DEBATE: Yasir Qadhi vs. Mustafa Akyol | Islam and the State
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июн 2024
- Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, Dean of the Islamic Seminary of America, and Mustafa Akyol, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and Affiliate Scholar of the Collins Center, discuss “Should government and religion be separate?”
The Acton Institute’s Collins Center for Abrahamic Heritage organized this debate, moderated by Nathan Mech, as the first part in a series on the relationship between government and religion.
The Acton Institute is a think-tank whose mission is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.
This direction recognizes the benefits of a limited government, but also the beneficent consequences of a free market. It embraces an objective framework of moral values, but also recognizes and appreciates the subjective nature of economic value. It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants.
In order to promote a more profound understanding of the coming together of faith and liberty, Acton involves members of religious, business, and academic spheres in its various seminars, publications, and academic activities. It is our hope that by demonstrating the compatibility of faith, liberty, and free economic activity, religious leaders and entrepreneurs can contribute by helping to shape a society that is secure, free, and virtuous.
Visit our website: www.acton.org/
Subscribe to the Acton Line Podcast: www.acton.org/acton-line/
Visit the Acton Bookshop: shop.acton.org/
Follow Acton on Facebook: / actoninstitute
Follow Acton on Twitter: / actoninstitute
Follow Acton on Instagram: / acton_institute
I am turkish, and hearing him saying that it harms nobody that there is a big significant group of people in turkey that drink is just mind boggling, so many times in turkish news do you hear about abusive men that have a drinking problem. There is a reason Islam restricts us from consuming it.. He seems very insincere.
Yes, domestic violence, traffic incidents etc.
@@aliozer85Yes man, on the news every day
American founding fathers said: _"God gave us life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."_
If an american said to them:
_"O founding fathers, God gave me the liberty to take satan as a god, that's my interpretation of liberty and that's my pursuit of happiness."_
Would the founding fathers of america say: _"Yes, God gave us the liberty to take satan as a god."_ And thereby lie about God? So did your founders lie about God?
Or would they restrict the unrestricted liberty and say: _"Liberty ends where it violates the Rights of the God who gave us life. No one is allowed to be taken as a god besides the God who gave us life."_ Thus banning all shirk (polytheism) like taking men, cows, idols, angels, celestial bodies etc as gods, and only Islam (Tawhid - Islamic Monotheism) would've been the only allowed religion in america.
_Using the english kings_
If the english kings said: _"Hold up, wait a minute now. You invented this liberty ideology to sneak away from our authority by saying that it is God who gives liberty and not the english kings and parliament. So why does your liberty allow satan to be taken as a god but does not allow us the liberty to rule as lords over the thirteen colonies?"_
If you allow satan to be taken as a god and jews to rule, but not english kings to rule over you, then you had no right to fight their authority for a sugar tax or a tea tax when you clearly could care less about the Rights of the One who gave you life.
Thus liberty was just a political tool at the time to sneak away from english rule and transfer it to shaytan and jews. Because if it was about truth, they would've made sure that violating God's Rights trump violating human rights like english tyrannical rule of imposing a sugar and tea tax. Meaning, they were more angry at having money spoiled than shaytan opening a gate for himself through the liberty ideology and violating God's Right.
Either they'll have to say: _"Our liberty ideology is unrestricted and promotes civil rights for satan."_ And thus this whole conversation is really about wanting Muslims to compromise to shaytan and his spokesman, this zindiq, munafiq. Read Surah Al-Qalam, Surah Al-Kaafirun and Al-Israa' 17:73-75, Rasulullah ﷺ did not compromise and the Qur'an is intact. If you follow their desires after the knowledge has come to you, then you are a disbeliever like them.
Or they'll have to restrict liberty and contradict themselves.
Try my arguments against american liberty. They cannot answer it without being trapped. In order to not have their whims and desires spoiled, they will say that shaytan has civil rights and thus you ask them, do you promote civil rights for shaytan?
The constitution of the United States doesn’t mention that God gave us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it says that man has the right to the above mentioned. You’re lying and liars can’t get into heaven. 😊
You don’t have to believe in any religion to not drink alcohol, I know many atheist who have chosen not to drink alcohol, it’s a personal choice.
I dare you to invite ' DANIEL HAQIQATJOU " in this space 😂😂😂
True, he would dominate in this mashaAllah.
to debate who? this mustafa guy? that would be interesting. but dan gets a little emotional. lol.
@@everythingandroidois Based Based Based Brozer Danial is Based Mahashallah Subhanllah sigma Daniel will domnate dis guy Ho Ho HA Ha Daniel gorilla Based
😂
Daniel would just call a spade a spade...
I've lived in Britain and America and the freedoms there are dependent upon you accepting the status quo. There is no free speech just limited speech based on laws and values. Just ask Snowden or assange.
As for the muslim world the entire region is controlled by western military and corporations. This is a simple reading of the geopolitics in that region.
Are you talking from an Islamic paradigm? A.k.a from a Muslim mindset? Bcoz this is what all Muslims would agree to. Or are you an exception to the rule in the Western society?
"As for the muslim world the entire region is controlled by western military and corporations."
So Iran and its Ayatollah regime and Assad's Syria are controlled by Western military and corporations?
Not supporting America or anything but your examples aren’t good. Snowden and Assange are both considered to have committed treason.
your lack of understanding of what free speech is, is astounding. releasing state or even trade secrets are not protected free speech. lmao.
@@user-on8jx3qr8wbut then why do people get cancelled for just stating their opinions on dating, women, and so on. Look I’m not a fan of the red pill space but how come they get cancelled all the time. It’s probably because they go against a status quo. It goes beyond just trade secrets.
Some of those red pill guys aren’t even saying bad things and their still getting cancelled just cause they are friends with someone else.
«And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.»
(Quran 5:44)
Zaydi Shias and the Mutazila didn't claim to rule by other than what Allah revealed but their interpretation is different. There are four schools of fiqh and even Islamic law has varied through Islamic history. ISIS claims to judge by "what Allah has revealed", doesn't mean they are right.
Exactly. Two kufars having an "intellectual" debate about something that's clear as day in the Quran and Sunnah.
@@Masszay hukm (judgment) is from the right of Allah and from the foundaiton of Islam i.e. Tawheed. It's not a fiqh issue so it doesn't matter what scholar x or scholar y thinks. As for ISIS, keyword is that they claim. But at least they're better than the leaders of so-called Muslim lands who judge by man-made laws
@@truthburied Your friend: ruclips.net/video/9parh6sdXuI/видео.htmlsi=INZfXGdfqZozGVpu
what do you think of yq in 2015 saying Muslims should ally with the lgbt?
Mustafa clearly is suffering from colonial disorder, he conveniently ignores the contradictions of the nations who are advocates of freedom within there own nations
💯💯💯💯💯
@atif50
Maybe Pakistanis are suffering from an Arabian and Mohammaden colonial disorder. Iranians don't suffer from Mohammaden colonial disorder. Persians are intelligent. They largely hate Islam.
