You can also listen to the episode using the links below, remember to subscribe so you never miss a show

Apple • Spotify • Google • Stitcher • or on Alexa

Please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and a rating on Spotify - it helps us reach a wider audience

How do Muslims deal with what looks like the comprehensive success of Western civilisation. Is it time to accept defeat, as one writer put it? Or does Islam have something to offer the world that can move us beyond this dysfunctional world. Our guest today is Hasan Spiker, he argues that modernity is not neutral. The assumption is that modernity is regarded as universal is false. He argues that modernity is Western and its embrace is a means to Western hegemony and domination. He is the author of this soon to be published work, published on the 26th November – The Unraveling of Intelligibility.

You can also support The Thinking Muslim through a one-time donation: https://www.thinkingmuslim.com/Donate

Read Muhammad Jalal's full article here: https://jalalayn.substack.com/p/harris-genocide-must-come-at-a-political
https://www.thinkingmuslim.com/contribute

Follow us on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/jalalayn and https://twitter.com/thinking_muslim

Join our Telegram group here: https://t.me/thinkingmuslim

Sign up to Muhammad Jalal’s newsletter https://jalalayn.substack.com

Transcript - This is an AI generated transcript and may not reflect the actual conversation

Introduction

0:00

Islam is a transformative path like no other  you're challenging the air that they breathe  

0:05

yeah questioning it is very very difficult if  Islam was so successful then why did we leave  

0:11

all of that and embrace a western modernity we  in the Muslim World mistook a marshal victory  

0:19

for an intellectual Victory that's a Sufi  way of thinking separating the sacred law  

0:24

from the spirit Nazism liberalism  just and communism they are all  

0:30

they're different manifestations of the same  phenomenon which is modernity it's not possible  

0:36

to import liberalism elsewhere Islam won't come in  and be a polite minority Gaza is the real mask off

0:44

moment how do Muslims deal with what looks like a  comprehensive success of Western Civilization is  

0:54

it time to accept defeat as one right to put it  or does Islam have something to offer the world  

1:01

that can move us Beyond this dysfunctional system  Our Guest today is Hassen Spiker he argues that  

1:09

modernity is Western and its Embrace is a means to  Western hegemony and domination he's the author of  

1:16

a soon to be published book published on the 26th  of November the unraveling of intelligibility H  

1:23

spum and welcome back to the thinking Muslim  lovely to see you again well it's wonderful to  

1:29

have you with us and I think we've got a really  interesting conversation today about many topics  

1:34

which I think come together and I think a lot of  our Muslims and non-muslim viewers would like to  

1:40

understand just how Islam gets in to the modern  world uh and whether Islam can fit into the modern  

1:46

world and and there's a lot of there's a lot to  unpack here but there's also a lot to Define even   modern world needs to definition it uh but let's  start with your framework you place this topic  

1:57

within a framework of disempowerment you argue  that the Muslim Community are disempowered like  

Muslims Disempowered?

2:03

explain that idea to me please well I think what  it is is that we are profoundly disempowered by  

2:10

our general belief that modernity is universal  and neutral so it's not specifically Western now  

2:19

of course everyone knows that it is Western in  historical Genesis it took place as a result of  

2:25

particular changes and crystallized in the postl  post Enlightenment period perod and then you have   the Industrial Revolution and then colonialism and  it spreads around the world yeah but there's this  

2:35

fundamental belief that somehow that particularity  just like every other civilization is particular  

2:41

has been transcended somehow somehow it's become  Universal right you'll find in the book that there  

2:47

are several authors one of them is vs nle for  example who has a very famous article on the  

2:52

universal civilization which he identifies with  Western modernity and he says sure it was there is  

2:59

a colonial past there there is this eurocentricism  there is this racism and that still causes pain  

3:04

but that's all in the past it became Universal at  a particular point it became the the property of  

3:11

all of mankind um and I think what disempowers the  Muslims is this false belief that something which  

3:18

is profoundly idiosyncratically Western is in fact  Universal and neutral so what do I mean by say you  

3:26

one might say that's a genetic fallacy who cares  if it's West just because we find out where it  

3:31

comes from doesn't mean that there's something  wrong with it right and of course look there   isn't in every way something wrong with it this is  the the world that we live in the the the air we  

3:40

breathe you know and as we'll find out you know as  one will find out in the in the course of reading  

3:46

the book and and and I'm sure we come out in our  conversation today I'm not in any way advocating  

3:51

bashing the west or hoping that it disappears or  not partaking in in life in the west and so on  

4:00

um what this empowers us is this belief that  modernity is universal and neutral when modernity  

4:08

developed in order to provide solutions for very  idiosyncratic tensions that Afflicted Christian  

4:19

civilization in Europe in the late Middle  Ages and specifically the Renaissance the  

4:27

Reformation that led to the emergence of what we  call Early modernity yeah so when we when we talk  

4:32

about modernity what are we really talking about  here I mean I I would imagine that um many people  

What is Modernity?

4:38

when they hear the word modernity they think the  iPhone you know technology science progress AI  

4:46

like how do you understand maternity yeah I'm not  advocating that we all become Lites and and um to  

4:53

the farm or culture communities right yeah yeah  the I mean with provisos that's not quite what I'm  

4:59

advocating at all so yes exactly what I was saying  was leading directly onto your aggression which   is what is modern there now there's a there's  an ambiguity just on a very basic level in the  

5:10

word modern because modern can mean at least two  things for our purposes here two things one is  

5:16

just the people who happen to be alive right now  are modern so if they were alive in the late 19th  

5:22

century they would have been modern and if they  alive in the 15th century they would have been   modern yeah a lot of the times when people hear  you talking about modernity and their puzzled  

5:29

they're like what's your problem with us being  alive right now you know and that's that's really   not what it is at all modernity is a specific par  philosophy just like every other philosophy is so  

5:41

you have the philosophy of modernity yeah it has  specific commitments it's a specific ideology what  

5:47

it basically means is the rejection of authority  the rejection of traditional god- centered a  

5:58

traditional god- centered hierarchical view of  the cosmos of being right so typically in both the  

6:07

Islamic world and the Christian world just to take  these two examples I mean I don't want to that's   enough I think for us to deal with those two very  broad examples uh typically this is really a theic  

6:19

understanding which is that the world is in some  sense in some sense reveals the presence of God  

6:28

nature reveals the presence of God you know we  have in Islam the concept of the aat you know the  

6:35

aat in the s in the soul in themselves rather  and on the horizons these are signs these are  

6:41

signs right by which we move in our heart in our  intellect from the physical phenomena as we call  

6:51

it today to the underlying metaphysical reality  right and this idea that on those Horizons in  

6:59

in our eles we acquire through the F through  the you know a pure original disposition yeah  

7:07

knowledge of aesthetical judgments what is the  beautiful knowledge of moral judgments what is  

7:14

the good and knowledge of metaphysical truths  right what is the true what is true about what  

7:22

is the fundamental nature of this existence  now what modernity involves and again you know  

7:29

I have have to kind of condense it here because  it's going to it can only come out I think when   we talk about the five bations yes in detail  but what it basically involves is at a certain  

7:40

point in European history yeah a point of Crisis  was reached where it didn't seem possible to any  

7:48

longer believe in that theophanic unified vision  of existence and so you have several raptures very  

7:57

very cataclysmic events um like the Protestant  Reformation like the 30 years war that followed  

8:06

in which 4 million Europeans died it's by far  the largest loss of life until you you know have  

8:13

the mechanized Warfare of the 20th century yes and  you know suddenly Europe is is Ren in two and this  

8:22

what it fundamentally involves is a rejection  of the old Catholic order right and this new  

8:29

focus on the individual as the ultimate Arbiter  of Truth when it comes to metaphysical matters and  

8:38

really the broad idea that we are cut off from  the metaphysical fundamentally except through  

8:44

pure faith and all we can really hope to know is  the physical world and particularly in so far as  

8:53

it's knowable through the scientific method and  so you have the Scientific Revolution following  

8:58

on very quick ly from the Protestant Revolution  but we'll we'll get to that when we come to but   but essentially it's a split you know obviously  can be summed up as the secular split yes where  

9:14

we all of our social formations our social  organization our political structures our  

9:20

even even our understanding of ethics and now all  carried out systematically without reference to re  

9:29

ation or metaphysics we have sorry but we have  we have we are now self-enclosed right in this  

9:37

in this world we don't need anything outside of  it or Beyond it I mean husand we have a lot of   non-muslims who listen to and watch our show and  they will be surprised that you find that to be  

Metaphysics and progress

9:47

contentious I mean in the modern world there is  this assumption that we can't connect all of our  

9:55

live all of our life all of our life's problems  to a metaphysical uh reality we can't say that you  

10:04

know there needs to be God needs to participate  in our daily lives in our political Affairs in  

10:11

our social Affairs in in what we call Justice in  our moral understanding fine you know we may have  

10:17

some moral codes that guide us but fundamentally  that connection should be severed because when it  

10:23

was present in Europe uh and and maybe other parts  of the world it uh stifled creativity it's stifled  

10:31

progress and what's your retort to that well  it's definitely multifaceted I would say first  

10:39

of all yes I'm arguing from a very very marginal  position right and when you arguing from a very  

10:46

very marginal position it's sometimes difficult  to communicate what you mean to people because  

10:51

you're challenging the air that they breathe yeah  you're challenging it's it's like nature said we  

10:57

cannot see it because it has been Victorious  because this worldview of modernity has been  

11:04

so triumphantly successful everywhere questioning  it is very very difficult it's like questioning  

11:12

something so fundamental that you've never noticed  it's there before in it's well it's it's it's   almost difficult to countenance now but why is  this so important and in reality not a marginal  

11:25

view at all well it's because everything which  was B ific at and severed in the west including  

11:32

this broad secular split we've been describing  remained whole in the Islamic world right until  

11:39

the end end being 20th century well right until  it it differs depending on the place I mean there  

11:45

are convenient dates one can give you know Indian  Mutiny uh end of the copit uh there are various  

11:53

and it's it's it's impossible to give a particular  date and it's not that everything has completely   disappeared sure and and of course there there  there you many many uh things to discuss about  

12:05

that and kind of almost Infinity of details  about the precise status of that traditional   worldview in the Muslim world yeah that's in  in a to a large degree what the the book is  

12:14

about um because many of the most passionate and  committed Advocates of this Universal neutral sent  

