With God on Our Side? Part 2: Maria Dakake, Andrew March, Hamza Yusuf in Conversation

[Music] okay let's bring in with you Maria if you can you wrote this article and with which your basic thesis seems to be you know you based it on the study on the on the Quranic verses that address Jews and Christians and you at the title says you offer a refer to as rules of engagement that Muslims need to interact with Jews and Christians and you also emphasized that it should be done with virtue and good manners other I'm curious the question there the idea in your title rules of engagement seems to imply at least that we're missing some rules of engagement that we or we don't have enough of them or you don't we don't have the adequate or appropriate rules of engagement especially Muslims are you could you explain what do you think they're we're missing something in our interfaith engagement and if so what is that well first of all let me say thank you for inviting me and thank you all for coming and I do have to say that I don't think rules of engagement was the title I actually gave to the article no wasn't it was a phrase that you used in the article thank you think of engagement that are missing quite the opposite I think that there's quite a good amount both in the Quran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad himself certainly in other tacks about the importance of Adam in intricate inter well inter-religious dialogue but also simply in engaging other people and I think though inter-religious debate is often focused on trying to win a particular argument whether it's debates within the Muslim community about how they should view Judaism and Christianity is it does Islam supersede them are they somehow still valid or religions that can provide guidance or whether it's debates between people of different religions about which of their religions makes the most sense is is the most grounded in logic or reasonable propositions and I think that the purpose of encountering the other is not simply a matter of trying to win a debate or win an argument I think that the rules of adapt are important in that they help us to engage the other person as a human being Sheikh Hamza talked about these importance of humanity the rights that you have as a human being and I think that when that sometimes and debates and especially contemporary society or debates take place on Twitter and they take place on social media we never we lose the encounter the importance of the encounter with another human being and in my own experience in inter-religious dialogue there is nothing like sitting across from a person who follows a faith that's different from your own and yet you can see you can feel in in talking to that person and seeing them that they are sincerely striving for truth and yet they come to a different conclusion that you do and I think that helps us remember that it helps us remember that the other person is a human being and has to be treated with a certain degree of respect and it also helps us to remember our own humility as human beings we don't know everything we have to wait until God informs us at the end about our differences which is a way of saying that no religious scripture in and of itself puts all of these differences to rest in fact the Koran often says people differ after the book came to them and I think thank you for explaining that I mean that's what you mean about virtue and well I think virtue and a dev are different I think that you know the Koran as I said in my article tells us that we have to deal with other people Villa Thea a son right that which is the best the most beautiful the most virtuous but all human beings have this potential for virtue virtue is universally recognizable it's universally attainable it's universally valued but human beings are born only with a potential for virtue virtue has to be cultivated and what edip does I think is it forces people to behave almost as if they've acquired that virtue it allows them to it constrains their worst impulses and forces them to have the best possible opinion of the person that they're talking to Andrew I want you are in a political philosopher and you understand the Western tradition quite well and you're also scholar of Islam you chose to write on a topic about you referred as a radical other which is the disbeliever and how is that person is viewed from an Islamic standpoint do you did you choose that topic partly because you think there's a tension between the Western liberal tradition or liberal societies if you will and Islamic tradition and that somehow there's a failure among those committed to the Western tradition and Muslims who live in the West to fully understand each other is that part of what you are trying to get at in your article thank you for the questions thank you for the invitation to be here and thank you for everybody for turning out and filling the hall I think it's actually I'm glad you asked that because there can be a certain kind of misconception which is to say that there's a special burden on Muslims to except the radical other or the disbeliever or that muslims are particularly distinct in having this as a stumbling block and to be honest with you the question is actually motivated from the other side so if Maria is talking about the ethics of encountering difference from the standpoint of personal ethics so I as a seeker of truth as an arguer about the truth I encounter somebody that disagrees I encountered that somebody somebody that disagrees in a very very radical way what kinds of ethical dispositions should you cultivate if you care about certain kinds of things if you care about truth if you care about your own peace and well-being and harmony of your soul if you're always arguing with everybody on Twitter you have a very miserable life even if you don't exactly recognize it and what harm you may be doing to the other right so now so that those are all very very important concepts as pertain to individual ethics now let's say that we magnify it to the level of society every time you think about the composition of society a society that is complex that is composed of many many different kinds of people I think that we're forced to ask ourselves a certain set of questions first what kinds of differences between us are acceptable and not acceptable another question is what kinds of differences between us do we expect to always endure and what kind of differences can we hope to be eradicated and and when you put those two questions together you have a kind of political ethics of trying to understand what is the appropriate scope for political action so let's just begin with what I hope is in this audience a fairly uncontroversial point which is to say that our country is built primarily on a history of racial difference in which there's a certain kind of imaginary that the country primarily belongs to white settlers and this is at the detriment of people who involuntarily were migrated from Africa or people who are found here and were the involuntary hosts of people that migrated from Europe now how you deal with this history is extremely complicated but I but I think we could all agree at least in this audience that the ideas that dominate this country for a very very long time which is that white people are inherently superior that the country naturally belongs to white people that white people are inherently more virtuous more intelligent more hard-working that these are ideas that have a legacy and that we have to live with now we may say they're markers of sin we may say they're markers of history we may say they're markers of false consciousness but I think it's the absolute ethical responsibility of everybody who lives in America to say that that that it is our responsibility to expect and to hope that these kinds of ideas will be eradicated that these are not objects of toleration these are not objects of sort of amused indifference right oh well my crazy old racist uncle though these are objects of eradication now so that's let's take that as a fixed point well let's ask what other kinds of things we think ought to be eradicated and what kinds of things we think ought to be sort of born with toleration and what kinds of things we think they ought to be recognized as reasonable differences so I could go through the list but I'll just jump to the end of your question from a liberal perspective there is a category of things that people differ on that are sometimes called your conception of the good now to a religious consciousness this sounds a little bloodless right so my belief in Islam or my belief in Christianity is not my conception of the good it's my ontological understanding of what I am where I am going and what is the source of my dignity but for all that what liberal political philosophy is based on is the idea there are many such ontologies now what do you say about this one possibility is that one of them is right another possible then we have all of Maria's problems which is well we that may be true but lo and behold we're always disagreeing about it another possibility that a few of them might be right perhaps the Abrahamic religions right so there's just that right there's there's series of revelations from God and those are what's acceptable well another possibility is that all of these questions about metaphysics about the origins of the cosmos about the purpose of human nature what is the source of virtue what makes for a good life all of those are of the same milk some are religious some are secular but it's the same kind of human activity that ends up in disagreeing about them and so if you take it at a macro level I think what's motivating this is that from a liberal perspective religion as a problem and so by grounds of reciprocity the question is well from a religious perspective what is the what is the attitude towards a