Channel: Abdullah al Andalusi
Democracy and Islam – is there a clash?
Abdullah al Andalusi debates Amedee Turner on whether democracy clashes with Islam, and whether it is something the people should even strive for in their countries.
31st March 2011
University of Greenwich
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Good, we'll get the other speakers speaking, then we'll sit in the plenary and you can ask questions of the speaker. Does that sound okay? So giving us the opportunity, what we think is that will be about 20 minutes for each speaker, and plenty of time for discussion at the end. This is the first event that we've done, this kind is run by the quality and diversity unit custom Cooper's here has overseen it. Hopefully, it will be one of many on different topics that are significant for equality and diversity originally originated because our day running Tatra this last speaker, and then there's no exercise, there could be a second speaker and it's fitted well for everyone. That's the
way it's gonna go.
If there is an alarm of fire alarm, it's not a practice, we would retell it a practice. So if there is please God in an orderly fashion there. And if you were to then go on to the gods, I hope you will enjoy the evening, as you can see, it is going to be filmed. And I look forward to some very interesting and very, very relevant information. So
well, the name of this study was done
in Britain and America, amongst 400, or 500 laborers in the two countries.
the reason that cause
I just say this is a study done with lay Muslims living in Britain and America,
to ask them what they thought
of Islam and democracy. And the reason for that was Samuel Huntington, a professor from
Clash of Civilizations with east and west of the moment.
And we want and God willing,
and we decided that the clash would be between Islam and Christianity, democracy, democracy have probably been the most important principle of the West. And so we that's certainly one thing. And I would say one more way in a minute.
I've had about 100 meetings like this in two countries,
for the for the sounds, and
and I must say, I went recently, in last year in the southern states in the US, and was surprised and relationships between Muslims. And non Muslims have deteriorated substantially since my previous visit. And I think
the reason was because of the suggestions
here, and I think that
exactly right. Of course, you have the right to have a mouse that didn't work. And I think the two signs that problems are entrenched, and in doing so that is the present position, the United States between Muslims and the rest of Asia. In Europe, on the continent of Europe, things got a lot worse.
This is a French minister. You know, we believe in multiculturalism, the French minister in charge,
said multiculturalism is nonsense, and you refer to London, London, Milan, London, East London
COVID London and start exhibiting not bad
Add on say, any nonsense like that. And the trucks though Germany when Mrs. Merkel said Germany is not a multicultural country,
all made in terms Debian
and the Prime Minister of Japan
was there recently. And he spoke to 11,000 of them in a meeting in Canada when
he spoke to 11,000 government meeting in Dusseldorf. And he said, You should learn, we talking about children, you should learn Turkish first.
and Mrs. Merkel, when it comes to a median price in
German first, and it was a very good
relationship between the Prime Minister of Turkey and the Chancellor of Germany.
And a social democrat politician called Sanders and wrote a book recently, clearly, every 1 million copies was served within a month, and it's extremely anti muslim.
Says Muslims aren't German. And
at the same time,
a pearl was killed. And 70% of population said that it was bought a new anti muslim party in Germany, it exists. And then in France and Spain, Italy, and Holland, and Belgium and Norway, they grow slips when they have laws passed or being passed against wearing the niqab.
So you can see things got very much worse, in the last, say, six months show for San Jose. Anyway, last year, in America and on the continent of Europe,
then on 17th, January, everything changed because of the
prices in in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries.
150 or more million errors in pain have risen up against their
And false not
still not up. There are no democracies and countries we call
democracy democracies are currently in Asia, Malaysia and Pakistan. And so if Arabs have not got a democratic
country look to
at all, and until very recently, it also grant isn't it different than
they were? Sounds reason, not.
Not at all.
And, of course, we've had mass demonstrations calling for Congress in Colorado, and in today's and a phone call center
in Yemen, and Bahrain, and Syria,
they whether they will call it with Moxie is not quite clear what they're going to call it in Egypt and introduce these enormous crowds calling for democracy.
I have done
that on one side. On the other side at various times these meetings is mass is mass demonstrations in 90 Muslim preachers from all over the world met and they call the justice and freedom but impose democracy which might lead to an Islamic practices and they say people should only have sure
and not provocative.
On the other hand,
graduates from Turkey,
leaving the AKP party in Turkey, it's an Islamic party, and it's always been some
debate as to what his real intentions are.
He once said democracy is like a trade, probably to alive when you reach your destination
is quite young. He said. I met somebody in Washington who led by World MCA days in a row to discuss what this meant for Best Rock Bottom the destination he was speaking of. And he said the destination is Islam. In other words, even boxing when a breach is
And but however you interpret what you said there, there has always been an attack. And he does what he really needs to do internally, whether he rarely defends democracy or not.
Cryptography is longest and
in the state
and civil service
and then passing it in the leaves, you just start from there. We just told them some music goes
to if someone's got
but now, with with all the demonstrations in Cairo in Tunisia, come on Thursday on site democracy and can never be.
The team does not support prophecy.
He said, in the context in the sample about Iraq's turkey shows that Islamic democracy can coexist from this moment on Egypt must be
fair and free elections for constitutional democracy. There's no doubt at all, I will say to say that he is a genuine democrat that will look to the future of Turkey as a democratic country in the long term.
On the other hand, the Muslim Brotherhood Brotherhood in Egypt
20 years ago, democracy was,
was absolutely it was it was a fall in apostasy.
They actually took over the demonstrations in Carter, last two days, all the young people were calling from obviously, the Muslim Brotherhood took over and lead and they are not really the strongest political force in Egypt. And lead that will play a big part in elections will take place in September.
And the leader leader said,
Brotherhood is against a religious state. And it's a state run by a religious leader like Iraq. That's what a similar state is what they want with religious radicals. So that's what he said.
And it's not really quite clear, and it may be himself doesn't know what Muslim Brotherhood will go for mentioned, because there are different generations. And they have different attitudes, and they've been suppressed for the last 20 or 30 years. And
there will be things and have debates and so on. And now they can start talking to each other in public and making up their mind that there has always been done.
As to what the real intentions are, and movement.
With regard to boxing, he will back off 10 years ago, was a prostitute, prostitute for them.
And, on the other hand, in Tunisia, in Tunisia, made the Islamic party their leader in exile in London, 10 years has just gone back. And he said and then he, he said, We are closer to the AKP. That's the
power internally. Then the Muslim Brotherhood says obviously, Islam as
they are for democracy as much as Turkey is.