12:29

ific civilization are Muslims within Muslim  countries right um and I think that is more than  

12:35

anything else what the book is trying to tackle  yeah but um but what I'd say is that is uh the  

12:42

yes we grow up I mean speaking to the the Western  interlocutor non-muslim perhaps interlocutor that  

12:48

you were referring to I think it's just realizing  that what we think is just the way the world is  

12:57

is actually a very specific philosophical choice  that we have inherited we haven't usually thought  

13:03

about very much most of that stuff about well  human flourishing social Mobility creativity  

13:12

all that stuff it didn't exist in the medieval  world most of that is Protestant propaganda which  

13:17

has been very successful for hundreds of years  right there are many studies and one can Google   this which show definitively there was more social  mobility in the Middle Ages in Europe than there  

13:28

is today and there are many there there many of  the assumptions that we make are simply not true  

13:39

but I think that I think what we would I think  where we'd get to the meat of this is when we talk   about the five bations which or the severances or  the splits you might say which forms the the the  

13:49

main explanatory kind of means of analysis in this  book yeah um I think there we'd be able to to kind  

13:57

of bring out um details of exactly how it's not  tenable to look at modernity as as universal and  

14:05

neutral it was a choice it could well never have  happened um and it was very much and it didn't  

14:13

happen in outside of Europe right and why did  it not happen it's because those very specific  

14:19

tensions that existed quite uniquely in Europe  mostly in vir of the nature of Christianity and  

14:25

the absence of Islam didn't ex exist elsewhere  and so it's a very much an anachronistic you know  

14:33

out of proper chronology and anatopism place  M phenomenon for the Muslim world to Simply  

14:41

blly accept all of this uh all of these Western  cultural products as if they are neutral but it  

14:49

begs the question if if Islam was so successful  in creating a type of society that innovated and  

Islam and modernity

14:59

that had progress and that uh produced culture  and civilization and science then why did we uh  

15:07

leave all of that and embrace a western modernity  like what's the cause behind that Embrace in the  

15:16

first place beautiful question it's summed up by  a quotation from by muster sub the last in Islam  

15:25

in his three volume work which was written in the  50 and and is his it's a critique of modernity and  

15:33

critique of Islamic modernism all sorts of amazing  things he says we in the Muslim World mistook  

15:41

a marshal victory for an intellectual Victory  right so we assumed because we've been defeated  

15:49

militarily they must have everything right it's  so overwhelming this defeat it's so crushing for  

15:55

our spirit it's so difficult for our pride we  need to catch up we've fallen behind whereas  

16:02

yes there's no doubt the Western World developed  scientifically again we tend to think of science  

16:14

as neutral there's a sense in which it is there's  another sense in which it's absolutely not and and  

16:23

this is something that we'll discuss when we get  to the severance of knowing subject in nature but  

16:28

what it basic basically involves is at a certain  point in the mostly 17th century in the Scientific  

16:37

Revolution the West turned from a view of nature  decisively turned away from a from the previously  

16:46

dominant view of nature which is more largely  shared by the Islamic world as a theophonic

17:00

the fundamental purpose of study of the study  of nature in that uh in that worldview in that  

17:06

framework is to get us closer to God closer to  knowledge of God right yes there is a place for  

17:14

practical contrivances and Technology but it's  not a central place what changes is a a shift  

17:22

from the view of nature as theophanic as revealing  the Divine to a view of nature as simply so much  

17:29

raw material as Brad Gregory puts it awaiting the  imprint of our desires right as in uh science is  

17:38

about the Mastery of nature the exploitation of  nature we don't care what it is we don't care  

17:45

what spiritual reality it has we don't care about  any of that that's all subjective that's all your   belief you're welcome to it but the real world  is US exploiting nature and making lots of money  

17:57

right so I me that's a bit of no it's it's very  useful and before we get to your fications that in  

18:03

a sense I think that's the meat of your argument  um how much like so we've said secularism almost  

18:10

underpins modernity it's division between uh you  know human life and God and we will come to that  

18:19

um like would you would you place liberalism even  Marxism within uh this Broad La of modernity oh  

18:30

absolutely yeah yeah both of them yeah and so in a  in a sense what what you're arguing and I suppose  

18:36

will come to this is that Muslims have to reject  these ideologies U because they're not Universal  

18:44

they're very particular to a western experience in  particular Western experience of religion exactly  

18:50

so let's let's then talk about these bations  or severances as you call them or separations  

18:56

because I think that was really really fascinating  so the first uh bation you talk about in your in  

The 5 Bifurcations

19:02

your great book is is the division between sacred  law and spirit explain that to me kids okay so  

19:09

one of the most characteristic aspects of Corine  Christianity right of course Paul of tarus is this  

19:18

disciple of Jesus is except he's not he never met  Jesus or but I'll say Jesus because we're talking  

19:27

in the context of you the contemporary Christian  view of everything we're discussing he never met  

19:35

Jesus and he was of course a Jew who before he  became a Christian was actually persecuting the  

19:42

church quite avidly he was a major antagonist  and enemy of the early church and on the road to  

19:51

Damascus he purports to have had a vision where  Jesus invited him to joined his church and he  

20:01

became a Christian having had this charismatic  experience this mystical experience and without  

20:09

getting into too many of the details of his life  he departed from the Christianity of the actual  

20:15

Disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem and this is even  recounted in the Acts of the Apostles in the New  

20:23

Testament by wanting to bring the da as it were  the the message of Christianity to the Gentiles  

20:32

whereas Jesus even in the gospel says that he  was only sent to the lost sheep of the children  

20:37

of Israel right just as indeed the Quran says of  him just as indeed Islam says of him that he was  

20:43

only sent um to the the the Jewish people with  his message and the key aspect of this is that  

20:52

Paul said the law is abrogated we don't need to  to ask new converts to follow the law it's been  

21:02

abrogated by Christ crucified Christ's sacrifice  where he takes away our sins and through that act  

21:11

of belief in him that pure grace it's abated  the law the law was this curse on us he even  

21:17

uses that word because we could never live up  to it we had to follow every jot and title as  

21:23

in as indeed Jesus says in the gospels or every  fine detail I mean that's the King James version  

21:28

J and title um every fine detail of the law must  be adhered to he says well that's impossible can't  

21:34

even do it in principle so it's this curse the  law Jesus has come to abrogate the law and the  

21:39

new dispensation is pure is based on this leap  of faith in Christ and this affective personal  

21:46

relationship with the Christ the crucified Christ  um what has this led to it's led to an inability  

21:54

to understand that in Islam we have a Shar to a  certain extent in Judaism but in Islam we have  

22:02

the Sharia which is we understand as sanctifying  it's not this kind of obsessive compulsive list  

22:07

of things that we have to worry about all the time  we all gosh it's something that allows us to get   closer to God in every scenario in every object  in every action right it's a detailed revealed law  

22:21

Christianity poor land Christianity doesn't have  that uh it doesn't have this understanding that  

22:28

you follow a a detailed law which governs every  aspect of your life right all right um and so  

22:36

there's this disconnect and there's this sense not  only that they don't NE need to go together the  

22:41

revealed law and the spirit but they're somehow  really opposed to one another really the spiritual   life is exactly not adhering to a law yeah that's  because this world is fundamentally self-contained  

22:56

I mean I'm bringing in a little bit of Lutheran  here I should probably save that to the for the   to the faith and and reason split but the basic  idea is God hasn't revealed a detailed uh plan for  

23:10

every single action every single item is it Halal  is it haram and so on um and that's not what would  

23:18

save us anyway that's an outdated understanding  of religion what saves us is simply that faith in  

23:23

Christ crucified yeah and that is the litmus tast  that is the so that is what is so serologically  

23:32

think I said that right soteriology it means the  the uh the Salvation the nature of Salvation what  

23:42

what what brings about salvation and for them it's  not adherence to a revealed law it's uh simply the  

23:49

act of belief belief in in in Christ and and as  with later yeah it would it's not just Christ  

23:56

crucified but it's Christ when the the Incarnate  God crucified so it becomes even more significant  

24:05

and momentous it you know God himself and AR only  comes into is it only purported to come into the  

24:10

flesh once at one particular moment in history you  know if you miss that you're in trouble right I  

24:16

think that's really interesting so because of it  is the case that we come across Muslims over time   today I suppose now you're packaging it you're  explaining it in the context of the supremacy  

Importance of Sharia

24:26

I suppose of modernity Upon Our Lives m who argue  that who almost underplay the role of sharia and  

24:33

claim that the Sharia is is not really important  in our lives and what is important is that of his  

24:39

over overarching spiritual claims ex that a Muslim  need to subscribe to exactly that's so in a sense  

24:45

you're saying that that comes originally from  Christianity and modernity universalizes that  

24:53

way of thinking absolutely what I'm also saying is  it is the first chronologically in these series of  

24:59

bations so one thing leads to another right yes  exactly as you say it's a very insightful point  

25:05

because who are those Muslims who are say who are  advocating what you're what what you're saying   yeah they're the modernists right usually so  that's very significant it's because of precisely  

25:14

what we're discussing but but more immediately  the relevance of the split between LA and spirit  

25:21

is that it leads directly onto the other bations  and informs them I'm going to be terribly unkind  

25:27

and and and ignorant here in a way but I often  hear people say no that's a Sufi way of thinking  

25:33

uh separating the sacred law from the spirit um  you know you we have a lot of non-muslims who  

Separating sacred from spirit

25:40

may come into Islam through Sufism that's true  so explain the Sufi perspective on this matter  

25:46

yeah that's the exact diametrical opposite of the  truth but um but you're absolutely right that is  

25:52

a this is a common conception today and I suppose  that's for for number of reasons I think very much  

26:00

it's to do with as you said these fundamentally  Christian conceptions of the of the fundamental  

26:08

split between law and spirit they've got nothing  to do with each other you don't need law if you've   got Spirit yeah um and simply informing the modern  mindset whether someone's a Muslim or a non-muslim  

26:19

and then when people want to make Islam on a DA  level uh more attractive to spiritually minded  

26:27

Muslims they say well here you go you've got  Sufism where you don't need the the law because   that's the spiritual aspect if there's a spiritual  if there's a mystical aspect it must be antinomian  

26:36

right whereas that just doesn't follow in  our context but I think that's just a basic   assumption they make that if if there's a spirit  if there's a mystical path it must be anomen right  