He is from Turkey, which was never occupied.
ISLAM IS BLASPHAMY. ALLAH IS NOT GOD. ITS THE TITLE. YAHOVA IS GOD OF. CHRISTIANS. AND HEBREWS.
He sounds like a jahil
Mustafa akyol - We will free you.
Muslims - from what? 🤔
From Tawheed and Sunnah. He is an enemy of Islam.
@@Masszay And he was healed by Allah ﷻ, yes. Finish the story. Don’t take it out of context.
@@ElyasQuick1
Or [why is not] a treasure presented to him [from heaven], or does he [not] have a garden from which he eats?" And the evil-doers [zalimun] say, "You follow not but a man affected by magic."
- Surah Al-Furqan 25:8
Just because something is in Bukhari, doesn't mean it's true. There are also hadiths with numerical contradictions. That is why the Quran is unique.
@@ElyasQuick1 The following hadith have 4 different variations that contradict each other and hadith are inherently out of context, unlike the Quran.
Narrated Abu Huraira: (The Prophet) Solomon son of (the Prophet) David said, "Tonight I will go around (i.e. have sexual relations with) *100* women (my wives) every one of whom will deliver a male child who will fight in Allah's Cause." On that an Angel said to him, "Say: 'If Allah will.' " But Solomon did not say it and forgot to say it. Then he had sexual relations with them but none of them delivered any child except one who delivered a half person. The Prophet () said, "If Solomon had said: 'If Allah will,' Allah would have fulfilled his (above) desire and that saying would have made him more hopeful." (Sahih al-Bukhari 5242)
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet () said, "Solomon (the son of) David said, 'Tonight I will sleep with *70* ladies each of whom will conceive a child who will be a knight fighting for "Allah's Cause.' His companion said, 'If Allah will.' But Solomon did not say so; therefore, none of those women got pregnant except one who gave birth to a half child." The Prophet () further said, "If the Prophet () Solomon had said it (i.e. 'If Allah will') he would have begotten children who would have fought in Allah's Cause." Shuaib and Ibn Abi Az-Zinad said, "Ninety (women) is more correct (than seventy). Sahih al-Bukhari 3424)
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger () said, "(The Prophet) Solomon once said, 'Tonight I will sleep with *90* women, each of whom will bring forth a (would-be) cavalier who will fight in Allah's Cause." On this, his companion said to him, "Say: Allah willing!" But he did not say Allah willing. Solomon then slept with all the women, but none of them became pregnant but one woman who later delivered a halfman. By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, if he (Solomon) had said, 'Allah willing' (all his wives would have brought forth boys) and they would have fought in Allah's Cause as cavaliers. " Sahih al-Bukhari 6639)
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Prophet Solomon who had *60* wives, once said, "Tonight I will have sexual relation (sleep) with all my wives so that each of them will become pregnant and bring forth (a boy who will grow into) a cavalier and will fight in Allah's Cause." So, he slept with his wives and none of them (conceived and) delivered (a child) except one who brought a half (body) boy (deformed). Allah's Prophet said, "If Solomon had said; 'If Allah Will,' then each of those women would have delivered a (would-be) cavalier to fight in Allah's Cause." (See Shahih Bukhari Hadith No. 74 A, Vol. 4)
@@Masszay Bukhari is 100% authentic. Things you brought are not contradictions. People are not obligated to remember every little detail. Its like asking your parents about when you finished school. They might give different numbers because they don’t know exact number and just giving you approximate estimation.
«It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should thereafter have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.»
(Quran 33:36)
The problem with current time: anyone with a youtube channel, a mic, and a black suite is treated as an intellect.
Mustafa Akyol literally doesn’t bring any academia to his debate and is purely acting as a victim of his own lack of intelligence. Not sure why would anyone platform him.
You can disagree with him, but it's wrong and frankly reactionary to deny his academic experience. The intro clearly stated that he is a fellow of Cato Institute. He has a masters degree and has written papers and books. Maybe he didn't have the best arguments here, but I think it was absolutely fine to platform him. I still agree that YQ outclasses him in almost every area discussed in this debate though.
If Atkol wasn’t worth talking to why would Sh Yasir agree to have this online discussion with him? You can disagree with someone but there is no need to be disrespectful. The man is clearly intelligent and very articulate.
Come on bro, let's not be dishonest, I like Dr. Yasir Qadhi, but let's not say that Mustafa lacks intelligence, that is just not true, he's an educated person and it's clear from his ability to be able to bring up points and give counterpoints in the debate. Let's just be positive and appreciate the debate
@@FahimAhmed-xj9lqSecular liberal credentials aren’t relevant to Muslims. I would expect Muslims to take a Christian seminarian about as seriously as Mustafa Akyol as an expert on Islam.
We need to stop accepting the Academy as a neutral institution without an agenda or ideology of its own. The secular liberal paradigm has epistemic assumptions that can and should be challenged, and it’s advocates shouldn’t be assumed to be Muslims or acting from the Islamic paradigm.
Please invite Daniel haqiqatou.
💯
I've recently been reading Shiite literature. I've noticed that there are hundreds of transmissions where the Prophet or one of the 12 Imams (especially Imam Jafaar as-Sadiq), get questioned by atheists (zanadiqa) about the very existence of God. And in all these transmissions, the format is similar. Atheist asks a "difficult question that is meant to shake the foundations of monotheism" - then the Imam answers the question with a very wise and logical answer - then the atheist accepts Islam.
This happens also in the literature about Imam Abu Hanifah. Now, the question arises. If there were so many atheists running around at that time, and the scholars did not asked for them to "convert or get executed", nor did they report them to the authorities, this means that there was a clear difference between "private disbelief, doubt, atheism, heresy" and "public disbelief, doubt, atheism, heresy".
So the laws of Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran are nothing like the laws of the Sunni and Shia scholars who founded the schools of thought.
In an ideal Islamic state, we don't need to "moderate" our religion. Our religion is already moderate; it has been so since its inception. Freedom of belief and freedom of disbelief are part of the original "Islamic Constitution". It is only in modern times when Wahabism, Ikhwanism and Khomeinism are invented, that we start to interpret the Islamic State as a horrible Orwellian theocracy where the state controls your innermost thoughts and your private life.
Shia-Jaafari Reference: thaqalayn.net/hadith/1/3/1/1
Sunni-Hanafi Reference: www.haqislam.org/imam-abu-hanifah-and-the-atheist/
On the other hand we have Imam Abu Hanifa with proper islamic jurisprudence and chains of narrators and proper backing by scholars throughout history.
On this story, there is no chain of narrators and a lot of scholars even call this as unreliable, which you forgot to mention. But people still share it for its benefit.
I highly suggest you to view Daniel Haqiqatjou on religious freedom critiquing Hamza Yusuf. It might be insightful. He also speaks on islamic law. Have a good one.
