DEBATE: Yasir Qadhi vs. Mustafa Akyol | Islam and the State
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, Dean of the Islamic Seminary of America, and Mustafa Akyol, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and Affiliate Scholar of the Collins Center, discuss “Should government and religion be separate?”
The Acton Institute’s Collins Center for Abrahamic Heritage organized this debate, moderated by Nathan Mech, as the first part in a series on the relationship between government and religion.
The Acton Institute is a think-tank whose mission is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.
This direction recognizes the benefits of a limited government, but also the beneficent consequences of a free market. It embraces an objective framework of moral values, but also recognizes and appreciates the subjective nature of economic value. It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants.
In order to promote a more profound understanding of the coming together of faith and liberty, Acton involves members of religious, business, and academic spheres in its various seminars, publications, and academic activities. It is our hope that by demonstrating the compatibility of faith, liberty, and free economic activity, religious leaders and entrepreneurs can contribute by helping to shape a society that is secure, free, and virtuous.
Visit our website: www.acton.org/
Subscribe to the Acton Line Podcast: www.acton.org/acton-line/
Visit the Acton Bookshop: shop.acton.org/
Follow Acton on Facebook: / actoninstitute
Follow Acton on Twitter: / actoninstitute
Follow Acton on Instagram: / acton_institute
Jajakllah Khairan for a positive discussion
I've lived in Britain and America and the freedoms there are dependent upon you accepting the status quo. There is no free speech just limited speech based on laws and values. Just ask Snowden or assange.
As for the muslim world the entire region is controlled by western military and corporations. This is a simple reading of the geopolitics in that region.
Are you talking from an Islamic paradigm? A.k.a from a Muslim mindset? Bcoz this is what all Muslims would agree to. Or are you an exception to the rule in the Western society?
"As for the muslim world the entire region is controlled by western military and corporations."
So Iran and its Ayatollah regime and Assad's Syria are controlled by Western military and corporations?
Not supporting America or anything but your examples aren’t good. Snowden and Assange are both considered to have committed treason.
your lack of understanding of what free speech is, is astounding. releasing state or even trade secrets are not protected free speech. lmao.
@@user-on8jx3qr8wbut then why do people get cancelled for just stating their opinions on dating, women, and so on. Look I’m not a fan of the red pill space but how come they get cancelled all the time. It’s probably because they go against a status quo. It goes beyond just trade secrets.
Some of those red pill guys aren’t even saying bad things and their still getting cancelled just cause they are friends with someone else.
Dr. Yasir Qadhi is such a great intellectual. His wisdom is Just so deep for understanding minds. He has deep and clear understanding of Islam and also the modern world 🌎. Blessed to be close to him and listen. Thank Allah.
I really appreciate him. Let me to be close to him please.
I am turkish, and hearing him saying that it harms nobody that there is a big significant group of people in turkey that drink is just mind boggling, so many times in turkish news do you hear about abusive men that have a drinking problem. There is a reason Islam restricts us from consuming it.. He seems very insincere.
Yes, domestic violence, traffic incidents etc.
@@aliozer85Yes man, on the news every day
American founding fathers said: _"God gave us life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."_
If an american said to them:
_"O founding fathers, God gave me the liberty to take satan as a god, that's my interpretation of liberty and that's my pursuit of happiness."_
Would the founding fathers of america say: _"Yes, God gave us the liberty to take satan as a god."_ And thereby lie about God? So did your founders lie about God?
Or would they restrict the unrestricted liberty and say: _"Liberty ends where it violates the Rights of the God who gave us life. No one is allowed to be taken as a god besides the God who gave us life."_ Thus banning all shirk (polytheism) like taking men, cows, idols, angels, celestial bodies etc as gods, and only Islam (Tawhid - Islamic Monotheism) would've been the only allowed religion in america.
_Using the english kings_
If the english kings said: _"Hold up, wait a minute now. You invented this liberty ideology to sneak away from our authority by saying that it is God who gives liberty and not the english kings and parliament. So why does your liberty allow satan to be taken as a god but does not allow us the liberty to rule as lords over the thirteen colonies?"_
If you allow satan to be taken as a god and jews to rule, but not english kings to rule over you, then you had no right to fight their authority for a sugar tax or a tea tax when you clearly could care less about the Rights of the One who gave you life.
Thus liberty was just a political tool at the time to sneak away from english rule and transfer it to shaytan and jews. Because if it was about truth, they would've made sure that violating God's Rights trump violating human rights like english tyrannical rule of imposing a sugar and tea tax. Meaning, they were more angry at having money spoiled than shaytan opening a gate for himself through the liberty ideology and violating God's Right.
Either they'll have to say: _"Our liberty ideology is unrestricted and promotes civil rights for satan."_ And thus this whole conversation is really about wanting Muslims to compromise to shaytan and his spokesman, this zindiq, munafiq. Read Surah Al-Qalam, Surah Al-Kaafirun and Al-Israa' 17:73-75, Rasulullah ﷺ did not compromise and the Qur'an is intact. If you follow their desires after the knowledge has come to you, then you are a disbeliever like them.