26:44

you know it must be opposed to the law it's quite  it's it's the total opposite of the truth um you  

26:49

know the the conception in Sufism is that and so  revealed law or sacred law and spiritual reality  

27:03

are absolutely Inseparable and complimentary yeah  you can't have one without the other without one  

27:10

being incomplete and having something wrong with  it um so in order to regulate and provide solid  

27:19

foundations for one's one's servanthood to God  which is the ultimate purpose of Sufism on one  

27:25

important level yes one has to adhere one has to  have that submission to the detailed law one can't   just say why I'm so spiritual I don't need to pray  anymore cuz I'm already seen God no that that's  

27:36

part of our overa are part of our servanthood and  submission to God and then the other way around a  

27:42

detailed adherence to the law while forgetting  that it's God that you're worshiping that's uh  

27:48

that's not very good either so I think that  would be the basic Sufi understanding and and  

27:54

just to I know we want to go into all five  of the bations but think I find it's really   interesting because uh you do find that a number  of non-muslims and Muslims who come back into the  

Sharia vs Spiritual

28:05

faith they Embrace this version of Sufism uh to  the degree as you said that they downplay the  

28:11

Sharia but then they site Imam gazali for example  as someone who rejected at the age of 40 or in in  

28:18

the midlife he rejected the Sharia and he placed  the spiritual side of his Spirit to be of a higher  

28:27

value is that a misreading of there's very much a  misreading of elali but I can understand how that  

28:34

narrative can take c um and it's because what  Imam Al gazali critiques are precisely what we  

28:43

were just discussing which are the fuka or those  who are well would you say the doctors of law or  

28:49

those who are engage legal scholars in the most  basic sense yeah legal Scholars he's critiquing  

28:54

legal Scholars who have lost sight of of the  spiritual reality which is the whole you the  

28:59

whole Telos the whole purpose the whole underlying  motivation for engaging in um a detailed study of  

29:08

the Sacred law and so his critique is that because  they lose sight of the spiritual reality and  

29:14

what it's all for they fall into worldliness and  there even though it has you know it it presents  

29:21

itself as Dean and F and all this stuff it it's  actually becomes worldly for them purely worldly  

29:28

um and so that's really what he's critiquing but  he's absolutely not opposed to the Sharia in any   way and in fact he's quite to the contrary of  course on every level but but incidentally he's  

29:38

also one of the most important Sher scholars in  in history of course one of the the four schools  

29:43

of Islamic law um he he's one of the four or five  most important shery Scholars of them all great uh  

29:52

your second Severance or verification of modernity  is the separation of tor power sacred power yeah  

The second bifurcation

30:00

explain that to me J so Jesus in the gospels is  supposed to have said Render unto Caesar such  

30:08

things as a Caesars and Render unto God such  things as a Gods now I'm not in a position to  

30:15

say didam actually speak these words or not and  I don't think anyone really is and we have to  

30:22

suspend judgment on that and is there a legitimate  way of is there a legitimate way of interpreting  

30:30

that from a Muslim perspective from Islamic  perspective from an authentic Islamic perspective   very possibly but let's look at the actual impact  that it had on subsequent Western Civilization  

30:40

yeah this is fundamentally the secular principle  and it plays out and gets lots of people in lots  

30:47

of trouble throughout the Middle Ages lots of  conflict between popes and princes and we'll   mention one in just a moment and it then with  lu uh with the Treaty of olsburg and the Peace  

31:01

of West failure and you know the aftermath of the  of the religious wars and then trying to actually  

31:08

theorize about tolerance of the religious other  and so so than lock and so on then it finally  

31:14

crystallizes into secularism proper but what it  basically means is unlike in the Islamic world  

31:22

where you have a single Shere detailed law which  encompasses the political which by finds Prince  

31:30

and King and temporal power and the alike you  simply don't have the problems that arise in the  

31:41

west because of this split between temporal power  and sacred power so what it basically amounts to  

31:49

is the fact that you have a pope who possesses  the ultimate Authority on spiritual matters  

31:58

mhm and he doesn't have a detailed Shar because  there isn't one he's arbitrarily The Authority  

32:07

it's him what's his criteria being the pope  right whatever he says that is the actual fact  

32:18

of the matter when it comes to religious Doctrine  spiritual reality and so on now the princeling the  

32:25

prince the king is under the Pope on the spiritual  level because he's a Catholic so he's under the  

32:34

the Pope's Spiritual Authority but Render unto  Caesar such things as the Caesars so the temporal  

32:43

ruler has jurisdiction when it comes to temporal  matters however because they're not they're not  

32:52

governed by a Sharia that is binding on them both  you have this series of hugely disruptive disputes  

33:02

throughout the Middle Ages between the pope and  the temporal powers that be just one example is  

33:08

the 14th century dispute between Pope bonatti and  King Philip the fair of France now this is one of  

33:18

the most famous of these disputes these secular  disputes the or what would later come to be known  

33:25

as secularism what took place is that Pope bonae  wanted his clergy in France to be Exempted from  

33:37

all taxation because they're clergy MH um he  didn't want to be subject to taxation by the  

33:45

king of France and he told the king of France as  much we're not going to be taxed yes right um we  

33:54

are exerting our Spiritual Authority and it's you  know we must not be attacked because you know we  

34:00

are the spiritual Authority and we have a special  status and he was hoping that King philli was just  

34:06

going to go along with this but unfortunately  for Pope bfactory Philip was having absolutely  

34:14

none of it and he said no I'm not going to exempt  under any circumstances and of course you have to  

34:19

imagine the Catholic church has immense well this  is a this is a huge source of tax revenue for him  

34:25

it makes a difference so Pope manufa issues a very  very famous Pap ball called Unum sanum it's a very  

34:38

famous document in the history of the of well of  the of secularism as I suppose we'd rather anistic  

34:45

call it and of the Catholic church and of Western  Civilization RIT large and in that document Bona  

34:54

asserts the papal authority over over even the  temporal powers on most occasions we're fine to  

35:02

leave the temporal powers to their own business  and get on with it but there are questions like   this where we actually do have ultimate authority  over you and what he tries to do is he tries to  

35:13

invoke the hierarchy of being and you know we  actually are you know our hierarchy of of the  

35:20

church is reflective of the hierarchy of the  angels and we actually do metaphysically have   power over you so you better listen and he he's  invoking there the dionan dius the aropa his  

35:32

account of of hierarchy and metaphysical hierarchy  I've written about that this particular episode  

35:38

in this book but also in my other book hierarch  in Freedom where specifically about UNAM sanctum   in that book um and you know the pope was hoping  that this would be an end to it and he'd he'd be T  

35:49

tax exempt um and uh what happened is King Philip  decided instead that well I think we're just kidna  

35:57

pope benaa then yes and they kidnapped him and  took him away to a castle and said no it's not  

36:03

going to happen well uh you know you've got to  pay your taxes and um Pope benat a few days later  

36:11

actually died of the shock unfortunately so that's  just one episode in you know many many uh many  

36:19

many episodes in the history of the this tension  between the secular powers and and the sacred  

36:26

Powers you know there's a similar thing at play  um in um the uh the assassination of of Archbishop  

36:38

um uh Beckett uh in the in the in the Cathedral  at Canterbury um that's one other major major uh  

36:50

violent uh dispute between the Pope the church and  the King and then of course you know you have what  

37:00

takes place in the English Reformation between  King Henry VII and the pope and that leads to a  

37:05

huge Rapture which again is one of the things that  we that is discussed in the book um so there's  

37:13

always been this tension and what It ultimately  leads to is this understanding that these two  

37:20

domains have to be kept strictly separate  the temporal and the sacred the temporal and   the sacred and the sacred is ultimately going to  become something just as it is today personalized  

37:31

it's personalized you don't talk about it in  public it's not polite it's embarrassing we  

37:37

protect your right to engage in that but it's a  personal choice and you keep it at home how how  

Protestantism and secularism

37:44

important was the development of protestantism  in the 16th century to the secularism process  

37:50

because my understanding and and correctly if  I'm wrong is you know if we're talking about the   personalizing of Faith then protestantism lends  itself to very much to a personalized faith more  

38:00

so than Christianity with the melding of temporal  in sacred power is that is that a fair reading of  

38:07

of Christian history I think very much so I think  one of the things that lends itself to secularism  

38:15

secularism as it develops in protestantism is  the fact that Luther what he does he's very big  

38:23

on this render under Caesar thing right he's very  into obeying the temporal authorities yeah and the  

38:32

settlement what actually Saves the Day for Luther  is that the local Prince becomes a Lutheran oh  

38:41

right he protects Luther the settlements which  bring the terrible Strife between Catholic and  

38:49

Protestant to an end Augsburg and West failure  are all about saying we respect we will tolerate  

38:59

we will not wage war on we will protect the rights  of subjects within a PO as long as they follow the  

39:09

religious choice of their ruler so he can become  a Lutheran or he can become a Catholic and this  

39:17

is and that this will become a a Lutheran land and  this will remain a Catholic land and we will enter  

39:24

into a treaty of Peace on that basis of respect  that yeah that the the religion of the people  

39:30

is to follow the religion of the ruler now you  can see that is a relativizing factor to a large  

39:36

extent it's no longer relevant which of them is  true we have a political set set settlement which  

39:42

is fundamentally credential and pragmatic right  and um and you know this gives rise to the in  

39:50

know it contributes in large to the birth of the  this conception of the nation state the sovereign  

39:57

nation state which is has a national church and  has a n National religion and this this tradition  

40:10

is kept in the line of succession of the kings  that this is a a Lutheran country or this is a an  

40:16

Anglican country in the case of England or this is  a a Catholic country so um yeah this is very much  

40:25

a consequence to a large extent of the Protestant  Reformation absolutely so I want to ask you about  

40:32

that because 1648 is the Treaty of West failure  and uh According to some Western historians that's  

40:38

sort of the birth case of the nation state and  you've explained that very well that you know now  

40:43

the RIT of a centralized church is torn apart  and and it's really now up to each individual  

40:50

principality and PR to to Define their religious  complexion and there should be non-interference  

40:56

between states so uh is the nation state project  then intertwined with this project of modernity  

Nation-state and modernity

41:03

can we add nation state to his bucket uh and  if so is there something particular about the  

41:09

nation state that uh Islam would be antagonistic  towards absolutely and I think it's very much  