What Mustafa wants for people is arbitrary freedom despite what is chosen. Islam is about delay gratification and impulse control, it informs us the most important freedom is not freedom to indulge in our delights or be enslaved to our desires but freedom from enslavement to our desires. Our prophet said صلى الله عليه وسلم, This world is a prison for the believers and paradise for disbelievers. For those covering over the Truth they believe if their is no prospect beyond the grave then let's eat and drink and indulge what we delight in for tomorrow we shall die. For us we struggle with our desires and control our impulses and delay our gratification, for there is a prospect beyond the grave to indulge what we delight in paradise.
It depends what you consider Islam given that overwhelming majority of the Muslim civil law is based scholars opinions,customs and unreliable Hadiths wether they are positive and negative
Well religion should be separate from the state
ON POINT
Akyol’s standard is basically secularism. Did the Prophet and his Companions suffer for the sake of secularism or to make Islam supreme over all other systems?
The Prophet Muhammad didn’t kill apostates nor harm blasphemers and allowed people to freely practice their faith.
@@jammooly8917Yup, I knew it. Follower of Javad Hashimi, but you know deep down when looking at the history and theological evidence, that is not the case. Just check Javads debate with Daniel H or you can read a work like Bidayatul Mujatahid or you can simply look at historical evidence, but if you want to disregard all that and twist the Quran to your liking then do so I guess.
Islam made it Supreme
@@everythingandroidois I am not a follower of Javad Hashmi, I don't know where you'd get such an idea.
I'm lookin at scripture itself and factually correct history. There's also a difference between Islamic civilization and scripture.
The Quran doesn't say to kill apostates and instead advocates the opposite which is too allow people to disbelieve freely.
And many scholars believed the apostates should not be killed because of their disbelief but because it amounted to during their time as political treason. This is explained further in depth in "The Study Quran" commentary of Q. 2:217.
That's why for example, as evidenced by history, Ali, the Prophet's cousin, and many other scholars didn't punish women that apostatized as their apostasy posed no threat politically nor was it destabilizing.
The conclusion is that the punishment of apostasy is a later development and addition that came after the Quran's revelation and Prophet Muhammad's lifetime. So to say it is Islamic or from God is false.
@@everythingandroidois Also if you follow DH for your Islam, then all I can do is advise you not to and pray for you.
I love how Sh Yasir puts thinks puts things into perspective!.
If Mustafa’s nature was competitive and wasn’t so polite he would have pushed back at Yasir Qadi post modernist relativity that allows each people their own morality. Yasir Qadi had no reply to his point of Indian Hinduvata deeming it appropriate to persecute Muslims. Musafar mentioned the Uyghurs. Russia insists that it is western imperialism sticking their noses where they have no business and they are perfectly justified in doing what they do. There is no remorse from their side they feel justified by their own morality. Forcing people to abandon non Chinese culture is just what they do. According to Yasir the west has no basis to make any moral judgement on that
He’s right they don’t have a moral basis to say anything about morality. Especially after supporting an ongoing genocide.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:27 *🌍 Different societies have different problems requiring varied solutions; one solution doesn't fit all.*
08:58 *💬 Americans may prefer separate religion and government, but other societies may desire governance reflecting their faith values.*
13:30 *🤝 Mustafa advocates for freedoms enjoyed by Muslims in non-Muslim lands to also exist in Muslim-majority countries.*
20:33 *📜 The majority of Muslim countries may not want certain liberal freedoms like public blasphemy or unrestricted immorality.*
23:57 *🌍 Discussion shifts to political values and ideas, such as democracy versus monarchical systems, which Muslims started debating in the late Ottoman Empire.*
24:52 *🤔 Criticism of blasphemy laws in Pakistan due to innocent people being unfairly targeted, highlighting the need for freedom of expression without state intervention.*
26:32 *⚖️ Advocating for religious freedom and against punishment for apostasy in Muslim-majority countries, emphasizing individual choice in matters of faith.*
28:19 *🧐 Discussion on the legal aspects of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, with differing views on their effectiveness and impact on public order.*
29:31 *🗣️ Highlighting hypocrisy in criticizing Muslim-majority countries for their laws while ignoring similar restrictions in Western nations, calling for consistency in addressing freedom of speech issues.*
31:36 *🇺🇸 Comparison of American and European standards of free speech, acknowledging differing cultural contexts but advocating for a principled stand on freedom of expression.*
34:11 *🔓 Emphasis on the importance of religious freedom and the rejection of religious coercion, urging respect for individual choices in matters of faith.*
36:42 *🌐 Questioning the assumption that democracy and freedom universally benefit all societies, citing examples of dictatorships in the Middle East with perceived benefits.*
40:09 *🏛️ Advocating for local solutions and cultural autonomy in determining political and moral standards, cautioning against imposing external interpretations on different societies.*
45:30 *📜 Yasir Qadhi discusses the evolution of Western laws regarding pornography and questions why Muslim countries must adhere to Western notions.*
49:06 *🏛️ Yasir Qadhi suggests reevaluating the assumption that dictatorships hinder societal flourishing, citing examples like Iraq and Libya during the 60s-80s.*
52:37 *🤔 Yasir Qadhi proposes the idea of a modern caliphate that focuses on rallying for Islamic causes globally rather than governing a specific territory.*
01:03:34 *💼 Yasir Qadhi argues for a pragmatic approach in governance, balancing personal piety with public order and morality, citing the example of alcohol prohibition in the United States.*
01:07:46 *🍷 Mustafa Akyol and Yasir Qadhi discuss the regulation of alcohol in Muslim societies, advocating for individual choice and minimal government intervention.*
01:11:12 *💬 Common ground is found in caution against a coercive theological state while differing in the level of religious influence in politics.*
01:13:19 *🌍 Mustafa Akyol emphasizes the importance of democratic processes and respecting religious freedom in Muslim-majority countries, urging against legislating religious laws against public sentiment.*
very informative, thank you for having this discussion
Salam. The most calm and at the same time dynamic debate I've ever seen. Kudos to both the speakers. JazakAllah kher. Fee Amaan Allah.
The debate ended in the beginning: One solution doesn't fit all. The rest was not debate. Sheikh gave Dawah to Mustafa Akyol.
Sheikh, we want to see opponents at your level.
i thought islam is supposed to be the one solution fits all mandkind?
You can't compare Islam and Democracy directly. Islam is between servant and Allah, and democracy is between State and citizen.
@@hqiyas ok. which do you prefer?
@@user-on8jx3qr8w much like a healthy diet is the best for everyone but not everyone will want/have a healthy diet, Islam is the one solution to fit all mankind but all of mankind will not fit with Islam.
Which is the the angle I understand Yasir Qadhi is making.
@@tehnoobclone yes, i very much do not want to eat what you are trying to force me to eat. lol. so you are against the idea of universal rights for individuals? the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion? do you agree with the madhabs that say [public] apostates should be put to death? what did you think of the blasphemy cases in Indonesia? the ahok case? the woman who asked for the mosque near her house to turn down their loudspeaker? speaking of food, the tik tok woman who ate some crispy pork and said bishallah?
