DEBATE: Yasir Qadhi vs. Mustafa Akyol | Islam and the State

the freedoms that Yas kadi Yas kadi 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 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 blashe against God his mess in the street they don't want that even so why would you want to 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 uh 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 there's called natural law human F you know from it's religion I agree with you precedes religion welcome I'm joined by shik yaser kadi Resident scholar of the East Plano Islamic Center and Dean of the Islamic Seminary of America um one of the few people who have combined a traditional uh Eastern Islamic Seminary education with a western academic education in Islam um someone who's written many books articles has many uh media appearances and whose online videos are among the most uh viewed in the world uh 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 akel affiliate scholar at the Acton institute's Collins Center for abrahamic Heritage and a senior fellow at the KO Institute Mustafa is a journalist and author who has been voted one the top 10 thinkers to rebuild the World by Prospect magazine uh his books include uh 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 two of you agree on many things um including I presume some theological views some moral views uh a desire to cultivate a just society and a belief that open conversation and exchange of ideas U can help us achieve that end 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 uh should government and religion be separate or if not in what ways should they be connected um so shik kadi um I'm wondering if you can open our discussion with some preliminary Reflections on this topic for us in uh no more than 10 minutes or so okay uh so let me begin with a personal disclaimer and then three 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 uh I will not be quoting Lo or um any of the famous philosophers or you know kter anybody of that nature because that's not really my forte your field I am a a specialist in Islamic sciences and Islamic law uh and obviously as somebody who's been living in the uh and raised in the Western World I've had to uh come to terms with the reality of how to reconcile our Islamic identity and law with the broader society around us uh the three topical disclaimers I have about this is that uh first and foremost I don't believe that one particular scenario fits all Solutions in other words uh 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 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 uh the second topical disclaimer I'd have is that uh I also believe that no matter which uh Solution One chooses there's always going to be pros and cons uh 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 going to be negatives you're never going to have a watertight perfect solution that's going to be uh 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 Two 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 uh more than a million people have been killed 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 I that this is an experiment we're all trying they're all trying and you know um it's conversation is going to perhaps you know just better our understandings of each other's worldviews with those three um uh generic caveats let me state that uh 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 exact do you want your political system to achieve a political system whose ideology is meant to nurture morality who whose very uh 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 uh 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 communitarianism as well uh a society that largely believes in immutable uh 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 two 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 uh to Live and Let Live Well then that goal in and of itself might not be uh uh very popular amongst large seg of the Muslim world and this is demonstrated by multiple examples which we can get into in the Q&A and the discussions that we have on the other hand if the goal is merely to maximize you know uh uh one's uh 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 uh 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 uh 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 government is going to be separate yet I would hope that Americans and uh uh uh 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 uh 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 uh for those of us on this side of the Atlantic we understand that uh 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 Dr kotti uh Mustafa could you also um provide some opening Reflections on how you see this relationship between religion and government of course uh thank you again Nathan for bringing us together it's a pleasure to meet Dr Yas kadi she yasar kadi in person and call me fine Yas I'll prefer and Yas and now I actually want to begin by uh a recent sermon I listened from uh Yas kadi Yas 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 then uh 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 this in the car and I said yes alhamdulillah that's great that's a great Point uh 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 uh 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 practice their religion without anybody persecuting them without them persecuting each other as well in America you have the whole umah I mean from the most you know strict copies to more mainstream sunnis to Shia Muslims to other groups that are not even considered Muslim but they themselves Define as Muslims like Ahmed and they all have their you know places of worship and nobody is telling them what to do what to preach in their mosques and so on 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 uh you say uh y 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 UR Muslims brutally genocidal you know in in camps and by enforced abortions and so on so forth in India the majority among the majority Hindus there is a movement called hindutva it's been called as Hindu militancy 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 uh which we see here in America that is that is being enjoyed by Muslims and uh 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 Yas kadi kadi 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 uh from Christians in Pakistan or other groups in in in different parts of the world now in know and one one point that again she yaser 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 misson civil civiliz or my French isn't very good uh and Muslims have seen actually when Napoleon invaded Egypt in 19 in the beginning of the 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 had thought of these kinds of IDE coming from the West like constitutionalism equal rights for everybody uh 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 in a world that everybody wears blue jeans and eat McDonald's and whatever uh cultures certainly have uh their uh traditions and especially we Muslims and we should preserve them but I think politics is a universal uh area where there can be values we can uphold one more thing shaser got emphasized that you know a society that wants to nurture morality and wants to Max the other one that maximizes freedom these are two different things these can be through different things but these can be compatible because maximizing Freedom doesn't always mean maximizing freedom for people who want to be immoral right it's maximizing people for freedom to be for