41:19

bound up with what we've just been discussing um  I mean nationalism involves making the ultimate  

41:27

Criterion for identity for Collective identity  what you know a particular ethnic background a  

41:34

particular Geographic situatedness and context and  and location and this in many ways has proved to  

41:43

be a replacement for religion but it's it's  antithetical to Islamic conceptions of our  

41:52

fundamental you know Brotherhood and Sisterhood  Umma exactly um you we are all from Adam and Adam  

42:02

is from clay there's no superiority of a of an  Arab over a non-arab except but you know through  

42:09

Taqua um and this was played out in throughout  Islamic history and you know one of the saddest  

42:19

I think departures from this and and this is very  relevant to the context that we're talking about   is the nationalism that you now see and you it's  been some time some decades now emerging in the  

42:31

in some places close to a century emerging in the  Muslim world for example in Turkey where you have  

42:37

this very very strong sense of Turkish identity  and nationalism to the extent that if someone's   Bosnian or Albanian they will tend to hide it  because it will lead to a kind of lower social  

42:46

status and suspicion and so on um whereas in the  Oban world no one knew who was Arab or this or  

42:54

that or Albania or balcan or Turkish and I mean  it's not that it was completely unknown but it   was not a significant factor at all right um and  it's true that in the later otoman period there  

43:08

were because of the infiltration of certain  Western ideas there were various nationalist   movements that's why sulan Abdul Hamed for example  made sure to get an Arab Shak Islam because he  

43:19

really wanted to aim towards Islamic Unity he  wanted to just break that because he could see  

43:24

that it was a cancer um so so absolutely I think  that nationalism is very very much bound up with  

43:32

this the identitarian understanding that there  is self-creation um of identity uh it doesn't  

43:43

reflect a Transcendent reality it will basically  fundamentally be based on political realities and  

43:50

so you know the the because the the fundamental  reality is the political then we're going to  

43:56

Define our identity as a collectivity in terms of  that political framework which is very specific  

44:02

um it's the nation and so on um I know we we're  still on our second bif fication or Seance but I'm  

Liberalism development

44:09

fascinated by all of this because it's putting  together a lot of discret ideas in my mind so   thank you very much for that so liberalism uh you  commonly it's John known that John Lock developed  

44:20

the idea or the the basic Contour of this ideology  of liberalism so how how important was what you've  

44:27

just discussed so far the severance of sacred law  and spirit and temporal power and sacred power how  

44:34

important were these events or these formations to  the development of liberalism as an idea they're  

44:42

immensely important very very important of the  absolute utmost importance and again this is  

44:49

very relevant to the non-transferability of  liberalism to anywhere outside of Europe and  

44:55

it's just anachronistic and and the top istic  um it's one of my new favorite words I managed  

45:01

to say it correctly twice now um so it it's not  possible to import liberalism elsewhere and when  

45:10

you try it it just it doesn't work right um now  it's basically for the following reason liberalism  

45:19

was in its Inception meant to provide a larger  neutral societal framework for different Christian  

45:34

denominations to exist together yeah in that  neutral domain and religion has become a private  

45:47

Affair it's Blind Faith it's a leap of faith it's  you know the individual with his subjectivity with  

45:55

his translated Bible and it's something that one  keeps to oneself it's such a source of dissension  

46:04

when it's brought outside and claims are made and  so we've moved beyond that now these interminable  

46:12

theological debates which can't be can't be  resolved even in principle again it's a kind  

46:19

of self-fulfilling prophecy to say they can't be  resolved because one of Luther's great moves as   we'll find out when it comes to Severance number  three faith and reason was to say you know reason  

46:30

human rationality has nothing to do with theology  never it can't resolve anything it's afflicted by  

46:38

original sin just like the accursed natural world  is as well he's a bit negative um Luther and so  

46:46

this has been one of the Great Tricks of the devil  in the Catholic order that Aristotle was brought  

46:53

in and everything was highly rationalized so  it's a kind of self aill prophecy that these   debates are interminable um but the point is they  were you know in practice interminable and they  

47:04

were causing immense dissension so the general  and of course we're talking very broad Strokes  

47:09

here because we're covering lots of history but  the the general approach in early modernity post  

47:17

Reformation was Faith becomes a personal thing  right liberalism provides the framework in which  

47:27

different Christian denominations can coexist  peacefully so it's a step above just saying  

47:34

you're going to be whatever religion your ruler  happens to be it's saying we could actually have   different Christian denominations here now it  was very limited as you know for John lock that  

47:43

didn't include Catholics um no Catholics and no  no atheists at that point um now I have often  

47:52

said and thought that it makes perfect sense  that liberalism in ultimately was not able to  

48:01

fulfill its own promise that it would actually be  able to genuinely tolerate Muslims yeah and we're  

48:07

seeing that playing out on so many levels today  and and really post 911 onwards it it escalate  

48:13

and then post Gaza it's become a big thing again  but you know when you look at the history this  

48:19

makes perfect sense liberalism wasn't created  actually to host um every species of Bel there  

48:27

had to be a commitment to the severance that made  it possible in the first place the severances that  

48:35

made it possible in the first place I.E either  Christian or post-christian but not Islam that's  

48:41

completely different that doesn't make sense  especially because Islam won't come in and be a  

48:49

polite minority and say we're not actually making  claims to the objective truth of Islam because  

48:56

they would like is an Islam which will come and  say well I'll just be a polite minority with   my private Faith as well and and get on with you  know contributing to being a good British Citizen  

49:04

and that's more important to me more British  than this um which is what you know many in  

49:11

the western establishment want Muslims to say and  and you know many Muslims have been very obliging  

49:17

unfortunately um but I think the reason that  liberalism has such trouble really tolerating  

49:24

Islam is because it's a counter Germany MH that's  how they really view it to be fair that's what it  

49:31

really is good yeah um and the only thing that  liberalism cannot tolerate is anything which  

49:40

undermines liberalism fantastic let's move on I  mean there's a lot more to disc that but I think  

49:46

we could insh I think we've almost got three or  four episodes that insh we'll in the future but  

The third bifurcation

49:52

let's when talk about faith and reason your third  Severance explain the that bation between faith  

49:58

and reason okay this is very interesting you know  mely the new atheists which you know were Richard  

50:06

Dawkins Daniel Dennett Sam Harris all these people  you know when I was growing up in the early 2000s  

50:12

they were very very popular and very very dominant  they're not massively that popular anymore thank   god um but I think that they're useful they're  useful case study just in terms of making sense of  

50:24

the split between faith and reason because it is  it is a historical phenomenon but what it led to  

50:29

and this is the test of all these severances what  do do they lead to this fundamental shaping of the  

50:37

basic assumptions of the average man and woman  in the street now Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris  

50:44

were actually completely inept philosophically  and theologically and many people you to give   them credit many excellent books came out and  and showed this but they were able to gain many  

50:59

committed followers to take a lot of people along  with them in their argument because they got you  

51:06

to accept their basic premise now I didn't accept  that premise you wouldn't have accepted that   premise you only go along with someone's argument  if you haven't stopped at the first hurdle and  

51:15

said although I didn't accept that premise that  you started with I'm not going to go along with   you to your conclusion that premise was religious  faith is Blind Faith you may as well believe in a  

51:25

pink elephant on Venus you might say this person's  religion is that there exists an all powerful pink  

51:32

elephant or very powerful at least on Venus  and that's their religion we have to respect   that because we're liberal it's nonsense you know  it's nonsense as with all religious believe that  

51:41

we respect it yeah we're we're tolerant well  let everyone believe whatever silly nonsense   they want as long as they don't try and impose it  on us right so um basically uh this conception of  

51:53

Faith as necessarily blind faith is something that  let's say it it passes although I hate using this  

52:01

term because there's no such thing but it passes  the average person in the street test it's basic  

52:07

common knowledge and basic common sorry common  wisdom and that is because of fundamentally the  

52:15

split between which is a a consequence of the  split between knowing subject and nature the  

52:21

split between the humanities and the hard Sciences  the only real binding knowledge we can have is of  

52:28

that which is empirical um or rooted directly in  the empirical and everything else at the end of  

52:34

the day is just subjective interpretation and it  has no real evidence for it and this is the this  

52:41

is what and and enabled the dorkin and others  of this world to make so much Headway because  

52:48

people were going along with this completely  false initial premise but this is the the  

52:56

the difficulty if you play into common assumptions  you can make a lot of progress it's all it's all   false can you explain that initial premise  uh suly are you arguing that at premises that  

Reasoning religious belief

53:08

uh religious Dogma can never be reasoned and  that's their premise yeah so this comes from a  

53:14

bation of knowing subject and knowing subject  and nature and if we would say more broadly  

53:24

knowing subject which is you know the individual  the individual self-consciousness self-awareness  

53:32

in inward Universe The Knowing subject who knows  the world and then instead of nature more broadly  

53:40

you could just say the extra mental whatever is  real outside of our minds this fundamental split  

53:46

between the two that the real properties and  the extramental world are the properties that  

53:54

the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century  decided are really there and they're actually  

54:01

a very questionable list and the historical  reality is that list was arrived at not so  

54:07

much because they're saying that is what's really  there in nature as because they were saying this  

54:12

is a methodological choice we're making because  treating nature in that way is more conducive to  

54:19

producing technology to mastering nature right  to to exploiting Nature to harnessing nature  

54:26

to our purposes decart is very explicit about this  Galileo is very explicit and that's obviously you  

54:32

know another split um I think we're still on the  faith and reason one here they're all related to  

54:37

each other um so this is again something we simply  take for granted well surely that's true well in  

54:47

fact the very methodological division the choice  to separate hard Sciences which are supposed to  

54:58

pertain in some sense to the empirical world  and the humanities let's say let's let's call  

55:04

them which are all ultimately fundamentally  subjective they're not really binding you can   have someone who's more sophisticated or less  sophisticated but even the really sophisticated  

55:12

but he's not really getting it objective reality  because it's not knowable even in principle okay  

55:18

that very methodological choice that there's  Humanities and there's hard changes is not  

55:26

itself an empirical judgment it's not itself  empirical judgment the experience we have of  

55:35

aesthetic judgments is something beautiful right  is an experience just as much of our experience  

55:42

as a of a sensible object is an experience right  our experience of let's say seeing sorry for the  

55:53

horrible image but seeing someone Del run over an  old lady in the street God forbid oppos as opposed  

