Dear both of you, I waited and waited for this video but it didn't came. Now I have read majority of the book, made it a key text in my MA thesis, call myself Hallaqian, matured intellectually 100x. But during those painful early days of reading Hallaq I really wished you both upload a video. May the Merciful bless you, myself, Hallaq and all other doers of good with guidance and success.
Ramadan Mubarak from the US 🇺🇸 Always a pleasure to listen to Imam Tom, who offers intelligent and thoughtful insight on Said's and Hallaq's works on the greater colonial project. Thanks for continuing to bring on such amazing guests on your channel, Paul. May Allah accept all your good deeds this Ramadan 🤲☝️🕋
I started reading The Impossible State but it was a bit difficult. So i watched the four videos again. I wish to read Wael hallaq more, the restating orientalism seems next level. pray for me that may Allah enables me to that level of education and sophistication that i can read and follow what he's saying. I will repeat these lectures again after Ramadan inshallah. And i think i will have more time to focus after my uni is finished . May Allah bless you both! Jazakallah
*I wish Edward Said were alive today to address Hallaq's critique by participating in a lengthy interview conducted by Imam Tom Facchine (sitting in for Paul) on the Blogging Theology channel!* 😇
Highly anticipated episode! @Paul You need to get Imam Tom back to discuss Politics of Piety…there is to much learn from that book especially for feminist discourses among Muslim circles
Subject/Topic Guide: 2:44 Overview of Chapter 1 5:10 CRITIQUE 1: The ambiguity of the time (the “when”) of Saidian orientalism and it’s relationship with colonialism, liberalism and epistemic genocide and subjugation. • 14:00 Saidian orientalism mistakenly focusses on identity and (mis)representation. 16:08 CRITIQUE 2: The ambiguity of the place (the “where”) of Saidian orientalism. • 16:43 Conscription of Ancient Greece and Rome into the imagination of “The West”. 21:30 CRITIQUE 3: Structural orientalism - the Author and the hegemonic paradigm. • 27:51 Central domains vs Peripheral domains. 36:37 CRITIQUE 4: Structural orientalism - Representation and Performativity. • 39:15 A theory can stand apart from its champion theorist, i.e. an author or her work can have varied performativity in relation to the hegemonic/central domain. 45:45 CRITIQUE 5: The impossibility of change according to Saidian orientalism. • 47:50 Standpoint theory. • 54:43 The incessant change of both “continuous progress” and post-structuralism is a destabilising force resulting in incessant agitation. • 59:13 The possibility of “critique” necessitates the possibility of change. 1:01:29 SAIDIAN ORIENTALISM DEFINED: distance, difference, power and text. • 1:03:02 The subaltern's lack of voice and inability to "speak". • 1:04:55 Tokenisation. • 1:10:23 Difference and power: orientalism seen as separate to and preceding colonialism. • 1:14:18 Text is performative • 1:19:47 Distance between mutual "Others" does not make violence, conquest and genocide inevitable, it is insufficient in explaining the modern Western phenomenon. • 1:22:25 A defence for Said and his body of work. •
MashaAllah brothers you articulate the issues with such clarity. Thank you for sharing your research and insights brother Tom, I have learnt so much. Very much looking forward to the continued series. May Allah reward you both for your efforts
Can Imam Tom also do another series explaining the Politics of Piety by Saba Mahmood? The discourse seems similar to Wael Hallag and Talal Asad, and she talks about secularism, liberalism, Islam, feminism, modernity with Foucauldian language.
I liked it very much the comparison of Eastern liberalism as thrashing around trying to find its identity and entertainment in the mean time vs peace and meaningful existence of Islam.
