Should Government And Religion Be Seperate – Debate Vs. Mustafa Akyol
Date:
Channel: Yasir Qadhi
File Size: 71.01MB
Related
- Nouman Ali Khan – We Will Always be Attracted to Shirk
- Zaid Shakir – America And Islam
- Yassir Fazaga – Before You Say I Do – EP14 – PT 1
- Abdullah Hakim Quick – Sects and Cults in the Muslim World #09 – The Birth of the Shi’a
- Nouman Ali Khan – Allah Will Remember YOU
- Adnan Rashid – Powerful Debate – Is the Trinity Divine? vs James White – Revisiting
- Hatem al-Haj – #11 Fiqh of Family – Chapter on Division and Contempt
AI Generated Summary ©
The speakers emphasize the importance of government and religion in the political relationship, as it will minimize the risks of one's political identity and the potential negative consequences of their actions. They criticize deadly drugs and the use of deadly drugs in India, and stress the need for a more rational political system. They also discuss "monarch" and "monarchic culture" issues that come from a "monarch" approach. They stress the importance of creating a "slack and racism" society and involve individuals in community settings.AI Generated Transcript ©
The freedoms that Yasir al Qadhi, Sheikh Yasir
al Qadhi has seen in America and appreciates
it, I would advocate those freedoms in Muslim
majority lands too. But how about the freedom
to publicly blaspheme? Do you think the
against gun and his messenger in the street.
They don't want that even. So why would
you wanna superimpose on them a worldview that
is emanating from our upbringing or, you know,
our current experiences in America. There are universal
human values,
justice, freedom,
peace as opposed to violence, oppression, or Is
nudity a universal human value? Value? No. It's
not. Okay. Where did you get that from?
Human nature, I think most people there's some
I believe in something that is called natural
law, human fitra. You're not even Where are
you guys fitra from? It's religion. I agree
with you. No. Fitra
precedes religion.
Welcome. I'm joined by Sheikh Yasir Qadi,
resident scholar of the East Plano Islamic Center
and Dean of the Islamic Seminary of America.
One of the few people who have combined
a traditional,
Eastern Islamic Seminary Education
with a Western academic
education in Islam.
Someone who's written many books, articles,
has many, media appearances,
and whose online videos are among the most,
viewed in the world,
in the English language about Islam
and often referred to as one of the
very top
most influential Muslim scholars in the United States.
So thank you for being here. Thank you
for having me. We're also joined by Mustafa
Akyol,
affiliate scholar at the Acton Institute's
Collins Center For Abrahamic Heritage,
and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Mustafa is a journalist and author
who has been voted one of the top
10 thinkers
to rebuild the world by Prospect Magazine.
His books include,
Islam Without Extremes,
Reopening Muslim Minds,
and Why as a Muslim I Defend Liberty.
So thank you also Mustafa for joining us.
Thank you so much for having having me,
Nathan. It's a pleasure to be at Acton
always.
And now that the 2 of you agree
on many things,
including, I presume,
some theological views, some moral views,
a desire to cultivate a just society,
and a belief that
open conversation
and exchange of ideas,
can help us achieve that end. Mhmm. So
we're here today to reason together about a
topic that is both,
timeless
and timely,
and that is
the relationship
between government and religion.
In particular, today, we want to discuss
how Muslims should think about this question.
Should government and religion be separate?
Or if not, in what ways should they
be connected?
So, Sheikh Kadi,
I'm wondering if you can open our discussion
with some preliminary
reflections
on this topic for us in, no more
than 10 minutes or so.
Okay. So
let me begin with a personal disclaimer
and then 3 topical disclaimers before I give
a summary statement. My personal disclaimer is that
I am not a political scientist. I'm actually
a theologian trained in Islamic law. And so
obviously,
I will not be quoting
Locke or,
any of the famous philosophers or, you know,
Kant or anybody of that nature because that's
not really my forte or field. I am
a a specialist in Islamic sciences and Islamic
law. And obviously, as somebody who's been living
in the, and raised in the western world,
I've had to
come to terms with the reality of how
to reconcile our Islamic identity and law with
the broader society around us. The 3 topical
disclaimers I have about this is that,
first and foremost, I don't believe that
one particular
scenario fits all solutions. In other words,
depending on where we are, depending on the
cultures we live in, different societies have different
problems, and these different problems require different solutions.
So So when you ask this question in
the American context, it's not the same as
asking it in, let's say, the Arabian context
or in a Pakistani context. So it is
a bit presumptuous to think that there is
one answer that fits every single society on
the globe. The second, topical disclaimer I'd have
is that, I also believe that no matter
which,
solution one chooses, there's always going to be
pros and cons.
So what we need to do is to
choose the solution that will minimize the cons
and maximize the pros. Right? And there's always
gonna be negatives. You're never gonna have a
watertight perfect solution that's gonna be, acceptable to
every single person. In fact, that's the nature
of politics. And the last disclaimer I have
before I get to my my statement
is that we really have to be extremely
wary of our own internal biases
of the problem of projecting
our values and inherently viewing them as superior
to all other values and all other peoples,
Especially, when we, meaning the 2 of us
in particular, might be coming from lands or
places of power and speaking to peoples who
are subjugated, colonized, marginalized,
where the power imbalance and even the nation
state dynamics might have unintended
consequences.
Specifically, as Americans, we are living in this
country here. I mean, we have invaded, you
know, multiple lands and destroyed large civilizations in
the last few decades.
More than a 1000000 people have been killed.
It at this stage of our of our
existence, for us to
presumptuously
assume that we are in a position to
pontificate about which, you know, government is the
most conducive for the welfare of mankind. I
think we need to humble ourselves and realize
that this is an experiment. We're all trying.
They're all trying. And, you know, it's conversation
is gonna perhaps, you know, just better our
understandings of each other's world views. With those
3,
generic,
caveats,
let me state that, I think the fundamental
issue,
that is at stake here is that to
all too often, people who engage in this
topic of how much religion should be involved
in politics
are actually coming from very different paradigms. And
so they end up speaking past one another.
So for example, what exactly do you want
your political system to achieve? A political system
whose ideology is meant to nurture morality,
whose whose very,
purpose is to prevent immorality, to to foster
a sense of good faith. That's a radically
different political system than one that is based
on maximizing individual, you know, pleasures and individual
choices. And also, a society that is largely
faith based, a society that is accustomed
to communitarian
standards of even a social enforcement of a
type of morality is a radically different society,
such as the one in America, in which
faith is viewed as a private matter, in
which individualism
always trumps com communitarianism.
As well, a society that largely believes in
immutable,
virtue morality
is radically different. It's not the same as
the one in which morality is viewed as
utilitarian, in which morality can be updated or
changed from time to decade to era to
place. And so with all of this reality,
I would say that generally speaking,
most Muslim majority countries
would have ideas of politics and political systems
that are radically different than most people living
in the western liberal world. And therefore, for
the 2 of us to engage in a
fruitful conversation,
we first have to define what is the
goal of a political system. If the goal
of the political system is merely just, to
live and let live, well then, that goal
in and of itself might not be,
very popular amongst large segments of the Muslim
world. And this is demonstrated by multiple examples,
which which we can get into in the,
q and a or in the discussions that
we have. On the other hand, if the
goal is merely to maximize, you know,
one's,
personal choices, one's personal freedoms, That goal, well,
the answer to the question is is then
going to be radically different. Hence, to basically
conclude on a, on a,
on the question that you asked me, I
would say that the question of whether religion
and government need to be separate or the
level of interaction,
it actually requires a deeper discussion that what
is the role of religion in that particular
society? What type of government is that society
aiming for?
For which peoples are we talking about? It
is impossible to answer this question with a
definitive one size fits all solution. And I
say clearly for the record, as an American,
based on the history of America, the trajectory
of America, the constitution of America, the social
dynamics of America, I fully understand that religion
and a government is going to be separate.
Yet, I would hope that Americans
and,
people who are in power or intellectuals in
power understand that that sentiment
might not be popular across the globe. And
that other societies might want a government,
might want a political system that is more
reflective of their faith values. And they might
actually prefer a a government in which there's
a soft morality in place. They do want
some checks and balances in public order in
society. And I would hope that, for those
of us on this side of the Atlantic,
we understand that,
they should have the freedom to make those
choices as well, and they should also be
respected for coming to different conclusions than we
might possibly do on the ideal form of
government.