56:01

to seeing someone flying across the road to save  the person saving them the feeling that we have  

56:08

the ethical judgment that that is good and the  other one is evil is just as much an experience  

56:14

as our experience of the empirical object our  metaphysical sense that they're underlying all  

56:20

of the phenomena there is a Unity which gives  meaning to it all which is beyond time that  

56:26

we are moving towards that reality we come from  that reality as in our our our intuition of the  

56:32

Divine is an experience just as much as that  empirical one by what rate and on what empirical  

Empirical vs Metaphysics

56:38

basis what empirical object tells me that this is  real science and all of that is just subjective  

56:48

there's no empirical experience it's not itself an  empirical judgment that is where metaphysics comes  

56:54

in that is a metaphysical physical judgment and  premodernity in the Islamic World obviously that  

57:02

goes up all the way up until early 20th century  and it's still retained to some extent but not  

57:08

with a very great degree of intelligibility and in  the Christian World up to 16th 17th century um and  

57:16

still kind of the flag was still held aoft by some  traditionalist Catholics right the way to the end  

57:22

um so there is continuity um but what they shared  in common is this understanding of the human  

57:29

Sciences as all interrelated and the physical  sciences not having a a privileged status and  

57:35

the idea that you can apply logic and very precise  modes of reasoning to non-sensible questions just  

57:44

as much as to empirical questions so questions  like the existence of God the existence of God  

57:52

objective morality yeah objective aesthetical  judgment and what everything that the the the  

58:00

20th century early 20th century positivist  in the Vienna Circle for example would have   called literally nonsense because they don't  refer to any empirical reality and guess what  

58:10

exactly the same thing happened to them to what I  just described about the Humanity's hard Sciences   split they realized hold on our own verification  principle which says that all true knowledge must  

58:21

have an empirical reference that very sentence all  true knowledge must have an empirical reference   where is the empirical reference and and that was  literally I mean simplifying it a bit but that was  

58:31

basically the way that positivism was decisively  discredited so this is again it's the air we  

58:38

breathe we we just tend to think of you know the  the hard Sciences are objective and and everything  

58:43

else is not but that is purely a theory Choice  presupposes a very idiosyncratic history and it's  

58:52

not at all what our tradition has ever thought I  challenge anyone to give me an Islamic thinker who  

58:59

has ever thought that who is not you know he's  obviously pre modernity who's who who was prior  

59:05

to any influence from Western post Enlightenment  modernity so you've covered your third and fourth  

The fourth bifurcation

59:12

Severance fair is there anything more to be  said about the knowing subject and nature ideal   should we move on I think we should we should do a  little bit more on that because it's really really  

59:20

important it's about this issue of the neutrality  of CCH yeah the the you know modern science is  

59:28

extraordinary it's produced amazing technology the  main I don't Advocate people stopping using it I  

59:37

can't live without it personally I don't think  that most people can either I think there are   very important ways that we can ameliorate  some of the very negative impacts that it  

59:47

has and you know that's obviously everyone's very  familiar with with all of that I'm not in any way  

59:53

Advocate advocating becoming a Lite or whatever  which is another very interesting historical  

59:59

movement which is actually discussed here um  Rage Against the Machines but all I'm saying  

1:00:05

is it's just a factual matter modern science  is not neutral it's not and what I mean is it's  

1:00:14

the it's this the the set of Sciences of modes of  human knowledge which purport to study the nature  

1:00:21

of the natural world well the way it does it is  not neutral it's not the way that Muslims did it  

1:00:27

either it's not the way that Muslims practiced  natural sence Now using the term science is very

1:00:36

anacronismo istic and it's and it's the same  even of the of the of the Western World until  

1:00:44

very recently this was called natural philosophy  the word science came in very very late there's  

1:00:49

a few faculties I think in abedine or something  but they still call it natural philosophy just   because they're you know the kind of it's a kind  of Heritage thing um and what what does that mean  

1:01:00

it means it used to be subordinated to philosophy  in their understanding of the Mana the the T the  

1:01:06

the kind of scheme of the Sciences it it it had a  place that was actually below metaphysics in The  

1:01:13

Ordering of the sentences it needed metaphysics  for its fundamental assumption so I can prove  

1:01:19

that it's not neutral in a few sentences there is  a theory Choice a methodological iCal move that is  

1:01:27

made in the Scientific Revolution in the guise  of thing and these are this is the these these  

1:01:34

particular things are cited with you know from the  primary sources in the book in the scientific re  

1:01:41

Revolution which are common to all of the major  thinkers Francis Bacon rened de cart Galileo and  

1:01:52

so on we'll just stay with those three for now so  what the but of course it encompasses all of them  

1:01:57

I mean you know you could go on and on and on and  you and even when the santic revolution becomes  

1:02:03

more explicitly Phil philosophical have think is  like Hobs and lock and so on they all reject final  

1:02:12

causation and formal causation now I'm going to  explain these the Aristotelian understanding of  

1:02:21

nature that they can't escape from because that  was what was dominant and they were all respons in   to it and they all know it and they're all using  the language recognizes four modes of explanation  

1:02:33

of nature they're actually called causes I mean  it it it transcends what we call nature but anyway  

1:02:40

we call them the four causes so they are the  efficient cause the material cause the formal  

1:02:49

cause and the final cause Okay so let's take  the classic example of a a bed that a carpenter  

1:02:55

making because it's just a met classic example and  it's very illustrative so the effici the efficient  

1:03:01

cause which brings the thing out of non-existence  into existence the action is the carpenter right  

1:03:09

the material cause are the pieces of wood  that he uses the wood the formal cause is the  

1:03:17

configuration the relations of the components that  configuration which is in his mind before it's  

1:03:25

out there there's a plan of it exactly how all the  parts relate that very configuration the aggregate  

1:03:32

of all the relations is the form okay that's what  the thing is but there's another very important  

1:03:41

aspect of what the thing is which is the final  cause the purpose what is it for so a bed is for  

1:03:50

sitting on or sleeping in right the carpenter is  deficient cause he's the one who brings it out of  

1:03:57

non-existence into existence on a pattern the form  that he has in mind the idea that he has in mind  

1:04:05

which is the um uh that specific configuration and  it's all tending towards a purpose which is the  

1:04:12

final cause now in traditional science science and  this is all the provider says about using the word  

1:04:22

science studies all the four causes when it comes  to Nature the form is also called The Essence the  

1:04:30

essence of a thing it's innermost nature now we  were talking about a man-made object but things in  

1:04:35

nature have Essences as well they have forms now  those forms there's human nature there's a n the  

1:04:41

nature of a tree there's a nature of whatever  it happens to be these are not construable as  

1:04:47

physical because they are the metaphysical pattern  that orders the physical aspects the empirical  

1:04:53

properties and so on and and everything  in nature has a purpose as well so the a  

1:05:01

traditional conception of physics as subordinated  to metaphysics absolutely took into account the  

1:05:09

purposes of nature what are they for what are  they tending towards so and that's of course  

1:05:17

their Telos to use the artian term so there was  a methodological move again we have the actual qu  

1:05:26

original quotation from the primary text and bacon  and deart and others we have this methodological  

1:05:31

move to explicitly throw out purposes and Essences  from nature that's not because they were saying  

1:05:42

this is objectively true they were and this is  how it's misunderstood as neutral this they're   just saying what reality is really like they don't  know what reality is really like they've already  

1:05:50

excluded everything which would make sense of what  it is what what what are left are the efficient  

1:05:57

cause and the material cause that's what uh the  physical sciences should study the other thing is  

1:06:08

they have this distinction between there are  many things but one other important thing is  

1:06:13

disting between secondary qualities and primary  qualities and they say all that actually exists   in nature are primary qualities which are purely  quantitative things like number figure solidity  

1:06:25

things which can be empirically measurable and  all those other things which are part and parcel   of the experience of a thing you know like the  colors that make up the world and so on are and  

1:06:39

more or less everything which is on the level of  real quality as as the the Aristotelian category  

1:06:45

become purely subjective those are not actually  there in the object and just as we have in the  

1:06:51

modern conception you know oh modern science tells  us that what's really here is not me and Jalal  

1:06:57

but it's all of these fundamental particles and  interacting and and and purely physical properties  

1:07:04

which are somehow what is real and we're somehow  just kind of parasitic somehow and that we not  

1:07:11

well what's not really real even our Consciousness  is supposed to be an epip phenomenon of these of  

1:07:16

these neurons blindly firing funny irony is how  did we find out about that that that was the  

1:07:24

case it's through this epop phenomenon which is  supposed to be parasitic so the whole idea that  

1:07:30

somehow Consciousness is not real whereas only by  Consciousness that you've been able to say that   it's not real so that's a kind of another Paradox  um but so you know yeah I mean that's that's what  

1:07:41

is most fundamental to and this is this is a  forgotten methodological move and that's never  

1:07:50

changed and what was this all in Aid of it was in  Aid of a mechanis IC understanding of nature which  

1:07:59

could be manipulated and exploited through the  predictive power of mathematical modeling right  

1:08:09

as in it's not so much they're saying this is the  real nature of nature it doesn't have purposes or   Essence they're saying for for our purposes we  don't want to look at that they're a distraction  

1:08:19

yeah that's really interesting so in a sense are  you arguing there sort of it's nonrecognition of  

non-recognition of Metaphysics

1:08:25

the metaphysical in modern scientific method  is essentially an irrational uh uh move it's  

1:08:34

it's an irrational way of looking at uh at the  scientific world I think it can be rational as  

1:08:44

long as you acknowledge this is a methodological  move I'm making I'm not saying this is the real  

1:08:50

nature of reality but it's a methodological  move because I want to produce technology sure  

1:08:55

and looking con construing nature in this way even  if I know that there's more to it than that is  

1:09:02

conducive to the production of the development of  Technology yeah the problem I have is when Muslims  

1:09:11

blly accept modern science as the ultimate  knowledge standard so as I say in the book  

1:09:16

you have this kind of new priesthood this kind of  fetishization and totalization of modern science  

1:09:24

and the enger and the Doctor Who become the new  kind of high priest of the society you go to the   engineer and the doctor for everything they will  tell you everything because they know everything  

1:09:33

um because of the way that uh the way that modern  science has been misconceived um and I think that  

1:09:42

uh unfortunately in the period of colonialism um  and colonization there was not a and I don't blame  

1:09:50

obviously I mean it was it was not a time where  it was possible for um thought and philosophy and  

