Published on Nov 12, 2019
About :

Hi guys,

I'm going to make another video covering this post by Daniel Haqiqatjou who is a conservative, a very conservative Muslim or some would say he is more conservative than average. But before I get into this video I'd like to say that this is an exclusive video, exclusive to 3Speak.. that's probably where you are watching this right now and the reason why @atheistrepublic is producing content exclusive to 3Speak is because it's one of the platforms where they really, really, really value freedom of expression.

We get flagged on YouTube, suspended on Twitter and our content on Facebook is in danger of being completely removed one day so content creators like us are always looking for alternative platforms but the reason why I am choosing @threespeak is because unlike these other places, it's not just that the people who are building @threespeak support freedom of expression, they are making it so that it's technically impossible for them to remove content.

It's blockchain technology, #steem and all that stuff but that's too much detail for a lot of you - Twitter used to be a place where people said "This is a freedom of expressions place.. everything is allowed" but when they grew a lot at some point they said "Oh well.. maybe not".

So all of these other new platforms that are coming out and saying "Hey this is the freedom of speech platform that you are looking for" at some point they might change their mind but when it comes to @threespeak, the blockchain technology that their using and some of the other things they are doing which is a bit too techy.. it's not like the other platforms where they could change their mind, the content that they put on @threespeak nobody will be able to remove it, it's just there forever and that's why I like it.

So this is exclusively for 3speak and it's going to be linked to and all of those other Steem-based places but let's just get into this post.

Again, this is Daniel Haqiqatjuo, he's an ex-Shia now Sunni Iranian Muslim which I have had discussions with before and I really like covering and reading his opinions because compared to other Muslims that I follow he is a lot more true to Islam and he makes the best case for his positions and again making the best case for Islam usually ends, for our audience, with conclusions that we find extremely troubling to say the least but his logic is so solid IF you accept the premises of Islam, that the so called moderate or liberal Muslims can't really take him down. He's pretty good at reasoning, relative to other Muslims at least.

I have noticed that now he has a post against some atheists which I disagree with, obviously, and you'll soon see why. He makes some, maybe some fair points, I'll try to be as charitable as possible.

Again, I'm not talking about whether or not the conclusions are right.. I'll get into it and you'll see. I'm going to criticize this the best I can. I'm going to try to respond to it and again, just because I say I like this guy's reasoning it doesn't mean that I endorse his conclusions.

Obviously I'm against his post but I just think that these are the best.. given how I've seen how well he's reasoned against moderate and liberal Muslims as a conservative Muslim I was very interested to see what he has to say against atheists in this post and I am pretty sure I'm going to disagree with it but I think he's better at reasoning than other Muslims.

It's a lot more well thought.. you are probably going to disagree with me and you'll be like "What the fuck is this @arminnavabi" but relative to other Muslims, this is a lot more interesting to criticize because there is some nuance to it and I appreciate it.. me and him are completely polar opposites when it comes to conclusions but every time I had a discussion with him it was pretty respectful and friendly.

And I think you can show that these discussions are possible, even with people who come up with conclusions that are completely different. I know people from my camp, the atheist and humanist camp might get very triggered by the fact that I say I like arguing with this guy given that.. oh.. btw, I'm on 3Speak so I can say this.

So this guy for example some of the things he defends is wife beating.. he defends having sex with children as young as 9 years old. He defends killing ex-muslims like me in an Islamic state and you might be like "Holy shit @arminnavabi if he defends those things how could you be endorsing him in any way?"

Well the thing is.. if you accept the premises of Islam than his conclusions are pretty solid. The disagreements that we have is that I don't agree with his conclusions because I don't agree with the premises of Islam. The premises and foundation of Islam I think is rotten and I disagree with him but if you accept the Hadith and you accept the Quran it's really hard to come up with different conclusions than what this guy is coming up with and this is what makes moderate Muslims and Liberal Muslims or whatever very uncomfortable because they don't have much against this guy.

But anyways, that's another topic, those are other topics, the debates that he has and the arguments he has against moderate Muslims are very interesting and if you want I can go over those but this is against atheists and it's also very fitting that I picked this one to go on 3Speak because it's about freedom of expression.

So let's see how it goes. So he starts by saying:

Every now and then a "brave" atheist..

And he put it in quotes..

mocks Islam...

And I agree with him. He puts it in quotes and I agree with him. Every time I'm criticizing Islam and someone comments and says "Oh @arminnavabi you're so brave" it makes me cringe "Like what are you talking about? I'm just typing my opinions. It doesn't take that much bravery to mock Islam".

