Hey everybody, this morning we are debating Sharia law versus human rights and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to modern day debate, thrilled to have you here and we are going to start with Harris's opening statement. Thanks for being with us Harris. The floor is all yours. Well, thank you very much. I just want to start with by saying that every other conversation I've had with my adversaries, I've had it with the intention of trying to find a common ground, try to find the best outcome, try to understand each other's positions, but pardon me for my skepticism, but I'm certain that this debate is not going to go that way because to say the very least my opponent is not interested in objectives I just mentioned, is more interested in scoring points, beating his chest and basically performing to his audience. This is something I have never taken part in so it's going to be a good experience for myself as well. I've always had an open mind and the fact that I no longer believe in a religion or a worldview that I was indoctrinated with is the evidence of my open mindedness and of people like me. However, some people stay in the same worldview or a frame of mind they were born into. This is not just terribly sad, but it also shows us close mindedness of people like Daniel and Peter too. I'm sorry to say this in advance if this debate gets rough and out of hand because it's very hard to respect my opponent as it pretends to be a serious minded objectivist but his antics show the exact opposite. Let me use this opportunity to welcome any serious Islamic apolitist and I will give you full respect as I've done it in the past with people like Mufti Uthman Farooq, Uthman Bader, Mufti Abu-Layth and people like massive superstars like Hamz Ali Abassi, ex-Pakistani movie star now has become a full on day. As I said, it's very difficult to respect someone like Hikikichi not because of his outrageous beliefs because more or less most of these guys share some of these views anyway or because of his open incitement to murder and torture and enslavement of people but because of his antics even outside of this discourse such as making fun of people's mental health, resorting to little childish antics as though it's a pre-boxing show or something. Being more interested in claiming victory rather than having a meaningful discussion. Hikikichi openly says he doesn't need validation from Westerners or non-Muslims to respect the Islamic values or practices. Then the question arises, what is he doing here? If we assume that his statement is true and honest, then he is obviously here to reaffirm the belief of young Muslims who are losing their faith. Why? Because these young Muslims are fast becoming ex-Muslims. People like Hikikichi are the last hope of these confused young Muslims who are struggling to make sense out of the barbaric and outdated teachings of Islam. Sharia being one of the most troublesome which has clearly no place in the 21st century. As progress hits the Muslim countries the birth rates go down and as a result the growth of Islam is likely to slow down by 2060. Pew survey shows Muslim produced 2.9 children per woman. At the moment however it is likely to reduce as let me quote Pew, the declining growth rate is due primarily to falling fertility rates in many Muslim majority countries. It's said noting the birth rate is falling as more Muslim women are educated, living standards rise and rural people move to cities. I will put this opening statement up on my website and the link will be given for your reference. I on the other hand have a totally different take. I want to reach out to Muslim youth.  My whole activism doesn't rely on helping young secularist and atheist to hold on to the rope of atheistic faith. No, because once you become an atheist you become a free thinker. You don't need Dawkins or Hitchens or me. You can think for yourself. And this is why I reach out to these young Muslims. I'm trying to educate them about the dangers of Sharia, the barbarity, and at the same time making them realize the value of human rights because Sharia is a totalitarian ideology much like Chinese Communist Party or Kim Jong-un's Democratic Republic of North Korea. Acknowledging and respecting human rights will end up respecting you, your life and that of your loved ones. It is by long shot the best deal you can have. After this debate, Hikikachu and his fanboys are likely to claim victory as they always do because if they don't do it, they feel that their faith is irrational, which obviously it is and that is the reason why they have to claim victory. On the other hand, atheists, people supposedly on my side, will also pick some of my arguments and responses. Why? Because atheists are self-critical. That is the beauty of it. So I don't judge the winners or losers by popular opinions of others because in these cases, everyone vouchers for their own guy except atheists, of course. And I don't want them to change. The winner is determined by how many people are convinced by whose worldview. If tomorrow I start seeing comments that I was an atheist and Hikikachu gave some mind-boggling answers in defense of amputations, sex slavery, stoning, torture, beheading, etc. and in light of these amazing arguments from Hikikachu, I have now decided to leave my debauchery riddled atheism aside and become a Muslim. Now that I've said it, I certainly expect some fake atheists claiming just that, but we all know that's never going to happen. On the other hand, I still get comments from people who watched my debate with Utman Bader nearly three years ago in a Sydney University or with Hamzali Abbasi or with Utman Farooq quite recently and people send me messages and say they were Muslims and now they've left Islam. I expect more messages like those for many more years to come. Not necessarily because of me, but because of being exposed to these conversations that they were deprived of, but it was the start of a journey. They looked it up, they listened to other people, they investigated their own faith and they flipped. Because the only thing that keeps people in the circle of faith is childhood indoctrination and the consequent ignorance, which we can both say is not the case with Hikikachu, or some sort of an emotional trauma, which is most likely the case with Hikikachu. I wasn't aware of Hikikachu's actual story, which I was made aware of a couple of days ago, and I don't wish to talk about it out of respect for a fellow human being who was wrong by a society she was living in. But I have always believed people who are so dogmatic about their worldview least to say as obviously false as Islam, there must be some sort of an emotional trauma. I assume it would be the case of experiencing racism in white America as a lot of children of immigrants suffered from in their schools. As a result, they develop identity crisis and that's what I assume would be the case with Hikikachu. But after learning about his story, I had this sudden feeling of sadness and that heart-sinking feeling. But at the same time, it made me wonder how could someone who would have gone through so much, whose family would have gone through so much, yet he becomes sadistic almost, loses all human compassion in the process and wishes the same kind of injury upon others like wishing death for apostates, homosexuals, adulterers. Someone who would have gone through a personal tragedy, who would have seen his family members cry for countless amount of hours, who would have experienced depression, sadness, anxiety, yet he makes fun of other people's anxiety or their depression or their suffering. What could turn a man's heart into a stone? This reminds me of a story when Stalin's first wife, Kate Tosvanice died at a funeral. Stalin said, this creature softened my heart of stone.  So sometimes a personal tragedy can create monsters and they become source of immense suffering for all those unfortunate enough to be living around them. The reason why other Muslim scholars don't openly adhere or preach the very values that Hikikachu so proudly and boastfully propagates is because they might be Muslims, they might revere Prophet Muhammad, but they are not sadists or psychopaths who are totally devoid of compassion and mercy. But that is not the case with Hikikachu. He had to turn off his compassion switch in order to accept Sharia in its entirety. No sane person can advocate and propagate Sharia.  I just imagine for a moment, you find out tomorrow that I've been captured by the Taliban and then executed them.  But now imagine they filmed it. I can guarantee some Muslims will be troubled by that and they will start making excuses like maybe he should have been given a chance to repent or maybe we should leave these matters to Allah or they would try to make some other types of excuses. Why?   I still like to believe majority of Muslims will not be happy. This is not wishful thinking on my part. In fact, it is the only reason why ISIS could not get popularity amongst Muslims, amongst the very Muslims who say we want Sharia like most followers of Hikikachu, but why? Because most humans haven't or can't turn off the compassion switch as Hikikachu has. Once we see suffering, we have this natural reaction of disgust and outpouring of compassion. Now in all the three mentioned scenarios, I could expect a tweet from, actually he lost his Twitter account for propagating the same brutal and sadistic punishments.  Why? Because he has become a sadist and there's no compassion left in him. I want to ask the Muslims who are watching this. Is this the kind of society you want to live in that? That is brutal, not only to the obvious murderers or rapists, we can put that aside for a moment, but those considered by Sharia as criminals who have no victims like homosexuals, apostates or adulterers, is this who you want to be? If the answer is yes, then it is a sad case for you. If the answer is no, or you try to listen to people like Hikikachu to rationalize this barbarity for you by saying things like, oh, for the collective good, we have to punish apostates and homosexuals or whatever, then it means something is bothering you. It means you still have your humanity, compassion, altruism, intact. In fact, I was told recently Muhammad Hijab went out of his way to find a no execution way out for apostates. He even made up an explanation for it. Why? Because I realize maybe even he has some compassion left in him. Unfortunately, same can't be said about people like Hikikachu or Alidawa who is proud of executing apostates. This is why Sharia should be condemned. Sharia in its literal application demands you to turn off your compassion, altruism, and humanity. This brutal system is not just against you or me or some sort of an ideological standpoint, but it is anti-nature. Nature in the form of evolution has put feelings like altruism and compassion in us. And Sharia can be anything but compassionate or altruistic. I feel sad about the terrible story of the young woman. And my last couple of days were actually spent wondering how much should I talk about this?  And I want to say my heart goes out to Hikikachu's family. And I don't blame them for being bitter with this so-called Western justice system. I have often said that I am against capital punishment. But if something like this had happened to me or my loved one, I would be going for the torturous execution of the perpetrator. But I also understand that this position would be a position of a grieving family member. It would be based on emotions and not rationality. We know Hitler and Stalin were both beaten up by their respective fathers. They were both victims. But their personal tragedy cannot be ignored or not brought under scrutiny if we want to avoid the crimes those psychopaths committed. Personal tragedy is no excuse to turn the lives of other people into tragedies. This is where I see Daniel Hikikachu. He's had a terrible experience. And I fear this experience has turned him into a cold-blooded, heartless, compassionless, sadist, at best, or psychopath at worst. Ideas like Hikikachu propagate are dangerous for everyone sharing the planet with him. How many Mulaumars or Baghdadis will come out as a direct result of Hikikachu's views? We don't want to know the answer. I think they're making me aware from Sharia. I heard my interruption. Just the last maybe five seconds at prose. I just want to be sure the audience gets to hear your opening. If you want to repeat, maybe what you said. I had 20 minutes. I had 20 minutes. Oh, what I was saying was that your feed froze. So it wasn't at least on this side. We couldn't hear the last 10 seconds or so if you want to repeat it. OK, OK, let's just go with it. So I'll start that again. This is where I see Daniel Hikikachu. He had a terrible experience. And I fear this experience has turned him into a cold-blooded, heartless, compassionless, sadist, or at best, or psychopath at worst. Ideas people like Hikikachu propagate are dangerous for everyone sharing the planet with him. How many Mulaumars or Baghdadis will come out as a direct result of Hikikachu's views? We don't want to know the answer. So stay away from Sharia. Now, on the other hand, what am I proposing? The quest for implementing brutal punishments that Sharia hands out comes from either personal grievance, as it is most likely the case with Hikikachu, or from a very simplistic worldview that hardcore punishments somehow reduce crime. If your position is that of Hikikachu, then I think you would all agree that it is an emotional position and not rational. If you are a Shariaist due to the latter belief, then let me break it to you. Corporal or brutal punishments not necessarily lower the crime. Let me give you some examples. Homicide rates in Saudi Arabia, where you get beheading for murder, is 1.3 per 100,000. Whereas in Japan, which is a far bigger country than Saudi Arabia, it's only 0.3 per 100,000, where there is no capital punishment. Finland, Sweden, Norway, all of these countries have less homicide rate than Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying that not giving capital punishment is the reason for lowered murder rate, but I'm saying that giving out death sentences does not lower murder rate. The problem is far more complicated. It depends on various variables, like economic prosperity, for instance, attitudes towards honor culture, alcohol problem, divorce rate, et cetera. If you defend corporal punishments for this reason, then as I showed you, it's simply not true. So we can deduce that having Sharia is not just useless because it doesn't lower the crime at best, but very dangerous at worst because public executions totalitarian societies devoid of free speech and personal freedom is not conducive to a healthy lifestyle. On the other hand, legal system built on reason, debates that go through rapid evolution is not only useful, but also beneficial because it brings happiness, prosperity, and overall a better quality of life. You got it, thank you very much for that opening statement. And want to let you know folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from, whether you be atheist, Muslim, Christian, you name it, we are glad you're here as we are a nonpartisan or neutral channel and we want everybody to feel welcome. So what we are going to do is kick it over to Daniel for his opening statement. Thrilled to have you here Daniel, the floor is all yours. Bismillah, Alhamdulillah. As-salatu wa s-salam, al-as-sulillah. Thank you to Modern Day Debates for hosting and thank you to everyone watching. The debate today is about Sharia versus human rights. Sharia just means Islamic law. Islamic law is not just corporal punishment. It's a holistic system of life that governs everything from how Muslims pray in worship, how they get married to criminal punishments and even economic matters. My main point today is simple. Harris-Sultan and other ex-Muslims are playing a con game. They're being dishonest with their audience and sometimes outright lying to them. Today I'm going to focus on three of their biggest lies. Line number one, promoters of human rights like Harris claim, human rights are a beacon of hope. Human rights are the mark of civilization and progress and everyone should adopt human rights. But is this true? Do human rights bring prosperity and progress? 