From Islamophobia to Understanding A Transformative Conversation with Eric Brazau

Join us in this thought-provoking episode as Ed Watters interviews Eric Brazau, the author of Muslim Reformers vs. Fundamentalists. Eric takes us on his personal journey from Montreal to Toronto, recounting his post-9/11 Islamophobic views and his transformation towards a deeper understanding of Islam from a Western perspective. This insightful conversation explores themes of effective communication when discussing sensitive topics, the contrast between the core principles of Islam and Western civilization, and the vital role of respectful dialogue in bridging divides. Discover how challenging preconceptions can lead to growth and understanding. Whether you're seeking to learn more about Islam, improve your ability to discuss controversial issues, or simply expand your horizons, this episode offers invaluable insights. Don’t miss this engaging exploration of intellectual discussions and their power to address complex social issues. 00:00 Introduction to Eric Brazau 01:19 Eric's Background and Early Life 02:05 Journey into Political Activism 04:11 Transformation and Realizations 06:30 Understanding and Messaging Islam 08:39 The Importance of Effective Communication 11:35 Challenging Beliefs and Opinions 13:53 The Role of Religion and Politics 30:35 Debating Immigration and Open Borders 40:58 Islam's Perspective on Justice and Humanity 41:43 Controversial Teachings on Discipline 43:03 Western vs. Islamic Views on Marriage 44:24 Muslim Reformers vs. Fundamentalists 46:59 Martyrdom and Afterlife in Islam 51:09 Cultural Differences and High Trust Societies 57:33 The Role of Leadership in Society 01:10:03 The Complexity of Moral Judgments 01:16:36 Final Thoughts and Call to Action

Episode Transcript

(00:59):
Today, we are speaking with Eric Brazau.
He is an author of abook, Muslim Reformers vs.
Fundamentalists.
Eric, could you please introduce yourselfand let people know just a little more
about you before we get started, please?
I've been in Toronto now since 2001.

(01:22):
I got here just after 9/11,I mean, the winter of.
I'm originally from Montreal.
I grew up in Montreal in bothlanguages, English and French.
When I was much younger, I spokePolish with my grandparents.
I studied theatre in Montrealfor quite a long while at various

(01:45):
levels of amateur, semi professionalbasis on different plays.
Shakespeare, Harold Pinter,Chekhov, all of the classics
as well as some contemporaries.
I, for business reasons, I cameout to Toronto in 2001, 2002.

(02:05):
At that point, um, I understood, I gotinvolved by accident, now my life seems to
be around messaging, um, the proper, thebetter way to message and talk to people
who are on the other side of your opinionor the other side of your argument.

(02:28):
And I started out into this, I,this whole world of political
manifestations and activism and arguingwith the subject matter of Islam.
That's how I started.
So as much as Islam is a large partof what I do, the subsequent part,
the part B to the, uh, to the mainpart, is how to engage with other

(02:54):
people who are in conflict withyourself in a manner that could
possibly lead to something productive.
That's the part B of what we do.
What you're doing is veryimportant in our world today, Eric.

(03:15):
Because a lot of people liketo argue about nothing, really.
But when we really boil it down, we're allhuman beings and we live here together.
So, your book, Muslim Reformers vs.
Fundamentalists, came out of thisjourney, this, kind of a, uh, odd thing.

(03:41):
Because you weren't Muslim,you were actually Islamophobic.
And that's very interesting, becausemany of us, if we're not of Islam,
we're, we're leery of it because of whatthe media brought in because of 9/11.

(04:01):
It's an interesting journey youtook from being an Islamophobe to
whatever you consider yourself now.
Could you walk us through the journeyof that transformation and what it
is now that you believe you are?

(04:22):
Well, I'll start with what you just said.
And if I veer away toofar, please bring me back.
Because I can end up on tangents.
I don't identify, I don't, I,when you just said right now,
tell us what you are, I'm nothingdifferent than I was in the past.
I'm the same person.

(04:43):
I've come to make some realizations.
And those realizations are
the more you tell people thatthey are wrong and that you are
right, the more they don't like it.
If for no other reason than, you mightbe right and they might be wrong,
that's, that no longer becomes the issue.

(05:06):
The issue becomes they just don't like it,
end of story.
So very often people can reject amessage simply because they don't like
the people who are bringing them thatmessage, because they're conflated.
So if we remember back to when we werefifteen years old and some teacher
or your mother said, You're wrongbecause you're a child and I'm right

(05:30):
because I know, you no longer caredabout what was true or not true.
You just said, Why are you the boss of me?
Who do you think you are?
And you just, you just didn't, youjust rejected their message outright.
I came to realize, wait a second,that could be why people hate me.

(05:53):
Of course, there's those who liked mymessage, were fans of my message, were
fans of my approach, but there were alot of people who rejected the message
simply because they rejected my mannerof bringing this message to them.
Rightly or wrongly is not the issue,they saw me as somewhat arrogant.

(06:16):
And to some extent, I was arrogantbecause I was certain in my position
that I was right and they were wrong.
So that already sets up a conflict ofpersonalities between you and others.
Something happened at, in 2017, andI go through that in the book, to

(06:36):
which I had to re evaluate all of mystances on everything regarding Islam.
So I threw everything that I knew outthe window, I started again, and then I
went on a journey to learn about Islam.
Not from the perspective of Saudi Arabia,Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Qatar.

(07:03):
I made the conscious decision to tryto get it, to understand Islam from
the perspective of the Canadian, NorthAmerican, Western European nations.
What are the leaders and the Muslimcommunities from here saying?
Because many of us say, Well, if we seea Saudi Arabia Imam spouting what he

(07:27):
spouts, We assume that that's Islam.
Or is ISIS Islam, or is Al QaedaIslam, and if we don't like that,
therefore we, we see all of Islam asthose entities that we don't like.
Or we conflate them.
So that's the journey that I went on,was to say, Okay, I'm going to start

(07:52):
again, I'm starting, and I've been,I was doing this for four, five, six
years prior to my, uh, my new approach.
So it took a lot of internalfortitude, and ego breaking, and
Oh my goodness, what did I do?
To, and now I've written twobooks, soon to publish two more.
And I've discovered not just the, soI've become not just an expert or an

(08:18):
authority of somewhat, some, some,uh, measure on what Islam, what the
leaders of Islam are saying Islam is.
But I am becoming an expert onhow to message people or how to
have engaging conversations thatare fruitful with people who are
diametrically opposed to your position.
How do we do that?

