Harris Sultan is the Ali Dawah of the Ex-Muslim world.

Reminds me of 2 desi uncles arguing over politics 🤣 😂

Honestly, Harris is incredibly stubborn. Adding presentism to his arguments is silly. If abolishing slavery had nothing to do with Industrialization and everything to do with how benevolent modern neo liberal society is, why weren't African Americans given full rights until the 1970s? In addition, women's rights increased labor force participation which greatly boosted the economies of Europe and America. If it had the opposite effect, women would not have the rights they have today, not that I agree with that, but just pointing out something that should be obvious to Harris.

Wow Javed is actually an excellent debater when not debating Hadith. Mashallah this complete dismantling of that failed actor was an art!

I’ve been listening to this conversation while driving til and from work and as an atheist myself I would recommend Sultan read some more history books because Hashmi is picking his arguments apart piece by piece. It helped me understand our past and especially the myth which many ‘new atheists’ hold in regards to “the age of reason/the enlightenment”. And even in the philosophical department Sultan needs further deepening.

I am an atheist by Harris didn't hold himself well. I actually agree with alot of what he was saying or trying to say but he was not articulating it well.

Dr. Hashmi, He is not there yet to debate with you with references. I wish you could have muted your mic when he started belittling you. I have been listing to your work and appreciate it. Nonetheless, at least I got his approach to activism for societal reform. However, it is necessary to understand why people like him have to build their rejection argument based on hostility and condescension.

A very good video, good content as always ! Keep up

It would be better to have a moderator and have time limits for each speaker to give their views.

Came to see Javad interview Sam Harris, ended up getting low-budget emotional atheist Harris Sultan. 😢

Tbh, I didn't enjoy the debate because minus a moderator it turned out to be quite unpleasant at times. Dr Hashmi's prepared remarks were thorough and accurate. So, Congratulations. Talking about ontological and cosmological arguments off the cuff isn't easy, so it was amusing to see an amateur like Sultan run himself into circles. Overall, for me, the debate had no high moments - it veered between noisy back and forth and foul invective. Full marks to Dr Hashmi for being gracious towards the end. Moderators next time, please.

Here’s the frustration. Enlightenment was not anti religion, it was pro liberal democracy. The point is that religion and liberal secular democracies can co-exist. Liberal Muslims don’t want theocracies either, they want freedom of religion not atheism. There is racism, sexism and homophobia among both atheists and religious believers. It is disingenuous to suggest that religion is the reason. None of us want religious fundamentalism. Liberal Western democracies aren’t atheist, the dominant religion remains Christianity and you need to look at what is happening in the US if you think the religious right is not powerful. The State needs to be neutral on religion everywhere but the secular, liberal democracy will be colored by the dominant religion of the majority population. Ethics and human rights evolved from religion too.

Dr Jawad, your patience was admirable! Truly appreciate your academic approach to the subject matter 🙏

Great discussion guys👍Things got heated towards the end but these things happen. We are but fallible creatures. Hope to see you do it again.

Ibn Sina's Kalam cosmological argument, loooool gold

As an atheist, I find myself agreeing more with you, except on the part towards the end where you reverted to calling him a bigot, there I found myself agreeing with Harris - values matter. If you let people with the same mentality as Haqiqajou (regardless of their skin complexion) you'll end up with a theocracy when they're the majority. But overall you did a good job, subscribed. I dislike new atheists as much as religious fundamentalists.

Harris Sultan is a certified Dawkins worshipper lol

this needed a moderator

Sorry, Dr. Hashmi, but I could barely get through this. You were brilliant, of course, but a moderator was sorely needed.