Iqbal explained it in one line: "Ho siyasat deen se juda tou reh jaati hai chengezi" (If politics is separated from religion then all that remains is the babarism of Chegiz Khan.) Meaning religion acts as a moral force. But in todays world the distorted forms of Islam that Salafism and the Deobandi School adhere to have created nothing less than barbaric theocracies. However in their oppression and barbarism they are far far far less than the "liberal democratic" US.
"However in their oppression and barbarism they are far far far less than the "liberal democratic" US."
And yet all the Muslims who agree with you will flock to the US en masse to want to settle there and the ones who're already there just won't leave this so-called "far far far" greater "oppressive and barbaric" place called the US.
Iqbal was nonsense
Exceptional explanation sister❤.
@@BABA-ORUC1761 Iqbal was overrated
wht type of Muslim politics do you think combines with politics
YQ casually dismantling the other guy
Respectfully done the debate 👏
I have a question on Islamic political teaching: given that 1)the characterizing political institution of Islam is the Chaliphate; and 2) the great majority of Muslims throughout the history lived outside any chaliphate:
How the doctrine manage to reconcile these two things?
Have clear criteria been developed to establish whether a political regime is legitimate or not?
I mean: only considering the Middle East, almost 800 years have passed since the fall of the Chaliphate (100 if you recognise the Ottoman's). Over the course of these years, an incredible variety of political systems have been implemented in the Islamic world: lay authoritarian regimes, "democratic" republics, monarchies, etc.
What has been (and what is) the majority opinion of the religious authorities on this topic? I'm interested in the traditionally-founded doctrine, not the fundamentalist nor the liberal one. For example: today a Tunisian man (or an Iraqi, or a Turkish) who also wants to be a good muslim, should he consider his country's political regime legitimate or not?
I suppose the first one, so I'd like to know on what basis scholars and religious authorities do affirm this (or if maybe their consider the actual regimes legitimate but still less than the caliphate)
Governance in a Islam is deemed an essential fabric of the human condition, to illustrate this I would like to highlight two examples. Islam mandates that there should be a leader in any group of 3 people another example is the concept of family which in Islam is considered a mini state with leadership, rights, responsibilities and laws. So to answer your question, political regimes in Islam are all legitimate by the mere fact of their existence and are granted the full rights of sovereignty offered by Islamic laws regardless of their political system (democratic, authoritarian, monarchy, theocracy, tribal etc) and policies. There are no classifications for their legitimacy except that they are muslim. So to answer your question all muslim rulers have absolute legitimacy in Islam. This is because leadership is paramount in islam as touched upon at the beginning.
This is enshrined in Islamic Tawhid (creed) and is inviolable. There is a rich body of legislation surrounding this issue but to highlight few of these, Muslim rulers are to be obeyed (in matters that don't go against Islam) even if they are violating your rights, rebellion against a muslim leader is forbidden, talking bad and insulting leaders are prohibited and they should be counseled privately, if the leader fails to uphold their responsibilities the subject can only leave it to GOD etc.
TLDR; according to Islamic law, all muslim political regimes and all muslim authorities (regardless of level of sovereignty) are legitimate as long as they are deemed muslim regardless of their policies, popularity and political systems.
@SerTempleton Islam has a built-in system for governance. Firstly the Prophet mandated the Quraysh tribe to be the rulers and this is why the suggestion of there being a ruler from the Ansar was rejected. Secondly, the sovereignty for Islam is unequivocally the Sharia and whoever rules, judges or legislates by other than the Quran and Sunna is by definition a Kafir .Thirdly, the ruler is to be determined by the Ahl Hall wa Aqd which is based on Sharia principles and not secular or any religious system other than Islam. Fourthly the Prophet prophesied kings would come after the Khalifate and then the Khalifate which follows the method of the Prophet would return. The Muslim Umma is in a weak state and divided as prophesied in the Hadiths. The Muslim nation has become weak as the scum of the sea and have embraced a defeatist mentality by abandoning the Sunna and are following the Kuffar into the lizard hole.
Islam enjoins the sovereignty of the Sharia by the Khalifate. RUclips deleted my entailed explanation. The classic scholars all agree upon the obligation of the Khalifate and the sovereignty of the Sharia. It is only the modernist conformist so called scholars who conjured up, the separated secular Islamic nation states which is a contradiction in terms.
@@SerTempletonIslam has its own built in system of governance based on the sovereignty of the Sharia by the Khalifate which is a staunch opposite position to Secularism.
@@SerTempletonIslam
when was this recorded?
Good debate but Shaykh Qadhi was clearly in command of the discourse. In nutshell we should uphold the Shariah but we also understand there in compulsion in religion. US democracy is not a one size fits all and in fact can be dangerous.
"there in compulsion in religion" so should apostates be put to death? can non Muslims try to spread their religion?
Sharia law us barbaric
@@user-on8jx3qr8w depends on where you live now doesnt it. In an islamic country you cannot proselytize, and can apostates be put to death yes they can, will they, depends on the location and circumstances.
If you don't like it, dont live there.
@@katiawojcik962 lol. so what if a christian nation said muslims can't do dawah?
"If you don't like it, dont live there." so why are there Muslims in the west complaining about our laws?
@@user-on8jx3qr8w then we dont do dawah there or we leave...
Amazing video, I love discussion and I love when debates are more like a discussion than a debate, so I appreciate this style of debate. I personally find the debate is academically stimulating, there are many good points and good counterpoints being brought up in the debate, and nothing but respect to the both of them. I think they agree on a lot of issues more than they disagree, and I appreciate Dr. Yasir Qadhi's pragmatic approach to things by looking at things practically instead of theoretically in this particular topic. I also appreciate Mustafa Akyol's thoughts on the issue even though I slightly disagree on 1 or 2 of them, they're still reasonable and well-thought-out points. Thanks for the vid.
Loved this convo. Helpful to hear these two perspectives juxtaposed
Never clicked on a video so fast. Our sheikh in a debate? What a treat!
so do you hate free speech like yq?
@user-on8jx3qr8w are you an idiot? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a society wants free speech, it's their right to have it. But if the vast majority of a society doesn't want absolute unregulated free speech, then by imposing it on them you are being authoritarian and subverting their freedom. You cannot force free speech, otherwise schools should allow kids to say vulgar explicit language regarding teachers. No one believes in absolute free speech, otherwise you'd have no problem with someone cursing your parents. Free speech is about cultivating intellectual discussion, and that is what we want. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech and goes against intellectual discourse
@@user-on8jx3qr8ware you an idiot? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a people want free speech, it's their democratic right to have it. But if the vast majority do not want absolute free speech, you cannot force it on them. Forcing people to accept you preferred model of speech is to deprive them of their democratic and general societal freedom. If there should be no restrictions on speech then I should be nothing wrong with someone cursing your parents, and kids in school should be allowed to curse their teachers with explicit, vulgar words. There wouldn't even be a moderator in this debate if both debaters didn't agree that the stream of conversation has to be controlled and regulated to some extent. Free speech should be used to cultivate intellectual discourse. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech that goes against intellectual discourse and serves no one.