(08:39):
What's the recipe?
Because I don't want to, again,no one likes to be lectured to.
And I used to lecture peopleabout what I know, and why I'm
right, and why you're wrong.
I don't lecture anymore.
So it's about a free flowing ofinformation, and I think as I mentioned in

(09:01):
what I sent to you, you have to be open tolistening to what they're actually saying.
Many of us, and I knew this prior,when we're in conversations, especially
heated ones, very often we wait for theother person to finish talking only so

(09:22):
that we can say what we want to say.
Without listening to what, so this,we're not, we're not sharing information,
we're just waiting for our turnto impose our information on them.
And I've reevaluated that, andI turned that completely around,
and I'm willing to learn from you.

(09:43):
Why is it that you believewhat it is that you believe?
And more important is, why doyou believe what you believe?
And what I've also found, more oftenthan not, people do not know or have any
inkling as to why they believe what theybelieve, other than the people around

(10:08):
them that they like and believe that.
That is, that's correct, Eric.
Let me bust in right there for a minute.
You know, that's a very important aspectof what you're trying to convey to people.
Is, you know, the conversation thing.

(10:30):
Waiting to just respond with what youhave to say instead of listening, and
then responding to what someone said.
You know, there's a big difference.
And, and that does create moretension in a good conversation.
And so many of us, we have tobe able to defend ourselves.

(10:53):
And like you just said, a lot of us, we'redefending what our ancestors told us.
And it's just heritage on down.
And even in my own religion, itsays beware of traditions of men.
Because it's dangerous.
And, religion and politics, they'rethe two driving forces in our world

(11:21):
that matter the most and everybodywants to argue about them and
many of us don't even realizewhat we're arguing about.
Like you just said.
The Constitution is the driving force herein America and most Americans don't have

(11:42):
a clue what the Constitution even says.
I understand that a hundredpercent just by observation.
And I think it's really importantfor people like you being out there.
You know, when I first came onto thisand I'd seen Muslim Reformers vs.

(12:05):
Fundamentalists, my mindautomatically clicked to, Oh,
this is something religious.
And, but really it's notabout religion at all.
And this is what makes itso valuable to mankind.
Religion is just a mechanism for people.

(12:28):
Uh, it's part of the frameworkof what makes us who we are.
And if, if we don't understandthe framework, we're just,
If I can just interject one second,it's not, it's, religion is not

(12:48):
the framework of who we are, it'sthe framework of, or it can be
the framework of our civilization.
Correct.
And you're absolutely right,that is exactly what I was
kind of pointing towards.
Maybe I worded that incorrect, butyes, you're absolutely correct.

(13:09):
But I don't want toget you off your topic.
You were going, you were saying theframework of who our civilization is, can
be, and usually is religion, or it canbe the politics, it has to be something.
So, but, but what, why, you saidwhen you first saw the book, when
you first saw the book, you thoughtit was going to be religion.

(13:32):
Yes, you know, it automatically framedmy mind into this frame of, Oh, this
is going to be a religious, youknow, Muslim versus Christian topic.
And that is the furthest fromwhat this topic truly is.

(13:53):
And I really want people to takenote of this because it takes
ourselves to understand that.
And we have to reframe from thatinstantaneous, oh, shock and awe.
That's what 9/11 was.
And that's what drew so many of us to thisIslamophobia that many of us still today

(14:17):
suffer from many years after the attacks.
And that gets into a lot of drama anyway.
But my point here is we alwaysgrab the headline and we don't
say, What do you mean about that?
Correct.
Um,

(14:39):
I, I'm very wary of using the wordIslamophobia myself as someone who
blogs and writes and been thinking aboutthis now for going on to twelve years.
Because a phobia impliesan irrational fear.
So there's this, like amental illness of sorts.

(15:00):
You know, arachnophobia,claustrophobia, germophobia.
It's something that's irrational.
So, as opposed to saying a phobia,what we can, which is actually,
and even people here in Canada arestarting to have this conversation,
it really comes down to what ismisinformation and what is disinformation.

(15:21):
And how do we act upon and who decideswhat is and is not disinformation
and misinformation, right?
So
when someone says,
Islamophobia, like you just did,and it's a very innocent, innocuous
word in today's lingua franca.

(15:45):
Well, what do you, when someonesays to me, Do you believe in God?
And I've come across thatquestion several times.
Well, how do you define God for me tosay whether I believe in it or not?
Like, what is your definition of God?
Because I can't say I do or I don'tif I don't know how you define God.
For example, if someone says,Do you believe in justice?

(16:07):
Well, okay, like, it's hard not tobelieve in justice, but please define your
meaning of, how do you define justice?
So how can I agree with you or notif we haven't come to, it's called
first principles, basic principles.
Before we can actually answerwhat, do you believe in justice?

(16:30):
Okay, let's have a conversationof how you define justice.
Then once you've defined it, then I cantell you if I'm in agreement or not.
And very often we have conversationsabout so many topics to which
no one has the, the two peoplediscussing are not even in agreement

(16:52):
of, what are the basic principles?
What is the foundation?
And so,
So Eric, does that mean that we're lazywhen we start having these conversations?
Wonderful.
That's actually a veryinsightful question.

(17:16):
Lazy, sloppy, I prefer to put it downto, because people spend a lot of
energy in these conversations, theyscream, they yell, they get red faced,
some people look like they're gonnahave a, some people you would think
they're going to have a heart attack,
they start frothing at themouth, they're not lazy, sloppy.

(17:39):
And many people, we have learned,if we are more passionate about
something, or if we demonstratepassion, it will somehow, it adds to
the convincing of our righteousness.
And very often it can be the opposite.
The more you're passionate and yellingand show your righteous indignation,

(18:01):
it means you have no legs to stand on.
Believe me because I'm screamingand yelling, believe me because I
know and look how passionate I am.
So please believe me, you must believe me.
I don't know why you mustbelieve me, but just believe me.