Well not. In this study, we chose to invite every lady was
not academics or candidates will be well aware from some academics
in the Muslim world who are against democracy on principle,
attorneys, apparently ordinary British and American Muslims.
And we also realize that if the views of the academics who are against democracy were widely accepted, this will show up in the main results of the study.
We have 38 groups of naval reserves for American government spread right across America and Britain. And they have been passively chosen, but not by any means at all.
Ah, each group of fabric guards held three meetings each lasting too long. So they had a really good, long discussion. Each group had seven and a half
talk amongst themselves on Islam and democracy. And they wrote down everything they wanted to write down. And they were businessmen and engineers and school teachers and professionals and their spouse, and students, the students often when different, separate meetings, they're not always.
All the views were recorded anonymously. Because Dicky America, they were worried about the security authorities, and their names being
reported to the authorities. And so in both countries, they were all totally anonymous, either the names of any of the people could come up.
In fact, I've met very few, because they were scattered right across from San Diego, in the middle of San Diego, an island any efficiently I get one or two
things work. And instead of noon, in school, we Muslims, whether they have an absolutely enormous and an haphazard selection of people,
each one sort of speak for him or herself, along trying to come to a common agreement about the law. And so all the things they wrote down or for each one thought, and of course, their views of the development meeting went by. And so we read a lot depend on the United Nations website,
report, every single thing they read, every single thing is there, and you will get a very good idea of us.
they will ask you to ignore the peculiarities of British and American democracy
is we have two parties, liberals, generally speaking, have coupon is less than or equal.
And they fight against each other one in one on one out running into red in tooth and claw. And swinging from one side to the other, exaggerating far beyond what it actually is almost exactly. It's almost akin to
parliamentary democracies, these two countries have.
But generally speaking, I think the voters in both countries accept they do they trust the system, they think they lose this election when the next month. And so that was really good after the government identified that there was a problem with the legs, not this one. And then in both countries, as is the case, everybody accepts that it's a very rough grading system. And that's a really important law.
And I made it proved wrong.
When we have the referendum, and everybody goes to the Walker, the alternative vote, because they weren't able to get rid of the system in meaning, generally speaking, I didn't know I think we'll always have a government in the Middle
East. And in the eyes of April seventh with uncertainty, we have a consistent
government, whatever power comes in. But if we find the referendum is not proceeding, and it's up to the alternative system, we'll go on rapidly the system that
we just had a few strong governments, but not really an accurate representation of the news, the people now on the continent of Europe, on the other hand, because of the traumas of the war, war and the occupations and terror they suffer, they want to live and they won't care for readjustments between the two legs, each extra few seats change will normally have at least two or three different parties, the name of the majority, and therefore the government the leadership is weak because it is a coalition that
is safe. And
it basically poses the same as Britain, America, one person one gone about the legal system in Germany became the proportional representation, which means to have a pretty steady
one leg rather.
so the Muslims in this study asked about is simply to be in place. One person one
secret better. The government follow the beautiful majority protection by not and the last thing we could do
Maybe in most countries outside your grasp, stand for minorities, and ethnic or religious will probably never be regarded and never drawn. And they do need guaranteed rights, rights for themselves, which hasn't been the case in your service. There is where the
the characteristics of the boxes lives, they were asked the stats.
And they were asked to exclude one person a month with one car. No.
That means you have an election where one party says, if I'm ever elected, I will abolish parliament and abolish democracy,
as opposed is democracy, but if people vote for the Democratic opposition, but then the person will not interact with Marxism is me. Yes, I have an impact. When we have less actual progress, the Department said it will abolish poverty, and separately that was excluded.
Now you need to be the results of all these returns, whether they are the most entertaining part did not really give any thought talk to existing Muslim democracies in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.
They seem to be considering a notional
Muslim country which were democratic,
not when it comes to demographic
results and what they said
were exactly the same in both Britain and America. And then one of the results come out from Italy last couple of months, and shows the same
things they said are indistinguishable from each other meaning meeting can't tell if you read a report from say,
North East London, into South Africa. And it's an extraordinary thing that I I've never been able to identify where a statement comes from simply by the statement. So until I look at where the where the meeting took place, because it was anonymous, but the when the meeting took place it overrode it.
And so the views but really indistinct as the Secretary is, they are quite narrow. And in, if they don't say what they say everything in lots of different boxes back, and lacing. and everything in between USA will improve in this in this country. There's In fact, all four of them, said the same thing within the manner in which
they live because of my heart many cases, I think the results are significant.
what they said was this, first of all, Islam is the
And then one can say that is brought down from heaven.
Democracy, on the other hand, is man made, evolving, and imperfect and pragmatic, could be good, could be bad.
when I said this, he said, Yes, democracy isn't technology. It's a way of doing things. It's not a principle, or ideal. It's just a technology in my community around. And that has nothing to do with all these languages. They all say establish the principle and democracy that is done in a better way of doing things. And sample it was the best that was on the book.
And therefore, the clash between Islam rocks in their mind, because they never met these boxes here and
said, none of them thought there was a cache between Islam and rock.
Now, of course,
Westerners normal messengers, I think generally consider democracy to be an idea
and a principle and,
and a global concept.
But these Muslims did not give us an idea, or principle called the really technology, and they did nothing. I didn't mean they loved the global concept. It was just one way of doing things and they base their views
and all those lessons
I really had a good day the Foxy was in the way of doing government.
And I think, the most favorable result with what Winston Churchill once said, democracy is a bad form of government. But all the others are worse.
Some of them did think it was the beds formed into steam. And some thought it was not the students in Iran saying in in London to exclude you said that democracy was bad, because
not critical, but simply because the parliament in Westerners that didn't follow the views, the people that watch demonstrations and war, and problems after getting on these demonstrations exists never the students in East London said the motion was bad, it didn't work because the enemies didn't represent people.
But there was one vital proviso they all made official.
They said nothing contrary to the program shall happen. It was not
a public company with that said.
Quran is a book that explains all things. And nothing is omitted from the book. So they have such a writer saying that they have nothing in common Quran should happen in a Muslim democracy.
as an ex Parliament yet and I've
been thinking about what is the consequence of this limitation on democracy, but nothing concrete around
in the Muslim world.