God's promise to Ishmael ; Genesis 17:20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. God shifting from Isaac's descendants to Ishmael's descendants ; Genesis 49:10 - 10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor. Helper after je-sus before his second coming? ; John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, A person more powerful than je-sus will came after him? ; Mark 1:7 “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. Prophet Muhammad is gods beloved (habibullah) and friend(waliullah) ; song of Solomon 5:16 it should be, "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is 'Muhammad im'. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem" The unlearned prophet ; Isaiah 29 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Prophet Ahamed will release the captives, will preach within closed doors(initially), he won over his enemies ; Isaiah 42 1 "Here is my servant, Ahmed, my chosen one, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.” This is what God the Lord says-the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: “I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you.” Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you islands, and all who live in them. Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices; let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the mountaintops." Kedar(son of Ishmael) = Arabs Sela = mountain in Medina He will be an Arab, preaching in Medina, singing a new song aka reciting the Quran, He will be a light to the gentiles, meaning he is not only sent to the children of Israel. The prince of the world coming after je-sus? ; John 14:30 ► I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, Follow prophet Ahmet when he comes! ; John 16 13 Howbeit when he, the Prophet Ahmet(Hebrew), is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.[14] He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Next Good Sunday I will call again. The first time the conversation was not conducted well and they laughed at me but this time will be different. I will ask for time because I claim I can prove God exists. I will need time to explain my self. The first time I didn't succeed because I was rushed to be expelled as soon as possible like if I was a troublemaker, troll, spammer when I clearly stated I am a psychologist and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy. From the beginning I just had to call to be allowed to talk, why i waited for so many years? I am not censored, it's all in my mind, i am deluded and i want to prove it. I am allowed to talk like everybody else, everybody is allowed to talk in the show and some people even talk twice or even more times. I promise it will not be boring, but last time i felt kicked out. Why the hosts didn't invite me to call again since i say interesting truths they disagree with? It was clear the first time i couldn't explain myself because the hosts were extremely defensive. I am not attacking, don't defend, listen. We are talking to have a pleasant conversation. I will call any program because the discovery that God exists is the most important and significant discovery of all time. I will explain with plenty of time, as much time as it is required, why the universe was created from something intelligent. We will go slowly, step by step. Humanity have already lost too much time talking nonsense. When I called you would know it's me, Miguel, the greatest psychologist and person of many talents of all time for discovering the truth, the greatest guest you ever had in the show. The time of the show is inconvenient for me and i will try to quit my job just to talk with you without asking to have permission to have my break earlier. This Good Sunday I will call to end religion and atheism with simple reasoning so I expect to be understood. Last time you didn't understand and I was so disappointed with you, you let me down. I felt I spoke with random moronic atheists I come across in internet often. You should be respectable intellectuals loaded with arguments, not charlatans who talk fluently fast and furious irrationalities. I am the teacher and you the student because i have discovered the nature of God and other vital discoveries that are going unnoticed, censored, ignored and i hope not destroyed. I just want to recover multiple social media accounts suspended that have incredibly important information for future generations. All this i am saying to you is because i want to recover those accounts with my life, contacts, friends, family. I want to call and maybe after a brief exchange of words remain silent because I know I am right and you know I know I am right and atheism is a lie that looks like a lie defended without any arguments. I will go to the debate to frame you, to not let you escape out of the truthful and emotionally devastating path. I will guide you to the truth. You are trapped in a fire and I call you to tell you I know the building well and which is the safest route to freedom. I want to call and be put through straight away because I am the first person who ever lived to know God exists and to not be religious. I have to frame you and the first time you didn't admit reality is eternal because from nothing can not be created something. Remember atheists claim to be interested in the truth and if reality is eternal it didn't exist "for a very long time". One day at a time. First, maybe, relaxed, we discuss why "who created god?" is the most emblematic remark of atheism. I have to survive until next Good Sunday. I promise I will do my best to not forget I have to call you as soon as possible. I need time and I don't want "blah blah blah without any arguments". You understood what I just said if you understand the next time I call we will be playing a game called "who cries first loses". Are you ready for fame? Thank you.