192 out of 195 countries of the world have officially adopted the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's 98% of all countries in the world. Do we see prosperity and progress in these countries? Let's look at the GDP per capita. North America is at $61,000 per capita. Western Europe is at $54,000 per capita. Australia and New Zealand are at about 55,000. These regions are at the top of the heap. It must be because they're so strong in terms of human rights and democracy, right? But let's compare that to Eastern Europe. Just $9,000 GDP per capita. Latin America is less than $7,400 per capita. India, the world's largest democracy, is only at $2,000. Sub-Saharan Africa is at $1,500. For Muslim countries, the average GDP per capita is $7,500. And if you exclude the oil-rich countries, the number is at $4,600. So when people want to say Muslim countries are economically behind because of lack of human rights, the reality is Muslim countries are at the same level as most of these human rights-respecting countries. Why do countries like America, UK, Britain, Australia have 10 times, 20 times, 30 times the GDP per capita of countries in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa? Why this massive inequality? None of the countries in these regions are Muslim and all of them respect and abide by human rights. Consider Botswana. Considered one of the oldest democracies in the Southern Hemisphere, one of the earliest adopters of LGBT rights in Africa, very high female involvement with voting and politics, but it has only one-tenth the GDP per capita of the US. Or consider Haiti. They ratified their secular constitution in 1805 over 200 years ago. They had a female president in 1990. Their GDP per capita is 150th the United States and on and on. On the other side of the coin, you have countries that have openly rejected human rights and democracy like China, which has a GDP of $10,000, and Singapore, which has a GDP per capita of $65,000. So either way you look at it, there is no correlation between adoption of human rights and democracy with economic prosperity. Harris, you need to explain this. These countries that have nothing to do with Islam that have adopted human rights and democracy and women's rights and LGBT rights, why are they stuck in abject poverty? Because you want to blame problems of poverty, problems of violence and social dysfunction on Islam. So how do you explain these countries that have nothing to do with Islam that have these same problems and often worse problems? Why is it that human rights only brings prosperity for North America and Western Europe and the majority of the rest of the world suffers? Better yet, explain why people living in human rights abiding democracies and Latin America in Africa are literally dying to migrate to America and Western Europe. Why are they risking their lives to escape their human rights hellholes, Harris? Explain that. And we don't have to just limit ourselves to GDP. Look at the life expectancy. Latin America, Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africans have five to 15 years lower life expectancy. Those countries also reported far lower happiness levels. According to the UN's 2017 World Happiness Report, according to self-reported happiness, countries of North America and Western Europe have the highest levels of happiness. Well, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe have the lowest levels. So why is this Harris? None of these countries are Muslim countries. They're all democratic countries, secular countries. Some of them even have very high levels of atheism. So why aren't they enjoying progress and prosperity? Let's call this question the Botswana question. If Harris cannot explain these discrepancies, if he cannot answer this Botswana question, then he should admit that democracy and human rights are just a big hoax. Harris wants people to hate Islam by trying to pin the issue of poverty and social dysfunction to Muslim countries, but as we've seen, it's not a strong connection. Lie number two, Harris wants to pretend like his problem is with Islam, but in reality, his criticisms of Islam apply to every single religion and every traditional form of culture because all traditional religions and cultures clash with modern human rights. Traditional Christianity, traditional Judaism, Native American culture, Hindu culture, Shinto religion, all of these traditional ways of life clash with modern human rights. This is because human rights is an extremist ideology. Human rights ideology says that the most important thing is individual liberty and equality. Individual liberty and equality have to be prioritized over literally every other human value. This is extremism. Every other traditional religion and life philosophy says, no, individual liberty and equality have limits. Islamic law, for example, agrees with the human rights activists like Harris that individual liberty and equality are beautiful values. For example, in Islam, you have the right to your wealth, to your property, you write to privacy and so forth. Also, Islam provides legal equality between all people, men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, in certain, but not all areas of the law. But Islam says, yes, individual liberty and equality are beautiful values, but they're just two out of many beautiful values. And sometimes you have to restrict liberty and equality in order to preserve other important values and institutions. A useful analogy here is imagine offering a child candy or broccoli. If it were up to the child, he would choose the candy every time.  That's what human rights liberalism is like. It's just about giving the candy of individual liberty and saying that's all that matters. Islam says, look, there's nothing wrong with candy. In fact, we love candy.  You also need meat, dairy, vegetables and carbs.  There are strict restrictions on premarital and extramarital relations. And the obvious benefit of this is that it ensures strong and stable marriages. This is because of human biology and natural human psychology. Islamic law perfectly accounts for human nature and abiding by the Sharia has these clear benefits for marriage.   That may sound good to those who have been indoctrinated by this extremist ideology, but we have to ask, what are the consequences of such a policy? Is a society that adopts unfettered sexual autonomy compatible with marriage, with love, with romance? Is it compatible with family? Well, we don't have to speculate. We can look at countries where this so-called human right has spread and the statistics paint a very bleak dark picture. And I'll discuss the exact statistics later in the debate, inshallah. Another example is family relations because just family relations beyond just husband and wife. Science and anthropology say that humans have this deeply rooted biological drive to come together in families. And these families have a natural hierarchy with fathers as the heads of the household and mothers and children and so forth. Again, this human behavior is biologically rooted and historians and anthropologists point out that the same patriarchal family structure is found in 99% of human societies historically, including Islamic societies. But human rights extremism says, no, this kind of patriarchy with men over women violates the principle of equality. Men and women should all have the same authority, the same roles and everything has to be exactly equal. This is not only an attack on Islamic law. This is an attack on human biology itself. This is an attack on 99% of world cultures which do have patriarchal family structures. And the result of this human rights extremism that has been forced onto the whole world for the past 200 years is that families are being destroyed. Again, I will share, inshallah, more information to justify all these points. But the main point is that marriage, family, community, and even the human race itself, these are things that have a deep rooted biological basis. Islamic law preserves and protects these things by setting the proper balance with individual liberties and equality and other important values. Modern human rights in contrast, destroys marriage, destroys family, destroys community in all traditional cultures and the human race overall because it puts individual liberty and equality above all else. The question is, does Harris believe in balance or is he the extremist? Let's call this the balance question. Ultimately, Harris would be lying if he said that his problem is solely with Islam. He should be honest. The problems he has with Islam violating human rights, he has with all traditional cultures and religions that limit individual liberty for the sake of protecting marriage, family, and community, Harris should be honest. Instead of saying human rights versus Sharia, he should say human rights versus literally every traditional culture and religion in the world. Lie number three, what is the difference between Harris Sultan and European colonizers? What is the difference between Harris Sultan and the neocons in Washington who pushed for the murderous invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan 20 years ago and continue to agitate for human rights in the Muslim world today? What is the difference? Let's call this the colonial question because all the arguments Harris brings against Muslims in Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else, all of those exact same arguments have been used by European colonizers, historically against not only Muslims, but against Native Americans, against Africans, against Aboriginals, against the Chinese. When Harris says Muslims abuse women because they practice polygamy, that exact same argument was used by American settlers in the 18th and 19th century to dehumanize Native Americans and justify genociding them. When Harris says Muslims are barbaric because they used corporal punishments against criminals, that exact same argument was used by the European colonial empire against the African tribes they genocide it. The real question is, does Harris think the colonial project was a good thing? After all, colonialism is what brought modern human rights to all these different parts of the world. The West invading and occupying the world to bring freedom and democracy isn't something that just happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's something that's been happening for over 200 years. If Harris thinks human rights are so amazing, then does he think it was a good thing that Africa was colonized or Latin America? Does he think it was a good thing that India was colonized? Wasn't colonialism that brought his own Muslim ancestors in the subcontinent to the light of reason and human rights? So Harris, my question is simple. Clearly the world is not going to freely choose human rights. History has definitively proven that and Afghanistan is only the most recent example. If you really want people to abandon their religions, abandon their ways of life, their cultural heritage and replace them with human rights, then you have to force them. And forcing people inevitably gets very brutal and very bloody, that's the only way. That's why the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries are soaked with the blood of non-Europeans who are killed in the name of spreading freedom and democracy. So are you going to be honest, Harris, and stand by colonialism? Look, if human rights are so wonderful as you claim, Harris, then 200 years of brutal colonialism and millions of dead must have been worth it. Why don't you own it, Harris? When you advocate human rights, you're like a chef that presents this appetizing sausage to your audience, but you aren't honest about how that sausage is made. Muslims, at least, are honest. Islam is honest. That spreading Islam sometimes requires war. That's acknowledged in the Quran and the example of the Prophet, Peace be upon him. And I'm not equating Muslim conquest with European colonialism, by the way, because there are major differences that we can talk about for one Euro-American colonialism past and present is genocidal and the death counts make that very clear. But my point is you human rights activists are not honest. You don't own up to the true horrifying nature of spreading freedom and democracy. So, Harris, if human rights are so brilliant and fantastic, then be consistent. Tell us that the millions of deaths and the brutal occupations are worth it. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right? So just own it. Stop pretending you're something you're not.  The only way you can credibly sell human rights to your audience is if you hide all these things or gloss over them. You hide the brutal history of human rights.  You have to hide all these things because otherwise no one would buy it. And actually it would make Islam look pretty good because Islam is fighting against this human rights monster. But you can't be honest, can you, Harris? So just stop with this con game. We will jump into the next section, folks. Want to let you know, as I mentioned, welcome to modern day debate. If it's your first time here, we're a neutral platform. Our guests are linked in the description. So if you're listening, you're like, I want to hear more of Harris or I want to hear more of Daniel. You can hear more by clicking on their links in the description. And that includes on the podcast as we link our guests there as well. Now for today's format, it's a little bit different. So we're going to have an hour of, well, technically a little bit less than an hour of five minute segments from each speaker. So we'll be starting with Harris for five minutes and then we'll go to Daniel for five minutes and we'll keep rotating back and forth. I reckon you should start with Daniel with the first monologue because I've already lost mine. So that would mean like two behind. Oh, I was going to take yours off the end, but we could do that as well if you'd like. Yeah, I think that would be better that way because we can stay on top of what Daniel is saying so I can respond to it. If Daniel is okay with that, I'm open to it. And then also want to let you know, folks, if you haven't have a question, feel free to tag me in the live chat with at modern day debate. Makes it easier for me to see those questions as we'll have the Q and A at the end. But Daniel, if you're okay with it, you can start the five minute sections. It's up to you.  