From Islamophobia to Understanding: A Transformative Conversation with Eric Brazau

Eric Brazau
[00:00:00] Ed Watters: [00:01:00] Today, we are speaking with Eric Brazau. He is an author of a book, Muslim Reformers vs. Fundamentalists. Eric, could you please introduce yourself and let people know just a little more about you before we get started, please?
[00:01:19] Eric Brazau: I’ve been in Toronto now since 2001. I got here just after 9/11, I mean, the winter of. I’m originally from Montreal. I grew up in Montreal in both languages, English and French. When I was much younger, I spoke Polish with my grandparents. I studied theatre in Montreal for quite a long while at various levels of amateur, semi professional basis on different plays. Shakespeare, Harold Pinter, Chekhov, all of the classics as well as some contemporaries.
I, for business reasons, I [00:02:00] came out to Toronto in 2001, 2002. At that point, um, I understood, I got involved by accident, now my life seems to be around messaging, um, the proper, the better way to message and talk to people who are on the other side of your opinion or the other side of your argument. And I started out into this, I, this whole world of political manifestations and activism and arguing with the subject matter of Islam. That’s how I started. So as much as Islam is a large part of what I do, the subsequent part, the part B to the, uh, to the main part, is how to engage with other people who are in conflict with yourself in a manner [00:03:00] that could possibly lead to something productive. That’s the part B of what we do.
[00:03:11] Ed Watters: What you’re doing is very important in our world today, Eric. Because a lot of people like to argue about nothing, really. But when we really boil it down, we’re all human beings and we live here together. So, your book, Muslim Reformers vs. Fundamentalists, came out of this journey, this, kind of a, uh, odd thing. Because you weren’t Muslim, you were actually Islamophobic. And that’s very interesting, because many of us, if we’re not of Islam, we’re, we’re leery of it because of what the media brought in because [00:04:00] of 9/11. It’s an interesting journey you took from being an Islamophobe to whatever you consider yourself now. Could you walk us through the journey of that transformation and what it is now that you believe you are?
[00:04:22] Eric Brazau: Well, I’ll start with what you just said. And if I veer away too far, 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 nothing different than I was in the past. I’m the same person. I’ve come to make some realizations. And those realizations are the more you tell people that they are wrong and that you are right, the more they don’t like it. If for [00:05:00] no other reason than, you might be right and they might be wrong, that’s, that no longer becomes the issue. The issue becomes they just don’t like it,
end of story. So very often people can reject a message simply because they don’t like the people who are bringing them that message, because they’re conflated. So if we remember back to when we were fifteen years old and some teacher or your mother said, You’re wrong because you’re a child and I’m right because I know, you no longer cared about 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, you just rejected their message outright. I came to realize, wait a second, that could be why people hate me. Of course, there’s those who liked my message, were fans of my message, were fans of my approach, [00:06:00] but there were a lot of people who rejected the message simply because they rejected my manner of bringing this message to them.
Rightly or wrongly is not the issue, they saw me as somewhat arrogant. And to some extent, I was arrogant because I was certain in my position that I was right and they were wrong. So that already sets up a conflict of personalities between you and others. Something happened at, in 2017, and I go through that in the book, to which I had to re evaluate all of my stances on everything regarding Islam. So I threw everything that I knew out the window, I started again, and then I went on a journey to learn about Islam. Not from the perspective of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, [00:07:00] Yemen, Qatar. I made the conscious decision to try to get it, to understand Islam from the perspective of the Canadian, North American, Western European nations.
What are the leaders and the Muslim communities from here saying? Because many of us say, Well, if we see a Saudi Arabia Imam spouting what he spouts, We assume that that’s Islam. Or is ISIS Islam, or is Al Qaeda Islam, and if we don’t like that, therefore we, we see all of Islam as those 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 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 [00:08:00] it took a lot of internal fortitude, and ego breaking, and Oh my goodness, what did I do? To, and now I’ve written two books, soon to publish two more. And I’ve discovered not just the, so I’ve become not just an expert or an 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 on how to message people or how to have engaging conversations that are fruitful with people who are diametrically opposed to your position.
How do we do that? What’s the recipe? Because I don’t want to, again, no one likes to be lectured to. And I used to lecture people about 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 of information, [00:09:00] and I think as I mentioned in what I sent to you, you have to be open to listening 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 the other person to finish talking only so 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 turn to impose our information on them. And I’ve reevaluated that, and I turned that completely around, and I’m willing to learn from you. Why is it that you believe what it is that you believe? And more important is, why do you believe what you believe? And what I’ve also found, more often than not, [00:10:00] people do not know or have any inkling as to why they believe what they believe, other than the people around them that they like and believe that.