Thank you, doctor Kadi. Mustafa, could you also,
provide some opening reflections
on how you see this relationship between religion
and government? Of course.
Thank you again Nathan for bringing us together.
It's a pleasure to meet, doctor Yasir Kari,
Sheihi Yasir Kari in person and. Call me
Yasir is fine.
Yasir Kari, I'll I'll prefer and, Shehi Yasir
Kari. Now,
I actually wanna begin by,
a recent sermon I listened from
Yasser Kadi, Shai Yasser Kadi, and I liked
a lot.
He gave a recent sermon titled Islam in
America to a Muslim audience.
And there he
said, American Muslims have a blessing that no
other country on earth has,
which is
this country's constitution to protect our freedoms.
Then,
he continued and he said, we thank Allah
for those freedoms.
We thank Allah that no one can legislate
away my freedom to worship my God in
accordance with my conscience.
Now I was listening to this in the
car and I said, yes, Alhamdulillah,
that's great. That's a great point.
Because I think
there are many reasons that
Muslim societies across the world are critical of
Western powers, especially regarding their foreign policy. That
goes back to colonialism, that goes to American
foreign policy in the Middle East and different
parts of the world.
But there is something else which is,
in the west, especially in America, where indeed
the constitution is designed to protect religious freedom,
right, and freedom of expression.
Muslims have found an environment where
they can't fully
their persecuting
them, without them persecuting each other as well.
In America you have the whole Umma, I
mean from the most, you know, strict Salafis
to
more mainstream Sunnis to Shia Muslims to other
groups that are not even considered Muslim, but
they themselves define as Muslims like Ahmedis.
And they all have their, you know, places
of worship and nobody is telling them what
to do or what to preach in their
mosques and so on and so forth.
Now,
is this a good thing? Is this is
having a political system like this where
the government's job is to protect the freedom
of everybody,
religious communities and other people, you know, is
this a good thing or not? Now,
you say,
Sheikh Yasir,
that countries have different values and traditions. We
cannot standardize all. I mean, I agree with
that, of course. But also, when we see
something bad, we can criticize it in in
some parts of the world. For example, China
has a very oppressive political system,
which is
persecuting the Uighur Muslims brutally, genocidally,
you know, in in camps and
by enforced,
abortions and so on and so forth. In
India,
the majority
among the majority Hindus, there's a movement called
Hindutva.
It's been called as Hindu militancy or or
nationalism,
which is threatening the Muslim minority. And should
we say, well, it's the way they do
things in India, or should we say no,
there is a universal value called religious freedom,
which we see here in America that is
that is being enjoyed by Muslims.
And,
but but should be I believe that there
are some universal values
rooted in human nature,
rooted accessible by reason,
justice, freedom,
religious freedom, freedom of expression. And I can
root them in our own Islamic tradition in
in certain, you know, passages of the Quran
as well, and we can speak about those.
I believe in advocating those. Therefore,
the freedoms that Yasir Qadhi, Sheikh Yasir Qadhi
has seen in America and appreciates it, I
would advocate those freedoms in Muslim majority lands
too.
For Muslims themselves
and for the non Muslim minorities in those
Muslim majority lands.
From Christians in Pakistan or other groups in,
in in different parts of the world.
Now, you know and
one point that, again, Sheikh Yasser
mentioned is colonialism. Now when we speak about
these issues, Muslims always remember,
of course,
French the French occupied Algeria colonized it saying,
we're bringing you civilization. Right, mister John civil
civilistatrice
or my French isn't very good.
And
Muslims have seen actually when Napoleon invaded Egypt
in 19, in the beginning of 19th century,
he said, actually we are bringing freedom. So
there because of Western colonialism,
understandably,
Muslim societies are careful about what these people
are speaking about, and sometimes very guarded against
it.
But certainly, that's not I'm advocating.
I also come from Turkey, which was never
colonized,
which in which Muslims themselves have thought of
these kinds of ideas coming from the West,
like constitutionalism,
equal rights for everybody,
representative democracy.
Ottoman scholars
began discussing these in the late 19th century.
They reconciled with Islam in their own interpretations.
Turkey itself adopted its laws based on European
Union in the more modern era. And that's
been good for Turkey, for everybody in Turkey,
Muslims themselves and other groups as well.
So I understand his point about
there are differences in the world and, yeah,
we should not imagine a world that everybody
wears blue jeans and eat McDonald's and whatever.
Cultures certainly have,
their,
traditions and especially with Muslims and we should
preserve them. But I think politics is a
universal
area
where there can be values we can uphold.
One more thing,
Shayazar got to emphasize that, you know, a
society that wants to nurture morality and wants
to max the other one that maximizes freedom.
These are 2 different things.
These can be 2 different things, but these
can be compatible because maximizing freedom
doesn't always mean maximizing freedom for people who
want to be moral. Right?
It's maximizing people for freedom to be for
people who want to be very moral, very
traditional.
In America, that's why freedom means the Amish
can be very conservative in their way of
life. Orthodox Jews can be very traditional in
their way of life. Muslims can be very
traditional in their way of life. And I
think when we try to nurture
nurture morality,
not within freedom,
but through mechanisms of coercion,
as we see in the Muslim world today
in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Actually it leads to immorality.
Because imposed morality through the state leads to
hypocrisy, leads to resentment,
even it leads to alienation from religion. So
I don't see a tension between freedom and
morality.
I think actually we should have them together.
Thank you, Mustafa.
So, Sheikh Kadi, in your opening remarks,
you were very sensitive to the fact that
different cultures,
and different groups of people
require different political solutions.
And and Mustafa highlighted that he would like
the freedoms
enjoyed by Muslims in non Muslim lands to
also
exist in Muslim majority countries. And it sounds
like Mustafa.
You see some sort of tension between,
saying for example that,
Muslims
in the United States, for example,
can enjoy certain freedoms, but in Muslim majority
countries,
non Muslims might not get all of those
same freedoms sometimes. Or Muslims themselves, of course.
Or Muslims themselves. Then it can be under
dictatorship. One more thing, not all, of course,
non Muslim countries are good. I mean, I
just mentioned China. In France, actually there is
a whole tradition of laicite which I've criticized
all my life because it's Turkish version was
even more oppressive than France. And we see
very illiberal practices like banning hats, scarves, or
religious symbols. So but
countries like America, which is based on, I
mean,
Yasser Kari mentioned
political philosophy, ideas that goes back to John
Locke, the idea that a proper government should
only protect the rights, natural rights of every
citizen.
I think that's a good idea, which has
worked well in the Western tradition. And,
well, this will open up questions whether Islam
has its own political system already established and
we should preserve, or is politics a more
rational area which we can keep discussing. But
I think maybe we'll come to that through
the discussion. Yes, sorry, I interrupted. And and
I've heard you also invoke the golden rule,
to argue that, you know, if if we
are enjoying
rights in a non Muslim land,
then should not we,
advocate for those rights in Muslim lands as
well? Yep. Exactly.
So, Sheikh Kari, how do you, see that
possible tension?
Does that create any type of problem?
How do you resolve that? So I go
back to my point of me being very
wary about the,
power disparity,
about us speaking from positions of power
over and above civilizations that have actually been
physically hurt by our foreign policy.
And so we have to be careful here
when Mustafa, myself, and others speaking from within
the American paradigm
assume that we know best how to rule
over other lands and peoples, and we start,
calling out what we perceive to be injustices.
You know, we have to understand we invaded
Afghanistan
on the premise. We sold our people a
lie that we're gonna liberate women and the
freedom of women to wear the the to
wear whatever they want or not wear anything.
And, of course,
the, intermixing
of our foreign policy with this trope of
we're going to liberate these savages. This goes
back 300 years. We can change the language.
We're not calling them savages, but we're still
having this
sentiment that we are somehow superior.
Our values are better than theirs. Well, guess
what happened? We killed a million people. We
spent $7,000,000,000,000,
and the women of Afghanistan still want to
wear the hijab willingly.
So we understand here. We have to be
really careful
about assuming we know what's best for them.