" I'm not interested in it", "I don't care about it" "it's a bad argument" "you modernists"" I got your point" "fringe view"@37:10 Harris already downgraded his claim from God does not exist to his existence cannot be fully proven or denied, to basically agnostic atheist, it seems to me he neither has the patience nor can he focus long enough to listen to a detailed, complicated argument, I came here looking for some good representation of atheism but it's disappointing really, he doesn't realize he's doing disservice to his own group, sorry to say, and no disrespect to Harris Sultan, this is not a debate between two intellectually equal individuals, Harris, from my POV, lacks the intellectual depth to have any debate with a learned person, let alone a scholar.....not saying he cannot be a scholar some day, he'll needs to grow up, he cannot help but take arguments personally instead of dealing with them academically,,,,,,this is why choosing who you debate with is sometimes as important as the debate itself, Dr. Javad, should have this debate with a learned atheist, who can actually substantiate his/her claim, that said I will read Haris Sultan's book.

This was not a well-matched debate. Jawed is an academic and better versed with critical thinking. Harris seemed too emotional to accept criticism for his book and ideas. I think Harris could have listened and been more open, he could have improved the quality of his arguments. I’m an ex-Muslim.

Harvard graduate vs a table....

Sir Please Add Urdu subtitles Also need too because in Pakistan Many people's not understand English

This Harris guy claims to have picked up my book, "God, the Evolver: A Secular Approach to the Divine" but when I asked for his feedback he ghosted me lol

What an embarrassment, the atheist guy did not read any books before this conversation.

This channel needs to grow

great discussion, though I think the conversation would've flowed better if you didn't interrupt Harris as much. It did make it difficult to watch because I always wanted to see Harris explain his reasoning, even if unreasonable.

You did a tremendous job dr Javad overall. You demonstrated to the world how to expose a charlatan.

You had an upper hand. I request you ask for second debate/ discussion with a moderator. Plz make a video in which you invite him for another *polite* discussion. This is the time to finish his career.

2:17:27 Yes women’s rights are basic and Harris needs to read Islamic feminists. Human rights evolve over time and the same Quran is interpreted in different ways by different people at different times. This is why we say the Quran is for all times. Quran is the Guide to a better society. It is up to humans to make a perfect society. That’s where free will comes in. ISIS and Taliban are not created by Quran they are created by human beings and their mistakes and misinterpretations of the Divine Message. Would there be a Taliban or ISIS without poverty, lack of education, patriarchy, American and Soviet invasions? When we marginalize people we fuel anger and all they have is religion to use as a weapon. The Quran is compatible with secular democracy which includes freedom for all religions and no religion provided human rights are not violated. This is what many progressive Muslims want.

Academics will speak like academics if you treat them like academics. He's here, at the end of it all saying "wrap it up, you are stupid" and not letting his opponent finish a sentence through out the debate without interrupting with some mumbling. Your ideas were useful in what we can call the 'Richard Dawkins era' and could be seen as a kind of 'revolution.' What Hashmi is doing is offering a counter-argument to new-age atheist myths, using historical, sociological, and philosophical perspectives to bridge the gap between those myths and the realities of the function of religious grouping that could be realized through Islam. He sees it as an evolving entity and views its operationalization through the ages mostly as a human creation, like any other world religion.

Harris sultan was so embarrassing in this, he kept complaining about being interrupted when he was the one who would constantly interrupt and raise his voice, he is also ignorant about scholarly works and statistics.

Dr javad kicked this guys ass, most of his arguments are emotional

No use arguing with Harris Sultan. It was disappointing to listen to him.

One thing I can say about Javad is that he is a true academic and I can state that because he is always always prepared with slides and notes. People he debates tend to just wing it with very basic notes and slides.

Only thing wrong in this debate was lack of moderators. Otherwise everything was fine. The opponent got an excuse to complain that he was interrupted

Atheïsm is a religion too and has it's fundamentalists.

Here's an issue when people bring up the Enlightenment 1) Slavery persisted and expanded during and post Enlightenment period ? How many wars were fought during and after the enlighten? How many Pogroms took place? The most bloodiest battles were where?

