Transcript for:
Interview with Daniel Haqiqatjou

We're going to talk to Daniel Haqiqatjou. Daniel,  welcome to the show. Thank you so much for being   here. Thank you Kim, I'm glad to be here. Sorry,  I mispronounced your last name. Can you say it for   us all? So we know it's haqiqatjou, so one of  the letters is specific to Arabic and Persian,   so it's difficult for non-Persian or Arabic  speakers to pronounce it, but you did a great job.   I don't think it was a great job, but you know it  was a job. I want to get into it. First of all,   tell us what type of Islam you practice. I'm a  Sunni Muslim I uh was born into a Shia family   most Iranians that's my ethnic background  um Iranian American was born in the US but   my parents immigrated and um so the the that's  where my name comes from actually and I was Shia   but then in high school I did more research and  I became Sunni what made you switch from Shia to   Sunni uh well it's uh based on my research Sunni  Islam is more authentic um to the practice of the   Prophet peace be upon Him Prophet Muhammad and so  it's a epistemological question um do the rituals   and practices and specific beliefs of Shia or  Sunni which are more authentic to the life of   the the final messenger Muhammad peace be upon  him so that's what Muslims whether Shia or sunni   Pride themselves on is that all of humanity from  the beginning has been sent prophets um many of   the prophets mentioned in the Bible for example  Abraham Moses Noah David Solomon Etc all the way   to Jesus Christ which we also believe in and  believe he's the Messiah born of Virgin birth   and uh then the final Prophet the final messenger  is Muhammad peace be upon him but the issue is and   the way that Islam teaches this is that prophets  have to keep coming because people corrupt the   teachings that God has revealed so he believe in  one God uh God Almighty without any other gods   without any partners and he is a Transcendent  Lord and Creator and he has sent guidance and   Revelation and books of Revelation to people and  then over time over the eons of human civilization   these get corrupted uh by people because of  politics or because of people people's desires   or satanic influence and then um so God continues  to send prophets to correct those mistakes and the   final Prophet the final messenger is Muhammad  peace be upon him and so it's very important to   maintain and preserve the authenticity because  he's the final Prophet there's not going to be   other prophets until the end of days the end of  time um and and therefore authenticity is very   critical so my investigation of shiaism is that  they're they're not authentic in some of their   beliefs and practices uh they're still Muslim  um majority of sunnis believe or Sunni scholars   believe that Shia are still Muslim but that's you  know that's the kind of investigation and Analysis   I did when I was in high school and then college  and I became Sunni is your family still Shia yes   I think they consider themselves still Shia um for  the most part but they're also a little bit more   secular um I had more of a secular upbringing not  that we didn't believe in God we believe in God we   believe in Islam but in terms of being like going  to the mosque every single day or every single   week that wasn't really part of my childhood  I came into it because of the influence of uh   friends that I happened to meet in high school  so your family was secular but then you made   friends who were also Muslim but they were Sunni  Muslim Yes, and at first I, you know, kept my Shia   identity; it was a proud Shia, and I thought, You  know, look, I'm going to prove these Sunnis wrong.   I'm going to show them the error of their ways,  but then, you know, the tables got turned okay,   so now, um, you So how I don't know how to ask  this question but how EXT I mean because I don't   know if you you know you when you ask somebody how  extreme are you do you think you're extreme I mean   but on a scale of 1 to 10 how extreme are you if  you could even answer that honestly if a person   could make that sort of self assessment yeah I  mean maybe a better word is orthodox okay like   how Orthodox or how traditional you know how how  traditional or authentic am I practicing Islam   and I consider you know my my practice and my  belief to be 100% authentic you know as for like   me myself I'm just a average Muslim and Muslims  you know they strive to you know get rid of their   sins and to be better worshippers of of God and  practitioners of their religion uh but I you know   strive to be 100% Orthodox now what people claim  is or or some of the um propaganda against Islam   is that oh the the really Orthodox Muslims are  ISIS right I was just going to ask you that like   are you in line with Isis or uh any of these sort  of organisations or groups in the Middle East who   want to create caliphates and kind of convert  everybody to Islam and live in a Islamic world   so the the idea of a caliphates is Islamic it just  means the idea that um that religion plays a part   god when God sends guidance and Revelation for  Humanity he doesn't limit it to like your personal   individual life God sends guidance for not only  you in terms of your personal ethics but also in   terms of your marriage, your family life, how you  should structure your family life, your household,   what about your community, what about society  at large, and ultimately, what about economics,   government, and foreign policy. these are all  domains of human existence and and God didn't   leave us without any instructions there are there  is you know guidance that God has sent and this   has traditionally been the conception of most  religions uh Christianity has analogous Concepts   uh Judaism certainly does uh even Hinduism does  but then because of a secularization process   after the enlightenment in the N 18th and 19th  century we get this modern idea of religion like   oh religion you know what when you pray and you  read your holy book you do that in the privacy   of your own home but everything else in society  that's dictated by you know reason and Science   and what is reason and science well this is an  atheistic you know worldview uh that's devoid of   belief in God that's what really determines our  laws that's what determines our economics our   foreign policy and this is something that I think  is fundamentally irrational and it's fundamentally   immoral you know God has sent this kind of  guidance and it's I think a this is something   that I discussed with Patrick P David in the in  the podcast there in that this is a a big problem   this this is modernism to take out God from from  consideration of you know the rest of how human   beings live and The Human Experience do you think  that the United States has done that I mean I   feel like the United States still runs heavily on  Christian values well I wish that it uh was still   operating under Christian values actually um I  think that you know I I grew up in the south in   Texas and I think the more Christian that the  United States has been the better it's been   for Muslims and you know just overall better um in  terms of values and family values and the way that   Society was run um when secularization happens and  God is taken out of the picture then this creates   a lot of degeneracy a lot of problems um a lot of  social breakdown when we look at the breakdown of   marriage some sociologists say that marriage is  basically extinct when we see you know the rise of   crime you know a lot of the problem with crime is  the loss of family values and that very stable uh   structure family structure when that breaks down  then Society breaks down and and the only kind of   thing that really guarantees that those structures  will persist is a belief in uh something that's   beyond the material Beyond you know our everyday  animalistic desires we have to look Beyond and   see a Transcendent source of values and that's  is this is why religion is very important that   but you have to to really believe in religion and  a system of rules you have to believe in Tradition   you have to believe that okay we have gotten this  kind of practice from generation after generation   after generation that's why you have a Christian  Christian tradition a Jewish tradition an Islamic   tradition but what modernism does and what the  enlightenment did is basically say no following   people in the past is backwards it's unenlightened  it's irrational we have our own ability to develop   you know the proper way to run life and and  maybe you know this concept of gender like that   they're male and female like maybe this is not  really rational like let's question that let's   question sexuality let's question you know these  structures that humans have had traditionally and   so that's that's the modernness me Menace that I  describe it in my book and I try to get this point   across in my debates I mean I can understand that  there's certainly some aspects of society today   that are um you know especially from the crowd  that says that they're Pro science and then they   say things like men can become women and women  can become men and it's you know there there's   no science you can look like one but you can't  actually become you can't change your chromosome   which means scientifically you're not able to do  that um so I mean I understand that there is this   sort of you know there's I think there's but I  think no matter when if you pick a time period   any time period in history you're going to find  this sort of backward thinking no matter what it   is even when times when um when there was a lot of  religion in government for example and in society   like at the time of Galileo for example where  you couldn't even say that the Earth revolved   around the Sun without being called a heretic and  burnt at the stake I mean that's we've you know I   don't I mean I understand that uh we have a level  of you know what you call degeneracy I don't know   if that's the word I would necessarily use but  I agree that there's some idiotic you know um   thinking that's going on right now but I don't  know if we need to revert back to the times of   Galileo where the church is the end all be all  and and that is you know even if it goes actually   against s actually what we know to be reality  what we know to be truth are you suggest I mean   when would you say is if you're saying that now  we're in this degenerate time period when would   you say was a better time like what was like  the best time that you could point to at this   point in history well I think any time prior  to uh This Modern period especially when we   get into the 18th and 19th centuries when you have  these kinds of revolutions happening these kinds   of moral revolutions um societal revolutions and  France for example um these things caused a lot of   damage that we're still suffering from today and  when you see you know something like the sexual   Revolution or the pornification of society a lot  of conservatives will say that oh I wish we could   go back to the 1950s but in reality the 1950s  was just one stop on this train ride that really   originated in the Enlightenment and I think any  time before the Enlightenment you know I have my   criticisms of Christianity and Judaism as a Muslim  I I reject other religions uh but uh in comparison   you know Christianity in the 1600s or even the  1200s is much better than uh situation that we   have today the and the thing is I'm not against  reason I'm not against science I just think that   these things have limits these things have limits  and ultimately uh there's other sources of Truth   the problem with the enlightenment is that they  it says that no the only source of truth and   reality is empirical science and perhaps deductive  reasoning you know this is coming from R deart and   David human other Enlightenment thinkers and I  think that that's just fundamentally a mistake   like so much truth and what we know to be true  about the world and about God um comes from other   than just empirical science so that's that's the  point that I would make um but I do think there's   a a big propaganda like you're very familiar with  prop propanda that's spread online nowadays and   there is this Enlightenment propaganda that if  you go back in time Society is worse and it's   like a hellscape