My position and advice is, hey. And I've
spoken to people in Pakistan in this regard
directly. Like, hey. Can you explain to me
why you have this policy? Maybe you guys
should think about trying to change it, but
that's on them to do. Let them organically
figure out what is the best way because
here's my point back to and others. This
notion of of of freedom, I think we
all agree freedom to worship and freedom to
be religious in your personal life. We all
agree this is an ideal, that even Islamic,
even the most conservative interpretation of Islamic law
would allow that. But how about the freedom
to publicly blaspheme? Do you think the majority
of Muslim countries would want that? Do you
think that in Pakistan, in Arabia, in in
in Morocco, they would want the freedom to
go and blaspheme against Ghana's measure in the
street. They don't want that even. So why
would you wanna superimpose on them a worldview
that is emanating from our upbringing or, you
know, our current experiences in America. And, again,
we have to bring in the issue of
morality. This is one of the sensitive topics
that always comes in in this regard. Do
you really think the majority of Muslim countries
want the freedom to,
allow promiscuity
and immorality
in a manner that is completely unrestricted. Now
what that fine line is, every country is
gonna be different. But I think we would
all agree that you know, the average parent,
the average person would not want even in
this country, we're banning marijuana in in most
states. Right? I mean, from a purely secular
perspective, you can make a start stronger argument
for alcohol than you can for marijuana. The
the the damage and the harm that is
done from alcohol. So
the majority of Muslim countries
would not want the types of moral freedoms.
The types of freedoms you're talking about, everybody
wants them. The freedom to criticize their government.
The freedom to worship God as they see
fit. Those are not the freedoms that anybody
is really contesting. We're talking about the types
of liberal freedoms that also guarantee. And this
is a slippery slope, and I mentioned this
in the very talk that you mentioned. I
actually mentioned this there that the very freedoms
that allow us to be, you know, a
good Muslims and allow us to criticize the
government. Well, the problem is at least in
the in the way that the freedoms are
practiced in this country, it also allows people
to do things that we don't like. And
we have to, you know, that's a that's
a quid pro quo. We have to do
that. But my point is, do you really
think people in most Muslim countries would want
to open up that Pandora's box of the
freedom of morality versus immorality. And I would
argue, and I think statistics show, that is
definitely not the case. Alright. Mister officer, Sheikh
Khad, he makes some good points.
Sure. Here in the West,
Pakistan's
blasphemy law, for example, sounds horrific.
But if you speak to most people from
Pakistan,
they want those laws. So why
should we want to force
unwanted laws on people whose cultures are wildly
different from our Syrian America? And in India,
a lot of Hindus want to punish Muslims
for eating beef, you know, from their point
of view. So, should we welcome that or
not? Well,
Sheikh Yasir made a few points. Let me
go just
The power disparity. I mean, you mentioned when
we invaded, I mean, that's America. I was
in America at the time and I'm not,
you know, so
I was in Turkey. Like, I don't even
follow the US foreign policy in that sense.
It's like I can't say from a American
point of view.
But I made it clear, Western
invasions,
occupations
supposedly for bringing freedom, I'm against all those.
I've been against all those all my life.
We're not speaking about those. And actually, those
things actually have hurt the cause of freedom.
I mean, I I believe in freedom as
a universal idea, but when you use this
for a sinister political agenda, you harm it.
And that's why a lot of libertarians in
America, including Cato Institute that I work, actually
oppose things like the US occupation of Iraq
or other, you know, colonial,
things of Europe in in in the past.
Now
this doesn't, again,
leave it this doesn't, for example,
stop us from discussing whether democracy is a
good thing or not.
And, also, the west doesn't always, you know,
ask for democracy in Muslim majority countries. I
mean, it is the west's own system, but
we have seen Western governments actually not wanting
democracy because they think a government will come
to power that will not serve on their
interests. So let's leave aside Western foreign policy,
we can condemn whatever,
needs to be condemned there or if Russian
occupation
of
it's not just the west, there are a
lot of powers active in the world that
have done terrible things.
But are there political values and ideas that
we can discuss? Like, should the ruler be
elected by the people of democracy or should
he be coming in a monarchical inheritance system?
Well, Muslims began discussing this in late Ottoman
Empire, and they said, shura, constitution, these ideas,
you know, came into discussion.
Now,
I, Shaykh Azar Qari highlights issues that will,
of course, to especially many Muslims. Do you
want people to be promiscuous on the streets
or blasphemed?
I don't want those things.
But
having laws about those things, in a way,
actually, that hurts a lot of innocent people
for their sincere beliefs,
I'm against that. In Pakistan, for example,
we know blasphemy law is a major issue.
It's
it's in the laws, and also there's this
huge social
anxiety about that. Innocent people
just get blamed
just for a Christian has a has a
quarrel with,
some Muslims, which has happened to a lady
named Asya Bibi.
She just said, oh, they blasphemed against Prophet
Muhammad, you can prove against it, then you
are in death row for many years.
So
let me say again, when we defend the
idea of freedom,
some people will say things, some people will
do things that we do not approve,
and we don't have to approve those things.
But going after those things by the power
of the states, that's a different discussion.
If we don't like immorality, what do we
do? We can preach morality.
We can show a moral way of life
is better. We have the right to do
those things. And yes, every society has a
public morality, what you can wear, how you
can dress, I understand those things.
But I would also not agree with the
Shehia sir that everybody wants the political freedoms.
I mean, you probably know certain scholars in
in the gulf which will say, never speak
against the ruler, you know, obey the ruler,
whatever he says, don't get into any discussion.
Well, that's an Islamic point of view, in
their point of view. I don't agree with
that. So,
I don't want to bring this discussion of
freedom to issues where Muslims are morally disapproving.
We can disapprove those things, but there's a
whole range of issues here
from religious minorities. Let me ask one question,
apostasy for example.
Imagine some people, and that happens, people become,
they convert from Islam to Christianity.
This has happened in Iran, this has happened
in
several countries including Saudi Arabia. In our traditional
interpretations of the Sharia,
apostasy is considered as a crime. Of course,
was that only was that really leaving the
religion or political rebellion as well? There are
endless discussions about those. I'm of the opinion
that
we should respect people's religious freedom. We don't
want to see people,
deserting from Islam, but if they do, it's
their choice and we should establish religious freedom
laws everywhere in the Muslim world that we
don't
punish go after people for apostasy, for example.
So is this a moral thing? Is this
a political thing? For example, what would you
think about issues like that? So when it
comes to specifically interpreting so, again, you're talking
about a Muslim majority country. And I say
here again, you're saying that,
we have caused a lot of hurt in
those regions. You're trying to disassociate
yourself from that hurt. But I go back
to this point, the very fact we are
discussing what we are discussing from the place
we're discussing it, we are not speaking from
a vacuum. And so when you come and
you say, I would want those countries to
do this, I'm really sensitive of the fact
we are overstepping our bounds.
I am a firm believer of local actors,
local activists, local preachers, local politicians
organically within their own communities, bring about sentiments
that can gain traction and let them now
we have the right to discuss with them
1 on 1. But for sure this this
presupposition that we know what's best for those
people, I am against this completely. And so
if a certain country decides that, hey, We
want this public law. And again, I'm not
defending Pakistan. I criticize Pakistan even though I'm
Pakistani ethnically. My parents came from Pakistan. It's
nothing to do with Pakistan per se. But
I've been there enough times to know the
blasphemy laws in the constitution
are not abetting or is preventing the mob
mentalities on the streets. That's one thing. This
is another thing. The mob mentality is a
problem we need to solve. We all agree
with that. Whether those laws about blasphemy
exist or not is not gonna change the
sentiment of the ignorant people when they see
something that they think is blasphemy. Right? So
you have to even measures people are being
persecuted because of their sincere beliefs or just
maybe even something they didn't say that someone
So I spoke with some of the senior
Muftis of Pakistan in this regard, and I
spoke with them 1 on 1 in this
regard. I am not a constitutional election of
Pakistani law, but they explained to me that
what is illegal
is the provocation
public provocation of blasphemy. It is not illegal
to believe what you believe. It is not
illegal to practice your belief to be a
Christian or,
even a Hindu. You can be a Hindu
in in Pakistan, which is actually a minority
position in classical Islamic law. Pakistan allows that.