Or they'll have to restrict liberty and contradict themselves.
Try my arguments against american liberty. They cannot answer it without being trapped. In order to not have their whims and desires spoiled, they will say that shaytan has civil rights and thus you ask them, do you promote civil rights for shaytan?
The constitution of the United States doesn’t mention that God gave us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it says that man has the right to the above mentioned. You’re lying and liars can’t get into heaven. 😊
You don’t have to believe in any religion to not drink alcohol, I know many atheist who have chosen not to drink alcohol, it’s a personal choice.
very informative, thank you for having this discussion
Its a way of Life for all Leaders who believe in the Day of Account
This has to be one of the most informative debates I’ve had the pleasure of learning from
MAy learn and becrateful for having the Aquran and leaders who have freedoms we never as of yet seen
Respectfully done the debate 👏
The time this knowledge which was sent after long line on the Earth our First Parents was cast with the Story of what cause to be on Earth
Yasir Qadhi cannot be beaten. Yasir and Mustafa would agree on many points but Yasir is wiser about the nature of the world and best methods of creating the change.
so you agree that people should be punished for 'blasphemy'?
@user-on8jx3qr8w I believe in Democratic Islamic Republics where people decide laws. Some laws are clear cut from the Quran and can be part of a constitution, but others can be decided based on scholarly opinions and ijtihad. Just like how there are 4 schools of fiqh, there can be 2-4 parties which are democratically chosen from. This is the only way, but the West has always interfered with authentic Islamic leadership. Islamic history has had very different laws and leadership in history. Anyone who claims laws that come from anything other than the Quran are black and white are lying and probably misguided extremists.
@@Masszay "I believe in Democratic Islamic Republics where people decide laws." ok. does that exist anywhere? so if the people want a law that says all the druze should be killed [as ibn taimayya ruled], you are ok with that? or the Ahmadiyya?
yes, I know the four sunni madhabs. so why is the 'perfect' law of Allah open to [mis]interpretation?
was abu bakr 'democratically' elected?
"the West has always interfered with authentic Islamic leadership" you mean like the battle of camel? did we assassinate omar, uthman and ali?
@@Masszay so you agree that people should be punished for 'blasphemy'?
@user-on8jx3qr8w Killing all druze or ahmadiyya would be genocide and goes against principles the Quran. I think even according to Ibn Taymiyyah (which I'm not a fan of) if they are treated as non-Muslims, you would have no right to kill them. My statements about Western involvement are related to modern history and examples like Iran, I don't want to open a can of worms by talking about early islamic history. I actually sympathise with Shia views and the extremism in this schism is a source of much of the dysfunction in the muslim world. I believe the law of Allah is open to interpretation because we have free will (for which we will be judged), just as someone can kill unjustly, laws can be put in place for the greater good or for the worship of the self through vices of authoritarians (power, greed). I believe blasphemy should be punished the same way holocaust denial in Germany is dealt with. It is not a coincidence that the golden age of Islam came when reason and science alongside religion was emphasised by groups like the Mutazila and I believe we have the inverse of that in the current modern age of Islam which is misguided by an ignorsnt sola scriptura view of Quran and hadith. The latter of which has many out of context, false, and dangerous narrations that Salafis blindly accept as long as it comes from Sahih Bukhari.
I love Mustafa,s sincerety in grappling with these difficult issues. I think some of Yasirs strength of argument should not be confused by the respect and politeness by which Mustafa puts forward his points. I think we have all certainly learnt alot from the 2 viewpoints in this video.
Loved this convo. Helpful to hear these two perspectives juxtaposed
The Subject of a higher power Resurrection to answer for behavior
I love how Sh Yasir puts thinks puts things into perspective!.
Never clicked on a video so fast. Our sheikh in a debate? What a treat!
so do you hate free speech like yq?
@user-on8jx3qr8w are you an idiot? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a society wants free speech, it's their right to have it. But if the vast majority of a society doesn't want absolute unregulated free speech, then by imposing it on them you are being authoritarian and subverting their freedom. You cannot force free speech, otherwise schools should allow kids to say vulgar explicit language regarding teachers. No one believes in absolute free speech, otherwise you'd have no problem with someone cursing your parents. Free speech is about cultivating intellectual discussion, and that is what we want. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech and goes against intellectual discourse
@@user-on8jx3qr8ware you an idiot? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a people want free speech, it's their democratic right to have it. But if the vast majority do not want absolute free speech, you cannot force it on them. Forcing people to accept you preferred model of speech is to deprive them of their democratic and general societal freedom. If there should be no restrictions on speech then I should be nothing wrong with someone cursing your parents, and kids in school should be allowed to curse their teachers with explicit, vulgar words. There wouldn't even be a moderator in this debate if both debaters didn't agree that the stream of conversation has to be controlled and regulated to some extent. Free speech should be used to cultivate intellectual discourse. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech that goes against intellectual discourse and serves no one.
