I've lived in Britain and America and the freedoms there are dependent upon you accepting the status quo. There is no free speech just limited speech based on laws and values. Just ask Snowden or assange. As for the muslim world the entire region is controlled by western military and corporations. This is a simple reading of the geopolitics in that region.
Are you talking from an Islamic paradigm? A.k.a from a Muslim mindset? Bcoz this is what all Muslims would agree to. Or are you an exception to the rule in the Western society?
"As for the muslim world the entire region is controlled by western military and corporations." So Iran and its Ayatollah regime and Assad's Syria are controlled by Western military and corporations?
@@mikemalzahnbut then why do people get cancelled for just stating their opinions on dating, women, and so on. Look I’m not a fan of the red pill space but how come they get cancelled all the time. It’s probably because they go against a status quo. It goes beyond just trade secrets. Some of those red pill guys aren’t even saying bad things and their still getting cancelled just cause they are friends with someone else.
I am turkish, and hearing him saying that it harms nobody that there is a big significant group of people in turkey that drink is just mind boggling, so many times in turkish news do you hear about abusive men that have a drinking problem. There is a reason Islam restricts us from consuming it.. He seems very insincere.
American founding fathers said: _"God gave us life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."_ If an american said to them: _"O founding fathers, God gave me the liberty to take satan as a god, that's my interpretation of liberty and that's my pursuit of happiness."_ Would the founding fathers of america say: _"Yes, God gave us the liberty to take satan as a god."_ And thereby lie about God? So did your founders lie about God? Or would they restrict the unrestricted liberty and say: _"Liberty ends where it violates the Rights of the God who gave us life. No one is allowed to be taken as a god besides the God who gave us life."_ Thus banning all shirk (polytheism) like taking men, cows, idols, angels, celestial bodies etc as gods, and only Islam (Tawhid - Islamic Monotheism) would've been the only allowed religion in america. _Using the english kings_ If the english kings said: _"Hold up, wait a minute now. You invented this liberty ideology to sneak away from our authority by saying that it is God who gives liberty and not the english kings and parliament. So why does your liberty allow satan to be taken as a god but does not allow us the liberty to rule as lords over the thirteen colonies?"_ If you allow satan to be taken as a god and jews to rule, but not english kings to rule over you, then you had no right to fight their authority for a sugar tax or a tea tax when you clearly could care less about the Rights of the One who gave you life. Thus liberty was just a political tool at the time to sneak away from english rule and transfer it to shaytan and jews. Because if it was about truth, they would've made sure that violating God's Rights trump violating human rights like english tyrannical rule of imposing a sugar and tea tax. Meaning, they were more angry at having money spoiled than shaytan opening a gate for himself through the liberty ideology and violating God's Right. Either they'll have to say: _"Our liberty ideology is unrestricted and promotes civil rights for satan."_ And thus this whole conversation is really about wanting Muslims to compromise to shaytan and his spokesman, this zindiq, munafiq. Read Surah Al-Qalam, Surah Al-Kaafirun and Al-Israa' 17:73-75, Rasulullah ﷺ did not compromise and the Qur'an is intact. If you follow their desires after the knowledge has come to you, then you are a disbeliever like them. Or they'll have to restrict liberty and contradict themselves. Try my arguments against american liberty. They cannot answer it without being trapped. In order to not have their whims and desires spoiled, they will say that shaytan has civil rights and thus you ask them, do you promote civil rights for shaytan?
The constitution of the United States doesn’t mention that God gave us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it says that man has the right to the above mentioned. You’re lying and liars can’t get into heaven. 😊
@@everythingandroidois Based Based Based Brozer Danial is Based Mahashallah Subhanllah sigma Daniel will domnate dis guy Ho Ho HA Ha Daniel gorilla Based
Embarrassing and frankly demoralizing to watch YQ not even attempt to defend Islamic sharia. Can’t believe people look upto him as a religious scholar. Islam is clear, Islam is firm and Islam is the right path.
Yq basically arguing Muslim states should pick the “soft” laws to enforce. Akyol saying there should be no enforcement whatsoever. What a joke! No wonder the west is becoming more corrupt each day.
Mustafa clearly is suffering from colonial disorder, he conveniently ignores the contradictions of the nations who are advocates of freedom within there own nations
@atif50 Maybe Pakistanis are suffering from an Arabian and Mohammaden colonial disorder. Iranians don't suffer from Mohammaden colonial disorder. Persians are intelligent. They largely hate Islam.
Zaydi Shias and the Mutazila didn't claim to rule by other than what Allah revealed but their interpretation is different. There are four schools of fiqh and even Islamic law has varied through Islamic history. ISIS claims to judge by "what Allah has revealed", doesn't mean they are right.
