the third time again you know where exactly are you from now that question let's say you're a white person you would not ask of another white person and if you went through that only with the correct person that's microaggression because you haven't made it obvious you have not made it wrong is that your your trying to be aggressive to me but what is that wouldn't that be a sharpen aggression because you are you're asking that to somebody who's this color and not to a white person so again as I said probably 10 20 years ago they would make it very obvious that oh you know you're really are you from here now those words are not sick right and so it's it's it's it's it's different but I mean the intention is pretty obvious okay well let's let's dive into that then so you said that their intention is pretty obvious is it well okay is it okay I tell you what I'll tell you what whenever you meet any human being that you don't wreck they look unfamiliar to you like they have features that you don't fully recognize what's the first thing when you meet any stranger you say Hi how are you doing what's the first question you ask okay what's your name after that where you from it is an automatic behavior for human beings to identify I want to know Origins because your Origins tells me something about your culture then tells me how to relate to you right we reckon to recognize each other right it's natural naturally occurring now as I said Neil markers would say no no it's designed to make you feel like The Outsider that you're a foreigner in this country and so on and so forth but I've found my you made an assumption about people's desires that there might be someone who's being racist and wants to say where you're from what have you but I don't know what they might achieve to say you know where you're really from and say okay well I'm from uh I'm I'm from Thailand or something say okay well okay what we established then you're from you're originally from Thailand your great grandparents were from Thailand Okay big whoop so what my no although in Canada it's quite ironic because um I actually have had a few conversations with many white people in on the plane generally I'm quite the sociable guy on the plane and um I asked them all the time where they're from and I say oh do you are you originally from English extraction French extraction Scottish or Irish I asked that all the time actually and I've seen people ask the same oh they even did volunteer it actually oh uh yeah we originally my great my great-grandparents were actually from Scotland we moved here in the 19th century or 18th century or whatever I was like oh okay that's happen all the time because Canada and America is an is apart from the Native America Americans here and the native Canadians they're a nation of immigrants they're all immigrants also in some way shape or form um although you probably won't ask in Australia you probably wouldn't need to ask all the white people where they're from because yeah your grand great grand principal for just criminals from England so we know that so there's no new information there asking you where you're from um but um people ask where they're from to get to see culture right especially if they see for example objectively that you you have a an accent not resembling the the uh let's say the normative Canadian accent currently which will indicate that you might be more recently from elsewhere and they always want to know your background so they can relate to you or just know more about a new background they never encountered before okay it's totally normal but it depends how you want to how you're told to interpret those questions and yes um it doesn't mean that everyone who's ever said that has good intentions I'm not saying that at all but I'm saying that it can be interpreted in a benign way and that an actually occurring way that all humans are or it can be interpreted in a very negative bad way and Neil Marxism is all about the latter always is interpreted a bad way always I ask Muslims all the time where they're from right because I love the diversity of the ummah and I learned so much from uh encountering just last year I met a promac for the first time I was like wow a promac these those are because like what the promac these are Bulgarian indigenous Bulgarian Muslims you didn't know they existed did you right they did they're more indigenous than the Bogus the bulgarians they were like uh Greek descendants that were living there and they converted to Islam at some point anyway it's a long story but I knew about them because I like ethnology but I I loved it when I encountered one oh excellent let me know more about like some you know from first-hand evidence I love this so so you can either interpret that in a good way like saying I'm just fascinated by it by the diversity of the Muslim ummah and I Revel in it or I'm trying to emphasis I'm trying to to emphasize this poem act that they're foreign at the time even though I myself am far into England uh well at least my my parents are so I myself am not English you know so was much is my job that makes the permax feel foreign when I'm a foreigner too in the same land and I kind of look pretty Muslim you know with my topi and so I will now look special even more identifiably it's like Muslim so I I never really felt that the British looked at me like there goes an Englishman they don't look at me and then they think that right you know it's beard and everything with the the Mediterranean features I'm not English right so um my point is this that Neil Maxim always makes you have a negative interpretation whereas you have to what I'm saying is not always had a positive interpretation just assess it on the merits what was the tone of voice like what was the facial expression like add all that together if they say oh where are you from then that kind of conveys okay he's probably not a big fan of of people of my skin color then right always like oh where you from it's like oh okay that sounds it looks more innocent more more benign so yeah just don't use Neil Marxism to interpret things all right um