Climate change is caused by capitalism, namely the fetaures of interest and limited liability. The private car industry and the interest bearing loan industry are the same thing. Limited liability which enables the highly polluting long distance shipping industry MNCs and polluting with impunity, was considered a sin and caused a moral outrage in the church upon inception in europe 400 years ago (Piketty, 2014)
I think an error here is in an idea at the base of Imam Tom's thinking. That idea being that there is "the government" and separately there are all others in society. In liberal democracy ideology, the government is a part of the society. The people temporarily in government are part of society, part of the community, chosen by fellow members of society for limited times of service. Most members of government I know are in government to see that the roads a maintained, the schools are run well, the hospitals can function, and so on. Most do it reluctantly and out of a sense of caring for their fellows in the community. Imam Tom might want to dial down his cynicism a notch or two. It seems that, like many conservative thinkers, he assumes that those he disagrees with are wrongly motivated. The ideology of too many is the ideal world in which everyone agrees that I am right. Liberal democracy's ideal is a process through which, what is right for society is chosen by society. That which is "right" changes from time to time as the community decides that it should. It recognizes that disagreements (conflict) will always exist. Democracy is a dispute resolution process. Not dogma.
You've completely failed to understand the point. Without a religious and ethical basis, government and the people in charge of it are completely unmoored from any foundation that will result in the public good in the fullest sense of the word(according to Islam - the mandated way of life of the Creator). The idea that you think most American politicians are there to fix roads and ensure schools are funded properly clearly shows you are out of touch with the reality of government in America. The so-called 'liberal democratic' culture you seem to believe in has brought about Donald Trump as President and if polls are accurate will bring him back again next year in the White House.
Not sure I would agree with you following consideration of both the historical and philosophical development of the modern state, be it democratic, authoritarian, capitalist or communist. Two books I might suggest: 1) The Nature & Development of the Modern State, by Dr Graeme Gill (Palgrave, 2003). 2) The Impossible State, by Wael Hallaq (Columbia University Press, 2014) That’s not to say that the people are bad, but they are co-opted into a system which has a mind of its own, despite the role they may play as an individual within a limited office/profession. Graeme Gill’s discussion of the state’s “impenetrable web of bureaucracy” is valuable on this point.
@@aal-e-ahmadhussain3123The people elected to take care of the roads, schools, enforce the laws, change frequently, are paid little and do it out of a sense of community. I witness this. Democratically electing them settles disagreements about how these are to be done. Democracy is a process, not a dogma. Of course it operates better than it did in Greece, Rome, the 18th, 19th centuries, It is self-improving. In other words, it is progressive.
@@chuckhillier4153 there are slot of unsubstantiated claims there; a lot of myth around what the state system is and how democracy relates to it; modernity is anything but altruistic, and that applies to the state system too I’m afraid. I would encourage you to read the books suggested for a more accurate idea of the history and philosophy which underpins it. Better to be in the know, to challenge our assumptions and to stand on conviction rooted in objective truth.
@@aal-e-ahmadhussain3123 You honor me with your reply. I'm interested in describing the ideal, the goal of efforts to perfect society. It seems the goal of Imam Tom's version is for everyone to submit to one set of rules. The democracy that I promote arrives at a system of community decision making. The rules change as the community changes or as the community discovers better rules. I understand the desire to examine origins. I have read many of foundational books and have an understanding of democracy's history and the history of democracies, if you recognize the difference between the two. By its nature, democracy has improved. It is called progressive for a reason. It progresses. It has proven itself. Most nations are now democracies. Many of those which are not democracies, pretend to be democracies. Russia, Iran, come to mind. There are many examples of countries succeeding as democracies after failing under other systems. As an aside. Setting up outdated views such as Orientalism as straw men to be knocked down, seems less than helpful in finding real solutions.