@user-on8jx3qr8w are you fr? It's not about free speech, it's about freedom. If a people want free speech, it's their democratic right to have it. But if the vast majority do not want absolute free speech, you cannot force it on them. Forcing people to accept you preferred model of speech is to deprive them of their democratic and general societal freedom. If there should be no restrictions on speech then I should be nothing wrong with someone cursing your parents, and kids in school should be allowed to curse their teachers with explicit, vulgar words. There wouldn't even be a moderator in this debate if both debaters didn't agree that the stream of conversation has to be controlled and regulated to some extent. Free speech should be used to cultivate intellectual discourse. If it is used to insult and blaspheme, that is a waste of free speech that goes against intellectual discourse and serves no one.
@@vol94 clearly you are confused. free speech doesn't apply to kids in schools.
so you are the judge of what is blasphemy and what is intellectual discourse? would you outlaw the burning of the flag? the bible? the koran? no insulting the khalifa? did you support the afghans who beat the woman to death for allegedly tearing pages out of a koran? how about the ahok case in Indonesia? or the woman they imprisoned for asking the mosque near her house to turn down their loudspeaker?
is saying bismillah before eating pork insulting to you?
I don't agree with some of the commenters here who attacked Dr. Kyole accusing him of incohernce. I think he presented his views beautifully and coherently. That being said, I do not see eye to eye with him on several of the points he opined on.
Stop simping to a neo
@@uthmaankhan5802
Before you leap off the cliff of conclusions, how about taking a moment to engage your brain before your fingers dance across the keyboard? I commended the presentation flair, not the ideas themselves. Surely, it's not that hard to grasp the difference, or is it?
@@Anjasha302 so if a zindiq, or mubtadi or fasiq presents their viewpoint in an eloquent way, will you praise them
Do you know of the verse in the Quran that talks about those that are eloquent in falsehood?
@@uthmaankhan5802
I commend their presentation style, not necessarily their arguments.
There’s a relevant anecdote you might find interesting: the one where a devil, appearing as a man to Abu Hurairah, advised him to use Ayatul-Kursi for protection against evil spirits. When Abu Hurairah relayed this to the Prophet, he confirmed the advice’s truthfulness, despite the devil’s generally deceitful nature. This illustrates that even deceptive beings can offer truthful advice occasionally. However, this doesn’t change their overall nature of disbelief and misguidance.
Similarly, Allah acknowledged the trustworthiness and honesty of some individuals among the people of the book, noting their reliability in financial matters. Yet, this recognition doesn’t imply approval of all their actions and beliefs.
Moreover, it’s documented in authentic hadiths that the Prophet acknowledged commendable traits in certain non-believers, like Mut’im ibn Adi. These acknowledgments highlight that good qualities can be found across different individuals, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
1:08:00 Mustafa Akyol - I believe in not causing harm according to political liberalism.
Isn't this subjective?? Shouldn't an objective morality be more consistent?
You nailed it. You see, Mustafa is not someone basing his worldview on Islam. He is primarily a liberal who desperately tries to reconcile his liberal worldview with Islam. His idea of "harm" isn't an Islamic one, it's a liberal one. He doesn't view the moral corruption of society as a "harm", therefore he refrains from advocating for laws that may counter said moral corruption. He couldn't care less if the society he builds favors immorality and therefore leads people to hell.
For him, it's not Allah's word that is the highest but, his liberalism
This argument of subjectivity and objectivity is Soo stupid and Muslims love to bring this up 😂
Let's just say that Mustafa DO have a religion, and in this religion it said that equality is morally good, slavery is bad, child marriage is wrong
These things contradict the morality of Islam. Are you still gonna bring up this argument then ? Because in his mind he do have objective moral value
@@daimyo3074Explain why this is unhelpful point to bring up?
@@user-ib9of6dm5n who determines Muslims opinion to be objective just because they get it from Islam
@@supertaxi5324Well said
God's command > Individual sovereignty.
Good dialogue. I believe society have a collective responsibility to encourage goodness and suppress evil. Self centeredness and worship of individual desires is the reason why past nations were destroyed for good.
Jajakllah Khairan for a positive discussion
This has to be one of the most informative debates I’ve had the pleasure of learning from
Dr. Yasir Qadhi is such a great intellectual. His wisdom is Just so deep for understanding minds. He has deep and clear understanding of Islam and also the modern world 🌎. Blessed to be close to him and listen. Thank Allah.
I really appreciate him. Let me to be close to him please.
He’s a liberal reformist, Allah yihdeena jamee3an
I won't prefer one to another. Both do have a point. Thanks for this wonderful talk.
are you a muslim? if so, do you agree with ibn taimayya's fatwa that the druze should be killed as apostates?
A wonderful conversation.Conversations like this should be held more often.Salutes to both the speakers.
I respect both Yasir Qadhi and Mustafa Akyol may Allah have mercy on both of them. I can’t wait to watch this after I have my iftar 😁
It would benefit you more brother if you went to Taraweeh. Don’t waste time during this month my brother
So good to see them debate! Respect to both of them. Change should come from inside the relevant countries indeed. Cheikh YQ made a good point about mob mentality which is the core problem regardless of the law.. But that issue needs to be tackled by those countries . Mr Akyol also makes good statements about pain points regarding freedoms. the level and shape of freedoms should fit these countries.
Alhamdulillah that we have scholars such as Shaykh Yasir Qadhi who can speak with objective knowledge of the inequities of the Western Civilization and bring the principle qualities of the instructions to mankind from the Quran and Sunnah to explain the utter lunacy of the Western civilizations recorded wordlview on human development.
Yasir is the clear example on how to give an answer without giving an answer, making general statements of whataboubtim.
he thanks Allah for the freedoms in America when he should thank the founding fathers for actually being visionary about it. He doesn't want these freedoms for other though
How does one even have such a take away from this dialogue boggles my mind.. you are silly
Man, when Sheikh Yasir Qadhi talks about an Islamic democracy and a government's hopes, trends and even encouragement of morality, I can't help but think of our poor brother Imran Khan, great guy Masha 'Allah, who is languishing in prison.
So when we of each Generation question was it real after they changed the TV system it appeared the chest with wings on the screen ? Those who saw it was it a sign as mention in the Quran of redic left from Musa?
I like the way both the debaters are so respective of each other.... this is a healthy interchanging of ideas I stand with Sheikh Yasir
The fitrah can be shaded, but religion clears it up. He uses the fitrah to explain away the things he doesnt like, and does not have any backing for these so called universal human values.