And looking at it from a pragmatic point of view, there are quite a number of instructions in the grants what you should do or shouldn't do. Google, AWS, gambling, user ID, apostasy management SNMP, last, but none of the punishments are in that they'll be punished in.
they can also cause a punishment to the hosts and apostasy in the US
or not on the rocks there, which, because the Quran merely has punishment in hell.
wrong deeds, which have to back
out, which is 100 strokes, but not stone. And it's been around Senate, which has had even a hand unless the team remains, I think people seem to forget
that within the ground, where there's limitations, look out
for seconds, on occasion,
new drugs man and fighting when it is war against the men. When using the data, there is the LT. x in the corruption, whichever punishment attached to which takes place in this lab. And so a parliament is free to do what it likes about criminal law.
In choosing a car, say a cost with that apostasy is not a crime, but you can decide on punishment to be because that is toxic to set out in the
in the ground inequality to women in which everybody knows about the value that we produce in clinical cases.
And divorce and inheritance and
writing through children and create its own set of addresses printshop and models. Let's come down to the next slide. That's all it says. It also says many remodels in the address as well. So now think about that.
these these limitations may be considered by many people reading the paper send it to me several times
really, but it will hardly say that these limitations are condemned against them, not giving him a run democracy effect.
And my conclusion is that as next legislator, then the limitation that all these people put on, on their acceptance boxes around compassion is not it's not an exception.
Which would be an embarrassment. And I just want to make very quickly
alright saying that
an item is great for Turkey to Turkey has the AKP party, it has a number of Central parties is knowing properties in,
in the long run, and maybe that it would be better to observe issues rather than just the AKP. Undoubtedly, for all our Muslim boxes, and crime show that Coalition's are essential.
unlike in Britain, America, because in Britain, America, winner takes all. And the legend goes back and forth between the two parties, it's inaccurate and slapdash. But it's accepted by the people
who are trying to adopt that kind of democracy, when you have a one on one interaction.
Because no substantial minorities, either religious or ethnic, who would never be and therefore, in, they will never be in and with better relations.
Then all parties are in government, and they won't take part in government, and everybody feels GM belongs there. And
not only that, we would work in a
sense, but not in the idea of collaboration, it is really hard to corral itself, because
a coalition is consultation, conciliation, and community.
And that's exactly what the
latest versions of this cactuses. Therefore, I believe that a Muslim democracy could do not least Britain parliamentary
system, but a much more general kind of democracy.
sure that it's
He's worked for 13 years in the local community and internationally, and he
basically, I think this I think, democracy is very popular term. At this point in time history. Everyone uses it. Everyone wants to use it. Everyone wants to label themselves by democracy. No, George Orwell wrote about particular word democracy, right? He said that everyone calls their country democratic is a beautiful phrase. So a fascist to their country, democratic a communist, country, democratic, liberal, or democratic everyone else in this town because it's in vogue. At the problem is he says that no one knows what it actually means. Its definition has no fixed definition. You couldn't talk to Democrats in the room, five democrats in rooms discuss the Moxie to come up
with 10 opinions. So this is the problem with understanding what is democracy and how can we even discuss Clash of Civilizations between the terms not defined as Islamic civilization. So I would say that perhaps better discussion V, maybe liberalism, and Islam is their clash of civilizations. As you can see in the West, there is something which is of a higher value than democracy, which no one can override. And that is the difference in human rights with these neo cons of the rubric of metaphysical libertarianism, whatever, when it goes on, and you can't go out you can rise in theory anyway. You can't go out human rights goes out. You know, people's freedom to live.
So democracy in these countries has limitations. And these limits are fixed, you can't change it, no matter if 90% in theory anyway, if Microsoft voted against this, they, they will say, Sorry, your views don't count, you must comply with democracy example PNP, they wanted to join this democratic system with their ideas, but they were told that it would be illegal party, you must accept, you know, multi racial, multi racial policy for induction. And of course, for them, they've always been, you know, very much wanting only kind of ratio side of things, discriminatory, and so on. So for them not be compelled to actually adopt liberal values, before they can even walk through the door,
so to speak, of being considered political party.
Now, I think when Muslims when we use the word democracy,
again, I think we're almost done, we don't understand fully what that word means.
But when we use it, I guess it's in a similar manner, it's very similar, because we have a higher idea of this hierarchy, and with a strong chairman. And then with the West, the hierarchy and the difference. In China, it's very complex. And underneath that, the ideologies which can't be changed are immutable, within this, and you can have this process rather than talking. I mean, you can't go to the American Constitution. And you know, why the American Constitution exists? It's because the American Founding Fathers couldn't trust the American people, for any people to actually maintain human rights of minorities. And so they had to institute the Constitution, because they were scared
of the tyranny of the majority.
So that was itself a limitation on democracy, because democracy is too, too big. You know, like, our public Germany, which is pre World War Two would happen, they thought,
this is considered to be a very a bit of a danger. In the West, you can't have you know, anyone deciding any good people to signing any parts of on whim, because bad things can happen, and they usually have.
But before I go into this, what do we have in common before going to move the discussion? I think as Muslims as people
come in the site, we say, we have a lot of things in common. For example, we all believe in freedom from arbitrary uniqueness. We all believe in freedom from the subjugation to the ballot box. We believe in the freedom to choose our beliefs and practice them, ie coexistence and tolerance. And we also believe in fostering an environment to achieve the holistic and consistent fulfillment of human nature. Our conceptions of human nature differ, but we at least believe that we should foster an environment to separate so this is how we all do. But now what is the nitty gritty is what what is this? And what is justice? What is equality? And what is distributive justice and how to define it?
Well, this is the difference opinion. Some people say that because of concepts, discharge your affairs, by mutual consultation, this refers to democracy.
But then the rule of must consult the people and this isn't a democracy, maybe to consider that is such a definition. However,
the term is discharged affairs not decide your things that people don't decide what the the particular legislation that the government produces.