Okay, all right. Okay, see how nice I am, Daniel. What was that? I said, see how nice I am. I've actually said yesterday everything that you said so far. Yeah, I'm a sadist apparently. So you're very nice, go ahead. Yeah, I'm not seeing any emotions from you. Go ahead, Harris. Which is good. All right, let's get to the next one then. Okay, so the proponents of Sharia based their argument on the claim that it is objective morality because it comes from the creator of the universe. Therefore, whatever he says is true and by their definition, this is objective morality. We cannot understand why it is like that but since he's saying it, therefore it is objective and inherently good. But when we scratch the surface and put it under the microscope of reason and logic, it is anything but objective in nature. So let's examine this claim. Objectivity means something that is absolutely true in its claim, regardless of conditions, feelings or opinions, basically the opposite of subjectivity, which relies on interpretations, limited understanding, opinions and is conditional. So I've thought about it for a very long time and I'd like to see Daniel's view on that as well. If we are to take morality in this case called Sharia from an outside agent in this case, Allah on the claim that it is objectively good, then there are four options, option one. Allah is only capable of giving out good commands consequently is incapable of giving out evil commands. If you assume this premise is correct, then indeed morality does become objective. I'll give you that. But it violates other claim traits of Allah himself. For example, he is incapable of giving out evil commands meaning he is not omnipotent. He's just a calculator. Like a calculator can't tell you two plus two equals five. So we can trust him. He doesn't have free will because even if he wanted to give an evil command then he can't do it as he pleases. He can't lead people astray. He can't give them wrong directions causing them to burn in hellfire, which is against Allah's traits as per the Quran, chapter 14, verse 27, which also entails that Allah leads people astray as he wills, meaning he can give them wrong directions which is kind of an evil command, knowing that the person is headed towards an eternal abyss which also violates in turn Quran chapter seven verse 28 which says he can't give evil commands. So it is safe to say that this is not the case with Allah and this premise doesn't fulfill all the characteristics of Allah. Now option two, which is more likely a lot of Muslims take that one, Allah is capable of giving out evil commands but he chooses not to as it is against his nature to give evil commands. In this case, his condition of omnipotency is restored. If we assume this premise is correct then we could expect good direction from Allah because it is not in his nature to give wrong directions but that would require faith which is inherently the opposite of objectivity because objectivity requires us to be able to test, verify and measure as per the premise all the commands might actually be all good because he chooses never to give an evil command but it can't be called objective. You could argue that in your limited wisdom horrors you might not be able to see the bigger picture and what seems like a wrong direction to you might actually be a good direction such as the case Allah ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham accepted it as Allah's good command because of his faith. He had no way of knowing that Allah had a different plan unless he had faith in which he did. So in principle, he required faith, not evidence and hence for us to determine a command is objectively true, we need to be able to test it. For example, if you told a blind man that the moon emits white light it might actually be objectively true but the blind man, before the blind man he would require only faith to believe in it. The blind man is confined by his limited vision as us humans are confined by a limited wisdom but for us to believe it's objectively true we'll need to be able to measure it ourselves. Although this is the most agreed upon option but it also violates Quran 1427 and Quran 27 as Allah has purposefully made people blind and put a seal on their heart so they can't even see his wisdom just have faith in him but then in other place Quran says, chapter 15 verse 75, look at the signs I have left for you. It is literally asking a blind man to see. How can I see if you have blinded me? Option three, God can give any command and by virtue of it coming from him it just becomes good which basically means that God can turn good into evil and evil into good.  This is like making a four-sided triangle. You can't do that. It's either a triangle or a square just like that objectively it's either good or evil. Creating evil only to turn it into good defeats the purpose of creating evil in the first place.  If we look at it in absolute terms then it can't both be good or bad at the same time. It's either evil or good. This proposition creates further problems. Once we admit that God can turn evil into good and good into evil then as I said earlier it breaks all bases of rationality. Every other rational criticism of any other faith or proposition becomes irrational because anything can happen. I wonder why Muslims make fun of Christians with the concept of God is the father and the son. If we assume God can violate basic fundamentals of reality then he can be the father and the son at the same time and Christian faith becomes perfectly irrational and rational at the same time. But Muslims don't buy that. This proposition also violates the Quran as Allah himself says in the Quran 7 verse 28.  So this verse might put him back in the option one but we already know that the option doesn't fulfill all the other characteristics. The option for is Allah just gives evil commands and not good commands. I think we can all agree that that's not the case. So if you look at it on honestly Allah doesn't fit in any of these options. Why? Because it's so contradictory there. You can't fit this box in any circle. There's no detail. We'll kick it over to Daniel for his opening state or his five minute rebuttal. Go ahead Daniel. Okay, my claim again is that liberal secular human rights regime has been a disaster for the human race. Note that in Harris's response he didn't address any of my questions. So we're gonna see if he's going to answer anything in this debate. I'm going to focus on four main examples. Liberal human rights destroys marriage, family, community and the human race overall. So let's start with marriage. I want to address many, maybe most of you in the audience directly. Do you know why you are alone? Do you know why you can't get married? Do you know why if you are married you are very likely to get divorced? Do you know why there's a very high likelihood that you will die alone? All of this is because the liberal human rights regime is destroying marriage. The fact of the matter is marriage is deeply rooted in natural human instincts. We crave romantic affection. We want to give and receive love with a long-term committed partner who we have children with. Psychologists and neurobiologists call this pair bonding. Pair bonding is this instinct to bond with the opposite sex in a long-term relationship. Most animal species don't have this pair bonding instinct but 3% of animals do have pair bonding like most birds, certain primates and also human beings. Being in long-term committed married relationships is associated with countless benefits in terms of health and happiness. The Washington Post reported that studies prove that married people have happier, healthier relationships than unmarried couples who simply live together. But human rights has destroyed marriage and it's easy to understand why. If you're constantly prioritizing individual liberty, individual happiness, then that conflicts with the long-term sacrifice and commitment that marriage requires. Stable marriages require you to give up your individual autonomy in many significant ways and liberalized people are not interested in that and the stats prove it. Nowadays, most people are not getting married. According to Pew, 65% of millennials between the ages of 23 and 38 were unmarried in 2019. Pew predicts that in a few short years, 75% of millennials will never be married. This will be an all-time low according to Pew. Now you might think maybe people are not getting married but they're still having long-term unmarried relationships. Not true. According to the Washington Post and the General Social Survey, the share of US adults reporting no sex in the past year reached an all-time high in 2018, underscoring a three decade trend. About one in four adults did not have sex the whole year and the numbers continue to increase every year in what experts call sex recession. In some countries like Denmark and Spain, governments have to literally beg their population to have sex. Now if you're in the minority who does get married then the likelihood that your marriage will end in divorces very high if you live in liberal democracies. In the US, about 44% of marriages end in divorce in France, 51% in the UK, 42%. These stats don't even factor in long-term separation between couples. If we counted that, the rates would be even higher. The likelihood your spouse will cheat on you is also very high in free liberal countries. Some studies have found that the infidelity rate is as high as 26% in some Western countries. Those people who do get married are also going to have lower quality marriages. Studies show that having multiple sex partners prior to marriage reduces marital quality. People are less satisfied with their spouse when they have been around the block a few times, literally. By the time people do get married in the West, in their 30s or 40s, they have had so many failed past relationships that they're often emotionally damaged. The person you're marrying comes with all this baggage in addition to your own baggage. So the overall marital quality suffers. But Muslims because of Islam and Sharia are on the opposite end of all this. Yes, modernity is affecting Muslims, unfortunately, but we're on the opposite end in terms of these stats. Numerous ethnographic studies of Muslim countries prove this. Muslims get married more, they get married younger, they have far lower levels of premarital and extramarital sex, they have lower divorce rates, and due to all of this, they have higher quality marriages, love and romance. This is because of the rules in Islamic law that specify gender separation, hijab and modesty, restrictions on fornication and adultery, patriarchy and gender roles, family involvement and marriage and so forth. These are rules the liberal human rights regime considers backwards and misogynistic, but these are the same exact rules that save Muslim marriages from the destruction that Western society is suffering from. So, Harris can give this abstract discussion of objective, good versus evil, but marriage and love is something that humans all value and I'm citing stats, I'm citing studies that everyone can agree with and everyone feels viscerally because that's human nature. Thank you very much. We'll kick it over to Harris for his five minute rebuttal as well. Okay, if someone claimed that he's all wise and knows about the past and the future and always has the right answer, you would expect him to give you an absolutely complete and true statement every time he utteres a sentence. This is a claim of the Quran as well. That's a perfect expectation and Allah claims to be just that. Is he all knowing, as it is said in the Quran, Chapter 31 verse 34 or in the Bukhari 318, he already knows what's going to happen later today, tomorrow and a million years into the future. If he does, then why does he change his statements all the time or at least completes them implying his first statement was either incomplete or unclear, which is against his claim of it being a clear book as Quran, Chapter 5 verse 15. For example, Allah, which is Muhammad, says in Quran, Chapter 4 verse 95, not equal are those believers remaining at home and the Mujahideen who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with the wealth and the lives. Hakeekat, this is actually for you, not equal are those believers remaining at home and the Mujahideen who strive and fight. Allah had given his absolutely true statement for all times and everyone who hadn't been able to join Jihad for right or wrong reasons would have been condemned to eternal hellfire or at least social humiliation. But luckily by sheer coincidence, a blind man happened to be sitting there who overhears Muhammad dictating this verse to his scribe and he says, but oh Prophet, what about me? If I was capable, then I would have joined the Jihad. And then this is so comical, Muhammad pretends, I'm getting another revelation and ask the phrase other than the disabled. This whole story is written in Timothy 3033. Now what kind of an all-knowing entity when giving his final word for all times forgets such a detail. This is not an isolated incident. There's another hilarious story from the seventh century. Those guys were having a lot of fun in the desert. For example, when Allah was explaining in Quran chapter two verse 187, how you should fast in the month of Ramadan. He tries to be poetic and didn't realize how much confusion it would create later on.  So those geniuses over there started putting white and black threads on their legs and they would eat until it's bright enough that they could tell them apart. Allah was like, Jesus. And then he added the word al-Fajr, meaning dawn. Now this story is also written in Bukhari 4511. Did the all-knowing God not know this? You would be forgiven if a man makes that statement because yes, he might not have anticipated it, but an all-knowing God must have known this. These are very basics. Allah was making even a moderately skilled author like Hakikachu would probably not make that mistake because we know when we write something, we anticipate how the other side might interpret it or how they will counteract it. This happens in our case all the time because we don't claim that we know everything. We write a solution, we do our best and when a situation arises, we adapt and change accordingly. But the claimant of all the knowledge doesn't have this luxury. This all-knowing God is either a cunning liar or not so wise as he says in Quran 109.6, for you is your religion, for me is mine. If you took it on face value, you'd be like, okay, that's a reasonable offer, but when they came to power, everyone had to either convert to Islam or be exiled. In the Quran chapter two verse 62, Allah in his all wisdom says, Jews, Christians, and sapiens can go to heaven, need not to worry. But when Muhammad realizes he can achieve a lot more, he abrogates it and says in the Quran 385, as only Muslims can go to heaven, non-Muslims will be the losers. Moreover, how many other verses there are where not only ordinary people, but learned scholars of Islam disagree with each other, but they don't have the luxury of a prophet running around who could instantly get a text message from Allah, like in the case of a blind man, who could tell us, oh no, no, no, this is not what I meant, this is what I meant. And Allah knew this problem. This is why in Quran chapter five verse 19, he said, I am sending you another prophet, so you don't complain, where is our prophet? Well, I'm still complaining. Where's our prophet, Allah? Well, we need another prophet too, because there is so much confusion in the understanding, in understanding Allah's verses, like how much is too much wife beating, for example. Thank you very much for that five minute rebuttal. We'll kick it over to Daniel for his five minute rebuttal as well. Yeah, so Harris, it looks like you're gish galloping. You're just giving all of these random points. Like, can you just specify something that you want me to respond to? It seems like you're just rambling. The topic of the debate is Sharia and human rights, and you're just bringing all these different theological issues. So try to focus, I gave you, don't interrupt me. You have specific questions that I gave you, clearly that you can respond to on human rights, but you're just bringing up all of these random topics. So on the issue of family, look, I'm bringing objective arguments, unless you wanna say that family is not valuable or marriage is not valuable, okay? But otherwise, family and marriage and love, these are valuable things, objectively, all humans agree. Is living in a strong, stable family with mother, father, grandparents, uncles, and aunts a human right? The vast majority of human beings throughout history and today have lived in these extended families, and countless studies show the psychological and sociological benefits of living in strong, stable kinship groups. Others studies show that not having family or living in broken families is associated with higher crime, higher depression, higher drug use, higher suicide rate, higher mental health problems and so forth. Again, it's easy to understand how emphasis on individual liberty and equality above all else is antithetical to objective family value. Family often requires you to sacrifice your own personal desires for the benefit of Kith and Kin. Taking care of children or taking care of the elderly are significant burdens. If you constantly tell people that maximum freedom is the most important thing above all else, it's no surprise that people will choose their self-interest over family again and again.  