Sharia Law – Theocracy or Democracy Q&A Part 2

Yes,

I think it's total hypocrisy for anyone to the United States to tell anywhere anywhere in the world and not execute, since we, you know, we have capital punishment, and we're killing people all over the world.

And there's pressure from within Afghanistan for the the religious community there who is following should realize they interpret it. That's my understanding of the article I read. So if there was

people from other would there would there be any influence that that could go to people in those in power in Afghanistan to interpret Sharia law? Would there be any other place that they could come and have some kind of discussion with it? You know, constantly in Afghanistan? Yeah, I don't I don't know. I think though,

a couple of if you're asking about the possible influence of community, because exercise in that particular incident, no, I can't think of anything over the internet, especially positive. I think it has to come from, you know, Muslim communities and other Yeah, but I don't I don't know. I mean, again, I mean, again, part of the problem here is that

if we assume that the reason why this young man has found himself in this position, is purely legal, then we can expect that people who could convince them that this legal opinion, is simply wrong, flatly wrong of them, we may hope, but that may make you some good. But if the reason is really not legal,

then all illegal mitigations in the world are not necessarily going to going to help that situation. And I don't know.

My understanding was like, he had violated Sharia law. No, no, I understand. I know, I understand that. But what I'm saying is that that may be the justification for something more overtly political. And if that's the case, no legal education, no legal explanation is going to change that.

I don't know. I can say this. I don't know the particulars of the case. Privatization. It sounds ridiculous to me. And I mean, as a scholar of Islamic law, I cannot imagine

why somebody may receive a death sentence for for downloading material that that.

Wow.

Be nice.

I actually know it's the honor the pleasure.

I wanted you to talk a little bit more about manmade versus God made laws, because my understanding is that everything that only Allah subhana mana, understands what was intended by the revelation, and that our interpretation is based on or is dependent on the human shirt media, which, of course, is not infallible. So if you could sort of explore that you expand on that a little bit.

And that I want you to try to apply that to consider a controversial issue, but I want to bring it up anyway. But don't ask me that. I don't want you to have an opinion. But I'm gonna we didn't muster, for example, came out and said that a woman can lead the prayer of men and made a spouse to matter say, well, Linda, but you can't because this is a matter of worship, and it's close you open that door? There's no question about it. So

if you could relate, sort of your discussion and then apply to that example, because it's definitely sort of God made laws that we cannot trespass that we cannot question. No, no, no, I think that what what we have to distinguish between and you asked the question, man, so I mean, it is I get a little bit technical here. I apologize. But I hope I can say simple.

We have to distinguish between primary and religious authority, and secondary interpretive authority. And of course, of course, ad and the Sunnah of the Prophet of primary religious authorities for Muslims. You're right. However, the court and the Sunnah cannot interpret themselves. But that isn't to say, I mean this. All right. So Muslims have to return to it.

And there's a whole tradition of token methodology and a whole universe of that has been established, sort of sort of boundaries of criminal interpretation. And whereas we don't do, you know, the look on this with a lot of suspicion, right, because, you know, religious communities are notorious for being, you know, by mistake and just very close to interpretation.

Let me give you an example of just how fast

Ask the differences in interpretation B.

There was a classical scholar who wrote a book, he died via 318 of the Muslim calendar wrote a book entitled, The Book of unanimous consensus.

And this was a book in which, I mean, this was a major salad in the moment, he actually had a school of law. That's how big he was.

He got off all the issues on wisdom was unanimous consensus among the jurists of is that

the Saudis published his book about him in the 1970s, it came out to be about 140 pages.

A contemporary is the famous authority,

who died three times with contemporary, he wrote another book, the book of disagreement.

And this book Capilla, all of the issues onwards, the jurists of the day, disagree.

3000 pages.