At least talk about atheists and ex-Muslims in Bangladesh or even in Indonesia, in Saudi Arabia or Iran, if they are criticizing Islam while living there that is fucking brave okay, I'm not that brave.

So it's really cringe-worthy when people say "@arminnavabi you are so brave for criticizing Islam so openly" because it doesn't take that much bravery to mock Islam okay. So I agree with his quote & quote.

Burns pages from the Islam.

Guilty (I did that).

Publishes a cartoon insulting the prophet, etc. and justifies his attacks by saying that he is demonstrating the value of free speech.

So yeah. Sometimes we burn the Quran and sometimes we go out of our way to be insulting when we see people saying "Oh we want to pass community standards or rules to limit what you can say" then we go out of our way to be more insulting, I'd say that's fair to push against those standards.

I'm not trying to demonstrate the value of free speech I'm trying to demonstrate the values of having limited censorship. And the reason why I say it's not necessarily the value of free speech is that if it's not a Government that is trying to shut you down then you're not really fighting for free speech, okay.

If it's Facebook shutting you down. YouTube shutting you down. Community Standards shutting you down then you are fighting against censorship that's fair but you're not really fighting for free speech because free speech you know, private companies censoring you, isn't violating your free speech rights.

You know, I'm against censorship and I think allowing people to say what they want on these platforms is something we should fight for but just because I think it's a shitty idea I don't go as far as to say my free speech rights have been violated.

The only way that my free speech rights have been violated is in a situation where a Government comes and either imprisons me, kills me, threatens me or fines me in any way for my opinions or expressions and, or if people are coming after me to threaten me or you know abuse me in any way and the Government on purpose doesn't protect me because of the speech that I expressed. so the Government has to be involved somehow for it to be a free speech issue.

If the Government isn't involved than it is an anti-censorship position, not a free speech position. Then Daniel continues, he says:

Then he explains..

The quote & quote "brave" atheist:

In the free and enlightened West

He's not talking about me. I don't say West. I support enlightenment values and I don't think the West does or should have a monopoly over enlightenment values. So it's not really about a West vs. East kind of thing.

I think countries like Japan or South Korea or Hong Kong have demonstrated that they have accepted enlightenment values and it has made those countries progress a lot faster than countries that haven't. Take South Korea vs. North Korea as an example.. they are not Western countries.

So he continues:

In the free and enlightened West there is this gold principle called free speech, that allows us to publicly say whatever we want about anything, no matter how offensive closed-minded Muslims might find it.

Closed minded Muslims might find it.. well I don't just say that about closed-minded Muslims I say that about closed-minded everybody including a lot of people on the far left and a lot of people on the far right that get triggered by these things and want to shut you down.

Anyways, I do agree it's a free speech issue if it's in public spaces. And I do fight for that. In public spaces you should be able to say whatever the fuck you want as long as it's not inciting violence, as long as you're not shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater and as long as it cannot be classified as a scam.

For example, if you hold up a bottle and say "This cures your cancer" and it doesn't and you sell it to people you can't just say "It's my free speech" since that's a scam and you shouldn't be allowed to sell it to people.

Other than those scenarios I can't think of any other scenarios, maybe spreading lies about other people, yeah, maybe four categories - those are my four limitations for freedom of speech. So he continues:

And he argues that we must be as offensive as possible because the more offensive we are, the more we demonstrate how free and liberated we are from authority - the more we demonstrate our belief that nothing is sacred.

Yeah I agree with that. That describes me but you don't have to be offensive if no one is trying to limit your freedom. Don't just go being offensive because you want to be offensive. Don't be offensive for the sake of being offensive, be offensive if people are now using offense as a way to limit your freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

  • Do not just go being offensive for the sake of being offensive. Go out and be offensive if people are using being offended as a way to limit your freedom of speech.

That's what I'd say. I don't know if I want to get into an example because then this video might get too long. I will give an example if it is necessary later.

Whenever an atheist or liberal secularist in the West gives you this dumb lecture..

Now he's talking about me. I'm giving this "dumb lecture".

Simply ask if he is willing to demonstrate the beautiful and inviolable principle of free speech by publicly denying or mocking the Holocaust.

This is another reason why I have to put this on @threespeak because mentioning the Holocaust on YouTube, even if you are defending and on the right side of History, YouTube doesn't like it. That's why we are on @threespeak right now.

So he thinks that if we are for free speech then ask us to mock the Holocaust and watch us squirm. Well I'm not squirming and this is a little pathetic but I'll admit, people on our side do this as well. Some people on @atheistrepublic do this as well and they say things like "Well ask a religious person this.. and watch them as their face turns red or something".