1:09:59

this type of investigation to necessarily Thrive  easily but there was an insufficiently critical  

1:10:06

appraisal of the nature of mity when it came in  and I would say that it mostly comes down to what  

1:10:12

must of a subri the last sh Islam says we mistook  a marshal victory for an intellectual Victory we  

1:10:17

were just so overwhelmed by by being taken over  and conquered yeah and we felt well you know  

1:10:25

we've we we need to catch up one has to remember  the imposition of these positivist and in many  

1:10:35

cases kind of Proto or Quasi liberalist on the  political and ethical level conceptions uh through  

1:10:44

the imposition of this kind of universalized and  really mostly rather Third Rate unfortunately uh  

1:10:52

secular educational system on the Muslim world  was absolutely simultaneous with a systematic  

1:10:58

dismantling of our indigenous alternative right  which is Islam which is Islam and our knowledge  

1:11:06

structures and our knowledge systems so we  don't even have that authentic lens through   which to appraise what we're seeing you're  seeing that's been taken away from us at the  

1:11:15

same time as the alternative has been forced upon  us and we're being told it's neutral I mean it's   not surprising then that after the Indian  Mutiny maybe tens of thousands of of Imam  

1:11:25

were were murdered were executed by the British  Absolut this is to remove that Islamic Knowledge  

1:11:33

from from society very similar thing under yeah  very similar thing yeah so your fifth uh and  

The final bifurcation

1:11:40

final bation or Severance is a division between  metaphysics and morality explain that division  

1:11:47

please yeah you might also say you know between  morality and ontology what it basically means and  

1:11:54

it's if you'll forgive me for introducing this  here it's what leads to the Gaza genocide is the  

1:12:01

idea that ethical Frameworks might sound nice  might sound might sound lovely but at the end  

1:12:11

of the day they're subjective they're not really  bounding their choices their faith even and this  

1:12:18

has very very weighty consequences because people  are looking at horror gas why isn't International  

1:12:25

law binding why isn't it being applied why is  there no mechanism by which it can simply be  

1:12:34

those concern can simply be compelled to abide by  its dictates well it's because what is at play is  

1:12:42

something much more fundamental than the internal  structure of international law international  

1:12:48

law is based on in in terms of philosophical  buildup of propositions on natural law that's it  

1:12:55

historical Genesis H grus and all of these key  thinkers and so exists in this uneasy tension  

1:13:05

with another dominant philosophical position  in Western thought which is melanism I would  

1:13:11

argue that what is really what is the reality on  the ground politically in the western well today  

1:13:19

and when it comes to international relations and  international politics and power politics is mavan  

1:13:25

is M that's the bottom line explain Melia melanism  to our listen the melanism is to put it crudely  

1:13:34

might is right whatever you need to do in order  to achieve your political aims and cement your  

1:13:42

power you do whatever you need to do the absence  of Morality In in the political realm absolutely  

The west’s Machiavellianism

1:13:49

the absence of Morality In the political realm the  ends justify the means the ends are subjectively  

1:13:57

determined they're basically determined by power  interests and if we're America we're very immoral  

1:14:06

so we believe in international law but then  we're not going to apply it yeah because it's  

1:14:14

actually a post or our power interests but we  do believe in it and we are actually very good   at moral because we believe in international law  and fairness and you know an international rules  

1:14:23

based system and some but we're not going to play  it we're going to keep on vetoing vetoing vetoing  

1:14:30

at the end of the day why because if you look at  the actual structure of commitment philosophically  

1:14:37

inescapably it's on a philosophical level what  do we actually believe about the universe it's   MERS rate Will To Power it's not actually natural  law that there are inherent rates that every human  

1:14:50

being has in virtue of their nature in virtue of  the nature of things in light of the the nature  

1:14:57

of things um there are intrinsic moral values and  judgments which are binding on all human beings  

1:15:06

that's what international law has to be based on  because the problem with international law is it  

1:15:12

transcends the internal positive law of a Nation  but then which is of course binding because of the  

1:15:20

um the structure of punishment and of enforcement  on so it's binding in that sense you don't need to  

1:15:27

invoke natural law it's binding because you're  going to get in trouble and you're going to be   punished the the problem comes when it when when  you you're faced with the problem of the of the  

1:15:36

pluralism of these systems of positive internal  law domestic law and how are you going to relate  

1:15:44

to one one another now again the kind of survival  of the Fist might is right to rec of alienism is  

1:15:50

say well if we're more powerful than you then you  will do what we say well that is actually that  

1:15:58

that that is and always has been operative just  to say finally they have been you know why did  

1:16:04

all this why why do you have the League of Nations  and you have the uh Universal you know the charter   of Human Rights and you have the um nurenberg  trails and you have thec and the incj all of this  

1:16:18

statute yeah I would say somewhat cynically  but I would say that the these these obtain  

1:16:25

in so far as you have a Europe and you have a USA  and you have a a Soviet Union obviously you're  

1:16:31

playing with different time periods here but to  speak very broadly which are all real players they  

1:16:38

have to be taken in consideration you know this is  before the total you know uni polarization of the  

1:16:45

world with America you actually it it matters that  there is a there is a there's a real Power Balance  

1:16:51

and you have to respect that and so we're going  to have a system of of uh of you know rules-based  

1:16:57

system in place which can uh provide this  framework within which we're going to have our  

1:17:04

treaties and we're going to interact and so on but  the the reality is when it comes to a nation that  

1:17:10

has no real standing and no real position in that  game um it doesn't really apply I don't think it  

1:17:17

ever has it's really interesting I know we spoke  about this in our last conversation but liberals   argue that they' moveed beyond that the FUSD milon  dialogue the idea that might is right yeah and  

Liberalism’s Façade

1:17:29

and now we do have something called International  humanitarian law and we do have these moral codes  

1:17:38

which everyone can subscribe to your argument  is fact at best that's no more than a like a  

1:17:45

a fig Le it's fair to pretend that there is a  greater cause to the west and its International  

1:17:52

order when in reality um it international law is  is subservient to this Machiavellian power game  

1:18:00

I would say that natural law international law is  engaged in a losing battle with melanism right now  

1:18:06

um look I don't want to be misunderstood I'm not  saying that No One Believes In human rights and   they're not sincere um and you know it doesn't  have any reality whatsoever ever yeah um but  

1:18:16

you have these moments where the masks come off  you see the real exactly so the real underlying  

1:18:22

Dynamic is not that yeah that's what they wanted  that's what they wanted us to think and there's  

1:18:29

been a lot of steps in that direction you know for  throughout the history of the last 20 years and  

1:18:34

you know the war on Iraq was a big moment and and  the war on terror and and you know the that what  

1:18:41

what took place with the the suspension of civil  Li Liberties in the UK and the US and especially  

1:18:47

directed towards Muslims and all sorts of things  but I think Gaza is the real mask off moment the  

1:18:52

decisive one and I think it's one which has you  with this kind of resurgence Resurgence is not  

1:19:00

really the word with this kind of sudden emergence  of what they're calling the global South is this   real um force to be reckoned with and that can't  be ignored anymore yeah um simultaneous to this  

1:19:12

kind of masks off moment I think it is a very very  weighty and momentous significant let me ask you  

Gaza western hegemony

1:19:18

about it because on X you sent out a post where  you said October the 7th was a defining event that  

1:19:24

exposes the DET terminal moral illegitimacy of the  West can you elaborate on how that's how October  

1:19:30

7 symbolizes this crumbl in Western hegemony I  think there are so many different levels to it  

1:19:37

I don't think it's going to be a straightforward  process I don't think that you know I talk about   the crumbling of hegemony um you know there are  going to be a lot of twists and turns and ups and  

1:19:46

downs and and the the West is still enormously  powerful I don't think I think you know we can't   get kind of lost in this in the the excitement of  the moment because it is significant but we should  

1:19:58

kind of constrain restrain ourselves constrain  ourselves to its actual significance um I think uh  

1:20:06

its actual significance is the is the breakdown  of the post 1945 kind of moral narrative and  

1:20:14

universe which is basically the Western World  triumphed over evil the ultimate embodiment of  

1:20:22

evil which was Nazism Nazis M was kind of Pure  Evil and this is you know embodied by epitomized  

1:20:34

by the concentration camps and you know the war  was waged in order to liberate the concentration  

1:20:42

camps and and to save the Jews and to instantiate  Human Rights and that was what it was all about  

1:20:50

it was you know it was a just war and you know  one of the few truly just Wars because they were  

1:20:56

fighting this absolute epitomy of evil and then  in the newbur trials afterwards you know we had  

1:21:02

to say never again so we instantiated the system  of international law and accountability and so  

1:21:09

on and we put them on trail now look let's just  start with two things which are wrong with that   narrative first of all the second world war wasn't  waged in order to save the Jews it wasn't waged in  

1:21:26

order to liberate the concentration camps yes  in fact Jewish refugees were systematically  

1:21:36

sent home yeah turned away yeah turned away in  their boats still on their boats at the when you  

1:21:44

know obviously the Nazi persecution of the Jews  had become a reality and was had become to to a  

1:21:54

certain extent known in the and was being reported  in the western media at the outset of the war and  

1:21:59

so on um there was a deliberate policy of turning  the Jews away although it was known that they  

1:22:05

were facing severe uh danger dangers um now one  other thing is the Newberg Trails did you notice  

1:22:18

them putting Churchill and bummer Harris and rth R  well revelt had just died but did you notice them  

1:22:27

putting themselves on trail for the firebombing  of Hamburg for the firebombing of dresdon for the  

1:22:37

obliteration of hundreds of other uh Germany  German towns completely gratuitously because  

1:22:45

they weren't even military targets and of course  it came out after the war it was um by whatever  

1:22:52

process um but it was eventually made public the  documents which showed that this was deliberate  

1:22:59

Pro policy this actually was Terror bombing it  was deliberate Terror bombing the firebombing   of Tokyo the nuking of Hiroshima they weren't put  on trail under international law for these crimes  

1:23:11

these atrocities um and so nonetheless were  brought up with this narrative that the second  

1:23:21

world war was this just War another thing is that  the when it comes to the concentration camps the  

1:23:31

uh Allied Powers knew about the concentration  camps long before they um were liberated yeah  

1:23:38

they never got rid of them they never bombed them  they never um uh they never put a stop to it um  