[00:10:13] Ed Watters: That is, that’s correct, Eric. Let me bust in right there for a minute. You know, that’s a very important aspect of what you’re trying to convey to people. Is, you know, the conversation thing. Waiting to just respond with what you have to say instead of listening, and then responding to what someone said. You know, there’s a big difference. And, and that does create more tension in a good conversation. And so many of us, we have to be able to defend ourselves. And like you just said, a lot of us, we’re defending what our ancestors [00:11:00] told us. And it’s just heritage on down. And even in my own religion, it says beware of traditions of men. Because it’s dangerous. And, religion and politics, they’re the two driving forces in our world that matter the most and everybody wants to argue about them and
many of us don’t even realize what we’re arguing about. Like you just said. The Constitution is the driving force here in America and most Americans don’t have a clue what the Constitution even says. I understand that a hundred percent just by observation. And I think it’s really important for people like you being out there. You know, when I first came [00:12:00] onto this and I’d seen Muslim Reformers vs. Fundamentalists, my mind automatically clicked to, Oh, this is something religious. And, but really it’s not about religion at all. And this is what makes it so valuable to mankind. Religion is just a mechanism for people. Uh, it’s part of the framework of what makes us who we are. And if, if we don’t understand the framework, we’re just,
[00:12:43] Eric Brazau: If I can just interject one second, it’s not, it’s, religion is not the framework of who we are, it’s the framework of, or it can be the framework of our civilization.
[00:12:57] Ed Watters: Correct. And you’re [00:13:00] absolutely right, that is exactly what I was kind of pointing towards. Maybe I worded that incorrect, but yes, you’re absolutely correct.
[00:13:09] Eric Brazau: But I don’t want to get you off your topic. You were going, you were saying the framework of who our civilization is, can be, and usually is religion, or it can be the politics, it has to be something. So, but, but what, why, you said when you first saw the book, when you first saw the book, you thought it was going to be religion.
[00:13:32] Ed Watters: Yes, you know, it automatically framed my mind into this frame of, Oh, this is going to be a religious, you know, Muslim versus Christian topic. And that is the furthest from what this topic truly is. And I really want people to take note of this because it takes ourselves to understand [00:14:00] that. And we have to reframe from that instantaneous, oh, shock and awe. That’s what 9/11 was. And that’s what drew so many of us to this Islamophobia that many of us still today suffer from many years after the attacks. And that gets into a lot of drama anyway. But my point here is we always grab the headline and we don’t say, What do you mean about that?
[00:14:34] Eric Brazau: Correct. Um, I, I’m very wary of using the word Islamophobia myself as someone who blogs and writes and been thinking about this now for going on to twelve years. Because a phobia implies an irrational fear. So there’s this, like a mental [00:15:00] illness of sorts. 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 are starting to have this conversation, it really comes down to what is misinformation and what is disinformation. And how do we act upon and who decides what 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. Well, what do you, when someone says to me, Do you believe in God? And I’ve come across that question several times. Well, how do you define God for me to say whether I believe in it or not? Like, what is your definition of God? Because I can’t say I do [00:16:00] or I don’t if I don’t know how you define God. For example, if someone says, Do you believe in justice? Well, okay, like, it’s hard not to believe in justice, but please define your meaning of, how do you define justice? So how can I agree with you or not if we haven’t come to, it’s called first principles, basic principles. Before we can actually answer what, do you believe in justice? Okay, let’s have a conversation of how you define justice. Then once you’ve defined it, then I can tell you if I’m in agreement or not. And very often we have conversations about so many topics to which no one has the, the two people discussing are not even in agreement of, what are the basic principles? What is the foundation? [00:17:00] And so,
[00:17:02] Ed Watters: So Eric, does that mean that we’re lazy when we start having these conversations?
[00:17:11] Eric Brazau: Wonderful. That’s actually a very insightful question. Lazy, sloppy, I prefer to put it down to, because people spend a lot of energy in these conversations, they scream, they yell, they get red faced, some people look like they’re gonna have a, some people you would think they’re going to have a heart attack, they start frothing at the mouth, they’re not lazy, sloppy. And many people, we have learned, if we are more passionate about something, or if we demonstrate passion, 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 yelling and show your [00:18:00] righteous indignation, it means you have no legs to stand on. Believe me because I’m screaming and 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 must believe me, but just believe me. So where can you go from here?
[00:18:25] Ed Watters: That, that was me when I started podcasting.
[00:18:33] Eric Brazau: It was many of us, many of us. And especially when you’re fourteen, fifteen, seventeen, twenty, you, you have some, there’s something that happens to us at a young age where we start to think we know so much. There’s a thing about youth, it must be the brain, something happens that you just think you’re so smart. And then we bring, we carry that forward into [00:19:00] adulthood. So, I don’t know what, you know, so go ahead, ask me another question. But we’re, seem to be in agreement here, you need to argue with me a bit more.
[00:19:12] Ed Watters: Well, that’s, that’s what the Dead America Podcast is about, is kinda making people come together and understand we’re all different, and there’s really nothing that we’re arguing about. Because if we really sit down and have an intellectual conversation, we’ll actually find out a lot of the times we’re on the same page. Yep.