conscientious rejection of anything other than a materialist explanation of the self the body and and and human striving so it's more I think the question of my motivation is well in liberal political philosophy how we tolerate religion is an active question and so why not see what happens when we try to pose that question also from a religious perspective so your assumption thanks for the explanation but your assumption is that in maintain political order in liberal societies all parties need to have that understanding of the other meaning you know what what you cannot tolerate or what you can't tolerate so that's another I'm very very glad you also asked that question because this is distinctly a question for a Democratic Society right so as Sheikh Hamza was talking about bimbe is saying the past is the past well there are many many models of toleration there are many many models of coexistence there are many many models of people encountering others that are radically different from them and lo and behold managing to to see the sunrise the next day the question though is when you have a democratic society a group of people that is trying to govern itself collectively with no help from anything other than itself no monarch no Pope no caste of priests how can we give ourselves a law or a series of laws that is ours and at the same time as just so then you have to ask yourself you know who is included in this self-governing population and so then you have to ask I think well is different about the good difference about religion difference about metaphysics one of those things that is a marker of being on the inside rather than being on the outside and if that is true then I think you do need an account of why that kind of difference doesn't mean you're not a member of the self-governing people and but then if that's true I want to know I want I want to know so a religious person might want to know well how do I know that you're not gonna turn into a radical atheist that wants to extirpate religion close down churches and mosques and re-educate people such that they think religion is evil likewise a secular person might want to know I want to know how you view me do you view me as enslaving myself do you view me as somebody who is engaging in Luminos am I am i harming my soul and in holding these beliefs and thus a possible object of re-education or something worse so I think it's not the most important problem in politics but but that kind of mutual reassurance that I see you as my equal and I see you as somebody that is equally capable of deliberation in public it's not also the the least important aspect of democracy thank you for that it's an important aspect she comes I want to ask you a question but first I want to see if you had a quick break after what I think I would just qualify white people as anglo-saxons because I think a lot of the Irish did a lot of bad things in this country undeniably policemen for the anglo-saxons I want to pick up on the document they were reading but also on the Marrakesh declaration itself because it seems relevant to the subject at hand the Americans declarations based on the charter of Medina and I want you to do two things one is to briefly describe the the historical charter of Medina itself what it was but also why you and Schekman Bela and others believe it's a relevant thing for us and particularly for Muslims to remind ourselves of today well his his argument dollars argument is that the the modern concept of a nation-state is a new concept for Muslims prior to that there wasn't this idea of a nation-state or citizenship if you look at all the traditional texts of political science they talk about that hakkim when macomb the the ruler and the ruled the idea of what what's called Mohana citizenship was was really not it's a Greek concept and there's an argument that maybe one of the first problems with the expansion of Islam is that they adopted a more Persian model than perhaps a Greek model in terms of government because the prophets lie said I'm arguably and this is a big debatable point but arguably there's not any specific way to rule in Islam the the the Sharia is more constitutional than it is statute and there's actually not that many statute laws in Islamic tradition there's constitutional principles and so the Muslims have ruled in various ways throughout human history but the idea of citizenship was not really a concept the idea of a citizen being involved in legislation and voting and things like this and so he's arguing that in the original model that the prophet saw lies and provided when he first went to Medina was an enfranchisement of the different groups that were there and this was a tribal society the Jews had various tribes and there were also Jewish Arabs who had converted to Judaism and then you had the the polytheists you had the the Christians you had some Christians and you had the Muslims and so the Prophet created the charter of Medina which sometimes is called the constitution of Medina it's debatable whether it's a it's a constitution or not but the Charter Medina was basically that each of the groups were equal in their in their rights as inhabitants of Medina and there's a very interesting verse in the Quran when the Prophet was chased out of Medina it says went ahead no if you had abetted you know you are a rightful citizen of Mecca that they had no right to throw you out and this is the birthright of citizenship hence America is one of the few countries that actually has that the idea of where you're born you have a right to be legitimately there and we're in a huge debate right now in our country over this issue but so so his idea was a restoration of the Charter as as an alternative to the idea of paying tribute so the poll tax it's not really a poll tax because it wasn't everybody only certain people had to pay it and sometimes there were there were many examples where the people did not have to pay monks didn't pay a priest did not pay it nuns and things like that so he most Muslims think this is the only way that we would relate to people outside of our faith in a majority Muslim land and this is what Isis did they restored this idea of jizya he's arguing that it's it's not the only possibility and that the more appropriate one is to go back to the charter of Medina and he makes a very cogent argument that it was never abrogated the Charter of Medina and shows that historically that that it's an acceptable approach to that so that that's that's what he did but it's important to remember that the Ottomans abolished jizzy also in the 19th century and that was done with the shackled Islam and with the agreement of the scholars at the time so this is not unprecedented the the Ottomans recognized also that the world was changing and they needed to change with it did you want to say something I have a question for you but go ahead I did want to say something quickly about that I mean it's I think it's very interesting that he's recommending that people take a look at this and I had that idea of citizenship is really interesting I never really thought about it that in the Constitution or whatever you want to call it of Medina but one of the things I think it's very important in that document to me as I think about it is it presents a group of people coming together and in greeing upon a set of principles upon which they're going to live that is not higher than religion but for practical purposes transcends it and so when people sometimes look at let's say the UN Declaration of Human Rights one of the religious arguments some people present against is that it's setting a kind of moral standard that's really above religious moral standards this is a standard by which all other all religions moral standards are going to be judged and so I think what this does is is it says that you can have a common agreement that transcends religious difference not because it transcends religion but because it's something we all agree to which I think is similar to to what Andrew is saying as well we all agree to live by that the second thing is that it also points to the kind of claim that your neighbor has on you even though there were not just Jews and Muslims but polytheists as you say living in Medina but they were living in Medina you had to live together that claim that the neighbor has upon you is a foundation of virtue in Islam and I think one of we're talking about this earlier I think one of the problems with let's say the way Isis deals with one of the problem deals with things is they're sort of taking these texts and just sort of using them as a blanket guide to action completely missing the importance of these are people human beings these are people who are living in a place they have a certain right to be there it was her right to live according to the way they want to deliver their interpretation and I think that is Isis is just that furthest example of how far you can go when you lose that sense of the importance the claim that your neighbor has on you well I think also the point that that virtue or something that transcends religion that's clearly understood and in in the prophetic tradition that there's this idea a lot of Muslims and I and I think there's a major problem in the Muslim world is the conflation of ethics and religion the idea that you cannot be ethical without religion there's an argument that you can't ground metaphysically ethics without religion that's an argument the idea that somebody cannot be ethical without religion is is completely insane but a lot of religious people have that misconception and and the prophet saw him clearly stated in a sound hadith whoever comes to you and you find pleasing his Deen his religion waa-hoo dopo and his character so he clearly separated between religion and character and he understood that the Arabs in Judea had qualities that he