However, they are consulted with implementation of policy, because people know better than anyone else, what is practically possible, and government or academic knows what's theoretically possible. So what how does the academic for the government meet the people is through consultation to discuss these things? Now, I'll say that the basis of the Islamic system is
mentioned in sort of six verse 157, which says he will join upon which our rights and wrongs, forbidding them which is what he will make more for all the good things and prohibit bad things, and he will relieve them of the burden and the vectors they used to wear. So you spread to God is giving us a prescription for things which will be good and avoiding us think, of working too bad. And this will liberate us from the kind of subjugation that we've run into before either subjugation to all of our oligarchy, subjugation, tyrants, subjugation to majorities, Islam is meant to liberate, and we and how it is by producing a wall system, which the majority of the minority can't overrule. No
one ever believes. It's been this way. I think the best whipping boys out of the shadows.
Soft shadow state is a normal procedure. And if anyone knows Greek, a normal means law and pressing power. So it is the the goal is not people will not want a dictator, not a majority or a minority. The law itself is the sovereign. And then the interesting thing about this audience that no one can own This is not owned by a theocracy or smoly clergy. It's not it's not owned by one dictator can dictate what is what is infallible someone.
Anyone, and everyone could own the losses provided you have enough academic class, you've studied it, then it essentially open source code for anyone that does computer science. It is Linux, compared to Windows anyway.
But of course, once you understand why you're adopted adopts democracy, because we have to understand this, because as a Muslim civilization, civilization never went through the same historical experiences which made the Europeans adopt democracy. And what happened was, essentially with Greek state, dictation, they over the basically, the law insurrectionists, dictation, overrode it, and then decided that for practical purposes, for some reason, we were the people who make the rules and sort of dictate that dictators are tyrannical. And it was just a pragmatic solution by the Greeks. And in some ways, it's very interesting. The other Greeks did it, especially by random loss,
anyone read a book, which is quite interesting, you don't have that initial, you don't have that Athenian democracy in existence, that, that democracy, the Greeks that no longer exists, some might sound fortunate.
what Europe did during the era define the European counterparts, tyrannical kings and dictators and so on. They said to themselves, we need to find alternative alternative system, right, the church seemed to own the kind of political of the Catholic Church. So the people had to love that that was a very close clique of oligarchy of regular people, people, you have the kings who were saying, by the by the mind, we should rule and you must obey us, whatever they say. And so people couldn't find any solace there. So they instead adopted democracy because of that experience. Whereas for Muslims of Southern civilization, we never went through that experience. So we never saw a need for
democracy, because our leaders were on by and large, accountable. And when you look at Islamic history, there are so many actually revolutions because that
history is so good, why there's so many revolutions and uprisings. And the reason being is because never a dictator got out with open ended leave became a dictator, the Muslims rose up against each other, and everyone was off. So they rose up against him to the post as much like how the founding fathers allowed all Americans to possess weapons so that nobody can come back and dictate the American people, what they shouldn't should be doing against their better judgment, reasonable conscience. So this is what I did. And we never went through that experience. And so we never developed it. But
history is a different discussion. But that's the explanation of the different historical perspectives between
Islam and the West, we have to both understand in order to understand each other. So we cannot project our own history onto the other person, because we've kind of come from the church, we've had a problem with kings of thought you'd like me to as a participant, I say, Well, actually, we have had this problem until only very recently post colonization. And unfortunately, what these governments have instituted most is governments have instituted policies to buy
and sell. So this is
the one thing that he gave us is kings and dictators. And so it's like a king detail looks like we'll give you one, then we're the size of a democracy.
So what is the Islamic contentions outside with what are recommended to the democracy, whether they were were different stuff I mentioned some similarities were our differences. Well, the issue of sovereignty of the people, majority arianism, procedural procedural ism or proceeding, democracy, and of course, the liberal justification for democracy is an issue now the sovereignty of the people issue. I think it is commonly known as Amadeus or is it is that most general legal sovereignty belongs to God the contract
with God first, not with the people. However, the crown says that we are a mankind is that we are procedures, good as good as deputized have authority to enact is that an act of law to activate in good conscience and in the right manner, so we might not have
sovereignty, but we have templatized authority as human beings.
So the amount of people possess the authority and they select one monster to institute, the organization known as a state in order to manage resources and protect property. So the visa is not insomnia.
Liberty is not at the soldering. But he's having a deep in the delegated authorities for passing the people or which is given to people by God. This is the how the summit
works in it, we don't do something we call it off for
But I'll try to be very quickly as to where the contention by and this is quite an interesting discussion in of itself. Essentially, one of the main aspects of democracy is the majority will hold the majority vote, the majority will not hold some majority of some kind, in almost every form of democracy in this country as well. Now, my contention, the contention of philosophers such as Hobbes and Plato, is that people generally don't know what is good for the group. If nobody is good for themselves individuals, sometimes even then that's that's also an issue. But for the group, they can't possibly know why is that because as individuals, you are focused on your life, you're focused
on the web, you're focused on your body's family, just to invite a day, you don't have as much time as you as a member of parliament, or the Prime Minister, physical King, to look into what's happening around the country, where there is also needed, what the needs of the people, you know, political philosophy, fiscal policy, most of us are just not experts in any of those things. Not to mention the fact that we don't even know what's even happening fully in our country at any moment in time, that the government knows more about what's happening, then the Germans do, because the government gets intelligence intelligence, from counselors from hospitals from what happened, it's
just normal. So obviously, this is the case. So people don't know. And they call this with rational ignorance. Essentially, aggression reader says that people know that they calm down enough time. So what they do they have a very simple criteria of competition. That's a good candidate backhand election. And then they just say, look, if you look younger, they become each other out. Yeah. Or they'll just say, you know, I think Yeah, when do we stop spending cuts when spending cuts costs, like, Oh, my God, they've done too many spending cuts. And it's like, so they don't know. So at any point in time, they have a very, very basic and simple criteria. To play. This is a basic process.
And what is the concept of this sort of 616 if you obey the majority people on a daily basis, you've got a follow only conjecture.