You might have even heard this anecdotally from friends who say bluntly, I have my own dreams and ambitions, I can't waste time on children or my parents. This is the anti-family sentiment that has spread, like cancer in the modern world, and it's because of prioritizing individual liberty. And all the stats, again, prove it. Just look at average household size, for example, according to Pew, North America and Europe have the smallest average household sizes, whereas the Muslim world has double the household sizes of the West. Pew research also shows that living alone is more common in wealthier countries, especially North America and Western Europe. Fertility rates are plummeting throughout the modern world. UN report shows that Europe, in Europe, the fertility rate is below replacement, only 1.6 child per women. The same thing in North America, below replacement levels, but Muslim world, it's double or triple those fertility rates. Another metric that represents the death of family is the rise of single-parent households. According to Pew, in the US, about one in four children are in single-parent households. In the UK, one in five, and these numbers have dramatically increased over the past 50 years. What this means is that even the very few children that are being born in the developed world live with a single parent, usually the mom, and she, of course, has to work to make ends meet. So this is not even the nuclear family. Forget about extended family. Even the nuclear family has been destroyed in the modern West. What this means is that, realistically, a high percent of children in the West don't have any family to speak of. No father, no siblings, no grandparents, no cousins surrounding them. Now, I can list for you a bunch of studies that demonstrate that children raised in these single-parent households are at increased risk of dropping out of school, increased risk of being incarcerated, doing drugs. Other studies show children from single-family households have double the risk of mental health problems. They're more likely to be abused, more likely to commit suicide, and on and on. And this makes sense from a biological and psychological standpoint. For tens of thousands of years, humans have lived in large families with their own flesh and blood. When you strip that all away, like in the modern human rights West, what's that going to do to people psychologically? What is it going to do to them sociologically? Again, we see Muslims at the opposite end of the spectrum with all of these stats, and this is because of the rules in Islamic law, rules that specify parental rights known as Birra al-Walidain, being good to parents, emphasis by the Prophet, peace be upon him, on fertility and having big families, emphasis on kinship rights and duties known as Sultar Rahim, emphasis on getting married young, emphasis on taking care of elderly family members, not just dumping them in a nursing home as is increasingly common throughout the West. And also the patriarchal family structure, that is also very important. So these are some of the rules that the liberal human rights regime considers contrary to personal freedom and human rights, but these are the exact same rules that preserve the important human institution of the family. Don't you think families are objectively good harass? Then explain why human rights are destroying them, explain that. We are going to kick it over to the five minute response from Harris, and wanna remind you our guests are linked in the description folks, go ahead Harris. Right, so you've obviously got a script that you stuck to, and this is why we have to talk when the actual discussion starts. But so far, you haven't responded to any of my responses because you haven't spoken anything, you haven't said anything about Sharia. You don't interrupt, you haven't said anything about Sharia. I've spoken about your claim Sharia is objective, and I've laid the argument against how it is not objective, and you haven't said anything yet. So let's just keep digging further into Sharia, and then the problems that you're pointing out, some are valid, some are not valid, but either way, you make a mistake claiming that Sharia is somehow the solution, and this is what I'm exposing right now, Sharia is not a solution. So let's talk about the elephant in the room.  As I said earlier, not all Muslims have turned off their compassion switch, and they go out of their ways to make excuses, such as how Islam promoted compassion that it's set in motion in the world where slavery will eventually be abolished. Yes, it's a completely fabricated claim. I agree with you on that, but at least I can understand that they're trying to keep their humanity intact. In fact, this is the same claim modern-day Judeo-Christian apologists make as well, but you, Akikachu, don't take that approach because once you have lost all compassion and humanity, it's easier to become a literalist because Quran literally advocates cruel practices like slavery. I wouldn't go into the mainstream slavery, the idea of treating human beings as commodity.  I'm particularly troubled by sex slavery.  Who would clean your house a day and do other things at night? Does this not send shivers down your spine? Is this a solution that you were just offering about what human rights, what the core family is destroyed or something? And this is the alternative that you're offering? Maybe it does to James and every other sane person listening to this, but look how cool you are, Akikachu, with the possibility. You might be getting turned on by this practice. Quran allows this in multiple places such as chapter four verse 24, 25, chapter 23 verse six, 24, 31, and many more. How could this not be wicked and cruel? Ordinary Muslims are troubled by this and I inquired further. If I can't make you feel for other humans that you intend to take as sex slaves, let's reverse the rules.   Would you be okay with that, Akikachu? Now, can you answer that one? Maybe you can't feel that for other women who are not related to you, but surely even as a sadist like yourself, could feel that for your female family members. If not, then I can only hope that other men who supposedly follow you don't think like you.  This is not some far-fetched case. This is exactly what happened with Rehan Abin Tezaed, whose husband was killed by Muhammad's men after the massacre of Bandit Reza. She refused to marry Muhammad out of respect for her dead husband, but eventually married Muhammad after she got sick of being the slave girl of Muhammad. Moreover, the infamous story of Safiya, when her father, brother, and husband were killed, Safiya was taken as a slave girl and Muhammad slapped with her on the very first night. This was so outrageous that even one of the servants of Muhammad stood guard at the tent. When asked by Muhammad, hey, what are you doing here, boy? Oh messenger of God, this young woman had just been married and you killed her father, husband, and brother. So I did not trust her not to harm you. The prophet laughed and said, good. If we film this, imagined it in flex, every saint, Muslim or not, every saint person would be outraged by this behavior. This will be how an ultimate villain behaves. Yet this is the man or you guys practically worship. There's so many such stories. Let's look at this one. Once Abu Sa'ad says after the battle of Baru Al-Mustalik, we came across some captive women. We asked the prophet, if we should drop our load, my load, I mean, semen, in or we pull out. The prophet says, do what you want. Allah controls the pregnancy. Bukhari chapter four, 4th, 1, 1938.  Imagine my soldiers come to me and ask me, oh, general Sultan, whether we should pull out or drop the load in the sisters of so and so we have just killed. And you're worried about the falling fertility rate? This also reminds me when Stalin was told about the mass scale rapes of the German women at the hands of the Red Army. Stalin simply said, they've been through a lot. Let them enjoy. This is literally what Muhammad did. In another instance, a guy by the name of Salama says, he captured the prettiest girl in Arabia when he took her back to Abu Bakr, he gave her to him as a gift, Sahih Muslim 1755.  And this merciful prophet and his sharia enabled it. There's so many other stories like this, but I can't pick them all in five minutes. We'll kick it over to Daniel for his five minute response as well. Okay, so I'm going to address slavery and sex slavery, but let me just be explicit for the audience since Harris doesn't seem to be getting it. I'm arguing that sharia law is superior to human rights because sharia rule preserves marriage and family, okay? And human rights doesn't, it destroys marriage and family and community and the human race. That's the argument. So let's move on to slavery. The reality is to win a war in the pre-modern period, it was all about manpower. The main factor in whether your people would live or die was numbers.  So you only had two options.  Neither option is good, right? But that's just the nature of war. You always have to use violence against the other side.  So Harris, you want to criticize Islam and call Islam barbaric for having slavery, but imagine if I asked you this question, do you support using weapons in war?  Do you support that? Because all of that is violent. All of that is barbaric. Presumably you'd say, yeah, of course I support weapons and killing because how else are you going to fight war and defend yourself? Well, that's exactly the point with slavery. In the pre-modern period, you couldn't have war without slavery any more than you could have war without weapons and killing. In other words, if killing people can sometimes be justified, then slavery can also sometimes be justified. And this is exactly what your friend, apostate prophet, accepted with open arms in our debate last year. Imagine in the future, they invent a new technology for war where laser shoots from space and can directly target any person in the world. And the technology is so precise that there are zero casualties other than the intended target. Then people in this future might look back at our time and say, look how barbaric those people in the 21st century were.  Would that make any sense? That's exactly what you're doing by criticizing Islam for slavery. You should have just acknowledged that slavery could be completely justified in certain circumstances, which by the way are the circumstances people have lived in for 99% of human history. Now, if you want to argue that Islam requires enslaving people today, I would say that that is not correct. It depends on the Imam. If you read Fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, this is very clear. There's no requirement that people captured in war are enslaved. This is discussed in classical Fiqh books. For example, Bidayat al-Mujtahed by Ibn Rushd in the 12th century go to Kitab al-Jihad and he summarizes the position of the four Sunni schools of Fiqh. The Imam has the option to pardon people and forego taking slaves in war. The Imam does not have the option to suspend, for example, hudud punishments for lashing like lashing for fornicators, but taking slaves is one of those issues where the Imam can forego if it's in the best interest of the Muslim community. So in modern times, a hypothetical Imam could exercise this option and still be 100% consistent with the most strict understanding of traditional Islamic law.  You could respond to me and say, well, Daniel, fine, slavery could be justified in the past, but now with modern technology, modern weapons, clearly slavery could never be justified. That means Islamic rules regarding slavery are not justifiable in our modern context, which means at least one aspect of Islamic law is obsolete. And if one aspect of Islamic law is obsolete due to modern technology, then why not all of Islamic law? This is actually the argument that a lot of Muslim liberal reformists make, but the response to this is simple. In the past, the low level of technology meant that in order to wield political power, war was necessary, which meant that slavery was necessary. The only difference today is there are bombs, nukes, fighter jets, drones, chemical and biological weapons. So now war is not about manpower. Basically, you have to believe that these new technologies are such a blessing and we're better off because at the very least, no one needs slavery to defend themselves, right? We live in a world of nukes and drones and weapons of mass destruction, so slavery is no longer needed. So the question is, is this actually a better world? Well, the harms associated with modern technologies like nukes and drones and mass surveillance, and you can't go to the bathroom without security agencies constantly monitoring your every move in every communication, these harms are far, far greater than the harms that existed in Islamic slavery. Frankly, these modern technologies are more terrifying. We have to look at the whole package, which is the better world? One with the constant threat of nukes, nuclear annihilation and constant terrorizing of the world's poor people with trillion dollar weapons programs. Let's ask the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or the Vietnamese children with horrifying birth defects because of chemical weapons like Agent Orange. Let's ask the Palestinian Syrian refugees or children who are being burned alive with white phosphorus. In light of these modern technological horrors, the practice of Islamic slavery actually seems a far better alternative in the context of war, even if it were practiced today. No, slavery wasn't abolished because of the modern day warfare. Slavery was the reason that we don't have slavery is because the enlightenment forced us to realize that owning other human beings is not a good idea. Now that is just the outcome of that. Anyway, I always used to wonder how could people believe in war and a certain idea and are always propagating it, but when it comes to doing it themselves, they don't do it. Whether that's George W. Bush or Trump or our very own Hikikachu. These guys are okay to propagate wars and revolutions, but when it comes to taking action, they run away. Trump made health excuses and so did George W. Bush, but our friend Hikikachu also makes similar excuses to get out of it. Why does he not go to Afghanistan or Syria to fight for ISIS or Taliban? If you say, well, they're not truly Islamic, then go there. It's definitely much closer to Muhammad or your true Islam than America is. But no, I'm keen to see what excuses you make this time. Hikikachu likes to present himself as not like any other apologists. He says it as it is. He doesn't hold back. If Islam condones violence, he says, yes, so what? It is what it is. But when it comes to fighting the Holy war or application of Sharia, he doesn't actually do anything. At least those jihadis who went to Syria to fight for ISIS were honest. Osama bin Laden who gave up his life of luxury was honest. They were literalist and honest. Hikikachu is only a literalist and honest as long as he is sitting in his nice suburban home in America watching Muslim apologists debate on 70 inch TVs. And so is the case with all these trolls who is following Hikikachu enjoys.  