(18:21):
So where can you go from here?
That, that was me whenI started podcasting.
It was many of us, many of us.
And especially when you're fourteen,fifteen, seventeen, twenty, you, you

(18:42):
have some, there's something thathappens to us at a young age where
we start to think we know so much.
There's a thing about youth, itmust be the brain, something happens
that you just think you're so smart.
And then we bring, we carrythat forward into adulthood.

(19:03):
So, I don't know what, you know, sogo ahead, ask me another question.
But we're, seem to be in agreement here,you need to argue with me a bit more.
Well, that's, that's what the DeadAmerica Podcast is about, is kinda making
people come together and understandwe're all different, and there's really

(19:28):
nothing that we're arguing about.
Because if we really sit down andhave an intellectual conversation,
we'll actually find out a lot ofthe times we're on the same page.
Yep.
Actually, if I may interrupt you.
May I interrupt you, please?

(19:49):
Please, may I interrupt you?
Very important.
What you just said is wrong,we're not all on the same page.
Now if, say we had a town of 150, 000people and we had a meeting where we're
going to buy the new firetrucks, right?

(20:12):
And some people wanted the firetrucks to be, uh, neon yellow, so
that it's, you can see it from afar.
And other people said, No,we want it to be fashionable.
So we want it to be like an orangethat blends into the background,
so that it's not so obtrusive.

(20:32):
Well, some people have a different ideaon what color the fire trucks should be.
But, they all agree we need fire trucks.
They all agree that fires shouldbe fought and extinguished,

(20:53):
that's on the same page.
If another group of people at the citycouncil are arguing that we should not
have fire trucks, that fire is a goodthing and we should let buildings burn.
That's a different page,

(21:14):
right?
So what you just did, the smartperson that you are, and as you're
becoming on a journey, is yousaid something that's not true.
It's a platitude, we'renot all on the same page.
For example, some people say the borderwall should be six feet high, some

(21:35):
people say it should be done this way.
Some people want to spendmore money, less money.
But there are other people whosay we should not have a border
wall, we should not have a border.
So that's not the same page anymore.
So before you can argue with someoneabout how high or what's the effective

(21:55):
way to build a border wall, the firstquestion is, do we all agree here
that a border wall, and I'm using thisas an example, but do we all agree
that we need a, we need a border?
Because if someone says, We shouldnot have a border, well, then you
cannot have, you cannot discuss whatthe border wall should look like.

(22:17):
They're not on the same page.
So what are the, so before we, sowhen you come to our, when we, when
we organize the meeting, we have tosay, This is a meeting for people
who believe and support a border wallor support a border to begin with.

(22:38):
That's correct.
So, so, you know, Eric, that,that's interesting because there
again, that was me being lazy.
You know, I did not think deep enoughinto what I was actually saying and
the meaning of what my intent was.

(23:00):
So, it's good that we're having thisconversation because it illustrates
to people the importance to bepoignant, and that, that, that's
very lacking in our society today.

(23:20):
People don't know how to get specificanymore, it's too much granularity around.
Correct.
Yes.
So,
because I've practiced this techniqueof having conversations and being
granular for the last seven, eightyears, actually, for a long time, and

(23:43):
that was how I used to, I was able to,you know, in some manner of speaking,
demonstrate my superior abilities as Iwas able to crush people in conversations.
And I wasn't nice about it, I wouldjust show them up to be fools.
And then again, that's not so nice,but I'm just expressing my journey.

(24:06):
Yeah.
Well, that's what we're here for.
Most, so most people will say nicethings, like we're all on the same page.
You know, they say nice things, notunderstanding what are the implications
of those nice things that they're saying.

(24:30):
So let's assume you make a statement,or you hold an opinion, or a concept
that's not necessarily wrong,
but it's not particularly correct.
It's not particularly onpoint, it's off by 10%.

(24:55):
So 90%, you would say,Well that's good, it's 90%.
Sure.
Do you sail?
Have you ever been on the water?
Okay, very good.
Very good.
Okay.
So say you are, I don't know, uh, sixkilometers, three miles out into the
lake, and you got to go back home.

(25:18):
Now you know back homeis somewhere over there,
but you're not really surewhere it is over there.
Is it two degrees to that side,three degrees to that side?
You kind of have a general idea, but ifyou're off by three degrees, starting from
three miles out, all of a sudden, you're500 meters or 500, you're half a mile

(25:42):
downwind of where you actually need to be.
It's like, now if you're off by one,or two, or three degrees and you're
only 500 meters away from where you'regoing, you're going to be off by
three, four, five, seven, ten feet.
The further out you are, thatthree degrees or five degrees

(26:04):
becomes a lot of distance.
So as a, it's again, if, if I'm in,if I'm sitting in front of you and I
point a pistol at your forehead, well,I'm probably not going to miss whether
I'm two degrees this way or that way,because I'm right in front of you.

(26:24):
But if I'm, you know, thirty,thirty feet away from you, now
I got to be dead on accurate.
So the same can happen with thecivilization, with the conversation,
with the culture, with a nation.
It takes, it takes a lot of timeto build a nation, to build a

(26:45):
culture, to, you know, to, to build.
It takes time.
Especially the more intricate, to buildsomething, the more it takes effort.
But if you make, if we start making allof these platitudes and accepting all of
these concepts just because they soundgood, and they may be more or less good,

(27:07):
but more or less doesn't quite cut it.
And so, I'm a, I'm a proponentof if you don't know what you're
talking about, just don't talk.
Not everyone is anexpert on every subject.

(27:27):
I asked, when I was in jail for myIslamophobia back in, several years ago,
met a man, a black guy, maybe hewas thirty-five years old, we had a
conversation, or I asked him something.
And now it's odd because here I amin this environment and he said,

(27:48):
I cannot give an opinion because Idon't know much about this subject.
He said that.
How often have you said that, orhave you heard someone say that?
Myself, I say it quite a bit.
If I don't have a clue, I admit it.
But I always have an opinion.

(28:12):
Well, there you, like he, but hesaid, I don't have an opinion because
I know nothing about this subject.
Well, I know I don't knowenough about the subject.
As a concept, everyone thinks ifthey have an opinion, it's valid.
Because it's, and that's, that'sthe problem as a society, we've, as
a society, we seem to have set up aparadigm where all opinions are equal.