Wahabisme and Salafisme has nothing to do with islam. It is popular because of the US backed Al Saud which were criminals, allied with the rejected Al Saud to create a new religion. They removed everything that Islam is and replaced it with a Victorian era religion. It has nothing to do with Islam
wahabi salafi is start by Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab who learns from his teacher Mr hempher who is a yahudi 1111 yrs after Hijrah and Mr hempher teachings origins from the basement of babylonia
How is this relevant for today? What is the takeaway? I often hear arguments critical of the west, and liberalism by referencing history in 100 years ago or more. Maybe I misunderstanding, but it seems like a failed attempt to make Islamic cultures see more attractive. Many believers Christians, and Muslims, want a theocracy, as if it’s some utopia, but I think that’s naïve.
It depends on what is your definition of a theocracy. If you had listened carefully, you'd have understood that Western Liberalism is inherently racist, because it assumes that Western secular models are the ideal and the best that humanity has to offer. Today's people forget how virulently racist and incurably supremacist some of these so-called enlightenment thinkers were. The primary messagr of Islam is universalism and inclusion, whereas the Modern Liberal West offers conditionality and exclusion.
Well I suppose the relevance and takeaway is twofold: 1) To identify a problem so that we may sufficiently give up its pursuit and perpetuation. But of course, if we still think an idea or arrangement is the best thing since sliced, we would be reluctant to do so. So here it’s important to problematise something if we are to be critical thinkers and if we are to properly engage with material using the sum of our faculties and accumulative knowledge. 2) To identify some solutions, which I agree has not happened in this chapter, but which may require us to be more open minded and creative than we might assume of ourselves. These takeaways which are/can be practicable I think are put forward through the wider body of Hallaq’s work. Unfortunately, his work is not easily accessible - it’s not reader friendly. I’ve constantly found myself having to go off and do a good amount of background reading before returning to him. Anyhow, practicable solutions are at the fore in “Reforming Modernity” (Columbia University Press, 2019) and “Sharī’a; Theory, Practise, Transformations” (Cambridge University Press, 2009). This is quite a lot of reading, and it is often times dense. Perhaps a more reader friendly book might be “Rethinking Islam & The West” by Paul Keeler. This book is slightly different, but perhaps speaks to your query as it aims to problematise and critique the “doctrine of progress”, which is without a doubt a central tenet of western ethics, while proposing a different paradigm through which we should be engaging with the world, and with technology. It’s well worth a read.
@user-ve1jm9ys5d do your research on yaqeen institute and imam Tom. Its called controlled opposition. The harsh critique you mention isn't anything new. Everybody knows.
Dear both of you, I waited and waited for this video but it didn't came. Now I have read majority of the book, made it a key text in my MA thesis, call myself Hallaqian, matured intellectually 100x. But during those painful early days of reading Hallaq I really wished you both upload a video. May the Merciful bless you, myself, Hallaq and all other doers of good with guidance and success.
Same longing for me, I was eagerly waiting for it. 🍿
@@AmbiCieux the wait was so long 😆 and these to explain the chapters so well 💞
hallaq is CFR stooge.
Hallaq also said khilafah is impossible.
@@seanou2837 book and context? He is a difficult read, his arguments swings, and changes sometimes from book to book.
Imam Tom is one of the best guests on BT. LOVE this collaboration. Alhamdulillah
Ramadan Mubarak from the US 🇺🇸 Always a pleasure to listen to Imam Tom, who offers intelligent and thoughtful insight on Said's and Hallaq's works on the greater colonial project. Thanks for continuing to bring on such amazing guests on your channel, Paul. May Allah accept all your good deeds this Ramadan 🤲☝️🕋
I started reading The Impossible State but it was a bit difficult. So i watched the four videos again. I wish to read Wael hallaq more, the restating orientalism seems next level. pray for me that may Allah enables me to that level of education and sophistication that i can read and follow what he's saying. I will repeat these lectures again after Ramadan inshallah. And i think i will have more time to focus after my uni is finished .
May Allah bless you both! Jazakallah
Allahu Akbar!
So much wait for this Dear Imam Tom and Mawlana Paul.
Allah bless you tremendously.
