Can We Talk About God - part 1

Can We Talk About God? Imam Zaid Shakir & Dr. Roger Scruton (Part 2)

Opening Remarks and Initial Exchange

Okay, I thought we would start this part of our discussion, or the discussion itself, by asking Dr. Scruton and Imam Shakir to respond very briefly, not to the entire talk of the other, but perhaps to pick one point, point of agreement, point of disagreement, a clarification, a question, just for a couple of moments, maybe we could start with you, Imam Shakir, asking a question of Dr. Scruton, or perhaps just responding briefly to something he said, and then we'll turn it around, and then I'll start asking some questions, and then we'll get to some of your excellent questions, which I've been going over. So, please, begin.

Imam Shakir's Appreciation and Response

I definitely appreciated most of what Dr. Scruton had to say, especially emphasizing those aspects of faith, the movement of the heart, and those aspects of faith that can't be quantified, those things that involve a deeper aspect of the human creation, and involve a deeper aspect of our relationship with each other, and our relationship with the divine, so I definitely appreciated that.

Muslims in Pluralistic Society

I think there is room to discuss the degree to which, as Muslims, we are equipped, theologically and legally, to respond to the idea of fitting into, and comfortably feeling we belong in a pluralistic society, and having the ability to respect the beliefs of others. I think that there are tools that we have in our tradition, theologically and legally, that can definitely ease that transition, if you will. And I think to a large extent, most Muslims, the overwhelming majority of Muslims, at least in this country, feel very much at home, and don't feel any need or benefit in hating their neighbors, and I know most would like a lot of love from their neighbors.

So I think that there is discussion there, in the sense of there being the basis for hope, and the basis for optimism, in terms of coming to grips with a secular society, as a Muslim, and being comfortable with that solution. And on the basis of that comfort, being able to freely and openly negotiate for a place in the society.

Dr. Scruton's Response on Islam and Public Perception

Dr. Scruton, would you like to respond? Yes, well, thanks for that. I think that I was encouraged by much that you said, and I think the one point in particular struck me, which is that when you rightly said that there is a process of negotiation in this society, whereby groups considered initially to be on the margin, or even alien to its fundamental principles, can gradually win for themselves a place in the public space, and you took the example of the Jews, the way in which they have negotiated for themselves a completely American identity, and of course a very powerful position in society, and you expressed the hope that Muslims will be able to do this, but there is one difficulty, which is in the public mind, not without reason, Islam is associated with various atrocious acts of terrorism, and various extremist movements, and I think the general public wants to know what are ordinary pious Muslims doing to distance themselves from that, or to put it behind them, and I think many

people feel that if Muslims are not going to do this, nobody else will be able to do it, and I wonder what your thoughts are on that.

Muslim Integration in American Society

Do we have a mic for Shakir? I think it's time to start over. I think that's a fair assessment of the situation, and it's a valid question, and responding to that question, I would say that, and again basing my response on my experience in this society, and not being so conversant with the European situation, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims in this society have already gotten over that, in the sense that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are functional and functionally integrated into this society at every conceivable level, on the one hand.

The Convert Community

On the other hand, unlike Europe, there's a very, very large convert population here in the United States, historically more African American, but more contemporarily, really reflecting the wide segment of the general population, Latino and Caucasian converts, and that convert community, we are already integrated, because we're products of the society. I think the problem for us is to understand that there is nothing in our religion that will lead us to adopt a lot of what could be termed, for lack of a better word, dysfunctional behaviors and methods of negotiating for political outcomes that sometimes lead to violence, because that's not part of what shaped our lives, nor is it a part of our political tradition.

The Challenge of Education

So I think the challenge here is education, to understand that being a Muslim doesn't mean necessarily dressing a certain way that reflects the dress code of people outside of this country, nor thinking in a certain way that might reflect some inherent antagonism towards this country. So many of us, and I will give the example myself, sort of bought into that antagonism, which is more a product of colonization in the Muslim world, anti-colonial movements and struggles, occupation in various places, and that sort of became, that antagonism became Islamic for a lot of Muslims, and I think realizing that there's nothing necessarily Islamic about that, and therefore, how I negotiate in this society should be predicated on who I am, and what the forces, the institutions, the understandings that have shaped my life as a member of this society, on the one hand.

Legal Mechanisms for Muslim Minorities

On the other hand, to understand as a Muslim minority, there are legal mechanisms in the Islamic schemes of law that make it incumbent upon a person who lives here as a Muslim to respect the public place, space rather, and to participate fully in that public space, and if he or she feels that, and it could well happen, that he or she is unable to do so, then he or she is free to leave. It's called hijrah. So I think it's a question of understanding and realization that will allow us to get beyond that.