people who want to be very moral very traditional uh 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 um so sh kotti uh in your opening remarks you were very sensitive to the fact that different cultures uh and different groups of people require different political Solutions um 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 sounds Musta like Mustafa you see some sort of tension between um saying for example that um 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 Muslim can be they 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 L which I've criticized all my life because its Turkish version was even more Rive than France and we see very illiberal practices like Banning head scarves or religious symbols so but countries like America which is based on I mean Yas kadi mentioned political philosophy ideas that goes back to John lock 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 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 yeah sorry I interrupted and I've heard you also invoke the Golden Rule uh to argue that you know if if we are enjoying rights in a non-muslim land then should not we uh advocate for those rights in Muslim lands as well yeah exactly um so shik kadi how do you uh see that possible tension uh 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 uh 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 uh 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 going to liberate women and the freedom of women to wear the the to wear whatever they want or not wear anything and of course uh the uh 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 trillion 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 s on 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 and even Islamic even the most conservative interpretation of Islam the 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 blashe against God and His m in the street they don't want that even so why would you want to 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 uh allow promiscuity and immorality uh in a manner that is completely unrestricted now what that fine line is every country is going to be different but I think we would all agree that no 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 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's 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 uh good Muslims and allow us to criticize the government well the problem is at least in the in the way that the freedoms are practice 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 proo 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 free of morality versus immorality and I would argue and I think statistics show that is definitely not the case all right M off sh K makes some good points um here here in the west uh 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 ours here in 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 uh sheaser made a few points let me go just the power of this par 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 as like I can't say from a American point of view but I made it clear Western invasion 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 KO Institute that I work actually OPP oppose things like the US occupation of Iraq or other you know Colonial uh 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 interest so let's leave aside Western foreign policy we can condemn whatever needs to be condemned there or 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 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 shuk highlights issues that will of course to especially many Muslims do you want people to be promiscuous on the streets or blaspheme 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 I'm against that in Pakistan for example we know blasphemy law is a major issue it's it's it's in the laws and also there's this huge social anx iety 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 ASA BB uh she just said oh they blasphemed against Prophet Muhammad you can prove against it then you 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 state that's a different discussion if we don't like immorality what 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 sheaser 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 uh 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 uh 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 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 uh punish go after people for apostasy for example so is this a moral thing is this a political thing for example what 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 um we have caused a lot of hurt in those regions you're trying to dis 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 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 oneon-one 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'm not criticizing Pakistan even though I'm Pakistani ethnically my parents came from Pakistan I'm 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 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 going to change the sent intimate of the ignorant people when they see something that they think is blasphemy right so have legal measures people are being persecuted because of their sincere beliefs or just maybe even something they didn't say that someone thought I spoke with some of the senior muties of Pakistan in this regard and I spoke with them one-on-one in this regard uh I am not a constitutional action of Pakistani law but they explain 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 wasallam the the law is going to take you into account and you will be punished for that you're going to go to jail for that now I don't have a problem with that law and I'm not criticizing and I'm not going to endorse it or or or be critical of that's the 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 as you know there so then why would they 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 on their societies and we seem to overlook completely when 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 four 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 her 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 decide what they should do and I have no problem as I said I've spoken to them oneon-one I spoke to one of the most senior muties 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 tight 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 yeah I mean in Pakistan mob mentality and the legal process is different and Obi 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 I'll I'll say that uh I I agree with you that I mean European countries especially can be be very hypocritical and they might have double standards when it comes to free speech I publicly criticize those bans on Prop Palestinian protests uh amazy International CR and groups like that or human rights organizations like that have also criticized because they're taking I think a more principal stand on this that's why I believe American Standards of free speech are better than the European 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 want to 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 same 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 is unjust everywhere in the world fair China has laws thetically what you're saying is fine I agree with you so sh Shake Ki um you've emphasized the importance of local solutions that take the cultural context into account um and and to some degree I'm sure Mustafa agrees with that um also in the Catholic tradition you might call that subsidiary um but are there any common