[00:19:44] Eric Brazau: Actually, if I may interrupt you. May I interrupt you, please? Please, may I interrupt you? Very important. What you just said is wrong, we’re not all on the same page. [00:20:00] Now if, say we had a town of 150, 000 people and we had a meeting where we’re going to buy the new firetrucks, right? And some people wanted the fire trucks 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 orange that blends into the background, so that it’s not so obtrusive. Well, some people have a different idea on what color the fire trucks should be. But, they all agree we need fire trucks. They all agree that fires should be fought and extinguished,
that’s on the same page. If another group of people at the city council [00:21:00] are arguing that we should not have fire trucks, that fire is a good thing and we should let buildings burn. That’s a different page, right? So what you just did, the smart person that you are, and as you’re becoming on a journey, is you said something that’s not true. It’s a platitude, we’re not all on the same page. For example, some people say the border wall should be six feet high, some people say it should be done this way. Some people want to spend more money, less money. But there are other people who say 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 someone about how high or what’s the effective way to build a border wall, the first question is, [00:22:00] do we all agree here that a border wall, and I’m using this as an example, but do we all agree that we need a, we need a border?
Because if someone says, We should not have a border, well, then you cannot have, you cannot discuss what the border wall should look like. They’re not on the same page. So what are the, so before we, so when you come to our, when we, when we organize the meeting, we have to say, This is a meeting for people who believe and support a border wall or support a border to begin with.
[00:22:38] Ed Watters: 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 enough into what I was actually saying and the meaning of what my intent [00:23:00] was. So, it’s good that we’re having this conversation because it illustrates to people the importance to be poignant, and that, that, that’s very lacking in our society today. People don’t know how to get specific anymore, it’s too much granularity around.
[00:23:28] Eric Brazau: Correct. Yes. So, because I’ve practiced this technique of having conversations and being granular for the last seven, eight years, actually, for a long time, and that was how I used to, I was able to, you know, in some manner of speaking, demonstrate my superior abilities as I was able to crush people in conversations. And I wasn’t nice about [00:24:00] it, I would just show them up to be fools. And then again, that’s not so nice, but I’m just expressing my journey.
[00:24:06] Ed Watters: Yeah. Well, that’s what we’re here for.
[00:24:10] Eric Brazau: Most, so most people will say nice things, like we’re all on the same page. You know, they say nice things, not understanding what are the implications of those nice things that they’re saying. 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 on point, it’s off by 10%. So 90%, you would say, Well that’s good, it’s 90%. Sure. [00:25:00] 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, six kilometers, three miles out into the lake, and you got to go back home. Now you know back home is somewhere over there, but you’re not really sure where it is over there. Is it two degrees to that side, three degrees to that side? You kind of have a general idea, but if you’re off by three degrees, starting from three miles out, all of a sudden, you’re 500 meters or 500, you’re half a mile 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’re going, you’re going to be off by three, four, five, seven, ten feet. The [00:26:00] further out you are, that three degrees or five degrees 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. 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 the civilization, with the conversation, with the culture, with a nation. It takes, it takes a lot of time to build a nation, to build a culture, to, you know, to, to build. It takes time. Especially the more intricate, to build something, the more it takes effort. But if you make, if we start making all of these platitudes [00:27:00] and accepting all of these concepts just because they sound good, and they may be more or less good, but more or less doesn’t quite cut it.
And so, I’m a, I’m a proponent of if you don’t know what you’re talking about, just don’t talk. Not everyone is an expert on every subject. I asked, when I was in jail for my Islamophobia back in, several years ago, met a man, a black guy, maybe he was thirty-five years old, we had a conversation, or I asked him something. And now it’s odd because here I am in this environment and he said, I cannot give an opinion because I don’t know much about this subject. He said that. How often have you said that, or have you heard someone say [00:28:00] that?
[00:28:01] Ed Watters: Myself, I say it quite a bit. If I don’t have a clue, I admit it. But I always have an opinion.
[00:28:12] Eric Brazau: Well, there you, like he, but he said, I don’t have an opinion because I know nothing about this subject. Well, I know I don’t know enough about the subject. As a concept, everyone thinks if they have an opinion, it’s valid. Because it’s, and that’s, that’s the problem as a society, we’ve, as a society, we seem to have set up a paradigm where all opinions are equal. 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, [00:29:00] but yet she knew. You know, a lot of people, if you, 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 time warps, and, I don’t know much about this. I don’t talk about it, other than to say, Wow, that’s interesting. So if somebody gave me his opinion on black holes and time travel, I would not argue with them. I would just nod my head and say, Hmm, that’s interesting.
[00:29:39] Ed Watters: Well, that’s part of how we learn through conversations. If we’re interested in a topic or a subject, we have to ask questions to learn and that’s part of discussion. However, if we’re not [00:30:00] sure, we do tend to not want to say, I’m not sure. And I’ve seen that many, many times in my, about, time on this earth. But we, we definitely need to be having conversations even if we’re not aware of what’s happening, because that’s how we learn.