wanted to maintain and this is why custom and norms are very important in Islamic tradition wherever Islam went it it acknowledged good customs and good norms of people that in its essence trance transcend religion itself that there's a human goodness that that is innate that will manifest in societies that that is not dictated by religion no I totally agree with you about the point about there's an assumption by most people that if you don't have religion you don't really have moral basis of some kind that is part of human beings but Andrew did you want to jump in very quick on the Medina covenant is that includes yes in a lot of sort of the thought of some contemporary political Islam as is well known for a lot of the 20th century the idea of Medina was this kind of symbol of the fusion of religion and state dean winona okay so the year 0 of the huge ad calendar begins with a to Medina what does that mean it's the assumption of political and juridical and military and all kinds of other power but in a lot of so for example the Tunisian thinker Raja she and a lot of his writings about the the post Arab Spring situation Tunisia he has said the medina covenant is our arch model for politics precisely because of its inclusion of pluralism and so he says at one point we Muslims are lucky we're fortunate that our political experience began in an experience of radical political pluralism and so all of this all of the stuff of politics mutual security covenants contracts ordinary day-to-day welfare from the very very beginning was presumed to be something that could be pursued across even the most radical religious differences and so that's sort of become this you know this kind of like master metaphor for what politics is actually about the contemporary well also also the the concept of Doda which is a modern Wilson well it's been around since the odd acids but they meant revolution by the Donen Mubarak abut that was the first use of it but but there's no word in Arabic for state and state is it that was they use like governance and in fact the Umayyads called it had an Amaro based on the hadees exactly so so it's it's a it's our affair it's had this affair of Emir is the one who has the amount of the command or the affair but the idea of donor of a state was not they they didn't conceptualize it in the same way that modern people do and I think people don't realize how much political Islam has colored the understanding of Islam of modern Islam it's very anachronistic to take a lot of these concepts and try to apply them to that early period and there's there's a very important distinction you're very well aware of this in in in the in in most of the fundamental texts of creed they deal with politics and for instance in the Johanna which was taught for four hundred years at in al-azhar it says why did you go no school Imam and Adri that it's you have to have a just Imam a just ruler or authority Bashar I am diabetic not a Khalid by Sharia not by rational because there was a he laughs there was a of opinion is government a rational or is it injunction just for intelligent human being should they do or is it something the Shetty is telling us to do but then he follows it up what a so looking and yet for Dean this is not a pillar of the religion for ETSU zero a Numidian Mubeen and and people forget this that that the idea of a state is not a pillar of Islam and and it's very clear in the hadith inaudible Hadi where the Prophet tells who they thought when he doesn't see any clear polity that he should just avoid all the sectarianism and and just be a private Muslim and that's he didn't say you it's a thought of the chief ion you have to establish he said just be a private Muslim and and this is something a lot of Muslims don't understand this you know that that it's not a pillar of Islam the stateless state yeah yeah I want to get to and this issue of both Maria you and I both both of you have looked at Quranic verses and based Maria your articles based quite a bit on Quranic verses and where you landed with the Quranic verses about Jews and Christians was you essentially were saying that there are some verses that are favorable to Jews and Christians and others that or not and then you wrote this and I want to read you a paragraph from your article and have a quick question about that you said suffice it to say that the ambiguity in Aaronic statements about Jews and Christians is pervasive enough that the issue must be seen as ultimately irresolvable and by believer in the quran and it's divine origin perhaps us deliberately so after all if God had wished to speak categorically against or in support of the soundness of these other religions he surely could have done so as Muslim theology always understood the Quranic verses this way and my second quite related question is what lessons do you believe should Muslims take away from this conclusion that your looking at right well I would say that first of all the you know when when the Quran is talking about these religions it's always talking about the people in those religions not about the religions per se it's talking about the prophets who founded those religions and talking about the followers of the religion so the question is first question is what what can you derive about the religion itself from what the Quran says about the contemporary contemporary to the Prophet Muhammad's time followers of the religion I think that as razor saw Qasimi says and his in his book or hidden an article actually that if you were to look at all the things that the Quran says about using Christians and just to sort of put them in rough categories of you know positive or negative there certainly are there's certainly a lot more criticism probably then then that endorsement in some way but at the same time I think that there are places where the Quran just leaves this issue so open that you can't close the door on the possibility that there could still be guidance legitimate guidance or salvation from a theological point of view the question is has this the way is this the way that it's always been seen I think that when you look at the Islamic tradition even if you look at the verses that are very positive for example 262 or 569 that talks about you know the Jews and the Christians and the Sabian's along with the believers whoever believes in God in the last day will have a blessed after that will have their reward with their Lord when you look at what classical commentators say about those they they don't read them as an open-ended assertion that Jews and Christians have an open path to salvation they tend to read those in a more limited fashion than the Quranic statements themselves so they say well these means the Jews and the Christians who followed the original Torah or the original gospel or who followed Jesus and didn't turn away or that kind thing and it's certainly possible to read that that way especially in light of all the other chronic verses if you read it holistically I can see how they come to that conclusion but at the same time I think it's a powerful statement it's not qualified in the context of the verse itself and so I think that it does leave this very much open but yes the classical commentator has had what I would call a clearly supersession estuve you that although these religions or these scriptures had a guiding power in the past they've been superseded by Islam and as I say in the article too you know one of the arguments would be if you were a true follower of the Torah and the gospel you would see the the truth and the message of the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran and I think that's very clearly articulated it has Quranic basis as well and sort of seven first one 57 for example so but at the same time I think that you I think that there are places where the Quran just leaves it to open even to say not all of the athletes have are the same and some of them are very pious they pray in the watches of the night they hear the the Quran itself and they they're moved by it so I and I and I think that when you take those open statements and you combine them with the human interaction of people who do follow those faiths it's not like you can't see taqwa in the face of someone who follows a religion other than Islam it's not that you can't see those kinds of virtues that religion was designed to inculcate in other people and so I think if you take what the Quran says and you take it in the context of relations with other individuals you know the matter cannot be completely resolved and so coming back to this issue of the human whatever you might find in classical texts did not necessary necessarily reflect the situation on the ground Muslims and Christians and Jews often lived together in peace and even not yet not only in peace but you know in very profitable relationships intellectually if you look at under Lucia or something like that and so a theoretical notion of supersession in which religion is really valid and who's really saved and what text really provides guidance well these are questions ultimately that are only resolved in the hereafter I mean we can't make statements about who's saved and who's not saved but what we can all do as I said is recognize virtue and although certain religions might you know emphasize certain virtues over others virtues or virtues generosity charity mercy justice bravery honesty we know what those are we see them cultivated and someone that follows a particular tradition and that's your basic takeaway for Muslims and is to look at that and say that recognize those virtues in others when you do recognize them then Andrew you looked at the Quranic verses about disbelievers and you said that you're where you land with that is that the God has caused the state of the state of affairs he's sealed their hearts he's hardened their hearts you know and some