Now that was thoroughly entertaining; and honestly if this is what Javad is going to bring to the KZfaq discourse, I can’t wait for more, however as much as I’d like to see Javad counter Islamophobes, I’d particularly like to see Javad debate traditionalist Muslims as well - Haqiqatjou or Hijab. On this particular conversation, I think one thing that is apparent that whenever new atheists talk to rationalist (what Javad calls philosophical or liberal) religious people, they no longer have that worst caricature of a medieval dogmatic literalist fundamentalist dead horse that they want to keep beating. Unfortunately in this dialogue we never got to see the rational religion vs atheism debate we came to see and instead as the new atheists do every time they turn to social implications of literalist religion which is not what the rationalist Muslim is defending - so we never got to see rationalist religion vs new atheism debate and this option as usual is brushed aside. Harris knows I do support ex-Muslims having a voice that challenges dogmatic forms of religion, however on the issue of Truth, morality, spirituality, hands down Javad has the upper hand. Javad killed it, can’t wait to see more. Also on the motion that religion necessarily stifles science, great job @ Javad.… I think when it got heated that’s what made it entertaining, please bring the assertiveness every time and do not tone it down!

Polygamy was allowed for certain historical context not for all times.

If I had to make a suggestion, may be invite Harris Sultan (and Abdullah Samir so he doesn't feel he is being ganged up on) again but this time for a conversation on Ayats of the Quran and have several academics if I had to name a few names Dr. Gabriel Said Reynolds, Dr Emran El- Bedwai and Dr Hythem Sidki. I think a conversation with academics will just make them realise how little they actually know.. Obviously, you'd be a better judge of which guests should come.

Could you two do a show with Claire Khaw, the secular koranist?

I loved this debate. It was ‘real’ as oppose to the false ‘nicety’s’ that allow people like Harris and Spencer to get away unchallenged. Thank you Dr Hashmi, your points were brilliant and rattled the opponent. Sadly, I don’t think he was open to listening. And at times didn’t have the intellectual capacity to understand. It was a mismatch but hopefully will get some confused Muslims verging on new atheism to reconsider after seeing Harris get destroyed. We appreciate your great work that will benefit future generations Inshallah.

Shouting, raising your voice and being argumentative does not mean that you are right. It's suppose to be a dialogue, give Dr Javad a chance to speak.

This is the problem with academics debating arrogant laymen. They will get you frustrated to the point where you will lose composure. But unfortunately they get all the attention and views on KZfaq. Sad! Complete annihilation.

Do Apostate Prophet next!

I am going to repeat a comment that I posted under Harris video: Dr. Javad, if you're reading this, as an undergrad in psychology that has done a literature review on religion and wellbeing, I can tell you that you are wrong about the benefits of religion to the society. If you or anyone wants, I can provide the references. Point: 2:24:57 you stated: "Study after study has shown that religious people in general compared to people who are atheist or non religious or non practicing, even religious people who are not practicing. Religious people who are observant.......have higher rates of happiness" Response: - It's true that religious people tend to self report higher wellbeing compared to non-religious people. But studies that found this, had a vague definition of "non-religious" as they lumped atheists, agnostics, spiritual people, less religious people etc. all into this one category. Later studies accounted for this limitation and found that atheists (defined as people that do not believe in god and are convinced in this conviction) had the same level of well-being as religious people. People that reported poor well-being were agnostics, spiritual, and less religious people. One explanation is that strong conviction in atheists and highly religious people reduces cognitive dissonance and thus, reduces emotional arousal. -It is worth noting that these largescale studies always use self-report measures. These measurements are questionable in this specific case because literature on moral psychology from decades ago (still consistent with current studies) have shown that highly religious people are prone to socially desirable reporting: a bias to report whatever presents them favourably to others rather than reporting actual tendencies. Non-religious people are not prone to this bias. So the results of the studies you brought up could easily be explained as religious people reporting a bias to look good and thus not reporting less wellbeing if they're experiencing it. -Another limitation for these studies is that they were conducted in populations that are majority religious. So the less wellbeing effects in non-religious people can be explained by them simply being a minority and thus being excluded from the group. There is support for this explanation as when you measure well-being in societies that are not majority religious, the religious benefit on well-being diminishes. This is called the person-culture fit hypothesis. Point: You later on talk a little about religion and philanthropy/pro-social behaviour. Is there a link? yes and no. Response: -religious people tend to be pro-social only towards in-groups. not out groups. A muslim is much more likely to be pro-social to another muslim than a christian or atheist. -religious people tend to be prejudiced against out-groups. In fact, it is a well-known finding that religious people disproportionally tend to be racist (most of those studies were done in US). Is racism or prejudice a prosocial behaviour? No. And these studies had behavioural measurements. While self-reporting however, the religious people tended to report positive attitudes but their behaviour showed the contrary. -I could go on about how religiosity leads to maladaptive schemas that lead to OCD symptoms, and the fact that agnostic individuals tend to be less prejudiced and more prosocial than religious people because they do not have an extrinsic motivation, but an intrinsic one to behave morally.