What a pleasant surprise, I had no idea this was coming today. May Allah enrich you both with good deeds and good health. Ameen
*I wish Edward Said were alive today to address Hallaq's critique by participating in a lengthy interview conducted by Imam Tom Facchine (sitting in for Paul) on the Blogging Theology channel!* 😇
Looking forward to going through this after Taraweeh!
Tom is fluent and well spoken, he understands hallaq very well. Great video.
May Allah Bless and Reward Both of You in this Life and in the Hereafter.
Excellent dialogue, as always. It’s a blessing to listen to two knowledgeable brothers discussing such issues.
Ramadan Kareem!
Highly anticipated episode!
@Paul You need to get Imam Tom back to discuss Politics of Piety…there is to much learn from that book especially for feminist discourses among Muslim circles
I second this!
I third this! Having a female co-guest also would make the message more amenable to the target audience too.
At last, been waiting for part two for a long time. I ended up reading the full book plus two other books by Wael Hallaq while waiting 😁
Salam from Penang. This is great! Thank you
I❤Penang. Great Food-!!! 😋
Alhamdulillah. Thank you both.
May Allah grant you both long life with great health and prosperity that enables you to be an ambassadors of Islam to the World.❤❤❤
Lets go. More dialogue with Imam tom
Subject/Topic Guide:
2:44 Overview of Chapter 1
5:10 CRITIQUE 1: The ambiguity of the time (the “when”) of Saidian orientalism and it’s relationship with colonialism, liberalism and epistemic genocide and subjugation.
• 14:00 Saidian orientalism mistakenly focusses on identity and (mis)representation.
16:08 CRITIQUE 2: The ambiguity of the place (the “where”) of Saidian orientalism.
• 16:43 Conscription of Ancient Greece and Rome into the imagination of “The West”.
21:30 CRITIQUE 3: Structural orientalism - the Author and the hegemonic paradigm.
• 27:51 Central domains vs Peripheral domains.
36:37 CRITIQUE 4: Structural orientalism - Representation and Performativity.
• 39:15 A theory can stand apart from its champion theorist, i.e. an author or her work can have varied performativity in relation to the hegemonic/central domain.
45:45 CRITIQUE 5: The impossibility of change according to Saidian orientalism.
• 47:50 Standpoint theory.
• 54:43 The incessant change of both “continuous progress” and post-structuralism is a destabilising force resulting in incessant agitation.
• 59:13 The possibility of “critique” necessitates the possibility of change.
1:01:29 SAIDIAN ORIENTALISM DEFINED: distance, difference, power and text.
• 1:03:02 The subaltern's lack of voice and inability to "speak".
• 1:04:55 Tokenisation.
• 1:10:23 Difference and power: orientalism seen as separate to and preceding colonialism.
• 1:14:18 Text is performative
• 1:19:47 Distance between mutual "Others" does not make violence, conquest and genocide inevitable, it is insufficient in explaining the modern Western phenomenon.
• 1:22:25 A defence for Said and his body of work.
•
Such an insightful and riveting discussion, it hooked me in a few minutes of the video. Thank you both.
Always pleasure to connect to this channel and breath fresh air .
Loving the new merch Paul!
Oh my God even though I have read the book I desperately needed a revision and this video is great
MashaAllah brothers you articulate the issues with such clarity. Thank you for sharing your research and insights brother Tom, I have learnt so much. Very much looking forward to the continued series. May Allah reward you both for your efforts
The mutual respect and brotherhood is a great blessing. May Allah be pleased with all your efforts.
Yey, finally found some time to listen to my fav conversation on one of my fav authors. Jzk
Masha Allah imam Tom
Masha Allah brother Paul
Thank you very much , fascinating
❤❤
The great program.
Can Imam Tom also do another series explaining the Politics of Piety by Saba Mahmood? The discourse seems similar to Wael Hallag and Talal Asad, and she talks about secularism, liberalism, Islam, feminism, modernity with Foucauldian language.
Jazak Allahu Khayr
The Chinese INVENTED gunpowder but DIDN'T pursue colonialism like Europeans so that argument is bunk I would say.