you know you go back to you  know the time of Galileo and this it's just   this terrible place and no one would ever want  to be there I think this is propaganda I don't   think that uh people in the past really suffered  in the same way that people are suffering now like   it's a very lonely isolated confused existence  that we have and this is um you know seen in the   statistics on suicide on depression on the rate  of uh you know use of anti-depressants and and   all these problems that we see in today's world  the myth of continuous progress and humans are   so much better today than they were 500 years  ago I think we we really need to question these   kinds of myths uh just to to go to one of the  points that you make about empirically studying   uh and and saying that well some things we cannot  empirically study I think that any truth we can   maybe we don't have the ability to empirically  study at this point you know we don't have any   actual physical evidence of God for example  but it doesn't mean that that evidence doesn't   exist and won't exist at some point and that we  would have the ability if we were scientifically   Advanced enough to actually empirically study it  I mean anything that's true I believe you at some   point must there is no way around it you must be  able to empirically study it at some point well   the way that we just might not have the tools  you know we don't have a microscope that sees   God but maybe one day we would you know not not  that particular instrument but you know what I'm   saying like something would allow if something is  true it can always be empirically studied sorry   no problem uh well think about like moral truths  like one moral truth that we all implicitly accept   is that it's wrong to just hurt someone for no  reason right right But is that something that you   can ever empirically discover if it's true? Yes,  I think that you would have, because morality,   if it's not true, then you can't call it a truth.  You could just call it morality that fluctuates   logical truth like the law of non-contradiction.  What kind of observation can you make that   would prove the law of non-contradiction? In what do you mean exactly, uh, so like,   uh, there are certain logical, uh, truths, uh, as  true as anything can be true, like something can't   be true and false at the same time, and in the  same way, this is the law of non-contradiction.   It's universal humanity. Humans have all accepted  that that's true; it's like the basis of logic,   but that's not an empirical truth. it's not like  you can find that through observation philosophy   well in philosophy um they discuss like different  kinds of truths so there are moral truths there   are empirical truths there are logical or  inferential truths and they can there can   be other truths that are it's a truth in the  sense that if you reflect on it like everyone   will come to accept that that's the case so you  can just reflect on the law of non-contradiction   without any experience and know that it's true  like that's that no you can't know it's true you   can assume it's true right you would think you  believe it's true that's a belief you believe   it's true you can't actually know something's true  unless you can empirically study it but my point   is if something is genuinely true it could be at  some point empirically studied I believe that for   example many of us uh don't know whether or not  many of us don't know if God exists someday we   will know because there will be empirical evidence  of God's existence sure I I understand what you're   saying the my I had this debate actually I debate  a lot of atheists and one of the atheists I   debated well-known is name is Matt Dillahunty  and the atheistic point of view especially   these new atheists they're also using this kind of  Enlightenment reasoning from the 18th century is   to say that look the only kinds of truths that we  accept are empirical truths if you can't show me   a peer-reviewed study that this is the case then  I'm not going to accept it that I'm just gonna   say that it's irrational you have no evidence  for it well there's another alternative right   and the alternative is not to just reject it  but to just say I don't know I'm not sure about   this because I can't I can't guar you know I can  believe it but I can't prove that it's true well   go on faith that's what faith is but I would  ask you this just like asking you to reflect   um because you believe in God so do you do  you believe in God more or that um black holes  exist well like in space black holes for sure  you believe that like more than your belief in   God yeah yeah belief in God is a faith don't  you think that that kind of that's not really   reflective of like your faith like you live your  faith every single day and well I'm not really   very religious I'm personally not religious I was  at one point I did convert to Mormonism I went to   four years of Seminary which is daily biblical  study uh sometimes I get criticized people say   you don't know the Bible C I'm like I spent four  years literally every day studying in class in   seminary I graduated from Seminary I can't say  that for most people um and then continued to   study it throughout College I but i' long you know  it's been a long time I've forgotten a lot I also   have my degree in philosophy I've forgotten  a lot of stuff I'm not gonna lie it's gone   out the window um but uh right I'm I'm not really  religious anymore I mean I was a practicing I did   have practicing Faith but not not as much anymore  and the reason I think is because I don't I I I   really believe unless you can empirically study  it you cannot prove it to be true you have to   go on faith I don't think that there's anything  wrong with faith I think it's fine to have that   Faith but I do think it's a bit you know when we  start talking about shaping Society shaping laws   um forcing people to live in a certain way based  on faith I have a I I I think that that is how do   I know my faith is right and your faith is wrong  and if I were a faith right now it would not be   Islam I would not be a Muslim if anything I am  100% a Mormon so which is a Zionist by the way   because they do do believe in the literal  Gathering of Israel they believe Jews must   literally return to Jerusalem in order for there  be in order for there to be a second coming so   if I had any belief at all I guess that would be  it but then how do we prove who's right we won't   know I mean one of us can only be right though I  mean in the end one of us is right and one of us   is wrong sure um I'll address that question of  force and how can you force people to follow one   particular way um but let me go back to the black  hole example the the point I was trying to make is   that you're not a cosmologist right you haven't  actually studied general relativity Anders,   I have to believe somebody is telling me right.  yeah yeah and that's probably 99% of science um   all of us like we're not keeping up with the  studies even me I my degree in from Harvard is   in physics and I got a secondary in philosophy but  the the point is that a lot of what people think   that they are very sure of that they believe in  science is really from testim of others and a kind   of General Social acceptance that yes science is  the whole truth and nothing but the truth um but   you know if you reflect for I would say Christians  majority of Christians and other religious people   they have this kind of personal feeling of God and  when you look at childhood studies because there's   a study of like the cognitive science of religion  when you look at children um regardless of their   cultural background it's Universal actually to  believe in a cre Creator God and they studied this   and they compared you know British children with  uh Japanese children there was a Oxford researcher   named Oliver Olivera petrovich she wrote a book  about this where in Japan they don't their actual   Society doesn't believe in a Creator God and  Shintoism doesn't believe in a Creator God yet   when you ask Japanese children like who made  the mountains like who made the sun they'll   say God like God made those things and this is  a surprising result it's like a un ival thing   just like children have certain moral intuitions  and they have certain logical intuitions and they   develop them over time um empirical intuitions  they also have theistic um they have a theistic   or natural theology um and this is something  Universal so what the cognitive scientists   say is that belief in God is something that is uh  as ingrained and as intuitive as logical beliefs   empirical beliefs Etc so I don't belabor that but  going back to the question of force like so right   because then who God is the right God right and  that's kind of the Crux of the question because   if we're going to start forcing Society to mold  to certain religious laws then you'd have to be   able to prove that your God is the right God  and not the god that maybe I believe in that   is a more spiritual non-religious you know God  sure so the first point I'll make is that Islam   doesn't really Force everyone to believe um in  Islam and in Islamic history it's this is found   in the Quran itself and it's found in the practice  of the Prophet Muhammad and his followers that you   can have a society where it's Muslim control  it's like calefate but you have people of the   book meaning Jews and Christians and then some  other religions as well some Scholars considered   Hindus to be people of the book or or zor asrian  so they can also practice their religion according   to their conscience they can teach their children  their religion it's not like a exactly you know   100% religious freedom in the sense of America  today but it's I would argu say it's arguably   more religious freedom in the sense that today  secular society will prevent Christians like in   Europe from teaching certain verses of the Bible  because it's hateful right or you're not allowed   to you know if your child goes to school and  they somehow convince your child that you're   not a boy you're actually a girl the school  can actually intervene and take custody of your   this would not exist you know if Islam was the  law of the land but there would be dimude and   that's what you're kind of referring to is that  these people people of the book could practice   a religion but they would be there would be some  rules and restrictions even payments that would   have to be made right yes so like the payment is  called jiza but themit to being a themi means a   protected person so yes there is a jizya and yes  Islam is supposed to be the law of the land so   there is that kind kind of status but um there's  also certain benefits so when it comes to like   U military service um the VII the non-muslim  doesn't have to serve in the military whereas   Muslims would would have to have that kind of  conscription uh in the Islamic military for   example so there's but let me put the point in a  different way like we talk about oh theud in Islam   and you're this kind of second class citizen  well guess what in in today's secular society   all religious people are Themis we're Themis and  the law of the land is based on atheism and it's   these laws that are imposed on everyone that we  are forced to abide by we are forced to abide   by the law of the land that's determined on the  basis of atheism why because there's this idea   of separation of church and state you can be a  Christian or a Muslim and go to Congress or be   president or whatever but you have to leave your  religious beliefs at the door um of Congress you   can't take your uh religious beliefs to the halls  of power and legislate on that basis that means   what you can legislate on the basis of is atheism  yeah so the laws that we have uh in this country   in any country that everyone follows in a secular  country you're forced to abide by them on threat   of being killed because you break the law and the  police can even violating you know traffic law or   you get a parking ticket if you don't refuse to  pay the parking ticket or that traffic fine then   you can the the government can put a lean on  your house and confiscate your house and then the   sheriff is going to come to um evict you from your  property uh which is now the government's property   and if