is my point oh you know what there was a message I had like a special Mission wanted to add and I completely forgot to mention it and now most of the sisters have left because it's quite late now but the problem is not a Target so it's okay in this particular case right I want to be very very extra clear about something um if sisters come to you demanding Islamic rights rights from the Quran of Sunnah they're in the Quran Sunnah it's clear-cut they say I want we want to go to mosque and say oh but it's not it's not recommendable you recommend for you to stay at home and pray okay but also said in the Quran I do not prevent women from going to mosque right so I want to go to the mosque don't say are you a feminist don't say that guys don't say that right a feminist is judged based on the content of what they're calling to not because it's a woman calling to rights okay yeah it's time for you to um you know stop watching those Andrew take videos I'm joking well am I um and and like like stop judging because you know what it is it demoralizes sisters who actually want to be um to Accord to the dean and want to live by Dean but they're humans and so and Muslims and so they want others rights that was given to them okay and if you deny it or you or because you are so ignorant about feminism that you think everything's feminism because a woman says it or a woman of course to it you are turning them into feminists because what they see is that you're just intent on denying rights even legitimate rights that makes it look like you are the patriarch who hates women are misogynists do you understand and it's not men I I don't think it's it's uh done with intent I think it's because there are brothers and let's be honest uh because many Muslims are ignorant brothers who are just generally ignorant about about Islam and feminism and you just think oh well that sounds like a feminist don't don't say that guys don't you're shooting yourselves in the foot you're um you're pushing sisters who want to live by the Deen towards the feminists basically right so so don't be idiots about this please we want to encourage adherence to the dean yeah so yes it is recommendable for sisters to pray at home but guess what it's also recommendable for brothers to do praise on their prayers at home yeah are you gonna go to imagine and go are you praying enough go home go home brother just go right you're not going to do that are you yeah so then like um I I mentioned the other day but I'll mention it again because we're in the right relevant you know it's the relevant lecture for it of course um as I said there was a a public day I will name no names um on on this individual because you either you know what he says or or you don't but um I could do I could do but because I just choose not to so um in this particular case he defended the the talibans um uh kind of banning women's higher education for the time being I mentioned before a couple days ago so you know do forgive me for repetition but this is about feminism so let's talk about it um and these are because it's not an Islamic obligation for women to have higher education higher education makes women um less likely to have form um stable families and have lots of children so on so forth was arguing so this is like a capitalist thing that makes women um uh kind of not be mothers and homemakers and things like this so he was like yeah so I think it's good that they banned it and like because it's not obligatory for women to go to higher education with his argument and I think well yeah it's right you're right because there was no higher education the time the performance there was no University system that's true but it's also not an obligation for men to go to university either all right with a caveat that obviously as long as Society has sufficient um professionals to man to fulfill the collective obligations of the dean required um it's not but it's not obligator in any particular man to go to university also which is also it's also true but but it's also not Haram for a woman to go to higher education or a man to go to higher education either so yes the SE things that one wasn't uh preventing an obligation by going uh arguably by going to higher education yes yes of course but they were they were prohibiting something that is permitted and that does go against Islamic rules right but the real reason they're doing is not because they think women don't shouldn't get educated as we know as I mentioned before the days ago in Pakistan many uh their mother says that follow the same ideology as the Taliban that teach men and women there no it's because the West froze the funding of the of Africa or kept the funding of the government of Afghanistan they're going through feminine problems there they need the money the the Western governments are just being nasty about giving them their money the money they have in International Banks and so the Taliban said well if you guys are so crazy about women's education all right fine we're going to ban it until you give us our money back remember they banned it one month after their funds were frozen yeah one month to which I said two days ago that what they should have said because they have really bad PR they have they have bad PR with PR all right that's all the way don't worry anyway um is is they should have simply said to the West we're going to freeze all um funds for higher educational higher women's education and read out those funds to feeding people who are dying of starvation or they are mounted nourished there's no point being higher educated when you're dead they should have made that as a counter argument so if you want to give us our funds back we will put that back into our education until then we need to feed people better argument and I also said uh if the telephone are looking for a new Diplomat I'm I have good rates and you can just feed me those big Afghan nans they're really tasty so yeah an Afghan one this one is a actually this this one is Afghan actually it is an Afghan turban I think [Laughter] okay so um so but but but uh the that in that brother who had