@user-on8jx3qr8w are you fr? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a people want free speech, it's their democratic right to have it. But if the vast majority do not want absolute free speech, you cannot force it on them. Forcing people to accept you preferred model of speech is to deprive them of their democratic and general societal freedom. If there should be no restrictions on speech then I should be nothing wrong with someone cursing your parents, and kids in school should be allowed to curse their teachers with explicit, vulgar words. There wouldn't even be a moderator in this debate if both debaters didn't agree that the stream of conversation has to be controlled and regulated to some extent. Free speech should be used to cultivate intellectual discourse. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech that goes against intellectual discourse and serves no one.
@@vol94 clearly you are confused. free speech doesn't apply to kids in schools.
so you are the judge of what is blasphemy and what is intellectual discourse? would you outlaw the burning of the flag? the bible? the koran? no insulting the khalifa? did you support the afghans who beat the woman to death for allegedly tearing pages out of a koran? how about the ahok case in Indonesia? or the woman they imprisoned for asking the mosque near her house to turn down their loudspeaker?
is saying bismillah before eating pork insulting to you?
Mustafa clearly is suffering from colonial disorder, he conveniently ignores the contradictions of the nations who are advocates of freedom within there own nations
💯💯💯💯💯
@atif50
Maybe Pakistanis are suffering from an Arabian and Mohammaden colonial disorder. Iranians don't suffer from Mohammaden colonial disorder. Persians are intelligent. They largely hate Islam.
He is from Turkey, which was never occupied.
ISLAM IS BLASPHAMY. ALLAH IS NOT GOD. ITS THE TITLE. YAHOVA IS GOD OF. CHRISTIANS. AND HEBREWS.
He sounds like a jahil
What sent down is to be told
Salam. The most calm and at the same time dynamic debate I've ever seen. Kudos to both the speakers. JazakAllah kher. Fee Amaan Allah.
And the prayer done before the Sun rise be excepted
Sirs, a religion can survive without state patronage,but a state always has some affiliation with a religion.
This is valid irrespective of all times as well as across the globe.
The only issue is about the nature of religion whether it is benign or suffocating.
Not moral but concern of Fire burning and you continue feeling it
Islam has universal perspective & have gradual & systemic approach : to depart knowledge - from absolute source : Allah as creator of the universe :
While human approaches are naturally based upon progressive understanding or experimental understanding.
«And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.»
(Quran 5:44)
Zaydi Shias and the Mutazila didn't claim to rule by other than what Allah revealed but their interpretation is different. There are four schools of fiqh and even Islamic law has varied through Islamic history. ISIS claims to judge by "what Allah has revealed", doesn't mean they are right.
Exactly. Two kufars having an "intellectual" debate about something that's clear as day in the Quran and Sunnah.
@@Masszay hukm (judgment) is from the right of Allah and from the foundaiton of Islam i.e. Tawheed. It's not a fiqh issue so it doesn't matter what scholar x or scholar y thinks. As for ISIS, keyword is that they claim. But at least they're better than the leaders of so-called Muslim lands who judge by man-made laws
@@truthburied Your friend: ua-cam.com/video/9parh6sdXuI/v-deo.htmlsi=INZfXGdfqZozGVpu
what do you think of yq in 2015 saying Muslims should ally with the lgbt?
I really love the way ho you make people understand sheikh Yasir qadi
ALLAH made Islam a volunteer religion we cannot be push into it that is why all the Prophets of ALLAH never force anyone to Believe in ALLAH. The choice is on the individual so choose wisely.
I've recently been reading Shiite literature. I've noticed that there are hundreds of transmissions where the Prophet or one of the 12 Imams (especially Imam Jafaar as-Sadiq), get questioned by atheists (zanadiqa) about the very existence of God. And in all these transmissions, the format is similar. Atheist asks a "difficult question that is meant to shake the foundations of monotheism" - then the Imam answers the question with a very wise and logical answer - then the atheist accepts Islam.
This happens also in the literature about Imam Abu Hanifah. Now, the question arises. If there were so many atheists running around at that time, and the scholars did not asked for them to "convert or get executed", nor did they report them to the authorities, this means that there was a clear difference between "private disbelief, doubt, atheism, heresy" and "public disbelief, doubt, atheism, heresy".
So the laws of Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran are nothing like the laws of the Sunni and Shia scholars who founded the schools of thought.
In an ideal Islamic state, we don't need to "moderate" our religion. Our religion is already moderate; it has been so since its inception. Freedom of belief and freedom of disbelief are part of the original "Islamic Constitution". It is only in modern times when Wahabism, Ikhwanism and Khomeinism are invented, that we start to interpret the Islamic State as a horrible Orwellian theocracy where the state controls your innermost thoughts and your private life.
Shia-Jaafari Reference: thaqalayn.net/hadith/1/3/1/1
Sunni-Hanafi Reference: www.haqislam.org/imam-abu-hanifah-and-the-atheist/
On the other hand we have Imam Abu Hanifa with proper islamic jurisprudence and chains of narrators and proper backing by scholars throughout history.
