# 'Islam gave these rights first' and blinding people with jargon

- URL: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/j6pxwgpnwd0/s/7/
- Date: 2019-08-04 · Kind: discussion · Transcript tier: machine · Recording: Thoughts on Muhammad Hijab's talk on Liberalism & Islam | Mufti Abu Layth (37:17–43:25)
- Status: general teaching
- Watch from the start of the segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6pXWGpnWd0&t=2237s
- Recording page: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/j6pxwgpnwd0/

**Topics:** Dawah and debate culture; Islam and modernity

**Summary (not a quotation; machine-made, unchecked):** Mufti Abu Layth addresses the lecture's point that Islam gave rights such as voting 1,400 years before the suffragettes, saying that is fine to mention but people alive in 2019 will ask why Muslim rulings are still backward today, so it is nothing to gloat about. He criticises dropping philosophical names and terms that impress those who do not know them but make Muslims look weaker to those who do, as some did in arguments for God, and parodies such jargon. He says a real discussion would define liberalism and admit that some fascist versions of it exist and can be dangerous, but that liberalism is an attitude against imposed authority, not a separate religion. He concludes that the lecture was a straw man resting on Locke, Hobbes and Kant, and hopes Mohammed Hijab might reflect on it.

**Checked position (checked by two independent reviews, not by the channel):** Mufti Abu Layth says that throwing in impressive philosophical jargon makes Muslims look much weaker to those who know and to non-Muslims.

**Evidence, his words at 39:51:** “it makes you look much weaker than you actually are” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6pXWGpnWd0&t=2391s)

## Longer summary

Mufti Abu Layth addresses the lecture's point that Islam gave rights such as voting 1,400 years before the suffragettes, saying that is fine to mention but people alive in 2019 will ask why Muslim rulings are still backward today, so it is nothing to gloat about. He criticises dropping philosophical names and terms that impress those who do not know them but make Muslims look weaker to those who do, as some did in arguments for God, and parodies such jargon. He says a real discussion would define liberalism and admit that some fascist versions of it exist and can be dangerous, but that liberalism is an attitude against imposed authority, not a separate religion. He concludes that the lecture was a straw man resting on Locke, Hobbes and Kant, and hopes Mohammed Hijab might reflect on it.

## Sources and names cited

- Mohammed Hijab
- John Locke
- Thomas Hobbes
- Immanuel Kant

## Transcript (machine tier, 37:17–43:25)

[36:41] that stupid and absurd as an argument because look but then what to be fair mohammed hijab did put the caveat in there that oh well is it really about faith it's actually about allegiance to a state right so okay so there was there was some uncertainty where he lies on that principle that said I I respect that move of his but overall I feel that just to find this bringing in death penalties from America and things like that are a poor argument and they don't

[37:16] justify anything and to say that look so there was this point where he said something about look without Scripture you guys would be no way in Islam gives Islam always gave sacred rights I that sit there was a part where he spoke about voting and he said look this is only 100 years old women have been given you know the suffragettes movement and things like this but Islam gave these rights 1400 years ago sure look these things are nice but look you've got to be real you are not if you if we were

[37:55] talking in the time of the suffragettes then that's fine Islam has surpassed them and it has given many more rights but we are talking in 2019 everybody that's alive today is not from that era of the suffragettes movements and oh and the civil rights movement and stuff like that so to them it doesn't matter it's not about saying AHA but you know we said that they pointed but what are you saying today what is this am saying today okay it was

[38:34] great if you're saying in you know fourteen hundred years ago gave the right to to vote but why is it still backwards today this is the question that they're gonna have they're not gonna have this oh wow that's awesome kind of thing so I think we have to always keep it real so there's no harm in mentioning these things when the time is right but it really isn't something to be gloating over if you're going to be pushing rulings that are still out of thinking out of date so that's my point then the other thing is there's a lot of blinding with with terminology so in the talk

[39:14] like when you give when you drop a lot of philosophical names philosophical arguments the kind of terminologies to do with them things like this it gives the impression that there's a lot being said here but the truth is there isn't and a lot of those things aren't really that relevant and this was one of the problems that some people were doing when arguing against atheists and the arguments for God they were doing the same thing they were just mentioning constantly philosophical and you know you've got the categorical imperative and you've got this and you've got that and they mentioning a lot of

[39:51] philosophical terms which sound impressive to people who don't know what they are they sound like wow I don't even know what that is this person so learn it but what it does to people who do know and to non-muslims it further it makes you look much weaker than you actually are so if you are going to take on an argument and I has no relevant very irrelevant to the discussion like if I'm just discussing

[40:28] and I just keep throwing in jargon I say oh well the you know the ontological perspective here sheds it really challenges some angles of the categorical imperative which then was really which which was really quite fascinating when viewed from Koons perspective of of the scientific unpredictability which then when viewed in light of the quantum entanglement I mean what the hell am I even saying I

[41:07] mean it's not just about just throwing you know just okay it's it's like my point is take it by the wounds and be constructive if you are going to don't just blind people with jargon that sounds quite impressive but it has no relevance it has no room because it just shows that you actually did a very poor job actually dealing with the issue so if you were to speak about liberalism the real argument would be how do we

[41:46] define it what is are there some fascist versions of liberalism today and I agree that there are all that can they be dangerous yes because fascism in any form can be dangerous and to just present that to say make liberalism a separate religion what does liberalism have to offer Islam is it ridiculous not separate like Islam is a religion liberalism is is it is a way of kind of thinking and an attitude so it's an attitude that doesn't like

[42:23] Authority being asserted on me now how does that manifest itself in many were shaped and forms so yeah so overall I felt it was a it was a poor job and really taking down liberalism it was there was a kind of straw man argument that was made in the sense that it was all resting on John Locke how how was it Hobbs and Hobbesian kind of philosophy and cantons philosophy and and then just taking that down and saying well look oh

[43:02] well they based it on God anyway so don't you talk to me and there's a huge there was a lot of that so yeah so that was my thoughts on it I hope maybe Mohammed hey Jeb might watch this and think about it and yeah I mean maybe not chello you'ii get it they will say it nevertheless cool people

## Cite

Mufti Abu Layth Archive, segment j6pXWGpnWd0/s/7. https://muftiabulayth.org/r/j6pxwgpnwd0/s/7/

Not a fatwa: these answers were given to specific people at specific times. Ask a qualified scholar about your own situation.