Human Rights vs Shariah (Islamic Law) — Review of the Debate between Harris Sultan (ex-Muslim) and Daniel Haqiqatjou (Muslim)
This is a review of the debate that took place on 18th September 2021 between Harris Sultan, who is an ex-Muslim Atheist and Daniel Haqiqatjou, who is a Muslim. Harris believes that Islamic Law (Shariah) is barbaric and that Muslims would turn away from it in disgust in favour of human rights; Daniel believes that Shariah is a necessity to achieve happiness which human rights cannot provide. The topics addressed are:
1. Harris Sultan’s Strong points
2. Harris Sultan’s weak points
3. Daniel Haqiqatjou’s Strong Points
4. Daniel Haqiqatjou’s Weak Points: a) Human Rights, b) Wife beating, c) Slavery, d) Death Penalty for Apostacy, e) Colonialism, f) Would Daniel go to Afghanistan?, g) Muslim Men Like Sex — WTF?
5. Conclusion
1. Harris Sultan’s Strong points
a. He (as do many ex-Muslims and atheists) did rightly challenge what he thought was an abomination from Islam, which is the support of slavery and wife beating, something that he argued many Muslims would not agree with. Daniel did not really do justice to these topics in his answers, and the non-Muslim audience would have been left none the wiser. More on this in the section, ‘Daniel’s Weak Points.’
b. He rightly called out Daniel for his weak analogy of wife beating and a company employer who has the right to beat his employee under certain circumstances. I could see Harris’s eyes widen, and so did mine as Daniel was trying to explain employee beating. Obviously, he did not mean a physical beating but that a miscreant employee would be forced by security staff to leave the office. But the coerced, non-beating removal of a fired employee is the wrong analogy to use if defence of Quran 4:34. More on this later.
c. Harris referred to execution because of apostacy. Again, Daniel did not address this properly (refer to Daniel’s weak points below).
d. Like many ex-Muslims, Harris has an issue with polygamy. Daniel did not address this issue properly. It is ironic that ex-Muslims and other critics of Islam have an issue with polygamy but are willing to accommodate prostitution (most clients are married men) and adultery. A co-wife has rights as a wife under law in stark contrast to prostitutes and mistresses. Work that one out.
2. Harris Sultan’s weak points
a) He started off with ad hominem attacks on Daniel, which was unwarranted and unjustified. To call him a sadist and psychotic is absolutely abhorrent and is unbecoming of someone who is meant to be a critical thinker with reason at his disposal. Whatever Daniel’s personal tragedy was, has no bearing on whether he is a sadist or not. I have worked within the mental health arena for 11 years, and I would not consider Daniel to be psychotic as defined by the DSM-5 Schizophrenia Diagnostic Tool. Even if he was a psychotic, this should not be used as ad hominem attacks. Mental health issues are far more prevalent. 1/100 people would suffer from Schizophrenia and need support. Even Muslims can suffer from psychosis but we would not expect to use that as a basis to attack them. On a side note, this is why I was not too pleased with the debate between David Wood and Muhammad Hijab because David was open enough to tell the audience that he had psychosis…and Hijab in his usual emotional way used ad hominem attacks against Wood without being sensitive to Wood’s psychosis.
b) He didn’t seem to answer many succinct questions put forward by Daniel, e.g. the Botswana question, family/community etc. I think because of Harris’s scatter gun approach his points got a bit lost.