people but not others and then you say this and I'll read you a sentence from what you said however in the shadow of the view that God curses unbelievers lie the views that their unbelief is not their fault and that God has decreed it intent intentionally possibly with some wise plan in in mind that is unknowable to mortals if God has decreed it what does it mean for those of us who are believers I mean in some ways you're suggesting that disbelief itself is not the fault of disbelievers because God has caused them to be so but you also argued that reason and rationality can lead a person to believe you know whether there's no God that the reason irrational can also lead you to just disbelief and so my question is how should the believer those of us who are believers view the disbeliever given what you're saying that so there's a couple of things going on there one is the question of how Muslims or others should see the doctrine that unbelievers should not be blamed because the state of their mind or the state of their heart is not their fault so that's one question and I think the point that I'm trying to make in the article is that that's the dominant view so when you read certain thinkers that are trying to come to terms with this right beyond Abrahamic fraternity beyond choosing Christians how do you deal with this more radical pluralism on my reading the dominant view of how you explain disbelief is that it's is that it's God's choice right that if their hearts weren't sealed or if their minds weren't somehow obscured then humans would naturally be led to what their fitara tells them which is a kind of monotheism I think that's more or less the view so then you said well how do I think it should be so I I mean I clearly think that if you look at the history of the encounter between Greek philosophy and revealed religion when the Philosopher's start talking about religion as a philosophical problem separate from specific doctrines like the resurrection of the body or things like that what is a problem in religion for philosophers so the primary one I think the primary two really are miracles and prophecy so if the world is ordered in a certain way and if the world is governed by certain laws which the Aristotelian philosophers in particular wanted to believe was true then how is it possible to believe in the suspension of those laws through miracles the other is how do you understand prophecy how do you understand that that that either there is a God that could actively intervene or there's a human that could be disposed in a different kind of way the only point I'd like to make now is that from the standpoint even of ancient and medieval philosophers those word out about doctrines those word out above use and that the normal exercise of reason could lead one to say that miracles require some other kind of explanation and that whether it's irrational to believe in miracles and I think there are philosophers that disagreed on that it's certainly not irrational not to believe in them whether it's irrational to think that there could be a psychological explanation for prophecy which the Farabi inand Avicenna an explanation explained prophecy is some kind of hyperactive intellect that was sort of immediately connected to the divine intellect it's also certainly not irrational to doubt that this is a source of knowledge and so you know I think the most reasonable approach is to say that from outside of a kind of socialization into which revelation as a source of knowledge never mind certain knowledge specific examples of prophecy are treated as having veracity that it from outside of that socialization there is an extremely high level of epistemic work to be done for somebody to take that as an exclusive source of knowledge and so as an absolute minimum I just I think it has to be acknowledged particularly in the modern world where we know what we know about source criticism we know what we know about how complex and how changing views about the cosmos and metaphysics are that that that somebody could regard the basic ideas of prophecy revelation and miracles as something that we don't really have any reason to accept any rational reason to accept now that can be said without a scribe irrationality or without ascribing false consciousness to those who do believe in them not everybody manages to do both of those things at the same time but I think at the very least it is a honest attitude towards knowledge to say that somebody who doubts and miracles and prophecy is not deluded shakem de some years ago I remember you wrote an article on Cofer and this belief itself I'm curious about this explanation about that somebody could reasonably doubt if not disbelief you know revelation and prophecy what's your understanding of that how would you look at that I mean one one thing the Quran in several verses it is very clear like a shark is there any doubt about God there there's an assumption of belief that it's a Fatah it's it's part of the in principal nature of the human being it's something inclined even faha Dino Rossi argues that causation is natural to the human being to believe in causation and he gives an example he said take and I did this with my kids when they were little he gives the example of taking a child who's like 1 year old and and and hiding and throwing something and then watching the child look for the source the child doesn't just assume that it popped into existence and so he says that it's a natural belief to seek causes in fact the first philosophy metaphysics is seeking first causes looking at what are the first causes and and so there's an argument that most of the Muslim theologians make that human beings that that if they think about it they will arrive at this conclusion I mean this is obviously there's also counter arguments about you know that the parts that causation in the parse doesn't assume that the hole has a cause and and and there's certainly the idea Aristotle makes an argument that and this is taken up by him and Senna and others that that the Kozma existed alongside God so that the cosmos itself has is eternal and that was one of the things that ghazali points out about the problems with the philosophers but but one of the things that fascinates me about well you know I was taught in the kree's that I learned a supersession astre dition that Islam in the Johanna it says that the Shetty of the Prophet abrogated all previous Shetty as but it didn't deny the idea that there wasn't light and guidance in those traditions that was pointed out and and that is the the opinion of normative Islam the the great scholars of Islam grappled profoundly with the problem of disbelief and the problem also of the fate of people outside of Islam so you have people like Muhammad Rosati who one of the last books that he wrote about four years before he died is called Heisler a toughie bein being a man who was and Maynard Cooper he was and aha the the the criterion that differentiates between disbelief and and heresy and he makes a very strong argument that the vast majority he categorized people into four categories three of the disbelievers people outside of Islam three out of those four categories he considers saved so only only one he actually sends to the fire the other three he considers him saved and and o Muhammad is the embodiment of Orthodoxy and and and and even Tamiya grappled with this even time yet there's an argument that he's a Universalist and his approach to salvation because he had a very problematic with the the Eternity of the fire as the eternal punishment for a temporal sin that that a merciful God who's defined essentially with mercy the the autumn begins in the name of God the merciful the compassionate so he makes an argument and it's a sound book I mean some of his followers modern followers like Ilene how to be wrote a book arguing that it's he didn't write it but he did because even a claim of josiya quotes from it his own student even O'Shay up his student quotes from it and attached Adina Sookie who wrote a book called elective our fee Baja alginate even our refuting even say Mia because Emmitt Samia argued that the fire will be extinguished because he said it wasn't compatible with absolute mercy and so wrath was not an essential attribute of God there's no there's no God is not animal active as a name he's not the the the Madlib is not a name of God it the Quran clearly says that he punishes people but it's not one of his divine names as a name there and there's a difference of opinion about whether the verbs are transferred into names but that's another matter and then you have somebody like sha Allah Allah and ahead OE who also argues that people have too many filters and this one of al bahamut's arguments that sociologically people grow up al Bahamut says in the Mucca he said I noticed Jewish children become Jews Christian children become Christians and Muslim children become Muslims and he said because of the natural Authority of the parent they just believe what their parents tell them and and so those are filters that make it very difficult for people and then if you take somebody for instance like Abu Sufyan who fought the Prophet for 20 years and then he finally becomes Muslim whereas somebody else who fought the Prophet and kid dies in the first battle that's very unfortunate right what if Abu Sufian died in that first battle did God know that he would have believed after 20 years these are very difficult things that only God can really sort out and I think that is the message of the Quran is that I'm gonna explain all this to you you know it's like the the the director's cut you know you get that you know these films that you can actually listen to the director explain why he did everything know that's why he did that right and and so one of the things about according to the the the our belief about the end of