This is this is actual reality. All right. And so the idea of variant understandings of interpretations here and there, it's not good to have a problem with that. In fact, what has happened to me I'm talking about is that when I had a problem with is anyone quite individual claiming the authority to impose their interpretation on the community? It did not accept that. All right. So what I'm talking about in terms of manmade law, obviously, all interpretations are mediated through secular history. We are ensconced in time and space, right, that in and of itself, to me, does not necessarily make it man made law. What I was talking about is the fact however, that

the word and native indications for example, let's say just general indications, yeah, you know, it's probably a good idea to have people traveling around in the way that kills each other. All right, but it gives no directives or injunctions in terms of how they should be regulated, none at all. We simply have to come up with a way of regulating that. So for example,

if I were to tell you Look, I don't have to have driver's license, there's nothing. Nothing that will ever buy me to have a driver's license. All right. And if I want to challenge you to move to to produce proof that I do, you have a very difficult time doing that. All right, by manmade, I'm simply talking about

the fact that this is recognized as a broader interest. All right, that's good to me illusion, but there's not addressed. And we haven't come up with ways of addressing that. That's what I'm talking about. They always recognize this. All right, and my wife and my daughter, I was not implying that American law may not be, it may be a violation of DACA. It may be income returns. My point was simply that the whole idea of anything manmade, and all is a violation of God's law. And that that's problematic. Now with regard to Professor watunes,

statement on

women leading the prayer, see he

I'm a hopeless, closed

person. And I don't mean that as a cop out.

I don't mean that I'm a formalist because I have every opinion because I really don't know what I think.

Right?

Well, I don't believe in absolute truth.

I do believe in absolute truth.

Absolute Truth exists. And I know what it is.

I also know that I might not be able to convince you of what it is

some kind of additional authority that I don't have, I can't impose it on you. The problem I have the way that the professor will do his opinion has talked about is that

if people recognize Yes, this is an opinion that deserves recognition, then then

what if an opposing opinion

or opinion emerges this guy's head when it

comes down to the point that I'm making there?

And I think that what am I talking about opinions and Islamic law, we have to recognize that when talking about opinions at Islamic law, there may be many things that I want to

Although I would like to see, all right, for me to be able to claim those as a basis for the way the communities are structured in Florida, I then have to validate that

at Islamic law,

and I may or may not be able to do that. And if I'm not able to do that, then I cannot claim it in the name of Islamic law.

It does not what I mean by that. And I think that rather than look at the conservative side of this, and there is a conservative side to it, what we should look at is the fact that there's also positive side, because the very fact that I can claim, whatever I want to claim, as Islamic law also means you can't do the same thing.

So it protects both of us.

In other words, it professor will do and I'm not, I'm not this is not against progressive. I don't know anybody got any all night games. But if she could claim it in opinion, all right.

Did you understand what I mean by that? I mean, so if we open up the door of just free, whatever I think and, you know, the spirit of the times, etc, etc. Without some some some discipline strictures that govern home enterprise of what can be legitimately a sentient as the standard law, then we're all in trouble.

This as a matter of worship, and no.

I mean, go to any local mosque, and you'll see some people and then there

will also shine like this. You also still do pray like this?

Clearly, clearly, the prayer, clearly, prayer is a matter of religious observance. And clearly all of these commands of interpretation.

I don't know

what they fail to say that religious observances can are not open to interpretation, interpretation. What they say is that you cannot do analogy in the area of religious observance. In other words, in other words,

in terms of civil transactions, let's say,

if,

if I owe you

$100, right. And I tell you, $100, and I say, You know what, you know, that was a massive, you hear it's 50. More. All right. That's a good deal. To define what I mean by that.

But I cannot say what God said pray to units for the morning prayer,

not the 109.

Because the more that I can't do that, because the religious observances by not open to analysis.

Analysis.

Okay, okay. All right. Okay.

How many units are there?

In other words, in religious observance, let's take Ramadan, for example.

Not as the canonical prayer

not as a canonical prayer, okay. I cannot pray nine

or nine units for the morning prayer and concern myself doing a better job, because the more the merrier.

Okay, in the area of religious observances, I haven't haven't done all over the place, I'm sorry, in the area, similar transactions while I've been analogize all over the place. That's what they say. You can do immediately some services, not that you cannot reason on them, or debate them or have given opinions about

that. Okay.