Wallah, life is good. Everything's sorted, but let's curse the West. Look what Prophet Muhammad said about people like Hikikachu. Not equal among the believers who sit and the Mujahideen who fight for Allah, the Umadi 3033. Look what the Quran says.  While it is hard on you, it could be that you dislike something when it is good for you. Quran chapter two, verse 216. This is directly for you Hikikachu. I remember a prophet asked you the same question. Hikikachu, you simply said, well, I have my family here.  So are you saying that those people who used to go to Jihad would take their families with them? This is what Prophet Muhammad said about the family. The Prophet said, none of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind, Bukhari 15. So Hikikachu, you wanna get into answering questions, answer this question. Do you love your parents and your family more than you love the Prophet?  Fight for what you believe in. You had the perfect opportunity to go to Syria or Afghanistan to fight for your cause, but you chose to sit in your nice house in America whose economy runs on interest. And according to you guys, spilling the blood of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, being allies of Israel, like Jews. You are basically living and enjoying the perks of a country that is literally the enemy of Muslims like Afghanistan. It cannot be clearer than this.   They might fall into the trap of the Western lifestyle like going out, partying, drinking, having premarital sex, all the horrible things that you worry about. I actually know some of, some modest Muslim families who leave Western countries just when the children are about to hit the ages of 10 or 11, they go back, citing their fears, just mentioned.  You must feel like that at some point. We have got another five minute response coming in from Daniel. Thanks so much. The floor is all yours. Harris is completely misrepresenting Islamic law and Islamic law and the Sharia, there's no obligation at all times to fight jihad and there's no obligation at all times to take slaves or sex slaves. This is a complete misrepresentation. Harris needs to study Islamic law and fiqh because he's clearly ignorant. He has this kind of, you know, George Bush and understanding of Islam or Donald Trump understanding of Islam where it's just about killing and murdering. This is like from intelligence agencies, basically. You think ISIS is Islam. Nowhere have I endorsed ISIS or said that, yeah, they're the true representation of Islam. You are simply misrepresenting. And so it's a complete strawman. All you're doing is strawman arguments and you can't even respond to any of the points that I made. I responded to your point about slavery and now I'm going to respond to the point of sex slavery but I just want to make one other point.  Why don't you tell your followers, Harris, all these followers that you have in Pakistan and India, all these mortads like you, tell them to move to Botswana. Why don't you tell them to move to Botswana? Tell them to move to Haiti because Botswana and Haiti, they have LGBT rights. They have women's rights. Why are they in Muslim countries? You should tell them to move to Botswana and Haiti. And in fact, it would be a more favorable position than Muslims moving to Afghanistan because if your followers move to Botswana, Pakistan wouldn't bomb Botswana. Pakistan wouldn't try to agitate in Botswana and try to get them to adopt Sharia or Islamic law. They would be able to live their free lives with human rights and LGBT rights and women's rights. Why don't you do that, Harris? Is it because you're a con man? Is it because you're dishonest? You're not telling your followers in none of your videos. Hey guys, human rights are great. Move from a Muslim country like Pakistan or Bangladesh and go to Botswana and Haiti. You never say that.   Now let me get to the point about sex slavery. A good book I recommend is Lawrence Keely's War Before Civilization. He explains that pre-modern war was primarily about manpower. The side that had the largest army was usually going to win. And if you had too few people, this made you an easy target for a larger group to attack you and wipe you out. This meant that women were very valuable in pre-modern societies because your society's ability to reproduce and build up the population is limited by the number of fertile wombs you have. Keely says, and I quote, although the loss of even a large percentage of males will have no direct influence on a group's demographic fortunes, the loss of or gain of fertile women can mean the difference between population decline and growth. This is why Keely argues, all pre-modern civilizations took sex slaves. Again, this was a necessary aspect of war. If you did not take concubines, you were at a major disadvantage militarily because you either take concubines or your people get wiped off the face of the earth. There is no third option. So given that stark reality, yes, taking sex slaves was not only morally justified, it was morally necessary. And really that's enough for the argument, but it's worth noting that the Sharia's rules on concubines and slaves in general are the most humane out of any other civilization. Again, slavery is not supposed to be a fun time, but Islam explicitly gives slaves many rights. They can't be mutilated. They can't be killed. They can't be prostituted for women. If she gives birth to her master's baby, the baby is free and she also is freed automatically when her master dies. These rules ensured that captured slaves very quickly integrated within larger Islamic society, especially after one or two generations. Contrast this with other societies in history that maintain a permanent subjugated slave class based on race or ethnicity, Islamic slavery is not like that. And that's why we see, for example, the Mamluks in the Middle Ages who were a ruling class of Muslim slaves and the descendants of slaves, some of whom even reached the level of sultans and amirs in the Muslim caliphate as slaves. So the argument is very simple, Harris, but you haven't responded to anything that I've said. All you're doing is gish-galloping, bringing everything except the kitchen sink, misrepresenting straw man. And I think the audience sees that. You don't, I have a very simple argument. Sharia preserves marriage and family and community and the human race overall. And I'm bringing statistics, objective statistics that if you think that family and marriage is not valuable, then say that. Say that, you don't think it's valuable, so we know. But otherwise I'm bringing objective arguments and you haven't responded to any of my questions. Okay, get over for a five minute response from Harris Sultan. In case you didn't see it in the live chat, there is a poll, folks. Feel free to take that poll and go ahead, Harris. It's funny that you say no obligation to join Jihad.  But where is the longing to work for your God, work for your religion, to spread the word of Allah? Where is the longing for that? No, yeah, that nice comfy couch is much better than why go for Jihad in Afghanistan. You didn't praise ISIS. I know that, but you did praise Taliban. Why don't I move to Botswana or Haiti? Well, because we, human rights is not the only thing. It's just a part of the package. It's not the whole package. So there are so many other things that you want to get Botswana and Haiti probably don't take refugees either. And why would you not want to go to a country where you can maximize pleasure and live your life to its maximum? So I think that was easy to respond and take that long. Anyway, now let's talk about the rights Sharia gives to women. I'm sure you have a script written for that too. Because you knew I would bring that up. Needless to say that their statement is worth half of that of a man, meaning they're not equal Quran two to eight two. They get half of the inheritance compared to the male counterpast Quran for 11.    Yes, you need an obedient servant, not an equal life partner with whom you build a relationship of trust, love on the basis of equality. Yes, you have this, your own worldview of preserving family and marriage and fertility rate and all that. Is this how you want to do it? You know what? Probably better if human race goes extinct.  Cook me dinner. Okay, husband, wash my clothes. Okay, husband, if you fear disobedience from her, you can beat her up as per the Quran. Societies that build upon concepts like human rights will outlaw this because they say human rights, not man's rights alone. My partner or wife will simply say, go cook your own food. And I'll be like, okay, honey. In your article, my sister, you were talking about violence against women.  But honest, is it according to your worldview? Is it honest?  Aisha even forbade Omar's vagabond. What was his name? And anyway, whatever his name was, from entering the house. But he said, go in and bring me a daughter of Abu Guwafa, Hisham, what's his name? Went in and brought her out where Omar bin Khattab gave her a number of blows as recorded in Ibn Hisham, page 137 to 138.  For example, once Omar saw a Persian slave girl wearing a scarf that belonged to Anas, and Omar gave her a number of blows, saying, don't assume the manners of free women. Al-Albani in his book, Arwal Khalil, volume six, page two or four, declared the narration as perfect. Once, Ashad bin Qas went to stay at Omar's house and he woke up in the middle of the night. When he heard Omar beating the hell out of his wife, when he tried to stop Omar, guess what Omar said? Omar said, profit, peace be upon him, told me never ask a man when he's beating his wife. So in the match of 1986, I want to know what would happen if you were left alone in the room with Omar? You'd like to say that you don't want to be left alone with those people because I'm assuming that you're not going to sit down and play monopoly with them. You're going to probably give them some of the tastes of their own medicine. Or would you not? Or you might just worm your way out of it by saying, well, he was the enforcer of Allah's command and so all's fair. Sure, if that's the way you want to go, I'll just leave it to the people to decide which world they would want to live in because the society I live in ensures even a criminal doesn't get tortured to expect information. You got it. We'll go to a five minute response from Daniel and a couple of things folks. Shortly, just a little bit here, we'll be going into the open dialogue and also just at a poll, interesting to see. We asked what people identify as. We had 41% identify as Muslim, then 36% atheist, other 11% and then Christian was 10% which we're excited about having that kind of variety of people. We do hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. And with that, go ahead, Daniel, the floor is all yours for five minutes. Okay, again, Harris is just gish galloping. He's throwing everything out there. I'm going to actually respond with arguments. I'll just respond to this wife beating argument. Simple question, Harris, do you believe women should be subject to laws? If you do believe that women should be subject to laws then that means you believe women should be subject to all kinds of violence including being beaten, jailed, even executed. That's what it means to be subject to the law. So there really is no difference between Islam on quote unquote wife beating and human rights on this issue. Both Islam and human rights are in 100% agreement that women are accountable if they break the law. And that means Islam and human rights are in 100% agreement that women should be beaten. We only differ on who should do the beating. You say only the state, only the state can punish women. Only the state should have a monopoly on all power and authority. Islam says no, power should be distributed across kinship groups. And this means that the patriarch has authority to physically discipline members of his family including his wives if they violate important norms and values. Now let's ask women, if you violate the law, shouldn't you face consequences? And if you have to face consequences who would you rather meet out those consequences? The cold iron fist of the bureaucratic state or the person who loves you the most in the whole world? The other important difference is that with the technocratic state there is no higher authority. If the authoritarian modern state wants to persecute a particular woman she has no recourse beyond the authority of the state. But in Islam, the husband is not the highest authority. If he is unjust to his wife or if he causes serious abuse then the wife can take him to the Islamic court and get paid damages. Or she can complain to her extended family and make her case so that other patriarchs can intervene and actually punish her husband. This is an organic system and we see similar systems in all traditional cultures, Native American culture, even Christianity, read the Bible, even Judaism, read the Bible. They all have these kinds of rules. Nowadays they've kind of reformed all of that. Islam is the only religion that's really honest on this. Look, let me put it like this. Is it possible to run a corporation without the possibility of physical discipline? No, you have to give managers in these corporations the right to beat their employees. How do you beat your employees? Well, if the employee violates the norms of the workplace they get fired and if they do not voluntarily comply security will be called to remove them by force. Managers have to have the right to beat their employees. If they didn't have the right you couldn't have a hierarchical organization. Islam recognizes this about family. Patriarchy is hardwired into our DNA. Neurobiologists, psychologists, they all acknowledge this. Women are naturally hypergamous which means they're attracted to men who are stronger than them and higher status than them. Men that they can be dependent on. Men that are authorities over them. If you take out the patriarchy this actually significantly reduces female attraction to their husbands. And they have studies on this where they ask women if they are more attracted to the macho man patriarch or a man who is at their same level in terms of size, strength and status. And all women, including the hardcore feminists prefer the higher status male.  And this is exactly why marriages in the modern West have collapsed because they're egalitarian. Islam says, no, if you want a strong society you have to have strong families. And if you want strong families they have to be patriarchal. And if they're patriarchal that means the man has authority and if he has authority that means he has the power to physically maintain order.  