Muslims and the Social Contract

Let me ask a couple of questions here to follow up, Imam Shakir. Dr. Scruton, if I'm paraphrasing you correctly in what I've read of yours, as well as what you talked about a bit ago, that you really, you have to have secular law in the society, in the so-called Western society, that under the social contract that you described, everybody

has to be willing to live by that. And I want to ask you, Imam Shakir, is this something that, as a Muslim, you can abide by? Is that something that at times you would feel uncomfortable abiding?

Religious Accommodation in America

I think it's very important for us to realize that if you speak in terms of a social contract, the social contract in America has always accommodated religious beliefs. And that's why I tried to make a few comments in that regard. And different religions, not necessarily various sects or understandings of Christianity, but different religions have been encouraged to participate, and to participate on the basis of individual religious identities in addition to other identities, multiple sources of one's identity, one's religious identity, one's political identity, ethnic, racial identity.

All of that has been accommodated. So I think that as a Muslim, I am accommodated. And there's no inconsistency between being a Muslim and feeling accommodated on the one hand, and being a Muslim and in this arrangement, this secular arrangement that you're referring to and that Dr. Scruton referred to, in this secular arrangement, I can accommodate others.

Islamic Law on Accommodation

So I think there's no fundamental disagreement. I think there is on the part of many Muslims a misunderstanding that that's possible. But I think it's very important through thought leadership, through education, to make the point that that accommodation in terms of the Muslim accommodating others is a mandated duty in Islamic law in terms of Muslim minorities living in predominantly non-Muslim lands. And that's our case, and that will probably be our case for a very long time.

On Desiring an Islamic America

Just to follow up on that, there was a very favorable, I would say generally favorable profile of you and one of your colleagues in the New York Times not long ago, in which you were quoted as saying, every Muslim who is honest would say I'd like to see America become a Muslim country, not by violent means, but by persuasion. Is that a fair assessment of what you said? And if so, could you elaborate and explain what you mean by persuasion and what you'd like to see?

I think that part is very fair. A lot of the peripherals, though, I won't own up to. Basically what I said when asked that question was, as a Muslim, a practicing, believing Muslim, and Islam being a proselytizing religion, I would like to see everyone be a Muslim. That was the extent of it.

Respecting Others' Beliefs

And I respect the right of the adherents of other faiths to make the same desire, or to express the same desire. The point is, if they choose to disagree, then that's their right and that's their choice. And if they choose to feel that as a Christian, and as a proselytizing Christian, I'd like to see everyone be a Christian. That's their belief. So I think what we might desire, based on our beliefs, there's nothing wrong with expressing that. There's nothing wrong with advocating that.

I think the problem will come if we felt that there is some inherent right that I have to force or expect that everyone would respond to that. So that was what I was trying to articulate. As a Muslim, I'd like to see everyone be Muslim. I've benefited from the religion. I think others can benefit. And if anyone else cares to desire that they'd like to see everyone be a Christian, or a secular humanist, or a Buddhist, then that's their right and they can advocate for that.

And I think we'll have some very lively discussions. But I think the important thing is that we respect the refereeing of the system, if you will, that allows us to do that with civility and to respect those who disagree with us.

Foreign Policy and the Clash of Civilizations

Let's turn for a moment to the larger question of foreign policy and how it plays into some of these questions. Some of the things that you brought up, Imam Shakir. And I want to ask you, Dr. Scruton, in your book, The West and the Rest, you talk about the difference between the West and the rest is that Western societies are governed by politics. The rest are ruled by power.

And in that, there is, I would say, an implication of a certain order. You talk about the Huntington's theory of the clash of civilization and say that the world is divided into two spheres, the sphere of freedom and democracy and the sphere of despotism. And looking back, I know you didn't write that yesterday, but we are looking, the whole world and especially here in this country and all over the Middle East, at the war in Iraq. And I wonder if that war, in particular Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, have changed your opinion at all.

Politics vs. Power

Well, I'm not quite sure that I said that the world was divided into those two spheres. I would certainly want to contrast politics with the exercise of unmitigated power, which is, of course, what Saddam Hussein did. He exercised power, he kept the thing in place by sheer coercion. By politics, I mean the tradition that we have of settling conflicts and disputes by a process, a process in which negotiation and compromise are the leading terms. Democracy is just one example of this. Litigation in a court of law is another one. And this process is something which has grown up under the aegis of secular government and doesn't grow up so easily outside that premise. And I think what I wanted to say is that in many parts of the world, it hasn't grown up, so that if there are conflicts, they have to be settled by force, by one party gaining ascendancy over the other and suppressing it.