(28:40):
You've heard that, correct?
I say that's wrong, no way.
No way, Jose.
My mother had opinions on everything,she had opinions on car engines.
She wasn't a mechanic, but yet she knew.

(29:01):
You know, a lot of people, ifyou, especially if you think
back to your mothers and stuff,everyone, or some people, everyone
has opinions on everything.
I don't have any opinions on astrophysics,
I have no opinions on black holes and timewarps, and, I don't know much about this.

(29:25):
I don't talk about it, other thanto say, Wow, that's interesting.
So if somebody gave me his opinionon black holes and time travel,
I would not argue with them.
I would just nod my head andsay, Hmm, that's interesting.
Well, that's part of how welearn through conversations.
If we're interested in a topic or asubject, we have to ask questions to

(29:51):
learn and that's part of discussion.
However, if we're not sure, we dotend to not want to say, I'm not sure.
And I've seen that many, many timesin my, about, time on this earth.

(30:15):
But we, we definitely need to behaving conversations even if we're
not aware of what's happening,because that's how we learn.
So yes, and we learn by asking questions.

(30:35):
I have asked people if we should haveopen borders here in Canada, if everybody
should be allowed to, I've asked thisquestion on camera, in places, in saunas,
in, I used to do on camera interviewswith random strangers, many people, the

(30:59):
vast majority of people, will never say,Oh, immigration, because of, we have
a housing crisis here in Canada, it'sfoods, everything, a lot of problems,
when I've asked people, Should we have,should we slow down immigration, or
have a moratorium on immigration for thetime being, because of all these issues?

(31:26):
Most will respond, Oh, of course not,we should not do that because, and they
list off all of the regular reasons.
I'll say, Fine.
Do you have a lock on your front door?
Everyone does.
They look at me quite perplexedwhen I ask them that question.

(31:49):
Do you decide who can andcan not come into your home?
Of course I do.
Oh, so if random people just want towalk into your home and start eating
your food, is that acceptable to you?
Oh, of course not, they'll answer.
Well, then why is it okay for people tojust walk across the border and come into

(32:13):
Canada and become citizens of our family?
Why is it not the, you know?
So many people will say, I believe inopen borders, I believe in whatever it
is that they believe in, without everhaving truly thought about what are the
implications of what they're saying.

(32:36):
And so I'm not interestedin what people believe.
Sorry, go ahead.
The disease factor also inimmigration, you know, there's a
reason why we isolate individuals.
So yeah, you need tothink about these things.

(32:57):
Well, so we need to, again, peoplemake statements without really fully
understanding what are the implicationsof their statements because their
statements are usually not challenged.
Again, so that's why I come back,I'm not so much interested in arguing
against people's ideas or opinions.

(33:18):
Because ultimately, everyone whobelieves what they believe would
like to share that with others.
I mean, at some point, we believe,I mean, a Republican is a Republican
for a reason, and he's not a Democrat.
So Republicans would certainly like to getinto conversations and convince Democrats

(33:41):
to become Republicans at some point.
But as, if I were a Republican, Iwould only be asking Democrats, Well,
what are the foundational principlesof why you believe what you believe?
And that's what I would havethe conversation about, not
about their final opinions.

(34:04):
But have you thought true, have youthought through, what are the implications
of this foundational principle?
If we, if we do this, if we do that.
So what's going to happento the food stamps?
What's going to happen to allof the senior citizens who are
already here and, you know?
At some point, it's possible we can runout of money and have to do a, you know,
you have to have that conversation.

(34:26):
And what their opinionis becomes irrelevant,
it doesn't matter what their opinion is.
What matters is why do they believewhat they believe, and that's
the exchange of information.
Yeah, I, I like that a lot.
So, so, communication about the rightthings first will actually lead into

(34:53):
understanding how to, right, on how tofix and repair or come to an agreement.
So that's pretty interesting.
Or we could come to an agreement, orwe could come to an agreement that
I, I want to kill you, you want tokill me, and that's our agreement.

(35:18):
But let's stop wasting time,let's stop wasting time.
Right.
Exactly, exactly.
Yeah, that's, that's, yeah, I, I like thata lot because, uh, it's really about being
responsible, and, and that's what it is.
And it's, it's responsible, respectful.

(35:40):
And at some point, I respect you.
Even if you are my enemy, I respectyou as my enemy, quote unquote.
And I'm saying, until you'vedeclared yourself to be my enemy,
I don't see you as my enemy.
But let's be clear.

(36:01):
So if you are someone who says weshould paint the fire truck yellow, we
should paint the fire truck red, youknow, we can have, you're not my enemy.
But if you say we should let the cityburn to the ground because we don't
want to, you have now, you're completelyon the other side of the equation.
Correct.

(36:22):
That, that outlines that.
Yeah, that's good.
We're clear on that now, let's be clear.
And very often what happens is sometimespeople particularly want to be ambiguous,
because that's part of the strategy,

(36:46):
deception, etc.
That's correct.
So Eric, as I stated earlier in ourconversation, your book is nothing about
what the title and what yourmind suggests it might be.

(37:07):
And it's very interesting that youcan capture a mindset in that way just
because of that shock and awe factor.
Is, is that part of your plan with,starting with this Muslim, uh, reformers
versus the fundamentalists idea?

(37:31):
Well, uh, not exactly.
If you read, have, have you flippedthrough, did I send you the e book?
Okay.
I should, I should have done that.
Okay, so, the idea of the book is

(37:53):
Islam, and everyone will acceptthat Islam is greatly contributing
to Western civilization.
Do you agree on that?
I don't know if I have enough datato answer that correctly, you know?

(38:14):
Okay.
You actually, you do.
Okay.
So my question to you is just this,Do you notice that the concept
of the Islamic religion occupiesa large space in our zeitgeist?

(38:34):
Yes, okay.
So that's very good.
So that's, Islam is very mucha presence in our civilization.
It's in the news, it's in the media,it's on, uh, it's everywhere, okay?
I would actually say that, uh,in many ways, I, in my thinking,

(38:58):
would suggest that Islam is biggerin capacity than Christianity.
Yes.
So someone who is on the offensive,
as in chess, or anything you play,or hockey, or baseball, you know,

(39:21):
if you're on the offense, the otherguy is there ergo on the defense.
If I had to be, if as a chess player, or afighter, or I play hockey, I would rather
be on the offense than on the defense.