principles that you think should um 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 and 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 got to we got to put our law you know our some laws in that yeah sa the practice of Sati which by the way interestingly enough the MS tolerated grudgingly and you know British the British came in because the M said what can we do we don't want you to do this the M Emperor by the way this's interesting point here Akbar and others they tried to debate with the uh 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 want to do it we don't like it so they gave them the freedom to actually do that which is an interesting uh Point here but uh uh to to respond to your question I do believe there are certain uh Universal uh uh values and amongst them should be as I said the for us for me as a cleric the most important thing is that no uh 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 uh the rest we can begin to talk about in a more you know SE 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 healthwise education wise in manners that no other countries did and I'll mention two or three 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 uh well-educated Arab country the highest GDP the most prestigious Arab universities and the best health care system in the entire Arab world was 1960s 7s 80s Iraq there's no number two this is like number one 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 live through that and I've spoken to dozens of them they all hated that guy but they said our life back in the 80s our life in Iraq and 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 healthc 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 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 cuz on a personal level I know my teachers and friends who have been tortured by those to people in jails I know religious callers that have been you know faced 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're here all the time Freedom democracy this and that it doesn't work that simplistic in every single place in the 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 a heaven next day that's not the case but the 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 uh one thing you mentioned that in Afghanistan uh 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 alqaeda 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 uh ladies there sisters you know where the hijab willingly well somewhere 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 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 F we have elements of religious coercion apostasy is seen as a crime punishable by death there is there's hispa which is actually began as Market policing which was I think from The Prophet's time peace be upon him but turn into religious policing so forcing people to be practicing and Pious like like forcing them to do their regular prayers and of course hijab and and forcing woman to wear the hijab and things like that now let's leave aide for Western foreign policy for one second I believe these measures which I called 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 going to wear some willingly wear as you said that's wonderful we should fully respect it some willingly wear the nikab I stand for their freedom too in in Europe but others don't for example I believe governments should not coer them uh 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 uh I believe non-muslims should be able to give dawa in in Muslim majority countries as we can give dawa in America and elsewhere so on these issues of clear I can say religious coercion that I would call religious coercion what is your approach and do we have room here I know these are Shar issues and you're very well worsing these issues uh how much room do think we have here to move move forward is maybe 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 situation and I again push back at you you think hijab should not be forced I'm not saying you should I'm not say you shouldn't firstly the whole hijab isue 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 Toppers so women can go naked or whatever there's this there's this um 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 uh 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 uh pornography to be displayed in public heck even in America it's not allowed to do in public 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 uh Sharia out of it 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 two-piece by the way we weren't comfortable with a two-piece you know back in the 1920s in the 1920s it was illegal to wear what is called a bikini bikini came in the 1940s actually named after the atomic bomb and the bikini atal that they literally thought this is going to be like a nuclear explosion a lady as you're aware was arrested in this country for wearing a one piece bathing suit because it went 21 in or 22 in whatever the the law was above her foot it had to go all the way a certain number of you inches uh you know below her below her sh excuse me 100 years ago right in France we just got a lady that was arrested for wearing the borka so if we open this door Mustafa there's complete uh uh 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 a referendum on is so again we go back to this is issue of for the time being look at the Taliban and this is not a defense of them after $7 trillion and they come back into Power because the people actually prefer them over the chaos that was left in the wake of the American Invasion and you know this is in the 9s true so this is the reality then so this is who are we then to expect that our system is going to work best for them yes theoretically let's discuss no problem but I'm really cautiously go back to this point of assuming that one particular Su will work best for them the Taliban I don't 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 uh 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 Ville the locals accepted that over the freedom to dress immodestly and yet you you'd be robbed potentially raped people are bloodthirsty and the mafia is ruling the streets of Kabal 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 trying to talk to people that are fundamentalists 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 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 mentions this summarizes the argument impossible State yeah in 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 and then come to conclusions let me give you a simple controversial and yet practical example uh pornography and and and and uh 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 um uh Enterprise is immoral and it should not be and yet pornography was slowly but surely contested over the haze the haze code of the 60s 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 or 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 pornography and perhaps even uh prostitution is going to follow suit why should Muslims have to follow Western Notions here why can't Muslim countries say hey we don't want public Pros because I don't see them as Western Notions I mean I think for example uh well I see religious freedom based in quranic versus like 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 they the West Was the place where they had Inquisition and uh Protestants and Catholics were slaughtering each other we had more freedom than the West John Lock himself quotes John Lock himself refers to the Ottoman Empire early Enlightenment thinkers refer 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 