No problem. You can worship your gods. But
if you go in public and you say
vulgar things about, you know, the prophet Muhammad,
the the law is going to take you
into account and you will be punished for
that. You're gonna go to jail for that.
Now I don't have a problem with that
law and I'm not criticizing it. I'm not
gonna endorse it or or or be critical.
That's a law that they feel is valid
for their society and, you know, good for
them. There should be some public order. We
have well, in America, we have the first
amendment. But in every single European country without
exception, there are laws against speech as you
know this. Hate speech laws. There there are
so then why would it be problematic for
Pakistan
to have its version of hate speech laws?
And we don't seem to complain about Germany
or about France or about Netherlands or about
England. This is where I think I have
to push back gently at you. It's as
if we're only irritated
when Muslim majority countries try to exert their
Islamic influences on their societies. And we seem
to overlook completely
when your our European counterparts are essentially doing
the exact same things. As you're well aware,
we're speaking from a context now recently.
Political protests
for Palestine
have been banned in 4 European countries. Where
is the outcry? Where's the outrage? How come
those who are advocating freedom of speech and
freedom of religion are all of a sudden
silent? So this level of hypocrisy
is always displayed
time and time again. And that is why
you will not find me a willing participant
to say, oh, look at Pakistan, look at
Iran, because I also say, look at Europe
and frankly, sometimes look at our own country
as well. And I say we're all doing
things that are, you know, contrary to ideal.
And I go back to my point. Let
local Pakistani activists and actors. Let local
Pakistani ulama decide what they should do. And
I have no problem. As I said, I've
spoken to them 1 on 1. I spoke
to one of the most senior Muftis there.
And I said to him, you know, these
these these blasphemy things that you guys are
doing, you need to preach against them. And
he himself said, our hands are tied. These
are the masses. It's not the law. These
are people that are ignorant of the faith,
and we're trying our best to get rid
of it. Nobody's happy at, you know, the
the the the mob mentality in Pakistan. But
if you've been to these countries, you know,
it's a Yeah. I mean, in Pakistan, mob
mentality and the legal process is different. And
Exactly. Gayo Bandy, for example, scholars have been
saying, you know, we should it should happen
through the courts. So that that is better
than the, mob mentality. I'll I'll say that.
I agree with you that, I mean, European
countries especially can be very hypocritical, and they
might have double standards when it comes to
free speech.
I publicly criticize those bans on, pro Palestinian
protests.
And there's international
and groups like that or human rights organizations
like that have also criticized because they're taking,
I think, a more principled stand on this.
That's why I believe American standards of free
speech are better than the European, free speech.
For Americans I say, I don't believe universally.
For Americans they're better. We're used to it.
We're accustomed to it. We've signed on to
the program. Here's the point.
If you're born here, well, it's your choice.
You wanna live here or not. If you
come to this country like you did, you
sign on to the program. Right? That's fine.
And I'm willing as an American citizen born
and raised here. I'm absolutely willing to understand
our constitutional rights. I don't have to agree
with the Supreme Court's decision. I don't have
to, but I respect and abide by the
law of the land. The say the point
is, if you go to Pakistan,
you have to sign up to the same
ideals. They have their version of laws. They
have their understanding of society. And if you
don't like it, well then, either work to
change it or go somewhere else. There is
no doubt that we do obey the law
of the land. But if we see a
law as unjust, we can criticize that law
as unjust everywhere in the future.
China has laws If you criticize what you're
saying is fine. I I agree with you.
So, Sheik Sheikari,
you've emphasized the importance of local solutions that
take the cultural context into account.
And and to
some degree, I'm sure Mustafa agrees with that.
Also in the Catholic tradition, you might call
that subsidiarity.
But are there any common
principles
that you think should,
be consistent across different political systems
irregardless of of cultural context
or is everything dependent upon the culture? The
freedom to worship
according to your faith tradition in your personal
life and manner that doesn't harm anybody else,
I think that is an Islamic and universal
freedom. The freedom to be religious in your
own personal life as long as you're not
physically if there's a human sacrifice element of
the ancient Incas where we gotta we gotta
put our law or or, you know, our
son laws in the Burning wife. Yeah. Yeah.
In in that yeah. The sati. The practice
of sati, which by the way, interestingly enough,
the Mughals tolerated
grudgingly and, you know The British man. The
British came in because the mullah said, what
can we do? We don't want you to
do this. The Mughal emperor, by the way,
there's interesting point here. Akbar and others, they
tried to debate with the,
the Hindu pundits. They tried to get them
to stop, but they refused. And they're like,
okay. Well, that's your law. If you wanna
do it, we don't like it. So they
gave them the freedom to actually do that,
which is an interesting
point here. But, to to respond to your
question, I do believe there are certain,
universal,
values and amongst them should be, as I
said, the for us, for me as a
cleric, the most important thing is that no,
entity should force you
to practice a faith that you don't want
to practice. There should be freedom to because
for me, as a religious person, the most
important freedom I go back to the bible.
What did Moses say to pharaoh allegedly in
the old testament?
Let my people free so that they may
worship
God. Right? For me, that is the ultimate
freedom that is needed. And if that freedom
is given,
the rest we can begin to talk about
in a more, you know, sees a reasonable
manner. But yes. Now obviously, political freedoms by
the way, I have to raise an awkward
point here. And when I say this, please
understand, I'm not justifying. I'm simply bringing up
awkward realities of history.
Of course, one side of me definitely wants
political freedoms. And we want the freedom for
democracy, the freedom to elect.
But I cannot help but think about the
last 30, 40 years of the Middle East
and the fact that certain countries that lived
under dictatorships
actually
flourished GDP wise, health wise, education wise in
manners that no other countries did. And I'll
mention 2 or 3, this is not an
endorsement.
This is a problematization
so that we don't we move beyond this
these simplistic tropes because once again, and I
have to bring this in, we have this
assumption. Let us go bomb them into democracy.
Let us go and invade and and give
them the freedoms that we have. And we've
seen those realities.
The most,
well educated Arab country, the highest GDP, the
most prestigious Arab universities,
and the best health care system in the
entire Arab world was 19 sixties, seventies, eighties
Iraq.
There's no number 2. This is like number
1.
We know this is not a defense of
the guy on top. Believe me, I don't
like him at all. This is not a
defense of Saddam and his policies. But in
the end of the day, you talk to
Iraqis that have lived through that, and I've
spoken to dozens of them. They all hated
that guy, but they said our life back
in the eighties, our life in Iraq was
unparalleled. The same goes for Libya. That guy
was a brutal, brutal dictator,
yet the stability of his people, the GDP
that they enjoyed, the free health care and
education, the infrastructure. So, again and this is
not an endorsement at all. It is simply
the problematization
and the overcoming of our simplistic tropes that
freedom is good for everybody and democracy is
good for everybody. Well, you know what? Sorry.
Millions of Iraqis and and and and and
and Libyans would actually say
the dictatorship of those brutal guys was better
for our family life. Because as long as
we didn't criticize that one guy, as long
as we let him be and and and
and and steal his millions and whatever, he
gave the billions back down to us and
he actually built a country for us. And
again, this is not a defense because on
a personal level, I know my teachers and
friends who have been tortured by those 2
people in jails. I know religious scholars that
have been, you know, faced the the the
brutality of those regimes. But I'm just trying
to make sure that we overcome these simplistic
stereotypes that I'm a little bit tired of
when we hear all the time. Freedom, democracy,
this and that. It doesn't work that simplistic
in every single place in the world. World.
A thinker named Edmund Burke, you know, would
agree with your, points there. I mean, I'm
not
a naive promoter of democracy. When you throw
elections, a country will become heaven next day.
That's not the case. But the question is,
can we see freedom as an ideal to
which we which can aspire for and to
which we can
work in our societies
and to religious freedom and and political freedom
as well. Now, one thing, you mentioned that
in Afghanistan,
US pulled out, it was wrong for them
to stay that long. I agree with that
all that. So It was wrong for them
to invade?
Maybe the first attack on Al Qaeda debatable,
but yes, I was against that whole. I'm
against these endless wars. I could say that.
But
you said when US pulled out, now Afghanistan
woman,
ladies there, sisters, you know, wear the hijab
willingly.