On this story, there is no chain of narrators and a lot of scholars even call this as unreliable, which you forgot to mention. But people still share it for its benefit.
I highly suggest you to view Daniel Haqiqatjou on religious freedom critiquing Hamza Yusuf. It might be insightful. He also speaks on islamic law. Have a good one.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:27 *🌍 Different societies have different problems requiring varied solutions; one solution doesn't fit all.*
08:58 *💬 Americans may prefer separate religion and government, but other societies may desire governance reflecting their faith values.*
13:30 *🤝 Mustafa advocates for freedoms enjoyed by Muslims in non-Muslim lands to also exist in Muslim-majority countries.*
20:33 *📜 The majority of Muslim countries may not want certain liberal freedoms like public blasphemy or unrestricted immorality.*
23:57 *🌍 Discussion shifts to political values and ideas, such as democracy versus monarchical systems, which Muslims started debating in the late Ottoman Empire.*
24:52 *🤔 Criticism of blasphemy laws in Pakistan due to innocent people being unfairly targeted, highlighting the need for freedom of expression without state intervention.*
26:32 *⚖️ Advocating for religious freedom and against punishment for apostasy in Muslim-majority countries, emphasizing individual choice in matters of faith.*
28:19 *🧐 Discussion on the legal aspects of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, with differing views on their effectiveness and impact on public order.*
29:31 *🗣️ Highlighting hypocrisy in criticizing Muslim-majority countries for their laws while ignoring similar restrictions in Western nations, calling for consistency in addressing freedom of speech issues.*
31:36 *🇺🇸 Comparison of American and European standards of free speech, acknowledging differing cultural contexts but advocating for a principled stand on freedom of expression.*
34:11 *🔓 Emphasis on the importance of religious freedom and the rejection of religious coercion, urging respect for individual choices in matters of faith.*
36:42 *🌐 Questioning the assumption that democracy and freedom universally benefit all societies, citing examples of dictatorships in the Middle East with perceived benefits.*
40:09 *🏛️ Advocating for local solutions and cultural autonomy in determining political and moral standards, cautioning against imposing external interpretations on different societies.*
45:30 *📜 Yasir Qadhi discusses the evolution of Western laws regarding pornography and questions why Muslim countries must adhere to Western notions.*
49:06 *🏛️ Yasir Qadhi suggests reevaluating the assumption that dictatorships hinder societal flourishing, citing examples like Iraq and Libya during the 60s-80s.*
52:37 *🤔 Yasir Qadhi proposes the idea of a modern caliphate that focuses on rallying for Islamic causes globally rather than governing a specific territory.*
01:03:34 *💼 Yasir Qadhi argues for a pragmatic approach in governance, balancing personal piety with public order and morality, citing the example of alcohol prohibition in the United States.*
01:07:46 *🍷 Mustafa Akyol and Yasir Qadhi discuss the regulation of alcohol in Muslim societies, advocating for individual choice and minimal government intervention.*
01:11:12 *💬 Common ground is found in caution against a coercive theological state while differing in the level of religious influence in politics.*
01:13:19 *🌍 Mustafa Akyol emphasizes the importance of democratic processes and respecting religious freedom in Muslim-majority countries, urging against legislating religious laws against public sentiment.*
They know the Prophets was true most are very educated Men and women following the ways of forfathers
Where ever on earth
Rules sent knowledge life death a test for Men and how to live and what happens and with happend
when was this recorded?
A wonderful conversation.Conversations like this should be held more often.Salutes to both the speakers.
Alhamdulillah, there is only one Yasir Qadir; his knowledge is far beyond any common man. May he be with us for a long time.
Those subjects many don't Discussed when thinking it's just between humans not Devine commandments
Said with go after wealth that none have seen other then grave robbers take that it went with them with all this knowledge
Who ever regardless of Belief want to catch someone sleeping with person you think is into you
Mustafa akyol - We will free you.
Muslims - from what? 🤔
From Tawheed and Sunnah. He is an enemy of Islam.
@@Masszay And he was healed by Allah ﷻ, yes. Finish the story. Don’t take it out of context.
@@ElyasQuick1
Or [why is not] a treasure presented to him [from heaven], or does he [not] have a garden from which he eats?" And the evil-doers [zalimun] say, "You follow not but a man affected by magic."
- Surah Al-Furqan 25:8
Just because something is in Bukhari, doesn't mean it's true. There are also hadiths with numerical contradictions. That is why the Quran is unique.
@@ElyasQuick1 The following hadith have 4 different variations that contradict each other and hadith are inherently out of context, unlike the Quran.