who was defending Taliban uh you're making things look really bad if you if you if you try to say yes a good one it's good what they did and like because education destroys families or prevents women from um uh from forming families at a younger age which uh which obviously leads to uh healthier kids because your kid the older you are the older you leave it obviously the more risks that are in that happen uh the more issues that can arise with with Children Of course and and so on and so forth so the okay that's fine then why don't we create a society where women uh uh can have access to a higher education if they wished uh because it's not Haram but at the same time inculcated um that men and women to be able to get married younger you know why don't we just do both why is it either or yeah so that was my response so anyway um as I said brothers and sisters um do not fall into the Trap of genetic terrorism and um like people like um uh the non-muslim Andrew tape before he became Muslim but not just him I heard of mgto's you know people men going their own way who who are basically the equivalent of The Fez of the uh the feminist um political lesbians so like but not to be gay but in front of just to be separatists right separatists from women um the way to address feminism is not to go the other way and and argue for male of sabiya it's asabia it's jahili as kuffer okay uh instead we don't try to make everything equal between these two you know we say okay they one of them is is unequal we need to balance out well you know like uh one of them is getting too too bigger so we have to balance it out with with getting um we're trying to to fight for our side which ironically is is very neo-marketess in a way instead you say no forget making them equal have them all under the uh this is me my attempt to draw a book but under the Quran basically and so now put the Quran above us right don't make it about humans who's above who in humans forget humans humans have no Authority the chronosunder has Authority let's make the law above us so make that the absolute thing yeah so reject male also beer or meninism or red peel rubbish and also reject uh all the Western feminisms and just stick to the dean of Islam have a good authority the the the offer of the dean of Islam knows what he's talking about when it comes to human beings okay that was my message you know like uh may get into a tick tock or something like so I wanted to make that clear because you're you're pushing women unnecessarily to feminism because of your ignorance and fear over how to deal with it you don't know how to deal with it or deal with it from quranistan confidently and engage it also um but you don't need to um like like as I said Andrew takes his advice is more is more like uh women are arrogant and so you have to treat them like this to get the respect you want how about don't go over an arrogant woman in the first place or give dawa and tell her that there's something higher than us then then that's it's creative universe and then marry someone who is just as non-arrogant as yourself and and knows their place in the universe yeah which is which we we all have that place and we're all under the same crater so that would be my suggestion okay all right anyone else comments contentions criticisms says oh you okay good question so I remember the concept of gender fluidity where the individual gender changes so I was just thinking just in a reference to standpoint epistemology where you know you can't say something because yeah can an individuals see say that no I'm actually gender fluid when I'm talking to a feminist identify as a woman when I've done the conversation I go back to being a man this is a contradiction okay the brother says can you use gender fluidity to confuse um confuse feminists and others by simply saying that um when they're when they're telling you when you're telling you off you say uh for not accepting what they say you say no I identify as a woman now and then when they're done you say you defies a man all right um I suppose you could but the funny thing is I mean okay they'll say you're not being sincere because you don't truly believe that but yeah but but technically speaking here who are they to decide that too yeah you're right right but that's why um Neil Mark's sister and also then post-modernist influenced uh uh individuals will fight each other and we so mutually confused and confusing uh so you're right that is one of the things um on this side sister right on the side they're here expected sure [Music] acknowledge that stood up and Haram in it and then part two he actually also mentions that you were mentioning before about women seeking higher education there's a lot of okay so the sister asks um she comes from background that celebrates International women's day and her brother says that's bidder and he also says that women shouldn't go to higher education because there's a lot of free mixing right represented correctly okay so I think the first point is um because as a general rule uh Muslims only have two eids which is what that Hadith says that Muslim has replaced the the celebrations of jahalia with just with two eids two um uh public celebrations that we have now um You could argue that they because there were times when Muslims rejoiced after battles and War and fighting so you could have temporary celebrations to celebrate be thankful over a victory uh and of course you can celebrate things that happen in your family like um you know a birth of a child or a son or daughter or what have you you can celebrate those things um and have a party or just celebrate having guests and things like that but but not to socially instituted uh you know permanent eids is the is the case I suppose what he's trying to say I'm assuming uh or maybe I'm making a bear case and he does or maybe he just thought that specifically women's day or as in for women is a bidder but but no I would say it's the issue of having another Eid other than the two eats so that would be the position of um of the schools of thought generally speaking with one exception of course