@@Masszay hukm (judgment) is from the right of Allah and from the foundaiton of Islam i.e. Tawheed. It's not a fiqh issue so it doesn't matter what scholar x or scholar y thinks. As for ISIS, keyword is that they claim. But at least they're better than the leaders of so-called Muslim lands who judge by man-made laws
Looking at the comments here is very interesting. It’s obvious that the religious Muslims will make the argument that the Islamic system/way of life is perfectly fine, however I think what’s important to note is that the freedom to practice that without the indoctrination influencing the people from the time they are born is something that doesn’t seem to be considered here. I doubt the average person from a logical standpoint will choose the constraints of sharia law over the free will to practice what you like. It’s the difference between man’s law and Gods natural gift of free will. Let those who practice religion have there community and those who don’t have theirs and not be punished for not abiding by 7th century Arab culture/ Islam.
@@ElyasQuick1 Or [why is not] a treasure presented to him [from heaven], or does he [not] have a garden from which he eats?" And the evil-doers [zalimun] say, "You follow not but a man affected by magic." - Surah Al-Furqan 25:8 Just because something is in Bukhari, doesn't mean it's true. There are also hadiths with numerical contradictions. That is why the Quran is unique.
@@ElyasQuick1 The following hadith have 4 different variations that contradict each other and hadith are inherently out of context, unlike the Quran. Narrated Abu Huraira: (The Prophet) Solomon son of (the Prophet) David said, "Tonight I will go around (i.e. have sexual relations with) *100* women (my wives) every one of whom will deliver a male child who will fight in Allah's Cause." On that an Angel said to him, "Say: 'If Allah will.' " But Solomon did not say it and forgot to say it. Then he had sexual relations with them but none of them delivered any child except one who delivered a half person. The Prophet () said, "If Solomon had said: 'If Allah will,' Allah would have fulfilled his (above) desire and that saying would have made him more hopeful." (Sahih al-Bukhari 5242) Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet () said, "Solomon (the son of) David said, 'Tonight I will sleep with *70* ladies each of whom will conceive a child who will be a knight fighting for "Allah's Cause.' His companion said, 'If Allah will.' But Solomon did not say so; therefore, none of those women got pregnant except one who gave birth to a half child." The Prophet () further said, "If the Prophet () Solomon had said it (i.e. 'If Allah will') he would have begotten children who would have fought in Allah's Cause." Shuaib and Ibn Abi Az-Zinad said, "Ninety (women) is more correct (than seventy). Sahih al-Bukhari 3424) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger () said, "(The Prophet) Solomon once said, 'Tonight I will sleep with *90* women, each of whom will bring forth a (would-be) cavalier who will fight in Allah's Cause." On this, his companion said to him, "Say: Allah willing!" But he did not say Allah willing. Solomon then slept with all the women, but none of them became pregnant but one woman who later delivered a halfman. By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, if he (Solomon) had said, 'Allah willing' (all his wives would have brought forth boys) and they would have fought in Allah's Cause as cavaliers. " Sahih al-Bukhari 6639) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Prophet Solomon who had *60* wives, once said, "Tonight I will have sexual relation (sleep) with all my wives so that each of them will become pregnant and bring forth (a boy who will grow into) a cavalier and will fight in Allah's Cause." So, he slept with his wives and none of them (conceived and) delivered (a child) except one who brought a half (body) boy (deformed). Allah's Prophet said, "If Solomon had said; 'If Allah Will,' then each of those women would have delivered a (would-be) cavalier to fight in Allah's Cause." (See Shahih Bukhari Hadith No. 74 A, Vol. 4)
@@Masszay Bukhari is 100% authentic. Things you brought are not contradictions. People are not obligated to remember every little detail. Its like asking your parents about when you finished school. They might give different numbers because they don’t know exact number and just giving you approximate estimation.