Narrated Abu Huraira: (The Prophet) Solomon son of (the Prophet) David said, "Tonight I will go around (i.e. have sexual relations with) *100* women (my wives) every one of whom will deliver a male child who will fight in Allah's Cause." On that an Angel said to him, "Say: 'If Allah will.' " But Solomon did not say it and forgot to say it. Then he had sexual relations with them but none of them delivered any child except one who delivered a half person. The Prophet () said, "If Solomon had said: 'If Allah will,' Allah would have fulfilled his (above) desire and that saying would have made him more hopeful." (Sahih al-Bukhari 5242)
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet () said, "Solomon (the son of) David said, 'Tonight I will sleep with *70* ladies each of whom will conceive a child who will be a knight fighting for "Allah's Cause.' His companion said, 'If Allah will.' But Solomon did not say so; therefore, none of those women got pregnant except one who gave birth to a half child." The Prophet () further said, "If the Prophet () Solomon had said it (i.e. 'If Allah will') he would have begotten children who would have fought in Allah's Cause." Shuaib and Ibn Abi Az-Zinad said, "Ninety (women) is more correct (than seventy). Sahih al-Bukhari 3424)
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger () said, "(The Prophet) Solomon once said, 'Tonight I will sleep with *90* women, each of whom will bring forth a (would-be) cavalier who will fight in Allah's Cause." On this, his companion said to him, "Say: Allah willing!" But he did not say Allah willing. Solomon then slept with all the women, but none of them became pregnant but one woman who later delivered a halfman. By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, if he (Solomon) had said, 'Allah willing' (all his wives would have brought forth boys) and they would have fought in Allah's Cause as cavaliers. " Sahih al-Bukhari 6639)
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Prophet Solomon who had *60* wives, once said, "Tonight I will have sexual relation (sleep) with all my wives so that each of them will become pregnant and bring forth (a boy who will grow into) a cavalier and will fight in Allah's Cause." So, he slept with his wives and none of them (conceived and) delivered (a child) except one who brought a half (body) boy (deformed). Allah's Prophet said, "If Solomon had said; 'If Allah Will,' then each of those women would have delivered a (would-be) cavalier to fight in Allah's Cause." (See Shahih Bukhari Hadith No. 74 A, Vol. 4)
@@Masszay Bukhari is 100% authentic. Things you brought are not contradictions. People are not obligated to remember every little detail. Its like asking your parents about when you finished school. They might give different numbers because they don’t know exact number and just giving you approximate estimation.
Belief in devine Wisdom oppess to men mind set the rules of the good we would do we do not
Amazing video, I love discussion and I love when debates are more like a discussion than a debate, so I appreciate this style of debate. I personally find the debate is academically stimulating, there are many good points and good counterpoints being brought up in the debate, and nothing but respect to the both of them. I think they agree on a lot of issues more than they disagree, and I appreciate Dr. Yasir Qadhi's pragmatic approach to things by looking at things practically instead of theoretically in this particular topic. I also appreciate Mustafa Akyol's thoughts on the issue even though I slightly disagree on 1 or 2 of them, they're still reasonable and well-thought-out points. Thanks for the vid.
YQ casually dismantling the other guy
Men worn even seal of Prophets s-60
I also have studied politics in university…. No doubt Mustafa needs at least 1 month,,,, to just understand what Yasir kadhi sys in first five minutes.. what an great intellect . Ma sha allah
A brilliant professor of Middle East Studies, Bernard Lewis, said that the Islamic legal tradition was humane, limited, and responsible. That is definitely true.
However, if we exist in a modern world we must have a modern government, not necessarily as openly tolerant of lgbtq+ expression in public or even democracy itself.
There is a lot of room for a religiously neutral councilor government (based on shura) it could use multiple branches of government like we have in America, but with many more. The chamber of commerce and the worker's unions would each have a branch, plus one for experts, one for the military, one for the people, one for the rich, one for the powerful, etc. all with line item veto power to maintain stability.
Such a system, no matter if formed along the lines of a council of the heads of those branches, a republic, or a tradition-based monarchy that is "secular" could create superpowers like a Caliphate that is as dedicated to Sharia as the UK is to Christian law, which means you're basically free to believe anything, just not worshipping the Shaytan or demons or practice witchcraft
.
In my opinion monarchy is best for wealth over time, but it'll be different in every region. The Gulf states are a great example that traditional, safe, modern and faithful governance is possible under monarchies. A Caliphate (which is basically a monarchy) that is as secular as the UK would be a blessing from God.
The children of Israel is reminded of what happened and remind everybody what is to come and the general people what is in the Books and basic law not made up by groups so different as S-72-
I have a question on Islamic political teaching: given that 1)the characterizing political institution of Islam is the Chaliphate; and 2) the great majority of Muslims throughout the history lived outside any chaliphate:
How the doctrine manage to reconcile these two things?
Have clear criteria been developed to establish whether a political regime is legitimate or not?
I mean: only considering the Middle East, almost 800 years have passed since the fall of the Chaliphate (100 if you recognise the Ottoman's). Over the course of these years, an incredible variety of political systems have been implemented in the Islamic world: lay authoritarian regimes, "democratic" republics, monarchies, etc.
What has been (and what is) the majority opinion of the religious authorities on this topic? I'm interested in the traditionally-founded doctrine, not the fundamentalist nor the liberal one. For example: today a Tunisian man (or an Iraqi, or a Turkish) who also wants to be a good muslim, should he consider his country's political regime legitimate or not?