Well, some wear willingly,
some don't. And that's precisely why the Taliban
is forcing them. Right? I mean, the idea
that there is this one norm in Muslim
majority societies,
Kabul is different from the countryside.
Which brings me to the discussion
of this morality
and and and of course, Islam in issues
about Sharia. I asked you about apostasy. I
don't know
what you think about that. But it is,
I think, a fact that in our traditional
interpretations of our Sharia in in classical fiqh,
we have elements of religious coercion.
Apostasy
is seen as a crime punishable by death.
There is there is Hisbah, which is actually
began as market policing which was I think
from the prophet's time, peace be upon him,
but turned into religious policing. So forcing people
to
be practicing and pious, like
forcing them to do their regular prayers. And
of course, hijab and and,
forcing women to wear the hijab and things
like that. Now,
let's leave aside foreign western foreign policy for
one second.
I believe
these measures, which I call religious coercion, I've
written against these things. I've been critical of
these things.
I don't find a basis for them in
the Quran.
And I think today they have they're not
serving our religion and they're actually hurting innocent
people. You know, in Iran they're trying to
impose a job on all women.
Well, let the women, ladies, sisters,
decide what they were gonna wear.
Some willingly wear as you said, that's wonderful,
we should fully respect it. Some willingly wear
the niqab, I stand for their freedom too
in in Europe,
but others don't. For example, I believe governments
should not coerce them.
Apostasy should not be a crime if we
don't want people to, you know,
change their religion. But if that happens,
that should be a freedom we should accept
as,
I believe non Muslims should be able to
give Dawah in in Muslim majority countries,
as we can give dawah
in America and elsewhere. So on these issues
of clear, I can say, religious
coercion,
that I would call religious coercion.
What what is your approach and do we
have room here? I know these are Sharia
issues and you're very well versed in these
issues.
How much room do you think we have
here
to move
move forward? Is it maybe a right, wrong
term?
Make some changes that would rationally make sense
and bring more freedom to Muslim majority societies
and minorities. So again, Mustafa, we we go
back to this this notion of the assumption
that
your particular interpretation
is going to be the best one for
every single scenario and situation.
And I, again, push back at you. You
think hijab should not be forced. I'm not
saying you shouldn't, you shouldn't. Firstly, the whole
hijab issue has been fetishized
way beyond what it needs to be. We
are obsessed with what women can and cannot
wear, and we are ignoring the fact that
at some level, every single society, including our
own, has decency laws. It is not allowed
in this country for women to not dress
in specific ways and whatnot. And we don't
seem to say, oh, why doesn't a foreign
country invade us so that women can go
top list, so women can go naked or
whatever? There's this there's this, fetishization
of one particular clothing item, which I think
has really been blown out of proportion and
been justified to blow people out of proportion
in this regard as well. Listen. Let every
government decide what it wants to be decency
and morality.
Again, and you know this as having lived
in the Muslim country, most Muslim countries would
not be comfortable,
allowing, pornography to be displayed in public. Heck,
even in America Yes. It's not allowed to
do in public. But I mean So then
these are extreme. So then it just here
you go extreme. Now we just get to
the level then. What level of the body?
What percentage of the body should be covered?
And again, I go back.
Let's leave the, Sharia out of here for
one second. Why can't every single society come
and decide on its own decency level? So
here in America, we are comfortable with the
2 piece. By the way, we weren't comfortable
with the 2 piece, you know, back in
the 19 twenties. In the 19 twenties, it
was illegal to wear what is called the
bikini. Bikini came in the 19 forties actually,
named after the atomic bomb and the Bikini
Atalp. They literally thought this is gonna be
like a nuclear explosion. A lady, as you're
aware, was arrested in this country for wearing
a 1 piece bathing suit because it went
21 inches or 22 inches whatever the the
law was above her foot. It had to
go all the way, so a certain number
of, you know, inches, you know, below her,
build her shin, excuse me. 100 years ago.
Right? In France, we just got a lady
that was arrested for wearing the burqa.
So if we open this door, Mustafa,
there's complete
hypocrisy in every single country that you look
at. Why are we fetishizing
Iran or Afghanistan and not our own countries?
Let them decide what they want decency or
not. Now from an Islamic perspective Let who
decide there? The people of their own countries.
Are they making an election in Afghanistan and
making referendum in this issue? Again, we go
back to this issue of for the time
being. Look at the Taliban, and this is
not a defense of them. After $7,000,000,000,000
and they come back into power because the
people actually preferred them over the chaos that
was left in the wake of the American
invasion. And, you know, this is I live
in the nineties. Yes, sir. Yeah. So this
is the reality then. So this is who
are we then to expect that our system
is gonna work best for them? Yes. Theoretically,
let's discuss no problem. But I'm really cautious.
We go back to this point of assuming
that one particular social work will work best
for them. The Taliban, I don't like a
lot of what they do.
The people would rather prefer the stability of
the Taliban along with their idiosyncratic under interpretations
of the Sharia than the chaos and the
complete, you know, bloodthirsty,
mafia warfare that was going on for over
15 years in Afghanistan.
So if the Taliban come with safety and
security and they require women to wear the
face veil, the locals accepted that over the
freedom to dress immodestly and yet you you'd
be robbed, potentially raped. People are bloodthirsty, and
and the mafia is ruling the streets of
Kabul. So we have to look at real
politics as it's going on in Afghanistan. To
answer your question about changing in sharia, this
has gotten me into a lot of trouble
all the time because, again, people are we're
we're we're trying to talk to people that
are fundamentalist, people that are progressives.
My position has been consistently clear. The application
of the Sharia in the modern nation state
is something that can and should be discussed
by the ulama and the political thinkers of
those regions. I am open to this idea
and it is
at some level not possible to apply the
totality of the Sharia in a nation state.
Halak mentions this, summarizes the argument Impossible state.
Yeah. And cogently in his book, the impossible
state. The the the the concept of a
nation state
is radically different than the concept of a
caliphate, and the Sharia has come for a
caliphate. So I am not advocating
every single law of the Sharia be copied
and pasted,
and then put into a nation state. I've
never said that. But I am advocating
local people who know their culture best, look
at the Sharia, and then come to conclusions.
Let me give you a simple,
controversial, and yet practical example.
Pornography
and and and and, prostitution.
Right? In this country, prostitution is banned.
On what basis? We all know this is
remnants of Christian fundamentalism.
There's no capitalist reason to ban prostitution. We
know this. Right? These are remnants of a
notion that this this this,
enterprise is immoral, and it should not be
be and yet pornography
was slowly but surely contested over the Hays
the Hays code of the sixties, whatever it
was. And slowly but surely over the last
40, 50 years, now pornography is completely legal.
There had to be multiple supreme court cases
as recently as 1971
and 72 when when, you know, indecency was
taken up to the Supreme Court. Right? So
you see here an active dynamic change of
western laws vis a vis pornography.
And perhaps even,
a prostitution is gonna follow suit. Why should
Muslims
have to follow western notions here? Why can't
Muslim countries say, hey, we don't want public
Because I don't see them as western notions.
I mean, I think, for example,
well, I see religious freedom based in Koranic
versus, like, Iqrafid Din. There's no compulsion in
religion.
So they might have thrived more in the
West. Actually, West was less free than Islam
until a few years ago on many of
those issues. I mean, you know, I mean,
the
the west was the place where they had
inquisition and
Protestants and Catholics were slaughtering each other. We
had more freedom than the West. John Locke
himself quotes John Locke himself refers to the
Ottoman empire. Early enlightenment thinkers referred to the
Ottoman empire saying that look, there are different
churches and they're not forcing, you know, Christians
to be Muslim. So I don't see this,
I mean, this whole east west, I understand
the power dynamics there. But I do believe,
if you leave that aside,
there are universal human values,
justice,
freedom,
peace as opposed to violence,
oppression,
Is nudity a universal human value? No, it's
not. Okay. Where did you get that from?
Human nature, I think most people there's some
I believe in something that's called natural law,
human fitra. Uh-oh.
Where did you get fitra from? It's religion.
I agree with you. You've knew it. Fitra
precedes religion. What what how do you know
the fitra exists?
Well, we know the existence of fitra. We
know the existence of fitra
because it is mentioned, but we In the
Quran.
Exactly. As a concept, we know. But even
if there is no Quran, we would know
what is
right and wrong.