It's hardwired into us. That's why this is an objective argument, Harris. You can't really understand that. I hope your followers, these Christians who are listening these Hindus that are listening I hope they're following because this stuff is in their books as well and their cultures as well. They've reformed all that and threw it out because they're cucking to modernity but Muslims are not going to do that. We don't need to change our religion because it's revealed from God to the creator of human beings. The creator of human beings knows our psychology knows our biology. And that's why he has revealed this Sharia this Sharia for the benefit and flourishing of humanity. And all of the statistics are proving this you can't even respond to a single one. Go ahead, Harris for five minutes. All right, okay. So let's just go through some of his points. He says, so would I want women to subject to law? Of course I would want them to subject to law. If they commit crime, they need to go to prison. But were you, but then you extended it now. This is no, sorry, please don't interrupt. I mean, I'm as painful as it was listening to your babble but then I kept my patience there. So, but you said you extended your seventh century mentality or your backward mentality so that means they would be subject to beatings and tortured and even sentenced to death. Hello, have you even heard what we're talking about human rights? Us human rights activists, we don't support sentence to death. We don't support torture like the torture of Kenana and those men that Prophet Muhammad said that go and drink camel urine. We don't support that beating. We don't support that. So there is imprisonment, which is within the reason. Yes, it's not ideal, but this is within reason. But at least we don't support torture. Yes, I know that if I beat a donkey, the donkey would probably be tamed. And this is the same mentality that you guys invent applied on human beings. A powerful person applies a force to scare them, intimidate them and get them under the thumb. Yes, we know that it does work. It does work, but should it work? Because now we're not thinking about the powerful, we're thinking about the weak. This is why we're saying no women should not be beaten. Now you say, okay, so who would you rather have them? So I've already said that we wouldn't be beating torture sentence to death, just subject to law, meaning humane laws such as imprisonment with a full chance of parole and rehabilitation and not to seek vengeance. Only, so who would you want them to punish by? Well, the state or someone who loves them. I almost, you know, I had to mute my mic when you said that, who loves them? Like a husband loves you, baby, I love you, but you left your clothes outside in the rain again, boom. That's what you mean, love? This is what you're saying, no, Daniel. As I said, this is not in accordance with our worldview of human rights.  Okay, again, so you have to work on your analogies as well because you said beat the employees. And I was thinking, what? Which corporations are beating their employees? But then you were using that as a synonym for firing them. There's a huge difference between firing someone and physically beating them. Yes, if you drag someone again, that is a different action. It's not equivalent of beating.  These things are very simple to understand but you can't understand that because you can't get your mind out of the seventh century ideology. There were a few other points that you made earlier but I think we'll probably open it up for back to back conversation. I think that would make it more interesting viewing for everyone. You got it. We've got one more five minute response. That's from Daniel. And then we'll go right into that open dialogue. Wait, do I get more time because you have the 20 minute opening? So it is true that you would get, given that Harris started and yield, he didn't take the full 20 minutes. He took 60. Yeah, I didn't. So you would get an extra minute. So what we can do, so if you go back, the recording of his opening statement and if people really want to check because I am keeping the time on every statement. James, that's okay. James, that's okay. Hold on a second. I'm talking. Hold on a second. I'm talking. Hold on. So he did have one extra minute during that opening and so you would get one extra minute added onto your five minute response if you'd like. Sure, I'd like that, please. So in other words, he asked for 20 minutes but he only used 16 minutes in his opening. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah. Just an extra minute. That's fine. You got it. All right, thanks James. Okay, so first of all, Harris is saying that the state doesn't torture and abuse people. Hello, didn't you hear all of that statements I made about colonialism? How the state is genociding people, torturing people, raping women, the state powers, the human rights nations that you're defending in this whole debate, Harris, have raped, how many women have imprisoned? How many women have tortured through solitary confinement and waterboarding? How many women? Okay, so you are a totalitarian because you only trust the state to have this kind of power. In Islam, men can't torture their wives and Islam, according to the Sharia, men cannot even physically hurt their wives in a permanent kind of way. And it's clear that you don't understand the employee-employer example because in most cases, the employee, if the employer says, your manager says, do this, you are part of an organization, there's a hierarchy, and there's a relationship between the manager and the employee. So the manager says, we need to get this done and everyone works together. There's no need to call security and physically remove by force and use a night stick or a gun or a taser to remove employees. Similarly in Islamic law, that kind of thing doesn't happen. It only happens rarely, as rare as it would be for these corporations to physically remove and taser their employees. So there's complete parallel here between any, because you have to have the ability to enforce structure and norms with any hierarchical organization. And Islam is just saying that families have that kind of authority and the patriarch has that kind of authority. It's not unfettered authority, it's not unchecked authority, but he has that in the same way that many institutions, hierarchical institutions in the modern world West, human rights respecting West, they have those kinds of authorities and the right to beat people as well. The only difference is you think that only the state, only the totalitarian bureaucratic, technocratic state should have those kinds of rights. So there's not really a substantive difference there and we can talk about it more if you need more explanation. But look, I just want to emphasize we have seen how the extremist liberal doctrine of individual liberty at all costs threatens marriage, family, community. But really this extremism threatens the very nature of humanity itself. Through the use of technology, modern liberal states now claim that people have the right to change their gender. If you don't want to be one gender, you can use technology to change it. Even children as young as three should have this option according to the gender and sexuality experts who operate at the highest levels of academia in the Western world and government. But even beyond gender, people are now given the choice to change their species. Some people feel that they're not actually human whether actually cats or dogs deep down inside. Nowadays, certain surgeries can be used to physically alter bodies to transition people to their desired appearance. This is what philosophers like Yuval Harari call transhumanism. But gender and species transition is just the tip of the iceberg. You think they're going to stop with gender transition for kindergartners? No, no, no, they're just getting started. Imagine this human rights argument. When babies are born with a certain set of genitalia that could negatively, that could negatively impact their gender identity later on. We need to make sure to genetically alter all fetuses so that everyone is born without any particular set of genitalia. That way everyone can choose their gender more easily and seamlessly when they're older. That's in line with maximum liberty and maximum equality. Do you have a problem with forcibly altering fetuses to be born without genitalia?   That means you're against equality in human rights. Or imagine this argument. Men naturally have more testosterone, which makes them more prone to violence and rape. It also makes them physically bigger than women in stature. So we need to create a law which forces men to take treatments to decrease their testosterone. Ideally, babies can be genetically modified so that everyone is born with the same exact amount of testosterone. That way we can eliminate rape. We can eliminate domestic violence and also make men equal to women in terms of physical size and strength. You're not pro-rape are you? You're not pro-domestic violence are you? Then you better support these mandatory genetic modifications otherwise you're violating equality and women's rights. All kinds of drugs and technologies can be used to fundamentally alter our psychologies, our genetics, our biology, all in the name of maximizing individual liberty and equality. And this is already happening. Just watch the news. There are no limits. This extremist liberal human rights ideology is set to destroy the human race itself. And Islam is the only religion and the only community that is pushing back and saying, no, we want to be human beings. We want to preserve our marriages, our families, our community, our humanity.  No, thank you. We need to be clear here. This is not a debate about Sharia rejects freedom and equality versus human rights, accepts them. This is really a debate about should we have restrictions on freedom and equality in order to preserve other important values versus no limits, freedom and equality extremism of Harris. That is what this debate is really about. 10 seconds left. Harris is selling you this extremism and it's exactly like the child that only eats candy.  But Sharia is the balanced meal and that's why we need Sharia. You got it. And with that, we're going to jump into open conversation. I want to let you know several things, folks. In particular, our guests are linked in the description. So if you want to hear more from either Daniel or Harris, you certainly can by clicking on those links below. And that includes in the podcast as we put our guest links there as well in each podcast episode of the debate. Also, very exciting tonight. A good old flattered versus globe-worth debate as well as next week very exciting a debate on biblical ethics as Dr. Josh and Skyler return. It's going to be amazing. So hit that subscribe button for many more debates to come. And with that, we're going to jump into open conversation. I trust you gentlemen, you're professional, you guys are easygoing and I think it's going to go well. So open dialogue, the floor is all yours, guys. All right. So do you want to respond to any of my points? Do you want to respond to the Botswana question? Explain, what does human rights really offer, Harris? What human rights offer? Maximizing pleasure, reducing suffering and well-being of humanity. No, you said maximizing pleasure, but that conflicts with the well-being of humanity. No, it doesn't. That's why I just... Okay, do you value marriage? Do you value family? I value family. Yes, of course I value family. Then how are you not seeing the death of family in the world all over with... I read all those stats, so tell me. Yeah, because, no, some of your stats, I don't know, I haven't been able to verify that. I don't know how to take your word for it, but what you're saying about family, which family are you talking about? One man having four families. The whatever family challenges that we could have in the Western world as a result of falling fertility rate, I also quoted Pew Result, which said that... Did you say it was a good thing? As women, listen to that, we were for different reasons though, but as Muslims get more and more advanced, more education, their level of income goes up, their fertility is also falling down. And also, as what you said... That's a bad thing. Just to let here finish. Sir. It has to be, there has to be a balance. Well, 2.2 would be a good balance. Every forecaster of the world's population says that we can't even keep growing indefinitely and 10 billion might be the absolute critical and we will start falling down after that. So these things, these challenges will come. There's nothing absolute. That is our argument. There's nothing absolute. What you advocate for Daniel, you say that this is absolute. This is how it is. This is how it's supposed to be. You made a point about slavery. Like the other one that you said, well, it's not obligatory to go to Jihad. So, okay, this is comfortable for you. And owning slave is not obligatory either, but it wasn't abolished. It wasn't abolished by that. No person can defend, and to the best of my ability, Ben, please, I would like to hear your response on that too. You actually were pro-slavery. You were saying that you could even bring back slavery. So why would you, how could anyone defend having slavery and owning other people? What about the families of those people?  So whatever challenges that you have. So you have all this concern about families, how they're treated with Islam through warfare with slavery and so forth. What about all of the destruction to families by colonialism, by modern neocon warfare, by the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Vietnam, the Vietnam War, all of these things, you just wanna sweep under the carpet. How about we talk about the millions of people that were killed because of forced famines because of British colonialism, the same British colonialism that was trying to spread human rights and civilization and enlightenment to the subcontinent. Your ancestors faced that kind of genocide and that kind of forced famine. And here, you don't wanna stand by that? Tell us where you stand on colonialism because you've avoided that question.  I gave you the argument for why that was not only morally justified, it was morally necessary and all of these other cultures practiced it. All of these other religions condoned it. I cited you, Lawrence Keely, an academic who explains exactly why you have to have it to survive.  You haven't addressed any of these things. And I just wanna ask you, when you say that, okay, fine, our fertility rates are... I'm gonna forget all your points. So if you're asking me these questions, I can respond very quickly. We can go back and forth very quickly. It's up to you. I'm more you talk better, it is for me. Okay, I'll keep talking. The fertility rate... One more point to add on, because it's also a challenge for the audience to follow all the points. We'll give you one more Daniel and then we'll kick it over to Harris right after. Okay, sure. I don't wanna monopolize, sorry about that. But just to say about the fertility issue, you're saying that, okay, look, this is happening. It's below replacement levels in most of these Western developed countries. That means the population is going to go extinct. Like this is literally an existential threat. So you say, okay, we need to get up to 2.2. What are you going to suggest to do that? What kind of policies? Because you have to have a policy that's not voluntary because people are not voluntarily choosing to get married now. They're not voluntarily choosing to have families now. So what policy are you going to introduce? And that's going to limit people's individual freedom and individual choice, right? So give us suggestions. Okay, that's very easy. I mean, let's start with the first one. You said that you want my position on colonialism. And as you said, my ancestors actually suffered at the hands of it. Now I'm wondering which colonialism are you talking about, Arab colonialism or British colonialism? I'm assuming it's very different. You want me to talk to you about the difference? No, we know one belongs to even more primitive society and that brought slavery and sex slavery. Whereas the other one brought other kinds of suffering but that didn't include slavery. So British didn't enslave people of India. So thank you very much, we know that. Yes, I'm not pro-slavery. I don't care about slavery. Yes, we condemn slavery. This was the cause of suffering of enormous amount of people including my ancestors in India. So I don't understand why you put that on me as though and you make an argument that, okay, they were going in the name of spreading enlightenment. You know, the human rights, yes, the enlightenment started a post-Renaissance period and then 18th century, you could go into the industrial revolution time. You could go from anywhere but it took nearly 200 years to filter down to where we are. Even the post-modernism was actually a result of the catastrophic first and second world war despite of having legal nation, despite of having some understanding of enlightenment and despite of propagating human rights. But that was still not working. But that is our argument. These things evolve over time and we are consequently getting better and better and better with each, we used to say with each 100 years or probably a millennia back in further back we go, but now it seems like we're getting better and better with each passing decade. Yes, you raise some good points about this gender change and all of that. Yes, these things are problematic. We know that. But again, no one's wrong. But no, no, no, no. But that's overly simplification of human rights because that's not all human rights is. And the pre- Part of what human rights says? A big part of it. Modernism is what modernism is, which is scientific inquiry and reason using reason to come up with better solutions. That is modernism. And now this is when post-modernism and not all post-modernism is bad either.   