Some interesting points.
Thank you.
Amazing!
Amazing
I wonder about what Dr. Wael B. Hallaq’s position about student protest and Gaza massacre.
Allahuakber
I liked it very much the comparison of Eastern liberalism as thrashing around trying to find its identity and entertainment in the mean time vs peace and meaningful existence of Islam.
As salaam alaikum Paul,
What's the name of the Italian philosopher you mentioned, Julius but I couldn't get the last name
Regards
wa alaikum assalam, Julius Evola
Sir, could u do one with Sam Gerrans?
🎉
I'm sure that most of the people are gonna need a translator for this episode.
A simplified form of the English language.
Imam tom and imam Paul. We are so back in the first century. Lol
God's promise to Ishmael ;
Genesis 17:20
As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.
God shifting from Isaac's descendants to Ishmael's descendants ;
Genesis 49:10 - 10 The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from his descendants,
until the coming of the one to whom it belongs,
the one whom all nations will honor.
Helper after je-sus before his second coming? ;
John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
A person more powerful than je-sus will came after him? ;
Mark 1:7
“After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
Prophet Muhammad is gods beloved (habibullah) and friend(waliullah) ;
song of Solomon 5:16 it should be, "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is 'Muhammad im'. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem"
The unlearned prophet ;
Isaiah 29 12
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
Prophet Ahamed will release the captives, will preach within closed doors(initially), he won over his enemies ;
Isaiah 42 1
"Here is my servant, Ahmed, my chosen one, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.” This is what God the Lord says-the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: “I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you.” Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you islands, and all who live in them. Let the wilderness and its towns raise their voices; let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the mountaintops."
Kedar(son of Ishmael) = Arabs Sela = mountain in Medina He will be an Arab, preaching in Medina, singing a new song aka reciting the Quran, He will be a light to the gentiles, meaning he is not only sent to the children of Israel.
The prince of the world coming after je-sus? ;
John 14:30 ►
I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,
Follow prophet Ahmet when he comes! ;
John 16 13
Howbeit when he, the Prophet Ahmet(Hebrew), is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.[14] He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Next Good Sunday I will call again. The first time the conversation was not conducted well and they laughed at me but this time will be different. I will ask for time because I claim I can prove God exists. I will need time to explain my self. The first time I didn't succeed because I was rushed to be expelled as soon as possible like if I was a troublemaker, troll, spammer when I clearly stated I am a psychologist and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy. From the beginning I just had to call to be allowed to talk, why i waited for so many years? I am not censored, it's all in my mind, i am deluded and i want to prove it. I am allowed to talk like everybody else, everybody is allowed to talk in the show and some people even talk twice or even more times. I promise it will not be boring, but last time i felt kicked out. Why the hosts didn't invite me to call again since i say interesting truths they disagree with? It was clear the first time i couldn't explain myself because the hosts were extremely defensive. I am not attacking, don't defend, listen. We are talking to have a pleasant conversation. I will call any program because the discovery that God exists is the most important and significant discovery of all time. I will explain with plenty of time, as much time as it is required, why the universe was created from something intelligent. We will go slowly, step by step. Humanity have already lost too much time talking nonsense. When I called you would know it's me, Miguel, the greatest psychologist and person of many talents of all time for discovering the truth, the greatest guest you ever had in the show. The time of the show is inconvenient for me and i will try to quit my job just to talk with you without asking to have permission to have my break earlier. This Good Sunday I will call to end religion and atheism with simple reasoning so I expect to be understood. Last time you didn't understand and I was so disappointed with you, you let me down. I felt I spoke with random moronic atheists I come across in internet often. You should be respectable intellectuals loaded with arguments, not charlatans who talk fluently fast and furious irrationalities. I am the teacher and you the student because i have discovered the nature of God and other vital discoveries that are going unnoticed, censored, ignored and i hope not destroyed. I just want to recover multiple social media accounts suspended that have incredibly important information for future generations. All this i am saying to you is because i want to recover those accounts with my life, contacts, friends, family. I want to call and maybe after a brief exchange of words remain silent because I know I am right and you know I know I am right and atheism is a lie that looks like a lie defended without any arguments. I will go to the debate to frame you, to not let you escape out of the truthful and emotionally devastating path. I will guide you to the truth. You are trapped in a fire and I call you to tell you I know the building well and which is the safest route to freedom. I want to call and be put through straight away because I am the first person who ever lived to know God exists and to not be religious. I have to frame you and the first time you didn't admit reality is eternal because from nothing can not be created something. Remember atheists claim to be interested in the truth and if reality is eternal it didn't exist "for a very long time". One day at a time. First, maybe, relaxed, we discuss why "who created god?" is the most emblematic remark of atheism. I have to survive until next Good Sunday. I promise I will do my best to not forget I have to call you as soon as possible. I need time and I don't want "blah blah blah without any arguments". You understood what I just said if you understand the next time I call we will be playing a game called "who cries first loses". Are you ready for fame? Thank you.