Because that's a
theological debate. But I believe in Husm Al
Kubu debate. I believe good and evil are
rational.
They are discernible by human reason. Believe partially
what you're saying, but this I know you're
not Ashish, but This is contested as you're
aware. Yes. Very much. People outside the faith
would disagree with you. That's exactly why I
brought up. We you're you're talking about tropes
that we all agree with. Freedom and justice.
Fine. Let's get to sexuality.
Let's get to issues that are not as
easily, you know, definable when it comes to,
to to east versus west. I'll I'll give
you a very conserve. I'll I'll, give you
the all the conservative credentials on sexuality. I'm
not trying to promote that. I ask you
a specific question, apostasy.
You didn't discuss that. No, I I did.
I literally
You mentioned blasphemy, but on apostasy,
can people
leave Islam and take care of the religion
or become atheists or This goes back to
the nation states involved. I am not in
a position because the Sharia's
perspective was But these nation states are implementing
these laws. It's in about a dozen Muslim
majority And countries. And and can you tell
me I'm not defending any of them or
criticizing any of them. Can you tell me
when was the last time somebody was actually
executed?
This is just Very few executions because western
pressure, you know nonexistent.
It's just a law to placate the people.
You and I both know this. I I
wanna I wanna shift to another point point,
Sheikh,
Kadi made.
Mustafa, so we can look at political systems
from a purely theoretical level
or we can look at them from a
practical level of what actually works.
Sheikh Yasser flipped a common narrative on its
head
that, dictatorships,
don't let people flourish. He said, look at,
Iraq from the sixties to the eighties.
Look at Libya,
countries that have had,
fairly high GDPs,
health care, strong education.
How do you respond to those case studies?
And how do you see
these ideas playing out not just on a
theoretical level? By the way, I need to
say I'm not defending dictatorships. Yes. Yes. I'm
simply saying the simplistic notion. That's all I'm
saying. There is no defense of dictatorships. That's
all. I know. You don't defend it. I
respect you for that. I've seen your takes
on those issues. Okay.
And you criticize,
actually, you told Muslims that there are many
dictatorships in the Yes. World of Islam and
we're lucky to be not living under Yes.
The leadership here. Yes. So that's a problem.
And they would go after you and me
and most people. Right? I mean for,
there are countries,
Iraq and Libya was mentioned, thanks to the
oil money,
which comes from the ground. Of course, they
got a lot of resources,
and they distribute it to people, establish some
healthcare systems or free education and so on.
They're good in themselves.
But, you know, there are countries like Norway
which has oil money and also,
like liberal democracy and freedom for everyone. Muslims,
Christians, Jews, everybody,
or atheists people as well. So,
I I mean, yes, a dictatorship can give
you a
stable life and it can be better than
a civil war. I mean, I'll I'll I'll
grant that. That's a wisdom in our Islamic
tradition. One day of
anarchy is,
worse than a 1000 days of, tyranny.
But do we have to choose between these
options?
I mean, either chaos and civil war, which
we saw. I mean, we saw in Iraq,
we saw in Syria, we saw in Libya,
and
the west has to blame for that. Russia
is to blame for that too. I mean,
let's not forget that especially in in Syria.
So, yes, I mean and let's not forget
in the west, I mean, they had the
French revolution, 1,000 were slaughtered, guillotine,
Napoleonic wars. So these political systems are not
easily established as a peaceful, coherent,
just system, and it doesn't even stay like
that. They start begin to collapse. So there's
no golden answer here, but the question is,
are there universal human stand Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, for example? It was declared by
some people in 1948.
When we Muslims look at this,
do we relate to this?
There have been
some Muslims have published Islamic declarations of human
rights that are somehow similar in some ways,
but depart in some other ways.
I think it goes back to the theological
issue of whether
things are right or wrong
in themselves
naturally, and human reason can understand those. The
Mu'tazila argued for those, the Maturidis argued for
those in Islamic tradition.
I know the Hanbali tradition is more complicated
in Metabia.
I think there are universal standards
which we can understand and engage. So Christians
call it natural law. I think that perspective
exists, and our Sharia
conforms to that. Our Sharia actually reflects that.
Timeless truths, murdering an innocent person is wrong.
This is wrong before the Sharia, before Islam,
before other religions.
And Sharia comes
and reaffirms that to us and educates us
about us. So if there are these universal
values,
we can discuss on them to establish political
systems. Okay. So so on universal values, I
wanna get, Sheikh Kady's thoughts on this, then
we can go to a break.
So
is there something like natural law in Islam,
maybe what Ibn Rushd called unwritten laws?
What's your response? Of course, I agree with,
Mostafa's point that, of course, there are natural
values. My point was the only way we
know them is by religion. That's the whole
point. And our founding fathers of this country
were deists, and that's why they had this
notion of god given laws. You know, there's
a god given right of every human being
to be treated, in a decent manner. I
agree with this, and that's why religion is
important. The problem comes is that how do
you convince those outside of a faith paradigm?
And again, let me give you some controversial
examples.
Abortion is a classic example here. A classic
example
of faith and secular law inherently clashing.
As Muslims, we are not simplistic in this
regard of the Christian notion where life begins
at conception. No. It doesn't begin at conception
for us. But I'm saying for a Christian,
let's just say, because the Muslims don't believe
this, life does not begin at conception. Life
begins after a certain number of days. But
for a Christian who firmly believes
that life begins at conception,
how can you expect this Christian to distance
himself
from the reality that this is equivalent to
murder?
I mean, you sympathize with those worldview. Imagine
if in a society somebody said toddlers are
not considered human beings. Sati is a normal
practice.
We'd have to intervene and say, hold on
a sec. A toddler is a child. Just
because it's not dependent on his mother doesn't
make it, you know, not a human being.
Imagine in a society until you're 2, you're
not considered a human being. And they said
it's permissible to kill a toddler. We would
object to that. A Christian has a different
world view to to object to this. So
my point here is,
Islamic law and Islamic Sharia
in its own world view is obviously being
consistent. We need to cut them some slack
in this regard that from their world view
that's what they're doing. I understand here in
America, we are not basing it on Christian
or Sharia worldview, but we will find inherent
contradictions. And we see this constantly when we're
dealing with sexuality,
with morality,
constant updating. Now we're dealing with transgenderism.
We're gonna constantly be changing the laws to
reflect current sentiments of morality. My simple pushback
to Musafa and others is that we need
to be careful that we don't make the
same mistake in other parts of the world.
They need to learn from our
mistakes and and and,
falling short of our deals because when you
do not have a higher system where you
do about morality from, you get this non
ending conundrum. Every few years, we'll change the
laws to update what is,
what is, the latest fad. So, yes, there
are natural laws, but a secular society will
never believe them. Sheikh Kadhi, I'd like to
ask you about,
Khalifas.
Are they necessary
on an Islamic viewpoint?
If you mean are they necessary for salvation,
then no. You don't need to have a
caliphate to to live an ethical life and
to,
enter God's kingdom or heaven to be a
good Muslim.
Is it useful to have a caliphate? Yes.
An ideal caliphate, I think, would be very
useful to have. Is it realistic in the
modern world? That is a question I don't
have an answer to. I can't
personally understand how we can have a caliphate
in the modern nation state because the concept
of a caliphate
means if you are a Muslim, you will
be a quote unquote citizen of that caliphate.
How would that work in the global empire
and the global United Nations? I I don't
know, and I don't have an answer to
that.
But I would like to say before I
I hand it over to to Mustafa,
that one of the problems that we've had
forget the issue of caliphate.
We haven't
seen
a viable, you know, modern nation state
try to
come forth with a version of
democracy that is based on Islamic values.
We don't have an Islamic democracy in place,
and I think that is a far more
viable goal that we should be aiming for.
And
even for those that are advocating a caliphate,
may I suggest show us what a modern
nation state would look like that is actually
absorbing and imbibing the values of our faith
and flourishing in the modern world? I think
this is a more viable goal in the
in the immediate,
interim. And may I also say, again, I
don't always wanna bring up the, the the
reality of Western hegemonic forces. But once again,
I'm sorry to be awkward here, but one
of the reasons why we haven't seen a
a viable,
nation state that is faithful to Islam is
that when such nation states have attempted to
bring in Islamist
governments, it's our countries and the superpowers that
have intervened, most recently in Egypt, once again.