[00:30:31] Eric Brazau: So yes, and we learn by asking questions. I have asked people if we should have open borders here in Canada, if everybody should be allowed to, I’ve asked this question on camera, in places, in saunas, in, I used to do on camera interviews with random strangers, many people, the [00:31:00] vast majority of people, will never say, Oh, immigration, because of, we have a housing crisis here in Canada, it’s foods, 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 the time being, because of all these issues? 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 perplexed when I ask them that question. Do you decide who can and can not come into your home? Of course I do. Oh, so if random [00:32:00] people just want to walk 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 to just walk across the border and come into Canada and become citizens of our family? Why is it not the, you know? So many people will say, I believe in open borders, I believe in whatever it is that they believe in, without ever having truly thought about what are the implications of what they’re saying. And so I’m not interested in what people believe. Sorry, go ahead.
[00:32:42] Ed Watters: The disease factor also in immigration, you know, there’s a reason why we isolate individuals. So yeah, you need to think about these things.
[00:32:57] Eric Brazau: Well, so we need to, again, people [00:33:00] make statements without really fully understanding what are the implications of 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. Because ultimately, everyone who believes 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 get into conversations and convince Democrats to become Republicans at some point. But as, if I were a Republican, I would only be asking Democrats, Well, what are the foundational principles of why you believe what you believe? And that’s what I would have the conversation about, [00:34:00] not about their final opinions.
But have you thought true, have you thought through, what are the implications of this foundational principle? If we, if we do this, if we do that. So what’s going to happen to the food stamps? What’s going to happen to all of the senior citizens who are already here and, you know? At some point, it’s possible we can run out of money and have to do a, you know, you have to have that conversation. And what their opinion is becomes irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what their opinion is. What matters is why do they believe what they believe, and that’s the exchange of information.
[00:34:40] Ed Watters: Yeah, I, I like that a lot. So, so, communication about the right things first will actually lead into understanding how to, right, on how to fix and [00:35:00] repair or come to an agreement. So that’s pretty interesting.
[00:35:08] Eric Brazau: Or we could come to an agreement, or we could come to an agreement that I, I want to kill you, you want to kill me, and that’s our agreement. But let’s stop wasting time, let’s stop wasting time.
[00:35:22] Ed Watters: Right. Exactly, exactly. Yeah, that’s, that’s, yeah, I, I like that a lot because, uh, it’s really about being responsible, and, and that’s what it is.
[00:35:37] Eric Brazau: And it’s, it’s responsible, respectful. And at some point, I respect you. Even if you are my enemy, I respect you as my enemy, quote unquote. And I’m saying, until you’ve declared yourself to be my enemy, I don’t see you as my enemy. [00:36:00] But let’s be clear. So if you are someone who says we should paint the fire truck yellow, we should paint the fire truck red, you know, we can have, you’re not my enemy. But if you say we should let the city burn to the ground because we don’t want to, you have now, you’re completely on the other side of the equation.
[00:36:21] Ed Watters: Correct. That, that outlines that. Yeah, that’s good.
[00:36:28] Eric Brazau: We’re clear on that now, let’s be clear. And very often what happens is sometimes people particularly want to be ambiguous, because that’s part of the strategy, deception, etc.
[00:36:50] Ed Watters: That’s correct. So Eric, as I stated earlier in our conversation, your book is nothing about [00:37:00] what the title and what your mind suggests it might be. And it’s very interesting that you can 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?
[00:37:31] Eric Brazau: Well, uh, not exactly. If you read, have, have you flipped through, did I send you the e book? Okay. I should, I should have done that. Okay, so, the idea of the book is Islam, and everyone will accept that Islam is greatly contributing [00:38:00] to Western civilization. Do you agree on that?
[00:38:06] Ed Watters: I don’t know if I have enough data to answer that correctly, you know?
[00:38:14] Eric Brazau: Okay. You actually, you do. Okay. So my question to you is just this, Do you notice that the concept of the Islamic religion occupies a large space in our zeitgeist? Yes, okay. So that’s very good. So that’s, Islam is very much a presence in our civilization. It’s in the news, it’s in the media, it’s on, uh, it’s everywhere, okay?
[00:38:50] Ed Watters: I would actually say that, uh, in many ways, I, in my thinking, would suggest [00:39:00] that Islam is bigger in capacity than Christianity.
[00:39:08] Eric Brazau: Yes. So someone who is on the offensive, as in chess, or anything you play, or hockey, or baseball, you know, if you’re on the offense, the other guy is there ergo on the defense. If I had to be, if as a chess player, or a fighter, or I play hockey, I would rather be on the offense than on the defense. A football team that’s always on the field with the offense has a better chance of winning than the defense. Does that make sense?
[00:39:51] Ed Watters: Yes.