Abu Ghraib and Accountability

Now, that is certainly what happened in Iraq. About Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, these are small episodes in American foreign policy which don't actually bear on these larger issues of the distinctions between the ways in which people are governed. One of the important things about Abu Ghraib, which I think was not often noticed in the media at the time, is that this was an atrocious thing in which Iraqis were tormented in prison. But it was all over the press and the perpetrators were punished. Some of them at least. Yes, but this is the first time that this practice, which people have been tortured in Iraqi prisons for an awful long time before that, but never before had this kind of thing happened as a response to it.

So you should see that as one of the upsides of the political process, that when people do things wrong, it is in principle available to public scrutiny and they can be punished. Now, there's no way to justify any of this, but it is to point out a very important structural difference. There's plenty of places in the Middle East today where such torture is still occurring. People have complained about this in Egyptian jails and have paid a very severe penalty for doing so.

Civilizational Exchange vs. Clash

Imam Shakir, is there a war of civilizations? You talk about, you use a different term. Explain perhaps how you look at this, especially in light of the comments of Dr. Scruton.

Well, I don't see a clash of civilizations. I don't believe that civilizations clash. I think there's a continuous stream of human civilizational endeavor and various rivers feed into that stream in their unique ways, or various streams feed into that river in their unique ways.

Mutual Influence of Civilizations

So I think that we are influenced by each other and we influence each other. I think the civilizations, if you will, that preceded Islamic civilization or what has been described by some as Islamic civilization, were many. There was the stream of Greek thought. There was the stream of aspects of classical Hindu thought, Persian thought, Christian thought from the contact with Christians in present-day Syria and other areas of the Middle East. And all of that contributed to the Islamic project. And I think Islam, in turn, in various ways, influenced the rise of what we now understand as the civilization of the modern West in very perceivable ways.

So I think that this stream is ongoing. And in that sense, there are no firm clashes. I think there are definitely flashpoints. There are points of contention. There are points of conflict. I think it's very important to understand that basically most people want the same things and most people respond in similar ways to certain political and social conditions.

Understanding the Causes of Conflict

So I think it's very important to step away from rhetoric or ideas that advocate the incumbency of a clash, the incumbency of conflict, and to begin to look at why conflict occurs. Is it informed by opposing civilizations or cultures, if you will? Is it informed by sociological or political realities? And I think the latter are very, very important to consider if we could just go back to the issue of the democratization of the West. Certainly democracy has certain institutional, philosophical, and epistemological requisites.

The Algerian Example

Many of them have been developing and evolving in the Muslim world. And where we see the breakdown of the process, a lot of times it's due to outside influence, not exclusively. A lot of it can be attributed to the weakness of those supporting and facilitating institutions, but a lot of times it can be contributed to outside intervention. The Algerian example is a good example, and good because Algeria is almost 100% Muslim. So in terms of religious basis of disagreement, there aren't very many. There is a small Christian minority, but almost 100% Muslim, 100% Sunni Muslim.

Islamic Civilization and Modern Voices

But on the issue of civilization, I think one has to remember that Islamic civilization is a very important episode in the history of mankind. And someone like Imam Zaid is a student of it and knows the literature and what he has achieved. But many of the big, loud-mouthed voices in modern politics who pretend to speak for Islam don't speak for that civilization at all. They've lost all contact with the philosophers and the poets.

Can you give an example of that? The president of Iran, for instance, who speaks loudly on behalf of Muslims everywhere but shows none of that sophistication which his civilization represents in the minds of people like, well, I should imagine, most of the Muslims in this room.

Recovering Islamic Intellectual Tools

I think that's a very important point because as Muslims generally we have, I would agree, lost contact with the roots of our civilization. And by doing that, the full array of tools that we need in terms of understanding the

Quran and how we can understand its message in the modern context, we've lost touch with that generally speaking because there is an exegetical tradition. People didn't just pick up the Quran and say it means this, that, or the other. There's an exegetical tradition that's predicated on the possession of certain tools which help us to understand and contextualize the message. And I think by doing that, a lot of the subtleties of how we understand the law are lost.

And we focus more on the superficial rulings of the law and lose touch sometimes with the deeper spirit of the law or the great objectives that the law has been instituted to advance and to understand the subtle relationship between all of those pieces. So when we lose those tools which were the gift of our civilization, the ability to think in sophisticated and nuanced legal fashion is lost. And I think recovering that is something that our institution tries to do. Individually, I'm trying to do. And it's a struggle because to a large extent, we're all products of our environment and creatures of our time. And the environment and time that we grow up in has a tremendous impact on us.