the debate on the the molit of the of the the prophet Muhammad the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad Muslims today want to celebrate many Muslims want to celebrate this and it wasn't celebrated at the time the prophet Muhammad does it mean that it's Haram to celebrate it well the issue is I'm not going to get into it because it's not it's outside of my remix not my job to get involved in it I currently call you today so oh you said a second Point um about uh going to University because it's free mixing well the marketplace in the times of the Prophet Amazon had had free mixing and this Harbors even complained that there might have been a bit too much free mixing even in their times happening in the marketplaces but it doesn't necessarily mean that women are prohibited from going to the marketplaces because there is free mixing so I'm not going to give a 50 opinion of course about University specifically but I'll just give you the general principle it seems that that there might be when men women mixing uh in a local because they're all in the same area is not is not a basis to prohibit them from going to those areas but it could be justified that you might need to regulate those areas with the sahabas maybe did try to regulate um men and women like like walking down streets and you know and like not to bump into each other to kind of uh clear areas and things so like like one channel for men one channel for women so to speak that kind of stuff so that would be the response that just because there is free mixing an area that could happen as in men and women in a same local geographical location is not sufficient to mandate a ban from what we know from the equivalent of marketplaces in time to perform happiness or afterwards and so on so so but as to as to is that can I give a fake opinion on the issue of University specifically or or Canadian ones or in in the 20th century UK as UK um are you coming down I'm still my head's still back across the Atlantic uh I can't say because that requires and I'm not a Mufti and I can't give you an opinion on that so I can only tell you a classic the classical situation uh but but because a Mufti might say well yes in general but there's a specific reality about Canadian universities or American universities or Western universities that are a little bit different than the marketplace that might mandate that right I don't know because I'm not a Mufti and that's why I can't speak on that so all I say is free mixing as in women and men being in local in a local is not by itself a principle for for Banning it because because that situation happened in the past but as to the very specific Arenas that exist today you need to consult a scholar okay uh okay look at your Marxism and all these other is discuss them in isolation they tend to make clear sense and arguments again I can put arguments into certain brackets but in the real world for example in Canadian Society or university Society to find that individuals when projecting their arguments mix from a bunch of these ideologies which in in originality contradict each other but somehow they have been grouped into into individuals and and and the lines between these are these these the lines between these ideologies are not very clear anymore so for example you will find someone who identifies the liberal making these a new Marxist arguments but fully identifying as a liberal it seems this this vision of left-wing right wing is is not very clear you make a good point um no no no no so so um so brother says why do you find people who are liberal not using new markets arguments because uh just as you have Muslims that are using Neo Marxist arguments and um so so a liberal Market is a defined and a socialist as I mentioned before in the previous sections um are defined by the political project they want to see happen yeah so what how the economy is going to run how's the state state level of power and general rights of the people these also contain analytical tools for um judging what is oppression uh and what does it look like what is indeed What does individuality look like and there's and they they there's no fixed understanding of it in any particular school of thought um well I mean there's there's General mainstream ideas but that people might like a liberal could say that a microaggression might be a form of harassment because social Liberals are against harassments they might concede because it causes because they say well if it causes someone um offense um based on race let's say then they could see that it could be a form of harassment they're open to them yeah because social liberals believe that that you have to have social opportunity and you should you should you should have a social safe space I suppose would be the way of putting it for social liberals uh I'll get I have hate speech laws whereas classical liberals will never Implement hate speech laws they say it's against freedom of speech you know no one's physically harming you so just like toughen up you know so um yeah you're right there is a lot of confusion uh but but like post-modernists or post-marks is sometimes called post-structuralists um if you want to be more precise they're just an analysis an analytical tool and a tool of of refutation because they they don't believe in any meta-narratives or ideologies um or uh Deans yeah they think they're all undecidable so they don't really have one they're advancing but in a way they kind of are a little bit because they're trying to say they would argue that then that all individuals should live free from meta narratives free to make your own narrative would be their argument I suppose you know but they wouldn't they couldn't talk about economics and they couldn't talk about political system they don't talk about that stuff yeah so so post-modernists they are a reaction to disillusioned neo-marxists oh sorry they are disillusioned Marcus and Neil Marxist who apostrated from them and said uh you know what forget capitalism forget Marxism you're all crazy we should just be about the individual human being making their own