I've recently been reading Shiite literature. I've noticed that there are hundreds of transmissions where the Prophet or one of the 12 Imams (especially Imam Jafaar as-Sadiq), get questioned by atheists (zanadiqa) about the very existence of God. And in all these transmissions, the format is similar. Atheist asks a "difficult question that is meant to shake the foundations of monotheism" - then the Imam answers the question with a very wise and logical answer - then the atheist accepts Islam. This happens also in the literature about Imam Abu Hanifah. Now, the question arises. If there were so many atheists running around at that time, and the scholars did not asked for them to "convert or get executed", nor did they report them to the authorities, this means that there was a clear difference between "private disbelief, doubt, atheism, heresy" and "public disbelief, doubt, atheism, heresy". So the laws of Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran are nothing like the laws of the Sunni and Shia scholars who founded the schools of thought. In an ideal Islamic state, we don't need to "moderate" our religion. Our religion is already moderate; it has been so since its inception. Freedom of belief and freedom of disbelief are part of the original "Islamic Constitution". It is only in modern times when Wahabism, Ikhwanism and Khomeinism are invented, that we start to interpret the Islamic State as a horrible Orwellian theocracy where the state controls your innermost thoughts and your private life. Shia-Jaafari Reference: thaqalayn.net/hadith/1/3/1/1 Sunni-Hanafi Reference: www.haqislam.org/imam-abu-hanifah-and-the-atheist/
On the other hand we have Imam Abu Hanifa with proper islamic jurisprudence and chains of narrators and proper backing by scholars throughout history. On this story, there is no chain of narrators and a lot of scholars even call this as unreliable, which you forgot to mention. But people still share it for its benefit. I highly suggest you to view Daniel Haqiqatjou on religious freedom critiquing Hamza Yusuf. It might be insightful. He also speaks on islamic law. Have a good one.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:27 *🌍 Different societies have different problems requiring varied solutions; one solution doesn't fit all.* 08:58 *💬 Americans may prefer separate religion and government, but other societies may desire governance reflecting their faith values.* 13:30 *🤝 Mustafa advocates for freedoms enjoyed by Muslims in non-Muslim lands to also exist in Muslim-majority countries.* 20:33 *📜 The majority of Muslim countries may not want certain liberal freedoms like public blasphemy or unrestricted immorality.* 23:57 *🌍 Discussion shifts to political values and ideas, such as democracy versus monarchical systems, which Muslims started debating in the late Ottoman Empire.* 24:52 *🤔 Criticism of blasphemy laws in Pakistan due to innocent people being unfairly targeted, highlighting the need for freedom of expression without state intervention.* 26:32 *⚖️ Advocating for religious freedom and against punishment for apostasy in Muslim-majority countries, emphasizing individual choice in matters of faith.* 28:19 *🧐 Discussion on the legal aspects of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, with differing views on their effectiveness and impact on public order.* 29:31 *🗣️ Highlighting hypocrisy in criticizing Muslim-majority countries for their laws while ignoring similar restrictions in Western nations, calling for consistency in addressing freedom of speech issues.* 31:36 *🇺🇸 Comparison of American and European standards of free speech, acknowledging differing cultural contexts but advocating for a principled stand on freedom of expression.* 34:11 *🔓 Emphasis on the importance of religious freedom and the rejection of religious coercion, urging respect for individual choices in matters of faith.* 36:42 *🌐 Questioning the assumption that democracy and freedom universally benefit all societies, citing examples of dictatorships in the Middle East with perceived benefits.* 40:09 *🏛️ Advocating for local solutions and cultural autonomy in determining political and moral standards, cautioning against imposing external interpretations on different societies.* 45:30 *📜 Yasir Qadhi discusses the evolution of Western laws regarding pornography and questions why Muslim countries must adhere to Western notions.* 49:06 *🏛️ Yasir Qadhi suggests reevaluating the assumption that dictatorships hinder societal flourishing, citing examples like Iraq and Libya during the 60s-80s.* 52:37 *🤔 Yasir Qadhi proposes the idea of a modern caliphate that focuses on rallying for Islamic causes globally rather than governing a specific territory.* 01:03:34 *💼 Yasir Qadhi argues for a pragmatic approach in governance, balancing personal piety with public order and morality, citing the example of alcohol prohibition in the United States.* 01:07:46 *🍷 Mustafa Akyol and Yasir Qadhi discuss the regulation of alcohol in Muslim societies, advocating for individual choice and minimal government intervention.* 01:11:12 *💬 Common ground is found in caution against a coercive theological state while differing in the level of religious influence in politics.* 01:13:19 *🌍 Mustafa Akyol emphasizes the importance of democratic processes and respecting religious freedom in Muslim-majority countries, urging against legislating religious laws against public sentiment.*
That Akyol is a lost case, a sell-out to Western ideologies. The guy cannot even understand that he is attempting to historicize religions, Islam included. Why in the world is Y. Qadhi wasting his time with this fool? In his native Turkey, Mustafa Kamal (who died of alcoholism) and his "modernization platform" was a complete disaster.
Iqbal explained it in one line: "Ho siyasat deen se juda tou reh jaati hai chengezi" (If politics is separated from religion then all that remains is the babarism of Chegiz Khan.) Meaning religion acts as a moral force. But in todays world the distorted forms of Islam that Salafism and the Deobandi School adhere to have created nothing less than barbaric theocracies. However in their oppression and barbarism they are far far far less than the "liberal democratic" US.