c) Harris did not define ‘human rights.’ Just as there are interpretations within Shariah (Islamic Law), there are also variant opinions on what constitutes human rights. Neither debater actually defined it. Someone’s human rights might be another person’s wrongs. The USA is seen as a champion of human rights, and in many cases they have sanctioned other countries which demonstrated appalling human rights records (e.g. China vs Uiygher Muslims, North Korea etc.). But at the same time many states in the US enforce the death penalty for murderers, which many human rights campaigners (including Harris) want to see abolished. Amnesty International had also criticised the use of the death penalty…and this organisation is at the forefront of defending human rights. Unfortunately, these human rights campaigners may call out violations of certain human rights but completely overlook human wrongs that are taking place under our noses. That is the slicing, poisoning and dismembering of unborn babies through abortion. Since 1973, 1 billion babies had been murdered around the world in the name of women’s rights. This mass genocide is perfectly ok in the cognitive dissonant world of Amnesty International and other human rights groups. Most religions are pro-Life. Our Muslim community should be called out. It is a damning shame on us that we have not done anything to stop this mass infanticide. I listen to the sermons of scholars and Imams at the pulpits, but this violation of human rights is not discussed nor condemned. I look at the American Muslims in dismay, most of whom are Democrats and look up to Muslim Democrat politicians and activists as their leaders; even though these so-called leaders are resolutely pro-abortion, namely, Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. If I had my own way, I would have got the Imams of the mosques whipped for paying lip service to this human tragedy. It is the Christian and Catholic brothers and sisters who are at the forefront to defend the right to life, and Muslims must do more to join them to end this human wrong once and for all.
Just to cement the point about variant ideas of human rights, let’s take the UK and Brexit. Both the European Union promote human rights, so does the UK. There are two versions of the European human rights legislations, the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union’ and the ‘European Convention on Human Rights.’ When the UK voted to leave the EU, there were concerns that the Charter would be rescinded in favour of a UK-modified domestic version. The Conservative Party wants to modify the charter to make it domestic friendly but the Labour and Liberal Democrats want to retain the Charter. This supports my point above that there is no monolith called ‘human rights’, there will be variations and sometimes paradoxes within themselves, but most importantly, the point that has been missed by both speakers is that there is overlap between human rights and Islam/Shariah. Both speakers would like to separate out the two philosophies/legal frameworks, but alas, there are convergences (as well as divergences) even though they may not like it.
d) Harris did not answer Daniel’s repeated questions on colonialism which Daniel argued was the basis of the modern-day human rights concept, but which had a bloody foundation. Harris should have clarified whether he does agree with European colonialism which gave rise to what we understand as modern day human rights.
e) When Daniel cited academic works backed by statistics, Harris dismissed them. A free thinker with an open mind would have investigated the academic citations before giving an opinion.
f) Daniel had repeatedly asked Harris whether he believed in marriage, family and community. After some prodding Harris did answer. He does not believe in marriage but believes in family and community. Again, Atheists, secularists, Marxists, the Far Left would have variant opinions on this. On the extreme side the family is seen as an oppressive patriarchal structure that feeds into Capitalism, hence the nuclear family structure would be dismantled. But there are Atheists who have benefitted from the religious-inspired institution of marriage, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg etc. These giants of Atheism seem more accommodating of this religious institution of marriage than Harris. Even ex-Muslims such as Veedu Vidz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are married! If Harris does not agree with marriage but agrees with family and community then what does this look like from his world view? This was not elaborated.
3. Daniel Haqiqatjou’s Strong Points
a) He did answer each objection raised by Harris, and even cited statistics by academics.
b) He kept his cool and did not get too emotional despite the ad hominem attacks by Harris at the beginning of the debate.
c) He did a better job of advocating Shariah than Harris did in criticising it. Harris thought that Muslims would be turned off by the apparent violence in Islam, but Daniel did seem to defend Shariah, and it is very unlikely that most Muslims in the audience would have been turned off.
4. Daniel Haqiqatjou’s Weak Points
a) Human Rights
Both Daniel and Harris made the mistake of assuming that Islamic Law and the modern concept of human rights are mutually exclusive. They are not in many cases. There are some convergences, e.g. The clear Islamic injunction to spare innocent civilians during war predated the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners of war. There is commonality of freedom to speak and criticise (but where they differ as that Muslims cannot offend others….whereas the right to offend and mock is a bedrock of free speech as understood by human rights campaigners). The right to protect one’s life, health, access to good education, food, property etc. are common themes between the two philosophies. These were completely missed by Daniel and Harris. (I elaborated the point about human rights in the section 2C above).