So
if we were to see a
a a modern country that is trying its
best to,
give
a
interpretation of Islamic law in light of the
modern world, that could be a role model
example. I think it would actually help assaj
many of the misunderstandings
and stereotypes people have of our faith tradition.
But what we've seen is that,
when such a nation state begins to arise,
when parties that are, quote, unquote, Islamist in
nature,
seem to be overwhelmingly
popular amongst the the the masses, is, there
seems to be a knee jerk reaction to
and,
do surreptitious coups to get involved and get
the military involved. And the fact of the
matter is we don't want democracies in these
countries. We meaning the, our our own country.
We'd rather prefer dictatorships that are servile unto
us. And I think there is a level
of hypocrisy that NDC pointed out before again,
going back to the issue of of caliphate.
But, yeah, your thoughts on the debt caliphate,
Mustafa.
Well, I agree a lot with Sheikh Yasser,
on these remarks. I'll just add a few
things.
I'm from Istanbul. I feel Ottoman. So, I
mean, there are things about the caliphate that
I admire and respect. I mean, I think
the but I see the caliphate
not as a
religious obligation on Muslims at every age.
I see this as a part of the
history of Muslims.
I mean, this goes back to a discussion
about what in our tradition is really religious,
what is really historical.
And I know, I mean, the classical understanding
this of the Sunni ulama, with exceptions, was
the caliphate is an obligation on Muslims. Not
maybe every individual Muslim was a community. We
should Muslims should live under a caliphate that
that enforces the Sharia.
I would say, well, if I lived at
the time, I would exactly think like that
because what are the options? I mean, What
are the alternatives? Yeah. Crusaders coming, slaughtering you.
Mongols coming and slaughtering you.
Classical Muslims could not imagine a political system
where which is not governed by Islamic law,
which is which doesn't have a Muslim head
of state, but they in which they can
be safe and which they can practice their
religion freely. This never happened before.
So that's
why we are in a new environment and
and politics is an evolving thing in new
ministry. So that's why I believe in new
ideas.
Now in Islam, this was discussed whether this
is still being discussed, whether the caliphate is
an obligation, whether it's a very important primary
obligation today. I mean, the the groups that
are there are groups who are focused on
this. I know Sheihi Assar is not
from that perspective, and I think I understand
and respect his
pragmatism and and level headedness there.
I would take another step. I would say,
I agree with scholars like Mehmed Saeed Bey
from Turkey in 19 twenties, which is less
known, I think, but Ali Abdel Razik from
Egypt is better known in in the western
in the Muslim world. They both argued that
caliphate is a part of the history of
Muslims,
but it's not a part of religion.
And
Abdul Raziq has this beautiful quote, Islam is
a religion not a state, a message not
a government.
I agree with that perspective.
That's why I believe if Islam itself is
not a state model, Muslims can engage with
different state models.
They did. I mean,
the idea of having a dynasty
was not Islamic.
But Muslims had this for 13 centuries. I
mean, every caliphate that passes from son to
father to son, this was not not Islamic,
but Muslims
accepted the norms of the time and lived
with that. I think in the modern world,
we can if there are better norms, there
are better political systems, we can engage with
those. That's why I believe in ideas of
political liberalism and democracy are valuable.
Not that they should be a reason for
colonialism
or or arrogance against Muslims, but with Muslims
their own, articulation
should be discussed.
So one thing I'd like to add, by
the way, is that there is some talk
now amongst many intellectuals of a,
a proposition, if you like, of a new
version of a caliphate.
I e, let's try to imagine a type
of caliphate that is not
political based, but rather,
power based. I e. What I mean by
this? Well, not necessarily power is in the
right word here. But a title and a
role in which there is respect given to
a figure
who can call for and rally people for
Islamic causes, and not necessarily for a particular
area or regime? In other words, can we
bring forth
a version of the caliphate in which multiple
nation states can come together? And let's say,
the Palestinian issue is a classic example here.
Let's say, put some pressure on other bodies.
They say we're gonna come united as a
block here and say we want, you know,
a state for, you know, these particular people,
let's say. This is a modern manifestation
of a type of theory of a classical,
caliphate
that might be totally novel, and I would
be very open to that idea.
I would be open to that idea as
well. And I just would add on in
all those issues,
it's not just the Muslims,
but also sometimes non Muslims who rally for
those causes and stand for the right,
position. I mean, Ireland has been very vocal,
for example, in its support for the Palestinians
and and and standing for them when they're
oppressed.
On the other hand, you would have Muslim
countries.
Well, what we think about the war between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. I mean, Iran has a
very different position.
Turkey has a very different position. So it's
not that easy to bring. So I think
the idea that Muslims should come together,
of course, to discuss our issues of the
ummah,
definitely, and we need better mechanisms for that,
And we need more understanding. And first of
all, less hostility between Muslim states,
that includes Iran and Saudi Arabia and and
other Muslim majority countries. On the other hand,
I think we're not a closed space.
There are there are human rights struggles, there
are on the Uyghurs, which countries will you
bring in to stand for Uyghurs? Will you
bring Pakistan?
Well, they don't wanna get there because they
have ties with China. But maybe you can
do something with Western countries on that. So
the issue is justice. We, Muslims, should stand
for justice for us and for other people.
And that can
come through different mechanisms between Muslims and Muslims
and other countries and and NGOs of course
as well.
Good. So I wanna shift to another question
now, and that is,
on what basis
do you think a government should make something
legal versus illegal?
Mustafa, I know you've before defended a distinction
between sins and crimes.
The latter, the the former,
referring to a violation of an individual's responsibility
to God,
whereas the latter is a violation of an
individual's
responsibility
to other individuals.
I'd like to hear Sheikh Kady's thoughts on
that distinction. Is that a valid distinction?
In your view, should the government be treating
all sins
as crimes?
Or should the government also allow some things
that are morally wrong,
be legal?
So
once again, we have to be
pragmatic. I'm always like to to to bring
in this reality.
We can't expect all governments to be exactly
the same. People are are are themselves living
different types of lives. And so, for example,
in this country,
alcohol was banned for, was it 6 years
or 5 years? It was banned in the,
you know, 19th 21st amendment here. Why was
it banned? Well, there were moral arguments given,
and there were religious arguments, and there were
social arguments given. All of them came together.
They weren't they weren't distinct from one another.
In a Muslim country, should we allow easy
access to alcohol?
I would hope not. Why not? Why should
they have easy access to alcohol? And so
in a Muslim majority country, we should take
into account
public sentiment
that is stemming from broad morality
that is itself stemming from religion. There's nothing
wrong with that. Why should we why should
we demonize a Muslim country for taking Israeli
and saying, hey, you know, we now the
the counterargument would be, and Mustafa has brought
this not for alcohol, but for other things.
Oh, but then you're forcing morality on people
and god doesn't like forced morality. The response
is very easy. Well, personal piety is one
thing. Public order is another. And I agree
with you. I agree with you 100% that
in a personal life, in a personal
paradigm, if you are forced to do a
good deed, that is not a good deed
in the eyes of God. But you are
neglecting
the public morality aspect here. So if somebody
wants to drink and he can't find access
to drinking,
because of the government, and you're like, this
isn't morality in the eyes of God. I
agree with you. The man is sinful for
wanting to drink. But at the same time,
I don't want ease of access, you know,
for alcoholic drinks for for my teenagers, for
for society. And I think it is healthy
and the lesser of 2 evils. By the
way, in the prohibition,
one of the reasons given to lift the
prohibition is when you ban alcohol,
then you force people to bootleg it, and
the bootlegged alcohol is more dangerous than real
alcohol. Right? Bootlegged alcohol, you're going to die
from the intoxication, whatever it might be. Which
happens in Iran. Very wrong. The response to
that is and, again, being very pragmatic and
mathematical,
the number of people who are harmed by
bootlegged alcohol is much less than the entire
society's harm by allowing the public consumption of
alcohol. The cancer rates, the liver issues, the
the the the drunk drivers, the entire,
negatives that come from just flooding the market
with alcohol,
that is far bigger of a negative than
the negatives that come when you ban it
and then the things that happen behind the
scenes here. The same paradigm can be applied
for prostitution, for immorality, for all the other
crimes that the Sharia considers to be immoral.