"However in their oppression and barbarism they are far far far less than the "liberal democratic" US." And yet all the Muslims who agree with you will flock to the US en masse to want to settle there and the ones who're already there just won't leave this so-called "far far far" greater "oppressive and barbaric" place called the US.
At 45:09 Yasir Qadhi claims that prostitution is illegal in the U.S. due to a vestige of Christian morality and that such prohibition has nothing to do with capitalism. He's wrong. Prostitution is illegal in the U.S. because it cannot be taxed, and therefore, it doesn't benefit the treasury. At 1:04:30 Yasir Qadhi claims that the prohibition of alcohol was established via the 19th amendment. Actually, that was the 18th amendment. It was in effect for 14 years-not 5-6 years like he claimed-from 1919 to 1933.
What Mustafa wants for people is arbitrary freedom despite what is chosen. Islam is about delay gratification and impulse control, it informs us the most important freedom is not freedom to indulge in our delights or be enslaved to our desires but freedom from enslavement to our desires. Our prophet said صلى الله عليه وسلم, This world is a prison for the believers and paradise for disbelievers. For those covering over the Truth they believe if their is no prospect beyond the grave then let's eat and drink and indulge what we delight in for tomorrow we shall die. For us we struggle with our desires and control our impulses and delay our gratification, for there is a prospect beyond the grave to indulge what we delight in paradise.
It depends what you consider Islam given that overwhelming majority of the Muslim civil law is based scholars opinions,customs and unreliable Hadiths wether they are positive and negative
Yasir is the clear example on how to give an answer without giving an answer, making general statements of whataboubtim. he thanks Allah for the freedoms in America when he should thank the founding fathers for actually being visionary about it. He doesn't want these freedoms for other though
Mustafa Akyol literally doesn’t bring any academia to his debate and is purely acting as a victim of his own lack of intelligence. Not sure why would anyone platform him.
You can disagree with him, but it's wrong and frankly reactionary to deny his academic experience. The intro clearly stated that he is a fellow of Cato Institute. He has a masters degree and has written papers and books. Maybe he didn't have the best arguments here, but I think it was absolutely fine to platform him. I still agree that YQ outclasses him in almost every area discussed in this debate though.
If Atkol wasn’t worth talking to why would Sh Yasir agree to have this online discussion with him? You can disagree with someone but there is no need to be disrespectful. The man is clearly intelligent and very articulate.
Come on bro, let's not be dishonest, I like Dr. Yasir Qadhi, but let's not say that Mustafa lacks intelligence, that is just not true, he's an educated person and it's clear from his ability to be able to bring up points and give counterpoints in the debate. Let's just be positive and appreciate the debate
@@FahimAhmed-xj9lqSecular liberal credentials aren’t relevant to Muslims. I would expect Muslims to take a Christian seminarian about as seriously as Mustafa Akyol as an expert on Islam. We need to stop accepting the Academy as a neutral institution without an agenda or ideology of its own. The secular liberal paradigm has epistemic assumptions that can and should be challenged, and it’s advocates shouldn’t be assumed to be Muslims or acting from the Islamic paradigm.
«It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should thereafter have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.» (Quran 33:36)
Good debate but Shaykh Qadhi was clearly in command of the discourse. In nutshell we should uphold the Shariah but we also understand there in compulsion in religion. US democracy is not a one size fits all and in fact can be dangerous.
@@mikemalzahn depends on where you live now doesnt it. In an islamic country you cannot proselytize, and can apostates be put to death yes they can, will they, depends on the location and circumstances. If you don't like it, dont live there.
@@katiawojcik962 lol. so what if a christian nation said muslims can't do dawah? "If you don't like it, dont live there." so why are there Muslims in the west complaining about our laws?