b) Wife beating
Wife beating is not the default position of a husband’s relation with a wife. The common scholarly consensus on the Quranic verse 4:34 is that this is not meant to cause pain or leave a mark, but is equivalent to a tap. And this is meant to be for something very serious that a wife might have done. Some anti-Muslim campaigners like Jada Fransen (in the UK) had an issue with being tapped by a toothbrush. And a similar point was made by Rev. Stanely Schoberg in his debate with Ahmed Deedat in the early 90s. No one would argue that you can have bad husbands, and there would be corrective measures to ensure his behaviour is rectified. Yet, for some reason people would be sceptical of the idea that wives can sometimes be bad, and the verse in question is giving different steps to correct a serious misdemeanour. One of the steps is the light tap…and if that doesn’t work what is the next stage? Physical pain? Domestic violence? No. It would be separation or divorce. The idea behind the steps is to ensure that the marriage is saved if there is wrongdoing on the part of the wife. Daniel failed to mention that the term ‘beat’ is a strong word that implies pain, but the consensus is that it is a symbolic tap. He also failed to mention that this is not the default relationship between a husband and a wife, it is an outlier. The default position is spelled out clearly in 4:19. I am always amazed that anti-Islamic critics who criticise 4:34 NEVER refer to 4:19. A free thinker coupled with critical thinking would at least acknowledge that the Quran and the Prophet (S) did tell husbands to treat wives well.
c) Slavery
Daniel defended slavery in the past because it was deemed a necessity according to an academic. Harris did ask whether Daniel believed in it now. It seemed that Daniel indicated he believed it although did not state this explicitly. Daniel was wrong on many points.
C1) A blindingly obvious point completely missed by Daniel is that Islam did NOT invent nor institute slavery. Islam gave the tools to phase it out over a period of time.
C2) Many laws and injunctions within Shariah came down immediately in a revelation (belief in One God, Tawheed) or after some years during the Prophet’s lifetime (banning of alcohol and instituting the hijab) or as in the case of slavery, a ban was not instituted within the Prophet’s lifetime, but the encouragement was there to free slaves. A paradigm shift in thinking was instituted in a society where slavery was common and slaves were de-humansied; to a stage were slaves were humanised and children of slaves were free. Hence, the trajectory was towards freeing slaves. Daniel did point out that many leaders in Muslim history were descendants of slaves. The upward trajectory towards freeing slaves means that slavery would eventually die out. Slavery is not allowed today, however I do have a problem with servants and I see lots of them in Asia, Africa, Middle East etc. In my country of origin, Bangladesh, we have servants in our house, but I have never felt comfortable in their servitude to us. I hope that as economic prosperity and mass education increase, then they or their children can free themselves from lifelong servitude. Human rights campaigners have a cognitive dissonant outlook on this because they don’t seem to have a problem with the institution of servants. I do. Banning servants immediately would put all of them out of work which would jettison them into poverty, but as in the case of slavery, a paradigm shift is needed where they should be viewed as equal to whom they serve and eventually proposer their way out of their servitude.
C3) If the Islamic goal of slavery was to phase it out over a long term, then it implies that this would not be instituted today. Daniel said it could be instituted if an Imam decided so. But for the reasons mentioned above, I doubt any Imam would institute it.
C4) In defence of sex slavery in the past, Daniel said (citing an academic) that it was a necessity because this would allow the birth rates to go up and save the community. Wrong. If sex slavery was a necessity, then the Quran and the Prophet would have stated this. The academic whom Daniel cited said it may have been a necessity before, but the Quran and Sunnah do not indicate this. The fact that the trajectory of general slavery was towards phasing it out shows that it was not a necessity. This is compounded by the fact that when the Muslim empires expanded and conquered other nations, the growth of Muslims was not by sex slavery but by conversion (forced conversion is not allowed). There was no need for Muslim population growth through marrying women from the adversarial side.