So to put you out,
and know that other messengers, other messengers among you. And so if he was, if he was to follow most of you in the room, then you would also be fooled into hardship. So Mohammed is a chronic, saying that if you haven't even followed his companions in Mecca, on the roof, just for whatever they what they asked him for everything. You know, I think this will be after we have this one that he followed them that improve for
most of you, it is said, so it's not the chronically that majority lives. Correct. In fact, most people don't know what's beneficial to the group, because we just individuals have not been legally blind. So this is
another problem. Most people succumb to the rationality. So as the concept of what
would make this good life for you, man is great. So the other thing is the shadow because we operate, as if we are supposed to come to Russia, we have the capacity for rational thought. But most of us most of the time, are irrational. So if people have trouble following dice, they have trouble boosting advertising, they follow fashion, that it will sharpen your needs. And some, they can't resist temptation to do these things, even when they know it's bad for them. So many people do this is a persistent problem. They have so many self help guides and hypnotist, self hypnosis boys kind of thing to get people to be rational, but they can't, because most people act in an irrational
mode. It's just human nature. It's nothing more if somebody has condemned human beings is consolidated that we have a we have an erection cycles. So what is our what assumptions do is it makes easy for human beings by removing the temptation away from us so that we can act more rationally and of course by giving us an alternative way to fill ourselves, which for for the more correct and progressive
So all the issues that people are not always keep investigating, I already said this, but there's the first sort of score, I have. Three, that when it comes to them a matter of touching public safety of fear, they make it known among the people, if only they had referred it to the message of adult child for 14 months and the public education, system them directly. So the quality is saying that people don't know how to react to issues, they react in a very superficial level, with some kind of some type of mass hysteria, telling everybody about it. And then there's rumors about anti vaccine very chaotic manner. If only adults who were in a position to investigate issues produce,
the correct understanding of what's happening in any given point in time is what we have done this in the first place. It's why we have governance is because the government has access to intelligence, so to speak, on the ground that we do this. So we can help we now make people the basis for, you know, legislation, or deciding what to do at any point in time. And I'm not the only one that says this is the chronic illnesses this, you have. And again, plates are hot, and a whole host of other political forces moving up to the west, which you just said the same thing. It looks like Islam synchronicities everywhere, I think everyone will most people say things. Now, people are
subject to prove his theory of peer pressure and pressures, and from the earliest democracy, the Greek times when you had the off the back wall, but I think it's right
to say, when the Athenians want a victory of the Spartans, and at some point, mistakes are made of some generals that some people like to do what have you, and the people so incensed that they created public courts where you know, you will be subject to one of the people, the people who generals were executed. Once included, they were all executed by people because they were angry at the general state to save some soldiers.
And this very charismatic masters theory of matter. We see currently in Socrates, by the way to execute in hypotheses as well. They sought to accuse him of corrupting the youth as mass hysteria, he was executed, because majority for
the burqa ban in France is Wait, Bastion, the Europe repression of representative Coalition's among democracy, it represents, you know, proportional representation rights? Why is it that in the countries that have a lot more representation than England, America, you have more rule discriminating against minorities? Why is that? Because anyone who studies the supposed to be yourselves also see that it's been observed is that coalition governments tend to get the extremist Taliban because of big government that the coalition is so big, that any of the other extremist, only the very small minority people to get their backing opinions. Whereas in a more Anglo American
system, you know, there is there is more control for both parties avoid the center, so to speak, the moderator again, so we can thank him for this for his foresight on this. But even when it comes to the endocrine system, but because I believe my my colleague has issues as well, we have an American system that actually has some advantages over the European system, which is just as
chaotic and sometimes many right back in Switzerland, they start putting posts up with a minaret sticking up and missiles and
in the front, but that has nothing to go in the first five minutes.
And Switzerland with us collected master's degree. There's a belief that something inside didn't become a hysteria spreading in America. Once they, the people pop the referendum, they banned cherry in that state, even though there was no there was no chapter where they
were going to ban it. In case the
transformer hysteria and the Constitutional Court overruled it because it was being beaten, obviously, an anti minority, and so on. So this is the issue. Again, Israel has a current recently now has a bit more discriminate against errors, that they banned the commemoration of the National Park, which is the person you've just seen this morning, where it was great, and in their last fight Zionism a lot that it should be a free state, you should you know, I'm going to commemorate the fact that we know the majority. Governments pass this law, the ban and find anyone who commemorates organizations and of course, many, many, many other examples. So these are issues with democracy,
which I think a rational person, any rational person who is Muslim or whatever, would see there's a problem. And in sort of proton, I have 4344. It says Have you not seen those who take care
They got their own desires with good up and disposable immunotherapies.
We think that most of them here understand they often by catalyst may stray from. So the corny saying that people just take any designs we need as their own the basis, whenever they might be impulse, then they're going to be affected by
going one direction for direction perhaps.
And this is the problem
on a more philosophical point, local majority equals true. So those are the beliefs that the majority have the truth was the concept to a five by 100 say no equal to things that are bad the things that are good even though the abundance the bad.
So I'm just smokeless perspective, this is not saying that this is arguing just because the text says it, the Chronicle give me a rational is it epistemology sound that the majority people believe in something that is true?
And I'll take, for example, the belief by scientists, the majority of scientists in the last century, that statistic theory, the universe always has been
a study secured by the depository scientists tell them this. Now they love it. But back then the majority of intellectual academic scientists believe it's the same. So where is that coming from?
And of course, it is a big one to democracy, majority interest will trump minority interest. And the only reason you see that not happening in the West, because liberalism has stepped in and said no stock, majority interest, we won't let you press the minority, I'm sorry.
And to try to counteract these positive discrimination, to help, you know, equalize the society to get social engineering. This is called ramifications, whereby people think that indigenous minorities who are working class or majority, they are working class, they might completely believe that, you know, that we need to create a set of citizen binaries. And given that today, and they arise in our mind, across Europe, not just in England, all across here. And then we will benefit in getting countries with representation with the government. And so we can see from Holland, Belgium, France, Germany and many other countries. So I never quite found myself saying any country that does
not have full representation
of that it will catch up at some point, theoretically, so these are these are issues. What does Islam say about about the other side, protect from the majority dominate the minority. So you start coming to justice as witnesses to God, even against yourselves. You've seen before for another last lesson, as well, and we distort justice with the country judges don't follow your desires for justice.
At any liberal, I know in theory, they believe that you should follow the design manifest This is a liberal who's more willing to say, but if he desires me to do something immoral, then you should follow the pious
But this is the issues that Eskom has with democracy, some very solid on on these issues with the ex wife, he also has, you know, procedural problems, and so on with democracy, these procedural problems are that you, you can't have a system of governance based on self interest. So the Buddha is only going to pay because himself he wants to go and be reelected. He has to basically get your support. But do you want to roll up to just lose interest just to get power? Is that?