So struggling to get in touch with something that can help us to negotiate our way successfully and productively in the modern world, I think, is a very important project for Muslims.

Questions of Representation

Just picking up on what Dr. Scruton just said, do you feel that sometimes when you listen to the words of certain political leaders in the Muslim world, Dr. Scruton just mentioned the president of Iran, for example, or others, do you sometimes think, well, this person isn't speaking for me. I somehow want to stand up against this. Or are there echoes of agreement you'll have with other leaders? Do you feel that there's a question of representation that you somehow want to be involved in in some way?

I think that the important thing is to understand what I can control and influence directly, that there will always be people here and throughout the Muslim world that will say things that I might agree or disagree with. Some things are utterly, totally stupid, unfounded, and ridiculous, such as the Holocaust conference in Iran. And stupid because Muslims had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Nuance in Muslim Voices

So to jump into the fray and then on the wrong side is absolutely stupid at a time when there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in demonizing you in the first place for very clear political reasons. So some things are ridiculous, some things are valid. I think there are sentiments that are expressed by some Muslim leaders who are legitimately lamenting or legitimately opposing or resisting various excesses that might be attributed to our government or others are legitimate grievances.

And I think that to deny those voices is to deny the legitimacy of the conditions and circumstances that give rise to those voices. So I think there's a lot of nuance and we have to try to accommodate for the nuance in the most productive fashion.

Rescuing Islam from Extremists

There's been a sentiment again in this New York Times profile that's been attributed to you. This wasn't a direct quote, but it was sort of a paraphrase that you believe that Islam needs to be rescued from extremists. Is that a

fair paraphrase? That's obviously quite a general statement, but does it follow up somewhat on what you were just saying?

Well, I think that those are attributed to someone else, but I think definitely there are people who really, as Dr. Scruton stated and or implied, who really don't understand the religion thoroughly that have a very high public profile. And in the sense that their lack of deeper understanding does a lot of damage to Muslims and to the causes of Muslim people, definitely they should be silenced and opposed.

War on Terror: Moral Equivalence?

Let me ask you both something, and I do also invite you to jump in and ask each other and follow up on each other's comments. But Imam Shakir, you said in your book that both sides of the war on terror are self-righteous murderers whose motives and proclamations mirror each other. And Dr. Scruton, you say in your book that the struggle is more about people in the grip of religious zeal for whom everything is permitted that leads to their goal and whose goal is destruction, and therefore we must take preemptive measures.

This does seem like a very stark difference of views in terms of what lens one might look through when one is talking about current political events and where you are in the world, both metaphorically and in some cases physically, if you are in Iraq or if you are here, depending on who you are. Could you both engage in this difference?

Dr. Scruton on Terrorism

Yes, there is a difference. I don't think that both sides in the war on terror are equally at fault. I think that the mistakes made by the Americans in conducting that war are fairly obvious to everybody now, but they do not come from malice but from political ineptitude and a certain naivety. Whereas I think the major acts of terrorism that we have witnessed, such as the 9-11 and the bombings in London and Madrid, were genuinely evil deeds. And I am sure that Imam Zaid would agree with me.

This gratuitous murder of people who have unconnected with you, unconnected with any conflict, simply for the sake of displaying your own zealotry, seems to me to be a completely different kind of event. And I think when confronted with this zeal, this kind of zeal, especially if it takes the form of a willingness to commit suicide in the course of killing innocent people, you do need to take different kind of measures from those that have been taken in wars in the past. But from the standpoint of Iraqi civilians, the sense of being occupied is something that really isn't reflected in so much of the analysis of the Western commentators.

Well, when I wrote The West and the Rest, that was before anything, the Iraqi war. Anyway, that is obviously a different case. The war on terror was supposedly launched quite independently. I mean, whether that consisted primarily in getting rid of the Taliban from Afghanistan.

Imam Shakir on Murder and Terrorism

What I mean by that statement is that I think you can argue that some murders are done maliciously and others not so maliciously. But for the dead person, the consequence is the same. And I would argue that there is a lot of maliciousness in our policy when we intentionally destroy the civilian infrastructure of the innocent people of Iraq who have done absolutely nothing to this country just to make them suffer. And that in turn leads to the

death of a million children, half a million of which Madeleine Albright admitted to, halfway through the sanctions regime, so we could assume that another half a million died. And to me, murder is murder.