C5) Harris did ask a good question, whether Daniel would approve of his wife or daughter being captured in a war and used as sex slaves. Daniel’s answer was very telling. The answer was obviously ‘no’ but still believed in the principle. He used an analogy to prove his point. Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down. Daniel said that in principle everyone (bar pacifists) would support a just war to combat evil, but we would not want to be the recipients of any bombs during warfare….yet we would still support war. Hence, the same with the sex slave argument. This is a false equivalence. In war, only combatants are allowed to be killed and innocent people must be protected (as per Shariah and the Geneva Conventions). So, in an ideal war scenario, we as civilians would not be recipient of these bombs. Only evil-doers would have a policy to kill civilians on purpose (I am not referring to civilian deaths that are accidental). Hence, the analogy breaks down. Daniel would not want his wife or daughter to be used as sex slaves…period. So, his justification of sex slavery as a universal principle is invalid. If he still maintains that he would not mind for his wife or daughter to be used as slaves, then it implies he would support the Serbian soldiers who raped innocent Bosnian women. And the reason these soldiers raped them, other than enjoyment, was to produce ‘Chetnicks’ i.e. let the Serbian genes filter through the Bosnian gene pool… which is equivalent to the narrative of ‘population growth through sex slavery’ that Daniel supports. If Daniel does not agree with the Serbs raping Bosnian women (equivalent to sex slavery), then why not? This analogy can be expanded out further to US and allied forces that invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. These troops are not allowed to harm the women of the enemy camp. Where there had been reports of rape etc., the soldiers would undergo trials. But what if these soldiers, like the Serbian soldiers, actually raped Muslim women en-masse or took them as sex slaves, would he agree with this? If not, why not? Inshallah I hope that Muslim armies will annihilate the Khawarij ISIS terrorists and similar extremist groups at present who took women slaves and raped them…and send these terrorists to Hellfire.
C6) Modern weapons vs Slavery? Daniel implied that reinstituting slavery today would be better than having modern weapons which kill more people, hence inflicting more damage than slavery would. Again, a false binary. The abolition of slavery did not trigger the growth of modern weapons. These events are unconnected. During the time of slavery, there were modern weapons used during warfare, i.e. modern for that time period. Romans were advanced in their military prowess, the Arab and Turkish empires had advanced military capabilities during their times, yet slavery was still in existence. One did not replace the other. If slavery had still continued, modern weapons would still have evolved organically. Instead of choosing one over the other, there is a third option which is this; we don’t reinstate slavery and we eliminate weapons of mass destruction (nuclear bombs or weapons of mass destruction is not allowed and goes against Shariah. That is why a Muslim country like Pakistan must dismantle its nuclear armament unilaterally).
C7) Daniel lamented the fact that there was too much focus on condemning sex slavery but no one condemns the killing of men in these wars. Thus, implying that killing of men is worse than sex slavery of women. Wrong again. The men were combatants, soldiers. So, if they died during warfare, then this is expected. But if women (let’s say Muslim women) are raped or used as sex slaves by an adversarial non-Muslim army, would Daniel still lament the fact that there was no focus on the men who were killed and criticise the focus on the rape/sex slavery of these Muslimahs? Daniel should have mentioned the strict Quranic edict of men being the protectors and maintainers of women. Raping a captured slave woman is the opposite of this edict. Although engaging in sex with female captives was allowed under Shariah, it was in the context of phasing out slavery in the long term. To reinstate this system now goes completely against the Quranic edicts and Prophetic edicts to look after women.
d) Death Penalty for Apostacy
There is disagreement among scholars about executing those who have left Islam. The consensus is that the call for execution was relevant in the past when Muslims were at war with Pagans and leaving Islam was a defection into the enemy camp. But there are no punishments for only converting out of the religion (where desertion or defection does not come into play). The Quran is very clear that there is no compulsion in religion and that truth stands out clear from error. This verse is crystal clear, and cannot be interpreted in multiple ways. The Quran also mentions believers who then disbelieve and then believe…they increase in their disbelief. It does not mention executing the person who apostasised the first time, otherwise he would not have had the opportunity to come back to belief and then disbelief. It seemed that Daniel does believe in executing apostates under Shariah and the analogy he used is the punishment a soldier would receive (sometimes execution) if he defected to the other side during military conflict. But this analogy lends weight to the argument that executing apostates was done during warfare when apostacy was an act of desertion. Just converting out of Islam it itself cannot be within the remit of execution given that the Quran is explicit in freedom of religion. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Prophet executed apostates JUST for changing their beliefs.