1:23:46

so and and of course all of the details of what  came to be known in the 1970s as the Holocaust um  

1:23:54

and I don't for a moment deny uh huge atrocities  and indeed a holocaust which was perpetrated  

1:24:01

against the Jews but this was not known During the  period of the war in any way so um the the moral  

1:24:10

narrative that has come down to us that this  was fundamentally fighting ultimate you know  

1:24:15

absolute evil of Hitler is just not accurate  in any way that wasn't Hitler was the one who  

1:24:21

was trying to make peace with Britain cons  consistently throughout especially in 1940  

1:24:27

and those uh those attempts were all rebuffed he  actually wanted as his absolutely establish a main  

1:24:34

mainstream history wanted to make peace uh with  the British especially because of his admiration   for the British Empire so I'm not denying  that Hitler was evil he was an evil man but  

1:24:46

churel was an evil man um he you know very likely  played an instrumental role in the Bengal famine  

1:24:57

which killed 4 million people um he was The Man  Behind the firebombing even when Harris who was  

1:25:05

very enthusiastic about it as well you know we're  talking about February 1945 the Germans have lost  

1:25:12

church WIll pushes him now we're going to flatten  Dron going to kill tens of thousands of people of  

1:25:18

course we don't know the real numbers of you know  non-military Target civilians just you know for  

1:25:25

the terror of it break break civilian morale so  you know the point is all of these all of these  

1:25:33

inconsistencies in the actual narrative are not  generally known they're becoming much better known  

1:25:40

now in the last 5 10 years but they certainly  The Narrative that has dominated post 1945 about  

1:25:48

you know the what the the liberal West saved the  world and it was just such a wonderful thing sure  

1:25:55

Nazism was a terrible thing but the slave  trade the slave trade the African slave trade  

1:26:05

colonialism all of the outrages of the colonial  period the genocide of the Native Americans this  

1:26:14

is all post Enlightenment liberal civilization so  you know this Narrative of of light and darkness  

1:26:23

were all brought up in it I used to believe it  even though I was brought up in a you a very very  

1:26:29

uh committed and and spiritually committed and  and and religiously committed Muslim family but  

1:26:35

you know I had a western schooling in an ordinary  state school I was brought up to believe that as   well I used to feel you burst with pride when  I saw a documentary about the Battle of Britain  

1:26:44

and we saved the world and everything when in  fact you know who defeated the Nazis it was   actually the Russians the role that we played was  mostly in the air War bombing German CI cities it  

1:26:56

was the real um uh ground war yeah yeah the real  ground war was was totally um totally conducted  

1:27:05

on the Eastern front in any case um the point is  that is the narrative that held for a long long  

1:27:11

time the reality is Nazism liberalism just one  of the better term and communism they are all  

Ideologies and modernity

1:27:22

the same that different manifestations of the  same phenomenon which is modernity and I you  

1:27:32

you can say that liberal civilization is let's  say the the kind of Patron philosophers of the  

1:27:40

British empiricists you know Hume and Loch and  these people Adam Smith and so on and and you  

1:27:46

know Nazi Germany was a more of a a nitrium  modernity and of course you know the Soviet  

1:27:54

modernity was more of a Marxist modernity but  these are all ideologues of modernity in this  

1:28:00

philosophical sense that I'm talking about I would  say that was you know you know as it says in the

1:28:06

Quran you know these are these this was a  this was a civil war of modernity between  

1:28:17

there wasn't there wasn't a good guy there it  it was it was evil against evil and of course   I'm not saying on an individual level I don't  believe that my great-grandfather who fought  

1:28:25

in the battle of the S was evil but I'm saying  in terms of the ideologies which were at play  

1:28:31

I don't think that there was a good guy but what  do we grow up with we grow up with this idea that   the West is its whole CLA moral claim is based on  defeating ultimate Evil and freeing the world in  

1:28:42

the second world war yeah well it's it's not  true on so many different levels finally the   final point on this you know the second world  war was you know the the ostensible cause the  

1:28:56

ostensible occasion of the start of the war was  protecting the sovereignty of Poland right that  

1:29:03

was the ostensible occasion for for declaring war  what happened at the end of the war the whole of  

1:29:11

Eastern Europe including Poland was given over to  an even worse well you know an arguably even worse  

1:29:18

certainly more murderous dictator than Hitler  yeah at East Stalin so you know even on that  

1:29:24

there are large inconsistencies even on that level  but what is Gaza Gaza is a live streamed horror  

1:29:37

that we've all looked at those images and we've  whipped we've all looked at those images and we've  

1:29:44

cried and we have been deeply hurt by it deeply  affected by it in a way that has never happened  

1:29:53

before for and the images we're seeing are worse  than anything we've ever seen at even at BV VA or  

1:30:02

at or at at wherever it happens to be we've never  seen images like that they have broken the barrier  

1:30:10

they've pushed the boundaries of horror and it's  all been live streamed to our phones and the   technology that they created and we know they're  in a position to stop this tomorrow yeah we know  

1:30:24

they're in a position to stop this tomorrow and  we know that they're not and it's calling into  

1:30:30

question everything that we've ever been taught  about the inherent goodness of Western liberalism  

1:30:41

it's a masks off moment and it's a point of no  return we can't go back after this you know look  

1:30:48

the Iraq War was a was a horror and and I happen  to know on a very close level people who were able

1:30:57

to make me feel what that was really about almost  as much as what I know about Gaza because I of the  

1:31:06

stories and the I know the people who died and the  the the direct impact that it had on people but on  

1:31:12

this Mass level that's only if you know people  that wasn't live streamed to the world like what  

1:31:18

we're seeing today and it wasn't as concentrated  and as brutal and as Shameless as what we're  

1:31:26

seeing today there wasn't this deliberate  targeting of civilians in the same way that  

1:31:32

we're s today there weren't you know these sniper  shots to the heads of children um this systematic  

1:31:39

genocide that we're seeing unfolding and again  the whole moral claim of the West is supposed to  

1:31:45

be or we saved the day when there was a genocide  the ultimate genocide but now they're letting it  

1:31:51

happen they're making it happen they are enablers  they're more than enablers Hass this is really  

Islams counter-hegemony

1:32:00

fascinating uh conversation and and I really  would like to explore so many strands there and   I think our viewers will probably suggest that  we need to have you back in the studio to talk  

1:32:09

about a lot of this in in a lot more detail but  let's talk about the Islam part of this because  

1:32:15

I I was struck by a phrasy used uh in in that  conversation that Islam provides a counter hemony  

1:32:24

um unpack that for me what what is it about Islam  because of course that's not you know many Muslims  

1:32:30

but certainly non Muses will not see you know they  noticed your critique and then and you know very  

1:32:36

many will agree with your critique of modernity  uh but Islam doesn't seem the automatic Faith  

1:32:43

at least for non-muslims to go to to provide this  counter hemony so explain that counter hemony idea  

1:32:50

to me please well what I meant by that is really  the that this is an this is to view Islam in a  

1:32:57

negative light from the liberalist perspective  but what it also exposes in a way I mean I don't  

1:33:06

necessarily want to use that sensationalist  language yeah is the fact that uh liberalism is  

1:33:13

hegemonic yeah now how that's paradoxical because  one of the core tenants principles of liberalism  

1:33:19

is it is setting up the societ in the kind of  rulan way let's not go there to rules but let's  

1:33:28

say they setting up the society in this neutral  way so that everyone is able to pursue their own  

1:33:35

vision of the god without let or hindrance yeah  now there's one exception to this if your pursuit  

1:33:41

of the good would serve to undermine liberalism  itself that's a great danger for them because  

1:33:49

they'll say well what will happen to the pluralism  it will be awful they won't be able to host all of   these different arbitrary beliefs anymore so I  wasn't necessarily saying we should view Islam  

1:33:59

as a counter hegemony because I wouldn't use  that word myself I don't I don't think we we   we purport to be or aspire to be hegemonic in  that sense yeah but what I but but absolutely  

1:34:11

we offer an alternative that is a comprehensive  view of existence it's also the framework in which  

1:34:19

you accommodate diversity and you know we were  second To None we are the gold standard in Islam  

1:34:27

in terms of the historical record in terms of our  civilizational principles for accommodating the  

1:34:32

other in a real way that doesn't relativize that  doesn't say you can have your own Silly private  

1:34:38

belief in the wrong name and all that kind of  stuff as long as you're exactly the same as us in   every way yeah in you know in what matters which  is contributing to the economy and so on having  

1:34:47

you know working and um you know contributing in  in you know academically and the arts and media  

1:34:57

and whatever it happens to me you know the the  the me hash of the world for example not saying  

1:35:02

anything about him as a person because I don't  know but I'm just saying you know he he he's   he's attractive to the that mindset that he's  he's he's just one of us but he's a Muslim and  

1:35:14

and you know we can relate to him um not saying  anything about obviously his personal level of  

1:35:19

commitment which I think is very strong actually  but just the way that he's perceived so this is  

1:35:24

um I think a real issue for liberalism is the the  extent to which it can it can it can tolerate real  

1:35:34

diversity not just superficial diversity yeah  remember on empiricism all that really exists  

1:35:41

are empirical properties so that's what they can  tolerate but when it comes to real conviction you  

1:35:47

know would they have okay now they've managed to  um tick that box of diversity because they've had  

1:35:53

riches sunak as the Prime Minister but if he had  been a Sufi shik and an Alim would they have let  

1:36:00

him yeah no it's because he's more neoliberal than  the neoliberals so all that diversity how is how  

1:36:07

is that diversity what's diverse about him you  can say he had to overcompensate and as you said  

1:36:13

he was more thatcherite than most conservatives  were at this stage exactly yeah exactly and you  

1:36:18

know Barack Obama was more establishment than the  establishment yeah um so I think that's always  

1:36:23

um I think that kind of shows what I'm getting at  when I say that liberalism is not really capable  

1:36:30

of tolerating Islam on on any real level yeah  now you know our our approach as Muslims look  

1:36:40

I want us to have this knowledge of critique  so that we can be empowered by it right not so  

1:36:46

that we can be disempowered by it go into our  ghettos and our bubbles and say oh they're bad   and modernity is bad and you know the no there's  much good in modernity there's good in everything  

1:36:57

which Allah T has created and we there's much  good in the non-muslim population of the West  

1:37:07

many good human beings who have are on a good f  a good original disposition many future Muslims  