I have a question on Islamic political teaching: given that 1)the characterizing political institution of Islam is the Chaliphate; and 2) the great majority of Muslims throughout the history lived outside any chaliphate: How the doctrine manage to reconcile these two things? Have clear criteria been developed to establish whether a political regime is legitimate or not? I mean: only considering the Middle East, almost 800 years have passed since the fall of the Chaliphate (100 if you recognise the Ottoman's). Over the course of these years, an incredible variety of political systems have been implemented in the Islamic world: lay authoritarian regimes, "democratic" republics, monarchies, etc. What has been (and what is) the majority opinion of the religious authorities on this topic? I'm interested in the traditionally-founded doctrine, not the fundamentalist nor the liberal one. For example: today a Tunisian man (or an Iraqi, or a Turkish) who also wants to be a good muslim, should he consider his country's political regime legitimate or not? I suppose the first one, so I'd like to know on what basis scholars and religious authorities do affirm this (or if maybe their consider the actual regimes legitimate but still less than the caliphate)
Governance in a Islam is deemed an essential fabric of the human condition, to illustrate this I would like to highlight two examples. Islam mandates that there should be a leader in any group of 3 people another example is the concept of family which in Islam is considered a mini state with leadership, rights, responsibilities and laws. So to answer your question, political regimes in Islam are all legitimate by the mere fact of their existence and are granted the full rights of sovereignty offered by Islamic laws regardless of their political system (democratic, authoritarian, monarchy, theocracy, tribal etc) and policies. There are no classifications for their legitimacy except that they are muslim. So to answer your question all muslim rulers have absolute legitimacy in Islam. This is because leadership is paramount in islam as touched upon at the beginning. This is enshrined in Islamic Tawhid (creed) and is inviolable. There is a rich body of legislation surrounding this issue but to highlight few of these, Muslim rulers are to be obeyed (in matters that don't go against Islam) even if they are violating your rights, rebellion against a muslim leader is forbidden, talking bad and insulting leaders are prohibited and they should be counseled privately, if the leader fails to uphold their responsibilities the subject can only leave it to GOD etc. TLDR; according to Islamic law, all muslim political regimes and all muslim authorities (regardless of level of sovereignty) are legitimate as long as they are deemed muslim regardless of their policies, popularity and political systems.
@SerTempleton Islam has a built-in system for governance. Firstly the Prophet mandated the Quraysh tribe to be the rulers and this is why the suggestion of there being a ruler from the Ansar was rejected. Secondly, the sovereignty for Islam is unequivocally the Sharia and whoever rules, judges or legislates by other than the Quran and Sunna is by definition a Kafir .Thirdly, the ruler is to be determined by the Ahl Hall wa Aqd which is based on Sharia principles and not secular or any religious system other than Islam. Fourthly the Prophet prophesied kings would come after the Khalifate and then the Khalifate which follows the method of the Prophet would return. The Muslim Umma is in a weak state and divided as prophesied in the Hadiths. The Muslim nation has become weak as the scum of the sea and have embraced a defeatist mentality by abandoning the Sunna and are following the Kuffar into the lizard hole.
Islam enjoins the sovereignty of the Sharia by the Khalifate. RU-vid deleted my entailed explanation. The classic scholars all agree upon the obligation of the Khalifate and the sovereignty of the Sharia. It is only the modernist conformist so called scholars who conjured up, the separated secular Islamic nation states which is a contradiction in terms.
@@SerTempletonIslam has its own built in system of governance based on the sovereignty of the Sharia by the Khalifate which is a staunch opposite position to Secularism.
Yasir qadhi I thank Allah for religious freedom for where I live and I think Allah for not giving the religious freedom in Muslim countries. Hypocrisy at its finest and also the amount of false equivalences and strawmans is utterly embarrassing. I expected more from Qadhi and now I understand why he does not debate because ultimately when scrutinised his first thing to do is to criticise the west where he lives and makes his money from.
Akyol’s standard is basically secularism. Did the Prophet and his Companions suffer for the sake of secularism or to make Islam supreme over all other systems?
@@jammooly8917Yup, I knew it. Follower of Javad Hashimi, but you know deep down when looking at the history and theological evidence, that is not the case. Just check Javads debate with Daniel H or you can read a work like Bidayatul Mujatahid or you can simply look at historical evidence, but if you want to disregard all that and twist the Quran to your liking then do so I guess.
@@everythingandroidois I am not a follower of Javad Hashmi, I don't know where you'd get such an idea. I'm lookin at scripture itself and factually correct history. There's also a difference between Islamic civilization and scripture. The Quran doesn't say to kill apostates and instead advocates the opposite which is too allow people to disbelieve freely. And many scholars believed the apostates should not be killed because of their disbelief but because it amounted to during their time as political treason. This is explained further in depth in "The Study Quran" commentary of Q. 2:217. That's why for example, as evidenced by history, Ali, the Prophet's cousin, and many other scholars didn't punish women that apostatized as their apostasy posed no threat politically nor was it destabilizing. The conclusion is that the punishment of apostasy is a later development and addition that came after the Quran's revelation and Prophet Muhammad's lifetime. So to say it is Islamic or from God is false.
The fitrah can be shaded, but religion clears it up. He uses the fitrah to explain away the things he doesnt like, and does not have any backing for these so called universal human values.