Alhamdulillah, there is only one Yasir Qadir; his knowledge is far beyond any common man. May he be with us for a long time.
what is his knowledge that is far beyond any common man ? what I saw is just a confused man, or a man that intentionally try to confused people, Allah knows best what is the intention in his heart
@@siroj1001 you are a common man yourself, hence saw a confused man!
Question: if the Messenger is sacred (which he is not) how does the profane claim ownership over him/her/it?
If Muhammad is sacred and hence cannot be insulted, how can a profane (ordinary human being) have legitimate claims of being insulted and provoked in its stead?
Very enlightening!
There is no winning in this argument.
I respectfully disagree with Sheikh Yasir Qadhi on one point though (I love Sheikh Yasir Qadhi and all that he has done for English-speaking Muslims. May Allah SWT reward him); Nathan might not have a say in Pakistani policy-making but all the ethnic Pakistanis or educated Pakistanis who have lived in the world outside Pakistan, HAVE A DUTY to think of ways how to improve what goes in Pakistan.
I hope Yasir Qadhi Saab is training his kids, we need more versions of him, what an amazingly articulate speaker mA
I really love the way ho you make people understand sheikh Yasir qadi
At 45:09 Yasir Qadhi claims that prostitution is illegal in the U.S. due to a vestige of Christian morality and that such prohibition has nothing to do with capitalism. He's wrong. Prostitution is illegal in the U.S. because it cannot be taxed, and therefore, it doesn't benefit the treasury. At 1:04:30 Yasir Qadhi claims that the prohibition of alcohol was established via the 19th amendment. Actually, that was the 18th amendment. It was in effect for 14 years-not 5-6 years like he claimed-from 1919 to 1933.
Its a way of Life for all Leaders who believe in the Day of Account
What a great decent debate ❤❤
I think Qadhi was much more consistent in his arguments than Akyol. The former’s main argument was that the role of religion (Islam) in political order does not, by any means, undercut the ideals of healthy freedom and liberty; western ideals of liberty and freedom cannot be applied on all the peoples of the world, let the indigenous people decide what is best for their lands, whether they want religion’s intervention in politics or not must remain at their discretion. Akyol, in my opinion, could not effectively defend what he was arguing for, i.e., the dismissal of religion (Islam) from the political order and the implementation of liberal democracies throughout the (Muslim) world.
American founding fathers said: _"God gave us life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."_
If an american said to them:
_"O founding fathers, God gave me the liberty to take satan as a god, that's my interpretation of liberty and that's my pursuit of happiness."_
Would the founding fathers of america say: _"Yes, God gave us the liberty to take satan as a god."_ And thereby lie about God? So did your founders lie about God?
Or would they restrict the unrestricted liberty and say: _"Liberty ends where it violates the Rights of the God who gave us life. No one is allowed to be taken as a god besides the God who gave us life."_ Thus banning all shirk (polytheism) like taking men, cows, idols, angels, celestial bodies etc as gods, and only Islam (Tawhid - Islamic Monotheism) would've been the only allowed religion in america.
_Using the english kings_
If the english kings said: _"Hold up, wait a minute now. You invented this liberty ideology to sneak away from our authority by saying that it is God who gives liberty and not the english kings and parliament. So why does your liberty allow satan to be taken as a god but does not allow us the liberty to rule as lords over the thirteen colonies?"_
If you allow satan to be taken as a god and jews to rule, but not english kings to rule over you, then you had no right to fight their authority for a sugar tax or a tea tax when you clearly could care less about the Rights of the One who gave you life.
Thus liberty was just a political tool at the time to sneak away from english rule and transfer it to shaytan and jews. Because if it was about truth, they would've made sure that violating God's Rights trump violating human rights like english tyrannical rule of imposing a sugar and tea tax. Meaning, they were more angry at having money spoiled than shaytan opening a gate for himself through the liberty ideology and violating God's Right.
Either they'll have to say: _"Our liberty ideology is unrestricted and promotes civil rights for satan."_ And thus this whole conversation is really about wanting Muslims to compromise to shaytan and his spokesman, this zindiq, munafiq. Read Surah Al-Qalam, Surah Al-Kaafirun and Al-Israa' 17:73-75, Rasulullah ﷺ did not compromise and the Qur'an is intact. If you follow their desires after the knowledge has come to you, then you are a disbeliever like them.
Or they'll have to restrict liberty and contradict themselves.
Try my arguments against american liberty. They cannot answer it without being trapped. In order to not have their whims and desires spoiled, they will say that shaytan has civil rights and thus you ask them, do you promote civil rights for shaytan?
We need an Islamic society based on the Quran and Sunnah, Allahs religion is perfect. Unfortunately these two scholars are afraid to say it.
Hmm... What's Mustafa doing at the Cato Institute? 🤔🤔🤔
YQs opening statement goes against islamic theology. Hes advocating secularism and division of church n state. I don't understand where this debate will go with his advocating for a liberal world order
although i agree more with dr qadhi. mr mustafa brought new ideas i never thought about to the table. amazing debate. hope the institute hosts more of these thought provoking debates
"mr mustafa brought new ideas i never thought about to the table." like what? not killing people for leaving a religion? freedom of non Islamic religions to proselytize?
Yasir Qadhis wisdom and ability to critically and calmly deconstruct ideas and propose arguements in an academic way is amazing
It's important to note that dictatorships can often lead to civil war. This is because, without freedom and the ability for people to choose their leaders freely, there's a lot of tension. This tension can build up like a pressure cooker, ready to explode at any moment. This is exactly what happened in countries like Czechoslovakia, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. So, it's clear that dictatorships can create the conditions for civil war down the line.
Perfect example of a broken cistern shares ideas to a cistern that can hold water.
Government and Religion will always be separate.
Wa Salaam's
Here's the core positive concerning à separate religion vs State; In the US slavery existed but politicians abolitioned its existence religion did not.
Salam.
No they didn’t. They just repackaged it and called it something else and created a very sophisticated system to make it less obvious.
Also, they did zero corrections of their wrongs. They still aspire to exploit other humans for little to no reward, and they still aspire to pass any risk on to other humans with as little on their own necks. (Perhaps “aspire” is putting it too diplomatically, since they still do it). Have a look at colonial violations and violence in action in the North Dakota water pollution and the rare metals child slavery industries and the 13th Amendment - all examples from the USA, the bastion of liberal values.
The ethic never disappeared or evaporated; it remained and still worked to produce action. Like I said: They just repackaged it and called it something else and created a very sophisticated system to make it less obvious.
Which point do you disagree with?
I love this. Let's talk, armed with respect for ideas. Let us teach the mobs that mob rule is not Islamic rule. We can not let the people on the bottom deck put holes in their part of the boat. However, we should never overthrow democratically elected governments or use CIA types of intrigues to destabilize counties.
Educating the masses of the pupils of American schools in the United States of its unpolished history and the importance of civics.
I love and appreciate the sheikh, almost finished his new book on seerah with my group but the his angry fanboys are doing him justice.