(39:41):
A football team that's always on thefield with the offense has a better
chance of winning than the defense.
Does that make sense?
Yes.
So Islam, as the religion, has aduty to always be on the offense.

(40:06):
The offense of Islam is tobring Islam to the world.
That's a religious duty.
The religious duty is self sacrificeto bring Islam to the world, for

(40:27):
the betterment of mankind, towipe out Christianity and Judaism,
along with atheism, uh, et cetera.
Sorry, Christianity and Judaism do notneed to be wiped out, they can be left
to survive as a subjugated religion.
That's the doctrine of Islam.

(40:49):
However, many people misunderstand that.
That Islam wants to dominatethe world for malintent.
So Islam sees itself as bringing rest,Islam sees itself as bringing justice
and humanity back because, to the worldas dictated by Allah and the Sharia.

(41:20):
So, for example, many people are confused.
There is a book here at the TorontoDundas Square, it's a Times Square in
New York, where for the last fifteenyears, today as well, there is a
group called the Toronto Dawah Group.
Do you know what Dawah is?

(41:43):
They were giving out a book calledWomen in Islam, or Know Your Human
Rights, in which it specifically laysout in black and white, in English,
that when a man, and I'm quoting now,when a man beats his wife, he should not
beat her for vengeance or to hurt her.

(42:07):
Beating women is only for disciplineand to correct their behavior.
So you should not break her bones, youshould not leave black and blue marks.
Because Islam forbids severe beatings.

(42:27):
Bukhari, in the hadith, gives you thenumber, a man should never, Allah,
look, the Prophet Muhammad said, A manshould never beat his wife and then
have sex with her on the same day.
So many people do not understand that, formany Muslims, this demonstrates compassion

(42:57):
in the fact that the bonesof the wife are not broken.
So when they hear that at first,they think that this is bad,
that beating women is bad.
And as a Western civilization, wemay come to that conclusion and
jump and say, Whoa, this is bad.
You're not supposed tobeat your wife, correct?

(43:18):
Many people believe thatfrom the Western perspective.
But from the Islamic perspective,they see that to not beat your wife,
is to shirk your duties as a husband.
So it all comes down also toper fundamental principles.

(43:39):
So if I were to say to someone, You area bad person because you beat your wife.
And he looks at me and says, Well,you're a bad person because you don't
beat your, you don't beat your wife.
Because by not beating yourwife, you're not controlling her.
And in the Islamic, in the Islamicparadigm, the man must control his wife.

(44:00):
He cannot let her leave thehouse without his permission,
without being fully covered.
Whereas Western men, or Westerncivilization, allows women to
just come and go as they please.
So fundamental principles are, are,you're starting at two different places.

(44:24):
So, the book, Muslim Reformers andFundamentalists, basically outlines
how, what we in the West expectas the foundational elements of
what a civilization is, does notcorrespond in any way with what the

(44:47):
Islamic doctrine says foundationalelements of civilization are.
In the book, however, you have theMuslim reformers who do say, My
Islam, or the Islam that I prefer, iscompatible with Western civilization.

(45:15):
However, the other voice, which isthe imams and mosques that represent
ninety-five percent of all themosques in Canada, America, Sweden,
Germany, Belgium, Austria, say no.
The reformers are nutcases,and they represent one percent

(45:38):
of the Muslim population.
Which means they don'thave a lot of seniority,
they don't have any sway.
But many people, like nicepeople, non Muslims, like the
concept of the reformed Islam.

(46:00):
And they prefer to ignore,
they like that Islam, but they,they, they prefer to ignore the Islam
that's actually in the doctrine.
That's preached fromthe Sunnis every Friday.
So, what comes clear in thebook is there's elements of what

(46:25):
we would call not nice Islam.
The, you know, the total blackness, musicis haram, music is the call of Satan,
uh, Western civilization is a cesspool.
That Islam is, or seemsto be, mainstream Islam.

(46:52):
That is the Islam of ninety percent ofthe mosques or of the belief system.
So my book that I'm working on rightnow deals with, to some extent,
the highest, to a large extent, thehighest achievement that a Muslim

(47:16):
man can do for the religion ofIslam, of Allah, is to die in self
sacrifice, in one way or another.
That's what we would call a shaheed.
A shaheed, shaheed.

(47:39):
Shaheed, shahada, for , shaheed formale, shahada for females, um, a martyr.
Now what's, what many people don't,a martyr, a martyr in Islam, the
males anyhow, because Islam fora large percentage is written

(48:02):
from the perspective of the male.
A martyr in Islam, and this is notfringe doctrine, this is mainstream
doctrine, very well established, willhave seventy-two houries, H O U R I E
S, houries, which is black eyed girls,seventy-two, virgins, in paradise.

(48:28):
There's also doctrine that says thatvirgins in paradise are perpetual.
Their hymens repair on a dailybasis, so they're perpetual virgins.
But most important to the family isthat someone who gains the highest

(48:49):
level of paradise in this mannercan intercede for seventy of his
relatives on the day of judgment.
So say you're my brother and you'rea bad guy and you're not going to
paradise 'cause you're a bad guy.
Well, because I'm a good guywho went to the highest level in
paradise, I could say to Allah,Hey, whoa, Allah, that's my brother.

(49:14):
Bring him on in.
I can do that for seventy of my relatives.
That's why a lot of people, when theirchildren become martyrs, they're happy.
But you see, but, but, so my, whatI'm getting at here is this little
example shows you how fundamentalprinciples, underlying principles of

(49:39):
what we think it is to be alive, andwhat we think is the, what we view as
life, is completely different from theIslamic perspective of what is life.
So I'm not going to argue likeI did ten years ago about,

(50:04):
unless you understand theunderlying principles, there's
no conversation to be had.
So are Muslims wrong?
That's a very interesting question.
Uh, are they wrong?