Because in the end of the day, this
this distinction between immorality
and between,
public disorder doesn't exist in the Sharia. That
which is immoral, that which is a sin
in the eyes of God is not healthy
for society.
So I don't want enforcement at the individual
level, but I do want a public sentiment
that is reflected in the values. Now what
that is will vary. And so let's just
give a simple example. Suppose a society is
immersed in alcohol, a Muslim society, and a
government comes to power, they cannot ban alcohol
overnight.
They can't. But should they not try to
work their way slowly but surely via preachers,
via public awareness, via campaigns about the dangers?
I would say, yes, a government should do
that until eventually a critical mass is achieved
where the public sentiment says, yes, let's ban
the sale of alcohol for all of our
goods. This is my my my my, you
know, point in a nutshell. Good, Mustafa.
On what basis do you think the government
should make something legal or illegal?
The government should make things legal when there
is harm to other individuals. So I believe
in the harm principle that is in the
classical liberal tradition.
A person doing something that is not,
that is maybe harmful to himself,
that is still a person's choice unless he's
harming other ones. Now on this alcohol
issue,
I think differently than, Shaiyasukh. I mean, Iran
has been banning alcohol for, of course, since
the beginning of the Islamic Republic. Bootleg alcohol
is a problem there. People die out of
it. A lot of people drink secretly at
at home. So there's a lot of hypocrisy
in society. Iran raised those. People have been
punished for alcohol.
I'll give you another example. I'm from Turkey.
Turkey is a Muslim majority country,
quite observant in many ways.
Like, 70, 80 people fast percent of the
people fast in Ramadan. Alcohol is free in
Turkey
since the republic. Actually, in late Ottoman times
too.
By the way,
we shouldn't forget that in Sharia,
Sharia is applicable for Muslims, but Christians are
not Of course. Subject to it. So they
can buy it. In the Ottoman Empire, Ottomans
realize that, well, it's their religion which allows
them to drink alcohol. So Christians could drink
alcohol. So the idea that you should
ban alcohol
in a whole land
is Restricted. Restricted.
Restricted. But, you know, it's it's it's their
religious practices.
There's always gonna be bootlegging behind the scenes.
So I don't believe in banning these things.
I think Muslim
coming back to Turkey.
Turkey, it's free. Does this mean Turkey is
a nation of alcoholics?
No. A lot of people in Turkey never
touch alcohol because they think it's haram.
But it's not because government is telling them,
because they are religious, they don't touch it.
Other people in I don't know, maybe 10,
20% of Turkish society, they drink. It's their
way of life.
Unless they drink and, you know, go, eat
public intoxication or drink and drive, do public
things that are harmful. I think it should
not be anybody's business.
And the more we go on these things
through the more course of measures,
we are creating tension in society. I mean,
issues like this which you bring up. I
mean, alcohol, women's dress,
these are simple issues, but these lead to
endless
tensions in Muslim societies. The Islamists will come,
force us all to wear the hijab. The
Islamists will come, and so on and so
forth. Then the Islamists should be suppressing, that
leads to the secular dictatorship.
So I think Turkey is not a bad
example.
Turkey's secularism was actually oppressive, so that was
the major problem. But that's been rolled back
in the past 10 years, oppressive secularism.
In a Muslim majority society, if some people
drink, I think it should be their choice.
The government would not promote it, I agree
with that. Restricted even. Put
put some of those people. Public intoxication. But
if people drink, it is between them and
God. It's a sin.
Not every sin is punishable. And I think
in in classical interpretation of the Sharia, there's
a tendency to punish things through tazir,
every
impious action. But I don't think that is
serving Islam even and and doing anything good
today in the modern age.
In America, they gave up on alcohol ban
partly because there was a huge mafia coming
out of that. Right? Like a century ago.
So these things are when you ban I
don't wanna support the mafia.
Exactly. So maybe it's a better idea to
let people do what they do. Yeah. Good
common ground. Alright. So, Sheikh Yasser,
can you please provide us just some closing
thoughts? Mhmm. Maybe summarize
some areas of common ground you see
with Mustafa and then, reiterate maybe where you
differentiate your Yeah. Yeah. So I think some
of the common grounds that we do have
is that we are wary of
a coercive theological state. We have seen the
realities of that in the last 30 years.
And what happens when you allow carte blanche
authority to religious fundamentalists is that there will
be an inevitable backlash that is not good
for society and frankly, it's not good for
religion. So we are both wary of that.
I think where we disagree is, of course,
the the level of,
spirit that one takes from the religion to
to
apply in the political realm. And I am
somebody who
is an advocate of soft religious values being
advocated.
And even if they're not applied, the government
should at least soft encourage them. So I
would say Turkey is an example of this
where the government is clearly,
you know, trying to bring about a a
positive image of of of of the Islamic
tradition by its, you know, even its,
television shows for example. Right? It's true. Yeah.
I mean, all the these are this is
a soft morality boost, which I think I'm
generally happy at even though I don't like
the historical inaccuracies of
is an Islamic reality. And I think we
should embrace that. We shouldn't be ashamed of
it. Now, Western societies don't have that as
a basic premise, so that's understandable.
But Western societies should allow
Eastern countries or Muslim majority countries to find
their own voice and their own mechanism. And
I think it is healthy and it is
a noble aspiration
if Muslim majority countries take some inspiration from
their religious values and try to bring about
a society that is more conducive to one
spiritual purity,
then and and the aim should be to
keep on improving that society generation to generation.
I think that's a positive aspiration at the
end of the day. Thank you, doctor Kadi.
Mustafa, what are your closing thoughts? Maybe summarizing
some common ground and Yeah. I mean, we
have a lot of common grounds,
with Sheikh Yasser. I listen to his sermons,
you know, I most of the time I
say, you know, I learn things or agree
with his point. Sometimes we have differences, which
has I think become clear here.
I believe,
on all these issues of what do you
ban or not, ultimately, they're they're democratic processes.
Right? I mean, the general conscience of a
society influences law, and that's normal and that's
natural.
And, of course, that will be different in
Saudi Arabia from, say, Holland. I mean, that
that's natural.
But if someone says this is what the
religion commands and we are imposing it despite
the public sentiments,
that's a different thing. Right? I mean, so
that is legislating
religious laws if there's no public demand for
it. So
I will put there the other thing is
I think in the Muslim world today, we
Muslims should not
have laws or attitudes
that we would not like if it was
done to us.
Right?
We want to preach Islam to the whole
world and give dawah, you know. That's great.
I mean, we want to give,
Muslims are free to distribute the Quran, Islamic
books, open mosques everywhere. That's wonderful. It's good
that we have these freedoms. When we don't
have those freedoms, like in China, like in
India,
we have to stand up against those. But
then we should also
respect non Muslims having similar freedoms in Muslim
majority countries. And I think if we have
laws about against those, which we do, I
think we should reform those. This is not
accepting Western hegemony, which a lot of people
tend to think like that. I think this
is about being principled.
If freedom is a good value that we
appreciate and we conscientiously
understand,
we should also
think about appreciating freedom in where we are
the majority.
And Muslims who think that we should suffocate
freedom
because we have to preserve morality or we
should we should kind of suppress freedom, it
is good for religion, they're not even achieving
what they want. I mean, what has Iran
achieved in the past 40 decades?
4 decades, 40 years?
By imposing Islam on a society, they made
the society even more secular than
before. A lot of Iranians have get have
given up on Islam, some converted to Christianity.
You maybe see Iranian diaspora in the west,
which tend to be some of them tend
to be very anti Islamic.
Well, this is what you happens when you
create a so called Islamic regime that is
imposing on people
authoritarianism and and religious coercion.
I believe there are issues in Islamic law
we have to figure out regarding that, but
the question is, do we appreciate freedom as
a universal principle or not? I think we
should, and I do.
And I do believe
the obstacles to freedom in our religious tradition
are
historical
interpretations. They are not coming from the core
of our religion, the eternal unchanging core of
our religion. That's
the the the Quran and the undisputable sunnah,
prophetic
practice. Thank you. And and with that, we'll
bring this discussion to a close.
for this dialogue.
for this dialogue.