you refuse they can kill you right they can  shoot to kill they can arrest you and you resist   and then they can actually kill you so this is  all based on violence forcing people to abide by   laws that they don't determine for themselves is  determined in the halls of Congress you know even   if you have like a naive view of how politics  works and oh it's the will of the people let's   just assume there's that there's that and there's  no corruption and special interest and all of that   but even in that Rosy picture of representational  democracy religion doesn't play a part in that God   doesn't play a part of that even if you personally  don't have this scientific materialistic worldview   you have a religious worldview you will be  forced to abide by an atheistic standard   of laws at the threat of extreme violence so but isn't it better like I I I understand   that we're making laws that are based on  uh I mean we're always making laws based   on something right there's got to be people have  to kind of pick in a society what they're going   to revolve their laws around whether it's going  to be around a religion which in some societies   they've done that or whether it's going to be  around no religion but you know our our country   is based on property and property rights and  property securing property I would say even our   military goes around the world securing property  right they're trying to um gain property maybe   from others you know from other countries from  their their property trying to protect shipping   routs like whatever but just trying to I would  say Protect Commerce um and we you know we're   not going to get into whether or not we think  that's moral or immoral I think we probably have   an agreement on the military-industrial complex  around the country around the world I mean um   but when you start making laws religiously then  I mean so either way it it sounds to me like a uh   pick and choose I mean you're going to end up with  this no matter what we have to live unless we're   going to choose to live in a lawless Society where  nobody's punished for anything you have to choose   what you're going to be living under and so you  would just you would assert that you think it's   better to live under religious laws rather than  these other laws that we create based on a shared   morality from voting yeah absolutely like I think  that the only thing that we're allowed to vote on   is you know atheism basically that's not much of  a choice um but if I were to choose like and I   would you know given a choice of what I want to  abide by obviously Islam would be number one but   then number two would be Christianity actually  um Christianity um maybe even Judaism like going   down the list of abrahamic faiths but um that's  traditional Society is far better than the kind of   atheistic modernist society that we have today I  I think that it's really a cancer it's destroying   Humanity really the the human race is at stake  because of scientific uh transhumanism um with   these kind kinds of technologies that are being  pushed through capitalistic Enterprise there's   really no end in sight and what they're willing  to do to transform they started with transforming   you know Society then the family then even our  human bodies even like birth you have artificial   wombs now that are really being rolled out there's  investments in them there's link and and changing   human psychology whether it's uploading the mind  to the cloud or taking certain uh Pharmaceuticals   that alter brain States alter your psychology it's  a real dystopia that's coming to fruition and now   you have ai so the human this is all putting  the human race at at stake at risk from from   Extinction and what contributes to that it's all  coming from the enlightenment you know that the   dominoes that have been following falling  since the enlightenment we're we're ending   uh we're reaching the end of that which is the  end of the human race so any kind of traditional   religion why because Trad the problem let me  tell you the problem I have with modernist   Enlightenment philosophy that all the world is  run by at this point because of Western hegemony   it's this idea that the only thing that matters  is freedom and equality freedom and equality   are the only values that we should value and I  think this is very contradictory to human nature   and all Rel religions because religions say no  no no freedom and equality are good things you   know people should have the choice to a certain  extent it's just not an absolute Choice people   should have equality in certain ways but it's  not an absolute equality of all people there   are other values like the value of marriage like  the value of family like the value of children the   value of God the value of uh communal Traditions  there are other values and if you just prioritize   freedom and equality above everything  then you end up eliminating like Humanity   and uh you know the gender example I think maybe  a conservative audience in this day and age will   relate to the most is the idea of gender is like  a tradition right tradition of you have men and   female and it's also based on biology obviously  but if you say that everyone is equal and everyone   is exactly the same then that is coming from  this Enlightenment mentality and philosophy   that predates you know 1950s Leave it to Beaver  America and you have this eraser of the tradition   of a gendera a gendered tradition gendered values  you know there's gender roles being a man a manly   man being a woman these things get erased because  you say that equality is the most important value   and you can't really have equality if you say  that there are gender roles because if you have   a role that restricts your freedom it restricts  your choice no you should be able as a as a male   to say that you're a woman and as a male you  should be able to dress however you want and   do whatever you want act however you want that's  freedom but if you value that over everything else   then you have to erase gender you have to erase  marriage you have to erase family you have to   say okay who said that marriage is between a man  and a woman we can have marriage between if you   want to be two men two women you know a man and  an animal or whatever uh that's perfectly fine   because it's your free choice and we're all equal  so my problem is not with freedom and equality   those are important good values there in Islam but  there has to be limits to those things and that's   what traditionalism has had whether it's Islamic  traditionalism or Christian traditionalism the   problem with uh the Enlightenment and modernism  is it it it's totalizing only freedom and equality   matter but with freedom and equality mattering  it doesn't mean that there's an erer of all   these other things I mean we've seen an uptick for  example in marriage we know that there were there   were more marriages in 2022 than there were in the  previous years in the previous um uh you know 2021   and 2020 and 20 19 I even believe so there's so  clearly a lot of people chose to get married and   they even did so during the pandemic you know they  met they fell in love they CH I was one of those   got married had a pandemic marriage basically  um and you know I so it doesn't I I whether a   person believes and has Traditional Values you  though or or or I should say has enlightened   values and chooses to go into this enlightened  path of freedom and equality it doesn't mean   we suddenly erase all these things I mean I think  it's a bit of a straw man to say well you know if   we allow men and men to marry and women and women  to marry suddenly men are going to marry animals   when obviously the animal doesn't have any choice  on that there's not a free it's one thing for two   thinking adults to make a decision to marry one  another but you can't have a man marrying a dog   when the dog doesn't even understand what the  what's going on and people who identify there   there are persons who identify as dogs well okay  then can identify as a dog and get married as a   dog I suppose we don't have to actually as Society  identify them as a dog on the actual paperwork um   you know if they want to dress up like a dog all  day every day well I mean certainly there's a   there's an aspect of society that's going a bit  crazy on that but I'm saying that it doesn't it   one doesn't have to to you know you don't have  to throw the baby out with the bath water I mean   just because you want freedom and equality and  then you say well freedom and equality leads to   all of these you know leads to por pornographic  culture leads to people being so woke that they   believe they could become and identify as a dog or  a toaster oven or whatever um right I mean freedom   and equality can lead to insanity but it doesn't  necessarily have to lead to insanity and we can   always put limits on the insanity right we can  say that's just insane and we're not going to do   that but I I want to go back so you those limits  those limits are exactly what I'm talking about   like we put limits on the basis of what and those  limits you know in my opinion on reality I mean   well what is reality right so science doesn't  doesn't say like so if you say that for example   science says there's a male chromosome and a  female chromosome um well that can be changed   genetic engineering can actually alter our DNA  and so the technology and the science will allow   people to choose literally like what they want  to be like the thing that really grounds gender   is a a kind of transcendent metaphysical truth  that this is how God has created us the soul is   gendered there's a male soul and a female Soul so  this is actually a limitation of the conservative   critique against trans transgenderism they  just limit it to biology and yes uh biology is   important and our souls are in eng gendered bodies  um that God has also created uh but if you just   limit it to science and this is what science says  there's male and female well technology will allow   actually a lot of things to happen in the future  like changing your genes changing the chromosome   and then what will the conservative say then they  won't really have any response unless they take   get back to God says God has drawn these limits  and I think that some of some of these things   are shared universally across religions it's not  a Muslim specific thing or a Christian specific   thing certain things like gender are Universal  actually and I think those values are worth   preserving so if we go back to pre-enlightenment  if you say the enlightenment is kind of the   disaster of society and we go back prior to that  point I mean you're talking about taking away   the freedom and equality of more than half the  population so you'd have all women would no longer   be given the freedom and the ability to to do and  live however women want to live that men would be   given that ability but women would not and then  there would be enslavement right then you've got   a separate class of men even not just women but a  separate class of men and you know different time   periods chose different people to enslave so I  guess you know pick whoever that group of people   would then be enslaved as well I mean do you think  that it's okay to go back to those times where   women are just like I wouldn't be allowed to do  in your perfect world you wouldn't be talking to   me here doing this right well um I think in the  perfect world like there is opportunities for um   what's called dawa or speaking about religion  inviting other people to accept um Islam so   that's not going to be foreclosed but the idea of  gender roles that is a value that I hold you know   that is a value that Christians traditionally  have held Muslims traditionally have held   still hold and gender roles shouldn't be seen as  a restriction in the sense that oh you're a slave   um yes so so in Islam There Are gendered Rules  like men and women do have different rules um   that and this is on the basis of God's revelation  why because men and women aren't the same you know   treating men and women as if they have the same  body the same psychology the same mentality the   same uh personality traits this is actually  Injustice it's actually going to lead to real   oppression because can I just cut in for just one  second