The debate ended in the beginning: One solution doesn't fit all. The rest was not debate. Sheikh gave Dawah to Mustafa Akyol. Sheikh, we want to see opponents at your level.
@@mikemalzahn much like a healthy diet is the best for everyone but not everyone will want/have a healthy diet, Islam is the one solution to fit all mankind but all of mankind will not fit with Islam. Which is the the angle I understand Yasir Qadhi is making.
@@tehnoobclone yes, i very much do not want to eat what you are trying to force me to eat. lol. so you are against the idea of universal rights for individuals? the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion? do you agree with the madhabs that say [public] apostates should be put to death? what did you think of the blasphemy cases in Indonesia? the ahok case? the woman who asked for the mosque near her house to turn down their loudspeaker? speaking of food, the tik tok woman who ate some crispy pork and said bishallah?
Highest rates of addiction, death by OD, spread of stds, severe homeless problem etc etc. America is not all good. Our countries, at least most of them, with their problems are much better. You have your way; we have ours. Just stop bombing and invading our countries.
Of course, you are against the caliphate Akyol. If a caliphate existed your masters couldn't have bombed Palestinian children, or invaded Iraq, Afghanistan.
Yasir Qadhi speaking like a true Muslim mustafa🎭🤡cannot be seen as a Islamic person even his ears👂on fire🔥🤬🦻can't handle the truth 🗣💯🇵🇸🫂🤲🕋🤲Yasir Qadhi 💯🧬🕋
American founding fathers said: _"God gave us life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."_ If an american said to them: _"O founding fathers, God gave me the liberty to take satan as a god, that's my interpretation of liberty and that's my pursuit of happiness."_ Would the founding fathers of america say: _"Yes, God gave us the liberty to take satan as a god."_ And thereby lie about God? So did your founders lie about God? Or would they restrict the unrestricted liberty and say: _"Liberty ends where it violates the Rights of the God who gave us life. No one is allowed to be taken as a god besides the God who gave us life."_ Thus banning all shirk (polytheism) like taking men, cows, idols, angels, celestial bodies etc as gods, and only Islam (Tawhid - Islamic Monotheism) would've been the only allowed religion in america. _Using the english kings_ If the english kings said: _"Hold up, wait a minute now. You invented this liberty ideology to sneak away from our authority by saying that it is God who gives liberty and not the english kings and parliament. So why does your liberty allow satan to be taken as a god but does not allow us the liberty to rule as lords over the thirteen colonies?"_ If you allow satan to be taken as a god and jews to rule, but not english kings to rule over you, then you had no right to fight their authority for a sugar tax or a tea tax when you clearly could care less about the Rights of the One who gave you life. Thus liberty was just a political tool at the time to sneak away from english rule and transfer it to shaytan and jews. Because if it was about truth, they would've made sure that violating God's Rights trump violating human rights like english tyrannical rule of imposing a sugar and tea tax. Meaning, they were more angry at having money spoiled than shaytan opening a gate for himself through the liberty ideology and violating God's Right. Either they'll have to say: _"Our liberty ideology is unrestricted and promotes civil rights for satan."_ And thus this whole conversation is really about wanting Muslims to compromise to shaytan and his spokesman, this zindiq, munafiq. Read Surah Al-Qalam, Surah Al-Kaafirun and Al-Israa' 17:73-75, Rasulullah ﷺ did not compromise and the Qur'an is intact. If you follow their desires after the knowledge has come to you, then you are a disbeliever like them. Or they'll have to restrict liberty and contradict themselves. Try my arguments against american liberty. They cannot answer it without being trapped. In order to not have their whims and desires spoiled, they will say that shaytan has civil rights and thus you ask them, do you promote civil rights for shaytan?
The conversation is not about what is Islamic law but how much liberal secular people in the west should interfere with muslims, which YQ has plainly said, not at all. Let them figure themselves out.
1:08:00 Mustafa Akyol - I believe in not causing harm according to political liberalism. Isn't this subjective?? Shouldn't an objective morality be more consistent?