[00:39:53] Eric Brazau: So Islam, as the religion, has [00:40:00] a duty to always be on the offense. The offense of Islam is to bring Islam to the world. That’s a religious duty. The religious duty is self sacrifice to bring Islam to the world, for the betterment of mankind, to wipe out Christianity and Judaism, along with atheism, uh, et cetera. Sorry, Christianity and Judaism do not need to be wiped out, they can be left to survive as a subjugated religion. That’s the doctrine of Islam. However, many people misunderstand that. That Islam wants to dominate the world for malintent. So [00:41:00] Islam sees itself as bringing rest, Islam sees itself as bringing justice and humanity back because, to the world as dictated by Allah and the Sharia. So, for example, many people are confused. There is a book here at the Toronto Dundas Square, it’s a Times Square in New York, where for the last fifteen years, today as well, there is a group called the Toronto Dawah Group. Do you know what Dawah is?
They were giving out a book called Women in Islam, or Know Your Human Rights, in which it specifically lays out in black and white, in English, that when a man, and I’m quoting now, when a man [00:42:00] beats his wife, he should not beat her for vengeance or to hurt her. Beating women is only for discipline and to correct their behavior. So you should not break her bones, you should not leave black and blue marks. Because Islam forbids severe beatings. Bukhari, in the hadith, gives you the number, a man should never, Allah, look, the Prophet Muhammad said, A man should never beat his wife and then have sex with her on the same day. So many people do not understand that, for many Muslims, this demonstrates compassion
in the fact that the bones of the wife are not [00:43:00] broken. So when they hear that at first, they think that this is bad, that beating women is bad. And as a Western civilization, we may come to that conclusion and jump and say, Whoa, this is bad. You’re not supposed to beat your wife, correct? Many people believe that from 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 to per fundamental principles. So if I were to say to someone, You are a 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 your wife, you’re not controlling her.
And in the Islamic, in the Islamic paradigm, the man must control his wife. [00:44:00] He cannot let her leave the house without his permission, without being fully covered. Whereas Western men, or Western civilization, allows women to just come and go as they please. So fundamental principles are, are, you’re starting at two different places. So, the book, Muslim Reformers and Fundamentalists, basically outlines how, what we in the West expect as the foundational elements of what a civilization is, does not correspond in any way with what the Islamic doctrine says foundational elements of civilization are. In the book, however, you [00:45:00] have the Muslim reformers who do say, My Islam, or the Islam that I prefer, is compatible with Western civilization. However, the other voice, which is the imams and mosques that represent ninety-five percent of all the mosques in Canada, America, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Austria, say no. The reformers are nutcases, and they represent one percent of the Muslim population.
Which means they don’t have a lot of seniority, they don’t have any sway. But many people, like nice people, non Muslims, like the concept of the reformed Islam. [00:46:00] 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 from the Sunnis every Friday. So, what comes clear in the book is there’s elements of what we would call not nice Islam. The, you know, the total blackness, music is haram, music is the call of Satan, uh, Western civilization is a cesspool. That Islam is, or seems to be, mainstream Islam. That is the Islam of ninety percent of the mosques or of the belief system. [00:47:00] So my book that I’m working on right now deals with, to some extent, the highest, to a large extent, the highest achievement that a Muslim man can do for the religion of Islam, of Allah, is to die in self sacrifice, in one way or another. That’s what we would call a shaheed. A shaheed, shaheed. Shaheed, shahada, for , shaheed for male, 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 [00:48:00] for a large percentage is written from the perspective of the male. A martyr in Islam, and this is not fringe doctrine, this is mainstream doctrine, very well established, will have seventy-two houries, H O U R I E S, houries, which is black eyed girls, seventy-two, virgins, in paradise.
There’s also doctrine that says that virgins in paradise are perpetual. Their hymens repair on a daily basis, so they’re perpetual virgins. But most important to the family is that someone who gains the highest level of paradise in this manner can intercede for seventy of his relatives on the day of judgment. [00:49:00] So say you’re my brother and you’re a bad guy and you’re not going to paradise ’cause you’re a bad guy. Well, because I’m a good guy who went to the highest level in paradise, I could say to Allah, Hey, whoa, Allah, that’s my brother. Bring him on in. I can do that for seventy of my relatives. That’s why a lot of people, when their children become martyrs, they’re happy.
But you see, but, but, so my, what I’m getting at here is this little example shows you how fundamental principles, underlying principles of what we think it is to be alive, and what we think is the, what we view as life, is completely different from the Islamic perspective of what is life. So I’m not going to argue like I [00:50:00] did ten years ago about, unless you understand the underlying principles, there’s no conversation to be had. So are Muslims wrong?
[00:50:18] Ed Watters: That’s a very interesting question. Uh, are they wrong? No, it’s their belief. You know, that’s what they were raised in. So it’s very interesting because Christians, 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 because that’s what we were raised in. It doesn’t matter what culture, and, and that brings up another thing about your border [00:51:00] idea, you know, that’s why we have borders, the locked doors, those are different families. They have different cultures, they have different ideas and that’s okay.