about that because that kind of goes back   to the equality that you brought up earlier that  you know if we're but I don't think being equal   means we're the same like I believe here in the  United States you and I are equals we have equal   rights we have equal opportunities we're equal  in every way but we are definitely not the same   people I mean you're you you're all the way in  Texas I'm here I'm a one you know we're very   different people we're obviously different  people and I'm sure you've got skills that   don't have and I have skills that you don't  have we are not the same uh I'm sure in an arm   wrestling match you'd beat me but it it doesn't  mean that we're not equal so there is you know   the there is a group in society that is trying to  create an equality that turns us all into unisex   um everybody's just given the same things this  is kind of the criticism people are saying oh my   gosh we're becoming Communists right because then  everybody will be given the same amount of money   for and it won't matter uh what type of effort  they put out right there's there is that criticism   for sure but that doesn't mean but equality  comes in many forms that's just one definition   of equality and it's a it's a definition I don't  agree with and I think most people don't actually   agree with it well my definition of equality is  it's not my it's the Islamic definition is that   men and women are equal terms of spiritually  before God you know go in Islam men and women   are seen as equal and we're judged only on the  basis of our piety and our righteousness and our   service of God um so a woman who prays and fasts  and is a servant of God is going to be at the same   level as a man who does the same thing as well all  things being equal they're spiritually spiritually   at the same level and therefore equal but in  terms of their roles in society I think it's   a mistake and it's a disaster to think that women  can do everything that men can do and men can do   everything that women do can do this is something  that is just bellied by basic biology um basic   you know science of psychology um men and women  are very very different so in my ideal role   women would see it as uh their priority and  and men would see it as as the priority for   women to be primarily as mothers uh caretakers  nurturing the Next Generation Um rather than   being in in the halls of power or in the in the  uh public domain working alongside men this is   something that has caused a disaster you know  in society like when you look at this is part   of the breakdown in marriage because if you tell  women that okay go into a workplace and and sit   alongside other men you know human beings are  human beings people have desires they fall into   fornication and adultery this is something that  every religion has seen as a disaster because it   destroys marriage it destroys family um but you  know in the modern world it's just normalized   you know men and women should sit together and  Islam is not against women working per se um   just against women and men MI mixing together  in a kind of sexualized environment that causes   you know the me tooo movement you know it was  interesting uh fallout of the me too movement   that a lot of men uh in the corporate world said  look I'm not going to meet with you privately if   you're the opposite sex because I don't want any  accusations thrown at me or suspicions and this is   actually an Islamic thing like it and it you know  if you go far farther back it's a Christian thing   too it's a traditional thing that men and women  shouldn't be privately meeting with each other   because it raises an eyebrow it raises like okay  what are they really doing behind closed doors   and this is kind of a it's it's like the secular  World discovered that after the met too movement   but it's not like a new discovery Muslims and  other traditional people have been practicing this   for centuries for Generations so there are these  there's a right way to live I think um and you   can try to discover it on your own and fall into  all kinds of harms and disasters and and maybe   eventually you won't figure it out or you rely  on God you can rely on Revelation you can rely   on God giving guidance and God said yeah don't  you know mix with the opposite gender um don't   uh dress in kind of provocative ways to entice  others towards lust Etc so these are the kinds   of values that are gendered it's gender rolled  and it's kind of an Enlightenment or atheistic   uh propaganda to say oh this is oppressing the  opposite sex or women are second class citizens   it is if you think that law should be created that  forces this like do you think that men and women   should not be like legally allowed to go to lunch  with each other and or be alone with each other or   should we have laws that are actually like that  follow these traditional I would say Christian   and Islamic values on that like I said I was very  Mormon for many years this is a Mormon value as   well you know in the Mormon but it's not a a law  if you do it you're not going to be admonished you   know you're not going to have to go in and confess  your sins like you went out and had lunch with   somebody of the opposite sex that was married  it's just something you know you should not   do it's definitely frowned upon it's societal in  society in Mormon Society it's not accepted so but   it's there's no law on that but you know in places  like Saudi Arabia there is a law on that so would   you want to make that type of law if you had the  world the way you wanted it so historically there   have been laws against things like fornication  or adultery including in the United States you   know even less than a 100 years ago even in  you know maybe less than 20 years ago there   are laws against sodomy for example and these laws  protected Society from degeneracy but it's maybe   you w't use that word but the point is that laws  are one way to regulate society and human behavior   and we shouldn't have too much of a statist  mentality um because traditionally in societies   you also regulate Behavior through social norms  and tabos so it's not NE necessarily the police   coming and breaking down your door or the police  like spying on you like if you think about the   level of control that the modern state has on  all of us as Citizens is far more tyrannical   and authoritarian than anything that has existed  historically like even in the most hardcore Sharia   calefate um they didn't have you know all of  this kind of surveillance where the government   can turn on your phone and remote and listen  to your conversations monitor your movements   restrict your travel force you to inject yourself  with whatever new vaccine and mandate that force   you to like the level of control that exists  in the modern State on each of our behaviors   like this is a overwhelming Force bearing down  on all of us we're just conditioned through the   public schooling system and through media not  to notice that as such but such kind of control   of the state on all of us did not exist prior to  these Technologies and um you know all that you   would see like in a traditional Islamic state is  like okay there's a social Norm so if you as a as   a woman were seen with a strange man people would  raise their eyebrows your your mom would get mad   at you or oh you're bringing shame to our family  and you know the neighbors are talking so that   You' prevent yourself or I would prevent myself  from engaging in that behavior just because of   the social taboo I think that's a healthy Society  it's not like okay the feds are going to bust down   your door because uh you did this or that there  are certain things that should be regulated at   the state level like I said punishments for sexual  crimes um that those have existed in all societies   and it's something that's preserved in Islam um  but these are rational things and they can be   rationally defended and Christians I don't think  should would have any problems with some of these   Provisions they only have a problem in so far as  they've bought into this kind of Enlightenment law   um and this valuing of freedom and equality over  everything else even the laws of God what about   honor killing so if I do something that's going  to bring shame to my family what is the from   your view what is the what's the rule on honor  killings there's no honor killing in Islam like   uh you're not allowed as a father or brother or  family member to actually um kill or assault your   family member again it's it's all based on taboo  if uh if someone does is proven to have committed   adultery then they they would be punished um  through lashes um or if they're married and   they commit adultery then that's punished through  stoning and this is the law that exists in the Old   Testament in the Hebrew Bible they had it in in  Judaism in Christianity canon law the Catholic   Church uh prescribed lashes um for sexual crime  so if it's proven in a court of law through due   process not your brother or your father like  getting pissed because oh I saw you with a   boy therefore I'm gonna kill you that's barbaric  that's something completely rejected in all major   religions but if there's a due there's due process  there's a criminal court basically is proven then   that is the punishment of God and and this has  been recognized in uh both Judaism Christianity   and Islam yeah I mean I don't think that adultery  should be illegal and punishable by death but I   say that is you know people listening might find  that to be oh my gosh you know you think that   somebody could be stoned to death and I always  think we electrocuted people to death I mean there   are some really insane stuff that we have done  uh I don't think that the that we as Americans   or even Christian culture have any right to  criticize any how any other country does capital   punishment considering we'd literally fry people  that to me is like some of the most barbaric   stuff I've ever heard I want to get into sorry to  interrupt you but people who have been cheated on   they might have a different kind of perspective  on that and there's some really sad horrific   stories of of because of DNA tests nowadays you  have people who are gifted by their children oh   23 and me let's you know get this DNA test  and then they find out like he's a father of   five children or or so he thought and actually his  wife was cheating uh all these years none of those   children are his even though he raised them you  know they're in their 20s so what a nightmare like   that kind kind of harm and Trauma and it also it's  not not only destroys that him as a person but if   this is rampant in society it really destroys  the fabric of society so there really needs to   be a harsh deterrent against it and that's you  know why we see it uh in many religions like the   same kind of deterrent I guess I just don't think  that punishment is a good deterrent I think what's   a good deterent is education and instilling  certain values I can agree that I think our   Society has um like I I do agree and I am a woman  that works but I do agree that there is a natural   biological element to women nurturing and women  are naturally I think typically the caretaker   of the family the caretaker of the children  um but should that be forced on the woman I   everybody is a bit different there are some men  who are better at it than women I was raised   by my father for example uh you know I I so I I  think that there's like nuances there and I think   that's why I don't want Conformity and laws around  that Conformity because there are so many because   people are unique and circumstances are unique  and um you know have the choice like in Islam   like or this ideal or perfect Islamic society  that we're talking about people aren't forced   to get married people aren't forced to have kids  people aren't forced to you know just uh take that   kind of Route if they don't want to and that's  acknowledged within Islamic law like some people   they don't don't have any desire to be married or  have children they want to read they want to study   they want to go do something else there's just  certain lines that are drawn in Islam to protect   people to protect Society I mentioned the you know  preventing gender mixing the importance of modesty   you know those are