Climate change is caused by capitalism, namely the fetaures of interest and limited liability. The private car industry and the interest bearing loan industry are the same thing. Limited liability which enables the highly polluting long distance shipping industry MNCs and polluting with impunity, was considered a sin and caused a moral outrage in the church upon inception in europe 400 years ago (Piketty, 2014)
A remark on descriping Hallaq as kantian Muslim; Hallak is not Muslim , he is Christian .
is he?
yes he is christian.
Read between the lines
I think an error here is in an idea at the base of Imam Tom's thinking. That idea being that there is "the government" and separately there are all others in society. In liberal democracy ideology, the government is a part of the society. The people temporarily in government are part of society, part of the community, chosen by fellow members of society for limited times of service. Most members of government I know are in government to see that the roads a maintained, the schools are run well, the hospitals can function, and so on. Most do it reluctantly and out of a sense of caring for their fellows in the community. Imam Tom might want to dial down his cynicism a notch or two. It seems that, like many conservative thinkers, he assumes that those he disagrees with are wrongly motivated.
The ideology of too many is the ideal world in which everyone agrees that I am right.
Liberal democracy's ideal is a process through which, what is right for society is chosen by society. That which is "right" changes from time to time as the community decides that it should. It recognizes that disagreements (conflict) will always exist. Democracy is a dispute resolution process. Not dogma.
You've completely failed to understand the point. Without a religious and ethical basis, government and the people in charge of it are completely unmoored from any foundation that will result in the public good in the fullest sense of the word(according to Islam - the mandated way of life of the Creator). The idea that you think most American politicians are there to fix roads and ensure schools are funded properly clearly shows you are out of touch with the reality of government in America. The so-called 'liberal democratic' culture you seem to believe in has brought about Donald Trump as President and if polls are accurate will bring him back again next year in the White House.
Not sure I would agree with you following consideration of both the historical and philosophical development of the modern state, be it democratic, authoritarian, capitalist or communist.
Two books I might suggest:
1) The Nature & Development of the Modern State, by Dr Graeme Gill (Palgrave, 2003).
2) The Impossible State, by Wael Hallaq (Columbia University Press, 2014)
That’s not to say that the people are bad, but they are co-opted into a system which has a mind of its own, despite the role they may play as an individual within a limited office/profession. Graeme Gill’s discussion of the state’s “impenetrable web of bureaucracy” is valuable on this point.
@@aal-e-ahmadhussain3123The people elected to take care of the roads, schools, enforce the laws, change frequently, are paid little and do it out of a sense of community. I witness this. Democratically electing them settles disagreements about how these are to be done. Democracy is a process, not a dogma. Of course it operates better than it did in Greece, Rome, the 18th, 19th centuries, It is self-improving. In other words, it is progressive.
@@chuckhillier4153 there are slot of unsubstantiated claims there; a lot of myth around what the state system is and how democracy relates to it; modernity is anything but altruistic, and that applies to the state system too I’m afraid. I would encourage you to read the books suggested for a more accurate idea of the history and philosophy which underpins it.