How can a Muslim kind of lead on that system when the Prophet Mohammed told us that we have 42 to offer? So if we're following the example of Mohammed, how can that be broken? Someone says go for me. So my car because you offer
the end of the last foundational camp until a nation ruled by the hypocrites, and if you think about it, democracy system would benefit the hypocrite more than the physical person. Because if you can tell everyone what they want to hear, you have an advantage of someone who's principled and not everyone who's that has a natural advantage. Simple. They call it practice a pragmatic compromise, but other people would call it
as they say, you know, the problem in a democracy minority student, politicians you have made wise that you have the Kennedys and you have
the Bush's and you have the Roosevelt's mean how
How is it possible if we all have equal chance of getting the power that you have within the same family, repeated governance and repeat? within the same time? How is that possible?
It's possible because when in that system, it will benefit those who have more power to influence voting. As you move richer, you can get good business contracts, you can feel corporate interest, and so on. There's some interest in factionalism within that system. Again, there are many of us in the Chronicle for the sake of brevity, I have to skip those which are talking about these issues. So as most of you can't accept self interest, you must be empowered to serve others to serve God primarily. And to serve others. Anything else, you shouldn't be in power, and you can't ask anyone. Now, I think I'm going to break up a brief
definition of Islamic alternative. liberalism is a system whereby it's based on the concept that that man is inherently good, we are inherently good. So whatever. So the only thing that makes man bad, they see the oppressed, remove the oppression, then men will be inherently good. Who is the most free person on the face of this planet for the most free,
they have no limits, no limitations around them, no restrictions. So in theory, these people should be the most pious and most ethical, most normal people on the earth, but they're not the opposite, the direct opposite, because human beings also apart from the basic human needs of people who should be also subject to benefit free power, which are unlimited income as a concept, it will not be satisfied, and they have to protect you, if you are the inclination. And lastly, I'll say that the
But Lastly, I'll finish up on Islam. What is the alternative? What is the subject alternative? Is it a dictation? well know,
Islam believes that as, as human beings, we are all the procedures of God, but we can't manage our political affairs, we can't manage resources, we can't be able to collectively have, you know, a group where Islamic leaders that be able to discharge obligations to college establish a justice system, we get together select amongst those who implement the system, this person is accountable and their their power is limited, and is conditional. If the problem having said that you were your leader, as long as he obeys God, that lead is not a code that you must deal with him.
Five, from ranging from telling you to leave to rise up against. And this is why I say that in Muslim countries, the details are very, very slim against people because Islam, they know that it's not the type of people to rise up against them. And so they're very stern with people, and they're very oppressive. So the sonic system gives an account to government, within the judiciary, which will calculate that everyone is is under the law, no one is above the law. No one is the leader is accountable for what he does. And he cannot choose to make any laws he wants, he has to implement the Sharia choice. And if he doesn't executive, if you want to think about it, and you can say God
is the the sovereign, and anyone can participate in the realm of politics, using multi party system whereby different groups of Muslims will
go out and attack the leader and tell the people about what's happening on in the realm of politics as the crisis that they're writing amongst you, oh, my tongue for multiple groups groups, which could be good and evil. So as Muslims, we believe that we are physically involved and engaged with the system. And of course, the rules are in discharging the affairs mandate by Assam, of justice and distribution of wealth, protection of property and life has to consult with people on policies. So for example, you should invest money into health care or into education. Ask the people what they think you want more. That's sure consultation, if you're quite an expert, and that's the next is
martial law to consult an expert to implement a policy so about 300 submissions, you have to consult scientists, you can't consult some guy out on the street. So Islam has this engagement with the people, with the people actively involved in accounting, selecting and maintaining their government system. It is not democracy, because it is a system whereby the people who the majority who doesn't have without people are not suffering, the law is suffering. However, the people have competences provided they need
a bit more about how that works.
But thank you for listening
There was some things that came out there that
bounced off each other some ideas, or some ideas that were very, very different.
On the one side, or an empirical study of what groups of
the same in America and England
committed, activist, putting a point of view that represents the community. And what we're going to do now is we're going to take some questions, I'd like you, when you put your hand up, and you're selected to tell me your name, and your subject area only, it might be useful for us to see how subjects feed into a discussion. So it's open to anyone, can you? Can you make it clear whether you're
wanting to address both speakers or just one speaker? So
we have about 20
students per class of question, you can ask a question, if you wish to study was theology when I was a student?
To Abdullah? Do you think the western government was empowered to allow the kind of
people to arise say?
Do you think that we in the West as democracy
you know, what's been interesting about these, quote, unquote, African
Is that the kind of response to go across the board from media in the West, from the neo cons from
what they said about Tunisia and Egypt for songs that the guy might be the bad guy, but at least he was an offline, you know, who knows what the people to get to Egypt might come through up from their own their own minds and
aspirations. At least we knew what we can expect, at least he was pro American and pro UK. It's very interesting now that you his across the board, almost no, Christopher Hitchens, in 2007, praising Tunisia as a modern secular state, and so on, even though everyone hated Tunisia, and repressive religion, which perhaps reflects more on acquisitions.
But this is the issue that if the Muslim world could decide their own political future, then his future might not be as profitable as the current of the current status quo in the Middle East, for corporations for foreign interests, so on. And so obviously, Israel itself will be obviously threatened by, by these interests are in Israel sort of state to
keep in place dictators and tyrants. So what we're seeing is that people are choosing their quality of materialism over moral kind of consideration. And there's a reason for this, because people theory you can't have autonomy, without your basic human needs being satisfied, which comes from material, or wealth, and so on. So in order to facilitate freedom, you need a material material, mystic
aspect, which comes in the form of capitalism. Now, there is I would say that the West in two minds, where you have people of good conscience against for, you know, materials from policies in the Middle East. And those vehicles are the people who are for, you know, materialistic from policies in the east and there's like a schizophrenia happening with on intuition. And this current crisis
in the Middle East has shown it exposes, and I think that's actually quite interesting, and is the problem that we need to address as Muslims, we have to strike up both domestic and international interests in Muslim countries and to try to create a system that truly represents our deepest aspirations, which is Islam, even if you use the word democracy, I bet you can ask any Muslim as an avid also, what you mean by this, it didn't mean that people are suffering, it didn't mean that people can believe in the impulse they should be allowed to
enact it meant that people have the freedom to choose which either they have because they don't have this freedom to believe that they have now in Islam, we believe that you can choose to have the freedom to pursue this. Your uncle. So this is what people mean by democracy. As I said, as to full well said democracy means things to people
pitches, I was interested, both of you, in your own ways talked about democracy as a technology, like a technology of doing things. And I'm very conscious that in the present unrest that we have in a number of countries, the whole kind of social network in the IoT communications are moving at such speed that it's creating movements have never been seen before in terms of speed, etc. And I'm just wondering if that will have implications for
none of us have to say what happened in Egypt
or Tunisia, or Yemen, or Syria.