I suppose the first one, so I'd like to know on what basis scholars and religious authorities do affirm this (or if maybe their consider the actual regimes legitimate but still less than the caliphate)
Governance in a Islam is deemed an essential fabric of the human condition, to illustrate this I would like to highlight two examples. Islam mandates that there should be a leader in any group of 3 people another example is the concept of family which in Islam is considered a mini state with leadership, rights, responsibilities and laws. So to answer your question, political regimes in Islam are all legitimate by the mere fact of their existence and are granted the full rights of sovereignty offered by Islamic laws regardless of their political system (democratic, authoritarian, monarchy, theocracy, tribal etc) and policies. There are no classifications for their legitimacy except that they are muslim. So to answer your question all muslim rulers have absolute legitimacy in Islam. This is because leadership is paramount in islam as touched upon at the beginning.
This is enshrined in Islamic Tawhid (creed) and is inviolable. There is a rich body of legislation surrounding this issue but to highlight few of these, Muslim rulers are to be obeyed (in matters that don't go against Islam) even if they are violating your rights, rebellion against a muslim leader is forbidden, talking bad and insulting leaders are prohibited and they should be counseled privately, if the leader fails to uphold their responsibilities the subject can only leave it to GOD etc.
TLDR; according to Islamic law, all muslim political regimes and all muslim authorities (regardless of level of sovereignty) are legitimate as long as they are deemed muslim regardless of their policies, popularity and political systems.
@SerTempleton Islam has a built-in system for governance. Firstly the Prophet mandated the Quraysh tribe to be the rulers and this is why the suggestion of there being a ruler from the Ansar was rejected. Secondly, the sovereignty for Islam is unequivocally the Sharia and whoever rules, judges or legislates by other than the Quran and Sunna is by definition a Kafir .Thirdly, the ruler is to be determined by the Ahl Hall wa Aqd which is based on Sharia principles and not secular or any religious system other than Islam. Fourthly the Prophet prophesied kings would come after the Khalifate and then the Khalifate which follows the method of the Prophet would return. The Muslim Umma is in a weak state and divided as prophesied in the Hadiths. The Muslim nation has become weak as the scum of the sea and have embraced a defeatist mentality by abandoning the Sunna and are following the Kuffar into the lizard hole.
Islam enjoins the sovereignty of the Sharia by the Khalifate. UA-cam deleted my entailed explanation. The classic scholars all agree upon the obligation of the Khalifate and the sovereignty of the Sharia. It is only the modernist conformist so called scholars who conjured up, the separated secular Islamic nation states which is a contradiction in terms.
@@SerTempletonIslam has its own built in system of governance based on the sovereignty of the Sharia by the Khalifate which is a staunch opposite position to Secularism.
@@SerTempletonIslam
29:26 not a bad point about European "freedom of speech" restrictions
The History of Ummah before Aad thamud Pharoes all was sent guidance Warner's
Government and Religion will always be separate.
They all call police
*Only Atheist call for separation.*
Uncovering covering what when measured cause harm to the community
Knowledge and leaders understanding they will a answer a Pharoes who reject their leadership roles
Secularist VS closeted secularist debate.
Bismi Allah What was sant to all of Humanity ?
If make claim you believe understand or become S-63-
So those leaders will answer those who claim no belief in Prophets pbuthem all and the results always came
Yasir make good points and I'm just at the beginning, let me end the video to see where will this gonna end .
I won't prefer one to another. Both do have a point. Thanks for this wonderful talk.
are you a muslim? if so, do you agree with ibn taimayya's fatwa that the druze should be killed as apostates?
Good dialogue. I believe society have a collective responsibility to encourage goodness and suppress evil. Self centeredness and worship of individual desires is the reason why past nations were destroyed for good.
What Mustafa wants for people is arbitrary freedom despite what is chosen. Islam is about delay gratification and impulse control, it informs us the most important freedom is not freedom to indulge in our delights or be enslaved to our desires but freedom from enslavement to our desires. Our prophet said صلى الله عليه وسلم, This world is a prison for the believers and paradise for disbelievers. For those covering over the Truth they believe if their is no prospect beyond the grave then let's eat and drink and indulge what we delight in for tomorrow we shall die. For us we struggle with our desires and control our impulses and delay our gratification, for there is a prospect beyond the grave to indulge what we delight in paradise.
It depends what you consider Islam given that overwhelming majority of the Muslim civil law is based scholars opinions,customs and unreliable Hadiths wether they are positive and negative
Well religion should be separate from the state
Islam is freedom
The books that came before the first murder, how to bury
I like the way both the debaters are so respective of each other.... this is a healthy interchanging of ideas I stand with Sheikh Yasir
Man, when Sheikh Yasir Qadhi talks about an Islamic democracy and a government's hopes, trends and even encouragement of morality, I can't help but think of our poor brother Imran Khan, great guy Masha 'Allah, who is languishing in prison.
Mustafa Akyol was kick out from Malaysia for his crazy views.
I don't agree with some of the commenters here who attacked Dr. Kyole accusing him of incohernce. I think he presented his views beautifully and coherently. That being said, I do not see eye to eye with him on several of the points he opined on.