narrative not being under the Marcus narrative Neil Mark's narrative or the the capitalist narrative or what have you they're against all narratives that includes Islam too by the way and Christianity and so on so forth so you have a follow-up yeah um no once you're done with your thoughts yeah pretty much um sure I find the way we are learning about these isms right now they put us on a track which makes it harder to um in order to argue with individuals in the modern real-day context because we and this we're learning about these it's good I'm appreciating yourself but we're learning about these ideologies in isolation or as they were originally understood those points is a complete mixture concoction of different isms and individuals I know where you're going with this and should I give you an answer presuming where you're going to go this which is can we if only there was some kind of guidance that looked at what uh how people instantiated these ideologies how they Implement and used in the tactics they use and pointing out where these come from these things what that people do in amongst youth woke whatever if only we had a document that said here are these tactics that they do and here's where it comes from and here's how they're wrong that's a great Point brother that's an excellent point if only we had like a case studies and that we could then you know Trace Trace you know where these ideologies came from is an excellent idea brother I think inspired inspired I don't know I don't know all I'm saying is that just you know uh Friday is your majuma it's a blessed day and I would like to see you guys on in this lecture on a Friday that's what I'm going to say for the grand finale anyone else have any comments uh uh there's almost been this abolishment of definitions or yeah I mean definitions of definitions as classifications almost shifted to this Society where we're only interested in identity identification or self-identification so you'll see today unfortunately or whatever it might be I want to get your opinion on this when someone says okay I'm a Muslim but I identify as well with certain aspects of this I'm not following the general definition or these if you will of what this definition mean is the means but I identify still as this for free and you know you can put any ears in front of me okay so someone identifies something they say I don't necessarily believe the the what this label the original said I just want like the label okay then tell them why don't you call yourself a Satanist if any Muslim says oh no I just want to I I want to adopt this label I don't believe what this label meant from the Western perspective I just like the label I say okay call yourself a Satanist and I say why wow no I'm gonna call myself why not because you know Satan is still like they worship the devil I say huh just you can reinterpret it let's just say I just believe the devil exists Satan exists so you believe that this exists is a Satanist the individual meaning is um adherent office on the one that believes in yeah okay no but people misunderstand that they'll think I they'll think that I I believe in Satan I say well exactly so why are you calling yourself secularist nationalist feminist socialist liberalist conservativist whatever you want to call it right conservative I suppose um because we you will equally equally be misunderstood yeah as Muslims we're not even meant to be drinking from wine cups less people think we're drinking wine right we're not meant we have to deal with we have to not generate heart so why are we calling ourselves stupid labels that have a clear-cut or at least a well-known meaning that's at odds of Islam say oh but I choose to identify in my own personal way yeah I said I tell you what I tell you what you say you're an idiot no no it's not someone who has weakened today I choose to Define it as someone who is clever so I'm going to call you an idiot right because you know my meaning right they're not going to like is it is it might have had a meaning once that way or bad meaning but I mean it as a clever person yeah no but that's clearly everyone knows that well exactly doesn't it everyone knows that so why are you doing the same thing yeah uh was it on this side no okay in that side thank you foreign this week yes yeah so for some unfortunate reasons and surprisingly was very uncommon with ideology so is it better to like foreign short few organizational funded by only banks that was the 40 for Women rights and they will actually say they have the right like they were some women would deny their British needs to cry like I was against like that was like maybe 15 years ago I was against this like I was against to join forces liberal movement because still monitors someone was like yes those women's got the rights but till the moment people remember that this was because of the liberal movements not because of that like Oz Harbor yeah okay so do we join forces with liberals or others who are doing good works um and of course what is there a problem because because people might think that there were these guys initiated it and so they are doing things and changing things for the better yeah it's because of them okay well um that's a very very interesting point very good point I mean generally the Quran says incorporating the good and they're not cooperating still in transgression um however the problem in the Muslim world the problem with the Muslim civilization currently is we don't initiate anything we just react right like a stone a dead stone right so that's don't don't initiate stuff does it it gets hit by what it rolls it you know gets smashed apart it breaks it doesn't do anything right if nothing if there was no external pressures in the Muslim world no pressures of resources or any of that kind of stuff the most involved just wouldn't change at all they'd be too busy waiting for the Maddie or making any other excuse to be to procrastinate basically right that's the level of us as a civilization there's a reason for that which I I can get into but um after 1400 years it was inevitable we reach a cultural and