Rather the murderer kills himself or herself in the process, or rather the murderer gets into an airplane and is 50,000 feet in the air and drops bombs on people. Murder is murder. And I think when each side justifies that murder based on the assumption that because of their grievances they have a right to murder noncombatants, it's the same.

Universal Value of Life

And some people will say, well, this is moral justification. I'm saying it's murder, it's terrorism, rather it's sponsored by individual groups or it's sponsored by governments. Targeting innocent civilians, unsuspecting civilians to advance political agendas is terrorism, no matter who undertakes it, a government or a small group of misguided individuals.

And I think until we can get to a point where we, just as we want to get to a point here in the West where we can recognize the overarching authority of a secular referee, if you will, to adjudicate our disputes in the public square, we have to also, as a human family, get to the point where we can recognize that a dead person is a dead person, no matter who kills him or who kills her, and that my people or your people have just as much right to life as my people and vice versa. I think it's very important to get to that point.

Just War Theory

Do you have anything to respond to that? Who could disagree with that? I mean, it is obviously the case that murder is murder, whoever commits it. The question, I don't want to talk about the war in Iraq, because that's not something I've written about or have a view about, except that it clearly was a mistake. And what has happened since has compounded that mistake. But I would like to refer to a tradition in Christian thinking about these matters, which I think is very important, and I think doesn't have, maybe it has the equivalent in Muslim thinking, but it would be good if it did.

Just War and Just Conduct

And that is that in Christian thinking a distinction has always been made between a just war and an unjust war, on the one hand, and a just way of prosecuting a war as against an unjust way of prosecuting it. I think we can all argue as to whether the Iraq war was a just war, and the answer in this room, I'm sure, would be no, that it was an unjust thing to invade Iraq. But there still is the question of whether there would be a just or an unjust way of prosecuting it.

And I think this is really what Imam Zaid is referring to. The gratuitous involvement of non-combatants and the murder of civilians, of course, is an unjust way of prosecuting a war. And if that is what is happening, then obviously I would agree with that.

Islamic Just War Tradition

There is that tradition in Islam. And I think, again, it's very important for Muslims everywhere to understand that. And that desperation will never produce productive or lead to productive outcomes, desperate acts. And

desperation, we're taught, and I think is very important to continue to teach this amongst Muslims, is the negation of faith. And Muslims who are familiar with the Quran know the story of Yusuf, which is an earlier Jewish story, Joseph and his brothers in Egypt. And Jacob said, advising his sons, that only a disbelieving people despair of being relieved by God.

Reference: Quran 12:87 Arabic: وَلَا تَيْأَسُوا مِن رَّوْحِ اللَّهِ ۖ إِنَّهُ لَا يَيْأَسُ مِن رَّوْحِ اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْقَوْمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

Weakness and Desperation

And at a certain point, where one is a friend of mine who is British, in fact, and one of his gems of wisdom is playing on the idea of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He said weakness corrupts and absolute weakness corrupts absolutely. That at a certain point, if one cannot realistically prosecute the struggle that one might be involved in through means that are acceptable to the faith, it's time to stop fighting and to look for other strategies to advance one's cause.

So as opposed to in desperation resort to killing civilians or other acts that aren't sanctioned by any sound religious philosophies or practices. So I think it's very important to understand that is a part of Islamic political thought and Muslims, we have to understand that.

Addressing Extremism Through Education

Let's turn the topic back to some questions of God and secularism, and I'm going to turn to some of the very good questions we've had come in, which we don't have time for all of them. But let me ask, some of these are directed at one or the other, and unless I say so, they're really generally directed at both of you. And here's one question. How do you propose tackling extremist viewpoints within Muslim communities in Western countries? We've sort of discussed this really.

I would say that... Well, it's a political matter then. Yes, the most important thing is to encourage moderate Muslims to speak out and not to speak out just saying I disapprove of this, but to say, look, here are the authorities in my religion which show this to be forbidden. And to develop the proper theological argument which will show that Islam is not a marginalized way of life in this way. On the contrary, it has the same commitment to normality and to friendship between people as any other religion. I don't know whether that's what...

Education and Addressing Grievances

No, I think education is very, very important. And this is a process that is underway. It was underway before September 11th even, and it's only intensified after that. And through education, a lot of Muslims in Yemen, for example, in Egypt, that have been under the sway of very violent ideologies have left those ways. And there's a very... This has actually been documented and it should be translated into Egypt in terms of some of these efforts that have gone on, even in Egyptian prisons, amongst a lot of members of various radical groups.