Stop simping to a neo
@@uthmaankhan5802
Before you leap off the cliff of conclusions, how about taking a moment to engage your brain before your fingers dance across the keyboard? I commended the presentation flair, not the ideas themselves. Surely, it's not that hard to grasp the difference, or is it?
@@Anjasha302 so if a zindiq, or mubtadi or fasiq presents their viewpoint in an eloquent way, will you praise them
Do you know of the verse in the Quran that talks about those that are eloquent in falsehood?
@@uthmaankhan5802
I commend their presentation style, not necessarily their arguments.
There’s a relevant anecdote you might find interesting: the one where a devil, appearing as a man to Abu Hurairah, advised him to use Ayatul-Kursi for protection against evil spirits. When Abu Hurairah relayed this to the Prophet, he confirmed the advice’s truthfulness, despite the devil’s generally deceitful nature. This illustrates that even deceptive beings can offer truthful advice occasionally. However, this doesn’t change their overall nature of disbelief and misguidance.
Similarly, Allah acknowledged the trustworthiness and honesty of some individuals among the people of the book, noting their reliability in financial matters. Yet, this recognition doesn’t imply approval of all their actions and beliefs.
Moreover, it’s documented in authentic hadiths that the Prophet acknowledged commendable traits in certain non-believers, like Mut’im ibn Adi. These acknowledgments highlight that good qualities can be found across different individuals, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
Where the rules of drunk driving came from
Good debate but Shaykh Qadhi was clearly in command of the discourse. In nutshell we should uphold the Shariah but we also understand there in compulsion in religion. US democracy is not a one size fits all and in fact can be dangerous.
"there in compulsion in religion" so should apostates be put to death? can non Muslims try to spread their religion?
Sharia law us barbaric
Nothing told lower gaze
Nevada a place for behavior unexceptable to those who lived threw unlawful systems that we have the books that most teguardless of personal behavior agree
«It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should thereafter have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.»
(Quran 33:36)
Free the state from religious superstition.
Iqbal explained it in one line: "Ho siyasat deen se juda tou reh jaati hai chengezi" (If politics is separated from religion then all that remains is the babarism of Chegiz Khan.) Meaning religion acts as a moral force. But in todays world the distorted forms of Islam that Salafism and the Deobandi School adhere to have created nothing less than barbaric theocracies. However in their oppression and barbarism they are far far far less than the "liberal democratic" US.
"However in their oppression and barbarism they are far far far less than the "liberal democratic" US."
And yet all the Muslims who agree with you will flock to the US en masse to want to settle there and the ones who're already there just won't leave this so-called "far far far" greater "oppressive and barbaric" place called the US.
Iqbal was nonsense
Exceptional explanation sister❤.
@@BABA-ORUC1761 Iqbal was overrated
wht type of Muslim politics do you think combines with politics
And the open enemy who said he would come to Man and his wife in front behind both sides
The scale its your think I cant tell you who to sock it to had song swinger how many fsmily broke up
The debate ended in the beginning: One solution doesn't fit all. The rest was not debate. Sheikh gave Dawah to Mustafa Akyol.
Sheikh, we want to see opponents at your level.
i thought islam is supposed to be the one solution fits all mandkind?
You can't compare Islam and Democracy directly. Islam is between servant and Allah, and democracy is between State and citizen.
@@hqiyas ok. which do you prefer?
@@user-on8jx3qr8w much like a healthy diet is the best for everyone but not everyone will want/have a healthy diet, Islam is the one solution to fit all mankind but all of mankind will not fit with Islam.
Which is the the angle I understand Yasir Qadhi is making.
@@tehnoobclone yes, i very much do not want to eat what you are trying to force me to eat. lol. so you are against the idea of universal rights for individuals? the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion? do you agree with the madhabs that say [public] apostates should be put to death? what did you think of the blasphemy cases in Indonesia? the ahok case? the woman who asked for the mosque near her house to turn down their loudspeaker? speaking of food, the tik tok woman who ate some crispy pork and said bishallah?
Free to reject the Law of the Land the seal of Prophets was given certain things Prayer all over the Earth
Mustafa Akyol literally doesn’t bring any academia to his debate and is purely acting as a victim of his own lack of intelligence. Not sure why would anyone platform him.
You can disagree with him, but it's wrong and frankly reactionary to deny his academic experience. The intro clearly stated that he is a fellow of Cato Institute. He has a masters degree and has written papers and books. Maybe he didn't have the best arguments here, but I think it was absolutely fine to platform him. I still agree that YQ outclasses him in almost every area discussed in this debate though.
If Atkol wasn’t worth talking to why would Sh Yasir agree to have this online discussion with him? You can disagree with someone but there is no need to be disrespectful. The man is clearly intelligent and very articulate.