It could all go
And funny enough with another dictator, and you say something.
I would say I'd rather not. I'd rather have in box, even though imperfect, and beautiful boxes imperfect.
that the NIDA could be trusted by the people, once he's been first.
and he will consult
when it works.
But maybe, in practice, democracy, very imperfect.
Government closer to the wishes of the people, then you might say, we should do
what's most just giving us some new way to coordinate our insurrection against the victors? I'm not spoiling dictatorship of any kind,
can be a bit
more of a minority, or a majority. And either
one, I do believe, as I said, that the concept of of carry
is not a presentation, or we just trust what you say it says, doing this x y Zed we can just trust with it. No, no. But rather, we know that I think the basis the leader, obviously will be delivering health care and the civil service in place, which happened in sensitization,
which stops however, we scrutinize the activity example, the
when he was the Kelly,
after a battle with foreign power, and he came back from the School of the enemy army, there was some darkness, and the government will distribute once every person anticipated back
schools, from the enemy armies.
And he was wearing two guns when he was giving a sermon given where to God. So one guy got right front of him in the middle of his sermon and said, I hate you. But we do obey as almost like, why don't you baby What's wrong? It's like, all of us were given one gun. However, you have two governments of the government, you know, this is justice. So almost said that this is my second goal is my son's gone. And then he had to call his sons always to come to see what to say. Yeah, that's actually my second goal. So in our in our system, the cliff was accountable, literally, the shoulders back.
And this is the system accountability, because the Prophet Muhammad said, and
especially for the first one said that if you witness the Buddha, doing something outside of Islam, there is no hearing in the middle. If you see this, don't care on the basis. And you count them as winners, I can post so many innovations with a profound sense that you must tie down the tyrant the oppressor and bind the oppressed and limited to the true limited oppressor, only doing was just and many of us using force when necessary. So we have a very act of going against the government. You must use in a protest demonstration, sometimes even even violence against the leader to make sure the leader does not fit in with the people. And of course, there is conditions obviously, your
particular political policy because you're a doctor and healthcare, education to medical education. Well, you can't rise up but you can demonstrate whatever motive However, if the leader is taking money from the Treasury for his own pocket like
Least, or subjecting the natural resources of the state to foreign exploitation how much cheaper price that none of that is reasonable for any other state that has natural resources, then you must be able to do this first by speaking second by going to scholars and okay coasting by him. And if he is he has controlled in the course, some by some method that applies against this leader as a fixing compiler. This is the assignment method for counting the
sum of two people here, so.
Okay, thanks, guys.
I've got a question. I've got criticism, are we allowed to do that?
Okay, my mind,
thought, which was
rules in the island base, punishment of interview after, there's no rules in this world.
So that's definitely met, but nobody's systematic about this world. I was in a
hospital committee meeting yesterday. And we will talk about monetary policy and the problems of the financial system and the status of the
proposed participant system. Now there are basically two
transactions, financial transaction is going to happen.
That's not enough.
I wanted to ask, okay.
What is the second speaker? Is this is his criticism of majority way.
I want to ask him some questions to make him realize the Arabic.
First of all, as there was a
store that we go to is a
principle that many, many different governments have government.
We have three major
The first one?
crime that gives you
some say consensus of the companions. And so
thank you very much.
Majority of the panel consensus is math. But it doesn't mean that that because if one panel disagrees, there is no consensus.
Well, it doesn't matter what 100% or 50% more math is, a primary principle is tough, when you have to come to a decision, and you've got the freedom to make that decision. We're not talking about, you know, decisions that were made by regulation we're talking about to be where you can make a decision when you can make a government can make a decision.
That is the majority that would have to go, it's the majority decision, that would be exactly the melodic minor is not accepted.
only when there is no revelation related to this matter. So it's not possible to listen to me decide, we're going to try twice that relates to the fact that we don't
support corrugations already made a revelation, we have no choice. But when you got to the government has nothing to do with whether you're trying to pass on government decisions are done by by
by each man. Whether it's 100% or 50% or more is not Central.
There is there are separate parties to the problem, which is
that the decision of the immediate present to the head of site gets he's not he's not he's not.
He can make an error. But if you're not the group,
yeah. All right. Thank you. statements. Okay. Basically,
if you look at some sources say consensus means that we all agree, all of us agree agema agreement, full agreement. It's not majority of mine. And wearing it actually curve is actually in how you implement as opposed to what so it says it says discharge your
Fair financial obligation, not the side, your affairs on each obligation. Every time I
use the word affairs, you refer to Islam Islamic injunctions to your face, this affair is a
judgment. So now saying that, well, things will be decided by the revelation, that's fine, but things haven't been, you know, we can decide, well, you have to qualify this because it's like me saying that. Okay, you know, let's say,
let's say interest. Yeah, interest. Interest is not the exact same concept of that the most of the comfortable River. But using analogy and logical reasoning, they lose the interest was usually written. They do this, even though the exact wording is not that right. Now. every issue, there are principles in Islam, but it's not mentioned specific articles in Islam that address these issues. So you now need to extrapolate the injunction from Islam to these issues you method on the way the shooter come into it is in things like, Okay, well then,
in when you want example, the prophet Mohammed in Medina was surrounded by the city's
pain veterans who were at war
So one person said, let's face it outside of town, and you know, could we call it uncomfortable houses, so to speak, because that is really bad. I think that we have attacked them outside and let them come into our territory. And a lot of us a lot of person said, Well, why didn't come here on the seat, we could have been defeated while on the siege we never have ever been defeat Boko to sound military, you know, strategies total, both totally sound.
equal weighting to these two sounds military strategy? And he says, okay, you know, what?