Plateau economic plateau and then we would start to decline as we forget the the ideological resources that made us dynamic as in reacting not reacting but initiating new changes um and seeing ahead in the future planning ahead um and by playing ahead I don't mean like making some city city that's that's shaped like a line because you're going to run out of oil in a few decades that should have been done decades ago right um uh you should have maybe a sovereign wealth fund where you spend all that old money investing it around the world like uh the Scandinavian countries do and they make loads of money and you don't even need to um loads of money that keeps on going with a a constantly renewing um investment that you've put based on initially what oil money you found yeah whereas obviously although they just spend it spend it spend on the nice palaces and and um and uh pliable Scholars anyway so um so uh the the Muslims should be leading in all these things ourselves right slam has guidance slump can change the world so why are you letting the world change you that's what happens if you don't change the world the world changes you it's guaranteed and then people will think it's hikmah it's wisdom oh because the world is changing uh and you know obviously because we have no power because we don't do anything uh let's we have to adapt by uh the the the least the least of two evils right and when you choose the lesser of two evils you normalize the evil that I even I must noted that once you choose a letter of two evils then that becomes your new your new standard okay so you get you get what you can either fall down like all the way down here or you could fall down all the way down here so I'll just pick this one but as you fall down here you're now closer to the lower one and eventually you get more more offers more more um choices of letter to evils and slowly slowly you reach there anyway yeah you're just slowing down your descent I suppose uh and you call it and it's called wisdom basically so um isn't it funny that all this talk of choosing this of two evils how comes every single Choice fostered upon us not ones that we generate ourselves is evil between two evils always between two evils how is that guidance for Humanity that the only thing that we that we think Islam tells us to do is to constantly choose between a never-ending series of evil choices that doesn't sound like guns to me okay what does the harbors do didn't choose business they made the choices they made the two choices they create the new situations they open new possibilities New Opportunities right they planned ahead they didn't just say okay let's sit down wait let's see what happens oh I feel it's not going all the way oh well let's just choose the lesser of two evils then right didn't do that but we do it now because Islam is Shackled In the Muslim World his food is a crazy force that has to be controlled by these dictators imposed but after colonialism right their job is to prevent Islam becoming political again every time that their regime is threatened like Gaddafi said it like uh Assad and like Mubarak what did they say if we go the islamists will get in right they'll say it to the West right oh don't don't fire us or don't leave us to hanging in some cases literally um because like like we were the ones our job was the ones that is suppressing the uh Islam than the Muslim world right and and because the the current usul on the Muslim world is avoid Fitness at all costs um even if it actually leads to Greater fitna because uh and so on but and fitness being defined as anything unpleasant basically oh really if the early Muslims Makkah uh including the prophet Muhammad of avoid causing fitna he wouldn't have given Dao then because the the quresh said look at this person look all this all this trouble he's making cursing our Gods uh like they wouldn't have cared if he just worshiped one God and didn't say anything because the Christ don't care if you just want to worship they've already were people that were hanif we worship one God they didn't care they knew about Jews and Christians they don't care but when you but they told the prophet Muhammad do not look you know don't care about whatever you want to be believe or pray to just stop insulting our Gods stop attacking our Gods our religion our way of life our Dean stop doing it yeah he could you you could have if if you took any maybe uh let's say not uh not a deep thinking scholar we have today unfortunately that that tells us uh watch out for what uh watch out for Fitness if you were to take that guy put him back in time to advise the prophet Muhammad he'd probably say look if they let you pray to one God then don't cause Fitness by and says why are you causing Fitness by criticizing them yeah why yeah that's what they say wasn't it because they say that now right they say it now so what I'm so basically um I Believe In following the the prophet Muhammad on the way of the sahabasma of the sahabas and these were very different Muslims obviously we know that but don't just look at their personal priority how they prayed and and so and so forth look at how they uh used and and implemented Islam not just what they implemented how they implemented Islam how they've made plans how they made they they thought about tactics Hollywood didn't just think well we are the army of Allah Allah is going to give us Victory we're just going to hit the enemy straight ahead because Allah's gonna the Angel's gonna come they're going to help us we don't need to write your tactics because we have all on our side no he knew on this Earth uh with with limitations uh with with um the need with the uncle he expects us to use it so if we don't so he made plans he made tactics and stretches ingenious ones fooling and deceiving the enemy genius once subhanallah uh what he did uh but because he knew yes Allah determines victory of things because of course but we're here to worshiping fire maximum effort and Max includes Uncle as well as so if you didn't make those ingenious plans and he just said I'm going to walk up to him and fight them he knew