time is that in the resurrection people see everything they get to and and it's all it's all you know we're gonna find out who really killed Kennedy Quincy Jones knows actuaries so but but there are many examples of this in our tradition where they really grappled with this problem of you know understanding what's holding people back and and and and also there was a deep compassion I think in in in our community for other people we have we have history I mean I'll give an example even Omar Abdullah bin hamad when Omar was killed a priest visited him to give to Zia even Tamiya mentions that you know on the permissibility of doing to Zia for Christians and Jews and things but a priest visited him and and told him couldn't cathodic come out Kunta fat Owen be on the third like you were on the first and he doesn't explain it and then he leaves even Hamas says write that down because that's a wisdom that we and Here I am you know fourteen hundred years later because it was recorded that was him what he meant was on the third day of Tashia of you know when you when you offer condolences on the be like you were on the first day in other words don't let this reminder of your mortality and death diminish as the days pass you know so beyond the third day like you are today and and he he wrote it as a wisdom he was taking wisdom from somebody from another faith may mornin is Moshe Panama moon he studied with Avera ways you know they were they were interlocutors he went went went when when the more he doing took over he had to flee and the received because of the Jewish persecution he goes to to Egypt and becomes a personal physician of salahuddin la you be the the the the Kurdish ruler who reconquered Egypt from the fault omits but there's an example of somebody who was honored for his intellect for his knowledge of so I think Muslims traditionally you know they did grapple with these issues and it's very easy to to to dismiss it oh they're all co far I mean one of the things that dr. the cakes said I think it's very important that you know gentleness kindness all these virtues if you look at the description of Co far in the Quran these are profoundly negative people they're arrogant they're puffed up they're full of pride they're they're horrible to other people and and and that's why even though there's a legal designation of Kufa for people outside of Islam we have to be very careful and that that's what I was trying to argue in that who are the disbelievers we have to be very careful about Kufa and this is a hit up difference of opinion between the Saudis and the maturities is it a temporary State or is it a permanent States you know but of course to be mentions that Omar was beloved to God when he was prostrating to idols in Mecca because because Omar was Omar even when he was a polytheist and so that there's nuances there that that are really lost unfortunately on a lot of people with simplistic views of these problems Maria I think I'm gonna ask you this question but I think I know your answer but I don't want to presume that but this idea of the disbeliever is the way that we're talking about looking at disbelievers what you're saying earlier about Jews and Christians and Muslims you know and deal with them and engage with them I assume that you think all the think that applies to disbelievers as well when you talk about people with virtue I mean what Sheikh Hamad just said because even the ones who have those virtues that we should deal with them the same way with compassion would you know well many of the verses of the Quran that talk about dealing with people gently who don't agree with you in your religion come from mekin verses and the interlocutors that are implied are our pagans did you know that God doesn't forbid you from doing from being kind and and dealing justly with those who seek to oppress you and your religion that's with it you know I mean it's in Medina but it's it's relating to asthma bent Abby back who rejected a present from her mother I believe it was I'm trying to so so it it's quite clear that these don't just apply to people who are part of the ethyl ketone it applies in general I mean think also about even Moses went and and Aaron and Harun when they're told to go to Pharaoh they're told to speak you know Paul didn't they and then they're told to speak gently and that's to Pharaoh not just wrong what I mean evil and cruel so so um what I'm saying is that I don't think it applies just to to Jews or Christians and I I agree that it is possible especially today as Andrew was saying for people to come to a conclusion of a certain kind of doubt but it doesn't mean that they cannot also possess ethics and and act according to ethics and possess even virtue and I think the clear example of this is I will tell them the prophets uncle right I don't think she i'ts will be very happy with this before she dies believe that he became a Muslim but from the Sunni point of view he never became a Muslim would anyone say he didn't behave virtuously nobly so I think there are plenty of examples of that and then you just you know you have to leave you know that's not a matter that that human beings can judge right and I want to get back to your I think you sort of explained this in your opening answer but you use a term um you say you should go beyond mere toleration and actually have what you call reciprocal recognition of the other talk about that definition of what does that look like when you say reciprocal recognition of the other what exactly do you mean by that right so again the idea is that I think it's pretty obvious that toleration while it sounds like a virtue in some cases it may be a virtue it's something people want to ascribe to themselves toleration you only tolerate what you don't like what you disapprove of right so I tolerate too much salt in my food means that you know I probably shouldn't or take some effort or something like that so I don't think any Muslim in the room today wants to be tolerated right what what's what's so intolerable about me that requires toleration in the first place it wouldn't be bad though so there are worse things than being tolerated but certainly I hope that we all have higher aspirations for the kinds of human relationships that were capable of right except not everything is worthy either of toleration or of some kind of reciprocal recognition so you know you're mentioning technology and the evils that it comes with and so we're all familiar with the kinds of not just you know let's say Islamophobic or racist views that are going around but views that are so radically in denial of science and rationality that we may say what's the crisis of our democracy is that nobody can agree in our country on what counts as a fact or what counts as evidence and so the extreme persistence of climate change denial or things like this this you know why are we gonna talk about religion when we have you know so many greater evils and ills in our democracy so that should be your next issue but so you might say well no I I don't that that's neither worthy certainly it's not worthy of reciprocal recognition or any kind of positive recognition it may the people may be sort of objects of toleration because like Abu Sufian you may hope that they have their the an awakening and they realize that they only were in denial of climate change because they listened to too much fox news or other kinds of media but even if that's true here's the difference if somebody were to say you're designing a democracy from scratch forget the Constitution that we you are designing an ideal Constitution is it obvious to any of us that we would have the exact interpretation of the First Amendment that doesn't allow for some kind of positive cultivation of a public sphere in which genuine knowledge is disseminated and in persons who are capable of discriminating from true and false sources information is regard as an object of virtuous citizenship so you might say in a good democracy most of the public sphere is something like NPR okay not at that level of kind of you know bad taste but sort of like most of the media is publicly funded there's a range of ideological views but there are standard you know Fox News would not be tolerated in a functioning democracy okay and it's only because you have something other than democratic norms that are governing that's just a thought just as sort of a thought to put out there so there's many many things that aren't worthy of your respect okay deliberate lying deliberate falsehood deception stoking up of a fear and hatred of non-white people and all those kinds of things all right so then you have to ask yourself well how do I know the difference what's the difference between climate change denial and like what chef Hamza was saying well why is it Kufa like that the Kafar are their most badeen right their arrogant they deny what's obvious they invite towards a vice and all these sorts of things so that's the traditional view right that infidelity in that sense quo flora is like Fox News okay it is active poisoning and destruction of the human brain in the human self now I obviously don't think that and as you know there are many atheists that think that about religion right religion is active immaturity okay it is actively keeping people in a state of infancy okay now why is that not true it's not obvious that any secular citizen or political philosopher has to adopt any kind of positive attitude towards religion especially a religion that's based on Revelation that's not like a natural religion it's based on Authority it's based on texts that are one might say no different in difference in kind from the Odyssey or from Melville or something like that so you have a genuine problem to say what is it that's going on that says you are not enslaving yourself you're not infantilizing yourself in doing what you're doing you