No, a lot of people would have a good answer, or they would at least think they have a good answer and would not feel ashamed or disturbed at all. This is such an easy way to "destroy" your opponent by just imagining, instead of actually debating someone, you just create a hypothetical scenario where they are just squirming and they were like "Oh you just defeated me".

It's already cringy when you come up with an example that has actually happened, it's even more cringy when you come up with an example that is just imaginary where an atheist is imagined to think "Oh I was just defeated" Oh come on, are you serious?

Anyways, before I continue, what would I say to that? Am I going to deny the Holocaust to prove my point on free speech. Well here's the thing. I would have if I didn't believe the Holocaust was real, but I'm not going to lie about something. I'm not going to say something I don't believe in.

Even when I am being offensive for the sake of free speech the things I say are the things that I think are true. I'm not just going to lie. I'm not going to spread falsehood for the sake of free speech.

So if I am going to say something insulting about Muhammad like oh Muhammad fucked a child or raped a child. Well he did. He raped a child. People find it offensive or they say I shouldn't say that but it's the truth. Or it's the truth that it is in the Islamic Canon.

Technically we don't know since the Hadith was written many years after Muhammad's life but according to the Islamic Canon, Muhammad raped a child okay? He did and I believe it. And I will say it because I believe that. If people think that's offensive and they don't want to hear it I will say okay I won't say it in front of you. But if you now try to stop me from saying it then I will say it even more because your strategy of trying to censor needs to backfire.

And the things Daniel says about my strategy of saying things that are offensive is true but I will say things that I believe are true. I'm not going to say things that are false just to be offensive. But to prove you wrong Daniel, at least about some of us atheists, I'm not representing atheists and I am not representing atheism as a whole, I will defend the right of Holocaust deniers, I will defend their right to deny the Holocaust. I will do that on @threespeak and other platforms, not on YouTube, and I agree that there is hypocrisy and there is a limitation of some sort of speech, even speech that I disagree with, some speech is being limited.

Because there is speech that I disagree with, especially around the Holocaust, I'm not going to fight for free speech by saying it myself, because it is something I disagree with. However I have many times, advocated for these idiots, ignorant people who are denying the Holocaust the right to deny the Holocaust as much as they want.

I don't think we should fight for the truth by denying people the right to freedom of expression, even if we the think they are spreading falsehood. I don't think that's the right way of spreading truth. You fight bad ideas with good ideas. You shouldn't fight bad ideas by limiting the expression of bad ideas.

It doesn't work. It just doesn't work. And by giving people authority to decide what can be said and what can't, those people in authority can actually turn against truth.

Instead of letting positions of authority to decide what's true and what's not true we should let the marketplace of ideas decide what is true and what's not. Neither authority or the marketplace of ideas is perfect but one is much, much better and that's the marketplace of ideas.

I would rather have the marketplace of ideas decide what is true than any government, any government. And that is why I think the Holocaust deniers should be able to not only say that they don't believe in the Holocaust, but also promote it, have lectures on it and give classes on it.

It is actually a good thing that they do that since we will then see it as such a big problem and will then be able to respond to it. The issue is that when you suppress expression it drives it underground and it isn't addressed. And it's actually been happening.. look at Germany.

Germany banned Holocaust denying and look at Germany, did it stop Holocaust deniers? The far right is actually increasing in Germany. So it didn't fuckin work. I didn't work. It didn't work.

Daniel thought he had a "Gotcha moment" he thought "Just get them to deny the Holocaust and watch them squirm" well I didn't squirm and I am not afraid. Well I am afraid to lose YouTube accounts or Facebook accounts so I'll admit that and I agree with you that whoever is controlling these things are hypocrites and I'm against their censorship but I will find other ways.

I'm on @threespeak and I'll find other ways.. but the reason why I don't deny the Holocaust is not because I'm afraid to deny the Holocaust but because I don't think Holocaust denying makes any sense. That's the reason. So you are making it seem like this is something sacred for us but there is nothing that I have held my opinions back on.

I have gotten myself in so much shit by saying so many things that even people on my side think is taboo because if I think things are true I will fuckin say it and if it's taboo, just like for the reasons you said above, I will say it even more.

So if you think I am not going to talk about the Holocaust I am going to talk about it even more. I am going to fight against Holocaust deniers and I actually have a video but it is on hold since I don't have enough money to pay for editors and all that stuff and I have way too much work to do it myself.