[00:51:20] Eric Brazau: Well, you, you, you prefer to live in a village where people think and act the same way you do. And in those villages, you might not lock your door. Whereas in, whereas in downtown Manhattan, you probably lock your door.
[00:51:41] Ed Watters: That’s a good point. You know, because generally out where I 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 [00:52:00] that’s, I believe in every culture, or it used to be, I would assume. And, and that’s how people survive, isn’t it? By paying attention.
[00:52:13] Eric Brazau: What you’re talking about, and what we’ve stumbled into, is called high trust societies. Here in Canada, we used to not have a picture on our driver’s license. On our Medicare card, we did 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, people did not think of [00:53:00] using false identification so much. It wasn’t rampant in culture, because for the most part, people were just honest. It was seen as bad to be dishonest. But there are other cultures where to be dishonest is seen, or to be honest is to be seen as being a weakling sap.
And the culture is to cheat whichever way 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’s a different group of people. But if we come back to, and it wasn’t so long ago when here in Canada, If you went to small villages, St. Jerome, St. Agathe, outside of Quebec City, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, [00:54:00] everyone was celebrating Christmas, or everyone was into the Christmas spirit. Nobody was arguing, everyone was happy, everyone was saying Merry Christmas to everybody. It was, there was an atmosphere in the air, even in Montreal. That’s no longer the case,
it’s extremely not the case. There’s no longer an atmosphere of community because to have an atmosphere of 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 whole bunch of individual communities vying for, so, because at some point one community or one group or one ideology will ultimately become dominant. [00:55:00] Because every idea and every ideology kind of believes it’s the better idea, that’s why it’s an idea. So why would it not want to impose itself, in one way or another, nicely, not nicely, over the other ideas?
[00:55:19] Ed Watters: I really believe, Eric, that that has been the case since the beginning of time. The same mentality, especially, you know, if you don’t assimilate cultures properly, and I don’t know if there is a proper way to assimilate cultures, but usually what happens when we assimilate cultures is, the dominant culture gobbles up the weaker culture. That’s always been historically true. Is there a way we can change something like that? [00:56:00]
[00:56:00] Eric Brazau: Um, can we change that? Well, this, do, before we could change anything fundamentally, the fundamental question then becomes, do enough people, or does anyone other than maybe yourself, believe it’s a question that needs to be asked? Like, so is the mainstream media, is the CNN, who’s, who’s, would CNN, would, would Fox News maybe, even ask this question that you just asked? Just the question itself, it’s verboten. So how can you fix a problem unless you even discuss whether or not it could be a problem? Is it a problem that needs to be fixed? So how can you fix a problem before you actually defined it as a problem? And that, and therein lies,[00:57:00]
[00:57:02] Ed Watters: Well, I guess. Yeah. Yeah, I guess we have to go granular there again with, you know, defining what a problem is and, you know, if it, yeah, is it a problem? So I guess that’s kind of, you know, in our mindset, isn’t it? That’s kind of in our mindset to fix things, isn’t it?
[00:57:32] Eric Brazau: Well, okay. So this brings us back to if we had a emperor 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 all the problems that I think are problems. And we’re going to do it my way. [00:58:00] Now that could work out to the way you think it should, it could, or at least eighty percent of what I end up doing could be what you agree with. But to do anything, the eighty percent of what you think would be good to be done, you can’t have committees having conversations about, you know, the right color of the firetruck. That could take like six months to discover what color we want the firetruck to be, let alone make the order for the firetruck. But a king could say, Look, I want the firetruck to be red. End of story, no more conversation, buy the firetrucks. That’s how civilizations used to function, we had a king, an emperor.
Was it, and as time has, goes by, I’m not certain that the present system is much better. I mean, we, we have injustice. [00:59:00] We have injustice, we have poverty, we have people who are falsely accused, we have people who have been falsely killed in prison, we, we, you know, so was it better under King, under King Edward the third? It could have been better or not, I don’t know. So we did all of this revolution to have a new system, and now we’re, have, you know, people homeless in the streets. Look at what’s going on in California. Now, would a king or an emperor ever accept what’s going on in the streets of California? Even a bad king would not accept that, 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 billion dollars on the homeless and the drug people in California. And it’s, it’s worse than ever, that’s the joke. But [01:00:00] a king could come in and say, We’re going to do this, this, this, and this. I don’t want to spend any money. We’re going to do some bad, cause maybe you’re going to do some bad evil things to fix this problem. But I’m not sure that doing what we would call bad evil things to fix the problem is any more bad than what’s going on now. We just want to delay doing the inevitable bad 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. You know, the methamphetamine people standing on the corner of the street who are going to be dead in three months anyway. Or maybe they actually kind of are dead, they’re the walking dead. You could, somebody could make that case.