So people said, you know, no, let's fight. And then people, some people still said, the minority still said, you know, oh, let's stay here. So he's okay. You know, it's not appropriate to take up his arm and put it back on his feet, you can go out to eat them and fight for the basketball, which, funnily enough, they lost. But the majority of who's in those issues fine if the people walk in this situation, that it which has equal weighting, what do you have more confidence in doing that we all do together? It's not.
It's not true.
I'm gonna take another question. Now, if you don't like that, and we've got about five or 10 minutes, so people would want to ask questions.
just hypothetically, if God came to your house,
and said, Follow me, why would you first?
Okay, that's a good one.
I think if God came into my house, I gave him to convince the others that he was right.
Did you want to say anything more about the relationship between religious value and collectivism?
I think religion is private.
And each person has his own attitude
and attitude. But I didn't.
I didn't criticize it.
Instead of supporting in more insight or support to
members of the Church of England.
I think then,
no, I think that nowadays religion is a private matter.
That's a good question. Well, I really made my choice. I didn't even Segal so
but what I will say is this, I think, just, I guess, explain. I think we don't
want to say
we The truth is not decided by majorities and minorities.
You decided based on your conscience if you basically cycle through that
so in this situation, you know, we have to start using our consciousness, the majority can and most times is wrong. In the group right now we'll see what's happening with the majority rule backing.
In Belgium, and gold has become even more popular. So you'll see now what is now completed growing out portion, I'm seeing a situation. And in America, you know, the Constitution is creeping at trying to repress the mass hysteria, which is now trying to alienate minorities, and men by your present a history despite being democratic of persecuting or repressing or discriminate against minorities, the Jews were the fools. And I'm following up, we have the Jews and Muslims have very similar medical system with almost identical practices on many levels. So this is the issue that we're trying to see. When people say to us, you know, how can we guarantee minority rights in a
Muslim country for Christians? And I say, Don't worry, we're not democratic.
So you know, we'll protect their rights.
Even if the majority hate them, for what what have you. And this is the case, I'm not trying to just, you know, most effective against democracy. But this is not even the Muslim contention. It's not my contention, or contention. This is across the board, I can pull your litany of enlightenment philosophers from the west, so many, and pre micro philosophers and even contemporary philosophers who want to be and even lead to this universe, that would probably agree maybe they could be the next lecture and discuss the issue of democracy.
back to me, and that
was the way in which enlightened
liberalism, brilliantly outlined,
and to some extent, some of these traditions that,
in a sense, are quite similar to maybe over against what I want to throw into the melting pot as a third way.
And that is a way in which, with a kind of nuanced mediation, with regard to in the minds nice, liberal area, the constant divorces, and
setup between for example, we've hinted a little bit so just by saying private public that we know as well by religious belief, should remain private class, things a little public, as if it was between the sciences and the arts, and the whale, heifers, etc. The division between facts and values between the subject and the object. This is really where any notion of golden enlightenment becomes replaced by another supreme authority, the timeless truths of human reason, which are actually no, no less imperialist,
17th century Western European idea what ought to be.
But that human reason, the taste of the world should be divided to a messy contingent world of history, and the pure of faith, all the time of day to day world of a particular realm of the universe, where truth is to be discovered, that isn't an enlightenment, liberal duality, which, for example, have nothing to do with Christianity.
And on the other side, we have an Islamic,
where there is a very strong concern that if the majority decision is followed, and then I guess it was picking up
the majority of the neighboring states relative if that were true, it's just what the majority believe. And you're quite right to worry about that. But majority rule does not necessarily mean that that's true. How many people have to believe something to be true? No.
It's still true. So truth is coming from a divine source or revelation or somewhere other than the majority rule. But that concern about contingency messy day to day world politics and human history, far enough
majority rule, which is nothing wrong.
I see a similar I've put that in a sentence, similar brackets to the Ulc enlightenment, which also splits around the timeless truth in contingent politics down there. And I'm not trying to say sorry that there's a huge message but there's a certain form of Aleksey, which I would also say there's a
way to look at that which is where truth is a vertical thing.
Leaving the party beyond the truth in that way can be discovered immediate.
In the existential here now in the messy world of politics, and that's quite a
nuanced views I'd like to share, which I think maybe challenges Islam,
but also certainly challenges. So called liberalism in the past in life.
it was fun
is not good.
But as the level of impacts or the cost,
and those are the things,
evidences side by
side on the minority is interested
in math, and in many cases by having
in the case of men by having an
and then no credit cruise
And that itself is an enlightening distinction. So you've taken that approach to finding something abstract and philosophical whereas the pragmatic decisions are
I'm going to stop because I know some people have got to go.
I would like to
be very brief.
As you said, you're probably more closer, closer to the semicolon.
And what I say is this. In Islam, we acknowledge that there are Christians and Jews, other groups that don't believe
but we don't have a concept of follow through Sharia and you must abide by this not a Christian doesn't believe it. Why should you?
Why should you for some that you
don't believe in it? How can I enfranchised me system is not the law. Fine. Jerry does not distinguish so they will give the human rights to everyone who calls the shots protection property
agents, everybody, all human beings. However, the Christian should not be under Sharia law that you know, don't equal privacy for a Jew. The difference between general
we're very similar
what you saw was Islamic multicultural system was the area,
its own civil courts for Christian or civil courts, both would you admit, for many areas have their own law systems, and that was understood, and all they had to do, they will only franchise the state as contracts is, but you know who so getting contracts is whereby, you know, where essentially you pay tax on the state provides you with security and you know, basic services. And in Islam, the word for contracts isn't, is a money
making project protecting the citizen, whereas for most of them, you have a religious obligation to state the creation, truth is not happen. And so our morphological obligation, we have to pay now as a car tax the state, which is this judgment about these obligations, and we have to find the center state, wherever we are paying whether
or not we have fun and
normalcy, Muslims, and whoever is our religious obligation invested in that state, which the Judeo Christian doesn't have to do, they don't have to join them
So this is the difference. And I think maybe that's similar to what you will say, and you won't get this in a democracy because in every doctor I've ever encountered, it's been wonderful for all and that's called people to invite you to have Kenya in Thailand and have one that you have so many other countries that by different groups people for each other because there's two factions for us as far as like you're different groups.
for you in your areas.
Thank you for listening. It is the first time we've done
since I can remember and I want to thank both of our speakers very, very much
What has been really quite, quite interesting, two different ways of viewing things to actually read lots of things. And I hope that this will be one of them. So I just like you to clap once more for the two speakers.