The time this knowledge which was sent after long line on the Earth our First Parents was cast with the Story of what cause to be on Earth
A really interesting debate. I am very happy having the opportunity to work with Mustafa Akyol back in my PhD years. Both Western countries and Muslim majority countries need such intellectuals to put Islam at the core of modern life.
Is it haram or halal to put islam at at he core of modern life?
Akyol is a non-muslim. We don't need him. No thanks.
Akyol presented nothing intellectual but repeating Western propaganda talking point.
@@akeel6328 are you declaring tafeer?
@@yusifhuseini should he be killed? silenced in some other way?
Which of my point of mine do disagree with?
I dont know how this is a debate, Yasir is all over the place, he says western countries DOES impose decency laws but there shouldnt be a Hijab enforcement? Its like two non muslims arguing. Whats the point of this whole debate? Yasir is clearly not defending Shariah, he is bending and mending wherever he sees fit. And also why does he keep saying WE including himself into the USA? Not only as a citizen, as if He AND Usa was the ones attacking Iraq, killing muslims etc. When he feels he can backup, he is muslim, when he gets pressed, he is all of a sudden a WE with USA
Yasir qadhi I thank Allah for religious freedom for where I live and I think Allah for not giving the religious freedom in Muslim countries. Hypocrisy at its finest and also the amount of false equivalences and strawmans is utterly embarrassing. I expected more from Qadhi and now I understand why he does not debate because ultimately when scrutinised his first thing to do is to criticise the west where he lives and makes his money from.
Why do ppl elect a particular leaders? To import foreign morality and and so call freedom! I am confused.
Yasir Qadi should learn how "LAW" develops and evolves and how the country he is living in right now got to the point it is right now.. Religion or Ethical concepts informs the framework of every group of people atheist secularists, mulsims, christians jews etc. Unless there is a co-operative framework in ethics and form a governing structure there will be oppression and despotism. Worshiping God is not just Salah, fasting and rituals.. those might comprise just 5% of Islam unless you are ethically free to challenge power on its corruption against goodness your worship is confined to simply mechanical rituals.
Are you muslim?
The host of the action institute should ask himself why everyone on the stage was wearing suits rather than show up in pajamas. This is preceded by a moral code that is enforced (soft morality), in which you would be shunned for wearing pajamas, maybe not even allowed to air if in the improper attire. The question is not Westerners following this version of unimpeded freedoms and liberty, but just a different set of values that hold them hostage, compared to the values that hold muslims hostage. One hostage is to a robber who cannot say of his real condition, and the other is to the lord of the universe.
A brilliant professor of Middle East Studies, Bernard Lewis, said that the Islamic legal tradition was humane, limited, and responsible. That is definitely true.
However, if we exist in a modern world we must have a modern government, not necessarily as openly tolerant of lgbtq+ expression in public or even democracy itself.
There is a lot of room for a religiously neutral councilor government (based on shura) it could use multiple branches of government like we have in America, but with many more. The chamber of commerce and the worker's unions would each have a branch, plus one for experts, one for the military, one for the people, one for the rich, one for the powerful, etc. all with line item veto power to maintain stability.
Such a system, no matter if formed along the lines of a council of the heads of those branches, a republic, or a tradition-based monarchy that is "secular" could create superpowers like a Caliphate that is as dedicated to Sharia as the UK is to Christian law, which means you're basically free to believe anything, just not worshipping the Shaytan or demons or practice witchcraft
.
In my opinion monarchy is best for wealth over time, but it'll be different in every region. The Gulf states are a great example that traditional, safe, modern and faithful governance is possible under monarchies. A Caliphate (which is basically a monarchy) that is as secular as the UK would be a blessing from God.
I’m not sure how coherent the actual distinction between religious and secular life is although it is well established in culture there may be some which are said to be secular which in fact have a element of faith in them for existence the existence of the others mind cannot be proven directly. And there may be some things which are religious which are borderline secular for experience teaches us peace and security et cetera relate to the nervous system and overlap with religious observes.
Also in establishing a putatively secular government there may be elements of faith or at least educated guesswork in principles and rules and organisational structures which are not absolutely verifiable but rather are tools and procedures which are functional but not scientific .
Therefore the claim that religion is unique and unscientific may be counterbalanced with an objective appreciation that there are elements of faith which have roots in secular life for instance the sense of community and peace and trust, and there are elements of secular life which have their roots in faith for , instance the tendency to absolutise one own ideology and structural politics and metaphysics.
I think a fair comprehension maybe to use higher dimensional fuzzy logic whereby an analysis is made using a whole range of factors each belonging to a network of connections and also having a siding scale rather than a binary value.
This diminishes the legitimacy of simplistic binary logic whereby secular government and theocratic government are contrasted.
Politicians will claim the public could be mystified and not understand.
However, just as hands are made from cells and cells and developmental processes are governed by highly complex genetic factors with networks and interactions and epigenetic causes and conditions. Likewise our societies are made from complex causes and interactions and simplifications of experience do a simple job but are not ideal or truly scientific.
Another way of approaching this is by looking at the connectedness of language and the essential meanings of terms such as sacred and secular and religious and irreligious are connected functionally such that their counterparts are indispensable in their mutual definitions . If you look at it like a game of chess, then the bishop is understood as a bishop only because the potential for a non-bishop is there. I think this relates to what they called structural linguistics and structural anthropology.
If you take an anthropological look at these debate often its people driven to justify their own perspectives rather than to analyse the situation in terms of symbolic interactions and high order philosophy.
If you want a simplified look at this then the contemporary of definition of faith seems to be belief without reason but this is an artefact of 20th century analytic philosophy in the hands of atheists .
I think in Islam, the concept of deen is more appropriate and each community has their own lifestyle and deen?
The deen of Islam is not purely otherworldly as some atheist like to point out, but it epistemology is interconnected with everyday reality and normal and normative experience .
I think the philosophical idea of family resemblances may be appropriate and there are no essential features of religion and secular philosophy. Rather there are a network of forms of life which have similarities and interconnections and resemblances but there is no single essential division.( ie ‘you have no evidence so shut up’).
Ultimately a religious and a scientific model of politics can be viewed as a pragmatic construct which bears fruit - secular ism tends to bear certain fruits and religious and theocratic models bear similar and different fruit.
Just as complex adaptive systems have emergent properties which are non trivial and also signature features which are difficult to predict from analysing individual elements . Likewise the history of human society is interconnected with religious and less religious and non-religious so to speak; and is an emergent feature in its characteristics of the interaction and complex nature of the dynamical fusion rather than the separation of these different forms of life and characteristic features of specific ”families of attitude”.
If you’re looking in mathematics of complex chaotic systems, there is the idea of bifurcation theory.
It is a juncture in a system where behaviour rapidly changes and there are a few parallels with the previous organisational structure .