(50:25):
No, it's their belief.
You know, that's what they were raised in.
So it's very interesting becauseChristians, same way, you know, we're
steeped in it from birth to adulthood.
And those, those ideas, you know,they're fundamental to who we are usually

(50:50):
because that's what we were raised in.
It doesn't matter what culture, and,and that brings up another thing
about your border idea, you know,that's why we have borders, the locked
doors, those are different families.
They have different cultures, theyhave different ideas and that's okay.

(51:20):
Well, you, you, you prefer tolive in a village where people
think and act the same way you do.
And in those villages, youmight not lock your door.
Whereas in, whereas in downtownManhattan, you probably lock your door.

(51:41):
That's a good point.
You know, because generally out whereI live, people don't lock their doors.
There's locks on the doors,but you know, we know who's
around and we know who to watch.
And that's, I believe in every culture,or it used to be, I would assume.

(52:06):
And, and that's howpeople survive, isn't it?
By paying attention.
What you're talking about, andwhat we've stumbled into, is
called high trust societies.
Here in Canada,
we used to not have a pictureon our driver's license.

(52:33):
On our Medicare card, wedid not have a picture.
The picture was eventually put on the,your identification because people
started using false identification.
So the government's so, but fifty,sixty, seventy, eighty years ago,

(52:58):
people did not think of usingfalse identification so much.
It wasn't rampant in culture, because forthe most part, people were just honest.
It was seen as bad to be dishonest.
But there are other cultures where tobe dishonest is seen, or to be honest

(53:22):
is to be seen as being a weakling sap.
And the culture is to cheat whicheverway you can to get any one inch
advantage over the other guy,because it really is dog eat dog.
That's a different culture, it'sa different group of people.

(53:45):
But if we come back to, and it wasn'tso long ago when here in Canada,
If you went to small villages, St.Jerome, St. Agathe, outside of Quebec
City, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day,everyone was celebrating Christmas, or
everyone was into the Christmas spirit.

(54:06):
Nobody was arguing, everyonewas happy, everyone was saying
Merry Christmas to everybody.
It was, there was an atmospherein the air, even in Montreal.
That's no longer the case,
it's extremely not the case.
There's no longer an atmosphere ofcommunity because to have an atmosphere of

(54:29):
community, you need to have a community.
I stress the word, a community,not just a group of individual
multitudes of communities.
Because then you just get a wholebunch of individual communities vying
for, so, because at some point onecommunity or one group or one ideology

(54:54):
will ultimately become dominant.
Because every idea and every ideologykind of believes it's the better
idea, that's why it's an idea.
So why would it not want to imposeitself, in one way or another, nicely,
not nicely, over the other ideas?

(55:19):
I really believe, Eric, that that hasbeen the case since the beginning of time.
The same mentality, especially, youknow, if you don't assimilate cultures
properly, and I don't know if there isa proper way to assimilate cultures,

(55:41):
but usually what happens when weassimilate cultures is, the dominant
culture gobbles up the weaker culture.
That's always been historically true.
Is there a way we canchange something like that?
Um, can we change that?

(56:04):
Well, this, do, before we couldchange anything fundamentally, the
fundamental question then becomes, do
enough people, or does anyone otherthan maybe yourself, believe it's
a question that needs to be asked?

(56:26):
Like, so is the mainstream media,is the CNN, who's, who's, would CNN,
would, would Fox News maybe, even askthis question that you just asked?
Just the question itself, it's verboten.
So how can you fix a problemunless you even discuss whether
or not it could be a problem?

(56:48):
Is it a problem
that needs to be fixed?
So how can you fix a problem beforeyou actually defined it as a problem?
And that, and therein lies,
Well, I guess.
Yeah.
Yeah, I guess we have to go granularthere again with, you know, defining

(57:10):
what a problem is and, you know,if it, yeah, is it a problem?
So
I guess that's kind of, youknow, in our mindset, isn't it?
That's kind of in our mindsetto fix things, isn't it?

(57:32):
Well, okay.
So this brings us back to if we had aemperor or a king who could say, or if
I was made king, right, or the emperor,then I could say from now on for the
next five years, we're going to fix allthe problems that I think are problems.

(57:57):
And we're going to do it my way.
Now that could work out to the wayyou think it should, it could, or at
least eighty percent of what I end updoing could be what you agree with.
But to do anything, the eighty percentof what you think would be good to

(58:19):
be done, you can't have committeeshaving conversations about, you know,
the right color of the firetruck.
That could take like six monthsto discover what color we want
the firetruck to be, let alonemake the order for the firetruck.
But a king could say, Look, Iwant the firetruck to be red.
End of story, no moreconversation, buy the firetrucks.

(58:42):
That's how civilizations used tofunction, we had a king, an emperor.
Was it, and as time has, goesby, I'm not certain that the
present system is much better.
I mean, we, we have injustice.
We have injustice, we have poverty,we have people who are falsely

(59:04):
accused, we have people who havebeen falsely killed in prison, we,
we, you know, so was it better underKing, under King Edward the third?
It could have been betteror not, I don't know.
So we did all of this revolution to havea new system, and now we're, have, you
know, people homeless in the streets.

(59:27):
Look at what's going on in California.
Now, would a king or an emperorever accept what's going on
in the streets of California?
Even a bad king would not acceptthat, it would never happen.
Or at least he could fix it in some way.
I'm not sure, but the point is,is California has spent sixty-five

(59:50):
billion dollars on the homelessand the drug people in California.
And it's, it's worse thanever, that's the joke.
But a king could come in and say, We'regoing to do this, this, this, and this.
I don't want to spend any money.
We're going to do some bad, causemaybe you're going to do some bad
evil things to fix this problem.

(01:00:13):
But I'm not sure that doing what we wouldcall bad evil things to fix the problem
is any more bad than what's going on now.
We just want to delay doing the inevitablebad things in order to have ourselves,
to be able to say we are good people.
Because we're good people,we don't want to judge.

(01:00:36):
You know, the methamphetaminepeople standing on the corner
of the street who are going tobe dead in three months anyway.
Or maybe they actually kind of aredead, they're the walking dead.
You could, somebody could make that case.
Yeah, it's very interesting.
You know, this, this whole conversationthat we've had really sheds light

(01:01:00):
on, you know, conversation and howwe have conversations really matters.
It, it takes thought.
And, and this is really, trulywhat I've been working on is having
conversations exactly like this.
That it challenges whatyou think you already know.