Dr Jawad is a very descent guy. He is so sweet and polite. I am shocked how Harris behaved with him. Its so disappointing

"Pakistani Muslim society is better than the society 1400 years ago." I can only laugh. 😅

I'm an Atheist and I really appreciate a lot of the content you create. I really did not like the way Harris Sultan behaved in this debate nor did I think he represented Atheist positions at all well. His inability to acknowledge when you made good points and to admit his errors made what could have been a constructive discussion into a shouting match. Not impressed with Harris' bad manners or arguments at all, whereas you came across as a tolerant, polite and respectful person. As-salamu alaykum

One thing i didn't like about this discussion debate or whatever one call it is that Harris was using his activism as an excuse for being rude towards Dr Jawad and Dr also went overboard sometime and in the end i would say Although Harris may sound clever but in essence he is not he just wanted to impose his idea islam on other and then he want them to defend that which himself dosen't belive and majority as well

Harris made me hear the, "fcuk u, fcuk u, fcuk u,.. " as in the Indian accent meme. The "four-horse-men" era of atheism is out dated bro. Well done Hashimi for trying to bring out a much deeper understanding of Islam 🍉🫒❤️

And in disproving the existence of god, Harris goes "Oh my god" :D

16:27 .. opening salvo from Javad was good but Harris has given a good response. It’s about equal right now.

Haris bigotry destroyed beyond belief. His anger proves it. Can we raise some funds to educate Haris though. He needs it so badly.

As an ex Muslim from Pak, I have a high regard for Dr Hashmi, I sincerely hope this is the path of the future Islamic direction. Islam needs reforms in order to take its place in modern times. As for the debate, next time pick on someone your size doc 😅

Not gonna lie, when you bought up his childish argument about “who created God then?”, I almost snorted my coffee out my nose 😂 this alone shows his level of thought

This guy wrote his books by reading internet forums or social media rather than reading books

A well educated man talk about a subject matter whom he truly studies vs a noone know what his creadiantial talk about subject matter. It's better to talk with someone who is educated and not stubborn

Thanks Sir Dr Jawad for being Muhammad Ali The Black Superman❤

Haris Sultan's ki Bajadi🤣 How do an actor and a scholar argue?