You can look at the introduction of the sacred versus secular political analysis discourse terminology into a human social relationship and consider it to be a bifurcation point ( ie we all start complaining and arguing) in a dialogue which leads to specific emergent and consequential and corollary features (ie being at one another’s throats).
Therefore, the whole concept of theocratic versus secular governments may just (or often) be a spanner in the works of human civilisation and discourse. A bifurcation point where differences are amplified and difficult to reconcile.
An analogy may be 19 thcentury racial theory which is quite un scientific nowadays and classified people according to gross surface features when in fact the whole genetic and ecological and geological dynamic of history is much more complex and subtle .
Such that racial category nowadays is a bit of a misnomer. For race is an illusion.
I am not saying that different perspectives and important metaphysical potentials don’t exist but the simplification into sacred and secular politics - doesn’t this infect stem from a Judaic and christian analysis of Temple and church life has compared to everyday work? The usual working presumption is the distinction is valid and of massive utility but is it really?
If you go back to the history of racial theory, there may be an analogy between secularism and theocratic government in the question “which is the master race?”
It may seem like a fascinating question and have significance, but it may actually just be genocidal and satanic and based in pseudo valid racial categories and coupled to this an over simplistic analysis.
Do we believe in the Aryan race nowadays or the Negro race and one is superior to the other? No we have a much more new ones understanding due to our grasp of genetics and the influence of migration history and pigmentation being only one mini factor in the total stretch organisation of a human being .
The debate at large seems to be fallout from the reformation and enlightenment periods of European history and to transfer it and generalise it into every circumstance and situation may not be wise.
As the Bible says “the devil was a murderer from the start“ so we better watch out ?
The Subject of a higher power Resurrection to answer for behavior
MAy learn and becrateful for having the Aquran and leaders who have freedoms we never as of yet seen
Of course, you are against the caliphate Akyol. If a caliphate existed your masters couldn't have bombed Palestinian children, or invaded Iraq, Afghanistan.
great question. can what you consider immoral still be legal? sounds like he will not answer. brings up prohibition instead. runs from the hisbah question once again.
Sirs, a religion can survive without state patronage,but a state always has some affiliation with a religion.
This is valid irrespective of all times as well as across the globe.
The only issue is about the nature of religion whether it is benign or suffocating.
Is your name althea? Are you calling yourself hot
That Akyol is a lost case, a sell-out to Western ideologies. The guy cannot even understand that he is attempting to historicize religions, Islam included. Why in the world is Y. Qadhi wasting his time with this fool? In his native Turkey, Mustafa Kamal (who died of alcoholism) and his "modernization platform" was a complete disaster.
I also have studied politics in university…. No doubt Mustafa needs at least 1 month,,,, to just understand what Yasir kadhi sys in first five minutes.. what an great intellect . Ma sha allah
1:01:35 The proposition for a renewed concept of a figurehead caliph sounds like a Sunni Agha Khan. I'm not saying whether that is good or bad - just how it sounds. Being rich and building hospitals will always give you clout.
I like the idea of a sunni Agha Khan philanthropist.
Islam has universal perspective & have gradual & systemic approach : to depart knowledge - from absolute source : Allah as creator of the universe :
While human approaches are naturally based upon progressive understanding or experimental understanding.
Who each follow not one are not following a person Or believe in Men given instructions for each person born male or female at age of reason to decide the basic rules ,and with or with out what is more costly
Where ever on earth
I am a staunch critic of American (in particular and western in general) imperialism. Would I, an atheist communist, have the same rights as everyone else in your ideal government? I was raised a conservative Christian. I became an atheist communist through reading, so I don't think you can say for sure that I wouldn't have ended up an atheist communist even if I had been "born" Muslim! Are there no atheist communists in, say, Iran?
Yasir make good points and I'm just at the beginning, let me end the video to see where will this gonna end .
Where do you go male or female when these things have been violated
They know the Prophets was true most are very educated Men and women following the ways of forfathers
Apostasy laws are deemed justified because they are integral to preserving the moral fiber and cohesion of our society. When someone renounces their Islamic faith, it follows logically that the laws derived from it no longer bind them. This could potentially lead to individuals engaging in behaviors deemed socially unacceptable, such as indulging in alcohol, drugs, or immoral acts, thereby undermining social order. Moreover, such actions may provoke social unrest by disrespecting cherished beliefs and figures, including our God and prophet, further contributing to societal discord. In essence, apostasy laws serve as a safeguard against the unraveling of societal norms and the chaos that could ensue from individuals disregarding the foundational principles upon which our country and communities are built.
so should the druze all be killed as apostates, like ibn taimayya said?
Forced belief is bad and really is no belief at all. Forcing someone to think a certain way is quite oppressive and common in ancient governments. Let's move on from the old bad ways and find better ways.
@@AmmonRa-wm5kc not the way of the salafi... lol.
@@user-on8jx3qr8wDruze are not apostates if they are not born as Muslims. Their status is the same as any other non Muslim.
@@AmmonRa-wm5kc many anarchistic wound say the same about our current western governments. I pay my taxes follow the laws and regulations. One could argue I’m forced and oppressed into it by my American government. The real question is what metric should we use to determine what is right and wrong because ultimately politics in downstream of culture. If enough people believe something is wrong then it will be reflected in laws no matter how silly it my seem . The opinions of the minority doesn’t matter. Sorry I don’t make the rules.
Those subjects many don't Discussed when thinking it's just between humans not Devine commandments
Said with go after wealth that none have seen other then grave robbers take that it went with them with all this knowledge
Who ever regardless of Belief want to catch someone sleeping with person you think is into you
Sadly both men are limiting themselves to nation states. Rather each region or suburb served by an imam should set its own rules, and leave very little for central governments to corrupt.
This would be a better debate between Imam Tom Faccine and Aykol!
No, I think Daniel Haqiqatjou and Aykol because Tom Faccine is a new Madinah university student and he needs time to become a good debater, not everyone can debate these topics even with some qual.
Dr. Akyol is brilliant. Sheikh Yasir seems to be bringing his Athari creed into the discussion and to an extent sounded Foucauldian....kept using the power and the idea of program. His problematization of Arab countries living better under dictators prooves Dr. Akyol;s point that not all societies are capable of "freedom"..Also, the Sheikhs demeanor was not Sheikh-like....from the get go he sounded "sensitive"
52:27 do you really need religion to "know" "natural values" or do you just need to be human? Do you just need anthropology? What about the material conditions? They also have a big influence on human behavior! They can even influence people to act against these "natural values" in some cases 🙁
Isn't Saudi Arabia an example of a generally Islamic country that is flourishing. Not every law is in line with Islam but it is wealthy, people live comfortably etc. Qatar, UAE etc could be other examples.
Not moral but concern of Fire burning and you continue feeling it
This debat is useless, it's two people discussing the same opinion and it different sides. Qadhi didn't talk about Islam POV he kept focusing on American POV.
Mustafa is a wise pious Muslim ahead of his time MA