Have a sidewalk.

Dr. Jackson, my name is Peter. And on this matter of Sharia law, and I'm conversant on that completely, but one of the things that I hear a lot in our discourse now in this country bothers me because

of the

To be taking solid decisions on different things

that concerns me and the extent that

we've seen, I come from the heritage of the Reformation, my forefathers of Roman Catholics, Lutheran,

we've had north and south fighting, we've had blacks and whites fighting.

And one of the things that strikes me when I go to Washington and I see statues, and I see that statue of justice with the blindfold,

and this balance scale.

And I think of the word united,

there are a lot of things here that, especially after 911,

that I think can do to really bring people to, to a focus

with a lot of energy.

And one of the things that concerns me about that is that

this is the United States of America.

Now, counties have different laws, cities have different laws, states have different laws.

That the the Mormons have gone through a period where they had problems with the law of multiple wives. But I think one of the things we have to be very careful, though, is in all of this, that if they're denied, and I have to defer to you about Sharia law, that if we have a statue of God, and we have Sharia law, and somehow there are people in this country who are going to have certain rights under Sharia law, I think that begins to deteriorate the fabric of what we talk about is the United States.

And I'm very concerned about that. And I wonder if you've got some thoughts about that, because

I, I would like to see a stay the United States. And I would like to see a lot of the racial and ethnic and economic jealousies and positions of division,

put in proper perspective. And I think some of the things we've been talking about here, tend to get us out of that perspective. Do you have some phones?

Yeah, I do.

We don't have very long, but

let me see if I can say a few things that might hold some value and coherence.

I agree with the

heartfelt commitment to maintaining and sustaining the unity of the Union, as well.

I do somewhat however, I

beg to differ with that

notion that that unity,

necessarily entails uniformity.

And I think that one of the major challenges and, and, and as a civilization, we've gone through those macaco challenges before.

I personally think that, that, you know, Isaiah Berlin had a very, a very insightful

point to make about this. And one of the points that he made is that

we tend to think that diversity and quote unquote, division

is the root schisms of civil strife, war, etc. And point of fact, however, it may be, that is not division. But it is the attempt to overcome division to a single solitary solution.

Right, that really, really pits us at each other in ways that war and conflict are unavoidable. And what we may be looking at, and what may be men men, and

I don't wanna, I want to say this openly.

This is no more anyone else's country than it is Maha.

They mourn the fact and I don't mean this directly to you personally here, but just to put this in perspective, my people were here before more many of the people in this room.

So

I don't want people to get this idea that

I'm really committed on these people to them.

Project, I'm deeply committed to the American project, where I think one of the things that the American project may be faced with is the fact that we will now have to learn how to deal with diversity as diversity, as opposed to trying to overcome diversity by a superimposed uniformity. And then one of the contributions, if the Muslims ever get their act together,

that Muslims may be able to make,

To This Miraculous

project experiment, maybe to make us a bit more comfortable with how we deal with diversity and difference.

As long as

I'm not one of those who believes that the answer to our problems, or I should say, our problems of our, the essence of our reality, as Americans,

is, is the simply to sort of to reduce everything to a bland gray.

And I really do think that the the real challenge for us, and I don't mean this simply in terms of, of slogans, and, and even

ideological statements, I mean, a real movement of friendship, whereby we actually come to see the solution.

And how I can accommodate difference as difference,

as opposed to seeing difference as a threat.

as something that I must conquer, and overcome. I think that we have to resist this urge. And this is why young man here, this is why that kind of extremism is so offensive to me as it was because it assumes almost divinity, no one has the right to impose their opinion on me. In the absence of a some kind of, you know, God sent an authority and his opinion, his own opinion. Right. And I think that

that may be where we need to try and think about how we can go I don't think that the 21st century

will end as it starts. I think that

a commitment to a more genuine pluralism and not simply a NASA simulations program, that parental role is, I think that will be the challenge for the 21st century to find a way to come to terms with them.

Make that statement here at Stanford. The motto of the university is D lift a fly innovate the winds of freedom Low.

Thank you.

Thanks a lot.