Salam! This is a big one 😆: First of all, this is a very entertaining discussion, though a debate format might be better suited for these types of disputes. I'm genuinely curious about what exactly the connection between the sexual revolution and atheism is. It comes up briefly but doesn't seem to return. It seems like a tenuous connection at best, at least based on my knowledge and understanding of the so-called "revolution". What exactly is the supposed link? Also, even though I don't think I agree with Sultan's main point, if he refines his argument to target extremist interpretations of Islam, while also challenging them with more "moderate" interpretarions, I think he would do the "reformists" a favor as well, since the more reactionary strains of Islam also target us (so-called "modernists/progressives/reformists") and are the worst in terms of erasing the diversity of thought within the ummah at large. Ultimately the difference in ideology between you and Sultan heavily favors your position. It's the crude "idealism" of Sam Harris vs the more historically critical, almost "dialectically materialist" approach. The latter imo is superior for the fact that it is able to recognize itself as "ideologicaly stratisfied". It's in a sense, an ideology of "self awareness". In addition to this, I think there is humility in it (Allahu Alim), *and an unspoken understanding that we haven't yet reached the "end of history" ("akhira"). I did appreciate Sultan's subtle anti-capitalist closing remarks, where he did make some interesting points regarding the future economy. Though they surely aren't the last words on the topic. On a side note, I'm really curious about that thesis on the meaning of Kitab. I've held my own views on the concept, and don't take issue with the idea that the Qur'an is "perfect" in the sense of being as good as it can be at the time and place of revelation. The ethos presented in the Qur'an give the believers a glimpse into a perfect mind (so to speak). We can reach, though perhaps mever grasp, at least in this dunya. That "subtext" is what we should be striving for, rather than settling for the immediate surface understanding. Who was the scholar wrote the thesis though? Was it Khalil Hamdani? I'd really like to read that. I wanted to add some thoughts about the latter half of the discussion (the messiest portion 🙃). First, I'm curious where you read that people who married as virgins have happier marriages. Did I hear you correctly? The portion on divorce rates isn't terribly surprising considering for instance that divorce is forbidden in Roman Catholicism and virginity (especially female virginity) is highly upheld in "traditional" Catholic cultures. Most virgins, or people *claiming to be virgins (the shame associated with pre-marital sex encourages dishonesty) who marry today I would presume come from extremely conservative religious backgrounds/cultures which discourage divorce even in the case of abuse, which imo isn't actually a good reflection of religious values. Furthermore, aside from sexual history, another study I read suggests that atheists and Catholics are at the lowest end in terms of divorce rate at only 21%, while another suggests that Muslims have a lower rate than Christians, though divorce isn't forbidden in Islam. Let's not forget that correlation does not automatically suggest causation. These statistics certainly don't appear as straightforward as you seem to be reading them. Virginity can at most be self-reported, and that's not as reliable when there is reason to hide the truth. Also, I don't see anything inherently wrong with polygamy if it's consensual and I don't read the Qur'an as discouraging it but rather regulating it with reason and fairness, because the men were prone to injustice in marriage. I don't think the specific marital norms of the modern West are inherently superior to other norms. I doubt Muslims in the West would even invest in arguments against polygamy if it weren't already normative, and I don't think that polyamorous people are inherently "libertines". Frankly, I find the suggestion to be a bit prejudice. They also aren't all conventionally "beautiful" people as suggested. I happen to know a few. While I do think there are issues in polygamous societies with regard to marriage, I dont consider the normative monogamous modal to be without issues, because what makes people good in marriage, whether they stay together or not, is not whether or not they had previous sexual partners, but has to do with the character of the people involved. In my experience, "traditional Muslims" in the West often seem to worry more about maintaining in-group hegemony, which amounts to an ironic tribalism like the age "of ignorance". As a Muslim who has been on Muslim dating sites, I can say from experience that "virginity" is certainly no marker of purity, and bigotry is worse than consensual premarital sex. This is my view of course, and I try to stay out of people's business as long as they don't harm themseleves or others in the process of doing their business. While the Qur'an does appear to me, to discourage promiscuity, I disagree with what the common Muslim's understanding seems to be regarding the "why". In some sense, I agree more with classical scholars, while coming to all-together diffierent conclusions about sex, which is why imo, Muslim sexual ethics require a complete reevaltuation. Few modern scholars, even amongst the more "liberal" leaning even consider this, though I have read a few very interesting takes amongst Muslims (scholar and "lay-person") who study the Book, and seem to be aware of common cultural biases. It appears to me that there is a great deal of sexual dysfunction within the Muslim community, as well as outside of it, and it's not mearly the result of sexualized media as conservatives often suggests, nor is it all new to humanity. Anywho, I appreciated your effort to close the discussion in peace. There's something likeable about Sultan. It was good to see a firendlier closing, mashaAllah. Thanks for another quality Islamic discourse!