Come on bro, let's not be dishonest, I like Dr. Yasir Qadhi, but let's not say that Mustafa lacks intelligence, that is just not true, he's an educated person and it's clear from his ability to be able to bring up points and give counterpoints in the debate. Let's just be positive and appreciate the debate
Who each follow not one are not following a person Or believe in Men given instructions for each person born male or female at age of reason to decide the basic rules ,and with or with out what is more costly
Dr. Akyol is brilliant. Sheikh Yasir seems to be bringing his Athari creed into the discussion and to an extent sounded Foucauldian....kept using the power and the idea of program. His problematization of Arab countries living better under dictators prooves Dr. Akyol;s point that not all societies are capable of "freedom"..Also, the Sheikhs demeanor was not Sheikh-like....from the get go he sounded "sensitive"
May the sins committed knowingly and unknowingly with the toung be forgiven
So good to see them debate! Respect to both of them. Change should come from inside the relevant countries indeed. Cheikh YQ made a good point about mob mentality which is the core problem regardless of the law.. But that issue needs to be tackled by those countries . Mr Akyol also makes good statements about pain points regarding freedoms. the level and shape of freedoms should fit these countries.
Public selling inMuslim places who would openly xo it
These systems are told in the Quran list behaviordevine verse no hereafter
It's important to note that dictatorships can often lead to civil war. This is because, without freedom and the ability for people to choose their leaders freely, there's a lot of tension. This tension can build up like a pressure cooker, ready to explode at any moment. This is exactly what happened in countries like Czechoslovakia, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. So, it's clear that dictatorships can create the conditions for civil war down the line.
Any group of male and female from birth have a leader regardless of word the word used is someone thought to be best in understanding with others to govern local broader army people as well as husband wives oldest sib a know system
He was made from Sa sa Mud it is said then his mate Ebliss from smokelee fire
Perfect example of a broken cistern shares ideas to a cistern that can hold water.
I agree with mostafa on apostasy
I dare you to invite ' DANIEL HAQIQATJOU " in this space 😂😂😂
True, he would dominate in this mashaAllah.
to debate who? this mustafa guy? that would be interesting. but dan gets a little emotional. lol.
@@everythingandroidois Based Based Based Brozer Danial is Based Mahashallah Subhanllah sigma Daniel will domnate dis guy Ho Ho HA Ha Daniel gorilla Based
😂
Daniel would just call a spade a spade...
Who want your belongings stolen
Mustafa is still confused
Wa Salaam's
Here's the core positive concerning à separate religion vs State; In the US slavery existed but politicians abolitioned its existence religion did not.
Salam.
No they didn’t. They just repackaged it and called it something else and created a very sophisticated system to make it less obvious.
Also, they did zero corrections of their wrongs. They still aspire to exploit other humans for little to no reward, and they still aspire to pass any risk on to other humans with as little on their own necks. (Perhaps “aspire” is putting it too diplomatically, since they still do it). Have a look at colonial violations and violence in action in the North Dakota water pollution and the rare metals child slavery industries and the 13th Amendment - all examples from the USA, the bastion of liberal values.
The ethic never disappeared or evaporated; it remained and still worked to produce action. Like I said: They just repackaged it and called it something else and created a very sophisticated system to make it less obvious.
Which point do you disagree with?
Those who never pretend sex that Prophets in Torah Injeel Even when wanted kings like Saul ,was rules
The Quran where arebooksckilling for fear of want
If Mustafa’s nature was competitive and wasn’t so polite he would have pushed back at Yasir Qadi post modernist relativity that allows each people their own morality. Yasir Qadi had no reply to his point of Indian Hinduvata deeming it appropriate to persecute Muslims. Musafar mentioned the Uyghurs. Russia insists that it is western imperialism sticking their noses where they have no business and they are perfectly justified in doing what they do. There is no remorse from their side they feel justified by their own morality. Forcing people to abandon non Chinese culture is just what they do. According to Yasir the west has no basis to make any moral judgement on that
He’s right they don’t have a moral basis to say anything about morality. Especially after supporting an ongoing genocide.
I hope Yasir Qadhi Saab is training his kids, we need more versions of him, what an amazingly articulate speaker mA
Yasir is the clear example on how to give an answer without giving an answer, making general statements of whataboubtim.
he thanks Allah for the freedoms in America when he should thank the founding fathers for actually being visionary about it. He doesn't want these freedoms for other though
How does one even have such a take away from this dialogue boggles my mind.. you are silly
Lut Sins the PharoeFollowoes Nation chance as time before The seal of Prophets pbuh to all Nations no new way except or Reject will answer Resurrection
Those with faithi.fomation will stop as time of rhw sunbah
What a great decent debate ❤❤
I think Qadhi was much more consistent in his arguments than Akyol. The former’s main argument was that the role of religion (Islam) in political order does not, by any means, undercut the ideals of healthy freedom and liberty; western ideals of liberty and freedom cannot be applied on all the peoples of the world, let the indigenous people decide what is best for their lands, whether they want religion’s intervention in politics or not must remain at their discretion. Akyol, in my opinion, could not effectively defend what he was arguing for, i.e., the dismissal of religion (Islam) from the political order and the implementation of liberal democracies throughout the (Muslim) world.
Do they have freedom to read