(01:01:24):
And this, I believe, in my head,will make a better person come
out of the confusion and chaos.
As long as we can stumble throughwhat we're doing right here today,
and get to know each other andour thoughts a little bit better.

(01:01:51):
Yeah, that's a nice way to put it.
But I come back to, ultimately,when I have this conversation with
you, my, I'm not, my overlyingobjective, or my underpinning
objective, is not to make friends.

(01:02:15):
I, we could become friends, butI'm not here to become your friend.
My primary objective, ultimately,is for you to think what I think.

(01:02:35):
Because I think, what I think is,because I've been thinking about
it for a long time, for fifteen,twenty years, writing about it.
On certain subjects, I think I know theright way to think about those subjects.
Ultimately, how do I accomplish that?
So, we come back to, if you're aRepublican who wants to talk to a

(01:02:58):
Democrat, ultimately, you would preferfor the Democrat to become a Republican,
correct?
How do you do that?
So how do we do that?
That's the how.
So I can guarantee you mostRepublicans have given up on anyone

(01:03:20):
that's called, so if I screamand yell at you, I've given up.
All I want to do is show youhow smart I am and how stupid
you are and, but I've given up.
If I haven't given up, then I'mgoing to, I'm going to stop myself,
take a step backwards and say, Okay,do I take this person seriously?

(01:03:40):
Is it worth my time and effort toengage with this person in this manner?
And it's going to take time.
Half an hour, one hour, a littlebit today, maybe tomorrow,
it's a, it's a process.
However, and I'm going to leave this withyou, and this one, you'll understand,

(01:04:01):
it's very simple, most people try tochange someone's mind in one conversation.
I talk to you now, I want to show youyou're wrong, I want you to, to realize
that I'm right, I'm right, you're wrong,and I want you to realize that now.

(01:04:23):
What I have discovered,
all I can do is plant seeds of doubt.
That's it.
And tomorrow, perhaps, another seedof doubt will come into your mind.

(01:04:44):
But once I've plantedthat seed of doubt, stop,
walk away, let that seedgerminate in your mind.
Now you have the problem becausethat seed is in your mind.
But of course if we have trueconversation, it's possible that you'll
plant the seed of doubt into my mind.

(01:05:07):
Possible, I'm open to that.
So I've had conversations with peoplewhere I've actually said in the
conversation, You know, I admit and I'mwilling to accept that it's possible
that you are right and that I am wrong.
Do you accept that?

(01:05:28):
And, of course, the personaccepts the possibility that
they're right and I'm wrong.
You understand the joke,of course they accept that.
So then I, then what's the next question?
What's the next question?
Think about it.
Do you accept the same?

(01:05:51):
Do you accept that it's possible youcould be right and I could, that you
could be wrong and I could be right?
Is that possible?
Okay, so if I'm having a conversationwith someone and I ask them that
question, Is it possible that youcould be right and I could be wrong?
And they accept that, butthey won't accept the inverse,

(01:06:11):
don't have the conversation.
Makes no sense.
Thank you very much.
And I really, I've literallysaid, I understand we can't have
a conversation and I just don't.
Walk away.
Why spend your time and energy?

(01:06:34):
I only will, I will only havea conversation with someone who
leaves open the possibility.
I'm not even saying you are, I am right.
Is it possible?
If they say no, then fine, gone.
Again, you have to establishunderlying foundational principles.
And if you have not established those,you're, you're spinning around in mud.

(01:06:58):
And the more you step on the gas, themore quicker the wheel spins in the mud.
And you do nothing, right?
It's insanity to just keep steppingon the gas and spinning the wheels,
and that's what we do a lot of.
So if you're spinning your wheels, bestthing to do is shut off the engine,

(01:07:19):
get out, get a shovel, start diggingthis, around the mud, put some, you
know, you got to do the real work.
But just screaming and yelling, which isbasically stepping on the gas, nothing.
Except animosity, hatred, anger, moredivision, and less respect, because
then you start calling each other names.

(01:07:41):
And that brings us back to Islam, to thatsubject, which I, when people say what
they say on anything to do with Islam,
is it nine times out of ten ornineteen times out of twenty?
They have no idea whatthey're talking about.

(01:08:01):
They only say what they saybecause it's the thing to be said.
Yeah.
Opinionated news, again.
So yeah.
It's,
Yeah.
I'll send you my e book,I'll send you the e book.
Yeah, I will actually probablyorder your book to read what

(01:08:27):
you have to say in there.
Because that's what we do,we read books and we learn.
And if your mind isn't open to otherperspectives, you've already lost
and I believe that a hundred percent.
Because what I believe is just whatI believe and I cannot quantify that

(01:08:51):
at all if I can't take other thingsin and still believe the same thing.
Well, you see, I hate to do this toyou, because you're a nice guy and I
like you, but you just made anotherstatement that's a little bit, no, of

(01:09:12):
course, but it's just a little bit off.
You made a, you made a veryimportant statement that's a bit off.
You said, um, I am, somethingabout perspectives, I'm prepared
to change my perspective, orsomething of that nature, right?
You said something like that.

(01:09:33):
Yeah.
Well, I'm, I'm open, I'm alwaysopen to change my perspective if
you can persuade me that I am wrong.
And, you know, I have a foundation.
Well, but think about this.

(01:09:53):
You know, I understand you.
And I'm being kind of picky becausewe're, well, that's our conversation
about being, about conversations, right?
I, I'm not sure I'm ready to entertainthe perspective of a pedophile.
I won't entertain that perspective.

(01:10:13):
So what you just said,
on some level, is like sayingall cultures are equal.
Well, I don't know.
I am not sure I'm prepared to accept thatstatement that all cultures are equal.
We could say all culturesare cultures, okay?
All cultures are equally culturesbecause they're cultures, okay?

(01:10:33):
But what does that mean whenwe say all cultures are equal?
Well, I'm not sure the Tahiticulture that threw virgins into the
volcano to appease the volcano godis equal to the Christian culture.
It could be if we want to havethat conversation, but that's
quite a sweeping statement.