he was being deficient in his obligation because Allah wants us to do our absolute best which means we we uh we use everything in our control every tactic stratagem planning ahead for planning continuously planning all this stuff and then once we've done all this we have done we have Tyler camo yeah and then Allah can give us that Victory right if we just think that Allah that we deserve Victory because we're on the right side and we just do minimum efforts which is what what Muslims do we do today then of course Allah is going to not give us Victory because we're not worshiping him properly instead he made us on a universe that has rules and and limitations and so why aren't you attempting to you say game the system game this universe uh for the Huck yeah you should think that oh I'm on the huxto Island's gonna give Victory to it automatically no it's not necessarily the case yeah you have to think you have to be you have to use hikma has to use wisdom right um You have a follow-up yes active responsibility what can I do take the alternative is basically doing nothing yeah well as I said because this will require lecture on the end of itself but just two simple principles um study everything including um utilitarian um no but we became utilitarian uh we went in this utility no um um Muslim because early Muslims talked about using plans that are most effective in you know like make a plan that's most effective right but then but then over time over many centuries it became about minimizing uh losses and minimizing Fitness uh but accepting a degree of it that because um because they didn't make any proactive changes so they so then the world suddenly just started to give them tons of fitness and they just had to choose what's the less of the one the Lesser and then things got worse worse worser gradually more and more until until you see class later Scholars saying things earlier Scholars wouldn't say you know soil scores would say yeah speak the speak the heart can do incar of the leader speak and count the ruler and Leo scholar saying it's probably going to kill you so no point right it's like it's not what the supers were done yeah this helpers would have would have like been Shaheed for it and they would done it collectively and they were done like they was like they'd all come out there and be Brazen about it and be brave about it right so um uh so we're not utilitarian no and I'll give you a great example of this okay Imam hazali he gave it he refuted this idea brilliantly he said imagine there's Muslims a bunch of people on the boat okay and the storm happens and the boat's heavy and they they throw out all the cargo stuff but there's still too many people on board okay and there's a possibility that if you throw people out the majority will be saved just a few people the majority will be saved he says it's Haram to throw them out because a number of reasons you're killing them okay you can't murder even to save your life you have no guarantee of Victory anyway over of success in in any way okay so um and you could because you can't see the future you're not utilitarian and only then he's given special permission for Allah to do to do what he did yeah some people say he's actually an angel and hence he he yeah but anyway it's not an issue yeah we're not utilitarian we follow principles even if the principles that they might seem to make things worse at the beginning but they actually create a much better situation afterwards okay the west and as I said I'm not just anti-anti words I hate everything about the West because even the sahabas praised the Romans they said the Romans are good at controlling they have good five good um five good attributes about themselves including they control they limit their tyrants yeah yeah um and I will say that the the in the west like if let's say if um if Trudeau or the Canadian government was to let's say uh ban the Canadians right to free speech or like to criticize them as let's say and the Canadians would go out to the streets and even if the military obey was was so loyal to Trudeau they'd do anything he says and they start shooting the people they'd still come right and they would still keep coming even they they lose those themselves even they decide to get there's explosions and the cities collapse and whatever they do it because they prefer to uh to keep that principle than live in a society without that principle and they might be destruction initially but then there's a much stronger Society afterwards and I'll give you a a particular example the um the American Civil War and the English Civil War okay destruction Untold destruction 600 000 Americans died in us in a which is well before I remember I I cited once when the Syrian Revolution hadn't even reached that and the the population of Syria and and 19th century America was similar at that at that time and the Americans didn't care right the English for a war against tyrannical a king it caused Untold destruction really bad worse than even zero today worse worse much worse back then and they didn't care because they were fighting for justice in their mind and they didn't want to live under a pressure regime and it caused a lot of damage oh yes a lot of damage but afterwards they made a monarchy that could never do that ever again ever did say fair trade that's a fair trade see but so who judges how much uh the of the future about fitna and so on and so forth you know suddenly Muslims will think their prophets because they can judge the future that everyone's ahead now because we can all say oh it's gonna cost too much for now and there's never been any benefit from like you don't know you don't know okay you you have no idea so um you follow the principles yeah it doesn't mean be stupid and just go like you know well you know let's say you know uh president I want to use president now because obviously you might be worried about using present CC although I've criticized them in properly anyway you say like President Mubarak you know um uh you know he'll cause uh uh like if I go out and just say you're he's an idiot I'll get arrested and