uh peace as opposed to violence oppression IV 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 there's called natural law human F you know you from it's religion I agree with you precedes religion how do you know the F exists well we know the exist 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 I believe in debate I believe good and evil are rational they are discernable by human re I also believe partially what you're saying but this I know you're not but this is contested as you're aware and people outside the faith would disagree with you that's exactly why I brought up 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 East versus West I'll I'll give you a very conser 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 a other religion or become atheists or SEC goes back to the Nation States involved I am not in a position because the sharia's perspective was na states are implementing these laws it's in about azen Muslim majority 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 treasure it's nonexistent it's just a law to Plate the people you and I both know this I want I want to shift to another Point Shake kotti made uh 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 um shik yaser flipped a common narrative on its head that uh dictatorships uh don't let people flourish he said look at um Iraq from the 60s to the 80s look at Libya um countries that have had um fairly High gdps um healthc care strong education um 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 I'm simply saying the simplistic notion that's all I'm saying there's no defense of dictatorships that's all I know you're don't defend that I respect you for that I've seen your takes on those issues okay uh and you criticize actually you told Muslims that there are many dictatorships in the world of Islam and we're lucky to be not living under a dictatorship here so that that's a problem and they would go after you and me and most people right I mean for uh 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 distributed to people establish some Health Care Systems or free education and so on they're good in themselves but you know there are countries like Norway which has the oil money and also like liberal democracy and freedom for everyone Muslims Christians Jews everybody or atheist people as well so uh I I mean yes a dictatorship can give you a stable life and it can be better than a Civil War I mean I I I mean I'll grant that that's a visdom in our Islamic tradition one day of Anarchy is uh worse than a th days of uh 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 H so yes I mean and let's not forget in the west I mean they had the French Revolution thousands were slaughtered Guillotine Napoleonic War 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 is no golden answer here but the question is do 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 uh 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 mutasa argued for those the mes argued for those in Islamic tradition I know the helli tradition is more complicated 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 truits murdering an innocent person is wrong this is wrong before the Sharia before Islam before other religions and Sharia comes and re 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 on universal values I want to get shik kad's thoughts on this and then we can go to a Break um so is there something like natural law and Islam maybe what iban rush called Unwritten laws what's your response of course I agree with mustafa'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 de 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 uh 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 a conception no it doesn't begin a conception for us but I'm saying for a Christian let's just say cuz 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 cuz it's not dependent on his mother doesn't make it you know not a human being imagine in a society until you're two 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 worldview to to object to this so my point here is Islamic law and Islamic Sharia in its own worldview 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're not basing it on Christian or Sharia world view 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 going to constantly be changing the laws to reflect current Sentiments of morality my simple push back to mus 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 uh mistakes and and and uh um uh falling short of our deals because when you do not have a higher system where you divide morality from you get this non-ending conundrum every few years we'll change the laws to update what is uh what is um the latest fat so yes there are natural laws but a secular society will never believe them shikadi I'd like to ask you about uh khalifas are they necessary on an Islamic Viewpoint um 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 um enter God's Kingdom or Heaven to be a good Muslim uh 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 no and I don't have an answer to that um but I would like to say before I I hand it over to 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 in 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 eming the values of our faith and flourishing in the modern world I think this is a more viable goal in the in the immediate um interim and I also say again I don't always want to bring up the uh 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 uh nation state that is faithful to Islam is that when 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 uh 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 ass many of the misunderstandings and stereotypes people have of our faith tradition but what we've seen is that uh when such a nation state begins to arise when parties that are quote unquote islamist in nature uh seem to be overwhelmingly popular amongst the the masses uh there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to uh do ctitious 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 uh our our own country we'd rather prefer dictatorships that are surval unto us and I think there is a level of hypocrisy that he see pointed out before again um going back to the issue of of caliphate but yeah your thoughts on that caliphate Mustafa well I agree a lot with she yaser 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 that 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 me 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 with the exceptions was the caliphate is an obligation on Muslims not maybe every individual Muslims but as a community Muslims should live under a caliphate that that enforces the Sharia uh I would say well if I lived at the time I would exactly think like that because what are the options I mean the option 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 human history so that's why I believe in new ideas now in Islam this was discussed whether this is still being discussed whether the califate is an obligation whether it's a very important primary obligation today I mean the the groups that there are groups who are focused on this I know she yaser is not from that perspective and I think I understand and respect his uh pragmatism and and level-headedness there I would take another step I would say I agree with Scholars like mmed s Bay from Turkey in 1920s Which is less known I think but Ali ABD from Egypt is better known in in the west and in the Muslim World they both argued that caliphate is a part of the history of Muslims but it's not a part of