are exercising something that I respect now what is that so of course in kam the first obligation of all humans is another right seeking to quote a reflector to perhaps deceit or or or the act of searching for these answers so you might say that might be also a path to recognizing go foot right and here we are saying it Cooper Cooper going in this audience so that are already is a step towards towards rethinking some things you might say you know Stephen Hawking he was searching right he was looking for things he was using his mind and that is something that can't be disrespected so similarly a secular citizen or person or philosopher might say the religious person is being human in the most important ways trying to cultivate virtue trying to cultivate the things that allow for human life to be livable love community commitment being outside of yourself and reflecting on the ultimate matters of metaphysical concern and I think the twist here and a little finish my answer with this is that the way that a lot of I think liberal or secular political philosophers handle this is to say we don't need to evaluate every religion or every doctrine or every life with this kind of like rationality meter okay are you being rational are you being rational is Mormonism rational is Islam rational I think that you you take a broader sort of step back and you say this kind of activity of living in communities cultivating your conception of virtue finding something that is that is that makes life bigger than it would be otherwise and answering questions that only human beings are able to answer those kind of activities or what is valuable and worthy of recognition and in general we don't see these activities as always leading toward the same answer and so we say that the basic attitude is one of you know something different from toleration but recognition and a kind of reciprocity and then after that you say you reserve your your obligation to say that certain answers to that violate human dignity or violate human reason or violate the norms that would that would allow people to live together so it's not that anytime you're engaging in metaphysical reflection or religious reflection or philosophical reflection that you are worthy of respect it's that the general kind of activity unlike differentiating on the basis of race or origin or intellect is one that is that is both indicative of human value and one that not everybody tends to tends to agree on through the normal use of reason I think well you I was listening to you I mean I the thought that came to me was you know unfortunately the most vocal atheists we have the new atheist as they're called you know the same heresies and the Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens and folks like that they promoted this notion that religious people are not just tragic but dangerous I mean that's very far from the concept that you're talking about of recognizing people who are actually striving for what you write I mean that makes it difficult what I'm saying right so I'm not a new new atheist and I don't subscribe but then I should ask myself why right so just the way that you know you might say well of course I believe in Islam and of course I believe that it's true so why do I prefer my way of gentle exhortation right ability yeah why do I prefer that to something that's more aggressive in its Dawa or something like that it's not that I you know you somebody might say well this this daya is actually preaching things I think are true they're being a little too harsh with non-muslims what's wrong with that if it's not that what they're saying is false so I haven't read all of these new ATS I don't know exactly whether I agree with this or disagree with that but there is an interesting question which is which is when we think about how we approach others in the public sphere what's the difference between what you think is a moral obligation and what you think is a question of good taste or prudence so you may adopt this kind of strident anti religious attitude and I might say well it seems to me a little bit overkill it seems to me a little bit indiscriminate you're gonna lose you know a lump together you know Franklin Graham on the one hand and you know some good religious person on the other hand right and it just seems to me that your your your your your you're mistaking what makes these things different right uh and I think it also it leads to a situation in which the only possible answer is apologetics right the only possible answer is a standpoint of defense and it only leads to a kind of sort of agonistic public sphere in which even your own principles of science or enlightenment or whatever they think that they're defending they don't become actual things that you're invested in they become symbols it's like it's often reflect about us they know we want Islamic banking we want Islamic this but you know it becomes an identity marker more than you've said this yourself a lot more than it becomes an actual thing so so much so my attitude towards them would be you know insofar as it's an active public dispute whether they're climate change the wrath of God or as a result of carbon emissions by all means defend the rational solution but this idea that out of all of the things that are causing us harm in the world you think you're doing something by treating rationality as an identity marker as a badge that you wear rather than as something to be actually pursued sincerely and humbly it just as always struck me as as gives me the heebie-jeebies and I think part of that you know the identity element is is has become I mean it's always been but it's become so overarching you know it just all other considerations are set aside so now people identify in groups I talked about bene Aslam the idea of you know this tribe of Islam and and one of the things if you know taking a human to me just as a human being you know the Moroccans have a beautiful saying don't hold anybody in contempt because you might be a friend of God no matter what their states you know they you you just don't know people and and the idea this default setting that so many of us have which is to determine we want to know what a person believes so that we can put them in that box of checking it off it's very quick and easy to do and and so cough odd kaffir is a nice easy box and and and then you know it's it's it's the man about to jump off the bridge you know oh do you believe in God yes and hum did he that you know you know are you Muslim yes I am do that are you Sunni no I'm Shia jump you know it's it's that idea that you know we tend to just look at those things that separate us and not look at those things that that that bring us together and I'll just give you one example I was with a group of Jewish rabbis and I got into a discussion most of them were reform but there was an Orthodox one sitting next to me on the bus and there was a in front of me we talked about afterlife and about Rama he doll saying that every Jew had to believe in an afterlife and and so the reformed one was making an argument against it when we got off the bus the Orthodox rabbi said to me I feel so much closer to you than I do to that reformed rabbi you know and I think a lot of people it's very interesting if you set aside the boxes you might find that you have much more in common with somebody that might not be in the same box that you're in that that that that that you don't and one other example of this anecdotally chef Knibb Mbeya who's the son of Shambhala he grew up in a place where 100% Muslim and they used to have these animus that came and he said that always the she would treat them really well and feed them and they were from Mali and then when it was droughts and things they would come over and he said we never looked at them like other than human beings and that we had a responsibility but he so he grew up with that attitude he went to to Egypt to study he was in he was in the university in Cairo and he was in a building and there was this guy named I'm gibreel I'm Gideon they called him uncle Gabriel and for two years he used to help them and he helped them navigate Cairo and he'd like remind them of prayer and this shaking told me he was an elderly man he was to kiss him on his forehead after two years he found out that he was a Coptic Christian he had thought the whole time that he was Muslim and he told me he said I wondered how I would have thought of him had I known initially that he was a Christian and not a Muslim and he said it was such a lesson for me not to judge people based on on other than their character just based on the box that we tend to to put people into before we close that I want to get quickly to as she comes one more question and then I have a question for all three of you and we'll wrap it up and show secondly you wrote a piece in relevé she about pluralism outside of this discussion we're talking about just into Society and part of your message or your view is that we think we're pluralistic we have these outward signs of you know we have our identities we have our skin colour and all that but there's an inward sort of conformity that we have that you call it as a monoculture of conformity can you talk about that a little bit in terms of like how do again back back to people of faith how do we you know view and some of us people of faith are also part of that culture and get lost in that sometimes so this kind of a this this phenomena of believing we're very pluralistic when there's actually this monoculture that we're also subscribing to you know well I think of all the things that troubles me most is the inability for increasing for people to just tolerate and actually listen to opinions that that they don't agree with and and increasingly people are falling into these silos of you know what they call echo chambers and and in fact one of