Harris Sultan calls him self a consequentialist and claims that atheism is end result of liberal democracy and that liberal democracy is the end result of enlightenment values. If being religiously "liberal" leads to enlightenment values, then Sultan would have to agree that the morally correct act is to be liberally religious. Making a case for atheism on consequentialist or really any ethical basis is dubious, when the slam dunk arguments that the religious world has still yet to contra-apologetic is the epistemic and ontological ones.

Why dr javed is against polygamy. In africa every one is polygamy ,Christians, Muslims, and traditional religions.

So, thinking about it more, a few questions come to mind: Is the progress under or as a consequence of enlightenment holistic? I-e is it really all good and no bad in it at all, and if we accept there's a possibility of adverse effects then are those comparable to injustices, human (and all living species) suffering of the pre-enlightenment era? Can we quantify the environmental damage caused by the businesses whose very existence and growth depends on the advancement in science, can we quantify the effects on animals both land and marine, and how it has affecting ecology as a result of this destruction, is the damage done irreparable? is this kind of progress sustainable? Health, are people more healthy today than before, is there any measure of continuous damage caused by processed foods, pollution, war, famine, unequal distribution of health, an interesting study would be to compare nutrition available to slaves to what 90% population of the world has today (nutrition and not cuisines or variety of food), the list can be very long but the idea is to really understand progress in its entirety before building and aggressively pushing a narrative. Religious narrative needs to be challenged but the same applies to enlightenment and progress IMO, and with the same intensity.

Abu sinas argument for monotheism defines god as having only one ”aspect. To me that is the same as being dead, kind of by definition.

Adam and Eve story was an allegory. ~~~Javier sashimi~~~~

great

INTERRUPTIONS = WEAKER INSECURE INTELLECTUAL POSITION 😂

Dr. Javad, you as a doctor, can you explain us how human being can sleep in a cave for 300 years???

Harris should done mire research and read more books, because what he said most of them were said unconsciously

The constant talking over each other makes the conversation a bit unbearable. It had potential and I enjoyed parts, but it was vastly argumentative and even childish at times. Inshallah a mature conversation is next.

Maa sha Allah brother 💗💞💓

Brilliant point that divorce should be allowed cases of abuse and neglect but not that oh I’m bored of him, I want to re discover myself, that leads short term happiness not long term

It is predicted by Prophet Muhammad that there will be less true religious people in the end times.

You should make a video on the sexual revolution

Harris Sultan is so embarrassing #exposed

This is a really bad debate, both of you aren't really there, although javas seems to be more clear

I feel that haris is modern atheist because its a fashion. Cannot support any of his argument. Feel like javad is talking to a child.

Harris = emotional

“You insert the necessary being.” 😂😂😂😂 There’s no hope for Harris. 40:40

Snails are slow. Its a scientific fact.

I am ex muslim looking for good reason to find hard prove that islam is the truth from scholar who are realy open minded because most of muslim are otherwise. I want the believe to be natural for me whois using reason. Sultan on his opinion I agree with Javad his atheistic reason approach is not objective but I also feel Javad is defend religion is not natural because he knew Quran has problem and that is why he want rationalized it with full scale of liberalism. I still dont have ground to go back to islam and still think it made by human as invention. As Javad said that even if god dont exist we need to invent god. But I dont agree religion is needed or invented god is needed because still many option to manage human life without religion. I want to ask Javad do you believe that Muhammad exist as real human in person or it just in my opinion muhamnad is originally a title of elites or leaders who then personalized and they made biography of him based on fiction. The fact that muhammad is not a profer baby name during the era but mentioned as title even by jewish. So islam is made by elites not in mecca or even Medina but in up way north of the desert where there is farmers and plantation like depicted in Quran in the city like uzbekistan, bukhara, samarkhand in 8 Century. All the hadist wrote there by people there also the first biography of invented Muhammad. How do you respond to this real history I learn ?