[01:00:53] Ed Watters: Yeah, it’s very interesting. You know, this, this whole conversation that we’ve had really sheds [01:01:00] light on, you know, conversation and how we have conversations really matters. It, it takes thought. And, and this is really, truly what I’ve been working on is having conversations exactly like this. That it challenges what you think you already know. 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 through what we’re doing right here today, and get to know each other and our thoughts a little bit better.
[01:01:51] Eric Brazau: Yeah, that’s a nice way to put it. But I come back to, ultimately, [01:02:00] when I have this conversation with you, my, I’m not, my overlying objective, or my underpinning objective, is not to make friends. I, we could become friends, but I’m not here to become your friend. My primary objective, ultimately, is for you to think what I think. 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 the right way to think about those subjects. Ultimately, how do I accomplish that? So, we come back to, if you’re a Republican who wants to talk to a Democrat, [01:03:00] ultimately, you would prefer for 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 most Republicans have given up on anyone that’s called, so if I scream and yell at you, I’ve given up. All I want to do is show you how smart I am and how stupid you are and, but I’ve given up. If I haven’t given up, then I’m going to, I’m going to stop myself, take a step backwards and say, Okay, do I take this person seriously? Is it worth my time and effort to engage with this person in this manner? And it’s going to take time. Half an hour, one hour, a little bit today, maybe tomorrow, it’s a, it’s a process. However, and I’m going to leave this with [01:04:00] you, and this one, you’ll understand, it’s very simple, most people try to change someone’s mind in one conversation.
I talk to you now, I want to show you you’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. What I have discovered, all I can do is plant seeds of doubt. That’s it. And tomorrow, perhaps, another seed of doubt will come into your mind. But once I’ve planted that seed of doubt, stop, walk away, let that seed germinate in your mind. Now you have the problem because that seed is in your mind. [01:05:00] But of course if we have true conversation, it’s possible that you’ll plant the seed of doubt into my mind. Possible, I’m open to that. So I’ve had conversations with people where I’ve actually said in the conversation, You know, I admit and I’m willing to accept that it’s possible that you are right and that I am wrong.
Do you accept that? And, of course, the person accepts 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? Do you accept that it’s possible you could be right and I could, that you could be wrong and I could be right? Is that possible? [01:06:00] Okay, so if I’m having a conversation with someone and I ask them that question, Is it possible that you could be right and I could be wrong? And they accept that, but they won’t accept the inverse, don’t have the conversation. Makes no sense. Thank you very much. And I really, I’ve literally said, I understand we can’t have a conversation and I just don’t. Walk away.
Why spend your time and energy? I only will, I will only have a 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 establish underlying foundational principles. And if you have not established those, you’re, you’re spinning around in mud. And the more you step on the [01:07:00] gas, the more quicker the wheel spins in the mud. And you do nothing, right? It’s insanity to just keep stepping on the gas and spinning the wheels, and that’s what we do a lot of. So if you’re spinning your wheels, best thing to do is shut off the engine, get out, get a shovel, start digging this, around the mud, put some, you know, you got to do the real work. But just screaming and yelling, which is basically stepping on the gas, nothing. Except animosity, hatred, anger, more division, and less respect, because then you start calling each other names.
And that brings us back to Islam, to that subject, which I, when people say what they say on anything to do with Islam, is it nine times out of ten or nineteen times out of twenty? They have no idea [01:08:00] what they’re talking about. They only say what they say because it’s the thing to be said.
[01:08:07] Ed Watters: Yeah. Opinionated news, again. So yeah. It’s,
[01:08:17] Eric Brazau: Yeah. I’ll send you my e book, I’ll send you the e book.
[01:08:21] Ed Watters: Yeah, I will actually probably order your book to read what 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 other perspectives, you’ve already lost and I believe that a hundred percent. Because what I believe is just what I believe and I cannot quantify that at all if I can’t take other things in and still believe the same thing.[01:09:00]
[01:09:03] Eric Brazau: Well, you see, I hate to do this to you, because you’re a nice guy and I like you, but you just made another statement that’s a little bit, no, of course, but it’s just a little bit off. You made a, you made a very important statement that’s a bit off. You said, um, I am, something about perspectives, I’m prepared to change my perspective, or something of that nature, right? You said something like that.
[01:09:33] Ed Watters: Yeah. Well, I’m, I’m open, I’m always open to change my perspective if you can persuade me that I am wrong. And, you know, I have a foundation.
[01:09:51] Eric Brazau: Well, but think about this. You know, I understand you. And I’m being kind of picky because we’re, well, that’s our conversation [01:10:00] about being, about conversations, right? I, I’m not sure I’m ready to entertain the perspective of a pedophile. I won’t entertain that perspective. So what you just said, on some level, is like saying all cultures are equal. Well, I don’t know. I am not sure I’m prepared to accept that statement that all cultures are equal. We could say all cultures are cultures, okay? All cultures are equally cultures because they’re cultures, okay? But what does that mean when we say all cultures are equal? Well, I’m not sure the Tahiti culture that threw virgins into the volcano to appease the volcano god is equal to the Christian culture. It could be if we want to have that conversation, but that’s quite a sweeping statement.