things that I don't really  see as uh these overbearing type of tyrannical   restrictions it's just that we're in a different  culture in the west and the modern West and we've   kind of Forgotten what societies really did look  like like the idea of veiling like people have a   big issue with veiling or the burka oh covering  the face oh what a barbaric practice like women   are dressed like in this kind of way and they're  restricted in this way but people forget or there   they don't know that veiling exists in in every  premodern culture including Christian culture   you look at some of the 15th and 16th century uh  paintings of women and they're veiled you know   or depictions of the Virgin Mary she's always  covering her hair or even covering her face it's   the Virgin Mary wearing a burka so this is like  we are so out of touch with that kind of tradition   and that history that things that we'll point out  about Islam seem like very weird or foreign when   really they're not it's it's based on really  basic human values that are shared universally   yeah I mean I hear you I hear you on that I I  just also from my experience of being a Mormon   for many years for you know 15 years I practiced  um there certainly modesty is a really big aspect   of Mormon culture Mormons um cover up don't wear  you know sleeveless no sleeveless tops nothing   low cut shorts and skirts are always at least at  the knee you know there's a lot of modesty there   but it's not enforced in a way that is negative  there's there's just a positive I can see the   difference between a positive encouragement  towards certain behaviors versus a punishing   you know that's one reason why I joined the Mormon  Church my family was Catholic and Catholics are   you know it's just like shame all the time you  repent all the time you're a sin you know it's   very negative it felt very negative to me when  I'd go to Catholic church and then I go to Mormon   church and it was positive and and there was no  such thing as hell really and you know every and   everything was the the way they encouraged you  to live a modest and chased life of don't have   sex until you get married don't watch rated our  movies don't cuss like all of these things that   they find to be virtuous that keep a person  healthy and virtuous they did it in a positive   it was a positive encouragement rather than a  slap you know we're gonna you're going to be   punished if you don't do this when I when people  felt punished they automatically revolted I mean   they there's like a natural Rebellion that happens  when people feel like the man is going to get me   you know Society is going to get me I'm going  to be punished I'm going to be stoned to death   that has a more negative con I think that people  kind of say okay well whatever even though the   punishment is very harsh compared to if they're  positively encouraged to behave in a certain way   if that makes sense yeah there's an interesting  study um that I read a long time ago but it's   very relevant they were looking at churches in the  United States um and they were looking at churches   that are had a lot of restrictions um like they  had church service on Sunday but it's at 7 AM   for example and there's no like music or there's  not really anything like rock music and women had   to dress very modestly and cover their hair and  it's just like more strict you know and more fire   and brimstone the teaching right and then they  look at churches that are more liberal and you   know more positive positive psychology you know  let's encourage people let's make it relax come   as you are uh let's have you know some more modern  music and they want to see which of those churches   are growing and which of the churches are actually  decreasing in attendance and maybe even shuttering   and they found that the more hard-nosed churches  pres were persevering they're lasting they're   growing in their numbers whereas the others  that are kind of more accommodating to the   dominant culture those were the churches that were  shuttering and this was seen as a paradox like   well why the researchers were asking themselves  why would that be the case case we would think   that people want to go to what's more comfortable  and the answer that they came to is that well the   the more hard-nosed churches they're actually  offering something that's different than the   dominant culture and they're kind of EMB bibing  this kind of identity that people feel like that   kind of enforcement or reinforcement really does a  better job of getting people to identify with the   church as opposed to thinking oh this is something  that's fun I can go to my church and enjoy some   rock music and just sit back and socialize or  I can just go to everything else that Society   offers this is exactly like you know what my my my  Church offers so the church doesn't have a unique   value proposition when it's just like the rest of  society so I think that's that might be a little   bit of a um well Mormonism is one of the most  restrictive religions in the united stat I mean I   think it's as restrictive if not more restrictive  than Islam in many many ways I mean you're talking   about there's no rock music at a Mormon church  uh you do have to be modest you cannot even drink   coffee tea you can't cuss you can't watch rated  our movies you can't wear tank tops you know you   can't have sex until you're married you can't even  really make out until you're married I mean it is   one of the single most restrictive religions and  it is very fast growing it does have a massive   growth rate much because of the prizing but um so  I I understand that it is still though a positive   religion it is still rooted in positivity I mean  I'm not here trying to convert people to Mormonism   but um just you know maybe you are trying to  convert people to Islam I'm sure but um but   but I still it is still a highly highly highly  restrictive religion one of if out of all the   Christian religions the single most restrictive  I'm confident in that and uh but still also one   of the most positive and I think it works and I  think that's why it grows because people like that   structure they do like the you know in in Mormon  religion you have to pray at minimum three times a   day you're reading your scriptures at least twice  a day we graduated from Seminary for goodness   sakes they stick us through religious school from  the time we're in the nth grade you know it is a   very very restrictive intense religion three  hours of church on Sundays plus uh during the   week multiple times that you got to go in for for  different you know organizations and activities   um but I still think positivity is the way to  go but you know positivity if if that I agree   there's a lot of positivity in Islam too and if  that's what you mean by positivity like you have   restrictions but there's also a positive message  and Islam is like that as well um there are a lot   of uh well it's just not that you're going to be  harshly punished you're not going to be killed   if you don't behave in the way they're just going  to you know what happens like if you're if you're   not behaving in the way that they want or the way  that they teach in the Mormon religion you just   get pulled aside nicely you know they that's the  same that's the same in Islam like the for they're   not going to like M they're not going to Stone you  to death Comm is an extreme crime adultery is like   but even then Mormons don't believe in stoning  somebody to death over it okay what if someone is   you know a child molester you know in the Mormon  Church are they going to just take him aside and   educate him and tell him you know you shouldn't  be diddling little kids in the closet no I mean   if you break the laws then you should go defin  the law right who defines the law right yeah right   and in the state of Utah many most of it's done  by Mormons Mormons actually control most of the   laws in that state so most of the state laws are  controlled by Mor sometimes harsh punishments are   Justified right so you don't have a problem with  stoning per se you just think that adultery is   not a serious enough crime to justify that but you  don't would be the firing squad yeah or the they   do it right they do it through firing squad and  it's for reasons for religious reasons but it's   um but yeah only certain very very very certain  crimes would be punished by death like in Islam   there only certain crimes are punished by death  but adultery is one of them it's a serious crime   adulter a serious crime no no everybody should be  killed I don't want to believe that I don't want   to believe that everyone cheats un unfortunately  a lot of people do but that's because of the   breakdown in marriage that's because there's  no deterrent if there was a hard deterrent like   stoning then I think a lot fewer people would  be cheating I just have to ask you we're we're   running out of time and I don't want to keep you  because I know I've told you about an hour but   um I do just have to touch on these other and and  look if people want to hear your full viewpoints   on these subjects that are really rough that are  I I would say harsher like the child marriage or   slavery or whatever you have many debates that are  out there where you've debated these at nauseum   there was one I watched that was like four hours  long so you you've done these debates many times   over we'll put some of the links down below um  but you know going back to this pre-enlightenment   vision of the world so now you know Not only would  there be these roles and what we're supposed to be   doing but there would be child marriage and there  would be well I I don't let's not talk about child   marriage let's talk about because you're me you've  mentioned it a few times so I think I should just   say a few words about it okay child marriage yeah  so it's you know I prefer the term minor marriage   um but okay the reality about the modern world is  that children are very sexually active children in   the modern world are very sexually active and  when you say so can we can we like clarify on   age because you've said minor versus children  so like what age group are you talking about   so that that's the whole debate right the whole  debate is about who defines what a child is and   what an adult is and historically that dividing  line has been on the basis of puberty um you go   through puberty and that can start puberty  can start as young as six or seven years old   about 4% of girls complete puberty by age nine in  America today according to the US Department of   Health um but the point is that defining you know  what's funny is that conservatives have this kind   of biological definition of man versus woman and  that's this is why transgenderism is wrong because   we have man and woman that's a biological fact  well then what is the biological fact of defining   a child versus versus an adult and when you start  talking about biology then conservatives suddenly   say no no no no it's what society says society  says 18 but this is a very artificial number   it's based if you look at history the number  18 was only arrived at because of modern School   and this kind of program to socialize also because  of the Enlightenment socialize the population   according to this public education program um  and then you finish 18 uh your high school then   you go into the workforce but it's all artificial  biologically um you know historically religions   and cultures they defined adulthood at puberty and  this is why when you look at marriage practices   not only of Muslims but Christians Jews Hindus and  Chinese Etc is based on puberty and you have this   minor marriage meaning under 18 so in some places  uh the average age that girls are getting married   is 14 or 15 U getting married as young as eight  or nine years old so this is something that has   been practiced and the only reason that we have a  problem with it it's happening like eight and nine   year olds like I went to Public School in Houston  and in elementary school some of the kids were   sexually active you know and the response from the  school system is say oh as long as you're having   uh safe sex you know you have to have safe sex  and they're not even trying to discourage about   eight and N year olds I don't know yeah yeah I  don't know if