Better to be in the know, to challenge our assumptions and to stand on conviction rooted in objective truth.
@@aal-e-ahmadhussain3123 You honor me with your reply. I'm interested in describing the ideal, the goal of efforts to perfect society. It seems the goal of Imam Tom's version is for everyone to submit to one set of rules. The democracy that I promote arrives at a system of community decision making. The rules change as the community changes or as the community discovers better rules. I understand the desire to examine origins. I have read many of foundational books and have an understanding of democracy's history and the history of democracies, if you recognize the difference between the two.
By its nature, democracy has improved. It is called progressive for a reason. It progresses. It has proven itself. Most nations are now democracies. Many of those which are not democracies, pretend to be democracies. Russia, Iran, come to mind. There are many examples of countries succeeding as democracies after failing under other systems.
As an aside. Setting up outdated views such as Orientalism as straw men to be knocked down, seems less than helpful in finding real solutions.
Did we hear "yaqeen institute". If that is the case, stay with people who are upon the Manhaj of salaf-as-salih.
Wahabisme and Salafisme has nothing to do with islam. It is popular because of the US backed Al Saud which were criminals, allied with the rejected Al Saud to create a new religion. They removed everything that Islam is and replaced it with a Victorian era religion. It has nothing to do with Islam
wahabi salafi is start by Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab who learns from his teacher Mr hempher who is a yahudi 1111 yrs after Hijrah and Mr hempher teachings origins from the basement of babylonia
How is this relevant for today? What is the takeaway?
I often hear arguments critical of the west, and liberalism by referencing history in 100 years ago or more. Maybe I misunderstanding, but it seems like a failed attempt to make Islamic cultures see more attractive.
Many believers Christians, and Muslims, want a theocracy, as if it’s some utopia, but I think that’s naïve.
It depends on what is your definition of a theocracy. If you had listened carefully, you'd have understood that Western Liberalism is inherently racist, because it assumes that Western secular models are the ideal and the best that humanity has to offer. Today's people forget how virulently racist and incurably supremacist some of these so-called enlightenment thinkers were. The primary messagr of Islam is universalism and inclusion, whereas the Modern Liberal West offers conditionality and exclusion.
Well I suppose the relevance and takeaway is twofold:
1) To identify a problem so that we may sufficiently give up its pursuit and perpetuation. But of course, if we still think an idea or arrangement is the best thing since sliced, we would be reluctant to do so. So here it’s important to problematise something if we are to be critical thinkers and if we are to properly engage with material using the sum of our faculties and accumulative knowledge.
2) To identify some solutions, which I agree has not happened in this chapter, but which may require us to be more open minded and creative than we might assume of ourselves. These takeaways which are/can be practicable I think are put forward through the wider body of Hallaq’s work. Unfortunately, his work is not easily accessible - it’s not reader friendly. I’ve constantly found myself having to go off and do a good amount of background reading before returning to him. Anyhow, practicable solutions are at the fore in “Reforming Modernity” (Columbia University Press, 2019) and “Sharī’a; Theory, Practise, Transformations” (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
This is quite a lot of reading, and it is often times dense. Perhaps a more reader friendly book might be “Rethinking Islam & The West” by Paul Keeler. This book is slightly different, but perhaps speaks to your query as it aims to problematise and critique the “doctrine of progress”, which is without a doubt a central tenet of western ethics, while proposing a different paradigm through which we should be engaging with the world, and with technology. It’s well worth a read.
blogging theology 💯
Imam CIA
Cope
cope@@snakejuce
you mean Hallaq for sure.
This video is some of the realist and harshest criticism of the west as a whole out there - how on Earth is it CIA?
@user-ve1jm9ys5d do your research on yaqeen institute and imam Tom. Its called controlled opposition. The harsh critique you mention isn't anything new. Everybody knows.
I respect you a lot