You nailed it. You see, Mustafa is not someone basing his worldview on Islam. He is primarily a liberal who desperately tries to reconcile his liberal worldview with Islam. His idea of "harm" isn't an Islamic one, it's a liberal one. He doesn't view the moral corruption of society as a "harm", therefore he refrains from advocating for laws that may counter said moral corruption. He couldn't care less if the society he builds favors immorality and therefore leads people to hell. For him, it's not Allah's word that is the highest but, his liberalism
This argument of subjectivity and objectivity is Soo stupid and Muslims love to bring this up 😂 Let's just say that Mustafa DO have a religion, and in this religion it said that equality is morally good, slavery is bad, child marriage is wrong These things contradict the morality of Islam. Are you still gonna bring up this argument then ? Because in his mind he do have objective moral value
If Mustafa’s nature was competitive and wasn’t so polite he would have pushed back at Yasir Qadi post modernist relativity that allows each people their own morality. Yasir Qadi had no reply to his point of Indian Hinduvata deeming it appropriate to persecute Muslims. Musafar mentioned the Uyghurs. Russia insists that it is western imperialism sticking their noses where they have no business and they are perfectly justified in doing what they do. There is no remorse from their side they feel justified by their own morality. Forcing people to abandon non Chinese culture is just what they do. According to Yasir the west has no basis to make any moral judgement on that
Man, when Sheikh Yasir Qadhi talks about an Islamic democracy and a government's hopes, trends and even encouragement of morality, I can't help but think of our poor brother Imran Khan, great guy Masha 'Allah, who is languishing in prison.
Alhamdulillah that we have scholars such as Shaykh Yasir Qadhi who can speak with objective knowledge of the inequities of the Western Civilization and bring the principle qualities of the instructions to mankind from the Quran and Sunnah to explain the utter lunacy of the Western civilizations recorded wordlview on human development.
Amazing video, I love discussion and I love when debates are more like a discussion than a debate, so I appreciate this style of debate. I personally find the debate is academically stimulating, there are many good points and good counterpoints being brought up in the debate, and nothing but respect to the both of them. I think they agree on a lot of issues more than they disagree, and I appreciate Dr. Yasir Qadhi's pragmatic approach to things by looking at things practically instead of theoretically in this particular topic. I also appreciate Mustafa Akyol's thoughts on the issue even though I slightly disagree on 1 or 2 of them, they're still reasonable and well-thought-out points. Thanks for the vid.
No, I think Daniel Haqiqatjou and Aykol because Tom Faccine is a new Madinah university student and he needs time to become a good debater, not everyone can debate these topics even with some qual.
Pointing out that the west doesn’t have pure free speech doesn’t mean the Islamic world shouldn’t be criticized for the same issue. That’s “whataboutary”.
This debat is useless, it's two people discussing the same opinion and it different sides. Qadhi didn't talk about Islam POV he kept focusing on American POV.
I respect Akyol even though I disagree with him,he is atleast honest & consistent about his Liberal beliefs. While Qadhi is dishonest, manipulative & inconsistent. He says things deliberately that are vague to cater to both Muslim & liberal audience!
Thisu wanitas b number one from allah subhanahu wa ta'ala di swarintas di body this one and heart connecting promise sky applic this one understanding to be connecting from allah subhanahuwataala tasbih allah okey rizwan doktor saking understand mean pokemon islam doktoran destination ulama understanding tasbih
1:04:47 “in a Muslim country should we allow easy access to alcohol? I would hope not.” But what ever happened to the idea that there is no compulsion in Islam and not to mention it’s none of your f%*ng business because we are all adults.
This one in sex connecting from ka botol action tradition second chance connecting from allah subhanahu wa ta'ala dr syakiri distance sex no understand polish body
It was said to have sex out side of Marriage is not a Crime only Prophets as being given from the angle Jabrile guidance from The Creator Allah Arabic English God not a opinion that rules sent to given Male and females
Tasbih understand ini islamic go this wanitasmini number one indonya this one connecting from allah subhanahuwataala tasbih okey sony subhanaallah interspi everything this one go into sky understand going to heavenly shown in tasbih
The Ummah of the knowledge of the dos and donots as made made his own laws to his people and others make their laws Islam is to be taught from the head Quarters Hajj these are to be protected by all of Humanity who believe din the Day of Account
The Quran men and women men not exceptance of devine Laws who is watching pernal behavior The lw Earder will answer thats why warn abour seeking titles
Lut Sins the PharoeFollowoes Nation chance as time before The seal of Prophets pbuh to all Nations no new way except or Reject will answer Resurrection
@user-on8jx3qr8w are you an idiot? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a society wants free speech, it's their right to have it. But if the vast majority of a society doesn't want absolute unregulated free speech, then by imposing it on them you are being authoritarian and subverting their freedom. You cannot force free speech, otherwise schools should allow kids to say vulgar explicit language regarding teachers. No one believes in absolute free speech, otherwise you'd have no problem with someone cursing your parents. Free speech is about cultivating intellectual discussion, and that is what we want. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech and goes against intellectual discourse
@@mikemalzahnare you an idiot? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a people want free speech, it's their democratic right to have it. But if the vast majority do not want absolute free speech, you cannot force it on them. Forcing people to accept you preferred model of speech is to deprive them of their democratic and general societal freedom. If there should be no restrictions on speech then I should be nothing wrong with someone cursing your parents, and kids in school should be allowed to curse their teachers with explicit, vulgar words. There wouldn't even be a moderator in this debate if both debaters didn't agree that the stream of conversation has to be controlled and regulated to some extent. Free speech should be used to cultivate intellectual discourse. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech that goes against intellectual discourse and serves no one.