it's that young I mean aough grew   up in a rough part of Houston but I guess so I  mean I I I definitely think that certain that   that puberty I mean I I understand and I agree  that the age of adulthood is arbitrary you know   you say artificial I kind of say arbitrary like  it's Society kind of will determine uh we've put   it at 18 many of us think it should be older you  know at this point I look at kids that are like   22 and I'm like you are still stupid and young and  you should not be an adult um but yeah certain and   and The Time Has Changed there was back in the  you know in my grandfather's time at 16 years   old the kids had to take charge of the family and  start providing for their families so why couldn't   they be adults at 16 if they're running the entire  family farm because their dad was killed right or   something happened in a war um or they're being  sent off to war at 16 years old and yet they're   not considered an adult so I understand that it's  this is arbitrary um I do agree that that I've   always I've had you know I'm gonna say something  controversial so you won't be the only one um I   I've always felt like the term pedophilia should  only be for prepubescent like you're a pedophile   if you are going after prepubescent children  because that's a different once puberty is once   somebody has gone through puberty it is harder to  know how old they actually are right a girl that   is 15 could look like she's 22 and so that's it's  that's that's difficult and I don't I can't say a   guy is a pedophile for being attract you know  for being attracted to a 15-year-old when the   15-year-old looks 22 years old when you stand  right next to a 22y old and he's attracted to   both of them and they both look exactly the same  how can I then say well you're just a pedophile   simply because this one happens to be 15 years old  to me it's a very uh distinct sexual lust that is   after a distinct sexual you know proc proclivity  right which is for young prepubescence so I I can   understand this and I agree with that um but most  girls and boys I think start the puberty process   like start the puberty Pro process I would say  at like 12 years old and they kind of finish it   maybe around 16 biologically um there's different  stages of of puberty and for girls there's like   five stages and having the period is like the  fourth stage it's like the almost the last   stage so having the period is not the beginning  of puberty it's actually towards the end and um   the average is 12 years old when they have that  period or 12 or 13 right but the the other aspects   of puberty like the hormones the sexual secondary  sex characteristics the lust or desire that starts   well before the period um for girls I don't know  I would say 12 girls still look like little girls   and then they have their period and then they  start developing hips and you need those hips if   you're going to make the if you're going to make  the argument that a a girl can marry at puberty   and uh because then you would have to make the  argument that she could then be childbearing I   would say that the period is not the indicator of  being ready but it's the hips and whether or not   the hips have fully formed because she's got to be  able to push out a giant baby yeah so and if you   want to do that without destroying her body then  you've got to ensure that those hips are fully   formed and that doesn't happen until well after  the period starts at 12 years old from the biology   uh because I had a whole debate about this um the  hips actually do form um before the period they F   they fill out in terms of fat um but in terms of  bone structure they do form uh before the period   it's because the puberty stages begin like the  period as I mentioned is the penultimate um the   fourth stage I think we can see a difference  between a 12-year-old and a 16-year-old girl   I mean their hips are different yeah it's it's  because of fat and and because they grow in size   like but in terms of the W width of the hip and  like the proportions those are set um by the time   they have their period then it's they're not  they're 90% uh formed so yeah there's 10% more   but I mean those biolog biological facts we can  discuss but the point point is that historically   traditionally you define adulthood by biology and  this is why you know according to can law like the   minimum age of marriage in the Catholic church was  12 years old always and and a lot of the um Church   writings or from the church fathers uh early  in Christianity they just they there were um   apocryphal gospels that talked about Mary uh being  betrothed to Joseph when she was 12 years old and   that was the Jewish custom and so she was married  uh at 12 and she wasn't you know uh and then she   became pregnant before actually uh cohabiting with  Joseph so cohabitation happened at 16 so between   12 and 16 um she con there was the Immaculate  Conception basically and so she was a minor   right so this is when Christians especially like  criticize Muslims and they say you know you are   in support of minor marriage I point that I point  to the fact that look you believe that the Virgin   Mary was pre impregnated by God at at as a minor  you know under 16 years old and that's something   that they don't really have a response to but I  want to point like to the larger discrepancy like   okay gender is something that is male and female  based on biology childhood and adulthood is also   something that's determined by biology and there's  a bell curve you know there's a bell curve some go   through puberty later or earlier and then there's  an average so then you would leave it up to who I   mean the government can't go and like individually  assess whether or not the person is finished with   puberty before they're I mean I guess maybe maybe  that's actually the case like in the US there is   no minimum age of marriage in most States and  what the law says is that okay if if a minor   wants to get married it's through only consent of  the parents right and and sometimes they have to   go before a judge but there are thousands like in  the past decade alone I think there's over 100,000   minor marri that take place in the United States  look I'm from Idaho I I uh I I went to school   with girls that were married while we were still  in high school I mean once they hit 16 15 or 16   their parents signed off on their marriage to  somebody and and yes their parents had to give   consent their parents had to allow it and I did go  to school with some I mean it was rare and we did   think it was weird um culturally but yeah it's  allowed I think it's a better practice I think   that society would be much better if we if you  if we had that type of early marriage where well   we do but you're saying we do but we just don't  choose to do it I mean people it's not socially   acceptable I I wish it was something that was  socially acceptable and seen as a POS that's a   different thing yeah I don't think it should  be socially acceptable I mean it's one thing   if it's legal I I can understand because I I agree  that you know we do kind of pick an arbitrary you   know we're like okay 18 and it's um that's today's  society previous societies it was younger whatever   um but I really to make it socially acceptable  so Society like uh you know having sex outside   of marriage like as a girlfriend and boyfriend  that's acceptable for minors as young as even 12   years old fine you don't you don't think it's  very common for nine-year-olds to be engaged   I agree I don't think it's even common for 12y  old in middle school yeah I don't I think that   kids start to experiment sexually 16 15 16 I mean  maybe some at 14 the early ones but I think 16 is   like pretty typical when you could expect that  your teenager is maybe fooling around and you   probably got to keep an eye on what's going on  sure let's like give a lower end estimate and   say that 10% of minors by the age of uh 14 have  had their first sexual experience Society is fine   with that 10% number like there's no effort to  say that okay these 14 year olds or these 13y   olds few as they may be shouldn't be engaged  in that and we should find measures to stop it   so it is sexually it is socially acceptable why  is that socially acceptable but not marriage is   the question that I have so why can't it be  socially acceptable for an 18yearold to marry   a 14-year-old or a 13y old like that kind  of minor marriage uh there like it's fine   for a 17-year-old to be sexually involved with a  14-year-old or younger yeah but somehow marriage   makes it weird or makes it somehow illegal or or  offensive I don't understand the logic of that   well the logic I think uh would be would have  nothing to do with morality at all it would just   have to do with economics I mean an 18-year-old  anybody under the age of 18 is not really able   to support themselves because the jobs out there  are not hiring 16y olds for first full-time jobs   where they could then get an apartment and rent  a you know especially when they're married to a   13-year-old I mean there's just no economics in  that in today's society you have to be older I   think we could even make an argument that in  to in today's society 18 is not even able to   get married and support themselves they would  have to live with their parents and be married   living with your par well because that's not what  marriage should be marriage traditionally should   be you've gotten married and you've left you've  left the nest you've flown you you know you're   out well actually 50% of um even 25 year olds  or even up to 30y Old I think still live with   their parents now because of married hard economic  not married they're not married to launch either   they're celibate or which is sad or they're you  know fornicating so that what why not like have   a better system like okay 18-year-old you don't  have to leave the nest like who who gives that   standard like that seems to be a very capitalistic  consumer standard because you're forced to buy a   whole separate household as opposed to just living  with your parents and you're slowly working you're   you're making money you don't have to pay rent  you can save because you're saving on cost of   living you build up that nest egg and then you can  actually buy a house instead of you know relying   on rent or having to to pay a you know exorbitant  amount of interest on a mortgage so it's like   there are better ways to do things than and this  is how I think Americans traditionally did things   prior to maybe 50 or 60 years ago but we can't be  stuck in a a cultural practice that doesn't make   sense we live longer we uh are late bloomers now I  just don't I think that though yes I agree that in   times past younger was normal kids were like like  I said taking care of their entire families by   the time they were 16 years old you know that was  something that happened today it just doesn't so   I don't I don't think it has to do with religion  or a change in Morality I just think it has to do   with more than anything economic economic shift  in society okay a depressing situation like the   economics like people living today they can't  afford to live there's just more of us there's   more of us there's like billion you know by the my  dad is 76 years old and I say that the population   of the Earth has like tripled since his birth I  mean that's incredible he's still alive you know   it's in in his life time the population of the  Earth has tripled so there's just a lot of us   there's a lot of us can we talk about slavery sure  okay so what so if we go back to pre-enlightenment   then we're going back to slavery what is your  take on that so slavery is another one of these   things that was Universal um it's uh regulated  uh and condoned in the Hebrew Bible and the Old   Testament it's something that's condoned in the  New Testament as well um Christians and Jews   have practiced it Muslims have practiced it  and even outside of these faiths you have   other cultures that have universally practiced  slavery now why is that like slavery to Define   it is like owning another person but really what  it means is that you have the master Hester and   rights and the slave has certain rights so in  Islam being a slave doesn't mean that you're   like a piece of um wood or like a an object like  you