Dr Jawad T haswani are you Shia Muslim?

It’s difficult for any professor to argue with ignorant people like Harris sultan

You must not heard of quantum physics.

education vs no education

The young Turks? 1:42:23

Harris Sultan is stubbornly close minded and that will keep him in darkness.

Lolz Islamist....as per harris is nothing is true. But wat is understanding of harris is true.... But harris joke. Javad destroyed him on every fact.

A scholar, Dr. Javad vs a "trying-to-act-like-a-scholar" 😀

Both of you, Mr. Harris and Dr. Javad in your heated debate, missed one important fact. Dr. Javad tried to prove to Harris that being religious, or adherent to religion, does not prevent someone to pursue science and excel in science but was stressing on historical facts. Mr. Harris was not convinced that this formula is valid and insisted that religion and pure science will remain at odds. The point which is missing from this conversation is that religious people, it doesn't matter if they are extreme or moderate or anywhere in between, do not see contradiction between their religious beliefs/doctrines and science, simply because they hold the belief that true science and facts of life are nothing but evidence of creation and the power of God. They even go beyond to claim that the Qur'an had already predicted or mentioned those astonishing discoveries in it. Mr. Harris misses the fact Muslims do pursue knowledge and science, but we should note that when they excel they're mostly doing so from within western culture or at the least influenced by it.

😂 sultan is trying live the world pleasures as he wishes which doesn't religiously aligns with hereafter. 😢

I watched the entire discussion. Although there was an explosion of ideas, it was ultimately difficult to watch because both sides were aggressive and interrupting each other. I think Javad did a better job of keeping a cool head. Points below: 1-Curse of God: is a better book than the Quran. It is logical and coherent. It does not make false statements. It does not promote evil and immoral acts such as: polygany, s*x slavery 2-Religious people are happier: it is better to know the truth about something than to delude oneself and be happy 3-Family system: I agree with Javad here. I think promiscuity, lack of gender roles, and the nuclear family system are harmful for society 4-Defense of polygany: polygany is adultery 5-Islamophobia and bigotry: constantly calling Harris's views bigoted and Islamophobic shuts down the conversation and does not allow for discussion of ideas. There is no such thing as Islamophobia because fear of Islam is rational. Anti-Muslim bigotry exists but Harris is far from being a bigot

This dude Harris doesn’t know how to debate lol. Pls get better atheists debator

Harris act like child when he get corned wth honestly

Islam ! 👍

Haha Dr Hashim how can you debate an wannabe actor😅

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Does the West charge a form of ghisia ? I suggest the difference is who is charged and how they are charged ( the lines upon which you draw your in group and out group and your methodology of charging) . What was colonialism? The colonies gave their wealth to the empire and the colonized people's did not benefit from the wealth of their own resources. This was drawn on racial lines, and there was no way for people of other races to work their way out of it. What is the current Western hegemony ? The chronicles of an economic hitman ! The wealth of various nations who are both militarily and economically controled by the West is shifted to Western countries like America ( this is done through building bases in those countries, and through economic and banking mechanisms). This is done along national lines ( if you born in the wrong country, the wealth of your land will be controlled and taken to the USA) Now in the Western Ghisia system there is less accountability, more denial of the truth, no real responsibility taken for the people living in those victim countries and the amounts stripped is often much more giving those people little chance of success. So lets call it as it is ' the intolerable taxation of the out group.... ' ( Note: anyone living in Africa, in Pakistan etc , through various economic methods, you are paying tax/ghisia to the West and Harris is one of the beneficiaries. Come on.....)