Well, in some cases maybe you are honest but you're not entirely honest yet. Even though they say you are the honest one. But we'll see. But I'm saying that there are some problems and we know that these problems exist. So the main problem is that you can't spread these values without total war. No, that's the whole point. So you have to say that that's necessary and that's justified. How are you going to get the people in Afghanistan to follow human rights? You're complaining constantly about Afghanistan. So how are those people going to accept human rights and democracy as you propose? I mean, the answer from the US state is clear. They invaded and occupied for 20 years, brutal occupation. And now even after they're gone, you have Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State, saying we're going to agitate and we're going to pressure Afghanistan to start accepting LGBT rights and women's rights. And if they don't comply, we're going to put the pressure on them. So this is all force and it leads to suffering. You stand by all that or no, answer. No, I'll answer that to you, but... Yes or no, you stand by it or no. No, it's more complicated than that. But if you answer that, do you support Taliban or not? You said brutal occupation. You could argue about the way the war on terror was started. But after that, America was not there. There was no governor general of America there. There was no America in Afghanistan? There was no government that was directly American. The government itself was Afghan. The government was Afghan. Yes, you could laugh at them. They weren't agents of... Look at all of the leaks that were posted by the Washington Post. They were agents. Afghan government was an agent of the US government. How can you deny that? You say it was brutal and put a hand on your heart and say it was more brutal than the 90s of Afghanistan or even now what Afghanistan is going to be. Yes, I did a whole video. I did a 45 minute video, all the rape, torture and murder. You're an Australian, right? So you had Australian special forces who were hunting for Afghan horses and cutting off their fingers. No, this is a pattern of abuse. They stopped counting. They were punished. Why were they even there? You said that there was no presence. Now you're saying they were punished or isolated. So there were soldiers there, right? So why are you changing your story? No, I'm not changing my story. You said there weren't anyone. There was no forces in Afghanistan, right? No, I didn't say that. I said the government was Afghanistan. I said the government was Afghanistan. The government was given back to Afghan people. Just with all these occupying soldiers. Unfortunately, Islam got in the way and it said, no, sorry, we want to live in the 7th century and we want to be ruled by warlords of terror, intimidation, and fear, and executions, and barbarity. And democracy has no place in Afghanistan. You should be everyone else, every sane person, not you. That would be unexpected expectation from you. Not everyone would be happy in Afghanistan. We've seen the footages of people trying to escape Afghanistan. Why? Burqa sales have gone through the roof in Afghanistan.  Just yesterday, there was a new story. People are trying to escape in Salvador and Mexico. People are trying to raise all of these countries. Let's let Harris have a point. I promise I'll come right back to you. Harris, if you want to make this last point and then we'll kick it back over. Yeah, because Daniel made all these points. So anyway, people are escaping those. Yes, I know if America says that everyone at the Lahore-Mumbai Airport goes there, will go there. But no, we know that for a fact that they're leaving for different reasons. People are scared in Afghanistan for good reasons because we know what Taliban have done. You said something about how would you we will go towards extinction. And how would you increase the fertility rate? And you offered a solution that you can only impose these policies by war?  No, that's not why I said it. So what did you say? So I want to understand. I don't understand. You said that you have to imply. Islam has these policies, right, in the Sharia.   You have modesty. You have gender separation. You encourage Muslims to marry young and have children and be fertile. Those are all policies within the Sharia that when people abide by them, there is higher fertility. You have stronger families. You have healthier societies because of that. That was the argument. It's not going to war. No, but you implied that. You asked me a question. How am I going to apply that in the Western world where fertility rates are falling? So you didn't say that. What policy are you going to institute that will increase the fertility rate? Well, first of all, immigration is one good policy. And we can always. Breaking in Muslims from other countries? Well, there are a lot of Indian and Chinese, too. So I would prefer them first. But no, Muslims are fine as well. So that means that the people here are going to go extinct? Muslims are good people. No, that's not even the case. I mean, for example, Australia pumped up the fertility rate back in the early 2010s by giving out baby bonuses. So you'll get $10,000 check if you make more babies. So that's your policy of immigration relies on Islam, right? You haven't given up. Not necessarily. Because it's Islam's higher fertility or Chinese or any of these traditional societies.  So you've just deferred the argument. You haven't introduced a policy that will increase the population, the fertility, $10,000 indigenous population. So you haven't really introduced the like the problem that you're having is you can't introduce any policy because it will restrict individual freedom. That's why you're stuck. OK, so again, let me let me let me go back to you again. Let me go back to you again, because as I said, it's got nothing to do with actually not hamming not wanting to make families or whatever. It might have some part to do with it, but it's got more to do with the improving economies, economic standards. And that's why I said I can see that. But the rates are also going down. I can see that rates are also going down. Yes, it's a bad thing. It's a bad thing. It shows exactly why development and modernization and human rights is a bad thing. That's my entire. So let's so let's stop going to work. Let's stop making money. That's your solution so we can just stay home and make more. No, that's it is just it is just one of this. It is just one of the side effects of that. And humanity will come up with a better solution. If we who knows what humanity 2.0 might be like, who knows you might be actually making babies in labs or maybe we might not even need to keep increasing humanity because we would be living a thousand years longer. So we don't know that. These are the problems that will come even later and will come up with new solutions. And we would have more solutions if we sort of understand that because you will survive. Of course, we're not going anywhere. The property is still going up every once. No, you just said it's not going up. You said it's going down. All right. The global global birth rate is still going up. You just said it's going down. I said 2060 in my statement. I said by 2060, it would start falling down even for Muslims as well. And by 20 by the end of the century, it would hit a critical mass mass of 10 billion and then we'll start going down. Your stats are all wrong. The birth rates are going down. They're going down consistently, even in the Muslim world. The Muslim world, the fertility is going down. It's a bad thing, right? And by 2060, what you actually cited was that Muslims, I didn't even remember what you cited, but all of the fertility rates are going down consistently across the world. And it's because of human rights modernization. Islam is saying that family is important. That's why you have to restrict individual autonomy with these kinds of rules I mentioned in the Sharia. And that's for the benefit of humanity, because you're not going to go extinct. You're not going to have a low replacement levels fertility and you can't show me how human rights. Sharia, that's what you should have. No, no, no, what's the ideal number for the planet we should have, like 10 billion, 9 billion, 8 billion, maybe 4 billion, reducing the sizes of economy in our footprint? What would be the better one? We should have strong, stable families that a child can be in a family surrounded by loving family members, his father, his wife, maybe a co-wife, cousins, aunts, uncles. That's a beautiful, stable family, very high fertility. This is the beautiful example of family life that Islam promotes. The world doesn't need. What does human rights promote? The world doesn't need too many men. Human rights promotes.  That's what human rights offers the world. And we see that with the numbers. We see that with all the stats that I gave you. And you have no response to that. I have given you a response. I've given you more response than you're not understanding that, because these are the 21st century. That would be the latter part of the 21st century problem. And we'll come up with a solution. What you're saying, you can't give me a reason. What you're saying, you're facing that. Just hear from Harris. You're basing that family life is important because it gives a higher fertility rate. Higher fertility rate means increasing population. When I ask you, what is the ideal population for the planet, you don't know that. You say, well, then you backtrack, and then you say, no. How could you know that? How can anyone know the ideal population for the planet? How can anyone know that? No, no. Human forecasts have actually said that. 10 billion people, the planet would not be able to handle that. OK, fine. 10 billion people. So what? OK, so 10 billion. So what happens then after 10 billion? You guys would start, if he lets you have your way, you'd be like, no, no, no, we want to have the same family system, and we want to make 20 babies still. So that would go from 10 billion to 15 billion. No, Islam is not like that. If there is a situation that requires overall muslaha. Oh, right. Are you aware of this, Harris? Do you have any knowledge of Islam? There's something called community decision making. If there are pressing global challenges or there are pressing problems, the imams and the sharia can accommodate that. It's called muslaha. It's called maqasid as sharia. These are things that are found in Islam. It's a very nuanced system that you have no appreciation of. That's why you're constantly straw manning. Look, your future is the future of people watching Netflix at home alone, masturbating, and ordering Uber Eats. That's your vision of the future, Harris. And you haven't proposed a single thing consistent with human rights that actually counters that. All right, let's give a chance to say it. You said muslaha. You said that your imams can sit down, and you really think that we're going to let the future of our world in the hands of imams. What makes you think that we don't have that? We have UN as well. We have the World Health Organization too. We have climate organizations too, who give good advice to scientists on good evidence, pretty much on the evidence that your imams are going to rely on. So we have that as well. We're also working on a solution. We have problems. We're working on solutions for them. Immigration comes in. And then obviously we know that at some point in China and India, their population is going to start declining too after 2060. So that's going to start happening. We know that. But again, we only look at it from the consumerist point of view, that for economies to keep growing, we need that. But the absolute critical would be 2.2, even if it goes down. And then the problem becomes that, OK, we have an aging population like it's the case in Tibet. So we know these problems exist. And that has got more to do with the fact that we have higher living standards. People, you could blame consumerism more than you want to blame human rights. Because human rights is simply the way we're talking about is improving the lives of people in reducing suffering. Unfortunately, you cannot understand that the ideas that Prophet Muhammad promoted are conducive to the well-being of human. And it plays no part in reducing suffering, maybe as collectively.   Yes, right. I mean, obviously maybe we have different means. You're talking about these international organizations, right? And they're planning. Yeah, let's talk about the plans of the World Economic Forum where they release this position paper that they say, by 2030, you will have no privacy. You will own nothing. And you will be happy. Like this is their vision of 2030. Every individual living in a pod and eating some kind of bug-based meats because actual beef is bad for the environment and climate supposedly. So let's have that vision of the future, that vision of the future that the World Economic Forum and the UN and all these experts, that's the vision that you're promoting, Harris. That's what you want for the future of humanity, this dystopia. And Muslims are just saying, I'm just saying, no, we don't want that future. We don't want a future where all cultures are destroyed, all religions are destroyed. You're just living in a pod by yourself and you have no family. You have no connections.  Muslims are just saying, we don't want that future for humanity and you're not proposing anything that contradicts that. We want four lives instead. And if my child turns out to be homosexual, he needs to be turned off the rooftop and that is what you're proposing, which is obviously- I made it very clear. There are rules that restrict individual liberty and full equality because those are not the only values and you can't propose anything. This was the Dalin's question and you haven't proposed anything. All right, let's- We'll go back to Harris for a couple of minutes. They're not the acceptable positions by your standards. This is, I may as well go and live in China then because if I have to take totalitarian views for collective good, then I can take some of their totalitarian views as well.  