When ex-Muslims share their stories of death threats and abuses they face after leaving Islam, it is very sad to see the woeful behaviours of Muslims….the very Muslims who would embrace new Muslim converts from Christianity, Atheism etc. with open arms and who would be shocked if these new Muslim converts had death threats or abuses from their former communities. Of course, many converts to Islam have been shunned by their families and friends, but that is as far as it goes. It rarely extends to murder or physical or psychological abuses that ex-Muslims face. And the passion of some of these ex-Muslims to attack Islam and Muslims stem from the abuses they faced after apostacy. Muslims should condemn these acts of abuse against these ex-Muslims considering there is freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Creator (whilst at the same time He states in the Quran that truth is clear from error and we should hold onto the rope of God). If these ex-Muslims were left alone, then maybe they would not be so evangelical in their open attacks against Islam.
Assuming that Daniel still believes in killing apostates today (under Shariah), there is more evidence against this than for this.
e) Colonialism
Daniel referred to colonialism a few times during the discussion. Harris did not answer this issue, but the gist of Daniel’s critique of European colonialism of Asia and America, and the apparent modern colonialism of America through military invasions, is that they were brutal and oppressive upon the citizens of the invaded countries. This insight is correct. Many Muslim countries, groups and ordinary Muslims (as well as non-Muslims) condemned the invasions and interference. President Trump was an outlier when it came to foreign policy. He condemned America’s involvement in ‘forever wars’ and reduced military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan culminating in a withdrawal of troops. He had to battle Pentagon officials because they were pro military presence, Trump was not. And under his presidency, there were no new invasions (other than combatting the ISIS terrorists). This was unprecedented compared to previous presidencies. Although this point is not directly related to the debate, Daniel kept on condemning colonialism and invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, but did not acknowledge President Trump’s reversal of forever wars and withdrawal of troops. In fact, Muslim media channels, Muslim groups who had been so vocal in condemning America hegemony, were completely silent on this major foreign policy change. Very bizarre.
f) Would Daniel go to Afghanistan?
Harris challenged Daniel to go to Afghanistan because he supports the Taliban. Harris was correct to point out that many Afghanis rushed to the airport to escape the Taliban administration. If the Taliban’s use of Shariah was so just, then the Afghanis would not have wanted to leave in droves. Daniel did not acknowledge the fact that they were escaping the Taliban regime. Those Afghanis did experience Taliban 1.0 and then the secular set-up after the US-led administration, so they are aware of the differences between these administrations. So, when Taliban 2.0 came in, they knew what to expect and thousands tried to flee. Daniel should have recognised the fact that these Afghanis received brutal treatment under Taliban 1.0. If he still has doubts, then he could engage in discussions with those who experienced the Taliban administration. Malala Yusufzai would be a good starting point to have a discussion with.
Daniel’s reply to Harris was that it was not necessary to leave America and settle in Afghanistan just because he supports the Taliban. If Muslims do engage in war, it is not expected that every single Muslim man around the world would take part. Hence, it is unfair for Harris to demand that Daniel migrates to Afghanistan. I agree with Daniel’s push-back. In principle he is correct. But let me now push back on Daniel. Yes, he does not need to uproot himself from his home in the US and make a new life in Afghanistan under Taliban 2.0. But he can go there and spend a few months or a couple of years to experience the full barakah of the revamped, sexed-up Taliban 2.0. Recently, a pro-Taliban brother and a pro-Taliban sister in the UK (or one of the Western countries) stated in interviews on Youtube that the Taliban should be given a chance and that there is propaganda against the Taliban. I suggested in the comments section that if thousands of Afghans are fleeing the Taliban based on false propaganda, then this brother and sister should go to Afghanistan and spend a few months or a year assessing the situation and reporting back with correct facts. I don’t think they will go. It would be within Daniel’s remit to go to Kabul and spend a few months and report back on how the Taliban is governing Afghanistan under their version of Shariah. The excuse he gave to Harris does not work here. I am not talking about migration to Kabul, only a temporary stay to see what is really going on. There is no reason whatsoever to reject this proposal if he believes hand on heart that the Taliban will implement Shariah correctly. Daniel may even be in a formidable position to advise the Taliban administration, they need intelligent people as advisers. They also need to revamp their shitty PR machine, and I am sure Daniel would add PR value to the administration. I can see lots of reasons for him and his family to spend some time in Kabul, but there is no reason whatsoever why he shouldn’t temporarily leave his comfortable home and all the creature comforts that come with brand USA.
g) Muslim Men Like Sex — WTF?