@user-on8jx3qr8w are you fr? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a people want free speech, it's their democratic right to have it. But if the vast majority do not want absolute free speech, you cannot force it on them. Forcing people to accept you preferred model of speech is to deprive them of their democratic and general societal freedom. If there should be no restrictions on speech then I should be nothing wrong with someone cursing your parents, and kids in school should be allowed to curse their teachers with explicit, vulgar words. There wouldn't even be a moderator in this debate if both debaters didn't agree that the stream of conversation has to be controlled and regulated to some extent. Free speech should be used to cultivate intellectual discourse. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech that goes against intellectual discourse and serves no one.
@@vol94 clearly you are confused. free speech doesn't apply to kids in schools. so you are the judge of what is blasphemy and what is intellectual discourse? would you outlaw the burning of the flag? the bible? the koran? no insulting the khalifa? did you support the afghans who beat the woman to death for allegedly tearing pages out of a koran? how about the ahok case in Indonesia? or the woman they imprisoned for asking the mosque near her house to turn down their loudspeaker? is saying bismillah before eating pork insulting to you?
I recommend this audience to check a high intelligence political analyst and to some extent religious Muslim called Shahid bolsen and his channel Middle nation.
Each have all been given respite even the weak will be question clear Created not Man , Men and Jinn to Maintain the earth and your women not even sex free
With knowledge of Higher power hot water to drink pus of wounds even if given a thousand yrs with that information it would give the most ignorant who drink eat the wildest boar even if in a dream a reflection this life is not it
Wa Salaam's Here's the core positive concerning à separate religion vs State; In the US slavery existed but politicians abolitioned its existence religion did not.
Salam. No they didn’t. They just repackaged it and called it something else and created a very sophisticated system to make it less obvious. Also, they did zero corrections of their wrongs. They still aspire to exploit other humans for little to no reward, and they still aspire to pass any risk on to other humans with as little on their own necks. (Perhaps “aspire” is putting it too diplomatically, since they still do it). Have a look at colonial violations and violence in action in the North Dakota water pollution and the rare metals child slavery industries and the 13th Amendment - all examples from the USA, the bastion of liberal values. The ethic never disappeared or evaporated; it remained and still worked to produce action. Like I said: They just repackaged it and called it something else and created a very sophisticated system to make it less obvious.
Very enlightening! There is no winning in this argument. I respectfully disagree with Sheikh Yasir Qadhi on one point though (I love Sheikh Yasir Qadhi and all that he has done for English-speaking Muslims. May Allah SWT reward him); Nathan might not have a say in Pakistani policy-making but all the ethnic Pakistanis or educated Pakistanis who have lived in the world outside Pakistan, HAVE A DUTY to think of ways how to improve what goes in Pakistan.
It's important to note that dictatorships can often lead to civil war. This is because, without freedom and the ability for people to choose their leaders freely, there's a lot of tension. This tension can build up like a pressure cooker, ready to explode at any moment. This is exactly what happened in countries like Czechoslovakia, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. So, it's clear that dictatorships can create the conditions for civil war down the line.
YQs opening statement goes against islamic theology. Hes advocating secularism and division of church n state. I don't understand where this debate will go with his advocating for a liberal world order
Dr. Yasir Qadhi is such a great intellectual. His wisdom is Just so deep for understanding minds. He has deep and clear understanding of Islam and also the modern world 🌎. Blessed to be close to him and listen. Thank Allah.
1:01:35 The proposition for a renewed concept of a figurehead caliph sounds like a Sunni Agha Khan. I'm not saying whether that is good or bad - just how it sounds. Being rich and building hospitals will always give you clout.
@@darkmattersproject2951 Nope they did no such thing, Arabs did conquest, its was case of conquer or be conquered. Where as British invaded counties that were unarmed and colonized them from within with their politics and military. There is stark difference in both procedures. Further whatever Arab conquered they became part of it culturally, while British ransacked the loots and left.
what is his knowledge that is far beyond any common man ? what I saw is just a confused man, or a man that intentionally try to confused people, Allah knows best what is the intention in his heart