tortured yeah of course that's a bit stupid yeah but if I work behind the scenes and get like a thousand of us out to say that collectively altogether he can't kind of do everything can't arrest all of us at the same time and do and torture that many people it's too many people to to do although he I could be good at one point but anyway yeah so like you need to you need to plan for victory right rather than um well I saw the Sun Zoo says um a Chinese philosopher and Military Tech strategist he said um seek Victory before seeking battle right so make all the plans the right plans for victory and and then you uh you you press the battle don't just I'll fight the battle first and see if I can get the victory in the battle no no you wait you buy your time you know even if it takes weeks if it takes one month two months or seven months you bite your time you build up that Victory so to speak you build up that to get the right condition to get everything away and then you press you press Thursday so these are things that we lost uh we lost from our understanding about how to implement the dean of Islam the West for all the cover of ideas they believe in they they have cover ideas but they have jicama in how to implement them Injustice right from what Allah has given us our what we deserve but they know how to implement they plan ahead they make continuously plans I mean any of you works in the company and all the kind of bureaucracy you have to fill in about continue safety reports and risk assessments and all this Jazz right because they plan ahead they they plan structures and they plan metastructures and they do all this stuff trying to get ahead in uh which in Hickman wisdom right Muslim don't do that at all whatsoever and we have the we have the truth you see so it's uh it's not about um what we have it's about how we how we use it and currently Muslims need to know about what Islam says we need to also study everything else the the rest of reality itself yeah is that the more you know about the world the more you know about history science physics um engineering what have you the more the Quran opens up to you the more you oh wait a second and you now see the verses in a completely different light almost I mean not they're not saying radically different things they're saying deeper things yeah I've learned more about the Quran through learning about the rest of Allah's creation then I would have if I just uh from from eight years old if I was just to memorize the Quran and read an eight-year-old memorize the Quran it's great but they don't it doesn't truly understand all the The Depths and layers in it and you need to have greater knowledge of the world to do that you understand so we must need to know more needing to learn about Islam need to know about the world and then they need to um spread that knowledge to other Muslims and encourage them to be proactive not reactive right once they do that then we will revive the civilization very quickly very quickly five ten years would be very and be very advanced you see so we have some values these values are ordered in the priority list for example like when we had you know like an epidemic in the city yeah yeah at that time they were not allowed to play together yes so so there is a value that is more important than another value temporarily this is going to go blindly and say that you know we should create together regardless of what to use the example so when there's a plague and you don't have to pray to Kevin Collective Jamar um that's a temporary measure for a limited time of period but that doesn't undermine the principle right but when you say for example that um okay so we live under our circular system uh let's let's uh work with with uh with secular groups uh using secular values and we will we will say we will repeat these values only for good causes so that we can get in their good graces you end up normalizing those values it looks to everybody that you basically you yourselves follow these values as well you know and you're calling to them your children will think we'll see that and will think that you because because you'd only ever respect something that is greater than yourself right so if you respect secular values you must think that they are better the truth or they're they're Justice right that would be you're making you're making a permanent bad decision whereas to say I'm uh gonna we're gonna stop praying in congregation because of plague that's a that's you're not normalizing for a wrong or Injustice You're simply uh just temporarily suspending so an obligation because of our overpressing circumstance but but those us gives us exceptions though the the guidance of Islam give us exceptions you know you can eat pork if you're starving to different desert island and there's only pigs there for some reason you can eat just enough to survive right you want to say oh this is compromising well it's not because Allah gives us that exception to it right but if but if you live in a desert island and um you you initially have to eat pork but but you start to there's the possibility that you can grow wheat and and you start to grow lots of Wheat and so yeah okay great got now I have enough wheat now right all right pigs come in multiply I can have even more pork now great right you're normalizing the pork eating now you've made it into now you have barbecues and you have suppers and you have what have you that's the end of the session now that's it right so on on that note about pigs well let's uh let's uh we're in the lecture so let me bark a lot for you come here thank you so much and I'll see you tomorrow for uh a spicy one I thought I thought today was gonna be okay it was all right it was a bit more contentious I liked it I liked it but hopefully tomorrow will be even more spicy because we're talking about race and I am a white adjacent speaker what's good what should we do okay

Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi

Views: 11,137

Keywords: abdullah al andalusi, abdullah andalusi

Id: Kt3sL0xb-Lo

Length: 216min 5sec (12965 seconds)

Published: Sun Sep 03 2023