the I think terrifying aspects of the Internet is that it will create your own echo chamber that's that's for you so it'll send you only things that you agree with them that you like through this AI and so I think there there's a type of conformity that goes on now you have to be fully on the program if you're right you have to take the whole right package and if you're on the left you have to take the whole left package and it doesn't leave for nuance I mean we had a Campbell I think his name was used a Republican he ran for Senate he was a very complicated Republican because he was for gun control he was a he was for legalization of marijuana he had positions that didn't fit into that box and and people it's very difficult for people to grapple with nuance and and so for me that's a type of conformity I mean I we had I was just had dr. Eva brand here from st. John's and weird you know artificial constructs came up and she said I she said I really hate that word artificial constructs he said that's just the fact that most people are just sheep and and they they go along with whatever they don't really think about things they just conform to whatever that dominant thing is and then it's defined as an artificial construct it's just people conforming to whatever they grow up in the environment that they grew up in and and I think that's a problem the unexamined life is is is is is a is a problem and our religion what what fascinates me about the Quran is arguably the Quran is is a textbook against groupthink because every group in the Quran is misguided the only people that are guided in the Quran are individuals there's no group that's ever guided in the Quran they're all misguided and they all have a groupthink and they always go up against the individual and throw them in the fire kill him you know mence ends and so it's quite tragic that the Muslims have fallen into a kind of groupthink where they lose a sense of that don't infantilize people we're all moral agents we have to ultimately make decisions on Yom Okayama you you're judged as an individual that the the judgment of nations is in this world according to our tradition but the judgment in the afterlife is an individual judgment you're not judged as a group you're just as an individual and and one of the things that I see that really troubles me is this collectivization that's why I don't like using these terms that collectivise people the the Quran says let a zero a zero to me so Dora I don't want to be associated white supremacy because I'm not a white supremacist just because I'm white or my skin is white I I don't want to be associated with that and and that's what collective I you know that's what it does it it turns a person into a group as opposed to a human being an individual and it's very important that we maintain individuality because we I am responsible for myself who and who sukham well how do you come save your soul your own selves and those that you're responsible like your children to raise them properly as with good character in these things but you cannot save the world and so this idea and this has caused more human harm this idea that we can go out and save the world you know that has killed more people than any other concept because all these ideologue that go out and have this collectivist view of reality they go and they and they say we'll just need to get rid of these people Pol Pot everybody that has glasses because they can read get rid of them because we need to start over you know we're always one more revolution from this utopia that never that never comes about and so I think it's really important for us as individuals to maintain that we are moral agents don't infantilize women don't infantilize you know anybody just humans each one of us is responsible and God's gonna judge like I I can't judge people in terms of their backgrounds and where they came from she laughs in Arabic difference of opinion if tdap comes from a word Khalifa what's left behind confuse your background so the reasons we differ very often are because we have different backgrounds that really do color our our ways of understanding reality so I for me that this idea of the group I'm Nietzsche I think was really right when he said that insanity is is quite unusual in individuals but it seems to be the norm in groups and I think there's a lot of truth to that I mean you haven't even mentioned they you're talking about nations and groups but there's this new thing of identity what's called identity politics so many subgroups you know I'm you belong to all these little subgroups and that's even further sort of separating and infantilizing others in that sense I want to end by asking all of you to share your thoughts on particular thing I think I was going to read all to my Sheikh Hamza actually in his introduction talk read this and I had picked out this quote but I'll read the last part of it again and ask you a question - and this one this is a quote from Schekman bhaiya and the part that I just want to read to you is this are all no longer identified itself in religious terms instead it identified itself through culture personal and social interests technologies covenants contracts and treaties but this does not mean that people are not devout and religious make no mistake about it the mistaken diagnosis is fatal the realities of our context today do not allow for the old categories of religion as the world today is multicultural and here comes the important part I think that its contribution of pluralism itself a virtue provides immense opportunities for Humanity to achieve a lasting and natural state of peace so my question to all of you to leave us with this your thoughts on if you're living in a multicultural pluralistic world which is itself a virtue and it has immense opportunities then the question is what advice you have for people of faith Muslims but all other people of faith what can each of us do as a practical matter that would go beyond simple toleration and help us see the humanity of all people regardless of their beliefs how can we what steps can we take tours do that what advice do you have for people and if you want to go first and looking good this way right so I think that there's this conundrum which is that because we're all moral agents whatever other set of beliefs and commitments we have are going to be part of our understanding of ourselves and because we are social and political agents it is natural that we are going to want to act on our moral commitments in the world right we don't have to want to save the world in a utopian sense but hopefully we all want to improve it in some way so you have I think this conundrum which is we all have this sense of how we would want the world to look we have a sense of what our teaching tells us how the world ought to look and I think that there are a set of very very hard choices which is to say let's say from a liberal set perspective I love it when the Catholic nuns wanted to boycott grapes with Cesar Chavez or when religious people want to donate money to charity or fight for universal health care I don't like it when the same religious people want to prevent same-sex marriage or do other kinds of things in the realm of morality but where does that distinction come from right so I is it just my own secular prejudices that say this is good religious action this is bad religious action or can I give some account of why there certain kinds of distinctions are reasonable and so the only thing I would say is that without saying here's this obvious answer here's this clear secular distinction between the public and the private or between what's good and bad I would just say I think it's really really important to say that just as Muslims living in a country like America want the rest of the country to chill out a little bit on Muslim II things right to be very beautiful about how you talk about the hejab how you draw you know if you do this then you must believe in this so Muslims there are very very clear that public power can be an atrocious thing and yet Muslims quite reasonably and I think admirably want to act in the world they are commanded to command the right and forbid the wrong and yet being a responsible political actor also involves exercising your Faculty of judgment and so I have my answers but I would just say I am fascinated by the by the possibilities for this conversation to continue as to why making other people's lives better in some ways but not other ways is a legitimate kind of political activity in what's changed in the modern period what's changed today and how from a religious perspective you make those distinctions between helping other people's achievement of in bodily and material welfare but leaving aspects of their intimate welfare or their spiritual welfare for them to work out it's not an obvious distinction Muslims are not wrong when they don't make that same distinction there's no fact in the world but it's a public conversation that is crucial and it's something that I think is just developing in the in the public sphere in America and I look forward to seeing how people argue about that and you want people to participate in that conversation absolutely okay where are you going well I would just say one of the important things when we think about that particular quote that you just read and the importance of pluralism the way that the pluralism is a benefit is is precisely it benefits Society and precisely the opposite well as the counterpart to the silos that you were talking about societies are stronger reasoning is stronger when you reason in the presence of other people and have to listen to their truth there's a refinement of argumentation and so one of the things that people need to be prepared to do to take advantage of pluralism especially for the idea of coming to a common understanding of what are