have certain rights um but your master also   has certain rights and uh you you uh provide labor  but why it's it's Universal is because of War you   know when one you have this all Universal aspect  of human civilization which is War what do you   what do with the losing side you know the losing  side if you just let them go um then they'll just   regroup and attack you again or you know do you  kill them you just kill them all um that would   also be uh something that a lot of civilizations  did when they won Wars they just wiped out the   entire population but another uh thing that you  can do is to use that population as labor and   that way you have like there's an economic benefit  that you get when you win a war and what happens   is that uh the societies that have more people  um the civilizations that have more people are   going to be stronger and stronger because there  is technologically primitive the more people   you have the more likely it is that you can win  future Wars and you can defend yourself against   invading tribes or invading civilizations so the  civilizations or the cities or states that had   more people and had more slaves were more likely  to win and prevent being wiped out and basically   uh conquered and destroyed so this is why it's  Universal all the major civilizations they had   slaves and it became like a moral necessity if  you did not have slaves you were going to get   wiped out because if you just uh lose the war you  win a war and you release uh people that you've   conquered for No Gain then the people that do take  slaves are going to get stronger and stronger and   then they're going to wipe you out and basically  destroy your entire civilization so it became a   moral necessity and a moral need and so think  about it as a weapon of War like slavery that   labor is a type of weapon of war in the same way  that today you can't imagine a war that could take   place without guns and bombs imagine one side  says that well guns are immoral like bombs are   immoral because you cause collateral damage and  this is a immoral way to do things so we should   just disregard all bombs not use them any society  that says that is immediately going to be wiped   out you know and so it's immoral to not use that  weapon for the survival of your people or or your   race or religion um and in the but you can imagine  in the future you know in the future there's some   new technology like some space Laser Technology  where you can precisely kill whoever you need to   and they'll say like oh wow can you imagine  a hundred years ago they're using bombs like   what backwards people but sure you know that  would be a logical or a moral mistake because   you're not taking to a fact the technological  limitation and slavery is in the same way like   for people to judge slavery as this I'm not  saying that all practices of slavery were good   because just like war war is something Universal  but you can have people who engage in barbarism   like the IDF for example they're engaging in a  very barbaric genocidal type of warfare we can   criticize that without saying that war in itself  is something inherently immoral war is something   Universal that everyone every civilization has  engaged in and similarly slavery like slavery   uh is a universal aspect of human civilization  there can be bad aspects of it that immoral actors   like engaged like in like transatlantic slavery  uh and they're literally killing slaves or or   treating them in in barbaric ways so I in no way  endorse any of that but the institution of slavery   is something Universal and it's not necessarily  immoral it's uh it's sometimes a moral necessity   as a weapon of war and and is needed for survival  so that in a nutshell is the defense of slavery   that's I understand historical but are you  saying today that's okay that slavery is today   today is okay well Islam doesn't require slavery  Islam you know the position is that slavery is   just not immoral the the reason that slavery uh  fell out of favor is because of the Industrial   Revolution um and basically the steam engine uh  made slaves obsolete uh because an engine can   do more than a hundred men or a thousand men so  you don't really need slaves but if the Steam and   actually I I just had a conversation with Greg  mgarch which uh you I think you listen to but   um in that conversation he brought up like Islam  and slavery I pointed out that well this is in in   Judaism as well but I also pointed that out that  okay imagine that we there's a huge solar flare   and all the electronics all the technology goes  out the window and we go back to a more primitive   state of technology in the world slavery uh then  would probably make a really big comeback um and   it's it would be based on warfare it would be  based on all the things that I'm describing   but it's it's a technological aspect of history  that when the industrialization happens then you   don't really it doesn't really you don't have  slaves instead you have employees and one thing   that some people point out like Nome Chomsky you  might be familiar with he said that historically   there's not really a distinction between employee  versus slave because the idea of an employee like   your employer is paying you and then you use that  money for food and shelter that's basically what a   master does with a a slave and the only difference  is that as an employee you're like rented by   your employer but a master owns you so it's the  difference between like renting a car and owning   a car and usually when you own a car you treat  it better than a rental so this was actually the   kind of argument that the South made in American  history against the north because they said that   well yes we have slavery but in the north you  have this these kinds of uh wage slaves and you   have these factories where people are working to  themselves to death uh whereas we treat our slaves   very well because they're our property we don't  want to kill them but with your employees in these   Northern factories in Boston and New York when an  employee employee dies you just replace him with   another body and and pay him that you know dollar  a day um our slaves don't live that kind in that   kind of squalor so no they were just whipped and  sold and their families broken up and they didn't   get to see their children anymore I mean there was  employ also you know employees would have to leave   Countryside to go to the big cities to work in the  but they they weren't so off down the river and I   mean I I I understand that the work conditions can  be bad but an employee would have a choice ideally   to go and work somewhere else and that keep that  makes an employer want to treat their employees   really well um and I think for Morality reasons I  mean I guess I I can understand the argument that   there might have been economic there might be  benefits I can understand that there's benefits   to things like slavery I still think that they're  highly immoral just like I could see a Ben benefit   to rape for example I can make an argument that  rape at least creates biological um diversity   right when one tribe comes in and starts raping  women in another tribe and they all get pregnant   now you've at least got you know you don't have a  bunch of inbreds like you would have normally if   the tribes just stuck to each other and we're  having children with each other and they're   all cousins and then cousins having children  with cousins right I mean I could see like a   biological uh benefit to rape but it doesn't mean  suddenly rape is no longer immoral it is still   highly immoral and wrong to do even if there is  a benefit that can be argued from that act same   thing with slavery you can argue a benefit from  slavery I understand that there's economic benefit   to it it doesn't make the act any less immoral  I also understand that all the religions have   it that it is in all the books I don't think this  is unique to Islam just like I don't think child   marriage is unique to Islam I think these are  unfair attacks on Islam um when we see a lot of   people lobbing these types of attacks saying  like well you know you believe in war or you   believe in child marriage you believe in slavery  and it's like didn't all I mean I think that's   kind of in all the books right all of that is in  all the books I think the difference is though is   that if you're or if you're Orthodox Islam uh I  don't know if there's any Orthodox Christians or   Orthodox Jews that I I mean Orthodox Jews I guess  I did live I had this experience of living with   these Ultra Orthodox Jews at one point don't ask  um but I had to be they couldn't turn the lights   on and off on Saturdays and stuff and so I was  the person that would like turn the lights on   and off like they let me commit all the sins and  they couldn't take so many steps on Saturdays and   there was a lot of restrictions there but I don't  think but I still don't think they were so Ultra   Orthodox that they would believe in these types of  things in the books that are Society you know we   have become enlightened out of those well that's  uh like slavery and rape and child marriages or   whatever that's how the enlightenment attacks  every religion like the enlightenment um from you   know the past 200 years they specifically start  with slavery and minor marriage and they attack   those things first and get you to compromise  on those and that's why you have Christians who   will say that oh well the Bible doesn't really  say this or oh that was fine for the past day   days but it's not fine now or minor marriage yeah  that's something from the past it's not relevant   today and then the secular like that's the first  Domino basically and then the second true I mean   like if you're going to be if you're going to  have a problem like if you're going to uh amend   this issue of slavery even though it's clear in  the Bible then why don't you change your position   on homosexuality like why don't you change your  position on theft like why don't you change your   position on uh fornication like those are also  in the Bible or the Ten Commandments those are   why aren't we in different times and therefore  you have different rules you're will willing   to bend things for and amend things when it came  to slavery so yeah just apply the same principle   and that's how they get you to completely reform  your entire religion and essentially abandon your   religion because you don't you lose the principle  of saying no we we follow our traditions we follow   our scriptures because you've compromised and  you've taken that first step then why not take   every other step and that's why you know the the  religion that's bleeding the most followers is   Christianity in the in the world today I would  argue that um if you go back to the prophets the   times of the prophets and when the prophets were  giving their Revelations from God Society was a   certain way that God had to give his guidance and  his wisdom to those societies as those societies   were if we had a prophet today that came to  society today the I think that the rules and the   guidance and the wisdom would be for today's time  versus for the Stone Age time I mean I think that   when God saw society and he was like oh boy you  fools like let me give you some guidance here's   he's not going to change all of society and  rewrite how they've been living and rewrite   you know all of their Customs he's instead going  to give guidance and wisdom in that helps with the   current culture and the current way of life that  they're in to you know like for example polygamy   Mormons get get eviscerated for having polygamy  at one point well there that was guidance that   Mormons belief came from prophets prophets at that  time said it's okay to take more than one wife the   reasoning though later when prophets then because  Mormons believe in modern-day prophets later when   prophets uh said okay now you have to stop this  practice it was because at that time when they   allowed all the men to you know men to marry  more than one woman it was because there were   more women converting to the church than there  were men 10 to one I mean there was just a lot of   women and that was in an era where women could not  work women could not have bank accounts women not   support themselves so these women were