I mean, let's just go back to Sharia for a little bit, right? So, do you actually think Sharia is sacred? Do you think it's clear or it's open to interpretation? What do you think about Sharia? Like, I mean, you're defending Sharia. So, let's just talk about Sharia. Is it clear or it's open to interpretation? There are certain parts of it that are unequivocal. Patri is the actual term for that. And there are certain parts that are open to HD had where scholars, all of them can differ and they can use their reasoning based on Quran and Hadith and Qiyas, as well as Ijma to come to their conclusions. So, for example, in the Quran, we get something like 100, 250 rulings from the Quran. So everything else comes from Hadiths and from traditions. That is basically, you said some parts are absolute and some parts are open to Ijma. Well, I would say very few parts are confirmed absolute. The other ones are open to interpretation, which means it's subjective. So when we make an argument for objective morality, we're basically you're saying, you're only giving us some really basic rudimentary level of rulings that you say that they are absolute.  Slavery, sorry, slavery is fine in your worldview. Rape is bad, murder is bad, theft is bad. Surely we could. There's a lot of different directives, as I mentioned. You talk about eating bugs. So that just kind of triggered in my mind. Like, do you think snails are the halal or not? Because sharia is a lot more complicated than that because dietary requirements is considered either halal or it's haram and sharia means sharia is directly linked to your morality. So if you follow sharia, your moral, if you don't, your immoral, eating pig would be immoral because it's written in the Quran not to do it. But what about other things like let's say snail or a kangaroo, do you think snail is halal? So it will depend on which school of thought that you're following. Yeah, I mean, this is not, what is your point? My point is that it is open to interpretation. I said that, I acknowledge that. I acknowledge that. Yeah, so you're trying to put on something to us, then your system is not really that different from us as well. No, but the values that I mentioned. That it's constantly evolving. Why are imams, it's mar... You talk way more than two minutes, James, like what's the balance here? He's just going on and on rambling.  So I brought family, marriage, romance, love, I didn't get to the points about community, but that's also valuable because people value their way of life. And Islam has brought together all of these different cultures under Islam and they've preserved. Like I'm Persian. Persia was conquered by Arabs, by Arab Muslims and non-Arab too, because the original Muslim community was ethnically diverse, but it was conquered by Islam 1400 years ago. Yet Persia has retained its language, it's retained its culture. It's retained many aspects of its literature. That's because Islam is compatible with people preserving certain aspects, not all, because idol worship, for example, is not preserved. That's not allowed, but preserving certain aspects of culture over hundreds of years. And I'm living proof of that. You have Muslims who are Nigerian, who are Malaysian, who are Uyghur, who are Turkish, Dacey, Arab, all of these have maintained their ethnic and cultural traditions, but modernization leads to homogeneity, the extinction of languages, people who have completely been wiped off of the face of the earth, cultures that have been wiped off the face of the earth because of colonialism, because of this human rights regime that even today you have languages that are going extinct because of colonialism. So Islam is something that preserves community as well. This is an objective value. You're talking about snails and kangaroos. I'm talking about things that are affecting billions of people on this earth right now objectively, and you can't address any of those points. How are you going to preserve community? Islam has certain kinds of rules and regulations that preserve community as part of the sharia. But what do you have to offer? What does human rights offer? You haven't addressed that. And you haven't also addressed the fact that you're blaming, you're saying that people in Afghanistan are running to the airport and you're blaming the Taliban, you're blaming sharia because of that. But when you have people in El Salvador and Latin America who are literally risking their lives, the lives of their children to migrate to the United States from these human rights hellholes, you don't blame that on human rights. You don't blame that on LGBT rights and women's rights that are respected and practiced throughout Latin America. Why, Harris, are they risking their lives to migrate to the U.S.? That's another question, the Botswana question that you haven't really addressed. Well, I answered that before as well, that this is probably because one is because of the economic reasons. Oh, really? And the human rights violation reasons. Yes, of course. Why, how do you know? Why? Go ahead and hear us. I want to give Harris a couple of minutes. Sure. Weren't you the one who was quoting the GDPs of El Salvador and Botswana and United States? So of course, it's because of why everything has to be so binary with you guys. But no one in Afghanistan cares about economics. I want to give you a couple of minutes to hear us as well. Yes, let's just go without a kikachu. You've made multiple points and then you'll let me finish because there was another point as well before that. So this is very simple. Economic reasons, people, this actually shows us our longing for better lifestyle. And we would want to go to America. We would want to go to Europe. We would want to go to Australia and better countries so we can improve our lives. We can buy bigger houses. We can have less children, not four times two, meaning eight, not that many. We can give them good quality education, good food, good clothes, everything. This is human nature. We long for it and that's the reason why we have, yes, there might be consequence of falling birth rate. The same generation, same people from same community when they go to Western countries, even they start having less kids as well. So that is a side effect of it. But that's just the way it is. You think that what you replace it with, either take it or you don't, then sorry, we can't take that because Sharia doesn't just come with that. It does come. You laugh at kangaroos and snails, but there are so many other baggages that come with that too, such as homosexuals, the honor culture, wife beating, multiple wives, and not to mention really bad sense of fashion. Everything comes with it. So those are the things that, what did you ask earlier about, you said something else earlier about before this Barcelona problem. About community. You were asking me another question. Yeah, how does the human rights regime preserve community, preserve family, preserve marriage, these objective values? Are these objectives, do you think marriage is valuable? Well, as I said, the only reason is that we look at for the next generation. Yes or no, is it valuable or not? We look at, no, it's more complicated than that because we look at, we look at. It's possible that marriage is not valuable. Marriage and romance and love. No, no, romance and love might be, but no marriage, because marriage doesn't mean much. I mean, you can be a partner, you can be in a civil agreement with someone, and you can live with that marriage for 10 years. Those are the ones. No, they're not. They are, I cited all of the stats. I don't trust you, sorry. We'll have to look into it.  No, you're talking about. One out of four people, according to Pew, according to the stats I mentioned. Okay. Is sex valuable? We'll have it. Is sex valuable? Yes or no? Or is it complicated? Everything is complicated, right, Harris? No. Well, yeah, because not everything is binary though. Not everything is binary. Yes, sex is very valuable, and then sex is very interesting as well. Yeah, then it's declining. It's declining under human rights. Human rights, all these nations are, people are becoming celibate, permanently against their will. Not because of human rights. Not because of human rights, but because economic standards. I mean, we are becoming consumerism. You could talk about capitalism. Again, this is why I said, this is why I said it's complicated because there's so many things, it's not binary. You don't, you say that, okay, if we just bring sharia and Islamic values, all of a sudden people will be locked up inside houses and they'll be making babies and everything will be hunky-dory. No, that is not happening.  Muslims like sex, we like to reproduce. Alhamdulillah. We're men, right? We're not, we're actual men. We're not these kinds of soy boys. Liberal human rights advocates. We're men. We like to stay at our houses and have sex, actually, in marriages.  That is your definition of manhood. Because we like stable marriages, like 99% of other human cultures, like 99% of other human cultures that you want to wipe out. Primitive. That you want to wipe out. Yeah, wipe out the primitive people. Bomb them. No, I'm not saying for why. Genocide them. No, not people. Yeah, those primitive people. No, I said cultures. Dehumanize them. Genocide those primitive people. Good job, Harris. Cultures. You're an amazing human rights advocate. It's all gonna work. It's primitive people. It's not gonna work. I'm talking about the cultures being primitive and when those people come out. Yeah, those primitive cultures. When they step in and talk. When they, yes, so that's fine. Cultures, I don't care about that. But when they come out in the 21st century, they adopt modernism. When they come to the modern world, then that's good. Then everyone, whether they're from Botswana, or they're from El Salvador, or from India, or China, or Pakistan, wherever they go, I understand they go to America, or their own local countries become modern. That's fine because then we're not gonna expect 50% of our population to be obedient to us. Now that's your definition of manhood. I'm sorry. Yeah, you want everyone to be obedient to the totalitarian state. You want everyone to be obedient to the totalitarian technocratic state. You want all power monopolized by the central authority who can shove you in your pod and issue you social credits with constant surveillance, the system that we see in China, and that's being rolled out in the EU, in Europe, and now being considered in Canada and North America. This totalitarian system, that's what you want. That's consistent with human rights. That's what human rights ultimately leads to, right?  Yeah, that's the future that you're envisioning, Harris. It's not attractive to me. It's not attractive to me. I don't know about your Hindu or Christian followers, but I think they're starting to realize that what you're offering is this con, this hopes, and it's really scary actually. This is the terror of the modern liberal state. It's devolving, it's destroying the human race. Okay, I can see how my Hindus and Christian followers are like turning, they're saying the Shahada and they're converting to Islam very quickly. So you need to look up the meaning of, that dream will never come true, Daniel, because people are leaving Islam, not joining Islam. The only power, the only way you can keep Islam going is, as you said, be a man, keep making babies, but you need to look up. You need, no, you're not. No, you're not. You need to look up, you need to look up the meaning of totalitarian. I mean, you have totally- What's the meaning? What's the definition of totalitarian? I'm actually surprised, hang on a second. I'm actually surprised, I'm actually surprised that you actually didn't use in defense of slavery. You didn't use the example of modern day nine to five to all be slavery as well. You didn't use that because that's how you come up with these- That kind of argument is too sophisticated for you, Harris.   I can't educate you on all these things, Harris. Respond to the argument that I gave, not another debate. Stop writing Ape's coattails. Just respond to the argument that I gave.  You were so scared to actually use that. Yes, you were. Yeah, I'm so scared. I'm terrified of you, Harris.  I can see that. Let me have some questions now, Harris. So I know you haven't even let me, okay, go ahead, ask one question. No, because I actually forget because you go in so many different tangents that I actually forget about what you were asking me. So, Harris. You're an admirer of Richard Dawkins. You've called him your hero. You think he's this towering intellectual figure. He's actually praised your book. You've praised him. But he tweeted back in 2013, this tweet, all the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College Cambridge, okay? So what is this genius implying here?  So, Harris, explain to me, how many Nobel Prizes does Latin America have? How many Nobel Prizes does China and Sub-Saharan Africa have? How many Nobel Prizes does India have? And what's the discrepancy between the Nobel Prizes in the UK? Colonialism, right? So then tell Dawkins. No, I get it, that those countries are Colonials, but the other point is that you know, but we, the world world is in the golden age of Islam. Educate Dawkins, this is blaming Islam. You need to tell him that, no, this is because of colonialism. Even before, even before Nobel Prizes became a thing, even before that, when there was no colonialism, when Islamic color fate was in full flow, it did not match the levels of scientific revolution that West enjoyed or even the Islamic world enjoyed in the 10th and 9th and 10th centuries. And there was a whole scholarly work behind that, different opinions on that. Some people blame Genghis Khan, some people blame Al-Ghazali, whatever the reason was, but science or discovery in the Islamic world just went down. And unfortunately, it seems like, for example, when we just simply talk about evolution, we talk about evolution and when the Muslim scholarly, when Islamic, when universities in Muslim countries, when they don't even acknowledge evolution, how are we ever going to make any progress in the fields of biology? You could argue about physics and chemistry and we could hope that, but again, this would be, this would be, let me finish my point, man, very, this would come to a point that as Muslim countries advance as well, they get better, we get better economy in countries like Pakistan or Turkey or Saudi Arabia is modernizing, now Saudi Arabia is modernizing, we're getting better university, UAE is modernizing, better universities, then yes, UAE has put a probe, I'm happy for UAE, but that has also just come from modernism, not necessarily, not by reading the Quran or bringing Sharia back. I mean, people in Muslim countries are throwing Sharia out as well. But you conceded that Islam had a golden age of science, right? So it's not Islam, that's the problem, it's colonialism. Islamic world, Islamic world had it, Islamic world had it, not Islam course, it's like West Ham and Christian world have. So all the problems are blamed on Islam and all of the positive things are blamed on everything except Islam, that's the way that you're going about it, right? How's the principle? What directly comes from theology, it would be blamed on that, I mean, this- No, the theology is very clear, slavery sex, slavery, these come by beating, these kind of things come directly from Islam. Yes, they're good people. I responded to all of those points. You haven't responded to mine. You're saying that, you're saying, you acknowledge that Islam is not anti-Somians. Just pardon my interruption, but do want to mention we're going to go in just a short bit, we're going to go into the Q&A folks and at the live chat at Modern Day Debate, if you type in at Modern Day Debate, that helps it make it clear for me to see your question. We do have a lot though, in terms of the Q&A questions already, so no guarantees that we'll get to it, because we want to get our speakers out at a decent time, but go ahead, gentlemen, want to give you a chance to wrap up. Any last discussion? I think we'll, I think we should go to the questions as well, because I think we've only got 10, 15 minutes left. But anyway, I kind of enjoyed this conversation. I think there's probably a l