So education is very important. I think it's also important for us to look at real political and economic or other grievances that might contribute to making appeals to violence and appeals to resolving or pursuing one's desires in unacceptable ways to remove those. And I think that Dr. Scruton at the end of The West and the Rest has some very good suggestions, positive suggestions in terms of how some of the excesses of globalism, which

Secularism in Muslim-Majority Countries

This is sort of the inverse of the last question, and this is, I believe, more along the lines of within predominantly Muslim countries, can secularism and Islam reconcile? Is secularism really allowed, and can there be a coexistence?

There is the example of Turkey, which is a largely Islamic country. You might say that the Turks are not as wholehearted in their faith as some Islamic communities, but nevertheless that is their confession, and they have had a secular state since 1921. Admittedly, every now and then the army has to step in and put it right, but maybe those episodes get less and less frequent as the years go on, and I think it gives me, at least, some grounds for hope. There is also somewhat of a difficulty recognizing some of the very bloody history in the early 20th century.

Yes, nobody is perfect. But the question is, can we go down that path? I would say, well, here is a country that has gone down that path.

Defining Secularism and Islam

I think it depends on how you define secularism. I think there are definitions of secularism where we could argue that the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries are secular, in terms of their legal systems. Admittedly, a lot of that would probably be coerced secularism, if you will, in addition to the Turkish experiment. So I think it depends on how you define secularism and how you define Islam, in terms of sort of the opposite of that being an Islamic state. How do we define Islam? So I think there is a lot of foundational work that has to be done before we can really, on the ground as Muslims, in predominantly Muslim societies, answer that question.

Islamic Rule and the Non-Muslim Other

I think a bigger question is, and I think this is dealt with implicitly in a lot of Dr. Scruton's writings, is does an Islamic system, whatever that might be, but a non-secular system in a particular Muslim country necessarily translate into the suppression, oppression, and negation of the non-Muslim other? And I think that that's not necessarily the case, and that avenue has to be explored also because it would definitely be a solution to one of the major problems of Islamic rule that had a lot more legitimacy in the eyes of the average Muslim in the average Muslim country.

Catholics and Double Vision

Here's a question for Dr. Scruton. As a young religious brother studying to be a Catholic priest, I find myself drawn more to the arguments of Imam Shakir than to yours when it comes to the place of religion in the public square. In particular, your position seems to marginalize the religious voices in deference to the state rather than

to allow open and rational discussion and disagreement. You ask if Islam could be open to this notion of double vision, but as a Catholic, I wonder if my own faith could be open to either. What can you do to sell this idea to me and to others who might have the same concern?

Catholic Experience in England

That's a very good question. What I would say is that actually the Catholic faith has occupied, in my country, for many centuries, ever since the Reformation, something like this double, ironical position towards the surrounding order. Admittedly, Roman Catholicism was illegal for 200 years and a very dangerous offense to be accused of.

But with Catholic emancipation in England in the early 19th century, Catholics came out into the open and began to talk openly and freely about their religion, but nevertheless were in a position, still are in a position, of manifest disapproval of a great deal of what they see around them. And I, as a Christian, share that disapproval, although I'm an Anglican and therefore used to living within a hypocritical institution. Nevertheless, Catholics have spoken out and have shown their faith radically in public in Britain in my time, while also recognizing that they have to concede that in any conflict with the state, the state takes precedence.

The law is the law of the state and not the canon law that they might otherwise have wanted to impose. And I think this is the great question that confronts many Muslims when the Sharia conflicts with the surrounding secular order, as it is bound to do. And that's why I did mention this in my talk. Without some saving spirit of irony, it's very difficult to live with this. A priest has this difficulty more than anybody else because he has to solace the souls of those who are also hurt by it. But I don't see any alternative.

Muslims and Leaving as a Solution

I just think for Muslims, especially and most relevantly, in terms of our situation here as a Muslim community, that this really isn't as large an issue as it's made out to be because, as I mentioned, Muslims are mandated to respect that order. And there could potentially be conflicts. And the ultimate way to resolve those conflicts isn't through an irrational, violent attack on the state, but is to simply leave.

And I think that those conflicts potentially, I don't think this is something that's specifically relevant for Muslims. I think there could be conflicts between the state and adherence of other faiths. And Stephen Carter mentions in his book, Culture of Disbelief, that if the state here, and he's a practicing Christian, and he's very accepting of the established order, but if he said if the state mandated in advancing the common good that he could not teach or arrange for his children to be educated in their faith, he would pack up and leave.

So I don't think that this is necessarily an issue that's specifically germane to Muslims. It might be more poignantly relevant for Muslims, but I think it's an issue that's relevant to a lot of folks who are adherents to other faiths.