Actually we just recently hired an editor so it might come out soon. I actually went to Auschwitz and I have the raw footage of my counterpoints to Holocaust deniers and instead of censoring Holocaust deniers I think that is the right way to do it.

Anyways, let's get back to it. He continues:

Then sit back and watch them squirm.

Today you will find the bastion of freedom expression Charlie Hebdo magazine in France insult almost every religion with it's crude, disgusting portrayals of Jesus, etc. but they never mocked anything related to that particular historical event.

Okay so Daniel you think you had your gotcha moment... I have a gotcha moment back. Because of how I have alienated a lot of people from our own community by going after Judaism as a religion. I call it a barbaric, crazy, disgusting, violent ideology and I have been accused of being an anit-semite many times.. a diet nazi.. a far right racist and I agree with you about going after Judaism so I agree with you that a lot of people in the secular world are extremely sensitive against going after Judaism as a religion.

Even though.. I go after it as a religion rather than as Jews as people.. I don't do that, right? No matter how many times I clarify it every time I go after Judaism and btw it is also an issue and it is an issue going after Islam.

Here's the thing, when you go after Islam people call you racist, bigoted and it's absolutely insane that people call you racist for going after Islam as a religion since Islam is not a race and it is not even bigoted since we aren't even attacking Muslims we are attacking Islam as an ideology. I think most Muslims are great I just have a problem with Islam.

But I tell people with all the shit we have to deal with regarding accusations of being bigoted for going after Islam that problem is even greater when going after Judaism for two reasons.

  • ONE. the word "Jew" refers to both an ethnicity and a religion.

So I tell people to imagine how much harder it would be to go against Islam if the world Muslim and Arab were the same. Every time we'd say the word Muslim it would get construed as referring to an Arab, the ethnicity and that is the problem we are having with going after Judaism.

When you say Jewish, you could be referring to an ideology, theology or a group of people so you have to clarify it every fuckin time and Judaism is a religion that promotes race supremacy. The chosen people the Jewish are the chosen people and even if now if you go to the Talmud not just to the Bible it gets even worse. This is a religion that promotes slavery of non-Jews.

At the end of times apparently all non-Jews are going to become slaves of the Jews. Apparently non-Jews are animals so if you are against white supremacy, you should be against Judaism by the same principles.

  • Judaism is a race supremacy religion.

And I say that. And I admit to you Daniel that a lot of people in my camp are not going to say that.. it's too much of a taboo topic for them and I agree that in the so called free world this double standard exists and every time I have to remind people that listen, this is not about the Jewish people.

Most Jewish people don't believe in that fuckin non-sense. In fact, Jewish people as a group have the highest number of secular and atheists among them than any other group of people so in fact Jewish people are way more advanced against these barbaric ideas than other groups of people and not only that, but even the religious Jewish people don't believe in that fuckin nonsense, just like the religious Muslims who do not believe everything in the Quran, and the religious Christians who don't believe everything in the Bible, religious Jews don't believe in the barbaric ideas of Judaism.

For example, if you ask most Muslims "Do you think it's okay for you to beat your wife" they'll say "Fuckin hell no, what are you talking about?".. well you would say you know in the Quran it says you should beat your wife if she misbehaves but most Muslims are better than Islam, and if you ask a Christian if they think that women should be banned from teaching or speaking in church they would not agree, even though it says so in the New Testiment of the Bible that women should be silent in church, and just listen and not teach (so most Christians are better than Christianity).

So if that's true for Christians and Muslims, how much more true would it be for Jews as a people who make up the most secular and atheist group of people. Their religious people are a lot better than their religious texts too.

So let's continue:

Or how about all these brave atheists and "ex-Muslim"

Oh.. he forgot to put brave in quotes.. wait.. he put ex-Muslim in quotes. I think he put "ex-Muslims" in quotes because he thinks it's impossible that I was a "true" Muslim before I became an ex-Muslim. A lot of us ex-Muslims get that accusation of not having been a real Muslim before. For some reason some Muslims think it's impossible to ever become a real ex-Muslim.

murtaddin who puff their chests and tell us about how oppressed they are while spewing the most vile words against Islam.

Well I could tell you. I'm an ex-Muslim and I'm not oppressed in any way. And I do think that the ex-Muslims that live in a free country should stop although they are sometimes abused by their families but I was never abused so I don't claim that I was a victim, I don't claim that i'm oppressed but it's really shitty that you make light of the many ex-Muslims who are oppressed, the ones living in Islamic countries. It's very shitty of you to make light of that. You must admit that ex-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in Bangladesh in Egypt, do you think their experiences are fake?