(01:10:55):
How do, how would, how wouldwe even measure that, Eric?
I mean, you know, when, when we get deepinto that, how can, because that lies
back onto our own perspective again.
So,
But, but correct.
And that, and I'm glad you, we'resomewhere now where it's a little bit

(01:11:18):
more difficult to have this conversation,and so that's, so, here we come.
I once asked a man in a Canadianlegion, and I've asked this question
several times, If you were standingon a bridge and underneath you
there was a raging flood, raging,two girls are being swept away

(01:11:45):
they're both twelve years old, one ofthese girls is your granddaughter, the
other girl is a girl, maybe it's yourgranddaughter's friend, she's a nice girl,
but the genie that came down from the skygave you the opportunity to save one of

(01:12:06):
those girls, which girl would you save?
Many people don't liketo answer that question.
It's obvious, the, the granddaughter.
But it's not, but manypeople don't answer that.

(01:12:28):
They answer, Well, equity,depends, blah, blah, blah, who's
going to, you know, but, look.
So, at some point we are human.
Well, but people are so, we, peopleare so conditioned to respond in a
certain way because of media, right?

(01:12:55):
At some point, there are some issuesthat just come down to what I prefer.
And if you prefer, if you prefer,example, that there are cultures where
they do cut off the little skin onlittle girls who are twelve years old.

(01:13:20):
Do you know what I'm talking about?
Okay.
I'm not prepared toaccept that as acceptable.
To me, that's not acceptable.
Done.
It's horrible.
But there are many people in Canadawho I've had that conversation with

(01:13:40):
that have said, Well, it depends.
And I'm like, Huh?
Really?
Like, and more than you would think.
Well, it depends.
At some point, don't we, as men, aspeople, as a civilization, have to

(01:14:02):
just say, I prefer what I prefer.
No, I don't want to arguewith you why we should not cut
off the skin of little girls.
I just shoot you in the head.
Done.
If you're one of those people whodoes it, okay, boom, shot in the head.
Am I right?
Am I wrong?
I've also asked the question, If you werewalking in the park, in Central Park,

(01:14:25):
somewhere, and in the bushes there was agirl who was being punched and, you know,
having her clothes ripped off by two guys.
And they were busy doingwhat they were busy.

(01:14:45):
And you could walk up behind themand hit them in the head with a rock.
But because there's two of them, youhave to make sure that when you hit the
first guy with the rock, you do it hardenough that he's not going to get back up.
Because there's two of them,because now they can attack you.
And then very quickly youhave to hit the second guy.

(01:15:06):
And in doing this, you might kill them
or you could not do anythingand just let the girl be raped.
I know which one I would do.
Now, is it right or is it wrong?
I've had people tell me, Well,you could injure them very badly.

(01:15:31):
You might kill them,you could cripple them.
However, I only think about the girl.
That's my concern.
So am I a wrong person?
Am I doing a wrong thing?
Okay, you could saythat I'm wrong to do it.

(01:15:52):
However, I will still do it.
And if I'm judged wrong,okay, judge me wrong.
If by accident the police come andI go to jail, I guess I'll be sad
when I'm in jail, but I don't knowthat I would do anything different.
I would say the people who threw meinto jail for doing this, they're wrong.

(01:16:16):
You see where I'm going?
Sometimes we have to be wrong or we haveto accept that other people say we're
wrong for what it is that we believe.
Sometimes.
This is very complicated, but my pointis that's why screaming and yelling
and platitudes are much simpler.

(01:16:36):
So Eric, this has definitely been anoutstanding conversation, because it's
challenging what you think, what you know.
And this is what we love the besthere at the Dead America Podcast.
I really want to say thank you for that.
Before we end our conversation,would you please share how people

(01:17:02):
can find your book, get in contactwith you, and also do you have a call
to action for our listeners today?
Call of action would be simply, notthat I'm trying to sell the book,
because I don't make that much moneyoff of each book, if you were to read

(01:17:25):
the book, you would understand theconcept of how to have the conversation.
It's all about, call of action is,if you want to change someone's mind,
and I'm assuming many people do,have the conversation about what,
why they believe what they believe.

(01:17:46):
Simple.
Call to action, get thebook, Muslim Reformers vs.
Fundamentalists, I spent a lot oftime and effort to write this book.
And I think it's a very wellwritten book, and you will learn.
And you cannot, nothing can, it tooka couple hundred years or thousands

(01:18:07):
of years to build our civilization.
People believe what they believe overtwenty, thirty years of information
associated with their ideology.
You're not going to change their mindin one conversation, or one argument.
Mostly, it's not, it's usually nota conversation, it's an argument.

(01:18:29):
Don't argue, have conversations,and plant seeds of doubt.
There we go, that's the call to action.
Plant seeds of doubt,and let them germinate.
ericbrazau.com, that's mywebsite, my blog, my podcast.
Um, and go to Amazon or you can buythe book directly from my website.

(01:18:54):
Say two, and I think
It's definitely been a fascinatingconversation, and it is definitely
not what I thought it was going tobe and that makes it even better.
So I do hope that you enjoyed theconversation because I know our

(01:19:14):
listeners will definitely enjoy this.
And I really want to highlight one morething with you before we go, I ran across
a, uh, I guess it's an organization upthere in Canada called Braver Angels.

(01:19:35):
Have you heard of the organization?
I really, I would reallyencourage you to look that up.
And I think you would be such afascinating fit for that organization
because you do this so well.
And I encourage you tolook up Braver Angels.

(01:19:56):
And anyone else that has been with usthis long in this conversation, you
also need to go look up Braver Angels.
And you know, that's really whatme, Eric and I have done here
today is really highlight the workthat they have been doing also.

(01:20:18):
Eric, thank you so much for beingpart of the Dead America family today.
It was, it's been my pleasure.
And after you read the book, I'msure you'll have many questions.
Get, get in touch.
Thank you.
Good day.
Thanks.
Goodbye.

(01:20:39):
Oh yes, I will.
For sure.
Thank you.
Thank you for joining us today.
If you found this podcast enlightening,entertaining, educational in any way,
please share, like, subscribe, and joinus right back here next week for another

(01:21:03):
great episode of the Dead America Podcast.
I'm Ed Watters, your host, enjoyyour afternoon wherever you might be.