Jewish Integration and Muslim Secularization

Here are a couple of questions I want to read together, because in some ways they mirror each other. Imam Zaid mentioned that Jews have actively engaged themselves in mainstream society, but this was done largely through

a process of secularization. How can Muslims do the same if they are thought to be averse to secularization, as Dr. Scruton suggested? Some of this you've already touched on.

Just a very quick point is that here in America, the overwhelming majority of Muslims already have. So I think a lot of this discussion is relevant to that minority that hasn't, in effect, secularized their thinking, if you will. It's a small minority. Most Muslims are out there, thoroughly integrated into the society, making money. Most of them don't go to the mosque. So that's a reality. So I think a lot of times when we pose these questions, in general terms, they facilitate a lot of misunderstanding, and they disguise a lot of progress.

Go ahead. No, I'll deal with the next one. That way we'll get more questions.

The Quran and Peace

This is for both of you, then. In today's Washington Post, Nabil Fahmy, the ambassador from Egypt, said the Quran spells out in unambiguous terms the peaceful, compassionate nature of Islam. Do you agree?

Reinterpreting Revelation

I don't... Well, this goes back to a question that I raised in my talk. What room is there for the reinterpretation, the new interpretation of this revelation? To accept that it's a revelation, but nevertheless to think that certain parts of it express confusions and contingencies of Muhammad's own life, rather than a law which is binding on all of us for all time. Because there are, of course, aspects of the Quran which do, passages in the Quran which do seem to advocate quite violent responses to certain things. Now, it may be that already this process of interpretation has taken effect, but I think this is something that in the minds, at least, of people outside the Muslim faith, is a very, very important question.

The Quran as an Organic Whole

Yeah, I think, and again, I hope I've touched on it, but to possibly speak with greater clarity, the Quran is an organic whole, and that's how a Muslim understands it. In other words, once we pour water into this glass, that water is an integrated unit. And once we pour revelation into a believer, that becomes an integrated entity. It integrates itself into the soul and consciousness of the believer. So, certainly there are passages in the Quran that encourage fighting, but there are other passages that encourage peace and reconciliation. There are passages that encourage the sanctity of life.

So, all of that is understood as an integrated whole. And I think it's very important for Muslims, first and foremost, to understand that, and that the entire revelation is in the view of the overwhelming majority of scholars who have really studied it deeply, and this is the position of Mohammed Asad that I think you referenced earlier, is advancing a positive ethical ideal. And that ethical ideal serves as the basis for interpreting those passages that encourage violence.

Historical Peace Among Muslims

And I think most Muslims, throughout most of the time that Islam has existed on this planet, have understood that. And as a result, you see the ability of Muslims historically to live in peace with their neighbors. And there

have been periods of clash and conflict, but there have been extended periods of peace, and this has been documented.

And building on that foundation, with the contributions that have been made in the modern world in terms of war being an anomaly as opposed to a norm in relations between nations, that the overwhelming majority of Muslim nations have accepted. If you look at the advent and the institutionalization of the nation-state in the Muslim world, how many, which now number over 60, how many have been engaged throughout their history in any violent conflict with their neighbors? And how many of them, when they have been involved in violent conflict, how many times has that been with a neighboring Muslim country? So there haven't been any calls from the Muslim nation-states to invade Europe and wipe it off the map, for example. Or some analogous calls.

Hope for Progress

So most Muslims and most Muslim nation-states are at peace most of the time. So does that negate the potential of misunderstanding some aspects of the scripture? No. But that combined with modern human rights thinking, combined with the fact that the norm in international relations, our foreign policy aside, is that it's predicated on peace between nations.

And maintaining peace, I think that Muslims have accepted that, and that those elements in our community that don't accept that through education and through just coming to grips with the realities that prevail in the modern world will come to accept that. There are challenges, there are difficulties, and there are problems, scripturally generated problems and problems in terms of understanding that have to be confronted. But I would argue that that process is underway. And I would argue that the proof is in the pudding. It's very easy to focus on those flashpoints, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan. But if you look at the whole of the Muslim world, and if you look at the ideas and attitudes that prevail amongst the average Muslim, you can see that there's a lot of hope for optimism.

Threats Faced by Muslims in America

We're getting close to the time where we're going to wrap up, and I want to see if each of you would like to make a couple of brief final remarks. But I have one other question in getting back into the political sphere a bit here in the United States, and this would be for Imam Shakir primarily. You say something needs to be done in regard to the threats faced by Muslims in America today. What would you recommend that is achievable in a realistic perspective?