of religion and Abdul razak has this beautiful quote Islam is a religion not a state a message not a government I agree with that perspective uh 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 a caliphate that passes from 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 uh 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 uh 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 uh Power based I.E what do 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 Palestine issue is a classic example here let's say put some pressure on other bodies say we're going to come United as a block here and say we want uh 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 uh caliphate that might be totally novel and I would be very open to that idea uh 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 uh 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 uh on the other hand you would have Muslim countries well what we think about the war between Armenia and aaran I mean Iran has a very 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 umah definitely and we need better mechanisms for that and we need more understanding and first of all less hostility between Muslim states uh 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 ugur which countries will you bring in to stand for the ugur will you bring Pakistan well they don't want to 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 NOS of course as well good so I want to shift to another question now and that is uh 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 um the latter the former um referring to a violation of an individual's responsibility to God and whereas the latter is a violation of an individual's responsibility to other individuals um I'd like to hear Shake kot thoughts on that distinction is that a valid distinction um in your view should the government be treating all sins as crimes or should the government also allow some things that are morly Ron U 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 19th and 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 a 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 its value and saying hey you know we now the the counter argument would be and Musafa has brought this not for alcohol but for other things oh but then you're forcing morality on people and God doesn't like forc 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 um uh uh uh 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 uh 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 health Y and the lesser of two evils by the way in the prohibition one of the reasons given to lift a 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 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 uh 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 uh um uh public disorder doesn't exist in the Shar 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 uh point in N shell good Mustafa um on what basis do you think the government should make something legal or illegal the government should make things legal when there's harm to other individuals so I believe in the harm principle that is in the classic liberal tradition uh a person doing something that is not uh 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 Shas mean Iran has been Banning alcohol for of course since the beginning of the Islamic Republic bootle 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 Al I'll give you another example I'm from Turkey uh turkey is a Muslim majority country quite observant in many ways like 70 80 people fast perc 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 well Sharia is applicable for Muslims but Christians are not subject to it so in the Ottoman Empire Ottomans realize that well it's there religion which allows them to drink alcohol so Christians could drink alcohol so the idea that you should ban alcohol in a whole land isct restricted restricted but you know it's it's their religious practices if you're cathol always going to be bootlegging behind the scenes so I don't believe in banning these things I think Muslims 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're religious they don't touch it other people 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 uh 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 Cove 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 islamist will come and so on so forth then the islamist should be suppressing that leads to the secular dictatorship so I think turkey is not a bad example uh 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 with that restricted even put restricted in the terms of 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 interpretations of the Sharia there's a tendency to punish things through Taz every imp 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 I sent so these things are when you B I don't want to support the mafia exactly so maybe it's a better idea to let people do what they do yeah good Common Ground all right so shik yaser um can you please provide us just some closing thoughts maybe summarize some areas of Common Ground you see with Mustafa and then uh reiterate maybe where you differentiate your 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 cart blanch authority to religious fundamentalist 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 um uh uh spirit that one takes from the religion to to uh 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 of the Islamic tradition by it's you know even it's um uh uh television shows for example right 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 the documentary but uh the fact that the government should take an interest in the moral betterment of their peoples 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 Society 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's spiritual Purity uh uh than 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 Dr Ki U Mustafa what are your closing thoughts maybe summarizing some common ground and yeah I mean we have a lot of Common Grounds uh with I listen to his sermons you know I most of the time I say you know I learn things or agree with his points sometimes we have differences which has I think become clear here uh uh I believe uh on all these issues of how what do you ban or not ultimately they they 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 uh I would 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 uh we want to preach Islam to the whole world and give dawa you know that's great I mean we want to give Muslims are free to distribute the qurans Islamic books open masks 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 Hony 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 uh 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 four decades 40 years by imposing Islam on a society they made the society even more secular than before a lot of Iranians have 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 uh I believe there are issues in the 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 mostly historical interpretations they're not coming from the core of our religion the Eternal unchanging core of our religion that's the uh the the the Quran and the undisputable Sunnah prophetic uh practice thank you and with that we'll bring this discussion to a close thank you Dr kotti and Mustafa um for this dialogue and I encourage our audience to um view more content by visiting act.org slin Center thank you thank [Music] you

Channel: Acton Institute

Views: 98,624

Keywords:

Id: m7oPD2jAqdM

Length: 76min 36sec (4596 seconds)

Published: Fri Mar 22 2024