joining the  church but then they weren't having a way to to be   provided for so God then knowing that Society at  that time in the 1800s said all right then you can   go ahead and take more than one wife later on when  things changed God said no longer you don't need   to do that anymore things can change because that  was a morality thing that you know if you believe   in all of this which I personally no longer do  but I'm just kind of giving an example that you   know if God says God sees society and says we  have a problem this is the moral way to handle   the problem but now we have that problem is gone  we don't have this we don't have a need to handle   this problem in the most moral way so I do think  things can change based on society and based on   you know it's it's it's what God felt like the  guidance needed to be at that time well maybe   you know we're in a time now where you can have  transgender children you can have three-year-olds   on hormone blockers and you can't have you know  um well if God says what are you going to do I   mean if there's a prophet that comes comes down  today and it's it is truly a prophet of God and   he says yeah it's fine I mean what are you going  to do no but the point is that you can justify   anything like using this reasoning you say every  principle that we have every religious principle   that we have um in the past is something from  for the past and now we're in a different time   so that principle no longer stands even like Satan  worship like maybe the idea of Satan is just a   boogey man that God had to like tell us there's  a boogeyman who and to get us to act correctly   but Satan really uh is just a concept and now  we know that in our times and and we can even   worship Satan and maybe there's a prophet who's  gonna come and tell us that Satan worship is fine   and having Tri child transgender drag queen Story  Hour is fine Daniel you are straw Manning you're   St Manning Big Time come on devil worship yeah  the principle of devil worship being wrong that's   a principle that could have been for previous  times but now we're different psychologically   socially Things Are very different that I don't  think the same reasoning that you you us that's   not at all the same reasoning because that would  be belief in a completely different you know if   you're going to believe in God God's not going  to come down and say suddenly you can believe   in somebody else and go ahead and worship them  I mean even the idea of God like even even the   principle that there is a Transcendent God even  that principle can be attacked because you can   say that well in previous time people people  were so stupid and low IQ that you had to give   them the idea of a god trans what Jord I believe  that that's I believe that I believe that people   needed like a one simple I think that our brains  cannot comprehend just like going back to the   very beginning of this conversation the empirical  the ability to empirically study certain Concepts   that are so beyond us we don't even have the  mechanisms or the we can't even imagine the   mechanisms to empirically study these things  at this point because our brains are so small   it's like trying to teach calculus to a 2-year-old  we're not there yet we are like the 2-year-old the   the truth out there is like calculus I do  think that we need simple you know when I   when a 2-year-old or three-year-old asks me how  do you turn on the TV you know how does the TV   turn on I just say press press the button I don't  go into all the mechanisms of how a television   works and how we end up with a picture on the  screen right we don't describe that we just say   push the button and the TV turns on and I think  that's that's that is how humans we we need simple   explanations I agree that God is beyond you know  what our minds can conceive and he you know we   know certain aspects or characteristics of God but  to fully understand God is beyond our capabilities   I agree I agree with that but now you have people  like Jordan Peterson will say like well maybe God   is just you know whatever value that you have is  your highest value and that is a very post-modern   type of understanding of God that Christians would  have historically rejected and say this is not God   God is this you know the Trinity or God is is this  like a Transcendent being and and he's one and he   speaks and he you know sends Revelation it's not  just whatever you think of as your favorite idea   or ideal but Jordan Peterson could respond to  those Christians and he can say that look you   know the idea of God as this being who speaks  that's because people in the past were just   simple-minded but now we know that actually God  can be your highest ideal so this is I don't NE   I mean I agree yeah I agree with him on the first  half I don't agree with him on the second half   because I think truth is truth and it would have  to be empirically scientifically the ability to   study it and prove it at some point whether we  can In Our Lifetime or not is besides the that   has nothing to do with whether or not something  is true or real um and so yeah I mean I I don't   think that we could just kind of like whatever we  think is what it is I mean but maybe that would be   an interesting um I mean I suppo if we're going to  get real philosophical Daniel we which we could I   guess you could think that well I maybe there is  a reality where you can think it and it manifests   and that is what it is but I I don't know that's  but probably not I don't know maybe maybe Daniel   this has been an this has been an interesting  conversation we do have to we could talk forever   I now know why some of your debates are like four  hours long why your conversations are so long we   can go on about this stuff for a long time and  you're very interesting and fascinating and I   appreciate this conversation um can I say just one  more thing just of course Circle back on um the   point that you're asking like what kind of Muslim  are you and yeah so I want to distinguish like   Isis like the idea that Islam Advocates terrorism  or just killing innocent people like this is   contrary to Islam terrorism is something that I  reject and I've taught against it spoken against   it um and it's not a part of Islam like the most  hardcore like I think the audience kind of gets   a sense that I don't really compromise on much  when it comes to Islamic teachings if you know   if there was this kind of terroristic teaching in  Islam i' would be very forthright and I'd try to   give some explanation there is Jihad right there  is Jihad but Jihad is like uh there's defensive   Jihad and then there is conquest and Conquest is  again a part of every religion and it's a part   of every philosophy and ideology like you were  talking about American values being spread um and   preserving like American americanism throughout  the world and the US uses um whether by hook or by   crook or by carrot and the stick you know America  gets its way in the world and influences different   factions and sometimes the military is needed to  be sent what what is the driving force of that is   to spread American influence and Islam has the  same concept like spread Islamic influence to   to serve the needs of God or the the interests  of uh Muslims and to serve you know the higher   aims of God like that is a part of Islamic law and  Muslims are should be very honest with about that   you had a different guest on the program uh Hamza  YF and I criticized what he was saying he was like   there's nothing holy about war and I completely  disagree about that like war and fighting for the   truth fighting for what's right even at the cost  of your own body like this is a very important   value in Islam um it's not terrorism it's  Justified military conquest through a state you   know through a government and um this is a value  that many religions share all religions and it's   only in the modern period where religions try to  you know do this Hamza yusf move of denying that   you have militarism and Conquest in your religions  it's found in Judaism and Christianity this is why   Christianity is spread throughout the world um so  this is uh I just wanted to clarify that because   um there's confusion yes Jihad is a part of Islam  but but terrorism is not Jihad and I also want to   bring up something that you'd said in a previous  conversation about rape on the battlefield we've   had a lot of a lot of reports about rape on  October 7th that all of these um Palestinians   Hamas they broke out and they used rape as a  weapon and I heard you say on on a previous   show that rape is not rape on the battlefield is  not something that is actually in the Quran or   in Islam no there's no such thing as rape on the  battlefield I was making a distinction between the   rules of war in Judaism versus Islam because  when you go to the talmud and you go to the   authoritative ritical uh texts like the mission  Torah from from mades uh there is this kind of   provision for Jewish soldiers that they can rape  on the battlefield uh even girls as young as three   and this is elaborated on and even the modern  uh rabbis uh in the IDF the chief Rabbi of the   IDF has said that yeah rape is is lcit you you can  rape as as an IDF Soldier and we see you know that   that actually happening um but in Islam there's  there's no such concept there is the concept of   a concubine so again going back to the slavery  Point um so slavery and women were also taken   as slaves but it was not just a one time use them  and kill them scenario the concubine is part of   the family it's like a marriage in the sense that  the concubine has rights uh she's protected she's   provided for and she um and when she has a child  then she's freed uh that those are the Islamic   rules it's a lot of details it sounds strange if  I'm just giving like a sentence or two about it   but this is something that's universally practiced  like taking concubines because again it's a weapon   of War you have to increase the numbers of your  civilization in order to prevent being wiped out   so why you have concubines mentioned like Moses  is is telling his soldiers in the Hebrew Bible in   numbers and and 1 Samuel and Deuteronomy to take  the the girls to take the uh girls the virgin   girls and that's what he's commanded in the Bible  um this shows that this is something that is not   specific to Islam um yeah very interesting uh very  interesting conversation Daniel really appreciate   you being here uh where can people find you I'm  going to put some links down below of some of   the conversations that you've had especially of  some of the more um controversial subjects that   we've covered today if they want to get more into  your philosophy on these or not just not your I   shouldn't say your philosophy on these things  but on Islamic teaching of these things in the   way that you personally interpret Islam because  that does which I know is more Orthodox uh to you   I it seems like every you know but I talk to 10  different Muslims and they're all saying the same   thing but you're all saying something different  so it's just like Christians right um so Daniel   where could people find you where would you like  people to find you sure um I have a channel on   YouTube hopefully it won't get taken down anytime  soon but it's good luck yeah Muslim skeptic uh I'm   also on Rumble and on on Twitter you can find  me as well just search my last name and Muslim   skeptic.com and I just want to you know say how  much I appreciate Kim that you have are willing   to have this conversation because a lot of people  they don't even want to approach these kinds of   subjects or they think it's very bizarre and I  know you don't agree with a lot of what I've said   but you can actually talk about it and you know  try to see things from a different perspective I   think that's a sign of really high intelligence  to be able to consider an idea or an argument   with without necessarily accepting it but a lot of  low IQ people like they don't even want to think   about it like it's offensive just to have the  concept or the the topic mentioned so I really   appreciate you for that and I I hope your audience  enjoys it well thank you for saying that thank you   so much Daniel we have all the links down below  thank you again for this conversation thank you