Legal Defense and Litigation

I would recommend, first of all, that we Muslims develop a credible legal fund and a credible legal defense organization, because a lot of things that are happening are very questionable in a legal sense. A lot of the hatred that's being promulgated via public airwaves, a lot of it is in conflict with existing FCC guidelines, and that's an area that needs to be pursued. A lot of the rights, to the extent that they have been usurped, I came back, well, I don't even want to go into my personal experiences, but there are people that have been arrested and detained with no charges pressed, and I'm talking about American citizens or people who are holders of valid papers to be in this country and imprisoned, incarcerated, separated from their family, and those are issues that provide ample grounds for litigation.

Acknowledging Goodwill

So I think there needs to be a lot more positive and intense effort to litigate some of the excesses that Muslims currently encounter and also to acknowledge that as bad as things are for Muslims, they could be a lot worse, and there are a lot of efforts to protect our rights and the rights of others, the rights of various immigrants here in California, that there are a lot of people of goodwill who are working very hard to make sure that the system does accommodate Muslims, and I will hope that we as a community can work hard for our part to make sure that we are accommodating of the system.

Final Remarks

Well, finally, I wonder if each of you might want to just choose a point that you'd like to make to the other or something perhaps you've been wanting to say but haven't had a chance to in a brief wrap-up statement for a minute or two for each of you.

Dr. Scruton on Bearing Mockery

There's one point I'd like to make, which is that Muslims, no doubt rightly, feel that they are exposed to insult and contempt in this society, and you rightly say they ought to get together and defend themselves, but I would like to point out that the extent to which Christians also are subject to insult and contempt, at least in my society, and not just insult and contempt, it's a positive disadvantage if you're trying to aim at an academic career to be known as one of those believers.

You know, you show thereby your lack of sophistication, you're suspected of right-wing views, which in a university, especially a university like this one, is just about the end of any hopes of advancement. There are exceptions. Yes. And it's changing. It is changing. They won't name them. And so on. But on the whole, we are taught, by our faith, that we should bear mockery as the founder of our faith bore it. This is the price that you pay for believing something, and that there is a dignity in accepting it, which fully justifies the fact of its existence.

I wonder whether Muslims actually could ever get into that frame of mind. I know that you have great heroes in your history, like Halaj and so on, who did do this. But I was wondering whether that could be a message that would be heard by Muslims today.

Imam Shakir on Responding with Good

Oh, definitely. You know, there is that aspect of our teachings. One verse in the Quran says, Good and evil are not equal. Respond to that which is evil with that which is best. And then you will see as a consequence of that, through God's action and intervention, and not through any resources or means that you possess, the one who was formerly a bitter enemy become a very intimate friend.

Reference: Quran 41:34-35 Arabic: (وَلَا تَسْتَوِي الْحَسَنَةُ وَلَا السَّيِّئَةُ ادْفَعْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ فَإِذَا الَّذِي بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَهُ عَدَاوَةٌ كَأَنَّهُ وَلِيٌّ حَمِيمٌ)

So that line of thinking does exist. And it is very important, too. And we are encouraged to bear with dignity abuses. And it's an admirable trait.

Pursuing Justice with Fairness

But we're also encouraged to pursue justice. I think what's extremely relevant in these days and times, in the pursuit of justice, that one's actions are governed by fairness, which is also encouraged very greatly. Don't let your hatred of a people lead you to be unfair in your pursuit of justice.

Reference: Quran 5:8 Arabic:

So those ideas are there. And I think it's very important. And that's a responsibility we as Muslims have to bring those ideas to the fore in dealing with some of the issues that we're dealing with today.

Mutual Appreciation

I'd like to say that I appreciate your ability to very calmly present your case and to present a principled case, which if I disagree with the particulars, I have to admire the approach and admire the fairness that that approach involves. And also to acknowledge how important it is for all of us to try to bring ourselves up to that standard where we can objectively and as dispassionately as possible present our respective cases and listen to what the other has to say and consider their arguments well. And I think that you've given me a lot to consider, and your writings more so this evening. So I appreciate that.

Closing

Before I thank our guests, I just want to say one other thing. First of all, thank you all for being here tonight. And I want to thank our guests. But I also want to tell you that if you're interested in future events like this from the Zaytuna Institute, there's a sign-up table outside where you can, if you'd like to be notified, you can sign up on the table. But in the meantime, please do join me in thanking very much Imam Zaid Shakir and Dr. Roger Scruton. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. That was really interesting. Thank you. Thank you.