1:37:16

uh many people of good faith and Goodwill but  I think it's also important to realize that  

1:37:23

simply you know contributing to Modern  liberal secular society it's always going  

1:37:30

to be unsatisfying for us ultimately as Muslims  if that's where the buck stops that's all there  

1:37:37

is to it because there is a Telos there is a  purpose just as in any social configuration and  

1:37:46

political structure there is a there is a Telos to  Modern liberal Society just is there is a Telos to  

1:37:58

uh and I'm speaking in the very broadest sense  to Islamic civilization and and to to Islamic  

1:38:04

political systems and Islamic polies and every  political system you can think of and the Telos of  

1:38:12

modern liberal civilization is the facilitation of  arbitrary self-determination I would say and there  

1:38:21

are other ways of looking at it if you looking at  it from an economic lens you'd say something else   um and that may be more of an overarching Telos um  and if you wanted to be cynical you could say all  

1:38:33

of the stuff about freedom is just to distract  you while you're being exploited economically   and so on um and that what is really happening  is that we're ruled by an aligar and there's  

1:38:42

a lot of truth to all of that kind of thing  but I I don't particularly want to go there   now I just think that as Muslims we need to be  empowered by this knowledge so that we can stop  

1:38:53

being bound by The Narrative of contributing and  we're British too and don't worry about us we're  

1:39:00

just like you and so yes on the human level we're  just like you but no on a on a on another level  

1:39:06

we have something to offer you to help you to  save you to open your mind to liberate you not  

1:39:13

in your conception of world religions oh you're  trying to force your religion on me no in the  

1:39:19

sense that if you can deconstruct the assumptions  that non-muslims hold about modernity which are  

1:39:26

not true just like we hold them then you can say  there's a completely different way of looking at  

1:39:31

the world which is not a question of Blind  Faith you becoming a Muslim it's you seeing  

1:39:37

something about the world that you were veiled  from previously by those assumptions and that's  

1:39:42

where we we say look Islam is not a religion of  Blind Faith and identity and in which case W Earth  

1:39:50

would an English person want to become Muslim it  it takes away all all of the familiarity and you  

1:39:55

know intimacy they have with their own environment  their own cultures their own their own culture   their own history their own architecture their  own lived built environments on but it's something  

1:40:05

completely different to that and it is unifying  reunifying what should be whole but which has  

1:40:15

been severed systematically and ideologically in  Western history and and those are the five bations  

1:40:23

and those that what is most significant and I  think this is really what we've been building   up to is that what is severed in the Christian  postchristian world has always been whole and  

1:40:34

unified and indivisible and integral in the Muslim  world there's no split between law and spirit  

1:40:46

there's no split between temporal power and sacred  power there's no split between faith and reason  

1:40:54

there's no split between knowing subject and  nature and there's no split between morality  

1:40:59

and ontology and so what we need to do  is on the community level our neighbors  

1:41:09

Muslim and non-muslim but I'm thinking  mostly about the Muslim as a starting   point is on the level of our neighbors on  the Nevel of level of families and friends  

1:41:24

and the larger community that we enact on a  community level we start to instantiate on a  

1:41:32

community level what tashko brazada and the great  ottoman theorists of Ethics like him call where  

City of Love

1:41:43

the Telos the purpose of our human Association in  societies is the cultivation of love love of God  

1:41:53

God and love a fellow man and so we and it's  essentially instantiating the prophetic model  

1:42:04

making sure that there's no one left behind who do  we know who is in trouble who do we know who is in  

1:42:12

need who who do we know who is in poverty and on  a level of devotion on a level of spirit uality  

1:42:24

having Gatherings instantiating Gatherings within  our communities where we have vior we have this  

1:42:33

deep experiential appreciation of the dean and we  make sure to cultivate that and we cultivate that  

1:42:41

also with the social level and you know the the  Underground Level the Grassroots level um there's  

1:42:48

so many families there's so many individuals who  are victims of this socially atomized Society we  

1:42:54

have to stop leaving them behind yeah and leaving  them on on their own and not allowing them to have  

1:43:03

a place where they can be embraced and brought in  that means bringing back zakat on a community and  

1:43:10

local local level um and it means um putting in  place all of the institutions well not all of the  

1:43:21

institutions it has to be obviously to some degree  compromised by it being on a community level  

1:43:26

rather than a a state level but the institutions  that in a traditional Islamic Society are put in  

1:43:35

place like the AA for example which obviously you  know very very wide- ranging um on the level of  

1:43:44

patronage of intellectual activity and and on the  level of looking after the poor um uh where and of  

1:43:51

course on on the level of madress is and the good  news is a lot of this is happening there's a kind   of Renaissance of all of this kind of activity  in our communities I just think that it needs to  

1:44:01

be as we move forward more focused on classical  ethical models more explicitly because I think  

1:44:10

there's a lot there which can Inspire us um and uh  so that we can become more organized the problem  

1:44:18

with organization is it can start to happen on you  know a kind of weberian rationalized level um and  

1:44:27

that's not what we want we need a traditional  understanding that our associations are for a  

1:44:33

purpose which is and ultimately on the on the most  fundamental level in Islam it's the vice jeny it's  

1:44:40

the C custodianship it's the stewardship of the  world and we need to show non-muslims not because  

1:44:48

I to show them anything because but because this  is the reality of our religion we're not we're   not real realizing it that we our religion is  holistic it encompasses everything unfortunately  

1:44:59

the ghettos that we live in um that kind of  ghettoization while very understandable and  

1:45:05

not in any way to discredit the enormous huge  contributions of the the communities that have  

1:45:11

come here and established Islam who you know as  they say in Arabica we have maximal respect for  

1:45:18

them but moving forward we need to have an Islam  which is holistic which Embraces every aspect of  

1:45:25

life not this sense that somehow we're kind of  you know almost like Orthodox Judaism we we we  

1:45:31

know we're so concerned about being pure and pure  of outside influences that we end up you know just  

1:45:37

being in this in insular and and and so on and  and I'm afraid that that I'm by I'm far from the  

1:45:43

the the first person to have said this and um I  appreciate obviously the challenges which have led  

1:45:48

to that situation how much of what you're saying  um is for a greater purpose um I'm I'm um when you  

Strength of modernity

1:45:57

while you were speaking there until you you you  caveated at the end um it sounded very similar to  

1:46:04

Rod Dreer and his Benedict option the idea that  modernity now is so overpowering and so strong  

1:46:11

uh we can no longer defeat or critique modernity  in a substantial way and so we need to hold on  

1:46:18

to our Goods as best as possible like is is that  is that the ultimate end of this this community  

1:46:26

building project or do you feel that there can be  a a a Resurgence Beyond um holding on to Islam and  

1:46:36

and building these institutions uh in so much as  you know in my introduction I mentioned the author  

1:46:44

whose name I forget who wrote the book after  defeat and yeah know almost like an acceptance   that Islam like Catholicism has to accept that  it's never going to return in a in an ottoman  

1:46:54

esque way like do you believe that um the great  days the great history of Islam is in the past and  

1:47:01

now it's sort of we have to create a a uh a living  which accepts begrudgingly uh the the precepts of  

1:47:13

modernity well look we don't know where we are  in the in the estr olical story um we don't know  

1:47:20

precisely but what we do know is the Propet of  said he said who you know if the hour comes upon  

1:47:28

you and you have a Seedling her you have to plant  it regardless of where you are regardless of how  

1:47:36

dire things look yeah and so we are not we are  not charged to know where we are um in the story  

1:47:44

of the um is is is a a Resurgence possible is it  impossible we don't know what we know is this is  

1:47:54

Allah's plan this is his affair as it says even as  it says in the Quran directed towards the prophet  

1:48:06

Sall was you know you you have nothing in this  affair this is God's Affair this is his decree  

1:48:12

unfolding I've said and you know I was criticized  widely for it that modernity didn't our present  

1:48:22

situation Visa modernity and feeling defeated  by it is not so much because of our failure to  

1:48:28

progress as it is an ex an estr olical exigency  this has to happen this has to happen it's part  

1:48:37

of the uh what we're told has to happen um uh in  in in the latter days now those latter days 300  

1:48:46

years 400 years 500 years a thousand years I have  no idea and I don't think anyone should bother  

1:48:52

themselves with that that all we know is that if  we have a Seedling we have to plant it right um  

1:48:59

so we can't have a defeatist attitude we have the  revealed truth we have the transformative truth we  

1:49:09

have to reconnect with those individuals who are  still carrying that and inheriting that and I'm  

1:49:14

a firm believer in the reality of sainthood the  reality of individuals who are true inheritors  

1:49:21

of the Prophet on inward level and I think  that's normative to our tradition and I think  

1:49:27

another aspect of our weakness is the loss of that  conception and there are a lot of frauds there's  

1:49:33

a lot of fraudulent claims there are a lot of  shatons but the existence of those should not um  

1:49:41

should not blind us from the existence of willia  I think that is something that we absolutely it's  

1:49:47

part and parcel of Islam it goes right back to the  original sources the the understanding of willia  

1:49:53

and we we need to reconnect to that and you know  separate the wheat from the chaff there are a   lot of charlatans where there are criteria there  are so we have to be very very careful but not to  

1:50:02

the extent that it blinds us from the reality  because that's our real connection Islam is a  

1:50:08

transformative path like no other and that's what  we need to communicate I think to non-muslims on  

1:50:15

a DA level is that this is a Liberation and this  is a comprehensive way of life which will get you  

1:50:22

out of that route and enable you to um become  a truly fulfilled person um and at the end of  

Islam will save modernity

1:50:31

the day yes I believe that modernity can be saved  um and it can be saved by Islam and I think that  

1:50:39

that's what we should be doing here it's not a  question that it's going to happen in the west   or it's going to happen in the Muslim world or  we have to make HRA or we have to stay here I  

1:50:49

think in both both are are serious options and  should remain serious options but I think what  

1:50:54

has to be recognized is that the illusion of  a universal neutral civilization has infected  

1:51:01

the west and the Muslim World alike almost  universally in the Muslim world but I think  

1:51:06

Real Islam will overcome in both cases inshah  tala H sping on that note thank you very much  

1:51:14

for your your time today and how conversations  is that could have here thank you very much it   was a great pleasure where you please remember  to subscribe to our social media and YouTube  

1:51:25

channels and head over to our website thinking  muslim.com to sign up to my Weekly Newsletter