Daniel stated that Muslim men like sex. This is probably the daftest statement he made during the debate. Almost ALL men like sex regardless of faith. Here is some breaking news. Most women like sex, including Muslim women. And there are Muslim women who are very kinky behind their hijabs and niqabs. Monkeys like sex, so do rabbits. I don’t know why Daniel made an incorrect and irrelevant point. If it is to contrast Muslim sexual activity with alternate realities of dysfunctional sexual activities, e.g. using devices to aid eroticism (vibrators or sex robots), pornography, masturbation etc., again these are not mutually exclusive. There are Muslims who are addicted to pornography…the most popular porn sites are downloaded in Saudi Arabia, there are kinky sisters who may use devices, and there are Muslims who masturbate. These are looked down on and I agree that if these additional artificial and simulated enhancements did not exist, then the traditional sexual activity between husband and wife would be enhanced in themselves. If this is what Daniel meant, then this message did not get through during the debate.
5. Conclusion
The moderation of the debate was shitty. Daniel interrupted Harris too many times and the moderator should have done a better job in managing the conversation. Likewise, most questions were directed to Daniel, including questions from a previous adversary. The questions should have been filtered and directed to both speakers equally.
I came across Daniel only very recently (in late December 2021). And this debate is the first time I have seen Daniel’s performance in full. He is very intelligent, erudite, articulate. I could tell he must have gone to an Ivy League university. I was right. In a subsequent interview of him, he did state he studied at Harvard. I, too, attended Ivy League universities in the UK, so it was easy to provide a strong critique of Daniel (as well as Harris) even though we belong to the same faith.
In any case Daniel did a better job overall. He has set the bar high in terms of discourse and debate compared to other Muslim speakers. Harris thought that Muslims would be disgusted with some of the apparent barbaric themes that Islam promotes. I don’t think Muslims will be leaving Islam after this debate. What would ex-Muslims think? They would obviously think that Harris could have done better, however, they are unlikely to return to Islam; but I think that any disgust they may have had for some of the Islamic edicts, would have been tempered down.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Disclaimer: The views expressed are mine only and do not belong to the company I work for or the political party I belong to.
Author Biography
Hasan Ali Imam was born in Bangladesh in 1972 and brought up in the UK. He has engaged in respectful debate and dialogue with those which disagree with him, which culminated in his candidacy for the British Parliament in 2005. He continues to be involved with the UK Conservative Party in his spare time whilst working for a multinational corporation. Hasan has also been involved with the UK Government’s PREVENT counter terrorism strategy as a trainer to public servants on how to prevent young people from venturing into extremism. He also draws on his own experience of attempted recruitment by extremist groups in the 1990s. Hasan has authored three books.
Firstly, ‘United States of Anger — Why Linda Sarsour’s Rage and Far Left Violence Cannot Move Mountains.’ This book is a response to Linda Sarsour (an American Palestinian Socialist activist), and her far left compatriots who supported the violence and rampage that took hold in the US after the tragic killing of George Floyd.
Secondly, ‘BAME — Breaking Through Barriers.’ This book deals with the race space in the UK. It responds to critics who state that ethnic minorities have not progressed due to institutional racism. He tackles the issue head on and invites critics to dialogue and debate. This book was praised by the British Government.
Thirdly, ‘Aisha and Fatima — Ladies of Heavan. A Sunni Response to Shiaism.’ This is specific to the main Islamic sects of Sunni and Shia. The book captures dialogues that Hasan (a Sunni) had with Shia Muslims over the last 20 years.
A fourth book project is under way for publication in 2023, entitled, ‘Why the Far Right are Far Wrong.’ Yes, you guessed it. It includes responses to the Far Right and dialogue with some of its members.
Hasan has also written an article on ‘Medium.com’ to challenge the anti-vaccine narrative from his own Conservative side, including Dr. Simone Gold in the US, and has invited dialogue and debate with anti-vaxxers. He has also engaged in dialogue with and Israeli Jew and an anti-Israeli Muslim on the State of Israel and the importance of Jews, Christians and Muslims to unite under the Abrahamic brotherhood.