our boundaries where to what extent are we allowed to put our ideas forward in society even as recommendations for other people and when do we need to pull back and say that's private those things in a society can only be worked out in conversation with the other person they can never be developed in a silo they can never be developed and you know when you look at societies that historically speaking have been strong they've been strong precisely because they have been open to difference I mean one of the things that made the Muslim Empire so strong in the Classical period was that it had all of these people with so many different ethnicities different ways of thinking about the religion there's never one specific Orthodox theology never one school of law there was a recognition that differ it's made you stronger that it helped to refine your thinking I provided a critique it provided a mirror provided a check on your own thinking and I think that is something that made America very strong at a certain point that it embraced people from different perspectives and so this you know what today we think of as a monoculture didn't always have to be like that it could be something that was indeed a kind of culture that transcended your difference but that was in fact developed precisely out of the interaction of people negotiating their differences it was generated from that difference but in a very positive and productive fashion not in a negative fashion not something that forced people to sort of run away and I think that the silos are created in part because our reality is created virtually so sometimes even though I think Fox News would be happy to understand themselves as coof are for the most part they probably even have a license plate yeah yeah or whatever the hat kind of thing but sometimes I I do this I sort of you know I read the news that I normally read you know in the New York Times or The Washington Post and then I think I see people around me who hold points of view and I think how could they possibly hold that point of view and then I go and I read Fox News and I say oh well that's why they hold that point of view because the what we read creates our reality we don't interact with people the way that we used to certainly the way people did even a few decades ago and that's what's missing that's what's lost and I think that's what has to be recovered and that's the hope that a pluralistic society has unfortunately I mean a pluralistic society can precisely force people into their silos there's a fear of encountering the other there's a fear of having your views reflected back to you and from in the eyes or in the words of someone who holds a very different point of view that can be very disturbing thing to hear and so there is a kind of natural tendency among some people to flee to those echo chambers but I think that's what we have to continuously resist okay you know I would I think that one of the most important things to cultivate as individuals and and societally is is a humility and I and I think that people people well to quote a Nobel laureate the the rules of the game have been lodged the rules of the road have been lodged it's only people's games that you have to dodge that we we have a sense of what is civil and what is right and then there's people that don't play by those rules and and those people they need to be seen for what they are as people that actually threaten civil discourse and and and and and it's something very dangerous for a society that wants to use persuasion as the means in which they do things now obviously there's a lot of can't there's many cans of worms that can be opened with this because when you have societies that view things is unjust then do we do we rebel do and and certainly in in in Western civilization rebellion became a very important aspect I mean the Cromwellian disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God in the Muslim version of that it was to have a tyrant for 60 years oppressing you is better than anarchy and and so very different perspectives that came up which is why so much of the Muslim world ended up becoming despotic because there really was a very great fear of anarchy and what happens when rebellion but in our in our culture here we have a system that's working relatively well we have a lot of problems and and we have to feel blessed to be in a civil society in America that that we really have to cherish what we have and work to make it better but this we can see around the world where things break down how terrible it becomes and unfortunately sometimes our country has a role in where things have broken down and those are things that we have a responsibility of citizens in this country to fight against but I think just a humility is really important one of the things that fallibilism in religious understanding is extremely important to inculcate into young people that I can I can be convinced of the truth of my religion but I should be very very wary of my certainty about my understanding of that religion and and when we irrigate to ourselves God's understanding that's when all the problems come out of religion and one of the most beautiful things about our tradition is that the mufti was in inside Bukhari the Prophet prohibited saying that this is God's judgement when you make a judgement he and omar bin al-khattab once his scribe wrote this is what God has shown Omar and he said erase that and write this is what Omar thinks because they understood that they can't speak for God that all they can do is say I think this is what God may have meant and this is my judgment in this äj-- and so that fallibilism was very important Imam Shafi said I never debated anyone except I paid that God would manifest the truth on his tongue so I could submit to it and he also said that that I always when I got into a debate with my interlocutor I I believe my position is right but it could be wrong and I believe his position is wrong but it could be right that humility of fallibilism that that I might learn something is really important to inculcate in people that because certainty we should have certainty like I said about our faith it's very important certainty about our understanding is very dangerous and the the beauty of the tradition was every Mufti always put at the end of his judgement and God knows better alone you know I this is the best I can do that's ish D HOD but God knows better and so I think that aspect of just restoring a basic humility to our religious traditions about who we are and what we know and is is really important and and humility according to the Quran it is the virtue that will enable you to see the truth and arrogance is is the the vise that will prevent you from seeing the truth I mean that's that's that humility just to clarify humility in your mind also doesn't mean that humility means not to sit in judgment to be too quick to judge others or does it not I mean we judgement is you know we have to make judgment discrimination is judgment so I'm not saying don't don't make judgments but make sure those judgments are based on on sound reasoning opinions you know something the Greeks had the concept of sound opinion and doxa as opposed to unsound opinion that that knowledge is one thing and app and opinion is important but your opinion should be reasonable there's a lot of people that we have opinions I mean one of the things I read with the freshmen in the Freshman Seminar was a essay on BS which which are you know he argues that there's so much of it in the world because everybody thinks they have to have an opinion about everything without thinking about it and so it's it's just important that we we we we know what we're talking about and we're willing Imam Maddox said half of knowledge is saying I don't know just being able to say I don't know being able to say you know I know I don't have an opinion on that because I haven't studied it I don't know the issue and and I think people take very superficial and glib you know I I'm coining a new word you know so many glib stirs out there mysteries you know glib you heard it here for his glib stones you know glibness is a type of it's it's a fluidity that is shallow superficial and characterized by in sincerity and there's just too much glibness out there of just having opinions about things that you really haven't thought about i'm you ask them and it's amazing what they'll say and then if you say have you ever read the quran and that's why i'd recommend reading Garry wills for people that you know he wrote a book called what the Quran means and why it matters and he's a public intellectual he won the Pulitzer Prize he's very well regarded but he wrote that book because he was in a gathering once and they were all trashing Islam and then somebody looked at him and said well Gary you must have read the Quran what do you think it means and and he felt ashamed that he'd never read the Quran and so he decided to study and he actually used the study of Quran as the basis and he spent I think a year studying the Quran and the the book is the result of it and he was shocked and at what what he realized about the book itself and so I think again that that just is a testimony to his humility yeah of saying you know what I've never read the Quran I don't really know I mean I saw it Thomas Sowell once somebody asked him about Islam and he said you know I'm probably the only person in America that's not an expert on Islam I'm just gonna have to say I don't know right I want to thank all of you for coming and all those online could you please join me in giving a round of applause for our speakers [Applause] you [Music]

Channel: Renovatio: The Journal of Zaytuna College

Views: 32,777

Rating: 4.878788 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: lI2LzluPa0g

Length: 91min 7sec (5467 seconds)

Published: Tue Apr 24 2018