[01:10:55] Ed Watters: How do, how would, how would we even measure that, Eric? I [01:11:00] mean, you know, when, when we get deep into that, how can, because that lies back onto our own perspective again. So,
[01:11:14] Eric Brazau: But, but correct. And that, and I’m glad you, we’re somewhere now where it’s a little bit more difficult to have this conversation, and so that’s, so, here we come. I once asked a man in a Canadian legion, and I’ve asked this question several times, If you were standing on a bridge and underneath you there was a raging flood, raging, two girls are being swept away they’re both twelve years old, one of these girls is your granddaughter, the other girl is a girl, maybe it’s your granddaughter’s friend, she’s a nice girl, [01:12:00] but the genie that came down from the sky gave you the opportunity to save one of those girls, which girl would you save? Many people don’t like to answer that question.
[01:12:17] Ed Watters: It’s obvious, the, the granddaughter.
[01:12:22] Eric Brazau: But it’s not, but many people don’t answer that. 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, people are so conditioned to respond in a certain way because of media, right? At some point, there are some issues that just come down [01:13:00] to what I prefer. And if you prefer, if you prefer, example, that there are cultures where they do cut off the little skin on little girls who are twelve years old. Do you know what I’m talking about? Okay. I’m not prepared to accept that as acceptable.
To me, that’s not acceptable. Done. It’s horrible. But there are many people in Canada who I’ve had that conversation with 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, as [01:14:00] people, as a civilization, have to just say, I prefer what I prefer. No, I don’t want to argue with 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 who does it, okay, boom, shot in the head.
Am I right? Am I wrong? I’ve also asked the question, If you were walking in the park, in Central Park, somewhere, and in the bushes there was a girl who was being punched and, you know, having her clothes ripped off by two guys. And they were busy doing what they were busy. And you could walk up behind them and hit them in the head with a rock. But because there’s two of them, you have to make sure that when you hit the first guy with the rock, you do it hard enough that he’s not going to get back up. Because there’s two of [01:15:00] them, because now they can attack you. And then very quickly you have to hit the second guy. And in doing this, you might kill them or you could not do anything and 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. 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 say that I’m wrong to do it. However, I will still do it. And if I’m judged wrong, okay, judge me wrong. [01:16:00] If by accident the police come and I go to jail, I guess I’ll be sad when I’m in jail, but I don’t know that I would do anything different. I would say the people who threw me into jail for doing this, they’re wrong. You see where I’m going? Sometimes we have to be wrong or we have to accept that other people say we’re wrong for what it is that we believe. Sometimes. This is very complicated, but my point is that’s why screaming and yelling and platitudes are much simpler.
[01:16:36] Ed Watters: So Eric, this has definitely been an outstanding conversation, because it’s challenging what you think, what you know. And this is what we love the best here at the Dead America Podcast. I really want to say thank you for that. Before we end our conversation, would you [01:17:00] please share how people can find your book, get in contact with you, and also do you have a call to action for our listeners today?
[01:17:16] Eric Brazau: Call of action would be simply, not that I’m trying to sell the book, because I don’t make that much money off of each book, if you were to read the book, you would understand the concept 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. Simple. Call to action, get the book, Muslim Reformers vs. Fundamentalists, I spent a lot of time and effort to write this book. And I think it’s a very well written book, and you will learn. [01:18:00] And you cannot, nothing can, it took a couple hundred years or thousands of years to build our civilization. People believe what they believe over twenty, thirty years of information associated with their ideology. You’re not going to change their mind in one conversation, or one argument. Mostly, it’s not, it’s usually not a conversation, it’s an argument. 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 my website, my blog, my podcast. Um, and go to Amazon or you can buy the book directly from my website. Say two, and I think
[01:18:57] Ed Watters: It’s definitely been a [01:19:00] fascinating conversation, and it is definitely not what I thought it was going to be and that makes it even better. So I do hope that you enjoyed the conversation because I know our listeners will definitely enjoy this. And I really want to highlight one more thing with you before we go, I ran across a, uh, I guess it’s an organization up there in Canada called Braver Angels. Have you heard of the organization? I really, I would really encourage you to look that up. And I think you would be such a fascinating fit for that organization because you do this so well. And I encourage you to look up Braver Angels. And anyone else that has been with us this [01:20:00] long in this conversation, you also need to go look up Braver Angels. And you know, that’s really what me, Eric and I have done here today is really highlight the work that they have been doing also. Eric, thank you so much for being part of the Dead America family today.
[01:20:25] Eric Brazau: It was, it’s been my pleasure. And after you read the book, I’m sure you’ll have many questions. Get, get in touch. Thank you. Good day. Thanks. Goodbye.
[01:20:39] Ed Watters: 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, [01:21:00] subscribe, and join us right back here next week for another great episode of the Dead America Podcast. I’m Ed Watters, your host, enjoy your afternoon wherever you might be.