Do you think they are not oppressed? You know that it's not fun to be an ex-Muslim living in those countries. You must know that. So if I claim oppression that should be called out since I am not oppressed and I would agree and I know of some ex-Muslims that exaggerate how oppressed they are while living in free countries and I'd agree with you if you were referring to that, but it's not true for most ex-Muslims since most ex-Muslims still live in an Islamic country.

Daniel continues:

Why don't they extend the scope of insult and demonstrate "true" freedom? Why this limit to their willingness to offend? Why this selectivity? Are some things truly sacred for them?

Well if anything can be close to what you consider sacred. I would not call anythying sacred but if anything is like what you consider sacred we have feelings like that about what is true. And the reason why we don't deny the Holocaust at least why I don't is because denying it would be false.

If course, I'm not advocating anyone publicly mock war and genocide.

Well that's nice.. I didn't think you were, okay.

But that's because of my religious principles coupled with the fact that I find the whole liberal argument for free speech and the connection between insult and freedom stupid and incoherent.

Well you haven't demonstrated that at all here because as I mentioned that's not the reason why I won't deny the Holocaust. If you think something you came up with destroyed our whole argument you haven't. If I thought that the Holocaust didn't happen I would go after it as well. To be fair though I am not as brave as some atheist activists in Bangladesh or Saudi Arabia so if the Government would come after me for it I would not go after Judaism but I am not being a hypocrite because the reason why I go after Islam in free countries is because the Government doesn't go after me there.

So I think the consequences of going after Islam in free countries is low enough for someone like me to go after Islam but I do not claim or pretend to be as brave as any other atheist activists. So if the Government would go after me for denying the Holocaust I would not deny it even if I believed it was false but I wouldn't go after Islam in a country where I'd be jailed for it too so I am being completely consistent and the reason why I am not denying the Holocaust is solely because I believe it actually happened.

It is really easy to prove that what you are saying is false since your statement implies that all atheists would squirm and not be able to answer.. all I need is one example of an atheist who doesn't squirm from comments on the Holocaust (i.e. Me).

The free speech extremists, however, have to explain their arbitrary limits. They can't.

I did explain my limits. If the consequences of freedom of speech is losing my livelihood I am willing to stand up for freedom of speech and risk that but if if the threat is jail time I am not willing to experience jail time for freedom of speech but I admit that I am not as brave as other activists.

The real question, then, is who decided what is or is not off limits for mockery? Are the edgy satirists at Charlie Hebdo and the atheists in the West really bucking authority and demonstrating their freedom?

There is not really a big authority that I am saying fuck you to since I don't have a boss and I am a full-time activist but going against Judaism does seem like I am going against some form authority since Facebook and YouTube doesn't like content criticizing Judaism.

If they are as principled and brave as they constantly tell everyone.

Come on Daniel. You are making it so easy to disprove you. Here is a tip, instead of generalizing all atheists maybe use the word "often", "most" or "many" so that it's much harder to disprove your statements as false.

I don't consider myself brave at all and I've said that.

Why don't they move passed the soft targets and publish something truly obsene.

Well I have. I have said things that many people in my camp wouldn't have been able to say. You have seen this Daniel and you actually highlighted one of the things I said stating that it shows the immorality of atheists. I go out of my way to find taboos to push against and these are taboos against my fellow atheists, my fellow activists and I say them because they are taboo and I think they are true. Those are my two conditions for fighting for free speech, #truth and #taboo.

If you think Judaism is a very sensitive topic that most people don't push against I agree with you there. And that's why the taboos about Judaism I pick is not denying the Holocaust since I believe the Holocaust happened but I call out Judaism as a barabaric religion instead since it's the Jewish theology itself that I am going after.

You will find that they too are not willing to commit blasphemy against their gods.

Again. These are topics that I cannot publish on YouTube. The red lines on YouTube and social media doesn't allow any accusations of anti-semitism or trasphobia, even if the accusations are false, but this is going to backfire since using false accusations of people being anti-semetic or trasnphobic will hurt people who are truly victims of anit-semetism and transphobia.

Anyways I talked enough. Let me know what you guys think in the comment section. Big shout out to Chris who is helping me with this platform. Check out 3speak guys. I think this is a better platform compared to other platforms like Minds or Bitchute because it is based on blockchain technology where your freedom of expression is mathematically guaranteed. I don't think those other platforms can claim that.

Btw, blockchain technology is not just about cryptocurrencies it is also about building social media platforms apparently. Thank you to whoever built this platform.

Tags :

atheistrepublic atheism islam muslim religion


More Videos